Oh, mother! What have you done? Are you mad? Have you forgotten that this evil man is my fathers brother? How could you? Probably, this is all you could have done relying on your small brain! The most ambiguous thing is that you could have waited a bit. Why have you married this cad? The fathers grave is still fresh and the grass has not grown yet; the flowers on his grave are still fresh and smell sweet as if they were put there yesterday. I don not blame you for your desire to be happy even after his death& Who am I trying to deceive? I blame you& Yes, I blame you and your new husband because it is your fault. This is all your fault and you are the ones to blame! Do not close this page because it would be interesting for you to learn something about yourself and your new husband.
You should not have believed the sweet words of this liar for I know the truth and can prove it. I saw the ghost of my father, the true owner of this empire and he told me about the genuine reasons of his death. Well, you have a right to think that I am insane and that my thoughts have mixed because of sorrow and pain. The thoughts are not as clear as before, this is the real truth. You can tell everyone that your son is mad, though I am not a drunkard and not a drug addict; I am the son of my father and want the truth to be available to everyone. That is why you all can now read this message on my official website which is aimed at revealing the genuine reasons of some things happening in my life.
Now I am talking to you, my dear mother! You knew the truth from the very beginning of this mysterious adventure. I believe that you should have suspected this cad who now calls himself your husband. What is wrong with you? Are you afraid of him? You are the one who could have called police but you have done nothing because you believed this have been the best decision for all of us. Did you ask me or dad whether we wanted to live the life you have chosen with my uncle (or should I now call him father?)? Everything in this world has its reasons and consequences and I believe that you will be punished someday for your cruel intentions and for all those evil things you have already done or would like to do after reading this message. To detect a deadly poison in the blood of my father was not an easy task, though the modern technologies allowed me to do that. I have the evidence of your crime and you will go to the jail. All crimes should be punished in accordance with the laws for legal issues are the only things left to fight with unfair actions of people like you.
Explanation and Defense of the Pastiche
The main reason I have chosen the Tragedy of the Prince of Denmark written by William Shakespeare to follow its thematic elements is the depth of emotions and feelings revealed through monologues and dialogues of the tragic characters. So, I believe it is necessary to give some brief summary so that the readers could understand what elements were borrowed from the tragedy. However, it seems that everyone has read or have heard about the tragedy in different interpretations; which means that the plot is known to the most part of my audience. Nevertheless, I want to introduce my vision of the main character, his intentions, and his emotions because the emotions and feelings present the main value of the tragedy. The true king is dead, the prince is deceived, the queen is spellbound with sweet melodic speeches of the kings brother; it seems that everyone is under a spell which can be cast away with the common sense brought by Hamlet.
The main character of the tragedy is Hamlet, a young man who comes to know about the real reasons of his fathers death from the ghost that claims to be the spirit of his father. It is unclear whether Hamlet believes the ghost or not, though he starts to revenge his fathers murder. The characters that happen to be under attack are Hamlets mother and his uncle who is considered to the main suspect and who gets married with Hamlets mother. Though the story seems to be tangled and intricate, it is clear who the bad guy is and who is the good one. Thus, Hamlet is a good son who wants to take care of his mother instead of suspecting her in collusion with the murderer of his father. The protagonist founds himself guilty in disability to fight with the evil presented by evil people.
So, the story that I have invented does not follow neither style, nor genre of the original piece of literature. However, the theme is the most obvious element which can be found on the pastiche. The most difficult part was to capture the emotions of the young man who blames the whole world in the unfairness of events that took place in his life. I hope the despair is clear as well as his resoluteness and vigour to punish the people who, as he supposes, are guilty in this cruel manslaughter. I wanted to take the theme and present the modern vision of it when a teenager is unable to make decisions by himself as he is not an adult and cannot teach his parents what to do.
The tragedy of the real Hamlet was the idea of revenge, whereas the pastiche is aimed at letting the readers know about the feelings of a teenager who finds his mother being married to his uncle after his fathers death. The message is posted on the webpage of Hamlet; this message is for both the society which does not want to recognise the outrageous injustice that takes place every day and has not been punished yet and for his mother. Gertrude can be viewed either as a victim of a deceitful Claudius, or as his accomplice in the cruel crime. The message is supposed to be a cry from the heart of Hamlet, his call for help and understanding. I believe that you have noticed that the name of Claudius is not mentioned in the pastiche. This was done in order to make his image a common one or, if you want, to introduce an image of a common criminal that can be found in the streets.
Difficulties in Work
It is necessary to indicate the most difficult parts of work that were successfully solved. The understanding of Shakespeare has to be evaluated with the help of some extra assessment scale because the number of themes discussed and the number of problems raised by the author are enormous. Consequently, it is possible to choose the most appropriate topic for discussion within the plays written by William Shakespeare. Hamlet is undoubtedly of great value for comprehension of the reasons of a young mans revenge. As the pastiche is created in order to transfer some thematic elements of the tragedy into the modern world with a different understanding of certain aspects of life, I found it relevant to make the king an owner of some business and the justice can be re-established by police.
The most problematic element was to make the main character encounter a ghost of his father and make everyone believe that he is not under the influence of drugs and alcohol. As the time of Shakespeare made the existence of spirits and ghosts a normal thing, the modern comprehension of the situation incorporates madness into the person who claims to have seen a ghost. Another element which I consider successful is that the phrase from Hamlets monologue in the play when he talked about the old shoes of his mother meaning that too little time has passed; this part was interpreted with the help of the image of the fresh grave. Finally, it was very interesting to transfer Shakespearean elements into the modern world which is alien to Hamlet and his revenge.
Work Cited
Lawall, Sarahl. The Norton Anthology of Western Literature: Beginnings through the Renaissance. Volume 1. 8th ed. London: W.W. Norton, 2005.
The problem of interrelation between such two phenomena as human nature and human morality has always been very important for mankind and always interested people no matter what age group or social group they belonged to. This fact can be easily explained because since the time religion came into peoples lives there was no other question that troubled humans so much as morality. People always tried to combine the two above-mentioned things natural instincts and morality and make their lives harmonical.
People of art also took their time to deal with the above-stated issue in their works. The branch of arts that made a great contribution to the development of morality was literature. Literary creators, especially writers of fiction, playwrights, and others contributed greatly to the development of the here considered point in human thought. They speculated in their works on such important points of existence as of right and wrong, faithfulness and betrayal, life and death.
These are the problems we are going to discuss in the current essay, and we are going to address for help with it such masterpieces of literature as the play Hamlet, the Prince of Denmark by William Shakespeare and the play Dr. Faustus by Christopher Marlowe. These plays address directly and indirectly the problem of human morality and the aspect of it which concerns the phenomena of relations between morality and nature as an integral part of human existence.
The author of the first play, Hamlet , William Shakespeare, is the most famous English writer, poet, and playwright of all time. His works touch upon all the most important and burning issues of human life and no one since Shakespeares times managed to describe all sides of human existence. Shakespeare lived and worked in the 16 17th centuries and depicted the society contemporary to him, but his works are still popular and actual nowadays. This allows us to conclude that only the setting changed and the human is still the same as he/she was several centuries ago, with all the virtues and sins.
Another author mentioned in this essay, Christopher Marlowe, was also a very well-known English poet and playwright, who lived in the same epoch that Shakespeare did but was forgotten unfairly, although his works were considered real masterpieces before Shakespeare came to spotlight. Marlowe was famous for his blank verse in poetry and plays, and for addressing universal philosophical questions in his works.
The works under consideration are chosen among the whole plenty of the two authors creations because they concern topics that display certain similarities. Hamlet is a philosophical work concerned with the issue of betrayal and revenge, as well as with the point of living and dying. The play by Christopher Marlowe titled Dr. Faustus describes the same topic betrayal and the consequences it had, life and death, and the price of human life. Examining the plays, we can clearly observe the state of things with the moral principles in the 16 17th centuries and relate this information to what we have nowadays. So, let us now start the comparative analysis of the two plays on the basis of the above-stated reasons and factors.
To start the brief review of the play Hamlet by William Shakespeare we should take a look at the plot of this play. The action takes place in Medieval Denmark, where the King was poisoned by his brother who took the throne and married his wife. The son of the killed monarch, Hamlet, returns from studying in England, and the spirit of his father asks him to take revenge for his death upon the new king Claudius, and his wife Gertrude, who did not mourn her dead husband long and married his killer.
Hamlet suffers from hesitation, as he wants to take revenge for his father on the one hand, but on the other hand, he is not ready to kill. This inner conflict of a personality combined with the notions of Claudius and Gertrudes betrayal constitute the main idea of the play and the end of it leads to the deaths of all the main characters which is a natural consequence of the situation when the principles of morality are confused with something else and are to serve somebodys personal interests (Shakespeare, 1992). From here we can see that the issue of morality nature relations has always been important and is vividly described in the play by William Shakespeare.
The plot of the second play under consideration, Dr. Faustus , takes place in a different setting but touches the same moral problems. A young doctor busy with divinity realizes that it is not enough for him and decides to take up black magic. The angels sent by God can not persuade him not to make such a mistake and soon Dr. Faustus signs a deal with Lucifer, according to which he gives his soul to the Devil after 24 years of using all the advantages of this deal. Dr. Faustus regrets what he has done more and more but can not change the situation and finally dies and goes to Hell after those 24 years expire. In this story, we face the issue of the Christian moral values that are betrayed and the issue of the personal values of the main character of the play (Marlowe, 2004).
