Them Pesky Ghosts

(Read Claudius Got a Bum Rap before this)

A second support for the theory that Hamlet, not Claudius, killed his King Hamlet rests on the nature of those pesky ghosts. “Ghosts” he says, emphasizing the plural. “Surely you mean ‘ghost.’”

No I don’t. The plural is supported by the play.

Now, everyone assumes there is just one ghost because in all ghostly appearances it is that of the deceased King Hamlet. But if you honestly think there is a real ghost, then you’re no further evolved than some primitive who has no knowledge beyond fear. News bulletin: There is no such thing as ghosts!

And it doesn’t excuse you to say that Shakespeare believed in ghosts. Do you honestly believe that a mind as rare as his held stock in such unprovable and ludicrous nonsense? Granted, he used such things as elves and fairies in his trifles such as Midsummer Night’s Dream and The Tempest. But Hamlet is a serious work and cannot rest on such whimsy. Only one other serious work contains any supernatural elements, that being Macbeth (and we’ll debunk the supernatural in that piece at another time), so don’t go thinking that our Bard actually believed in ghosts.

Yes, of course I know that a ghost appears in the story, but Shakespeare was playing with us, seeing if we would be stupid enough to fall for something so patently absurd. And obviously we as a society, over the past four hundred years, have.

Time for a new look at these ghosts.

There are clearly two different ghosts in this story—one jumps out of the way when it is pursued by weapons (whatever does a dead shade have to fear from sword points and has need of armor, for God’s sake!?); the other one can walk through walls. One can be seen and heard by others and one cannot be seen or heard by anyone--except Hamlet. One ghost appears only in the dark of night, while the other appears during the day. Hmmm. Suspicious. Let’s explore.

The ghost that does all the talking to Hamlet, that tells him how dear old dad died and that he, the son, should get revenge, seems to have some terribly earthbound characteristics. Other than the fact that we are told it is a ghost, is there anything that proves it to be from the supernatural? There is not, so I contend that this ghost is a person playing a ghost!

Why do people assume it is King Hamlet? (a) Because it’s in the king’s castle and (b) because it’s wearing the kings armor. Come on. It’s night, and this ghost has to disappear with the crowing of the cock (until it doesn’t have to obey such rules later on—that’s weird). Why does it come out only at night? So it can’t be seen as the hoax it really is.

It never speaks in front of anyone but only allows Hamlet to hear it speak. Why? Because the voice is NOT that of the late king, but rather of a person playing him.

Who would be playing this part? Why, an actor of course. Someone trained in impersonation and in learning lines and performing for money. Are there any actors in the play. You know there’s a whole troupe of them that mysteriously show up at the castle. To their leader, Hamlet says, “O my old friend! Why, they face is valanced since I saw thee last.” I believe that the last Hamlet saw the actor was playing King Hamlet’s ghost on the battlements of Elsinore!

And just what are we to make of Hamlet’s line, “I heard thee speak me a speech once, but it was never acted, or, if it was, not above once.”? This line is glossed over as unimportant, but it is crucial to understanding that the speech that was spoken was the one given by the ghost about the death of King Hamlet. Of course it was spoken only once!

Therefore, the lead player is the earthly ghost of King Hamlet. But who is responsible for this? Well, it would have to be someone who could let the player into the castle, and only one person knew the player. That would be the prince. Also, when Hamlet learns from Rosencrantz that players are coming, he registers no surprise but incredibly says, “He that plays the king shall be welcome.” You see, these players whom Hamlet was “wont to take such delight in” are arranged by him to come. But one has had a previous royal performance written so as “might [not] indict the author.”

And who might be the author of the speech that the earthly ghost did give? Why, Prince Hamlet, of course. Imagine that the words of the ghost were written by Hamlet, giving a detailed description of how his crime was committed. Only the perpetrator of the crime would have been able to describe the details in the way they are done. Dead men, even in Shakespeare’s day, did not relate the manner of their deaths. Then, as now, it took an eye witness.

If you say this is nonsense, then you might as well you say you believe in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus, too. Keep telling yourself that you are a citizen of the 21st Century and there is no such thing as ghosts—and you MUST come to a new interpretation of this play!

More coming on those pesky ghosts, namely WHY? WHY? WHY?