The eternal question: Why does Hamlet procrastinate?
"Why does Hamlet procrastinate" is a question that has been asked, it seems, from the very beginning of Hamlet scholarship. I'd like to discuss this by posting some of what is becoming an essay on Hamlet and his character within the play...
To put it simply, as I see it, Hamlet procrastinates simply because he's not a murderer. He is, instead, a "new" type of hero whom Shakespeare first invented.
To see the dilemma, we have to understand the roots of the play by looking briefly at earlier versions of this revenge-motive story, called by many scholars as the "ur-Hamlet". It's via these early versions that we can see how Shakespeare works his genius.
Early "Hamlets" were popular for many years before. These plays were essentially melodramas, not actual dramas. When we see an action thriller on TV or the movies, it's listed as "drama" but it's actually "melodrama", by definition a shoot-em-up story, like the Die Hard franchise. In the ur-Hamlets, we've got Hamlet just returning from leading Denmark's troops into battle, and comes home to find the usual, father dead, mother marrying his uncle, usurping him from his rightful throne. The ghost visits, tells all, and the rest of the play is generally one swordfight after another, a running battle between Hamlet's forces and Claudius', culminating in the expected bloodbath. There is no procrastination, no hesitation. just combat.
To understand how amazingly Shakespeare transforms an action melodrama into a genuine drama, we need to compare Hamlet with Laertes.
In "our" Hamlet, Laertes is essentially what Hamlet's character was in the ur-Hamlet plays. And Hamlet is transformed into a newly moral hero, full of doubt and hesitation, as would any educated, thoughtful person.
Look at Laertes' school: Paris. I'm guessing his classes include Lute, Poetry 101, Philosophy, and Fencing, but he had to drop Philosophy due to his heavy social schedule. And Hamlet? Wittenberg. Even in Shakespeare's time, Wittenberg was a university famous for philosophy and advanced learning. So instead of returning from the wars, Hamlet is coming home from grad school at a highly prestigious university. He's a scholar.
Laertes is a mirror image of an earlier version of Hamlet. Consider this parallel: In Act 5, Claudius asks Laertes what he'd do to someone who'd murdered his father."Cut his throat in the church" is the reply.
But Hamlet has already precisely had this opportunity, "Now might I do it..." and yet he defers.
I maintain that the question by Claudius is intentionally a clue by Shakespeare that sets up a comparison between the two characters, one "old" hero, the other a "new" hero.
The true climax of the play is a scene sadly omitted from many productions, but it's essential. It's when Hamlet is being escorted by R&G to "England" and pauses to chat with a military leader about an upcoming battle. Hamlet learns that the ground over which the fight will occur is paltry and worthless, yet more will be killed than room to bury them on that ground. And in his great "How occasions to inform against me and spur my dull revenge" speech, Hamlet compares himself to these brave soldiers.
Well, I think that Shakespeare has deliberately stacked the deck here. He shows us the futility of mindless bloodshed, Laertes style, and we now see the newly defined Hamlet-style hero. Rational, moral, certainly capable of killing (as most of us are, self defense or in war) but certainly not capable of cold murder.
Your thoughts?
