When we first began reading Hamlet, we had a class discussion over the many possible answers to
the question, “Who is Hamlet?” Some obvious answers were of course someone who
is intelligent and cunning, someone who is morally judgmental, and someone who
is dramatic and perceptive. However, there was one answer I find to be
interesting as of late: we called Hamlet a “preserver”. I find this extremely ironic—we
originally named Hamlet as a preserver, but in our recent class discussions, we
mulled over the idea of Hamlet being a “poison”. Does he fit one of those
descriptions and not the other? Is he both
those names? Is he neither?
In my small group, we discussed how Hamlet could very well
be the poison and not a preserver at all, due to his deleterious effect of the
kingdom since his father was murdered. Sure, we find it easy to side with
Hamlet’s viewpoint that everyone else in the kingdom is corrupt (mostly because
we read from and find out a lot about Hamlet’s perspective the majority of the
play); however, he can also be seen as being involved with bringing about the corruption in the kingdom himself.
From the kingdom’s viewpoint, Hamlet acts as a ruinous force that attempts to
break apart the kingdom to bring it back to the state of peril it was in during
the time of the late king’s death. Leaving alone the argument that the kingdom is
not a morally sound place with the crowning of the new King, Hamlet’s calling
out of the new King along with his mother and loyal servants disrupts what
could be an active, functioning kingdom. After all, in terms of safety, I think
Denmark would rather have—would need—a corrupt King that still promises to maintain the
kingdom than none at all. And Claudius has never appeared to want to run the
kingdom down into the ground; he just wanted it for himself.
On the other hand, my small group also made the point that Hamlet
works well as the poison that inhibits “weeds” from growing. In other words,
Hamlet as the poison preserves the
garden of the kingdom, weeding it effectively and keeping the things that are “rank
and gross in nature” from possessing it (it also allows space and soil for
flowers [aka Ophelia] to grow, but that’s another topic). In this way, poison-Hamlet
is the bad that brings about good, which leads to the question, “Is
it okay to be the villainous hero for good?” I believe it is, if it’s what’s
needed. Like I said earlier, despite the gut-wrenching feeling it gives us to
think about it (or at least me), Claudius was the hero for Denmark’s kingdom
when it was in need (really, he created the situation in order for him to
rescue Denmark, but that’s another story as well, considering the people of
Denmark don’t know that). Even though he
came to power immorally, the kingdom still was sustained underneath him and
even managed to avoid war with other states.
Therefore, our class was right in the past as much as we are
now: Hamlet is both the preserver and
the poison of the kingdom. No wonder he’s feeling stressed; that’s quite a
burden to carry.
