The characterisation of Hamlet has heavily shaped my own personal response to Shakespeares Hamlet as a revenge tragedy that explores

the struggle of a Renaissance Humanist with filial duty and Elizabethan Christian dogma. The text explores numerous issues such as justice, corruption and morality. Although Hamlet is reflective of its Elizabethan context, it is embedded with universal issues, reinforcing its textual integrity as a revenge tragedy. On the other hand, a deep understanding of Shakespeares context is necessary for the comprehension of the overall play, and the complexity of the plot and language render the play incomprehensible to many. The motif of corruption and deception is immediately established through the dramatic tension evoked by Whos there? Reflective of the chaos and uncertainty in Elsinore. The introduction of the supernatural through the device of the ghost foreshadows the impending tragedy in Elsinore, suggesting the Great Chain of Being has been disrupted. The characterisation of Hamlet, portrays an archetypal Renaissance Humanist struggling with a mortal coil of corruption. In Hamlets first soliloquy, imagery of disease and decay unweeded garden and rank and gross in nature highlights the public corruption of Elsinores body politic in incestuous sheets. Furthermore, Hamlets frustration at Claudius and Gertrudes transgression of natural boundaries through their incestuous marriage is emphasised by the juxtaposition in the mythical allusion Hyperion to a satyr. The characterisation of Claudius portrays him as an immoral monarch, and bestial imagery in incestuous, adulterate beast emphasises his private immorality in contrast to his public image as a righteous King, mirroring truth versus appearance. This links with the external debauchery of deceit and vice in Elsinore, which Zefferillis production portrays through Hamlets physical elevation above the diseased State to emphasise his superior moral integrity. Through the use of soliloquy, responders are shown a melancholic character dressed in an inky cloak of solemn black with an inability to rationalise his situation, thus leading him to contemplate suicide, sullied flesh would melt, thaw and resolve itself into a dew. However, suicide cannot be an escape for Hamlet due to Elizabethan Christian dogma against selfslaughter, and thus he is resigned to self-suffering in silence. Evidently, Hamlet is tainted by this plagued world, which reinforces the texts textual integrity as a revenge tragedy. Despite this, such eloquent rhetoric and Elizabethan values may alienate many modern responders. In Hamlet, revenge is established as the mechanism to restore order and justice within Elsinore. The dramatic device of the Ghost, which Francis Jacox states awaken Hamlet to his remembrance, spurs Hamlet as the tragic hero taking revenge against a usurper of the Great Chain of Being, both a filial and social duty. However, Elizabethan responders regarded supernatural beings as evil harbingers and the ghost perhaps out of my weakness and my melancholy...abuses me to damn me and this compels Hamlet to use the mousetrap play wherein Ill catch the conscience of the king, mirroring truth versus appearance. Drawing from Aristotelian notions of tragedy, Hamlets flaws originates from his intellectual and Humanist nature that hinders his pursuit of filial revenge and justice as Mary Slater states Hamlets nature is philosophical. Reflective, prone to questioning and therefore aware of the larger moral implications. This is accentuated in his to be or not to be soliloquy, which through the use of rhetorical questioning extends the ambiguity and chaos caused by the break in the Chain of Being. Negative lexicons, such as to grunt and sweat under a weary life, confronts responders with Hamlets perception of life as a constant stream of melancholy. Demonstrating superior acumen rather than madness, Hamlet concludes that the native hue of resolution is sicklied over with the pale cast of thought, the juxtaposition of disparate

elements reflecting his disproportionate meditation to action thus conscience does make cowards of us all. Notions of the afterlife are examined through the dark humour of the gravedigger, which emphasises the fear of afterlifes uncertainty which causes complex moral considerations to interfere with the capacity for action. Such universal concepts as the uncertainty of the afterlife appeal to the plays textual integrity as an Elizabethan revenge tragedy, however, Elizabethan notions of the afterlife such as eternal damnation may be irrelevant to many modern secularist responders. Hamlets adopts an antic disposition as a device to further expose the truth without attracting suspicion to his genuine motives. However, it has the opposite effect of generating distrust, this be madness, yet there is method int, leading Claudius to become cautious, nor stands it safe with us to let his madness range. Responders may perceive Hamlets procrastination as his fatal flaw, but just as his crafty madness demonstrates, there is rationale behind his hesitation. This is promoted by the fact that the only technical opportunity that materialises, Hamlet seizes it with his passion overriding his reason, only to find disdain at having slain a wretched, rash, intruding fool. The juxtaposition of this spontaneous scene to previous uneventful scenes allude to the origins of Hamlets passion subjugating his reason, compromising his integrity as illustrated by his cold tone regarding Rosencrantz and Guildensterns deaths, they are not near my conscience. The roots of Hamlets moral dilemma lie in that he has been positioned in a complex situation to purify Elsinore of its inner corruption, but by doing so will conflict with his religious mortality. This is illustrated by the paradox prompted to my revenge by heaven and hell that suggests he must adopt the role of a Heavenly-sanctioned agent to restore natural order, only to face eternal damnation, evocative of Elizabethan Christian values. However, Hamlets death portrays the re-establishment of his noble heart proving most royal, reinforced by the militarist and regal nature of Hamlets funeral as depicted in Branaghs production, despite compromising his morality by committing murder. Hence, the tragedy of Hamlet is that Hamlet cannot morally avenge King Hamlet. The juxtaposition of the final, fast paced, highly energetic scene to the previous contemplative scene illustrates a sense of absolute chaos as passion nullifies reason. This chaos strips away the veneer of deceit, established by the rapid action of each characters death. Hamlets dying words tell my story, emphasises that significance comes only in retrospect, not in prospective action and demonstrates the value of reason over passion. The poetic justice of Laertes and Claudius deaths and the entry of Fortinbras, an embodiment of order, signifies the restoration of natural order and Elizabethan values with Elsinore being purged of its corrupt body politic. Filial and moral values are still relevant today, reinforcing the plays textual integrity as a revenge tragedy, although the religious aspect of Hamlets procrastination may alienate modern secularist responders. In conclusion, through the strong characterisation of Hamlet, my personal response to Hamlet is that it is a revenge tragedy that explores the struggle of a Renaissance man with Humanist values against strong Elizabethan Christian values, resulting in a moral conflict between conscience and damnation. The textual integrity of the text is also created through the universal themes and issues embedded in the play and the use of dramatic techniques to develop the text as a revenge tragedy. However, the text also requires a deep understanding of Shakespeares context and the complexity of the plot and language render the text incomprehensible to many.