Family ties

One trend in themes we have seen since the summer work of this course is the significance of family and lineage throughout the novels. In the beginning of the year we certainly recognize that theme and addressed it in the early works of the semester however as time is going on we stop talking about the themes of family in our readings  From One hundred years of Solitude and Sing Unburied Sing to Hamlet and Oedipus, family and lineage has played a huge role in the way these works were composed. With the slight exception of Dante’s inferno, I think a very significant theme to keep in mind for the midterm on Monday is the importance of family and lineage in literature.

Justice

One of the themes that I feel could apply to many works that we have read this year is a character’s need to make things right and achieve justice. This could be because of a disruption in  the great chain of being or just one person feeling as though there is a situation where someone has been wronged and it needs to be fixed. This concept of justice is most prevalent in Medea and Hamlet. In Medea, Jason broke his promise to her by abandoning their marriage and their children to marry the princess of Corinth. In order to get revenge, Medea kills his new bride and their children. Medea felt as though she was wronged, so she took matters into her own hands to make Jason suffer. In Hamlet, Hamlet needs to avenge his father’s murder by killing his uncle.

¿treacherous?

First of all, it took quite a few tries before I was able to spell treacherous for the title. But the point of this blog post is to relight the topic of treachery in the pieces we read this semester. We see treachery in almost every work. In Media, we see it when she poisons the dress and kills her children and others. In Hamlet, it occurs all the time, with the people listening to others conversations and planning murders with poison. In the Inferno, there is an entire circle of hell, which happens to be the worst circle, just for individuals who committed treacherous acts in their lifetime. Just a reoccurring topic that might be handy to keep in mind as you all prepare for the midterm. Cheers

Why Horatio?

As we all know, Shakespeare’s Hamlet has a devastating ending. Just about every character that we came to know in the story dies. This starts with Ophelia’s suicide caused by her madness. Then in the last scene we see the deaths of the Queen, Gertrude, followed by the King Claudius, then Laertes and finally Hamlet. As Hanlet is dying, he speaks to his good friend Horatio and tells him to live on to tell Hamlet’s story. The thig I was wondering is why does Shakespeare choose to keep Horatio alive out of all the characters? Horatio is the only major character to survive so why him? What’s the importance of Horatio? I decided to some research on this and I found something interesting. Shakespeare possibly gave Horatio his name because it is based on two Latin words: ratio meaning “reason” and orator meaning “speaker”. Knowing this shows two important characteristics of Horatio. Horatio I noticed often serves as someone who shows reason and common sense (mostly when it comes to consulting Hamlet) For example, Horatio doesn’t believe Hamlet at first when Hamlet tells him of seeing his father’s ghost. Also, at the end, when Hamlet telling Horatio to stay alive and tell his story is a reference to how his name based on the Latin word for speaker. Horatio serves as the speaker of Hamlet’s story. That is why Shakespeare chose to keep him alive I believe.

The Supernatural

All of the works we have read this year have one thing in common: in some way or another, they all have elements of the supernatural. In Sing, Unburied, Sing it was the ghosts, in 100 Years the gypsies, in Dante’s Inferno just about everything. Since the prompts on our exam are not about any book in specific, I think keeping in mind the supernatural elements in all of our readings could be important for the exam.

