HAMLET: IN-DEPTH
CHARACTERS IN THE PLAY
Characterization in general refers to the author’s use of character and characters in building interest
into his work; it is applied also to his way of revealing character by pen-portraiture or description; by a
man's deeds and the consequences of those deeds; by his own words and the words that others use
about him; by contrast; by suggestion, and by what is implied. For example, we judge Polonius to have
been more than an arrant fool because of his daughter’s grief for him, his son’s sorrow, and the king’s
reliance upon his fidelity.
Hamlet
The character of Hamlet never ceases to be a puzzle to students and critics. He seems full of
inconsistencies, of good and bad, of charm and arrogance. It may help us if we remember that
there are two Hamlets: the Hamlet who lived before the play begins — bright, unclouded,
beloved of the people; and the one of the play who is overcome by melancholy, is bound to
perform a duty which is abhorrent to him, is a victim of some evil action which he can only guess
at. Under strain his character deteriorates, takes on aspects foreign to his former nature. The tragedy
is not that Hamlet died, but the circumstances under which he died, and the fact that his fine character
grew worse during his grim struggle.
Hamlet's Change
That he has changed is stated or implied throughout the play. The king refers to his transformation
which made both his exterior man and his inner man entirely different from what they were; Ophelia in
some of the most expressive lines of the play (III-1, 149-160) describes what he was and what he now
is; Hamlet himself says (II-2, 282-300) that he has lost all his mirth (he knows not why) and has found
the universe and life foul and pestilential. His mother, Horatio, Polonius, Laertes find him changed.
What Hamlet Has Been
Let us build the past Hamlet from the play. First of all we have the lines of Ophelia (III-1, 149-160). He
is noble of mind, quick in perception, a courtier in speech, dexterous in swordsmanship, exemplary in
dress and figure, the attraction of all eyes, intellectual, debonair. Ophelia being young has mentioned
mainly his exterior qualities; being his lover she has praised him. But we feel that she had in Hamlet a
most noble and charming youth. Hamlet by his own confession has lost all his mirth; and what is more
likable than intellectual mirth? He had enjoyed the witty sallies of Yorick even when very young; had
been a good friend to Horatio and others. The very gloom and futility which now possess him are
evidence of a bright existence which he has lost. So we may sum him up as having been a rare spirit:
noble, gay, charming, intellectual, warm-hearted, loyal to good causes and worthy friends. What we
are to see is a clear spring muddied and confused by untoward events.
The Hamlet of the Play
The soliloquies are our first source of information. In the first one, (I-2, 129) he is disillusioned, bitter,
suicidal in intent; in the second (I-5, 85-105) (after hearing the story from the ghost) he is very excited,
PAGE 1
HAMLET, IN-DEPTH
passionate, set for action; in the third (II-2, 525) (after witnessing the passion of the player) he is filled
with self-despising, doubt, then a bright idea; in the fourth, (III-1, 56) )("to be or not to be”) he is
depressed to the point of suicidal thoughts, analytical, skeptical, contemplative, tender; in the fifth, (III2, 376) (the witching hour of night) he is ready to drink hot blood but resolved to be fair in his severity;
in the sixth (III-3, 73) (watching the King at prayers) he is desperately eager to exact the greatest
revenge (if we take his words at their face value), but analytical again and procrastinatory; in the
seventh (IV-4, 32) (after coming upon the army of Fortinbras) he is self-contemptuous, philosophical,
analytical, again resolved to “drink hot blood”. From all the seven soliloquies we get a Hamlet who is
in deep gloom, frustrated, full of self contempt, of contemplation and analysis, passionate yet dilatory,
resolved upon revenge but never prepared to bring it to execution.
A second source of information is Hamlet with his friends and acquaintances. With Horatio, I-2,
159-260; I-4; I-5, 105 to end; III-2, 52-90; IV-6, 12-29; V-1, 55 to end; V-2. We have him with the
players (who appear to be his friends) in II-2, 400- 522, in III-2, 1-45. With Horatio and the players he
gives us a picture of sanity, of human feelings, except for the occasions when he speaks to Horatio
wild and whirling words, or tells the gruesome story of his treatment of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.
