Lose the Name of Action

     This is a post I should probably get out of the way early as it concerns an intentional misinterpretation of one of the most famous speeches in all of Shakespeare's canon as well as the foundation of my interpretation for the entire play of Hamlet.


     Everyone knows that the soliloquy is about suicide.  But what if it wasn't?  What if, instead of deciding whether he should kill himself rather than continue his plan of revenge, Hamlet was contemplating where that plan would lead him?

     If we interpret being as linked intrinsically to action, the speech becomes about something else entirely.  By replacing the initial line "To be or not to be" with "To do or not to do" the speech becomes not about a young prince in love with the idea of death, but rather terrified of it.  To do or not to do, that is the question.  In pursuing his act of vengeance against the king, the most powerful man in the nation, Hamlet will almost certainly die.  We who know the outcome of the play are aware of that but certainly Hamlet must be as well.  It is the nature of assassins to be caught.  In killing the king, in fulfilling his destiny, Hamlet will end his own life.  Let us then follow his reasoning in the text.

To be, or not to be, that is the question: |  Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, |  Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them. To die, to sleep- |  No more- and by a sleep to say we end
The heartache and the thousand natural shocks | That flesh is heir to. 'Tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd.

     Replacing the first line again we get "To act, or not to act: that is the question.  Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them." Removing the pall of suicide this seems to be a straightforward thought.  Is it better to sit around and do nothing or to stand up and face his problems.  But the thought of action leads to its inevitable conclusion: "To die."  Hamlet quickly back pedals from thought, softening it instead to "to sleep - no more".  Again taking liberties with the text we can interpret this as saying that death (the thing to be feared) is really no more than sleeping.  When viewed in that light death doesn't seem as bad.  Hamlet continues: "and by a sleep to say we end the heartache and the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to. 'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wish'd."  There is hope here.  Hamlet attempts to convince himself that far from being something to fear, death could even be a relief.  We are now back to a more traditional interpretation of the speech.  Unfortunately for Hamlet, this new hope is not to last.  The rest of the speech explores the ways in which death is to fear after all, concluding with the following lines

Thus conscience does make cowards of us all; | And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought, | And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry, | And lose the name of action.

     In the end the conclusion Hamlet comes to is that he, like all men, is to afraid of death to do what must be done.  His enterprise must lose the name of action.  Much is made of Hamlet's inactivity in the play, his inability to create a plan and follow through with it.  He himself complains of this in several of his speeches.  If we look at this speech as a manifestation of Hamlet's fear of death rather than his supposed desire for it his inactivity begins to make sense.  Knowing his death to be the logical result of his actions causes him to hesitate.  He fights his own sense of failure for the entirety of the play.

     This is obviously not the commonly accepted interpretation of this speech.  Very good cases could be made that it is in fact a wrong interpretation.  However the world of theater is such that all things can be open to reinterpretation and imagination.  This interpretation is central to my understanding of the character of Hamlet.  While many would argue that building a character on a central misunderstanding, however intentional, is itself flawed, I believe that the possibilities that such an interpretation unlocks are outweigh the perceived disservice.  I also believe that the speech itself does not suffer for it but instead benefits from the difference of perspective.