The study analyzes Shakespeare's 'Hamlet' from linguistic, historical, and philosophical perspectives, focusing on the existential questions raised in the play, particularly through the verb 'to be.' It examines Hamlet's character as a complex figure reflecting conflicting ideologies and the challenges of action and emotional turmoil. The essay highlights how the interplay between being, seeming, and moral dilemmas contributes to the depth and enduring relevance of 'Hamlet' in literary discourse.

1. Shakespeare’s Hamlet remains an enigma to this day
though great minds have contended with the questions it
raises, not least among them “To be or not to be?” The
following study treats the play from three viewpoints or
perspectives: as a piece of writing in which certain words
can be subjected to linguistic criteria, as a historical
document and as a practical guide to life in any age,
including our own, full of warnings about the pitfalls lying
in the path of life’s journey. In the first case outlined
above we treat the pay just as we would normally do
when studying a short work such as a sonnet where we
take account of the position of words, their frequency
and cumulative effects. As to the play’s place in history, I
believe that we today find ourselves at a juncture not at
all dissimilar to that which faced Britain at the turn of the
seventeenth century. Hamlet has been viewed in many
lights, as a philosopher, as agonizing believer and even
today as a crazy mixed-up kid.
A: Hamlet, Being and Doing
What then are the situations, fromthe representation of which, though
accurate, no poetical enjoyment can be made? They are those in which the
suffering finds no vent in action; in which a continuous state of mental
distress is prolonged, unrelieved by incident, hope or resistance; in which

2. there is everything to be endured, nothing to be done. In such situations
there is inevitably something morbid, in the description of them something
monotonous. When they occur in real life they are painful, not tragic; the
representation of them in poetry is painful also. Matthew Arnold, 185
Synopsis
This essay compares two passages in which the verb “to be” invites particular
attention, in Act I,Sc.II andAct IIISc.I.Inoneof thesethe word“be” already enjoys
no small measure of attention throughoutthe world. The appearance of the same
wordin Act 1,Scene II seems to haveslipped criticalattention. I willarguethat both
passages in question throw light on each other, and when viewed in their
respectivecontexts proveto be centred on two contrastsinheringin Shakespeare’s
use of the word “be,” that of being and seeming and that of being and not being.
Together they reflect the fact that Hamlet is a drama rooted in questions of
ontology,the natureof being, rather than in an interplay ofactions. Verbsin literary
texts receive relatively attention, perhaps because they tend to submerge
themselves in the onward process of sentenceconstruction, and “to be” is perhaps
one of the least obtrusiveand most inconspicuous verbs of all. When then should
it deserve our special attention in Hamlet ?
Disparaged but Undeniably Great
Hamlet has certainly incurred its fair share of adverse criticism, notably from
Voltaire, Bernard Shaw and T. S. Eliot, but in one regard the play marks an
unchallengeable achievement. Few other literary works haveenriched the English
language with such succinct and proverbialphrases as Hamlet has done. Probably
mostpeople, when saying “You haveto be cruelto be kind,” “there’s method in his
or her madness,” “more in sorrow than in anger" or “there are more things in
heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy” are not making any
conscious allusion to passages in Hamlet, but in the case of one quotation they
probably are, namely: “To be or not to be, that is the question.

