Friends, if you don’t have the opportunity to read William Shakespeare’s tragedy “Hamlet,” watch this video. This is a story about revenge and more. Full title: "The Tragic Story of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark." Shakespeare wrote the play at the beginning of the 17th century. Events take place somewhere in Denmark. The play consists of five acts. So... City of Elsinore. Imagine the square in front of the castle. Midnight. Officers Bernardo and Marcellus stand guard. Horatio approaches them. This is a scientist, a friend of Prince Hamlet. Horatio came to check the rumors that the shadow of the murdered king, Hamlet's father, appears at night. Horatio didn't believe this nonsense, but he came. (By the way, the name of the murdered king is also Hamlet) Very soon a ghost appeared. Horatio recognized him as the king. I tried to talk to him, but the ghost was silent and then left. Horatio told Marcellus how the king became king. Once upon a time, the Norwegian king Fortinbras challenged the Danish king to a fight. The Danish king won, and after that all the lands of Fortinbras went to King Hamlet. Only now the son of Fortinbras (also, by the way, Fortinbras) gathered a detachment of Norwegians to return these lands. “The fact that the ghost appeared,” said Horatio, “is not without reason.” Looks like something bad is going to happen. I will tell Hamlet about him. Maybe the ghost will talk to him. In the castle, the new king Claudius says at a meeting that he took as his wife the widow of the deceased king, who was his brother. He also gives instructions to take a letter to the Norwegian king, Fortinbras's uncle, in which he wrote about his nephew's aggression. The son of the nobleman Polonius, Laertes, asked the king for permission to return to France. After all, he came to the coronation and now wants to leave. The king allowed it. Hamlet was also at the meeting here. He was darker than a cloud. The same cannot be said about his mother, Queen Gertrude. She had already forgotten about her husband’s death - now she had a new husband. “Hamlet, stop mourning already,” said the king. “Very commendable, but enough is enough.” Please stay with us, there is no need to return to Germany to study. The queen also asked her son to stay. Hamlet agreed. When he was left on his own, he began to think that his mother had acted very badly when she got married so soon. Just a month after the king's death. Horatio approached Hamlet. - I saw your father here... last night. - My father? At night? Sure? - Yes I am sure. And Horatio told everything. Then Hamlet said that tonight he too would be on guard to see his father. And he asked Horatio and the guards not to tell anyone about all this. Meanwhile, Laertes, leaving, gave instructions to his sister Ophelia. He told her not to let Hamlet come near her, who was trying to get close to her in every possible way. Their father Polonius told his daughter the same thing. At midnight, Hamlet, Horatio and the guard Marcellus stood where the ghost appeared. And soon he appeared. - Father, tell me, why did you come to us? - asked the prince. The ghost beckoned Hamlet to follow him to tell him something in private. The guys tried to dissuade the prince from going after the ghost, but Hamlet went anyway. - So, son, they killed me. You must avenge me. Clear? - How did you kill? - Yes, that's it. The official version: I was bitten by a snake while sleeping in the garden. But the real snake is my brother, your uncle. While I was sleeping, he poured henbane juice into my ear. So, my son, avenge me. Just don't touch your mother. It's starting to get light. The ghost said goodbye and left. Horatio and Marcellus approached Hamlet. - Guys, I have a request. Not a word to anyone about what happened here today. - Sure, not a problem. We will be silent. Royal advisor Polonius gives his servant a letter and money for his son Laertes. - Go to Paris, find out how your son is doing there. Just so he doesn't know about you. Basically, keep an eye on him. The servant leaves and daughter Ophelia appears. She says that she just saw Hamlet. - Father, he’s somehow different. Looks like a psycho. I'm scared. - He must have gone crazy with love for you. I'll tell the king. Meanwhile, the king and queen called Hamlet's former friends Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. “Guys,” said the king, “something has been happening to Hamlet lately, he has become strange.” Please find out from him what's going on. Maybe we can help him. The guys leave, Polonius appears. He tells the king that he knows the reason for Hamlet's strange behavior. - It's out of love. He is in love with my Ophelia, but she does not accept his love. Meanwhile, ambassadors from Norway returned, saying that the king had taken control of the situation, that Fortinbras was no longer dangerous. - They are now planning to go to war against Poland. They have to fight with someone. The ambassadors left, Polonius took out Hamlet’s love letter, which Ophelia had given him, and read it to the king. “To make sure for ourselves, we will organize a meeting with them, and we ourselves will hide and eavesdrop on everything,” Polonius suggested. (Friends, now I will tell you something that they are unlikely to tell you at school). In general, then Polonius meets Hamlet, who was walking aimlessly around the castle. He asked the prince if he recognized him. “Yes, you are a fishmonger,” Hamlet answers. (What does the fishmonger have to do with this? After all, Polonius is a nobleman. But everything falls into place if we take the original play. The word "fishmonger" is written there. The trick is that in Shakespeare's time this word meant "pimp." Those. Hamlet tells Polonius to his face that he is a pimp. Now let’s think about why Ophelia suddenly began to sharply reject Hamlet’s advances, because before the wedding of the new king she did not reject him. The fact is that now Hamlet is out of work. Previously, he was the heir, i.e. future king, but now he is nobody. And Ophelia doesn’t need such a beggar. Polonius also understands this, and now in every possible way dissuades Ophelia from meeting Hamlet. And he didn't do this before. Those. Ophelia is not an innocent creature, but such an advanced lady). (Okay friends, back to the play). Rosencrantz and Guildenstern approach Hamlet. He is glad to see old friends, and at the same time surprised. - Guys, what did you forget in this hole? Why did you come here? - On a visit. - By yourself? Without coercion? On a visit? Well, well... - Yes, you're right. The king and queen sent us to you. The guys also added that on the way they saw actors who were traveling to Elsinore. Hamlet became interested. When the actors arrived, Hamlet greeted them joyfully. He agreed that tomorrow the actors would play one passage about the murder. And in it the actors will slightly change the words to those that Hamlet gives them. - No question, we’ll do it. Hamlet was left alone. He thinks that he is behaving like a woman. After all, he cannot avenge his father’s death. He decides that tomorrow the actors will act out the scene of his father’s murder in front of the king, and he himself will watch his uncle’s reaction and then he will understand everything - whether his uncle is guilty or not. Because I didn’t 100% trust the ghost’s words. After all, the ghost could be a messenger of the devil. Evidence was needed. The next day. At the castle, the king asks Rosencrantz and Guildenstern if they have learned anything about Hamlet. - No, he is silent. But the actors arrived, Hamlet was very happy with them. They'll be performing tonight. The guys left. The king tells the queen that Hamlet will soon meet Ophelia here, and then perhaps they will know better what is on the prince's mind. Only Ophelia remains. (And then Hamlet appears with his famous monologue “To be or not to be, that is the question”). He thinks what to do next. He is so unsure of himself that he constantly doubts. He thinks whether he should leave everything as it is, or muster up the courage and take revenge on the king, or maybe it would be better to die and then nothing will matter at all. And then Ophelia appears. Hamlet tells her to go to a monastery so as not to give birth to sinners. - Or marry a fool. A smart person won't fall for you. Hamlet leaves. Ophelia stands there and doesn’t understand what just happened. - He must have gone crazy. But he used to love me so much, she thought. The king and Polonius, who heard the conversation between Hamlet and Ophelia, approach. - What kind of love is there? - says the king. – Hamlet has something else in his head. And he's not crazy. Okay... Out of harm's way, I'll send him to England. Collect tribute. Polonius says that after the actors' performance, he will arrange a meeting between the prince and the queen, and then he will overhear their conversation. He is still convinced that Hamlet is like this because of unrequited love. A little later, Hamlet tells the actors how they need to play in the evening performance. Then he calls Horatio and tells him to carefully monitor the king’s reaction during the performance. - I will watch too. Then we will share our impressions. The performance begins. Everyone came: the king, the queen, Polonius, Ophelia and others. The actors play the scene with the poisoning of the king. Hamlet constantly comments on what is happening on stage. The king becomes ill. Everyone disperses, except Hamlet and Horatio. They are convinced of the king's guilt. Polonius has arrived. He said that Hamlet’s mother was calling him. Meanwhile, the king tells Rosencrantz and Guildenstern that he will send Hamlet with them to England with an important letter. The guys leave, Polonius approaches the king. “Hamlet went to the queen,” he says. “I’ll go and stand behind the carpet to eavesdrop on their conversation.” The king was left alone. He began to think about his sin - fratricide. He knelt down and began to pray. At this time, Hamlet passed by him, going to his mother. I thought that I could kill the king now. “No, it’s somehow not good during prayer. Another time I’ll kill him,” the prince decided. In her bedroom, the queen communicates with Polonius. He then hides behind the carpet. Hamlet enters: - Mom, what happened? - Why are you insulting your father? - Why did you insult your father? - Yes, you are impudent. - Which one is. The queen was frightened and thought that her son was ready to stab her to death. Polonius immediately called the guards from behind the carpet. And then Hamlet pulled out his sword and pierced the carpet, and with it the person who stood behind it. (Friends, they will tell you at school that Hamlet thought that the king was behind the carpet, that he wanted to kill the king, but it turned out that he killed Polonius. But! We remember that when Hamlet went to his mother, he saw the king praying and already then he could have killed him. But he didn’t. And it is very doubtful that while Hamlet was talking to his mother, the king quietly entered her bedroom and stood behind the carpet. And suddenly Hamlet suddenly wanted to kill him... It’s somehow illogical. In general, think for yourself what Hamlet was thinking about). Hamlet told his mother everything he thought about her action. And then the ghost appeared again. But the queen didn’t see him. While Hamlet was talking to the ghost, the mother thought that her son was completely crazy. “Son, go easy on your mother,” said the ghost. - Enough. - Well, okay... Mom, they’re sending me to England. They probably want to kill you. But it’s okay, I’m ready for this. Let's see who wins. Hamlet calms down and leaves. He takes Polonius' body with him. The Queen tells the King about her meeting with Hamlet. - Well, at least he hasn’t killed us yet. I'll send him to England. The king orders Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to deal with the corpse of Polonius. They went to Hamlet and returned. “We didn’t find the body, the prince already buried it somewhere.” The king called Hamlet. -Where is Polonius? - At dinner. Only he doesn’t eat, but he gets eaten. -Where is Polonius? – the king asked again. - In heaven. - It's clear. Go to England. Immediately, you fucking joker. Hamlet left. The King gives Rosencrantz and Guildenstern a letter and tells them to follow Hamlet everywhere. That letter contains an order to kill Hamlet. Meanwhile, a Norwegian military detachment led by Fortinbras was marching through Denmark. To Poland. They explained to Hamlet that it was all because of a small piece of land. - What, should we fight for this piece of land? “I don’t understand,” said Hamlet. And then I thought about it. After all, Fortinbras had a goal to which he was going. And he himself had no goal. And at the castle, Horatio tells the queen about Ophelia’s health. - She's very bad. He's worried about his father's death, he says some nonsense. Ophelia enters. The king and queen cannot understand anything of what she is talking about. Ophelia leaves. The king tells the queen that Polonius' son Laertes has returned from Paris. The guy believes the rumors that the king is to blame for his father's death. Ordinary people support him and want to see him as their king. And then the armed Laertes enters, followed by the people. -Who killed my father? - he asks immediately. “It’s not me,” the king answers. The insane Ophelia enters. Laertes looks at his sister with pain in his heart. Meanwhile, a letter from Hamlet is brought for Horatio. The prince wrote that while they were sailing at sea, they were attacked by pirates. During the battle, he was the only prisoner of the pirates. He was treated properly. Hamlet asked Horatio to hurry to him and deliver the enclosed letters to the king. The king privately told Laertes about his father's death. - You see, Hamlet wanted to kill me, but he killed your father. I would execute him, but the people love the prince. That's why I sent him to England. Two letters are brought to the king: one to him, the other to the queen. The king reads his letter: “It is I, Hamlet. I'm back. Wait for tomorrow." - Laertes, do you want to avenge your father’s death? - asked the king. - Want. - Well, go ahead. You know what to do. I heard you are a good fencer. Laertes promised that he would deal with Hamlet. And in addition, he will smear the sword blade with poison. A small scratch will be enough for Hamlet to die. The queen runs in and reports that Ophelia has drowned - she was walking near the river and accidentally fell. Two gravediggers communicate in a cemetery. They dig a hole for Ophelia. Hamlet and Horatio approach them. A gravedigger throws someone's skull out of the ground. Hamlet picks it up. - Damn, but once this man had a tongue, he could sing. Maybe he was an influential man. Hamlet asked who the gravedigger was digging the hole for. - For a person who used to be a woman. The gravedigger showed Hamlet the skull of the former royal buffoon Yorick. “I knew him,” said Hamlet, taking the skull in his hands. - He was a witty guy. He carried me on his back when I was a boy. A funeral procession appeared in the distance. Hamlet and Horatio stepped aside to observe unnoticed. The king, queen, Laertes and his retinue walked. A coffin containing Ophelia's body was carried before them. Judging by the way everything happened, they carried the body of a suicide. The guys didn’t yet know that Ophelia was in the coffin. The priest said that if the king had not intervened, Ophelia would have been buried in an unconsecrated place as a suicide. And then Hamlet realized who they were talking about. Laertes jumped into the grave to hug his sister for the last time. And Hamlet jumped there too. A fight broke out. They were separated. Hamlet said that he loved Ophelia like no one else. Everyone left. A little later, in the castle, Hamlet told Horatio how he secretly took a letter from Rosencrantz and Guildenstern on the ship, which they were taking to England. “I broke the seal and read that I needed to be executed because I represented a danger to Denmark and England. Like this. - And what next? – asked Horatio. - I wrote another letter. Beautiful handwriting. I had my father's royal seal with me. He wrote that the bearers of that letter should be killed on the spot. Cool idea? And the next day we were overtaken by pirates. You know what happened next. And, by the way, it was in vain that I quarreled with Laertes. But I was so enraged that he jumped into his grave. We need to make peace with him. A man came from the king. He asked to be told that the king had bet money on Hamlet’s victory in the battle with Laertes. Hamlet reluctantly agrees to the fight. Soon the king, queen, Laertes and others appear. “Please forgive me, I was wrong,” Hamlet said to Laertes. “It wasn’t me, it was my clouded mind.” - I would like to forgive you, but I can’t. “For battle,” answered Laertes. The guys were given rapiers. The king ordered a poisoned goblet of wine to be brought for Hamlet in case the prince became thirsty. The battle has begun. The queen was thirsty. She took the poisoned cup and drank. The king did not have time to stop her. In the battle, Laertes wounds Hamlet with a poisoned rapier, then they exchange weapons, and Hamlet wounds Laertes. The queen falls and before her death manages to tell her son that the wine was poisoned. Laertes confirms that all this was the king’s plan, and now both Hamlet and Laertes himself will die in half an hour, as they were wounded by poisoned rapiers. “Damn it,” said Hamlet and stabbed the king with a poisoned rapier. The king is dying. Then Laertes dies. Hamlet, dying, asks Horatio to tell everyone his story. You can hear someone shooting on the street. Hamlet is told that it is Fortinbras who is returning from Poland victorious. Then Hamlet manages to say that he wants Fortinbras to become the next king, and dies. Fortinbras and the English ambassadors enter the castle. “And we came to tell the king that his request was fulfilled - Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were executed,” said the ambassadors. Horatio says that he will tell the true story of what happened in the Danish kingdom. “Okay, tell me,” said Fortinbras. - It will be interesting to me. After all, now I am a contender for this kingdom. He orders Hamlet to be buried with honors like a warrior. This is the story, friends!
