Hamlet's ability to stop himself from killing his uncle for revenge must mean that he carries a strong set of morals or obligations. His plan is not to kill his uncle just to kill him; he is killing with a purpose. And in that moment, the purpose was taken away in a sense. Even though it would have been easier if Hamlet had just killed Claudius when he had the chance, I think he was right for not doing it in that moment. By waiting for any other moment when Claudius is not repenting for his sins, Hamlet will get the job done that his father asked him to do. King Hamlet asked his son to avenge his death, and it would not be the proper revenge if Claudius was sent to heaven (because he was asking for the forgiveness of his sins) while King Hamlet was still sentenced to walk the Earth. Hamlet knew that Claudius would pretty much get off the hook if he killed him then, and he would never let him get off that easy.
The question of whether it is better to take action or think something through is posed in this scene. It is especially confusing to choose one side of that debate because there is so much at stake. On one side, Hamlet could kill him and his father may be disappointed because his killer is resting in peace. On the other side this now gives Claudius more time to be suspicious of Hamlet and Hamlet could run out of time to act on it in general. But in my opinion, Hamlet was so upset by his father's death that he would eventually kill Claudius no matter what. One question that I asked myself through this scene was: although Claudius was asking for forgiveness during this scene, would that really mean that if Hamlet had killed him he would go to heaven like he never killed his brother?
No comments:
Post a Comment