I have to admit I’d never thought of this. How, exactly, does Gertrude offer such a perfect description of Ophelia’s apparently lengthy death? Did she basically watch it?
My first thought is, “There’s no motivation.” But if Gertrude didn’t directly kill her, then she certainly watched her die.
So I offer it up as a valid question – what’s the deal with Gertrude sitting there and watching Ophelia die? Does anybody have any rationale for that, how she came to be watching, why she didn’t summon help or try to go in after her, or anything like that? Does anybody think the “Gertrude did it” argument has any legs? If so, what’s her motivation? Jealousy over her son’s lover? Putting the crazy girl out of her misery, like a mercy killing? It’s obviously not a new idea, but it’s new to me.
That is definitely a new reading to me! I don't think we can support it with any textual evidence but I don't think that any reading of that speech is justifiable by anything in entire play and yet we must all do something with it. I think in order to make an assertion like that about Gertrude, you would have to make a very clear reading of Gertrude up until that point in the play which would make such a reading plausible.
What would Gertrude had done prior to the drowning to support that reading?
Whoa… Never thought about it. Just sort of rocked my world.
For the record, drowning is not a merciful killing. It's one of the most painful deaths someone can have.
I agree with JM. There's nothing there to support Gertrude wanting to kill Ophelia. Why then is the speech so long? She's trying to give Laertes the news gently!
The guy just found out his father was killed. He's grieving and all sorts of upset about it. But then, one woe doth tread upon another's heels. Now suicide is damnable, so we don't want Laertes, already in enough grief over his father, to be told that his sister is dead and going to hell.
He's seen already that she's… not well. She's lost her wits. So Gertrude thinks, why not draw out the tale. Tell it slowly and carefully to illustrate that she fell in, and sunk in her distracted state, drown "as one incapable of her own distress."
They actually discuss this exact issue, (why does she watch Ophelia die, not "did she kill Ophelia") in Slings and Arrows. I think it's in the first episode of Season 2. I love that show.
What a gorgeous descriptive monologue it is.
I don't believe Gertrude "saw" anything at all, excepting what's in her mind's eye about how she thinks it might have happened. Perhaps it was Ophelia's habit of late to crawl out over the stream and watch the leaves and flower petals drift by? Maybe it was something more people than Gertrude knew about, which is why the surprise of the how and the questioning of Gertrude further are absent.
But Murder?–and by Gertrude yet? She who wishes at the graveside that Ophelia might have been Hamlet's bride? Who better to give a wonderful, utilitarian speech to? And indeed Duane, where's the motivation? –especially since how she prefers to relate it is NOT as a "suicide", but as the accidental drowning of a crazy person through unfortunate mischance.
I think it's just another of Willy's semi-loose ends that, in the excitement of the proceedings, no one cared enough about to get their anal retentive dander up over. Not even HIM. Nit-picking continuity genius or armchair Scotland Yard literary sensationalism weren't things he had to be concerned with. But getting information out in order to move the plot along, and pretty, descriptive speeches were among his concerns.
He had to put a report into the mouth of someone, since no one sees it, and staging it at the Globe is an impossibility. And painting pictures with words is his thing. Gertrude paints a picture for us with her musings on the how.
Thanks for bringing it. I had no idea this could be such an obviously prevalent notion. But in the end I think it's a case of Much Ado About Nothing on their part.
Brilliant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIY4-_LeQtA
6:20 for the fast forwarders.
Seems like "She was insane, and suffering, and it was a mercy to let her die" is the only logical reason for sitting and watching her drown.
I am in the camp of Gertrude watching her die. I can see the point of her exaggerating the death, but I have always seen it as Gertie watching poor Ophelia off herself. I don't see the murder option as pulling nearly as much weight with me: if anything, I believe that Gertrude wanted Ophelia to be her daughter-in-law, but Ophelia's insanity ended up causing ambivalence in Gertrude, which is why she watched the suicide.
