Double time and double age. Interesting facts History of creation - The tragedy of Hamlet in the romanticism of the 17th century
"Hamlet" is a tragedy of conscience and in this sense a prototype of those tragedies
which the Slavic soul is destined to experience, which experiences
disintegration of will, feeling and consciousness. This makes Hamlet's fate
especially understandable and prophetic for Russia. "Hamlet" for Russia
almost a national tragedy. In whatever variants and interpretations
No matter how she is portrayed, it is difficult for her not to capture the heart of the Russian crowd.
M. Voloshin
Hamlet's bad manners
T tragedy "Hamlet" - work school curriculum. The play is supposed to be studied in the 9th grade. Isn't it early? Yes and no. Thirteen to fifteen years old is the age that understands Hamlet’s experiences. This is exactly the time when a child’s faith in the infallibility of loved ones collapses, when a rebellion against the lies of the adult world matures, when the betrayal of first friendship and first love brings unbearable pain and the question “to be or not to be?” rises with unprecedented poignancy.
However, the age of Hamlet himself in the play is a mystery. Various researchers are trying to determine it based either on historical realities or on the psychology of the hero. But both paths lead to approximately the same result. At the beginning of the play, yesterday's dropout student at the University of Wittenberg cannot be more than twenty years old. Hamlet's youth is also evidenced by Gertrude's youth. However, the skull of the jester Yorick, who raised Hamlet, lay in the ground, as gravediggers say, for exactly twenty-three years. This means that Hamlet is at least thirty years old. The logic of Hamlet’s behavior in the first part of the play: his vulnerability, harshness, inexperience - testify to the hero’s youth. Hamlet of the second part is a sage, a philosopher, ready to take responsibility for the fate of the century, a mature man. This gives rise to the version in Shakespeare studies that the age of the hero (as well as time in general in Shakespeare) is a mythopoetic phenomenon. Time here flows not in physical reality, but in spiritual space. Between the beginning and the end of the tragedy in real time there are several weeks, in spiritual time it is a decade.
Twenty and fifteen years are, of course, not the same thing. But centuries are different. Children have long appropriated the “adult” literature of the past. And science has long drawn attention to the fact that the psychological age of modern teenagers is close to the consciousness of young people of past eras. By the way, one of the greatest theater teachers of the Moscow Art Theater school, Leopold Antonovich Sulerzhitsky, first tried to stage Hamlet when he was twelve years old. Subsequently, when he was almost forty, he became a co-author of the production of G. Craig and K.S. Stanislavsky.
“Once they brought a luxurious “Shakespeare” to my father for binding. My son read everything in one gulp, and, one might say, learned “Hamlet” by heart. Here he staged the tragedy; a friend provided an apartment, the teenagers assigned roles. Polya painted the scenery and rehearsed the performance.<…>Paul directed, dressed the actors and portrayed the orchestra. The Spirit of Hamlet's father, draped in a sheet and placed on stilts, let him down: he fell and knocked over the lamp from the wardrobe with the sheet-shroud. A fire started. The actors and spectators ran out into the street, forgetting about the fur coats folded in the hallway. The firefighters were called. True, the flames were put out before they appeared. But the long-suffering Anton Matveevich (father) had to pay for calling the firefighters and for damaging things. The son was flogged, he was ordered to forget the word “theater”. At the age of fourteen, Polya left the gymnasium. Or, simply put, he is expelled for his passion for theater.” This tragicomic story seems to serve as an excellent parable about the essence of the relationship between Hamlet, the theater and the school.
All the great, legendary Hamlets in Russia were played by actors over thirty. Alexey Yakovlev in 1810 - at thirty-seven years old, Pavel Mochalov in 1837 - at thirty-seven years old, Alexander Lensky in 1877 - at thirty years old, Vasily Kachalov in 1911 - at thirty-six years old, Mikhail Chekhov in 1924 - at thirty-three years old, Innokenty Smoktunovsky in 1964 - at thirty-nine years old, Vladimir Vysotsky in 1971 - at thirty-three years old, Evgeny Mironov in 1998 - at thirty-two years old. But they all played rebellious, often rude, often emphatically young. Because, as a rule, only very young people cannot come to terms with hypocrisy, with the discrepancy between the “visible” and the “real”, they do not know how to adapt to “palace rituals” and “rules of decency”, they scream from mental pain and rush with a drawn sword against well-oiled machine of social order.
Every time Russian theatrical incarnation great role caused a strong reaction. Both spectators and critics passionately argued about Mochalov and Kachalov. Mikhail Chekhov was furiously criticized in the press, and the public kept coming to the performance. The authorities took up arms against Vysotsky and Smoktunovsky, but critics and viewers united in passionate love for these heroes. Rarely did the great Russian Hamlets appear during the years of storms and changes, during the years of construction and enthusiasm. More often they came in the twilight of reaction, in the dead end of stagnation.
We cannot see the play of most Russian Hamlets, but we can read living, dissimilar texts about it and imagine a series of these beautiful rude people and rebels.
Demonic Hamlet of the 30s
The first of the most legendary was Mochalov. The image he created is inseparable from the features of N. Polevoy’s translation, where the key phrase was “I’m scared for MAN!”
And here Belinsky again: “Polonius shouts: “Fire! fire!"; the crowd hurriedly leaves the stage; Hamlet looks after her with an incomprehensible expression. Suddenly, with one lion's leap, like lightning, Mochalov flies from the bench to the middle of the stage and, stamping his feet and waving his arms, fills the theater with an explosion of hellish laughter... - Oh, it was a Macabre dance (the dance of the dead. - A.N.) despair, having fun with his torments, reveling in his burning torments... At that moment his usual growth disappeared: we saw before us some terrible phenomenon, which, under the fantastic brilliance of theatrical lighting, separated from the ground, grew, and stretched out into everything the space between the floor and the ceiling of the stage, and swayed on it like an ominous ghost...”
But here is a fragment of the same article by Belinsky - from it it is clear why the “decent” Russian public disliked Mochalov’s Hamlet: “Having met Guildenstern and Rosencrantz with an expression of mocking or, better said, abusive joy, he ( Hamlet–Mochalov) began his conversation with them, like a man who does not want to hide his contempt and his hatred from them, but who does not want to violate decency. “Oh, by the way: how did you annoy fortune that she sent you to prison?” - he asks them with an expression of sly innocence. “To prison, prince?” - Guildenstern objects. “Yes, after all, Denmark is a prison,” Hamlet answers them a little drawn out and with an expression of caustic and painful feeling, accompanying these words with a shake of his head. “So the whole world is a prison?” asks Rosencrantz. “Of course. The world is just a prison, with different partitions and compartments,” Hamlet answers with feigned composure and a tone of some kind of comic conviction, and suddenly, changing his voice, with an expression of hatred and disgust, he adds, waving his hand: “Denmark is the most disgusting department.”
Who will believe that in Nikolaev Russia in 1837, where Pushkin had just been killed, in Russia, which is criticized as the “gendarme of Europe,” this is said about Denmark? Hamlet's pain in Russia is always about Russia. This was the case before Mochalov with Dmitrevsky and Yakovlev. It will be like this later.
All the demons of this age
The next legendary Hamlet will appear at the Moscow Art Theater in 1911. The time is between the past horror of 1905 and the future horror of 1914. Grigory Rasputin is gaining power at court. Stolypin has just been killed. Leo Tolstoy recently died, and Russian society feels orphaned. In 1911, the Moscow Art Theater had two main premieres of the season - and both were about conscience: “The Living Corpse” and “Hamlet”.
This production of Hamlet by the Moscow Art Theater brought together too many crises - global, social, personal - for it to turn out to be an absolute success. But at the same time, the knot of crises and contradictions that became the “main proposed circumstance” of the creation of this performance provided him with an incredible tension of experimental search, discoveries and insights. World war is brewing in Europe. Directors of various European theaters, like Stanislavsky, are looking for ways to create a new, spiritual, anti-bourgeois theater in its inner essence. A studio is being born in the Moscow Art Theater itself, where for the first time they are trying to study “according to the system.” Stanislavsky and Nemirovich stop working together. Soon everyone will begin to stage in their own way and with their favorite creative group. V. Kachalov, perhaps more than anyone else, is Nemirovich’s actor. But now he is Hamlet in a play staged by English director Gordon Craig. The Englishman wanted Konstantin Sergeevich himself to play the main role. But he, who was willing to make concessions to Craig in many other ways, categorically opposed. Craig was against Kachalov: “Too smart, too thinking.” But Stanislavsky insisted that Kachalov play.
