Hamlet

1
 Biografija
Rani period

Vilijam ekspir je bio sin Dona ekspira, uspenog rukaviara rodom iz Sniterfilda, i Meri Arden, kerke
uglednog zemljoposednika[10]. Bio je roen u Stratfordu na Ejvonu, a krten je 26. aprila 1564. Smatra se da
je roen 23. aprila na dan sv. ora[11]. Bio je tree od osmoro dece i najstariji preiveli sin[12].

Iako ne postoje pisani dokazi o ovom periodu, veina biografa se slae da je ekspir iao u osnovnu kolu u
Stratfordu[13][14][15] koja je bila besplatna 1553.[16] na oko pola milje od kue. Ne zna se u kojoj meri su
osnovne kole bile kvalitetne u elizabetansko doba, ali se zna da je u ovoj koli ekspir dobio solidno znanje
iz latinske gramatike i literature[17][18][19]</ref>[20]. Kad je napunio 18 godina, ekspir se oenio sa En
Hatavej koja je tad imala 26 godina. Dozvola za venanje je izdata 27. novembra 1582. Dva suseda Hetveja
su garantovala da nije bilo razloga koji bi mogli da onemogue to venanje[21]. Venanje se verovatno
odralo na brzinu, jer je vusterski zvaninik dozvolio da se brani zaveti proitaju samo jednom umesto tri
puta kako je to tad bio obiaj[22][23]. Anina trudnoa je mogla da bude razlog za to. est meseci kasnije,
rodila je kerku, Suzanu, koja je krtena 26. maja 1583[24]. Blizanci, Hamnet i Dudit, rodili su se dve
godine kasnije i bili su krteni 2. februara 1585[25]. Hamnet je umro iz nepoznatih razloga kad je imao 11
godina i sahranjen je 11. avgusta 1596[26].

Nakon roenja blizanaca, ima veoma malo pisanih podataka o ekspiru sve do 1592. godine, kada se
pominje kao lan Londonskog pozorita. Ovaj nepoznati deo ekspirovog ivota izmeu 1585. i 1592.
strunjaci nazivaju ekspirovim izgubljenim godinama[27]. Biografi, pokuavajui da rasvetle ovaj period
ekspirovog ivota, naili su na mnoge apokrifne prie. Nikolas Rou (eng. Nicholas Rowe), ekspirov prvi
biograf, naiao je na priu da je ekspir morao da pobegne iz grada za London jer su ga gonili zbog
lovokrae jelena[28].[29] Druga pria iz 18. veka je bila da je ekspir zapoeo svoju pozorinu karijeru
timarei konje vlasnika pozorita u Londonu[30]. Don Obri je naao podatak da je ekspir bio seoski
uitelj[31]. Neki strunjaci iz 20. veka smatraju da je ekspir verovatno radio kao uitelj za Aleksandra
Hogtona iz Lankaira, katolikog zemljoposednika koji je naveo izvesnog Vilijema ejkafta u svom
testamentu[32][33]. Meutim, ne postoje sigurni dokazi da su te prie istinite[34][35]

London i pozorina karijera

Ne zna se kada je tano ekspir poeo da pie, ali aluzije savremenika i beleke o predstavama pokazuju da
je nekoliko njegovih pozorinih komada bilo na sceni pre 1592. godine[36]. Bio je dovoljno poznat u
Londonu da bi ga u novinama napao drugi dramaturg, Robert Grin.

Grinov napad je prvo pominjanje ekspira kao dramaturga. Biografi pretpostavljaju da je prve korake u
pozoritu mogao da napravi u bilo kom trenutku izmeu 1580. i Grinovog napada[37][38][39]. Od 1594.
ekspirovi pozorini komadi su se prikazivali samo u izvoenju Ljudi lorda emberlena, glumake
druine iji su vlasnici bili nekoliko glumaca meu kojima je bio i ekspir, koja je uskoro postala vodea
glumaka druina u Londonu[40]. Nakon smrti kraljice Elizabete 1603. godine, druinu e pod zatitu uzeti
sam kralj, a sama druina e onda promeniti ime u Kraljevi ljudi[41].

Godine 1599. nekoliko glumaca iz druine podigli su svoje sopstveno pozorite na junoj obali Temze i
nazvali ga Gloub (eng. Globe). Godine 1608. ista grupa glumaca je kupila pozorite Blekfrajers indor.
Dokumenti o ekspirovim kupovinama i investicijama govore da se on prilino obogatio sa ovom
druinom[42]. Godine 1597. kupio je drugu po veliini kuu u Stratfordu, a 1605. je uloio novac u parohiju u
Stratfordu[43]

Neki od ekspirovih pozorinih komada bili su objavljeni u kvarto izdanjima[44] iz 1594. Do 1598. njegovo
ime je poelo da se pojavljuje na naslovnim stranama i bilo je ono to je privlailo publiku[45][46][47]. ekspir
2
je nastavio da glumi u svojim i tuim pozorinim komadima i nakon postignutog uspeha kao dramaturg. Ben
Donson u svojim Radovima iz 1616. godine ga pominje kao glumca u nekoliko svojih dela..[48] Meutim,
1605. njegovo ime se vie ne nalazi na listama Donsonovih glumaca, tako da biografi uzimaju tu godinu
kao godinu kad je ekspir prestao da se bavi glumom[49]. Prvi folio iz 1623. godine, meutim navodi
ekspira kao glavnog glumca u ovim pozorinim komadima, iako se ne zna tano koje je uloge imao[50].
Godine 1610. Don Dejvis iz Herforda je napisao da je dobri Vil odigrao kraljevski svoju ulogu[51].
Godine 1709. Rou je tvrdio da je ekspir igrao duha Hamletovog oca[29] Kasnije prie tvrde da je takoe
igrao Adama u Kako vam bilo i hor u Henriju V[52][53] iako strunjaci sumnjaju u tanost ove
informacije[54]

ekspir je tokom svoje pozorine karijere iveo izmeu Londona i Stratforda. Godine 1596. ekspir je iveo
u parohiji sv. Helene, Biopsgejtu, severno od Temze[55]. Do 1599. preselio se u Sautvark, kada je njegova
druina izgradila Gloub.[56] Godine 1604. opet se preselio severno od reke, u zonu Katedrale sv. Pola gde je
bilo mnogo lepih kua. Tamo je iznajmljivao sobu od francuskog hugenota, Kristofera Montoja koji je
pravio perike i drugu opremu[57].

Pozne godine i smrt

Nakon 1606-7. godine, ekspir je napisao neto manje pozorinih komada i nijedan od tih komada mu nije
bio pripisan nakon 1613.[58]. Njegova poslednja tri komada bila su kolaboracije, verovatno sa Donom
Fleerom.[59], koji ga je nasledio na mestu dramaturga u pozoritu Kraljevi ljudi[60]. Rou je bio prvi biograf
koji je odbacio tradicionalno miljenje da se ekspir povukao u Stratford nekoliko godina pre svoje smrti[61],
ali povlaenje od bilo kakvog rada u to doba je bila prava retkost[62], i ekspir je nastavio da i dalje odlazi
povremeno u London[61]. Godine 1612. pozvan je na sud u svojstvu svedoka u procesu brakorazvodne
parnice Montojeve kerke, Meri[63][64] U martu 1613. godine, kupio je kuu u parohiji Blekfrijars[65], a od
novembra 1614. bio je u Londonu nekoliko nedelja sa svojim zetom, Donom Holom[66]

ekspir je umro 23. aprila 1616.[67] za sobom ostavio svoju enu i dve kerke. Suzana se udala za doktora
Dona Hola, 1607.[68] godine, a Dudit za Tomasa Kinija, vinara, dva meseca pre nego to je ekspir
umro[69].

U svom testamentu, ekspir je ostavio veliki deo svog imanja svojoj starijoj kerci, Suzani[70]. Uslov je bio
da ga ona prenese na svog prvoroenog sina.[71] Kinijevi su imali troje dece i sve troje je umrlo[72][73]. Holovi
su imali jednu kerku, Elizabet, koja se udala dva puta ali je umrla bez dece 1670. godine, ime se direktna
linija ekspirovih ugasila[74][75]. ekspirov testament skoro da i ne pominje njegovu enu, Anu, koja je
verovatno imala pravo na treinu nasledstva.

ekspir je bio sahranjen u Crkvi sv. Trojstva dva dana nakon to je umro[76][77]. Neto pre 1623. godine
podignut mu je spomenik na severnom zidu. Na posvetnoj ploi se poredi sa Nestorom, Vergilijem i
Sokratom[78].

3
 Rjenik
alem-kamen (tur.) - dragulj, dijamant
baburaa aba krastaa
brijeg - obala
Ciklopi Kiklopi, jednooki divovi iz grke mitologije; kovai jakih, monih oruja
dokolan - dokon
Feb epitet Apolona, starogrkog boga ljepote, medicine, glazbe, sunca i kolonizacije
Fortuna starorimska boica sree
Hekuba (Hekaba) - Prijamova ena i Hektorova majka; u Homerovoj Ilijadi oplakuje Hektorovu smrt
Helsingr (kod Shakespearea Elsinore) grad na istoku Danske; u blizini grada nalazi se dvorac Kronborg,
mjesto radnje Hamleta
Hic et ubique (lat.) ovdje i uvijek
Jupiter vrhovni starorimski bog
kaun vrsta cvijeta (orhideje); u originalu: crow-flower (Geranium sylvaticum)
kvintesenca u filozofiji eter, peti element kojega je Aristotel dodao uz etiri (vatra, voda, zrak, zemlja);
ono to je najfinije, najistije; bit
labrde - obrazi, njuka
lagum (tur.) - podzemni hodnik; potkop, mina; lagumar - kopa laguma
Marte Mars, starorimski bog rata
Merkurije Merkur, starorimski glasnik bogova (gr. Hermes)
Norvegija - Norveka
paoma palma
Pelion planina u Tesaliji u sredinjoj grkoj, poznata iz mitologije
Pir (Neoptolem) Ahilejev sin, okrutni ubojica Prijama u Vergilijevoj Eneidi
rapir (franc.) dugaki tanki ma
sutana (lat.) - dugaka sveenika gornja haljina, mantija
talar sveeniki al
Vulkan starorimski bog vatre i kovaa (gr. Hefest)
zaimanje posuivanje
zasopiti se - zapuhati se, zadihati se

4
 Biljeke
[1]
Helsingr kod Shakespearea Elsinore; grad i luka na sjeveroistonoj obali Danske. U njemu je kraljevski
dvorac Kronborg u kojemu je u novije vrijeme Hamlet igran mnogo puta
[2]
dio njega (engl. a piece of him) - Postoje razliita tumaenja: "dio Horacija" je njegova ruka koja se jedina
vidi u mraku ili Horacije u ali kae da je izjeden od hladnoe, tako da je ostao samo njegov dio. Moda se
radi o Horacijevoj ironiji u smislu da zbog nekog razloga "nije sav svoj". Po nekim miljenjima, Horacije ne
vjeruje u duhove, pa "dio njega" znai da je prisutan tijelom, ali ne i umom.
[3]
latinac (engl. scholler) uen ovjek, kolar, koji poznaje latinski; prema tadanjem vjerovanju duhovi su
se najbolje "tjerali" latinskim rijeima
[4]
Prema pukom vjerovanju, duhovi ne mogu govoriti dok im se netko ne obrati.
[5]
prisvaja (engl. usurpst) - Horacije pretpostavlja da je to ili varalica ili zao duh koji je uzeo lik pokojnog
kralja.
[6]
Ovdje spomenuti Fortinbras je stric mladog Fortinbrasa koji e na kraju tragedije preuzeti dansku krunu,
isto kao to je Hamlet spomenut nekoliko stihova nie zapravo Hamletov otac, odnosno duh.
[7]
Julije Cezar
[8]
Kometi, pomrina sunca i drugi astronomski poremeaji znak su nesree. Vjerovalo se da "krvava rosa"
takoer pada s neba, a danas se zna da taj fenomen izazivaju kukci.
[9]
vlana zvijezda mjesec; mjesec je vlaan jer upravlja plimom i osekom
[10]
kraljevstvo Neptuna more; Shakespeare misli na djelovanje mjeseca na plimu i oseku
[11]
bog dana Apolon, bog sunca
[12]
ptica jutarnja pijetao; po nekim komentarima eva
[13]
Prve Hamletove rijei na sceni su u originalu dvosmislene: A little more than kin, and less than kind. Vie
sam nego tvoj sinovac (kin = roak), jer si oenio moju majku pa sam ti postao i pastorak, odnosno blii sam
ti, ali ne elim ti biti blizak i biti tvoj sin (kralj ga naziva sinom) jer taj brak svoje majke s bratom njezinog
pokojnog supruga smatram grenim i incestuoznim. Less than kind moe znaiti i "nisam tvoj" i "ne volim
te".
[14]
odve sam na suncu igra rijei: u engleskome se rijei sun (sunce) i son (sin) isto izgovaraju. Previe sam
na suncu tvojeg kraljevskog sjaja, a i previe me esto naziva sinom. U engleskoj poslovici "biti na suncu"
znai biti bez iega, to odgovara poloaju Hamleta jer je lien prijestolja.
[15]
Wittenberg je glasovito njemako sveuilite, najpoznatije po tome to je ondje djelovao Martin Luther.
[16]
okaljano meso u razliitim sauvanim verzijama teksta Hamleta na ovom su mjestu dvije razliite rijei:
u drugom quarto-izdanju sullied (okaljano, gnusno), a u folio-izdanju solid (vrsto). Premda se u novijim
izdanjima ee prihvaa solid, prevoditelj se opredijelio za "okaljano", jer Hamlet misli na neprirodnu
rodoskvrnu udaju svoje majke i strica, a moda i na svoju vezu s Ofelijom. "vrsto" meso bi dodue bolje
pristajao uz metaforu raspadanja i rastapanja tijela u rosu.
[17]
Hiperion je u grkoj mitologiji jedan od Titana, uzvieni bog sunca, otac boga sunca Helija (s kojim se
ponekad izjednaava), Selene (Mjeseca) i Eje (Zore). Satiri su poluljudi/polubogovi s kozjim nogama i
rogovima, groteskni i lascivni.
[18]
Nioba u grkoj mitologiji tebanska kraljica koja je imala sedmero sinova i sedmero keri. Hvalisala se
pred Letom, koja je imala samo dvoje, Apolona i Artemidu, pa su joj oni ubili sve sinove i keri. Shrvana
Nioba je otila u Malu Aziju i pretvorila se u kamen, a njezine su suze stvorile rijeku Ahel.
[19]
U Shakespeareovo vrijeme udaja ene za brata njezinog preminulog mua smatrala se incestom.
[20]
Ovo mjesto se tumai tako da se Hamlet previe uzbudio, pa isprva nije prepoznao Horacija.
[21]
Odnosno: ne elim da sebe naziva mojim slubenikom, zvat emo jedan drugoga prijateljem, odnosno i
ja sam tvoj sluga premda sam kraljevi.

5
[22]
Jedna moja ruka nije slinija drugoj nego to je duh bio slian Vaem ocu.
[23]
Viesmisleno mjesto: engleski you'll tender me a fool moe znaiti i uinit e da ja ispadnem lud (pred
svijetom), ali fool znai i "nevino dijete", pa Polonije aludira da bi od Hamletove panje mogao dobiti
nezakonitog unuka.
[24]
Neobino je da ovo pitanje postavlja Horacije, koji je Danac, ali Horacije u Hamletu esto ima ulogu
"dramskog instrumenta" koji prenosi obavijesti gledateljima.
[25]
Il prerastao udi neki dijel - "Ovaj stih i etiri, to za njim slijede, zadali su vie muke prevodiocima, nego
komentatorima. Bogdanovi ih je u svom prijevodu toliko bio pojednostavnio, da nije nita ostalo od
Shakespeareove misli. - Prema starim pojmovima o fiziologiji, ud (temperament) zavisio je od kombinacije
etiri "humora" u tijelu (sangviniki, malankoliki, koleriki i flegmatiki). Ako bi jedan od tih sastavnih
dijelova "prerastao", nastalo bi poremeenje u ravnotei. Hamlet oito misli na hipertrofiju melankolije, koja
esto dovodi do ludila (to razuma mu rui ograde i utvrde)." (Torbarina)
[26]
il ima navadu / Jo neku, to mu oblik vladanja / Dopadljivoga odve nadima - Neka navada ili obiaj, koji
je uzrok da se dopadljivo vladanje priinja pretjeranim ili izvjetaenim, tako da ljudi zlobno tumae neto,
to nije nita drugo nego lina privlanost (J. Dover Wilson).
[27]
... i mrva zla e / Svu plemenitost bia njegova / U kal i blato sa sobom povui. Ovo je mjesto u originalu
jedno od najnejasnijih kod Shakespearea, i to vjerojatno zato to je dolo do tiskarske pogreke. Postoje stotina
razliitih tumaenja i ispravki, a prevoditelj Bogdanovi odluio se za jednu od njih.
[28]
snanijom / Od miija u nemejskoga lava - Nemejski lav (Nemeja = mjesto u Argolidi) bio je neranjiva
neman. Ubio ga je Heraklo, a to je bio prvi od njegovih dvanaest munih radova, koje je izvrio kralju
Euristeju.
[29]
A danju postit, zatvoren u ognju - U vezi s tim J. Dover Wilson citira Dantea (Purgatorio XXIII, 64-9),
koji opisuje, kako su neumjerni u jelu i piu osueni da trpe glad i eu u vatri istilita. To su vjerojatno
"gadni grijesi" o kojima duh govori.
[30]
Leta je bila rijeka u klasinom Podzemlju. Tko bi se napio iz nje, zaboravio bi sve. Shakespeare zamilja,
da ona uzrokuje mlohavost i tromost u bilju, to raste na njezinim obalama.
[31]
Shakespeareov "hebenon" ili "hebona" veina komentatora identificira s bunikom (henbane, Hyoscyamus
niger), koje se otrovni sok upotrebljavao u medicini.
[32]
Biljenicu amo - U doba Shakespearea mladii su nosili uza se biljenice, u koje su zapisivali svoje misli
i dojmove.
[33]
Rugajui se, Hamlet odvraa sokolarovim povikom na Horacijevo uzbueno "hoj, hoj!"
[34]
Ovo je vjerojatno aluzija na legendu o tome, kako je irski apostol sv. Patricije (St. Patrick) otkrio u nekoj
spilji ulaz u istilite. Hamlet sugerira protestantskom "filozofu" Horaciju, koji ne vjeruje u istilite, da je
duh "poten" i da dolazi iz istilita, a ne iz Pakla (J. Dover Wilson). Dowden misli, da je sv. Patricije
prikladno spomenut nakon prianja Hamletova oca o tome, kako je njega u vrtu "zmija" toboe ujela i kako ta
zmija sada nosi dansku krunu, jer je sv. Patricije prema drugoj legendi prognao zmije iz Irske, a tu legendu
Shakespeare spominje i u "Rikardu II".
[35]
Hamlet se sada obraa svome ocu kao arobnjaku, koji zaziva zle duhove. Naziva ga "mome",
"potenjaino", "stara krtino", "lagumar". Sve je to u skladu s ondanjim praznovjerjem da avoli ruju pod
zemljom kao rudari.
[36]
Prvi put, da ne e govoriti o onom to su vidjeli; drugi, da ne e govoriti, to su uli; trei, da ne e izdati
istinu o Hamletu, ako on "uzme na se mahnitosti vid".
[37]
vi cilju blie / Primaknite se no da samo za nj / Raspitujete. - Tj. prestanite jednostavno postavljati pitanja
i pokaite, "da ga i vi izdaleka znate".
[38]
Polonije razlikuje izmeu "skitanja sa lakim enskima" (drabbing) i toga, da mu je sin "sklon bludnitvu"
(open to incontinency), tj. da je okorio razvratnik. Ono prvo, po njegovu miljenju ne bi pogrdilo Laerta, dok
drugo bi.
[39]
U originalu stoji "at tennis". Ma da bi u hrvatskom prijevodu neobino zvuilo da se u "Hamletu" spominje
tenis, ta igra je vrlo stara i naziv "tennis-play" za neku vrstu tenisa, zabiljeen je u Engleskoj prvi put g. 1440.

