Hamlet and Laertes: Human Gods

21 January 2010Human Gods: Hamlet and Laertes Sarah Johnson

To know or to think one knows something leads to the most famous line in Hamlet, “to be or not to be; that is the question” (3.1: 59). That ontology, to exist or not to exist, cannot be judged by that questioning soliloquy alone, rather by an action-packed illustration of Hamlet and Laertes playing the heroes as self-defined defenders of the Danish court. They are not Godly humans, but instead are human Gods, or so they create themselves; but alas!—their human defects out-poison them as revengeful murder could never rectify self-same murder and deceit. Understanding ontology’s influence in act five, scene 2 of Hamlet, reveals who Hamlet and Laertes decide to be as characters, making the climax deeper than some mere explosive scene from modern entertainment.

When King Claudius dies, Laertes plays the Omniscient Judge who says, “serves him right,” declaring that catalyzing King Claudius brewed his own poison or death (5.2: 269-70). In the Christian world, God is the Judge of mankind, but Laertes, thinks himself more than human; he has the “godly” right to condone that murder by Hamlet’s hand, saying that particular murder is acceptable, whereas his father Polonius’ death was Hamlet’s mortal sin. At least related to Claudius’ death, Hamlet of course, agrees that mortally punishing his uncle repays the death of his father, for in God-like fury, he daggered his uncle with “righteous” indignation just moments before, making himself the Omnipotent god who takes whatever measure to undo others’ wrongs(5.2:264-265).

Laertes and Hamlet even “exchange forgiveness” not only with each other, but also claim that by so doing, they both shall be absolved from sin (5.2:271). In a god-like manner, Hamlet says to Laertes, “heaven make thee free of it (a murderous sin), “ as though his words granted authority to such declarations (5.2:274). Even further, for those who are “unsatisfied” (5.2:282), Hamlet leaves his authoritative record to Horatio, charging him to tell the “harsh world” his story, an interesting parallel to God’s story, the Bible (5.2:290-91). Even outside of Christendom, Hercules the Greek god, not a true god for a Shakespearean audience, supposedly dies from a poisoned arrow, just as Hamlet and Laertes die by the poisoned sword; they, as false gods reap their rewards.

And this is who they choose to be, men who are more than man, but mighty creators of so-called righteousness, by making right the unjust situation they see. Shakespeare shows this chasm and their faults by showing that these two men, Laertes and Hamlet, both fight for what they know and who they are, yet in the end neither self-made “god” can rectify injustice through more sin; their arrogant humanity fails to understand a Godly comprehension of rising above human nature; after all, revenge is God’s. Though Hamlet knows that King Claudius is condemnable, he cannot be the God who can deal just punishment, just as Laertes cannot alter his father and sister’s deaths by killing Hamlet. Their knowledge make them become vindicators, leading to each’s ruin. This identity can be unlayered in more symbolism if one analyzes the cup of liquor that Horatio offers Hamlet. Proving him a false god by Christian standards,he accepts the cup, instead of refusing it like Christ refused the vinegar at the cross, a godly omnipotence; in the end Hamlet is human. He is a false god.

Moving past that glimpse in act five, readers understand that “to be” is an action, making Hamlet’s earlier “To be or not to be” speech a living testament to real issues facing Shakespeare’s audience in the Epistemological crisis. Should men really “take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing them, end them” (3.1: 61-62)? Is that possible? As he puts it, The “flesh,” is subject to death and failure, and he illustrates that men cannot pretend to be above such realities when every character, who each tampered with deceit on some level, dies, excepting Horatio who lives to tell the audience of tragic Hamlet (65-66). They cannot make themselves gods, even for their knowledge and beliefs. Rather than question what “to be or not to be,” men should ask how “to be” in their “sea of troubles.” If approached with the ontologist lense, everything in Shakespeare’s Hamlet agrees with his last line saying that bravery and boldness aside, “here shows much amiss” (5.2: 345).