Which is weird since I just saw a great video of Judi Dench, Shakespearean actress extradordinaire, discovering by Ancestry her Danish ancestors were the noble Bille family, who happened to be married to Tycho Brahe family, and he being a brilliant Renaissance astronomer with relatives called Rosenkrans and Guildenstern, and somehow they postulate that Shakespeare may have done a royal Danish command performance before all this . . .
As they say, you just cannot make this stuff up.
P.S. The Judi Dench book, Shakespeare, the Man Who Pays the Rent, is brilliant and historical Shakespeare insight.
James IV, the king of Scotland, who later became James I of England after Elizabeth I's death was a supporter of science and technology and visited Brahe at Uraniborg, the observatory that Frederick II had built for him. It was a major undertaking, roughly of the order of the Webb telescope. Brahe was Danish and from a notable Danish family though he was forced to leave Denmark at some point. There is a good chance there was an actual connection and reference.
EDIT: It was James VI of Scotland, not James IV. I'm hoping this was a typo not an early sign of dementia. I actually checked on Wikipedia then typed in the wrong number.
Most folk don’t think of that era for “science and technology,” but Brahe’s work certainly gives the lie to that. Plus Shakespeare was his theatre and language equivalent and certainly capable of layering into his play some cosmology theories. In Hamlet he uses the word “retrograde” for instance.
“Science” does not really need to be taught. The fundamentals of the liberal arts were the foundation of the university system as we know it. Go look up that list of 800+ Catholic scholars (ancient and modern) who were also scientists. Copernicus and Georges Lamaitre come to mind. Such a mind expander!
Philosophy is not science, per se. The ancient Greeks called it the liberal arts of Trivium and Quadrivium: Grammar, Logic, Rhetoric; and Arithmetic, Music, Geometry, and Astronomy.
Always enjoy your thoughtful views, Ted. Wondering if you are familiar with "Hamlet's Mill", written in the 1960's I believe, investigating the timeless and ubiquitous story of Hamlet through the ages (among other things). Always like forward to your essays!
this whole concept you have created kinda of reflects Paapa Essiedu’s production of Hamlet - it’s an interpretation that focuses more on the narrative Hamlet being an outcast, without changing too much of the main frame of the story. such a great piece ted, and an insightful way to apply this tragedy to modern day contexts !
I'm not sure he was saying that. I took away that he was saying the opposite - that the same aspect of the human condition that Shakespeare wrote about are still true today.
Not persuaded that Hamlet for kids is a good move, but, yeah, this is smart. The Ghost could be an AI character he created on his TikTok. And could look like many different personages.
I also wonder in what way not a good move? If we can agree that Hamlet captures some element of universal truths about the human condition that also are applicable today, why is it not good to contemplate and expose our youth to them?
I see. Well i respectfully must disagree. Im of the mind that the sooner kids learn about the real world the better. With kids, we hide things about life, lie about other things, all to their disservice. That was ok(though still detrimental) 10-20 years ago, but we're living in a time when itd be to everybodies benefit to grow up fast.
Kids can understand much more than we give them credit for. That something is hard is not a reason to not do it. Quite the opposite, ime.
We read it in 11th grade, partly out loud, to expose the diction and rhythm. (One Shakespeare play a year.) It was the right age for it, although I'm sure some of it hit hard with some students.
We read Romeo and Juliet in 9th grade, because, our teachers told us, we would enjoy all that teen sex and violence. And so we did. We were impressed our teachers understood us so wel.
I hope the kids managed to find Shakespeare's Bawdy, a collection and exegesis of all the plays' naughty bits, pardon the expression. After 50 years, I've forgotten the author's name, but it was an actual scholar who liked to have fun.
9th Grade we read Julius Caesar in an edition made by the Mercury Theater (Orson Welles and John Houseman, 1937) produced as an anti-fascist drama. With photographs from the production. And it felt fresh, alive.
And now, more than ever, the play feels so relevant. So fresh, alive.
"There are millions of us now, and our ranks our growing."
Is this so? I would hear more about why you said this. More importantly, to my mind, is there more to it than just people talking online? Bc i do think its kinda trendy rn to talk, online ofc, about wanting to live a real life, but im wondering if people are actually *doing* anything(hopefully "yet")
Im genuinely asking, not making assholey cynical comments disguised as questions, as i often do.
"He’s the over-educated and under-employed worker who can’t get a job because of AI."