Obviously there's nothing in the text to get you a murderous Gertrude, and the only good way to give her a motivation is jealousy over Hamlet's affections, which is itself equally crackpot.
I have no problem with the idea of Gertrude watching Ophelia die, though — and then it becomes a question of how she reacts. Yeah, she could be drawing it out to cushion the blow for Laertes, or she could actually be profoundly affected and confused by it. Having her see Ophelia commit suicide early, I think, opens the possibility for Gertrude's "suicide" later on; it's possible to play the whole fencing scene with Gertrude KNOWING that Claudius has poisoned the wine, and so she toasts Hamlet to warn her son before giving up the ghost herself.
And from this you reason backward: why would Gertrude want to kill herself? Two choices, I think — she was either complicit in Old Hamlet's death, or she was suspicious of (or in an extended affair with) Claudius, yet never stopped to question him, and now feels guilty. Having her complicit in Old Hamet's death runs too close to her actively murdering Ophelia in my mind, though.
A "hands off in mercy" while the poor thing drowns?
Maybe–maybe not. It's up for interpretation. It's certainly more plausible than "Gertrude the murderer". But there's nothing in the script to support it as the definitive answer either.
Ok, I'll try to answer my own question and lets see if its possible. What I am attempting to do is produce a reading in which Gertrude could possibly be seen as killing Ophelia.
Gertrude, has married her dead husband's brother, a marriage which we don't actually get specifics about in the text (except from Hamlet, who vision is obviously skewed). Perhaps she is actually very unhappy in this second marriage but feels trapped in it for reasons of state.
That could be a reason why she would be jealous of Hamlet and Ophelia's love even if it is a rocky road for them.
Then she watched Hamlet kill Ophelia's Father before her eyes. This is a traumatic even for anyone. And the he leaves the body in view for the entire rest of the scene. Enough to freak anyone out.
Finally, Hamlet is sent away. And Ophelia keeps coming to Gertrude even though she doesn't want to see her. This the fact that Gertrude tries to stop her visits is important. And the surest way to begin feeling like you yourself are crazy is to feel like the world has gone crazy around you. Since Ophelia is (more or less) crazy perhaps Gertrude feels like she is beginning to slip at all.
Finally, Ophelia's brother gets back from France is himself wild with passion for his dead father. He is threatening to ruin the kingdom. Upon seeing Ophelia mad he begins to produce (potentially) some of this most dangerous rhetoric.
This Gertrude is not mentally stable herself. She possibly doesn't even recognize herself as a murderer in drowning Ophelia but perhaps a liberator or maybe doesn't even know what she's doing when she does it. It is in this reading of Gertrude that we find a woman who would knowingly drink from a poisoned cup to spare her son from it.
This is perhaps the most sympathetic reading in which we could see a murderous Gertrude kill Ophelia.
Any others?
I think Monica is on to something.
Let's think of the whole thing as a film noir. Gertie's son is a bit volatile and unpredictable. He kills this old guy. The old guy's daughter goes a bit funny in the head and now she's blabbing about it all over town, saying her old man was murdered. Saying Gertie's son done it.
Now that's embarrasing. Can't have that.
And then the old man's son comes to town. Better shut the girl up before she causes trouble.
So Gertie pushes the girl in the soup. But now the brother thinks she committed suicide cause she went crazy cause Gertie's son used her and then dumped her. And he's gonna make Gertie's son pay anyway.
That's what happens in a noir. Everyone's hoist by their own petard and all purposes are mistook and fall on the inventors' heads. And the same goes for the revenge play.
By the way, I do adore the image of Gertrude as a bit of a Lady Macbeth. And I honestly don't think it's out of tune with the rest of the play.
Gedaly brought up an important point. Drowning is one of the worst kinds of death. And although this has everything to do with "interpretation" itself, has anyone ever seen a Gertrude who relates the story she tells as though she's someone who actually witnessed the very thing of which she speaks?
