essay on hamlet pizza

Good Pizza, Great Pizza - Pizza Business Simulator Answers for iPhone - iPad

• Developer: Tapblaze
• Publisher: Tapblaze
• Genre: Simulation Virtual
• Release: Dec 2, 2014
• Platform: iPhone - iPad
• ESRB: Everyone

Question & Answers

Hamlet pizza for research.

A girl came in and said she has to do an essay on Hamlet so she's here to research. What pizza do I give her?

Answer from: Za Ham pizza: Sauce + Cheese + Ham (HAM-let, get it? XD)

Answer from: Ath Just a ham pizza.

• Added on: Feb 28, 2017

• Added on: Dec 28, 2018

• Utility Menu

Jeffrey R. Wilson

Essays on hamlet.

Written as the author taught Hamlet every semester for a decade, these lightning essays ask big conceptual questions about the play with the urgency of a Shakespeare lover, and answer them with the rigor of a Shakespeare scholar. In doing so, Hamlet becomes a lens for life today, generating insights on everything from xenophobia, American fraternities, and religious fundamentalism to structural misogyny, suicide contagion, and toxic love.

Prioritizing close reading over historical context, these explorations are highly textual and highly theoretical, often philosophical, ethical, social, and political. Readers see King Hamlet as a pre-modern villain, King Claudius as a modern villain, and Prince Hamlet as a post-modern villain. Hamlet’s feigned madness becomes a window into failed insanity defenses in legal trials. He knows he’s being watched in “To be or not to be”: the soliloquy is a satire of philosophy. Horatio emerges as Shakespeare’s authorial avatar for meta-theatrical commentary, Fortinbras as the hero of the play. Fate becomes a viable concept for modern life, and honor a source of tragedy. The metaphor of music in the play makes Ophelia Hamlet’s instrument. Shakespeare, like the modern corporation, stands against sexism, yet perpetuates it unknowingly. We hear his thoughts on single parenting, sending children off to college, and the working class, plus his advice on acting and writing, and his claims to be the next Homer or Virgil. In the context of four centuries of Hamlet hate, we hear how the text draws audiences in, how it became so famous, and why it continues to captivate audiences.

At a time when the humanities are said to be in crisis, these essays are concrete examples of the mind-altering power of literature and literary studies, unravelling the ongoing implications of the English language’s most significant artistic object of the past millennium.

Publications

Why is Hamlet the most famous English artwork of the past millennium? Is it a sexist text? Why does Hamlet speak in prose? Why must he die? Does Hamlet depict revenge, or justice? How did the death of Shakespeare’s son, Hamnet, transform into a story about a son dealing with the death of a father? Did Shakespeare know Aristotle’s theory of tragedy? How did our literary icon, Shakespeare, see his literary icons, Homer and Virgil? Why is there so much comedy in Shakespeare’s greatest tragedy? Why is love a force of evil in the play? Did Shakespeare believe there’s a divinity that shapes our ends? How did he define virtue? What did he think about psychology? politics? philosophy? What was Shakespeare’s image of himself as an author? What can he, arguably the greatest writer of all time, teach us about our own writing? What was his theory of literature? Why do people like Hamlet ? How do the Hamlet haters of today compare to those of yesteryears? Is it dangerous for our children to read a play that’s all about suicide? 

These are some of the questions asked in this book, a collection of essays on Shakespeare’s Hamlet stemming from my time teaching the play every semester in my Why Shakespeare? course at Harvard University. During this time, I saw a series of bright young minds from wildly diverse backgrounds find their footing in Hamlet, and it taught me a lot about how Shakespeare’s tragedy works, and why it remains with us in the modern world. Beyond ghosts, revenge, and tragedy, Hamlet is a play about being in college, being in love, gender, misogyny, friendship, theater, philosophy, theology, injustice, loss, comedy, depression, death, self-doubt, mental illness, white privilege, overbearing parents, existential angst, international politics, the classics, the afterlife, and the meaning of it all. 

These essays grow from the central paradox of the play: it helps us understand the world we live in, yet we don't really understand the text itself very well. For all the attention given to Hamlet , there’s no consensus on the big questions—how it works, why it grips people so fiercely, what it’s about. These essays pose first-order questions about what happens in Hamlet and why, mobilizing answers for reflections on life, making the essays both highly textual and highly theoretical. 

Each semester that I taught the play, I would write a new essay about Hamlet . They were meant to be models for students, the sort of essay that undergrads read and write – more rigorous than the puff pieces in the popular press, but riskier than the scholarship in most academic journals. While I later added scholarly outerwear, these pieces all began just like the essays I was assigning to students – as short close readings with a reader and a text and a desire to determine meaning when faced with a puzzling question or problem. 

The turn from text to context in recent scholarly books about Hamlet is quizzical since we still don’t have a strong sense of, to quote the title of John Dover Wilson’s 1935 book, What Happens in Hamlet. Is the ghost real? Is Hamlet mad, or just faking? Why does he delay? These are the kinds of questions students love to ask, but they haven’t been – can’t be – answered by reading the play in the context of its sources (recently addressed in Laurie Johnson’s The Tain of Hamlet [2013]), its multiple texts (analyzed by Paul Menzer in The Hamlets [2008] and Zachary Lesser in Hamlet after Q1 [2015]), the Protestant reformation (the focus of Stephen Greenblatt’s Hamlet in Purgatory [2001] and John E. Curran, Jr.’s Hamlet, Protestantism, and the Mourning of Contingency [2006]), Renaissance humanism (see Rhodri Lewis, Hamlet and the Vision of Darkness [2017]), Elizabethan political theory (see Margreta de Grazia, Hamlet without Hamlet [2007]), the play’s reception history (see David Bevington, Murder Most Foul: Hamlet through the Ages [2011]), its appropriation by modern philosophers (covered in Simon Critchley and Jamieson Webster’s The Hamlet Doctrine [2013] and Andrew Cutrofello’s All for Nothing: Hamlet’s Negativity [2014]), or its recent global travels (addressed, for example, in Margaret Latvian’s Hamlet’s Arab Journey [2011] and Dominic Dromgoole’s Hamlet Globe to Globe [2017]). 

Considering the context and afterlives of Hamlet is a worthy pursuit. I certainly consulted the above books for my essays, yet the confidence that comes from introducing context obscures the sharp panic we feel when confronting Shakespeare’s text itself. Even as the excellent recent book from Sonya Freeman Loftis, Allison Kellar, and Lisa Ulevich announces Hamlet has entered “an age of textual exhaustion,” there’s an odd tendency to avoid the text of Hamlet —to grasp for something more firm—when writing about it. There is a need to return to the text in a more immediate way to understand how Hamlet operates as a literary work, and how it can help us understand the world in which we live. 

That latter goal, yes, clings nostalgically to the notion that literature can help us understand life. Questions about life send us to literature in search of answers. Those of us who love literature learn to ask and answer questions about it as we become professional literary scholars. But often our answers to the questions scholars ask of literature do not connect back up with the questions about life that sent us to literature in the first place—which are often philosophical, ethical, social, and political. Those first-order questions are diluted and avoided in the minutia of much scholarship, left unanswered. Thus, my goal was to pose questions about Hamlet with the urgency of a Shakespeare lover and to answer them with the rigor of a Shakespeare scholar. 

In doing so, these essays challenge the conventional relationship between literature and theory. They pursue a kind of criticism where literature is not merely the recipient of philosophical ideas in the service of exegesis. Instead, the creative risks of literature provide exemplars to be theorized outward to help us understand on-going issues in life today. Beyond an occasion for the demonstration of existing theory, literature is a source for the creation of new theory.

Chapter One How Hamlet Works

Whether you love or hate Hamlet , you can acknowledge its massive popularity. So how does Hamlet work? How does it create audience enjoyment? Why is it so appealing, and to whom? Of all the available options, why Hamlet ? This chapter entertains three possible explanations for why the play is so popular in the modern world: the literary answer (as the English language’s best artwork about death—one of the very few universal human experiences in a modern world increasingly marked by cultural differences— Hamlet is timeless); the theatrical answer (with its mixture of tragedy and comedy, the role of Hamlet requires the best actor of each age, and the play’s popularity derives from the celebrity of its stars); and the philosophical answer (the play invites, encourages, facilitates, and sustains philosophical introspection and conversation from people who do not usually do such things, who find themselves doing those things with Hamlet , who sometimes feel embarrassed about doing those things, but who ultimately find the experience of having done them rewarding).

Chapter Two “It Started Like a Guilty Thing”: The Beginning of Hamlet and the Beginning of Modern Politics

King Hamlet is a tyrant and King Claudius a traitor but, because Shakespeare asked us to experience the events in Hamlet from the perspective of the young Prince Hamlet, we are much more inclined to detect and detest King Claudius’s political failings than King Hamlet’s. If so, then Shakespeare’s play Hamlet , so often seen as the birth of modern psychology, might also tell us a little bit about the beginnings of modern politics as well.

Chapter Three Horatio as Author: Storytelling and Stoic Tragedy

This chapter addresses Horatio’s emotionlessness in light of his role as a narrator, using this discussion to think about Shakespeare’s motives for writing tragedy in the wake of his son’s death. By rationalizing pain and suffering as tragedy, both Horatio and Shakespeare were able to avoid the self-destruction entailed in Hamlet’s emotional response to life’s hardships and injustices. Thus, the stoic Horatio, rather than the passionate Hamlet who repeatedly interrupts ‘The Mousetrap’, is the best authorial avatar for a Shakespeare who strategically wrote himself and his own voice out of his works. This argument then expands into a theory of ‘authorial catharsis’ and the suggestion that we can conceive of Shakespeare as a ‘poet of reason’ in contrast to a ‘poet of emotion’.

Chapter Four “To thine own self be true”: What Shakespeare Says about Sending Our Children Off to College

What does “To thine own self be true” actually mean? Be yourself? Don’t change who you are? Follow your own convictions? Don’t lie to yourself? This chapter argues that, if we understand meaning as intent, then “To thine own self be true” means, paradoxically, that “the self” does not exist. Or, more accurately, Shakespeare’s Hamlet implies that “the self” exists only as a rhetorical, philosophical, and psychological construct that we use to make sense of our experiences and actions in the world, not as anything real. If this is so, then this passage may offer us a way of thinking about Shakespeare as not just a playwright but also a moral philosopher, one who did his ethics in drama.

Chapter Five In Defense of Polonius

Your wife dies. You raise two children by yourself. You build a great career to provide for your family. You send your son off to college in another country, though you know he’s not ready. Now the prince wants to marry your daughter—that’s not easy to navigate. Then—get this—while you’re trying to save the queen’s life, the prince murders you. Your death destroys your kids. They die tragically. And what do you get for your efforts? Centuries of Shakespeare scholars dumping on you. If we see Polonius not through the eyes of his enemy, Prince Hamlet—the point of view Shakespeare’s play asks audiences to adopt—but in analogy to the common challenges of twenty-first-century parenting, Polonius is a single father struggling with work-life balance who sadly choses his career over his daughter’s well-being.

Chapter Six Sigma Alpha Elsinore: The Culture of Drunkenness in Shakespeare’s Hamlet

Claudius likes to party—a bit too much. He frequently binge drinks, is arguably an alcoholic, but not an aberration. Hamlet says Denmark is internationally known for heavy drinking. That’s what Shakespeare would have heard in the sixteenth century. By the seventeenth, English writers feared Denmark had taught their nation its drinking habits. Synthesizing criticism on alcoholism as an individual problem in Shakespeare’s texts and times with scholarship on national drinking habits in the early-modern age, this essay asks what the tragedy of alcoholism looks like when located not on the level of the individual, but on the level of a culture, as Shakespeare depicted in Hamlet. One window into these early-modern cultures of drunkenness is sociological studies of American college fraternities, especially the social-learning theories that explain how one person—one culture—teaches another its habits. For Claudius’s alcoholism is both culturally learned and culturally significant. And, as in fraternities, alcoholism in Hamlet is bound up with wealth, privilege, toxic masculinity, and tragedy. Thus, alcohol imagistically reappears in the vial of “cursed hebona,” Ophelia’s liquid death, and the poisoned cup in the final scene—moments that stand out in recent performances and adaptations with alcoholic Claudiuses and Gertrudes.

Chapter Seven Tragic Foundationalism

This chapter puts the modern philosopher Alain Badiou’s theory of foundationalism into dialogue with the early-modern playwright William Shakespeare’s play Hamlet . Doing so allows us to identify a new candidate for Hamlet’s traditionally hard-to-define hamartia – i.e., his “tragic mistake” – but it also allows us to consider the possibility of foundationalism as hamartia. Tragic foundationalism is the notion that fidelity to a single and substantive truth at the expense of an openness to evidence, reason, and change is an acute mistake which can lead to miscalculations of fact and virtue that create conflict and can end up in catastrophic destruction and the downfall of otherwise strong and noble people.

Chapter Eight “As a stranger give it welcome”: Shakespeare’s Advice for First-Year College Students

Encountering a new idea can be like meeting a strange person for the first time. Similarly, we dismiss new ideas before we get to know them. There is an answer to the problem of the human antipathy to strangeness in a somewhat strange place: a single line usually overlooked in William Shakespeare’s play Hamlet . If the ghost is “wondrous strange,” Hamlet says, invoking the ancient ethics of hospitality, “Therefore as a stranger give it welcome.” In this word, strange, and the social conventions attached to it, is both the instinctual, animalistic fear and aggression toward what is new and different (the problem) and a cultivated, humane response in hospitality and curiosity (the solution). Intellectual xenia is the answer to intellectual xenophobia.

Chapter Nine Parallels in Hamlet

Hamlet is more parallely than other texts. Fortinbras, Hamlet, and Laertes have their fathers murdered, then seek revenge. Brothers King Hamlet and King Claudius mirror brothers Old Norway and Old Fortinbras. Hamlet and Ophelia both lose their fathers, go mad, but there’s a method in their madness, and become suicidal. King Hamlet and Polonius are both domineering fathers. Hamlet and Polonius are both scholars, actors, verbose, pedantic, detectives using indirection, spying upon others, “by indirections find directions out." King Hamlet and King Claudius are both kings who are killed. Claudius using Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to spy on Hamlet mirrors Polonius using Reynaldo to spy on Laertes. Reynaldo and Hamlet both pretend to be something other than what they are in order to spy on and detect foes. Young Fortinbras and Prince Hamlet both have their forward momentum “arrest[ed].” Pyrrhus and Hamlet are son seeking revenge but paused a “neutral to his will.” The main plot of Hamlet reappears in the play-within-the-play. The Act I duel between King Hamlet and Old Fortinbras echoes in the Act V duel between Hamlet and Laertes. Claudius and Hamlet are both king killers. Sheesh—why are there so many dang parallels in Hamlet ? Is there some detectable reason why the story of Hamlet would call for the literary device of parallelism?

Chapter Ten Rosencrantz and Guildenstern: Why Hamlet Has Two Childhood Friends, Not Just One

Why have two of Hamlet’s childhood friends rather than just one? Do Rosencrantz and Guildenstern have individuated personalities? First of all, by increasing the number of friends who visit Hamlet, Shakespeare creates an atmosphere of being outnumbered, of multiple enemies encroaching upon Hamlet, of Hamlet feeling that the world is against him. Second, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are not interchangeable, as commonly thought. Shakespeare gave each an individuated personality. Guildenstern is friendlier with Hamlet, and their friendship collapses, while Rosencrantz is more distant and devious—a frenemy.

Chapter Eleven Shakespeare on the Classics, Shakespeare as a Classic: A Reading of Aeneas’s Tale to Dido

Of all the stories Shakespeare might have chosen, why have Hamlet ask the players to recite Aeneas’ tale to Dido of Pyrrhus’s slaughter of Priam? In this story, which comes not from Homer’s Iliad but from Virgil’s Aeneid and had already been adapted for the Elizabethan stage in Christopher Marlowe’s The Tragedy of Dido, Pyrrhus – more commonly known as Neoptolemus, the son of the famous Greek warrior Achilles – savagely slays Priam, the king of the Trojans and the father of Paris, who killed Pyrrhus’s father, Achilles, who killed Paris’s brother, Hector, who killed Achilles’s comrade, Patroclus. Clearly, the theme of revenge at work in this story would have appealed to Shakespeare as he was writing what would become the greatest revenge tragedy of all time. Moreover, Aeneas’s tale to Dido supplied Shakespeare with all of the connections he sought to make at this crucial point in his play and his career – connections between himself and Marlowe, between the start of Hamlet and the end, between Prince Hamlet and King Claudius, between epic poetry and tragic drama, and between the classical literature Shakespeare was still reading hundreds of years later and his own potential as a classic who might (and would) be read hundreds of years into the future.

