From Julius Caesar to Hamlet Essay

The comparison between Shakespe ares Julius Caesar and crossroads in terms of how implied, or latent elements and themes in adept were transmitted and certain in the other nooky lead to unveiling the transformations Shakespeare was envisaging with the writing of settlement. In the Introduction to the 1987 Oxford University Press edition of Hamlet, G. R. Hibbard stated that Hamlet was written after, unless non long after, Julius Caesar, which andt end be dated with unusual accuracy as having been compose in the late summer of 1599 (4). From the billets that Hibbard gives to support his argument (that there are two allusions in the text of Hamlet to Julius Caesar) we can see the strong connections between the two plays.In a way, two Julius Caesar and Hamlet represent thresholds in the development of Shakespeares dramatic art. However, Hamlet moves in a different direction. If Julius Caesar is set in a unlike past and can notwithstanding hint to the forgivingist themes in Shakespeares world, Hamlet shifts the tone of Shakespeares plays to a more than private and Elizabethan center of interest. This newspaper publisher argues that the themes and motifs that were merely suggested or hinted to or implied in Julius Caesar and which were intricately developed in Hamlet are significant in determine the specificity of Shakespeares later historic tragedies. The analysis of devices, motifs and themes in the two plays go out illustrate this argument.The device of foreground processing is employed in Julius Caesar in the start act as a warning sign to Caesar from the Soothsayer. It is a lighten and unmistakable omen of Julius Caesars death, especially given the dramas historical grounding. This device is used in this play altogether to start the conflict the death of Caesar will generate the actual drama. Because of its lack of equivocalness and its limited dramatic span, the foreshadowing in Julius Caesar does not have the uniform impact as it does in Hamlet.In Hamlet, the device of foreshadowing becomes a trigger for the plays resolution and also represents the dramatic subtext which drives the safe and sound chain of events towards the tragic end. In Act 1 Scene 1, we envision the apparition of the signature of Hamlets father. This episode is marked by the use of special seery and allusions. Horatio gives the decisive argument in identifying the ghost with tthe murdered king. The ghost figure is clearly employed in this rootage act as a means of foreshadow ing not lonesome(prenominal) the conflict of the story but also its resolution This bodes some unconnected eruption to our state (The cataclysm of Hamlet 148).The image of Fortinbras is another sinister motif by which Shakespear alludes to the later developments in the play. Moreover, the reader is given a preliminary explanation of the Medieval code of honor, by which the kings son has to avenge his fathers death. The story of Fortinbras and his father parallels an d motivates the obscure relationship between Hamlet and his witness father. Duty is presented as a crucial motivation, which determines the heros actions and even consciousness.Another element which is only suggested in Julius Caesar is the characters ambivalence no character is essentially ugliness or bad. Brutus, before deciding to join the conspirators, condemns this actThey are the faction. O conspiracyShamest gibibyte to show thy dangerous brow by night,When evils are most free? O, then by dayWhere wilt thou find a cavern dark enough/ To mask thy grave visage?Seek none, conspiracy (Julius Caesar, Act 2 Scene 1).Brutus is so shown to have a moral conscience, a conscience dramatically and fatally opposing his actions. The paradox of a noble human beingss evil actions might find its explanation through an analysis of Hamlets soliloquy at the end of the first act.Hamlets soliloquy and decadency in the forth scene points to a specific image idea Shakespeare had about the hu man mind and behavior it appears that the seeds of evil can be ingrained in the most noble of spirits or, conversely, that uprightness can be the host of evil. This feature is presented in fatalistic and deterministic terms and becomes another motivation for the tragic resolutionSo, oft it chances in particular menThat for some vicious mole of nature in themAs, in their birth wherein they are not guilty Oft fracture down the pales and forts of reasonOr by some habit that also much oer-leavens Shall in the general censure take corruptionFrom that particular fault (The Tragedy of Hamlet, 181)The chain of events leading to the fatal coating is thus linked to the dictum of blind fate. By foregrounding the ambivalence of human nature, Shakespeare gives a more complex perspective on his characters motivational resorts and transcends the limitations of a whole good or a completely evil model.In another scene, the King admits to his having murdered Hamlets father. He is presented as h aving pangs of guilt May one be pardoned and observe thoffence? (The Tragedy of Hamlet, 273)O, my offence is rank, it smells to heaven.It has the primal eldest horror upont A brothers murder. Pray can I not. (The Tragedy of Hamlet, 272).Cluadius questions show the character in a new, humanizing light, which eliminates the image of the uninspired villain.Many of the elements that are only latent, or implied, in Julius Caesar, are to be fully found in Hamlets soliloquies. The motif of Brutus suicide, for instance, which is not fully developed in the play, becomes one of the themes of reflection in Hamlets soliloquies. Hamlets considerations on suicide, on the other hand, clarify much on this theme. There are several acceptions which are discussed in the protagonists soliloquies and they are testimony to Shakespeares insight of the human mindFor who would bear the whips and scorns of time, To grunt and sweat under a grind life,But that the dread of something after death,The undis covered country, from whose bournNo traveler returns, puzzles the will. (The Tragedy of Hamlet, 240-241)Moreover, in another passage, Hamlet gives another interpretation of his own reluctance to commit suicide, which is presented in light of the protagonists affright of God and social statusThe oppressors wrong, the proud mans contumely,The pangs of disprized love, the laws delay,The insolence of office, and the spurnsThat patient merit of the unworthy takes, (The Tragedy of Hamlet, 240). Closely linked to this theme, there is the notion of the vanity of existence which is only implied in Julius Caesar through the foregrounding of the emperors rise and fall and in the parallels skeletal in this respect among Julius Caesar, Mark Anthony and Brutus. However, this theme is not fully problematized in the play probably because it does not come in agreement with the historical and philosophical repertoire of Ancient Rome.In Hamlet, however, this theme becomes predominant and one of the characters privileged objects of reflection. The What is a man soliloquy hints to the vanitas vanitatum of renascence and humanist philosophy of the finitude of man and of the ultimate insignificance of all earthborn possessions. Moreover, Hamlets soliloquy incorporates another one of the humanist concerns, which was that of the perfectibility of mans spirit and destiny through God-given language and thoughtWhat is a manIf his chief good and market of his timeBe but to sleep and feed? A beast, no more (The Tragedy of Hamlet, 298).To conclude, this paper has illustrated the ways in which themes and motifs which were latent in Julius Caesar are given protrusion in Hamlet, especially through the protagonists soliloquies. In a way, it is the very shift from the predominance of the oratorical speech and its dialogic character in Julius Caesar to the primacy of the soliloquy and its monological quality in Hamlet that provides the key for understanding the reasons piece of tail the am plification of devices and themes from one play to the other. With Hamlet, Shakespeares historical tragedies become more intimate and, at the same time, more openly philosophical and universal.