Essay About Shakespeare’S Intrinsic Understanding And Basic Human Condition

Hamlet Essay
Essay Preview: Hamlet Essay
Report this essay
Hamlet operates as a lens into Shakespeare’s intrinsic understanding of the basic human condition, allowing the audience to innately resonate with his philosophical rendering of human nature through the interactions and development of characters within the play. Composed in 1602, a time of transition into the emerging Renaissance humanist views, Hamlet explores the nature of human relationships through the thematic concerns of revenge and verisimilitude, furthered by the role of Hamlet’s relationships with other characters in embellishing the layers of the human condition. Although the contextual distinction varies between our time and the Elizabethan era, my personal understanding of the multifaceted nature of our humanity, motivated by passionate revenge and grief, is augmented by Shakespeare’s use of compelling dramatic conventions and textual integrity within Hamlet. Shakespeare’s Hamlet demonstrates how the human mind subjugated by revenge has the power to overcome reason. Revenge, as an inherent facet of human nature, distinctly usurps the role of the hostility in the interactions and character development of Hamlet and Laertes, where each of their personal vendettas has shadowed their sense of morality. Shakespeare employs Hamlet as a template of the human condition catalysed by revenge and delay, as suggested metaphorically, “Haste me to know’t, that I with wings as swift/ As meditation or the thoughts of love/ May sweep to my revenge.” Hamlet’s hamartia, furthered by his vacillating characterisation, illustrates the suppressing powers of revenge and foreshadows his uncertainty, allowing the responders to identify with his character flaws as they parallel the characteristics of human nature. Shakespeare exploits Hamlet’s delay, which is validated through Henry Mackenzie’s criticism of Hamlet, “With the strongest purposes of revenge he is irresolute and inactive”, as an explicit character foil to Laertes, who is characterised by an extreme model of the human impulse triggered by rage. This hubris and impetuous characterization is confirmed through Laertes’ threatening tone, “To cut his throat i’th’church”, which is an evident contrast to Hamlet’s guile and inaction, as illuminated through the alliterative rhyming couplets, “The play’s the thing/ Wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the king.” The dichotomous contrast between Hamlet and Laertes provides a platform for the amplification of the audience’s understanding of revenge’s impression on our humanity, contributing to the play’s timeless appeal. Hamlet is an orientation to the human instinct of deception and verisimilitude within our interactions with others. Claudius’ characterization functions as a portal into the human temptation of deception, where the audience is presented to a “seemingly” honest and genuine characterisation, as demonstrated through the paradoxical, “With mirth in funeral and dirge in marriage, in equal scale weighing delight and dole, take to wife”. Shakespeare, however, employs dramatic irony through the metaphor, “The serpent that did sting thy father’s life / Now wears his crown”, facilitating Shakespeare’s fundamental construction of human relationships through the conflict between truth and deceit and enabling the audience to develop an affinity with these flaws. The audience is offered a cornerstone of tension as Hamlet questions both Gertrude and Claudius’ sincerity through the repetition of the word “seems”, “Seems,” madam? Nay, it is. I know not “seems.” … These indeed “seem,” For they are actions that a man might play”, kindling Hamlet’s aggression and explicit misogyny towards the female characters in the play, which is confirmed through the use of rhetorical questioning, “Why wouldst thou be a breeder of sinners?” Hamlet’s misogynistic views towards Ophelia, which coincide with the resurgent political misogyny of Elizabeths court in the 1590s, provide the audience with the opportunity to consider the authenticity of Hamlet’s madness and deliver an insight into the patriarchal dominance of the Elizabethan era, thus allowing the play to expound its cohesive nature and subsequent textual integrity. The responders’ interpretation of Hamlet’s madness, however, is altered by Shakespeare’s use of Hamlet’s feigning of an ‘antic disposition’, as suggested through dramatic irony, “To put an antic disposition on”, elucidating Hamlet’s human instinct of deceit in exposing further deceit, allowing Shakespeare to comment on the consequences of verisimilitude on human relationships. Hamlet’s antic disposition is confirmed through Sigmund Freud’s interpretation of his meditated deception, “Hamlet was behaving just as dreams do in reality [] concealing the true circumstances under a cloak of wit and unintelligibility”. By representing the diverse hamartia of the human condition through characterization and interactions between characters, Shakespeare has constructed an enduring play that is timeless in appeal as audiences have an inherent potential to identify with these flaws.