It could be said that Hamlet is not a play of inaction, but a play of providence and fate. Shakespeare seems to purposefully initiate action through inaction to show how certain events act as a catalyst for the eventful finale

Katie Brown Page 02/05/2007

Hamlet is the tragedy of a man who could not make up his mind. How much is

Hamlet a play of inaction?

Some critics have stated that the appeal of Hamlet to the audience is his many human weaknesses, the most notable being his indecision. His deliberations and procrastinations are particularly high-lighted when he is faced with the task of revenge. The law and Christianity, around the early seventeenth century, were clear in condemning personal revenge as an attempt by man to arrogate the prerogatives of God. Hamlet’s contradicting feelings toward avenging his father and avoiding breaking the law and going against Christianity were most likely felt by the Elizabethan audience also, which would have been made up of many Christians, namely, Protestants. Catherine Belsey stated:

…The act of vengeance, in excess of justice, a repudiation of conscience, hellish in its mode of operation, seems to the revenger (and the audience) an over-riding imperative. Not to act is to leave crime unpunished, murderer triumphant or tyranny in unfettered control.

The well known critic, Nietzsche, states that Hamlet;

Once looked truly into the essence of things and the resulting nausea has rendered him incapable of taking any action.

The disturbing truth of Hamlet’s, father’s death outweighs any motive for action. Some critics go so far as to suggest that Shakespeare intended to show the tragedy of a weak-willed man, called upon to commit an act for which he is not properly equipped. These critics believe that Hamlet is a tragedy of weakness and absence of will.

I would disagree, however, that Hamlet displays an absence of will. On the contrary, Hamlet constantly dwells on the information his father, the ghost, has provided him, and the audience get an insight into Hamlet’s will to get revenge and seek truth:

And so ‘a goes to heaven; and so am I reveng’d. That would be scann’d: A villain kills my father, and for that I, his sole son, do this same villain send to heaven.

In this scene, Hamlet discovers Claudius praying; shows a will to perform his task of revenge, and yet he is unable to go through with it. Hamlet enters to find Claudius with his back to Hamlet. Tension is created within the audience, as the scene is portrayed as if the king is preparing for his execution, on his knees, praying, although he is unaware Hamlet is behind him with his sword drawn. It is the perfect opportunity, yet Hamlet deliberates. The scene results in an anti-climax, with Shakespeare creating drama with his ‘will he, won’t he’ tactic with regards to Hamlet.

I believe this is a prominent example of Hamlet’s inability to take action. Hamlet never receives any indication from Claudius that he regrets the death of Hamlet’s father, and by killing him, would send him to heaven. I think it most likely that Hamlet creates his own doubts, or excuses, as to delay with the revenge of his father. It could also be possible that Hamlet is fearful of the consequences of his act of vengeance. In ‘Antonio’s revenge’ and ‘The revenger’s tragedy’, the criminal is also the ruler. As was with these, the protagonist may be merely afraid of ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

The first indication the audience receives of Hamlet’s indecision is the conflict that Hamlet faces within himself of whether or not to trust the ghost. An Elizabethan audience, being made up of mostly Protestants, would have seriously doubted the validity of the ghost’s story, as they did not believe in purgatory, which is a Catholic belief. Therefore, they would have come to the conclusion that the ghost was an evil spirit, and its intentions were to mislead and befuddle Hamlet.

The spirit I have seen

May be a devil, and the devil hath power

T’assume a pleasing shape.

Here, he is planning to expose the guilt of Claudius. Hamlet delays the avenging of his father’s death as he insists on seeing the guilt for himself. This is the beginning of Hamlet creating his own downfall. His series of inactions lead to a finale of excessive action, in that if he had not deliberated over killing Claudius and had taken action, Hamlet would not have been in the position he was at the end of the play, and thus, prevented his own death.

In Act IV, scene IV, it is young Fortinbras that seems to stir something within Hamlet, and inspires him to seek honour in his revenge:

And let all sleep, while to my shame I see

The imminent death of twenty thousand men

That for a fantasy and trick of fame,

Go to their graves like beds.

Fortinbras complements Hamlet in the way that they are both sons to murdered Kings, yet they also contradict one another. Fortinbras could be seen as Shakespeare’s ideal prince, someone who Hamlet aspires to be. Fortinbras’ ability to take action results in his leadership of Denmark, and Hamlet’s inability to make decisions, lead to his untimely death, and, it could be said, the forfeit of the throne.

My thoughts be bloody or nothing worth.

Hamlet’s quotation suggests that he will think about revenge, not act upon it, and Hamlet’s many double meanings and play on words suggest Shakespeare intended to create a man who is lost in his own thoughts and, therefore, can’t make decisions or take any action. Some critics, and an Elizabethan audience, may have considered Hamlet’s verbal rhetorical devices as unseemly. Cicero in De Oratore stated:

Wordplay tactlessly handled belonged to buffoons or pedantic scholars.