The first point which allows comparing these two plays in respect of the issue of morality is the choice between right and wrong, moral and immoral, made by the main characters of the stories. What is right and what is wrong? Who sets these standards? How to make the right choice of the way to go in this life? All these questions did not let the heroes live quietly, they, like all geniuses, were bothered by the philosophical issues.
Hamlet could not live with the knowledge of his being a killer, although he revenged for his father (Shakespeare, 1992). This moral issue is a leitmotif of Shakespeares play: Bloody, bawdy villain! Remorseless, treacherous, lecherous, kindles villain! (Shakespeare, 1992). This Hamlets words show all the pain he felt inside while making the choice for or against evil. He did not want to take the side of the Evil but he had to if he wanted to punish the killers of his father.
That is why he called himself a Bloody, bawdy villain . The conflict of Dr. Faustus has a lot of similarities with the one experienced by Hamlet. He did not saw any sense in dealing with divinity anymore as he was too gifted to study it for so long. But, at the same time, Dr. Faustus realized that taking the side of the Evil would mean for him the betrayal of his own and the universal values (Marlowe, 2004).
Faustus could not resist the fixed idea to start dealing with black magic because Lucifer offered him such a seductive perspective of having everything he could wish in exchange for his soul. With the flow of time he regretted often what he had done but it was too late: My hearts so hardened I cannot repent. Scarce can I name salvation, faith, or heaven, but fearful echoes thunder in mine ears, Faustus, thou art damnd! (Marlowe, 2004).
Another important point that demands consideration and that is connected with the previous point, is the issue of faithfulness and betrayal of people or values. It is so significant because both plays considered in this essay are built on the grounds of this issue. King Claudius, the man who killed his own brother in order to take his kingdom and his wife, is the brightest example of the point of betrayal in this Shakespeares play. The conflict between Claudius and Hamlet is one of the main lines of the plot of the play: My fathers brother, but no more like my father
than I to Hercules. (Shakespeare, 1992). But the betrayal committed by Hamlet himself, betrayal towards his mother, left a trace in the Princes soul: I am justly killed with my own treachery. (Shakespeare, 1992). Dr. Faustus was also concerned with the issue of betrayal.
He betrayed what made him famous and successful his science and the Good on the whole to change it for the Evil and leave all that he believed in: The stars move still, time runs, the clock will strike, the Devil will come, and Faustus must be damnd. O, Ill leap up to my God! Who pulls me down? See, see where Christs bloodstreams in the firmament! One drop would save my soul-Half a drop: ah, my Christ! Ah, rend not my heart for naming of my Christ! Yet will I call on him: O spare me, Lucifer! (Marlowe, 2004).
The final point of this comparative analysis of moral issues in the two above-mentioned plays is the question of living and dying. Its relation to the phenomenon of morality is displayed by the fact that the characters of Hamlet and Dr. Faustus lived in the conflict with themselves and morality and died as a result of this conflict as if punished for the betrayal of the Truth. Hamlet revenged for his father by killing Claudius but was himself killed at the end of the play, though we can not judge what is moral and what is not: Now cracks a noble heart. Good-night, sweet prince, and flights of angels sing thee to thy rest! (Shakespeare, 1992).
Faustus also paid for his betrayal, although he sought for the ways of escaping his fate: Accursed Faustus, wretch, what hast thou done? I do repent, and yet I do despair. Hell strives with grace for conquest in my breast. What shall I do to shun the snares of death? Here we can clearly see how the issue of living and dying is represented in the play by Marlowe. Dr. Faustus had to make the choice between living with God and dying after 24 years of serving the Devil. He chose the second alternative, he regretted it but did not repent: To God?-He loves thee not. The God thou servst is thine own appetite& (Marlowe, 2004).
All the above said draws us to the conclusion that the issue of morality is rather important. In this essay, we examined its reflections in the masterpieces of world literature Hamlet and Dr. Faustus . We saw clearly the consequences of the conflict between human morality and nature. The characters of the two plays experienced the hardness of choice between right and wrong were faithful in some aspects and sometimes betrayed their own ideals or other people, and finally, Hamlet and Dr. Faustus examples demonstrate the issue of living and dying of a human being.
One can choose to live a pious life and get to Heavens after death, another can prefer to enjoy the life on Earth and not to think of morality. The heroes of the plays considered here chose the latter. Although Hamlet made the choice not willingly, he was forced by the circumstances. Dr. Faustus made his choice consciously, and despite his regret, he never really take any effort in trying to change something.
Works Cited
Shakespeare, William. (1992). Hamlet, the Prince of Denmark. Washington Square Press.
Marlowe, Christopher. (2004). Doctor Faustus. Kessinger Publishing.
Current essay deals with some issues presented in the Shakespeares great tragedy Hamlet. The main problems addressed in current research are possible reasons for Hamlets hesitation and indeterminacy. By means of detailed analysis of Act 3 where these hesitations become the most evident we will try to understand whether the abovementioned features of character are peculiar to Hamlet or whether they are somewhat alien and superficial.
There is no denying the importance of the fact that the whole fabric of Shakespeares tragedy unfolds in Hamlet subjective perception and interpretation of his uncle and mother treason. The more he asserts himself in his desire to revenge Claudius the more he embitters himself to the outside world which appears to him as totally hypocritical and false. Hamlets subjectivity twists apart and he cant see the sense of life where money, vanity, treason, hypocrisy are wide-spread among people. Nobody cant understand these changes in Hamlet as he becomes more closed and unsociable.
The split in Hamlets personality represents the split between two epoch which in Hamlets own words he is chosen to unite. The indeterminacy and deep alienation of Hamlets personality can be described as something that represents not Hamlets particular features of character but a spirit of new time which broke traditional flow of life.
Hamlet perceives life and reality as false and fake: they are not good place to live, hence famous dilemma To be or not to be is a central dilemma of Hamlet. To put it plain the revenge that Hamlet plots is not central to Shakespeares tragedy. The practice of vendetta was quite spread in aristocratic nations of that period and its description would be banal today if it was the central theme and problem Shakespeare posed. If all was about revenge Hamlet could just make it in good aristocratic traditions without asking difficult questions and not thinking of eternal problems. The thing is that Hamlets regards Claudius treason and the ugly picture of Dutch court that it revealed as the symptoms of great crisis that makes it impossible to Be. Polonius, Ofelia, Laertus, Gertrude, all these people are the markers of this crisis. Everything had merged in one dark picture.
These facts partly explain why Hamlet hesitates to kill Claudius in Act 3 Scene 3. We see that Hamlet having possibility to kill Claudius hesitates to do it as he see him praying: Now might I do it pat, now he is praying/ And now Ill dot. And so he goes to heaven/And so am I revenged. That would be scannd: A villain kills my father; and for that,/ I, his sole son, do this same villain send To heaven./ O, this is hire and salary, not revenge (Act 3, Scene 3).
Here we see that Hamlets hesitates on the religious grounds claiming that if he kills uncle during prayer Claudius will come to Heaven. Instead Hamlet reassures himself that the revenge will be committed in better conditions When he is drunk asleep, or in his rage/Or in the incestuous pleasure of his bed/ At gaming, swearing, or 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. This indeterminacy shouldnt be regarded as cowardice or some faint-heartedness but instead even can be characterized as some rational calculation of consequences.
Two moments can be defined to understand this delay. First of all, though being determined to kill Claudius from the start Hamlet wanted to convince himself that it was really his uncle who killed his father. To this end he organized the theatrical play depicting the same plot as he saw in his apparition.
As he understood that all is not only about killing his father but about total demise of world he lives in, the destruction of his ideals and hopes, more he became desperate and depressed. The second moment which explains this delay is his hesitation concerning mother. He couldnt believe that she participated in the plot against his father consciously and believed that it was not true. These two factual moments in Shakespeares tragedy partly explain why Hamlet delayed his revenge. But it should be mentioned that these moments are motivational and relate mainly to the plays narrative structure, links and passings between composition elements.
As it was already mentioned above the hesitation is not simply determined by some factual moments: such interpretation is positivist one neglecting the symbolical meaning of Shakespeares tragedy. It should be interpreted in subjective-objective way. It means that what may seem to be hesitation and indeterminacy peculiar to Hamlet personality are in fact some important markers of epoch which is characterized by deep split of existing values and subjective perception of the world.
The scene where Hamlet blames his mother for treason postulates the fact that Hamlets does not afraid to revenge, to be killed or simply to die. He kills Polonius which hid under the carpet thinking that he is killing Claudius: Lifts up the array and discovers Polonius/ Thou wretched, rash, intruding fool, farewell! I took thee for thy better: take thy fortune (Act 3, Scene 4). Hamlet does not feel remorse but says: take thy fortune.
To sum it up, it should be noted that the delays which are evident in Act 3 and in other episodes of tragedy should not be understood as mere features of Hamlets personality as hesitation, faint-heartedness etc., but rather as the realization of Shakespeares greater artistic ideas.
