Embodiment of Hamlets Ghost - Essay Example

Hamlet’s Ghost “Remember me.” (Jenkins 1982). These words of Hamlet’s father’s ghost echo from the first act of the play into eternity. Hamlet could not forget his father, or the treacherous tale of incest and adultery he weaved. The details of the affair between Hamlet’s mother and his uncle, which ended in his father’s murder, were ever on his mind. Neither can modern readers forget the tale. Hamlet is one of William Shakespeare’s best known, and most performed, plays. It was first performed in the beginning at the 17th century at the Globe Theater in London, and Hamlet continues to fascinate audiences all around the world. The ghost may be the main reason for Hamlet’s continuing popularity. It is “the linchpin of Hamlet; remove it and the play falls to pieces” (Wilson 1935). The ghost drives the plot of the play, is a full-blown character in its own right, and it profoundly affects all the characters that encountered it. In addition to this, the ghost attracted the interest of the Elizabethan audience, for which the drama was first performed, and it continues to be the object of many current works of literary criticism. The ghost of Hamlet’s father appears in four scenes of the play. In two of these scenes (Act 1, Scene 1 and Act 1, Scene 4), the ghost appears to people other than Hamlet, specifically Horatio and Marcellus. Barnardo sees the ghost in the first scene, but he is not present in the fourth, or anywhere else in the play. In the other two scenes (Act 1, Scene 5 and Act 3, Scene 4), the ghost appears to Hamlet alone. It is interesting that only Hamlet can see the ghost in the fourth scene of Act 3, even though he is with his mother, in her bedchamber, at the time. Could it be that his contrived “antic disposition” (Jenkins 1982), the purpose of which was to help him discern the truth of what happened to his father, really did lead to an actual madness? Was he merely imagining the ghost’s presence, or was the ghost really there? It is true enough that at the beginning of the play, the ghost has every appearance of being real. Its presence is even enough to convince Horatio, the scholarly sceptic, that spirits exist. In his own words, “Before my God, I might not this believe without the sensible and true avouch of mine own eyes” (Jenkins 1982). Not only does Horatio believe that it really is a ghost he sees, but he is also convinced that the ghost is the spectre of Hamlet’s late father. He believes this because of the ghost’s costume. “Such was the very armour he had on when he thambitious Norway combated. So frowned he once when in an angry parle he smote the sledded Polacks on the ice. Tis strange.” (Jenkins 1982). The ghost’s first appearance in the play converts Horatio from a sceptic to a believer. He no longer scoffs at the superstitious fears of the two nightwatchmen, Marcellus and Barnardo, who had seen the ghost on two previous occasions. The views of these three characters toward the ghost symbolise, in a much broader sense, the prevailing views of Elizabethan spirituality. Before the Protestant Reformation occurred in the middle of the 16th century, belief in ghosts was widespread, and perfectly acceptable: The Catholic doctrine of Purgatory afforded a complete explanation of it in theological terms. … Thus most Catholics of Shakespeares day believed that ghosts might be spirits of the departed, allowed to return from Purgatory for some special purpose, which it was the duty of the pious to further if possible, in order that the wandering soul might find rest (Wilson 1935). Protestants agreed with the existence of ghosts, but they disagreed with the Catholic explanation of ghosts (Wilson 1935). Purgatory was no longer a viable option. The souls of the dead were thought to either go directly to heaven or hell (Wilson 1935). Thus, in the Protestant mindset, ghosts were seen as either angels or, and this was the more popular view, devils that assumed the physical form of people who had once lived on the earth (Wilson 1935). The third school of thought regarding ghosts had very little to do with religious thinking, and much to do with rational, scientific thought. In this view, held by scholars such as Reginald Scot, spirits do exist, but they cannot assume material form (Wilson 1935). As Wilson explains: Apparitions are either the illusion of melancholic minds or flat knavery on the part of some rogue. It is worthy of note that all the writers, whatever their point of view, declare that persons subject to melancholy, as Hamlet was, were peculiarly prone to spectral visitations (1935). Scot’s opinions on spirits were well ahead of his time. His contemporaries did not agree with his theories, and his books were burned. One of the most vocal of his opponents was Sir Thomas Browne, who wrote: It is a riddle to me. . .how so many learned heads should so far forget their Metaphysicks, and destroy the ladder and scale of creatures, as to question the existence of Spirits. For my part, I have ever believed, and do now know, that there are Witches: they that doubt of these, do not onely deny them, but Spirits; and are obliquely and upon consequence a sort not of Infidels, but Atheists (Wilson 1935). In Hamlet, the soldiers Marcellus and Barnardo are representative of the traditional point of view held before the Protestant Reformation in England (Wilson 1935). After the scuffle with the ghost at the end of the first scene, Marcellus declares, “We do it wrong being so majestical, to offer it the show of violence. For it is as the air, invulnerable, and our vain blows malicious mockery” (Jenkins 1982). Horatio holds a different point of view. He is a scholar and a Protestant, so his thinking is much more sophisticated and sceptical. He