Critics have suggested many possibilities of Hamlet's tragic flaw, but since the character of Hamlet is one of the most complex in all of literature, there is no consensus. One critic, Ernest Jones, wrote that Hamlet's tragic flaw is that he has an "Oedipus Complex," meaning that Hamlet, like Oedipus, has the desire to kill his father so that he can be his mother's only object of affection. Jones supports this theory by pointing out that Hamlet is constantly fighting with Claudius for his mother's love, and that he is very upset by Gertrude's sleeping with Claudius (Jones 129). This theory, however, is unpersuasive. Hamlet wants to kill Claudius not because he is sleeping with Hamlet's mother, but because he killed Hamlet's father.

Other critics identify Hamlet's fatal flaw as "thinking too well," that is, having looked truly into the essence of things, (Bloom 393, quoting Nietzche), or feeling too much. T.S. Eliot wrote about the latter in relation to Hamlet's exaggerated feelings of disgust towards his mother, which Eliot thought were out of proportion to the situation. Eliot believed that Hamlet never understood those feelings and therefore allowed them to poison his life and obstruct his action (Eliot 90). This is also unpersuasive, because although Hamlet's feelings towards his mother are important, they are not the most important in Hamlet. More important are Hamlet's feelings towards Ophelia or Claudius, for example, because his relationships with these characters are integral to the action and outcome of this play.

The writer Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe viewed Hamlet not as having a tragic flaw, but as being unfit for the responsibilities heaped upon him by Shakespeare. In Goethe's words, the duty to avenge was, "laid upon a soul unfit for the performance of it" (Goethe 43). To him, Hamlet lacked "the strength of nerve which forms a hero," (Goethe 44) and sank beneath his burdens. Although an interesting and insightful analysis, this is not exactly what Shakespeare meant. Shakespeare crafted Hamlet so as to show periodically that there is no inherent flaw in Hamlet's character (Hammersmith 249). Rather, that Hamlet was a normal person, who because of the many traumatic events that happened to him, became overwhelmed.

The first of these catastrophic events is the death of King Hamlet. Hamlet, as would almost any normal person, is devastated by the death of his father. While he is still mourning his father's recent death, to make matters worse, his mother marries Hamlet's uncle, Claudius. This marriage takes place within months of his fathers' death, and because of its hastiness Hamlet questions it, and believes that his mother may have planned this marriage before his father's actual death. Next, his new step-father does nothing to make Hamlet's life, which at this point is sad and depressing, any easier. When Hamlet asks Claudius if he can return to the University, Claudius tells him he may not. Polonius then decides that his daughter, Ophelia, should stop seeing Hamlet. This is also crushing news to Hamlet; he is not allowed to see the girl he loves.

Finally, Hamlet meets his father's ghost and learns that his father was killed by Claudius, and that his father wants Hamlet to avenge his death. This is the pinnacle of Hamlet's depression, learning that his father was murdered, and that this murder was committed by his new step-father. These terrible events, occurring one after the other, send Hamlet into an abnormal state, where he becomes suicidal and does things he normally would not do.

In the midst of these depressing events, Shakespeare shows the reader flashes of a normal Hamlet. The first glimpse the reader sees of Hamlet's normal self is when Hamlet is visited by his school friends in Act I, Scene ii, as follows:

HORATIO: Hail to your lordship!
HAMLET: I am glad to see you well. Horatio--or I do forget myself!
HORATIO: The same, my lord, and your poor servant ever.
HAMLET: Sir, my good friend. I'll change that name with you. And what make you from Wittenberg, Horatio? --Marcellus?
MARCELLUS: My good lord.
HAMLET: I am very glad to see you. [To Bernardo] Good even, sir. -- But what, in faith, make you from Wittenberg?
HORATIO: A truant disposition, good my lord.
HAMLET: I would not hear your enemy say so, nor shall you do mine ear that violence to make it truster of your own report against yourself. I know you are no truant. But what is your affair in Elsinore? We'll teach you to drink {deep} ere you depart.
HORATIO: My lord, I came to see your father's funeral.
HAMLET: I prithee, do not mock me, fellow-student. I think it was to {see} my mother's wedding.
HORATIO: Indeed, my lord, it follow'd hard upon.
HAMLET: Thrift, thrift, Horatio. The funeral baked meats
did coldly furnish forth the marriage tables. Would I had met my dearest foe in heaven or ever I had seen that day, Horatio! (Ham. I. ii.165-190)

