Hamlet's Ghost -- Phantasm or Hallucination?

[Senex]

I recently saw a NTLIVE production of Hamlet performed at the National Theatre while sitting myself in a movie theater. Wow, what a brilliant play. Hamlet could be a poster here -- he thinks too much and a little slow on the decisive action. No matter what bulloney they taught you in school the play is about skepticism. The only thing you really know is the uncle did kill the father and you fill in the rest with what you walked into the theatre with. Me, I walked into the theater not believing in ghosts and walked out with my beliefs unchallenged. Hamlet is the only one who talked with the ghost and the ghost sounded a lot like Hamlet in my opinion. Hamlet's mom didn't see the ghost in the bedroom scene. The ghost is all in Hamlet's head. The two soldiers and Horatio who saw the ghost were mistaken through the usual ways and when they told Hamlet his mind just decided to run with the idea and he gave voice to his doubts about his uncle and mom through the hallucination.

Having said that I know some people think the ghost is really Hamlet's dad (his name is Hamlet as well) making requests beyond the grave. Hamlet also offers the possibility a demon is engaging in a little sadistic tormenting of a fellow in grief.

Anyone want to offer their thoughts on the ghost. That play really got me wound up wanting to talk about it. It's a classic for a reason.

 

[Crossbow]

I do not know that much about Shakespeare, however the little that I do know does shows that he did periodically use ghosts as plot devices.

For example, in Julius Ceaser, the lead character Brutus was visited by the ghost of Julius Ceaser.

In Richard III, the lead character Richard III was visited by several ghosts the night before his big battle.

I think that goes to show that most people belived that ghosts were quite real back in the days of Shakespeare.

 

[Senex]

I do not know that much about Shakespeare, however the little that I do know does shows that he did periodically use ghosts as plot devices.

For example, in Julius Ceaser, the lead character Brutus was visited by the ghost of Julius Ceaser.

In Richard III, the lead character Richard III was visited by several ghosts the night before his big battle.

I think that goes to show that most people belived that ghosts were quite real back in the days of Shakespeare.

Every play and character in Shakespeare needs to be looked at independently of other characters in other plays. The Ghost in Hamlet is a pretty darned important character in this play. I think the play works perfectly if you think the ghost is in Hamlet's head alone. It works perfectly if you think Ophelia dies a virgin or not or if Gertrude was in on the assassination plot or not or dozen of other things. It's a very unusual play this way.

 

[Denver]

I believe this ghost question (only visible to one character) is also present in MacBeth.

 

[332nd]

It depends on the production really. The guards see the spirit as well, but that could be chalked up to guilt in failing to protect him.

 

[Rosencrantz]

The guards see The Ghost, and they get Horatio, who also sees The Ghost. Then Horatio goes and gets Hamlet, and brings him to see The Ghost with his own eyes. Are you saying Horatio didn't see The Ghost at all when he brought Hamlet to see him? If The Ghost is all in Hamlet's mind, Horatio and the guards must be very credulous indeed, to have all three of them thought they saw the late king and then testify to this to the prince his son. It could be that they want Hamlet to oppose his uncle's usurpation of the throne, which he may have seemed unwilling to do thus far, and they are trying to help motivate him to act against Claudius-- but that's a very risky proposition if they don't actually believe Hamlet's father came to tell his son he was murdered. Horatio really sticks his neck out for Hamlet, and his given motivation is that he saw The Ghost and thus knows Hamlet is right. If any part of them is false, they are basically committing treason to goad a mad prince into rebellion against the king, which seems very unwise if they can actually see him talking to the empty air like it's a person...

 

[autumn1971]

It can be played as though Hamlet Jr. is the only one who hears the ghost and realizes its import, but the others saw it. They, however, merely say it appears to be the elder Hamlet. I believe the filmed Kevin Kline stage version plays like this, with the others confused as Hamlet forces them to follow the ghost's voice as it speaks from the ground.

 

[Crossbow]

Every play and character in Shakespeare needs to be looked at independently of other characters in other plays. The Ghost in Hamlet is a pretty darned important character in this play. I think the play works perfectly if you think the ghost is in Hamlet's head alone. It works perfectly if you think Ophelia dies a virgin or not or if Gertrude was in on the assassination plot or not or dozen of other things. It's a very unusual play this way.

