«Γιατί η γη κι ο ουρανός, Οράτιε, βρίθει από πράγματα που δεν μπορεί ούτε να ονειρευτεί η φιλοσοφία μας».

Δεν περιμένετε εμένα ασφαλώς για να σας πω τι είναι αυτό το έργο κι αν πρέπει να το διαβάσει κανείς, ίσως γιατί το πρέπει δεν αρμόζει σε αυτή την τέχνη και δεν αρμόζει στις απολαύσεις γενικώς. Ούτε φυσικά μία ανάγνωση, ή και μια δεύτερη, μπορεί να αποκαλύψει όλους τους χυμούς αυτού του κειμένου, τον απίθανα μοντέρνο χαρακτήρα του, που εγκαινιάζει μια νέα εποχή στοχασμού και ένα νέο πνεύμα για να ζεις και να πορεύεσαι. Όχι. Ο Άμλετ είναι ένα κείμενο αργής επαναφοράς, που το μεταβολίζεις για πάντα, που επιστρέφεις σ' αυτό στις διάφορες φάσεις της ζωής, κοιτώντας το με ίδια μάτια αλλά διαφορετικά μυαλά.

Θα ήθελα να αντιγράφω τα αποσπάσματα του Άμλετ σ' ένα τετράδιο μέχρι να τα αποστηθίσω, αλλά αυτό έχει ήδη κάπως συμβεί.

Κι ο άνθρωπος τι είναι, τι αξίζει,
εάν το χρόνο του πάνω στη γη
τον έχει για να τρώει και να κοιμάται;
Τίποτα, ένα κτήνος. Τόσο μόνο.
Κι εκείνος που μας έπλασε με νου
τόσο πλατύ που να μπορεί να βλέπει
και προς το παρελθόν και προς το μέλλον.
σίγουρα δεν μας έδωσε αυτή
τη θεϊκή ικανότητα του λόγου
για να σαπίζει μέσα μας αργή.
Τι φταίει λοιπόν; Η λησμονιά του ζώου
ή κάποιος άνανδρος ενδοιασμός
μιας σκέψης τόσο πια προσεκτικής,
τόσο λεπτής που αν την τεμαχίσεις
το ένα τέταρτό της θα' ναι σύνεση
και τ' άλλα τρία τέταρτα δειλία;
Ό,τι κι αν είναι, δεν καταλαβαίνω
γιατί να ζω ακόμα για να λέω
«αυτό πρέπει να γίνει», όταν έχω
λόγο, θέληση, δύναμη και μέσα
για το κάνω;
[...]
Μεγαλοσύνη σίγουρα δεν είναι
να πολεμάς μονάχα όταν έχεις
έναν μεγάλο λόγο. Αλλά να βρίσκεις
έναν μεγάλο λόγο για να πολεμήσεις
και σ' ένα τίποτα, και σ΄έναν ίσκιο,
όταν το τίμημα είναι η τιμή σου.

Τη μετάφραση του Διονύση Καψάλη την επέλεξα συνειδητά, συγκρίνοντας αποσπάσματα του κειμένου με επίσης πάρα πολύ καλές απόπειρες άλλων μεταφραστών. Αυτή εδώ όμως με κέρδισε τελικά.

کتابی برای تمام فصل ها...سه چهاربارخوانده ام و بارها فیلم بسیارزیبای اقتباسی گرگوری کوزنتسف رادیده ام ..من ترجمه به آذین راخواندم.

Well, I’m an English literature student and I absolutely love Shakespeare’s plays. This is nothing unusual or exciting. Most English student’s live for Shakespeare. So far I’ve enjoyed reading, and studying, everything of his that’s popped up on the reading list until this came along. My reaction surprised me most of all, I never expected to find something of Shakespeare’s that I not only dislike, but also detest. This is also one of his most revered plays, and it’s also considered one of his greatest tragedies. So I’m somewhat dumfounded at my reaction. This play was frustrating, annoying and damn right revolting.

Now, I know what you’re thinking: ‘who has the right to actually criticise this masterpiece?’ Well no one does. Objectively speaking it is, of course, a work of sheer brilliance. But, that doesn’t mean I have to like it or enjoy reading it. Today I sat through three hours of my lecturer praising this and calling it one of Shakespeare’s most important plays because it marked an important change within his career as dramatist and development as a writer. That’s all well and good, I can see that; and I appreciate that. However, Hamlet is one of the most idiotic and self-obsessed characters in creation. His inaction defines him as a tragic character, but to my mind that’s just silly. He caused his own death and the death of everyone in the play; yes, again, this makes his inaction tragic but it was also completely self-defeating; it boarded upon the absurd. The man needed a slap and a reality check, I just find him so unbearably frustrating.

