Paul Adrian Fried / HAMLET'S BIBLE

Because Francisco has the watch and is not yet relieved by Bernardo, many observe that Bernardo is speaking out of turn when he says the opening line of the play, "Who's there?" Francisco rightly refuses to answer, and demands that Bernardo "unfold himself" -- identify himself to Francisco instead. Is it acceptable for one soldier or sentinel to demand reform of another? Bernardo violated the rules of the watch: In a time of war or potential war, following such rules carefully can mean life or death. Hamlet is a play in which many rules (such as the Ten Commandments) are broken, and lives are lost. Bernardo doesn't really answer Francisco's question: Francisco guesses Bernardo's identity, and Bernardo confirms it. Rather than be a stickler for military protocol (rules for their own sake), Francisco backs off. Bernardo's approach didn't represent a sneak attack from an enemy, but merely a mistake by another nervous sentinel. Relieved of his ...

Because Gertrude was paralyzed by guilt and self-pity after the death of Polonius and her talk with her son, might we consider her complicit in Ophelia’s death? I am grateful to Kushi Shah for suggesting Gertrude’s possible complicity [1]. If Gertrude witnessed Hamlet acting in a misogynistic way toward Ophelia, then for Gertrude to do nothing might make her more complicit [2]. It is easy to blame the men as complicit in Ophelia’s death [3]. But Gertrude? She begins scene 4.5 ashamed, not wanting to meet with a distraught Ophelia, saying, “So full of artless jealousy is guilt, / It spills itself in fearing to be spilt.” (4.5.24-25). She may feel guilty for how her marriage to Claudius caused Hamlet’s madness and led to his killing of Ophelia’s father. Gertrude overcomes her reluctance to greet Ophelia, but may be too shocked by Ophelia’s commanding presence, with Ophelia acting like Prince Hamlet’s intended wife – and perhaps rightful queen. Whether in shock at the spectacle, or para...

"So critics want to see Shakespeare as early modern and secular, but Shakespeare is also Late Medieval and Christian. And tragedy for Shakespeare is, I would say, essentially the same thing it is for 15th century, 16th century vernacular drama: tragedy is the failure of a sinner to repent. Whereas for Aristotle, tragedy is something very alien to a Christian sensibility. Aristotle doesn't really care about moral character. [PF note: in the context of his poetic, though he does care about moral character in his ethics]. What Aristotle means by 'hamartia' is not sin, but something more like a mistake. And what he means by 'anagnorisis' is not repentance, but something more like a discovery, like a correction of an error as regards to matters of fact. So for Aristotle, tragedy is amoral: it's like the process of legal discovery that occurs in a court of law. Nonetheless, I think many critics continue to use Aristotle's terms to describe Shakespeare's...