REVENGE AND TYRANNICIDE

The appearance of the ghost would have been a familiar theatrical convention to many of the original
audience.

Revenge as a concept has resonance in early modern England as the aristocratic right to exact revenge
were relegated to the state and centralized. The law was in conflict with aristocratic honor code and this
law was passed during shakespeares time as a result of wars of the roses.
This political tension of was conveyed into tragedy where the stage avenger who had to cross margins of
social convention whos mission was a dramatized poltiical dilemma which came as a result of the state
claiming monopoly in the right to dispense justice.
Rights of the monarch was also a highly contended subject in the 1590’s:

Gods rep on earth so even the most cruel and unjust acts could not be answered to. The part of the two
bodies as part of the body politic which was immortal and represented the state would have ultimate
authority. Ref Claudius of Leartes.

On the other hand there was an influential body of jurists who saw the monarch as merely a different
politic.
Two powerful conflciting sources: roman republic vs religeos belief.

In renesaince times, the roman model was enjoyed by many of the educated and intelligent. Idea of
upright men who who drove brutal kings into exile was popular. Even shakespeare himself had
dramatized Julius Ceasar with the noble desedants using violence to prevent rome from becoming and
monarchy. Some of these ideas may have influenced shakespeares writing of hamlet. He was certianly
well informed of this tension.
Turn of 16th century: declining renaissance humanists vs growing influece of divine right theorists.
From late 15th century the roots of the humanists had been an intellectual project informed by classical
literature. Human nature.

Many scholars employed the classical arguments the unjust king should forefit the right to rule.
Vs religeos belief.

Reformation of christian church polarized those who remained loyal vs those who reformed to prot.
Tumultuos political climate that shakespeare wrote and performed. Catholics believed in good works.
Prot saw relationship with god more important than relation with earthly ruler. Wittenburg was prot.
Hamlets father purgatory so catholic.

Machieavlli politics.

Deciet, murder and the like are acceptable so longs as façade is maintained and crimes concealed.
Claudius is perfect example. The tries to use underhanded means to rid himself of the impostumed threat
that is hamlet.

The key point of machiavelli is that in contemporaray politics, virtue would lose. And peace and stability
mattered above all else. This sceptical current was rooted in early modern thought. Ppl doubted divine
providence and virtue.
The idea of unitary personalities or essence was in doubt. Montaigne thought our identity is a product of
social custom: ‘change as the beast that takes the colour of the place wherein it is laid’. Shakespeare did
read montaings personal essays during his writing of hamlet. Hamlet’s scepticism and ‘volubility’ and
‘disordance’ until his return from england is a representation of this train of thought.

Summary: 1601 london did not have a sucure social structure. Society in turmoil. Trying to forget its
catholic and humanist past (maybe rep by old hamlet). During all this rampant market capatalism
transformed the city. Feudal past ruled by hereditary warrior aristocracy. Now its commercialized and
social mobiolity between classes. Loyalt not permanent but conditional. Political absolutism emerged to
squash individualism and puritian thought. Jonathan dollimore saw the incoherent character of the stage
avenger in revenge tragedy as a product of violent social conflcit and a device to explore these conflicts.

THE THEATRE AND POLITICS

The mousetrap or murder of gonzago ‘puts the political function of the theatre litteraly at the centre of the
play’. Linking to wider views about the theatre, many believed that it was a powerful art form because it
could cause the audience the think and reflect on their misdeeds. Norfolk women example who confessed
to killing her own spouse.
Even politicians believed in the power of the stage. Military figure earl of Essex attempted a coup after
asking the shakespeare company to dramatize one.
Question of theatres political power. ‘Poetics of elizabethan power will prove inseparable, in crucial
respects, from a poetics of the theatre’.

However, Essex did not succeed. He executed. Ppl didn’t react to murder of gonzago in a way patreons
expected. Theatre was regarded as a socially degraded forum with no real link to politics.

MARRIAGE

Ophelia and gertrude rep 2 archetype of women at the time: virgin and whore. The role of women at this
time was closely linked to property transfer and inheritance.
Ophelias marriage to hamlet would have been impossible. But if she were to lose her virginity to hamlet
then she herself would become unmarriagable. This was central as it would ensure the husbands paternity
to the firstborn son who would inherit everything.
Political implications of gertrudes marriage: widows retained a third of husbands estate. And if she were
to have a child it would subvert hamlet to the throne. Of course clauds reassurance means nothing.
The bible definitly forbade such unions. However, the acceptance by the court signals hamlets political
and personal isolation.

MADNESS AND MELANCHOLY

Madness seems to be unexplainable. At the very least bc hamlet isnt a real person. The 1601 definition of
madness as a divine or demonic possesion was being replaced by the idea that it was a medical condition.
Renassaince link. Neely ref.

