I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere gratitude to all who made me to complete this project successfully through their guideline, help and support.
1. HAMLET AS A TRAGEDY
PROJECT REPORT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF DEGREE OF
BACHELOR OF ARTS IN ENGLISH OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALICUT
Submitted By
A YANA.A.A
Reg.No: STAQAEG056 Enroll No: 1691968
School of Distance Education
UNIVERSITY OE
CALICUT 2016-2019
2. DECLARATION
I Ayana.A.A, Student of B.A English Course, hereby declare that this
project work entitled "HAMLET AS A TRAGEDY" is a bona fide work
carried out by me and that it has not formed the basis for the award of any
degree, diploma or other title in any other university.
PLACE: Thrissur AYANA.A.A
DATE: Reg.No:STAQAEG056
3. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I have immense pleasure in acknowledging my heart felt gratitude to Principal and the
teachers of Sakthan Thampuran College, Thrissur for their second advice and whole hearted
support. I thank the Almighty God for helping me to fulfill this project successfully. I also
entered my gratitude to the family for their encouragement and motivation.
Ayana.A.A
STAQAEG056
5. INTRODUCTION
There was no drama in England before the Norman conquest. The Latin Church had always
been scared of the massive appeal of the drama on the senses and considered it as 0i direct
challenge to its spiritual authority. Since the pagan drama of Rome had become decadent, the
mass in Latin Christianity was in a way a drama in religion with distinct religious
possibilities. Thus initially the drama rose from within the shadows of the church.
In the continent, the clergy requisitioned an elementary form of drama - a sort of tableau- in
the tent century. This then came to England from there along with the Romans. This was the
origin of both the miracle and morality plays. The former dealt with miraculous Incidents in
the Ives of Saints and martyrs. These morality plays are not to be confused with the mysteries
which were stories taken from the Scriptures. These plays were mostly shown through the
Church and the Clergy and were dramatic representations of the validity of religious.
The earliest miracle play was perhaps written by Hilarious, an Englishman. He wrote three
such plays in Latin with refrains in old French. It took another century before the plays were
written in Vernacular. By the second half of the twelfth century, these performances had
become popular as well as common place. The earlier plays were only performed in the
church and were based on its rituals. They were in fact even written by the clergy. Gradually
they moved out of the hands of the clergy into those of the laity, and from the precincts of
the church and into the streets. This led to the dilution of the religious element in the plays as
the Comic element began to dominate, leaving the clergy angry.
Outside the church these plays were performed on moving platforms called pageants. these
were mobile platforms and could be carried from one place to another. The council of Vinne
received the feast of Corpus Christi in 1311. this festival, held in June every year, was
observed by trade guilds as a public holiday. It was also absorbed into the dramatic
Representations of the day. Scenes of Christmas and Easter were expanded to form a
complete cycle which began from the cremation and ended with the fall of man. It thus
started with the birth of Christ, through the events of his life, and culminated with the day of
the judgement, your such cycles were mainly preserved. These were the York. Towneley
Chester and
6. Coventry cycle. The York cycle had tort}-eight plays to its credit. It functioned around the
middle of the fourteenth century and was the most prominent among the four. The Towneley
or wake field cycle also existed during the same period. Between them the) had thirl) two
plays which had a more realistic and comical depiction of life. The Chester cycle had twenty-
five palys and were enacted at Whitsuntide instead of Corpus Christi. This cycle stuck to the
sentiment of religious instruction. The Coventry cycle had forty-two plays. Their
relationships to the Coventry, however, was dubious as these plays were performed mostly by
a company of stray actors. These plays had abstract personifications and belong to a later
date.
These plays continued to be performed till the end of the sixteenth century. The relationship
between the miracle plays and those of Shakespeare is obvious. By the time Shakespeare
emerged on the scene, the pageant had already gained immense popularity for drama. It
furnished opportunities to adapt human nature into the scene depicted from the Scriptures. It
also brought in materials and characters from other countries, and thus paved way for the
plots which were beyond the range of the Scriptures. These plays also give Shakespeare
innumerable nameless generic characters, like first citizens, gentlemen and soldiers etc. The
pageants had added the comic to the serious and the pathetic of the religious Scriptures.
Lucifer thus figured prominently besides Abraham and Isaac in the story of Christ.
The morality plays exited between the miracle plays and true drama. The Coventry cycle first
introduced allegorical characters. The morality plays developed along these lines. The oldest
morality plays in England is perhaps the "Paternoster", which is a series of seven plays, with
each play highlighting one of the seven clauses of the Lord's prayers against one of the seven
deadly sins. The play was performed in York in the fourteenth century. The moralities did not
have the dramatic power or the interest of the miracle plays. The miracle plays had no need to
create a plot since they were only derived from the scriptures. The morality plays needed new
plots every time. There was an advancement in the unity of Construction. Some real
characters, though under moral nicknames, were also introduced in a i attempt to
individualize allegorical characters. The morality plays were thus forerunners to tine drama
since the)' had form as well as substance. The miracle plays had little literal)' value. Their real
worth lay in popularizing drama by intermixing the comic with the tragic. Thus paving way
for the romantic plays of Shakespeare. The morality plays first appeared in the fifteenth
century. They were didactic, and advanced dramatic art by making characters and dialogues
appear as real.
7. After the morality plays came the "interlude". It dealt with "secular and comic subjects I and
were forerunners to the comedies. These were acted by the household servants and retainers,
and the wealthy and the noble habitually hired professional actors for their household chorus.
The masque had its origin merely as a spectacle or a pageant with a certain element of panto
mine. Dancing and concerted movements made it appear like the modern ballet, where as
songs and dialogue made it appear like a modern opera.
English drama was primarily influenced the native tradition, the Latin and the Italian drama.
These three elements are found in almost every Elizabethan play. The mystery, miracle,
morality and the inter lude represent the development of native tradition. From the last two
developed the rough farce and chronicle play. The historical plays of the Elizabethan era with
their jesters and fools owe much to these as well. Seneca was accepted as the model for
tragedy and Plautus and Terence supplied the hinterland suggestions for comedy. The Italian
influence is evident in tragedies like Gascoigne's Jacosta and Wheatstone's Promos and
Cassandra.
The first regular English comedy, "Ralph Roister Doister'" was written by Nicholas I Mall, lie
followed the Latin model, divided his play into acts and scenes, and wrote in rhyming
couplets. The play had a clearly developed action, lively dialogue, a substantial plot and live
characters. The first English tragedy was written in 1562 by Sackville and Norton and was
called Gorboduc. The play was divided in acts and scenes, and was written stiff blank verse.
Each act Was preceded by a dumb show which suggested what was to follow. The act ended
in a chorus in rhyming verse. The Latin models were followed in both comedy as well as
tragedy. The comedy had its role model in Plautus; the tragedy in Sencea. Subsequently,
however, classical influences were to gradually wane and be gradually replaced by native
ingenuity and customs.
