Shakespeare has Hamlet say that the aim of theatre performance is to "hold the mirror up to nature," and this is what the history of his plays, from their first

production to the latest, shows that he has, preeminently, achieved.

At the height of his powers, Shakespeare's tragic vision comprehended the totality of possibilities for good and evil as nearly as the human imagination ever has. His

heroes are the vehicles of psychological, societal, and cosmic forces that tend to ennoble and glorify humanity or infect it and destroy it. The logic of tragedy that

possessed him demanded an insistence upon the latter. Initially, his heroes make free choices and are free time after time to turn back, but they move toward their

doom as relentlessly as did Oedipus. The total tragic statement, however, is not limited to the fate of the hero. He is but the centre of an action that takes place in a

context involving many other characters, each contributing a point of view, a set of values or antivalues to the complex dialectic of the play. ...Hamlet had the trustworthy

friend Horatio, and, for all the bloodletting, what was "rotten" was purged. In the tragedies, most notably Lear, the Aeschylean notion of "knowledge through

suffering" is powerfully dramatized; it is most obvious in the hero, but it is also shared by the society of which he is the focal figure. The flaw in the hero may be a moral failing or, sometimes, an excess of virtue; the flaw in society may be the rottenness of the Danish court in Hamlet or the corruption of the Roman world in

[Index] Antony and Cleopatra; the flaw or fault or dislocation may be in the very universe itself, as dramatized by Lear's raving at the heavens or the ghosts that

walk the plays or the witches that prophesy. All these faults, Shakespeare seems to be saying, are inevitabilities of the human condition. But they do not spell

rejection, nihilsm, or despair. The hero may die, but in the words of the novelist E.M. Forster to describe the redeeming power of tragedy, "he has given us life."

Even if this opinion has become unacceptable, it nevertheless taught critics to look for elements other than psychological consistency. In particular, it is worth

concentrating not on Elizabethan attitudes toward revenge but on Shakespeare's artistic balance in presenting the play's moral problems. It is likely that an artist will

make his work more interesting if he leaves a dilemma morally ambiguous rather than explicit. The revenge situation in Hamlet, moreover, is one charged with

emotional excitement as well as moral interest. Simply put, the good man [Index] (Hamlet) is weak, and the bad man (Claudius) is strong. The good man has suffered

a deep injury from the bad man, and he cannot obtain justice because justice is in the hand of the strong bad man. Therefore the weak good man must go around and

around in order to achieve a kind of natural justice; and the audience watches in suspense while the weak good man by subtlety attacks and gets his own back upon

the strong bad man and the strong bad man spends his time evading the weak good man. Hamlet is given a formidable opponent: Claudius is a hypocrite, but he is a

successful one. He achieves his desired effect on everybody. His hypocrisy is that of a skilled politician. He is not dramatically shown as being in any way unworthy

of his station--he upholds his part with dignity. He is a "smiling villain" and is not exposed until the final catastrophe. The jealous Hamlet heaps abuse upon him, but

Shakespeare makes Claudius the murderer self-controlled. Thus, theatrically, the situation is much more exciting.

Against this powerful opponent is pitted Hamlet, the witty intellectual. He shares his wit with the audience (and a few favoured characters such as Horatio), who thus

share his superiority over most other personages in the play. His first words are a punning aside to the audience, and his first reply to the King is a cryptic retort. His

sardonic witticisms are unforgettable ("The funeral baked meats/Did coldly furnish forth the marriage tables"; and "More honoured in the breach than the

observance"). Hamlet is an actor in many parts of the play. The range of language in the roles he affects shows that his mimetic powers are considerable. He is skillful

in putting on "an antic disposition" and gives a very funny performance in talking to Polonius. He condescends to talk the silly bawdry of Rosencrantz and

Guildenstern. He can mimic Osric's style to perfection. He quarrels with Laertes beside Ophelia's grave in a display of verbosity that exceeds the modesty of nature in

much the same way as does that of Laertes.

Besides Claudius, set off against Hamlet is Polonius. He is wrong in his judgments, one after another, and this leads to the audience's rejection of his political and

human values. In all circumstances he seems slightly ridiculous--a foil for Claudius as he is for Hamlet. His astuteness suffers by comparison with that of the King. His

philosophical view of life is hollow compared with Hamlet's. Hamlet has as many general maxims as Polonius; but his seem to be the product of a far more refined

sensibility and of an ability to respond truthfully to experience. It is these qualities in the somewhat enigmatic characterization of Hamlet that have won him the

fascinated admiration of the world.