Kaisharis 1

Zoe DeLapp Kaisharis

Death and Filial Identity in Shakespeare’s Hamlet

Introduction

William Shakespeare’s pièce de résistance The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark,

first performed in 1609, explores the bounds of filial identity and mourning through the lingering

responsibilities left by the Ghost of King Hamlet onto his son. Hamlet lacks a healthy

relationship with his parents and with his view of self, thus launching him into a strange grapple

with grief and mourning as he tries to come to terms with both his own identity beyond ‘Prince

Hamlet’ and the reality of death. The deaths of both Shakespeare’s son, Hamnet, and his father,

John, play clear influences into the way Hamlet explores the throes of mourning and

self-after-loss. These fragile and strained family dynamics reappear in the character Hamlet,

timed with the death of Hamnet and John Shakespeare in 1596 and 1601 respectively, as a direct

reflection of William’s own perceptions of family. Hamlet acts as a symbol of the weight of

responsibility and the struggles of grief, and is a pinnacle of filial burden. His journey is a fight

between self identity and bestowed identity, smothered between who he truly is and how others

wish him to be. To honor either side of the spectrum is to reject the other, and thus Hamlet must

walk a thin line in order to both maintain his perceptions of self and fulfill the role of a son that

is expected from him by the ghost of King Hamlet. Critics have frequently deemed Hamlet’s

relationship with his parents as an angsty young man going through a phase of rebellion, and

emphasize a strong connection with his father. But throughout the play, Hamlet fails to address
 Kaisharis 2

the late king with any sort of affections beyond general admiration, and refers to him as ‘King’

before ‘father’. The dissonance between Hamlet and his perceived loyalties with his parents is

often overlooked in lieu of focusing on the delay between the ghost’s command for justice and

the final act of revenge. However, the groundwork that lay between the young prince and the

father he is meant to avenge is the cause of the delay, and sparks a struggle between identity and

duty that clings to Hamlet until the final scene. Hamlet is not merely a wayward son who lacks

the bravery to avenge his father, as is the critical canon that has persevered for so long. He is the

symbol of a fight between autonomy and duty, grappling with the commands of a distant father

and a mother who does not understand his grief. Prince Hamlet’s turmoil is not whether he

should seek death, but whether he can kill off his former self - the self that values wit above all

else - and embrace his role as an avenging son. He realizes, with much regret, that whatever

action he takes means the end for him, in one way or another. But with either choice, he is

committing a grave sin, either against his father or against himself. Hamlet’s identity wavers in

the face of responsibility to parents who placed action as the King and Queen of Denmark before

parenthood. And then, with the death of the King, a man who may not have held fatherly

affections for Hamlet but still demanded respect from his position of authority, Hamlet is spun

into limbo once again. The ghost of King Hamlet appears before him, demanding his son - the

very son he held at arm’s length - seek revenge on his behalf. Being a good monarch pales in

comparison to being a faithful son. Thus, in his grief, Hamlet is forced to reevaluate his identity.

He must choose between Hamlet, the quick-witted scholar and Prince Hamlet, the warring filial

son. By choosing one he kills off the other. He is well aware that as the son of a king, he is not a

person, but a tool for the use of his father and of the kingdom. Death, to that end, is both a literal
 Kaisharis 3

reality and an existential question to the young Prince. He is overwhelmed with delusions of

love for his father and the grief that overwhelms him. But, it seems, his grief is not only for the

death of King Hamlet, but for the inevitable death of his identity: the identity that is the one thing

in the world that is his, and only his. His entire, fragile and fabricated world of delusions

shatters within a moment, and he is spun into limbo, faced with death and feigned loyalties all

around. He knows, in a way, that he is lying to himself about his father’s love. In the end, what

matters is the choice, the step towards the fall. In rebelling against the destiny set before him,

Hamlet once again becomes the king of his own will, and dashes away efforts against him.

Section 1: The Ghost’s Deception

The Ghost of King Hamlet deliberately uses Hamlet’s desperate need to prove himself in

order to compel the young prince to seek revenge, regardless of cost. The Ghost deliberately

preys upon Hamlet’s recklessness with his own life. In fact, so blinded by twisted devotion

towards the late King, Hamlet laments “Why, what should be the fear? / I do not set my life in a

pin’s fee, / And for my soul—what can it do to that, / Being a thing immortal as itself?”1 . Were

Hamlet a warring son like that of Fortinbras2, the value of his life would be a given as a precious

thing. However, Hamlet the academic, the failure of a filial son, holds no value to his life. It is

this deep fault that the Ghost preys so heavily upon, luring Hamlet with sweet words of loyalty

even with the knowledge that his recklessness is at the cost of his life. It is Hamlet’s disregard

for his own being that makes him the perfect candidate to seek revenge. In fact, on a more subtle

1
Shakespeare, William. “The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark.” The Riverside Shakespeare, edited by G.
Blakemore Evans et al., vol. 2, Houghton Mifflin, 1974, I.IV.67-70
2
Critics have frequently compared Hamlet and Fortinbras as direct opposites of avenging sons. Fortinbras often
takes on a warring and active state, while Hamlet leans towards academia and passivity. Their final meeting in the
last act is a culmination of their opposites coming together as one.
 Kaisharis 4

level, the revenge plot the ghost thrusts upon his son is as much a plot to rid Hamlet of his life

for being a failed heir as it is taking revenge on Claudius. Horatio, ever the calm and reasonable

aide to Hamlet, fears desperately that the Ghost will lead his beloved prince to his death.

Beyond merely being a warning from a worried friend, Horatio was entirely right in his fears.

Horatio warns Hamlet, cautioning “What if it tempt you toward the flood, my lord, / Or to the

dreadful summit of the cliff / That beetles o'er his base into the sea, / And there assume some

other horrible form, / Which might deprive your sovereignty of reason”3. Horatio’s worries are

not merely baseless anxiety. Rather, his trepidation is almost prophetic. Regardless of the

Ghost’s malicious intentions or not, his request to Hamlet leads directly to his death.

Likewise, it is all too easy to merely redirect the blame of the nine deaths that occur

through the play unto Hamlet’s hesitation4. His fear and confusion impede him, and thus lives

are lost. The reality, however, is that the subsequent deaths are linked to the very appearance of

the ghost. The Ghost brings about a massacre of all those related to and involved with the late

King, exchanging the lives of nine for the sake of one already deceased. And his only son is the

ultimate price for his selfishness. The vision of the late King Hamlet is the very “horrible form”

that deprives Hamlet of his “sovereignty of reason”. The Ghost need not take on the appearance

of a creature too horrible for sanity to handle. For Prince Hamlet, whose grief is still fresh and

bleeding over the loss of the King, and that of which is merely amplified by feelings of

inadequacy as a son and heir, the Ghost’s mien as Hamlet’s father is the vice needed to trap

Hamlet into the murder plot. The true nature of the Ghost is insignificant in this regard, as true

3
I.IV.72-76
4
Hamlet’s delay in revenge is the object of much debate among scholars. Critics such as Goethe deem Hamlet
incapable of fulfilling his father’s request, while others, including Bernard R. Conrad, find Hamlet unfit for revenge.
 Kaisharis 5

intention or not, Hamlet was pulled by guilt and grief the moment the apparition appeared

wearing his father’s armor5.

