Ishrat Jahan

ENG 220
Research Paper Rough Draft

Hamlet is a character shrouded in mystery. At surface level it seems that he has no

control over his actions or lack thereof despite his desire to in his soliloquies. Rather than

provide an explanation, his internal dialogue leads to further confusion as to why exactly he is

acting so erratically.  Throughout the play we witness his great desire for revenge against his

uncle, Claudius, and expect him to carry out this revenge. After all, he’s spent so long agonizing

over a plan and mulling over his hatred.  However, he time and time again avoids confrontation

even when given apt opportunities. We also are aware of his hatred towards his mother yet

instead of ridding himself of her, he grows more obsessed. He claims to love Ophelia yet pushes

her away. This may make Hamlet seem illogical since his thoughts aren’t congruent with his

erratic actions. In fact, they prove that his thoughts and emotions regarding betrayal have

directly led to an inability to enact revenge. His repetitive emotions of hatred and anger have

similarly only deepened his fixation on his mother and other actors who have betrayed him.

Hamlet himself frequently mentions that his madness is a facade and his every confusing action

is intentionally done. It may not be how the audience hopes he acts to avenge his father but it

follows a pattern nonetheless. 

Aristotle's Principles of Logic further supports this theory that Hamlet’s thoughts are

consistent through syllogism. This is a method of deductive reasoning in which one arrives at a

conclusion by examining two other premises. For example, all men are mortal; Socrates is a

man; therefore, Socrates is mortal. If Hamlet hints at or admits to feigning madness in one

soliloquy or moment in the text, thereby he is feigning madness throughout the play and was
never once the confusing muddled character we made him out to be. Aristotelian Logic also

explains Hamlet’s thought process through the lens of deduction. By analyzing the metaphors

and repetition used in the soliloquies we can better comprehend Hamlet’s thoughts and how they

translate to his behavior. 

The soliloquies in Act 1 scene 2, Act 2 scene 2, and Act 4 scene 4 best display

Hamlet’s consistent logic. Through our understanding of figurative language, while especially

keeping to mind metaphors and repetition, we can better comprehend the true meaning and depth

of Hamlet's thoughts. For example, in Act 1 scene 2, the figurative language “this too solid flesh

would melt.” can be translated to the emotions of self-loathing Hamlet has. We can then decipher

figurative language in the other selected soliloquies that show overlap in this emotion thus

proving Hamlet’s thoughts remain consistent and orderly. The same process can be used to find

moments of logical consistency in his view of his mother, failed revenge plots, and more.

Miyashita’s article, Hamlet vs Claudius: A Structural Analysis of Hamlet’s “Tardiness” and

Mask of Madness can explain why these very thoughts are congruent by explaining Hamlet’s

seemingly bizarre actions. Articles such as Hamlet: Rational and Emotional Units of Meaning in

Four Soliloquies, and Hamlet Was a Law Student can then support our translation of the

figurative language by comparing Hamlet’s intellectual thoughts and actions to his emotional

ones through our understanding of mathematics and philosophy. Hamlet may be interpreted as

flawed with contradictions; however, he is logically consistent in his actions and thoughts and

they correlate rather than oppose each other. 

In Act 1 Scene 2 we are the audience to Hamlet’s first soliloquy. It is quite shocking to

glimpse into Hamlet’s internal dialogue and have suicide as the first thought mentioned. He is

greatly angered at his mother’s quick marriage to Claudius, especially since his father was
described to be such a loving husband. Adding on to his anger is the fact that Claudius is now

crowned king instead of Hamlet. Lack of control in both situations culminates in emotions of

worthlessness and self-hatred on top of his already overwhelming grief. He can’t exactly bring

his father back from the dead or dissent against his mother’s marriage. In anguish he states, “O

that this too solid flesh would melt. Thaw and resolve itself into a dew!” (Act 1 Scene 2. 129-