Lack of freedom and its consequences in Hamlet

I believe one of the major themes of Hamlet is that the lack of freedom and the feeling of being trapped by one’s situation can lead to extreme actions, such as suicide, in order to escape and regain control. The two biggest examples of this is Hamlet hamlet and Ophelia. Hamlet is trapped in a situation where his father was murdered, his mother whom he thought loved his father enters into an incestuous marriage quickly after he death, he is told to get over the death of his father only months after, and he is forced to live with the killer of his father, his uncle. When he learns of the murder, he simply can’t tell everyone because that would be treason against the king. Everyone around him, including his friends and Ophelia, are used against him by Claudius and he feels he can trust no one, and to top it all off, the ghost of his father assigns him with the task of revenge. He feels that there is no way out of his situation, so he contemplates suicide as a way out multiple times as a way out, with the most famous occurrence being his “To be or not to be” soliloquy”. He can’t even find it within himself to take revenge because he ponders too much, leading him into a death spiral of depression and hopelessness. On the other hand there is Ophelia, who actually goes on to commit suicide. She is trapped in a world where she has absolutely no control. Her own father and the king manipulate her at every turn and force her to be bate in order to trap Hamlet. When she revealed in the beginning that she loves Hamlet, both her father and her brother forbade her from seeing the man she loved, claiming hey knew better than her when it came to her won life. And, she is forced to listen, because she lives in a society where women have no autonomy and are considered the property to the men closest to them. Then after she is forced to bate Hamlet into a trap, he doesn’t allow her to explain and completely blames her. The man she loved and who she thought to love her back tells her he never loved her, and goes on to jeer at her and make sexual puns towards her to put her down even more. When her father is mindlessly murdered by her ex lover while her brother is away, that is her last straw. She goes completely mad and commits suicide. There are many other examples of this throughout the play, but I believe these to be the two major instances.  

Chaos and Order: Dante's Inferno, The Aeneid, Hamlet

In Vergil’s Aeneid Chaos, Aeneas’s main enemy, is represented by disfigured monsters several times. For example, the giants, with extra limbs and heads, are referenced, and represent chaos. They were also created by nature in response to a disturbance in the great chain of being when some of the gods were overthrown and killed by others. In Dante’s inferno, the creatures and monsters in hell also represent chaos and disorder. Cerberus, with three heads, is greed, for example. In Hamlet, the land is rotting and Hamlet seeks revenge at the murder of his father, which disrupted the great chain of being. Chaos in Hamlet is shown by the confusion characters hold and in the backfiring traps they set; everyone is trying to look over their shoulder and swing their sword at the same time! I think the idea of restoring order or peace is something that is present in most of the prices we have been working with and could be incorporated into an exam essay. Even in Sing, Unburied, Sing, there is a sort of chaos in that there is racism and a past being ignored which needs to be remembered so that peace and justice can be reached.

¿Tragedy?

If I had to guess there will probably be a question on the concerning one of the two types of tragedies. There are two types that we have discussed this year. One of them is the Aristotelean tragedy and the other was the Shakespearean revenge tragedy. 

I suggest you keep in mind the differences between the two, specifically between the "heroes" of both. The Aristotelean hero is someone of imposing stature that has a tragic flaw, such as hubris, that ultimately leads to their downfall. The hero of a revenge tragedy downfall, however, is caused not by a tragic flaw, but instead by actions that the character happens to be thrown into. For example, it wasn't Hamlet's own doing that put him into the situation, it was Claudius and his mother, Gertrude, who killed Hamlet's father. Hamlet got put into a situation that wasn't of his own doing. 

That is just one of the differences between the two, but that difference is a big portion of the distinction between the two genres. What other differences can you think of?  

Foils to Hamlet

In Shakespeare's play, there are two glaring foils to Hamlet: young Fortinbras and Laertes. Fortinbras was also named after his father, who is dead at the beginning of the play, and struggles with the consequences of his death (although not to the same degree as Hamlet, since Fortinbras's father died nobly in combat). He is the prince of his country, and his uncle is the King of Norway, like Hamlet's uncle Claudius is the King of Denmark. Laertes, like both Fortinbras and Hamlet, is a nobleman and has lost a father (although it is a more recent death and part of the play's action). Fortinbras, Laertes, and Hamlet all have a common duty they struggle with: the obligation to avenge their fathers' deaths.

However, while Hamlet questions himself and puts off revenge time and time again, Fortinbras and Laertes both take action rather immediately. Not long after his father's death and subsequent loss of territory to the Danes, Fortinbras raises an entire army and prepares for battle, blatantly ignoring the wishes of his uncle, the King of Norway. As soon as Laertes learns of Polonius's murder, he seethes with murderous intent, saying he will "cut [Hamlet's] throat i' th' church," (Shakespeare 116), implying that he will do anything, even commit a murder on the holy ground of a church, in order to avenge his father's death. Laertes immediately forms a tangible plan with Claudius to murder Hamlet. All three men seemed to be concerned with their fathers' and their own honor, but while Fortinbras and Laertes take action, Hamlet does not do anything significant except talk about getting revenge for most of the play. There's a reason why most of the deaths occur in Act V: Hamlet delayed revenge for so long that things got out of hand, causing many pointless deaths. If Hamlet had just killed Claudius when he had the chance (when Claudius was praying), Polonius, Gertrude, Laertes, Ophelia, and maybe even Hamlet would still be alive.

