Hamlet in Purgatory (Princeton Classics) Expanded wi edition by Greenblatt, Stephen (2013) Paperback

by Stephen Greenblatt

"Stephen Greenblatt sets out to explain his longtime fascination with the ghost of Hamlet's father, and his daring and ultimately gratifying journey takes him through surprising intellectual territory. It yields an extraordinary account of the rise and fall of Purgatory as both a belief and a lucrative institution - as well as a capacious new reading of the power of Hamlet."--BOOK JACKET.

Genres: Shakespeare, Nonfiction, History, Literary Criticism, Criticism, Literature, Theatre

Paperback

First published January 1, 2001

About the author

Stephen Greenblatt (Ph.D. Yale) is Cogan University Professor of English and American Literature and Language at Harvard University. Also General Editor of The Norton Anthology of English Literature, Eighth Edition, he is the author of nine books, including Will in the World: How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare; Hamlet in Purgatory; Practicing New Historicism; Marvelous Possessions: The Wonder of the New World; Learning to Curse: Essays in Early Modern Culture; and The Swerve: How the World Became Modern. He has edited six collections of criticism, is the co-author (with Charles Mee) of a play, Cardenio, and is a founding coeditor of the journal Representations. He honors include the MLA's James Russell Lowell Prize, for Shakespearean Negotiations: The Circulation of Social Energy in Renaissance England, the Distinguished Humanist Award from the Mellon Foundation, the Distinguished Teaching Award from the University of California, Berkeley. He is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the American Philosophical Society. He lives in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and in Vermont.

Stephen Jay Greenblatt is a Pulitzer Prize winning American literary critic, theorist and scholar.

Greenblatt is regarded by many as one of the founders of New Historicism, a set of critical practices that he often refers to as "cultural poetics"; his works have been influential since the early 1980s when he introduced the term. Greenblatt has written and edited numerous books and articles relevant to new historicism, the study of culture, Renaissance studies and Shakespeare studies and is considered to be an expert in these fields. He is also co-founder of the literary-cultural journal Representations, which often publishes articles by new historicists. His most popular work is Will in the World, a biography of Shakespeare that was on the New York Times Best Seller List for nine weeks.

Reviews

[Sarah · Rating 3 out of 5]

Greenblatt is a great researcher, a key trait that shines through in the early chapters of Hamlet in Purgatory, but also dims the reader's understanding of his overall goals. Probably this exploration of Purgatory's power and its effect on Hamlet and Greenblatt himself would have been better suited to a series of essays, rather than a five chapter book (it's a broad subject, after all). The whole effort feels very disjointed at times, with the first three chapters explaining Purgatory, its rites and the criticisms against it--without any mention of how these things will connect to later Elizabethan drama, or how they even connect together within the individual chapters themselves. A reader must push forward to reach clearer textual analysis, and it arrives in the last two chapters, primarily.

Strongest are the links that Greenblatt draws between the rites of remembering the dead and Hamlet's stress on honoring his ghostly father, though he eventually becomes so wrapped up in revenge, what he does can almost not be called a remembrance. The pull of Purgatory has a great sway over Hamlet, who is at times clearly depicted as Protestant, and so the thing he must do is culturally murky outside the obvious reasons, and hard to achieve because he struggles to find the right murderous ceremony through which to whisk his father from his dreary afterlife.

I had never thought of the religious pressures smothering the young Dane, and Greenblatt gives them great weight through dissection of various tracts by Simon Fish, Sir Thomas More and many spiritual leaders. He ferrets out the influences on Shakespeare's Hamlet and his sections on remembrances through alms for the dead are eloquent and startling in its potential humanist objections in a medieval world. For that alone, Hamlet in Purgatory is a great read for anyone interested in Shakespeare's work and religion.

(Side note: kudos to Greenblatt for sticking to the playwright's dramas, and drawing larger cultural concerns over them, rather than presuming personal influence that we can know nothing of; for that sort of conjecture, Will in the World is a fun read.)

[Matt McCormick · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this book. There are certain writers with whom I am particularly partial such as Robert Caro, Jorge Louis Borges, A. J. Liebling and Stephen Greenblatt. I always get more from their writing than I expected when I picked up their book, essay or critical review. My experience with Greenblatt’s Hamlet in Purgatory was no exception.