The Englishman retained the overall artistic concept, direction of the production, design of the scenery, and entrusted the work with the actors to Stanislavsky and Sulerzhitsky. According to the majority of eyewitnesses and researchers of this work, it turned out that the director's plan and the acting performance came into conflict. From Craig in the play the beginning is symbolist, generalized, rational. From the actors - realistic, concretely life-like, emotional. And only Kachalov-Hamlet ended up somewhere in the middle, and was the greatest success of the performance. By the way, this was one of the few Hamlets on the Russian stage who was not accused of bad manners. This was, as the Englishman rightly noted, Hamlet the thinker.
Craig staged the play behind golden vertical screens. Screens “give monumental architecture to the stage. Whatever combinations you place them in, they are always strictly constructive. They retain the logic of large stone masses, subject to the laws of gravity and perspective. For symbolic plays, taking place outside of time and space, and for tragedies developing in conventional countries and eras, this is, without a doubt, a suitable setting. Human figure against the background of “screens” - sounds fuller and deeper than against the background of painted scenery. They are wonderful resonator gesture. In Hamlet, the best pictures are those illuminated by slanting columns of white rays falling from invisible but supposed windows.”
Stanislavsky wrote about this performance as follows: “Craig greatly expanded the inner content of Hamlet. For him, he is the best person, passing through the earth as its purifying sacrifice... For the myopic gaze of little people who do not know life not only on the other side of this world, but even outside the palace wall, Hamlet naturally seems abnormal. When Craig spoke of the inhabitants of the palace, he meant all of humanity.”
The master of Russian theater sincerely believed that he strictly followed Craig's artistic instructions when working with the actors. But Craig needed masks and silhouettes - symbols. And “Stanislavsky has already passed the period of his fascination with silhouettes. Now he is again of paramount interest Human” .
They say, saying goodbye to Russia, Craig exclaimed: “They stabbed me!” Kachalov played Hamlet in his own way. It's interesting, even brilliant, but it's not mine, not my Hamlet, not at all what I wanted! They took my “screens”, but deprived the performance of my soul.”
Kachalov himself told theater critic N. Efros: “What worries me most is Hamlet’s worldly sorrow, which gave him contempt for life for its imperfection, poverty, meaninglessness, evil.<...>Hamlet’s tragedy is a curse from double consciousness: the imperfection of life and the impossibility of turning it into perfection.”
And what came out, according to M. Voloshin, from all this is this: “Hamlet sits alone on the dark proscenium, distant from the depths of the stage, where, like a golden iconostasis, the throne with the king and queen rises, surrounded by hierarchical circles of courtiers. The scene is given the character of Hamlet’s vision, which fits perfectly with the previous appearance of the shadow, indicating in advance that the entire development of the tragedy will take place in the inner chamber obscura of the soul, where thoughts, worries and passions are the same realities as everyday circumstances.
The irony of Hamlet is what Kachalov does best. The only hindrance is that his voice too often contains the intonations of all the demons of this century, in the depiction of which Kachalov specialized - from Anatema to Brand and to the devil Ivan Karamazov.” Stanislavsky. M.: Art, 1977.
"Independent Psychiatric Journal". Moscow. 2003
For more than 400 years, William Shakespeare's tragedy "Hamlet" has not left the stage of the World Theater. The genius of the playwright created the possibility of different interpretations of the image of the Danish prince. Most often we meet two of them. One is noble, spiritual and therefore suffering from internal conflict the necessity and possible illegality of fulfilling a difficult duty - revenge for the father. The other is an exposer of deceit and immorality, rebelling against the fact that his country and “the whole world is a prison” (Vysotsky). However, the play also talks about a certain mental disorder that Hamlet allegedly suffers from. Is this really true? What role did this play in the fate of Hamlet himself and the fate of everyone around him, and perhaps in the fate of the state to whose ruling elite he belonged? What if we take the liberty of giving Hamlet an absentee psychological and psychiatric examination. This requires not only an assessment of the prince’s personality, but also a professional interpretation of his statements and actions in specific circumstances. We will take material for our discussions only from the information contained in the play (translated by M.L. Lozinsky. - William Shakespeare. Selected Works. - Leningrad, 1939).
We know that Hamlet is 30 years old, i.e. He is far from a youth, but a mature husband. According to modern gerontologists, in Shakespeare's time a 40-year-old man was already an old man. The action of the play, apparently, takes place even earlier - in the 12th and 13th centuries. Outwardly, as his mother said, he is “fat and short of breath,” but very dexterous, capable of fighting on equal terms with one of the best swordsmen, Laertes. The prince is well educated and studies at the famous German University of Wittenberg. He is smart, impressionable, loves and knows the theater, and is popular with the common people (“... a violent crowd is partial to him...”). Hamlet lives little directly in his homeland and, despite his age, does not take part in governing the country.
What throne is the prince heir to? According to the play, Denmark (most likely from the 12th century) is a powerful and warlike state, even England pays tribute to it.
Hamlet's father, the late King Hamlet Sr., was a tough ruler, warrior, and conqueror. According to the customs of that time, in a fair fight with the King of Norway, Fortinbras, he took away part of his lands. Now that he is dead, the son of the Norwegian king, Fortinbras the Younger, is going to win them back.
Hamlet's uncle, the current king Claudius, is allegedly his brother's murderer - a power-hungry courtier and a smart politician. It is believed that he took the throne from Hamlet. However, by analogy with the transfer of the throne of Norway to the brother of the deceased king, it can be assumed that the same law existed in Denmark. Claudius's diplomatic abilities were manifested in the fact that he managed to quickly pacify the Norwegian enemy, and subsequently easily calm down Laertes, who had come to avenge his murdered father, Polonius. His character is apparently contradictory: lust for power and deceit are combined in him with torments of conscience, which he speaks about in Act III and during the prayer of repentance.
Hamlet's mother, Queen Gertrude, “heiress of a warlike country,” is by no means young, she is about 50 years old, she has been on the throne for more than 30 years, i.e. She is well acquainted with all the intricacies of governing the country. Her character appears to be firm and decisive. During a short riot by Laertes’ supporters calling for the overthrow of Claudius, the queen was not afraid, but threateningly ordered: “Get back, you vile Danish dogs!” Apparently, her relationship with her late husband, contrary to Hamlet’s opinion, had lost its former tenderness: she took her husband’s death painfully coldly, not emotionally, but rationally reassuring her son: “That is the fate of everyone: everything that lives will die and pass through nature into eternity.” Sudden the death of the king dealt a strong blow to the throne, the Norwegian neighbor decided that “the kingdom had fallen into decay”, revenge was possible. The new king had not yet established himself, he needed support within the country. It can be assumed that Gertrude, without knowing anything, how. , and everything about the details of her husband’s death (officially he died from a snake bite), she made an important political move: sacrificing her reputation, she married the new king just a month after the funeral, perfectly understanding the haste of the marriage, which she then tells Claudius By this same act, she strengthens the position of her beloved son as the heir to the throne: after all, if Gertrude had stepped down from power, then Claudius could have his own heirs. By the way, Claudius admits that he married her, “relying on the wisdom” of his courtiers. It is possible that Gertrude, given the prince’s aloofness from the court, his impressionability, and adoration of his father, did not initiate Hamlet into the true motives of her marriage. It is important to note that there is not a single line in the play in which the queen talks about her feelings for Claudius. It is no coincidence that in plays and films where the image of Gertrude is depicted in a cliche way, her love relationship with the king are demonstrated by mise-en-scène, just a game without words.
