In Hamlet, Shakespeare analyzes the relationship of thought to action, mostly through Hamlet’s perspective. Hamlet is a man of thought who attempts to completely understand events that occur in Denmark by questioning their motives. When Hamlet is informed that Fortinbras and his army are marching through Denmark towards Poland to “gain a little patch of ground” (Shakespeare 4.4.19), he is amazed by the countless number of lives that will be lost due to this insignificant conflict. Hamlet goes on and relates this event to his inability to seek out his revenge on Claudius (Shakespeare 4.4.34-35), saying that God “made us with such large discourse, looking before and after, gave us not that capability and godlike reason to fust in us unused.”
…show more content…
Although the idea that a person’s actions aligns with their thoughts is universal, Hamlet thinks with revenge but doesn’t act with revenge. Even though Hamlet says that he will avenge his father’s murder, Hamlet resists killing Claudius even though he had multiple opportunities to do so. Hamlet delays his revenge because he is too concentrated on how to avenge his father’s murder. When Hamlet finds Claudius kneeling, Hamlet avoids killing him because the king is praying (Shakespeare 3.3.77-79). Hamlet’s explanation was that if he had killed the king, Claudius would have gone to heaven and that wouldn’t fulfill his revenge (Shakespeare 3.3.77-83). Even though this was the perfect time to avenge his father, Hamlet’s thoughts prevented him from doing …show more content…
When Hamlet murders Polonius, Laertes takes immediate action while Hamlet continues to delay his revenge. This difference between these characters makes them foils, since one’s thoughts leads him to passionate inaction while the other acknowledges his duty. However, in the end, both Hamlet and Laertes die the same exact way, trying to avenge their fathers’ deaths. Shakespeare’s purpose for showing similar results of action and inaction was to suggest that maybe there isn’t a difference between action and inaction because both will eventually lead to
Although the idea that a person’s actions aligns with their thoughts is universal, Hamlet thinks with revenge but doesn’t act with revenge. Even though Hamlet says that he will avenge his father’s murder, Hamlet resists killing Claudius even though he had multiple opportunities to do so. Hamlet delays his revenge because he is too concentrated on how to avenge his father’s murder. When Hamlet finds Claudius kneeling, Hamlet avoids killing him because the king is praying (Shakespeare 3.3.77-79). Hamlet’s explanation was that if he had killed the king, Claudius would have gone to heaven and that wouldn’t fulfill his revenge (Shakespeare 3.3.77-83). Even though this was the perfect time to avenge his father, Hamlet’s thoughts prevented him from doing …show more content…
When Hamlet murders Polonius, Laertes takes immediate action while Hamlet continues to delay his revenge. This difference between these characters makes them foils, since one’s thoughts leads him to passionate inaction while the other acknowledges his duty. However, in the end, both Hamlet and Laertes die the same exact way, trying to avenge their fathers’ deaths. Shakespeare’s purpose for showing similar results of action and inaction was to suggest that maybe there isn’t a difference between action and inaction because both will eventually lead to