A full-marks (15/15) essay considering the Hamlet’s impulsiveness and uncertainty throughout the play. The title is: ‘Hamlet is destroyed by his impulsiveness, not his uncertainty.’ Tailored to the OCR A-level English Literature course. Strong focus on critics (AO5).
‘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
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller thomasbarry. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $11.31. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