130) The language used for melting flesh, thawing and resolving itself into a dew is a metaphor

for dying. Hamlet has such internal turmoil that he wishes to end his life. At this point the reader

may question Hamlet’s thought process. How is it that he berates Gertrude but simultaneously

cares for her? For example, he states, “...a beast that wants of reason would have mourned

longer” (Act 1 Scene 2. 150-152), essentially comparing his mother to a beast due to her callous

attitude towards the King’s death. Despite this, he later softens and complies with her plea for

him to stay in Denmark as not to upset her. This may seem confusing but his constantly shifting

attitude and thoughts towards his mother is not contradictory. 

This is explained when he exclaims, “Frailty, thy name is woman.” (Act 1 Scene 2. 146).

Hamlet is shocked and furious at his mother for recovering so quickly but he does not hate her.

That is why he doesn’t immediately lash out at his mother. He simply thinks she is quite frankly

dense and shallow. His mother’s behavior and his idea of her translates into his views and

relationships with other women. The figurative language he uses in “Frailty, thy name is woman”

is a synecdoche in which he uses one woman to represent the entire gender as frail. We can see

his distaste for women that began in Act 2 in other scenes when viewing his relationship with

Ophelia. As Miyashita stated in A Structural Analysis of Hamlet’s “Tardiness”, Gertrude’s

betrayal of her husband, harm's Hamlet’s way of loving. He doubts his own love for Ophelia and

her love for him.” Hamlet uses Aristotle's Logic of syllogism and deductive reasoning to reach
this conclusion from his experiences. Gertrude is his view of women, therefore all women such

as Ophelia demonstrate similar traits of shallowness as Gertrude. 

This may also explain his contradictory thoughts about Ophelia. Previously one may be

puzzled as to why Hamlet loved Ophelia but also treated her callously and thought lowly of her.

Once we examine his relationship with his mother however, we find that he is logically

consistent in his view of women. He doesn’t view them from a lens of hatred, but rather

superiority. Additionally, we must remember that his hatred is primarily targeted at Claudius and

his distaste towards his mother is caused by his conflict with Claudius. His enemy is not his

mother but has always been Claudius. His thoughts and plan as to who to exact revenge from has

always been concise. This thereby proves that from the very beginning of the play Hamlet had

followed a line of logic that may not make sense to us and may even seem cruel but shows that

he had a thought process that remained throughout the storyline. 

The language in Act 1 Scene 2 also demonstrates how Hamlet’s silence and hesitation to

discuss the issue is logically consistent rather than contradictory. One may question why he

refuses to confront Claudius despite his overwhelming rage and his love for his parents. Why is

Hamlet putting up with this if it bothers him so much? Hamlet states, “My father's brother, but

no more like my father than I to Hercules.” (Act I, ii, 151-153). This is an allusion to the myth of

Hercules and a juxtaposition of Claudius and Hamlet’s father, and Hamlet and Hercules. Hamlet

describes Claudius as inferior to King Hamlet and Hamlet himself inferior to the brave and

strong Hercules. This comparison obviously weighs heavily in his mind. His uncle is nowhere

near his Dad’s greatness, yet he replaced him. Similarly, Hamlet and Hercules are opposing

characters as Hercules avenges his family and is a strong warrior. It may seem illogical as to why

Hamlet let’s these thoughts fester. The more he acts unlike Hercules and instead remains meek,
the angrier he will obviously become at his Uncle. However, Hamlet delaying thoughts of

revenge is logical as expressed in his figure of speech, “I must hold my tongue.” He must

restrain himself from expressing his thoughts no matter how toxic they are bottled up. Nothing

he says now will be of use since he is powerless unlike Hercules. He came to this conclusion

through a form of deductive reasoning. If A, Hamlet has no allies in the royal court and they

approve of Gertrude's marriage, and B, the throne is now passed down to Claudius, then we can

determine that Hamlet currently holds no power, is below Claudius, and will end up in more

trouble if he expresses dissent. Furthermore, we do not yet know for sure if the Ghost is a form

of the devil, figment of imagination, etc. It would in fact be illogical for Hamlet to attack

