Guilt
Hamlet, as the protagonist, appears to be obsessed with the notion of guilt, and in the “closet scene” is
determined to move his mother to shame over her “incestuous” act. He confirms that he will not let her go until
“you see the inmost part of you!,” an exclamation that conveys his belief that a sense of guilt is enough to move
the offender to a renunciation of sin. The prince desires to evoke a sense of guilt, and “wring (her) heart) if it be
made of penetrable stuff.” This physical imagery is affirmed in the following lines, when the Prince attempts to
“wring her heart” with appalling descriptions of the “dank sweat of an enseamed bed” and “making love over
the nasty sty.” He rhetorically questions, “oh Shame, where is they blush?” and despairs that he will ever fulfill
what he begins to perceive as his “duty” – to reveal the guilty, and be their “scourge and minister.” The
emphasis Hamlet places on guilt is reflected in his personification of “Shame,” a notion entwined with ‘Guilt,’
and one that Hamlet perceives as crucial to the regeneration and renewal of Denmark.
Shakespeare appears to advocate the notion, like Hamlet, that feelings of guilt can lead to practical, positive
action. Hamlet’s mother is moved to guilt by his words, till her heart is “cleft in twain” and she cries “no more!”
Her impassioned speech, that he “turns mine eyes into my very soul and there I see such black and ingrained
spots” provides a visible reminder to the audience that she has betrayed her late husband, and proved
unworthy of her Queenly status. Yet immediately she questions, “what can I do?” and Hamlet counsels her on
how to act, for he must still “got to England.” Thus the Queen is redeemed in the eyes of the audience as she
sides with her son, and this permits a ready acceptance of her sacrifice in the final scene. When the Queen
drinks the poisoned goblet meant for Hamlet, in direct opposition of her husband’s orders, exclaiming “nay, I
will do it”, the audience is reminded of the healing and renewal that guilt can bring: it is portrayed as a beneficial
force.
The notion of ‘guilt’ is employed as a plot device to humanize the villain, Claudius, and engage the responder.
The King is not portrayed exclusively as a “damned villain” but rather a complex character, who commits “foul
murder” for the “crown, (his) own ambition, and (his) Queen.” As he runs from the scene of the “mouse
trap…the image of a murder,” Hamlet remarks that he is a “stricken deer.” Later Claudius himself bewails that
his “stronger guilt defeats my strong intent,” and his “offence is rank” and has “the eldest brother’s primal curse
upon it.” This acknowledgement of his sin and guilt reminds the responder of life’s ambiguities, allowing a
multifaceted viewing that remains applicable in modern times. Claudius is not restrained by his role as a “villain”
but rather portrays many aspects of human experience. His guilt does not smother his vices, but it does paint
him in a sympathetic light, retaining a sense of enduring appeal.
hscintheholidays.com.au
All Rights Reserved.
Page 1 of 9
Surveillance
Shakespeare’s Hamlet effectively condemns the art of “surveillance” and deception through his description of
Polonius. Polonius, the king’s steward, is introduced in Act 1 and his character permeates almost every scene
until his death in Act 3. He is manipulative and dishonest, traits introduced directly to the responder when he
hires a servant to watch over his son, simultaneously discovering his reputation by smearing his name with
sordid vices. This order stands in direct juxtaposition to his command to Laertes, just moments before, “to thine
own self be true...and then thou canst not then be false to any man.” “False” Polonius then orders his daughter
to reject Hamlet so that the King may discover “the source of his distemper,” in an act that “did sugar ov’r the
devil himself.” Skilled in deception, Polonius goes “behind an arras then…to mark the encounter” between the
Queen and her son, and as a result is accidently murdered by Hamlet. That it was by accident is highly significant
as it delivers an effective critique on his deceptive scrutiny. It is Polonius’ dishonesty and scheming that leads to
his untimely death, for Hamlet, “thought you were your master,” and would not have killed the “rat” otherwise.
