Act 4 - The Plot
Here is basic plot information for Act 4. Please note that this does not cover many important
points in terms of ideas, but it may help you get the gist of what happens so that you can
concentrate on the more interesting aspects of the play.
Gertrude lies to the king by telling him that Hamlet killed Polonius in a mad rage which he now regrets and
Claudius lies to her by saying that his love for Hamlet prevented him from restraining the Prince. Emotionally
(perhaps), Claudius calls his loyal servants, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, to search for Hamlet and worries about
how he can avoid being blamed for the murder.
Hamlet is found by Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. He explains why the former is like a sponge and runs
away again.
Claudius will not prosecute Hamlet because of his popularity. He interrogates Hamlet and is eventually told
where Hamlet has hidden the dead body. The conversation between the two protagonists is filled with scarcely
veiled threats. After Hamlet and the others leave, Claudius reveals his plan to have Hamlet killed by the English
king.
On his way to England, Hamlet encounters Fortinbras and his army on their way to Poland to fight over a
small patch of land. In his final soliloquy, Hamlet ponders (a) the difference between men and beasts, (b) the reasons
for which he has delayed his revenge, (c) the way in which Fortinbras, despite being despicable in terms of his
ambition, provides Hamlet with an example to follow, and (d) the nature of greatness. He resolves to think only
warlike thoughts from now on.
Gertrude is persuaded to speak to Ophelia on the grounds that her mad speech will allow suspicious people
to create their own suspicious interpretations. Ophelia enters and sings songs which concern faithless love and the
death of an old man. Claudius interprets her madness as mourning for the death of her father. He then bewails the
catalogue of woes that his rule has recently encountered. He finishes with the news that Laertes has arrived secretly
from France and is listening to rumours of the King's involvement in Polonius' murder. At this moment, Laertes
enters, at the head of a riotous rabble, who want him to be king. He wants to kill Claudius but the Queen holds him
back. Laertes is determined to have his revenge, and is made considerably more angry by the arrival of the mad
Ophelia who gives everyone cryptic flower messages. Laertes interprets this as her wish to have him take revenge.
Claudius manages to talk Laertes out of killing him, first by calling his bluff regarding the blasphemous idea of
killing a king and, second, by telling Laertes that another person is to blame. He takes Laertes out of Gertrude's
hearing in order to tell him about this other person.
Horatio receives letters from Hamlet (via seamen) who has done a deal with some pirates who captured
Hamlet while he was defending the ship.
Claudius and Laertes plot against Hamlet. Claudius will not take overt action against Hamlet because of the
peoples' and Gertrude's love for him. The two plot to engage Hamlet in a fencing match involving an unblunted
rapier which is also poisoned and, as a backup, a poisoned drink. The Queen enters with the sad news that Ophelia
has accidentally drowned (Note that Gertrude is likely aware that Ophelia has killed herself, but in saying that the
death was accidental she softens the news for Laertes and ensures that Ophelia can receive a Christian burialwhich
would not have been possible in the case of suicide (compare to gravediggers’ comments). Claudius finishes the act
by lying to Gertrude again that he has been trying to calm Laertes' rage.
4.5
1. When the Gentleman reports to Gertrude that Ophelia has gone mad, he warns that although “her
speech is nothing ….the unshaped use of it doth move/The hearers to collection,” meaning that
the very formlessness and nonsense of her utterings make those who hear it draw their own
conclusions. Later, after Ophelia’s exit, Claudius picks up on this idea again when he says, “the
people muddied,/Thick and unwholesome in their thoughts and whispers,/For good Polonius'
death” are spreading the rumor to Laertes that Claudius was responsible for Polonius’ murder.
Both of these comments suggest an atmosphere of suspicion and betrayal, but are also significant
in that they show little compassion for Ophelia’s suffering (Note also how Claudius shows no
sorry over the death of Polonius but merely exclaims: “It had been so with us, had we been
there”). What does this suggest about the values and morals of most of Claudius and the court?
What is important to Claudius? Is the treatment of Ophelia here in any way indicative of the
treatment of women in this society? In what way might this link up, in a highly ironic sense, with
Hamlet’s earlier statement to Ophelia that no matter how chaste she may be, she “shall not escape
calumny”?
2. In this scene, Ophelia appears to have gone mad, and the songs she sings indicate the reasons for
her madness. Although Claudius states, “O, this is the poison of deep grief; it springs/All from
her father's death,” Ophelia’s mad songs suggest an additional cause (i.e. not only the loss of her
father). Cite and analyze specific song lyrics from Ophelia’s mad ranting that show this.
