+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Hamlets Ghost

Hamlets Ghost

Date post: 08-Apr-2018
Category:
Upload: tait-mckenzie
View: 231 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend

of 22

Transcript
  • 8/6/2019 Hamlets Ghost

    1/22

    Tait McKenzie Johnson Junior Literature Seminar

    12.14.10 Uma Satyavolu

    Paper # 2

    More in Heaven and Earth:

    The Strange Eruption ofHamlets Ghost in Early Modern Epistemology

    Why cannot we remember all the contradictions which we feel within

    our own judgment, and how many things which were articles of belief

    for us yesterday are fables for us today? (Montaigne 204)

    Fiction begins where human knowledge begins with the senses. So Flannery

    OConnor asserts in discussing the use of ghosts and other supernatural elements in realist

    Southern fiction, suggesting that, though all writers are bound by what they can perceive, the

    realism of each novelist will depend upon his view of the ultimate reaches of reality (OConnor

    1419-20). And yet, since the 18th century Enlightenment philosophic response to the superstitious

    structures of the Roman Catholic Church, belief in the possibility of real encounters with the

    supernatural has been gradually replaced by a faith in the total efficacy of rational science

    (Goldstein 60-1). Despite the Romantic reinvestment of notions of spirit as valid ways of

    imagining human truth, the modern world has a deep reservation about the realistic representation

    of the supernatural: ghosts serve as merely plot mechanisms, psychological projections, or

    momentary deviations from realist ideologies (Ackerman 119, Belsey 1-2, Smaji 2). According

    to Srdjan Smaji, literary realism has been historically distanced from the supernatural as a

    mode of perceiving, comprehending, and representing persons, objects, and events in accordance

    with natural laws and rationally explicable causal relations (Smaji 1). As such, it seems near

    impossible in the modern world to examine what OConnor posits as an alignment between

    realistic representations of the supernatural and an epistemological philosophic framework that

    doesnt believe in ghosts.

    And yet, ghosts can be fierce and instructive. They cast strange shadows, particularly in

    our literature (OConnor 1421). As Catherine Belsey suggests, in the rational light of modern

    Johnson, 1

  • 8/6/2019 Hamlets Ghost

    2/22

    cities it is easy to forget the darkness and solitude of long winter night in the Early Modern

    countryside, which prompted the telling of ghost stories and experiences undreamt of in [our]

    philosophy (Belsey 20), stories that might lean away from typical social patterns, toward

    mystery and the unexpected (OConnor 1419). The poet Keats famously asserted what he called

    the Negative Capability of the plays of Shakespeare, in which man is capable of being in

    uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact & reason (Cox 23). It is

    possible to see, however, in the mysterious and ghostly opening scene of a play likeHamlet, that

    Shakespeare may have indeed been extremely anxious about uncertainty and the limits of

    knowledge: philosophical debates in Shakespeares Early Modern period hinged around questions

    of skeptical uncertainty and the authentication of religious and supernatural knowledge (Landau

    220, 226).

    John D. Cox argues that the Early Modern resurgence of Pyrrhonic skepticism which

    refused to take a rational stance for or against the certainty of knowing may not have been

    incompatible with the religious faith of the time (Cox 23), which can be seen in Shakespeare as

    well as in contemporary thinkers like Montaigne, Descartes, and Burton. By examining the

    realistic representation of the Ghost inHamletin the context of this Early Modern ambivalence

    between skepticism and faith, we can see the ways in which the supernatural may offer

    knowledge beyond what is dreamt of in philosophy. In particular, the Ghost causes a strange

    eruption in skeptical and religious ideological modes of explanation that allows for a wider

    epistemic articulation of the limits of human history, mortality, and knowledge.

    Before we can examine its philosophical implications, we must be able to see the Ghost

    itself as Early Modern audiences may have seen it. Even shortly after the Early Modern period,

    the Ghost inHamletwas a site for contention. Voltaire felt that Shakespeares use of

    supernatural elements was a monstrous farce and barbaric form of entertainment that broke the

    Aristotelian aesthetic rules; and yet he found the effect produced by the Ghost so powerful that he

    imitated it in his own plays (Townshend 63-4). The predominately positive critical and popular

    Johnson, 2

  • 8/6/2019 Hamlets Ghost

    3/22

    French reception to the Ghost was used to defend Shakespeares worth, despite intellectual

    disbelief in ghosts as superstitious foibles (ibid 69-70). Dale Townshend suggests that in like

    cultural defense, the English reframed Shakespeare as the Gothic Bard, drawing on the terms

    polyvalent representation of an anti-classical, unenlightened, and yet natively English worldview.

    While Shakespeares use of the Ghost eventually aligned the term Gothic with magic and the

    supernatural in the literary tradition of Hawthorne and Poe in which empirical reality is only

    one of the many truths to which ones beliefs lay claim (ibid 67, Ramos 49-50) in the 18th

    century these Gothic valances were primarily seen as the result of the belief structures of the

    unenlightened age in which Shakespeare lived rather than a lack of his genius (Townshend 67).

    Shakespeares genius, on the other hand, may have been precisely that his native superstitions

    were not crushed by classical education (ibid 68). While other contemporary critics may have

    felt the Ghost was unnecessary to later action in the play, most audiences clearly found it

    unthinkable to remove the Ghost from productions ofHamlet(ibid 68, Ackerman 72).