After this era, the English drama developed through the works of the university wits, who
were scholars fostered under the atmosphere of Cambridge and Oxford universities. The main
among them was George peele who wrote "Daid and Bathshcba" and the " Arraignment of
Pario". Robert Greene wrote plays and pamphlets, his best play being "Friar Bacon and friar
Bungay'', his main fame came Shakespeare in his pamphlet the "Groatsworth of Wit", thomas
Lodge wrote in different plays with the sole exception of "the Looking Glass of London", in
collaboration with Greene. Shakespeare borrowed for his "As You Like It'Trom lodge's novel
Rosalynde. John Lyly did nothing much of repute as a dramatist. He invented
8. euphism. which inllucnccd Shakespeare considerably. Bastard euphism was ridiculed by
Shakespeare in '" Love's Labour's Lost". He depicted genuine euphism. however, in "Much
Do About Nothing". Thomas Kyd. loo. wrote along with the university wits, though there is
no surely that be belonged to any particular university. His main work was the exquisite play
"Hieronymo" and its sequel "The Spanish Tragedy". The best among the university wits was
undoubtedly. Christopher Marlowe, of Cambridge University. His Chief plays were "The Jew
of Malta". ""Doctor 1'austus", "Tamburline" and "Edward II". he influenced Shakespeare the
most. His greatest achievement was to discover and make life-like blank verse, which
Shakespeare later perfected. His problem was that he singularity lacked and humour anc
artistic proportion. This made him appear bombastic. Vet his work did have force and poetic
beauty in fair measure, which, however,could never come anywhere close to what
Shakespeare managed.
Shakespeare did not belong to the group of university wits,but to the rival set of playwrights.
We know little of actor-playwrights prior to Shakespeare, since they worked in groups and
not as individuals. Their drama lacked poetry, and they let characters and the piot develop
one another, acting and reacting on each part as a living whole, instead of utilizing the plot as
a peg on which to hang splendid speeches, or as a background to throw into disrepute the
hero's all-consuming egotism as depicted by Marlowe.
Four of his contemporaries were connected with Shakespeare either by personality or by the
quality of their work. They were Ben Jonson, Chapman, Marston and Dekker. Jonson became
famous with his work "Everyman in his Humour", he wrote many plays, prominent among
them being "Sejanus" and "Catiline". H e had an acute observation of foibles and follies of
human beings and his plays exhibited a variety of wit, subtle character analysis and worldly
knowledge. Jonson did not have the sympathy and kindness of heart to make him a real good
dramatist. His Characters are not endearing as are of Shakespeare. Chapman was a close
friend of Johnson and shared in his beliefs and literary skill to a large extent. He wrote a fine
comedy "All Fools" and an equally fine tragedy "Busyd Ambois", though he did not quite
manage the excellence of Johnson, leave alone of Shakespeare John Marston wrote several
plays, the best being one of his earlier plays "Anlonia and Mellida". He also wrote a
reasonable comedy "What You Will" , which was based on an importable and unpleasant
plot. Thomas Dekker was more of a hack writer, who did large amount of dramatic work in
collaboration with other writers. He was closer to Shakespeare than the other three, primarily
in depicting pathos and in the delineation of woman.
9. [he performance of the gospel stories within the church was the beginning of the Ihe.iiir in
England. As interest grew in the plays, the performance was shifted to the Churchyard. Due
to the large number of spectators, this resulted in the desecration of the graveyards. The stage
had to be shifted thus into the green or any other open space in the outskirts of the town,
particularly to the inn-yard. At the beginning of the Elizabethan era the public thus witnessed
plays performed on the stage erected either in the open air or in some yard. In the year 1576
three theaters were set up in London. The servants of the Earl o Leicester built their theatre at
Blackfriars, while "The Theatre" and "The Curtain" were erected in Shoreditch fields.
The theaters mentioned above were largely open air. with only the stage and a portion of the
gallery being covered. The stage had a bare room whose walls were covered with tapestry.
The theatre was a rectangular platform with a thatched roof and hangings above. It had no
side or front curtains. It projected far into the yard which was occupied by the lower classes
who watched the performance while standing. They were known as "the groundlings Of the
pit". The nobility sal either in the boxes on each side of the stage or on the rough stiewn
stage. The back of the stage had two wings. Each wing had a door opening obliquely on to
the stage. The recess between the two doors formed the inner stage. Lastly there was a
balcony or gallery behind the inner stage, and above the actors, "tiring house", scenes of the
inner chamber were performed on the inner stage. The gallery served a number of purposes.
On it, those actors who were supposed to speak from upper windows, towers, mountain sides,
oi any elevated place, took their stand.
A flag was unfurled on the roof of a theatre when a performance was about to be given. A
flourish of trumpets was the signal that the play was about to commence. When the tilimpets
had sounded a third time, a figure clothed in a long black robe came forward and iceiied the
prologue. The curtain in front of the stage then divided and the play began. The actors acted
their parts in masks and wings; and the female characters were always filled by hoys or
smooth-faced young men We have reason to doubt whether the female parts Were adequately
rendered by boys; ai any rate. Shakespeare thought they were not, for he made Cleopatra
regret at the moment of her death that "some squeaking Cleopatra" would "boy" her
greatness. The performance of a tragedy was signalized by draping the stage with black. 1 or
a comedy blue hangings were substituted. There was no movable scenery. Sometimes a
change of scene was represented by the introduction of some suggestive articles of stage
furniture. Thus, for example, a bough oi' a tree was brought on to represent a forest, a
10. I cardboard imitation of a rock served for a mountainous place, or for the pebbly beach of the
seashore. But the most common way of indicating a change of scene was by hanging out a
board bearing in large letters the name of the place of action.
Indeed, the Elizabethan audience had no experience of elaborate "realism" on the stage. The
rude stages on which the earliest dramas had been played compelled an idea treatment of
space and symbolic trust of properties. The audience eked out the imperfection of the stage
with their thoughts. Women were not allowed to act by low, and their parts had to be taken by
boys with broken voices. This resulted in poor depiction of the women character on stage.
This was why the dramatists preferred so few feminine characters. Julius Caesar had only
Calphurnia and Portia. The ban also accounted for the large of plays where a woman
disguised herself as a pageboy. This not only made it easier for the producer but also added
intrigue into a play.
Plays were not acted in period costume, though some bizarre attempts were made to suggests
a period. Although there was no scenery, managers spread no expense on the most lavish
costumes. A flag displayed from the turret suggested that the theatre was open. The beginning
of a play was heralded by the sounds of a trumpet. It is not difficult to visualize how hard it
must have been for Shakespeare to write for such a theatre. Despite the handicap, itis
remarkable that he was so expressive and managed to say so much.
11. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Shakespeare, we know was born in April 1564. at Stratford - on-Avon in the country
of Wiuwiek. His mother Man Arden descended from nobility and his father John was a.
prosperous businessman of the village. John and Mary had eight children - four sons and four
daughters. William the third child and first son christened on 26lh April 1564. The only
member of this group to survive the poet was his younger sister. Joan.
Shakespeare's father, it has been conjectured, had a zeal for public affairs and due to
this zeal, neglected his own business. Due to a combination of political and business reasons,
his father lost much of bis wealth and was in all probability a man of very modest means.
Shakespeare married Ann Hathaway, the daughter of Ann old family friend, in November
1582. the first child of the marriage. Susannah, was born in May 1583. in February 1585
Shakespeare and Ann had twins, Hamnet ant Judith. Some historians say that Shakespeare
was an ignorant youth and was driven from his careless rustic existence to a very different
career in London. The same historians tell us that Shakespeare began by rewriting the plays
of others, among them those of Robert Greene. This transformation from a iiislic of Stratford
to a literary figure of London has been left unexplained and looks and highly improbable on
its face value. Why the works of a'writer like Greene who boasted of a degree from both
university's should have been turned over to an illiterate new-comer, is hardly
comprehensible.
There are others to indicate a different and more natural course of events. Those who
accept Hccston's version that Shakespeare was a school master wood find it easier to
understand his progress us a dramatist. Shakespeare probably arrived in London in 1584,
tough no certain date can be given of his arrival; but by 1594 he had to his credit the quantum
of work. Which could only have been possible through a considerable number of years. There
is evidence that he was, for a time, at least a member of lord Pembroke's company. The first
reference to Shakespeare is found in the words of Robert Greene who, frustrated with his on
failure to make living, lashed out at his employee and perhaps prodigee, the young William
Shakespeare, challenging his ability as a young actor as well as an actor-dramatist whose
success had made it more difficult for Greene to earn his living. Shakespeare was already
highly thought of and this was strengthened by this publication of Venus and Adonis in
12. I593and Rape of l.ucercc in 1594. Venus and Adonis, though his first work, was published
after his reputation and success had been established with considerable proof that
Shakespeare started his career as dramatist a few years earlier than 1590.