In Hamlet, William Shakespeare vividly describes the epoch and cultural values, moral philosophy, and ideas of life and death dominated in Elizabethan England. During this period of time, religion and theology had a great impact on worldviews and perception of reality. The questions of life and death, meaning and importance of these notions determined attitude towards life and human existence. Thesis Human existence and purpose of life were considered unimportant because the human soul had a divine nature, thus, they were afraid of death as an unknown state of human existence.
During the Elizabethan period, people did not value human existence seeing it as one stage of the divine cycle. Elizabethan theology considered only three conditions or stages of mankind on earth, all else being irrelevant: the far-off nostalgic condition of innocence and perfection in Eden; the corruption of original sin; and the partial restoration which some enjoy through divine mercy (Elgin and Woolf, 2005). The criterion of holiness thus became for clergymen the dominant principle by which men were to be classified. And each of the three conditions was described as having its own appropriate doctrine, whose nature depended on the presence or absence of grace (Elgin and Woolf, 2005). In Hamlet, Shakespeare writes: To my sick soul, as sins true nature is, / Each toy seems Prologue to some great amiss: / So full of artless jealousy is guilt,/ It spills itself in fearing to be spilled (Shakespeare, 1995). Shakespeare states that only people mentioned the need for grace to help the will in its choices did they add an alien element of supernatural cause (for instance, a ghost). But it is important to observe that people usually mentioned such grace as an aid rather than as the primary determining factor in the decision, that they gave it relatively inferior emphasis, that they did not hold it to be a principle reaching down through the whole personality as a transforming cause. Hamlet comments: Heaven make thee free of it! I follow thee. / I am dead, Horatio.Wretched queen, adieu! (Shakespeare, 1995). Sin and grace operated only upon the soul, directly and immediately, not through physical complexion or external stimuli. This was one phase of acceptance of the religious faith, already remarked, that the soul which was the subject of their studies must seek a return to God as its final end (Elgin and Woolf, 2005).
The religious doctrine of sin and grace takes shape as one element of the general doctrine of Providence. Every man was expected to use all means such as prayer, church attendance, good reading, good company, and self-discipline to attain grace, though the means might unpredictably be ineffective (Harmsworth, 1999). Hamlet rejects these traditional rituals applying his own worldviews and values to human existence and its meaning. He comments: But that the dread of something after death,/ The undiscovered country, from whose bourn / No traveler returns,puzzles the will (Shakespeare, 1995). For him, human existence is like a miracle, fundamentally not to be understood. Mans uniqueness, the quality of Gods moral government of the universe for human good, the possibility of miracles, the authority of Scripture to teach the truth about the physical world, these and many cognate issues all seemed at stake. Upon the answers then and since given have depended in large measure on the later history of religious faith (Harmsworth, 1999). Gods bestowal of grace was a supernatural act, invisible, unknowable, unforeseeable. Nothing physical was poured into the soul, but by mysterious means, it was given a new form that turned it once more towards God. Whether tis nobler in mind to suffer / The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune / Or to take arms against a sea of troubles / And by opposing end them (Shakespeare 1995). Like Hamlet, an ordinary man was imprisoned in that inner misery which is our natural life; at the next, quite beyond all hope or deserving, unlocked by tears, he was transfigured, was stripped of falseness, and being empowered to reach God, at last, came home. (Hanson, 1998).
People did not value existence, but they were afraid of death and the Beyond. For people, not only an important question about any man was how he stood in the sight of God, whether he was in a state of sin or of sanctity (Hanson, 1998). The question to be or not to be vividly reflects worldviews and attitudes towards life typical for this historical period. Hamlet comments: And a mans life is no more than to say One (Shakespeare, 1995). For this period, the question was not so much the human relationship to God as what man was in himself, what were the parts or faculties of his inner mechanism, how he thought, felt, remembered, willed, and whether these processes moved freely or were impeded by some malady. Exposing what is mortal and unsure / To all that fortune, death, and danger dare, / Even for an eggshell (Shakespeare). About the causes determining the souls function, content, and status during that brief sojourn, however, there was between the two in some respects a full collision and a focus of interest so utterly different as to produce two distinct though overlapping interpretations of human nature.
In sum, Hamlet vividly describes that during the Elizabethan period, people were limited by religious doctrines and theological interpretations of reality which dictated life philosophy and worldviews. The idea of divine nature of the soul and sin infringe fundamentally on their concept of human character as a self-contained, naturally functioning order, for the evaluation of its state as good or evil could be simply superimposed on the description of its processes.
References
Elgin, K., Woolf, A. (2005). Elizabethan England. Facts on File.
Hanson, E. (1998). Discovering the Subject in Renaissance England. Cambridge University Press
Harmsworth, A. (1999). Elizabethan England: A Study in Depth. Hodder Murray; Teacher edition.
There is hardly a single play in the world that is as well-known and popular as Hamlet. One might enjoy it or hate it, but either way, one will definitely find something strangely attractive about it. Perhaps, the given effect owes much to the palette of emotions that Shakespeare uses in his play; it has something for everyone, starting with the pain of losing a father to the dilemma between betraying a friend and being killed, which Rosencrantz and Guildenstern have to deal with.
The most powerful emotion that makes the play work, however, is the desire of taking revenge. Viewed from several perspectives in Hamlet, it was and still is one of the most complicated feelings to deal with. Exploring the many ways of how revenge shapes the lead characters lives, Shakespeare offers a unique journey into the troubled mind of the protagonist, showing how tragic and at the same enthralling vengeance can be.
Overview
The idea of revenge has always been controversial, allowing both to feel sorry for the leading character and at the same way to see him/her as an outsider crossing the line between good and evil. As a wise man, Shakespeare knows it and uses the given idea not only as a plot device, but also as a perfect foil for the character development.
Therefore, Shakespeare allows for viewing revenge as both the drastic measure that signifies Hamlets gradual descent into madness and as dispensed justice. Therefore, the double-sidedness of the argument adds controversy to the leading character, bringing the torture that Hamlet goes through into the light.
The plot of the play is known worldwide; a power-hungry brother of the monarch of Denmark kills the latter, marries the widow and plots to kill the monarchs only son, Hamlet. The latter, after seeing his fathers ghost and learning the truth, feels that he is taken over by revenge and sets up a performance that copies Claudiuss, the murderers, plan and results in a tragic denouement and the untimely death of Hamlet and the rest of the characters.
Therefore, the story is basic enough; however, one more element at times seems to be on par with the leading characters of the play. To be more exact, the emotion of revenge that seizes Hamlet nearly becomes an independent being. Setting the theme for the entire story, it turns Hamlet into a three-dimensional character and creates a moral dilemma mentioned above, i.e., the explanation though not a moral justification for Hamlets actions.
The revenge theme gets the plot of the story off the ground, helping the readers view Hamlet as both a victim and a villain, bringing the XXII-century audience to the prehistoric eye-for-an-eye idea of justice: Hamlet, in fact, is not represented at this point as a virtuous character (Gottschalk 156). In fact, Kastan points out that Hamlet is never quite as apt as a revenger (Kastan 112).
Theme of Revenge
Shakespeare seemed to have conducted research on personality and how it influences human behavior at various levels. This play has focused mainly on the theme of death that has been propagated by the desire to seek revenge by different characters.
It is necessary to state that while reading this book an audience may be persuaded to think that the main theme is death but this is not the case. This play has focused on death through its major cause and not in its entirety. Therefore, this book presents death as an effect and not a cause as some readers may believe.
The story begins with the scene of a Ghost that speaks to Hamlet and informs him that the present king killed it. Apparently, this Ghost is the spirit of Hamlets father who was the previous king of this land before he was killed. It reveals to Hamlet that Claudius was responsible for its death and thus he should seek revenge to fulfill his fathers wish. Old Hamlet is very angry because his brother killed him to become the King of Elsinore.
Therefore, it can be concluded that Hamlets revenge mission is motivated by the need to seek justice and expose the evil deeds of his mother, as well as bring back the honor to his fathers name (Skulsky 78). Naturally, it is expected that when a husband or wife dies the other partner should at least wait for sometime before getting married. However, in this case the opposite happens when Gertrude rushes to marry Claudius even before the burial ceremony is over.
On the other hand, it cannot be denied that the idea of revenge that seizes Hamlets mind is self-destructive. Even though the audience would probably be happy to see the main antagonists of the play, i.e., Claudius and Gertrude, being punished and finally getting what they deserved, the ending does feel devastating, which must signify the fact that vengeance is a pointless end in itself; once it has been achieved, there is nothing left to live for.
It is necessary to state that Hamlet is seeking revenge just to prove that he is not a coward. His emotions betray him and he does not see why he should kill Claudius apart from the fact that he killed and took his late fathers wife (Shakespeare). However, after the First Player expresses his concern about Queen Hecubas misfortune Hamlet is convinced that this character is more concerned about his fathers death than he ought to be (Riley, McAllister and Symons). This challenges him to evaluate whether or not he should kill Claudius.
On the other hand, King Claudius uses underhand ways to seek revenge against his enemies. He convinces Laertes that Hamlet is to blame for his sisters madness and that he should seek immediate revenge (Shakespeare). However, Laertes is not convinced that Hamlet deserves to die even though he is later persuaded to kill him. His anger is not sufficient to warrant his vengeance against Hamlet and he finally tells him about his plans. However, Hamlet manages to persuade him to stop his plans and together they plan to kill the king.