3. Being and doing
Hamlet fails to do because of what he is. By contrast, in Shakespeare’s most
recent literary source for Hamlet, Thomas Kyd’s Ur-Hamlet, a play we can only
reconstruct on the basis of secondary evidence, the protagonist’s delay in taking
decisive action is dictated by circumstances and tactics, not his own psychological
inhibitions or moral misgivings. In Shakespeare’s Hamlet the one pivotal and
decisive action of the play, the killing of Polonius, is a gross and absurd blunder
(indeed, there is the view that Hamlet anticipates the Theatre of the Absurd in
significant ways). Polonius’s death marks Hamlet’s departure from his careful
experimental mode of operation as typified by his staging “The Mousetrap,” an
indication, perhaps, that the real world offers no laboratory conditions for the
resolution of all human problems. Indeed, the incongruous relationship between
the actions and the inward character of Hamlet provoked Eliot’s famous assertion
that in Hamlet Shakespearefailed to establish an “objective correlative” revealing
howHamlet’s emotions might find their adequate and preciseexpressionin actions
and events. Endorsing the opinion of another critic (J. N. Robertson), Eliot argued
in his essay “Hamlet and his Problems” in The Sacred Wood (1920) that
Shakespeare’s alleged failure partly lay in the “intractable” nature of the material
provided by his sources with its motif or revenge, its ghost and "its despicable
intrigues." 35
Perhaps Eliot did not take full account of one very important difference
distinguishing Kid’s UrHamlet(and closely associated with it The Spanish Tragedy)
from Shakespeare’s drama, for the Bard inverted the roles of father and son in
making it Hamlet’s goal to avenge his father, while in Thomas Kyd’s play a father
avengeshis son. Infact, Shakespearepartially returned to the plot laid downby the
original Danish story of Hamlet, likewise a son who avenges his father. This
inversion or return to source entails an orientation to the future, the expectation
of progress, if nota guarantee of its full achievement. At one level Hamlet revolves
aroundthe thwartingof a normalsmoothtransfer fromonegeneration to thenext.
A reflection of England’s looming dynastic crisis? Be that as it may, in Hamlet we
witness the interpenetration of two historical planes with one reflecting the
transition from paganism(with its ethos of revenge) to Christianity (with its ethos
of forgiveness) while the other reflects the transition from medieval society to
modernsecularism.Perhapsthis densityof associationsoffersthemain reasonwhy
Hamlet has been seen so variously as the champion of conflicting beliefs and
ideologies, whether as a Catholic, a Puritan or modern agnostic. In fact, all these

4. elements intermingle in Hamlet’s character making him a prototype of the
distraught Romantic hero and today’s “crazy mixed up kid.”
IndividualWords and the Light They Shed on the Works to which They Belong
Amid all the debate and contrary opinions that surround HamletI wish to adopt
a logocentric approach to this drama which involves a consideration of particular
words in this literary text. I feel no better point of departure is offered by these
words:
“To be or not to be, that is the question.”
Do these words pose a memorable yet isolated expression, or do they point to
something of essential importance to the dramatic work in which they found? The
sameunderlying question concerns notonly words found in Hamletbutthosein all
works of literature, a point made clearly by the Russian Formalist Yurij Tynjanov in
an article bearing the translated title of “The Meaning of the Word in Verse”. (1)
The very formulation of “the Word” arguably betrays the Russian linguist’s
indebtedness to scripturalprecedents suchas thoselaid by theopening of StJohn’s
Gospel or in rabbinic principles of biblical interpretation, for Tynjanov arguments
build on de Saussure’s distinction between langue and parole by contrasting the
specific reference of a word in terms of its immediate context with its universal
aspect as part of a totality created by all words of like meaning and appearance. A
poet’s puns or play on words producemuch more than the jocular effects of puns
in nonliterary language but point to a connection between the specific context-
related significance of a word and its universalaspect. For Tynjanov a word derives
significance from more than the context supplied by the sentence or passage to
which it belongs but also from other wider contexts, including that of the entire
work of which it is a part, that of the author’s entire literary output, that of his or
her historical situation and finally that of its being subsumed by “the word” as
Tynjanov defined it in its widest, its universal sense. 36
Reflections on the Verb “To Be”

5. Can one consider “to be” in the light of Tynjanov’stheory of the word? As many
a teacher of language will know, “to be” is in some ways the most problematic,
irregular and infuriating of verbs. With other verbs, at least, the infinitive signals
the formal unity of its various forms and manifestations irrespective of tense or
declination. “Be” as a word occurs only in the infinitive, the imperative and
subjunctivecategories. Second, while verbs generally denote some formof action,
“to be” denotes a state of existence with no necessary reference to any action at
all. Some languages can apparently dispense with the verb altogether. In certain
ways it poses an obvious antithesis of “to do” and it is only in the imperative that
“be” is dependent on “do” . This contrast finds a parallel in the basic issue that
confronts us in Hamlet.
The very ubiquity to the verb “to be” in all its various forms renders it virtually
featureless and inconspicuous in all but the most exceptional cases, the line “To be
or not to be” posing one of them. Let us, however, consider another case where
“to be” deservesattention. Itoccursearly in the play in a sceneplaced at a juncture
before Hamlet meets his father’s ghost.
“If Itbe”
The following reference to the text of the play in Act I, Scene II reveals
Shakespeare’s interestin the verb “to be”, containing as it does a contrast
between being and seeming, essenceand appearance Act I, SceneII:
Queen:……..
Thou know’st‘tis common; all that lives mustdie,
Passing through life to eternity.
Hamlet: Ay. Madam. Itis common.
Queen: If it be,
Why seems it so particular with thee?
Hamlet: Seems, madam! Nay, it is; I know not‘seems.’
The appearance of the word “be” in the words of Gertrude quoted above has
nothing of the resoundingeffect of “be” placed at the beginning of Hamlet’s famed
soliloquy. Even so, in his reply to his mother Hamlet pounces on Gertrude’s choice
of verbschanging the formof the verb “to be” fromthe diffidentsubjunctiveto the