Chapter Twelve How Theater Works, according to Hamlet

According to Hamlet, people who are guilty of a crime will, when seeing that crime represented on stage, “proclaim [their] malefactions”—but that simply isn’t how theater works. Guilty people sit though shows that depict their crimes all the time without being prompted to public confession. Why did Shakespeare—a remarkably observant student of theater—write this demonstrably false theory of drama into his protagonist? And why did Shakespeare then write the plot of the play to affirm that obviously inaccurate vision of theater? For Claudius is indeed stirred to confession by the play-within-the-play. Perhaps Hamlet’s theory of people proclaiming malefactions upon seeing their crimes represented onstage is not as outlandish as it first appears. Perhaps four centuries of obsession with Hamlet is the English-speaking world proclaiming its malefactions upon seeing them represented dramatically.

Chapter Thirteen “To be, or not to be”: Shakespeare Against Philosophy

This chapter hazards a new reading of the most famous passage in Western literature: “To be, or not to be” from William Shakespeare’s Hamlet . With this line, Hamlet poses his personal struggle, a question of life and death, as a metaphysical problem, as a question of existence and nothingness. However, “To be, or not to be” is not what it seems to be. It seems to be a representation of tragic angst, yet a consideration of the context of the speech reveals that “To be, or not to be” is actually a satire of philosophy and Shakespeare’s representation of the theatricality of everyday life. In this chapter, a close reading of the context and meaning of this passage leads into an attempt to formulate a Shakespearean image of philosophy.

Chapter Fourteen Contagious Suicide in and Around Hamlet

As in society today, suicide is contagious in Hamlet , at least in the example of Ophelia, the only death by suicide in the play, because she only becomes suicidal after hearing Hamlet talk about his own suicidal thoughts in “To be, or not to be.” Just as there are media guidelines for reporting on suicide, there are better and worse ways of handling Hamlet . Careful suicide coverage can change public misperceptions and reduce suicide contagion. Is the same true for careful literary criticism and classroom discussion of suicide texts? How can teachers and literary critics reduce suicide contagion and increase help-seeking behavior?

Chapter Fifteen Is Hamlet a Sexist Text? Overt Misogyny vs. Unconscious Bias

Students and fans of Shakespeare’s Hamlet persistently ask a question scholars and critics of the play have not yet definitively answered: is it a sexist text? The author of this text has been described as everything from a male chauvinist pig to a trailblazing proto-feminist, but recent work on the science behind discrimination and prejudice offers a new, better vocabulary in the notion of unconscious bias. More pervasive and slippery than explicit bigotry, unconscious bias involves the subtle, often unintentional words and actions which indicate the presence of biases we may not be aware of, ones we may even fight against. The Shakespeare who wrote Hamlet exhibited an unconscious bias against women, I argue, even as he sought to critique the mistreatment of women in a patriarchal society. The evidence for this unconscious bias is not to be found in the misogynistic statements made by the characters in the play. It exists, instead, in the demonstrable preference Shakespeare showed for men over women when deciding where to deploy his literary talents. Thus, Shakespeare's Hamlet is a powerful literary example – one which speaks to, say, the modern corporation – showing that deliberate efforts for egalitarianism do not insulate one from the effects of structural inequalities that both stem from and create unconscious bias.

Chapter Sixteen Style and Purpose in Acting and Writing

Purpose and style are connected in academic writing. To answer the question of style ( How should we write academic papers? ) we must first answer the question of purpose ( Why do we write academic papers? ). We can answer these questions, I suggest, by turning to an unexpected style guide that’s more than 400 years old: the famous passage on “the purpose of playing” in William Shakespeare’s Hamlet . In both acting and writing, a high style often accompanies an expressive purpose attempting to impress an elite audience yet actually alienating intellectual people, while a low style and mimetic purpose effectively engage an intellectual audience.

Chapter Seventeen 13 Ways of Looking at a Ghost

Why doesn’t Gertrude see the Ghost of King Hamlet in Act III, even though Horatio, Bernardo, Francisco, Marcellus, and Prince Hamlet all saw it in Act I? It’s a bit embarrassing that Shakespeare scholars don’t have a widely agreed-upon consensus that explains this really basic question that puzzles a lot of people who read or see Hamlet .

Chapter Eighteen The Tragedy of Love in Hamlet

The word “love” appears 84 times in Shakespeare’s Hamlet . “Father” only appears 73 times, “play” 60, “think” 55, “mother” 46, “mad” 44, “soul” 40, “God" 39, “death” 38, “life” 34, “nothing” 28, “son” 26, “honor” 21, “spirit” 19, “kill” 18, “revenge” 14, and “action” 12. Love isn’t the first theme that comes to mind when we think of Hamlet , but is surprisingly prominent. But love is tragic in Hamlet . The bloody catastrophe at the end of that play is principally driven not by hatred or a longing for revenge, but by love.

Chapter Nineteen Ophelia’s Songs: Moral Agency, Manipulation, and the Metaphor of Music in Hamlet

This chapter reads Ophelia’s songs in Act IV of Shakespeare’s Hamlet in the context of the meaning of music established elsewhere in the play. While the songs are usually seen as a marker of Ophelia’s madness (as a result of the death of her father) or freedom (from the constraints of patriarchy), they come – when read in light of the metaphor of music as manipulation – to symbolize her role as a pawn in Hamlet’s efforts to deceive his family. Thus, music was Shakespeare’s platform for connecting Ophelia’s story to one of the central questions in Hamlet : Do we have control over our own actions (like the musician), or are we controlled by others (like the instrument)?

Chapter Twenty A Quantitative Study of Prose and Verse in Hamlet

Why does Hamlet have so much prose? Did Shakespeare deliberately shift from verse to prose to signal something to his audiences? How would actors have handled the shifts from verse to prose? Would audiences have detected shifts from verse to prose? Is there an overarching principle that governs Shakespeare’s decision to use prose—a coherent principle that says, “If X, then use prose?”

Chapter Twenty-One The Fortunes of Fate in Hamlet : Divine Providence and Social Determinism

In Hamlet , fate is attacked from both sides: “fortune” presents a world of random happenstance, “will” a theory of efficacious human action. On this backdrop, this essay considers—irrespective of what the characters say and believe—what the structure and imagery Shakespeare wrote into Hamlet say about the possibility that some version of fate is at work in the play. I contend the world of Hamlet is governed by neither fate nor fortune, nor even the Christianized version of fate called “providence.” Yet there is a modern, secular, disenchanted form of fate at work in Hamlet—what is sometimes called “social determinism”—which calls into question the freedom of the individual will. As such, Shakespeare’s Hamlet both commented on the transformation of pagan fate into Christian providence that happened in the centuries leading up to the play, and anticipated the further transformation of fate from a theological to a sociological idea, which occurred in the centuries following Hamlet .

Chapter Twenty-Two The Working Class in Hamlet

There’s a lot for working-class folks to hate about Hamlet —not just because it’s old, dusty, difficult to understand, crammed down our throats in school, and filled with frills, tights, and those weird lace neck thingies that are just socially awkward to think about. Peak Renaissance weirdness. Claustrophobicly cloistered inside the castle of Elsinore, quaintly angsty over royal family problems, Hamlet feels like the literary epitome of elitism. “Lawless resolutes” is how the Wittenberg scholar Horatio describes the soldiers who join Fortinbras’s army in exchange “for food.” The Prince Hamlet who has never worked a day in his life denigrates Polonius as a “fishmonger”: quite the insult for a royal advisor to be called a working man. And King Claudius complains of the simplicity of "the distracted multitude.” But, in Hamlet , Shakespeare juxtaposed the nobles’ denigrations of the working class as readily available metaphors for all-things-awful with the rather valuable behavior of working-class characters themselves. When allowed to represent themselves, the working class in Hamlet are characterized as makers of things—of material goods and services like ships, graves, and plays, but also of ethical and political virtues like security, education, justice, and democracy. Meanwhile, Elsinore has a bad case of affluenza, the make-believe disease invented by an American lawyer who argued that his client's social privilege was so great that it created an obliviousness to law. While social elites rot society through the twin corrosives of political corruption and scholarly detachment, the working class keeps the machine running. They build the ships, plays, and graves society needs to function, and monitor the nuts-and-bolts of the ideals—like education and justice—that we aspire to uphold.

Chapter Twenty-Three The Honor Code at Harvard and in Hamlet

Students at Harvard College are asked, when they first join the school and several times during their years there, to affirm their awareness of and commitment to the school’s honor code. But instead of “the foundation of our community” that it is at Harvard, honor is tragic in Hamlet —a source of anxiety, blunder, and catastrophe. As this chapter shows, looking at Hamlet from our place at Harvard can bring us to see what a tangled knot honor can be, and we can start to theorize the difference between heroic and tragic honor.

Chapter Twenty-Four The Meaning of Death in Shakespeare’s Hamlet

By connecting the ways characters live their lives in Hamlet to the ways they die – on-stage or off, poisoned or stabbed, etc. – Shakespeare symbolized hamartia in catastrophe. In advancing this argument, this chapter develops two supporting ideas. First, the dissemination of tragic necessity: Shakespeare distributed the Aristotelian notion of tragic necessity – a causal relationship between a character’s hamartia (fault or error) and the catastrophe at the end of the play – from the protagonist to the other characters, such that, in Hamlet , those who are guilty must die, and those who die are guilty. Second, the spectacularity of death: there exists in Hamlet a positive correlation between the severity of a character’s hamartia (error or flaw) and the “spectacularity” of his or her death – that is, the extent to which it is presented as a visible and visceral spectacle on-stage.

Chapter Twenty-Five Tragic Excess in Hamlet

In Hamlet , Shakespeare paralleled the situations of Hamlet, Laertes, and Fortinbras (the father of each is killed, and each then seeks revenge) to promote the virtue of moderation: Hamlet moves too slowly, Laertes too swiftly – and they both die at the end of the play – but Fortinbras represents a golden mean which marries the slowness of Hamlet with the swiftness of Laertes. As argued in this essay, Shakespeare endorsed the virtue of balance by allowing Fortinbras to be one of the very few survivors of the play. In other words, excess is tragic in Hamlet .

Bibliography

Anand, Manpreet Kaur. An Overview of Hamlet Studies . Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 2019.

Anglin, Emily. “‘Something in me dangerous’: Hamlet, Melancholy, and the Early Modern Scholar.” Shakespeare 13.1 (2017): 15-29.

Baker, Christopher. “Hamlet and the Kairos.” Ben Jonson Journal 26.1 (2019): 62-77.

Baker, Naomi. “‘Sore Distraction’: Hamlet, Augustine and Time.” Literature and Theology 32.4 (2018): 381-96.

Belsey, Catherine. “The Question of Hamlet.” The Oxford Handbook of Shakespearean Tragedy, ed. Michael Neill and David Schalkwyk (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016:

Bevington, David, ed. Twentieth Century Interpretations of Hamlet: A Collection of Critical Essays . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1968.

Bevington, David. Murder Most Foul: Hamlet through the Ages . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Bloom, Harold, ed. Modern Critical Interpretations: Hamlet . New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1986.

Booth, Stephen. “On the Value of Hamlet.” Reinterpretations of Elizabethan Drama. Ed. By Norman Rabkin. New York: Columbia University Press, 1969. 137-76.

Bowers, Fredson. Hamlet as Minister and Scourge and Other Studies in Shakespeare and Milton. Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia, 1989.

Brancher, Dominique. “Universals in the Bush: The Case of Hamlet.” Shakespeare and Space: Theatrical Explorations of the Spatial Paradigm , ed. Ina Habermann and Michelle Witen (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016): 143-62.

Bourus, Terri. Young Shakespeare’s Young Hamlet: Print, Piracy, and Performance . New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.

Bourus, Terri. Canonizing Q1 Hamlet . Special issue of Critical Survey 31.1-2 (2019).

Burnett, Mark Thornton. ‘Hamlet' and World Cinema . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019.

Calderwood, James L. To Be and Not to Be: Negation and Metadrama in Hamlet . New York: Columbia, 1983.

Carlson, Marvin. Shattering Hamlet's Mirror: Theatre and Reality . Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2016.

Cavell, Stanley. “Hamlet’s Burden of Proof.” Disowning Knowledge in Seven Plays of Shakespeare . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. 179–91.

Chamberlain, Richard. “What's Happiness in Hamlet?” The Renaissance of Emotion: Understanding Affect in Shakespeare and his Contemporaries , ed. Richard Meek and Erin Sullivan (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2017): 153-74.

Cormack, Bradin. “Paper Justice, Parchment Justice: Shakespeare, Hamlet, and the Life of Legal Documents.” Taking Exception to the Law: Materializing Injustice in Early Modern English Literature , ed. Donald Beecher, Travis Decook, and Andrew Wallace (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2015): 44-70.

Craig, Leon Harold. Philosophy and the Puzzles of Hamlet: A Study of Shakespeare's Method . London: Bloomsbury, 2014.

Critchley, Simon; Webster, Jamieson. Stay, Illusion!: The Hamlet Doctrine . New York: Pantheon Books, 2013.

Curran, John E., Jr. Hamlet, Protestantism, and the Mourning of Contingency: Not to Be . Aldershot and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2006.

Cutrofello, Andrew. All for Nothing: Hamlet's Negativity . Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2014.

Dawson, Anthony B. Hamlet: Shakespeare in Performance . Manchester and New York: Manchester UP, 1995.

Desmet, Christy. “Text, Style, and Author in Hamlet Q1.” Journal of Early Modern Studies 5 (2016): 135-156

Dodsworth, Martin. Hamlet Closely Observed . London: Athlone, 1985.

De Grazia, Margreta. Hamlet without Hamlet . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Dromgoole, Dominic. Hamlet: Globe to Globe : 193,000 Miles, 197 Countries, One Play . Edinburgh: Canongate, 2018.

Dunne, Derek. “Decentring the Law in Hamlet .” Law and Humanities 9.1 (2015): 55-77.

Eliot, T. S. “Hamlet and His Problems.” The Sacred Wood: Essays on Poetry and Criticism . London: Methuen, 1920. 87–94.

Evans, Robert C., ed. Critical Insights: Hamlet . Amenia: Grey House Publishing, 2019.

Farley-Hills, David, ed. Critical Responses to Hamlet, 1600-1900 . 5 vols. New York: AMS Press, 1996.

Foakes, R.A. Hamlet Versus Lear: Cultural Politics and Shakespeare's Art . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Frank, Arthur W. “‘Who’s There?’: A Vulnerable Reading of Hamlet,” Literaature and Medicine 37.2 (2019): 396-419.

Frye, Roland Mushat. The Renaissance Hamlet: Issues and Responses in 1600 . Princeton: Princeton UP, 1984.

Josipovici, Gabriel. Hamlet: Fold on Fold . New Haven: Yale University Press, 2016.

Kastan, David Scott, ed. Critical Essays on Shakespeare’s Hamlet . New York: G. K. Hall, 1995.

Khan, Amir. “My Kingdom for a Ghost: Counterfactual Thinking and Hamlet.” Shakespeare Quarerly 66.1 (2015): 29-46.

Keener, Joe. “Evolving Hamlet: Brains, Behavior, and the Bard.” Interdisciplinary Literary Studies 14.2 (2012): 150-163

Kott, Jan. “Hamlet of the Mid-Century.” Shakespeare, Our Contemporary . Trans. Boleslaw Taborski. Garden City: Doubleday, 1964.

Lake, Peter. Hamlet’s Choice: Religion and Resistance in Shakespeare's Revenge Tragedies . New Haven: Yale University Press, 2020.

