Location is everything. The setting of Shakespeare's Hamlet, the royal court, is not just the backdrop to the play. Instead, embedded in the work is the implicit meaning of its environment. Court society, with its emphasis on attaining nobility, maintaining the balance of power between the monarch and members of the court, and a detailed code of conduct regarding relations between the sexes, exerts an overarching influence on the characters of the work. plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The most salient aspect of Hamlet is the infamous delay of its main characters to avenge the unjust murder of his father. Critics have often struggled to explain Hamlet's incessant deliberations and have focused on the construction of his character. Yet people do not exist in a vacuum; Hamlet is an integral member of the society to which he belongs. Examining Hamlet's conduct in the context of court society offers the reader the opportunity to better contextualize and understand Hamlet's puzzling behavior. Hamlet not only dramatizes its protagonist's revenge narrative, but also dramatizes the intricate relationship between its characters and the Court Society. The tale of courtly moderation is woven through Hamlet's tale of revenge. The narrative of courtly restraint offers an interesting interpretation of Hamlet's aggression towards women. In his essay "'To Please the Wiser Sort': Philosophy in Hamlet" John Guillory argues that Hamlet's "misogyny" is not a hatred of women. Rather, the desublimation of his courtly tendencies leads him to unleash aggression towards the women in his life. In order for Hamlet to kill Claudius, fulfilling his vow to avenge his father's death, he must realize the violence within himself. However, it must also do so in the context of the Court Society, a society that curbs violence and encourages cultural refinement. The events of the play dramatize Hamlet's struggle to act violently. Transforming himself from a courtier into a “pre-courtier” hero of revenge, Hamlet undoes the sublimation of violent impulses and avenges his father's death. His delays and deliberations are symptomatic of this transformation. His interactions with women can be understood in the context of the desublimation of the courtesan personality. To understand what the desublimation of the courtier entails, it is important to explain what Norbert Elias calls the "civilizing process" of the nobles. Elias sees the process of "courtship" as "a long-term transformation of human society... the transformation of warriors into courtiers." It becomes the project of the monarchy to coerce and subjugate the members of court society so that their violence against each other, and especially against the monarch, becomes unacceptable within the confines of the established order. Women play an interesting role in court society. Elias points out that "women, considered as social groups, have much greater power at court than any other formation in this society." In the context of containing spontaneous impulses, women come to symbolize what men cannot have impulsively. The reduction of spontaneity causes what Elias defines as a "civilizing detachment" in relationships between men and women. The qualities of a courtier, good manners and self-control are constructed by the court world to distance the sexes and complicate relationships between members of the court world. Males must court females; they just can't have them. Women are largely why courtiers have to"civilize". Hamlet's aggression towards Ophelia can therefore be understood in the context of courtly constraints. As a woman, she represents her need to sublimate her violence and impulses. He rejects her in the process of rejecting the barriers of court society. The civilization process requires a transformation from warrior to courtier. There is a subordination of the self that occurs in this transformation from warrior to courtier. Elias explains: To maintain one's place in the intense competition for importance at court... one must subordinate one's appearance and gestures, in short oneself, to the fluctuating norms of court society which increasingly emphasize difference, distinction of the people belonging to it. Court life becomes a game with rules and restrictions, one false move and the courtier exposes himself to non-violent attacks. The world is built like a game, there are rules and regulations that dictate correct behavior. The individuals who make up the members of the court are all implicated in the relationship with the power structure of the court. At one point in the play Hamlet tells Rosencrantz and Guildenstern that "Denmark is a prison." The polite life is limiting; Hamlet's frustration is understandable in light of what Elias believes this to be. the “intense competition for importance.” Courtiers must control their impulses to succeed in this environment