    Much of the popularity and powerful effect of the Ghost may be due to the way in which

    Shakespeare invested his specter with a sense of deepening mystery and epistemic anxiety

    new to the early modern stage (Belsey 1). As Oscar Wilde reminds us, in Shakespeares day

    ghosts were not shadowy conceptions, but beings of flesh and blood (Ackerman 125). Drawing

    on the earlier use of ghosts in Seneca, English stage ghosts had been typically blood curdling

    rather than eerie, serving to set the scene or incite characters to violence the way Robert Burton

    claims his age will have ghosts be devils or the souls of dead men that seek revenge, or else

    souls out of purgatory that seek ease, rather than used to build a mysterious unease between

    disbelief and fear (Belsey 6-7, Burton 1.193-4). Belsey suggests that Shakespeare was able to

    represent this uncanny quality of the supernatural in which fear is brought into being by the

    unknown by drawing his Ghost not only from religious superstitions but also from the folklore

    tradition of ghost stories (ibid 7, 22). Like reports of actual supernatural encounters, ghost

    stories foreground this uncertainty through a ghosts questionable form, insusceptibility to

    Johnson, 3

  • 8/6/2019 Hamlets Ghost

    4/22

    rational reporting, and provocation of existential terror; all of which Shakespeare uses in Hamlet,

    and may have left his audiences agreeing with the rational scholar Horatio, who can ultimately

    only say that his encounter with the Ghost is wondrous strange (Shakespeare 1.5.163).

    According to Alan L. Ackerman, one of the challenges ofHamlet(and theater in general)

    is in making visible subjects and objects of knowledge, as the psychology of characters, like

    ghosts, resists direct representation (Ackerman 121, 123). Though apparitions are popularly seen

    as substanceless, and contemporary Christianity drew a clear distinction between the soul and the

    body, ghosts are paradoxically not just etheric psychological projections: folk tales and theology

    both cast ghosts as corporeal and physically threatening (Belsey 14, 24). The Ghost inHamlet

    appears in a similarly indeterminate form, in the same figure like the king thats dead and in the

    very armor he had on/ When he the ambitious Norway combated (Shakespeare 1.1.41, 60-1).

    While armor was probably the easiest way of visibly costuming a ghost, the guards take it as

    materially solid enough that they attempt to strike the Ghost with a partisan. When they do

    however, it is as the air, invulnerable,/ And our vain blows malicious mockery (ibid 1.1.145-6).

    As Burton says, spirits may deceive the eyes of men, yet not take true bodies, or make a real

    metamorphosis (Burton 1.185), placing them outside of epistemologically certain modes of

    perception.

    Another representational aspect of ghost stories is their use of location, particularly the

    alignment of ghosts with the terror produced by graveyards and other in-between places (like the

    castle walls) (Belsey 10). As dead bodies spread disease, early modern religious accounts of the

    walking dead equated ghosts to infection, mirrored in Hamlets vision of the air of Denmark as a

    foul and pestilent congregation of vapors (ibid 15-6, Shakespeare 2.2.287-8). Early ghost

    stories similarly frame events as happening years ago or far away, a distancing effect that

    enhances credibility (opposite to the way modern media build credibility through casting fictional

    events as based on real incidents) (Belsey 21). The Gothic and medieval castle of Elsinore is

    far enough from Early Modern England that it can stand for the fragmented Reformation world,

    Johnson, 4

  • 8/6/2019 Hamlets Ghost

    5/22

    where the very fundamentals of religious knowledge are contended and where a ghost cant

    help but to appear (Landau 220).

    Beyond the uncertain appearance and placement of ghosts, the supernatural provokes an

    ambivalent response in those who witness it. Though the modern scientific attitude finds nothing

    rational in ghost stories, Diane E. Goldstein argues that narrative accounts of supernatural

    encounters contain a cautious structure that appeals to rational evidence within a scientific

    methodology (Goldstein 70-1, 78), the way that Horatio appeals to his own empirical credibility

    when he says, I might not this believe/ Without the sensible and true avouch/ Of mine own eyes

    (Shakespeare 1.1.56-8). Rational ghost reports also rely on multiple witnesses and the replication

    of experience, which can be seen when the guards call on Horatio to approve [their] eyes only

    after the dreaded sight [is] twice seen (Goldstein 75, Shakespeare 1.1.29, 25), or the way

    Horatio has to deliver the marvel to Hamlet upon the witness of these gentlemen (Shakespeare

    1.2.193). Goldstein suggests that ghost reports also refer to reality-testing strategies to ascertain

    the validity of the experience (Goldstein 74). Despite Hamlets willingness to take the ghosts

    word for a thousand pounds, he later stages the play-within-the-play as an epistemological test

    of the ghosts claim (Shakespeare 3.2.262, Landau 227). Though rational reports also typically

    foreground facts over interpretations in order to distance their credibility from superstition

    (Goldstein 76), as we will see, Shakespeares inclusion of possible interpretations in the response

    to the Ghost may allow him to offer up the broader philosophical debates of his time.

    Prior to and possibly enabling such philosophical analyses, there is another existential

    component to the response to the supernatural, which the rational and classical knowledge of a

    Horatio cannot contain (Landau 219). As Horatio aptly describes it, the ghost harrows me with

    fear and wonder (Shakespeare 1.1.44). Horror is the most common reaction to ghosts and ghost

    stories (Belsey 19); the guards are distilled/ Almost to jelly with the act of fear, and even the

    Ghost itself claims that its tale would harrow up thy soul, freeze thy young blood,/ Make thy

    eyes like stars start from their spheres,/ Thy knotted and combind locks to part,/ And each

    Johnson, 5

  • 8/6/2019 Hamlets Ghost

    6/22

    particular hair to stand an end (Shakespeare 1.2.204-5, 1.5.14-19). Yet as Horatios inclusion of

    wonder in his response implies, fear is not the sole emotional response to ghosts.

