Hamlets Tragic Flaws - Research Paper Example

The [The [The Hamlet’s Tragic Flaws Thesis ment Hamlet is an endearing character with his own remarkable qualities; however his inability to act upon his convictions leads him to his tragic demise. Introduction and Background of Tragic Flaw In Aristotle the "tragic flaw" is hamartia, and critics continue to debate what precisely he means by it. Technically it should mean a mistake of judgment, "missing the mark." However, the way he uses it and the fact that he uses it of Oedipus in Sophocles play suggests rather that it is an aspect of character-that certain men characteristically make certain mistakes. Hamlet is then thinking about the hidden flaws in men, and especially about Claudius, since he is the one who called for the drunken revel, when the Ghost appears to reveal the hidden truth of his death: Claudius seduced his wife and killed him. The act ends with Hamlets assumption of an "antic disposition." He has realized that one may "smile and smile and be a villain." He has also corrected his friends skepticism: "There are more things, Horatio, / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy" (174-75). Claudius is a villain but a hypocrite; to seek his vengeance, Hamlet himself will have to pretend to be what he is not: mad. What does the act break here signify? Most obviously it marks the passage of time: "Laertes has time to settle in Paris, Hamlet to show in full his antic disposition, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to be recalled to Elsinore and the ambassadors to go and return from Norway" (Brown, 2001). We certainly see the shape of the first act: the Ghost appears in the first and last scenes to make his demand. He has risen up from the earth to confirm his sons worst suspicions and to demand of him action. It is not unlike the plague in Sophocles Oedipus Tyrannos: the murderer of Laios has gone unpunished all these years, but the plague now demands that he be found. The irony that Oedipus, as king, takes on the responsibility of punishing the murderer, who is he himself, is not without parallel in Hamlet. In pursuing -- and not pursuing --vengeance for his fathers murder, Hamlet "finds himself." His last thought in Act I is characterizing: "The time is out of joint. O cursed spite, / That ever I was born to set it right" (196-97). Circumstances beyond his control will force him to act in an uncharacteristic manner. Nothing could be more dramatic, more tragic. The conflict is not between two individuals but within one, or between what he knows of himself in the private world of his own meditation and the public role he must now assume. The assumption of the role of a madman is metaphorical as well as an aspect of the plot: it suggests Shakespeares primary philosophical concern, which is the nature of individual identity and how it is and is not manifest in behavior with others. Hamlet is the epitome of his own statement that, "there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in...philosophy" (I, v, 187-188) In his first appearance King Claudius describes the educated prince as "sweet and commendable" and declares that he loves him "with no less nobility of love than that which dearest father bears his son" (I, ii, 90-115). He is eventually trapped by his inability to act on his own convictions. Hamlet is the tragic hero of William Shakespeares timeless play as a fatal flaw leads the commendable character to commit his hamartia and cause his untimely demise. The prince is introduced as a brooding and loyal son who discovers the murder of his father and makes a passionate oath to avenge him at all costs. His promise to the ghost of his father, King Hamlet, "I, with wings as swift as meditation, or the thoughts of love, May sweep to my revenge" (I, v, 35-37), show his deep sense of allegiance and respect for family. Hamlets initial zeal reveals his good intentions. He is truly convinced that the murder of Claudius is the only way to preserve his honor. His obsession with honor carries him throughout the play; even as his initial fervor calms he proclaims, "Rightly to be great is not to stir without great argument, but greatly to find quarrel in a straw when honors at stake" (IV, iv, 57-60). He sincerely believes that there is no cost too great to preserve your own dignity and in his own eyes avenging his father is the only way to do it. Plot Construction and Hamlet’s Tragic Flaw As the plot unfolds Hamlet becomes torn and hesitant towards his once passionate pledge. Although he seems to know what he wants to do, he often doubts his plans and never is able to act on them. The princes obsession with contemplating his own actions evolves into his tragic flaw. King Claudius Ghosts revelation of his murderer is not enough to convince Hamlet of Claudius guilt. Instead, he devises a seemingly superfluous and illogical scheme to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his actions will be justified, saying "The plays the thing, wherein Ill catch the conscience of the king" (II, ii, 633-634). Hamlet realizes and disdains his own hesitancy, and proclaims "O, what a rogue and peasant slave am I...