Death As the "Great Equalizer" in Hamlet

Throughout the play, Shakespeare (through Hamlet) makes many statements about the nature of death, specifically that it truly is the "great equalizer." In Act IV, Scene III, right after Hamlet has killed Polonius, the King asks Hamlet where Polonius is (despite knowing the answer). Hamlet answers, "'At supper [...] not where he eats, but where he is eaten. [...] Your fat king and your lean beggar is but variable service--two dishes, but to one table. That's the end'" (Shakespeare 98). Here, Hamlet is questioning the true nature or purpose of social status and wealth. Neither is eternal; no matter how rich or powerful we are, we are all going to die eventually (and be eaten by maggots in the soil of the Earth). Later on, in Act V, Scene I, when Hamlet and Horatio are in the graveyard, Hamlet picks up a skull and again questions the meaning of life: "'To what base uses we may return, Horatio! [...] Alexander died, Alexander was buried, Alexander returneth to dust [...] Imperious Caesar, dead and turned to clay [...]'" (126). Here, Hamlet references two great leaders of the past, Alexander the Great and Caesar. While they were magnificent figures in life, they shared the same fate as Yorick, the old court jester Hamlet once knew. Hamlet's sentiment that Alexander "returneth to dust" echoes the Book of Genesis's famous quote, "For you were made from dust, and to dust you will return." In Hamlet, Shakespeare conveys that no matter our station in life, we will all die--a sad but true reality.

Hamlet and The Haunting of Hill House

One of the motifs we have discussed in Hamlet is traps, and especially, backfiring traps, as well as acting and false appearances. I recently finished the last episode of a chilling series on Netflix called The Haunting of Hill House. (Minor spoilers!) The house itself is almost alive; it shifts itself and creates mentally impactful visions to pull the family in and swallow them up one by one. For instance, it tried several times to lure characters into the Red Room by taunting them with a seemingly perfect reality. These attempts were all traps and false appearances; many deaths were caused by falling into these traps. The characters too try to trick the house, but these plans always backfire and end up leading them into danger. The house's tricks follow the characters, even if they are far away; the ghosts seem to be keeping an eye on them, just like Hamlet's mother and uncle, wherever they go. This show wasn't truly about the horror, though; it was about family and emotions. Hamlet, in a similar way, isn't only about vengeance or evading traps; there is a focus on the emotion aspects to each decision, mental struggles, and character relationships.

Hamlet and Destiny 2

Hamlet's main goal in the play is to get vengeance for his father's murder. While playing a game I love, called Destiny 2, I realized a few parallels to the play regarding vengeance. One of the main mentor characters in the game is killed and it's up to the player to avenge him by taking up arms and seeking out the enemy. The other two remaining mentors have very different views about the morality of revenge, though. One of them had a view I thought was similar to Hamlet's; she saw it as a duty to avenge their friend and saw it as cowardly to shy away from the deed. Hamlet too feels that not avenging the murder would make him a coward. The other of the two mentors thinks that it is better to focus on the city and that taking vengeance would be useless. This reminded me of when one of Hamlet's friends thought he should focus on the kingdom and on being next in line for the throne. I also thought about the traditional Christian view on revenge and Hamlet's view; The second destiny mentor seems to take the more traditional view while the first takes a view similar to Hamlet.

Shakespeare Adaptations Throughout the 20th Century

As a person whose been involved in theater for a while now, I can't help but admire adaptations of Shakespeare plays that have both retained the charms of the original play and created its own. Romeo and Juliet is arguably the most famous play from Shakespeare, so naturally it has seen countless adaptations throughout the years. "West Side Story", first premiered in 1957, is an excellent example of a "modern spin" on Shakespeare that maintains the essence of the original play. Who said Romeo and Juliet can't involve racial tension, gang violence, and great musical numbers? Another more recent example is probably one of my favorite movies of all time, "Romeo + Juliet (1996)" - and no, it's not because Leonardo de Caprio plays Romeo. The color scheme of every frame is eccentric and captivating, making the passion, violence, and heartbreak all the more extravagant. 

