Irony in Priam’s Death

The scene played by the first player contains events that can come into view as a
foreshadowing of what is yet to come; the player is telling a story covertly involving Hamlet,
his uncle, and his father. The performer tells the story of Pyrrhus, the son of Achilles, killed
by Paris during the Trojan war. Pyrrhus wanted vengeance for the murder of his father, and
since Paris was dead, he searched for his family, including Paris' father, Priam. Pyrrhus takes
advantage of Priam's moment of weakness to attack him, but thanks to his anger, he fails, yet
the wind created by his sword is enough to make the weakened elder man fall. At that
moment, the city of Ilium collapses in flames, and the shock captures Pyrrhus’ ear. His sword
which was falling on Priam's graying head seemed to float in the air. Pyrrhus stood there like
a man in a painting, doing nothing, analyzing the consequences of his actions (2.2 487-495),
just as a young prince would when considering killing a member of his family. Finally, after
this long pause, his newly awakened fury put him to work again, making his bloody sword
ruthlessly fall on Priam, so what is the irony in Priam’s response to Pyrrhus’ sword and
Pyrrhus’ reaction to that?
Based on our knowledge from the Trojan War as well as the relationship that connects
Priam and Pyrrhus, it is fair to say that the irony in Priam’s death is intimately related to the
deceased King Hamlet, Claudius, and Hamlet. When Hamlet asks for the scene where Aeneas
told Dido about Priam’s murder to be played, the player starts by saying: “Anon he finds
him//Striking too short at Greeks” (2.2 476-477), clearly speaking about Priam, who in these
lines resembles King Hamlet. The former king also battled against Fortinbras, king of
Norway, managing to kill him and win (1.1 86-93); however, the attack was too short to get
rid of young Fortinbras, who came back for vengeance later on. Continued when said: “Then
senseless Ilium, seeming to feel this blow, with flaming top Stoops to his base, and with a
hideous crash takes prisoner Pyrrhus' ear.” (2.2 483-485), it refers to Denmark feeling the
loss of their highly praised King Hamlet as he dies from the poison that took prisoner his ear.
The king´s death places the country at risk of revolution and invasions, which is related to
the next attack of Fortinbras, as mentioned previously. In addition, we know from what the
player is speaking and from Book 24 of the Iliad that Pyrrhus takes his revenge by mercilessly
killing Priam, showing him as far less noble than his father, Achilles, who would show mercy.
(Book 24, 625-632). In this aspect, Pyrrhus is just like Claudius, who shows no mercy when
getting what he wants. He wants power, fame, glory, and the queen; because of this, he kills
his brother and plots murder when Hamlet seems a threat to him. However, all of that will be
gone if there is no action done as a king. Stated when the first player says that Pyrrhus did
nothing (2.2 490), indicating that Claudius is not a good king because if the queen was not
there, he would stand unchallenged. Also, these lines could be foreshadowing queen
Gertrude’s death and the action of taking away her power (2.2 502). The method of this death
will be so sudden, just like “down the hill of heaven, as low as to the fiends” (2.2 504-505);
so, by foreshadowing these events, Claudius is shown as a power-hungry fiend. Nonetheless,
the line “A roused vengeance sets him new a-work…” (2.2 496) is an example of how both
Pyrrhus and Hamlet seek out revenge for the death of their fathers. The player’s tale could
very well foreshadow the events to come if Hamlet were to avenge his father’s death. As the
player progresses through the tale, he describes the moment when Pyrrhus has his sword
poised to kill Priam. when for some reason, he hesitates, freezing for a moment. This pause
could be a symbol of the place in which Hamlet finds himself for much of the play after he
has been charged with avenging his father's death, said earlier. He is there, poised for revenge,
but hesitates in whether search for this vengeance by killing him or to find some other way
to make him suffer by exposing him to Denmark as a murderer. He may be weighing the
consequences of his actions, confirmed when said “Hamlet worries not simply that Claudius’
soul will go to heaven, but how such a revenge would be “scann’d” (3.3 75)” (Cohen B. M.,
1997, P.223), or he is simply too of a coward to carry out the deed. This last is supported by
Hamlet himself when he discussed his cowardness for not revenging his father death, related
to Pyrrhus, who is described as a man who stood there in a painting and did nothing (2.2.
490). Thanks to all of this, it can be inferred that the irony in Priam’s death has to do with
King Hamlet resembling Priam and with Claudius and Hamlet resembling different facets of
Pyrrhus.
Nonetheless, some may argue that some of these arguments are not valid, either by
supporting that Claudius does not bear a resemblance to Pyrrhus, but poor Priam, or by
believing that Pyrrhus is braver than Hamlet, and because of this, one is not the mirage of the
other. When first hearing about a son who wants to kill the murderer of his father, it is logical
to relate Claudius to this this orphan creator, Priam. This idea is defended when stating “…
is the task imposed on Hamlet by the ghost, that of killing Claudius in revenge for his father’s
murder. The transition, therefore, to “thereabouts of it especially where he speaks of Priam’s
slaughter”, that is to the classical description of the killing of a king, follows naturally on this
submerged train of thought.” (Johnston A., 1962, P.22). As for the other argument, Hamlet
is not like Pyrrhus, since Pyrrhus keeps his word and seeks revenge, and Hamlet does not do
anything even though he is angry, supported by “Pyrrhus is shown as capable of hesitation,
just like Hamlet, but able, nonetheless, to carry his intention into effect, which Hamlet has
not been capable of doing.”. (Daalder J. 1990, P.3). These affirmations are rational, but it
becomes evident in the play that they can be partially or even fully discredited. Even though
Hamlet hesitates in his decision of killing his uncle, it is not fair to characterize Claudius as
an ancient, helpless man, while he really is in his vigorous prime. Curiously supported by J.
Daalder when he states “Pyrrhus therefore in part resembles Claudius. His method of attack
is less devious than that of Claudius, but Priam becomes a helpless victim of his savagery,
just as it was easy for Claudius to deprive Hamlet's father of his life.”. In defiance of Hamlet
never revenging his father, it is arguable to say that even though he had doubts, throughout
the play he did things to slowly take revenge. First, when he was smart enough to plan a
whole event just to make sure his uncle was guilty (3.2. 77-82), and embarrassing him for it,
and when he tried to kill his uncle. First, when Claudius is at prayer, asking for forgiveness
but he holds back (3.3 73-87), then when instead of killing the king, he ends up killing
Polonius (3.4 25-28), and finally, when he managed to kill his uncle, even though Hamlet
was agonizing, showing his strength and determination (5.2 352-359).

Works Cited

Cohen, B. M. (1977). “What is it you Would See?”: Hamlet and the Conscience of the
Theatre. ELH, 44(2), 222–247.

Daalder, J. (1990). `Hamlet', Art and Practicality. 'English', vol.39, no.163, 1-11.

Johnston, A. (1962). The Player’s Speech in Hamlet. Shakespeare Quarterly, 13(1), 21–30.

Johnson, I. (2021, October 7). Homer, Iliad Book 24 (e-text). John Stonia Texts.
http://johnstoniatexts.x10host.com/homer/iliad24html.html

Shakespeare, W. (2021, October 7). The Tragedy of Hamlet. Holt McDougal Online.
https://my.hrw.com/content/hmof/language_arts/hmhcollections2017/na/gr12/ese_9780544
570795_/index.html

Shakespeare, W. (2021, October 24) The Tragedy of Hamlet. The Folger Shakespeare
https://shakespeare.folger.edu/shakespeares-works/hamlet/