Hamlet is less easy to read in his contacts with the king: I-1, 65-128; III-3, 84 to end; IV-3. Also with
the queen: III-4; with Rosencrantz: II-2; III-2; IV-2 and IV-3. With Ophelia in II-1, II-2, III-2, it is hard to
tell to what extent he is sincere and to what extent feigning madness; with Polonius he puts on some
degree of simulated madness - until he recklessly kills the poor old man.
Certain occasions and events test Hamlet: the appearance of the ghost, the journey to England, the
duel, etc.
Summary of Hamlet's Character
He is deeply melancholy in spite of his former cheerfulness, is “looking with veiled lids for his noble
father in the dust’, wishing that his flesh would melt or dissolve into a dew; he has lost all his mirth.
There is something in his soul "o'er which his melancholy sits on brood”. His silence "sits drooping",
and the devil “Out of my weakness and my melancholy abuses me to damn me”.
His wit of former days has changed into bitter sarcasm. “Thrift, thrift, Horatio, the funeral baked
meats did furnish forth the marriage portion”. "We that have free souls, it touches us not” (Said to the
king while they watch the incriminating play). Feigning madness he says most satirical things to
Polonius, Rosencrantz, his mother, and the foppish Osric. “Farewell, mother,” he says to the king on
leaving him (IV-3, 51-53).
He is quite unable to make up his mind and to take decisive action.
“What would he (the player) do
Had he the motive and the cue for passion
That I have?’
It cannot be
That I am pigeon-livered and lack gall
To make oppression bitter."
Conscience makes cowards of us all, and so great things that ought to be done are never
PAGE 2
HAMLET, IN-DEPTH
done. The resolute spirit of Fortinbras reveals to Hamlet his own tameness in letting “all sleep”.
Hamlet knows what he ought to do but fails repeatedly to do it. And yet, we see on some occasions his
great speed in execution: when he kills Polonius, escapes with the pirates, forms a plot against
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern by which plot they are speedily to be put to death, his accepting the
duel, his promptness in killing the king at last.
There seems to be in Hamlet a skepticism or doubt about all things. He doubts whether it was an
honest ghost that he had seen or the devil. Though he has had evidence of the existence of his father
after death, he speaks of the “undiscovered country from whose bourn no traveller returns". Doubt and
hesitation paralyze the power to act, and Hamlet drifts along on the current of events.
Hamlet is a fatalist and comes near to saying that the divinity which shapes our ends cannot be
influenced or altered. What is going to come to pass is already determined, and the time is fixed. Does
he believe this or is it merely an excuse for his doing nothing? All through the play Hamlet wavers
between materialism and spiritualism, between belief in immortality and disbelief, between reliance
upon providence and a bowing under fate.
Hamlet is very impulsive and can be cruel and cunning. Impulse drives him to the murder of
Polonius, to the contention with Laertes in the grave, to drawing his sword upon his friends when they
tried to withhold him from obeying the ghost's summons, in his swift plot against Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern (before he could “make a prologue to his brains”). Though he calls Polonius a reckless,
rash, intruding fool, he himself can take advantage of two men acting on the commands of the king
and cause their death. Horatio is shocked at the story. So we have in Hamlet both cunning and cruelty.
He loves sport even though it be very cruel. “ Tis the sport to have the engineer hoist with his own
petard; I will delve one yard below their mines, and blow them at the moon.”
Hamlet is capable of deep and passionate love, for he loved Ophelia more than 40,000 brothers
could. His distraction in her presence proceeds from love. Ophelia says he loved her in honourable
fashion. And yet, he nowhere finds a place to be tender to her, unless in the one brief wish: “Nymph, in
thy orisons be all my sins remembered”. In his meetings with her he is cruel, ungracious, even coarse.
If he had to assume madness to deceive her, his madness might have been less violent, less brutal.
Hamlet's madness - Is he mad or not??
In many places he appears perfectly sane. In others he is feigning madness: with Polonius, with
Ophelia in almost all, his words and actions, with Claudius (IV-3). In other places - after seeing his
father's ghost and perceiving Laertes' show of grief, he is so wildly excited that his mind seems to
totter and his words to become wild. This may be hysteria, but it is not insanity. If so, it is a madness
common to many. The sight of the ghost (I-5) brought to him “thoughts beyond the reaches of our
souls”. As to his unseemly conduct at the funeral he says: "Sure the bravery of his grief did put me into
a towering passion”. So that in nearly all his madness he was merely “mad in craft”.
