Milliff 1

Jamie Milliff
Ms. S. Kimberlin
AP Literature
1 February 2016
Laertes and Shakespeares Parallel Universes
The Many-Worlds Theory was an idea proposed by a Princeton physics student in
1954. It claimed that as someone observes one thing at one moment in a timeline, quantum
matter splits the entire universe, copying it, and causing the alternate someone to observe an
opposite thing at the same moment (Schiferl). This creates new, alternate, and independent
realities which have since been called parallel universes. While the terminology is new, the idea
is as old as William Shakespeares tragedy, Hamlet: Prince of Denmark. The play centers around
young Hamlet, a son who has seen his father dead and mother incestuously remarried after only
the first month of mourning. However, it is the secondary character of Laertes who foreshadows
the unrefuted concept of the Many-Worlds Theory. Shakespeare compares Laertes to the hero
Hamlet as a discoverer, family man, and leader in Hamlet: Prince of Denmark, but only his
alternative approach to a solution catalyzes the tragic ending.
The plays exposition introduces Laertes and Hamlet as young men plagued with
wanderlusta term of Germanic roots which describes a deep desire to travel and explore.
Having come home for the kings coronation and wedding, Laertes admits that duty done, / My
thoughts and wishes bend again toward France (I. ii. 256-7). These few lines imply not only
that he had been avidly studying in France before the funeral/wedding, but is also impatient to
return as soon as it is polite to do so. Hamlets wanderlust is revealed later in that same scene
when King Claudius admits that his intent / In going back to school in Wittenberg, / It is most
retrograde to our desire (I. ii. 315-7).
Shakespeare imparts both young men with a driving need to experience cultures and
lifestyles beyond their own. They both hold seeds of unsettled youth and notions that there must
be more than the lives that had been laid at their feetnotions which were most retrograde to

Milliff 2
the accepted family-based mentality of Shakespeares own Elizabethan realm. The theme of
youths masculine promiscuity is first brought introduced as Laertes preaches Hamlets faults to
his sister, Ophelia. In turn, Ophelia takes agrees to be cautious, but calls out her brothers
hypocrisy when she implores him not to Show me the steep and thorny way to heaven, / Whiles,
like a puffed and reckless libertine, / Himself the primrose path of dalliance treads / And recks
not his own rede (I. iii. 532-5). This insight into Laertess rakish tendencies is a two-part
revelation. Not only does he share another character trait with the hero Hamlet, but he uses this
intimate understanding to warn his sister from ruin. This idea digresses into the second
interpretation of Laertes: the family man.
The only family Laertes has is his father, Polonius, and sister, Opheliatwo people he
loves through his words and actions. In his last moments with Ophelia before traveling back to
school in France, he warns her of Hamlets incapability to give her everything he believes she
deserves. However, this protective trait is not reserved only for little sister, but also for his father,
the plays fool. Just after warning his sister, he cries I stay too long. But here my father comes. /
A double blessing is a double grace; / Occasion smiles upon a second leave (I. iii. 538-40).
Breaking this down and translating from Shakespeares trademark romantic lyricism, Laertes is
acknowledging his fathers faults, accepting them, and treating them as peculiarly quirky traits
that he has come to love. He never pretends that his family is anything more than it is, yet he
holds an understanding of their motives which surpasses that of any other character in the play.
His sister is not a simpering fool, but a young woman caught in a romantic idea of forbidden
love. His father is not a bumbling fool, but an old man who has a touch-and-go relationship with
sanity and a lifetime of wisdom to impart. In observing this facet of Laertes character, the world
begins to split, contrasting rather than comparing to Hamlet.

