Introduction
With his father gone, Hamlet is struck by grief, turning him into a character controlled by anger and bitterness and burdened by the task of revenge when he meets his father’s ghost, who reveals to Hamlet the injustice of his death a couple of months later. At this point, Hamlet’s development and growth as a character come into question. Many critics, scholars, and readers stand on the side of his transformation to a level-headed and strong-willed man who is determined to carry out his revenge against the perpetrator, Claudius, towards the final act of Shakespeare’s tragedy; this essay will oppose that common opinion.
Hamlet is a character who remains weighed down by grief, driven by his emotions and his impulses up until his end, as well as his mind, in which his ideas and insights regarding the subject of death, his identity, and his purpose preoccupy him. Together with the factor of fate determined by society’s actions, all these components will reinforce Hamlet’s instability, which prevents him from moving forward and proves him unreliable in executing a precise revenge.
Protagonist’s Emotions and Supernatural Fate in Act 1
Act 1 introduces the characters of Hamlet and others and the concepts of fate and revenge, which are fundamental in this play. For the first time, Shakespeare describes Hamlet as a grieving and depressed person using the figure of Claudius, a usurper and fratricide. He addresses the protagonist, “How is it that the clouds still hang on you?” (Shakespeare 1.2.68). A little later, the audience may notice that Hamlet feels suicidal and accuses God of making self-murder a mortal sin (Shakespeare 1.2.133-136).
He also has some contempt for his mother, Gertrude, because she became a usurper’s wife (Shakespeare 1.2.68). Moreover, there is a particular hatred in him for the fact that Claudius and she are married (Shakespeare 1.2.161-162). All these negative emotions will intensify during the play, destabilizing the prince’s character and resulting in disastrous consequences for everyone around him.
The reinforcing factor in the play is fate, supernaturally manifested by the ghost of Hamlet’s father, and he sets the action. The main message of the late father to his son is, “So art thou to revenge, when thou shalt hear” (Shakespeare 1.5.12). Wilson believes that Shakespeare’s fate is a sequence of interconnected social actions, according to which the will of one is subordinated (12-14). Therefore, Claudius’s treacherous and murderous act determines Hamlet’s character and the fate of the royal court. Since the will is subject to fate, the nature of Claudius’ deed determines the tone of subsequent societal interactions in the royal court and Hamlet’s identity and personality.
Hamlet’s Lack of Emotional Intelligence in Act 2
Act 2 is the least significant for the current analysis of the state of Hamlet’s character throughout the play. It is because most of the act is devoted to people around the protagonist trying to discover the cause of his psychological instability. The audience already knows it from Act 1, the truth about Old Hamlet’s murder that was told by the ghost of the deceased King. However, Hamlet’s exciting soliloquy at the end of the second scene reveals an interesting fact about him.
At the end of Act 2, the audience can notice that Hamlet does not understand emotional intelligence. The protagonist asks himself in confusion while thinking about the player, “What’s Hecuba to him, or he to <Hecuba,> / That he should weep for her?” (Shakespeare 2.2.586-567). He does not understand that emotions can be harnessed, controlled, and separated from thoughts and actions, mentally and consciously.
Interestingly, these reflections of Hamlet then turn into self-flagellation, resulting in an emotional breakdown and almost hysteria. He is ready to succumb to the Devil if he helps to take revenge (Shakespeare 2.2.628-630). He blames himself for inaction, lack of courage, and bitterness. As Wilson argues in his article on Shakespeare’s work, all of this is because Hamlet’s fate “is not his own” (17).
One may notice that he becomes more unstable in an episode as he considers his social position and role. As a result, Hamlet’s thoughtless act, driven by emotions and grief, leads to Ophelia’s madness and suicide, delaying just revenge and the death of almost the entire Danish royal court. The protagonist is strongly socially connected with Danish rulers and deeply integrated into their interactions.
As a son of Old Hamlet and Gertrude, he is a natural element of the Danish royalty system. Since he is the direct heir of the previous, true ruler, he cannot avoid this forever, and he must perform his function. Wilson notes, “external events are bearing down upon him so heavily that he has little power to direct his life as he desires” (17). The soliloquy discussed is Shakespeare’s explicit demonstration of how fate, social circle, and tradition further destabilize Hamlet’s psycho-emotional state and intensify his hatred, grief, and vindictiveness.
