To assert that Hamlet is not at all to blame for his own downfall would be to disregard the characteristics of a revenge tragedy, which dictate that the tragic hero must have a fatal flaw that contributes to their downfall, however the extent to which Hamlet can be blamed is called into question when assessing the role external forces play. For example, many have called into question the role played by fate, instead of the sole role of Hamlet’s flaws. This argument resonates strongly as Hamlet is put into the events and circumstances by the actions of others and seems as though his fate as the tragic hero is sealed before he is even aware of it. For example, the actions of Claudius in murdering Hamlet’s father act as the catalyst and precursor to King Hamlet’s ghost visiting Hamlet to reveal the nature of his death and calling for the revenge of his death. Hamlet himself even acknowledges the role that fate and destiny play in the direction in his actions when he explains that ‘there’s a divinity that shapes our end’. Here Hamlet shows although he has freedom in his actions as the tragic hero, as free will is a pivotal element of a revenge tragedy, there is some divine force such as God guiding the ends of his actions. A.C Bradley explains this role that fate plays as ’the powerlessness of man and of the omnipotence --perhaps the caprice-- of, fortune or fate, which no tale of private life can possibly rival’ .Therefore this again emphasizes that although Hamlet’s internal flaws play a role in his downfall, there is an element which he cannot control, and this interaction between these two forces prove the source of his downfall.
In contrast to this role that external forces play, many persist in arguing that it is solely Hamlet to blame for his own downfall, and use one of his fatal flaws as the reasoning for this assertion. His tendency to procrastinate and not showing enough masculinity in his actions is to many an internal flaw that exacerbates the revenge and ultimately adds to his downfall. A hesitating avenger is a fundamental aspect of a revenge tragedy and is thus shown throughout the play in many instances. For example, Hamlet has the chance to kill Claudius but resists as he is praying and does not want him to go to heaven. Hamlet reasons that ‘now I might do it pat. Now he is praying. And now he is a-praying. And now I’ll do it. And so I am revenged’. Although Hamlet here is seemingly showing his moral and religious character, he is in fact highlighting his intent to kill Claudius, as he merely wants to make sure he goes to hell and inflict as much pain upon him as possible. By procrastinating here it leads on to further bloodshed, such as the accidental murder of Polonius which leads to Laertes’ revengeful aims, and in turn leads to the eventual downfall of Hamlet. Here it is shown the role that the internal role that Hamlet’s flaws play in downfall, but it is worth noting the relationship this aspect has with the role an external factors such as fate plays, so yet again this combined interaction between internal and external forces is what proves to be the reason for Hamlet’s downfall.
Another element explored by those who believe that Hamlet’s internal flaws are not solely to blame for his downfall is the role that chance plays as an external force that adds to the downfall of Hamlet. When identifying events which arise as a result of pure chance, which also lead also to the downfall of Hamlet, it becomes inherently clear that this factor plays a role in Hamlet’s downfall as well. For example the accidental murder of Polonius in Act 3 Scene 4 is an example of this. Hamlet mutters ‘Nay I know what. Is it the king?. Instead of killing Claudius he in fact kills Polonius, which in turn leads to Laertes aim to avenge his fathers death, and leads to them conspiring in the fixed fencing match which is the last stand for Hamlet.
Another striking example of this instance of a tragedy of chance is within Act 4 during the voyage to England after Hamlet discovers that he was on his way to be murdered, and joins a pirate ship to be shipped back to Denmark to await his fate. This example if any shows how an external factor lead to the downfall of Hamlet, as he came back to develop the plot between himself and Claudius even more, as he could of stayed in England which would have diffused the situation.
This interpretation of Hamlet as a tragedy of chance reiterates the idea that the internal flaws and external forces interact with one another and the manner in which Hamlet’s flaws react to these forces are what causes his downfall.
Within ‘Hamlet’, Shakespeare creates a character who has been torn between his internal flaws and external forces, both of which he has no control over, and because of these two forces which entwine to add to his downfall, it cannot be concluded that Hamlet was completely to blame for his own downfall. His downfall was however due to the tragic relationship between these two forces and his inability to deal with is situation in light of these forces, which ultimately culminated in a noble man thrown into the depths of revenge which finished with his own death.
