Pages Navigation Menu

ISSN 2227-6017 (ONLINE), ISSN 2303-9868 (PRINT), DOI: 10.18454/IRJ.2227-6017
ЭЛ № ФС 77 - 80772, 16+

DOI: https://doi.org/10.23670/IRJ.2022.119.5.125

Скачать PDF ( ) Страницы: 103-107 Выпуск: № 5 (119) Часть 4 () Искать в Google Scholar
Цитировать

Цитировать

Электронная ссылка | Печатная ссылка

Скопируйте отформатированную библиографическую ссылку через буфер обмена или перейдите по одной из ссылок для импорта в Менеджер библиографий.
Оян Мэйхэ. О КРИЗИСЕ ИДЕНТИЧНОСТИ ГАМЛЕТА С ПОЗИЦИИ ЭТИЧЕСКОЙ ЛИТЕРАТУРНОЙ КРИТИКИ / Мэйхэ. Оян, Инцзе. Сюн // Международный научно-исследовательский журнал. — 2022. — № 5 (119) Часть 4. — С. 103—107. — URL: https://research-journal.org/psycology/on-hamletsidentity-predicaments-from-the-perspective-of-ethical-literary-criticism/ (дата обращения: 03.07.2022. ). doi: 10.23670/IRJ.2022.119.5.125
Оян Мэйхэ. О КРИЗИСЕ ИДЕНТИЧНОСТИ ГАМЛЕТА С ПОЗИЦИИ ЭТИЧЕСКОЙ ЛИТЕРАТУРНОЙ КРИТИКИ / Мэйхэ. Оян, Инцзе. Сюн // Международный научно-исследовательский журнал. — 2022. — № 5 (119) Часть 4. — С. 103—107. doi: 10.23670/IRJ.2022.119.5.125

Импортировать


О КРИЗИСЕ ИДЕНТИЧНОСТИ ГАМЛЕТА С ПОЗИЦИИ ЭТИЧЕСКОЙ ЛИТЕРАТУРНОЙ КРИТИКИ

DOI: https://doi.org/10.23670/IRJ.2022.119.5.125

О КРИЗИСЕ ИДЕНТИЧНОСТИ ГАМЛЕТА С ПОЗИЦИИ ЭТИЧЕСКОЙ ЛИТЕРАТУРНОЙ КРИТИКИ

Научнаястатья

Оян Мэйхэ1, *, Сюн Инцзе2

1 ORCID: 0000-0002-4875-2805;

2 ORCID: 0000-0003-0029-5884;

1 Шанхайский политико-юридический университет, Шанхай, Китай;

2 Восточно-Китайский Университет политических наук и права, Китай

* Корреспондирующий автор (henry_ouyang20076[at]126.com)

Аннотация

Своим неоднократным откладыванием мести Гамлет заслужил титул меланхоличного философа, а причина тому продолжает исследоваться, и мнения сходятся в том, что трагической развязке послужила нерешительность главного героя. С позиции этической литературной критики, нового направления мысли, данная статья представляет новую трактовку этой нерешительности в пьесе. Данная работа предлагает взгляд, согласно которому, прокрастинация Гамлета проистекает из кризиса этической идентичности, когда ему приходиться столкнуться с Клавдием, Гертрудой и Офелией. Это положение подразумевает дилеммы порядка, дружбы, любви и справедливости, от которых страдает описанное в пьесе общество, и которые до сих пор существуют и в современном мире. Важнейшей задачей представляется их эффективное искоренение.Процесс мести Гамлета — это также и процесс избавления от этих социальных и этических дилемм, процесс построения нового мира. Сделан вывод, что порядок этический является фундаментальным для создания порядка общественного, дружбы, любви и справедливости.

Ключевые слова: Гамлет, этическая литературная критика, колебание, кризис этической идентичности,этическая избирательность.

