Eng. 372
Piyarat Wanachalerm
Page 1 of 11
Poison of Death
Death is poisonous and infectious.
If one touches it, one dies.
Another one touches the first, that another one dies.
No one comes close to death and survives.
Death...death and death
Upon pondering about Hamlet, I would want to say that there are too many deaths, not in
real number but in terms of proportion of all characters (with names) on stage. Besides,
all the deaths occur from murder both intentionally and by chance. The killings -- former
King Hamlet, Polonius, Ophelia (?), Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, Queen, Laertes, King
Claudius, and Hamlet -- nine of them died even before the play ended. It is just
unbelievable to see that this play with lots of death receives so much attention ever since
it was brought to the stage in the 16th century.
This is the reason I am interested to know more of the deaths in Elizabethan
period and why it was depicted in all the tragedy plays by Shakespeare and some other
playwrights too. The answer I find in Spencer’s Death and Elizabethan Tragedy which
argues that when Hamlet was composed in 1600, the central thought and belief about
death that had permeated European culture for centuries was fading. Starting in 1580s,
Elizabethan court was “full of vigor; ambition and jealousy, intrigue and magnificence,
adventure and lust, swirled richly around the palace at Whitehall...” (58). During the time
the rise in Calvinism added greatly to the emphasis of the present world. All these are the
product of the Renaissance that paid more interest on the present world and material
richness. However, several playwrights particularly Shakespeare still makes use of the
Eng. 372
Piyarat Wanachalerm
Page 2 of 11
belief about death in their plays. One of the reasons may be, as Spencer put it, life and
the reminders of deaths are closely united, and to know that death is always in the
background gave the incidents of life a zeal and color... (37).
Let’s go back to Hamlet. There was one death even before the play starts. Yes,
King Hamlet was assassinated, supposedly, by Claudius. This we know directly from the
account that the Ghost who tells Prince Hamlet in scene V, he spends 64 lines from line 2
and continues to line 91. The action that takes place off stage now is known to everyone.
And is it coincidence that Prince Hamlet also dies of poison during the duel with Laertes.
He dies before the play ends. Two Hamlets, father and son, die before the play starts and
before the play ends. It is interesting to see Shakespeare plays with his audience’s mind.
The question is why?
As I stated earlier, I gather that all deaths are the result of killing by someone. So,
I am going to say that Ophelia does not commit suicide, but is murdered. She is killed by
either Claudius or Gertrude (Ratcliffe. Harris. Jenkin. qtd. in Hamlethaven). At least
two separate authors (Harris and Jenkin) believe that Ophelia only pretend to be mad
(like Hamlet) and uses sing-song ramblings and symbolic flowers to accuse her seducer,
Claudius. Ratchliffe goes very far by directly pointing out that Ophelia is pregnant with
Claudius. This is the main reason why she has to die. I also observe that before scene V,
line 20 Shakespeare does not have her kill. It is interesting to compare before V.20,
Ophelia cannot or does not speak much. What she did was simply doing everything her
father Polonius, brother Laertes wanted here to do. But after her apparent ‘madness,’ she
can say so many things that unimaginable for her before that. Ratchliffe points out that
she feign madness to expose Claudius. But is my assumption correct?
Eng. 372
Piyarat Wanachalerm
Page 3 of 11
The name Rosencrantz and Guildersten bring the memory “Rosencrantz and
Guildersten are dead.” The movie tells us many thing that do not happen or obvious on
stage. Things that happen off stage sometimes are more exciting and deserving out
attention. Why do these two guy need to die? They tell Hamlet that the King invites
them to the palace. Although they are tasked to spy on Hamlet, is it their fault to have to
do that? In their situation, they themselves could end up being killed right away if they
refuse to do what the King tells them to do. In their own movie, they appear so helpless
because of the script about them that has been written long ago. Why does Hamlet think
that the two childhood friends are not sincere to him, simply because they agree to work
for the King, the murderer of his father.
