Would a 17th century audience view hamlet differently than a 21st century audien

Question:You can not read Hamlet with out considering the history of England at the time of the play. The throne sucession spot was empty as Elizabeth had no children or interests. The people were very wary of the chaotic turmoil the country could be thrown into with no sucessor. Something Hamlet does not address, which the audience would have picked up on right away is;

Why, if Hamlet is the prince, did he not succede his late kingly father to the throne?

This is something Shakespeare purposely left out. It points out the past, when sucessors were present, but for political/religious reasons were not allowed sucession.

So Consider:
Hamlet is very much like the kid in a modern day family ( minus royal titles) He is angry when his mother remaries so quicly. This is obvious in the first siloloque, he is flustered, says it was 2 months since his fathers death, and then he changes it to 1 month, and even to less than a month as he continues the silo. Often interrupting his own thoughts leaving them un-completed. Any one in this situation would probably be just ad distraught.

Now consider the position of the audience: the throne is in a state of change. This has implications for the entire country, it's safety,economic well-being. War could break out, religious or otherwise. I believe ( you may beg to differ) that the audience would feel sympathetic for Hamlets angst, but completly understand why his mother MUST for reasons of the state re-marry. Why hamlet can not be king, I do not know ( i touched upon this earlier).

Another point; whenever a person of high class standing befriends someone of lower class standing, Shakespeare means to draw attention to this. It is important to follow through that relationship. The classes would have understood the faux pas Hamlet was condoning.

Hope this is helpful!

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: You can not read Hamlet with out considering the history of England at the time of the play. The throne sucession spot was empty as Elizabeth had no children or interests. The people were very wary of the chaotic turmoil the country could be thrown into with no sucessor. Something Hamlet does not address, which the audience would have picked up on right away is;

Why, if Hamlet is the prince, did he not succede his late kingly father to the throne?

This is something Shakespeare purposely left out. It points out the past, when sucessors were present, but for political/religious reasons were not allowed sucession.

So Consider:
Hamlet is very much like the kid in a modern day family ( minus royal titles) He is angry when his mother remaries so quicly. This is obvious in the first siloloque, he is flustered, says it was 2 months since his fathers death, and then he changes it to 1 month, and even to less than a month as he continues the silo. Often interrupting his own thoughts leaving them un-completed. Any one in this situation would probably be just ad distraught.

Now consider the position of the audience: the throne is in a state of change. This has implications for the entire country, it's safety,economic well-being. War could break out, religious or otherwise. I believe ( you may beg to differ) that the audience would feel sympathetic for Hamlets angst, but completly understand why his mother MUST for reasons of the state re-marry. Why hamlet can not be king, I do not know ( i touched upon this earlier).

Another point; whenever a person of high class standing befriends someone of lower class standing, Shakespeare means to draw attention to this. It is important to follow through that relationship. The classes would have understood the faux pas Hamlet was condoning.

Hope this is helpful!

Definitely. They would know what's going on without studying the whole play. The language would be more understandable and it would be the language of the day. So they would not have to refer to studies of a phrase, or a sentence that made sense easily three hundred years ago.
"To be or not to be" never did understand that until I was told the man was considering "suicide", my juvenile response was; "so why didn't he just say that! 'should I kill myself or not'?
And that is just one small sentence out of all of his plays.

yes stop cheating on your coursework question lol

I think the 17th century audience would have been much less awed by the play than we are today. Yes, the language would be more understandable; it would be that day's vernacular. But over the years, not only has language changed, but as Shakespeare continues to be performed and studied and idolized, a mystique has developed around him and his plays. Doing a Shakespeare today is a major undertaking becasue of the language barrier and the high esteem that we hold his characters in. We think, "Wow! What a holy terror that Lady Macbeth was!" but in the 17th century and in the original production (IN THE 17TH CENTURY, by the way), the role was performed by a young boy. How many young boys today do we think could handle all of the complexities and nuances of the role of Lady Macbeth or Juliet? But back then, it was just the entertainment of the day. I don't imagine that people hold what could be considered art or even a "classic" today in hgh esteem because its value will come over time. The Odd Couple is just a very funny play, but in 2408, someone may ask this same question about 21st century audioences' and 25th century audiences' take on the play being different. Like wise, I think most people flocked to bookstores to get the HP 7 book because were all so caught up in wanting to know how the story came out and were much less aware of possibly having bought a first-edition book, because its value as a first edition will only come with time.

Were there spot lights? Or pin lights? A mother of a sound system with stereo phonic sounds.

Yes! I'd say that 400 years of modern technology would make a difference