Why Does Hamlet Delay?

Hamlet coursework Stephanie Ko, L6

WHY DOES HAMLET DELAY?

Is it possible to take reasonable, effective and purposeful action? In Hamlet, the question of how to act is affected not only by logical considerations, such as the need for certainty, but also by emotional, ethical, and psychological factors. This in turn affects how the revenge is carried out.

If we view Hamlet as a ‘real’ person in the context of Elsinore then one of the reasons why Hamlet delays taking revenge on Claudius may be because he needs to test the veracity of the Ghost. The Ghost tells Hamlet of his murder and demands revenge when he says “Revenge his foul and most unnatural murder” in Act I scene iv. Hamlet’s initial reaction is to act quickly,

“Haste me to know’t, that I, with wings as swift

As meditation or the thoughts of love,

May sweep to my revenge”

(I.4.33-35)

whether it may be because he disapproves of Claudius marrying his mother or through a sense of duty and obligation. However by Act II scene i he expresses his feelings of doubt about the Ghost: “the spirit I may have seen may be a devil”. This concern leads to Hamlet adopting his ‘antic disposition’ and using the players in ‘The Mousetrap’ to confirm Claudius’ guilt. Therefore only in Act III scene ii is Hamlet convinced and comments to Horatio “I’ll take the Ghost’s word for a thousand pound”.

While a modern audience might find Hamlet’s motivation for this ‘delay’ difficult to understand, especially in comparison to Laertes and Fortinbras who act almost immediately after the news of their fathers’ death, a contemporary audience would have been aware of Hamlet’s need for a ‘delay’. The reason for their understanding is because of their own fears of the supernatural. Another example of fear of the supernatural in a Shakespearean play occurs in Macbeth: the Witches’ spirits deceptively suggest Kingship to Macbeth as he misinterprets their ambiguity. Even after Banquo’s warning about the witches that:

“The instruments of darkness tell us truths;

Win us with honest trifles, to betray’s

In deepest consequence”

(I.3.132-134)

Macbeth does not realize until it is too late and that he has been “paltered with in a double sense” by the powers of evil.

Therefore the audience watching Hamlet would have similar views on the supernatural, not only understanding Hamlet’s need for proof but also creating empathy between audience and character at the same time.

Another way in which viewing Hamlet as ‘real’ in the context of Elsinore might explain Hamlet’s delay occurs in Act III scene iii. Hamlet has an opportunity to kill Claudius but chooses not to because if he ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

In deepest consequence”

(I.3.132-134)

Macbeth does not realize until it is too late and that he has been “paltered with in a double sense” by the powers of evil.

“To take him in the purging of his soul,

When he is fit and season’d for his passage?

No”.

(III.3.88-90)

A contemporary audience would understand that Hamlet does not want to ensure Claudius’ eternal salvation so this ‘delay’ also allows more drama to take place, such as the death of Polonius and Ophelia’s madness. In fact, as well as allowing more action to take place, the ‘delay’ allows Shakespeare to reflect upon ‘acceptable’ religious concerns which are expressed through Hamlet’s soliloquies. An ‘acceptable’ religious reason which could justify Hamlet is:

“Why, this is hire and salary, not revenge.”

(III.3.82)

This is simple justice for Claudius; not revenge but merely payment.

Another explanation for Hamlet’s apparent delay requires an understanding of the literary context in which Hamlet was written i.e. a contemporary audience would have expected a delay because they would know that Hamlet is following a certain pattern of behaviour based upon the experiences of characters in other revenge tragedies at the time such as The Spanish Tragedy by Thomas Kyd. The protagonist, the synonymous ‘Hamlet’ figure, has to establish the nature of the crime before acting upon the central villain, Lorenzo. When the truth is disclosed, revenge is delayed yet again because of expectations from the audience for intrigue, violence and romance. All this is shown in Hamlet through Hamlet’s antic disposition, his relationship with Ophelia, Claudius’ relationship with Gertrude, the murder of Polonius and the voyage on the pirate ship. Therefore a contemporary audience would have looked forward to a ‘delay’.

A modern audience, on the other hand, might not be able to understand what a ‘delay’ accomplishes: bloodshed, sexual intrigue and action. Therefore an analogy can be drawn with a modern audience going to see a martial arts movie: the audience goes to see it with expectations that the villain will be defeated and the martial arts expert, the hero, will save the day. As clichéd as it may sound, the movie will not be popular unless the hero has achieved his aim: defeated the villain, after appearing to be defeated.