Lerer, Seth. “Hamlet’s Boyhood.” Childhood, Education and the Stage in Early Modern England , ed. Richard Preiss and Deanne Williams (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017):17-36.

Levy, Eric P. Hamlet and the Rethinking of Man . Madison: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2008.

Lewis, C.S. “Hamlet: The Prince or the Poem?” (1942). Studies in Shakespeare , ed. Peter Alexander (1964): 201-18.

Loftis, Sonya Freeman; Allison Kellar; and Lisa Ulevich, ed. Shakespeare's Hamlet in an Era of Textual Exhaustion . New York, NY: Routledge, 2018.

Luke, Jillian. “What If the Play Were Called Ophelia ? Gender and Genre in Hamlet .” Cambridge Quarterly 49.1 (2020): 1-18.

Gates, Sarah. “Assembling the Ophelia Fragments: Gender, Genre, and Revenge in Hamlet.” Explorations in Renaissance Culture 34.2 (2008): 229-47.

Gottschalk, Paul. The Meanings of Hamlet: Modes of Literary Interpretation Since Bradley . Albequerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1972.

Greenblatt, Stephen. Hamlet in Purgatory . Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2001.

Hunt, Marvin W. Looking for Hamlet . New York and Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, 2007.

Iyengar, Sujata. "Gertrude/Ophelia: Feminist Intermediality, Ekphrasis, and Tenderness in Hamlet," in Loomba, Rethinking Feminism In Early Modern Studies: Race, Gender, and Sexuality (2016), 165-84.

Iyengar, Sujata; Feracho, Lesley. “Hamlet (RSC, 2016) and Representations of Diasporic Blackness,” Cahiers Élisabéthains 99, no. 1 (2019): 147-60.

Johnson, Laurie. The Tain of Hamlet . Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 2013.

Jolly, Margrethe. The First Two Quartos of Hamlet: A New View of the Origins and Relationship of the Texts . Jefferson: McFarland, 2014.

Jones, Ernest. Hamlet and Oedipus . Garden City: Doubleday, 1949.

Keegan, Daniel L. “Indigested in the Scenes: Hamlet's Dramatic Theory and Ours.” PMLA 133.1 (2018): 71-87.

Kinney, Arthur F., ed. Hamlet: Critical Essays . New York: Routledge, 2002.

Kiséry, András. Hamlet's Moment: Drama and Political Knowledge in Early Modern England . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.

Kottman, Paul A. “Why Think About Shakespearean Tragedy Today?” The Cambridge Companion to Shakespearean Tragedy , ed. Claire McEachern (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013): 240-61.

Langis, Unhae. “Virtue, Justice and Moral Action in Shakespeare’s Hamlet .” Literature and Ethics: From the Green Knight to the Dark Knight , ed. Steve Brie and William T. Rossiter (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 2010): 53-74.

Lawrence, Sean. "'As a stranger, bid it welcome': Alterity and Ethics in Hamlet and the New Historicism," European Journal of English Studies 4 (2000): 155-69.

Lesser, Zachary. Hamlet after Q1: An Uncanny History of the Shakespearean Text . Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015.

Levin, Harry. The Question of Hamlet . New York: Oxford UP, 1959.

Lewis, Rhodri. Hamlet and the Vision of Darkness . Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2017.

Litvin, Margaret. Hamlet's Arab Journey: Shakespeare's Prince and Nasser's Ghost . Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011.

Loftis, Sonya Freeman, and Lisa Ulevich. “Obsession/Rationality/Agency: Autistic Shakespeare.” Disability, Health, and Happiness in the Shakespearean Body , edited by Sujata Iyengar. Routledge, 2015, pp. 58-75.

Marino, James J. “Ophelia’s Desire.” ELH 84.4 (2017): 817-39.

Massai, Sonia, and Lucy Munro. Hamlet: The State of Play . London: Bloomsbury, 2021.

McGee, Arthur. The Elizabethan Hamlet . New Haven: Yale UP, 1987.

Megna, Paul, Bríd Phillips, and R.S. White, ed. Hamlet and Emotion . New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019.

Menzer, Paul. The Hamlets: Cues, Qs, and Remembered Texts . Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2008.

Mercer, Peter. Hamlet and the Acting of Revenge . Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1987.

Oldham, Thomas A. “Unhouseled, Disappointed, Unaneled”: Catholicism, Transubstantiation, and Hamlet .” Ecumenica 8.1 (Spring 2015): 39-51.

Owen, Ruth J. The Hamlet Zone: Reworking Hamlet for European Cultures . Newcastle-Upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 2012.

Price, Joeseph G., ed. Hamlet: Critical Essays . New York: Routledge, 1986.

Prosser, Eleanor. Hamlet and Revenge . 2nd ed. Stanford: Stanford UP, 1971.

Rosenberg, Marvin. The Masks of Hamlet . Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1992.

Row-Heyveld, Lindsey. “Antic Dispositions: Mental and Intellectual Disabilities in Early Modern Revenge Tragedy.” Recovering Disability in Early Modern England , ed. Allison P. Hobgood and David Houston Wood. Ohio State University Press, 2013, pp. 73-87.

Shakespeare, William. Hamlet . Ed. Neil Taylor and Ann Thompson. Revised Ed. London: Arden Third Series, 2006.

Shakespeare, William. Hamlet . Ed. Robert S. Miola. New York: Norton, 2010.

Stritmatter, Roger. "Two More Censored Passages from Q2 Hamlet." Cahiers Élisabéthains 91.1 (2016): 88-95.

Thompson, Ann. “Hamlet 3.1: 'To be or not to be’.” The Cambridge Guide to the Worlds of Shakespeare: The World's Shakespeare, 1660-Present, ed. Bruce R. Smith (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016): 1144-50.

Seibers, Tobin. “Shakespeare Differently Disabled.” The Oxford Handbook of Shakespeare and Embodiement: Gender, Sexuality, and Race , ed. Valerie Traub (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016): 435-54.

Skinner, Quentin. “Confirmation: The Conjectural Issue.” Forensic Shakespeare (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014): 226-68.

Slater, Michael. “The Ghost in the Machine: Emotion and Mind–Body Union in Hamlet and Descartes," Criticism 58 (2016).

Thompson, Ann, and Neil Taylor, eds. Hamlet: A Critical Reader . London: Bloomsbury, 2016.

Weiss, Larry. “The Branches of an Act: Shakespeare's Hamlet Explains his Inaction.” Shakespeare 16.2 (2020): 117-27.

Wells, Stanley, ed. Hamlet and Its Afterlife . Special edition of Shakespeare Survey 45 (1992).

Williams, Deanne. “Enter Ofelia playing on a Lute.” Shakespeare and the Performance of Girlhood (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014): 73-91

Williamson, Claude C.H., ed. Readings on the Character of Hamlet: Compiled from Over Three Hundred Sources .

White, R.S. Avant-Garde Hamlet: Text, Stage, Screen . Lanham: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2015.

Wiles, David. “Hamlet’s Advice to the Players.” The Players’ Advice to Hamlet: The Rhetorical Acting Method from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020): 10-38

Wilson, J. Dover. What Happens in Hamlet . 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1951.

Zamir, Tzachi, ed. Shakespeare's Hamlet: Philosophical Perspectives . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.

Guidelines for Writing A Great Hamlet Analysis Essay

To enhance the independent work of students and the development of public speaking skills, many teachers resort to such a form of knowledge control as an essay. This type of activity can be attributed to small written works. The essay in its volume is significantly inferior to the thesis since it is usually related to a specific subject under study and includes an analysis of a limited number of concepts considered during training.

Writing a literary essay is usually based on an analysis of a literary text. Sometimes it’s difficult for students to complete this assignment, but at any time they can contact professionals, such as  WriteMyPaper4Me , and get a stellar paper! However, it is very important to learn to overcome such difficulties and to complete an essay without any help. Below we will give you recommendations for writing a great Hamlet analysis essay.

5 Key Writing Tips

As it is known, Hamlet has long been recognized by society as the great eternal image of world literature. The play “Hamlet” became not only the closest story for the reader, literary and theatrical critics, actors and directors, but acquired the significance of a text-generating work of art. The eternal image of the doubting Hamlet inspired a whole string of writers who, one way or another, used his character traits in their literary works.

In order to conduct a good literary analysis of the protagonist and the novel as a whole, and as a result, write an excellent essay, the author should take into account the following recommendations:

• Define the structure of your paper. As a rule, an essay consists of three main structural elements: introduction, main part, and conclusion;
• In the introduction a narrator should point the topic, highlight the main issues that need to be considered;
• In the main part, it is advisable to represent a system of argumentation based on a deep study of the play. You should put forward new different ideas in a logical sequence, which will enable the reader to trace the direction of your answer. For the convenience of presentation and clarity of the logic of each argument, evidence, and statement, the main content is divided into paragraphs or sections that may have independent subheadings;
• The conclusion is the last basic element of an essay. The writer usually represents here a summary of basic ideas;
• When checking the work, it is necessary first of all to pay attention to whether the ideas are arranged in a logical order. Usually, each paragraph of the main text should contain no more than one idea in question. In addition, it is important to check each sentence of the work for errors, as a good knowledge of the language should be demonstrated in the essay.

We hope our tips will help you to write a Hamlet analysis essay at the highest level!

Combine all five tips to write the perfect Hamlet analysis essay.

• Pinterest 0

Leave a Reply

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Hamlet Analysis Research and Essay: Home

Instructions.

Your essay on Hamlet must be at least three pages with a maximum of five pages long. See topics below.

You need one primary source (your book) and three secondary sources.

Follow the MLA Format and attach a Works Cited (see second tab for the MLA 8 Guide).

Google Docs template of Note Sheet

Note-Taking Sheet

Click on File and Make a copy.

MLA citations are available for every article. Copy and paste into your Note Taking Sheet.

You need to pass in your Note-Taking Sheet with your brochure.

Suggested Links

These links are to scholarly database articles.  You may choose one overview article and then one that address your topic below.

• Hamlet  (Overview) (Literature Resource Center)  by Michelle Lee
• Hamlet (Facts on File Companion to Shakespeare)  ( GVRL ) Home login: montytech1
• Hamlet (Shakespeare for Students) (GVRL) Home login: montytech1
• Hamlet  (Overview) (Literature Resource Center)  by Lynn M. Zott
• Hamlet: Critical Introduction to the Play (Bloom's)  Home login and password: montytech1
• Drama, Fortune, and Providence in "Hamlet" (JSTOR) Home login and password: montytech1
• Hamlet (A Study on His Mental State) (JSTOR) Home login and password: montytech1
• Hamlet's Flaws​ (Bloom's)   Home login and password: montytech1
• Hamlet (An overview of the history of the time period - Literature Resource Center) by Joyce Moss 
• 'Where be your gibes now?' Joe Sutcliffe discusses the role of satire in Hamlet​ (Literature Resource Center)

• When searching in Google, type  site:edu at the end of your keywords to get more scholarly sources.  Or, go to scholar.google.com.
• Do not use "paper mill" sites or student work as a source.  Hint: you may find sources you can use in their Works Cited.
• Do not use SparkNotes-type sites as a source.  Hint: If it's not from a database, it must have an author.

1. Deception / Appearance and Reality

Hamlet has been called a "claustrophobic" play because of the ways the different characters spy on one another, but "spying" is only one form of deception in the play. There is also Claudius, the incestuous fratricide(killing one’s brother), playing the part of the good king, and Hamlet himself decides to "put an antic disposition on" (1.5.189). In a way, it is Hamlet's job to see through all of this deception and to discover the truth, although, to discover the truth, Hamlet himself must use deception. What point is Shakespeare trying to make by introducing all of the deception, lying, and false appearances into his play?

2. Melancholy, Madness and Sanity

Hamlet tells his mother that he "essentially [is] not in madness, / But mad in craft" (3.4.204-205) and claims to "put an antic disposition on" (1.5.189), but does he ever cross the line between sanity and insanity in the play? To complicate matters, the world of Hamlet seems insane: the king is a murderer; the queen lusts after her dead husband's brother; friends spy on friends; and one character really does go insane. Could Hamlet really be sane in an insane world? And what about Hamlet's melancholy? From the beginning of the play, Hamlet is depressed, and he considers suicide several different times. What is the real cause of his melancholy? Does he ever break out of his melancholy?

3. Passion and Reason (Renaissance View of Humanity)

As Hamlet says, "What a piece of work is a man! How 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!" (2.2.286-289). At the same time, though, we are sometimes ruled by our passions (lust, greed, gluttony, etc.). We are capable of greatness and nobility, but we are also capable of behavior fitting a beast, so Hamlet asks another "pregnant" question (a question loaded with meaning) when he asks Ophelia, "What should such fellows as I do crawling between earth and heaven?" (3.1.128-129). All of the characters in the play are "crawling between earth and heaven," but some are drawn more to earth by their "beastly" behavior. How does the theme of passion and reason apply to some of the main characters? How does the issue of passion and reason help to determine Hamlet's views of some of the other characters and of life in general?

4. Theme of Decay and Corruption

"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark" (1.4.98). In fact, many things are rotten in the state of Denmark, and images of decay, corruption, and disease are common throughout the play. Following the conventions of tragedy, many of the characters become corrupted in some way, and, by the end of the play, all of the corrupt characters must be eliminated so that Denmark can once again be set right. Many characters in Hamlet die. In what ways is each of these characters "corrupt"? What images in the play suggest decay, corruption, or disease?

5. Analysis of Hamlet's Character

Hamlet is one of the most complex characters in literature, and Shakespeare created in Hamlet a character that defies easy explanation. What aspects of Hamlet's character are admirable? What are Hamlet's weaknesses or flaws? And what about Hamlet's mental state? Hamlet has been called the most intelligent character in all of literature. Why? And how do his melancholy and feigned (or unfeigned) madness add complexity to his character? Does Hamlet see the world lucidly, or is his perception of the world too clouded by his melancholy? And why does Hamlet take so long to kill Claudius?

6. How Should One Live? What is the Purpose of Life?

In her madness, Ophelia brings up an important theme of the play: "Lord," she says, "we know what we are, but know not what we may be" (4.5.43-44). Both "what we are" and "what we may be" are problems that Hamlet struggles with throughout the play. Should one lead an active life or a passive life? Does God help to direct our actions? Is the world nothing more than a prison? Is there a meaning to life? Are some of Hamlet's views on life too pessimistic, or are his views supported by the world of the play? Is Hamlet an idealistic and therefore disappointed by the realities of life?

7. Be Original!

One student in a freshman class wrote a 6-page research paper on Juliet. The student was interested in the character, so she did some research, came up with an original thesis, and ended up writing an excellent paper. Another student focused her entire research paper on Tybalt in Romeo and Juliet. Remember, you can write on almost any topic that you find interesting and that you think will help readers better understand the play. If you are not interested in any of the topics above, you might read a few articles on Hamlet and see if any issues that the critics brings up could be developed into a research paper. You should not use someone else's thesis, but writers developing an interpretation often touch upon a variety of ideas that they do not explore in much depth. You could take one of these ideas and develop it into your own paper.

• Next: MLA 8 >>
• Last Updated: Jan 30, 2024 1:24 PM
• URL: https://montytech.libguides.com/hamletanalysis

Essays About Hamlet: Top 5 Examples and 10 Prompts

To write or not to write? To discover interesting topic ideas for your next essay, see below our round-up of helpful essays about Hamlet and writing topic prompts. 

The tragedy of Hamlet , Prince of Denmark, is arguably the most famous work of William Shakespeare – or perhaps in the world of literature. A play revolving around love, betrayal, madness, and revenge, Hamlet is a masterpiece that opens with the murder of the King of Denmark. The ghost of the king will go on to appear before his son Hamlet throughout the play, seeking his help for vengeance by killing the new king, Hamlet’s uncle.

Written from 1600 to 1601 with five acts and published in a quarto edition, Hamlet has since been a beloved on the theatrical stages and modern film adaptations, becoming Shakespeare’s longest play and one of the most quoted in many art forms with its “To be or not to be” soliloquy. 

Read on to see our essays and prompts about Hamlet.