Composition
It seems clear: the scene is Elsinore, the residence of the Danish kings. The text of the play repeatedly emphasizes that everything happens in Denmark in those distant times when it conquered part of England and the English king became a tributary of the Danish crown. But the reader cannot escape the feeling that, with the exception of the mentions that this is Denmark, there is nothing specifically Danish in the tragedy. Shakespeare deliberately brought the action closer to the concepts of the audience of his theater. It is not for nothing that Goethe noted that wherever the action of Shakespeare’s plays takes place, we always see “England washed by the seas” and Shakespeare’s Romans are not so much Romans as English.
The impression is unmistakable, and Goethe explained it: Shakespeare's heroes are, first of all, people. The artist so subtly and accurately captured the universal humanity in the heroes whom he extracted from Roman history, the Scandinavian saga and Italian short stories that, with rare exceptions, the scene of action is perceived in a generalized way. It was an even more distinct Shakespearean theater, where performances were performed without scenery and the actors played in modern costumes.
When do the tragedy events take place? In the pre-Christian times of the legendary Amleth or in the era of Shakespeare? Knowing how things stand in Shakespeare's plays with the location of action, we are already on the way to answering the question about the time of action. It is now and always. Therefore, it makes no difference what kind of scenery will be used for Hamlet in the theater. He was played as a tragedy taking place in the Middle Ages, during the Renaissance, in wigs and hoops of the 18th century, in tailcoats and uniforms, in costumes of our time. The essence of the tragedy remained unchanged.
The duration of action in Shakespeare's plays varied from several years, as, for example, in The Winter's Tale, where sixteen years pass between the initial three acts and the final fourth and fifth acts, to one day, as in The Tempest.
How long do the events in Hamlet take? Analysis of the characters' actions and remarks showed the following.
* The first scene of the first act begins around midnight, when the Phantom appears, and ends at dawn.
* The second scene - in the palace - takes place in the morning or in the middle of the day.
* The third - seeing off Laertes - in the second half of the same day. This way they cover one day.
* Scenes four and five of Act I take place at midnight, when Hamlet meets the Ghost. With the first glimmer of dawn, when the rooster crows, this episode ends.
* These two days fall in the month of March.
Then there is a break lasting two months, and new scenes of the play take place in May. Reyaldo's sending to France, Ophelia's story about Hamlet's madness, the return of the ambassadors from Norway, Polonius' message to the king about the reason for the prince's madness, the arrival of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in Denmark, their meeting with Hamlet, the arrival of traveling actors in Elsinore - all this happens in one day.
The next day comes immediately, without interruption. They are also filled with events: Hamlet’s meeting with Ophelia, Hamlet’s lecture to the actors before the performance, the performance of “The Murder of Gonzago”, the king’s prayer and Hamlet’s refusal to kill him at that moment, the prince’s conversation with his mother, the murder of Polonius, the search for his body, Hamlet’s arrest and the king’s decision sending him to England takes up four scenes of the third act and the first three scenes of the fourth act.
Hamlet's departure for England apparently takes place on the next day, the fifth in a row. The duration of the new break in action is difficult to determine. During this period, news of Polonius's death reaches France, Laertes returns to Dacia, and Hamlet, sailing to England, encounters pirates who help him return to Elsinore. The final events take two days.
During the sixth day, the following happens: Ophelia's madness, Laertes' storming of the palace, the sailors' message about Hamlet's return to Denmark, Claudius's conspiracy with Laertes against the prince, Ophelia's death. The seventh day - events in the cemetery: Hamlet's conversation with the First Gravedigger, Ophelia's funeral, the prince's clash with Laertes.
The ghost appears in March, two months after the death of the king, the question arises: who poisoned him, Claudius? Based on the circumstances known to us, it turns out that the crime was committed in January. But from the Ghost we hear that it happened while he was “sleeping in the garden.” At this time of year they don’t sleep in the garden. We could have kept silent about this, but we stopped at this with intention. It has long been noted that in a number of Shakespeare's plays there is a double counting of time. On the one hand, it is obvious that the events depicted take quite a long time - months, years; on the other hand, the action of the Plays occurs so quickly that we do not have time to keep track of time and it seems to us that it goes on continuously or almost without pauses. Shakespeare does not have precision and complete consistency of time. What explains this kind of negligence will be discussed further.
Other works on this work
The Eternity of the Problems of the Hamlet Tragedy The history of the creation of William Shakespeare's tragedy "Hamlet" Shakespeare's tragedy "Hamlet" "To be or not to be?" - the main question of the play “Hamlet” by W. Shakespeare Hamlet - the ideal hero of his time Problems of good and evil in Shakespeare's tragedy "Hamlet" Did Hamlet love Ophelia? Monologue “To be or not to be?” - the highest point of Hamlet's thoughts and doubts The problem of choice in William Shakespeare's tragedy "Hamlet" Characteristics of the image of Gertrude in Shakespeare's tragedy "Hamlet" Characteristics of the image of Polonius in Shakespeare’s tragedy “Hamlet” Hamlet's personality Characteristics of the image of Laertes in Shakespeare's tragedy "Hamlet" Tragedy "Hamlet" (1600-1601) Good and evil in Shakespeare's tragedy "Hamlet" Eternal tragedies of humanity (Based on W. Shakespeare's tragedy "Hamlet") "Hamlet": problems of hero and genre Hamlet as a bearer of humanistic ideas of the Renaissance Is Hamlet tragic? What is the tragedy of Ophelia "Hamlet" is one of the greatest works of world drama. Tragedy “Hamlet” The conflict of the tragedy "Hamlet" How close is Hamlet to us today? The main images of William Shakespeare's tragedy "Hamlet" My thoughts on the images of Pechorin and Hamlet The problem of choice in the tragedy "Hamlet" Characteristics of the image of Claudius in Shakespeare’s tragedy “Hamlet” \"He was a man - a man in everything; I will never meet anyone like him again\" (based on Shakespeare's tragedy \"Hamlet\") Hamlet is a personality facing the future Eternal tragedies of humanity The legend of Hamlet from the Danish chronicle and its reinterpretation by Shakespeare Danish Roman image of Horatio shadow of Hamlet "Hamlet Prince of Denmark" is a work of art and human genius Shakespeare's work is distinguished by its scale - its extraordinary breadth of interests and scope of thought. Poetic tragedy "Hamlet" Through the looking glass of Prince Hamlet, the other world in tragedy The tragedy "Hamlet" its philosophical and moral motives Hamlet is our contemporary This world of "Hamlet" meaning of minor characters Mastery of dramatic composition of the tragedy "Hamlet" Hamlet's image. Preliminary remarks A challenge posed to the whole world (based on William Shakespeare's tragedy "Hamlet") "Hamlet" tragedy of the main character Hamlet and his high concept of honor Stage Hamlet and internal Hamlet What is the secret of Hamlet for us? Invisible faces of tragedy. Hamlet's fatherIn 1601 it was surrounded by an aura of extraordinary significance. She is seen as one of the most profound embodiments of life in all its complexity and at the same time mystery. The Scandinavian saga about the Danish prince Amleth, who lived in the eighth century, was first written down by the Danish chronicler Saxo Grammar in the 12th century, but Shakespeare is unlikely to have chosen the original source for his play. Most likely, he borrowed the plot from the play of Thomas Kyd (1558-1594), famous as a master of revenge tragedies and who is the author of the pre-Shakespearean Hamlet.
Shakespeare most profoundly reflected the tragedy of humanism in his contemporary world. Hamlet, Prince of Denmark is a wonderful image of a humanist faced with a world hostile to humanism. If in Shakespeare’s time there had been a detective genre, then, undoubtedly, “Hamlet” could safely be called not only a tragedy, but also a detective story.
So, before us is the castle - Elsinore. Hamlet, a student at the University of Wittenberg, the son of a wise king and a tender mother, in love with a beautiful girl named Ophelia. And he is all full of love for life, faith in man and the beauty of the universe. However, Hamlet's dreams about life and life itself are far from the same thing, and Hamlet soon becomes convinced of this. The mysterious death of his father the king, the hasty, unworthy second marriage of his mother Queen Gertrude to the brother of her deceased husband, the insignificant and cunning Claudius, forces Hamlet to look at life from a slightly different angle. Moreover, everyone in the castle is already talking about the fact that twice at midnight the guards saw the ghost of the recently deceased king at the wall. Horatio, Hamlet's friend from university, does not believe these rumors, but at that moment the ghost appears again. Horatio sees this as a sign of great upheaval and considers it necessary to inform his friend the prince about everything.