6
[40]
U samom sebi / Vi promatrajte njegovo nagnue - To je doslovan prijevod engleskog "Observe his
inclination in yourself", a znai: "Ako ti, kao Laertov vrnjak, i prema tome podloan istim iskuenjima, bude
gledao u sebe, lake e moi promatrati njegova nagnua i zapaziti njegove grijeke". Svi su komentatori i
prevodioci ovdje zabrazdili, jer su htjeli pripisati Shakespeareu vie nego je on napisao. Prvi je dr. Johnson u
XVIII. stoljeu komentirao: "Moda ovo znai: sam, u svojoj vlastitoj osobi, a ne preko uhoda". Ovo
tumaenje prihvaa veina engleskih komentatora, pa i J. Dover Wilson. Urednici "Clarendon Press
Shakespeare" tumae: "Mogue je da to znai: uskladi svoje vladanje prema njegovu nagnuu". To je
tumaenje prihvatio Bogdanovi i preveo: "Svoje elje - Udeavajte prema njegovim". (Torbarina)
[41]
dok je njegov ovaj stroj - Stroj ovdje znai tijelo. Dowden navodi jedno suvremeno djelo O melankoliji,
gdje se narav tijela opisuje kao "stroj" (machine) povezan s "duom" posredstvom "duha".
[42]
J. Dover Wilson je prvi u ovom prizoru pomaknuo dolazak Hamleta na pozornicu za 12 stihova unatrag,
tako da on priuje Polonijeve rijei "U takav as u k njemu pustit ker" i dozna za zamku, u kojoj je i Ofelija
svjesno ili nesvjesno sudionik. To objanjava Hamletovo kasnije vladanje prema njoj i prema Poloniju.
(Torbarina)
[43]
"Prodava riba" (fishmonger) bio je eufemizam za svodnika.
[44]
To je doslovan prijevod engleskog "a good kissing carrion". W. Warbuton je bez potrebe to "emendirao"
u "god kissing carrion", to su stariji izdavai i prevodioci prihvatili. Tako je i Bogdanovi bio preveo
"boanstvo, koje cjeliva strvinu." (Torbarina)
[45]
Misli se vjerojatno na rimskog Juvenala, koji u svojoj X. satiri opisuje meu ostalima starost, a taj opis
podsjea na Shakespeareov.
[46]
Smatralo se da svjei zrak ne prija bolesnicima. Stoga Polonije sugerira, da je Hamlet bolestan i da bi bilo
dobro da se uva propuha.
[47]
Fortuna je boica sree, usuda, sluaja. Zbog njezine nestalnosti Hamlet je zove bludnicom.
[48]
Ako je astoljublje (ambicija) sjena sjene, onda su kraljevi i junaci, kao prototipi astoljublja, takoer
sjene, dok su prosjaci, kao njihova suprotnost, jedini stvarni ljudi (C. H. Herford, J. Dover Wilson).
[49]
Vitez pustolov... ljubavnik... aljivac... lakrdija... dama... - popularni karakteri u ondanjoj drami.
[50]
Ako je ovo, kao to se pretpostavlja, aluzija na suvremene kazaline prilike, onda se ne radi o
Shakespeareovoj druini, koja se do ovog vremena proslavila prikazivanjem komedija, ve se radi o druini
"Lorda Admirala", u kojoj je bio poznati tragini glumac Edward Alleyn, a na repertoaru je imao tragedije
Christophera Marlowea.
[51]
Veoma sporno mjesto. Vjerojatno je rije o zavjeri grofa od Essexa u veljai 1601. "Innovation" kod
Shakespearea uvijek znai "politiki preokret, prevrat, nered", a ne "novotarija", kako je Bogdanovi preveo.
[52]
Ovaj cijeli pasus, do "Herkula i njegov teret", odnosi se na suvremene kazaline prilike. U jesen 1600.
osnovano je djeje kazalite, koje je davalo predstave u teatru Blackfriars. Te predstave su uskoro postale tako
popularne, da su poele ugroavati predstave "odraslih" glumaca. U isto vrijeme je dolo do tzv. "kazalinog
rata" izmeu Ben Jonsona s jedne strane i J. Marstona i T. Dekkera s druge. Odrasli su se glumci sloili s Ben
Jonsonovim neprijateljima, a on je za djecu napisao satirinu dramu "Cynthia's Revels", u kojoj se narugao
Dekkeru, Marstonu i njihovim prijateljima glumcima. Tako je poeo "rat", koji je dugo trajao i "mnogo je bilo
buke na obje strane".
[53]
To znai, da se otmjeni ljudi ne usuuju zaviriti u "puka" kazalita, jer su ih tako ozloglasila "guja pera"
pisaca za djeju druinu.
[54]
i Herkula i njegov teret - Aluzija na kazalite "Globe", koje je imalo kao "cimer" Herkula s globusom na
ramenima. Shakespeare je bio usko povezan s tim kazalitem od dana, kad je podignuto (1599), do svog
povlaenja u Stratford.
[55]
U originalu "I know a hawk from a handsaw", tj. doslovce "razlikujem lopaticu od pile", odnosno "sokola
od aplje". Hamlet kae, da je on lud samo u jednom pravcu, ali da je pregledao svoje tobonje prijatelje, koji
su zapravo dvije ptice grabilice poslane od kralja.
[56]
Quintus Roscius Gallus (umro 62. prije nae ere) bio je slavan komini glumac. U literaturi je poznat po
Ciceronovu govoru "Pro Roscio Comoedo".

7
[57]
Ovo je vjerojatno stih iz neke izgubljene balade. Ujedno neuljudna aluzija na Polonijeve prethodne rijei
("Na moju ast...").
[58]
Nijedan klasini pisac nije toliko utjecao na englesku dramu u doba Shakespearea koliko rimski pjesnik
Seneka. - Piui svoju "Komediju zabluda", Shakespeare se ugledao u Plautovu komediju "Menaechmi", koja
je i naem Driu posluila kao uzor za njegova "Pjerina".
[59]
Biblijska aluzija. I Jiftah se zavjetova Jahvi: "Ako mi preda u ruke Amonce, tko prvi izie na vrata moje
kue u susret meni kada se budem vraao kao pobjednik iz boja s Amoncima, bit e Jahvin, i njega u prinijeti
kao paljenicu." [...] Kada se Jiftah vratio kui u Mispu, gle, izie mu u susret ki pleui uza zvuke bubnjeva.
Bijae mu ona jedinica, osim nje nije imao ni sina ni keri".(Suci, 11, 30-31, 34). Ime Jefto (Jefte, Jiftah)
Bogdanovi je preuzeo iz prijevoda "Svetoga pisma" ure Daniia; tada, kada je Bogdanovi prevodio
"Hamleta", 1924, jo nije bilo hrvatskog prijevoda "Biblije" koji je objavljen u Zagrebu g. 1968. Povijest
Jeftine (Jiftahove) keri obraena je u engleskoj baladi, iz koje Hamlet navodi etiri stiha. (Torbarina)
[60]
Hamlet posebno pozdravlja prvoga glumca i djeaka, koji je, po ondanjem obiaju, igrao glavne enske
uloge. Hamlet se boji da se ovom posljednjem "glas nije izmijenio", tj. da nije preao mutaciju.
[61]
To je povijest o padu Troje, ispriana u drugoj knjizi Vergilove "Enejide". Premda su u to doba postojale
dvije drame o Didoni i Eneji (jedna od C. Marlowea), navedeni stihovi nisu citat, nego originalni
Shakespeareovi.
[62]
Hyrcania je bilo drevno ime za divlje predjele juno od Kavkaza; "zvijere hirkansko" je tigar.
[63]
Ilion je drugo ime za Troju. Ovdje vjerojatno znai Prijamovu palau u Troji.
[64]
Aluzija na Fortunu, boicu sree i sluaja, koja se obino prikazuje gdje zavezanih oiju okree kolo,
simbol nestalnosti i prevrtljivosti.
[65]
Vjerovalo se da golubinja jetra ne izluuju u, stoga biti "golubinje jetre" znai biti blag.
[66]
"Samostan" (nunnery) bio je eufemizam za javnu kuu. ini se da Hamlet ima u vidu i ovo znaenje.
[67]
nakaze - tj. rogonje.
[68]
izvraate imena bojim stvorovima - Gradite se nevjete, a nazivate stvari neednim imenima.
[69]
Tj. svi osim kralja, za koga Hamlet zna, da u tom asu prislukuje.
[70]
Parter je u Shakespeareovu kazalitu, po publici, odgovarao naoj galeriji. U njemu je stajala (ne sjedila)
najmanje kritika publika. Ulaznina za parter bila je samo jedan penny.
[71]
Aluzija na pretjeranu glumu srednjovjekovnih prikazanja. Termagant je imaginarno boanstvo, za koje se
u Srednjem vijeku dralo da ga oboavaju muslimani. U crkvenim prikazanjima bio je estok i silovit. To isto
vrijedi i za judejskoga kralja Heroda.
[72]
Kameleon moe dugo biti bez hrane, stoga se mislilo da ivi od zraka. I Bokilo u Drievu "Dundu
Maroju" (I. 1.) zna za "kamilionte, koji se jajerom hrane".
[73]
Sveuiline predstave na engleskome i na latinskome, igrale su vanu ulogu u razvoju engleske drame. Na
naslovnoj strani drugog quarto-izdanja "Hamleta" navodi se, da je igran "u oba sveuilita, u Cambridgeu i u
Oxfordu".
[74]
Tj. toplo odijelo, prikladno za starce. Hamlet u ali kae, da je prolo toliko vremena od smrti njegova oca,
da on osjea, kako je ostario.
[75]
treba onda ... drvenom konju - Tj. tko eli da mu ostane svjea uspomena poslije smrti, mora da gradi
crkve, jer poboni puritanci postaju jedina vlast u zemlji i zabranjuju nedune stare zabave, kao to su majske
igre i moreke (morris-dance), za koje je simbol bio "drveni konj". To je bio lik konja, privren o pas plesaa,
kojemu su noge bile sakrivene suknjom.
[76]
U drugoj polovici XVI. i u XVII. stoljeu bila je moda da se kakav motto uree na unutranju stranu
prstena. Taj motto je bio nuno kratak.
[77]
Ovo kraljevo pitanje dokazuje, da on nije gledao Pantomimu i zato nije reagirao na "uvredu" u njoj.
[78]
U ekspirskoj tragediji kor nije bio zbor, kao u grkoj, nego pojedinac, koji je tumaio radnju drame (npr.
u "Henriku V." i "Zimskoj prii").
[79]
Tuma je na pozornici pratio kretnje lutaka prikladnim dijalogom i objanjavao radnju.

8
[80]
Citat iz jedne krvave drame o "Rikardu III." Hamlet ironino bodri glumca da pone bombastino
deklamirati u stilu apsurdnih drama o osveti ("revenge drama").
[81]
Ovo je strofa neke izgubljene balade.
[82]
Tragini glumci nosili su perjanice. "Provenske rue" bili su ukrasi u obliku rua na cipelama. Ime potjee
od grada Provins na sjeveroistoku Francuske, koji je grad bio na glasu sa svojih rua.
[83]
Zakupnici kazalita teko su eksploatirali glumce. Da bi se od njih zatitili, glumci su postajali dioniari u
druinama.
[84]
Kraj poslovice glasi: "esto ugine konj". Hamlet misli: dok ja ekam da naslijedim kralja na danskom
prijestolju, mogu i umrijeti.
[85]
Metafora je uzeta iz lova. Ako se tko primakne jelenu "sa strane vjetra", vjetar e ponijeti miris, a jelen e
krenuti u protivnom smjeru, u mreu.
[86]
Kraljiino zaueno pitanje dokazuje, da ona nije znala da je kralj Hamlet umoren.
[87]
Tradicija je u kazalitu, da Hamlet poreuje minijaturnu sliku svog oca, koja mu visi o vratu, s isto takvom
slikom kralja Klaudija, koja visi o vratu njegove matere. ini se, da je J. Dover Wilson u pravu, kad misli, da
se tu radi o slikama na zidu. To se izriito kae u suvremenoj njemakoj verziji Hamleta "Der Bestrafte
Brudermord", a opis lika Hamletova oca ("A stas ko u glasnika Merkurija") uvjetuje portret u naravnoj veliini,
a ne u minijaturi. (Torbarina)
[88]
Prema scenskoj uputi u prvom quarto-izdanju, duh se ovdje ne pojavljuje u ratnoj opremi nego u "kunoj
haljini" (nightgown).
[89]
Pria o tom slavnom majmunu nije sauvana, ali moe se rekonstruirati iz Hamletovih rijei: majmun
odnese kavez ("koaru") s pticama na krov kue i sluajno ih pusti da odlete. Zamilja, da e i on moi da
poleti, ako ue u kavez, a zatim opet izae. Posljedica je, da sebi skrha vrat.
[90]
Iz originala je jasno, da se radi o jecanju i uzdisanju kraljice i da se prema tome "prizor neposredno
nadovezuje na prethodni". Da bi naglasio prekid izmeu III. i IV. ina, kojega kod Shakespearea uope nema,
Bogdanovi je bio prisiljen pripisati "to jecanje" (these sighs) Hamletu ("u uzdasima tekim njegovim").
(Torbarina)
[91]
Shakespeare oito misli na proste gledaoce u stajaem parteru, koji su za vrijeme predstave grickali i
glodali jabuku. Na taj obiaj on jasnije aludira u "Henriku VIII." (V. 4. 63-4). Ovo je jedina mogua
interpretacija teksta drugoga quarto-izdanja ("like an apple"). U foliju stoji samo "like an ape" (kao majmun),
bez objekta. Veina urednika i prevodilaca, medu njima i Bogdanovi, slijede tekst prvoga quarto-izdanja: "as
an ape doth nuts" (kao to majmun dri orahe).
[92]
Hamlet zapravo eli rei, da su njegove rijei budalaste, a da je Rosencrantz lopov.
[93]
"Mrtvo je tijelo, tj. Polonije, na drugom svijetu s kraljem, mojim ocem, ali onaj drugi kralj, moj stric, jo
mu se nije tamo pridruio" (J. Dover Wilson).
[94]
sakrij se, lijo - Povik iz djeje igre, poput naih "skrivaa". "Lija" je ovdje Polonijevo tijelo.
[95]
Tj. u paklu, drugim rijeima: "nek vas avo nosi!" Taj smisao nije bio jasan u Bogdanovievu prijevodu
("potraite ga sami gdjegod drugdje"). (Torbarina)
[96]
Misao je sasvim jasna: Od prevelikog obilja i mira dolazi do stagnacije i nezdravih "unutranjih sekrecija",
koje dovode do rata. Bogdanoviu ovo mjesto "nije posve razumljivo, jer je jamano sauvano u okrnjenom
ili iskvarenom obliku"; ali to ne stoji. (Torbarina)
[97]
Aluzija na narodnu pripovijetku iz grofovije Gloucester: Isus moli kruha kod nekog pekara; pekareva ki
mu krto udijeli, a Isus je nato pretvori u sovu (F. Douce 1887). Ofelija eli rei: Ja sam se preobrazila, ali ne
u sovu kao pekareva ki.
[98]
Aluzija na obiaj da se prva djevojka, koju momak ugleda u zoru toga dana (14. II), smatra njegovom
dragom (Halliwell).
[99]
Tj. gdje je moja tjelesna straa. vicarci su od davnine bili poznati kao vojnici plaenici. Jo su i danas
papina tjelesna straa.
[100]
U ovom sluaju Ofelija je za mrtvim Polonijem poslala najdragocjeniji dio sebe: svoj um.
[101]
Pripjev je "Dolje, dolje", a dobro pristaje Polonijevu stanju.
9
[102]
Oito aluzija na neku priu ili baladu, ali nitko joj nije naao izvora.
[103]
Svaki cvijet ima svoje znaenje, i Ofelija ga daje onomu, kome najbolje pristaje. Rumarin, koji se nosi
na vjenanjima i sprovodima, daje Laertu; za sebe dri mauhice, koje znae misli (pansy, pense), osobito
ljubavne misli. Kopar (laskanje) i kandilku (simbol rogonje) daje kralju. Rutvicu, kao simbol tuge, uva za
sebe, a kraljici, koja je mora nositi "iz drugih razloga", daje ju kao simbol pokajanja. Krasuljak (pretvaranje)
uva za sebe kao opomenu. Ljubic (vjernost) ne moe dati nikome, jer ih vie nema.
[104]
Kad bi kakav odlinik bio pokopan u crkvi, iznad njegova groba objesili bi njegov ljem, ma i grb.
[105]
Shakespeare misli na neke izvore u Engleskoj (npr. Knaresborough u Yorkshireu) s visokim sadrajem
vapnenih soli. Tamo ljudi postavljaju pod vodu, koja prokapljuje, razne drvene predmete, koji se u razmjerno
kratko vrijeme obloe kamenom naslagom.
[106]
Tj. svjetina bi smatrala njegove lisiine (da smo ga dali zatvoriti) kao ast za njega (J. Dover Wilson).
[107]
Ako mogu hvaliti nju, kakva je nekad bila.
[108]
udnovato, da je Shakespeare izabrao ime skoro identino s kraljevim (Claudius i Claudio). U prijevodu
su oba imena nuno posve identina.
[109]
Ako se zbilja vratio... Ali kako se mogao vratiti, kad smo ga tako sigurno otpremili... A ipak, tu je njegovo
pismo, dakle mora da se vratio.
[110]
Vjerojatno aluzija na neko odreeno lice. U vezi s tim C. E. Browne spominje ime Pietra Monte,
instruktora u jahanju na dvoru francuskog kralja Luja VII.
[111]
Kralj nikako ne eli, da se Laert sada sastane s Hamletom, jer se boji da bi meu njima moglo doi do
izmirenja.
[112]
S J. Dover Wilsonom slijedimo tekst drugoga quarto-izdanja (Therewith fantastic garlands did she make),
koje istie da je Ofelija splela vijence od vrbina lia, a vrba je simbol neutjene ljubavi, kao i u "Otelu" (IV.
3. 51). Veina urednika i prevodilaca pretpostavlja folio-tekst (There with fantastic garlands did she come),
pa tako i Bogdanovi: Onamo je dola - Sa udnim vijencima od drijemine... (Torbarina)
[113]
Kad te suze prestanu tei, rijeit u se slabih enskih osobina.
[114]
"Se offendendo" znailo bi "zlijedei sebe", ali grobar dakako misli "se defendendo" tj. "u (samo) obrani",
to bi opravdalo ubojstvo, ali ne i samoubojstvo.
[115]
Latinski: dakle. U originalu iskvareno u "argal".
[116]
Yaughan, Yohan ili Johan je danski oblik engleskog John, a neki "gluhi John" je drao krmu blizu
kazalita "Globe".
[117]
Grobar u iskvarenom obliku pjeva tri kitice jedne pjesme iz suvremenog "Kanconijera", koji se spominje
u "Veselim enama windsorskim"
[118]
Skeat je upozorio, da je Kain, prema legendi koja se spominje u srednjovjekovnom spjevu "Cursor
Mundi", ubio Abela magareom eljusnom kosti.
[119]
Ova i slijedea Hamletova replika, kao i dva grobarova odgovora njemu, vrte se oko igre rijeima. Na
engleskom "lie" znai i leati i lagati. Pokuali smo reproducirati tu igru rijeima. Bogdanovi je ovaj pasus
bio slobodno parafrazirao. (Torbarina)
[120]
E. Dowden i J. Dover Wilson vide ovdje aluziju na zakon o siromasima iz god. 1597, kad je utvren
princip oporezovanja bogatih u prilog olakanja bijede siromaha. Datum se podudara ("ve tri godine").
Dowden kae: "Tada je procjena nadglednika ozlijedila kese, ako ne i uljeve, potrebnijih dvorana".
[121]
Time je tono utvrena dob Hamleta na 30 godina.
[122]
Yorick je vjerojatno iskrivljeni oblik danskog imena Jrg (Georg). Ne zna se na koga ovdje Shakespeare
aludira.
[123]
Shakespeare ne misli ovdje toliko na slavu Aleksandra Velikog koliko na njegovu tjelesnu ljepotu, o kojoj
mnogo govori Plutarh. Shakespeare je poznavao Plutarhove "ivote" u engleskom prijevodu T. Northa (1579).
[124]
Do god. 1823. u Engleskoj su pokapali samoubojice na raskrima pod hrpom kamenja (J. Dover Wilson).

