Hello, this is my Mod B response to the question "Hamlet is too much the student of justice to be an effective instrument of justice. Is this the impression you gain from the play? Examine the above statement by making close reference to Shakespeare’s Hamlet."
In critically studying William Shakespeare’s Hamlet (1603), it is not only Hamlet’s position as a student of justice which prevents him from being an effective instrument of it, the play constructs much deeper and more complex reasons behind Hamlet’s inaction. Hamlet’s deep connection with the Renaissance humanist psyche gives him opportunities to contemplate actions before acting. The frustration developed in an endless dichotomy of verisimilitude and reality further prevents from serving justice. It is only once these reasons are dispelled Hamlet chooses take revenge and enact justice. Regardless of temporal context, Shakespeare preserves the textual integrity of Hamlet through his representation of these themes in Hamlet.
Hamlet’s inaction of justice is explained by his Renaissance Humanist psyche, leading him to engage in thought against acting upon instinct, leading to a justified delay of justice. Shakespeare’s choice in characterisation of Hamlet parallels the changing ideology in the transitional period from an Elizabeth to Jacobean era, as well as the overhaul in societal beliefs. Hamlet’s engagement with his humanist values is seen in his evaluation of man through rhetorical questions, “What a piece of work is man, how noble in reason, how infinite in capabilities”, a reflection upon himself but also the value of human life”. His engagement with the Renaissance ways of thinking are presented by his choice of expressing emotions; in long soliloquys such as the well-known “To be or not to be” or “Alas poor Yorick” speeches. These values lead him to choose contemplation over action, the most notable example of this intrinsic behaviour is at Claudius’ most vulnerable moment, questioning if “Now might I do it pat, now he is a-praying…when he is fit and seasoned for his passage?...No.” His self-reflection at a critical turning point in the play highlights Hamlet’s strong Renaissance methods of acting, considering the consequences of an action before acting. His scholarly nature is not only shown in his background as a university student, but also in his straining efforts to gain proof of the murder. The “The Mousetrap” play, as noted by Dir. David Berthold, “(the metatheatricality) is at the defining feature of the play”. Shakespeare’s decision to include this into Hamlet, as observed when comparing the play to the source material “Amleth”, was one with purpose, with the intention of showing Hamlet’s will to consolidate his theory with proof before taking drastic action and reinforces his Renaissance values. It is these values which a largely to reason for Hamlet’s delay of enforcing justice throughout the play.
Hamlet’s obsession in discerning appearances and reality creates an internal angst, further preventing the course of justice. The persistence of facades in the play reflect the normality of espionage in the Elizabethan court; spies ruthless in observing society for possible assassination plans on the Queen by the supporters of Queen Mary of Scots. His frustration with facades is known to the audience before the Ghost’s revelation, critiquing Gertrude for her use of the word “seems”; “Seems madam? Nay it is, I know not seems.” His fixation on the word reflects his hatred for facades, further indicated by his dark costuming and therefore lack of an appearance. This however is in no comparison to his strong catharsis upon learning of the murder, labelling Claudius a “villain, villain, smiling damned villain…that one may smile, and smile, and be a villain”. His anger at false-appearances stems from an inability to even understand how they can come about, in a later soliloquy questioning how “Is it not monstrous that this player here but in a fiction…could force his soul to his own conceit”, conclusively showing not only Hamlet’s anger at the existence of false-seeming appearances, but proving his inability to comprehend their existence; it is this which leads to his frustration in discerning appearance against reality. Hamlet cannot even begin to accept untruths in trivial matters, correcting Osric’s statement that “it is very hot”, replying “No believe me, ‘tis very cold”. This endless pursuit in attempting to distinguish the seeming-true from the truth, let alone the inability to comprehend the concept, creates a vexation within Hamlet and further delays any course of justice, and as Prof. Ronan McDonald explains, he is “trying out that unreliability of seems”.
It is only once Hamlet quells his morale and frustration with false realities that he is able to take revenge and enact justice, albeit a delayed reaction. This is in contrast to Laertes, who acts rashly upon emotions to seek vengeance. Shakespeare’s examination of revenge is reminiscent of the Medieval Code of Revenge, as the dilution of such beliefs in the Renaissance period favoured thinking as opposed to the rash actions associated with revenge. This notion is presented through the juxtaposition in the vengeances of Laertes and Hamlet. Laertes, upon learning of his father’s death, releases a violent catharsis at Claudius, telling “To hell allegiance…Let come what comes, only I’ll be revenged most thoroughly for my father”. This is stark contrast to Hamlet’s actions upon learning of the murder, choosing to contemplate actions before acting as he does throughout the play. For Hamlet it is only once Laertes, at the climax of the play in both their final moments, tells him that “Thy mother’s poisoned…the king, the king’s to blame”, Hamlet is able to dispel his Renaissance humanist values and his frustration with verisimilitudes that he able to enact justice, fatally wounding Claudius twice.
In conclusion, Shakespeare does not reason Hamlet’s ineffectiveness of justice due to a strong bond to justice, but proposes that Hamlet’s delayed action arises from a deep belief in Renaissance and Humanist values, as well as a frustration in being unable to discern appearance from reality. Ergo, it is only once Hamlet can quench these values he is able to enact revenge and thus bring justice upon Denmark. This line of reasoning remains understandable and relevant even now due to Shakespeare’s ability present these themes in relation to a human experience, strengthening the textual integrity of Hamlet.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Topic: English Advanced Essay Marking (Modules Only) (Read 603648 times)