of moderation. Elias suggests that by "subordinating" the members of the court they hide their natural impulses. The dynamics of courtly life involves implicit deception; phrases of speech, manner of dress, and general interpersonal conduct are not true representations of the individuals involved. Life at court also "required incessant self-control, a complex and carefully calculated strategy in dealing with social peers and superiors." The courtier becomes a submissive and calculating toady, always appealing to superiors for recognition and reward. This is why, as Elias underlines, "belonging to the court increasingly involves pacification, greater control of bellicose habits." This leads to the limitation and control of aggressive impulses. This also implies that these courtiers, if they followed their impulses, would be violent warriors. There is no room for the individual who does not want to be violent, or courtier. There is polarity between violence and fairness. As a courtier, Hamlet is conflicted between the rules of propriety he has kept and the promise of violence he makes to the Ghost. Hamlet is a textbook example of the sober courtier. Elias discusses the way in which the spontaneous impulse was kept in check in the courtly world: "The deliberate sizing of a situation, the orientation, in short, the reflections intervene more or less automatically between the affective, spontaneous impulse to act and the actual impulse to act." execution of the action or act”. Elias's assessment of court society provides a clear explanation of Hamlet's deliberations. Hamlet's need to constantly question and reflect on his situation is "automatic" behavior for him. Elias calls this the “armor of self-control.” In the absence of actual battle, the courtier prepares for battles within the court by ruling with spontaneous impulse. Hamlet's inaction, then, is not simply a symptom of moral dilemmas, but a result of his inability to free himself from the shackles of court society. The need for reflection and hesitation are part of the control exercised over the courtier by court society, and is "automatic" or habitual for the courtier. Guillory focuses on Hamlet's philosophizing. in the work in relation to the problem between what he defines as "theatrical fashion and court faction". Guillory defines fashionas "the sublimated and aestheticized expression of faction, a political reality". expression of a political reality. The necessity of court life is that things remain unsaid, political realities are rarely discussed. Courtly fashion, with its myriad complexities and nuances, becomes the codified language of political discourse. Hamlet's philosophy is his way of decoding it. fashion and reveal the political truths of the court or faction. As Guillory says, Hamlet's "philosophical performance" is "an attempt to consolidate 'the wiser kind' around their knowledge of unspeakable political truth. Philosophy itself names the their knowledge, without naming its content". In Hamlet's tortuous approaches to the act of revenge there is the constant presence of an unsuccessful "philosophical performance". His pontificating never leads to a solution; rather it serves to frustrate the action. He will never be able to openly acknowledge the evil he knows Claudius has committed. Hamlet is verbally castrated; he is free to soliloquise, but only in a limited capacity. He never manages to address the issue through words, yet for most of the play this is his choice of defense. Guillory extends the argument beyond the limits of the play to suggest that Hamlet's philosophical interpretation resonates with a portion of Shakespeare's audience, namely the polite elite. This sector of the population refers to Hamlet's inability to act, with his sublimation of violence. And the implementation of philosophy, which contains an unresolution of fundamental questions, its reflections on one's inability to understand the totality of reality, tends to the suspension of action (in particular violent action) and therefore to the cultivation of a certain elitist pleasure in philosophizing. Since these courtiers are prevented from carrying out violent actions, they are determined to participate in an act of "irresolution." Philosophizing becomes a convenient location for one's inadequacy to act; the act itself is paralyzing. There is a causal relationship between philosophizing and inaction. Since Hamlet is presented in the text as a Wittenberg student called home from school, he is constructed as a person inclined to critical thinking. He is a scholar, not a soldier. His studies abroad taught him to think, reflect and challenge, not kill. The fact that Wittenberg is an anachronism in the work is significant. The Hamlet of Shakespeare's imagined Denmark attends a school that did not exist during the play's time period. However, Hamlet's audience undoubtedly understood