In Hamlet 1:5:59-70 Hamlet Sr. (ghost) tells Hamlet how Claudius killed him by pouring poison in his ear:
Sleeping within my orchard,
My custom always of the afternoon,
Upon my secure hour thy uncle stole
With juice of cursed hebenon in a vial
And in the porches of my ears did pour
The leperous distilment, whose effect
Holds such an enmity with blood of man
That swift as quicksilver it courses through
The natural gates and alleys of the body,
And with a sudden vigour it doth posset
And curd, like eager droppings into milk,
The thin and wholesome blood.
In Shakespeare's Othello the evil Iago plots, in a soliloquy, to "pour pestilence into his [Othello's] ear" to infect his relationship with Desdemona. In this case, the poison is in the form of words.
Look back over Hamlet and consider all the times that one character pours poison into the ears of another. How do these infected words poison as lethally as Claudius's real poison?
27 comments:
Well, Claudius poisoned the ears of every Dane with his murderous lie "rotten in the state of Denmark." And it continues to fester as events unfold.
I think Guilderstern and Rosencrantz attempt to pour poison into Hamlet's ears, and would play him like a pipe if they could. But, Hamlet's wit overcomes them.
Hamlet's insanity is sort of a poison to whomever is tricked by it. As long as you're sure he's faking it. The pretense then is the poison.
Polonius poisons Ophelia's ears to some degree, in the plot to find Hamlet's secret. She rots away as events unfold.
The Ghost poured some poisonous fury into hamlet's ears, and he rots as a result of it. The REVENGE consumes his thoughts, in turn his sanity, as well as his actions in the end. But, we could blame Claudius for this fault, as if he hadn't killed the man in the first place we wouldn't have this problem.
It seems much unnecessary rotting goes on as the result of one man's murder. I don't think Claudius really wanted to do any more harm to anyone else, after taking the crown, but he's still quite evil.
If Hamlet had just knifed the King in one swift thrust through the curtain, like Polonius, then the whole thing would be dealt with. But, his words betray him and poison his resolve causing much unnecessary suffering, rotting within himself, Ophelia, the Queen, Horatio, as well as DANMARK(proper spelling). So, words are bad...?
And I thought Shakespeare proved words were for the good of mankind. :(
Paradox.
1600 existentialism is riveting! If there was ever a man beyond his time, Shakespeare was he.
I think all the books we're reading are related. Kurtz proves the sophistry in eloquence, Brave New World proves the deception in stability (among other things), Oedipus proves the deception in complete confidence(Hubris), and Great Expectations proves the pretentious nature of the 'Gentle' man. Hamlet is next in line showing the two sidedness of words. Either for poison, or for release from the 'outrageous fortune' of a world in action.
Erik, good thoughts! I agree, words can either be used for evil or good. The power of words seems like a major theme in Hamlet. I also noticed it too; all the books we are reading are related and build onto each other. It's pretty intense!
Well anyway, another example of a character pouring poison into another character's ear is when Guilderstern and Rosencrantz are told to spy on Hamlet. Claudius and Gertrude poison Hamlet's friends by bribing and encouraging them to be disloyal to Hamlet. Their disloyalty rots them and eventually causes their death.
Claudius also poisons Laertes by lying to him about Hamlet's "attempt" to kill him (Claudius). He further poisons him by encouraging him to avenge his father's death through killing Hamlet. Laertes is poisoned by the anger that Claudius purposely intensifies and doesn't realize the many flaws in the plan, which ultimately leads to his death.
Orsic also tries to poison Hamlet's mind by telling him how great Laertes is, hoping to get Hamlet angry and jealous. But the unpredictable Hamlet is not angered and agrees with him on Laertes' greatness.
So typical of Michelle to make other people feel good. Mainly why she's group leader...wow, talk about tangents.
Poison is a sly, devious way to murder someone and how perfectly ridiculous is it to have it poured in the ear? The poison in the ear to me actually seems like needling someone over the edge. An instance of poisoning is when Claudius asks Laertes "was your father dear to you?" And Laertes goes mad with rage, blah, blah, blah. This was Claudius needling Laerates to do something asinine, like fight Hamlet, how convenient. Court life sucks.