10
[125]
Tj. da bi pokazao svoj bol. U Hamletovim rijeima Laertu J. Dover Wilson vidi "crescendo" sarkazma:
Hoe li plakati? Boriti se (kao to si upravo inio)? Postiti (a to je ceremonijalni znak bola)? Razdrijeti svoju
odjeu (od tuge)? Piti ocat (to stvara melankoliju)? Jesti krokodile (da naui roniti licemjerne suze)?
[126]
Spominjui brdo Osu, Hamlet dopunjuje Laertovu aluziju na priu iz grke mitologije o tome, kako su
divovi Otus i Efijalt navalili brdo Pelion na Osu, a Osu na Olimp u svom pokuaju da svrgnu bogove.
[127]
Nije sasvim jasno, to time misli, ali otprilike znai: Samo se ti razmei; doi e i moje vrijeme (A W.
Verity).
[128]
Kralj misli na skoru smrt Hamletovu, koju eljno oekuje.
[129]
Tj. Rosencrantza i Guildensterna. Hamlet pria, kako ih je nadmudrio na lai, koja je njega imala da
odvede u Englesku i u smrt.
[130]
Hamlet misli na kienu talijansku kaligrafiju, koja je tada bila u obiaju u dopisivanju izmeu knezova i
dvorova.
[131]
Dovoljno je da vol poput Osrica posjeduje odreen broj volova (stoke), pa da dobije pristup na dvor.
[132]
Osric je "novopeeni" plemi, jedan od onih "goludravih utokljunaca", o kojima Polonije govori u
savjetima svom sinu (I. 3.), a za vivka (vanellus vulgaris) se vjeruje da tri s ljuskom na glavi, kad se izlee
iz jajeta. Horacije aludira na Osricov smijeni eir.
[133]
Budui da ... da to ostavi - Veoma sporno mjesto. Tekst folio-izdanja, koji veina izdanja i prijevoda
slijedi, oito je iskvaren. Bogdanovi je bio preveo: "Kako nitko ne zna, to ostavlja na ovom svijetu, zato ga
ne bi ostavio prije reda? Neka bude!" J. Dover Wilson je prvi prihvatio bolji tekst drugoga quarto-izdanja i
ovako parafrazirao: "Budui da, po onom to ostavlja na zemlji, nitko ne zna, koji je pravi as da se umre..."
Ne mogu se sloiti s njim, da "of aught he leaves" znai "od onog to ostavlja na zemlji". Ovo na zemlji je
njegov dodatak, njegova interpretacija. Hamlet govori openito: ovjek nikad ne zna, kad je pravi as da neto
ostavi (npr. glumac pozornicu), a umiranje, ostavljanje ivota, samo je jedan, iako moda najvaniji, od takvih
sluajeva. (Torbarina)
[134]
Mnogi su komentatori, od dr. Johnsona dalje, smatrali ovu Hamletovu izjavu lanom. Istina, njegova je
isprika Laertu nespretna. U danim okolnostima, drukija i ne moe biti. Ali Hamlet ne kae da je lud, ve
samo da je podloan napadajima ludila. To uostalom kae i njegova mati u prethodnom prizoru:
To sve je ludost, ali kratak as
tek traje takav njegov napadaj...
(Torbarina)

11
Krajem 16. st. poinje se razvijati engleska renesansna drama te Thomas Kyd i Christopher Marlowe uvode
znaajne promjene u englesku kazalinu umjetnost. Njihove drame nosile su poetsku veliinu i filozofsku
dubinu skladno povezanu sa svim elementima koji su moralitete inili popularnim meu pukom.
Inspiriran tim novim stilom, Shakespeare je dramu razvijao dalje, stvarajui drame koje kod publike nisu
pobuivale samo emotivne reakcije, nego su propitkivale i debatirale o temeljnim ljudskim vrijednostima.

Kao to je bilo uobiajeno u njegovo doba, Shakespeare je mnoge svoje drame temeljio na djelima drugih
pisaca reciklirajui starije prie i povijesni materijal. Na primjer, Hamlet (oko 1601.) je vjerojatno preradba
neke starije, izgubljene tragedije koja se naziva Ur-Hamlet, dok je King Lear adaptacija starije drame koja se
zvala King Leir.
Hamlet je jedna od Shakespeareovih najznamenitijih drama i jedna od najpoznatijih tragedija svjetske
knjievnosti. Obiluje elemenatima koji su svojstveni Shakespeareu, ali i openito renesansnoj filozofiji o
ovjeku, dok je Hamletovo odlaganje osvete zbog umorstva svoga oca postalo jednim od najintrigantnijih
pitanja u svjetskoj knjievnosti. Hamlet je tragini junak velikih i nezaboravnih razmjera koji se razvija od
tipinog renesansnog uvjerenja da se svijet jo nekako moe popraviti, pa do filozofskoga prihvaanja ljudskih
ogranienja i smrtnosti.
Rijetke su Shakespeareove drame bile objavljene za njegova ivota, dok je veina ostala neobjavljena sve dok
ih posmrtno godine 1623. nisu objavila dvojca lanova Shakespeareove trupe, John Hemings i William
Condell u znamenitom First Folio. Tradicionalna podjela njegovih drama na tragedije, komedije i povijesne
drame slijedi upravo logiku toga izdanja. Meutim, moderna knjievna znanost neke je od tih drama nazvala
"problemskim dramama" koje je teko kategorizirati jer kre temeljne odrednice anra, pa je uvela termin
romance za njegove komedije iz kasnije stvaralake faze. Te se drame nazivaju i tragikomedijama.
Budui da Shakespeare nije objavljivao svoje drame, javlja se problem koji se tie samoga teksta drama jer ih
je nekoliko do nas dolo u raznim verzijama. Slijedom toga, pitanje to je Shakespeare doista napisao postalo
je osnovnim pitanjem mnogih suvremenih knjievnih teoretiara i povjesniara. U godinama prije
standardizacije engleskoga jezika, Shakespeare je esto istu rije pisao na mnogo razliitih naina, to je
takoer rezultiralo zbunjivanjem prepisivaa. Vjeruje se i to da je Shakespeare revidirao svoje drame te tako
ponekad stvarao i dvije razliite verzije iste drame.
U odnosu na stil prethodnika koji je esto umjetan i deklamatorski, Shakespeare, osobito u svojim zrelim i
kasnijim dramama pie prirodnijim jezikom. U dramama kombinira poeziju i prozu, a stih kojega najee
koristi je tzv. blank verse, najee bez rime. Taj stih sastoji se od jambskih stopa (jambski pentametar),
odnosno od deset slogova s naglaskom na svakom drugom slogu.

Shakespeareov ugled znatno je porastao tek nakon njegove smrti. Za ivota i kratko nakon smrti bio je poznat,
ali nije bio prepoznat kao znaajan pjesnik svoga doba Bio je uvrten u onodobne popise vodeih knjievnika,
ali nije mu bila priznavana veliina na primjer Edmunda Spensera.
Tek krajem 17. stoljea Shakespeare je bio prepoznat kao veliki engleski dramski pisac i pjesnik. U poetku
se taj ugled temeljio na njegovoj dramskoj poetici, koja je bila prouavana vie na papiru nego na pozornici.
Do poetka 19. st. njegov je ugled jo vie narastao i dosizao svoje vrhunce. U to doba njegove su drame bile
prikazivane i izrazito popularne. U dananje vrijeme njegove su drame najizvoenije u kazalitima diljem
svijeta i vrlo esto adaptirane za film.
Shakespeareova djela prevedena su na svaki vei ivui jezik, a njegove drame se neprestano izvode diljem
svijeta. Citati iz njegovih djela uli su u svakodnevnu uporabu u mnogim jezicima. Ve godinama mnogi
prouavatelji njegova ivota spekuliraju o detaljima iz njegova ivota, o njegovoj seksualnosti, o tome je li
moda potajno bio katolik, a najvee se debate vode oko toga je li netko drugi napisao neke, ili ak sve njegove
drame i sonete.

12
Elizabetansko doba

Elizabetansko doba je razdoblje koje se povezuje s vladavinom kraljice Elizabete I (1558-1603) i esto se
spominje kao zlatno doba engleske povijesti. To je vrhunac engleske renesanse u kojemu engleska knjievnost
doivljava svoj procvat. U to doba snano se razvija elizabetansko kazalite zahvaljujui Shakespeareu i
drugima koji pisali dramska djela u kojima su jasno prekidali tradiciju dotadanjih mirakula i misterija.
Najvea slava toga doba proizlazi iz snanoga kontrasta s razdobljima prije i poslije njega. Naime, rije je o
kratkome razdoblju unutarnjeg mira izmeu protestanata i katolika, te izmeu parlamenta i britanske
monarhije ije su borbe obiljeile 17. stoljee. Naime, u to je doba parlament jo uvijek bio suvie slab da bi
se mogao snano oduprijeti kraljevskome apsolutizmu.
to se tie vanjske politike, kraljica Elizabeta se trudila sauvati neutralnost Engleske u odnosu prema
Francuskoj i panjolskoj. Odnosi sa panjolskom su se, meutim, pokvarili kada je kraljica poela pomagati
Nizozemce u borbama protiv panjolske te je panjolska kralj Filip II godine 1588. uputio Nepobjedivu
armadu da napadne Englesku. Engleska je pobijedila Armadu te je poela uestalo napadati panjolske luke i
brodove i panjolske posjede u Americi. Unato tomu to je Elizabeta pokuavala odravati mirne odnose s
katolicima, to je doba obiljeeno i krvavim sukobima s jo uvijek katolikom Irskom.
Engleska je u elizabetansko doba imala je vrlo dobro organiziranu djelotvornu centraliziranu vladavinu koja
je veinom bila rezultat reformi Henrika VII i Henrika VIII. Velike ekonomske koristi Engleska je imala od
novouspostavljene trgovine preko Atlantika, od proizvodnje vune i tekstila i utemeljenja prve engleske
kolonije u Sjevernoj Americi, Virginije.
U doba kraljice Elizabete I engleska renesansa dosee svoj vrhunac, djelomino i zbog toga to je kraljica
snano pomagala i poticala razvoj znanosti i knjievnosti.
Znameniti knjievnici elizabetanskoga doba jesu William Shakespeare, Francis Bacon, John Dee, Ben Jonson,
Thomas Kyd, Christopher Marlowe, Edmund Spenser i drugi.

Elizabetanska drama

Pod pojmom elizabetanska drama misli se na drame napisane i javno izvedene u Engleskoj za vrijeme
vladavine kraljice Elizabete I (1558-1603). Taj se termin, meutim, moe shvatiti i ire te se pod njim mogu
okupiti i knjievnici koji su stvarali i izvodili svoje predstave u doba njezinih nasljednika, Jamesa I i Charlesa
I, sve do zatvaranja javnih kazalita 1642. i poetka Graanskoga rata.
Elizabetanska drama se razvila iz nekoliko izvora. Najvaniji od njih jesu misteriji koji su bili dijelom
religijskih festivala u Engleskoj i drugim europskim zemljama u srednjemu vijeku. Misteriji su se temeljili na
biblijskim priama, a u poetku su se izvodili u crkvama, da bi kasnije postali dijelom svjetovnih sveanosti
koje su izrasle u pozadini crkvenih festivala.
Snaan utjecaj na tu vrstu drame uinili su i moraliteti koji su proizali iz misterija pokuavajui nasljedovati
grku tragediju.
Kazaline trupe koje su povremeno izvodile predstave u plemikim kuama postojale su i prije Elizabetine
vladavine i iz njih su se iznjedrili profesionalni glumci koji su glumili u elizabetanskom kazalitu. Trupe
sastavljene od tih glumaca izvodile su djela domaih dramskih stvaratelja, maknuvi s repertoara misterije i
mirakule. Trupe sastavljene od amatera koje su u radno doba vladavine kraljice Elizabete I bile uobiajene,
zakonom iz godine 1572. bile su zamijenjene profesionalnim trupama koje su imale svoje patrone meu
plemiima. Broj takvih patrona za njezine je vladavine bio znatan. One trupe koje nisu imale takve plemenite
patrone bile su zakonom obiljeene kao vagabundi.

13
Pozornica na kojoj su predstave izvoene bila je obina platforma okruena na tri strane publikom, a samo su
rijetke bile otvorene za ulaske, izlaske i sjedala za glazbenike koji su pruali glazbenu pratnju predstavama.
Prvo kazalite koje je bilo sagraeno ba u tu svrhu u Engleskoj bilo je The Theatre (Kazalite) u Shoreditchu.
Sagradio ga je James Burbage godine 1576. Uskoro je bilo sagraeno i Curtain Theatre. Do godine 1600. bilo
je sagraeno nekoliko kazalita, svako s povienom razinom koja je mogla sluiti i kao balkon, na primjer u
Shakespeareovoj predstavi Romeo i Julija, ili kao govornica za one koji se obraaju masama, na primjer u
Juliju Cezaru.
Kazaline trupe sastojale su se iskljuivo od mukaraca. Do vladavine Charlesa II (druga polovica 17. stoljea)
enske su uloge igrali djeaci obueni u enske kostime.
Poveanje londonske populacije, bogaenje Londonaca i njihova elja za spektaklima i drugim drutvenim
dogaajima, pridonijela je stvaranju ogromnoga broja dramskih djela koji su znatno razlikovali po kvaliteti i
veliini. Iako je veina drama napisanih za elizabetansko kazalite izgubljena, sauvano je oko 600 drama.
Drame su u to doba takoer pisali iskljuivo mukarci. Koliko je do danas poznato, nije bilo ni jedne ene
koja je pisala za pozornicu. Ti spisatelji bili su listom iz skromnijih obitelji, najee kolovani na Oxfordu ili
Cambridgeu, ali neki nisu imali takve izobrazbe. Poznato je da su obrazovani spisatelji s visoka gledali na one
koji nisu imali dostatne izobrazbe. Iako se za Williama Shakespearea zna da je poeo kao glumac i scenski
radnik, veina autora nije izvodila svoje predstave. Ni jedan znaajniji autor koji se pojavio nakon 1600.
godine nije glumio.
Ne odgovaraju svi ondanji dramski pisci slici pjesnika ili intelektualaca. Christopher Marlowe je ubijen u
tunjavi u jednoj londonskoj taverni, Shakespeare je bio poznat u londonskome podzemlju, a zaraivao je i na
nain koji je slian dananjemu zelenaenju, a Ben Jonson je ubio jednog glumca u dvoboju. Neki od njih su
bili i vojnici.
Puritanski pokret bio je neprijateljski raspoloen prema kazalitu koje su smatrali grjenim. Najee prozivan
grijeh kazalita elizabetanskoga doba bilo je upravo to to su enske uloge igrali mukarci obueni u ensku
odjeu. Osim toga, kazalita su bila smjetena u dijelu grada gdje su bili smjeteni i bordeli i drugi poroni
klubovi. Kada je puritanski parlament preuzeo kontrolu nad Londonom na poetku Graanskoga rata, odmah
je bilo naloeno zatvaranje kazalita godine 1642. Pozornica je u to doba bila koritena za politike govornice.
Kazalita su se ponovno otvorila obnovom monarhije.
Glumci su u to doba putovali Francuskom gdje su prihvaali utjecaje francuske knjievnosti koja je cvala u
doba Louisa XIV, osobito tragedije.
Pedeset godina drama je u Engleskoj proivljavala svoj vrhunac, a elizabetanski dramski pisci bili su cijenjeni
diljem Europe, to se potvruje ak i u znamenitome djelu Don Quijote i u mnogim drugim djelima. Nakon
puritanskoga zatvaranja kazalita, pa sve do Georga Bernarda Shawa i Oscara Wildea, vie od dva stoljea
nakon toga, engleska drama nije postizala zapaenije rezultate.
to se tie vrsta drama, u to su se doba pisali i izvodile povijesne drame, tragedije i komedije.
Najpoznatiji glumci toga doba bili su William Shakespeare, Edward Alleyn, Robert Armin, Christopher
Beeston i drugi. Od kazalita valja spomenuti The Theatre, The Curtain, The Rose, The Swan, The Globe i
The Fortune. Najpoznatije kazaline trupe bile su The Admiral's Men, The King's Men, The Queen's Men,
Worcester's Men.