Hamlet’s downfall is not a result of his hesitation to enact on the revenge the ghost of his

father urges him to carry out. Rather, the ghost of his father appears before him, dictating the

exchange of his son’s life for the sake of his own revenge. The ghost of King Hamlet

deliberately manipulates Hamlet, using affectionate wording and appeals as his father, in order to

push Hamlet into action. Hamlet, despite his hesitance, decides to hear the ghost’s pleas. He

says “Be thy intents wicked or charitable, / Thou comest in such a questionable shape / That I

will speak to thee. I’ll call thee “Hamlet,” / “King,” “Father,” “royal Dane”6. Hamlet regards the

potential ghost of the late Sovereign not first as his father, but as the King. Indeed, his references

to his father always regard King’s Hamlet's achievements as the King, rather than as a father. He

is first and foremost the ruler of the country rather than a parent to Hamlet, and thus their

relationship is one of admiration rather than affection. Hamlet respects the late King as a leader,

but he lacks the clear doting connection between a healthy and stable father and son. Indeed, the

Ghost introduces himself not as the dead King, but tells Hamlet “I am thy father’s spirit”7. The

language the Ghost chooses to start his appeal for revenge is directed at Hamlet’s filial guilt,

positioning his request not as the duty of a Prince to purge the throne, but as a son to seek

revenge on his father’s behalf. The ghost appeals to Hamlet not as the King, as Hamlet typically

addresses him, but directly as his father. It is in the simple switch between ‘king’ and ‘father’

5
Spivack discusses that armor is inherited by the aristocratic heir, and thus deems that the appearance of the Ghost
wearing such armor displays a significant disruption in the inheritance order of Denmark’s royalty. Furthermore,
Snider debates that the Ghost’s appearance is unusual to that of typical Elizebethean apparitions, possibly suggesting
that the Ghost is a deceiver rather than the true Ghost of Hamlet’s father.
6
I.IV.46-48
7
I.V.9
 Kaisharis 6

wherein the Ghost’s manipulation begins. The Ghost gives Hamlet the final opportunity to prove

himself as both a son and as heir, and in return he is granted the luxury of fatherly love. But the

deception of the Ghost lies in the cost of this revenge. Despite telling Hamlet not to lose himself

in seeking revenge, the consequence is and always will be death. A father compelling his only

son to commit murder to appease his desire for revenge is the first sign of shattering between the

paternal relationship. Rather than protecting his child, and offering solace from his grieving, the

Ghost urges on Hamlet’s grief into hate and violence, merely compelling him further and further

into despair and madness. In order to peer through Hamlet’s filial delusion, the Ghost must be

exposed as the misleading spectre it truly is: “...a King who can leave nothing to his son but the

ruinous form of a revenge in which the bankruptcy of the very foundations of his rule is revealed

and his realm lost”8. That is not to say that the Ghost is a demon in disguise, lying to bring ruin

upon the young Prince. Rather, it is a genuine phantom, as Hamlet himself decides, but it is a

willful liar. The truth of the Ghost is that the King never truly loved Hamlet as a son. Even after

death, Hamlet is merely a tool, a stepping stone and a sacrifice that allows the late King to exact

revenge on those who have betrayed him, even at the cost of his only heir.

As the Ghost leads Hamlet deeper and deeper into a world of certain death compelled by

filial responsibility and obligations, he too strengthens his hold over the young Prince’s mind,

using grief and dishonor as a weapon. The overarching implication, paved through subtleties of

active and inactive descriptions of Fortinbras and Hamlet, is that Hamlet has failed stunningly as

a warring, revenging son. He is an academic who chooses wit and words as his weapons rather

than the sword, and the very uncertainty of his mother’s fidelity launches him into a state as a

8
Haverkamp, Anselm. “The Ghost of History: Hamlet and the Politics of Paternity.” Law and Literature, vol. 18,
no. 2, p. 185
 Kaisharis 7

failed son, forever reaching towards a King whose fatherhood was secondary to his rule. Kirsch

questions the Ghost’s appeal to Hamlet, arguing that “He consciously compels in Hamlet...the

regressive movement towards identification and sadism which together usually constitute the

dynamics of depression”, and in his manipulation of Hamlet’s sorrows, “The ghost...not only

compels [thoughts of suicide] in Hamlet...he incarnates it”9. Under the guise of caring for his

son who is drowning in a sea of grief in a place where he is position as purely and utterly alone,

the Ghost attacks him on all sides: not only does he bring about the death of Hamlet by urging

him to enact revenge, but he preys on the fragile mind of a mourning young man, undermining

his self worth and reinforcing the idea that he exists entirely for the sake of his father’s use.

Hamlet acknowledges that he is less-than, his existence finally being worthy as a tool for the

benefit of his deceased father, whose true ghostly identity is unverifiable10. And even after death,

King Hamlet takes advantage of the young prince’s self-deprecating sentiment. The Ghost

finally gives purpose to Hamlet’s life and offers him hope to be of use to a King who, however

distant, he admired as a leader. Hamlet quickly agrees to the Ghost’s insistence, declaring “The

time is out of joint. O cursèd spite, / That ever I was born to set it right!”11. In a way, the

phantom that appears before Prince Hamlet offers him a twisted salvation. Like the warring

Prince Fortinbras, Hamlet can finally fulfill his duties as a Prince of Denmark and as the son of

the dead King. But no true, wholehearted father would value so-called justice over the life of his

child, however meek or not. But Hamlet’s declaration that his entire life had been leading up to

enacting the equity needed for his Father’s Ghost to rest soundly is merely the beginnings of the

9
Kirsch, Arthur. “Hamlet's Grief.” ELH, vol. 48, no. 1, 1981, p. 27
10
Hamlet declares the plot for revenge as being the very purpose of his birth (I.V.191). Likewise, Horatio worries
for the young Prince as he speaks to the Ghost, perhaps regarding Hamlet’s claim that he “[does] not set [his] life in
a pin’s fee” (I.IV.68).
11
I.V.190-191
 Kaisharis 8

end. He has already decided to exchange his life for the sake of his father12. Hamlet lacks a

formed identity as a child through his faltered connections with his parents; his parents are the

King and Queen of Denmark before they are the Father and Mother of Hamlet. And then, with

the death of the King, a man who may not have held fatherly affections for Hamlet but still

demanded respect from his position of authority, Hamlet is spun into limbo once again. The

ghost of King Hamlet appears before him, demanding his son - the very son he held at arm’s

length - seek revenge on his behalf. Being a good monarch pales in comparison to being a

faithful son. Thus, in his grief, Hamlet is forced to reevaluate his identity.

Hamlet’s hesitation and deliberation are not proof of his nervousness to commit revenge

and a solidification of his weaknesses, but rather they are evidence that he doubts the intentions

of the Ghost. He harbors his doubts about the Ghost’s validity, going so far as to test Claudius’s

guilt with the mime play. Even so, Hamlet clearly tells Horatio that the Ghost is undoubtedly his

father: “It is an honest ghost, that let me tell you”13. However, his doubt is clarified as he

organizes a play to verify the spectral being’s claims, the first signs of slipping doubt against a

being he is meant to obey wholeheartedly. What can be discerned from this declaration,

however, is not that Hamlet doubts the authenticity of the Ghost being his father’s spirit, but that

he doubts the authenticity of the truth the spirit presents. Hamlet does not trust his father’s

intention, despite his grieving and sorrow at his death. Indeed, he makes it clear time and time

again that he loved his father for his actions as the King, but dances around his actions as a

father. And it is with that Kingship that comes sacrifice and cost. Hamlet may hold respect for

12
Regarding Hamlet’s claim, “that ever I was born to set it right” (I.V.191). However, as the play progresses,
Hamlet seems to lose his earlier resolve and begins questioning the Ghost’s validity and true motive. He goes as far
as to test the Ghost’s cries of murder by conducting a play in order to catch Claudius’s guilty reactions (III.II).
13
I.V.141
 Kaisharis 9

the late King but he knows, fiercely and instinctively, that the King would not hesitate to

sacrifice his son for his own ends. He leaves Horatio and his companions with a warning, tied

between layers of uncertainty, muttering “That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain”14.

The villain Hamlet references takes on an absolute duality: it is Claudius, the Ghost, and even

Hamlet himself. While on a surface level he is taking the Ghost’s claims in stride, with Claudius

taking on the undeniable and ineffable role as the villain, Hamlet is not so simple a man. He

knows that the Ghost’s intentions, if they truly are that of his father’s, cannot be entirely pure.

From the beginning, he does not view himself as the hero or the avenger of his own journey.

Hamlet, in a way, embraces his role as the anti-hero, stringing along both the Ghost and his

demands for revenge and Claudius and his manipulation as he desperately seeks to find stable

footing in a world that is ever-changing around him.

