Hamlet 3.3 What the Critics Say

The transcript explores the evolution of critical interpretations of a controversial scene in Shakespeare's Hamlet. Initially, 18th-century critics omitted the scene due to its unvirtuous depiction of Hamlet. As beliefs in hell faded, critics debated whether Hamlet's quest for vengeance was genuine or an excuse for inaction. Scholar Harold Jenkins argues that the audience of Shakespeare's time would have understood the scene's moral implications. The transcript raises questions about how interpretations change over time and whether this adaptability is a testament to the play's enduring greatness.

Why did 18th-century critics choose to omit a particular scene from Hamlet?

• It was considered too humorous for a tragedy.

• It portrayed Hamlet as a bloodthirsty and unchristian hero.

• It was not relevant to the main plot.

• It was too long and complicated.

What argument did some critics make as belief in Hell began to fade in Europe?

• Hamlet's quest for vengeance was a genuine pursuit.

• Hamlet's delay was due to his fear of Claudius.

• Hamlet's quest for vengeance was just an excuse to avoid action.

• Hamlet was waiting for divine intervention.

What does Shakespeare scholar Harold Jenkins think about the argument that Hamlet's delay is just an excuse?

• He believes it is a silly argument.

• He considers it a modern perspective.

• He finds it a valid interpretation.

• He thinks it is the only logical explanation.

What question is raised about the changing interpretations of Hamlet over time?

• If the play's themes are outdated.

• Whether the play should be performed in its original language.

• If the play's adaptability is a sign of its greatness.

• Whether the play should be rewritten for modern audiences.

What does the adaptability of Hamlet's interpretations suggest about the play?

• It is a confusing and inconsistent work.

• It is a great and lasting work of art.

• It is only relevant to Shakespeare's time.

• It lacks a clear moral message.