Prince Hamlet also offers a critique on manipulative surveillance and scrutiny, delaying his revenge and the
denouement of the play as a result of an incorrect observation. Following the “mousetrap…the image of a
murder” Hamlet follows his uncle, informing Horatio that “some must watch, while some must play, so runs the
world away.” As he observes Claudius ‘praying’ Hamlet is beset by conflict and is unable to revenge his father
due to his belief that he will send Claudius directly to Heaven, unlike the late Dane who was “condemned...to
walk the earth.” Yet what he watches so carefully is merely a delusion, for as Claudius aptly explains, “my words
fly up, my thoughts remain below, and words without thoughts, never to heaven go.” Hamlet is successfully
deceived through his surveillance and the tragedy is prolonged, resulting in the deaths, not only of Claudius, but
also of Polonius, Ophelia and Laertes.
Notions of surveillance and spying would have been particularly significant to Shakespeare’s Elizabethan
audience. Historically, rule under the Queen Elizabeth has been described as a totalitarian monarchy with a
highly efficient surveillance system. The Renaissance responder would have been much more familiar with the
concept of surveillance than a contemporary audience and thus Shakespeare would gain both their attention
and sympathy through his constant references to spies and observation. The play opens with the sentinel’s
discussion as they stand guard on Elsinore’s battlements during their “observant watch.” It is there that they
meet the ghost who they have the “past two nights seen” and an emphasis on sight and perception is
established. Similarly, Polonius, on discovering Hamlet’s affections towards Ophelia cries “I will go to the King!”
and the King himself, on realizing Ophelia’s madness metaphorically bemoans, “sorrows come not in single spies
but in battalions.” Such references pervade the text and alert the responder to the reality of constant scrutiny,
in order to provoke considered judgment.
hscintheholidays.com.au
All Rights Reserved.
Page 2 of 9
Life and Existence
From the very first Hamlet is portrayed as a ‘modern man’. This is expressed through his ardent questioning of
life and its meaning. After the ghost’s revelation that Hamlet’s Uncle Claudius did indeed murder his father,
Hamlet voices his thoughts on life in his famous soliloquy. “To be, or not to be,” he wonders. He goes on to
question whether it is “nobler in the mind to suffer, the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms
against them?” The phrase “to be or not to be” is an example of doubling, the repetition of words or phrases.
This is important as it heightens the emphasis on these words, till eventually they are understood to represent
the very essence of the play; Hamlet is, fundamentally, one existential question. The use of personification of
Fortune, and her “slings and arrows” also serve to accentuate Hamlet’s very real struggle, as he is “taking arms”
not merely against an impersonal force, but one with as much strength as a human foe. Hamlet’s battle with life
and existence is at the core of this play, and is made all the more intriguing by the glimpses he allows us through
his soliloquies.
Throughout Hamlet, the young prince grapples with the idea, not just of life, but of death also. At the very
beginning he somewhat shockingly bewails the Christian condemnation on suicide when he cries, “that the
Everlasting had not fixed his canon ‘gainst self-slaughter!” Such a phrase merely foreshadows what will become
common place within the course of the play. The anguish that is evident within this sentence is sustained in the
following as Hamlet bemoans, “how weary, stale, flat and unprofitable seems to me all the uses of this world!”
Hamlet’s distress is palpable, and the repetition of the words “weary, flat, stale, unprofitable” serve to heighten
the dramatic effect of this scene. In Act 3, Hamlet’s existential struggle is reiterated with his famous soliloquy,
“To be or not to be”, and again at the conclusion of the play, when he muses to Horatio that “a man’s life no
more than to say one.” Altogether Hamlet is a hero who is thoroughly conscious of both life and death, a fact
that is consistently examined throughout his soliloquies.