When the name Gertrude is mentioned, our thought would be linked to the sudden
death of King Hamlet. But it is no surprise to me that she chooses the easiest way to live
her life after that. The problem that the audience can discuss for a long time is whether
she knows or even assists in the assassination of the former king who was also her
husband. Why does she not in mourning the same as Hamlet? When she dies of the
poison in the wine, no one pities her. And, I also suspect that she might play a part in
killing Ophelia.
The last who dies in the play is Hamlet himself. Had it not for the poison, he
could have won the duel and the play would still continue. However, I think Hamlet is
the only one who always think about death and yearn for it. In his first soliloquy (act II,
scene ii, line 550-605, he expresses his desire on death but, I think, not a suicide. The
religious belief in that period prohibits suicide, or else that person will go to hell. I think
he is also the only one who does not shy away from death particularly his last sentence,
Eng. 372
Piyarat Wanachalerm
Page 4 of 11
“The rest is silence.” Two ways to look at this sentence, I can see. One is that once
Hamlet dies, he can neither talk to anyone nor hear anything about him. He can’t argue,
explain or answer back (the way he often does to the king and queen). His life story ends
and from that time on, it is Horatio who will do the talking and telling Fortinbras and
other of what has happened in the Danish court. The second meaning, if we treat it as a
separate sentence, can mean “Death is silence.” The ‘rest’ here refers to the time that
Hamlet will ‘rest’ or ‘stop’ doing everything. He has been actually longing for this very
moment that he can take rest and do or think nothing so that his mind and soul can be at
peace. Death, for Hamlet, equals to peace, his ultimate goal in life, but he never had
since his father died.
Deaths in London and in Hamlet
Another issue, or rather a question, that I’d like to mention here: Can we infer that the
death toll in Hamlet reflects what has happened in the 16th and 17th centuries?
Nine deaths in Hamlet can be considered extraordinary high when we take into account
how much the stage population is, if we consider only with names. There are at least 23
persons, excluding ambassadors, courtiers, officers, soldiers, sailors, messengers and
attendants, which I don’t know the number. 39% die in Hamlet and all of them are the
leading characters with names and lines to talk. How can a country like Denmark survive
with this huge death toll? Another thing to ponder is that all of the deaths occur out of
the killing. No one dies of deadly disease. They all are in good health and hope to live a
long life. Death comes so sudden.
When compared with the actual situation in England and Europe during the same
period, we will easily see the striking similarities.
Eng. 372
Piyarat Wanachalerm
Page 5 of 11
Spencer (1) writes that from the late 14th to 16th century, Europe was preoccupied
with the issue of death. Preachers and writers often mentioned death as their favorite
topics. This can be inferred that the cause probably is the plague that attacked Europe
during that time. Originating in Central Asia wherein 25 million perished, the deadly
disease spread to Europe via Constantinople in the middle of 14th century. Italy -- Naples
and Venice were hit first. Then France suffered the outbreak in 1348. Two years later
the whole continent was hit by plague. It was only in 1600s that England was afflicted
several times by plague. The estimate of death toll reached as high as 20,000 lives which
was almost a third of London population at that time. In 1563, London experienced
plague again. This time, Queen Elizabeth I had to move her court to Windsor Castle. In
that year alone, 80,000 people died in London, around a third of London population.
Statistics show that 1,000 people died weekly in mid August, 1,600 per week in
September, and 1,800 per week in October. (Historical Figures)
From the actual scenario, Shakespeare was strongly affected by the grave health
situation in England. Hamlet lost a third of its characters, which is the same proportion
that London suffered from death toll of plague. Those who died either on stage or in
London were of good health and strong. They died unexpectedly and untimely. It also
occurs to me that deaths in Hamlet are not mourned or cried for that much. It can be seen
as the mirror to the actual life in England that time. Death after death, people saw it until
they no longer felt sad or cried for it. Their feeling was immune. This can also apply to
Hamlet. King Hamlet died but only the son, Prince Hamlet mourned for him. The queen
did not cry or show any sadness. The whole court was rather indifferent, which is so
strange to me. When Polonius died, Ophelia went mad, or appeared to be. But I don’t
Eng. 372
Piyarat Wanachalerm
Page 6 of 11
think the real reason is the loss of father. And maybe Ophelia has never been insane. It
is just her ploy to say the truth without being punished. (What’s the truth?) Ophelia
died, Laertes, her brother showed a little sadness. But Hamlet went to extent that he
declared his love for her at her funeral. When the queen died, Laertes died, the king died,
who mourned for them? Horatio showed his great faithfulness to his friend Prince
Hamlet by trying to drink the poisoned wine. Who is mourning for Hamlet? Horatio?
