Introduction.
The beautiful creations of the masters of the past are available to everyone. But it is not enough to read them for the artistic merits to be revealed by themselves. Every art has its own techniques and means. Anyone who thinks that the impression produced by Hamlet and other similar works is something natural and self-evident is mistaken. The impact of the tragedy is due to the art that its creator owned.
Before us is not a literary work in general, but a certain kind of it.
- drama. But drama is different from drama. Hamlet, a special variety of it, is a tragedy, and a poetic tragedy at that. The study of this play cannot be connected with questions of dramaturgy.
In an effort to comprehend the ideal meaning, spiritual significance and artistic power of Hamlet, one cannot tear off the plot of the tragedy from its idea, isolate the characters and consider them in isolation from each other.
It would be especially wrong to single out the hero and talk about him without connection with the action of the tragedy. "Hamlet" is not a monodrama, but a complex dramatic picture of life, which shows different characters in interaction. But it is indisputable that the action of the tragedy is built around the personality of the hero.
Shakespeare's tragedy "Hamlet, Prince of Denmark", the most famous of the plays of the English playwright. According to many highly respected connoisseurs of art, this is one of the most thoughtful creations of human genius, a great philosophical tragedy. Not without reason, at different stages of the development of human thought, people turned to Hamlet, looking for confirmation of their views on life and the world order in it.
However, Hamlet attracts not only those who are inclined to think about the meaning of life in general. Shakespeare's works pose acute moral problems that are by no means abstract.
Main part.
one). Plot history.
The legend of Hamlet was first recorded at the end of the 12th century by a Danish chronicler
Saxo Grammar. His History of the Danes, written in Latin, was printed in 1514.
In ancient times of paganism, thus tells Saxo the Grammatician, the ruler of Jutland was killed at a feast by his brother Feng, who then married his widow. The son of the murdered, young Hamlet decided to avenge the murder of his father. To gain time and appear safe, Hamlet decided to pretend to be insane. Feng's friend wanted to check it out, but Hamlet beat him to it. After Feng's unsuccessful attempt to destroy the prince at the hands of the English king, Hamlet triumphed over his enemies.
More than half a century later, the French writer Belforet expounded it in his own language in the book Tragic Stories (1674). An English translation of Belforet's story did not appear until 1608, seven years after Shakespeare's Hamlet was staged. Pre-Shakespearean author
"Hamlet" is unknown. It is believed that he was Thomas Kidd (1588-1594), famous as a master of the tragedy of revenge. Unfortunately, the play has not survived and one can only speculate about how Shakespeare reworked it.
Both in the legend, and in the short story, and in the old play about Hamlet, the main theme was the tribal vengeance committed by the Danish prince. Shakespeare interpreted this image differently.
Hamlet began a new life in his drama. Coming out of the depths of centuries, he became a contemporary of Shakespeare, a confidant of his thoughts and dreams. The author mentally experienced the whole life of his hero.
Together with the Danish prince, Shakespeare mentally leafing through dozens of old and new books in the library of Wittenberg University, the center of medieval learning, trying to penetrate the secrets of nature and the human soul.
All his hero grew and imperceptibly went beyond the boundaries of his Middle Ages and attached to the dreams and disputes of people who read Thomas More, people who believed in the power of the human mind, in the beauty of human feelings.
The plot of the tragedy, borrowed from the medieval legend of Hamlet, the Prince of Denmark, imposes on the hero cares and duties that are not related to the tragedy of humanism, rebirth. The prince is deceived, insulted, robbed, he must avenge the insidious murder of his father, regain his crown. But no matter what personal tasks Hamlet solves, no matter what torments he suffers, his character, his mentality, and through them, the spiritual state experienced, probably by Shakespeare himself and many of his contemporaries, representatives of the younger generation, is reflected in everything: this is the state of the deepest shock.
Shakespeare put all the painful questions of his age into this tragedy, and his Hamlet will step over the centuries and reach out to posterity.
Hamlet has become one of the most beloved images of world literature. Moreover, he has ceased to be a character of an old tragedy and is perceived as a living person, well known to many people, of whom almost everyone has their own opinion about him.
2). Internal drama of Hamlet.
Although the death of a person is tragic, yet tragedy has its content not in death, but in the moral, moral death of a person, that which led him on a fatal path ending in death.
In this case, the true tragedy of Hamlet lies in the fact that he, a man of the finest spiritual qualities, broke down. When I saw the terrible sides of life - deceit, betrayal, the murder of loved ones. He lost faith in people, love, life lost its value for him. Pretending to be insane, he is actually on the verge of insanity from the realization of how monstrous people are - traitors, incest, perjurers, murderers, flatterers and hypocrites. He gains the courage to fight, but he can only look at life with sorrow.
What caused the spiritual tragedy of Hamlet? His honesty, mind, sensitivity, faith in ideals. If he were like Claudius, Laertes, Polonius, he could live like them, deceiving, pretending, adapting to the world of evil.
But he could not put up with it, but how to fight, and most importantly, how to win, to destroy evil, he did not know. The reason for the tragedy of Hamlet, therefore, is rooted in the nobility of his nature.
The tragedy of Hamlet is the tragedy of man's knowledge of evil. For the time being, the existence of the Danish prince was serene: he lived in a family illuminated by the mutual love of his parents, he himself fell in love and enjoyed the reciprocity of a lovely girl, had pleasant friends, was enthusiastically engaged in science, loved the theater, wrote poetry; a great future awaited him ahead - to become a sovereign and rule an entire people. But suddenly everything started to fall apart. At dawn, my father died. No sooner had Hamlet survived the grief than he suffered a second blow: the mother, who seemed to love his father so much, less than two months later married the brother of the deceased and shared the throne with him. And the third hit:
Hamlet learned that his own brother killed his father in order to take possession of the crown and his wife.
Is it any wonder that Hamlet experienced the deepest shock: after all, everything that made life valuable for him collapsed before his eyes. He had never been so naive as to think that there were no misfortunes in life. And yet his thought was nourished in many respects by illusory representations.
The shock experienced by Hamlet shook his faith in man, gave rise to a split in his consciousness.
Hamlet sees two betrayals of people connected by family and blood ties: his mother and the king's brother. If people who should be the closest violate the laws of kinship, then what can be expected from others? This is the root of the abrupt change in Hamlet's attitude towards Ophelia. The example of his mother leads him to a sad conclusion: women are too weak to withstand the harsh tests of life. Hamlet renounces Ophelia also because love can distract him from the task of revenge.
Hamlet is ready for action, but the situation turned out to be more complicated than one might imagine. Direct struggle against evil for some time becomes an impossible task. The direct conflict with Claudius and other events unfolding in the play are inferior in their significance to the spiritual drama of Hamlet, brought to the fore. It is impossible to understand its meaning if we proceed only from Hamlet's individual data or if we keep in mind his desire to avenge the murder of his father. The internal drama of Hamlet consists in the fact that he repeatedly torments himself for inaction, he understands that words cannot help the cause, but he does not specifically do anything.
3).Revenge of Hamlet. Contradiction in the behavior of the hero.
Hamlet's reflection and hesitation, which has become a hallmark of the character of this hero, is caused by an internal shock from the "sea of disasters", which entailed a doubt in the moral and philosophical principles that seemed unshakable to him.
The case waits, but Hamlet hesitates, more than once during the play Hamlet had the opportunity to punish Claudius. Why, for example, does he not strike when
Claudius prays alone? Therefore, researchers have established that in this case, according to ancient beliefs, the soul goes to heaven, and Hamlet needs to send it to hell. In fact of the matter! If Laertes had been in Hamlet's place, he would not have missed the opportunity. “Both worlds are contemptible for me,” he says, and this is the tragedy of his position. The psychological duality of Hamlet's consciousness is of a historical nature: its cause is the dual state of a contemporary, in whose mind voices suddenly began to speak and forces of other times began to act.