Revenge has other effects on the characters apart from causing death and suffering to victims. First, it changes their perception towards life and other people (Gottschalk). Gertrude learns that all men are ruthless due to what she witnesses in her surrounding and vows never to get married again. Secondly, Hamlet is not persuaded to kill King Claudius but since this will be a show of brevity and loyalty he decides to do it just to make his father happy and prove that he is not a coward.
Works Cited
Gottschalk, Paul. Hamlet and the Scanning of Revenge. Shakespeare Quarterly 24.2 (1973): 155170. Print.
Kastan, David Scott. His Semblable in His Mirror: Hamlet and the Imitation of Revenge. Shakespeare Studies 19.14 (1987): 111124. Print.
Skulsky, Harold. Revenge, Honor and Conscience in Hamlet. PMLA 85.1 (1970): 7887.
Riley, Dick, Pam McAllister and Julian Symons. Hamlet. Young Prince Takes Revenge on Murderous Uncle. The Bedside, Bathtub and Armchair Companion to Shakespeare. London, UK: Continuum, 2001. 255259. Print.
William Shakespeare lived in extremely uneasy time, marked with the transition from medieval to Renaissance values in governance, political and social life; therefore, the reality was quickly changing. In the 16th century, medieval feudalism was quickly declining, moreover the feudalism was dying an honorable death; the aristocracy began using increasingly more cruel and tough measures to support its authority and with the help of that to back up the hierarchical order which aristocrats thought had served them very well. The sixteenth century showed the consequent unrest and a great feeling of suspicion that in most cases resulted in different kind of surveillance and betrayal in people relations in the social and political spheres. Several attempts to kill both Elizabeth I and James VI brought about cruel and really brutal retaliations. According to Shakespeare, only a man is able to improve the world, so the central focus of his plays is human emotions and psychological life, doubts, mistakes and suffering. His tragedies King Lear, Hamlet and Othello are consistently based upon the central theme of fatal mistake, resulting from blind anger. However, the specific drives for these mistakes are different: whereas in Hamlet, the striving for revenge is the most apparent motivator, in King Lear and Othello, anger gives rise to frustration, sorrow and psychological abandonment, which, however, bring the same outcome.
Main body
Before discussing Shakespearean notion of anger as expressed in the three literary works, it is important to note that his protagonists are unordinary people, who achieved considerable social success either by birth (Hamlet) or by wise deeds (King Lear, Othello) (Gurr, p.119; Bloom, p. 87). Therefore, these characters tend to emphasize their personal dignity and overprotect it so that this aristocratic quality turns into vanity and self-importance. Hamlet is a Prince of Denmark, so his background forces him to protect both his own and his familys pride. For instance, after his fathers sudden death, he learns his mother is creating family with Claudius, his uncle and apparently reproaches the women for the lack of respect for the memory about the deceased king (Hamlet, 1.2). Othello, in turn, is basically a military man, who established himself through heroic deeds (Othello, 1.1), whereas King Lear is so egotistic that decides to divide his kingdom among his daughters after evaluating each womans love for him. Thus, given the characters exaggerated self-esteem, they acutely react to the situations, which ostensibly challenge their self-respect. For instance, Othello fails into a truly hysterical state when he finds out the handkerchief, his gift to Desdemona, is missing, believing that the loss of the present is an indicator of his spouses infidelity. When Desdemona begins to appeal to his common sense, he shows nothing but rudeness: A man that all his time/ Hath founded his good fortunes on your love, / Shared dangers with you/ The handkerchief!/ In sooth, you are to blame./ Away! (Othello, 3.4). Moreover, when he detects the accessory it Cassios hand, Othello loses control and strikes his wife publicly (Othello, 3.4). Iagos reports and the loss of the handkerchief appear to Othello reliable proofs of Desdemonas unfaithfulness, and under the effect of anger the protagonist is both unable and unwilling to do further investigation. Similarly, King Lear seems equally impetuous after his older daughters deliver beautiful speeches about their love for him, whereas the youngest, Cordelia, fails to say anything. Objectively Cordelia understands that the three girls are merely competing in rhetoric, and the true love can be expressed exceptionally through specific deeds, but when she tries to explain this obvious fact to the king, her father falls in even greater rage and damns her: Let it be so; thy truth, then, be thy dower; / For, by the sacred radiance of the sun,/The mysteries of Hecate, and the night;/ By all the operation of the orbs/ from whom we do exist, and cease to be;/ Here I disclaim all my parental care,/ Propinquity and property of blood,/ And as a stranger to my heart and me/ Hold the, from this, for ever (King Lear, 1.1). In Hamlet, anger is also caused by the perceived abuse of his own and his familys dignity: as the ghost reports, Hamlets father was slaughtered by his own brother, the closest blood kin. Hamlet is apparently infuriated with the fact that the murdered of his father is now freely living in his castle, ruling his motherland and, most importantly, shares royal status with his mother, who willingly agreed to marry him: O most pernicious woman! /O villain, villain, smiling damned villain!/ My tables, meet it is I set it down, /That one may smile, and smile and be a villain (Hamlet, 1.5). Further, all the characters appear to be consumed by their anger, so that it becomes a destructive force which substantially changes the persons mind and causes fixation on the object (Bradley, p.414; Gurr, p.197). This is Shakespeares anatomy of anger.
In spite of the obvious similarity of the background feeling the three characters experience, the actual motivators of their further actions differ substantially in the three literary works. Whereas Hamlets anger is associated rather with hatred and striving for revenge at any price, the protagonists of Othello and King Lear are driven by disappointment and sorrow, or the disappearance of their idealistic perception of the closest person. After hearing the ghosts monologue, Hamlet kills Claudius first and foremost in his imagination: So, uncle, there you are. Now to my word/ It is Adieu, adieu! remember me. I have swornt (Hamlet, 1.5). From this passage, one can derive a conclusion that the Prince of Denmark is likely to receive satisfaction from his vengeance, as opposed to King Lear and Othello, whose anger is greatly associated with frustration and sorrow (Heilman, p. 39; Rosenberg, p.46). In particular, King Lear is astonished and greatly disappointed, realizing that Cordelia does not love him, as he always believed his daughters have similar feelings for him and even divided his territory into three parts in advance so that Regan, Goneril and Cordlia receive a domain. The same obviously happens to Othello, as the moor compels himself to despise Desdemona, still loving her: I am abused; and my relief/ Must be to loathe her. O curse of marriage,/That we can all these delicate creatures ours, /And not their appetites! (Othello, 3.3). As one can assume, both Lears Othellos erroneous actions are driven by the loss of trust.
Naturally, given the alteration of consciousness, the characters make serious mistakes, which bring about tragic outcomes. In particular, Hamlet, in the blindness of rage, stabs Polonius, whereas the servant decided to supervise Hamlet in order to prevent him from impulsive acts and check whether his alleged madness is associated with the princes romantic feelings for Ophelia. Hamlet, in turn, loses his trust for people around him and thus treats everyone, who believes in a strange way, as a betrayer. Following Poloniuss death, his daughter Ophelia commits suicide, so Hamlets blindness and egoism take one more life. Further, Poloniuss son Laertes comes to Denmark in order to combat with Hamlet and given Claudiuss plot of poisoning beverages and blades, the whole royal family including Hamlet, as well as Laertes, pass away one after another. Obviously, Hamlet would be able to avoid this sequence of deaths and preserve his own life, if he controlled himself better and approached the issue in a more thoughtful and comprehensive way. The only evidence he relies on is the ghosts testimony, which might have been a hallucination, but his arrogance makes him believe himself as the highest resort. Similarly, Othello and King Lear actually die of their own conceit and lack of trust for their nearest and dearest. Othello gives credit to perfidious Iago, showing himself as a superficial person and a slave of emotions (Adamson, p.58; Rosenberg, p.52). As he decides Desdemona has betrayed him, Othello kills her without mercy and regret; as the moor reveals that he has murdered the wrong person, Othello commits suicide. Similarly, King Lear creates his tragedy by himself: by dividing the reign between two-faced Regan and Goneril, he causes a war, in which his youngest daughter, found to have the greatest integrity, is killed. Most saddening, the tragedy is entering Lears life gradually, so that he is able to identify it and repent as a result, regretting about his moral blindness. After being rescued by Cordelia, he admits his acts were foolish : You must bear with me:/ Pray you now, forget and forgive: I am old and foolish (King Lear, 4.7). Likewise, Othello and Hamlet also seem remorseful at the end, as the former learns his deceased spouse was innocent, whereas Hamlet finally obtains clear vision and realizes he is to be charged with the deaths of his closest relatives and friends (Hamlet, 5.2)
Conclusion
As one can conclude, the essential point of the three literary works is that Shakespeare presents anger as the emotion that makes people regret making and putting into practice certain decisions in the past. Whereas the gamma of emotions underlying and supplementing this anger is unique is each protagonist, the cause and effect relationship between anger and fatal mistakes is drawn in Hamlet, King Lear and Othello quite lucidly. Therefore, Shakespeares key message in the three plays is that arrogance and self-reliance are not constructive personality traits and result in the brutalization not merely at the individual, but also at the social level.