Maybe for awhile, then, he went on with his business. Everything went back to normal
as it always was.
Poison use
In Hamlet, poison is used for killing twice. The first relates to the story that the Ghost
tells Prince Hamlet of how the former died. In act I, scene v, line 59-84, the Ghost
describes what happening in the ‘orchard’ that Claudius pours the ‘juice of cursed
hebona’ into his ears. The deadly poison violently affects blood circulation system,
resulting in blood clotting. Skin becomes thicker with sores and srabs. King Hamlet
must have died in utmost miserable condition.
However, I have questions to consider first. How can we pour fluid into a man’s
ears without waking him up? How many drops can we pour? How can Claudius pour
the poison into both ears of King Hamlet? I have some hypothetical situations to present
here.
Given
1. King Hamlet takes an afternoon nap or sleep in his palace garden as usual.
2. Claudius tiptoeing to the sleeping king.
3. Claudius pours into the king’s ears a few drops of hebona.
Eng. 372
Piyarat Wanachalerm
Page 7 of 11
How can we justify that all of these can actually occur in actual situation?
Situation One
The king must be a person who always sleeps very deeply. If not, he would not allow
Claudius to pour poison into his “both ears.” Take note, Shakespeare writes “And in the
porches of my ears did pour...” (I.v.63) The ears are in plural form which mean both
ears. Can it be that if the king sleeps normally and can wake up normally (not a very
deep sleep person), he will wake up after a few drops of poison touch his ear (only one
ear).
Situation Two
Given that the king sleeps and wakes up normally like other people, but is drugged by
Claudius, maybe with the help of Gertrude (?), so the king becomes unconscious. This
gives the best opportunity for Claudius to pour as much as distilled poisonous hebona in
to both ears of the king. But if Claudius is able to drug the king, why will he not mix
poison into the food that the king eats? Why does he go to the extent to drug the king and
again, pour the poison into the king’s ears?
If the situation two is true, how can King Hamlet know how kills him?
Considering that the amount of poison that enters his body, he may not be able to regain
consciousness but go straight into coma until he finally dies.
Conclusion
Both the hypothetical situations are illogical and impossible. I don’t think also
that Claudius who appears so much in control of himself, except III.ii. 265-270, and has
logical thinking. He is able to turn the table against his enemy, Hamlet, and succeed in
Eng. 372
Piyarat Wanachalerm
Page 8 of 11
plotting to kill the latter using Laertes’s hands so that he will not be blamed if Hamlet
indeed dies during the duel.
The illogical thinking, thus, the flaw in this great play, points to none other than
Shakespeare. What do you think?
About poisoning in Europe
I am curious to learn more why Shakespeare uses poison in several of his killings. Where
did he get the idea from? What kinds of poisons are used during his time? And,
ultimately, where did poison use for killing originate? From the website of College of
Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburg, Great Britain, a group of six
medical students developed an extensive research website “Poisoning through the Ages”
which provides me a very good reference on poison used in Europe from the 13th to 18th
centuries.
During the 14th and 15th centuries, particularly in Italy, studied and experimented
in creating mixtures of known poisons that produce more virulent effect. The ‘Borgias’
was the most fearful alchemist family at that time. The rumor went as far as that Pope
Alexander VI, one of the Borgias, died of poisoning. By the 17th century, poisoning has
become an art so much that there were schools in both Venice and Rome. In 1589, an
Italian alchemist published a book describing various methods of poisoning particularly
drugging wine.