3. When Laertes bursts into the castle, Gertrude tells him to calm down, to which he replies: “That
drop of blood that's calm proclaims me bastard, / Cries cuckold to my father, brands the harlot /
Even here, between the chaste unsmirched brow / Of my true mother.” To paraphrase his lines,
Laertes is saying that any part of him that could react calmly to his father’s murder would make
him a disloyal and unnatural son, i.e. not Polonius’ son at all. That would mean that his mother
had had him with someone not her husband, so that Polonius would be a cuckold and his mother
would be a harlot. But since he is indeed Polonius' son, his reaction must be passionate outrage,
rather than a calm and measured response.
How does Laertes attitude toward revenge here compare and contrast to Hamlet’s? Note the
interesting ties to “Oh what a rogue and peasant slave” and “How all occasions…” as well as the
ghost’s line to Hamlet in 5.1: “I thou has nature in thee, bear it not”. Also compare how Laertes
compares to Hamlet’s characterization of Fortinbras in “How all occasions…” and Hamlet’s
characterization of Horatio in 3.2.
4. How came he dead? I'll not be juggled with:
To hell, allegiance! vows, to the blackest devil!
Conscience and grace, to the profoundest pit!
I dare damnation. To this point I stand,
That both the worlds I give to negligence,
Let come what comes; only I'll be revenged
Most thoroughly for my father.
Compare Laertes’ lines above with a) Hamlet’s lines about Fortinbras in “How all occasions” and
b) Hamlet’s “To be, or not to be” - What do you suppose the audience is supposed to think of a
character who is willing throw away allegiance and vows (presumably to the state), do away with
conscience and grace, and “dare damnation” in the name of revenge? How does Laertes’ attitude
affect our view of Hamlet?
5. In 4.7, Claudius and Laertes discuss the murder of Hamlet. Here again Laertes serves as a foil for
Hamlet which affects our view of revenge and our assessment of Hamlet’s actions (or the lack
thereof). Analyze how the following points serve to deepen the contrast between Hamlet and
Laertes and additionally suggest that the single-minded pursuit of revenge - letting oneself
become passion’s slave - could have disastrous and immoral consequences.
 When Claudius asks Laertes what he would be willing to do to avenge his Polonius’ murder,
Laertes answers that he would “cut [Hamlet’s] throat i’ the church.”
 The fact that Laertes agrees to go along with Claudius’ dishonorable means of murdering Hamlet
(it would appear to be an “accident” not a public display of revenge for honor). Note the irony of
the plan, which is to appeal to Hamlet’s sense of honor to lure him into a duel with Laertes.
General note: Revenge is presented very ironically in the play. Prompted by the demands of
honor and loyalty, revengers become treacherous and dishonorable. However, consider how
Hamlet might be considered more honorable than Fortinbras and Laertes!
6. Analyze how Claudius able to manipulate Laertes in Act 4. What exactly does he do to channel
Laertes’ rage and use it for his own purposes?
7.
I know love is begun by time;
And that I see, in passages of proof,
Time qualifies the spark and fire of it.
There lives within the very flame of love
A kind of wick or snuff that will abate it;
And nothing is at a like goodness still;
For goodness, growing to a plurisy,
Dies in his own too much: that we would do
We should do when we would; for this 'would' changes
And hath abatements and delays as many
As there are tongues, are hands, are accidents;
And then this 'should' is like a spendthrift sigh,
That hurts by easing.
In the lines that precede this speech, Claudius asks Laertes if he loved his father not because he
has doubts about this but because he wants to make sure that Laertes understands the necessity for
restraint and at the same time the necessity for prompt action. In the speech Claudius identifies a
paradox involving time and love(emotion), whereby it is shown that love grows dim not merely
through the passage of time but also through the very intensity through which love lives (love
becomes self-consuming; it burns itself out if it is too intense). This suggests interesting ties to
Hamlet’s praise of Horatio in 3.2, and indeed to Hamlet himself, who, despite his self-reproach
for a lack of emotional response, is one character who turns to reason frequently and is not solely
ruled by all- and self-consuming emotion (Note what happens when he does allow his emotions
to take over! What might be Shakespeare be suggesting?). In essence, Claudius is telling Laertes
to be wary of self-consuming love that might burn itself out, but paradoxically to act upon his will
to revenge soon before he might be reasoned out of it.