Hamlet is perfectly sane in all his actions until he meets the ghost; after the meeting he says that he
will put an antic disposition on. With those whom he trusts — Horatio, the Players, Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern at first, he is perfectly sane; mad in craft only with those whom he fears or wishes to
deceive. He tries to drive it home to his mother that he is not mad - what she must not try to console
PAGE 3
HAMLET, IN-DEPTH
herself with the belief that he is, and that he is prepared to take any test to prove his sanity. On the one
occasion when he was carried away by his passion he afterwards was sorry for his conduct.
Hamlet assumed madness to conceal his real thoughts from others, to mislead any spies of
Claudius and to gain time for acting. He is a man eager to think but reluctant to act. ‘The native hue of
resolution is sicklied o’er by the pale cast. of thought". The action required of him was most abhorrent
to his nature; so he tried to find some way of avoiding the
difficult and disagreeable task. His lively imagination magnified the difficulty of the act. His soul was
too refined and delicately poised for terrible tasks; such as to set right a world out of joint. And Hamlet
"sees no course clear enough to satisfy his understanding".
Results of Inaction
We have, of course, all that happened in the play, for had Hamlet proceeded at once to kill the king
there would have been no further action. But the result was also a weakening of Hamlet's character:
his resorting to cunning and cruelty, to skepticism, cynicism and fatalism. Some of the results in the
play are: his own death, the death of several others, innocent as well as guilty. Horatio sums it all up:
You shall 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
Fallen on the inventors’ heads.
Hamlet threw away the gentle love of Ophelia, rashly slew her father, thus caused her madness, and
the goddess Nemesis appoints for him a sudden and tragic, but not glorious, end.
Hamlet’s treatment of Ophelia
Hamlet's love for Ophelia seems to have been sincere, not “any trifling of his favour" as Laertes
suggested; nor was it the "perfume and suppliance of a minute". Ophelia trusts Hamlet who, she said,
had importuned her with love in honourable fashion. It was in no crafty madness that Hamlet when he
visited Ophelia,
Raised a sigh so piteous arid profound
As it did seem to shatter all his bulk
And end his being.
Nor was he being satirical when he softly said:
The fair Ophelia! Nymph in thy orisons
Be all my sins remembered.
It is painful to witness his treatment of her in the nunnery scene, and again in III-2 as they are watching
the play. Yet “forty thousand brothers” could not have love her in the same way or as deeply as did
Hamlet. The love of hamlet for Ophelia is deep, is real and is precisely the kind of love which such a
man as Hamlet would feel for such a woman.
PAGE 4
HAMLET, IN-DEPTH
Claudius
Claudius, as a man, proved a “rotter", that is, a man with no good in him; as a king he had certain
kingly qualities.
As a man he have been rather uxorious, for we assume that it was in part his illicit love for the
queen which urged him on to murder Hamlet the King. Hamlet cautions his mother not to be
lured by his reechy kisses, and the ghost of Hamlet calls him an "incestuous and adulterate
beast". H seems to have indulged in heavy drinking and and orgiastic revels - such as give to
Denmark a bad name. He drains down his drafts of Rhenish. We need not credit all that Hamlet
says of him: cutpurse, thief, a vice of kings, a bloat king, a paddock, a bat, a king of shreds and
patches. But villain and murderer he was. He was a consummate hypocrite. At the beginning of the
play he deceives us as he calls the dead Harriet “our dear brother", and imparts his rich paternal love
to young Hamlet whom he wishes to be “our chiefest courtier, cousin and our son”.
He is a crafty schemer. he calls in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to spy upon Hamlet, and then
lowers himself to play with Polonius the spy himself. He does all in a spirit of “deliberate pause”. He
deceives the impetuous Laertes, and makes sure that. the duel shall be fatal to Hamlet.
Being a guilty man he is suspicious. To him from the first the lunacy of Hamlet is dangerous. “The
hatch and the disclose will be some danger.” In suspicion he sends the prince (Hamlet) to England
thinking that the blow that slew Polonius was aimed at himself.
And yet this king whose “hand is thick with brother’s blood”, whose heart has "springs of steel”, has
a conscience that works - at least sometimes. But his conscience will not bring him to repentance, for
he wishes to retain what he has won. So that this small conflict with his conscience seems to make
him worse, for knowing what he should do he refuses to do it. Greed and avarice conquer.
