Philosophical problem of tragedy Hamlet. Philosophical problems of tragedy

Helge is dedicated

A. Introduction

Shakespeare worked into that complex era, when, along with the bloody civilian gravestones and interstate wars, another world flourished in Europe, parallel to this, bloody. In the inner world of consciousness, it turns out, everything was different than in the external one. However, both of these world somehow coexisted and even influenced each other. Whether the great playwright could pass by this circumstance, could he just look like that of the minds of his contemporary philosophers, with whose works he was known to be well known? Of course, this could not be, and therefore, it is quite natural to expect his own reasoning on the subject of human inner life in his works. The tragedy "Hamlet" is perhaps the most striking confirmation of this. Below we will try to reveal this thesis. Moreover, we will try to show that the topic associated with the subjective essence of the human being was not just important for the playwright, but thinking it as the work has created a framework for the entire narrative, so that the deep resulting thought of Shakespeare turned out to be a kind of matrix for the plot.

I must say that Shakespeare did not really tried to encrypt the main idea of \u200b\u200bthe work. So, his main character Hamlet constantly reflects, and the mention has already become a common place. It would seem that there is nothing further and walk that it is - the general idea of \u200b\u200bthe play. But no, the whole critical Guard is trying to do everything so as not to accept it. It creates an infinite variety of schemes for designing his understanding of what the master tried to say. Here and the guidance of numerous historical analogies, and the construction of a value scale in the form of too general and therefore a low-productive approval of the power of good over evil, etc. To prove its vision, researchers use the most different techniques, while skipping the main one, the use of which for any artistic work can only give a maximum clear answer to the question of his sense. I mean the method of disclosing the artistic structure, to the use of which Y. Lotman called in his writings. Surprisingly, for this unmistakable resource, no one for four hundred years of the existence of the tragedy and did not resort, and all critical activity broke up in secondary, although in their own and interesting details. Well, nothing remains how to try to fill an existing gap and show, finally, that Shakespeare has laid its main idea of \u200b\u200bthe subjectivity of the human being in its creation, not so much in the form of a certain extent of "random" statements of Hamlet, how much and most advantage in the form of clearly The well-thought-out structure of the work (we insist on such an approach, despite the popular view that there were no works in the Shakespeare Epoch of the Plot).

B. Study

Let's start. In view of the complexity of our task, we only have one way to get a sure result - to start walking on the work, peering into every atomic component. Further, on the basis of the material obtained (in chapter from our study), it will be possible to make final constructions.

Act first study of Hamlet

The first scene (divisions on acts and scenes are conditional, because, as you know, the author did not have them).

Guardians and Horatio (a friend of Prince Hamlet) discover the ghost of the deceased King Hamlet. After he hides, the brewing war is reported between the Dania and the young Norwegian prince Fortinbras, whose father once died for duels from the hands of the very king of Gamlet, whose spirit just walked past. According to the result of the duel of the owner of Fortinbrus's father - the land of Denmark - switched to Hamlet, and now, after the death of the latter, the young Fortinburg was removed to return them back. After this information, the Spirit appears again, it seems to be wanted to grab, but in vain - he goes out freely and is impaired.

Obviously, in the first scene there is an understanding of the relationship between the emergence of the ghost of the deceased King of Gamlet and the possible war.

Scene second. In it we highlight two parts (plot).

In the first part, the current King of Claudius is presented to us - the brother of the deceased King Hamlet. Claudius got the crown, because he married the widow-Queen of Gertrude, and now he is reveling with his monarch: he and peace with Fortinbras thinks through the letter to the King of Norway (Uncle Fortinbrus), and Laerta, Son Velmazb Polonia, graciously lets in France (obviously , having fun), and Prince Hamlet (the son of the deceased king and his nephew) is trying to fit his benevolent arrangement to him. In general, here before us appears the king to which the "Sea of \u200b\u200bKnee", which does not see the problems in their voluminous complexity, and considers them something like a joke, which quickly decide that they do not interfere with his queen. I still have a quick and light, all of something seem to be air and fleeting. So the Queen sinks him: "The world was created: the living will die / and after life will go away in eternity."

In the second part of the scene, the main acting person is ml. Hamlet. He, unlike the king and his mother, looks at the world otherwise: "I" seems "the unknown." It is not focused on cubes and fleeting, but on the sustainability of existence. But, as A. Anikst, the tragedy is quite true, it is that he, aimed at stability, sees the collapse of any reason: his father died, and the mother betrayed the ideals of loyalty (read - stability) and in a month with a little after the funeral came out for her husband's brother. In this, he, a student of a progressive university in Wittenberg, sees not only the collapse of moral grounds in his personal life, but also in the entire Danish kingdom. And here is his deprived of foundations (external and internal), Horatio (his student friend) and two officers are invited to see the ghost of Hamlet-Art. It turns out that even initially Hamlet-ml. and appears before us deprived of life grounds (the foundation of its being), but he is dissatisfied with it, reflectures on this issue ("Father ... in the eyes of my soul") and therefore immediately will be wishes in the puchin of unclear, in the kingdom region of the ghost, In the ghost area. It is clear that in unclear it is possible to wish to go only being a focused to get out of your life deadlock: in the current situation (as if the second person in the state) he does not see himself. Therefore, perhaps, in the Ghost Fog, he will be able to find a goal of life and the meaning of existence? This is the life position of the dynamic character, so when they talk about the immutability of Hamlet throughout the play, it becomes something awkward for such, with the permission to say, "analysts".

In general, in the second stage we see that the prince Hamlet was in the situation of lack of foundation and in his surroundings (i.e. in the world) and in itself, and, using the case (expected meeting with the ghost of his father), decided to get out of This provision without reason, at least enhancing the position of the pseudo-foundation, than is the situation of stay with the ghost (mirage) of the former basis.

Third scene.

Laert says to her sister Ophelia, so that she did not have a case with the Hamlet: he does not belong to himself (read it - does not own its foundation) and therefore love ties are dangerous with him. In addition, his love prince must confirm with the affairs: "Let him say now that he loves / your debt is not more trusted in words, / than in the power it is the situation / them to justify, and he will confirm them, / as the common voice of Denmark wants them " Further, their overall Father Poloniy gives Laert's instruction on how to behave in France (ordinary everyday wisdom), and after - Ophelia, like Laert, advises not to believe Hamlet (see Note 1). She takes the tips of Brother and Father: "I obey."

Here, Laert and Poloniy give their disbelief in the decency of Hamlet, and they have reasons - he has no reason. However, it is important that Ophelia easily accepts their arguments (especially brother), thereby demonstrating that he lives a foreign mind. Gamlet's love is less valuable for her than the opinion of his brother and father. Although, if you think, she could not agree with them. Indeed, Laert and Poloniy are men who carry a rational attitude towards life, and in their eyes the Hamlet has no reason (the grounds for their strength as a statesman), since it is explicitly dependent on the king. The Hamlet is politically suspended, only the people can change something here, as reported by Laert: "... he will confirm them, / as the common voice of Denmark wants." Ophelia, as a woman, appreciates (should evaluate) Hamlet not with a political (rational) point of view, but with mental (irrational). Of course, the prince lost the grounds of both exterior existence and inner, and this can give Ophelia formal right to incorrect him. But this approach, again, is absolutely rational and should not be peculiar to a woman carrying an irrational beginning. Hamlet loves her, and she could see her soul's eyes. However, it easily refused his (female, internal) point of view and adopted someone else's (men's, external).

The scene is the fourth.

Hamlet with buddies (Horatio and Officer Marcello) prepared to meet the ghost of Hamlet-Art. Time is "without a small twelve." Hamlet-ml. It denses the bad morals that reign in the kingdom, and immediately after that a ghost appears.

Here the prince traced the connection of the spirit of the dedication of the existing position of things and the spirit of his father: denial sitting in Gamlet-ml., Pushes it from the location in the existing one. In addition, in this scene, time is not just as a chronological factor, a factor of some interval between events, and is indicated as the essence, which, through events, begins to shift the most. In such a context, the time ceases to be the number of seconds, minutes, days, and so on., But becomes the density of the event flow. The latter will become more clear after our analysis of subsequent events.

Scene fifth. In it, we highlight two parts.

In the first part of the scene, the conversation of Prince Hamlet with the ghost of his father is given. He starts with the message: "That hour has come, / when I have to flame geenna / betray yourself on flour." It lies a clear sin. Further, he reports that he was killed (poisoned) the current king, and once again regrets that he died with sins, did not have time to repent ("Oh horror, horror, horror!"). Finally, calls the prince to take revenge ("Do not indulge"). Hamlet-ml. Fucks revenge.

In this story there is a connection between the sin of King Hamlet with everything that his murder is connected. There is a feeling that it was his death imposed on him the very guilt. Paradox? Unlikely. Soon everything will become understandable.

Further, it should be noted that the time, showing its existence in the previous stage, here it confirms its special, off-household, essence. It is, from the fourth scene we know that the conversation of Hamlet-ml. The ghost began at midnight or a little later. The conversation itself, as it is represented by Shakespeare, could take no more than 10-15 minutes (and then with the stretch), but at his end the ghost leaves, because the beginning of the light: "It's time. Look, Svetlyk. " The lights are usually 4-5 in the morning, well, maybe in 3-4 hours, given the Danish white nights - this is if it was the case in summer. If, as often believed in the shakespiece, the event occurred in March, then the dawn and at all should occur at 6-7 hours. In any case, several astronomical watches have passed since the beginning of the conversation, but they were able to squeeze in a few minutes of scenic action. By the way, the same situation took place in the first act, when the time interval between the twelve o'clock in the morning and the crude rooster did not have no more than ten minutes of the characters among themselves. This suggests that in the play, the time in the stream of actions of the heroes has its own structure and density. It is own Time, the time of their activities.

In the second part of the scene, the prince tells friends that after a conversation with the ghost, it would be strange that they would not be surprised and kept silence. Takes an oath with them about it. Ghost several times with your appeal "Knee!" Recalls his presence. He follows what is happening where the heroes would move. All this means that the location of the heroes does not matter, and that everything that happens relates to them and even more - everything happens in themselves, i.e. In man, in every person.

Analysis of the first act.Following the first act, we can say the following. The young prince Hamlet lost its foundation, there is no feeling of value of his being: "I do not appreciate my life in a pin." He does not accept this his position, denies it and leads to search for some new stability. For this, Shakespeare provides his meeting with a ghost, who is afraid to burn in Genna, the fiery for the loose sins and asks the Prince not to leave everything as it is. In fact, he asks not only to take revenge, but to make the situation so that behind him, behind the ghost, no longer listed vital mistakes. And here we are approaching an important issue: what is the sin of the King-Hamlet?

Since in the near review, this sin is seen in suddenness of his death through the murder - on the one hand, and on the other hand, after this murder, the murders went throughout Denmark, the fall of all the foundation of existence and even, as an extreme manifestation of this - the threat of war, it is thought What the sin of King Hamlet is that he could not provide sustainable future to the Danish people. Having received the Kingdom through a random duel, he introduced the state of the kinship of chance, deprived of its sustainability. He had to think about creating a mechanism for the continuity of power, but did not take anything for this. And now the new king is seated on the throne, the legitimacy of which is controversial, which is the claims of young fortybress. Sin Gamletta-Art. It is the growing chaos, and hamlet-ml. To remove this sin, it should carry out the stabilization of the situation, obviously through the seizure of power: In this case, the power will have the property of family continuity, which in the eyes of the European European Public Time meant its legitimacy, sustainability, reliability . The government was supposed to be transferred from the Father to the Son - it was precisely that the ideal order of its inheritance was adopted in those times. Sudden killing of Gamletta Art. And the interception of the crown with his brother made the situation of the pseudo budget: it would be as if a member of the family (genus) of Hamlet, and not the one. Hamlet ml. It is necessary to reveal this deception, and disclose openly, so that it becomes clear for everyone, and in the end, that the arrival to the throne, as a legitarious, and therefore, is fair. Legitimacy, the justice of power is such a task of Prince Hamlet, which is evaluated at the end of the first act. In the case of its execution, everything around will stabilize, will receive its base. According to V. Cantor, the Hamlet puts himself the task of not revenge, but the corrections of the world ... ". In the same spirit, A. Anikst is also expressed: "Hamlet ... the private task of personal revenge will take the stage when it develops a narrow frame, becoming a noble affair of the approval of the highest morality" (p. 85).

But this is only the first part of the case. The second part is due to the fact that the movement of Hamlet Ml. It is closely related to power with its need to obtain an internal basis of its existence. Actually, he initially denied the sophistication of all parts of the world - and the one inside it, and the one that is outside. Therefore, the foundations should also obtain both the inner world and external. You can even say that both of these worlds are not divided into the impassable precipice for him, but are different sides of one whole, and differ relative to, like the right and left. Consequently, the basis for them will be one, but only maybe in different ways expressed.

But where does this idea come from about the unified world of internal and external, more precisely, where and how is it shown in the play? This is shown through the phenomena of time and space - in 4 and 5 scenes. Indeed, after Hamlet Ml. Determined to the outlet of the deplorable state of total non-standardity, i.e. After he decided to act, the time of the flow of external events (conversation with the ghost) was completely clearly as it was for internal reflection in a situation of extremely aggravated worldview, i.e. The external time, as well as the internal time (internally perceived), it became equally fast, since it required the strongest tension of the spirit of the prince. And since exactly the same situation was at the beginning of the play, where there was clearly the connection of the theme of the growing chaos with the murder of Hamlet-Art., And where we see the experience of the characters about perhaps the brewing war, it turns out that in the play always the inner tension of heroes is not accelerating Only their internally perceived time, but also an external time, which in ordinary life, outside the play, does not depend on the subjective moments. Thus, the fact that the external time has become a function of the circumstances of the internal life of heroes, and in particular - Hamlet, is the proof of the unity of the world - internal and external - as part of the vision of the poetics of the tragedy.

Similar proof is the situation with space. Well, in fact, the activities of Hamlet Ml. In the fifth stage, it turns out to be distributed next to the ghost, and if you get rid of unnecessary mysticism, then - near and even together with ghost memory. When he recalls the exclamation of "Knee!", Then it claims that the inner space of his stay in the memory of the Prince does not differ from the external space in which the prince itself is.

However, our statement that the ghost is reminiscent of itself in the minds of Gamlet-ml., Not anywhere, requires explanation. The fact is that all the appeals of the spirit "swear!", Apparently, hears only the prince, and the rest of the heroes, who are present here, do not hear that they are stored on this coffin silence. After all, we know from the previous scenes that when they actually saw the ghost, they did not hide their feelings, and they expressed quite frankly. But that was previously. Here they are silent. It clearly indicates that they do not hear the voices of the ghost, but hears and therefore responds to him alone only Hamlet-ml.

However, if the ghost is applied only to consciousness (in memory, conscious) of Gamlet, then why in circulation it uses the plural "swear", and not the only number "swear", thereby having in mind of his buddies? Moreover, according to the sense of the requirement of the oath, it applies not to the prince, who is to be silent in silence, namely, to his buddies. All right! The ghost turns through Hamlet's consciousness to his companions, since Shakespeare thus wants to say about a single space that permeates the soul of the main character and the entire outside world, so the voice in the mind of Hamlet should be accepted in the external world, while the oath should be voiced. She was voiced and accepted as proper. Hamlet's friends did not hear the otherworldly voice, but they performed his classroom (of course, reacting directly not to the requirement of the ghost, but at the request of the prince).

However, Horatio still exclaimed: "About day and night! This is miracles! " According to the first impression, this refers to the voice of the ghost. But why then he kept silence earlier, when the voice did three times before that, but he spoke only after the replica of Hamlet "You, the old Mole! How soon you are underground! So Dipped? Moving the place "? To understand this, it is enough to present events from the point of view of Horatio: His Marcello Hamlet asks not to talk about a meeting with the ghost, those willingly promise, but then Hamlet begins to behave strangely, rushes from place to place and repeats the request of the oath. Of course, if the Hamlet's comrades heard a voice from under the ground, then the prince's throwing would be understood. But we found out that the adoption of such a point of view (generally accepted) leads to the inexplicability of silence Horatio and Marcello, when the voice itself sounded. If we take our version that they did not hear a voice, and that he was heard of Hamlet in his consciousness, then his throwing from side and numerous repetitions of requests for them look more than strange, so it would be quite natural to consider chief Horatio "That's so miracles!" belonging to such suddenly Strange for the external observer behavior of the prince.

In addition, Horatio's words can have another subtext. It is possible that Shakespeare here here here turns into the viewers of the play, bearing in mind that all that happened in 4 and 5 scenes, i.e. At night and at dawn, very wonderful. What is this wonderiness? From the face of Hamlet, there is an explanation: "Horace, a lot of things in the world, / that your philosophy has not dreamed." It turns out that the wonderland of what happened lies in the emergence of a new philosophy other than the one that was adopted earlier, and who was taught by Hamlet and Horatio students. Hamlet decided to escape from the shackles of previous ideas, as they did not allow him to live (have a basis) in this world, and to form a new system in which the foundation of a person's consciousness and the whole world. After all, before Hamlet, in the epoch of the worldview of Christian theologians, consciousness (inner world) was not considered in the system of philosophical reflections as something independent. Of course, the world and the person and then possessed a single foundation - God. However, the man was taken or as an object - and then he looked at himself as it were, not peering into his own soul and not allowing himself to consider her on a par with the whole world, or as a subject - and then the subject's mind, although it was extremely important (it was important that he often interrupted even the authority of the church), but was separated from the world standing away from him as something separate, accidentally incorruptible In him, unequal. The Hamlet also dared to equate the soul (mind) and the world, as a result of which he began to draw contours of the new philosophy, which the former sages "did not dream." Here is clearly visible effect on Shakespeare of new ideas (in shape protest In relation to Catholic Christianity, by the end of the 16th century. The sacrifice of the Holy Scripture launched and in many ways, the philosophical treatises of many of his contemporaries were impregnated, and which were used by many rulers, including the rulers of then England, to ensure political independence. At the same time, against the background of such representations, the topic of the importance of intelligence and authority is imperceptibly introduced into the play. This topic, long-standing in scholastic literature (see about this work V. Solovyov), by the time of the life of Shakespeare was already presented with the works of many theologian philosophers who argued the primacy of the mind over church authority (starting by John Erigen and so on). In the play, we will see that Shakespeare clearly picks up this line, transforming it into a dispute between the mind of man and the authority of the state, (or the monarch), at the end of the work - with a clear preference towards the mind: the monarch can act in their own, egoistic interests, and The task of reason to reveal it.

