‘To be. or non to be: that is the inquiry:
Whether ’tis nobler in the head to endure
The slings and pointers of hideous luck
Or to take weaponries against a sea of problems.
And by opposing stop them? ”
Possibly the most oft quoted of the bard’s words.this soloiloquy by Hamlet in Act III. Sc. 1 ( 58-62 ) defines the highest point of the dramatic struggle that is traveling on in the protagonist’s head and reveals most insightfully the character of the prince and the Southern Cross of his great calamity.Hamlet. the Prince of Denmark. is troubled by the ethical deductions of perpetrating self-destruction: whether to populate and endure the vagaries of destiny that world is capable to ; or whether to arise against the arrant weakness of the human status and stop it all in decease.
The character of Hamlet is of a philosophical and brooding set and he is profoundly troubled by ethical and philosophical issues that can ne’er be answered with complete certainty. The contemplation of self-destruction at the tallness of his problems is yet another illustration of this bend in his character. Is it baronial “to suffer/ The slings and pointers of hideous fortune… ? ” . Hamlet reflects and we are reminded of another of Shakespeare’s great tragic play.King Lear. where after being pitilessly maltreated at the custodies of destiny Gloucester arrive at a similar decision about the indispensable calamity of the human status. puny existences powerless in forepart of an omnipotent and hostile luck: “As flies to piddle male childs are we to the Gods ; they kill us for their athletics. ”
Hamlet compares decease to long-awaited slumber and reflects on the concluding peace and freedom it would convey to the tired and troubled psyche: “To dice. —to slumber. — /No more ; and by a slumber to state we end /The grief. and the thousand natural dazes /That flesh is heir to…” . Persuaded by this metaphor. he decides in support of self-destruction. but shortly realizes the restrictions of the comparision and the deeper and far greater deductions of decease. Once once more we find Hamlet oscillating and per se incapable of make up one’s minding on a class of action which is the Southern Cross of his calamity. Merely as he is incapable of make up one’s minding whether or non to take retaliation on his wicked uncle who had beyond any sensible uncertainty. killed his male parent and married his female parent. so is he incapable of traveling any further than the philosophical contemplations on self-destruction and really taking his life.
This monologue by Hamlet really brings into focal point all the most important subjects of the drama. It straight addresses the issues of decease and suicide the significance of which can non be understressed. Through Hamlet’s incapableness of actuating himself into action. the address problematises yet once more the complex relation between human idea and action. And last but non the least. it brightly dramatises the impossibleness of happening any certain replies in an existence which is basically equivocal.
The biggest mystrey of the drama Hamlet concerns cipher else but the character of Hamlet. and there has ne’er been any famine of guess about his existent motives. his psychological science etc. However. the celebrated Romantic critic William Hazlitt provided an interesting angle of nearing this extremely complex charater when he wrote: “It is we who are Hamlet… . ” .
Truly. Hamlet. more than anything else is a superb metaphor for the human status ; a perfect representation of modern adult male. In his inability to get at any fruitful determination to move on. in the overpowering play that goes on in his head all the clip doing him endure all the more intensely and in his about masochistic irresistible impulse to examine the darkest and most awful deepnesss of his ain head. he is certainly the most perfect figure in literature to voice the most cardinal of all human inquiry: “To be or non to be… ? ”
Hazlitt. William. “Characters of Shakespear’s Plays” . hypertext transfer protocol: //shakespearean. org. uk/ham1-haz. htm
Shakespeare. William.Hamlet.Ed. R. A. Foakes. Surrey: International Thomson Publishing Company. 1997.
Shakespeare. William. King Lear. Ed. R. A. Foakes. Surrey: International Thomson Publishing Company. 1997.