And what about Hamlet? He, of course, did not understand anything, took everything literally, only sensually, because he was not a politician, never participated in governing the state, and was not responsible for its fate. The death of his father, the protector, the hero, plunges the emotionally unstable Hamlet into reactive depression, which was aggravated by the immoral, from his point of view, act of his mother. He is gloomy, emaciated, has shortness of breath, and regrets that religion forbids suicide. With his appearance, Hamlet evokes pity and sympathy among those around him. They are trying to help him, cheer him up, console him. The king and mother ask him to stay and not go to Wittenberg. At this moment, the ghost of the late king informs Hamlet about the circumstances of his father’s death, about his uncle’s treachery, and calls on him to take revenge. The shock, layered with depression, caused him psychogenic stress, an acute emotional reaction, possibly with a partially altered consciousness. Ophelia saw Hamlet in soiled clothes, a “pale shirt”, with “knocking knees”, “and with a look so deplorable, as if he had been released from hell to speak about horrors...”. At first everyone decided that Hamlet had gone crazy with love for Ophelia. This emphasizes that his loved ones treated him not as a mature man, but as a young man, an infant.
From that moment on, Hamlet changed dramatically: instead of depression, total suspicion and wariness appeared. With the rare exception of all the courtiers, he included enemies in the camp, suspecting them of treachery and betrayal. As often happens in psychopathology, mental trauma contributed to the development of a monoidea that completely captivates a person and is practically impossible to dissuade or correct. Without a moment’s doubt, at the order of the ghost, Hamlet “...on wings as swift as thoughts, as passionate dreams, rushed to revenge.” Often, in overly emotional and mentally infantile individuals, some kind of injustice suddenly “opens their eyes” to many relationships. At the same time, assessments of all people and events lose their undertones, everything becomes extremely clear and contrasting, not requiring any logical explanation or proof. In his suspicions, Hamlet does not even think about the fact that only Claudius knows about the murder of his father, and that everyone else, including the queen and the courtiers, consider the cause of the death of the former king to be a snake bite. Hamlet is sure that they are pretending that everyone is mired in deceit and vice. It is very characteristic that the desire to take revenge on Claudius spread to the closest, and therefore defenseless, people - his mother and Ophelia. Hamlet tortures them, humiliates them, taking advantage, in particular, of his position as a prince. He is very categorical. Having not yet become king and believing that all women are dissolute, Hamlet declares that “...we will have no more marriages; those who are already married, all but one will live; the rest will remain as they are.”
Hamlet's personality changes. He develops new traits: suspicion, cruelty and deceit. He cold-bloodedly, as if in passing, kills Polonius, the wise and kind person, the father of his beloved and her brother Laertes, with whom he was friends. He kills by accident, by mistake, but he committed a deliberate murder, aiming at the king, thereby fulfilling his main plan. This is quite contrary to Hamlet's notorious indecisiveness. Having committed murder, Hamlet does not regret it at all, speaks of Polonius as “a talkative rogue,” mocks his body, calling him “offal,” and interferes with his burial. Choosing an opportune moment to kill Claudius, Hamlet enjoys revenge; he even savors the upcoming murder. Having an easy opportunity to kill the king during prayer, the prince postpones the execution so that the murdered man does not go to heaven. He plans to kill him while Claudius is sinning so that he will go straight to hell without repentance. Captivated by his paranoid idea of revenge, Hamlet, a member of the royal family, does not even think about what will happen to the country after the murder of Claudius, because... “The death of the sovereign is not alone, but carries everything nearby into the abyss...” To hide his main goal, Hamlet puts on, as it were, the guise of a jester. This allows him to make jokes, humiliate his “enemies,” and make accusatory speeches. However, he is considered a dangerous madman not so much for this, but for his suspicion, aggressiveness, and unpredictability of actions. Since “The madness of the strong requires supervision,” he is placed under surveillance, which he really does not like. After all, like most paranoids, Hamlet does not consider himself sick.
Time contributes to the paranoid development of Hamlet's personality: the action of the play actually takes a long time to unfold. Ophelia, during the actors’ performance, tells Hamlet that 4 months have passed since the king’s death: “That’s already twice two months, my prince.” That is, taking into account that the ghost informed the prince about his murder 2 months later (this follows from Hamlet’s conversation with Horatio), Hamlet’s ideas of retribution and delusional behavior long before many events, before traveling to England and returning home, had already been going on for 2 months and may well acquire a persistent character.
As often happens with paranoia, Hamlet turns into the so-called haunted pursuer. He became cunning. Being completely delusional and completely confident that his school friends are conspiring against him, the prince prepares reprisals against them in advance. We understand from the text of the play that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern do not know the contents of the king's accompanying letter, which they are taking to England simply as obedient courtiers. However, Hamlet does not even try to find out. It is already clear to him that they know and has no doubt that they are preparing a trap for him. Therefore, he is happy to answer them in kind. Even before sailing to England, the prince informs his mother that he will deal with his former friends. “That’s the fun of blowing up a digger with his own mine; it will be bad if I don’t dig deeper than them with a yard to let them go to the moon. There is a beauty in when two cunning things collide.” Therefore, it can be assumed that Hamlet armed himself with a duplicate of the royal seal in advance and thought about how he would replace the cover letter. In a forged letter, he could simply cancel Claudius's order to the English king to deal with him. However, Hamlet, on behalf of the king, sends his former friends to a cruel death, “without even allowing them to pray.” One can again assume that later, when telling Horatio about this episode, Hamlet deceives him, saying that he stole and opened the royal message on the ship because of a bad feeling.
Hamlet's mental disorder is often referred to as his visions and communication with a ghost. This is wrong. When the ghost first appears, it is seen not only by Hamlet, but also by others, which rules out hallucinations. Therefore, the ghost here is simply a stage image as a ghost, etc. In the third act, the ghost corresponds to visual and auditory hallucinations, since only Hamlet sees and talks to him, and Gertrude does not see or hear him. However, we cannot include these hallucinations in the structure of Hamlet’s general mental disorder, because such hallucinations would have to be combined with other mental disorders, which he does not have.
What result did Hamlet’s paranoid idea of vengeance lead to? The main thing is that the prince’s activities destroyed the state power and power of the kingdom. The entire ruling elite of the country died, and the king of Denmark, on a very strange recommendation from Hamlet, will apparently become the revanchist Fortinbras, the son of the Norwegian king defeated by Hamlet’s father.
If you imagine a different ending. Hamlet fulfills his main goal: he kills King Claudius and remains alive. He is the only heir to the throne and therefore becomes king. What kind of ruler would this be? Initially emotionally unstable, prone to depression, lacking management skills, and later becoming suspicious, peremptory, cruel and treacherous, having learned the impunity of murder, the prince would most likely turn into a tyrant.
I wonder why Shakespeare created such an image of Hamlet, which, according to modern psychiatric diagnostics, can be classified as “Paranoid disorder in an emotionally unstable person”? Indeed, even in the times of the playwright, Hamlet’s inappropriate behavior most likely raised doubts. He could also make the actions of Hamlet and the queen more understandable. For example, if the prince's age were reduced to 18 - 19 years old, then his mother, Gertrude, would be about 40. His excessive emotionality and her romantic relationship with Claudius would be more explainable. The play could have 2-3 lines about their mutual feelings. It would be possible to smooth out Hamlet's cruel, treacherous behavior towards Polonius and former friends, do not force the prince to hand over his kingdom to his worst enemy. However, one gets the impression that Shakespeare does all this on purpose, that he does not like Hamlet, that he allows us to see aspects of the prince’s personality that do not agree with our usual ideas about him. What idea did Shakespeare want to express with this? For example, that one crime in the leadership of a country can lead to its complete destruction? Or about the danger of finding such a person as Hamlet in the ruling elite of the state? Or maybe it’s simpler - the heroes themselves, not listening to the author, took him away with them?
*Pathography- description of the personality of famous people based on psychological and psychiatric assessments
In my opinion, the most “poorly explainable character” in Hamlet is Ophelia, and the most confusing relationship is between her and Hamlet.
We don't know how old Ophelia is; and although many call her young, this does not make it clear - Hamlet is also periodically called young, and he, based on the words of the gravedigger that he “serves here as a gravedigger, apprentice and master for thirty years,” and “took up this business just on the day when our late King Hamlet defeated Fortinbras" and "it was on the very day that young Hamlet was born," 30. And even if we assume that from thirty years we should subtract the years when the gravedigger was an apprentice, it is still you can’t subtract much: Yorick’s skull “laid in the ground for 23 years,” and the royal jester carried Hamlet “on his back a thousand times.”