Nowhere in the play does the king give the impression of weakness despite Hamlet's scathing
insistence upon his worthlessness. Hamlet in one statement tells the truth about the king when he
refers him to a "mighty opposite”. That he was, and the mightier because of his strong qualities. As a
king he has other commendable qualities. He is energetic, quick and clear in decisions, courteous with
those with whom he has to do. Nothing could be better - or more successful - than his negotiations
with “Norway”. He is cool and fearless before the towering passion of Laertes. “Let him go, Gertrude;
do not fear our person." He is, in all his dealings with Laertes, very diplomatic, effective, smooth. We
must ascribe to the king intelligence and courage, the savoir faire of a strong ruler, of one who thinks
things out effectively and expresses his thoughts with clarity, dignity, and the weightiness becoming
the throne.
Gertrude
The queen has a negative role in the pay, but we must not make her a nonentity. She had
enough good qualities to make her Queen of Denmark, and enough "appeal" to win the love - or
avarice - of Claudius. She seems to grace the functions to which she is called. If frailty and
womanhood are the same thing, then Gertrude was frail. Her frailty consisted in marrying too hastily
the new king, Claudius, perhaps in not being able to discern what a wiser woman would have seen.
PAGE 5
HAMLET, IN-DEPTH
She seems to have fallen in too easily- with the wishes of Polonius and Claudius, to have been drawn
into some indiscretions rather than guilty acts. Why, otherwise did she see in herself such "black and
grained spots” when Hamlet held up a mirror in which she might see herself? She was evidently easily
subdued by Hamlet for she had done nothing deserving severe self-condemnation. Hamlet must have
thought her weak when he had to give her such precise instructions on how to improve her conduct.
She was probably sentimental and therefore not of deep feeling or intellectual penetration. She was
devoted to Hamlet; to Claudius also it seems; but we are glad to see that after she learns the truth
(that Claudius had killed her husband) her sympathies are with Hamlet. She is impressionable, for this
seems to be the meaning of the Ghost’s words when restraining young Hamlet: "Conceit in weakest
bodies strongest works”. To her sick soul "Each toy seems prelude to some great amiss". The queen
seems to have sympathized with the afflicted Ophelia, although at one time she was reluctant to see
her. And her description of Ophelia's drowning is tender and pathetic.
Critics differ much in their opinions of Gertrude: “this wicked queen”, they call her; "the timid, selfindulgent, sensuous queen", "a guilty mind which by the artifice of self-deceit has put to silence the
upbraidings of conscience”, etc. It is difficult to see what the Queen could have done to right matters,
when even Hamlet failed.
Polonius
This man requires a good deal of attention because he has a prominent part in the play and because
so much has been said about him. Is he a wise man or merely foolish and garrulous? A critic and actor
said: "It seems to me that Shakespeare intended to make of him a noble character, but for some
reason changed him into a sort of clown”. It is true that we have from him lofty statements as well as
empty garrulity and rash actions.
Polonius had grown old in the life of the court and had learned what becomes a courtier:
submissiveness, flattery and wisdom of a superficial nature. His famous precepts are excellent
advice to any young man, and the concluding lines suggest a basis for all ethical and social reform
("If true to yourself you are true to all men.")
Over-confidence appears to be a fault in Polonius. When he says: “Tis so", it always proves so (II-2,
154-156). If Hamlet loves not Ophelia as he says, he is willing to keep a farm and carters (evidently, in
his mind, a low occupation and company). He “barges in” as a critic of literature and art; has himself
been a very good actor (as Brutus), has suffered much for love - has been almost as crazy as Hamlet
has been for Ophelia.
Overtalkative (sententious) and foolish in his talk are characteristics. He is intoxicated with the
exuberance of his own verbosity. Yet he prefaces all his talk, his puns and circumlocutory windings
with the wise remark: “Brevity is the soul of wit”. (II-2, 85-l60). The queen asks for "more matter with
less art”, and Hamlet calls him a “tedious old fool”, “a foolish prating knave”. But Hamlet reveals only
the worst side of him.
He was a man of devious ways. He sends a man to shadow his son Paris and thinks it is “a fetch of
warrant”. He uses the bait of falsehood in order to catch the carp of truth, in other words: any means to
PAGE 6
HAMLET, IN-DEPTH
secure his end. He spies upon Ophelia and Hamlet; then upon Hamlet and his mother. Here he
receives his nemesis in a sword-thrust from Hamlet, and Hamlet speaks his epitaph: “Thou
reckless, rash, intruding fool, farewell”.