Hamlet is not the only character who offers philosophical musings on life and existence, and his counterpart, the
nameless ‘Gravedigger’, offers the audience wisdom which succeeds in cementing death as one of the play’s
pivotal concepts. The paradoxes and obscurities surrounding death and burial are explored through Hamlet’s
conversation with the man who digs Ophelia’s grave. It is the Gravedigger that introduces the concept that
death is a great level, explaining, in answer to the prince’s questions that it “was a woman sir; but rest her soul,
she’d dead.” Hamlet then picks up this theme and toys with the notion that even the “noble dust of Alexander
(the Great)” may “stop up a bung-hole.” This is reminiscent of the Queen’s ‘consolation’ to the prince in Act one:
“all that lives must die, passing from nature into eternity,” a concept mirrored by Hamlet’s own “To what base
uses we may return,” in this Act. Hence this scene bears witness to the evolution of Hamlet’s character, a fact
that is criticized through the irony of the following events. At the moment in which Hamlet is shown to have
matured, he discovers that this grave whom both he and the Gravedigger refer to flippantly, “tis for the dead,
not for the quick,” actually belongings to Ophelia. Shakespeare warns his audience against a ready acceptance
and complacency towards death, although intriguing it can never be treated as a philosophical object alone.
hscintheholidays.com.au
All Rights Reserved.
Page 3 of 9
Appearance and Reality
Within Hamlet there is much concern about what is real and what is merely a facade; about what is genuine and
what is simply an act. Hamlet himself addresses this in Act One. Still grieving over the sudden and tragic death of
his father, Hamlet has donned the traditional dark garbs of mourning. In this respect he differs substantially
from the remainder of the court, including his mother, who seem to have all but forgotten the late Dane’s
death. This apparent indifference, culminating in Gertrude’s query, “Why seems it so particular with thee?,
incenses Hamlet. “Seems Madam? Nay, it is.” He replies, “I have that within, which passeth show.” The Prince,
disgusted by the mere appearance of sorrow, is determined to be real and honest. His expressions of grief are
no “actions that a man might play,” nor are they merely the “trappings and the suits of woe.” In this scene
Hamlet is contrasted against the court, and especially his mother in order to explore the theme of appearances
and reality.
Although Hamlet is revealed in the first Act as an individual who despises artificiality, he eventually stoops to
this level in order to seek revenge. This interesting plot contrivance enables the issue of appearance and reality
to be explored thoroughly throughout the play Hamlet. In Scene 1 this transformation is foreshadowed by the
sentry who warns “(the ghost)...may deprive your sovereignty of reason.” Such an apt prediction proceeds to
come true, although not quite as the speaker may have imagined. Hamlet, in response to the Ghost’s demand,
becomes “mad in craft.” Hamlet’s false persona is, as he helpfully explains to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern
“mad (only) north-north-west.” Despite his actions his is completely sane at this point, “knowing a hawk from a
handsaw.” Even Polonius realises this to some extent, declaring, “though this be madness, yet there is method
in’t.” Hamlet’s embrace of insanity demonstrates the ease with which one may merely “put” a “disposition on”,
serving to highlight the degree to which each character in fact merely “seems”.
Claudius is the primary example of a character who is in “double business bound”. He “plays” admirably the part
of the caring Uncle and benevolent King, yet is in reality a remorseless murderer. Hamlet’s realisation of this
facade harshly highlights this reality, through stark contrast of the words “smiling” and “villain”. “Oh, villain,
villain, smiling damned villain, that one may smile and smile and be a villain” he exclaims. Both the repetition
and the juxtaposition of these words reveal an appearance that differs grossly from reality. Claudius is on one
hand the “smiling” King, who enquires after his nephew, and laments touchingly over Ophelia’s madness (“Oh
poor Ophelia!”). Yet underneath he is the brother who committed “Cain’s sin” and cold heartedly writes his
nephew’s death warrant. Such an obvious flaw in appearance as opposed to reality may seem extreme, yet, as
Hamlet remarks “I’m sure it may be so in Denmark”, and so it may be so in Hamlet.
hscintheholidays.com.au
All Rights Reserved.
Page 4 of 9
Loyalty
Hamlet, as a son of the “dear departed” has a significant responsibility, especially within the confines of this
genre. As the hero of a revenge tragedy, Hamlet is expected to fulfill the expectations of both the characters and
responder, and murder Claudius, the usurper of the throne, whom he describes as a “cutpurse of the empire
and the rule.” As his “father’s son,” and furthermore, as a prince of Denmark, Hamlet must avenge his father’s
death, and indeed he promises to do so, “I have sworn’t.” Yet Hamlet’s continual failure is represented in such a
manner that the audience is provoked to frustration, and hence they become fueled by an independent desire
to witness the consummation of duty. Throughout the play, Hamlet perpetually laments that he is a “dull and
muddy-mettled rascal” and questions, “Am I a coward?” These personal reflections serve to heighten the
tension surrounding the concept of duty and loyalty: the audience is aware of what he must do, and are
consequently exasperated when he does not do it. In the final act, Hamlet himself falls victim to Claudius’
schemes, a fitting and ironic conclusion to his faithless perusal of duty.