Top 5 Essay Examples

1. ”review: in a powerful ‘hamlet,’ a fragile prince faces his foes” by maya phillips, 2. “the concept of madness in hamlet by shakespeare” by cansu yağsız, 3. “analyzing the theme of religion in william shakespeare’s ‘hamlet’” by journey holm, 4. “ophelia, gender and madness” by ellaine showalter, 5. “the hamlet effect” by holly crocker, 1. the beginnings of hamlet, 2. was hamlet mad or not, 3. physicians’ diagnosis of hamlet, 4. feminism in the eyes of ophelia, 5. religion in hamlet, 6. oedipal complex in hamlet, 7. imageries in hamlet, 8. shakespeare’s language in hamlet, 9. an analysis of “to be or not to be” , 10. hamlet as a philosophical work.

“Hamlet” is one of the Shakespeare plays that most suffers from diminishing returns — adaptations that try too hard to innovate, to render a classic modern and hip.”

With the many theatrical adaptations of Hamlet, it may be a tall order for production companies to add new flairs to the play while being faithful to Shakespeare’s masterpiece. But Robert Icke, a theater director, stuns an audience with his production’s creative and technical genius, while Alex Lawther, his actor, offers a refreshing, charismatic portrayal of Hamlet.

“The cause of these three characters’ madness are trauma and unrequited love. They also have a spot in common: a devastating loss of someone significant in their lives… In my view, Shakespeare wrote about these characters’ madness almost like a professional about psychology, making the causes and consequences of their madness reasonable.”

Madness is the most apparent theme in Hamlet, affecting the main character, Hamlet, his love interest, Ophelia, and her brother, Laertes. The novel is most reflective of Shakespeare’s attraction to the concept of madness, as he was said to have personally studied its causes, including unrequited love, trauma from losses, and burnout.

“…I will argue that Hamlet’s hesitance to avenge his father’s death comes from something deeper than a meditation on another man’s life, a sort of faith. I will use three scenes in Shakespeare’s Hamlet to establish that the reason for Hamlet’s hesitance is religion and the fear of his own eternal damnation in hellfire.”

The essay builds on a pool of evidence to prove the religiousness of Hamlet. But, mainly, the author underscores that it is Hamlet’s religious reflections, not his alleged mental incapacity, that stifle him from performing his duty to his father and killing his murderer.  

“Shakespeare gives us very little information from which to imagine a past for Ophelia… Yet Ophelia is the most represented of Shakespeare’s heroines in painting, literature and popular culture.”

The essay walks readers through the depictions of Ophelia in various stages and periods, particularly her sexuality. But the fascination for this heroine goes beyond the stage. Ophelia’s madness in the play has paved the way for constructive concepts on insanity among young women. She has also inspired many artists of the Pre-Rapahelite period and feminists to reimagine Hamlet through the lens of feminism. 

“… [A]s the shame-and-troll cycle of Internet culture spins out of control, lives are ruined. Some of these lives are lesser, we might think, because they are racist, sexist, or just unbelievably stupid. Shakespeare’s Hamlet cautions us against espousing this attitude: it is not that we shouldn’t call out inane or wrong ideas… He errs, however, when he acts as if Polonius’s very life doesn’t matter.”

An English professor rethinks our present moral compass through the so-called “Hamlet Effect,” which pertains to how one loses moral standards when doing something righteous. Indeed, Hamlet’s desire for retribution for his father is justifiable. However, given his focus on his bigger, more heroic goal of revenge, he treats the lives of other characters as having no significance.

10 Writing Prompts For Essays About Hamlet

It is said that Shakespeare’s primary inspiration for Hamlet lies in the pages of François de Belleforest’s Histories Tragique, published in 1570 when Shakespeare was six years old. For your historical essay, determine the similarities between Belleforest’s book and Hamlet. Research other stories that have helped Shakespeare create this masterpiece.

Hamlet is the most fascinating of Shakespeare’s heroes for the complexity of his character, desire, and existential struggle. But is Hamlet sane or insane? That question has been at the center of debates in the literary world. To answer this, pore over Hamlet’s seven soliloquies and find lines that most reveal Hamlet’s conflicting thoughts and feelings. 

Physicians have long mused over Hamlet’s characters like real people. They have even turned the cast into subjects of their psychiatric work but have come up with different diagnoses. For this prompt, dig deep into the ever-growing pool of psychoanalysis commentaries on Hamlet. Then, find out how these works affect future adaptations in theaters. 

Throughout the play, Ophelia is depicted as submissive, bending to the whims of male characters in the play. In your essay, explain how Ophelia’s character reflects the perception and autonomy of women in the Elizabethan era when the play was created. You can go further by analyzing whether Shakespeare was a misogynist trapping his heroine into such a helpless character or a feminist exposing these realities. 

Hamlet was written at a time London was actively practicing Protestantism, so it would be interesting to explore the religious theme in Hamlet to know how Shakespeare perceives the dominant religion in England in his time and Catholicism before the Reformation. First, identify the religions of the characters. Then, describe how their religious beliefs affected their decisions in the scenes. 

Father of psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud proposes that Hamlet is hesitant to kill Claudius due to his Oedipus Complex, which grows with him in his adult years. An Oedipus Complex pertains to a male infant’s repressed desire to take possession of his mother from his father, who is viewed as a rival. First, write your analysis on whether you agree with Freud’s view. Then, gather evidence from passages of the play to agree or argue otherwise. 

Hamlet in an “inky cloak” to signify his grief, a Denmark under Claudius linked to corruption and disease — these are just some imageries used in Hamlet. Find other imageries and explain how they achieved their dramatic effect on highlighting the moods of characters and scenes. 

During Shakespeare’s time, playwrights are expected to follow the so-called Doctrine of Decorum which recognizes the hierarchy in society. So the gravediggers in Hamlet spoke in prose, as Hamlet does in his mad soliloquies. However, Shakespeare breaks this rule in Hamlet. Find dialogues where Shakespeare allowed Hamlet’s characters to be more distinct and flexible in language. 

In the “To be or not to be” soliloquy, Hamlet contemplates suicide. Why do you think these lines continue to be relevant to this day even after centuries since Shakespeare? Answer this in your essay by elaborating on how Hamlet, through these lines, shares the suffering of the “whips and scorns of time” and our innate nature to endure. 

In your essay, evaluate the famous philosophies that resound in Hamlet. For example, with the theme of suicide, Hamlet may echo the teachings of Seneca and the movement of Stoicism , who view suicide as freedom from life’s chains. One may also find traces of Albert Camus’s lessons from the Myth of Sisyphus, which tells of a human’s ability to endure. 

Interested in learning more? Check out our essay writing tips . If you’re still stuck, check out our general resource of essay writing topics .

Website navigation

A Modern Perspective: Hamlet

By Michael Neill

The great Russian director Vsevolod Meyerhold used to maintain that “if all the plays ever written suddenly disappeared and only Hamlet miraculously survived, all the theaters in the world would be saved. They could all put on Hamlet and be successful.” 1 Perhaps Meyerhold exaggerated because of his frustration—he was prevented from ever staging the tragedy by Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, who apparently thought it too dangerous to be performed—but Meyerhold’s sense of Hamlet ’s extraordinary breadth of appeal is amply confirmed by its stage history. Praised by Shakespeare’s contemporaries for its power to “please all” as well as “to please the wiser sort,” 2 it provided his company with an immediate and continuing success. It was equally admired by popular audiences at the Globe on the Bankside, by academic playgoers “in the two Universities of Cambridge and Oxford,” and at court—where it was still in request in 1637, nearly forty years after its first performance.

In the four centuries since it was first staged, Hamlet has never lost its theatrical appeal, remaining today the most frequently performed of Shakespeare’s tragedies. At the same time, it has developed a reputation as the most intellectually puzzling of his plays, and it has already attracted more commentary than any other work in English except the Bible. Even today, when criticism stresses the importance of the reader’s role in “constructing” the texts of the past, there is something astonishing about Hamlet ’s capacity to accommodate the most bafflingly different readings. 3

In the early nineteenth century, for instance, Romantic critics read it as the psychological study of a prince too delicate and sensitive for his public mission; to later nineteenth-century European intellectuals, the hero’s anguish and self-reproach spoke so eloquently of the disillusionment of revolutionary failure that in czarist Russia “Hamletism” became the acknowledged term for political vacillation and disengagement. The twentieth century, not surprisingly, discovered a more violent and disturbing play: to the French poet Paul Valéry, the tragedy seemed to embody the European death wish revealed in the carnage and devastation of the First World War; in the mid-1960s the English director Peter Hall staged it as a work expressing the political despair of the nuclear age; for the Polish critic Jan Kott, as for the Russian filmmaker Gregori Kozintsev, the play became “a drama of a political crime” in a state not unlike Stalin’s Soviet empire; 4 while the contemporary Irish poet Seamus Heaney found in it a metaphor for the murderous politics of revenge at that moment devouring his native Ulster:

I am Hamlet the Dane,

skull handler, parablist,

smeller of rot

in the state, infused

with its poisons,

pinioned by ghosts

and affections

murders and pieties 5

Even the major “facts” of the play—the status of the Ghost, or the real nature of Hamlet’s “madness”—are seen very differently at different times. Samuel Johnson, for example, writing in the 1760s, had no doubt that the hero’s “madness,” a source of “much mirth” to eighteenth-century audiences, was merely “pretended,” but twentieth-century Hamlets onstage, even if they were not the full-fledged neurotics invented by Freud and his disciple Ernest Jones, were likely to show some signs of actual madness. Modern readings, too, while still fascinated by the hero’s intellectual and emotional complexities, are likely to emphasize those characteristics that are least compatible with the idealized “sweet prince” of the Victorians—the diseased suspicion of women, revealed in his obsession with his mother’s sexuality and his needless cruelty to Ophelia, his capacity for murderous violence (he dies with the blood of five people on his hands), and his callous indifference to the killing of such relative innocents as Polonius, Rosencrantz, and Guildenstern.

Hamlet ’s ability to adapt itself to the preconceptions of almost any audience, allowing the viewers, in the play’s own sardonic phrase, to “botch the words up fit to their own thoughts” ( 4.5.12 ), results partly from the boldness of its design. Over the sensationalism and rough energy of a conventional revenge plot is placed a sophisticated psychological drama whose most intense action belongs to the interior world of soliloquy: Hamlet agrees to revenge his father’s death at the urging of the Ghost, and thus steps into an old-fashioned revenge tragedy; but it is Hamlet’s inner world, revealed to us in his soliloquies (speeches addressed not to other characters but to the audience, as if the character were thinking aloud), that equally excites our attention. It is as if two plays are occurring simultaneously.

Although Hamlet is often thought of as the most personal of Shakespeare’s tragedies, Shakespeare did not invent the story of revenge that the play tells. The story was an ancient one, belonging originally to Norse saga. The barbaric narrative of murder and revenge—of a king killed by his brother, who then marries the dead king’s widow, of the young prince who must pretend to be mad in order to save his own life, who eludes a series of traps laid for him by his wicked uncle, and who finally revenges his father’s death by killing the uncle—had been elaborated in the twelfth-century Historiae Danicae of Saxo Grammaticus, and then polished up for sixteenth-century French readers in François de Belleforest’s Histoires Tragiques. It was first adapted for the English theater in the late 1580s in the form of the so-called Ur- Hamlet , a play attributed to Thomas Kyd (unfortunately now lost) that continued to hold the stage until at least 1596; and it may well be that when Shakespeare began work on Hamlet about 1599, he had no more lofty intention than to polish up this slightly tarnished popular favorite. But Shakespeare’s wholesale rewriting produced a Hamlet so utterly unlike Kyd’s work that its originality was unmistakable even to playgoers familiar with Kyd’s play.

The new tragedy preserved the outline of the old story, and took over Kyd’s most celebrated contributions—a ghost crying for revenge, and a play-within-the-play that sinisterly mirrors the main plot; but by focusing upon the perplexed interior life of the hero, Shakespeare gave a striking twist to what had been a brutally straightforward narrative. On the levels of both revenge play and psychological drama, the play develops a preoccupation with the hidden, the secret, and the mysterious that does much to account for its air of mystery. In Maynard Mack’s words, it is “a play in the interrogative mood” whose action deepens and complicates, rather than answers, the apparently casual question with which it begins, “Who’s there?” 6

“The Cheer and Comfort of Our Eye”: Hamlet and Surveillance

The great subject of revenge drama, before Hamlet , was the moral problem raised by private, personal revenge: i.e., should the individual take revenge into his own hands or leave it to God? Kyd’s The Spanish Tragedy (and, one assumes, his lost play about Hamlet as well) captured on the stage the violent contradictions of the Elizabethan attitudes toward this form of “wild justice.” The surprising thing about Shakespeare’s Hamlet is that it barely glances at the ethical argument raised by a hero’s taking justice into his own hands—an argument central to The Spanish Tragedy. Of course, the controversy about the morality of private revenge must have provided an important context for the original performances of the play, giving an ominous force to Hamlet’s fear that the spirit he has seen “may be a devil” luring him to damnation ( 2.2.628 ). But Shakespeare simply takes this context for granted, and goes on to discover a quite different kind of political interest in his plot—one that may help to explain the paranoiac anxieties it was apparently capable of arousing in a dictator like Stalin.

Turning away from the framework of ethical debate, Shakespeare used Saxo’s story of Hamlet’s pretended madness and delayed revenge to explore the brutal facts about survival in an authoritarian state. Here too the play could speak to Elizabethan experience, for we should not forget that the glorified monarchy of Queen Elizabeth I was sustained by a vigorous network of spies and informers. Indeed, one portrait of Elizabeth shows her dressed in a costume allegorically embroidered with eyes and ears, partly to advertise that her watchers and listeners were everywhere. Shakespeare’s Elsinore, too—the castle governed by Claudius and home to Hamlet—is full of eyes and ears; and behind the public charade of warmth, magnanimity, and open government that King Claudius so carefully constructs, the lives of the King’s subjects are exposed to merciless inquisition.

It is symbolically appropriate that the play should begin with a group of anxious watchers on the battlemented walls of the castle, for nothing and no one in Claudius’s Denmark is allowed to go “unwatched”: every appearance must be “sifted” or “sounded,” and every secret “opened.” The King himself does not hesitate to eavesdrop on the heir apparent; and his chief minister, Polonius, will meet his death lurking behind a curtain in the same squalid occupation. But they are not alone in this: the wholesale corruption of social relationships, even the most intimate, is an essential part of Shakespeare’s chilling exposure of authoritarian politics. Denmark, Hamlet informs Rosencrantz and Guildenstern accurately enough, is “a prison” ( 2.2.262 ); and the treachery of these former school friends of Hamlet illustrates how much, behind the mask of uncle Claudius’s concern, his court is ruled by the prison-house customs of the stool pigeon and the informer. How readily first Ophelia and then Gertrude allow themselves to become passive instruments of Polonius’s and Claudius’s spying upon the Prince; how easily Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are persuaded to put their friendship with Hamlet at the disposal of the state. Even Laertes’s affectionate relationship with his sister is tainted by a desire to install himself as a kind of censor, a “watchman” to the fortress of her heart ( 1.3.50 ). In this he is all too like his father, Polonius, who makes himself an interiorized Big Brother, engraving his cautious precepts on Laertes’s memory ( 1.3.65 ff.) and telling Ophelia precisely what she is permitted to think and feel:

I do not know, my lord, what I should think.

Marry, I will teach you. Think yourself a baby. . . .

( 1.3.113 –14)

Polonius is the perfect inhabitant of this court: busily policing his children’s sexuality, he has no scruple about prostituting his daughter in the interests of state security, for beneath his air of senile wordiness and fatherly anxiousness lies an ingrained cynicism that allows him both to spy on his son’s imagined “drabbing” in Paris and to “loose” his daughter as a sexual decoy to entrap the Prince.

Hamlet’s role as hero at once sets him apart from this prison-house world and yet leads him to become increasingly entangled in its web of surveillance. To the admiring Ophelia, Hamlet remains “Th’ observed of all observers” ( 3.1.168 ), but his obvious alienation has resulted in his being “observed” in a much more sinister sense. He is introduced in Act 1, scene 2, as a mysteriously taciturn watcher and listener whose glowering silence calls into question the pomp and bustle of the King’s wordy show, just as his mourning blacks cast suspicion on the showy costumes of the court. Yet he himself, we are quickly made to realize, is the object of a dangerously inquisitive stare—what the King smoothly calls “the cheer and comfort of our eye” ( 1.2.120 ).