Home critics also believe that Shakespeare wrote his earlier plays like Titus
Adronicus in loll.iK'i.iiioi). and that the first play entirely to have been written by him was
Love's Labour's Lost. It to remarkable that the earliest and the latest plays . this and the
tempest, are apparently the most OMJMII.II in plot, ll is in Love's Labour's Lost that
Shakespeare displayed his penchant for drama. 1 he (Wo gentlemen of Verona and the
comedy of errors represent no noteworthy advance in dramatic power I his is Shakespeare's
period of apprenticeship. Once this period is past the crudities and i iloggcrcl disappear,
rhyme is replaced by blank verse and the characters themselves not only live an< move hut
develop, and the plot and characters grow with each other before our very eyes. This
advancement is marked in Romeo and Juliet, his earlier tragedy and in the Merchant of
Venice. It is n this place that he mastered his craft, and at no stage does he permit his poetic
and lyrical faculty to dominate his drama.
After this phase, Shakespeare turns his attention to English history deriving his
material mainh from I lolinshed's Chronicles. His treatment, though of his sources is unique.
He lakes his subjects ii llioiiil older, begining with the weakest and worst kings, and ending
with his ideal of kingship ir Henr the lil'th. which was written in 1599. Before he turned to
Roman history, after abandoning the tinjJItNh. Shakespeare gave three master pieces in
comedy. Much Ado About Nothing, As You Like It. HIHI twelfth Night. This is Shakespeare
at his playful best, holidaying in the forest of Arden and tlicvvheie, painting a lighter,brighter
canvas with his words and imagery, turning nature as his ally.
Willi Julios Caesar in 1601, followed by Antony and Cleopatra and Coriolanus,
Shakespeare turned lo Roman history, borrowing his sources from Plutarch. From 1602 is the
period of the great tinged ii'v Hamlet, Othello, Lear and Macbeth and the dark comedies,
Measure for Measure and iTfOtlus and ( 'rcssida. The tragedies are undoubtedly
Shakespeare's greatest plays. Hamlet excels in the I intellectual characters of the hero and the
modern nature of the problems which make the play tragic. |!*Of the small group of last
players , Pericles. Cymbeline. The Winter's Tale, The Tempest, the name romances" has been
suggested. These plays have scenes of pardon and reconciliation. Whether these iii pntt
13. explain the poet's approaching retirement to Stralford or not. the Calmer and Serener outlook
to life i. very much an extension of the Shakespeare magic.
It is icmarkable that though for the most part Shakespeare threw the restrictions of the
"unities" of lime .mil place to the winds, as incompatible with his conception of the drama, he
did adhere to it in Oii- 11 itipest, as if to show us what he could do in the kind. The action
takes place in the one day, and nil IMH iln- first scene are within the narrow limits of an
island.
I i widely accepted thai Shakespeare's supreme gift is his universality. He was not an
age but »<u .il| limes, because his characters are true to the eternal aspects of human life and
not limited to any contemporary society. The view that Shakespeare was too great to be
identified with his own characters is devided by Dowden. with picturesque licence in to four
parts;"In the Workshop", "In the World". "Out of Depths" and "On the Heights", the lour
stages to loosely depict Shakespeare's) dramatic progress as much as they depict the natural
course of a pilgrims progress. That Shakespeare himself emerged from darkness to attain that
bright, solemn vision is neither a surety or necessity. A genius does not require such
classification and his most primitive work is still a creative masterpiece in its own right, the
work shaped by a distinct aspect of life. He stood aloof as he shaped his creative work,
devoid of the artistic selfishness of Goethe, with serenity and humanism, understanding all,
sympathizing with all, but always in control, always master of everything he did. Coleridge
was wrong] when he labeled Hamlet as the perplexed and brooding Shakespeare and
Prospero as the calm and royal Shakespeare. Shakespeare was too myriad in his sensibilities
to be limited to anyone of his characters. Yet Coleridge could be forgiven. He simply was the
victim of the creative genius of a man who brought his characters alive with burning intensity
in every play which a lesser man could only have portrayed if he had suffered or enjoyed the
circumstances of his characters.
A man torn by the problems of evil, the injustice of the universal laws, the betrayal of
innocence, the triumphs of the wicked, may write burning verse, the lyrics of a Shelley, the
epic satire) of a Byron, but the Shakespearean tragedies could not be written by a suffering or
saddened spirit. They are too royally designed, too masterfully controlled, guided, rounded
and finished, to even romotely label their author as sad or melancholic. Shakespeare saw and
understood too much, could pierce the heart with to many passions, could realize the actual
14. play of life, without falling in bondage to any power. Yet there is no moral philosophy,
conduct of life that he has not touched upon, no mystery that he has not probed. He excelled
in the perfect naturalness of the dialogue. In all his impassioned dialogue, each reply is a
mere rebound to the previous speech. Every natural interruption, lack of restraint due to
tempestuous passion hasty interrogative, ardent reiteration to evade a question, scornful
repetition of the hostility are as alive in Shakespeare's dialogue as in life itself. The subject on
Shakespeare is an endless one and will be touched under different headings in the chapters to
follow, fhc chapter is merely been an attempt to classify Shakespeare's work, if such a think
is possible tosuch an emancipated soul
King Hamlet, the king of Denmark, dies leaving in his wife Gertrude a widow. He
also leaves a son. Hamlet, Theking's death is caused by Claudius, the prince's uncle. He
poured poison in to the ears of the king while he was sleeping in the garden one afternoon.
Gertrude marries Claudius barely two months after her husband's death. Claudius also
manages to become the king of Denmark. The marriage has distinct quality of insensitivity.
Claudius is the complete antithesis of the magnificent king. Prince Hamlet , the heir-apparent
to the throne of Denmark, was studying at the university of
Wittenberg, at the time of the king's death. He idolized his father and is completely distraught
when he is summoned home on the death of his father. He has an acute sense of humour and
is profoundly hurt at the undignified haste with which his mother married Claudius, totally
devoid of any grief for her departed husband. The prince loses her happiness, and is
surrounded with sorrow. He is no so much worried about being deprived of his legal right to
the throne. What galls him is that his mother has treated his fathers memory with so much
disrespect. He wonders as to how any woman could behave like that towards a loving gentle
and upright husband. Gertrude and Claudius try in vain to divert the prince's sorrow. The
prince appears in the court in his black suit of mourning, despite the perioc mourning having
long expired.
The prince is extremely troubled about the peculiar circumstances under which his
father died. He suspects that his uncle has murdered the king, to usurp the crown. His
mother's role in helping his uncle to murdered his father also haunts him continually. Amidst
all this turmoil, Hamlet is informed that a apparition resembling the dead king is seen by the
soldiers standing watch at midnight. They had seen this apparition on two or three
15. consecutive nights. The apparition was also seen by Horatio, Hamlets bosom friend. One
night Hamlet also stands watch Horatio and Marccllus, one of the gourds, upon the platform
where the apparition was seen.the prince is such surprised to find the ghost of his father
appear before him. The ghost solemnly exhorts him to avenge his death. The ghost is sad that
Gertrude should so fall from grace and prove false towards their marital love. The ghost,
however, cautions Hamlet to be kind to his mother and leave her to the pangs of her guilt.
