Study Journal

HAMLET

1) To what extent does Hamlet correspond to classical or medieval notions of tragedy? What (if
anything) is Hamlet's fatal flaw? Why does he hesitate to act after promising his father's ghost that
he will avenge his murder? Compare/contrast the protagonist's decisiveness and will to act
in Macbeth.
1) Medieval tragedy plays are the ones that Hamlet correstonds the most to. He often finds himself
in an unlucky position, not getting the chance to complete his plans, and even if he gets the chance,
he is unable to make the most of it due to various reasons. He hesitates to kill his uncle until he can
prove to everyone that his uncle is guilty, so one fatal flaw Hamlet has is his merciful heart. That
being said, while he had the chance to kill Claudius when he was praying, he didn’t do it, making all
kinds of excuses. The reason that is given is that if he killed his uncle in the middle of his prayer, he
could anger God. Therefore, another fatal flaw is his inability to act and his indecisiveness, not being
able to avenge his father’s death even though he promised to do so. Macbeth and Hamlet are
opposite in terms of thinking. While Hamlet tends to overthink matters, Macbeth acts very quickly.
In the end they both die, but Hamlet manages to keep his promise to his father’s ghost, while
Macbeth is considered a tyrant.

3) Why does Hamlet wait so long to kill Claudius? What are the reasons for his hesitation? How
valid are they? How many times does he have the opportunity to attack Claudius? What are his
reasons for not doing so?
3) Hamlet waits before killing Claudius because he learned from his fathers’s ghost that his uncle
murdered him, so he still needs to prove to himself that it was true. The source of information being
a ghost, he doesn’t have the certitude that anything he was told is true, and he doubts the ghost’s
true identity at first, thinking that maybe a demon is giving him advice, taking the form of his late
father. He wants to be sure of the truth first and just then take any action regarding that matter. He
decides to observe his uncle’s reaction and then decide whether he is truly a criminal and a traitor or
not. After learning that the ghost’s words were true, he didn’t want to kill his uncle right away, but
he wanted to see him feeling despair and guilt towards what he had done. He had several occasions
to kill his uncle but decided he wanted to defeat hin fare and square in a sword fight in front of
everyone.

MACBETH

2) One of the Aristotelian principles of tragedy is that the hero's downfall is caused by a moral
weakness or flaw that inexorably leads him to his tragic destiny. In this respect, can Macbeth be
seen as an Aristotelian tragedy? What basic human flaws or weaknesses does Macbeth
display? How do they contribute to his downfall?
2) Being a mixture of good characteristics and bad characteristics, Macbeth’s portretization matches
with Aristotle’s definition of what a tragic hero is. Aristotle’s tragic hero is characterized by both
good and evil, and Macbeth is a good example. His good points are the fact that he was honorable
and a valiant fighter and he protected his country (Scotland). His biggest basic human flaw is greed, a
greed for power and desire to rule. He wanted to become king so much that he went astray from his
noble path and killed king Duncan, which ended up in his fall. Everything starts with the scene at the
start of the play, when he decides to become king. As the story progresses, he turns from a
trustworthy character into someone evil and deceiving. Another trait of an Aristotelian hero that he
has is that his downfall was a result of his own actions. He eventually has a mental breakdown, not
being able to bear the guilt of having killed so many people, but he isn’t able to repent for his sins.

3) The three witches have been seen as figures of the Greek Moirae (Latin Parcae), or Fates, who
respectively spin, measure out and cut the thread of human life. Note how the scenes with the
"weird sisters" (Old Eng. wyrd=Fate) punctuate and structure the play. To what extent do their
predictions dictate events? Are their prophecies binding? Is Macbeth trapped by destiny, a victim of
fate, or does he have free will? How do we know? Note specific scenes and speeches that justify
your point of view.
3) The three witches can be seen as the ones that instigued Macbeth to kill his king, but that might
not be the case. That’s because even though their predictions came true, every act was made by
Macbeth willingly. They might have looked as if they influenced Macbeth in killing the king, but
there’s also the possibility that he would have made that choice by himself, even without the
witches. Their predictions shouldn’t be seen as something that changed the course of the action, but
as something that relays the inevitable future. Therefore, they do not dictate what will happen, they
just know that it will happen. They are the only supernatural beings in the play, which makes them
the most powerful and dangerous.

