Essay, Research Paper
Why Hamlet Is Not Fit To Rule
Actions judged without empathy implore bias at the
deepest root. Seldom, life experience equals the paradox of
participant observation with the magnitude and malice of
Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Although Hamlet tragically suffers
misfortune from the volition of others, his character
measures in deed and thought. From the scant background on
Hamlet’s youth to the words of Hamlet himself, ample
evidence shows Hamlet unsuited to lead. A good man of
sterling character but a casualty of extraordinary morass,
the Prince’s impending doom is inevitable. Hamlet
demonstrates all men culpable. While commendable men may
remain fragile, a leader will elude encumbrance at all cost
to ensure leadership. Hence, not all leaders are virtuous.
Hamlet’s virtues subdue his resolve to lead. Granted the
opportunity, the play establishes the three following
reasons Hamlet can not lead a country: a sheltered life, the
deep love for his parents and an overpowering encountering
with the supernatural.
The play shows no intimation of Hamlet either waiting
or longing to be king. By all accounts he appears content as
Prince. Likewise, one can venture his childhood balanced and
happy. Hamlet laments the skull of Yorick, “Alas, poor /
Yorick! I knew him, Horatio–a fellow of infinite / jest, of
most excellent fancy. He hath bore me on his back a thousand
times,..” (5.1.190-193). Also, he speaks highly of his
father and possesses a profound closeness to his mother.
This shows remarkable parenting, producing an eminently
loving, respectful and faithful son. However, the sheltering
of his life does not strike to advantage. Fueled by the
departure of his protected childhood, Hamlet’s temper
severely distorts his outlook, philosophy and reasoning. The
vast contrast from guarded youth to sudden misfortune
devastates the Prince’s world, as Hamlet’s probity and
grievance polarize his emotions. Moreover, preceding the
ages of approximately twenty-five to thirty, Hamlet had
never experienced genuine tragedy. Deducing these factors
offers a starting point to further analyze Hamlet’s
character.
In addition, Shakespeare conceals a crevasse of mystery
for the ostensible change in Queen Gertrude. Conceivably.
the Queen enjoyed quarters with Claudius while the late King
Hamlet fought distant, gallant battles, making a puissant
formula for seduction. Regardless, as time forces Hamlet to
reckon the death of his father and the incestuous marriage
of his mother and uncle, nascent stages of insanity appear
when he can not voice his violated and broken heart. For
example, concerning his mother’s swift marriage, Hamlet
remarks, “It is not, nor it cannot come to good./ But break
my heart, for I must hold my tongue” (1.2.163,164). His
internal confinement eventually explodes. Yet, Hamlet’s
actions deserve a compassionate view inasmuch as his burdens
unfairly seek him out. Shakespeare ironically limns Hamlet a
courageous yet injured character having no recourse for
recovery, too sensitively lost in the real world. A notable
ruler can only sensibly heed the concerns of preserving his
own kingdom. Hamlet does not employ constant nature for
hardened decisions in high office but a quick temper for
mischief.
Hamlet’s extreme love for his parents amplifies his
pain well over common threshold. His volatile mix of heart
and intellect render righteous retaliation impossible.
Hamlet’s meager retribution occurs in such harsh words to
his mother as, “Such an act / That blurs the grace and blush
of modesty, / Calls virtue hypocrite, takes off the rose /
From the fair forehead of an innocent love / And sets a
blister there, makes marriage vows / As false as dicers’
oaths–” (3.4.49-54). Hamlet scorns his mother that Heaven
is though-sick by the marriage to his uncle. Further,
Hamlet’s humiliation coupled with anger for his murderous
uncle, ruling through deceit and treachery shows
justification for his wrathful words. Nevertheless, Hamlet
overwhelmingly succumbs to an honest and shattered heart
incapable of mend. However, the most important detail
deserving contemplation resides in the supernatural
visitations from the ghost of Hamlet’s father.
While the ghostly visions traumatize Hamlet, the
contents paralyze. “With thoughts beyond the reaches of our
souls?” (1.4.61). A frightened Hamlet wearily fails to
execute a revengeful scheme. Incompetently, the Prince
muddles his emotional process enabling an eye for an eye
hopeless. The apparition’s message angers and weakens
Hamlet. One reasonably assumes spiritual visions should
strengthen and bolster confidence for the matters on an
earthly plane, but Hamlet can not overcome the vehemence of
his anguish. His severed soul and broken heart corrupt his
focus. Hamlet’s flaws arise in grief and end in agony, and
not even his father’s ghost can guide him through his
entanglement. Hamlet reveals a reckless acceptance of his
fate by his words to Horatio, “There’s a divinity that
shapes our ends, / Rough-hew them how we will–”
(5.2.11,12). Were Hamlet King, his sensibilities empower
others over himself. Plus, Hamlet’s insights turn bloody
from the shame that plagues his heart. With his father
killed, mother stained, he can only live for honor.
Consequently, honor’s reach exceeds Hamlet’s grasp.
In conclusion, Hamlet’s imprecation twist with such
complexity that many adducing solutions abound. But
considering the epic proportion of Hamlet’s first tragedy,
and its persisting anguish, one can tolerably justify
Hamlet’s violence. On the other hand, Hamlet’s sensitive
nature does not enable leadership fit for a king since his
morality preys self-paralyzing. Sheltered youth, endmost
love for his parents and ghostly visits inculcate and
reinforce his susceptibility to the outside world. Hamlet
depicts evil for evil yet good as crushed worthiness. In
essence, a socialized norm of honor and morality dictate the
test for Hamlet, whereas the inability to reconcile the loss
of his father and mother’s shame ordains Hamlet a victim of
humiliation, not a leader. Hamlet, — born to relinquish,
not rule.