If one answers that William Shakespeare was the author, it can be predicted that he/she was asked a famous Shakespeare authorship question. The problem whether Shakespeare was the author of all the plays he had written or it was absolutely another person or even a group of people remains unsolved.
Much discussion is devoted to the issues, but it remains useless as both differences and similarities are considered in the written works by Shakespeare. The main purpose of this paper is to consider the discussion which takes place around the Shakespeare authorship question and analyze his three plays Hamlet, Julius Caesar, Twelfth Night with the goal to check the similarities and differences in style, content, language, etc.
It should be stated that even though most of the scholars point to the fact that Shakespeare was not the author of the plays, I would like to contradict this opinion and prove that Shakespeares Hamlet, Julius Caesar, Twelfth Night are written by one and the same author as the problem statement, the veiled problems and the manner of truth revealing are similar in the plays.
Shakespeare Authorship Question
Different Opinions on the Problem of Shakespeare Authorship
Much research has been provided devoted to the analysis of the Shakespeares works and the identification of the authorship. Regnier points to the abounding variety of law terms and notions in Hamlet. He tries to prove that it is impossible to be so aware of those definitions and so skillfully use those in writing if the author is not the layer.
Even though the article does not prove that Hamlet was written by other authors except for Shakespeare, it makes us continue research and try to find other supportive or denying evidence (Regnier 426).
A comparative analysis of the Shakespeares footprint and the footprint of other writers who lived during the same period shows that the evidence of Shakespeares existence is almost absent. If Shakespeare was a writer, he would have footprints similar to those of the comparison authors (Sturrock 534), but it is not so.
Therefore, this research does not prove that Shakespeare was not an author, it just arises a number of other hypothesis connected with the fact that Shakespeare either hid the fact that he was a writer or he did not do it at all.
Diana Price tried to understand the reasons of the absence of the evidence of Shakespeares authorship and has come to the conclusion that there were many testimonies to this idea, but they were not written, they were just spoken by Williams friends, family members, etc. During the time of Shakespeares life the problem of authorship was not put so high as it was obvious for everybody that those plays were written by Shakespeare, thus, the written evidence was unnecessary (Price 14).
It is obvious that if the problem is spoken, so it exists. Still, the issue may be considered from different angles. On the one hand, it can be stated that Shakespeare cannot be called the author of the works titled with his names as there is no evidence which definitely prove this hypothesis.
On the other hand, I cannot reject the idea that Shakespeare can be the author of the works he is titled with as there are not strict proofs that he is not (Bristol 128). Thus, the Shakespeare authorship question has not been solved yet and the close analysis of the plays probably written by this author may be one of the new steps to make the situation clear.
Background for Hamlet, Julius Caesar, Twelfth Night
Hamlet, Julius Caesar, Twelfth Night are the plays by William Shakespeare written at one and the same time, approximately between 1599 and 1602. Before getting down to comparison and contrast analysis of the plays under discussion, it is necessary to check the plot of these plays and their main ideas from the perspectives of other authors to get rid of prejudiced attitude in the relation to our thesis statement.
Kazimierczak tries to prove that the question of Shakespeare authorship may appear due to the translation of some specific works. Providing some examples of the personalization of some specific ideas due to the differences in imagination in the author and the translator while translation, she tries to show that sometimes these issues may influence the perception of the text by the reader (Kazimierczak 50).
Thus, reading Hamlet for proving Shakespeares authorship, the original texts should be considered, which a difficult affair is. Reading Hamlet, it becomes obvious that the problems arisen there are deeper and more serious. The question to be or not to be (Shakespeare and Hapgood 178) is not just the hesitation in Hamlets mind, it is the hesitation in his heart. The conflict in the religious field is touched as the play was written while the period of reformation (Oakes 72).
Homosexuality is one of the issues which is veiled in Shakespeares plays. Having conducted a research, Stanivukovic points to the presence of the homosexual tendencies in Hamlet and Julius Caesar (148).
The analysis of the topic of homosexuality in Shakespeares works shows that the problem is mentioned only in the latest works by the author and does not prove anything (Stanivukovic 138). Julius Caesar raises the problems of the struggle for power and fate over leadership. These issues are also hidden and can be considered on the basis of the main characters behaviors, speeches, etc. (Cartelli 35).
The problem of gender and its importance for people is revealed in one more play by Shakespeare, Twelfth Night (Osborne 33). According to Sarnelli, Shakespeares plays display a homoerotic circulation of desire, an erotic energy which is elicited, displaced and exchanged s it confronts the pleasures and anxieties of early modern culture (622) that make it similar to Julius Caesar. Still, the problem of gender relations is not the only issue similar in three plays under discussion.
Comparison and Contrast of Style, Context, etc. in Shakespeares Hamlet, Julius Caesar, Twelfth Night
To begin with, the differences should be stated to make it clear that they exist. First of all, three plays are devoted to different topics, hate and desire to revenge, struggle for power, and love and jealousy are the central themes discussed in Hamlet, Julius Caesar, and Twelfth Night respectively.
Two plays are similar in tragic mood (Hamlet and Julius Caesar), while Twelfth Night is absolutely different and ends up with the laugh and cheery mood, not with tears and the feeling of despair. Each of these plays has absolutely different ideas, but all of them are aimed at teaching the reader something, at showing that what is done by night appears by day.
These three plays are different in themes and refer to varied motifs and ideas, but they have one and the same feature. The author creates a problem, an intrigue in the beginning of the plays which develops and becomes more mysterious and confused and at the end of the plays the truth reveals and everything becomes obvious. This is the main similar feature of these plays. The author does not leave any problem unsolved or mysterious.
This manner to reveal the truth is also a characteristic feature of the plays under discussion. Moreover, the development of the events, the problem statement, its climax and conclusion are considered to be the main characteristic features. One more point which should be mentioned is that there is always a person who says a closing speech in the final scene. This person also declares the play morale.
Conclusion
Therefore, the conclusion I have come to supports the thesis statement mentioned in the beginning, Shakespeares Hamlet, Julius Caesar, Twelfth Night are written by one and the same author as the context, the written style, the problems and the manner of their veiling is similar.
The understanding whether these three plays are similar and written by the same person may give us an opportunity to state that there is no need to prove that each of the plays belongs to Shakespeare. The Shakespeares authorship only of one play should be proven to make it clear that he wrote the rest two.
Works Cited
Bristol, Michael D. Shakespeare Is an Author: An Essentialist View. Shakespeare Studies 36 (2008): 122-131. Print.
Cartelli, Thomas. Doing it slant: Reconceiving Shakespeare in Shakespeare aftermath. Shakespeare Studies. Ed. Susan Zimmerman. New Jersey: Fairleigh Dickinson Univ Press, 2010. 26-36. Print.
Kazimierczak, Karolina. Adapting Shakespeare for Star Trek and Star Trek for Shakespeare: The Klingon Hamlet and the spaces of translation. Studies in Popular Culture 32.2 (2010): 35-55. Print.
Oakes, T. Edward. Hamlet and the Reformation: The Prince of Denmark as Young Man Luther. Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought & Culture 13.1 (2010): 53-78. Print.
Osborne, Laurie E. Twelfth Nights cinematic adolescents: One play, one plot, one setting, and three teen films. Shakespeare Bulletin 26.2: 9-36. Print.
Price, Diana. Shakespeares Authorship and Questions of Evidence. Skeptic 11.3 (2005): 10-15. Print.
Regnier, Thomas. Could Shakespeare think like a lawyer? How inheritance law issues in Hamlet may shed light on the authorship question? The University of Miami Law Review 57(2003): 377-428. Print.
Sarnelli, Laura. Staging the space of desire: A queer reading of Twelfth Night. Textus XX (2007): 617-632. Print.
Shakespeare, William and Robert Hapgood. Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Print.
Stanivukovic, Goran. Shakespeare and Homosexuality. Forum for Modern Language Studies 46.2 (2010): 138-151. Print.
Sturrock, P. A. Shakespeare: The authorship question, A Bayesian approach. Journal of Scientific Exploration 22.4 (2008): 529-537. Print.
Hamlets father was murdered. A month later his mother married his uncle. It was the worst time of his life. He was under tremendous stress. He wanted to spend most of his time grieving his loss but at the same time, he was confronted with an event that has made him question the meaning of what has transpired in the past few weeks. It was mental and emotional anguish that has driven him to despair. Thus, when his fathers ghost appeared to him and commanded him to kill his enemies Hamlet could no longer handle the added pressure and so he suffered tremendously and brought down the whole Danish royal family with him to the grave.