Sumnje u autorstvo Shakespeareovih drama

Walt Whitman, Mark Twain, Henry James i Sigmund Freud izrazili su svoje sumnje u to da je ovjek iz
Stratforda- upon-Avona doista napisao sva djela koja mu se pripisuju jer za to ne postoje povijesni dokazi.
Veina znanstvenika koji se bave prouavanjem njegova djela, meutim, smatra njihove argumente

14
neutemeljenima i izazvanima iskljuivo oskudnou i nejasnoom povijesnih podataka o Shakespeareovu
ivotu.
Nakon to je godine 1920. otkriven, Edward de Vere, 17. grof od Oxforda, engleski plemi i intiman prijatelj
kraljice Elizabete, postao je najspominjaniji kao jedan od kandidata za autorstvo Shakespeareova opusa.
Istraivai s Oxforda su, naime, zamijetili slinosti izmeu grofova ivota s osjeajima i dogaajima opisanim
u Shakespeareovim dramama i sonetima. Osnovna zapreka toj teoriji jest injenica da su mnoge njegove drame
napisane nakon grofove smrti.
Neki smatraju da je Christopher Marlowe bio najsposobniji za pisanje tih drama. Postoje i spekulacije o tome
da je njegova smrt godine 1593. bila lairana iz mnogih razlgoa te da se Marlowe sakrio te nastavio pisati pod
imenom Williama Shakespearea.
Evo popisa knjievnika koji su se spominjali kao autori njegovih djela: Christopher Marlowe, Sir Walter
Raleigh, Sir Francis Bacon, Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, William Stanley, Earl of Derby, Sir Edward
Dyer, Sir Henry Neville, ak i kraljica Elizabeta.

***

Hamlet (The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark) je jedna od Shakespeareovih najznamenitijih drama i
jedna od najpoznatijih tragedija svjetske knjievnosti. Rije je o tragediji koja je napisana s temom osvete na
temelju prie koja je prvi put naena u nekoj latinskoj kronici iz 12. stoljea, a kasnije ju je u 16. stoljeu
preradio Francois de Belleforest i uvrstio u zbirku Tragine zgode (Histoires Tragiques). U toj je tragediji
obilje elemenata koji su svojstveni Shakespeareu ali i openito renesansnoj filozofiji o ovjeku. Ve se
stoljeima kritiari pokuavaju domisliti razlozima Hamletova odlaganja osvete zbog umorstva svoga oca, te
to postaje jednim od najintrigantnijih pitanja u svjetskoj knjievnosti. Hamlet je tragini junak velikih i
nezaboravnih razmjera koji se razvija od tipinog renesansnog uvjerenja da se svijet jo nekako moe
popraviti, pa do filozofskoga prihvaanja ljudskih ogranienja i smrtnosti.

Radnjom je smjetena u kraljevski dvorac Elsinore u Danskoj, te prikazuje neodlunost kraljevia Hamleta po
pitanju osvete svome stricu Klaudiju. Klaudije je ubio svoga brata i Hamletovog oca, starog kralja Hamleta,
te oenio Hamletovu majku Gertrudu i uzurpirao prijestolje. Drama se bavi Hamletovom neodlunou, ali i
temama kao to su ludilo, fingirano i stvarno, zatim osveta, incest i ljudska pokvarenost, te iznad svega
filozofskim i religijskim dvojbama novoga vijeka koji se raa.
Izvor Shakespeareu za ovu tragediju je pria o legendarnom danskom kralju Amlethu, koju pria
srednjovjekovni kroniar Saxo Grammaticus u svom djelu Gesta Danorum (Povijest Danaca) iz 13. stoljea.
Grammaticusova verzija prie ima mnogo podudarnosti sa Shakespeareom: ubojstvo starog kralja i novi brak,
glumljeno ludilo, ubojstvo uhode, ubojstvo dva pratitelja. Njegovu priu na francuski prevodi Franois de
Belleforest, te objavljuje u svojoj knjizi Histoires tragiques iz 1570. godine. Glavna novost u odnosu na
Saxovu verziju je uvoenje melankolije glavnog lika. Veina znalaca slae se u tome da je Shakespeareovom
Hamletu prethodila ranija elizabetanska drama na istu temu, sainjena na temelju navedenih izvora, koja nam
danas nije poznata pa ju se u literaturi naziva Ur-Hamlet ili Pra-Hamlet. Ta se drama nepoznatog autora
spominje u razliitim izvorima od 1589. godine, dakle desetak godina prije Shakespeareove. Zna se da je
novost koju ona donosi u od ranije poznatu priu uvoenje duha. Njezin bi autor mogao biti Thomas Kyd,
moda ak i Shakespeare sam. Postoje i indicije da je Shakespeareova druina Chamberlain's Men otkupila i
na scenu postavila tu raniju dramu.
Spomenimo jo jednu podudarnost: Shakespeareov rano preminuli sin zvao se Hamnet. Prema miljenju
veine shakespeareologa danas, rije je tek o podudarnosti, jer je ime Hamnet bilo popularno i uobiajeno u
to vrijeme, dok je ime Hamlet preuzeto iz kronika i legende. Ipak, neki povezuju promjenu "raspoloenja" u
Shakespeareovim dramama u to vrijeme, kada pie veinu svojih velikih tragedija, s tugom zbog smrti sina
koji je umro u jedanaestoj godini 1596. godine.

15
Naslovni junak ove najpoznatije Shakespeareove tragedije, kraljevi Hamlet, vjerojatno je knjievni lik o
kojemu se u povijesti najvie raspravljalo, u prvom redu zbog njegovog glasovitog monologa "Bit ili ne bit"
("To be or not to be, that is the question"). Monolog izraava Hamletovu neodlunost, koja je ujedno i glavni
pokreta, ili usporiva radnje ove tragedije, ali istovremeno i duboko filozofsko pitanje o ubijanju i
opravdanosti osvete, djelovanju i ljudskoj egzistenciji openito. Hamlet je jedan od najfilozofskijih likova
svjetske knjievnosti: njegovi stavovi su relativistiki, skeptiki i egzistencijalistiki, osobito u njegovom
najglasovitijem solilokviju, u kojemu su izjednaeni bivanje i djelovanje, te nebivanje i nedjelovanje, uz
doticanje problema samoubojstva i neizvjesnosti zagrobnog ivota. Hamlet izraava stavove renesansnog
humanizma: skepticizam i sumnju, pri emu se Shakespeare oslanja i na francuskog filozofa i esejista
Montaignea. Hamletu je u drami suprotstavljen racionalni Horacije, sa svojim tradicionalnijim, vie
religijskim stavovima.
Hamlet je dakle lik kojega se najvie tumai kroz njegovu neodlunost. On je svjestan svoje dunosti i zna to
je pravedno i nuno, ali ipak je ne provodi u djelo: ona e ga dovesti do postepenog gubitka vjere u ljudske
kvalitete, razoarenja u ljubav, te tragine propasti.

Po dramskoj strukturi Hamlet je nekonvencionalan i inovativan. Za razliku od preporuka iz Aristotelove

Poetike, kojih se dre svi tragiari koji Shakespeareu prethode, ova drama nije usredotoena na radnju nego
na lik. Iz tog razloga njezin su vaan element monolozi. Takoer, tekst je prepun kominih, humoristikih i
ironinih elemenata, osobito u Hamletovim replikama i dosjetkama.
Osim s filozofskim, Hamleta se povezuje i s religijskim dvojbama i promjenama Shakespeareovog doba. To
je doba reformacije i protestantizma, raanja modernog doba. Hamlet, Horacije, Rosencrantz i Guildenstern
kolovali su se u njemakom Wittenbergu, upravo tamo gdje je Martin Luther pokrenuo reformaciju 1517.
godine, dok je mjesto zbivanja Danska jedna od vodeih protestantskih zemalja. Na Hamletove postupke po
miljenju tumaa djeluju neke promjene u religijskim vjerovanjima, primjerice nepostojanje istilita, ili vjere
u predestinaciju, odnosno vjerovanja da sudbinom svega upravlja Bog, to u katolicizmu ne postoji.

Hamlet je najvjerojatnije nastao izmeu sredine 1599. i sredine 1602. godine. Tona datacija nije mogua i
oko tonijeg datuma strunjaci se dosta spore i raspravljaju. Sauvan je u tri poneto drugaije verzije: prvo
(1603) i drugo (1604) quarto izdanje, te prvo folio izdanje sabranih Shakespeareovih drama iz 1623. Tekstovi
navedenih triju izdanja, kao i neki drugi, poneto se razlikuju, pa su strunjaci konzultiranjem svih njih doli
do "najbolje" verzije teksta Hamleta. Podjela na inove i scene takoer je kasnija, potjee iz izdanja iz 1676.
godine.
Hamlet je ne samo najslavnija i najcitiranija, nego takoer najdua od svih Shakespeareovih drama. Izvoenje
cijelog teksta Hamleta na sceni traje preko etiri sata, dvostruko vie od uobiajenoga u elizabetansko oba. I
danas se Hamlet gotovo uvijek na scenu postavlja u skraenoj verziji.
Iznimno je popularna bila ve u Shakespeareovo vrijeme, a danas je stalno na vrhu ljestvice najizvoenijih
drama. Postoji podatak da je izvedena 26. srpnja 1602. godine. O popularnosti svjedoi i izvjetaj da je
Hamleta u rujnu 1607. izvela posada engleskog broda Red Dragon usidrenog uz obalu Sierra Leonea u Africi.
Nekoliko godina nakon Shakespeareove smrti Hamlet se igrao i u Njemakoj. Zna se i da je Hamlet igran
ilegalno u vrijeme Cromwellove revolucije, kada su engleski republikanci zatvorili i zabranili kazalita. U
novije vrijeme postavljali su ga najpoznatiji redatelji i kazalini inovatori, poput Stanislavskog i Gordona
Craiga. Na filmsko platno prenio ga je, pored brojnih drugih, Laurence Olivier u svojoj film noir verziji iz
1948.
Godine 1889. Shakespeareov Hamlet je prvi put postavljen u Zagrebu, te je potom igran bezbrojno puta u
svim hrvatskim kazalitima. Izuzetno su znaajne izvedbe Hamleta na tvravi Lovrijenac, u sklopu
Dubrovakih ljetnih igara. Prvi put je postavljen 1952. godine u reiji Marka Foteza, a prvi je dubrovaki
Hamlet bio Veljko Marii. Hamleta su na Lovrijencu igrali ak i holivudske zvijezde kao to su Daniel Day
Lewis i Goran Vinji, te brojni prvaci domaeg glumita kao to su Zoran Ristanovi, Petar Kralj, Rade

16
erbedija, Ivo Grgurevi. Reirali su ga eki oskarovac Ji Menzel, Mladen kiljan, Joko Juvani, dok
ga je, dodue ne na Lovrijencu nego na otoku Lokrumu 2003. godine postavio i Peter Brook, najglasovitiji
svjetski redatelj Shakespearea.
I neke od glasovitih adaptacija Hamleta povezane su s Hrvatskom. Slavni britanski suvremeni dramski pisac
i scenarist Tom Stoppard napisao je dramu Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead, svojevrsnog "izvrnutog"
kominog i apsurdnog Hamleta isprianog iz perspektive ta dva sporedna lika. Prema drami je 1990. godine
snimljen film sa Garyjem Oldmanom i Timom Rothom u naslovnim ulogama - na lokacijama u okolici
Zagreba. Godine 1977. u zagrebakom Teatru &td Zlatko Bourek postavlja svoju slavnu lutkarsku verziju
Petnaestominutnog Hamleta, jo jednu Stopppardovu "ekstremnu" adaptaciju Shakespearea. Predstava
doivljava zapaen meunarodni uspjeh i dobiva brojne nagrade.

Utjecaj Hamleta na svjetsku knjievnost kroz stoljea je izuzetan, i po tome je takoer ova tragedija
jedinstvena. Spomenimo samo neke pisce koji crpe iz Hamleta, poput Goethea, Dickensa, Joycea, te konano
i Ivu Breana i njegovu grotesku Predstava Hamleta u selu Mrdua donja.

Marijana Tomi

Istorijska osnova
Datum nastanka
o Hamlet je najvjerojatnije nastao izmeu sredine 1599. i sredine 1602. godine.
o 1598. Francis Meres je objavio spisak Sekspirovih dela, na tom spisku se nije nalazio Hamlet
o U Hamletu imaju ceste aluzije na Julija Cezara (1599.), znaci nastao je posle njega
o Aluzija o tkz. Ratu pozorista (1601.)
o Hamlet je prvi put izvodjen 1602.
o Postoje tri stampana izdanja:
Prvo quatro izdanje (1603.)
Drugo quatro izdanje (1604.)
Prvo folio izdanje sabranih Shakespeareovih drama (1623.)
o Podjela na inove i scene takoer je kasnija, potjee iz izdanja iz 1676.
o Nekoliko godina nakon Shakespeareove smrti Hamlet se igrao i u Njemakoj

Izvori
o Price licne Hamletu ceste su u indo-evropskim
kulturama(Rim,Skandinavija,Spanija,Vizantija,Italija,Arabija)
Skandinavska prica: Saga of Hrolf Kraki
Rimska prica: Lucius Junius Brutus
o Saxo Gramaticus (12. vek)
Islandska prica o Amletu
o Ur-Hamlet
Smatra se glavnim izvorom za Hamleta
Verovatno je napisao Tomas Kyd
Tekst ovog dela je nestao
o Polonius je verovatno inspirisan likom William Cecil (Lord Burghley)savetnikom kraljice Elizabete
I
o Likovi Laerta i Ofelije su takodje inspirisani decom Willimam Cecil : Ana i Robert Cecil
o Teorija da je ime Hamlet inspirisano Sekspirovim sinom Hamnetom je malo verovatna jer je to bilo
veoma cesto ime u to vreme

17
Did You Know? At the time this play was written, ghosts and hauntings often appeared in literature and
in theater productions. Ghosts returned to seek vengeance, reclaim property, or give warning of impending trouble.
Shakespeare used ghosts in several of his works. Aside from Hamlets father, Shakespeares most famous ghosts
include that of Julius Caesar in the tragedy Julius Caesar and Banquo in Macbeth. Both of these ghosts return from the
dead to haunt the people responsible for their murders.
Dramatic Devices Theater and drama today are much different from what they were in Shakespeares time. In the
Elizabethan era, women were not allowed on stage, so acting troupes consisted entirely of men and boys. Because of
their high voices, young boys often played the parts of female characters. The stage itself had very little, if any,
scenery. The plays setting was conveyed to the audience by words or actions of the actors. A nighttime setting, for
example, might be signified by an actor carrying a torch on stage. Costumes, however, were anything but plain. Many
were magnificent in color and style and often were used to denote the characters occupation or to serve as disguises.
Sound effects, such as drum rolls and trumpet blasts, were also popular.

Critical approaches to Hamlet

From its premiere at the turn of the 17th century, Hamlet has remained Shakespeare's best-known, most-
imitated, and most-analyzed play. The character of Hamlet played a critical role in Sigmund Freud's
explanation of the Oedipus complex and thus influenced modern psychology.[1] Even within the narrower
field of literature, the play's influence has been strong. As Foakes writes, "No other character's name in
Shakespeare's plays, and few in literature, have come to embody an attitude to life [...] and been converted
into a noun in this way."[2]

History
Renaissance period

Interpretations of Hamlet in Shakespeare's day were very concerned with the play's portrayal of madness.
The play was also often portrayed more violently than in later times.[3] The play's contemporary popularity is
suggested both by the five quartos that appeared in Shakespeare's lifetime and by frequent contemporary
references (though at least some of these could be to the so-called ur-Hamlet).[4] These allusions suggest that
by the early Jacobean period the play was famous for the ghost and for its dramatization of melancholy and
insanity. The procession of mad courtiers and ladies in Jacobean and Caroline drama frequently appears
indebted to Hamlet. Other aspects of the play were also remembered. Looking back on Renaissance drama
in 1655, Abraham Wright lauds the humor of the gravedigger's scene, although he suggests that Shakespeare
was outdone by Thomas Randolph, whose farcical comedy The Jealous Lovers features both a travesty of
Ophelia and a graveyard scene.[5] There is some scholarly speculation that Hamlet may have been censored
during this period: see Contexts: Religious below. Theatres were closed under the Puritan Commonwealth,
which ran from 16401660.