The full meaning of that silky phrase will be disclosed on Claudius’s next appearance, when, after Hamlet has met the Ghost and has begun to appear mad, Claudius engages Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to probe his nephew’s threatening transformation ( 2.2.1 –18). “Madness in great ones,” the King insists, “must not unwatched go” ( 3.1.203 ):

         There’s something in his soul

O’er which his melancholy sits on brood,

And I do doubt the hatch and the disclose

Will be some danger.                  ( 3.1.178 –81)

But of course Hamlet’s madness is as much disguise as it is revelation; and while the Prince is the most ruthlessly observed character in the play, he is also its most unremitting observer. Forced to master his opponent’s craft of smiling villainy, he becomes not merely an actor but also a dramatist, ingeniously using a troupe of traveling players, with their “murder in jest,” to unmask the King’s own hypocritical “show.”

The scene in which the Players present The Murder of Gonzago , the play that Hamlet calls “The Mousetrap,” brings the drama of surveillance to its climax. We in the audience become participants in the drama’s claustrophobic economy of watching and listening, as our attention moves to and fro among the various groups on the stage, gauging the significance of every word, action, and reaction, sharing the obsessional gaze that Hamlet describes to Horatio:

Observe my uncle. . . . Give him heedful note,

For I mine eyes will rivet to his face,

And, after, we will both our judgments join

In censure of his seeming.             ( 3.2.85 –92)

“The Mousetrap” twice reenacts Claudius’s murder of his brother—first in the dumb show and then in the play proper—drawing out the effect so exquisitely that the King’s enraged interruption produces an extraordinary discharge of tension. An audience caught up in Hamlet’s wild excitement is easily blinded to the fact that this seeming climax is, in terms of the revenge plot, at least, a violent anticlimax. Kyd’s Spanish Tragedy had developed the play-within-the-play as a perfect vehicle for the ironies of revenge, allowing the hero to take his actual revenge in the very act of staging the villain’s original crime. Hamlet’s play, however, does not even make public Claudius’s forbidden story. Indeed, while it serves to confirm the truth of what the Ghost has said, the only practical effect of the Prince’s theatrical triumph is to hand the initiative decisively to Claudius. In the scenes that follow, Hamlet shows himself capable of both instinctive violence and of cold-blooded calculation, but his behavior is purely reactive. Otherwise he seems oddly paralyzed by his success—a condition displayed in the prayer scene ( 3.3.77 –101) where he stands behind the kneeling Claudius with drawn sword, “neutral to his will and matter,” uncannily resembling the frozen revenger described in the First Player’s speech about Pyrrhus standing over old Priam ( 2.2.493 ff.). All Hamlet can do is attempt to duplicate the triumph of “The Mousetrap” in his confrontation with Gertrude by holding up to her yet another verbal mirror, in which she is forced to gaze in horror on her “inmost part” ( 3.4.25 ).

Hamlet’s sudden loss of direction after the “Mousetrap” scene lasts through the fourth act of the play until he returns from his sea voyage in that mysteriously altered mood on which most commentators remark—a kind of fatalism that makes him the largely passive servant of a plot that he now does little to advance or impede. It is as if the springing of the “Mousetrap” leaves Hamlet with nowhere to go—primarily because it leaves him with nothing to say. But from the very beginning, his struggle with Claudius has been conceived as a struggle for the control of language—a battle to determine what can and cannot be uttered.

Speaking the Unspeakable: Hamlet and Memory

If surveillance is one prop of the authoritarian state, the other is its militant regulation of speech. As Claudius flatters the court into mute complicity with his theft of both the throne and his dead brother’s wife, he genially insists “You cannot speak of reason to the Dane / And lose your voice” ( 1.2.44 –45); but an iron wall of silence encloses the inhabitants of his courtly prison. While the flow of royal eloquence muffles inconvenient truths, ears here are “fortified” against dangerous stories ( 1.1.38 ) and lips sealed against careless confession: “Give thy thoughts no tongue,” Polonius advises Laertes, “. . . Give every man thy ear, but few thy voice . . . reserve thy judgment” ( 1.3.65 –75). Hamlet’s insistent warnings to his fellow watchers on the battlements “Never to speak of this that you have seen” ( 1.5.174 ) urge the same caution: “Let it be tenable in your silence still . . . Give it an understanding but no tongue” ( 1.2.269 –71). What for them is merely common prudence, however, is for the hero an absolute prohibition and an intolerable burden: “. . . break, my heart, for I must hold my tongue” ( 1.2.164 ).

Hamlet has only two ways of rupturing this enforced silence. The “pregnant” wordplay of his “mad” satire, as Polonius uneasily recognizes ( 2.2.226 –27), is one way, but it amounts to no more than inconclusive verbal fencing. Soliloquy is a more powerful resource because, since it is heard by no one (except the audience), its impenetrable privacy defines Hamlet’s independence from the corrupt public world. From his first big speech in the play, he has made such hiddenness the badge of his resistance to the King and Queen: “I have that within which passes show” ( 1.2.88 ), he announces. What is at issue here is not simply a contrast between hypocrisy and true grief over the loss of his king and father: rather, Hamlet grounds his very claim to integrity upon a notion that true feeling can never be expressed: it is only “that . . . which passes show ” that can escape the taint of hypocrisy, of “acting.” It is as if, in this world of remorseless observation, the self can survive only as a ferociously defended secret, something treasured for the very fact of its hiddenness and impenetrability. Unlike Gertrude, unlike Ophelia, unlike those absorbent “sponges” Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Hamlet must insist he is not made of “penetrable stuff.”

If Hamlet’s “antic disposition” is the guardian of his rebellious inwardness, soliloquy is where this inwardness lives, a domain which (if we except Claudius’s occasional flickers of conscience) no other character is allowed to inhabit. Hamlet’s soliloquies bulk so large in our response to the play because they not only guarantee the existence of the hero’s secret inner life; they also, by their relentless self-questioning, imply the presence of still more profoundly secret truths “hid . . . within the center” ( 2.2.170 –71): “I do not know / Why yet I live to say ‘This thing’s to do,’ / Sith I have cause, and will, and strength, and means / To do ’t” ( 4.4.46 –49). The soliloquies are the focus of the play’s preoccupation with speaking and silence. Hamlet is set apart from those around him by his access to this region of private utterance: in it he can, as it were, “be bounded in a nutshell and count [himself] a king of infinite space” ( 2.2.273 –74).

Yet there is a paradox here: the isolation of soliloquy is at once his special strength and the source of peculiar anguish. It saves him from the fate of Ophelia, who becomes “Divided from herself and her fair judgment” ( 4.5.92 ) by her grief at Polonius’s death and hasty burial; accustomed to speak only in the voice that others allow her, dutifully resolved to “think nothing, my lord” ( 3.2.124 ), she is left with no language other than the disconnected fragments of her madness to express outrage at a murder which authority seems determined to conceal. Hamlet, by contrast, finds in soliloquy an arena where the unspeakable can be uttered. But the very fact that these are words that others do not hear also makes soliloquy a realm of noncommunication, of frustrating silence—a prison as well as a fortress in which the speaker beats his head unavailingly against the walls of his own cell. Thus the soliloquy that ends Act 2 reproaches itself for a kind of speechlessness—the mute ineffectuality of a “John-a-dreams,” who, unlike the Player, “can say nothing”—and at the same time mocks itself as a torrent of empty language, a mere unpacking of the heart with words ( 2.2.593 –616). For all their eloquence, the soliloquies serve in the end only to increase the tension generated by the pressure of forbidden utterance.

It is from this pressure that the first three acts of the play derive most of their extraordinary energy; and the energy is given a concrete dramatic presence in the form of the Ghost. The appearance of a ghost demanding vengeance was a stock device borrowed from the Roman playwright Seneca; and the Ur- Hamlet had been notorious for its ghost, shrieking like an oysterwife, “Hamlet, revenge!” But the strikingly unconventional thing about Shakespeare’s Ghost is its melancholy preoccupation with the silenced past and its plangent cry of “Remember me” ( 1.5.98 ), which makes remembrance seem more important than revenge. “The struggle of humanity against power,” the Czech novelist Milan Kundera has written, “is the struggle of memory against forgetfulness”; and this Ghost, which stands for all that has been erased by the bland narratives of King Claudius, is consumed by the longing to speak that which power has rendered unspeakable. The effect of the Ghost’s narrative upon Hamlet is to infuse him with the same desire; indeed, once he has formally inscribed its watchword—“Remember me”—on the tables of his memory, he is as if possessed by the Ghost, seeming to mime its speechless torment when he appears to Ophelia, looking “As if he had been loosèd out of hell / To speak of horrors” ( 2.1.93 –94).

For all its pathos of silenced longing, the Ghost remains profoundly ambivalent, and not just because Elizabethans held such contradictory beliefs about ghosts. 7 The ambivalence is dramatized in a particularly disturbing detail: as the Ghost pours his story into Hamlet’s ear (the gesture highlighted by the Ghost’s incantatory repetition of “hear” and “ear”), we become aware of an uncanny parallel between the Ghost’s act of narration and the murder the Ghost tells about:

’Tis given out that, sleeping in my orchard,

A serpent stung me. So the whole ear of Denmark

Is by a forgèd process of my death

Rankly abused. . . .

Upon my secure hour thy uncle stole

With juice of cursèd hebona in a vial

And in the porches of my ears did pour

The leprous distilment. . . .               ( 1.5.42 –71)

If Claudius’s propaganda has abused “the whole ear of Denmark” like a second poisoning, the Ghost’s own story enters Hamlet’s “ears of flesh and blood” (line 28) like yet another corrosive. The fact that it is a story that demands telling, and that its narrator is “an honest ghost,” cannot alter the fact that it will work away in Hamlet’s being like secret venom until he in turn can vent it in revenge.

The “Mousetrap” play is at once a fulfillment and an escape from that compulsion. It gives, in a sense, a public voice to the Ghost’s silenced story. But it is only a metaphoric revenge. Speaking daggers and poison but using none, Hamlet turns out only to have written his own inability to bring matters to an end. It is no coincidence, then, that he should foresee the conclusion of his own tragedy as being the product of someone else’s script: “There’s a divinity that shapes our ends, / Rough-hew them how we will” ( 5.2.11 –12).

“To Tell My Story”: Unfinished Hamlet

In the last scene of the play, the sense that Hamlet’s story has been shaped by Providence—or by a playwright other than Hamlet—is very strong: the swordplay with Laertes is a theatrical imitation of dueling that becomes the real thing, sweetly knitting up the paralyzing disjunction between action and acting; at the same time, revenge is symmetrically perfected in the spectacle of Claudius choking on “a poison tempered by himself,” Laertes “justly killed with his own treachery,” and the Queen destroyed in the vicious pun that has her poisoned by Claudius’s “union.” Yet Hamlet’s consoling fatalism does not survive the final slaughter. Instead, he faces his end tormented by a sense of incompleteness, of a story still remaining to be told:

You that look pale and tremble at this chance,

That are but mutes or audience to this act,

Had I but time (as this fell sergeant, Death,

Is strict in his arrest), O, I could tell you—

But let it be.                                     ( 5.2.366 –70)

Within a few lines Hamlet’s distinctive voice, which has dominated his own tragedy like that of no other Shakespearean hero, will be cut off in midsentence by the arrest of death—and “the rest is silence” ( 5.2.395 ).

The play is full of such unfinished, untold, or perhaps even untellable tales, from Barnardo’s interrupted story of the Ghost’s first appearance to the Player’s unfinished rendition of “Aeneas’ tale to Dido” and the violently curtailed performance of The Murder of Gonzago. In the opening scene the Ghost itself is cut off, before it can speak, by the crowing of a cock; and when it returns and speaks to Hamlet, it speaks first about a story it cannot tell:

                 But that I am forbid

To tell the secrets of my prison house,

I could a tale unfold whose lightest word

Would harrow up thy soul, freeze thy

 young blood . . .                   ( 1.5.18 –21)

Even the tale it is permitted to unfold is, ironically, one of murderous interruption and terrible incompleteness:

Cut off , even in the blossoms of my sin,

Unhouseled, disappointed, unaneled,

No reck’ning made, but sent to my account

With all my imperfections on my head.

( 1.5.83 –86)

Act 5 at last produces the formal reckoning of this imperfect account, yet it leaves Hamlet once again echoing the Ghost’s agony of frustrated utterance.

But what, we might ask, can there be left to tell, beyond what we have already seen and heard? It seems to be part of the point, a last reminder of Hamlet’s elusive “mystery,” that we shall never know. The Prince has, of course, insisted that Horatio remain behind “to tell my story”; but the inadequacy of Horatio’s response only intensifies the sense of incompleteness. All that his stolid imagination can offer is that bald plot summary of “accidental judgments [and] casual slaughters,” which, as Anne Barton protests, leaves out “everything that seems important” about the play and its protagonist. 8 Nor is Fortinbras’s attempt to make “The soldier’s music and the rite of war / Speak loudly for [Hamlet]” ( 5.2.445 –46) any more satisfactory, for the military strongman’s cannon are no better tuned to speak for Hamlet than the player’s pipe.

It would be a mistake, of course, to underestimate the dramatic significance of Horatio’s story or of the “music and the rite of war”—these last gestures of ritual consolation—especially in a play where, beginning with the obscene confusion of Claudius’s “mirth in funeral” and including Polonius’s “hugger-mugger” interment and Ophelia’s “maimed rites,” we have seen the dead repeatedly degraded by the slighting of their funeral pomps. In this context it matters profoundly that Hamlet alone is accorded the full dignity of obsequies suited to his rank, for it signals his triumph over the oblivion to which Claudius is fittingly consigned, and, in its gesture back toward Hamlet’s story as Shakespeare has told it (so much better than Horatio does), it brings Hamlet’s story to a heroic end.

“The Undiscovered Country”: Hamlet and the Secrets of Death

How we respond to the ending of Hamlet —both as revenge drama and as psychological study—depends in part on how we respond to yet a third level of the play—that is, to Hamlet as a prolonged meditation on death. The play is virtually framed by two encounters with the dead: at one end is the Ghost, at the other a pile of freshly excavated skulls. The skulls (all but one) are nameless and silent; the Ghost has an identity (though a “questionable” one) and a voice; yet they are more alike than might at first seem. For this ghost, though invulnerable “as the air,” is described as a “dead corse,” a “ghost . . . come from the grave,” its appearance suggesting a grotesque disinterment of the buried king ( 1.4.52 –57; 1.5.139 ). The skulls for their part may be silent, but Hamlet plays upon each to draw out its own “excellent voice” (“That skull had a tongue in it and could sing once”; 5.1.77 –78), just as he engineered that “miraculous organ” of the Ghost’s utterance, the “Mousetrap.”

There is a difference, however: Hamlet’s dressing up the skulls with shreds of narrative (“as if ’twere Cain’s jawbone . . . This might be the pate of a politician . . . or of a courtier . . . Why may not that be the skull of a lawyer”; 5.1.78 –101) only serves to emphasize their mocking anonymity, until the Gravedigger offers to endow one with a precise historical identity: “This same skull . . . was . . . Yorick’s skull, the King’s jester” ( 5.1.186 –87). Hamlet is delighted: now memory can begin its work of loving resurrection. But how does the Gravedigger know? The answer is that of course he cannot; and try as Hamlet may to cover this bare bone with the flesh of nostalgic recollection, he cannot escape the wickedly punning reminder of “this same skull” that all skulls indeed look frightfully the same. Ironically, even Yorick’s distinctive trademark, his grin, has become indistinguishable from the mocking leer of that grand jester of the Danse Macabre , Death the Antic: “Where be your gibes now? . . . Not one now to mock your own grinning?”; so that even as he holds it, the skull’s identity appears to drain away into the anonymous memento mori sent to adorn “my lady’s” dressing table. It might as well be Alexander the Great’s; or Caesar’s; or anyone’s. It might as well be what it will one day become—a handful of clay, fit to stop a beer barrel.

