AP English Literature Argument Essay: Hamlet

Introduction

William Shakespeare's Hamlet presents a protagonist caught in a web of seemingly irreconcilable tensions between action and inaction, duty and desire, madness and reason. Central to the tragedy is the philosophical question of whether Hamlet—or indeed any of the characters—possesses genuine agency within the confines of the play's moral and political universe. While Hamlet's famous soliloquies showcase a character deeply preoccupied with choice and deliberation, Shakespeare ultimately constructs a dramatic world in which true freedom of action proves largely illusory.

Through careful analysis of Hamlet's predicament, the constraints affecting other characters, and the play's broader thematic framework, this essay argues that Hamlet systematically undermines the concept of free will, instead portraying characters whose choices are profoundly constrained by external circumstances, social roles, psychological predispositions, and metaphysical forces beyond their control. Shakespeare thus reveals the tragic gap between the human desire for autonomy and the multifaceted limitations that render absolute freedom impossible.

Hamlet's Illusory Agency

Hamlet's characterization, particularly through his soliloquies, initially suggests a figure defined by his capacity for deliberation and choice. When he proclaims that he will "put an antic disposition on" (1.5.172), he appears to exercise strategic agency, consciously adopting madness as a disguise. Similarly, his extended reflection in "To be or not to be" (3.1.57-90) portrays a mind wrestling with fundamental choices about existence itself. However, Shakespeare systematically undermines this impression of freedom throughout the play. Hamlet's actions—or more frequently, his inaction—stem not from unfettered choice but from a complex interplay of psychological, social, and metaphysical constraints. His delay in killing Claudius, often attributed to his overthinking nature, actually demonstrates the absence of genuine freedom; as literary critic Harold Bloom observes, "Hamlet is imprisoned in a nutshell of consciousness, and yet counts himself king of infinite space, were it not that he has bad dreams."

The ghost's injunction to "revenge his foul and most unnatural murder" (1.5.25) places Hamlet in an impossible position where each potential choice carries devastating moral consequences. If he obeys the ghost, he risks committing murder based on potentially unreliable supernatural testimony; if he disobeys, he fails in his filial duty. This double bind reveals not freedom but its opposite—a situation where no available choice represents a truly free action. As philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre might characterize it, Hamlet experiences the "anguish of freedom" precisely because his choices are constrained by circumstances beyond his control, forcing him to act without certainty or moral clarity. Far from demonstrating autonomy, Hamlet's famous indecision reveals the paralysis that results when genuine freedom proves unattainable.

Social and Political Constraints

The illusory nature of free will extends beyond Hamlet to encompass the play's entire social and political framework. Characters find themselves defined and constrained by their social roles, with limited capacity to transcend these predetermined positions. Ophelia, perhaps the play's most overtly constrained character, finds herself caught between conflicting forms of male authority—her father's commands, her brother's advice, and Hamlet's unpredictable demands. Her tragic path to madness and suicide stems directly from her lack of social autonomy, as she possesses no legitimate avenue to escape the contradictory expectations placed upon her. When Polonius instructs her to reject Hamlet's advances, she can only reply, "I shall obey, my lord" (1.3.136), highlighting how her choices remain fundamentally circumscribed by patriarchal authority.

Even figures of apparent authority demonstrate their own forms of constraint. Claudius, despite occupying the throne, remains imprisoned by his past crime, forced to maintain elaborate deceptions that ultimately unravel. His prayer scene reveals his fundamental lack of freedom: "My words fly up, my thoughts remain below: / Words without thoughts never to heaven go" (3.3.97-98). Despite his royal power, he cannot escape the metaphysical consequences of his actions. Similarly, Gertrude's apparent choice to marry Claudius quickly after King Hamlet's death occurs within a political context where her personal autonomy remains severely limited. As queen, her position depends entirely on her relationship to the king; her "o'erhasty marriage" (2.2.57) represents less a free choice than a necessary political adaptation for survival in a patriarchal power structure. Throughout the play, Shakespeare portrays a society where social roles and political necessities fundamentally limit the possibility of truly autonomous action.

