University of Virginia professor Paul Cantor, curator of the Shakespeare and Politics website (thegreatthinker..., in the third of three lectures on Hamlet.
That is so insightful! The idea that Hamlet entering the fencing match, he expected to be killed and therefore it was a legal suicide, in contrast to the gravedigger's speech, so the water now comes to him. I never thought of that before!
I love your lectures and your erudition... It's interesting that you seem to take a more Christian reading of these plays than Harold Bloom, who held that Hamlet is not really a Christian play, despite a few nods in that direction. The apotheosis he achieves near the end seems more classical than Christian, the concerns with revenge murder that optimizes the chances for hell rather unChristian. Bloom points to some Good Friday metaphors I believe in the final passages that seem to be re-appropriating Christianity in a blasphemous and highly daring way. Hamlet's "to be or not to be" fear of "dangers we know not of" and "the everlasting has fixed his cannon against self-slaughter" are more difficult to square with Bloom's view, though it is not beyond Hamlet to quote from various traditions of the world in making larger composite points. He might be expressing the modern's genuine fear of not knowing what portends in the afterlife -- a kind of early Greek approach when first encountering Christianity. It's difficult to see any of S's plays outside of Measure for Measure as deliberately Christian, could you not say might be argued?
Great lecture! One small correction: King James' mother was Mary of Scotland (Mary Stuart). Mary Stuart was the grand-daughter of Henry VIII's sister Margaret Tudor. Mary Tudor (Bloody Mary) was the daughter of Henry VIII and his first wife Catherine Aragon, and a half-sister to Elisabeth I of England. Mary Tudor became Mary I of England and reigned for about 5 years. Then came the reign of Elisabeth I, who was the last in line in the House of Tudor. James I marks the beginning of the Stuart dynasty. Hope that was clear! Many people confuse Mary Stuart with Mary Tudor, but they are two separate (albeit related) people.
I would give my right hand to ask Paul Cantor how does he think HAMLET might help current politicians, in these post modern- post truth, cynical, corrupt world anchor their morality and their values ...?
That's a very interesting poem. How does it account for the fact that Hamlet died too? I've also heard opinion that Gertrude actually did see the ghost (why would it make sense that Horatio and the guards could see him but she couldn't?) but pretended not to in order to make Hamlet seem crazy. She was maybe in on the entire murder and wanted Hamlet gone just as much as Claudius did.
I'm planning to produce Hamlet in 2021, at 30, and these 3 lectures have been a great resource, particularly the insights into the character mentalities around power and religion.
"Hamlet" is a post-modernist's dream play. It has unreliable narrators, unexplainable events, and faith in a world of meaning and revelation. Much of the action is told to us, rather than shown, so we have to consider the reliability of those sources - such as the ghost, Ophelia, the spy, and of course Hamlet (with his wild self-serving stories). There is no explanation of the ghost or the pirates, or the people shouting for Laertes to be king, but they make sense in the context of the play [it's not pure chaos in Denmark, tho like any people without reliable sources of clean water probably they drink too much beer and wine]. Even with all that uncertainty and doubt, the action progresses to a natural conclusion, i.e., the return of a true king, and the restoration of a corrupt country.
I've read and listened to Bloom, and I've listened to this lecturer. While there is absolutely no charitable characterization--at times referring to Hamlet at points as one who loves no one and never truly speaks what he really thinks. I prefer Cantor, not because he is correct or because I have the intellectual capacity to out-argue Bloom, but because I find his description of Hamlet more complex in reality, more charitable in some respects, and in his presentation less self-referential and more persuasive than Bloom... But to take a lesson from Hamlet, who the Hell can say?.
ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-lygcsRVflv8.html The theater version with Benedict Cumberbatch picked the suggestion up that Laertes is having second thougths about killing Hamlet. That is a beautiful performance actually.
If I were back at school writing papers, I think I'd footnote all the lines from Hamlet. They're so well known there seems no point embedding them. This way there's more analysis, criticism, and opinion, and less blocked off verses.
