Free «Hamlet» Essay Sample

Introduction

Tragedy the term has embraced the notions which goes beyond the tragedy as generic. Many human conditions are signified by the tragic vision and tragic sense of lives in these days. When tragedy is assumed as human condition it is timeless and psyche against mysterious. A man of literature who is un-accommodated defines the tragedy and want to show his or her actions but suffers invariably due to nature of things which are sinned more against the sinning. Kaufmann seeks the meaning of the tragedy where great philosophers have depicted the tragedy in general particularly the Greek tragedy. His humorous style of presenting the tragedy has freshness in it.

It is right to distinguish the different types of the tragedies and assumptions made from these philosophers. All tragedies have similar impacts but fruitful tragedies are associated with the poet’s names. These tragedies include as: Shakespearean tragedy and Aeschylean trilogies etc. In the present study the Shakespearean tragedy is compared to major theories. The concern throughout the paper will be paid more upon the philosopher’s work as compared to Shakespeare. Shakespearean tragedy is too examined by the Kaufmann. Kaufmann shines in the way of a brilliant commentator. Before the Nietzsche, Aristotle viewed the extremism of tragic heroes who does not find the moderate way and leads to a downfall. But Nietzsche justified that extremism was the sole cause of existence of a tragic hero. A tragic hero surpasses all the limits and boundaries to reach the destination. He consumes the energy to attain the achievement in his goals is so intense that he is himself consumed. Nietzsche has addressed those helpful aspects which were not depicted by the Aristotle.

Accounting the Shakespeare’s play many tragedies are arguable in chronological orders such as the Romeo and Juliet, Julius Caesar, Hamlet and Othello etc. Shakespeare’s tragedies end in catastrophe. But the case of the Hamlet by Shakespeare is different and little similar to that of Orestes.  Human beings are capable to add the meaning to indifferences and unpredictability by their cognitive abilities. As Hamlet was preoccupied in play to determine the same meaning in other circumstances; events were deliberated in the play. Hamlet is presented as a tragic hero by the Shakespeare who possessed many characters of tragic hero. He also has flaws which turned him into failure. A tragic hero must have the support of the audiences. Being a tragic hero he took the risk when he went to England. If his plan had failed he would have been executed. He loved his father very much but angry at his mother and Claudius. He possessed the abilities of an intelligent person.

 Kaufmann contributed towards the humanities as he was himself a philosopher and his work like Tragedy and Philosophy was great measure to evolve the views of different philosophers. There is no parallel between the philosopher and Bard, Nietzsche’s relationship has been established with Shakespeare’s Hamlet by the writers like Kaufmann. In the Birth of Tragedy Nietzsche has got Hamlet right thinking. As the Nietzsche has told that every genuine tragedy leaves us which can be called as the metaphysical comfort. Later he said that life is at the bottom of all things instead of taking into account the changes of appearance. Question arises here that why the tragedies are so enjoyable? They say that life is more beautiful as compared to all sufferings, terror and cruelty. Misery seen in Hamlet in the Nietzsche’s experience is more beautifully incorporated. In tragedies the sorrows are articulated but the nobility of language, poetry is also found there. Shakespeare was not only the champion of tragedy but also for the comedy, sometimes mixed both of them.

The Nietzsche’s early work the Birth of Tragedy has recasting the value itself and matter of poetic creation. Dionysian state with the customary manacles, boundaries and lasts as a lethargic element, where everything is immersed which was experienced in the past. Two worlds of Dionysian and reality and not taken together. Hamlet has many similarities with Dionysian as both possessed the real glimpse for the essence of things. They have opted to act as, but it cannot change the eternal nature of things. Hamlet has taught us that knowledge skill for the actions is required which is the Hamlet’s doctrine and not confronting the cheaper wisdom of Dreamer and Jack. Both in Hamlet and Dionysian the glimpse and true knowledge overcome the driving motives of actions. They have regarded the attribution as debasing and setting the right time that is out of the joint.

The story of Greek tragedy gives us the clear understanding about the tragic work in Greeks and its birth. In this way justice about the chorus is given with original and astonishing meaning. Heroes of Greek philosophers speak in a superficial way than their actions. However it can be said that importance of tragic was not transparent and conceptual for the Greek philosophers. This observation can be made similar to Shakespeare where Hamlet also has very superficial saying as compared to its acts. As the Nietzsche has given his comments about the Hamlet saying that vivid images and structure of scenes has shown the wisdom of the man who can grasp the ideas and words. These observations are same for the Hamlet of Shakespeare. Nietzsche has found both the start and end in the Shakespeare’s Hamlet and pictures of those persons who are promoted and discouraged. Human relationship plays an impact on the plays. Hamlet has been declared true by the tragedies of Shakespeare as Kaufmann said

“What is true in the highest degree of Hamlet is also true, if not quite so strikingly, of Shakespeare’s other tragedies” (Kaufmann, 273).

In these words the author Kaufmann has narrated the significance of the Shakespeare’s work of Hamlet as barbarian and compared it to French and Greek tragedies. Hamlet always proceeds from good fortune to bad one and no good fortune is beheld in Hamlet. Many critics are persuaded to accept that tragedies end badly; Aristotle was thought to know it so but he meant different.

In the Birth of the Tragedy arguments are given against those notions where Hamlet was a tragedy of reflection. This play explains the cost of understanding and knowledge about the reality. Hamlet also experienced the revenge tragedies where the presence of a murder makes the victim’s ghost common. These things in Hamlet are more complex, where the murderer attempts a foul and unnatural crime of murder as given in the following lines.

“O, horrible! O, horrible! most horrible! If thou hast nature in thee, bear it not;
Let not the royal bed of Denmark be! A couch for luxury and damned incest.
But, howsoever thou pursue this act! Taint not thy mind, nor let thy soul contrive
Against thy mother aught: leave her to heaven! And to those thorns that in her bosom lodge, To prick and sting her” (1.5.9).

Conclusions

Finally it can be concluded that Nietzsche’s tragic views are very similar to that of Hamlet by the Shakespeare. In the Birth of the Tragedy Nietzsche has been the visionary Dionysian hero where as the Hamlet is too tragic hero in Shakespeare’s plays. Both have looked for the essence of the things in this world and attained the knowledge. Both have very similar ideas about the nature and world.