I’m not arguing against the play’s literary merit, so please don’t get defensive with me in the comments section. It is an iconic piece of literature; it can’t be denied. However, I am going to lay down three points of reasoning as to why I disliked it so.

1. A crap idea for revenge



Hamlet’s revenge makes no sense; it is completely illogical. His uncle has killed his farther; he has personally murdered his own brother by pouring poison into his ear. This man, Claudius, has no empathy; he has no conscience. If a man can so callously kill his own brother, then, surely, logically speaking, trying to appeal to his sense of regret is almost pointless. He’s murdered his brother and has taken his place. He’s filled that role; he doesn’t care who he’s killed in the process. But, yet, somehow, this cold hearted man is deeply affected by his deed that is manifested in Hamlet's mock play. The idea for revenge shouldn’t have worked, but it did. Claudius admits his guild, in prayer, and sets Hamlet into a more crazed state. How is this revenge?

2. Hamlet is a fool




Hamlet needed to step and truly consider his situation; yes, he does this in five soliloquies, but he never considered one angle; he never considers that his inaction could lead to a worse result that acting directly. He stages a play for the King to get revenge after much indecisiveness. The most direct action of revenge would have been to simply run the King through with a sword in the throne room or to poison him in kind. This would have made him a murderer, so it was off the table. He could have clenched his fists, and grinded his teeth, and just got on with the situation. But, to do so would be to ignore his father’s spirits’ request for revenge. So he could not really go down either route, but to do neither is worse than simply ignoring one. It leads to the bloodbath that is the final scene, which forced his hand. On a character level, I think of Hamlet as a coward who, ultimately, causes his own fate. This isn’t why I dislike him; he makes the play a tragedy, but it’s the illogical nature of his actions that condemns him in my estimation. He has two roads before him, and instead of taking either he forces a third road that is more detrimental than either.

3. He is too self-obsessed



Hamlet barely considers anyone else. To his mind, his uncle marrying his mother is incest. In renaissance England this was as bad as full blown incest. Claudius and Gertrude were only in-laws: siblings by marriage. So by today’s standards it’s not that immoral. Regardless, though Hamlet doesn’t consider how his mother feels about this. He is repulsed by the notion, but she could be in love or she could be in the more likely eventuality of a forced marriage. Hamlet doesn’t consider her feelings; he is just repulsed by the idea of their marriage rather than the emotions and bond that may or may not be involved. This doesn’t make him a bad person, but, when considered with my other two points, I think it make him somewhat idiotic, selfish and frustrating.

I simply dislike this play because I’m practically repulsed by its “tragic hero.” I recognise that this is an unpopular opinion, and I cannot help but think that I should have liked the play. But, Hamlet just infuriates me far too much for me to overlook my dissatisfaction with him and admire the play's formal features. I just cannot personally like it.

I’ve always meant to talk to my mate George about Hamlet and I guess this is as good an opportunity to do so as any.

There are different things I would say to different people about Hamlet – and as this is the near perfect play I guess there ought to be many and various things one could say about it.

The oddest thing about Hamlet is that people always tend to say the same thing – they always say, “Oh yes, Hamlet, the man who hesitates”. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I don’t believe in capital punishment, but I do think that corporal punishment is much maligned and if one does not deserve a slap for saying Hamlet hesitates, it is hard to see what one should be slapped for at all.

Aristotle was a top bloke, one of my favourites. In his poetics he says what he thinks makes a good tragedy. The first thing is that you needed a fall from grace. It is hardly a tragedy if the tragic figure is already at the bottom of the heap. There has got to be a fall or there really is no tragedy. So, tragedies are about kings and such – not (excuse my French, but I’ve just finished reading Simenon) ‘shit kickers’. Miller’s Death of a Salesman is famous as a modern tragedy, not least as it breaks this Aristotelian requirement for the tragic figure to be from the upper classes.

Aristotle then thought that if the play was going to work as a tragedy the person about to undergo a tragic fall should have some flaw that was pretty ‘human’ and therefore something that would make sense to the audience. The feeling the writer of a tragic play wants to convey to his audience is pretty much, ‘there but for the grace of god go I’. The flaw needs to be fairly easy to identify – pride, for example, or lust – something easy to spot and it needs to be the reason for the downfall.

Well, Hamlet is the Prince of Denmark, so he has a long way to fall. But just what is his tragic flaw? And this is where so many rush in and say, “He hesitates.” But I beg to differ.

