When put into context, Hamlet follows regular convention for a large part of the play. This regular convention was, generally speaking, rules about how a revenge tragedy had to be. These rules were stated by Thomas Kyd - a famous Elizabethan playwright. He stated that revenge tragedies had to contain certain characteristics, first and foremost, a crime had to be committed and for various reasons, laws and justice could not punish the criminal, and therefore an individual (usually the main character) goes through with revenge. Generally speaking the main chunk of the play is a stage where the main character decides whether to take revenge or not, and plans his crime carefully. Whilst sub-plots proliferate and are entwined around this. Revenge tragedies also usually have distinctive characteristics such as - apparitions, ghosts, and generally speaking a close bond is formed between main character and audience through the use of monologues and soliloquies. Hamlet follows these main conventions fairly meticulously. But the differences are more instinctive, Hamlet delays the whole process of revenge, and this is more subtle than Kyd’s ‘Spanish Tragedy’, or the early ‘Hamlet’.
Both Hamlet and the audience of an Elizabethan time would be confused about who the ghost actually is. This is because people of the Elizabethan time believed in hell, heaven and purgatory. They believed that you went to heaven if you had no sins this was only saints and people like Mary. You went to hell if you had many sins but most people went to purgatory. Purgatory was place you went if you had some sins and you go there to get purified. In purgatory you have to work your way out to get to heaven, they work for purification. So if Hamlet's father was there he shouldn't be telling Hamlet to get revenge he should be doing all good things to try and get out. Revenge was a sin so he shouldn't be getting his son to do it if he was in Purgatory. This could be why Hamlet thinks the ghost is the devil. This would also mean the response of an Elizabethan audience would be different from a modern audience. They would believe that Hamlet's father should not be telling him to get revenge whilst he was in Purgatory. They would be more shocked by this than an Elizabethan audience.
An Elizabethan audience response would also be very different because of Church, State and the regular morals of the people in that age did not accept revenge. People would not accept revenge under any circumstances no matter what the original crime was. They believed that someone who takes revenge into their own hands like Hamlet did was going against the total political authority of the state.
The Elizabethan people did simply not accept revenge they thought of it as a sin and it was utterly condemned. However the people liked to see it in plays. Hamlet could agree with the Elizabethan audience because of all the other things that go wrong in the play due to Hamlet trying to get revenge. Hamlet doing wrong eventually leads to his own downfall.
There were three major families in the Tragedy of Hamlet. These were the family of King Fortinbras, the family of Polonius, and the family of King Hamlet. The heads of each of these families are all slaughtered within the play. In the time in which this play is set, avenging the murder of a father was part of one's honour, and was a duty which had to be carried out.
The most important and significant quest for vengeance within the play is that of Hamlet. Old King hamlet was killed by his brother, Claudius, (who then went on to marry his wife)
"…My offence is rank, it smells to heaven; A brother's murder…"
After the death of his father, and then his return in the form of a ghost, Hamlet swore vengeance on his uncle and now step-father, Claudius. Old Hamlet appeared to Hamlet in the form of a ghost and told of his gruesome murder by his brother;
"The serpent that did sting thy fathers life now wears his crown…..
….and in the porches of my ears did pour the leprous distilment" (act1 scene 5)
Hamlet was greatly disturbed by learning that his uncle was to blame for his father’s murder. Hamlet was then told by the ghost to seek revenge on Claudius;
"revenge his foul and most unnatural murder" (act1 scene5)
According to the critic Francis Bacon in his essay 'Of Revenge', 'Revenge is a kind of wild justice, which the more man's nature runs to, the more ought the law the weed it out'. This would suggest that a desire for vengeance is natural to those who feel ill-treated. Also, Bacon states- 'kings must not be killed but in certain cases kings must be killed'. Hamlet is speared on the horns of a contradiction, and faces an ethical dilemma of whether it is morally right for him to seek vengeance over the death of his father. Hamlet, does however feel a duty to gain revenge on Claudius as not only has he committed incest by marrying Hamlets mother (his sister in law) but had gone against the divine right of kings, a tradition whereby it was seen that kings were given their right to reign form God, therefore by Claudius killing the king he had not only betrayed King hamlet, he had also gone against God, which was seen as unacceptable.
An interesting technique that Shakespeare uses to explore the theme of revenge is the procrastination of Hamlet. Hamlet's procrastination continues throughout the play. Laurence Olivier's Hamlet begins with the quote, 'here is a story about a man who could not make up his mind', and although seen too simplistic by some, many people agree with this statement. Hamlets own 'tragic flaw', or as described in Act 1, Scene 4, 'a vicious mole in nature', is he continually analyses, and this is seen as the cause for Hamlet's procrastination. As Levin conveys, "though is Hamlet's tragedy; Hamlet is the man who thinks too much, ineffectual because he is intellectual; his nemesis is a failure of nerve, a nervous prostration."
As mentioned before in the essay, the Elizabethan attitude to revenge is very different to that of a modern day audience. The reason being is that the Elizabethan audience would have been strong believers in Christianity, and would therefore be against the concept of revenge ‘when slapped on the cheek, turn and offer your other cheek,’ a quote from the Bible. However, an audience of modern times, where religion has maybe taken a back seat in the modern society, would probably have had a different approach to revenge. Unlike in the Elizabethan period, where the classical revenge attitude was completely opposed to, individuals might see this as the best way for dealing with revenge. With this in mind, the responses of the two audiences have the potential to be on opposite ends of the scale. One disagreeing with the act of revenge (Elizabethan audience), the other (the modern day alternative) would contain a mixture of agreement and disagreement towards revenge.
In conclusion, revenge was the driving force behind Hamlet’s actions, it eventually led to the downfall of the main character, which leads us to question whether Shakespeare was giving a message about revenge and its consequences, and condemning it in Elizabethan society. However, in the diverse society that we live in today, there are many views on a number of things. Therefore the response of a modern day audience would be more varied as people now have had their views expanded on Hamlet and the topic of revenge. Many scholars and critics have written about the idea of revenge in the play, this would influence people’s views on the subject, along with their own moral standpoints.
