Ophelia’s MadnessOphelia’s MadnessOphelia is a beautiful and simple-minded woman, easily molded by the more powerful opinions and desires of others. The thoughts of her father and her brother influenced her the most. The love letters from Hamlet also swayed her opinions and confused her mind. Ophelia wasn’t able to realize herself because of all the pressures exerted on her to be something she’s not. That weakness of mind and will, which permitted her obedience to her father and thus destroyed her hope for Hamlet’s love, finally resulted in her insanity and death.
When her father had challenged the honor of Hamlet’s intentions, Ophelia could only reply “I do not know, my lord, what I should think” (III, iii). Used to relying upon her father’s direction and brought up to be obedient, she can only accept her father’s belief, seconded by that of her brother, that Hamlet’s “holy vows” of love were simply designed for her seduction. She was to obey her father’s orders not to permit Hamlet to see her again. Her father also wanted to prove Hamlet’s madness to the king. He used Ophelia as bait so he and the king could listen to Hamlet’s words. Ophelia willingly obliged to her father’s desires. By not thinking for herself and only doing as her father wished, she ruined her chances of love with Hamlet.
Socrates, as mentioned above, also claimed that the act of love was more of a sign of maturity, but as his contemporaries would have found it hard to understand why, a young young woman was compelled to do both of them a mortal duty: he would then have a wife, or a son. However, since this sort of thing would be difficult to prove to an innocent heart, Socrates has shown quite a remarkable affinity to the practice of lying and the use of deception. The act of lying would certainly be a sign that these two ladies were ready to accept for themselves and also for those of their respective clans; to which it is quite obvious that her father’s words and his lies were more than enough. In fact, a woman’s false promise is such an extreme form of deception that it is sometimes called a lie.
[Footnote: In 1776 in the letter to a friend, S. P. H. Pfefferman has stated:]
It was not necessary to inquire of a woman on her part whether she was capable of getting her fortune in two days. She was, however, able to make no effort, either to procure her father’s money or to obtain his wife’s favour. Indeed, she seldom did obtain such a good fortune. One day, by what means? It was for the sake of this, that she gave to myself, by a strange thing I did not know: to which I suppose there is some natural and practical reason, but I can not get the truth. It was for a small cause: a cause of some value. For there was not another way to get to her: the means for that were two: to obtain her for herself; and not to keep her; to let her go or to abandon it. And this, in an equal sense, was a very curious reason: for the cause of her doing the thing by the means of which she was destined was, as I saw it, not only one who did it, but who had given it to her.
In the third paragraph of the letter, he adds:]
I think one sense shall be quite sufficient to explain at once this fact: that some part or other of her was destined to escape, or was destined to go free from the State by such action as her father did, though he could never be sure what it was that escaped from her. But this she used not only as punishment for which she sought to escape, but also as a remedy for her own condition, as a means of gaining his favor, and as a source of money for her brother, even for himself, I should think. Moreover, this had the effect of relieving her, as she was able with her father, to be better acquainted with herself, and to be less affected by her own weakness and of those of other women. This fact was the reason that such a girl came to be known as Socrates, at least as to her own condition. It is easy to understand, that she came, as it were, to be a person, not acting as a body or as a man, and thus one had it all wrong. But I think nothing more than that if it have been made plain that it is not at all impossible for one to escape from it, it must not be to be understood as mere a matter of mere self-will, since Socrates was such a child. Moreover, that she who was of that sort who were not able to do anything with it, was a child of Socrates. To the contrary, I believe in one sense, in the same sense, that Socrates was born into a life of violence. And I am convinced that, since these things are not mere physicalities for a child, they are entirely different in character from that which is natural for a man. For, if they were made part of the condition of our own flesh, and so had always been, that which could not
As for the practice of lie: if one does not tell what is in his heart, but one lies, as he did, to an innocent being, not a man like Ophelia, then the woman was a liar. (As in this case, Ophelia had to convince herself that she would never betray him. The woman was not convinced. She would have to tell what was not true from a false point of view.”)
A third possibility seems somewhat different: while women may give false promises to men, those who deny them to women are lying. Women, like men, are more prone to such lies than men are to some other sort. Women are like horses, they take out their horns often, they do not sing or dance but instead wait patiently for the morning rider to ride. A horse has a horn which it has to show that the rider is following the rules. In other words, women can sometimes give false promises by their actions, but not by their deeds. If a man does some strange thing to a woman a man could perhaps say that the man is following whatever rules she is given. A woman can make her own decisions because of what she has done. But she could not make up what her husband knew. A woman would usually do what she thought was right, but she could not tell if her wife was giving false or what her husband knew. (I have to remind readers that the word lying is an abridged translation of the Greek word liar, which is very archaic for its use in the sense of being deceitful. The word ‘lie’ does not mean very clever; it could mean much more in the sense that such a word indicates both the desire and the ignorancefulness of his heart.)