I think Hamlet is an enlightenment figure in an age only just (and even then, not quite) casting off the last remnants of the dark ages – and Shakespeare is an enlightenment figure doing much the same. It is important to remember that Shakespeare is writing at a time when King James is king. James was a very interesting King – not simply because he was homosexual and spent a lot of time chasing young men around the castle. But for me the most illuminating story of him – and he is mostly remembered for the Bible that bears his name – is to do with his new bride’s little trip over from Norway. On her way to England a storm blow up and made her crossing incredibly dangerous and frightening. James was not impressed. He decided that the storm was caused by the ill-will of local witches (as one does) – so a goodly number of old women were gathered together and killed for daring to cause such an irritation for his new bride. Like I said, the Enlightenment hasn’t quite taken hold, but we are getting there.

In my view the people who say that Hamlet hesitates are dark age types. What happens in the story? Hamlet is called by his best friend to see his father’s ghost wandering around at night – his father’s ghost tells him that he has been killed by Hamlet’s uncle and that Hamlet should kill his uncle in revenge. In the dark ages this would have been enough.

However, Hamlet decides to test what the ghost has told him by putting on a play in which the circumstances of the murder are acted out in front of his uncle to see if he gives himself away – he does and Hamlet almost immediately tries to kill him (deciding against it on religious grounds the first opportunity that arises – interestingly) and then mistakenly kills the Prime Minister about five minutes later.

So, does he hesitate? Well, yes. But only in the sense that trying to confirm the advice presented by a ghost before killing your uncle is a bad idea. The fact that pausing is anything but reasonable after the enlightenment should give us pause to think (which is about all that Hamlet does – hardly a ‘tragic flaw’).

I love this play – I think it is one of the greatest things ever written in our language. I love the way Shakespeare plays with Hamlet’s madness and compares and contrasts with Ophelia’s true (and horrific) madness. Imagine your lover killing your father – what a complete nightmare. I’ve never understood why there is no such thing as an Ophelia complex. Not least as it would seem to me that many women must feel that being with their husband / lover must feel like killing off their family.

There is so much in this play to talk about – it is truly endless. That people go on and on about it being about hesitation really is saying just about the dullest thing about it. Hamlet is playing with forces greater than himself – he is trying to understand those forces, as he is a thoughtful, rational person, but sometimes we are too close to what is going on in our lives to really get to see – even if we are incredibly clever. Sometimes only those outside can see and understand. There are some interesting Oedipal themes going on here too.

The only thing that bothers me about this play is that at the end everyone ends up dead – I mean, if it wasn’t for Hamlet, even Horatio would have snuffed it. I’m not sure that really is the most satisfying end to a play – where the only way things can go on is for everyone affected to be dead. Lear is much the same, but worse in so many ways. Death always seems the easy way out in these things – the real tragedy of human existence isn’t death, but being forced to live on. As Oedipus must go on, even after plucking his own eyes out. Ah, but you know what those bloody Greeks are like, George. ‘Unrelenting’ is the word I’m struggling for.

“Though this be madness, yet there is method in't.”



Not sure how many times I've read or watched William Shakespeare's Hamlet. The writing is fantastic! It's amazing to me how much of this play now exists in the realm of well-known quotes (more so than in any other Shakespeare play I'm aware of). Still, and I'm sure this is owing to Shakespeare's great talent, it feels fresh and I'm engaged in the story. And it is a story that works on so many levels. One of my favorite Shakespeare plays!

It is only when I read and compare across languages that I realise what a hard and thankless job translation is, especially older texts and more so when there's a significant cultural distance between languages. Shakespeare's diction is so profoundly poetic and idiomatic that it might be thought untranslatable, even when it is rendered into modern English idiom, it loses its antique beauty when tampered with, like those monuments reconstructed from history that look like originals but actually are not.

And so reading Shakespeare in Urdu was always going to be a fascinating experience. I commend Firaq Gorakhpuri's consummate skill in recreating Hamlet in an idiom that recalls the dying days of the classical dialect mixed in with sufficient modernist invention to keep it coherent, but without employing too many calques and direct borrowings which would have grated on my nerves. I also like that the translator did not depart from the prose-poetry form of the original.

All in all, this translation of Hamlet may go down as one of the finest examples of how to translate classical English literature, and not just Shakespeare, in a language that is fast losing translations from other cultures.

December '16

"To be or not to be that is the question:"

Is this the most famous line in Shakespeare? It is certainly a contender. The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark is Shakespeare's longest and most ambitious play, taking over four hours to perform in its entirety. Written at some point between 1599 and 1602, it has such an extensive vocabulary and expressive range, that Shakespeare was emotionally drained afterwards, and was incapable of writing anything for two years. It was not only one of Shakespeare's most popular works during his lifetime, but it has been hugely influential, inspiring countless adaptations and retellings, and is still among his most-performed plays world-wide. People have joked that it is a series of quotations from end to end, and certainly maxims such as,

"Give thy thoughts no tongue"
"Be thou familiar but by no means vulgar"
"Neither a borrower nor a lender be"
"To thine own self be true"
"I must be cruel only to be kind"
"Thus conscience doth make cowards of us all"
"... it is a custom
More honoured in the breach
than the observance"

have entered the English language so successfully, that people sometimes mistakenly think they are from a holy book. Many of the characters in Hamlet are inclined to philosophise. Here is Claudius, racked with guilt,

"My words fly up, my thoughts remain below.
Words without thoughts never to heaven go."