Well, I expect that you may be quite correct. After all, I really do not know a great deal about the Shakespeare plays.

 

[Senex]

The guards see The Ghost, and they get Horatio, who also sees The Ghost. Then Horatio goes and gets Hamlet, and brings him to see The Ghost with his own eyes. Are you saying Horatio didn't see The Ghost at all when he brought Hamlet to see him? If The Ghost is all in Hamlet's mind, Horatio and the guards must be very credulous indeed, to have all three of them thought they saw the late king and then testify to this to the prince his son. It could be that they want Hamlet to oppose his uncle's usurpation of the throne, which he may have seemed unwilling to do thus far, and they are trying to help motivate him to act against Claudius-- but that's a very risky proposition if they don't actually believe Hamlet's father came to tell his son he was murdered. Horatio really sticks his neck out for Hamlet, and his given motivation is that he saw The Ghost and thus knows Hamlet is right. If any part of them is false, they are basically committing treason to goad a mad prince into rebellion against the king, which seems very unwise if they can actually see him talking to the empty air like it's a person...

I'm thinking that as Redtail said the death of the King was on the soldiers minds and they saw someone or something in the fog (maybe a spy, lots of them wandering around) and report to Claudius what they saw looked like the old King and Claudius (with the suggestion of the old King now in his mind) sees whatever in the fog and agrees with them it looks like the old King and tells Hamlet. Hamlet has one of his madness episodes and it plays out like autumn1971 said with Hamlet chasing an imaginary ghost and having conversations with him. The guards and Horatio choose to believe Hamlet wasn't making the conversation up they weren't privy to and agree to remain silent about the ghost episodes. How come Gertrude doesn't see the ghost? Because there is no ghost to see? Are you even sure Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead at the end? We just have that report to go on and those things have been known to contain misinformation. There is no reason for them to live but if I don't see their dead body on the stage or casket dropped into a grave in this play I'm remaining skeptical.

 

[Rosencrantz]

I'm thinking that as Redtail said the death of the King was on the soldiers minds and they saw someone or something in the fog (maybe a spy, lots of them wandering around) and report to Claudius what they saw looked like the old King and Claudius (with the suggestion of the old King now in his mind) sees whatever in the fog and agrees with them it looks like the old King and tells Hamlet. Hamlet has one of his madness episodes and it plays out like autumn1971 said with Hamlet chasing an imaginary ghost and having conversations with him. The guards and Horatio choose to believe Hamlet wasn't making the conversation up they weren't privy to and agree to remain silent about the ghost episodes. How come Gertrude doesn't see the ghost? Because there is no ghost to see? Are you even sure Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead at the end? We just have that report to go on and those things have been known to contain misinformation. There is no reason for them to live but if I don't see their dead body on the stage or casket dropped into a grave in this play I'm remaining skeptical.

You think Claudius is involved as well? Are they all setting up the Prince in this interpretation?

Generally, Gertrude doesn't see The Ghost because The Ghost doesn't want her to see it. Maybe it doesn't want to upset her? It could be that there is some other reason that Gertrude can't see it, like she has accepted her husband's death and moved on while Hamlet hasn't, but that also undermines what the guards and Horatio see. If they don't actually see The Ghost, there has to be another reason that Horatio tells him that he thinks he saw his father, and I think that's tricky, because if Horatio is also working against Hamlet or isn't reliable the Prince is really in trouble. Remember it could be seen as treason to bring the matter to Hamlet. They should bring it to the king. Bringing it to Hamlet is basically encouraging his rebellion against Claudius.

I think it is difficult to play Hamlet as actually mad, not least because it makes his actions less understandable to the audience. If he isn't mad, it is a straightforward political story of Hamlet vs. Claudius, with The Ghost providing the evidence that Hamlet must act upon, but which he can't simply announce. If he is actually mad, well, it's anything goes in the play and I feel like that robs it of some of its power and genius. Hamlet pretending to be mad is a brilliant stratagem. Hamlet actually mad is four hours of tortured emo speak.

 

[Senex]

You think Claudius is involved as well? Are they all setting up the Prince in this interpretation?

No, I don't think Claudius's loyalty to Hamlet should be questioned nor the soldiers.

