Abstract： The puzzling inaction of Shakespeare’s Hamlet has for centuries fascinated people. In the thesis, the author thinks Hamlet’s indecision and delay in carrying out revenge are caused by both his nature and the social background.
Key words：Hamlet 1; Shakespeare 2; the delay of Hamlet 3
1 Preface
Shakespeare’s Hamlet has been aptly called the “Mona Lisa” of literature. The mysterious smile of Mona Lisa and Hamlet’s puzzling inaction have for centuries fascinated those who hoped to discover their essence and bring the secret core of their being to light. The comparison with Mona Lisa suggests the character of Hamlet is an impenetrable surface whose futures cover his deep essence. As a result, different critics have different views on Hamlet’s delay to revenge.
2 Arguments About Hamlet’s Delay
At first, it should be explicit that whether there is a delay in Hamlet’s revenge for his dead father or not. Some critics deny it. For example, Chen Jia in his book argues that the comments on Hamlet’s indecision and delay in carrying out revenge are “somewhat far-fetched and rather testify to their failure to appreciate Shakespeare’s ‘Modernity’” (154). Shakespeare’s ‘Modernity’, here Chen means, is the attempt to investigate into “the psychological depth of his central character instead of merely presenting the latter’s actions and words” as was the general practice of Shakespeare’s contemporary dramatist (154). That’s to say, Chen thinks that there is no Hamlet’s hesitation and dilatoriness in implementing vengeance, but a practice of the dramatist’s modernity.
However, most critics approve Hamlet’s delay. Viewing from the text itself, Hamlet really hesitates to carry out his plan. Firstly, the time between the ghost’s appearing for justice and Hamlet’s finally finishing revenge is actually very long. In Act Three, Scene Two, when Hamlet still thinks that his father just died “within’s two hours”, Ophelia reminds him that the King Hamlet has died “twice two months”（Shakespeare 51). Then in Scene Four within the same Act, the ghost appears once again and urges Hamlet to revenge for itself, while Hamlet is talking to the Queen. The ghost says to him its appearance is but to whet Hamlet’s “almost blunted purpose” (63). This indicates even the ghost can not wait any more, which therefore proves that Hamlet’s delay is really existing. Finally, in Act Four, Scene Four, Hamlet himself has realized his hesitation in action. He blames his own “craven scruple of thinking too precisely on the event” (71). So, in the whole process of revenge, Hamlet indeed delays to take action.
Though lots of critics agree on Hamlet’s delay in carrying out revenge, their interpretation of its reason are varied from each other. Those explanations can be clarified into two groups: one seeks for the reason from the character’s temperament or inner thought; the other from the objective environment the character is in. In the first group, critics, like William Hazlitt, A. C. Bradley, emphasize Hamlet’s character, and critics such as Nicholas Abraham and Ernest Jones from the theory of psychoanalysis to interpret Hamlet’s inaction. For William Hazlitt, Hamlet’s “ruling passion is to think, not to act” (167). As result, any vague excuse that flatters this inclination will diverts him from his previous purpose. The more he thinks, the more he becomes puzzled. Finally, the chance for his killing the King is lost. As for A. C. Bradley, the reason for the tragic results of Hamlet’s delay is his “melancholy”, which accounts for his inaction. After experiencing attacks mentally, Hamlet is filled with disgust at life and everything in it, himself included. That leads to his sinking into weary apathy. Such a state of feeling is inevitably adverse to any kind of decided action.
In Ernest Jones’ view, Hamlet’s delay is because of his “Oedipus complex”: he loves his mother, which was buried since infancy, and satisfies to see his father dead. In reality, his uncle substitutes for Hamlet to murder his father, which Hamlet would like to do but dares not to. Claudius “incorporates the deepest and most buried part of his own personality, so that he cannot kill him without also killing himself” (Jones 205). In such a state of psychology, he naturally hesitates his carrying out revenge. Nicholas Abraham’s essay “The Phantom of Hamlet” is also infused with the idea of psychoanalysis. He thinks that Hamlet’s hesitation has an unconscious psychological basis. Abraham argues that Hamlet indeed desires to act, but it has been thwarted by something mysterious. The source of Hamlet’s behavior is not himself but the secret influence of the other, which is the phantom of Hamlet.
However, different from those critics mentioned before, Critics such as Phillip Goldstein and Fredson Bowers interpret Hamlet’s delay from the social perspective. For Phillip Goldstein, he analyses in details the social forces that lead to Hamlet’s delay: religious fear that the ghost may be a devil; new ethics that Elizabethan authority condemned private revenge; political requirements that a successor to the throne should prove to his subjects that he possesses royal virtues. All these restrict Hamlet to take action instantly before an appropriate occasion. From the religious aspect, Fredson Bowers argues that Hamlet’s delay is caused by “Hamlet as minister waiting on the expected opportunity [to kill Claudius] which should be provided him [by God], and not finding it” (745). Hamlet as “minister” will perform an act of divine retribution in killing Claudius for his murder of old Hamlet, which is an act of public justice (as indeed it is at the end of the play).
The two groups of critics stress either on the character’s psychic factors or on the social ones. Just analyzing Hamlet’s delay from his nature or subconsciousness, those critics ignore the objective reality the Hamlet is in. The second just relating Hamlet’s dilatoriness to the social background will lose the mastery of the beauty of the text itself. This paper will combine the two to interpret Hamlet’s delay again.