ON HAMLETSIDENTITY PREDICAMENTS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE
OF ETHICAL LITERARY CRITICISM

Research article

Ouyang Meihe1, *, Xiong Yingjie2

1 ORCID: 0000-0002-4875-2805;

2 ORCID: 0000-0003-0029-5884;

1 Shanghai University of Political Science and Law, Shanghai, P.R. China;

2 East China University of Political Science and Law, P.R. China

* Corresponding author (henry_ouyang20076[at]126.com)

Abstract

The repeated delays in Hamlet’s revenge make him labeled as a melancholy philosopher, and the reason for his delay has long been explored, especially it has been held that the tragedy is due to the protagonist’s irresolute character. With the Ethical Litrary Criticism, a new literary critical approach, this article has made a new elaboration on the key plot of delay in the play. This paper argues that Hamlet’s procrastination stems from the different ethical identity predicaments when he is faced respectively with Claudius, Gertrude, and Ophelia. These predicaments imply the dilemmas of order, friendship, love and justice the playwright’s society suffered from, and such dilemmas and predicaments still exist even in the world nowadays. It is significant for us to eliminate them effectively. The process of Hamlet’s revenge is the process of getting rid of these social and ethical dilemmas and the process of building a new world. It is concluded that the ethical order is fundamental for the construction of order, friendship, love, and justice.

Keywords: Hamlet,ethical literary criticism, delay,ethical identity predicaments, ethical selection.

Introduction

The main part of Prince Hamlet’s revenge for his father in “Hamlet” could be dated back as early as around 1200 AD, in the “History of the Danes” written in Latin by the Danish chronicler Saxo Grammaticus. From 1600 to 1601, Shakespeare made an adaptation on this basis, making it a tragedy with humanism and characteristics of his time. In the play, the author reflects the contradictions and conflicts in British society at the end of Elizabeth’s reign, showing his views and attitudes on many issues such as life and death, good and evil, human strength and weakness, reason and feelings. In Shakespeare’s view, “man is a mixture of good and evil, and changes with the changes of circumstances, rather than innate”[1, P. 97].Hamlet is well-recognized as a world classic, “Whether literature becomes a classic is determined by its ethical value”[2, P. 142], and “discovering the ethical value of literary classics, cultivating readers’ ethical awareness, and getting teachings from literary classics is undoubtedly an important aspect of the existence of literary classics”[3, P. 3].

“To be, or not to be, that is the question” (Act 3, Scene 1)has been argued for centuries. “What is its mood? How does the speech relate to what goes before and after it? How does it add to Hamlet’s characterization?”[4, P. 40]. The reason may be that itimplies the tone and connotation of the whole play of “Hamlet”, which is unexpectedly inclusive and complex. Understanding this helps readers better interpret the protagonist’s delay and the play’s theme. “Hamlet’s dilemma is that his highly dualistic metaphysical thinking created for him a world of opposites between thinking and acting, essence and appearance, ideal and reality. Paralysed by the conflict, Hamlet could not bridge abstract thoughts with actions and bring himself to take vengeance, In the end, he could do nothing but submit himself to the will of the unknown God”[5, P. 124].”The problem of vigor or spiritedness, as a vital theme in Shakespeare’s Hamlet, runs through the entire plot, and dominates its action… By showing the importance and complexity of courage and uprightness in the play, Shakespeare dictates the medication of the relationship between vigor and politics, and even vigor and justice”[6, P. 17].”The delay of the prince’s revenge can be seen as part of the revenge. The seemingly contradictory parties show a reasonable consistency in the social context in which the story takes place and in the context of the Renaissance it reflects. Hamlet takes the eradication of social evils and the restoration of the world as his responsibility, and the task of revenge must also be subordinated to this more important and arduous mission, which objectively causes the delay”[7, P. 150]. It is also argued that “it is Shakespeare’s creation rather than Hamlet’s hesitation and Shakespeare’s talent and intelligence rather than Hamlet’s character that leads to the delay of revenge in Hamlet” [8, P. 65].

