Hamlet

This story is based on the theme of revenge in Hamlet – Prince of Denmark by William Shakespeare 30th January 1967

“… And we pray to you, Father, that you will accept our offering, and raise up our sister Jenny and our brother Connor, with his Son, in glory. Give them eternal rest, O Lord, and may perpetual light shine upon them forever.” As Father Peter began the funeral mass, a single tear rolled down Anthony’s cheek. How could they have been taken away from him so suddenly? The fire had been so unexpected, that even now, two weeks later, he was barely able to let go of his beloved wife and son.

During the mass, Anthony looked around the small crowd that had gathered to honour his loved ones. He had invited only close family and friends, so one man easily stood out. He sat at the far end of the back pew, his face showing no emotions. Anthony had no idea who he was, or why he was there.

After the ceremony, Anthony followed the stranger. He just had to know why he was there. As he started to catch up to him, Anthony yelled out, “Hey! Wait for a minute! I want to ask you something.” But he just kept walking, as if Anthony had not even spoken. He jogged to catch up and grabbed the man by the shoulder.

“Hey! What’s the hurry; can’t I just ask you a question?”

“Okay.” He muttered, with a thick German accent. “What is it that you want to know?”

Anthony led him into the pub just down the street so that they could talk. They sat at a corner table, and the stranger spoke. “I am Stanley Geist. I was walking past your house on the 16th January at exactly ten twenty-three p.m., and, I saw everything.” After Anthony ordered two more beers, Stanley continued his story.

“I was on my way home from my nightly walk, when I noticed something quite odd at your place, I didn’t know you, or your family, but my attention was attracted by a man in the shadows. I recognised him immediately.” Stanley told of the man named Jacob Rosenberg who had dripped petrol through the window on the lower floor and then thrown in a lit match, starting the fire that had killed both Jenny and Connor. He had not gone to the Police, because, well, he just couldn’t. Anthony wasn’t able to compel him elaborate any more. Stanley then gave Anthony Jacob’s address and picture and quickly left the coffee shop.

Anthony walked home in a daze, and was rather surprised when he actually arrived. What was he to do about this man Rosenberg? He needed revenge. How dare Rosenberg take away his wife and son, just like that? He stared at the picture Geist had given him. Five minutes passed, ten minutes, thirty. Anthony put the picture in his pocket, collected some things and left his apartment.

Ten minutes after Anthony left home, he arrived in front of Jacob Rosenberg’s home. He waited a moment and then knocked on the door. As Jacob opened the door, Anthony raised his gun. “Let me in, Rosenberg! I know what you did.” Jacob hastily stepped aside to let Anthony past.

Jacob looked very worried. He didn’t know who this crazy man was, and more importantly, he had no idea what he was supposed to have done. Anthony glared at Jacob from across the room.

“Yeah! I’d be worried too, if I were you! I just have one question for you though. Why?”

“Why what? What is it that I am supposed to have done?”

“What do you mean, supposed to have done? Two weeks ago, you set fire to my home and killed my wife and son!”

“I did no such thing! I have never hurt anyone, and plus, I just arrived here from Perth two days ago.” Jacob waved his arms around, indicating the many removalist boxes stacked around the room, “Look, I even have proof, see, I haven’t paid my bills yet.” Jacob handed him a phone bill for a place on the outskirts of Perth, at least three thousand kilometres away. Anthony was slightly confused; maybe Rosenberg hadn’t killed his family. He started to lower his gun,

“But why would Stanley have said all of those things? Maybe it was really…”

BANG!

A gunshot rang out through the house, and with a shocked look on his face, Jacob fell to the floor, bleeding from his chest. Anthony stood, shocked, staring at his gun in astonishment. Jacob was dead.

After a few moments, Stanley stepped out of the shadows behind Anthony.

“Stanley … But… I mean… What … just happened?”

“Well, you see, it was I who killed your family. It was an accident; well an accident in some respects. I meant to kill you and your son, not your wife. She was a beautiful woman, Anthony, and we loved each other very much. I was supposed to kill the two of you, and Jenny and I, would have found ‘comfort’ with each other.”

“But, if it was you who killed my family, why did you send me here? What did Rosenberg have to do with any of this?”

“Rosenberg,” Stanley spat out his name with pure disgust. “He has been tracing me since 1945. He had finally caught up to me and was intending to send me to Israel to be tried for crimes against the Jews in World War 2. Now you know too much, and I am going to do what I set out to do two weeks ago. Goodbye, Anthony.”

This revelation enraged Anthony. He tried to clench his fists, and then realised he still had the gun in his right hand. In one swift movement, he raised his gun and shot Stanley between the eyes. After a moment or two, Anthony lowered his hand and whispered,

“The rest, is silence…”

Having to enter and act in the brutal world of his uncle, Hamlet becomes a creature of that To what extent is this an accurate assessment of the character of Hamlet by the end of the play?

