When Hamlet encounters the ghost, Hamlet learns that his father was murdered by his uncle, Claudius, “The serpent that did sting thy father’s life now wears his crown”. Hamlet takes an oath to avenge his father’s murder and informs Horatio of his “antic-disposition”. Hamlet needs to feign madness in order to avoid suspicion from Claudius, this is a decisive decision. Hamlet has lost his father and also to a certain extent his mother, he finds out that his father was murdered by his uncle and he has lost the thorn to his Kingdom. The grief Hamlet experiences must be traumatic, although acting upon grief is extremely dangerous; this could possibly be why Hamlet waits until he can think clearly and productively before taking his revenge, Hamlet is a well-educated and civilised man whom contemplates his thoughts before taking action which are demonstrated throughout the play e.g. his soliloquies. Claudius is now king, if Hamlet attempted to murder him he would surely be executed on an account of the highest possible treason; regicide, which would surely not be justice. Hamlet needed to be smart about how and when to bring about the revenge. He not only needed to kill Claudius but he needed to ensure his and his father’s legacy while destroying Claudius’s in the process, surely unveiling the truth and exposing him as a “damned villain” would be more satisfying and greater justice than merely killing him. However, in doing so Hamlet has metaphorical blood on his hands, in the process of avenging his father many innocent people die including Ophelia and Gertrude. Also on his quest for revenge another revenge plot unfolds, Laertes revenging Polonius’s murder.
Many critics consider Hamlet’s delay simply as a plot device claiming if Hamlet had taken revenge earlier then the play would have been extremely short, this is clearly not true since Hamlet makes it clear to the audience that he himself is aware of his inaction, Shakespeare would not have included this if not to make a clear point, one could also say it is used as a device simply to arouse tension and suspense, while this may be somewhat true I think it is only a minor contribution to the delay, I think the delay has more to do with Hamlet’s morality and his character and the conflicting factors and characters (i.e. Claudius as king and being married to his mother). Some critics believe the delay is nothing more than cowardice; however this proves to be incorrect as Hamlet appears most heroic in certain stages of the play such as killing Polonius and the duel with Laertes. Many critics claim the reason for Hamlet’s delay is due to Claudius being king and therefore it is difficult for Hamlet to take his revenge due to his status and tight security. However, there are times in the play where Hamlet has unguarded access to Claudius, such as when Claudius is praying.
Freudian critics such as Ernest Jones and Sigmund Freud claim Hamlet's mysterious procrastination is a consequence of the : the son continually postpones the act of revenge because of the impossibly complicated psychodynamic situation in which he finds himself. Though he hates his fratricidal uncle, he nevertheless unconsciously identifies with him—for, having killed and married , has carried out what are Hamlet's own unconscious wishes. In addition, marriage to Hamlet's mother gives the uncle the unconscious status of the father—destructive impulses towards whom provoke great anxiety and meet with repression. While it is impossible to prove this theory due to the subconscious nature, some could rebuke this by claiming Shakespeare did not clearly make this a concept in Hamlet, if he had chosen to do so then surely he would have made it more identifiable for the audience. It is certainly true that Hamlet feels betrayed by his mother for disgracing his father’s good name by marrying his brother so shortly after his death, however to claim that Hamlet had different motives for killing Claudius other than revenging his father and bringing about justice to the Danish court is extremely vague and questionable.
If Hamlet kills Claudius, certainly it should be classified as justifiable homicide, not only has Claudius committed murderer, but he has also committed regicide and fratricide and could Hamlet not say he was simply acting in self-defence since Claudius sent him to England to his deathbed. It is important to note that Hamlet does not mind if he lives after he has got his revenge, the ‘to be or not to be’ soliloquy contemplates whether to commit suicide or not, whether to take action upon his uncle or not, therefore from these soliloquies we can gather that the idea of death did not so much as fright Hamlet, rather the idea of death without fulfilling his purpose. Hamlet claims that fear of the unknown after death and the idea of going to hell are what stop him from committing suicide, however I believe this is simply an excuse not to take the cowards way out, I believe the real reason for him not committing suicide is due to his desire and need for his revenge upon Claudius. Hamlet’s death in the play, is somewhat similar to that of Jesus Christ, who had to die for the sins of humanity, perhaps this is why Christ is personified as such of a hero because he ended his life in sacrifice to God for us, similarly Hamlet did not just want to kill Claudius for the sake of avenging his father, he also wanted to bring justice to the Danish court and to get rid of the corruption on behalf of Denmark and her people, ultimately he kills Claudius and dies himself in the process and in return for his bravery, he has remained an iconic hero for centuries. Since the theme is revenge and justice, surely Hamlet had to die considering he is also now a target for revenge; it would have been highly hypocritical if Shakespeare had let Hamlet have lived after killing an innocent person, even if he was a “wretched, rash, intruding fool”. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern betrayed Hamlet, they were aware of Hamlet’s upcoming death sentence and they did not do anything to try and prevent it, therefore I believe Hamlet was justified in sending them to their deaths instead. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are contrasting characters to Hamlet, their indecision led to their deaths and although Hamlet eventually dies as well he, at least he fulfilled what needed to be done. Does not everybody die eventually any why? Perhaps one could say that the pirates arriving gave Hamlet an excellent opportunity to escape was the will of God, destiny even.
Considering these points, I do not believe Hamlet was an indecisive character. He made many decisions in the play, although he made some decisions that led to indecision however still with the focus of eventual revenge e.g. Hamlet decided to make the players perform the play “The Murder of Gonzago” in order to see evidence of Claudius’s guilt himself, “the play's the thing wherein i'll catch the conscience of the king” this leads to the waiting of the play’s performance but Hamlet did this to ensure without a doubt that Claudius was guilty of murder. Hamlet exclaims to his mother, “I essentially am not in madness but mad in craft”, Hamlet’s ‘craft’ ultimately leads to Claudius’s death, and although so does it to many other innocent characters in the play and himself, perhaps what Hamlet needed was to be decisive quicker in order to prevent innocent blood from being spilt. Perhaps this was Shakespeare’s message all along, when to take action and when to not, to achieve a balance between decision and indecision and to know when the appropriate time is to act. At the end of the play when Hamlet is dying, he is in the middle of Horatio and Fortinbras, Horatio symbolises the scholar and Fortinbras symbolises the warrior. Hamlet successfully achieved to be both scholar and warrior.
