For Thursday: Hamlet, Act 4

Hamlet in a Royal Shakespeare Company production, 2025 

NOTE: No questions this time around, but try to read through Act 4, and we'll probably have an in-class response to something in the Act (if I remember--I forgot last time I claimed we would have one!). Here are some things to look out for as you read...

* Watch carefully how language changes throughout. While Hamlet speaks to his mother in verse, does he do this with any other character consistently (or intermitently)? 

* Where is the line drawn between Hamlet's performance and his persona? Where do we see the REAL Hamlet? Or was there never really a 'real' Hamlet? 

* How do we respond to the murder of Polonius, and his response to the murder? If Polonius is a fool (and sort of an ass), can his murder be treated as a joke? Or is the death of any character 'tragic'?

* On page 203 (Act 4.4), Hamlet has another longer speech, but one that isn't as famous as "To Be Or Not To Be," or "O, what a rogue and peasant slave am I!" How does this speech expand some of the earlier sentiments, and what does it reveal of his doubts and intentions?

* Ophelia reverts to speaking completely in prose in Act 4. Is she truly mad now, or is this also a kind of performance? Is there any "method" in it? 

* Laertes returns in Act 4, and learns that his father has been killed by Hamlet (sort of like how Hamlet learns his father has been killed in Act 1). How does he respond very differently than Hamlet? Why might we consider Laertes a kind of 'shadow' Hamlet? Or maybe Hamlet is a 'shadow Laertes'? 

* A second revenge plot is hatched in Act 4. How does it compare with Hamlet's? Is one more right or just than the other? How is it jusified in the play? 

Paper #1 assignment: Water or Oil?

English 3213

Paper #1: Water or Oil?

INTRO: In Chapter 2 of Tragedy: A Very Short Introduction, Adrian Poole writes,“A great deal of ink has been spilt on the question of what Aristotle meant by [katharsis], let alone of whether he is right. Where exactly is this katharsis supposed to take place? In the head, the spirit, the soul, or the guts? Should we translate it as ‘purification’ or ‘purgation’? Is it, to adapt one recent critic, a matter of holy water or castor oil?” (Poole 18). In other words, what IS the purpose of tragedy: to make us physically and morally sick, and turn with disgust from the events unfolding before us? OR is it to transform terror into a sense of emotional release and understanding (and thus, a kind of joy)? Is the role of Tragedy to spiritually transform us or to make us feel like we’re implicated in the murder?

PROMPT: Discuss a moment in Hamlet that makes us feel an experience of katharsis, which is a moment of “purification or purgation” that comes from witnessing a dramatic/tragic experience unfold before you. How does Shakespeare stage this moment, and how do you think we’re supposed to read/experience/digest this experience? Is it supposed to explain the “why” behind a terrible “what” in life? Is it attempting to transform something terrible into something beautiful or at least understandable? Or could it be making something mundane or even seemingly enjoyable into a cruel and horrifying experience? If this moment is supposed to change us as an audience, how are we changed? Why does this moment stay with us?

REQUIREMENTS: Choose only ONE passage in the play (no more than 1-3 pages), and be sure to CLOSE READ the passage. Don’t just summarize what happens, but examine how the language and the characters MAKE it happen. You might also explain how this scene relates to the drama of Hamlet as a whole, since it might occur early, in the middle, or even very late in the play.

You must use Poole’s Tragedy in your discussion, and should quote it for support and/or to help you see/discuss certain aspects of your scene. Don’t just summarize it—actually quote a passage or passages that bring out the meaning of this scene.

DUE IN-CLASS ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23^rd! Please don’t skip class and turn it in later, since it will be late. The goal of this short assignment is to discuss the different ways we read and are affected by the play, and to discuss how Shakespeare wrote for many  different audiences (who naturally have different responses to tragedy). 

For Tuesday: Hamlet, Act 3

As usual, answer TWO of the following. Beware--Q1 is a long one, since it responds to the passage below. But it's a fun one, too! 

Q1: Here is the original (?) To Be Or Not To Be speech from the 1603 version of Hamlet to compare to the one we have:

 To be, or not to be, aye, there’s the point.

To die, to sleep, is that all? Ay, all.