Ha ha Sara, you always allude to our AP Psych study group! (:
I agree with both Michelle and Erik about the choice that comes with words. Not go all Spiderman, but "With great power with comes great responsibility." Thinking back through history some of the greatest orators had to choose one path or the other. Hitler, MLK, and a certain president-elect come to mind. Before Hitler ever assumed control of Germany he first manipulated his way to the top using cunning arguments and brilliant oratory. Obviously the other two men opted for the opposite path.
I also agree with the idea that poisonous words can be more deadly than actual poison. When Cladius kills King Hamlet, he clears the way to the throne for him. Yes, the blood-curdling poison he used was incredibly dangerous. But in order to secure the throne, he poisoned Gertrude's mind with a marriage proposal. Gertrude living and devoted to Cladius is infinitely more dangerous than a dead King Hamlet.
Currently the only edge Hamlet has on Cladius is that the citizens of Denmark still question Cladius's ascension to the throne. If Cladius can win over the rest of Denmark with his lethal words, he will secure Hamlet's fate. Poison may be able to destroy a man, but words can destroy an entire country.
The poison the Claudius poured into King Hamlet's ear is less infectious than the poison used as words. Hamlet, Gertrude, Ophelia and others have slowly suffered because of the verbal abuse that King Claudius has created. They can no longer trust others or themselves, which has caused them to go "mad" and surrender their power. This makes it easier for Claudius to secure the throne and he feels less threatened that Hamlet is toiling over words than plotting to kill him.
Guildenstern and Rosencrantz help spread the "poisonous" words by attempting to control Hamlet like a puppet. However, Hamlet is far more intelligent and he is able to break free of their clutches. I think that even though he is able to escape their control he is still troubled by their words, which leads him into a greater state of depression.
In Act 3 Scene 1, Hamlet definitely pours some poison words into Ophelia's ears. From his classic, “Get thee to a nunnery,” (3.1.121) to “If thou dost marry, I'll give thee this plague for thy dowry” (3.1.136-7). While Hamlet's tirade redirects itself towards women in general near the end, it's still clear Ophelia takes it hard. It's hinted that Hamlet's speech, along with the death of her father, contributed to Opehlia's madness in Act 4 Scene 5. And ultimately, Hamlet's words kill her when Opehlia drowns herself, as revealed in Act 5 Scene 1.
And now to for the opposite.
In Act 2 Scene 1, around line 17, Polonius specifically orders Reynaldo to poison Laertes with words. Ironically, the one time someone is meant to poison with words, nothing bad happens.
[quote]But in order to secure the throne, he poisoned Gertrude's mind with a marriage proposal. Gertrude living and devoted to Cladius is infinitely more dangerous than a dead King Hamlet.[/quote]- James
Yeah, I never give Gertrude the benefit of the doubt, but yeah she was definitely poisoned. Was Hamlet's verbal attack on her, the cure?
Also, in the opinion of Alex and I, We have yet to see if this certain president-elect will use his gained-by-eloquence position for "Good" or for "Evil". In Hitler's case, every German, except the Jews, thought what he was saying was good. His policies picked the Germans out of the gutter they had been thrown in by Britain and France.
Perhaps this is another aspect of Shakespeare's Hamlet: That given certain circumstances, anything is "Good". Perhaps it's "Good" to kill a man in certain circumstances, as it's good to kill an entire society in certain circumstances(There's something wrong with that). I think I have to read the play a little closer to really understand what Shakespeare's trying to say.
I guess power, over other human beings existences and perceptions of right and wrong, at its root, is just poison.
The poison the the ghost gives hamlet is the most profound. Here it is truth that seals hamlet's fate and it is this truth that is the poison.
Also I thought it was interesting when the ghost says that Claudius has poisoned the "“the whole ear of Denmark."
Ophelia is an interesting case. Hamlet is a catalyst for her insanity in his actions towards her. Instead of ignoring her, he uses his words to effectively poison her. He denigrates her esteem by calling her names, scolding her. He's pretty harsh : "You should not have believed me; for virtue cannot
so inoculate our old stock but we shall relish of
it: I loved you not....Get thee to a nunnery: why wouldst thou be a
breeder of sinners?" etc. Act 3 scene 1.
I actually think Claudius is very intentional with his evil and his "words of poison." He is a manipulator. We see this intentional manipulation in act 4 with Laertes. He takes advantage of a grieving man whose just lost a father for his own furtherment. Claudius "poisons" Laertes mind by exaggerating the actual events that occured behind the arrases in Gertrude's domain. Hamlet may have thought it was Claudius standing behind the curtains, but we really can't assume that he did from the play.