    Drawing on William Jamess psychological approach to the existential validity of

    religious experiences, Rudolf Otto offers a fuller picture of this affective response to the

    supernatural. While God was philosophically conceived as rational in order to allow for belief

    rather than mere feelings toward it, God (and other supernatural beings) eludes the conceptual

    way of understanding, and thus provokes an irrational creature-feeling that Otto calls

    mysterium tremendum (Otto 1-2, 10). The supernatural provokes mystery, in that such beings

    are wholly alien to us, uncomprehended and unexplained, which in turn causes us to tremble

    with an awe or dread deeper than plain fear (ibid 25-6, 14). This feeling is both daunting and

    fascinating because it contains an overpowering sense of majesty, the way contemporary critics

    suggested that Shakespeare presented his ghosts, with the utmost Solemnity, awful throughout

    and majestic (ibid 19, Townshend 71). As Hamlet can only exclaim when he sees the ghosts

    near-divine majesty, O all you host of heaven! O earth! What else?/ And shall I couple hell? O,

    fie! Hold, hold, my heart (Shakespeare 1.5.92-3)

    Though ghosts provoke this feeling of grue (or grisly horror) which pleases audiences

    in our wanting to be rid of them and thus the feeling we are simultaneously fascinated because

    the supernatural entices the imagination with a majestic glimpse of something that has no place

    in our scheme of reality; and yet the supernatural is here and must be reckoned with (Otto 28-9).

    Faced with his deep feelings of fear and wonder, Horatios rational response to the ghosts

    appearance is upended: In what particular thought to work I know not/ But in the gross and

    scope of mine opinion,/ This bodes some strange eruption to our state (Shakespeare 1.1.67-9).

    Beyond the literal state of Denmark, the supernatural causes an eruption to the assumed certainty

    of human perceptual, mental, and emotional states, leaving witnesses and audience members in a

    new state of epistemological uncertainty open to skeptical investigation.

    While Mark Matheson reads Shakespeares plays in terms of their oblique and

    Johnson, 6

  • 8/6/2019 Hamlets Ghost

    7/22

    inconsistent use of religious discourses, the critic Aaron Landau suggests that such a reading

    ignores the Early Modern context of a revived skepticism in response to the schisms in the church

    and their contentions for religious legitimacy (Landau 218). Skeptical doubt may account for the

    instability of ideological systems inHamlet, undoing claims of knowledge and placing error and

    ignorance as the basis for dramatic action: Hamlets inability to act is thus an epistemological

    uncertainty of how to act (ibid 218-9). What does Early Modern skepticism look like though?

    Writing contemporaneously to Shakespeare and likely influencing the Bards plays, Michel de

    Montaigne was known for his skeptical stance toward supernatural agents (Spires 205). As

    Montaigne says, If I heard tell of ghosts walking or of prophecies, enchantments, sorcery, or

    some other tale which I could not get my teeth into I used to feel sorry for the wretched folk

    who were taken in by such madness (Montaigne 200-1). According to Margaret Spires,

    Montaigne limited the scope of knowledge in hisEssays solely to his natural faculties instead of

    Saint Augustines Middle Ages separation between knowledge of divine and human things

    (wisdom vs. science), Montaigne limited his studies to what we know that we can know (ibid

    206-7). This suggests a move from a Christian to a secular ideal of knowledge (ibid 208), in

    which, as Montaigne says, we attribute to simplemindedness a readiness to believe anything and

    to ignorance the readiness to be convinced (Montaigne 200). This seems to agree with the

    modern scientific attitude in which entities that we do not find evidence of when we make an

    effort to look for them ought to be considered non-existent (Keeley 143).

    Ghost stories similarly begin with a frame of disbelief, at first limiting what is credible so

    that, when supernatural evidence to the contrary is presented, it becomes affectively appalling

    (Belsey 3). We can see this limited credibility in Horatios response to the possibility of the

    Ghost inHamlet. As an agent of sober rationalism trained in Lutheran Wittenberg, Horatio will

    not let belief take hold of him and doubts that the supernatural is anything more than a fantasy

    of the guards (Shakespeare 1.1.23-4). As a skeptic, Horatio limits his understanding of what he

    knows we can know, referring to the Ghost as a thing (ibid 1.1.21). While Belsey reads the

    Johnson, 7

  • 8/6/2019 Hamlets Ghost

    8/22

    word thing as indicative of Horatios contempt for the supernatural (Belsey 3), it rather

    suggests that ghost is not something that fits into expected categories of knowledge: ghosts are

    not living or dead, human or divine, solid or ephemeral, &c. At the same time, Horatio may be

    adverse to having those categories of knowledge challenged. As Bernardo points out, Horatios

    ears are fortified against [the guards] story (Shakespeare 1.1.32), leading him to demand as

    Burton claims of philosophers who hold all religion a fiction, opposite to reason and

    philosophy that, in spiritual things God must demonstrate all to sense. (Burton 3.384).

    Despite his reservations and appeals to evidence, when the Ghost appears, Horatio is forced to

    revise his limited scope of knowledge and admit to Hamlet, As I do live, my honored lord, tis

    true (ibid 1.2.220-1).

    That a scholar like Horatio is able to reverse his position and admit the possibility of the

    Ghosts existence suggests that something does not quite work in his mode of skepticism. The

    problem is that there are more ways than one to doubt. According the Stanford Encyclopedia of

    Philosophy, there is a distinction between ordinary incredulity and philosophical skepticism. In

    an ordinary incredulity like the kind we at first see in Horatios response to the Ghost, the

    grounds for doubt can be removed; if we are presented with contrary evidence such as actually

    seeing a ghost, then were forced to revise the scope of our knowledge (even if this leads to fear

    and wonder). Philosophical Skepticism, on the other hand, attempts to render doubtful our

    claims to be able to have knowledge altogether, in order to then find clearer rational grounds for

    such knowledge, a project most associated with the philosophy of Ren Descartes. Writing a few

    decades after Shakespeare, Descartes attempted to establish a firmer ground for scientific

    knowledge and make it impossible for us to have any further doubt through a process of

    doubting everything he had previously held to be true (Descartes 73, 76). Beyond doubting what

    is patently false, Descartes doubted what was not completely certain and indubitable,

    including the evidence of his sense perceptions and the ability of the senses to grant us true

    knowledge (ibid 76).