No, to sleep, to dream--ay marry, there it goes:

For in that dream of death, when we awake,

And borne before an everlasting judge,

From whence no passenger ever returned,

The undiscovered country, at whose sight

The happy smile, and the accursed damned—

But for this, the joyful hope of this,

Who’d bear the scorns and flattery of the world,

Scorned by the right rich, the cursed of the poor?

The widow being oppressed, the orphan  wronged,

The taste of hunger, or a tyrant’s reign,

And thousand more calamities besides,

To grunt and sweat under this weary life,

When that he may his full quietus make,

With a bare bodkin? Who would this endure,

But for a hope of something after death,

Which puzzles the brain, and doth confound the sense,

Which makes us rather bear those evils we have,

Than fly to others that we know not of.

Ay that, O that conscience makes cowards of us all.

Compare Hamlet’s famous To Be Or Not To Be speech carefully with the version above. How does seeing the original—which is different in a few particulars—help us really see what he’s trying to say here? In both versions,  he begins by asking, basically, “is there a difference in living or dying? Isn’t it just like sleeping—letting go of yourself?” How does our version develop this idea in a few different ways than the 1603 version? And what do both versions agree on?

Q2: Why does Hamlet turn so violently on Ophelia in Act 3, scene 1? What does he seem to be accusing her of?  Is he merely acting mad here, or is he using his madness to speak the truth? Any clues in the language (or her responses)? 

Q3: In Act 3, scene 4, Hamlet argues with his mother over her 'bad' behavior much as he had earlier chided Ophelia in scene 1. By the end of it, the Queen gasps, "O Hamlet, thou has cleft my heart in twain!" Is she saying this because he's made her see the true nature of her sin? Or is she heart-broken at his apparent madness? In other words, has he won her over to his side, or does she just seem to be humoring him? 

Q4: Act 3 contains the famous 'play within a play' which Shakespeare loves to do, and also does in his comedy, A Midsummer Night's Dream. Why do you think he stages a play that not only the audience, but the actors on-stage have to watch? What is the effect of watching people watch a play? And why do we also get to hear their commentary on it? 

Reading Shakespeare, Part 2 (handout from class--just in case you lose it!)

READING SHAKESPEARE’S LANGUAGE, PART 2

 

Three Different Kinds of Verse

 

(A) HAMLET (Iambic Pentameter Soliloquy/Intimate, Conversational):

O, what a rogue and peasant slave am I!

Is it not monstrous that this player here,

But in a fiction, in a dream of passion,

Could force his soul so to his own conceit

That from her working all his visage waned,

Tears in his eyes, distraction in his aspect,

A broken voice, and his whole function suiting

With forms to his conceit—and all for nothing!

For Hecuba! (2.2.p.117)

 

(B) HAMLET’S LETTER TO OPHELIA (rhyming couplets, love poem):

            Doubt that the stars are fire,

               Doubt that the sun doth move,

            Doubt truth to be a liar,

               But never doubt I love. (2.2.p.89)

 

(C) FIRST PLAYER’S SPEECH (epic/bombastic iambic pentameter—parody?):

Anon he finds him

Striking too short at Greeks. His antique sword.

Rebellious to his arm, lies where it falls,

Repugnant to command. Unequal matched,

Pyrrus at Priam drives, in rage strikes wide;

But with the whiff and wind of his fell sword

Th’ unnerved father falls. (2.2.p.111)

 

The Freedom of Prose

 

(Lines can be long or short, controlled by the thought, not the rhythm)

 

HAMLET: Denmark’s a prison.

ROSENCRANTZ: Then is the world one.

HAMLET: A goodly one, in which there are many confines, wards, and dungeons, Denmark being one o’ the worst.

ROSENCRANTZ: We think not so, my lord.

HAMLET: Why, then, ‘tis none to you, for there is nothing, either good or bad but thinking makes it so. To me, it is a prison.

ROSENCRANTZ: Why, then, your ambition makes it one. ‘Tis too narrow for your mind.

HAMLET: O God, I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space, where it not that I have bad dreams. (2.2.p.99).

For Thursday: Hamlet, Act Two

 

For Thursday: Hamlet, Act Two

Read Act Two for class on Thursday and answer TWO of the following:

Q1: All of Act One is in verse (unrhymed imabic pentameter), but in Act Two, when Hamlet enters in scene 2, he talks in prose throughout the entire act. Why would Hamlet, a prince, insist on speaking prose, which is usually a “low” language of the common people? Also, why do many people, including Polonius, drop into prose when he does?