[I] can say nothing--no not for a king upon whose property and most dear life a damned defeat was made. Am I a coward?" (II, ii, 577-598) He questions his motives, and feels that he is a coward for not being able to take action while even an actor can show more passion and distress than him. His guilt for not avenging his father leads him to promise "From this time forth, my thoughts be bloody or nothing worth!" (IV, v, 68-69) Hamlets Acceptance Of The Will Of Providence Unfortunately, while Hamlets thoughts continue to be bloody his actions never follow suit. When he arrives back in Denmark he is distracted by the death of Ophelia and his plans for revenge are postponed. Upon seeing Ophelias corpse, Hamlet realizes that he did love her despite what he said, and competes with Laertes own grief at the death of his sister by saying, "I loved Ophelia. Forty thousand brothers could not with all their quantity of love make up my sum" (V, i, 285-287). Hamlets acceptance of the will of providence shows that he has ended his desperate contemplation and doubt and decided that he just endure his own fate. The audience sees a consistent progression of Hamlet from a sane yet mournful prince to a vengeful, obsessive man. However, at the end, Hamlets calm faith and remorse for Laertes own situation allows him to regain the semblance of the heroic character he used to be. The audience truly feels mournful for the ruin of this elaborate character. Aristotle believes that art - in any form, whether it be music or literature - is “in its general conception modes of imitation.” This first point in Poetics is the basis on which he builds a large part of his theory on dramatic poetry. He believes that the true purpose of a tragedy is to arouse pity and fear in the audience to a point where it culminates in a purgation of such emotions – catharsis. In ancient Greek, the purpose of plays and dramatic performances was not to entertain, but to contribute to the good health of the community by purifying the audience of negative feelings. It should also be noted that Shakespearean theatre differed from modern theatre. The staging was such that the audience surrounded the actors, and was able to actually become part of the play. Therefore it was easier for the audience to submerge into the world created onstage. While Aristotle makes many references to the qualities and characteristics that the tragic hero must have, specifically he refers to four distinct character traits. In the words of Aristotle, these traits are: “goodness”, “propriety”, “true to life”, and “consistency”. These attributes will be discussed separately. They are brought to life in Hamlet by his speech and actions, but most importantly his soliloquies. Hamlet’s Good Moral Sensibilities Evidence of Hamlet’s “good” moral sensibilities can be found in Act I, Scene 5. From his explosive yet articulate reaction to his dead father’s story, we can see that his judgment finds his uncle guilty of murder and his mother guilty of incest. Simply his desire to avenge his father is proof of Hamlet’s good moral purpose: “The time is out of joint: O cursed spite / That ever I was born to set it right!” (I.v.189–190) At this point, it can be argued that Hamlet’s newfound vindictive mindset is driven only by selfish motives, and therefore not a symbol of his good morals. However, his first soliloquy (before he meets the Ghost) already expresses his aversion to his uncle’s supplanting of his father’s title, and his mother’s hasty decision to re-marry: “O, most wicked speed, to post / With such dexterity to incestuous sheets.” (I.ii.156-157) While a modern audience may understand Hamlet’s anger at this stage, an Elizabethan audience would have mixed feelings. In the 16th century, single women were looked down upon as having no social status – it was the men they married who secured a position in society for them. However, the blatant offense of betrayal in the hastiness of Gertrude’s remarriage is hard to ignore. The Elizabethan audience could further relate this to Mary, Queen of Scots, who was remarried in 1567, to the supposed murderer of her second husband. She was