f crippling indecision and precipitous action. The interpretation of his motivation and ambivalence continues to be the subject of considerable controversy but it is linked to the ubiquitous and indelible nature of the corruption in Denmark, which includes not just violence but also an over-abundance of sensuality and in some characters (such as Ophelia) these two forms of corruption are linked.
A number of incidents throughout the play are instrumental in establishing the rottenness of Denmark. There is HamletÆs murder, and the accusation of his ghost against Laertes. There is the rejection by Hamlet (the son) of Ophelia, and her madness and death as a result, a terrible act that he compounds when he kills Polonious and compounds still further with his killing of Laertes. There is his insufficiently considered sacrifice of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.
Through all of this horror, Hamlet is strikingly aware of the fact that something is deeply wrong in the Danish court, and yet does not ever seem to come to terms with the fact that he is one of the central instigators of all of the misery. An introspective man, certainly û even the archetype of introspection û and yet without the moral strength finally to take it upon himself to perform the actions required to bring an end to the rot and violence. He does often confront evil, but never directly, and his indirectness is very much a part of what is wrong in Denmark. The truth spoken plainly û and to other people, not in soliloquy û would shine out in this place with amazing strength (Mack, 1994, p. 171).
The single incident that most clearly marks Hamlet a
...