Kronborg Castle

Hamlet and the rest of the royal court live in Kronborg Castle, which is still around today. The castle has been around since around 1420. It was burned to the ground in 1629 and had to be rebuilt. Every summer, the play is put on in the castle's courtyard. It is located on a sound that connects to the Baltic Sea. Here are some pictures of this beautiful castle.

Why I much prefer watching "Hamlet" rather than reading it

Hamlet is a great story. This is not an opinion. It's a fact--a fact that is proven given its still vast popularity over 400 years after it was written. One that is proven given it was written by Shakespeare, an undisputed literary genius. Just as one can not deny Tom Brady's greatness even if they themselves do not like him, there is no denying the greatness of Hamlet.

With that in mind, though, I believe that by reading Hamlet, readers sacrifice much of the work's brilliance. Hamlet is a play. It was written to be a play! It was written to be watched! No matter how well-translated the story may be or how good the footnotes may be, reading it simply doesn't do it justice. Although Hamlet is still often performed by various casts, watching the play is not always a plausible option. Firstly, it's unlikely that an iteration of the play is running near you when you want to experience it. Secondly, in order to truly study Hamlet, a play isn't a very feasible option, as you have to watch it straight through. With a movie, you are able to visualize the scenes (as intended) and you are able to pause the film in order to analyze important speeches. For these reasons, I believe watching Hamlet as a film is the best way to experience it.

Kenneth Branagh

The film adaptation of Hamlet, made in 1996, features Kenneth Branagh as the main character. As I watched him in class, I was stunned by the emotion and craftsmanship involved in his performance; he overflowed with the passion and angst that Shakespeare's Hamlet embodies during the written play. He uses Hamlets "madness" as an instrument for what some may call excessive acting, doing all with such intensity that many believe it to be too much. Critic Waitsel Smith believes this confidence reflected in his acting was due to overwhelming success and ego, stating that "he was beginning to fancy himself as a sex symbol, a movie star and the successor to Lawrence Olivier." He notes other perceived "flaws" in his portrayal of Hamlet (Branagh directed the film as well as acted in it) as he notes that the anachronistic approach taken makes the film "overtly opulent".
For insight into Branaghs vision, watch this interview in he which describes some of his intentions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGX_qtZFtGc

I'm interested to hear what you guys think regarding the intensity of the acting and the portrayal of Hamlet. Though I can understand how the audience may find the film to showcase "overacting," I believe this sort of delivery is necessary in such an assertive and pathos filled play. After all, "to be or not to be" is not a light question - you can't ask it in a normal tone and expect the weight of the words to be perceived. That being said, this form of acting definitely requires someone who is not only genius, but has a deep capacity for emotion.
Smith puts it well when he states,"Hamlet is extremely interesting because it shows, on the one hand, the beauty of Kenneth Branagh's genius, and, on the other, the excesses of his madness."

"To be or Not to Be"

I'll be completely honest: before reading Hamlet, I was entirely unaware that the famous phrase "To be, or not to be" comes from this Shakespearean play. I had heard the phrase of course but was clueless as to its whereabouts. To be fair, though, I don't think I'm in the minority in this regard. When I asked my parents about this quote, they both responded that they are entirely familiar with it but neither knew its origins. My sister, too, admitted that she only became aware of this famous adage's origins after reading Hamlet her senior year.

All that being said, however, I still believe these words and the soliloquy in which they're found invoke some intriguing existential thought. In the most simple of explanations, Hamlet essentially asks whether it is better to live or to die. He speaks this soliloquy when he is suicidal, so he seems to believe that death is better than life. Hamlet says the only thing stopping him (and others) from suicide is the fear of the afterlife. He feels that life is awful but that he and others are too weak to commit suicide.

