One last note on Hamlet

Although our class is moving on to Shakespeare's histories this week, I couldn't resist posting once more about Hamlet. What can I say? It's a great play. 

This semester, I am also taking British Medieval Literature (really interesting class, by the way), and it has truly surprised me how many similarities there are between many of my other readings and Hamlet. We've discussed in class how Shakespeare could be considered somewhat of a plagiarist, that much of what Shakespeare wrote was borrowed from early British historians and writers. Well, in Medieval Brit. Lit. there are just tons of examples of this. I picked out just one to share with you. 

We have been reading what's called "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles," a history that summarizes the most important events of each year, written between the 9th and 11th centuries. In one entry, discussing the death of William the Conquerer, it states:

"He that was before a rich king, and lord of many lands, then had no more land than a space of seven feet! and he that was once enshrouded in gold and gems lay there covered with dirt!"

To me, this bears a striking resemblance to Hamlet's remarks in the Graveyard scene:

"This fellow might be in ’s time a great buyer of land, with his statutes, his recognizances, his fines, his double vouchers, his recoveries. Is this the fine of his fines and the recovery of his recoveries, to have his fine pate full of fine dirt? Will his vouchers vouch him no more of his purchases, and double ones too, than the length and breadth of a pair of indentures? The very conveyances of his lands will hardly lie in this box, and must the inheritor himself have no more, ha!" (5:1)

Both of these passages relate to the idea of death as the great equalizer, and using remarkably similar examples. Although Hamlet is describing a great landowner instead of a king, both authors express the idea that although someone in life may have had great riches or land, he eventually only end up with "a space of seven feet."

Besides that passage, there is also similar language used between the two texts: "churl" and 

"twelfth-night," as well as the name Osric (like the character at the end of Hamlet), although I could be stretching the coincidences with that one. 

I thought it was interesting to find such explicit examples of Shakespeare borrowing from other authors. I will be posting more on this subject when we get to reading tragedies, as Geoffrey of Monmouth's "A History of the Kings of Britain," (which I've also read in my other class), contains the account that Shakespeare later draws from to write King Lear, which I think will make for an interesting comparison. 

As of right now, my reading schedule for this week is:

01/24- Read historical background and summary for Henry V; read Act 1

01/26- Read Acts 2-3

01/28- Read Acts 4-5

I'm going to take this week by week, as I don't know what my exact plan is and I'd like to be flexible. I'll try to post before every class period, and will hopefully be able to work in some fun creative interpretations and analysis. 

Apparently Shakespeare gardened...

Obviously not a proven fact, but Shakespeare does seem to have an extensive 

knowledge of plants. Like this author said:

"Nearly 30 scenes in his plays take place in a garden,
 and his characters seem to know what they're talking 
about when it comes to weeds, trees, flowers and herbs 
and their properties, both medicinal and poetic. 
If Shakespeare didn't garden himself, he probably knew 
many people who did, or who at least knew about plants. 
His son-in-law, John Hall, was a doctor and herbalist 
and most likely had botanical and medical books."
- Kent Steinriede (Full text here)

Now what does this mean to us? This means that all of Shakespeare's 

seemingly random references to flowers are in fact an obscure method of sharing information with his audience. Since people of his time were 

much more familiar with these plants, Shakespeare could identify with 

his peers by including the familiar names within his plays. 

Now on to the question of the day: What's with Ophelia's flowers? The 

following is a list of the plants mentioned in connection with Ophelia 

and what their true meanings are.

Rosemary: constancy, fidelity, and loyalty

Pansy: thoughtful recollection

Fennel: strength

Columbines: cuckoldry and deserted love

Rue: repentance, herb-of-grace

Daisy: gentleness, innocence, loyal love

Violets: modesty and simplicity

(Some of these I got from here and some I borrowed from No Fear Shakespeare, NFS)

As I'm sure you all noticed, there are a couple that particularly stand 

out. For one thing, rosemary and columbines are the exact opposite 

(constancy v. deserted love) and both seem to be in connection with 

Gertrude. Also rue (repentance) and pansy (thought recollection) seem 

relevant to Claudius. NFS translation really helped me see what these 

all meant, since they associated the meaning of the flower with 

whomever Ophelia was giving it to:

OPHELIA There’s fennel for you, and columbines.—There’s rue for you, and here’s some for me. We may call it “herb of grace” o' Sundays.—Oh, you must wear your rue with a difference.—There’s a daisy. I would give you some violets, but they withered all when my father died. They say he made a good end(sings) For bonny sweet Robin is all my joy—

OPHELIA (to GERTRUDE ) Here are fennel and columbines for you—they symbolize adultery. (to CLAUDIUS) And here’s rue for you—it symbolizes repentance. We can call it the merciful Sunday flower. You should wear it for a different reason. And here’s a daisy, for unhappy love. I’d give you some violets, flowers of faithfulness, but they all dried up when my father died. They say he looked good when he died.(sings) For good sweet Robin is all my joy.

So, wowsa! Ophelia knew what was going down in Denmark! She, in all her madness, picks up on the fact that Gertrude is disloyal to her first husband, that Claudius is in need of repentance, and that neither of them is faithful. 

And all this through flowers....

And as a side note, although not a flower, the fact that Ophelia falls from a willow tree is not a coincidence. Known for its healing properties, the willow's leaves and bark were often used as a remedy for aches and fever. I may be stretching it, but maybe Ophelia's "suicide" was an attempt to heal herself from grief over her father's death? Just a thought....

"To thine own self be true"

This phrase, spoken by Polonius, is possibly the most satirical and ironic idea that Shakespeare included in Hamlet. First of all, it is spoken by the phoniest of all the characters, a councillor to the king who spends most of his time fawning over the royal family and speaking nonsense. Never, throughout the whole play, is he true to his own self. He hides behind his rhetoric, which is ridiculous in and of itself: "Why day is day, night night, and time is time, were nothing but to waste night, day, and time. Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit, and tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes, I will be brief" (Act 2, Scene 2). Because of his unnecessary and flowery language, Polonius is the complete opposite of what he claims to be, brief and to the point. 

Another more physical representation of Polonius being untrue to himself is his tendency to hide behind curtains to eavesdrop. While this habit is strange, childish, and borderline creepy, it also shows his unwillingness to show his true self.  He desires to see behind the masks and lies of others, but not at the risk of leaving his self vulnerable. 

Besides Polonius, there are many, many other examples of characters not being true to themselves. Hamlet hides his indecision behind a facade of madness. Claudius is obviously guilty of fratricide and incest, but conceals it with his mask of sorrow over his brother's death. And then of course there are the players, whose whole purpose in life is to pretend to be someone they're not. 

Although Polonius counsels his son Laertes "To thine own self be true," he does not follow his own advice, and apparently neither does anyone else in the play. This pattern of pretense throughout the play reveals to us Shakespeare's great love of irony, something I'm sure we'll see more often when we move from tragedies to comedies and romances.