Literary Criticism 2/2/14 Hamlet New Criticism Analysis Act IV. iv.

. 32-66 This is Hamlets final soliloquy and an important aspect of the play because it gives a final insight into the character development of Hamlet. The text is essential for a New Critical analysis and there are some key things one must first identify. Certain words must be explained craven and fust. According the OED, craven is used in Hamlet as an adjective meaning that owns himself beaten or afraid of his opponent; cowardly, weak-hearted. This definition is interesting because Hamlet is angry here for having the thoughts that he is having. He goes on to say that he has the will and strength, and means/to do t and is questioning why he has not yet completed his task (4.4. 45-46). The second word, fust, means to become moldy or stalesmelling. This word continues to show how adamant and sure Hamlet is in his action he believes that the capability and reason that he has are being wasted by not completing his revenge. We can see the tone of this soliloquy from the onset frustration, confusion, and even internal tension as he fights with himself. He feels that he is overthinking the events that may or may not transpire but recognizes that he has the ability, opportunity, and supposed responsibility to complete his revenge. Another question that a new critic must ask is what are the important figures of speech and images found in the soliloquy and what is the importance of them? In line 54, Hamlet describes the act of the Polish army to be as an eggshell. The importance of this will be further explained later, but one must note how he views this action. While of vital importance to the Poles, Hamlet sees it as worthless and trifle. Later, in line 61, Hamlet states that it is for but a

fantasy and trick of fame or imagined glory that the Poles are fighting. However, is that truly the motivation for the Poles? One may deduce that Hamlet is allowing himself to be fooled by his own reasoning so that he can justify the action which he deems as necessary the murder of his uncle. Trying not to impart too much of my worldview into the text, I see that the greatest paradox here is the necessity of completing an act that many would consider heinous including Hamlet at one time. He is angered by a murder and believes the only reasonable response is to murder again. Yet, looking at the text, it must be the only reasonable act for Hamlet because if the army he is watching is willing to [expose] what is moral and unsure . . . even for an eggshell then why can Hamlet not risk something for such a noble cause as avenging the death of his father and the defilement of his mother (4.4. 51, 53)?