But none more so than the eponymous character of Hamlet. His remark to the courtier Rosencrantz,

"For there is nothing either good or bad,
but thinking makes it so"

is subjectivist. It has its philosophical basis in the Greek Sophists, who argued that nothing is real except in the mind of the individual. Therefore there is no absolute truth, only relative truth. Hamlet's most famous soliloquy, the "To be or not to be" speech, is a clear example of existentialism. Hamlet is considering "being" - or continuing in his life and therefore acting on his knowledge, as against "not being" - where he would not live any more, and therefore not take any action. Yet as all true philosophers are, Hamlet is both open-minded and sceptical. On seeing the ghost, he reassures his friend,

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

In addition, Shakespeare has made this brilliant, perceptive young man, the most skilled of all the characters at rhetoric, frequently using metaphors, puns, and double meanings. Surprisingly, this style of language still works well in a modern theatre, and is also comparatively easy to understand in this play. Other phrases such as,

"Frailty, thy name is woman!"
"Murder most foul"
"To sleep: perchance to dream"
"A little more than kin, a little less than kind"
"Sweets to the sweet"
"In my mind's eye"

and many more, are present in our culture. They are common sayings, frequently "borrowed" by other authors to be the titles of their books and plays. Shakespeare's language can sometimes be difficult to understand for contemporary readers, as it uses highly elaborate and complex witty discourse. Yet such is the skill of our greatest playwright, that he has coined these timeless and memorable quips in this play. For, as wise Polonius says,

"Brevity is the soul of wit."

There are many long speeches and soliloquies, but often it is these shorter phrases which have the most resonance.

Shakespeare created the title role of Hamlet (as the play is usually referred to) for the leading tragic actor of the time, Richard Burbage, and the tradition of "wanting to play Hamlet" has remained the pinnacle of many actors' careers for 400 years. In modern times, some female actors have also expressed a desire to play the role - and a few now have.

Shakespeare rarely invented his stories, and the source material for this one was probably the legend of "Amleth", from the 13th century. This was later retold by François de Belleforest in the 16th century. There is also apparently an earlier Elizabethan play, known today as the "Ur-Hamlet", although it is no longer extant. The author of the "Ur-Hamlet" is not known, and may well have been Shakespeare himself.

The play starts with a supernatural episode, guaranteed to grip the audience. It is approaching midnight, a cold winter's night outside Elsinore, the royal castle in Denmark, where the play is to be set. With the very first words,

"Who's there?"

a ghostly figure has appeared to the guards, while they are awaiting a relief patrol.

As the guards and the audience begin to anticipate more appearances by the ghost, we learn of the political situation through the discussion between the soldiers. There has been a long-standing feud between Denmark and Norway, a neighbouring country. The Norwegian prince, Fortinbras is expected to lead an invasion. This also neatly leads to an introduction of his counterpart, the title character and protagonist, Prince Hamlet of Denmark, whom the soldiers admire. Hamlet's father (who was also called Hamlet) has recently died, and his widowed mother, Gertrude, has married the deceased king's brother, Claudius, who immediately succeeded him to the throne. This is obviously an interesting topic of discussion, both in terms of both the domestic and the international political situation.

The action moves to within the castle, and a scene introducing the characters mentioned. We become instantly aware of the young Prince Hamlet's dislike of his uncle Claudius,

"My father's brother, but no more like my father
Than I to Hercules"

Indeed, he later refers to him as,

"that incestuous, that adulterate beast"

Hamlet seems confused, and consequently distanced from his mother, whom he views as having made an over-hasty marriage,

"Frailty, thy name is woman! -
A little month, or ere those shoes were old
With which she follow'd my poor father's body,
Like Niobe, all tears:"

...

"within a month:
Ere yet the salt of most unrighteous tears
Had left the flushing in her galled eyes,
She married. O, most wicked speed, to post
With such dexterity to incestuous sheets!"

Much later, Gertrude has begun to recognise her behaviour in Hamlet's dramatic representation, and objects,

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"

but at this point she seems unaware of his judgement of her.