Works cited
Adamson, J. Othello as Tragedy: Some Problems of Judgment and Feeling . In Booth, S. (ed.) King Lear , Othello : Indefinition and Tragedy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980,. 55-79.
Bradley, A. Shakespearean Tragedy: Lectures on Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, Macbeth. Toronto: Macmillan, 1916.
Gurr, A. The Shakespearean Stage, 15741642. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Heilman, R. Magic in the Web: Action and Language in Othello. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1956.
Rosenberg, M. The Masks of Othello. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1961.
Bloom, H. Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human. Essex: Longman, 2001.
Chapter XX-XXII of Aristotles poetics are devoted to tragedy, a definition is given and its formative elements are discussed. Aristotle lists four kinds of tragedy according to their constituent elements. The 1-complex tragedy with reversals, 2-the tragedy of suffering dealing with painful events arising out of incidents of a pitiable and fearful nature, 3- the tragedy of character, and 4-tragedy of spectacle.
Shakespeares famous play Hamlet belongs to the third category of Aristotles classification of tragedy. The story of the play revolves around the hero Hamlet, who is rather than being an action hero is (contrary to the expectations of the audience) a hero of INACTION. Revenge is the main motive in the play. So Aristotles formula of (intension action-consequence) works here. But it is the delay in action rather than action that brings about a great downfall in which the hero also meets a tragic death along with his revenge victim, involving many more deaths, which could have been avoided. Shakespeare owes the revenge theme to the influence of Seneca the ancient Roman dramatist.
Hamlet
Hamlet is the story of Prince Hamlets revenge against his uncle Claudius, the prince of Denmark. On his return from Wittenberg where he was a scholar, Hamlet comes to know that his father is dead and that his uncle Claudius has become the king. He also finds that his mother Gertrude has married Claudius. Soon his fathers ghost appears before him and tells him that he was murdered. The ghost tells him that it was a murder most foul, strange, and unnatural. Hamlet, shocked by the revelation and shaken to the core by the knowledge of his mothers role in the act, immediately makes his intention clear in the presence of the ghost.
Haste me to know, that I with wings as swift
As meditation or the thoughts of love
May sweep to my revenge. (Acta.SceneV.L 29-31)
Thus the revenge motive is established in the exposition itself. Hamlets intention to take revenge for his fathers murder is also established. The ghost agrees and says, I find thee apt.
Hamlet considers it his duty to protect the honor of the queen, his mother. The ghost narrates to Hamlet how Hamlets mother was Claudius accomplice in the murder. But neither the father, not the son wish to punish her. Hamlet thinks that his uncle has married his mother because she is the jointress and Claudius has used her to usurp the throne. Nevertheless, she was a party to murder and no one else must know it. So he makes Horatio and Marcellus take an oath to keep this knowledge a secret. This shows Hamlets good intentions.
The knowledge affects Hamlets behavior as it changes his entire attitude towards King Claudius and Gertrude in particular and human life in general. So when the king addresses Hamlet as my cousin Hamlet and my son, Hamlet reacts.
A little more than kin, and less than kind. (Acta.SceneII.L65)
However, Hamlet is a learned and judicious man. He can not kill a man following a ghosts testimony. He must first satisfy his conscience and confirm his uncles guilt with solid evidence. Hence he decides to feign madness.
As I perchance hereafter shall think to meet.
To put an antic disposition on. (Acta.SceneV.L179-80)
Hamlet is a sensitive young man. He is deeply disturbed by his mothers act of being a party to his fathers murder and later, her marriage with Claudius. Yet he cannot be rude to her. In the third act he says:
soft, now to my mother,
&let me be cruel, not unnatural.
I will speak daggers to her but use none.
(Act I.SceneIII.L383-7)
In the third act He also tells his mother:
My pulse as yours doth temperately keep time,
And makes as healthful music. It is not madness
That I have uttered. Bring me to the test,
And I the matter will re-word, which madness,
Would gambol from. Mother, for love of grace,
Lay not that flattering unction to your soul,
That not your trespass but my madness speaks.
(ActIII.SceneIV.L142-8).
His harshness then finds vent in his behavior with Ophelia. He hurts her deeply. At the end of his famous soliloquy To be or not to be he sees Ophelia coming. He says to himself:
Soft you now,
The fair Ophelia! Nymph, in thy orisons
Be all my sins remembered. (iii.SceneI.L87-9).
Some critics believe that in the process of feigning madness Hamlet turns mad. This is debatable. But when Ophelia comes he is very rude to her. He remarks that beauty and chastity cannot coexist. He tells her, go thee to a nunnery. This is a reaction to Poloniuss remark that to find out the cause of Hamlets madness, he will loosen his daughter to him. In a bitter exchange in the second scene of the third act, he tells her that the actor will show anything that you show him.
ay, or any show that you will show him. Be not you ashamed to show (private parts) he will not shame to tell you what it means. (iii.SceneII.L140-2).
This act of throwing such insults at Ophelia shows his unbalanced mind. But there is no doubt that Hamlet loves Ophelia. In the fifth act, Ophelias dead body is brought for burial. Hamlet is shocked to the core to know that she is no more.
Hamlet is a great scholar. The second scene of the third act shows Hamlet as an erudite dramatic critic. He talks with absolute authority.
o, it offends me to the soul to hear a
robustious previewing pated fellow
tear a passion to tatters, to very rags,
to split the ears of the groundlings,
who for the most part are capable of nothing but
inexplicable dumb shows and noise.
I would have such a fellow whipped for overdoing Termagant. (Acta.scenario.Ll8-24)
Hamlet goes on to say that the purpose of art is
to hold as twere the mirror up to nature; to show virtue her feature, scorn her image, and the very age and body of the time his form and pressure . (Acta.SceneIII.L21-24).
Indeed this is what Hamlet attempts to do in real life. This leaves us with no doubt that he is perfectly sane. His madness was only the antic disposition he has assumed to find out whether his uncle is guilty of his fathers murder.
Hamlet is honest to the core. He is very judicious. It could be that Hamlet is upset because he is deprived of his rightful ascendancy to the throne. When Rosencrantz wants to know the reason for Hamlets madness. He urges Hamlet to take Him in confidence or he will surely end up in jail as a madman. Thereupon Hamlet answers:
Hamlet. Sir, I lack advancement.
Ros. How can that be, when you have the voice of the king himself for your succession in Denmark?
Hamlet. Ay, sir, but while the grass grows the proverb is something musty. (iii.SceneII.L330-5).
Hamlet means that there is an old stale saying according to which the horse will starve if he has to wait till the grass grows for it to feed upon. This shows Hamlets desire to be the king.
Hamlet is a philosopher and not a man of action. But we must note that although Hamlet is not capable of planned and premeditated action as seen in his procrastination, he is capable of impulsive action. There are many things that we did not expect him to do because he is meditative and philosophical. But in these cases, he acts purely on impulse. He kills Polonius on the spur of the moment. He boards the pirate ship alone; he leaps into Ophelias grave after Laertes does so. Finally, he stabs Claudius. None of these actions are premeditated. Moreover, Hamlet is completely disregardful of the consequences of these actions.
While Hamlet is speaking daggers with his mother he kills Polonius taking him to be the King hiding behind the arras. When he finds that he has killed an innocent man Hamlet has no remorse. He says:
The Revenge act is not accomplished as quickly as expected because Hamlet keeps procrastinating. Every time he finds an excuse to put off the act. He will wait till his conscience is fully satisfied he is not punishing an innocent man. This shows Hamlets philosophical nature and his intellectual depth as it also shows his unpredictable nature. Therefore he devises a plan. Hamlet engages the Gonzago players to perform an act called the Mouse Trap.
Ill have these players
Play something like the murder of my father
Before mine uncle&
The play is the thing
When Ill catch the conscience of the King.
(ActIII.SceneI.L590-601)
The play the murder of Gonzago convinces Hamlet of the truth of the Ghosts story.
Hamlet is a philosopher and an idealist who lacks the courage to act. He puts off the revenge act when he sees his uncle alone praying. He does so on the ground that if he were to kill the king during prayer, he will send him to heaven.
Thus Hamlets irresolution is unmistakable. During the play, many circumstances goad him to action but Hamlet lacks the capacity for vigorous action.
Hamlet, by his ill luck, his error of judgment, and by his involvement in evil, has been the cause of misery to others. If he had been single-minded or ruthless like Fortinbras or Laertes he might have been able to accomplish his revenge without the trail of tragic deaths which he left behind. The more he thinks the more he is incapable of action. Thus, this noble prince, popular among the people of his country, drags himself and all those around him to untold misery and tragic death.
Laertes
Laertes, son of Polonius and the brother of hamlets beloved Ophelia is a noble young man. Laertes is a young man, just setting out into the world, full of youths sap, and eager for life; fond of his sister, and jealous of her honor and his own; obedient to his father, but scarcely listening to his advice and with a certain worldly wisdom and insight into affairs of state, which left him above the ordinary, and prepare us for the swift action he takes when the sister he loves is drowned of her pain, and the father he honors is slain by Hamlet. He has suffered bitter sorrow at the murder of his father and the madness and the death of his sister, and we realize that any impetuous man would behave as he does to avenge these losses. He loves his father and his sister.
