Hamlet: Bonkers or faking it?

Cafe Society
21

[QUOTE=jackelope]
Nah, the accused is deceased, and thus immune to criminal charges. You can’t put a dead person in prison; it makes the other inmates nervous.
[/QUOTE]

At the time of his death, since Claudius had died before him, and since Claudius had nominated him as his successor, Hamlet was King of Denmark. Indeed, during that short period of time, he performs one act as king, which is to nominate his successor, Fortinbras of Norway. As King of Denmark, he would be immune from criminal prosecution.

22

Followup question. . .

Othello: black, or faking it?

23

[QUOTE=Trunk]
Followup question. . .

Othello: black, or faking it?
[/QUOTE]
Othello was a Moor; while that general and vague category could include people of sub-Saharan descent, it applies equally to Berbers, Arabs, Phoenicians, and possibly even the pre-Celtic residents of the Iberian peninsula, or more likely some mixture of the above. Marcus Macrinus, the Moorish Emperor of the Roman Empire (AD 217-8) is not depicted as having obvious negroid charactistics, and the same is true of many Moorish notables in the history of the Greek, Roman, Holy Roman, Eastern Roman, and Byzantine empries. Othello was most likely swarthy or dark skinned with the characteristics of native populations of the modern day southern coast of the Mediterranean, i.e. Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco. Except for Iago’s insults (clearly intended to make Othello feel inferior and paranoid) there isn’t a lot of racial subtext in the play, so his precise ethnicity isn’t really at issue; only that as a Moor, he is an obvious outsider to the senatorial class of Venice.

Stranger

24

It has always struck me that studying theology (or whatever) at university in Wittenberg was a bloody odd thing for a Prince to dabble in–Gertrude’s attitude at least is to beg him not to go back. Wouldn’t catch Prince Hal doing something goofy like that.
Not to mention choice of friends–Falstaff is a fab witty friend if you have to be dissolute–Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are goofy too.

25

[QUOTE=Giles]
Something that makes Hamlet great as literature is its ambiguity, so that the reader or watcher can project various views on it – even the oedipal complex stuff which is completely unjustified by the text…
[/QUOTE]

I have to disagree. I think an Oedipal reading is totally justified by the text. Hamlet Sr. is portrayed as a martial king, very interesting in military accomplishments, a man of action. He’s also rather cold, not passionate and physically affectionate like Claudius-- an Apollinian/Dionysian split.

Hamlet Jr., for all his posthumous adulation of his father, is still at Wittenberg in his 30’s, not off fighting wars with the Norwegians and Poles, not learning statecraft at his father’s knee. He’s reading books and hanging out in cafes or whatever career students did in those days. It’s not hard to imagine, then, considering their later exchanges, that Hamlet Jr. was not Hamlet Sr.'s dream son. In fact, I imagine their relationship in the play mirrored their relationship before Hamlet Sr’s death-- father disappointed, nagging his son to do the “right thing,” to take action. Jr. avoids doing anything as long as possible, to the aggravation of his father. Jr. was a mama’s boy, plain and simple, more of a student than a soldier.

Why didn’t Hamlet kill Claudius right away? Why “fake” the madness? I think that there was, on some level, a fascination in Hamlet towards Claudius. Claudius killed his father, something every nerd son of a jock father wants to do at some point. Claudius, having finally killed the old bastard, then married his mother and turned her into a wanton, a transformation which both attracts and repels Hamlet. He certain does obsess on it, and can’t move against Claudius until his mother is dead. This to me supports an Oedipal reading of the play, if not quite as wholly Freudian as all that.

I don’t think Hamlet was upset because he wanted to be king and Claudius usurped him-- I think the succession was through Gertrude anyway, so Claudius got the throne by marrying her. No, I think a lot of his angst and “madness” was generated by being compelled to complete a last task to please his unpleasable, implacable father, something very much against his nature, and against the laws of God and men. Who can make you crazier than your family?

26

[QUOTE=Rubystreak]
I think the succession was through Gertrude anyway, so Claudius got the throne by marrying her.
[/QUOTE]

Marrying Gertrude helped, but it would not have been enough. I think that you have to assume that laws of succession in Hamlet’s Denmark are the same as in Shakespeare’s England, unless you are told otherwise. In Act 5, Scene 2, Hamlet says that Claudius “Popp’d in between the election and my hopes,” which suggests that in some way Denmark was an elective monarchy. In a sense England was, too: normally the first-born son succeeded, but not always. In recent history – which Shakespeare himself had written about – the accessions of Henry VII, Mary I and Elizabeth I had each been in their way problematical; and in the early 1600s a new problem was about to happen, of an unmarried virgin queen dying, with closest possible heir already ruling as King of Scotland.

So normally the oldest son accedes, but in special cases the Privy Council has to make a decision. When Hamlet senior died, apparently bitten by a snake, with Hamlet junior away in Germany (and possibly not cut out to be king), the next-in-line Claudius used all his political skills to swing the election his way. Marrying Gertrude probably helped, but the assistance of Councillors/counsellors like Polonius was probably more important.

Because succession was not completely automatic, it makes sense for Claudius to nominate Prince Hamlet as his successor, and in turn for King Hamlet II to nominate Fortinbras.

As for the oedipal reading – Rubystreak’s reading is an interesting one, but hasn’t quite persuaded me.

27

[QUOTE=Giles]
Marrying Gertrude helped, but it would not have been enough. I think that you have to assume that laws of succession in Hamlet’s Denmark are the same as in Shakespeare’s England, unless you are told otherwise. In Act 5, Scene 2, Hamlet says that Claudius “Popp’d in between the election and my hopes,” which suggests that in some way Denmark was an elective monarchy.
[/quote]

Presumably, if Claudius were not Gertrude’s husband, he might not have had as strong a case for election; he also seems to have a great deal of personal popularity, which Hamlet would not have had simply due to his absence. To me, Claudius being elected suggests that Hamlet was not considered a strong option for kingship for whatever reasons-- not present, not competent, etc.

I’m sure that impression was shared by Hamlet’s father, which goes towards my reading of the play that Hamlet and his father had a less than idyllic father/son relationship. Hamlet’s resentment towards Claudius on this topic is displaced anger, because Claudius’ election does not fall just on Claudius nor on his murder of King Hamlet: it falls on his mother, his father, Polonius, those who elected his uncle over him, the people of Denmark themselves. There’s an overall sense of Hamlet being passed over by everyone… due to his inadequacy. The only way he can show that he is not inadequate is by killing Claudius, which is a consummately difficult task for him for so many reasons.

It would make me nuts too.