Hamlet, by the end of the play, had become a creature of his uncles brutal world to a certain extent. However, he was only born into this nature through the visitation of his fathers ghost. Hamlets knowledge of the murder and his fathers demand for revenge. In this Shakespearian tragedy, revenge is the main theme explored among many others. And deflects the Elizabethan society, its values and beliefs about revenge.

In Hamlets course of revenge, Shakespeare juxtaposes him with the two characters Laertes and Fortinbras, attempting to show the differences in achieving revenge, revealing Hamlet as the weaker avenger. Brutal refers to a person as being savagely or coarsely cruel, merciless and harsh. Hamlet was merciless particularly in killing Polonius, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. However, he was not savage or fierce, nor was he severely cruel and harsh. Claudius on the other hand was harsh, merciless and savage going to any lengths to be in and stay in power by killing the king, marrying the queen and plotting to kill through various means his largest threat, Hamlet.

The Elizabethan society believed revenge to be a crime against the state and a sin against their Christian faith; nonetheless, Shakespeare used the idea of private revenge through the character of Hamlet, as the revenge tragedy was popular with the audience due to its violence, action and suspense. Hamlet is a play that explores the nature and consequences of revenge.

I am very proud, revengeful, ambitious, with more offences at my beck than I have thoughts to put them in Hamlet speaks to Ophelia of his sinfulness in desiring revenge for his fathers death and what is rightfully his the throne. However he believes that in his circumstance his sins become justifiable and honourable.

Some viewers of the play believe that Shakespeare attempted to attack the idea of revenge in order to present a view that avengers are morally wrong. Shakespeare explores the dilemma facing the good man, Hamlet, forced to act in an evil world however the audience is played in such a way as to feel it was right for Hamlet to kill the murderer of his father. Whilst this idea of revenge challenges Elizabethan morals and Christianity, Shakespeare used it to intrigue his audience.

When relating Hamlets mission to that of Laertes, we see that Hamlet is rather weak as an avenger compared to Laertes thoughtless, raged actions. It can also be seen that Hamlet never intended to be brutal, rather he just wanted to fulfil his fathers request for revenge. Unlike Hamlet who bides time to discover Claudius guilt, Laertes rushes in to avenge his fathers and sisters death and is prepared to act regardless of the consequences in his life and the after life. That both the worlds I give to negligence, /let come what comes, only Ill be revenged/ most thoroughly for my father.

Hamlet however is concerned about the possible consequences of his actions, particularly in the afterlife, and so justifies his procrastination. But that the dread of something after death, / the undiscovered country from whose bourn/ no traveller returns, puzzles the will, / and makes us rather bear those ills we have/ then fly to others that we know not of? Therefore Laertes is portrayed to be an avenger with a narrow sense of purpose, basically acting on impulse quite different to Hamlet who procrastinates and establishes a broader sense of purpose.

Hamlets dilatoriness can be viewed as him taking into consideration or doubting the moral rightness of killing for revenge, coming to a conclusion that in his circumstance it may be deemed acceptable. He that hath killed my king and whored my mother, / popped in between the election and my hopes, / thrown out his angle for my proper life, / and with such cozenage ist not perfect conscience/ to quit him with this arm?

Laertes on the other hand does not question his or societies morals in taking revenge, he merely acts without due consideration as when asked by Claudius, What [he] would undertake/ to show [himself] in deed [his] fathers son/ more than in words, Laertes replied, To cut his throat Ithchurch. This statement opposes Elizabethan region, values and law. Hamlet and Laertes are very distinguishable in their approach to revenge with the character of Laertes proving Hamlet to be less brutal than him.

Shakespeare also juxtaposes Fortinbras and Hamlet, contrasting their individual actions and purpose of undertaking revenge. Hamlet compares himself to the dedication and vengeance of Fortinbras, realising he is somewhat of a coward, which would explain the time taken to complete his duty.

In Hamlets soliloquy, all the reasons are listed as to why he should take revenge however he discovers that he is quite the opposite to Fortinbras who is motivated, will stop at nothing, and ready for battle yet has not reached this piece of territory that is not worth fighting for nor holds the capacity to even burry the army on. But greatly to find quarrel in a straw/ when honours at the stake. How stand I then,/ that have a father killed, a mother stained, / excitements of my reason and my blood,/ and let all sleep, while to my shame I see the imminent death of twenty thousand men.

