加拿大高中英语作业：Discuss Machiavellianism in Hamlet.

马基雅维利主义意味着一切手段都是达到目的的必要手段，已经成为权力和战略的代名词（Triki、Cook和Bay，2017年）。此外，在哈姆雷特，马基雅维利主义一直与复仇有关。因此，本文想探讨哈姆雷特是选择报复还是放弃报复各自的马基雅维利主义。

Machiavellianism means that all means are necessary to an end has become a byword for power and strategy (Triki, Cook,& Bay, 2017). In addition, in Hamlet, Machiavellianism has been related to the revenge. Therefore, the article would like to discuss that whether Hamlet chooses revenge or gives up revenge on the respective of the Machiavellianism.

Although revenge itself must be a kind of rational behavior, it is indispensable to the memory of past experience, the present and hope for the future results, concrete implementation requires careful planning, more sober judgment, bold action, but this "reason is the root of most irrational life impulse. Hamlet revenge impulse is fading in the process of revenge his rational re-examination. After hearing the ghost of his father, he made three decisions: he would not tell the ghost's secret to the public; not letting people talk about seeing ghosts; He will pretend to be mad so that no one will reveal the truth. In the face of revenge, Hamlet did not show any impulse, but appeared so rational, calm and prudent. He wanted to find out what Claudius had done. He knew that his revenge was not on ordinary people, but on the present king. Just as he sees his revenge as a "duty to reorganize the universe" in an era of chaos, Hamlet's revenge is not an individual act, but an act that will have a significant impact on society.

Fortinbras和Leotis只看到了报复。对他们来说，复仇就是一切。正如莱奥提斯所说，“忠诚的人下地狱吧！让最黑暗的魔鬼接受所有的誓言！不管良心如何，不管礼貌如何，把我滚到无底洞里去！我要挑战Ever Rob。我的立场是坚定的：我与死亡和生命无关，我只是兴高采烈地为我父亲报仇。根据勒奥蒂斯的说法，复仇是不道德的、非理性的，是由自己的意志决定的。但哈姆雷特必须用理性之光来报仇，所以他注定要关注未来而犹豫不决。在采取行动之前，他必须对复仇的合理性和后果进行全面的分析。哈姆雷特的思想远远超出了复仇本身。他所关心和担心的是他父亲仇恨背后的更深的灾难和危机。正如他在父亲猝死后和母亲再婚后所说，“在我看来，世界上的一切都是令人厌倦的、陈腐的、无聊的和无聊的。他从一个普通的、在当时，从一个普通的、被认为是普通的法庭悲剧的个人痛苦，到一个理性的怀疑和否认：不仅是人类世界，也是人类和宇宙，而是他自己（Lyall、Yuki和Kosuke，2015年）。

Fortinbras and Leotis saw nothing but revenge it. For both of them, revenge was everything. As leotis said, "faithful go to hell! Let the darkest devil take all the vows! Whatever conscience, whatever courtesy, roll me down to the bottomless pit! I'm going to challenge ever rob. My position was firmly established: I had nothing to do with death or life, but to avenge my father cheerfully. According to Leotis, revenge is immoral, irrational and determined by one's own will. But Hamlet must use the light of reason to care for revenge, so he is doomed to pay attention to the future and hesitate. He must make a comprehensive analysis of the rationality and consequences of revenge before he can act. Hamlet's thoughts go far beyond revenge itself. What he is concerned about and anxious about is the deeper disaster and crisis behind the hatred of his father. As he said after his father's sudden death and his mother's remarriage, "everything in the world seems to me tiresome, stale, boring and boring. He rose from a common, and at that time, from the personal pain of an ordinary, and supposedly commonplace, tragedy of the court to a rational doubt and denial: not only of the human world, but also of man and the universe, but of himself( Lyall, Yuki, & Kosuke, 2015).

 

The rationality and feasibility of revenge are two questions that Hamlet asks in the process of revenge for his father. In the Elizabethan age, although public law was not yet perfect, revenge was not only an act of individual redress of grievances and redress of wrongs, but was beginning to be regarded as a barbarous act of barbarians, an expression of personal feelings, a lack of rational control, and of no value to human society. The combination of reason or reason and sensibility is advocated by this era, and is also pursued by Hamlet who has received higher education. Under the control of reason, Hamlet could only truly revenge if he confirmed the rationality and feasibility of revenge, but he was faced with problems that reason could not solve. For the rational Hamlet, it is obvious that the ghost of his father's ghost cannot be sufficient evidence of revenge. He himself had the following doubts about ghosts: "the specter which I have seen may be the devil incarnate, and appear in a good shape. Perhaps he saw my weakness and my melancholy, and came to haunt me, to lure me into the path of perdition. In fact, Hamlet was not the only one who doubted the ghost's story. Shakespeare's audiences must have doubted it, because "people in Elizabethan times believed that the ghost from purgatories was not redeemed for its SINS."

 

Hamlet is a painful conscious person. His pain and misfortune are largely caused by his rational and clear awareness of the limitations of his own cognition. His most famous monologue, "to be or not to be, this is a question worth considering", is a sign of caution and skepticism. No matter Hamlet chooses revenge or gives up revenge, he cannot eliminate the confusion caused by incomplete information, insufficient evidence and inability to prove to others. He will face the lifelong "heavy moral responsibility that life cannot bear and is doomed to be unhappy". Vindication for his father means that he must kill or injure one or more of his loved ones, and that he must avoid as many innocent victims as possible, which, strictly speaking, means giving up revenge. It was an incompatible moral duty and law for him, and yet he had to follow it. Faced with the fact that both of them are their own relatives, no matter how they choose, as long as the information is not sufficient, his pain will not be able to escape, it is an eternal inner torment.

 

In summary, in the process of revenge, the rational Hamlet wants to obtain the recognition of revenge cognitively, but the cognitive limitation can only delay his revenge repeatedly. Shakespeare did not put Hamlet's father's death on the stage directly, leaving more room for today's interpretation. The play begins halfway through the event, leaving the reader and the audience to ponder and deduce the truth about the old king's murder. To some extent, we share Hamlet's position, judging only from the evidence that is sufficient to some and insufficient to others, and "sharing Hamlet's limited perspective, anxiety and suspicion", thus highlighting the doomed eternal problem of human judgment. When we judge something, we often cannot know the whole truth of it, or people are destined to be ignorant.

 

 

Reference

 

Lyall, J., Yuki, S., & Kosuke, I. (2015). Coethnic Bias and Wartime Informing. Journal Of Politics, 77(3), 833-848. doi:10.1086/681590

Triki, A., Cook, G. g., & Bay, D. (2017). Machiavellianism, Moral Orientation, Social Desirability Response Bias, and Anti-intellectualism: A Profile of Canadian Accountants. Journal Of Business Ethics, 144(3), 623-635. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2826-7