the plot, thus shaping it for itsneeds. But Shakespeare, not to mention all the other play writers,followed Aristotelian view that drama is imitation of life, of theactions of man. Plot is a way to organize the action, and thus, plotprecedes character in Hamlet (Grebanier, 108). This, without evenknowing Aristotelian method, can also be deduced from knowing thatShakespeare adopted plot of Ur-Hamlet, and changed it just slightly. Aslight change in the plot, however, hardly slightly affects thecharacters. But one should notice that "preceding" means "comes beforethe other one", and it does not mean "eliminates the other." Therefore,the cause of Hamlet's fall cannot be ascribed exclusively to thesituation. That would mean eliminating every element of tragedy, andeven drama, from Hamlet - Hamlet would thus have become a merecollection of fate-dependent events that accidentally so happened notto have a happy ending. So, the reasons for Hamlet's actions should beunderstood as a synthesis of original situation, Hamlet's reactions toit, and then again of situation that was affected by Hamlet'sreactions. Looking at Hamlet's reactions, one detail cannot beoverlooked: Hamlet does not kill Claudius in church, while he has thebest chance of doing so up until that point. This little detail, and itis really a little detail, for if it was more important, Shakespearewould have dedicated to it more then some 100 lines, tends to affectthe reader's evaluation of Hamlet's delay. Why didn't he kill theKing? Understanding this scene is crucial today in understandingHamlet's delay, for we seem to be puzzled by it (if we were in theaudience, the whole scene would have lasted only moments, but asreaders, we have the freedom to ponder about it). At least so wasProfessor Dowden, to name one critic, who holds that Hamlet "loses asense of fact" because he puts every event through his mind, filteringit until every deed seems to have an alternative - in not doing thed...