Hamlet, as a lover, and moreover as a man, has several obligations towards Ophelia. She trusts him and remains
faithful, despite her involvement in Polonius’ plot, and as such there appears no conceivable principle by which
Hamlet might reject her. Thus, his dismissal of both her and her virtue appear unprovoked and senseless,
particularly to an Elizabethan audience who, for the most part, held woman hood and womanly beauty in high
estimation. Hamlet demands that Ophelia “get thee to a nunnery!” an echo of his earlier sentiment that “Frailty,
thy name is woman.” This personification of Frailty succeeds in accentuating Hamlet’s condemnation of
womanly virtue, presenting it as all the more preposterous. The audience is ultimately removed to pity Ophelia
as the tragic consequences of Hamlet’s action and rejection are revealed. Ophelia becomes “divided from
herself” and her sanity is destroyed to such an extent that even blood-stained Claudius cries “oh poor Ophelia!”
The flowers Ophelia describes amidst her insane wanderings are highly significant and become a symbol for the
play’s exploration of loyalty. “I’d give you violets…but they withered all when my father died.” To a Renaissance
audience violets would have been regarded as a symbol of faithlessness, and in this corrupt kingdom, where
men do not embrace their manly obligations, the violets are trampled and “wither.” This poignant account of
Ophelia’s descent into madness further bolsters Shakespeare’s view of the essential nature of duty.
A pivotal concept in Hamlet’s exploration of duty is that the prince, although disloyal to both his late father and
Ophelia, remains loyal to his God. The only hope which Hamlet retains as Denmark becomes a “couch for
dam’ned incest” is faith in a higher power. It is explained in the introductory Act 1, that he is a scholar in
“Wittenburg.” This was a Protestant university, and although an anachronism, denotes the degree to which
Hamlet’s faith is of primary importance. The fact that he remains loyal to God, despite his despair that “God
had..fixed his canon ‘gainst self slaughter,” can be juxtaposed against his failure to fulfill his aforementioned
duties. He does not commit suicide, nor his “own quietus make.” As a result, Hamlet remains a voice of reason in
the state of Denmark and delivers insightful remarks on the Christian perception of existence. In this respect, he
hscintheholidays.com.au
All Rights Reserved.
Page 5 of 9
fulfills the expectations of his listeners; he is rewarded for his acceptance of duty. The prince acknowledges that
he was “appointed by heaven,” and establishes that there is “special providence in the fall of a sparrow.” Such a
belief allows him to remain dignified even in death, and this biblical allusion affiliates the prince in the
audience’s consciousness with an exemplar hero. In his dismissal of “augury” Hamlet affirms his duty as a
Protestant and as a result becomes a true revenge hero.
Procrastination and hesitation
Prince Hamlet’s procrastination over the subjects of murder and revenge form the centrepiece of the play. On
receiving the ghost’s command, Hamlet promises that he will “sweep to (his) revenge,” yet his failure to fulfill
such an oath is soon made clear. It is only by the end of Act 2 that Hamlet finally has a plan, and it is not to kill
the king, but to ascertain his guilt. Such an obvious lack of action can only be attributed to a moral dilemma;
namely, as Hamlet himself asks, “Am I a coward?” In an era where the prevalent Christian values forbade
revenge, Hamlet’s conflict can perhaps be deemed worthy of such hesitation. Should he listen to the ghost of his
father and murder his uncle- and in the process forfeit his soul? Ultimately Hamlet proceeds cautiously,
constructing the Mouse-Trap so that he might determine the truth of the ghost’s, who “may be the Devil,”
words. Yet he is still very much aware of his own tendencies towards inaction, like a “John-a-dreams,
unpregnant of my cause.” Procrastination is part of Hamlet’s character.