As already stated, we definitely see these verbal poisons being employed by Rosencrantz and Guildenstern when they lie to Hamlet in the early parts of the play. This greatly damages--if not destroys--Hamlet's willingness/ability to trust anyone around him (except for Horatio of course).
And really, just as Claudius poured poison in the ear of the King, the ghost inflicts a similar and devastating burden within Hamlet: to avenge his death by killing his murderer, Claudius. These words are not easy for the good natured, slightly confused, philosophical, "anti-war" Hamlet to listen to. Even though we know he never went truly insane, the ghosts proposition--an awful poison in it's own right-- weighs heavily on Hamlet.
Michelle--the comment you made on Osric is very neat. I hadn't picked up on that. It just goes to show how nearly everyone really is "rotten [and sinister] in the state of Denmark!" But it does kind of seem like Osric is truly trying to help Hamlet in his battle against Laertes. After all, Hamlet is very well liked amongst his people... and they probably would rather seem him alive, rather than dead. Perhaps Osric is inadvertantly "pouring" poison into the ears of Laertes by "helping" Hamlet.
Polonius pours words of poison in Ophelia’s ears when she confesses her love for Hamlet in Act I.
“In few, Ophelia, do not believe his vows, for they are brokers, but mere implorators of unholy suits, breathing like sanctified and pious bawds the better to beguile.”
Polonius disapproves Ophelia and Hamlet. He makes Ophelia believe that Hamlet only appears to love her so he can get what he wants. Polonius sounds like everything he says is of reason and seems true, but it is just lies to make Ophelia obey. Ophelia’s obedience and admiration of her father is partially what causes her to go “mad” after Polonius’ death.
Way to take every single example I could have possibly brought up and the ones I never would've even thought of, Erik. :D
There is a lot of poisoning going on here. The main one I thought of was Rosencrantz and Guilderstern betraying Hamlet. Their actions were made in an attempt to bring him down and he if he had remained 'asleep' (oblivious and unaware of what was happening), they would have succeeded in their deceitful actions. Gertrude's shallow decisions are also harmful to Hamlet. Although she does not intend to, her choice to marry Claudius and her inability to prioritize is like pouring poison in Hamlet's ear.. It truly disgusts him to see his mother acting this way and it is an ongoing problem that he has to deal with.
You're some sort of amazing, Erik.
I think there's been enough analyzing of when the poison transaction occurs, but I'm wondering why a character would verbally poison someone? At the time this was written I assume sarcasm and biting language was the acceptable form of a fist fight. So if someone chooses to use their words for evil, it's interesting to note all the times when Hamlet doesn't use his words to 'poison' but to emotionally hurt.
Hamlet does have a sharp tongue for any one he deems to be fake. This is seen with his ridiculing of Polonius, Ophelia, and Gertrude. But many of the thoughts that if articulated would cause damage, he doesn't use (1:2:158).
Yet his most biting words, the ones that carry serious damage, are used for himself. This is seen when he beats himself up after he witnesses the actors cry, and when he curses himself for being a coward and not acting on revenge. They weren't used on someone, but were internalized. This shows that Hamlet's not out to poison the minds of others, but really struggles with himself.
And the one time that words fail Hamlet completely, in Act 2, Scene 1, Ophelia says that "He raised a sigh so piteous and profound that it did seem to shatter all his bulk and end his being." End his being! As if the moment that words failed him, his greatest tool of defense, he literally withered.
It is quite interesting that the poison is poured in the ear. Once a person is poisoned, as Erik says, they rot. They become taken over by it. I think all the examples listed by everyone are good and interesting.
I agree with others also that words can be more deadly than being literally poisoned. In Hamlet, Claudius kills the king of Denmark in an instant. The words of other characters throughout the rest of the story, however, are more deadly. They kill their victims slowly, causing them to rot.
I think all the characters are manipulative with their words and actions in their own ways.