But the question does not seem to be that simple. The question of life and death is a common problem in philosophical thinking. “Hamlet as a philosopher is not to carry out the perfect revenge according to the fine idea, but to think and distinguish the virtues of the king, and at the same time to himself unremittingly. Hamlet is a Platonic philosopher in the typical sense: love of the wisdom is a lifelong love of the virtue, the pursuit of the perfect virtue”[9, P. 71]. As the prince of the philosophical thinking kingdom, Hamlet’s in-depth and delicate thinking on this is also in line with his background and identity. “To understand what Hamlet does and, as importantly, what causes his behavior, it is helpful to begin with the events that took place in Elsinore during the two months of Hamlet Sr.’s death and Hamlet’s encounter with the ghost. Bringing this context into focus will help us from seeing the events of this play solely from Hamlet’s extremely inadequate perspective”
[10, P. 45]. So is with the Ethical Literary Criticism. However, in the face of the death of his father, the betrayal of his mother, and the usurpation of his uncle, what kind of differences can be made in Hamlet’s thinking about life and death? This paper holds that Hamlet is mainly trapped in three different ethical identity predicaments while facing Claudius, Gertrude, and Ophelia respectively. It is hard to make a smooth decision in a difficult situation, which has a direct and decisive impact on his revenge, and he doubts, hesitates, and delays. As Stanley Wells says “on the other hand tragedy tells us that our lives are lived in self-protective ignorance, in an alien world where the most meaning that can be hoped for is a concatenation”[11, P. 140]. From the perspective of Ethical Literary Criticism, we may carry out the analysis as follows.

The ethical lines and ethical conflicts in Hamlet

There are three intertwined ethical lines of revenge for the father in Hamlet: Hamlet’s revenge for his father, old Hamlet, who was poisoned to death by Claudius; Norwegian Prince Fortinbras’ revenge, who redressed his grievances and wanted to regain the land his father had ceded to Denmark, for his father who died under the old Hamlet’s sword; Laertes wanted to revenge for his father who died under the Hamlet’s sword. On the surface, the three ethical plots of revenge are kinship revenge, with Hamlet’s revenge as the main one, and the other two lines as the secondary. The three ethical lines are intertwined with each other and the primary and secondary lines are distinct, forming the ethical knot of the play. Because of the different ethical identities of these three people, different ethical confusions have been formed, and ethical knots that are not easy to untie have been formed too.

The five scenes in the first act are the beginnings of ethical conflicts. The appearance of the ghost of the late king not only strengthens Hamlet’s suspicion of the sudden death of his father, but also makes people panic because “this bodes some strange eruption to our state”(Act 1, Scene 1). The strict and most observant watch, the sore toils of soldiers and civilians across the country, cast of brazen cannons, impress of shipwrights and restlessness, are due to Fortinbras’s use of force to recapture the land lost by his father, heralding the turbulence of the situation at home and abroad, and providing for the show’s main conflicts. In a typical ethical context, Acts 2 to 3 are the stages of development of ethical identity conflicts. In the first scene of the second act, King Claudius accepts the offer of the Minister Polonius with the “bait of falsehood to take the carp of truth” (Act 2, Scene 1), because he suspects that prince Hamlet’s lunacy is not for love. In the third scene, he sent two of Hamlet’s classmates to spy on his secrets. Then, in the first scene of the third act, Ophelia, Hamlet’s lover, was sent to test his concealment. The “play within a play” in the second scene of the third act reveals all the main ethical conflicts of the play, and the conflict between Hamlet and Claudius is semi-public. In the third and fourth scenes of the third act and the seven scenes of the fourth act, the conflicts of various ethical identities are intertwined and developed, and the ethical threads are intertwined, presenting diverse and complex situations. When the primary ethical identity contradiction intensifies, the secondary ethical identity conflict becomes the foil of the main ethical identity conflict. The revenge of the Norwegian prince Fortinbras changed from an attack on Denmark to an expedition to Poland through Denmark. In the fifth act, the duel between Hamlet and Laertes is the climax of the whole play, and the two opposing parties are engaged in a fierce struggle between life and death. On the surface, it is Laertes’s blood revenge for his father Polonius and his sister Ophelia, without killing Hamlet, but it is actually Claudius’s use of martial arts to get rid of his opponent. Hamlet’s hatred of Claudius, who killed his father, is also unforgettable, and he is determined to cut off this wicked thief. In the contest, Queen Gertrude was delighted that her son had the upper hand in two rounds and drank the poisoned wine prepared by the traitorous king for her son. Laertes stabbed Hamlet with a poisonous sword under the instigation and provocation of the traitorous king. In the fight between the two sides, Hamlet and Laertes’s swords were both taken by each other, so Laertes was also stabbed by the poisonous sword. At this time, the queen died due to a poisonous alcohol attack. Before his death, Laertes found his conscience and exposed the crimes of the traitorous king Claudius on the spot. At this time, the ethical identity conflict between him and Hamlet was resolved, and Hamlet wielded the poisoned sword he had taken, killed Claudius,thus his ethical identity predicament was relieved. Before he died, Hamlet asked his good friend Horatio to “report me and my cause a right to the unsatisfied” (Act 5, Scene 2) to avoid more conspiracy and mistakes. But what is the cause of his actions? Since the plot is as clear as the day, why Hamlet delayed time and again?