Beyond the words he chooses to move Hamlet into action, the Ghost of King Hamlet

takes on a particularly war-like appearance as an additional weapon against Hamlet’s will.

Hamlet is a characteristically academically inclined being, choosing to spar with words and wit

before the sword. But what the country of Denmark needs to fight the impending attack from

Prince Fortinbras, at least in the eyes of King Hamlet, is not the fierce acuity of the mind, but the

strength of a militant son. His armor is an omen, a deliberate threat in the form of grandeur15.

Hamlet immediately recognizes that something is amiss with the spectre before him, saying “My

14
I.V.108
15
Carla Spivack, in her article “The Woman Will Be Out: A New Look at the Law in Hamlet,” asserts that Hamlet
was set to inherit his father’s heirlooms upon his death. Among these heirlooms is his father’s armor, the very armor
in which his apparition wears in front of Hamlet. With Claudius’s succession to the throne, Hamlet’s rightful
inheritance is ripped from his hands. The Ghost comes to him flaunting his lost rights, and demanding he take them
back. Moreover, the Ghost has still staked his claim on Hamlet’s inheritance, motioning him as unfit to be
bequeathed such a significant part of the royal identity.
 Kaisharis 10

father’s spirit in arms. All is not well” 16. The immediate reaction to King Hamlet’s appearance is

that of fear and anxiety. On the surface, the armor is a sign that battle is approaching. Not only

the battle between Denmark and the revenging, pugnacious Prince Fortinbras, but Hamlet’s own

domestic war between himself and Claudius in the struggle for the throne. But beyond the

physical threat, the Ghost’s appearance is a direct hit to Hamlet’s guilt as a failed warring son: he

is an academic through and through, but his father needs an heir who will fight. Armor is an

integral part of male aristocratic identity during the Elizebethean era, and Hamlet’s failure to

inherit sets him at a disadvantage in his position. The appearance of the Ghost in an item that

was meant to be bestowed upon his son is a mirror of the absolute breakdown of aristocratic

tradition17. By showing off Hamlet’s intended heirloom, the Ghost is indirectly declaring that

Hamlet is an unfit heir. He must prove himself as the rightful inheritor by killing his Uncle on

his Father’s behalf, even if it means his life and identity will be lost in the process.

Hamlet’s visit to his mother follows much of the same solidification of the Ghost as a

strong, imposing figure even after his death. He is a constant reminder of Gertrude’s infidelity

and Hamlet’s own failure as an aristocratic son. Hamlet describes him as having “An eye like

Mars to threaten and command, / A station like the herald Mercury,” more akin to an

untouchable God than to a man18. In berating his mother’s perceived betrayal, Hamlet is

repeating his father’s greatness like a mantra, as if to convince himself just as much as his

mother that he was, indeed, an unparalleled man. The Ghost’s appearance is merely a visage of

16
I.II.254-257
17
Spivack, Carla, “The Woman Will Be Out: A New Look at the Law in Hamlet.” Yale Journal of Law & the
Humanities, vol. 20, issue 1, 2008, p. 33.
18
III.IV.58-59
 Kaisharis 11

King Hamlet’s ideality, preying upon Hamlet’s own glorification of a man he had failed19. He

loses any sense of humanity, first by appearing in full glory in the set of armor Hamlet was

meant to inherit, and then by Hamlet’s fervent descriptions of his perceptions of the King as a

near-God. The culmination of these subtleties forms the Ghost into something untouchable and

impossible to go against. Hamlet has elevated the late King in his mind through his grief, and in

doing so he has locked himself into a position of debt and servitude to the spectre. He is slid into

a position of uncertainty, but knows that his only true option is to fulfill the revenge the Ghost

brings upon him. His freedom of choice is nipped away with each appearance of King Hamlet’s

spectre.

Hamlet, in describing his hatred against Claudius, describes bits and pieces of his own

legacy. He declares Claudius as “A king of shreds and patches,” a monarch reigning over only

what King Hamlet had left behind20. But the reality behind Hamlet’s cold words is that “shreds

and patches” are all King Hamlet left behind for the next monarch. His achievements were great

and many, but war is impending and the courts are in disarray. King Claudius merely took the

place Hamlet was meant to inherit. He has disrupted the lineage of inheritance set for Hamlet.

But this inheritance is not a powerful throne paved by those before him. King Hamlet has left an

enormous responsibility to those left behind: dealing with the impending war he sparked himself

with a bet, and now the responsibility for revenge. Hamlet has not only lost his right to the

throne, but he has gained a burden greater than any grieving son could bear. In being compelled

to seek revenge, Hamlet is not only set on a path in which true justice is unachievable, but he is

19
Haverkamp, Anselm. “The Ghost of History: Hamlet and the Politics of Paternity.” Law and Literature, vol. 18,
no. 2, p. 184-187.
20
III.IV.104
 Kaisharis 12

being guided towards his own destruction21. If Hamlet were to rise to the throne as his legacy

had determined, he would have become the King of shreds and patches that he deems Claudius

to be. Both the Ghost and Hamlet are aware of this fact. In turn, instead of inheriting the King’s

crown, Hamlet’s purpose is shifted to revenge. A deep, all-encompassing revenge that will cost

the life of nine people, but in turn, finally gives Hamlet a purpose.

Hamlet regards the appearance of the Ghost in his mother’s room not with relief at once

again seeing his deceased father, but with fear and hysteria. He rambles that “His form and

cause conjoined, preaching to stones, / Would make them capable”22. Hamlet acknowledges that

the Ghost’s appearance and the King’s self are somehow separate entities. The conjoining of

these two is a great enough disturbance of power to cause even the stones to act to his will. In

turn, Hamlet consists of these two selves: “form and cause.” The difference lies within the

dissonance between Hamlet’s responsibility and his hesitancy to follow it through. The Ghost’s

being is an ideal union that Hamlet will never be able to achieve23. Hamlet’s disunity lies not in

his decision to carry out revenge and slaughter his Uncle, but in his absolute willingness to do so.

As Baldo describes it, it is a difference between “acting” and “action”24. Hamlet carries out the

determined duties by going through the motions, but his constant dissonance of self creates

disruptions amongst his responsibilities25. In his own minute ways, he is fighting back against

the path set before him by the Ghost. Although Hamlet describes his father as akin to a God,

21
Haverkamp, Anselm. “The Ghost of History: Hamlet and the Politics of Paternity.” Law and Literature, vol. 18,
no. 2., p. 178. (Haverkamp views the Revenge of the Ghost as a deliberate lie set to lead Hamlet astray. Hamlet is
tied to the Ghost’s will by inheritance and guilt: his grief links him inextricably to the deceased, and in this time of
mourning he is especially vulnerable to its lure and sweet words.)
22
III.IV.127-128
23
Baldo, Jonathon. “”His Form and Cause Conjoin'd’: Reflections on ‘Cause’ in ‘Hamlet.’” Renaissance Drama,
vol. 16, 1985, p. 87.
24
Baldo, Jonathon. “”His Form and Cause Conjoin'd’: Reflections on ‘Cause’ in ‘Hamlet.’” Renaissance Drama,
vol. 16, 1985, p. 87-88.
25
Section 3 delves deeper into the nature of Hamlet’s identity and the war between self and responsibility.
 Kaisharis 13

with even his ghostly apparition full of enough strength and valor to move the inanimate, he is

also asserting his uneasiness and fear. He acts because he knows there will be consequences if

he does not. He is not merely afraid of once again disappointing his father, but he fears his father

himself. Indeed, as the Ghost makes its daunting appearance, he cries out in surprise and shock,

begging for the protection of angels26. His hand is forced because he fears some kind of

retribution from the Ghost if he does not. Hamlet is coerced into listening to the Ghost’s

demands because of its appearance as it preyed upon his grief and confusion to bend his will.

But as Hamlet began to stall, questioning the Ghost’s intent and using the play to seek the truth,

he knows he must still slay his Uncle in order to escape the Ghost’s constant presence, seen or

unseen. It appears as a warning, a threat to finish what he has started.