Claudius at this point. This may cause stronger thoughts of hatred and inadequacy to brew while

also painting Hamlet as indecisive. However, it is truly the wisest decision as seen from

Hamlet’s consistent thought process. He has weighed in all the factors that put him in harm's way

thus he believes it more convenient to just deal with these negative thoughts instead although

they are a form of torture for him. His methodology prevents him from further conflict.

 Act 2 Scene 2 is another moment in which we see Hamlet’s “conflicting” thoughts.

However, if we examine the wording he uses and its pattern, you can identify a pattern in

thought he’s stuck to throughout the play. In this scene Hamlet finds that Claudius had not only

married his mother but also killed his father, making Hamlet spiral into deeper turmoil. He

exclaims, “...I, the son of a dear father murdered,...Must, like a whore, unpack my heart with

words And fall a-cursing like a very drab” (Act 2 Scene 2. 545-548). Him mocking the irony in

his situation and later using language such as “pigeon-livered” show what a coward he thinks he

is. He exhibits more intense feelings of self-hatred when he realizes that despite having good

reason to exact revenge on Claudius, he just can’t do it. This may seem illogical at first. If
Hamlet despises Claudius even before finding this information and loves his parents dearly, then

isn’t this more incentive to kill Claudius? Why is he paralyzed with fear when he finally has a

reasonable motive to get rid of him? However, just like how Hamlet has remained consistent in

his thoughts of self-hatred, he continues to remain consistent to his morals and ethical beliefs as

well. According to deductive reasoning and syllogism, Hamlet makes sense because as

mentioned before, he regards all acts of bloodshed as a sin. Killing himself can be regarded as A,

a sin. Thus, all of killing must be a sin. From these premises he can reach the conclusion that

killing Claudius, B, is a sin regardless of any deep emotion. Hamlet isn't changing his mind

because of cowardice contradicting his desire, it is again because he has difficulty compromising

his morals. His desire for justice doesn’t mean he can allow himself to commit a similar deed. At

least not yet when he can’t prove why that deed would be justifiable. As stated in the paper

Hamlet Was a Law Student, “Hamlet questions, equivocates, and demands proof before he

ultimately achieves his ends. Most importantly, he delays because, like the law, Hamlet deeply

distrusts his emotions.”  This statement is again supported in the charts drafted in Hamlet:

Rational and Emotional Units of Meaning in Four Soliloquies. Hamlet’s most emotionally

charged moments are the driving force behind his rational thoughts. By the end of this scene we

can see Hamlet’s critical line of thought and how he starts to form a plan of action.

At this point Hamlet’s thoughts are still contradictory to how he reacts. He was incapable

of action despite desperately wanting to and presenting himself for not being able to do so.

However, we see his progression to his revenge. In Act 2 Scene 2 his plan is hatched and

continues to develop as the Act’s go on. He goes as far as to create a facade of insanity to draw

closer to his goal all while internalizing thoughts of doubt and hatred. Although he is still

uncertain and hesitant as to whether revenge is the right action or not, he maintains his plan. 
 Finally, in Act 4 Scene 4 we reach a point where he truly resolves his internal conflict

with thoughts of murder vs hesitation that confused many. Through the logic he has gained he is

able to make sense of his thoughts on whether revenge is moral. Hamlet declares, “Rightly to be

great is not to stir without great argument, but greatly to find quarrel in a straw when honour's at

the stake.” (Act 4 Scene 4.) In this, Hamlet juxtaposes situations in which revenge is needed. His

language implies that being great doesn’t require simply fighting for a good reason, but rather

boldly risking oneself for barely any reason at all, so long as it is a question of honor. 

