Skip to main content

What premonition of disaster does Hamlet have before his death in Act V, scene 2 of Hamlet?

In Act V, Scene 2, Hamlet talks to his friend Horatio and tells him that there is a "divinity" that orders man's end. He also expresses a premonition after having accepted King Claudius's invitation for him to duel Laertes.


Hamlet first tells Horatio that he felt a "fighting" in his heart which awakened him on the ship to England. Because of this feeling, he arose and found the letter that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern carried. By forging a different letter, Hamlet averted the plans of Claudius to have him killed in England, and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern died, instead. Further, Hamlet tells Horatio that there is "a divinity" that determines man's end; that is, he observes that fate will make things occur and all man can do is be ready for it.



There’s a divinity that shapes our ends,


Rough-hew them how we will— (5.2.10-11)



Later in this scene, Osric, a courtier, gives Hamlet an invitation from King Claudius for Hamlet to duel Laertes. After Osric departs, Hamlet tells Horatio of a premonition that he has--



It is but foolery, but it is such a kind of gain-giving as would perhaps trouble a woman. (5.2.190)



So, Horatio suggests to Hamlet that if he feels any doubts about fighting a duel with Laertes, he should refuse, but Hamlet insists that he believes in fate, so what is going to happen will occur sooner or later, anyway: 



 If it be not to come, it will be now. If it be not now, yet it will come—the readiness is all. Since no man of aught he leaves knows, what is’t to leave betimes? Let be. (5.2.195-197)



Hamlet agrees to duel Laertes because he feels that there is no postponement for what is meant to happen. Besides, he tells Horatio, he has practiced and is prepared to fight Laertes as best he can. After observing the fortitude of Fortinbras, who risks all "for an eggshell" (4.4.53), Hamlet, who earlier has declared himself "Hamlet the Dane" (5.1.228), prepares himself for what fate will bring.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more