    Johnson, 8

  • 8/6/2019 Hamlets Ghost

    9/22

    Though Shakespeare could not have read Descartes, and Descartes methodological

    skepticism was apparently beyond everyone in the Early Modern period, it is possible that the

    two authors shared a skepticism about supernatural intervention and causation that hinged on

    evidence of the senses (Cox 31). As Burton suggests, we can no more apprehend [spirits]

    natures and functions than a horse a mans (Burton 1.184). Just because the characters in

    Hamletbelieve they see the Ghost doesnt mean that it necessarily exists. As Ackerman points

    out, there is confusion between the literal and metaphorical in the way Horatio and Hamlet talk

    about the Ghost; both refer to is as existing in the minds eye, that is, in their imaginations

    (Ackerman 124, Shakespeare 1.1.12, 1.2.185). As Horatio comments about Hamlets need to

    believe in the Ghost, he waxes desperate with imagination (Shakespeare 1.4.87). Hamlet seems

    to have a problem of taking images of fancy as more vivid than his perceptions; that he meets the

    Ghost alone in Act 1 Scene 5 makes it impossible to determine whether the Ghost is real or a

    private neurotic fantasy (as has been claimed by later critics like Stanley Cavell) (Ackerman 127,

    Landau 225). As Burton might say, Hamlet is melancholy by reason of corrupt imagination

    (Burton 3.58). While the Ghost clearly only appears to Hamlet and not Gertrude in the closet

    scene in Act 2, we are still left with the problem that it is witnessed by everyone in the opening of

    the play (Ackerman 130).

    It doesnt seem likely that Hamlet, Horatio, and the guards are collectively imagining the

    Ghost (though it is tempting to suggest they are suffering a hallucination caused by the corrupt air

    of Denmark, in a way similar to how Poe explains the supernatural occurrences ofThe Fall of the

    House of Usher). Descartes however provides an alternative in what is called his demon

    hypothesis, in which it is possible that they are all being supernaturally deceived. Doubting

    even beyond his senses, Descartes asks if God didnt bring it about that nothing actually exists the

    way it appears; but as God is extremely good and the source of all truth, Descartes instead

    posits that some malicious demon of the utmost power and cunning has employed all his

    energies in order to deceive me (Descartes 78-9). Burton similarly claims that ghosts deceive

    Johnson, 9

  • 8/6/2019 Hamlets Ghost

    10/22

    all our senses, even our understanding itself (Burton 1.186). The characters inHamletsuggest

    this possibility after seeing the Ghost, as when Hamlet worries if it is a spirit of health or goblin

    damned (Shakespeare 1.4.40). Horatio fears that the Ghost will tempt Hamlet into mortal

    danger, and there assume some other horrible form,/ Which might deprive your sovereignty of

    reason,/ And draw you into madness (ibid 1.4.72-4). Hamlet ultimately designs the play-within-

    the-play to test this demon hypothesis, for if Claudius doesnt corroborate the Ghosts claim of

    murder, then it is a damnd ghost that we have seen,/ And [Hamlets] imaginations are as foul/

    as Vulcans stithy (ibid 3.2.73-5).

    Demonic deception may have been the most common explanation for abnormal thinking

    and behavior in the Early Modern age, as men commonly believe that the devil infatuates the

    world, deludes, entraps, and destroys many a thousand souls (Burton 3.325). As Cox points out

    however, the effect produced by the possibility of such deception has vastly different implications

    in Shakespeares plays. While for Descartes it serves as a skeptical prelude to rational

    certainty, inHamletsuch suspicions place the tragic results of the play within the Christian

    moral framework of a fallen world, where human knowledge is partial, distorted, and self-

    serving, but where moral insight is not only possible but requisite (Cox 33-4, 26). The

    uncertainty of the Ghosts reality and intentions is not an indifferent academic debate because of

    its religious implications; encountering the ghost exposes Hamlet to the danger of madness or the

    temptation to sin (Landau 220, 225). In Elsinore, like in Early Modern Europe, moral uncertainty

    can get you killed or condemned to hell. Montaigne shares Shakespeares doubts about human

    moral as well as intellectual capacity, suggesting that such error derives from having recourse to

    God in all our designs without considering whether the occasion is just or unjust (Cox 24).

    Uncertain as to whether the Ghosts call for revenge is of heavenly or hellish design; Hamlet is

    forced to hesitate in killing Claudius and unjustly sending this same villain to heaven

    (Shakespeare 3.3.77-8). The problem seems to stem from the fact that, though God had been held

    as the ultimate source of reason and truth, God like the Ghost is by nature inscrutable, and

    Johnson, 10

  • 8/6/2019 Hamlets Ghost

    11/22

    requires man to more fully determine what constitutes grounds for proof in our assumed ability to

    know divine plans (Keeley 143).

