An Existential Play?

As I conclude my reading of "Hamlet", it is proper that I reflect ultimately on whether or not the work can be considered an "existential" play. While I have continuously blogged about the existential ideas that characters like Hamlet and Ophelia have seemingly spoken about, I have not mentioned that it does not suffice to simply understand existential ideas to be considered existential. I have identified many of Hamlet's lines that could have been taken out of Sartre or Camus, but now I must say that one must choose to live existentially in order to be deserving of such a label. From what I have observed in the final act of the play, Hamlet seems to reject this existential way of life. He says, "there's a divinity that shapes our ends," implying that his fate is in the hands of God, and thus he rejects his individual sovereignty. It is made clear that Hamlet chooses not the live the existential life, and his fatalism is further reinforced when he remarks, "if it be now, 'tis not to come; if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come." There is no escape from his destiny, he believes, and consequently he accepts Laertes's challenge regardless of his misgiving. It is this challenge that leads to the demise of nearly every major character in the work, and it could have been simply avoided had Hamlet not rejected his gut feeling. It can be said, then, that Hamlet's fatalism was a grave error, and I believe it is this folly that is in-part spoken of when Horatio names "accidental judgements" as a contributing factor to the fall of the court. This, however, suggests that "Hamlet" is an existential play even if Hamlet is not ultimately an existential character. Perhaps, then, the death of the Danish royal family is way of Shakespeare telling us how to live. The existentialist sees their deaths as saying, "do not misjudge the world around you. Do not let dogmatism blind you, and do not doubt the power of the individual." Many label Soren Kierkegaard as history's first existentialist, but I believe that I have made a significant case that William Shakespeare is deserving of this title.