represents the two post-Reformation viewpoints. Hamlet is also a scholar and a Protestant, but he is not as sceptical as his friend. Perhaps this is due to his melancholic disposition, which often overtakes his rational side, as Wilson (1935) stated. Hamlet’s melancholic bent (and perhaps his descent into madness) leads him to doubt the veracity of the “honest ghost’s” accusations in the second scene of Act 2. He decides to have the troupe of traveling actors play out a drama that mimics the murder of his father. He believes that he will be able to tell if his uncle really is guilty by watching his mannerisms during the play. He soliloquises: The spirit that I have seen may be a devil; and the devil hath power t assume a pleasing shape; yea, and perhaps out of my weakness and my melancholy, as he is very potent with such spirits, abuses me to damn me. Ill have grounds more relative than this. The plays the thing wherein Ill catch the conscience of the King (Jenkins 1982). Hamlet’s plan works. Claudius is visibly upset by the play, and this solidifies his guilt in Hamlet’s mind. Hamlet can now start exacting his revenge (and the ghost’s revenge) with a clear conscience. Unfortunately, Hamlet’s conscience is plagued with even more guilt when he kills a man in his mother’s bed chamber, thinking that it his uncle; however, the man who falls out from behind the curtain is the innocent statesman Polonius (Act 3, Scene 4). It is at this point that we see a hint of madness creeping into Hamlet’s mind. He once again sees his father’s ghost, but this time, instead of armour, the ghost is dressed in a nightgown. Gertrude is unable to see the spirit. She believes that her son is mad because he is speaking to nothing. In her own words, “Alas, how ist with you, that you do bend your eye on vacancy, and with th’incorporal air do hold discourse?” (Jenkins 1982). Why the sudden change in the ghost’s appearance? Why is the ghost costumed differently than he was before? And why does he not show himself to Gertrude, as he showed himself to Horatio, Marcellus, and Barnardo? The modern answers to these questions are simply that the ghost appearing in the first act was indeed real, while the ghost in the third act was not. He was merely a figment of Hamlet’s imagination. Perhaps he was a product of the early stages of Hamlet’s madness, or simply a manifestation of the guilt Hamlet feels over the death of Polonius, and the sense that he has failed his father’s quest for vengeance. It is obvious that Hamlets grief has crossed over the bounds of what is considered acceptable, and has turned pathological. He has “lost all [his] mirth” (Jenkins 1982). He cannot find pleasure in any of the things he used to enjoy. This is a classic symptom of depression. Hamlet has become so obsessed with enacting vengeance on the man who killed his father that he cannot think about anything else. One other theory of the origins of the ghost needs to be explored before the close of this analysis. Three hundred years after Hamlet was first performed, the Austrian psychoanalyst, Sigmund Freud, described what he called the Oedipus Complex, named after the great Greek tragedy, Oedipus Rex, (Armstrong 2001). According to this theory, a male child would develop an unnatural love for his mother, but would not act on this love because of the presence of the father, the more powerful male figure. Castration anxiety would ensue. Hamlet could be a classic case of an Oedipus Complex. It is certain that Shakespeare would have been familiar with the Classic Greek tragedy, and perhaps, like so many writers currently do, he decided to retell the tale with his own interpretation. Upon Hamlet’s father’s death, Hamlet would have felt relieved that the authoritative male figure was out of the picture, but then his uncle stepped in to take father’s place. It is possible that Hamlet’s thwarted love for his mother may have been what drove him mad. He may have hallucinated the ghost’s instructions because he himself wanted his uncle dead. And the fact that the soldiers and Horatio also saw the ghost could be merely a case of mass hallucination. The soldiers, being uneducated and superstitious, probably expected to see a spirit, and Horatio may have been swayed by their stories of it. Is Hamlet’s ghost real? Is it actually the spirit of Hamlet’s dead father, or is it a demon? Perhaps it is nothing more than a hallucination brought on by Hamlet’s grief over his father’s death, or his guilt over his unnatural sexual feelings for his mother. It is quite possible that no one will be able to solve the mystery of the ghost’s existence. This is clear from the fact that there are still several theories in effect today regarding the nature of the ghost. Hamlet’s ghost was a far more believable and important figure to the Elizabethans than he can possibly be to the modern reader, simply because the Elizabethans were, for the most part, predisposed to believe in an after-life and spirits returning from the grave (Wilson 1935). The modern reader is not apt to believe in ghosts (Wilson 1935). He is more likely to try to psychologise them. Still, in order to gain a full appreciation of the tragedy, the reader must maintain a certain suspension of disbelief (Wilson 1935). If at all possible, he must put himself into the shoes of the Elizabethan spectator, and “watch” the play with his eyes (Wilson 1935). He must also admit to himself, as Hamlet, did, that “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in our philosophy” (Jenkins 1982). References Armstrong, P. (2001). Shakespeare in Psychoanalysis. London: Routledge. Jenkins, H. (Ed.). (1982). The Arden Shakespeare: Hamlet. London: Arden Shakespeare. Wilson, J. D. (1935). What Happens in Hamlet. New York: Macmillan. Read More