Significance of the title '' The Purpose ''

Name: Vora Hirva p

Roll No: 12

Sem:1

Submitted to Department of English

Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji

Bhavnagar University.

                                    

'Significance of the title 'The Purpose'

- T.P. Kailasam

          The purpose of the this thesis has been to propose an assessment or interpretation of T.P. Kaisam's "Private mythology" of its genesis, its readers. This mythology war of course largely influenced by the circumstances of his time. Indeed, we have noted earlier in this thesis that Northrop Frye, looked on myth, as a means of recanting "a society's history, religion of social stricture.

          This observation is as true of traditional transmissions of myth as it is of such recent and counselors efforts of kailasm's. The 'tailing' of myth in this English plays performs its own part in the nationalist project of rewriting India.

          Kailasam's uniqueness lies not merely in evoking our sympathies for Eklavya, Karna, Bharata or Keechka but also in elevating then to the level of tragic heroes who were masculine, skillful and capable of achievement. In addition, kailasam attempted to features that the colonizes believed they possessed an which accounted for their superiority over Indians.

          The purpose highlights Eklavya's ambition to become the greatest archer in the world in order to project his fawns from the wolves just as it highlights, the questionable motivation of other 'heroic' characters in their shabby treatment of the 'low'  born hero. These "Purpose" of kailasam can be linked to the broader purpose of the nationalist movement of India to rewrite India's past as a foundation of the nationalistic feeling, movement and sense of self. For this purpose, like others, kailasam was willing to subsample to emerging concepts of modernity implicit in the redefinitions of qualities such as masculinity and adulthood and to 'search' for exempla of them in India's own 'past'.

          Kailasam seems to specifically emphasize the "Purpose" the predicament and motivation of the fringe characters of mythology to highlight something of the tradition and of what was required for modernization of that tradition. Significance of title is very important. He investigates their characters beyond the roles assigned to them by the authorized versions of the great epics and he transforms them from passive victims to active participants thus fitting them into western definitions of 'Masculinity' kailasam simultaneously questioned the 'authority of unfair projections operative for millennia which leveled to our divided and unjust society.  

          Krilasam's purpose to reinter the past in the light of his contemporary reality. Yet in this process kailasam employs a language of the past that too a language reasonable unfamiliar even to English – educated Indians.

          While analyzing kailasam's preoccupation with marginalized characters as Modern alternatives or exemplars for reshaping society, this dissertation has discovered more topics for study one of them is the construction of women especially as mothers in the lives of these heroes. The concept of motherhood for most nationalist writers was associated with the crucial role of procreating and rearing special breed of men. This role extended to energizing the menfolk to reconstruct the "Motherland".

          In Kailasam's play 'The purpose it is Eklavya's mother. A study of neglected literary documents like Kailasam's plays will have some serious impact on the image and definition, the historical perception of wider disciplines or domains like Indian writing in English, To take just one instance. Such document will help clarity once again why in a certain period of this century Indian writing in English was self conscious of history.

          Special attention is given to identity movements with modernity kailasam has emphasized on it. This type of movements were increased in the days of freedom struggle. The concept of purpose is completely charged from the original mythical story. The struggle for one's identity is established through a 'Nishada' for example Eklavya in 'The Purpose'. Nationalistic feelings were aroused through these type of historical plays of Kailasam.

          It is very important to know the difference between Eklavya and Arjuna. Their purposes were different. Arjuna's purpose was self-centered.  He wanted to become the greatest archer of the world whereas. Eklavya wanted to save others's lives. In the purpose 'Eklavya's portrayal has been described well- as, a modern person than Mahabharata. Being a son of 'Nishada' he suffers a lot. He belongs to Bhal community. He lives in a forest with his mother.He is son of Vyatraj Harinyadhary. His father was a soldier in the army of king of Magadha. So Eklavya wants to save poor animals from cruel animals and he has desire to learn arehary. His purpose is not self-centered but to help others. Arjuna was a selfish areher. His purpose was to become the greatest areher of world. Kailasam has given more significance to Eklavaya's character and has given him priority. According to Kailasam Eklavaya is considered an important character than Arjuna. Because without Eklavaya's sacrifice of his Thumb Arjuna would not have become the greatest archar or he could not have been succed. Eklavaya's character is considered important in the purpose. Here Arjuna has been criticized being a selfish person and self-centered. But In Mahabharata Arjuna has been given more importance. In the purpose when Eklavya expresses his desire to learn archery from Guru Dron, Guru Dron becomes impressea Dronacharya also asks Eklavya about his purpose behind learning archery. Eklavya replied that he wants to save poor animal. How Dronacharya is quite impressed to know Eklavya's keen interest to learn archery. Now Dronacharya agrees with Eklavya and he is ready to teach him archery. But after knowing that Guru Dronacharya has been convinced by Eklavya Arjuna reminds Dronacharya about his promise Arjunathat he would be a great archer of work so now Guru Drona denies to Eklavya that he will not teach hip archery. Arjuna was a Brahmin a high caste, archar from a royal family. Dronachaya cannot teach a lower caste boy. It was believed in society during that time. Guru Drona has no right to choose his pupils. Arjun does not want Guru Drona to teach Arjuna archery and Dronacharya couldnot do anything. He had to agree with Arjuna and it is considered one of the important reasons of unfare with Eklavya. It Guru Dron had been agreed than Eklavya could have achieved archery from Guru Dron. Here Arjuna should not have raised questions about Eklavya and his promise because he was a student and Guru Drona was his teacher.

