Thoughts, Not Deeds
With the arrival of the Renaissance in Europe, society experienced a revival of intellectual life through rediscover of the classical legacies of ancient Greece and Rome. Works of prominence long forgotten in the annals of the past again found life and an audience, as modern scholars sought to learn all they could from the masters of the past. With this renewed interest in learning and the advent of the printing press, a technology that would eventually change the foundation of academics and learning, Renaissance Europe became empowered to further advance the causes of scholarship and science. Amid such profound change from the comparatively scholastically uninterested era now known at the “Middle Age,” the fabric of society grew to encompass a greater appreciation for the arts, specifically, the humanities, including literature. As intellectuals rediscovered the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle, inspiration to create new literature flourished, yielding the masterpieces of the era, including Shakespeare’s Hamlet. In Hamlet, the impetus of the Renaissance era can be seen to shift from a general emphasis on a person’s actions and deeds to a greater emphasis on thought. Furthermore, Hamlet discusses the consequences of societies’ or an individual’s orientation being overly focused on thought, if thought leads to inaction.
Hamlet serves as the quintessential character of indecision. Throughout the drama Hamlet ponders every matter to a fault, allowing his thoughtfulness to repeatedly become indecision. Deciding whether to commit suicide or live occupies Hamlet’s thoughts in the famous soliloquy beginning, “To be or not to be: that is the question:” (III, i., 56-87). Ultimately, Hamlet decides that a man must “rather bear those ills we have / Than fly to others that we know not of” (81-82), after much deliberation and indecision. Later, in Act IV, Hamlet realizes his own indecisive nature, yet fails to take action. Once again, he allows his thoughts to suffice. Upon learning that the Norwegians and Poles are waging a substantial war over a “little patch of ground / That hath in it no profit but the name,” (IV, iv., 17-18), Hamlet reminds himself that he has a much greater cause for action but has yet to act. In a subtle, yet striking line, Shakespeare shows that even a determined and motivated Hamlet is unable to force himself to act: Hamlet proclaims, “O, from this time forth, / My thoughts be bloody, or be nothing worth!” (65-66), yet even this seemingly convincing statement points plainly at Hamlet’s fault: it is his deeds which need to be set upon vengeance, not just his thoughts.
In the end, Hamlet does not satisfy his vengeance as a result of any premeditation or a calculation in delivering a comeuppance to Claudius. In the heat of combat with Laertes, an opportunity arising by chance allows Hamlet to seize Laertes’ foil and dispatch Claudius, following Hamlet’s rage about his mother’s death senseless death. Without such momentary blindness due to the rage and combat, one could postulate that Hamlet would have, again, become indecisive and failed to exact revenge upon Claudius. Hamlet exemplifies the consequence of inaction. As the “hero,” Hamlet alters a literary tradition based upon the glorious deeds and accomplishments of the epic heroes before him, bringing forth a significant point about the Renaissance era: society was developing a greater emphasis on thought. However, as Hamlet found, thoughts cannot preclude deeds.