Introductory Notes

Shakespeare’s Hamlet opens not with the protagonist prince, but with a scene of deep unease on the battlements of Elsinore Castle. Act 1, Scene 1 serves as a masterclass in dramatic exposition, establishing the play’s dual identity as a revenge tragedy and a psychological study. It immerses the audience in an atmosphere of tension and apprehension.

The opening line, “Who’s there?” is more than a simple query; it immediately introduces the play’s central themes: identity, suspicion, and the pervasive decay of moral and political order. This brief exchange instantly draws the audience into the state of unrest that defines the tone of the entire tragedy.

The scene conveys a significant amount of information in a brief span, setting the stage for the central conflict. It introduces important characters, outlines the political instability of Denmark, and presents the supernatural trigger: the ghost of the recently deceased King Hamlet. The stark contrast between the bleak, frigid setting on the castle platform and the festive atmosphere within the castle underscores the conflict between outward appearances and internal corruption. The very air of Denmark seems tainted, a sentiment that echoes throughout the play.

Character and Perspective: The Voice of Reason

Horatio’s role in this scene is pivotal and goes far beyond that of a mere witness. Introduced as a ‘scholar’ and a voice of reason, he is brought to the battlements to prove the guards’ story to be “but our fantasy”. His initial skepticism, encapsulated in his line “Tush, tush, ’twill not appear”, is a deliberate literary device.

Shakespeare faced a significant dramatic challenge: how to make a ghost story believable to a Renaissance audience with a wide range of beliefs about the supernatural. By introducing a rational, educated character who initially doubts the supernatural event, Shakespeare validates the Ghost’s reality for the audience. Horatio functions as a surrogate for the audience’s own skepticism. When he sees the Ghost, his reaction is not one of casual acceptance but of overwhelming terror and conviction. He confesses, “Before my God, I might not this believe / Without the sensible and true avouch / Of mine own eyes.” This statement elevates the scene from the realm of simple superstition into a profound exploration of truth and reality, lending dramatic legitimacy to the entire plot that will hinge on the Ghost’s testimony. Questions on Horatio’s initial attitude and his subsequent reaction are intended to assess a student’s understanding of his crucial role in establishing the play’s credibility.

Political and Thematic Foundations: The Threat from Without

The Fortinbras subplot is not an extraneous detail but a foundational parallel to Hamlet’s central conflict. Through Horatio’s exposition, the audience learns that the late King Hamlet defeated King Fortinbras of Norway in single combat, seizing lands by a “sealed compact”. Now, young Fortinbras is “hot and full” of “unimproved metal” and is raising an army to “recover of us, by strong hand” his father’s lost territory. This political backstory immediately introduces the theme of revenge, setting up a parallel between Fortinbras’s mission to avenge his father and Hamlet’s impending one.

Fortinbras is immediately presented as a “man of action”, creating a direct thematic contrast with Hamlet, whose defining characteristic will become his intellectual over-analysis and delay. This “thought versus action” theme, crucial to understanding Hamlet’s character, is introduced in the very first scene. The Ghost’s appearance in “the very armour” he wore when he defeated the elder Fortinbras physically links the supernatural unrest to the political turmoil, suggesting the two are inextricably linked. Horatio views the Ghost as a “portentous” omen of “strange eruption to our state”, further reinforcing the idea that the political and supernatural worlds are in disarray. The questions on the Fortinbras backstory are designed to ensure students recall and understand this vital political context and its thematic implications.

The Ghost in Context: A Spirit of Health or Goblin Damned?

The Ghost’s appearance introduces the play’s most profound theological and moral dilemma. For a contemporary Elizabethan audience, the Ghost’s nature was ambiguous due to the recent religious upheaval from Catholicism to Protestantism. Catholics, who held a belief in purgatory, would likely interpret the Ghost as a benevolent soul from that realm, seeking a living person’s help to resolve “unfinished business”. In this context, Hamlet’s decision to follow the Ghost’s instructions would be a righteous, albeit difficult, act.

Conversely, in the new Protestant England, the concept of purgatory had been largely denounced. A Protestant audience would therefore view the Ghost with extreme suspicion, considering it a malevolent demon from hell disguised as the dead king to lure a living soul to its damnation. Horatio’s description of the Ghost’s sudden departure at the cock’s crow as acting “like a guilty thing / Upon a fearful summons” reinforces this ambiguity.

This theological ambiguity is the central problem of the play and is the very reason for Hamlet’s famous hesitation. A benevolent ghost from purgatory would justify immediate, righteous revenge. A malevolent demon, however, would require extreme caution, lest Hamlet damn his own soul by obeying its command. Thus, Hamlet’s eventual “procrastination” is not a simple character flaw but a reasoned, if tortured, response to a profound moral and theological problem. The Ghost’s nature, and the subsequent uncertainty, is the core engine of the play’s inaction. Questions that touch upon the Ghost’s physical appearance, its response to the cock’s crow, and the characters’ interpretations of its presence are designed to prompt students to consider these crucial religious and philosophical layers.