There are no descriptions of Ophelia's appearance; Laertes, for example, speaks about her in general phrases: “Oh my rose! Sweet girl, kind sister, gentle Ophelia!” etc.
When did the romance between Hamlet and Polonius' daughter begin? The prince was absent for a long time, several years, judging by the fact that he was studying at the university; Let's say young Ophelia is 16 - 17 years old; This means that mutual affection with all the seriousness of feelings should have begun a long time ago, when the heroine was about 10-13 years old - it doesn’t seem like it.
The option remains that mutual passion flared up during this tragic visit of Hamlet (he, most likely, attended his father’s funeral, and a month passed from this event until his mother’s wedding and the beginning of the tragedy). And this, apparently, was the month of happy love, when Ophelia discovered in her chosen one “a noble and regal mind”, “the appearance of a courtier, the language of a scientist, the sword of a warrior; the hope and rose of a beautiful state, a mirror of fashion, a model of grace, the one whom everyone imitated , able to observe", "incomparable appearance, the appearance of blooming youth." An eloquent stream, completely unexpectedly escaping from the lips of a girl who, until this moment, had either constantly asked questions (one gets the impression that she carefully hides her thoughts behind the mask of a stupid and submissive child), or answered: “I don’t know, my lord, what I should think,” "I obey, my lord."
There is no plausible explanation why, after Polonius’s ban on dating, Ophelia did not fight for her love, behaved like a puppet and a shameful bait in the hands of Polonius, Claudius and Gertrude (and it was about saving the life of her lover), except for one who says, alas , not in favor of this sweet girl: she was at one with them, in the sense that she consciously participated in intrigues, weaving her own - Ophelia wanted to become a queen (a completely natural desire for a court beauty:) But I leave for myself the opportunity to consider her as a timid, weak-willed creature, suppressed by his father and brother. Although the scene in the theater, when Hamlet, in front of the whole world, sits with his head in Ophelia’s lap (!), and she calmly talks to him, and even in the tone of a seasoned courtesan (“you are disgusting, you are disgusting,” “You are sharp, my lord, you are sharp” - “You would have to moan to dull my edge” - the innocent girl did not blink an eye at such an answer), makes you think that they are in a very close relationship, and they do not even hide it from others. The songs of crazy Ophelia are mainly about the loss of innocence and the disappointed hopes of a girl who has sinned to the crown (I once asked students: “Where do you think an aristocratic girl who grew up at the royal court got such an obscene repertoire?” They answered : "Hamlet taught").
To open a credit of trust to a lover, with whom the relationship barely lasts a month, you need, in my opinion, to be a very decisive and courageous person...
Hamlet loved her; Ophelia is another pain of betrayal in the heart: he guessed about the game, but could not stop loving. (However, the fight scene on her coffin in the grave is barbaric).
Of course, I prefer the image of Ophelia in Millais’s painting or in Rimbaud’s tender poem:
On the black surface of the waters, where the stars sleep carelessly,
Ophelia floats like a huge lily,
Floating, wrapped in a wedding veil.
In the distant forest there is a cry: the deer has slowed down.
Along the gloomy river for a thousand years
Ophelia floats like a flower;
In the millennium, crazy, she won’t finish singing
Your inarticulateness to the night breeze.
But analysis of the image in Shakespeare's tragedy paints a slightly different portrait.
If a creation is perfect, it is less controversial and more difficult to talk about. It's strange that everyone wants to identify themselves with Hamlet, even actresses - Sarah Bernhardt managed to play Hamlet, and I'm glad to say that during the performance she broke her leg. It is acceptable to point out your resemblance to the character, but you should not say: “That’s me.” You might say, "I'm probably more like Claudius than Laertes." Or: “I would rather be Benedict than Orsino.” But when the reader or viewer states: “Here I am,” it sounds a little suspicious. It is suspicious when actors of different roles say: “This is the role I want to play,” instead of suggesting: “I would be successful in this role.” Personally, I doubt that anyone has ever managed to play Hamlet without seeming funny. "Hamlet" is a tragedy with a vacant leading role, just as the role of an improviser in a farce remains vacant. But in Hamlet the role is left open for the tragic actor.
Shakespeare worked on this play for a very long time. For a writer of Shakespeare's clarity and speed, such a delay is a sign of some dissatisfaction. His plan was not fully realized. Thomas Eliot called the play an "artistic failure." Hamlet, the only inactive character, fits poorly into the fabric of the play and lacks sufficient motivation, although the active characters are excellent. Polonius is a kind of would-be pragmatist, dispensing advice left and right and spying on the intimate lives of his children. Laertes wants to look like a brilliant social dandy who goes everywhere - but just don’t touch my sister! And Laertes is also jealous of Hamlet’s intelligence. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. - sing along. Gertrude is a woman who wants love, she likes it when there is romance in her life. Horatio is not very smart, but he is well-read and loves to quote.
The plays of the Hamlet period in Shakespeare's work are magnificent, but they make one wonder whether Shakespeare wanted to abandon drama altogether. "Hamlet" seems to support such doubts. The play shows what Shakespeare might have done if he had had complete freedom of choice: perhaps he would have devoted himself to dramatic monologues. The monologues in Hamlet, as well as in other plays of this period, can be separated from both the characters and the play. In Shakespeare's earlier and later works, monologues are better integrated into the text. The monologue "To be or not to be" in Hamlet (III. 1) is an excellent example of speech that can be alienated from the character and from the play; the same applies to the monologues of Ulysses about time in “Troilus and Cressida” (III. 3), the king about honor in “All’s well that ends well” (II. 3) and the duke about death in “Measure for Measure” (III. 1).
At this time in Shakespeare's life, various problems of writing technique were occupied. The first of these is the relationship in plays between prose and poetry. In the early plays, the "low" or comic characters - for example, Shylock and Lancelot Gobbo in The Merchant of Venice - speak in prose. Sages like Falstaff speak in prose, unlike the passionate Hotspur, who speaks in verse. In As You Like It, contrary to tradition, both the hero and heroine speak in prose. In Twelfth Night, Viola speaks in poetry at court and in prose when alone. In the same play, deceitful or humorless characters speak in verse, while wise people or those who strive for self-knowledge speak in prose. In tragedies, Shakespeare develops an exceptionally rich prose style for the tragic heroes. Hamlet speaks in both poetry and prose. Hamlet speaks in verse in monologues, alone with himself, and in furious, passionate addresses to other characters, as in the scene with his mother. Otherwise, he usually expresses himself in prose. In all the plays of this period, Shakespeare skillfully interweaves prose and poetry. In his later plays, Shakespeare increasingly prefers poetry, resorting to prose either when he is tired or when he needs to fill in the blanks. In "Antony and Cleopatra" the bores speak in prose, the bright characters - in verse.
In addition, Shakespeare's poetic language becomes increasingly flexible. He began with lyric and Marlovian poems, which were complete segments of meaning - they were suitable for expressing high passions. In Hamlet, Shakespeare experiments with caesura, a pause in the middle of a line, to achieve a neutral intonation that is neither passionate nor matter-of-fact. The use of double adjectives becomes more sophisticated. From such a tautological phrase as, for example, “sweet and honeyed speech” in Henry V (I. 1), Shakespeare moves in Hamlet to pairs of definitions that combine the abstract with the concrete. Let us take, as an example, the remarks of Laertes: “And bury yourself in the rear of your desires, / Far from the arrows and destruction of passions” (I. 3), Horatio: “Prince, / Those are wild, incoherent words” (I. 5) and Hamlet : “This is the army, a heavy mass, / Led by an elegant, gentle prince” (IV. 4). George Rylands' book "Words and Poetry" provides a very thorough examination of Shakespeare's language and style.
By the time he wrote Hamlet, Shakespeare seemed to have become tired of comedies, perhaps because they came too easily to him. The passion of language and the intensity of emotion in comedy are limited by the genre, although Shakespeare included both the first and the second with amazing skill. But wanting to move away from comedy, he does not want to return to the crude rhetoric of "King John" and "Richard III" or to the lyrical and romantic rhetoric of "Romeo and Juliet" and "Richard I". He no longer needs an infantile character, unaware of what is happening around him, like Romeo and Richard II, or a rude character like Brutus, caught in a network of circumstances of historical significance, where events more important than characters. Finally, he doesn't need a character with goofy humor that requires a certain situation to be revealed. Having created Falstaff, he does not want to return to burlesque.