Hamlet is ashamed of himself as he has such a great cause for revenge and has taken no action upon as opposed to Fortinbras and his army. He now finds himself with another example quite the reverse to his character and another reason for pursuit. Hamlet undergoes a battle between honour and conscience but realises like Fortinbras, it is not the cause that counts, the honour and pride upheld and gained is the most important factor. Oh from this time forth/my thoughts be bloody or be nothing worth.

Hamlet finds himself in resolute and once again we see him take certain steps to be particularly brutal towards Claudius. The contrast between these two characters is that Hamlet weighs up the worth of all actions whereas Fortinbras, like Laertes, mindlessly rushed to avenge his fathers death by acquiring useless land. This comparison also shows that Hamlet is weak, not necessarily physically but mentally and therefore is not as brutal as Fortinbras.

If Claudius character is what Hamlets brutality is being measured against, whereby the actions Claudius indulged himself in were the killing of the king and plotting against Hamlet with the means of killing him, then Hamlet by no means is brutal compared to his uncles selfish deeds. However if Hamlets killing of Polonius, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern and his treatment of Ophelia, were to be measured in terms of ruthlessness in regards to his vengeance, then yes Hamlet would be deemed brutal.

As the audience learns early in the play, Hamlet is a man on a mission, caring about nothing or no one except his purpose. Yea, from the table of my memory/ Ill wipe away all trivial fond records, /all saws of books, all forms, all pressures past This statement accounts for Hamlets murders as these men were merely in the way, as well as his antic disposition and hence his mistreatment of Ophelia. But what one must remember is that Ophelia became a victim of her fathers plan and therefore it is no wonder why she was neglected by Hamlet. Hamlets murder of the three gentlemen reveals that he was merciless however he excuses this by saying it was their own scheming they fell victim to.

His pitilessness shows through his reaction to killing Polonius. Thou wretched, rash, intruding fool, farewell. /I took thee for thy better. Hamlet also felt no guilt toward Rosencrantz and Guildensterns deaths as they supposedly enjoyed the work they did for Claudius and so deserved to die. As for Claudius death, is it not natural for Hamlet to want to kill him the same way his father died without repentance, in a more horrid hent.

However Claudius death does not arise from Hamlets actions only, but like the other men before him he fell victim to his own plans as Laertes points out. He is justly served, it is a poison tempered by himself. Therefore whilst these murders were initially performed by Hamlet, the victims were destroyed through their own plotting. Is it not true to say then that although Hamlet held one aspect of brutality, being merciless, he was not in actual fact brutal?

Hamlet is brutal to the extent that he is merciless however he did not enter completely into his uncles cruel, harsh and savage world. To a certain extent, Hamlet was forced into a world of treachery through the selfish actions taken upon by Claudius, that being the murder of the king, the marriage to the queen and in doing so the theft of the throne from Hamlet. As discussed before, after the visitation of the ghost, Hamlet committed himself to avenging his fathers death, which seemed like justice in his mind.

However, Shakespeares underlying comparisons between Laertes, Fortinbras and Hamlet, discovers that Hamlet is not the man to be savage, fierce or particularly harsh in taking revenge. Rather that he was forever thinking about his actions, procrastinating and weighing up all costs and consequences. Hamlet undoubtedly played a part in the murders of Polonius, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern however their deaths also payed tribute to themselves.

As for measuring Hamlet against his uncle, Claudius is indubitably brutal and hence his character proves Hamlet to be otherwise, as he does not succumb to all the characteristics of brutality. Hamlet is brutal to the extent that an individual responder believes. However, this argument based on certain facts attempts to show that he was only acting in accordance to what he believed was morally and circumstantially right. Hamlet revealed only one aspect of brutality from his character, that being mercilessness. Therefore, how can a person, or character, be judged on one component of an entire definition? Hamlet was not entirely brutal, however he was very vengeful.

Whilst an audience would feel Hamlet must follow his visceral feelings and exact a bloody revenge, there is also the moral issue that both a viewer and Hamlet must wrestle with in order to make a decision over whether the death of a murdering, incestuous Uncle is necessary. From the time the audience hears of his intentions they feel sympathetic towards his cause even though he is to commit a chilling crime. This is best explained by Francis Bacon, the writer of Of Revenge who states that revenge is a kind of wild justice and the most tolerable sort of revenge, is for those wrongs, which there is no law to remedy.

There are surely no greater wrongs than killing a brother and a King in one fell swoop, but there are other motives for this revenge, primarily honor. It is the ghost of Hamlets father whom fuels revenge in the early stages of the play, he urges Hamlet to abandon all nature, a euphemism for morality, and kill Claudius in order to release the spirit from purgatory in a similar manner to Claudius the ghost asks Hamlet to turn his love into actions:

Ghost: If thou didst ever thy father love

Hamlet: O God!