6. bold indicative, which hethen juxtaposeswith “seems”.Theuseof quotation marks
in this case draws attention to words as individual bits of language rather than to
the information conveyed by words when assuming their usualsubservientrole. In
treating “seems” as a noun and thus deviating from the rules of grammar, the
author again makes us aware of the mechanics of language which we constantly
use without reflecting on them. Hamlet proceeds to expatiate on the difference
between what is and what seems – between Schein and Sein - in the lines quoted
below:
Itis not alone my inky cloak, good mother,
Not customary suits of solemn black,
Nor windy suspiration of forced breath,
No, not the fruitfulriver in the eye,
Nor the dejected ‘haviour of the visage,
Together with all forms, moods, shapes of grief,
That can denote me truly. : these indeed seem.
They are all actions that a man might play:
But I have that within which passeth show.
Hamlet in Act I sceneII evinces allthe main traits of character that later come to
the fore and manifests his basic attitudes to the world. These will undergo little
qualitative change, even after he has cause to wrestle with the possibility that
Claudius has killed his father. We find in this scene anticipations of what will more
fully emerge in great soliloquy in Act III, Sc. I. In ActI Sc. II healready contemplates
suicide while expressing countervailing fears instilled by religious teaching when
saying in the soliloquy that ends this scene:
Oh, that this too solid flesh would melt
Thaw and resolveitself into a dew !
Oh that the Everlasting had not fix’t
His canon ‘gainstself-slaughter. ..
These lines together with inferences we can draw from the great emphasis
][aced on the special prtmission required for Ophelia’s burial suggest that
Shakespeare was somewhat preoccupied with the issue of suicide at the time of
writing Hamlet. Speculations about the author apart, Hamlet questions, even

7. before his encounter with the ghost, whether life has any true meaning. The
profundity of his underlying pessimismis temporarily occluded by his situation as
a son mourning his father’s death, but Claudius and his mother shrewdly notethat
he exceeds the limits of filial piety normally demanded by decorum. Claudius’s
objection that even mourning a parent’s death can become obsessive and
eventually exceed a socially acceptable limit comes over as sagacious and
temperate advice, should we disregard his vested interest in raising it. As his
exclamation …”Frailty, thy nameis woman!…..makesabundantly clear, Hamlet has
already developed a strongantipathy to womankind,which augursill forany future
relationship with a member of the opposite sex. The reason is clear. What most
galls him at this stage, as later, is the unseemly haste in which his mother has
entered into marriage with Claudius, his father’s brother, a marriage he decries as
“incestuous,”thesame wordthe ghostwill also employ in duecourse.His invective
seems to combine his own senseof disgustwith a defence of the Church’s laws on
marriage. Talk of “incest” immediately recalls the Freudian and Jungian theories
concerning the “Oedipus complex.”
Hamlet’s killing of Polonius occurs, significantly enough, in his mother’s
bedchamber and a reference he makes to Nero points to his fear of becoming an
unwilling matricide. This reference finds an odd parallel on the occasion when
Hamlet hails Polonius as Jephthah, the biblical judgewho slays his own daughter to
fulfill a rashly made vow. Few other plays outside Hamlet show how people
advertently or inadvertently bring death and harm to their nearest and dearest,
whether son,mother,sweetheart,uncle, niece orprospectivebrother-in-law,a fact
which seems to symbolize the interdependence and inextricability of human
relationships and hence the impossibility of surgically clean assassinations. Oneof
the more laudable motives that inhibits Hamlet from killing Claudius stems from
this recognition. On the philosophical level Hamlet fears committing himself to
action becausethe consequencesof deeds areunpredictableand may wellbecome
the agents of evil. It will also be interesting to take some account of C. G. Jung’s
variant understanding of the Oedipus complex, which he, more emphatically than
Freud, uncovered in that stage in cultural development when great heroes like
Ulysses and Hercules were identified as human embodiments of the sun on its
course through day and night. According to Jung the male libido seeks its source
and future goal in embodiments of the female anima, which in line with the logic
of Jung’s main argument conflates mother and bride. Jung saw art as a possibility
of evading the logic implied by this dread of incest, a possibility afforded by the
artist’s exercise of boundless creativity in the media of sound, word and physical

