Hamlet Essays (741 words) - Characters In Hamlet,

Hamlet He was great man and prince, with great potential and virtue. Another person whose virtue parallels that of Hamlet was Laertes, the son one of the Courtiers in Claudiouss court. Both of these men also share the trait of impulsiveness, achieving spontaneous reactions when angered. In Laertes this revealed in his return to Ellisenore after his fathers death. He returns with fire in his veins and revenge seething from his breath ready to kill the king. To Hell, Allegiance! Vows, to blackest devil!. In Hamlet this is seen in his rash reaction in stabbing Polonious with his rapier. In thinking it was the king behind the aras, he lashes out and kills Polonious. In both cases the men have been willing to commit regicide in order to attain revenge for the loss of a father. Both Laertes and Hamlet firmly associate themselves with their families. Laetres highly respects his father and loves him very much. Similarly Hamlets conveys this by comparing his father to Hyperion a sun god. This visitation Is but to whet thy almost blunted purpose They both share a strong but different love for Ophelia. Laertes departing of advice onto Ophelia concerning her relations with Hamlet can be explained as a wish for safety, emotions and virtue which he considers to be at threat by Hamlet, But you must fear, his greatness weighed, his will is not his own. With Hamlet it can be clearly seen in the scene of Ophelias funeral where he declares his love for her and his distress of the departure of her soul, forty thousand brothers could not with all their quantity of love make my sum!. Just before this both Hamlet and Laertes jump in her grave for a scuffle, without even a consideration. This is also an example of the two characters rashness. In comparing Hamlet to the other youths of the play, Horatio and Fortinbras we find two predominating traits come to air. Horatio the scholar, a man of thought and intellect. Fortinbras the soldier, a man of action and pride. Horatio is the scholar who sees the world through the eyes of a scholar. Views things with cool and logical manner. Everyone recognizes this. When the ghost appeared before him and the other men, they urge him to talk to the ghost. In this there is double plot as it asserts Horatio's intelligence and it proves that Hamlet is not just seeing things. Even Hamlet acknowledges his objectiveness by confiding in him and charging him to reveal the truth at the end of the play. There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Fortinbras is the soldier, than man of action whom acts without thought to the consequences. He did not realize the consequences of invading Denmark until his Uncle reign him in. we have to writ to Norway, uncle of young FortinbrasWho impotent and bed-rid, scarcely hears of his nephew's purpose to suppress his further gait. Hamlet also sees then upon crossing paths with Fortinbrass army en route to battle of a small piece of land. The imminent death of twenty thousand men, that for a fantasy and trick of fame. Hamlet sees Fortinbras reactions as rash, letting men die for his own pride and fame, but he also acknowledges the virtue of action. A tragedy from Hamlet is that he is of both these traits, he is a man of thought and a man of action. It is his thoughts that hinder his purpose of revenge thus conscious does make cowards of us all, and his action with thought that cause him trouble with the murder of Polonious which Hamlets mother comments O what a rash and bloody deed this is!. When trying to use but one of these noble traits he still stumbles in his attempts of revenge so much so, the ghost has to return to spur him on. This visitation is but to whet thy almost blunted purpose. In the tragic end, Hamlet falls, the man with so much potential and greatness, a man of thought and action falls from grace with the wholesale slaughter in great hall of castle Ellisenore proving his theory that all born of dust is

Free Essays on Medo Persian Empire

The Medo – Persian Empire superseded the Babylon Empire in 539 B.C., approximately fifty to sixty years after Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, and Daniel’s interpretation. In my mind after reading and researching all the information, the Medo – Persian Empire was a kingdom with great prophetic value before and during the Intertestament Period. In the book, â€Å"How Shall We tell The Children† Chamberlin describes Nebuchadnezzar’s visions as the entire history and age of the gentiles. This is because it has been said that â€Å"the four Empires where that of gentile descent.† He goes on to compare the revelations of chapters two and seven as being given to the gentiles to be understood from their perspective and interpretations.† (e.g. Edward Chamberlin) This what I question, If the gentiles where to look at the interpretations from their perspective; did they know that the Medo – Persian Empire was in fact of great prophetic value long before Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, and Daniel’s interpretation? Lets us go back, if the Medo- Persian Empire. It did not rise until some fifty to sixty years after Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, and Daniel’s interpretation, that would mean that the Kingdom had great prophetic value before the visions. A prophet named Isaiah had already prophesied about Cyrus. The bible tells us that Isaiah prophesied about Cyrus and called him by name some two hundred years before Cyrus was born (Isaiah 44:28; 45:1). What was his significance and who was he really? Cyrus was the said â€Å"Gods shepherd†, during the conversation that Isaiah had with God he was told that Cyrus would â€Å"say rebuild Jerusalem, and it would be rebuilt and he would say lay the foundations of the temple and they would be laid†. The scriptures in the Bible seem to tell us that Daniel was Hebrew prophet, and a well renowned man known for his integrity. He is called upon many of times, for his gift of interpretation. Daniel had visi... Free Essays on Medo Persian Empire Free Essays on Medo Persian Empire The Medo – Persian Empire superseded the Babylon Empire in 539 B.C., approximately fifty to sixty years after Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, and Daniel’s interpretation. In my mind after reading and researching all the information, the Medo – Persian Empire was a kingdom with great prophetic value before and during the Intertestament Period. In the book, â€Å"How Shall We tell The Children† Chamberlin describes Nebuchadnezzar’s visions as the entire history and age of the gentiles. This is because it has been said that â€Å"the four Empires where that of gentile descent.† He goes on to compare the revelations of chapters two and seven as being given to the gentiles to be understood from their perspective and interpretations.† (e.g. Edward Chamberlin) This what I question, If the gentiles where to look at the interpretations from their perspective; did they know that the Medo – Persian Empire was in fact of great prophetic value long before Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, and Daniel’s interpretation? Lets us go back, if the Medo- Persian Empire. It did not rise until some fifty to sixty years after Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, and Daniel’s interpretation, that would mean that the Kingdom had great prophetic value before the visions. A prophet named Isaiah had already prophesied about Cyrus. The bible tells us that Isaiah prophesied about Cyrus and called him by name some two hundred years before Cyrus was born (Isaiah 44:28; 45:1). What was his significance and who was he really? Cyrus was the said â€Å"Gods shepherd†, during the conversation that Isaiah had with God he was told that Cyrus would â€Å"say rebuild Jerusalem, and it would be rebuilt and he would say lay the foundations of the temple and they would be laid†. The scriptures in the Bible seem to tell us that Daniel was Hebrew prophet, and a well renowned man known for his integrity. He is called upon many of times, for his gift of interpretation. Daniel had visi...