The character of the speech itself; the rhythms, words, and sentence construction don't lend that kind of emotion to the actor.The tenor is nowhere close in character to a feverish and emotional "messenger report", relating dastardly and tragic deeds we, the audience haven't been privy to. But the qualities of the piecing together of a visualization in the speech are rife.
Possibly, Gertrude has received such a report on the discovery of Ophelia's body, then relates the story in her own (and Shakespeare's own) way. The whys of how she chooses to present it have to do with the situation in which she finds herself, many of which have been mentioned here.
—————–
Though related, I'm probably sidetracking a bit here, but the whole business fosters this thought: Why would the accidental death of a person incapable of protecting herself be automatically labeled a suicide? Who has given what happened this label? Unfortunately, I think it's derived from the notion that it's all Hamlet's fault–he's driven her to it. One more absolute to "prove" another negative about HIM. But is there really any indication that it was actually a "suicide"–totally intentional on the part of the victim of this tragic piece of business? Or are we to assume events (always all Hamlet's doing, according to the supporters of the "he knowingly drove her to it" idea) drove her crazy enough to commit suicide, knowingly,on her own part, in fact and in act? Even if Gertrude witnessed such a thing, she doesn't speak of it as such.(Which is what the "Gertrude did it" set are attempting to use for ammo).
To save rebuttal time–Yes it is spoken of as "suicide" later. But by whom? And why and in what context? How does the notion "fit in"?
I think that we know now that drowning is a horrible way to go, but I don't necessarily think that it was common knowledge 400 years ago, at least no more than any other way to die. Gertrude even says that the poor thing was unaware of her situation, and may well have thought she'd simply never even realize what was going on. People who stick a kitten in a bag and throw it in the river don't necessarily lose sleep over how the kitten felt about it.
I agree that Gertrude does not rush in and say "Oh my god she's dead!" Her speech is very soothing, and I've spoken before of how much it reminds me of the time in high school I woke up to my mom telling me that a high school friend had died in a car accident. If Gertrude is making up that story on the fly (or has thought it up in the past 5 minutes), it's damned good.
That would actually be an exercise for an actor to tackle – do the entire speech like a Gertrude who most definitely killed Ophelia and is now providing herself an alibi. Instead of playing it like she's trying to comfort Laertes, play it like she's trying to cover her own behind. She was crazy, I tells ya! Crazy! She kept singing and she floated down the river! It's not like they had CSI back then to go look at the amount of oxygen left in the girl's lungs.
Every bit of what Shakespeare's characters utter is "made up on the fly", coming out of their mouths as they think it (or it should seem so). The fact that people speak so beautifully is part of the heightened rhetorical quality of the whole genre in which he writes. So the fact that Gertrude's speech could be a simple rhetorical device isn't negated by the awesomeness of its construction. If we view any of Shakespeare's rhetoric in terms of Today's reality, none of it would be possible. Just as they did so easily at the Globe, we must be able to simultaneously absorb what's happening as "theatre". Which is why it's such a mistake to apply today's fixation on "realism" to his work.
"Which is why it's such a mistake to apply today's fixation on "realism" to his work."
See, JM, I think this is perhaps where you and I disagree the most strongly, at least if I'm understanding you correctly. My position has always been to extract the plays down not to what Shakespeare wrote and why and when and how, but what he put on the stage as the essence of what it means to be human. In one of the torrent of comments the other day I used the expression "Shakespeare as god", but I can't remember if I ended up taking that out. People often ask why this stuff endures, and I don't think it's because we all have to understand what was going on 400 years ago. I think the exact opposite, I think that what he put on paper does transcend, and that as time marches on we do bring our own evolving understanding into the characters.
Don't get me wrong, I never want to see a production where Juliet has a cell phone and just texts Romeo "Dont wry jus sleepin, k?" That's not what I'm talking about. But I do want to see a production that maybe bumps her age up to 16 or 17 or so, something that's a little more culturally aware these days and less likely to squick people out. And if somebody wants to make Claudius the head of a major corporation instead of the king of Denmark, I can live with that.