In Hamlet, the moral torment of a person called to action, thirsty for action, but acting impulsively, only under the pressure of circumstances, is revealed; experiencing discord between thought and will.
When Hamlet is convinced that the king will inflict reprisals on him, he talks differently about the discord between will and action. Now he comes to the conclusion that “thinking too much about the outcome” is “bestial oblivion or a pathetic habit.”
Hamlet is certainly irreconcilable to evil, but he does not know how to deal with it. Hamlet does not realize his struggle as a political struggle. It has a predominantly moral meaning for him.
Hamlet is a lonely fighter for justice. He fights against his enemies by their own means. The contradiction in the behavior of the hero is that in order to achieve the goal, he resorts to the same, if you like, immoral methods as his opponents. He pretends, cunning, seeks to find out the secret of his enemy, deceives and, paradoxically, for the sake of a noble goal, is guilty of the death of several people. Claudius is to blame for the death of only one former king. Hamlet kills (albeit unintentionally) Polonius, sends Rosencrantz to certain death and
Guildenson, kills Laertes and finally the king; he is also indirectly responsible for Ophelia's death. But in the eyes of all, he remains morally pure, for he pursued noble goals and the evil that he committed was always a response to the intrigues of his opponents. Polonius dies at the hands of Hamlet.
This means that Hamlet acts as an avenger for the very thing that he does in relation to another.
4). To be or not to be.
Another theme with greater force arises in the play - the frailty of all things. Death reigns in this tragedy from beginning to end. It begins with the appearance of the ghost of the murdered king, during the action Polonius dies, then Ophelia drowns, Rosencrantz and Guildensten go to certain death, the poisoned queen dies, Laertes dies, Hamlet's blade finally reaches
Claudia. Hamlet himself dies, having fallen victim to the deceit of Laertes and Claudius.
This is the bloodiest of all Shakespeare's tragedies. But Shakespeare did not try to impress the audience with the story of the murder, the death of each of the characters has its own special meaning. The most tragic fate
Hamlet, because in his image true humanity, combined with the power of the mind, finds the most vivid embodiment. Accordingly, his death is depicted as a feat in the name of freedom.
Hamlet often talks about death. Soon after his first appearance before the audience, he betrays a hidden thought: life has become so disgusting that he would have committed suicide if it were not considered a sin. He reflects on death in the monologue "To be or not to be?". Here the hero is concerned about the very mystery of death: what is it - or the continuation of the same torments with which earthly life is full? Fear of the unknown, of this country, from which not a single traveler has returned, often makes people shy away from the fight for fear of falling into this unknown world.
Hamlet focuses on the thought of death, when, attacked by stubborn facts and painful doubts, he still cannot consolidate his thought, everything around is moving in a fast current, and there is nothing to cling to, not even a saving straw is visible.
In the monologue of the third act (To be or not to be), Hamlet clearly defines the dilemma he faces:
....submit
Slings and arrows of a furious fate
Or, taking up arms against the sea of troubles, slay them
Confrontation?
The burden of the oath weighs heavily on his shoulders. The prince reproaches himself for being too slow. The house of vengeance recedes, dims before the deepest questions about the fate of the century, about the meaning of life, which confront Hamlet in full breadth.
To be - for Hamlet it means to think, to believe in a person and to act in accordance with one's convictions and faith. But the deeper he gets to know people, life, the more clearly he sees triumphant evil and realizes that he is powerless to crush it with such a lonely struggle.
Discord with the world is accompanied by internal discord. Hamlet's former faith in man, his former ideals are crushed, broken in a collision with reality, but he cannot completely renounce them, otherwise he would cease to be himself.
Hamlet is a man of the feudal world, called upon by the code of honor to avenge the death of his father. Hamlet, striving for wholeness, experiences the pangs of division; Hamlet, rebelling against the world - the torment of prison, feels its fetters on himself. All this gives rise to unbearable grief, mental pain, doubts.
It is not better to put an end to all suffering once. Leave. Die.
But Hamlet rejects the idea of suicide. But not for long. After the vengeance has been taken, the hero dies, a burden that he can neither bear nor throw off brings him to the ground.
Disgusted with the vile Claudius, indulging in doubts, powerless to grasp the events in their objective movement, he goes to his death, maintaining high dignity.
Hamlet is sure that people need the initial story about his life as a lesson, a warning and an appeal, his dying order to his friend Horatio is resolute:
“Of all events, discover the cause.” With his fate, he testifies to the tragic contradictions of history, its difficult, but more and more persistent work to humanize man.
Conclusion.
Despite the gloomy ending, there is no hopeless pessimism in Shakespeare's tragedy. The ideals of the tragic hero are indestructible, majestic, and his struggle with a vicious, unjust world should serve as an example for other people. This gives the tragedies of Shakespeare the significance of works that are relevant at all times.
Shakespeare's tragedy has two denouements. One directly completes the outcome of the struggle and is expressed in the death of the hero. And the other is brought into the future, which will be the only one capable of accepting and enriching unfulfilled ideals.
Rebirth and establish them on earth. The tragic heroes of Shakespeare experience a special rise in spiritual strength, which increases the more, the more dangerous their opponent is.
Thus, the crushing of social evil is the greatest personal interest, the greatest passion of Shakespeare's heroes. That's why they are always up to date.
List of used literature:
1. Shakespeare V. Favorites. In 2 parts//Comp. ed. articles and comments. BUT.
Anixt. - M., 1984.
2. Shakespeare V. Comedies, chronicles, tragedies T.1: Per. from English//Comp. D.
Urnova - M., 1989
3. M.A. Barg. Shakespeare and History. - M., 1976.
4. N.I. Muraviev. Foreign literature. - M., 1963.
5. W. Shakespeare. Tragedies are sonnets. M., 1968
6. M.V. Urnov, D.M. Urns. Shakespeare. Movement in time. - M., 1968.
7. Foreign literature//Comp. V.A. Skorodenko - M., 1984
8. V.A. Dubashinsky. William Shakespeare. - M., 1978.
In different eras, Shakespeare's "Hamlet" was perceived differently.
During Shakespeare's life, his tragedy "Hamlet" received great support not only from the middle and lower strata of the population, but also from the aristocratic youth of that time. But due to political events in England, the writer's plays, including Hamlet, faded into the background. Shakespearean performances, including Hamlet, were resumed in the early 60s of the 17th century, already in the era of the Restoration. In 1709, Rowe publishes a biography of Shakespeare and a new collection of his plays, which is a milestone, despite all the imperfections of the publication and inaccuracies in it.
When Swift's Gulliver, having visited one of the unprecedented countries, began to evoke the shadows of the greatest figures of the past, then of the poets in the crowd of commentators, Homer and Virgil were the first to speak to him. Gulliver further tells that he also saw his most famous compatriots who died more or less recently. Names are not given here. If Shakespeare was not missed in such a fantastic parade, then he should have appeared not alone, but accompanied by quite numerous admirers by that time. It is known, for example, how Swift's contemporary and friend poet Alexander Pop worshiped Shakespeare, who, following Rowe and arguing with him, published his edition of Shakespeare. It is significant that the figure of Shakespeare begins to take shape in full growth at a time when English literature is again experiencing an age of greatness and next to Hamlet in the gallery of historical images, Robinson and Gulliver rise, and also “John Bull” appears - the common name of an Englishman; when for many prominent people the idea of England and the English as a nation strives for integrity, which was also characteristic of the Shakespearean era. In 1769, the great English actor David Garrick held the first Shakespeare festival in Stratford. Since then, Shakespeare's hometown has become a place of pilgrimage.