Modern critics, particularly since the 20th century, have tried to prove that Hamlet ‘delays’ by psychoanalyzing him. They do not see Hamlet as ‘real’ in context of Elsinore but ‘real’ in human terms. They have come to the conclusion that Hamlet’s ‘delay’ is derived from his nature. In this context, one aspect of Hamlet’s nature that accounts for the apparent delay is his fear of acting: Hamlet does not take action despite being told by the Ghost in Act I scene iv until Act V scene ii when his own life is being threatened. Even in the end, we are unsure of Hamlet’s reason for acting; whether he is avenging the death of his father, the death of his mother or merely acting in self protection.

Critics and players who have taken Hamlet out of a literary context have also suggested that Hamlet may merely be a coward i.e he is too afraid to act and so, searches for reasons not to kill Claudius e.g. the Ghost’s integrity, melancholy, religious and moral principles and “madness”. All these are symptoms of procrastination which were caused by cowardice. This is then verified by his distrust towards the Ghost and Ophelia’s purity, anger over his mother’s marriage to Claudius and his mocking attitudes towards Rosencrantz and Guildenstern that Hamlet is indeed a coward and melancholic.

Although he is undeniably committed to seeking revenge for his father, he cannot act on behalf of his father due to his cowardly character. Hamlet's third soliloquy uncovers the very essence of Hamlet's true conflict. In this soliloquy Hamlet asks himself, “Am I a coward?” which is derived from a simple judgment revolving on whether or not he has yet taken any action against the man who murdered his father. He hopes that his irrationalness will stop his better judgment and he will then be able to kill Claudius without hesitation. But Hamlet again fails to kill Claudius because of his habit of “thinking too precisely on th’event" (4.4.43).

Another 20th Century explanation for Hamlet’s ‘delay’ centres on the Oedipus complex. Freud suggests that every man would like to kill their father and sleep with their mother. In this light, Hamlet subconsciously sees a reflection of himself in Claudius and if he does kill Claudius, he will be condemning himself.

Last, but not least, are modern critics who do not see a delay in Hamlet at all. Instead, they look at what Shakespeare makes of the ‘delay’. By ‘delaying’ the revenge, we are able to see Hamlet transform from a man of inaction to a man of action. When we first see Hamlet in Act I scene ii his character is one of malcontent and suicidal even before knowledge of his father’s murder:

“Nor customary suits of solemn black,

Nor windy suspiration of forc’d breath,

No, nor the fruitful river in the eye,

Nor the dejected haviour of the visage”

(I.2.80-83)

This is an acute sign of his dejected character. Although he remains as a man of reason, he is also one of discontent, as shown in his famous soliloquy, ‘To be, or not to be’ in Act III scene i. In this speech, he examines the problem of whether or not to commit suicide and balance the moral ramifications of living and dying. Hamlet knows that if he takes revenge, he will die. ‘To live, or not to live’ is what Hamlet is asking i.e. whether it is nobler to suffer life passively or to actively seek to end his suffering:

“Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer

The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,

Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,

And by opposing end them?”

(III.1.64-67)

This indecisive speech clearly shows that Hamlet is still a man of malcontent, despair and indecisiveness.

However, as the play progresses, we see another side of Hamlet surface-and that is his role as the ‘revenger’. The ‘delay’ gives Hamlet five acts for him to transform and we do not see this active side of Hamlet until after his return from England. Yet, even before his departure we see an attempt to portray a brutal avenger:

“Now could I drink hot blood

And do such bitter business as the day

Would quake to look on”

(III.2.396-398)

But when Hamlet returns from England, he has not only transformed into the ‘revenger’ but has transformed into “Hamlet the Dane”:

“This is I,

Hamlet the Dane.”

(V.1.263-264)

Hamlet is now sure of who he is and what he is supposed to do. From that moment on, the play moves swiftly and constantly. Even though, ironically, he does not appear to be concerned about taking revenge.

I believe that Shakespeare did not make a ‘delay’ intentional but instead, uses Hamlet’s five act procrastination to make his audience, whether it may be a contemporary or modern one, more aware of what an apparent ‘delay’ brings. The most obvious and probably most important consequence is Hamlet’s transformation from a man of cowardice, indecisiveness and melancholy to a man of action and self-worth- and this is what Shakespeare would like us to see.