What, in your opinion, were Hamlet's reasons for delaying the killing of the King in Shakespeare's 'Hamlet'?

Authors Avatar

Q. What, in your opinion, were Hamlet’s reasons for delaying the killing of the King in Shakespeare’s ‘Hamlet’?

A.        Revenge tragedies have captivated audiences worldwide long before the time of Shakespeare. In reality Hamlet - supposedly a Shakespeare original – has its roots in the celebrated Danish story of Amleth from the twelfth Century. Critics have also drawn many conclusions that ‘Hamlet’ was a re-make or Shakespeare’s version of Thomas Kyd’s famous ‘The Spanish Tragedy’.

Like ‘The Spanish Tragedy’ and the many other revenge tragedies of that time, Hamlet too consisted of the stock conventions of revenge tragedies like the ghost, the crime done in secret, the play-within-the-play, a male lead who stimulates madness and a heroine who goes mad and commits suicide. Yet there was and is something very different about the tale of ‘Hamlet’. This play has managed to keep audiences and critics alike questioning themselves and the world around them. Hamlet’s delay in the killing of the King is another aspect that make ‘Hamlet’ one of the most intriguing plays that explore human nature.

Revenge tragedies, especially the ones about murder were extremely popular with the Elizabethan audience. This was more or less because they were forbidden to commit revenge, let alone murder, in their lives. The church forbade it and it was silently agreed upon that if the revenge seeker pursued his aim then he must die too. This is why all the revenge tragedies of that time concluded with the protagonist dying.

To me it seems as if Hamlet has been continually delaying avenging his father’s murder. Ideas of mere procrastination surface when Hamlet is compared to the young Prince Fortinbras. Fortinbras is in a parallel situation where his father was killed in combat and his uncle has taken over the throne. When he makes up his mind to take revenge and get back the land his father lost to King Hamlet in combat he actually acts on the idea. He gathers an army and is ready to attack Denmark even for the most worthless piece of land. But when it comes to Hamlet we see that he is not even able to devise a proper plan.

Hamlet’s reasons may probably be more spiritual and emotional than physical but one glaring problem was definitely his political and social standing. He was the son of the late King – the son who should have been crowned King after his father’s death. Claudius mentions this, in front of all his courtiers by saying 

‘for let the world take note / You are the most immediate to our throne’

As Claudius is a smooth talker it sounds as if he is actually telling Hamlet that he need not worry and that he, being the prince, will get the throne some day and he would just have to wait because he is simply next in line. Underlining this superficial meaning, Claudius is really warning Hamlet. He is silently drawing his attention to the fact that he [Hamlet] would be the first to blame if anything happened to the king. In fact he is almost daring Hamlet to try and harm him.

Also, Denmark of that time was plentiful with corruption. Everywhere Hamlet looked there were people spying or bribing, murdering or deceiving. Hamlet could not be sure of who was or was not his friend. Everyone seemed to want to get on the King’s good side and tried to flatter him with false praise-

Join now!

But we both obey, /And here give up ourselves in the full bent/To lay our service freely at your feet/To be commanded’

 There was no way Hamlet could even risk telling the courtiers about this because they would surely tell the King, to get on his good side.

The question of Kingship leads us to the concept of the Divine right of kings. Although the courtiers’ flattery may seem exaggerated and blown-up to modern day readers, it must be noted that this was exactly how the people of that day felt about the King who was-‘That spirit upon whose weal ...

This is a preview of the whole essay