I think there's a layer there (back to our depth discussion!) for people who do want to explore that. To fully appreciate the ghosts you need to better understand how the audience felt about such things, compared to our modern audiences. No doubt. But I don't think it's a mistake to focus on bringing the play to a place where we can better understand it.
I have no problem with "updating" or "conceptualizing" as interpretive tools. But what remains is The Language–that we cannot change. Forgetting that this is in fact Theatre is a mistake, and it's why so many actors have such a problem with it. "My character wouldn't say that" or, "Why does he go on so long about it?" are complaints I've often gotten as a director. It's another world–real in its own existence–and to do it justice we must be able to live in that world of heightened rhetoric as a reality unto itself. Handling the language and not being afraid to be "unreal" in a sense but Very Real in another sense is the answer.
this could very well have already been mentioned in the previous comments that I admittedly was to lazy to read through, but I just wanted to say that there is a small corner in academia that holds that part of Ophelia's mad songs point to an attempt (or more) at her virtue by Claudius, and although that in no means implicates Gertrude in Ophelia's death, it does leave the door open for Gertrude to know more than she's saying regarding the real situation of Ophelia's death. Again, there really isn't a lot of textual evidence to support it, but there are glimmers here and there.
Enter CAN, with worms in.
CAN. Hi, does anybody want to open me?
A new player heard from – Claudius, the horny old goat, has been eyeing up poor Ophelia? Well now that practically writes itself – with her father and boyfriend out of the picture who exactly is going to protect her from those advances? I think Gertrude may have misunderstood her role in that case, she's supposed to protect the *child* from the *monster*, not do away with the child because she's jealous of her.
I know that we've gone well far afield of anything Shakespeare could possibly have been suggesting, but ain't it fun??
Duane wrote: "I know that we've gone well far afield of anything Shakespeare could possibly have been suggesting, but ain't it fun??"
'Tis a blast, M'lord, that I would feign repeat.
Duane wrote: "I know that we've gone well far afield of anything Shakespeare could possibly have been suggesting, but ain't it fun??"
But it is not a reading that is not supported by the text.
That is the think to remember about a play. When you think about producing it (even just hypothetically), you can do anything — no matter how unlikely — as long as it does not directly contradict the text written by the playwright.
I think JM mostly has it right about the "semi-loose ends." It is similar to Hitchcock;s concept of "refrigerator logic": the hole in the plot that nobody really notices until after the movie is over and they get up to go to the refrigerator and they say, "Hey, wait a minute…" The scene is dramatic, and good enough to get by in production without anyone noticing any inconsistencies.
On the other hand, there is not really that much to be bothered by. Gertrude may have witnessed the event, or have reported what she was told. The speech is somewhat long, but may have the effect of dilating time. The actual moment from the breaking of the branch and Ophelia's slipping into the brook, her momentary floating on the water and singing snatches of tunes, to her final "muddy death" may have been only a matter of a minute or less. Any observer could have been a considerable distance from the brook and much too far away to come to her aid in time.
More interesting is the notion of what is clearly described as an accidental death being later termed a suicide. Regardless, it would not be unreasonable for Hamlet to be blamed, since he could be seen as the ultimate cause of Ophelia's madness, which surely could be seen as responsible even for her accidental death.
–Carl
Right now, I'm writing a paper for my English class: Write a closing statement as though you are the prosecuting attorney at Gertrude's trial, assuming of course that she is not as innocent as the text makes her out to be.
I've been doing some research, and there's actually a lot of in depth textual evidence to support the idea that Gertrude killed Ophelia. These are all personal interpretations though, obviously, it is not known for sure either way since WS himself never directly confirms or denies anything. Anyways, these are the motives I've found:
1. Ophelia is a nuisance to the Kingdom. She was very intimate with Hamlet and surely knows a lot about the royal family's affairs. Including that Hamlet killed Polonius. She is publicly mourning the death of her father, as a complete looney. It simply would have been better for the royal family's image if she disappeared.
