Hamlet, by contrast to Claudius, is a figure of bereavement and nihilism. He has empathized with the dead, and been instructed never to let the past be forgotten. As a 'sick soul commanded to heal', he can be perceived as a poison in the veins of the surrounding characters in the play. But Knight went to extremes in saying that 'Hamlet is an element of evil in the state of Denmark, a living death in the midst of life'. He describes Hamlet as 'inhuman - or superhuman ... a creature of another world', hinting that Hamlet is a manifestation of the two, a being that cannot be defined with total accuracy.
Hamlet's mission is the punishment of a murderer and Knight admits he is in the right, however explains that if he had been able to act quickly and cleanly, all might have been well. But which of the two, he questions, Claudius or Hamlet, 'is the embodiment of spiritual good, which of evil?’ This question illustrates the relative morality of Hamlet and Claudius, and reflects the ultimate predicament of the play. Francis Bacon argues that revenge is not a concluding act and leads only to more pain, be it a quick or prolonged act; ‘Revenge is a kind of wild justice, which the more man's nature runs to the more ought law to weed it out’. The reaction of the audience to the dilemma of revenge is an ambivalent one, be it from an Elizabethan or modern point of view, however Shakespeare’s manipulation of what is required of a revenge tragedy allows the audience to relate with Hamlet, if only remotely, as Hamlet as the ‘revenger’ shows human reactions to his dilemma, rather than that of just a solid, heroic figure.
Claudius is an evil character, and it seems obvious that Shakespeare intends him to be seen as such, however to include Hamlet under the same label is to grossly misjudge his involvement in the play, in relation to the surrounding characters and the play’s setting. The theme of poison, ever present in the play, be it from the ghost’s striking description of his deathQUOTE, to the poisons used on the cup and sword in the final act. The theme of poison in the play seems to reflect the overall evil in which the play is set; the poison symbolizes the corrupt regime over which Claudius presides. It is in contrast to this setting of corruption and dishonesty that hamlet stands out, perhaps not as an element of evil, but as a character that is acutely responsive to the ‘unweeded garden’ that is the society.
Amongst such characters as Polonius, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Hamlet makes an undeniably acute contrast; whether or not this is because Hamlet is evil relates directly to the play’s aim to focus on the inability of humans to judge others accurately. If Hamlet were of pure evil and an element of such in the 'midst of life', there would be no doubt or ambiguity in the matter.
A growing doubt in Hamlet’s character becomes apparent as Hamlet’s perceived sanity becomes a thing of the past; his reasoning and actions reveal another side to his character and the audience may doubt his morality, perhaps perceiving him as lacking morals altogether. Hamlet’s desperation is depicted by his frantic attempts to be seen as insane, it is my opinion that if he is able to convince the audience that he is without morality or emotion, it only further convinces me that Hamlet is willing to risk and make full use of all that he has. His most valuable asset, his mental health, is presented as something Hamlet hides in order to fulfil his father’s wishes. These desperate actions are not those of an evil element, but of a frantic young man who seeks closure in the murder of his father.
As the play unfolds and more traits of Hamlet’s character are revealed, he continues his vengeful quest accompanied by his progressively convincing insanity. Soon after confessing his love for Ophelia, Hamlet quickly withdraws and denies any love for her in disgust, ‘I loved you / not’. In doing this he shows both sides of his questionable motives and morals, and presents his tendency to act impulsively. Hamlet displays these traits in his interactions with his frail and dependent mother; as he reminds her of the sins that she has committed, a sound is heard, and Hamlet lashes out rashly with his sword.
With all intentions of slaying someone, he acts, regardless of who stood behind the tapestry. This deed alone seems uncharacteristic and impulsive in nature, but is soon followed by others of similar severity. The rising scepticism of Hamlet’s character by the audience is fed by Hamlet’s newfound thirst for Laerte’s life.
Hamlet’s reluctance to murder Claudius in the play provides an important influence on the resulting actions of other characters and the outcome of the play. In his creation of Hamlet’s character and his constant battle of insanity versus sanity, death versus suicide, and love versus hate, Shakespeare presents the clearly ambiguous question of whether not only Hamlet, but also man, is innately good, or evil. Hamlet is preoccupied by these antitheses to such an extent that reluctance overwhelms him through these thoughts, and causes him not to exact the deed, but to be squandered by his contemplations not only of how he will kill Claudius, but also of his distrust in women and his contrasting deliberations of female sexuality and trust in his friends. From these preoccupations, Hamlet could be seen as an ‘anti-life’, however we relate to his situation in that he questions everything we see, and it is the human inquisitive nature in us all that understands his dilemmas over these subjects. Through such questions, the human condition comes to light, and we question not only whether Hamlet is an element of evil, but also question ourselves, and whether we could be seen as evil, if put in the same situation, and react to it similarly.