While I appreciate the thought that Hamlet's speech engenders, I don't like how Hamlet extends his depression to humanity as a whole. Hamlet seems to associate his hatred of life with everybody else hating life. What are your thoughts on this? Do you think Hamlet is acting out of emotion here or that he truly believes that all humans hate life?

Hamlet and Kate Chopin's The Awakening

SO this is a bit of a throwback to sophomore English when we read The Awakening by Kate Chopin but as I was reading Act 4 Scene 7 ***stop now because there are SPOILERS if you haven't read yet**** I immediately thought of a similarity between Ophelia's supposed suicide/death of drowning into the river because her clothes were too heavy and Edna's suicide into the ocean with rocks in her pocket. I remember the ambiguity of Edna's suicide, whether it was an act of rebellion or a submission to the hurt and difficulty in her life, but for the purposes of comparing it to Ophelia's death, I think I would say it is submission. Ophelia definitely lost herself to Hamlet and grew mad, so whether her death was a suicide or an accident she already submitted herself long before, unfortunately like Edna as well.

Shakespeares coined phrases

In Act 1, Scene 3, Polonius sends Laertes off for school in France with a very significant message and advice. In my opinion, I actually kinda agree with Polonius on most of these. He tells him to have integrity, to be practical, to keep his thoughts to himself, to be familiar and comfortable but not vulgar, not to make rash decisions, to listen more than talk, to hold onto old friends and be cautious with new ones, to be true to himself, to be slow to a quarrel but fight boldly, to dress rich but not gaudily, and finally to refrain from borrowing or lending money. That last one coined a phrase that people currently use even  today, “Neither a borrower nor a lender be”.  We've seen that a lot so far: Shakespeare creating phrases in his works that the whole world still uses so often in modern times. It's kind of crazy that good ole Shakey's words were that significant and impactful. It got me wondering about what other catchphrases we unknowingly quote Shakespeare during on a day to day basis. 
Here's a list of  some phrases that I did know, and ones I didn't: 

“Dead as a doornail” — (Henry VI Part II)
“For goodness’ sake” — (Henry VIII)
“Laughing stock” — (The Merry Wives of Windsor)
“One fell swoop” — (Macbeth)

"In a pickle" (The Tempest)
"Pomp and circumstance" (Othello)

"As good luck would have it” — (The Merry Wives of Windsor)

“Break the ice” — (The Taming of the Shrew)

“Wear my heart upon my sleeve” — (Othello)

“Wild-goose chase” — (Romeo and Juliet)

Enjoy! :)

Shakespeare Globe Visit

In reading Shakespeare's Hamlet, I can't help to think about the St. Martin's Europe Trip this past summer when we visited Shakespeare's Globe Theater to view the production of "As you Like it." "As you like it" is a Shakespearean comedy performed in full verse with many gender role reversal characters played on stage. It was cool to see how Shakespeare's works were genuinely intended to be performed. Sitting down in would could be considered an artifact was amazing, and seeing the performance of Shakespeare rather than reading one of his plays was eye-opening. For this reason, especially after seeing "As you like it," I greatly appreciate being able to watch Hamlet on screen if not in the theater so that the words could come to life as Shakespeare intended. 

P.S. Attached is a picture of my view from this summer. 

The Diverse Talents of Kenneth Branagh

While watching Hamlet (the film) in class on Monday, I noticed many people taken aback by Kenneth Branagh's pretty bizarre portrayal of Hamlet. I must admit, it is a little wild, but in my opinion, Shakespeare intended for Hamlet to act crazy! If we look at the text, Hamlet himself intends to act crazy (to fool the King, Queen, and Polonius). I, for one, love Kenneth Branagh as Hamlet (although I was taken aback by the platinum blond hair at first, I've gotten used to it now). I recognized him from the Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets movie (which you MUST watch, Ms. King, if only to see Kenneth Branagh!), in which he played the self-absorbed, fraudulent Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher, Gilderoy Lockhart. As I had never researched Branagh before, I Googled him and was surprised to discover that a man I only knew from a single Harry Potter film had such a wide artistic range!