The one that comes to my mind first, although it's not directly in the script, is Claudius' words to Gertrude. The poison is not deadly in the literal sense as it is to the King Hamlet, but if you look at Gertrude the way that young Hamlet does, she is infected. We know that Claudius really loves Gertrude, but her feelings toward him might not be so strong. So I think it's a possibility that Claudius started their relationship with the sweet things he said to Gertrude that Hamlet speaks of, which could have been the start of the downfall of King Hamlet and the rise of Claudius, ending with infection of the entire state of Denmark.
Claudius poisons anyone's ears who would listen. He manipulates and makes people do what the wants, even if it cost them dearly in the end. The power of his poisones words is that his victims never see thier own demise in his words and just keep following them.
With Guildenstern and Rosencrantz, he paid them off asked them to spy on Hamlet for him, which led them to betray Hamlet. With thier betayal, Hamlet had the power to put them to death.
Laertes becomes a puppet for Claudius in his rage to avenge his father's death, willing to damn himself to hell at Claudius's words. Claudius took advantage of Laertes's mental state, which like taking advatage of Hamlet Sr. when he was asleep in the garden, a man who could, but is unable, to protect himself.
Claudius's words must had twisted Gertude's hand pretty hard in the wake of her husband's death to marry him. This is a powerful poison of Claudius's words, because it robbed Hamlet of his place on the throne. It had to be a lot of something Claudius said when Hamlet Sr. died for things to move so quickly and not raise any hard objections from Gertrude.
It would seem like every time Claudius opened his mouth, there is some who was going to get hurt or 'poisoned' in this tragedy.
I think that the "verbal poison" is present throughout the book, and goes hand in hand with the "seeming" motif. Lies are present in every character, and the lies act as a slow killing poison. All of the key points in the book have pretty much already been mentioned... Erik, I agree with Natalie, amazing.
Anyways, I think that the two most visible forms of poison pertain to Rosencrantz and Guilderstern as well as Claudius. The two character's betrayal of Hamlet is a slow killing, infectious poison that causes Hamlet great grief. Claudius, however, is at an even higher level of manipulation Poison flows from his very veins and anybody that can be infected will be infected. Like Nick said, when Claudius manipulates Laertes in his state of grief and sorrow, his poisonous words turn lethal and are just as effective as the actual poison that took Elder Hamlet's life.
I guess whoever came up with "sticks and stones..." never read Hamlet. Words seem to poison every character in one way or another and the most prominent to me( as the king of Danmark has already stated) is Hamlets self inflicting poison. Through his inability to act on his fathers words he poisons himself by over thinking the matter.
Heres something that is off topic but I was wondering why the ghost didn't have any lines toward the beginning of the play. Since this play is surrounded in lies and deceit, and the ghost was an "honest ghost," I was thinking it symbolized and set the tone that " to be honest as this world goes, is to be one man picked out of ten thousand." Since the ghost is silenced, it represents the lack of honesty. I could also be looking into something that isn't there.
In my opinion this issue very much goes back to the concept of seeming vs. being in a very different way. Nobody actually manages to pour poison in someone else's ears because they are all way too stubborn and spend way too much time thinking about themselves (especially Hamlet).
However many people do seem to pour poison into others' ears, but in reality whoever listens to someone else does it for their own gain, or in the rare case of someone like Horatio, for what they believe in. But I haven't seen anyone yet act differently because of words said to them. It is seemingly impossible to pour poison or REASON into any of these people. They are all far too lost. I have gotten a little less frustrated since last class, in fact I find it kind of funny that they think so much but never change their minds.
The facts are however that people try to pour poison into others' ears, and they try to change, but they really don't. The next step is seemingly to actually do something, but it is hilarious that with all of the talking these people do, and how they think about themselves, that all of the destruction occurs during plays and that they are not really being themselves.
Infected words of poison immediately makes me think of lying. Throughout Hamlet we see characters lying and decieving each other or themselves to no end! For example the scene where Hamlet's former trustworthy friends Guildenstern and Rosencrantz lie to Hamlet about their spying on him. These behind the scenes conversations with characters such as Claudius lead to some kind of betrayal or act of lunacy that effects other characters and soon they are poisoned with feelings of hurt, and betrayal, and anger. The character might change and even act on those feelings for mere revenge possibly? And then there is the chance that if you strech the truth or try to decieve someone, it will bite you in the keister someday when your back is turned.... Or stabbed when you are hiding behind a rug, like Polonius :)
First of all, I agree with what kinds of things everyone has brought up. The infected words definitely poison as much or more than the real poison. I think this is because infected words can have a psychological effect on an individual, and that one negative effect can start to negatively impact other aspects of their life. On the other hand, actual poison is a one time thing, and not something that has an everlasting effect.
