Hamlet's Delay in Killing Claudius

Shakespeare's Hero, Elizabethan Society and Distrust of Ghosts

Oct 8, 2008

Hamlet is a truly heroic figure. But the challenge to any director of the play is to explain Hamlet's delay in killing Claudius without undermining Hamlet's status.

Critics from the Romance era, such as Coleridge, and indeed critics in the Victorian era suggested that Hamlet’s delay in killing Claudius is a problem of his own personality and that his indecision, by implication, is an inherent fault.

However, modern critics take a different stance, and are wary of talking of Hamlet as if he was a real person but, instead, think of him as a theatrical device through which events are played out. One of the largest of these devices in Hamlet is the ghost of Hamlet’s father, and it is this that we must examine to try and find a reason for Hamlets delay in killing Claudius.

Acknowledging the Ghost

Hamlet has to actually acknowledge the ghost of his dead father. We, as a modern audience, assume that it is a full embodiment of monarchical authority as we know, with hindsight, that it tells the truth. But Hamlet is more skeptical than this, due to the inbuilt Elizabethan distrust of ghosts. Society believed that spirits were either good or bad, and that good spirits visiting the earth no longer existed.

A ghost, therefore, was seen as a tempter into evil and here, it moves under the stage, a theatrical creation of Hell, creating an aura of the diabolic. Hamlet is being asked to damn himself by obeying the ghost, so it is understandable that he will not immediately react to its orders until he has tested out the accusations for himself.

From the beginning, a sense of foreboding is created around the ghost by the two sentries changing watch. They decide that it looks like the dead king – not that it is the spirit of the king. In fact, Horatio believes it is an evil power, asking it:

The ghost actually appears offended when charged in Heaven’s name as it becomes irritated and uneasy, suggesting that Hamlet is right in initially doubting the ghost’s words and even indulging in the possibility that he may have imagined the ghost. This gains substance from the Elizabethan belief that ghosts can afflict the brain of the person to whom it appears, and the wariness, therefore, of Hamlet seems logical.

Doctrine and Hamlet's Reluctance to Kill

According to Protestant teaching of the time, if a ghost appeared to the melancholy and at midnight, as this one does to Hamlet, then it could be an agent of the Devil. However, Catholic doctrine stated that the ghost could be an apparition of the dead person. If that was the case, then the ghost’s words could be true and not be those of the Devil, trying to tempt Hamlet. Although a bad spirit is said to be angry, the one here has:

and so could be an apparition of the dead king. Due to such a great deal of ambiguity surrounding the ghost, therefore, Hamlet is forced into a situation whereby all he can realistically do for the time being is procrastinate for his own safety and sanity.

Personal and Political Ethics

The ghost is telling Hamlet, in effect, to commit murder, political rebellion and regicide. This was seen in a complex way by Elizabethans, and, indeed, by modern society. Although revenge is a natural, common instinct, no society can let this instinct run rampant. Revenge is therefore portrayed negatively, even when the avenger appears justified.

A debate exists over whether the ghost’s commands are morally binding or not. Eighteenth and nineteenth-century critics seem to have thought so. As Prosser indicates, these older critics believed that revenge for a member of the family was an undeniable duty. However, Elizabethan ethic dictated rather differently, forbidding private revenge as it was thought to usurp God’s authority. Poor Hamlet is very much stuck between his own private feelings once the ghost has told him Claudius murdered his father, and the conflicting orthodox ones of Elizabethan society.

In conclusion, the hero’s delay in killing his stepfather, the new king, has its roots set deep in the Elizabethan superstition, doctrine and conventions of society. By portraying Hamlet’s reluctance to kill Claudius, a director must ensure that the audience realises that Hamlet has more to consider than just his own personal vengeance. For a modern audience, surrounded by moral and social choices constantly, Hamlet should indeed be easily seen and sympathised with as a tormented, but totally heroic figure.

Footnotes

Bibliography

W. Dyson Wood, Hamlet, from a Psychological Point of View, AMS Press Inc, 1972

Roland Mushat Frye, The Renaissance Hamlet – Issues and Responses in 1600, Princeton University Press, 1984

Ed. Harold Bloom, William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Chelsea House Publishers, 1986.

The copyright of the article Hamlet's Delay in Killing Claudius in British/UK Fiction is owned by Claire Cowling. Permission to republish Hamlet's Delay in Killing Claudius in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.