At the end of the 17th century, and after that in the age of Enlightenment, Shakespeare was subordinated to the didactic warehouse of literature, or, in any case, adapted to it. Shakespeare was remade for the stage. Theophilius Cibber in his Writings on Theatrical Themes (1756) wrote about David Garrick: "Let the ghost of Shakespeare appear, let him bring down his wrath on the Destroyer of Poetry, who shamefully shreds, maims and emasculates his plays."
Theophilius Cibber is a pedant and mediocrity, especially next to Garrick, but his opinion, although angularly expressed, is not so wrong. At the very least, Cibber rightly noted that the famous tragedian in Shakespeare's performances plays not quite Shakespeare, and sometimes not Shakespeare at all.
Shakespeare's Hamlet in the 17th century was not only remade in accordance with the canons of classicism, but they also tried to interpret it in accordance with the same canons, even if they left the text intact.
No less resolutely dealt with the tragedy and the age of romanticism, although, it would seem, the romantics only restored after the classicist distortions of the "true Hamlet". In any case, they themselves recognized this merit. Yes, the text remained intact. Nevertheless, the romantic "Hamlet" was very relatively Shakespearean, and more - a principle, a formula, a program. One word - "Shakespeare", and it was then understood very generally, too far from the name of the creator, who gave the name to the very principle. Sometimes even independently of Shakespeare. There were several major legislators - connoisseurs of Shakespeare, from whose hands it was customary to receive an English playwright in confidence. The interpretation proposed, for example, by the German Romantics, was too consistent, expressive, and therefore so influential that there were few individuals throughout Europe and in Russia who were able to resist the inertia of this interpretation, and even needed resistance. What for? It was indeed a kind of "Hamlet", complete in its own way, supposedly satisfying many requirements, and, above all, the main among them - modernity.
around Shakespeare during the 19th century. grouped as always the biggest names. About how much has been done to understand Shakespeare's work by Goethe, the Schlegel brothers, Tieck, Hegel in Germany, S.T. Coleridge in England, Stendhal and Hugo in France, in our country Belinsky, Herzen, Turgenev, not to mention the brilliant galaxy of actors with whom almost every nation turned out to be so happily gifted in the 19th century, at least the fact that the magnetism of the points of view of this epoch retains its power even now. This influence is too rich and beneficent to refuse it or to make an attempt to free oneself mechanically. And yet, in the vast experience, in the most valuable heritage, some methods and results of interpretation are in conflict with Shakespeare himself.
In the 19th century, "it is customary to distinguish between two opposing approaches in the interpretations of Hamlet -" subjective "and" objective "" . In the first case, the reason for Hamlet's slowness was seen in the hero himself (in his character, moral, religious, philosophical principles, and even in the subconscious - with a psychoanalytic explanation). The most significant - with this approach - the romantic theory of "reflected" Hamlet, dating back to A.-V. Schlegel and Coleridge, who see the key to the tragedy in the hero's exclamation: "So consciousness makes us cowards." A.-V. Schlegel likened Hamlet to an equation with an irrational root, “where some part of the unknown cannot be expressed by a rational number, always remains unidentified. The history of interpretations of "Hamlet" suggests rather a comparison with an indefinite equation.
However, too much testifies to the one-sidedness of the romantic theory: the episodes with the Ghost, the "mousetrap", the murder of Polonius, the behavior of Hamlet on the ship, but most of all the final scene, do not at all show a "romantic" (in the German understanding of the early 19th century) nature, purely theoretically, incapable of action, "disconnected by reflection."
In general, the main Shakespearean characters have risen high, as befits romantic heroes, above the world and the crowd. As a result, the psychological details of their external and internal appearance, carefully written out by Shakespeare, disappeared. The emotional analysis to which Shakespeare subjected them has been simplified.
The inertia of the romantic "Shakespeare" is still in effect. Shades vary, but the strongholds in the understanding of Shakespeare's plays remain the same as they were established somewhere at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries.
Since the middle of the 19th century, a reaction to all the conceptions of a “practically weak Hamlet” has been the theory that puts an emphasis on the objective conditions in which an active hero, like the heroes of all other Shakespeare's tragedies, appears. Reinforcement for the concept of "strong Hamlet" - in addition to the actions of Hamlet listed above - is another exclamation of the hero that he "has a reason, will, power and means" to carry out revenge. The slowness was motivated then (for example, in the interpretation of K. Werder), "the difficulty for Hamlet to prove to the whole world the guilt of the murderer" - he would be considered crazy if he agreed to the testimony of the Phantom. The insufficiency of the "objective" theory is even more undoubted: Hamlet - like other tragic heroes - never complains about the technical difficulty of doing at home, but reproaches only himself and "time".
Also, significant aberrations in the perception of Shakespeare came from the romantics. So, Hamlet - a slovenly, plump, obstinate young man - turned once and for all into a "graceful and gentle prince", which, according to Shakespeare's text, should not be Hamlet at all, but Fortinbras - a completely different character, different character and type.
The question, of course, is not that Hamlet is necessarily fat. Why the fullness and its appearance is stubbornly subjected to a bill - that's what is important. "You are destroying all my ideas with your fat Hamlet!" says Goethe. And the shifts don't end there. Why V.I. Nemirovich-Danchenko, analyzing the character of Hamlet, considered him "the first humanist"? The historical essence of the tragedy is just the opposite: Shakespeare showed the crisis of the humanistic "measure of things", and his Hamlet, earlier than others, ceases, at least in part, to be a humanist, returning to the medieval "conscience". Why did Hamlet once and for all become the “first”, “lonely”, “only”, “the best of people”, became a miracle and an exception, while, according to a contemporary, in Shakespeare’s time there were “full, full of Hamlets”?
Goethe's aphoristically successful formula "weakness of will in the consciousness of duty" has become, in the words of Belinsky, "some kind of commonplace, which everyone repeats in his own way." From Goethe they inherited the formula that was expressed by the great German writer in his novel The Years of the Teaching of Wilhelm Meister. Goethe viewed tragedy as purely psychological. In the character of Hamlet, the weakness of the will was emphasized, which does not correspond to the great deed entrusted to him. As for the formulas, but the tragedy of Hamlet can be defined not only by Goethe's, but also by many other aphorisms, because the prince is only engaged in the fact that at the time of "teaching" and spiritual wanderings, he sorts through common truths.
Words words words...
During the period of realism, Russian writers and poets began to play a special role in the perception of Hamlet. It was in Russia that the later widespread term "Hamletism" began to take shape.
The first to write a voluminous work on Hamlet was V.G. Belinsky. He expressed his views on "Hamlet" in the article "Hamlet, Shakespeare's tragedy. Mochalov as Hamlet" (1838). According to V.G. Belinsky, Hamlet overcomes the weakness of his will, and therefore the main idea of the tragedy is not weakness of the will, but “the idea of disintegration due to doubt”, the contradiction between dreams of life and life itself, between the ideal and reality. Belinsky considered the inner world of Hamlet in its formation. Weakness of will, thus, was regarded as one of the moments of the spiritual development of Hamlet, a man strong by nature. Using the image of Hamlet to characterize the tragic situation of thinking people in Russia in the 30s. XIX century, Belinsky criticized reflection, which destroyed the integrity of the active personality. Belinsky spoke of the "transition to manhood", of the "epoch of disintegration", but involuntarily looked at Hamlet as an ideal hero.