Perhaps it was Shakespeare's success as a dramatic poet that caused him to feel dissatisfied with himself, which was reflected in Hamlet. The dramatic poet is able to imagine the feelings of any person, and therefore he is occupied with the questions: “What am I?” "What do I feel?", "Can I feel?" Artists do not suffer from an excess of emotions, but rather from a lack of them. Transform yourself into a mirror and you will begin to doubt the reality of the mirror itself.
Shakespeare created Hamlet from a gallery of earlier characters who were otherwise his prototypes. Richard II is a child full of self-pity: there is a lot of theatricality in his actions, but, unlike Hamlet, he is not aware that he is acting. Falstaff is similar to Hamlet, an intellectual character and the creation of an artist who felt confident in his abilities, but Falstaff is not as aware of himself as Hamlet. When Falstaff looks into himself, he dies - and his death looks a lot like suicide. Brutus anticipates Hamlet "by contradiction"; Brutus, in a sense, is the antipode of the Danish prince. Hamlet is destroyed by his imagination. Brutus, as a true Stoic, is destroyed by his desire to suppress his own imagination. He tries to eliminate probability from the picture of the world. The closest thing to Hamlet is Jacques, a character who is unable to take part in the action: the character of Jacques remains undeveloped.
Perhaps it is more important to study the plot sources of Hamlet than for any other of Shakespeare's plays. The story of Hamlet first appears in Saxo Grammar's History of the Danes, but for an expanded and moralizing version of the story, Shakespeare turned to François de Belfort's Tragical Histories. Belfort's tale was translated into English in 1608. Another source is Thomas Kyd's play "The Spanish Tragedy" - the prototype of the "revenge play". This latter was published in 1594 and gained enormous popularity on the Elizabethan stage.
The first significant study in literature of the theme of revenge was undertaken in the Oresteia - the legend of Orestes, Agamemnon and Clytemnestra. The story of Hamlet as told by Saxo Grammar is rather poor in emotions - revenge in it is presented as an absolute duty. In Elizabethan plays, if a person is wronged, the victim takes revenge too far, and Nemesis turns her back on him - an example of which is Shylock. What was perceived as duty becomes a matter of passion and hatred. The disgust and disgust that Hamlet feels for his mother seems completely disproportionate to her actual behavior.
There are many mistakes in Hamlet - holes gaping both in the action and in the motives of the characters' actions. One of the failures is a hastily sketched portrait of Fortinbras. At the beginning of the play we learn about his warlike plans: Claudius sends a messenger to him asking him to stop. Fortinbras agrees, but demands that he be allowed to pass through Denmark on his way to Poland. We see him crossing the stage at the head of his army, heading for Poland. He will return when all the heroes are dead. This side storyline is necessary, but it is poorly woven into the play. Episodes involving Laertes are also puzzling. Why, when Laertes returns from France for the second time, does no one tell him that Hamlet killed his father, and why, when he breaks into the palace, passions subside within a few minutes? Polonius is buried secretly. Why? The death of Polonius is necessary for Laertes to go to England, but again, the subplot does not fit into the main action. And why is Claudius in no hurry to kill Hamlet, but keeps making cunning plans that could fail? Ophelia is a stupid, downtrodden girl. Having lost her mind due to the death of her father, she behaves almost obscenely and causes a feeling of awkwardness. And although her madness is terrifying and repulsive, it is not well founded. She didn't love her annoying dad so much - he never aroused much interest in her.
Hamlet's age - great mystery. His conversation with the gravedigger jester (V. 1) suggests that he is about thirty, but if so, why is he still a university student? Well, if he is young enough to be a student, his speeches - very mature and more appropriate for middle age - do not fit with his appearance. And how old is Gertrude then?
Was Hamlet really in love with Ophelia? He states this at the end of the play:
I loved her; forty thousand brothers
With all the multitude of your love is with me
They wouldn't equalize.
Act V, scene 1.
Still, let us doubt. One way or another, the hostility that Hamlet showed towards her and his renunciation of her love contradicts the words of the prince in the last act. He suspects Ophelia of being a spy, which perhaps goes back to some early, pre-Shakespearean version of Hamlet, where Polonius's daughter spied on the prince.
Finally, why doesn’t Claudius react to pantomime, why wait for the “play within a play”? There were probably two early versions of Hamlet, one of which contained pantomime, the other a “play within a play”, and Shakespeare included both episodes in the tragedy without any concern for verisimilitude.
The Elizabethans followed a number of conventions regarding ghosts. The ghost could appear to the murderer or come to call for vengeance. The ghost could visit the place where his body was buried unconventionally. His appearance could be a bad omen, and if during his lifetime he buried a treasure somewhere and did not have time to inform his heirs about it, he was obliged to inform them. Horatio asks the ghost all the appropriate questions for the situation.
Hamlet’s melancholy is difficult to relate to the plot of the play, and his farewell speech reveals vanity, as in many suicide notes:
If only I could (but death, the fierce guardian,
It's enough quickly), oh, I would tell... -
But all the same, - Horatio, I am dying;
You are alive; tell the truth about me
Unquenched...
Oh friend, what a wounded name,
Hide the secret everything, it would remain for me!
When you kept me in your heart
Then step away from bliss for a while,
Breathe in the harsh world so that I can
Tell a story.
Act V, scene 1.
Hamlet's delay. He is capable of action when he is threatened by external circumstances. Acting, for example, in the scene of the murder of Polonius, he reveals a remarkable insensibility. The play within a play, which he conceives and stages, is presented not as comic, but as tragic conflict, where the innocence of the actors is contrasted with the guilt of those who know how to put thoughts into elegant form, and the performance, intended as harmless entertainment, causes terrible suffering.
Hamlet is completely self-absorbed; interest in his own person does not leave him until the very end. He hesitates. The task is to find yourself, to accept the present. Do not exclaim: “The connection of times has fallen! / Why was I born to connect it?” (I.5). That is: “Everything would be all right if the circumstances were different.” I shouldn't wish to be someone else. I have to realize that I shouldn't hide a part of myself from myself and try to resolve the situation the way Brutus does (and, like Brutus, take the situation easier than it is). I need to find myself. How can I go beyond the limits of the nature in which I have clothed myself, and then forget everything? I must not leave this choice to fate or circumstance, like a man jumping into dissipation. I shouldn't say that I refuse to live because my mother didn't love me enough, or loved me too much, or for some other reason. Hamlet could immediately avenge his father or say that it is not his place to judge others, this is God’s lot. Hamlet does neither one nor the other. He only finds the situation interesting and notes, “That you can live with a smile and with a smile / Be a scoundrel” (I. 5).
Disgust is a source of involvement and at the same time detachment. Hate or love means a change in the situation. Why is Hamlet inactive? He must find the answer to the question: “Who am I?” The very concept of the meaning of existence is alien to him. Hamlet lacks faith in God and in himself. Consequently, he is forced to define his being in the categories of other people, that is: I am the person whose mother married his uncle, who killed his father. Hamlet would like to become the hero of an ancient tragedy, a victim of fate. Hence his inability to act, for he can only “play” - play with the possibilities of choice. Essentially he is bored, and for this reason his behavior is theatrical. The play was written with complete disregard for the actor's craft, and by its nature the role of Hamlet is not stage-specific. An actor can play anyone but an actor. Hamlet should be played by a man from the street, while the other roles should be played by professional actors. The difficulty of playing Hamlet is that he is an actor, and it is impossible to play yourself. You can only be yourself.
People can no longer believe in something just because many others believe in it. Believing in something is no longer a naive act. The normal human reaction is not to try to move forward, but rather to retreat, to move away from desires and will, to return to passion where action is possible. However, this can only be achieved by sacrificing reason, and in order to awaken passion in reflective people, it is necessary to invent methods of monstrous sophistication. A passionate leap into the abyss of fate is opposed by a causeless craving for action, like Iago’s.
Kierkegaard writes in Either/Or that “boredom is the root of all evil.”