It is Hamlet’s seemingly inability to act which has labeled him a “modern man” by many critics and this
hesitation is accentuated and explored through direct juxtaposition of his character against the image of an
archetypal prince. Unlike the traditional Elizabethan hero, Hamlet does not execute “justice” directly following
the ghost’s blood thirsty commands. On the contrary he appears to follow a more sedate course, sweeping to
revenge “with wings as swift as meditation or the thoughts of love.” Such a metaphor highlights his inaction, for
meditation is surely almost a paradox to revenge, and thoughts of love are never sufficient impetus for murder.
Although punctuated with bursts of passion, “Smiling damned villain,” Hamlet’s desire for revenge appears
undisciplined at best. His last line in Act One, “O cursed spite, that ever I was born to set it right” embodies this
thought. Written in verse, a mode thought to be particularly suited for moments of high emotional intensity, this
line captures both Hamlet’s inability and lack of desire to follow the traditional path of a revenge hero.
Hamlet, although beset by hesitation and procrastination, is surrounded by individuals who do not fail to act
decisively. Not only do these characters provide juxtaposition and contrast, thus accentuating and effectively
condemning Hamlet’s indecision, but they also serve to further the plot. An illuminating example of this device is
the Player, who although a minor character, – to the extent that he is never named – still manages to spur
Hamlet’s inaction, so that he determines to “catch the conscience of the king!” It is the Player’s impassioned
recital of “poor Hecuba” that “pricks” Hamlet’s conscience; he determines that it is “monstrous” that the Player
should get “tears in his eyes” and a “broken voice” for Hecuba, yet he should delay in “sweeping” to the revenge
of his father. The player experiences “a fiction, in a dream of passion,” yet Hamlet was visited by the ghost of his
dead father. Hamlet’s hesitation is arrested and condemned at this pivotal point, as he questions “What’s
Hecuba…that he should weep for her?” and wonders, “What would he do, had he the motive and the cue for
passion that I have?” This sustained use of rhetorical questions, serves to impress upon the audience his sorrow
and distress and lends credibility to the construction of the “mouse-trap” in the following Act.
hscintheholidays.com.au
All Rights Reserved.
Page 6 of 9
Ambition
Ambition is an essentially human characteristic and its negative effects are investigated throughout
Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Ambition is the flaw that spurs the play’s villain, Claudius, and thus is depicted as a force
of evil. In a striking scene he admits that he murdered the late Dane for “his crown, mine own ambition, and my
queen.” It is this act, driven by ambition, which is repeatedly associated with the aura of decay and neglect that
surrounds this depiction of Denmark as “a garden that grows to seed.” In fact, the famous denunciation that
“something is rotten in the state of Denmark” appears in Scene 1 alongside the appearance of the ghost of
Hamlet’s father. Thus, the late Dane’s death becomes a catalyst for the decay of Denmark, described through
image clusters of decay and sickness, such as “rank sweat.” In this manner ambition is examined and rejected as
an impetus for acts of evil, forming the basis of this tragedy.
Shakespeare critiques the human quality of ambition through the characters of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.
Although typically represented as faithless friends, the two men do impart a certain wisdom on the subject of
ambition, and this is affirmed through the outspoken Hamlet’s lack of refutation. “Ambition,” explains
Rosencrantz, “is of so airy and light a quality.” The association of “airy” and “light” serves to demote ‘ambition’
to a status below even the physical realm, a notion that is confirmed through Rosencrantz’s further affirmation
that it is a “shadow’s shadow.” Immediately the responder is reminded of the “light” and “airy” form of the
ghost in Scene 1, and the characteristic of ambition is once again established as a flaw. This is further
consolidated when Hamlet launches his next train of reasoning on the basis of Rosencrantz’s observation, thus
accepting it as true. If ambition is a shadow’s shadow, then the ambitious must be the shadow itself and
“monarchs and outstretched heroes (be) the beggar’s shadows.” It is ironic that it is Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern who initially critique ambition – for at that moment they are spying on Hamlet for Claudius, in
order to advance their own status. The two friends then become a symbol of the destructive and demoralizing
nature of ambition.