Thus, in the first act, Hamlet claims the basis of his new philosophy, which is that he puts its consciousness on a par with the world (politically - along with the opinion of power), and so that the space turns out to be united for consciousness, and for The outside world, and the time of the existing consciousness determines the flow of time surrounded by a person. And this is he doing against the background of absolute rejection by Laerert, Polonius and the Ophelia of his spiritual moments, when they see only a political figure in it. In fact, this means their commitment to old philosophical installations. In the future, this will turn the catastrophe for them.

Act of the second study of Hamlet

The scene is the first.

Polonia entails her servant Reynaldo to give a letter to Laerta who left in France, and at the same time to figure out ("Varnisy") about his life. At the same time, during the instructions, it is knocked down, and with a poetic syllable goes to prose. After that, Ophelia appears and reports the Father on the strange behavior of Hamlet against his love to her.

The meaning of all these events may be the next one. The main point in the instructions of Polonia to Reinaland seems to be what it is knocked down. This happens when he is about to bring the result of his speech: "And then, then, then, then ..." And then his surprised mutting (in prose): "What did I want to say? ... what I stopped on ? ". This achieves the effect of zeroing with all the attenuation, which he watched Polonius, clearly admiring himself and his cleverness. The "mentality" burst after sticking, and the albeit of the hero was left by the dry residue. In fact, the stupidity of this Veelmazby appears here, which he is trying to cover with standard clarification, very characteristic of his warehouse, representatives of the backstage intrigues who are accustomed to doing all secret. All the instructions of Polonia to their servant (however, like Laerert in 3 scene of the first act) - clean water Rules of gray Cardinal, confident, but not exposing himself to show; Rather, acting secretly than clearly. From here, immediately follows the meaning of the figure of Polonia in the play - this is a symbol of clogging, subcovery intrigues, implicit actions.

And in this sphere, the intrigue includes Hamlet. He must act in it, and therefore, to cover his aspirations from annoying eyes, clothes the appropriate clothes - the clothes of the game and pretense - in order not to differ from the surrounding background. Moreover, neither Ophelia, nor polonium know that he pretends (we remember that he decided to play his oddities after meeting with the ghost of his father, i.e. after decided to move towards legitimateauthority), and tend to write off on his mental disorder, which happened to him after the brother and father Ophelia rejected his love. It turns out, Mimicry Hamletu was a success, he clearly beat the progressing intrigue polonium, and his newly created philosophy, who taking the soul of man immediately surpassed the old philosophy, who did not take it seriously. By the way, Poloniy immediately noticed this: he realized that he was "overlooking" with a naughty attitude towards the soul experiences of the Prince, but he himself could not do anything here, and for the Council goes to the king.

In addition, in the story of Ophelia about the arrival of Hamlet, it is clear that our hero began to observe the world completely differently than before: "He studied me for a long time." On the one hand, it is associated with his game, and on the other, it is an indication that he began to become different, as a result of which he began to look at those around the new eyes, i.e. As with something new, with interest and in the "emphasis."

Scene second. In it we highlight six parts.

In the first part, the king instructs Rosencrancu's school friends to find out what happened to the prince, which was the cause of his "transformations": "To say otherwise, so unrecognizable / it is internally and externally ...".

Here, the king will strip the spring of the hinge playing and the secret rounds under the faithful pretext of the desire to cure Hamlet: "And there is no power from her (the secrets of Prince - S.T.). However, the fact that the cause of the disease, the king initially calls some kind of "secret", and that Rosencrana and Guildenster is charged with "force" to draw the Prince to his society, speaks of the disbelief of the king of the Random Hamlet's Disease. Apparently, the king suspects him of something dangerous for himself, but since he does not have straight evidence yet, he says more than hints than directly. Nevertheless, everything is clear: this killer and the TRONRABLE is not confident in the sustainability of its position, it is afraid to be revealed and therefore gives the task to two subordinates to "try" that the Prince on the mind. In addition, it is clear that there is no reason to exist in the king just like the main character. However, unlike the latter, our autocrats do not want to change anything, he is an adherent of existence without reason, existence as a case outside the context of the global patterns of this world.

In the second part, Poloniy appears and says, firstly, that the ambassadors are safe, the sovereign, / returned from Norway, "i.e. That the peaceful initiative of the king was able, and the war with the young fortinbras will not be, and secondly, that he "attacked the root of Hamlet Bardney."

After reporting the world, the king strengthened the view that it was, playing, through a simple letter can be ensured by peace and order, and that his mood for fun and easy attitude to life is fully justified. He is easily, through the insidious murder, received power, and now with the same ease thinks to manage the country. So, who returned with the good news of the ambassador, he invites fun: "And in the evening, please feel the feast." Our king is not life, complete challenges, but a solid holiday. The same refers to life and polonium: "This is the case (with war - TS) in the hat." Typically, this kind of phrase throws Deltsi, after it is dispelled by your small divids. To the same important event as a war attitude should be different, and words for a satisfactory attitude towards the world reached should also be selected worthy. The lack of seriousness in the words of the king and Polonia says, firstly, about their ideological similarity (however, it is so clear), and secondly, they are not simply at the form of their unaware of their unaware of the existence. Random opinion, and in the form of a deeply thoughtful position.

And so, being in such a complacent, relaxed state, Polonii, the king and, while the queen's worldview shares their worldview, go to the question of the oddities of Hamlet (the third part of the scene). Polonium is starting, and under the type of scholastic-shaped highness, in which logic exists not to describe life, and for itself, it carries uniform boring nonsense, for example: "... Your son is crazy. / Cray, I said, for the crazy / and there is a face that came crazy, "or:" Suppose he is preserved. It should be / found the cause of this effect, / or defect, because the effect itself / due to the reason is defective. / And what is needed in that matter. / What happens? I have a daughter, because my daughter is mine. / That's what I gave me a daughter, from obedient. / Judge and listen, I will read. " He could simply say: I have a daughter, she had amourous relationship with her Hamlet, and so on. But it's easy and clear to him not interesting. He demonstrates his commitment to the old, scholastic philosophy to all his behavior. However, in contrast to the geniuses of Duns of cattle, Anselma of Canterbury or Thomas of Aquinas, polonium, polonium, only resembles the scholastic elegance of the mind, and in fact it is empty, pseudo-intelligent, so even the queen - so far his alliance is not withstanding, and in the middle of him Boltni inserts: "Delney, yes undiscome." Thus, the author of the tragedy not only mocking over scholasticism, as it is rightly taken to think in shakespiece, but also puts the sign of equality between the clerks for the die and frank nonsense, and through it displays a scholastic theme in the play on the system level, without paying attention to which it is impossible to be completely Understand the overall work of the work.

Finally, Poloniy reads a letter of Hamlet to Ophelia, and reads, unlike the previous text of the play, not verses, but prose, and immediately, just starting, gets back - exactly, as it happened in his previous stage, when He instructed his servant Reinaldo spy on Laertom in France. And then, this circulation blew up all his intake, artificial and unwanted "cleverness", so here is the same thing: well, he is not a philosopher, you know, not a philosopher. His thinking is absolutely not life, and therefore everything is normal, he rejects human in confusion. That's the word from the letter of Hamlet's "beltenious" facing Ophelia, he does not accept: beaten, you see. Well, of course, he has a high mind, and a simple human word is not for him. He is sick on the saucer of the likeness of the score, which he himself issued just that. A little further, he reads a very remarkable quatrain on which we will stop. Recall that this Hamlet appeals to Ophelia:

"Do not believe daylight,
Do not believe the star of nights
Do not believe that the truth is somewhere
But believe in my love. "

What is said here? The first line urges not to believe obvious things (the daylight is associated with the full clarity of all things), i.e. Do not believe that the eyes of Ophelia are shaken. In fact, here Hamlet tells her that his illness, so rushing to everyone, not real. In the next line, it is urged not to believe in weak pointers (star) among the darkness of the night, i.e. - Do not believe hints about the unclear creature of the case. What business can have young people? It is clear that this is either love or a disease of Gamlet. About love will directly say in the fourth line, so here again we are talking about the madness of the prince, but in another key - in the key of some connoisseur opinions about its reason. Hamlet as if says: all possible guesses about my strange behavior are obviously incorrect. This means that the prince is very confident in the secrecy of his stroke. Next: "Do not believe that the truth is somewhere", i.e. Somewhere, not here. In other words, the whole true cause of his changes is here in the kingdom. Finally, "but believe my love." Everything is clear here: the prince reveals his heart and confesses to love. "What is more?" Pushkin would say. In general, it turns out, Hamlet quite fully told Ophelia (albeit in the form of encryption) about his position, striving, especially through direct recognition in love, bring his beloved to spiritual pairing with me, therefore, to get an ally in her face and in terms of So that she began to share with him common worldview values \u200b\u200b(the show of the soul as equal to this, the outside world, parts), and in terms of political struggle to approve the stability of the state's existence (see Note 2).

Ophelia did not understand the meaning of the letter (she at all initially stupid), moreover, she betrayed the spirit of heartiness, which in it dominates, because he gave him to his father-docking (is it a decent girl gives amur letters to someone like that, easily? ).

After the poetic form, the letter of Hamlet goes into prose. Here, the main thing is that a letter is generally built on the principle of prose-poems-prose. The median appeal is framed by conventional human feelings. Our hero is not only the smart and creates a new philosophy, but he is also humane. Actually, in that and philosophy - in the adoption of the human soul as an equivalent world.

Neither polonium nor the royal couple did not understand any such nuances in the letter, and taking into account the explanation of the explanation of Polonia that he had forbidden his daughter to communicate with the prince due to its high knowledge, accepted the strange behavior of Hamlet as a result of the indefiniteness of his love for Ophelia.

The fourth part of the scene lies in the conversation of polonium with the Hamlet, which was transplanted. The prose in the play is always (with the exception of the prince's letters to Ophelia, just disassembled by us) indicates any tension compared to the main, poetic, text. The tension in this case is related to the fact that two pretenders agreed. One, Polonius, - Old Court, "Gray Cardinal", which is constantly playing games to promote small, short dividers, outside the context of the global and long-playing strategy. Another, Hamlet, is young, not afraid of this word, the patriot of his country, for her good that had risen on a dangerous path of political struggle for power and therefore forcedly pretending abnormal.

The first hidden question asked Polonius. We can say that he attacked: "Do you know me, my lord?". If you understand this literally, it may be the impression that the old courtie lost all the memory, and therefore the reason, because the Hamlet grew up in the royal family and to whom it's not to know everyone who is somehow close to the court, especially since he loves His daughter Ophelia. But the subtext can be double here. Firstly, Poloniy knowsly devils its significance to the Hamlet, having lost their vigilance, in front of him revealed. And secondly, the question can be understood simultaneously the opposite way, how do you know my real power, what ideology is worth me, and do you not overestimate your strength, trying to create an alternative to the existing situation of things? ". He answers: "Excellent," and immediately attacks: "You are a fish trader." The conversation, in the form of harmless, in fact it turns out to be a serious fight. In fact, the "fish trader" for noble venomazby is the most insult. Those. To the question of Polonia "And whether you know my power" Hamlet actually answers "you have no power, you are nobody, a finely fussy dealers."

Note that A. Barkov phrase "Fish Trader" interprets as a "pimp", finding certain lexical and historical foundations for this. Perhaps it is, but it still suggests that Hamlet very low puts polonium, he does not see real power in it, although he and his beloved father. However, the "pimp", if you understand this word literally, it is hardly suitable for Polonia simply because this low business does not correspond to his status of the secret chancellor. And even the Smalod, at the start of his career, he in principle could not engage in public houses, since this case would put such stigma on him, which would forever close him entry into high spheres of influence. And it's not that prostitution in the times of Shakespeare was not, or the then the rulers were strict moral principles. Of course, debauchery was always and everywhere, but the power in those days was held not only on the strength of weapons, but also on myth about their special honor. The word of honor of the nobleman was stronger than a contract certified by a lawyer. And so if there is a frankness, permissible for sailors and fishermen in the system of this myth, then the myth itself, which means that the power is instantly destroyed. Kings and princes (like polonium, which "Oh, as suffered from love") could easily afford to use the services of pimps, but they never brought them to them, as it was catastrophically dangerous for their position. Therefore, the translation of the "Fish Trader" as a "pimp" if you can take, then not literally, but in the sense of the merchant with human souls. This approach significantly better displays the very essence of the entire play, where it comes to and large, about the human soul. Polonia does not put it in anything and is quite ready, for the sake of mercenary interests, to sell anyone who stands on his way. Hamlet throws this accusation to his eyes, and he only can, as weakly focus: "No, that you, Milord."

After several interesting phrases that we lower because of their third-party relationship to the general line of our reasoning, Hamlet advises Polonia, not to let her daughter (ie, Ophelia) in the sun: "To conceive - benevolent, but not for your daughter. Do not yaw, buddy. " It is clear that under the sun knows the king, the royal yard, etc. Hamlet is simply fighting for his beloved, does not want that to receive an ideological influence from a frivolous king. He continues the case that he began in his letter of Ophelia. She is like an empty vessel, will have the fact that it will be placed in it. Hamlet sees it, and struggles to prevent the filling of her insensible morality (see Note 3).

Hamlet's efforts are transparent, but not for polonium. For him, the words of the prince are closed, as a new philosophy is closed for those who are used to the old (or to whom it is more profitable). Nevertheless, he does not lose, does not lose the desire to understand what she lies in the madness of the Prince, and again carries out the lunge in the verbal duel: "What are you reading, Milord?", Or, simply speaking, "To which thoughs you are flaky, what are your thoughts philosophy?". That calmly answers: "Words, words, words." Here you can remember his oath to take revenge for the death of the father in the fifth stage of the first act: "I am with a commemorative board of the scet all signs / sensitivity, all words from books ... I will eat the entire brain book / without a low mixture." Obviously, and here and there it is about the same thing - he must erase from his "brain", preventing life, and, on the contrary, fill its "brain" by that purity ("without low mixture"), which fully matches high Ideals that he fully appreciated in Wittenberg.

Further, after the explanations about your attitude towards the book with which he met Polonius, he tells him: "For you yourself, the gracious sovereign, someday, how I, if, if, like a cancer, you will fall back." Here, apparently, the Hamlet has in mind not the physical old age, to which his interlocutor has about i am closely intimacy than he himself, and old age in the sense of some consciousness of consciousness from the wrong problems. Hamlet, receiving a huge stream of experiences recently, carries out incredible intellectual efforts to overcome the talked difficulties, and therefore is in a certain stiffness of its behavior: it is limited to the game in which he was forced to write unexpected for himself. This will surrendered him from the blissful stay at the university paradise with his humanitarian delights and the feeling of endless youth, and as it would have constituted him. However, it is not even "as if", but naturally aged, because, as it follows from the first act, the internal work of his soul directly accelerates the flow of physical time in which the flesh lives. Therefore, a rack of a mature Hamlet calls on Polonia: so that the incredible mass of the problems will not be thrown at him, and the vitality would not be it - not to save, like a cancer, from problems, not to avoid them, not to look for pseudorshenia, as it happened with a military problem, but It is realistic to solve them with the long-term perspective.

In addition, it is necessary to allocate another one, parallel, the overtone of the words of Hamlet. It is, it is possible to remember how in the previous act of Ophelia told Polonia that the Prince visited her very strangely, looked at it, and then retired, "hex". Perhaps the Hamlet here remembers the case, more precisely - its condition at that time - the state of the world observing the world with new eyes. "Step back" is the criticism of the position of a simple, passive observation, which is important at first, but only as a short moment. Simple observation (as applied to Polonia - peeping) is not enough. All this now can not satisfy the prince, who, to solve all problems, needs the position of an active figure.

In general, it can be said that the prince preaches his ideological position and seeks to drag polonia to his side. Moreover, he is talking with this Lord in his own language - the language of hints and halftone. And Poloniy, it seems, it begins to understand what is the matter, he begins to see in the gamlet not a boy, but her husband: "If this is a madness, then in its own way consistent." At the same time, it clearly does not intend to switch to the side of the prince and is quickly retreated. As a result, the Hamlet remained a low opinion about his interlocutor: "Oh, these unknown old fools!", Which not only the gap spent time on the question, but as a result, the conversation itself was scared, and ran away by pressing the tail.

In the fifth part of the second scene, a conversation of Hamlet with Rostecran and Guildenster is given. These inseparable two act and think completely equally. In general, the same, repeating in the play often denotes the absence of a live thought. For example, Hamlet in the previous action, responding to the next issue of Polonia about the book read by him (obviously taken from his university era), says: "Words, words, words", meaning only theoretical nature of written, without going into real reality Therefore, the lack of life thought. Similarly, the same, repeating Ronencranz and Guildrunster, by definition, are adherents of stupidity, the old, who taught their worldview paradigm, and, therefore, they are supporters of its political protection - the king.

And in fact, Hamlet, without having received Polonia into political allies, at first he was delighted with his old school friends in the hope that perhaps they could help him. He welcomed them is welcome, and reveals a little in front of them, expressing its discontent with orders in the country: "Denmark is a prison." But they do not take such a turnover of affairs: "We do not agree, the prince." Everything, the separation feature was carried out, the positions are clarified, and you should only prove your right point. Twins: "Well, this is your ambition makes her prison: it is too close for your spirit." They remember the king's skills to replace the prince of mystery, dangerous for him (King) thoughts, i.e. Thoughts about the seizure of power, and act in the forehead, seeking to push the interlocutor to frankness. Like, you, Hamlet, the Great, you have great ambitions, well, tell us about them. But he does not come across such primitive traps, and answers: "Oh God, I could block in the walnut shell and consider himself to the king of the endless space, if I did not dream of bad dreams" (Per. M. Lozinsky), i.e. He says that he personally does not need anything, no power that he could be happy, being in his inner world, if it were not for the experiences for chaos and sore-founding in the world ("If I had not dreamed of bad dreams"). Twins insist: "And these dreams and the essence of ambition", and further, attention, go to the language of a la scholastic philosophy, is ideologically accessible to: "For the most essence of the ambition is just a shadow of sleep." They hope that a way to globalize the problem, brainstorming through an unnecessarily abstract images will give them the opportunity to win in the dispute and convince Hamlet in their rightness, i.e. That the existing ideological system allows you to live in this world, to react to it and to think adequately. But this is a cheap move: Hamlet because it denies the existing system of thought, which sees the strength to overcome it, as it fully studied it and owns it better than any of her adherents. Therefore, he easily picks up the proposed level of discussion, and that's what it turns out:

Hamlet: And the smartest is just a shadow.
Rosencranz: True, and I consider ambition in my own way so air and easy that it is no more than the shadow shadow.
Hamlet: Then our bodies are the essence of the body, and our monarchs and pompous heroes the essence of the shadows. (Per. M. Lozinsky)

Twins tipped up on the blades! Hamlet defeated them with their weapons, which doubly speaks against their position, and therefore against the position of all supporters of the old system of thought, in which there is no grounds for a person; Politically against the king.