Restoration

When the monarchy was restored in 1660, theatres re-opened. Early interpretations of the play, from the late
17th to early 18th century, typically showed Prince Hamlet as a heroic figure.[citation needed] Critics responded to
18
Hamlet in terms of the same dichotomy that shaped all responses to Shakespeare during the period. On the
one hand, Shakespeare was seen as primitive and untutored, both in comparison to later English dramatists
such as Fletcher and especially when measured against the neoclassical ideals of art brought back from
France with the Restoration. On the other, Shakespeare remained popular not just with mass audiences but
even with the very critics made uncomfortable by his ignorance of Aristotle's unities and decorum.

Thus, critics considered Hamlet in a milieu which abundantly demonstrated the play's dramatic viability.
John Evelyn saw the play in 1661, and in his Diary he deplored the play's violation of the unities of time and
place.[6] Yet by the end of the period, John Downes noted that Hamlet was staged more frequently and
profitably than any other play in Betterton's repertory.[7]

In addition to Hamlet's worth as a tragic hero, Restoration critics focused on the qualities of Shakespeare's
language and, above all, on the question of tragic decorum. Critics disparaged the indecorous range of
Shakespeare's language, with Polonius's fondness for puns and Hamlet's use of "mean" (i.e., low)
expressions such as "there's the rub" receiving particular attention. Even more important was the question of
decorum, which in the case of Hamlet focused on the play's violation of tragic unity of time and place, and
on the characters. Jeremy Collier attacked the play on both counts in his Short View of the Immorality and
Profaneness of the English Stage, published in 1698. Comparing Ophelia to Electra, he condemns
Shakespeare for allowing his heroine to become "immodest" in her insanity, particularly in the "Flower
Scene".[8][9]

Collier's attack occasioned a widespread, often vituperative controversy. Hamlet in general and Ophelia in
particular were defended by Thomas D'urfey and George Drake almost immediately. Drake defends the
play's justice on the grounds that the murderers are "caught in their own toils" (that is, traps).[10] He also
defends Ophelia by describing her actions in the context of her desperate situation; D'urfey, by contrast,
simply claims that Dennis has discerned immorality in places to which no one else objected. In the next
decade, Rowe and Dennis agreed with Collier that the play violated justice; Shaftesbury and others defended
the play as ultimately moral.[11]

Early eighteenth century

Criticism of the play in the first decades of the 18th century continued to be dominated by the neoclassical
conception of plot and character. Even the many critics who defended Hamlet took for granted the necessity
of the classical canon in principle. Voltaire's attack on the play is perhaps the most famous neoclassical
treatment of the play;[12] it inspired numerous defenses in England, but these defenses did not at first weaken
the neoclassical orthodoxy. Thus Lewis Theobald explained the seeming absurdity of Hamlet's calling death
an "undiscovered country" not long after he has encountered the Ghost by hypothesizing that the Ghost
describes Purgatory, not death.[13] Thus William Popple (in 1735) praises the verisimilitude of Polonius's
character, deploring the actors' tradition of playing him only as a fool.[14] Both Joseph Addison and Richard
Steele praised particular scenes: Steele the psychological insight of the first soliloquy, and Addison the ghost
scene.[15]

The ghost scenes, indeed, were particular favorites of an age on the verge of the Gothic revival. Early in the
century, George Stubbes noted Shakespeare's use of Horatio's incredulity to make the Ghost credible.[16] At
midcentury, Arthur Murphy described the play as a sort of poetic representation of the mind of a "weak and
melancholy person."[17] Slightly later, George Colman the Elder singled out the play in a general discussion
of Shakespeare's skill with supernatural elements in drama.[18]

In 1735, Aaron Hill sounded an unusual but prescient note when he praised the seeming contradictions in
Hamlet's temperament (rather than condemning them as violations of decorum). After midcentury, such
psychological readings had begun to gain more currency. Tobias Smollett criticized what he saw as the
illogic of the "to be or not to be" soliloquy, which was belied, he said, by Hamlet's actions. More commonly,
the play's disparate elements were defended as part of a grander design. Horace Walpole, for instance,
19
defends the mixture of comedy and tragedy as ultimately more realistic and effective than rigid separation
would be. Samuel Johnson echoed Popple in defending the character of Polonius; Johnson also doubted the
necessity of Hamlet's vicious treatment of Ophelia, and he also viewed skeptically the necessity and
probability of the climax. Hamlet's character was also attacked by other critics near the end of the century,
among them George Steevens.[19] However, even before the Romantic period, Hamlet was (with Falstaff), the
first Shakespearean character to be understood as a personality separate from the play in which he appears.[20]

Not until the late 18th century did critics and performers begin to view the play as confusing or inconsistent,
with Hamlet falling from such high status. Goethe had one of his characters say, in his 1795 novel Wilhelm
Meister's Apprenticeship, "Shakespeare meant...to represent the effects of a great action laid upon a soul
unfit for the performance of it...A lovely, pure, noble, and most moral nature, without the strength of nerve
which forms a hero, sinks beneath a burden which it cannot bear, and must not cast away." This change in
the view of Hamlet's character is sometimes seen as a shift in the critical emphasis on plot (characteristic of
the period before 1750) to an emphasis on the theatrical portrayal of the character (after 1750).[3]

Romantic criticism

Already before the Romantic period proper, critics had begun to stress the elements of the play that would
cause Hamlet to be seen, in the next century, as the epitome of the tragedy of character. In 1774, William
Richardson sounded the key notes of this analysis: Hamlet was a sensitive and accomplished prince with an
unusually refined moral sense; he is nearly incapacitated by the horror of the truth about his mother and
uncle, and he struggles against that horror to fulfill his task. Richardson, who thought the play should have
ended shortly after the closet scene, thus saw the play as dramatizing the conflict between a sensitive
individual and a calloused, seamy world.[21]

Henry Mackenzie notes the tradition of seeing Hamlet as the most varied of Shakespeare's creations: "With
the strongest purposes of revenge he is irresolute and inactive; amidst the gloom of the deepest melancholy
he is gay and jocular; and while he is described as a passionate lover he seems indifferent about the object of
his affections." Like Richardson, Mackenzie concludes that the tragedy in the play arises from Hamlet's
nature: even the best qualities of his character merely reinforce his inability to cope with the world in which
he is placed. To this analysis Thomas Robertson adds in particular the devastating impact of the death of
Hamlet's father.[22]

By the end of the 18th century, psychological and textual criticism had outrun strictly rhetorical criticism;
one still sees occasional critiques of metaphors viewed as inappropriate or barbarous, but by and large the
neoclassical critique of Shakespeare's language had become moribund. The most extended critique of the
play's language from the end of the century is perhaps that of Hugh Blair.[23]

Another change occurred right around the Romantic literary period (19th century), known for its emphasis
on the individual and internal motive. The Romantic period viewed Hamlet as more of a rebel against
politics, and as an intellectual, rather than an overly-sensitive, being. This is also the period when the
question of Hamlet's delay is brought up, as previously it could be seen as plot device, while romantics
focused largely on character. Samuel Coleridge, for example, penned a criticism of Hamlet during this
period that raises views which continue to this day, saying basically that he is an intellectual who thinks too
much, and can't make up his mind. He extended this to say that Shakespeare's ultimate message was that we
should act, and not delay. Coleridge and other writers praised the play for its philosophical questions, which
guided the audience to ponder and grow intellectually.[3]

Late nineteenth to early twentieth centuries

At around the turn of the 20th century, two writers, A. C. Bradley and Sigmund Freud, developed ideas
which built on the past and greatly affected the future of Hamlet criticism. Bradley held the view that
Hamlet should be studied as one would study a real person: piecing together his consciousness from the
20
clues given in the play. His explanation of Hamlet's delay was one of a deep "melancholy" which grew from
a growing disappointment in his mother. Freud also viewed Hamlet as a real person: one whose psyche
could be analyzed through the text. He took the view that Hamlet's madness merely disguised the truth in the
same way dreams disguise unconscious realities. He also famously saw Hamlet's struggles as a
representation of the Oedipus complex. In Freud's view, Hamlet is torn largely because he has repressed
sexual desire for his mother, which is being acted out by and challenged by Claudius.[3]

Mid- and late-twentieth century

Later critics of the century, such as T. S. Eliot in his noted essay "Hamlet and His Problems", downplayed
such psychological emphasis of the play, and instead used other methods to read characters in the play,
focusing on minor characters such as Gertrude, and seeing what they reveal about Hamlet's decisions. Eliot
famously called Hamlet "an artistic failure", and criticized the play as analogous to the Mona Lisa, in that
both were overly enigmatic. Eliot targeted Hamlet's disgust with his mother as lacking an "objective
correlative"; viz., his feelings were excessive in the context of the play.

Questions about Gertrude and other minor characters were later taken underwing by the feminist criticism
movement, as criticism focused more and more on questions of gender and political import. Current, New
Historicist theories now attempt to remove the romanticism surrounding the play and show its context in the
world of Elizabethan England.[3]

Analysis and criticism

Dramatic structure

In creating Hamlet, Shakespeare broke several rules, one of the largest being the rule of action over
character. In his day, plays were usually expected to follow the advice of Aristotle in his Poetics, which
declared that a drama should not focus on character so much as action. The highlights of Hamlet, however,
are not the action scenes, but the soliloquies, wherein Hamlet reveals his motives and thoughts to the
audience. Also, unlike Shakespeare's other plays, there is no strong subplot; all plot forks are directly
connected to the main vein of Hamlet struggling to gain revenge. The play is full of seeming discontinuities
and irregularities of action. At one point, Hamlet is resolved to kill Claudius: in the next scene, he is
suddenly tame. Scholars still debate whether these odd plot turns are mistakes or intentional additions to add
to the play's theme of confusion and duality.[24]

Language

Hamlet's statement in this scene that his dark clothing is merely an outward representation of his inward grief is an
example of his strong rhetorical skill.

Much of the play's language is in the elaborate, witty language expected of a royal court. This is in line with
Baldassare Castiglione's work, The Courtier (published in 1528), which outlines several courtly rules,
specifically advising servants of royals to amuse their rulers with their inventive language. Osric and
Polonius seem to especially respect this suggestion. Claudius' speech is full of rhetorical figures, as is
Hamlet's and, at times, Ophelia's, while Horatio, the guards, and the gravediggers use simpler methods of
speech. Claudius demonstrates an authoritative control over the language of a King, referring to himself in
the first person plural, and using anaphora mixed with metaphor that hearkens back to Greek political
speeches. Hamlet seems the most educated in rhetoric of all the characters, using anaphora, as the king does,
but also asyndeton and highly developed metaphors, while at the same time managing to be precise and
unflowery (as when he explains his inward emotion to his mother, saying "But I have that within which
passes show, / These but the trappings and the suits of woe."). His language is very self-conscious, and relies
21
heavily on puns. Especially when pretending to be mad, Hamlet uses puns to reveal his true thoughts, while
at the same time hiding them. Psychologists have since associated a heavy use of puns with schizophrenia.[25]

Hendiadys is one rhetorical type found in several places in the play, as in Ophelia's speech after the nunnery
scene ("Th'expectancy and rose of the fair state" and "I, of all ladies, most deject and wretched" are two
examples). Many scholars have found it odd that Shakespeare would, seemingly arbitrarily, use this
rhetorical form throughout the play. Hamlet was written later in his life, when he was better at matching
rhetorical figures with the characters and the plot than early in his career. Wright, however, has proposed
that hendiadys is used to heighten the sense of duality in the play.[26]

Hamlet's soliloquies have captured the attention of scholars as well. Early critics viewed such speeches as
To be, or not to be as Shakespeare's expressions of his own personal beliefs. Later scholars, such as
Charney, have rejected this theory saying the soliloquies are expressions of Hamlet's thought process.
During his speeches, Hamlet interrupts himself, expressing disgust in agreement with himself, and
embellishing his own words. He has difficulty expressing himself directly, and instead skirts around the
basic idea of his thought. Not until late in the play, after his experience with the pirates, is Hamlet really able
to be direct and sure in his speech.[27]

Contexts
Religious

John Everett Millais' Ophelia (1852) depicts Ophelia's mysterious death by drowning. The clowns' discussion of
whether her death was a suicide and whether she merits a Christian burial is at heart a religious topic.

The play makes several references to both Catholicism and Protestantism, the two most powerful theological
forces of the time in Europe. The Ghost describes himself as being in purgatory, and as having died without
receiving his last rites. This, along with Ophelia's burial ceremony, which is uniquely Catholic, make up
most of the play's Catholic connections. Some scholars have pointed that revenge tragedies were
traditionally Catholic, possibly because of their sources: Spain and Italy, both Catholic nations. Scholars
have pointed out that knowledge of the play's Catholicism can reveal important paradoxes in Hamlet's
decision process. According to Catholic doctrine, the strongest duty is to God and family. Hamlet's father
being killed and calling for revenge thus offers a contradiction: does he avenge his father and kill Claudius,
or does he leave the vengeance to God, as his religion requires?[28]

The play's Protestantism lies in its location in Denmark, a Protestant (and specifically a Lutheran) country in
Shakespeare's day, though it is unclear whether the fictional Denmark of the play is intended to mirror this
fact. The play does mention Wittenberg, which is where Hamlet is attending university, and where Martin
Luther first nailed his 95 theses.[29] One of the more famous lines in the play related to Protestantism is:
"There is special providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be not now, 'tis not to come; if it be not to come, it
will be now; if it be not now, yet will it comethe readiness is all."[30]

In the First Quarto, the same line reads: "There's a predestinate providence in the fall of a sparrow." Scholars
have wondered whether Shakespeare was censored, as the word "predestined" appears in this one Quarto of
Hamlet, but not in others, and as censoring of plays was far from unusual at the time.[31] Rulers and religious
leaders feared that the doctrine of predestination would lead people to excuse the most traitorous of actions,
with the excuse, "God made me do it." English Puritans, for example, believed that conscience was a more
powerful force than the law, due to the new ideas at the time that conscience came not from religious or
government leaders, but from God directly to the individual. Many leaders at the time condemned the
doctrine, as: "unfit 'to keepe subjects in obedience to their sovereigns" as people might "openly maintayne
that God hath as well pre-destinated men to be trayters as to be kings."[32] King James, as well, often wrote
about his dislike of Protestant leaders' taste for standing up to kings, seeing it as a dangerous trouble to
society.[33] Throughout the play, Shakespeare mixes the two religions, making interpretation difficult. At one

22
moment, the play is Catholic and medieval, in the next, it is logical and Protestant. Scholars continue to
debate what part religion and religious contexts play in Hamlet.[34]

Philosophical

Philosophical ideas in Hamlet are similar to those of Michel de Montaigne, a contemporary to Shakespeare.

Hamlet is often perceived as a philosophical character. Some of the most prominent philosophical theories in
Hamlet are relativism, existentialism, and scepticism. Hamlet expresses a relativist idea when he says to
Rosencrantz: "there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so" (2.2.268-270). The idea that
nothing is real except in the mind of the individual finds its roots in the Greek Sophists, who argued that
since nothing can be perceived except through the senses, and all men felt and sensed things differently,
truth was entirely relative. There was no absolute truth.[35] This same line of Hamlet's also introduces theories
of existentialism. A double-meaning can be read into the word "is", which introduces the question of
whether anything "is" or can be if thinking doesn't make it so. This is tied into his To be, or not to be speech,
where "to be" can be read as a question of existence. Hamlet's contemplation on suicide in this scene,
however, is more religious than philosophical. He believes that he will continue to exist after death.[36]

Hamlet is perhaps most affected by the prevailing scepticism in Shakespeare's day in response to the
Renaissance's humanism. Humanists living prior to Shakespeare's time had argued that man was godlike,
capable of anything. Scepticism toward this attitude is clearly expressed in Hamlet's What a piece of work is
a man speech:[37]

... this goodly frame the earth seems to me a sterile promontory, this most excellent canopy the air, look you,
this brave o'erhanging firmament, this majestical roof fretted with golden fire, why it appeareth nothing to me
but a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours. What a piece of work is a manhow noble in reason; how
infinite in faculties, in form and moving; how express and admirable in action; how like an angel in
apprehension; how like a god; the beauty of the world; the paragon of animals. And yet, to me, what is this
quintessence of dust? (Q2, 2.2.264-274)[38]

Scholars have pointed out this section's similarities to lines written by Michel de Montaigne in his Essais:

Who have persuaded [man] that this admirable moving of heavens vaults, that the eternal light of these lampes
so fiercely rowling over his head, that the horror-moving and continuall motion of this infinite vaste ocean
were established, and continue so many ages for his commoditie and service? Is it possible to imagine so
ridiculous as this miserable and wretched creature, which is not so much as master of himselfe, exposed and
subject to offences of all things, and yet dareth call himself Master and Emperor.

Rather than being a direct influence on Shakespeare, however, Montaigne may have been reacting to the
same general atmosphere of the time, making the source of these lines one of context rather than direct
influence.[39]

Common subjects of criticism

Revenge and Hamlet's delay

Within Hamlet, the stories of five murdered father's sons are told: Hamlet, Laertes, Fortinbras, Pyrrhus, and
Brutus. Each of them faces the question of revenge in a different way. For example, Laertes moves quickly
to be "avenged most throughly of [his] father", while Fortinbras attacks Poland, rather than the guilty
Denmark. Pyrrhus only stays his hand momentarily before avenging his father, Achilles, but Brutus never
takes any action in his situation. Hamlet is a perfect balance in the midst of these stories, neither acting
quickly nor being completely inactive.[40]
23
Hamlet struggles to turn his desire for revenge into action, and spends a large portion of the play waiting
rather than doing. Scholars have proposed numerous theories as to why he waits so long to kill Claudius.
Some say that Hamlet feels for his victim, fearing to strike because he believes that if he kills Claudius he
will be no better than him. The story of Pyrrhus, told by one of the acting troupe, for example, shows Hamlet
the darker side of revenge, something he does not wish for. Hamlet frequently admires those who are swift
to act, such as Laertes, who comes to avenge his father's death, but at the same time fears them for their
passion, intensity, and lack of logical thought.[41]

Hamlet's speech in act three, where he chooses not to kill Claudius in the midst of prayer, has taken a central
spot in this debate. Scholars have wondered whether Hamlet is being totally honest in this scene, or whether
he is rationalizing his inaction to himself. Critics of the Romantic era decided that Hamlet was merely a
procrastinator, in order to avoid the belief that he truly desired Claudius' spiritual demise. Later scholars
suggested that he refused to kill an unarmed man, or that he felt guilt in this moment, seeing himself as a
mirror of the man he wanted to destroy. Indeed it seems Hamlet's renaissance-driven principles serve to
procrastinate his thoughts.[42] The physical image of Hamlet stabbing to death an unarmed man at prayer,
from behind, would have been shocking to any theater audience. Similarly, the question of "delay" must be
seen in the context of a stage play - Hamlet's "delay" between learning of the murder and avenging it would
be about three hours at most - hardly a delay at all.