The Ghost
The first thing that has to be determined is the truth behind the claim that Hamlet saw the ghost of his departed father. It is important to know if Hamlet indeed had some form of a vision or if he simply imagined the whole thing. It is easy to understand the significance of the visitation if indeed there was one. If Hamlet simply imagined the presence of a ghost then it simply means that he already had an idea of who the murderer was and that this knowledge pushed him to the edge and as a result, he began to imagine things.
Thus, the introductory part of the play serves a crucial role because in Act 1 one can read that the members of the royal guards saw the ghost of the former king. This sighting was confirmed by none other than Horatio the loyal friend of Hamlet who said that he would not have believed if the event was simply narrated to him, but since he was able to see with his very own eyes then he can confirm that indeed the dead king has revealed himself in the form of a ghost.
In Act 4, the final confirmation came when numerous sets of eyes saw the same thing at the same time. This should eliminate the idea that one of the witnesses was delusional. It has now been made clear by Shakespeare that indeed the dead king succeeded in reaching out to the living. The stage has been set for the dead king to connect with his grieving son.
The Challenge
The ghost beckoned for Hamlet to come nearer. It was a clear invitation to come and confer with the dead. Hamlet understood the negative implications of speaking with the dead and more importantly he was not even sure at first if indeed he was talking to his father or a phantom trying to play a cruel joke on him. But it was indeed the dead old king wearing the armor that he used to vanquish Norway.
The ghost beckons for the son to come and Hamlet obliged until they reached a remote part of the castle. In seclusion and privacy, the ghost unfolded the purpose of his visit. The ghost explained that he is indeed the spirit of Hamlets dead father. After allowing Hamlet to absorb the full blow of the revelation the ghost began to speak.
The ghost did not try to encourage the grieving son to be strong and take courage. Instead, the ghost gave the son a charge that would bring him to the edge and tear his soul. The ghost said that the whole of Denmark was told a lie. The tall tale about his purported death through the sting of poison does not contain a grain of truth. Yet, he clarified that indeed a snake has bitten him with treachery but this serpent does not slither in the ground, and in truth, he wears the crown of the king of Denmark.
Hamlet was not surprised by what he had heard. He suspected all along that his uncle has done something wrong. It was obvious to him that there is a better explanation as to the sudden demise of his father and just as quickly the marriage of his mother to his fathers brother. Nevertheless, the charge to slay his uncle to avenge the death of his father and to administer justice in the land is something that Hamlet was not sure he can accomplish.
The Breaking Point
It has to be made clear why Hamlet suffered mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. First of all, there is a need to understand that Hamlet had to deal with so many things at the same time and he had to contend with these matters in different planes of existence. His dead father can only be accessed in the spirit realm and though Shakespeare did not elaborate it is easy to see that Hamlet was in considerable stress when he communed with his father.
Secondly, the charge given to him was made more difficult by the fact that Hamlet was forced to assume an unfamiliar role. No information was supplied that could confirm the warrior mentality of Hamlet. He was no assassin and it is debatable if indeed he has the killer instinct that could propel him to the throne if he needs to fight for it. In the first scene of Act IV one can see the interaction of Hamlet and the Captain of the Norwegian forces and after he has been near this fine warlord Hamlet said the unthinkable for he said that he was a coward.
It may not be true that Hamlet is not a coward and that he simply exaggerated his statement in comparison to a veteran soldier in front of him. However, it can be said that he did not possess the disposition to carry out a grim task. According to commentators, Hamlet is the melancholy Dane and a sweet Prince (Bloom, p.19). Hamlet may not be a coward in the true sense of the word but he cannot plunge a dagger into the heart of his enemies. Hamlet had to go through the fire to strengthen his will and this was provided when he accidentally killed a man and was sent to exile (Barranger, p.170). After his return Hamlet found the strength to strike with his sword but not before he was pushed to the edge.
Thirdly, Hamlet was up against no ordinary foe. He was contending with a wily politician. It was clear to Hamlet that if Claudius was clever and ruthless enough to eliminate his father, assume the crown, marry his mother and take control of the army then he has to tread gently around this snake or he would be its next victim. His inner-struggle is facing a formidable opponent is exacerbated by the fact that this man is his uncle. Shakespeare may not have elaborated on it but it is possible that Hamlet shared good memories with his uncle and added the weight to the dagger that has to be plunged into this vile creatures beating heart.
Fourthly, Hamlet seemed paralyzed by the fact that at the center of the controversy is his mother. If he is indeed a sweet prince and more of a philosopher than a warrior then it can be argued that Hamlet is close to his mother. Only a mothers love can shape the gentle spirit that Hamlet has demonstrated for most of the play. By destroying her mothers new husband, Hamlet knew that it would be the same as severing the ties that bind him to her.
Finally, his country is in a state of war. It can be argued that in the time of transition, especially in the rather odd circumstances of the sudden death of a reigning monarch and the marriage to the former queen, the stability of the kingdom is suspect. It is normal for ambitious politicians and members of the royal family to seize their opportunity before the new leader has solidified his claim to the throne. Moreover, Denmark has made enemies abroad and as Hamlet pondered his fate forces from Norway are being marshaled to conquer his homeland.
All of these things came together, to place a tremendous burden in the heart of Hamlet. He was hesitant to carry the orders of a ghost because it was not in his nature to kill. However, there is a major reason why the force of his fathers commands was seared in his heart and his bones. Hamlet idolized his father. Seeing Hamlet through the eyes of modern psychology one can find that, Central to a prescribed gender role for a man is the existence of a masculine ideal, an ideal to which a boy or a young man can be encouraged to aspire& the impossible male or masculine ideal against which Hamlet must judge himself is his murdered father (Freedman & Frey, p.72). These forces work in unison to tear Hamlet apart from the inside.
He had to do what his father told him to do because he was challenged by a code of honor that he had learned as a prince of Denmark. He had to avenge his fathers murder. But he finds no clear and compelling reason to do so because it can be said that Hamlet finds the throne of little value. If he was as ambitious as his uncle then the task could have been easier. But Hamlet was made of something else. Nevertheless, the vision of his armored father urges him to push forward, to plot and kill.
The image of an ideal man added another burden to his ever-increasing load. His father was a great hero to his people and he was not only a warrior but an able statesman who had the skills and the charisma to rule his people and bring them to a level of prosperity and influence that enabled the nation to accomplish great things even in the international stage. Hamlet could not see a clear path ahead.
He needed something to allow him to break free from his current desolation so that he need not circle aimlessly around a spiritual and mental wilderness. It came unexpectedly when he accidentally killed a man, not just an ordinary person but someone connected to a woman that he knew and loved him with all her heart. This was the straw that broke the camels back and the total disintegration of his spirit and character allowed him to wield the sword and vanquish his enemies. He fulfilled the desires of his father but paid with blood not only from his most hated enemy but from others that serve as collateral damage.
Conclusion
Hamlet knew he had to avenge his father at all costs. He knew the consequences of his actions and when he measured himself against the task and when he compared himself against his father he felt useless, unable, and double-minded. He had to go through a very painful experience for him to possess the resolve to carry out his mission. But the moment that he was able to break free, he lost his soul, mind, and character and he brought his loved ones with him to the grave.
Works Cited
Barranger, Milly. Theater: A Way of Seeing. CA: Thomson Higher Education, 2006.
Bloom, Harold. Shakespeares Tragedies: Comprehensive Research and Study Guide. PA: Chelsea House Publishers, 2000.
Freedman, Diane & Olivia Frey. Autobiographical Writing Across the Disciplines: A Reader. NC: Duke University Press, 2003.
The content of this essay revolves around the Hamlet play staged and sensationalized by William Shakespeare. With substantial reference to varied sources, the prodigy hatched a theatrical drama piece of Hamlet, depicting a code of revenge, patricide, tragedy, and regicide (Sanchez 21).
This paper bears significant valuation for the sources that Shakespeare alluded to in the production of this play. Sanchez attests that he studied previous works and literature of preeminent playwrights persistently fixating on Francois Belleforest borrowing insightful chapters and verses (1).
Belleforests work is a replication of Saxo Grammaticuss Danish legend on Amleth, accompanied with a selection of changes (Sanchez 7). Shakespeare still made some alterations in his adaptations to empower his performance, regardless of character references and tributes.
This essay seeks to delineate these alterations and, over and above that, explain their instrumental significance. This article starts by narrating Hamlets story then outlines Shakespeares modifications mainly by way of character analysis and the language borrowed.