 

Hamlet’s ethical identity predicament while facing Claudius

It’s been well received that Hamlet’s delay is determined by his character, which is typically the character determinism. Unlike Hazlitt’s belief that Hamlet’s inaction was due to the weakness of his character, Freud believed that Hamlet failed to take action due to his Oedipus complex. In his opinion, killing his father and marrying his mother is the original sin of mankind. Freud’s psychoanalysis believes that the Electra Complex and Oedipus Complex are the roots of many tragedies, Shakespeare’s “Hamlet” is also difficult to get out of this set pattern. But Hazlitt and Freud did not clearly explain why Hamlet was confused, hesitant, suspicious, and vacillated.

From the perspective of literary ethical criticism that is not to explain the results but to explore the reasons for the characters’ actions, Hamlet’s mother’s marriage to Claudius created an ethical taboo for Hamlet’s revenge, which made him fall into an ethical identity predicament when he faced Claudius. This predicament haunts his thoughts and actions and is difficult to conquer, which makes him unable to solve the ethical identity predicament he encountered in the process of revenge: Hamlet faces multiple ethical identities—Claudius is the new king and new father. Therefore, if Hamlet succeeded in revenge, he wouldl commit the incest crime of killing his father and the king, and if he did not revenge, he would not be able to fulfill his ethical obligation and responsibility to avenge the father asa son should.

Hamlet faces the problem of ethical selection rather than natural selection. As a well-educated prince, he must consider whether his revenge will violate the ethical taboos of the time and whether he will truly achieve fairness and justice. Going back to the famous inner monologue mentioned earlier: “To be or not to be, that is the question”, this monologue tells the reader that Hamlet is in a dilemma. Prof. Nie Zhenzhao concludes that this monologue implies that Hamlet’s choice of life and death is “actually a misunderstanding of this classic monologue”[12, P. 40], on this, he has made a wonderful review from the perspective of ethical literary criticism.

It is worthy of the reader’s attention when Hamlet says “not so, my lord, I am too much in the sun” (Act 1, Scene 2)that son and sun are homophonic here. The purpose is to create meaningful associations in front of readers or listeners. Hamlet is indeed in such an ethical identity: He is Claudius’s son and courtier, Claudius is his sun, but he feels that this kind of sunlight is too blazing because although they have a blood relationship “a little more than kin”, they are not of the same kind “less than kind”. This identity makes him in an ethical predicament and in pain when faced with Claudius.

