Hamlet ~~ Act II Scene I

Posted on by
3
John Austen

Hamlet Act II  Scene I

Polonius sends his servant, Reynaldo, to France to give letters to his son.  He then gives very specific instructions as to how Reynaldo is to find out information about Laertes and how he conducts himself in the city.  Polonius is very insistent and detailed in his commands, and his suspicions about Laertes drinking, whoring and gambling is apparent. 
When Reynaldo takes his leave, Ophelia enters and relates some strange events.  Hamlet appeared to her all in disarray, almost mad in his appearance.  He made some dramatic and pained gestures that quite concerned her, before he departed her presence and she does not know what to make of his behaviour.  Polonius is certain that Ophelia’s spurning of Hamlet has made him mad with love for her and suggests that they speak with the king.
Polonius & Ophelia (1830)
H.C. Selous

Thoughts:

Why is Polonius almost over-zealous in his curiosity about Laertes?  Reynaldo is certainly a spy sent to report on him.  This scene says more about Polonius’ character, even though the focus is on Laertes.  Polonius is obsessive in his desire to know about his son, and his words and actions are not balanced.  He obviously doesn’t trust him, but why?  Does his unusual inquisitiveness stem from political or paternal concerns?

He also shows himself an astute politician, or perhaps manipulator, when he decides to tell Claudius of Hamlet’s actions, noting that if he keeps them hidden, it might cause trouble for him in the long run.

The Canterbury Tales ~~ The Tale of Melibee

Posted on by
2

The Tale of Melibee

A young man named Melibeus had a wife named Prudence and a daughter, Sophie.  One day while he is away from home, three of his enemies enter the house and beat his wife and daughter, giving his daughter five mortal wounds.  Melibeus upon returning, is inconsolable but his wife cautions him to moderate his weeping, using various examples from antiquity.  She counsels him to call all his friends and family, who are wise, and to take their advice, even though Melibeus is ready to go to war with his enemies.
The surgeons claim that their profession commands them to do no harm, and that they cannot support war, but they are willing to help his daughter.  His enviour neighbours and false friends flatter him and counsel war.  The lawyer advises him to guard his person and house, but he will need time to decide whether it is meet to go to war.   The young men cry for vengeance, but an old wise man chastens them for calling for war without truly understanding the consequences of it.   He is shouted down and we are told that Melibeus also has secret advisors that give him guidance out of the hearing of the others.
Prudence sees that her husband is preparing for war and tries to urge caution, but Melibeus shrugs off her opinion, saying that firstly, he is deciding based on the advice of wise men, and secondly, all women are wicked.  She counters his arguments with examples from the Bible and Seneca, saying if he will only listen to her, she will deliver their daughter whole.  Swayed by her long and compelling argument, he consents to be ruled by her advice. 

Prudence seeking to comfort
Melibeus (1884)
E.M. Scannell
source

Prudence instructs him that he must be governed by God and to dispel three things in his heart that impede good advice and they are: anger, greed, and haste.  Next, he must not show whether he prefers peace or war, cloaking his intent.  He must determine his true friends from false flatterers and then discover if they are discrete and wise and old enough to have gained valuable learning.  After, she gives him examples of people whose advice he must shun if his decision is to be correct. 


Since his wife has described to him the people whose advice he should be accepting and those he should be rejecting, she will now teach him how to examine this advice, according to the precepts of Cicero.  One needs to look at the outcome of the advice taken in order to make the best choice:  what is the root of the advice and what is the fruit.  If you are not certain about advice, don’t act on it.  She continues to tell when and under what circumstances a plan may be revised.
Melibeus claims that he is gratified by her instruction, but if she would please examine the particulars of the case and tell him what should be chosen in the present circumstance.  Instead, though, she asks his patience and then proceeds to list his errors of judgment to the present time.  He agrees to alter his counsellors, and his wife says that they must determine who is most reasonable and has offered the most helpful advice.

From here on Dame Prudence continues to deliver invective against Melibeus’ weaknesses and moral instruction for his benefit.  She says that he has allowed the world to rule over his soul and has forgotten his Creator.  With regard to money, she instructs him on how to handle riches and how to dispense forgiveness.  Melibeus finally sees beyond the current issue to the future ills that vengeance might breed, and agrees to forgive those who have done wrong to him and his family.  