Milliff 3
Hamlets royal family is under high scrutiny during the play, and his treatment and
understanding of their dynamic personalities severely contrasts that of Laertess to his own.
While Laertes has a realistic grasp of his familys strengths and weaknesses, Hamlet
memorializes his parents in life and death, a trait which is directly related to his overwhelming
grief at his fathers passing and betrayal and his mothers marriage. When what appears to be the
ghost of his fallen father accuses the King Claudius of its murder, Hamlet immediately believes
it, so desperate was he for another reason to hate his uncle and cling to his fathers memory. His
living mother is subsequently subjected to his memorializing delusions, and her fall to the King
Claudius rips away Hamlets imposed ideas of her angelic persona. Hamlet doesnt anticipate
this lonely, desperate, human behavior because he never imagined his mother to be humanshe
was divine and blameless. Considering this unidimensional understanding, he felt all the more
betrayed by her actions. Hamlet harbors these feelings of loathing and betrayal, feeding his own
self-pity and angst. In contrast, Laertes never holds his judgements from his family, preferring
an open and honest relationship which allowed them to grow closer in understanding one
another. This transparency materializes in his public life through a third interpretation of
Laertess character: the leader.
Laertes was not born for greatness as Hamlet washe didnt hold a title or kingly destiny
making his leadership skills all the more impressive in their natural development and rapid
progression. As he returns to Denmark after hearing of his fathers death, the people flock to him
as a riotous head, / call[ing] him lord; [. . .] / They cry Choose we! Laertes shall be king!/
Caps, hands, and tongues applaud it to the clouds, / Laertes shall be king! Laertes king! (IV. v.
2965-72). As Hamlet descends into madness and takes his one-way journey to England, his
people quickly turn to Laertesthe son of a foolish advisorto be the next king, seeming to
forget their favored prince. Despite having this power over the masses which even King

Milliff 4
Claudius fears, Laertes doesnt use them to demand answers or information. In discussion with
the king he calmly asks that his new disciples give me leave (IV. v. 2980), though even the
imperceptive Queen Gertrude notes his anger and animated state. Never abusing his new power,
he instead cleverly uses it to assure that his fathers murderer will die by his own hand. It is
obvious that power is not his ultimate ambition unlike many characters of the play, as he agrees
he will be ruld by King Claudius if only he be the organ by which his father is avenged (IV.
vii. 3206, 3208). In the final scenes of the play, as the Danish court quickly falls into a chaotic
nest of duplicity and entrapments, Laertess only objective is to avenge his father.
Revenge is a familiar theme for both Laertes and Hamlet. Their fathers were murdered
and the women in their lives found in love with the respective murderers. Ophelia is intimate
with the man who becomes her fathers killer, mirroring Queen Gertrudes marriage to her
husbands poisoner. When this parallelism between Laertes and Hamlet is observed, the split in
their vengeful approaches becomes distinctive. While Hamlet laments over his fathers murder
and internalizes his rage against his uncle, Laertes confronts the King without distraction or
parlor tricks, aggressively demanding answers. While Hamlet sulks and considers ending his
own life to fix his problems, Laertes dare[s] damnation [. . .] / Let come what comes; only Ill
be revengd / Most thoroughly for my father (IV. v. 3005). The formers adolescent solution is
contrasted heavily by the latters direct and transparent approach. Laertess family and
leadership values converge at this point, bringing him back to Denmark from his youthful
dalliance with new purpose and a steadfast aim. However, he is not so blinded by his anger that
he plans to draw [against] both friend and foe (IV. v. 3015), but makes his inquiries with force
and careful understanding of the situation. Even when it is revealed that Hamlet is the murderer
in question, he considers the Kings motives to ostracize the prince from his people and send him
away without confession or trial. Once satisfied by his inquisition, he wastes no time in planning

Milliff 5
Hamlets demise, leaving room for error and assuring that the deed will be done. This maturity,
work ethic, and grace under pressure are traits which the hero himself lackstraits which allow
only Laertes to catalyze the tragic end to this tale of debauchery and deceit.
Laertes and the hero Hamlet may be created as parallel personas, but it is Laertess
protective acceptance of his family in union with his natural disposition for leadership that allow
him to split from Hamlets archetype and actuate real change in the events of the play. Though
they share a wanderlust and paternal vengeance, it is Laertes who transcends his idle and
frittering past to accomplish his noble goal and change his path. The concurrent and alternate
character of Laertes demonstrates what Hamlet might have accomplished if he grew into his
leadership role and learned to accept people at face value. He was so caught up in his own
melodrama that he lost sight of his goal like a child who is distracted by shiny objects. But if it is
Laertes who causes the play to come to fruition, why is Hamlet the hero? Could it be that
Shakespeare found Hamlets juvenile response to adversity heroic? Or is it more likely that the
hero is that only in his own mind, and the play is a warning against the prosaic and passive
effects of a quiescent lifestyle.
Works Cited
Schiferl, Robert. Personal Interview. 28 January 2016.
Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Four Great Tragedies: Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, Macbeth.
New York: Signet Classic, 1963. 29-174. Print.