Near the end of Hamlet's opening scene, Horatio and the guards, Marcellus and Bernardo, are trying to warm themselves (both physically and psychologically) after a rough night. After all, they've seen the ghost of their previous monarch, dressed for battle, march by them twice without giving them even a small acknowledgement. They've also had their worst fears confirmed regarding the state of the nation - i.e. they are preparing for war and there is an immanent threat of invasion at hand. And so Marcellus tries to revive their spirits by recalling a set of beliefs related to the Christmas season:

Some say that ever, 'gainst that season comes

Wherein our Saviour's birth is celebrated,

The bird of dawning singeth all night long;

And then, they say, no spirit dare stir abroad,

The nights are wholesome, then no planets strike,

No fairy takes, nor witch hath power to charm,

So hallow'd and so gracious is the time.

The unexpected mention of the holiday in an unlikely setting (the battlements of a castle) render the moment even more poignant. It can also make us consider the importance of imaginative ideals of peace and good will in an imperfect world. Let's hope that, with the help of great art, we continue to move in the right direction. Happy holidays.

Objectivity is a quality that is central to the work of a serious dramatist. He or she must be able to present many types of conflict credibly, and to do so requires the imaginative comprehension of contrasting opinions. It is somewhat similar to formal debating, where a team will have to prepare to argue both sides of an issue. This is done for several reasons: for one, there are some issues that may provide one side with an emotional advantage over the other. (It's like changing directions in a soccer game at half-time so that both teams will have the advantage of the wind for a while.) But more importantly, it is to ensure that debaters "shed light not heat", or in other words, that "reason" maintain its "sovereignty", as Horatio put it.

Unfortunately, in political discussions, it often happens that people argue from an entrenched position that will admit no dissent - I've often felt that any position so constructed clearly disproves its viability - and that the party or politician that they support has all the answers, and that the other(s) do all the damage. This type of thinking is obviously flawed, dangerous even, but unfortunately it's frequently brought into classrooms, particularly those where literature has been replaced with social studies, when its opposite is really what should be encouraged.

Enter Shakespeare. One of the most astonishing things about his work is that it is impossible to pin down where it stands on political issues. For example, in the 404 years of Macbeth's existence, it has been seen from innumerable angles and used to support innumerable positions. And there's no end in sight. It will continue to produce thought and discussion of great sophistication - because it's dramatic art of the highest level, and because its author knew far too much to think that he (or anyone else) knew it all.

Another result of Shakespeare's poetic thinking is that there was a revision necessary, purely on a rhythmic level, for every line written. The metrical considerations therefore put the words through another level of thought, which can lead to improvements not only on a sonic level but also in terms of content. In an earlier post (August 26), I discussed anastrophe, which refers to the unusual syntactical structures (or wording, if you prefer) - and the reasons for them - that are found in poetry. While anastrophe can make the initial reading more difficult, what it creates in terms of beauty, insight and original thought makes the extra effort more than worth it. The following passage occurs when Horatio is revealing the existence of the ghost to Hamlet. Its content is quite simple, or at least it could be phrased that way: Horatio tells Hamlet that the two guards, Marcellus and Bernardo, had seen the ghost the previous two nights, and had described what the ghost was wearing and how it moved. It scared them. They then decided to tell Horatio about it, and when he joined their watch, he saw it as well - just as they had described it. Horatio then closes by saying that the resemblance between the ghost and Hamlet's father is just as strong as the one between his two hands. All well and good, but when the restrictions imposed by writing in verse were applied, we got this:

Two nights together had these gentlemen

(Marcellus and Bernardo) on their watch

In the dead vast and middle of the night

Been thus encount'red. A figure like your father,

Armed at point exactly, cap-a-pe,

Appears before them and with solemn march

Goes slow and stately by them. Thrice he walk'd

By their oppress'd and fear-surprised eyes,

Within his truncheon's length; whilst they distill'd

Almost to jelly with the act of fear,

Stand dumb and speak not to him. This to me

In dreadful secrecy impart they did,

And I with them the third night kept the watch;

Where, as they had deliver'd, both in time,

Form of the thing, each word made true and good,

The apparition comes. I knew your father.

These hands are not more like.