As the protagonist of Shakespeare’s play Hamlet, the young Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, is popularly considered a heroic figure, revenging the murder of his father who was poisoned by Claudius, Hamlet’s uncle. He appears to be an archetypical Renaissance figure, a versatile character that contains something of everything within him: “He is the sophisticated thinker and the powerless politician; the resentful child and the sober student; the moral Puritan and the deranged Prince; the witty murderer and the cold-blooded jester.”
Since Michael Davies speaks of Hamlet’s supposed renaissance variety “as a compendium of selves” and therefore of a rather “modern man of no fixed identity”, we will in the context of this work examine the question whether Hamlet could be considered an anti-hero by pointing out certain traits of his introverted nature and the significant impact of self-reflection on Hamlet’s behaviour throughout the play.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The birth of Hamlet the avenger
3. Hamlet the sceptic thinker – an anti-hero?
4. The soliloquy as an evidence for Hamlet’s antiheroism
5. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
This work aims to analyze whether Prince Hamlet can be classified as an anti-hero by examining his introverted, self-reflective nature and his inability to reconcile his intellectual disposition with the brutal task of revenge imposed upon him by his father's ghost.
- The destabilization of Hamlet’s identity through the burden of revenge.
- The contrast between Hamlet’s self-perception and the classical heroic ideal of Hercules.
- The role of self-reflection and procrastination as indicators of non-heroic behavior.
- The function of soliloquies as expressions of Hamlet’s internal doubt and fragmented psyche.
Excerpt from the Book
The soliloquy as an evidence for Hamlet’s antiheroism
In this chapter, we will examine the function of Hamlet’s soliloquies which “perhaps more than anything else, might encourage us to view Hamlet as an inadequate hero, a reluctant revenger, and a hopeless procrastinator.” As for a dramatic device, Hamlet’s soliloquies draw our attention to the character and “especially to that within”, either by giving us the impression of overhearing his thoughts, or by constituting a dialogue between Hamlet and the audience that leads to some sort of complicity.
Considering that Hamlet speaks in soliloquies at least six or seven times before the close of Act 4 and usually at remarkable length, taking up between 12 and 56 lines, one might indeed get the impression that the prince is a character who prefers to think and talk rather than to act. In this context, Davies speaks of Hamlet as someone who “substitutes words and thoughts for actions whenever he can.”
Thus, it appears absurd enough that Hamlet uses self-reflective soliloquies to criticise his never-ending self-reflection and his concomitant inability to take revenge: In the soliloquy of 2.2, Hamlet calls himself a “rogue and peasant slave”, a “dull and muddy-mettled rascal” and a “coward”, for not having yet “fatted all the region kites” with Claudius’s “offal.” Much later again, in the soliloquy of 4.4, he states that his revenge has become “dull” from “thinking too precisely on th’event.” The most famous soliloquy – “To be, or not to be” of 3.1 – also contains certain statements of the same quality: Hamlet affirms that there is a connection between his thoughtfulness and the inability to act, saying that “conscience does make cowards of us all” and that “the native hue of resolution / is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought.” It seems as if in these moments of soliloquy, he is confessing his characteristic weakness to himself and to the audience.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter introduces Hamlet as a complex Renaissance character and outlines the research objective to investigate his potential status as an anti-hero through his self-reflection.
2. The birth of Hamlet the avenger: This section examines how the burden of revenge fragments Hamlet's identity, leading to the emergence of his non-heroic traits and initial self-doubt.
3. Hamlet the sceptic thinker – an anti-hero?: This chapter analyzes Hamlet’s actions and modern tendencies, highlighting his inability to conform to the heroic ideal represented by Hercules.
4. The soliloquy as an evidence for Hamlet’s antiheroism: This analysis focuses on how Hamlet's soliloquies serve as a platform for his intellectual paralysis and reveal his fundamental unsuitability for the role of a traditional revenger.
5. Conclusion: The conclusion synthesizes the findings, arguing that Hamlet’s predisposition for thought over action renders the project of a heroic revenge destined to fail.
Keywords
Hamlet, Shakespeare, Anti-hero, Revenge, Self-reflection, Identity, Renaissance, Hercules, Soliloquy, Procrastination, Modernity, Tragedy, Mental Development, Guilt, Madness
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this work?
The work examines the character of Prince Hamlet in Shakespeare's play to determine if he functions as an anti-hero due to his tendency toward self-reflection and intellectualizing rather than taking direct action.
What are the central themes discussed?
Key themes include the fragmentation of identity, the burden of revenge, the comparison between Hamlet and the heroic ideal, and the role of the soliloquy in revealing internal character conflict.
What is the main research question?
The study asks whether Hamlet can be considered an anti-hero by evaluating his introverted nature and the impact of self-reflection on his behavior throughout the play.
Which scientific methods are utilized?
The author employs a literary analysis approach, drawing upon text-based evidence from the play and incorporating secondary literary scholarship to support the interpretation of Hamlet’s psychology.
What does the main body of the text cover?
The main body examines the birth of Hamlet's identity as an avenger, his un-Herculean nature, his specific actions as an anti-hero (such as his treatment of Ophelia and Polonius), and the dramatic function of his soliloquies.
Which keywords characterize this paper?
The paper is characterized by terms such as anti-hero, self-reflection, Renaissance identity, revenge tragedy, and the psychological complexity of the character.
How does the author define the anti-hero in this context?
The author uses a definition stating that an anti-hero deviates from established societal norms and values, often due to a lack of certain positive traits associated with the classical hero type.
Why does the author consider Hamlet's note-taking in his "tables" significant?
The author argues that the act of writing reflects a "radical reflexivity" typical of a diarist, contrasting with the expected behavior of a decisive, cunning revenger.
How does Hamlet justify his actions, or lack thereof, toward the end of the play?
Hamlet frequently hides behind the concept of destiny, the will of God, or the mask of madness, thereby denying personal responsibility for his violent acts and his delays.
What is the final conclusion regarding Hamlet's success as a hero?
The conclusion suggests that because Hamlet is fundamentally unsuited for the task of revenge, the entire endeavor is predestined to fail, confirming his status as an anti-hero.
- Quote paper
- David Schumann (Author), 2013, "Conscience does make cowards of us all." Hamlet the sceptic thinker - an anti-hero?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/262470