This thought brings us a round circle. Hamlet has agonized over whether killing Claudius would

be the moral act and that has left him in a confused and paralyzed state. Coming to the

realization that others fight for trivial matters while he has a legitimate purpose helps him

conclude the plan he’s been in the process of. If we recall from the beginning Hamlet had wanted

to die however that doesn’t exactly mean he wishes to kill himself. The metaphor of “flesh

melting” implies that he wanted to disappear or just cease existing. This implies he wanted to

passively fade away from existence because he didn’t believe he had any revenge worth killing

himself for or killing others for. He deemed himself and his efforts worthless. Act 4 Scene 4

solidifies the thoughts that were previously nagging him in the back of his head. He reaches the

conclusion that avenging his father is necessary through deduction.  A, the Poles and Norwegians

willing to die over a small plot of worthless land is justified because it is simply the most human

and honorable thing to do. Thus, B, Hamlet’s plan for revenge is also honorable. This makes it

clear to him that his revenge isn’t immoral as it is justified thus being consistent with his thought

process up until now.

Emotion may confuse Hamlet at times, but they also influence the way he presents his

facts, states his questions, develops the rules he applies, sees relevant similarities, and reaches
conclusions. Although it contradicts his emotions of self-hatred and uncertainty his logic has

been consistent and focused on his goal. His thinking follows a linear path. As one follows the

storyline, they can see that despite his behavior becoming erratic and his wording still harsh, his

internal monologue signifies better critical thinking. His soliloquies grow to be more reflective

rather than just insulting. By the last soliloquy Hamlet is extremely rational and is no longer

repetitive in his thoughts and conflicts. He reaches a conclusion and fulfills his revenge.
 Works Cited

● Pearce, B, and K Duffy. “Hamlet: Rational and Emotional Units of Meaning in Four
Soliloquies.” Shakespeare in Southern Africa, vol. 22, no. 1, Oct. 2011,
doi:10.4314/sisa.v22i1.71885.

● UFFELMAN, Jonathan. “Hamlet Was a Law Student: A Dramatic Look at Emotion s

Effect on Analogical Reasoning.”

● Yayoi, MIYASHITA. Hamlet vs Claudius : A Structural Analysis of Hamlet’s

“Tardiness”https://eprints.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2115/53609/1/02_MIYASHIT
A.pdf

● The Mask of Madness: Identity and Role-playing in Shakespeare’s Hamlet Treball

de Fi de Grau Grau en Estudis Anglesos
https://ddd.uab.cat/pub/tfg/2016/169519/TFG_annafluvia.pdf
Annotated Bibliography
Pearce, B, and K Duffy. “Hamlet: Rational and Emotional Units of Meaning in Four
Soliloquies.” Shakespeare in Southern Africa, vol. 22, no. 1, Oct. 2011,
doi:10.4314/sisa.v22i1.71885.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271268730_Hamlet_Rational_and_Emotional_Units_o
f_Meaning_in_Four_Soliloquies
This research paper aims to compare Hamlet’s emotional conflicts to his intellectual
conflicts. More specifically, does Hamlet let emotions cloud his rationality and does his internal
dialogue align with his actions. The researchers conducted their study by uniquely merging the
fields of theater and mathematics. First they had conducted a close reading of Hamlet’s
soliloquies which represent his private thoughts. They then compared patterns that differentiate
his soliloquies from his regular speech throughout the play. Such patterns include self pity and
phrasing such as “Oh God” in his soliloquies versus philosophical questioning in his regular
speech. After noting these patterns of emotional and intellectual thinking they built a scale that
measures how rational vs irrational Hamlet is in a given moment based on his diction. For
example, if Hamlet had said 'O That This Too Solid Flesh Would Melt.” it would be apparent he
is reciting a soliloquy due to his emotionally charged language. On a scale of +4 being labeled as
delusional to -4 being philosophical, the researchers graded this soliloquy as +1, exhibiting
emotions of self pity and disgust. They then charted the quantities they found for emotional and
rational thinking in the play. Through this analysis they found a correlation in which Hamlet’s
rational thoughts are driven by emotional responses rather than opposing each other. This finding
proves that there is basic stability to Hamlet’s logic in contrast to what critics may regard as
erratic behavior and thought.
My paper similarly argues that Hamlet is internally consistent. His thoughts and emotions
regarding betrayal have directly led to an inability to enact revenge and has only deepened his
fixation on his mother and other actors who have betrayed him. He acts in a pattern, just not the
one readers expected. This evidence provides mathematical proof and close reading of the text to
support my claim. By utilizing the researchers' charts that map Hamlet’s most confusing scenes
and philosophical scenes as concurrent or one leading to another, I can prove that there is
consistency to his internal logic. I will then connect this evidence to Aristotle's logic/deductive
reasoning. This is the process of reasoning from one or more premises to reach a logically certain
conclusion. Citing where exactly, on a scale of, and when Hamlet is shown to be consistently
logical will lead to the conclusion that he is overall a consistently logical character.

