fight

Bells for John Whiteside’s Daughter- John Crowe Ransom

There was such speed in her little body,   

And such lightness in her footfall,   

It is no wonder her brown study

Astonishes us all.

Her wars were bruited in our high window.   

We looked among orchard trees and beyond   

Where she took arms against her shadow,   

Or harried unto the pond

The lazy geese, like a snow cloud

Dripping their snow on the green grass,   

Tricking and stopping, sleepy and proud,   

Who cried in goose, Alas,

For the tireless heart within the little   

Lady with rod that made them rise

From their noon apple-dreams and scuttle   

Goose-fashion under the skies!

But now go the bells, and we are ready,   

In one house we are sternly stopped

To say we are vexed at her brown study,   

Lying so primly propped.

This poem describes the speaker’s memories of a little girl who has now passed away, causing the speaker to compare her former personality to the lifeless body he sees before him. In “Bells for John Whiteside’s Daughter,” John Crowe Ransom comments on the brevity of life and notes that our aversion towards death causes us to view life as a battle against death.

The poem begins with the reminiscing of the speaker, remembering the little girl almost as a sprite. He uses the words “speed” and “lightness” to describe her, words that bring to mind flying and freedom. This freedom is immediately contrasted to uncharacteristic “brown study,” a state of deep thought and reverie, suggesting that her current motionless state is a prison, a result of her defeat at the hands of death. Even as the speaker begins to describe the little girl’s life he describes it as a battle. Her “wars” are what come to his mind, even her games seen as a fight for life, protecting herself and fearing so much that she “took arms against her shadow.” The fact that her enemy is her own shadow shows that she was fighting not quite against herself but against the darkness that her own body produced: her death.

Then the “lazy geese” enter. Contrasting the laziness with the little girl’s liveliness, the geese are immediately paired with the motionless “brown study” of death that has taken over the little girl. They are further associated with death through a contrast of colors. The geese are described as “snow clouds,” covering the “green grass” with their “snow.” Considering green symbolizes life and energy, the geese seem to be taking away that life. The white of the snow drips on the green, going against the green of life and therefore bringing death. But not only does the white death mean that the green of life is gone but it also means that death has conquered life, bringing back the belief that life is a battle against death. Furthermore, the cold nature of the geese’s “snow” freezes, bringing to mind motionless which is immediately associated with the little girl’s “brown study” and contrasted with the “speed,” “lightness,” and freedom that she had in life. It is against these geese of death that the little girl fights, using a “rod,” a weapon, in order to make the geese “scuttle,” asserting her power over them and, through them, her power over death.

Finally the speaker comes back to the little girl’s present, making it very clear that she is dead through the “bells” that sound, creating a sense of finality that marks the end of her life. But even in her death, the onlookers do feel sad that she has passed away, but rather “vexed at her brown study.” They are once again focusing on death as the enemy, hating it and blaming it rather than mourning the girl’s passing. This view of death as something to be fought against stains the memories of the speaker, preventing him from remembering anything about the little girl’s life other than her “wars” against death and causing the speaker to have a much grimmer view of life. This poem suggests that it may be because of our preoccupation with death that we cannot cherish life fully.

identities

Hamlet- Shakespeare

Throughout the play Hamlet, Hamlet slips into various identities. Six of these identities that are particularly interesting are savior, philosopher, fool, artist, poison, and coward. Our discussion in class was focused on the philosopher, but the discussion had barely begun before we had roped in several other identities, which just goes to show how interconnected they are. As we considered Hamlet’s philosophical thought, we noticed how uncertain he is. In his “to be or not to be” speech he even debates between death and life, unsure of what he is supposed to do. Yet at the same time we noticed his role as moral judge and savior. Hamlet, who himself is unsure of what should and should not be done, judges others on what they have done.

At first we thought this was awfully hypocritical of Hamlet, considering he doesn’t even seem to have concrete morals to judge others by yet he judges them with such certainty and harshness. But after some discussion, we wondered if it was not hypocrisy because Hamlet acted as the savior despite his indecisive philosopher side but rather a painful inner struggle because Hamlet was forced into the role of savior even though he had yet to establish his beliefs through his role of philosopher. When Hamlet first speaks to his father’s ghost and is assigned his task of judging and punishing other, Hamlet says, “O cursèd spite that ever I was born to set it right,” clearly showing that he is anything but eager to act as savior and judge. So why does he? Because he was told do. His father even says he would be a “fat weed” if he did not do what was asked for him. He sees as a mission assigned to him by “heaven,” something that cannot be debated with. Therefore although Hamlet feels that heaven has “punished” him, Hamlet forces him into the hypocrisy to do what he believes he should.

However, such a role clearly does not come to Hamlet so easily considering two acts have passed since he swore to seek revenge for his father and his father’s murder still run lose with no punishment whatsoever. Because Hamlet sees it as his duty to avenge his father, his inability to complete that revenge leads him to question him own worth, asking himself, “Am I a coward?” Therefore, it seems as though Hamlet is not truly a coward, but is simply being held back by a set of morals and goals that differ from what his father’s ghost has mandated him to do. Luckily, Hamlet is able to find a method through which to exact his revenge: playing the fool. The king’s fool, a jester, was the one that entertained everyone, always using humor. A seemingly innocent roe, but it was because of this role as entertainer that jesters were able to speak the ugly truth disguising it with a veil of humor. Therefore, it is through Hamlet’s role as fool and madman that he is able to search for and reveal the truth. Hamlet even comments on this when talking of the players saying, “they do but jest, poison in jest.” But then does that mean that the truth is poison? Or perhaps Hamlet is the poison?