Hamlet decides to spend the night at the castle wall, where the ghost appears, to make sure that this is true. At exactly midnight, the ghost of the father-king appears to Hamlet and informs him that his death was not accidental. He was poisoned by his brother Claudius, who insidiously poured poison into the ear of the sleeping king. The ghost cries for revenge, and Hamlet vows to brutally punish Claudius. In order to collect the evidence necessary to accuse him of murder, Hamlet decides to pretend to be mad and asks his friends Marcellus and Horatio to remain silent about this.
However, Claudius is far from stupid. He does not believe in the madness of his nephew and instinctively feels his worst enemy in him and strives with all his might to penetrate his secret plan. On the side of Claudius is the father of Hamlet's beloved, Polonius. It is he who recommends that Claudius arrange a secret meeting for Hamlet and Ophelia in order to eavesdrop on their conversation. But Hamlet easily unravels this plan and does not betray himself in any way. At the same time, a troupe of traveling actors arrives in Elsinore, whose appearance inspires Hamlet to use them in his fight against Claudius.
The Prince of Denmark, again, to use the language of a detective, decides on a very original “investigative experiment.” He asks the actors to perform a play called “The Death of Gonzago”, in which the king is killed by his own brother in order to take the throne by marrying the widow. Hamlet decides to observe Claudius' reaction during the play. Claudius, as Hamlet expected, gave himself away completely. Now the new king has no doubt that Hamlet is his worst enemy, who must be gotten rid of as soon as possible. He consults with Polonius and decides to send Hamlet to England. Allegedly, the sea voyage should benefit his clouded mind. He cannot decide to kill the prince, since he is very popular among the Danish people. Seized with anger, Hamlet decides to kill Claudius, but finds him on his knees and repenting of his sins.
And Hamlet does not dare to kill, fearing that if he puts an end to his father’s murderer when he says a prayer, he will thereby open the way to heaven for Claudius. The poisoner does not deserve Heaven. Before leaving, Hamlet must meet his mother in her bedroom. Polonius also insisted on organizing this meeting. He hides behind the curtain in the queen's bedroom to eavesdrop on his son's conversation with his mother and report the results to Claudius. Hamlet kills Polonius. The death of his father drives his daughter Ophelia, with whom Hamlet is in love, crazy. Meanwhile, discontent is growing in the country. People begin to suspect that something very bad is happening behind the walls of the royal castle. Ophelia's brother Laertes returns from France, convinced that it is Claudius who is responsible for the death of their father, and therefore, for Ophelia's madness. But Claudius manages to convince him of his innocence in the murder and redirect Laertes’ righteous anger towards Hamlet. A duel almost took place between Laertes and Hamlet in the cemetery, near a freshly dug grave. Mad Ophelia committed suicide.
It is for her that the grave diggers are preparing the final resting place. But Claudius is not satisfied with such a duel, because it is unknown which of these two will win the fight. And the king must destroy Hamlet for sure. He persuades Laertes to postpone the fight and then use a sword with a poisoned blade. Claudius himself prepares a drink with poison, which is to be presented to the prince during the duel. Laertes slightly wounded Hamlet, but in the battle they exchange blades, and Hamlet pierces the son of Polonius with his own poisoned blade. Thus, they are both doomed to death. Having learned about Claudius’s final betrayal, Hamlet, with the last of his strength, pierces him with his sword.
Hamlet's mother, Gertrude, also dies after mistakenly drinking poison prepared for her son. At this moment, a joyful crowd appears near the castle gates, the Norwegian prince Fortinbras, now the only heir to the Danish throne, and the English ambassadors. Hamlet died, but his death was not in vain. She exposed the unscrupulous crimes of Claudius, the death of his father was avenged. And Horatio will tell the whole world the sad story of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark.
William Shakespeare's tragedy Hamlet was written in 1600-1601 and is one of the most famous works of world literature. The plot of the tragedy is based on the legend of the ruler of Denmark, dedicated to the story of the protagonist's revenge for the death of his father. In Hamlet, Shakespeare raises a number of important themes regarding issues of morality, honor and duty of heroes. The author pays special attention to the philosophical theme of life and death.
Main characters
Hamlet – Prince of Denmark, the son of the former and nephew of the current king, was killed by Laertes.
Claudius- Danish king, killed Hamlet's father and married Gertrude, was killed by Hamlet.
Polonium- the chief royal adviser, the father of Laertes and Ophelia, was killed by Hamlet.
Laertes- the son of Polonius, Ophelia's brother, a skilled swordsman, was killed by Hamlet.
Horatio- Hamlet's close friend.
Other characters
Ophelia- Polonius’s daughter, Laertes’ sister, went crazy after her father’s death and drowned in the river.
Gertrude– the Danish queen, Hamlet’s mother, Claudius’s wife, died after drinking wine poisoned by the king.
Hamlet's Father's Ghost
Rosencrantz, Guildenstern – Hamlet's former university friends.
Fortinbras- Norwegian prince.
Marcellus, Bernardo - officers.
Act 1
Scene 1
Elsinore. The area in front of the castle. Midnight. Officer Bernardo relieves Soldier Fernardo on duty. Officer Marcellus and Hamlet's friend Horatio appear in the square. Marcellus asks Bernardo if he has seen the ghost, which the castle guards have already noticed twice. Horatio finds this just a trick of the imagination.
Suddenly, a ghost resembling the late king appears. Horatio asks the spirit who he is, but he, offended by the question, disappears. Horatio believes that the appearance of a ghost is “a sign of turmoil threatening the state.”
Marcellus asks Horatio why the kingdom has been actively preparing for war lately. Horatio says that Hamlet killed “the ruler of the Norwegians, Fortinbras” in battle and, according to the agreement, received the lands of the vanquished. However, the “younger Fortinbras” decided to recapture the lost lands, and this is precisely the “pretext for confusion and turmoil in the region.”
Suddenly the ghost appears again, but disappears with the crow of a rooster. Horatio decides to tell Hamlet about what he saw.
Scene 2
Reception hall in the castle. The king announces his decision to marry his late brother's sister, Gertrude. Outraged by the attempts of Prince Fortinbras to regain power in the lost lands, Claudius sends courtiers with a letter to his uncle, the king of the Norwegians, so that he will nip his nephew's plans in the bud.
Laertes asks the king for permission to leave for France, Claudius allows it. The Queen advises Hamlet to stop grieving for his father: “This is how the world was created: what is alive will die / And after life it will go into eternity.” Claudius reports that he and the queen are against Hamlet returning to study in Wittenberg.
Left alone, Hamlet is outraged that his mother, a month after her husband’s death, stopped grieving and married Claudius: “O women, your name is treachery!” .
Horatio tells Hamlet that for two nights in a row he, Marcellus and Bernardo saw the ghost of his father in armor. The prince asks to keep this news secret.
Scene 3
A room in Polonius's house. Saying goodbye to Ophelia, Laertes asks his sister to avoid Hamlet and not take his advances seriously. Polonius blesses his son on the road, instructing him how to behave in France. Ophelia tells her father about Hamlet's courtship. Polonius forbids his daughter to see the prince.
Scene 4
Midnight, Hamlet and Horatio and Marcellus are on the platform in front of the castle. A ghost appears. Hamlet turns to him, but the spirit, without answering anything, beckons the prince to follow him.
Scene 5
The ghost tells Hamlet that he is the spirit of his dead father, reveals the secret of his death and asks his son to take revenge for his murder. Contrary to popular belief, the former king did not die from a snake bite. His brother Claudius killed him by pouring henbane infusion into the king’s ear while he was sleeping in the garden. In addition, even before the death of the former king, Claudius “drew the queen into shameful cohabitation.”
Hamlet warns Horatio and Marcellus that he will deliberately behave like a madman and asks them to swear that they will not tell anyone about their conversation and that they saw the ghost of Hamlet's father.
Act 2
Scene 1
Polonius sends his confidant Reynaldo to Paris to deliver a letter to Laertes. He asks to find out as much as possible about his son - about how he behaves and who is in his social circle.
Frightened Ophelia tells Polonius about Hamlet's crazy behavior. The adviser decides that the prince has gone crazy with love for his daughter.
Scene 2
The king and queen invite Rosencrantz and Guildenstern (Hamlet's former university friends) to find out the reason for the prince's madness. Ambassador Voltimand reports the Norwegian's answer - having learned about the actions of Fortinbras's nephew, the King of Norway forbade him to fight with Denmark and sent the heir on a campaign to Poland. Polonius shares with the king and queen the assumption that the reason for Hamlet's madness is his love for Ophelia.
Talking with Hamlet, Polonius is amazed at the accuracy of the prince’s statements: “If this is madness, then it is consistent in its own way.”
In a conversation between Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Hamlet calls Denmark a prison. The prince understands that they did not come of their own free will, but by order of the king and queen.
Actors invited by Rosencrantz and Guildenstern come to Elsinore. Hamlet greets them kindly. The prince asks to read Aeneas' monologue to Dido, which talks about the murder of Priam by Pyrrhus, and also to play The Murder of Gonzago at tomorrow's performance, adding a short passage written by Hamlet.
Left alone, Hamlet admires the actor's skill, accusing himself of impotence. Fearing that the Devil appeared to him in the form of a ghost, the prince decides to first follow his uncle and check his guilt.
Act 3
Scene 1
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern report to the king and queen that they were unable to find out from Hamlet the reason for his strange behavior. Having set up a meeting between Ophelia and Hamlet, the king and Polonius hide, watching them.
Hamlet enters the room, pondering what stops a person from committing suicide:
“To be or not to be, that is the question.
Is it worthy
Resign yourself to the blows of fate,
Or must we resist
And in mortal combat with a whole sea of troubles
End them? Die. Forget yourself."
Ophelia wants to return Hamlet's gifts. The prince, realizing that they are being overheard, continues to behave like a madman, telling the girl that he never loved her and no matter how much virtue is instilled in her, “the sinful spirit cannot be smoked out of her.” Hamlet advises Ophelia to go to a monastery so as not to produce sinners.
Having heard Hamlet’s speeches, the king understands that the reason for the prince’s madness is different: “he’s not exactly cherishing / In the dark corners of his soul, / Hatching something more dangerous.” Claudius decides to protect himself by sending his nephew to England.
Scene 2
Preparations for the play. Hamlet asks Horatio to look carefully at the king when the actors play a scene similar to the episode of his father's death.
Before the play begins, Hamlet places his head in Ophelia's lap. Starting with pantomime, the actors depict the scene of the poisoning of the former king. During the performance, Hamlet tells Claudius that the play is called "The Mousetrap" and comments on what is happening on stage. At the moment when the actor on stage was about to poison the sleeping man, Claudius rose sharply and left the hall with his retinue, thereby revealing his guilt in the death of Hamlet’s father.
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern tell Hamlet that the king and queen are very upset about what happened. The prince, holding a flute in his hand, replied: “Look, what kind of dirt you mixed me with. You are going to play on me." “Call me any instrument, you can upset me, but you can’t play me.”
Scene 3
The king is trying to atone for the sin of fratricide with prayer. Seeing Claudius praying, the prince hesitates, because he can take revenge for his father’s murder right now. However, Hamlet decides to delay the punishment so that the king's soul does not go to heaven.
Scene 4
Queen's room. Gertrude called Hamlet to talk to her. Polonius, eavesdropping, hides behind the carpet in her bedroom. Hamlet is rude to his mother, accusing the queen of insulting the memory of his father. Frightened Gertrude decides that her son wants to kill her. Polonius calls the guards from behind the carpet. The prince, thinking it is the king, stabs the carpet and kills the royal advisor.
Hamlet blames his mother for the fall. Suddenly a ghost appears, which only the prince sees and hears. Gertrude becomes convinced of her son's madness. Dragging Polonius' body, Hamlet leaves.
Act 4
Scene 1
Gertrude tells Claudius that Hamlet killed Polonius. The king orders to find the prince and take the body of the murdered adviser to the chapel.
Scene 2
Hamlet tells Rosencrantz and Guildenstern that he “mixed the body of Polonius with the earth to which the corpse is akin.” The prince compares Rosencrantz “to a sponge living on the juices of royal favors.”
Scene 3
Amused, Hamlet tells the king that Polonius is at dinner - “at one where he is not dining, but he is being eaten,” but then he admits that he hid the adviser’s body near the gallery stairs. The king orders Hamlet to be immediately lured onto the ship and taken to England, accompanied by Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Claudius decides that the Briton must repay his debt by killing the prince.
