Hamlet Midterm

Christina Putnam

Mrs. Blunk

ENGWR 301

3/17/2012

Midterm

Revenge Harms the Revenger

It is commonly said that “two wrongs don’t make a right,” but can a wrong be made right? How would one go about seeking revenge, and is revenge a morally justifiable solution? William Shakespeare uses imagery and foils in the literary classic Hamlet to reveal that because two wrongs don’t make a right, in an attempt to exact revenge, one only hurts one’s self.

The foils of the revenge seeking sons, Hamlet, Laertes, and Fortinbras, were employed by Shakespeare to show that revenge is complex and complicated. There isn’t a formula for revenge that one can follow. Shakespeare uses contrast between Hamlet, Laertes, and Fortinbras’ quest for revenge, to not only show there is no clear method for revenge, but that seeking revenge only hurts one’s self. Although each son’s path to revenge was different, they all sought to correct an injustice by committing an injustice, which led to their demise.

Hamlet was seeking revenge for the murder of his father who was killed by Claudius. The Ghost of King Hamlet first told Hamlet about the murder, and it was he who entreated Hamlet to “revenge his foul and most unnatural murder” (Shakespeare 1.5.25). Although Hamlet professes to swiftly “sweep to [his] revenge” (1.5.31), Shakespeare uses Hamlet to illustrate inaction and delay in revenge; Hamlet could “say nothing—no, not for a king” (2.2.545) throughout most of the play, but while Hamlet was dying he finally killed Claudius. Shakespeare designed the characters of Laertes and Fortinbras to serve as foils to Hamlet; Shakespeare contrasts their quick path to revenge against Hamlet’s delay to highlight that the process of seeking revenge, no matter how long it takes to exact revenge, only hurts a person. Not only did Hamlet’s quest for revenge result in his own death, but also in Gertrude’s and Ophelia’s, the woman he “did love…once” (3.1.116-117).

Shakespeare uses the foil of Laertes to further complicate the idea of revenge and to show that seeking revenge only harms one’s self. Although Laertes had just cause for revenge, he sought it in a deceptive manner, which resulted in his harm. Laertes sought revenge for his “noble father lost, [and his] sister driven into desperate terms” (4.7.25-26) by Hamlet. His motives for revenge were justified, as opposed to Fortinbras, who sought revenge regardless of the fact that his father “who by a sealed compact well ratified by law and heraldry, did forfeit… his life” (1.1.85-87). Laertes used trickery to execute his revenge by poisoning Hamlet indirectly with a fencing sword. The poisonous sword intended for Hamlet “justly” (5.2.308) killed Laertes with his “own treachery” (5.2.309).

Shakespeare reveals a new dimension of the complexities of revenge when Laertes sought forgiveness for his actions. Laertes admitted that killing Hamlet “is almost ‘gainst my conscience” (5.2.293), and before he committed revenge he asked Hamlet to “exchange forgiveness” (5.2.330). Shakespeare revealed that regardless of one’s feelings of remorse or repentance, the path towards revenge could hurt oneself because two wrongs don’t make a right.

Shakespeare further explores the concept of revenge though the character Fortinbras of Norway. Fortinbras sought to avenge “those foresaid lands so by his father lost” (1.1.102-103). Similarly to Hamlet and Laertes, Fortinbras attempted revenge through deceit and trickery. Fortinbras was deceitful in his revenge by breaking the vow he made “before his uncle never more to give th’ assay of arms against [Denmark]” (2.2.70-71). Shakespeare uses irony to show how “Fortinbras craves the conveyance of a promised march over his kingdom [Denmark]” (4.4.2-4), when in reality, he was moving his troops to attack Denmark. Hamlet called Fortinbras “a delicate and tender prince” (4.4.47), and he admired Fortinbras for his “divine ambition puffed” (4.4.48) and his ability to conduct revenge swiftly. However, Fortinbras wasn’t the tender prince Hamlet described him as, because Fortinbras was willing to allow “the imminent death of twenty two thousand men, that for a fantasy and trick of fame” (4.4.59-60). Fortinbras’ quest for revenge on Denmark ultimately hurt himself because he inherited the throne in a deceitful manner that tarnished his reputation.