          Eklavya's character has been portrayed excellently by T.P. Kailasam. He has all necessary qualities to learn archery but here power or caste plays vital role. Even though he learns the skill himself. Sacrifices his thumb. Suffering goes on as being the boy of lower caste. He embarked upon a program of self study in the presence of a clay image of Drona. He achieves a level of skill superior to that of Arjuna, Drona's favourite and most accomplished pupal. After the revelation   of Eklavya   that he is from lower caste Drona gets worried and demands that Eklavya turn over his right thumb as gurudakshina. The loyal Eklavya cripples himself, thereby reducing his abilities as in archer. Drona was the Brahmin teacher appointed by the Royal Family of Hasthinapura to teach the young kaurava and pandav princes. The military skills that the princes reeded to learn. One of these skills includes archery. Drona being a Brahmin teacher and more than that being the teacher of princes could not accept Eklavya. Drona was an employee of the kingdom of Hastinapura and was not free to accept students on his will Eklavya was deeply hurt by Drona's refusal. So Eklavya made a statue of Drona accepted the statue of Drona as his guru and practiced in front of the statue every single day. Here we can see Eklavya as subaltern and a marginalized hero. It raises serious questions about caste – system and about its systice. If gives us glimpses that how the marginalized tribes were treated by the dominates Aryan people. He had potential to excel Arjuna. The Aryan hero. But the dominating Aryans conspired and neutralized the challenge by aksing Eklavya to donate thumb  of his right hand. According to rule of morality if, a Nishada boy becomes a better archer than the high born pupil. It goes against the rule of morality on hunting expedition in the forest the dog was barking and his mouth was shut by the arrows shot by Eklavya. We can find excessive reverence to the Brahmins even if they do not deserve it. Out attitude towards Dronacharya was negative. How shameless he was, he has weared the mask of civility. We feel proud of Eklavya in response to his cruel demand the behavior of Eklavya was very submissive. Even though the teacher may refuse to train him and demand his thumb. How Eklavya is expected to behave towards his Brahmin teacher. Eklavya lost his efficiency as a archer. Arjuna becomes thus great archer. Here we find the one generally feels jealousy towards someone who is superior to us. Eklavya was made scapegoat to serve salfish end of the dominated caste hierarchy. Non-Aryan Eklavya as a representative of the opposed tribes. T.P. Kailasam wants the readers to look at Guru Drona again how he pretends and if he had true desire to train Eklavya than he would have trained him and taught him archery but he does not do so. In this play T.P. Kailasam's attitude towards Guru Drona was negative. According to Kailasam at the end of the play Eklavya repents and becomes revolutionary but here one questions is raised if Eklavya was a true archer and true 'Shisya' he should not have repented According to Kailasam Arjuna wants his fame but Eklavya even does not think of his winning by helping others. He does not think like that. Here his dignity and greatness are shown. According to Kalilasam Eklavya has suffered a lot because of caste system, society, Brahmins. He is a subaltern. There is no any reference of Eklavya in Mahabharata after his sacrifice of avoided. He has not been given more importance which he needs. So According to Kailasam Eklavya is superior to Arjuna. He has preferred Eklavya to, Arjuna. Because after Dronacharya's refusal he struggled a lot and achieved the skill on his own. The title of the purpose highlights the purpose of Eklavya's life. In this direction Kailasam makes his own imaginations. He naturally makes his Eklavya observe from a distance the skills in archery and then practice in his place with the image of his Guru in his mind. When Drona is haplessly caught in a Mental conflict on Arjuna's serious charge Eklavya Though, placed in between dual loyalty (towards his teacher on one side and, his fawns on the other realizes Drona's awakward position and voluntarily sacrifices his right thumb as gurudakshina. In handling the theme of the purpose Kailasam lays an emphasis on the power of penance its potentiality of concentration and a single minded efforts on the one hand ant the purpose of doing a thing (here, learning archery) on the other. Among the three kinds of people whose purposes are different, Eklavya belongs to the third' category whose "one aim is in his labour that others might reap the harvest his toils without the least profit to himself. One has to question the probability of Eklavaya's joining the Kaurava in view of the fact that Eklavya's sacrifice of his right thumb has already rendered him almost unfit for archery. Further compared to Eklavya, Lord Krishna of the playlet seems to be debased as highly selfish and partial. One would be jimply stunned and would find it difficult to reconcile oneself to the horrible treacherous act committed by Krishna, though Eklavya is supposed to have transgressed his purpose in life.