After the wedding celebration of Hamlets mother Gertrude and uncle, Claudius Laertes prepares to leave for France. Before leaving Laertes gives a long speech to his sister Ophelia instructing her to stay away from Hamlets profanation of love. He intends to protect his sister.
Hold it a fashion and a toy in blood,
A violet in the youth of primary nature,
For Hamlet, and the trifling of his favor,
Forward, not permanent, not lasting,
The perfume and suppliance of a minute,
No more. (Acta.SceneIII.L5-10)
He warns her against being taken in by the advances that Prince Hamlet has been making to her and tells her that, even if Hamlet is in love with her, the Prince may not be able to marry her because his choice of a wife is circumscribed by the position that he occupies as heir to the throne. Again, when he is bidding adieu Laertes warns his sister against Hamlets responses
&weigh that loss your honor may sustain
If with too credent ear you list his songs,
Or lose your heart or your chaste treasure open
To his unmastered importunity. (Acta.SceneIII.L29-32)
Again before leaving for France Laertes reminds Ophelia:
Farewell Ophelia and remember well
What I have said to you. (Acta.SceneIII.L84-5)
This shows how much he cares for his sister. His good intention of protecting her against evil is seen here.
When he returns from France he finds a reversal of the situation. His sister has gone mad, she is gone into depression which later transpires into suicide. Laertes says:
And so have I a noble father lost,
A sister driven into desprate terms,
Whose worth, if praises may go back again,
Stood challenger on mount of all the age
For her perfections. But my revenge will come.
(Act IV.SceneVI.L25-9)
The murder of Polonius incites Laertes to revenge. On his return, to Denmark, Laertes quickly goes to the King and accuses him of the murder of Polonius. Why, he asks, did the King not take action against Hamlet so far if Hamlets guilt is so certain? He wants quick action and is determined to take revenge. Laertes is a man of action. He declares:
Let come what comes, only Ill be revenge
Most thoroughly for my father. (Activ.SceneV.L135-6)
Hamlet is the cause of all this. Laertes is determined to take revenge on him. He swings into action. Being a popular youth it is easy for him to acquire popular support in a rebellion against the King himself. In the fourth Act a messenger tells the queen:
&young Laertes, in a riotous head,
Oerbears your offices. The rabble call him lord,
And, as the world were now but to begin,
Antiquity forgot, custom not known
They cry, choose we! Laertes shall be the king. (Activ.SceneV.L101-6)
Thus we find that Laertes, despite the smoldering passion in him, is in full command of his senses.
Laertes is a noble-minded person. Even Hamlet talks most reverentially of him Hamlet, however, speaks of Laertes with utmost regard:
That is Laertes, a very noble youth. Mark. (V.SceneI.L217)
Laertes wants to have revenge on the guilty. He wants to punish only his fathers enemy and nobody else. This shows his sense of justice.
none but his enemies. (Activ.SceneV.L143)
The king instigates Laertes against Hamlet. His scheme is that as soon as Hamlet returns to England Laertes should challenge Hamlet for a fight and kill him. Laertes says:
I will dot.
I bought an unction of a mountebank
So mortal that but dip a knife in it,
Where it draws blood. (Activ.SceneVI.L138-42)
He will dip his sword in poison that will prove fatal for any mortal creature. This shows Laertess honest desire to take revenge on Hamlet.
Hamlet, however, speaks of Laertes with utmost regard:
That is Laertes, a very noble youth. Mark . (A5 Sc 1 L 217)
Towards the end when Hamlet is on the verge of death, he says to Horatio:
But I am very sorry, good Horatio,
That to Laertes I forgot myself;
For by the image of my cause I see
The portraiture of his. Ill court his favors .(V.SceneII.L75-8)
Comparison
While Hamlet and Horatio are in some respects complementary in character, Laertes is a complete contrast to Hamlet. These three persons seem to form a triangle of forces, with each exerting strong pressures on the others. The character of Hamlet is many-faceted and very complex. Scholars have forever been analyzing it from different angles and they continue to have hairsplitting arguments. They will never tire of doing so. And there lies the success of the play.
The revenge motive is common among Hamlet and Laertes. Hamlet makes it a matter of scholarly study and keeps analyzing it, seeking evidence, and so on. The character of Laertes, on the other hand, is straightforward. He wants revenge and loses no time in going about it.
Both Hamlet and Laertes are judicious men. Both have been seriously wronged. Each has lost a father he loved. What aggravates their grief is that these murdered men were innocent.
Both want revenge. But Hamlet is a philosopher who broods over the murder. Hamlet lacks the capacity for vigorous action. He cannot react instantaneously. On the contrary, he misses the chances where he could have taken his revenge by killing Claudius. But every time he puts off an action. It is his procrastination that is the cause of his tragedy and also of those around him. In the revenge act of Laertes Hamlet saw the reflection of his revenge motive against King Claudius. When they come face to face Hamlet apologizes to Laertes.
Unlike Hamlet, Laertes has no scruples and needs no evidence to support his courses of action. This is clear from his readiness to believe Hamlets ultimate responsibility for all the tragic events that have taken place at the court during his absence and his willingness to go farther than the King to make sure that Hamlet is killed in the fencing match.
Structurally, the play of Hamlet is dominated by the pairing of various characters to reveal one as the foil of another. Ill be your foil, Laertes , says Hamlet, punning on the resemblance that elsewhere he seriously acknowledges. Laertes has returned from abroad to help celebrate the royal wedding; he loses his father by violent means and seeks vengeance. The common people, usually loyal to young Hamlet, are roused to new hero worship upon the occasion of Laertess second return to Denmark. Laertes is burdened with a responsibility like Hamlets, moves to expedient action without scruple. He turns at first on Claudius, who is technically innocent of Poloniuss death. The popular insurrection will simultaneously feed Laertess revenge and his ambition. Presented with untested and partial evidence concerning Hamlets part in Poloniuss murder Laertes would cut his throat in the church . He does grapple with Hamlet in the graveyard, striking the first blow and prompting Hamlet to assure his rival that he is not splenetic and rash . More than that, Laertes connives with the King in underhanded murder; it is Laertes who thinks of poisoning the swords point with an unction already bought of a mountebank.
In the revenge act of Laertes Hamlet saw the reflection of his revenge motive against King Claudius. When they come face to face Hamlet apologizes to Laertes. He pleads with madness as an excuse for his misbehavior. He admits that he has offended Laertess sense of honor and aggravated his grievance against himself. He should be forgiven because he was not in his senses.
Wasnt Hamlet wrongd Laertes? Never Hamlet.
If Hamlet from himself be taken away,
And when hes not himself does wrong Laertes,
Then Hamlet does it not. Hamlet denies it.
Who does it then? His madness. (V.SceneV.L 228-35)
While playing the fighting match, Laertes gets a chance to kill Hamlet as Hamlet is talking to his mother who is urging him to have a drink. As Hamlet is distracted a little, Laertes tells the king that it is his chance,
Laertes. my lord, Ill hit him now.
King. I do not think
Laertes.
[Aside]And yet it is almost against my conscience.
Throughout the play, while Hamlet keeps us wondering and puzzled, especially his so-called antic disposition or feigned madness, his procrastination, Laertes takes our sympathy and admiration. Both Hamlet and Laertes are successful in their revenge plots, and they both pay for these plots with their lives.
Finally, While Hamlet seems to believe in the proverb that Vengeance is the dish that should be eaten cold, Laertes agrees with the saying that Revenge is a kind of wild justice
The early Elizabethan period saw an intellectual revival of interest in the Latin and Greek classics. Seneca, the Roman dramatist produced the tragic effect by horrifying incidents e.g. arrival of the ghost, bloody actions, and ranting speeches.revenge was the main motive in his works.
The word protagonist stands for the leading or principal character in the literary work either it is poetry, drama, fiction, and legendary story (Protagonist, 2009).
A protagonist is the central or main character of the story or drama which plays a leading role according to the theme or central idea. The antagonist is the person who struggles or opposes the protagonist of the drama, an adversary of the hero in any literary work e.g. Iago is the antagonist of Othello (Antagonist, 2009). The Protagonist plays a major part to achieve the goals of the story while the antagonist is an adversary who struggles against the efforts of the protagonist. In a literary sense, the protagonist stands for irresistible force while an antagonist is an unbending object (Phillips, 2009).
The conflict between the protagonist and antagonist embodies the inner conflicts. The protagonist characterizes the motivation and impetus efforts to change the status quo. The antagonist personifies the discretion and silence to revolutionize the position. They are the true depiction of the most significant human traits, representing our social environment and personal trends (Phillips, 2009). The story of the drama or any other literary genre revolves around the protagonist, undergoing a series of dramatic events and he is shown to some extent weak when the climax reaches in the story, a culmination of the story. At the moment, the protagonist would try to stop his efforts to pursue his aims but eventually, he will be motivated again to achieve his goals (Phillips, 2009).
The protagonist is the most powerful personality with extraordinary qualities who overcomes all obstacles successfully, having courageous and audacious spirits. What are the goals or targets of the protagonists; these may be compared with the nature of that character (Phillips, 2009). The antagonist is the character who strives hard to prevent or hinder the protagonist from achieving the goals. Without the role of the antagonist, the story has no influential impact upon the readers or viewers. The protagonist as a good character or antagonist as a bad character enhances the story of the drama exclusively. The protagonist is judged by the volume of hindrances or obstructions which he or she overwhelmed valiantly without subduing himself under the heavy pressures of the antagonist (Phillips, 2009).