Fate and Metaphysical Determinism

Beyond the social and psychological constraints on free will, Shakespeare introduces explicitly metaphysical dimensions that further undermine the possibility of genuine choice. The ghost serves as the most overt supernatural force in the play, setting the entire revenge plot in motion and constraining Hamlet's subsequent actions. The ghost's command—"Remember me" (1.5.91)—functions not merely as a request but as a metaphysical imperative that Hamlet finds himself unable to escape. This supernatural intrusion into the natural world suggests a universe where human actions are influenced or even determined by forces beyond mortal comprehension or control. The ghost, existing between life and death, between heaven and hell, represents the breakdown of clear boundaries that would otherwise allow for rational choice.

Shakespeare further develops this theme of metaphysical determinism through recurrent imagery of fate and fortune. Hamlet himself acknowledges these forces when he states, "There's a divinity that shapes our ends, / Rough-hew them how we will" (5.2.10-11). This striking declaration, coming near the play's conclusion, effectively summarizes the play's philosophical stance on free will—humans may attempt to exercise agency ("rough-hew"), but ultimate outcomes remain shaped by forces beyond their control ("divinity"). This sentiment finds reinforcement in Hamlet's famous statement to Horatio before the final duel: "the readiness is all" (5.2.222). This phrase suggests not the triumph of free will but its opposite—an acceptance that genuine autonomy is impossible, leaving only the option to remain "ready" for whatever predetermined fate awaits. The play's conclusion, with its pile of corpses apparently fulfilling an inexorable tragic trajectory, reinforces the sense that characters have been caught in events beyond their ability to control or even fully comprehend.

Language and the Constraints of Thought

Shakespeare's exploration of constrained agency extends even to the realm of language and thought itself. Throughout Hamlet, language functions not merely as a medium of expression but as a system that both enables and constrains the characters' ability to conceptualize their circumstances. Hamlet's intellectual virtuosity with language—his puns, metaphors, and philosophical explorations—initially appears to demonstrate freedom of thought. However, his linguistic dexterity ultimately traps him in endless recursive thinking that precludes decisive action. When he laments that "thinking too precisely on th'event" (4.4.41) has prevented him from fulfilling his revenge, he acknowledges how his own thought patterns have become a prison rather than a path to freedom.

The play's pervasive motif of performance and theatricality further underscores the constraints of language and social discourse. When Hamlet tells the players, "the purpose of playing...is to hold, as 'twere, the mirror up to nature" (3.2.20-22), he articulates a theory of representation that suggests a stable relationship between language and reality. Yet the play systematically undermines this notion, portraying instead a world where language often obscures truth rather than revealing it. Claudius's rhetorically sophisticated public speeches mask his crimes; Polonius's sententious maxims disguise his political manipulations; even Hamlet's own verbal brilliance frequently serves to distance him from direct engagement with his circumstances. This linguistic instability suggests that the characters lack free will in an even more fundamental sense—they cannot escape the constraints of language itself, which shapes and limits their ability to conceptualize their choices.

The Counterargument: Moments of Apparent Agency

Advocates for reading Hamlet as affirming free will might point to several key moments where characters appear to exercise genuine choice. Hamlet's decision to stage "The Murder of Gonzago" to "catch the conscience of the king" (2.2.605) represents a deliberate, strategic action. Similarly, his choice to spare Claudius during prayer, his decision to rewrite the execution order during his journey to England, and his ultimate acceptance of the duel with Laertes all suggest autonomous agency. Even secondary characters demonstrate apparent moments of choice—Horatio's loyalty, Gertrude's decision to drink the poisoned cup, or Laertes's deathbed confession and reconciliation with Hamlet.

However, these instances of apparent freedom ultimately reinforce rather than contradict the play's portrayal of constrained agency. Each seeming choice occurs within a framework that severely limits the available options and often predetermines outcomes regardless of the character's intentions. Hamlet's theatrical stratagem, while clever, merely confirms what the ghost has already told him; his moment of agency leads not to freedom but deeper entanglement in the revenge plot. His sparing of Claudius stems not from moral deliberation but from a theological misunderstanding about the afterlife. Even his acceptance of the duel represents less a free choice than acquiescence to circumstances beyond his control, as he tells Horatio, "If it be now, 'tis not to come; if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come" (5.2.220-221). This fatalistic perspective suggests that even in moments of apparent decision, Hamlet recognizes the fundamental absence of genuine freedom.