Scene 4
Plain in Denmark. The Norwegian army is passing through local lands. They explain to Hamlet that the military is going to “take away a place that is not noticeable by anything.” Hamlet reflects that the “decisive prince” is “glad to sacrifice his life” for a cause that is “not worth a damn,” but he himself still has not decided to take revenge.
Scene 5
Upon learning of Polonius's death, Ophelia goes crazy. The girl grieves for her father and sings strange songs. Horatio shares his fears and concerns with the queen - “the people are grumbling”, “all the dirt has surfaced from the bottom”.
Laertes, who secretly returned from France, breaks into the castle with a crowd of rebels who proclaim him king. The young man wants to avenge the death of his father, but the king pacifies his ardor, promising to compensate for the loss and help “in an alliance to achieve the truth.” Seeing the mad Ophelia, Laertes becomes even more passionate about revenge.
Scene 6
Horatio receives Hamlet's letter from the sailors. The prince reports that he has ended up with the pirates, asks to give the king the letters he sent and to rush to his aid as quickly as possible.
Scene 7
The king finds an ally in Laertes, pointing out to him that they have a common enemy. Letters from Hamlet are delivered to Claudius - the prince writes that he was landed naked on Danish soil and asks the king to receive him tomorrow.
Laertes is waiting to meet Hamlet. Claudius offers to guide the young man’s actions so that Hamlet dies “himself of his own free will.” Laertes agrees, deciding to be sure before the battle with the prince to smear the tip of the rapier with poisonous ointment.
Suddenly the queen appears with the news that Ophelia has drowned in the river:
“She wanted to cover the willow with herbs,
I grabbed the branch, and he broke,
And, as it was, with a pile of colored trophies,
She fell into the stream."
Act 5
Scene 1
Elsinore. Cemetery. The gravediggers dig a grave for Ophelia, discussing whether it is possible to give a suicide a Christian burial. Seeing the skulls thrown away by the gravedigger, Hamlet wonders who these people were. The gravedigger shows the prince the skull of Yorick, the royal skoromokh. Taking it in his hands, Hamlet turns to Horatio: “Poor Yorick! “I knew him, Horatio.” He was a man of endless wit,” “and now this very disgust and nausea comes to the throat.”
Ophelia is buried. Wanting to say goodbye to his sister for the last time, Laertes jumps into her grave, asking to be buried with his sister. Outraged by the falseness of what is happening, the prince, who was standing aside, jumps into the grave into the ice behind Laertes and they fight. By order of the king, they are separated. Hamlet says that he wants to “settle the rivalry” with Laertes in a fight. The king asks Laertes not to take any action for now - “just chat. Everything is coming to an end."
Scene 2
Hamlet tells Horatio that he found a letter from Claudius on the ship, in which the king ordered the prince to be killed upon arrival in England. Hamlet changed its contents, ordering the immediate death of the bearers of the letter. The prince understands that he sent Rosencrantz and Guildestern to death, but his conscience does not torment him.
Hamlet admits to Horatio that he regrets the quarrel with Laertes and wants to make peace with him. The king's close associate Ozdrik reports that Claudius bet with Laertes six Arab horses that the prince would win the battle. Hamlet has a strange premonition, but he brushes it off.
Before the duel, Hamlet asks Laertes for forgiveness, saying that he did not wish him harm. Unnoticed, the king throws poison into the prince's glass of wine. In the midst of the battle, Laertes wounds Hamlet, after which they exchange rapiers and Hamlet wounds Laertes. Laertes realizes that he himself has been “caught in the net” of his cunning.
The Queen accidentally drinks from Hamlet's glass and dies. Hamlet orders to find the culprit. Laertes reports that the rapier and drink were poisoned and the king is to blame. Hamlet kills the king with a poisoned rapier. Dying, Laertes forgives Hamlet. Horatio wants to drink the remaining poison from the glass, but Hamlet takes the cup from his friend, asking him to tell the uninitiated “the truth about him.”
Shots and a march are heard in the distance - Fortinbras returns from Poland with victory. Dying, Hamlet recognizes Fortinbras' right to the Danish throne. Fortinbras orders the prince to be buried with honor. A cannon salvo is heard.
Conclusion
In Hamlet, using the example of the Danish prince as an example, Shakespeare portrays a personality of modern times, whose strength and weakness lie in his morality and sharp mind. Being a philosopher and humanist by nature, Hamlet finds himself in circumstances that force him to take revenge and bloodshed. This is the tragedy of the hero’s situation - having seen the dark side of life, fratricide, betrayal, he became disillusioned with life and lost his understanding of its value. Shakespeare does not give a definite answer to the eternal question “To be or not to be?” in his work, leaving it up to the reader.
Tragedy Quiz
After reading a short version of Shakespeare's famous work, test yourself with this test:
Retelling rating
Average rating: 4.6. Total ratings received: 2832.
In September 1607, two British trading ships, the Hector and the Dragon, belonging to the East India Company, sailed off the coast of Africa. Many days had passed since the ships left England, and the cherished destination of the journey, India, was still far away. The sailors were languishing, bored, and gradually began to become embittered. Fights, or even a riot, could break out at any moment, the experienced captain of the Dragon, William Keeling, understood. There was an urgent need to keep the sailors busy with something that would completely absorb their leisure time (due to constant calms there was plenty of it) and would provide a safe outlet for their energy. Should we arrange a theatrical performance? Some will be busy preparing for the performance, others waiting for the pleasure that many of them knew in London. But what to put? Something popular, generally understandable, full of entertaining events, mysterious crimes, eavesdropping, spying, poisoning, passionate monologues, fights, so that there would certainly be love in the play, and jokes made from the stage could put the sailors on the spot. The captain made a decision. We need to stage Hamlet.
Shakespeare's tragedy was performed twice aboard the Dragon. The second time - a few months later, in May 1608, probably at the request of the team. “I allow this,” Captain Keeling wrote in his journal, “so that my people do not idle, do not gamble, and do not sleep.”
The choice of play for the amateur sailor performance of 1607 can lead us to confusion. To Londoners of the early 17th century it would have seemed quite natural. “Hamlet” was the favorite play of the capital’s common people and did not leave the Globe stage for a long time. Shakespeare's tragedy was also highly regarded by modern writers. “The young are carried away by Shakespeare's Venus and Adonis, while the more intelligent prefer his Lucretia and Hamlet, Prince of Denmark,” wrote Gabriel Harvey. He undoubtedly considered himself one of the “more intelligent ones.” Anthony Skokolker, a university scholar and admirer of academic poetry, who preferred Philip Sidney's Arcadia to everything else, nevertheless noted: “When you turn to the lower element, like the tragedies of friendly Shakespeare, they are really liked by everyone, like Prince Hamlet.” "
So, illiterate plebeians and learned writers were unanimous: everyone likes Hamlet.
Let us ask ourselves: were they able to understand the most complex, deepest, most mysterious of Shakespeare’s works, the tragedy-mystery, the explanation of which the best minds of mankind have been struggling for two hundred years? What did contemporaries see in Hamlet - the same as we see? What was Hamlet for the Elizabethan audience?
To begin with, the “Elizabethan public” is largely an abstraction invented by historians for the convenience of constructing concepts. The Globus audience was extremely diverse in social structure. Connoisseurs, learned students of legal estates, known for their ardent love of theater, could sit in the gallery boxes; they themselves organized theatrical performances in their “inns.” Right on the stage next to the actors there were well-dressed secular young people, which did not at all prevent many of them from being true connoisseurs of stage art. Prince Hamlet urged the actors to listen to the opinion of these selected experts, and only to their opinion. The court of an expert “should for you outweigh the whole theater of others... The plebeian stalls, for the most part, are incapable of anything except unintelligible pantomimes and noise.”
One could argue a lot with the Prince of Denmark: it is unlikely that, say, theater fans from the ship "Dragon" were anywhere other than standing room, which did not prevent them from enjoying the tragedy "Hamlet" twice. (It is doubtful that Shakespeare’s tragedy would have pleased the Prince of Denmark himself, an expert and lover of scholarly drama.)
If the “capital actors” had listened to the prince’s advice, they would have immediately gone bankrupt.
It became a custom among the playwrights of the English Renaissance to scold the ignorant plebeians who crowded standing places, as well as the actors who pandered to their tastes. But even in Spain, where the attitude towards the common people was not at all as demonstrative as in the rest of Europe, Lope de Vega admitted that he would be glad to write for experts, but, alas, “whoever writes in compliance with the laws is doomed to hunger and to disgrace." Both arguments are more than weighty in the eyes of the Renaissance reader - both the mercantile one (“the people pay us, is it worth trying to remain a slave to strict laws”), and the appeal to glory, which for the Renaissance man constituted one of the main and openly declared goals of life: the figure of a misunderstood genius would have looked pathetic in the eyes of the artists of the era. However, the desire for fame that Lope writes about was hardly a significant motive for the British in writing for the people for the simple reason that in Britain the public was not too interested in the names of the authors of theatrical plays - unlike Spain, where Lope enjoyed truly national fame. Among the British, a practical nation, concern for material well-being played a more significant role. Playwriting was the only source of income for many impoverished "university minds" before, during and after Shakespeare. Playwrights unanimously scolded the public audience and public theaters and nevertheless wrote plays for them. They were, therefore, folk artists unwillingly - one example of the humor of real history.
However, English authors, in addition to caring for their own stomach, were guided by motives of a more sublime nature. The idea of national unity, so strong during the war with Spain and which became one of the most important engines for the development of English humanistic thought, was not yet exhausted at the turn of the 16th-17th centuries.
The crowd that filled the standing places of the Globe did not consist of only hopeless idiots, drunkards, bandits and debauchees, as one might assume after listening to Prince Hamlet or reading any of the Philippics addressed to the theater audience, which were published in abundance by the authors of that time.
Alfred Harbage, one of the keenest minds in modern Shakespearean studies, began by contrasting the above-mentioned judgments about the theatrical public with what modern writers wrote about theatrical plays, including the dramatic writings of the authors of the treatises themselves who reviled the public. It turned out that the tragedies and comedies that were well known to us and became recognized classics of English drama were written in exactly the same terms as the audience at public theaters.
Harbage, having in his hands the archives of the theater owner Philip Henslow, who actively noted in his diary the amount of fees for performances, made conclusions about the number, social composition of the audience, the proportion in which standing places and seats in the galleries were distributed in the theater, etc. He calculated that there were between two and three thousand spectators at the premiere of Hamlet. He proved that the mass public was not at all as aesthetically indiscriminate as previously believed. Decades of the brilliant flowering of English drama must have affected the development of tastes. It turned out that the largest number of performances were often those plays in which later generations saw examples of dramatic art. The collections showed that Shakespeare's plays were extremely popular with the public, even if London audiences were not very interested in the name of their author. Hamlet was one of the plays that took the longest to sell to capacity.
One way or another, the playwrights of the English Renaissance, including Shakespeare, wrote their plays, including Hamlet, for the London common people and adapted, with or without joy, to their tastes.
The creator of Hamlet did not at all intend his plays for future generations and did not expect that they would reveal the true meaning of his great tragedy, inaccessible to his ignorant contemporaries. Shakespeare - there is no doubt about it - did not think at all about the judgment of posterity. But what does the following mean in this case:
When will I be put under arrest?
Without ransom, collateral or deferment,
Not a block of stone, not a grave cross -
These lines will be a monument to me.(Translated by S. Marshak)
Aren’t “these lines” dictated by the hope of being preserved in posterity, of being understood by them? The point, however, is that the above lines are taken from a sonnet. Shakespeare, perhaps, hoped to remain for centuries as the author of “The Phoenix and the Dove”, as the creator of sonnets and poems. But not as the author of Hamlet.
There is irrefutable proof of the above. If a playwright wants his plays to be known to future generations, he publishes them. Shakespeare, like other playwrights of his time, did everything possible to prevent the publication of his dramatic works. The basis for such hostility towards the printing press is simple: the play, once published, no longer brought income to the troupe. Dramatic works were published for various, often random reasons. The play stopped making money, and it was given to the publisher if he agreed to print the old piece. During major plague epidemics, theaters were closed for long periods of time, and actors agreed to sell plays for publication.