Generally, Gertrude doesn't see The Ghost because The Ghost doesn't want her to see it. Maybe it doesn't want to upset her? It could be that there is some other reason that Gertrude can't see it, like she has accepted her husband's death and moved on while Hamlet hasn't, but that also undermines what the guards and Horatio see. If they don't actually see The Ghost, there has to be another reason that Horatio tells him that he thinks he saw his father, and I think that's tricky, because if Horatio is also working against Hamlet or isn't reliable the Prince is really in trouble. Remember it could be seen as treason to bring the matter to Hamlet. They should bring it to the king. Bringing it to Hamlet is basically encouraging his rebellion against Claudius.

I think suggestion is at play with regards to the Ghost and soldiers and Horatio. The soldiers are probably bored having the night shift and might be having a nip or two to fend off the chilly fogy air and spend the night yacking about the old King and when they see something out of the norm and they too quickly agree it looked like the old King. The next shift they are extra fortified with liquid courage and see something or someone around the same time, agree it looks like the old King again and work themselves up enough to bring the matter to Horatio. Horatio might have had a mother or aunt who used to yack about ghosts all the time and he is nervous hearing these two soldiers continuously bringing up their apparition that gets scarier with each retelling. Horatio sees something and through pareidolia sees the old King as well.

I think it is difficult to play Hamlet as actually mad, not least because it makes his actions less understandable to the audience. If he isn't mad, it is a straightforward political story of Hamlet vs. Claudius, with The Ghost providing the evidence that Hamlet must act upon, but which he can't simply announce. If he is actually mad, well, it's anything goes in the play and I feel like that robs it of some of its power and genius. Hamlet pretending to be mad is a brilliant stratagem. Hamlet actually mad is four hours of tortured emo speak.

Clearly Hamlet is giving the appearance of madness as a strategy for much of the play but he is also clearly behaving irrationally sometimes as well, for example when he kills Polonius without checking behind the curtain first. I think Hamlet is conflicted about wanting to kill Claudius with imperfect information so when he hears the ghost of his dad is running around at night his mind goes a little south and uses this knowledge of his father's ghost as a psychological tool to get his courage up to kill Claudius. Hamlet's mind creates their dialogue (really a Ghost soliloquy). Now in addition to his doubts about his uncle and mom he also doesn't want his dad to be in purgatory. His dad is also calling on him for revenge. Hamlet's mind is having trouble so it creates the ghost to help him make an unpleasant decision.

It really is a play about skepticism.

 

[Foolmewunz]

It really is a play about skepticism.

You've said that twice, now. But I don't see skepticism so much as an amusing, if wrong, possible interpretation. You have to consider not one but TWO scenes with the guards, and that the dialogue makes it pretty clear that Hamlet needs to be convinced that it was his father and that he was in armor. There's nothing to indicate they were drinking on duty other than that you offer it as a possibility. It's also reported that other guards had seen the ghost at the appointed hour (1 a.m.) on other occasions.

Elizabethan audiences believed in ghosts. This one was a plot device to bring the entire tragedy to fruition. Without the ghost, you would have a much better case for Hamlet as a possible fantasist. But with the ghost, visible to the audience and relating the tale of his demise, the audience has confirmation of the foul deeds of the brother.

Shakespeare didn't have a lot of trouble putting words to things. Look at the terrific scenes with Hamlet not willing to slay Claudius while he's praying for fear that he give him easy entry to heaven.... which, of course, turns out to have not been the case as Claudius couldn't get his sky daddy mojo working, but Hamlet doesn't get to find that out, we do. If he wanted Hamlet torn over the "flimsy evidence" he would've put that into the play.

And, of course, there's the play that Hamlet puts on... laid out in just the scenario the ghost describes and which makes Claudius extremely uncomfortable. Showing us, again, that the ghost's version of things is accurate.

Hamlet's arguments with himself over doing the deed are pretty apparent, especially in the death of Polonius. If he thinks too much, as Hamlet tends to do, he doesn't revenge his father for all the thinking. If he acts on instinct, he can do it, but in acting on instinct, he kills the wrong person. I feel this is the nub of the tragedy and the ghost is just a convenient device.