After this verbal overhanger, the Hamlet is quite clear what these two pallows represent. A few more words, and he spoke about it straight ("sent you") - he realized that they were sent to the king to sniffing his plans. Does he need to be afraid of this? Does he, the winning and polonium, and these two, already knowing the effect of the influence of his word, i.e. His right, hide the basis of changes in yourself? No, he will hide it more - as she did before - does not intend, especially since he had negligence a little bit ("Denmark - Prison"). He comes with a parted pick-up and says that he does not see the grounds for this world. And since in any state, the basis for life is the power, then in fact he thus announces its dissatisfaction with the existing authority in which the king does not cope with the duty to ensure the stability and reliability of the society. Moreover, after all, everyone knows that he, the king, hasty marriage to his brother, the first to violates previously unshakable moral norms of behavior. Therefore, hamlet, speaking of the absence of his delight about the existing state of affairs, indicates the need to change power to such that could give people ideals. Of course, he does not speak about it straight (he took him no completely completely), but gives to know, so "having the ears, let them hear." It is no longer masked, as before, and quite confident in his abilities - this is important here.

The sixth part of the second scene is practical preparation for turning the strength of the compressed spring of Hamlet. Here he meets with stray artists who came to the castle to show ideas and asks them to read the monologue from the ancient Roman tragedy. Hamlet after a conversation with them returns to the poetic speech. Before that, since the conversation with Polonius, everything was translated, since it demanded a downstream. At the end of the scene, the tension began to fall, and the prince, when, finally, remained alone with him, was able to relax. It was impossible to fully relax in people to fully relax: the encircleled polonium and twins were spoiled. The atmosphere was stretched, although it was not noticeable externally, for example:

Poloniy: Let's go, gentlemen.

Hamlet: Go behind him, friends. Tomorrow we have an idea.

Such, in appearance, wonderful idyll. But behind it is a lot of experiences from a recent confrontation.

However, the main thing in this part of the scene is, first of all, the unity of the Hamlet with actors, i.e. with a cultural layer from the people who form public opinion ("Better to have a bad inscription on the tomb, rather than a bad review of their life"), and secondly, setting up the Hamlet of this part of the people to withdraw from their memory of such scenes in which horrors are described The rulers (Pyrri), exciting power and insensitive power. As a result, although Hamlet did not find support in power circles, but he managed to find it among the people: the first actor, reading a monologue, entered such an experience that it was noticed even by Polonius. In addition, the actors agreed to play the play on the prince script.

Finally, it should be noted the following. Remaining one, Hamlet says that the "actor visitors" "So subjugated the dream of his mind, / which comes off his cheeks, eyes / mist tears, freezes the voice, / and the look of each fold says, / than he lives ...", t. e. He suggests that the dream changes all the human nature. In the following rows, it immediately refers to himself. In other words, he means the following: I was quite ripe for the struggle, my dream changed me, so I have nothing to fear and you need to go into battle, i.e. show activity. Decidence should be changed for approval. But that this change takes place correctly, the reasons that he will receive through its active action - the attack: "I will instruct the actors / play before the uncle thing on sample / fatty death. After the Uncle, - / will take for living. If yes, / I know how to be me. " Hamlet prepared for a jump.

Analysis of the second act. Thus, on the second act we can say that in it Hamlet is engaged in finding allies. In the circles approximate to power, he does not find an understanding, because there is something unable to understand something due to its commitment to the old worldview system, which truly does not accept the inner world of man, and therefore - does not see the real force in the mind. As a result, consciousness agrees them and does not unfold in them in full of its power, making them elementary stupid, constantly playing in intellectual disputes with the Hamlet. The only hope among wealth and nobody from our prince remains Ophelia. For her, he is fighting in a letter to her, and in a conversation with her father Poloniym.

The present acquisition of Hamlet in this act was his alliance with the people in the face of stray actors. Having been supporting from them, he decided to first his first step in finding out who was in his environment, but on the removal of all obstacles to generate their activity, i.e. To obtain proof of the king's guilt in the death of his father, and as a consequence - its full guilt in the existing chaos and the absence of the foundation in the world.

Obviously, the appearance of actors and their subsequent representation was not an accident associated with the tradition of Shakespeare's time to insert the performances within the performance. Those., Of course, Shakespeare followed such a tradition, but this move he arises not from scratch, but as a result of the fact that Hamlet won in the verbal duel Polonia and twins, using their language - Scholastic Studium language. Therefore, for him, it is completely natural to use a similar reception and in relation to the king, and to offer him as a bait, what he shows weakness - a fusion action, a performance. The fact that this performance will turn out at all in a fun show, it turns out at one time, but Hamlet put such networks to the king, in which he simply could not not please because of his character, more precisely, because of his relevant worldview.

Finally, in the second act, the essence of Hamlet is perfect clear: it is active. It cannot be confused with hasty, which many criticism of the plays await him. Without finding her (hasty), they themselves hurry to declare the main character, then a coward, then somehow, without understanding, what is the figure in front of them. Hamlet - the activity itself is pure. Activities, unlike a simple spontaneity, all his acts thinking. Hamlet moves to the execution of its task to create the founding of the world. Mission takes far from the most important line in the list of its tasks. Moreover, as it becomes clear from our further analysis, all its movement is like both in the form and in the content of the construction of a philosophical system, which is not only the conclusions (results), but the process of their achievement itself. It would be highly strange to wait from the philosopher of only finite centlences. Similarly, it is strange to expect instantaneous actions from Hamlet to implement his mission.

Act of the third study of Hamlet

First scene. We highlight two parts in it.

In the first part, Rosencranz and Guildenster reported to the king, that they could not withdraw from Hamlet the reason for his changed state, although they noticed something wrong: "He eludes the sadness of the madman." According to them, Hamlet is a sly. However, they calmed down the king, saying that he loved the entertainment, ordered the actors to play the play and invites you to "august chet." For the king, the love of Hamlet to performances is a sign of his belonging to the worldview under the code name "having fun". And if so, you have nothing to be afraid of the coup and respond to the invitation is quite possible. This means that he poured on the bait. A little more, and the hook of exposure will turn into it with the irreversibility of death.

In the second part of the scene, power (King, Queen, Polonius and Ophelia) tried herself, once again, to catch Hamlet in his sits. It does not know that it is already practically doomed, and initiates its imaginary activity. The random duck here was Ophelia - to his shame and on his death, she agrees to this treacherous role in relation to the one who recently opened her heart to her. She had to do what I could not manage and Rosencrana with Guildenster - to find out the cause of the prince's disease. All this Camarilla can not accept the existence for them to such an understanding: because the weirdness of the Hamlet can be submitted so that he left their views, but the new system has not yet finally developed. As a result, for almost the entire tragedy, he is "suspended" between the old and new, without having a reliable home - neither there or here. To understand such a state, they themselves need to escape from the shackles of the former, and find themselves in an airless, without reference position. But they do not want it (after the second act it is clear), and try to pier on the forehead the wall of misunderstanding. This once again speaks against their mental abilities, i.e. - against their worldview-philosophical position, which serves as a non-rective tool in the analysis of the whole situation.

But before they are allowed in the course of the bait - Ophelia, we will hear the central monologue of Gamlet, his famous "to be or not to be ...". In it, he says that people live, and are forced to fight, because they are not suitable what is on the other side of life, moreover, they are afraid of this unknown. The idea of \u200b\u200bthe opportunity to get there, in an unknown country, makes "grinding, under the rosary of life," so it turns out that "to put up better with familiar evil, / than flight to a stranger to strive. / So all of us in panties turns the thought. " Hamlet, analyzing his failure to recruit Polonia and twins, considers the cause of all their fear of unknown: the thought of the future, failing nothing to the pit forces the wise and turns them into panties that are not capable of moving forward. But, on the other hand, because the thought is as such always there is some anticipation, some peak over the edge, an attempt to see the invisible. Therefore, one who refused to move forward, in principle, is not able to think. Regarding Poloni, Hamlet has already spoken in such a spirit ("Oh, these unqualted old fools"), here he summarizes the situation, concludes that he only concludes with smart people capable of independent, looking forward, thinking. Hamlet himself is not afraid of novelty, as not afraid of death, and with sarcasm refers to those whom "Thought turns into panties." He put all the points over I, he was left only to go ahead. As A. Anikist notes correctly, it is also answered to "be or not" to "be": it is necessary: \u200b\u200bit should be, i.e. To be in it, in being, to export, since to export - it means to live, constantly rushing for the future. But the latter means not to be afraid to think about this very future. It turns out, in this monologue there is a bond approval: to be - it means to think about the future, about life in it, i.e. To think about it by my being. This is the formula of the subject. Hamlet formulated his idea with which he intended to move towards achieving his goal. We repeat, this idea is as follows: be a subject, and do not be afraid of this! If in the first act he equalized the importance of mind and power, now the mind reel out. This does not speak at all about his claim for some kind of genius. "Be subject" - the formula is philosophical, and not primitive-household, and means the ability and necessity to think in principle that the play turned out to be possible only with respect for the soul, i.e. to the internal qualities of a person.

Hamlet made his discovery, and in this vulnerable moment to him is imparted by a bait - Ophelia. She is happy with joy: "Ophelia! Oh, joy! Remark / My sins in your prayers, nymph. And what is she? Does she answer him the same? Not at all. She gives (yes what gives it, in fact - it throws his gifts. That shocked, but she insists, justifying it by the fact that "the smell of them exhausted", i.e. the fact that the gamlet seemed to be blown away. Whether it is not a cunning: we know what Ophelia, to learn the father and brother, refused to love Hamlet, and then she blames him in cooling to her, i.e. Dumps everything from a sick head to healthy. And it does it with those who are considered unhealthy. Instead of regret it, she seeks to finish him. It's how you need to fall low to go to that! After such statements, Hamlet immediately realizes that in front of him for a fruit - a traitor to their joint harmony, who traded his love for a quiet life at the court. He realized that the former His back of her side was explained by the fact that she moved to the side of the king, and her essence, to that empty, was filled with a poisonous content of empty life without reason. It does not mean at all that the Hamlet saw a prostitute in Ophelia, as it tries to prove Barkov. Indeed, you can bring Laerta's words in the third stage of the first act when he called her to escape Hamlet: "... Understand how you will suffer, / when ... Divide the treasure / Innocence (Highlighting me - S.T.) hot infested. " Rather, the sharp behavior of Gamlette means that he saw the spiritual corruption of Ophelia. And the root of this spoilness lies in its direction not on the sustainability of the existence, but on the momentary friend of stay at rest, when the nearest (relatives) manage it, and she agreed and completely accomplished in their hands. She is not the thinking subject, which himself freely chooses his life path, but a non-resident-plastic object, from which dublovodes make what they want.

Therefore, from now on, the Hamlet refers to Ophelia not as a beloved girl, but as a representative of a hostile side to him, so that the entire atmosphere of the subsequent conversation is increasing, goes into the plane of the backstage intrigues, and is transmitted through prose-characteristic. At the same time, he repeats five times to her go to the monastery: he is clearly disappointed with her and calls her to save his soul.

At the same time, overhearding all this, the king did not see the manifestation of the love of Gamlet to Ophelia. And in fact, what "manifestations" there are to the one who betrayed you. But please tell me, and what else could you expect from the situation that the king was modeled with polonium? Any normal person will break up and arrange a scandal when it is first rejected, and then he himself will be announced rejecting. It means that everything was adjusted in advance, and the king just needed a pretext, so that his fear of Hamlet (the spark of which was already visible at the beginning of the scene during the conversation of the king with twins) to arrange in the false motive of sending it far away. And so, the pretext is obtained, and the decision to send a prince to the link to a clearly impossible work (to collect the unfair tribute to the distant land without serious troops - the case is hopeless) did not make himself wait: "He immediately saunate in England."

It turns out, the king still saw his rival in the gamlet, but not because he told (this did not happen), but because he in principle was dangerous to the spirit of a serious attitude to the case, to the soul of man who was revealed clearly in just What happened between young people. Hamlet carries a new ideological thing, which means the issue of his power claims is the question of time. Of course, he invited him to the performance, and it was tuned by our self-container on a wave of poor relaxation to his nephew. But it became clear that "in his words ... no madness." Anyway, the cards are gradually disclosed.

Scene second. In it, we highlight two parts.

The first part is a play in the plays, i.e. Everything related to the representation of stray actors. In the second part, we have a primary reaction of different characters on this performance. In the very play ("Mousetrap", or the killing of Gonzago), the poisoning of the Hamlet-Article-Art is modeled in general terms. Before action and during it, a condyva of Hamlet-ml is given. And Ophelia, where he belongs to her as a fallen woman. Again, Barkov speculates here about the sexual promiscuity of Ophelia, but after our explanations for the previous stage, it seems, everything is clear: the prince considers it spiritually Fades, and all his dirty attacks is just a way to allocate the problem. The very idea is an open challenge to Hamlet King, his application that he knows the true cause of the death of his father. The king, breaking the action and running away from the performance, thereby confirms: yes, indeed, it was all that it was. Here with the reaction of the king everything is extremely clear, and it is safe to say that the words of the spirit of the father-Gamletta are tested, the Prince was convinced of their truth, so that the task of "Mousetrap" turned out to be fully executed.

It is important that the philosophical reference of the play dictates its rules. In this case, the play in the play was needed as the next step of Gamlet in his movement to the construction of his philosophically a significant position. After he approved "Be a subject!" He should have been aware of activity, so that if not fulfilling, but to start performing this installation. The performance organized by it is his act of activity, the beginning of the approval of its value (actual value) in the eyes of actors and viewers, i.e. In the eyes of society. After all, the subject does not just observe passively, but he himself actively creates new events and is already looking for the truth. And the truth was that the king is the killer of his father. So he has the full right to revenge. But is it necessary for Hamlet? No, he needs to take power legitimately. If he goes to a simple murder, the situation in the kingdom will not calm down, and the world will not receive the desired foundation for its reliable existence. In the end, the repetition of his uncle will give the same result - chaos, instability. In this case, the Testament of the Father will not be fulfilled, and to him (father) will remain burning in hell eternal flame. Does the Hamlet want it? Of course not. He needs to save his father from admin flimsy, therefore, to ensure the stability of the state. Therefore, about spontaneous, due to revenge, the killing of the king and speech can not be. There must be other actions.

Nevertheless, it is important that Hamlet fully revealed in a political struggle, and already openly issues: "I need a service increase," quite clearly claiming his own ambitions (however, no, incorrectly - not ambition to seize power for her herself, And for the sake of benefit to all people). This openness is a consequence of his ideological self-confidence.

Third scene.

In it, the king entrusts twins to hold Hamlet to England, in fact - to the place of reference: "It's time to score in the blocks this horror, walking on the will." The king understood the ideological superiority of Hamlet, and in this - the whole "horror". Further, we see Him walking: he realized the "Smerand of Harvesting" of his, but not to do anything to correct the situation. That is, it seems to be "everything is fixable", but he does not see the implementation mechanism. After all, the true repentance is essentially, and how it really understands Claudius - at least, to give what is taken dishonest. But "What words do / pray here? "Forgive murder me"? / No, it is impossible. I did not return the extraction. / With me, everything, why I killed: / My crown, edge and queen. " In short, the king here speaks in his role: Let everything be still, and then it may be done. All his stability is hope for perhaps, unlike Gamlet, which the foundation is looking for in stable existence. Claudia needs immutability as such, in fact - the non-existence in which he wants to be (later the Hamlet will say about him: "King ... no more than zero). This situation is absurd, because to stay, and even more so sustainably dwell, it is impossible in non-existence. Therefore, he loses the Hamlet, which the foundation chose the scope of meanings, the existent sphere in which to remain naturally and stable. In addition, it is important that if Claudius knew exactly the adversal torments of sinners, i.e., in fact, if he really believed in God, not as in some abstraction, but as in the terrible actual force, it would not be honest , and took real steps to redeem your sin. But in God, he truly does not believe, and his life is simple, a simple bustle of entertainment and sysecond benefits. All this makes his straight opposite of Hamlet, which the existence of hell takes not as a joke, and the attitude to life is building on the basis of the wishes of the good and his deceased father (so that he is not burning in the fire), and its people (the desire of real reliability and stability in society). Therefore, Hamlet refuses (on the way to the mother, after the performance) to kill the king, when he prays that he was not killing as such, but the implementation of his global task. Of course, this will automatically solve the fate of Claudia, since it does not fit into the world order created by the Hamlet. But then it will be later, not now, so he leaves his sword in the sheath: "Wock." Finally, there is another reason for the "good nature" of Gamlet, which is voiced by himself: the killing of the king during his prayer will give guarantees that he will fall into paradise. This seems unfair in relation to such a villain: "Is it so reasting if the scoundrel / will leave the Spirit when it is clean from the bad / and all is ready for a distant path?".

Fourth scene.

Hamlet talks to the Mother Queen, and at the beginning of the conversation kills the hidden polonium. The whole scene is transferred to verses: Hamlet stopped playing, he completely revealed before his mother. Moreover, he kills hidden for the carpet (behind the scenes) Mr. Locking - Polonia, so that he no longer needs the need to hide his aspirations. The covers slept, the positions of different sides are exposed entirely, and Hamlet, not embarrassed, places the mothers of accusations in debauchery and so on. In fact, he tells her that she was an accomplice to destroy all the foundations of this world. In addition, the center of all misfortunes he calls the king, and he regrets that he was not dead, but Poloniyi: "I'm with the highest confused."

It must be said that there is a doubt, the prince was hoping, which kills the king standing behind the curtain. I. Frolov gives the following considerations here: along the way to the mother, just a few minutes ago, the Hamlet saw the king, and had the opportunity to make a mission, but did not fulfill it. It is asked why then he to kill the one who left alive that just? In addition, it seems incredible that the king could somehow break away from the prayer, ahead of the prince and hide in the quieter of the queen. In other words, if you present the situation in the life context, it really seems that Hamlet, killing a man for the porters, could not even suspect the king there.