Body
Background Facts: Shakespeares Literature of Hamlet
Hamlet is a fiction plot with a premise that convenes tragedy and revenge within the Elsinore Castle, in the Kingdom of Denmark (Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare 3). The fortress summons Prince Hamlet, the protagonist, home from Germany to grace his fathers funeral with his presence.
On arrival, the Prince gets wind of the marriage between his mother, Gertrude, and his uncle, Claudius, which agitates him. He fathoms foul play and attests his suspicions through an epiphany by his fathers ghost that appears to him recounting how Claudius murdered him in his nap.
The Ghost taxes Hamlet to compensate his death by killing his executioner, Claudius, to be at ease. However, Hamlet is somewhat unsure of the ghosts credibility and decides to engage a troupe of players to stage a play called The Murder of Gonzago to affirm his notion.
The tactic is so successful that it strikes Claudius conscience; he is remorseful and leaves to pray and ask for cleansing (Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare 4).
The affirmation of the stage play rekindles the intense passion for vengeance and retribution within Hamlet for his fathers death (Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare 5).
This vengeance, however, is all words but no action, and as the prince contemplates on how to achieve revenge, he instigates six ancillary deaths within the palace.
According to Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare (5), Hamlet first stabs Polonius, the kings chief counselor, who was eavesdropping on a conversation between the Prince and the Queen behind the tapestry.
The next victims are Hamlets schoolmates, Rosencrantz, and Guildenstern, whose demise Hamlet himself arranges by instructing the King of England to hang the two (Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare 6).
Ophelia, tormented by Polonius decease and Hamlets antic disposition, drowns while singing bawdy melodies, lamenting over her spurned lover (Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare 6).
Next is Laertes, Ophelias sister, who declares to finish off Hamlet, as he is entirely responsible for both his father and sisters demise. Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare assert that Laertes, in consultation with Claudius, concocts various strategies to kill the Prince, one of them being a fencing match (7).
In the course of the contest, Laertes uses a poisoned sword blade to maim the Prince but releases it after that. Hamlet sees an opening here to reciprocate the attack by Laertes and, therefore, collects the same blade; he uses it to impale his adversary.
In a show of victory, the queen drinks from a contaminated glass of wine that Claudius had specially prepared and poisoned for Hamlet (Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare 8).
The toxic substance kills her instantly. In an aggravated maneuver, Hamlet grabs the sword, using it to wound Claudius in concurrence with forcing the wine down his throat, in light of Gertrudes demise.
After that, he announces that Prince Fortinbras should rule over Denmarks throne. He also advocates his friend, Horatio, to retell the preceding events, after which he relinquishes life (Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare 9). In reverence, Fortinbras secures Hamlets burial procession withal full military honors.
What Changes Has Shakespeare Made to the Archetype Work of Amleth?
I have researched that Shakespeare evidently altered some descriptions here and there to personalize Hamlet from looking through Nashs book, Christ Tears Over Jerusalem.
Sanchez clarifies that Shakespeares plays inferred from preexistent playwrights, tragedians, and dramatists who composed classic pieces of literature (4).
These masterpieces were inclusive of mythologies, folktales, daily life, songs, and history emanating from varied localities such as Greek, Italian, Roman, Germany, and English.
Shakespeare collected and remodeled these works, introducing new viewpoints and ideas to the existent compositions, affirms Sanchez (10). The reforms were all in a bid to create finer plot devices to advance the visual and speculative perceptions altogether.
The Ghost
Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare (7) compare the spirits in the plays of Antonios Revenge and Hamlet to elucidate Shakespeares variations of King Hamlets apparition.
By the exploitation of profound readings and assessment of the two works, Hamlet and Antonios Revenge implement the character of a ghost in their explanations (Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare 9).
The plot in Antonios Revenge is fundamentally similar to that of Shakespeares Hamlet as it encompasses vindictiveness by a son, whose fathers ghost emerges and commands revenge. Nonetheless, there exist definite divergences in the specters properties.
The Significance of The Ghosts Character Alteration
Andrugios ghost materializes before both Antonio- the protagonist- and his mother alike, such that the two can see the specters impression in the same way (Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare 10). Over and above that, this apparition even has a conversation with both Antonio and his mother, Maria.
To Antonio, the ghost has come compelling him to take vengeance on his account, against his murderer, Piero (Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare 11). On the other hand, Andrugios ghost relates to Maria in a rather comical and somewhat haunting way, explain Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare (11).
The play depicts Andrugios ghost seating on the edge of Marias bed chastising her by way of rebuking her loose ways, seeing that she has already been intimate with the villain.
He proceeds to explain to her that her gender is frail and subsequently soothes her fears. Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare analyze that the gap between the mortal human and the dead narrows down significantly and almost plummets them into one form (9).
This plot device is in contradiction with that of Shakespeares Hamlet, as the ghoul does not show itself before Hamlets mother, Gertrude.
Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare note that Shakespeare modified the ghost of King Hamlet to only converse with the prince and beseeched him to get the appropriate revenge for his demise (11).
He also points out that the ghoul does not interact directly with the Queen and instead reaches out to her through Hamlet, additionally warning him to care for her as her sex is fragile. In this context, the gap between the supernatural worlds versus the earthly humans remains as vast as it should be.
In regards to the intended significance, Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare report that Shakespeare designed the role of the ghost to appear to Hamlet relentlessly to enhance the melancholy motif of the play (12).
The central theme envisaged revolves around revenge, and the protagonist aims to achieve his vengeance on the villain by faking madness. By slightly changing the scenario, Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare (11) say that Shakespeare succeeded in consummating the original concept of Hero-as-Fool.
The leading role feigns a deranged character to avoid the rogue from suspecting his motives. By virtue of the ghost emerging incessantly before Hamlet, the rest of the observers, his mother included, believe without a doubt that Hamlet is not mentally right.
The significance of the ghost in Shakespeares Hamlet holding conversation with the Prince only, also creates a mood of mystery and confusion (Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare 12).
The fact that the apparition comes back from Purgatory gives rise to mockery because Protestants such as Hamlet doubt the entire doctrine of the underworld (Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare 13). This element of disbelief causes the prince to question the ghosts reliability, thus attaining the aspect of delay in the outline.
Ophelia
Francois Belleforest sketched the individuality of Ophelia in Saxo Grammaticus Danish legend, in his very own rendition. Likewise, Shakespeare paints the same character of Ophelia that Polonius and Claudius use as a convenient tool to spy on Hamlet and examine if he was crazy (Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare 15).
In as much as Shakespeare and Saxo portray Ophelia as the lead characters mistress, some notable differences surface as expounded below.
The Significance of Ophelias Character Alteration
In the Danish legend, Saxo imaged Amleth- the exponent- and Ophelia as foster siblings who shared a very strong likeness to each other.
Their closeness was visible when Feng, the antihero, send Ophelia to observe Amleth, and she declined to reveal any information about him whatsoever (Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare 16).
After this point, Saxo does not comment on her again in the play and thus, it is not coherent to the audience what befalls her after that.
Secondly, mention is that when Amleth sailed to England, he married Herminthrud, who betrayed him later on. The duplicity and infidelity that Herminthrud inflicted on her husband drove him to detest women and utter profanities about them in general (Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare 16).
Shakespeare tweaked Saxos thesis marginally in various ways, for example; he stated that Ophelia was Hamlets sweetheart and not his foster sister (Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare 17).
Shakespeare employed this strategy to pull off the elements of betrayal by way of guiding Ophelia to betray her lover, Hamlet. In the setting of Hamlet, Ophelia sells out the prince repeatedly when at first; she deserts him under the instructions of Polonius, her father.
The second time is when she reports Hamlets questionable behavior towards her, to her father and Claudius as well (Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare 18).
By her act of disloyalty towards him, he reproves of her conduct and shuns her away to a nunnery (Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare 17). Her behavior hurts him, and he decides to humiliate her by refusing to wed her and instead calls her a breeder of sinners.
In light of her treachery, Hamlet becomes more alert to the people around him, more so, the ones he considers as precious and cherished (Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare 18).
In this setting, Shakespeare brought Ophelia into play to scrutinize Hamlets resolve of revenge and feigned madness, as Hamlet trusts her enough to divulge his secrets to her.
Another significance of revising Ophelias individuality is visible in Shakespeares elimination of Herminthrud in Hamlet. If he included her in the plot, he would have first had to pause and acquaint her to his audience, hence disrupting the flow of the story.
In view of this, he thus observed the rule of flow and coherency in this narration. Unlike Saxo, who described Herminthruds character trait, Shakespeare omitted her intentionally to capitalize on the storys code of revenge by having Hamlet attack Ophelia (Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare 15).
