Essay on Corruption in 'Hamlet'

Corruption of the ones that are in power is known to have a huge toll on a nation, but many do not talk about its effects on the higher-ups that are in opposition to the corruption. People have debated whether or not corruption has had a significant effect on Hamlet from the Shakespearian play of the same name. The reasons for the significant effects of Hamlet stem from the corruption causing him to be cautious around almost everyone. The reasons against the significant effects come from the difficulty of telling intent from him playing mad and from his character flaws.

The argument for significant effects finds its evidence in Hamlet's change in how he treats his friends and family and how overly defensive he has been. One of the first changes seen is Hamlet’s lack of trust with his friends. To Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Hamlet says, “Do you think I am easier to be played on than a pipe? Call me the instrument you will, though you can fret me, you cannot play upon me” (Hamlet 3.2.378-380). This demonstrates the distrust that Hamlet has with the friends whom he knows are working for Claudius. Another change would be the relationship between him and his mother. “Let me be cruel, not unnatural; I will speak daggers to her but use not… How in my words soever she be sent.” (Hamlet 3.3.403-406) says, Hamlet. From this one sees the hatred Hamlet has for her mother who has married his father’s murderous and corrupt uncle days after his father’s death. An interesting effect of corruption is how Hamlet treats Ophelia. In the play, Hamlet says, “Get thee to a nunnery. Why wouldst thou be a breeder of sinners?” (Hamlet 3.1.121-122). His words at the start were harsh, but after Ophelia’s death, one gets a better understanding. “I loved Ophelia. Forty thousand brothers could not with all their quantity of love make up my sum.” (Hamlet 5.1.271-273). This shows that even though he loved Ophelia, he could not let her keep the secret about what he was doing, since her father likes to pander to the king. Additionally, Hamlet has become overly reactive to get revenge on the corrupted king. After hearing Polonius from behind the curtain, Hamlet says, “How now? A rat? Dead for a ducat, dead!” (Hamlet 3.4.24-25) and after killing Polonius says, “Nay, I know not. Is it the King?” (Hamlet 3.4.28). The split-second reaction of killing someone just because there was a chance it was Claudius, shows that the corruption has made him quite overreactive. These were the reasons that argued for corruption’s significant effect on Hamlet.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place Order

The argument against the significant effects comes from the difficulties caused by Hamlet acting mad and from the symptoms of Hamlet's inability to act. Acting mad can cause a lot of issues when trying to determine if Hamlet is being affected by corruption. In the play, Hamlet says, “As I perchance hereafter shall think to meet to put an antic disposition on” (Hamlet 1.5.171-172). For Hamlet to act mad for most of the play makes it hard to determine what actions are caused by his actions and what actions are being done to enact his revenge unless Hamlet is talking alone or with someone he trusts. It also brings up the issue of not being able to tell if a change in his behavior is caused by corruption or by him acting mad for so long that he is now becoming mad. Additionally, his character flaw of not acting on things causes the effects of corruption that could have been prevented. “To take him in the purging of his soul, when he is fit and seasoned for his passage? No… At games a-swearing, or about some act that has no relish or salvation isn’t- then trip him… As hell whereto he goes.” (Hamlet 3.3.85-87,91-93,95) says Hamlet. This shows his procrastination to getting his revenge because he believes that he needs a guaranteed punishment to hell is the only viable punishment. If he were to have killed the king at that point, he could have eliminated the corruption and its effects. Another instance showing his character flaw is when he meets a captain of Price Fortinbras’ army. After learning about all the men who are risking their lives to take over land that has no real value, he decides that he should stop standing around and go enact his revenge on Claudius (Hamlet 4.4.56-66). The time it takes for Hamlet to realize that he is procrastinating is time wasted acting mad and letting the corruption grow, instead of dealing with the issue. These are the reasons that the corruption didn’t have a significant effect on Hamlet.

The proposition uses how Hamlet treats and doesn’t trust the people he knows as reasons that support corruption’s significant effect on Hamlet. On the other hand, the opposition believes that acting mad and Hamlet’s inability to act is evidence of corruption not having a significant effect. Of the two sides, I find that the proposition is the most compelling. For people to have strong connections with your enemy is going to make you trust them less. Although Hamlet’s character flaw helped create the effects, corruption still would have left its mark on Hamlet without it.