However, after all, before us is not everyday story, but a play, in which space and time live not by the usual laws, but according to a completely special, when the temporal duration, and the spatial place-stay depend on the activity of Hamlet's consciousness. This is reminiscent of this ghost, the critical prince with respect to the mother appeared to us at the critical moment. The ghost's voice is distributed in the play in reality, but he hears his one only Hamlet: the queen does not perceive him. It turns out that this is a phenomenon of the consciousness of Hamlet (as in the fifth stage of the first act), and such that its creature approves the peculiarity of space and time. Consequently, all the other space-time transformations for Hamlet are natural, and the wait that the king will be for the carpet is quite acceptable. Repeat, permissible - within the framework of this poetic poetic poetic. In addition, having received his mother's witnesses, Hamlet was no longer afraid that the murder would be a secret, backstage act. No, he acts openly, knowing that the mother confirms the emergence of the situation, so that the murder in the eyes of the public will look not with the unauthorized seizure of power, and in a certain extent a random coincidence in which the wine is completely on the king itself: after all, the secretly listening to hear Queen and Hamlet, and according to the laws of that time, this was enough to exercise tough actions on it. Hamlet defended his honor and his mother, and if the king really turned out to be the king, then the door would be opened in front of our hero to power on a completely legal (in the eyes of the public) basis.

Analysis of the third act.

In general, on the third act we can say the following. Hamlet formulates the basis of its ideology: Be a subject, and takes the first step to implement this installation - organizes a performance where it is practically open to the king charges of killing the former ruler (Hamlet-Art.) And the usurpation of power. Moreover, the second step of its activation as a subject is the murder of Polonia, and making this act, the prince hopes to end the king. Hamlet active! He became active when she understood the logical substantiation of this activity ("Be subject"). But the situation is not yet quite ready: the subject is not acting in itself, but surrounded by the circumstances, and the result of its actions depends on them too. In our case, the fruit is not ridiculous, and the attempt of Hamlet to solve all the problems is still naive, and therefore failed.

Act Fourth Hamlet Studies

The scene is the first.

The king learns that the Hamlet killed Polonia. He is clearly scared, because he understands: "It was so used with us, we allify there." Therefore, the decision taken even earlier, the decision to send Hamlet to England will mostly accelerate. The king feels that he does not determine the situation, but the prince. If earlier the king was a temper, and Hamlet - antithesis, now everything has changed. The activity of the prince approves the Tezu, and the king only reacts to the happening, it is an antitz. His "shower in anxiety and was frightened", since the people (obviously, through the stray actors), putting on the side of Hamlet, there is a real force from which it is impossible to dismiss from the annoying flies. In society, changes in relation to the king, to its legitimacy, and this is a real threat to him. It is her who he is afraid, calling her "hissing a poisonous slander." Although what kind of slander is it? After all, he himself recently, during the prayer (3 act, 3 scene) recognized himself in his deed crimes. Calling the truth slander, the king is not just trying to hide his guilt in front of the queen, which is in the murder of Hamlet-Art., Apparently, did not participate in any way. In addition, here he, firstly, clearly demonstrates that he lost control over the situation (hoping for Avos: "The hissing of a poisonous slander ..., perhaps, we will consult us"), and secondly, and this is the most important thing. Full lies. After all, calling the lie of the truth, the king puts the cross on the correctness of his position. Strictly speaking, if the Hamlet moves towards its subjectivity, and as it moves, it increases (first of all ideologically, i.e. influenced by the people), then the king, on the contrary, is increasingly immersed in lies, i.e. It moves away from its subjectivity, and in ideological terms inevitably loses. It should be noted that the ideological loss of the king became obvious even after he himself after Polonii - this symbol of clogging - died, talking the situation, and all (people) began to gradually understand what.

Scene second.

Rosencranc and Guildenster are disappeared by Gamlet, where he hid the body of Polonia. He openly indicates his opposition to them, calling them with a sponge, i.e. The tool in the hands of the king, which is "no more than zero." Hamlet moved public opinion to his side; The king, without having such support, turned into an empty place, in zero. He used to be almost zero passivity, only imitating activity (the murder of Gamlet-Art. And the capture of the throne), now everything is screamed and his passivity became apparent.

Third scene.

Hamlet says the king that the body is polonium "on dinner" - in dinner at the worms.

In general, it is asked why the king is so much fussing about the corpse of Polonia? Is there much expenses? Those., Of course, Polonius was his friend and right hand in the production of all his vyslands. Not in vain, after all, in the second stage of the first act of Claudius, turning to Laerta, says: "No more gets his head with a heart ... than a Danish throne for your father." Well, but Shakespeare why so much pay attention to the search for a non-living body? The answer lies on the surface: the king entered the false situation (in the previous stage called the truth of the lie), moved away from his active subjectivity and moves to its opposite - non-life passivity. While he has not yet completely moved to this destination, but the steps in this direction makes: looking for a dead man. In addition, the strength of the king was in the backstage intrigues, in secret frauds, when the truth was closed from a human eye. Death Polonia personifies the removal of all sides from the real position of things. The king is bare, and without the usual embellish, he is not the king, he is an empty place. Therefore, he convulsively tries to restore his world of clogging, at least even through a simple sought of a corpse of Polonia. The king still did not understand that the Hamlet with his active position (the fiction of the performance) moved the whole situation, and she began to grow irreversibly against him, against his ideological installation for fun: the performance of Hamlet was not cheerful, and this not-greasicness helped talk the situation. (By the way, this particular Shakespeare argues that the tragedy as a genre has a higher artistic status compared to comedies, which he himself was engaged in his youth).

And so, Hamlet gives a king: the corpse is "on dinner". Once actively-fussy polonium with some signs of the subject (but only somesigns: In addition to the activity, you need the mind that the deceased, by and large, did not possess, and possessed only a pseudo-cordon and a standard set of gray cardinal rules) became an object for worms. But the king is a strong analogy of Polonia, so that Hamlet here simply reports him about his similar fate: the pseudo-grade only in the absence of this subject can pretend to be a draw, but when the original masks are flying, and the pseudosphek becomes who he is on the very Business - the object, in the plot implementation - the dead.

In addition, the whole topic with the worms ("We refuse all living creatures on the punctured to yourself, and they themselves feed the worms on the wrist", etc.) shows a circulation of activity and passivity: the activity sooner or later calms down, and passivity will be excited. And this is all the more so, if the activity was with the prefix "Pseudo", and passiveness until the time before the time resided in ignorance regarding its real essence. But as soon as inside passivity, the awareness of the activity of herself occurred (the call "be a subject!" In the monologue "to be or not to be ..."), so immediately the whole world came into motion, the true activity received its being, and at the same time he knocked out backups from theatrical scenery from Pseudoactivity by transferring it to passivity status.

In general, Hamlet behaves very frankly, and the king, defending it, no longer just sends him to England, but gives twins a letter with the order of the English authorities (who submitted to the Danish king and paid him tribute) to kill the prince. Obviously, he would kill him himself, and the people are scary.

The scene is the fourth.

It describes how young fortinbras with his army goes war to Poland. And the war is supposed to be due to the pitiful block of land, which is worthless. The path of troops passes through Denmark, and before sailing to England, Hamlet talks to the captain, from which he learns all the important moments for him. What is important to him? Before reference to England, it is important for him not to fall in spirit, and he gets such a moral imaging. The situation is such. Collecting the army for war with Denmark, Fortinburgh-ml. Got a ban from his uncle - the ruler of Norway - on this campaign. But he and his whole Guard moved into a state of waiting for war, they were intensified, and they could not be stopped. As a result, they implement their activity albeit on a useless hike, but they express themselves in it. This is an example for Hamlet: Activity, Using, can not so easily stay in motion to your goal. If barriers happened on her life path, it does not refuse himself, but manifests itself, although, perhaps, and a little differently than it was planned in advance. Hamlet fully accepts such a mood: "About my thought, be in the blood. / Live thunderstorm Il do not live at all. " In other words: "O my subject, from now on, be active, what would not be worth it. You are the activity only inspired, because they attack and do not stop any obstacles. "

In addition, the appearance of a young fortybress immediately after statements in the previous stage on the cycle of passivity and activity (theme with worms and so on.) It makes it think that if everything moves in a circle, then Fortinburg should have a chance of success in the fight for Power in Denmark: Overall his father owned it (was active), then lost (he switched to the discharge of passivity - died), and now, if the law of the cycle is correct, then Fintbras-ml. It has every chance of getting a throne. While it is only a guess, but since we know that in the end it will be so it will happen, then this guess is reversible, and the very appearance of the Norwegian in the current stage, when the outlines of the end of the entire play are already somewhat visible, seem to be a skillful course of Shakespeare : He reminds us of where the roots of the whole story grow from, and hints of the upcoming event of events.

Scene fifth. Here we highlight three parts.

In the first part, the disturbed mind sings and says mysterious things in front of the queen, and then in front of the king. In the second part, Laert returned from France with a crowd of rosechikov returned from France and requires explanations about the death of the father (Polonia). He soothes Laert and translates it into his allies. In the third part of Ophelia returns and makes some strange instructions to his brother. That shocked.

Now in more detail and in order. Ophelia went crazy. It was expected: she lived by the mind of the Father, and after his death lost this its foundation - a smart (reasonable) basis of his life. But, unlike Hamlet, who only played madness and strictly controlled the degree of his "madness", Ophelia shoved at the present, because, we repeat, having lost his father's mind, he did not have it. The latter she demonstrated throughout the play, refusing resistance to paternal science against Gamlet. The absence of the spirit of resistance (spirit of denial) for a long time surrendered it from Hamlet, who, at one time, having lost the grounds, found the strength to move, because he knew how to deny. The denial is the capsule that undermines the charge of the cartridge (will be the will), after which the hero movement becomes irreversible. Ophelia had nothing of this - no denial, no will. Actually, because they have a prince and did not work out a full-fledged relationship that they were too different.

At the same time, the madness of Ophelia, among other things, means her departure from the previous position of the indulgence of the views of his father, and hence the king. Here, repeat, we have an analogy with madness of Gamlet. And although the physiology and metaphysics of their indigenousness are different, but the very fact of the change in consciousness in both cases allows us to say that Ophelia in this scene appeared before us quite different than before. Those, of course, she went crazy and already in this she was different. But the main thing is not this, but its new, freed from the former royal installations, a look at life. Now she "accuses the whole world in lies ... And here the traces of some terrible mystery" (or, in the translation of Lozinsky, "there is no clear, but the sinister mind"). Ophelia acquired a denial, and this is the secret ("unclear, but the sinister mind"), the mystery of how in an empty vessel who lost its foundation, denial appears, i.e. Something is that (knowing the example of Hamlet) is the basis for any new movements, for any true, breaking into future, thinking. In other words, the question arises: how is that not-thinking arises the basis for thinking? Or else otherwise: how in passivity an activity arises? This is clearly the continuation of the conversation about the circular movement of the world, which took place in the previous scenes. Indeed, you can still somehow understand the reassurance of activity, but how to understand the activation of passivity when something occurs from nothing? Scholastov had a formula: nothing arises from nothing. Here we see the opposite statement. This means that the new philosophy of the Gamlette penetrated many layers of society that the ideology of an exiled prince lives, and on the example of Ophelia acts. In principle, you can even say that the efforts of Hamlet on setting up Ophelia on their own way, in the end, were crowned with success, although it was late: she was no longer saved. The reason for this state of affairs will be considered a little later.

In any case, in the changed Consciousness of Ophelia, it became, like Hamlet, to issue such a pearl, which make the most educated minds of Shakespeare, misunderstanding. By the way, while the Gertrud of them (Pearl) did not hear, it is emotionally, and therefore ideologically, staging on the Son, did not want to take Ophelia: "I will not take it," because I considered it in the opposite, royal, camp. Until some point it was fair. She herself stayed there until Hamlet revealed her eyes to the essence of things in the kingdom. But at the beginning of the communication of the two women, the situation is radically changing and the ratio of the queen to the girl becomes another. So, if her introductory words were very strict: "What do you, Ophelia?", Already after the first Quarterly, the songs that she began to hum, the words followed completely different, significantly warmer: "Golubushka, what does this song mean?". The changed Consciousness of Ophelia in some way soed it with the Hamlet, brought them closer, and it could not pass unnoticed from the queen.

Actually, here is the first song of Ophelia, with which she appeals to Gertrude:

How to find out who is your cute?
He goes with a rod.
Perlove on Tul
Pistons with strap.
Ah, he died, Madam,
He is cold dust;
In the heads of green turf,
Pebbles in the legs.
Saban Bel, like mountain snow
Tsvetics above the grave;
He went to her forever,
Not melted sweet.
(Per. M. Lozinsky)

In it, it is clear about the king ("He goes with a rod", plus to this cute queen Gertruda is King Claudius). Ophelia means that the situation in the state began to irreversibly develop not in favor of the existing power, and that the king is close to death, like that traveler coming to God: we all ever before. Moreover, in the second quarter, she even says: ah, yes he is already dead. In the third quarter, it is announced that "he ... not melted sweet", i.e. As the queen, apparently, is waiting for the same sad fate, and she will not melt her husband. We know that this is how it will happen, and that Ophelia, based on the vision of the political situation, was able to really predict the fate of the monarch of the couple. It can be said that in it, through the disease, began to ripen the ability to think. (See Note 4).

Further, it issues the approached King (by the way - prose, like Hamlet, from the famous moment, communicating with the king and its accomplices of tension and clogging - it is prose): "They say, Owl Father was bread. Lord, we know who we are, but do not know what we can become. Bless your meals! " (Per. M. Lozinsky). Here is a clear reference to the idea of \u200b\u200bHamlet about the circuit. Indeed, the phrase "At Owl Father was a breadbinder" can somehow be distantly to connect with some historical alluses in the life of the England of Shakespeare's time, as they are trying to do some researchers, but significantly closer and understandable here is the understanding that One essence (owls) began another entity (Khlebnik), so "we know who we are, but do not know who we can become." Ophelia says: everything is changeable, and the directions of changes for understanding are closed. This is the same, but submitted under another sauce as Hamletov's conversations about the worms and about the king travel in the silent of the beggar. That is why she finishes his phrase offer: "God bless your meal," which clearly points to the connoisseur of Prince and King. In the end, this is again a statement about the death of a monarch, which is about to become an object for someone's dinner. But he does not hear all this due to his ideological matution against the soul of man, as a result - confusion for nonsense, and believes that these conversations are her "father's thought." Ophelia, trying to explain his riddles, sings a new song in which the girl came to the guy, he slept with her, and after refused to marry due to the fact that she was too easy, to marriage, he was given. Everything is clear here: from the song it follows that the cause of all the troubles (including the Ophelia itself) is the fall of the morals. In fact, she again restates Hamlet, who accused King (even when he did not know about the murder of his father) in immorality. It turns out that Ophelia's scene is reminded of the Gamlet of the start of the play.

In the second part of the scene, the swelling LAERR appears. He is outraged by the incomprehensible killing of his father and the same incomprehensible, secret and imminent burial (however, all this very much corresponds to his status of a gray cardinal who did all secretly: how he lived and buried). He is full of desire to revenge, which repeats the situation with the Hamlet: That also moves to the dwelling. But, if Laerth, not knowing the causes of the death of Polonia, nor a murderer, manifests violent activity, then the Hamlet on the contrary - at first he was internally boiling, did not throw his potential to the outside of the gap, but only clearly realizing the entire situation, began to act, confidently moving towards the goal. Moreover, the goal has been connected not only and not so much with a vital, as with the salvation of the soul of the father and the calm (stabilization) of the situation in the state. Laert does not think about the good of the people, he looked exclusively on the idea of \u200b\u200bmesmer, and he doesn't need anything else: "That the one that this light is still to me. / But, if it would be, for the father of the native / I will find! ". He has no matter to the philosophical of the title position, he has no matter to the foundation of the world ("that the one that this light is still"), it is pure spontaneity, activity, but without meaningfulness. If at the beginning of the play, he read the morals of Ophelia and thereby claimed some cleverness, now it completely refused to turn into active undetectivity. And it is not surprising, therefore, that he enters the influence of the king (although a few minutes ago he himself could have power over him), which means he signs a sentence itself, like Polonius. This is reported in the third part of the scene the returning Ophelia: "No, died he / and buried. / And behind you turn. " Scented here everything is very thoughtful. At first, before the appearance of a brother, Ophelia went, because she had hope for his independence, which he began to show when the crowd broke into the king. When he surrendered to the monarch of power, and it became clear that he turned into a tool of someone else's game, then his fate became apparent about what she had told on return.

Six scene.

Horace receives a letter from Gamlet, in which he reports about his escape to the pirates, asks for the king attached letters and urgently hurry to him. At the same time signed: "Your, what you do not doubt, Hamlet," or in Per. M. Lozinsky: "The one who you know that he is yours, Hamlet."

All letter is executed in prose. So, the prince is extremely excited, crushed to seize power (we remember how in the fourth stage he promises "live in a thunderstorm, Il do not live at all") and therefore it is extremely careful in their expressions. Actually, the text of the message does not allow me to doubt this: everything is said in it only in general, neutral features - at that time, if it suddenly falls into the hands of the king. The specific information of Hamlet is going to tell a friend only with a full-time meeting, because only he trusts him, but trusts - because he "knows" (or "no doubt") about it. His knowledge is that power that opens each other to people. And in fact, after all, he is a subject!

Scene seventh.

She tells that Laert finally from the subject of activity turned into a non-residential tool, fully dependent on the king: "Sovereign ... Manage me, / I will be a tool." At the same time, Laert is already knowing from the mouth of Claudia that the purpose of his vedney is Hamlet - is supported by the people, so, in fact, he rebels against the entire public. This is clearly contradictive, an erroneous position, because to perform against the people means to have a claim for leadership, with the hope that the people, in the end, will take a defendant point of view. Lanert missed his chance to be the leader. Moreover, he obviously put himself on the role of an idol in other people's hands. It turns out, he, on the one hand, claims to be activity (opposed to the people), and on the other - becomes passive (turns into a tool). This contradiction inevitably should blow his existence, bring it to a deep crisis. About this, back in the fifth stage, he was warned by sister. Now we see that the situation is developing precisely in this direction. Moreover, his logically controversial position is broken out and becomes apparent after the king received a Gamlet's message about his finding in Denmark and about him soon. The king decided to act: kill the prince at all costs, but fraudulently (through deftly disgraced pseudo-honest duel), by connecting Laerta here (in vain, what did he desire him?). Laert, having agreed on this, lost all sorts of moral grounds for its existence, identified his total mistakes.

