Allen Loomis
Several arguments made by critics of William Shakespeare’s Hamlet explain Hamlet’s hesitation to avenge his father, and one is his madness. Although there is textual evidence to support the madness argument, the preeminent reason for Hamlet’s hesitation is his belief in an existential philosophy. The Oxford English Dictionary defines existentialism as “[a] philosophical movement or approach which focuses on the analysis of human existence and on the individual human beings as agents freely determining by their choice what they will become.” To existentialists, recognizing freedom of choice and the ability to develop oneself leads to an existential attitude or internal anguish because one struggles with the idea that we are solely responsible for determining our own identities and reasons for existence. Proof of Hamlet’s existential philosophy is validated by his melancholic disposition (which is an existential attitude) and autonomy, or free agency, when determining the guilt of Claudius.
Existentialism became a defined philosophy during the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries and gained popularity following World War II. The founding philosophers, Soren Kierkegaard, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Jean-Paul Sartre, presented self-authenticity and human freedom as pillars of the philosophy. Many of their beliefs are rooted in the principle argument that existence precedes essence. Thus, existentialists believe that there is no predestined or godly plan for man. Instead, humans simply exist, and it is up to individuals to define their essences or meanings for existence. Existentialists believe that finding one’s meaning for one’s existence can be accomplished through experience and self-reflection. According to Sartre, “Man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards… Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself” (28). Sartre’s outline of man’s existential development is present in Hamlet’s character progression, starting with his first soliloquy, wherein Hamlet acknowledges his existence, “O that this too too solid flesh would melt” (1.2.129), and then he subsequently struggles to find a purpose for his existence, “How weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable / Seem to me all the uses of this world” (1.2.133-34). Hamlet’s melancholic disposition continues throughout much of the play and is reflective of an existential attitude. However, by the end of the play, Hamlet completes Sartre’s aforementioned timeline by defining himself as “Hamlet the Dane” (5.1.236), achieving revenge, and coming to terms with his self-imposed fate.
Several triggers bring about Hamlet’s existential attitude. His father dies while he is away at Wittenberg, his mother marries his uncle, and he meets his father’s Ghost and learns that his uncle murdered his father. These tragic events cause Hamlet to enter a melancholic state in which he contemplates suicide and questions the meaning of his existence. He poetically conveys this attitude to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern: “What a piece of work is a man – how noble in reason; how infinite in faculties, in form and moving; how express and admirable in action; how like an angel in apprehension; how like a god; the beauty of the world; the paragon of animals. And yet to me what is this quintessence of dust?” (2.2.269-274). Hamlet’s disposition here represents a developing existential attitude. He grapples with the fact that he is alone in determining his future and struggles to find a reason to exist in a world that appears meaningless. Hamlet’s existential attitude and his desire to retain self-authenticity cause delays in his mission.
A lack of authenticity is a major, observable character flaw throughout Hamlet and starts with Bernardo’s question, “Who’s there” (1.1.1), which “never becomes a simple question […]. [I]dentity from the first line is problematic” (Lee 6). Hamlet recognizes the issue of authenticity within the royal court of Elsinore. For example, Claudius has deceptively murdered Hamlet’s father, Polonius constantly schemes for the King, and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are sent to spy on Hamlet. As a result, to gain time and to hide his ambitions, Hamlet shields himself behind a guise of madness in order to remain autonomous in his decisions; his hesitation to murder Claudius is proof of this. Instead of simply believing in the Ghost, Hamlet tests the conscience of Claudius so he can come to his own conclusion, as he attempts to do through the staging of “The Mousetrap.” Hamlet’s decision to identify any signs of guilt from Claudius is an authentic action because he does not merely accept what has been forced upon him by the Ghost. Instead, he decides to test the conscience of Claudius and come to a determination on his own. By doing so, Hamlet shows that he understands his ability to independently make decisions, and as such, he understands that he is free to determine his own actions.