Ophelia thus serves as a scapegoat and takes the blame for all the female characters offenses. In addition, the omission of Herminthrud allowed Shakespeare to justify why Ophelia developed madness.
Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare argue that the unsympathetic attitude that Hamlet brandish on Ophelia only mirrors the contempt Amleth harbored against women (14).
Gertrude
Saxo and Shakespeare both incorporated the character of Geruth and Gertrude respectively as that persona that makes merry with the villain.
This detail is apparent from the plays descriptions that both these personalities marry the antiheroes who have just killed their husbands (Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare 25).
By virtue of their union, they display an indecent show of incest that devastates both their spouses specters, as well as their sons. Despite the legends striking resemblance, there are several nonconformities in these characters distinctive attributes, verifying that Shakespeare reconstructed his version.
The Significance of Gertrudes Character Alteration
The tale of Amleth presents Geruth as a very mild dignitary who suffered under her former husbands- King Orvendil- quick temper before his death (Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare 27).
Her circumstances are so lamentable that her remarriage to Feng calls for deliverance; Saxo sculpts her as Fengs pushover, whom he forces into marrying him after dispatching her husband, Orvendil.
Later on, her son Amleth berated her to rectify her transgressions of conjugating with the villain, who doubled up as her spouses murderer and her brother-in-law. Amleth is successful in his castigations as she repents and vows to help him enact his attack on Feng; Saxo per contra does not cite her again in the play.
By contrast, Shakespeares Hamlet is quite the edited restatement of the earlier Amleth legend. Before all else, Shakespeare fails to establish Gertrudes stand on the regicide issue meted out on King Hamlet, her husband (Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare 26).
Shakespeares indecisive angle enabled him to stage a theatrical aspect of a riddle, as his viewers are inquisitive of whether the queen willingly married Claudius, or he forced her into it. This part of the play also serves as a brainteaser- a quality that is profitable to any play or work of literature.
Along the storytelling, Shakespeare records that Hamlet also rebukes his mother, Gertrude, for coupling with Claudius and more so, allying with the bully.
Shakespeare also included a supplementary section where the Prince exhibited pictures of Claudius to the queen, in an effort to mark out Claudius flaws- a feature lacking in the Amleth legend.
Following Hamlets admonitions, Gertrude apologizes for her actions and promises him that she will suppress the details of their meeting, never to disclose it to anyone.
Unlike Geruth, Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare (26) remark that Gertrude breaks her promise and confesses the solemn secret to Claudius, her second husband.
There is a valid reason Shakespeare allowed the queen, Gertrude, to break her promise and betray him to Claudius. Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare state that the betrayal served to enlighten why the Prince set sail for England (28).
Hamlet reluctantly embarked on a sea voyage to England, under the kings strict bidding, as he- Claudius- dreaded that Hamlet was out to kill him. In addition to this, he also required some space and time to account for Polonius decease to his children, Ophelia, and Laertes.
Claudius also coerced the prince into exile, as he wanted to scheme a dark and covert plan for killing Hamlet, by drafting letters to the King of England.
Gertrudes betrayal is thus paramount to the unfolding of affairs in Hamlets storyline; Shakespeare demonstrated her imperfect portrait of motherhood (Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare 24).
Additionally, Shakespeare contradicted Saxo by retaining Gertrudes character in Hamlet, almost until the end of the narrative, where she died after drinking the contaminated wine.
The author hangs on to her to maximize on the plot and theme of tragedy and a total catastrophe by reporting on her regrettable death (Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare 24). The passing of the Queen amplified the element of calamity in the genre of tragic stories by resulting in an even more tragic ending.
Hamlet
The Danish legend and Hamlet both reverberate a similar sentiment- that of retaliation and the implementation of an eye for an eye. The playwrights appoint their champions as Amleth and Hamlet indicatively to accomplish a counter play motif (Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare 29).
In their capacity as the leading role, they execute their assigned duties by way of donning a camouflage of madness to avoid suspicions by their uncles and bring their mission to fruition.
Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare (29) analyze that in their paths for vengeance, they trigger the annihilation of other members of the royalty, either deliberately or not.
Beyond the correspondence between the two tales, Shakespeare still progressed to change some parts to modify Hamlet. Below is an outline of the revisions he made together with their distinct significances.
The Significance of Hamlets Character Alteration
In Saxos rendition, Amleth first appears at a junior age, such that he is feeble and powerless to take any action upon his fathers regicide. Fengs deed of eradicating and regarding Orvendils regicide, as a deserved performance inspires Amleth to yearn for revenge (Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare 30).
He formulates a strategically viable approach that he will administer on Feng when he becomes of age. In his laid out plan, he plots to eradicate Feng together with all those nobles that tolerated his uncles injustice.
When he finally avenges King Orvendils death, Amleth continues to live, taking over the reins of kingship to implement peace in his kingdom (Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare 31).
In Hamlet, Shakespeare presents Hamlet as a young adult, approximately thirty years, who is still pursuing his university studies in Germany. Unlike Amleth, Hamlet is of age; he is fully able to maneuver and act towards his goal (Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare 31).
Regardless of his grown-up status, Hamlet is still hesitant to obtain payback; as a result perfecting the delay acts employed as plot devices in Shakespeares play.
Shakespeare also circumvents from imaging Hamlet as intentionally conspiring to cause seven other subsidiary deaths encompassing Ophelia, Gertrude, and Laertes (Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare 32).
Instead, he brings out these deaths as a mere coincidence and a victim of the occurrences at the palace, all in an attempt to magnify the concept of tragedy.
Uncalculated misfortunes are the core of a tragic story; therefore, Shakespeare endears to the expectations of his audience (Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare 33). Furthermore, the ultimate collapse of the protagonist at the end of the narrative multiplies the effect of adversity.
Fortinbras
The Significance of Fortinbras Character Alteration
Fortinbras, the Prince of Norway, is a sovereignty personification that makes an entry in Shakespeares Hamlet to take over governance from the ruins encountered in Denmark (Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare 32). Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare (46) write that Saxos report does not feature Fortinbras.
The reason for this omission is that Amleth defeated Feng and his nobles and, therefore, took his rightful capacity as the new king of his empire.
In Hamlets production, Shakespeare orchestrates the death of Hamlet to record tragedy at its highest peak, explain Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare (33). The crowning fall of the Prince compelled Shakespeare to usher in a new ruler, Fortinbras, who would reign with utmost justice and peace.
Another cause of incorporating Fortinbras in the play was that Hamlet likened himself to Fortinbras; By virtue of being a Prince, Hamlet qualified him as sufficient to preside over the throne.
Additionally, Fortinbras prevailed under the same state of affairs as Hamlet, and his uncle displaced him as the king yet he, as the prince, was the inheritor of the crown.
The unfortunate event aggravated the Norwegian prince to the point he also seeks revenge on his fathers slayer, provide Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare (34). Given that they experienced the same dilemma, Hamlet advocated for Fortinbras appointment to the throne assuming that he would carry out his ambition.
Claudius
Shakespeare ventures to mirror Feng, from the Amleth legend, in his recount of Hamlet by embodying him as Claudius (Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare 21).
Claudius is a tyrant ruler and traitor; a mannerism perceptible in the way he dispatches his brother, marries his wife and conspires to put his nephew to death. As explained below, Shakespeare still customized Claudius character.
The Significance of Claudius Character Alteration
In Saxos tale, the playwright starts the folk tale by unfolding the details of the ruling history ongoing before Amleths tragedy (Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare 23). He narrates the bitter and tense association between the two co-rulers, Feng, and Orvendil.
When Orvendil triumphs in a war against Koller of Norway and becomes Jutlands sole leader, Feng becomes jealous and massacres him in quite a scandalous manner. Feng strikes one as a very hard-hearted and unsympathetic figure.
So cruel is he that he makes public his murderous deeds to the absolute court of Jutland then disguises the act by claiming that it was a righteous act (Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare 22).
By contrast, Shakespeare embarks on the story midway, presenting Hamlet as a full-grown man who is thirty years of age (Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare 25).
Shakespeare deletes the ruling history of King Hamlets reign, thus allocating the readers the task of unraveling whether Claudius and King Hamlet were also joint leaders.
Secondly, Claudius, unlike Feng, does not announce his cause of regicide, thus adding an interesting twist to the play that involves discerning the grounds of the sudden fate of the king.
Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare (22) offer that Shakespeare injects some mystification into the drama piece. Hamlet only becomes aware of the atrocity through the ghosts divination. Hamlets rage and crave for revenge intensify as he now realizes that the death was not accidental.