In this dialogue, Hamlet is fooling around and having fun speaking with his college friends, whom he will not be allowed to see in the future because of Claudius' decision to prohibit him from returning to Wittenberg. As Oscar James Campbell described in his essay entitled "What is the Matter with Hamlet?", when Hamlet is with his friends in this scene, his "natural charm and graciousness shine forth," (Campbell 104) once again, as it did in his untroubled past. His light-hearted demeanor is in stark contrast to the depressed behavior he exhibits before his friends enter the scene, and shows the reader the normal Hamlet.

Shakespeare provides the reader with another example of the normal Hamlet when Hamlet and Horatio meet before the play in Act III, Scene ii:

HAMLET: What ho, Horatio!
Enter HORATIO
HORATIO: Here, sweet lord, at your service.
HAMLET: Horatio, thou art e'en as just a man as e'er my conversation coped withal.
HORATIO: O, my dear lord-
HAMLET: Nay, do not think I flatter, for what advancement may I hope from thee that no revenue hast but thy good spirits to feed and clothe thee? Why should the poor be flattered? No, let the candied tongue lick absurd pomp and crook the pregnant hinges of the knee where thrift may follow fawning. Dost thou hear? Since my dear soul was mistress of her choice and could of men distinguish, her election hath seal'd thee for herself for thou hast been as one, in suffering all, that suffers nothing, a man that Fortune's buffets and rewards hast ta'en with equal thanks; and blest are those whose blood and judgment are so well commeddled, that they are not a pipe for Fortune's finger to sound what stop she please. Give me that man that is not passion's slave, and I will wear him in my heart's core, ay, in my heart of heart, as I do thee. (Ham. III. ii.54-79)

In this passage, Hamlet playfully flatters Horatio, and Horatio pretends to act bashful. Hamlet also tells Horatio what a valuable friend he is, and compliments his steady character. The ease with which they speak to each other and their openness both signify a long-standing relationship which reminds the reader what Hamlet was like before the onset of his depression.

Hamlet's high spirits continue after the play ends, when he and Horatio again joke back and forth noting Hamlet's "excellent" acting ability and rejoice at the play's success:

HAMLET: Would not this, sir, and a forest of feathers (if the rest of my fortunes turn Turk with me) with {two} Provincial roses on my razed shoes, get me a fellowship in a cry of players?
HORATIO: Half a share.
HAMLET: A whole one, I. For thou dost know, O Damon dear, this realm dismantled was of Jove himself, and now reigns here a very very-- pajock.
HORATIO: You might have rhymed.
HAMLET: O good Horatio, I'll take the ghost's word for a thousand pound. Didst perceive?
HORATIO: Very well, my lord.
HAMLET: Upon the talk of the poisoning?
HORATIO: I did very well note him.
HAMLET: Ah ha! Come, some music! Come, the recorders! For if the king like not the comedy, why, then, belike, he likes it not, perdy. Come, some music! (Ham. III.ii.301-321)

This scene is another good example of Hamlet's normality. According to Campbell, "many cultivated gentlemen of the Renaissance," enjoyed the theatre (Campbell 104). Hamlet, a man of the Renaissance, enjoyed the play for its theatrical qualities, but also enjoyed watching Claudius' discomfort. In both respects, Shakespeare shows he is perfectly normal.

In addition to periodically depicting Hamlet as a playful and humorous young man, who acts gracious and charming with his friends, and who enjoys plays just like other Renaissance men, Shakespeare uses another mechanism to show the reader that Hamlet is normal and does not have a tragic flaw. Shakespeare creates Horatio as a mirror image of Hamlet, except with less prominence (Hammersmith 249-250). Horatio is supposed to be exactly what Hamlet would be like had he not experienced the chain of catastrophic events that sent him into a depression. The two characters' parallels are many: both studied at Wittenberg, both are "scholars of contemplative nature," and neither is a man of action.

