Hamlet's Delay in Revenge: Depression as the Cause
This essay examines the long-debated question of why Hamlet delays avenging his father's murder. It surveys the major critical explanations—moral virtue, psychological makeup, practical difficulty, doubt about the ghost's motives, and incapacity for violence—before arguing that none of these fully accounts for the delay. Drawing on critics such as Samuel Johnson, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, and A. C. Bradley, as well as clinical descriptions of depression from Beck (1997), the essay makes the case that Hamlet's melancholia is the most plausible and psychologically coherent explanation. Textual evidence from throughout the play—including Hamlet's confessions of weariness, loss of excitement, suicidal ideation, and self-reproach—is used to support the diagnosis and connect it directly to his prolonged inaction.
- Introduction: The Debate Over Hamlet's Delay: Critical debate over causes of Hamlet's revenge delay
- Rejected Explanations for the Delay: Morality, doubt, and incapacity ruled out
- The Case for Depression and Melancholia: Depression presented as most convincing explanation
- Textual Evidence of Hamlet's Depressive Symptoms: Play passages confirm melancholy and suicidal ideation
- Conclusion: Delay, Madness, and the Shape of the Play: Delay as dramatic necessity; madness shapes the play
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- It systematically eliminates competing explanations before advancing its own thesis, giving the argument a clear, logical structure that is easy to follow.
- It grounds its literary analysis in both established Shakespeare criticism (Bradley, Johnson, Coleridge) and a clinical framework (Beck's depressive symptoms), lending the central claim interdisciplinary support.
- It supports each claim with direct textual quotation from the play, tying abstract psychological analysis back to concrete dramatic evidence.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates refutation before assertion: rather than stating its thesis at the outset and defending it alone, it first surveys and dismisses rival interpretations (moral virtue, practical difficulty, doubt, incapacity), then introduces depression as the remaining, best-supported explanation. This technique strengthens credibility by showing awareness of the critical conversation.
Structure breakdown
The essay opens by framing the critical debate and introducing two foundational critics (Johnson and Coleridge). It then works through four rejected explanations in sequence. The central section introduces depression as the thesis and marshals A. C. Bradley and Beck's clinical criteria as supporting frameworks. A sustained close-reading section applies those criteria to specific passages. The conclusion acknowledges the interpretive difficulty while affirming that Hamlet's melancholy—whether or not feigned—shapes the entire play's dramatic arc.
Introduction: The Debate Over Hamlet's Delay
Hamlet's delay in killing Claudius has been a subject of debate for as long as the play has existed. Critics and scholars have offered many different reasons for the delay in avenging the death of Denmark's king, yet none of these explanations has received unanimous acceptance. While some have attributed the delay to Hamlet's ethical and moral values — as Samuel Johnson wrote, "Hamlet, represented as a virtuous character, is not content with taking blood for blood" (p. 242) — others felt that the primary reason behind his slow response was purely psychological.
Samuel Taylor Coleridge was one such critic, maintaining that Hamlet's psychological makeup must be understood in order to see why his actions were delayed. He argues against the ethical explanation raised by 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).
Rejected Explanations for the Delay
Some feel that Hamlet may have refused to act quickly because of the practical difficulties involved in executing the murder. This appears to be a rather flawed assumption, however, because Hamlet himself tells us of his strength and will to commit the act: "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 guilt or the motives of the ghost. Hamlet does suspect the ghost's motives, wondering whether it could be a devil trying to lure him into committing a hideous crime. Yet this doubt is settled during the play-within-the-play scene, and Hamlet is still unable to act decisively — and subsequently leaves for England. Morality is equally unconvincing as a cause, since Hamlet feels no remorse when Rosencrantz and Guildenstern die (V.ii.58), which demonstrates that he fully understood the difference between killing an innocent man and killing an offender.
Some may argue that Hamlet's delay was caused by an inability to kill. This is also unsupported by the text: he exhibits violent behavior on numerous occasions, kills twice with his own sword, and sends his companions to their deaths. He is rough and at times cruel toward nearly everyone, including the woman he loves. The question is not one of strength, will, or ability, and Hamlet is not simply indecisive.
The Case for Depression and Melancholia
The most convincing explanation, offered by several critics, is that Hamlet suffers from a psychotic or depressive illness. Hamlet is a deeply depressed individual who exhibits all the signs of serious melancholia, which undermines his capacity for action. He knows what he must do but cannot follow through, because depression robs a person of the energy to act. It is in the third scene that Hamlet meets the ghost and receives his charge; it is only in the very last scene that he finally acts. Without this delay there could have been no play — yet the delay costs seven lives that might have been saved had he acted sooner.
With a playwright of Shakespeare's stature, we can safely assume that he intended a psychologically credible reason for the delay. The famous critic A. C. Bradley agreed, arguing that Hamlet's serious melancholy caused the inaction and urging readers to explore mental conditions more deeply (Bradley, p. 121). According to Beck (1997), depressive symptoms include consistently low mood, pessimistic thoughts, loss of excitement, and decreased energy — all of which are evident in Hamlet. He calls himself melancholic (II.ii.597) and confirms his condition when he says:
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 for people in general, confiding in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern that nothing really excites or delights him anymore (II.ii.295–309):
How weary, stale, flat and unprofitable
Seem to me all the uses of this world! (I.ii.133–4)
Conclusion: Delay, Madness, and the Shape of the Play
Depression is the one plausible cause of delay, but since so many other explanations have already been offered, it is not easy to determine exactly what caused Hamlet's inaction. It may be a single factor, or it may be a combination of factors working together. What remains clear is that it was precisely this inaction and delay that generated the dramatic tension necessary for the play's climax. Had Hamlet acted too early, there would have been no play at all. On the whole, we can say with some degree of certainty that Hamlet's apparent madness — whether feigned or real — had a profound influence on his actions and on the shape of the tragedy as a whole.
References
Bradley, A. C. Shakespearean Tragedy (2nd ed.). New York: St. Martin's Press, 1924.
Beck, P. Symptoms and assessment of depression. In Paykel, E. S. (Ed.), Handbook of Affective Disorders (2nd ed.). Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1997.
Johnson, S. On Shakespeare. London: Penguin, 1989.
Coleridge, S. T. Writings on Shakespeare. New York: Capricorn, 1959.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.