The play is also full of constraint imagery. Hamlet describes Denmark as a prison, and himself as being
caught in birdlime. He mocks the ability of man to bring about his own ends, and points out that some divine
force molds men's aims into something other than what they intend. Other characters also speak of
constraint, such as Polonius, who orders his daughter to lock herself from Hamlet's pursuit, and describes
her as being tethered. This adds to the play's description of Hamlet's inability to act out his revenge.[43]

Madness

Hamlet has been compared to the Earl of Essex, who was executed for leading a rebellion against Queen
Elizabeth. Essex's situation has been analyzed by scholars for its revelations into Elizabethan ideas of
madness in connection with treason as they connect with Hamlet. Essex was largely seen as out of his mind
by Elizabethans, and admitted to insanity on the scaffold before his death. Seen in the same context, Hamlet
is quite possibly as mad as he is pretending to be, at least in an Elizabethan sense.[3]

Protestantism

Hamlet was a student at Wittenberg or so is thought. Wittenberg is "one of only two universities that
Shakespeare ever mentions by name," and "was famous in the early sixteenth century for its teaching of ...
Luther's new doctrine of salvation."[31] Furthermore, Hamlet's reference to "a politic convocation of worms"
has been read as a cryptic allusion to Luther's famous theological confrontation with the Holy Roman
Emperor at the Diet of Worms in 1521.[44]

However, the more influential Reformer in early 17th century England was John Calvin, a strong advocate
of predestination; many critics have found traces of Calvin's predestinarian theology in Shakespeare's play.
Calvin explained the doctrine of predestination by comparing it to a stage, or a theater, in which the script is
written for the characters by God, and they cannot deviate from it. God, in this light, sets up a script and a
stage for each of his creations, and decrees the end from the beginning, as Calvin said: "After the world had
been created, man was placed in it, as in a theater, that he, beholding above him and beneath the wonderful
work of God, might reverently adore their Author." Scholars have made comparisons between this
explanation of Calvin's and the frequent references made to the theatre in Hamlet, suggesting that these may
also take reference to the doctrine of predestination, as the play must always end in its tragic way, according
to the script.[45]

24
Rulers and religious leaders feared that the doctrine of predestination would lead people to excuse the most
traitorous of actions, with the excuse, "God made me do it." English Puritans, for example, believed that
conscience was a more powerful force than the law, due to the new ideas at the time that conscience came
not from religious or government leaders, but from God directly to the individual. Many leaders at the time
condemned the doctrine, as: "unfit 'to keepe subjects in obedience to their sovereigns" as people might
"openly maintayne that God hath as well pre-destinated men to be trayters as to be kings."[46] King James, as
well, often wrote about his dislike of Protestant leader's taste for standing up to kings, seeing it as a
dangerous trouble to society.[47] In Hamlet's final decision to join the sword-game of Laertes, and thus enter
his tragic final scene, he says to the fearful Horatio:

"There is special providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be now, 'tis not to come; if it be not to come, it will
be now; if it be not now, yet will it comethe readiness is all. Since no man, of aught he leaves, knows
what is't to leave betimes, let be."[48]

In itself, this line lays the final capstone on Hamlet's decision. The line appears to base this decision on his
believed predestination as the killer of the king, no matter what he may do. The potential allusion to
predestinarian theology is even stronger in the first published version of Hamlet, Quarto 1, where this same
line reads: "There's a predestinate providence in the fall of a sparrow." Scholars have wondered whether
Shakespeare was censored, as the word "predestined" appears in this one Quarto of Hamlet, but not in
others, and as censoring of plays was far from unusual at the time.[31]

Catholicism

At the same time, Hamlet expresses several Catholic views. The Ghost, for example, describes himself as
being slain without receiving Extreme Unction, his last rites. He also implies that he has been living in
Purgatory: "I am thy father's spirit / Doom'd for a certain term to walk the night, / And for the day confin'd
to fast in fires,/ Till the foul crimes done in my days of nature / Are burnt and purg'd away" (1.5.9-13).
While belief in Purgatory remains part of Roman Catholic teaching today, it was explicitly rejected by the
Protestant Reformers in the 16th century.[49]

Catholic doctrines manifest themselves all over the play, including the discussion over the manner of
Ophelia's burial in Act 5. The question in this scene is of whether it is right for Ophelia to have a Christian
burial, since those who commit suicide are guilty of their own murder in the doctrines of the church. As the
debate continues between the two clowns, it becomes a question of whether her drowning was suicide or
not. Shakespeare never fully answers this question, but presents both sides: either that she did not act to stop
the drowning and therefore committed suicide of her own will, or that she was mad and did not know the
danger and thus was killed by the water, innocently.[50]

The burial of Ophelia reveals more of the religious doctrines in question through the Priest overseeing the
funeral. Scholars have carefully outlined the "maimed rites" (as Hamlet calls them) carried out by the Priest.
Many things are missing in her funeral that would normally make up a Christian burial. Laertes asks, "What
ceremony else?" The priest answers that since her death was questionable, they will not give her the full
funeral, although they will allow her "maiden strewments," or flowers which were thrown into her grave. In
cases of suicide, sharp rocks, rather than flowers, were thrown in. The difficulties in this deeply religious
moment reflect much of the religious debate of the time.[50]

Other Interpretations
Feminist

Ophelia, distracted by grief (4.5). Feminist critics have explored her descent into madness in her defense.

25
Feminist critics have focused on the gender system of Early Modern England. For example, they point to the
common classification of women as maid, wife or widow, with only whores outside this trilogy. Using this
analysis, the problem of Hamlet becomes the central character's identification of his mother as a whore due
to her failure to remain faithful to Old Hamlet, in consequence of which he loses his faith in all women,
treating Ophelia as if she were a whore also.[51]

Carolyn Heilbrun published an essay on Hamlet in 1957 entitled "Hamlet's Mother". In it, she defended
Gertrude, arguing that the text never hints that Gertrude knew of Claudius poisoning King Hamlet. This
view has been championed by many feminists.[52] Heilbrun argued that the men who had interpreted the play
over the centuries had completely misinterpreted Gertrude, believing what Hamlet said about her rather than
the actual text of the play. In this view, no clear evidence suggests that Gertrude was an adulteress. She was
merely adapting to the circumstances of her husband's death for the good of the kingdom.

Ophelia, also, has been defended by feminists, most notably by Elaine Showalter.[53] Ophelia is surrounded
by powerful men: her father, brother, and Hamlet. All three disappear: Laertes leaves, Hamlet abandons her,
and Polonius dies. Conventional theories had argued that without these three powerful men making
decisions for her, Ophelia was driven into madness.[54] Feminist theorists argue that she goes mad with guilt
because, when Hamlet kills her father, he has fulfilled her sexual desire to have Hamlet kill her father so
they can be together. Showalter points out that Ophelia has become the symbol of the distraught and
hysterical woman in modern culture, a symbol which may not be entirely accurate nor healthy for women.[55]

Psychoanalytic

Key figures in psychoanalysisSigmund Freud and Jacques Lacanhave offered interpretations of Hamlet.
In his The Interpretation of Dreams (1899), Freud proceeds from his recognition of what he perceives to be
a fundamental contradiction in the text: "the play is built up on Hamlet's hesitations over fulfilling the task
of revenge that is assigned to him; but its text offers no reasons or motives for these hesitations".[56] He
considers Goethe's 'paralysis from over-intellectualization' explanation as well as the idea that Hamlet is a
"pathologically irresolute character". He rejects both, citing the evidence that the play presents of Hamlet's
ability to take action: his impulsive murder of Polonius and his Machiavellian murder of Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern. Instead, Freud argues, Hamlet's inhibition against taking vengeance on Claudius has an
unconscious origin.

Freud's theory of Hamlet's unconscious oedipal desire towards his mother has influenced modern performances of the
'closet scene' (3.3).

In an anticipation of his later theories of the Oedipus complex, Freud suggests that Claudius has shown
Hamlet "the repressed wishes of his own childhood realized" (his desire to kill his father and take his father's
place with his mother). Confronted with this image of his own repressed desires, Hamlet responds with
"self-reproaches" and "scruples of conscience, which remind him that he himself is literally no better than
the sinner whom he is to punish."[56] Freud goes on to suggest that Hamlet's apparent "distaste for sexuality",
as expressed in his conversation with Ophelia (presumably in the 'nunnery scene' rather than during the play-
within-a-play), "fits in well" with this interpretation.[57]

Since this theory, the 'closet scene' in which Hamlet confronts his mother in her private quarters has been
portrayed in a sexual light in several performances. Hamlet is played as scolding his mother for having sex
with Claudius while simultaneously wishing (unconsciously) that he could take Claudius' place; adultery and
incest is what he simultaneously loves and hates about his mother. Ophelia's madness after her father's death
may be read through the Freudian lens as a reaction to the death of her hoped-for lover, her father. Her
unrequited love for him suddenly slain is too much for her and she drifts into insanity.[58]

26
In addition to the brief psychoanalysis of Hamlet, Freud offers a correlation with Shakespeare's own life:
Hamlet was written in the wake of the death of his father (in 1601), which revived his own repressed
childhood wishes; Freud also points to the identity of Shakespeare's dead son Hamnet and the name
'Hamlet'. "Just as Hamlet deals with the relation of a son to his parents", Freud concludes, "so Macbeth
(written at approximately the same period) is concerned with the subject of childlessness." Having made
these suggestions, however, Freud offers a caveat: he has unpacked only one of the many motives and
impulses operating in the author's mind, albeit, Freud claims, one that operates from "the deepest layer".[57]

Later in the same book, having used psychoanalysis to explain Hamlet, Freud uses Hamlet to explain the
nature of dreams: in disguising himself as a madman and adopting the license of the fool, Hamlet "was
behaving just as dreams do in reality [...] concealing the true circumstances under a cloak of wit and
unintelligibility". When we sleep, each of us adopts an "antic disposition".[59]

Gothic

Hamlet contains many elements that would later show up in Gothic Literature. From the growing madness
of Prince Hamlet, to the violent ending to the constant reminders of death, to, even, more subtly, the notions
of humankind and its structures and the viewpoints on women, Hamlet evokes many things that would recur
in what is widely regarded as the first piece of Gothic literature, Horace Walpole's The Castle of Otranto,
and in other Gothic works.[60] Walpole himself even wrote, in his second preference to Otranto:

That great master of nature, Shakespeare, was the model I copied. Let me ask if his tragedies of Hamlet and
Julius Csar would not lose a considerable share of their spirit and wonderful beauties, if the humour of the
grave- diggers, the fooleries of Polonius, and the clumsy jests of the Roman citizens, were omitted, or vested
in heroics?[61]

Heroic

Paul Cantor, in his short text called simply Hamlet, formulates a compelling theory of the play that places
the prince at the center of the Renaissance conflict between Ancient and Christian notions of heroism.
Cantor says that the Renaissance signified a "rebirth of classical antiquity within a Christian culture". [62] But
such a rebirth brought with it a deep contradiction: Christ's teachings of humility and meekness ("whoever
shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also"[63]) are in direct conflict with the ancient ethos
that is best represented by Achilles' violent action in the Iliad ("I wish only that my spirit and fury would
drive me to hack your meat away and eat it raw for the things that you have done to me"[64]).

For Cantor, the character of Hamlet exists exactly where these two worlds collide. He is in one sense drawn
towards the active side of heroism by his father's legacy ("He smote the sledded Polaks on the ice"[65]) and
the need for revenge ("now could I drink hot blood. And do such bitter business as the day/ Would quake to
look on"[66]). Simultaneously though, he is pulled towards a religious existence ("for in that sleep of death
what dreams may come"[67]) and in some sense sees his father's return as a ghost as justification for just such
a belief.

The conflict is perhaps most evident in 3.3 when Hamlet has the opportunity to kill the praying Claudius. He
restrains himself though, justifying his further hesitation with the following lines: "Now might I do it pat,
now a is a-praying;/ And now Ill do it- and so a goes to heaven,/ And so am I revengd. That would be
scannd:/ A villain kills my father, and for that/ I, his sole son, do this same villain send/ To heaven.".[68] At
this moment it is clear that the prince's single mind and body are being torn apart by these two powerful
ideologies.

Even in the famous 3.1 soliloquy, Hamlet gives voice to the conflict. When he asks if it is "nobler in the
mind to suffer",[69] Cantor believes that Shakespeare is alluding to the Christian sense of suffering. When he

27
presents the alternative, "to take arms against a sea of troubles",[70] Cantor takes this as an ancient
formulation of goodness.

Cantor points out that most interpretations of Hamlet (such as the Psychoanalytic or Existentialist) see "the
problem of Hamlet as somehow rooted in his individual soul" whereas Cantor himself believes that his
Heroic theory mirrors "a more fundamental tension in the Renaissance culture in which he lives".[71]

Meta-interpretational

Maynard Mack, in a hugely influential chapter of Everybody's Shakespeare entitled "The Readiness is All",
claims that the problematic aspects of Hamlet's plot are not accidental (as critics such as T.S. Eliot might
have it) but are in fact woven into the very fabric of the play. "It is not simply a matter of missing
motivations," he says, "to be expunged if only we could find the perfect clue. It is built in".[72] Mack states
that "Hamlet's world is pre-eminently in the interrogative mood. It reverberates with questions".[73] He
highlights numerous examples: "What a piece of work is man!... and yet to me what is this quintessence of
dust?"; "To be, or not to be- that is the question"; "Get thee to a nunnery. Why wouldst thou be a breeder of
sinners?"; "What should such fellows as I do crawling between earth and heaven?".[73] The action of the play,
especially the scenes outside the castle, take place in a kind of logical fog. The opening scene is riddled with
confusions and distortions: "Bernardo?"; "What, is Horatio there?"; "What, has it appeared again tonight?";
"Is not this something more than fantasy?".[72]

Hamlet himself realizes that "he is the greatest riddle of all" and at 3.2.345 he expresses his frustration with
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern: "how unworthy a thing you make of me... call me what instrument you will,
though you can fret me, you cannot play upon me".[74] Mack says that the confusion of the drama points
"beyond the context of the play, out of Hamlet's predicaments into everyone's".[73]

Other critics such as Martin Evans expand upon Mack's notion of built in mystery, claiming that even the
textual discrepancies between the three known versions may actually be deliberate (or at the very least they
add to the effect). Evans also argues that Shakespeare's impenetrable text and Hamlet's unplayable strings
could be meant to reflect the deep anxieties that were felt in an era of philosophical, scientific and religious
disorientation. The works (and actions) of Machiavelli, Copernicus and Luther had upset hierarchical
notions of virtue, order and salvation that had persisted since the Middle Ages.[75]

Hamlet is in a sense the inscrutable and enigmatic world within which human beings had to orient
themselves for the first time. We are each characters in a play just like Gertrude, Polonius and the rest
where they are trying to grasp Hamlet, we are trying to grasp Hamlet. Whatever interpretation we walk away
with though, whether it be existential, religious or feminist, it will necessarily be incomplete. For Mack,
human beings will always remain in an "aspect of bafflement, moving in darkness on a rampart between two
worlds".[72]

David P. Gontar in his book Hamlet Made Simple proposes that most of the puzzles in the play can be
resolved by conceiving of Prince Hamlet as the son of Claudius, not Hamlet the Dane. Note that Hamlet is
suicidal in the first soliloquy well before he meets the Ghost. Gontar reasons that his depression is a result of
having been passed over for the Danish throne which is given inexplicably to the King's brother. This tends
to imply an impediment to succession, namely illegitimacy. On this reading some collateral issues are
resolved: Hamlet is angry at his mother for an extramarital affair she had with Claudius, of which he, the
Prince, is a byproduct. Further, the reason Hamlet cannot kill the King is not because the King is a father
figure but, more strongly, because he is Hamlet's actual biological father. We can deduce, then, that the
Ghost is in fact a liar, who shows no concern for Hamlet's own personal welfare. He confirms the fatherhood
of King Hamlet in order to give Hamlet an incentive for revenge.

Analysis of the scene

28
 Gravediggers
Many major and important themes of the play are discussed and brought up by the Gravediggers in the short
time they are on stage. The manner in which these themes are presented, however, is notably different from
the rest of the play.

While the rest of the play is set solely in the fictional world of Hamlet's Denmark, this scene helps makes
sense of the themes by simultaneously bringing the focus to the audience's world. "By using recognizable
references from contemporary times, the clown can, through the use of the oral tradition, make the audience
understand the theme being played out by the court-dominated characters in the play."[1]

For example, although the First Gravedigger is definitely in the fictional world of the play (he is digging
Ophelia's grave), he also asks his fellow to "go, get thee to Yaughan, fetch me a stoup of liquor".[2] This does
not appear in all versions and means little to us now, but it is "generally supposed that [Yaughan] was a
nearby inn-keeper [to the theatre]".[3] Likewise, the First Gravedigger is in the same world as the English
audience of the time when he jokes "...[insanity] will not be seen in [Hamlet] there [in England]; there the
men are as mad as he".[4] This gives enough of a "distance from Elsinore [for the audience] to view what the
clowns say as discreet parallels, not direct commentaries".[1]

The literal graveness of the situation (the funeral) subsides to the humor. This makes it possible for the
characters to look at the subject of death objectively, giving rise to such speeches as Hamlet's musings over
the skull of Yorick.

The tone is set from the opening of the scene, during the Gravediggers' dialog regarding Ophelia. Simply,
they use her death to debate whether suicide is legitimate and forgivable according to religious law. This is
not the first time, however, that this question has been raised in the play. Hamlet has the very same
discussion with himself during his "To be, or not to be" soliloquy in Act 3 scene 1. The characters in Act 5
scene 1 approach the topic this time with dark comedy, and in doing so bring up an entirely different theme.

The parody of legal jargon used by the pair of clowns continues the theme of the corruption of politics, as
seen in the usurpation of the throne by Claudius (which should have belonged to prince Hamlet) upon King
Hamlet's death.