Hamlet, by every intents and purposes, appears as a dutiful son. He does, in the end,

comply with the Ghost’s demands for revenge, with a monumental cost to himself. Something

deep inside Hamlet has changed between his first interaction with the Ghost and the appearance

of the Ghost in Gertrude’s bedroom27. He speaks, shakily, muttering: “then what I have to do /

Will want true colour; tears perchance for blood”28 The Ghost draws Hamlet once again to the

cusp of destruction. But Hamlet, unlike his first encounter with the Ghost, is nearly breathless

with fear. His tone appears rushed and feverish as he races to convince his mother of the Ghost’s

existence and to quell the Ghost’s irritability at his inaction29. Hamlet’s currency comes in the

26
III.IV.105-106
27
Some critics suggest that this great change is Hamlet’s deteriorating mental state as he falls into madness.
However, the breakdown in Hamlet’s stability seems to be a direct cause of the dissonance between duty and self.
Hamlet must put aside his identity, his feelings of inadequacy and hesitation, in order to rise to the Ghost’s demands.
From the start, his journey is one that steadily heads towards his demise.
28
III.IV.131-133
29
These lines in particular are the subject of great debate amongst Shakespeare scholars. It is not entirely clear who
Hamlet addresses in the lines “tears perchance for blood” to (III.IV.132-133). Some, such as Anthonisen, assert that
Hamlet switches between addressing the Ghost and addressing his mother without notice. His speech is scattered
and his attention divided.
 Kaisharis 14

form of “tears”, monumental sorrow and downfall, and “blood” death and destruction. He is

acknowledging, in his small way, that he is doomed to give one or the other. He is constantly

faced with these very costs: he can either drown himself in his own sorrow or he can throw his

sorrow away and kill. He is choosing one unhappy ending over another, an endless cycle of pain

set in place by the Ghost. Anthonisen approaches Hamlet’s behavior as a projection of his own

fears and anxiety, forcing his anger ut unto his mother and his fear unto the Ghost when they are

merely just parts of himself30. The culmination of Hamlet’s harsh words of his mother and

Claudius are a mixture of what he fears for himself: an unfit king, his sin of filial failure never to

be absolved in the eyes of his father. Even if the Ghost before him is a deceiver, Hamlet still

moves full force towards ultimate downfall. His small rebellion, a signifier of his fight for

freedom, lies in the choice of that downfall: suicide or murder.

Section 2: Mourning and the Search for a Father

Hamlet’s mourning is rejected by all those around him: Gertrude, King Claudius, and

even the ghost of his father. He is utterly and painfully alone in the world melded around him.

In a world where all he needs is the time and space to heal, he is denied traditional mourning by

everyone and everything around him. As a result, Hamlet is thrown into a sort of limbo: he

cannot reconcile with his feelings of death, nor with his relationship with the now deceased king.

As Claudius and Gertrude dismiss Hamlet’s grief during the court scene in act I, scene II,

Gertrude tells him: “Do not forever with thy vailèd lids / Seek for thy noble father in the dust”31.

Gertrude rejects not only Hamlet’s sadness for the late King Hamlet, but his entire battle with the

30
Anthonisen, Nils L., and Niels L. Anthonisen. “The Ghost in Hamlet.” American Imago, vol. 22, no. 4, 1965, p.
241.
31
I.II.70-71
 Kaisharis 15

concept of death. She calls King Hamlet specifically as Hamlet’s ‘father’, not as his ‘king’, as

Hamlet often refers to him by. Hamlet is not tormented by his father’s death, but by the

circumstance that surrounds him. Any closeness - present or prior to the demise of King Hamlet

- is non-existent in Hamlet’s interactions with his mother. Her words of what she perceives as

kindness are merely false honeyed coaxings to lull Hamlet into submission32. Hamlet is as

seemingly as wary of his own mother as he is frustrated at her lack of sympathy for his suffering.

In this environment, where his fears and anxieties are treated as nothing but a passing fancy, he

cannot fully come to terms with either the King’s mortality nor his own. Hamlet is mourning the

death of a King as much as he is mourning the death of his own position as a son. And so,

throughout the play, he desperately tries to establish these ties with the late ghost, almost as if to

convince himself that King Hamlet was more of a father to him than he truly was. Even in these

trappings of Gertrude’s guilt tripping, Hamlet denies the King’s fatherhood. He reminisces that

King Hamlet was “So excellent a king, that was to this / Hyperion to a satyr. So loving to my

mother / That he might not beteem the winds of heaven / Visit her face too roughly”33. Unlike

Gertrude’s blatant use of the term ‘father’ in regards to the source of Hamlet’s mourning, Hamlet

deliberately dances around regarding King Hamlet as any sort of father to him. As he speaks the

ghost in act act I, scene IV, he is always termed ‘the king’ first and foremost 34. It becomes a

question then, of where Hamlet’s deep mourning originates if it does not fully stem from the loss

32
In fact, it seems that Hamlet’s interactions with Gertrude and the Ghost of King Hamlet circle entirely around
forcing him into submission. This very fact, paired with Hamlet’s intense awareness of words and language, lends
hand to his hesitation and anger. He knows he is being led into a place where his choices are not his own, and thus
his ‘delay’ of revenge is born from his suspicions and wariness of his own parents.
33
I.II.139-142
34
Hamlet follows much of the same pattern of speech in act I, scene IV, using terms of kingship before calling King
Hamlet father. He says: “That I will speak to thee. I’ll call thee “Hamlet,” / “King,” “Father,” “royal Dane”
(I.IV.46-48)
 Kaisharis 16

of a paternal affection. Barnay asserts that Hamlet’s grief is as much about the processes and

formalities of mourning as it is about mourning the ones he has lost, as is demonstrated in

Hamlet’s mourning dress and adherence to typical mourning rituals35. Torn between mourning

and the urging of Claudius and Gertrude to move on, Hamlet is faced with a push between his

feelings of sadness at the death of a King, and frustrations at his inability to come to terms with

such sadness in peace.

Although the source of Hamlet’s grief is assumed to be the death of King Hamlet,

Hamlet’s mourning is far more complicated than sadness over a late monarch. In part, he mourns

his own failure to form a connection with King Hamlet as a father and son. They are little more

than King of Denmark and heir to Denmark. Claudius even recognizes the dissonance between

Hamlet’s mourning of a father and his duty as the heir to grieve, soothing: “But you must know

your father lost a father, / That father lost, lost his, and the survivor bound / In filial obligation

for some term / To do obsequious sorrow”36. Claudius is meant to be taken, at face-value, as the

villain in Hamlet. However, in these moments, his words resonate deeply with the reality

Hamlet eventually comes to terms with37. As Barnaby suggests, part of Hamlet’s dissonance is

with the process of grief. There are two realities: what he is meant to feel in mourning the loss

of a father, and what he truly feels. Emotion and responsibility clash, merely peeking through

the outer guise of formality in Claudius’s words. His sensitivity to obligation may be because he

understands Hamlet, in this way. To both men, King Hamlet was an object of something

35
Barnaby, Andrew. “Tardy Sons: Hamlet, Freud, and Filial Ambivalence.” Comparative Literature, vol. 65, no. 2,
2013, pp. 224
36
I.II.89-92
37
In particular, Hamlet’s dissonance between identity and responsibility that was covered in part I, regarding his
interactions with the Ghost and the doubt he harbors for the Ghost’s motives. Throughout the play, Hamlet is unsure
of going through with the revenge because he cannot resonate with his role as an obeying, filial son. Claudius’s
words strike a chord within Hamlet, bringing to light his own doubts of his loyalty to his father.
 Kaisharis 17

untouchable. He was a beacon of power and strength that both Claudius and Hamlet previously

lacked, and now, in his absence, there is a hole to be filled. Hamlet longs for affections from his

parents, but is met with falseties and manipulation at every turn. Claudius recognizes this

weakness, prodding Hamlet that: “And with no less nobility of love / Than that which dearest

father bears his son / Do I impart toward you”38. He offers Hamlet that which he most deeply

desires: a father’s love. It may even be this proposition that shakes Hamlet so deeply, rather than

the rejection of his grief. Claudius tempts - or taunts - him with something he never realized he

lacked, until this moment. The court scene is a revelation of Hamlet’s beliefs, undermining his

mode of mourning and his feelings and memories of his late father. Claudius is exceptionally

good at recognizing Hamlet’s weaknesses and preying upon them with sweet words, much like

Gertrude and the Ghost. In this way, everyone Hamlet is meant to trust are poisoning him with

words as much as they are consoling his grief. Thus, he lashes out in anger and madness, like a

wounded animal with nowhere to run.

