It is clear that from Act 1 to Act 2 some time has passed in order for Hamlet to develop his madness but the first evidence we see is in scene 1 when Ophelia informs us of Hamlet’s trouser incident. But as Hamlet appears more in the second scene we begin to understand what Ophelia and Polonius have been talking about. Further on in this act we are introduced to the players and Hamlets idea of trapping Claudius by performing scene of his father’s murder. Hamlet justifies his actions by saying he is proving Claudius’ guilt before he kills him. Although even when he proves is guilt he still backs out of killing him. Hamlet is accentuating his fatal flaw; he continues to get chances to kill Claudius and continues to talk himself out of doing it (3.3.73-96). Hamlet is essentially a coward but a well spoken coward so we tend not to think of him that way. Whereas in Macbeth his cowardice is pointed out by Lady Macbeth, therefore we dwell it more.
These Acts are effectively the beginning of the end, building up to the tragic finale and Hamlet’s moment.
Good comments. I like your connection with 'Macbeth'. Also, I like 'well spoken coward'. Is this a virtue?
ReplyDelete