We are introduced to Hamlet's circle of friends, his good friend Horatio, his romantic interest, Ophelia, her wise father - and the Lord Chamberlain Polonius (source of many of the timeless quotations), and her brave brother Laertes. The soldiers have consulted Horatio about the apparition's strange resemblance to the old king, and the Prince Hamlet decides to investigate.

From now on, the play becomes increasingly tense, with thrills, madness, mayhem, suicide and murder at every turn. One of the greatest bloodbaths in the whole of Shakespeare is in this play. The ghost tells Hamlet,

n  "the serpent that did sting thy father's life
Now wears his crown"

"Thus was I, sleeping, by a brother's hand
Of life, of crown, of queen, at once dispatch'd:"n

urging Hamlet to,

"Revenge his foul and most unnatural murder...
Murder most foul!"

"O, horrible! O, horrible!" most horrible!"

"Adieu, adieu, adieu! remember me."

Hamlet is mentally tortured by the knowledge of what the ghost has told him. He is driven to question the worth of his very existence, dissembling to many of his loved ones by assuming an air of madness. A genuine insanity takes hold of Ophelia, mainly because of Hamlet's behaviour and actions, particularly one which resulted in the wrong victim. He uses his brain to outwit the one he now knows to be the murderer,

"O villain, villain, smiling, damned villain!"

"... the play's the thing
Wherein I'll catch the conscience of the King."


and a remarkable piece of theatre, a play within a play, is the result.

This is a favourite device of Shakespeare, a literary conceit in which one story is told during the action of another story. It is both enjoyable in its own terms, yet it also reveals traits of character in those watching - just as that in, for instance, "A Midsummer Night's Dream". The twist in this play, of course, is that such reactions are being searched for by one of the characters, who is watching the others like a hawk. This a nice self-referential touch.

When Hamlet is banished, although he does not know the whole of the devilment in store for him, he turns circumstances to his advantage.

"Though this be madness, yet there is method in 't"

"with wings as swift
As meditation or the thoughts of love
May sweep to my revenge"

Yet he feels persecuted, and the audience sense that he is doomed. This is a tragedy, after all. And Hamlet himself seems to feel the omens,

"The time is out of joint - O cursed spite!
That ever I was born to set it right!"

There are twists and turns in the play which come as a shock to the audience, and critics have debated the interpretation of the events ever since. There is cold-blooded murder, desire, jealousy, ambition, and calculated revenge. There are complex ethical and philosophical issues which have had varying significance depending on the time the play is performed.

In the early 17th century Jacobean drama, when themes of insanity and melancholy were fashionable, the play was very popular. By the middle of the 18th century, Gothic themes became popular, so audiences appreciated not only madness in the play, but also the mystical and ghostly elements of Hamlet. In the 19th century, Romanticism blossomed, and readers and audiences began to admire internal and individual conflicts, so the focus shifted to an interest in Hamlet's characters and internal mental struggles. This tradition has continued into the 20th century, and even today.

A modern audience may have an even deeper psychological approach, and look at Hamlet's unconscious desires and motivations, which may not be merely the ones he expresses. Additionally, on each performance, or reading, a reader may understand different points about the play. Consider just a few paltry examples from the hundreds of questions the play raises; here are a few alternative interpretations to those which seem the more obvious ones:

Was Gertrude actually "guilty" of anything? A respectable woman of this time would be classed either as a maid, a wife, or a widow. Whores were considered to be clearly unrespectable. Yet Hamlet perceived his mother as a whore because she did not remain faithful to his father, the king. But wasn't she a woman trapped by convention, in the tradition of marrying her brother-in-law, to protect the kingdom? Or were there baser desires, as Hamlet suspected? Or alternatively, was Hamlet disgusted by his mother's "incestuous" relationship with Claudius because he himself had Oedipal desires?

What was the true relationship between Hamlet and Ophelia? Was she an innocent? Or could Ophelia's madness after her father's death also be given a Freudian interpretation. She clearly loved her father - but was this in all innocence as a daughter? Why was she apparently so completely overwhelmed by his death that this drove her insane?

And why did Hamlet's disgust at his mother's behaviour lead him to lose faith in all women, so that he treated Ophelia as if she was being dishonest - and as if she too was a whore? Was Hamlet himself mad, suicidal, hormonal, confused, or psychotic? It is interesting that in a play which sees so much action, it is in the soliloquies that Shakespeare shows us Hamlet's motives and thoughts. Why did he seem so inconsistent? Is this to lead the audience astray? The play focuses on confusion and duality, in all things. Was he a true hero?

As with all classic works, there are myriad interpretations. None of the situations are simple; none of the characters one-sided. It is a play which can, and should, be read and watched over and over again.