The appearance of the Ghost is a direct interruption of Hamlet’s grief, bringing the object

of mourning - King Hamlet- back to the forefront of Hamlet’s life and rendering him incapable

of moving forward. As such, the very subject of grief becomes the center of the suspension of

mourning, and with it Hamlet is sent into an emotional limbo. The Ghost urges Hamlet upon

their first meeting: “Adieu, adieu, adieu. Remember me.39 40. The launching of Hamlet into

eternal lamentation is a mere sleight of hand by the Ghost, a deliberate push for Hamlet to keep

in every waking thought, every action, every breath. And in doing so, he is forcing his

38
I.II.112
39
I.V.91
40
Although the entirety of Hamlet’s interactions with the Ghost of his father build towards his remembrance, it is the
direct urging of King Hamlet for his son to remember, to keep him fresh in his mind, that is the final trigger towards
Hamlet’s downfall.
 Kaisharis 18

anguishing son to keep him alive. The subtle cruelties of the father cling to the son, and the very

appearance of the Ghost of King Hamlet is a sign to Hamlet that he will never be free of his

lineage. Thus, it transpires that the true and lurking villain of Hamlet is not Claudius, the greedy

brother, but King Hamlet, the father who refuses to let his son be free. Hammersmith describes

the Ghost’s urgings for revenge as a direct blow to Hamlet’s psyche and healing process, “For all

of these resonant events come upon Hamlet while he has still not even begun to assimilate the

loss of a living father, while he is still freshly mourning, seemingly alone in Denmark, for the

death of a king, and their major psychic impact and importance”41. Any progress Hamlet had

made in his mourning process - already dashed by the chidings of Gertrude and Claudius in act 1,

scene 1 - is demolished completely by the Ghost’s plot for vengeance. Hamlet is placed in a

position where he is refused the ability to separate himself from his father, and instead becomes a

mode of revenge, a living tool for the dead42. His own mourning process has become a weapon

against him, halted in its healing and deepened to unfathomable depths. He stalls, delays,

because he is unsure if he truly wishes to follow the orders of his father. He either breaks the

mold of an obedient heir and shatters filial responsibility or he complies, and in doing so betrays

the part of him that is reluctant to be so fiercely loyal to a man who was hardly a father.

The ghost rejects Hamlet’s mourning as much as Gertrude and Claudius do, and thus his

grief melds into something different43. Unfulfilled, it becomes anger, confusion, and hurt.

Hamlet’s grief feels more akin to outrage than mourning. In the bedroom scene, Hamlet’s father

descends once again, chiding him for his digression and hesitation: “Do not forget: this visitation

41
Kirsch, Arthur. “Hamlet's Grief.” ELH, vol. 48, no. 1, 1981, p. 22
42
Hamlet’s identity is discussed further in Section 3, “Death of Self and the Rise of the Son”
43
Specifically, we see the Ghost demand that Hamlet remember him, and seek revenge on his behalf. In doing so,
Hamlet is entirely unable to grieve and heal, but is instead sent head first into a limbo of mourning in which he
cannot move on from the death of his father, but is burdened with keeping his memory and vengeance alive.
 Kaisharis 19

/ Is but to whet thy almost blunted purpose,” a direct echoing of his urgings of remembrance in

act 1, scene 544. Hamlet is meant to be nothing, not a grieving son, nor a sorrowful heir - nothing

but an obedient servant following the guide of his father’s cold hand. In Hamlet’s growing

mania, we see the echoings of all the grief in Hamlet’s life: his estrangement from his mother, the

death of a King he so admired, and the death of a man who was as close to a father as he had

ever experienced, and his loss of the throne. He is haunted by the ghost of a father who demands

his son empty his head of everything but revenge, but knowing, full well, that revenge is not akin

to mourning. The insistence that Hamlet “remember” his father is in direct opposition of an

important aspect of grieving: forgetting. Being unable to forget, Hamlet cannot grieve, and thus

he is trapped in a moment between remembrance and forgetting that he struggles to emerge from.

The Ghost of Hamlet’s father is a demonized version of grief come to life, destroying its own

ability to forget and in doing so, heal. Forgetfulness is the pinnacle of mourning, and Hamlet is

denied forgetting in its entirety45. Remembering is his burden, dragging his father from the grave

and following him to his own final resting place.

Madness and mania creep upon Hamlet as he is denied his ability to mend his broken

soul. His father has betrayed his son, forcing him into remembrance rather than forgetting, and

in doing so has shattered the natural cycle of grief. In the Graveyard scene in act 5, scene 1,

Hamlet finds Yorick, the ideal father figure. He greets his old friend’s skull in shock, lamenting:

“Alas, poor Yorick! / I knew him, Horatio / … / He hath borne me on his back a thousand times,

/ and now, how abhorred in my imagination it is! / … / Here hung those lips that I have kissed I

know not how oft”46. The affection that Yorick showed him during his life was something

44
III.IV.111-112
45
Hammersmith, James P. “Hamlet and the Myth of Memory.” ELH, vol. 45, no. 4, 1978, p. 598
46
V.I.161-167
 Kaisharis 20

Hamlet lacked severely in his interactions with the King and Queen. Yorick is everything King

Hamlet was not: he happily threw aside grace and appearances to shower the princeling Hamlet

with affections. Although merely a fraction of a scene within the entirety of Hamlet, Hamlet’s

interaction with the skull of Yorick changes him entirely 47. Hamlet speaks of the late king with

tones of awe and respect. His tone never strays toward the outwards fondness that he thinks of

Yorick. This shows, in particular, that it is not that Hamlet is incapable of forming these close

familial connections, but that such connections were never formed in the first place with his

parents. Memory disturbs and unsettles Hamlet so deeply, owing to the memory of his father

that less than ideal. The Ghost forces him to remember, but finding Yorick’s skull allows

remembrance in a productive and safe way: he is remembering on his own terms, facing the

truths of memory and death that surround him. Unlike the death of his father, where the

appearance of the Ghost breaks Hamlet’s mourning process, the death of Yorick allows for

Hamlet to come to terms with the death of a pseudo-father, thus completing the cycle that was

originally interrupted. As a result, Hamlet is changed entirely48.

Yorick’s position as a father figure is maintained not only by the fondness in which

Hamlet speaks of him, but by the kinship Hamlet feels by their shared affinity for wit over

physicality. Hamlet grasps Yorick’s skull in his hand, reminiscing that Yorick was “a fellow of

infinite jest, of most excellent fancy”49. While humor was Yorick’s weapon of choice, he and

Hamlet share a deep preference for the mind. The late King Hamlet was a man of power, of

47
Elise Denbo describes Hamlet’s interaction with Yorick’s skull as a turning point in the play. She writes that
“Hamlet is notably different, more receptive, more ‘ready’ and sincere” after act 5, scene 1. Denbo, E., 2017, ‘‘Alas
Poor Yorick!’: Hamlet and Kristeva’s Imaginary Father’, PsyArt 21, p. 148.
48
A stark contrast to the “To be or not to be scene” in act 3, scene 1, Hamlet has now come to find a safety in death
that is demonstrated in the final scene during his battle with Laertes
49
V.I.162-163
 Kaisharis 21

bodily action and warring nature, but the Prince finds himself more closely attuned to a dead

jester: wit is his weapon of choice, and heightened thought and imagination are far dearer to him.

