I am investigating how Shakespeare represents the law and ethics in Hamlet. Here are five observations from Act 4.
- Gertrude identifies Hamlet’s attack on Polonius as a “lawless fit.” If that’s the case, it’s instructive to see how the kingdom handles his case.
- Claudius reveals that he’s underhanded, even with the open and shut case of Hamlet’s manslaughter. Claudius does not execute justice as he should. He’s more concerned with having the rest of the world judge him well while keeping in Gertrude’s good graces. Instead, he tries to get England to take care of Hamlet for him.
- Hamlet does not feel guilt for Polonius’s death. As he contemplates the men who will die in Fortinbras’s war, he thinks about executing revenge, not attacking Polonius. He can see what’s wrong with the war Fortinbras is waging but not what’s wrong with him.
- Laertes and Ophelia underscore the enormity of what Hamlet’s done. Polonius’s death matters. Hamlet is not the only one who has lost a father. Hamlet has seen firsthand Fortinbras raging across Europe seeking vengeance. Ophelia has lost her sanity. Laertes has lost his taste for childish impropriety. Before the end of the act, Ophelia will be dead, and Laertes will be drawn into Claudius’s plot against Hamlet.
- Comparing Hamlet with Fortinbras and Laertes reveals that personal revenge is not ethical. Fortinbras will sacrifice twenty thousand men’s lives to avenge his father’s death. Laertes will kill Hamlet in a church if necessary so that he can cleanse his besmirched father’s honor. We are not given these details in Act 4 to think, “Hamlet’s problem is that he just won’t act!” No. These details make it clear that Hamlet shouldn’t act, that his not personally avenging his father is the correct ethical decision. But self-absorbed as Hamlet is, he does not reach this obvious conclusion.
Experiments in Criticism 