Shakespeare is believed to be the greatest playwright of all time by many. What makes his writings so original and enduring throughout time is his ability to organize themes, plot, and believable characters. Hamlet, in my opinion, is the most interesting and probably the most studied of all Shakespeare's plays. A major question to be addressed in the critiquing of Hamlet is why Hamlet waited to avenge his fathers death. Since Hamlet was written as a tragedy of conflict, some possibilities include his religious beliefs, others' roles in the play, or his tragic flaw.
             Conventional attitudes towards revenge are very complex and have widespread influence. The reader is left with a dilemma between what Hamlet feels and what he believes. In the Elizabethan age, revenge was denounced because of the risk of civil misconduct. Sir Francis Bacon argued later in a prosecution that private revenge leads to quarrels, then to public tumult. This could then lead to tension between families and soon after national quarrels.(pp. 11-12) In that age, it was a common belief that revenge should be left up to God and his appointed agents, but few can resist the temptation and passion of revenge.
             Primary arguments against revenge are that the person taking revenge could be endangering his or her soul. However righteous a person's motives maybe be, revenge would likely make you seem evil in the eyes of God. "In so going about to revenge evil, we shew our selves to be evil, and, while we will punish, and revenge another mans folly, we double, and augment our own folly."(p.93) The revenger may honestly feel that he seeks justice, but the nature of their revenge typically makes justice difficult, if not impossible, to attain.
             The way in which Hamlet murders his uncle is especially noble. He doesn't rush into things and kill the swindling king, but he decides patience is a virtue and constructs a cunning plan to test the reliability of the gho...