The “infinity” of the dimensions of the meaning of Shakespearean tragedy, which, by the way, Belinsky also used, led to excessive psychological impersonality in interpreting the character of the main character. In this regard, the impression of an eyewitness to the game Mochalov and a contemporary of V.G. Belinsky -- P.V. Annenkov. He noted in his "Memoirs" about the article by V.G. Belinsky that Hamlet, under the pen of a critic, "transformed into a representative of a favorite philosophical concept, into the personification of a well-known formula." Annenkov, of course, is far from objective, especially in relation to Belinsky, authority. But the great critic's search for a "formula" was really noticeable.
Another Russian writer and critic I.S. Turgenev in the 60s. 19th century turned to the image of Hamlet in order to give a socio-psychological and political assessment of "Hamletism", "superfluous people". In the article "Hamlet and Don Quixote" (1860), Turgenev presents Hamlet as an egoist, a skeptic who doubts everything, does not believe in anything, and therefore is not capable of action. Unlike Hamlet, Don Quixote - in Turgenev's interpretation - "an enthusiast, a servant of an idea who believes in the truth and fights for it." Turgenev writes that in Hamlet thought and will are in a tragic gap; Hamlet is a thinking man, but weak-willed; Don Quixote is a strong-willed enthusiast, but half-mad; if Hamlet is useless to the masses, then Don Quixote inspires the people to action. At the same time, Turgenev admits that Hamlet is close to Don Quixote in his implacability to evil, that people perceive from Hamlet "seeds-thoughts and spread them all over the world."
Also, Russian writers with distinctive punctuality noticed the outward characteristic of Hamlet - "fat and suffocating." A.I. drew attention to this feature. Herzen, spoke about it in the famous lecture by I.S. Turgenev. It would seem a detail, but it reveals the inherent originality of the figure of Hamlet, which not only then, but still not a single director or performer has seriously dared to convey. Shakespeare scholars usually mention this detail as a paradoxical inconsistency, almost like Shakespeare's slip of the tongue. For "obesity and shortness of breath" interfere with the creation of the image of Hamlet - the "ideal hero". In this involuntary distortion, which supposedly begins with a trifle, but touches the very essence, the tenacity of normative traditions has affected.
The 20th century brought new trends to the interpretation of Shakespeare's tragedy.
In the formula "Shakespeare is our contemporary", Shakespeare himself is more often given a passive role - to be like today. The well-known Polish poet, critic, specialist in the history and theory of drama, Professor Jan Kott consistently and completely expressed this approach in "Essays on Shakespeare ”(Warsaw, 1964), translated into various European languages under the title “Shakespeare is our contemporary”. This book aroused wide interest among Shakespeare scholars and directors. It is believed that Peter Brook's production of King Lear, starring Paul Scofield, was a direct echo of Jan Kott's book. Meanwhile, in defense of "our Shakespeare" the voice of J.B. Priestley. . During the first decades of the 20th century, this view was especially established. There were some general literary, general ideological prerequisites for this. If Romain Rolland wrote: “When we return to the works of the past ... it is not the past that is resurrected in us; it is we ourselves who cast our shadow into the past—our desires, our questions, our order and our confusion,”—that was another way of posing the question, which at that time was constantly and in various languages asked.
One of the first Soviet interpreters of Shakespeare was A. V. Lunacharsky. Even in his early, pre-revolutionary work on "Hamlet", which was included in the series of essays "In the Face of Doom. Towards the Philosophy of Tragedy”, he referred precisely to the specifics of the tragic in Shakespeare. Lunacharsky learned the lessons of an active, cheerful, heroic sense of life from the tragedy, traditionally interpreted as a drama of reflective consciousness: “Fate reigns over us. There is no use in fruitless reflections - a person is born to act, he must create for himself an environment of struggle and achievement, otherwise he is an animal; but this does not mean giving in to blind anger, closing your eyes, plugging your ears and going where you are pushed; it means to be a commander, a strategist, a maestro of life... It is difficult, terribly difficult, but such is the task. Perhaps you will perish without resolving it in time - but do what you can, die with honor and pass on the experience of your life to fellow human beings. Here is the moral of Hamlet.
In Great Britain, during this period, one of the most prominent Shakespeare scholars of the early twentieth century, A. Fritsche, thought about the problem of "Hamlet", who, when analyzing the socio-ideological subsoil of the tragedy about Danish Prince K. Fritsche, expresses considerations that partly correct the "vulgarity" of his sociologism and are not without interest. by themselves. The reasons for Hamlet's duality of thought, his skepticism and pessimism are being studied at different levels. K. Fritsche sees one of the consequences of the general decline of the aristocracy in the fact that in Shakespeare's England "a part of the feudal nobility itself experienced a significant transformation, turning from a military landowning caste to a certain extent into an intelligentsia." “Hamlet, of course, is not an intellectual in the sense that he lives by literary work ... But the very figure of this prince, who prefers the university to the court, immersed in books and reflections, in literature and philosophy, was created by a writer who was on the path of transformation from a feudal lord to intellectual." From this social duality flowed an ideological uncertainty. Hamlet does not find a firm position in the struggle between archaic religious ideas and new philosophical trends of the era - religious pantheism in the spirit of Giordano Bruno or Montaigne's skeptical Epicureanism. These fluctuations in Hamlet are complicated by the very actual for England at the turn of the XVI-XVII centuries. confrontation between the Catholic and Protestant doctrines within the church teaching itself. “Hamlet essentially remains within the framework of the traditional religious worldview... Hesitating between Catholic and Protestant beliefs, he also hesitates between the idealistic and pantheistic-materialistic conception of the world... This religious and philosophical split of Hamlet is only another side of his social split, and out of a complicated duality of thought and the spring of his pessimistic attitude to life beats ... ".
However, for us, the most important thing in the work of K. Fritsche is not "sociological" simplifications, on the one hand, and not separate fruitful guesses, on the other. The main thing is the desire to explain the essence of Shakespeare's work by the grandiose historical shifts of the era, the destruction of the old feudal way of life and the formation of the bourgeois way of life that is coming to replace it. This is a considerable merit of Fritsche, no matter how controversial conclusions from this situation he himself draws.
Fritsche's point of view on tragedy is close to the opinion of another researcher of the twentieth century, V. Kemenov. V. Kemenov sees the greatest achievement of the tragedy about Hamlet in its extraordinary realism. Shakespeare's heroes themselves do not realize the predetermination of their death. The only exception here is Hamlet. “Hamlet is the only tragic hero of Shakespeare who realized his tragic doom, its inevitability, arising not from private causes, but from the basic conditions of contemporary life. Therefore, in "Hamlet" Shakespeare's tragedy for the first time realizes itself as a tragedy. Therefore, "Hamlet" is the greatest work of Shakespeare, the crowning achievement of his creativity... in "Hamlet" the center of gravity of the tragic collision is transferred to collisions in the inner world of Hamlet himself, who painfully solves the most basic and majestic questions of being and humanity and cannot find a way out, The life around him at that time did not give such a way out. Hamlet expresses the tragedy of the humanism of the Renaissance... compelled to observe at every step... how... a flourishing harmonious man of the Renaissance becomes a victim not only of external causes and circumstances hostile to him, but also of an internal egoistic wormhole developing in himself» .
One of the most original points of view was expressed by the outstanding psychologist L.S. Vygotsky in The Psychology of Art (1925). Having a new understanding of Shakespeare's criticism in the article by L.N. Tolstoy "On Shakespeare and Drama", Vygotsky suggested that Hamlet is not endowed with character, but is a function of the tragedy. Thus, the psychologist emphasized that Shakespeare is a representative of the old literature, which did not yet know character as a way of depicting a person in verbal art.
L.S. Vygotsky, in his work “The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, W. Shakespeare”, believes that “Hamlet” is the most incomprehensible and mysterious tragedy, inexplicable and mysterious in its very essence, which will forever remain elusive. Everything in it has two meanings - one is visible and simple, the other is unusual and deep.