          The purpose serves as a goes example in this regard, the play wright goes to the other extaine in keechaka the other plays coming in between. Kailasam adopts the modern concept of democracy and socialism is traced in the ancient benevolent monarchy, which idea is expressed in the statements like "the king is like a common man and the common man like a king and the hero of the play is portray as one who is wedded to truth, jyotice and service to humanity like Eklavya.

          Here we can take the example of karna also. Karna and Eklavya are similar characters. We can find many similarities between both of them. Karna had to suffer a lot in his life. Because Kunti does not accept her child [Karna] She gets pregnant before her marriage. He was the son of surya and Kunti. The child Karna was found by Adhiratha, a charioteer of king Dhritarashtra of Hastinapura. Adhiratha and his wife Radha raised the boy as their own son. He also came to be known as 'Radheya' the son of Radha. Krishna had to speak lie to his teacher. Prarashurama as his training come to completion, Prashurama learned the truth about his star pupil. When parashurama requested Karna to bring a pillow for him to lie his head on in the shade of tree. Karna offered his lap, but while parshurama was asleep, a giant bee stung Karna's thigh. Karna did not move in spite of having pain because he does not want to disturb his guru's sleep. The would began to bleed. Parshurama was worken up by the blood and deduced at once that Karna was a Kshatriya and not a Brahmin because only Kshtriya could endure such a pain. Parshurama who had sworn vengeance against all Kshatriyas laid this curse upon Karnas that he would forget all the mantras required to wield the divine weapon Brahmastra, the most destructive weapon in archery. When Kunti comes to know about his real son she goes to meet him But instead of accepting Karna. The wants to save pandavas and she wants Karna to save their lives. Here we get disgust with Kunti and how Karna is treated. Karna had been killed by Arjuna when Karna had no protection. It was against the rule of war. Because Karna had no arrows as great as Eklavya-according to Kailasam because both suffers a lot karna should have been given the importance as the greatest son and archer but because of Arjun he could not have achieved much importance as an individual. According to Kailasam Eklavaya had all frailties as a great archer. He is considered the, greatest archer from Kailasam's point of view. Arjun is not considered as great as Eklavaya and he is not as great as Eklavya. Dronacharya and Arjuna were both responsible. Because of them Eklavya had to suffer a lot. Here society, beliefs, casteism misery all have been criticized. Adhrence to meaningless and unnecessary suctoms days vital role. If these all things had not affected Eklavya he would have becomes the greatest archer of the world. It is believed by T.P. Kailasam in 'The purpoe'.

Literary Terms

NAME                :      VORA HIRVA

ROLL NO.         :      12

SUB                    :      Literary Terms and Criticism

M.A.                   :      SEM – I

TOPIC               :      Literary Terms

               What is Criticism  :

Ê   Criticism is the practice of judging the merts and faults of something or someone in an intelligible way.

Ê   Criticism can be directed toward a person, at a group authority or organization, at a specific behavior, or at an object of some king can idea, a relationship, a condition, a process, or a thing.

Ê   Personal or impersonal.

Ê   Highly specific and detailed, or very abstract and general.

Ê   It can be expressed in language or expressed symbolically, or expressed through an action or a way of behaving.

               Literary Criticism  :

Ê   Literary criticism, the reasoned consideration of literary works and issues. It applies, as a term, to whether or not specific literary, analyzed. Ploto's cautions against the risky consequences of poetic inspiration in general in his republic earliest important example of literary criticism.

          More otrickly constructed the term covers only what her been called "Practical Criticism" the interpretation of meaning and the judgment of quality. Criticism is this narrow sense can be distinguished not only from aesthetic but also from other matters that may concern the questions, bibliography, historical knowledge, sources and infiueally in academic studies, a criticism is often considered to be separate from a scholarship. In practice, however this distinction often proves artificial, and even the most single minded concentration on a text may be informed by outside knowledge while many notable work's of criticism combine discussion of texts with broad arguments about the nature of literature and the principles of assessing it.

          Thus literary criticism is the term given to studies that define, classify, analyze, interpret and evaluate works of literature. There are many types of literary criticism some examples include historical criticism, textual criticism, feminist criticism, and formalist criticism. Literary criticism may examine a particular literary work or it may look at an author's writings as a whole.           

               Practical  Criticism or applied criticism :

          Practical criticism in the general sense, the kind of criticism that analysis specific literary works, either as a deliberate application of a previously elaborated theory or as a supposedly non theoretical investigation. More specifically the team is applied to an academic procedure devised by the critic.

