Due to the different contexts of the play (one being the Elizabethan era whilst the other being the present) it is easily arguable from a Elizabethan era viewpoint that the character of Hamlet has done the morally correct thing to society as he has waited to the right moment (when he is aware of Claudius’ true actions) to act upon his vengeance for his father. Hamlet has maintained his duty to family and God by not killing himself due to loathing but evening the scores in order to regain his father’s worth. On the other hand from a modern day approach the audience feels as though Hamlet should react straight away and kill Claudius. The idea of duty to God/religion has become mildly ethereal and is not as apparent as it was during the Elizabethan era.
Many differing viewpoints arise in relation to another interpretation - the romantic explanation. It is clear that many of the critics during the Elizabethan era faced the same conclusion as the romantics of the nineteenth century and therefore my interpretations of this reading are derived from the romantic era and the present. During the nineteenth century romantic critics were more interested in the development of the characters than the plot itself. They felt Hamlet was the greatest imaginative creations ever formed by an author/playwright. Hamlet was looked at as the individual torn away by doubt and thus fearful of taking action in order for progression. Due to Hamlet being an idealist he was able to cope with the many harsh realties that are presented in life. As a result Hamlet was forced into a cruel situation that ultimately ended in tragedy. During this romantic period many writers related themselves to Hamlet and stated that they were more prone to thought than action. They felt Hamlet’s expansive knowledge made it improbable for action and thus turned Hamlet into a sentimental dreamer, just like the Romantics.
On the other hand in today’s society many feel as though Hamlet procrastinated too much and more action was needed in order to avoid this tragedy. The audience feels Hamlet contemplated his option without any thought of action far to long and the inability of progression, as a character was placed upon him. This stream of thought enables the audience to feel as though less thought is needed when considering an option and action is the only way towards progression.
The historical approach has many prevalent theories that were apparent in Shakespeare's time. Main supporters of this argue that Hamlet’s (the "melancholy Dane") actions are due to a melancholic disposition. The difficulty of melancholy was well recognized in the Elizabethan age. Several traits of melancholy are sadness, fear, distrust, doubt, despair, and diffidence. Hamlet epitomizes all these traits as he is extremely sad over the death of his father and hasty remarriage of his mother; he is weary and distrusting of the Ghost and behaving with hesitancy as he procrastinates about taking revenge on Claudius. Whilst the behaviors of Hamlet can be explained in terms of melancholy it is a very simplistic approach to the problems of the tragic hero.
One interpretation of “Hamlet” is the play is about suicide. The play heart is an concentrated psychodrama that is about a prince gone mad from external pressures. He longs for the ultimate release of killing himself for several different motives depending on the situation. When Hamlet has the opportunity to kill himself he is seen as a coward, lacking the internal drive to go through with his deed: "O, that this too, too sullied flesh would melt,/Thaw, and resolve itself into a dew,/Or that the Everlasting had not fixed/His canon 'gainst self-slaughter!" Hamlet’s reason for suicide is due to the death of his father which is clear in his first soliloquy. Later on in the play he gives evidence that there are other reasons for his decided suicide. In his third soliloquy he states: "For who would bear... the pangs of despised love... when he himself might his quietus make/with a bare bodkin?" The word "despised" is put as "unrequited" - and thus we are led to believe that Ophelia is the reason behind his suicidal thoughts, not the late King. The mourning of his father is a pseudo veil because he feels as though he cannot sink so low as to kill himself due to a woman.
In Shakespeare’s Hamlet, the representation of women reflects that of the status of women in the seventeenth century. This is due to the fact that many ideologies mirrored that of the society and context. The Elizabethan society placed women as weak/frail and as foolish victims of bigotry and sexual repression that are dependant on the male characters that surround them. A prime example of this is Gertrude’s relationship with Hamlet, for example the quote “Ay, lady, 'twas my word.” This quote refers to Gertrude as lady as opposed to mother showing Hamlets disrespect for women in general. It was quite common to see female characters being manipulated by males, especially ones in powerful positions. Due to the patriarchal setting women had minimal independent power and therefore had no choice but to use the men around them if they wanted any influence whatsoever.
The final representation of Hamlet is through a religious viewpoint. Religion is represented throughout the entire play. For example Claudius murdered the King which is presented as a sin of primordial order. Claudius confesses that his fratricide parallels the murder of Abel:
O, my offense is rank, it smells to heaven;
It hath the primal eldest curse upon 't,
A brother's murder (3.3.36-38).
Claudius has committed both fratricide (killing of a sibling) and but regicide (killing of a royal). The king reflects the image of God and therefore a king is an act of rebellion against divine authority. Claudius has sinned and has turned Denmark into a fallen Eden; “thorns and thistles dominate the landscape”.
As with all literature we are unable to separate ourselves from our personal interpretation and that of the writers. Works of literature usually lead to various interpretations differing from era to context to experience. Each interpretation of ‘Hamlet’ bring different elements to the forefront. Without these interpretations of ‘Hamlet’ one may not be able to feel as though they receive a full understanding of the play and a lack of connection may become a dislike of the play rather than a love for the tragic tail. Shakespeare probably has his own interpretation of the play. The writer merely sets words to the page; it is our job to make them our own.
