Since the last time I mentioned the maggots that eat the dead, I will continue with worms (worms).
The question of the corpse of Polonius is the question where did it go when Hamlet killed him. She is asked several times in Act II of the play at the point where we end up wondering if it would not play a particular role. Is this just a transition element whose only function is to move from one scene to another? It seems not. And if this body played a major role? 
For Antigone, we know the issue of burial of her brother that she is ready to die. So to Ophelia and Polonius, what is it?
The death of Polonius is a mistake. Hamlet believed kill King Claudius, he kills only his advisor Polonius. In the style of the most savage vengeance of the "eye for eye, tooth for tooth." If you killed my father, I'll kill you. I had the idea, the piece you just see a staged, I do!
Polonius does not weigh heavy for Hamlet. It is a "poor brainless, clown browser [1] ," "a buffoon and a scoundrel billboard [2] . Yet Hamlet repents of his crime: "I'll put it away somewhere, and I will answer well The death I gave him [3] . It "Weeps over what he did [4] .
The King knows that the crime of Hamlet will be charged as it failed to contain this young fool. But the king, do not submit Hamlet "at the extent of the law." Hamlet is located immediately outside the law, did not reach trial, his crime will not count.
King wants to put the body in the chapel before the burial. Polonius advise the king keep his status beyond his death, he will not forfeit as the brother of Antigone.
Or is it dead?
Hamlet "dragged his guts into the next room [5] . Hamlet has "mixed with dust, which is close relative." But he refuses to say where he put the body. Hamlet ironically on the body.
And indeed it would be inappropriate not to take his words seriously: "The body is with the king but the king is not with the body, the king is one thing ... [6] . These
doublespeak leaves the identity and qualifications of King Undetermined. What is this king? The father of Hamlet or Claudius?
The king is a thing whose qualification is left open a while and then defined in a second time as "something for nothing [7] . One thing that has no substance, a spectrum. This confirms that the queen when she in turn clarifies the definition of the spectrum. The madness, the presence of the spectrum is a "Mint that hits your brain, these creatures without bodies, delirium excels at hitting [8] . The spectrum is a "creature without a body," money made by the brain ...
For now, it looks classic. Spectrum is a creation of thought, delusions made by one who is haunted. In death, there's more body spectrum. These are two separate, distinct, and whose destinies are different, one haunts Hamlet and the other is mixed with dust.
Then, ironically, doing crazy, Hamlet tells the king that this body is "supper" "where it is eaten" by "some assembly to political [9] .
And he drops a real conundrum
"Hamlet: Some assembly to political attacks on him (the corpse of Polonius). Your worm is your only emperor for good food, we feed all the other creatures to fat us, and we fat ourselves for maggots. Fat and lean beggar king merely vary the menu, two dishes for one table. Everything is there.
King: Alas! alas!
Hamlet: A man may fish with the worm that ate a king, and eat the fish that hath fed of that worm [10] .
These statements are complex, enigmatic and highly ambiguous! Who is the worm in question? Who is the fish? Who is the fisherman?
It seems that the worm can both be the court where the deceased, Polonius, princes and kings in general, Claudius alone or even the queen. Same for the fish that we do not know who he is. It is also well be that the queen Claudius.
There are at least four possible interpretations:
1 - Polonius's body was left somewhere in the palace and the royal court. Worms are the assembly of the court that delight in the death of Polonius
eventually reach the office of councilor he has left vacant. Counselors are worms that feed on the king. The king is the fish that eats
his advisers. A man can overthrow a king based on his advisors and his court.
2 - King Claudius feeds his court, maintains his advisers, as he maintained Polonius. He eats the worm has fed. Polonius was the emperor of
good food because it was also the advisor of Hamlet's father that he was fattened. Hamlet can use the worm to Polonius Claudius catch his fish.
3 - Claudius was fed to the death of Hamlet's father. He took the opportunity to take the throne and its place in the bed of the queen, like a maggot
fattens the body. He fed his "fish," the queen. Hamlet also wants to reach his mother.
4 - men and fatten their bodies will feed the worms. Including Hamlet and Claudius. Both maggots fatten their corpse.
on a more general philosophical men manage to penetrate the mystery of their fate by apprehending them to be death is what makes them
live. To put it as Freud, "if you want to support life, organizing yourself to death"
translators believe the word play on the diet as "diet" and the diet as the assembly Political and homophony between worms (worms) and the city of Worms is a political allusion. Polonius would be compared to Luther condemned as heretical in 1521 by Charles V at the Diet of Worms [11] . They favor a political interpretation in which the king could dismiss one his advisers
Why such a reference except to note with irony the intellectual poverty of the king as a courtier Polonius. This is not what a thinker! Luther himself had not hesitated to assert that the body (of Christ) is called the dispersion (dust to dust you return). Polonius is only a pale copy of Luther grimacing. He was eating to fatten the king. The king is fat because the beggar Polonius only fatten. As we have seen, reducing the interpretation of this passage to a simple "palace revolution" is widely insufficient.
"Eating" is placed at three dimensions need to know to distinguish. According to the plan of each of these dimensions, the characters, their meaning and direction vary. Shakespeare was able to condense the three plans into a single text.
There's the plan:
1 - Real. The maggot eats the remains. Death is a fact.
2 - Imaginary. One eats the other. The movement is reflexive. It becomes difficult to know who eats the other.
3 - Symbolism. A person eats first and will be eaten by a third. The action can change the signifier represents the subject. All around, fish and worm.
These distinctions allow us to understand the difference between which the object of exchange to the object cause of desire in Shakespeare's text. 
As an object of exchange, the worm uses to catch fish, Claudius grabbed the Queen by Polonius. Then the sinner to the exchange against the fish. The subject is a worm eaten by the Other as a mere object of consumption which is the remainder. As
object cause of desire, the worm has eaten the king. Claudius ignited for the queen. It's been a little Lacan. For what remains of the king after his death, his body that will devour the worm. The queen is part of what remains, it is treated the corpse of King Claudius which feeds as a maggot.
In this metaphor, the body is what is left of the subject, the object petit a. Is what remains of the exchange of fish against the worm. Separate the subject from its object was small, kills the subject and turns his body remains.
Finally, Hamlet finally released to the court that the corpse is found in the stairwell of the gallery. The corpse is found, it will indeed be buried according to the wishes of Claudius.
So, Ophelia did not react to the lack of burial. We see now the difference with Antigone. The body of the father of Ophelia will receive its burial, it is not the problem. There must be another explanation for the madness of Ophelia. To the extent that the parallel can be drawn with the fate of the queen, Ophelia would be what remains after the death of his father. The thing that causes a desire to Hamlet, but also the object of consumption which Hamlet disposes to catch another fish (Claudius).
The followingnext issue.
[1] - p. 861
[2] - p. 873
[3] - p. 871
[4] - p. 877
[5] - p. 873
[6] - p. 881
[7] - Ibid, « a thing of nothing »
[8] - p. 869
[9] - p. 889
[10] - p. 883
[11] - note 6, p. 1468
0 comments:
Post a Comment