L.S. Vygotsky saw in the double assassination of the king (with a sword and poison) the completion of two different storylines developing through the image of Hamlet (this function of the plot).
The opinion of the English critic T.S. Eliot is fundamentally different from the opinion of the great psychologist. In the critical article "Hamlet and His Problems", he writes that the failure of critics to interpret "Hamlet" was due to the fact that they ignored the obvious: "Hamlet" is a stratification, it is the effort of several playwrights, each of whom reworked in his own way created predecessors. We are aware of the existence of an earlier play by Thomas Kidd, the motive of the play was simply revenge; the fact that Hamlet delays in revenge was explained only by the difficulty of killing the monarch, surrounded by guards; and Hamlet's "madness" was staged to avoid suspicion. Eliot believes that the play is an artistic failure of the playwright, there is no purity of artistic finish in it, the author's thought is not clarified in places.
B. McElroy's article "The Eye of Reason" expresses the idea that danger, illusory nature and decay are the problems of life in the Hamletian world, complex problems, to which all the characters, except the prince, try to approach it in a simplified way. Hamlet, having met with evil, does not renounce the world, although he subjects it to the most violent attacks that he has in store, if only to make it correspond to his assessments.
In his work "Shakespeare's Hamlet in the context of the era" E.Yu. Solovyov believes that all the actions of the play unfold as if on the field of a suspended battle, where corpses decompose, the wounded die and the survivors go crazy.
The second half of the 20th century was also rich in theatrical and cinematic productions of Hamlet, as well as in literary studies. Released in the mid 60s. XX century research convincingly shows this on the example of "Hamlet" and the history of its productions from the past to the XX century. In the Hamlet Gallery for a hundred and fifty years, passionate and melancholic, philosophizing and acting Hamlets replace one another, argue, even subvert each other, and yet, if only because they need to argue, they speak the same language among themselves. What is meant, of course, is not the text of the tragedy, but the "language", the system of its interpretation. This “language”, this system turns out, oddly enough, to be the same from Goethe to ... Gorgonov, the grotesque Hamlet in the theater. Vakhtangov (1932).
One of the brightest works of the 60s. N. Chushkina “Hamlet-Kachalov. On the way to the heroic theater. From the stage history of Shakespeare's Hamlet, in which the study is aimed at studying the character of Hamlet through the staging of the tragedy on stage. The author of the book put two different Hamlets side by side: the emaciated, sublime Hamlet-poet performed by Wilheim Meister (it was he who, having descended from the pages of Goethe's novel, became a model, an idol in the 19th century, it was he who was worshiped or overthrown) - and right there a plump, lively young man who, juggling his crown, wonders: "To be or not to be?" The contrast, stunning at first glance, then gradually fades, it becomes clear that Shakespeare's hero is without fullness and shortness of breath or is devoid of a philosophical halo - two faces, two poles, closing one world. And within these limits there are already shades and variants - coarse or more refined, simpler or more sublime, a poet or a warrior, a heroic fighter or, on the contrary, a broken nature. It is as if a patient were given heat or cold to the head, some drugs were given either an stimulant or valerian, while he needed, say, to amputate his leg. Such a comparison, of course; it turns out to be lame, but in fact, in Shakespeare, in the guise of Hamlet, there is no “or”. According to Shakespeare's text, he is not a "poet" and not a "warrior" separately; he has “a courtier, a soldier, a learned look, speech, weapons”; he sprinkles poetry, swears fantastically; riding, fencing occupies him, although he is heavy and awkward in appearance; Hamlet is a “noble mind”, and at the same time, he is overcome at times by dark impulses, about which it is better not to speak out loud; and in general, in his lexicon, a number of fundamental concepts have a different use in comparison with how they were used later. In a word, the world in which Shakespeare's Hamlet arises and lives lies on a slightly different plane than the world built by Goethe's Hamlet, and then rebuilt and even destroyed by subsequent interpretations of Hamlet, including modern ones.
Another researcher of the second half of the 20th century, L.E. Pinsky connected the image of Hamlet not with the development of the plot in the usual sense of the word, but with the main plot of the "great tragedies" - the hero's discovery of the true face of the world, in which evil is more powerful than it was imagined by the humanists. It is this ability to know the true face of the world that makes Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, Macbeth tragic heroes. They are titans, surpassing the average spectator in intellect, will, courage.
The most thorough studies on the work of Shakespeare, in general, and Hamlet, in particular, in the 60-80s. The twentieth century was undertaken by A. Anikst, G. Brandes, and father and son Urnova. These literary scholars made an attempt in their works not only to explore the work of the great writer, but also to summarize everything that had been done in this area before them.
So A. Anixt in his numerous works considers "Hamlet" from different points of view: as a psychological, social, political and historical tragedy, as well as a personal tragedy of each of Shakespeare's heroes. Such a comprehensive approach allows avoiding one-sidedness in considering the tragedy and revealing new trends in the image of Hamlet himself: “The Danish prince turned out to be not so much outwardly as an inwardly active nature - he was a truth seeker, reason and, above all, reason, searching for the reasons for the grief that befell him and striving for the revival of truth on earth".
G. Brandes in his work “Shakespeare. Life and Works” considers the famous tragedy from the point of view of the biographical factor: “At the beginning of his career, Shakespeare naturally strove to act on the public with greater intelligence and greater power than other poets. Subsequently, he thought, like Hamlet: "No matter how deep you dig, I always dig a yard deep." This is one of the most characteristic phrases of Hamlet and Shakespeare. This attitude towards rival poets is one of the active causes under the influence of which Shakespeare's youthful style was formed in epic poems and early dramas; hence this pursuit of wit, this passion for cunning subtleties, this eternal play on words; hence the extremes in the depicted passions, the excesses in comparisons and metaphors. One image generates from itself another with the fertility and speed with which some lower organisms multiply.
The works of the father and son Urnovs are aimed at studying the creativity of tragedy from the point of view of time. This synthesis can be seen especially clearly in their works “Shakespeare. Movement in time” and “Shakespeare. His Hero and Time”, where researchers consider the image of Hamlet as an eternal image that will outlive all other images in world literature, because the problems that Hamlet has to solve are the eternal problems and questions of all mankind.
Thus, ideas about Shakespeare develop along with history. Every epoch, century, every "time" inevitably creates its own, "modern" Shakespeare. Return to the departed, reconstruction in the proper sense of the word is impossible, and not needed. However, ideas about the historically real Shakespeare, also developing in the course of time with the progress of Shakespeare studies, deepen, make more meaningful any "Shakespeare", which in different eras people call "their contemporary". The more accurate and richer the appearance of the real Shakespeare, the more densely and organically it connects with Shakespeare "topical", "modern", the clearer the historical perspective: it is clear where Shakespeare moves in time and what he brings with him.
The identity of Prince Hamlet, one of Shakespeare's most famous heroes, is still controversial among both literary critics and readers. Some consider this hero too gentle, indecisive. There was even such a concept - "Hamletism". It characterizes people who doubt their right to do cool actions (now it is fashionable to call it a “complex”). Supporters of a different point of view see in Hamlet almost a gladiator, a stoic fighter against world evil. So who is right? Let's try to look at Hamlet impartially.
The life of the Prince of Denmark for the time being was serene: he grew up in a family illuminated by the mutual love of his parents, was surrounded by friends and in love with a lovely girl who reciprocated. Ahead of him was the Danish throne and, perhaps, a great future. And suddenly the familiar world, in which Hamlet felt protected, began to crumble. Suddenly, in the prime of life, his father, the reigning monarch, dies. The bitterness of loss has not yet subsided in the prince's soul, and life deals a second blow to him: Hamlet's mother, Queen Gertrude, hastily marries Claudius, the brother of the late king. And, finally, the Ghost of the father, who appeared from non-existence, tells him the whole truth about what happened (“The serpent that struck your father put on his crown ...”) and calls the prince for revenge.