As a courtier (who must always be a sort of Yes-man) Polonius was efficient. He was faithful to
the king (we assume that he did not know how villainous was the man to whom he was being
loyal), not too scrupulous or inquisitive in the king's affairs, seeking always to be of some service,
as instrumental in feeding the king (in affairs of state) as hand is to mouth. His duty, like his soul, is
for his God and his king. Let us not assume that he was taking God’s name in vain. He was
probably a sincere follower of the religion of the state. He admits that we play the hypocrite and
“with devotion’s image and pious action sugar over the devil himself” (III-1, 47-90). The question is:
Did he dislike this dissimulation or did he get pleasure from it? In these times we hear it said that
politics is a dirty business.
We must admit that there is a spark of modesty (or is it mere sugaring over?) in his admission
that old people cast beyond themselves in their opinions (II-1, 111-115).
As a father, he seems to have won the affection of Ophelia. Why, otherwise, should Ophelia go
insane because of his death, and Laertes throw "both the worlds to negligence” in order to be
satisfied, to avenge his death. Children do not grieve overmuch for the death of foolish, prating
fathers. He is wise towards Laertes, guided perhaps only by solicitude in having Reynaldo “creep
up on Laertes; his strictness towards Ophelia may have been justified, but he could have been
more sympathetic when he deprived the poor girl of her royal lover. The relationship between
father and daughter seems not to have been close or warm. As an educator of youth he is not
strict, for he allows Laertes a good deal of liberty in what seems like a primrose path of dalliance in
Paris. Shrewd, wary, subtle, pompous, garrulous old courtier. But let us not forget the queen’s
appraisal: “The good old man".
Laertes
Hamlet himself, about to fight Laertes, says he loved him ever; watching the funeral he calls him
a very noble youth. There must have been reason for Hamlet's love and praise. His advice to
Ophelia (I-3) suggests superiority on his part, but there is no reason why an older and muchtravelled brother should not have ideas to impart. He is a little “preachy”, but what he says is
substantial. Nor are we to infer that he is merely a sower of wild oats, because Ophelia has her
little hit at treaders of the primrose path who advocate for others the steep and thorny road to
heaven, and because Polonius sends a man secretly to inquire how Laertes spends his days and
nights. Polonius believed in moderation rather than prohibition, and probably Laertes did also. We
picture Laertes as being a student and traveller with an eager thirst for knowledge and experience,
a sport, a man of the world, a mixer in good society, joining easily such company as Hamlet and
the sons of princes.
The death of his father (and later the discovery of the terrible nature of that death) changed
Hamlet from a bright, sunny, companionable youth to one morose, sullen, passionate and mad; so
PAGE 7
HAMLET, IN-DEPTH
the death of his father changed Laertes, took him out of his true self. To this changed Laertes we must
ascribe determination, impetuosity, emotion, treachery, credulity. He is determined to obtain
vengeance for the death of his father; he ponders upon this problem on his return from France, makes
inquiries, will not cease until he stands face to face with the king and demands an explanation. (We
have seen this determination once before: when he won from Polonius his unwilling consent that he
return to France.) His impetuosity carries him into the palace of the king, so that the queen in fear for
her husband puts her hand upon Laertes. His progress is "like that of the ocean swelling over the land
in a great tidal wave”. He “hurls both worlds to negligence to obtain his revenge".
His emotion is shown when he leaps into the grave of his sister and, as Hamlet puts it, rants. But
we may consider his grief genuine. When he saw Ophelia distraught, he was deeply affected to see
"this rose of May” in such plight; when he is told that she is drowned he is about to break into tears
(“nature her custom holds, Let shame say what it will"), but he has a speech of fire that fain would
blaze his sword and he goes out seeking for instant revenge.
His treachery is apparent when he plans with the king such a duel as will kill Hamlet: bare sword
and poisoned point. And we are disappointed that he will not accept Hamlet’s apology, claiming that
he must obey the laws of duelling and await the consent of some known master of the duel. Well he
knew that the king would not consent to any settlement by mere words.
Credulity seems to have been a part of Laertes' nature. Why did he accept the king's statement of
events so eagerly when he had all the nobles of Elsinore to confer with? Desire for revenge overcame
his desire for truth. To sum up: Laertes’ character, as well as his death, was part of this tragedy. It
suffered and deteriorated under the strain of events as that of Hamlet did.