"O, that this too too solid flesh would melt
Thaw and resolve itself into a dew!
Or that the Everlasting had not fix'd
His canon 'gainst self-slaughter! O God! God!
How weary, stale, flat and unprofitable,
Seem to me all the uses of this world!
Fie on't! ah fie! 'tis an unweeded garden,
That grows to seed; things rank and gross in nature
Possess it merely. That it should come to this!
...
It is not nor it cannot come to good:
But break, my heart; for I must hold my tongue."

...

"To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause: there's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of despised love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover'd country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will..."

Hamlet was a Prince of Denmark, and Hamlet is a touchstone of our culture. His unhappy story has been so influential that it is difficult to overstate the extent to which our sense of how to try to choose between right and wrong has been shaped by this play. Harold Bloom famously credited William Shakespeare with “the invention of the human” – or, to put it another way, with contributing to the formation of modern human consciousness. I’m not sure that I’m ready to go that far; but I will say that Hamlet, with his protracted deliberations regarding what to do in response to the murder of his father, haunts our entire way of thinking, just as the ghost of King Hamlet haunts Prince Hamlet throughout the play.

The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark starts on a grim and uncertain note. The play’s first words, spoken on the battlements of Elsinore Castle, are “Who’s there?”, and a Danish soldier whose watch is ending says "For this relief much thanks" because he is so glad to be able to step away from this cold and daunting duty station– you might say he is relieved to be relieved.

And the play only gets grimmer and more uncertain from there. There have been sightings of a ghostly apparition along the battlements of the royal Danish castle at Helsingør – alright, “Elsinore.” Reports that the ghost resembles the kingdom’s recently deceased ruler, King Hamlet, have brought Hamlet's friend and confidant Horatio to the battlements of the castle; and amid a kingdom-wide atmosphere of fear and foreboding, Horatio expresses anxiety that the ghostly sightings may be "prologue to the omen coming on". The ghost appears, but will not speak to Horatio; and when "the morn, in russet mantle clad", drives away the night-bound ghost, Horatio decides that he and the guards must tell young Prince Hamlet what they have seen.

Prince Hamlet meanwhile has troubles of his own, even before he hears any reports about a ghost who looks like his father. His uncle, Claudius, has taken over the kingship of Denmark, and has married Hamlet's mother Gertrude, all within a very short time after King Hamlet's death. It is for this reason that Hamlet bitterly describes his uncle-turned-stepfather Claudius as "A little more than kin and less than kind", and just as bitterly denounces Gertrude's hasty marriage to her dead husband's brother: "Frailty, thy name is woman!"

Hamlet, who hitherto has seen his dead father only "In my mind's eye", goes with Horatio to witness the ghost's night-time perambulations, and indeed sees the ghost that Horatio has described as bearing "A countenance more in sorrow than in anger." Only to Prince Hamlet will the ghost of King Hamlet tell the truth: he was killed by his own brother, Claudius. By this Cain-and-Abel-style act of murder - "Murder most foul, as in the best it is" - Claudius inherited not only the throne of Denmark but also the marriage-bed of King Hamlet’s widow Gertrude. Claudius committed murder out of lust for power and lust for his brother's wife: it is a plot straight out of Game of Thrones, and one that would have appealed strongly to a politically savvy audience like Shakespeare’s. The ghost tells Prince Hamlet to seek revenge against Claudius, but not to act against Gertrude: "Leave her to heaven".

Hamlet is, understandably, angered by what the ghost has told him, saying of Claudius that "one may smile, and smile, and be a villain." Yet he keeps the ghost's secret, telling Horatio only that "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,/Than are dreamt of in your philosophy", and adding what Horatio already knows -- that "The time is out of joint." By this point, viewers or readers of the play are quite likely to agree with the Danish soldier Marcellus that "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark."

But in terms of plot, there’s more – much more – for this is a singularly plot-heavy play. Hamlet, a young man (the play makes clear at one point that he’s 30 years old), is in love with Ophelia, the daughter of Polonius, counselor to King Claudius. Ophelia seems aware that she is being subjected by her father Polonius and brother Laertes to a sexual double standard; only she faces constant family scrutiny over whether she might be walking "the primrose path of dalliance". Polonius, when he's not busy giving his departing son Laertes old saws of advice like "This above all: to thine own self be true", worries that Hamlet intends to seduce and abandon and “ruin” Ophelia. Polonius orders Ophelia not to see Hamlet anymore, and Ophelia, with some protest, obeys.

With his world crumbling around him, Hamlet declared that he “shall think it meet/To put an antic disposition on”; in other words, he will pretend to be insane so that he can conduct an investigation of the ghost’s accusation against Claudius. His pretense of insanity has given rise to what literary scholars call the “Hamlet problem”: when is Hamlet truly insane, and when is he simply pretending? Much critical ink has been spilled over that question for almost 400 years, and I don’t think we’ll get any closer to an answer in the next 400.