8. substances and in imaginative powers of sublimation. Hamlet’s prevarications
stave off death until the play’s cataclysmic end with a commensurateextension of
the scope given to the development and articulation of words. As we know from
The Thousand and One Nights verbalizing can be a very effective way of stalling.
Besides, deferred action heightens interest in psychological and mental tensions.
Hamlet is a psycho-drama, a factwhich Eliot and others seemto havedisregarded.
What a Difference a GhostMakes
The entrance of the ghost occurring at a juncture set between the passages
under consideration does not induce a fundamentally new attitude in Hamlet but
at mostservesas a catalysteffecting an acceleration of already existing trends.The
ghost makes Hamlet aware of the possibility that his father was killed by his own
brother, but is a supernaturalagent necessary as the only way of pointing to such
a possibility? On the strength of circumstantial evidence alone Hamlet has reason
enough to suspect his uncle of being responsible for his father’s death. The
evidence provided by a ghost was in any case suspect according to the tenets of
Christian doctrine. The question as to whether the Devil could assume the
appearance of innocent mortals was a contentious issue that was still being hotly
debated at the time of the notorious witch trials in Salem Massachusetts. Hamlet’s
encounter with his father’s ghost leads to no resolution of Hamlet’s malaise. It
intensifies already extant emotions and tensions to the point of making him even
less capable of reasoned action. The experience of encountering a supernatural
being serves only to producefeelings of headiness and frenzy of the kind that has
induced many a disoriented and distracted young person to commit extra-judicial
executions in the name of a higher authority. Making decisions is difficult enough
when one has this world’s parameters to contend with without having to worry
about otherworldly dimensions. Hamlet’s fear that the ghostmight pose a malign
influence, a centreof contagion, is not to be dismissedlightly in view of subsequent
events culminating in the play’s final massacre.
“To Be or Not To Be”

9. Hamlet’s irresolute state of mind that follows his encounter with the ghost is
mirrored in the second passage in which the verb “to be” is foregrounded. The
celebrated soliloquy confirms what we have been able to infer from Hamlet’s
previous utterances in Act 1, Scene II. Heis not an assured believer in the promise
of eternal life according to the Christian creed though he nurtures lingering fears
about the possible suffering of a departed soul in purgatory or hell. But is the
soliloquyexclusively concerned with the question of thesoul’ssurvivalafter death?
The words “To beor not to be” cannotbe adequately paraphrased by “to liveon or
not to live on.” The initial prompt for the soliloquy is instigated by Hamlet’s act of
contemplating suicide, butbeyond this point the soliloquymakes little referenceto
Hamlet’s personal situation but rather expands into a general philosophical
discussion of the ills attending the human condition. Viewed in a linguistic or
grammatical light, “To be or not to be” poses a striking use of the infinitive which
in subsequent lines recurs in “to die,” “to sleep,” and “to dream,” creating the
effect of an algebraic formula devised to discover the unknown in terms of the
known. However, as Hamlet himself admits, his linguistic-analytical approach to
comprehending non-existence must ultimately prove inconclusive as a human
being can never directly confront death in his or her mind without dying in the
process, only the thought of death or images for death derived from the mind of a
living person. Thus Hamlet tests the very limits of thought and its principalvehicle,
language, particularly language that relies on the use of metaphors. Here the verb
“to be” plays a central role, for in the processing of creating a metaphor we
elucidate the nature of the object of comparison by associating it with something
other than itself. Put simply, a metaphor arises when you say that something is
what it is not. Rational metaphors such as similes state that one thing, person or
entity is like another. However,absoluteor mysticalmetaphorsstate that onesuch
thing, person, etc is the other without further qualification.
The issues raised by Hamlet’s famed soliloquy are all-pervasive in this play and
possibly others written by Shakespeare, being rooted in the spirit of an age in
transition, an agewhen leading minds wereincreasinglyconcerned with the nature
of metaphors and language. What after all posed the central point of contention
between Protestants and Catholics in Shakespeare’s age if not the metaphor
contained in the words “This is my body”? The flowering of the theatre in
Elizabethan England could be seen as a reaction to the vacuumleft bythe cessation
of medieval church ritual after the introduction of the Reformation. The final scene
seems to derive much of its imagery by ironically inverting aspects the Eucharist
with the icons of the table and the cup of wine and by Hamlet’s ironic use of the

