He claims that, for one, "If found guilty of murder" this man will "be executed by the avenger," and secondly claims that there needs to be two witnesses to perform such revenge (Moore). Now, if Hamlet had killed Claudius as Claudius had killed Hamlet's father it would not have been a righteous killing. Hamlet was adhering to some ancient laws concerning the vengeance upon one who kills, especially one who kills a family member. In light of this, we see that Hamlet needed to obtain all the proof he could in order to have the right to kill Claudius. This was the righteous approach and in his efforts to increase the righteous nature of his people, he was bound by honor to do things the right way. This is seen, in a different light, in the following:.
"The truth is that Hamlet has no opportunity to kill the king and then justify his action, until the end, when 'providence' provides the opportunity. Heroes of earlier revenge plays soliloquize about having to delay, and criticize themselves for it. But revenge plays require that the revenge take time and planning -- or there would be no play" (Friedlander).
This fits in with the theory being presented as well, for Hamlet had no opportunity, considering the information he possessed at any given time, to do the job properly until the end. And, it is true that without the suspense and the investigation along the way, there would be no play, or at least a play that does not have the power to live for centuries as this one has done. Overall, it is clear that, up until the end, Hamlet had many reasons, all righteous, why he did not kill Claudius until the time he had chosen.
Hamlet hesitate in killing Claudius, it would have taken only a second. This causes many to wonder why he stopped. He was obviously energized for the act, for his mother had just been slain by mistake, and he was enraged. So why, now when he had a chance, did he hesitate? Because killing in anger and in rage would not have been righteous.
