Hamlet's revenge
February 2nd 2007 07:31
Hamlet has been called the "Mona Lisa of English literature", meaning it will never be solved why hamlet prevaricates taking revenge on his uncle, time after time even though he had many chances. This problem has also been called the greatest unsolved literary puzzle in English.
I always wondered what the problem was because I had no problem with it. And if I'm right, neither did Shakespeare's audiences, who were not preplexed by Hamlet's behaviour. The problem started somewhere in eighteenth century and quickly became the Mona Lisa of literary criticism.
I have not even finished all of Shakespeare's plays, let alone be aware of the tonnes of secondary literature on the bard. Still, let me take a stab at what has confounded so many bright minds over the centuries.
Why did Hamlet put off killing his uncle time after time? Simple.Hamlet is a prince. He just cannot go and kill a reigning king without risking serious political consequences. Already Denmark is ravelling from the death of the old king and the subsequent hasty marriage of Gertrude to Claudius. A prince purely bent on power could have murdered Claudius and got the power himself but Hamlet is concerned about the moral impact on Denmark. "There's something rotten in Denmark" passage indicates that.
Yes, he is commissioned by his father's ghost to affect the revenge. But, he cannot kill a king based purely on a ghost's words. First, he tries to verify the veracity of the ghost's charge. This happens during the mock play. Once, sure of the guilt of Claudius, he has to establish it to his friends and some impartial witnesses like Horatio. He cannot kill Claudius without that proof, no matter how many tempting opportunities come his way. In fact, the shifts in his moods can all be referred to the conflict between his own passion for revenge and the need for patience.
While Hamlet is weaving his plans, Claudius is weaving his own. So that by the time Hamlet can take his revenge, he is sent to death by Claudius. That's the tragedy. Something like this happened in Nepal where the current Nepal kins killed the entire royal household and then became a king. He lost all his power in a subsequent rebellion by his peoples.
So there. I am the greatest literary detective, ain't I?
I always wondered what the problem was because I had no problem with it. And if I'm right, neither did Shakespeare's audiences, who were not preplexed by Hamlet's behaviour. The problem started somewhere in eighteenth century and quickly became the Mona Lisa of literary criticism.
I have not even finished all of Shakespeare's plays, let alone be aware of the tonnes of secondary literature on the bard. Still, let me take a stab at what has confounded so many bright minds over the centuries.
Why did Hamlet put off killing his uncle time after time? Simple.Hamlet is a prince. He just cannot go and kill a reigning king without risking serious political consequences. Already Denmark is ravelling from the death of the old king and the subsequent hasty marriage of Gertrude to Claudius. A prince purely bent on power could have murdered Claudius and got the power himself but Hamlet is concerned about the moral impact on Denmark. "There's something rotten in Denmark" passage indicates that.
Yes, he is commissioned by his father's ghost to affect the revenge. But, he cannot kill a king based purely on a ghost's words. First, he tries to verify the veracity of the ghost's charge. This happens during the mock play. Once, sure of the guilt of Claudius, he has to establish it to his friends and some impartial witnesses like Horatio. He cannot kill Claudius without that proof, no matter how many tempting opportunities come his way. In fact, the shifts in his moods can all be referred to the conflict between his own passion for revenge and the need for patience.
While Hamlet is weaving his plans, Claudius is weaving his own. So that by the time Hamlet can take his revenge, he is sent to death by Claudius. That's the tragedy. Something like this happened in Nepal where the current Nepal kins killed the entire royal household and then became a king. He lost all his power in a subsequent rebellion by his peoples.
So there. I am the greatest literary detective, ain't I?
| 66 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by mehtehjim
Comment by Anonymous
P.S. Marcellus had the quote "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark" not Hamlet.
P.S.S. You are a loser!