РефератыИностранный языкWhWhy Hamlet Is Not Fit To Rule

Why Hamlet Is Not Fit To Rule

Essay, Research Paper


Why Hamlet Is Not Fit To Rule


Actions judged without empathy implore bias at the


deepest root. Seldom, life experience equals the paradox of


participant observation with the magnitude and malice of


Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Although Hamlet tragically suffers


misfortune from the volition of others, his character


measures in deed and thought. From the scant background on


Hamlet’s youth to the words of Hamlet himself, ample


evidence shows Hamlet unsuited to lead. A good man of


sterling character but a casualty of extraordinary morass,


the Prince’s impending doom is inevitable. Hamlet


demonstrates all men culpable. While commendable men may


remain fragile, a leader will elude encumbrance at all cost


to ensure leadership. Hence, not all leaders are virtuous.


Hamlet’s virtues subdue his resolve to lead. Granted the


opportunity, the play establishes the three following


reasons Hamlet can not lead a country: a sheltered life, the


deep love for his parents and an overpowering encountering


with the supernatural.


The play shows no intimation of Hamlet either waiting


or longing to be king. By all accounts he appears content as


Prince. Likewise, one can venture his childhood balanced and


happy. Hamlet laments the skull of Yorick, “Alas, poor /


Yorick! I knew him, Horatio–a fellow of infinite / jest, of


most excellent fancy. He hath bore me on his back a thousand


times,..” (5.1.190-193). Also, he speaks highly of his


father and possesses a profound closeness to his mother.


This shows remarkable parenting, producing an eminently


loving, respectful and faithful son. However, the sheltering


of his life does not strike to advantage. Fueled by the


departure of his protected childhood, Hamlet’s temper


severely distorts his outlook, philosophy and reasoning. The


vast contrast from guarded youth to sudden misfortune


devastates the Prince’s world, as Hamlet’s probity and


grievance polarize his emotions. Moreover, preceding the


ages of approximately twenty-five to thirty, Hamlet had


never experienced genuine tragedy. Deducing these factors


offers a starting point to further analyze Hamlet’s


character.


In addition, Shakespeare conceals a crevasse of mystery


for the ostensible change in Queen Gertrude. Conceivably.


the Queen enjoyed quarters with Claudius while the late King


Hamlet fought distant, gallant battles, making a puissant


formula for seduction. Regardless, as time forces Hamlet to


reckon the death of his father and the incestuous marriage


of his mother and uncle, nascent stages of insanity appear


when he can not voice his violated and broken heart. For


example, concerning his mother’s swift marriage, Hamlet


remarks, “It is not, nor it cannot come to good./ But break


my heart, for I must hold my tongue” (1.2.163,164). His


internal confinement eventually explodes. Yet, Hamlet’s


actions deserve a compassionate view inasmuch as his burdens


unfairly seek him out. Shakespeare ironically limns Hamlet a


courageous yet injured character having no recourse for


recovery, too sensitively lost in the real world. A not

able


ruler can only sensibly heed the concerns of preserving his


own kingdom. Hamlet does not employ constant nature for


hardened decisions in high office but a quick temper for


mischief.


Hamlet’s extreme love for his parents amplifies his


pain well over common threshold. His volatile mix of heart


and intellect render righteous retaliation impossible.


Hamlet’s meager retribution occurs in such harsh words to


his mother as, “Such an act / That blurs the grace and blush


of modesty, / Calls virtue hypocrite, takes off the rose /


From the fair forehead of an innocent love / And sets a


blister there, makes marriage vows / As false as dicers’


oaths–” (3.4.49-54). Hamlet scorns his mother that Heaven


is though-sick by the marriage to his uncle. Further,


Hamlet’s humiliation coupled with anger for his murderous


uncle, ruling through deceit and treachery shows


justification for his wrathful words. Nevertheless, Hamlet


overwhelmingly succumbs to an honest and shattered heart


incapable of mend. However, the most important detail


deserving contemplation resides in the supernatural


visitations from the ghost of Hamlet’s father.


While the ghostly visions traumatize Hamlet, the


contents paralyze. “With thoughts beyond the reaches of our


souls?” (1.4.61). A frightened Hamlet wearily fails to


execute a revengeful scheme. Incompetently, the Prince


muddles his emotional process enabling an eye for an eye


hopeless. The apparition’s message angers and weakens


Hamlet. One reasonably assumes spiritual visions should


strengthen and bolster confidence for the matters on an


earthly plane, but Hamlet can not overcome the vehemence of


his anguish. His severed soul and broken heart corrupt his


focus. Hamlet’s flaws arise in grief and end in agony, and


not even his father’s ghost can guide him through his


entanglement. Hamlet reveals a reckless acceptance of his


fate by his words to Horatio, “There’s a divinity that


shapes our ends, / Rough-hew them how we will–”


(5.2.11,12). Were Hamlet King, his sensibilities empower


others over himself. Plus, Hamlet’s insights turn bloody


from the shame that plagues his heart. With his father


killed, mother stained, he can only live for honor.


Consequently, honor’s reach exceeds Hamlet’s grasp.


In conclusion, Hamlet’s imprecation twist with such


complexity that many adducing solutions abound. But


considering the epic proportion of Hamlet’s first tragedy,


and its persisting anguish, one can tolerably justify


Hamlet’s violence. On the other hand, Hamlet’s sensitive


nature does not enable leadership fit for a king since his


morality preys self-paralyzing. Sheltered youth, endmost


love for his parents and ghostly visits inculcate and


reinforce his susceptibility to the outside world. Hamlet


depicts evil for evil yet good as crushed worthiness. In


essence, a socialized norm of honor and morality dictate the


test for Hamlet, whereas the inability to reconcile the loss


of his father and mother’s shame ordains Hamlet a victim of


humiliation, not a leader. Hamlet, — born to relinquish,


not rule.

Сохранить в соц. сетях:
Обсуждение:
comments powered by Disqus

Название реферата: Why Hamlet Is Not Fit To Rule

Слов:1057
Символов:7672
Размер:14.98 Кб.