Kenneth Branagh has acted out a very diverse set of roles. Aside from Hamlet and Gilderoy Lockhart, he has taken on many other Shakespearian projects (such as King Henry V, Macbeth, and Othello), acted in action or war movies (Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit and Dunkirk), and even lent his voice to a character in an animated Dreamworks movie, The Road to El Dorado. Branagh also directed films, including Hamlet, other Shakespeare-based movies, Disney's live-action Cinderella, and even Marvel's Thor. He's also been nominated for five Oscars--all in different categories!

In short, Kenneth Branagh is amazing. Here are some pictures from some of his roles.

Hamlet, Hamlet (1996)

Gilderoy Lockhart, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)

Macbeth, Macbeth (2013)

Commander Bolton, Dunkirk (2017)

Source: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000110/#director

Hamlet and Macbeth

As we've been reading Hamlet, I've often noticed similarities to the play we read last year, Macbeth. Both plays are by Shakespeare (to state the obvious), both are titled by the names of their protagonists, and both are tragedies. Hamlet and Macbeth are both princes or lords and could possibly become king in the future. Both see ghosts who were murdered. Hamlet encounters his father, murdered by Claudius; and Macbeth sees Banquo, whom he ordered to be murdered, at a feast. However, there are many differences between the two plays.

First of all, Hamlet seems to be younger and less experienced than Macbeth. He isn't married, and he seems more a scholar than a warrior, whereas Macbeth was a revered for his prowess in battle. While Macbeth seems to be a true Aristotelian tragic hero and is brought down from a great height (becoming king) by his tragic flaw (ambition), Hamlet is a completely different story. While Hamlet is a tragedy, it is often called a "revenge tragedy" (like Medea), rather than an Aristotelian tragedy. Hamlet does not seem to have a flaw in his character or personality traits; he is simply brought to madness by trying to get revenge on his uncle Claudius for murdering Hamlet, Sr. Shakespeare does use common themes of tragedy among royalty or nobility in many of his plays, but he manipulates the structure, plot, and characters to keep his works diverse and original.

One final note: Lady Macbeth is wayyyy cooler than either Gertrude (who marries her husband's brother and murderer--ew, incest!) or Ophelia (who, although Hamlet treats her poorly, seems like a pretty whiny tattletale; keep your love letters to yourself, girl!).

The 9 Spheres of Heaven - Paradiso

This is sort of like a part 2 to my other post about Purgatorio. Because it was a lot to put in one post, I broke it up into two.  Here, I will follow up by talking about Paradiso. Again, as I stated in my previous post, I wanted to research Purgatorio and Paradiso just out of curiousity after having just read a good portion of Inferno and taken a test on it.

Dante’s Paradiso is, obviously, Dante’s adventure through heaven with a final end goal of reaching God himself. Up until this point, Vergil has guided him in both Inferno and Purgatorio but he can not enter heaven since he is inelgible due to being a pagan that came before Christ was born. However, Dante is led by the woman he loves, Beatrice, instead. One thing I find interesting about Paradiso is the fact that most of the 9 spheres are named after Celestial Bodies: The Moon, Mercury, Venus, The Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn in that order for the first 7 levels, then the next levels are named the Fixed Stars and the Primum Mobile which is Latin and literally translates to “The First Moving Thing” (in this case it is talking about God since he was obviously the first bein to ever exist). For the 9 spheres of heaven, it doesn’t seem to have many benefits to being in a higher level than in a lower level except for the fact that the higher up you are, the closer you are to God which is reward enough for those in heaven. In fact, the article I read even describes the lowest level (The Moon) as the souls be “punished” to the lowest level of heaven due to failure to keep vows during their lives. However, the only punishment that they are receiving is that they are farthest from God. One of the most interesting levels I thought though was the Fixed Stars (the 8th sphere). Here, Dante is able to meet several biblical figures including the Virgin Mary and the Apostles Peter, John, and James. The final level, the Primum Mobile, only consists of 9 circles of Angels surrounding a bright light (God) and no humans but Dante is able to go there himself which I find interesting. Dante, with Beatrice, then ascends to the Empyrean, a level which is beyond the physical heavens. He is enveloped with light and finally visits God. This concludes the Divine Comedy. I find this very intriguing and I may read this as well as Purgatorio one day if I get the chance! For more information on Paradiso see the first link below. For more information on Purgatorio see my other blog post or the second link below.

