William Shakespeare, perhaps the greatest playwright
of all time, authored a number of works consisting of
sonnets, comedies, and tragedies. In his brilliant
career, Shakespeare created literary works of art.
What makes Shakespeare unlike any other writer of his
time, is his ability to organize a realistic plot,
manage themes, and develop characters within his
works(Flatter). As well, Shakespeare's ability to
provoke feeling and reaction to his writing is also
what sets him apart from other common writers. Of his
works, Hamlet is perhaps the most studied and most
interesting of the collected tragedies. In this play,
many question the actions of the characters and
particularly the actions of Hamlet. The answer to:
'Why does Hamlet delay in avenging the death of his
father?' is one that is not easy to identify. Possible
conclusions include the role of others in Hamlet,
Hamlet's religious nature, or even Hamlet's tragic
David Garrick in Hamlet, I, 4
English: Henry Fuseli - Hamlet and his father's Gh...
English: 16th century illustration of The Spanish ...flaw as a hero in Hamlet.
It is often argued that Hamlet was written
as a tragedy of the human spirit (Semper). Others
argue that it is a tragedy of destiny, or the hero. In
every hero's quest for the truth, none is more
apparent than that of Hamlet. This search for truth is
born of the passing of young Hamlet's father. It is at
the critical moment of revelation by the Ghost of
Hamlet that young Hamlet is destined for revenge.
Although the concept of revenge may be considered an
evil justice, it is evident that the importance lay
within the context of carrying out the fate. The
question arises of 'Why did Hamlet not take revenge
sooner upon Claudius?' The how and when of this
vengeance becomes critical in the development of
Hamlet the character. To fully comprehend the true
essence of Hamlet as a son, a discoverer, and a
destroyer, one must analyze each individual
characteristic as revealed by Shakespeare (Lanier). It
was not enough that Shakespeare just wrote the play,
he also emphasized the character's thoughts and
emotions through the soliloquies. In fact, the whole
idea of drama is to feel, to an extent, what the
character feels. However, in Hamlet, the use of the
soliloquy offers the audience a gateway into the minds
of the characters, and in this case the various
reasons why Hamlet delays in exacting revenge.
The depth of thought possessed by characters is
easily measured by how effortlessly a reader can
relate to what is being said or done. While the script
is fictional, the story within the play itself becomes
believable. Undoubtedly, Hamlet is a man of action.
Why then, does Hamlet require five Acts to finally
prove this concept? A number of different
possibilities exist. The single, most important of
these possibilities are Hamlet's internal conflicts
within his own mind, body, and soul. From the first
Act, Hamlet displays a substantial amount of concern
for his mother."...Why, she would hang on him / As if
increase of appetite had grown / By what it fed on;
and yet, within a month / Let me not think; Frailty,
thy name is woman!" (I, ii, 143-146) Clearly, Hamlet's
concern for the Queen, his mother, is genuine. Within
this thought, Hamlet realized the severity of his
mother's actions while also attempting to rationalize
her mentality so that he may understand, and perhaps,
cope with the untimely nature of the Queen's marriage
to Claudius. Understandably, Hamlet is disturbed.
Gertrude causes such confusion in Hamlet that
throughout the play, he constantly wondered how it
could be possible that events would turn out the way
that they had. This unfortunate turn of events is
often questioned since Gertrude, the same woman who
had instilled a great sense of religion in Hamlet,
contradicts such a value that proves "Something is
rotten in the state of Denmark." (I, IV, 90) (Blitz)
While regarding this as the principal means for
Hamlet's frustration, it is not until seeing a spirit
form that Hamlet decided to seek the truth, and
ultimately, exact revenge. After envisioning the
apparition, Hamlet sets out to avenge the death of his
father, yet he is unclear as to the actual fulfillment
of the revenge. Thus, Hamlet acknowledges that as a
man of duty, justice, and honor, he must act upon the
request of his late father. The concept of "antic
disposition" is the feigned madness that Hamlet uses
as his first step toward the revenge (Semper). Douglas
Lanier states clearly, "Here, we have a clear
indication that Hamlet is a thinker, and bares a
calculating intellect. It is this intellect that
critics question in Hamlet's status as a hero, simply
because it reinforced the theory that Hamlet embodied
a critical and tragic flaw within his nature. At no
time was any doubt of Claudius' guilt ever discussed
between Hamlet and the Ghost with relation to King
Hamlet's death. Young Hamlet was quick to regaurd
these charges as truth. Yet, at the time Hamlet knew
his course, but had the option to seek it out on his
own terms. "The time is out of joint. O cursed spite,
That ever I was born to set it right!" (I, v, 187-189)
Hamlet decides that the murder of Claudius can only
be justified if it is done at the right moment. This
is important to consider since Hamlet is heir to the
throne that Claudius did hold in Denmark. How then, if
Hamlet killed Claudius is it possible that Hamlet
could be able to explain a murder of such huge
proportions. There is a pressing danger in attempting
to convince people that their King, a man of such
divine rank, is anything less than that. The only
character in Hamlet that did such a thing was Laertes.