Knowledgeable people they argue that it is very reasonable to be guided by any principle; I want to please them, and therefore I start from the following principle - all people are boring. Of course, no one wants to look so boring as to begin to refute this statement of mine. The above principle produces an extremely repulsive impression - an indispensable condition of all negative principles, and principles, according to our original postulate, are the root cause of any movement. This principle is not only disgusting, but also extremely formidable, and anyone who tries to understand it cannot but feel a great impulse to go forward, to make new discoveries. For, if my principle is true, we need only analyze how destructive boredom is to humanity, and, focusing as necessary on this fundamental truth, choose for ourselves the proper strength of impulse. If someone wants to achieve the maximum power of the impulse, so that the driving force itself is threatened, one only needs to say to oneself: boredom is the root of all evil. It is strange that boredom, which in itself is so sedate and viscous, has the power to set everything in motion. The influence it exerts is absolutely magical, except that it is not an influence of attraction, but of repulsion.
“Boredom,” Kierkegaard continues, “is the demonic side of pantheism. Pantheism, in general, is characterized by fullness; in the case of boredom, we are dealing with something absolutely opposite, for its distinctive feature is emptiness. However, this is precisely what turns boredom into a pantheistic concept Boredom depends on the non-existence that permeates reality; it causes the dizziness that one experiences when looking into a gaping abyss, and this dizziness is limitless.”
Notes:
See G. Ibsen, Peer Gynt, Act II, Scene 6.
See T. S. Eliot, "Hamlet," Selected Essays (1932).
Saxo Grammaticus, History of the Danes (c. 1200, first published 1514); Francois de Belfort, "Tragic Histories" (1576).
Translation by A. I. Kroneberg.
S. Kierkegaard, “Either - Or”, 1:234, 239.
In the text of Hamlet, Shakespeare showed himself as the queen's son with features of the biography of Christopher Marlowe, supposedly dead since 1593.
Despite the titanic efforts of generations of Shakespeare scholars, over the four centuries of the existence of Hamlet as a cultural phenomenon, no significant results have been obtained in revealing its content. On the contrary, in the plot of this work more and more contradictions are revealed. Or rather, in what is considered the plot of Shakespeare's Hamlet. As has been established, the plot of “Hamlet” in the form in which we present it does not exist at all.
The fact is that “Hamlet” belongs to the class of “mysterious” works, which are usually called “menippea”. Since their structure remained unclear, there was no method for finding out the hidden intentions of the authors; The theory of menippea that I developed and the methodology based on it are described in the book Walking with Eugene Onegin. In this review, without going into theoretical issues, I will try to concisely convey the content of the analysis set out in my more voluminous work “Hamlet”: the tragedy of errors or tragic fate Shakespeare?
In general, to reveal the hidden content of “mysterious” works, theory is not required - you just need to meet two conditions when reading: a) believe in the genius of the author (that the contradictions in the text are not a consequence of Shakespeare’s shortcomings, but an artistic means); b) read the text more carefully, think about the content of these contradictory points.
Let's start with them.
Contradictions in Hamlet - Shakespeare's artistic intention
Due to a distorted perception of what is considered the plot of Hamlet, even the most “simple” contradictions remain inexplicable. One of the most “famous” concerns Hamlet’s age: from the content of the first act it is obvious that he is no more than twenty years old, while from the fifth act it clearly follows that the prince is already thirty.
Let me note another paradox, which seems to be scientific works Shakespeare scholars generally remained unnoticed. We are talking about a scene involving a gravedigger; This scene, which, it would seem, has no direct relation to the plot, is generally considered by some Shakespeare scholars to be superfluous, not adding anything significant to the comprehension of the content of “Hamlet” (this is the same scene where it turns out that Hamlet is thirty years old).
From the content of the episode with the skull of the jester Yorick, it turns out that Hamlet and the undertaker must have known each other in those years when Hamlet was still just a boy. Indeed, the gravedigger recalls the incident when Yorick poured a bottle of Rhine wine on his head. It should be noted here that jesters perform their professional duties only among the nobility and only in the presence of the monarch. Since the gravedigger participated in royal receptions as a courtier and was treated as a nobleman, it turns out that he had a higher social status.
On the other hand, Hamlet remembers how, as a child, he kissed the lips of the same jester Yorick, who died twenty-three years before the scene in the cemetery. A comparison of these biographical details leads to the inevitable conclusion: the gravedigger and Hamlet must have known each other. And yet, despite the circumstances - Hamlet and the gravedigger in a conversation remember their mutual friend Yorick - the interlocutors do not touch upon the topic of their previous acquaintance.
Another incomprehensible point not noted by Shakespeare scholars is that, once in the cemetery where his murdered father was supposed to be buried quite recently, Hamlet does not show any feelings. This behavior of his contrasts sharply with the manifestations of the sons of sorrow in other scenes. One gets the impression that Hamlet seems to have two fathers: one, whose recent death he mourns, and the other, whom he does not even remember.
My work analyzing the content of Hamlet 1 shows that these and many other contradictions are exclusively psychological character: What are traditionally perceived as numerous “inconsistencies” in the plot are, in essence, a set of “clues” that Shakespeare deliberately included in the text to reveal the true content. Let's move on to consider Shakespeare's artistic concept as it appears when reading, taking into account the fact that numerous “contradictions” and stylistic “costs” - artistic media Shakespeare.
The structure of the text of “Hamlet”
It turns out that Shakespeare's Hamlet (I emphasize: Shakespeare's Hamlet) is a prose novel, and not a poetic drama, which we perceive this work to be. The fact is that there is more than one plot in Shakespeare's novel; the main one, describing the “real” events in Elsinore, is contained in prose pieces of text, while the poetic, dramatic part is an “insert short story”. This is the complete text of “The Mousetrap”, authored by Prince Hamlet. Thus, the text of Shakespeare's Hamlet is a collage of two different plots, one of which (“internal”) is the text of the production against the backdrop of “real” events in Elsinore.
Problems with interpreting the content of Hamlet are explained by the peculiarities of the composition used by Shakespeare. The plot of the “insert” “Mousetrap” features “real” inhabitants of Elsinore, with slightly changed biographical data. The error of our perception lies in the fact that we combine in one image (as we mistakenly imagine it) the data on different characters from different plots. In particular, we squeeze into a single false image of “our” Hamlet the details of the biography of the “real” Hamlet from the prose part and Hamlet 2 - the character in the insert “Mousetrap”. This inevitably gives rise to many contradictions, which are perceived as annoying shortcomings of Shakespeare.
The traditional perception of the plot of “Hamlet” (in which Prince Hamlet is perceived as the son of King Hamlet, and King Hamlet as the victim of King Claudius, etc.) corresponds to the plot of “The Mousetrap”. However, in accordance with Shakespeare's plan, she is just part of the overall plot of Hamlet. Framed in magnificent iambic pentameter, this “false” plot does not reflect the “real” events in Elsinore.
The main plot of Hamlet
Readers simply do not pay attention to the main plot of Hamlet, since its carrier is the prose part of the text. It is generally customary to forgive Shakespeare as something so insignificant that he did not even consider it necessary to spend time translating these pieces into poetry. This erroneous interpretation is tacitly accepted by all Shakespeare scholars (3).
Taking into account the data that Shakespeare included in the prose parts of Hamlet, the true events in Elsinore look as follows (I emphasize: the conclusions presented are made solely on the basis of the facts contained in the main document - the text of Hamlet, without assumptions and assumptions. A more detailed presentation see full text of the work).
Elsinore: Off Stage Events
... Thirty years before the events described, three brothers lived:
1. King of Norway;
2. Danish king Fortinbras, married to Gertrude; in this marriage they had a son named Fortinbras.
3. The youngest brother Hamlet, a widower. He had his own lands (not a kingdom); his son Hamlet appears in the plot as Horatio (Claudio).
Having put his lands against the entire kingdom of Denmark, Hamlet proposed a duel to Fortinbras, the outcome of which was to decide which of them would rule Denmark. Fortinbras accepted the challenge and was killed by his brother Hamlet (I emphasize once again: the plot is presented on the basis of data contained in Shakespeare’s text).