Despite these critiques, Shakespeare reserves his judgment on the quality of ambition, and in Fortinbras it
becomes an admirable trait. The young prince, as Hamlet’s foil, is driven to revenge in the wake of Hamlet’s own
hesitancy. Yet he is also of “unproved mettle, hot and full” and desires a chance to prove himself in battle
against the Poles. Like Claudius, Fortinbras is “colleagued with the dream of his advantage,” yet retains a
superiority that is demonstrated in his eventual succession to the throne. In the final act it is Fortinbras who
assumes power following both Claudius’ and Hamlet’s demise. It can be argued that one of the later is met
poetic justice for his over-ambition, the other for his lack of any ambition at all. In the final lines Fortinbras’
ambition is coupled with a nobility that is absent in Claudius, causing him to “with sorrow” “embrace (his)
fortune.” In this manner ambition is applauded with restraint and Fortinbras becomes a significant character in
his own right, detached from his status as Hamlet’s foil.
hscintheholidays.com.au
All Rights Reserved.
Page 7 of 9
Madness
The eponymous Hamlet embraces madness as a means of fulfilling the demand of his father’s ghost, and his
insanity is emphasized through sustained imagery. Following the supernatural visitation in Act One he “puts an
antic disposition on,” a description that evokes the physical actions of dressing or putting clothing like a
“disposition on.” Hamlet’s mind has become a “distracted globe”, an image that brings Shakespeare’s own
Globe Theatre to the forefront. It also serves to highlight the extent to which Hamlet’s madness penetrates the
play. The “globe” indicates the world, or kingdom of the play; eventually Hamlet’s insanity directs the course of
the Tragedy. This imagery continues in his explanation in Act Two that he is “but mad north-north-west, but
when the wind is southerly (he)... knows a hawk from a handsaw.” The words “hawk” and “handsaw” evoke
stark images of contrast that emphasis Hamlet’s state of mind; he is no more mad than a hunting bird is a
carpentry tool. Hamlet’s “madness in craft” is developed consistently and is a key feature of the plot, articulated
through Shakespeare’s use of imagery.
Madness is demonstrated to be an elusive and pervading force, primarily through the character of Ophelia.
Following Hamlet’s descent into ‘madness’ and her father’s death, Ophelia herself becomes “distract.” The
depth of her insanity is such that pity is evoked in the responder, and even the “smiling damned villain” Claudius
remarks, “poor Ophelia, divided from herself.” This sympathy reminds the responder that such madness is a
reality and one that lies at the heart of this tragedy; it is not merely a superficial device to be manipulated. This
sentiment is reflected in Claudius’ astute remark that “when sorrows come, they come not in single spies, but in
battalions.” Madness is indeed a “sorrow” and ironically, to Gertrude, “seems prologue to some great amiss.”
“Unhappily” it is both an catalyst and a product of the decay of Denmark, and “spread(s) (like) compost on
weeds.”
Although initially Hamlet’s madness is “aptly put on,” the development of his insanity as the play evolves has
evoked much critical debate, as the essential nature of his “madness” is called into question. In the scene known
as the ‘closet scene’ Hamlet’s madness is juxtaposed against his mother’s evident sanity and forces the reader to
question how much of it is actually fictitious. His increasing paranoia over Gertrude’s trespass, “you shall not go
until I have set up a glass where you shall see the inmost part of you,” and the violence such words suggest, are
a far cry from the Hamlet who addresses his mother as “Madam” in Act 1 Scene 2, and submits to her wishes
that he “go not to Wittenberg.” Yet it is important to note that at that point the young prince was unaware of
his mother’s participation in the “couch of luxury and damned incest” that Denmark had become. Perhaps a
more definite indicator is the ghostly visitation he experiences whilst Gertrude sees “nothing at all” but
“vacancy.” It is at this point, that, like Gertrude, the responder begins to questions whether “this is the very
coinage of his brain, this bodiless creation ecstasy!”