10. word “union” when ending Claudius’s life.
Hamlet and other persons surrounding him question not only the validity of
words and their ability to represent truth but all signifiers in the domain of
semiotics, of which language is only a part. Perception and memory as
representations of reality arenot always beassumed to be reliable, a point already
intimated in the first scene when Horatio and Marcellus discuss the sight of the
ghost.
Before my God, I might not this believe
Without the sensibleand true avouch
Of my own eyes
Horatio to Marcellus, Act 1 Sc. 1
The unsettling implications of the Copernican revolution are apparent in
Hamlet’s protestation of love written on a note to Ophelia:
Doubtthou the stars arefire;
Doubtthat the sun doth move;
Doubttruth to be a liar;
But never doubt I love
Letter read to Gertrude by Polonius, Act ll Sc. Il
Indeed the spirit of doubt conjured up in these points anticipates the pose of
absolute skepticism adopted by Descartes towards outside reality which found
definitive expression in the dictum cogito ergo sum. Shakespeare gave voice to
what has become a central postmodern attitude to the arbitrariness of the sign,
most notably in Juliet’s words “What’s in a name?” A corollary to the arbitrariness
of the sign on the philosophical level is the manipulation of the sign on the moral
and aesthetic planes. The case of The Mousetrap demonstrates the relevance of
drama to politics, leading someto conclude that this play within a play recalled the
uproar caused by the performanceof Richard II at the time of the Essex rebellion.
The motif of the jester in Hamlet epitomized by Hamlet’s meditation on Yorick’s
skull belies the prince’s declaration that he rejects all actions “that a man might
play”.Inthis light wemay interpret the deathsof Hamlet and Laertes as a reflection
of an inseparable connection between sportiveplay and the reality it imitates and
is normally supposed to harmlessly replace.

11. To Thine Own Self Be True
This aboveall ; to thine own self be true.
And it Thou canst not then be falseto any man.
Must follow, as the night the day.
Act I Sc. III
Polonius’s parting words to Laertes betoken more that a piece of well-meant
paternal advice. They arepredicated on the age-old philosophicalviewpoint that a
person’s knowledge of the world and all acts stemming from it are profoundly
affected by the extent and character of that person’s self-knowledge. In
philosophical terms, this means steering a middle course between the Scylla of
solipsistic isolation and the Charybdis of a belief in the possibility of achieving
absolute objectivity detached from morality and self-interest.
In Hamlet such an insight evidently arrives too late to be of much practical
assistance to the main players at the end of the drama. On the other hand,
approachingdeath hasa remarkablewayof concentrating themind and sharpening
awareness of what essentially matters. In Hamlet and more obviously in Romeo
and Juliet it proves not only to be the dreaded universal destroyer but also the
reconciler of what cannot be united on this imperfect earth. Romeo and Juliet at
least points to a beneficial result of death for the surviving society. Hamlet and
Laertes are reconciled at the point of death not simply because they realize that
they have fallen victim to Claudius’s evil machinations. They acknowledge their
mutual affinity as brothers in death. Gertrude drinks the poisoned wine despite
Claudius’s warning not to do so, which makes her dying act a token of a desire to
expiate her guilt and declare solidarity with her son, thus, in the terms of Jung’s
theory of the unconscious, symbolizing theunion of the male libido and the female
anima. Horatio volunteers to kill himself too, but Hamlet lays upon him the charge
of reporting to others the tragic events he has witnessed, doubtless for the sakeof
posterity. Someone has to live on to report the tale, as Shakespearehimself well
knew.Fortinbras’scommentaryof“The sightis dismal” on surveyingthecorpsesof
members of Denmark’s royal house might be taken as evidence of Shakespeare’s
descent to banality at so solemn a moment in the play, but perhaps Fortinbras is
reminding us that death is a banality that in the end overtakesall, the good and the