          Practical criticism is sometimes distinguished into impressionistic and judicial criticism. Practical criticism   is like the formal study of English literature itself, a relatively young diseapline. It began in the 19205 with a series of experiments by the Cambridge critic. I.A. Richards. He gone Poems to students without any information about who wrote them or when they were written. The objective of his work was to encourage students to concentrate on 'The words on the page', rather than relying on preconceived or received beliefs about a text.

          Practical criticism  today is more usually treated as an ancillary skill rather than the foundation of a critical method. It is a part of many examinations in literature at almost all levels and is used to test students responsiveness to what they read, as well as their knowledge of verse forms and of the technical language for describing the way poems create their effects.

          Practical criticism in this form has no necessary connection with any particular theoretical approach and has shed the psychological theories which originally underpinned it. It might be seen as encouraging readings which concentrate on the form and meaning of particular works rather than on larger theoretical questions.

          Literary criticism can be divided into theoretical and practical applied criticism. Theoretical criticism is general and deals with the aesthetic principles and tenants of art. The practical criticism is by no means single in aim or approach.

               Impressionistic Criticism :

          Impressionistic criticism is the kind of criticism that restricts itself to describing the critic's own subjective response to a literary work, rather than ascribing intrinsic qualities to it in the light of general principles. Walter patel's defence of such criticism in the preface to his studies in the History of the Renaissance (1873) was that in aesthetic criticism the first step towards seeing one's object as it really is, 95 to know one's own impression as it really is, to discriminate it, to realize it distinctly'

          It refers to the way a certain literary work makes the audience feel. Impressionist criticism is closely related to reader – response criticism where the reader describes what the meaning of the work is to them. Impressionistic criticism is the record of the personal responses ; it is a record of the critic's own appreciation of aesthetic beauty, any rules and regulations. The critic does not evaluate a work, he does not call it good or bad, rather he seeks to convey his own enjoyment of it to his readers.

          Impressionistic criticism is what happens when a critic is reading a piece of work and critiques it on how he or she is feeling instead of critiquing using principles. Impressionistic criticism is the difference between reality and what we think, the difference between objectively and subjectivity. The source of the subline lies in the capabilities of the speaker or writer. Three of these the use of figurative language, nobility of expression and elevated composition are matters of art that can be acquired by practice ; but two otherand more important, capabilities are largely innate;  "loftiness of thought" and "strong and inspired passion" the ability to achieve sublimity is in itself enough to prove the panseendent genius of a wrter, and expresses the nobility of the writer's character; "Submility is the ring of greatness in the soul". Longinus in poems range of  the voices of /homer through the tragedies of Aeschylus to a love lyric by sappose his examples in trose are taken from the writing of the philosopher plato, the orator Demosthenes, and the historian Herodotus. Especially notable is his quotation, as a prime instance of sublimity, of the passage in the Book of Genesis written by "the lawgiver of the Jews" : "And God said, 'Let there be light' and there was light, ':et there be land', and there was land".

          Longinus' treatise exerted a strong and persistent effect on literary criticism after it became widely known by way of a French translation by Boileay in 1674; eventually, it halped theory of poetry and the critical method of impressionism. In the 18th century an important tendency in critical theory was to shift the application of the term, "The subhme" from a quality of linguistic discourse that originates in the powers of writer's mind, to a quality inherent in external objects, and above all in the scenes and occurrences of the natural worlds. Thus Edmund  Burke's highly in fluential philosophical Enquiry into the origin of our Ideas of the subline and Beautiful the source of the subline to those things which are "in any sort terrible" – that is, to whatever is "fitted in any sort to excite the ideas of pain, and danger" – provided that the observer is in a situation of safety from danger, and so is able to experience what would otherwise be a painful terror as a "delightful horror".

               Judicial Criticism   :

          On the other hand, attempts not merely to communicate, but to analyze and explain the effects of a work by reference to its subject organization, techniques, and style, and to base the critic's individual judgments on specified criteria or literary excellence. Rerely are there two modes of criticism sharply distrinct in practice, but good examples of primarily impressionistic commentary can be found in the greek Longinus, Hazlitt, Walter pater and some of the 20th century critical essays of E.M.Forster and virginic woolf.

          Types of traditional critical theries and of applied criticism can be usefully distinguished according to whether in defining, explaining and judging of work of literature. They refer the work primarily to the outer world, or to the reader or to the author, or else treat the work as an entity in itself.

1.      Mimetic Criticism   :

          Views the literary work as an imitation, or reflection, or representation of the world and human life, and the primary criterion applied to a work is the "Truth" and "adequacy" of its representation to the matter that it represents, or should represent. This mode of criticism which first appleared in plato and in Aristotle, remains characteristic of modern theories of literary realism.

