Hamlet and Revenge in Individual and Societal Context

William Shakespeare bestowed Hamlet upon the world at a time when his audience was highly concerned with the relationship between religion, politics and the universe. Written around 1600, the play emerged at a tense time in English history when uncertainty loomed regarding the shift of power from Elizabeth I to a new heir. Philosophical studies from the early 17th century tell us that Shakespeare’s audience was focused on issues such as Christian obedience to God, the moral significance of social institutions, and the human fascination with revenge. The Elizabethan audience embraced Shakespeare’s revenge tragedy, utilizing it as a venue to interpret their own morals regarding religious tradition, political corruption and social structures. The play no doubt struck a chord with the audience members’ innermost desires, fears and morals as being very personal, but acting on those emotions can create a domino effect on the outside world. Shakespeare borrowed elements from previous revenge tragedy writers to make Hamlet a very introspective, philosophical drama. Through Shakespeare’s revenge play, the Elizabethan audience was able to explore the notions of revenge and justice between individuals as well as political structures.

Shakespeare followed the standards for a revenge play that were set by Seneca, a Roman statesman and philosopher who lived in the 1st century (Barnet lxvi). Senecan tragedies featured ample amounts of murder and blood followed by a quest to seek revenge on the villain (Kasbekar). Several elements define a Senecan revenge play, and Shakespeare utilized these elements when writing Hamlet. First, the story revolves around a tragic hero whose intentions and inner voice will be self-dramatized (Kasbekar). Shakespeare’s Hamlet is such a character, elaborating on his own philosophical ponderings through lengthy, poetic soliloquies. Second, an obsession with crime and a preoccupation with torture, mutilation, incest and corpses are prominent (Kasbekar). These themes are evident in imagery and dialogue throughout the play. From Claudius’ incestual marriage to Gertrude to Hamlet’s encounter with Yorrick’s skull, symbols of death remind the viewer of the immorality of the characters and the bloody finale that’s ultimately looming. Shakespeare borrowed from another writer of revenge tragedies for the third element of revenge in Hamlet. Thomas Kyd, who produced an earlier version of the Hamlet tale, the Ur-Hamlet, as early as 1589, introduced a revenge-seeking ghost to the mix (Barnet lxvi). In Shakespeare’s version, Hamlet is visited by his late father who informs him that he was murdered by Claudius, and asks Hamlet to seek vengeance for his death. Hamlet hatches a plan to feign madness in order to catch Claudius admitting his guilt. An avenger feigning madness is an element of the revenge tragedy, as well (Kasbekar). The prince orchestrates a play dramatizing events strikingly similar to those surrounding King Hamlet’s murder, hoping that Claudius’ guilt will surface as he watches the performance. While Hamlet is busy scheming against Claudius, the king is doing the same against Hamlet, attempting to have him murdered. A play-within-a-play and double-crossing are both indicative of the revenge tragedy (Kasbekar). Elizabethan audiences loved the heightened emotional drama this formula offered, as it made them consider revenge, death, honor and morality on a both personal and governmental level.

Shakespeare also explores the theme of revenge as opposed to reason through Hamlet’s internal struggle. A university student who is extremely philosophical and contemplative, Hamlet becomes obsessed with the challenge of revenge when he learns of his father’s murder. He wants to seek revenge for his father’s death, but wants to be sure “beyond a reasonable doubt” that his uncle is indeed guilty of the crime. Hamlet ponders the afterlife, suicide, and what happens to the physical body after a person has died, while simultaneously trying to bring himself to kill another human being. The act of thinking actually holds Hamlet back from acting on his desires. This delay of action is a prominent element in the revenge tragedy. But even though Hamlet thinks obsessively, he behaves impulsively, like when he stabs Polonius through the curtain. It is at this point Hamlet’s feigned madness becomes something rather tangible. In this way, Shakespeare makes the case that one can think too much, and excessive introspection can only leave one lost in his own thoughts. It is rather ironic that it is Hamlet’s fear of death which ultimately leads him to his own.