the implications of the mention of the famous university. Hamlet is a product of refined British education, a student of thought, not of war. Cultivating this "elitist pleasure in philosophizing" is emblematic of the behavior made necessary by the sociology of court society. Guillory refers to the work of Elias and Francis Barker when making his point that "court society imposed on its participants the need to exercise great restraint over impulsive modes of behavior, particularly in the area of ​​aggression." Hamlet is a product of this courtly world. He is bound and limited by the mechanisms of court life. However, he does not quite fit into the limiting role imposed by his status as a courtier. He is in the world but not of the world. Hamlet has internalized the modes of behavior established by court society. Yet despite his integration into the courtly world, he is willing to abandon those rules of conduct to promise revenge on a ghost of his father. His promise to the Ghost is understandable; after all, he is moved by the ghost's narration of Claudius' betrayal and wants to avenge the unjust murder. However, he is so easily conquered by thewarnings from the Ghost; if Hamlet is the critical thinker we should think he is, he should have hesitated more. Yet, unusually, he promises his services without a moment's thought. It is significant that the Ghost comes to him dressed in military clothes (ghosts usually appear in their shrouds). Hamlet's father, a famous war hero, implores Hamlet to be violent, reminding him of his inadequacy as a soldier. King Hamlet haunts Hamlet with the idea of ​​unresolved violence. The Ghost presents Hamlet with a visible representation of the polarity between violence and propriety inherent in court life. The Ghost makes it clear that the only way Hamlet can redeem his father's soul is through violence. Therefore Hamlet, the thoughtful courtier, must attempt to be Hamlet the warrior. The tension between Hamlet's position and his promise results in a self-narrative full of contradictions. This is clearest in his intense vow for revenge. His declaration to the Ghost is that he will sweep away all the futile fond memories, all the book saws, all the forms, all the pressures of the past, which youth and observation have copied there, and your commandment, all alone, it will live in the book and volume of my brain. 99-103) Hamlet admits his re-education in violence. He so easily erases the years of grooming, training and formal education that prepared him for a life in court society. Yet he can only elaborate his conduct using the language of education and civil society. He replaces “fond documents” and “books” with a commandment that will exist in the “book” of his brain. Its language belies its purpose. If he really had to replace his revenge for culture, he wouldn't need to articulate it. Violence implies a refusal of the word; the act speaks for itself. His commitment to avenge his father's murder is therefore problematic. His "automatic" loyalty to culture and civilization is contained in his promise of violence. He still operates according to the rules of conduct established by the court. In his desire to appease his father's ghost, he swears wholeheartedly the only way he knows how, by referring to the "book" of his brain. The only way he can express true resolve is to offer the power of his mind. The point of this promise is that it should be translated into action, not thought. Hamlet's promise of revenge contains a contradiction in content and practice. Not only does he rename the promised violence as a “commandment” to be contained in a book, he also refutes the promise while making it. He is talking to a ghost, a representation of the past. This is a past that is told until it is resolved. The Ghost's narrative is one that asks to be told and remembered, echoed in the Ghost's request to "Remember me." At the same time that Hamlet swears revenge, he sweeps away "all forms, all pressures of the past." Included in those “past pressures” is the memory of his father. He is telling the play of his father's past that will erase every trace of that past. His promise is then meaningless. This speech, which expresses a sincere loyalty to the Ghost, is full of conflicting ideas. Hamlet's idea of ​​his self-narrative could not be more confusing. The intellectual preparation of his past is so unpleasant to him that he rejects it and starts over again. He replaces his narrative of books and records with a narrative of revenge. But the logic of his promise collapses in on itself when examined closely. He thinks he has to erase the past to commemorate it. Hamlet actually wants to commemorate the Ghost in a meaningful way. The irony is that when he attempts to narrate his decision, Hamlet's speech is thoughtful but lackingclarity of thought. This scene is disconcerting because Hamlet easily