In the latter part of 16th century, Catherine D’ Medici introduced poison use to
France. Those practicing criminal poisoning were known as ‘French School of
Poisoners.’ Around the time of 1572 there were about thirty thousand sorcerers in Paris
and the practice of poisoning was supposedly epidemic. The fear of poisoning, especially
Eng. 372
Piyarat Wanachalerm
Page 9 of 11
among the nobility was huge. The princess, Henrietta Anne of England, who married the
Duke of Orleans, immediately assumed that she had been poisoned when she suddenly
fell ill due to peritonitis caused by a duodenal ulcer. When Henry IV visited the Louvre,
it is said that he ate only eggs that he had cooked himself, and drank only water which he
had drawn himself from the seine.
Dances of Death
The words intrigue me very much. What is the Dances of Death? Although it is no
where mentioned in Hamlet, I still want to know more about them. Spencer (4) mentions
that because the theme of deaths that pervades Europe since the medieval time is the
product of Plato teaching. The result is that the concept that despises man’s life,
contemplate death and think continually. Christianity then added another doctrine that is
death = a punishment for man’s sin. This leads to the belief that to think of death was to
think of sin, and to think of sin was the only way to purify the soul (6-7). People no
longer feared death but welcomed it. Death was the beginning of true life (8). This
belief is very interesting because it explains why deaths in Hamlet were not so much
mourned for.
At first I thought the dance of death was a kind of dance. To my surprise, it turns
out to be paining. It is thought to originate in France in the first half of 15th century.
Cimetière des Innocents in Paris was supposed to paint the fist dance of death. England
had its own dance of death painting in 1430.
Then, what is in the painting? Deaths? How can it death be presented? Many
questions come to my mind. Patrick Pollefeys on his website Death in the Art presents
an extensive compilation of deaths and art as depicted through paintings during the 14th
Eng. 372
Piyarat Wanachalerm
Page 10 of 11
to 16th centuries. He also agrees with me that the dead plague outbreaks in the middle of
the 14th century which killed at least one third of European population was responsible
partly for the thought of art about death. Fear of death from plague was part of everyday
life so people started to feel fascinated for death.
The dance of death often takes the form of a farandole or a spirited circle dance of
Provencal derivation. Death leads everyone into the dance: from the whole clerical
hierarchy (pope, cardinals, bishops, abbots, canons, priests), to every single
representative of the laic world (emperors, kings, dukes, counts, knights, doctors,
merchants, usurers, robbers, peasants, and even innocent children). Death does not care
for the social position, or for the richness, sex, or age of the people it leads into its dance.
It is often represented with a musical instrument. This characteristic has a symbolic
significance and appears already at the beginning of the dance of death. (Pollefeys, death
of art online)
The purpose of the painting is thought to present the basic idea: to recall the
shortness of life. It makes men remember that they all will die, without exception. Or, as
Spencer put it, “No one can escape: death is the master of the world.” (31)
Eng. 372
Piyarat Wanachalerm
Page 11 of 11
Works Cited
Pollefeys, Patrick. “The Dance of Death” Death in Art. 1998.
<http://www.geocities.com/ppollefeys/main.htm>
Spencer, Theodore. Death and Elizabethan Tragedy. NY: Pageant, 1960.
Poisoning through the Ages. Holdsworth, Thomas et al. “Poisons in the Renaissance”
< http://www.portfolio.mvm.ed.ac.uk/studentwebs/session2/group12/contents.htm >
Hamlet Haven. Ed. Hamonie Loberg. 2000. <http://www.hamlethaven.com/haven.html>
Historical Figures and Events. Springfield Public School District 186
<http://www.springfield.k12.il.us/schools/springfield/eliz/histevents.html>
Works Consulted
Evan, G. Blakemore et al. Eds. The Riverside Shakespeare. Boston: Houghton, 1974.
Quinn, Edwards et al. Eds. How to Read Shakespearean Tragedy. NY: Harper Row,
1978.
Spinrad, Phoebe S. The Summon of Death on the Medieval and Renaissance English
Stage. Columbus: Ohio State UP, 1987.
Ghose, Zulfikar. Shakespeare’s Mortal Knowledge. NY: St. Martin’s, 1993.