 

Hamlet’s ethical identity predicament facing his mother

In the play, when Hamlet faces his mother Gertrudefor the first time, it is very discordant. Hamlet’s expression was gloomy, because he had a heavy heart that he couldn’t express, and the queen was very puzzled about it. In her opinion, the death of the old king Hamlet was a very common thing, because “all that lives must die, passing through nature to eternity.” (Act 1, Scene 2). The ethical identities of the two persons who were in the conversation turned out to be this: the queen is the wife of the first king, and Hamlet is the son of the first king, and they have a common relative, the old Hamlet. But now their ethical identities have changed: the queen is Hamlet’s mother, the king is Hamlet’s stepfather, and Hamlet is the king’s stepson. From the perspective of the present king, the ethical identity of the original mother and child has also changed–the mother has become an aunt. Hamlet sees this more clearly, but that is not the case for Gertrude. Therefore, the dialogue between them can reflect the ethical identity predicament that Hamlet deeply feels. The dual ethical identity of Gertrude–aunt and mother puts Hamlet more emotionally confused when facing her. The ethical identity between them is just one of Hamlet’s predicaments when facing Gertrude.

Gertrude and Hamlet have their own political identity. As a queen, Gertrude is the mother of a country. Whether it is to her son or to other subjects, she should be respected because she wears the crown of queen on her head. With the queen’s crown, she has the majesty of a queen on her body. As the crown prince of Denmark, Hamlet cannot act willfully, but must show a certain degree of self-cultivation and temperance. Although it is not explicitly stated this way, to a certain extent, Queen Gertrude was an accomplice in the murder of old Hamlet. Hamlet thought so in his mind. Otherwise, how could he say “O most pernicious woman!” (Act 1, Scene 5) The courtesy and respect a prince should have towards the queen is no exception for Hamlet. Hamlet is well aware of the chaos of the royal family and his own responsibilities. His revenge against King Claudius and Queen Gertrude (they are accomplices) is not only a family vengeance, but also a national hatred: because they disturbed the court. The political order of the Kingdom undermined the ethical guidelines of the royal family, leading to the upside-down of the Danish royal family–civil strife has already occurred, and external troubles are not far away. Didn’t the Norwegian Prince Fortinbras gather a group of party members and entourage, and eye covetously? Hamlet clearly realized the historical mission he had undertaken. “The time is out of joint: O cursed spite, that ever I was born to set it right!” (Act 1, Scene 5)

However, to “set it right” is not easy. Facing his own biological mother and queen, no matter from the ethical status of blood relatives or the status of political ethics, Hamlet can’t kill his opponent willfully as ordinary people. Hamlet has a clear understanding and responsibility for this. The ethical identity predicament that Hamlet is facing makes his behavior very different from the past. Hamlet is no longer the past Hamlet. No matter in appearance or spirit, he is already very different from before. The queen was also aware of this, but she didn’t understand the reason very much, she told the king Hamlet’s behavior is mad. How did she know the ethical identity predicament that Hamlet was stuck in when facing her? Queen Gertrude lacked Hamlet’s logical rationality and humanistic thinking, without Hamlet’s philosophical thinking, she did not realize the change in Hamlet’s ethical identity, she just thought she was Hamlet’s mother, everything was the same as before. This is why she seemed unresponsive when talking to Hamlet, and was very uncomfortable, because she could not understand Hamlet (so with the majority of readers).

“The setting of the procrastination in Hamlet depicts the development process of the prince’s ego identity, which is in line with the value pursuit of truth, goodness and beauty”[13, P. 157].Hamlet believes that his mother’s behavior violated the chastity of a wife, the virtue of a queen, and the restraint of a sacred marriage. But as a son, he can do nothing about it butpainsand suffers.

Hamlet’s ethical identity predicament facing Ophelia

The love relationship between Hamlet and Ophelia is beyond doubt. This point can be found in many places in the play. Hamlet himself said “I loved Ophelia”. (Act 5, Scene 1) The love between Hamlet and Ophelia was recognized by Queen Gertrude. In fact, Hamlet and Ophelia did not have a marriage as lovers, as the prince Hamlet faced the fetters of the ethical identity while facing Ophelia.