12. evil, the wise and ignorant, nor can society and even the physical universe itself
defer death’s triumph indefinitely, be this the workof Doomsdayorthe second law
of thermo-dynamics, whether the world ends with a bang or a whimper. At least,
in a certain regard, the mind’s recognition of the Eternal Now renders it
indestructible, leaving it to each individual to decide whether the thought of death
degrades or elevates the human spirit.
Though we now mourn the death of Queen Elizabeth the Second prudencebids us
consider the state of our nation after her reign. Whether soon or late, a king shall
reign whose mother, adored by many, despised by some, died under tragic
circumstances. There are urgent questions regarding England’s ties with Scotland
and Ireland, now enjoying a quiet respite after a sequence of great troubles. A
continental power is in contention with the realm. “Is England ruled by madmen?”
some may venture to ask. Gloom and despondency reign. Is something rotten in
the state of Denmark?
B: Can we decipher cryptic references to contemporary
events in Hamlet?
Who would doubtthat Shakespeare’s Hamletwillalwaysmakegood reading at any
time and under any circumstances, so profound and essentialare the issues that it
raises? There are, however, specialreasons for exploring the drama’s relevanceto
our presentsituation. The firstportfolio of Hamletwas composedat the turn of the
17th century when the political climate of England coincided with the lull before a
tempest to beexpected to rage on the possiblyimminent death of Queen Elizabeth
and the likely accession of James VI of Scotland, then becoming James I of England,
the son of Mary Queen of Scots, beheaded at the behest of her cousin and
supposed asylum-giving host, Queen Elizabeth. Only a short time afterwards in
1601 a historical drama by Shakespeare, Richard the Second, made thinly veiled
allusions to a political crisis that threatened to topple the queen, a crisis thatarose
during the military expedition to Ulster led by Robert Devereux 2nd Earl of Essex,
which, though undertaken officially to crush a Roman Catholic uprising, afforded a
chance to stir up unresteven in the streets of London. Henry Wriothesley 3rd Earl

13. of Southampton, Shakespeare’s patron, was involved in this conspiracy, a fact
which could have cast suspicions on Shakespeare.
IsHamlet,albeit in a more covertand subtlemanner, likewisepervadedby political
concerns? I happened to read recently a page on The Guardian website which
enjoined readers to make comments or state opinions in answer to a significant
question, this being in the present case: “Why didn’t Hamlet become King?” 1 The
discussion begins with a point of elucidation concerning the laws determining who
wasnext in line to accede to the Danishthronein the sixteenth century.Intheusual
way the deceased king’s son claimed the right of primogeniture, as in England, but
somealternative leeway was granted to the Danish parliament(Thing) if it decided
to elect another candidate. Hamletwasaggrieved on being cheated of his royaltitle
by a dirty trick that paved the wayfor his mother Gertrudeto beQueen Regent and
her new husband, Hamlet’s uncle, to be the royal consort and de facto ruler of
Denmark. A contributor added this thought-provoking conjecture:
Gertrudemayhavebeen queen regnant(makingher husbandkingconsort).Power
wouldthen remain with her after her husband'sdeath.There isa lotof Mary Queen
of ScotsaboutGertrude(husbandkilled in a gardenin dubiouscircumstances,hasty
remarriage, disaffected son); Shakespeare was likely reflecting contemporary
politics.
1. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/may22/why-
didnt-hamlet-become-king
Could onego on to suggestyetfurther parallels between Mary Queen of Scots and
Gertrude? I refer to a very strange and unexpected turn of fate. Mary Queen of
Scots married Francis, the son of Queen Catherine de Medici in a teenage wedding
that wasintended to prolong and strengthenthe Auld Alliance between Franceand
Scotland and lead the way to the England’s return to the Roman Catholic fold.
Catherine’s part in the war against Admiral Coligny and the Huguenots is well
known. The reign of Francis II of France, Mary’s husband, was shortindeed as the
result of a fatal ear infection, possibly an abscess. In an age riddled by conspiracies
and resultant fears and suspicions a rumour arosethatfoulplay was thetrue cause
of the king’s death. Itcould be a pure incidence that Gertrude’s first husband was
killed by poison injected through an ear in such a way that no trace of it could be

