Critical explanations for Hamlet's delay in avenging his father's death

Hamlet's delay in killing Claudius has been a subject of debate for as long as the play has been there. Critics and scholars have offered many different reasons for the delay in avenging the death of Denmark's King but none of these possible causes have received unanimous acceptance. While some have attributed the delay to Hamlet's ethical and moral values, as Samuel Johnson would write: "...Hamlet, represented as a virtuous character, is not content with taking blood for blood..." p.242. There are others who felt that the primary reason behind slow response was purely psychological. Samuel Taylor Cole ridge was one such critic who maintained that Hamlet's psychological makeup is to be understood in order to see why his actions were delayed. He argues against the ethical consideration point raised by Samuel Johnson and writes: "Dr. Johnson's mistaking of the marks of reluctance and procrastination for impetuous, horror-seeking, fiendishness!

Of such importance it is to understand the germ of a character." (p. 153)

Some feel that Hamlet may have refused to act quiicly because of practical difficulties involved in executing the murder. But this appears to be a rather flawed assumption because Hamlet himself tells us of his strength and will to commit the murder:

Sith I have cause, and will, and strength, and means to do't."(IV.iv.45)

It has also been said that Hamlet's delay was caused by doubt about Claudius's action or the motive of the ghost. It is seen that Hamlet does suspect the motives of the ghost when he wonders if it could be a devil trying to lure him to commit the hideous crime. But this doubt is soon settled during the play scene and Hamlet is still unsure of his reaction and leaves for England. Morality is also out of question as the possible cause because Hamlet feels no remorse or burden on his conscience when Rosencrantz and Guildenstern die. (V.ii.58) This shows that he fully understood the difference between killing an innocent man and killing an offender. Some may feel that Hamlet's delay was caused by his inability to kill. But that is not true again since he exhibits rather violent behavior on many occasions. He kills twice using his own sword and also sends his friends to the point of death. Hamlet is rather rough and crude in his behavior towards everyone including the girl he loves. The question is not of strength, will or ability. Hamlet is not indecisive either.

However the most convincing explanation offered by some is psychotic or depressive illness. Hamlet is a depressed person and exhibits all signs of serious melancholia, which taints his ability to take action. He knows what he wants to do but cannot carry through because of his depression, which robs a person of his strength to act. It is the third scene that we see Hamlet meeting the ghost that instructs him to act. But it is in the very last scene that he actually takes action. We accept that without this delay, there could have been no play. But his delay caused the death of seven people, which could have been avoided had Hamlet taken the action sooner. And with a playwright like Shakespeare, we can safely assume that he would at least offer some psychologically credible reason for the delay. Everyone would want to know what caused the delay and thus playwright must have had that in mind. While there are several explanations, we found depression to be the soundest cause of delay. The famous critic AC Bradley agreed with this and felt that Hamlet's serious melancholy caused the delay and also asked people to find out more about mental conditions. [Bradley: 121]. According to Beck (1997) depressive symptoms include consistently low mood, pessimistic thoughts, loss of excitement and decreased energy. These symptoms are found in Hamlet as well as he calls himself melancholic (II.ii.597) and confirms his condition further by saying:

But I have that within which passes show,

These but the trappings and the suits of woe. (I.ii.85-6)

Hamlet also tells us that he has lost excitement for life and people in general as he confides in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, saying nothing really excites or delights him anymore. (II.ii.295-309).

How weary, stale, flat and unprofitable

That ever I was born to set it right. (I.v.196-7)

He often feels guilty for not acting swiftly: "Do you not come your tardy son to chide?" (III.iv.106-9) and "How all occasions do inform against me..."IV.iv.32). Hamlet would also express guilt by chiding himself: "O what a rogue and peasant slave am I!" (II.ii.545-583)

These are signs of depression, which lead to indecision and passivity. A person during depression might want to do a lot but may fail to have the power to decide and take action. This depression was caused by the death of his father as some characters in the play attest to the transformation. Claudius says "what a noble mind is here o'erthrown" and Gertrude says, "my too much changed son." Hamlet is aware of his indecision and his lack of strength to take action as he says, "the native hue of resolution is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought."(III.i.84-5).

This is the one plausible cause of delay but since so many others have already been offered, it is not easy to decide exactly what caused the delay. It can be a single factor or could be a combination of a variety of factors. However the truth remains that it was the inaction and the delay that created requisite amount of excitement for the climax. If it had happened too early in the play, there would have been no play to begin with. On the whole, we can say with some degree of certainty that Hamlet's obvious madness whether it was feigned or real had a great deal of influence on his actions.