Hamlet's Ghost -- Phantasm or Hallucination?

[Rolfe]

In one of Hamlet's soliloquies, he says something about nobody returning from death to tell us what it's like. I think it's the "undiscovered country" part. I remember at school asking my teacher what that was all about, since Hamlet had already seen the ghost of his father who appeared actually to have returned.

The teacher filled in a load of waffle about the ghost not really being Hamlet's father, so it didn't count. Or something like that.

Rolfe.

 

[Senex]

Ghosts, like dreams, are usually real in fiction.

Well, I used to watch the old Scooby Doo show and it never turned out to be a ghost. It was always the caretaker and his wife or another heretofore minor character that was fooling people into thinking there were ghosts.

They are plot devices to allow the writer to either provide information that would not otherwise be available (i.e., that Hamlet's dad was killed by Uncle Claudius) or to foreshadow future events.

Not in this case. Hamlet suspected every treachery that his dad said. Every foreshadowing like foulness in Denmark was already on his mind. The Ghosts never said to Hamlet,And tell Gertrude the key to the wine cellar is under that snowglobe we bought in Oslo for our second week anniversary. Shakespeare would have given us this undeniable proof if he wanted Hamlet to have new intelligence that he didn't already possess.

What you think doesn't really matter. What you show us will matter. You've thus far exhibited nothing that would convince anyone who is remotely familiar with the work. As I said,... have you found that Bill had trouble expressing himself in words? Do you think he was making works for posterity and not creating pieces of entertainment for the masses?

Well as far

wait I hear something
I'm mocking ghosts yet I hear one myself
someone call 911
seriously

Never mind, it was a very distant scream of someone who is doth protesting too much. Something about a guy named Bill.

Arguments from personal incredulity aren't going to cut it in this discussion.

The voice of reason are we.

The bell curve is a pretty big thing, you know. Since it includes a data set of "everyone", it will include a lot of people who ticked off "E. Know nothing of the play or the period." So, yeah, you probably fall somewhere on the bell curve re Hamlet, as would everyone. (Although from this response I'm beginning to suspect you're just dicking around with us.)

Ouch.

Actually you understand as little (perhaps less) of my experience with this play as you understand about the play itself, I fear. I have studied the play in both lit courses and in drama courses. I have acted in productions of it several times. I have seen it in the theater at least four times that I can recall (five if you include a really bad Off-Broadway acting lab's translation into the vernacular), and have seen every film version of it, some of them several times.

This movie version directed by John Gielgud and starring Richard Burton (I know they didn't study it in both drama AND lit and didn't see all the movie versions you have yet are still the cool kids at interpreting this stuff) had Gielgud just do a recorded voice of the ghost. No visual ghost. I'm not the only one.

And I have never believed in ghosts.

So you say.

This is trolling, right? Hmmm, let me think of a silly position that I can support only through personal incredulity and see if I can play the eggheads along. If that's how you get your chuckles, more power to you, I guess.

Where are these so called eggheads? I'll troll them to the ends of a horrific mythological place if I have to. Show yourselves you mysterious spirits!

I'll have to side with Foolmewunz on this one.

Not just ghosts are real if the author says so, but any good playwright writes for the audience, and for the audience at the time ghosts were real and psychology wasn't even invented yet. Hell, even the attempts at proto-physchology that were starting around that time were inquiries in how the soul works, not something that disproves souls floating around. But it's unlikely that Shakespeare or his audience would have read them yet.

And it being a hallucination wouldn't make it much better anyway. Even hallucinations were ascribed to demons or premonitions or whatnot. We're talking an age where even dreams were quite usually accepted in court, and more than one woman found herself on top a pile of wood because a neighbour dreamt of her flying through the chimney to the witches Sabbath. And at least one off the top of my head for talking to herself.

But anyway, it would have been pointless to even attempt suggesting such skeptical scenarios to an audience at the time.

Bill was ahead of his time and wrote the ghosts to play as real for the simple minded folk and as a hallucination of Hamlet's for people in the know.

Senex, have you read the relevant scenes with this idea in mind? Show us in the text where it sounds like the guards or Horatio seem credulous or misled by an illusion of the night?

Would you also want me to also deconstruct the last three seasons of Celebrity Ghost Stories and tell you where I think the dialogue was when the celebrities started to be fooled on those shows too?

The soldiers nor celebrities need credulous dialogue to be fooled. The burden is rightfully on the person who believes in ghosts to prove there was a ghost. The story makes perfect sense without a real ghost. Why bring the supernatural in unnecessarily?

In one of Hamlet's soliloquies, he says something about nobody returning from death to tell us what it's like. I think it's the "undiscovered country" part. I remember at school asking my teacher what that was all about, since Hamlet had already seen the ghost of his father who appeared actually to have returned.