14. found. Such a devious method of causing death presupposes some knowledge of
the human anatomy, and it was during the seventeenth century that major
discoveries in the medical field were made, such being Harvey’s investigation into
blood circulation.
1560, the year in which this misfortune occurred, saw Mary’s return to Scotland,
the advent of the Scottish Reformation under the unwavering hand of John Knox
and the termination of the Auld Alliance between France and Scotland. Mary’s
subsequent marital path, her marriage to Lord Darnley, a playboy-bully who
probably arranged the murder of David Rizzio, allegedly a pope’s son and Mary’s
lover, Darnley’s gun-powder boosted demise, with or without Mary’s connivance,
and much else gave Mary a bad name in Protestant circles as a woman of easy
virtue, to saythe least: in this respectsheandGertrudeheld something in common.
If, in 1600, thequestion of King James’s accession to themonarch of a dualEnglish-
Scottish union was not done and dusted, by the time the second portfolio was
printed in 1603, no doubts on this question remained and evidence points to the
probability thatthe later versionsofHamlet had factoredin thecertainty of James’s
accessionto the throneof England. Both Protestantand Catholics hopedthat James
would favour their side againstthe other or at least display evenhanded neutrality.
The more radical parties on the Catholic side vented their anger at James’s failure
to advance their cause with sufficient vigour by laying a plot to blow up the
Parliament in Westminster during a session at which James would preside, though
the notion that the Gunpowder Plot was a false flag operation has also been
mooted. Whatever one’s reading of events, terrorismhas had a long history down
to this day.
Is Hamlet, albeit in a more covert and subtle and convert way, likewise pervaded
by yet further political concerns? In view of Poland now being in the vanguard of
the effort to support Ukraine, one is struck that the name of Polonius poses a
subliminal allusion to Poland and that Fortinbras is on his way to Poland on a
military mission. I recently noted the expression of an opinion that such apparently
coincidental references are grounded in the author’s knowledge of contemporary
events in Europe. Atthis time the rulersofPoland complained that a navalblockade
by England interrupted the free flow of trade between Poland and Spain. See the
contribution of Symon Pryzalski located at: https://www.quora/Why-does-
Fortinbras-invadePoland-inShakespeares-Hamlet

15. Shakespeare, we must assume, was in no position to foresee Poland’s tragic
involvement in the wars and carnageof more recent days. All the same the whole
play is open to interpretation as little less than an apocalyptic vision of a world
stricken by confusion and annihilating violence.
C: Let’s Not Make a Tragedy out of this: Advice to Hamlet
A man in a smart business suit is perusing a newspaper and makesthe following
comments:
Poor old Polonius!
Fancy that happening to him.
What’s the world coming to?
Eavesdropping is a risky business of course.
What was the blighter doing behind the arras anyway?
Poking his noseinto other people’s affairs, I suppose.
He had the rather annoying habit of always getting in the way.
Even so, a bit stiff.
Hard on Ophelia, of course.
Still, young people these days are remarkably resilient.
Some call it ‘callous.’
Hamlet will have a lot of explaining to do.
If I werehim I’d lie doggo for a bit-
Till the dustsettles, if you know whatI mean.
For the time being he should avoid Laertes.

16. All this will mess up his love life though.
There’s no real damage done if he plays his cards right.
El Cid managed it with a much greater handicap.
After all, he can always plead ignorance.
Still, an altogether unhappy affair.
You can overdo all this ‘gloom and doom’ talk though.
Once corpsedoesn’tmake a mortuary.
Hamlet will justhave to be a little more circumspectnext time, won’the
He’ll have to cut out this stab-first-then ask-questions-later approach nexttime
he’s in a similar situation.
He’ll mature.
He should settle down and have kids.
So one old man met a tragic end.
Is that supposed to bring the end of the world.
The reader turnsto another page:
Hmm. Fortinbras looks like causing trouble on the Polish border I see.
See video clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyAok2cp8Aw