Therefore, let us return to the elements of Hamlet’s unhappy situation that we can all agree on. He is surrounded by self-interested courtiers who care only about the prospects for their own advancement; his old school-fellows Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are only too happy to spy on him for Claudius, and Polonius is ready to push Ophelia at Hamlet if the result might be a royal match and a prince for a son-in-law. The only person Hamlet can trust is his best friend Horatio, a fellow University of Wittenberg student and devotee of Stoic philosophy whom Hamlet praises for his even-tempered qualities, calling Horatio “One in suffering all who suffers nothing;/A man who fortune’s buffets and rewards/Has ta’en with equal thanks.” Horatio will serve as the choral figure and moral center of the play.

I am always saddened by those readings of Hamlet in which the Prince of Denmark’s only problem is that he is afflicted with the tragic flaw of indecisiveness. Sir Laurence Olivier’s otherwise excellent 1948 film version of Hamlet, filmed on location at Helsingør/Elsinore Castle, almost loses me at the beginning when Olivier, in a breathy voice-over, says, “This is the tragedy of a man who could not make up his mind.” A viewer at the film’s London premiere, hearing those words, is said to have remarked, “Oh, so that’s what it’s all about.”

The truth, unsurprisingly, is more complex. If anything, Hamlet isn’t indecisive enough. As long as he is hesitating, mulling over his problem, using logic and reason rather than physical force, things go rather well for Hamlet – as when he stages for Claudius a play that re-enacts the circumstances of King Hamlet’s murder, causing the murderous Claudius to feel grief and fear, and even to consider confessing his foul crime. It is when Hamlet decides to use violence, lashing out with his sword from behind a wall tapestry to stab the man he thinks is Claudius, that a terrible chain of events is set in motion.

Through his unintentional killing of Polonius, Hamlet drives Ophelia, the love of his life, to madness and death under circumstances that suggest suicide. Hamlet makes an enemy of Laertes, the son of Polonius – an honourable man who under ordinary circumstances would have had no hostility toward Hamlet, but who, under the present circumstances, falls all too easily under Claudius’ influence. And with Claudius fully aware of Hamlet’s enmity, the play, hitherto gradual in its pace, moves swiftly toward a bloody conclusion.

So - we have here a complex and messy plot, with lots of blood and violence and revenge and death. The same could be said of many plays of that time, by other writers as well as by Shakespeare. Why, then, does Hamlet stand forth as such a central text in Western literature and culture? In part, I think it may be because of the sheer beauty of the language. We are all familiar with Hamlet’s Third Soliloquy (“To be or not to be, that is the question…”); but its status as the Third Soliloquy speaks to the fact that, earlier in the play, Hamlet has two more soliloquies that are just as memorable.

The other distinguishing characteristic of Hamlet among Shakespeare’s great tragedies, for me, is that it is the most modern in terms of an understandable character making understandable moral choices, whether good or bad. Macbeth is a thoroughly dislikable traitor, regicide, and general murderer through most of his play; we read Macbeth to see fate get its way, with the prophecy of the witches fulfilled. King Lear – giving away his kingdom to two daughters and disinheriting a third, all over who’s willing to flatter him the most – acts more like a character from a fairy tale than like a person of the modern world. Othello commands sympathy in many respects, but his cruelty toward an innocent and helpless woman distances us from him.

Hamlet, by contrast, could live among us. He is a thoughtful individual who does not particularly want to be involved in games of thrones; had King Hamlet lived, Prince Hamlet would have inherited the throne of Denmark in time, but the prince seems to be in no hurry about it. I think he’d rather be back at the University of Wittenberg, discussing philosophy with Horatio and writing love letters to Ophelia. Of all the heroes of Shakespeare’s tragedies, he is the most relatable and understandable.

The real tragedy of Hamlet, to my mind, is that in fighting Claudius, he, after a fashion, becomes Claudius. There is no question that Claudius deserves to be held accountable for his treasonous and murderous crimes. But in seeking revenge against the guilty Claudius, Hamlet causes, in one way or another, the deaths of six other characters -- none of whom had anything to do with Claudius’ murder of King Hamlet, four of whom Prince Hamlet would have wanted to live. Revenge in Shakespeare’s plays tends to be like those drive-by shootings that people liked to talk about back in the 1980’s: you might get your enemy, yes, but the chances are good that you’ll end up killing innocent people in the process.