What some reviewers found frustrating I found enjoyed. I liked the background on purgatory itself and appreciated how he placed the creation of this mythical space in the context of religious history and pre & post English Renaissance writings. I appreciated the application of the concept of purgatory to a variety of Shakespeare’s plays not just Hamlet. Admittedly his erudition lost me several times, especially when he discussed what one assumes is the primary focused of the writing – the relationship of purgatory in the play Hamlet. However, I don’t mind a wit a book that makes me reach even if my intellectual alligator arms can’t grasp what was put in front of me.

I believe it’s important to remember that Greenblatt is a founding father of the New Historicism and as such tackles all his subjects with a desire to understand the topic from the perspective of the history of ideas and how many varied elements in history touch on and effect a specific event. It’s his nature to bring into a discussion several diverse subjects to see how together they effected the result.

I am happy to give it a five-star with the only caveat being I recognize I’m not as objective when it comes to my favorites.

[Sára Zemanová · Rating 3 out of 5]

ja krava jsem si vybrala the concept of purgatory in shakespeare's hamlet jako tema zaverecneho eseje do literatury a uz tyden v kuse umiram someone Save me. nicmene tato knizka pro me mela tak 20 relevantnich stranek

[Richard · Rating 4 out of 5]

A surprisingly entertaining read if you're interested in Hamlet and/or purgatory. Stephen Greenblatt got me with both. The Hamlet in question is the King, as he's the only dead Hamlet while the play takes place. Junior gets his share of ink in response to his dad - but then, that's the whole play, isn't it? Responding to dad? Fascinating the parsing of stanzas, lines, and words, but like many studies I believe most of the conceits are those of the scholar rather than the author. I have a feeling Shakespeare spent less time crafting the possibilities of double and triple meanings than just trying to figure out how to keep the meter intact, and the action moving. I can see him pulling his beard and muttering, "You know, I just write 'em." Spoiler alert: Scholars are still not sure if Hamlet père was in purgatory, or just wandering around with nowhere to go.

The study of Purgatory, for me the most interesting part of the book, was a revelation in the sense that sapiens have invested so much energy in fantasy purported as reality. As if creation, the garden, heaven, hell, angels, devils, miracles, and Saviours didn't provide enough entertainment, the church fathers had to come up with Purgatory (we won't even talk about Limbo.)

Here's the deal, say Uncle Joe dies. Everyone knows he was no saint, but nobody believes he was evil, and so what to do with his immortal soul. In the 11th Century the Church came up with Purgatory - a ghastly waiting room where a soul is denied the presence of God until it has come clean. At first there were no torments other than the restriction keeping one from God's presence, but then the geniuses got to work inventing metaphors for how horrible that would be. Quite horrible, actually - all the torments of hell, only temporary. Now, loving Uncle Joe his survivors would want him released as soon as possible. The Church had a plan, and it was to monetize a system of indulgences that would take set amounts of time off the sentence. Give the church a few coins and, voila, ten years removed. The more given, the more years go away. (You could simply pray, but prayers without cash were not as efficacious as - well, cash without prayers.) One Papal indulgence would buy you 21,000 years - couldn't have been cheap. No one really knew how many years Uncle Joe had, or how long a year actually took in Purgatory time, but, better safe.

Indulgences were such a lucrative business that churches became the richest entities in the earthly kingdoms. It was said that every church, monastery, nunnery, college and library, and all the clerical employees were funded by indulgences, with money left over for homes, farms, concubines, etc. etc. No wonder Luther was in a snit. Getting rid of indulgences was Protestant work, and to this day a Catholic can still pray sins away, and - in 1960 my uncle went to Rome, and came back with a document signed by a papal secretary that gave my name, and stated that if, at the moment of death, I was truly sorrowful for my sins, and said the name of Jesus, I'd go to heaven non-stop. Of course it cost him, but he never said how much.

