All posts by Mihaela Roberts

About Mihaela Roberts

5081190220142756

Strange Encounters With The Doubtful “Ghost”

The young Hamlet together with the watchmen, Horatio and Marcellus seem to be perturbed at the few apparitions of  the deceased King Hamlet’s ghost. These queer encounters raise  questions about the nature of the ghost: is it an evil spirit, a messenger of a bad omen, or Hamlet’s paternal spirit? Interpreting the role of the phantom, these characters oscillate between  belief and disbelief. For example, Horatio sees the specter as a messenger of an imminent war between Norway and Denmark, relating this omen to those that spread fear among the “Roman streets” prior to Caesar’s death. First, this omen confuses Horatio, his ” mind’s eye”; this methaphor emphasizes the transcendent power of the human mind to see a silent world. The ghost doesn’t talk to him, letting his mind to immerse in wonder and fear. The ghost of a noble person is royal too, so it expects obedience from his inferiors in rank, like Horatio here. Horatio dares to demand the ghost to speak: “Stay! Speak, speak! I charge thee, speak (Act 1, 51). The phantom doesn’t talk to him, but it uses a more powerful communication tool to underscore the scope of its presence: the crow of a cock. This is an awakening, sunny signal to the enlightening of his mind to do something to restore grace and virtue in Denmark.

The dialogue between Hamlet and his father’s ghost has a special nuance here because for the first time “words” equalize the power of “mind”. Here, words are arrows of excruciated pain shot to release Hamlet and the ghost’s internalized suffering. Their pain erodes the surface of their bodies: Hamlet wishes that his “flesh would melt”, while the ghost’s skin is “lazar-like”, with “loathsome crust”, outlining the burning pain caused by the sin of incest. In essence, there is a very special father-son bond between them, especially when Hamlet calls the phantom an “old mole”. This mocking remark implies that they know each others’ deepest secrets: their inner anguish. Just like a mole, Hamlet’s ghost is digging under ground where it finds its son’s grief. Prince Hamlet who sees his dead father in his “mind’s eye”, doubtfully, identifies himself with his spirit: “Rest, rest, perturbed spirit (Act 1, 181).

IMG_0073
As seen in this image, the ghost makes eye contact with Hamlet. There is a prominent black and white contrast between these two: the phantom appears in white while Hamlet wears black clothes, showing that he is still in mourning for his father.

 

The People of The Seen Words and The Believers of The Unseen God

In both, Christianity and Islam, God is considered the divine creator of the universe, whose absolute attributes have been revealed to us through his messengers, his chosen prophets. The islamic doctrine seems to be a hybrid of both Christian and Judaic beliefs based on the fact that people should live their lives by the moral teachings of the prophets. Because Islam took roots after Christianity and Judaism, its book, the Qur’an chants criticism regarding the truths presented in those two sacred scriptures.

In the Gospel, John 1 , the word “word” is enigmatic, being personified with life. Reading it you almost visualize a speaking God, humanized by his act of creation: creating LIFE from the primordial WORD. His spoken words were preserved in the Bible and Tora and “The people of The Book” were guided by those divine words. The word was unquestionable for those people.  Qur’an doesn’t put much emphasis on the word since this divine book is a revelation of a never-illustrated -God-in-books, is a product of those believers’ minds. The repetition of words such as “mind”, “mindful”, and “our revelations”  outlines the visionary imagery of God that surpasses the impact of words on their absolute beliefs. On top of that, Jesus Christ is identified with the spoken word in the Bible. In the Christian Book, God is portrayed as a “shepherd” who watches over his “children” while in the Qur’an he doesn’t resemble his creations; the imagery of God is obscure.

The tone of the book is extremely strong, authoritarian, confrontational, almost forcing your mind to believe everything that’s been said there. The array of repetitions and rhetorical questions are great persuasive tools used as their last words that seal our minds’ questions about God.  For instance, this rhetorical question sounds derogatory, criticizing the Trinity in Christianity: “Can any of your partner-gods show the way to the Truth?” (84 )

Islam rejects the doctrine of the Trinity and Allah is considered a unitary God. In “The Feast”, there is an allusion to the number three: “Your true allies are God, His Messenger, and the believers” (78). The “believers” mentioned many times through “we” and “us” are so deeply involved in revealing the truth about God that they feel blessed with enough knowledge about that unity.