Hamlet's Hamartia

Engberg 1
Zach Engberg
Molly Fenn
HP English ¾
28 October 2012
Tragic Flaw of a Man Named Hamlet
Aristotle described a tragic hero as being "a [great] man who is neither a paragon of virtue and justice nor undergoes the change to misfortune through any real badness or wickedness but because of some mistake." The Tragedy of Hamlet: Prince of Denmark by William Shakespeare, in being a tragedy, displays its main character, Hamlet, as said tragic hero. He is by no means a “paragon of virtue and justice,” as he schemes throughout the play to murder his uncle. He was, though, a “great man”, being the Prince of Denmark. The main issue, to me, was what exactly his “mistake” was that caused his “misfortune”. I could not determine whether his flaw was his lack of action, or his recklessness; but I eventually came to the conclusion: it is all of the above. Hamlet’s hamartia is his inconsistency in actions and thinking; changing his process for making decisions, and his emotional state around other characters, many times throughout the story. Hamlet was plagued throughout the play by indecision, and was often too thoughtful and calculating before acting; which resulted in continuously prolonging his revenge. He even, in his famous “To be or not to be” (iii.i. 64) soliloquy, recognizes this fault, proclaiming to himself, “thus conscience doth make cowards of us all, And thus the native hue of resolution Is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought, And enterprise of great pitch and moment With this regard their currents turn awry And lose the name of action.” (iii.i. 91-96) He realizes that his action is being barricaded by his “pale cast of thought” (iii.i. 93), and that he will get nothing done because his conscience is preventing him from fulfilling his revenge. He is too thoughtful before acting, which causes him to be solicitous and afraid; thus, his conscience making a coward of himself. A perfect example of this is after his staging of the play, when he saw Claudius, alone, confessing of his murder of King Hamlet. This was a perfect opportunity for Hamlet to fulfill his revenge, but, as I said before, he was much too considerate of the consequences of his actions. So, Hamlet says, meticulously, “And so am I revenged/ A villain kills my father, and for that, I, his sole son, do this same villain send to heaven/ When he is fit and seasoned for his passage? No. Up sword, and know thou a more horrid hent. When he is drunk, asleep, or in his rage/ that has no relish of salvation in’t- then trip him, as his heels may go to heaven, And that his soul may be damned and black As hell, whereto it goes.” (iii.iii. 80-100) Hamlet wants to wait until Claudius is doing something sinful to kill him, so that he does not have an opportunity to ask for forgiveness for his sins. He wastes the perfect opportunity to kill Claudius because he is too afraid of the consequences for his actions, and is too focused on sending Claudius to eternal demise; which is a product of his overthinking. If he had decided at this point to kill Claudius, it is very likely that he would have not died, and have become King of Denmark; but ‘twas not the only cause of his demise.
Hamlet also acted uninhibited and passionate; even to the point of recklessness. This was a point of contradiction to other points in the story that I was speaking about in the previous paragraph, but was equally responsible for his eventual death. Take, for instance, act 3 scene 4, in Gertrude’s bedroom, when Hamlet was speaking very passionately to his mother, then he heard a noise, and took action; Hamlet says, impulsively: “How now, a rat? Dead for a ducat, dead.” (iii.iv. 29) Hamlet killed Polonius, believing that it was Claudius that he had heard; although he was not thinking at all, so he really had no time to decide whether it was his uncle or not. He was caught up in his anger towards his mother because of her relationship with Claudius, and her actions in the period of time not long after King Hamlet’s death, and did not take the time to stop and think before he acted; exactly the opposite of what happened in the previous scene with Hamlet and Claudius. Because of Hamlet’s inability to regulate his emotions, and thus his actions that subsequently occur, Hamlet helped cause his own demise.
Hamlet’s very inconsistent attitude and interaction with other characters, especially Ophelia, also significantly affected his eventual death. He hopped from emotion to emotion when around his peers; from being extremely melancholy to being angry and passionate to being happy, and so on. First up: melancholy. He showed this when he met with Ophelia in act 2, scene 1, and while this melancholy nature of his may have only been a façade, it was very real for the other characters. And so Opehlia says, vividly: “he took me by the wrist and held me hard. Then goes he to the length of all his arm/ a little shaking of mine arm/ a sigh so piteous and profound/ without his eyes.” (ii.i. 100-110) This dialogue was between Ophelia and Polonius, and when Polonius heard of Hamlet’s depressed nature, he concluded that Hamlet was mad for Ophelia’s love. As I said before, while this was probably an act of fake emotion, it still affected Polonius to the point that he felt the need to consult the King and protect Ophelia from Hamlet. And while Polonius’s theory of love-sickness was not completely correct, this does set in motion the events that help lead to hamlet’s death. One of those events was a sculpted meeting between Ophelia and Hamlet, which was being spied on by Polonius and the King, to test the theory of whether hamlet is mad for Ophelia’s love. Polonius has Ophelia give back the love letters and other gifts that Hamlet gave to Ophelia, and what proceeded was pure anger: Hamlet said, passionately, “You should not have believed me, for virtue cannot so inoculate out old stock but we shall relish of it. I loved you not… Get thee to a nunnery. Why wouldst thou be a breeder of sinners?” (iii.i. 127-132)
Hamlet is obviously very short-tempered, as made evident by this passage here; and by the dialogue between him and Ophelia throughout this whole scene. He had said previously that he did love Ophelia, but Hamlet’s anger at Claudius, and at the entire world in general, has built up, and he can hold it in no longer. This anger that he displays scares the King and Polonius so much that they decide to continuously spy on him: “Madness in great ones must not unwatched go.” (iii.i. 203) Hamlet’s anger inspired the King to watch him very carefully so that if his anger bubbles over once again, he is there to console him and to protect those around Hamlet. This anger that Hamlet has sets in motion more events; like Hamlet meeting with his mother, and Polonius watching closely on this meeting (we all know what happens there), that eventually lead to his death. All of these changes in his demeanor and his actions create a domino effect, which essentially seals his own fate. So sad- he could have become King!
Hamlet, at many different points throughout the play, decided to change paths; and thus changed the outcome of his life. At some points in the play, Hamlet was very thoughtful and meticulous, and at other points he was very passionate and not at all thoughtful. Hamlet also acted very melancholy during some dialogue or interaction with other characters, and at times angry, and at times happy, and so on. Because he continuously changed the way he thought, acted, and interacted with the other characters in the play, he continuously changed his fate. Therefore, if he had stuck to one path, and acted, thought, and spoke with others the same throughout the whole story, I can say, with confidence, that he would be the King of Denmark; just like his father.
Works Cited
Shakespeare, William. Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. Ed. Barbara A.
Mowat and Paul Werstine. New York: Simon and Shuster Paperbacks, 2009. Print.
Hartley, George. "ARISTOTLE & THE ELEMENTS OF TRAGEDY: English 250."
Aristotle 's Tragic Terms. Ohio University, n.d. Web. 22 Oct. 2012.
<http://www.ohio.edu/people/hartleyg/ref/aristotletragedy.html>.

Cited: Shakespeare, William. Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. Ed. Barbara A. Mowat and Paul Werstine. New York: Simon and Shuster Paperbacks, 2009. Print. Hartley, George. "ARISTOTLE &amp; THE ELEMENTS OF TRAGEDY: English 250." Aristotle 's Tragic Terms. Ohio University, n.d. Web. 22 Oct. 2012. &lt;http://www.ohio.edu/people/hartleyg/ref/aristotletragedy.html&gt;.