Shakespeare uses imagery to further explore the idea that seeking to exact revenge will only hurt a person because two wrongs don’t make a right. Upon hearing of his father’s death, Laertes assumes that Claudius was responsible, and blasphemed Claudius telling him, “I’ll not be juggled with. To hell, allegiances!” (4.5.128-130)! Laertes professed, “I dare damnation. To this point I stand that both worlds I give to negligence” (4.5.131-133). In his anger, Laertes recognized that negative consequences could result from his revenge, but he was willing to accept them. Shakespeare used the imagery of Laertes’ acknowledgement of the consequences of revenge to further illustrate how revenge only hurts one’s self when a wrong is paid for by a wrong.

The devastation that seeking revenge can cause is accurately summarized by Hamlet’s commentary on the feud between Norway and Poland when he said, “That inward breaks and shows no cause without why the man dies” (4.4.27-28). Similar to war, the process of seeking or achieving revenge breaks a person down inwardly, and causes harm to the revenger. Because two wrongs don’t make a right, an attempt to exact revenge may hurt one’s self and be the reason “why the man dies” (4.4.27-28).

To Thine Own Self Be True

It has been said, “If you stand for nothing, you’ll fall for anything.” Not abiding by one’s own moral compass results in “falling for anything,” which can have negative ramifications on one’s life. Through the use of characterization in the play Hamlet, William Shakespeare reveals that haphazardly taking on someone else’s truth results in severe consequences.

Shakespeare uses the character of Hamlet to illustrate the negative affects that taking on someone else’s truth has. The thought to avenge the Ghost’s “murder most foul” (Shakespeare 1.5.27) didn’t originate with Hamlet; in fact, the Ghost first told Hamlet that he must be ready “to revenge when thou shalt hear” (1.5.8). Hamlet was compelled “to make bitter oppression” (2.2.555) by the Ghost, and in his attempt to take revenge, Hamlet adopted the Ghost’s truth.

Through the character of Hamlet, Shakespeare sends a warning about the serious consequences that can result from arbitrarily adopting someone else’s truth. In taking on the Ghost’s quest for revenge, Hamlet was perceived as a threat by Claudius because “the queen his mother lives almost by his looks” (4.7.11-12) and because of “the great love the general gender bear him” (4.7.18). Ultimately, Claudius ended Hamlet’s life by the “exploit… under the which he shall not choose but fall” (4.7.65-66). Hamlet’s choice to act on someone else’s truth not only wound up killing him, but it also resulted in deadly consequences for others. Both Gertrude’s and Ophelia’s deaths were used by Shakespeare to show the effect that Hamlet’s actions had on those around him.

Not only did Hamlet’s adoption of someone else’s truth indirectly hurt those he loved, but in the process he also murdered Polonius, Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, Laertes, and Claudius. Shakespeare uses this high body count to warn us of the serious consequences that result from haphazardly taking on someone else’s truth.

In addition to Hamlet, Shakespeare uses the characters of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to convey that blindly following someone else’s truth can cause one to “fall for anything” and potentially lead to one’s demise. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were summoned by Claudius to “draw [Hamlet] on to pleasures and to gather, so much as from the occasion you may glean” (2.2.15-16); in other words, they were hired by Claudius to spy on Hamlet. Hamlet wasn’t fooled by their pretentious friendship, and he chides them for “lying” (3.2.330) and attempting to “play upon” him (3.2.336). Rosencrantz and Guildenstern recklessly adopted someone else’s truth by laying their “service freely at [Claudius’] feet to be commanded” (2.2.31-32). Hamlet referred to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern as a “sponge” (4.2.12) “that soaks up the king’s countenance, his rewards, his authorities” (4.2.15-16), illustrating how they were pawns used by the King.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern’s adoption of the King’s truth resulted in the consequence of Claudius “keep[ing] them, like an ape, in the corner of his jaw, first mouthed to be last swallowed” (4.2.17-18). Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were “squeezed dry” (4.2.19-20) by Claudius, and consequently died while carrying out his mission of spying on Hamlet. Shakespeare reveals that haphazardly adopting someone else’s truth results in serious consequences, or in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern’s case, death.