 

The Tale of Melibee (1913)
W. Russell Flint 

With this tale, I received the impression of a trial.  The wife, in ruling her husband, is, in effect, producing witnesses to support her views.  These witnesses are respected men of ancient times, and, given their status and renown, are almost impossible to contradict.

While this tale has often been characterized as a debate, to me it seemed more like a lecture or discourse on the issues of life, with Prudence instructing and Melibeus being cultivated by her wisdom.  Initially, Melibeus is concerned with practicalities, or reality if you will, but Prudence takes those practicalities and turns them into matters of character and the right way of conduct, which does not only cover the present situation they must deal with, but gives guidance in the way one must conduct oneself in life.  She sways him not by womanly emotion but by clear logic and reason, an unusual but powerful technique.

Some scholars think that The Tale of Melibee was originally meant to be a stand-alone tale, yet was later added to The Cantebury Tales.  Given that it is a translation of an original French tale, Livre de Melibee et de Dame Prudence by Renaud Louen, which is also a translation of an earlier tale, Consolationis et Consilii by Albertanus of Brescia, that makes sense.  Its fit into The Canterbury Tales is tenuous at best.  Taken as a tale, it is long-winded and boring, but standing alone and viewed along the lines of a Ciceronian defence, it holds interesting components.  I actually quite enjoyed this tale and, judging from the commentary on it, probably got more out of it than previous readers.

Hamlet ~~ Act I Scene V

Posted on by
Reply
Hamlet and his Father’s Ghost (1806)
William Blake
source Wikimedia Commons

Hamlet  ~  Act I  Scene V

Hamlet asks the ghost where he is being taken, but the ghost commands him to listen.  His time is almost done when he will depart for Purgatory, but he has important information to relate that includes revenge.  The ghost identifies itself as Hamlet’s father’s ghost and claims that he was murdered by Claudius, as the foul beast committed regicide by pouring a bottle of poison into the king’s ear.  While the ghost censures his wife for her lack of virtuous conduct in the matter, he bids Hamlet to leave her judgement to God.  Hamlet is shocked by the Ghost’s proclamation, but is quick to promise revenge.

Horatio and Marcellus return, begging Hamlet to tell them what happened, yet he prevaricates, hesitant to trust to their silence.  He does however make them swear (numerous times and then upon his sword) never to tell anything that they have witnessed that night.  He also gives an indication that he may act unusually in the future, but even so, they must never, ever give even a hint of why he is exhibiting such behaviour.  They go back to court, with a lament from Hamlet that he has been chosen to set things aright.

Hamlet’s Vision
Pedro Américo
source Wikipedia

Thoughts:

Hamlet is obviously shocked by the ghost’s revelation of his murder, but he is quick to pledge his assistance in revenge.  The ghost convicts Hamlet’s mother of a lack of virtue, stating that a truly virtuous woman would not have been corruptible.  These statements must further influence the way Hamlet views his mother.

One of Hamlet’s statements struck me and perhaps explains his behaviour further on in the play:

“Ay, thou poor ghost, while memory holds a seat
In this distracted globe.  Remember thee!
Yea, from the table of my memory
I’ll wipe away all trivial fond records,
All saws of books, all forms, all pressures past
That youth and observation copied there,
And thy commandment all alone shall live
Within the book and volume of my brain,
Unmixed with baser matter.  Yes, by heaven!”  (96-104)

It’s as if Hamlet has shaken off youth and has grasped responsibility and maturity with a strong hand. This attitude will perhaps explain his behaviour towards Ophelia: his original interest was an adolescent attraction but now he must put away all childish pleasures and concentrate on the task at hand.

This scene is certainly the turning point in Hamlet’s demeanour and conduct.  We expect to see a different man from now on.