Ghost: Revenge his foul and most unnatural murder

However Hamlet is an introspective character who does not know whether to trust the ghost of his father, which, according to Sir Walter Murdoch leads to intense psychological pain through his obsession for gathering information to prove or disprove Claudius guilt.

However it can also be argued that Hamlet, despite his desire to extract revenge against Claudius, is also actively looking for means with which to relieve himself from the stress and protect his morale and religious principles that harboring this obsession causes him, even if seeking psychological refuge in such ways might mean forfeiting this endeavor. This would relieve him from an impossible dilemma and free him from the feeling of cowardice.

An example of this fixation of proving the murder of his father is the re-enactment of the crime through the play within the play in order to catch the conscience of the King. This is undertaken by Hamlet, as he does not wish to be seen as a coward, but at the same time wishes to find out if the ghost was simply a hallucination triggered by his hatred of his Uncle. He proves his Uncles guilt through the watching of facial expression and his reaction afterwards is of strong elation:

O good Horatio, Ill take the ghosts word for a thousand pounds. Didst perceive?

Very well my lord

Upon the talk of poisoning?

I did very well note him.

Aha! Come, some music; come the recorders.

For if the King like not the comedy.

Why then, belike he likes it not perdie

However this is also a good example of procrastination, Hamlet is aware that he is caught in a situation, where he is to abandon his morale values, either his honor, or his visceral directions, which will label him murderer if he honors his father, or coward if he does not, his morality and religion appear to hold him back.

Normally the role of the avenger is cursed, he must sully his hands in order to purge the court although with reference to religion, it would appear that the Gods are on his side, Hamlet is struck by the fortunes of fate, for example the coincidental meeting with the players or the finding of the commission heading to England, this prevents Hamlet from dying at the hands of two friends. A parallel can be drawn here with Tourneurs The Revengers Tragedy, where Vindice encounters many happy coincidences; every stage of his journey is blessed with the divinity of chance.

Whilst some critics argue that Hamlet was paralysed by the pale cast of thought in order to increase the duration of the play, it must be stated that it provides an interesting contrast with the impulsive Laertes. Some see his revenge as ideal, for he explicitly dismisses the highest obligations that rule human conduct and these morals are usurped by revenge, in a similar way to Claudius claiming the throne:

To hell allegiance! Vows to the blackest devill

Conscience and grace to the profoundest pit!

I dare damnation. To this point I stand,

That both the worlds I give to negligence,

Let come what comes, only Ill be revenged

Most thoroughly for my father

These two characters differ on one major aspect, thought. Whilst Hamlet intricately plots and studies Claudius in order to make sure the Ghost was not a hallucination brought about by his hatred of his Uncle. Laertes acts swiftly in order to prevent the intrusion of morality.

This is the main downfall of an avenger, thought, Hamlet was able to act quickly in order to dispose of the lives of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern as well as the unfortunate Polonius, without consideration of the moral implications, similarly with Laertes who when asked how he would transform his hatred more than in words he replies to cut his throat ithe church. However, Hamlet, in comparison, is a deeply introspective character who wishes to be spared from the agonizing possibility of engaging in a crime that violates many moral, political and religious principles according to Sir Walter Murdoch.

The protestant Elizabethan people as a whole, although deeply religious, would view the matter in a similar fashion to Laertes, that justice should be brought about through the death of the villain. One might consider that Shakespeare based Laertes upon Queen Elizabeth, who proved that she was not prepared to reason with moral implications until after she had exacted revenge.

For example in dealing with the Essex rebellion she had a personal friend killed, Lord Essex, in order to ensure that somebody paid for her inconvenience. The people were particularly keen on watching people pay for their misdoings Marchette Chute, author of Shakespeare of London writes:

Apart from the excellent shops, the great single magnet was the law courts During each of the law terms, especially the autumn term of the michaelmas, the population of London swelled like the tidal flow of its own Thames

This is evidence that the courts were a source of great pleasure and that the fate of the criminals was of interest to the people of London, where Shakespeare lived. In Hamlets case it would have been viewed as an unavoidable inevitability that Claudius would be killed due to the strong bond between families. He gave his word to his father and a fathers wish was to be exacted perfectly.

G.B.Harrison states that there was a significant sense of loyalty and devotion amongst families, if Hamlet had not killed Claudius he would have been viewed in a similar light to Polonius whom abandoned his integrity by discussing his sons exploits with somebody outside the family, he accused his own blood of visiting brothels which were frowned upon, although quite popular amongst the Elizabethan people.

Politically the play would have had many references to Shakespearean England, where the court was dominated by corruption and plotting in a similar manner to that of Denmark in Hamlet. This is highlighted through the treatment of the Duke of Essex, along with many other high-powered figures.

