Buchanan 1

Jacob Buchanan

Mr. Mungall

12/3/18

English IV

A Survey of the Theme of Revenge in Hamlet

One of the main themes in Shakespeare’s Hamlet is that of revenge. This theme,

from which the plot is directly based, has been discussed by literary critics, dramatists, and

the layman throughout the years; some suggesting that Shakespeare uses Prince Hamlet’s

dilemma as a means to question the morality of blood-revenge. And some who instead

focus on how the revenge theme in Hamlet affected and was affected by other drama and

literature. And finally, some discuss Prince Hamlet as a character and how his revenge

concerns the character himself and society at large.

The articles that discuss Shakespeare’s underlying messages about the certain

morality of blood-revenge, address the origins of Hamlet as a revenge-tragedy. They

discuss Amleth, a Scandinavian revenge-tragedy that is strikingly akin to the plot of

Hamlet, and how the Amleth story simply seeks a bloody revenge without any sort of

contemplation. They sharply contrast this with Hamlet, which seems to not simply focus

on the act of revenge, but the “tedium” of it. They demonstrate how Shakespeare

apparently calls into question the rightness of exacting blood-revenge through Hamlet’s

doubt and contemplation.

This comparison with Amleth sets up a precedent, which many of the authors seem

to follow, as they look to compare and contrast certain elements of revenge in Hamlet to
 Buchanan 2

other literature both within the Elizabethan and Jacobean period, and outside of it. Some

writers focus on revenge elements found only within Shakespearean drama, like Macbeth

and The Tempest, whereas others look to a more ancient source in Biblical literature of the

story King David and the story of Samson (as told by John Milton). Some sources suggest

particularly that the King David story may have had some direct influence on the shaping

of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, suggesting also that Biblical literature played a great role in the

shaping of Western literature and views about revenge.

And finally, articles that discuss Prince Hamlet’s vengeance theme vary greatly in

both direction and degree. Some articles connect Prince Hamlet’s character directly with

Shakespeare’s intent to call the morality of blood-revenge into question, while others

attempt to go against the traditional mainstream to suggest that Hamlet was indeed shone

by Shakespeare to be justified in his revenge: acting as a minister of God in taking

retribution against evil doers, in this case his uncle Claudius. The first group makes use of

the various occurrences where Prince Hamlet openly doubts and questions his mission of

vengeance. Others explain Hamlet’s fear of what lies after death along with his belief that

vengeful murder endangers his eternal soul, as seen in part where he refuses to kill

Claudius in his chamber whilst he prays. Another view concerning the morality of

revenge has to do with the idea that Hamlet chooses to “disown” his higher nature, as it

were, of a man of the renaissance, and accept the primal or barbarian nature that is a man

of revenge. And finally, a view supporting the argument against blood-revenge is the

argument relating to the Christian element that Prince Hamlet is haunted by, that

Shakespeare and his audience would have been well familiar with, that man should be

merciful to other men, and that vengeance belongs to God. However, this Biblical view is
 Buchanan 3

turned on its heels by another, yet opposing, Biblical view. It claims, through the use of

Biblical passages, that Shakespeare intends to justify Prince Hamlet’s course of revenge

through the Biblical philosophy that suggests that the prince of a nation has a

responsibility under God to punish evildoers, and exact God’s vengeance on such people

as the murderous Claudius.

These following articles and excerpts will address the theme of revenge in the

aforementioned ways. There is much to be said of the revenge theme in Hamlet, and these

articles surely only scratch the surface of a deep and rich topic, that has been discussed for

already hundreds of years and surely hundreds more.

 Buchanan 4

Annotated Bibliography

Anderson, Donald K.; Jr. "The King's Two Rouses and Providential Revenge in Hamlet."

vvvvvvIowa State Journal of Research 56(1981): 23-29.

This article addresses the king’s two rouses and their significance in arguing for a

providential revenge in Hamlet. He describes these rouses occurring in the first and fifth

acts as effects that are not apparent through the written manuscript, but since Hamlet was

meant to be performed, the sound effects play a great bearing on a certain ambience, that

Anderson goes on to describe as, among other evidence, a doomsday motif. The article

ends with the point that during the fencing match, Hamlet’s last word is simply

“judgment” when seeking a call on the hit. But Anderson explains that with the rouses

and the doomsday motif, the audience should be conditioned for seeing this as a call of

judgment or providential revenge.

Andrews, John F. "'Dearly Bought Revenge': Samson Agonistes, Hamlet, and

nnnnxxElizabethan Revenge Tragedy." Milton Studies (Pittsburgh, PA) 13(1979): 81-

xxxxxx107.

This article attempts to compare John Milton’s Samson Agonistes and

Shakespeare’s Hamlet. While it is suggested that it is possible Milton used Shakespeare’s

work as a source for his reworking of a Biblical story, the article’s author suggests that in

the very least, comparing the two works will provide greater clarity of each. Samson is

described as a revenge-tragedy like Hamlet, and for a great portion describes how

Samson’s revenge is similar to Prince Hamlet’s in that it is a self-sacrificing revenge,

where in the end of the poem, Samson pulls the Temple of Dagon down upon not only his
 Buchanan 5

Philistine enemies, but also himself. This is to be compared with Prince Hamlet’s final

revenge in which he goes forth and everyone of any consequence (except Horatio)

perishes. The article however suggests that unlike Hamlet, Samson is never preoccupied

with revenge, but share some of the same characteristics that seem to be caused, or cause,

the revenge complex: decline to take part in society, pessimistic about the future, mental

disquiet, advanced state of melancholy, and a readiness to denounce the debase values of

others around him.

