Hamlet

Some writers have claimed that the dumb show is extremely significant because the story of the dumb show and the story of the "play within a play" are not the same story, but that one of them is a comment of current affairs in England ca. 1600. There is not a lot of evidence for such an analysis. The dumb show has also been pointed to as a reference to the style of drama exemplified by such plays as Gorboduc, which made free use of dumb shows to prefigure the action, and sometimes to move it forward. The stilted speech in the spoken drama adds to the feeling that Shakespeare is imitating and perhaps ridiculing this obsolete style of drama. Then again, the dumb show lengthens the time during which Claudius and Gertrude can realize that the play is about them, thus improving the dramatic possibilities while they slowly come to this realization, including ironic lines such as "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Nobody.

Horatio does say that the late King Hamlet "smote the sledded Polacks on the ice." but it is hardly the same thing.

No - next question please.

I don't think you understand something very basic about writers. They are not necessarily characters in the works they write. We do not worry about whether Edward loves Bella or Stephanie Meyer. We do not ask whether Obi Wan Kenobi speaks better than George Lucas. And Shakespeare does not have soliloquys, although he writes them for his characters like Hamlet. Shakespeare is not a character in any play he wrote (although he is sometimes a character in other peoples' plays, as he is in Shakespeare in Love).

In any case, "Hamlet's soliloquy" is meaningless. Hamlet has five soliloquys: "O that this too too solid flesh would melt", "O what a rogue and peasant slave am I", "To be or not to be, that is the question", "Now is the very witching time of night" and "How all occasions do inform against me." Unless you specify which one you are talking about, nobody can answer your question.

The Lyin' King

Hamlet is supposed to wait for Claudius "in the hall". The text does not tell us more. Where Claudius was in the hall (sitting in a chair, standing on a table, cowering under a sideboard) is up to the director. It is also up to the director to decide where on Claudius's body he got stabbed, although it cannot be anywhere that would be instantly fatal, since Hamlet afterwards feeds him poisoned wine. The arm, the nose, the crotch or anywhere would do.

The Ghost in 1,5 says the following:

"Thus was I, sleeping, by a brother's hand,
Of life, of crown, of queen at once dispatched,
Cut off even in the blossoms of my sin,
Unhouseled, disappointed, unaneled,
No reckoning made but sent to my account
With all my imperfections on my head.
Oh horrible, horrible! Most horrible!"

The Ghost is in Purgatory, suffering to cleanse him of the sins which he died with and were not forgiven by a priest, because he did not receive extreme unction, or even recently attend confession. The concepts used here are peculiar to Roman Catholic theology.

Anyway, when Hamlet has a chance to kill Claudius in 3, 3, Claudius is on his knees praying. And Hamlet forms the conception that absolution for sin can be granted without the assistance of a priest (not a Roman Catholic notion at all), and that if he were to kill Claudius, he would not go to Purgatory as the elder Hamlet did, but straight to heaven. Hamlet thinks about the Ghost's horrible circumstances ("A took my father grossly, full of bread") and wants Claudius to suffer even more. He says, "am I thus revenged, To take him in the purging of his soul, when he is fit and seasoned for his passage?"

In Act III Scene 2 Rosencrantz asks what is the cause of Hamlet's distemper and Hamlet says that he lacks advancement. Rosencrantz asks how that can be when he is named as heir apparent. Hamlet responds by referring to an old saying, "While the grass grows, the horse starveth." by which he means that the promise of a future benefit is no use when there is a present need. He then gets very angry indeed at Rosencrantz for trying to ensnare him with conversation.

A presupposition is something you suppose to be the case before you even start something. Therefore the first act of anything cannot by definition be a presupposition to the action of the play.

If you are asking whether or how the action in the first act is necessary for the understanding of the rest of the play, this is, I am afraid to tell you, the case in any well-written play. The first act of every play introduces the main characters and lays out what their problems are, which are worked out in the succeeding acts and a final conclusion reached at the end. As Aristotle said, "Every play must have a beginning, a middle, and an end." He was a master of the obvious, Aristotle was.

Hamlet does show many signs of schizophrenia, but why stop there, depending on your own reading of the novel he could have a full blown dual personality disorder, (DPD). Horatio can be seen as Hamlet's secondary persona as he has a few lines and the scenes which he is in with Hamlet can be seen as an accepted truth from the court. For example he may stand differently and talk differently as Hamlet and Horatio and the reason he did not receive the throne was not that his uncle married but because he was insane, for in Shakespearian times the royalty would not go to the Queen who married into the Royal family but to the son. The fact Horatio is supportive, as connotated by the answers he gives through act 1 scene 2 which affirm everything that Hamlet asks, stereotypes the DPD relationship most common in people suffering it, the Dominant persona and supportive persona, the Dominant being Hamlet.

