by Timothy Smajda (Circle 5)
In theme with the recent Halloween festivities, I think it’s interesting to note that we have a sequence of three plays which feature ghosts as characters with stage appearances. We had the number of ghosts appear to Richard and Richmond in the fifth act of Richard III, we had the ghost of Caesar appear to Brutus at the end of the fourth act of Julius Caesar, and in our next play we have the ghost of Hamlet’s father appear to the titular character and a few others. Although I have not read the play of Hamlet, I am familiar with the play’s story having read a prose version found in Tales from Shakespeare. The only other play I am familiar with which features a ghost is Banquo’s ghost in Macbeth, which I read in the last class I took with professor Mulready. For this post I want to explore, compare, and contrast some running themes found in the details of all of the ghost’s appearances.
What is the most prevalent trait shared by all of these ghosts? They are all victims of murder. the train of people that were steamrolled to ensure Richard’s possession of the crown, Julius Caesar, whom was the object of political controversy to the conspirators, Hamlet’s father, who stood in the way of Hamlet’s uncle’s desire for the crown and the king’s wife, and Banquo, whom Macbeth assassinated to prevent Banquo from ever wearing the crown. Are they all ghosts because their lives were cut short before their “appointed times”? Was Shakespeare playing off of the idea that ghosts are the souls of people who still had matters to attend to after the time of their deaths?
Also note that most of the ghosts only appear to a select number of people. In Macbeth, the titular character is the only person at the dinner table who is able to see Banquo’s ghost, much to the confusion of his dinner guests. In Julius Caesar, all of the other characters have fallen asleep and Brutus is the only one who has seen Caesar’s ghost. In Richard III, both Richard and Richmond perceive them in their sleep. Hamlet is an odd exception, because he hears of his father’s ghost first from the night watch, but later when the ghost appears again, the mother does not perceive it. But for each of these appearances, save the night watch from Hamlet and Richmond, the characters who perceive the ghost end up dying.
There are a few more details of the effects of ghosts which exist in the plays. When they appear in Richard III, King Richard speaks of the candles’ flames turning blue. And in a similar moment, Brutus notices that the flames have changed with no specificity of them turning blue. (As a fun aside, shortly after reading the scene in Richard III where the candles turn blue, I was playing a videogame which took place in a spooky world. In it I saw a ghostly character which held a blue candle, so kudos Shakespeare for still making a cultural impact.)
So with exploring all of these ideas about ghosts, what can we infer when a ghost appears in his plays? We can say that the ghost is of someone who left the earth tragically early (e.g. murdered), and that whom they appear to is in trouble! I wonder how many fictional works which have ghosts still stick to this general pattern of guaranteed death? Beware!
Timothy,
I think that your analysis and interpretation of the ghosts that appear in Shakespeare’s works is interesting. It is fascinating that the only ghosts that appear in the works that you have mentioned are of people who have been murdered. I think it is true that they may have things left in the world that they have to do, but I also think it is important to note that they only appear to certain people. I think in the case of Julius Caesar the ghost appears only to Brutus because he has a guilty conscious. Brutus knew that killing Caesar was wrong, but he was doing it for the greater good of the people. Great post!
Timothy,
I really enjoyed your festive Halloween post in regards to ghosts. You mention that all of Shakespeare’s ghosts seem to leave this life too soon. That is interesting because I’ve watched many paranormal shows this season. One episode of Paranormal Witness involved a child ghost who haunted her house’s new inhabitants. At such a young age this child also left this world too soon as did the characters of many Shakespeare plays. All the characters you mention were murdered if I remember correctly this girl was also murdered by her mother. My example would be another cultural impact for you. The points you made about ghosts could be applied to many modern paranormal movies or television shows. Great post!
Timothy,
Your post about the sprits in the three Shakespeare plays was very interesting, and I do not think I would have seen it that way unless you brought it up. I didn’t realize there were only several plays that contained the theme of ghosts, and that every single one of them had been victims of murder in their specific plays. Ghost are very interesting characters to think about in the play world as well, how would an actor be dressed, or would there be a specific way for them to speak. Very interesting post!
