Deutschland ist Hamlet, follow up

As a follow up to my last post, more especially the comment that Janelle left, let me do a little more explanation of Freiligrath's poem.

Janelle asked a great question, If Germany is Hamlet, then who are the other characters in the play?

In the poem Freiligrath only mentions three other characters in his poem:  The Ghost of Hamlet's father, Polonius, and Laertes.  Let's look at each of these characters and what they would symbolize or represents in Germany's history.

1. The Ghost of Hamlet's father --  In Hamlet, who was Hamlet's father in relation to him -- well, obviously his father.  A person that Hamlet respected, looked up to, was incited to revenge.  I already mentioned Otto von Bismarck, and what he did for the German empire.  This was seen as the Second German Empire, the first being the Holy Roman Empire founded in 962 by Otto I, and the Third Reich we are all familiar with, being Hitler's pipedream of a Germany that ruled the world.

So, I would say that the Ghost of Hamlet's father would be Germany's rich history, including the Holy Roman Empire.  Freiligrath wants Germany to rise up and take action and be as great as it once was, so he writes this poem, drawing on the parallel of Hamlet being asked to avenge his father's legacy.

2.  Polonius -- Freiligrath actually tells us who he wants us to interpret as Polonius, August Kotzebue.  Kotzebue was a poet and author who wrote against the student uprisings and rebellions of the time.   These student organizations were very involved with nationalism and conservative values.  After reading what Kotzebue wrote, one student, Karl Ludwig Sand, killed him.
It seems, then, that like Polonius, who was trying to stop Hamlet from what he was supposed to be doing, and conspiring with Hamlet's enemy, Claudius, Kotzebue was working against the cause of German nationalism, and was killed for it.  But making this connection with Polonius, Freiligrath says that Kotzebue was the wrong man to kill.  The poem even says that he received the blow instead of the proper one.    Who, then, does Freiligrath consider the Claudius, the actual person who was standing in the way of German nationalism?


3.  Laertes -- In the poem, Freiligrath does mention, in connection with Laertes, a "French rapier".  It seems, then, that Freiligrath feared some treachery from France.  I might have to do some more research into German history of this time period, to see if there was a threat from France.  I just don't know.

Deutschland ist Hamlet

Here is the poem by Ferdinand Freiligrath from 1844 (source), that I mentioned before.  I have done my best in translating it into English for you, so that you can see what he is writing about.

Ferdinand Freilgrath

Hamlet
Ferdinand Freiligrath

Deutschland ist Hamlet! Ernst und stumm           Germany is Hamlet! Serious and Silent
In seinen Toren jede Nacht                                 Buried Freedom wanders about his gates 
Geht die begrabne Freiheit um                            Every night and waves at the men of the Watch.
Und winkt den Männern auf der Wacht.               There stands the High One, openly armed
Dasteht die Hohe, blank bewehrt,                        And says to the procrastinator, who still doubts,
Und sagt dem zaudrer, der noch zweifelt:            "Be for me a Revenger, Draw your sword!
"Sei mir ein Rächer, zieh dein Schwert!               They have trickled poison into my ear!"
Man hat mir Gift ins Ohr geträufelt!"

Hamlet and Germany

In 1848 the German poet Ferdinand Freiligrath wrote a poem in which he wrote that "Germany is Hamlet", referring to the famous Shakespearean play, which toured Germany within five years of Shakespeare's death.  It seems that play never left.  
Ever since his famous poem, scholars have debated back and forth, looking for and finding or not finding themselves within the text.  Freiligrath's original poem describes Hamlet as being serious, and overly thoughtful, yet inactive.  He thinks too much and does too little, which Freiligrath saw in Germany of the 19th century, though he later wrote, "To the German Shakespeare Society of Weimar, Representative of a People  Whose Recent history has proved Once for all that "Germany is Not Hamlet."  (Look for a future post where I take a look more closely at that poem)

Where do we go from here?

LONow that we are halfway through the semester and we have read through quite a few plays, it is time to slow down a bit and think about where things are going.  Since we are no longer reading a play every week, I will have more time to reread some of the plays and go more in depth with a textual analysis and applying literary criticisms.
I will also start doing more research into Shakespeare and Germany.  I don't really know where I'm going with this, but there are quite a few resources out there, almost as many as there are in English.