New and successful plays were published against the wishes of the author and the troupe for which they were intended and which now owned the ownership of them. Competitors resorted to various tricks to obtain the text of such a play and publish its illegal, as they called it “pirate” edition. This happened with Hamlet.
The tragedy, staged in 1600 or 1601, gained, as we know, universal recognition, and the Lord Chamberlain's troupe decided to insure the play against “pirates.” In 1602 the publisher James Roberts registered in the Booksellers' Register "a book called the Revenge of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, as lately played by the Lord Chamberlain's Men." By law, no one other than the person who entered the play into the Register had the right to publish it. The publisher probably acted on behalf of the troupe and registered the play not in order to publish it himself, but so that others would not publish it. But the law, as has happened more than once, was circumvented. In 1603, a “pirated” text of the play was published under the title “The Tragic History of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, by William Shakespeare, as it was played many times by His Majesty’s actors in the city of London, and also in the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford and other places.” Not only was the play published against the will of the troupe and the author, but the original text was distorted to such an extent that 19th-century scholars believed that they were dealing with the first version of Shakespeare's tragedy. Instead of 3788 lines, the text contained 2154. Hamlet's monologues suffered the most. The first monologue “Oh, if only this dense clot of meat...” was cut almost twice, Hamlet’s speech about the drunkenness of the Danes - six times, the praise that the prince gives to Horatio - twice, Hamlet’s monologue “Like everything around exposes me...” is not in the first edition at all.
The King's troupe and the author of the tragedy were now forced to publish the original text: since the play was stolen anyway, at least let readers get acquainted with the author's original. In 1604, “The Tragic History of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, William Shakespeare” was published. Reprinted and enlarged twice as large as before, according to the original and correct text.” This publication, together with the text printed in the posthumous collection of Shakespeare's plays, forms the basis of all modern editions.
Three centuries later, scientists caught the hand of the malicious thief of the play (to whose fraud, by the way, in 1603, humanity owes the appearance of the original text of “Hamlet” in 1604). Usually the thief who undertook to illegally transfer the text of the play to the publisher was some actor hired for minor roles (the main actors of the King’s troupe were shareholders, received income from fees and would never commit treason). Since the troupe prudently gave out only the texts of their roles and no one except the prompter, the “keeper of the book,” had the entire manuscript, the unfortunate swindler was forced to reproduce the entire play from memory - hence the distortions. Naturally, the “pirate” conveyed the text of his role and the scenes in which he was busy most accurately. This is what he was caught in hindsight, by comparing two editions of Hamlet. It turned out that the text of only three roles - the guard Marcellus, the courtier Voltimand and the actor playing the villain Lucian in the performance of "The Murder of Gonzago" - coincides word for word. It is clear that the “pirate” played all these small roles. Perhaps the actors of the King's troupe thought in the same way as Shakespeare scholars of the 20th century and caught the thief: after 1604, “pirate” editions of Shakespeare did not appear.
Shakespeare and the actors of his troupe prevented the publication of plays not only because they wanted to protect the ownership of dramatic texts from the machinations of competitors. There was another, more significant reason.
Drama in Shakespeare's era was just beginning to become a literary genre in its own right. The process of her relative emancipation from the stage was just beginning. The works of dramatic authors have traditionally been perceived as belonging to the theater, and to it alone. Poems, short stories, novels - all this was considered real literature and could be a source of pride for the author. But not a theatrical work. It was not customary to separate plays from stage performances. They were written not for the reader, but for the viewer. Plays were composed at the request of troupes, often their authors were the actors themselves - one of these actor-playwrights was William Shakespeare. The playwrights counted on a specific scene structure, on certain actors. When creating the play, Shakespeare saw a performance in his imagination. Like many of his contemporaries, he was a playwright with a "director's mind." Here, in the author’s “directing,” one should look for the true origins of the art of directing, the brainchild of the 20th century.
Shakespeare's play is a theatrical text. The first performances of “Lear” or “Hamlet” are embedded in the texts themselves, in the stage directions, both written down by the author and hidden, arising from the meaning of the action, in the ways suggested by the text of organizing the stage space, mise-en-scène, sound, color range, rhythmic structure, editing articulation different genre layers, etc. To extract from a literary text its theatrical reality, the form of its original stage realization, is a task to which English researchers have devoted themselves with enthusiasm in recent years.
Here the first quarto of Hamlet suddenly acquires special value in our eyes. Reproducing the text of the tragedy, the “pirate” saw in his memory, in the “eyes of his soul” the performance of the Globe, and purely theatrical details penetrated his barbaric version of the play in an insensitive way. One of them is the robe in which the Ghost appears on the stage in the scene of Hamlet and Gertrude. To us, accustomed to the mysterious glow of the disembodied Spirit, as he has appeared hundreds of times in productions, to the mystical whisper, fluttering, as if weightless, clothes, etc., this ordinary, “homely” detail seems unexpected and strange. How important it is, however, for understanding the nature of Shakespeare's theatrical poetry.
Like other plays by Shakespeare, the tragedy of the Prince of Denmark is connected with a thousand threads with the theater of its era, with the actors of the King’s troupe, and finally, with a noisy, motley, riotous public, who craved rapid action from a theatrical performance, colorful processions, spectacular murders, fencing, songs, music - and Shakespeare gives them all this, all this is in Hamlet.
For them, who deafeningly cracked nuts, sipped ale, smacked the behinds of beauties who wandered into the Globe from neighboring cheerful houses, for them, who stood on their feet for three hours in the open air, who knew how to get carried away by a scene to the point of self-oblivion, who were capable of the work of imagination that turned empty stages into “France Fields” or the bastions of Elsinore - Shakespeare’s plays were written for them, Hamlet was written.
For them, and for no one else, a tragedy was written, the true content of which began to gradually be revealed only to their distant descendants.
The story of Prince Hamlet's revenge has been popular for a long time. In 1589, a revenge tragedy took place on the London stage, probably written by Thomas Kyd, the creator of the English bloody drama genre. Without a doubt, it was not a philosophical tragedy, but a spectacular play with a detective and exciting plot, which the general public loved, and still loves. Probably, the Globe audience, at least part of them, perceived Shakespeare's drama as a traditional revenge tragedy in the spirit of the Kid, only without the latter's old-fashioned absurdities like the Ghost's shrill cries of "Hamlet, take revenge!", which vividly reminded contemporaries of the cries of the oyster woman. When the English translation of François Belfort's Tragical Tales was published in 1608, including a short story about Hamlet, which served as the source of the pre-Shakespearean tragedy, the compiler of the English edition supplemented the French writer's work with details borrowed from Shakespeare's Hamlet (“Rat, rat!” exclaims the prince , before killing the character whom Shakespeare named Polonius). Moreover, the very publication of Belfort's book could have been caused by the popularity of Shakespeare's tragedy. However, by adding Shakespearean details to the story, the English translator did not in the least change the general meaning of the story about Hamlet - a cunning and decisive avenger. This may serve as indirect evidence of the level of perception of Shakespeare's play by contemporaries.
It must be admitted that Shakespeare's play itself provides some basis for such a simple-minded approach. Essentially, the plot layer of Shakespeare's Hamlet entirely preserves the entire chain of events inherited from the Saxo-Belfore-Kyd versions. Even now, it is not difficult to find viewers who, having understood little of the philosophy of Hamlet, will, at worst, accept the detective plot side of the tragedy. That is why the old theatrical superstition is true: “Hamlet” cannot fail - the story itself about crimes and revenge will always succeed.
However, were there people at the performance of Hamlet at the Globe Theater who were able to see in the play something more than the plot inherited from its predecessors, to perceive the philosophical side of the drama? Could they have formed any significant group, the response of which did not allow the author to feel himself in the position of a person vainly scattering cherished thoughts about life and death in front of an insensitive audience. To try to answer this question, as far as possible, let us again turn to the “pirate” quarto of Hamlet, which can be considered as a kind of unintentional interpretation of the tragedy. We have no other way to get in touch with how Hamlet’s contemporaries understood the play.
“The Pirate” did not at all seek to reinterpret Shakespeare’s “Hamlet” in his own way. He honestly strained his memory, trying to convey the author's text exactly.
What and how did the unfortunate swindler remember in Shakespeare's text - that is the question.
The first quarto is closer than the authentic text to a traditional revenge tragedy in the spirit of Thomas Kyd. “The Pirate” unconsciously did everything to preserve in the play what corresponded to the developed ideas about the genre. It is possible that, recalling Shakespeare’s text, he, without suspecting it, introduced into it some details borrowed from the “proto-Hamlet”, which Burbage’s troupe played twelve years earlier. Probably, the text of the first quarto included some actor’s adjectives, which could also be close to the style of the old theater: it is not for nothing that Hamlet so ardently rebels both against the passion of “regenerating Herod” and against the incorrigible habit of actors to replace the author’s text with words of their own making.
Just as the pre-Shakespearean play about King Lear is a work much simpler and clearer in motivation than Shakespeare’s mysterious tragedy (which prompted L. Tolstoy to prefer the old Lear to Shakespeare’s), so the first quarto makes generally understandable what is shrouded in mystery in Shakespeare - here, perhaps, Kid’s play comes to the aid of the “pirate” again. We do not know for sure whether Shakespeare's Gertrude was Claudius's accomplice; we do not even know whether the queen suspected how her husband died. The first quarto leaves no doubt about the innocence of Hamlet's mother. “I swear to heaven,” she exclaims, “I knew nothing about this terrible murder!”
Most of the cuts and errors, as already mentioned, fell on Hamlet's monologues. This is understandable - the “pirate” here had to deal with complex philosophical matter. But this is where the logic of an unintentionally interpretive reading emerges most clearly. It is not difficult to imagine how much torment the “pirate” experienced while trying to remember the text of the monologue “To be or not to be.” Below are two versions of the monologue: the original and the “pirate” version.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With his acting memory, the “pirate” remembered in the monologue almost all the most spectacular passages on stage, verbal formulas, which, due to their genius, seemed capable of a separate, independent existence, and indeed later received this existence as famous quotes lying at hand, “winged” words." (“To be or not to be”, “to die and fall asleep”, “an unknown land from where there is no return for earthly wanderers”, “in your prayers, remember everything that I have sinned against.”)
The text of the first quarto also accurately reproduces the line “if only he could give himself a settlement with a simple dagger.” It can be assumed that two key points were firmly ingrained in the memory of the “pirate”: the word “calculation” is conveyed in Shakespeare by the unusual, purely legal term quietus; the very outlandishness of the word itself preserved it in the mind of the “pirate”. The compiler of the first edition could remember the expression “with a simple dagger” thanks to sound alliteration - bare bodkin.
The “pirate” changes the catalog of human misfortunes compiled by Shakespeare - perhaps under the influence of his own life experience. In this list he includes “grievances of widows,” “oppression of orphans,” and “cruel hunger.”
All this, however, is trivial. Another thing is more important: how the interpretation of some religious and philosophical issues changes in the monologue. The main difference is, notes A.A. Anixt that in the first edition Hamlet’s reflections are of a completely pious nature. But, we add, not at all because the “pirate” consciously interprets the meaning of the philosophical reflections of the Prince of Denmark. Most likely, his helpful memory always prompts him with ready-made, common formulas, which he uses without any intent, substituting them for Hamlet’s not entirely traditional ideas.
Shakespeare's Hamlet has “fear of something after death.” Hamlet from the first quarto has “hope for something after death.” In the original, the thirst for non-existence is stopped by the fear of obscurity on the other side of earthly existence. In the first quarto, the desire to commit suicide is opposed by the hope of salvation, which the suicide will be deprived of, for he is an inveterate sinner. Everything, therefore, comes down solely to the question of the impermissibility of suicide. “The Pirate” retains Shakespeare’s words about “an unknown land,” but immediately supplements them with the explanatory and stereotypical “where the righteous have joy, the wicked are destroyed,” so that nothing remains of “obscurity.”