Hamlet in the presence of his father’s ghost
John Gilbert
source Wikimedia Commons

Quotes:

“O most pernicious woman!
O villain, villain, smiling, damnèd villain!”  (105-106)

“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”  (168-169)

Hamlet Read-Along Posts

Hamlet ~~ Act I, Scene IV

Posted on by
4

Hamlet ~  Act I  Scene IV

It is just past twelve and Hamlet, Horatio and Marcellus are awaiting the ghost, when they hear reveling from the castle.  It is Claudius, drinking and partying, and while Hamlet explains to Horatio, it is their custom, he wishes they would not practice it because their drinking lessens their reputation in the eyes of other countries.
Hamlet sees the ghost of his father (1843)
Eugene Delacroix
source Wikiart
The Ghost appears and Hamlet asks why it walks the earth and what is its purpose.  It beckons Hamlet to follow and, against both Horatio’s and Marcellus’ pleas, he complies, struggling with them and fending them off with threats and his sword.  His friends lament his choice and Marcellus delivers the well-known line: “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.”  They follow the prince.

Thoughts:

Horatio shows that he is possibly a foreigner by questioning the customs, yet it is not clear with what customs he is unfamiliar.  It is certainly possible that the drinking and partying are Danish customs, yet they could also be court customs and Horatio’s social station is simply not high enough to be aware of them.

Hamlet certainly speaks to the ghost as if it were a ghost, even though it bears the shape and form of his father. 
In this scene, we have the first echoing of the changes in Hamlet, bringing into question his sanity.  Horatio speaks almost a prophecy:
Hamlet Act I, Scene IV (1796)
Henry Fuseli
source Wikimedia Commons
“What if it tempt you toward the flood, my lord,
Or to the dreadful summit of the cliff
That beetles o’er his base into the sea,
And there assume some other horrible form,
Which might deprive your sovereignty of reason
And draw you into madness?  Think of it.
The very place puts toys of desperation,
Without more motive, into every brain
That looks so many fathoms to the sea
And hears it roar beneath.”
Hamlet makes reference to his fate: “My fate cries out,”which echoes of Greek tragedy where the character is often at the mercy of the circumstance and is helpless to escape it.

And Marcellus delivers the well-known quote:  “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.”  So far we have a few things rotten:  King Hamlet’s death, Claudius’ kingship, Gertrude and Claudius’ hasty marriage, a possible confrontation with Fortinbras, the appearance of the ghost, the questionable relationship between Hamlet and Ophelia ….. have I missed anything?

Hamlet Read-Along Posts
Act I  Scene III

Act I  Scene IV

Hamlet ~~ Act I, Scene III

Posted on by
7
Ophelia (1905)
Odilon Redon
source Wikiart

Hamlet  ~  Act I,  Scene III

Laertes prepares to embark on his journey back to France, but, as he speaks to his sister Ophelia, he brings into question Hamlet’s love for her.  He cautions that Hamlet’s first loyalty is to the kingdom on Denmark and, if personal relationships get in the way, he will choose country over love.  Oh sister, keep you love under control and your virtue guarded lest you experience future regret, and Ophelia agrees to his plea, but oddly tells him only if he takes his own advice.

Polonius enters and gives his son advice on how to conduct himself respectfully and honourably.

“……. Give thy thoughts no tongue,
Nor any unproportioned thought his act.
Be thou familiar but by no means vulgar.
Those friends thou hast, and their adoption tried,
Grapple them unto thy soul with hoops of steel,
But do not dull thy palm with entertainment
Of each new-hatched, unfledged comrade.  Beware
Of entrance to a quarrel, but being in,
Bear ‘t that th’ opposèd may beware of thee.
Give every man thy ear but few thy voice.
Take each man’s censure but reserve thy judgement.
Costly thy habit as thy purse can buy,
But not expressed in fancy — rich, not gaudy,
For the apparel oft proclaims the man,
And they in France of the best rank and station
Are of a most select and generous chief in that.
Neither a borrower nor a lender be,
For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.
This above all: to thine own self be true.
And it must follow, as the night the day
Thou canst not then be false to any man.”