Erik, I think your assessment of Hamlet's insanity being poison is really insightful. That's not really infected words or actual poison, but rather something based on personality. Being deceiving and lying (as Emily said) serve as poisonous behavior. In short, I think that nearly anything associated with human behavior can be tweaked to be poisonous in some way.
Also, what others have brought up about Guildenstern and Rosencrantz is also true. The fact that they are always deceiving Hamlet is an example of infected words in action. The actions of Gertrude and Claudius serve as the catalysts for Guildenstern and Rosencrantz's actions, contributing to Hamlet's insanity. All told, the personality of the characters in the play seems to be at least partially attributable to the infected words that are always flying around.
I think the Ghost's words have an effect as lethal as Claudius's real poison. The words that come out of the Ghost's mouth are the cause for Hamlets lust for vengeance. However, what makes the Ghost's words truly lethal is Hamlets state of mind coupled with the Ghost ability to be seeming. Hamlet, distraught because of his fathers death, mother's swift marriage, and loss of the throne, is especially volatile when he encounters the Ghost. He is predisposed to believe what he is told. Although he is uncertain of the reliability of the Ghost, he decides to investigate the words of the Ghost. Which leads to characters pouring poison into each others ears. The mix of the Ghost's words and Hamlet's fragile state of mind results in a vile poison that infects the minds of everyone including Hamlet himself, ultimately sending most of the characters spiraling to their doom.
Wow, Erik, and everyone else, brought up all the good examples, plus some really insightful ideas I'd never thought of!
I agree with what everyone's said so far, so I'm going to play devil's advocate and see if I can show a couple instances when poison can actually be good. When Hamlet pours the "poison" of Gertrude's actions back into her own ear, she starts feeling guilty about what she did, something that didn't bother her before in the play. (3:4:90 and 4:5:16 "my sick soul...") If you make someone aware of their self-poisons, then you could actually make them feel guilty and remorseful as Hamlet does to his mother. Another example is Hamlet poisoning Laertes with Laertes' poisoned sword, thus giving him the poison of his own actions. Laertes then repents, and asks Hamlet to forgive him for his actions. (Although he does put all the blame on the king) But showing them how their poison can be harmful, Hamlet makes them understand their own guilt.
Also, Neel brought up a good point that it's the Ghost's truth that poisons Hamlet. So, even though we think of truth as righteous and good, truth can also be a poison. Especially when someone isn't ready to face the truth, hearing it is worse than a lie. I mean, isn't that one reason why national security stuff isn't immediately revealed to the public? Even though the information they gather is "truth", it could cause rioting and scares when people aren't ready (and may not want)to hear it.
Also, I just realized that Horatio is the only character in Hamlet (yay, I figured out the italics!:) ) who's not poisoned by other peoples' actions or words. He takes everything calmly (3:2:55-59). I think it's because he's the only one not involved in some sort of power struggle. But I'm confused by it because he should be angry with Claudius for taking Hamlet's rightful crown, and Gertrude for hurting him (Hamlet), but he's not. He's very comforting, but we don't see him get angry. Maybe he's just too minor a character? Or I'm just making too much out of it and have it all wrong.
My first instinct on this one was to jump all over Guildenstern and Rosencrantz. They were old compatriots. I know that I would trust any childhood freind. They would often be the last people for me to worry about betraying me. However, that is the exact reason that the two of them were in town for a visit. To spy on him and bring Claudius information on his wherabouts and actions. This is poinson in the sense that Hamlet's trust was totally violated.
The next circumstance which I see as total and complete poison is Claudius' explanation to Laertes that Hamlet mad an asassination attempt on him. He used a lucky occurrence of rage to fuel Laertes into possibly committing a crime. He used Laertes feelings of revenge to lash out on the one who was also acting in revenge. Laertes was even so willing as to "cut his throat in the church". Eternal Damnation, I think that is pretty poisonous if you ask me.
Sorry I did not respond earlier, I have had a hectic few days! You guys all made some very excellent point that I wish I could have had time to read. I only got through Erik and Michelle, but you two made some excellent points.
Post a Comment