Act 5
Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio: a fellow
of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy: he hath
borne me on his back a thousand times; and now, how
abhorred in my imagination it is! my gorge rims at
it. Here hung those lips that I have kissed I know
not how oft. Where be your gibes now? your
gambols? your songs? your flashes of merriment,
that were wont to set the table on a roar? Not one
now, to mock your own grinning? quite chap-fallen?
Now get you to my lady's chamber, and tell her, let
her paint an inch thick, to this favour she must
come; make her laugh at that. Prithee, Horatio, tell
me one thing.
HORATIO
What's that, my lord?
HAMLET
Dost thou think Alexander looked o' this fashion i'
the earth?
HORATIO
E'en so.
HAMLET
And smelt so? pah!
Puts down the skull
HORATIO
E'en so, my lord.
HAMLET
To what base uses we may return, Horatio! Why may
not imagination trace the noble dust of Alexander,
till he find it stopping a bung-hole?
HORATIO
'Twere to consider too curiously, to consider so.
HAMLET
No, faith, not a jot; but to follow him thither with
modesty enough, and likelihood to lead it: as
thus: Alexander died, Alexander was buried,
Alexander returneth into dust; the dust is earth; of
earth we make loam; and why of that loam, whereto he
was converted, might they not stop a beer-barrel?
Imperious Caesar, dead and turn'd to clay,
Might stop a hole to keep the wind away:
O, that that earth, which kept the world in awe,
Should patch a wall to expel the winter flaw!
1.
What is Hamlet’s attitude about death in this speech (and those passages that precede it in this scene)? How
does Shakespeare use humor to convey tone (speaker’s attitude toward the subject)? How does the tone
here suggest that Hamlet is coming to terms with his own mortality and the inevitability of death?
Note: In this scene, Hamlet’s willingness to ponder what happens people after they die provides an interesting
contrast to earlier sections of the play where Hamlet argues that thinking about what might happen after death
results in fear and inaction – For example in 3.1 when Hamlet claims that “the dread of something after death”
paralyzes action and that “the native hue of resolution/Is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought”; in 4.4 when he
mentions “some craven scruple/Of thinking to precisely on th’ event” as an impediment to action). Keep a close eye
on what has changed in Hamlet’s outlook that allows him to think about death without paralyzing fear (this will
come up in the next scene in particular).
2. In what ways does Hamlet’s speech recall Meursault’s statement that “everyone is privileged”?
(Note: this does not necessarily mean that Hamlet’s view is the same as Meursault’s, but there are
some interesting parallels).
3. As he views the skulls being unearthed by the Gravedigger, Hamlet asks rhetorical questions
about humans’ actions during their lifetimes. These questions point out that no matter what
individuals do in life, death is inevitable, and in a sense egalitarian (no matter what one does in
life, he will be reduced, at least physically, to dust). In what way might Hamlet’s thoughts be
viewed as fatalistic, and in a sense “anti-action”? Alternatively, in what way might they
foreshadow the Protestant idea of divine providence which surfaces in 5.2?
4. What purpose do Hamlet’s comments about Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar serve? Why
does he mention these famous leaders?
5.2
At the beginning of 5.2 Hamlet explains to Horatio how he got out of his predicament on route to England
and how these experiences affected his thinking (there is a major change from earlier acts). In order to
understand this change, consider the implications of Hamlet’s acceptance of providence (look up this
term!):
 What does accepting providence mean for the possibility of man’s control of his action and the
question of free will?
 What does accepting providence mean for the possibility of human knowledge?
 How might the acceptance of providence affect the purpose or futility of human action?
 What does accepting providence mean for the idea of revenge as punishment?
Sir, in my heart there was a kind of fighting,
That would not let me sleep: methought I lay
Worse than the mutines in the bilboes. RashlyAnd praised be rashness for it, let us know,
Our indiscretion sometimes serves us well,
When our deep plots do pall: and that should teach us
There's a divinity that shapes our ends,
Rough-hew them how we will,-1. How does Hamlet’s opening line of this speech suggest his struggle throughout the play, and not
just on the ship bound for England?
2. Explain Hamlet’s view of “rashness” here; how has Hamlet’s experience of following his
impulses allowed him conclude “there’s a divinity that shapes our ends” (i.e. a divine plan)?
3. How does this contrast or support statements from earlier in the play about reason and passion?
Does it not, think'st thee, stand me now upon-He that hath kill'd my king and whored my mother,
Popp'd in between the election and my hopes,
Thrown out his angle for my proper life,
And with such cozenage--is't not perfect conscience,
To quit him with this arm? and is't not to be damn'd,
To let this canker of our nature come
In further evil?