The Names Amleth and Hamlet
The title of Shakespeares drama play is reflective of the protagonists name, Hamlet, the Prince of Denmark (Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare 13). In the course of lifting the name of his titular character from Saxos journal, Shakespeare reshuffles and circulates the etymological significance of the heading Amleth.
He decides to reposition the letter H from the end to the beginning of the name, to read as Hamlet in place of Amleth. Shakespeare is steadfast in the rebirth of the name Hamlet to revolutionize and answer to the call of modernity.
The reason for his intended modernization is that he was working in a neoteric period or rather, in the Elizabethan era (Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare 14). His audiences generation appealed to developments and reformations of outdated literary works.
Language Borrowed
For a long time, the wide-ranging perception has been that Shakespeare conceived entirely new words and phrases, advances Sanchez (12). The public deduce that he originated most of the terms and expressions used today, thus exalting him as the father of the modern-day language (Sanchez 14).
Sanchez states that this impression is all wrong and even quotes that researchers have disputed this understanding in favor of the reality that Shakespeare merely borrowed terminologies from his predecessors (15).
They argue that he possessed a great skill of acquiring language from earlier poets, novelists, and composers such as Thomas Nash. However, he did not just borrow heedlessly; instead, he transformed their meaning in the context of the texts he was writing. Explained below are two of the terms he adopted in his play, Hamlet.
The Use of the Term Nunnery and its Significance
In the making of Hamlet, Shakespeare renovated the meaning of the utterance nunnery. A meticulous study of Nashs Christs Tears Over Jerusalem qualifies me to say that Shakespeare repeated the word from the celebrated pamphleteer, Thomas Nash.
Nash first assimilated the nunnery expression in his book Christs Tears Over Jerusalem to mean an Institute of courtesans and concubines (Nash 19). In Hamlet, Shakespeare slots this term in the phrase Get thee to a nunnery, uttered by Hamlet when he advises Ophelia to sign into a convent (Sanchez 32).
Shakespeare utilizes this terminology, but he does not blend it to mean a brothel or bawdyhouse as Nash did. Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare explain that Shakespeare instead projects its literal definition of a religious community (18).
Shakespeares aim of changing the meaning is to enable him to make Hamlet urge Ophelia to liberate herself from the fleshly world full of dishonest men. Moreover, Hamlet uses this term while rebuking Ophelia of her betrayal, which he suspects of her (Stopes, Belleforest, and Shakespeare 16).
The Use of the Phrase Minds Eye and its Significance
A reading of Sanchez (57) reveals that Shakespeare takes on another idiomatic expression from a writer known as Chaucer (1390). The phrase in question here is minds eye. Chaucer accommodated the set expression in his account, The Man of Laws Tale, wording it as It were with thilke eyen of his mynde (Sanchez 58).
In the negation of Chaucers expression, Shakespeare reverses the arrangement and sequence of the statement to appear as minds eye. Shakespeare integrates this saying in Horatios reply when he, together with the castles guards, glimpse King Hamlets apparition on the palace walls.
A mote it is to trouble the minds eye, cautions Horatio. Sanchez deciphers this to mean that Horatio was warning the guards to acknowledge the ghouls appearance (61).
In other terms, he was predicting that its sheer emergence could bring disaster to the castle. Shakespeare applies the word eye here to represent the castle and not the conventional meaning of ones optical memory.
Despite the fact that he borrowed concepts and models from his predecessors, Shakespeare was a great tragedian himself in devising his plays and drama sets. Sanchez (5) reports that in his play of Hamlet, Shakespeare generously adapts Saxo Grammaticus story thesis based on Amleth.
However, he makes some structural changes, primarily in the qualities and traits of his characters among other elements.
He remodels the characters of Hamlet, Ophelia, Claudius, Gertrude, Fortinbras, and the ghost in conjunction with the language borrowed (Sanchez 15). Shakespeares revisions are just: he only implemented them to blend with the tendencies affixed in tragic stories (Sanchez 56).
Works Cited
Nash, Thomas. Christs Tears Over Jerusalem: Whereunto is Annexed. A Comparative Admonition to London. London: From the Private Press of Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown, Printed by T. Davison, 1815. Print.
Sanchez, Isabel 2012, The Root of the Recycled: A Comparative Analysis of Shakespeares Hamlet and the Mythological Ur-Hamlet . Masters thesis, Florida International Univ., 2012. FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Web.
Stopes, Charlotte, Francois Belleforest and William Shakespeare. Why Does Shakespeares Hamlet Differ from the Amleth Story of Belleforest? [From the Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature, Vol. 33]. London: Adlard & Son, 1914. Print.
William Shakespeare wrote the fascinating tragedy Hamlet more than 400 years ago. However, centuries later, after being translated into all the languages of the world, the play about the Danish prince is still popular and plays a big role in education. The play focuses on the themes of mortality, madness, and heroism, as well as suicide and family vengeance. The tremendous popularity and the role of Hamlet lie within the highlighted eternal problems which all humans experience and can relate to.
The first striking problem of Hamlet is the one of choice, which may be considered a reflection of the main conflict of the tragedy. For every person, this problem, especially if it is related to a moral choice, is always difficult. Without a doubt, every person has their own set of values that will guide their actions, and if a person complies with ethics, he or she will think twice before committing amoral actions. However, in Hamlet, a different process is observed in which the main character kills several people, and his actions cause ambiguous feelings (Gray 108). Hamlet is torn between the choices since the character does not understand himself and his thoughts.
Another eternal problem that arises in Hamlet and makes it important is the one of a personal dilemma. The famous monologue To be or not to be? embodies the spiritual doubts of a person making a difficult moral choice; it shows the destructive spiritual struggle between idealistic concepts and cruel reality. Being tormented by various questions, Hamlet is in the different dimension of a human being he tries to solve this personal dilemma, as well as retrieve the answers (Sharma 79). With the murder of his father, the obscene marriage of his mother, the betrayal of friends, and the frivolity of his beloved, Hamlet feels cheated of justice and robbed of lifes joys (Sharma 80). Nothing has changed since the times of Shakespeare; people think and feel the same, pondering about justice and cruel reality, meaning that the problems in Hamlet are still relatable.
Another problem in Hamlet is a constant feeling of contradiction: the consciousness of Hamlet clearly says what he should do, seek revenge, but the hero lacks the determination. The thoughts of Hamlet are focused on mortality, the fragility of human life, and death. The character tries to understand the definition of death, whether it is a dream or a continuation of struggles and tortures of life. Hamlet is considering suicide; the anguish is unbearable, and the prince could take his life if it was not considered a sin (Sharma 81). Discussions about death and human life in the sphere of education are quite frequent, making the tragedy one of the immortal works.
Finally, the reader sees an eternal problem of madness due to an intolerable sight of evil that triumphs and dominates in this world. In the end, Hamlet makes a decision and takes responsibility for the evil in this world, all the misunderstandings of life, and all the suffering of people. The main character is acutely aware of his loneliness and, realizing his powerlessness, still goes into battle like a soldier (Shakespeare 142). Such reflective and stoic characters always win the hearts of readers, making them paragons of human pluck and wisdom.
Hence, the power and importance of Hamlets role lie not in his actions but in his feelings, which the reader experiences together with him. In the play, Shakespeare creates an image of an unpretentious person who is at a crossroads; this character is full of doubts and repentance. According to Shakespeare, a person must always be in a search for truth and answers yet stay simple, and this aligns with the opinion of the readers, which makes the play so renowned and popular in education and culture.
Works Cited
Gray, Patrick. Choosing between Shame and Guilt: Macbeth, Othello, Hamlet, and King Lear . Shakespeare and the Soliloquy in Early Modern English Drama, edited by David Cousins. Cambridge University Press, 2018, pp. 105-118.
Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Pearson, 1998.
Sharma, Lalita. Hamlet: A Tragedy of Melancholic Prince . Journal of Rajasthan Association for Studies in English, 2017, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 12-168.
In one of the most well-known monologues in British Literature, Hamlet contemplates the purpose of life, wondering if the miseries and struggles experienced by people mean that life is not worth living. In his famous words, To be, or not to be: that is the question (Shakespeare III.i.56), Hamlet considers suicide as a way to remedy his troubles. As Ophelia enters, he begins criticizing her intention to marry as a way of breeding more sinners (Shakespeare III.i.121-122).
Throughout the scene, Hamlets speech is filled with misery and self-hatred; however, Ophelia does not understand the reason for his melancholy, believing that he had gone mad (Shakespeare III.i.150). In some ways, this scene represents the conflict between Hamlet and the society he lives in, as no one is capable of understanding his concerns. Hamlet sees all the failures of society and is troubled by them, which leads him to feel misunderstood and alone.
