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 emain 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 rievance 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 hen 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 ate by his words to Horatio, “There’s a divinity that shapes our ends, / Rough-hew them how we will–” (5. . 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.