No one, however, would call Horatio "flawed" or "defective" simply because he is not, say, a soldier of Macbeth's stamp - he is not, as it happens, particularly a man of action at all. Horatio thinks a lot. He performs no action in the play which would lead an audience to regard his character as in any way superior to Hamlet's "too contemplative" nature. (Hammersmith 249)

Because the two characters are so alike, they are distinguished by their circumstances. Nothing traumatic happens to Horatio, but everything happens to Hamlet. He is unfortunately saddled with the burden of avenging his father's death, a circumstance which, according to Hammersmith, calls for a predisposition to action, a character trait Hamlet does not possess. As Hamlet himself says, "The time is out of joint. O cursed spite that ever I was born to set it right!" (Ham. I. v. 210-211) Horatio, on the other hand, is never called upon to take any action, let alone an action contrary to his predisposition. His contemplative nature, therefore, never presents a problem. If the same events happened to Horatio, he probably would have had the same response as Hamlet, and been a victim of circumstances, like Hamlet.

"Hamlet is a tragedy, the tragedy of a genius caught fast in the toils of circumstance and unable to fling free. Shakespeare unfolds to us the full horror of Hamlet's situation gradually, adding one load after another to the burden he has to bear until we feel that he must sink beneath it" (Wilson 39). And sink beneath it he does through no fault of his own. Hamlet is just an average man, to whom many bad things unfortunately happened.

In order to truly analyze Hamlet's sanity, it is essential to define “insane” properly. One must realize that in everyday situations, the term “insane” is used quite loosely, thus it has become extremely subjective in nature. Much like a person who is slightly different than the rest is not necessarily “abnormal”, a person who does not conform to society's definition of sanity is not “insane”. The fact of the matter is that Hamlet is extremely traumatized throughout the play. Anyone who has ever lost a loved one may be able to relate with the difficulty of dealing with all the circumstances that accompany such a tragic event. This becomes evident right away when Hamlet reflects upon the prospect of suicide in the first soliloquy of the play. “O that this too too solid flesh would melt,Thaw, and resolve itself into a dew”(Act I, Scene II, 129-130). This shows the mental state that he is right from the beginning of the play. The fact that the death of his father was the first tragic event he had to deal with and the fact that he thought very highly of him (“So excellent a king…”Act I, Scene II, 139) makes it obvious that he had been greatly impacted by this event of extremely significant magnitude. After all, there are not many events in a person's life that can cause one to consider suicide as even a remotely reasonable course of action.

In addition, there is another factor that is mentioned within the same soliloquy, and at various points afterwards, which is causing Hamlet even more despair. Not only is he extremely bothered by the sudden demise of his beloved father, the manner in which his mother, Gertrude, has dealt with this event has caused even more disturbance in his psyche. “Ere yet the salt of most unrighteous tears, had left the flushing in her galled eyes, She married:- O, most wicked speed, to post with such dexterity to incestuous sheets!” (Act I, Scene II, 154-157). “Mother, you have my father much offended” (Act III, Scene IV, 11). This demonstrates that Hamlet was extremely upset by his mother's complete lack of sensitivity towards the death of his father. The fact that she married Claudius with the death of Hamlet Sr. still fresh in everyone's minds contrasts greatly with the sombre manner in which Hamlet is mourning this great loss.

As if this was not enough, Hamlet has to endure more tragedies later on in the play. Arguably the most significant of those losses is the death of Ophelia. Her demise towards the end causes him more despair than he was letting on earlier in the play. This becomes all too evident at Ophelia's funeral. When Hamlet finds out that the funeral is of none other than his object of great affection, he is unable to hide his true emotions towards her. “I loved Ophelia; forty thousand brothers could not, with all their quantity of love, make up my sum…” (Act V, Scene I, 263-265). The fact that Hamlet could never trust Ophelia throughout the play due to his suspicion that she might hold allegiance with the murderer of his father makes it all that much harder for him to truly express his emotions for her. Because of this, he is forced to shun Ophelia against all his love. However, at the funeral, he had no need to carry on his antic disposition, thus the reason why he is finally able to show his true affection for Ophelia without any regard of what anyone else might say.