Hamlet takes up a stance equal to that of the Queen, as both were attempting to purge the court, yet Hamlet does not have the strength to do so. The ruthless Laertes would have been viewed as a stronger character than the methodical Hamlet for his cowardice would not appeal to the values of the Elizabethan man, Laertes crime would be seen as acceptable, due to the similar stance taken by political figures such as the Queen whom would almost certainly exact revenge upon the incestuous villain Claudius.

On the other hand a modern audience would take a completely different stance, Laertes sudden rage, is seen as a veil that overshadows all reasonable thought according to Sir Walter Murdoch, this is perceived nowadays as a crime of murder as the title suggests. However, Hamlets procrastination is not seen as cowardice but more as a consolidation of the Christian doctrine. George Bernard Shaw states in Back To Methuselah:

He has evolved into the Christian perception of futility and wickedness of revenge and punishment, founded on the simple fact that two blacks do not make a white.

Although Hamlet asks himself Am I a coward? this would seem to appeal more to an Elizabethan audience who would be able to empathize more with the necessity of killing his Uncle, and would view his hesitation as a form of cowardice. An audience watching the play today however would be sympathetic with Hamlets desire but the moral standards applied in the twenty-first century would view the crime as murder and his procrastination would not be cowardly. In this manner, as the title suggests it is a cursed spite as he would be scorned upon by both audiences, but at the time Shakespeare wrote the play the audience would welcome Hamlets need to fulfill his promise to his father.

The character of Hamlet is elevated above countless other similar tragic heroes because of Hamlet’s awareness of the moral complexities and theological issues involved in the revenge plot. Hamlet’s display of distraction is curious because his actions alone are not that of a madman, yet his private thoughts and musings suggest that he is insane. The source of this distraction may lie in his aboriginal addiction to thought and his inability to act decisively. (A Critical Analysis of Hamlet’s Madness, West Cordell)

Shakespeare’s Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark is based on a 12th century tale by Saxo Grammaticus, which Shakespeare most certainly never saw, and is part of a spate of revenge dramas which were extremely popular around the turn of the seventeenth century; the missing link between Saxo and Shakespeare may be an earlier play about Hamlet (called by scholars the Ur- Hamlet), which may or may not have been written by the Ur-Revenger himself, Thomas Kyd, based in turn on Fran de Belleforest’s Histories tragiques (1570), a free translation of Saxo.

One of the greatest works of William Shakespeare, Hamlet portrays a young prince, marked by fate, to discover the reasons for his father’s death and while uncovering them give the world a view of a tragic soul never seen before. Hamlet’s father was the king and soon after his death, his uncle Claudius marries his mother, the queen, and takes the throne leading many suspicions to him. Hamlet is the perfect example of the tragic hero. He possesses all the characteristics of a hero. He is brave, daring, loyal and above all intelligent, Intelligent enough to fake insanity to get more information about his uncle and if indeed his father was murdered or not.

Not every play in which a hero dies is considered a tragedy. Shakespeare’s masterpiece had an aura about the whole play that made not only the hero a tragic character but the whole play proceeded to be one leaving the audience feeling pity for Hamlet as well as a feeling of subtle sadness in their heart about all the affairs that lead to his death.

What was carefully manifested into the play was the fact that the audience must have sympathy for the tragic hero, or it wouldn’t seem so tragic. From the beginning of the play, the audience is brought closer to the lead character leaving all others in a mystical background. Not only his role, but also the circumstances that he was in, made it all too natural for him to be sad and take the audience with him. His continuous grieves about his father’s death made him a loner and have a somewhat sarcastic nature, which could be seen as a constant shadow over his head.

The beginning of the play marks his words as a somewhat calmer and romantic person while his affair with Ophelia made it obvious that he was in love with her, a trait of an ordinary guy but as time passes, especially after his visits to the ghost of his father, he becomes more and more self-centered and sarcastic towards even his friends. Suspicion and sorrow were burnt in his eyes forever and that caused the atmosphere of every scene he was in to be in itself, a tragedy.

Some might say that the theme of Hamlet, that remains constant throughout the play was, appearance and reality or their interventions. Characters appear to be true and honest on the face but in reality they are infested with evil intentions and a horrid past. Many of the characters in the play hide behind a mask, a mask that hides their real face from even their closest relations and friends and all this hiding made it more and more difficult for Hamlet to find the truth. Then Metaphysics waived a thought’s delay It took the salt in the wound, the ‘point Envenom’d too’ to steel the prince of doubts. (Soyinka, Shuttle, p. 22, II. 12-14)

The strength of Shakespeare’s plays lies in the absorbing stories they tell, in their wealth of complex characters, and in the eloquent speech, vivid, forceful, and at the same time lyric, that the playwright puts on his characters’ lips. It has often been noted that Shakespeare’s characters are neither wholly good nor wholly evil, and that it is their flawed, inconsistent nature that makes them memorable.