But, you may ask, what about Hamlet, père et fils? The ghost didn't seem too concerned with getting out of purgatory, he/it just wanted revenge, and the prince wasn't praying or buying indulgences - he just wanted to do right by his father. The final straw is that taking revenge on Claudius wouldn't have eased the purgatorial burden on Hamlet - no indulgence for murder - but may have kept him quiet. I think keeping him quiet was a greater motivation than easing his other sufferings. The greater concern seemed to have been with audience and censers. Elizabethan England wanted no part of Purgatory and the powers would have found it seditious. The Catholics in the crowd, however, wanted to read as much into the play as possible, hoping they had found an ally in the Bard. They didn't get far. As it was, no one was satisfied, but Shakespeare got away with having ghosts in a lot of his work - nobody wanted to decide quite where they came from, but they were a great stage convention - good for chills, thrills, and moving plots along, so complaints were kept to a minimum. Any controversy has been about scholars and theologians splitting hairs.

I was quite entertained by Hamlet in Purgatory, (smile) and depending on your tolerance for silly theological fantasy and hair-splitting, and assumptions about what Shakespeare may have been thinking, you might be also.

[Moonglum · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hamlet in Purgatory book provides fascinating scholarship regarding the medieval and early modern English ideas of ghosts and Purgatory, and it uses that to inform some insightful readings into Hamlet, and some of Shakespeare's other plays as well.

The book's main point seems to have been that with regards to the memories of the dead in Elizabethan England, a theatrical and poetic understanding of purgatory and ghosts had usurped the role that had previously been played by sincere religious belief. This in itself is a cool insight, and there are quite a few other cool insights to be found in "Hamlet in Purgatory' as well. But the book mentions so many different topics, and makes so many side trips (some fun), that its hard to nail down what exactly it was about.

Also, I didn't think it talked enough about the other big influence on the ghosts of Elizabethan theater-- Senecan revenge tragedies. Having finished the book, I felt like I had half the picture. The ghost in Hamlet is both from purgatory, and from hell/hades. It could be either a spirit of health or a goblin dammed. Having read the book, I felt I had gained a background on the ghost as a thing from purgatory, but I feel that to really grok that ghost, I also need to understand it as a spirit from Hades, a thing out of the revenge tragedy tradition.

[Jennifer · Rating 2 out of 5]

Picture yourself consigned to Purgatory - apparently, somewhere beneath Ireland - for some indefinite term of spiritual cleansing. You stand, perhaps, isolated on a vast desert, swept by hot winds, beneath a demonic sun. Around you, in a perfect circle, burns a ring of flames, which while never quite touching your body still serve to bake out of it the last vestiges of water. Imagine yourself here, dessicating, for a period of some hundred years, and perhaps you'll get something of a feel of the dryness of Greenblatt's work. The author - so phenomenally successful elsewhere - falls flat here, spending far too long in recounting repetitive details about the history of the concept of Purgatory before even beginning to approach the Shakespearean connection the title promises. (And when he does, it's Lear and Macbeth far more than Hamlet.) A handful of interesting bits are scattered throughout the text, but frankly he did the topic better service in the few pages he spent dealing with it in Will in the World. Reads like a stint as Tantalus, so I'd sate your interests elsewhere.

[Colin · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was an utterly fascinating book. The title is a tad misleading, since he doesn't focus just on Hamlet. We learn a great deal about the murky origins of Purgatory as Catholic doctrine and how it was seemingly eradicated by the Protestant Reformation. Also, we get a tour of the various ghosts in Shakespeare, from the ghost of Caesar to Old Hamlet appearing to his son in armor. This book is a tremendous example of how something that's over 400 years old can be looked at freshly just by bringing one aspect to the forefront that's usually just part of the trappings. You don't necessarily need to be fluent in theology, but familiarity helps. And a broad knowledge of the plays is useful, too. For a book as intense and serious as this one, I had an absolute blast reading it. I recommend it to any student of the Bard, religion, or history.

[Brian Collins · Rating 4 out of 5]

A Protestant Hamlet just returned from Wittenburg is confronted by his father's purgatorial ghost. This strange happening sets Greenblatt off on a quest to understand the development of purgatory and the Protestant polemic against it. Eventually Greenblatt applies his research to Shakespeare's plays and to Hamlet in particular. The research on purgatory and it's reception history is well done.