Ophelia
"Rose of May”, “kind sister", “dear maid”, "sweet Ophelia”, “challenger of the age for her
perfection" - so said Laertes of his sister. "I loved Ophelia”, this from Prince Hamlet. Ophelia
was no ordinary girl of Denmark. The queen wished she might be Hamlet’s wife. Even the king
seems touched by her grief. In this stormy play of treachery and madness, she, for a time, supplies
quiet and innocence, for she has not acquired the sophistication of the court. Both her father and
brother in warning her about the advances of Hamlet imply her innocence. She does not suspect
Hamlet; He has “importuned her in honourable fashion”. Perhaps she was free and eager in listening
to what he had to say (I-3,93). This suggests faith and innocence.
Her love for Hamlet was no doubt spontaneous and genuine. She "sucked the honey of his music
vows”, but when cast off by Hamlet she was of "ladies most reject and wretched". Yet as a lover she
was passive; she was not of intellectual or moral force to influence him.
Was she too submissive, too docile? Should she have obeyed her father so readily in repelling
Hamlet and returning his letters? In walking where she might encounter Hamlet because her father
had bidden her do so? In accepting meekly the counsel of her brother?
I shall the effect of this good lesson keep
As watchman to my heart.
The charge has been made that she was weak and dishonest. But in that age what choice had she
PAGE 8
HAMLET, IN-DEPTH
but to obey her father, a man who held high position? If she lied to Hamlet it was no doubt not of her
own wish but of necessity. Her love, passion, intelligence and distress can be well measured in her
lament beginning: “Oh, what a noble mind is here o’er thrown” (III-1, 149-160). In disposition she was
kind, gentle, aesthetic, loving flowers and songs, and this disposition and love she carried into her
insanity, even to her drowning. Another victim of the tragedy spun by the crime of Claudius!
Horatio
A good, condensed description of Horatio is given in III-2, 65-70: patient, even minded, of happy
temperament, self-controlled. Is he too resigned to events? For throughout the play he does nothing to
direct Hamlet or to calm him. It is only on the last page of the play that he comes alive and gives
promise of being a positive force. He is a man of moderation; scholar but no pedant not rushing into
action and yet not shunning it. Good judgment he has for Hamlet relies upon it. He assumes that
Horatio, like his friend Hamlet, shunned the shallow, the conventional, the false. He is discerning,
and tries to dissuade Hamlet from the duel, but he does not succeed. He is the soul of honour,
and we feel that he is, at times, shocked by Hamlet; for example in Hamlet’s treatment of
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. He is more an antique Roman than a Dane, so we assume that
he has a stout heart, a strong sense of duty, and is indifferent to death. That he is friend to the nobleminded Hamlet gives evidence of his nobility. His part in the play is to be the confidant of Hamlet, to
hear his confessions, to understand him and give sympathy, and to say the finest words of praise over
his stricken friend:
Now cracks a noble heart; good night, sweet prince;
And flights of angels sing thee to try rest.
Fortinbras
Fortinbras appears little in the play but has great importance at the beginning, the middle and the
end. He is a man of action and as such is a foil to Hamlet. Without the permission of his uncle,
King of Norway, he “sharks up a band of lawless resolutes”, and when his self-originated action is
repressed he receives permission to march through Denmark, and lead an army to seize from the
Poles a few scrubby acres of land for the sake of Norway's honour. The sound of his drums and of
marching men at the conclusion gives assurance that the tragic upheaval and confusion in Denmark
are now to cease. He is, in fact, to become Denmark’s king. He loves the spirit of adventure, the thrill
of action, and follows the road thereto with single-minded heart and will. What a contrast to our
Hamlet "sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought”.
Osric
Osric is the showy and spectacular courtier of Shakespeare's time. He has much wealth and land, he
imitates the fashions of the court, talks in the affected manner of self-conscious stylists, and this brings
the scorn of Hamlet upon his head. He has not wit enough to see that he is the but of Horatio's
and Hamlet’s contempt and mirth. He is important enough to be a sort of referee at the duel and
we are left to wonder whether he was aware of the trickery and deceit of the King and Laertes.
