1

Zebb Duffany
Bell

Hamlet: Moral Prince Or Wretched Royalty?

Nobody questions the fact that Hamlet had suffered greatly due to his uncle's lust and thirst of

power. He, being only a teenage boy, came home to what he expected to be his father's funeral and

instead arrived at his mother's wedding. Many believe that this corrupts Hamlet and drives him to kill

or cause the death of five people, (which by definition makes him a serial killer). I would argue,

however, that Hamlet was “corrupt” before Shakespeare's story begins.

Let's start by examining the environment that Hamlet was exposed to as a child. He was of royal

blood and was thus immersed in a world of lies and scandal practically from the crib. In Shakespeare's

work several pieces of evidence are given that show how littered Hamlet's home was with political

plans for bloodshed. First there is the event that drives Hamlet toward revenge; Claudius' quick rise to

power with the murder of his brother and the marriage to his sister in law. This is the big example of

political intrigue in the play, but there are others, and most of them come from Claudius. Such as his

multiple attempts to have Hamlet killed. These include sending Hamlet to the king of England with

orders to have him killed sent with two of his old friends and plotting with Laertes to poison Hamlet

with either a cut or a drink of wine. A less obvious, but just as important, sign corruption in the castle is

the ceaseless spying. From Polonius to Horatio to Rosencrantz and Gildenstern, there is rarely a

moment when one character is not trying to glean some insight about another by means of a third party.

How could a child raised in such a scheming environment grow up to have any true sense of morality?

Let's also take a look at how he takes the death of Polonius. At that point in the play Hamlet has

done little in his crusade against his uncle except play crazy; he's only just become committed to the

fact that he is going to kill anyone at all. He most definitely hasn't expanded his plans to include

murdering anyone else. Yet when Polonius falls to the ground dead he hardly takes a breath's rest from
 2

chastising his mother for her actions. If Hamlet were a moral prince who gradually becomes corrupt in

his quest for blood he would have at least stopped to say something to the effect of “Oh my God, I just

killed somebody who hasn't done anything to deserve my vengeance”. Polonius dies relatively early in

the play, so Hamlet shouldn't be as accepting as he is of what he had done if hadn't been an immoral

person to begin with.

Many people point out a the fact that Hamlet hesitates before he heeds the ghost's wishes for

revenge and use it as an example of how Hamlet is truly pure in the beginning of the play. But we must

remember that murder was believed to send a person to Hell if it wasn't justified back when the play

was written. Just because Hamlet wasn't a moral person doesn't mean he wanted to go to Hell, and to

say so would be preposterous. It is also argued that because Hamlet hesitated to kill Claudius he is

struggling with his moral sense of right and wrong, that he is trying to remain a beacon of purity in an

unjust world. However, we must remember that before Hamlet even approaches Claudius in the chapel

he has killed Polonius without so much as blinking an eye. We can therefore safely conclude that

Hamlet has no problem with killing when he hesitates, but perhaps is waiting for a moment most fitting

for the death of a foul king.

With the environment Hamlet was subjected to as a child there was no chance for him to grow

up a moral man. It is shown throughout the play that Hamlet is just a morally corrupt as those around

him. Whether you look at his treatment of Polonius' death or his terrible treatment of the women in his

life, you can begin to see a pattern of unrighteous behavior in Hamlet. Though he's the one everyone

roots for, we must not forget that he has just as many vices as those who he disposes of throughout the

last few weeks of his life.