As in those works, a hero plays minister and scourge in avenging a moral injustice, an affront to both man and God.
Whether considered as literature, philosophy, or drama, its artistic stature is universally admitted. To explain the reasons for its excellence in a few words, however, is a daunting task. According to this view, Hamlet is disturbed and eventually deranged by his Oedipal jealousy of the uncle who has done what, Freud claimed, all sons long to do themselves.
However, Renaissance drama is not generally a drama of motivation, either by psychological character or moral predetermination. Rather, the Renaissance tendency is to present characters with well-delineated moral and ethical dispositions who are faced with dilemmas.
It is the outcome of these conflicts, the consequences rather than the process, that normally holds center stage. What Shakespeare presents in Hamlet, Prince of Denmark is an agonizing confrontation between the will of a good and intelligent man and the uncongenial role—that of avenger—that fate calls upon him to play.
The role of avenger is a familiar one in Renaissance drama.
His father, whom he deeply loved and admired, is recently deceased, and he himself seems to have been robbed of his birthright. If Hamlet had simply proceeded to act out the avenger role assigned to him, the play would have lacked the moral and theological complexity that provides its special fascination.
Hamlet has, after all, been a student of theology at Wittenberg, and his knowledge complicates the situation. He is unwilling to act unjustly, yet he is afraid that he is failing to exact a deserved retribution.
He debates the murky issue until he becomes unsure whether his own behavior is caused by moral scruple or cowardice. His ruminations stand in sharp contrast with the cynicism of Claudius and the verbose moral platitudes of Polonius, just as the play stands in sharp contrast with the moral simplicity of the ordinary revenge tragedy.
Having once decided on revenge, he wants to destroy his uncle body and soul. It is ironic that Hamlet is thwarted this time by the combination of theological insight with the extreme ferocity of his vengeful intention.
After he leaves Claudius in prayer, the irony of the scene is intensified, for Claudius reveals to the audience that he has not been praying successfully and was not in a state of grace after all.
That Hamlet loses his mental stability is arguable from his behavior toward Ophelia and his subsequent meanderings. Circumstance has forced upon the prince a role whose enormity has overwhelmed the fine emotional and intellectual balance of a sensitive, well-educated man.
Gradually, he is shown regaining control of himself and arming himself with a cold determination to do what he has decided is the just thing. Even then, it is only in the carnage of the concluding scenes that Hamlet finally carries out his intention.
The arrival of Fortinbras, who has been lurking in the background throughout the play, superficially seems to indicate that a new, more direct and courageous order will prevail in the place of the evil of Claudius and the weakness of Hamlet.
He brings stasis and stability back to a disordered kingdom but does not have the self-consciousness and moral sensitivity that destroy and redeem Hamlet. If that is so, then Hamlet, by the conflict of his ethical will with his role, has purged the avenger of his bloodthirstiness and turned the stock figure into a self-conscious hero in moral conflict.Shakespeare's tragic hero, Hamlet, and his sanity can arguably come to be discussed.
Many portions of the take up supports his lack of control in his activities, while other areas uphold his capacity of dramatic art.
The problem can be discussed both methods and completely provide significant support to either theory. Hamlet’s insanity is shown again when he plans to yell at his mother “This is the time of night when witches come out, when graveyards yawn open and the stench of hell seeps out.
I could drink hot blood and do such terrible deeds that people would tremble even in . Hamlet- A Revenge Tragedy Essay; Hamlet is such a complex revenge tragedy because there truly is a question about the sanity of the main character Prince Hamlet.
Interestingly enough, this deepens the psychology of his character and affects the way that the revenge tragedy takes place.
An evaluation of Hamlet’s actions and words . Hamlet is arguably the greatest dramatic character ever created. From the moment we meet the crestfallen prince we are enraptured by his elegant intensity.
Shrouded in his inky cloak, Hamlet is a man of radical contradictions -- he is reckless yet cautious, courteous yet uncivil, tender yet ferocious. Upon evaluation of Hamlet’s sanity, it becomes apparent that these subjects are present in the play.
The subject of Hamlet’s sanity is a vastly complex but not necessarily unexplainable topic. There is arguably evidence to support the protagonist’s sanity with: the seven soliloquies, the psychoanalysis of Hamlet’s character, and the utterance Hamlet makes in Act III.
The Purdue University Online Writing an evaluation of the sanity of the character of hamlet Lab An analysis of students educational plans serves writers from around the world and the Purdue University Writing Lab helps an evaluation of the sanity of the character of hamlet writers on Purdue's campus.