Source:
https://historylists.org/art/9-spheres-of-heaven-dantes-paradiso.html

https://historylists.org/art/9-levels-of-purgatory-dantes-purgatorio.html

Playacting in Shakespeare’s Hamlet

The motif of playacting is prevalent throughout Hamlet. Hamlet himself, on multiple occasions, makes puns with the words “play” and “act.” He is also putting on a show for the King, Queen, and most everyone else. Hamlet pretends he has gone mad to manipulate those around him. He believes that if people (especially his uncle Claudius) think he’s mad, they’ll try and get closer to him or drop their guard. Hamlet’s ultimate goal is to discover the truth about his father’s death (or murder) and avenge him, as per tradition. Hamlet wishes to trick Claudius into revealing that he murdered the late king at none other than a play they are both attending!  Another theme Shakespeare loves to play with (haha, get it, play) is appearance versus reality. In my opinion, as Hamlet gets deeper and deeper into acting like a madman, he slowly begins to lose his sanity for real. I believe Shakespeare is trying to convey that if you live your life like you’re in a play (if it’s all just an act), you can lose sight of reality.

The 9 levels of Purgatory - Purgatorio

The other day, after taking a test on Dante’s Inferno, I was thinking about Dante’s other two famous works of The Divine Comedy, Purgatorio and Paradiso. I decided to look up articles that explain the 9 levels of each poem. For the sake of brevity, I will explain Purgatorio in this posting explain Paradiso in another post.

Purgatorio has a really interesting way of depicting Purgatory. The 9 levels are purgatory are split between the first two levels (the Ante-Purgatory reserves for people with stubbornness and for the repentful) and the next 7 levels which are reserved for sinners of the 7 deadly sins (Pride, Envy, Wrath, Sloth, Greed, Gluttony, and Lust in that order from lowest level to top most level). What I find interesting is that Dante, before he leaves the 2nd level of Ante Purgatory, he has an angel draw 7 Ps on his head. As he ventures through each level of purgatory, the Ps are removed from his head by angels. What’s funny is that some of the levels of purgatory seem to have a worse punishment than the hell counterparts of the same sins and if not worse then just as bad. For example, the Lustful are forced to run through a wall of fire while shouting out examples of chastity, the opposite of lust (by the way, each level seems to make a reference to the opposite of the sin the level represents). Another example is with the prideful. Although pride isn’t present in Dante’s Inferno as a circle, the punishment here does seem pretty hellish. They are forced to carry weights on their back hunched over which causes them pain. While they carry these weights, statues of humility, the opposite of pride, surround them. The people are in Limbo have it easier than some of these people in purgatory! However, it doesn’t last for eternity since they are in purgatory. In fact, something I found interesting was the way Dante handles a soul being ready to advance to heaven. When a soul is ready, a tremor (a slight earthquake) happens. When Dante escapes Purgatory he reaches the Earthly paradise which is at the peak of mount purgatory (it’s almost like a 10th level of purgatory similar to how hell has a pre-level with the neutrals). The state of the Earthly Paradise mimicks that of Earth during the time when Adam and Eve first came into existence, before original sin happened. This seems really interesting and I may give it a read one day! For more information on each level of purgatory, see the link below. If you are also interested in Paradiso, see the other link which explains the 9 spheres or see my other blogpost.

Source:
https://historylists.org/art/9-levels-of-purgatory-dantes-purgatorio.html
https://historylists.org/art/9-spheres-of-heaven-dantes-paradiso.html

The Ever-Entertaining Polonius

Maybe it's just me, but thus far, I think Polonius has been a hoot! Ok true--he's been a condescending, self-centered, nosy hoot, but my point stands.

#1: He's quite the loquacious giver of advice. On page 21-22, he gives Laertes oodles and oodles of advice before Laertes heads off to France. I mean, he's being fatherly (I guess), but I also think he just wants to hear himself talk.

