“Exchange forgiveness with me, noble Hamlet.”
(Laertes Act v Scene ii)
“Heaven make thee free of it! I follow thee.”
(Hamlet Act v Scene ii)
Both Hamlet and Laertes love Ophelia and are devastated by her death. Also their reactions to certain events are also alike. Initially when Hamlet learns that his father was murdered he shouts out in temper and portrays an angry man ready to seek revenge. However, this gets waylaid by Hamlet dwelling on the truth as opposed to acting on it, whereas Laertes has the same initial reaction but with the intent to seek revenge instantly, with prompting by Claudius. Hamlet’s only prompting is by the ghost, and in one instant acts on impulse. This act of impulse occurs in the Queen’s closet when she and Hamlet are arguing and Hamlet kill’s who ever it is hiding behind the arras. This is most certainly not a natural reaction by Hamlet.
“A sword unbated, and, in a pass of practice, /Requite him for your father.”
(Claudius speaking with Laertes privately Act v Scene ii)
Another similarity is when the two characters commit themselves to whatever lies ahead, namely a destiny as a result or consequence of their actions. However, a main difference is the fact that this is an almost instant reaction for Laertes but one which Hamlet commits to in Act I scene v but there is a delay and he does not seem to be ‘ready’ until Act IV scene ii.
“Let come what comes”
(Laertes Act iv Scene v)
“mine is ready, now or whensoever”
(Hamlet Act v Scene ii)
However as many similarities as there are, the contrasts are more noticeable and at first glance are clearer and easier to perceive. Some would think Hamlet to be the cowardly avenger, this I feel portrays Laertes to be a more courageous character. Hamlet deliberately attempts to delay the revenge he seeks for his father’s death. He accuses himself of “bestial oblivion” and “over-speculation”. He seems to be less focused than Laertes and on occasion battles with his conscience.
“To be, or not to be – that is the question”
(Hamlet Act iii Scene I).
Laertes on the other hand is very direct, consistent, and almost the single-minded avenger. He doesn’t seem to struggle with his conscience and is more than willing to accept the consequences of his actions. Laertes even states in act iv scene v “I dare damnation. To this point I stand, That both the worlds I give to negligence”. He really does not care what will happen to him providing his revenge for his father’s death is sort.
This play was set in Elizabethan times, an era where attitudes were mixed and ambivalent towards revenge. This helps to truly appreciate this bold behaviour from Laertes. Revenge in these times was known to be against the church and condemned by God. Which in others words meant you would not meet with God after death and would have to deal with the devil damnation. However these attitudes were far more complex and did actually depend more on the circumstances as opposed to a ‘black and white’ theory.
In Hamlet’s fifth soliloquy, he reflects on the repercussions of revenge, which is perhaps one reason for his constant dwelling and hesitation on the task of killing Claudius. Laertes does not in the slightest entertain these views.
“When we have shuffled off this mortal coil, /must give us pause. There’s the respect/ That makes calamity of so long life.”
(Hamlet Act iii Scene I)
It is almost as if Hamlet needs something to continually set off a trigger for him to act instantly, for example his reaction after hearing a man hiding behind the arras, is an act of impulse. He killed the intruder not knowing who it was without even a second thought. I believe that Hamlet reacted in this way because in his state he truly believed that it was Claudius hiding and not Polonius. This is something of an act that would come more naturally from Laertes. I feel that if the roles were reversed for Hamlet and Laertes, Claudius perhaps would have been killed instantly.
Moreover when Hamlet first knew of his father’s murder he reacted but actually spent more time dwelling on the matter, ie the murder not necessarily the revenge, as opposed to actually doing anything about it. It is not until the last Act that you see a change from Hamlet. He seems to have grown and undertaken a more direct attitude to the situation and finally takes on the original task in hand. This could be a number of things that initiate this change in Hamlet. Perhaps the fact that he knew he was sent to England by Claudius to be killed, his mother being killed before his eyes or simply the fate that he too was to meet his death. Hamlet at this stage is no longer self-agonising.
Another main factor that contributes to the difference between the two men, is their judgement of Claudius the King of Denmark. Hamlet loathes Claudius is very wary of him even before he learns of his father’s murder. He certainly does not trust him and is very aware of his own behaviour in Claudius’s presence. On the other hand Laertes seems to have faith and belief in Claudius, and that he is trustworthy and even plots with him in order to seek his revenge against Hamlet. I would like to think that Laertes poor judge of character is purely because he is blinded by anger and grief from which he is experiencing from his father’s death and sister’s illness and of course her death too. Laertes other reason for such poor judgement is because he is so determined on seeking revenge and due to his lack of care for consequence, his focus is so strong that anything other than revenge is just irrelevant. It is also important to remember that Laertes has no reason not to trust Claudius, after all he didn’t kill Polonius. No matter what, Laertes was going to seek revenge with or without Claudius’s help, why else did he buy the poison?
There is many a comparative conclusion to be made. However I think that there are as many similarities between the two characters as there are differences. One thing that we should remember throughout the play is that both Hamlet and Laertes have to contend with immense amount of emotions such as grief, anger, and betrayal. Each emotion alone is hard enough but when evil is spread like a plague as it clearly is in this play the repercussions are uncontrollably hard to bear.
