Hamlet: The Actions vs. Words

For generation upon generation children have been taught to use force in their language and to restrain from force in their physical actions. However, it is this very hesitancy towards action that has lead to the downfall of countless characters. When a man of words faces the wrath of a man of action, it is invariably the man of action that will come out the victor. In William Shakespeare’s tragedy, Hamlet, such a conflict exists. In each circumstance, the man of action triumphs over the man of words.

King Claudius of Denmark was not at ease with his nephew, Prince Hamlet. Hamlet had learned that Claudius had killed Hamlet’s father, the prior king, usurped his throne, and married his mother. However, being a man of words, Hamlet was at loss for what to do. Killing Claudius outright was not an option, he therefore decided to stage a play, replicating the murder as told to him by the ghost of his father. Hamlet’s logic was as such, “If his occulted guilt do not itself unkennel in one speech, it is a damned ghost that we have seen, and my imaginations are as foul as Vulcan’s stithy (III.ii.80).” Before killing his uncle, Hamlet wanted to be sure of the guilt. Unfortunately for Hamlet, this play had quite a negative affect on the King, the man of action. The play proved to him that Hamlet either knew or suspected of his role in the King’s murder. The King therefore decided that he would dispatch Hamlet to England, “The terms of our estate may not endure hazard. So hear’s as doth hourly grow out of his brows (III.ii.3).” The King attempted to have Hamlet killed in England. So it seemed that at the time, the King (the man of action) had beat out Hamlet.

A man of words must not always remain as such. During the journey to England, Hamlet discovered the death sentence the King had placed on him. His two “friends” Rosencrantz and Guildenstern had been spies for the King. Their words had further convinced the King of Hamlet’s insanity and the danger that Hamlet posed to the throne. The death sentence carried the King’s seal. Hamlet had an alternate copy of the King’s seal and used it to alter the sentence, thereby arranging the deaths of his companions. Hamlet had become a man of action. Once again, a man of action, Hamlet, had beat out men of words, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.

Upon Hamlet’s return to Denmark, this character transformation was more than apparent. Laertes was quite angry with Hamlet. Hamlet had killed Laertes’s father in a burst of confusion and rage. Laertes challenged him to a deadly fencing match. During the match, the Queen became poisoned by a drink meant for Hamlet (concocted by the King). Hamlet was enraged and the King was horrified. The King tried to subdue Hamlet, but was unable to. He cried out in desperation, “O, yet defend me, friends, I am but hurt (V.ii.234).” His words could not save him; he was killed by a man of action, the transformed Hamlet.

This phenomenon of words versus action was not only paramount in Denmark, but in Norway as well. Young Fortinbras was on a campaign to capture Denmark when he was reprimanded by his uncle, Old Fortinbras. Old Fortinbras was sickly, aged, and unable to do anything but offer his words as deterrents. Young Fortinbras pretended to acquiesce. However, he continued to secretly scheme. He organized an army and invaded Denmark just as the royal family finished killing each other. With no one to stop him, Young Fortinbras took the throne as King of Denmark. He proudly stated, “I have some rights, of memory in this kindgom, which now to claim my vantage doth invite me (V.ii.389-390).” Through his victory in Denmark and defiance of Old Fortinbras, he bested him. Once again, a man of action triumphed over a man of words.

Young Fortinbras did not only succeed against his uncle; he succeeded against all of Denmark. So obsessed was the royal house in internal squabbles, that they were unable to defend their countrymen against an almost inevitable attack by Norway. Hamlet and Laertes’s rivalry overshadowed the darkening international conflict. Therefore when the Norwegian armies arrived at the royal palace their conquest was painfully easy. The Danish were obsessed with the vocal rivalry. They were crushed by those obsessed with physical triumph, or actual actions. The Norwegians, the men of action, were the victors.

In each of these circumstances the players used their strength, anger, or careful planning to beat back those who would try to verbally stop them. Men of action beat out the men of words because they presented challenges that words alone could not stop. The men of actions triumphed because they could successfully initiate their victories and stop those who would oppose them.