His attempt to send Ophelia to the nunnery is desperate and irrational, but it also depicts his desire to change society. Ophelia, on the other hand, represents the society that is deaf to Hamlets urges for change. On the whole, the scene depicts the conflict between Hamlet and society, showing exactly how he differs from the people surrounding him.
To analyze the play Hamlet written by Shakespeare according to Elizabethan conventions, the paper addresses the important particularities of the scene. The part chosen for the analysis is 1.2.87-117 where King Claudius criticizes Hamlet for his continued mourning over King Hamlet. The use of honorifics, stichomythia, and imagery is discussed, as well as the aside, the motif of spying, and the overall mood of the scene will be discussed and evaluated.
In the scene, King Claudius speaks to Hamlet explaining his disapproval of the Princes mourning over his fathers death. The King says, Tis sweet and commendable in your nature, Hamlet,/To give these mourning duties to your father[&] (1.2.90-91). When addressing his words to Hamlet, Claudius does not use the honorific form thou but says you instead. In such a way, it is demonstrated that the conversation is formal and the two participants of communication keep distance.
The overall mood of the scene is marked with the Kings failure to understand the depths of Hamlets sorrow. The feelings of sadness and impossibility to change the rules of life lead the monologue of Claudius. He states, Tis unmanly grief./It shows a will most incorrect to heaven emphasizing the inappropriate exaggeration of mourning Hamlet experiences (1.2.98-99). The second part of the kings speech is more expressive and personal.
Here, Claudius refers to the need of those who are alive to have a new ruling person You are the most immediate to our throne (1.2.113). Thus, the mood of the scene is sad, marked with the necessity to face the truth of death as a part of human destiny. It is also a manifestation of the collision of two worlds: Claudius reality and Hamlets perception of the tragic events.
There is no example of stichomythia in the passage due to a broad monologue of Claudius. Also, Shakespeare does not include any eavesdropping in the scene. The imagery of the episode is reflected in the notion of death articulated by Claudius as a common theme (1.2.107). He refers to heaven and nature as the ruling powers of the world, which are impossible to be fought against by a human. To validate his opinion, Claudius says that your father lost a father,/That father lost, lost his[&] (1.2.93-94). Such words create a full description of how death is an inevitable part of human nature.
The passage contains a long monologue of King Claudius addressed to Hamlet. It is not an example of soliloquy; however, it has some characteristics of an insightful observation of the speakers personal experience. The author uses aside in the middle of the kings speech to broaden the narration. References to natural laws and the inevitability of death are presented in the form of asides contributing to the overall message. Several footnotes added to the text help a reader to understand separate words according to their historical usage. They provide contextualization of the original text, simplifying complex concepts.
Concluding the discussion, in the chosen passage from the second scene of the first act of Hamlet by Shakespeare, the author uses specific elements to create a formal, sad and criticizing mood of the scene emphasizing the collision of the two opposing worlds: Claudius and Hamlets. The imagery of the scene is marked with death and its impact on the lives of people. The difference in the perception of death is included in the kings speech. Therefore, the passage is a poetic piece remarkably delivering the message important for the whole play.
Work Cited
Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Edited by Barbara A. Mowat and Paul Werstine, Simon and Schuster, 2014.
By the 16th century, London was prosperous, with 41 buildings of artisan guilds representing that wealth. Around the mid-1500s, London had a significant increase in commerce, which was aided by the development of monopolies such as those owned by the Muscovy Company, the Turkey Company, as well as the East India Company. Its inhabitants expanded as well, with Londoners rising from over 100,000 in the 1550s to about 200,000 in the 1600s (Clout, 2021). Elizabeth Is reign was probably the pinnacle of the citys dominance over England; the queens power was founded on its army, wealth, and romance. In the late 1500s, it furnished one-quarter of the men for overseas duty and organized combat trainbands to protect England against a possible Spanish operation (Clout, 2021). This work was written with the aim of discussing Shakespeares work through the history of London and the analysis of the work itself.
Analysis
The narrative revolves around the spirit of Denmarks Lord, who instructs his son Hamlet to revenge his death by assassinating the future monarch, Hamlets uncle. Hamlet pretends to be insane, muses on life and death, and wants vengeance. Fearing for his life, his uncle devises schemes to assassinate Hamlet. Claudius, the Kings brother, his murderer, and Hamlets father-in-law, being fearful of what Hamlet may do afterward, has him imprisoned and sent to England under surveillance, where he has planned for Hamlet to be killed. Hamlet flees, returning to his hometown, and ultimately exacts his vengeance. The mental repercussions of these convulsions on Hamlet result in some of the finest soliloquies in English, transporting the spectator deep inside Shakespeares most renowned protagonists psyche. The play concludes with combat in which the Lord, Queen, Hamlets antagonist, and Hamlet are murdered.
For Hamlet, the inability of certainty is an impediment to action, which reflects the theme of action versus inaction. One of the cases is Hamlets inability to predict what would happen in the afterlife: as a result, he is unable to decide to commit suicide. This ambivalence, nevertheless, affects both Hamlet in the play and the audience: William Shakespeare utilizes it in his audience to highlight Hamlets struggles; the most obvious case is the problem of Hamlets insanity. As a result, the theme of action versus inaction intersects with the one of reality and its perception. However, several aspects of the performance already cast doubt in the minds of the audience. For example, his openness leads us to believe he is still sane; but, when Ophelia becomes insane, she distributes flowers that match each individual in their most private secrets, demonstrating some clarity in lunacy.
The question of mortality is a major topic throughout the work, with Hamlet pondering the resurrection from each and every imaginable perspective, including spirituality, life after death, and the existence of the body after death. Shakespeare portrays death as an unavoidable process of life, emphasizing that all that is alive must inevitably disappear (Belleart, 2021). The topic of death reappears throughout Hamlet, as it is a Shakespearean tragedy. Apart from all characters dying at the end of the play, the Kings death incites the plot of the entire play. Moreover, death is portrayed as an inevitability, a part of a personal journey that no one can escape: Thou knowst tis common; all that lives must die, Passing through nature to eternity (Shakespeare). Thus, the theme of death remains prevalent throughout the play.
Conclusion
In the current generation, Hamlet is still appreciated because viewers may identify with him on the question of existence and life purpose, which has been a common theme in art from the beginning of time and is still essential now. What life is like after mortality, and how we still exist with our fear of death buried deep within us. Due to his regions unfair governance, Hamlet may believe that a violent act of vengeance is the only way to settle his problems and sentiments of rage and hatred. Hamlets cynicism, as well as his sense of meaning, distinguish him as a uniquely contemporary figure and a watershed moment in the theatrical past. These topics will always be relevant because, unfortunately, people live in a rather cruel society, which sometimes requires reckoning with lawlessness.
The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, shortened to Hamlet by William Shakespeare, and A Raisin in the Sun by Lorraine Hansberry is widely famous and influential artistic works with various common attributes. The two plays project themes of family struggles, which eventually lead to unfortunate events. For instance, Hamlet cannot execute his intention of killing Claudius to avenge his father as he grapples with the moral burden of vengeance and logistical difficulties. Similarly, in A Raisin in the Sun, the Youngers familys socioeconomic situation impedes the attainment of conflicting and intertwined ambitions. Additionally, the two artistic works project how society and families elevate the aspirations and desires of men at the expense of womens dreams. However, Hansberrys work illustrates the issues of race and discrimination, while Shakespeares Hamlet amplifies such aspects as religion, corruption, and death. Although Hamlet and A Raisin in the Sun focus on a wide range of social issues, the themes of gender, dreams, honor, and dignity transcend the two comedies.
Character Comparison
In Hamlet, Claudius is the plays major antagonist, the King of Denmark, and Hamlets uncle. As the plays villain, he is portrayed as a manipulative, scheming, unscrupulous, and conniving character. His most prominent weapon is his ability to exploit and manipulate others through the skillful use of deceptive language and other underhand tactics. For instance, the Ghost discloses to Hamlet that his father did not die from a snakebite but from a vial of henbane poured into his ear by Claudius, which cracked his skin and curdled his blood (Wilson 282). He confesses to having gained the power and authority as the King of Denmark by saying that I am still possessed of those effects for which I did the murder (Shakespeare 56). This manipulative character is similar to Karl Lindners shrewdness through which she attempts to block and convince the Youngers not to buy a house in the predominantly white neighborhood.
