Abstract
Hamlet's exclusion from his father's throne was not Hamlet's problem on the whole but the restoration to its rightful owner was virtually necessary for his survival and personal safety. He refers explicitly, at least twice, that he has unwillingly taken on himself the task of revenge. Hamlet was an unwilling instrument in the gradual drift towards disaster. He bitterly resents being played upon like a pipe by being given over entirely to serve somebody else’s behest. He cannot indeed fully recognize that he is his father's puppet. He cannot shrug off his father's commands as none of his own concern. Hamlet's problem is the problem of responding to a call unflinchingly. But the Ghost is in no way concerned about Hamlet's own safety. He is concerned only with the revenge of his own murder. He is uncompromising in his call for revenge. As a dutiful son he is to carry out his father’s order and kill Claudius as an act of filial duty. But Hamlet is in an intolerable position. He can save himself and Denmark by killing Claudius, but to kill Claudius is to act out his father's wish and the disaster for Hamlet is that this course of action perfectly coincides with the solution of his own problem. Hamlet is torn between two courses of action, both equally painful. If they conflict with the individual goal, they create one dilemma; if they coincide, they create another. Hamlet is a perfect example of an idealist who shrinks from accepting the role forced upon him. The idealist is confused with accepting the role of the exploiting father.
Dr. Tabassum Javed, . (2013) Perfect Idealism in Shakespeare's Prince Hamlet , The Dialogue, Volume 8, issue 3.
-
Views
381 -
Downloads
48
