Abstract
Abstract This essay considers Shakespeare through Aristotelianism and Thomism to explore Hamlet as a meditation on tyranny. Based on the classical model of tragedy as presented by Aristotle in his Poetics and further informed by his Ethics and Politics, the essay identifies the climax of the play in order to determine the playwright’s argument about what should have happened instead of what did—namely, the hero should have removed the tyrant Claudius when given the opportunity at Act 3, Scene 3. Shakespeare is deliberately and successfully upending the Aristotelian model, while yet fulfilling its definitions and expectations. The claim is further supported by Aquinas’s six conditions for the right use of anger and vengeance as found in his Summa Theologica. Hamlet’s choice not to act is highly significant—and ironically Shakespearean. The play’s treatment of tyranny may have been a call to action for Shakespeare’s contemporary audience.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callSimilar Papers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