    Though Descartes mode of skepticism would eventually return God to its rational peak

    as a source for truth, this certainty was being drastically questioned by the Reformation schisms

    of the Early Modern period. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, both the

    Protestant Reformation and the counter-Reformation defense of Catholicism drew on the

    Pyrrhonic skeptical arguments of Sextus Empiricus that were currently being rediscovered in

    Europe. Unlike the now more commonly accepted Academic Skepticism of Descartes, what is

    called Pyrrhonic Skepticism refused to give assent to whether we can know or not know, which

    was used by both sides of this religious debate to limit the dogmatic pretensions of philosophical

    reason. The reformers, on the one hand, used such skepticism to claim that God was unknowable

    and faith must be based on passionate commitment, where Catholic apologists like Montaigne

    were skeptical of Protestant dogma and thus may have recommended loyalty to the prevailing

    religious beliefs and rituals of the age (a view termed fideism, which will be examined in fuller

    detail below). As Montaigne argues, what brings as much disorder as anything into our

    consciences during our current religious strife is the way Catholics are prepared to treat some of

    their beliefs as expendable. They believe they are being moderate and well-informed when they

    surrender to their enemies some of the articles of faith which are in dispute (Montaigne 204)

    One such prevailing article of faith questioned by Protestant reformers was the Catholic

    tradition of selling indulgences, particularly to remove dead souls from purgatory. In a reversal

    of the medieval view espoused by Saint Augustine in which funerals are only for the living

    because God does not let the dead to return in the form of ghosts, in the 12th

    Century the Church

    sanctioned purgatory, serving institutional interests of requiring additional masses paid for by the

    bereaved in order to release the souls of their loved ones from suffering (Belsey 8-9). As Burton

    contends of the Church making religion mere policy in this way: nothing is so effective for

    keeping the masses under control as superstition (Burton 3.328). It is in this belief that the

    Johnson, 11

  • 8/6/2019 Hamlets Ghost

    12/22

    Ghost inHamletseems to exist, claiming that it is doomed for a certain term to walk the night,/

    And for the day confined to fast in fires,/ Till the foul crimes done in my days of nature/ Are

    burnt and purged away (Shakespeare 1.5.10-13). Under Catholicism, Hamlet could have bought

    an indulgence for his Fathers sins, but in the Reformation World as in the play no such outlet

    is available. While this has been used to support readings ofHamletin which the inconsistently

    conflicting religious ideologies resolve in favor of Protestantism (Landau 218-9), the Ghost still

    exists beyond Protestant dogma, suggesting instead that there may be a greater design at work in

    what appears as Shakespeares examination and dismissal of every available philosophical and

    theological response to and explanation for the Ghost.

    Despite the Protestant abolishment of purgatory and the official religious sanction for

    belief in spirits, people in the Early Modern age continued to tell ghost stories and profess belief

    in real ghosts, with claimed supernatural encounters growing so common that Bishop James

    Pilkington had to admit in 1564 that everyone still believes in them (Belsey 9). As can be seen in

    the treatment of ghosts in Robert Burtons The Anatomy of Melancholy, belief in spirits may not

    have conflicted with official theological positions orrational scientific philosophies in the Early

    Modern mind. According to Mary Ann Lund, Burton combined scientific and spiritual

    approaches to reality to an extent unique in the Early Modern age, including both Heathen and

    Christian stories as equally necessary to his primary goal of curing melancholy (Lund 666, 678).

    As Burton said, melancholy is a disease of the soul as much appertaining to a divine as to a

    physician (Burton 1.37). Despite contemporaneous texts on disease that drew clear distinctions

    between physical and spiritual causes (Lund 670), Burton considers the natural and supernatural

    on the same footing, claiming, general causes are either supernatural or natural, which drew on

    ancient Hippocratic debates about whether the disease come not from a divine supernatural

    cause, or whether it follow the course of nature (Burton 1.178-9).

    In his discussion of ghosts, Burton raises the spectral paradox of the Early Modern age:

    Many men will not believe they can be seen, and if any man shall say, swear, and stiffly

    Johnson, 12

  • 8/6/2019 Hamlets Ghost

    13/22

    maintain, though he be discreet and wise, judicious and learned, that he hath seen them, they

    account him a timorous fool, a melancholy dizzard, a weak fellow, a dreamer, a sick or a mad

    man, they contemn him, laugh him to scorn, and yet How far the power of spirits and devils

    doth extend, and whether they can cause this, or any other disease, is a serious question, and

    worthy to be considered (Burton 1.183, 181)

    Just because philosophers, religious dogmatists, and atheists alike deny the existence of ghosts

    because they never saw them, there are just as many credible sources that have an infinite

    variety of such examples of apparitions of spirits, for him to read that further doubts, to his ample

    satisfaction (Burton 1.180, 184). Though he was himself a pastor, as well as a clearly rational

    Early Modern thinker, Burton skeptically refrains from taking either a philosophical or religious

    stance for or against the actual existence of ghosts; he prefers instead to rationally catalogue their

    number and types so that those who do believe in ghosts will have this information available for

    their cure just as much as he informs those who only require knowledge of medical anatomy.

    In examining the responses to the Ghost inHamlet, Shakespeare seems to agree with

    Burton that our stories are full of such apparitions in all kinds (Burton 1.190). It is not, as

    Landau claims, that the ghost causes a debacle of human knowledge, in which the rational

    Classicism of Horatio is transformed into a series of incredible tales about graves standing

    tenantless, sheeted dead squeaking and gibbering in the Roman streets (Landau 219). The Bard

    instead sides with Burtons Early Modern skeptical position that, in the absence of certainty

    surrounding an event such as caused by a ghost; all modes of cultural discourse and explanation

    must be honestly and un-dogmatically examined. It is not just to tell fantastic tales that Horatio

    explores the various surviving folktale reasons for a ghosts return: if there be any good thing to

    be done,/ That may to thee do ease If thou art privy to thy countrys fate,/ Which happily

    foreknowing may avoid Or if thou hast uphoarded in thy life/ Extorted treasure in the womb of

    earth,/ For which, they say, you spirits oft walk in death (Shakespeare 1.1.130-8). The guards

    similarly raise superstitious religious readings of the Ghosts relation to divinity, without

    claiming whether these readings are true, as when Marcellus remarks, Some say that ever gainst

    Johnson, 13

  • 8/6/2019 Hamlets Ghost

    14/22

    that season comes/ Wherein our Saviors birth is celebrated,/ This bird of dawning singeth all

    night long,/ And then, they say, no spirit dare stir abroad (Shakespeare 1.1.158-161). Horatio

    honestly wants to know what they say, and responds to all these possible interpretations with a

    surprisingly open-minded attitude that contemporary audiences may have agreed with: So have I

    heard and do in part believe it (ibid 1.1.165).