Coleridge characterises Hamlet as a man unable to act through excessive thought. Bradley disagrees with Coleridge, and states that:

The inaction is only a feature of Hamlet’s character issuing out of the peculiar circumstances of the action of this play.

It could be argued that Hamlet intends to mislead, and his ambiguous sayings are not down to Hamlet’s indecision, or even sardonic humour, but a tactic to wrong foot others.

There are many instances within the play when Hamlet does display an ability to make instantaneous decisions and immediate action. The irony in this, however, is that the times when Hamlet does not deliberate, act as a series of catalysts that lead to his demise.

When Hamlet first encounters the ghost, he makes no hesitation in following it, even when Horatio and Marcellus warn Hamlet not to follow.

Why, what should be the fear?

I do not set my life at a pin’s fee,

And for my soul, what can it do to that.

Hamlet states here that the ghost can not harm him physically, as he deems his life worthless anyway, and cannot harm his soul. Yet it is the ghost that triggers the series of events leading to Hamlet’s death, and also, it could be argued, the madness of Hamlet, therefore tarnishing him spiritually.

The moment when Hamlet mistakenly kills Polonius believing him to be the King, is another example of Hamlet’s decisive action. The irony in this is that Hamlet cannot bring himself to kill Claudius, and when he does finally commit himself to his task, he kills the wrong person:

How now? A rat! Dead for a ducat, dead.

Hamlet’s action here is another catalyst that contributes toward his early downfall, as this is the act that instigates the fateful duel with Laertes in the final scene.

Notably, when Hamlet agrees to the duel with Laertes, it seems an almost immediate response.

Let the foils be brought, the gentlemen willing, and the king hold his purpose.

A duel was considered honourable, and also a distinctively Christian tradition of civility and discipline, which was embraced by Catholics and Protestants alike, particularly the latter, who promoted it as a religious and moral ideal. These ideals were strong around the late sixteenth century, early seventeenth century, when Hamlet was first performed. An Elizabethan audience would have seen Hamlet’s participation in a duel as very honourable, and Hamlet’s appeal to the audience at this point could have possibly intensified, and potentially created a more sympathetic audience.

This duel brings about the finale of excessive actions, which have derided from the protagonists own inactions, deliberations and misguided actions, and also, other characters actions.

There are three revengers in the play; yet only two display an ability to take immediate action. Fortinbras and Laertes react almost instantaneously to the murder of their fathers. Fortinbras is initially planning the invasion of Denmark, to avenge the crime committed upon his kingdom; that is the murder of Old Fortinbras by Old Hamlet:

Now follows that you know young Fortinbras,

Holding a weak supposal of our worth,

Or thinking by our late dear brother’s death

Our state to be disjoint and out of frame.

Laertes, upon hearing the news of his father’s death, confronts Claudius as soon as he is able. Laertes displays a sense of courage and resolution; he does not stop to consider the consequences:

Where is this king?-Sirs, stand you all without.

Here, the question is raised; If Laertes can threaten the life of the king so quickly, why cannot Hamlet do the same?

It would seem that the audience are invited to question why Hamlet’s response to the death of his father is so different to that of Fortinbras’; also a Prince, and Laertes; who is of high social status. The actions of Fortinbras and Laertes give the audience the impression of what a good prince, with a sense of honour, would do. It would seem that Shakespeare himself wanted the audience to recognise Hamlet’s conduct as an unusual problem.

It could be said that Hamlet is not a play of inaction, but a play of providence and fate. Shakespeare seems to purposefully initiate action through inaction to show how certain events act as a catalyst for the eventful finale. If Hamlet had taken revenge immediately, the play would not have continued the way it did. E. E. Stoll argued that the delay is simply a convention, something we are not supposed to get hung up on, because if there’s no delay, there’s no play.

However, I do not believe the delay can be dismissed so easily, due to the actions displayed by Fortinbras and Laertes. I believe that these two characters were intended, by Shakespeare, to be used to set the standard for what an honourable man would do in a certain situation i.e. the murder of his father, and therefore, Hamlet’s inaction is supposed to be seen as peculiar; not just a way in which to extend the play.

I would agree with critics who state that Shakespeare intended to create a tragedy of human weakness. It seems that Hamlet is arguably a play of action, which in turn, highlights Hamlet as a man of inaction. It could be said that Hamlet’s downfall; his human weakness, is his inability to make decisions or take action in the right circumstances. The play seems to focus on the deliberations of the protagonist, and if Hamlet had more willingness to act, rather than think or talk, he may have prevented his own death.

When Hamlet finally acts upon what he has been deliberating through the entire play, it is too late. Fortinbras, who is portrayed as noble, honourable and willing to take action has, arguably, the only fortunate outcome in Act V scene II. It is the only time Fortinbras does not have to take action to achieve his goal; rather, it seems every other characters action results in his inaction.