Each time the “pirate” superimposes a scheme of traditional moral and religious concepts onto Shakespeare’s text - the very inconsistency of this superposition testifies to its complete unintentionality. Here we have a case of unconscious interpretation of Shakespeare in the spirit of ordinary consciousness of the Elizabethan era. But it would be unfair to blame the unknown actor of the Burbage troupe for “misunderstanding” Shakespeare. One should be surprised not at how much he distorted in the original, but at how much he was able to understand, remember and accurately reproduce, because we were talking about a very complex philosophical monologue, the meaning of which is still debated by scientists. A little actor, hired for a pittance to play two tiny roles and could not resist the temptation to earn a little money in a dubious, although common way, in order to get rid of that very “cruel famine” that he, perhaps not accidentally, included in Shakespeare’s list of human misfortunes, nevertheless managed to feel and convey the range of problems in which Hamlet’s thought struggles, even if these problems are solved on the pages of the first quarto in accordance with the generally accepted views of that time. Faced with tragic collisions, he tries to reconcile them with traditional values.
It can be assumed with some justification that the reading of Shakespeare’s tragedy carried out in the first quarto reflects the level of perception of a significant “middle” layer of the Globe audience, who stood much above the illiterate sailors and artisans, but did not belong to the select circle of experts. However, there is not the slightest confidence that experts were able to understand Hamlet much more deeply than our “pirate”. The difference in levels between the original text and its “pirated” version is so obvious to us because it, in a sense, fixed the historical distance between Shakespeare’s era and our own time - the path that the developing understanding of the play had to travel, or, what is the same , the developing self-awareness of European culture.
Contemporaries did not see any particular riddle in Hamlet, not because they knew the answer to it, but only because they most often perceived those semantic layers of the tragedy that did not constitute a riddle. Apparently, Shakespeare's character was in their eyes a portrait of one of the many victims of a disease of the spirit - melancholy, which, like an epidemic, gripped English youth at the turn of the 16th-17th centuries and caused a whole stream of literary responses and academic writings. The learned authors of the latter tried to give an analysis of the fashionable craze, fully armed with the achievements of medical science and the psychology of that time. Dr. Thomas Bright, describing the symptoms of the disease, pointed out that “melancholic people” indulge in “now joy, now rage”, that they are tormented by “bad and terrible dreams”, that, finally, “they are incapable of action” - what is not a portrait Prince of Denmark? Wanting to free Shakespeare studies from abstract speculation and romantic sentiments and to comprehend Shakespeare’s tragedy in the terms of the concepts of his own era, many critics of the 20th century began to view the character of Hamlet primarily as an illustration of Elizabethan treatises on psychology. This pseudo-historical approach to Shakespeare needs no refutation. At the same time, the very fashion for melancholy in late Renaissance England needs to be taken seriously. This fashion, in its own way, at a level accessible to it, reflected the important mental movement of the era, as evidenced by the abundance of psychological treatises, including the work of the same T. Bright and the famous “Anatomy of Melancholy” by R. Burton. Young intellectuals dressed in black - skeptics, disappointed in life, sad for humanity, appeared in an alarming atmosphere full of painful omens of the “end of the century” in the last years of the reign of Elizabeth, a dark and gloomy time.
In contrast to Shakespeare studies of the last century, which sought to explain absolutely everything in Shakespeare by the circumstances of his biography, modern science seeks the origins of the playwright’s creativity in the great socio-historical movements of the era. But for the “small” history of Shakespeare’s time, for the history of public sentiment at the turn of the century, events such as the uprising of the Earl of Essex were of decisive importance.
Hamlet's peers saw in the events of 1601 not just a failed adventure of the once powerful and then rejected favorite of Elizabeth, but the death of a brilliant galaxy of young Renaissance noble warriors, scientists, and patrons of art. These could include Ophelia’s words about the Prince of Denmark: “A nobleman, a fighter, a scientist - the gaze, the brain, the tongue, The color and hope of a joyful power. An emboss of grace, a mirror of taste, an exemplary example - fell, fell to the end!
In the history of the rebellion and defeat of Essex, contemporaries found confirmation of the feeling of general distress that gripped society. “There is some kind of rot in our state,” said a “pirate” we knew from the stage; he, as we remember, played the role of Marcellus.
This feeling of universal universal rot was carried within themselves by young melancholic people at the turn of the 16th-17th centuries. There is no doubt that the demonstrative grief and contempt for the world of some student of Greysinn contained a lot of theatrical posture, but the rapidly spreading melancholic mood itself contained a harbinger of dramatic spiritual changes in the fate of the English Renaissance. This is where it was necessary to look not for the literary, but for the real “proto-Hamlet.” It appeared in life before the meaning of its appearance was realized in art. Shakespeare laughed in vain at the melancholic Jacques in As You Like It. The life prototype of Jacques - not the grotesque Ardennes philosopher himself, of course - was the forerunner of the Prince of Denmark.
The comedy As You Like It ranks among Shakespeare's late comedies. It was written very shortly before the tragic “Hamlet-like” turn in his work, which was a “short chronicle” of the spiritual path of Renaissance humanism - from the High Renaissance to the premonition of the Baroque in the latest dramas. “Hamlet” became a turning point for the entire cultural history of the English Renaissance. The tragedy marked a crisis in the ideas of humanism, which occurred in England with particular painful severity due to the late development of the English Renaissance. But, like other painful moments in history, the time of crisis of Renaissance humanism turned out to be especially fruitful in the artistic development of mankind.
You can feel how the image of Shakespeare’s Hamlet hovered over many of the works of tragic poets of the late Renaissance, whether we are talking about the tragedy of J. Chapman “Revenge for Bussy d’Ambois”, in which the tragic avenger and philosopher, “Senecian man”, Clermont d’Ambois is tormented the question of the moral permissibility of murder and, having fulfilled his duty, prefers the comforter death to the “horrors of sinful times,” or about the bloody drama “The Duchess of Malfi” by J. Webster, in which there is a hired killer and a melancholic preacher who justifies his baseness with sarcastic philosophizing, almost literally repeating the monologues of the Prince of Denmark: a gloomy parody of Hamlet and at the same time a skeptical self-characterization of a skeptical generation. But in both cases - when one artist sings praises to the spiritual strength of his generation, and the other curses him, they see before them the shadow of Hamlet the son. Shakespeare was able to touch the very nerve of the era.
The generation of melancholics at the end of the Renaissance created the art of mannerism, a special strange world full of conscious disharmony, broken connections, broken correspondences, unresolved contradictions, instability and illusoryness; the concepts of reason and madness, reality and appearance here enter into a subtle ironic game, where pathetic seriousness is mixed with self-mockery, the design is deliberately asymmetrical, the metaphors are complicated, their articulation is bizarre; life itself is perceived as a metaphor, a tangle of unsolved, incomprehensible threads. There is no place for harmony in art, because reality itself is disharmonious; the principle of proportion, deified by the artists of the Renaissance, has now been rejected, because it does not exist in the world. “The highest of beauties - proportion - is dead!” - this is how John Donne mourns the death of beautiful proportionality in life and announces its abandonment in poetry. The Renaissance idea of artistic integrity is over. A work of art can now be built on an almost parodic break with the traditional understanding of the laws of composition.
The divine objectivity of the Renaissance artist is replaced by an impulse towards refined self-expression. Art must become the voice of the chaos into which the world has plunged, inaccessible to either the desire to improve it or the thirst to understand it. Man, as the mannerist artist sees him, is thrown into the power of terrible and mysterious forces: he is possessed either by unstoppable disastrous movement or by catastrophic immobility. Both of these metaphysical states are depicted by John Donne in the symbolic poems “The Storm” and “The Calm.” The human personality in the world captured by mannerist art loses freedom of self-determination. Character ceases to be a self-sufficient, albeit subject to metamorphosis, quantity and becomes a function (in painting - color, light; in drama - life circumstances, objectified in intrigue). The Renaissance idea of God as the embodiment of the creative principle of universal love, creating world harmony from the original chaos, is being replaced by the image of the Almighty as an incomprehensible force, standing on the other side of human logic and morality, as the embodiment of the formidable essence of existence.
Mannerism is an art that speaks of despair, but sometimes makes despair the subject of a game, sometimes painful, sometimes mocking, which does not at all indicate the inauthenticity of this despair. Tragicomedy - a favorite genre of mannerist theater - does not imply an alternation of tragic and comic beginnings, not a tragic story with a happy ending, but a work in which every situation and characters can be understood as tragic and comic at the same time.
Truth, as interpreted by the mannerist worldview, is multiple: it is split, fragmented into thousands of shades, each of which can claim its own value.
The moral philosophy of mannerism gravitates towards the idea of universal relativity. This is not the Renaissance cheerful relativity of all things, behind which is the eternal creative formation of life, its inequality to itself, its reluctance and inability to fit into ready-made schemes. The mannerist concept of relativity is born from the collapse of faith in the intelligibility or even reality of the whole. Mannerist art is characterized by a developed sense of uniqueness, uniqueness and absolute value of every single moment, every single fact and detail. Thus, a mannerist playwright cares about the expressiveness of the momentary situation of the play more than about its general course and the logic of the whole. The character's behavior is built as a collection of isolated moments, but not as a consistent development of character.
In a torn, unstable, mysterious world, where all people do not understand and do not hear each other, where all traditional values are called into question, a person inevitably finds himself face to face with the only unconditional reality - death, the main theme of Mannerist art. The creators and heroes of mannerist art combined a painfully acute interest in death with the constantly haunting horror of existence, from which they try to escape either in ecstatic mysticism or in equally frantic sensuality. “Don’t wait for better times and don’t think things were better before. So it was, so it is and so it will be... Unless an angel of God comes to the rescue and turns this whole shop upside down.”
Mannerist art was born from the same historical moment, the same gradually being prepared, but perceived as a sudden catastrophe by the collapse of the Renaissance system of ideas, as Hamlet. It has long been established that there is a commonality between Shakespeare’s tragedies, which belong to the circle of phenomena of the late Renaissance, and the works of the Mannerists. This is especially true for Hamlet, the first and therefore especially painful encounter between Shakespeare’s tragic hero (and perhaps his creator) with a “dislocated eyelid.” In the structure of the tragedy, its atmosphere, in its characters, and above all in its main character himself, there are features close to mannerism. So “Hamlet” is Shakespeare’s only tragedy, perhaps the only tragedy in general, in which the hero is absorbed only in the thought of death as the end of earthly existence, but also in death as a process of decay, the decomposition of physical existence in death. Hamlet is fascinated by the contemplation of death as a state of once living matter - he cannot take his “eyes of the soul” away from it, and just his eyes too (in the scene in the cemetery).
Scientists have spent a lot of effort and paper trying to figure out whether Hamlet's madness is feigned or genuine. According to the logic of the plot, it is, without a doubt, feigned; the prince needs to deceive Claudius and other opponents, and he himself announces this to the soldiers and Horatio. More than once, relying on irrefutably reasonable arguments, critics have come to the unanimous conclusion: the prince is healthy and is only skillfully portraying mental illness. But this question comes up again and again. Not everything, apparently, is so simple, and not everything can be trusted in the words of the hero and common sense - there is probably a certain stamp of mannerist ambiguity in the play: the prince plays - but not only plays - a madman.
The same bizarrely bifurcated logic is in Hamlet’s famous monologue: “Lately, and why, I don’t know myself, I have lost all my cheerfulness, abandoned all my usual activities; and indeed, my soul is so heavy that this beautiful temple, this earth, seems to me like a deserted cape; this incomparable canopy, the air, you see, this magnificently spread out firmament, this majestic roof lined with golden fire - all this seems to me nothing more than a cloudy and pestilent accumulation of vapors. What a masterful creation man is!.. The beauty of the universe! The crown of all living things! What is this quintessence of ashes for me?” This confession of Hamlet is usually interpreted as follows: before, in the past, when the humanist Hamlet believed in the perfection of the world and man, the earth was for him a beautiful temple, and the air an incomparable canopy; now, after the tragic turn in his life, the earth seems to him a deserted cape, and the air an accumulation of plague vapors. But in the text there is no indication of movement in time: in the eyes of the hero, the world is both beautiful and repulsively ugly at the same time; Moreover, this is not just a combination of opposites, but the simultaneous and equal existence of mutually exclusive ideas.