Hamlet fascinates audiences with his ambivalence about revenge and the uncertainty over how much of his madness is feigned and how much genuine. Finally, the plays are distinguished by an unparalleled use of language. Shakespeare had a tremendous vocabulary and a corresponding sensitivity to nuance, as well as a singular aptitude for coining neologisms and punning. Hamlet wasted time “In a gallery of abstractions, dissecting tales / as ‘told by an idiot.” (Soyinka, Shuttle, p. 22, II. 6-7)

In Hamlet, just like many of Shakespeare’s plays that have a tragic touch to them, the playwright gives a descriptive yet subtle amount of melancholy in the air that grasps the audience from their hearts and pulls them right into the character. The real tragedy of Hamlet is sometimes said to be the insanity that he takes over him, which may lead him to the truth, but at the same time makes him live an artificial life that is hardly segmented from the reality and his youth is wasted in treacherous and unnecessary dilemmas. It may be said to be the horrid murder of a family that has not been treated fairly.

Although many people lose their lives as a result of their own self-centered wrong-doing, there are others whose death are a result of manipulation from the royalty. This is the case of Polonius’ family. The real tragedy of Hamlet can be labeled as that of Hamlet or his family but of Polonius’ family because their deaths were not the consequence of sinful actions of their own but rather by their innocent involvement in the schemes of Claudius and Hamlet. But no matter what is said or how it is put to be, the tragic incidents or the environment and even the characters of the Hamlet are one of the finest examples of tragedy combined with a ting of reality in English literature.

Even today, the modern dramatization of Hamlet or Othello can be seen as one of the finest works with hindered essences of sorrow and tragedy that has ever been written in literary history. The character of Hamlet still is one of the most vulnerable and intelligent of Shakespeare’s characters portraying an aura around him of unknown wisdom, apart from the fact that he is not a literary man, and words spoken through him have almost become immortal.

In the story Hamlet we have a young man who is seeking revenge for the death of his father. The person who was responsible for the death of Hamlet’s father was Claudius. Hamlet had opportunities to kill Claudius, and even in the end, when he was most assuredly going to put an end to Claudius’ life, he hesitated. There is much speculation as to why Hamlet hesitated, and why he didn’t just kill Claudius as quickly as possible. Hamlet did so in order to ensure he did it right and that it was a righteous killing, and not one based on rage and emotion.

Hamlet had every reason to be viciously angry with Claudius for he was responsible for the death of Hamlet’s father. Hamlet, throughout almost the entire work, was completely dedicated to the reality of killing Claudius. But he studied himself, he studied the reasons behind the vengeful thinking, and he investigated all the information that clearly supported the fact that Claudius murdered his father. Now, Hamlet knew this, but he was a good man and needed to have irrefutable proof if he was to kill Claudius in any state of righteousness.

Hamlet was a good man. This does not mean that he was perfect, nor does it mean that he was incredibly righteous in every aspect nor did he perhaps always do things in the manner they should be done. But he was a good man because he always examined what it was he was doing, or what he was planning. He examined these things so as to ensure that he went about vengeance in the most righteous manner possible for him. It was not merely a murder for revenge, but a murder for the land and for the people. It was not for Hamlet alone, but for the society that had been harmed by the existence and the actions of Claudius. Hamlet understood this aspect, and needed all his time of investigation in order to clearly establish his reasoning.

One particular concern involved with performing his vengeance in a righteous manner, according to Moore, is that which adheres to stipulations in the Bible. He claims that, for one, If found guilty of murder this man will be executed by the avenger, and secondly claims that there needs to be two witnesses to perform such revenge (Moore). Now, if Hamlet had killed Claudius as Claudius had killed Hamlet’s father it would not have been a righteous killing.

Hamlet was adhering to some ancient laws concerning the vengeance upon one who kills, especially one who kills a family member. In light of this, we see that Hamlet needed to obtain all the proof he could in order to have the right to kill Claudius. This was the righteous approach and in his efforts to increase the righteous nature of his people, he was bound by honor to do things the right way. This is seen, in a different light, in the following:

The truth is that Hamlet has no opportunity to kill the king and then justify his action, until the end, when ‘providence’ provides the opportunity. Heroes of earlier revenge plays soliloquize about having to delay, and criticize themselves for it. But revenge plays require that the revenge take time and planning — or there would be no play (Friedlander).