It is significant that (with the trivial exception of 4.4) the graveyard scene is the only one to take place outside the confines of Claudius’s castle-prison. As the “common” place to which all stories lead, the graveyard both invites narrative and silences it. Each blank skull at once poses and confounds the question with which the tragedy itself began, “Who’s there?,” subsuming all human differences in awful likeness: “As you are now,” goes the tombstone verse, “so once was I / As I am now, so shall you be.” In the graveyard all stories collapse into one reductive history (“Alexander died, Alexander was buried, Alexander returneth to dust”; 5.1.216 –17). In this sense the Gravedigger is the mocking counterpart of the Player: and the houses of oblivion that gravediggers make challenge the players’ memorial art by lasting “till doomsday” ( 5.1.61 ). Hamlet shares with the Gravedigger the same easy good-fellowship he extends to the play’s other great outsider, the First Player; but the Gravedigger asserts a more sinister kind of intimacy with his claim to have begun his work “that very day that young Hamlet was born” ( 5.1.152 –53). In this moment he identifies himself as the Prince’s mortal double, the Sexton Death from the Danse Macabre who has been preparing him a grave from the moment of birth.

If there is a final secret to be revealed, then, about that “undiscovered country” on which Hamlet’s imagination broods, it is perhaps only the Gravedigger’s spade that can uncover it. For his digging lays bare the one thing we can say for certain lies hidden “within” the mortal show of the flesh—the emblems of Death himself, that Doppelgänger who shadows each of us as the mysterious Lamord ( La Mort ) shadows Laertes. If there is a better story, one that would confer on the rough matter of life the consolations of form and significance, it is, the play tells us, one that cannot finally be told; for it exists on the other side of language, to be tantalizingly glimpsed only at the point when Hamlet is about to enter the domain of the inexpressible. The great and frustrating achievement of this play, its most ingenious and tormenting trick, the source of its endlessly belabored mystery, is to persuade us that such a story might exist, while demonstrating its irreducible hiddenness. The only story Hamlet is given is that of a hoary old revenge tragedy, which he persuades himself (and us) can never denote him truly; but it is a narrative frame that nothing (not even inaction) will allow him to escape. The story of our lives, the play wryly acknowledges, is always the wrong story; but the rest, after all, is silence.

• Dmitri Shostakovich, Testimony: The Memoirs of Dmitri Shostakovich , as related to and edited by Solomon Volkow, trans. Antonina W. Bouis (London: Faber, 1981), p. 84.
• See F. E. Halliday, A Shakespeare Companion, 1564–1964 (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1964), pp. 435, 209; see also pp. 262 and 403.
• The most lucid guide to this critical labyrinth, though he deals with no work later than 1960, is probably still Morris Weitz, Hamlet and the Philosophy of Literary Criticism (London: Faber, 1964).
• Jan Kott, Shakespeare Our Contemporary (London: Methuen, 1964).
• Excerpt from “Viking Dublin: Trial Pieces” from Poems, 1965–1975 by Seamus Heaney. Copyright © 1975, 1980 by Seamus Heaney. Reprinted by permission of Farrar, Straus and Giroux, Inc. Permission for use of these lines from North by Seamus Heaney, published by Faber and Faber Limited, is also acknowledged.
• See Mack’s classic essay, “The World of Hamlet,” Yale Review 41 (1952): 502–23; Mack’s approach is significantly extended in Harry Levin’s The Question of Hamlet (New York: Oxford University Press, 1959).
• The most balanced treatment of this and other contentious historical issues in the play is in Roland M. Frye, The Renaissance Hamlet (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984).
• Introduction to T. J. B. Spencer, ed., Hamlet (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1980), p. 52. See also James L. Calderwood’s To Be and Not To Be: Negation and Meta-drama in “Hamlet” (New York: Columbia University Press, 1983).

Stay connected

Find out what’s on, read our latest stories, and learn how you can get involved.

Home — Essay Samples — Literature — Plays — Hamlet

Essays on Hamlet

Hamlet essay topics and outline examples, essay title 1: the tragic hero in "hamlet": analyzing the complex character of prince hamlet.

Thesis Statement: This essay delves into the character of Prince Hamlet in Shakespeare's "Hamlet," examining his tragic flaws, internal conflicts, and the intricate web of relationships that contribute to his downfall, ultimately highlighting his status as a classic tragic hero.

• Introduction
• Defining Tragic Heroes: Characteristics and Literary Tradition
• The Complex Psychology of Prince Hamlet: Ambiguity, Doubt, and Melancholy
• The Ghost's Revelation: Hamlet's Quest for Justice and Revenge
• The Theme of Madness: Feigned or Real?
• Hamlet's Relationships: Ophelia, Gertrude, Claudius, and Horatio
• The Tragic Climax: The Duel, Poisoned Foils, and Fatal Consequences

Essay Title 2: "Hamlet" as a Reflection of Political Intrigue: Power, Corruption, and the Tragedy of Denmark

Thesis Statement: This essay explores the political dimensions of Shakespeare's "Hamlet," analyzing the themes of power, corruption, and political manipulation as portrayed in the play, and their impact on the fate of the characters and the kingdom of Denmark.

• The Political Landscape of Denmark: Claudius's Ascension to the Throne
• The Machiavellian Villainy of Claudius: Murder, Deception, and Ambition
• Hamlet's Struggle for Justice: The Role of Political Morality
• The Foils of Polonius and Laertes: Pawns in Political Games
• The Fate of Denmark: Chaos, Rebellion, and the Climactic Tragedy
• Shakespeare's Political Commentary: Lessons for Society

Essay Title 3: "Hamlet" in a Contemporary Context: Adaptations, Interpretations, and the Play's Enduring Relevance

Thesis Statement: This essay examines modern adaptations and interpretations of "Hamlet," exploring how the themes, characters, and dilemmas presented in the play continue to resonate with audiences today, making "Hamlet" a timeless and relevant work of literature.

• From Stage to Screen: Iconic Film and Theater Productions of "Hamlet"
• Contemporary Readings: Gender, Race, and Identity in "Hamlet" Interpretations
• Psychological and Existential Interpretations: Hamlet's Inner Turmoil in the Modern World
• Relevance in the 21st Century: Themes of Revenge, Justice, and Moral Dilemma
• Adapting "Hamlet" for New Audiences: Outreach, Education, and Cultural Engagement
• Conclusion: The Timelessness of "Hamlet" and Its Place in Literature

Hamlet Revenge Analysis

Hamlet symbolism analysis, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

King Claudius: an Unlikely Hero in Shakespeare's Hamlet

Review of hamlet by william shakespeare, how hamlet is faking insanity: appearance vs reality in shakespeare's play, the representation of madness in shakespeare's text, hamlet, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

The Tragic Story of Hamlet

Reality and appearance: a comparison of hamlet and the revenger"s tragedy, the patriarchal power and female norms in hamlet, misogyny and female representation in hamlet, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

"Act": The Theme of "Acting" in Hamlet

The question of hamlet's madness, analysis of ophelia's story through the context of gender and madness, death and revenge in hamlet, a play by william shakespeare, existentialism as a part of hamlet, revenge and its consequences in hamlet, claudius as the master of manipulation in hamlet, the important theme of madness in hamlet by william shakespeare, trickery and deception in hamlet by william shakespeare, the role of grief in shakespeare’s hamlet, reflection on the act 2 of shakespeare’s hamlet, hamlet by william shakespeare: the impact of parents on their children, the relationship between hamlet and horatio, revenge and justice in william shakespeare’s hamlet, justice and revenge in shakespeare's hamlet, hamlet's intelligence is the factor of his procrastination nature, the dishonesty of the ghost in hamlet, king lear and hamlet: freudian interpretation of the two plays, hamlet's procrastination: a study on his unwillingness to act, shakespeare's use of machiavellian politics in hamlet.

1603, William Shakespeare

Play; Shakespearean tragedy

Hamlet, Claudius, Gertrude, Polonius

The play Hamlet is the most cited work in the English language and is often included in the lists of the world's greatest literature.

"Frailty, thy name is woman!" "Brevity' is the soul of wit" "To be, or not to be, that is the question" "I must be cruel to be kind" "Why, then, ’tis none to you, for there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so. To me, it is a prison."

1. Wright, G. T. (1981). Hendiadys and Hamlet. PMLA, 96(2), 168-193. (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/pmla/article/abs/hendiadys-and-hamlet/B61A80FAB6569984AB68096FE483D4FB) 2. Leverenz, D. (1978). The woman in Hamlet: An interpersonal view. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 4(2), 291-308. (https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/493608?journalCode=signs) 3. Lesser, Z., & Stallybrass, P. (2008). The first literary Hamlet and the commonplacing of professional plays. Shakespeare Quarterly, 59(4), 371-420. (https://academic.oup.com/sq/article-abstract/59/4/371/5064575) 4. De Grazia, M. (2001). Hamlet before its Time. MLQ: Modern Language Quarterly, 62(4), 355-375. (https://muse.jhu.edu/article/22909) 5. Calderwood, J. L. (1983). To be and not to be. Negation and Metadrama in Hamlet. In To Be and Not to Be. Negation and Metadrama in Hamlet. Columbia University Press. (https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.7312/cald94400/html) 6. Kastan, D. S. (1987). " His semblable is his mirror":" Hamlet" and the Imitation of Revenge. Shakespeare Studies, 19, 111. (https://www.proquest.com/openview/394df477873b27246b71f83d3939c672/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=1819311) 7. Neill, M. (1983). Remembrance and Revenge: Hamlet, Macbeth and The Tempest. Jonson and Shakespeare, 35-56. (https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-349-06183-9_3) 8. Gates, S. (2008). Assembling the Ophelia fragments: gender, genre, and revenge in Hamlet. Explorations in Renaissance Culture, 34(2), 229-248. (https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA208534875&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=00982474&p=AONE&sw=w&userGroupName=anon%7Eebb234db)

Relevant topics

• Macbeth Ambition
• Macbeth Guilt
• Romeo and Juliet
• A Raisin in The Sun
• The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas
• Things Fall Apart
• Frankenstein

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Bibliography

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Get the Reddit app

Welcome to Reddit's premier Shakespearean subreddit! Here, we can discuss the Bard, his greatness, his works, and his life. A community for Shakespeare enthusiasts the world over, no matter your age, language, or experience level. From academic takes on iambic pentameter to picking out the dirty jokes, there's always an opportunity for discussion. Jump right in!

Essay for Hamlet

I’m writing Literary Analysis on Hamlet in my class and I asked my teacher which thesis he liked better. He said he liked the second one better saying that the first one was too “flowery”. I personally like the first one a lot better, but he does have a point in the fact that it is an analysis so I shouldn’t be over the top. But I still wanted to get this subs opinion to see if I’m crazy or my thesis just isn’t that good. What do u think?

Thesis 1: Claudius’ vial of poison, infused with the recurring ingredients of corruption and greed, is the dawn of the inevitable and never ending cycle of decay and revenge.

Thesis 2: the corruption and greed that run rampant in the streets of Denmark, pave the way for the inevitable and never ending cycles of revenge and mental, emotional and moral decay.

William Shakespeare: Hamlet’s Actions and Inactions Essay (Critical Writing)

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

“Hamlet” is a play for all times. Its protagonist is a contradictory and mysterious person. If he is guided by blind revenge or righteous feel of justice, why he hesitates and lingers to punish culprits if he is prudent or light-minded – these adages may be united under two maxims:” Look before you leap” and “He who hesitates is lost”. This paper is an attempt to analyze Hamlet’s actions and inactions to prove the authenticity of the application of these maxims to the protagonist.

Although the scene of the play is laid in the Danish Kingdom, the problems involve the whole of mankind to think over this play. In the first act, we get acquainted with Hamlet and it gives us some intellectual challenge. The protagonist is a noble hero, he has a philosophical set of minds, he judges everything from the height of moral virtues, but he has found himself in a complicated and even tragic predicament after having known about his mother and uncles betray. The old world is destructed, and the Ghost asks Hamlet to take responsibility and revenge for his father’s death and restore universal justice. Hamlet obeys the Ghost and is careless of consequences. Here we see the first “leap” of Hamlet because he takes too much upon himself. But this proves the Prince to be an ideal person of the Renaissance.

Hamlet disguises himself as a madman. He should convince everybody that he has gone insane. Being a jester gives an opportunity to tell everything he thinks about. The Prince gives praise to Human beings, calls him perfect, but here we hear the disappointment in life values. All Universal lacks any sense. Hamlet became animated when remembering an old play about the murder of Priam by Pyrrhus. This scene has a very emotional moment when the Prince remembers Priam’s wife Hecuba. For Hamlet it is very important: Hecuba is a faithful wife and Queen Gertrude – not. Anguish comes to the surface again, but reproaches about inaction mingle with this anguish. Why does he linger? Why not avenge his father’s death? He is angry with himself and calls himself pejorative names: “what a rogue and peasant slave am I” (Hamlet, Act II). This is an example of his hesitations.

The famous soliloquy “To be or not to be” is the culmination of Hamlet’s doubts. “To suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” (Hamlet, Act III) directly refers to the situation Hamlet is in: to fight against evil or avoid struggle. Desires controvert virtues. Hesitation is grounded on fear. The Prince is afraid to suffer a defeat. His views on life are destructed, and his goddess Justice is blind. Does he have enough powers to resist the temptation of inactivity and sleep peacefully? Once again, the Prince is prevented from action by his hesitancy. Hamlet does not moralize. He is lost in the world, lost in his hesitations. He cannot draw a demarcation line between reality and his feigned insanity. Hamlet chooses “to be”, but “to be” means to die. He claims that death is inevitable, but hesitates because it is unknown as well. The soliloquy expresses Hamlet’s torment of mind. He is determined to kill the King, but he is unsure if it will bring good or harm.

Now nothing can stop Hamlet and there is a right moment. Hamlet finds Claudius praying, but he cannot kill him. The prayer defends the King and Hamlet does not want him to die sinless. It leads to Heaven, but Claudius does not deserve it. And here Hamlet should think before he leaps. The Prince just excuses his hesitation by waiting for some other appropriate fatal occasion. He wants his revenge to be perfect and edifying. If not – he refuses it completely. He has no time to consider the circumstances and kills Polonius, once more “leaping” before thinking.

Laertes wants to compete in fencing with Hamlet and kill him during this duel. Laertes’ sword will be poisoned and the Prince will die from the wound. Hamlet is tortured by forebodings of evil. Horatio suggests declining the duel. But Hamlet’s response astonishes by its wisdom. Come what may, what must be will be, there exists some Divine power that rules the world – such thoughts occur in Hamlet’s mind for the first time.

Hamlet is uncertain whether he can believe the Ghost. He scruples to trust everybody: Ophelia, Horatio, Gertrude. He is even unsure of himself. When a troupe of actors comes, he gets inspired with his new intention. To re-act, the murder of his father means to punish the culprits. Hamlet mocks the evils of life, thus trying to delete them from reality. He is just satisfied when everybody sees that it is his uncle who has killed Hamlet’s father. His suspicions are confirmed, but he never tries to return for evil. And it happens but by an accident. Hamlet makes no attempt to punish the King. So Hamlet “leaps” into the struggle, but with much hesitation. On one hand, he is a loser, because he died, on the other – a winner, because culprits endured the punishment. He reflects upon his infirmity but does not try to put his intentions into practice. He is obsessed with thinking, not acting. This is his essence and escapes from reality. Only death can bring deliverance and oblivion from uncertainty.

Hamlet is not remarkable for willpower or determination, foresight and deep consideration. But we enjoy refined thoughts and genuine sentiments of his. The Prince lacks deliberateness in actions; he rushes to the whirl of life on the spur of the occasion. If Hamlet were a man of action, he might have killed Claudius at once together with the Queen. And everybody would think him to be a cruel murderer. If he were more prudent, he could have avoided his death and become a King himself. But could he be a good King for his people? A hesitating and indiscreet king can ruin his kingdom. He could save Ophelia, innocent victim of his indifference, Laertes, noble and loving brother. But Hamlet breaks the equilibrium of imaginative and authentic worlds, and reality turns out to be crueler than his fictional insanity. Skepticism, accompanying Hamlet, makes him vulnerable, as only strong beliefs can bring to actions. What if Hamlet has not believed the Ghost at all? Maybe it is conscience that came to him, and if he had not listened to it, his life would be full of scruples of remorse facing his father’s memory. Hamlet, the flesh and blood of his mother, wanted to sentence her to death, and if he had not been stopped by the Ghost, a fatal mistake could have been made.