In many literary works, the most effective and major roles are depicted by the protagonist and antagonist. These main characters are very complex and magnificent portraits while the minor characters are taken as one-dimensional and flat characters who move forward smoothly without any change. During the process of characterization, the personal features of the opposite characters (protagonist and antagonist) often may cause conflicts between them (Kurtus, 2007).
The protagonist is the central character who has to struggle with the force of his opponent or antagonist, creating the conflicts and there is a climax of the story when both confront each other (Kurtus, 2007). These characters are well-developed with their complex and distinct personal features, a true representation of a credible character or person. How the reader of the story may find out the hopes, skills, fears, favorite activities, affinity, personal aptitudes or habits, etc. This is the process of characterization of how they undergo different changes according to the circumstances and how they have the capacity to deal with the conflicts (Kurtus, 2007).
Elizabeth Bennet is the most intellectual and quick-witted protagonist of Pride and Prejudice, having the most commendable traits, honesty, loveliness, liveliness, brilliance, and sharpness. Elizabeth has to deal with an incorrigible mother, ignorant father, ill-mannered younger siblings, snobbish and antagonistic females while undergoing familial as well as social commotion (Pride and Prejudice -Character Analysis, 2005). Oedipus Rex is the Greek protagonist of the Greek mythological legend series and the hero has to undergo a lot of transformations from potent to feeble person, suppressed by fate. All other characters of the play, Oedipus Rex struggle to resolve the complex problems apparently but all their efforts remain futile due to the antagonistic influence of powerful fate.
In Hamlet, Shakespeares famous play, Hamlet plays the central role while facing all kinds of tragedies of his life, and here his uncle, Claudius plays the role of antagonist, having intense antagonism and rivalry against his nephew, hamlet to overpower kingship of his deceased father. The conflicts that arise between the protagonist and antagonist are the conflicts between goodness and evil. There are a lot of famous heroes in the literary works which are developed gradually from the very beginning to the end of the story. All the protagonists have to face a number of difficulties in life but they encounter all problems of life bravely. Their courage and passions remain intact in spite of all pressures of a tragic life, having very strong and powerful personalities. They have to face external as well as internal conflicts throughout their life, leading life of bravery and adventure. Without the role of antagonist, there is no more interest or influence in the story of drama or fiction.
References
Protagonist, 2009, Web.
Antagonist, 2009, Web.
Phillips, 2009, The Archetypal Characters: Protagonist and Antagonist by Melanie Anne Phillips, Web.
Kurtus, 2007, Developing Fictional Characters by by Ron Kurtus, Web.
Pride and Prejudice -Character Analysis, 2005, Article Review by: vas, Published: Web.
By far, one of the most notable works in English literature, Hamlet by William Shakespeare, written in 1599, incorporates a range of ideas on a variety of topics. However, when analyzing the poem, one must admit that the themes addressing the failure of human relationships stand out the most. This paper will argue that, although the concepts of hypocrisy, lying, and acting are brought up directly only a few times in Hamlet, the manifestations thereof can be found throughout the poem, the Dutch prince himself along with the King and the Queen being the embodiment of these ideas. I will prove the above statement by examining the ways in which characters in Hamlet develop and interact with each other. By taking a look at how they change throughout the play, I will spot the instances of lying, acting, and hypocrisy, therefore, making a point.
It could be argued that Hamlets descent into madness is a sort of deception implied by the author and, therefore, can be interpreted as a variation on lying. On the one hand, the tormented soul that the lead character could be described as was clearly showcasing the instance of psychological turmoil. On the other hand, the elaborate plan that Hamlet designed in order to take revenge on his murderous uncle and avenge his father evidently showed that Hamlets madness was somewhat overstated: I am but mad north-north-west (Shakespeare 1460).
In addition, the very concept of staging the performance that would lure the king into fearing the revenge of the prince can be interpreted as an elaborate lie. First and most obvious, the very concept of performance is often rendered as a lie as in the reimagining of the truth through a specific perspective: The Mousetrap. Marry, how? Tropically. This play is the image of a murder done in Vienna (Shakespeare 2131-2132). The quote above points to the fact that the play is the process of reimagining reality and, therefore, in a way, is a combination of a lie and acting. Thus, the environment, which the creation of the play suggests, implies a significant amount of acting.
Weirdly enough, the same element of the poem may also be viewed through the lens of lying. Although the acting is supposed to look as the reimagining of a specific play, it, in fact, creates the veneer of mystery that is supposed to deceive the King and the Queen into being alarmed about their secret being disclosed: You are welcome: but my uncle-father and aunt-mother are deceived (Shakespeare 1457-1458). Despite the fact that the purpose of the play is not explained to the viewers, it clearly plants very specific fears into them, therefore, serving as the means of deceiving them into confessing their crime. In fact, at some point in the development of the plot, Hamlet states directly that deceit is the primary reason for the play to exist in the first place.
Moreover, speaking of the same staging process, the purpose thereof as a disguised attempt at revealing the lies of the murderous King can and should be considered hypocritical (Kafanelos 74-76). At this point, however, one might argue that lies often imply the idea of meanness and, thus, are rendered as something despicable. Hamlet, in his turn, is not typically viewed as the character that would stoop so low as to act in a despicable manner. The above vision of the event, therefore, suggests the interpretation that does not involve lying and, instead, focuses on the concept of revenge. Nevertheless, a closer consideration of the subject matter will reveal that the very phenomenon of acting can be deemed as a form of lying (Williamson 131). Consequently, setting the stage play can be interpreted as the epitome of hypocrisy, acting, and lying in the play. In fact, the very name thereof discloses its purpose as the tool for trapping the king and the Queen with the help of elaborate deceit (Dodsworth 152).
Additionally, apart from setting an elaborate and deliberate trap that will trick them into confessing and paying the price for their murder, the lead character also deceives the Queen as they meet: My tongue and soul in this be hypocrites (Shakespeare 2273). It is remarkable, though, that most of the examples above include mostly the elements of deceit and lying, whereas little hypocrisy is involved when Hamlet himself takes certain actions. The observed phenomenon can be attributed to the character design; being the vengeful hero and the troubled soul that Shakespeare saw him, Hamlet could not possibly commit any act of hypocrisy; anything that pointed otherwise would have broken his character and destroyed his credibility (Levy 117). The rest of the characters, however, are oozing with hypocrisy, therefore, contributing to the creation of a unique, very suspenseful, and rather brooding atmosphere (Clemen 221). First and most obvious, the King and the Queen need to be referred to as the core of hypocrisy in the poem, positioning themselves as decorous and decent yet being, in fact, guilty for the death of Hamlets father: My tongue and soul in this be hypocrites; How in my words soever she be shent, To give them never seals, my soul, consent! (Shakespeare 2273-2275).
Another element of a hypocritical attitude towards life, in general, and the situation that the people in the castle are in, in particular, can be traced to the Prince of Denmark himself. Surprisingly enough, at some point, Hamlet accuses himself of being hypocritical and tampering with the truth: My tongue and soul in this be hypocrites; How in my words soever she be shent, To give them never seals, my soul, consent! (Shakespeare 2273-2275). Although the above statement is voiced in anguish, under the spur of emotions, and, therefore, cannot be deemed as the argument against the lead character, the reasons behind his sorrow are rather obvious. Instead of pointing the finger at the treacherous murderer of his father and making him pay the debt, Hamlet resorts to mental gymnastics in order to make justice take its toll (Wells 29). Therefore, the contrivances that he is forced to make are interpreted by the honest lead character as the manifestations of his own hypocrisy.
The actions of Ophelia, whom Hamlet claims to be his dear sister (Shakespeare 515), could also be viewed through the lens of lying, hypocrisy, and deceit at the same time. The fact that the lead character confides in her as she knowingly betrays him is the prime example of the combination of the three concepts above: Fear it, Ophelia, fear it, my dear sister, And keep you in the rear of your affection (Shakespeare 515-516).
Last but definitely not least, the fact that Hamlet deceits his friends, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, to carry his death warrant and practically dooms them to death needs to be brought up as the crowning achievement in the range of hypocritical steps taken by the characters. As it has been stressed above, the mere act of watching Hamlet doing something that does not align with the principles of common morals may distort the readers perspective of the character. However, after a thorough analysis of the latter, one must admit that Hamlet, being psychologically traumatized and driven by anger, fear, and despair, should not be judged on the traditional scale of moral dimensions.
Even though the elements of lying, hypocrisy, and acting are not made evident in Hamlet, the poem includes a range of scenes enveloping the concepts of hypocrisy, deceit, and lies, therefore, addressing a range of controversial issues, fratricide, vendetta, and madness is only the tip of the iceberg. Nevertheless, these are the scenes with Hamlet, the King, and the Queen that shape the notions mentioned above and contribute to their understanding to the greatest degree. Representing the epitome of hypocrisy, lies, and acting, they and every other character in the play contribute to the desperate, dark, and brooding feeling that the play creates.