[michal k-c · Rating 3 out of 5]

wow was not expecting it to take that long to get to Hamlet, but when it did, Greenblatt was really firing on all cylinders. little disappointed it spent only a measly ~70 pages talking directly about Hamlet, the rest of the book is incredibly well researched (i recommend reading the footnotes concurrently). theatre is the cult of the dead, who would’ve guessed

[Mahima · Rating 5 out of 5]

Hamlet in Purgatory, a New Historicist book, in brief, deals with the history of the much-contested idea of Purgatory as it must have been inherited in Renaissance England by Shakespeare in whose plays (not just in Hamlet, but especially in it) it seeps in, the poetical replacing the theological as a way to grapple with the thin boundary between life and death and the grief that accompanies death. Greenblatt’s writing is not overly dense and his arguments are both brilliant and wonderfully tied together, making seeing the play through the lens of his thesis very rewarding. He gets remarkably close to the mystery of Hamlet that critics have been perpetually engaged in trying to understand.

[Nawel · Rating 5 out of 5]

TROP INTÉRESSANT ! Je recommande 10/10

[Niccy · Rating 1 out of 5]

bit dry

[Sarah · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting exploration of both the general concept of Purgatory and how this is explored within multiple Shakespearean texts.

[verbava · Rating 5 out of 5]

стівен грінблатт починає розповідь про гамлета-старшого в чистилищі здалеку і рухається без поспіху: щоб зрозуміти, наскільки несподівано круту річ робить шекспір, потрібно трошки дізнатися про життя і пригоди чистилища в англійській культурі. тому ми стартуємо з дванадцятого століття – чи навіть іще раніше, із восьмого, коли це місце ще ніяк не називали, тільки думали, що ж має існувати якийсь простір, де ще не зовсім достойні небес душі можуть посидіти до повної готовності.
оця штука з доходженням до кондиції – дуже цікава й важлива. тобто звісно, єдина свята апостольська католицька церква користувалася чистилищем для кращої капіталізації, але якщо бути досконало послідовними в картографуванні потойбіччя, без неї доволі непросто обійтися. небо – це для святих, навіки; пекло – це для безнадійно грішних, назавжди; натомість люди зазвичай ні одне, ні друге, і не всім щастить охреститися чи принаймні щиро розкаятися перед самісінькою смертю (забудемо про концепцію наслідків гріха, яка ще більше ускладнює справу). існують, звісно, есхатологічні теорії про те, що все вимірювання й розподілення відбувається в мить після смерті, але вони якось не зовсім комфортно пасують до уявлень про божі милосердя і справедливість: немилосердно за нестрашні провини запихати у вічний вогонь, але несправедливо на ці провини зовсім не зважати.
крім того, чистилище надає сенсу молитвам за померлих. адже ті, хто в небі, уже перебувають у вічному блаженстві й самі моляться за нас; ті, хто в пеклі, звідти вже нікуди не дінуться, тому молитися за них нема сенсу. відчуття спільноти з мертвими може бути тільки в тому разі, якщо є якась категорія душ, стан яких іще може змінитися. на цьому терені, власне, й відбувається капіталізація: оскільки молитви й відправи допомагають душам швидше впоратися з перехідним етапом, варто купити їх якомога більше, ще за власного життя (бо на дітей покладатися ризиковано). а щоб стимул до набування молитов був якомога виразніший, місце очікування змальовують далеко не курортом. і тут виявляється, що дантова "божественна комедія", незважаючи на те, що це нині найвідоміше зображення потойбіччя, а тому ніби еталонне, значно відходить від того, як зазвичай бачили чистилище. у данте там ходять такі симпатичні чистенькі душі, зі своїми тягарями, звісно, та принципово іншими, радіснішими, ніж у пеклі, – але данте й розташовує чистилище довкола земного раю. а для пересічного мешканця середньовіччя-відродження це місце було тим самим пеклом, із класичним вогнем і скреготом зубів, от тільки тимчасовим. грінблатт показує чимало картинок, і серед них мініатюру, на якій душі страждають у двох аналогічних казанах – та над одним сидить чортяка, який за потреби втрамбовує вариво, а над іншим витає янгол, який витягує вже готових до життя вічного.
іноді душі зазирають у гості до живих, щоб нагадати про свою ситуацію й попросити молитов. і тут ми підходимо до шекспіра, який про саме чистилище не говорив (спробував би він у реформованій англії), але полюбляв виводити на сцену привидів. шекспір – це два останні розділи книжки, спочатку про інші п'єси, а потім детальний розгляд ситуації гамлета-старшого і його сина (грінблатт це описує як "a young man from wittenberg, with a distinctly protestant temperament, is haunted by a distinctly catholic ghost"). і не знаю навіть, чи це весь попередній текст був таким розлогим вступом до аналізу "гамлета", а чи радше розділ про драму ілюструє живучість ідеї чистилища, навіть вигнаної з повсякденного вжитку. у кожному разі, дуже елегантно вийшло.

