I don't know if I've missed a few weeks or not, and if I have, I apologize. My brain has felt a bit fried recently.
Anyway, we just covered Hamlet in class, and know we have spring break.
Hamlet is probably one of my favorite plays, because I can understand it without any trouble. This is new for me, regarding Shakespeare. It's about a prince of Denmark whose throne has been usurped by his uncle after his father's death, and his entire life has been turned upside down.
There is a lot of conflict in this play, but my favorite is that of Hamlet and himself. The question of madness is clear in the play: is Hamlet mad or is he actually seeing his father's ghost?
Hamlet's character is, essentially, that of a moody teenager. So bear that in mind when I talk about this.
Hamlet sees his father's ghost, but only after Bernardo and Marcellus claimed to see him and told him where to find it, and Hamlet is only told what he was already convinced of. It's entirely possible that this is just the power of suggestion playing with an already damaged mind.
On the other hand, it's also possible that the power of suggestion, and the desire to see his father was enough to suspend disbelief and allow for communication, or that the blood connection is somehow playing a role. Shakespeare leaves a lot of the mystical stuff ambiguous- A Midsummer Night's Dream gave you the option of believing that it was all a dream.
It's not clear if these guards actually saw King Hamlet or if they were just scared and convinced themselves they were seeing a ghost. They mention that the ghost never spoke, and given that it was night at the time, and just before the King's funeral, the thought of a ghost couldn't have been far off from their minds. At night, the shadows and the 'creepy' factor make seeing things a lot easier. Also, the ghost left when one of them pulled out their sword. A ghost couldn't possibly fear harm from a mortal weapon. This lends itself to the idea that what they saw was an animal, and that shadows were playing tricks.
There is also the fact that Queen Gertrude- the late king's wife- can't see or talk to him. The wife of the deceased surely has a stronger connection to and desire to speak with the ghost than 2 random guards? If it's just blood relatives (and guards) that can see King Hamlet, then why doesn't he appear in front of Claudius and chew him out, instead of leaving it to his son?
My personal theory is that Gertrude and King Hamlet married for politics, and Gertrude actually loved Claudius, which is why they get married so soon after King Hamlet's death, which seems to be supported by Claudius referring to Hamlet as "our son", as if he genuinely wanted it Gertrude's son to think of him as his father. The general practices of royal families at the time period were to marry cousins and other relatives, so the thought of marrying your dead husband's brother probably wasn't so weird back then. It also meant that a lot of royals had medical problems, some of which could affect the mind. Look at George III.
Claudius has probably known Prince Hamlet for some time, perhaps his entire life (especially if he loved Gertrude). My theory is that Prince Hamlet had psychosis and hallucinations his entire life, leading Claudius to fear for his ability to rule. When Claudius died, he did what he felt was best for Denmark, and took over the throne, also allowing him to marry the woman he loved, essentially killing two birds with one stone. Prince Hamlet's madness got worse, and eventually turned into murder attempts (which it seems likely Claudius knew about). Denmark needed a competent leader, especially with Fortinbras trying to invade, and any risk of Hamlet killing him to become leader would have been disastrous. (apparently, "family" was pretty disposable in this time period...)
Now, Claudius develops a convoluted plan to kill Hamlet, instead of just stabbing him in his sleep or something (which, now that I think of it, I can't recall any mention of Hamlet actually sleeping in this play). Murdering his nephew within months of becoming king would have damaged his entire rule, but an accidental sword wound, from rough housing he tried to stop (right after claiming Hamlet as his own and complimenting his skill) would make him look tragic and heroic.
While I doubt Claudius is actually a kind person, I don't think he- or anyone in this play- is actually a villain,
Obviously, there is not a clear answer to anything I just said- the play is from Hamlet's perspective, who isn't exactly unbiased. Personally, I think a version form either Queen Gertrude's of Claudius's perspective would be fascinating.
