This paper discusses Shakespeare’s `Hamlet`, based on Machiavelli’s The Prince.
This paper explains that the story of Hamlet illustrates Machiavelli’s `The Prince`, as Hamlet is a good character; with this goodness, becoming a downfall because he cannot make the rational decision not to be good, even when he knows that not being good is required. The author points out that the soliloquy, `To be, or not to be`, refers to Hamlet’s decision whether to commit murder, with that evil act actually ending the troubles, or whether to be good and not commit murder, with that meaning that the trouble will continue. The paper concludes that, in the end, it is Hamlet’s inability to make a decision that leads to his downfall.
`Hamlet’s state of indecision then only ends when Hamlet is angered by his belief that Claudius is spying on him. It is in his anger that Hamlet makes the snap decision to kill Claudius. However, Hamlet mistakes Claudius for Polonius, and so kills Polonius instead. This is the turning point of the play that leads to the tragic ending. The important point about Hamlet’s decision to kill Claudius is that he does not really make the rational decision. Instead, his decision is only made when he is angered enough that his rational good side is overcome by his irrational side.`