and wholeheartedly rejects the confines of his upbringing. More than just revenge for an undeserved murder, he sees this revenge as an opportunity to start over, to have only one rule, one "commandment". With his promise of revenge, Hamlet achieves a singular purpose that was not afforded to him as a member of the court's elite. This purpose is even more attractive to Hamlet. The promise of revenge rings truer for Hamlet than the need to be a courtier. He has an emotional attachment to this promise; it is his way of perpetuating the memory of his father. Being a courtier is inherently deceptive and limiting; avenging his father is somehow more meaningful to him. Hamlet wants to prove his courage as a warrior of justice, but he cannot break away so easily from the "glass of fashion and the mold of form." Guillory points out that Hamlet's problem is not "how to take revenge on the person of Claudius but how to overcome the polite inhibition of aggression that he has internalized so well." So not only is Hamlet fighting against a constricting society, but he is also fighting the internal demons of restraint. He's also too smart to just kill Claudio right away. The text introduces him as an educated courtier returning from his studies in Wittenberg. The implausibility of this kind of character avenging his father's death with "wings as fast as meditation" is obvious. No audience would accept a tidy revenge plot with Hamlet as the protagonist being a thinker, not a warrior. Hamlet's clumsiness and decisions, while sometimes irritating, resonate with his audience. He is a person struggling on the abyss of transformation, he is someone who wants so badly to do something, but falls prey to the seduction of procrastination and pontificating. When Hamlet kills someone, he does not solve the political problem caused by Claudius' usurpation of the throne. "The effect of Polonius' murder," Guillory argues, "is rather to drive Hamlet in the last two acts of the play into another mode of philosophizing... Hamlet's philosophizing has been in a sense radicalized from his moment on deiinhibited violence." Guillory sees this act of violence as the starting point for Hamlet's philosophical performance and as the vehicle for engaging "true philosophy" or a meditation on substance. Killing has a revelatory function for Hamlet. He does not abandon philosophy after killing Polonius, but rather improves his philosophizing. The seductive irony is that an act of violence becomes the catalyst for improving philosophy, a position of inaction. After this point the play straddles the worlds of violence and thought, never quite settling in either camp. It is not surprising that his confrontation with death, and his confrontation with the violent impulse, increase his meditation on substance. Up to this point, Hamlet's understanding of philosophical ideas lacked empirical evidence. The more Hamlet destroys life, the better he understands it. This act of uninhibited violence is also utterly clumsy. The image of Hamlet stabbing the tapestry, unaware of his target, trying to convince himself that it is Claudius when there is no possibility that it could be Claudius since he has just left him in another room, is so emblematic of the his business. When Hamlet resorts to violence, he stabs in the dark, killing gracelessly and not fulfilling his purpose. One can extend Guillory's idea of ​​a "performance of philosophy" to define this act as a "performance of violence." In the same way that Hamlet uses philosophy to express knowledge without addressing the content, his initial act of violence shows an impulsespontaneous but accomplishes nothing. Polonius' murder actually contributes to Hamlet's situation. He kills Ophelia's father, committing against her the very crime he is supposed to avenge. The murder of Polonius effectively puts Hamlet and Ophelia on the same level insofar as they both experience the murder of their fathers. The murder of Polonius is also interesting because it highlights Hamlet's aggression towards women. He approaches Gertrude's closet in anger. The implication in the text is that he wants to kill her. “Come, come and sit down,” he says, “you won't move./ You won't go until I make you a glass/ Where you can see the most intimate part of you.” (3.4.17-19) comes to her to confront her about her infidelity. Although he does not express his intentions, his language implies violence. He's obviously threatening her with some sort of violence because Gertrude's next line is "What will you do? Won't you kill me?" Hamlet wants to kill her; enters his private closet, a sign that he no longer respects the rules of polite decency. He violates accepted norms of courtly conduct, thereby compromising his reputation and renouncing his position as a polite courtier. Gertrude's anger at Gertrude is not only because she has been disloyal to Hamlet's