Timothy,
I really enjoyed your post, especially since I have never paid much attention to the ghosts. I mean they’re already dead. How much action do they really add to the story besides being creepy? Okay, well, obviously Hamlet has already proven that sentiment wrong. The part of your post that I found this most interesting was who the ghosts appear to and why. My first thought was the obvious one: to haunt them, which we see in Richard III and Julius Caesar. Of course, once again, Hamlet thus far has disputed this. Hamlet’s father is not trying to haunt Hamlet, but rather get him to do his bidding. No matter what though, it seems that seeing a ghost is never really a good sign unless you are Richmond. As you pointed out, the people who see the ghosts usually die by the time the play concludes, as if the ghosts are an omen themselves.
Tim,
Your observations on Shakespeare’s ghost figures are really well said! I’ve never thought to consider the similarities between each ghost’s conditions (which seems like a huge oversight now…): why they came back as ghosts, the circumstances that lead to their deaths, how they died. The most poignant detail you highlight, for me, is that many (at least all of the ghosts we’ve seen) were all previously murdered. The tragic deaths associated with the characters frequently move each respective play’s plot line forward. These points that you’ve aptly, well, pointed out, work as figurative keys for us in reading Shakespeare’s plays. They’re signifiers of impending tragedy and story development. For example, recognizing that the characters the ghosts are most closely associated with allows us to distinguish early on who is probably going to die. It’s surprising that these sort of play to play contingencies haven’t been more deeply considered in our own conversations! There’s so much ground to cover in each individual play that, realistically, it’s might not actually be that surprising to have lost sight of this, personally speaking. Thanks for the interesting thoughts!
After watching the Hugh Laurie and Rowan Atkinson comedy sketch in class, the presence of the Shakespearean ghosts made quite a bit more sense to me: “Joe Public loves the ghosts.” Culturally, I think we are fairly obsessed with the supernatural; look at what mainstream media presents to us in the way of popular fiction: Harry Potter (witches and wizards), The Chronicles of Narnia (talking animals), Lord of the Rings (elves, dwarfs, etc.)—the list goes on and on. Shakespeare plays—known to be famous for their depiction of “real life” events and/or events that could feasibly occur—borrow from the longstanding tradition of merging reality with fantasy. And Victorian Londoners would have eaten that up. In the day to day lives of theses theatre-goers, I cannot imagine that they had much time for imagination and adventure. Therefore, Shakespeare’s plays would have been both an escape and a way for them to incorporate magic and creativity into otherwise normal situations. The power of the ghost is a captivating one because it depicts a world where something a bit out of the ordinary can exist.
Tim,
I had never really thought about connecting the ghosts in Shakespeare’s works as having any similarities despite the fact that were no longer human, but you have seemed to do so here quite aptly. What is most interesting is the fact that the ghosts are all of those who were murdered. I would like to know more about the conception of ghosts in Shakespeare’s time because in all the plays– with the exception of Macbeth– there are no other supernatural circumstances present in the play. In today’s media, normally the presence of a ghost indicates a supernatural cultural piece and it is put in that category exclusively, However, for Shakespeare, this presence of ghosts is merely added on to dramatize the plot or provide conflict without so much emphasis on the supernatural element.
This is a really great post. I hadn’t even realized that current of all of the ghosts being murder victims running throughout these plays. One of the most interesting things about the usage of the Ghosts is to whom they appear. It’s implied in the final act of Caesar that Cassius may have also seen Caesar’s ghost as he says with his dying breaths “Caesar thou art revenged, / Even with the sword that killed thee” (5.3.43-44). Perhaps the Ghosts are able to appear to select people when they want to be seen? They are never incidental. They always appear at a time when the living person is in a moment of great emotional or mental upheaval. Are they in this way able to fit themselves to the situation at hand and only be omens when they are needed?