Hamlet in English and German

1. Deutsche Shakespeare Gesellschaft -- The German Shakesepeare Society is the oldest Shakespeare society in the world, founded in 1864.  They hold conferences and publish articles.  This could be a great resource not only for Shakespeare within Germany, but for Shakespeare in general.  (Their webpage is also translated into English, for those of you who don't speak German)

Ken Larson

2. Ken Larson --Ken Larson is a professor of German at Wells College in Aurora, NY.  He has written some papers on Shakespeare's reception in Germany.  Once I get a better idea what specifically I want to study about Shakespeare in Germany, I may contact him and ask a few questions, see what he has already researched and what further resources he knows.

Not a pretty cover, but I'll read it

3.There is a book I found that I would like to get my hands on and see if I find it interesting.  The Nazi Appropriation of Shakespeare: Cultural Politics in the Third Reich.  I know that Hitler and the Nazis used Richard Wagner and Norse mythology to buoy up their ideals of the Aryan Nation and the Teutonic ideal, but I had no clue that they used Shakespeare as well.  I have read several articles written about The Merchant of Venice as it has been performed in Germany, with it's portrayal of Jews.





This is a start.  As I do some more cursory research into the topics of Shakespeare and Germany I will form a more clear idea of what specific topic I would like to pursue.

Any thoughts, suggestions, comments?

A Sad Tale's Best for Winter

I have finished the play The Winter's Tale, and I rather enjoyed it.

It seems to me that Shakespeare is continuing themes he addressed in Othello, with jealousy and irrationally reacting to perceived wrongs.  I feel sorry for poor Leontes, but in this play he has no Iago to blame, his jealousy is all his own.  His reaction to what he sees is all his own.

I found an interesting thin on Wikipedia when doing some cursory research.  I will have to look up the source that is cited and follow up on this, but on Wikipedia it says :

Eric Ives, the biographer of Anne Boleyn (1986),^[4] believes that the play is really a parallel of the fall of the queen, who was beheaded on false charges of adultery on the orders of her husband Henry VIII in 1536. There are numerous parallels between the two stories – including the fact that one of Henry's closest friends, Sir Henry Norreys, was beheaded as one of Anne's supposed lovers and he refused to confess in order to save his life – claiming that everyone knew the Queen was innocent. If this theory is followed then Perdita becomes a dramatic presentation of Anne's only daughter, Queen Elizabeth I.

( Ives, The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn 2004:421: in spite of other scholars' rejection of any parallels between Henry VIII and Leontes, asserts "the parallels are there", noting his article "Shakespeare and History: divergencies and agreements", in Shakespeare Survey38 (1985:19–35), p 24f.)

Some thoughts to King Lear

As I read King Lear, one thought kept occurring to me:  Lear is a man full of contradictions. He doesn't know what he wants, but he wants it all the same.

An appropriate quote for a poster about King Lear.

1. At the beginning he says that he has a plan to divide his kingdom and give the largest part to the daughter that loves him most.  Yet, after Goneril has spoken he immediately assigns her her portion, without hearing from either of his other daughters.  The same thing happens after Regan speaks, he gives her her portion without hearing from Cordelia.  So it would seem that he already knew how he was going to divide the kingdom.  If he were really waiting to hear what his daughters thought, he would have heard them all, and then divided the kingdom.  As it is, Lear says he wants to give the largest portion to the daughter that loves him most, but it appears that he has already decided that it should be Cordelia.  Which is what makes her refusal to play his game all the more crushing for him.

Taming of the Shrew and Shakespeare's Comedies

In class we discussed the traditional elements of Shakespearean comedies.  As we talked about these I tried to associate each one with Taming of the Shrew.  I found that most of them fit, but I had a hard time finding a few of these elements in the play.  Let's go through each one, shall we?

Standard elements of Shakespearean comedies:

New thoughts to Taming of the Shrew and Gender Roles

I just finished reading the play, and though I rather enjoyed it, laughing at the wordplays and the puns, I find myself rethinking what I thought about how Katherina is treated by Petruchio.


Until this latest reading of the play, my strongest connection to it was acting in a production in high school.  The actress that we had playing Kate played her very well, in my opinion, but mostly it seemed like she was humoring Petruchio the entire time.  Especially in Act 4 Scene 5, when they are travelling and Petruchio calls the sun the moon and gets Kate to agree that it is the moon, only to ridicule her for her mistake. In our production of this scene, the actress playing Kate said the lines as they appear in the script:

"Then, God be bless'd, it is the blessed sun; But sun it is not, when you say it is not; And the moon changes even as your mind. What you will have it nam'd, even that it is, And so it shall be so for Katherine."

