The Case against “Hamlet”

Though Hamlet is the most acted, and discussed, of all Shakespeare's plays, perhaps of all plays that have ever been written, yet there is a case against it; and that case can best be stated in a question— What is the cause of Hamlet's delay in killing the King? It has been asked for two hundred years; in 1736 Hanmer, Mr. Bradley tells us, remarked that “there appears no reason at all in nature why this young Prince did not put the usurper to death as soon as possible”; and he continues, “If Shakespeare had made the young man go naturally to work, there would have been no play at all.” ¹ If this is so, then the case against Hamlet is proved; for a play, that can be prolonged only if the hero does not go naturally to work, is bad in conception. But most of those who have discussed the delay have not accepted Hanmer's reason for it; they have found the cause either in Hamlet's circumstances or in his character; they say that he could not kill the King because he was so well guarded, or that he suffered from some mental impediment to the exercise of his will.