Q2: Hamlet has another famous speech at the end of the Act where he compares himself unfavorably to an actor: “O, what a rogue and peasant slave am I…” Why does he, a prince, envy an actor? What can the actor do that he can’t? And why might this be a meta-moment where Shakespeare (a playwright) is marveling at the power of actors (and the theater)?

Q3:  Polonius seems quite willing to exploit his daughter and expose Hamlet’s follies to the King and Queen. Why is this? What does he hope to gain from showing them Hamlet’s love letters? And why does Ophelia (who may be in love with Hamlet) go along with this? Couldn’t she have refused?

Q4: Two of Hamlet’s old friends, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, arrive to keep watch on him for the king. Hamlet knows they’re dong this, but plays along. However, he probably talks too much. What does he reveal about his state of mind and his character in this passage? In other words, how does Shakespeare show us what’s really going on in his mind when he’s supposedly acting “mad”?

For Tuesday: Hamlet, Act 1

Remember to read Act 1 of Hamlet for Tuesday's class. There are no questions yet, because I just want you to concentrate on reading the first act without any distractions, even if you get a bit lost in doing so. I promise we'll work on sorting things out in Tuesday's class. Keep some of Poole's ideas from Tragedy in the back of your mind as you read (they'll make appearances in many of your questions to come). 

As you read, here are some general ideas to keep in mind to help you with Shakespeare's language:

* Remember that a lot of the language is visual: there's not much to look at onstage in Shakespeare's day, so they have to paint pictures for the audience. They do this through poetry, metaphors, etc. If a speech seems wordy or confusing, remember that some of it is scene painting, or even scene setting. These are the 'images' that we get naturally in TV and film.

* You DO NOT have to understand everything. You wouldn't catch even 50% of the words if you watched an actual performance of Hamlet, so don't worry if you don't understand everything that is written. If a speech confuses you, it's okay to skim around looking for parts that you do. I'll show you an example below of how to read a long speech a few lines down. 

* That said, use the left side of the book (if you have the Folger edition) to help you gloss words and phrases you might not understand. The more you look up, the more it will all start making sense. The Folger edition also summarizes the plot of each scene, so you don't have to worry about what's going on. The plot is just a fence to keep in all the cool characterization and poetry. Focus on that.

* All of the language in Act 1 is verse, and mostly blank verse. But occasionally someone busts out a rhyme. Why? Whenever there's a change of language, try to figure out why Shakespeare is doing this to us.

* Remember, too, that this is a play, not a poem, so look at how people talk to one another, and how they respond to each other. Who is listening and who is just talking? Who likes to hear themselves talk? And who might be weighing their words? 

* Read out loud initially, just so you pay attention to the words, their sounds, and the characters. It will prevent you from skimming too quickly. 

* Read slowly and/or read through it quickly once and then re-read it slower. Or go back to parts you didn't understand the first time around. There's no right way to read Shakespeare, but try to find a way you can enjoy. 

HOW TO READ A LONG SPEECH (Act 1, scene 2, the King's speech)

This is a pretty long speech that isn't super important for the plot, but it does give some backstory, and more than anything, tells us WHO the king is. So you want to give it a little attention. Here are some ways to break it down:

a. First, read it out loud. What do you hear rather than see? What sounds or words or phrases jump out at you? One thing I notice is how wordy it is. He likes to hear himself talk, and likes to turn a good phrase, as in, "With mirth in funeral and dirge in marriage." You can almost see himself patting himself on the back with each sentence.

b. Ask yourself, WHY is he making such a big speech right now? What is he responding to? Remember that everyone who speaks is responding to something: either what someone else said, or some other dramatic situation. What might prompt such a long and weighty utterance?

c. The first sentence says it all: "Though yet of Hamlet our dear brother's death/The memory be green, and that it us befitted/To bear our hearts in grief and our whole kingdom to be contracted in one brow of woe,/Yet so far hath discretion fought with nature/That we with wisest sorrow think on him/Together with remembrance of ourselves...(it goes on and on and on for several lines before we get a period). 