father, but also because she is a woman and how woman embodies the reasons for his courteous moderation. It would therefore be simplistic to consider Hamlet's violence towards women misogyny. It is not that Hamlet hates women, it is the way women are implicated in the rules of court society that drives his violence towards them. Gertrude accepts the deception inherent in court life and actively participates in it. She easily changes her allegiance to Claudius after he kills King Hamlet. She is a good player in the court game; his strategy is to assimilate to the twisted rules imposed by the court. Hamlet gets angry at her for this because he sees it as a violation of his loyalty to his father. He takes his conduct to indicate a lack of remorse, when in reality he is trying his best to survive Claudius' court. Gertrude's behavior indicates that, despite being a member of the court, she does not feel bound by its restrictions. By remarrying Claudio she conveys complicity with the rules of court society. Ophelia's response to being a woman implicated in court society is different from Gertrude's. While Gertrude is comfortable with the fluctuating norms of court society, Ophelia is disturbed by their fluid constructions. Like Hamlet, she is a young woman bound by the court. As a woman, she must marry well and protect her most precious possession: her virginity. Laertes alludes to this when he warns her not to take Hamlet too seriously. In describing Hamlet, Laertes says, "his will is not his own. / For he himself is subject to his birth." (1.3.17-18) Since Hamlet is destined to inherit the throne, he is not free to love whoever he wants. Ophelia, as the object of Hamlet's intended affections, must consider the strategies that will lead to a successful marriage. The nature of court life is such that even her supposed lover does not have the freedom to choose it. Ophelia faces the same pressures from courted people that Hamlet faces as a courtier. Her restrictions, although different from Hamlet's, function to confine her within accepted social mores. “Weigh what loss your honor may suffer,” warns Laertes, “If with too believing an ear you list his songs / Either you lose your heart, or your chaste treasure opens.” (1.3.29-31) He does not advise her to be careful because she might get hurt, but rather because she might suffer a "loss" of honor. He encourages her to hold back and protect her chastity, her only "treasure". In a world where womenthey are the target and men are the civilized archers, Ophelia must guard her prize. The implication is that he will be useless once he compromises his honor. His value as a person matters only insofar as it relates to the rules established at court. Ophelia does not easily accept the rules imposed on her as a woman at court. Unlike Gertrude, she protests her position in this world and expresses her disgust at Laertes' terse summary of her situation. His famous lines, in which he tactfully rebukes Laertes, reveal his vision of the mechanics of court life. “Do not as some rude shepherds do, / Show me the steep and thorny path to heaven, / While like a puffed up and reckless libertine / Himself treads the primrose path of love.” (1.3.47-50) He realizes that his advice is tinged with a certain hypocrisy; he tells her he is chaste, but can be reckless. This incident is the first indication that Ophelia is not comfortable with the atmosphere of court life. He knows that accepted social norms are not fixed and unjust. His voice in this passage is lucid and conveys a penetrating understanding of his environment. Like Hamlet she is implicated in the restrictions of the court, and like Hamlet she ultimately resorts to violence in response to those restrictions. Ophelia's position in this web of courtly life is significant both for what it reflects on her role as a woman in court society and for what it reflects on her role as a woman in court society. and for his status as the recipient of Hamlet's desublimated aggression. Francis Barker sees Ophelia as "the object of all that male discourse which seeks, along with the text itself, to use and control her at the same time, assigning her a passivity and marginality that is at once touching and repugnant." to the role of the love interest, the fragile daughter whose virtue must be safeguarded and the caring sister. But this does not constitute a clear equation in seeing her as a victim of misogyny. Although she is confined to this "male discourse", she manages to free herself from that constraint and create her own. Barker points out that while Hamlet and Laertes' response to the edges of their world is violence, in Ophelia it "prompts collapse (but also a kind of empowerment), when she finally stops the action and finds a voice." Her voice, described by the rest of the characters as "crazy," is also "stranger and truer than rational speech," Barker