‘Hamlet is destroyed by his impulsiveness, not his uncertainty.’
Sir Philip Sidney asserted that ‘the principal purpose of tragedy is to teacheth the
uncertainty of the world.’ Indeed, much of the ‘uncertainty’ within Hamlet lies in defining
the hamartia of its protagonist, whether his downfall is caused by impulsiveness or
unsureness. Uncertainty plagues Hamlet throughout the play, from his doubts regarding the
value of life, to his scepticism regarding the integrity of the Ghost, and thus, becomes a
major contributing factor to his demise. Equally, however, Hamlet’s acts of impulse – his
murders of Polonius, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern- evidence a newfound moral corruption
within his character, suggesting a ‘destroy[al]’ of his former self, in place of a hostile
revenger.
Hamlet himself seeks to end his despair through suicide, yet his uncertainty around the
morality of ‘self-slaughter’ prevents him from doing so, and acts as a source of torment.
Audiences first witness the prince’s desire for suicide in Act 1 Scene 2, where he desires the
‘melt[ing]’ of his ‘too too solid flesh.’ This is echoed later in the play, his soliloquy of Act 3
Scene 1 simply debating ‘to be or not to be.’ However, Hamlet remains unsure of the
consequences of suicide upon considering ‘the Everlasting… had fixed his canon ‘gainst self-
slaughter’ and this leads him unable to follow through with the act. It can be argued that
suicide would relieve the suffering of tragic hero, offering respite from his conscience that is
‘infinite, unlimited and at war with itself’, according to Harold Bloom. A strong tradition has
emerged of using setting and props to underscore the prince’s depressed state, particular
within the mid 20th century, a period in which psychoanalysis became perhaps the most
dominant lens through which the play was interpreted; Laurence Olivier’s 1948 film
production, for instance, saw the prince hold a ‘bare bodkin’ towards his chest whilst
standing at cliff-edge, the sea below possibly symbolic of the ‘sea of troubles’ within the
prince’s mind. This likely inspired Trevor Nunn’s 2004 production, where the prince is seen
questioning whether to overdose with pills. Evidently, therefore, Hamlet unsureness
regarding the morality of ‘self-slaughter’ prevents him from being able ‘to sleep; to sleep:
perchance to dream’, and instead, forced to endure the ‘thousand natural shocks that flesh
is heir to.’ Hence, it can certainly be argued that Hamlet is destroyed not by his
impulsiveness, rather his uncertainty.
Hamlet is further tormented by his doubts regarding the Ghost, whether it be ‘the devil’ or a
‘divine creature’, and whether to fulfil its command for revenge. In Act 1 Scene 5, the Ghost
commands Hamlet to ‘revenge [his father’s] foul and most unnatural murder’, yet the prince
remains unsure whether the Ghost’s intents when delivering this command are ‘wicked’ or
‘charitable.’ Interestingly, late 18th century and early 19th century critics largely failed to
validate Hamlet’s scepticism, with A.C. Bradley claiming in 1094 that Hamlet’s scepticism of
the Ghost is ‘an excuse for his delayed revenge’, the Ghost being an incontrovertible ‘spirit
of health.’ However, it is perhaps rather negligent to belittle Hamlet’s uncertainty, for the
Ghost commands him to commit the gravest of sins – murder. Late 20 th century criticism, in
particular, saw productions of the play which recognised the threat posed by the Ghost; the
1980 Royal Court Theatre rendition saw the Ghost speak from within Hamlet, causing the
prince to be bent double with pain, suggesting the Ghost’s demand for revenge is not only a
mentally, but physically destructive force. Similarly, Roger Rees 1984 rendition of the play
saw the Ghost with a ‘vile crust’ on his face, suggesting he is not the ‘spirit of health’ hoped