The disintegration of values, morals, and order is a theme discussed at length in "Hamlet". The everyday
tone of the Gravediggers brings this philosophy into the focus of the audience's world. The synthesis of all
perspectives used ends in a greater comprehension of the play as a whole.[1]

Finally, it should be remembered that "Hamlet" was written to be performed at a time when religion was a
very hot topic. But it was possible to critique the Reformation in England and discuss the legality of suicide
as long as the characters have their own intention (i.e. to dig a grave) separate from the author's intention.[5]

Hamlet

Role in the play[edit]

29
The play opens with Hamlet deeply depressed over the recent death of his father, King Hamlet, and his uncle
Claudius' ascension to the throne and hasty marriage to Hamlet's mother Gertrude. One night, his father's
ghost appears to him and tells him that Claudius murdered him in order to usurp the throne, and commands
his son to avenge his death.

Claudius sends for two of Hamlet's childhood friends, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, to find out what is
causing Hamlet so much pain. Claudius and his advisor Polonius convince OpheliaPolonius' daughter and
Hamlet's true loveto speak with Hamlet while they secretly listen. Hamlet enters, contemplating suicide
("To be, or not to be"). Ophelia greets him, and offers to return his remembrances, upon which Hamlet
questions her honesty and tells her to "get thee to a nunnery."

Hamlet devises a test to see whether Claudius is guilty: he hires a group of actors to perform a play about the
murder of a king in front of the royal court, and waits to gauge Claudius' reaction. When Claudius leaves the
audience deeply upset, Hamlet knows that the ghost was telling the truth. He follows Claudius into his
chambers in order to kill him, but stops when he sees his uncle praying; he does not want to kill Claudius
while he is in a state of grace. A second attempt on Claudius' life ends in Polonius' accidental death.

Claudius, now fearing for his life, sends Hamlet to England, accompanied (and closely watched) by
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Alone, Claudius discloses that he is actually sending Hamlet to his death.
Prior to embarking for England, Hamlet hides Polonius' body, ultimately revealing its location to the King.
Meanwhile, her father's death has driven Ophelia insane with grief, and Claudius convinces her brother
Laertes that Hamlet is to blame. He proposes a fencing match between the two. Laertes informs the king that
he will further poison the tip of his sword so that a mere scratch would mean certain death. Claudius plans to
offer Hamlet poisoned wine if that fails. Gertrude enters to report that Ophelia has killed herself.

In the Elsinore churchyard, two "clowns", typically represented as "gravediggers," enter to prepare Ophelia's
grave. Hamlet arrives with Horatio and banters with one of them, who unearths the skull of a jester whom
Hamlet once knew, Yorick. Ophelia's funeral procession approaches, led by Laertes. Hamlet interrupts,
professing his own love and grief for Ophelia. He and Laertes grapple, but the fight is broken up by
Claudius and Gertrude.

Later that day, Hamlet tells Horatio how he escaped death on his journey, disclosing that Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern have been sent to their deaths instead. A courtier, Osric, interrupts to invite Hamlet to fence
with Laertes. Despite Horatio's warnings, Hamlet accepts and the match begins. After several rounds,
Gertrude toasts Hamlet, accidentally drinking the wine he poisoned. Between bouts, Laertes attacks and
pierces Hamlet with his poisoned blade; in the ensuing scuffle, Hamlet is able to use Laertes' own poisoned
sword against him. Gertrude falls and, in her dying breath, announces that she has been poisoned. In his
dying moments, Laertes reveals Claudius' plot. Hamlet stabs Claudius with the poisoned sword, and then
forces him to drink from his own poisoned cup to make sure he dies. In his final moments, Hamlet names
Prince Fortinbras of Norway as the probable heir to the throne. Horatio attempts to kill himself with the
same poisoned wine, but is stopped by Hamlet, so he will be the only one left alive to give a full account of
the story. He then wills the throne of Denmark to Fortinbras before dying.

Views of Hamlet[edit]
Perhaps the most straightforward view sees Hamlet as seeking truth in order to be certain that he is justified
in carrying out the revenge called for by a ghost that claims to be the spirit of his father. The 1948 movie
with Laurence Olivier in the title role is introduced by a voiceover: "This is the tragedy of a man who could
not make up his mind."

30
T. S. Eliot offers a similar view of Hamlet's character in his critical essay, "Hamlet and His Problems" (The
Sacred Wood: Essays on Poetry and Criticism). He states, "We find Shakespeare's 'Hamlet' not in the action,
not in any quotations that we might select, so much as in an unmistakable tone...".

Others see Hamlet as a person charged with a duty that he both knows and feels is right, yet is unwilling to
carry out. In this view, his efforts to satisfy himself on Claudius' guilt and his failure to act when he can are
evidence of this unwillingness, and Hamlet berates himself for his inability to carry out his task. After
observing a play-actor performing a scene, he notes that the actor was moved to tears in the passion of the
story and compares this passion for an ancient Greek character, Hecuba, in light of his own situation:

Hamlet reclines next to Ophelia in Edwin Austin Abbey's The Play Scene in Hamlet.
O, what a rogue and peasant slave am I!
Is it not monstrous that this player here,
But in a fiction, in a dream of passion,
Could force his soul so to his own conceit
That from her working all his visage wan'd;
Tears in his eyes, distraction in's aspect,
A broken voice, and his whole function suiting
With forms to his conceit? And all for nothing!
For Hecuba?
What's Hecuba to him, or he to Hecuba,
That he should weep for her? []

Etymology of his name[edit]

The name Hamlet occurs as early as the 10th century. His name is easily derived in from Belleforest and the
lost play from Amlethus of Saxo, and remaining in this form is then derived from its Latin form of the old
Jutish Amlethoe. From this point the name can be divided into sections with common meanings. In terms of
etymology the root name of Hamlet is an Icelandic noun, Amlooi, meaning fool. However, this name is
derived from the way that Hamlet acts in the play and is not in all actuality the true etymology of the name.
The second way of translating the name is by analyzing the noun aml-ooi into raving mad and the second
half, amla into routine. Later these names were incorporated into Irish dialect as Amlodhe. As phonetic
laws took their course the names spelling changed eventually leaving it as Amlaidhe. This Irish name was
given to a hero in a common folk story. The root of this name is furious, raging, wild. These are all
meanings Shakespeare would have been aware of when deciding on the name for his longest play.[1]
Revealingly, the Danish word for secret is hemmelig.

Influence of the Reformation[edit]

Marcellus, Horatio, Hamlet, and the Ghost by Henry Fuseli

It has also been suggested that Hamlet's hesitations may also be rooted in the religious beliefs of
Shakespeare's time. The Protestant Reformation had generated debate about the existence of purgatory
(where King Hamlet claims he currently resides). The concept of purgatory is a Catholic one, and was
frowned on in Protestant England. Hamlet says that he will not kill his uncle because death would send him
31
straight to heaven, while his father (having died without foreknowledge of his death) is in purgatory doing
penance for his. Hamlet's opportunity to kill his uncle comes just after the uncle has supposedly made his
peace with God. Hamlet says that he would much rather take a stab at the murderer while he is frolicking in
the "incestuous sheets", or gambling and drinking, so he could be sure of his going straight to hell.

Freudian interpretation[edit]

Ernest Jones, following the work of Sigmund Freud, held that Hamlet suffered from the Oedipus complex.
He said in his essay "The Oedipus-Complex as an Explanation of Hamlet's Mystery: A Study in Motive":

His moral fate is bound up with his uncle's for good or ill. The call of duty to slay his uncle cannot be obeyed
because it links itself with the call of his nature to slay his mother's husband, whether this is the first or the
second; the latter call is strongly "repressed," and therefore necessarily the former also.[2]

Harold Bloom did a "Shakespearean Criticism" of Freud's work in response.

As a mirror of the audience[edit]

It has also been suggested that Hamlet, who is described by Ophelia as "th expectancy and rose of the fair
state, / The glass of fashion and the mould of form" (Act III, Scene i, lines 148-9), is ultimately a reflection
of all of the interpretations possessed by other characters in the playand perhaps also by the members of
an audience watching him. Polonius, most obviously, has a habit of misreading his own expectations into
Hamlets actions ("Still harping on my daughter!"), though many other characters in the play participate in
analogous behaviour.

Gertrude has a similar tendency to interpret all of her sons activities as the result of her "oerhasty
marriage" alone. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern tend to find the stalled ambitions of a courtier in their former
schoolmates behaviour, whereas Claudius seems to be concerned with Hamlets motivation only so far as it
reveals the degree to which his nephew is a potential threat. Ophelia, like her father, waits in vain for Hamlet
to give her signs of affection, and Horatio would have little reason to think that Hamlet was concerned with
anything more pressing than the commandment of the ghost. And the First Gravedigger seems to think that
Prince Hamlet, like that "whoreson mad fellow Yorick, is simply insane without any need for explanation.
Several critics, including Stephen Booth and William Empson have further investigated the analogous
relationship between Hamlet, the play, and its audience.

Parallels with other characters[edit]

One aspect of Hamlet's character is the way in which he reflects other characters, including the play's
primary antagonist, Claudius. In the play within a play, for instance, Gonzago, the king, is murdered in the
garden by his nephew, Lucianus; although King Hamlet is murdered by his brother, in The Murder of
Gonzago - which Hamlet tauntingly calls "The Mousetrap" when Claudius asks "What do you call the
play?" - the regicide is a nephew, like Prince Hamlet. However, it is also worth noting that each of the
characters in the play-within-a-play maps to two major characters in Hamlet, an instance of the play's many
doubles:

Lucianus, like Hamlet, is both a regicide and a nephew to the king; like Claudius, he is a regicide that operates
by pouring poison into ears.

The Player King, like Hamlet, is an erratic melancholic; like King Hamlet, his character in The Murder of
Gonzago is poisoned via his ear while reclining in his orchard.

The Player Queen, like Ophelia, attends to a character in The Murder of Gonzago that is "so far from cheer
and from [a] former state"; like Gertrude, she remarries a regicide.

32
Hamlet is also, in some form, a reflection of most other characters in the play (or perhaps vice versa):

Hamlet, Laertes, Fortinbras and Pyrrhus are all avenging sons. Hamlet and Laertes both blame Claudius for
the death of their fathers. Hamlet and Pyrrhus are both seized by inaction at some point in their respective
narratives and each avenges his father. Hamlet and Fortinbras both have plans that are thwarted by uncles that
are also kings.

Hamlet, Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, Osric and Polonius are all courtiers.

Hamlet, his father, Bernardo, Marcellus, Francisco, Fortinbras and several other characters are all soldiers.

Hamlet and his father share a name (as do Fortinbras and his father).

Hamlet, Horatio, Rosencrantz, Guildenstern and Laertes are all students.

Hamlet, his father, Gertrude and Claudius are all members of the Royal Family. Each of them is also killed by
poisonpoison that Claudius is responsible for.

Hamlet and Ophelia are each rebuked by their surviving parent in subsequent scenes; the surviving parent of
each happens to be of the opposite gender. Both also enter scenes reading books and there is a contrast
between the (possibly) pretend madness of Hamlet and the very real insanity of Ophelia.

Hamlet, Horatio, Polonius, Rosencrantz, Guildenstern and Claudius are each "lawful espials" at some point in
the play.

Hamlet's age[edit]

In Act V, scene I of Shakespeare's Hamlet, the First Gravedigger is asked by Hamlet at about line 147 and
following, how long he has "been a grave-maker." His reply appears to determine the age of Hamlet for us in
a roundabout but very explicit manner. The Gravedigger says that he has been in his profession since the day
that Old Hamlet defeated Old Fortinbras, which was "the very day that young Hamlet was born." Then, a
little later, he adds that "I have been sexton here, man and boy, thirty years." According to this logic, Hamlet
must be thirty years old. Yorick, the dead jester whose skull Hamlet holds during this scene, is said to have
been in the earth "three-and-twenty years," which would make Hamlet no more than seven years old when
he last rode on Yorick's back.

This view of Hamlet's age is supported by the fact that Richard Burbage, the actor who originally played the
role, was thirty-two at the time of the play's premiere.

However, a case has been made[3] that at an early stage in Hamletwith its apparent history of multiple
revisionsHamlet was presented as a sixteen-year-old. Several pieces of evidence support this view.
Hamlet attends the University of Wittenberg, and royals and nobles (Elizabethan or medieval Danish) did
not attend university at age 30. Additionally, a 30-year-old Prince Hamlet would clearly have been of ruling
age. Given his great popularity (mentioned by Claudius), this would raise the question of why it was not he,
rather than his uncle, who was elected to succeed to the throne upon the death of King Hamlet.

The line about the length of the Gravedigger's career does not appear in the First Quarto of Hamlet; in that
text Yorick is said to have been in the ground only twelve years. Furthermore, in Belleforest, possibly one of
Shakespeare's sources for the story, it is said that Amleth has "not attained to man's estate." And in the
original spelling of the Folio text, one of the two authoritative texts for the play, the Gravedigger's answer to
how long he has "been a grave-maker" reads "Why heere in Denmarke: I haue bin sixeteene heere, man and
Boy thirty yeares.." "Sixteene" is usually rendered as "sexton" (a modernization of the second quarto's
"sexten"), even in modern texts that take F1 as their "copy text." But modernizing the punctuationa
normal practice in modernized textsrenders "Why heere in Denmarke: I haue bin sixeteene heereman

33
and Boy thirty yeares." In other words, this reading suggests that he has been a grave-digger for sixteen
years, but that he has lived in Denmark for thirty. According to this logic, then, it is the Grave-digger who is
thirty, whereas Hamlet is only sixteen.

Although the difference between a sexton and a grave digger must also be taken into account. A sexton
oversees many different jobs around the church and surrounding areas. A grave digger simply digs graves.
There are sextons also dig graves and some that do not. It is completely possible that the Gravedigger has
been a sexton a for 30 years, but has not been digging graves for that entire time. This could be another
example of the character's very round-about way of speaking.

However, this reading has the disadvantage that in the Folio the length of time Yorick has been in the
ground is said to be twenty-three years, meaning that he had been dead seven years by the time Hamlet was
born. Another theory offered is that the play was originally written with the view that Hamlet was 16 or 17,
but since Shakespeare wrote his plays to be performed, and not read, these lines were likely changed so
Burbage (who was almost always the protagonist in Shakespeare's plays) could play the role.

34
 Kritik und Interpretationen[Bearbeiten]
I am convinced that were I told that my closest friend was laying at the point of death, and that his life
could be saved by permitting him to divulge his theory of Hamlet, I would instantly say: Let him die! Let
him die! Let him die!

Ich bin mir sicher: Wrde mir gesagt, dass mein engster Freund im Sterben lge und dass sein Leben
gerettet werden kann, indem ihm erlaubt wird, seine Hamlet-Theorie darzulegen, wrde ich sofort sagen
Lasst ihn sterben! Lasst ihn sterben! Lasst ihn sterben!

HORACE HOWARD FURNESS[95]

Shakespeares Hamlet gehrt zu den in der Literatur- und Theaterwissenschaft am hufigsten untersuchten
Texten. Zur Zeit erscheinen beinahe 400 wissenschaftliche Publikationen jhrlich, die sich mit dem Stck
befassen.[96][97] Jede Darstellung der Hamlet-Kritik kann daher nur bruchstckhaft sein und muss sich
notwendig auf die in der Sekundrliteratur bezeugte bedeutendste Kritik konzentrieren.

Historische Kritik[Bearbeiten]

England

Die frhesten Kritiken des Hamlet stammen aus dem 17. Jahrhundert. John Evelyn schrieb 1661 ber das
alte Stck, dass die kultivierte Gegenwart anwidert, demgegenber erklrte George Farquhar im Jahre
1702, Hamlet sei sehr populr (had long been the Darling of the English Audience [] - war lange der
Liebling des englischen Publikums.) und wenige Jahre spter (1710) fasste der Earl of Shaftsbury, Antony
Ashley Cooper seine Eindrcke in der berzeugung zusammen, das Stck bestehe fast nur aus den tiefen
Gedanken der Hauptfigur.[98] Dr. Johnson kritisierte an dem Stck handwerkliche Mngel, er beanstandete
Hamlets sinnlose und willkrliche Grausamkeit gegenber Ophelia und fand es erschreckend zu lesen,
Hamlet habe gezgert, Claudius beim Gebet zu tten, weil dessen Seele dann in den Himmel kommen
knnte.[99] Coleridge prgte das Bild von Hamlet als einem rsonierenden zgernden Menschen. Hamlets
Charakter sei the prevalence of the abstracting and generalizing habit over the practical [] every incident
sets him thinking ("ein Ausdruck der Vorherrschaft von Abstraktion ber das Praktische ... jede
Gelegenheit versetzt ihn in Gedanken.") Hamlet wisse genau, was zu tun sei, verspreche stets, zu handeln,
sei aber durch Nachdenken dauernd daran gehindert. Seine Leidenschaft gelte dem Unendlichen: Hence,
great, enormous, intellectual activity, and a consequent proportionate Aversion to real Action. ("Eine
berwltigende intellektuelle Fhigkeit und eine genauso groe Abneigung gegen das Handeln.")[100]
William Hazlitt schlielich fand 1817 die Formel It is we who are Hamlet ("Wir sind Hamlet").[101]

Deutschland

Goethe

Die bertragung der Shakespeareschen Werke in Verse durch Schlegel stie auf prominenten Widerstand.
Goethe trat vehement dafr ein, die wilde Natrlichkeit der Wielandschen Version zu erhalten.[102] Und er
bestand in bereinstimmung mit Hazlitt darauf, dass den Leseversionen der Shakespeareschen Stcke der
Vorzug vor einer Auffhrung auf einer Bretterbhne zu geben sei: Durchs lebendige Wort wirkt
Shakespeare, und dies lt sich beim Vorlesen am besten berliefern; der Hrer wird nicht zerstreut, weder
durch schickliche noch unschickliche Darstellung.[103] Vor diesem Hintergrund ist Goethes
Charakterisierung des Hamlet zu verstehen: [] eine groe Tat auf eine Seele gelegt, die der Tat nicht
gewachsen ist.[104] Edwards weist darauf hin, dass Goethe damit keineswegs die Annahme teilt, Hamlet
habe nicht genug unternommen, um sich gegen sein Schicksal aufzulehnen, oder seine Schwche bestnde
in mangelndem Engagement. Die Unterstellung, dass Goethe einen Pelagianismus vertreten habe, der eine
solche Position erzwingt, sei falsch.[105] Tatschlich habe Goethe die Vorstellung abgelehnt, dass es die
35
stolze Aufgabe des Menschen sei, groe Ziele zu erreichen und nichts knne ihn daran hindern. Vielmehr
lehre der Hamlet, so Goethe, dass ein unbegreifliches Schicksal Gute wie Bse strzt und ein Geschlecht
niederwirft, wenn gerade das nchste aufsteht. Somit sei Hamlets Schwche nur ein Ausdruck der
grundstzlichen Ohnmacht des Menschen.[106]

