Hamlet
Hamlet is arguably Shakespeare’s most philosophical and renowned play. Its exploration of the intricacies of the human condition has confirmed its position amongst the highest calibre of script writings. Although values and ideals fluctuate with time, the basic human need to answer the abstruse questions of life, death and morality has not. Audiences are able to respond to the messages within Hamlet and its diverse array of interpretations through its universal characters and themes situated beyond the realm of context. This essay will establish a unique stance on this landmark play through an evaluation of Hamlet’s struggle between revenge and morality, inherent in the text. In particular, it is the themes of revenge, lust and suicide that act as vessels into the very philosophical core of humanity, canonising Hamlet as a metaphysical play which connects with audiences from any socio-historical context.
Although Shakespeare’s Hamlet is recognised as part of the revenge tragedy genre, Hamlet’s situation between a rational upbringing and emotional burden of revenge gives rise to a radical variant prescribed with thought more so than action. The character foil of Hamlet, Laertes and Fortinbras as sons whom have lost their fathers, encourages contemporary audiences to contrast an instinctual need to avenge death undertaken through differing means. Whereas Laertes would “cut [Hamlet’s] throat i’ th’ church” (4.7.127) and Fortinbras “hath not failed to pester [Denmark] with message importing the surrender of those lands lost by his father” (1.2.22-24), Hamlet suffers the indulgences of the Renaissance mind in thought and meditation as “pigeon-livered and lacking gall to make oppression bitter” (2.2.554-555). The theatricality of Shakespeare’s self-coined insults would have stirred traditional theatre-goers into confronting the nature of Renaissance scepticism trough a rejection of the widely accepted participation in revenge. However, Shakespeare adds a significant
Although Shakespeare’s Hamlet is recognised as part of the revenge tragedy genre, Hamlet’s situation between a rational upbringing and emotional burden of revenge gives rise to a radical variant prescribed with thought more so than action. The character foil of Hamlet, Laertes and Fortinbras as sons whom have lost their fathers, encourages contemporary audiences to contrast an instinctual need to avenge death undertaken through differing means. Whereas Laertes would “cut [Hamlet’s] throat i’ th’ church” (4.7.127) and Fortinbras “hath not failed to pester [Denmark] with message importing the surrender of those lands lost by his father” (1.2.22-24), Hamlet suffers the indulgences of the Renaissance mind in thought and meditation as “pigeon-livered and lacking gall to make oppression bitter” (2.2.554-555). The theatricality of Shakespeare’s self-coined insults would have stirred traditional theatre-goers into confronting the nature of Renaissance scepticism trough a rejection of the widely accepted participation in revenge. However, Shakespeare adds a significant