Miller 1

Justin Miller

AP Senior English

Mr. Lindblom

December 27, 2010

The Mind Body Dichotomy: Hamlet’s Flaw of Incongruence

Hamlet’s profound metaphysical ponderings, idealistic mourning for his father and

tragically brutal end guarantee him a position among the most vivid and compelling

characters of Shakespearean literature. Yet, however memorable Hamlet’s character may

be, his tragic flaw is equally distinctive for its ambiguity. Analysts have classically ascribed

Hamlet’s imperfection to his most fundamental personality trait – his pensiveness – which

is criticized as giving rise to an inability to act. Nevertheless, Hamlet’s cautious

contemplations are not responsible for his falling action. Rather, Hamlet is destroyed by

the very opposite characteristic - an underlying impulsiveness derived from a divided sense

of self.

At the most basic level, Hamlet maintains a simple and honorable goal: to safeguard

the memory of his father. After King Hamlet dies, Prince Hamlet is severely distraught, so

much so that he refuses to abandon mourning in spite of the swift marriage of his mother

to his uncle Claudius. Rather than passively accepting death as inevitable, Hamlet

describes the loss of his father as having sapped existence of all meaning: “How weary,

stale, flat, and unprofitable / Seem to me all the uses of this world!” (I. ii. 133-134). This

perspective leads him to view Claudius with contempt, for Hamlet perceives Claudius’s

hasty marriage to his mother Gertrude as a usurpation of his father’s place. Hamlet is even

suspicious of the circumstances surrounding his father’s death, stating “I doubt some foul

play” (I. ii. 253). Thus, when an apparition of his father appears, Hamlet is willing to risk

his life to follow it. In response to warnings by his friend Horatio to “Think on it” because

the ghost “might deprive your sovereignty of reason / And draw you into madness” (73-74),

Hamlet replies “Why, what should be the fear? / I do not set my life at a pin’s fee” (I.iv. 64-

65). With this, Hamlet rejects all caution and reason in favor of a reckless desire to

Miller 2

understand. Accordingly, when the apparition tells Hamlet that “The serpent that did sting

your father’s life / Now wears his crown” (I.v. 38-39), Hamlet becomes committed to

avenging the unjust murder by killing Claudius. As an idealist, Hamlet has a consummate

belief in the importance of justice and is willing to sacrifice his life to preserve his values.

He promises the ghost, “thy commandment all alone shall live / Within the book and volume

of my brain” (I.v. 102-103). Thus, Hamlet promises that the act of revenge will utterly

consume his mind for the duration of his existence. Fueled by a passionate grief for his

father’s death, Hamlet makes this vow without a semblance of forethought, thereby

solidifying his fate as an instrument of revenge for the spirit world. In this manner,

Hamlet’s quest is both initiated and driven by Hamlet’s more impulsive self.

At this point, Hamlet fails himself in failing to deliberate. Separated from his

reason, Hamlet carelessly pursues the ghost, credulously believes its tale, and swears to

avenge it – all done without making any rational considerations. Hamlet does not truly

know if the ghost is actually his father, if the tale is true, or even whether he will be

harmed as he follows it. These considerations should be essential for anyone plotting

revenge for a crime, because just motivation is necessary to ensure proper punishment. If

Hamlet wants to avenge Claudius for sending his father to purgatory, he should be sure

that Claudius actually committed the act and that King Hamlet actually wants the act

avenged. Though Hamlet is ultimately correct in assuming Claudius is responsible for the

murder, it remains possible that the ghost was Hamlet’s own delusion. This is evidenced in

the forth scene of act III. As Hamlet sees his father’s ghost and begins speaking with it, his

mother questions “how is’t with you, / That you do bend your eye on vacancy, / And with

the open air hold discourse?” (118-120). That Hamlet’s mother is unable to see the same

vision as Hamlet casts doubt upon the legitimacy of the apparition. It is possible that it is

merely a frantic conjuration of his distracted mind. Accordingly, Gertrude urges Hamlet

“Upon the heat and flame of thy distemper / Sprinkle cool patience” (125-126). This urging

actually provides him with good advice. If Hamlet is motivated by insanity rather than by

the beckoning of the spirit world, then his decision to kill Claudius is a fundamentally

Miller 3

flawed one. In such a case, murdering Claudius might be an unnecessary sin – a stain on

Hamlet’s soul which would be of no benefit to his father.