3 Hamlet’s Delay Caused by His Nature and the Social Background
At first, it should be admitted that Hamlet’s thoughtfulness is one reason of his inaction in carrying out revenge. Because Hamlet is one who would like to distances himself from society, especially after his father’s death, he has more time to examine his thoughts, motives, and doubts as well as his opportunities to act.
In the play, after confirming Claudius’ crime, Hamlet loses at least two important chances of killing the King: in the scenes where Hamlet performs a play with a group of actors, and where the King is praying. In the two occasions, Hamlet should have ended Claudius’ life with his sword, but he does not. For the first chance, he could have unmasked Claudius during the play performed by those players. However, in fact, before the play, he told Horatio that “After we will both our judgments join/ In censure of his seeming” (50). That’s to say, before his action, Hamlet wants to find enough evident to demonstrate King Claudius’ crime, including those got both from himself and Horatio. His thoughtfulness leads to his overall consideration of every thing he tries to achieve. In the latter chance, he says to himself, “am I then revenge/ To take him in the purging of his soul,/ when he is fit and seasoned for his passage” (60)? The chance is just in front of him; however, he thinks of his evilness to kill a man who is praying. After his finishing reflection, he misses his chance. From this, it is known that in action Hamlet is thoughtful, unless he has no time to reflect as in the scenes where he kills Polonius, and where he alters the letters, which Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are taking with them to England, purporting his death.
However, except of that, actually, Hamlet lacks confidence, which is the result of the social factors. If he really takes action to revenge instantly, it means Hamlet himself will succeed the throne and next govern the whole country as a King. In fact, Hamlet is fearing and worrying of the aftermath of revenge, which is the main reason for his delay to take action. He is clear that killing the King means his succeeding the throne himself and undertaking responsibility of restoring order. If he manages to finish the first step, he has to face the second and the third. Hamlet is not so confident and sure of it, because the world Hamlet lives in his time is, in his own words, “out of joint” (25).
Educated at Wittenberg, Hamlet undoubtedly has accepted some new thoughts, which make him often to think about social and political problems at that time. In the play, Hamlet expresses his dissatisfaction for the social atmosphere many times. For example, he once said to Guildenstern, “Denmark’s a prison” and the world is “a good one; in which there are many confines, wards, and dungeons, Denmark being one o’ the worst” (35). The whole world, including his own country Denmark, in Hamlet’s eyes, is so corrupted and repressed that he has to compare it with prison, the most disgusting for human beings. Later in the same Scene, he sees the earth as “a sterile promontory,” the majestical palace as “a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours” (36). What’s worse, the most unbearable thing for Hamlet is his mother’s remarrying his uncle who murdered the old King Hamlet, which Hamlet thinks as the most brazen incest. The moral corruption in the Queen and the present King suggests that of the whole Denmark society.
Besides, the hypocrisy, indifference, lust and cruelty flood in people’s heart. There is lacking of basic honest and trust among people. Treating is everywhere. For example, once being the best friends of Hamlet, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern just get close to him purposefully and deceive him, since they become spies of the King. As friends of Hamlet, they care not of the health of Hamlet, but of how much contribution they do for the King, which could help their promotion.
This is “an unweeded garden/ That grows to seed” (11). Facing with such a world, though Hamlet feels it is his responsibility to “set it right” (25), at the same time he is unwilling to take it, therefore, finds the pretext of lacking preparation and time. Hamlet is short of confidence to govern the whole country and recover the order of it after his revenge, which causes his delay again and again. Because the whole society at his time is so corrupted, the thoughtful Prince unavoidably inclines to relate the outside world to his own action. The more he thinks of the degraded world, the more he feels finishing the task is beyond his ability, but avoids it as possible as he can. Though he finally he kills the King, it is because he realizes his death is almost within reach and he needs not to be afraid of the aftermath of revenge.
Bibliography
[1] Abraham, Nicolas. “The Phantom of Hamlet.” The Shell and the Kernel, ed. and trans. Nicholas Rand. Chicago: The U of Chicago P, 1994, 187-190.
[2] Bowers, Fredson. “Hamlet as Minister and Scourge.” PLMA 70, 4, (1955): 740-749.
[3] Bradley, A. C.. “What Actually Happens in the Play.” Hoy 169-175.
[4] Chen Jia. “Mature Period of Shakespeare’s Play: Hamlet.” A History of English Literature, Volume 1. Beijing: The Commercial P, 1982, 150-155.
[5] Goldstein, Philip. “Hamlet: Not a World of His Own.” Shakespeare Studies 13 (1980): 71-83.
[6] Hazlitt, William. “Characters of Shakespeare’s Play: Hamlet.” Hoy 164-169.
Hoy, Cyrus, ed. A Norton Critical Edition of William Shakespeare’s Hamlet. New York: Norton Company, 1992.
[7] Jones, Ernest. “Tragedy and the Mind of the Infant.” Hoy 200-207.
[8] Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Hoy 1-101.
作者简介：骆菀如（1989-）， 女， 湖南省株洲市人，助教，文学硕士，主要研究方向为英美文学、英语教学。