    While this openness toward the possibility of real supernatural experiences seems

    contradictory to the modern scientific understanding of skepticism, it may in fact be the clearest

    articulation of Early Modern attempts to resolve the epistemological crises of their age. Even

    Montaigne who originally felt that belief in the supernatural was madness ultimately agrees

    that it is a greater madness to dismiss such beliefs outright without equally considering the

    possibility that they are true (Spires 212):

    It is not that experience has subsequently shown me anything going beyond my original beliefs

    (nor is it from any lack of curiosity on my part), but reason has taught me that, if you condemn in

    this way anything whatever as definitely false and quite impossible, you are claiming to know the

    frontiers and bounds of the will of God and the power of Nature (Montaigne 201).

    Critics like Cox primarily attempt to read Montaignes articulation of Pyrrhonic skepticism as

    solely reaffirming local customs and contemporary religious expectations, following Montaignes

    assertion that we have no other test of truth and reason than the example and pattern of the

    opinions and customs of the country we live in (Cox 28). This kind of Catholic Pyrrohnism

    what Richard Popkin termed fideism would have enabled believers to eschew reason, even to

    the point of complete skepticism, in order to emphasize faith and grace (ibid 28, 30). While it is

    true that Early Modern skeptical debates did not compel doubt in Christian faith (Cox 35)

    Montaigne, Descartes, Burton, and Shakespeare all still believed in God that does not mean

    skepticism compelled irrational belief in only God or an un-questioned belief in God. As

    Montaigne recommends, we ought to judge the infinite power of Nature with more reverence

    and a greater recognition of our own ignorance and weakness, and that, if we can not be

    Johnson, 14

  • 8/6/2019 Hamlets Ghost

    15/22

    convinced we should at least remain in suspense. To condemn them as impossible is to be rashly

    presumptuous, boasting that we know the limits of the possible (Montaigne 202).

    Though he had originally sought to limit the scope of available human knowledge,

    Montaigne admits that there is a real danger to any limited or dogmatic worldview: as soon as

    you have established the frontiers of truth and error and then discover that you must of

    necessity believe some things even stranger than the ones which you reject, than you are already

    forced to abandon those frontiers (Montaigne 204). Burton conversely concurs that though

    superstition dilated herself, error, ignorance, barbarism, folly, madness, deceived, triumphed,

    and insulted over the most wise, discreet, and understanding men, any form of belief can have

    positive effects: a religion, even if false, as long as it is believed, moderates passion, checks self

    indulgence, and makes subjects obedient to their prince (Burton 3.322, 329). Even modern

    literary critics like Smaji agree that to draw a line between the rational scope of literary realism

    and the realistic representation of the supernatural is to make an arbitrary distinction based on a

    limited, ungeneralizable experience of reality and a limited, arbitrary definition of realism

    (Smaji 16). InHamlet, when Horatios attempts to examine what the Ghost is and means

    through the various cultural modes of theological, popular, existential, and academically skeptical

    discourse leave him unable to say anything certainly other than that the supernatural is wondrous

    strange, Hamlet Pyrrhonically consoles him that it is not a negative thing to have to abandon his

    limited and now distant frontiers of knowledge: therefore as a stranger give it welcome./ There

    are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio/ Than are dreamt of in your philosophy

    (Shakespeare 1.5.163-6).

    The source of tragedy in Shakespeares play however, may be that Hamlet is not able to

    disinterestedly follow his own skeptical advice. Hamlet welcomes the ghost in accepting the

    possibility of its appearance, but it has appeared in the form of his recently deceased father; such

    a questionable shape/ That [he] will speak to [the Ghost] though hell itself should gape/ And

    bid me hold my peace (ibid 1.4.43-44, 242-3). The uncertainty caused by Hamlets state of

    Johnson, 15

  • 8/6/2019 Hamlets Ghost

    16/22

    mourning has such deep personal, political, and spiritual implications within the confusion of

    discourses of the Early Modern age, that the prince cant help but demand an epistemological

    resolution from his fathers spirit, whether or not the Ghost can provide the answers that Hamlet

    sorely needs (Landau 221-2). Let me not burst in ignorance, Hamlet says, but tell/ Why these

    canonized bones, harsed in death,/ Have burst their cerements (ibid 1.4.44-6). Hamlet wants to

    know beyond the possibilities for knowledge offered by skepticism. But can the Ghost as

    Smaji suggests of the supernatural in modern realist narratives articulate a revelation beyond

    the powers of ordinary human knowledge (Smaji 7)?

    Belesy echoes what we saw as the strange eruption caused by the existential response

    to the supernatural: that by belonging to a past that should be closed by death, and yet returning to

    trouble the present and future, the Ghost suspends the rules of nature and familiar categories of

    knowledge, prompting Hamlet to shake with thoughts beyond the reaches of the soul (Belsey 5,

    Shakespeare 1.4.56). Burton concurs that Early Moderns believed that ghosts have

    understanding far beyond men, can probably conjure and foretell many things (Burton 1.186).

