The Delay Of Denmark

THE DELAY OF DENMARK

Prince Hamlet of Denmark began a torturing tramp to revenge that literally drove him down the highway, up the sidewalk and to the very front door of murder. Though his desire is quite insatiable and unquenchable, it was not initiated of his own accord. He was petitioned by the tormented ghost of his dead father to avenge the murder that was so unfairly forced up on him. Yet even though most people would assume the deed for vengeance would have been quickly signed and consummated, it took what seemed like a maddening eternity; full of tangent tragedies and unrelated deaths for any type of action to be taken. Simply put, Hamlet took the definite road of delayed gratification as far as the death of his treacherous uncle Claudius is concerned. Though a reason such as delayed gratification would suffice in explaining why Hamlet did not proceed earlier in taking the life of his father's brother, it offers to quick of a fix. What other motives might have been present? What else could Hamlet have gained by abstaining from the consuming urge that ultimately drove him to murder? Maybe he questioned the trustworthiness of his "ghost dad." Perhaps there were others he felt needed to be dealt with first. Others Like, his mother Gertrude maybe? There is even the possibility that young Hamlet simply was not the killing type, and the thought of rashly taking another man's life scared him. Some may entertain the idea that Hamlet postponed acting on his charge because he feared the repercussions it might have on his relationship with Ophelia. It is clear Hamlet did not act ridiculously and kill Claudius out in some abandoned wing of the Castle. But why didn't he simply did kill Claudius at the first opportune moment? Let us take a moment and analyze the possible motives for any delay on Hamlet's part.

There is a term I've come to know called delayed gratification. By definition, it means abstaining from immediate pleasure, in hopes that the longer period of waiting for whatever your desire increases the satisfaction received when you do indulge. This same principle could apply to Hamlet. Francis Bacon said that revenge is sort of a wild justice, and he asserted that taking revenge in secret brings no type of real rectification; but real justice is realized when it is done in public. There is a great number of people who simply say Hamlet waited in killing Claudius because he wanted to publicly humiliate him. By allowing his emotions, hurt, anger and feelings of betrayal to fester(though it drives him insane), Hamlet attributes to the cause of his revenge. He justifies himself. Certainly it would bring a sense of justice to Hamlet, knowing there were others who witnessed the full fledged reaping of the murderous seed sowed by Claudius. This type of a public setting takes planning, and direction. It just doesn't happen spontaneously. For this reason, Hamlet had no choice but to wait for the perfect moment when the gathered eyes of the judgmental, and often sympathetic public were fixed on him.

Take a moment and consider this situation. If your dead father, who has been deceased for four months, mysteriously appears, says he's been murdered by his brother, and wants you to avenge his death, what would you do? Doubt! It would not make any kind of sense at all for Hamlet to up and off Claudius because of the sudden appearance of a ghost crying murder. Claudius could have been completely innocent. Up until that point, Hamlet in now way considered the death of his father to be the result of foul play. He was merely in his period of mourning, maybe even a little bit perplexed at the seemingly unresponsive nature of his noble counterparts towards the death of the king. Even the ghost himself admits he must be gone by morning, which I'm sure set of quite a bit of warning lights in Hamlet's mind. It was believed in Hamlet's time, and still believed today, that ghosts of evil intention operate at night time, and cannot stand daylight. Young Hamlet undoubtedly struggled with the idea of taking this ghost seriously. He was confused, alone, and depressed. This sudden appearance of a wronged spirit could have quite possibly been a figment of his imagination, or an attempt on behalf of his psyche to deal with the trauma that was thrust upon him.

Also consider this. At no point in the play was there a reference to the nature of the relationship between Hamlet senior and his son. Now because Hamlet ends up agreeing to do the bidding of his dead father, we naturally assume he willingly chose to embark on the vengeful endeavor. With that said I pose this question. How accurate of an assumption is that? Is it possible that maybe King Hamlet was a tyrannically insane man? We already know that he seemingly without regard killed another man, simply for sport. It seems to be definitely possible that this type of mindset transferred into his personal life. For all we know, King Hamlet could have been the kind of father who constantly abuses his family, verbally, emotionally, and physically. Is it possible that Hamlet didn't immediately go and kill Claudius because maybe he had no desire to be obedient in any way to his maniacally abusive father? Definitely. It's unlikely, but definitely a possibility.

If I may, allow me create another scenario by posing another question. How insane is it to purpose that Hamlet did not kill Claudius immediately, because he really had no hitch with him? It's preposterous right? Of course Hamlet hated Claudius-he killed his father! Seriously though, could the cause of Hamlet's depression be the rash re-marriage of his mother? Hamlet