“For by the image of my cause, I see the portraiture of his.”
(Act V, Scene II, Line 76)
Is impulsiveness a tragic flaw? Indeed
for Othello and King Lear it was, as it began the Hubris-Harmatia chain of
events, which ultimately led to their destruction.
Hamlet, it seems superficially at least, is the antithesis of rashness.
With this said, is equivocation and, some would say, cowardice Hamlet’s
tragic flaw? In Shakespeare’s
tragedies antithetical characters are a constant.
As Othello was to Iago, and Edgar was to Edmund, so is Hamlet to…
Who is Hamlet’s antagonist? Some
would say that it is Claudius, the man who “hath killed [Hamlet’s] king and
whor’d [Hamlet’s] mother”. Others
would contend that Hamlet’s antagonist is he who dealt the mortal blow, none
other than Laertes. Laertes and
Hamlet, however, are intrinsically the same character, save the impetus and mode
of revenge. In truth Hamlet’s
antithetical character is the Prince of the Danes himself.
By means of equivocation and “feigned” madness Hamlet sabotages his
own life. Polonius’ words to
Laertes before his exit to
In this proceeding quote Hamlet is speaking with his most loyal friend, Horatio. Hamlet’s laments the fact that he has acted rashly at Ophelia’s funeral, and that he let Laertes’ words strike him so. This episode evidences perfectly the rashness Hamlet displays when overcome by strong emotions, and in turn the philosophical equivocation which follows once the fervor of the moment has passed. Hamlet and Horatio have come to the graveyard nescient that Ophelia had drowned. Previous to Hamlet learning of Ophelia’s death he demonstrates a philosophical air about him as he asks Horatio whether Alexander the Great, as powerful as he once was, has withered as poor Yorick has. Once, however, Hamlet learns that Ophelia has perished, his entire demeanor changes. He turns from the philosopher to the passion-filled rash man who jumps into Ophelia’s grave after a mourning Laertes. Hamlet is so blinded by the passionate rage he even says to Laertes, “For though I am not splentive and rash, yet I have in me something dangerous, which let thy wisdom fear.” What, not rash, I cry thee mercy then… Hamlet illustrates here that in the throes of passion he nothing but a blind puppet to his emotions, and as such he acts without first thinking. Hamlet is the man who, with passion’s provocation, shoots first and asks questions later. In this way Hamlet and Laertes are the same. Hamlet’s “cause” is to revenge the murder of his father by Claudius. Laertes’ “cause” is to revenge the murder of his father by Hamlet. The true difference between Hamlet and Laertes is the time it takes them to act after their respective rash and passionate rants.
When Hamlet first comes to learn from the Ghost that his father has been murdered he is filled with “spelntive” anger. One is led to believe that if the murderer had been standing within a rapier’s radius, Hamlet would not have thought twice about running him through. “Haste me to know’t, that I with wings as swift as meditation, or through thoughts of love, may sweep to my revenge.” Hamlet at this point in the play will not think twice about enacting revenge on he who killed Hamlet Sr. Yet when he finds out that the murderer is none other than his uncle, Claudius, his ardency is substantially diminished. “The time is out of joint – O cursed spite, that ever I was born to set it right.” What happened to Hamlet in between the point of voluntary evisceration and this lukewarm indebtedness? Hamlet has thought about the many factors attached to the murder of his father, and it is this equivocation which makes him so very apprehensive now to “set things right”. At this point in the play his nature has overcome an irrational anger, yet as the play progresses and his “feigned” madness grows, his will to live and his will to kill are balanced only by the emotions he feels at the moment.