Idt we're there yet, but ill admit i really have no idea about any actual numbers regarding this. Still, i think the problem goes deeper. Its really about how our society views "us", what value it places on average people in the work force, and its stated-vs-actual goals. But theres plenty of work to do. I think its high time people(parents, teenagers, young adults) take more responsibility for their own education. Bc school, for the average student, isnt about learning how to do much of anything. Its more about preparing people to be good consumers. So before we jump to blaming outside influences, i think its worth looking at what *we* could do to remedy this situation. And we'd better do so soon.. another generation or two dies off and alot of practical knowledge about living will be lost. But perhaps thats what itll take to get people interested in learning such things. The wells not quite dry enough to *really* miss the water yet.
This was the article ive enjoyed the most in some time. I would totally go see that production of hamlet, and i definitely want to see that grand theft hamlet. This was better than the shit sucks and is getting worse as i predicted articles that, while i tend to agree with the broader strokes, never take us anywhere.
Maybe the 50 percent statistic is not legion but it depends on your definition of legion and whether that qualifies. But the point that "it's a lot" perhaps would suffice to capture the point even if we can quibble about the word used?
I'll add to all the chaos below (LOL) that Hamlet's story isn't only representative of young people. While we might not be the majority (or we might be?) there's a whole 'nother generation in the U.S. right now, and each year our numbers are growing. It's not a generation with a unique name, so maybe I'll call it the "Lost 21st," for "Lost Generation of the 21st Century."
We are the generation of people just hitting our 60's now for whom retirement is not—and never will be—an option. We are the generation who has done everything (mostly) right in our lives: we got college degrees, we got married, had kids, got divorced when those marriages revealed their ugly sides, and we bought houses—houses that unlike those of people who bought 30 years ago, have not appreciated in value by $500,000, effectively funding those people's retirements. (Our homes have barely appreciated in value at all.)
We worked in professional jobs, then got laid off from those jobs—not due to poor performance, but due to budget cuts, ageism, and other random reasons.
Now we find ourselves adrift in our 60s, unemployed, looking for work in one of the worst job markets in history, with AI looming over our head, in a society that worships youth, and without the pensions and millions in savings that so many other people before us had (and have)—people who fundamentally made no different choices than what we made.
So Hamlet could absolutely be a 60-year-old in 2025.
Best comment I’ve ever read on Hamlet. It was never my favourite Shakespeare play but I will reconsider. The young man crisis of today is prominently compounded by the lack of a young women crisis. They do remarkably well. That moment isn’t visible in Hamlet.
This reminds me of one of my favorite Gabor Maté quotes: "We may not be responsible for the world that created our minds, but we can take responsibility for the mind with which we create our world." The same goes for our hearts. Radical responsibility is always the best individual choice for all. I have a new Bare HEARTS Q&A coming out today with an incredible guest. We will be speaking about this need for radical responsibility. Join the conversation if this interests you. Love to all. May we really do our best. And thank you to Ted, always the best resource to re-source our minds and hearts. 🙏💛
A couple years ago I watched Hamlet at Windsor Theatre. The young Prince was played as a Gen Z teenager by none other than Ian McKellen. It was surreal and quite compelling.
I appreciate the analysis, but have a few points of contention. Hamlet is a distinctly masculine tale, broadly about his failed journey from boyhood to manhood. Hamlet suffers an identity crisis, especially demonstrated by the fact that he has no name and is referred to by his father’s name, Hamlet, his lineage. Who/what is Hamlet? That seems to be the question.
The way Hamlet connects to men today seems to me to be in a shared sense of purposelessness, emotionally or physically absent fathers, and the view of all masculinity as toxic. I don’t quite find in the play that the touchpoint between Hamlet and today’s age is that he was a doomscroller or incel, or other comparisons made of the sort.
That was the convention back then. The top ranking male was referred to by the name of his house. It's one of the things that confuses high school kids reading Jane Austen.
I’m very aware of this! Just pointing out the real issue of father/som relations and lineage-related expectations Shakespeare intended. That’s something I think is more relatable to young men in today’s age than shoving Hamlet into a box of “relatable Gen Z doomscroller.”Hamlet cannot be shoved into a box. Hamlet hates the box.
Men today try to forge identities and masculinities without clear father figures. To me, exploring that touchpoint between Hamlet and today would be more valuable.
