Hamlets Delay

It is hypothesised that Hamlet had many reasons for his delay in taking action; however, one particular theory makes the most logical sense and in which has the most evidence leaning in its direction: Hamlet meditated when he ought to have acted. It can be proven correct by a simple line such as And this the native hue of resolution is sicklied o’er the with the pale cast of thought (III, I, 85-86). Other evidence would be from the character foil of Fortinbras and Laertes with Hamlet; which it outlines Hamlets characteristics. There are also other theories that suggest another reason for Hamlets delay which can be disqualified because of hit-and-miss ideologies. After taking a look at one theory and its reason for not working, the wrong answer actually helps back up the solid theory.

Hamlet has to deal with his father’s death and his mothers too soon marriage to his father’s brother. After the ghost of his father comes from the grave, he tells Hamlet that Claudius has murdered him and that Hamlet must avenge his death. With this task daunting Hamlets mind he says And this the native hue of resolution is sicklied o’er the with the pale cast of thought (III, I, 85-86). Hamlet is saying that what if this does not work, and then what happens next is unexpected. He is worried about the consequences of his actions if he were to kill Claudius. Hamlet thinks very critically about the situation and why he must do this. This is shown during Hamlets soliloquy while Claudius is praying. Now might I do it pat, now he is praying; and now I’ll do’t: and so he goes to heaven: and I am so revenged. That would be scann’d (III, III, 74-76). The key word in this is scann’d for it means that the current situation should be considered carefully. The phrase summed up means that Hamlet could kill Claudius right there because he was praying: the perfect time to strike; however, if Hamlet were to kill him then Claudius would go to heaven. Hamlet could not let Claudius go there, and as angry as Hamlet was, Hamlet thought that he should think this thoroughly through as possible. After Hamlet was done analysing the situation he ends up going to see his mother and leaves Claudius to pray. Thus Hamlet meditated when he ought to have acted.

When you compare Hamlet with Laertes and Fortinbras in a sense of archetypes, Hamlet’s logical side is more apparent. Fortinbras is the chief. He is thoroughly determined to accomplish his goals, is tough and is born to lead. When his father, the King of Norway, died Fortinbras wanted to reclaim his father’s land that his father had lost to Denmark. He planned to regain this land as quick as he could so he assembled an army and took action of his plan. Laertes is classified as the warrior. A warrior acts with honour. When Laertes found out that his father and sister died, he wanted to restore their family honour and he reacted fairly quickly and would do anything to succeed. Hamlet on the other hand, is the philosopher. Here the philosopher acts calmly, only believes in hard facts and thinks issues out thoroughly. The philosopher does not act out, and if he were too he would analytically verbally act out. When compared to Laertes and Fortinbras, Hamlet is defiantly not the type of person to act out physically and is more likely to let his opportunity to pass while he is still contemplating every aspect of the situation.

Several numbers of people believe in different theories for Hamlet’s delay in reacting to the situation. Another theory suggested is that Hamlet was delayed because of external obstacles. This theory can be rejected in that there is one huge issue with it: he is the Prince and thus he had a great extent of power. Sure the King had a number of guards around him the majority of the time, it is still excusable because Hamlet could have ordered them away and the guards would have to comply with his orders. Even if the guards were around Claudius the vast amount of time, there are still some moments in which the King was by himself. The prime example would be when Claudius was in the church. It can be suggested that he was alone because he had confessed his involvement of killing his brother while having an affair with his wife. Claudius would not have risked any person to hear his crimes. In theory and evidence, the external obstacles would not have been an issue for Hamlet but rather suggest that Hamlet does not act upon incidences but thinks about them.

Hamlet meditated when he ought to have acted. It is as simple as that. Hamlet’s character type supports this theory because he is no warrior or chief, he is a philosopher in which he thinks things through and does not act upon issues physically. Sure throughout the play Hamlet does slay Polonius thinking that it was Claudius, and does end up killing Claudius in the very end but it was not a truly successful mission. If Hamlet did not hesitate to take charge of his father’s revenge then there would not have been as many casualties but he did succeed in his task, no matter the misfortune of others and his ultimate death himself.