It must be said that the action of the king can be understood as its activation and in this sense to consider as worthy against the background of an active subject-Hamlet. But is it? I think there is no. The fact is that Hamlet acts openly: in his letter it is extremely clear about the arrival with the desire to explain the reasons for the rapid return. Of course, about important details regarding his struggle for the truth in this life, he does not report. Nevertheless, he "naked", i.e. Golden, open and without embellishment - what is it. What is he? He is a subject, in proof of what "one" is attributed to his signature. "One" is that in the subsequent development of European philosophy will be poured into the phychtevskoe "clean me". "One" is the approval of its strength and significance, whose strength and significance is a support for its own activity ... This is a circular hand of strength before activity and activity before force ... This is what is in the subject, it is almost the absolute, coming out of himself (With the permission of God), self -activation.

The king acts otherwise. It is hidden. His world is bored. After the death of Poloni, he did not understand anything, he remained the same, outstanding black for white, and white - for black. The king is the most static character in the play. Does he have true activity? No, he can not. Its activity - with the prefix "Pseudo", its activity remains empty. And even more so, the mistake of Laerta is increasing, as it does not just become derived from some strength, but it becomes derived from pseudo-detention, which does not lead anywhere, more precisely - leads to nowhere, in the void, in nothing.

Lahert himself introduced himself to the actual doomed state, which agreed in a dishonest way, to bring Claudia, kill Hamlet. It is important that the entire event flow of the play entered the irreversible dumping into the horror of the darkness. It is already clear that Hamlet is not a tenant, as well as the fact that Laert is also not a tenant. The first must die, because the use of pseudo-path (actually - anti-volatility) with respect to it) is nothing else, as the reset of his own activity, it cannot end: "minus" evil, which imposed on the "plus" of good, gives zero. The second (Laert) must die, because he lost all the foundations of its existence, and the spirit of denial, which would give him the strength to get out of the emergence of a fair vacuum (as it was at one time at Hamlet), he did not have.

As a result, the drama focused on his junction. It will finally happen in the fifth, final act, but in the seventh stage of the fourth act we will find out the gloomy news: Ophelia drowned. She drowned as something ephemeral, not-earthly. In the description of her death there is nothing terrible, on the contrary - everything was very beautiful, in something even romantic: she almost drowned, but as if dissolved in a river atmosphere ...

There was something that had to happen. Having lost one base of consciousness in the form of a father, Ophelia got on the path of Gamlet. It would seem flag to her hand. But here it deprives another foundation of consciousness - Laerta, and even his beloved (yes, yes, that's the way) Hamlet. What is your life for? Woman lives to love, and if you love some, then why is all these flowers to her?

However, here is the question: Description of the death of Ofelia, we learn from the queen, as if she watched what had happened. Maybe it is she who is involved in this tragedy? If you allow such a thing, then it is asked why she was needed for? Her favorite son, as - in no way, loves Ophelia, and it is important. In addition, after finding out the relationship with the Hamlet, when he killed Polonia, the queen clearly emotionally moved on his side, as well as he moved on his side of Ophelia, when it became, even if it was figuratively, but to call things about their own names. By and large, these two women became the allies, which later informs us Gertrud in the first stage of the fifth act: "I dreamed of you / introduce the wife of Gamlet." Therefore, the queen was not at all interested in the death of Ophelia. There is no reason to suspect the murder and the king, despite his delayed attitude towards her after she went crazy (after Gamlet, he had any desire, i.e. dissent seems dangerous). Of course, we remember how he in the fifth stage ordered Horatio "Looking for her in both", but I don't remember that he orders or at least somehow hinted her to kill, especially since after the order "Watch" we saw Ophelia and Horatio separately from each other, so that from the side of Horatio there was no surveillance or supervision, and it could not be, since he was on the side of Gamlet, loving Ophelia, and not on the side of the king. Finally, after the last appearance of Ophelia (in the fifth stage) and the news of her death (in the seventh stage), quite a few time passed - as much as it is necessary to conversate the king and Laerta, who were all this time together, so the king could not organize Her murder: First, with Laererta it was impossible, and secondly, he was engaged in the organization of the murder of Hamlet, and her figure had moved to it for this time on the second or even more distant plan.

No, the death of Ophelia has not a political cause, but a metaphysical, more precisely - this cause lies in the buildings of the artistic structure of the work, in which each course of heroes is due to the internal logic of developing events. There is no such thing in life, but there is an artistic creation from ordinary beetopography that there is some creative intent, which serves as a border for the possible and impossible operation (as well as for any need). Ophelia died, because it was so the circumstances of her life, her being. If the bases (including the meaning of the existence) were collapsed, then a scorched hole remains on the site of being.

Analysis of the Fourth Aktas Necklaces of Gamlet

Thus, on the fourth act, you must say the following. Hamlet has become activated, and due to the unity of the internal and external worlds, this subject activation has moved to all the universe, he moved everything from a dead point, and exposed to the limit to the essential basis of the heroes of the play. Hamlet is a subject of himself ("one"). The king is a cowardly killer, creating an evil on someone else's hands in the subcovery intrigues. Ophelia - not knowing himself, not seeing his goal of the heroine - naturally dies. Lanert refuses himself and becomes a tool in the hands of the king: the subject has become an object. Everything clarifies. After the murder of Polonia, any "pseudo" is separated from its carrier: now it is definitely clear that pseudo-activity in fact is non-activity, i.e. passivity. Here we have a chain of the following transformations:

activity (the initial activity of the king on the seizure of power) goes into pseudo-activity (the actions of the king becomes secondary to the actions of Hamlet), which goes into passivity (guessing the future of the king).

This chain was formed under the influence of the movement of Hamlet:

the amount of passivity and denial goes to the knowledgeable, and in this manifests its activity, subjectivity that becomes almost absolute, i.e. emerging from their borders. The latter is a subject, knowing the world, and through knowledge - transforming it.

The true activity of Hamlet, developing for good, drinks vitality from the false activity of the king (living at the expense of the camouflage of its essence), providing that cycle of activity and passivity, which Shakespeare is constantly hinting throughout the fourth act (see Note 5).

Act Fifth Hamlet Studies

The scene is the first. Three parts can be distinguished in it.

In the first part, two grave eggs dig a grave and talk about the fact that it was intended to be drunk. In the second part, Hamlet and Horatio joins them. In the third part, it is found that the drowning is Ophelia, and between the Hamlet and approached, along with the funeral procession of Laerert in the grave, the struggle takes place.

The first part, probably, is the most mysterious out of the entire scene. In general, that the case happens on the cemetery, brings sad premonitions: the tragedy comes to his apogeu. In the words of the graveters there is nothing cheerful, light. In addition, the first graveman, which sets the tone of the whole conversation, is clearly to the "philosophical" vocabulary. All, he needs to say with an excessive idea - in the same spirit, in which once they once tried to express polonium and twins, imitating scholastam. For example, here are their conversation about drowning:

The first graveman: ... Would it be drowned in a state of self-defense.

The second graveman: condition and decided.

The first gravian: the condition must be proved. Without him, the law is not. Let's say I'm going to reoper with intention. Then this is a trout business. One thing - I made it, the other - he led to the third - did the third. With the intention, it means, and drowned.

Where are you here, please tell me in the words of the first grave logic communication? Rather, it reminds Brad of Crazy, who suddenly decided to go to his partner. But in that whole focus, what exactly in such a spirit, lawyers with scholastic education, who dispersed in verbal nuances, were spared in the courts, but not seeing real life. So here. An example is given: "Let's say, I ... I'm reoped ...". With regard to itself, it was completely equally "led by", "made" or "committed." But the graveman argues some differences. Of course, they are lexical. And this is quite enough for our verbality to argue about some kind of trociousness of the case. At the same time, all this "Troost" is incomprehensible, fantastically allows him to conclude: "With the intention, it means, and drowned."

In other places, nonsense of the first grave is not less refined. All this suggests that the whole philosophical pseudoism, which was trying to brave the faithful king servants earlier, now, after stepping with all Okumens and, therefore, introducing their philosophy into it (which can now be called the real life philosophy), sank to the very bottom Human society, on her backyards, to the graveters, practically in the grave. At the same time, her apologists began to remind crazy much more obviously than playing (pretending) Hamlet.

After the first graveer gave his pro-cholastical foam, he completed their songs about the guise of life, that everything dies. It is nothing but the continuation of the thought of the King and the Queen, which they expressed at the beginning of the play (1 act, 2 scenes): "It created the world: the living will die / and after life will go away in eternity." All this, again, translates the royal ideologue in the dust, the essence of which - you have fun while you live, and when you die, then everything will end everything for you forever. This is the most advanced anti-Christian position of life of life with unbelief in God and the life of the soul after the death of the flesh.

It turns out, the position of Hamlet is much closer to God than the position of the king. Moments here are two. The first - the prince seriously refers to the flour of the sinner's sinner (father) in hell, and the king applies to this as a fiction. The second point, which became convex after the conversation of the burialers and having a direct connection with the first one, such: according to the king and his ideology, all the movements in life are like a line with the beginning and end, according to Hamlet, all the true movements are circular, when the beginning ever becomes its opposite And that, at one time, refuses from himself, equal to the initial item from which the report went. And since the person is created by God in his image and likeness, and he himself contains in itself and the beginning and the end like any point of the circumference, being absolute activity, then the person should also be active with the circle nature of his essence, ultimately, he must see his Life after death is the life of his soul in God and with God. Subject circularity turns out to be an immanent divine design, while the linear-monotonous movement by the type of birth-life-death reveals anti-divine, falniac traits. The life of life is inconsistent with the highest, and that is why all representatives of this ideology are distant from him, punished by mental retardation in the form of inequalities really think, i.e. To adequately link your mental coughs with life as it is. The focus on high ideas, on the contrary, to God, as a result of which Hamlet - the chief representative in the play of such a position - awarded them the presence of a mind capable of visiting and thinking. We repeat that it is not here about some particular genius of the main character, which, in general, is not visible, and it is about the elementary ability to use your reason for its intended purpose.

Hamlet is a subject, because it feels (knows) God (see Notes 6, 7). At the same time, it is obvious that the king and the company are antisubjects, because they have no God.

But then, it is asked, - what is the connection of all the ridicule of the prince over scholasticism - on the one hand, and our allegation of his life and true Christian worldview - on the other? After all, the best scholars were great theologians, and tried to bring the person to God. It seems that, in fact, Shakespeare was not over the scholasticism, but over the unfit practice of imitation, when, hiding behind the great minds of humanity, tried to push their low business things. Using the form of deep abstraction, without which there is no possibility to say something about God, and which the true scholast philosophers enjoyed, many speculators of that time hid the present content of their intentions - intentions of anti-divine, mercenary. Under the mask of admission to the highest values, many lived in the rampant and oblivion about the salvation of their soul, enjoying only today's day. As a result, the very idea of \u200b\u200bGod turned out to be detached. And so against such an anti-divine mood and fought Hamlet (Shakespeare). His whole project is the resuscitation of the Divine Commandments in their limit form, i.e. In the form of the fact that any of their acts should correlate with that - is it a blessing (divine blessing) or not. In this regard, his idea of \u200b\u200bthe circuit of all movements can be understood as a return to Christian values \u200b\u200b(Protestantism). Subjectness he needs not in itself, but as a mechanism, with the help of which he refuses (with knowledge of the case) from the unacceptable anti-Divine Vakhanlia, and returns (also with knowledge of the case) in the Lono of his truth, when the world is given naturally, as it is When any moments are explained, proceeding not from them themselves, but based on their connection with its world.

All this is shown in the second part of the scene, where the conversation of Hamlet with the first graveman is going. To begin with, they are measured by intellectual power in the subject, in which it is discussed who is designed to prepare the grave. The graveman is engaged in speculation for the sake of speculation, and the Hamlet takes it to clean water:

Hamlet: ... Whose grave is ...?

The first graveman: My, sir.

Hamlet: It's right that yours, because you are lying from the grave.

The first gravian: And you are not from the grave. It became, it is not yours. And I - in her and, it became not luge.

Hamlet: How are you not lying? Putting in the grave and say that she is yours. And she for the dead, and not for the living. Here you are lying that in the grave.

Hamlet sees everything in connection with the essential position of affairs, his reasoning is understandable, they are adequate to the true situation of things, and are accepted as due. That he takes.

Further, finally, it turns out (also after punching through the pseudo-scholastic clarifies of the grave), that the grave is intended for a woman. Skolast-grave woman does not want to talk about it, because it (ie, Ophelia) was not from his system of thought. In fact, we remember that Ophelia in front of his death rose on the path of Hamlet, although he went to his move - having no goal or strength. Therefore, her movement was marked only by the initial stratic intention, and then it turns into this terrible earthy pit. Nevertheless, she died under the flag of subjectivity, i.e. Under the flag of new philosophy. And this is the first graveman clearly not on the floor.

After that, Hamlet "communicates" with a skull of some Jorik. The main point of this action seems to be the fact that the living hero holds a skull of the eliminated hero in his hands. Here life has connected with death, so these two opposites (and physically, and in the memory of the prince, when he sees the echo of the once living) together. The same sense has the next moment when Hamlet tells Horatio that the great Alexander Macedonian through a series of transformation of his body after death can be at all a great plug to the barrel. And there and there opposites converge. This is the same topic about the traffic circuit, which Hamlet began to explore in the fourth act. It is already absolutely obvious to him that such dialectic constructions are needed for an adequate description of the world; At the same time, it clearly follows the footsteps of the famous philosopher Scholasta Nikolay Kuzansky, who has the idea of \u200b\u200bGod implies his closure to himself when his beginning coincides with his end. This confirms our idea that the Hamlet in the philosophical plan sees its task in the restoration of scholasticism, but not in the form of a form, but in the form of a content - that honest attitude towards God, and the vision of the human soul, which allows you to link everything in one A whole, with a single base - God.

It is important that the information that the grave is intended for a woman (Ophelia), adjacent to the topic that opposites converge. This suggests that the death of Ophelia is somehow connected with her life. It seems that this connection is to approve that along with the death of the body of Ophelia, the opposite of this body is her soul - alive. The dead body of the heroine is adjacent to her living soul - this is the main meaning of the second part of the first scene. But what does the live soul mean? Is it possible to say that the soul is alive when it burns in a fire of fire? Unlikely. But when she dwells in Paradise, then - it is possible, and even need. It turns out, Ophelia - in paradise, despite her (only in a sense) sinful death, because she repented in his former sins (Hamlet's betrayal she redeemed the adjuncing to his camp), and did not die because herself threw themselves into the river, but Because the ontological foundations of her life dried up. She - as it is told by the queen - did not commit a volitional act on the deprivation of her life, but took it as a natural dissolution in the nature of the river atmosphere. She did not hang himself specifically, she simply did not resist his immersion in the water.

Finally, it is interesting that, during a conversation with gravers, Hamletu comes to thirty (or even a little more) years. At the same time, the whole play began when he was about twenty. The entire timing of the tragedy is laid in a few weeks, well, maybe months. A. Anikst asks: How to explain all this?

As part of the work developed in this study, this fact is already practically explained by us. We argue that the course of time for Hamlet is determined by the inner work of his spirit. And since after the link, there was very rich events after the link, and he all this time was in a strong tension of consciousness, then his strange-rapid aging is quite understandable. Similar things we met before: when conversing it with a ghost in the first act, when it conversation with Polonia in the third act (when he advised him not to save, like cancer, from problems), when the time for his flesh was thickened according to his internal work on himself . The same thing takes place in this case: the Hamlet has aged (more precisely, Matter), because he had a serious internal work. According to astronomical standards, it is impossible, but poetically, it is possible, and even necessary. It is necessary - from the point of view of the idea of \u200b\u200bclosetness and therefore completion (and hence both perfection) of the entire play. But about it later.

In the third part of the scene we see the funeral of Ophelia. At first, Hamlet observes everything from the outside, but when Laert jumps into the grave to the body immersed in there and begins to draw: "Weld down dead with alive," it comes out of the shelter, he jumps into the grave and fights Laerta, shouting: "Learning to pray ... You, right, regret. " What is he?

We remember that immediately before the funeral, Hamlet appeals to the idea of \u200b\u200bunity of opposites. And then he sees that Laert rushes to the dead sister with the words "overlook the dead with alive", demonstrating the desire to identify in the uniform gravestone. Live and dead. It would seem that it is quite consistent with the moods of the prince, but only at first glance. After all, what rushed Laert? He rushed to directly equating opposites. Indeed, we know (or we can guess) that the philosophy of Hamlet through his allies-actors is already twisted in the public minds of the kingdom that information about it penetrates in all pores of public life, reached, obviously, to the king and his suits. They would absorb her living juices, but no matter how much - they act in their role, as part of their old paradigm, according to which the real, vital philosophy should be replaced by a pseudo-scholarship, and under this sauce (pseudo-scholastic) justify the deception of everything And all, receiving the basis of the possibility of their infinite fun. They do it as follows. Take the basic provisions of this philosophy, tear them away from life, thereby kneading, and in such a non-listed form are used in their intended purpose. For example: the thesis "opposites converge" they take in statics, and understand it as not as the fact that one will become different as a result of a complex dynamic process of transformation (this is how it is in Hamlet in his views and in the very fact of its changes in framework), but as an immediate dense. As a result, their left becomes equal to the right, black - white, and evil - good. The same thing happens with Laert: wishing to identify life and death through their primitive alignment, he, thereby wanted to translate Ophelia to the opposite state in relation to the one in which she began to be with a changed consciousness, directly to death. And since it is already then, in fact, there was an allied of Hamlet, then Laert, at least in the last moment, wishes to designate it in his own, i.e. Pro-royal mill. This is the indignation of Gamlet, forces it to fight him. Hamlet here fights for a bright memory of his beloved, for not in a traitor, nor the package of royal frauds.

Here you can ask: And where did the Hamlet and Laerthnu learned (or understood) that Ophelia changed the worldview? The fact is that in the play philosophy possesses substantial status. It has a certain ether, the material is inspired because it allows one or another activity. Philosophy is provided by the environment, and, at the same time, the tools that use to obtain the desired result. All our analysis does not leave any doubt. Therefore, in the poetic context, the knowledge of the position of one or another hero involved in the event flow, for all other heroes is not a miracle, but the norm. All the optics of the world are distorted around them according to their way of thinking, but the whole world begins to distort the perception of such heroes. There is a mutual change in the opinion of the characters about each other, it is worth it only a bit of the same position in their thoughts. And the hero is closer to the flow of events, the stronger it refers to it. It can be said that through participation in the events he contributes his own to the distortion of the poetic space-temporary continuum. But, in this way, he opens his inner world to the world external, and as a result - it becomes visible for other players who are involved in the vortex of changes. Therefore, LAERR sees the true situation with Ophelia and wants to change it fraudulently. The Hamlet, in turn, sees it, and prevents such a deception, which in the extension of Laerta somewhat resembles prayer. But in this prayer there is no truth, hence the call of Hamlet, strengthened by a threat: "Learn to pray ... You, right, regret." Laert will also regret that on the day of Mourning decided to reel. Laert is a primitive liar, and this Hamlet throws him in the face: "You little (Highlighting me - S.T.) about the mountains? ".

