A reflection of murder in “Hamlet”

A reflection of murder in “Hamlet” Hamlet is the most philosophical character out of all Shakespeare‘s characters. In fact, “the depth of Hamlet’s thought” was noticed by Georg Wilhelm Hegel [Hegel 1975: 207]. The wisdom of Shakespeare’s character that sometimes was on the edge of insanity was also adopted by many philosophers such as Voltaire, Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, Walter Benjamin and J. Lacan. In addition, their relations to Hamlet’s wisdom are distinguished according to whether they think Hamlet’s mind-breakdown was real or not, for all we know, they absolutely had no doubt that philosophical mindset of the Danish prince was inspiring, thus, they rather admired his character’s decisions. It is evident that the author pays too much his own and readers’ attention towards such thing as murder. Now I will try to figure out what is the writer’s objective. It is a common knowledge that “our lives are fragile” [Toelken 2000: 174]. And the author of the “Hamlet” was quite aware of that fact while writing about it. As far as I can see, according to A. Tolman, it may be said that it was done just in order to show “the animal instinctive nature of people” [Tolman 1898: 161]. Murders in this famous tragedy are reflected as the consequences of this or another situation or circumstances, when a common person would think of the murder as of an immoral act that should not be forgiven or forgotten, Shakespeare, on the other hand, reflects the situation in a way that it is easier to commit murder than to justify it. For instance, the first murder was done because of Claudius’s unstoppable desire for power and love. Then Hamlet kills Polonius being affected and blinded with the wishing justice and revenge. Then, ironically, Laertes and Hamlet themselves die. It shows us that the conceptions of death and the conception of mortality have some steps to follow, and the murder is the bridge joining those two together. Hamlet's hesitation to kill his uncle, which some see as merely a plot device to prolong the action, but which others argue is a dramatization of the complex philosophical and ethical issues that surround cold-blooded murder, calculated revenge, and thwarted desire. No other incident shows so deep a design, or is so appropriate for its purpose. Hamlet, acting blindly through impulse, slays the wrong one; the result is — guilt. This warning, therefore, speaks from the rash act: Let no rational being give up control to impulse which cannot see, cannot distinguish, the nature of a deed. Man must, therefore, reflect before proceeding to action. But, through reflection, Hamlet is unable to slay the right one; thus he cannot perform the great injunction laid upon his soul. Such is his dilemma; if he acts, it is through impulse, and he falls into guilt; if he reflects, he cannot act — that is, he cannot do the Great Deed of his life, and so commits, at least, a sin of omission. What will be Hamlet's solution? He tells it himself in the latter part of the play. Throw yourself back into impulse, and abandon control through intelligence. But what will be the result of such a doctrine? Death — the thinking being who cannot act from thought must perish. Hamlet has committed the very crime which he was seeking to punish; the son of a father murdered has himself murdered a father. Retribution will call up against him a son, at whose hands he will meet his fate. So this incident offers the profoundest illustration of Hamlet's character, and, at the same time, furnishes the motive of his death. Polonius deserved to die for his offences, but Hamlet had no right to slay him. Thus, summarizing, one can only add up to the topic of murder and its reflection that whether consciously or unconsciously, every character in the play takes actions that, in turn, develop Hamlet’s thoughts and ideas on the philosophy of death. He learns from Claudius that a sane person often chooses life over suicide, but when, like Ophelia, a person is driven to insanity, making such difficult choices is not as clear cut. This circumstance along with the poor skulls in the graveyard give Hamlet the idea of predestination and the significance of a man’s mark left on the world after they die. Hamlet closely studies each of his supporting players and carefully creates theses that answer why people die, what happens after they die, and whether their choice to live or die is predetermined by a greater force. Hamlet’s philosophical outlook on life and death goes hand in hand with his death, as he does not fight it and he is well aware that he is dying and stays calm. This is a major contrast to how the play starts off, when Hamlet is terrified of death in all its variations. Time is a good teacher and even though it led Hamlet to the road of revenge, that dish was rightfully served cold. He greeted death as an old friend, by vividly showing us that death is not the greatest loss in life, the greatest one is what dies inside us while we live and since his existence became unbearable under the weight of the knowledge of his father’s death – he could not live any more without seeing justice in its glorious splendor. Thus, Hamlet’s philosophy regarding life and death has come full circle, as he started off very pessimistic and ended up with a reflective view on its all. Shakespeare presents the concept that life and death are out of people’s control and are shaped by providence through the character of Hamlet. Hamlet believes that life cannot be controlled by people but rather, it is controlled by God and fate. He realizes that he should not live his life in fear of death and many events and actions lead him to be convinced that no matter what people do, the way they die will still be controlled by a divinity. REFERENCES 1. Hegel, W. (1975). Lectures on Aesthetics. Oxford University Press. New-York, 654. 2. Toelken, B. (2000). Religion and Death. In McPherson R. (Ed.), Journey Of Navajo Oshley: An Autobiography and Life History. University Press of Colorado, 203-216 3. Tolman, A. (1898). A View of the Views about "Hamlet". PMLA, 13(2), 155-184.