At Laertes’ departure, Polonius inquires at to what they were speaking of, and Ophelia relates that he has cautioned her about Hamlet.  Polonius supports his son’s advice and, though Ophelia tells of Hamlet’s recent attentions to her, Polonius indicates those attentions are meaningless and that he is, in effect, playing with her feelings.  She needs to conduct herself honourably and really, to have nothing more to do with Hamlet.  She states that she will comply with her father’s wishes.

Ophelia and Laertes
William Gorman Wills
source Wikipedia

Thoughts:

The beginning of this scene contains a number of cautions and instruction to both Ophelia and Laertes on how to live in a way that will benefit them.  It’s as if the keys to a happy life are given to them to use if they choose.  Why?  Why so many cautions given to each other in this family?  I can see Laertes being wise enough to pick up on the uncomfortableness of the situation at court. Perhaps he senses that the situation will come to a head and that Hamlet will be diverted by his political responsibility with no time for courting, and he wishes to advise his sister to spare her feelings.  As for Polonius’ warnings to Laertes, I’m less certain.  Polonius doesn’t seem particularly bright, so far, but his advice is sound.  What prompted it?  Is he simply giving fatherly counsel ….???

This scene also gives us the first exposure to Hamlet and Ophelia’s relationship.  Is there a hint that she is being a little too free with her behaviour?  From the words of her father and brother, it appears she is a young, unexperienced girl who is taking the attentions of a man who is her superior, too much to heart.  She foolishly believes him when he is really just toying with her affections.  And what does this say about Hamlet?  Is our prince really so insincere?  Is he also being portrayed as being young and immature, or are Laertes and Polonius overreacting?

Hamlet Read-Along Posts
Act I  Scene III 

The Canterbury Tales ~~ The Tale of Sir Thopas

Posted on by
2
The Host spies Chaucer and commands him to tell a tale of mirth, while describing some of his manner and looks.  Chaucer claims to know no other tale except for a rhyming romance that he learned, and so he begins.

The Tale of Sir Thopas

Sir Thopas was born at Popering in Flanders, and was a lord known for his fair and gentle manners.  A description of his pleasing person follows, along with praises of his sporting aptitude and his ability to capture female hearts.  But no, Sir Thopas is chaste, and out he goes into the forest where he is overcome by love and dreams of an Elf-queen as his sweetheart. (Heavens, this is starting to remind me of an Arthurian story!)  He rode long enough to find the country of Fairy.  Intercepted by a giant named Olifaunt, who threatens him, they have an altercation and Thopas escapes, but not before promising to deal with him at a later date.

He gathers his men to fight the giant, our slender and gay Sir Thopas, and here follows long descriptions of his food, and his battle clothing and array, until the Host can stand it no more and begs Chaucer to cease his tale, labelling it as doggerel verse which is used to produce a comic effect. Chaucer protests at this treatment, but the Host claims his rhyme is “crappy” and a waste of time.  He will only be permitted to proceed if he tells something in alliterative verse or prose, so Chacuer agrees to prose but warns his story may have echoes of other stories already told.  He proceeds with The Tale of Melibee.

Warwick Goble
Thopas seems to abandon the realities of life and prefers to search out fantastical experiences with such fanciful characters as Elf-queens and giants. It was also laughable to see the Host chastize Chaucer, not for telling a boring story, but for telling one that was simply too atrociously inept to be listened to.

How very amusing to see Chaucer poke some fun at himself!  I rather wondered though, if there were not some deeper meanings that I was missing, that would have made the tale so enjoyable for the listeners of the time, such as style and rhyme and syntax and word-choice.  There are subtleties that were common for that era that aren’t so obvious now, and I lack the appreciation I could have garnered with that antiquated knowledge.  In any case, I’m now curious as to what Chaucer will do with Melibee.  Will it be a serious story, or more tongue-in-cheek teasing?  

Hamlet ~ Act I Scene II

Posted on by
8
The Queen consoles Hamlet (1834)
Act I, Scene II
Eugene Delacroix
source Wikimedia Commons

Hamlet  ~~  Act I,  Scene II

The new King, Hamlet’s brother Claudius, laments the old king’s passing and claims that he wed the Queen in both mirth and sadness.  He hints that Fortinbras thinks the kingdom weak because of King Hamlet’s death and says he has contacted the King of Norway, Fortinbras’ uncle, who is debilitated and bedridden, to stop his nephew’s plotting.  He sends Cornelius and Voltemand to deliver another letter to Norway.

