It has been suggested that a key aspect of Hamlet’s enduring relevance to
audiences is the plays examination of human flaws. To what extent does your
personal understanding concur with this view?
William Shakespeare’s Hamlet is a thinly veiled examination of ubiquitous facets
of the human condition, as they pertain to his Elizabethan context. An inherent
facet of humanity is our predisposition to innate flaws of character. Shakespeare
presents the flaws of deceit, avarice and disloyalty as impetuses behind the
central action of the play- that is, Hamlet’s revenge. He creates a commentary on
the nature of human flaws through characterisation of Hamlet and supporting
characters. The enduring relevance of these human themes, due to the ubiquity
of the human condition, gives way to subsequent integrity of the play as a whole.
Hamlet contains deception as a recurring motif, constructed to comment on the
prevalence and consequences of underlying human flaws. Deception is utilised as
a means by which one might gain for oneself or another, and is portrayed
through the guises of Claudius and Hamlet. Claudius’ deceitful action of fratricide
positions him as guilty of absolute villainy, and Shakespeare condemns him. The
Ghost describes Hamlet Senior’s murder using highly modal, evocative terms
describing the poison’s effect as ‘curd.. the thin and wholesome blood’ and
creating a ‘vile and loathsome crust’. This can be contrasted with the previous
kingly monologue of Claudius at the beginning Act 1, scene 2, wherein he
appears as a deceptive character through his frequent use of antithetically
juxtaposing notions, such as ‘delight and dole’, or the oxymoronic statement
‘mirth in funeral and dirge in marriage.’ Claudius’ deceptive nature is personified
through his language, which Baldassare Castiglione describes as a throwback to
‘Greek political speeches’, reflecting his manipulation and treachery. I would also
liken Claudius’ speech to modern political rhetoric, which furthers the notion of
deceit as a pervasive human flaw, transcendent of Shakespeare’s context.
Deception is similarly evident in Hamlet’s own play of appearance versus reality,
wherein he dons an ‘antic disposition’ in order to deceptively hide his intentions.
Shakespeare elucidates that deception is an inherent human flaw, as even the
protagonist Hamlet is not above illusion and trickery to gain the upper hand.
Hamlet must don his own mask of madness in order to deceive, and discover the
truth of the Ghost’s tale underneath Claudius’ of honour. Polonius becomes
aware of this technique, stating, ‘Though this be madness, yet there be method in
it.’ Shakespeare had previously explored the notion of ‘madness as a mask’ in
Titus Andronicus, and as such the repetition of the technique is utilized to create
contrast between the capable avenger of Titus and the ill-fitted revenge tragedy
protagonist, Hamlet. Hamlet is far from corrupt, but in this circumstance I
believe Shakespeare utilises his character to illustrate that deception in its many
guises is ubiquitous within the human condition.
Similarly, Shakespeare examines the flaw of disloyalty as a means to chaos, and
portrays it most effectively through the characterisation of supporting
characters Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, and Gertrude. The sycophantic pair,
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, are originally Hamlet’s old friends, ‘being of so
young days brought up with him’, and this context enhances the extent of their
disloyalty. They confidently reject a sense of amity with Hamlet in pursuit of
kingly approval. Hamlet likens Rosencrantz to a ‘sponge…that soaks up the king’s
countenance’. This metaphor describes the nature of the quest for approbation,
and the ensuing disloyalty in such a pursuit. Their full corruption is finally
realised en route to England, when Hamlet unearths the plot to kill him. Though
there is little evidence Rosencrantz and Guildenstern knew about the letter they
carried, they did make ‘love to this employment’, death, through the inherent
disloyalty within their natures as ‘spies’. Shakespeare’s examination of the
human flaw of disloyalty obtains continued relevance with any human audience.
Disloyalty is similarly explored through the characterisation of Gertrude. Her
disloyalty is multifaceted, articulated within the Ghost’s order ‘let not the royal
bed of Denmark be/ a couch for luxury and damned incest’. Her ‘incestuous’
marriage to Claudius tarnishes the ‘bed’ of the kingdom, and Hamlet equates this
with disloyalty to her first husband. Hamlet’s strong reactions towards
Gertrude’s actions have been attributed to Freud’s Oedipus complex- though
whatever the reason behind his feelings, it remains clear that the disloyalty of his
mother affects Hamlet intrinsically, when he states ‘Frailty, thy name is woman!’.
This high modality personification exemplifies Hamlet’s deep resentment at her
disloyal actions. Shakespeare’s examination of disloyalty is correspondingly
relevant to any audience in which the human flaw of lust is equated with
disloyalty. Subsequently, the examination of this theme allows Hamlet to attain
universal relevance.
Finally, the flaw of avarice is examined as an intrinsic human flaw, which is the
impetus behind much of the driving motion of the play. As a ubiquitous flaw, it
forms a direct parallel between people in Elizabethan society and today.
Shakespeare portrays avarice as the driving influence behind Claudius’ ‘primal
eldest’ sin of fratricide, exemplified in the Ghost’s accumulative listing of
everything that Claudius took, ‘my life, my queen, my crown.’ The anaphoric
personal pronoun ‘my’ reinforces the notion of personal loss, juxtaposed to
Claudius’ personal gain of ‘queen and crown’. Claudius himself states that it was
‘those effects for which I did the murder/My crown, mine own ambition, and my
queen’. The repetition of this phrase serves to highlight the connection between
the Ghost and Claudius, and reinforce the greed of Claudius as wholly negativeparticularly for the contextual audience, wherein the breakdown of the
Elizabethan Chain of Order would have shocked audiences. In portraying
Claudius in such a way, Shakespeare condemns the sin of avarice within the play
and his context, which extends to the entirety of humanity.
In précis, Shakespeare utilises Hamlet as a vehicle for commentary on a range of
intrinsic, humanistic flaws. Through portraying detrimental flaws in each
character, including the protagonist Hamlet and most especially the villain
Claudius, he illustrates the ubiquitous nature of the flaws of avarice, deception
and disloyalty. The enduring relevance of Hamlet can thus be attributed to the
continued pertinence of such themes within any audience that embodies these
flaws.