Malka Hirsch
Understanding Hamlets Impulsive Actions
In Shakespeare’s play Hamlet, the character Hamlet appears to have gone mad,
yet these outbursts can be explained in a logical fashion as nothing of the sort. Utter Jr.,
in his article “In Defense of Hamlet” explains that Hamlet is actually a hero who
overcomes his lower moral ethic and that his outbursts of madness are actually mistakes
in his judgment, revealing his lower ethic. Further, Utter Jr. believes that Shakespeare
uses Hamlet’s internal struggle to teach his audience a new level of morality deserving of
the new modern era. Stephenson in his article “Hamlet Mouse-Trap” agrees that Hamlet
was not mad but does not go so far as to call him a hero. According to Stephenson,
Hamlet attempts to catch Claudius in his guilt, but while doing so, he is so blinded by his
desire for revenge, that he loses his patience and acts irrationally. Utter Jr. understanding
of Hamlet as a character going through an internal struggle over a personal ethical
problem is plausible but it is a stretch to believe Utter Jr.’s representation of
Shakespeare’s intentions to teach society about morality and ethics. Stephenson’s
position, on the other hand, is much more plausible and convincing as to Shakespeare’s
intentions. While Hamlet’s impulsive actions on the surface may appear to be madness, it
can be explained using evidence from the text as either the outbursts from an internal
struggle or from grief and a desire for revenge.
Utter Jr. takes the position that Hamlet is not mad from grief and revenge, but
rather is a hero who goes through an internal struggle over what is morally correct and is
able to overcome his grief and want for revenge (Utter Jr. 138). Further, Utter Jr.
describes how Shakespeare uses Hamlet’s seemingly mad actions in order to teach his
audience about morality and idealism in the face of a modern era “medieval notions …
were obsolete and in need of change from emotional, childish, attitude to more thoughtful
adult one.”(Utter Jr. 140) Shakespeare wrote his play in the sixteenth century, during a
time of change from medieval to modern times. He felt that the best way to expose
people to the change in moral standards would be though his plays, specifically the play
Hamlet (Utter Jr. 140). Utter Jr. believes that Shakespeare describes Hamlet as a
character who is a thinker and who does not automatically accept all of the ideas that he
was brought up to believe were right(Utter Jr. 141). An example of this can be seen early
on in the play when Hamlet objects to his mother’s marriage to his Uncle Claudius (Utter
Jr. 142). Hamlet shows his discontent when he responds to Claudius and says “a little
more than kin, and less then kind!”(Shakespeare 1.2) In addition, Hamlet also objects to
heavy drinking at the party following his mothers wedding to Claudius (Utter 142).
Shakespeare is showing how these actions bothered Hamlet because he was a thinking
man who saw these actions as immoral even though others such as his mother did not.
Shakespeare is slowly opening up his audience at the time to the idea that not everything
that seem the norm and that we are used to is necessarily correct in the mind of a thinking
man. Hamlet is the hero who must struggle not only with himself but also with the
accepted idea of morality at the time in order to come to terms with himself and with his
father’s murder. Shakespeare uses Hamlets heroic journey and struggle, to allow his
audience to see that there must be change in their own lives and that they must take the
road to a higher ethic.
Utter Jr. further explains how Shakespeare wanted to show how even when
Hamlet makes mistakes and appears to be mad it is all a part of his journey towards
becoming a hero by finding himself and accepting a higher ethic in morality (Utter Jr.
142). Shakespeare shows that when one acts like a man of quick action instead of a
thinking man he will ultimately fail as Laertes did and as Hamlet did when he acted
before thinking Utter Jr. 141). Hamlets internal struggle makes him look mad in two
specific incidents where he gave in to his lower ethic and did not act like a thinking man.
In fact, Utter Jr. shows that he is not mad. In one example, Hamlet sneaks to were
Claudius was praying in an attempt to kill him only to hear him repenting (Utter Jr. 142).
