“To be or not to be” – Contradiction in Hamlet

Unlike the common objective most artists present within written work, which involves showcasing and arguing one dimension of an aspect pertaining to mankind, Hamlet serves as a testament to the variability within human nature. Shakespeare fully utilizes the art of contradiction to illuminate the reality that individuals differ in capacity for self-sacrifice extremely, partly relying upon personal ambitions. The largest contrast can be observed between Hamlet and Claudius, but more subtle portrayals are also exhibited through Gertrude and Ophelia. At one end of the spectrum, readers take into account Claudius; brother of the former king, uncle of Hamlet, and now King and newlywed husband to the former king’s widow. Claudius is fully driven by his own ambitions, and is unwilling to make any sort of personal sacrifice. Chiefly, his desire for the throne, as well as love for the Queen, provoked him to stoop to killing his own brother in order to obtain his ambitions. In most instances, it would seem more likely for an individual in such a situation to sacrifice these inessential sources of happiness, prioritizing them as subordinate to a sibling’s wellbeing. Chronologically, he is unable to accept any form of consequence. Once he addresses being aware of his inevitable damning to hell, he prays in an act of desperation to escape his fate as opposed to submitting to it. Even guilt is too much to deal with as a repercussion. Further, he’d prefer Hamlet’s death over his own. Despite knowing he deserves to die (especially by Hamlet’s sword), Claudius plots to eliminate Hamlet, without consideration to who it affects beyond himself. In accordance to this, when Laertes hears of his father’s death and accuses Claudius, he again shifts the death sentence onto Hamlet. Though this would have made sense given that it aids his prior wishes for Hamlet dead, all that disregarded, one would think an uncle assuming a fatherly position would readily take the blame in order