Hamlet swears to the ghost that he would avenge his father's death, specially when the ghost
fells him that Claudius had put poison in his ear. This news takes Hamlet to the fingers of
insanity. He decides to use his dishevelled mind and feign madness in order to avoid any
suspicion. He adorns a wild and bizarre set of clothes. His speech and his behaviour is also
equally bizarre. The king and the queen are totally deceived. Unable to find the reason for his
wierd conduct, they think that his malady is due to love.
Hamlet had been clearly in love with Ophelia, the daughter of Polonius, the kings
chief counsellor in the affairs of the state. But his sorrow is all-consuming that he neglects
her and in fact is rude and unkind towards her. The king and gentle Ophelia blamer his
insanity for his rudeness towards her. Despite being consumed with the passion of avenging
his father's death, Hamlet still has a soft corner for Ophelia in his heart. He realizes that he
has been extremely harsh to her and writes a passionate letter to her to undo his rude
treatment. The letter still has the unmistakable strain of insanity which matches his assumed
behaviour. Ophelia, being the dutiful daughter, shows this letter to her father . who in turn
conveys its contents to the king and queen. It is from this letter that they presume that his
insanity is the insanity ol love.
Hamlets insanity, however. Lies in his father's death. Ever) hour that he lives appears
to him as a sin and violation of his father's orders. He is unable to achieve much due to the
constant presence i ill the guards and the queen. The thought of killing another human being
is also very hateful to his gentle disposition. He also not sure whether the apparition that he
has seen is really evil spirit. He decides to wait till he is certain of his motives.
While Hamlet is still resolving his mind, certain players come to the court. Hamlet is
impressed when one of them makes a tragic speech describing the death of old Priam, king of
Troy, due to the grief of I Iecuba his queen.he decides to use the players of surface the guilt
of his mother and his uncle. He invites the king and the queen to a play where a dule by the
name Gonzago is murdered in Vienna. His wife's name is Baptista. The play shows how
16. Lucianus, a close relative of the duke, poisons him in lite garden of his estate and later wins
the love of his wife. Hamlet closely watches the faces of his mother and the king. Claudius is
so profoundly guilt-stricken, when the scene is enacted, that the play. He leaves abruptly,
pretending sickness. Hamlet is convinced that the ghost himself was his father and that (
laudius had in fact murdered him. He swears to his friend Horatio that would seek revenge.
Just then he is called by his mother for a conversation is her private chamber. The queen
makes a vain iiltcinpt lo convince Hamlet about her remarriage. She even calls Claudius has
Hamlet's father, which linger, him considerably. The price catches her mother by her wrist
and harshly makes her sit down. Afiaid (hat his insanity may turn violent, the queen cries out
for help. Just then a voice too shouts from behind the curtains for queen's help. Hamlet draws
out his sword and stabs in the direction from where llic voice came, and kills the man, whom
he presumes must be the king. When Hamlet pulls out of the body from behind the curtains,
he realises that he killed Polonius. The queen is horrified and rebukes hot son at his bloody
deed. The prince, instead reminds her of the wickedness of her own crime. He lolls hei thai
after her crime all woman would be suspected of hypocrisy and lack of virtue. He tells her
Ihul she had made mockery out of religion. Just then the ghost of his father reappears. The
ghost tells Hamlet that he has to come to remind him of his promised revenge. The ghost then
requests Hamlet Bpoak to his mother or she Would die due to grief and terror. The queen
does not see the ghost and she b vei seared on seeing Hamlet talking to thin air. She thinks
that it is his mental disorder that makes him behave in such a peculiar manner. As soon as the
ghost disappears Hamlet requests the queen not to think thai is his mental disorder that makes
him behave like this. He tells her that it is her sins which have brought his father's spirit back
to this each. He tells her to confess her sins and no more be a wife to ln>, uncle. The queen
argrees to do this as the converse come to an end. Hamlet is left behind in tears at having
killed Ophelia's father.
Polonius' death gives the king an opportunity to dispatch Hamlet away from his
kingdom. He (headed lo execute Hamlet, since he was adored by his mother and by the
public. The king pretends
that it has become necessary to semi Hamlet away from Denmark to save him from the
charge of murder. He arranges Hamlet to be put on a ship bound for England, lie sends a
letter through his two Countries escorting Hamlet, for the English court, with a request that
Hamlet be put to death as soon as he lands on English soil. 1 lamlet manages to get hold of
the letter and replaces his name with courtiers. On its way the ship is attacked b pirates, the
17. brave Hamlet attacks the enem ship single - handedly. finding Hamlet away from the ship his
courtiers and his crew run away, leaving him to his own fate. The moment the ship arrives at
England, the courtiers are executed as per the content of the letter.
When the pirates find out that the person who attacked them is the prince of Denmark, they
decide to be kind to him. They set Hamlet free on the nearest shore of Denmark. From the
shore Hamlet writes a letter to the king, telling him about the strange coincidence, that he has
returned to Denmark, and that he would present himself before the king the next day. When
Hamlet returns home he is confronted by the funeral of Ophelia, whom he loved dearly. The
violent death of her father at the hands of the prince she adored completely shattered her. In
her insanity she went about giving flowers 10 the ladies of the court, saying that they were
meant for her father's burial, and singing songs of love and deaths. One day she came upon a
small brook clambering up to hang a garland upon the branches ol the tree, she fell into the
brook and drowned.
Hamlet find Laertes. Ophelia's brother, performing her funeral rites, with the king and the
queen, and the whole court in attendance. The distraught queen laments that she had wanted
to bedeck Ophelia with bridal flowers and not funeral flowers, as she was forced to do.
Hamlet leaps into Ophelia's grave, completely overcome with grief and requests those present
to drown him with mud so that he might be buried with her. Laertes , also leaps into the
grave, catches Hamlet by the throat and tries to cheek him, but is separated by the attendants.
Hamlet says that he is sorry for his impudent act but he cannot see that anyone should surpass
his sorrow for Ophelia's death. This pacifies Laertes for the time being.
The wicked king sees this opportunity to plan Hamlet's destruction. He tells Laertes to
Challenge Hamlet to a friendly bout of fencing, which Hamlet accepts. A day is set for the
match to be undertaken in the presence of the whole court. The king tells Laertes to poison
his weapon, against all rules of fencing. Laertes lets I lamlet gain advantage at the beginning
of the bout. The wicked king praises Hamlet and extols his virtues and wagers a bet on his
victory. When Hamlet's defence's are I.H kened, Laertes makes a fatal thrust at Hamlet's
body. He then asks the innocent Hamlet to ex< hani'.e his weapon with him in order to shift
the blame from himself Laertes, however, also gets a l.ital blow from that sword. Just then the
queen Shrieks that she has been poisoned. She accidently ill inks out of a bowl full of poison
prepared by the king for Hamlet in case Laertes were to fail. The
18. queen dies, and Hamlet suspecting treachery orders the doors of the chamber lo be locked. As
Laertes pants for his life he confesses of Ins own treachery, and tells Hamlet to pardon him
and accuses the king for being the main culprit in the whole episode. With his own end
perilously close I Hamlet turns towards the king and trusts the poisonous sword into his heart,
thus fulfilling the promise he had made to his father. Hamlet turns to his bosom friend
Horatio, who too wants to kill himself. Hamlet requests him to live so that he can tell his
story to the world. Horatio and the courtiers, with tear - filled eyes. Command the spirit of
Hamlet to the guardianship of angels, for he would have been an exceptional King had he
lived
The idea of tragedy as a dramatic art or attitude to life came from the ancient to the
modern world, or it may be more relevant to say. from pagan Greece to Christian Europe
along with the renaissance. In England the tragic art was transmitted largely through Seneca.