Claudius as the Opposite Emotional Character to Hamlet in Act 3
Unlike Act 2, which was analyzed above, the third one is significant for Hamlet’s narrative and the current analysis. Two critical plot events occur there: the dumb show with Claudius’s subsequent repentance before God and Polonius’s murder. The former is an example of a true temporal transformation of character, something that Hamlet does not experience in the play. The latter proves the protagonist’s unchangeable overemotional and impulsive nature.
‘The Mousetrap,’ a dumb show for the Danish royal court, takes on a sarcastic tone because of Hamlet, affecting Claudius personally. When the true heir to the Danish lands asks Guildenstern how the usurper feels, the latter provides an interesting answer. Guildenstern responds to Hamlet, “Is in his retirement marvelous/distempered” (Shakespeare 3.2.327-328).
The new King stopped and left the play not only because he feared the possibility of revealing how Old Hamlet died but also because he was faced with his sin, fratricide, and felt guilty about it. Claudius notes, “It hath the primal eldest curse upon ‘t, / A brother’s murder” (Shakespeare 3.3.41-42). During this introspection, he realizes that he cannot find peace and keep his dark secret simultaneously (Shakespeare 3.3.60). Consequently, Claudius better understands himself, his emotions, character, and fate.
Several plot points in the narrative prove that the transformation of Claudius’ character is genuine and significant compared to Hamlet, which will be discussed in the next section. Unlike Hamlet in Act 4, Claudius does not permanently leave the social environment that determines his fate to sort himself out. The threat in the face of Hamlet is still close and follows him, literally (Shakespeare 3.3.77). Moreover, no entirely new influences on emotions affect Claudius’s introspection.
It is also important to note that Claudius never again gives in to feelings to the same extent as he did during ‘The Mousetrap.’ As established above, the scene of Polonius’ murder is a prime example of the Danish prince’s impulsiveness and over-emotionality. He pierces the arras without even checking the person’s identity behind him (Shakespeare 3.4.29-30).
The protagonist does not feel sorry for the murder of Polonius, even though he is the father of Ophelia, the beloved of the Danish prince. All he regrets is that there was no Claudius behind Arras (Shakespeare 3.4.38-40). Then he redirects the impulse generated by anger and bloodlust to the closest person physically and personally to him, Gertrude, his mother, accusing her of betraying the memory of her father.
Socially Determined Fate and Emotionality of Hamlet in Act 4
Hamlet’s Act 4 can be considered unique in an internal context, plot, and an external interpretation by the audience. The play’s episode is when the protagonist temporarily leaves his homeland, Denmark, and the family royal court, where most of the action takes place, and goes to England. More specifically, Claudius sends Hamlet to England to protect his surroundings and crown from the emotionally and mentally unstable main character, finally getting rid of him without dirtying his hands. Claudius addresses the protagonist, “The bark is ready, and the wind at help / Th’ associates tend, and everything is bent / For England” (Shakespeare 4.3.49-51). For some literature and theater critics, this is the beginning of the development of the character of Hamlet and his permanent psycho-emotional transformation; however, this is not the correct viewpoint.
Before leaving for England, Hamlet behaves in Act 4 as in all previous ones. He is full of hatred and bitterness towards Claudius and despises those who do not resist the usurper. Only death, grief, and revenge are in Hamlet’s mind. He addresses the usurper, “A man may fish with the worm that hath eat / of a king and eat of the fish that hath fed of that / worm” (Shakespeare 4.3.30-32). It occurs when the antagonist sincerely wants to know where one of his most senior royal court members is. Moreover, these are the words that Hamlet chooses when he speaks about his beloved father; no remorse can be seen.
Later, when the protagonist is left alone on the pirate ship, a long but minor introspection occurs during the monologue. The Danish prince believes God gave him the intelligence to act ambitiously, purposefully, and urgently (Shakespeare, 4.4.38-41). In their article, Hamilton connects this internal monologue with the dialogue between Hamlet and Horatio from Act 5, proposing that he has ascended psychologically from being an avenger-son to a prince-judge (176). The writer then acknowledges that the change was temporary, and the protagonist takes revenge personally again when he returns to his home setting (Hamilton 176).
Yet, Hamilton insists character development in Hamlet has occurred. However, at the end of his soliloquy, the protagonist concludes, “O, from this time forth / My thoughts be bloody or be nothing worth!” (Shakespeare 4.4.68-69). Hamlet has become focused, but still thinks about bloodshed and not justice. Therefore, there was a simple change of perspective and not a temporary cardinal character transformation to a higher moral level.