The perception of madness is key to understanding how shakespeare dramatizes it to convey themes and
allegorical messages. It was thought that wisdom and insight can be found in the ravings of the foolish
and insane. BC social decorum is ignored (shakespeare conveys this by using montainges personal essay
prose style), it can reveal personal, moral, and political truths. This is key bc it can be seen in hamlets
soliloques and ophelias singing or ranting. We can be sure that hamlet isnt putting on an antic disposition
in the soliloqiues where he is alone. Madness as a licensed critic.
Also link to melancholy. And the medical textbooks which reffer to the bodies ‘humors’.
And excess of the fourth humor: meancholy were gloomy abd broody.
Hamlets behaviour during antic dis fit the symptoms. Melancholia as having a spiritual cause: those who
looked into their soul (which hamlet often does) and failed to find faith in their own slavation, could be
subject to melancholia.

EARLY CRITICAL RECEPTION

James drake 1699. Argues that hamlet is a ‘morally edifying tale that shows the workings of divine
providence’. Arguing against ppl who call it vulgar
Anthony cooper 1710: not as religeosly inclined as Drake. He is somewhat critical of ‘unpolished style’.
He enjoys the soliloqiues. And comments that hamlet doesn’t fail to the common vices and pitfalls of
modern tragedy such as bribes from luxury, flattery of the sex and nicly varies between points of love and
honor.
Samuel Johnson 1765. He has a problem with the plays structure and plotting not bc of neo classical
sentiments but bc of the plays ending which doesn’t seem to provide the ‘feeling of providential justice’.
So kind of classical as it reffers to cathartic outlet but johnson is much more open minded than the other
critics.
He remarks that Hamlet is unique due to its ‘variety’. Perhaps commenting on the timeless nature of
hamlet or how his soliloquies consider many themes. He is content with shakespeares juxtaposing scenes:
‘interchangeably diversified with merriment and solemnity’. Important to note that he isnt particular
about hamlets madness/pretend madness. It doesn’t seem to be a point of contention for him as of yet. He
enjoys the antic dis bc it causes ‘mirth’. He also has a lot more sympathy for ophelia than many critics
and even hamlet himself: ‘ophelia fills the heart with tenderness’.

However, he is critical of the arc of tragedy and the plays progression. Commenting on ‘scenes which
neither forward nor retard it’. But there is a point here about folio and quarto. Why does hamlet put on an
antic disposition: ‘he does nothing which he might not have done with the reputation of sanity’. - he
didn’t need the rep of sanity.
The way he treats ophelia is with ‘useless and wanton cruelty’.
Hamlet is ‘an instrument rather than an agent’ link to ending, the way religeon seems to control him at the
church moment.
The timing of ophelias death takes away from the ‘gratification’ of claudisu death.
Coleridge 1813
Major romantic critic. Trying to identify source of inaction as a psycological condition.
'overbalance in the contemplative faculty' man becomes 'creature of mere meditation' and loses his natural
power of action.
Hamlets thoughs are more vivid than reality dictates.
Real world events---> hamlets brain/ contemplation----> takes on 'different color'. This means that there is
an aversion to action bc of this.
With this character, shakespeare places him into a circumstnace where he is forced to act. The scholar and
thinker is out of place. This tragedy is in direct contrast to macbeth.
William Hazlitt 1817
'because he cannot have his revenge perfect, according to the most refined idea his wish can form, he
declines it altogether'.

Hamlet 'forced him natural biasof his disposition by the strangnessof his situation'. Forced from being a
scholar, a man who observes. Into a man of action. Perhaps this is why he has to put on an antic dis. To
conceal his own dis from inaction.
He is out of joint with time.

CRITICAL HISTORY

Pre romantic critcism.

Hamlet stayed in theatres from 1601 until 1642 civil war closed theatres. All crit of the play was it in
performance. It was popular bc of king charls the second who did avenge his fathers death. However,
taste was changing and it 1660 Evelyn commented that the play was disgusting to people in this 'refined
age'. Collier agrees as in 1698 he wrote that ophelias depiction was 'lewd' and 'unreasonable'.

Going into 17th (romanitcs began in 1798)

Neo classical drama was all the rage. Ppl were taught about it in schools. The french classicsts who
followed the unities were regarded as superior.
The age prided itself on rationality and Hamlet's plot was anything but that.
Critics at this time wanted an 'uncontrolversially virtuos' protagonist.
Volataire: 'vulgar and barbrous drama'. But he also admitted that there were some sublime passages.
---> Johnson. Very perceptive critic. Possibly one of the first to praise Shakespeare.
David Garricks production was very important in reconcillie both the neo classicists and the Hamlet
supporters. Performed in 1763. But he eliminated the church prayer scene, hamlets crude remarks towards
oph and his role in the death of roz and guild. It was regarded as 'princely' and 'natural'.

Romantic crit.