UFFELMAN, Jonathan. “Hamlet Was a Law Student: A Dramatic Look at Emotion s

Effect on Analogical Reasoning.”
docplayer.net/26757475-Hamlet-was-a-law-student-a-dramatic-look-at-emotion-s-effect-on-
analogical-reasoning.html
 This research paper attempts to demonstrate how Hamlet’s hesitation and emotional
outburst prove that he, “thinks like a lawyer” or in other words thinks logically. Hamlet delays his
revenge because he consistently questions, equivocates, and demands proof before
he ultimately achieves his ends. The study aims to prove this by using a form of Aristotle's Deductive
Reasoning, argument by analogy. Analogical reasoning is a way of thinking, based on the idea that
because two or more things are similar in some respects, they are probably also similar in some
further respect. This study compares and makes an analogy between Hamlet’s thinking and a
lawyer's logical method of thinking. The researcher argues that Hamlet requires “an animating
principle to guide his actions in the same way courts seek overarching principles to synthesize.” This
requires great judicial and clear analysis of his own circumstances. One wouldn’t be able to do this
with conflicting internal logic. Hamlet’s contradictory behavior in which he overthinks and hesitates
in his revenge demonstrates how he is trying to remove emotion from his judgment and think through
his problem rationally. His conflict with his emotions further displays how emotion and logic
operate together for Hamlet. By analyzing the pattern his emotions have had on his thinking we can
better explain the source of Hamlet’s delay and why it is logically consistent with his internal
thoughts. The writer goes on to close read and describe moments of analogical reasoning in Hamlet's
soliloquies and describe further why it defends Hamlet’s rationality.
This paper will greatly aid me in furthering my point because it quite literally compares
Hamlet to a profession that is built on having in-depth knowledge on logic. Since it also focuses
solely on the soliloquies over the rest of the text, I have a better foundation to use while defending
Hamlet’s thoughts that may all seem chaotic and self pitying. Hamlet’s emotions of caution and
intense anger that cause him to overthink his every action is consistent to his logic.

Yayoi, MIYASHITA. Hamlet vs Claudius : A Structural Analysis of Hamlet’s “Tardiness”

https://eprints.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2115/53609/1/02_MIYASHITA.pdf

