Hamlet Insane No Essays - Characters In Hamlet, Fiction, Film

Hamlet Insane No I am but mad north-north-west: when the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw (II.ii.376-7). This is a classic example of the wild and whirling words (I.v.134) with which Hamlet hopes to persuade people to believe that he is mad. These words, however, prove that beneath his antic disposition, Hamlet is very sane indeed. Beneath his strange choice of imagery involving points of the compass, the weather, and hunting birds, he is announcing that he is calculatedly choosing the times when to appear mad. Hamlet is saying that he knows a hunting hawk from a hunted handsaw or heron, in other words, that, very far form being mad, he is perfectly capable of recognizing his enemies. Hamlet's madness was faked for a purpose. He warned his friends he intended to fake madness, but Gertrude as well as Claudius saw through it, and even the slightly dull-witted Polonius was suspicious. His public face is one of insanity but, in his private moments of soliloquy, through his confidences to Ho ratio, and in his careful plans of action, we see that his madness is assumed. After the Ghost's first appearance to Hamlet, Hamlet decides that when he finds it suitable or advantageous to him, he will put on a mask of madness so to speak. He confides to Horatio that when he finds the occasion appropriate, he will put an antic disposition on (I.v.173). This strategy gives Hamlet a chance to find proof of Claudius's guilt and to contemplate his revenge tactic. Although he has sworn to avenge his father's murder, he is not sure of the Ghost's origins: The spirit that I have seen / May be the devil (II.ii.596-7). He uses his apparent madness as a delaying tactic to buy time in which to discover whether the Ghost's tale of murder is true and to decide how to handle the situation. At the same time, he wants to appear unthreatening and harmless so that people will divulge information to him, much in the same way that an adult will talk about an important secret in the presence of a young child. To convince everyone of his madness, Hamlet spends many hours walking ba ck and forth alone in the lobby, speaking those wild and whirling words which make little sense on the surface but in fact carry a meaningful subtext. When asked if he recognizes Polonius, Hamlet promptly replies, Excellent well; you are a fishmonger (II.ii.172). Although the response seems crazy since a fish-seller would look completely unlike the expensively dressed lord Polonius, Hamlet is actually criticizing Polonius for his management of Ophelia, since fishmonger is Elizabethan slang for pimp. He plays mind-games with Polonius, getting him in crazy talk to agree first that a cloud looks like a camel, then a weasel and finally a whale, and in a very sane aside, he then comments that [t]hey fool me to the top of my bent (III.ii.375). Although he appears to have lost touch with reality, he keeps reminding us that he is not at all far gone, far gone (II.ii.187) as Polonius claims, but is in fact very much in command of himself and the situation. With his rantings and ravings and his seemingly useless pacing of the lobby, Hamlet manages to appear quite mad. The na?ve and trusting Ophelia believes in and is devastated by what she sees as his downfall: O, what a noble mind is here o'erthrown! / . . . The expectancy and rose of the fair state / . . . quite, quite down! (III.i.152,4,6). Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are also fully convinced. They are Hamlet's equals in age but are far inferior in intellect and therefore don't understand that he is faking. However, although Hamlet manages to convince these simple friends and Ophelia of his insanity, other characters in the play such as Claudius, Gertrude and even Polonius eventually see through his behavior. Claudius is constantly on his guard because of his guilty conscience and he therefore recognizes that Hamlet is faking. The king is suspicious of Hamlet from the very beginning. He denies Hamlet permission to return to university so that he can keep an eye on him close by. When Hamlet starts

Andrew Jacksons Impeachment essays

Andrew Jacksons Impeachment essays With the assassination of Lincoln, the presidency fell upon an old-fashioned southerner named Andrew Johnson. Although an honest and honorable man, Andrew Johnson was one of the most unfortunate Presidents. Over time there has been a controversial debate as to whether Johnson deserved to be impeached, or if it was an unconstitutional attempt by Congress to infringe upon the presidents authority. The impeachment of Andrew Johnson was politically motivated. The spirit of the Jacksonian democracy inspired Andrew Johnson. From this influence he helped found the Democratic Party in his region and became elected to the town council in 1829. After serving in his town council for two years he was elected mayor in 1831. Johnson was a strict constructionist and an advocate of states' rights who distrusted the power of government at all levels. Following his term as Mayor Johnson won elections to the Tennessee State legislature in 1835, 1839, and 1841. After serving these terms he was elected t o Congress in 1843. As a member of the US House, Johnson opposed government involvement in the nations economy through tariffs and internal improvements. "In 1852 Johnson lost his seat in the US House because of gerrymandering by the Whig- dominated state legislature." (Jackson) Following his loss he came back in 1853 to win a narrow victory for governor and served two terms. In 1857, Johnson was then elected to represent Tennessee in the US Senate. "While serving in the Senate Johnson became an advocate of the Homestead Bill, which was opposed by most Southern Democrats and their slave owning, plantation constituents." (Kennedy) This issue strained the already tense relations between Johnson and the wealthy planters in western Tennessee. Eventually the party split into regional factions. Johnson made the decision to back the Southern Democratic nominee, John Breckinridge. By this time the rupture between Johnson and most Southern Democrats was too deep to ...

Parents Accountability for Their Childrens Delinquency Research Paper

Parents Accountability for Their Childrens Delinquency - Research Paper Example These factors consist of criminality of the parents, cruel and futile parental discipline to adolescence, antisocial/violent behavior, lack of parental participation in the adolescence activities, constant conflict in the family, abuse and or abandonment of a children, and negative response by parents (Patterson, Forgatch, & Stoolmiller, 1998; Walker et al., 1991). Should Parents be held accountable for their children’s delinquency? As much as the threat factors for criminal act during child’s tender age are more probable to be genetic, personality, and family unit factors, the fundamental position of recognized risk factors remains with the need to be elucidated, and no particular reason justifies or explains child delinquency. Somewhat, there are bigger quantity of risk factors. According to Demuth & Brown (2004), a juvenile’s resolution to participate in offending behavior is contributed by the parent or parental figurers’ use of direct, indirect and in ternalized controls. Usually, a parent begins to use these controls in formative years and continues their usage throughout the adolescence age. The juvenile development of psychological attachment and affection to his or her parents entails indirect control. The creation of a juvenile conscience throughout his or her life involves internalized control by parental figure or parents of a juvenile. On the other hand direct control involves supervision, restriction and punishment (Demuth & Brown, 2004). Family processes and delinquency research by Demuth & Brown (2004) resolute that control by parent especially via direct control through monitoring, parental involvement, supervision and closeness are negatively associated with delinquency. The research put into consideration... According to the research findings  a number of circumstances in the juvenile’s residence have been found to predict the start and persistent patterns of children and youth unsociable behavior. These factors consist of criminality of the parents, cruel and futile parental discipline to adolescence, antisocial/violent behavior, lack of parental participation in the adolescence activities, constant conflict in the family, abuse and or abandonment of a children, and negative response by parents.From this paper it is clear that  a juvenile’s resolution to participate in offending behavior is contributed by the parent or parental figurers’ use of direct, indirect and internalized controls. Usually, a parent begins to use these controls in formative years and continues their usage throughout the adolescence age. The juvenile development of psychological attachment and affection to his or her parents entails indirect control. The creation of a juvenile conscience th roughout his or her life involves internalized control by parental figure or parents of a juvenile. On the other hand direct control involves supervision, restriction and punishment. Control by parent especially via direct control through monitoring, parental involvement, supervision and closeness are negatively associated with delinquency. The research put into consideration different actions of parental direct control, for instance, obliging juvenile children to home at a given time, and threat of punishment in case of a wrongdoing.