eventually tried and executed, by Elizabeth, for treason. With this incident in mind, it is certain that the audience will agree with Hamlet’s judgment, therefore trusting his good sense of justice. The vital feature of Aristotle’s tragic hero, “propriety”, suggests that the active part of the character must correspond to given characteristics. Aristotle’s example is that “valor in a woman, or unscrupulous cleverness is inappropriate.” Hamlet’s Tragic Flaw as a Product of Renaissance Hamlet does not manifest any of the coarser aspects of manliness; he is instead sometimes classified as a “Renaissance man” (Lacey Baldwin Smith, 1967). The term is based on the many artists and scholars of the European Renaissance, 14th-17th century. Often thought of as the ideal kind of man, the term describes a person who is skilled in multiple fields and widely educated. Hamlet was most likely considered an exceptional kind of man during the time period of the initial performances of the play. Within the play, however, his intelligence is appropriate to the prince and university student that he is. Ophelia describes him well in this light: “O, what a noble mind is here o’erthrown! / The courtier’s, soldier’s, scholar’s, eye, tongue, sword, / Th’expectancy and rose of the fair state, / The glass of fashion and the mould of form, / Th’observed of all observers, quite, quite down!” (III.i.150-154) Her wide range of metaphors and objects portray Hamlet’s expansive knowledge and abilities. However it is important to keep in mind that she is referring to the way Hamlet was before tragedy befell him. Hamlet’s transition from Renaissance man to madman is another part of this tragedy that inspires pity. “Next, the character must be true to life”. The hero should be neither better nor worse morally, than the average person, and must have a balance of good and bad characteristics. If the hero is imperfect and the audience can identify with him, they are more likely to feel fear for the hero and his fate. In Hamlet’s case, as a university student, he has intelligence and a philosophical mind, not to mention eloquence that is delivered by his soliloquies. His first soliloquy takes place in Act I, Scene 2, where his knowledge and literacy become apparent: “So excellent a king, that was to this / Hyperion to a satyr” (I.ii.141-142) In this soliloquy Hamlet frequently makes references to Greek mythology, which was commonplace knowledge in the 16th century. He describes the stark contrast between his father and uncle as he refers to Hyperion or Apollo, a Greek god of beauty who possessed a wealth of knowledge and talents, and a satyr, a woodland god known for lechery. He also compares his mother to Niobe (whose tragic story led her to cry perpetually, as a stone statue), and himself to Hercules. Inevitably, Hamlet’s poorer qualities become eminent as the play progresses. Not only is he, for the most part, unable to take action, he is extremely impulsive and impetuous when he does. Most notable is his melancholic nature, and his penchant for self-reflection and pity. In his first soliloquy he has already begun to question the value of life, adopting an extremely pessimistic view: “O God! O God! / How weary, stale, flat and unprofitable / Seems to me all the uses of this world!” (I.ii.134-136) He sees life as meaningless, and wishes to disappear, yet is held back by his religious belief that “self-slaughter” is a sin. To the audience, his sadness may feel reasonable, but piteous at the same time. It allows the audience to recognize Hamlet as being vulnerable to emotional adversity. In Act I, Scene 5, Hamlet reacts to the Ghost’s request in an outburst of anger and bitterness, revealing not only his loyalty to his father, but also a vindictiveness and a strong sense of resolution, from his words of outrage: “O villain, villain, smiling, damned villain!” (I.v.106) The punctuation and pace of his speech alone is a clear enough indication of his emotions, but the fact that he is spewing sarcasm (“meet it is I set it down, / That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain” [I.v.108]) and promises of vengeance is a sign that he may have a wild and reckless side to his calm and composed disposition. In fact, he seems almost childishly frustrated, which is another addition to his quality of being realistically human. The next fourth point is that the hero must be consistent. And by this, Aristotle means that they must be written consistently, not that the hero must behave consistently. This is especially important when applied to Hamlet. Many critics (A.C. Bradley in ‘Shakespearean Tragedy’ in 1991) have attempted to