Before these terrible events, Hamlet was not at all naive, but, as is typical of youth, he saw life in a rosy light. The troubles that befell the prince dispelled these illusions. Hamlet was left face to face with the sanctimonious and hypocritical reality, where cruelty, hatred and lust rule. In this regard, he has questions that are important for any thinking person, and the main among them is the question of human nature.
In Hamlet's view, man is the center of the universe, the most perfect of all living beings. As an ideal, the prince imagines his father (“He was a man, a man in everything ...”) and his friend Horatio, who commands respect for the fact that he is not a “slave of passions” (“blood and mind” in him are “pleasantly merged” ).
However, Hamlet sees that the people around him: the acting king Claudius (“a thief who stole power and the state”), the helpful Polonius (“a miserable, fussy buffoon”), Hamlet’s former friends Guildenstern and Rosencrantz, who become Claudius’s spies, are distinguished by hypocrisy and meanness. The idea that his mother was also involved in the world of evil, further strengthens the discord in the soul of Hamlet. No, Gertrude cannot be called a criminal, but, in his opinion, she bears a heavy moral guilt: she remarried, “without wearing out the shoes in which she went behind the coffin,” and yet, it seemed, she loved her husband so much during her lifetime!
But does Hamlet himself correspond to the ideal of a man that he proclaims? In my opinion, the answer to this question should be sought not so much in the words of the protagonist, but in his actions. Convinced of the guilt of Claudius, Hamlet takes on the role of an avenger, but is in no hurry with the act of retribution itself. What's stopping him? It seems to me that the main reason for Hamlet's slowness is hidden in his nature: he is disgusted with doing evil even in revenge. It is at this moment that he poses the question: To be or not to be...
Finally, Hamlet makes a decision: “O my thought, from now on you must be bloody, or the price is ashes! ..”. As a result, he is guilty of the death of several people: Polonius is killed, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are sent to certain death, Laertes and Claudius die at the hands of Hamlet. In a sense, Ophelia's death is also on the prince's conscience. If we consider the chain of these deaths as revenge for the death of a loved one, one involuntarily asks the question: is not retribution great? After all, only Claudius is to blame for the death of his father!
But can revenge be considered the main goal of Hamlet? Being a thinking person, he perfectly understands that evil is not concentrated in Claudius alone. “Something has rotted in the Danish state,” says officer Marcellus, one of the minor characters in the play, already in the first act of the tragedy. Hamlet considers it his duty to confront the injustice reigning in the world, that is, he pursues noble goals, and therefore, in my opinion, remains morally pure. The evil he has done to his opponents is only a response to their machinations. It is no coincidence that Fortinbras orders Hamlet to be buried as a hero (“Let Hamlet be raised to the platform like a warrior ...”).
Hamlet was the first among his entourage to see the imperfection of the world, he is aware of his loneliness, understands his impotence and nevertheless enters into a confrontation. And for this he earns undeniable respect.
Why is the image of Hamlet an eternal image? There are many reasons, and at the same time, each individually or all together, in a harmonious and harmonious unity, they cannot give an exhaustive answer. Why? Because no matter how hard we try, no matter what research we do, we are not subject to “this great secret” - the secret of Shakespeare’s genius, the secret of a creative act, when one work, one image becomes eternal, and another disappears, dissolves into nothingness, so without touching our soul. And yet, the image of Hamlet beckons, haunts ...
W. Shakespeare, "Hamlet": the history of creation
Before embarking on an exciting journey deep into Hamlet's soul, let's recall the summary and history of writing the great tragedy. The plot of the work is based on real events described by Saxo Grammatik in the book "History of the Danes". A certain Horvendil, a wealthy ruler of Jutland, was married to Gerut, had a son, Amleth, and a brother, Fengo. The latter envied his wealth, courage and fame, and one day, in front of all the courtiers, he brutally dealt with his brother, and subsequently married his widow. Amlet did not submit to the new ruler and, in spite of everything, decided to take revenge on him. He pretended to be crazy and killed him. After some time, Amlet himself was killed by another of his uncles... Look - the resemblance is obvious!
The time of action, the place, the action itself and all the participants in the unfolding events - there are many parallels, however, the problems of the tragedy of W. Shakespeare do not fit into the concept of "revenge tragedy" and go far beyond its limits. Why? The thing is that the main characters of the Shakespearean drama, headed by Hamlet, the Prince of Denmark, are ambiguous in nature, and differ significantly from the solid heroes of the Middle Ages. In those days, it was not customary to think a lot, reason, and even more so, to doubt the adopted laws and ancient traditions. For example, it was considered not evil, but a form of restoring justice. But in the image of Hamlet we see a different interpretation of the motive of revenge. This is the main distinguishing feature of the play, the starting point of all that unique and amazing that is in tragedy, and that has been haunting for several centuries now.
Elsinore - majestic kings. Every night, the night guard observes the appearance of the Ghost, which is reported by Horatio, Hamlet's friend. This is the ghost of the deceased father of the Danish prince. In the "dead hour of the night" he confides to Hamlet his main secret - he did not die a natural death, but was treacherously killed by his brother Claudius, who took his place - the throne and married the widow - Queen Gertrude.
The inconsolable soul of the murdered man demands revenge from his son, but Hamlet, confused and stunned by everything he has heard, is in no hurry to act: what if the ghost is not a father at all, but a messenger of hell? He needs time to be convinced of the truth of the secret told to him, and he pretends to be crazy. The death of the king, who in the eyes of Hamlet was not only a father, but also the ideal of a person, then hasty, despite the mourning, the wedding of his mother and uncle, the story of the Ghost is the first lightning of the emerging imperfection of the world, this is the plot of the tragedy. After her, the plot develops rapidly, and with it the main character himself changes dramatically. In two months, he turns from an enthusiastic young man into an indifferent, melancholic "old man". On this, the topic being disclosed is “V. Shakespeare, "Hamlet, the image of Hamlet" does not end.
Deceit and betrayal
Claudius is suspicious of Hamlet's illness. To check whether the nephew really suddenly lost his mind, he conspires with Polonius, a loyal courtier of the newly-made king. They decide to use the unsuspecting Ophelia, Hamlet's lover. For the same purpose, the old devoted friends of the prince, Rosencrantz and Guildensten, are summoned to the castle, who turn out to be not so loyal, and readily agree to help Claudius.
Mousetrap
A theater troupe arrives in Elsinore. Hamlet persuades them to put on a performance in front of the king and queen, the plot of which exactly conveys the story of the Ghost. During the performance, he sees fear and confusion on the face of Claudius, and is convinced of his guilt. Well, the crime is solved - it's time to act. But Hamlet is again in no hurry. “Denmark is a prison”, “time is dislocated”, evil and betrayal reveal themselves not only in the murder of the king by his own brother, they are everywhere, from now on this is the normal state of the world. The era of ideal people is long gone. Against this background, blood feud loses its original meaning, ceases to be a form of "rehabilitation" of justice, because, in essence, nothing changes.
