The Concept Of Death & The Afterlife In The Play "Hamlet" By W. Shakespeare

In the play Hamlet, the main character, Hamlet, is faced with the task of avenging his father, the former king of Denmark. However, Hamlet tries to make certain of the murder of his father, constantly postponing his actions, questioning the validity of a crime with no witnesses. Hamlet’s indecisiveness also leads him to act inappropriately, relying on impulse and anger to gear his actions.

The play shows how action is affected by both rationality and emotional factors. In Hamlet’s case, he believes that before any action, there should be a moral reasoning behind it. He is controlled by his moral compass and this leads to his inability to act directly. But throughout the play, his morality is tainted by uncertainty, especially that of his mother’s role in his father's death, and more importantly to Hamlet, her incestuous deed. The concept of death and the afterlife is what causes one to be conflicted with how to act, creating a complex paradox of acting for what’s right morally and for what’s right immorally. The Closet scene puts Hamlet in a position of frailty, conflicted as both a lord and a son.

Hamlet’s apparent insanity can be proven or disproven in the Closet scene through the course of his actions. As Hamlet enters Queen Gertrude's private quarters, there is an immediate sense of anger in Hamlet’s tone, and he goes on to say “And-would it were not so-you are my mother” (III.iv.21). Hamlet is upset, but it begs the question if he is feigning his actions to guilt the queen into confessing her action or if he is genuine. When Hamlet mistakenly kills Polonius, thinking he was King Claudius, he showed almost no remorse, calling Polonius a “wretched, rash, intruding fool” (III.iv.38).

Hamlet, usually indecisive to kill the King, now almost without a moral consideration or thought of the consequence, kills Polonius. This act itself was done through anger and impulse, something a sane person, let alone a lord acting for the people, wouldn’t do. Hamlet’s “rash and bloody deed” (III.iv.32) signifies his loss in his morals. The task of avenging his father and the thought of his mother having committed incest had created a burden too much for even a lord to bear. Morality is blurred in the complexity of human emotion. There is a conflicting argument of what course of action is right, and Hamlet is not exempt from this issue as he struggles to keep his moral integrity as well as his social stature intact.

There is a case of uncertainty in knowledge that is a constant theme throughout the play. Over the course of the play, Hamlet continually postpones the killing of his father’s killer to be sure of the murderer. Even as the Ghost is shown to be an existent figure and not a figment of Hamlet’s imagination, Hamlet still distrusts the claims made by the Ghost of his deceased father. Instead, Hamlet devises a plan to test the claim for himself (II.ii.618-620).

But can Hamlet truly “catch the conscious of the King” (II.ii.635) just by observing his behavior? This question can be further extended to the Queen’s actions and if she has any relation to the murder of King Hamlet. The play reveals the struggle of acting or taking action without certainty. Hamlet is confronted with his state of weak revenge with the Ghost taunting him “This visitation/ Is but to whet thy almost blunted purpose” (III.iv.126-127) showing that Hamlet has forgotten the command to revenge his father: killing Claudius. Again, Hamlet is conflicted with if the knowledge of the Ghost is reliable. The course of action can then be described as an evaluation of the certainty of knowledge.