Having won the duel, Hamlet married his brother's widow Gertrude, who acquired the status of jointress rather than dowager queen consort. The word jointress means that it was she, and not her son Fortinbras or Hamlet, who defeated her husband, who inherited the throne from her husband-king with all the rights to rule Denmark. Thus, having married Gertrude, Hamlet became a consort to the reigning queen wife.
One of the most interesting details of the “true” plot of “Hamlet” is that “King” Hamlet was not killed at all. On the contrary, having killed his brother Fortinbras himself, Hamlet has been living with Queen Gertrude for “thirty dozen moons” in a row. The character we mistakenly perceive as “King Claudius,” who supposedly killed King Hamlet, is in fact the “still living” King Hamlet(4), who, on the contrary, killed his brother Fortinbras(5).
Prince Hamlet: pretender to the throne
If Gertrude had given birth to a son in her marriage to Hamlet, he would have been the crown prince with the right to inherit the throne. Since there were no children in this marriage, the son of the late King Fortinbras was the most legitimate contender. Hamlet-Horatio, the son of King Hamlet, was born before his father became the queen's husband, and his chances of inheriting the throne were slim. To make matters worse, on the day of the death of the former king Fortinbras, his wife Gertrude gave birth to another legitimate claimant to the throne, Hamlet. Although Prince Hamlet was orphaned the very day he was born, he was still born the son of the reigning king, making him the rightful claimant. In addition, despite the fact that Gertrude became the king's widow, her status increased from the king's consort to the reigning monarch.
The paradox of Prince Hamlet's “two fathers”
Since it turns out that two characters with the same name act in different plots of Hamlet, the paradox is explained simply. The “real”, thirty-year-old Prince Hamlet was orphaned on the day of his birth, so he cannot remember his father. The Hamlet who mourns his father acts in the plot of “The Mousetrap,” which is staged in Elsinore.
However, the explanation of this paradox immediately gives rise to new ones. Another Hamlet appears, whom we know as Horatio (once called by the name “Claudio”). This is the cause of another misunderstanding (until now not identified by Shakespeare scholars). This time the question arises regarding the authorship of the letter addressed to Ophelia and signed with the name “Hamlet”.
And finally, there is another character, mistakenly perceived as “King Claudius,” who also goes by the name “Hamlet.” This circumstance is, perhaps, one of the most serious of all those provoking a distorted perception of the plot of “Hamlet” (in Shakespeare studies, a centuries-old tradition has taken root to precede each remark of this character with the stage direction “King Claudius”. This stage direction cannot be trusted: in Shakespeare only “King” is indicated). As a rule, translations of “Hamlet” into Russian repeat this mistake of English academic science, which distorted Shakespeare’s texts. The translation of Lozinsky, who wrote “King” in Shakespeare’s language, is one of the few pleasant exceptions).
Thus, in the text of Shakespeare's Hamlet, as well as Hamlet's Mousetrap, there are at least four characters bearing the name “Hamlet”. Although this alone is enough to explain the difficulties in comprehending the content of this work of Shakespeare, the Ghost of the allegedly poisoned King Hamlet should also be included in this list.
When did Hamlet's father die?
One attentive reader of my work drew attention to a circumstance that, at first glance, completely refutes the proposed reconstruction of the plot of “Hamlet” (see: Shakespeare and his virtuoso composition: when did Hamlet’s father die?):
You write: “All the prose in Hamlet is the main text, in which all biographical information about the characters is “authentic”, they correspond to “realities of life.” Based on this, there is every reason to consider the episode of the second scene of the Third Act, where before the start of the performance Hamlet talks exclusively in prose with Ophelia, as “the pure truth.” It turns out that Ophelia’s words are true that after the death of Hamlet’s father “twice two months” passed, that is, four. Hamlet immediately turns them into two, and for some reason all literary critics repeat this after him. How do these words of Ophelia, who has no reason to be mistaken, fit with your theory?
Indeed, although Hamlet's supposedly mad statement can be discounted, Ophelia's statement should be regarded as "true" since Shakespeare included it in the prose section. It seems that Ophelia's statement contradicts the conclusion that Hamlet's father died thirty years before this scene.
And yet, this passage does not at all refute the revealed content of Hamlet. On the contrary, it confirms the correctness of the conclusion that the text of Hamlet describes the production of the drama in Elsinore. Paradoxically, even Hamlet’s “crazy” statements about “two hours” and “two days” from the moment of his father’s death turn out to be as reliable as the conclusions they supposedly refute.
The whole point is that we, the spectators of numerous modern productions What is presented to the public as supposedly Shakespeare's Hamlet, we see is not at all what Shakespeare's contemporaries saw in the theater and perceived when reading.
...Many modern mass editions of Hamlet (especially foreign ones) are preceded by a description of what the theater looked like in Shakespeare's time. The stage was not separated from the auditorium in any way; there were no restrooms or backstage where actors not engaged in the scene could hide. They stood next to the playground, almost along with the spectators. It is surprising that commentators on the content of Hamlet, who attribute the “incomprehensibility” of this scene to the “madness” of the hero, do not imagine the real situation in which the production took place. And which, by the way, is the main background for the entire action in Shakespeare's Hamlet.
It must be borne in mind that the main content of Hamlet is a description of the production of the “internal” drama. To reveal Shakespeare's artistic intent, we must imagine a situation typical of any Elizabethan theater - with two princes Hamlets on the same stage, with two Gertrudes, with a “still living” King Hamlet among the audience - only a few meters from “our own” Ghost...
The dialogue between Hamlet and Ophelia takes place in “real” life - that is, among other spectators: next to the “real” Gertrude and her husband King Hamlet, his son Hamlet-Horatio, Polonius, etc. And just a few meters away this audience sees a young actor playing Gertrude (under Shakespeare, female roles were played by men); he (s) is really cheerful, because “her” husband, although he died some two hours ago, still it happened in the plot of the just rehearsed production. It is in the plot of the play, the content of which Hamlet and Ophelia are discussing, that the father of “that” Hamlet died two or four months ago, and this gives the “real” Hamlet grounds for jokes. Moreover, Hamlet directly states that his statements are nothing more than jokes: O God, your only jig-maker. What should a man do but be merry?
To demonstrate to the reader from what position Hamlet and Ophelia are conducting their dialogue, just a few lines earlier Shakespeare draws a completely similar manner:
Polonium:
I played Julius Caesar: I was killed in
Capitols; Brutus killed me.
In this case, Polonius narrates as if from within the plot of a drama in which he once played. Hamlet and Ophelia conduct their dialogue in the same manner - that is, as if they were not among other spectators, but were characters in the drama, the content of which they are discussing (6).
In this way, Shakespeare reveals to the reader the meaning of Hamlet’s “mysterious” statement: “Time is out of joint.” If we proceed from the specifics of the complex structure of Hamlet, then, truly, it is so...
Which Hamlet wrote the letter to Ophelia?
Since it is mistakenly believed that in the field of Shakespeare's novel Hamlet there is only one character with that name, then, naturally, no one has ever even raised the question of the authorship of the letter in which a certain Hamlet admits to Ophelia that he is weak in versification. Naturally, it is believed that this letter was written by “our” Hamlet. At the same time, another strange contradiction emerges from the discussion: from the scene with the actors we know that Hamlet has an excellent command of the technique of versification. Moreover, he also turns out to be the “author” of “The Mousetrap,” and its full text is before us: this is the entire poetic part of Shakespeare’s “Hamlet.”
Now, since we know about the existence of another character named Hamlet (let me remind you, this is Horatio, the son of King Hamlet (7), it becomes clear that the letter addressed to Ophelia was written by the half-brother of Prince Hamlet. Within the framework of the traditional interpretation of the content of Hamlet, such the statement seems more than strange. However, the traditional interpretation is not able to explain the very unpleasant scenes in which Hamlet demonstrates open rudeness towards Ophelia and her father. He calls Polonius a “pimp” (8), compares Ophelia to carrion in which worms breed. , hints at her pregnancy:
Hamlet
Let her not walk i’ the sun: conception is a
blessing: but not as your daughter may conceive.
Friend, look to ‘t.(9)
Yes, Hamlet guessed that Ophelia lost her virginity to Horatio, and this was the reason for his rudeness. Awareness of this helps to get out of the insoluble contradiction (within the framework of the cultivated interpretation of the content of this work of Shakespeare) in the portrayal of the image of Hamlet. No, Hamlet is not crazy at all; he is simply shocked by Ophelia's infidelity.