Furthermore, this incident only took place as a result
of mistaken identity; an assumption that Polonius died
at the hands of Claudius, when in reality, Hamlet was
responsible. This is the first indication that Hamlet
is a man of action. It is, revealed that Claudius was
in no way responsible for the death of Laertes'
father, and consequently, allowing Laertes and
Claudius to conspire against Hamlet. One area of
significance in the delay of Claudius' guilt is the
burden of proof. Surprisingly, this concept of
"needing evidence" existed in its earliest form
through Shakespeare's Hamlet. In today's society,
charges of the murderous sort are somewhat protected
by the principle that all people are innocent until
proven guilty. In Shakespeare's time however, it is
interesting to note that someone like Hamlet exercised
this ideal, seemingly a victim to the crime himself,
and to the Elizabethan era in which this crime is
evident(fghf). Brilliantly, Hamlet plans out an
opportunity for Claudius to indicate some guilt,
therefore allowing his conscience to freely carry out
the murder of Claudius. "Well, my lord. If he steal
ought the whilst this play is playing, / And 'scape
detecting, I will pay the theft. (III, ii, 90-91) As
the plot rises in action, Hamlet discovers enough
through the play within Hamlet, known as The
Mousetrap. Upon the completion of The Mousetrap,
Claudius' guilt is quite obvious. Seemingly
successful, Hamlet once again hesitates to kill. His
concern was the people and the Entire State of Denmark
in addition to his own clarification in the
probability that the Ghost was real.(ghd) As a result
of the overwhelming suggestion in The Mousetrap,
Claudius, ironically a man of justice himself, seeks
forgiveness from God. Hamlet overhears Claudius admit
in his own words, the guilt in that which King
Claudius lived. "O, my offence is rank, it smells to
heaven / A brother's murder. / My Stronger guilt
defeats my strong intent, / May one be pardoned and
retain the offence?" (III, iii, 40-47)
It is possible to argue that Hamlet had accumulated
enough solid evidence to prosecute the King at this
point, but because of procrastinating, his intent
became stronger than his will to act (Elliot). There
was really very little that stood in the way of
Hamlet's revenge. Aside from a few guards, and minor
characters in Hamlet, the task of putting an end to
Claudius should have been no more difficult than
killing trespassers. Keeping this in mind, revenge is
not always justice served (Lanier). "Now might I do it
pat, now he is praying; / And now I'll don't. And so
he goes to heaven, / And so am I revenged. That would
be scann'd: / A villain kills my father, and for that,
/ I, his sole son, do this same villain send / To
heaven." (III, iii, 73-78) The character of a tragic
hero is not always easy to understand. Nevertheless,
the greatest conclusion that may be draw from Hamlet
is a simple one: behave according to truth, and
justice should prevail. "Of thinking too precisely on
the eventb / A thought which, quartered, hath but one
part wisdom / And ever three parts coward--I do not
know Why yet I live to say, "this thing's to do", /
Sith I have cause, and will, and strength, and means,
/ To do't...." (IV, IV, 41-46) Rational thought and
compassion are what make Hamlet a hero. Unfortunately,
thought and inability to act on impulse, are the
factors in creating the tragedy in Hamlet. In today's
society and its values, Hamlet continues to be a
contribution to ideals of value and morality. This
story of a man and his downfalls should be considered
an asset to the better of society, and a lesson
learned in compassion for others.