Textual integrity

● Revenge tragedy form

Teacher Comments:
● Voice needs to be in essay (student’s understanding) - empathetic language
● Why it is valued - why audience values the text and is continued to be read
● Critical study - Shakespeare’s underlying purpose what is his intention (use more
Shakespeare rather than Hamlet)
● Increase techniques
● Focus on connecting with the Q
● Why it is valued & how it transcends time

For Exam:
● Need to memorise paragraphs for different thematic concerns
● Backup techniques and quotes (memorise snippets of idea, technique,

Shakespeare’s revenge tragedy Hamlet, is centered around a polysemous exploration of human

nature and action, where it’s subjective nature induces a deeper philosophical study of [Q].
This is supported by Shakespeare’s meticulous control of language, content and construction
which allows for the dramatic representation of a number of universal conflicts; metaphysical
truth and reality, religious and renaissance values, and existential purpose in the face of
mortality. I believe Hamlet’s enduring value is cemented in Shakespeare’s ability to expound
universal issues relevant to humanity through a subjective but unified text, where it’s numerous
re-interpretations enable for its timeless relevance.

Hamlet’s introspective nature and inability to understand metaphysical truth characterises his
action and inaction. Shakespeare constructs a sordid political atmosphere where ‘acting’ and
‘lies’ have become pertinent aspect of life which drives the revenge tragedy form. Deception
permeates the entire play where every major character presents a false facade to hide their
true intentions as illustrated by Polonius’ manipulation of Ophelia to spy upon Hamlet through a
double entendre of ‘I’ll loose my daughter to him’. Similarly, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern’s
characterisation as ‘sponges’ whom absorb information from Hamlet under the pretence of
friendship, portray appearances as ultimately concealing truth. The combination of false
pretences in Elsinore contribute to Hamlet’s growing distrust of the world where the dichotomy,
‘one may smile, and smile, and be a villain’ depicts the elusive and deceptive nature of
characters, resulting in Hamlet’s inability to understand metaphysical truth. This induces his
conflicting action/inaction encapsulated by the ironic juxtaposition between his rhetorical
question, ‘Am I a coward?’ and imperative tone, ‘I know my course’, portraying a mercurial
Hamlet actuated by inner frustration at his uncertainty. Furthermore, the use of two character
foils; Fortinbras and Laertes, whose clear perceptions of filial duty and honour drive decisive
action, allows Shakespeare to further juxtapose Hamlet’s indecisiveness. Thus, Coleridge’s
description of Hamlet where ‘every incident sets him thinking’ furthers my belief that his
inability to understand metaphysical truth is central to his ‘aversion to real action’, catalysing
spontaneous action and procrastination.

embodies the paradoxical possibilities of the Renaissance man, from rarified aspirations to
bottomless skepticism and from the ideals of humanism to frequent thoughts of suicide and
death

The ideological clash of Renaissance humanism and Christian tradition is central to my view of Hamlet as
a tragic hero caught between conflicting worlds. While the classical conventions of Revenge Tragedy
demand that Hamlet seek vengeance, the notions of murder and regicide are incongruous with the
precepts of Christianity, which embody righteousness and virtue. I perceive Hamlet’s indecisiveness as a
consequence of his realisation that society is founded upon paradoxical doctrines.

the binary opposition between Hamlet’s “antic disposition” and his rational thinking “reason
panders will” is complemented by Shakespeare’s unconventionally varied setting between
scenes, subverting unity of place and reason. Together, these act as an allegory for the
irresoluble human mind portrayed in Hamlet’s temperament,

“But I am pigeon livered and lack gale

Furthermore, Hamlet’s intricate plot is perpetuated by an existential crisis caused by an

