This essay considers Shakespeare through Aristotelianism and Thomism to explore Hamlet as a meditation on tyranny. Based on the classical model of tragedy as presented by Aristotle in his Poetics and further informed by his Ethics and Politics, the essay identifies the climax of the play in order to determine the playwright’s argument about what should have happened instead of what did—namely, the hero should have removed the tyrant Claudius when given the opportunity at Act 3, Scene 3. Shakespeare is deliberately and successfully upending the Aristotelian model, while yet fulfilling its definitions and expectations. The claim is further supported by Aquinas’s six conditions for the right use of anger and vengeance as found in his Summa Theologica. Hamlet’s choice not to act is highly significant—and ironically Shakespearean. The play’s treatment of tyranny may have been a call to action for Shakespeare’s contemporary audience.

本文将莎士比亚通过亚里士多德主义和托马斯主义视为对暴政的沉思来探索哈姆雷特。基于亚里士多德在他的诗学中提出的经典悲剧模型，并在他的伦理学和政治学中进一步了解，这篇文章确定了戏剧的高潮，以确定剧作家关于应该发生什么而不是发生了什么的论点——即，在第 3 幕第 3 场有机会时，英雄本应移除暴君克劳狄斯。莎士比亚有意并成功地颠覆了亚里士多德模型，同时满足了其定义和期望。阿奎那关于正确使用愤怒和复仇的六个条件进一步支持了这一主张神学概论。哈姆雷特不采取行动的选择意义重大——讽刺的是莎士比亚。该剧对暴政的处理可能是对莎士比亚当代观众的行动号召。