The Tragic Paradox of Consciousness

The ultimate tragedy of Hamlet lies in the paradoxical relationship between consciousness and freedom. Shakespeare presents characters—particularly Hamlet himself—with sufficient self-awareness to recognize their constraints yet insufficient agency to transcend them. Hamlet's famous soliloquies represent not triumphs of free will but painful articulations of its absence. As literary critic Terry Eagleton observes, "Hamlet is a drama of recognition—of knowing that you know that you cannot act." This paradox creates the play's distinctive philosophical tension: characters experience the subjective sense of making choices while simultaneously recognizing, at least partially, the external factors that determine those choices. Hamlet's awareness of his own indecision—"Thus conscience does make cowards of us all" (3.1.83)—demonstrates not freedom but his entrapment in patterns of thought and behavior he can recognize but not escape.

This paradox finds its clearest expression in the graveyard scene of Act 5, where Hamlet contemplates Yorick's skull and the universal inevitability of death. This memento mori moment forces recognition that despite all human striving and apparent choice, all paths lead inexorably to the same destination. "Alexander died, Alexander was buried, Alexander returneth into dust" (5.1.208-209)—this reflection on how even history's most powerful figures ultimately succumb to biological determinism underscores the limited nature of human agency. The scene's juxtaposition of philosophical reflection with practical preparation for Ophelia's burial creates a powerful dramatic irony: even as Hamlet philosophizes about mortality and fate, he remains unaware of how these abstract concepts are about to manifest concretely in his own imminent death. This gap between intellectual understanding and practical foresight further emphasizes the constraints on human choice—even at his most reflective, Hamlet cannot perceive or alter the tragic trajectory that awaits him.

Shakespeare's Broader Philosophical Vision

The portrayal of limited free will in Hamlet aligns with Shakespeare's exploration of similar themes across his tragic corpus. From Macbeth's entrapment in prophecy to Othello's manipulation by Iago, Shakespeare consistently portrays tragic protagonists whose apparent choices operate within frameworks that fundamentally constrain their freedom. This pattern suggests a coherent philosophical vision rather than merely a dramatic convention. Shakespeare's tragedies collectively propose a model of human experience where absolute freedom remains illusory—a philosophical position that anticipates modern existentialist and determinist perspectives while remaining grounded in Renaissance conceptions of providence, fortune, and the great chain of being.

This vision does not, however, render Hamlet a nihilistic work. By portraying the gap between characters' desire for autonomy and the reality of their constraints, Shakespeare creates not despair but profound tragic meaning. As philosopher Martha Nussbaum argues, tragedy often depends precisely on showing how good people can be destroyed by circumstances beyond their control. The play's enduring power stems partly from its recognition of this fundamental human predicament—our simultaneous capacity for self-awareness and our inability to fully determine our own fates. Hamlet's limitations do not diminish his humanity but rather define it, creating a character whose struggles with constrained agency mirror our own experiences of living in a world where absolute freedom remains unattainable.

Conclusion

Shakespeare's Hamlet presents a dramatic universe where free will exists more as aspiration than reality. Through the multifaceted constraints on Hamlet and other characters—psychological predispositions, social roles, metaphysical influences, and the limitations of language and thought itself—the play systematically undermines the possibility of genuinely autonomous action. This portrayal creates the play's distinctive tragic tension: characters who possess sufficient consciousness to recognize their constraints yet insufficient agency to transcend them. Far from diminishing the play's philosophical significance, this vision of constrained choice creates its profound resonance, capturing the universal human experience of struggling to exercise meaningful agency within a web of limiting factors. In the gap between Hamlet's desire for absolute certainty before action and the impossibility of achieving such certainty, Shakespeare reveals the fundamental human predicament—beings capable of contemplating infinite possibilities yet ultimately bounded by finite realities.

This reading of Hamlet offers important insights not only into Shakespeare's philosophical vision but into the enduring appeal of tragic drama itself. By portraying characters who strive for freedom even while recognizing its limitations, Shakespeare creates a powerful mirror for the human condition. The play neither celebrates absolute free will nor surrenders to complete determinism, but instead navigates the complex middle ground where most human experience actually occurs. In Hamlet's final instruction to Horatio—"report me and my cause aright / To the unsatisfied" (5.2.341-342)—we see this tension perfectly encapsulated: a dying man making one final assertion of agency (the request for accurate narrative) while simultaneously acknowledging that his story will continue beyond his control, subject to the interpretations of others. This complex portrayal of constrained yet meaningful choice ensures that Hamlet remains not merely a masterpiece of dramatic art but a profound philosophical exploration of what it means to be human in a world where absolute freedom remains forever beyond our grasp.

Did you like this example?

243

10