If Hamlet would have been patient he would have heard Claudius end by describing that
his entire prayer was without thought and meaning “ words without thoughts never go up
to heaven”(Shakespeare 3.2). Hamlet makes a quick decision not to kill Claudius as he
did not want Claudius to die clean of his sin and then go to heaven. If Hamlet would have
listened and not acted so rashly he would not have mistaken Claudius’s attitude of prayer
for a real prayer. The other major mistake that Hamlet did was killing Polonius. Hamlet
acted quickly without thinking, and mistook Polonius for Claudius, therefore killing the
wrong man (Utter Jr. 142). In addition, even if Hamlet would have murdered Claudius,
it would have been a rash decision in light of the fact that Denmark did not know of
Claudius’ guilt and therefore would have considered the actions of Hamlet as those of a
madman. According to Utter Jr., his appearance of madness disappears at the end of the
play when Hamlet wins his internal struggle (Utter 143). In the final act of the play,
Hamlet sees that the world is guided by G-d and that his “higher spiritual nature
vanquishes his lower nature of animal” (Utter 143). Hamlet is ultimately able to win his
struggle and find peace in G-d and divine Justice. According to Utter Jr. Hamlet is able to
win over his lower ethic and want for revenge and rely on G-d for true divine justice.
Stephenson believes that Hamlet gets so caught up in trying to trap his uncle and
prove that Claudius killed his father that he acts quickly and rashly which makes him
look mad (Stephenson 30). Elizabethans, Shakespeare’s audience, believed that the devil
had the ability to appear as a ghost in order to convince someone to sin (Stephenson 31).
Due to this belief, Hamlet wanted to be sure that the ghost was really his father and not
the devil in disguise. Hamlet therefore devised a plan that a play would be performed
about a man who killed the king and marries the queen, the same basic plot as his father’s
murder, in order to see Claudius’s reaction. Stephenson explains that Hamlet was nervous
that he would be biased in his interpretation of Claudius’ reaction, so he asked Horatio to
also keep watch. Their plan was that after the play they would discuss whether they felt
Claudius reacted in a guilty manner (Stephenson 31). To Hamlet’s dismay, during the
play, Claudius acted with self control. This angered Hamlet greatly as Hamlet felt that his
plan had failed. He therefore lost control and acted before thinking when he “interrupted
the players at an important point of the narrative, talked fiercely to the king himself”
(Stephenson 33). Hamlet’s outburst makes him appear to be mad to everyone except to
Horatio and Claudius. Horatio knew that Hamlet was not mad as he was in on the plan
and Claudius knew that Hamlet suspected him of killing his father. Hamlet was so upset
that his trap for Claudius was not working that he lost control and appeared mad to
everyone in the audience.
Utter Jr. brings many valid proofs of Hamlet’s internal struggles but does not
bring any concrete evidence as to Shakespeare’s motives. It is believable that Hamlet is
having internal struggles as to whether to kill Claudius, a situational ethical issue that a
normal person would have. There is some difficulty in extending this premise to
Shakespeare’s presentation of a full fledged ethical battle of a hero who overcomes his
lower moral ethic to teach the audience a new level of morality deserving of the new
modern era. Stephenson’s approach seems more reasonable with a greater understanding
and insight into human nature. He sees Hamlet as a character who is grieving and who
reacts impulsively to his strong emotional pain. Stephenson’s view of Hamlets madness
seems more believable and plausible than Utter Jr.’s view which depicts Hamlets
madness as part of a full fledged ethical battle.
Stephenson and Utter Jr. agree that Hamlet was not mad but rather acted rashly
without thinking, but they disagree on many other points. Utter Jr. believes that it was
Hamlets internal struggle that caused him to sometimes act without thinking while
Stephenson believes that Hamlet acted rashly due to his impatience for justice for his
father’s murder. In addition Utter Jr. describes Hamlet as a hero who is used by
Shakespeare in an attempt to teach his audience about a new modern understanding of
morality. Stephenson, on the other hand, believes that in his search for revenge, Hamlet
losses patience and acts without thinking which leads to his ultimate failure in his attempt
for justice. It is very believable that Hamlet lost control from grief after he saw that his
trap for Claudius would not work but it is more difficult to rationalize like Utter Jr. did
that Hamlet was a part of an ethical battle and was used as a tool to teach a lesson.
Hamlet was a man who either went through an internal struggle over a situational ethic or
a man blinded with revenge, which made him act impulsively, but was by no means
mad.
Works Cited
Stephenson, Henry Thew. “Hamlet’s Mousetrap.” The Sewanee Review 13.1 (1905): 3034. JSTOR. Web. 4 March 2011.
Utter, Robert P. “In Defense of Hamlet.” National Council of Teacher of Englis 12.3
(1950): 138-44. JStore. Web. 7 Mar. 2011.
Shakespeare, William, and Sylvan Barnet. Four Great Tragedies: Hamlet, Othello, King
Lear, Macbeth. New York: Penguin, 1998. Print.