internal struggle amongst religious duties, Christian virtues and Renaissance values. Hamlet
reflects the changing Elizabethan epistemology during Shakespeare’s context, revealing how
medieval and religious belief systems were disturbed by a significant growth in humanist
examination. Hamlet’s awareness of larger moral implications of action are demonstrated by
rhetorical aporia, ‘What piece of work is man!’ and ‘How stand I then?’ which portray a
confused Renaissance man, incongruous with his Christian virtues and notions of righteousness.
The ghost provokes Hamlet’s self-depreciating animal imagery, ‘But I am pigeon livered and lack
gall’, revealing internal torment at his inability to uphold the traditions of medieval duty and
avenge his father. However, Hamlet’s promise to murder Claudius in the simile, ‘with wings as
swift..as thoughts of love’, highlights how he must ironically become a murderer himself,
signifying his defiance of religious convention. The confluence between the medieval code of
vengeance and Hamlet’s prolonged contemplation leads to internal crisis where the
juxtaposition between ‘scourge and minister’ metaphorically highlights his confusion as a
consequence of society’s paradoxical doctrines. Thus, through Hamlet, we see the examination
of a man caught in a period of transition between two philosophies where his medieval
Christian upbringing collides with his own renaissance thinking, embodying the deterministic
contemplations of any contemporary responder which as Hazlitt states - ‘it is we who are
Hamlet’ .

Hamlet’s examines existential purpose and the futility of life in the face of inevitable death.
Shakespeare dramatises the shifting ideas of mortality and afterlife in Elizabethan England
through Hamlet’s murder driven plot and revenge tragedy form. Perverse occurrences have
depleted Hamlet’s existential purpose as resonating through Hamlet’s famous soliloquy, ‘To be
or not to be’ which utilises collective pronouns of ‘we’ and ‘us’ to include audiences in Hamlet’s
dilemma of suicide. It delineates two course of action through the mixed metaphor, ‘to suffer
the slings and arrow of outrageous fortune’ and endure anguish or ‘to take arms against a sea of
troubles’ and end his life. However, Hamlet’s inability to understand the nature of afterlife,
‘conscience does make cowards of us all’, adduces to the possibility of afterlife as being more
troublesome than his ‘earthly sufferings’, thus inducing him to choose life over death because of
its familiarity. However, Shakespeare’s historical allusion, ‘Imperious Caesar, dead and turn’d to
clay’ and nihilistic tricolon of ‘Alexander died, Alexander was buried, Alexander was returned to
dust’ compares great leaders to inconsequential ‘dust’ and ‘clay’, acutely raising the futility of
life in the face of inevitable death. As responders, we gain insight into Hamlet’s evolving outlook
on death where he no longer fears it but sees it as a natural inevitability, resonating with Galita’s
proposition of Hamlet finally ‘resigning himself to death’. This affirms my assertion that
Shakespeare explores existential purpose through Hamlet’s eschatological evaluation, which
raises a common concern to all humanity.

Shakespeare characterises Hamlet’s identity as being shaped by Elizabethan paradigms and

his relationships with others, highlighting how one’s identity is interdependent and evolving
with contextual influences. Shakespeare’s employment of a dramatic ghost serves to shake
Hamlet’s disposition through Horatio’s hyperbole of ‘draw[ing] him into madness’, portraying
the influence of external occurrences on inducing Hamlet’s temperamental psyche. Shakespeare
entangles Hamlet in Denmark’s unstable political situation where his disillusioned metaphor,
‘Denmark’s a prison’, illustrates how his identity is constrained by the manipulative court,
underlining how the destabilisation of Hamlet’s persona is a result of the distrustful
relationships circumscribing him. In addition, Shakespeare utilises the submissive
characterisation of Ophelia to illustrate interdependence of human relationships where
Ophelia’s assent, ‘I shall obey you’ towards her father portrays her identity as being
circumscribed by her male relationships. Her descent into madness due to Polonius’ death is
portrayed by sexual innuendos and broken syntax of ‘wretched...sucked honey of his vows’
which highlight Ophelia’s shocking emancipation from her relationships from dominant male
figures. Hamlet’s soliloquies also serve as a dramatic convention juxtaposing Hamlet’s ‘public’
and ‘private’ identities where the setting of a ‘private room’ with Gertrude catalyses Hamlet’s
impetuous murder of Polonius which contrasts Hamlet’s deeply ruminative alter persona in
public. Thus, Henry Brown’s statement of Hamlet being a ‘product of his environment’ further
reinforces my interpretation of the transformative effect of one’s surroundings on their
individual psyche.

Hamlet’s universality lies in its contemplation of the individual's’ conscience in the face of
transitioning and conflicting values. It explores the ramifications of a deceptive world, leading to
inevitable tensions between action and inaction as a result of one’s inability to discern
metaphysical truth, transitioning values and morality. This has allowed it to transcend
contextual barriers, as Shakespeare’s successful portrayal of the timeless issue of humanity has
given the play an enduring resonance with diverse audiences.