The situation is stretched to the limit as a valuation of that Luka, from which it is about to depart the arrow.

The second scene, final, in it we highlight four parts.

In the first Hamlet tells Horatio about how he replaced the letter of the king, which Rosencrange and Guildenster took place in England, and in which Hamlet had to execute, on their letter, for which the twins themselves are sentenced to death. In the second part, the Hamlet receives an invitation from the king to participate in a duel with Laert. In the third part, we see the duel itself, in which the king, queen, Laert and Hamlet die around which is killed. The latter before the death of power in the state will make Fortinbra. He appears in the fourth part of the scene and makes the honors to bury Hamlet.

Read more things as follows. After the funeral of Ophelia, Hamlet says: "As if everything. Two words about each other. " It seems that he made some important thing, and now wants to start another. Because it is, by and large, one thing is the approval of reliability, therefore, by the existence of the world's existence, then it "as if everything", of course, should concern that of this. In such a context, the whole situation with the funeral, and first of all - with his struggle with Laert, seems to be part of the approval by the Divine, i.e. Closed (circular) structures of human relations. Specifically: the Hamlet in the action returned good to good (returned the good name of Ophelia, who in front of his death rose to the path of truth). Now he says "Two words about each other", i.e. About another action, which, however, can not be completely different, cut off from his main thing, since he just does not have anything. "Other" Action is the opposite of what was at the funeral, but within the framework of the previous intentions. And if then the return of good good, now it's time to talk about the return of evil evil. In this case, everything will be closed: Abstract thought-forms of unity of opposites in life are implemented at the level of interaction of good and evil, and it is precisely in such a simple and clear form when good responds with good, and evil turns evil for the one who committed it (see . Note 8). And in the proof of this, he tells Horatio, as he replaced the letter, which was taken by Guiludster and Rosencrance to England for His execution, on a backstage letter, according to which these two follows. The twins were taken to England evil, which against them turned around: "They themselves sought."

Thus, through the story about the return of evil evil, Hamlet, finally, the topic shares the topic. Previously, she was in the distant plan, it was more important to build the entire system of relations based on the worldview of sustainability, and hence the philosophy of the Divine Circle. Now that all this is done, has come a turn of the following actions, when abstract positions are translated into specifics. And if the situation with the king, the obey and in the death of the father of the Prince, and in an attempt to kill him himself, demands mismaver, then, it means that it is. And so, when the king through the substitute, polonium - the blazing and vested lark - in the same spirit, in the spirit of the clogging, causes Hamlet to a duel with Laertom, he agrees, since the situation becomes extremely clear. In fact, he is confident in his power, because "constantly exercised." We have seen that throughout the play, Hamlet "I practished" in verbal fights with my rivals, building your new one (however, a well-forgotten old) is an ideological thing, so that the upcoming fight, having the form of a lapier fencing, in fact there is the last, already final approval His right thing. The elasticity of his thoughts, due to the world built (it became possible after he proclaimed the "subject" and put the mind above the authorities, and the world was given depending on the mind) with a single space-time continuum, turned into elasticity of the weapons, Which he intends to prevent his arguments. Moreover, during the funeral of Ophelia, he posted some of them to show, and they were not parried. In that rehearsal to the upcoming fight, Hamlet won, and after that he had nothing to be afraid. On the other hand, he understood that all the snake-shaped nobility of the lady did not promise anything good that the king thought of something in his spirit of secret games and dishonest moves. But since the duel should be in humans, then any royal catch will become visible, and this will be the basis for killing the king. Hamlet knew that there would be a catch, and he also knew that this catch would give him legal reasons to return evil to the original source. Thus, he agreed to this strange duel, because she gave him a chance to legally kill Claudia. Hamlet walked fencing with Laerert not for fencing, but for the performance of his father promised! And this is natural: after all, if you figure it out, I didn't cause it to fight, but the king. Well, the king and was intended true to his rapiir. Evil to evil will come back.

All this will happen. Of course, the heart of Hamlet did not deceive when he felt (premonished) danger. Laert's guns were poisoned, and Hamlet could not get away from death. But the main thing is that evil, nevertheless, received a portion of his own essence, and Laert, and the king was killed after the detection of their dishonest action. Hamlet killed the king, restoring justice not only for himself, but for everyone, since those who observed the duel of the disturbed all with their own eyes: Gertrud drank wine, intended for Hamlet, poisoned and notified in all that this is the king's tricks. Similarly, Lanert, swapped by his own poisoned sword, pointed to the king as a concern of all the increasing dishonor. The king was doomed even before Hamlet looked into him poisoned blade. He, as the center of all secret fraud, was exposed. Evil is strong until it is skillfully camouflage under good. When his inside becomes put to the review, it deprives its existence and naturally dies. So, when the prince returns a poisonous snake in the Royal Circuit of her own poisonous bite Rapiir, he simply puts the point in the history of its existence. At the same time, he crosses the idea of \u200b\u200bthe linear time of time itself and finally approves its circular character: "What happened, then it will be; And what was done, it will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun "(Eccl. 1: 9). And, he claims not only to external in relation to himself the situation, but also to himself: suspecting no good, he still goes to a duel, trusting God, trusting that his possible death is a good, closing some kind A more global wave of change than the one in which his life participated. At the end of the first act, our hero sets the vector of their moods: "The days of the binding thread broke. / How to connect them scraps! " (Early translation B. Pasternak). At the end of the play, he fulfilled his task, joined the torn thread of times - the price of his life - for the future.

The life of Hamlet, like the king or other tragedy heroes, is the plot, ultimately, local compared with the entire history of the Danish state, in the metaphysical plan - compared with the story as such. And when the Hamlet dies, he closes this story for the very beginning, visiting the power of a young fortingbress (see Note 9), which by that time returns from Poland. Sometime his father lost through the Kingdom Hamlet's Father. Now, through the Hamlet himself, he gets it back. The history of the centuries closed to itself. At the same time, the memory of the Hamlet was not dissolved in nothing. It ensured the continuity of power, the stability of the existence and the existence of a similar worldview in which evil is punishable by evil, and welcome over himself. He approved moral morality. "Be alive, he would become king ...". However, he became more than deservedly by the missing monarch. He became a symbol of good, consciously approved by the limitance of a person, but the limitations not by himself in the name of his mercenary and momentary goals, and God, and therefore having infinite opportunities to overcome themselves through cheating movements. Shakespeare he died not to die, but to go into the category of great values \u200b\u200bthat humanity lives.

Analysis of the fifth act.

On the fifth act, in general, it can be said that the speech in it is about the fact that the blessing has the structure of a circular one, and the evil is the structure of a linear movement. In fact, the aspiration of Hamlet for the poor stability of the kingdom, which is ensured by the introduction of a vague-figurative, circular (self-closed) in nature, philosophy, speaks for itself. In addition, because the good, symbolizing the life to be sideway, should always repeat the very thing, as well as life from generation to generation multiplies itself, just as it is. On the contrary, evil has a needle-shaped character, like a stinging boom, since life is in itself. Evil has some beginning - the beginning when cheating is happening, and life from the circle turns into an arrow. However, at the end it kills itself and kills, because it does not continue, breaks down. In this breakdown, salvation is seen: someday evil will end, it in itself is certainly. Evil has the definition of the final, and the benefit of the infinite, generating the most countless times, as many times as he pleases. And when the deception is revealed, the evil goes, and the story again turns into a circle - a legitarious, logical, absolutely verified and correct. This circle is provided with constituent activity, so through its activities the inner essence of a person goes to the god-like harmony of the world. A person turns out to be an accomplice of creation, his assistant.

C. Conclusions

Now the time has come to think about the dry philosophical-verified residue, which constitutes a kind of skeleton of the whole drama. To get it, you need from all over in part IN Our research is removed by emotions that helped us to arrange the right benchmarks in the prey through the forest of riddles, the risen Shakespeare, but which now become unnecessary. When the forest is passed, the landmarks must serve our own thoughts, and on their basis should move on.

Briefly turns out the following. Prince Hamlet at the beginning of the play turns out to be in a situation without a foundation that does not make sense of its existence. It represents something that is nothing, but that denies such a state of things. In an extremely schematic form, it is a negation as such, or nothing. After all, nothing contains in itself being, does not contain any existence (as Scholasts would say - it does not have an essential nor existential being), and at the same time, the fact of the impossibility of its being (the fact is that there is something No) pushes the most from himself, from standing in his own, and forces it to move into the opposite area.

What area is opposite to nothing? It is opposite to something that exists, and there is clearly, as some stability. This is what it is quite appropriate to designate both existential being, or, taking into account Heidegger's research, which is. Thus, the Hamlet from non-existence rushed to the existence. He does not consider this position by the final point of his destination; This item is intermediate, and lies in the fact that he claims itself to a subject. The reliability and foundation of subjectivity is due to the fact that this condition depends only on the person himself, even more precisely - it is based on the knowledge of its subjectivity, at the reception of its inner world as some significance. Further, pushing out this position of standing, in myself, he removes such an worldview, which takes into account the spirituality of the human being and, thus, makes it the very basis of the same basis, on which his own self-confidence is based on the basis of sustainability, eternity existence. Thus, the Hamlet not only approves the unity of the internal and external worlds, which is now the overall basis, but it is the foundation itself closes on itself and makes it a similarity of the divine absolute, in which any activity is generated by himself to come to themselves. Indeed, in the play, all the actions of the Hamlet emanate from it as a subject, give rise to an appropriate worldview, and closes on the need to obtain them power, but not for themselves personally, but in order for the ideology introduced into the world (which is such a benevolent for everyone) Long, sustainable. Here the soul of the prince, configured for the benefit, bottled throughout Okumen, becomes everything, as well as everything focuses into it. A closed structure appears that reflects the true source of everything about which Hamlet constantly reminds us and we, the viewers of the play (players of the play). This source is God. It he launched all the movements and therefore they are naturally such that they repeat his self-jumped entity in their arood.

Hamlet ensured the reliability of existence through the involvement in a self-acting historical process, and provided it with his death with the TRONE TRONE FORTIBRAS-ML. At the same time, our hero is not just died, but became a symbol of the valuation of human life. He received the status of high, maximally generalized value, and this value is in meaninglessly lived life. Thus, his death makes it possible to treat him as any meaningfulness, essential being, or the ideological sphere, which today can be called the existence of the existence (by being).

As a result, all the movements of Hamlet are stacked in the following scheme: Nothing - being being. But since being visiting is not existing in the form of direct data (after all, it is expressed through the death of the main character), then it is in a sense - in the sense of the current life process - repeats the state in non-existence, so that this scheme turns out to be closed, void, and The whole project of Hamlet - expressing the truth in her divine incarnation. (It should be noted that the idea of \u200b\u200bequality of being and non-existence subsequently uses Hegel in its "science of logic"). In addition, it is important to emphasize that being the existence there is some extreme meaningfulness, in a sense, all-collecting idea (Platonovsky Logos), so that it (Genesis) exists out of time, at all times, and is the basis to which Hamlet sought. And he received him. He received the foundation of himself, and, at the same time, the foundation of the world: the world evaluates it, and thus gives him a fatal basis, but he also gives the world to the value environment of existence, i.e. gives him a reason. Both of these bases have the same root, because they arise from the same god-like movement of Hamlet. In the end, these subject movements are the formula of being in its truth.

And in order to emphasize the power of this withdrawal, Shakespeare, against the background of Hamlet, shows Ophelia and Laert with completely different movements.

For Ophelia, we have a scheme:

Surrounding (a blank vessel for placing someone's ideas in it) is non-existence (the state of a deep error) - being (assessment of her revenue with her gamlet).

For Laerta we have:

Genesis (it is some significant way, who teesting Ophelia doubt the love of Hamlet) - existing (what does not think; a simple tool in the hands of the king) is non-existence (death and obvious oblivion).

Both of these movements are incorrect because they do not contribute to the story, therefore, are not involved in its move. They did nothing to life, unlike Gamlet, and therefore their life should be considered failed. She was not particularly successful for Laerta, and in proof of this, his movement is not just distinguished from Hamletovsky, but it turns out to be directly opposite. In any case, the movements of the brother and sisters are not closed and therefore not God-like. For Ophelia, it is obvious, but for Laerta we will explain: if the Hamlet's initial non-existence is compared with the final being on the basis of the essential, Hamlet's understanding of their dynamic unity, when one becomes Other as a result of a consistent appeal of consciousness on the other form, then in Laerta, due to its static attitudes towards opposites, these most opposites are not aligned, i.e. Actions for their alignment are false.

Thus, a comparison of the movements of three heroes allows more convex to show the only right course of life - the one that has been realized by Hamlet.

The truth of subjectivity entered the story, and Shakespeare's tragedy loudly announced it.

2009 - 2010

Notes

1) It is interesting that the fact that Polonium hurrys to leave the son to leave for France: "On the road, on the road ... / So the wind arched the shoulders of sails, / and where are you?", Although recently, in the second stage, at the reception at the king, not I wanted to let him go: "He won my soul, the sovereign, / and, surrendering after a long conviction, / I reluctantly blessed him." What is the reason for the various position of polonium at the reception at the king, and when the son is wired? This fair question is asked Natalya Vorontsova-Yuryeva, but answers it completely incorrectly. She believes that the intrigue Poloniy in the troubled time was conceived to become the king, and Laert would seem to be an opponent in this matter. However, firstly, Laert is completely deprived of the powerful aspirations, and at the end of the play, when he was completely given to the king's power (although he could grab the throne himself), it becomes completely clear. Secondly, becoming the king is a difficult task. It is extremely useful here, and then it is necessary, a submow, and the power. In this case, to lean Polonia, how not to my son? With this approach, Lahert is needed here, and not in distant France. However, we see how he crushes him, taking care, apparently, not at all about his power ambitions. It seems that the explanation in contradiction of the behavior of Polonia lies in the text itself. So, at the end of his instruction, a son before shipping he says: "Everything is above: Beer, be sure." Poloniy here calls Laerta not to change. It is very important! Against the background of what Fortinburgh-ml. He stated his claims for the land of Denmark, without recognizing the legitimacy of the current King of Claudia, there is a situation of the instability of power. At the same time, the Hamlet shows discontent, and there is a possibility that he will pull on his side of Laert. Polonia needs a resource in the form of the power that would be on the side of the king, and which, if necessary, would help stabilize the situation. Laert - Knight, warwork, and his military abilities are just needed in the event of a danger to the royal power. And Polonia, as the right hand of Claudia, is very interested in preserving its high position at the court, has a son in mind. Thus, he hastily sends it to France in order to protect from new trends and keep it as a submissions just in case such a need arises. We know that at the end of the play Laert and in fact will appear to serve as a "gun" to king to kill Gamlet. At the same time, about his concerns about the stability of the existing situation of things, polonium does not want to speak - in order not to pump panic. Therefore, in front of the king pretends the view that nothing worries about anything, and that the Son goes with difficulty.

2) We note that this quatrain, apparently, is successfully translated by M. Lozinsky as follows:

Do not believe that the sun is clear
That stars - swarm lights,
That truth is not to lie,
But believe in my love.

His difference from the Pasternak variant is reduced to a strong difference of the third line (otherwise everything is similar or even strictly equally). If we take such a translation, then the meaning of the message of Hamlet does not change fundamentally, for the exception only: in the third line, he does not say that the reasons for its changes are "here", but about its rightness, obviously - for the sake of good intentions, be in lies . And in fact, camouflage, even if the madness, is completely acquitted and naturally, when the struggle begins for the universal benefit.

3) It is about morality here need to say, and not about direct sexual games with the king, as often often like to do different researchers. And in general - would the Gertrude wanted to marry Claudia, whether he is Gulelen and a frank traitor? I guess she was aware of his mental sentiment.

4) In general, in the play, the kinship of madness is striking, even if the Hamlet has been talked, with the ability to reason. This course, having a deep metaphysical background, will later be picked up by Dostoevsky, as well as Czech. In the scenic plan, the madness means the inquiry of thinking in relation to the official system of thought. From the ontological point of view, this suggests that the hero is in search, he reflects on his life, about his being in her, i.e. This speaks of his existent fullness.

5) Studying the work of Shakespeare, you can confidently say that the idea of \u200b\u200bclosedness of life to itself, i.e. The idea of \u200b\u200ba cycle of everything, worried him a long time, and in the "Gamlet" she arose at all by chance. So, similar motifs arise in some early sonnets. Here are just some (Translations of S. Marshak):

You ... connect the scarce with the squab (sonnet 1)
You look at my children.
My past freshness in them is alive.
In them justify the old age of my. (sonnet 2)
You will live in the light of ten times,
Tenfold in children repeated
And have the right to be at your last hour
Triumph over death conquered. (sonnet 6)

Therefore, it can even be assumed that many of the ideas of the play were keen on the playwright long before her real appearance.

6) By the way, we could gues even at the beginning of the play, when in the third stage of the first act in the speech of Laertes to Ophelia, we hear: "As the body grows, in it, as in the temple, the spirit of the Spirit and the mind grows." Of course, in this phrase there is no direct indication on the Hamlet itself, but since it is in principle about it, it arises a clear association of communication of cited words with the main hero of the tragedy.

7) The Christian character of Hamlet was noticed for a long time on the basis of only some of his statements, and without an explicit connection with the play of the play. I would like to think that in this study this flaw of previous criticism is overcome.

8) Of course, such statements are contrary to the famous position from the Gospel of Matthew, when it is urged to substitute the cheek. But, first of all, this is the only case of similar scoring of the Savior. Secondly, he behaved quite differently, and when it was necessary, then or left the dangers, or took a whip and whipped sinners them. And thirdly, it is impossible to exclude the plug-in character of this appeal, inspired by the traitors' traitors of Christianity, which always knew how to fake documents of the highest value for their koreari - the coordinates of human management. In any case, the idea of \u200b\u200breturning evil evil is valid and highly corresponds to the Christian morality, to the statement of which Hamlet is directed.

9) I must say that Hamlet, apparently, knew that the power would belong to Fortinbra. Indeed, if he seriously talks about stability and that everything should rotate in a circle, then it was to such a result he should come.