He had boastfully misunderstood the spirit of Greek tragedies, and presented them with
excessive exaggeration of the terrible and the rhetorical. Thus the first efforts in writing
tragedies in English lacked the essence of tragedy. Marlowe had some feeling for the tragic
rhythm of life, but his dramas lacked pattern and vision of tragic experience. It was left to
Shakespeare to bring to tragedies a distinct attitude towards.
There were also other sources which, on academic level, encouraged the practice of
writing tragedies. They were mainly Aristotle's ''poetics'1 and commentaries on it by
Misturno. Scaligcr. Castelvetro, sydney, and others. These critics treated Aristotle's work
primarily as a study of the technique of tragedy and extracted of it a social morality that
suited their taste and environment. They failed to understand Aristotle's religious and
philosophical background and thus could not see the basic assumptions implicit in the text on
which he based his analytical study of Greek tragedy. The (iteeks were highly civilized and
could see with the ease the unifying simplicity in the baffling variety ol hitman emotions and
sufferings in relation to an established set of principles. They could present in theii diainas all
the terrors of living and their clear vision of life and world order helped them to put things in
their proper place.
I heir world order was basically religious. It was not a narrow religion, but one which
provided not only a broad base but also spiritual adequacy and moral sufficiency to a
civilized race of men. It w,r. ir religion very fleetingly concerned with sin and one which
treated sex as a normal human (Unction. It had its concept of "aides'" or punishment and
19. "hamarta" or purification thrust on them by I.iti <>i their own destiny beyond the Gods. They
had an abundance of tolerance towards gods of other i< ligjnus. This made them healthy and
profoundly spiritual. Within such a framework there was n.uiioillv a greater scope for
independent human action and suffering and also for a more willing scene «'t reverence. The
Greeks were not optimistic of their world but through the freedom to perform the
D>' i >•• • •> I ilu' thought I hex could hope to falter their wax to the Appolonian grace by
wax to sell
riMii.'.i
I'm iIK 'at ion or expiation is the one who which brings the full realization of the tragic
destiny of mm iiMliviilu.il lile as well as that of life viewed as a whole. It also indicates the
Gods who allowec ftji* lt» take its own course and merely watched as spectators. Aristotle
understood this concept anc v*e of tragedy, and it he laid so much emphasis on the Catharis
of pity and fear, it was because he _JHcd.ll.K- spectators to rise above pity and fear, to be
able to see this grand design in the tragic drama jflifc
I he main concern of tragedy is with truth and the pleasure it gives is the pleasure of
knowledge, fgliito had used the word Catharsis to mean purification or sublimation.
Accepting the meaning, Histotle seems to confirm that tragedy, first by arousing pity and
fear, ultimately sublimates and raises |m* spectator to a state of understanding. Pity and fear,
in that nakedness disort our vision of truth. :Tni}'ed takes us through various rational
responses culminating in intellectual purification. Plato's Mpoucli to tragedy was emotional:
Aristotle sought an intellectual response to tragedy and that H»l>tnie applied consistently to
Shakespeare.
Greek tragedy was myth, ritual and drama all in one. Their view of tragedy was not all
fScoinpassingly tragic and gloomy, mainly because their dramas justified the ways of the
gods not in ft* c,hie.il sense, but in terms of comic law and order that their gods stood for
Shakespeare felt the mk'd I'M questioning their beliefs of God as a comic, divine power,
because he found the existing |||MM mine definitely theological than mysteriously comic. He,
however did gradually see a design in Ijk* Millcring of the world. And the law of justifying
it. This design he brought out in his tragedies, pfinkespeaie was always concerned with
justice. It varied with his characters, and situations though IjHcie was a distinct moral
purpose in his kind of justice. His justice was sometimes poetic, sometimes ifb)tic, sometimes
20. wild, but it always gave an impression of being just sufficient to serve his tragic tfliisc of
arousing pity and fear in the audience and finally bringing about both sublimation and
HCuiesis. Shakespeare established a moral order, as his suffering characters grew in stature
and Iteqiuied wisdom. Shakespeare's tragic vision was thus almost similar to that of Aristotle.
His ■llpi'io.u i; ui tragedy was intellectual and not physical as that of Plato and catharsis to
him was the Simulation of the intellectual response to the tragedy.
Samuel Johnson once said that Shakespeare's plays are not "in the rigorous sense either teij'o.
lie, or comedies, but composition of a distinct kind." His plays expresses the course of the
world Bieie the malignity of one is sometimes defeated by the frolic of another. Shakespeare
united the fi|wei-. o| exciting laughter and sorrow and all his plays are divided between the
ludicrous and serious
I>i<iii .i.in .u i llicv thought thcv could hope lo Taller their way to the Appolonian grace by
wax lo sell
H-itll/,llli«li
Purification or expiation is the one who which brings the full realization of the tragic deslim
of 0*g liutiv ulu.il tile as well as that of life viewed as a whole. It also indicates the (jods who
aliovvec ihhi)^ to take ils own course and merely watched as spectators. Aristotle understood
this concept anc jHtipoM' of tragedy, and it he laid so much emphasis on the Calharis of pity
and fear, it was because he Wanted the spectators to rise above pity and fear, to be able lo see
this grand design in the tragic drama Of life.
The main concern of tragedy is with truth and the pleasure it gives is the pleasure of
knowledge. Plato had used the word Catharsis to mean purification or sublimation. Accepting
the meaning, Aristotle seems lo confirm that tragedy, first by arousing pity and fear,
ultimately sublimates and raises the spectator to a state of understanding. Pity and fear, in that
nakedness disort our vision of truth. (Vtigedy takes us through various rational responses
culminating in intellectual purification. Plato's Approach to tragedy was emotional. Aristotle
sought an intellectual response to tragedy and that Espouse applied consistently to
Shakespeare.
21. (ireek tragedy was myth, ritual and drama all in one. Their view of tragedy was not all cm
otupassingly tragic and gloomy, mainly because their dramas justified the ways of the gods
not in the ethical sense, but in terms of comic law and order that their gods stood for
Shakespeare felt the need for questioning their beliefs of God as a comic, divine power,
because he found the existing VVOihl more definitely theological than mysteriously comic.
He, however did gradually see a design in the suffering of the world. And the law of
justifying it. This design he brought out in his tragedies. Shakespeare was always concerned
with justice. It varied with his characters, and situations though there was a distinct moral
purpose in his kind of justice. His justice was sometimes poetic, sometimes tragic, sometimes
wild, but it always gave an impression of being just sufficient to serve his tragic Cause of
arousing pity and fear in the audience and finally bringing about both sublimation and iH-im-
MS. Shakespeare established a moral order, as his suffering characters grew in stature and
acquired wisdom. Shakespeare's tragic vision was thus almost similar to that of Aristotle. His
uppioaeh to tragedy was intellectual and not physical as that of Plato and catharsis to him was
the < ulmination of the intellectual response to the tragedy.
Samuel Johnson once said that Shakespeare's plays are not "in the rigorous sense either
tragedies or comedies, but composition of a distinct kind." His plays expresses the course of
the world wiuu- die malignity of one is sometimes defeated by the frolic of another.
Shakespeare united the powers of exciting laughter and sorrow and all his plays are divided
between the ludicrous and serious
characters, producing sometimes sorrow but on other times joy and laughter. Yet
Shakespearean plays jj I have been divided into comedies, histories and tragedies.
Shakespearean tragedy may, in the simplest | terms, be started as a story of exceptional
calamity and sorrow, leading mostly to the death of hero, in high estate. Thus it is
prominently the story of one person, the hero, or at most of two, the hero and the heroine, the
latter coming into prominence mainly in love tragedies like Romeo and Juliet.