Act 4 still makes one wonder what prompted Hamlet to go deeper into introspection and temporarily change his viewpoint on revenge from family matters to royal ethics and succession. The answer can again be found in Wilson’s work and his idea of the socially determined fate of the individual (13). By using his cultural and sociological concepts, Hamlet’s thinking in the second half of Act 4 can be explained as an escape of his will from fate and the social interactions around him.
Since he was out of Denmark, the protagonist’s will, part of his identity, no longer clashed with and was suppressed by his fate, being an avenger for his father. It gave him a temporal window to analyze the whole situation from the outside. Wilson notes that “the pirates turn Hamlet into a play of fortune, not fate” (14-15). When Hamlet returns, he becomes an involved member of society again, returning to the original mindset of the semi-mad and emotionally avenging son.
Act 5 as Proof of Hamlet’s Unchanging Instability
Exploration and analysis of Hamlet’s behavior and thoughts in Act 5 are as important to successfully proving the thesis statement as the breakdown of Act 4 above. This segment in the play bears critical evidence of his instability, impulsiveness, and over-emotionality, and the protagonist did not experience character development. Shakespeare demonstrates Hamlet’s instability and zero change at the beginning of the second scene when the main character and Laertes confront each other in Ophelia’s grave.
While the protagonist asks Laertes to remove his fingers from his throat, he threatens him. Hamlet warns Laertes, “For though I am not sensitive and rash, / Yet have I in me something dangerous, / Which let thy wisdom fear” (Shakespeare 5.2.275-277). As mentioned above, Hamilton assures that after being sent to England, Hamlet acquired a certain nobility in his character (175-176). As one can see from the second half of the sentence, the protagonist’s personality is reverting to its pre-Act-4 state, and he does not want to control it.
Hamlet only needs a motive to unleash his hatred, grief, and lust for revenge. The dispute over who loved Ophelia becomes the trigger, which leads to a climactic duel between two short-sighted Avengers. Hamlet declares, “Why, I will fight with him upon this theme / Until my eyelids will no longer wag!” (Shakespeare 5.2.282-283). The first wording is not the words of a person with a well-developed understanding of their goal and function. The second segment of Hamlet’s statement is what a person with emotional intelligence and mental stability would never say.
The blindness of Hamlet by anger, the manifestation of which was postponed multiple times, even worsens gradually towards the end of the play’s plot. When Gertrude falls dead from the poison, Hamlet still cannot remember that Claudius is the primary source of threat to him and his family in the royal court, especially if it is a danger of a poisonous nature. It is because he is wounded by Laertes and tired from the duel. The tragic hero is also overwhelmed with emotions and impulses.
Hamlet cries out in despair, “Treachery! Seek it out” (Shakespeare 5.2.343). Only after another already dead passionate avenger directly says the name of the poisoner does the protagonist remember his purpose and act according to his father’s will and the flow of fate. After the long-awaited act of revenge, the well-known ending comes when Hamlet, like almost the rest of the Danish royal court except Horatio, dies. Interestingly, there were at least four plot points in the play where character development could happen: the dumb show, Claudius’ prayer, Polonius’ murder, and the pirate ship.
Conclusion
There is a widespread belief among Shakespeare fans and experts that the protagonist experiences character development in Hamlet. Many believe he evolved from an emotional and overly grieving person to a focused and noble person. It is conventionally considered that the starting point of character transformation is Act 4. However, this is Hamlet’s wrong view; he does not experience positive change.
An analysis of his monologues, dialogues with others, and actions provided here shows that he remains a psycho-emotionally unstable person. Social determinants, combined with a lack of emotional intelligence in Hamlet, prevail over his character throughout the play. His inability to gain focus due to internal and external factors manifests itself in the postponement of revenge, wrongdoings, and a tragic ending.
Works Cited
Hamilton, R. W. “The Instability of “Hamlet.” Critical Survey, vol. 3, no. 2, 1991, pp. 170-177.
Shakespeare, William. The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. Edited by Barbara A. Mowat and Paul Werstine, Folger Shakespeare Library, 1992.
Wilson, Jeffrey R. “The Fortunes of Fate in Hamlet: Divine Providence and Social Determination.” The Midwest Quarterly, vol. 62, no. 1, 2020, pp. 10-26.