Oftentimes, politicians try to distract us from problems with a lot of talking. Basically, he's saying here "okay, we all know my brother recently died, and though we should be in mourning, I decided to think the better of it and remembered we have a country to run." He goes on to say "and since my sister-in-law was so sad, I thought it best to marry her and restore her to her rightful role as queen and get on with it. And now we can all move on."

d. Why is he saying all of this? Because he knows people are TALKING about it. They think it's WRONG, or maybe it's wrong, or maybe he shouldn't have married her. Later on, Hamlet himself calls it "incestuous." Well, they're not related by blood, but some might think this skirting the line. So this speech is a bit of damage control, early on in the play, to legitimize his rule. So everyone knows it's the 'right' thing to do.

e. The speech then goes on to explain the political situation around line 17: he talks about how his brother defeated Fortinbras Senior, and took all of his land. Well, Fortinbras Junior wants it all back, and is going to wage war with Denmark to get it back. So the King has written the King of Norway to barter a truce. He's sending two servants (at the end of the speech) to delilver his letter. So we get a two-part speech here: one part damage control (which helps us see his character, how he speaks, etc.), and one part plot exposition (what happened before the play). 

f. Do you need to get all of this? Not really, and some of it will become apparent even without the speech. What's interesting about the speech is seeing how the King is trying to shape public opinion with his words, and assume control of the kingdom. This gives the actor a chance to dig into the character and helps the audience start to judge him, so we can see if he's really the scoundrel Hamlet thinks he is. 

Try to have fun with the play, and remember, for all its poetry and big themes, it was meant to ENTERTAIN. And it still can, if you let it. The best productions always do, and in your mind, it can be the best production of all! 

For Tuesday: Poole, Tragedy: A Very Short Introduction, Chapters 2 & 3

 

NOTE: Read the next two chapters and answer TWO of the following questions. Remember that these questions are highlighting some of the big ideas (and small passages) that I want you to consider as you read. It can be overwhelming to read everything in these chapters and then walk away 'blind,' so hopefully this will give you something to chew on and think over.

Q1: In Chapter 2, Poole quotes Lucien Goldmann's statement that "Tragedy can be defined as a spectacle under the permanent observation of a deity" (23). Does this mean that in an increasingly secular world (or at least one without the idea of gods that take delight in our human dramas), tragedy is no longer possible? Does tragedy require belief? If you don't believe in divine justice or punishment, does tragedy too easily become comedy?

Q2: The playwright Ibsen switched to prose so he could portray people more realistically and without the "tongues of angels" (poetry). In his later plays, Shakespeare also increasingly uses prose instead of verse. But without the elevated language of poetry, how can we tell that someone is 'acting' tragic? In modern day movies and shows, how do actors make their language and performance seem 'serious'? What are the signs that we're supposed to cry rather than laugh?

Q3: According to Chapter 3, why do so many tragedies deal with ghosts? Like poetry, why are ghosts and the dead almost necessary to create the atmosphere and language of tragedy? As we’ll see in next week, the plot of Hamlet is set in motion by the appearance of Hamlet’s father’s ghost…but is the ghost itself the tragedy, or something more avoidable?

Q4: Tragedy literally means "goat-prize" as we learned in Chapter 1, but in Chapter 3 Poole imagines where tragic plays actually originated. What is the beginning of tragedy? Why were they first enacted, and what did they help the players and the audience understand or experience? What aspects changed or disappeared as the original performance eventually became a "play"? 

Welcome to the Course!

Welcome to our Fall 2025 installment of Shakespeare's tragedies! This class will focus on tragedies about tyrants, usurpers, and the so-called ruling class--the people who are supposedly more brilliant and important than the rest of us, but who really just use their money and power as an excuse to get up to all sorts of mischief. This semester, we'll read some of his most famous plays, all of which are based on actual people/rulers, though most of them take enormous liberties with the source material. 

Be sure to buy the books for the class ASAP, especially the short book, Tragedy: A Very Short Introduction, which we'll start using next week. See you in class! 

Guiding Quote for the class: “Real life does not speak for itself. It has to be turned into words, stories, and plots. It is only when these are lifted out of the unstoppable flow that they hold our protracted attention…We need from [tragedy] an insight—we might even wish to add, a foresight—into the way we should expect things to happen…Tragedy is in this sense thoroughly realistic. It tells us the truth about the way things are going to be—probably, inevitably (Poole, Chapter 1, Tragedy).