    In the play, Horatio tells his ghost stories of the sheeted dead and cosmic strife as harbingers

    preceding still the fates/ And prologue to the omen coming on, while Bernardo offers a Christian

    reading of the Ghost as offering divine revelation in his allusion to the star above Christs birth

    (Shakespeare 1.1.115, 122-3, 36-7, Landau 220). Landau suggests that Hamlet reads the Ghost in

    terms of its revelatory ability to grant new states of consciousness undermining previous

    knowledge, in that it can wipe away all trivial fond records,/ All saw of books, all forms, all

    pressures past, and offer a new commandment within the book and volume of [Hamlets]

    brain (Shakespeare 1.5.98-100, 102-3). At the same time however, this revelatory ability of the

    Ghost may not transcend the limits of human knowledge; though Hamlet exclaims O my

    prophetic soul, the Ghost only confirms what Hamlet already suspected about his fathers

    murder (Landau 224, Shakespeare 1.5.40).

    While the Early Modern man continued to believe ghosts were concerned with earthly

    Johnson, 16

  • 8/6/2019 Hamlets Ghost

    17/22

    justice, despite Augustines insistence that the dead are indifferent to the things of this world

    (Belsey 17), Shakespeares genius was in allowing the Ghosts concern with justice to reflect and

    make legible the larger political turbulence that haunts the world of Denmark in the play. As the

    Ghost allows Hamlet to rightly recognize, my fathers spirit in arms? All is not well. I doubt

    some foul play Foul deeds will rise,/ Though all the earth oerwhelm them, to mens eyes

    (Shakespeare 1.2.252-5). The ability of ghosts to voice otherwise unspeakable truths is one of the

    main critical appeals of the literary supernatural; as Theodore Adorno argued, in the face of

    trauma, art must rely on techniques of representation and signification at odds with our

    commonly agreed upon perception of reality (Smaji 3, Ramos 54). Looking at the

    metaphorical use of the term ghost to describe the characters in FaulknersAbsalom, Absalom,

    Peter Ramos argues that ghosts are the most appropriate symbol for addressing the agonizing

    paradoxes that arise when one looks backwards toward a personal and communal trauma

    (Ramos 53). Where realistic and rational representational techniques tempt us to speak nothing

    beyond respectful silence in the face of atrocities like human slavery or the Holocaust, ghosts

    articulate a broader historical understanding of the way the past continually influences the

    present, embodying the haunting presence of the silent, invisible victims of the past (ibid 47-8,

    50).

    The Ghost of Hamlets father is certainly a victim of murder, but as Horatio comments,

    there needs no ghost, my lord, come from the grave/ To tell us that the murderer Claudius is a

    villain and arrant knave (Shakespeare 1.5.125-6). The old king was also the central figure in

    resolving Denmarks previous border wars with Norway, and it is the return of the Ghost in his

    warlike form that prompts the characters to remember this recent history; as Bernardo point out,

    well may it sort that this portentous figure/ Comes armed through our watch so like the king/

    That was and is the question of these wars (ibid 1.1.9-11). The Ghost further allows the guards

    and Horatio to admit that the communal trauma of war is still going on despite the internal

    dramas of Elsinore, thus boding some strange eruption to our state, but this time to the literal

    Johnson, 17

  • 8/6/2019 Hamlets Ghost

    18/22

    state of Denmark. As Marcellus is forced to conclude, something is rotten in the state of

    Denmark (ibid 1.4.90). It seems that there is a deeper political implication to the Ghosts

    commandment of revenge; that if the rotten personal conflicts in the heart of Elsinore remain

    unresolved, all Denmark will fall pray to the machinations of Fortinbras, on whom Hamlet does

    prophecy th election lights at the conclusion of the play (ibid 5.2.334).

    The political is not the only larger sphere that the Ghost makes legible inHamlet.

    Encountering the Ghost of his father confronts Hamlet with the fact of human mortality and his

    own eventual destiny (Belsey 13). As Belsey suggests, the use of ghosts in otherwise realistic

    literature allows for intimations of mortality not easily registered within a realist frame, in that

    death is a limit to human knowledge despite official theological or popular superstitions about

    what might happen beyond death (ibid 2, 25). The inability to know what lies beyond life causes

    a similar epistemic terror as is typical of encounters with the supernatural, leading Hamlet to

    seriously ponder the dread of something after death, and that the undiscovered country, from

    whose bourn/ No traveller returns, puzzles the will,/ and makes us rather bear those ills we have/

    Than fly to other we know not of (Shakespeare 3.1.78-82). Despite Hamlets uncertainty of how

    to either live or die, impending death forces us to action, but without such knowledge it leads to

    the erroneous actions that have deep moral results.

    As Townshend suggests, death thus stands in an intimate relation to truth, in that it causes

    a break in the fabric of everyday life that needs to be epistemologically resolved (Townshend 74,

    77). This is particularly the case in the Early Modern period, where the proper morning rituals

    surrounding the Catholic notions of purgatory are cut short by Protestant skepticism, leading to

    the anxiety of Hamlets need to remember and mourn his father (ibid 75-6). As Lacan later

    suggested about the Gothic relation of ghosts to aborted mourning practices, what we dont

    mourn haunts us (ibid 77). The Ghost does not only allow Hamlet to recognize his own mortality

    but also his uncertainty of what happens after death. Are we condemned to purgatory for our

    sins, do we go to heaven as hes afraid Claudius might despite our sins, can we kill ourselves

    Johnson, 18

  • 8/6/2019 Hamlets Ghost

    19/22

    and despite that go to heaven as does Ophelia, or, if we cant know what happens beyond death,

    does it matter if we die early and violently (Belsey 26)? To be, or not to be, that is the question

    (Shakespeare 3.1.56). Far from granting Hamlet an answer however, the Ghost raises these

    questions to the extent that Hamlet eventually must conclude, since no man of aught he leaves

    knows, what ist to leave betimes? Let be (Shakespeare 5.2.197-8). The Ghost ultimately forces

    us to recognize the uncomfortable fact that, no matter what we do, we all will die.