It is controversial if Hamlet is a hero or a pure madman with judicious observations; his motives are mixed and vague. But we can find Hamlet in ourselves. Like him, we hesitate before an important decision and overestimate our powers. It is in human nature and when Hamlet speaks, he speaks on behalf of all people.

Works Cited

Shakespeare William. Hamlet. NY: Dover Publications, 2004.

• Summary & Analysis
• Genre & Literary Analysis
• Important Quotes
• Essay Topics
• Essay Samples
• Religion in "The Merchant of Venice" by Shakespeare
• Iago’s Character as Embodiment of the Darker Side Which All the People Have
• Hesitation and Indeterminacy of Hamlet
• Hamlet And Laertes: A Comparison
• Hamlet: The Circumstances That Lead Hamlet to Soliloquy
• “Oedipus the King” Drama by Sophocles
• “Journey’s End” by Robert Cedric Sherriff
• Friar Lawrence in “Romeo and Juliet” by Shakespeare
• People Get What Deserve. “Oedipus the King” Play
• “Oedipus the King”: Life Is Ruled by Fate Alone
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, November 28). William Shakespeare: Hamlet's Actions and Inactions. https://ivypanda.com/essays/hamlet-critical-analysis/

"William Shakespeare: Hamlet's Actions and Inactions." IvyPanda , 28 Nov. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/hamlet-critical-analysis/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'William Shakespeare: Hamlet's Actions and Inactions'. 28 November.

IvyPanda . 2021. "William Shakespeare: Hamlet's Actions and Inactions." November 28, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/hamlet-critical-analysis/.

1. IvyPanda . "William Shakespeare: Hamlet's Actions and Inactions." November 28, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/hamlet-critical-analysis/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "William Shakespeare: Hamlet's Actions and Inactions." November 28, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/hamlet-critical-analysis/.

Make your work count for points with our free to read Leaving Cert “Hamlet” essays and full notes.

What do I actually need to know?

For any single text, you should know :

• style/techniques/imagery
• plot (after you’ve read the play once, you can watch a 10 minute Youtube video to refresh your memory)
• quotations (a minimal list that should get you through)
• practice sample essays

Here is our video on “Hamlet” for Leaving Cert to get you started.

What’s at stake?

The Single text question offers 60 marks. Compare this to: Comparative 70, Prescribed Poetry 50, Unseen Poetry 20. That’s 15% of your English grade.

How much to write?

Suggested length 4-5 A4 pages. Suggested time 50 minutes.

Hamlet: Corruption, Deception, Dramatic Techniques

• Post author: Martina
• Post published: May 16, 2017
• Post category: English / Hamlet

“Throughout the play "Hamlet", Shakespeare makes effective use of a variety of dramatic techniques to evoke a world full of deception and corruption.”  Discuss this statement, supporting your answer with…

Hamlet: List of Essential Quotations for Leaving Cert

• Post published: January 21, 2017

You may also like: Complete Guide: H1 Leaving Cert English Notes and Sample Answers I am too much in the sun (Hamlet to Claudius) the funeral baked meats did coldly furnish…

Paper II Single Text Question Tips

• Post published: November 2, 2016
• Post category: English / Hamlet / King Lear / Video

How to agree and disagree with statements in Paper 2 questions (with examples from King Lear or Hamlet)How to stay relevantThe importance of quotationAvoiding common pitfallsLeaving Cert Sample Answers and…

Hamlet Sample Answer: Claudius

• Post published: April 23, 2016
• Post category: Hamlet

2011 HL Paper II Based on a student essay “Claudius can be seen as both a heartless villain and a character with some redeeming qualities in the play, Hamlet”.  Discuss…

Hamlet: Full Guide for Leaving Cert English 2024

• Post published: April 22, 2016

Contents: Introduction to Leaving Cert single texts Themes Style How to approach the text from the angle of the essay title Sample answer and detailed approach breakdown: a. 2011: “Revenge…

Hamlet Plot Summary

• Post published: August 29, 2015

In order for you to be able to answer a question on Hamlet it is a must to know the plot. You may also like: Hamlet Sample Answer and Notes:…

How to make your Hamlet essay stand out?

• Post published: August 28, 2015

This is part of our ongoing Q&A. Send you question in via [email protected], @625points (Twitter and IG) or sc: six25points Hamlet occupies a special place in Shakespeare's work. Talk about the…

Hamlet Sample Answer: Madness

• Post published: June 18, 2015

2012 HL Paper II Based on a student's essay “Hamlet’s madness, whether genuine or not, adds to the fascination of his character for the audience.” Discuss this statement, supporting your…

Hamlet Sample Answer: Society

• Post published: February 1, 2015

Based on a student's essayThe portrayal of Hamlet as an outsider allows Shakespeare to critique the values of society.I know not “seems.”Shakespeare succeeds in highlighting the shortcomings in society’s morals…

How To Improve Your Grade If Your Teacher Isn’t Giving You Feedback

• Post published: November 3, 2014
• Post category: Durcan / English / Hamlet / Personal essay / Short Story / T.S. Eliot / Video

- How to write a strong introduction- How to craft impactful sentences- Common grammar, syntax and style problems- How to stay relevant to the question- Examples from Hamlet, Personal Essays,…

‘One Cannot Act Hamlet, One Must Be Hamlet’: The Acculturation of Hamlet in Russia

• First Online: 06 April 2016

Cite this chapter

• Thomas Grob 5  

Part of the book series: Palgrave Shakespeare Studies ((PASHST))

577 Accesses

1 Citations

This essay offers a ground-breaking account of Hamlet’s acculturation in Russian culture. Tracing stagings, translations and readings of Hamlet since the eighteenth century, Thomas Grob examines Russian cultural identity and its relationship to European culture through the lens of literary importation, beginning with an examination of Hamlet as one of the first English plays to be translated and performed in eighteenth-century Russia. The multiple Russian Hamlets include the political Hamlet of the nineteenth-century Russian intelligentsia, the tragic lover, the Chekhovian melancholic Hamlet, and a modern existentialist Hamlet. The volatility and mythopoeic potential of the character for Russian culture is crucially based on the distance between the ‘original’ and his reception during the process of migration, enabling politically and aesthetically inflected performances of identity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Shavian Echoes in the Work of Elizabeth Bowen

Singing of and with the Other: Flamenco and the politics of pastoralism in medieval Iberia

Luminous Munich and Beyond: The ‘Schwabinger Bohème’

The reception of the Hamlet-figure has been well documented on the factual level, thanks not least to the Russian scholar of English Literature, Iurii Levin (see the summary in Levin 1988 ). The first non-Russian overview is provided in Hamlet: A Window on Russia (Rowe 1976 ); the latest by Tiffany Moore ( 2012 , 25–73)—who has, however, an oversimplified view of the political situation in Russia. There are also a number of anthologies, for example of poetry (most recently Roznatovskaia 2012 ) or translation (most recently Poplavskii 2006 ). There is still no recent monograph comparable to the one on Don Quixote (Bagno 2009 ), whose reception has a number of points in common with that of Hamlet.

Kukulin et al. provide a model of research on literary and film figures as cultural phenomena with respect to Soviet children’s ‘heroes’ including a section on Vinni Pukh (Kukulin et al. 2008 , 276–353).

Levitt argues convincingly that Sumarokov had recourse to all of these sources (Levitt 1994 ).

Levitt sees the play in the context of a theodicy with a specifically Russian inflection (Levitt 1994 , 333–4).

Most recently as the title of a book in a collection of documents on Pavel I by A. Skorobogatov (Moscow, 2004).

On the latter, see http://shine.unibas.ch/translatorsfrench.htm#alphabetisch (22.7.2013); Bardovskii also undertakes a comparison of Ducis’ Hamlet with Viskovatov’s rendering (Bardovskii 1923b , 117–19).

On Pushkin and Shakespeare, see the detailed discussion in Levin ( 1988 , 32–63) and O’Neil (2003).

At least according to Levin ( 1988 , 34–5).

Within a few days of this correspondence he also wrote a letter to Vyazemskii in which he spoke enthusiastically about Byron’s Don Juan , which includes a quote from Shakespeare.

A Russian translation of Goethe’s views on Hamlet was published in a Moscow journal in 1827 (Levin 1988 , 161; Gorbunov 1985 , 10).

The inscription on his gravestone calls him ‘iunosha-poet’ (Pushkin 1977 –1979, 5:123/ChVII.6).

The latter passage makes the allusion clear by referring to death and the ‘indifferent oblivion’ that follows (Pushkin 1977 –1979, 5:124).

In 1836, Pushkin renamed the poem Poslanie Del’vigu (Epistle to Del’vig).

Pushkin had been given the skull by his young friend Aleksei Vul’f; see Pushkin’s poem ‘Iz pis’ma k Vul’fu’ (From a letter to Vul’f, 1824; Pushkin 1977 –1979, 2:171), where drinking, death and love are linked by association.

A. Grigor’ev, who we shall return to below, ascribes this to the combination of Polevoi’s text with Mochalov’s performance (Grigor’ev 1980 , 55).

The passage concludes the monologue on the two portraits in Hamlet’s dialogue with his mother in III.4 (in Polevoi’s version III.3; see also Gorbunov 1985 , 12).

On Mochalov and Karatygin, see Levin ( 1988 , 166–7) and Rowe ( 1976 , 44–6).

It is thanks to the excellently researched anthology edited by Roznatovskaia that this poetry has become accessible (Roznatovskaia 2012 ).

In 1840, Nekrasov had written an Ophelia poem inspired by a performance (Roznatovskaia 2012 , 35–6.).

The Ophelia motif had also appeared, though less prominently, as early as 1840, during the Romantic period (Rowe 1976 , 29).

See also Valerii Briusov’s poem Ophelia (1911), in which a young woman’s fatal fall from a window in the city is superimposed on Ophelia, and which cites four lines from Fet (Roznatovskaia 2012 , 62–3.).

With regard to Dostoevsky, see Roznatovskaia ( 2012 , 45).

See Stat’i o Pushkine, Stat’ia 5-aia, 1844 (Belinskii 1953 –1959, 7:313). On this and other similar post-Romantic conflicts in Herzen, Botkin and others, see Levin ( 1988 , 169–82).

Hamlet had been parodied in as early as 1844 in D. Lenskii’s vaudeville Gamlet Sidorovich i Ofeliia Kuz’minishna (Levin 1988 , 153). Other plays by Shakespeare were also subject to such treatment (Levin 1988 , 154–8.); the most famous of these adaptations being Nikolai Leskov’s Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk , which Shostakovich turned into an opera in 1930.

For him, too, there was an affinity between Shakespeare and Byron; in 1836 he tried his hand at translating passages from King Lear , Othello and Manfred (Brang 1977 , 44).

On autobiographical elements in the ‘Shchigrovskii Hamlet’, see Brang ( 1977 , 75).

Konstantin Romanov (1858–1915), the nephew of Tsar Aleksandr II and cousin of Aleksandr III, published poems as ‘K. R.’ and moved in literary circles. Working on Hamlet for 10 years, he sought to be as accurate as possible and published his translation as a bilingual edition with the original English text (Gorbunov 1985 , 17–18). He later added extensive documentation. The book had several print runs until 1930, including in the Soviet Union.

For more details, see Poplavskii ( 2008 ) and Gorbunov ( 1985 , 14–15).

See Levin ( 1988 , 180–1) for a detailed discussion.

See for example Levin ( 1988 , 182–3) and detailed discussion in Shakh-Azizova ( 1977 ).

Holland’s perspective, like that of others, is limited to the politically critical ‘usefulness’ of the Hamlet figure and who holds that the Russian Hamlet is ‘more social and political than aesthetic’ (Holland 1999 , 316).

See the story In Moscow ( V Moskve , 1891), which begins with the sentence: ‘I am a Moscow Hamlet’ (Chekhov 1974 –1982, 7:500–7).

On Chekhov’s critical review of a performance of Hamlet in 1882, see Winner ( 1956 , 103–4). He writes of Hamlet: ‘Hamlet was an indecisive person, but he was no coward’ (Chekhov 1974 –1982, 16:19–21). See also the examples in Shakh-Azizova ( 1977 ).

For a detailed discussion, see Grob ( 1995 /1996).

The dialogue marked as a quotation from Hamlet [III.4.78–86; (eight lines beginning with ‘O Hamlet, speak no more…’)] takes place in the first act before the performance of Treplev’s play (Chekhov 1974 –1982, 13:12); on the use of Polevoi’s oversimplified translation, which makes translation back into English difficult, see Holland ( 1999 , 317–22).

See, for example, Shakh-Azizova ( 1977 , 245).

On Tolstoy and Hamlet, see the detailed discussion in Rowe ( 1976 , 95–8).

Gaidin et al. 2010 , four mention for this period Sologub, Gumilev, Mandel’shtam, Tsvetaeva, Shershenevich, Nabokov and others; see also the anthology edited by Roznatovskaia ( 2012 ), which also includes recent works.

The context of the two fragments is unclear. It is not certain whether the poet edited them for the first publication in 1946; there they are dated ‘1909/1945’.

Here dated 1909.

See Hamlet’s repeated exhortation (III.1.137): ‘Get thee to a nunnery’.

‘I loved Ophelia, Forty thousand brothers/ Could not with all their quantity of love/ Make up my sum’ (V.1.254–6).

On the reappearance of the motif in Akhmatova’s work in her ‘Poem without a hero’, see Sukhanova (2004, 84–5); on the Ophelia motif in the work of Marina Tsvetaeva, see Sukhanova (2004, 86–95).

From this biographical scene, Rybnikova ( 1923 , 9) develops the analogy between Blok and Hamlet, Blok only having become a ‘true Hamlet’ (Rybnikova 1923 , 25) in his poetic maturity. The relationship with Ophelia is the crux of this interpretation.

The cited passage—which Blok quotes in Kroneberg’s translation, giving just ‘Hamlet’ as the source—is spoken by Laertes on encountering the singing Ophelia: ‘Thought and affliction, passion, hell itself/ She turns to favour and to prettiness’ (IV.5.183–4).

See Sukhanova ( 2004 ) for other references to Hamlet by Blok.

Something similar occurs in Blok’s reworking, in 1910, of the first of the poems mentioned above. The narrator’s question ‘Wherefore, child, art thou?’ is answered first by the distorted echo of the nightingale and then, in a dark room, by the shadow of Ophelia (Blok 1960 –1963, 1:649).

After Hamlet , Pasternak translated, in quick succession, Romeo and Juliet (1942), Antony and Cleopatra (1943), Othello (1944), parts of King Henry IV (1945–1946), King Lear (1947), and Macbeth (1950).

Gordon Craig and Stanislavsky staged a Symbolist dramatization of Hamlet in 1911, despite mutual differences (Rowe 1976 , 119); a highly Symbolist performance of Kroneberg’s translation took place in 1924 in the Moscow Art Theatre II with Mikhail Chekhov in the title role (see for example Rowe 1976 , 127; Morozov). Meyerhold’s first attempt dates back to 1915. He is said to have sought to persuade Tsvetaeva and Mayakovsky to take part in a production in the 1920s (Semenenko 2007 , 142).

For example, the translations by Mikhail Lozinskii (1933) and Anna Radlova (1937).

For details on the genesis of Pasternak’s Hamlet , see Pasternak ( 1989 , 539–45); on his Shakespeare translations in general, see the notes in Pasternak ( 2004 –2005, 5:554–64).

In 1942 he talks about translating Shakespeare requiring ‘absolute naturalness and complete freedom of thought’ (Pasternak 2004 –2005, 5:45).

On Pasternak’s not always ‘spontaneous’ editing of the text, see Semenenko ( 2007 , 95). Semenenko highlights external pressures; however, the changes are very varied and are all written in Pasternak’s hand; in a letter to Kozintsev, he wrote that he did not know himself which version to choose (Kozintsev and Pasternak 1975 , 215; see Semenenko 2007 , 96; Pasternak 1989 , 542–3).

