Hamlet: Villain or Victim? A Fresh Examination of the Prince of Denmark
In the centuries since Hamlet first graced the stage, William Shakespeare’s titular character has often been praised as a tragic hero—a figure driven by grief, revenge, and moral struggle. However, a modern reevaluation of the evidence presented in Shakespeare’s text invites us to see Hamlet in a much darker light: as a manipulative, calculating, and remorseless killer.
Through this analysis, we’ll examine Hamlet’s alleged crimes, motivations, and mental state to determine whether the Prince of Denmark should be viewed not as a tragic victim of circumstance, but as a villain orchestrating a web of violence and manipulation.
The Ghost: Reality or Delusion?
Hamlet’s descent into violence begins with his encounter with the ghost of his father, King Hamlet. While the ghost’s existence is corroborated by two guards and Hamlet’s friend Horatio, only Hamlet speaks directly to the apparition. The ghost’s command for revenge sets Hamlet on his destructive path.
Could the ghost’s command be the delusion of a troubled mind? Hamlet’s apparent schizophrenia—a condition characterized by hallucinations and paranoid thinking—cannot be dismissed. If the ghost is a manifestation of Hamlet’s inner turmoil, then his subsequent actions, motivated by this vision, are not the duty of a grieving son but the machinations of an unhinged mind.
The Murder of Polonius: Accident or Premeditation?
One of Hamlet’s most glaring crimes is the murder of Polonius, the royal advisor. While Hamlet claims he thought it was King Claudius hiding behind the curtain, evidence suggests otherwise. Polonius’s reputation as an eavesdropper was well-known, and Hamlet’s frustration with him was no secret.
Given Hamlet’s immediate acknowledgment of his act and his lack of remorse, the evidence points to premeditation. Polonius’s death was a calculated step to destabilize Claudius’s reign by eliminating one of his closest allies.
Betrayal and Murder: Rosencrantz and Guildenstern
The deaths of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern further implicate Hamlet as a cold-blooded killer. While Hamlet accuses them of delivering a letter ordering his execution, there is no concrete evidence they were aware of the letter’s contents. Hamlet manipulates the situation, ensuring their deaths by forging a new letter condemning them as traitors.
This act is not one of self-defense but of premeditated vengeance. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern’s loyalty and friendship are repaid with betrayal and death.
The Killing of Claudius: Justice or Revenge?
The climactic duel between Hamlet and Laertes ends with the deaths of Claudius, Laertes, Gertrude, and Hamlet himself. Hamlet’s killing of Claudius is often framed as justified revenge for the murder of King Hamlet. However, this justification relies solely on Hamlet’s uncorroborated claims of Claudius’s guilt, allegedly revealed by the ghost.
If Claudius’s actions are unverified, then Hamlet’s killing of the king is not justice but another premeditated act of murder, potentially motivated by Hamlet’s ambition to reclaim the throne.
Ophelia’s Death: Suicide or Murder?
Ophelia’s tragic death raises troubling questions about Hamlet’s culpability. His erratic behavior, verbal abuse, and rejection drive her to madness. While Shakespeare presents her death as a suicide, the lack of witnesses and the suspicious circumstances—drowning in shallow water—suggest foul play.
Hamlet’s manipulation of Ophelia may have been a calculated effort to destabilize her family. Polonius’s death, followed by Ophelia’s demise, leaves Laertes vulnerable and emotionally compromised, setting the stage for Hamlet to eliminate him in their duel.
Horatio: Witness or Accomplice?
Horatio’s role in the events deserves closer scrutiny. As Hamlet’s closest confidant, Horatio is privy to the prince’s plans and motivations. It is Horatio who first brings Hamlet to see the ghost, setting the revenge plot into motion.
Could Horatio have been a willing accomplice, manipulating Hamlet’s instability to achieve his own ends? As the sole survivor, Horatio’s account of the events shapes the narrative, and his loyalty to Hamlet casts doubt on his reliability as a witness.
Fortinbras: Ally or Opportunist?
Finally, the role of Prince Fortinbras merits attention. Throughout the play, Fortinbras looms as a military threat to Denmark. His timely arrival after the massacre allows him to seize the throne unopposed. Was Fortinbras working with Hamlet to destabilize Claudius’s reign?
Fortinbras’s swift action suggests he may have been complicit in Hamlet’s plans, offering military support in exchange for political concessions.
Conclusion: A Legacy of Blood
Reexamining the evidence, we find Hamlet guilty of multiple murders, including those of Polonius, Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, Claudius, and Laertes. Ophelia’s death and Horatio’s potential complicity further implicate Hamlet as a master manipulator willing to use those around him to achieve his goals.
Far from being a tragic hero, Hamlet emerges as a cunning and ruthless figure whose pursuit of vengeance leaves a trail of death and destruction. The state of Denmark, rotting from within, was not undone by Claudius but by the ambitions and machinations of its prince.
Five centuries later, we must reconsider our perception of Hamlet—not as a victim of tragedy, but as its architect.
More from Brian’s Brain