Shakespeare shows that obsessing over revenge can drive someone insane through Prince Hamlet. Ever since the King’s spirit showed up and told Prince Hamlet to avenge his “foul and most unnatural murder”(Shakespeare I.v.25) that was done by the very villain that now wears his crown, revenge served as Prince Hamlet’s initial goal in the pursuit for vindication of his father’s death. At first, Hamlet was pretending to be a madman and “put an antic disposition”(Shakespeare I.v.173) in order to cover the plot of his revenge and also prove Claudius’ guilt. But in doing so this performance distracts from taking action against Claudius because it appears as if he does truly go insane. Even after he has gathered evidence against Claudius, he continues to behave strangely. After murdering Polonius thinking that its Claudius, he doesn’t show …show more content…
any sort of remorse for what he has done like a sane person would. Instead he calls him a “wretched, rash, intruding fool” (Shakespeare III.iv.32). Hamlet’s journey throughout the whole play revolved around the lust for revenge in which lead down to the path of evil and madness. After this incident, King Hamlet reappears but this time only Prince Hamlet was able to see and hear him, whereas every other time someone else other than Hamlet was able to see the ghost. Gertude then says that “alas, hes mad” (Shakespeare III.iv.7). There is no denying that the obsession with revenge is the force that drove Hamlet into insanity. From pretending to be a lunatic in which distracted him from avenging his father’s death , he turns into a madman obsessed with the duty of vengeance that he needs to fulfill.
Another example of revenge driving people to lunacy was Laertes.
Driven to madness by the murder of his father, Polonius, Laertes, with the help of Claudius, conspires to kill Hamlet and uses all the power he has to get avenge his father’s death. In comparison to Hamlet, Laertes has no care for the morality behind his act of revenge to the point where he is ready “to cut his throat i' th' church” (Shakespeare, IV.vii.123). Shakespeare claims that revenge causes people to act recklessly through anger rather than reason and obsessing over this could lead to
madness.
On the other hand Shakespeare shows that not pursuing vengeance can keep someone sane through Young Fortinbras.Young Fortinbras built an army to get the lands his father lost to King Hamlet and Denmark. Although after Claudius sent a letter to Young Fortinbras’ uncle, he wasn’t able to take his revenge. And instead of desperately pursuing to avenge his father’s dead, he went about his way. At the end of the play, Fortinbras was the only one who was able to receive both victory and revenge. He ended up gaining all his land back, became the King of Denmark and ended up being the only one alive out of the three.
With Shakespeare’s claim that the greed for vengeance destroys someone’s mental well being being clear, one can see this in today’s society. Taking a glance in today’s world shows how terribly this has affected humanity. Revenge has the capability to turn a civil man into a savage madman.
For example, in an article about revenge it can be seen that people often differentiate vengeance from justice when in reality they’re the same. In this article, Thane Rosenbaum writes that we live in a world where “wrongdoings must ultimately be righted” (Rosenbaum, Eye for an Eye: The Case for Revenge). This quote supports the eye for an eye mentality. This is the absolute reasoning of vengeance and all the other underlying corruptness behind it. Rosenbaum also states that “vengeance keeps returning… with a vengeance”. This statement justifies the death behind mostly all of the main characters in Hamlet’s tragedy. Hamlet’s thirst for vengeance and the corruption of each of the characters lead up to their own death and destruction.
Another example is an article that acknowledges revenge’s failure to fulfill its sweet expectations. In today’s society people often think that “wrongdoings must be righted” (Rosenbaum, Eye for an Eye: The Case for Revenge). But in the article, “The Complicated Psychology of Revenge”, Eric Jeffe states that “observed that instead of quenching hostility, revenge can prolong the unpleasantness of the original offense and that merely bringing harm upon an offender is not enough to satisfy a person’s vengeful spirit” (Jeffe). This quote supports Hamlet’s reasoning as to why he didn’t want to kill King Cladius while he was confessing his sins. Cladius’ death wasn’t enough to quench his thirst for his blood. Hamlet didn’t want to send Cladius to heaven while his father was killed without being able to confess for all his sins resulting to bring sent to the purgatory. In this case, the eye for an eye doesn’t satisfy people’s desperate need for vengeance. Instead, they want the worse for those who have done them wrong because revenge itself isn’t good enough.
The last example is an article about the definition of insanity. Ryan Howes writes that insanity is someone’s ability to determine right from wrong when a crime is committed” (Howes, The Definition of Insanity). He says that perseveration is a persistent repetition in doing something that doesn’t allow for the person to progress. This is similar to when both Hamlet and Laertes were both seeking to avenge their father’s deaths. Their repeated persistence in violent revenge didn’t allow for them to move on in which only lead to their madness and in the end, death. Meanwhile Fortinbras went about his way when his plan to avenge his father’s death didnt necessarily go as planned, in which lead to his success in the end.
Using his tragedy, “The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark”, William Shakespeare conveys his claim that the greed for revenge can potentially turn a sane man into a lunatic. He does this by using three men who was out to seek vengeance for their father’s deaths. Hamlet and Laertes’ thirst for blood lead to not just their insanity but also their deaths. Only Fortinbras was able to prosper and successfully avenge his father’s death by gaining more than just their land back, but also Denmark. Shakespeare’s claim is still true in modern society because the greed for revenge leading to nothing good is such a reoccuring situation. Often times revenge leads to a person’s downfall due to it’s consuming nature that causes one to act recklessly upon their emotions which does no good to someone’s well being.