Further in Act 3 scene 1, the most famous, in which the "To be, or not to be" speech occurs he often uses secondary personal pronouns such as 'we' and 'us' rather than referring to himself, while some may believe this connotates an irrational generalisation of his personal ideas onto mankind, this could also connotate that he suffers DPD and the whole argument he has with himself could be seen as a dualogue between his two personalities, Horatio fighting for the "to be" and Hamlet fighting for the "not to be." This is further expressed in the scene when Ophelia enters, his fight with Ophelia confuses her as he keeps contradicting himself with oxymorons such as "I loved you once ... I loved you not." The cry for the "sweet heavens" to help him links in with the common cure for schizophrenia in Shakespearian times; as they did not understand insanity only through religious powers could a "noble mind" be restored.

Claudius and Gertrude try to deal with Hamlet's sadness by giving a touching speech about how everything must die "passing from nature to eternity." Also, Claudius promises a party at which he will have his guards shoot canonns off every time he finishes a drink.

Her husband dies but she shortly thereafter marries his brother. The speed with which this happens suggests that there was something going on before she became a widow. She is persuaded by her son that her new husband murdered her previous one. Finally, at a Fencing match, she drinks a glass of wine with poison in it. It is not clear whether she suspected that the wine was poisoned before she drank it.

The death of his father and the marriage of his mother to his uncle Claudius cause Hamlet to leave Wittenberg.

Primarily, spying on Hamlet.

Her speech commences "O what a noble mind is here o'erthrown!" This summarizes the bulk of the speech, which is that Hamlet used to be admirable but now he's just nuts. To this she adds that it's too bad for her, after sucking "the honey of his music vows" and falling in love with him.

In Act 1 Scene 3 Polonius is very insulting toward Ophelia, calling her a "green girl", and suggesting that she is incapable of assessing Hamlet's behaviour toward her. His message is that only he, Polonius, understands Hamlet (as he does not), and that she must obey and not try to think for herself. Her attempt to suggest that Hamlet might be honest in his affection is beaten down with insults. This seems to be the message she gets all the time from her family. We see Laertes treat her similarly earlier in the scene. Ophelia seems so tentative in her opinions: "My lord, I know not what to think", "My Lord, I do not know, but I do fear it" in Act 2 Scene 2. This would be a plausible result of long-term emotional abuse.

Does Hamlet abuse Ophelia? This is a more complex question. He is certainly rude and angry in Act III Scene 1 "Get thee to a nunnery!" and his public behaviour toward her at the play-within-a-play is appalling. ("Shall I lie in your lap?" is the equivalent of saying "May I come in your pants?") But his anger and contempt probably springs from his knowledge that not only was she the bait offered by Polonius to trap him, but she was privy to the trap all the time. There does not seem to be a pattern of abuse; Ophelia seems to be puzzled and confused by his behaviour ("Oh, what a noble mind is here o'erthrown")

Likewise, Hamlet is pretty tough on his mother in the closet scene. But then, he believes her to be privy to his father's death. "Almost as bad, dear mother, as kill a king and marry with his brother." His intent is to shame her and to persuade her to abandon Claudius, which she does without being forced, and they end the scene almost tenderly.

Claudius is invariably tender and loving to Gertrude; he loves her dearly. That is why it is so sad when she goes to drink the poisoned wine. He says, "Gertrude, do not drink" but he cannot say out loud why she should not without exposing himself as a murderer. At this point, he must choose between himself and his loved one and shows his weakness by choosing himself.

She drowned in a brook.

"As for your intent in going back to school in Wittenberg, it is most retrograde to our desire." Act I Scene 2.

In any play, not just Hamlet, a three-dimensional character is one who appears lifelike, one which has what is called verisimilitude, similarity to life. A two-dimensional character is one which is flat, broadly drawn, stereotypical. A three-dimensional character is not a type he/she appears to be an individual.

The official story is that King Hamlet died from snakebite.

He gives Fortinbras his vote to become king.

In most versions, they are "the rest is silence." He means he can't participate in politics any more, either to hear what the English ambassador has to say or to do anything more than endorse Fortinbras in the upcoming election. It's a poetic way of saying he's dying, and maybe reflects his hope that, against all evidence, death will be a dreamless sleep and not a torment.

a new way of thinking about themselves

Hamlet has worked himself up to a state of mind where he is ready to kill Claudius "Now I could drink hot blood!" He finds him and is about to kill him when he stops. Claudius is on his knees. He is apparently praying. Hamlet is afraid that this will make it easier for Claudius to get into heaven, unlike his father who is stuck in purgatory being killed "unshriven". There is a weird mixture of Protestant and Catholic theologies here: the notion of Purgatory is definitely Catholic, but the idea that praying directly to God might get you absolution for your sins without the aid of a priest is clearly Protestant. Either way, Hamlet wants his revenge to extend into the next life, and so killing Claudius so that he can go to heaven in not good enough. He wants to get him while he is committing a sin of some kind so he'll go straight to hell. He sheathes his sword, waiting for this kind of opportunity.