This fits in with the theory being presented as well, for Hamlet had no opportunity, considering the information he possessed at any given time, to do the job properly until the end. And it is true that without the suspense and the investigation along the way, there would be no play, or at least a play that does not have the power to live for centuries as this one has done. Overall, it is clear that, up until the end, Hamlet had many reasons, all righteous, why he did not kill Claudius until the time he had chosen.

Hamlet hesitate in killing Claudius, it would have taken only a second. This causes many to wonder why he stopped. He was obviously energized for the act, for his mother had just been slain by mistake, and he was enraged. So why, now when he had a chance, did he hesitate? Because killing in anger and in rage would not have been righteous. Hamlet, as mentioned, is a good man. He hates the evil around him, but would really prefer to have nothing to do with it.

Brodwin states that, however much part of Hamlet may desire to cause a drastic change in the world, the other part of him desires only to withdraw from this evil world and may provide a constitutional hindrance to the easy accomplishment of his assigned task (498). This indicates that Hamlet, in many ways, was incredibly righteous. And a righteous individual, if they are truly serious about doing things properly, as Hamlet was, would do what they could to avoid killing in anger and sheer rage, which is the state Hamlet was in when really given the opportunity to kill Claudius.

In the end, we see Hamlet involved in a battle and he was calm. He is merely involving himself in a fight that maintains no raging anger. But suddenly, his mother dies, but not before she tells him she has been poisoned. Hamlet instantly becomes enraged. He turns and stabs Claudius. But he does not continue in this vein, returning with another stab that would ensure his death. He somehow manages to understand that Claudius’ death is best achieved through the poison that killed his mother, and insists Claudius drink it.

In this, Hamlet has achieved more of a sense of honor for himself, for he has made the death be that more righteous and done essentially at the hands of the murderer himself. Even then, in a fit of rage, he was not able to truly kill Claudius in a warrior’s style, but in a nobleman’s style that resulted in adequately honest accounting for the murder of Hamlet’s father.

This entire struggle has been to find the right time and the right manner in which to execute the plans of revenge. That time is coming, and when it does Hamlet is presented with a situation he had not anticipated. So, while he did not seek revenge in true rage, as he could have easily done, and was able to turn aside long enough to ensure the death had some amount of righteousness to it, he felt somehow he had failed, through the entire story. At the death of Hamlet, Horatio cries, Now cracks a noble heart. Good night sweet prince: And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest! (V, II).

Hamlet was, by all stretch of the imagination, a sensitive and honorable man. He was on a mission and that mission was not selfish, thus he could not finish the deed in a selfish manner. He was obligated by his own sense of righteousness to do the right thing, but do it in the right manner. And even when he did the deed, he was not quite satisfied with it, for he felt he had somehow failed in his seeking vengeance the righteous way. He hesitated because he wanted to do it honorably and with no serious ill intent, but for justice and for his people. He took his time in finding the opportunity so that he could do just that.

Our stage type was the arena. The arena is also known as a theatre in the round, central stage or island stage. Common shapes of the arena stages are a triangle, diamond, rectangle and circle. The theatre in the round became popular in Rome and Greece. It was favored by classical theatre. The first theatre to be built in America was at The University of Washington in 1940. The arena stage is in the center surrounded by the audience on all sides. There is no backstage, so the actors must enter and exit from the audience or from the hallways. This stage is thought to create an intimate closer to the action experience for the audience. Backdrops and curtains cannot be used due to the stage having a 360-degree view. Also, the lighting on stage causes a problem because with the audience is on all sides of the stage, so they must see without being blinded. There is also constant movement on stage so that everyone is the audience has a view but actors with always have their back toward someone for moments at a time.

Claudius and Gertrude interrogate Guildenstern about Hamlets behavior. He didn’t have much to say expect that he was interested in an acting company that was to perform. They asked Rosencrantz how he treated her, and she said like a gentleman. Claudius sends them off, so Polonius and Ophelia can plan the of meeting Ophelia and Hamlet to test whether its Hamlets love for Ophelia that causes his odd behavior. ROSENCRANTZ AND GUILDENSTERN EXIST. Claudius tells Gertrude his plan then tells her leave. ROSENCRANTZ EXISTS. Ophelia then strolls the hall reading a book while they hide nearby to spy on them. Hamlet them appears lost in his thoughts and contemplating suicide. He gives the “To Be or Not to Be” soliloquy. So basically, Hamlet asks himself “Is it better to be alive or dead”. He wants to either commit suicide, kill his uncle (Claudius) or even both.