For whom did Hamlet stage “The Mousetrap”?
It is believed that Hamlet set the Mousetrap to make sure that “King Claudius” was guilty of killing King Hamlet. This is indeed so - but only within the framework of the plot of the “Mousetrap” itself, not in “real” life.
In “real” life, Prince Hamlet knew that his father was not poisoned by King Hamlet a few months earlier, but killed in open combat with a sword thirty years ago. Thus, there was no need for him to check the involvement of his uncle-stepfather in the murder. No, Hamlet created the “Mousetrap” to test his guesses about the nature of Ophelia’s relationship with Hamlet-Horatio-Claudio.
Shakespeare's (Hamlet's) composition “Mousetraps”
Using a special method of composition, Hamlet satirically showed Horatio(10) as his hidden rival. To this end, he assigned Horatio the functions of a storyteller; in other words, it was as if he entrusted Horatio with his authorial functions. In accordance with Hamlet's artistic intent, Horatio the narrator, in turn, portrayed Hamlet himself in a satirical manner. However, Hamlet included hints in the text of “The Mousetrap” about the true (negative) traits of Horatio and Ophelia. For example, although Horatio as the “author” tries to hide the nature of his relationships with the king, Hamlet and Ophelia, a careful reading reveals the truth anyway. It becomes obvious that, being very close to the king, Horatio occupies a high position at court11). In addition, Hamlet included in “The Mousetrap” a hint about Ophelia’s pregnancy. Go to menu
“Hamlet” by William Shakespeare and “The Mousetrap” by Prince Hamlet: identical composition
The complex composition of “Mousetraps” performed by Hamlet exactly repeats the composition of Shakespeare’s entire novel “Hamlet”. In this way, Shakespeare associates himself with his hero.
There is also a commonality in the fact that not only in Shakespeare’s “Hamlet” is the production of “The Mousetrap” shown in Elsinore, but also this same production is shown in the plot of “The Mousetrap” itself. The main difference is that in the plot of Hamlet’s “Mousetrap” the performance is interrupted, while in Shakespeare’s “Hamlet” it continues, and we see before us the full text of what “was created” by Prince Hamlet.
Before the play begins, Hamlet, Ophelia, Polonius, the King and Gertrude are shown as “real” spectators, as their lines are delivered in prose. Starting with the silent scene and the Prologue, we read the text again internal drama, occasionally interspersed with prose inserts that describe “true” events outside the stage.
Hamlet-Horatio - narrator of William Shakespeare's Hamlet
In the plot of “The Mousetrap,” Hamlet included hints that Horatio drowned the pregnant Ophelia. Unlike other spectators, Hamlet-Horatio understood the hidden satirical subtext of “The Mousetrap”. Since after this scene the prose inserts are extremely sparse, it seems that, like the fate of other characters in Hamlet, Horatio's further actions remain unknown.
Indeed, the death and funeral of Ophelia, like all the other tragic events that followed, including the death of Hamlet, take place only in the plot of “The Mousetrap” invented by Hamlet. Although the scene in the cemetery in which we see Hamlet “alive” takes place after the completion of the events described in the plot of “The Mousetrap,” the composition of “Hamlet” imposes on the reader the impression that the sequence of events in its plot is the same as it is set out in the text.
However, it turns out that the relatively short prose inserts in Shakespeare's Hamlet cover a much longer period of time than the plot of Hamlet's Mousetrap. In fact, at least three years passed between the production of “The Mousetrap” and Hamlet’s meeting with the gravedigger (the First Quarto of Hamlet, published in 1603, indicates a seven-year period) (12). Thus, Hamlet is alive, although he lives in some strange way...
The narrator of Shakespeare's novel (Hamlet-Horatio-Claudio) arranges his narrative in such a way as to give the reader the impression that Hamlet is dead. Shakespeare’s “co-author” was so successful in this that the reading public still believes that in the plot of Shakespeare’s novel, Hamlet dies. The essence of the situation, as Shakespeare described it, is that he, the author of Hamlet, is considered dead, while in fact he is alive...
Another interesting detail of the “true” content of “Hamlet”: from its hidden plot it follows that this work is not only published under the fictitious data of the author, but is also subjected to severe censorship by the person whom the reading public perceives as Hamlet’s only true friend. That is, Hamlet’s cousin and at the same time half-brother, Horatio, who is not interested in revealing either his true role in Hamlet’s fate or the fact of introducing distortions into the narrative.
This is hinted at in final scene“Mousetraps” created by Hamlet (this scene coincides with the ending of Shakespeare’s novel “Hamlet”): it makes it absolutely clear that Horatio is the narrator of Shakespeare’s novel “Hamlet” (13).
To hide the truth, Horatio includes the text of Hamlet's “Mousetrap” in his narrative, presenting it as a true description of events.
Hamlet's fate
The identity of the complex composition of Shakespeare’s “Hamlet” and the insert play “The Mousetrap” created by Hamlet (based on the plot) indicates that Shakespeare portrayed himself in the image of Prince Hamlet. The scene involving the gravedigger adds new elements to this biographical parallel. In the plot of Shakespeare's Hamlet, it takes place three years after the completion of the described events in Elsinore (more precisely, after the production of The Mousetrap with the interpretation of these events). This scene can be seen as an epilogue in which Shakespeare shows the fate of Hamlet 14. His own, Shakespeare's fate, as follows from the complete plot of Hamlet.
Within Shakespeare's novel, the gravedigger is a special character who performs a unique compositional function: despite Horatio's attempts to distort the essence of events, he gives clues with the help of which the true events are revealed. In terms of Hamlet's structure, the gravedigger is compositionally superior to Horatio's narrator. Since only the titular author can stand above the narrator, it turns out that by giving the gravedigger his own compositional functions, William Shakespeare thus identified himself with a character who has his own grave, but who does not lie in it.
This last conclusion does not contradict the above, according to which Shakespeare identified himself with Hamlet. The fact is that Hamlet and the gravedigger represent different halves of the same image: “Half of Hamlet” - what happened to him before his disappearance, “half of the gravedigger” - what happened after. That is, that he is not lying in his grave; or, in other words, after disappearing from the plot, the image of Hamlet became forever associated with the cemetery.
Although such a conclusion may seem absurd, it must be taken into account that in the original text of Shakespeare there are other absurdities associated with the image of the gravedigger. A grave digger with a university education - isn't that absurd? (The gravedigger fluently operates with legal terminology and uses specific Latin expressions). Next: a grave digger who in the past took part in royal feasts in Elsinore - isn’t this absurd? Or take the completely ridiculous situation in which Hamlet and the gravedigger, remembering their mutual acquaintance Yorick, do not mention the fact that they could not help but know each other before. On the other hand, all these absurd situations were created by the genius of Shakespeare himself, and they should be treated solely as carrying some important compositional function necessary to comprehend the true content of Hamlet.
Horatio knows that after his disappearance Hamlet “does not lie in his grave.” He even maintains contact with him - in the very cemetery where Hamlet speaks from his grave (15).
Isn’t the famous phrase of Hamlet-Shakespeare “All else is silence” just such a way of existence?..
William Shakespeare: a “tanner” who has not been in his grave since 1593?
In the text of the Second Quarto, the gravedigger explains that the “tanner” (leather tanner) will “last” in the grave for another nine years after his death. The text of Hamlet was recorded in 1602. By subtracting from this date the nine years that Tanner would “last,” we get the date of his supposed death - 1593. Is the gravedigger the same “tanner” who has not been in his grave since 1593?
It is noteworthy that in the very first text of “Hamlet” (First Quarto), published a year earlier than the second, the duration of the “preservation” of the tanner after death is also indicated a year less - as eight years. This confirms that Shakespeare attached special importance to both the mention of the “tanner” and the fitting of this seemingly insignificant element of the plot to the true dates of publication of the text.
It was in 1593 that the famous playwright, known among his friends as “Tanner,” died in a fight. Two weeks after his death, the first ever publication with the name “William Shakespeare” appeared. (see chapter Chapter VI: He who does not lie in his grave (Christopher Marlowe).