Additionally, this character is exhibited by Walter Lee in A Raisin in the Sun, especially in his desperation to invest a portion of the familys fortune in a liquor store. For instance, Lena is compelled to give part of the money to Walter, ostensibly to save him from impending psychological problems but ends up being defrauded. Similarly, Claudius outdoes himself in his craftiness when he insists that Laertes considers a third option of killing Hamlet, the poisoned goblet. Gertrude, who is recently married to Claudius, inadvertently consumes the poison and dies, ultimately exposing Claudius to Hamlet. In this regard, the conspiracist tendencies and schemes of Claudius and Lee to advance their selfish ambitions ultimately expose them to harm.
The character disposition of Gertrude in Hamlet bears a striking resemblance to that of Lena in A Raisin in the Sun. Notably, the two women are defined by their desire and obsessions with social status. For instance, Gertrude is so determined to retain the position of the queen and high social standing to the point that she opts to marry Claudius within a month after Claudius murders her husband. Notably, this fascination with status and social ranking leads to impulsive and emotion-driven decisions. Similarly, Lena is convinced that using the insurance proceeds to purchase a home in the affluent white-dominated neighborhood is the only opportunity for her family to leave the awful locality they barely tolerate (Hansberry 40). However, her ambition is arguably a poor judgment compared to the inherent benefits that would accrue if she used the money to take Beneatha to medical school. From this perspective, Gertrude and Beneathas personas and dispositions illustrate irrational commitment to their ambitions and aspirations.
Further, the personas of Hamlet and Walter Lee are similar, especially when viewed against their reckless yet cautious and caring tendencies. The formers sensitivity is portrayed in his reactions following the murder of his father. Although he reveals his displeasure with Gertrudes decision to marry Claudius, he is cautious about taking potentially dangerous actions and even feigns insanity in his pursuit of avenging his father. There is a notable recklessness in his behavior when he mistakenly stabs Polonius through the curtains while believing it is Claudius. Similarly, Walter aspires to improve the economic fortunes of his family by investing in the liquor business and spends a disproportionate amount of time trying to discover quick solutions to the familys problems. While this decision portrays him as a caring and sensitive character, it is underlined by mistakes that occasion significant distress to the family.
Comparison of Family Dynamics
In Hamlet and A Raisin in the Sun, such dynamics as familial links and generational gaps emerge as manifested by the behaviors of the various characters. For instance, Shakespeare portrays the overarching significance of maintaining positive family ties despite the existing differences. Throughout the play, Hamlet despises his mother for remarrying his uncle, creating an incestuous relationship, stating, My mother: Father and mother is man and wife; man and wife is one flesh, and so, my mother (Shakespeare 224). However, Hamlets immediate reaction following Gertrudes death demonstrates that he is still concerned with her well-being despite the generally strained. For instance, he summons everyone to unravel the mystery and treachery of Gertrudes poisoning. He is devastated by her death, which demonstrates his concern for the mother, despite their differences.
The phenomenon is replicated in the Younger family, where Lena decries the growing rift between her and her children. For instance, she laments her failure to understand the interests and demands of the young generation while always remaining committed to decisions that benefit the whole family. This scenario is recreated in the Youngers family, where Lena decides to defer her ambitions of migrating from the impoverished neighborhood to ensure Walter realizes his dream of investing in a liquor store. Additionally, Lena often renders advice to the family, which helps to bind the family. In Hamlet, Claudius refers to Hamlet as his son and offers him fatherly counsel on the proper way to mourn his father. In this regard, the decisions of Hamlet, Claudius, Walter, and Lena illustrate the characters commitment to family despite differences of opinion and disagreements.
Further, Hamlet and A Raisin in the Sun portray two generations engaged in psychological and physical warfare. The generational gaps in the two plays primarily involve an older age group imposing its beliefs and ideals on the younger section of society. However, the differences mutate into an attempt to subvert the aspirations of the youth, leading to rising tensions. For instance, Hamlets pursuit of vengeance triggers the intergenerational strife that decimates both generations. Similarly, the family dynamics in A Raisin in the Sun are significantly influenced by the generational gap, separating the values, dreams, and cultural perspectives of the old and the young. In the play, Lena undermines Beneathas aspirations of becoming a doctor and expresses displeasure at her daughters little regard for marriage and other traditional lifestyles. This dispersion illustrates two extremes espoused by different generations and influenced by the contrasting views of modernity and traditionalism (King 53). Similarly, while the mother is family-oriented, conservative, and devoutly religious, Walter is least concerned with issues of gender and religion.
Comparison of Themes
Hamlet and A Raisin in the Sun share various themes, including gender and feminism, ambitions, religion, dignity, selfishness, and family. Notably, these thematic elements transcend the two plays and are distinctly portrayed by different characters. For instance, Shakespeare and Hansberry demonstrate the structural prejudices and disadvantages that confront women, essentially blocking or narrowing their choices. Consequently, they are often compelled to elevate the interests of their male counterparts at the expense of their ambitions. For instance, Lena and Beneatha compromise their ambitions while Gertrude is forced to marry Claudius to sustain family relations, retain social status, and survive in the misogynistic environment.
Additionally, Hamlet and A Raisin in the Sun manifest selfishness as portrayed in the personas of Walter and Claudius. The pursuit of dignity and honor transcends the two plays, with Hansberrys presentation of the Youngers desire to migrate to an affluent neighborhood despite the competing family interests reflecting Gertrudes desire to marry Claudius. Notably, the Youngers recognize that their current locality is dehumanizing and denies them dignity, while Gertrude is aware that she will lose her social standing if she does not marry Claudius.
Conclusion
Hamlet and A Raisin in the Sun are famous comedies written by William Shakespeare and Lorraine Hansberry, respectively. While the two artistic works are cast against different contexts, they share similarities, including family dynamics, character persona, and thematic presentations. For instance, the manipulative and scheming traits of Claudius and Gertrude are mirrored in Walters behavioral dispositions. Similarly, Lena and Gertrude are obsessed with their social status and are willing to do anything to fulfill their desires. The themes of ambition, gender, family, religion, selfishness, and dignity transcend the two plays.
Works Cited
Hansberry, Lorraine. A Raisin in the Sun. Vintage Books, 1959.
King, Eric. African Americans and the Crisis of Modernity: An Interpretation of Lorraine Hansberrys A Raisin in the Sun. Ethnic Studies Review, vol. 41, no. 12, 2018, pp. 53-60.
Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Edited by G. R. Hibbard, Oxford UP, 2008.
Wilson, Jeffrey. The Meaning of Death in Shakespeares Hamlet. ANQ: A Quarterly Journal of Short Articles, Notes, and Reviews, vol. 34, no. 4, 2019, pp. 282286.
What impression about Hamlet is passed on to Claudius by Rosencrantz and Guildenstern?
The Hamlets friends tell the King that he is miserable and he feels himself distracted (Shakespeare 152). Guildenstern also says they think that he will not feel better soon; however, when they reminded him of the theater actors he used to know, he felt joyous and even arranged the acting performance. The King and Queen are invited to watch this performance.
Why do Claudius and Polonius hide when Hamlet comes into the scene?
Claudius and Polonius ask Ophelia to meet Hamlet in the hall, where he usually walks in the evenings. They decide to hide because they want to find out secretly if love to Ophelia is the reason for Hamlets madness. They intend to observe the meeting of the young people and to listen to what Hamlet would say to Ophelia.
What is Hamlet really pondering in the soliloquy that contains the lines To be or not to be& ? What decision does he finally reach and why?
Hamlet bethinks of the meaninglessness of life. At the beginning of the monolog, he asks himself if it is better to surrender to the lifelong flow of events and calamities or rather to fight against it and die knowing that you tried to resist.
Whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against the sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them?& (Shakespeare 156).
He thinks of death and the after-death obscurity. In the end, he comes to the conclusion that this obscurity is the reason people do not want to die and prefer to lead the lives full of suffering. In his opinion, the indeterminacy of life after death scares more than any distress a person can face in life.
Describe Hamlets behavior in his encounter with Ophelia. What does he mean when he tells her Get thee to a nunnery ? Why does he behave this way? What is her reaction?
Hamlet considers that people, women and men, befoul and corrupt each others. He tells Ophelia to become a nun also because he thinks that if she gets married she will give birth to more sinners as he is:
& I could accuse me of such things that it
Were better my mother had not borne me&
What should such fellows as I do crawling
Between earth and heaven? We are arrant knaves,
All; believe none of us (Shakespeare 160).