Hamlet might indeed have benefitted from following’s his mother’s advice of

patience. Considering the antecedent motivation, his responsive behavior, and the potential

consequences of that behavior might provide Hamlet with the firm resolution and

intelligent tactics necessary for his goals. Instead, Hamlet accentuates this failure to reflect

by immediately selecting a plan to accomplish his new goals without allowing himself time

to think. Again failing to give important matters due consideration, Hamlet tells his friends

“I perchance hereafter shall think meet / To put an antic disposition on” (I.v. 170-171). In

this manner, Hamlet binds himself to an ultimately ineffective method of avenging his

father, for it does not lead to the swift death of Claudius. If Hamlet carefully thought about

his situation, established a clear plan of action, and diligently followed it, he might have

been successful in punishing his father’s murderer. Instead, Hamlet becomes caught in a

web of uncertainty in which his short bursts of recklessness are either self-destructive or

futile; thus, the currents of his ambitions invariably turn awry.

Hamlet’s vacillating recklessness is epitomized by his subsequent decision to enlist

the players in his revenge plan. While surrounded by the ghost, Hamlet behaves decisively

and confidently – as if he is certain that Claudius is guilty of his father’s murder and that

King Hamlet’s appearance makes Hamlet personally responsible for avenging him.

However, Hamlet retracts on his promise as he establishes the next stage in his scheme. In

admitting that “The spirit I have seen / May be a devil” (II.ii. 555-556), Hamlet makes clear

that his decisions to believe the ghost may have been hasty and that he cannot be as

committed as his immediate impulse led him to be. Thus, Hamlet seems to recognize the

error of following his whims and the importance of evaluating situations carefully.

However, rather than taking note of this recognition and taking care to think before acting

again, he makes another rash decision which is completely contrary to his former one.

Hamlet arranges for the players to act out the play “A Murder of Gonzago” in the hope of

eliciting a reaction from Claudius. In doing so, Hamlet sacrifices the opportunity for a

Miller 4

stealthy killing so he can “catch the conscience of the king” (II.ii. 562). Thus, Hamlet

remains impulsive, even though he cannot be decisive. If he were convinced the ghost was

really his father, as he had earlier seemed to be, he would kill Claudius through more

furtive means. Now, however, he instead chooses to show Claudius what he knows in the

hope of recognizing guilt in Claudius’ face. This plan is far from secure; Claudius could

potentially mask his reaction, and the play will alert Claudius to the risk Hamlet poses to

him. Thus, this new plan of Hamlet’s is further evidence of his inability to think things

through.

After seeing Fortinbras’ army in the forth scene of act IV, Hamlet criticizes himself

for allowing his “capability and godlike reason / To fust” (38-39) when he has “cause, and

will, and strength, and means” (45) to kill Claudius. However, it is that underlying

ambiguity of cause and action – derived from his reckless planning – that prevents Hamlet’s

goals from being realized. Hamlet probably has a cause, but he is not completely sure

whether the ghost is real. Hamlet should have strength and will, but he holds internal

doubts which weaken and confuse him. Hamlet has means, but his hasty plan prevents him

from making ideal use of them. Indeed, Hamlet is not truly hindered as much as saved by

reason. Fortinbras acts decisively with his army because he established his plan of action

prior to setting out. Hamlet, meanwhile, doubts whether he plans to attack, has not decided

how he will do it, and has no conception of how he will respond if he is victorious. Reason is

the only thing that can potentially check Hamlet when he feels compelled to follow a

thoughtless impulse. If he were to yield more fully to reason, he might develop effective

plans which he could execute in the same honorable manner as Fortinbras. Hamlet is a

tragic figure because he fails to exhibit foresight, for he is made irresolute by his own too-

hasty resolutions.

Hamlet’s falling action, indeed, truly epitomizes his tragic flaw of impulsiveness.

When Hamlet hears a noise behind the arras in his mother’s room, he violently stabs at it –

probably expecting it to be Claudius. His mother, with whom Hamlet had been talking,

cries out “O, what a rash and bloody deed is this! (III. iv. 28). This line is particularly

Miller 5

appropriate. Hamlet recently told Horatio “blest are those / Whose blood and judgment are

so well commedled / That they are not a pipe for Fortune’s finger / To sound what stop she

please. Give me that man / That is not passion’s slave, and I will wear him / In my heart’s

core” (III.ii. 59-64). Once again, Hamlet’s action is completely divorced from his reason.

