Duty and honour:
LOAS:
1- Laertes as a foil to Hamlet, tension between attitudes regarding the
honour of revenge, morality- religious debate, L in the church
2- Destructive nature of honour-based fighting
3- Lack of honour of Claudius vs Old King Hamlet
In ‘Hamlet’, Shakespeare presents the conflict between attitudes
regarding the honour of taking vengeance through the juxtaposition of
Hamlet and Laertes, reflecting the debate on the duty of vengeance in
Elizabethan England. Hamlet seemingly recognises the duty of revenge in
his instinctive promise to 'sweep to my revenge' with 'wings as swift as
meditation or the thoughts of love'. However, Shakespeare alludes to the
atypical nature of Hamlet's revenge immediately, in his use of the word
'meditation' foreshadowing his future deliberation, as well as his atypical
association of vengeful murder with 'the thoughts of love'. Hamlet’s
atypicality lies in his internal conflict between the duty of taking revenge
and its moral ambiguity, as he deliberates in his consideration of its
consequences, musing of the afterlife 'for in that sleep of death what
dreams may come.' In contrast, Shakespeare presents Laertes as a foil for
Hamlet in his disregard for morality as he embraces the traditional
revenge hero role in adhering to the duty of revenge, which is shown to
take precedence over his being in his total abandonment of conscience
and disregard for consequence in seeking revenge against Hamlet, saying
“I dare damnation”, with the harsh dental alliteration reflecting his
aggressive resolve of taking justice into his own hands. This notion of
revenge superseding moral action is emphasised by Laertes’ vow to “cut
[Hamlet’s] throat i’th’ church”, demonstrating how divine law is made
inferior to filial obligation, with Laertes willing to defile the sacred space of
the ‘church’ in his duty of upholding revenge. As such, Shakespeare is
able to present the conflicting debate on revenge in Elizabethan England-
whilst Laertes embodies the stereotype of revenge fuelled by honour and
charged with masculinity, by which religion and divine law are subverted
by filial obligation, Hamlet conflictingly reflects a changing societal
perspective of revenge as no longer acceptable, with an emerging
prominence of the Christian-influenced practice of turning the other
cheek, as Bacon describes as “the glory of man, to pass by an offence,”
and entrusting justice to divine or legal authority rather than making it the
duty of oneself. As such, Hamlet's lament that “time is out of joint” is a
macrocosm, as Austen supports by saying, “it is not only Elsinore that is
‘out of joint’, it is Hamlet himself, who cannot naturally play the part
expected of him”, given the conflict between morality and honour that
LOAS:
1- Laertes as a foil to Hamlet, tension between attitudes regarding the
honour of revenge, morality- religious debate, L in the church
2- Destructive nature of honour-based fighting
3- Lack of honour of Claudius vs Old King Hamlet
In ‘Hamlet’, Shakespeare presents the conflict between attitudes
regarding the honour of taking vengeance through the juxtaposition of
Hamlet and Laertes, reflecting the debate on the duty of vengeance in
Elizabethan England. Hamlet seemingly recognises the duty of revenge in
his instinctive promise to 'sweep to my revenge' with 'wings as swift as
meditation or the thoughts of love'. However, Shakespeare alludes to the
atypical nature of Hamlet's revenge immediately, in his use of the word
'meditation' foreshadowing his future deliberation, as well as his atypical
association of vengeful murder with 'the thoughts of love'. Hamlet’s
atypicality lies in his internal conflict between the duty of taking revenge
and its moral ambiguity, as he deliberates in his consideration of its
consequences, musing of the afterlife 'for in that sleep of death what
dreams may come.' In contrast, Shakespeare presents Laertes as a foil for
Hamlet in his disregard for morality as he embraces the traditional
revenge hero role in adhering to the duty of revenge, which is shown to
take precedence over his being in his total abandonment of conscience
and disregard for consequence in seeking revenge against Hamlet, saying
“I dare damnation”, with the harsh dental alliteration reflecting his
aggressive resolve of taking justice into his own hands. This notion of
revenge superseding moral action is emphasised by Laertes’ vow to “cut
[Hamlet’s] throat i’th’ church”, demonstrating how divine law is made
inferior to filial obligation, with Laertes willing to defile the sacred space of
the ‘church’ in his duty of upholding revenge. As such, Shakespeare is
able to present the conflicting debate on revenge in Elizabethan England-
whilst Laertes embodies the stereotype of revenge fuelled by honour and
charged with masculinity, by which religion and divine law are subverted
by filial obligation, Hamlet conflictingly reflects a changing societal
perspective of revenge as no longer acceptable, with an emerging
prominence of the Christian-influenced practice of turning the other
cheek, as Bacon describes as “the glory of man, to pass by an offence,”
and entrusting justice to divine or legal authority rather than making it the
duty of oneself. As such, Hamlet's lament that “time is out of joint” is a
macrocosm, as Austen supports by saying, “it is not only Elsinore that is
‘out of joint’, it is Hamlet himself, who cannot naturally play the part
expected of him”, given the conflict between morality and honour that