2. Early on, when Hamlet is speaking with Polonius, he mentions the idea that his daughter "may conceive" suggesting that Ophelia may very well be pregnant. This may at first seem wayyy out there, but really Hamlet and Ophelia's relationship is never fully disclosed. Laertes warns Ophelia against Hamlet because he hears that they have been spending a lot of time together in private. Hamlet jokes about laying in her lap in front of everyone at the play. Ophelia sings a song about a man who promises to marry a maiden, however, after they have sex, wants nothing more to do with her. This could be reflective of her relationship with Hamlet. Another possible sign – she gives herself rue when passing out flowers, which could be used for abortions. It is a weak poison that may not kill it's victim, but would be strong enough to kill the victim's unborn baby. Assuming she is pregnant, who would she confide in with this burden? The closest thing to a mother figure Ophelia is ever shown to have is Gertrude. Maybe Gertrude knew and considering Ophelia is of lower social standing and she and Hamlet are not married, she decided doing away with her would be best.
3. There's also the idea that Gertrude was unhappy in her relationship with King Hamlet, knew of Claudius's plan (or even assisted in it) and married him to secure her safety and Hamlet's, and her status as Queen. This would show that she is power hungry, and the only thing she cares about besides herself is her son. Maybe even in a romantic way. Thus, Ophelia, especially if she is carrying Hamlet's unborn child, poses a great threat to her domineering relationship with Hamlet. In which case, jealousy pushed her to it.
Another interesting opinion I read was that Ophelia was being sexually abused by Claudius. While I personally don't see the text backing that up, it's still an interesting idea, no matter how unlikely, and maybe Gertrude was jealous?
Anyways, this is all food for thought. Did Gertrude put pressure on that "envious sliver" supporting Ophelia? Did she watch her drown, in some sort of close proximity, grateful that her problems were fixing themselves? She certainly could have. Even though Claudius orders Horatio to watch over Ophelia when she is mad, it is never shown that Horatio actually follows the order. Queen Gertrude could have easily called him off, offering to watch her in his stead. Or look at the fact that she was all alone outside by a brook, with no attendants attending to her, no one watching over her, how unusual for a queen of that era, huh? Maybe she went alone to watch Ophelia with the very intention of disposing of her. It's all quite possible.
I have to say you've supported your argument very well with creational supposition. It's more "convincing" and replete than the arguments in the linked post that began this discussion.
You wrote: "obviously, it is not known for sure either way since WS himself never directly confirms or denies anything."
I think whatever Shakespeare doesn't directly confirm doesn't necessarily mean there is anything to "suppose". He's usually pretty clear in the text. Although you might say he "infers" a lot with reference, analogy, and metaphor, in terms of what would be earth-shattering revelations such as would be these, if he doesn't state it or support it with direct evidence, it's usually not what he wants to say. He's not given to being a writer of "mystery" without an ending resolution.
You should get a high grade on this paper, though possibly a higher one should you submit it on the fly to a class on criminal investigation, which is where, ultimately, I think it would find a more appropriate home, rather than in an English class. But that's not your fault. Rather, it's the fault of the teacher who, in my view, could find much better use of the time to actually teach something worthwhile about Shakespeare, rather than spend the time on creating soap operas from his work.
Regardless of my views in that regard, it's certainly well done on your part.
Ophelia had gone crazy and as the gentleman states in scene 4, act 5: "Her speech is nothing,/ Yet the unshaped use of it doth move/The hearers to collection; they yawn at it;/ And botch the words up fit to their own thoughts…" This may be over-looked to begin, however, Ophelia is beginning to make the townsfolk talk and question the new rule. They take her ramblings and put their own twists into it, making it out to be about a traitorous king. Horatio then claims: "'Twere good she were spoken with,/ for she may strew/Dangerous conjectures in ill-breeding minds".
If Gertrude is feeling the weight of guilt and is feeling threatened by Ophelia's sudden open-mouthed opinons, is this not motivation to have her removed? She is a threat not only to Claudius, but also to Gertrude's place as Queen of Denmark.