Akhmatova, who had known him since 1911 from the poet’s group ‘Tsekh poetov’, defended what she recalled as his intentional complication of the form [ http://www.akhmatova.org/proza/lozinsk.htm (accessed 1 September 2013)].

In his draft essay ‘Characteristics of Blok’ (1946), for instance, Pasternak calls Blok’s ‘Hamletism’ an ‘elemental intellectual force’ ( dukhovnost’ ). This Hamletism had been refined over the course of Blok’s life, Pasternak writes, and in the context of the 1905 revolution it had led to a ‘dramatisation of all of Blok’s realist writing’ (Pasternak 2004 –2005, 5:363). The proximity to Pasternak’s own search for a ‘realism’ at this time is clear.

Commentators have often noted an intrinsic connection between the Hamlet translation and the novel Doktor Zhivago ; Dmitrii Bykov holds that the novel’s ‘circle of ideas’ evolved ‘under the direct influence of Hamlet ’ (Bykov 2007 , 690). Indeed, in his short notes on translation On Shakespeare (1942), Pasternak sees Shakespeare’s work as the climax of realism as regards human beings and their sufferings. He connects this to his own experiences of war, which the figure of Zhivago will also negotiate. The connection he sees in Shakespeare between a ‘volcanic structure’ and artistic objectivity in fact recalls his later novel (Pasternak 2004 –2005, 5:44–5).

The first version of the poem, with just two verses, was written in 1946 (Pasternak 2004 –2005, 4:639). The first verse was modified slightly in 1955; the last two lines are unaltered.

On the intertextual field of this poem, see Sukhanova ( 2004 , 73–6); on the biographical affinity with and discussion of Blok, see Barnes (1998, 227).

Grigorii Kozintsev (1905–1973) had been a pioneer of Soviet film since the 1920s, mostly in cooperation with Leonid Trauberg; he came from the avant-garde, but continued to work under Stalin and turned increasingly to the theatre after 1939; before Hamlet he had already directed King Lear (1941) and Othello (1944).

Shostakovich had already written the music for Kozintsev and Trauberg’s Odna (Alone, 1931), one of the first sound films in the Soviet Union; he later composed the music for King Lear (1970). The body of Russian musical responses to Hamlet is modest; on the compositions by Aleksandr Varlamov (1837) and Tchaikovsky as well as Shostakovich, see O. Zakharova’s article for the electronic Russian Shakespeare dictionary ( http://www.world-shake.ru/ru/Encyclopaedia/3989.html ).

Kozintsev, first and foremost a Shakespeare specialist, also discusses Laurence Olivier’s famous Hamlet film of 1948, and Kozintsev’s Hamlet figure is also visually indebted to Olivier’s. Kozintsev states that he wanted to de-mystify Olivier’s Hamlet , to make it more realist and—through certain cuts and omissions—to make it more political (see Kozintsev 1983 , 327, 339–40, 410–11). In this context he also opines that one cannot ‘direct’ Hamlet, but that one needs to ‘suffer’ him, which Olivier in his opinion does not always manage to do (Kozintsev 1983 , 432–3).

Kozintsev’s book, originally published in 1962, had to be published in English (in 1966 and 1967) under the title Shakespeare: Time and Conscience , because in the meantime, in 1964 , Jan Kott’s book Shakespeare, Our Contemporary had appeared. While Kott refers to Kozintsev’s Hamlet film, he does not mention Kozintsev’s book, of which, however, he must have been aware. After Kozintsev’s death, Kott spoke of him as a friend, even though his reading of the Hamlet film reduces the film to a vehicle for an anti-Soviet message (Kott 1979 ). For a comparison of interpretations of the Hamlet film see Moore ( 2012 , 13–14).

The Lenin Prize (1965) suggests a wind of change, but the film was not considered anti-Soviet; the award for best film from the journal ‘Sovetskii ekran’ testifies to the high regard in which it was held during the thaw; the special prize in Venice (1965) to its universal appeal.

‘He had never been able to play himself in a film. Now, in Hamlet, everything came together. He came up with something new for this role every day. To be Hamlet—or not to be at all. That was the play now showing’ (Novikov 2013 , 153).

Vysotsky in an interview with Grozny television, cited in http://www.kulichki.com/vv/ovys/teatr/gamlet_vv_o.html (accessed 1 September 2013).

Vysotsky in an interview with Bulgarian television, cited in http://www.kulichki.com/vv/ovys/teatr/gamlet_vv_o.html (accessed 1 September 2013).

Recordings of both can be found on Youtube and elsewhere in the public domain.

Vysotsky in an interview with Bulgarian television, cited in http://www.kulichki.com/vv/ovys/teatr/gamlet_vv_o.html .

http://visockii.ru/articles/304-pohorony-vladimira-semenovicha-vysockogo.html .

At least according to the Russian Wikipedia entry on Hamlet . Semenenko ( 2007 , 102–21) sees a tendency in the latest translations to make the language more contemporary.

The authors apply this concept in other contexts also.

This happened with the theatre production by no less a director than Andrei Tarkovsky, who staged Hamlet in Leningrad in 1977 in Pasternak’s translation with the actors from Stalker . His protagonist, who is reported to have been a very different, cold Hamlet, unperturbed by self-doubt, left almost no traces.

Works Cited

Akhmatova, A. 1977. Stikhotvoreniia i poėmy . Edited by V. Zhirmunskii. Leningrad: Sovetskii pisatel’.

Google Scholar  

Bagno, V.E. 2009. ‘Don Kikhot’ v Rossii i russkoe donkikhotstvo . Saint Petersburg: Nauka.

Baratynskii, E. 2000. Polnoe sobranie stikhotvorenii . Saint Petersburg: Gumanitarnoe agentstvo ‘Akademicheskii proekt’.

Bardovskii, A. 1923a. “Russkii Gamlet. Vosemnadtsatyi vek”. Russkoe proshloe 4: 135–45.

Bardovskii, A. 1923b. “Russkii Gamlet. Tsarstvovanie Aleksandra I”. Russkoe proshloe 5: 112–20.

Barnes, C. 1998. Boris Pasternak. A Literary Biography. Vol. 2: 1928–1969. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Belinskii, V. 1953–1959. Polnoe sobranie sochinenii , 13 vols. Moscow: Izdatelstvo Akademii Nauk SSSR.

Blok, A. 1960–1963. Sobranie sochinenii v vos’mi tomakh . Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe Izdatelstvo Khudozhestvennoi Literatury.

Brang, P. 1977. I.S. Turgenev. Sein Leben und sein Werk . Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Bykov, D. 2007. Boris Pasternak . Moscow: Molodaia gvardiia.

Chekhov, A. 1974–1982. Polnoe sobranie sochinenii i pisem v tridtsati tomakh . Moscow: Nauka.

Engel, C. (ed.). 1999. Geschichte des sowjetischen und russischen Films . Stuttgart: Metzler.

Gaidin, B.N., V.A. Lukov, and N.V. Zakharov. 2010. Gamlet kak vechnyi obraz russkoi i mirovoi kul’tury . Moscow: Shekspirovksie shtudii IV. Accessed September 1, 2013. http://www.rus-shake.ru/file.php/id/f5607/name/Hamlet.pdf .

Goncharov, I. 1955. “Opiat’ ‘Gamlet’ na russkoi stsene. Nabrosok stat’i o ponimanii i ispolnenii na stsene ‘Gamleta’”. In Sobranie sochinenii v vos’mi tomakh , edited by I.A. Goncharov, vol. 8. Moscow: n.p.

Gorbunov, A.N. 1985. “K istorii russkogo ‘Gamleta’”. In Vil’iam Shekspir, Gamlet. Izbrannye perevody , edited by I.A. Goncharov and A.N. Gorbunov. Moscow: Raduga.

Grigor’ev, A. 1980. Vospominaniia . Edited by B. Egorov. Leningrad: Nauka.

Grob, T. 1995/1996. “Die inszenierte Kluft zwischen Kunst und Leben: Čechovs Čajka als metafiktionaler Text”. Zeitschrift für Slavische Philologie 55(2): 264–89.

Holland, P. 1999. “More a Russian Than a Dane. The Usefulness of Hamlet in Russia”. In Translating Life. Studies in Transpositional Aesthetics , edited by S. Chew and A. Stead. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.

Kissel, W. 2004. Der Kult des toten Dichters und die russische Moderne. Puškin, Blok, Majakovskij . Cologne: Böhlau.

Kott, J. 1964. Shakespeare, Our Contemporary . New York: Doubleday.

Kott, J. 1979. “On Kozintsev’s Hamlet ”. The Literary Review 22(4): 385–90.

Kozintsev, G. 1983. “Nash sovremennik Vil’iam Shekspir”. In Sobranie sochinenii v piati tomakh , vol. 3. Leningrad: Iskusstvo.

Kozintsev, G., and B. Pasternak. 1975. “Pis’ma o ‘Gamlete’”. Voprosy literatury 1: 212–23.

Kukulin, I., M. Lipovetskii, and M. Maiofis (eds.). 2008. Veselye chelovechki. Kul’turnye geroi sovetskogo detstva . Moscow: NLO.

Levin, I.D. 1988. Shekspir i russkaia literatura XIX veka . Leningrad: Nauka.

Levitt, M.C. 1994. “Sumarokov’s Russianized Hamlet . Texts and Contexts”. The Slavic and East European Journal 38(2): 319–41.

Article   Google Scholar  

Lotman, Y.M. 1990. Universe of the Mind. A Semiotic Theory of Culture . Translated by A. Shukman. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Moore, T.A.C. 2012. Kozintsev’s Films. Russian Political Protest in ‘Hamlet’ and ‘King Lear’ . Jefferson: McFarland & Company.

Morozov, M.M. 1954. “Shekspir na sovetskoi stsene (1947)”. In Izbrannye stat’i i perevody , edited by M.M. Morozov. Moscow: n.p. Accessed September 1, 2013. http://knigolubu.ru/russian_classic/morozov_mm/shekspir_na_sovetskoy_stsene.10051 ; unpaginated.

Nadson, S.I. 1898. “Ne vini menia”. In Stikhotvoreniia , edited by S.I. Nadson. Moscow: SPb.

Nekrasov, N.A., and N.V. Gerbel’, eds. 1866. Polnoe sobranie dramaticheskikh proizvedenii Shekspira v perevode russkikh pisatelei , vols 1–4. Moscow: SPb.

Novikov, V. 2013. Vysotskii . Moscow: Molodaia Gvardiia.

O’Neil, C. 2003. With Shakespeare’s Eyes: Pushkin’s Creative Appropriation of Shakespeare . Newark: University of Delaware Press.

Ogarev, N.P. (1937–1938). Stikhotvoreniia i poėmy , vols 1–2. Leningrad: Sovetskii Pisatel’.

Pasternak, E. 1989. Boris Pasternak. Materialy dlia biografii . Moscow: Sovetskii Pisatel’.

Pasternak, B. 2004–2005. Polnoe sobranie sochinenii s prilozheniiami v odinnadtsati tomakh . Moscow: Slovo.

Poplavskii, V.R. (ed.). 2006. Gamlet. Antologiia russkikh perevodov 1828–1880 . Moscow: Sovpadenie.

Poplavskii, V.R. 2008. “‘Gamlet’ na russkom iazyke. Dva veka perevodcheskoi traditsii”. In Shekspirovskie studii VIII. Problemy perevoda. Materialy zasedaniia Shekspirovskii komissii RAN 29 fevralia 2008 goda , edited by N.V. Zacharov and V.A. Lukov. Moscow: Moskovskii Gumanitarnyi Universitet. Accessed September 1, 2013. http://www.mosgu.ru/nauchnaya/publications/2008/collections/Shakespeare_Studies_VIII.pdf .

Pushkin, A.S. 1977–1979. Polnoe sobranie sochinenii v desiati tomakh . Leningrad: Nauka.

Rayfield, D. 1997. Anton Chekhov: A Life . London: HarperCollins.

Rowe, E. 1976. Hamlet. A Window on Russia . New York: New York University Press.

Roznatovskaia, I.A. (ed.). 2012. Gamlet. Variacii. Po stranicam russkoi poėzii . Moscow: Tsentr knigi Rudomino.

Rybnikova, M.A. 1923. Blok-Gamlet . Moscow: Svetlana.

Semenenko, A. 2007. Hamlet the Sign: Russian Translations of Hamlet and Literary Canon Formation . Stockholm: Stockholm University Press.

Shakh-Azizova, T.K. 1977. “Russkii Gamlet”. In Chekhov i ego vremia , edited by L.D. Opul’skaia. Moscow: Nauka.

Sukhanova, E. 2004. Voicing the Distant. Shakespeare and Russian Modernist Poetry . Madison: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.

Tolstoi, L. 1983. Sobranie sochinenii v dvadtsati dvukh tomakh , vol. 15. Moscow: Khudozhestvennaia literatura.

Turgenev, I. 1986. Polnoe sobranie sochinenii i pisem v tridtsati tomakh. Sochineniia v dvenadtsati tomakh , 2nd ed. Moscow: Nauka.

Vlady, M. 1997. Eine Liebe zwischen zwei Welten. Mein Leben mit Wladimir Wyssozki . Translated by J. Meinert. Berlin: Aufbau.

Winner, T. 1956. “G. Chekhov’s Seagull and Shakespeares Hamlet . A Study of Dramatic Device”. American Slavic and East European Review 15: 103–11.

Zakharov, N.V. 2008. “Sumarokov i Shekspir”. Znanie, ponimanie, umenie. ZPU Journal 2008: 8. Accessed September 1, 2013. http://www.zpu-journal.ru/e-zpu/2008/5/Zakharov_Sumarokov&Shakespeare/ ; unpaginated.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Slavisches Seminar, University of Basel, Basel, UK

Thomas Grob

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland

Ina Habermann

Michelle Witen

Copyright information

© 2016 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s)

About this chapter

Grob, T. (2016). ‘One Cannot Act Hamlet, One Must Be Hamlet’: The Acculturation of Hamlet in Russia. In: Habermann, I., Witen, M. (eds) Shakespeare and Space. Palgrave Shakespeare Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-51835-4_10

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-51835-4_10

Published : 06 April 2016

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, London

Print ISBN : 978-1-137-51834-7

Online ISBN : 978-1-137-51835-4

eBook Packages : Literature, Cultural and Media Studies Literature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

How America Became the Capital of Great Pizza

Since the early 2000s, the variety and quality of pizza made by ambitious chefs all over the country have only gotten better.

By Brett Anderson

In reporting this article, Brett Anderson ate dozens of pizzas in 18 states.

Marisol Doyle wasn’t bothered by the frozen dough and canned mushrooms common in the pizzas she ate as a kid growing up in Sonora, Mexico. It was comfort food.

“But as an adult,” she said, “I wanted something better.”

Ms. Doyle’s first experience with better pizza came in 2006 at Pizzeria Bianco , in Phoenix, and it was probably a lot like yours. Mozzarella that melts into pools. Crust that invites comparisons to fresh bakery bread. These are qualities found in the Neapolitan-style pies served at the wood-fire-oven pizzerias that are now fixtures of urban America.

In recent years, they’ve become fixtures outside cities, too, drawing diners to the types of small communities — from southern Illinois and coastal New England to rural Wisconsin and Oregon — whose restaurant cultures are often dominated by national chains. All those fussed-over pies, with their blistered crusts, basil sprigs and hot honey drizzles, taught Americans they could ask more from a dish routinely eaten from a cardboard box — and consumed by about one in eight people on any given day, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture research .

That broad appeal, coupled with the relatively low cost of opening pizzerias and the ease of acquiring the information to master high-quality pizza-making, has made the dish a uniquely effective vehicle for chefs to find a voice while also making a living. Until recently, chefs looking to make sublime Neapolitan pizzas would have few options beyond traveling to Italy, said Chris Bianco , who opened Pizzeria Bianco in 1988.

“Today you just swipe and study and you can bring great pizza to any town, anyplace,” said Mr. Bianco, who is arguably the country’s most influential pizzaiolo.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .