Without his father 's message Hamlet would have surely left for England and the tragedy to follow would have almost certainly been circumvented. However, his father did intervene consequently driving Hamlet to a boiling point until he explodes killing Laertes and Claudius. These events would have never transpired if it were not for the ghosts story of his murder, clearly demonstrating the huge impact king Hamlet’s ghost had on the play even though it only spoke for two scenes. The ghost urged Hamlet to seek revenge for his, “Murder most foul, as in the best it is./But this most foul, strange and unnatural(1.5.2)”, and told Hamlet to seek revenge only for Claudius and not his mother as she was weak and only fell for Claudius out of her despair. These words nearly drove Hamlet to madness as his emotion were so powerful that he reached a point to where he could not even process them.
/O, this is hire and salary, not revenge” (3.3). Hamlet makes excuses saying that if he kills Claudius while he is praying, then his soal will go to heaven and he doesn’t deserve that. The irony is that Claudius knows he isn’t going to heaven and if Hamlet killed him, he wouldn’t have gone to heaven. Claudius admits this saying, “My words fly up, my thoughts remain below. /Words without thoughts never to heaven go” (3.3).
When Hamlet discovered that it was King Claudius that had killed his father, Hamlet maps out a process in which he would go about the death of Claudius. He ponders and thinks of the repercussions that may arise in every situation. At times, he inadvertently lets his emotions get the best of him. For example, his plan of revealing Claudius’s guilt through the observation of the self-reflecting play called “Mousetrap” works as Hamlet had intended. However, Hamlet’s impatience overcomes his control, allowing Claudius to realize the motives of Hamlet.
Yet once again, Hamlet demonstrates the will to act, but does not realize his goals in a courageous manner. Yes, Hamlet does kill Claudius in the conclusion of the play, but his final epiphany “let be” is merely a simple acceptance of anxiety, rather than a final, courageous action (V. 2. 196). Accepts the duel, falling into Claudius’ and Laertes’ trap. Ultimately, Hamlet’s inaction is greatly caused by his thoughtfulness, which overshadows impulsive behavior and action.
This becomes a major part of the plot development. Hamlet has many causes affecting his mental state, the root to his madness is the death of his father. After the ghost of Hamlet’s dad revealed the truth to his homicide, Hamlet is out to seek revenge and begins to display unroyal behavior when processing the fact his uncle, Claudius, killed his father: “his doublet all unbraced, no hat upon his head, his stockings fouled, ungartered, and down-gyved to his ankle.” (Shakespeare pg.79) This quote supports his symptoms of being mental ill within his
And thus he decides to feign craziness -- or so he believes. Throughout the rest of the play, we see his relationship with the other characters crumble as he becomes increasingly overcome by his rage and suspicion. By the very end, Hamlet gets his revenge, but
Hamlet is a Shakespearean play about a distraught prince who comes home to Denmark at the news of his father’s death. Once he finds out that his uncle Claudius has married his mother and become king himself, Hamlet suspects foul play. When his father 's ghost comes back to tell him of Claudius’s sins, he is asked to murder Claudius for revenge, but he isn’t sure if he can do it. Some scholars, researchers, and casual readers would argue that this drives Hamlet mad by burdening him with decision. Others would say that after he accepts his father 's plea for vengeance, that he uses this cloak of madness as a disguise so Claudius cannot see his murderous intentions.
Throughout the play, Hamlet claims to be feigning madness, but his portrayal of a madman is so intense and so convincing that many readers believe that Hamlet actually slips into insanity at certain moments in the play. Do you think this is true, or is Hamlet merely playacting insanity? What evidence can you cite for either claim? In William Shakespeare’s classic, Hamlet, the question concerning Hamlet’s underlying sanity is a major element in the interpretation of the text. In the play, Shakespeare portrays Hamlet as a dynamic character to cause a mental state conundrum among the audience and explore the themes of suicide, spying, friendship, madness, providence, love, hate and humour.
He realizes that once people die, their social differences, among others as well, are irrelevant and crumble to dust just as the bones of their bodies do. This prepares Hamlet for revenge because he is able to trump his fears of death, given the fact that he has nothing to lose, since all people die the same when everything is finished and settled. Additionally, the death of Hamlet’s mother acts as the final situation, which causes Hamlet to reach his breaking point, ultimately killing Claudius. When he learns that Gertrude had died due to Claudius’ poisoning of the drink, he states, “Here, thou incestuous, murderous, damned, Dane. Drink of this potion.
The true question is will Hamlet ever get his revenge or will he delay until it is too late? Hamlet is presented with several opportunities to pursue his vengeance, but delays each time for multiple reasons in which reveal his true nature. There are many reasons Hamlet restrains from killing Claudius. Firstly, Hamlet does not know whether the ghost should be believed or if it is just the devil in disguise trying to trick him. This is a valid reason because if the ghost is the devil, then Hamlet’s soul will be damned to the Hell.