analyze the character that is Hamlet, but the only conclusion thus far, is that he is an enigma. He even admits it himself, when he challenges Guildenstern: “… you would pluck out the heart of my mystery,…” (III.ii.362-363) The paradoxical nature of Shakespeare’s character is what creates intrigue in the audience. Although it is difficult to say whether or not these four guidelines still apply to today’s idea of modern tragedy, it is certain that they contribute towards creating a character that the audience can identify with best, which is a timelessly effective approach when it comes to writing a successful tragedy. It is true that certain aspects of Hamlet require change in order to satisfy a modern day audience, but as long as the tragic hero remains lifelike and believable, the tragedy will have a strong impact. In other parts of Poetics, Aristotle includes more details on the certain idiosyncrasies that a tragic hero must embody. One of these is that a tragedy can only be true when depicted by characters of noble stature. In Act I, Scene 2, not only do Claudius and Gertrude mention his status, Hamlet’s friends, Horatio, Marcellus and Barnardo also display servile respect and courtesy in his presence, always referring to Hamlet as “my lord”: “Our duty to your honor.” (I.ii.253) Indirectly, this also inspires fear in the audience, driven by the notion that if tragedy can happen to the socially elite, it can happen to anyone. This is an example of how tragedy produces fear in order to help people achieve catharsis. Furthermore, it supports Aristotle’s theory that the best tragic plot consists of the hero falling from prosperity to misfortune, due to some grave mistake or hamartia. Conversely, modern development of drama has caused the concrete structure of tragedy built by Aristotle to dissolve and become much less definite. The most notable of changes is the rejection of the need for a cast of high-class superiors. Instead, critics like Arthur Miller stress the ordinary man’s capability of being depicted by tragedy: “… the common man is an apt a subject for tragedy in its highest sense as kings were.” (Miller 1949) George Bernard Shaw (1910) states that: “Hamlet’s experience simply could not have happened to a plumber.” Although modern tragedy can vary greatly in setting and atmosphere, it still serves the purpose of allowing us to explore the extremities of our finer feelings, regardless of the social status of hero. Conclusion In conclusion, Hamlet is more or less an exact match to Aristotle’s dictums on requirements of a tragic hero, considering how much tragedy has evolved since then, Hamlet, in some aspects, is unlike a modern tragic hero. Especially in that he is a man of power and status, while modern tragedy tends to focus on the life of ordinary people. Also noteworthy is the transition of the basis of tragedy, from the tragic hero’s fatal flaw in character to the complete absence of ability to influence his own life. “It is we who are Hamlet.” (Hazlitt 1817) Bibliography Aristotle, Poetics, in Butcher, S.H. (translator) English translated Poetics (1902) Bradley, A. C, (1991) Shakespearean Tragedy: Lectures on Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, and Macbeth (Penguin Classics) Bratchell, Dennis Frank “The development of tragedy”. Introduction. Shakespearean Tragedy. By D. F. Bratchell. Great Britain: Richard Clay Ltd., 1990. Brown, John Russell. Shakespeare: The Tragedies. China: Palgrave, 2001. Campbell, Lily B. Shakespeare’s Tragic Heroes. Great Britain: J. W. Arrowsmith Ltd., 1986. Drakakis, John. Introduction. Shakespearean Tragedy. By John Drakakis. Singapore: Longman, 1992. Habib, Imtiaz. Shakespeare’s Pluralistic Concepts of Character: A Study in Dramatic Anamorphism. USA: Associated University Presses, 1993. Hazlitt, W., Lectures on the Literature of the Age of Elizabeth and Characters of Shakespear’s Plays (1817) Hunter, G. K. “Shakespeare and the tradition of tragedy”. The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare Studies. Ed. Stanley Wells. Great Britain: Bell & Bain Ltd., 1994. 123-141. Kirsch, Arthur. The Passions of Shakespeare’s Tragic Heroes. USA: University Press of Virginia, 1990/Reid, Robert Lanier. Shakespeare’s Tragic Form. USA: Associated University Presses, 2000. Miller, A., Tragedy and the Common Man (New York, 1949) Shakespear and Democracy’ Smith, L.B., The Elizabethan World (Boston, 1967) Shakespeare, W., Hamlet, in Seely, E. and Elliot, K. (ed.) Heinemann Advanced Shakespeare Hamlet (Oxford, 1996) Shaw, G.B., Dark Lady of the Sonnets (London, 1914) ‘ Wood, J., and Wood, L., York Notes: Hamlet (Hong Kong, 1998) Read More