Shakespearean tragedies, however, cannot be typified into any particular slot as has been
often stated of late. Each tragedy is a new beginning, a fresh, "raid on the inarticulate." for
although there is development there is no repetition. There are even marked differences of
manner, approach and intention in each of his tragedies. Thus Othello is a revelation of
character and its focus as on individual and domestic qualities. Lear is a universal allegory
and its dramatic technique is determined py the need to present certain human situations.
22. Macbeth defines a particular kind of evil that results lioin a lust for power. Antony and
Cleopatra brings out a conflict in our moral bearings, in sharp contrast to Macbeth where we
are never in any such doubt.
It is true that there are certain similarities. Tragedy, in simple terms, means that the
protagonist dies In Shakespearean tragedy too a hero of high standing dies in the end.
Throughout the play he opposes some conflicting force, either external and internal. The
tragic hero should be dominated by a " hamartia" ( a called tragic flaw, but really an excess of
some character or trait eg. "hubris" or pride). It r. this "hamartia" that leads to his downfall,
and because of his status, to the downfall of others. The ftelion in the tragedy must appear
real to the audience, so that its passion or emotion is heightened, and the conclusion of the
action thus brings release form the passion (catharsis).
tragedy, thus purities the mind by means of pity and terror, which purges the mind of these
emotions themselves and is termed as catharsis. Shakespeare , like Aristotle, believed that his
hero of a tragedy must never be common place and his faults not with standing, must never
be inherently bad. The hero must not be depicted in such a manner. That when he comes to
his fated end we are only be pleased and think there has been a good riddance. The disaster
should arouse feelings of pity and of teuui in the minds of the audience; terror because of the
terrible consequence of our weakness and the formidable authority, which prohibits even a
person of hero's standing to trespass against its decrees; pit) it In:- nobility and grandeur.
Since the hero is a man of exceptional intelligence and sensibilities, In-, ail lei ings due to his
tragic flow and due to the forces of nature that are thrust on him owing to the Irttj'K' Haw are
also more acute than what may be suffered by ordinary men.
The element of tragedy have often been split up into three aspects from the point of view o '
mdi idual action and solution. I he three aspects are:-
H) I he tragic individual must be the champion of a great purpose into which he devotes his
whole
existence.
23. (>) The tragic action must be such that in the story there must be threads which connects the
different characters with one another, although each of them must have some special purpose
in view.
C) 1 he tragic solution is usually held to be the triumph of the principles of the ethical
world.
Shakespeare tragedy, however, does not follow the above characteristics in their entirely. We
do not admit that his tragedy is the work of an arbitrary fate or chance since proceeds from
the activity of the hero. The hero has a fatal Haw despite his noble and honourable existence.
It is the combination pf pit) and Tear, as nemesis catches up with him.
Dow den has said that tragedy as conceived by Shakespeare is concerned with the ruin or the
restoration of (he soul and of the life of man. Its subject of good and evil in the world. In his
tragedies Oleic are certain problems which Shakespeare pronounces as insoluble. He does not
say anything about the origin of evil. nor. as he pursues the soul of man, through the
unending torture of inferno or through the spheres made happy and radiant by the perennial
presence of a benevolent god. According to Shakespeare, evil exists and it exists with an
emphasis. In the same way, pure love also exists. Shakespeare presents a man grouping from
among these myriad pulls and pushes of the moral world. He gives us no easy solution to our
problems through religion. If anything he conveys moral values bused on an inviolate thought
process. He also understands that despite his flaws man will ultimately!
The play Hamlet is written around one man, the hero of the play and all other characters are
suhoidinate to him. (iothe considered Hamlet as a born prince, a model of youth and a delight
of the woild, but without the strength of nerve which makes a person heroic. He is at home in
the intellectual World He reigns royally in that world by insight imagination and wit. He is an
heir-apparent to a throne. His lather dies in suspecious circumstances and his mother excludes
her son from his throne by m.ii i viug his uncle.
I lanilet is essentially a tragic figure. He is one of whom we expect the highest and be leaves
us piOtoughly dejected, because his failure is as complete as our expectations are profound.
We consider from .1 failure, not because the task laid upon him remains unfulfilled, appalling
and senseless cost. He |))Ould have been the hope of Denmark, he had used his magnificent
imagination properly and had the ••iiti.iiiou granted him the opportunity. Yet circumstances
24. ask him to do the impossible, not a feat impossible in itself, but something which is
impossible to him. All that is amiable and excellent in human nature-horror towards evil,
deep filial piety, gentleness, generosity- all these are in him in abundance. Yet he lacks the
one quality that circumstances want in to have. This paucity of decisive action makes Hamlet
a tragic hero, as well as the play a tragedy.he appears to be in constant meditation. And we
can feel the strain ourselves when he is called upon to act by every human and divine motive.
The grand object of his life flops miserably because he resolves continually and then does
nothing else. He is not scared of death; in fact he is recklessly careless about it. He, however
vacillates from one sensibility to thought to another and loses the power of action in his lack
of resolve.
There has been a lot of contemplation as regards to Hamlet's delay in avenging his father's
death. The root cause of Hamlet's inaction is not his melancholy. Hamlet, he could never do
any great decisive thing deliberately. He is aware of his own weakness and constantly tries to
reason himself out of it. The tragedy is that be does nothing beyond reason, since his
predominant emotion is thought and not action. He does not lack the force of will. What he
lacks is the force of self-ill. This makes his will strictly subjected to his reason and
conscience and is powerless when it comes in conflict with them. It is true that Hamlet kills
Polonius; that he kills Claudius; that he sends Rosen crantzand Guildenstern to their death;
that he grapples with Laertes at Ophelia's grave. But all this is impulsive action, done under
extreme pressure of momentary impulse of absolute necessity. Hamlet can act when he does
not reflect. When he does the dead is never done. His two main qualities are that of thinking
and feeling. What he lacks is the quality of willing. When emotions get the better of thinking,
his entire equilibrium is upset.
There is no doubt that Hamlet is perfectly sane, and that his madness is feigned solely as a
play to deceive others. Harassed from without and distracted from within, Hamlet has no
option but to conceal his thoughts from others. Some notable critics including Dover-Wilson
believed that Hamlet's disposition was labouring under mental infirmity. Yet the pounding
that his sensibilities take, repeatedly through out the play, would have put any sane man on
the fingers of insanity. To have it an) other way would appear heartless and Shakespeare's
tragic hero is an extremely sensitive and perceptive individual. This makes him grand and
when the calamity befalls on him the sole emotions in our minds is one of acute tragedy.
25. The hero predominantly displays one moral-thai will is fate. If will is abdicated, its inveitable
successor is chance. Had Hamlet acted, the king might have been the only victim. Since he
does not. there is holocaust, as Hamlet has his revenge at a horribly abnormal cost. But what
a revenge it is ! 'olonius dies due to a senselessly casual trust;Ophelia is deprived of sense and
life and a christian surial; Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are duped and send to death; the
queen is killed in her sin and
Laertes in his crime; Hamlet himself dies with blood upon his hands . and every one of them
send to doom: and all because Hamlet cannot kill the king in his prayer. Shakespeare in his
perfect worldly wisdom advocates an active apprehension of life, and he is deeply conscious
that the one-sided fostering of head and heart cripples the effective power of man. In hamlet
there is an immense gap between a sense of duty and its fulfillment, between willing and
doing, discernment and resolve and action. Hamlet's mind is trained in an unidimensional
manner, which cripples the active side of the nature. So obessed he is with his internal world
that he is some what af an alien to the outer world. Shakespeare shows us how our best
qualities are still not a moral value if we fail to cultivate the active powers. The play is moral:
it is thus simple that reality demands from us to live life actively if we are not to betray
existence. Hamlet betrays it through he is acutely aware of this principle, and the out come is
terribly catastrophic^'
j A Shakespearean tragedy is a story of exceptional calamity leading to the death ina man in
high estate. Yet it is clearly much more than this. No amount of sorrow falling upon a man,
descending from the clouds like lightning, could by itself provide the substance of its story.