Existentialists claim that “there is no reality except in action” (Sartre 85). This idea implies that people are nothing more than an accumulation of behaviors and actions. Thus, because humans are free in choosing their actions, they are ultimately responsible for what they become. Hamlet spends an abundance of time contemplating what he should or should not do, which contributes to his hesitation. However, Hamlet eventually experiences a turning point in his philosophy and sets his hesitation aside. When on his way to England with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Hamlet witnesses Fortinbras leading an army through Denmark towards Poland to wage war over what appears to be a worthless piece of land. Reflecting on Fortinbras and his soldiers and comparing their actions to his own, Hamlet decides that he will no longer delay his revenge and that he has decided his purpose “[s]ith I have cause and will and strength and means / To do’t. Examples gross as earth exhort me” (4.4.44-5). Harold Bloom explains that within this soliloquy, “Hamlet’s consciousness and the soul have become one” (71). Therefore, Hamlet decides to disregard his anguish and accept that his act of revenge can no longer be avoided. He ends the soliloquy and his internal debate with, “O, from this time forth / My thoughts be bloody or be nothing worth” (4.4.65-6). In this last soliloquy, the audience witnesses the existential evolution of Hamlet come to a close.
A contrasting argument commonly used to explain Hamlet’s hesitation is that he is mad due to melancholy, and, thus, he can no longer effectively manage his emotions, which impacts his ability to act. This view does have merit. Examples include his mistreatment of Ophelia, the random killing of Polonius, and his ability to see and hear the ghost in his mother’s bedchamber. However, these actions are a result of his existential attitude, anguish, and confusion resulting from coping with an absurd and seemingly meaningless world. Although he may have been melancholic, Hamlet never relinquishes control of his faculties. His constant self-questioning is proof of this. For example, “One might argue that Hamlet does not completely and unequivocally trust the Ghost until after the mousetrap” (Kerrigan 94). Claudius also admits that he believes Hamlet is faking his madness:
Love! His affections do not that way tend;
Nor what he spake, though it lack’d for a little,
Was not like madness. There’s something in his soul
O’er which his melancholy sits on brood;
And I do doubt the hatch and the disclose
Will be some danger (3.1.161-66).
One final point against the idea that Hamlet is mad concerns the contrasting depiction of Ophelia’s madness and suicide. She is unable to manage herself after being left alone by Laertes and Hamlet while grieving the death of her father. In this way, Ophelia’s disposition is significantly different when compared to Hamlet. Although Hamlet struggles with an existential attitude, he is capable of managing himself, and he triumphs in his task of revenge.
In conclusion, Hamlet avenges his father’s murder and simultaneously heals the rotten state of Denmark, and his adherence to an existential philosophy enables him to remain autonomous throughout his plot of revenge. Paul A. Jorgensen describes Hamlet’s death as “religiously serene” (258). Hamlet sheds his melancholy and anger and dies seemingly at peace, despite the carnage surrounding him. For the self-defined “Hamlet the Dane” (5.1.236), in death “the rest is silence” (5.2.333). He accepts who he was, where he was, what he had to do, and why he had to do it. Hamlet does not shirk his self-directed fate and, in the end, decides to “let it be” (5.2.323). He fulfills his purpose of vengeance and, with his death, the slate is wiped clean for Denmark. The cycle of revenge ends when he dies. Hamlet, Laertes, and Fortinbras have all avenged their fathers, and a strong and promising leader has taken the throne in Elsinore. Hamlet succeeds as a revenger and dies an existential hero.
Works Cited
Bloom, Harold. Hamlet: Poem Unlimited. Riverhead Books, 2003.
Kerrigan, William. Hamlet’s Perfection. Johns Hopkins UP, 1994.
Jorgensen, Paul A. “Hamlet’s Therapy.” Huntington Library Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 3, May, 1964, pp. 239-258. JSTOR, doi: 10.2307/3816795.
Lee, John. Shakespeare’s Hamlet and the Controversies of Self. Oxford UP, 2000. “Existentialism, n. 2.” Oxford English Dictionary Online. Oxford University Press, 12 October 2016.
Sartre, Jean-Paul, Existentialism is a Humanism. Methuen, 1948.
Thompson, Ann, and Neil Taylor, ed. Hamlet by William Shakespeare, Arden Shakespeare, 2006.