Shakespeare highlights the severe consequences that can result from “falling for anything” through the character of Polonius. Polonius took on Claudius’ truth when he was constantly spying on Hamlet for Claudius. Shakespeare uses the irony of Polonius’ advice of, “this above all: to thine own self be true” (1.3.78), to reveal how Polonius was more “faithful and honorable” (2.2.131) to Claudius than to himself. Polonius was eager to “fain prove” (2.2.132) his faithfulness to Claudius, and he professed he would “find where the truth is hid, though it were hid within the center” (2.2.158-160). Polonius was more committed to Claudius’ truth than his own which ultimately led to his downfall.
Through the use of irony, Shakespeare highlights how blindly following another person’s truth results in severe consequences. Ironically, Polonius died like the “rat” (3.4.24) he was while following Claudius’ truth and spying on Hamlet and Gertrude. Faithfully following the leadership of Claudius led Polonius to his death.

Shakespeare’s uses characterization to emphasize that when one haphazardly takes on someone else’s truth, it results in severe consequences. In order to avoid the consequences that result from falling for anything, don’t blindly follow another’s truth; take Polonius’ advice “to thine own self be true” (1.3.88).

Ophelia’s Chaste Treasure Has Been Opened

Shakespeare reveals through foreshadowing, imagery, and repetition that Ophelia was pregnant. Shakespeare employs foreshadowing when Laertes is warning Ophelia about Hamlet. Laertes suggests “the weight what loss [Ohpelia’s] honor may sustain if with too credent ear you list [Hamlet’s] songs, or lose your heart, or your chaste treasure open to his unmastered importunity” (1.3.28-31). Foreshadowing suggests Ophelia will give, or has already given, “her chaste treasure” (1.3.31) to Hamlet.

Polonius is also foreshadowing Ophelia’s pregnancy when he tells his daughter to “not believe [Hamlet’s] vows, for they are brokers not of that dye which their investments show, but mere implorators of unholy suits, breathing like sanctified and pious bawds, the better to beguile” (1.3.127-131). In simple terms, Polonius is warning his daughter that Hamlet’s professions of love are intended to seduce her, which could lead to a pregnancy.

Shakespeare also uses foreshadowing to suggest Ophelia’s possible pregnancy when Hamlet tells Polonius that “conception is a blessing, but as your daughter may conceive- friend, look to ‘t” (2.2.185-186). Hamlet is warning Polonius that if Ophelia got pregnant it wouldn’t end well, and that Polonius should look after Ophelia’s purity.

Shakespeare uses imagery to reveal that Ophelia was with child. As Hamlet gives his “to be or not to be” soliloquy, he asks that Ophelia remember him in his prayers. “Soft you now, the fair Ophelia! - Nymph, in thy orisons be all my sins remembered” (3.1.89-91). The imagery of Hamlet calling Ophelia a nymph implies a sexual connotation.

Another instance where Shakespeare uses imagery is through the song Ophelia’s sings in her madness. She sings, “Maid at your window, to be your valentine. Then up he rose, and donned his clothes, and dupped up the chamber door. Let in the maid that out a maid and never departed more” (4.5.49-54). Ophelia is singing about how a man took away a girl’s virginity, which Shakespeare uses as an image of what happened between Ophelia and Hamlet.

Additionally, Shakespeare is revealing that Ophelia was pregnant through the imagery of the flowers that Ophelia handed out. The only flower Ophelia gave to herself was rue, “the herb of Grace” (4.5.180), which is symbolic of repentance or sorrow. Rue suggests that Ophelia regretted the incestuous act she committed with Hamlet, which led to her pregnancy.

Through the use of repetition, Shakespeare reveals that Ophelia was pregnant. Hamlet repeatedly tells Ophelia, “get thee to a nunnery. Why wouldst thou be a breeder of sinners” (3.1.123-124)? Hamlet’s repeated use of the term nunnery, another word for brothel, suggests Ophelia belonged in one for the incestuous acts she committed.

Works Cited

Shakespeare, William, and John Crowther. Hamlet. New York: SparkNotes, 2003. Print.