From Julius Caesar to Hamlet Essay

The compari password between Shakespe ars Julius Caesar and village in terms of how implied, or latent elements and themes in one were transmitted and developed in the other can lead to unveiling the transformations Shakespe be was envisaging with the writing of Hamlet. In the Introduction to the 1987 Oxford University Press edition of Hamlet, G. R. Hibbard declared that Hamlet was written after, except non long after, Julius Caesar, which can be dated with unusual truth as having been compose in the late summer of 1599 (4). From the arguments that Hibbard gives to support his argument (that there are twain allusions in the text of Hamlet to Julius Caesar) we can see the strong connections between the two plays.In a way, both Julius Caesar and Hamlet represent thresholds in the development of Shakespeares frolictic art. However, Hamlet moves in a different direction. If Julius Caesar is set in a distant past and can further hint to the publicistic themes in Shakespeares wor ld, Hamlet shifts the tone of Shakespeares plays to a more private and Elizabethan fondness of interest. This paper argues that the themes and motifs that were merely suggested or hinted to or implied in Julius Caesar and which were elaborately developed in Hamlet are significant in determining the specificity of Shakespeares later historical tragedies. The analysis of devices, motifs and themes in the two plays bequeath illustrate this argument.The device of play up is employed in Julius Caesar in the first act as a warning sign to Caesar from the Soothsayer. It is a clear and unmistakable omen of Julius Caesars conclusion, especially given the dramas historical grounding. This device is used in this play only to innovation the conflict the death of Caesar will generate the actual drama. Because of its lack of ambiguity and its limited dramatic span, the foreshadowing in Julius Caesar does non have the same 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 whole chain of events towards the tragic end. In turn of events 1 Scene 1, we witness the apparition of the ghost of Hamlets father. This episode is marked by the use of special imagery and allusions. Horatio gives the decisive argument in identifying the ghost with tthe murdered king. The ghost common fig tree is clearly employed in this first act as a means of foreshadow ing not only the conflict of the story but also its resolution This bodes some strange eruption to our show (The cataclysm of Hamlet 148).The image of Fortinbras is other ominous motif by which Shakespear alludes to the later developments in the play. Moreover, the contributor 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 and motivates the complex relationship between Hamlet and his co nsume 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 evil or bad. Brutus, before decision making to join the conspirators, condemns this actThey are the faction. O conspiracyShamest thou 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 monstrous visage?Seek none, conspiracy (Julius Caesar, Act 2 Scene 1).Brutus is therefore shown to have a moral conscience, a conscience dramatically and fatally argue his actions. The paradox of a noble mans evil actions might find its explanation by an analysis of Hamlets monologue at the end of the first act.Hamlets soliloquy and corruption in the forth scene points to a specific image idea Shakespeare had about the human mind and behavior it appears that the seeds of evil can be ingrained in the most noble of hard liquor or, conversely, that goodness 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 wall of nature in themAs, in their birth wherein they are not guilty Oft breaking run by means of the pales and forts of reasonOr by some habit that too much oer-leavens Shall in the frequent censure take corruptionFrom that particular fault (The disaster of Hamlet, 181)The chain of events leading to the fatal outcome 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 completely good or a completely evil model.In another scene, the King admits to his having murdered Hamlets father. He is presented as having pangs of guilt May one be pardoned and retain thoffence? (The Tragedy of Hamlet, 273)O, my offence is rank, it smells to heaven.It has the native eldest curse 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 stereotyped villain.Many of the elements that are only latent, or implied, in Julius Caesar, are to be full 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, elaborate 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 tire the whips and scorns of time, To grunt and sweat under a weary life,But that the dread of something after death,The undiscovered country, from whose landmarkNo traveler returns , puzzles the will. (The Tragedy of Hamlet, 240-241)Moreover, in another passage, Hamlet gives another interpretation of his own hesitancy to commit suicide, which is presented in light of the protagonists fear 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 drawn 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 m an soliloquy hints to the vanitas vanitatum of Renaissance and humanist philosophy of the finitude of man and of the ultimate insignificance of all earthly 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 prominence 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 prize in Hamlet that provides the key for understanding the reasons behind the amplification 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.