By citing the reasons above, it would be logical to deduce that Hamlet was extremely traumatized by all the tragedies that directly affect him. It would be premature to suggest that the manner in which he deals with these tragedies is anything more than feelings of anger, betrayal, treachery, frustration and abandonment. To propose that his post-tragedy behaviour is a sign of insanity would require taking a huge leap. The fact that he is able to stay level headed and contemplate every issue with rational thinking is a testament to Hamlet's ability to hang on to his sanity in the face of immense misfortune.

Hamlet shows his ability to think rationally throughout the play despite all the hardships that he has to face. He is capable of contemplating and analyzing every situation to a degree that leaves no room for doubt and error. Taking that into consideration, one must ask themselves whether someone who has truly lost his head would be able to engage in such deep philosophical and moral debates. One of the most obvious demonstrations of this ability occurs when Hamlet encounters Rosencrantz and Guildenstern for the very first time in the play. “What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculties! in apprehension, how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals!” (Act II, Scene II, 303-307). The fact that he is able to discuss the nature of humanity in such a well articulated and a philosophically complex manner speaks volumes regarding the state of his mind. As disturbed as his psyche may be, he demonstrates that he is as capable of striking such a debate as he ever was.

The next most significant example of his ability to think logically occurs later on while he is being eavesdropped upon. Once again, he shows his ability to contemplate in more depth than most would consider humanly possible. “To be, or not to be: that is the question: Whether "tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune or to take arms against a sea of troubles…With this regard, their currents turn awry, and lose the name of action”(Act III, Scene I, 58-89). In this soliloquy, he addresses topics as wide ranging as suffering, suicide, contemplation, action, religious theology, ethical philosophy and most significantly the impossibility of certainty. The complexity and the amount of issues addressed within this now famous soliloquy gives one as good a glimpse within his psyche as any speech or dialogue in the play.

Most importantly, not only does Hamlet display his intellectuality and quick wits in discussions, he also shows his ability to use his intelligence in practical terms. While on his way to England with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, he proves his worth as a man of action as well. “I had my fathers signet in my purse, which was the model of that Danish seal: … thou know"st already” (Act V, Scene II, 49-55). Here he tells Horatio how he wrote a fake document addressed to English officials, which asked them to execute Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, as opposed to the original document sent by Claudius which asked for Hamlet's head. This demonstrates his ability to think rationally even in the toughest of situations, as opposed to panicking like most people under these circumstances would do. It also shows that he is always two steps ahead of Claudius and at no point was Hamlet oblivious to what is truly going on behind his back.

Hamlet's ever present ability to think with a clear head is evident all throughout the play. At no point does the reader get the impression that he has finally cracked and is unable to think rationally as a result. Even in the face of inevitable death, he maintains this ability as demonstrated by him leaving Horatio with instructions to follow afterwards (“Horatio, I am dead; thou livest; report me and my cause aright to the unsatisfied” Act V, Scene II, 331-333). This ability to think rationally is further confirmed by the main reason why he is acting mad for the majority of the play.

As most readers of the play should be aware of, Hamlet decides to put on this act of insanity after he meets the ghost of his father (“As I perchance hereafter shall think meet to put an antic disposition on,” Act I, Scene V, 172-173). Even though the effectiveness of this strategy could be debated, one thing is for certain. The reason why he decided to put on this “antic disposition” had nothing to do with his mental state but everything to do with his rational personality. As any rational person would be able to attest, it is important to have as little doubt as possible when one is planning on taking a huge responsibility. Especially in the case of Hamlet who was told to kill someone by a ghost. Even though it would be easy for him to let his emotions take over and kill Claudius right away, he sets aside his immense hatred for his uncle and decides to come up with a fool proof plan. In order to be certain of Claudius's guilt, he comes up with the idea of a play to see how he reacts to a re-enactment of a situation similar to the one in which Hamlet Sr. was murdered. Not only that, he also decides to put some responsibility upon Horatio as well, since he does not want his bias to skew his observations. “Give him heedful note; for I mine eyes will rivet to his face, and after we will both our judgements join in censure of his seeming.” (Act III, Scene II, 83-86). During the play when Claudius asks for the play to be stopped, Hamlet consults with Horatio, as planned before, even though the manner in which Claudius left when faced with the re-enactment of Hamlet Sr.'s murder clearly established his guilty conscience.