THE TEMPEST

2) Comic Relief? The "unnatural" behavior of the treacherous brothers Antonio and Sebastian is
mirrored by the comic subplot of the drunken butler Stephano, the jester Trinculo (whose name also
implies drinking), and Caliban (more on him below), who enlists their aid to help him kill
Prospero. Here the themes of treachery, plotting, and fitness to rule are treated on a burlesque
mode. But as was true in A Midsummer Night's Dream (the "Rude Mechanicals"), As You Like
It (Silvius and Phebe, Audrey) or Henry V (Henry's former "low life" friends), these characters also
serve as foils to the protagonists. Note ways in which the comical subplot mirrors darker, more
serious events in the play as a whole. Do they get what they deserve? What finally happens to
Caliban? Is Caliban's punishment at the end of the play fitting?
2) Comic relief is present in The Tempest like in many of Shakespeare’s plays and makes itself felt
through some characters, such as Trinculo, Caliban and Stephano. Trinculo is a court jester and,
afraid of thunder, he hides under Caliban’s cloak despite the fact that the smelly Caliban is already
wearing it. Stephano, a comic drunk, mistakes them for a four legged animal that could talk from
both its tail and its head. The ending of the play is unclear about what happens to Caliban. The last
time he appears in the play is during Act V, when he is on stage with Stephano and Trinculo, dressed
in the clothes they have stollen from Prospero.They are all caught red-handed, and Caliban in
particular feels ashamed for taking the two men for gods and worries about what Prospero will do to
him.We can only assume that when Prospero leaves the island, he will leave Caliban on the island to
live untroubled by Prospero any longer. Prospero would not take such a figure with him to the
mainland. Yet Caliban’s precise fate is not specified in the play.

6) And what about Ariel? A spirit in the service of the magician Prospero, he is similar to the fairy
Puck who serves the Fairy King Oberon in A Midsummer Night's Dream. Note passages which make
clear these parallels. But there are essential differences. Consider e.g. the bonds that tie them to
their respective lords. Is their service offered willingly? Is it equally justifiable in each
case? (Service to one's king or rightful lord is considered to be part of the "natural order" in
Shakespeare's time. But is Prospero Ariel's rightful king?) On the other hand, Prospero seems to
feel genuine affection for Ariel, who for the most part serves him cheerfully enough. What do we
make of that relationship?
6) Prospero first met Ariel after landing on the island. He found Ariel trapped in a cloven pine tree
and freed the spirit from his prison. Ariel promised to serve him for a year and then he would take
the right to be freed. Ariel’s service is given unwillingly. Prospero is not Ariel’s king, he only serves
him because he freed him. Spending a lot of time around humans, Ariel learned a thing or two
about them, so he effectively manipulates Prospero by appealing to his humanity, and in doing so h
brings himself closer to freedom. By the end of the book they get attached to each other in the
process. This serves as an example for Prospero to become a better king.

TWELFTH NIGHT

2) Twelfth Night moves from a potentially tragic situation (shipwreck and loss) into the joyous realm
of romantic comedy (unions and reunions). The movement from conflict, sterility and death (two
women who mourn supposedly dead brothers) to fertility, harmony and life (three couples happily
celebrate marriages that may lead to future births) is typical of Shakespeare's comedies
and romances (e.g. The Tempest). What makes the three final couples "well-matched"? How do
they differ from the three potential couples that are not ultimately united in marriages? What do
these pairings teach about what Shakespeare and his audience viewed as an "appropriate" match?
2) These three couples were not going to be married at the first. Every one of them was supposed to
marry other people. The problem was that they didn’t love the ones they were supposed to marry
with. The final couples are “well matched” because they truly love each other. The reason they fell in
love was that when everything started to happen, their personality came to the surface and they got
able to see the beauty and the true side of each other. What is a good match and what is a bad
match is determined by the compatibility they show when interacting, just as we saw that Olivia and
Orsinio were not a good match. The difference between the couples that were meant to marry and
the ones that were not is an obvious one: the mutuality and strenght of their feeings. The pairing
tells us about what Shakespeare and his audience considered to be an appropriate match, and that
finding someone that fits you perfectly is no easy task. Another idea of the play is that it is worth
fighting for love. For that reason, the play has a happy ending, which is really unlikely to happen in a
Shakespearian play, where usually at the end of the play someone dies.