Laertes is a character, though less significant than Hamlet, who plays an integral part of the drama. Laertes is like a funhouse mirror image of Hamlet. That is to say that the reflection of Hamlet in Laertes is quite recognizable, yet in parts the reflection is skewed. The greatest evidence to the point of Laertes and Hamlets similitude is the action and dialogue in Acts IV and V. Much like Hamlet’s assertion for revenge (“Haste…to my revenge.”) Laertes makes it known that he will revenge his father’s unlawful murder. “Let come what comes, only I’ll be revenged most thoroughly for my father.” His rashness, if not evidenced thoroughly enough by this quote can be evidenced by his reply to the queen’s plea for rational calmness, “That drop of blood that’s calm proclaims me bastard.” Hamlet could not have said it better, but then he would have thought about it and calmed himself down in a bout of self-deprecation and called himself “pigeon-liver’d” and lacking “gall”. The latter of these names is most important as Hamlet will later call Laertes “splentive” or full of gall. Truth be told, both Laertes and Hamlet have gall enough for the Danish nation.
The most evidencing episode in the play as to Hamlet and Laertes’ mimesis is the final scene of the play. Up to this point the true reason for Hamlet’s vacillation between rashness and equivocation is unknown. Before the final scene the reason for Hamlet’s “copouts” has seemed clear enough – he was a tragic hero. The rub remains, however, as to what his tragic flaw was. In a word it was egocentrism. “O cursed spite, that ever I was born to set it right.” Laertes’ own tragic flaw (though by no means is he to be considered a tragic hero) is also the drive of egoism. Before the fencing duel, Laertes knowing full well that his intentions are to kill Hamlet and bring honor back to his name speaks the following lines: “I am satisfied in nature, whose motive in this case should stir me the most to my revenge, but in my terms of honor I stand aloof, and will no reconcilement till by some elder masters of known honor I have a voice and president of peace to keep my name ungor’d.” The irony of this speech is overshadowed by its veracity. Indeed if Laertes had been told by the king, for he “was an honorable man”, that killing Hamlet would bring no honor to his name, or even shame, Laertes would not have fought Hamlet with a poisoned rapier. He merely needed to sate his ego. Likewise Hamlet wouldn’t have killed Polonius without “valuing [his] own life at a pin’s fee”. If Hamlet had stopped to smell the roses (or more aptly the violets (Act VI , Scene V, Line 184)) he would have been able to see that his rashness and equivocation came as a result of his ego. He jumps into the grave and wrestles with Laertes because “I [Hamlet] loved Ophelia. Forty thousand brothers could not with their quantity of love make up my sum…Dost thou come here to whine? To outface me?” Hamlet’s rash behavior comes as a result of a shot to his ego. Laertes’ feelings on the honor of revenge (I am satisfied…ungor’d”) are reiterated by Hamlet in his last breaths to Horatio, “If thou didst ever hold me in thy heart, absent thee from felicity a while, and in this harsh world draw thy breath in pain to tell my story.” In essence Hamlet tells Horatio to live on, if only to honor Hamlet’s name. One can see that Laertes and Hamlet feel essentially the same about the “honor” of revenge.
To say that Hamlet was an honorable man is a fair statement, if one also would deem Laertes and honorable man. Their motives were the same: revenge the murder of their fathers. The means and temporal equivocation, though different, had root in the same evil – human egocentrism. Their ego, however, lay dormant like a fallow field, until some action caused the seed of rashness to germinate. Laertes fostered this seed unhindered, while Hamlet suppressed the seed until the flood of emotions like a river caused the sapling of rash behavior to surge forth. Hamlet’s so-called “copouts” pushed the sapling down, but rashness is a resilient foe. For any exacerbation caused Hamlet’s equivocation to break and he fell victim to an irrational anger which rendered his senses useless. Laertes too had no control over his rash behavior after the seed had been sown. Regardless of how mindful the two might have been as to the motives of their revenge, their egos led them astray. As great an effect as their egos had upon them, nothing more gravely affected them then the irrational anger, which stemmed from an irrationally evil deed. It can be see thus that human excellence, a divinity of sorts, may not be sufficient to assert itself against an irrational evil, which descends without plan or justice or known origin.