[Laura Lee · Rating 2 out of 5]

Let me just say at the outset that my star rating is not meant to be any sort of objective measure of the quality of Greenblatt's scholarship or writing style. It is, rather, an indication of my experience of this book. Hamlet in Purgatory annoyed me. To be fair, it is better to say that the packaging and marketing of this book annoyed me.

The book is called "Hamlet in Purgatory" and the back cover blurb begins "Beyond its brilliant illumination of Hamlet..." As I was in the mood to read different takes on the play Hamlet, I checked this out of the library. The blurb an title gave me the impression that there would be a lot more to the book than Hamlet, but that it would use Hamlet as a jumping off point to reflect on theology and the role purgatory played in the Elizabethan belief system.

I started reading, wondering when Hamlet was going to enter the scene. I decided that the first chapter was background and that the discussion of Hamlet would surely begin in the second. It was not until page 150 or so that we started to approach Shakespeare's world. It is towards the end of that chapter that the author promises that the next chapter-- the last-- will talk about Hamlet. By the time I got to that chapter, (page 205 of a 250 page book, minus its end notes) and I read the introductory paragraphs about the UR-Hamlet, the supposed predecessor to Shakespeare's play I was so annoyed at having been teased this long that I put the book down in disgust.

Had it been billed as a discussion of the concept of purgatory that, among other things, touched on Hamlet, I might have found this a satisfying read. As I went to it with the promise of a book that "raises the discussion (of Hamlet) to a new level" I felt as though I was sold a bill of goods.

[Kathleen McKim · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was published in 2001, so obviously I'm a bit behind in my highly academic Shakespeare scholarship. I have, however, done my fair share of it in the past, and never EVER has an academic reading of Hamlet brought me to tears, this extremely moving double-death of the King in Hamlet's final moments: "O,O,O,O.... I am dead" (229). Never mind that the actual text of the play isn't mentioned until page 157, the process that Greenblatt walks the reader through from a thorough recounting of the Medieval Catholic Doctrine of Purgatory to the death of the Prince is an initiation into Shakespearean theatre as the cult of the dead (258). Blowing the old debate of "was Hamlet a Catholic or a Protestant," hence, was Shakespeare, to an entirely new level of analysis via texts as varied as medieval morality plays, Faust, treatises by Fish and Sir Thomas More, Henry VIII, papal bulls, popular lore, and German psychoanalysis, Greenblatt reminds us of the richness and sophistication of the Elizabethan audience and the multiplicity of paradox and contradictions that are so densely layered within Hamlet. This reading, more than any other, has deepened my sense of the true tragedy of Hamlet for us, which seems to be, as it was for Hamlet, there will never be a definitive answer to some of life's most anguishing questions. And, the rest is silence. If I ever teach Hamlet or Shakespeare again, at least parts of this book will definitely be required reading. In fact, an entire course in Hamlet may not be entirely out of the question.

[Ben De Bono · Rating 4 out of 5]

Despite a few significant flaws along the way, this is a fascinating read for fans of either Hamlet or medieval thought.

There are two big problems I have with the book: 1. Anytime the author wanders onto theological ground it becomes quickly apparent he is out of his element. He repeats several times that purgatory didn't exist in Christian thought until the 13th century. Wrong. The word purgatory wasn't used then, but the concept goes back to the Patristics or, if we want to be really technical, to Second Temple Judaism. 2. There's too much build up and not enough payoff. 80% of this book isn't about Hamlet at all. The research he presents is fascinating, but I wanted far more on the actual play!

That said, it's otherwise a strong read. Thankfully, most of the discussion of purgatory is not devoted to the theology but to the imaginative development of purgatory in the popular mind throughout the centuries leading up to Shakespeare's writing. It's a fascinating study that manages to stake out a middle ground between historical theology and literary criticism.

The time spent discussing Hamlet, while brief, is by far the strongest part of the book. Greenblatt has numerous insights that will have you reading the play with fresh eyes.