Hamlet is far more like Yorick than he is to his father - which is a testament not to his

princehood, but to his independent identity that flourishes outside of filial bounds. We see a

distinct mimicking of values: both Hamlet and Yorick are men of the mind, although of different

matters, rather than physicality. Yorick is an image that Hamlet can cling to. One of purity, of

childhood innocence, of simplicity. It is in Hamlet’s fond remembrance of Yorick that lingers an

underlying coldness towards his father, with whom he fails to remember affectionately beyond

the bounds of admiration. Thus, Yorick is somewhat of a special existence to Hamlet, a beacon

of his identity that remains separate from that of his father’s, and a stark reminder that even those

who hold the same values of him, and even those he loves, will die.

Yorick’s skull is proof of finality, a direct opposite to the living remnants of King

Hamlet’s Ghost. Hamlet remarks to Horatio, “To what base uses we may return, Horatio” 50.

Yorick’s skull is tangible, striking proof that death takes all, and even kings and jesters are not

safe from its grasp. It then follows that what Hamlet fears is not death, but unknowing. In a

way, the skull seems to confirm to Hamlet that eternal life is not what is awaiting in the afterlife,

but finality is. Regardless of what belief Hamlet seems to confirm with the discovery of the

skull, it is a turning point, allowing him to move towards his death in full stride. The skull, a

“material artifact of death and decay,” both shocks Hamlet and jolts him into acceptance51. Any

hesitations he once held melt away, and he finally finds his footing, sure in his path and freely

accepting of the fate set before him. It seems that the joint combination of his completed

50
V.I.178
51
Denbo, E. ‘‘Alas Poor Yorick!’: Hamlet and Kristeva’s Imaginary Father’, PsyArt 21, 2017, p. 148
 Kaisharis 22

mourning process of his pseudo-father, and the confirmation of oblivion, have fulfilled what he

so deeply lacked during the prior acts of the play. Now, Hamlet finds himself ready to embrace

his fate, a master of his own life and impending death for the first time in his existence.

Section 3: Death of Self and the Rise of the Son

Hamlet is undone by the pressure placed upon him as he is forced to choose between

salvaging himself or becoming someone he is not for the sake of exacting revenge for his late

father. In his cornerstone “to be or not to be” speech, he questions the validity of existence and

death, remarking; “For in that sleep of death what dreams may come / When we have shuffled

off this mortal coil, / Must give us pause: there's the respect / That makes calamity of so long

life”52. Hamlet’s cataclysm arises from not only what is to come after death, but what follows

when he does away with his true self and becomes the idealized militant prince his father

compels him to be53. He is trapped within a bloody legacy, wherein he must either suffer the

consequences of not fulfilling revenge on his father’s behalf, or he must do away with himself

and become someone he is not. He is well aware that as the son of the king, he is not a person,

but a tool for the use of his father and of the kingdom. He laments “For who would bear the

whips and scorns of time, / The oppressor's wrong / … / But that the dread of something after

death”54. The fear that follows what may become of him once he has smothered the witty

academic within himself is as uncertain and daunting a fate as death itself. His language and use

of “whips” and “oppressor” paints him not as a frustrated son unable to enact revenge, but as a

52
III.I.65-68
53
We see these echoings in the Ghost’s armor-clad appearance to Hamlet and his demands for physical retaliation
against Claudius
54
III.I.69-77
 Kaisharis 23

man trapped in a promise he was forced to make. He has not wronged his father by hesitating to

reach for revenge, but he has been wronged by his father. Hamlet as the cornerstone character of

his play is far more than a mere revenging prince. He brings to light the question of mortality

that lingers at the back of the mind, amplified in intensity by the expectations left by his dead

father. He is forced down by his responsibilities, not only as a son demanded into action, but as a

crown prince whose duty is to protect the throne and by extension the kingdom. Hamlet, by

killing Claudius, will figuratively kill himself in the process. To Hamlet, his father’s command

is not a request for his beloved son; rather, it is a burden that Hamlet never asked for, but is

compelled by his lineage to accomplish. Vincent Petronella describes Hamlet’s soliloquy as

“...exhibit[ing] the melancholy of the mourning period”55. This mourning is both the lingering

sadness of the death of a father and the impenetrable mourning for the death of self. Hamlet has

been surrounded by death and decay, from the Ghost of his father to the skull of Yorick, and he is

becoming increasingly aware that his time will come soon enough. He is aware, at least to an

extent, that he is merely a piece in a larger game. Hamlet clings to logic, but the disparity

between killing himself or clinging to his individual identity begins to spiral his mind into a

darkness that is near impossible to return from. By choosing either, he is committing a grave sin,

either against his father or against himself.

In contrast, Horatio’s discussion of Prince Fortinbras as the inheritor of his kingdom

lends hand to his fulfillment of the idealized vengeful son, which Hamlet cannot achieve. Prince

Fortinbras is a fiery battle-oriented youth in comparison to Hamlet. Horatio describes him “Of

unimproved mettle hot and full”56. Prince Fortinbras is a far cry from the scholar Hamlet is. He

55
Petronella, Vincent F. “Hamlet's ‘To Be or Not to Be’ Soliloquy: Once More Unto the Breach.” Studies in
Philology, vol. 71, no. 1, 1974, pp. 86
56
I.I.95
 Kaisharis 24

is impulsive and rash, and desperate to prove himself in the name of his father. In fact, his

introductory description of being hot-headed is particularly significant in regard to Hamlet,

because Hamlet cannot seem to stop thinking, while Prince Fortinbras ill thinks before he acts.

Hamlet is a scholar and a philosopher before all else, and the thought of smothering his own

thoughts to emulate the easy brashness of Prince Fortinbras is a death in and of itself. He has a

set goal in mind, and a strong sense of obligation to King Fortinbras that Hamlet struggles to

uphold with his own father. Fortinbras is an angry lion seeking revenge for his fallen pride and

Hamlet is merely the slinking fox seeking escape from the wrath. He is a victim of

circumstance, thrown to and fro by scheming betrayers in the snake pit. But beyond that, Hamlet

is painfully, impenetrably alone. Both men are vastly similar due to their late fathers and

missions of revenge, but Prince Fortinbras is the only one of the pair who truly acts without any

semblance of doubt. Horatio continues to paint Prince Fortinbras as a loyal son seeking

retribution for his similarly hot-headed father, saying “But to recover of us, by strong hand / And

terms compulsatory, those foresaid lands / So by his father lost”57. Significantly, it is the duty of

the prince-son to fulfill the king-father’s failed actions, and thus the successor is bound by honor

and loyalty. Hamlet, however, seems to be tormented by his inability to resolutely abandon

himself for the sake of his father, and guilt clings to him. Horatio describes Prince Fortinbras’s

actions as “by a strong hand”, inferring that he is actively pursuing the legacy his father has left

for him. Meanwhile, Hamlet remains frozen in passivity and can only spin himself deeper and

deeper into despair with his own flowery language. Hamlet remains on the cusp of two states of

being: remaining as himself, or becoming Prince Fortinbras’s counterpart as a revenging son.

57
I.I.101-103
 Kaisharis 25

Prince Fortinbras is a striking image of strength and power, and his lingering presence

throughout the entirety of the play haunts Hamlet, who cannot become a Prince Fortinbras even

when he knows he must in order to achieve his princely duty. However, the scholar in him still

reigns supreme, and he is helpless to his own spiral of overthinking even when he knows he must

act one way or another.

The disparity between who Hamlet is and the prince he must become pushes Hamlet

further into his own anxieties, and merely paralyzes him with fear and uncertainty as a result.