          Structuralism is in explicit opposition to mimetic criticism, to expressive criticism. Mimetic criticism the view that literature is mimarily on imitation of reality and expressive criticism the view that literature primarily expresses the feelings or temperament or creative imagination of its author and to any form of the view that literature is a mode of communication between author and readers. More generally, in its attempt to develop a sequence of literature and in many of its salient concepts, the radical forms of structuralism depart from the assumptions and ruling ideas of traditional humanistic criticism.

2.      Pragmatic Criticism   :

          It views the work as something which is constructed in order to achieve certain effects on the audience, effects such as aesthetic pleasure, instruction, or kinds of emotion and it tends to judge the value of the work according to its success in achieving that aim. This approach, which largely dominated literary discussion from the versified Artof poetry by the Roman Horefe (First centry B.C.) through 18th century has been revived in recent rhetorical criticism, which emphasizes the artistic strategies by which an author engages and influences the responses of readers to the matters represented in a literary work.

          The Roman Horace in his versified Art of Poetry – First century B.C. declared that the aim of a poet is either to instruct or delight a reader, and preferably to do both. This view, by making poetry a calculated means to achieve effects on its audience, breaks down Aristotle's distinction between imitative poetry and persuasive rhetoric. Such pragmatic criticism became the dominant form of literary theory from late classical times through the 18th century. Discussion of poetry in that long span of time absorbed and expanded upon the analytic terms that had been developed in traditional rhetoric, and represented a poem mainly as a deployment of established artistic means for achieving foreseen effects upon its readers.

3.      Expressive Criticism   :

          Expressive criticism treats a literary work primarily in realtion to its author. It defines poetry as an expression or overflaw of feelings, poet's imagination, thoughts, Feelings, it tends to judge the work by its sincerity or state of minds and it often seeks in the work evidences of the particular temperament of the author.

4.      Objective Criticism   :

          Objective Criticism deals with a work of literature as something which stands free from what is often called "extrinsic" relations to the poet, or to the audience. Instead it describes the literary product as a self-sufficient and autonomous object or else as a world – in – atself, which is to be contemplated as its own end, and to be analyzed and judged solely by "intrinsic" criteria such as its complexity, wherence, integrity, and the interrelations of its component elements. The two critics work in direct reaction to the view of I.A. Richards, in his influential principles of Literary criticism that the value of a poem can be measured by the psychological responses it incites in its readers. Beardsley later modified the earlier claim by the admission that "it does not appear that critical evaluation can be done at all except in relation to certain types of effect that aesthetic objects have upon their perceivers". So altered, the doctrine be comes a claim for objective criticism, in which the critic, instead of describing the effects of a work, focuses on the features, devices, and form of the work by which such effects are achieved. An author's intended aims and meanings in writing a literature work whether these are asserted by the author or merely inferred from our knowledge of the author's life and opinions are irrelevant to the literary critic, because the meaning, structure and value of a text are inherent within the finished, freestanding, and public work of literature itself. Reference to the author's supposed purposes, or else to the author's personal situation and state of mind in writing a text, is held to be a harmful mistake, because it diverts our attention to such "External" matters as the author's biography, or psychological condition, or creative process, which we substitute for the proper critical concern with the "internal" constitution and interent value of the literary product. John Crowe  Ransom said, "is that it shall be objective, shall cite the nature of the object" and shall recognize "the autonomy of the work itself as existing for its own sake".

''Hamlet'' Critical Analysis

Name: Vora Hirva 

SEM :1

Roll no:12

Submitted to : Department of English 

                        Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji

                         Bhavnagar University. 

  

"Hamlet" : Critical Analysis

               Introduction  :

          The play Hamlet certainly produces in us too many feelings and thoughts. It was written by Shakespeare. A Shakespearean tragedy has been defined as a story of exceptional clarity leading to the death of many occupying a high status or position. A tragedy by Shakespeare is concerned chiefly with one man and is a tale of referring and misfortunes leading to that man's death and of the deaths of a few others also. Hamlet feels a responsibility to avenge his Father's murder by his uncle Claudius, but Claudius is now the king and thus well protected. Hamlet struggles with his doubts about whether he can trust the ghost and whether killing Claudius as the appropriate thing to do. The ghost appears to Hamlet and talls Hamlet to revenge his murder, Hamlet pretends madness to his intentions. There were same themes, motifs and symbols in the play. The impossibility of certainly. The mystery of death, the natron as a diseared body are major themes of the play. Incestuous desires, ears and hearing, death and suicide, darkness and they supernatural misogyny are motifs. The ghost and Yorick's skull are symbols.

          There is tension, supernatural mystery in the beginning of the novel. Tension in the opening scene Francisco feeling nervous. He is sick at heart. An element of mystery is introduced when Marcellius asks : "What has this thing appeared again tonight ? "    Horatio is the skeptical scholar who doesnot believe in the existence of a ghost unless he sees it with his own eyes. The appearance of a ghost constitutes an important supernatural element in the play. The supernatural element is heightened when Haratio refers to the stange things that were witnessed in Rome before the assassination of Julius Caesar. This first scene supplies some information regarding the war of the late king who had killed  the Norwegian Monarch. Young Foutinbras of Norway now threatens to invade Denamark. The appearance of the Ghost is regarded as a kind of eval omen for the state of Denmark. The Ghost has been described as a portent. The belief that disturbances in nature accompany disturbance in human affairs has its source in astrology and religion and this belief was current in Shakespeare's play.

