Fullington 1

Amy Fullington

Ms. Dill

AP Literature and Composition

20 December 2019

Literary Foils in Hamlet: How Opposing Characters Define Hamlet’s Insanity

A literary foil is a character that presents opposing character traits to that of the main

protagonist. These characters’ purpose is to draw the reader’s attention to particular

characteristics that define the protagonist. In some scenarios, authors utilize foils to exemplify

characters’ good qualities, as in St. John and Rochester in Jane Eyre or Lennie and George in Of

Mice and Men. However, in many of William Shakespeare’s works, foils mostly emphasize the

negative qualities in the opposing characters. Hamlet, the protagonist of The Tragedy of Hamlet,

Prince of Denmark, is a young prince grieving for his father who was murdered by his uncle,

King Claudius. When Shakespeare reveals the murderer, the lure for revenge drives Hamlet mad,

eventually leading to his demise. In William Shakespeare’s The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of

Denmark, Shakespeare crafts literary foils to emphasize Hamlet’s descent into madness. By

highlighting traits in other characters that oppose Hamlet’s disposition, Shakespeare suggests

that Hamlet’s mental stability is imbalanced and not just feigned by the character.

Laertes and Hamlet both face similar tribulations regarding their father’s murder;

however, it is how they enact revenge that defines them as foils. Laertes is the only son of

Polonius, the Counsellor of the king, who Hamlet stabs while he is deceptively trying to prove

Hamlet’s insanity. Hamlet, likewise, has to experience the aftermath of his father’s murder at the

hands of King Claudius. The difference between these two experiences lies in the time it takes
 Fullington 2

for the two men to act upon their grief. Shakespeare by instilling in Laertes a vengeful drive and

high emotional response emphasizes the lackluster quality of Hamlet’s actions. After his father’s

death, Laertes does not hesitate to return to Denmark and proclaims, “I dare damnation. To this

point I stand / That both the worlds I give negligence. / Let come what comes, only I’ll be

revenged / Most thoroughly for my father” (IV.v.131-134). Despite the obstacles involved in this

situation, Laertes drops everything in France to avenge his father in Denmark. On the flip side,

Hamlet has multiple convenient opportunities to kill King Claudius but procrastinates

nonetheless. In one instant when Claudius is praying, Hamlet has the chance to commit his

crime; however, he procrastinates yet again: “No. / Up, sword, and know thou a more horrid

hent” (III.iii.88-89). Shakespeare, by portraying Hamlet in a constant state of hesitation,

exacerbates the troubled state of Hamlet’s mind. Murder is a harrowing act; thus, Hamlet’s

mental stability deteriorates the longer he procrastinates revenge. Shakespeare displays this rapid

descent strongly during Polonius’ murder when Hamlet exclaims, “How now, a rat? Dead for a

ducat, dead!” (III.iv.23). All of Hamlet’s built of tension bursts out in this turning point,

portraying Hamlet’s insanity. In opposition, Shakespeare depicting Laertes void of this guilt and

anxiety highlights those two qualities in the protagonist. Hamlet and Laertes are thus prime foils

in The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark due to their opposing revenge practices and

mental stabilities.

Claudius appears as a foil to Hamlet when considering the morals and virtues of both

characters. Shakespeare paints Claudius as an immoral and deceitful being whose only goal is

self-fulfillment, even at the expense of others. The moment Claudius murders his own blood, he

throws virtue out the window and conceit takes over. Shakespeare illuminates this quality in
 Fullington 3

Claudius when Claudius professes, “My words fly up, my thoughts remain below. / Words

without thoughts never to heaven go” (III.iii.98-99) after he purges his sins to God.

Contrastingly, even though Hamlet is contemplating something as horrid as murder, his

procrastination speaks greatly for his internal dilemma. Although Shakespeare has Hamlet

yearning to seek revenge for his father’s death, his morality impedes him from doing so

immediately. Shakespeare portrays Hamlet’s virtuous qualities through scenes, including the

bedroom argument between Hamlet and Gertrude. Hamlet, even through his madness, utters the

following words to his mother before vacating the bedroom: “Oh, throw away the worser part of

it, / And live the purer with the other half / Good night—but go not to mine uncle’s bed. /

Assume a virtue if you have it not” (III.iv.159-162). Insanity is skewing Hamlet’s disposition,

yet his internal makeup still shines through at this instant. Killing is against Hamlet’s morals, so

Shakespeare triggers Hamlet’s descent into madness through the moral tribulations he is facing.

