Hamlet Act 4 Analysis

Act 4, Scene 4 is the time that Fortinbras is brought back into the play. At this time, he and his men are marching to Poland to fight for a piece of land that is worth near-nothing. During their passing through Denmark, Hamlet meets a Captain from the outfit and learns of their plans. He reacts to this by speaking in a soliloquy about action and inaction.

                The central idea of this passage considers the different sides of the coin of action. There are those that act, and contradicting them, those that talk about acting and yet do nothing. This contrast is very important to the play as well as the deeper meaning of the soliloquy itself.

                Shakespeare illustrates this contrast, by the characters Fortinbras and Hamlet. Fortinbras, leading his army to fight for land without use represents the side of action. He is leading 20,000 of his own men to their deaths for an “illusion of honor.” If they win the battle, it really will not help his kingdom. Hamlet on the other hand  is the embodiment of inaction. His father’s ghost has asked him to avenge his father’s murder but the murderer lives on. Hamlet has had ample opportunities to kill his father’s murderer and yet has found something to stop him each and every time. Every so often Hamlet claims that he will not stop until his deed is complete; the deed remains unfinished.

                Another contrast noted in this soliloquy is between beast and man. Hamlet compares the two by stating that beasts eat and sleep, whereas men have the ability to reason and act upon that reasoning.  If a man doesn’t act then it is implied by Shakespeare through Hamlet that he is nothing more than a beast. This comparison is a cry for action.

                The contrast between inaction and action has been a common problem throughout history. As stated earlier, there are two types of people in the world and these people have lived on through generations. In this soliloquy, Hamlet is discussing a problem prominent in today’s society. The question is not, to be or not to be; it is to act or not to act.