--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I wouldn't call Angela's interpretation of "Taint not thy mind" a > "gross misreading." Many commentators on the play have indeed taken > this as a distinct thought, complete in itself and separate > from "nor contrive / Against thy mother aught." In doing so, they > have followed the First Folio text of Hamlet, in which a semi-colon > is placed after "taint not thy mind," which appears to set it off > as a distinct thought. Modern editions, however, ignore F's semi- > colon and use either a comma or no punctuation at all, thus making > the interpretation Judy prefers more likely, that the whole passage > refers to the attitude the Ghost is asking Hamlet to adopt > regarding his mother.
That's an interesting justification, but I don't think it holds water. Shakespeare's punctuation is often rather odd by our standards, especially his use of semicolons, just for one thing. More importantly, though, it would be very odd indeed for Shakespeare to have placed two completely unrelated thoughts in such close proximity and close semantic and syntactic integration within the verse. Look at it again, in fuller context: If thou hast nature in thee, bear it not; Let not the royal bed of Denmark be A couch for luxury and damned incest. But, howsoever thou pursuest this act, Taint not thy mind, nor let thy soul contrive Against thy mother aught. Leave her to heaven, And to those thorns that in her bosom lodge To prick and sting her. Your suggested reading plucks a single four-word phrase from eight lines that otherwise represent a single sequence of connected thoughts about the adulterous relationship between Claudius and Gertrude. And there's nothing else in the Ghost's entire speech that is anything but an extended pity-party about how grievously his brother done him wrong. Why on earth would Shakespeare have the Ghost suddenly toss in a single phrase recommending to Hamlet an elevated philosophy of nonattachment, unconnected to anything else in his rant about how treacherously he was treated? The Ghost himself is obviously still very firmly attached to his own rage. Having spent 40 or so lines doing his level best to taint Hamlet's mind against Claudius and Gertrude, the Ghost now wants Hamlet to rise above any nasty thoughts he may harbor about them as he goes about killing Claudius? Sorry, but give me a break! It looks to me as though this interpretation represents a need to find something New and Different and Exciting in ground that has been already very well trodden. It makes *no* sense in the context of the scene, no matter what punctuation is used following that single phrase. You just can't legitimately rip apart the plain meaning of the text of an entire scene on the strength of what may have been a printer's error (or even just a flyspeck). > However, I do find "taint not thy mind" a very intriguing thing > for the Ghost to say, and Angela's linking of it to the dilemma > of Arjuna an interesting piece of cross-cultural literary > comparison. After all, Arjuna, like Hamlet, is called upon to > oppose evil and restore righteousness to a corrupt society. Like > Hamlet, he is divided between the dictates of heart and mind, his > sense of duty is at war with his emotions, and this leads to a > paralysis of the will and a despairing lapse into inaction—exactly > what happens to Hamlet, who is similarly divided between "blood" > (heart) and "judgment" (mind). The central question, which I > think "taint not thy mind" does raise, is, how does the avenger > act without himself incurring sin? This is surely relevant > for Hamlet (as well as all of us) and the Gita provides > illuminating commentary on it. The Gita surely explains how to transcend the kind of conflict both Hamlet and Arjuna endure; but as noted, I think it's absurd to suggest that this is what "taint not thy mind" refers to. And while the Gita provides the teaching, I don't think we see much if any evidence that Hamlet ever actually gets it. With his dying breaths he begs Horatio--three separate times!--to report the events so as to exonerate Hamlet from any blame. He's actually more concerned about his reputation than the fact that he's about to croak. Nor does he ever take responsibility for the fact that his indecision has resulted in so many unnecessary deaths. He's still intent on blaming Claudius for the whole mess. > I do think, as do most commentators, that Hamlet is a changed man in > Act 5 of the play, and the scene in the graveyard plays a big part > in this, although this is rarely noted by scholars. (I could give > details if anyone is interested.) Hamlet's speech "We defy augury. > There is special providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be now, > `tis not to come; if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be > not now, yet it will come. The readiness is all," may be the speech > Judy is referring to when she describes Hamlet's "sad resignation," > which is certainly an arguable point of view, but that speech may > also call to mind Krishna's statement in chapter 5 verse 10 of the > Gita, "He who acts giving over all actions to the universal Being, > abandoning attachment, is untouched by sin," a state of mind that > has some relevance for Hamlet here. Except that we don't really see Hamlet abandoning attachment in what follows. His resignation seems to me far more psychological than consciousness- based. He realizes everything is about to come to a head--"Thou wouldst not think how ill all's here about my heart"--and forces himself to be philosophical about it, to rationalize it, since at this point there's nothing more he can do to forestall it without appearing to be an abject coward. If he has to die, he wants to do so with the few shreds of dignity he has left. Nor is there ever any reference to Hamlet having learned not to "taint" his mind. Yes, Hamlet is a changed man; he's found that there are no certainties, no clear pointers to right and wrong. He's *in position* to make the leap to enlightenment, but Shakespeare gives us no indication that he ever manages to do it, no epiphany on Hamlet's part. Perhaps that's the character's real tragedy. (It might also be thought of as a state of resignation, > whether sad or not.) As was pointed out by John Dover Wilson, a > well-known editor of Hamlet, as Hamlet refers to the fall of the > sparrow, his mind must also be gliding over the passage in Matthew > that immediately precedes it: "And fear not them which kill the > body, but are not able to kill the soul." > > There is a paradox here: Hamlet finally learns how to die, not > fearing death, and in doing so he grasps the trick of how to live— > and thus he is finally able to perform the action that up to that > point he has been unable to do. Yet it's a split-second decision motivated not by Claudius's original murder, but his additional treachery of poisoning Laertes's foil and the drink he intends for Hamlet. Hamlet isn't avenging his father's death, he's avenging his own! Interestingly, the advice Krishna gives to Arjuna > is very close to that passage in Matthew; the body may die but > "the dweller in the body" is eternal. Krishna helps Arjuna by > reframing the situation for him; whereas Hamlet, lacking a > Krishna to advise him, has to struggle to this awareness himself, > unaided, and this is part of why the play is so moving. You make an interesting and learned case, but it seems to me you have to read into the play a bunch of stuff that isn't actually there. Hamlet's struggle is certainly moving, but we never have the release of seeing it resolved into Krishna-like awareness. You could make a similar case for Macbeth based on his final "Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow" soliloquy, as I did here awhile back--but as appealing as it seems to me that Macbeth achieves enlightenment in the course of that speech, I don't really think that's what Shakespeare had in mind. That's my *fantasy*, not valid literary criticism. Anyway, thanks for the fascinating commentary. I still object strenuously to the interpretation of "taint not thy mind," which I'm convinced is a gross misreading, but otherwise we can agree to disagree.