The adherents of logical certainty should prefer the version of the soliloquy set out in the first quarto: the “pirate”, a man undoubtedly sane and alien to mannerist ambiguity, wrote down Hamlet’s words briefly and clearly:
No, really, I’m dissatisfied with the whole world,
Neither the starry sky, nor the earth, nor the sea.
Not even a man, a beautiful creature,
Doesn't make me happy...
What the art of tragic humanism opposes to the crafty and dangerous mannerist uncertainty is not everyday logic or common morality. Sometimes converging in artistic language, these two spiritual and aesthetic movements diverge on fundamental questions posed by the era of the break of the classical Renaissance. The questions are the same - hence the similarity. The answers are different.
The thought of the late Renaissance contrasts the concept of the plurality of truth with the idea of the multidimensionality of truth, which, despite all its richness, complexity and incomprehensibility, preserves its essential unity.
The tragic consciousness of the hero in the art of the late Renaissance opposes the fragmentation of the collapsing world. Having experienced the temptations of losing his ideal, through confusion and despair he comes to “courageous conscious harmony”, to stoic self-fidelity. He now knows: “being prepared is everything.” But this is not reconciliation. He preserves the humanistic maximalism of spiritual requirements for man and the world. He challenges the “sea of disasters.”
Commentators debated for a long time whether the typesetter who printed the manuscript of Hamlet made a mistake in this place. Isn’t it contrary to common sense to “raise arms” against the sea, even if it is a “sea of disasters?” Various corrections were proposed: instead of “sea of troubles” - “siege of troubles” (besieging disasters), “seat of troubles” (the place where disasters “sit”, that is, the throne of Claudius); "th"assay of troubles", etc.
But there is no error. The author needed just such an image: a man who raised his sword against the sea. The hero of the tragedy is opposed not only by Claudius and his associates, but by time that has come out of its groove, by the tragic state of the world. It contains not absurdity and nonsense, but its own meaning, indifferently hostile to man and humanity. “All his plays,” Goethe wrote about Shakespeare, “revolve around a hidden point where all the originality of our “I” and the daring freedom of our will collide with the inevitable course of the whole.”
The “inevitable course of the whole” in Shakespearean tragedies is history, a historical process, conceptualized as a tragic force, similar to a tragic fate.
To set the joint of a dislocated time is a “damned lot”, an impossible task - not like killing Claudius.
Hamlet says that “time is dislocated” - “out of joint”, Fortinbras (in Claudius’s translation) - that the Danish state is “disjoint” (“disjoint”).
The appearance of the Phantom in the 1st scene immediately leads witnesses to believe that this is “a sign of some strange unrest for the state,” and the scribe Horatio finds a historical precedent - something similar happened in Rome before the assassination of Julius Caesar. The new king Claudius, having announced his marriage, immediately informs the State Council of the territorial claims of the Norwegian prince. Hamlet's mental torment occurs against the backdrop of pre-war fever: guns are fired day and night, ammunition is bought up, ship carpenters are recruited, ambassadors are hastily sent to prevent an enemy attack, Norwegian troops are passing through. Somewhere nearby are worried people, devoted to Hamlet and ready to riot.
The political fate of the Danish state does not concern Shakespearean criticism too much. We don't care much about problems of succession to the throne, and we assure ourselves that Prince Hamlet is indifferent to them.
If the Prince of Denmark really did not show any interest in what would become of the throne and power, the audience of the Globe, and all of Shakespeare’s contemporaries, including, probably, himself, would have attributed this oddity to Hamlet’s mental illness. For them, Hamlet was much more a political tragedy than for later generations (with the exception of critics and directors of the 60s of the 20th century, who saw almost only politics in the play). The movement of historical time showed the political conflicts of Hamlet the place that really belongs to them - to be one of the motives that form the image of a universe shaken by tragic catastrophes. “Denmark Prison” is a small part of the “Prison World”.
The image of the world in Shakespearean drama is formed in the process of interaction of two dimensions in which the life of each of the plays takes place - temporal and spatial. The first, temporal, layer of the play’s existence is formed by the development of action, characters, and ideas over time. The second is the location of the metaphorical structure in the poetic space of the text. Each of Shakespeare's plays is characterized by a special, unique circle of figurative leitmotifs that form the structure of the play as a poetic work and, to a very large extent, determine its aesthetic impact. Thus, the poetic fabric of the comedy “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” is built on images of moonlight (they can appear in the text without a direct connection with the plot), the space of the tragedy “Macbeth” is formed by the leitmotifs of blood and night, the tragedy “Othello” - by “animal” metaphors and etc. In their totality, the figurative leitmotifs create the special hidden music of the play, its emotional atmosphere, its lyrical philosophical subtext, which is not always expressed in the immediate course of the action, quite comparable to Chekhov’s - it is no coincidence, perhaps, that this side of Shakespeare’s drama was discovered and studied only in our century. It is difficult to say whether this poetic spatial layer of Shakespeare's plays appears as a result of conscious artistic construction or in this way spontaneously expresses the poetic worldview characteristic of Shakespeare. In the theater, for which, as we know, Shakespeare intended his works, the metaphorical structure of the play could be “noticed” and assimilated only at the emotional-extra-logical level of perception, and we would fall into modernization, assuming that Shakespeare hoped to influence the subconscious public.
The figurative structure of Hamlet, as modern research has shown, consists of several groups of metaphors (related to the motives of war and violence, the ability to see and blindness, clothing, theater). But the internal center of the poetic space of tragedy, to which all elements of the figurative structure are drawn, become metaphors of illness, decay, and decay. The text is filled to overflowing with images of decaying, rotting flesh, engulfed in monstrous corruption. Like poison poured into the ear of old Hamlet, it gradually and inevitably penetrates “into the natural gates and passages of the body” of humanity, poisoning Denmark and the whole world. Leprosy affects everyone, great and lowly, criminals and noble sufferers. Her noxious breath is ready to touch Hamlet.
The remarkable English textual critic John Dover Wilson proved that one word in Hamlet's first soliloquy (“Oh, if only this dense clot of meat ...”) should be read not as solid (dense), but as sullied (stained). Hamlet experiences a painful hatred of the “vile flesh”, his body, he feels it as something unclean, dirty, it is defiled by the sin of his mother, who betrayed her husband and entered into an incestuous relationship, it connects him with the rotting world.
The image of a human body overcome by a fatal illness becomes a symbol of the tragic universe in Hamlet.
The world whole is like a colossally expanded human body; man is like a small copy, a microcosm of the universe - these images, perceived by Renaissance culture from ancient times, are among the key motifs of Shakespeare's creativity.
Shakespeare wrote for and about his contemporaries. However, the cultural and historical basis of his tragedies is much broader than just the conflicts of English Renaissance reality or the fate of the ideas of the humanistic intelligentsia.
For all its spiritual novelty, the Renaissance was the continuation and completion of a centuries-old period of human history. No matter how passionately the humanists of the Renaissance scolded the barbaric Middle Ages, they became natural recipients of many essential ideas of Christian humanism. Renaissance art, especially such a mass and grassroots one as the public theatre, for the most part developed within the mainstream of an organically integral pre-individualistic folk consciousness.
Both humanistic thought and the folk culture of the Renaissance inherited from past centuries the world-encompassing concept of the Great Chain of Being, which dates back to the classical Middle Ages and further to late antiquity. This cosmological concept, which formed the foundation of humanistic philosophizing, combined the medieval hierarchical system of values with the ideas of the Neoplatonists of antiquity and the Middle Ages. The great chain of being is an image of universal harmony, achieved by strict hierarchical consent and subordination of all things, a spherical system of the world order, in the middle of which the Earth is placed, planets revolve around it, controlled by angelic comprehension; in their movement, the planets produce the “music of the spheres” - the voice of universal harmony. The central place in the universe belongs to man. The universe was created for him. “Having completed his creations, the Master wished that there would be someone who would appreciate the meaning of such a great work, love its beauty, admire its joys,” wrote Pico de la Mirandola in his “Speech on the Dignity of Man,” which is considered a model of Renaissance thinking and which in fact, in its own way, repeats truths known at least since the times of the medieval Neoplatonists, which does not make these ideas less deep and humane. A small resemblance to the universe, man is the only one, besides the Master himself, whom he endowed with creative will, freedom of choice between the animal and the angelic in himself: “the beauty of the universe, the crown of all living things.”
Renaissance thought, preserving in its most important features the hierarchical picture of the world captured in the Great Chain of Being, rethought the idea of personal freedom in the spirit of Renaissance individualism. In humanistic speculation, the preaching of individualistic freedom, which is far from coinciding with the traditional Christian idea of free will, is perfectly consistent with the requirement of universal harmony due to the innate perfection of man. Following the rule “do what you want” from Rabelais fantastically leads the Thelemites to joyful agreement and serves as the support of the human community. Since man is a microcosm of the universe and a particle of the world mind is embedded in his soul, then serving oneself, self-affirmation of the individual as the highest goal of its existence, in an amazing and hope-inspiring way, turns out to be service to the world as a whole.
Thus, the individualistic ethics of the New Age in humanistic theories coexisted peacefully with the traditional system of epically holistic views and the moral teaching of Christianity.
The anthropocentric idyll of the Great Chain of Being, perceived for many centuries as an unquestionable reality, was mercilessly destroyed by the course of the socio-historical development of the Renaissance. Under the pressure of the emerging new civilization, which was based on an individualistic system of values, on a rationalistic worldview, on the achievements of practical science, the Great Chain of Being fell apart like a house of cards. People of the late Renaissance perceived its collapse as a global catastrophe. Before their eyes, the entire orderly edifice of the universe was falling apart. Previously, philosophers loved to talk about what misfortunes awaited people if the harmony that reigns in the universe was violated: “If nature violated its order, overturning its own laws, if the vault of heaven collapsed, if the moon turned out of its path and the seasons were confused in disorder, and the earth would be freed from heavenly influence, what would then become of man, whom all these creatures serve? - exclaimed Richard Hooker, author of “The Laws of Ecclesiastic Politics” (1593-1597). Such reasoning was nothing more than a rhetorical way of proving the greatness and harmony of the world order created by God and an indirect way of glorifying man, for whose sake all things were created. But now the unthinkable was coming true. The universe, nature, society, man - everything is engulfed in destruction.
And there is doubt in philosophy,
The fire went out, only decay remained,
The sun and the earth have disappeared, and where
That mind that could help us in trouble.
Everything has fallen apart, there is no order in anything -
So, quite like Hamlet, John Donne mourned the state of the modern world. And further: “Everything is in pieces, all logic is lost, all connections are severed. King, subject, father, son - forgotten words. Since every person thinks that he is a kind of Phoenix and that no one can be equal to him.” Shakespeare’s Gloucester speaks about the same thing, in his naively senile way, feeling the unity between cosmic upheavals and the disintegration of human connections: “Here they are, these recent eclipses, solar and lunar! They don't bode well. No matter what scientists say about this, nature is feeling the consequences. Love cools down, friendship weakens, fratricidal strife is everywhere. There are riots in the cities, discord in the villages, treason in the palaces, and the family bond between parents and children is collapsing.”
In Shakespeare, everything that exists is involved in chaos and destruction: people, the state, the elements. The tranquil, pastoral Forest of Comedy is replaced by the suffering nature of Lear and Macbeth.
The corruption that devours the body of the universe in Hamlet testifies to the same formidable cataclysms that shake the very foundations of the world order.
Perhaps, in a time when artists are focused on their individuality and see the purpose of art as lyrical self-expression, they are able to experience their own misfortune or the sorrows of their generation as a global catastrophe. It is unlikely that this was the case with the people who created art during the Renaissance. One cannot help but feel that the works of art of tragic humanism reflect truly world-encompassing collisions. The death of the humanistic dreams of the High Renaissance is only the surface, a small part of the iceberg, only a concrete historical manifestation of a tragic turning point that had a worldwide scope and significance. It was about the fate of a gigantic layer of world history, about the participation of a pre-individualistic type of culture, which once gave the world great spiritual values and the inevitable and inescapable end of which brought with it not only the emancipation of the individual, but also tragic losses - this is one example of the payment for historical progress.