The path of evil
Hamlet finds himself at a crossroads: “To be or not to be? - that is the question". What is the use of revenge, it is empty and meaningless. But even without an early retribution for the evil done, it is impossible to live on. This is a debt of honor. Hamlet's internal conflict leads not only to his own suffering, to his endless reasoning about the futility of life, to thoughts of suicide, but, like boiling water in a stoppered vessel, boils and pours into a whole series of deaths. The prince is directly or indirectly guilty of these murders. He kills Polonius, who is eavesdropping on his conversation with his mother, mistaking him for Claudius. On the way to England, where Hamlet was to be executed, he replaces a discrediting letter on board the ship, and instead of him his friends, Rosencrantz and Guildenster, were put to death. In Elsinore, Ophelia, who has gone mad with grief, dies. Laertes, brother of Ophelia, decides to avenge his father and sister, and challenges Hamlet to a court duel. The tip of his sword is poisoned by Claudius. During the duel, Gertrude dies after tasting poisoned wine from a bowl that was actually intended for Hamlet. As a result, Laertes and Claudius are killed, and Hamlet himself dies ... From now on, the Danish kingdom is under the rule of the Norwegian king Fortinbras.
The image of Hamlet in tragedy
The image of Hamlet appears just when the Renaissance is approaching its decline. At the same time, other, no less vivid, "eternal images" appear - Faust, Don Quixote, Don Juan. So what is the secret to their longevity? First of all, they are ambiguous and multifaceted. In each of them are hidden great passions, which, under the influence of certain events, sharpen one or another trait of character to an extreme degree. For example, the extreme of Don Quixote lies in his idealism. The image of Hamlet brought to life, one might say, the last, extreme degree of introspection, introspection, which does not push him to make a quick decision, to take decisive action, does not force him to change his life, but, on the contrary, paralyzes him. On the one hand, events dizzyingly replace each other, and Hamlet is a direct participant in them, the main character. But this is on the one hand, this is what lies on the surface. And on the other? - He is not a “director”, he is not the main manager of the whole action, he is just a “puppet”. He kills Polonius, Laertes, Claudius, becomes the culprit in the death of Ophelia, Gertrude, Rosencrantz and Guildensten, but all this happens by the will of fate, by tragic accident, by mistake.
Exodus of the Renaissance
However, again, not everything is so simple and unambiguous. Yes, the reader gets the impression that the image of Hamlet in Shakespeare's tragedy is filled with indecision, inactivity and weakness. Again, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Under the impenetrable thickness of water, something else is hidden - a sharp mind, an amazing ability to look at the world and oneself from the outside, the desire to get to the very essence, and, in the end, to see the truth, no matter what. Hamlet is a real hero of the Renaissance, great and strong, putting spiritual and moral self-improvement in the first place, glorifying beauty and boundless freedom. However, it is not his fault that the ideology of the Renaissance at its late stage is going through a crisis, against which he is forced to live and act. He comes to the conclusion that everything he believed in and how he lived is just an illusion. The work of revising and reevaluating humanistic values turns into disappointment, and as a result ends in tragedy.
Different approaches
We continue the topic of what is the characteristic of Hamlet. So what is the root of the tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark? In different eras, the image of Hamlet was perceived and interpreted in different ways. For example, Johann Wilhelm Goethe, a passionate admirer of W. Shakespeare's talent, considered Hamlet to be a beautiful, noble and highly moral being, and his death comes from the burden placed on him by fate, which he could neither bear nor throw off.
The famous S. T. Coldridge draws our attention to the complete lack of will in the prince. All the events taking place in the tragedy, no doubt, should have caused an unprecedented surge of emotions, and subsequently an increase in activity and decisiveness of action. It couldn't be otherwise. But what do we see? Thirst for revenge? Instantaneous execution? Nothing of the kind, on the contrary - endless doubts and meaningless and unjustified philosophical reflections. And it's not about lack of courage. It's just the only thing he can do.
Weakness of will attributed to Hamlet and But, according to an outstanding literary critic, it is not his natural quality, rather conditional, due to the situation. It comes from a spiritual split, when life, circumstances dictate one thing, and inner convictions, values and spiritual abilities and opportunities - another, absolutely opposite.
W. Shakespeare, "Hamlet", the image of Hamlet: conclusion
As you can see, how many people - so many opinions. The eternal image of Hamlet is surprisingly many-sided. It can be said that a whole art gallery of mutually exclusive portraits of Hamlet: a mystic, an egoist, a victim of the Oedipus complex, a brave hero, an outstanding philosopher, a misogynist, the highest embodiment of the ideals of humanism, a melancholic, not adapted to anything ... Is there an end to this? More likely no than yes. As the expansion of the universe will continue indefinitely, so the image of Hamlet in Shakespeare's tragedy will excite people forever. He broke away from the text itself a long time ago, left the narrow framework of the play for him, and became that “absolute”, “supertype” that has the right to exist outside of time.
Hamlet is one of Shakespeare's greatest tragedies. The eternal questions raised in the text are still worrying mankind. Love conflicts, political themes, reflections on religion: all the main intentions of the human spirit are collected in this tragedy. Shakespeare's plays are both tragic and realistic, and images have long become eternal in world literature. Perhaps this is where their greatness lies.
The famous English author was not the first to write the story of Hamlet. Before him, there was the "Spanish Tragedy", written by Thomas Kidd. Researchers and literary scholars suggest that Shakespeare borrowed the plot from him. However, Thomas Kyd himself probably referred to earlier sources. Most likely, these were short stories of the early Middle Ages.
Saxo Grammatik in his book "History of the Danes" described the real story of the ruler of Jutland, who had a son named Amlet (Eng. Amlet) and wife Gerut. The ruler had a brother who was jealous of his wealth and decided to kill, and then married his wife. Amlet did not submit to the new ruler, and, having learned about the bloody murder of his father, decides to take revenge. The stories coincide down to the smallest detail, but Shakespeare interprets the events in a different way and penetrates deeper into the psychology of each character.
essence
Hamlet returns to his native castle of Elsinore for his father's funeral. From the soldiers who served at the court, he learns about a ghost that comes to them at night and resembles the deceased king in outline. Hamlet decides to go to a meeting with an unknown phenomenon, a further meeting terrifies him. The ghost reveals to him the true cause of his death and inclines his son to revenge. The Danish prince is confused and on the verge of insanity. He does not understand whether he really saw the spirit of his father, or did the devil come to him from the depths of hell?
The hero reflects on what happened for a long time and eventually decides to find out on his own whether Claudius is really guilty. To do this, he asks a troupe of actors to play the play "The Murder of Gonzago" to see the king's reaction. During a key moment in the play, Claudius becomes ill and leaves, at which point an ominous truth is revealed. All this time, Hamlet pretends to be crazy, and even Rosencrantz and Guildenstern sent to him could not find out from him the true motives of his behavior. Hamlet intends to speak to the Queen in her quarters and accidentally kills Polonius, who has hidden behind a curtain to eavesdrop. He sees in this accident the manifestation of the will of heaven. Claudius understands the criticality of the situation and tries to send Hamlet to England, where he is to be executed. But this does not happen, and the dangerous nephew returns to the castle, where he kills his uncle and dies from poison himself. The kingdom passes into the hands of the Norwegian ruler Fortinbras.
Genre and direction
"Hamlet" is written in the genre of tragedy, but the "theatricality" of the work should be taken into account. Indeed, in the understanding of Shakespeare, the world is a stage, and life is a theater. This is a kind of specific attitude, a creative look at the phenomena surrounding a person.
Shakespeare's dramas are traditionally referred to. It is characterized by pessimism, gloominess and aestheticization of death. These features can be found in the work of the great English playwright.
Conflict
The main conflict in the play is divided into external and internal. Its external manifestation lies in Hamlet's attitude towards the inhabitants of the Danish court. He considers them all base creatures, devoid of reason, pride and dignity.
The internal conflict is very well expressed in the emotional experiences of the hero, his struggle with himself. Hamlet chooses between two behavioral types: new (Renaissance) and old (feudal). He is formed as a fighter, not wanting to perceive reality as it is. Shocked by the evil that surrounded him from all sides, the prince is going to fight him, despite all the difficulties.