4) Consider the comical effect of the gender-bending caused by Viola's masquerade as a young man,
"Cesario," who is later confused with her own (supposedly dead) twin brother, Sebastian. (Given
that women's parts in Shakespeare's time were originally played by young boys, the gender-bending
gets even more complex.) How does the gender-bending within the play add to our picture of
what the Renaissance and early seventeenth century saw as "appropriate" behavior for women?
(For a similar case of gender-bending, compare Rosalind in As You Like It.)
4) Twelfth Night reflects the way people used to think during the renaissance. Renaissance
constituted a radical change in mentality, for in the medieval era people used to think that men are
above women and that women needed the protection of men, but things began to change because
women started to receive education as well and humanists believed that women should be given
more rights. The play reflects these attitudes and often challenges the social hierarchy and
establishes ideas on gender roles, sexuality and cross-dressing. These factors indeed undermine the
expectations of male and female behaviour, and in turn further the play 's theme of madness which
has a comedic effect on the audience due to the shock humour it provides. Cross-dressing in Twelfth
Night makes Viola 's gender identity ambiguous. Viola is both a man and a woman, being both
masculine and feminine. Therefore cross-dressing helps to break down renaissance gender
stereotypes and eventually, the patriarchy.
HENRY V

1) What is the function of the Chorus? Why would such a figure appear in Henry V but not in MND?
1) The Chorus has two main purposes: to lead the audience through the play and to form the
audience’s view on the king, Henry V. In some ways the chorus is a substitute for Shakespeare
himself. The chorus intermediates those who put on the play (the playwright and the actors) and
those who watch and listen (the audience). With his announcements, explanations, apologies, and
apeeals to the audience, he makes it clear that his goal is solely to move the audience around
through the story of the play, making the transition in time and space. Unlike the other characters in
the play, the chorus addresses the audience directly. For example, in the epilogue, the chorus
apologizes for the poor quality of the play. The chorus also speaks highly of Henry V, so his role
might be that of pleasing the royal family.

2) Note the characterization of King Henry. If you are familiar with the Henry IV plays, you may be
surprised at the change in the fun-loving prince Hal, who hung out with "low-life" characters
(Falstaff, Bardolph, Mistress Quickly, etc.) in 1&2 Henry IV and seemed unlikely to develop into a
responsible ruler. Look for references to the king's past in the text of Henry V (e.g. the conversation
between Canterbury and Ely in I.i.; his interactions with and the comments and behavior of his old
friends Falstaff, Bardolph and Mistress Quickly; the French Dauphin's low opinion of him, etc.)
While Henry's past may seem to be in stark contrast to his present role as King, is such a wild youth
necessarily an impediment to effectiveness as a ruler? What advantages does Henry gain from his
close association with the common people? How does it help him later, for example in his
interactions with his soldiers?
2) The qualities Henry V had include his ability to adapt (being able to stand proud or to get humble
depending on the situation), his eloquence, his bravery, and the fact that he steps down from his
position and talk with the common soldiers, as he does the night before Agincourt. Some flaws he
had include his denial of responsibility when it comes to other people’s deaths, and the fact that he
doesn’t forgive his former friends. Whichever qualities we find most striking in Henry, it is important
to note that in order to be effective, it is essential that Henry appear to be good. Henry’s claim to the
English throne is weak, since his father was a usurper. Shakespeare provides us with plenty of clues
that Henry is self-consciously performing the part of the good king, but he doesn’t necessarily give us
the sense that Henry is in fact bad. The play wants to make it clear to us that what makes a good
king is not what makes a good person. Henry wants to kill his former friends and thousands of
French people in the heat of battle to satisfy the demands of his throne. He has no other way but to
put his personal feelings second to the requirements of rulership and achieve the result he desires at
any cost. By placing responsibility for the war on others he achieves his goals. This behavior may
make Henry seem unlikable, but it also makes him a great leader and leads directly to the triumph at
Agincourt. Ultimately, the answer to the question may be that there are no good kings, just effective
ones.