The teacher filled in a load of waffle about the ghost not really being Hamlet's father, so it didn't count. Or something like that.

Rolfe.

Right on,


The undiscovered country from whose bourn
No traveler returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?


No traveler returns indeed. Rolfe, look at the waffle right here on our own site.

 

[Rosencrantz]

Bravo. Ooo, for your next trick, do Homer's Odyssey! Let me guess, it was all a dream, because none of the mythical creatures mentioned actually exist?

 

[ddt]

Bravo. Ooo, for your next trick, do Homer's Odyssey! Let me guess, it was all a dream, because none of the mythical creatures mentioned actually exist?

Oh yes, it was just a long trip Odysseus experienced on the island of the Lotophages (Lotus eaters), with a bit of morality on marital fidelity thrown in.

(and yes, that was indeed his first stop).

 

[Rosencrantz]

In one of Hamlet's soliloquies, he says something about nobody returning from death to tell us what it's like. I think it's the "undiscovered country" part. I remember at school asking my teacher what that was all about, since Hamlet had already seen the ghost of his father who appeared actually to have returned.

Here's the text:

Who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered country from whose bourn
No traveler returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?

Firstly, it is possible that Hamlet is performing this soliloquy for the benefit of Claudius and Polonius, who are hidden nearby watching. If he knows they are there, or suspects it, of course he isn't going to mention The Ghost. So one layer to this is that his suicidal speech may be feigned.

Secondly, this reads to me as Hamlet describing the common opinion of death. Who would endure all of this without fear that there is an afterlife? It's a general observation, not a personal one. He's saying death is like a foreign land, and when you die you emigrate, and you don't ever get to move back.

Finally, most people of the time also believed (or claimed to believe) that Christ had died and been resurrected. Should this be read as Hamlet denying Christ?

 

[Rosencrantz]

Oh yes, it was just a long trip Odysseus experienced on the island of the Lotophages (Lotus eaters), with a bit of morality on marital fidelity thrown in.

"But it wasn't a dream. It was a place! And you, and you, and you, and you were there! But you couldn't have been, could you?"

 

[Lucian]

I have to agree with the majority opinion that there really is a ghost in Hamlet. One can question anything the ghost says or does that only Hamlet sees or hears (and people have), but Shakespeare goes out of his way at the beginning of the play to establish the actual existence of the ghost.

The nature of the ghost is a tricky problem. Based on what the ghost says, it certainly sounds as if he is returning from purgatory, which is, of course, a Roman Catholic doctrine. Hamlet is skeptical of the ghost, but not in the way Senex is. He wonders if it is really his father returned from the grave or a demon using his father's appearance. This had been a contentious theological question for a long time. For years, the more-or-less official church position was that damned souls couldn't return and saved souls wouldn't. Purgatory was a great boon to ghost stories (and ghost stories were used to support the doctrine of purgatory). But Protestant churches rejected purgatory and tended toward the idea that "ghosts" were, in fact, demons in disguise.

Hamlet's doubt on the issue could explain his assertion no traveler has returned from the undiscovered country.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Well, I used to watch the old Scooby Doo show and it never turned out to be a ghost. It was always the caretaker and his wife or another heretofore minor character that was fooling people into thinking there were ghosts.



Not in this case. Hamlet suspected every treachery that his dad said. Every foreshadowing like foulness in Denmark was already on his mind. The Ghosts never said to Hamlet,And tell Gertrude the key to the wine cellar is under that snowglobe we bought in Oslo for our second week anniversary. Shakespeare would have given us this undeniable proof if he wanted Hamlet to have new intelligence that he didn't already possess.



Well as far

wait I hear something
I'm mocking ghosts yet I hear one myself
someone call 911
seriously

Never mind, it was a very distant scream of someone who is doth protesting too much. Something about a guy named Bill.

The voice of reason are we.

Ouch.

This movie version directed by John Gielgud and starring Richard Burton (I know they didn't study it in both drama AND lit and didn't see all the movie versions you have yet are still the cool kids at interpreting this stuff) had Gielgud just do a recorded voice of the ghost. No visual ghost. I'm not the only one.


So you say.



Where are these so called eggheads? I'll troll them to the ends of a horrific mythological place if I have to. Show yourselves you mysterious spirits!



Bill was ahead of his time and wrote the ghosts to play as real for the simple minded folk and as a hallucination of Hamlet's for people in the know.



Would you also want me to also deconstruct the last three seasons of Celebrity Ghost Stories and tell you where I think the dialogue was when the celebrities started to be fooled on those shows too?

The soldiers nor celebrities need credulous dialogue to be fooled. The burden is rightfully on the person who believes in ghosts to prove there was a ghost. The story makes perfect sense without a real ghost. Why bring the supernatural in unnecessarily?