What allows us to make such a statement? This allows us the sixth scene of the fourth act. Recall that there, Horatio receives and reads a letter from the prince, in which, among other things, it says: "They (pirates who attacked the ship, on which the Hamlet with twins sailed to England - S.T.) Hassed me as merciful robbers . However, they were made that they worked. For this I will have to serve it by the service. " It is asked what service should the gangsters hamlet, defending the purity of human relations, honesty, decency, and so on.? In the play about it, nothing is said about it. It is rather strange, since Shakespeare could not insert this phrase, but inserted it. So, the service was still, and she is spelled out in the text, but only it should be guessed.

The proposed version is as follows. Mentioned robbers are not so. They are people fortybrus-ml. Indeed, before sailing in England, Hamlet talked with a certain captain from the troops of the young Norwegian. We were transferred to this conversation and there is nothing special in it. However, since the entire presentation comes on behalf of Horatio (his words at the end of the play: "I will talk about everything about everything that happened ..."), who could not know all the submender that conversation, then we can assume that the Hamlet has agreed with the captain And about the attack, and about the transfer of the power of Fortinbrus-ml. Moreover, "strongly armed Corsair" could well be led by the very captain. In fact, in the heading "Acting Persons", obviously land Bernardo and Marcellle are presented as officers, without clarifying their rank (title). The captain is presented as the captain. Of course, we encounter it on the shore and we have the impression that the captain is an officer rank. But what if it is not a chin, and the post of commander of the ship? Then everything falls into place: Hamlet in front of the reference itself meets the commander of the ship of Norwegians, it agrees with him about salvation, and in return promises Denmark, meaning first of all, obviously, not so much salvation itself, how much is the return to the circles of its entire historical situation. It is clear that this information quickly reaches Fintrix-ml., Approved by them, and then everything happens as we know from the play itself.

Literature

1. Structure of art text // Lotman Yu.M. About art. St. Petersburg., 1998. P. 14 - 288.
2. Anikst A.A. Tragedy Shakespeare "Hamlet": Lit. comment. - M.: Education, 1986, 223.
3. Kantor V.K. Hamlet as a Christian Warrior // Philosophy Questions, 2008, No. 5, p. 32 - 46.
4. The crisis of Western philosophy // Solovyov V.S. Works in 2 tons, 2nd ed. T. 2 / Society. Ed. and Sost. A.V. Gulgi, A.F. Losev; Note. S.A. Kravtsa and others - M.: Thought, 1990. - 822 p.
5. Barkov A.N. "Hamlet": the tragedy of mistakes or the tragic fate of the author? // in KN. Barkov A.N., Maslak PB W. Shakespeare and MA Bulgakov: unclaimed genius. - Kiev: Rainbow, 2000
6. Frolov I.A. Shakespeare's equation, or "Hamlet", which we did not read. Internet address: http://artofwar.ru/f/frolow_i_a/text_0100.shtml
7. M. Heidegger. The main problems of phenomenology. Per. with it. A.G. Chernyakova. St. Petersburg: ed. The highest religious and philosophical school, 2001, 445 p.
8. Vorontsova-Yuryeva Natalia. Hamlet. Joke Shakespeare. Love story. Address on the Internet:
9. http://zhurnal.lib.ru/w/woroncowajurxewa_n/gamlet.shtml

Independent work№13

Topic: Shakespeare "Hamlet"

Balzac "Gobsek"

Flaubert "Salambo"

Task: Analysis of works.

Hamlet "- philosophical tragedy

"Hamlet" is a philosophical tragedy. Not in the sense that the play contains a pronounced system of views on the world in dramatic form. Shakespeare created not a treatise, giving the theoretical statement of its worldview, but an artistic work. He is no wonder with irony depicts polonium, who teesting his son, how to behave. No wonder and Ophelia laughs over his brother, who reads her morality, and himself far from being followed by her. Hardly we will be mistaken, suggesting that Shakespeare was aware of the vainness of moralization. The goal of art is not to teach, but as Hamlet says, "to keep the mirror in front of nature: to show her own features, swells - her own appearance, and all the century and class - his likeness and imprint." Picture people with such, what are they the essence, - so I understood the Shakespeare of the task of art. And to fulfill this task, Shakespeare actively bought discounts for coupons. What he does not agree, we can supplement: an artistic image should be such that the reader and the audience himself turned out to be able to make a moral assessment to each character. That is how those we see in the tragedy are created. But Shakespeare is not limited to two paint and white paint. As we have seen, none of the main actors is simple. Each of them is difficult in its own way, it has not one, but a few features, why they are perceived not as schemes, but as living characters.

With direct teaching from the tragedy can not be withdrawn, it is best to testify the difference in the opinion of its sense. The picture of the life created by Shakespeare, being perceived as "like and imprint" reality, encourages everyone who is thinking over the tragedy, evaluate people and events just as they are estimated in life. However, in contrast to reality, in the picture, created by the playwright, everything is enlarged. In life, you can not immediately find out what a person is. In the drama, his words and actions quickly give the audience to understand this character. Help this and opinions of others about this character.

The world viewing of Shakespeare was dissolved in images and situations of its plays. With his tragedies, he sought to initiate the attention of the audience, put their face to face with the most terrible phenomena of life, to raise complacent, to answer the moods of those who, like him, experienced anxiety and pain due to imperfection of life.

The purpose of the tragedy does not scare, but to cause the activities of thought, make it seem to think about the contradictions and troubles of life, and this goal Shakespeare reaches. It reaches primarily due to the image of the hero. Holding questions in front of themselves, he encourages and reflects us about them, look for an answer. But Hamlet not only promotes life, he expresses many thoughts about her. His speeches are full of sayings, and that wonderful, the thoughts of many generations are concentrated in them. Studies have shown that an old tradition is worth almost every saying. Shakespeare did not read Nor Plato, nor Aristotle, no medieval thinkers, they reached them to him through various books that interpreted philosophical problems. It was established that Shakespeare not only carefully read the "experiments" of the French thinker Michel Monteneya, but even borrowed something from them. Let us turn again to the monologue "to be or not to be". Recall how Hamlet compares death and sleep.

Analysis of the story of Balzak "Gobsek"

Another feature of the Balzakovsky narration rather can be attributed to the disadvantages of his manners: Balzac so much feels in his creations, that without constraints invade the world of characters, attributing to their heroes who do not have observation, conclusions, speeches, etc. Gobsek Balzac The fact and the case "comes in" the heroes and sees, assesses, speaks for them or even instead of them.

This is partly due to the desire of a writer to an objective image of people and events, when the author does not fall on the side of someone, but simply illuminates what is happening, but mostly, this is the irrepressible desire of Balzak to express his point of view, convey it to the reader, despite the minor conventions like that The heroes cannot say that or thinking because of their upbringing, education, social role, the breadth of the horizon and other factors.

First of all, it refers to Gobsek, the most interesting, bright and close to Balzaka, a character; No wonder in one of the episodes of his story about him, Dervil suddenly calls this mysterious and brush old man "My Gobsek". Old Rostovist, describing his visits to Anastasi de Reto and Fanny Majo, suddenly goes to a syllable of a galant poet, a connoisseur of female beauty and those joys that are able to extract the nature of the knowledgeable people from this gift: "The artist would be expensive to stay at least a few minutes in The bedroom of my dove is in this morning. The folds of the curtains near the bed breathed a voluptuous Neho, a knocked out sheet on a blue silk jacket, a crumpled pillow, sharply whitish on this azure background with a lace with his ruffles, it seemed that there were still an obscure imprint of wondrous forms that tease imagination "

No less unexpected language sets out his impressions of the meeting with Fanny Majo: she seems to him the "Fairy of Loneliness", it fits something "something good, truly virtuous." The Balzakovsky Rostover is recognized: "I seemed to enter the atmosphere of sincerity, the purity of the soul, and I even became easier to breathe." These experiences, not to mention the fact that they are discussed with a unconscious person, do not consist at all with the appearance of a suspicious and non-dislisher, considering gold a single object worthy of attention.

The words of Gobsek's speech look like the speech of the narrator, not quite relevant in the charts of the character (he, as if an image specialist comments, comments the impression they caused): "Well, as it seems to you ... Does burning pleasures for this cold, frozen mask So often I would have surprised you with my fixedness? "

Count de Bourne, interrupting the story of Derville, gives a compressed and hive portrait of a secular ski of Maxim De Trure, filled in the spirit of Balzakovsky "Codes" and "Physiology": Count Maxim "That scoundrel, then the nobility itself, more frangulated with mud than stained with blood." In the scene with the diamonds, in the same most expressions, Gobsek seconds, who said Maxim: "To shed your blood, it is necessary to have it, my dear, and in your veins instead of blood - dirt."

Such a coincidence is most similar to deliberate carelessness, dictated by the author's desire to maintain the unity of the impression of the reader from the pictures of the individuals and events. Consistently expressing his point of view, Balzac, as we can see, was ready for some sacrifices in the field of psychological reliability and believing. But he won in the other: even such a relatively small story, like Gobsek, was saturated with excellent observations and pictures from nature, which occupies not the last place in the history of the morals, which Balzac wrote. Formally, these taught generalizations belong to different characters, but they are so similar to each other, which give reason to conclude about the monologue of the structure of the Balzakovsky narration. Heroes's voices are only a convention for the author, fully subordinate to itself all the image in the work.

Recall briefly the most significant observations of this kind. This is the already mentioned description of the Countess de Reto, turning into a portrait of the hostess of this luxurious Bouire. A variety of marks of the material world, which so thinly mentioned and understood Balzac, help him penetrate the spiritual world of his heroes, justify and consolidate the conclusions of the general nature about their personality and fate: "Flowers, diamonds, gloves, a bouquet, belt and a belt and a belt Other accessories of ballroom dress. It smelled like some thin spirits. There was beauty, devoid of harmony, luxury and mess. And already poverty, who threatened this woman or her beloved, kicked up for all this luxury, raised her head and chatted their sharp teeth. The tired face of the Countess was under the whole of her complete, destroyed the signs of the last festival "

In the same way, the interior of Gobsek's room helps to better understand the features of the psychology of the central character of the story, remember the nearestness of the room, similar to the monastic celle and the abode of the old Virgin, a fireplace, in which a little telli head, never frankly, etc.

Seminar lesson number 4.

Tragedy Shakespeare "Hamlet"

1. What was the basis of Shakespeare "Hamlet" tragedy? Why only specialists know the plot about the Danish Prince Amlet, while the Shakespearean "Hamlet" is known to the world?

It is no secret that Shakespeare did not rarely wrote his books, inspired by the old, already told plots. For example, Romeo's history and Juliet was set forth to Shakespeare in the Poem Arthur Brook. Someone unknown long before Shakespeare wrote a primitive dramatic story "King Lear and three daughters." The legend of Gamlet also has a centuries-old prescription. His story outlined Sakson Grammar in his "History of the Danes" (approx. 1200g.). It described the life of the Yutland Prince Amlet, who lived in pagan times, i.e. until 827, when Christianity was introduced in Denmark.

Subsequently, this plot retells several times with different authors, and in 1589. The history of the prince even walked on the London scene.

These legends and legends with their inherent pristine simplicity and naivety would continue to exist how the many legendary and fabulous plots are stilling up to now, while maintaining the beauty of their primitiveness. But it is Shakespeare that they are obliged to find an extraordinary depth of the comprehension of life, a huge poetic force. Who would know Romeo and Juliet, Lira, Macbeth, Othello, Gamlet, if their fate did not depict Shakespeare? These and many other stories Shakespeare raised to the height of such an understanding of life, which in art was not before him.

2. Why did each post-seeker in the "Gamlet" have seen his search for his search? What is the mystery of Prince Dansk?

The tragedy of Shakespeare "Hamlet" is the most famous of the Pieces of English playwright. According to many highly reputable art connoisseurs, this is one of the most profound creatures of human genius, a great philosophical tragedy. It concerns the most important issues of life and death, which cannot not worry every person, and have truly universal importance. In addition, the tragedy puts sharp moral problems; That is why "Hamlet" attracts many generations of people. Life is changing, new interests and concepts arise, but every new generation finds something close to himself in the tragedy.

However, everyone sees Prince Hamlet in its own way.

For example, Guete considered it "beautiful, clean, noble, highly moral being," although he notes with his "weakness of will with a high consciousness of debt."

The German researcher August Schlegel comes to the conclusion that an excessive tendency to reasoning, reflection kills determination, will to action. So the Hamlet's tragedy begins to be considered as an eternal tragedy of the intelligentsia.

Turgenev, he seemed to be a egoist: "He all lives for himself ... He's a skeptic and forever bearing and worn with himself." He opposes the indecisive, skeptical, unable to captivate Don Quixote Hamlet, as a person actions.

it claims that the Hamlet at different stages also shows strength, weakness, and indecision, and lightning determination; And that is the only way, in evolution, in motion, and the multifaceted image of Hamlet should be considered.

Hence the paradox of perception of the Great Tragedy. It is precisely because she very personally hurts everyone, it creates completely different, sometimes conflicting interpretations.

3. What is the tragedy of Hamlet?

"He was in all" (the character of Hamlet, its content and ways to disclose).

Prove, analyzing the texts that Hamlet is a man of thought, philosopher.

Hamlet is a carrier of the humanistic worldview of his era and at the same time a critic of the ideas of rebirth.

The problem of the will of Hamlet.

The tragedy is a rare guest in world art. There are whole epochs of spiritual development, devoid of developed tragic consciousness. The reason for this in the nature of the dominant ideology. The tragedy may arise in the crisis of a religious ideology, as it was in ancient Greece and in the era of the Renaissance.

Shakespeare was a contemporary of the Great Epoch in the history of mankind, called the Renaissance, which was born at the turn of the XIII-XIVV. That was a long strip of public and spiritual development of Europe, when the breakdown of a centuries-old feudal structure and the birth of the bourgeois system occurred. The beginning of this was laid in Italy. The new worldview was formed in connection with the growth of cities, the development of commodity production, the formation of the global market, geographical discoveries ... An end was laid by the spiritual domination of the church, the beginnings of new sciences appeared.

Separately, I must say about the birth and formation of a new humanistic culture. In the sculpture and painting, the cult of antiquity arose, it saw a prototype of free humanity.

At first, humanism meant only the study of languages \u200b\u200band monuments of writing of the Greco-Roman world. This new science was contrasted with the dominant church feedback of the feudal Middle Ages, whose carrier was theology. Over time, humanism has gained wider importance. He took shape into an extensive system of views covering all branches of knowledge - philosophy, politics, morality, environmental education.

Humanists did not reject Christianity as such. His moral doctrine, the ethics of good was not alien to them. But the Humanists rejected the Christian idea of \u200b\u200brenunciation from the goods of life and, on the contrary, argued that the earthly existence was given to a person in order to fully use his strength.

For humanists, man is the center of the Universe. The ideal of Humanists was a comprehensive developed person, equally manifesting himself in the field of thought and practical activity. Looking through the old moral of humility of the existing orders, supporters of a new look at life rejected all kinds of human limits.

Shakespeare reflected all sides of this complex process. His works in front of us appear as people who are still inclined to live in the old manner, and those who dropped the shackles of suspended morality, and those who understand that human freedom does not mean the right to build their well-being on the misfortunes of others.

The heroes of Pieces Shakespeare are the people of such a warehouse. They are inherent in big passion, mighty will, immense desires. All of them are outstanding nature. The character of each manifests itself with extraordinary clarity and completeness. Everyone determines his fate, choosing one or another way in life.

Hamlet is an advanced man of his time. He is a student of Wittenberg University, who was in the Epoch of Shakespeare anterior. The progressive worldview of Hamlet is also manifested in his philosophical views. In his arguments, glimpses of natural materialism are felt, overcoming religious illusions. True, the misfortune with whom he encountered, made a disorder in his worldview. On the one hand, the Hamlet repeats the teachings of humanists well about the magnitude and dignity of man: "What a workshop is a man! How is noble mind! How is bemppedient in their abilities, pretties and movements! As accurate and wonderful in action! How he looks like an angel in a deep comprehension! How he looks like a certain God! The beauty of the universe! Crown of all living! " (II, 2). This high evaluation of a person is opposed by the surrounding Hamlet unexpected conclusion: "And what is this quintessence for me? From people I am not pleased with any ... "(II 2). With these statements, he simultaneously confirms the ideas of revival and criticizes them.

Based on the text, it can be safely assumed that to the terrible incidents who violated his spiritual peace, the Hamlet was a man whole, and this is especially manifested in combining thoughts, will and skills to act. Shocked consciousness led to the breakdown of the unity of these qualities.

The first monologue of Hamlet detects his tendency from a separate fact to make the broadest generalizations. The behavior of the mother leads Hamlet to a negative judgment of all women: "Breeding, you call a woman!"

With the death of the father and the treason of mother for Hamlet, there was a complete crash of that world in which he still lived. He sees the whole world in black:

What binding, dim and unnecessary

It seems to me all that neither is in the world!

About abrasion! This brown garden, fruit

Seed only; Wild and evil

It owes.

Shakespeare depicts his hero in kind, endowed with a lot of sensitivity, deeply perceiving terrible phenomena, affecting them. Hamlet is a man of hot blood, a large, capable of strong heart feelings. He is by no means that cold rationalist and analyst, how he is sometimes imagined. His idea is initiated by no distracted observation of facts, but a deep experience of them. If we feel from the very beginning that the Hamlet is towers over the surrounding, then this is not the elevation of a person over the circumstances of life. On the contrary, one of the highest personal advantages of Hamlet is the completeness of life sensations, its connection with it, consciousness that everything that happens around significantly and requires a person to determine its attitude towards things, events, people. Hamlet is distinguished by an exacerbated, tense and even painful reaction to the surrounding.

In the "Gamlet" more than anywhere else, Shakespeare revealed the variability of the personality. For example, at first, the task of revenge behind the father Hamlet takes with a few unexpected fervor. After all, quite recently, we heard from him complaints about the horrors of life and recognition that he would like to endorse suicide, just not to see the surrounding abomination. Now he is imbued with indignation, going with forces for the upcoming task. A little time later, it is already painful for him that such a huge task lay down on his shoulders, he is not looking at her as a curse, she for him is a grievous burden:

The age loosened - and most of all,

What I born to restore it!

He curses the century in which he was born, curses that he was destined to live in a world where evil reigns and where he, instead of surrendering to the truly human interests and aspirations, must devote all his strength, the mind and soul to devote to the fight against the world of evil.

The problem of the will of Gamletta is the problem of its choice. In his famous monologue "to be or not to be?" Hamlet doubts more than ever before. This is the highest point of his doubt:

What is noble in spirit to submit

Prachas and arrows of fierce fate

Il, breaking on the sea sink, fight them

Confrontation?