Additionally, Shakespeare illustrates Hamlet’s views on death when Hamlet is considering

suicide: “Oh, that this too, too sullied flesh would melt, / Thaw, and resolve itself into dew, / Or

that the Everlasting had not fixed / His canon ‘gainst self-slaughter!” (I.ii.129-132). Even

throughout his pursuit to avenge his father’s death, Hamlet’s negative views on unnatural deaths

cause him to procrastinate, the moral struggle eventually deteriorating his mind. All in all,

Claudius’ immorality highlights the camouflaged moral turbulence Hamlet is facing,

emphasizing Hamlet’s madness.

Shakespeare also creates Queen Gertrude as a foil to Hamlet to outline Hamlet’s

irrationality and anger. Queen Gertrude is a woman defined by her propriety and gentleness,

avoiding any conflict if possible. Her grief for her late husband is short-lived, however, when she
 Fullington 4

marries his brother only months following the tragedy. Through this action, Shakespeare defines

Gertrude as a frail and weak-willed woman, her full dependency lying on men and status. Hamlet

even professes his thoughts on Gertrude in Act I: “Frailty, thy name is woman!—” (I.ii.146). By

emphasizing Gertrude’s feebleness, Shakespeare defines Hamlet’s resolution more intensely.

Procrastination may plague Hamlet’s mind, but his will to act counteracts this, thus driving him

insane. Furthermore, Shakespeare categorizes Gertrude as poised and proper, consistently

dressed to perfection and acting royally. Hamlet, in contrast, becomes increasingly rasher as his

mind becomes more imbalanced. The bedroom scene between Gertrude and Hamlet after the

murder of Polonius is a key example of this dissimilarity. In a frantic hysteria, Hamlet believes

he sees the ghost of King Hamlet and exclaims, “Why, look you there! Look how it steals

away— / My father, in his habit as he lived— / Look where he goes, even now, out of the

portal!” (III. iv. 136-138). Although his words appear crazed alone, Gertrude’s response further

intensifies their connotation: “This the very coinage of your brain. / This bodiless creation

ecstasy / Is very cunning in” (III. iv. 139-141). Shakespeare maintains Gertrude’s dignity of

language and clarity even in the scenario where her son is plummeting into lunacy. The sharp

juxtaposition of the sane Gertrude next to the insane Hamlet further accentuates the rapidity of

Hamlet’s descent. Through the combination of Gertrude’s inherent fragility, properness, and

lucidity, Shakespeare highlights Hamlet’s opposing qualities and creates literary foils out of

Gertrude and Hamlet.

Moreover, Shakespeare also delineates characteristics in Ophelia that counter those in

Hamlet. Ophelia, being the sister to Laertes and daughter of Polonius, has to cope with her

father’s death much like Hamlet has to manage his own grief. Shakespeare defines foils through
 Fullington 5

Ophelia and Hamlet’s reactions to their father’s murders, similar to the case between Laertes and

Hamlet. Losing her only parent drives Ophelia insane, causing her to lose all traits that

previously defined her as Ophelia. She wanders the halls and castle grounds aimlessly, singing

songs and spewing nonsense. Shakespeare portrays an image here that is the predisposed notion

of what madness looks like; thus, an emphasis is placed on Hamlet’s contrary practices. While

Ophelia copes with Polonius’ death by outwardly displaying insanity, Hamlet’s progression is

mostly internal before Polonius’ murder, in which the pressure finally becomes too much. In the

days following Polonius’ hasty funeral, Ophelia loses her grasp on reality, proclaiming many

nonsensical phrases such as, “Well, God’ield you! They say the owl was a baker’s / daughter.

Lord, we know what we are, but know not what / we may be. God be at your table” (IV. v. 41-

43). Shakespeare’s dialogue through Ophelia illustrates a mind overridden by insanity. Hamlet’s

response to Polonius’ murder is of blunt indifference, on the contrary, especially when speaking

about his murder victim’s corpse: “The body is with the king, but the king is not with the body. /

The king is a thing—” (IV.ii.25-26). The contrast of Ophelia’s coherently real madness and

eventual suicide to Hamlet’s indifference highlights the mental torment Hamlet is experiencing.