The tragedy, created at the moment of the first shock, the first confusion of the spirit of the era, which guessed the “inevitable course of the whole,” conveyed this state of the world - on the brink, at the break of historical times - with extreme and painful acuteness.
The true extent of Shakespeare's tragic conflicts was, of course, hidden from the gaze of his contemporaries. It is unlikely that it was visible to the author of Hamlet himself. Creations, as it happens, turned out to be immeasurably greater than the personality of the creator. History spoke through his lips, preserving itself in eternity through his art.
Shakespeare's tragedies speak of the death of a decrepit but once great era. Abandoned by her, freed from her bonds, a person loses the soothing feeling of unbroken unity with past centuries and generations, he suddenly finds himself in the loneliness that accompanies tragic freedom. Shakespeare's hero must fight one-on-one with an invincible enemy - “dislocated time.” However, he can retreat. In tragedy, the realm of the inevitable, the hero is free to choose - “to be or not to be.” He is not free in only one thing - to refuse to choose.
The finest hour of choice comes in the fate of each of Shakespeare's tragic heroes. Everyone has their own “to be or not to be”.
In B. Pasternak’s article “On translations of Shakespeare’s tragedies” it is written: “Hamlet goes to do the will of the one who sent him.” In Pasternak’s poem, Hamlet says: “If it is possible, Abba Father, carry this cup past.” The Hamlet-Christ association had met before - in Blok and Stanislavsky. Someone said: “to be or not to be” - this is Hamlet in the Garden of Gethsemane. Once upon a time, the rapprochement of two great sufferers for the human race was amazing. Now only the lazy don’t rattle them. However, here lies a really important question - about the relationship between tragic and religious consciousness.
“Let this cup pass from me!” But the cup will not pass, and Jesus knows this. He, the God-man, is not free to choose. He was created, he was sent into the world solely to drink this cup of redemption.
Hamlet, a mortal man, is free. If he decides to “submit to the slings and arrows of woeful fate,” his cup will pass. But will this be a choice “worthy of the spirit”? Another way: “to take up arms against a sea of troubles, to end them by confrontation.” It is clear that it is not possible for him to win - with a sword against the sea. “To end the sea of troubles” means to die fighting. But then - “what dreams will you have in a vague dream?” He, a mortal, cannot know this, he cannot be sure of the existence of objective moral conformity to the law (or, in the language used in 1601, God and the immortality of the soul), and therefore, he does not know whether his feat and victim.
Hamlet knows that if he makes a choice “worthy of the spirit,” suffering and death await him. Jesus knows about the coming crucifixion. But he also knows about the coming resurrection - that’s the whole point. The cup of suffering that he must drink will bring redemption, his sacrifice will cleanse the world.
Hamlet chooses to “be”, to rebel against “dislocated time”, since this is “worthy of the spirit” - the only support that remains for him, but no one can take away this support, loyalty to himself, to his moral recognition.
Tragedy is the fate of a person who is free, mortal and knows nothing about the “dreams of death.” Christ is not free, omniscient, immortal, and he cannot be the hero of a tragedy. The fate of God is not a tragedy, but a mystery.
They will ask: is Prometheus, the hero of Aeschylus’ tragedy, immortal and omniscient?
“Prometheus Bound” is the second part of Aeschylus’ trilogy about the god-fighting titan; she is the only one that has been preserved entirely. Only fragments remain of Prometheus Unchained, the last part of the trilogy, but it is known that it dealt with the reconciliation of the Titan with the Supreme God. Prometheus revealed to Zeus the secret of his death and for this he received freedom. Thus, the tragic conflict was resolved at the end of the trilogy by the triumph of the divine world order, the justice of which remained unshaken. The tragic problem was resolved in the spirit of the traditional mythological worldview - this was the calling of the trilogy as a dramatic form, transitional between epic and tragedy. After Aeschylus, when Greek tragedy enters its period of full development, the trilogy disappears.
For mythological or consistently religious consciousness, tragedy is only a part of the world cycle, the story of the death of God with an artificially broken end - the story of his resurrection, without which everything loses meaning. The world cycle is not a tragedy, but a mystery or, if you like, a comedy in the Dantean sense of the concept.
The hero of the mystery will not say when dying: “What follows is silence.”
Tragedy by its very essence is non-religious. Karl Jaspers said about this: “There is no Christian tragedy, because the idea of redemption is incompatible with tragic hopelessness.”
The history of dramatic literature knows only two short periods when the genre of tragedy was born and flourished: the 5th century BC in ancient Greece and the European 17th century. The pinnacle of the first was Sophocles, the pinnacle of the second was Shakespeare. In both cases, the real basis for the tragedy turns out to be a world-historical collision - the destruction of the traditional system of an epically holistic worldview (there is no need to add that these were two different types of holistic consciousness that developed at different stages of historical development).
Born in an era when the old world order was dying and a new one was just beginning to take shape, Shakespeare's tragedies bear the stamp of their transitional time. They belong to two eras at once. Like the god Janus, they face both the past and the future. This gives them, and especially Hamlet, a transitional work within the work of Shakespeare himself, a special ambiguity. Who is Fortinbras - a stern medieval warrior or an “elegant gentle prince”, an impeccable knight who “will enter into an argument over a blade of grass when honor is hurt”, or a prudent politician of the New Age who renounces the archaic duty of revenge for the sake of more important state matters and knows how to appear at the right time to lay claim to the Danish throne?
In “Hamlet,” two historical times meet: the heroic and simple-minded Middle Ages, personified by Hamlet the father (he, however, is already the Ghost), and the new era, on behalf of which the refined and voluptuous Machiavellian Claudius represents; the old story of bloody revenge, inherited by Shakespeare from the medieval saga - and by misfortune, a Renaissance humanist, a student from Wittenberg, fell into this story. The Danish prince, a stranger in Denmark, has recently arrived, is eager to leave and looks at life in Elsinore with the vigilance of an outsider. The tragic pain that tears Hamlet's heart does not prevent him from viewing himself in the assigned role of avenger with a detached, critical gaze. He turns out to be decisively unable to merge with the image - what a reproach to him for the actor's tears because of Hecuba - and involuntarily begins to perceive the fulfillment of the ancient duty of revenge as a kind of theatrical performance, in which, however, they kill seriously.
That is why the motive of theater is so strong in tragedy. It not only discusses the art of performing, shares the latest theatrical news, and puts on a performance, but in two key and highly pathetic moments of the tragedy, when Hamlet, it would seem, has no time for theater or aesthetic self-contemplation, the author forces him to resort to the technique theatrical defamiliarization. Immediately after meeting the Ghost, when the shocked Hamlet tells his friends to take a vow of silence and the Ghost from somewhere below exclaims: “Swear!”, the prince suddenly asks: “Can you hear that fellow from the hatch?” (cellarage - the room under the stage where the actors went down). The spirit is not underground, not in purgatory, it sticks out in a hole under the stage. At the end of the tragedy, before his death, Hamlet suddenly turns to the witnesses of the bloody finale: “To you, tremulous and pale, silently contemplating the game, if I could (but death, the fierce guard, is quick to grab), oh, I would tell.” Who does he mean, who are these “silent spectators of the finale?” Danish courtiers - but also the audience of the Globe Theater.
In tragedy, two independent and not entirely consistent moral principles coexist. The moral content of the play is determined by the natural ethic of just retribution, both for the Renaissance tragedy and for its archaic pre-plot, which is the sacred right and direct duty of a person: an eye for an eye. Who can doubt the rightness of Hamlet's - so belated - revenge? But in the play one can hear dull motives of moralism of a completely different nature, quite alien to the general structure of ideas of tragedy.
Demanding revenge, the Phantom calls Claudius’s crime “a murder of murders,” adding: “...however inhuman all murders are.” The latter is difficult to agree with his demand to kill Claudius. In the scene with the queen, Hamlet admits that he was “punished” by the murder of Polonius. From time to time, such motives come to the surface from some hidden depths of the text.
According to modern “Christianized” interpretations of Hamlet, the hero faces a terrible moral danger at the hour of choice, at that great hour when he decides to “take up arms against the sea of troubles.” Wanting to destroy evil by violence, he himself commits a chain of injustices, multiplying the diseases of the world - as if, by killing, he no longer belongs to himself, but to the world in which he acts.
Close to this interpretation came the interpretation of A. Tarkovsky, who doubted the right of Hamlet or any other person to judge and dispose of the lives of others.
Such interpretations are rightly reproached either for one-sided modernization or, on the contrary, for the archaization of Hamlet. And yet they have some basis: coming into conflict with the content of the tragedy as a whole, they bring to light and consistently develop what is really present in the historical and cultural background of the tragedy.
The polysemanticism of “Hamlet” comes not only from the richness of Shakespeare’s “honest method,” but most of all from the historical diversity of the era, that peak from which “everything around was visible far away” at all times.
Shakespeare's tragedies absorbed the spiritual experience of many centuries of historical development. The human experience accumulated over centuries, as M. Bakhtin pointed out, is “accumulated” in the very eternal plots used by Shakespeare, in the very building material of his works.
The diversity of the content of tragedies, both consciously expressed by the author and latently present in their foundation, provides the basis for various, sometimes mutually exclusive interpretations.
Interpretation of classics in every era is the extraction, excavation, and implementation of the most diverse, especially in the case of “Hamlet,” potential meanings contained in the work, including those that were not and could not be clear to either Shakespeare himself or the people of his era , nor to many generations of interpreters (whoever they may be - critics, directors, translators, readers).
The gaze of descendants liberates, disenchantes hitherto hidden meanings that are dormant until they are touched by the seeking spirit of moving time.
Every historical generation turns to classical works in search of answers to questions posed by its own time, in the hope of understanding itself. Interpretation of the classical heritage is a form of self-knowledge of culture.
But, conducting an honest dialogue with the past, we, as A.Ya. wrote. Gurevich, “we ask him our questions to get his answers.”
The tragedy of the Prince of Denmark can be compared to a mirror in which each generation recognizes its own characteristics. Indeed, what do the heroic, courageous Hamlet of Laurence Olivier and the exquisitely tender “Hamletino” of the young Moissi have in common, between the Hamlet of Mikhail Chekhov, who doomedly and fearlessly walked towards his historical fate, and the Hamlet of John Gielgud, who searched for Elsinore in the very soul of the prince.
Peter Brook in one interview recalled how Tarzan, the hero of the famous adventure novel, when he first picked up the book, decided that the letters were some kind of small bugs with which the book was infested. “To me too,” said Brook, “the letters in the book sometimes seem like bugs that come to life and begin to move when I put the book on the shelf and leave the room. When I return, I pick up the book again. The letters, as they should be, are motionless.” But it is vain to think that the book has remained the same. None of the bugs were in the same place. Everything in the book has changed. This is how Brooke answered the question of what it means to interpret Shakespeare correctly.
The meaning of a work of art is fluid, it changes over time. The transformations experienced by Shakespeare's tragedy about the Prince of Denmark can amaze the imagination. But these are metamorphoses of one, gradually unfolding essence.
“Hamlet” is not an empty vessel that everyone can fill to their own taste. The path of "Hamlet" through the centuries is not just an endless series of faces reflected in the mirror. This is a single process during which humanity step by step penetrates into ever new meaningful layers of tragedy. Despite all the dead ends and deviations, this is a progressive process. Its integrity is determined by the unity of the development of human culture.
Our view of Hamlet is evolving, incorporating discoveries made by critics and theater people of previous generations. We can say that the modern understanding of tragedy is nothing more than a concentrated history of its interpretation.
At the beginning of this story stand the people who have gathered in the auditorium of the Globe Theater and on the deck of the ship Dragon to watch the performance of the famous story of the revenge of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, composed by... who, gentlemen, cares about the name of the author? .
Notes
Days welded me into a fragile alloy.
As soon as it froze, it began to creep away.
I shed blood like everyone else. And how are they
I was unable to refuse revenge.
And my rise before death is a failure.
Ophelia! I don’t accept decay.
But I equalized myself with murder
With the one with whom I lay down on the same ground.(V. Vysotsky. My Hamlet)
Cm.: Bakhtin M. Aesthetics of verbal creativity. M., 1979. S. 331-332.
. Gurevich A.Ya. Categories of medieval culture. M., 1984. P. 8.
