The word “king” makes you think of people in charge, like leaders and high-ranking people. But leadership really isn’t about a certain position; just because someone owns the title of a leader, like the title of king or president, does not mean that person has the qualities necessary to be able to lead people. So, when confronted with the question “would Hamlet have been a good king?” I would say he would not have been suitable for the position of ruler.
One of the reasons Hamlet would not make for a good king is because he does not act. Hamlet’s constant uncertainty is not a good trait for a leader. He did more talking about what he was going to do but never put his thoughts into any action. All great leaders show confidence. They inspire others; they don’t consistently contemplate what course of action they are going to take. A king is the executor and is in charge of making decisions. He has the ability to be decisive which, as we have seen, Hamlet was the opposite of. When a crisis arises, a king is not drowned by indecision because he has already determined the proper course of action he will take. Some may view Hamlet as being very careful in making serious decisions. While Hamlet wants to get revenge for his father's death, he wants to be sure that Claudius is guilty. So, we can see that Hamlet does not make rash decisions. While this may can be perceived as a good trait for a king, Hamlet struggles too much with moral integrity and the need for revenge and takes way too long to make a final decision. Hamlet lacked the experience and level of maturity necessary for a king.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
At the end of Hamlet Horatio and Fortinbras were the two characters who remained alive. I believe Shakespeare left the character of Horatio alive because he was the only one who knew all the facts that occurred from the time the ghost first appeared up until the final scene of the play. Horatio promised that he would tell the full story in good time, but by the end of the play, the audience already knew all the facts so there was no need for an explanation by another person. The character of Fortinbras was used to establish that Hamlet’s death was one of honor. In this way, Shakespeare was able to convey to the audience that Hamlet’s reputation would remain in good standing and that he died a respectable death. Fortinbras spoke the closing words in the play because it was most likely, with Hamlet's designation, he would become the King of Denmark. Hamlet says while dying,
“O, I die, Horatio;
The potent poison quite o'er-crows my spirit:
I cannot live to hear the news from England;
But I do prophesy the election lights
On Fortinbras: he has my dying voice;
So, tell him, with the occurrents, more and less,
Which have solicited. The rest is silence.” (5.2.390)
In his words, Hamlet nominates Fortinbras to be the king. Fortinbras has the closing words of the play so that his words leave an impact on the audience. Fortinbras' closing words,
“Let four captains
Bear Hamlet like a soldier to the stage;
For he was likely, had he been put on,
To have proved most royal; and, for his passage,
The soldiers' music and the rites of war
Speak loudly for him.
Take up the bodies. Such a sight as this
Becomes the field, but here shows much amiss.
Go, bid the soldiers shoot”. (5.2.445)
Shakespeare’s message in Hamlet regarding action vs. inaction appears to be to not overanalyze things. When a person overthinks a situation sometimes they never come to a point of final decision. Also, it isn’t good to act too quickly. A situation requires a little thought but thinking about it excessively isn’t good because action should take place in a good time frame. In the play Hamlet could have killed Claudius at an appropriate time; he procrastinated way too much. Shakespeare could be implying that there is uncertainty in everything. We can never be absolutely, positively sure of the outcome of our actions until we take action, and the same for inaction. People will always encounter circumstances in which they will need to make hard decisions. The situations require a fair amount of thought and then a decision to either take an action or do nothing. Shakespeare doesn’t know the answer to the question of action vs. inaction, he simply provided us with a way of exploring it for ourselves through his genius writing. We all need to make our own decisions on issues that arise in our lives, but as we can see, both action and inaction have consequences.
Hamlet’s inaction in carrying out his duty for revenge is one of the most transparent aspects of the entire play. A clear contrast is created between the task Hamlet is given by the ghost, and his own values, which creates a perpetuated ambiguity about whether or not Hamlet will act [not sure whether to add quotes/analysis here]. The true source of his procrastination is that his morals do not allow him to carry through with the murder which is evident through; “why yet I live to say “this thing’s to do” sith I have cause and will and strength and means to do it”. A paradox is created as Hamlet is shown to be aware of his own inaction. The polysyndeton of “cause and will and strength and means” emphasizes the corruption of Denmark that Hamlet lives in; and all the reasons that prompt him to carry out his revenge. Furthermore, the cyclical nature of Hamlet’s final soliloquy, ending with “my thoughts be bloody or be nothing worth” implies further inaction. By swearing to his ‘thoughts’ rather than ‘actions’, Hamlet shows that he is unable to break the cycle due to his morality, which impedes him from acting on his revenge. According to the critic Goethe, Hamlet is given a task by the ghost, which is “too heavy for his soul to bear”. This can be seen in the rhetorical question; “And shall I couple hell? O fie! Hold, Hold, my heart…”. This shows Hamlet’s consideration of letting go of his morals for the sake of revenge, however, the exclamation of “Hold, hold, my heart” shows that he cannot go through with revenge because of his morality. Therefore, it is evident that Hamlet’s morality disallows him from avenging his father’s death, highlighting the futility of morality among corruption and creating an ambiguous conflict between opposing ideals.
Stuck on your essay?