It is easy for audience to realize that Hamlet is not an ordinary person after all. He cannot love his loved ones like ordinary people which Ophelia’s brother Laertes has realized. Hamlet’s prince status means that his marriage must be constrained by political ethics and power morality. He has no real right of his own choice. The storyof Cinderella only exists in the fairy tale. Although Ophelia’s father Polonius was an important courtier and the king’s confidant, he was only a courtier after all. Hamlet’s true love for Ophelia may not have a happy result. As a Danish prince with philosophical thinking and keen thinking ability, it is not difficult to understand the truth. What’s more, he has the mission of revenge and the mission of helping the country. Besides, Polonius assisted the current king Claudius, Hamlet’s murderous enemy. Polonius indirectly became Claudius’s accomplice and Hamlet’s enemy. How does Hamlet accept his enemy’s daughter–is it true that he does not mind killing her fatherfor the sake of love? This can be understood from two levels: his death is a punishment for “I” because “I” killed “my” lover’s father; also a punishment for him, because he was an accomplice in killing “my” father.

Hamlet also has his own views on love ethics. He believes that women’s love is very short (the second scene of the third act), and his mother has used her own facts to prove this to him. Hamlet is not willing to be completely driven by emotions. He appreciates the kind of people who are not enslaved by emotions. He has his own views on life and happiness: a person should have a soul pursuit. When Ophelia came to inquire about his situation, Hamlet was not completely unaware, even though Ophelia was not willing to become his father’s spy which her father persuaded her to do. Hamlet was crazy even in front of Ophelia, because Ophelia’s love for him did not win him enough trust, he was not willing to be fooled by Ophelia’s mask of love. If there is no trust between love and being loved, the ethical identity of this lover will become deformed and it will be painful.

But Hamlet is not so sure about how reliable Ophelia’s love for him is: how many of his classmates, his mother, and his colleagues are worthy of his trust? The only person he trusts is Horatio.The lack of trust ethically in each other is the biggest trouble Hamlet suffered when facing Ophelia. This lack of trust stems from the different ethical identities of Hamlet and Ophelia, who are in a world full of lies.

Conclusion

Hamlet’s behavior is just as Polonius thought “mad” or “lunacy”. The fundamental reason for Hamlet’s ethical identity predicaments is that his biological mother Gertrude married his uncle Claudius, which leads to the existence of a confusing relationship between them. In Hamlet, “Socio-political and ethical themes are closely linked”[14, P. 117].

The question is why Claudius marries his sister-in-law? The Roman Law, the first universal law of the society of commodity producers, has a more reasonable explanation for this. The private law of Roman law is full of the spirit of natural law. For example, marriage in Roman law pays special attention to the willingness to marry and the treatment of marriage; inheritance is divided into general inheritance and individual inheritance, and general inheritance is expressed as one subject succeeding another subject to enjoy and bear all the original legal relations, that is, all rights and obligations, are essentially the inheritance of legal status and the heir in the purest sense of traditional Roman law. Heirs are divided into the heirs from his own family, necessary heirs and heirs outside the family. The heir from the own family is the first in the intestate succession. The deceased’s son is undoubtedly his own heir, but it is worth noting that the deceased’s wife is also the heir of his own heir because of the husband’s authority. The kinsmen are the second-ranked heirs among the intestate heirs. In Hamlet, due to the sudden death of the old King, according to the law at the time and the ethics of power, Hamlet’s mother Queen Gertrude and Hamlet belong to the category of the first heir, while his uncle Claudius belongs to the category of the second heir, so the marriage between Claudius and the queen made his throne more legal. As early as about a hundred years before Shakespeare was born, Christopher St. German (1460-1540) in England used religious and moral standards in his book Doctor and Student to judge the common law rules at that time, and questioned the foundations of rational law, natural law, and common law at that time. Bacon (1561-1626), a contemporary of Shakespeare, was not only a famous philosopher, but also a famous jurist. He believed that the laws of nature were the foundation of English law. Shakespeare did not discuss Claudius’s role in Hamlet. The king’s right to rule is legal, and the Danish people in the play do not seem to doubt this; in other words, it is legal for Claudius to succeed as the new king, and if Hamlet killed Claudius, his fight were like Claudius’s killing old Hamlet, there was also an ethical illegality.

