The Irony Of Power And Status In Shakespeare's Hamlet

Centered on revenge, madness, and mortality, Shakespeare’s Hamlet has been captivating audiences since the early 1600s. Laertes’ famous soliloquy plays on the irony between power and status. He argues the role of obligation versus personal choice and warns Ophelia of becoming too attached to Hamlet since “he himself is subject to his birth [and] he may not…carve for himself, for on his choice depends the sanity and health of this whole state,” (1.3.10-44). In other words, Hamlet’s love and loyalty lies first within the kingdom. Laertes’ claim is valid to a certain extent. Hamlet agrees to take revenge on Claudius out of filial obligation; however, as the play progresses he begins acting out of personal choice. Hamlet’s decision to act insane as a distraction from the investigation of Claudius is purely personal. There are many ways he could cover up the suspicion; Hamlet simply uses false lunacy to say everything he was too polite to say before. By no means is he ever obligated to treat his loved ones poorly; Hamlet chooses to treat them poorly, knowing full well how madness might reflect his status. …show more content…
Instead, he decides to wait until the king is “drunk asleep…or about some act…that has no relish of salvation isn’t” (3.3.88-92). Hamlet wants Claudius to roam through purgatory like his father, not gambol through Heaven. However, the ghost never specifies where his brother must spend the after-life; he simply wants Claudius dead. The extent to which Hamlet carries this filial duty is solely out of personal choice. He eventually takes matters into his own hands—making his own choices and punishing whomever he desire. The fact that Hamlet debates when, and if, he might murder Claudius is enough to prove that seeks revenge out of personal benefit rather than