Hamlet uses language within his “to be or not to be” speech that suggests a strong level of

incongruity with who he is and his awareness that he must become akin to Prince Fortinbras. He

cries “Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer / The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, /

Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, / And by opposing end them?”58. The language he uses,

particularly “slings and arrows” and “take arms”, is unusually war-centric speech for a typically

academic speaker. His mournful lamentation of battle-centric action puts him in direct contrast

with Fortinbras, who is a shining example of a revenging son. But unlike Fortinbras, Hamlet

struggles with the identity he is meant to assume, and instead lets the disparity of who he is and

who he is expected to tear him apart from the inside out. Hamlet is attempting to take strides

towards becoming on par with Prince Fortinbras, but he struggles to fully end himself for the

sake of his grand task. In turn, he acknowledges that Prince Fortinbras can act on his father’s

behalf so easily because he does not dwell on personal sacrifice. Indecisiveness rises tenfold as

he is faced with the option of throwing away everything he holds true for the sake of the legacy

imparted upon him by the king, his father. Fortinbras, however, is the prince Hamlet is pushed to

58
III.I.56-59
 Kaisharis 26

be, but cannot accept with open arms. While Fortinbras seeks to avenge his father’s death

without a second thought, Hamlet finds himself hesitating even at the cusp of the fall. Hamlet, as

opposed to Fortinbras, merely thinks too much, and within the trap of thought he finds himself at

odds with what he believes and what he thinks. Rather, he is far more tempted by suicide - a

swift end to the woes that plague him - than he is by revenge on behalf of his father.

Instead, Prince Fortinbras exists solely for the sake of his father and the sake of his

nation, a feat which Hamlet cannot readily accept as a prince. Horatio describes Prince

Fortinbras as a near-perfect copy of his late father, noting that King Fortinbras was “prick'd on

by a most emulate pride, / Dared to the combat” which resulted in his death59. The ideals

celebrated by King Fortinbras hinge on pride and refusal to back down, which ultimately leads to

his own destruction. However, the reckless resilience that marks both King Fortinbras and

Prince Fortinbras allows them to face adversity without hesitation, and is something Hamlet

severely lacks. In contrast, the battles that Hamlet is familiar with often play out through wit and

wordplay. Although he can handle a sword, he treads in unfamiliar water when it comes to

mercilessly seeking the physical revenge that would allow him to attain the crown and officially

become his father’s replacement. Hamlet, however, is not a doppelganger of his father as Prince

Fortinbras is. He recognizes the weight of his own mind, bewailing “Thus conscience does make

cowards of us all; / And thus the native hue of resolution / Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of

thought”60. He recognizes his weakness as detrimental to his duties as a son and as a prince, but

Hamlet never asked for those burdens to be placed upon him. He is well aware that he cannot

become the ideal son that Fortinbras proves himself to be. The brute violence he is called to

59
I.I.82-83
60
III.I.82-84
 Kaisharis 27

carry out is a far cry from his passive form of wit-battling. As a result, he finds a kind of solace

in his cowardice, as he is far too aware that physical death is a more appealing alternative than

the death of self in pursuit of his father’s legacy. He suggests, rather indirectly, that the reason

men like Fortinbras and Claudius act so resolutely is because they do not dwell on the act, but

rather act to achieve an endgame and blur over the pain in between. But Hamlet, being the

academic he is, finds no solace in blind action. His battles that so often play out through wit and

mind games are a far leap away from the brute violence needed to kill Claudius. Thus, by

extension, Fortinbras becomes the ideal son, the avenging crown prince that every king father

yearns to have, and Hamlet is struck with the heavy reality that he cannot be the son that

Fortinbras is. Hamlet is bound to the unfortunate aftermath of a battle he wants no part of, and

one that eventually leads to his demise.

The disparity between who Hamlet is and the course of action he is pressured to take

clashes with his apparent acceptance that the course of events he is currently on may

subsequently lead to his death. But on a more inherent level, the divide makes Hamlet painfully

aware of the fact that he will, in fact, die depending on which course of action he chooses to take.

Hamlet laments that “The undiscover'd country from whose bourn / No traveller returns, puzzles

the will, / And makes us rather bear those ills we have / Than fly to others that we know not of?”
61
. He seems to recognize, at least to some extent, that he is merely a player in a grand game in

which he has no control. To conform to the mold imposed on him by others, to seek a revenge

that is not his own, creates such a startling gap between mind and logic that Hamlet’s feigned

madness becomes blurred into genuine madness. Hamlet stands on unstable ground. He is far

61
III.I.87-90
 Kaisharis 28

too aware that a single move in either direction - either throwing away his legacy and honoring

his individual identity, or smothering his autonomy and becoming the warring son his father

seeks - will send him toppling into an unknown, irreversible fate, and that alone is enough to

cause him to pause. Hamlet seems to consistently be aware that his enactment of his father’s will

has two potential outcomes. He will either become king, and thus die in a metaphorical sense, or

will die alongside Claudius and put an end to his suffering. In either outcome, Hamlet dies in

some form. He realizes, with much regret, that whatever action he takes means the end for him,

in one way or another. But with either choice, he is committing a grave sin, either against his

father or against himself. Vincent Petronella makes a mistake in assuming Hamlet’s “To be or

not to be” speech is attributed wholly to thoughts of physical suicide, although he is right in

asserting that “...He speaks of taking action not against Claudius but against his own person,

specifically against his own heart”62. Hamlet’s act of revenge is as much a forced conformity of

self as it is the literal murder of Claudius, and in seeking retribution for his father he is

simultaneously battling with his own desires and fears linked with following his filial duty. He

either follows his father’s wishes, throwing away himself in the process, or he betrays lineage

and crown in the name of self preservation. Suicide and the death of self are inherently linked in

his worries because what he contemplates is not only a physical suicide, but a mental one. It

may be in his loneliness, in the painful depths of separation, that Hamlet finds some form of

solace in madness. Real or perceived matters not. What matters is that Hamlet puts on the good

show for those around him, that he willingly plays into the hands of his oppressors. What

matters is the choice, the step towards the fall. In that action, Hamlet once again becomes the

62
Petronella, Vincent F. “Hamlet's ‘To Be or Not to Be’ Soliloquy: Once More Unto the Breach.” Studies in
Philology, vol. 71, no. 1, 1974, pp. 82
 Kaisharis 29

king of his own will, and dashes away efforts against him. He is marred by duty, struggling to

weigh his own values and beliefs against those imposed upon him by the Ghost.

Hamlet transforms his death in Act 5 into his final rebellion: he has completed what his

father has asked of him, but he has also made a stand for himself against the throes of fate and

destiny by appointing the son of his father’s rival to be the next king. He has completed his

mission for revenge on his father’s behalf, sacrificing himself in the process. His death is a

bittersweet mix of acknowledgement of his embrace of the warring son his father’s Ghost so

fervently pushed for and a last declaration of independence. As he is dying, Hamlet regards

Death as particularly warlike, like an armored enemy who has defeated him in battle: “Had I but

time (as this fell sergeant, Death, / Is strict in his arrest)”63. In this way, he relinquishes part of

himself to the role as a dutiful son: he has fought the battle the Ghost of his father has compelled

him unto, and thus dies on the battlefield a hero, a martyr. But there is melancholy in his

acceptance, an acknowledgement that he has lost the part of himself resistant to becoming a

leader in war64. Death, Hamlet deems, is the ultimate victor. But in his dying moments, we see

flickers of Hamlet as the self-fulfilled son of King Hamlet. He perishes having fought for his

father’s legacy. The warlike father has borne a warlike son, and both bleed their lifeforce for the

sake of this inheritance. And yet, Hamlet rebels. He relinquishes Denmark to Prince Fortinbras,

the son of his father’s competitor, saying “But I do prophesy the election lights / On Fortinbras.

He has my dying voice”65. He clings to his independence, his own fate instead of the fate set

63
V.II.331-332
64
As he is dying, Hamlet begs Horatio to tell his story. Not simply the story of a son who has enacted revenge, but a
Prince in the throes of despair who makes an ultimate sacrifice of self. His lamentation, “Had I but time...O, I could
tell you—”, is, by all appearances, an acknowledgement that there is more to the legacy he wishes to leave behind
than violent tragedy (V.II.331-332). Horatio, his most trusted companion, must live on to deliver Hamlet’s truth.
65
V.II.353-354
 Kaisharis 30

ahead of him by his father. In his dying moments, a display of defiance to his father’s legacy and

a bold show of his own judgement, Hamlet deems the son of his father’s rival the inheritor of the

kingdom. At the same time, his support of Fortinbras is an extension of free will, and not of a

demand. He gives Prince Fortinbras “his dying voice”, a luxury that he was denied by the deaths

in his own life. In doing so, Hamlet is giving Fortinbras a step to the throne. He does not force

this decision, but clears the path for ascension. His dying message is clear: choose, where I had

no choice. Fortinbras rises to the occasion, fulfilling Hamlet’s prophecy.