1. How does Hamlet’s argument here suggest reasons for killing Claudius beyond
revenge/punishment for his father’s murder? What reasons have been “added” here? Do these
change the nature of the act of killing Claudius, i.e. make it any more justifiable?
2. What is significant about Hamlet’s rhetorical question: “is't not perfect conscience, / To quit him
with this arm?” Why is Hamlet able to claim that it is now “perfect conscience” to kill Claudius,
whereas before he struggled mightily with the question of conscience; what has changed in terms
of his outlook?
HORATIO
You will lose this wager, my lord.
HAMLET
I do not think so: since he went into France, I
have been in continual practise: I shall win at the
odds. But thou wouldst not think how ill all's here
about my heart: but it is no matter.
HORATIO
Nay, good my lord,-HAMLET
It is but foolery; but it is such a kind of
gain-giving, as would perhaps trouble a woman.
HORATIO
If your mind dislike any thing, obey it: I will
forestall their repair hither, and say you are not
fit.
HAMLET
Not a whit, we defy augury: there's a special
providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be now,
'tis not to come; if it be not to come, it will be
now; if it be not now, yet it will come: the
readiness is all: since no man has aught of what he
leaves, what is't to leave betimes?
1. What does Horatio mean with the statement: “If your mind dislike any thing, obey it”?
2. Look up “augury” in a good dictionary. What does this word mean? What does Hamlet mean
when he says: “We defy augury”? What does this have to do with providence? Why does he say
“we”?
3. “there's a special / providence in the fall of a sparrow “ - Look up the allusion in Matthew 10.29
and the verses surrounding it. How does the allusion affect the meaning of the play at this point?
4. “the / readiness is all” - Do the same for this allusion from Matthew 24.44. In what sense is
Hamlet “ready” now? What is he ready for?
I am satisfied in nature,
Whose motive, in this case, should stir me most
To my revenge: but in my terms of honour
I stand aloof; and will no reconcilement,
Till by some elder masters, of known honour,
I have a voice and precedent of peace,
To keep my name ungored. But till that time,
I do receive your offer'd love like love,
And will not wrong it.
1. Why doesn’t Laertes give up his quest for revenge even though he says he is “satisfied in nature”
by Hamlet’s words? On what basis is he justifying his continued quarrel with Hamlet? Why is
this ironic?
2. How does Hamlet’s killing of Claudius relate to his acceptance of providence? Would one expect
Hamlet to let events take their course if he believed in providence? Or would he see himself as
part of the divine plan in this case? Does he go into the duel with the intention of killing
Claudius?
HAMLET
As thou'rt a man,
Give me the cup: let go; by heaven, I'll have't.
O good Horatio, what a wounded name,
Things standing thus unknown, shall live behind me!
If thou didst ever hold me in thy heart
Absent thee from felicity awhile,
And in this harsh world draw thy breath in pain,
To tell my story.
March afar off, and shot within
What warlike noise is this?
OSRIC
Young Fortinbras, with conquest come from Poland,
To the ambassadors of England gives
This warlike volley.
HAMLET
O, I die, Horatio;
The potent poison quite o'er-crows my spirit:
I cannot live to hear the news from England;
But I do prophesy the election lights
On Fortinbras: he has my dying voice;
So tell him, with the occurrents, more and less,
Which have solicited. The rest is silence.
1. Why is it important that Horatio live to tell Hamlet’s story? How does this relate to the conflict
between language and action that Hamlet struggled with throughout the play?
2. Why would Hamlet give Fortinbras his “dying voice”?
And let me speak to the yet unknowing world
How these things came about: so shall you hear
Of carnal, bloody, and unnatural acts,
Of accidental judgments, casual slaughters,
Of deaths put on by cunning and forced cause,
And, in this upshot, purposes mistook
Fall'n on the inventors' reads
1. Horatio, being Hamlet’s friend, most likely intends his words to apply first and foremost to
Claudius but Shakespeare likely has a wider net to cast here; how could Horatio’s lines apply to
various characters, especially Hamlet, Laertes, Claudius, and Polonius?
2. What is the final verdict on revenge at the end of the play? In what ways does revenge
accomplish justice? In what ways is it unjust (look at the ramifications, especially)? Does
Shakespeare make a distinction between public and private revenge? What, if anything, does the
play conclude about personal revenge?
3. What character, if any, “wins” at the end of this play?