The Use of Catharsis in the “Hamlet” Tragedy

Critic Northrup Frye has evaluated Hamlet as a play without catharsis, a tragedy in which every little thing noble and heroic is smothered beneath ferocious revenge codes, treachery, spying and the consequences of weak actions by broken wills. Whilst the play deviates from the standard definition of catharsis as offered by Aristotle in Poetics” through pity and worry effecting the correct purgation of these emotions” it nonetheless gives a robust purgation of feelings of disgust at the denouement of the play. The components that Frye argues avert catharasis are in fact what create the disgust needed for catharsis to take location. This emotion is abruptly purged by way of heroism, virtue and restoration of the chain of becoming at the conclusion of the play. Frye speculate that ferocious revenge codes, treachery, spying, and consequences of weak actions by broken wills intervene with catharsis, but on the contrary, they develop the feeling of disgust that demands to be purged. This differs with the Aristotelian definition of catharsis as purging pity and worry, but is a type of catharsis nonetheless, one particular that delivers a similar final effect on the audience. Disgust is emphasized early in the play when Polonius sends Reynaldo to spy on his son, Laertes, who is away studying in France. Ay, or drinking, fencing, swearing, / Quarreling, drabbing” you might go so far (II.i.25-26) states Polonius, instructing Reynaldo to exchange inaccurate statements with LaertesÃ, pals. This illustrates Polonius distrust in his son and his will to use all signifies required to acquire data about Laertes, even if it runs the threat of jeopardizing his reputation. Corruption within the family directly enhances the sense of repugnance. Hamlet’s unnecessary murder of Polonius also emphasizes the emotion. His quasi-madness and ignorance of situations lead him to the false conclusion that Claudius is behind the arras as he states: Is it the King (III.iv.26). This event reveals a flaw in Hamlet’s character, which diminishes Hamlet’s heroicism in the minds of the audience and creates the feeling of disgust in its spot. Laertes and Claudius contribute to this revulsion as nicely as they conspire an unfair duel to triumph more than Hamlet, I’ll anoint my sword. With this contagion, that if I gall him slightly, / It could be death (IV.vii.139-147). When again, the corruption in royal households generates disgust that fuels catharsis in the finish. What purges the sense of disgust is an exposition of characters heroism and virtue. Laertes contributes to the catharsis by expressing doubt about his sinful and unfair fencing duel with Hamlet: [Aside] And yet it is almost against my conscience (V.ii.300). Laertes uncertainty in his subsequent actions represents some excellent in his conscience. This good quality makes evident Laertes virtue, which purges the disgust constructed up earlier. Relief extends further as Laertes continues to exhibit righteousness: Exchange forgiveness with me, noble Hamlet. / Mine and my father’s death come not upon thee (V.ii.334-335), and when it is acknowledged by Hamlet, Heaven make thee free of charge of it. I follow thee (V.ii.337). Horatio’s altruism by means of the blessing of Hamlet also contributes to catharsis: Now cracks the noble heart. Excellent night sweet prince, / And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest (V.ii.364-365). Similarly, Fortinbras acknowledgement of Hamlet’s death reveals heroism in both of their characters as he compares Hamlet to a soldier: Let four captains / Bear Hamlet like a soldier to the stage, / For he was probably, had he been put on, / To have prov’d most royal (V.ii.400-403). The virtue and heroism that surface in the concluding scene of the play significantly contribute to the well-placed Shakespearian catharsis. An additional way catharsis is created evident is through the restoration of the chain of getting at the conclusion of the play. Disarray of the chain is evident from the starting of the play and remains an critical theme throughout. The quick deaths of corrupt Claudius, Gertrude, Hamlet, and Laertes serve as a testament to the finish of corruption. Once the corruption is eliminated, the restoration of order is required this is carried out by establishing Denmark’s new leader. Hamlet is not a suitable leader simply because of his corruption, which originated from his tragic flaw therefore, he supports Fortinbras in the upcoming election: But I do prophesy thelection lights / On Fortinbras. He has my dying voice (V.ii.360-361). Even though the kingship is not definite, Hamlet’s popularity and support from the public creates a strong belief among the audience that Fortinbras will be crowned. He is depicted as a powerful, determined, and capable leader throughout the play, Witness this army of such mass and charge, / Led by a delicate and tender prince, / Whose spirit, with divine ambition puff’d, / Tends to make mouths at the invisible event (IV.iv.47-50). A new royal household is, certainly, the most logical remedy to the restoration of the immensely disrupted chain of being. It establishes a sense of renewal although purging the unfavorable feelings established earlier. In conclusion, two elements are essential in terms of catharsis: the emotion and its purging. The emotion, disgust, is apparent throughout the play by means of the ferocious revenge codes, treachery, [and] spying that overwhelm the audience. Purgation happens by way of apparent heroism and virtue, along with the newly established feeling of renewal of the chain of becoming at the conclusion of the play. In his criticism, Northrup Frye disregards these points and fails to recognize that Hamlet is certainly a cathartic play.