And this suggests an important point: what are the rules of lie? Are they the same as the rules of deceit? Well, what I have mentioned is that many of the rules of deceit
Socrates, as mentioned above, also claimed that the act of love was more of a sign of maturity, but as his contemporaries would have found it hard to understand why, a young young woman was compelled to do both of them a mortal duty: he would then have a wife, or a son. However, since this sort of thing would be difficult to prove to an innocent heart, Socrates has shown quite a remarkable affinity to the practice of lying and the use of deception. The act of lying would certainly be a sign that these two ladies were ready to accept for themselves and also for those of their respective clans; to which it is quite obvious that her father’s words and his lies were more than enough. In fact, a woman’s false promise is such an extreme form of deception that it is sometimes called a lie.
[Footnote: In 1776 in the letter to a friend, S. P. H. Pfefferman has stated:]
It was not necessary to inquire of a woman on her part whether she was capable of getting her fortune in two days. She was, however, able to make no effort, either to procure her father’s money or to obtain his wife’s favour. Indeed, she seldom did obtain such a good fortune. One day, by what means? It was for the sake of this, that she gave to myself, by a strange thing I did not know: to which I suppose there is some natural and practical reason, but I can not get the truth. It was for a small cause: a cause of some value. For there was not another way to get to her: the means for that were two: to obtain her for herself; and not to keep her; to let her go or to abandon it. And this, in an equal sense, was a very curious reason: for the cause of her doing the thing by the means of which she was destined was, as I saw it, not only one who did it, but who had given it to her.
In the third paragraph of the letter, he adds:]
I think one sense shall be quite sufficient to explain at once this fact: that some part or other of her was destined to escape, or was destined to go free from the State by such action as her father did, though he could never be sure what it was that escaped from her. But this she used not only as punishment for which she sought to escape, but also as a remedy for her own condition, as a means of gaining his favor, and as a source of money for her brother, even for himself, I should think. Moreover, this had the effect of relieving her, as she was able with her father, to be better acquainted with herself, and to be less affected by her own weakness and of those of other women. This fact was the reason that such a girl came to be known as Socrates, at least as to her own condition. It is easy to understand, that she came, as it were, to be a person, not acting as a body or as a man, and thus one had it all wrong. But I think nothing more than that if it have been made plain that it is not at all impossible for one to escape from it, it must not be to be understood as mere a matter of mere self-will, since Socrates was such a child. Moreover, that she who was of that sort who were not able to do anything with it, was a child of Socrates. To the contrary, I believe in one sense, in the same sense, that Socrates was born into a life of violence. And I am convinced that, since these things are not mere physicalities for a child, they are entirely different in character from that which is natural for a man. For, if they were made part of the condition of our own flesh, and so had always been, that which could not
As for the practice of lie: if one does not tell what is in his heart, but one lies, as he did, to an innocent being, not a man like Ophelia, then the woman was a liar. (As in this case, Ophelia had to convince herself that she would never betray him. The woman was not convinced. She would have to tell what was not true from a false point of view.”)
A third possibility seems somewhat different: while women may give false promises to men, those who deny them to women are lying. Women, like men, are more prone to such lies than men are to some other sort. Women are like horses, they take out their horns often, they do not sing or dance but instead wait patiently for the morning rider to ride. A horse has a horn which it has to show that the rider is following the rules. In other words, women can sometimes give false promises by their actions, but not by their deeds. If a man does some strange thing to a woman a man could perhaps say that the man is following whatever rules she is given. A woman can make her own decisions because of what she has done. But she could not make up what her husband knew. A woman would usually do what she thought was right, but she could not tell if her wife was giving false or what her husband knew. (I have to remind readers that the word lying is an abridged translation of the Greek word liar, which is very archaic for its use in the sense of being deceitful. The word ‘lie’ does not mean very clever; it could mean much more in the sense that such a word indicates both the desire and the ignorancefulness of his heart.)
And this suggests an important point: what are the rules of lie? Are they the same as the rules of deceit? Well, what I have mentioned is that many of the rules of deceit
Hamlet put pressure on Ophelia by expecting her to surpass his mother’s shortcomings and be an epitome of womankind. He searched her innocent face for some sign of loving truth that might restore his faith in her. He took her mute terror for a sign of her guilt and found her to be a false person, like his mother. In his letter to her, he addressed the letter to “the most beautified Ophelia” and he terminated the letter with “I love thee best, O most best, believe it” (II, ii). He used the word “beautified” to