Hamlet: “…Didst perceive?”
Horatio: “Very well, my lord.”
Hamlet:” Upon the talk of poisoning?”
Horatio:” I did very well note him.” (Act III, Scene II, 282-285)

As mentioned before, there is no doubt about the fact that Hamlet has to deal with some extremely strong emotions throughout the play. However, the manner in which he is able to control them all strongly supports the case for his sanity. After the “mouse trap” play mentioned above, Hamlet is summoned by Gertrude. Realizing fully well how strongly he feels about her getting involved with Claudius, he urges himself to remain as non-physical as possible and not let his emotions take over. “I will speak daggers to her, but use none; my tongue and soul will in this be hypocrites” (Act III, Scene II, 387-388). In the next scene, after killing Polonius who was hiding behind the curtains and encountering the ghost of his father, he does not see the need to act insane anymore and tells his mother everything. In order to prove his sanity, he tells his mother everything about Claudius's guilt in a manner truer to his own self (“…it is not madness that I have utter'd; bring me to the test, and I the matter will re-word, which madness would gambol from” Act III, Scene IV, 143-146) and also asks his mother for forgiveness if he had hurt her in any way (“Forgive me this my virtue, for in the fatness of these pursy times virtue itself of vice must pardon beg…” Act III, Scene IV, 154-156). This is a testament to his sanity since its shows that he is able to act like himself even in the heat of the moment.

In addition to the factors mentioned above, another prove of his sanity comes in the shape of his wit even in moments of feigned madness. In fact one of the primary reasons why he is putting on this antic disposition in the first place is that he could speak his mind behind the guise of insanity, so that no one would be suspicious of him. If he truly were insane, it would not be possible for him to step out of his insanity at will. He demonstrates this ability whenever he is addressing Claudius, Polonius, Gertrude, Ophelia, Rosencrantz or Guildenstern. One example of this occurs while he is replying to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, who asked him about the location of Polonius's body. “The body is with the king, but the king is not with the body” (Act IV, II, 28-29). On the surface, it appears as if Hamlet is just babbling on unintelligently. However, upon further inspection, it becomes clear that he is referring to the fact that Polonius is now dead, like the old king, but the new king, Claudius, is not yet dead. Since Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are depicted as fools, this completely flies over their heads and they eventually give up, thinking Hamlet has gone totally insane.

To think that Hamlet become insane at one occasion or another would be misunderstanding the reason why he decided to put on the mask of insanity in the first place. He had a plan set in place and there is nothing to suggest that he lost the plot at any point during the play. He had to face various adversities and setbacks all throughout the play but even when he was on his way to England he stuck to his original plan and was not willing to give up. Once his suspicions were confirmed, there was no going back for him. Even though it would be easy to assume for readers that Hamlet had gone mad at some point in the play, Shakespeare had made sure that the audience does not make the same mistake as some of the characters.

All throughout the play, Shakespeare utilizes character foils in order to give the readers/audience members an advantage in determining Hamlet's true mental state. In addition, there is evidence in the form of observations from other characters that prove Hamlet's sanity. Many readers of the book believe that Hamlet's insanity was existent even before the events that are accounted for in the play took place. However, those suspicions are dashed by Ophelia “O, what a noble mind is here o'erthrown! The courtier's, soldier's, scholar's eye, tongue, sword; Th' expectancy and rose of the fair state, The glass of fashion and the mould of form, the observed of all observers, quite, quite down!” (Act III, Scene I, Line 152-156). Here Ophelia describes Hamlet as not only the ideal form of behaviour but also the exemplification of perfection and the ideal Renaissance man.