Schlegel

Im Jahre 1808 hielt Schlegel in Wien seine Vorlesungen ber Dramatische Kunst und Literatur. Er vertrat
darin die Ansicht, dass die Dichter der frhen Neuzeit die Vorbilder der modernen seien. Schlegel
unterstellt, Hamlet habe keinen Glauben, weder an sich selbst noch an irgend etwas anderes. Er nannte das
Stck ein Gedankentrauerspiel und erluterte dazu, Hamlets Gedanken seien keine die Handlung
behindernde Kontemplation, wie bei Coleridge, sie seien Ausdruck eines tiefen Skeptizismus, der Prinz kein
Trumer sondern ein Zweifler.[107]

Hermann Ulrici

Der Philosoph und ehemalige Rektor der Universitt Halle Hermann Ulrici fasste in seiner Untersuchung der
Werke Shakespeares aus dem Jahre 1839 zum ersten Mal die Frage der Moralitt der Rache im Falle
Hamlets ins Auge.[108][109] Er kritisiert die Interpretation Goethes und erklrt: Gthe macht unbewut einen
mittelalterlichen Werther aus ihm: wie im Werther, so soll hier die subjektive Schwche im Kampf stehen
mit den objektiven Mchten unglcklicher, dem Charakter des Helden widerstrebender Verhltnisse; im
Werther eine bergroe Flle des Gefhls, hier die Last einer bergroen That auf ein Gef gelegt, das
darunter zerbricht; hier wie dort Melancholie und Schwermuth ber den verderbten, unheilvollen Zustand
der Welt.[110] Auch Schlegel wirft er vor, den Hamlet unkritisch zu aktualisieren: Schlegel dagegen sieht
in Hamlet einen Helden des 19ten Jahrhunderts, wo Absicht, Begierde und Leidenschaft hinter schnen
Worten und uerer Politur sich verbirgt, wo Willen und That in Theorienmachen und spekulirenden
Denken untergeht, wo die Geschichte zum Geist der Geschichte geworden ist.[111] Er setzt dagegen sein
eigenes Urteil und stellt fest: Hamlet ist, wie ich glaube, von Natur ein knstlerischer oder wenn man will,
philosophischer Geist. Er knne sich zu der ihm auferlegten Tat nicht entscheiden, weil er sie nicht zu
einer inneren, freien Handlung zu machen weis. Hamlet habe moralische Bedenken, dem Verlangen des
Geistes nach Rache zu folgen, denn im christlichen Sinne bleibt es immer eine Snde, ihn (Claudius) ohne
Urteil und Recht, aus freier Faust zu tdten. Nicht Grbelei, sondern sein Gewissen [] hemmt seine
Thatkraft mit Fug und Recht.[112]

Friedrich Nietzsche

In Die Geburt der Tragdie wendet sich Nietzsche explizit gegen Coleridges Einschtzung, Hamlet sei ein
Zgerer, dessen Fehler es sei, zu viel nachgedacht zu haben.[113] Nietschze sagt, der dionysische Mensch
habe hnlichkeiten mit Hamlet, beide htten einen wahren Blick in das Wesen der Dinge getan: [] sie
haben erkannt, und es ekelt sie zu Handeln; denn ihre Handlung kann nichts am ewigen Wesen der Dinge
ndern, sie empfinden es als lcherlich oder schmachvoll, da ihnen zugemutet wird, die Welt, die aus den
Fugen ist, wieder einzurichten. Die Erkenntnis ttet das Handeln, zum Handeln gehrt das Umschleiertsein
durch die Illusion - das ist die Hamletlehre, nicht jene wohlfeile Weisheit von Hans dem Trumer, der aus zu
viel Reflexion, gleichsam aus einem berschu von Mglichkeiten, nicht zum Handeln kommt [][114]
Diese Sichtweise wird von Philip Edwards in seiner Interpretation des To be or not to be-Monologs
ausdrcklich geteilt.[115]

Interpretation[Bearbeiten]
Hamlets personale Identitt

Die traditionellen Charakterbilder des Hamlet sind schon im Abschnitt Historische Kritik mit Bezug auf
Goethes Vorstellung eines sensiblen Helden,[116] Coleridges Modell der bertriebenen Innerlichkeit[117] und
AC Bradleys und Dover Wilsons Betonung der Melancholie Hamlets erwhnt worden.[118] Im 20.
36
Jahrhundert rckt in der Folge von Freuds Beschftigung mit Hamlet eine psychoanalytische angeleitete
Sichtweise in den Mittelpunkt der Beschftigung mit dem Drama. Dabei hat Ernest Jones im Anschluss an
Freud versucht, Hamlets Racheaufschub[119] als Ausdruck des dipuskomplex des Helden zu erklren.
Hamlet identifiziere sich unbewusst mit Claudius, der den dipalen Vatermord und Inzest realisiere, der
beim Helden selbst verdrngt sei.[120] Andere Autoren haben die Vater-Sohn-Beziehung in dem Stck
zugunsten der Mutter-Sohn-Beziehung relativiert; Theodore Lidz wendet sich kritisch gegen Freuds an
dipus orientierter Deutung und sieht den Muttermrder Orest als mythischen Bezug, dessen
schuldbeladener Impuls (matricidal impulse) Hamlets Verhalten und Melancholie begrnde.[121] Jaques
Lacan weist auf die symbolische Bedeutung des Geistes von Hamlets Vater hin.[122] Eine Reihe von Autoren
haben auf die Umdeutung der Amlethus-Erzhlung durch Shakespeare als Ursache fr die Vieldeutigkeit
(Ambiquitt im Sinne von William Empson) hingewiesen.[123] Vereinzelt wurde diese berlegung soweit
radikalisiert, dass man annahm, sie sei die Ursache einer vollstndigen Beliebigkeit im
Rezeptionsvorgang.[124] Empson selbst schlielich legt der Bhnenfigur das Eingestndnis der Ratlosigkeit
des Lesers/Zuschauers in den Mund: The motivation of this play is just as blank to me as it is to you. (Die
Bedeutung des Stckes ist mir genauso rtselhaft, wie Ihnen.)[125] Einzelne Autoren haben anhand der
Sprache die Wandlung von Hamlets Charakter im Verlauf des Stckes untersucht. Zu Beginn des Dramas
beschreibt er sich als authentische Person.[126] Nach der Begegnung mit dem Geist seines Vaters erscheint er
zunchst als verndert und dann als gebrochener Mensch.[127] Spter scheint er seinen gespielten Wahnsinn
nicht mehr von einem wirklichen unterscheiden zu knnen und nimmt ihn als wesensfremd wahr.[128] In der
sogenannten Closet Scene im Gemach seiner Mutter (III.4) kommt es zur Vershnung zwischen den
beiden und damit offenbar zu einer berwindung von Hamlets Krise.[129] Im fnften Akt gibt er dann seinen
gespielten Wahnsinn auf. Bemerkenswert ist, dass Hamlet fast alle Monologe vor dieser Szene spricht.[130]
Dies wird vereinzelt so interpretiert, dass Hamlets Monologe Ausdruck seiner Identittskrise seien.[131] In
seinen Monologen bedient sich Hamlet eines eigenen Stils, Ironie und Spe fehlen.[132] Beim Vergleich der
Struktur des Dramas mit der Sprache der Bhnenfigur wird deutlich, dass sich die Widersprche,
Spannungen und der stndige Wechsel von Stimmungen des ganzen Stckes im sprachlichen Ausdruck
Hamlets wiederfinden. Seine Monologe kann man nun als (imaginierten) Denkprozess verstehen und
schlussfolgern, dass Hamlets Melancholie Folge seines Unvermgens ist, eine Welt, die aus den Fugen
geraten ist, nicht mehr im Denken fassen zu knnen.[133]

Politische Interpretationen

In der wissenschaftlichen Literatur werden die politischen Interpretationen unter anderem aus Bezgen zu
anderen Werken und aus der Struktur der Bhnengesellschaft des Hamlet hergeleitet. Wie schon im Kapitel
Datierung dargestellt, sind Anspielungen des Hamlet auf andere Werke der elisabethanischen Zeit vielfltig.
Besonders bemerkenswert ist der intertextuelle Bezug zu Julius Caesar: Polonius gibt mit seiner Darstellung
Cesars anlsslich einer studentischen Theaterauffhrung an und Hamlet quittiert dies mit einer ironischen
Bemerkung.[134] Diese Stelle markiert die Tatsache, dass Hamlet sich - ganz im Sinne einer De-casibus
Tragdie - in der Verantwortung sieht, die Ordnung des Staates durch einen Knigsmord
wiederherzustellen. Durch die indirekte Identifikation mit Brutus entsteht eine Beziehung zur
zeitgenssischen politischen Theorie der Monarchomachen.[135] Bedeutsam fr die politische Dimension des
Dramas ist die Frage der Thronfolge. Dnemark wird als eine Wahlmonarchie vorgestellt.[136] Hamlet htte
aber als Knigssohn das erste Zugriffsrecht gehabt.[137] Wenn es um die Frage der Bewertung von Knig
Claudius geht, sind sich die meisten Autoren einig. Claudius kann zwar im Kontext einer Wahlmonarchie
als legitimer Herrscher angesehen werden, als heimlicher Mrder seines Bruders ist er dennoch ein
Thronruber. Zwar schtzt er das Land durch kluge Diplomatie erfolgreich vor einem neuen Krieg,[138]
verhlt sich aber gegenber Hamlet wie ein gewissenloser Tyrann und beschftigt als gegenber dem
eigenen Volk misstrauischer Herrscher eine auslndische Sldnertruppe.[139] Neben dem Titelhelden und
Knig Claudius wurden mit Rosencrantz und Guildenstern zwei typische Hflinge als Reprsentanten der
hierarchisch geordneten Bhnengesellschaft auf ihre politische Bedeutung im Drama hin untersucht. Hamlet
verachtet ihre unterwrfige Haltung, indem er Claudius entwertet.[140] Die Haltung der Hflinge wird in der
Literatur als blinde Kriecherei[141] und die von Hamlet in diesem Zusammenhang als republican in
sentiment angesehen.[142] Wie in vielen Dramen Shakespeares fehlen im Hamlet Vertreter der

37
elisabethanischen Mittelschicht. Stattdessen werden mit den Totengrbern die Reprsentanten der unteren
sozialen Schichten ausdrcklich gewrdigt. Diese Szene hat zu vielfltigen Interpretationen von
marxistischen Shakespearekritikern und Vertretern des Kulturmaterialismus gefhrt. Hervorgehoben wurden
der karnevaleske Charakter der Szene,[143] die Zeitdiagnose und Rolle des Todes als Gleichmacher[144] sowie
der Status von Hamlet als Reprsentant des gesellschaftlichen bergangs zum brgerlichen Individuum.[145]

Genderbezogene Interpretationsanstze

Unter diesem Stichwort werden vor allem drei Fragenkomplexe behandelt: die Mysogynie Hamlets und die
Besonderheiten der beiden weiblichen Figuren Gertrude und Ophelia.

Hamlets frauenfeindliche Haltung und sein Ekel gegenber Sexualitt ist deutlich ausgeprgt.[146]
blicherweise wird die Ursache dieser Einstellung als Ausdruck einer frhneuzeitlichen Subjektivitt und
nicht als moralisches Defizit angesehen.[147] Auffllig in diesem Zusammenhang ist die feminine
Selbstbeschreibung Hamlets.[148] Hamlets Beurteilungen dieser femininen Komponente steht in deutlichem
Gegensatz zu der Einstellung des Laertes, der die weiblichen Charakteranteile in sich verbannen will.[149]
Die Neigung eigene mnnliche Schwche als Ausdruck von Weiblichkeit anzusehen ist in bereinstimmung
mit einem in der Renaissance weit verbreitetem Stereotyp, die Frau sei ein weaker vessel, eine
minderwertige Variante des Mannes.[150]

Whrend in Shakespeares Quelle, der Hamleterzhlung bei Belleforest Gertrude vllig selbstverstndlich als
Ehebrecherin dargestellt wird, lsst Shakespeare die Frage offen, ob Gertrude und Claudius noch zu
Lebzeiten von Knig Hamlet ein Verhltnis hatten. Auch hier ist seine Darstellung davon geprgt,
Ambiguitt im Sinne Empsons zum Ausdruck zu bringen.[151] Feministische Interpretationen haben in dieser
Frage zwei extreme Positionen eingenommen. Manche Autoren haben die Ehebruchsthese zurck
gewiesen,[152] andere sind der Meinung, Getrude habe aus sexuellem Interesse an Claudius den Mord an
Knig Hamlet befrdert.[153] In der Beziehung zwischen Hamlet und Gertrude sind sich die Interpreten einig,
dass Hamlet den Inzestvorwurf vor allem gegenber seiner Mutter erhebt und nicht gegenber seinem
eigentlichen Feind, dem Mrder seines Vaters. Es ist bemerkenswert, dass die Darstellung Gertrudes
unabhngig von Hamlets Urteil durchweg frei von negativen Zgen ist.[154]

Die Figur der Ophelia ist als Opfer eines patriarchalisch geprgter Umfelds konzipiert.[155] Sie wird von
ihrem Vater und ihrem Bruder bevormundet und ist widerstandslos gehorsam. Hamlets Haltung zu Ophelia
ndert sich, nachdem sich seine Einstellung zu seiner Mutter ins Negative gewandelt hat. In der ersten
Belauschungsszene (Hamlet III,1.) und whrend des Spiels im Spiel (Hamlet III,2.) verhlt er sich
gegenber seiner Geliebten abweisend und rcksichtslos. Dover Wilson hat diese Haltung Hamlets so
erklrt, dass er wisse, dass Ophelia der Spionageaktion gegen ihn zugestimmt habe.[156] Unabhngig von der
weithin passiven Opferrolle Ophelias und den negativen Bewertungen durch Hamlet ist Ophelia hnlich wie
Gertrude bemerkenswert positiv dargestellt. Sie ist von groer Sensibilitt gegenber ihrem Geliebten und
erkennt im Gegensatz zu allen anderen das katastrophale Ausma an Vernderung, dass Hamlet erlitten hat.
Ihre Sprache ist von hchster lyrischer Intensitt gekennzeichnet.[157] Infolgedessen gibt es eine
wirkungsmchtige Rezeption dieser Figur. So hat Gaston Bachelard in Anlehnung an das
phantasmagorische Syndrom von Weiblichkeit, Wahnsinn, Wasser und Tod von einem Ophelia-
Komplex gesprochen.[158] Die Bezge auf Ophelia reichen von der Gretchenfigur in Goethes Faust, ber
Eugne Delacroix bis zu den pseudo-etymologischen Interpretationen Lacans.[159] Ophelias Wahnsinn und
ihr Tod haben zu vielfltigen Interpretationen Anlass gegeben: als Ausdruck der Befreiung von
Schweigsamkeit, Gehorsam und Zwang oder als Folge patriarchalischer Unterdrckung.[160] Auch die
Sprache Ophelias ist Gegenstand eigener Untersuchungen geworden. Auffllig ist die sogenannte
Zitathaftigkeit von Ophelias im Wahn fragmentierter Sprache, die keine eigenen Worte mehr findet und
stndig auf Fremdtexte Bezug nimmt.[161]

38
 Istorija Danske
. ,
- .
, .
810. .

11. ( ) ,
, , .

. ,
e
, , ,
, , , ,
, . ,
,

39
 1658. . 1814. ,
, 1905. .
UTICAJI NA EKSPIRA
-
Antika:
Seneka, antika komedija (Plaut i Terencije), Vergilije, Horacije,Ovidije, Plutarh. Sve ovo je ekspirova
lektira. (Grci se skoro ne itaju.)Ipak, Plutarh i Ovidije su ekspirovi omiljeni izvori. (
Metamorfoze su kodekspira razvile dva interesa: interes za ulno i interes za natprirodno.
Uporedni ivotopisi predstavljaju izvor za ekspirove likove Cezara,Bruta, Cicerona, Avgusta, Antonija...)
U Hamletu je prisutna intertekstualna komunikacija sa Platonom.-
Srednji vek:
srednjovekovna tradicija prie o vitekimpustolovinama, o romantinim ljubavima, arobnjacima, vilama,
ofantastinim i egzotinim zemljama...-
Renesansa:
T. Mor, Erazmo Roterdamski, Makijaveli... (Erazmo,Montenj, Makijaveli jako su vani za razumevanje
ekspirovog dela,oni su uticali na ekspirovo vienje sveta; ekspir je itao Montenja,savremenika od kojeg
preuzima skepsu i, uopte, pogled na svet kao iodlomke / komentare Makijavelija.) + uticaj italijanskih
novela-
Engleska tradicija:
Tomas Kid, panska tragedija i univerzitetskiumovi + engleska tradicija, folklor, istorijski motivi. (Ne
preuzimaju selikovi Antike (samo ponekad) ve likovi i motivi Engleske.)
Renesansa u Engleskoj
-raspadanje feudalnih oblika privrede, jaanje trgovine, preovlaivanjenovane privrede,
jaanje graanstva
i slabljenje uticaja crkve.-Herni VII posveuje panju izgradnji
mornarnice
i ovo nastavljaju ostalitjudorski vladari. Engleski pomorci osnivaju prve kolonije u Americi udrugoj polovini
16. veka Virdinija. Poinje priliv zlata i raznekolonijalne robe. Engleska postaje takmac paniji.-
gramatike kole
kole u koje je, izmeu ostalog, ulagan novacdobijen od prodaje crkvenih imanja. U njih su mogli da idu
sinovisiromanijih ljudi, uio se latinski jezik. Grki pisci se ne itaju!-Renesansa je prvo stigla na dvor, a
potom i do obinog narodazahvaljujui ovim kolama (ekspirovo vreme)

40