Raymond Lee

Stro

HL IB English

The Hero’s Journey trope often revolves around the quest of a righteous protagonist

overcoming adversity in order to succeed against the antagonist. In Hamlet’s case, however, his

quest of revenge ultimately leads him to lose his morality, committing the same crime which had

deemed Claudius, the antagonist, immoral. Through the thick of the plot, The association

between action and immorality initially established is debased by Hamlet’s journey , as he soon

realizes the cowardice inherent within inaction. The ambiguous nature of morality - and whether

it is associated with action or a lack thereof - is explored by Shakespeare in order to reveal the

ambiguous nature of morality, and that there is no authority on such matters.

The first case of immoral action is exhibited by Hamlet’s mother, Queen Gertrude.

Following the death of the late King Hamlet, the recently widowed queen reengages with her

brother-in-law, King Claudius. In the context of 17th century Europe, the relationship between a

spouse and in-laws was analogous to being from the same family, thus Gertrude’s engagement to

Claudius was seen as incest by Hamlet. The taboo nature of this action evokes Hamlet’s rage, as

he addresses his mother as “Frailty!” and reminding her, “thy name is woman!” (A1S2)This

apostrophe presents a reversal in how the mother traditionally lectures the child; however,

Hamlet inverts this tradition, and instead chides her mother. This reversal ultimately positions

Hamlet at a moral grounds higher than his own other, through which Shakespeare shatters the

conventional trope of parents having moral authority above their children. Besides the actions of

Queen Gertrude, Hamlet also discovers immorality within his uncle, Claudius. In killing his
brother, Claudius simultaneously commits regicide and fratricide. The magnitude of this offense

is even acknowledged by Claudius as so foul, “it smells to heaven” (A3S3). Appropriately,

Hamlet also reprimands his uncle’s crime, describing him as a “slave.” This pejorative serves to

reveal Hamlet’s perspective on Claudius’ action, believing his uncle, like a slave, only acted and

had no forethought on the consequences of his actions. Between the remarriage of Queen

Gertrude and the patricide-fratricide of King Claudius, Shakespeare ultimately develops a firm

connection citing action without contemplation as the a key characteristic of immoral behavior.

However, this connection between action and immorality is brought into question through

Hamlet’s Hero’s Journey. In the beginning, we are introduced to Hamlet in a typical protagonist

trope: a righteous man who sets on a quest to eradicate evil. The immoral regicide of Claudius,

the antagonist, is juxtaposed with Hamlet’s question for justice, ultimately reaffirming his

morality. Unlike his uncle, however, Hamlet carefully considers all action he takes to reaffirm

their morality. However, his consideration develops into over-contemplation, as he countless

opportunities to exact revenge are hindered by his reasoning. Hamlet’s exile to Britain caused

Hamlet to confront the fact that he may never have a chance to avenge in father in the future.

When met by the Norwegian army, 20,000 men strong, all fighting for a piece of land worth “an

eggshell” is juxtaposed with Hamlet’s own circumstance: having concrete reason yet no action.

Previously, Hamlet had referred to her mother as lower than “a beast wanting discourse and

reason,” (pg 42) yet after witnessing this scene, Hamlet’s introspection leads him to establish a

new characteristic of immorality: inaction. He characterizes his inaction and excessive

contemplation as cowardice of “bestial oblivion,” (A3S3) sultimately undermining the

previously established connection between action to immorality. Through the conclusion reached

by Hamlet, his own inaction is seen just as immoral as Gertrude and Claudius’s actions. In
changing his mindset, Hamlet is indeed able to exact justice and kill King Claudius, Hamlet’s

action ultimately conflicts with the fundamental establishment of morality in a Hero’s Journey,

as he ultimately commits regicide, the very crime that branded Claudius, as the immoral

antagonist. Thus, Hamlet’s Journey brings into question the morality of a protagonist through

which Shakespeare also undermines the authority of countless tales of a hero’s journey as a

reliable source of morality.

Due to the prevalence of religion during 17th Europe, many turned to the Catholic

Church, or other religions, as an omnipotent source of morality. Said religion thus were able to

use the afterlife as a means of deterring the people from immoral behavior, and incentivizing

moral behavior. In through Hamlet’s journey, Shakespeare also reveals irrelevance of morality in

determining an afterlife in order to subvert religion as a source of morality. In To be or not to be

Soliloquy, Hamlet expounds upon the extent which the fear of afterlife effects his actions,

questioning “who would grunt and sweat under a weary life” if not for “the dread of something

after death.” (S3A30While this couplet serves to reveal the perspective from which Hamlet

contemplates the murder of his uncle, the situation described is analogous to the power religion

holds over the common people. Much like how Hamlet suffers the decision of whether or not his

justice will send Claudius to hell, people during the 17th century constantly contemplate their

actions through the lense of the consequences on the afterlife. In Hamlet, Shakespeare denounces

the relevance of morality in determining one’s afterlife through Yorick. To Hamlet, Yorick was

“a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy” and undoubtedly deserved a place in heaven.

In contrast, Alexander the Great slaughtered thousands of innocent victims during his conquests,

thus undoubtedly deserves damnation in hell. However, Hamlet now sees that, despite the

morality of the former and the immorality of the latter, both men ultimately ended in the same
place: a skull in the earth. Thus, the fact that these two juxtaposing characters both are subjective

the same afterlife reveals the irrelevance of morality in determining afterlife. This insight

ultimately undermines religion’s authority on morality, as the afterlife which they incentivize is

ultimately a figment of imagination, with no substantial proof.

Through the thick of the plot, Hamlet’s journey ultimately leads him to commit the same

crime, regicide, as his uncle. The ambiguous nature of morality is revealed by the inconstancy of

its characteristics - whether it be action or inaction. In disproving the existence of an afterlife,

Shakespeare also undermines the authority of religion on morality, leaving his audience with the

ambiguous nature of morality, and that neither parents, nor tales, nor religion, hold authority in

determining one’s morals.