PAGE 9
HAMLET, IN-DEPTH
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern had been close friends of Hamlet at Wittenberg University and
the queen says that there were not two men living "to whom he more adheres”. This is evidence
that they had been good specimens of manhood and culture. Hamlet's first meeting with them
shows cordiality and trust until it becomes apparent that they are acting for the king. They do not
intend to do evil, but they are easily led into it, and are too weak or compliant to resist. There was
a sort of “confession in their look” which their modesty had not craft enough to cover (II-2, 280282). Through having no force of their own, they become the king’s sponges to soak up the king’s
desired information, to be squeezed dry and then refilled again. They were fools more than they were
knaves, but folly is no less dangerous to the world than outright villainy. From being friends of Hamlet
these two descended into bowing, flattering, obsequious toadies to the king, and this subservience
rather than their own evil wishes led to their tragic end.
FORM AND STRUCTURE
Elizabethan plays, in general, were loosely structured. They adapted the basic five-act form of
ancient Roman tragedy, which had been revived by Italian scholars of the early Renaissance and
brought back to London by English aristocrats traveling in Italy, to the needs of a commercial and
popular theatre.
The basic elements of a revenge tragedy were very simple. There had to be a hero, who had been
violently wronged and was justified in seeking revenge. His revenge had to be aimed at an opponent,
or antagonist, equal to him in power and in cunning, or the play would degenerate into a mindless
series of victories for the superhero, and so become monotonous. The action had to be carried on in
an atmosphere of gloom and terror, preferably with supernatural elements. A woman the hero loved
had to be involved in the action, if possible as an innocent obstacle to his achieving his goal of
revenge. And there had to be a counterplot (or subplot), started by the antagonist to defend himself,
which would engulf the hero just as his vengeance was accomplished. In that way the hero would
achieve what has come to be called “poetic justice” on earth, and at the same time be punished by
heaven for his sin of committing murder.
We can see that this simple structure is still very much with us in the violence of movies, television,
and comic books. One reason we consider Hamlet better than these popular entertainments is that
Shakespeare made his own variation on the form, fulfilling all its demands and at the same time rising
above it through his brilliant use of language and his creation of complex characters. By making his
hero a philosopher who doubts and mocks himself every step of the way, Shakespeare is able to
prolong the suspense and devote the first three acts to the question of whether Hamlet will or will not
take revenge. When Hamlet finally takes a decisive action, at the end of Act III (where the structure is
expected to rise to a climax), it turns out to be a fatal misstep. Instead of killing Claudius, Hamlet kills
Polonius. This act engulfs him in the counterplot of Claudius and Laertes, which holds our attention
until the play's violent end. Hamlet’s hesitation allows Shakespeare to explore the meaning of revenge
on both the philosophic and the psychological level, and to connect that act with the much larger
PAGE 10
HAMLET, IN-DEPTH
question of the meaning of life.
To make sure we never forget that Hamlet’s story is that of a father, mother, and son, Shakespeare
contrasts it with the subplot of Polonius and his children. Both the plot and the subplot are fused
together at the climactic moment when Hamlet kills Polonius. This act ultimately results in Hamlet’s
death at the hands of Laertes, another son avenging his father. And both stories are framed in the
story of Fortinbras, who avenges his father’s defeat at the hands of King Hamlet by taking over the
Danish throne when Hamlet dies.
Shakespeare’s superiority in such matters as moral and psychological subtlety is pointed up by his
ability to contrast the way two characters respond to the same event or carry out the same action.
Hamlet is so structured, for example, that we are forced to compare Hamlet’s use of the play to entrap
Claudius with Laertes’ invasion of the palace with an angry mob; or Hamlet’s confiding in Horatio with
Claudius’ efforts to manipulate Polonius. Shakespeare also uses the play's structure to contrast a
character’s behaviour with what we know of his thoughts and feelings, or to show him behaving
differently in different situations. For instance, compare Hamlet’s speeches to the ghost with his
conversation immediately afterward when Horatio and Marcellus find him; or compare Claudius’ public
behaviour in Act IV, Scene iii, with his “Do it, England” soliloquy right after. Because Hamlet himself is
a wit and a maker of ironies, Shakespeare often uses him to point up these contrasts verbally and so
intensify them, just as his mordant jokes heighten the atmosphere of gloom rather than dispelling it. As
we explore Hamlet in more and more detail, the way Shakespeare balances and arranges the
elements of its story will become more visible and more exciting as well, since every new facet of the
structure found, will reveal another nuance of Shakespeare’s vision, another aspect of the seemingly
infinite range of his poetic mind.
