Was Prince Hamlet Incapable of Action - Essay Example

Was Prince Hamlet Incapable of Action? Shakespeare’s play Hamlet is often discussed critically with reference to the procrastination of Prince Hamlet. There are many complex factors that contribute towards the prince’s inaction. One cannot consider him a coward, since he does not back out from action out of fear. It is true that he takes time to comprehend the real state of affairs in Denmark and to contemplate on the general human condition. But this does not diminish his ability to act. He is not led to thoughtless action on the spur of the moment, but he has a clear plan in his mind to avenge the murder of his father King Hamlet by his uncle Claudius. The major factor that hinders quick action is the fact that Claudius is married to his mother Gertrude soon after the death of his father. Psychoanalytic readings of the play identify his predicament as the outcome of ‘Oedipus complex’, derived from the Greek play by Sophocles, and referring to a state where the son undergoes a phase in which his subconscious mind fosters a libidinal drive towards the mother. This possessiveness may even lead to a secret wish to kill the father and go to bed with the mother. Though this condition makes it easier for the prince to hate and eliminate the person who has occupied the place of his father, he is also burdened with the clashes between his original cause for revenge and his ambivalent relationship to his mother who has accepted Claudius, though she was not aware that he killed the King. Moreover, the love showered on him by Ophelia becomes a burden to him while he is trying hard to understand and confirm the way in which Claudius committed the murder. Prince Hamlet represents the predicament of an individual who is shaped by the strict moralistic norms of Catholic faith and the logical influence of University education. In contrast with the quick thoughtless actions by Oedipus that led to his peril, the sagacity that Hamlet shows to analyze the situation and to act accordingly is commendable, though there was no scope for him to survive the ordeal. But his suffering prior to his death is more informed and self-inflicted in contrast to Oedipus’s sudden shock at the realization that he had unwittingly killed his father, married his mother and had children in her. In a broad analysis, the protagonists in both the plays can be seen as representing the Dionysian and Apollonian concepts. Even as both characters depict these two elements in various amounts, Oedipus seems to exhibit more of the Dionysian element in his actions at the spur of the moment, while Hamlet can be considered Apollonian in his contemplative self. The Dionysian element of sudden action, excesses, violence, ruthlessness, and so on are reflected in Oedipus’s life, while he is not someone who would have the intention to commit the sins he had to commit unwittingly. Hamlet’s ruminative self-reflections are much affected by the education that he gained, and they exhibit his analytical, argumentative stance on the events that overshadow his life. This is what makes his actions comparable to the Apollonian tradition. Hamlet is presented as a person with strong convictions, averse to thoughtless mass social acts like drinking. For him, the mourning period that he follows is not sheer observance, and he condemns the drinking, associated with the hurried marriage of his mother to Claudius. He is not someone who believes in the power of actions as much as he is convinced of the unknown courses life is apt to take, as he tells Horatio: There are more things on heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Hamlet can be accused of his inaction while he is being in a situation where he has the clear knowledge of the events and people, unlike Oedipus. The incestuous element in Hamlet is intentional and explicit than in Oedipus Rex. However, the psychological trauma prior to the final acts of murder is more logically coherent and dealt with on a personal level in Hamlet. A major contrast in the intuitive vision can be found in the words of Ophelia about Hamlet, though mentioned in a different context: “He seemed to find his way without his eyes”. The time which he takes for the long contemplations before the action which leaves the scene tragic anyway, were perhaps due to the fact that he realized the ultimate tragic condition of human life. For him “Denmark” like the entire world, “is a prison”, and “one o’ th’ worst” at that. And the “piece of work” man is, is nothing but a “quintessence of dust”. In contrast to the impulsive acts that lead Oedipus forward in the ignorant bliss of the unknown reality, the time-consuming yet insightful thoughts that Hamlet indulges in reveals the reality to him slowly but in all its clarity. Oedipus undergoes the ultimate suffering which seemed the only way to compensate for the unthinkable horror of his sins, but Hamlet, by refraining from hurried action, comprehends the full weight of the essential tragedy that human life is, and is able to end his suffering abruptly with his final decisive act. Another tragic play by Shakespeare’s, Macbeth, can also be seen as posing a contrast to the theme of inaction in Hamlet. Macbeth is driven to the heinous act of murdering King Duncan, prompted by the supercilious predictions by the three witches and the encouragement by his wife blinded by the prospects of power. However, his ability to commit the murder in time leads to his peril. Though there are no parallels between the motives of the protagonists in both the plays, Macbeth and Hamlet depict the contrast between hurried action and contemplative action. While the tragic situation in Macbeth emerges from the amoral aspect of Macbeth’s action and the way he is led to rage by terror in consequence, the tragic situation in Hamlet cannot be solely attributed to the prince’s inability to act. Prince Hamlet is depicted as someone who is fully aware of the consequences of killing King Duncan. Though he may be able to possess the throne for a while, his conscientious self will not allow him to live in peace after committing the sin of killing the king, who was also his mother’s husband. The prince deliberately exhibits a sick demeanor by feigning madness, which would have made him an unacceptable candidate for the throne, even if he had survived Claudius. Hamlet is not concerned about power, and his revenge motif was born out of his genuine remorse for the murder of his father. He is not led by the hope of living happily after killing Claudius. That is why he finds it difficult to entertain the amorous advances of Ophelia. He understood that there was no point of return to happiness and peace once he avenged his father. Thus the real tragedy is not in the end of the play in the Senecan tragic manner of leaving so many dead bodies piled on the stage. The real tragedy had taken place when Hamlet realized how evil the world around him and the people that inhabited it had become. Therefore, it would not have led to a happy ending if he had the ability to act in time. There had been an overemphasis on the theme of inaction in Hamlet which had led to many interesting critical discussions. However, if one analyses the play in the deep level, it becomes evident that prince Hamlet cannot be accused of an inability to act. The scenes that depict the way he rises up to the challenge posed by Laertes in Ophelia’s grave and in the final fencing dual is ample proof that Hamlet did not lack velour. He was good at fencing and was able to go through tough ordeals to avenge his father’s death. He does kill Claudius in the end. The fact that he tried to prevent ruthless action at the spur of the moment shows the quality of his education and the way in which he allowed himself to be groomed in the university. He does not run away from the situations and chooses to face them and go through the suffering gracefully. It would be a great injustice to accuse him of too much thinking and too less action. The time he had taken to think was not spent uselessly, since he has been investigating the death of his father with the help of every possible evidence. The play within the play that he arranged as a ‘mouse trap’ to catch the conscience of the King is an excellent instance that reveals the intellectual propensities of the prince and the way he had focused on the single objective of confirming the murderer of his father. All the steps he had taken from the time his father’s ghost told him about the murder were well thought out and in the right direction. Read More