          Then scene supplies some information regarding the marriage of Hamlet's widowed mother to Hamlet's uncle. Hence we meet Hamlet, the hero of the play. The two most stricking qualities of Hamlet are his melancholy and his speculative nature. His melancholy has been noticed by the king and the queen and his speculative nature appears in his two soliloquqes. He considers this marriage to be an incestuous relationship. There is a bittor irony in his conversation. The queen loves her son Hamlet and thinks about the welfare of him. Hamlet is not happy because of her Mother's Lasty marriage. As Hamlet puts it, "O God! a beast that wants discourses of reason, would have mourned longer." Hamle's soliloquies show his reflective and speculative nature.

          Hamlet's first soliloquy describes his state of mind before his meeting with the Ghost. He had no idea that his father had been murdered our his mother had committed adulteuly. He compares the world to Eden after the fall ; he contracts Gertrude's two husbands. The god-like and the bestial. But his melancholy and disillusionment that apparent in this soliloquy are not part of his normal state of mind. Before his mother's second, marriage, Hamlet had in ophelia's words, a noble mind" "The courtier's soldier's scholar's eye, tongue, sword." He was an ideal Renaissance nobleman. But the discovery of his mother's lust and the fact that the kingdom is in the hands of an unworthy man shattere his picture of the world. The state and the individual. His sense of evil in all spheres is closely interwoven in his first soliloquy. He thinks of the excellence of his father as king and his animal like uncle. He thinks of the lustfulness of here marriage. Shakespeare uses an interwoven series of reference to the world, the state and the individual.

          There is an introduction of three characters in Domestic scene. Laertes is a very affectionate brother. Who thinks of here loving sister Ophelia. He is not able to judge Hamlet's character. He think that prince will human his sister's honour. His advices seen valuable advices Ophelia is a very simple-minded girl who gives correct answers to her Father's questions. Here we see her subinissive  nature when she fells her father that she will obey him not to encourage Hamlet.

          The atmosphere of horror is again created when the Ghost appears once more. Our heart is fall with great apprehension when we find Hamlet deciding to Follow the Ghost. The comment of Mareellus "Something is rotten in the state of Denamark is significant."

          The disclosure made by the Ghost to Hamlet forms the very basis for the action of the rest of the play. Melancholy and depressed through Hamlet had been feeling even before the Ghost has spoken to him. He had never suspected his uncle of having murdered his Father or his Mother's crime of adultery. Now he decides to avenge his Father's murder. Through the arrival of ghost and its meeting to Hamlet we come to know about the character of the present king who is a perfect villain. Here we get a brief constrast between the character of the dead king and that of the present. Here from this scene Hamlet decides to pretend that he has gone mad. There is a lot of controversy about the nature of Hamlet's madness. Whether it is feigned or genuine. There is some information of the character of polonius described by Shakespeare that he is a suspicious and cunning man. He sets a spy on his son.

          There is a question of Hamlet's Madness : Real or Feigned ? Ohelia's description of Hamlet's condition suggests that Hamlet has suffered. What may be called a mental collapse. This indicates that Hamlet's madness is genuine. The only person from whom he could expect some, sympathy, namely Ophelia, has rejected him in obedience to her Father's advices. Polonius feels that his madness is the result of Failure in love with Ophelia.

          The king now set spies on Hamlet to try to find out the cause of Hamlet's distraction. Hamlet pretends that he is not in his right mind in conversation with polonius. Shows his satirical wit. Hamlet's susloicion regarding the motives of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in coming to him shows Guildenstern in Coming to him shows Hamlet's wisdom and his understanding of human nature, motives. Hamlet's philosophical and poetic nature is seen in the mannery in which he describes. The world as he used to see it before he was sized by a fit of melancholy. His interest in the theatre in seen in the fact that the news about the arrival of the players cheers him up. Hamlet again ridicules polonius by making remars which seems to have little meaning but which are actually satirical thrusts, When polonius coines to announce the arrival of the actors. Through the delaine Hamlet can get. The idea and confirmation of the Ghost's account of the manner in which Hamlet's Father was murdered. He in his soliloquy condemns Claudius in strongs hems. Now his main objective and intension is to catch the conscience of the king. He consoles himself with the thought that he will, through the play that he is going to arrange. He also thinks of the ghost he has seen may be a devil who wishes to exploit his weakness and his melancholy. The king's brief soliloquy shows that the king's conscience is not utterly dead and that the sin committed by him is weighing upon his mind. Hamlet's famous soliloquy also shows his wavering mind. This soliloquy shows a loss of purpose in Hamlet's mind.