This brief review does not begin to do justice to the magnificent complexity that is Hamlet. It may be the most important play in the history of the literature of the Western world. I have read Hamlet dozens of times – including once on a trip to Denmark, when I was able to stand on the battlements of Elsinore Castle and enjoy Hamlet’s view of the cold northern seas. Hamlet has much to do with who we are today, and you should want to spend some time hearing what he has to say.

Is it possible that I had only read the first 4 scenes and Hamlet already became one of my favorite male characters ever? YES!
Why?
He’s constantly wearing black and monologuing about how literally everything is hard and making everything more dramatic then it is, is so ME!?

And this is considered a tragedy (which in some ways it is) but I found it so funny (probably because I have a dark soul) and I will definitely reread this at any given moment of peace.

I absolutely loved this play, and I’m so happy that now I can say that I have read Shakespeare!

I’m a cultured woman now y’all.

if you don't ship Hamratio did you even read the play???

«پس ادراك از ما يك مشت ترسو مى سازد.»

این جمله ایست که هملت در پايان تك گويى معروفش "بودن يا نبودن" می گوید؛ وقتى به خودكشى فكر مى كند، و اين كه آگاهى از احتمال مجازات پس از مرگ مردم را در خودكشى به ترديد مى اندازد، او را به این نتیجه می کشاند که «عزم در سایۀ اندیشه بیمارگونه می نماید.»
و همين جملات چه بسا كليدى باشد براى فهم تمام نمايش، و براى شناخت شخصيت هملت، مردى كه زياد مى داند، زياد فكر مى كند، زياد جوانب كار را در نظر مى گيرد، و به همين دليل مدام عمل را به تعويق مى اندازد تا جايى كه «حتی نام عمل را از دست مى دهد»، تا جايى كه انتقامش ديگر شبيه انتقام نيست و بيشتر به فاجعه اى خارج از كنترل شباهت دارد.

شكسپير هر چند گذرا، اما به تكرار به ما نشان مى دهد كه هملت شخصيتى تحصيل كرده، اهل مطالعه، و متفكر است: به هنگام گفتگو با اوفيليا او را مى بينيم كه كتابى در دست دارد، به هنگام گفتگو با پولونيوس او را باز با كتابى در دست مى بينيم، پس از ملاقات با روح پدر مى گويد: «از لوح حافظه ام همۀ مضامین کتاب ها را... خواهم زدود و تنها کلمات تو در کتاب مغزم زنده خواهد ماند.» و در نهايت اين نكته كه هملت دانشجوى دانشگاه ويتنبرگ بوده (احتمالاً دانشجوى فلسفه، با توجه به اشارات متعددى كه به فلسفه مى كند) هر چند كمى پس از مرگ پدر به السينور آمده، و عمويش مانع بازگشت به او به دانشگاه مى شود.

هملت، نمايندۀ ادراك و دانش است، همان ادراك و دانشى كه به گفتۀ خودش «از ما يك مشت ترسو مى سازد.» و اين "ترسو" بودن نيز، مشخصۀ اصلى اوست. او بارها خود را سرزنش مى كند كه قادر به انتقام از عموى خود نيست، پس از مشاهدۀ اجراى متأثركنندۀ يك بازيگر، خود را كبوتر صفتى مى خواند كه همچون كنيزان و روسپيان تنها بلد است ناسزا نثار زمين و آسمان كند، بدون آن كه جرئت اقدام داشته باشد. جاى ديگر خود را با سربازان نروژى فورتينبراس مقايسه مى كند كه به خاطر هيچ، به خاطر فتح قطعه زمينى بى ارزش، جان خود را بر كف دست گذاشته اند، اما او با بزرگ ترين انگيزه ها، حاضر به اقدام نيست. نه فقط به خاطر ترس، بلكه به خاطر بيش از حد فكر كردن، بيش از حد نقشه كشيدن. پیوسته در انتظار لحظۀ ایدئال است، و فرصت های مناسب را یکی یکی از دست می دهد.

اين ها، همه به دليل آن است كه بر خلاف آن چه معروف است، ادراک و اراده، دانستن و توانستن، رابطه اى معكوس با هم دارند. در هر عمل چيزى از جنون هست، زيرا تا زمانی که فکر هست، عملی نیست و آن كس كه مى خواهد عمل كند، بايد قيد انديشه و يقين را بزند. همان طور كه هملت هم مى گويد:
«پس ادراك از ما يك مشت ترسو مى سازد.»

Mierząc się z tekstem kultury tego kalibru oszczędzę sobie tradycyjnej formuły moich notatek (plusy, minusy, itp) i powiem dość krótko – dobrze było nadrobić dzieło stojące u podstaw kultury w szerokim rozumieniu, dotrzeć do źródeł po tysiąckroć przytaczanych cytatów, a przy tym realnie wciągnąć się w historię i cieszyć językowym bogactwem.