One of the scenes that Shakespeare’s theme of revenge becomes truly evident is; Act 1 scene 5, in which the Ghost of Old King Hamlet reveals that he was killed by his brother Claudius, and demands revenge. Shakespeare uses very effective language during the Ghost’s speech and highlights the main incentive for Hamlet to seek revenge;
‘The serpent that did sting thy father’s life
Now wears his crown.’ [Line 39-40]
The metaphor of Claudius as a snake reflects his sly character and deceit as it can be linked to Satan in the Garden of Eden, when he deceived Adam and Eve in the Bible [Genesis]. The Ghost uses imperative sentences and so is portrayed as commanding. He also infers that he wants this to be done quickly;
‘Haste me to know’t, that I with wings as swift’
The last word is associated with speed – stressing that he wants a quick revenge.
Old King Hamlet’s ghost deems Claudius’ behaviour as ‘foul, strange and unnatural’, referring to his murderous and incestuous nature. This would have a significant dramatic impact as a typical Jacobean audience were mostly devout Christians. In the Old Testament in the Bible, the Jews were instructed to seek revenge; ‘an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and a life for a life’ [Exodus, chapt. 21], but in the New Testament Jesus taught Christians to love their enemies and ‘turn the other cheek’ [Luke chapt. 6].
The audience would have been compelled by this situation as an inner conflict appears in Hamlet, he is torn in two because; on one side he is angry that Gertrude, his mum, is married to Claudius so promptly and wants to avenge his father’s death. The audience’s reaction would have been especially contrasting to our 21st century reaction as they would have been shocked and disgusted by what they would have probably labelled the ‘love affair’ between Gertrude and Claudius. In our contemporary society, the media constantly surrounds us with such stories of love within families that our culture has become almost desensitised to such things, and so would not be shocked at all. Our reaction would have also been different because as a country we have become secular, and so I don’t think we as an audience would have taken the Ghost seriously as we don’t in every respect believe in spirits. Elizabethans believed that not only did Ghosts and spirits make appearances, but that they were vital as they played the role of the messenger. They therefore would have been gripped and it would be more credible for them.
On the other side however; Hamlet is scared and indecisive about his dilemma to seek revenge. The Divine Right of Kings meant that the King was ordained by God and if you murdered a King, you would surely go to Hell.
‘O all you host of heaven! O earth! What else?’ [Line 92]
His emotion is displayed by punctuation and repetition, and his worries of seeking revenge and being punished cause the delay.
Throughout this scene, we also take part in Hamlet’s internal confusion of how to exact his revenge. This may provide an explanation for some critics, such as Samuel Johnson, who question why Hamlet is, throughout the whole play, rather an “instrument than an agent”. I agree because after he has convicted the King, he makes no attempt to punish him, and Claudius’ death is at last affected by an incident which Hamlet has no part in producing, but seizes the moment. On the other hand we see that Hamlet does try to kill Claudius; for example when he creeps up behind him when he is praying, ready to strike. He then concludes not to as he decides that if he kills him while the King is praying or repenting, that he will undeniably ‘burn in Hell’.
Shakespeare provides two different types of revenge heroes so that the audience is aware of the striking contrast between Prince Hamlet and Laertes; Hamlet continuously delays while Laertes seeks immediate revenge. They are an antithesis as they’re two entirely different personalities from two completely different backgrounds and upbringings, and Laertes is used to emphasize Hamlet’s flaws. Hamlet is from a very privileged family; with Christian morals at the core whereas Laertes lacks not only the Prince’s education and morals but also the ‘mental equipment’ which Hamlet argued in his soliloquy is needed to distinguish between ‘man and beast’.
He is able to behave as an uncomplicated revenge hero, because unlike Hamlet, he disregards the moral objections. Because of this, he becomes the classical stereotypical hero as he is ruled by passion and anger, whereas Hamlet is bound by his thoughts.
The contrast of how Laertes deals with anger and distress very differently to Hamlet is shown in Act 5 scene 1 (Ophelia’s funeral). Shakespeare undermines Laertes’ kind of character, as he presents him as pretentious and pompous, as at both his father and sister’s funerals, he seems more affected by the appearances than the fact that his ‘loved ones’ are dead. When he jumps into Ophelia’s grave, it is over the top and unnecessary and contrasts Hamlet’s simple statement; ‘I loved Ophelia’. We as the audience may find his actions and language comical as does Hamlet. He mocks him and asks him;
‘What is he whose grief
Bears such an emphasis, whose phrase of sorrow
Conjures the wand’ring stars and makes the, stand
Like wonder-wounded hearers?’
Laertes verbose and theatrical behaviour causes the audience to dislike him. Nevertheless, unlike Hamlet he is willing to seize revenge at the first opportunity.
There are many different perspectives on how Shakespeare addresses the theme of revenge in Hamlet, and also whether it is done successfully. One criticism made by Catherine Belsey, undermines Shakespeare’s approach, as she believed the “secular injustice is not resolved”. I only agree with the statement to a certain extent, because although Hamlet puts it off and Claudius’ death isn’t planned by him – he does force Claudius to drink the poison, causing his death.
If the injustice did remain unresolved, which I don’t believe it did, then that would support the criticism made by T.S Eliot that ‘Hamlet as a revenge tragedy play itself, is a failure’. In my opinion this accusation cannot be sustained as aside from the long wait, Shakespeare does manage to keep revenge the core theme throughout.
According to Aristotle; an effective tragic hero is a protagonist who
“…is able to evoke both our pity and terror and is not thoroughly good or thoroughly bad, but a mixture of both”.
I think Shakespeare is therefore successful as we do pity Hamlet because he does want to kill Claudius but his orthodox Christianity and strict moral codes acts as a barrier - his tragic flaw is procrastination. We are also scared of his ‘bad’ side which is when he kills Polonius, attacks his mother and rejects Ophelia.
Shakespeare uses a number of antitheses; evil vs. good, life vs. death, secular vs. religion and so on and the audience is left to decide which successes over the other.
I think Shakespeare constructs Hamlet’s character so that the audience could become him, it is natural for us to question ourselves when faced with a dilemma as imperative as his. We understand his procrastination, but on the other hand his character does raise many questions that remain unresolved even by the end of the play. For example, we question whether his love for his mother and jealousy of Claudius is simply an Oedipus complex – especially as scenes in the film and stage directions of his actions are ambiguous causing us to be unsure of what he’s actually doing to her.
Overall, an audience of any century, can relate to him and he becomes a believable psychologically developed character, unlike the others who seem to me to be caricatures and representatives of certain types of people.
Word Count: 1,715
A website:
A book:
Gill, Roma ed., ‘Hamlet’ (Oxford School, Shakespeare), Oxford University Press, 2007