Sorry. I was just picking up on the no name thing.
I agree with you on most of this, but I'm not sure it's only a masculine thing. When I was a teen, my mother warned me that in my 20s I would experience a lack understanding of how I fit into the world and my purpose in it. She went through that herself so felt it important to warn me. That's not how it played out, but it was good advice.
I think your interpretation is quite valid, but I'm not sure it completely invalidates the points Ted made. In other words, it perhaps ok to look at it in both ways, though perhaps you hold his perspective to be less convincing or in alignment to your own, which is why both his post and yours are valuable - thanks for posting!
Interesting. I always felt she was essentially a pawn, and that her suicide was due to the stress of being that (more complicated than that, obviously). It seemed intensely sad to me. I think I’ll have to re-read.
Certainly… yet, in my opinion, it’s a distinctly different energy than the “high value man” and “alpha male” sentiment we see today. I don’t know if Hamlet would’ve gone wild on incel Reddit or 4chan. It is an interesting thought…
We are all, every generation, from the beginning, born in spiritual poverty. It manifests itself in human ways that allow the brilliance of Shakespeare to reach each era. But the only answer for the human condition is Jesus.
And then there is this:
https://science.psu.edu/news/astrophysicist-finds-new-scientific-meaning-hamlet
Which is weird since I just saw a great video of Judi Dench, Shakespearean actress extradordinaire, discovering by Ancestry her Danish ancestors were the noble Bille family, who happened to be married to Tycho Brahe family, and he being a brilliant Renaissance astronomer with relatives called Rosenkrans and Guildenstern, and somehow they postulate that Shakespeare may have done a royal Danish command performance before all this . . .
As they say, you just cannot make this stuff up.
P.S. The Judi Dench book, Shakespeare, the Man Who Pays the Rent, is brilliant and historical Shakespeare insight.
James IV, the king of Scotland, who later became James I of England after Elizabeth I's death was a supporter of science and technology and visited Brahe at Uraniborg, the observatory that Frederick II had built for him. It was a major undertaking, roughly of the order of the Webb telescope. Brahe was Danish and from a notable Danish family though he was forced to leave Denmark at some point. There is a good chance there was an actual connection and reference.
EDIT: It was James VI of Scotland, not James IV. I'm hoping this was a typo not an early sign of dementia. I actually checked on Wikipedia then typed in the wrong number.
Most folk don’t think of that era for “science and technology,” but Brahe’s work certainly gives the lie to that. Plus Shakespeare was his theatre and language equivalent and certainly capable of layering into his play some cosmology theories. In Hamlet he uses the word “retrograde” for instance.
“Science” does not really need to be taught. The fundamentals of the liberal arts were the foundation of the university system as we know it. Go look up that list of 800+ Catholic scholars (ancient and modern) who were also scientists. Copernicus and Georges Lamaitre come to mind. Such a mind expander!
Philosophy is not science, per se. The ancient Greeks called it the liberal arts of Trivium and Quadrivium: Grammar, Logic, Rhetoric; and Arithmetic, Music, Geometry, and Astronomy.
Good information, but I believe it was James VI of Scotland.
Thanks!
Very interesting link.
In the 80s in the country south of Nashville I built an 8 inch reflecting telescope and spent many nights using it
Then you certainly will like the Tycho Brahe story too.
Yes.
Very interesting link that contextualizes Hamlet in a unique way. Good stuff and thanks for contributing that link.
This is a fascinating modern insight into Hamlet. I see elements of it even in friends of my son, and maybe even he himself.
Always enjoy your thoughtful views, Ted. Wondering if you are familiar with "Hamlet's Mill", written in the 1960's I believe, investigating the timeless and ubiquitous story of Hamlet through the ages (among other things). Always like forward to your essays!
There's a special providence in
the fall of a sparrow. If it be now, 'tis not to come; if it be
not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come: THE READINESS IS ALL.
this whole concept you have created kinda of reflects Paapa Essiedu’s production of Hamlet - it’s an interpretation that focuses more on the narrative Hamlet being an outcast, without changing too much of the main frame of the story. such a great piece ted, and an insightful way to apply this tragedy to modern day contexts !
Perhaps outcast it a little oversimplified but I get your point. Good post.
Hamlet is not an incel -- nor is he merely a victim of his time as you are suggesting in your superficial analysis.