Composition
The main compositional outline of the tragedy consists of a story about the fate of Hamlet. Each separate layer of the play serves to fully reveal his personality and is accompanied by constant changes in the thoughts and behavior of the hero. Events gradually unfold in such a way that the reader begins to feel a constant tension that does not stop even after the death of Hamlet.
The action can be divided into five parts:
- First part - plot. Here Hamlet meets the ghost of his dead father, who bequeaths him to avenge his death. In this part, the prince first encounters human betrayal and meanness. This is where his mental anguish begins, which does not let him go until his death. Life becomes meaningless for him.
- The second part - action development. The prince decides to pretend to be crazy in order to deceive Claudius and find out the truth about his act. He also accidentally kills the royal adviser - Polonius. At this moment, the realization comes to him that he is the executor of the highest will of heaven.
- The third part - climax. Here Hamlet, with the help of the trick of showing the play, is finally convinced of the guilt of the ruling king. Claudius realizes how dangerous his nephew is and decides to get rid of him.
- The fourth part - the Prince is sent to England to be executed there. At the same moment, Ophelia goes crazy and tragically dies.
- Fifth part - denouement. Hamlet escapes execution, but he has to fight Laertes. In this part, all the main participants in the action die: Gertrude, Claudius, Laertes and Hamlet himself.
Main characters and their characteristics
- Hamlet- from the very beginning of the play, the reader's interest focuses on the personality of this character. This "book" boy, as Shakespeare himself wrote about him, suffers from the disease of the approaching age - melancholy. In essence, he is the first reflective hero of world literature. Someone might think that he is a weak, incapable person. But in fact, we see that he is strong in spirit and is not going to submit to the problems that have befallen him. His perception of the world is changing, particles of past illusions turn into dust. From this comes the very "Hamletism" - internal discord in the soul of the hero. By nature, he is a dreamer, a philosopher, but life forced him to become an avenger. The character of Hamlet can be called "Byronic", because he is maximally focused on his inner state and is rather skeptical about the world around him. He, like all romantics, is prone to constant self-doubt and tossing between good and evil.
- Gertrude mother of Hamlet. A woman in whom we see the makings of a mind, but a complete lack of will. She is not alone in her loss, but for some reason she does not try to get closer to her son at the moment when grief happened in the family. Without the slightest remorse, Gertrude betrays the memory of her late husband and agrees to marry his brother. Throughout the action, she constantly tries to justify herself. Dying, the queen realizes how wrong her behavior was, and how wise and fearless her son turned out to be.
- Ophelia Daughter of Polonius and beloved of Hamlet. A meek girl who loved the prince until her death. She also faced trials that she could not endure. Her madness is not a feigned move invented by someone. This is the same madness that comes at the moment of true suffering, it cannot be stopped. There are some hidden indications in the work that Ophelia was pregnant from Hamlet, and from this the realization of her fate becomes doubly difficult.
- Claudius- a man who killed his own brother in order to achieve his own goals. Hypocritical and vile, he still bears a heavy burden. Pangs of conscience daily devour him and do not allow him to fully enjoy the reign to which he came in such a terrible way.
- Rosencrantz and Guildenstern- the so-called "friends" of Hamlet, who betrayed him at the first opportunity to make good money. Without delay, they agree to deliver a message announcing the death of the prince. But fate has prepared for them a worthy punishment: as a result, they die instead of Hamlet.
- Horatio- an example of a true and faithful friend. The only person the prince can trust. Together they go through all the problems, and Horatio is ready to share even death with a friend. It is to him that Hamlet trusts to tell his story and asks him to "breathe more in this world."
Topics
- Revenge of Hamlet. The prince was destined to bear the heavy burden of revenge. He cannot coldly and prudently deal with Claudius and regain the throne. His humanistic attitudes make you think about the common good. The hero feels his responsibility for those who suffered from the evil spread around. He sees that not only Claudius is to blame for the death of his father, but all of Denmark, which carelessly turned a blind eye to the circumstances of the death of the old king. He knows that in order to commit revenge, he needs to become an enemy to the entire environment. His ideal of reality does not coincide with the real picture of the world, the "shattered age" causes dislike in Hamlet. The prince realizes that he cannot restore the world alone. Such thoughts plunge him into even greater despair.
- Love of Hamlet. Before all those terrible events in the life of the hero, there was love. But, unfortunately, she is unhappy. He was madly in love with Ophelia, and there is no doubt about the sincerity of his feelings. But the young man is forced to refuse happiness. After all, the offer to share sorrows together would be too selfish. To finally break the bond, he has to hurt and be merciless. Trying to save Ophelia, he could not even imagine how great her suffering would be. The impulse with which he rushes to her coffin was deeply sincere.
- Friendship of Hamlet. The hero values friendship very much and is not used to choosing his friends based on their position in society. His only true friend is the poor student Horatio. At the same time, the prince is contemptuous of betrayal, which is why he treats Rosencrantz and Guildenstern so cruelly.
Problems
The issues covered in Hamlet are very broad. Here are the themes of love and hate, the meaning of life and the purpose of a person in this world, strength and weakness, the right to revenge and murder.
One of the main - problem of choice faced by the protagonist. There is a lot of uncertainty in his soul, he alone thinks for a long time and analyzes everything that happens in his life. There is no one next to Hamlet who could help him make a decision. Therefore, he is guided only by his own moral principles and personal experience. His consciousness is divided into two halves. In one lives a philosopher and humanist, and in the other, a man who understood the essence of a rotten world.
His key monologue "To be or not to be" reflects all the pain in the hero's soul, the tragedy of thought. This incredible internal struggle exhausts Hamlet, imposes thoughts of suicide on him, but he is stopped by his unwillingness to commit another sin. He began to worry more and more about the topic of death and its mystery. What's next? Eternal darkness or the continuation of the suffering that he endures during his lifetime?
Meaning
The main idea of tragedy is the search for the meaning of being. Shakespeare shows an educated person, always searching, having a deep sense of empathy for everything that surrounds him. But life forces him to face true evil in various manifestations. Hamlet is aware of it, trying to figure out exactly how it arose and why. He is shocked by the fact that one place can turn into hell on Earth so quickly. And the act of his revenge is to destroy the evil that has penetrated his world.
The fundamental idea in the tragedy is that behind all these royal showdowns there is a great turning point in the whole of European culture. And at the tip of this turning point, Hamlet appears - a new type of hero. Together with the death of all the main characters, the system of worldview that has developed over the centuries collapses.
Criticism
Belinsky in 1837 writes an article on Hamlet, in which he calls the tragedy a "brilliant diamond" in the "radiant crown of the king of dramatic poets", "crowned by the whole of humanity and neither before nor after himself has no rival."
In the image of Hamlet, there are all the universal features "<…>it’s me, it’s each of us, more or less…,” Belinsky writes about him.
S. T. Coleridge, in Shakespeare's Lectures (1811-1812), writes: "Hamlet hesitates because of natural sensitivity and lingers, held by reason, which makes him turn effective forces in search of a speculative solution."
Psychologist L.S. Vygotsky focused on the connection of Hamlet with the other world: "Hamlet is a mystic, this determines not only his state of mind on the threshold of a double existence, two worlds, but also his will in all its manifestations."
And the literary critic V.K. Kantor considered the tragedy from a different angle and in his article “Hamlet as a “Christian warrior”” he pointed out: “The tragedy “Hamlet” is a system of temptations. He is tempted by a ghost (this is the main temptation), and the task of the prince is to check whether the devil is trying to lead him into sin. Hence the trap theatre. But at the same time, he is tempted by love for Ophelia. Temptation is a constant Christian problem."
Interesting? Save it on your wall!