But as she said these lines there was overt sarcasm in her voice.  And later, as she apologizes to Vincentio for calling him a woman, she glared at Petruchio, blaming him silently for making her look foolish.


That is how I have always read this play, as Kate simply playing along with Petruchio and his madness, because she got tired of fighting him and suffering the consequences.  Which I guess means that Petruchio did indeed tame her. But even as she recited the last speech, there was still a little hint of defiance.  And maybe it helped that our Petruchio (one of the nicest, kindest guys I have ever met) did not play the part as mean or as angry as he could have, from the text alone. I have never seen this play as oppressive to women, but this latest reading I was struck by just how blatant the spousal abuse really is.

I have tried to justify Petruchio's behaviour in light of his line, "This is a way to kill a wife with kindness",

Taming of the Shrew Act 1 / Erste Akt

I have read the first act of the play, including the induction.  I really like the induction, and I'm sad that it's cut out of most productions as unnecessary.  Partly this is because, when my high school did this I played the part of Christopher Sly, but mostly because I think it sheds light on one of the main themes of the play:  Identity and how  people act when they are treated a certain way.  
Sly is a drunkard found asleep in the streets, and a passing Lord decides to have some fun and dress him up and pretend that he's noble.  The servants take him and dress him and serve him as if he were a Lord, until Christopher Sly believes he is a lord.  The line is "Would not the beggar then forget himself?", "Würde der Bettler nicht sein selbst vergessen?" and the servant says, "he shall think by our true diligence he is no less than what we say he is."  "er soll es glauben daß er nichts anders ist, als wir ihn nennen".


I see the same theme played out in the play, with Katherina.  She is a shrew and as others keep calling her a shrew she continues to be a shrew. But when Petruchio treats her like a lady, like a respectable wife, she begins to believe that she can be that.  For me, the play is not about "taming" a woman, making her subservient. but allowing her to be something more than others allow her to be.  It's the medieval version of Johnny Lingo -- he calls her an 8-cow wife so she begins to believe that she is worth 8 cows.  More on this as I continue to read the play and find lines that speak to this point.

Kate and Petruchio in the Polynesian islands?

An Apology for Richard

I have been reading and writing about Richard II lately, but today in class I sat in on a small group discussion about Richard III, a play and a character that I am very familiar with.
First, there is no relation between the two Richards, who ruled England nearly 80 years apart.  Just the briefest of history lessons: Richard II was deposed by Henry IV, whose grandson Henry VI was deposed by Edward IV, who died leaving the throne empty for his brother Richard III.  


As I mentioned, I have study Richard III quite a bit,  two years ago I wrote a 6 page paper in defense of Richard, and last year I wrote a 16 page paper defending him and comparing him to a character in a German novel who I saw as very similar.  Let me set up my defense of Richard, but with one caveat: I do not condone Richard for what he did.  He is a villain, a devil, an evil, evil man who committed many atrocities.  But, I can begin to understand him and where he came from.


The question is asked again and again, "Why is Richard the way he is?"  And for me, part of the answer has to be, That is the way society made him.

Was Shakespeare revolting?

 Please excuse the poor pun in the title, but I want to write about something I came across while studying Richard II: Shakespeare's subversive nature.  Especially with the play Richard II, many see Shakespeare's plays as swaying public opinion either for or against the monarch.  In Richard II, an upstart young noble, Henry Bolingbroke manages to overthrow the king, which is not generally the kind of thing kings enjoy.  Elizabeth I is reported as once having said, "I am Richard II, know ye not that?", there were those who thought her unfit as a monarch, partly because she had never married, never produced an heir.  The Earl of Essex, reportedly, on the night before his planned rebellion against Elizabeth, paid the Chamberlain's Men to perform Richard II.  He was imprisoned and later executed, but the thought remains -- does Richard II have anything to do with revolution?  Does this play speak either for or against deposing a monarch?

The Earl of Essex turns his back on Queen Elizabeth I, , from COMIC ENGLISH HISTORIES by Dick Doyle, 1886.

Hamlet, Acts 4 and 5: On Death

I finished the play.  Not for the first time, but it is still fun to finish a play, especially such a play as Hamlet.  
I don't really have a whole lot to say about the ending- it ends much like we expect a tragedy to, with everyone's death.  But these deaths are not arbitrary, they are all products of specific character flaws and plot devices.  