His self-concept as a rational being who respects reasoned evaluation of options does not

match his senseless emotional explosions. This division is undoubtedly tragic, and it proves

to be his downfall. The death of Polonius makes Hamlet an obvious threat to his uncle

Claudius, and it causes Hamlet to lose the favor of the people. Thus, Hamlet is sent off to

England where Claudius makes arrangements to have him killed. This situation only

occurred because Hamlet does not take advantage of the opportunities which present

themselves to him. Hamlet quickly resolves to take revenge, decides to allay suspicion my

maintaining a façade of insanity, vacillates unexpectedly to doubt, exposes his knowledge

to assuage his concerns, and then commits a senseless and blatant murder which allows

Claudius to send him away. Had Hamlet thought things through at any point, he might not

have found himself in such a situation. A single, unified plan might have been effective, but

his constant, impulsive vacillations prevent his success.

Hamlet does manage to redeem himself. While on the boat to England, he finally

manages to combine thought with action. Hamlet states, “Rashly, / and praised by rashness

for it” he read the letters Claudius had written to England urging the King to execute

Hamlet, altered them significantly, and even had the presence of mind to seal the letters

with his father’s signet ring. In this manner, Hamlet combines his audacity – which impels

him to seek out and read the letters – with his artifice – which allows him to effectively

execute his plan – to achieve a desirable end. Similarly, when the ship is attacked by

pirates, Hamlet boards them and is taken prisoner. This situation proves favorable, for the

pirates return him to Denmark where he can make another attempt at avenging his father.

Unfortunately, Hamlet again wastes his opportunity as a result of his inability to unite his

action and his thoughts. Despite having previously claimed to no longer love Ophelia,

Hamlet becomes deeply emotional when he sees the royal family and Laertes bearing

Miller 6

Ophelia to her grave. Hamlet claims “I am not splenitive and rash” (V. i. 231), yet he

proceeds to initiate a tussle with Laertes over who cared more for Ophelia. This statement

and Hamlet’s ensuing hypocrisy evidence, once again, the sharp division between Hamlet’s

ideas and behavior.

This fight with Laertes provides the foundation for their subsequent duel. Though

Hamlet says “I am very sorry…That to Laertes I forgot myself” (V.ii. 75-76), this regret

does not prevent him from accepting the fatal challenge Claudius proposes. Though

Horatio warns him “If your mind dislike anything, obey it” (V.ii. 192), Hamlet chooses once

again to proceed into a situation with reckless confidence. Of course, this is Hamlet’s final

error. In the duel with Laertes, Hamlet is poisoned and dies shortly after, finally, taking

revenge on Claudius. Hamlet is a tragic figure, but his tragedy is solidified not by thinking

too much, but by failing to think before acting and by failing to act on his thinking.

Hamlet’s quintessential error is failing to take advantage of opportunities by acting

thoughtlessly and by thinking ineffectually. When Fortinbras states that he arrived “to

claim [his] vantage” (V.ii. 169), he captures the essential nature of his success: the effective

combination of purpose – “to” – with action – “claim.” It is the simple yet fundamental

disunity between purpose and action which causes Hamlet’s downfall.

Judging by the theories of humanistic psychologist Carl Rogers, Hamlet’s tragic flaw

would be one of incongruence. An individual exhibits incongruence when they behave in a

manner that conflicts with their self-concept; in other words, it is “the gap between the real

self and the ideal self, the ‘I am’ and the ‘I should’” (Boeree, 1998). Since Hamlet is unable

to unite his belief in rationality with his impulsive emotions he wavers continually between

action and inaction. No strategy is effective without proper personal unity. Thus, because

Hamlet is unable to resolve these differences, he is doomed to his most lamentable fate.

Hamlet is an individual ravaged by ambivalence – Hamlet is unable to reconcile his

discreet and reflective intelligence with his belief in the necessity of decisive action. It is

this personal incongruence which leads Hamlet to vacillate precariously between hasty

decisiveness and absurd hesitancy before capitulating to the rash yet cold murder of

Miller 7

Polonius. Superfluous caution leads Hamlet to neglect his opportunities, yet he

subsequently botches his own plans with subsequent carelessness. If Hamlet had been a

fiery and decisive individual which he yearned to be, he might have successfully murdered

Claudius shortly after his own father’s death. If Hamlet truly committed himself to inaction

until he had fully evaluated his situation, he would not have brought his end upon himself.

If Hamlet had combined reason and passion, he might have achieved a truly desirable

outcome. Ultimately, Hamlet is destroyed by neither action nor inaction, but by the

personal incongruence produced by his inept fusion of the two.

Miller 8

Works Cited:

Boeree, George C. "Carl Rogers." Ship.edu. 1998. Web. 31 Dec. 2010. <http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/rogers.html>.

Shakespeare, William, and Cyrus Henry. Hoy. Hamlet. New York: Norton, 1992. Print.