John Barrymore as Hamlet (1922)
source Wikipedia

Laertes, son of Polonius, asks leave to return to France since he has done his duty by attending Claudius’ coronation.  After securing Polonius’ opinion, Claudius allows him to go, and then turns to Hamlet, asking why “clouds still hang on (him)”. Gertrude, the Queen, urges her son to accept her new husband and no longer mourn his father’s death. Hamlet claims his grief surpasses what can be viewed on the surface, yet Claudius pleads with him to stave off his melancholy, as it is not manly and goes against God and nature.  He is Hamlet’s new father and wishes him to remain near him instead of going to Wittenberg, as Hamlet plans.  Hamlet agrees.

Hamlet then laments his father’s death and agonizes over the alacrity with which his mother remarried after her apparent devotedness to her first husband.  Horatio, Marcellus and Barnardo appear and Hamlet questions why they aren’t in Wittenberg, whereupon they reply that they came for his father’s funeral.  Hamlet mentions his mother’s marriage and then claims to see his father in his imagination.  It’s the perfect opening for the sentinels, who tell him of the ghost of his father.  He asks of its appearance and if his friends are armed, then promises to meet them that night between eleven and twelve o’clock.

“My father’s spirit in arms.   All is not well.
I doubt some foul play.  Would the night were come!
Till then sit still, my soul.  Foul deeds will rise,
Though all the earth o’erwhelm them, to men’s eyes.”

Hamlet and Ophelia (1883)
Mikhail Vrubel
source Wikiart

Thoughts:

Right away the reader can tell Claudius has taken over kingship of Denmark by his royal diction, using “we” and “ourselves” to describe his person.  He highlights the danger to the kingdom by Fortinbras, seeks assistance from a weak old man, and claims that he has followed Polonius’ advice, these points deliberately made both to cement his power by placing fear in the hearts of Denmark’s people, and also to deflect complete blame of any of his actions from himself, as he makes Polonius an accomplice by his words.  Quite clever machinations from this new monarch.  His devious manipulation of the situation, and the apparent trust of all but Hamlet, create a setting for future troubles.

A post for a production of Hamlet
ca. 1884, showing several of the
key scenes
source Wikipedia

The question begs, why did the kingship pass to Claudius?  It makes sense that Hamlet would have been in line for the crown after his father.  Did Claudius step in and take possession of the country without protest from Hamlet?  Was there some sort of unique hereditary procedure in this case?

Does Claudius want Hamlet to remain with him instead of going to Wittenberg, so he can keep a watchful eye on him? The fact that King Hamlet’s father has only been dead two months makes Claudius’ words to Hamet about his suffering appear manipulative and only intended to further is own agenda.  That Gertrude supports him makes her suspect as well.  With her marrying Claudius so soon after her husband’s death, it is no wonder Hamlet is tormented and conflicted.  Hamlet sees his father as an exemplary figure, nearly a saint, and his treatment at the hands of those closest to him, tears him apart.  He blames his mother more for the speed of her re-marriage although he does mention “incestuous sheets,” indicating her marriage to her brother-in-law is, at least in Hamlet’s eyes, criminal.

With regard to Horatio, why does Hamlet say, “I am glad to see you well. —- Horatio?  Or do I forget myself?”  If Horatio is truly his friend, why is Hamlet uncertain of his name or his recognition of him?  Is this evidence that he is not thinking clearly given the tragedy that he has experienced?


Hamlet Read-Along Posts
Act I  Scene II
Act I  Scene III

The Canterbury Tales ~~ The Prioress’ Prologue and Tale

Posted on by
2
Okay, I really couldn’t let this pass; if you look closely at the picture of the Prioress below, doesn’t it appear that she has a beard?  Odd.
We begin with the Words of the Host to the Shipman and the Prioress, who makes a Latin blunder and then, referring to the last tale, warns the company to be wary of monks.  Turning to the Prioress, he bids her tell a tale, and she appears happy to comply.
She bases her first words on the 8th Psalm, and invokes Mary as her muse, lauding her purity, virtues and magnificence.  The Prioress is only a weak vessel but with Mary’s grace, she will tell her story.

