TOPIC: Historical and Biographycal
Approach
NAME: Ami Sojitra
SOURCE: The Renaissance Literature
SUBMITTED TO: DR.DILIP BARAD
Department of
English(MKBU)
Class: M. A. Semester 1
ROLL NO: 34
ENROLMENT NO: PG15101034
Historical & Biographical
Approach in study Hamlet
Introduction:-
“Hamlet is known as master
piece of William Shakespeare. It was written in 1600-1601. Its become very
famous in Elizabethan age. He has broken all the rules of play in Hamlet.”
“Other work of
human mind
Equal “Hamlet”:
none surpasses
It. There is in
it all
The majesty of a manumit”.
While we study the plat we come to know if we look at
the various way we find, the play has various quality and its always looks
differs from other. We find that all the character of the play have their own
tragic flow which derived their end.
When we study any book as a student of
literature, We should study with various approaches. Like;
· TEXTUAL ANALYSIS
· GENRE STUDY
· HISTORICAL & BIOGRAPHICAL
APPROACH
· MORAL-` & PHILOSOPHICAL APPROACH
· PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACH
· MYTHOLOGICAL APPROACH
· FEMINISM & GENDER STUDIES
· CULTURAL STUDIES
· FORMALIST APPROACH ETC.
These are the various ways to look at the way study
it. Because when we give the title as “master work” it have to prove many
quality and pass from many tests.
Here we will study about “HISTORICAL &
BIOGRAPHICAL APPROACH” so let’s discuss about it in detail.
Historical
& Biographical Approach :-
When we study Hamlet we study with historical and
Biographical approach. We find that there also a history behind that play. Not
only the Gesta Danorus” is source of he play But we should also know the issues
of that time when Shakespeare has written the plat. It will doubtless surprise
many students to know that Hamlet is considered by some commentators to be
optical and auto bio-graphical in certain places.
Queen Elizabeth was rule over in that
time. In view of Queen’s advantaged age and poor health- hence the precious
state of succeed of the British crown. Inspire Shakespeare to write Hamlet.
There is some ground for thinking that
Ophelia’s famous characterization of Hamlet may be intended to suggest the Earl
of Essex. Elizabethan was also in love with some which of Elizabethan Era.
Essex, formerly Elizabeth’s favorite, who had incurred
her seven displeasure and been tried for treason and executed:
“The
courtier’s, soldier’s, scholar’s Eye, tongue,
Sword
The
expectancy and rose of The fair. State..
The
glass of fashion and The mould of form,
The
observation of all observers…”
Also something of Essex may be seen in Claudius’s
observation in madness of Hamlet and his popularity with the masses;
“How
dangerous it is that this man goes loose!
Yet
must we not put the strong low in him
He’s
loved of the distracted multitude
Who
like not in their judgment but their eyes…
And
where is so, the offender’s scourge is weighed,
But
never the offence.”
The other character of play is also
someone we find n history. Because the another contemporary historical figure,
the lord treasurer, Burghley, has been seen in character of Polonius. This
character have also some characterized if that lord may be Shakespeare has
heard somewhere about his patron, the young Henry Wriothesley, Earl of
Southampton, express contempt for Elizabeth’s old lord Treasurer; indeed, this
was the way many of the gallants of Southampton’s generation felt.
Burghley possessed most of the short
coming Shakespeare gave to Polonius; he was boring, medalling, and given to
wise old adages and shrewd precepts for his son Cecil. Even he has described
sppy system that kept him in termed about both friend and enemy. Polonius has
also same characteristics as he has.
Polonius is assigning Reynaldo’s to
spy in Laertes in Paris. This side of character of Burghley’s was so well known
that it might be dangerous for Shakespeare at portrays it on stage while the
old man was alive, he was died in 1598. So Shakespeare has written about him or
presented his character as Polonius in Hamlet.
It was the time where if the person doesn’t
know anything about play is playing or judges it. Shakespeare has also made
satire and them in Hamlet. His opinion about the revival of the private theatre,
which would employ little children and which would constituted a rival foe the
adult companies of public theatre which is also not good for society. Shakespeare
has also written about this.
It is also reassemble to assume the
Hamlet’s instructions to the players is satire on people which contains Shakespeare’s
criticisms of contemporary acting, as Polonius’s description of the players
abilities is his satire in dull people who profess preference for rigidity
classified genre. Scholars have also pointed out Shakespeare’s have comment of
other characters of the time.