Before this, ppl were focused on rationalism. As per the renaisannce and humanisn. But moving into
romantic crit, ppl were more focused on the sensitivities of hamlet himself as a victim. It gave natural
human emotion more priority. So ideas based on politics and scientific texts on madness were not
relevant. They valued imagination and freedom. So clearly more sympathetic towards Hamlet. Even in
context they had reason to do so. Romantic critics were facing the french rev with paralysis. Just like
hamlet.
Gary Taylor: 'the quoting of Hamlet by English critics in the decades after 1789 expressed their obession
with political inaction'.
William Hazlitt also identifies with hamlet or even as hamlet: 'we are hamlet'

Delinate between physical and imagination/contemplation. This is v important for interpreting hamlet.
They believed that this feature of hamlet gave the play a 'sublime' quality. Which was its ability to
produce powerful emotions. Many critics, even not romantic ones will agree that the play does this. CF
johnson who is romantic btw.
VS THE PRE romantic who thought that is was about historcity or even cantor. The particular histroical
circumstances which hamlet was out of sympahty with.
THE PITFALL OF ROMANTIC CRIT: they thought that imagination was a realm were beauty and truth
dwelt more truthfully than reality (nothing wrong with this). However, when studying a play, its
theatricality and dramatizing of the text itself is obviously important. So crit at this time was too focused
on the text and not performances.
Following this many crtiics dabated on how hamlet should be performed.

Modernist criticism.
Takes the romantics focus on individual conciousness. Psychological studies of both characters and
shakespeare himself.
AC brad key critic. Treated hamlet as if he were a real person. He diagnosed hamlet with melancholia.
Hamlets speculative nature lead him to be in a morbin state. This then hindered his action.
Freud--> contrary to anyone before him he aruged that hamlets inaction was due to the oedipus complex.
Ham couldn’t kill claud bc he identifies with him. Hamlet didn’t resolve the infantile jealousy.
Wants to have sex with mother: 'the play is built up on Hamlet's hesitations over fulfilling the task of
revenge that is assigned to him; but the text offers no reasons or motives for these hesitations'.
It was TS Eliot who wanted to take Frued futher but unlikle AC brad who tried to think of hamlet as
person, Eliot used this on shakespeare himself.
TS Eliot thought that the play was an artisitc faluire bc there is no plausible explaination for the emotion
that Hamlet feels. Its too deep and powerful for a response to his mothers marriage. So he suggested that
shakespeare used hamlet to express his own emotion.
Nietzshe was also an eminant modern critic and thought that hamlet represented the dionysiac man. Its
similar to how frued grafted the wider model of oedipus onto hamlet: 'the realize no action of their can
work any change in the eternal condition of things' they cannot 'set right the time which is now out of
joint'. REF all critics who believed that hamlet was a 'instruement rather than an agent'. Was he? Was he a
victem? Or simply saw that his actions would have no effect on the rotten state of denmark.

Psychoanalysis.

Idea of critical theory- 'field of thinking and theorizing about literature itself from its formal and linguistic
structures to its relations with power politics, gender and history'.
More diverse and radical political outlooks. They sought to interpret hamlet on their own terms. Power,
class, marxist, feminist, deconstruction.
Feminine critics were eminent in this period.
Rose for example, said in response to Eliots 'gertrude is not worth hamlets anguish', argues that the play
reveals troublingly 'excessive' nature of female sexuality in male dominated society.
Both society and psychoanalytical thoery idealize and demonize feminnity which is an unstable category
upon which stable meaning and identity of culture depend on.
Is the play itself mysoginistic then?
Gertrude sexuality is defined by her betrayal and her husbands death. She destablizes hamlet as he cannot
assume a fully masculine identity in the image of his father. The 2 father figures with vastly differing and
conflciting ideals. The classical and noble duelist VS the schemeing, spying contriving machiavellian
tyrant.
It shows how feminity can destablize the court.
Late 20th century. History and politics. They take the materialist view. The view that hamlet discussion
can only be meanigful in the real context in which it was written.

CONTRARY TO AC BRAD + KNIGHT who were 'idealist'

Materialist critics interested in socialogical idealogical forces at work.

They critique fruedian views. For Kettle, frueds views 'draw attention away from the real dramatic
significance of that experience'. -basicallt frued trying to graft his own views onto something which has
'little to do with the experience itself'.

Hamlet written at a time when feudal mediaeval society was coming into modernity. Hamlet dramatizes
the response of an 'advanced' contemporary intellectual to the specific political circumstances of his day.
Greenblatt suggesting that the ghost is a catholic refugee. The theatre taking the place of the abolished
catholic institutions.

Modern criticism.

Freud 1900.

Postulated that the future psychological health of an adult man depended on his being able to overcome
and supress the two infant desires: to have sex with mother and kill father.

Freud uses this to explain Hamlet's inability to avenge his real father for which the text apparently 'offers
no clear reason'. Claudius has usurped him, taken the role that he subconsciously wants. Ref Laurence
Olivier and Franko Zeffirelli.

Freud suggests that critics such as Geothe who accounts Hamlets excessive intellect as the reason for his
inaction is simply wrong as proven by the plot: runs his sword through an eavesdropper behind an arras,
craftily sends roz and guild to their death, callously. So the only real reason why hamlet cannot avenge is
bc claud is the man who killed his father and took his place next to his mother. Claudius has shown and
revealed to Hamlet his own repressed childhood wishes. Hamlet himself is not better than Claudius in this
way.