    In the end, death is the result of all human striving after power and knowledge; though

    man is noble in reason we are yet a quintessence of death (ibid 1.2.293, 298). The tragedy

    for Hamlet, like for the Early Modern age, is that problems of error, insufficient knowledge, and

    theological misconception cost people their lives, and all attempts to philosophically examine the

    human condition no more allow Horatio to explain events at the end as at the beginning of the

    play (Landau 228, 230). Though Horatio attempts to speak to th yet unknowing world/ How

    these things came about, the bodies on stage remain a mere spectacle of spiritless corpses

    (Shakespeare 5.2.358-9, Townshend 74). Jonathon Dollimore asserts that the endings of

    Shakespeares tragedies are opaque in regards to divine justice, but as Cox points out, in the

    Reformation world, God is no longer accessible to human reason (Cox 39), echoing

    Montaignes admission that we claim recourse to Gods design regardless of whether we can

    know such a design, and may thus be forced to recognize our human limitations.

    This stands as the crux of the Early Modern epistemological crises; that though we ought

    not to limit the scope of possible knowledge allowing for a belief in the supernatural that

    broadens our epistemological frontiers; at the same time we are forced to recognize that we may

    not be able to attain an ultimate source for religious or philosophical knowledge (Landau 230),

    and are thus left with the guards inHamlet, stranded on the uncertain castle walls telling ghost

    stories for entertainment. Though the strange eruption of the Ghost raises questions about

    history, mortality, and knowledge itself, it simultaneously troubles those questions to a greater

    uncertainty, at least until Descartes revitalized the rational abilities of God for the Enlightenment.

    Johnson, 19

  • 8/6/2019 Hamlets Ghost

    20/22

    But within Shakespeares Early Modern period we may only be able to follow Horatios final

    advice, that regardless of what we seek, if aught of woe or wonder, cease your search lest

    more mischance/ On plots and errors happen (Shakespeare 5.2.341-2, 373-4).

    Johnson, 20

  • 8/6/2019 Hamlets Ghost

    21/22

    Works Cited

    Ackerman Jr, Alan L. Visualizing Hamlets Ghost: The Spirit of Modern Subjectivity. TheatreJournal53.1 (Mar. 2001): 119-144.JSTOR. Web. 13 Nov. 2010

    Amesbury, Richard. Fideism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 14 Dec. 2010

    < http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fideism/>

    Burton, Robert. The Anatomy of Melancholy. New York Review Books, New York: 2001

    Belsey, Catherine. Shakespeares Sad Tale for Winter: Hamlet and the Tradition of Fireside

    Ghost Stories. Shakespeare Quarterly 61.1 (Spring 2010): 1-27. EBSCO. Web. 13 Nov.2010

    Cox, John D. Shakespeare and the French Epistemologists. Cithara: Essays in the Judeo-Christian Tradition. 45.2 (May 2006): 23-45. Print

    Descartes, Ren. Meditations on First Philosophy. Selected Philosophical Writings. Trans. John

    Cottingham, et. al. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 1988. 73-122

    Goldstein, Diane E. Scientific Rationalism and Supernatural Experience Narratives.HauntingExperiences: Ghosts in Contemporary Folklore. Utah State University Press, Logan:

    2007. 60-78. Print

    Keeley, Brian L. God as the Ultimate Conspiracy Theory.Episteme: A Journal of SocialEpistemology 4.2 (2007): 135-149.EBSCO. Web. 8 Dec. 2010

    Klein, Peter. Skepticism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 14 Dec. 2010

    < http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism/>

    Landau, Aaron. Let Me Not Burst in Ignorance: Skepticism and Anxiety inHamlet.EnglishStudies 3 (2001): 218-230.EBSCO. Web. 13 Nov. 2010

    Lund, Mary Ann. Robert Burton the Spiritual Physician: Religion and Medicine in The Anatomy

    of Melancholy. The Review of English Studies, New Series 57.232 (2006).EBSCO.Web. 27 Nov. 2010

    Montaigne, Michel De. That it is Madness to Judge the True and the False from Our Own

    Capacities. The Complete Essays. Trans. M.A. Screech. Penguin Books, London, 1991.200-204

    OConnor, Flannery. Some Aspects of the Grotesque in Southern Fiction. The American Short

    Story and its Writer: An Anthology. Ed. Ann Charters. Bedford/St. Martins, Boston:2000. Print

    Otto, Rudolf. The Idea of the Holy. Oxford University Press, New York: 1958

    Ramos, Peter. Beyond Silence and Realism: Trauma and the Function of Ghosts inAbsalom,

    Absalom! andBeloved. The Faulkner Journal23.2 (Spring 2008): 47-66.EBSCO. Web.12 Nov. 2010

    Johnson, 21

  • 8/6/2019 Hamlets Ghost

    22/22

    Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. W.W. Norton & Co, New York: 1992

    Smaji, Srdjan. Supernatural Realism.Novel: A Forum on Fiction. 42.1 (Spring 2009): 1-22.

    EBSCO. Web. 27 Nov. 2010

    Spires, Margaret. The True Face of Philosophy as a Magical Object: The Limits of Wisdom and

    the Constitution of the (Super)Natural in MontaignesEssays 1.26 and 1.27. Wonders,Marvels, and Monsters in Early Modern Culture. Ed. Peter G. Platt. University ofDelaware Press, Newark: 1999. 205-228. Print

    Townshend, Dale. Gothic and the Ghost ofHamlet. Gothic Shakespeares. Ed. John Drakakisand Dale Townshend. Routledge, New York: 2008. 60-97. Print


Recommended