I believe Knight is taking Hamlet’s character to the extreme without considering the human nature behind his actions. It is easy to label Hamlet as an element of evil as many of his actions and contemplations relate to sinister and malicious deeds; to disregard his human nature and motivations based on raw emotion however would be a gross generalisation undermining the very complexity of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, from which arises the controversy of calling him an ‘element of evil… a living death’. I think that Hamlet shows only human sentiment throughout the play, from his determination to exact vengeance, to his desperate deliberations of suicide. Within the text, fundamental human instincts are addressed. One such idea is the inability for humans to judge the core of others accurately; such an idea spawns the very question: Is Hamlet evil?
A principal preoccupation in the play, and of Shakespeare and Elizabethans, is the difference between appearance and reality. The entire play causes us to contemplate a number of things: whether Hamlet is evil or not, whether Hamlet ever loved Ophelia, if Claudius is the true element of evil on the play, if the ghost is honest. The constant theme of spying contributes largely to the atmosphere of distrust present in the play, and the theme of corruption adds to the perfect setting for a man to distrust any other but himself. Hamlet is presented as being preoccupied with this tendency of life and others to deceive. Although this makes his presence somewhat uncomfortable, it suggests an eager interest in the sense of morality, a sense that the other characters appear to lack. Critics, non-conformists, and dissenters such as Hamlet are a nuisance, however without Hamlet, the play would be uninteresting and dull, it would be filled with characters with equally few moral values and would touch on even fewer serious issues. With him, however, the play is interesting; Hamlet makes such a contrast to the surrounding characters that he could be seen as an element of evil in comparison. Although he may be seen as evil, Hamlet has the ability to see through appearances and look deeper into any matter, and it is this, in comparison to the other characters that can make him appear evil, or at least consisting of polarizing moral fibres. This can make the audience uneasy, or uncomfortable at Hamlet’s presence, and can cause some to perceive him and his actions as evil or negative, although I see Hamlet’s nature of getting behind appearances intriguing and find it a positive characteristic, rather than a trait that could lead to labelling him as evil, despite the corruption it causes.
Hamlet’s disgust with Ophelia and Gertrude may lead the audience to believe that in his condemnations of the female sex, he is disregarding a vital aspect of life; through his anti-sex issues the audience may be assume that Hamlet is anti-life and rejects all that it provides, namely his mother and his lover.
The audience may however see Hamlet’s fixation with desiring chastity and purity in women as an indication of his moral awareness in the midst of ethical blindness.
The deaths of Rosencrantz, Guildenstern and Polonius are
The actions of certain characters, though they appear superior or shocking in principle, are often clouded by the circumstances in which they are carried out, and so can be perceived in a variety of different ways. Shakespeare uses moral uncertainty to illustrate his statement regarding the ambiguous nature of human motivations. One way to view Hamlet is as the only clean heart of all the characters, rather than an element of evil. Often his speech and actions portray him as a noble young man, for example when Hamlet’s father dies, his love and admiration for his father is made evident by his depressed state. Hamlet proves himself of strong and responsive moral character, a morality that the other characters can not comprehend. Despite Hamlet’s rash and desperate actions, and his cruelty to Ophelia and Gertrude, we do engage with Hamlet on various levels, his grappling with his task of revenge is something everyone can relate to. Doubt in the ghost’s trustworthiness, leading him and Shakespeare to reflect on the purpose and meaning of life itself, shows that through dramatic devices, principally soliloquy, we tend to sympathise with Hamlet.
All of the confusion over Hamlet’s true nature and the ambiguity of his character is the result of Shakespeare’s ingenious manipulation of his characters to implicitly articulate his ideas. In saying ‘Hamlet is an element of evil’, Knight jumps to conclusions, condemning Hamlet’s character to the rigid label of evil, when in fact the opposite is true. The possible perception that Hamlet is evil is merely a manifestation of confusion, emotion and desperation, these being traits that an element of evil could not possibly possess.
Shakespeare uses Hamlet’s ambiguous nature as a way of raising philosophical questions about human nature. Almost every kind, noble, or gentle act Hamlet commits is coupled with one lacking morality. Given this however, this is merely an analysis on a human life, and a series of events based on the elements of confusion and depression; to call Hamlet a corrupting force may be a little more accurate, however I believe to call Hamlet an ‘element of evil’ is a generalisation of an ingeniously intricate character designed to make the audience think about Hamlet’s true nature, not to brand him as a ‘living death’.