Original Sin In Hamlet

In John Gillies’ article The Question of Original Sin in Hamlet he, believes that the “presence of original sin in the play provokes more fundamental questions than have been asked so far”(Gillies 398). In his essay, Gilles addresses those possible questions with four related arguments. In Tabassum Javed’s essay Perfect Idealism in Shakespeare's Prince Hamlet Javed discusses how Hamlet “refuses leadership because he is tousled with accepting the role of the exploiting father” (Javed 332). Javed claims that Hamlet is an “ idealist that refuses leadership because he is tousled with accepting the role of the exploiting father” (Javed 332). Javed agrees with some of Gilles’ arguments but not with all of them. Gilles’ first argument emphasizes the “intuitiveness of original sin in the sense of radical doubt of human goodness as distinct from a doctrine in its early modern context” (Gillies 399). In contrast to Gilles Javed argues that “Hamlet has been placed in the most agonizing circumstances that a human being can be placed in”(Javed 328). In that section of Gillies’ essay he talks about “intellectual intuitiveness of original sin in late Elizabethan England” (Gillies 399). Gillies refers to religious reformers, such as Luther and Calvin, views on original sin as well as philosophers, such as Socrates.

He breaks his essay into four parts where he talks about different arguments to support his claim and explore some of the fundamental questions that original sin provokes. In Perfect Idealism in Shakespeare's Prince Hamlet Javed discusses how Hamlet’s idealistic views prevent him from taking immediate action when the ghost tells him to get revenge. Javed and Gillies agree on some points in their essays but also discuss different evidence for those points. Gillies uses original sin while Javed uses Hamlet’s