claims. He frees himself from the illusory constructs of Claudius' court world by articulating himself with a voice that is "truer" and therefore interpreted as strange. While Hamlet philosophizes and decodes nothing of Claudius' faction of the monarchy, Ophelia uses a speech that "moves the listeners." to the harvest." (4.5.8-9) If Hamlet's desublimation requires him to abandon propriety and civility, to choose violence over speech, then Ophelia's very recognition is the result of her embracing speech to articulate the truths. She co-opts male speech and subverts it. After Hamlet kills Polonius, Ophelia enters the court singing "mad" songs and giving flowers to Laertes, Gertrude and Claudius Ophelia to expose the truth of Claudius's court. Her madness shows clarity of thought; she is able to speak those truths without fear of impropriety appropriate for their recipients" and extensively explains the meaning of the scene. Ophelia gives rosemary and pansies to Laertes, fennel and columbine to Gertrude and rue to Claudius. Jenkins claims that "with the rosemary and pansies, the first two flowers, Ophelia indicates and Laertes accepts an emblematic meaning, thus inviting usto do the same as they shall follow." The flowers therefore clearly have an intended meaning for the recipients, and that meaning is not lost on the recipients. Laertes calls it a "mad document," but then quickly acknowledges that this document contains "thoughts and memories adequate". (4.5.176) This means that he displays all the qualities of madness, but the content of his words and actions is inevitably rational and sensible. He gives fennel and columbine to Gertrude and those which Jenkins claims symbolize flattery and insincerity combined with "cuckolding" or marital infidelity. It gives the king the rue which symbolizes "the rue of regret which includes not only sorrow but repentance". audience in 3.3 and is reinforced during the prayer scene. He orders the king to wear his "with a difference" which Jenkins understands as the difference between innocence and guilt. He also gives the king a daisy, which Jenkins admits proved disconcerting . It would appear to be an emblem of love's victims and she gives it as an afterthought to the King, which offers some symmetry to her giving everyone two flowers. The "withered violets" take on a double meaning. The recipient of the flower should ideally be her lover as violets symbolize fidelity. Jenkins explores the irony of the violet's withering in relation to Laertes' early warnings to Ophelia when he compared Hamlet's love to a "sweet, not lasting" violet. In his pain for the death of his father there is also the pain for the disappearance of his lover. Jenkins concludes that the violas "have a double implication: they recall together with a lost thing Polonius's faithful service to the state (the first thing that suggested him to us) while seeming to rebuke a court that no longer knows loyalty." And again, this is directed at the King and Gertrude, by extension. Jenkins also points out that in giving Laertes "rosemary for keepsake", Ophelia plays the role of the Ghost in Hamlet in her revenge. Equating Ophelia with the Ghost allows her to have a vital role in the simultaneous revenge narratives of Laertes and Hamlet, however, like that of the Ghost, it must be codified through means other than acceptable civil discourse. The Ghost arrives as an apparition, he arrives in madness. These two avenues appear to be the only way to effectively communicate and elicit action from courtiers. Ophelia's flowers function as a parallel to Hamlet's. philosophy performance. He expresses his knowledge and alludes to its content without ever defining it. He uses the pretext of madness to publicize his view of the sins and grievances of Claudius' court. His speech, like Hamlet's, is dressed up for easier consumption by members of the court. Although his listeners are impressed by the "measure" of his crazy ramblings, they do not recognize the truths he reveals. The members of Claudius' court resist the demands of both Hamlet and Ophelia to repent and transform. The irony is that these two characters can only declare the truth through indirect means, and it is their means that undermine their cause. The question of Ophelia's agency in co-opting male speech remains ambiguous in the text. The text resists a clear explanation of whether or not Ophelia's rational, if insane, speech is internal or a symptom of her breakdown. She is marginalized and belittled by the other characters. These perspectives indicate Ophelia's position in court society. The word “nothing” is used repeatedly to describe Ophelia in direct relation to her sexuality. The first time Hamlet uses the word it has sexual connotations. In their dialogue before "The Mousetrap", Hamlet verbally argues with Ophelia, her wit and cruelty evident, her wit overshadowed.