          Hamlet's relation to Ophelia has been described excellently in the play. It is not that Hamlet thinks too much but that he thinks to no purpose : When he sees Ophelia he speaks about her, not of his present attitude to her but of here post. But his manner changes and he speaks to Ophelia in an insulting manner, asking her to go to a nunnery instead of getting married. Ophelia's high praise of Hamlet in her soliloquy shows the contrast between what Hamlet used to be and what he has now become under the tress and strain of the Ghost's revelation. He speaks of himself "I am myself indifferent honest; but yet  I could accuse me of such things that it were better my mother had not borne me; I am very proud, revengeful, ambitious". The king polonius has a plan in his mind to get rid of Hamlet by packing him off to England. Polonius wants the queen to have a private talk with Hamlet and he will overhear their conversation before  Hamlet is sent to England.

          The most famous soliloquy of Hamlet is debatable whether he is discussing suicide in the soliloquy "To be or not to be" Hamlet is not discussing whether to kill himself or not but whether to kill Claudius or not, the attempt many probably will, cost him his own life; so he goes on thinking. But if death is a sleep, sleep may be accoinpanied by nightmares. No wonder, then, a man chooses to endure the miselies the miseries the miseries of long life rather than invite, by suicide. At this point Hamlet is not speaking primarily of himself but of everyman as the generalized list of human miseries indicates the oppressor's wrong. The pangs of disprized love, the law's delay etc. Thus Hamlet continues to generalize : Consequence does make cowards of us all." This is to say, man's dread of somethings after death prevents him from suicide. Hamlet's is answering in the question in his previous soliloquy "Am I a coward ? " He is not afraid of dying, but of what may happen after death. Shekespeare presents the character with the ambiguity that we do not know whether Hamlet is right about himself, or whether it is the another example of the self-laceration in which he indulges because of his delay in carrying out his task.

          We see Hamlet's critical judgement with regard to the theatrical performances of the time. According to Coleridge, the dialogue of Hamlet with the actors in scene is one of the happiest instances of Shakespeare's power civerifying the scene while he is carrying on the plot. Hamlet has high opinion of Haratio and it can be seen in Hamlet's speech in which he seeks Haratio's co-operation with his efforts to catch the conscience of the king. He seems to very thankful to Horatio, who is his best friend and Hamlet, shares his talks with him. Hamlet shows his impatience with the two spies. Who have been set upon him and he hates them. His hatred has been shown in his speech by playwright. Hamlet's soliloquy which closes shows that he is in a bloody mood.

          Claudius is troubled by his conscience. We find him suffering from his conscience for the cribe he has committed. The king expresses his state of mind in his soliloquy. He is praying but his efforts are futil. He is unable to suppress his singul thoughts. We were introduced about Hamlet's will and lack of Determination. He has no decision power. He does not take his decisions quickly. Hamlet finds an opportunity to kill the king, but Hamlet shrinks from the deed. But if he kills, the king now, the king will go straight to heaven. It shows his, lack of will and determination. Hamlet's plea is some what unconvincing and it shows that he is not really cut out for the role which the Ghost has assigned to him.

          Hamlet kills polonius and it shows that he is creatinly capable of impulsive action. The man who could not kill his quilty uncle, kills the innocent polonius, even though he does so without knowing, the identity of his victim. Hamlet should have repented that he has killed the father of the girl whom he has loved but, instead of repenting he goes on discussing with his mother Geutrude. His brutality and rudely behavior have been described by playwright. He scolds his mother with very hard words for here having married a man. Who is a villain. He almost becomes brutal in his language when he condemms her mother. The Ghost makes another appearance in this scene, though this time is variable only to Hamlet, while the queen cannot see it. On previous occasions the Ghost is variable only to Hamlet. One possible explanation of this is that in the present care the Ghost is only mentally virible to Hamlet and that it is not intended to be seen by the audience.

          A scene when polonius is killed accidentally in the course of time is widely admired scene. Hamlet is in his violent manner indicated to his mother the displeasure which he felt at her conduct. Hamlet here reveals to his mother his knowledge of his uncle's guilt and his purpose of revenge. She agrees to assist. From this time on the queen keeps up appearances with here husband, but is secretly a friend to Hamlet.

          The quuen is shielding Hamlet by tiling the king that Hamlet by taling the king that Hamlet has killed polonius in a fit of madness. The reason given by her is reasonable because the king himself feels that Hamlet is not in his right mind. So thus Hamlet is shielded by the queen.

          Halet's capacity for bitter and cynical wit has been described through one scene in which he is being asked what he has done with the dead body of polonius, when Resencrantz asks where the body of plonius is Hamlet makes cryptic reply: "The body is with the king but the king is not with the body. The king is a thing." If we assume that Hamlet's madness is feigned. We shall find this scene most amusing. If Hamlet's madness is genuine this scene is partly amusing and partly pathetic.