Additionally, Ophelia and Hamlet are both controlled emotionally by their parents. Shakespeare

provides different coping routes to each character, further defining them as foils. Polonius,

before Laertes' departure to France, presents Ophelia with a set of rules she must obey, including

the following: “This is for all: / I would not, in plain terms, from this time forth / Have you

slander any moment leisure, / As to give words or talk with the Lord Hamlet. / Look to ‘t, I

charge you.” (I.iii.131-135). Although Ophelia wants to appear strong and resolute, her father’s

words take hold of her immediately. Without his presence, suicide becomes the only option.
 Fullington 6

Shakespeare thus emphasizes Hamlet's differing reaction through Ophelia’s fragility.

Suggestions of Hamlet’s parents’ controlling quality are visible when King Hamlet’s ghost

returns and demands, “Let not the royal bed of Denmark be / A couch for damnѐd incest. / But

howsoever thou pursuest this act, / Taint not you mind, nor let thy soul contrive / Against thy

mother aught” (I.v.82-86). Hamlet is also resistant to King Claudius’ and Gertrude’s attempts to

quell his tormented mind, becoming angrier and more vengeful as a result. Up until his demise,

Hamlet is continuously attempting to defy his parents and dies due to this resistance, his mind

being too far gone. In all, Shakespeare’s representation of Ophelia’s stereotypical madness and

dependency on parental guidance emphasizes the opposing characteristics in Hamlet, painting

him as more unstable and insane.

The final significant foil Shakespeare creates in The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of

Denmark is between Hamlet and his friend Horatio. Horatio is a static character in this play,

unwaveringly showing the utmost rationality and loyalty to his friends and peers. On the other

hand, Hamlet’s internal struggle materializes as brashness and unreliability, Horatio’s disposition

underscoring these traits. When observing the conversations between Hamlet and Horatio, even

the lengths of their lines reflect the dissimilitude between the two men. While Shakespeare

writes Hamlet’s monologues and soliloquies in a prolonged fashion, Horatio is briefer in his

speech patterns. The differences unite the men in a fashion, as Hamlet voices in the following

reply: “Since my dear soul was mistress of her choice / And could of men distinguish, her

election / Hath sealed thee for herself, for thou hast been— / As one in suffering all that suffers

nothing—” (III.ii.56-59). In the monologue accompanying these lines, Hamlet asserts his

dominance over Horatio and ensures his friend knows that he was chosen because of his loyalty
 Fullington 7

and calmness. Horatio, in an abridged response, backs up Hamlet’s claims saying, “Well, my

lord. If he steal aught the whilst this play is playing, / And ‘scape detecting, I will pay the theft”

(III.ii.81-82). The nature of Shakespeare’s poetry in these lines echoes the characters’

sensibilities. Hamlet portrays his illogical tendencies through his crazed speech while Horatio

counters this with his rational thought process. Furthermore, Shakespeare’s contrast between

Hamlet’s fleeting faithfulness and Horatio’s allegiance reveals Hamlet’s internal deterioration.

Hamlet’s grasp of reality is diminishing rapidly, impeding him from creating emotional bonds or

experiencing selflessness. The main scene depicting Hamlet’s disloyalty occurs when he

apathetically sends Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to their deaths to save his own life: “That, on

the view and knowing of these contents, / Without debatement further, more or less, / He should

the bearers put to sudden death, / Not shriving time allowed” (V.ii.46-49). On the flip side,

Horatio is willing to commit suicide rather than be without his friend. When Hamlet finally dies,

Horatio laments, “Now cracks a noble heart.—Good night, sweet prince, / And flights of angels

sing thee to thy rest!—” (V.ii.362-363). The unconditional love and loyalty Shakespeare have

Horatio display accentuate Hamlet’s inability to ever feel this bond. In the end, it is Horatio’s

ideal traits that underline Hamlet’s insane state and inability to ever experience love.

In the end, Shakespeare depicts Hamlet’s descent into madness through the people

surrounding him. Although Hamlet attempts to shield his instability through the guise of feigned

madness, the opposing character traits of Laertes, King Claudius, Queen Gertrude, Ophelia, and

Horatio support the notion that the insanity was real. Ultimately, the characteristics Shakespeare

emphasizes, including Hamlet’s procrastination, anxiety, morality, rashness, disloyalty, and

vengefulness, lead to the prince’s tragic demise. Without the presence of characters to counter
 Fullington 8

Hamlet’s traits, his demise would appear less tragic. His mind died right when his father was

murdered, it just took longer for his body to catch up. Thus, Shakespeare’s inclusion of foils in

The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark intensifies the characteristics that define Hamlet’s

mental instability and internal struggle dealing with his father’s death, the crimes committed

against his morals eventually driving him insane.