in his head

Hamlet- Shakespeare

Act III, Scene 4: Return of the Ghost. But is it really? Unusual though it seems, the appearance of the ghost in the first act seems to be real. It is seen by multiple people on multiple occasions and all of them confirm his presence with each other, even talking about what the ghost is wearing to make sure they are all seeing the same thing. Furthermore, when Hamlet speaks to the ghost, the ghost gives him a very specific story as to how he died. The claim that Claudius was the murder was later substantiated by Claudius’ confession that he had committed the crime of “a brother’s murder.” Even the method of murder that is described by the ghost gains credibility, but isn't completely proven, in Claudius’s reaction of abruptly standing up and leaving the play when it is revealed that the murderer “poisons him in the garden.” The accuracy of the ghost’s statements and acknowledgment by many of his existence lead to the conclusion that the ghost did really appear.

However, his appearance in Act III is not as definite. For one thing, unlike the ghost’s first few appearances, in Act III, the ghost only appears to Hamlet. The ghost appeared multiple times to people other than Hamlet (Horatio, Marcellus, Barnardo, etc.), so it seems unusual that all of a sudden only Hamlet sees and hears him while Queen Gertrude sees nothing and worries that Hamlet truly is crazy. This is not the only difference between the ghost of Act I and the ghost of Act III. Their attitudes toward Hamlet also differ. When the ghost of Act I speaks to Hamlet, he is filled with anger, his sole purpose in appearing being to demand that Hamlet “revenge his foul and most unnatural murder.” He has no consideration for his own son, telling him he would be a “fat weed” is he didn't do as his father instructed. This harsh personality is completely turned around in Act III when the ghost is described as “piteous.” Given these difference, one begins to wonder if the ghost really appears or if he is merely brought to life by Hamlet’s mind.

If the ghost really is Hamlet’s creation, then Hamlet’s discourse with the ghost would be a conversation between Hamlet and his own subconscious. So what is the purpose of this conversation? Considering the ghost’s main concern, Queen Gertrude, it seems to be Hamlet’s attempt to free his mother from judgment. Throughout the play, Hamlet judges everyone morally, especially his mother. He calls her no more than a “beast” and accuses her of “[killing] a king.” However, if the ghost is Hamlet’s own subconscious, he seems to be battling himself. He’s torn between being the “scourge and minister” that “heaven” has called his to be and being simply Hamlet, son of Gertrude. Unwilling to condemn and hate his mother yet unwilling to abandon his morals, he depends on his father’s ghost’s words, to “taint not thy mind, nor let thy soul contrive against thy mother aught” to justify his wish to let his mother go. It is this wish that manifests itself in the form of his father’s ghost in his mind to relieve the stress of his inner struggle. So maybe Hamlet doesn't actually hate as mother as much as he says he does.

gertrude

Hamlet- Shakespeare

Gertrude, Queen of Denmark, isn’t very easily categorized as good or evil. Should she be thrown in with Claudius as wife of the enemy of the protagonist? Or should she be placed alongside Hamlet as the last of the protagonist’s family?

Hamlet himself seems to be torn by the issue, but he clearly separates his mother from Claudius. While he ignores Claudius’s requests, he specifically mentions that he will do his best to obey his mother. Not only does this display Hamlet’s distaste for Claudius, but it shows Hamlet’s view of his mother as different from Claudius. Although he looks down on Claudius to the point of refusing his requests, he does allow himself to follow his mother’s requests. However, despite a certain level of kindness towards his mother, Hamlet definitely seems to favor labeling her as evil, especially after his talk with the ghost of his father. Even before he heard of the possibility of his mother’s infidelity, he calls his mother little more than a “beast” considering her speedy remarriage. This quick recovery from her husband’s death does bring up some questions. Was Gertrude having an affair before King Hamlet died? Is she on Claudius’s side of the whole conflict? She does seem more than willing to forget about King Hamlet, telling her son to “cast thy nighted color off” less than two months after his father died, treating his death as “common” and nothing to make a fuss about. Considering this was the woman that used to “hang” on the King as if addicted to him, the change in loyalties does seem disconcerting.

Even the King’s ghost’s testimony seems to work against the queen, calling her a “seeming-virtuous queen,” implying that the virtue that is normally attributed to her is nothing more than a façade. However, the King also seems reluctant to place full blame on the Queen. The one he identifies as “traitorous” is Claudius and not his wife, and the King specifies that Claudius “seduced” the queen, seeming to take all the blame off of the queen and place it in Claudius. He turns the queen from guilty to victimized. He even makes sure that the queen will not get caught up in the revenge plot by instructing Hamlet to never “let [his] soul contrive/against [his] mother.” The anger that the King hold for the queen seems too little for a reaction to an affair. Rather, the King seems to be upset with the Queen’s current relationship with his brother, but does not blame her. Following this view, Gertrude could simply be concerned about the state and her son after her husband’s death and therefore decided to take responsibility by becoming queen and encouraging her son to move on. However, it could also be true that the Queen really did have an affair, but the King can’t bear to blame her out of love (as Hamlet said, the King was “so loving to my mother/that he might not beteem the winds of heaven/visit her face too roughly”).

So, in the end, Gertrude is still not clearly good or bad. However, following Hamlet’s reaction to her and Claudius’s requests and the King’s reluctance to blame her, the Queen is clearly not to be grouped together with Claudius in terms of enmity. She’s escaped being categorized as completely evil, and now she sits somewhere in the ambiguity around good.