The idea that the Ghost is an ambiguous and contradictatory character is reinforced in Act One Scene Five when the ghost thrives on his false authority to decide that it is acceptable to kill Claudius and yet the equally incestuous Gertrude shall be left “to heaven” or “God” to decide. This is Shakespeare creating a contrasting view between women’s power and women’s frailty. There is also the point that the Ghost is “the radiant angel” (which is found in Act One Scene V) this continues to bombard the audience with uncertainty associated with the ghost. Irony is also attached to the Ghost and it is also a theatrical device frequently used by Shakespeare. He uses the power of supernaturalism in “Macbeth” and “Julius Caesar”. One example is given in Act One Scene Five: Hamlet says “Hic et ubique” this is Latin meaning “here and everyone” which is also a term heavily linked with God and since the Ghost has an ambiguous status, there is great irony.
Religion has a discrete emphasis on how the play is shaped into a tragedy. The belief of the ghost is based in religion and the view of life after death. Also religion is used to supply the morals and ethics of the play. A common theme running throughout the play is incest and since Gertude marrying Claudius is abhorrent we can see lots of immorality in Claudius’ and Gertrude’s character. Furthermore our opinions of Hamlet are influenced by religion because his desire to kill Claudius may show that Hamlet is in fact more evil than Claudius. Evidence to support this is in Act Three Scene three when Hamlet goes to kill Claudius but Claudius is nostalgic because of his actions and is praying for forgiveness. Hamlet refrains from killing Claudius at this point, to prevent Claudius from going to heaven. Hamlet Sais “No, Up, sword, and know thou a more horrid hent” This point is significant because it shows how recessive and indecisive Hamlet is as we are at Act Three Scene Three but Hamlet still hasn’t made any progress. However it also presents the audience with how driven Hamlet is with the thought of revenge and he is often named by Shakespeare’s contemporaries and critics as “the revenge hero”. Although the stereotypical avenger would be taking delight into an ingenious plan of death but again Hamlets passive nature draws him away from this stereotype.
Hamlet has debatably been Shakespeare’s most famous and popular play. However it has been heavily criticized in the last four hundred years. Structuralism critics would approach Hamlet not looking to find new ideas into human behaviour as many of his plays lack realism, for example, the use of the ghost does not fit in with the world in which the play was set and is purely a conventional device given realistic density. However they couldn’t doubt the ways in which Shakespeare used his lyrical prestige to grab the audience’s attention and emotions. This is particularly useful in the ghost character because not only does the ghost’s imagery emit a dark and menacing presence but when the ghost uses vocabulary like “incestuous” and “adulterate beast”. It seems to add to the multitude and ambiguity of the character.
There is also feminist criticism that arises in the play and the key quote “frailty, thy name is women” is frequently referred to even today. Shakespeare often stereotypes women in the play, assuming that they are all weak and manipulative. I also think that there is the possibility of the ghost not being able to be seen by women or in fact the unworthy. For example: the ghost appears in Act Three Scene four in Claudius’s chamber; there is a particularly queer display between Hamlet and Gertude where the numerous motif of incest is displayed. The ghost is then not seen by Gertude. However is this Gertude not having the credibility to see the Ghost or is it Hamlet simply imagining him? Perhaps the idea that the ghost does not appear to the unworthy has its faults because Hamlet is incredibly obsessed with his scheme of revenge so this raises awareness to the ethics of Hamlet’s character.
Subsequently a second scene which compels death and superstition is Act V Scene One: In this scene Shakespeare fuses humour with the nothingness of death. This scene is also used to show how no matter how powerful or prevailing a person is during their life they eventually are reduced to nothing in death. There are many references of this. I think the most powerful device used towards the audience is when Hamlet explains man is simply “quintessence of dust” using Alexander and Caesar (great conquerors of the human age) as examples.
The Gravedigger has a profound supernatural presence. Revealing he was the one that buried Hamlet’s early childhood companion twenty seven years earlier. He also buried Hamlet’s father and will eventually bury Ophelia, Hamlet, Laertes, Gertude and Claudius- it can only add to mystery of his character. From a religious view the audience may have given the gravedigger the status of God’s assistant who will bring equality in death. The audience would have also have been shocked when they would have witnessed the laughter of the gravedigger. However I think that the gravediggers are merely repressing the thought of death from their conscious awareness and substituting it with laughter. Nevertheless some critics like Michael D Bristol have said that in comparison to the view of death, all claims of “.hierarchical superiority are nullified all the serious claims of politicians and economics..” are simply the objects of laughter in the gravedigger’s eyes. Furthermore the most dominant force in this scene is death. However the audience gets a feel of relief from this scene, as it draws away from the intense emotional soliloquies and is replaced with the comedy from the Clowns. Shakespeare links death from this scene in with the rest of the play very well. For illustration his reference to “Cain” (the first biblical murder of one brother) is very significant as it mirrors the murder which Claudius committed and creates a religious paradox to build the foundations of disaster upon.
Leading on from the theme of death and destruction one of Shakespeare’s contempories John Webster, was thought to be very much “possessed by death” and mainly wrote of anguish. This is significant when studying Hamlet, although Webster came after Shakespeare he is very much similar to him. They both coalesce pageant imagery with superstition and fantasy. Together they had a big influence on the period of time between 1585 and 1625 where England produced a monumental display of extraordinarily prestigious work which was worthy of recognition from the Greek reign of tragic dramatic theater for example, the play of Oedipus.
Overall Hamlet has achieved the status of one of the most significant revenge tragedies in Drama Theatre. Shakespeare has managed to produce a striving omnipotent play which ingeniously combines the mysterious and supernatural occurrence of the Ghost, with the ordinary, sometimes mundane mood of Elizabethan Europe to create a revenge fuelled climax. I also think its worth mentioning that the Ghost is linked to all the major conflicts and themes in the play, The Ghost is moreover the single most influential theatrical device, used for powering the avenging attitude of Hamlet, to shape him into the perfect protagonist for such a dignified revenge tragedy. In conclusion I feel it is the ghost which gives the play a certain edge of evil and ambiguity. This is why I believe that the ghost is in fact in the form of the devil and his evil can be portrayed through his description of the effects of poison: “swift as quicksilver it courses through the natural gates and alleys of the body, and with a sudden vigour it doth posser and curd, like eager dropping into milk, the thin and wholesome blood…”
“the revenge hero”- www.rsc.org.uk
