Introduction
William Shakespeare’s *Hamlet* is a profound exploration of human nature, delving into themes of revenge, indecision, moral conflict, and societal expectation. Central to the play’s thematic depth is the protagonist, Hamlet, whose complex character is illuminated through the use of foils—minor characters whose traits contrast or compare with his own, thereby highlighting his distinctive qualities. This essay examines the roles of Laertes, Fortinbras, and Ophelia as foils to Hamlet, arguing that Shakespeare employs these characters to emphasize Hamlet’s indecision, moral contemplation, and emotional complexity. Through these contrasts, the play’s central meanings—particularly the tension between action and inaction, the burden of moral responsibility, and the destructive impact of societal pressures—are brought into sharper focus. By analyzing specific textual evidence, this essay will demonstrate how these foils contribute to a deeper understanding of both Hamlet’s character and the overarching tragedy.
Laertes as a Foil: Impulsivity versus Indecision
Laertes serves as a primary foil to Hamlet, embodying impulsivity and a straightforward pursuit of revenge that starkly contrasts with Hamlet’s prolonged indecision and moral contemplation. This contrast is evident in Laertes’ reaction to his father Polonius’ death, where he declares, “To hell, allegiance! Vows, to the blackest devil!” (Shakespeare, 1603, Act 4, Scene 5). This exclamation reveals Laertes’ immediate and passionate readiness to act, disregarding moral or political consequences, which stands in opposition to Hamlet’s hesitancy to avenge his own father’s murder due to concerns over righteousness and certainty. Shakespeare uses Laertes to underscore Hamlet’s introspective nature, highlighting the tension between impulsive revenge and a more considered, ethical approach to justice—a core theme of the play.
Furthermore, Hamlet himself reflects on Laertes’ decisiveness, noting, “I am satisfied in nature, / Whose motive in this case should stir me most / To my revenge” (Shakespeare, 1603, Act 4, Scene 4). Here, Hamlet acknowledges Laertes’ resolve, which amplifies his own self-criticism for delaying action. Through this contrast, Shakespeare emphasizes Hamlet’s internal conflict and the paralyzing effect of overthinking, suggesting that while Laertes’ impulsivity may lead to rash decisions, Hamlet’s hesitation contributes to his tragic downfall. Thus, Laertes as a foil illuminates the play’s meditation on the consequences of both action and inaction, reinforcing the idea that neither extreme offers a clear path to resolution in a corrupt world.
Fortinbras as a Foil: Decisiveness versus Hesitation
Fortinbras, the young prince of Norway, presents another significant foil to Hamlet through his decisive action and political ambition, which contrast with Hamlet’s introspection and reluctance to act. Hamlet observes Fortinbras’ determination when he remarks, “Witness this army of such mass and charge / Led by a delicate and tender prince…” (Shakespeare, 1603, Act 4, Scene 4). This observation reveals Hamlet’s admiration for Fortinbras’ ability to mobilize an army for what Hamlet perceives as a trivial cause, in stark contrast to his own failure to act decisively in avenging his father’s murder—a far more personal and significant grievance. Shakespeare uses Fortinbras to highlight Hamlet’s intellectual and moral nature, suggesting that while contemplation can be a strength, it can also become a tragic flaw when it prevents necessary action.
Additionally, Hamlet’s self-reflection deepens this contrast as he questions, “How stand I then, / That have a father kill’d, a mother stain’d…” (Shakespeare, 1603, Act 4, Scene 4). This moment of introspection reveals Hamlet’s frustration with his own inaction when compared to Fortinbras’ purposeful drive, illuminating the internal conflict between thought and duty that defines his character. Through Fortinbras, Shakespeare underscores the broader theme of the consequences of hesitation, portraying decisive action as both a potential virtue and a reminder of Hamlet’s personal shortcomings. Indeed, this foil relationship enriches the play’s exploration of honor and responsibility, showing that success often belongs to those who act, even if their motivations are less morally complex than Hamlet’s.
Ophelia as a Foil: Emotional Suppression versus Expressed Turmoil
Ophelia, though not always considered a foil in the traditional sense, contrasts with Hamlet through her suppression of emotions under societal and familial pressures, highlighting his struggle to express grief and moral outrage openly. From early in the play, Ophelia’s obedience is apparent when she responds to her father’s commands with, “I shall obey, my lord” (Shakespeare, 1603, Act 1, Scene 3). This compliance demonstrates how societal expectations force her to internalize her desires and grief, in contrast to Hamlet, whose emotional turmoil is often public and philosophical, as seen in his soliloquies. Shakespeare uses Ophelia to explore the destructive effects of emotional repression, a theme that parallels Hamlet’s struggle but manifests differently due to gender expectations.
Moreover, Ophelia’s observation of Hamlet’s instability—“O, what a noble mind is here o’erthrown!” (Shakespeare, 1603, Act 3, Scene 1)—further highlights this contrast, as it reflects her perception of his visible mental anguish while she herself remains constrained in expressing her own pain. Her eventual descent into madness and death underscores the tragic consequences of suppressing natural emotion, a counterpoint to Hamlet’s overt wrestling with his conscience. Through this foil, Shakespeare critiques the societal pressures that dictate emotional expression, particularly for women, and suggests that both repression and unchecked turmoil can lead to personal destruction. Thus, Ophelia enriches the play’s examination of grief and duty, illuminating how external constraints shape internal conflict in ways distinct from, yet complementary to, Hamlet’s experience.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Shakespeare’s use of foils in *Hamlet*—namely Laertes, Fortinbras, and Ophelia—serves to illuminate the protagonist’s complex character and the central meanings of the play. Laertes’ impulsivity highlights Hamlet’s indecision and moral contemplation, emphasizing the tension between action and thought as a source of tragedy. Fortinbras’ decisiveness contrasts with Hamlet’s hesitation, underscoring the consequences of inaction and the ambiguous nature of duty. Meanwhile, Ophelia’s emotional suppression under societal pressures provides a counterpoint to Hamlet’s expressed turmoil, revealing the destructive impact of gendered expectations. Collectively, these foils deepen the audience’s understanding of Hamlet’s internal conflicts and the broader themes of revenge, responsibility, and societal constraint. Ultimately, Shakespeare suggests that human action, whether delayed or impulsive, suppressed or overt, is shaped by intricate personal and external forces, often with tragic outcomes. This analysis not only clarifies Hamlet’s character but also invites reflection on how individuals navigate moral and societal challenges—a consideration as relevant today as it was in Shakespeare’s time.
References
- Shakespeare, W. (1603) *Hamlet*. Edited by Harold Jenkins, Arden Shakespeare, Methuen.
- Greenblatt, S. (2001) *Hamlet in Purgatory*. Princeton University Press.
- Bradley, A.C. (1904) *Shakespearean Tragedy: Lectures on Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, Macbeth*. Macmillan.