Indeed, Hamlet’s ethical identitiesgot him in various predicaments: as a courtier, he has the obligation to avenge the late king; as a son, he has the responsibility to avenge his father; as a son, he has the obligation to obey his mother; as a prince, he has a responsibility to protect his family and defend the country; as a classmate, he must face his classmates; as a colleague, he must respect his older colleagues; as a lover, he has the task of caring for his lover…… Because of his father’s murder, his mother’s remarriage, everything has changed. His uncle became the homicide of his father and his mother became an accomplice; his classmates and colleagues became the enemy’s courtiers, and his lover became a helper to spy on him. If he went down with a single sword, he would become a rebellious minister, how is it different from other rebellious ministers? As a well-educated, thoughtful and honourable prince, Hamlet’s inner struggle, anxiety, wandering, sadness, and confusion all stem from the ethical identity predicaments he is caught in. He can’t take revenge like Laertes and Fortinbras with life for life, it’s just the traditional revenge.”As a humanist, Hamlet has a new type of social ethics and morality, and his actions far surpass the ancient Greek ethical model of revenge for the father”[14, P. 118]. The reason for his real revenge is to awaken the moral sense of the audience. Hamlet’s ethical identity made him a noble man, a rational man, a man with a humanistic ideal, instead of just being a man made of clay; in this way, Hamlet has evolved from natural selection to ethical selection,and there is still a group of men made of clay around him. The “clay man” in the natural selection stage is a soulless man. Hamlet’s real ethical identity predicaments originate from this.

Конфликт интересов

Не указан.

Conflict of Interest

None declared.

Список литературы / References

  1. Li Weiping.A History of British Literary Thought / Li Weiping, Zhang Dingquan et al.,Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2012, P. 1-671
  2. Nie, Zhenzhao. Introduction to Ethical Literary Criticism / Nie, Zhenzhao, Beijing: Peking University Press, 2014, 1-294
  3. Wu, Di. Studies in the Formation and Dissemination of Foreign Literary Classics / Wu, Di (chief editor). 8 Volumes, Beijing: Peking University Press, 2019,General Preface
  4. Smith, The Cambridge Introduction to Shakespeare / E. Smith. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2008. P. 1-178
  5. Wang Subversion and Nihility: The Subjective Difficulty in Shakespeare’s Macbeth and Hamlet/ Wang Nan // Society, 2020(1), P. 124-163
  6. Luo Feng.Vigor and Politics in Hamlet/ Luo Feng // Humanities & Social Sciences Journal of Hainan University, 2019 (5), P. 10-17
  7. Qu Hamlet’s Contradictory Unity of Delay and Revenge/ Qu Bin, Li Biyu //Masterpieces Review, 2021(3),
    P. 150-152
  8. Lu Han. Delay of Action or Delay of Narrative? Shakespeare or Hamlet/ Lu Han // Journal of Shanghai Normal University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 2019(3), P. 56-65
  9. Xiao Youzhi. The Wisdom of Hamlet Viewed from Platonic Ethics/ Xiao Youzhi //Journal of Henan University (Social Sciences), 2021(3), P. 65-71
  10. 10. Corum, R. Understanding Hamlet/ Corum. Beijing: China Renmin University Press. 2008. P. 1-271
  11. 11. Wells, S. The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare Studies / Wells. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2007. PP1-329
  12. 12. Nie,Zhenzhao. Reading, Interpretation and Value Discovery of Literary Classics / Nie,Zhenzhao // Studies in Literature and Art. 2013 (5), P. 34-42
  13. Meng, Liujun. Hamlet’s Image from Perspective of Ego Identity Theory / Meng, Liujun // Journal of Anhui Normal University (Hum.&Soc. Sci.),2018(9), PP152-157
  14. Nie, Zhenzhao.English Literature in the Perspective of Ethical Literary Criticism / Nie, Zhenzhao; Du, Juan et al., Wuhan: Central China Normal University Press, 2007, P. 1-701

Оставить комментарий

Ваш e-mail не будет опубликован. Обязательные поля помечены *

Лимит времени истёк. Пожалуйста, перезагрузите CAPTCHA.