It's not a perfect book, but if the subject matter interests you it's worth your time. 3.5 stars

[David C Ward · Rating 4 out of 5]

Never uninteresting, I thought Greenblatt’s argument here a little forced and mechanistic; the details in the initial section on the rise and fall of purgatory (it takes a long time to get to Hamlet!) aren’t actually necessary for the discussion of Hamlet - the lengthy readings of ghost stories for instance or More’s polemic in defense of purgatory are extraneous. The key points on religion could be dealt with more pointedly and sharper; I had a sense that Greenblatt was unloading all his seminar notes on other early modern texts. The main point about the play seems sound: that the psychic energies expressed in the concept of purgatory lingered on after the authorities extirpated the religious practice had to go somewhere. So Shakespeare used both the concept and the energy in his plays. Makes the case for WS balancing between the catholic and the Protestant worlds. I thought the sections on Shakespeare were strong, the others, on religious practice and popular belief, more fragmentary. A bit less than four stars.

[Jeff · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a really interesting read ( I want to give it 3.5 stars). Granted, it takes four chapters to get to Shakespeare and five before Hamlet and his spectral father make an appearance, but the early material on the battle over the concept of Purgatory is engaging enough that you don't hold it against Greenblatt too much. It really is hard to conceive just how high the stakes over a concept like Purgatory were in the early modern period in England, and Greenblatt (who I met once eons ago when he was kind enough to chat about the Bard for at least an hour with some wet-behind-the-ears graduate students) does a great job of laying out that this really was a matter of life and death for many, both in this life and the world to come.

[Lydia Housley · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read mostly for Dissertation purposes. Having read sections of this before, I was excited to tackle the whole thing. Greenblatt is a brilliant academic and researcher, however some of the writing felt a little bogged down in primary material which made the points being made difficult to unpick. Nevertheless, hugely interesting interpretation of Hamlet and other works of the period and fixes the play immovably in the historical context of its production.

[Laura · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not quite as riveting as the Swerve but doggone if I didn't learn a ton about Purgatory and its echoes through the 17th century. All those lost spirits, wandering.

[David Stephens · Rating 5 out of 5]

In Hamlet in Purgatory, Stephen Greenblatt weaves through the major beliefs in the afterlife and the supernatural of the early modern era. He discusses some of the through lines of Shakespeare’s works and how he utilized the theatre in ways that reflected the changing views of ghosts and secular life as a form of purgatory in and of itself. And, even though it takes a while to get there, he eventually addresses how it might be that Hamlet contains such a core Catholic idea in the midst of what at the time was a predominantly Protestant country.

But until then, Greenblatt saunters in the best ways possible. He spends quite a while expounding on the conception of purgatory. The conventional wisdom of the time was that it was a papist scam, intended to enrich the church at the expense of people’s fears for their recently departed loved ones. And there was certainly some truth to this. However, Protestant critics also had more theological concerns since purgatory had no scriptural basis and allowed those who believed in a post-death purgative to live with moral lassitude, basically, to sin on credit.

Perhaps even worse, Catholic poets who both laid the foundation for where purgatory might have been and what details might have existed within it only helped perpetuate a change in religious belief away from orthodox Christianity. A concept like purgatory only became more real as more people believed in it, and while older Christian ideas may have followed a similar trajectory, they had already ossified into godly axioms and could no longer be challenged. The purveyors of purgatory, however, “were shaping and colonizing the imagination,” a process that needed to be rooted out.

And yet it stands that one of the most famous plays of all time, written when plays couldn’t even recognize Catholicism, has only further entrenched a prominent plank of Catholic ideology in readers of the ages. Not only were the religious winds blowing against a belief in purgatory, but the play itself in other ways appears to be in active opposition to such notions.

Hamlet is a student at Wittenberg, a university most associated with Martin Luther and the Protestant Revolution. His corrupt uncle parrots Protestant talking points about death and grief, noting that it becomes unmanly to mourn for too long. One could even read into Hamlet’s morbid comments about worms feasting on kings as a subtle mocking of transubstantiation.

Overall, Greenblatt provides an answer that is too thorough to recount here, but there are two main parts to it. The first is of the personal variety. There is evidence that Shakespeare’s father John was a secret Catholic. Since he died in 1601, roughly the time the play was written, it might be that Shakespeare had enough sympathy for his father’s convictions that he worked them into the premise of the play, an analog for what the ghost of Hamlet Sr. asks of his son.