Works Cited
Clemen, Wolfgang. The Development of Shakespeares Imagery. New York, NY: Routledge, 2013. Print.
Dodsworth, Martin. Hamlet Closely Observed. New York, NY: A&C Black, 2014, Print.
Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. The Northon Shakespeare (1-130). 3rd ed.
Williamson, Claude C. Readings on the Character of Hamlet: Compiled from over Three Hundred Sources. New York, NY: Routledge, 2013. Print.
Annotated Bibliography
Levy, Eric P. Hamlet and the Rethinking of Man. Plainsboro, NJ: Associated University Presses, 2008. Print.
Levy addresses the mythology that presumably created the foundation for the play, connecting the narration by Shakespeare with the events and ideas touched upon, mentioned, or described in religious texts (particularly, in the Bible, as well as in the books written by philosophers, including the ancient ones (e.g., Plato) and the modern ones alike. The author makes it quite clear that, addressing the issues brought up by both the ancient philosophers and his contemporaries, Shakespeare created a deeply philosophical drama that addresses complex timeless issues by setting the characters into a conundrum of lies, acting, and hypocrisy.
Particularly, Levy stresses that the poem is filled with references to the deception that is related to the main characters in one way or another. More to the [point, the author locates the nature thereof, stressing that the concept of deceit is epistemological as opposed to moral. In other words, the traditional battle of good vs. evil is interpreted as a battle between great minds.
Serving as the means of discovering the very nature of deception as a concept in Hamlet, the study carried out by Levi was essential to the further analysis. The connections to the previous theological and philosophical works made it possible to understand the implications made in the poem and identify the elements of the play that showcased the instances of deception in Hamlet. Although the author did not point directly to the scenes in which the phenomenon under analysis emerged, it created prerequisites for their successful discovery.
Kafanelos, Emma. Narrative Causalities. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 2006. Print.
Kafalenos creates a list of consecutive events that include the instances of lying and deceit in Hamlet, therefore, allowing one to track down the actual stages of deceit development in the play. By outlining the essential dialogues that address the issue of deceit and lying in Hamlet, the author makes a very valid statement concerning the subject matter.
According to Kafalenos, every single act of the play can be split into a succession of small lies that build up to become a grandiose deceit. In other words, as the play progresses, the deviations from the truth that the characters take snowball, making the latter suffer from the dishonesty that they created and got caught in.
The author also addresses the issue of sin as the inevitable outcome of lies. As a result, Kafanelos trails off into a theological debate, also bringing up the issues related to the Christian philosophy and linking them to the essential events in the play. Particularly, Kafanelos mentions Hamlets idea of the ghost being the devil and, therefore, urging him to commit a sinful action.
Creating a solid premise for a detailed analysis of Hamlet as a conundrum of lies and deceit, the book allows assuming that there is a pattern to the hypocritical actions of the people involved. In other words, the link between a lie as a distortion of ones self and a lie as an attempt to invite others to participate in a sinful act can be created. Intriguing and shedding a lot of light on the innuendoes of Hamlet, the book by Kafanelos offers a lot of food for thoughts.
Wells, Stanley. William Shakespeare: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2015. Print.
Wells chooses a rather safe means of addressing the issue of lying, acting, and hypocrisy in Hamlet by focusing on the rest of the characters and their deceitful actions. On the one hand, the above course of analysis aligns with the traditional interpretations of Hamlet. Indeed, most of the acting, lying, and deceit centers around the rest of the characters, whereas the Prince of Denmark is typically viewed as the victim. However, Wells takes very few chances with exploring Hamlet as a character from the perspective of lying, hypocrisy, or even acting. As a result, the outcomes of the analysis seem somewhat flaccid.
Nevertheless, by outlining the environment of deceit and lies that Hamlet is trapped in, Wells does a very good job of analyzing the rest of the characters. Though offering little challenge, the traditional approach to the analysis of the play that Wells adopts serves as the foundation for a further and a more detailed study. Particularly, the fact that aaa needs to be brought up.
Therefore, the book was used primarily as the tool for founding the analysis on. Wells created a solid platform, on which the further assessment of the problem and the identification of the essential details could be built on. The focus on the social isolation that Hamlet was in and that bordered ostracism, Wells allowed the readers understand what the lead character was going through and, thus, understand why he resorted to acting a one of the forms of deception to uncover the lying of his uncle in the first place. Allowing for a deep insight on the character and the turmoil that he was in, the book served as an essential addition to the existing list of sources.
Hamlet is one of Shakespeares most revered plays since the Elizabethan time. It has managed to garner various literary analysis, criticisms and appreciations. Most literary analysis entails authors interpretation of various reasons behind happenings in the play. This argumentative essay aims at arguing out the reasons for Hamlets choice of Fortinbras as his successor as Act V Scene II ends.
The contemplative stance taken by Hamlet at various scenes in the play presents us with the idea that there exist reasons for him to name Fortinbras as his successor (Mays and Hunter 50). Hamlet was an intellectual, witty and full of natural tendency of doing right, hence must have had his reasons for choosing Fortinbras as his heir to the throne.
First, the main reason for Hamlets selection of Fortinbras as heir to his throne is personal experiences. Hamlet and Fortinbras suffered the same fate when their rightful place as heirs to Denmark and Norwegian thrones respectively were taken away by their uncles (Jackson 127). This makes the two seek revenge, but the methods and dedication to the revenge differs entirely. Fortinbras is extremely dedicated and has to be restrained against fighting Denmark to avenge his fathers death, while Hamlet is reluctant until prompted by the ghost (Prosser 293).
Further, the reason for Hamlet to choose Fortinbras as an heir was because Fortinbras was strong and courageous as he showed in his part as army commander. Hamlet observed that the delicate and tender prince (Jackson 126), risks his life when honor is at stake (Jackson 126). He is moved by Fortinbras willingness and courage to die for in Act VI Scene 4 line 19-20 as he says little patch of ground that hath in it no profit but the name (Jackson 128).
This admiration of his courage could be the reason he bestows his rightful throne to a courageous person who will do whatever it takes to ensure the thrones safety. Through Fortinbras, he ensured the throne was in the safest hands, one with courage and honor, than to fall in the hands of unworthy and callous characters as his uncle, Claudius.
Choice of Fortinbras is an act to usurp his place as the rightful king and avenge for the injustice done to Fortinbras, as well as him. He admires Fortinbras courage and dedication to his course that it motivates him to seek revenge for his fathers death. He demonstrates this effect when he is informed of the purpose of Fortinbras army in Poland by saying My thoughts be bloody, or be nothing worth! (Jackson 127). He decides to avenge the death of his father as it is a just course and noble than that Fortinbras has in risking, in Poland, hence may have influenced his decision to select him as a successor.
The other reason is because Hamlet believed that by selecting Fortinbras power shall be passed into capable and worthy hands. He admired Fortinbras as demonstrated by his hate of procrastinating avenging his fathers death whereas Fortinbras was restrained from fighting against Denmark in vengeance of his own fathers death (Stuart Club and Tudor 267). Fortinbras is dutiful, respectful to his parents and determined to serve the royal course as demonstrated by his willingness to fight for Norway and readiness to avenge the deaths of his father. This willingness and readiness Hamlet admires and would be the reason for his decision of appointing him to be his successor.
Additionally, the reason could be for Fortinbras to continue with the restoration of the kingdom where he had reached. Selection of Fortinbras acts as a sign of restoration to its fallen state from integrity to corruption cunningness and treachery. The phrase in Act I scene 4 line 90, Something is rotten in the state of Denmark (Richardson 173), serves to depict the woeful state of Denmark leadership.
This is also evidenced by Horatios request for the coronation of Fortinbras to be quick to avoid other people taking advantage of the chaotic Denmark (Mays et al 203). Another argument for Hamlets selection could be because Fortinbras has the capability to lead Denmark to greater prosperity than Claudius. His expertise is demonstrated at the beginning of the play; Act I scene 1line 95, through the phrase young Fortinbras Of unimproved mettle hot and full (Richardson 173). He could have envisioned a better person in Fortinbras than the conniving Claudius or any member of the council as an heir to his throne.
Another reason could be an act to reconcile with Fortinbras for the death of his father. Hamlet could be trying to be kind and reconcile with Fortinbras having had gone through the pain of losing a father first hand. This will ensure the same atrocities committed to them shall not happen in the next regime. He seeks to make peace and leave the throne a better one than the Claudius leadership.
In conclusion, the choice made by Hamlet in choosing Fortinbras as his successor is wise. This is due to personal affection to him, personal life of suffering the same fate and aim to safeguard the interest of the nation. Other reasons include reconciliatory effort, ensure a continuation of the thrones restoration and that he believed that Fortinbras was capable and worthy of holding the throne.
Works cited
Booth, Mays and Paul Hunter. The Norton Introduction to Literature, New York, NY: W.W. Norton, 2005. Print.
Prosser, Eleanor. Hamlet and Revenge, California: Stanford University Press, 1971. Print.
Richardson, David. Revolutionary Theater and the Classical Heritage: Inheritance and Appropriation from Weimar to the GDR, New York, NY: Peter Lang, 2007. Print.
Tudor and Stuart Club (Johns Hopkins University). Journal of literary history, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press 15 (1948): 260-273. Print.