1. Polonius:  Killed by Hamlet, mistaking him to be the king. This one is partly Hamlet's fault, but mostly I blame Polonius himself.  That meddling old man just cannot leave well enough alone.  He's always hiding behind drapes and spying on people, listening in, sticking his nose where it doesn't belong.   Hamlet, hearing a noise behind the curtain in his mother's bedroom, naturally assumes it is either the king or some intruder -- of course he stabs him.  Poor Polonius, but it's his own fault.


2. Ophelia: Drowned, possible suicide.  See my post from yesterday about Ophelia's madness.  There is some scholarly debate as to how exactly Ophelia drowned, some claiming she she drowned herself out of depression, others maintaining she drowned accidentally as part of her madness.  


3. Gertrude: Poisoned.  Claudius poisoned a goblet of wine, intending that Hamlet drink it and die, but instead his wife, Queen Gertrude drinks it and dies.  Claudius, in his anger, plans a treacherous end for Hamlet, only to have it backfire and kill the woman he loves.  But Gertrude is not entirely innocent -- some versions of the play show that she was complicit in the death of her first husband, King Hamlet, at the very least she did marry his brother, her brother-in-law, but two months after becoming a widow.  

Ophelia's madness

I will admit, there is one thing that has always bothered me about most productions of Hamlet:  Ophelia.  I have never really understood her character, her purpose.  We first see her as her brother and then her father tell her that she cannot love Hamlet.  Then we see her as she tells her father of Hamlet's antic behaviour.  Then there is the strange scene between Hamlet and Ophelia after the "to be, or not to be" speech, which concludes with Hamlet telling her, essentially, to buzz off.  But despite this, Hamlet makes some pretty suggestive comments as he flirts with her while watching the play-within-the-play.  We next see Ophelia after Hamlet has killed her father, and she is completely mad, child-like and nonsensical.

It wasn't until I watched Slings and Arrows, the Canadian television show based around a Shakespearean festival where they perform Hamlet, that I began to get a deeper insight into her character.  In the show there is a terrible actress who has been cast as Ophelia, who also does not fully understand her character, which leads to the following scene where the director, who has had a history with madness, tries to explain things.  I love the way he describes her.

Wilhelm Shakespeare -- Shakespeare in Germany

William Shakespeare is loved the world over, but nowhere near as much as in Germany.  From some simple Google searches on Shakespeare and Germany, I have learned that the oldest Shakespeare Society in the world is German: Deutsche Shakespeare-Gesellschaft, founded in 1864, English acting troops brought the Bard to Germany in the early 1700s with performances translated into German, and there have been so many translations of Shakespeare's plays into German that most Germans actually believe that Wilhelm Shakespeare was a German!

As a student of German, who has loved this language and this culture for over a decade now,  I find this fascinating.  I have found several translations of these plays online and they have evolved as the modern German language has evolved.  Shakespeare is very much alive in German, because he is allowed to be translated and retranslated, where in English there are always those purists who frown on anything but the actual, authentic, original text.  But Shakespeare has been allowed to thrive in Germany precisely because he is a foreigner.  And yet, he is very much a German.  A poem from the German Shakespeare Society reads,

Seht, heut' gesellt, im heil'gen Bund der Dritte,
Zu Deutschlands Dioskuren sich der Brite,
Auch er ist unser...

(See, today in the holy bond joins as the third, to Germany's dioscuri (referring to Schiller and Goethe), the Brit.  He, too, is ours.)

Hamlet, Acts 2 and 3

These two acts have some more impressive speeches, including my absolute favorite - "What a piece of work is a man."   What I found very interesting with this reading is the word "a".  I have always thought the speech was "What a piece of work is man" when it really says "What a piece of work is a man." That single word "a" makes a huge difference.  Without it Hamlet seems to be speaking about mankind in general, all of us at once, collectively.  But he is really speaking about a man, an individual.  Each of us individually are "noble in reason", "infinite in faculties", "In action how like an angel", "in apprehension how like a god."  Each of us have within ourselves this immense power of potentiality.  Not just as a whole.  Sometimes I am a little cynical and find it hard to see the "Götterfunken" - spark of God, as Schiller writes it - in individuals, when it is easier to see this power collectively.  


Of course, at this point Hamlet is very much in his melancholy moment, despairing, having "lost all [his] mirth."  He speaks these wonderful words about the grandeur of humanity, only to follow them with, "to me what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me -no, nor woman either." He is fed up with the world and the injustices he sees in it. 


And then of course there is Act 3, scene 1, "To be, or not to be."  Such a famous speech, everybody and their dog knows it, it must be hard for an actor to step into the role of Hamlet knowing that he will have to perform this speech.  As Jack says in Slings and Arrows: