Fortinbras and Hamlet, two princes in Shakespeare’s Hamlet, serve as compelling foils to each other. While both grapple with the deaths of their fathers and the burdens of leadership, their approaches to revenge and action differ significantly. This exploration delves into their contrasting personalities, motivations, and ultimately, their fates.
Contrasting Approaches to Revenge
From the play’s outset, Fortinbras is depicted as a man of action. Horatio establishes Fortinbras’s immediate intent to reclaim lands lost by his father to Old Hamlet, assembling a mercenary army to challenge Denmark. This proactive stance contrasts sharply with Hamlet’s introspective and delayed response to his father’s murder. While Fortinbras readily resorts to military force, Hamlet grapples with moral dilemmas, philosophical questions, and the complexities of uncovering the truth. Fortinbras’s decisiveness stands in stark opposition to Hamlet’s procrastination.
The Significance of Action vs. Inaction
Fortinbras’s willingness to wage war for even “a little patch of ground” highlights his ambition and determination. In Act 4, Hamlet witnesses Fortinbras’s army marching towards Poland, further emphasizing Fortinbras’s proactive nature. This encounter serves as a catalyst for Hamlet’s self-condemnation. He recognizes his own inaction in avenging his father’s death, lamenting his cowardice in comparison to Fortinbras’s bold pursuit of what he believes is rightfully his. Hamlet’s famous “How all occasions do inform against me” soliloquy underscores this internal struggle between thought and action.
Fortinbras as a Catalyst for Hamlet
Observing Fortinbras’s unwavering resolve, even for a seemingly worthless cause, ignites a spark in Hamlet. He realizes the futility of his prolonged contemplation and vows to finally take action. Fortinbras’s decisiveness, though potentially reckless, serves as an inspiration for Hamlet to overcome his paralysis and pursue his own revenge. Fortinbras, albeit indirectly, pushes Hamlet towards a course of action, albeit tragically late.
The Irony of Succession
The play concludes with the unexpected ascension of Fortinbras to the Danish throne. Despite being a foreign prince with a tenuous claim, he represents a restoration of order in a kingdom ravaged by death and betrayal. While Hamlet endorses Fortinbras as his successor, the irony lies in a Norwegian inheriting the Danish crown, a stark reminder of the political instability and the devastating consequences of inaction. This outcome highlights the complexities of leadership and the unpredictable nature of fate.
A Final Comparison
Ultimately, Fortinbras and Hamlet embody contrasting approaches to leadership and revenge. Fortinbras, driven by ambition and a clear sense of purpose, acts decisively, even if his actions are morally ambiguous. Hamlet, burdened by intellectual and moral complexities, delays action, ultimately leading to tragedy. While Fortinbras represents outward strength and decisiveness, Hamlet embodies internal conflict and the paralyzing power of thought. Their contrasting fates serve as a powerful commentary on the nature of action, inaction, and the complexities of human nature.
