“Shakespeare’s play Hamlet elicits thought-provoking responses from the reader to the morally ambiguous pursuit of justice.”
To what extent would you agree or disagree with the above statement?
Support your answer with reference to the text.
I agree with the proposed statement, that thought-provoking responses of the reader arise when regarding the morally ambiguous pursuit of justice that is present in Shakespeare’s Hamlet.
The play itself exists on the foundations of treachery and the purposeful desire to misinform others, aspects of which continue until the play’s final scene.
In response to such developments, the reader may be keen to question what exactly has transpired during the play’s duration. Ultimately beginning to query a character’s true intentions; which results from each character’s warped sense of personal justice.
Regarding the pursuit of justice within Hamlet, the character that strives towards this most explicitly is the titular Hamlet.
He has conjured his own idea of true justice in respect to avenging the murder of his father, Old Hamlet.
The first instance where the reader may begin to question the actions of Hamlet would be during Act 1 Scene 5.
Where having learned of his father’s murder, he decides to preform under an “antic disposition.” To him, should he feign madness, he understands that he will learn if Claudius was the real perpetrator who used Old Hamlet’s death to seize the throne.
From this point onwards, the reader may be presented with their own doubts as to the integrity of Hamlet’s plan of revenge.
Criticism towards Hamlet’s approach, and why he does not take a more direct stance, could be some of the concerns that may surface. His reasoning to take such a path which only complicates matters further will be under inspection by any astute reader.
For those well-familiar with Hamlet’s nature, such actions may not surprise them. When remembering his characterization as one who inherently internalizes problems as a coping mechanism, such actions are to be as expected.
Whilst such an action to deceive is not morally ambiguous, it later becomes questionable in terms of morals.
Furthermore, Hamlet does not contain performing his fit of madness to only Claudius, whom it is intended for.
He continues his act into all interactions with the other characters, including his mother and Ophelia. The results of which having a pivotal effect on the ending of the play.
Most memorably in the “Nunnery Scene,” where Hamlet yearns for Ophelia to leave Elsinore and its “unweeded garden,” of corruption.
He states “Get thee to a nunnery,” in substitute of his true feelings, wishing not to give up his display of madness lest he get the attention of Claudius.
Ophelia, none the wiser, takes his words to heart. She believes that he only sees her as an unpure, unjust figure, now reduced to a “breeder of sinners,” in her lover’s eyes.
This single action of Hamlet’s has deterimental effects on the rest on the narrative, as it is the catalyst for Ophelia’s eventual mental descent. Whereby she begins to doubt her own sentiments and sanity, ironically due to Hamlet’s actions as a result of his poor mental state.
The reader may be at a loss as to why Hamlet does not abandon his madness or protect Ophelia, whomst is likely the only character untouched by the corruption and intent to deceive.
Perhaps Hamlet did not hold any foresight that such an action would damage her pure heart to such an extent.
He held his pursuit for justice so tightly, that it enveloped any other feelings he felt for others. Caring only about fulfilling his goal, he pays no heed to the possible casualties that can accompany achieving it.
The question as to if such an action was morally correct can come to mind for the reader.
Finally, the “Prayer Scene,” is one of the more notable moments for Hamlet as he strives for his pursuit of absolute justice.
He motivates himself into being the actor for his father’s revenge.
He is presented with the opportunity of killing Claudius, the “damned smiling villain,” responsible for the depravity that has beseeched Elsinore.
Yet he does not act to kill him when he is alone, due to his own inhibitions. His ability to think and devise such plans done to uncover the truth of his father’s demise have played in his favour. He has the motive for murder, but does not act.
Once more, the reader may be exasperated over the actions of Hamlet, that are dramatized but never achieved as intended.
The importance of religion, an aspect of Shakespeare’s time is what causes this inability to act from Hamlet. By killing Claudius in prayer, Hamlet believes he will pardoned of his crimes. This belief undermines his plan that due punishment is needed to ensure that he will be guaranteed true justice.
As such he does not act, much to the dismay of the reader who grows tired of him not executing his ideals when given the chance.
The reader may identify a disconnect in their own envisionment of the pursuit of justice, given such circumstances.
The idea that their personal morals may be questioned could be elicited from their own reading of Hamlet.
To conclude, Shakespeare’s Hamlet presents many sides of the human psyche. Where characters question the actions of others, but most importantly the reader may be unsure of what to think in turn as a result of such ambiguity. Leading to questions arsing in response to the actions showcased in the play.
The concept of the pursuit of justice is highlighted in the narrative, but may provide doubts as to whether certain decisions are justified. This can cause possible introspection and further thought by the reader over the moral ambiguities posed by the play’s contents.
Verity Report 