Fortinbras’s honoring of Hamlet is a small acknowledgement to the ties that held them

together, even when they acted on different sides of the conflict. Both men are sons tied to the

legacy of their fathers, with Hamlet’s fate ending in tragedy and Fortinbras’s fate ending in

victory. He directs Hamlet’s funeral rites to reflect that of a hero, a soldier, filled with honor and

praise. He speaks to those before him, announcing that “with sorrow I embrace my fortune”66.

He has made the choice Hamlet could not: he chooses freedom, chooses to avenge his father and

accept the throne Hamlet has given him with blessing. Fortinbras is a symbol of what Hamlet

could have been, had he not been tied by the words of a dead father. Fortinbras dances on the

periphery of the play for most of its duration, but his character is not merely a footnote meant as

a means to an end: his arrival emphasizes Hamlet’s own tragic journey for revenge, and his

victory as hero clashes with the tragedy that has taken place in the courtroom67 68. The line

between wanting revenge and being told to seek revenge highlights the disconnect between

father and son. Hamlet’s broken identity in his death, clinging to fragments of individualism,

66
V.II.389
67
Eissler, K. R. “Fortinbras and Hamlet.” American Imago, vol. 25, no. 3, 1968, p. 203
68
Eissler acknowledges that Fortinbras’s role may be an overstatement of intent, but asserts that he serves a distinct
purpose in the grand scheme of the tragedy. Namely, Fortinbras is a glimmer of a victorious hero, splashed against
the tragic death of Prince Hamlet.
 Kaisharis 31

come together to create Fortinbras. The legacy of the father is shown, in Fortinbras, to be a thing

of remembrance, not reliving, as Hamlet suffered69. And so, Fortnibras honors Hamlet’s doomed

fate. He orders his men to “Bear Hamlet like a soldier to the stage, / For he was likely, had he

been put on, / To have proved most royally”70. He gives Hamlet a warrior’s burial not because he

became the warring son the Ghost wished him to, but because he fought with resistance until the

bitter end. His reasoning, he says, is because given the chance, Hamlet would have been a great

leader. Instead, Fortinbras must impart this duty upon himself, now given the burden of fulfilling

the deceased Prince’s wishes for his royal ascension. The difference between the legacies of

King Hamlet and Prince Hamlet, however, lie in the choice. Prince Hamlet imparts a freedom of

choice upon Fortinbras that he was never given by the Ghost. Fortinbras honors Prince Hamlet

out of his own free will, beckoned by the grace and dignity of a dead son. Hamlet dies with quiet

acceptance of the path he has chosen. And all that follows is merely silence.

Conclusion

Hamlet is set upon his path of destruction by the Ghost of a man he longs for as a father.

His grief is interrupted, sending him into a fervent limbo from which he cannot escape. Hamlet

shows flickers of rebellion throughout his journey: he seeks to verify the Ghost’s claims by

putting on a play, without blindly believing the tales of woe from his deceased father. In this

way, Hamlet begins on notes of uncertainty and suspicion. Hamlet is a son bound by duty and

position, but his hesitation in enacting revenge for his father shows glimpses of a broken filial

relationship. His grief is denied by his mother, by Claudius, and by the Ghost. In the process of

69
Barnaby, Andrew. “Tardy Sons: Hamlet, Freud, and Filial Ambivalence.” Comparative Literature, vol. 65, no. 2,
2013, pp. 237
70
V.II.398-400
 Kaisharis 32

seeking vengeance on his father’s behalf, he is denying himself the ability to heal and grieve.

Hamlet’s pivotal “To be or not to be speech” is doused in death and uncertainty. But what he

ponders is not suicide, but the death of self.

In fulfilling his father’s wish, he is killing the part of himself that is inherently scholarly

and rebellious. But by rejecting to seek vengeance, he is throwing away his princely and filial

duty. He struggles with questions of identity, and whether his life and being are more valuable

than revenge. But upon finding Yorick’s skull in the graveyard, Hamlet is flooded with

realizations that death is infinite. Yorick is an integral father figure, and Hamlet speaks of him

with affectionate words he never bestowed upon his own father. Thus, Yorick’s death changes

something within Hamlet, offering him clarity and resolve that he so desperately grasped for

before. Hamlet subsequently heads towards his demise with newfound courage. He fulfills his

father’s wishes, killing Claudius, but in one final act of rebellion against his father, Hamlet

endorses Prince Fortinbras for the throne. Fortinbras gives Hamlet a soldier's funeral, stepping

into the path Hamlet set out before him.

Shakespeare’s The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark explores the entanglement of

filial duty and longing for autonomy, dowsed in a halted mourning process that is merely

exacerbated by the arrival of the ghost of a father who elevated duty over affections for his son

during his life. It is not simply a tale of a jilted son seeking revenge on his father’s behalf. It is

an exploration of filial identity and the weight of responsibility. Hamlet experiences a struggle

between the identity of self and pressures of responsibility placed upon him by the ghost of a

distant father. Many critics interpret Hamlet as adoring the late king, but his lack of affectionate

tone when speaking of him is more reminiscent of awe and fear than it is familial love. The
 Kaisharis 33

ghost of Hamlet’s father disrupts his mourning process, guiding him into a limbo between

remembrance and healing that ultimately leads him down a path of destruction. Hamlet is

smothered under the demands from his father’s supposed ghost, torn between staying loyal to

himself and fulfilling his responsibilities as the son of a king. From this entanglement arises a

complicated grief, a mirroring of a son who mourns the loss of an absent father, and a young

prince who is alone in the world in which he resides. Death is not a fear so much as it is a

question of being, and the fragile relationships that hold the pieces of Hamlet’s being together are

mere strings tying Prince Hamlet to duty and purpose.

Works Cited

Anthonisen, Nils L., and Niels L. Anthonisen. “The Ghost in Hamlet.” American Imago, vol. 22,

no. 4, 1965, p. 232–249.

Baldo, Jonathon. “”His Form and Cause Conjoin'd’: Reflections on ‘Cause’ in ‘Hamlet.’”

Renaissance Drama, vol. 16, 1985, p. 75–94.

Barnaby, Andrew. “Tardy Sons: Hamlet, Freud, and Filial Ambivalence.” Comparative

Literature, vol. 65, no. 2, 2013, pp. 220–241.

Denbo, E., 2017, ‘‘Alas Poor Yorick!’: Hamlet and Kristeva’s Imaginary Father’, PsyArt 21, p.

143-158.

Eissler, K. R. “Fortinbras and Hamlet.” American Imago, vol. 25, no. 3, 1968, pp. 199–223.

Hammersmith, James P. “Hamlet and the Myth of Memory.” ELH, vol. 45, no. 4, 1978, p.

597–605.

Haverkamp, Anselm. “The Ghost of History: Hamlet and the Politics of Paternity.” Law and

Literature, vol. 18, no. 2, 2006, pp. 171–198.

Kirsch, Arthur. “Hamlet's Grief.” ELH, vol. 48, no. 1, 1981, p. 17–36.
 Kaisharis 35

Petronella, Vincent F. “Hamlet's ‘To Be or Not to Be’ Soliloquy: Once More Unto the Breach.”

Studies in Philology, vol. 71, no. 1, 1974, pp. 72–88

Shakespeare, William. “The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark.” The Riverside

Shakespeare, edited by G. Blakemore Evans et

al., vol. 2, Houghton Mifflin, 1974, pp. 1189-1234.

Spivack, Carla, “The Woman Will Be Out: A New Look at the Law in Hamlet.” Yale Journal of

Law & the Humanities, vol. 20, issue 1, 2008, p. 31-60