          Although the villainous king has not yet been able to overcome his conscience over the mirdew of his brother. He is now planning the murder of his nephew. He wants to send Hamlet to England because he has a mind in his mind to kill him.

          Hamlet's nature is introspective also. Like his other soliloquies, in this soliloquy we can see Hamlet's penetrating insight, his mind, mentally, thinking his tendency to generalize and his capacity for self arraignment. He would be a beast, he says if does not perform the action that his sense of honour and duly demands from him.

          Ophela's madness shows one of the most pathetic situations in the play. We feel sad to hear her singing of old songs with reference to the death of her Father. The king's analysis that Ophela's madness is due to her Father's death and because of her disappointment in love is correct. Laertes's anger on the king over the murder of his father is natural but true circumstances of that murder are unknown to him. His reacton to ophelia's madness is natural. The poor Laertes suffers a double domestic tragedy. Claudius Landles Laertes and claims him by promising him to acquaint him with the true facts  regarding the murdere of polonius.

          Hamlet is very lucky person because the ship by which he was sailing to England is attracted by pirates. He is saved from being murdered by the English authorities, but for his hauoic fight against the pirates he could have been killed in that battle. His boarding the pirate ship shows again his capacity impulsive.

          Claudius is a scheming villain. He does not take any action against Hamlet for the murder of polonius because he has another plan in his mind for putting an end to Hamlet's life, and Laertes readily becomes a partner in that plan because Laertes has a strong reason for doing so. Laertes's desire to avenge his father's murder it as natural as Hamlet's desire to avenge the murder of his Father. However the method which he has been convinced by Claudius and which he will try to murder Hamlet is by no means honourable.

          Ophelia suffers a lot because we can see hertragedy in her father, madness and death. Laertes's grief over the death of Ophelia is unbearable. The death of Ophelia is unbearable. The weader is overwhelmed by the tragedy.

          There is a comic relief after the tragedy effect of Ophelia's death and madness. While the grave digger's singing in the course of his digging a grave puzzles Hamlet, Horatio says that the grave-diggea is no longer sensitive to death because it has sensitive to death because it has become a habit of him to dig graves.  Hamlet's reflections on the skulls thrown up by the grave-digger in the course of his digging emphasis his speculative and philosophical tendency. But that amusing dialogue of Hamlet and the grave-digger gives place to a tragic situation when Hamlet comes to know about Ophelia's death that she is no more and dead and the new grave is meant for her. He leaps into the grave and speaks to laertes in a challenging manner we again see that he is a man of impulse. Hamlet's love for Ophelia was genuine and deep, true but he had to suppress his love due to circumstances. It was after the revelation by the ghost that Hamlet found it necessary to suppress his love for Ophelia till he has avenged the murder of his Father.

          The Haunting Mystery of life, of Evil and of Reality in the graveyard scene is wall-known scene in the play. Hamlet comfronts, and accepts the condition of being man. It is not simply that he now accepts death : First in the imagined persons of the politician, the courtier, and the lawyer. Who now lie here; then in Yorick. Whom he knew and played with as a child; and then in Ophelia. This last death beings a final cry of passion, but the contrast between his behavior and that of laertes reveals how deeply he has changed. The mystery of evil is present here- for this after all the universal graveyard, Where the seheming politician, the cartier, the lawyer, the queen, the emperor and the beautiful young maiden, all cone together in an emblem of the would. The mystery of reality is here. There is the mystery of human limitations. The grotesque nature of man's little joys and his big ambitions.

          Hamlet's has a capacity to device murderous schemes. Hamlet's action in replacing the king's letter which Rosenarantz and Guildenstern were carrying authorities to put an end to the life of these two men shows that Hamlet can be heartless. When occasion demands it. When Horatio remarks that Guildenstern and Resencrantz have gone to their death Hamlet feels no regret in having sent them to their death. His desire for revenge upon the king once again shows compulsive force. Hamlet's expressing regret to Horatio over the manner in which he misbehaved towards laertes shows his grace and finew feelings.

          We comes to know Hamlet's unsuspicious nature. His agreeing to the fencing-match shows that he is totally unsuspicious in spite of the fact that he knows the king to be a villain and in spite of the fact that he remembers having given offence to Laertes at the time of Ophelia's funeral. When Horatio tries to dissuade him from the fencing tries to dissuade him from the fencing match, Hamlet's reply is characteristic. We get further evidence of his finer feelings when he opologises to Laertes before the starting of the fencing-match. It is only when Laertes, who has been wounded, reveals the king's villainous plot against Hamlet, that Hamlet urged by an impulse, stabs the king's to death and in this way at last avenge his Father's murder, though at the cost of the life of his mother, the lives of all the members of polonius's family and his own life.