This introspection sends Hamlet into a deep melancholy; he is disturbed by the state of affairs in his own family and in the state of Denmark in general. His father has been murdered and his uncle has been pitted against him as his arch rival. His mother has disgraced his father by quickly marrying his uncle despite popular opinion that incest is immoral. Because of his mother’s actions, he is so disgusted by women that he even shuns and demoralizes Ophelia, a woman he once claimed to love. His spirit is broken, and he regularly contemplates suicide. Because Hamlet is so concerned with his own self-loathing and misery, he spares no time worrying about the stability of Denmark. Even though Denmark is being threatened both from the outside by the Norwegian prince, Fortinbras, and from the inside by Claudius, a murderous adulterer, Hamlet cannot bring himself to set aside philosophical ruminations to act on the single notion of revenge that he set out to accomplish. Instead, the prince’s introspection leads to his inaction, and mayhem, rather than justice or revenge, is the result.

The welfare of the royal family in Hamlet is reflective of the state as a whole. The play begins with a sense of anxiety and dread, brought on by the uncertain transfer of one power to another. Claudius has just taken over the throne, having murdered King Hamlet. Throughout the play, characters repeatedly assert connections between a ruler’s legitimacy and his nation’s health. In the first act, Marcellus announces, “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark” (1.4.90). The late King Hamlet was seen by his kingdom as a strong, capable leader, but once Claudius takes the reins, corruption abounds within the country. The audience is given the message that the state cannot be revitalized until the corruption comes to an end. At play’s finale, Fortinbras declares that Denmark will rise again. Since Shakespeare was writing during the reign of Elizabeth I, it is likely that his intentions were, at least in part, to strengthen the trust between the people of England and the monarchy, even though the tale’s setting is Denmark. Despite the bloodshed and gore on the stage, viewers would go home knowing that their country was secure and that evil would not prevail even in a most unjust world.

While the Elizabethan audience enjoyed Shakespeare’s revenge play, it was their aversion to such morals that enticed them. Neither the church nor the state accepted revenge as a moral reaction regardless of the circumstances at that time. Revenge was simply not tolerated because Christian principles dictated that God was the ultimate judge, and also because it was considered a violation of the political authority of the state for an individual to seek revenge on their own terms (Belsey 234). So, while Shakespeare’s audience enjoyed the notion of revenge, they were well aware that the playwright was pointing out a major character flaw within Hamlet – the inability to distinguish between where introspection ends and action begins. They were also well aware of the immoral implications associated with pondering the act of revenge. Many Christians believe that simply thinking a sin is equivalent to committing a sin. But since Hamlet was thinking about murder to avenge his father’s death, perhaps his sin is canceled out. Would Hamlet’s murder of Claudius been more justified than Claudius’ murder of King Hamlet? True Christian thought would conclude that neither Claudius nor Hamlet should be forgiven for the murder of another human being. If Hamlet had succeeded in murdering Claudius, then his soul should be damned. Failing to avenge his father’s death, and, in turn, dying while still in mourning, Hamlet ends up looking like a tragically heroic martyr. This is something the audience would have appreciated the most, knowing that the soul of the protagonist could still possibly be saved despite his earthly failures.

Shakespeare’s tragedies certainly offered the Elizabethan audience a variety of moral issues to examine. By utilizing the common elements of a revenge play – the self-dramatization of the hero, consistent images of death, a revenge-seeking ghost, the feigned madness of the avenger, a delay of action, and a bloody finale – Shakespeare successfully presented his audience with a plethora of ruminations to consider. At a time when people were concerned with the changing hands of power, religious righteousness, and philosophical introspection, Elizabethan minds were playgrounds for Shakespeare. His brilliance lies in the ability to connect with his audience by dramatizing the moral and philosophical aspects of the world around them.

Works Cited

Barnet, Sylvan. “Introduction.” Hamlet. 2nd ed. New York: Signet Classics, 1998.

Belsey, Catherine. “From ‘The Subject of Tragedy.’” Hamlet. 2nd ed. New York: Signet Classics, 1998.

Kasbekar, Veena. Ohio University-Chillicothe. Chillicothe, Ohio. February 2008.

Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Ed. Sylvan Barnet. 2nd ed. New York: Signet Classics, 1998.