#2: Then, as we discussed in class, he precedes to give Ophelia advice about her relationship with Hamlet. At first, I thought he was just demonstrating some fatherly concern for Ophelia, worried about her getting her heart broken. I soon realized I couldn't have been further off the mark. Not only does he treat her as an idiot (yes, his very own daughter), but he's more concerned about his reputation than her well-being. He does make some solid points about young men being fickle and about Hamlet's status, but he does so for his own benefit and in a condescending manner (calling her a "green girl" (23), for example).

#3: This next instance is perhaps my favorite. Polonius sends "his man Reynaldo" to France to find a Dansker to help him spy on Laertes. Then, Reynaldo is supposed to say something to the Dansker along the lines of, "Hey, do you know Laertes? He's that Danish dude who drinks, fights, cusses, and enjoys the company of prostitutes." Ultimately, the end goal is to find out what Laertes is up to. Polonius is using a deceptive trap to uncover the truth. I guess it's just a means to an end. Do y'all think that's justifiable?

#4: Finally (so far), Polonius concocts a scheme to find out if Hamlet is lovesick for Ophelia. The gist of the plan is that he will hide while Ophelia confronts Hamlet. Then he'll find out whether Hamlet's aching heart is the source of his pain and report back to the king and queen.

As annoying as Polonius might be in real life (hypothetically), in the context of the play, he's a character whose lines I love to read. I never know what's going to come out of his mouth next or what kind of childish plot he's going to devise. As a reader, he keeps me on my toes, and I've managed to see past his arrogance and self-absorption. What about y'all?

Paradise/Purgatory Through My Eyes

During my trip to Pennsylvania a couple of days ago, I had a layover in Detroit. The sky was grey and with the leafless trees and yellow grass (no snow), it looked dead, depressing, and simply ugly. However, when I got back into the air, I was stunned when I saw the clouds from above. What I saw resembled every depiction of heaven in movies or tv shows with a beautiful blue sky and ground covered in clouds. I think that in some way this resembles purgatory and paradise because the beauty of paradise (my airplane view) is literally and symbolically above the depressing image and ugliness of purgatory or hell (my view on the ground). Here is a picture I took of the clouds and trust me that it looked much better in person (sorry for taking the picture vertically). 

The Banner in Ante-Inferno

As Dante comes to a close this week in English I thought I would give one last direct blog post to this work :)

Recently in religion class, we watched a movie about Christianity, specifically referencing Constantine’s banner. Although it is hard to imagine any specific image Dante had in mind concerning this, I immediately thought of the punishment in Ante-Inferno of the souls forced to chase a banner for eternity. I mentioned this to Father Millican to which we had a lengthy conversation exploring it a bit more so I thought I would share!

During war times, it was standard practice to follow a banner like one would a battle flag and Constantine’s specifically symbolized a level of commitment. The reason I correlated this banner to Dante was due to the setting the souls are in as a result of their NON-COMMITMENT. Ante-Inferno is where the neutral souls go, such as the archangels who did not choose between Satan and God. Father Millican told me: “Following a banner of any sort would represent the cause or the region for which you would fight, give your life, etc.” So a blank banner they have to chase for eternity is an appropriate punishment to show that there was nothing they gave their life or fought for because they made no distinct choice. *sigh* tragic...

"Incestuous Sheets"

In his soliloquy, Hamlet reflects on the relationship of his mother and Claudius, cursing Gertrude ("O, most wicket speed, to post with such dexterity to incestuous sheets!") Later on, the ghost makes the same claim, concluding that the marriage is in violation of the laws against intercourse between close kin. However, other members of the Danish court imply that the marriage is not only lawful, but morally acceptable. The relationship that a widow can have with the kin of the deceased was a heated debate topic in the sixteenth century, in part due to the divorce trial of Henry VII and Catherine of Aragon (Henry VII married his brothers widow). Furthermore, the Bible doesn't give clear commands regarding this matter.
The conversation revolving around this relationship continues today as readers try to determine how they should view such a marriage. Personally, even though its far from Oedipus status, I think these sorts of marriages still seem a bit creepy. That being said, I don't think I would classify it as "incest" as there is no blood relation between the two getting married.
What do you think?