I'm not sure he was saying that. I took away that he was saying the opposite - that the same aspect of the human condition that Shakespeare wrote about are still true today.
He is giving, and you are only taking.
Not persuaded that Hamlet for kids is a good move, but, yeah, this is smart. The Ghost could be an AI character he created on his TikTok. And could look like many different personages.
I also wonder in what way not a good move? If we can agree that Hamlet captures some element of universal truths about the human condition that also are applicable today, why is it not good to contemplate and expose our youth to them?
Why dont you like the hamlet for kids idea?
I’d wait until at least 7th or 8th grade. It deals with issues that could be unexpectedly rough for younger students. I used to teach.
I see. Well i respectfully must disagree. Im of the mind that the sooner kids learn about the real world the better. With kids, we hide things about life, lie about other things, all to their disservice. That was ok(though still detrimental) 10-20 years ago, but we're living in a time when itd be to everybodies benefit to grow up fast.
Kids can understand much more than we give them credit for. That something is hard is not a reason to not do it. Quite the opposite, ime.
We read it in 11th grade, partly out loud, to expose the diction and rhythm. (One Shakespeare play a year.) It was the right age for it, although I'm sure some of it hit hard with some students.
We read Romeo and Juliet in 9th grade, because, our teachers told us, we would enjoy all that teen sex and violence. And so we did. We were impressed our teachers understood us so wel.
I hope the kids managed to find Shakespeare's Bawdy, a collection and exegesis of all the plays' naughty bits, pardon the expression. After 50 years, I've forgotten the author's name, but it was an actual scholar who liked to have fun.
9th Grade we read Julius Caesar in an edition made by the Mercury Theater (Orson Welles and John Houseman, 1937) produced as an anti-fascist drama. With photographs from the production. And it felt fresh, alive.
And now, more than ever, the play feels so relevant. So fresh, alive.
"There are millions of us now, and our ranks our growing."
Is this so? I would hear more about why you said this. More importantly, to my mind, is there more to it than just people talking online? Bc i do think its kinda trendy rn to talk, online ofc, about wanting to live a real life, but im wondering if people are actually *doing* anything(hopefully "yet")
Im genuinely asking, not making assholey cynical comments disguised as questions, as i often do.
"He’s the over-educated and under-employed worker who can’t get a job because of AI."
Idt we're there yet, but ill admit i really have no idea about any actual numbers regarding this. Still, i think the problem goes deeper. Its really about how our society views "us", what value it places on average people in the work force, and its stated-vs-actual goals. But theres plenty of work to do. I think its high time people(parents, teenagers, young adults) take more responsibility for their own education. Bc school, for the average student, isnt about learning how to do much of anything. Its more about preparing people to be good consumers. So before we jump to blaming outside influences, i think its worth looking at what *we* could do to remedy this situation. And we'd better do so soon.. another generation or two dies off and alot of practical knowledge about living will be lost. But perhaps thats what itll take to get people interested in learning such things. The wells not quite dry enough to *really* miss the water yet.
This was the article ive enjoyed the most in some time. I would totally go see that production of hamlet, and i definitely want to see that grand theft hamlet. This was better than the shit sucks and is getting worse as i predicted articles that, while i tend to agree with the broader strokes, never take us anywhere.
That is a thoughtful post and I enjoyed reading it and thinking about your perspective. Thanks for sharing it.
Comon Ted... "There number is legion" ? Really?
Maybe the 50 percent statistic is not legion but it depends on your definition of legion and whether that qualifies. But the point that "it's a lot" perhaps would suffice to capture the point even if we can quibble about the word used?
Comon.
I'll add to all the chaos below (LOL) that Hamlet's story isn't only representative of young people. While we might not be the majority (or we might be?) there's a whole 'nother generation in the U.S. right now, and each year our numbers are growing. It's not a generation with a unique name, so maybe I'll call it the "Lost 21st," for "Lost Generation of the 21st Century."
We are the generation of people just hitting our 60's now for whom retirement is not—and never will be—an option. We are the generation who has done everything (mostly) right in our lives: we got college degrees, we got married, had kids, got divorced when those marriages revealed their ugly sides, and we bought houses—houses that unlike those of people who bought 30 years ago, have not appreciated in value by $500,000, effectively funding those people's retirements. (Our homes have barely appreciated in value at all.)
We worked in professional jobs, then got laid off from those jobs—not due to poor performance, but due to budget cuts, ageism, and other random reasons.