My view: Hamlet is not mad, merely distraught with the corruption he sees around him, and his incapability to fix it. Whether the ghost is
or is not a figment of his imagination is not important, you can see hallucinations without being mad. In fact, it could be argued that it is
not unusual in one who has just lost his father and become consumed with the act of revenge. His later actions and remarks, the
consistency of his character, and his capacity for sound philosophical musings, all present a image of a prince who retains control of his
hscintheholidays.com.au
All Rights Reserved.
Page 8 of 9
senses. The Hamlet who orders Ros and Guil to be murdered is the same Hamlet who wishes to “sweep to revenge” in Act 1. The
passionate Hamlet who “loves Ophelia more than 40 000 brothers” is the same who emphatically declares his love for his father, even to
the extent of following his father’s ghost. The Hamlet who muses over Yorick the skull, ponders the taking of his own life in his first
soliloquy, “that the Almighty had not fixed his canon ‘gainst self-slaughter.”
Corruption
Corruption is a central theme in Hamlet. From the very beginning the ghost “bodes some strange eruption”
symbolising an imbalance in the Chain of Being, and nature itself. Image clusters relating to inherent sickness or
decay pervade the text, strengthening this theme. Hamlet declares Denmark to be “an unweeded garden, that
grows to seed: things rank, and gross in nature possess it merely.” The image here of a garden, once tended and
now overgrown and “rank” is a metaphor which is built upon in future scenes. When Hamlet confronts Gertrude
with her “incestuous” sins, he pleads that she will repent, and so not “spread the compost on the weeds, to
make them ranker.” Once again a garden is used to symbolise both the state of Denmark and the state of men’s
souls. Nor is it only Hamlet who employs this dark style of imagery. Marcellus, one of the guards, remarks that
“something is (indeed) rotten in the state of Denmark,” comparing his country to something that can decay,
namely, that which is grown in a garden.
That “something is rotten in the state of Denmark” cannot be disregarded. Throughout Hamlet corruption and
decay is apparent, and is clearly highlighted in the young prince’s reaction (one of condemnation) to his
mother’s “incest.” Appalled at her quick remarriage to his late father’s murderer, Hamlet determines that even a
“beast that wants discourse of reason would have mourn’d longer.” Such a phrase accurately plumbs the depths
of corruption; men have descended below animals, a shocking violation to the Chain of Being. Hamlet continues
to condemn his mother’s actions with virility, believing that such “incestuous sheets” “is not, nor it cannot come
to good.” To Hamlet the destruction of Denmark had begun even before the ghost’s revelation, with Gertrude’s
“incest,” a symbol of depravity that is “stew’d in corruption.”
Throughout Hamlet, the Danish prince condemns the corruption around him, appalled by what is “rotten in the
state of Denmark.” Yet in the final Act, this “strange eruption” is evident not only to the Prince, but also to the
responder. Unlike Hamlet, the audience is aware that the death of every character, apart from his father, can be
traced back to the young prince, a situation which reflects the depth and complexity of Denmark’s degradation.
Hence the one who condemns the “damn’d incest” and hypocrisy of those around him, commits similar
trespasses in a clever use of dramatic irony. Hamlet murderers Polonius as he “mark(s) the encounter” between
Gertrude and the Prince, mistaking the “rat” for his master, the King. Furthermore, Hamlet can also be held
responsible for Ophelia’s insanity and subsequent death following his callous demand “get thee to a nunnery!”
Infuriated at the betrayal of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern who are in “double-business bound” Hamlet orders
their execution, via a letter to the English monarch, so that “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead!” Laertes is
fatally wounded by the prince in his attempt to revenge his father’s death, and Gertrude is poisoned by a cup
meant for Hamlet. The play culminates with HamlH Hamlet’s revenge on the “smiling damn’d villain,” Claudius,
an act shortly succeeded by his own death as a result of Laertes’ poisoned rapier. Thus the protagonist and hero
of this revenge-tragedy has committed more “foul murderer” than the villain himself, an unconventional plot
contrivance that reflects a serious “disruption” in the chain of being and heralds the complete decay of a state
that is “disjoint and out of frame.”
hscintheholidays.com.au
All Rights Reserved.
Page 9 of 9