The Prioress’s Tale

In a Christian town in Asia, there was a Jewish ghetto supported by the Crown. The Prioress categorizes the Jews as foul userers and has nothing good to say about them.  Near the ghetto, was situated a little school of Christian children, of whom one, a widow’s son of seven years old, was diligent in his prayers and reverence for all that was holy.  He sang all day praising Christ’s mother, Mary:

“He sang it with a childlike clarity
And boldly, word by word and note by note;
And twice a day it filled his little throat,
Going to school and coming back again,
Praising Christ’s mother with all this might and main.”

Middle English:

And thanne he song it wel and boldely
Fro word to word, acordynge with the note
Twies a day it passed thurgh his throte
To scoleward and homward whan he wente
On Cristes mooder set was his entente

Yet as he sang these praises going down the ghetto street, the Jews plotted his demise and ended up murdering the innocent child.  They dumped him in a sewage drain, but “murder will out” and the child’s voice continued its song. His mother went in search of him and though the Jews would not let her find her son, Jesus led her to him.  As they retrieved the child’s body, still his singing continued.  The provost condemned the guilty Jews to death by drawing them apart by horses and then hanging them from a cart.  The holy abbot, who conducted the boy’s funeral, asked him who permitted his song, whereupon he answered:

“‘Though to the bone my neck is cut, I know,’
Answered the child; ‘and had I been confined
By natural law I should, and long ago,
Have died.  But Christ, whose glory you may find
In books, wills it be also kept in mind.
So far the honour of his mother dear
I still may sing O Alma loud and clear.'”

Middle English:

“My throte is kut unto my nekke boon
Seyde this child, “and as by wey of kynde
I sholde have dyed, ye, longe tyme agon
But Jesu Crist, as ye in bookes fynde
Wil that his glorie laste and be in mynde,
And for the worship of his Mooder deere
Yet may I synge O Alma loude and cleere.

Mary, mother of Christ, bade him sing the anthem until his burying, and so at his burying, the singing stopped.  The convent began to weep at his holiness and reverence.  The story ends by mentioning Hugh of Lincoln, who was also murdered by Jews, and by a benediction for God’s mercy.

The Prioress’s Tale
Edward Coley Burne-Jones
source Wikipedia

This tale mirrors other tales in Medieval Christendom, particularly the story of Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln, where Jews are portrayed as greedy, power-seeking and enemies of the true faith.  The Prioress makes sure to demonize the Jews, yet shows the Christian element as little, innocent and helpless. However even with the tyranny of the Jews, Mary is able to set things aright with the miracle of the boy’s perpetual singing and the indication of his possible sainthood.

Hamlet ~ Act I, Scene I

Posted on by
6

We have begun Hamlette’s read-along of Hamlet for the month of October!  I’m happy to be guided by such an expert (she’ll tell you that she’s not an expert, but I’d hazard to guess that she has more understanding than most of us) through this play and I can’t wait to learn some more insights into Shakespeare’s masterpiece.  You can find the details at The Edge of the Precipice.

___________________________________________________


Hamlet  ~  Act I,  Scene I

As Horatio replaces Fransisco at his place as sentinel, the two other sentinels, Barnardo and Marcellus try to convince him that a ghost has appeared to them the last two nights while on watch. As they attempt to persuade the sceptic, the Ghost appears and Horatio, being the more learned of the three, attempts to communicate with him, in rather stern and commanding language, whereupon the Ghost disappears.

They recognize him as the late king Hamlet and wonder why he appears to them in his armour.  Horatio speculates with a story:  the late king defeated and killed king Fortinbras of Norway after an aggresive attack, yet his son is not honouring the tradition of lands to the winner, and it is rumoured that he’s going to gather some mercenaries and mount an attack against Denmark. The two now understand why the Ghost has appeared in battle gear and add that, like in ancient Rome in the times before Caesar’s death, there has been portents proceeding this possible altercation.