These calamities do not simply happen, nor of are they god sent; they arise out of actions real
people. A number of humans coexist under certain circumstances. Their coexistence beget
certain actions and these in turn beget others, until the series of inter connected deeds led by
an inevitable sequence to a catastrophe. This catastrophe makes us regard its suffering as
something not only which is borne by the persons concerned, but also something which is
caused by them.
Yet all that has been said above may not be sufficient to suggest a Shakespearean or any
other tragedy. A similar catastrophe suffered by a villain,of course, would not be tragedy;
neither would a suffering of a drunkard, or a lunatic. The first would perhaps draw a deserved
applause from us, while the latter would be merely amusing, tragedy has must inspire a
feeling of awe, pity and terror. This is possible through an inherent flaw in the hero which
26. leads to his suffering, inevitable catastrophe and death. Handel as a play is about the suffering
of its here, the prince Hamlet of Denmark. He thus is a man of high estate just like King Lear,
Macbeth and Othello are in other Shakespearean tragedies. Having fulfilled the primary
requisite, let us see if he fulfil the remaining criteria as well. We know he dies in the end and
leaves behind a trial of dead bodies. Polonius, Ophelia, King Claudius , Queen Gertrude and
Laertes all die and Shakespeare is left with no option other than lo let Lortinbras invade
Denmark, with his Norwegian Army, so that the sullied blood of Denmark can be cleansed
with fresher blood from an unpolluted land.
As regards Hamlet's Haws much ink has been poured into paper b critics through centuries.
People have spoken about Hamlet's inability to seek revenge, his irresolute nature, his moral
idealism,
his mental suffering, the conflict in his mind and have repeatedly compared him first with
Laertes anc later with Fortinbras. There is no doubt that Hamlet has a brooding nature, and
his tendency to ■ mlellectualize life makes him incapable to action. I lis moral idealism, as is
e ident, when he spares the king in his prayer, also does not help his cause. The ghost may
have been real or may have been an auto suggestion on the part of Hamlet; the question is not
as regards the veracit) of the supernatural in the play, for that will be discussed elsewhere.
The fact remains that Hamlet remains unresolved about the ghost till Claudius" guilt is
established through the players somewhere in the middle of the play. Till then Hamlet does
not act at all and his senseless pretension of insanity is somewhat badly done for it exposes
him either to ridicule or reveals that he is merely pretending for some ulterior motive.
Hamlet's most serious flaw is perhaps against the genuinely loving and exquisitely beautifu
Ophelia. To reduce her virginity and chastity to be the source of begetting sinners cannot
easily be explained. It is unfortunate that Hamlet is so obsessed with his mother's incest that
he tends to see even the pristine Ophelia in the same light.
Swinburn
ne once wrote that Hamlet's inmost nature is not irresolute or hesitant. It is rather a
27. strong conflux of contending forces. Keeping this in mind and also the concept of tragedy we
can
Despite the flaws there is something endearing about Hamlet, and his irresolution is also part
of the same endearment. His profound love for his father warms the cockles of the heart. No
matter what Other critics may have said as regards his lack of resolve to kill his uncle, the
fact is that Hamlet is too good a human being to kill anyone. It is left to the insanity and last
breath surge from a dying Hamlet that results in the death of the king Claudius. Despite the
nunnery scene, where Hamlet ridicules and hurts Ophelia beyond compare, we remember the
doting, poetic Hamlet, who writes endearing love-ditiics to Ophelia. Neither can we forget
the heart rending grave scene, where Hamlet wishes to be buried along with his lady love. We
would thus conclude that the enormity of his father's death and his wn task of seeking
revenge saps the last drain of Hamlet's energy. Hamlet thus may not have been Only
pretending madness. His madness may have been real, at least to the extent up to which
unbridled HOI tow can take any sane man. Hamlet's resurrection from ignorance to
knowledge is also unmistakable in the play, though it may not be as remarkable of that of
Lear, since his flaw is intellectual and not cruelly physical like that of King Lear. Yet we can
say with reasonable truth that Hamlet too grows in wisdom. His transformation from a
bumbling novice to a man who can perceive tilings is pretty much evident. None of the
Shakespeare heroes renounce the world. Neither does I lamlet, for even while dying he is still
concerned about the welfare of the kingdom and about his own wordily reputation. The
central value of any Shakespearean tragedy is the achievement of gardener through the tragic
hero. Shakespeare manages that with considerable facility in HamlelJ
evolve a distinct picture of Hamlet's dilemma from among complex and confusing emotions
that the ■ play provides us. There is no denying the fact that Hamlet does not lake any
deliberate or direct action I against his uncle. Yet this inertia is not due lo inadequacy of will,
scepticism of the spirit and overwhelming propensity of nebulous intellectual refinement.
Goethe thinks that Hamlet's delay is due to halfheartedness. Victor Hugo suggests that
Hamlet is overcome with doubt. Both Goethe and Hugo aie wrong, for Hamlet neither shows
halfheartedness nor any doubt throughout the play except perhaps when he wants to establish
the authenticity of the ghost. The most important reason for Hamlet's delay has been given by
Bradley who thought that it was his moral idealism that prevented him from taking hurried
action. This is an improvement on the theory projected by Coleridge and Schlegel that hamlet
was hampered due to weakness of will. In Hamlet, what Shakespeare depicts, is a heightened
28. power to experience life. Hamlet's values are so rich and strong that he experiences all things
fully. Since he experiences them so profoundly, he is also more deeply hurt when calamity
falls upon him. It is a truth that all tragic heroes of Shakespeare are hypersensitive to
calamities and sorrows; yet Hamlet MII passes them all for neither King Lear, nor Macbeth,
nor Othello have his heightened sensibilities. I hr. hurt soon shifts from external and erodes
the conscience and the soul of the hero. Hamlet displays his torment by rebelling against
every entity that causes him pain; and it is not surprising that even Ophelia becomes his
victim.
I lamlet's tragedy begins when he learns about his mother's incest. It takes horrific
proportions when the ghost reveals about his mother's adultery and his father's murder.
Hamlet's tragedy is that his moral intellectual and aesthetic virtues prevent him from doing
anything effective. Hamlet is Unable to act till he ghost's revelation. By the time he evolves a
method to establish this as well as the king's guilt, we are already half way through the play.
After this the singular occasion that Hamlet gets lo avenge his father's death, destiny prevents
him from doing so. He finds the king kneeling in prayer find has no option but lo bring down
his raised sword harmlessly by his side instead of falling upon the king. I lamlet realizes that
if the king were to die now his soul would go to heaven; and Hamlet also understands that his
would not be complete if he does not plunge the king to eternal damnation.
It is not without purpose that Shakespeare makes Claudius see through Hamlet's feigned
madness. The wily king had to see through the pretence of innocent Hamlet if the play was to
become n.igie. We know that innocence is never fully equipped to enact a deceit. And
Hamlet's moral idealism, (ivhich prevents him from decisive action makes Hamlet an open
target to the King's viciousness. We wish that Shakespeare had not made Hamlet too virtuous
and morally idealistic. If he did want to ni.ike him this, then he should not have burdened him
with a revenge which was way beyond his Capacity. Despite the conflict we are grateful to
Shakespeare that he gave us a truly poignant and llpi ig.ht Character.
It was T.S Eliot who said that I lamlet. far from being Shakespeare's masterpiece is most
certainly an artistic failure. We know that I lamlet is the longest pla written by Shakespeare.