The Five-Act Structure
The main plot and subplot stories are both framed by the story of Fortinbras’ avenging his father
Hamlet discovers Claudius is guilty (main plot), but kills Polonius by mistake (subplot)
Act I: Exposition. The rotten state of Denmark is
disclosed, and the ghost appears with his call for
vengeance.
Act II: Rising Action. Hamlet tries to discover the
truth about the ghost’s accusations.
Act Ill: Climax. Hamlet springs his “mousetrap” and
catches his proof - Claudius is guilty.
Act IV: Falling Action. Claudius, not Hamlet, takes
charge of events.
Act V: Catastrophe. The consummation of
everyone’s vengeance is achieved in a bloody ending
that leaves only Horatio alive to tell the tale.
PAGE 11
HAMLET, IN-DEPTH
THEMES
Justice and Revenge
All the action of Hamlet is based on the one task the ghost sets the prince: to avenge his father’s
murder. This powerful demand is countered in Hamlet’s mind by three questions: Is revenge a good or
an evil act? Is Claudius truly guilty and so to be punished? Is it Hamlet’s responsibility to punish
him? Throughout the play, Shakespeare raises questions about whether justice is to be left to the
state or taken into one’s own hands, and about whether it is possible, in a cunning and deceitful world,
to tell the good man from the criminal. These questions are focused on Hamlet, who must decide
whether to avenge his father or not, and if so, how. They are reflected in the parallel stories of
Fortinbras and Laertes, who also have obligations of revenge to fulfill.
Destiny and the Purpose of Life
Linked to the theme of revenge is the great question of Hamlet’s inner meditations: Is there a point to
life at all? Do we suffer in this harsh world for a purpose, or simply because we are afraid to find out
what may lie beyond it? And if there is a higher, universal force guiding each of us in a certain
direction, how do we learn what it is so that we can accept its guidance? Much of Hamlet’s anguish is
caused by his effort to link even the most trivial event to the order of the universe. Is he right in doing
so? And does he succeed - does life finally reveal its meaning to him?
Madness and Sanity
The question of Hamlet’s sanity is openly discussed in the play and has been a subject of debate for
centuries. Is Hamlet really mad? If so, what causes Hamlet’s madness? Is it his reluctance to take
revenge? Is it his confused feelings about his mother? Is he in fact sane and the world mad for failing
to understand the things he says? Is he sometimes pretending to be mad and at other times genuinely
unbalanced? Remember, the play gives another example of madness in Ophelia, and we should ask
some of the same questions about her.
Appearance and Reality
Allied to the question of Hamlet’s madness is a variety of references to the idea of acting a part or of
presenting a false image to the world. Hamlet demands honesty, but is he himself always honest?
Many other characters, at various times, seem to be playing parts, and the troupe of players is in the
play as an active reminder that in real life a person can play many roles, and it is not always easy to
tell what is true from what only appears to be true. At the very center of the play is Hamlet’s view of
acting on the stage, expressed in his advice to the players. We can compare it with the picture
Shakespeare gives of Hamlet, and the other characters, acting in their “real” lives.
Women
Hamlet’s views on women are complex and intensely emotional. The only two women characters in the
play are the two who are most deeply attached to him - his mother and Ophelia, the young girl he
loves. Why is his bitterness toward his mother so strong? What are the various feelings that go into his
changing attitude toward Ophelia?
PAGE 12
HAMLET, IN-DEPTH
Rights and Duties of Kingship
Shakespearean tragedy often turns on the question of who is to be king - on who is best qualified
to accept both the privileges and the responsibilities of rule. What are the obligations of a king to
his people? Who, in Hamlet, has the most right to be king? Who is most qualified to be king? Is an
honest king necessarily the best king? Is a peaceful king better than a war-like one? How much
say should the public have in choosing a king, and how much the nobility?
Poison and Corruption
Corruption, rot, disease, and poison are among the chief sources of poetic imagery in Hamlet. The
poison with which Claudius kills King Hamlet spreads in a sense through the entire country till
“something is rotten in Denmark.” Examples of this imagery (or motif) are found throughout the
play. Is the arrival of Fortinbras at the end meant to be a cure? If so, what sort of cure will it be?
PAGE 13