Yet once again the Ghost materializes, and Horatio has enough quickness and intelligence to question it about the fate of Denmark and to inquire if it knows of any treasure hoarded away.  The cock crows and, despite their efforts to waylay it with Marcellus’ sword, the Ghost, once again, withdraws.

Marcellus laments that they chose to practice violence on it, but Horatio states that a cock crowing could signal the approach of morning and that all spirits must return to their “confine(s)”.  It is said a cock also crows before Christmas, Marcellus adds, but Horatio stops him to herald the dawn:

“But look, morn, in russet mantle clad, 
Walks o’er the dew of yon high eastward hill.”

He suggests that they fetch Hamlet for they are sure that the Ghost will speak with him.

Thoughts:

Horatio’s initial disbelief, and then his first encounter with the ghost, starts the building tension in this scene.  He is obviously the most intelligent and sensible of the three, as his surmises and observations are well reasoned and insightful and he recommends fetching Hamlet.

Listening to the Cock (1944)
Marc Chagall
source Wikiart

A parallel between the former battle with Fortinbras and a possible new fight with his son, also called Fortinbras, can be conjectured by the Ghost king’s appearance in battle array.  It’s also possibly important to note that he first appears to the sentinels.  Yet he declines to speak with them.  Is he put off by their manners, or is he wanting conversation with someone else, and, if so, why didn’t he just appear to the person with whom he wishes to speak?

Importance might also be placed on the parallels between Fortinbras and his son, and king Hamlet and his son. With regard to Fortinbras Jr., already he has broken the traditional and honourable actions of forfeiting lands to the battle victor by legal document. And instead of raising an army from among his country’s soldiers, he has chosen to build an army from among the city’s hooligans.  Fortinbras Sr. & King Hamlet both esteemed obedience to tradition, honour and, to a certain degree, trust.  Fortinbras Jr.’s actions have shown disrespect and contempt, not only towards his enemy, but towards those important customs.  What will Hamlet’s actions prove?

The cock crowing is also a significant occurrence.  Certainly, cocks crow to herald a new day, but more importantly, in the New Testament, a cock crowed to portend the betrayal of Jesus by Peter:

“Truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “this very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times.”  Matthew 26:34

Betrayal just has to be an upcoming theme, but betrayal of whom and why?  We shall find out in the upcoming acts!

Hamlet Read-Along Posts
Act I  Scene I

The Canterbury Tales ~~ The Shipman’s Tale

Posted on by
7

The Shipman’s Tale

A merchant of St. Denys in northern France, lives with his wife in comparative luxury.  Sir John, a young monk with a pleasing face, often visits the couple, and he is as close as a brother, since he and the merchant grew up in the same village.  One day, on a visit, the merchant’s wife confesses to the monk that her sex-life with her husband is non-existant, her marriage is unhappy and her husband is miserly.  She is in need of 100 francs, on loan, to buy herself the pretty things which her husband denies her.  Sir John confesses his love for her and agrees to the loan, for which she pays him by sleeping with him after her husband leaves on a business trip.  The merchant’s trip is successful, yet he must borrow money to replenish his stores.  He goes to Paris for the loan and while there, visits Sir John who had borrowed money from him prior to his trip, but the monk claims that he repaid the loan to the merchant’s wife. Annoyed, the merchant confronts her when he arrives home.  Cursing Sir John, she claims that she thought the money was for her and had spent it on clothing.  She offers to repay him with sexual favours.  The merchant, deciding it is fruitless to deride her, forgives her.

Illustration from a 1792 edition

This tale, set in France, apparently has many French phrases in it, adding a touch of local colour and prompting scholars to speculate whether the tale was an early Chaucer and closer to the French fabliaux stories of the time.

There is definitely a parallel between money and sex in this tale.  Without access to money, the wife uses sexual favours as payment, but interestingly, she also uses sex to placate her husband, which makes it appear that sex is certainly the more flexible of the two forms of payment.  And just as the husband takes advantage of his business transactions, so does his wife take advantage of the situation to serve her purposes.  So then the question is, who has the most power in the tale ….. does the wife have all the power and the rich merchant only all the appearance of it?