It is also the most complex. Eliot thought that Shakespeare could not establish an "objective
correlative" to Hamlet's sensibilities. Hamlet's emotions are vague and always in excess. His
first emotion of disgust may have been promoted by his mother's incest. Yet the disgust is far
in excess as compared to the Queens errors, because what she'felt may have been genuine
29. compassion. It is not surprising that Hamlet cannot fully comprehend the ferocity of his
emotions; it is also not surprising that they obstruct his actions and poison his life. Eliot
thought that Shakespeare failed because he was rewriting an ok play and remnants of the
crude original remined. There is no doubt that the play can be criticized on certain artistic
ground. The Hamlet of the Soliloquies is quite different from the one who crudely abuses
Ophelia, who wants to ensure not only death but also damnation to the king, and who is
Unrepentant at the death of Polonius. The play thus looks strange. There are also a large
number of things that are difficult to explain. For instance Shakespeare tells is at the
beginning of the play that Hamlet is eighteen years old, only to refute this in the grave-
digger's scene where we are told that Hamlet is thirty. Similarly Horatio seems to be at one
moment a stranger to Denmark, and at another reveals the causes of aimourments which no
other character in the play would have done with so much felicity. In addition, so many
events in the play appear like chance happening. The players arrive entirely by chance; it is a
chance that the king is praying on the sole opportunity that Hamlet gets of killiiu' him; it is a
chance that Polonius dies;it is also a chance that Hamlet meets the pirates which 'Jesuits in
his returning to Denmark. Chance in itself is not completely undesirable, for it is an inherent
part of existence; yet in a consummate artist like Shakespeare, such frequent use of chance
appear an insult.
In any case the play is primarily a focus on the personality of Hamlet which gives to the play
a diMinet unity.critics may have interpreted his characters diversely and even arrived at
conflicting decisions; yet there can be no doubt that Hamlet attracts our attention throught the
play.hamlet is ftttpwn in divers situations and with diverse characters and his mental
disposition towards each grips us With enoriiioii:. intensity. It is not fair to say that Hamlet
has been portrayed by Shakespeare in a vague find ineohnenl manner. It is true thai certain
contradictions cannot be explained. Despite this, it is clear t'hiit | (millet is a speculative,
reflective, irresolute and dithering man. who lacks the capacity to indulge Ui tiipid fiction.
Hamlet is a poetic summation of Shakespeare's art and imagination because he is a pfniuuiu!
embodiment of (he universal in the individual. Shakespeare attempted to get a great deal
*WK'tcd h one human being unequal to perform it. Hamlet is a queen mixture of intellectual
activity tmd physh.il inaction, lie vacillates because he is extremely sensitive. He
procrastinates because he think, to lb- point where thought is reduced to a malady. Hamlet
may call himself a rogue and a peasant slave and may dither or whether lo be or not to be.
30. still he does a lot=though the lot almost entirely Claudius, when he himself gasps for breath
at the end of the play.
There have been doubts regarding Hamlet's madness. Some critics have thought him to be
completely mad. while others gave thought him to be partially.Despite these contrasting
views, it is now certain and universally accepted that Hamlet's madness was feigned. This can
be comprehensively explained through the text, as can be explained why Hamlet should not
be considerec partially mad. His resolve to establish the truth about the relevance of Ghost
that his uncle has killec his father, his devising plan through the mock players, his duping
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern into a mortal trap in England, and many similar incidents
unquestioningly points towards the Hamlet's complete Sanity. The riddle of the Hamlet-
Ophelia relationship no more remains one it was understooc that Hamlet considers Ophelia as
the breeder of Sinners. The lustful promiscuity of Gertrude makes Hamlet think that Ophelia
and every other women for that matter is pathologically lustful. Lust, it is evident, can only
produce illegitimate children, who have no moral place in the social system. It was also
considered a sin during the puritan Elizebethanian era. Since sin could only breed sinners,
who would in turn be lustful, Hamlet thought of conception as wicked. To think that Hamlet
ceased to love Ophelia, when he thought she had deserted or betrayed him, is thus a massive
blunder.
The theme of the play is dear cut, since it leaves us in no doubt that it is about the avenging
about the father's murderer by the son.The vaccillation and the procastination. the dithering
and confusion do not take away the clarity of the theme which deals with filial pity, revenge
and love. Its dramatic action develops this theme through distinct action.
There are other factors that make the play great, such as Ophelia's pathos, the introduction of
the supernatural, the grim humour of the churchyard scene, and the contrast between the
character of Laertes and Fortinbras with that of the Hamlet and Hamlet's geigned madness as
compared to Ophelia's real madness. And though chance happenings are difficult to explain,
in an odd way, they add to theestablishment of retribution out of randomness. The play thus
unmistakably is a work of art"/
31. CONCLUSION
The main concern of tragedy is with the truth and the pleasure of it gives the pleasure
of knowledge. Plato has used the word Catharsis to mean purification or Sublimation, and
accepting his meaning. Aristotle seems to affirm his tragedy., first by arousing pity and fear,
ultimately sublimates them and raises the spectator to a state of understanding. Pity and fear
in that nakedness distorts our vision of truth. Tragedy takes us through various responses,
culminating in an intellectual purification. Plato's approach lo tragedy was emotional,
Aristotle sought an intellectual response to tragedy, and that response applied consistently to
Shakespeare.
Greek tragedy was myth, ritual and drama all in one. Their view of tragedy was not all
emcompassingly tragic and gloomy mainly because of their dramas justifiedthe ways of god
not in an ethical sense, but in the terms of a comic law and order that their god stood for.
Shakespeare left the need for questioning their beliefs of God as a cosmic, divine power
because he found the existing world and the law of tragedy in it. This design was what he
brought out in his tragedies. His main concer with the justice which varied in his characters
and situations and there is a distinct morl purpose in seeking justice.
There has been an attempt to think that there is something very typical about
Shakespeare's tragedies. Despite the characteristics that have been enumerated above,
Shakespearean tragedies cannot be typified into any particular slot. Each tragedy is a new
beginning, a fresh raid on inarticulate for although there is development there is not
repetition. There are even marked differences of manner, approach and intention in each of
his tragedy. Thus Othello is a revelation of character and its focus is on the individual and
domestic qualities. Lear on the other hand is the universal allegory, and its dramatic
technique is determined by need to present the certain human situations. Macbeth defines a
particular kind of evil that results from the lust for power. Hamlet is about irresolution and
begetting of sinners through conception.
32. WORK CITED
1) Bate, Jonathan and Rasmussen Erie :-
William Shakespeare : Complete Works, Hampshire, Mac Millan Publishers Ltd, 2007
2) Charney Maurice:-
All of Shakespeare, Columbia, Columbia University Press, 1993
3) Curry Walter Clyde :-
Shakespeare's Philosophical Patterns, Bayton Rouge, L.A. Lousiana State University
Press.1937
4) Eliot T.S :-
"Shakespeare and the Stoicism of Seneca", Selected Essays, London, Faber and Faber
Ltd. 1932
5) Hazlitt William :-
Characters of Shakespeare's plays, London, C.FI Reynell, 1817
6) Fluxley Aldous :-
"Shakespeare and Religion", Huxley and God: Essays, London, Harper Collins, 1992
7) Sewell Arthur :-
Character and Society in Shakespeare Oxford : Clarenden Press, 1951
8) Ptugst, Dr. Arthur :-
"Hamlet, the Indian", Frankfurter Zeitmii, September 15, 1906
9) Ramaswamy.S :-
"Hamlet A Vedantic View". Indian Journal of Shakespeare Studies. Vol. 1.1985