 

[Rosencrantz]

You've said that twice, now. But I don't see skepticism so much as an amusing, if wrong, possible interpretation. You have to consider not one but TWO scenes with the guards, and that the dialogue makes it pretty clear that Hamlet needs to be convinced that it was his father and that he was in armor. There's nothing to indicate they were drinking on duty other than that you offer it as a possibility. It's also reported that other guards had seen the ghost at the appointed hour (1 a.m.) on other occasions.

Elizabethan audiences believed in ghosts. This one was a plot device to bring the entire tragedy to fruition. Without the ghost, you would have a much better case for Hamlet as a possible fantasist. But with the ghost, visible to the audience and relating the tale of his demise, the audience has confirmation of the foul deeds of the brother.

Shakespeare didn't have a lot of trouble putting words to things. Look at the terrific scenes with Hamlet not willing to slay Claudius while he's praying for fear that he give him easy entry to heaven.... which, of course, turns out to have not been the case as Claudius couldn't get his sky daddy mojo working, but Hamlet doesn't get to find that out, we do. If he wanted Hamlet torn over the "flimsy evidence" he would've put that into the play.

And, of course, there's the play that Hamlet puts on... laid out in just the scenario the ghost describes and which makes Claudius extremely uncomfortable. Showing us, again, that the ghost's version of things is accurate.

Hamlet's arguments with himself over doing the deed are pretty apparent, especially in the death of Polonius. If he thinks too much, as Hamlet tends to do, he doesn't revenge his father for all the thinking. If he acts on instinct, he can do it, but in acting on instinct, he kills the wrong person. I feel this is the nub of the tragedy and the ghost is just a convenient device.

Well said!

It should also be noted that Horatio is skeptical when he first joins the guards, and when The Ghost appears he is amazed and alarmed, and the guards are like "See? We told you!" If it's an illusion, someone must be out there in armor. Now maybe that's someone pulling a prank, but if so it must be pretty convincing long before Hamlet gets involved.

One of the things I love about the play is the game of cat and mouse between Hamlet and Claudius. Hamlet must prove before witnesses that Claudius murdered the king before he can act, and his play within the play allows him to take his revenge. It all leads to the scene where Claudius is praying, where Hamlet could have succeeded but for his desire to make his uncle suffer. He leaps at his next opportunity and then everything comes crashing down around him. If he is actually crazy, it can only undermine his very clear objectives up to that point.

 

[Senex]

You've said that twice, now. But I don't see skepticism so much as an amusing, if wrong, possible interpretation. You have to consider not one but TWO scenes with the guards, and that the dialogue makes it pretty clear that Hamlet needs to be convinced that it was his father and that he was in armor. There's nothing to indicate they were drinking on duty other than that you offer it as a possibility. It's also reported that other guards had seen the ghost at the appointed hour (1 a.m.) on other occasions...

Well said!

..It should also be noted that Horatio is skeptical when he first joins the guards, and when The Ghost appears he is amazed and alarmed, and the guards are like "See? We told you!" If it's an illusion, someone must be out there in armor. Now maybe that's someone pulling a prank, but if so it must be pretty convincing long before Hamlet gets involved.

Oh, so the ghost was seen wearing armor so therefore it must be a real ghost. Let me start with the premise there are no real ghosts (you are posting on the Randi site so I'm thinking you will grant me this). However many people before the early 1600's, during the 1600's, post 1600's through today and likely all of the foreseeable have/are/will be reporting ghost sightings. Many of these ghost sightings will describe the ghost wearing appropriate specter attire (armor, togas, ball gowns, ball and chain, wedding attire etc.) Why should we believe this apparition is any different from the thousands of other apparition sightings that are based on suggestion, fear and pareidolia? Why do you insist this must be a "real" ghost when you understand how people are fooled into seeing ghosts. The soldiers have the old King on their mind and they think fondly of him in his battle attire. "Wait, see that shadow in the fog? It's the old King just like we remember coming back from battle!" They tell Horatio how he is dressed and guess what, suggestion is at work and Horatio sees the King in battle attire. Suggestion is strong enough for people to see something but not enough to have a conversation with. Hamlet has a conversation with the Ghost because his mind needs a third party to voice the terrible treachery he believes that took his dad away. Hamlet's own mind gives the ghost a voice. Maybe the poison in the ear wasn't exactly how the old King was poisoned (maybe Hamlet picked poison in the ear as a metaphor for being angry he listened to gossip) but any type of poisoning on stage was enough to rattle Claudius into giving himself away watching the play within the play. The play didn't need to be a perfect recreation, just poisoning a King was enough. No one else hears the ghost, and in a fogless room, with no suggestion of specters in her mind, Gertrude doesn't see the ghost either.