Shakespeare also uses similarities with other character foils in order to point towards Hamlet's sanity as opposed to madness. The most obvious use of this is evident in Horatio. Right from the beginning of the play, Horatio is depicted as a model of rationality and intelligence. The fact that Bernardo and Marcellus depend on him to communicate with the ghost tells the readers of how highly they think of Horatio (“That if again this apparition come, he may approve our eyes and speak to it.” Act I, Scene I, 28-29). Not only that but one of the most significant cases that is used in attempts to prove Hamlet's insanity is the fact that Gertrude fails to see the ghost where as Hamlet does (“Alas, how is't with you, that you do bend you eye on vacancy, and with the incorporal air do hold discourse?” Act III, Scene IV, 118-120). However, this claim is quickly refuted considering how Bernardo, Marcellus and Horatio, arguably the smartest of the bunch, also see the ghost at some point during the play along with Hamlet himself. In addition to this, even Hamlet himself has nothing but praises for Horatio "Horatio, thou art e'en as just a man as e'er my conversation cop'd withal" (Act III, Scene II, 53-54). According to Hamlet, Horatio is the most well-balanced person he has ever encountered. The fact that a person as intelligent and well respected as Horatio supports Hamlet throughout the play without ever doubting his intentions or, more importantly, his sanity speaks volumes about Hamlet's actual mental state.

In addition to all of this, Shakespeare also makes sure to put in a character foil for Hamlet that surely puts to the bed the argument regarding his sanity. As a result of Polonius's death and Hamlet's departure to England, it becomes quite clear that Ophelia has indeed gone insane (“…her speech is nothing, yet the unshaped use of it doth move the hearers to collection; they aim at it and they botch the words up fit to their own thoughts…” Act IV, Scene V, 7-10). She starts to talk truly unintelligibly and her replies to Gertrude do not hold any relevance to the questions. “Well, God'ield you! They say the owl was a baker's daughter. Lord, we know what we are, but know not what we may be. God be at your table!” (Act IV, Scene V, 41-43). On top of that, she also eventually commits suicide as a result of her insanity. This contrast truly shows that Hamlet was indeed sane throughout the play, for if he was ever insane he would have spoke unintelligibly throughout the play and committed suicide as well.

The accumulation of all the hints that Shakespeare drops within the play clearly show the reader that Hamlet was indeed sane right from the beginning all the way to the end. He uses character foils and comments from other primary characters to affirm Hamlet's sanity. This demonstrates the fact that Shakespeare always intended Hamlet to be seen as a sane character and made sure that the readers/audience members understand it as well.

Even though it would be tempting to assume that Hamlet had gone mad at some point during the play, the cases cited above clearly prove other wise. Hamlet does indeed suffer greatly from all the tragedies plaguing him but to suggest he has gone insane would be irrational. In addition, the facts that Hamlet is capable of keeping his rationality intact and that he is also able to come up with an ingenious plan of feigning madness in order to catch Claudius work strongly in favour of Hamlet's mental state. Most importantly, Shakespeare himself uses character foils and comments from secondary characters to build a case for Hamlet's sanity so that the reader does not falsely presume him to be insane. It would be a mistake to label Hamlet mad since that would take away from the entire reason why he feigns madness in the first place. It is only through shedding doubts regarding Hamlet's sanity that one is able to truly appreciate the subtle brilliance of the character and the remarkable work Shakespeare did in creating him. To deny this playwright the brilliance of his work would be disrespectful to his legacy.

William Shakespeare's father, John Shakespeare, was of a higher-class family in Europe. He himself was the town mayor, and also a glove maker. During this time a glove maker was more of a high-class job then it may seem. John was skilled in both leatherworking and the curing and processing of fine leather to make ladies gloves and purses for the nobility and traded as a glove maker .The gloves were worn as a status symbol. The demand for quality gloves was kept very high, since they were in great need . Williams father had a great influence on Shakespeare, he gave him the chance to become his apprentice in glove making, but William chose not too.

William Shakespeare's mother, Mary Arden, was also from a richer family. In the 1540s the Ardens, were one of the most prominent families around Stratford. She was one of eight children, but she was the most favored daughter. She raised William in a Catholic way, he was baptized Catholic, attended Catholic Church, and William was later married in a Catholic church.