This paper elaborates on why Hamlet failed to swiftly kill Claudius even when given the chance
to do so. The researcher begins by providing background context into how aggravated Hamlet
has made critics and readers throughout history at his tardiness in exacting his revenge. To
readers that was Hamlet’s ultimate goal. However, upon close reading, this study points out that
Hamlet chooses to avenge his fatherʼs death not only because he was commanded to do so by
his fatherʼs, ghost, but also to give his life meaning. It is clear to the audience that Hamlet is a
very broody individual and at the time of his father’s death especially melancholic and suicidal.
He has lost any sense of purpose in his life. When he is given this opportunity by the Ghost, it
reinvigorates him and gives him purpose. Pursuing revenge through murder however would be
contradictory to Hamlet’s image as a hero and his new found purpose to live. Hamlet must exact
his revenge but “exclude the vicious nature of a murder” and prevent him from becoming
someone as corrupt as Claudius. This already set up restrictions to Hamlet’s revenge and better
explains the level of caution and behavior he exhibited despite his deep desire to gain vengeance.
This paper also discusses in depth Hamlet’s contradictory relationship with Ophelia. Critics may
wonder as to why Hamlet became so abruptly cold to Ophelia. His sudden change in behavior
further caused confusion and doubts in his logic. However, this paper connects his mother’s
betrayal to Hamlet’s distaste towards all women and explains his actions better. Thus it defends
the claim that he is logically consistent and not just lashing out out of pure emotion.
I will use this source in my paper as an example of how Contradiction, an aspect of
Aristotle's Logic, proves that Hamlet is logically consistent. Furthermore, my other sources
primarily center around Hamlet’s conflict with Claudius and the possible confusion around that
scenario. However, this source differs in that it demonstrates Hamlet’s confusing actions in
relation to another character and explains why the action he took was rational. By doing so I can
better explain Hamlet’s character beyond his fight with Claudius.

The Mask of Madness: Identity and Role-playing in Shakespeare’s Hamlet Treball de Fi

de Grau Grau en Estudis Anglesos
https://ddd.uab.cat/pub/tfg/2016/169519/TFG_annafluvia.pdf

This research paper explores the notion of identity in Shakespeares’s play Hamlet. The
speaker argues that Hamlet’s madness is a strategy of disguise. With this facade he plans to
unveil the state’s corruptness and avenge his father’s death. However, his behaviour became a
hot topic of debate as characters in the play and even the audience question whether Hamlet is
sane or insane. Is he really playing this role for a cause or is this just unpredictable actions
arising from his grief? This essay analyzes the connection between insanity and role playing.
The researcher approaches the topic from the perspective of the literary technique, of an
epiphany. The speaker claims that throughout the play Hamlet’s insanity was in fact a ruse.
Previous to exhibiting his mad behavior he mentions multiple times that he is aware of the art of
disguise and may use it at any time he wishes. His internal thoughts/soliloquies also show a clear
contrast. When alone, Hamlet takes off the mask of madness and starts pondering about his true
concerns regarding revenge. Hamlet is constantly aware of his mental processes and instead
feigns ignorance so that someone may unwittingly lead him to his goal. This proves that despite
the reader being confused as to what Hamlet may be plotting, he fully well knows what he is
doing. His logic isn’t in disarray but remains consistent and focused on his goal. He hesitates to
deviate from his thought out plan and thus to the audience it seems that he is unsure about
exacting his revenge.
This research paper will be helpful in my argument that Hamlet’s logic is internally
consistent. His epiphany in Act 2 Scene 2 in which he exclaims, “Now I am alone. Oh, what a
rogue and peasant slave am I” sets off his elaborate scheme. His realization at how pitiful he was
being and the idea to avenge his father by staging a play motivates him. This moment highlights
why and when Hamlet chose to feign madness from then on. By analyzing the researcher's
thoughts on this I can prove that Hamlet’s motives are not as confusing as they seem. From the
start he had formulated a logical plan to take revenge on Claudius and he committed to it by
continuing to wear a mask of madness so as to not raise suspicion. The numerous examples in
the soliloquies in which Hamlet formulates this plan, admits to faking the facade, and the
contrast between his thoughts and his actions delivers us to the conclusion that his logic is
internally consistent as proven by Aristotle's argument of syllogism. If Hamlet hints at or admits
to feigning madness in one soliloquy or moment in the text, thereby he is feigning madness
throughout the play and was never once the confusing muddled character we made him out to be.