Now we find ourselves adrift in our 60s, unemployed, looking for work in one of the worst job markets in history, with AI looming over our head, in a society that worships youth, and without the pensions and millions in savings that so many other people before us had (and have)—people who fundamentally made no different choices than what we made.
So Hamlet could absolutely be a 60-year-old in 2025.
Best comment I’ve ever read on Hamlet. It was never my favourite Shakespeare play but I will reconsider. The young man crisis of today is prominently compounded by the lack of a young women crisis. They do remarkably well. That moment isn’t visible in Hamlet.
This reminds me of one of my favorite Gabor Maté quotes: "We may not be responsible for the world that created our minds, but we can take responsibility for the mind with which we create our world." The same goes for our hearts. Radical responsibility is always the best individual choice for all. I have a new Bare HEARTS Q&A coming out today with an incredible guest. We will be speaking about this need for radical responsibility. Join the conversation if this interests you. Love to all. May we really do our best. And thank you to Ted, always the best resource to re-source our minds and hearts. 🙏💛
A couple years ago I watched Hamlet at Windsor Theatre. The young Prince was played as a Gen Z teenager by none other than Ian McKellen. It was surreal and quite compelling.
I appreciate the analysis, but have a few points of contention. Hamlet is a distinctly masculine tale, broadly about his failed journey from boyhood to manhood. Hamlet suffers an identity crisis, especially demonstrated by the fact that he has no name and is referred to by his father’s name, Hamlet, his lineage. Who/what is Hamlet? That seems to be the question.
The way Hamlet connects to men today seems to me to be in a shared sense of purposelessness, emotionally or physically absent fathers, and the view of all masculinity as toxic. I don’t quite find in the play that the touchpoint between Hamlet and today’s age is that he was a doomscroller or incel, or other comparisons made of the sort.
That was the convention back then. The top ranking male was referred to by the name of his house. It's one of the things that confuses high school kids reading Jane Austen.
I’m very aware of this! Just pointing out the real issue of father/som relations and lineage-related expectations Shakespeare intended. That’s something I think is more relatable to young men in today’s age than shoving Hamlet into a box of “relatable Gen Z doomscroller.”Hamlet cannot be shoved into a box. Hamlet hates the box.
Men today try to forge identities and masculinities without clear father figures. To me, exploring that touchpoint between Hamlet and today would be more valuable.
Sorry. I was just picking up on the no name thing.
I agree with you on most of this, but I'm not sure it's only a masculine thing. When I was a teen, my mother warned me that in my 20s I would experience a lack understanding of how I fit into the world and my purpose in it. She went through that herself so felt it important to warn me. That's not how it played out, but it was good advice.
I think your interpretation is quite valid, but I'm not sure it completely invalidates the points Ted made. In other words, it perhaps ok to look at it in both ways, though perhaps you hold his perspective to be less convincing or in alignment to your own, which is why both his post and yours are valuable - thanks for posting!
Invalidation is not the aim, but contemplation. Thanks for your response.
He was certainly very hostile to Ophelia, and to womankind.
He hates himself and his situation and finds Ophelia's love for himself baffling and annoying.
Does Ophelia love him? I think she’s trying to please her dad.
My guess is that Ophelia thinks she can fix Hamlet's soul.
Interesting. I always felt she was essentially a pawn, and that her suicide was due to the stress of being that (more complicated than that, obviously). It seemed intensely sad to me. I think I’ll have to re-read.
Maybe. I also need to re-read.
Certainly… yet, in my opinion, it’s a distinctly different energy than the “high value man” and “alpha male” sentiment we see today. I don’t know if Hamlet would’ve gone wild on incel Reddit or 4chan. It is an interesting thought…
I think it’s an expression of the frustration and sense of unfairness and hypocrisy that drives some men into the arms of these incel groups.
Very clever! You missed all that could be done with the play inside the play. That could be the video game.
We are all, every generation, from the beginning, born in spiritual poverty. It manifests itself in human ways that allow the brilliance of Shakespeare to reach each era. But the only answer for the human condition is Jesus.
Any good attempts at new versions?
https://youtu.be/YS3H9ha-2uI?si=BdSQjCDlL1dDVP49
Hamlet in six minutes
From the first Raindance Film Festival 1993
It's not until you see hamlet performed that you realize how timeless it is and how many quotes from it are woven into culture