All
the character have their own ability as described by Shakespeare:0
· Rosencrantz and Guiblenstan – the
boot licking courtiers,
· Alerts and Fortinbras – men of action
· Horatio – the “true Roman” friend
· Ophelia – the “courtly love heroine
When we study the play we find the death of king
Hamlet, war of prince of Norway. Even such a political issues were also
described there. If we look at the historical way we might be expected to ask,
“What
do we need to
Know
about eleventh century
Danish
court life of about
Elizabethan
England to understand this play?”
This type of questions may be raised in our mind
relevant to the traditional interpretive approach to any lathery work. But they
are particularly germane to analysis of Hamlet.
Even one more thing, most
contemporary American students, Largely unacquainted with the convection let
alone the subtleties, of monarchical succession. Wonder why Hamlet does not
automatically succeed to the throne after the death of his father. He is not
just elder son but he was only son. Such students need to know that in Hamlet’s
day the Danish throne was elective one. The royal council, composed of most
powerful nobles on the land, named the next king. The custom of the throne’s
descending to the oldest son of the late monarch had not yet crystallized in to
law.
J. Dover Wilson maintains that it is not
necessary to know it for understanding Hamlet, because Shakespeare intended his
audience to think of the entire situations-characters, customs, and plot- as
English.Which he used to do in his most of the plays,even though they were set
in other countries. Wilson’s theory is based upon the Elizabethan audience
could have but little interest in peculiarities of Danish Government, whereas
the problem of royal succession, usurpation, and potential revolution in a contemporary
English context could be paramount concern.
He thus asserts that
Shakespeare’s audience convinced Hamlet to be
the lawful heir to his father and Claudius usurper and usurpation to be
one of the main factors in the play. Important to both Hamlet and Claudius.
Whereas one accepts Wilson’s theory or not, it is certain that Hamlet thought
of Claudius as usurper, for he described him to Gertrude as;
‘A couple of empire and
the rule,
That from a shelf the
precious diadem stole
And
put it in his pocket’
And to Horatio as one
said;
‘That hath killed my
king and whored my mother,
Hopped in between th’
election and my hopes …‘
This
suggest the situation of Hamlet. Modern students are also likely to be confused
by the charge against the Queen. In modern time it happens that lady can marry
brother of her late husband in many civil and religion codes, it was so
considered in Shakespeare’s day. Some dispensation or legal loophole must have
accounted for the popular acceptance of Gertrude’s marriage to Claudius. That
Hamlet considered the union incestuous, however, can’t be emphasized too much,
for it this repugnant character of Gertrude’s sin, perhaps more than any other factor
that plunges Hamlet in to the melancholy of which he was victim.
It is necessary to know that
“melancholy” was to Elizabethan and to what extent it is important in
understanding the play. A. C. Bradley tell us that:
“It meant to
Elizabethans a condition of mind
Characterized by
nervous instability, rapid and
Extreme change of
feeling and mood, and the
Disposition to be for the time absorbed
in dominant
Feeling or mood,
whether joyous or depressed…..”
If Hamlet’s action and speeches
are examined closely, they seem to indicate symptoms of disease. He is by turns
cynical, idealistic, hyperactive, lethargic, averse to evil, disgusted at his
uncle’s drunkenness and his mother’s sensibility, and convinced that he is
rotten with sin.
Here we see realize that at
least part of Hamlet’s problem is that he is victim of extreme melancholy. One
additional fact about revenge may be noted. When Claudius ask Laertes to what
length he would go to avenge his Father’s death, Laertes answer that he would ’cut
throat I’ th’ church’. It is probably no accident that Laertes is so specific
about the method by which he would willingly kill Hamlet. In Shakespeare’s day
it was popularity believe that repentance had to be vocal to be effective. By
cutting Hamlet’s throat presumably before he could confess his sin, Laertes
would deprive Hamlet of his technical channel of grace. Thus Laertes would
destroys both soul of Hamlet and his body and would risk his own soul, a horrifying
illustration of the measure of his hatred. Claudius’s rejoinder:-
“No place indeed should sanctuaries;
Revenge should have
no bounds”
Indicates the disparate state of
the king’s soul. He is condoning murder in church, traditionally a heaven of
refuge, protection, and legal immunity for murder
CONCLUSION:-
Elizabethan
audience were well acquainted with these connection. The concept is not only
derive from other source but also from some live character or most Famous mentality
of people of that time is also become source for write Hamlet for Shakespeare.
As student of criticism while we look at Hamlet with Biographical and
Historical approach we find these things.
To evaluate my assignment, click here
To evaluate my assignment, click here
No comments:
Post a Comment