Why believe in a real ghost when all the business as usual reasons for a ghost sighting are in play?

 

[Foolmewunz]

Senex,
This is cute, but you do realize that we're not trying to prove the existence of ghosts, don't you? You are arguing about a plot in a work of fiction that dates back four centuries and seem to be asking for video that proves the ghost was real. This is like arguing that the central theme in Harry Potter is based around Dumbledor's intelligence and that he knew that wizards weren't real because in Book 2 he said, "xxxxxxx xxxxxxx". It's a work of fiction. To appreciate fiction you are sometimes required to suspend disbelief.

In terms of the play, the ghost was real. You are de-constructing a work that is probably, this side of Teh Bible, the most analyzed piece of literature in history. No one else has come up with this interpretation.

I have seen serious discussion, though, that the ghost was actually an indication that Wm. S. got all tied up in the human drama and didn't follow his original outline. The ghost being "in armor" is a portent of danger to the state, probably from Norway again. This would be a common device as the armor is to suggest a need to be ready for a coming battle. The "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark" line is also a portent of this. The suggestion is that Shakespeare was going to do one of his histories and introduce a nice crowd-pleasing war, but fell in love with his characters so made it into the masterpiece it is by exploring the human relationships.

 

[Senex]

Senex,
This is cute, but you do realize that we're not trying to prove the existence of ghosts, don't you? You are arguing about a plot in a work of fiction that dates back four centuries and seem to be asking for video that proves the ghost was real. This is like arguing that the central theme in Harry Potter is based around Dumbledor's intelligence and that he knew that wizards weren't real because in Book 2 he said, "xxxxxxx xxxxxxx". It's a work of fiction. To appreciate fiction you are sometimes required to suspend disbelief.

I can suspend disbelief as much as the next guy. However I know people sometimes think they see ghosts when there are actually no ghosts. I think Shakespeare is just showing us another one of those times.

In terms of the play, the ghost was real. You are de-constructing a work that is probably, this side of Teh Bible, the most analyzed piece of literature in history. No one else has come up with this interpretation.

That can't be true because it wouldn't make plain sense to me and not anyone else. I always fall somewhere on a bell curve.

I have seen serious discussion, though, that the ghost was actually an indication that Wm. S. got all tied up in the human drama and didn't follow his original outline. The ghost being "in armor" is a portent of danger to the state, probably from Norway again. This would be a common device as the armor is to suggest a need to be ready for a coming battle. The "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark" line is also a portent of this. The suggestion is that Shakespeare was going to do one of his histories and introduce a nice crowd-pleasing war, but fell in love with his characters so made it into the masterpiece it is by exploring the human relationships.

I understand, you read or saw this play when you were young and your image of the Ghost you have carried is probably meaningful to you and you are unwilling to give it up because you feel invested in it. That's OK. Some woo we carry makes us feel better and if it doesn't hurt anyone else it's quite alright and no need to apologize for going with the "real" Ghost interpretation.

 

[Brainster]

Ghosts, like dreams, are usually real in fiction. 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.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I can suspend disbelief as much as the next guy. However I know people sometimes think they see ghosts when there are actually no ghosts. I think Shakespeare is just showing us another one of those times.

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?

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

That can't be true because it wouldn't make plain sense to me and not anyone else. I always fall somewhere on a bell curve.

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.)

I understand, you read or saw this play when you were young and your image of the Ghost you have carried is probably meaningful to you and you are unwilling to give it up because you feel invested in it. That's OK. Some woo we carry makes us feel better and if it doesn't hurt anyone else it's quite alright and no need to apologize for going with the "real" Ghost interpretation.

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.

And I have never believed in ghosts.

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.

 

[HansMustermann]

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.

 

[Rosencrantz]

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?