Killing Claudius, the king will result in him dying also. He says that not knowing what comes after death makes him not want to follow through, maybe in fear he will be like his father? Hamlet believes that since no one knows what comes after death is why people tend to deal with “our sufferings so long”, because if we knew then death would be seen as a solution to all problems that we face. He goes on to say that no one will want to deal with “all life’s humiliations”– “the pangs of despised love” which he maybe refers that to his love for Ophelia, he then goes on to say “the law’s delay” maybe referring to himself and the delay to revenge his father’s death– when one can just commit suicide and end everything. Hamlet goes on to say that we rather go on with our struggles because we fear what lies in the afterlife that no one returns from to tell about which makes it a “undiscovered country”.

Hamlet believes the more we think about death the more of a coward we become. During the end of his speech he sees Ophelia and interrupts his thoughts to speak with her. Ophelia attempts to give back gifts that Hamlet has giving her, but he denies that they are from him and that he never loved her. He goes on to talk about the dishonesty of beauty and says that once loved Ophelia and that he never has loved her at all. He comments on the humankind, he urges Ophelia to go the nunnery rather then become a “breed of sinners”. Hamlet then goes on to criticize women for making men act like monsters and for contributing to the worlds dishonesty by painting faces to appear more beautiful than they are. He begins into a rage when he realizes that Ophelia has betrayed him, and they were being watched. Hamlet then begins to criticize Ophelia, women and humankind in general, saying that he wishes to end all marriages.

As he exits in anger, Ophelia mourns the “noble mind” that has now lapsed into madness. CLAUIUS AND POLONUIS ENTERS. They go to Ophelia and are completely shocked. Claudius believes that Hamlets love from Ophelia is not the reason for his madness and because of this he becomes paranoid. Claudius thinks Hamlet may know something and goes on to say, “his sadness is hatching something, like a hen does sitting on a egg. What hatches very well may be dangerous.”(Quote It) . He decides to send Hamlet off to England to ease his mind ofthis madness. Polonius insited that the reason for Hamlets madness is for his love for Ophelia, but agrees with Claudius’s plan. He them suggest that Hamlet and his mother speak to find out the real reason for madness. Claudius agrees and states “When important people start to show signs of insanity, you have to watch them closely.”(quote) THEY ALL EXIST.

It hurts when someone you love, doesn’t love you back. During the entire play, Ophelia has been in love with Hamlet this entire time. However unfortunately, Hamlet never had a thing for her this whole time. Due to Hamlet, who did told her that she should go to a nunnery because that is the best thing for her rather than getting married, she was honestly hurt by such harshly said words. Ophelia reminds me of when in the past two years, I would develop such crushes on guys that I KNEW WOULD NEVER LIKE ME BACK, but be very enthusiastic and positive at the same time about it. But when Hamlet screamed at the top of his lungs to her, I get why he was yelling at her, since he has lost trust to everyone in Denmark throughout plays and dislikes unfaithful women like Gertrude, so he believes that all women are unfaithful. If I was Ophelia, I would cry in my room all day as I wished my crush would like me back and wanted things to work out in life, yet it’s sad how not everyone is going to like one another in a romantic way. I would want to feel worthy to someone that I would want to appreciate me, care for me, and give love daily. As I cried over EVERY SINGLE guy that admitted that they do not like me back more than a friend, I’ve realized that myself as a high schooler has more important things to do rather than focus on boys. It is even worse for poor Ophelia.

Even though she loved Hamlet so much, he had killed her father ! I can’t even imagine the pain she is going through. Having to realize that not only does your crush does not love you back, he unashamedly insults you, kills your father, and had also looked like he was going to rape you while dressed half naked, is indeed overwhelmingly emotional. When Ophelia started singing nonsense, she used singing as a way to express what she truly feels about everything afterwards. I believe that music is one of the greatest depressants to help overcome an issue, or like Ophelia did, expressed her emotions. It is amazing how powerful music can be. Many artists last year that ended up committing suicide, like for example Mac Miller, used lyrics in certain songs to describe the hardships and personal issues they’ve once or currently going through. Mac Miller talked about how he didn’t know how to take in all of the fame he had received at such a young age. When I go through things that are overwhelming for my plate, I listen to hymn/praise music to help me calm down and meditate on the lyrics for which, I end up feeling better. Deep down in my heart, I truly feel sorry for her. She was such a goody two-shoes and a sweetheart to everyone that was around her. She should not have to be told what her worth is from a man who is going insane. I can’t believe she ended up drowning herself over a guy, but also her own father had died as well. Ophelia was honestly my favorite and the sweetest character out of Hamlet. It made my heart feel good that she was so obedient even though her father was controlling and prideful of himself as a political elite. As said before, she deserves better and unfortunately ended her own life while being emotionally unstable. The more stories I hear about people ending their life, makes me worry more for those I know facing hardships and trying to not give up. I pray that those who go through such a tough, messy, and complicated relationships/terms doesn’t want to give up on life and keep fighting.