He behaves this way because he is absorbed in the thoughts of death and revenge; he is completely engaged in his misery. Although he loved Ophelia before, it now doesnt matter, and all the feelings seem meaningless to him. Ophelia becomes wretched after their conversation. She also thinks he went mad and that his noble mind is here oerthrown (Shakespeare 162). The fact that she knew him as a smart and dignified person makes her even unhappier.
Does Claudius agree with Polonius assessment that Hamlet is lovesick? What plan does he have for Hamlet? What does he mean: Madness in great ones must not unwatched go ?
Claudius doesnt think that Hamlet is lovesick; he sees that Hamlet is melancholic and probably hatches some plan inside his head. Thus, Claudius decides to send Hamlet to England to collect tribute because he sees a threat of disclosure in him.
Scene 2
With whom does Hamlet confide his plan?
Hamlet informs Horatio about his plan because he sees the dignity and freedom of any passion in his friend. Hamlet asks Horatio to watch the Kings emotions and expressions during the performance.
As they settle in to watch the play, how does Hamlet treat his mother? How does he behave towards Ophelia? Why does he behave in this manner?
Hamlet treats arrogantly both his mother and Ophelia. He says that womens love is too short, and he regards the Queen as his fathers traitor because she doesnt feel any grief though her husband died only two months ago.
The play is entitled THE MURDER OF GONZAGO. Why does Hamlet refer to it as THE MOUSETRAP?
He calls the play The Mousetrap because he intends to reveal the evil made by his uncle by reminding him the scene of the murder. Hamlet hopes the scene demonstrated in the performance will make the King anxious and, therefore, will prove his guilt.
What is ironic about Gertrudes comment about the queen in the play: The lady doth protest too much, methinks ?
In the dialogue between Player Queen and Player King in the performance, Player Queen makes a vow that she would never fall in love with another man and that after her husbands death she would be grief-stricken till the end of her life. Listening to this speech, the Queen opposes to her words. While commenting this, she probably tries to justify herself.
How does Claudius behave when the play reaches its climax?
When Lucianus pours poison in the ears of the sleeping king in the play, Claudius stands up. He wants to over the play and goes away.
How does Hamlet behave when his mother requests a word with her?
When Hamlets mother requests him to talk to her, he doesnt want to go. He behaves rudely while talking to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern because they came to him on behalf of the Queen.
Why does Hamlet ask if Rosencrantz and Guildenstern can play a musical instrument?
Hamlet compares playing flute with lying:
Tis as easy as lying: govern these ventages
With your lingers and thumb, give it breath with your
Mouth, and it will discourse most eloquent music (Shakespeare 192).
In his opinion, Guildenstern and Rosencrantz lie to him when saying that they can help him to relieve his misery. His friends ask him to confess the reasons of his sorrow to him, but Hamlet feels that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are more loyal to the King and Queen in this situation.
Scene 3
Who goes to the Queens room to hide behind a curtain and spy?
It is Polonius. When he gets to know that Hamlet goes to visit the Queen, he offers the King to hide in the room and listen to the conversation between the mother and son. The King approves Poloniuss idea.
Hamlet passes by Claudius in prayer. Why doesnt he take action at that moment?
Hamlet doesnt want to kill Claudius while he is praying because the moment of prayer is too moral and righteous. In Hamlets opinion, it is better to revenge while the King will be occupied with something impure and obscene:
& about some act
That has no relish of salvation int;
Then trip him, that his heels may kick at heaven,
And that his soul may be as damnd and black
As hell, whereto it goes (Shakespeare 202).
This decision makes it clear that Hamlets thirst for revenge is very strong, and Hamlet will not be able to compose himself unless Claudius is punished to a full extent.
What mixed emotions does Claudius express in his prayer? What conclusion does he reach? What is ironic about his moment of prayer, with regards to Hamlet?
Claudius recognizes his cruel misdeed in the prayer; however, he cant repent totally because murdering his brother allowed him to obtain everything he wanted: the crown and the Queen. He comes to the conclusion that the sincere repentance isnt possible while he has everything he desired and what he murdered his brother for. It is possible to say that the pure moment of prayer saved Claudius from the death by Hamlets hand.
Scene 4
Why is Gertrude angry with Hamlet? Why is Hamlet angry with Gertrude?
The Queen is angry because Hamlet has been rude to the King. Hamlet, in his turn, is angry because Gertrude betrayed his father and she doesnt want to be true about it.
Whom does Hamlet kill? What is his reaction to this act?
Hamlet kills Polonius, who was hiding behind a curtain. Hamlet didnt like Polonius, and he doesnt regard killing him as something upsetting. Hamlet rather is disappointed that it was not the King who was hiding behind the curtain.
What does he beg his mother to do? Who arrives to calm him down? What is Gertrudes reaction to Hamlets behavior?
Hamlet begs the Queen to recognize her betrayal of his father. He asks her to look at the picture of the two brothers. He compares his father to gods, and calls Claudius unworthy and impious. By saying this Hamlet tries to open his mothers eyes because she seems not to be ashamed or regretful. The ghost of his father comes and asks him to console his mother and to step between her and her fighting soul (Shakespeare 206). Gertrude is frightened and thinks that Hamlet is mad because she doesnt see a ghost. From her perspective, Hamlet speaks to the emptiness. When the ghost leaves, Hamlet asks the Queen to tell Claudius everything that was on Hamlets.
Hamlet confides that he knows Claudius plan for him. According to Hamlet, what fate awaits him?
Hamlet foresees that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern will come to him with the news about his departure to England. He knows that they serve the King, and all they say about loyalty to Hamlet is barely true. However, he plans to outwit them.
Works Cited
Shakespeare, William. Hamlet, New York, NY: Barrons, 2002. Print.
Life tragedies can lead an individual to different kinds of choices. Some individuals may perceive these tragedies as warnings, while some may think of them as second chances. The difference between these two individuals is how they emerge from a tragedy. Authors, playwrights, and novelists have attempted to display this notion in different literary works, documenting how different characters cope with tragedies. Tragedies in Hamlet and A Good Man Is Hard to Find lead characters to rely on the change as a coping mechanism.
Hamlet narrates the story of an individual dealing with a loss which leads him into a roundabout of emotions. For instance, he becomes lazy due to the grief of losing his father. Such a tragedy is enough to lead an individual to misery as they try to make sense of life without their loved ones. In the play, Hamlet is depicted to have given up all hope in life and would not let anyone comfort him.
O, that this too, too sullied flesh would melt, Thaw, and resolve itself into a dew, Or that the Everlasting had not fixed His canon gainst self-slaughter! O God, God, How weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable Seem to me all the uses of this world! (Shakespeare, 1599).
This passage illustrates Hamlets state of desperation, which is attributed to his previous loss. His coping mechanism is evident in his continued mourning months after the death, which he is keen to admit that he has on him is enough to pass the show (Shakespeare, 1599). This means that he is aware of how he looks but would not stop him from mourning. According to him, his grief is much deeper than what people might think of him. This illustrates how different people may react to a tragedy and not consider what others might think. It also shows that a tragedy might be very personal for some people than others. For instance, Hamlets mother has remarried, showing that the death was not that impactful for her to stop enjoying life.
A Good Man Is Hard to Find also presents the narrative of an individual trying to cope with a tragedy. However, this tragedy is different from Hamlets since the character is faced with the tragedy of existence. The author says that The gods show us how there is a need for a whole world of torment in order for the individual to produce the redemptive vision (OConnor, 1953). This statement evokes a Christian belief, a form of reprieve from many individuals dealing with a tragedy. Sometimes people do not have any other way to deal with their tragedies but to rely on a divine being. Therefore, it is right to note that this narrative has a spiritual meaning to life and its troubles. Tragedies are part of life, and one never knows when they will hit. The author presents a way to cope with a tragedy by evoking Christian ideals. Sometimes the only approach is seeking divine assistance and making sense of life. The characters in the narrative are going through different challenges that are not easy to configure from a simple mindset but evoke the narratives true meaning.
Tragedies deal tough blows to peoples lives, leading them through different vicissitudes. Some tragedies are too difficult to deal with that individuals often give up completely. However, some people can come out of them unscathed and ready to live. Hamlet and A Good Man Is Hard to Find present two different types of people based on their coping mechanisms. While Hamlet fails to emerge from the tragedy, OConnors narrative characters rely on God for spiritual guidance. This shows that different individuals have varying ways of coping with a tragedy based on how they perceive the tragedy itself.
References
OConnor, F. (1955). A good man is hard to find. Harcourt, Brace. (Original work published 1953)
Shakespeare, W. (1992). Hamlet, prince of Denmark. C. Watts & K. Carabine (Eds.). Wordsworth Editions. (Original work published 1599)