More broadly, as it pertains to the Elizabethan theatre, purgatory was a powerful idea, one that not only gave people hope that they could at least suffer their way to heaven, but also allowed a profound catharsis to those still living who were anxious about their deceased peers. In these terms, both the ghost of the former king and theatre itself became surrogates for the purge of emotions that had been snuffed out by official English law. And, oddly enough, this allowed the theatre itself–with its players and prostitutes–to take on a religious status of its own.

[Alexa K. · Rating 2 out of 5]

Greenblatt is a famous Shakespearean critic and Renaissance writer. I have enjoyed a few of his others works on Shakespeare. I did not find myself captivated with this one.

First, the title is entirely misleading. The book is 260 pages long and it is not until page 156 that Shakespeare is really first addressed and not until page 205 that he turns to Hamlet. I expected an in-depth exploration of the role of the ghost in Hamlet and was left wanting.

Additionally, Greenblatt (non-religious himself, I believe) does not take seriously the theological doctrines which he spends the first half of the book addressing. He falls into the trap of having his end in mind while he researches and writes and remains unwilling to grant anything to opposing views. As such, he addresses religious doctrines as “poetry” not philosophy or theology, ideas bent on convincing an uneducated mass of people and cheating them out of money. He finds the concept of Purgatory and traditional Catholic prayers and practices surrounding it to be created imaginations worked on by the Church at large at the expense of the people. While he does a good job addressing both Catholic and Protestant views at the relevant historical times, he does so with a blatant disregard for either’s legitimacy. I think this perception lessens the weight of his literary critique when it finally comes and keeps it incomplete.

[Ragnhild Yndestad · Rating 4 out of 5]

I’ve been meaning to read this since my Shakespeare class back at Oxford, but I didn’t get around to it until now. Overall I really enjoyed it! The book raises many interesting points and perspectives on English Renaissance literature as unreservedly underlined by religious conflicts, specifically between Protestants and Catholicism. As someone who didn’t grow up in England and are therefore somewhat unfamiliar with English history, I found this book very useful in explaining the religious conflicts and its cultural repercussions. It brought up several examples from plays that I’ve read (Shakespeare, Marlowe, Jonson, etc) and explained their many allusions to Catholic belief (specifically Purgatory) that went over my head. A must read for Early Modern readers and students! My main criticism, besides some of the chapters being a bit repetitive, is that the title and the blurb is a little misleading. From these, I expected a book about the phenomenon of purgatory in Hamlet; but this specific play doesn’t come up until the last 25 pages. Instead, the book is an introduction to the importance of purgatory in Early Modern drama and culture overall, and is very useful as a reference work when studying a variety of texts from this period.

[Daniel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Superb! Greenblatt has done an excellent job here. It's completely changed how I understand Hamlet. Although he takes about 200 pages to actually starting discussing Hamlet, it's absolutely worth it. He covers the history of purgatory so well that by the time we get onto Hamlet, the revealment of the hybridisation of Senecan revenge ghost with the ghost from purgatory hits you like an ice-cold salmon across the face on a frosty winter morning. Suddenly, all I'm interested in is the ghost. It's all about the ghost. Everything is about the ghost.

This is the first full book by Greenblatt that I've read. I'm going to read more books by him. He has a good style.

If you like Hamlet, then read this. I'm going to go and watch Hamlet. ... "I have of late..."

[Kirk Johnson · Rating 5 out of 5]

More a study of purgatory than of Hamlet, but still worthy of its title, this book doesn't have an uninteresting page. Get the hardcover version if you can, as the plates are in color and the typeface is notably more readable.

[Jim Collett · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fascinating study of the idea of Purgatory and its possible relation to the ghost in Hamlet. I think it requires a good background in the play and probably some knowledge of the Elizabethan era. Provocative reading.

[Ryan Collins · Rating 3 out of 5]

The title of the book is a bit misleading. Hamlet is only discussed in the last 50 pages, but It’s still an interesting discussion of the history of the belief in Purgatory and the impact of this doctrine on medieval and Early Modern English literature.

[Olivia · Rating 4 out of 5]

for a book called hamlet in purgatory, there’s very little hamlet. still very interesting and academic

[Katrina · Rating 4 out of 5]

audio, I don't love the reader but the story is good