In this monologue, the Hamlet appears a deep philosopher, it is manifested by a thinker defined by new issues: what is death:

Die

And only: and say that I finish

Longing and thousands of natural flour,

The heard of the flesh - as such a junction

Do not crave

Monologue "Be or not to be?" From the beginning to the end permeated with the grave consciousness of the sorrows of being. This is an apoge of his mind. The point is whether the Hamlet will stop on these reflections or are they transition to further?

But in the III act, stage 5 Hamlet, after long thoughts, in another monologue, it becomes final determination.

I do not know

Why live, hard: "So you need to do",

Once there is cause, will, power and means,

To do this.

Until Shakespeare, no writer passed such deep moral torments, did not describe such deep thought-out.

4. What is the heroism of the acts of Gamlet and the greatness of his feat (prove by analyzing the main monologues of Hamlet)? Rate your attitude to the Hamlet and the fighting methods with the evil that he chooses.

Hamlet is not limited to evil, but he does not know how to deal with him. His heroism is that by passing the ads of the circles of doubt, thinking, torment, he still brings his revenge to the end.

Curious item: When Laertie suspects that His father killed Claudius, he raises the people to the uprising against the king. Hamlet in exactly the same situation does not resort to the help of the people, although the people love him. Why does Hamlet do not work like Laert? Hamlet does not even think about such a way to reduce the scores with the king. His struggle with Claudia has an exclusively moral meaning for him. Hamlet is a lone fighter for justice. But it is interesting that he fights against his enemies by their own methods - he pretends, chittitis, seeks to bring the secret of his enemy, deceives and - as it is neither paradoxically - for the sake of a noble goal, it is guilty of the death of several people. Claudia has wines in the death of only one former king. Hamlet kills (though, not intentionally) Polonia, sends to the faithful death of Rosencranca and Guildenster, kills Laert and, finally, the king; He is a direct cause of madness of Ophelia and is indirectly guilty of her death. But in the eyes of all he remains morally clean, because he pursued the noble goals and the evil, which he made, was always the answer to the goats of his opponents.

Nowadays, you can only be horrified by the methods that Hamlet elected. But you need to know the history of the bloody era, when there was a special sophistication of postpals by the enemy, and then it becomes a clear tactic of Hamlet. He needs Claudi into the consciousness of his crime, he wants to show the enemy first inner torments, the flour of conscience, if he has it, and only then apply a fatal blow so that he knows that his punishment is not only Hamlet, but a moral law, All-Russian justice.

Monologists - Question number 3.

5. Latitude and fullness of Shakespeare character (images of Polonia, Claudia, Gertruda, Laerta, Ophelia, etc.) episodic characters.

Claudiusthe pleasant, causing, and possibly in other eyes is even seductive. (Hamlet: "Smiling scoundrels, scotched".)

Claudius, unlike Richard III, for example, to achieve one atrocity, was ready to stop on it. Having reached the goal, he, as his trinical speech shows, sought to strengthen his position with peaceful means: first, to secure the country from a possible raider of Fortinbrass, and second, to make a gamlet. Exactly realizing that he took his throne from him, Claudius, compensating for this loss, announces him with his heir, please see his father in him. The only thing that he requires from Hamlet is not to leave the Danish courtyard, so that it was more convenient to watch it (Hamlet: "For me, Denmark is a prison).

He realizes that he has committed a grave sin - fratricide. But he prays from repentance, not because it believes deeply, he wants only to wash off his guilt, hoping to push forgiveness. He himself recognizes that he is "neraskaya". The lowland is manifested in the fact that he twice secretly plots to kill Gamlet, although married to his mother! As a result, he involuntarily poisoned it. Everything else he killed the former king, it turns out to be a culprit of the death of the Crown Prince - he destroyed the whole royal family and therefore, according to Shakespeare, deserves death.

Gertrude.Hamlet is confident that Gertruda sincerely loved his father, and her married by Claudia was prompted exclusively the lowest sensuality, causing disgust. Hamlet stakes and even with the fierce condemns Gertrud not only in this, but also in the bleed mixing, that in those days was considered a grave sin. She looked so blindly with his thirst for happiness, going to marry the second time that did not recognize the true nature of that, in whose hands gave their destiny. Nevertheless, Gertrud knows that madness of Hamlet imaginary, but it does not give it anyone.

During the fight of Gamlet with Laert, she openly rises her son. The cunning conspiracy of the king with Laertes is unknown to her. She quietly drinks a cup with a poison cooked for Hamlet. The fact that she drinks the poison that intended her son is symbolic. She, like Hamlet, falls victim to Cvabdia's cunning, and this at least partially reaches her moral guilt.

Polonium.He probably occupied a high position and with the old king. The new king binds it with his Milosts and his first is ready to render them. This gives grounds to assume that after the death of the former monarch Poloniy played an important role in the election of Claudia King. Low-alone in front of the reigning individuals, in his house he is unlimited lord, requiring unconditional obedience. He needs to know everything that is going on in the palace. He is always in a hurry to inform all the news to the king and immediately runs to declare him, for example, that the cause of Hamlet's obedience is rejected love. The main means to extract information from him is a surveillance. He dies, overheapping a sideline of Gamlet with her mother.

In his speeches, there is not a word about sympathy or help to other people. Poloniy knows by itself: "I know himself when the blood flares, as generous there is a language on the oaths." He recommends caution in communicating with others and almost every prescription is imbued with distrust of people, even sends a person to spy at his own son to check whether Lieert performs his covenants in Paris.

Wisdom Polonium is the wisdom of the scene, sophisticated in intrigues, which goes to the goal is not straight paths, who knows how to act secret, hiding true intentions.

Laert.If the Hamlet leaned over his father, Lanert wished to get rid of his guardianship. After the death of the Father, his suspicion instantly falls on the king. From this we can conclude about what opinion he is about his sovereign. Without thinking, Lanert raises the riot people, breaks into the palace and is going to kill the king. So he considers himself an equal king. Revenge for his father from him is a matter of honor, but he has his own concept about her. For example, he is indignant by the fact that the dust of his father and sisters were not given proper honors, but at the same time it is going to cut her throat in the church. For the sake of revenge, it is ready even for sacrence

But fully, his contempt for true honor is manifested in the fact that he agrees to the casual plan of Claudia to kill Gamlet's fraudulent way, struggling with him a poisoned rapier against the ordinary rapier of Hamlet for fencing exercises. He behaves not like a knight, but as a cunning killer. Before the death of Laert, though, repent. The nobility of the Spirit is returned to him and he is confessed in his crime; He understands now: "I myself is punished with treachers."

Hamlet forgives him: "Be clean before the sky!" Why? He brother Ophelia and Hamlet is convinced of Laert's nobility, that he should have the same high concepts of honor as he himself. If you remember everything, in which the Hamlet was to blame for the family of Polonia, the relationship between them may well be characterized by Shakespeare's formula - "measure per measure".

Ophelia.It utters only 158 lines of text, but in these lines, Shakespeare was able to attach a lifetime.

The love of Ophelia is her trouble. Although her father is an approximate king, his minister, nevertheless she is not royal blood and therefore not even equal to his beloved. From the first appearance of Ophelia, the main conflict of her fate is clear - father and brother require it to abandon her love for Hamlet. Obeying them, we see her complete absence of Wari and independence.

There is no love scene between the Hamlet and Ophelia in the tragedy. But there is a scene of their gap. She is full of amazing drama.

The words that Gamlet says above the grave of Ophelia, are finally convinced that his feeling for her was genuine. That is why the scenes where the Hamlet rejects Ophelia, penetrated with special drama - all the cruel words that he tells her give him with difficulty, he pronounces them with despair, for, loving her, is aware that she has become the gun of his enemy against him and for Implementation of revenge must be abandoned from love. Hamlet suffers because it is forced to hurt Ofelia, and, suppressing pity, is merciless in his condemnation of women. It is noteworthy, however, that he personally does not blame her and not jokingly advises her to go into the monastery from this vicious world.

Horatio.A friend of Hamlet for University. A completely inactive character, Horatio is assigned an important role in ideological intent. He serves Shakespeare to identify the ideal of man. To him the only Hamlet trust his place of revenge. He is not a slave passion; Horatio man calm, balanced, he is inherent in rationalism. But the main thing is that Hamlet emphasizes in it, this is his philosophical view of life. Horatio with all his wise peace of calm loves Hamlet. Seeing, one hundred prince dies, he wants to divide the fate with him and is ready to drink poison from the poisoned Cup. Hamlet stops him.

Horatio - man of humanistic culture, hot fan of antiquity. Before trying to drink poison and commit suicide, he exclaims: "I am a Roman, not Dane's soul."

Rosencranc and Guildenster. They are quiet habits, waters and digestibility, giveaway, stiffness and flatterness, pretense, reptile, alternativeness and insignificance.

A peculiar drama of their fate is that they are pawn in someone else's game. Accustomed to please and obey, they do not know anything about the essence of what is happening, even about what they directly participate. Voluntary servants evil, they are dying, like polonium, hitting one of the two mighty opponents.

Prince Fintribss and his father.

The role of Fortinbrass is hardly the smallest in the tragedy. Princes are never found personally, they judge about each other, but both high opinions about each other.

Fortinbras goes to fight, driven by ambition. Hamlet for the sake of this would not raise the sword. Knight's militant Norwegian prince goes to his father, who did not like to sit without a business. He languished peace and he summoned the father of Hamlet's father without any reason, having put forward a condition that defeated his lands to the winner, and lost.

Hamlet gives Fortinbrass voice to the ownership of Dania, since he, unlike Claudia, but in spite of the same on its limitations, acts with an open election, honestly, without maliciousness and cunning. Not being an ideal knight, he is, you can say the smallest evil.

Hamlet's father.Without it, there would be no tragedy. From beginning to end, his image hovers over it. Waving the prince to take revenge on Claudia, the ghost warns Hamlet not to cause any evil of the mother, the car for which should serve her own spiritual torments and do not stain his honor.

6. Are the ideas of "Hamlet" are relevant today?

The problems of moral choices will always be relevant. The deeper the reader is thinking about the great creation of Shakespeare, the more he will find in it. The meaning of the work is disclosed not only in characters and situations. There is something specifically not expressed in the tragedy. This is a completely special feeling, as if reading or looking at the play on the stage, we encounter the root of life. This does not express words. But after all that we learned about people who appeared in the tragedy, after the fate of each of them was accomplished, there was a feeling that the poet led us to the central point in which the greatness, beauty and tragedy of being focused. In vain, search in the creation of Shakespeare of clear and clear answers to questions excited by it. The more complete we can submit the variety of characters, the complexity of dramatic action, the deeper we enforced into the tragic fate of the heroes, the more we get closer to the huge world, which Genius of Shakespeare managed to embody in a relatively small volume of his great tragedy.

This one of those works that surprisingly stimulate thinking. For most, it becomes that personal property that everyone feels entitled to judge. I understood the Gamlet, penetrating the spirit of the Great Tragedy, we not only comprehend the thoughts of one of the best minds; "Hamlet" is one of those works in which the self-consciousness of mankind is expressed, the consciousness of them contradictions, the desire to overcome them, the desire to improve, irreconcilability to everything that hostile humanity.

William Shakespeare (1564-1616) is the most outstanding English revival from all writers. His Peru belongs to the comedy ["Sleeping in the summer night", "Much noise from nothing", "Twelfth Night"], tragedy, sonnets, historical chronicles [Richard II, Richard III, "Heinrich IV", "Heinrich V »].

Tragedies: "Othello", "Romeo and Juliet", "King Lear", "Macbeth", "Anthony and Cleopatra", "Hamlet".

The tragedy "Hamlet". Hamlet, Prince Danish, learns that his father did not die, but was a treacherously killed by Claudius, which was then married to the widow of the deceased and inherited his throne. Hamlet swears to take revenge on his father, but instead reflects, philosophists, without taking anything strong. He kills Claudia, but purely impulsively, learning that he poisoned him. In fact, the Hamlet is not passive and is not brittle. Just learning to university, he was far from the courtyard and his intrigue. Now, with his eye, the pellets fell. He saw his mother's inconstancy, who was married for the second time literally immediately after the funeral of the first husband. Sees false and depravity of the entire Danish courtyard. Hamlet understands that the case is not in the very fact of the killing of the Father, but that this murder could have come true, to remain unpunished and bring the fruit of the killer only thanks to the indifference, the connivance and the pleasant of all others. Hamlet could deal with Claudia and return the throne. But he is a thinker and humanist, concerned about the common blessing. He must fight in the wrong world, acting in defense of all oppressed. But such a task, according to Gamlet, is unbearable for one person, so the Hamlet retreats before it, goes into his reflections, immersed in the depths of his despair. But such a position sharpens his thoughts, makes an impartial judge of life. Expressing exceptional in the depths of thought, Hamlet is not an expressive of the ideas of Shakespeare himself or his era, but a specific person whose words, expressing his deep personal experiences, acquire through this special conviction.

The tragedy is studied at school in the 10th grade, the tragedy of "Romeo and Juliet" is also studied in the 8th grade.

20) "Faust" Goethe as a genre of educational tragedy.

The role of prologues ("Prologue in the theater", "Prologue in Heaven") in the composition of the tragedy. Faust and Mephistofel - two views on the world. The image of margaritis. Studying the tragedy at school.

Johann Wolfgang Goethe (1749-1832) is the greatest poet of Germany. Brilliant poet, prose, playwright, man encyclopedic knowledge. In the work of Goethe is embodied the most progressive and humane ideas of his time.

The tragedy "Faust" is one of the greatest works of world literature, over which the poet worked throughout life. The plot of Goethe borrowed from the "folk book" of the 16th century about Dr. Faust, Mage and Warlock. The traits of the Humanist gave to his Faust of Humanist, which bends from the darkness of the Middle Ages to new, bright times. In an effort to know the meaning of life, Faust concludes a union with the devil, which promises to give him all the joys of being. After the great tests and disappointments, taking up and downs, disintegrating love, joining art, Faust acquires internal harmony. Higher happiness and satisfaction Faust finds only in creative activities for the benefit of the people.

Begins the tragedy from the "Prolog Theater". It expressed the aesthetic views of Goethe. The poet defends the high purpose of art. In the second entry of the Prologue in Heaven, the optimistic educational idea of \u200b\u200bthe tragedy is clearly planned. The cynical skepticism of Mephistopheles, his slander on a man Goethe opposes the life-affirming concept attached by the poet in the mouth of the Lord, who expresses the confidence that Faust, passing through all the delusions and dangerous temptations, will achieve a victory and the high title of man will achieve.

Guete believed that the harmony of the world was constructed in the fight against the contradictions, in the collision of ideas - truth. Faust and Mephistofel - two antipodes. They introduced certain human features. Faust - unsatisfied, rolling, passionate, ready to love hotly and hate himself, he is able to mistake and make tragic mistakes. He is very sensitive, his heart is easy to hurt. His mind in constant doubts and anxiety. Mephistofel is balanced, passion, and doubts do not worry him. He looks at the world without hate and love. But this is not a type of villain. This type of man tired by the long contemplation of evil and burned in the good principles of the world. He sees the imperfection of the world and knows that it is forever, that they can not remake him at any sweep.

The best pages of the first part of Faust are devoted to the description of the meeting of Faust and Margarita, their love and the tragic death of the girl. Margarita is inherent in simplicity, spiritual purity, it is sensible, she completely confessed by the Future - an excellent stranger, who was met by chance on a rustic holiday. He took possession of her heart and mind. The girl in his nature is inclined to love, forgive the shortcomings, humble. She is alien to the spirit of doubt, the struggle. It is lost in front of Mephistofel. His speech scare her. Faust is conquered by the spiritual purity of Margarita. But having achieved her love, he leaves her. Margarita kills his child and goes to prison. She deprives reason. Margarita is aware of his terrible guilt, but still with all his heart striving for the faast.

In school, the tragedy Goethe "Faust" is studied in the 10th grade.

In the history of art and literature there is no more popularity of the play than the popularity of "Hamlet" William Shakespeare. More than 300 years, this tragedy is played on the scenes of the theaters of the whole world. People of different cultures are looking for answers to questions that disturb them. The secret of this tragedy is in the philosophical depth and humanistic inspiration of this work, in the skills of Shakespeare-playwater, which embodied universal problems in artistic insults.

The image of Hamlet is central to Shakespeare tragedy. Already at the beginning of the play is determined

The main goal of this hero is to revenge for the murder of the Father. Accordingly, the medieval ideas are his duty, but Hamlet is a new time man, he is a humanist, and a cruel revenge contradicts his nature. To make a decision, he needs to weigh well, will the death of Claudia change anything in the world. He sees around him only to betray and deceit. He is disappointed even in his love and remains lonely.

His reflections on the appointment of a person acquire a tragic colors (scene in the cemetery). Man is a very weak creature to counteract evil, Hamlet believes. The events of the tragedy seem to confirm these arguments of the hero: Ophelia disinntly die, and evil remains unpunished. Hamlet cannot accept this, but does not find the strength to counteract. If he becomes a killer, he will move to the side of evil and the effort to strengthen it.

Shakespeare gives Hamlet a few opportunities to kill Claudia: Hamlet sees how the king is praying alone, and it falls a convenient case. But the hero does not take a decisive step. In the prayer of Claudius, his sins takes place, death was perceived in this minute with the contemporaries of Shakespeare as the forgiveness of sins, and the soul of man was thought, flew to heaven. Kill at such a moment, Claudia meant to forgive him caused evil. This is this Hamlet and can not do. In our eyes, the hero is experiencing a difficult struggle between a sense of debt and its own beliefs, this struggle leads to sad conclusion: the whole world is a prison, where there is no place to human virtues, where every person is doomed to loneliness.

Montologists of Gamlette reveal the inner struggle, which hero leads with you. He constantly reproaches himself in inconsistencies, is trying to understand whether he is able to any action at all. He even thinks about suicide, but also reflections on whether they do not expect the same problems in the past world, stop it ("to be or not to be?"). The duty orders it to "be" and act. Shakespeare shows a consistent development of the character of Hamlet. In the finals of the tragedy, the king killer was punished, but it happened as a result of a coincidence, and not from the will of the hero.

Hamlet does not accidentally make the look of the crazy: understand what he understood the Hamlet, and only a very strong person can not be dispersed.

The strength of this image is not what actions he takes, but that he feels and forces to worry readers. Why does a person can't achieve happiness and harmony, in which the meaning of human life is, it is possible to overcome evil - here's just the main philosophical problems that Shakespeare raises in his tragedy. He does not give them the final answer, probably it is impossible. But his faith in a man, in its ability to create good, to resist evil - the path to the answer to them.