Right on,


The undiscovered country from whose bourn
No traveler returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?


No traveler returns indeed. Rolfe, look at the waffle right here on our own site.

You're not really here for the hunting, are you son?

 

[Senex]

Bravo. Ooo, for your next trick, do Homer's Odyssey! Let me guess, it was all a dream, because none of the mythical creatures mentioned actually exist?

Oh yes, it was just a long trip Odysseus experienced on the island of the Lotophages (Lotus eaters), with a bit of morality on marital fidelity thrown in.

(and yes, that was indeed his first stop).

Sounds like a fine interpretation to me. Speaking of Greek mythology I am reminded of Priam's daughter, Cassandra, like Odysseus she was there at the sacking of Troy. She was blessed with the ability of prophesy but cursed that no one would believe her. I know that feeling.

Here's the text:


Firstly, it is possible that Hamlet is performing this soliloquy for the benefit of Claudius and Polonius, who are hidden nearby watching. If he knows they are there, or suspects it, of course he isn't going to mention The Ghost. So one layer to this is that his suicidal speech may be feigned.

No way. That soliloquy is way too cool to be disingenuous.

Secondly, this reads to me as Hamlet describing the common opinion of death. Who would endure all of this without fear that there is an afterlife? It's a general observation, not a personal one. He's saying death is like a foreign land, and when you die you emigrate, and you don't ever get to move back.

Yes, and you don't get to walk the castle grounds again peeking in on the ex in her bedroom.

Finally, most people of the time also believed (or claimed to believe) that Christ had died and been resurrected. Should this be read as Hamlet denying Christ?

You're playing the Christ card? The rules don't apply to Christ if you believe he is god. This real ghost interpretation is crumbling quickly.

I have to agree with the majority opinion that there really is a ghost in Hamlet. One can question anything the ghost says or does that only Hamlet sees or hears (and people have), but Shakespeare goes out of his way at the beginning of the play to establish the actual existence of the ghost.

No, going out of his way would be telling Hamlet the lost wine cellar key was hidden under the snowglobe. Shakespeare goes out of his way to make it clear the Ghost doesn't bring anything to the story that wasn't already in Hamlet's mind already. Shakespeare goes out of his way to support my theory.

The nature of the ghost is a tricky problem. Based on what the ghost says, it certainly sounds as if he is returning from purgatory, which is, of course, a Roman Catholic doctrine. Hamlet is skeptical of the ghost, but not in the way Senex is. He wonders if it is really his father returned from the grave or a demon using his father's appearance. This had been a contentious theological question for a long time. For years, the more-or-less official church position was that damned souls couldn't return and saved souls wouldn't. Purgatory was a great boon to ghost stories (and ghost stories were used to support the doctrine of purgatory). But Protestant churches rejected purgatory and tended toward the idea that "ghosts" were, in fact, demons in disguise.

Hamlet's doubt on the issue could explain his assertion no traveler has returned from the undiscovered country.

These are all issues Shakespeare put in intentionally, but in the end they turn out to be red herrings.

You're not really here for the hunting, are you son?

My original post was completely sincere. I walked out of the movie theater after watching the play very excited to discuss this crazy brilliant play. It made, still makes, perfect sense to me the ghost doesn't need to be real for the play to work perfectly. This entire play is about making decisions with imperfect information. Facts are withheld from us on purpose. I believe the nature of the Ghost is just another issue we need to look at skeptically.

 

[Senex]

Now that I have cleared up all your concerns about the nature of the Ghost maybe someone can help me with a question I have about the nature of pirates in Hamlet. How does the business model work for pirates? Let's use the three step South Park model.


Steps:

1) Board ships, capture passenger(s) and return them unharmed to their country of origin without asking for a ransom.

2) ?

3) Profit!


Like other business models step 2 needs some more detail.


Of course maybe Shakespeare thought any story would be made better with pirates, even benevolent pirates, but why not amazon warrior pirates who needed to propagate their numbers that year? That's a scene worthy of a pirate ship set and additional players (well maybe not so good when guys took the gals roles back then but Shakespeare knew that was a convention soon to fall).


Aye, I think the pirate story is a bunch of malarkey. Benevolent pirates? I think Hamlet made up the entire story and never left the harbor. He paid off the crew or something like that. Although I still think it was curtains for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern but they never made it to England. Those two rascals are in the bottom of the harbor by Hamlet's own hand.

This story makes you use you skeptical skills. What do you think is more likely; the nice pirates interpretation or the Hamlet was smart enough to get to the sailors first interpretation that I am also sure I'm not the first one to think of and is indeed the truth behind the story Shakespeare had in mind.