Shakespeare attended a primary school at the age of seven where he was taught basic knowledge. He attended the school 6 days a week from early in the morning until five or six at night. The students were made to speak Latin, and improve their English. This school first introduced the theater to William. William Shakespeare's education was cut short though. He was taken out because of his father's financial problems. It is amazing that he achieved so much when he did not go on to a university to receive a higher education.

William married Anne Hathaway, in November 1582 while pregnant with his child. Hathaway was twenty-six years old, while Shakespeare was only eighteen. They had three children, Susana, Judith, and Hamnet. Having this family Shakespeare found that he needed to support them and left to go perform and write theater. His family was a great influence on him to be a successful playwright.

Shakespeare lived during a time of political and religious confusion. Under the Rule of King Edward III the people were under Catholic rule. This affected the Shakespeares, because John Shakespeare, William's father was the mayor of the town. Under this Catholic rule, he had much more authority and much more power and wealth. This gave Shakespeare the opportunity to attend his second school, the New King's School of Stratford-upon-Avon. In this school William first learned of poetry.

After Queen Elizabeth's rule, the country's national religion was changed to Protestant. For Shakespeare's father, John, this was a horrible thing. He lost his power in the town, and lost his position as mayor. He was forced to remove William from his secondary school at fourteen, halting him from attending a University, and gaining a higher education in literature. Although this did not stop him from obtaining his own fame, he began to write things that the Queen would approve of and eventually became hired to perform for her as the Lord Chamberlain's Men.

Shakespeare was a legendary English writer. He was raised in a high-class family who seemed to have a plan for him, but he did not follow this plan. The many influences around him such as His parents, and his wife and children, seemed to keep his life changing constantly. Also the rapid change of rulers, and religions, may have been a crucial reason for some of his inspirations, and finest literary works.

Earth has not anything to show more fair:
Dull would he be of soul who could pass by
A sight so touching in its majesty:
This City now doth, like a garment, wear
The beauty of the morning; silent, bare,
Ships, towers, domes, theatres, and temples lie
Open unto the fields, and to the sky;
All bright and glittering in the smokeless air.
Never did sun more beautifully steep
In his first splendour, valley, rock, or hill;
Ne'er saw I, never felt, a calm so deep!
The river glideth at his own sweet will:
Dear God! The very houses seem asleep;
And all that mighty heart is lying still!

The first line of the poem is, "Earth has not anything to show more fair." This line explains to us that wherever William had gone in the world, nowhere was as fascinating and beautiful as Westminster Bridge. The second line supports the first by saying "dull would he be of soul who could pass by." This explains that whoever passed by and didn't marvel the surroundings would have a dull soul. The next line that Wordsworth writes about is "A sight so touching in its majesty". This line explains that the bridge was chosen by god.

This also explains that Wordsworth also believes in god. "This city now doth, like a garment wear" this line describes the city London as wearing a clot. He means that when people wear nice clothes they look nice and when London wears clothes London looks nice. When William uses the words "the beauty of the morning; silent, bare" they describe that he sees the bridge and London as silent and when he visualizes Westminster bridge it is peaceful. "Open unto the fields and to the sky," actually describes the line before it.

It says that Ships, towers, domes, theatres, and temples are all open to the sky. They are also open to the sky. William marvels the shops and items on Westminster Bridge. The next line says that the bridge is glimmering and shining in the polluted air. "Never did sun more beautiful steep" explains that the sun was directly or nearly directly over him when he was looking at Westminster Bridge. "The river glideth at his won sweet or hill" the pronoun used could be referring to the omnipotent god. That would mean that the river would be going at god's tenacious pace.

The line "dear god! The very houses seem asleep" expresses that god is the Supreme Being. He says this as he's saying to god that the houses on the bridge are asleep. The lasts line states that the sleeping population of London is the life-force that makes it "heart" of a mighty metropolis. William Wordsworth was a magnificent writer so was William Blake. Blake demotes London as Wordsworth promotes London. This poem is very well written as it has a deeper meaning.