Character Analysis of Hamlet - Essay Example

Jeffrey Garcia Burks ENC1102 April 26, 2009 Character Analysis of Hamlet Whether ic or modern, the power of tragedy still works to capture our imaginations with unforgettable stories and in depth analyses of individual characters. In Shakespeare’s play Hamlet, Bernardo starts off the action by demanding to know “Who’s there?” (I, i, 1). As the action unfolds, Shakespeare tells the story of the young prince of Denmark who is informed by the ghost of his father that his Uncle Claudius, now married to Hamlet’s mother, murdered his father with poison. As the ghost demands vengeance, Hamlet seeks a way to both prove what the ghost has said and bring about the revenge that is demanded if the ghost is correct. Hamlet feigns insanity to discover the truth, but his character can still be ascertained by closely examining what he reveals about himself through his many speeches and his interactions with others. The fact that he survives until very near the end of the play demonstrates his strength of character while his insane ramblings to some of the other characters reveal his sharp mind. While many have pointed to his lack of immediate action upon learning of the true nature of his father’s death as a sign of weakness, the reasons for Hamlet’s inaction are demonstrated as an intelligent man’s determination to do what’s right. Throughout much of the play, Hamlet’s speeches can be seen to indicate more than one aspect of his character, such as in the Player’s speech (Shakespeare II, ii). This scene has been interpreted as Hamlet trying to remind himself of the need for revenge, trying to prove the need for revenge or trying to stir himself into the action of revenge due to the nature of the play he suggests (Westlund, 1978). At the same time, it shows Hamlet’s tendency to approach life as if it were a play, constantly taking on new roles to fit the action he is confronted with. In his comparison of the roles available to him in this instance, he can be seen to relish neither one. His sense of duty and honor, while it prevents him from willingly taking on the role of a murderer, also prevents him from allowing a foul, underhanded murder go, not only unpunished, but richly rewarded should the ghost happen to be the true spirit of his father. “One part of him says that he must take revenge, another part finds it horrible; he attempts to reconcile these conflicting feelings by saying that he fears the Ghost may be a devil” (Westlund, 1978: 252). At this point, he can not find a role that allows him to both enact the revenge demanded and retain his own sense of worth and morality, so he stalls for time and further justification by seeking proof that the Ghost is not leading him false. In preparing for the performance of the Mousetrap play, Hamlet provides the players with specific lines and actions to include within the overall play they are about to perform and gives them lengthy instructions as to the acting of it so as to make it seem as real as possible. “Suit the action to the word, the word to the action, with this special observance, that you o’erstep not the modesty of nature. For anything so overdone is from the purpose of playing, whose end, both at the first and now, was and is, to hold, as ‘twere, the mirror up to nature, to show virtue her own feature, scorn her own image, and the very age and body of the time his form and pressure” (Shakespeare III, ii, 16-23). In these careful instructions to the players, it can be seen that Hamlet does not want them to perform a simple play, but instead wants it to be as realistic as possible. Hamlet’s desire for proof of guilt has been fulfilled and he must now come to grips with the possibility that his mother, who had always doted on his father, might have been complicit in the crime as well as the fact that he must now commit murder as a result. In trying to determine just what his choices are, Hamlet reveals how depressed he has been feeling in the speech immediately following the Player’s speech. Although it is often interpreted to mean Hamlet is considering suicide from its very beginning, the famous “to be or not to be” speech can also be interpreted as an anxious consideration regarding whether or not he should put his plan into action regarding the King. “The possibilities open to Hamlet actually consist of these three alternatives: 1) Either he kills himself 2) or he kills the king 3) or he does not act at all” (McElroy, 1967: 543). The speech begins “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 / And by opposing end them” (III, I, 56-60). These first lines seem to contain little indication that Hamlet is considering killing himself as an examination of the argument indicates ‘not to be’ corresponds with ‘suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune’ while ‘to be’ corresponds with taking ‘arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them.’ If this is the case, then ‘not to be’ would correspond to the idea of doing nothing. In this case, Hamlet could expect to inherit the kingdom eventually, living in ‘outrageous fortune’ yet always feeling he failed in his duty and therefore unworthy of his honor, the ‘slings and arrows’ that would haunt him throughout the remainder of his lifetime. To be, then, would be a contemplation of taking action against the king, directly confronting his ‘sea of troubles’, which will probably end in his own death. This thought would necessarily prompt considerations of death and mortality, which lead into the depressed thoughts that keep Hamlet from doing anything. Yet, this is not entirely true either, as the speech ends where it began and necessitates even further consideration in the mind of Hamlet. (Walker, 1948) In looking at the soliloquy in which Hamlet considers killing the King while he is at his prayers, it becomes clear that Hamlet has a strong sense of justice as well as a deep and abiding anger regarding the murder of his father. Joseph McCullen, Jr. (1962) sums up the various reactions critics have had to this speech throughout the centuries, including everything from revulsion at Hamlet’s desire to destroy the man spiritually instead of just physically, disgust at his lack of action and admiration for his sense of honor in his unwillingness to attack an unarmed man. In truth, any or all of these assessments could be true as Hamlet can be seen to first determine to kill his uncle, and then talk himself out of it at he watches him at prayer. However, his own statements regarding the reasons he has withheld his hand seem to indicate a much stronger character than one who would cut and run, as he indicates a complete vengeance is necessary, “am I then revenged, / To take him in the purging of his soul, / When he is fit and seasoned for his passage?” (III, iii, 84-86). This idea is supported in an examination of Elizabethan philosophy as well. “If he must kill for personal reasons mainly, wisdom above that of a dog would demand complete revenge – both the physical destruction and the spiritual damnation of his enemy” (McCullum, 1962: 25). This also has the added onus of knowing that Hamlet’s father was murdered as he lie sleeping in the orchard, not having had the chance to say his prayers and thus going to death unforgiven of his most recent sins. Immediately following his determination to kill the King in a manner that will enact revenge upon both his physical and spiritual form, Hamlet turns to his mother in the closet scene, a scene which reveals Hamlet’s obsession with perfection which has stayed his hand so far. His anger at his mother is revealed as he berates her for her error in judgment regarding Claudius: “What devil was’t / That thus hath cozened you at hoodman-blind? / Eyes without feeling, feeling without sight, / Ears without hands or eyes, smelling sans all” (III, iv, 77-80). He gives her no room for human desire, no consideration of any political motivation and no mercy for ignorance. “He places inordinate importance on doing and knowing perfectly; throughout most of his experience he also places the responsibility for that knowing and that doing solely on himself” (Hassel, 1994: 610). This sense of his own importance in upholding the honor of the entire household, by holding others to account for their deeds reveals Hamlet’s pride in his possession of a more enlightened belief system. He feels he is the only one who recognizes what the truth is and the only one left to carry forward the appropriate reaction to that truth. Hamlet, despite his conviction that he is the only possessor of true knowledge represented by this confident attack on his mother’s character, remains unconvinced of anything. His faith is being tested and he remains unsure of which faith he should follow – the path of his ancestors in the seeking of revenge, or the path of the Reformation in which he should be leaving these actions to the hand of God. (Greenblatt, 1997) Through these various speeches in the play, as well as some of the specific interactions he has with other characters, it becomes apparent that while Hamlet has a strong sense of justice, honor and duty as well as a power of his own, he remains unclear on which belief system he should base his actions and on how this will affect his soul even as he remains convinced that the morality of the household is in his hands. This incredible sense of responsibility prevents him from acting immediately upon the words of the Ghost and throws him into a crisis of faith as he determines whether “’tis nobler in the mind” to seek bloody revenge with his own two hands, thus making himself an imperfect copy of his Uncle Claudius, or to leave the actions of revenge to God, as he has learned at school, thus forsaking his own father and dishonoring his promise to him and again rendering himself imperfect in the eyes of God. (Booth, 1969) Hamlet’s inability to determine which is the greater of two evils, rather than a sense of cowardice or self-preservation, emerges as the central driving, or perhaps limiting, force of the play. Thus, while Hamlet remains a powerful figure with strength in both body and mind, he is also seen to be suffering a crisis of identity as he struggles to determine which is the path of right and which the path of evil. Works Cited Booth, Stephen. “On the Value of Hamlet.” Selected Papers from the English Institute. Norman Rabkin (Ed.). New York. (1969). Greenblatt, Stephen (Ed.). “The Norton Shakespeare.” New York: Norton. (1970). Hassel, R. Chris Jr. “Hamlet’s ‘Too, Too Solid Flesh.’” Sixteenth Century Journal. Vol. 25, N. 3, (Autumn 1994), pp. 609-622. McCullen, Joseph T. Jr. “Two Key Speeches by Hamlet.” The South Central Bulletin. Vol. 22, N. 4., (Winter 1962), pp. 24-25. McElroy, Davis D. “’To Be or Not to Be’ – Is That the Question?” College English. Vol. 25, N. 7, (April 1964), pp. 543-545. Shakespeare, William. “Hamlet.” The Complete Pelican Shakespeare. New York: Penguin Group, (1969), pp. 930-976. Walker, Roy. The Time is out of Joint: A Study of Hamlet. London: Andrew Dakers, 1948. Westlund, Joseph. “Ambivalence in the Player’s Speech in Hamlet.” Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900. Vol. 18, N. 2, (Spring, 1978), pp. 245-256. Read More