Andrews, Michael Cameron. "Hamlet: Revenge and the Critical Mirror." English Literary

aaaaaaaRenaissance (Amherst, MA) 8(1978): 9-23.

This article concerns itself with Hamlet’s revenge and the moral complex that both

cause it and result from it. Prince Hamlet is described as “disowning” his higher nature to

seek vengeance, but the article shows the Elizabethan attitudes towards revenge were not

wholly portrayed, and perhaps criticized by Hamlet. The article describes Shakespeare as

mildly portraying the view that revenge belongs to God, however he does not treat the

characters of his revenge-tragedies in this way, appealing to the popular culture for which

he was writing, who did not seem to view blood-revenge in wholly moral terms.

Desai, R. W. "Hamlet as 'The Minister of God to Take Vengeance'." English Language

xxxxxxNotes 31(1993): 22-27.

In this article the aspect of revenge in Hamlet is viewed from a Biblical standpoint,

arguing that Hamlet is exacting God’s revenge on his uncle. Desai provides a Biblical

passage from the Book of Romans (13:3-4) which describes the duty of princes and seems
 Buchanan 6

to give them the right to bear the sword and charges them with the responsibility to punish

those who do evil. The article goes on to describe the justness of Prince Hamlet’s revenge

as he exacts it on his uncle, as it is not in the privacy of his chamber, but rather in public,

before all to see, as punishment for crimes are supposed to take place.

Girard, Rene. "Hamlet's Dull Revenge." Literary Theory/Renaissance Texts. Ed. Parker,

bbbbbbPatricia (ed.); Quint, David (ed.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1986

Girard begins this article showing how Shakespeare takes the typical revenge-

tragedy and improves upon it by showing not how revenge is exacted, which the typical

Elizabethan revenge-tragedy showed, but instead showing the tedium of revenge. Girard

goes on to explain revenge, showing what sort of events need to exist in order to have

revenge, which he also explains as a cyclical process, to occur.

Neill, Michael. "Remembrance and Revenge: Hamlet, Macbeth, and The Tempest." Zzzz

z Jonson and Shakespeare. ed. Ian Donaldson. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: xxxx x

xxxx Humanities, 1983.

In this article, Neill addresses Shakespeare’s plays: Hamlet, Macbeth, and The

Tempest and each of their aspects of revenge. Revenge is described as a conflict between

a code of honor and a code of law, and also a conflict between secular and spiritual orders.

The article goes on to describe how the issue of revenge in the Elizabethan era was very

prevalent in everyday life, popular culture and drama. The article goes on to describe the

trends of the renaissance avenger, describing the avenger as some sort of politician,

whether tyrant or usurper. The article then shifts towards describing Prince Hamlet’s
 Buchanan 7

character and how that character shapes his revenge; telling how Hamlet dwells on the

past, and how his revenge is driven completely by past events. Also, those whom he

believes to be his enemies have violated their shared past. His conflict is ultimately with

Claudius where Hamlet represents (even in name) a past that Claudius has attempted to

cut off and destroy.

Prosser, Eleanor. Hamlet and Revenge: Chapter I: The Ethical Dilemma. 2nd. Stanford,

vvvvvcCA: Stanford U.P, 1971.

Prosser’s opening chapter her book addresses the question as to whether or not the

play is predicated on the assumption that Hamlet is obligated to avenge his father’s death.

The question poses a look at the Elizabethan view of personal blood-revenge, which is

said in the chapter to have been disapproved of by the code of the establishment, but

accepted by the common people who felt it is the son’s responsibility to avenge his father.

However, Elizabethan literature seems to echo the idea that taking personal revenge

endangers one’s own soul no matter how righteous the cause. The chapter goes on to

describe the—at least nominally Christian audience’s predisposition against blood-

revenge, due to its inherent conflict with Christianity and Church and State establishment.

However, the chapter describes a people who might be convinced otherwise.

Proser, Matthew N. "Madness, Revenge, and the Metaphor of the Theater in

cccccccShakespeare's Hamlet and Pirandello's Henry IV." Modern Drama 24(1981): 338-

ccccccc352.
 Buchanan 8

This article attempts to compare Prince Hamlet’s character with that of

Pirandello’s Henry IV. Hamlet’s madness is addressed first as a means to show how it

drives him to complete his vengeful task. Hamlet struggles with this madness that drives

him to do something he considers a very base thing. However, after the revenge is

exacted, the audience sees that the madness is ultimately conquered and thus we are left

with a somewhat life-embracing ending as compared to Henry IV’s ending which leaves

us with no respite from catharsis.

Rose, Mark. "Hamlet and the Shape of Revenge." English Literary Renaissance

vvvvvv(Amherst, MA) 1(1971): 132-43.

In this article, the shape of revenge is described as being part of Prince Hamlet’s

limited will. The issue of determinism is partially discussed concerning Hamlet’s mission

for revenge. Both Polonius and Laertes describe Hamlet’s will to Ophelia as not wholly

free or “tethered.” While they are in context referring to Hamlet’s royal obligation, the

author suggests that that royal obligation is an obligation to the ghost of King Hamlet who

binds his son to avenging his death. Prince Hamlet however is described as proving he

has a certain degree of freedom over his role (however little), at least recognizing his

“vulgar role,” and making it “as heroic as to not offend the modesty of man.”

Sadowski, Piotr. "The 'Dog's Day' in Hamlet: A Forgotten Aspect of the Revenge

aaaaaaaTheme." Shakespeare and His Contemporaries: Eastern and Central European

aaaaaaaStudies. Ed. Jerzy Limon, Jay L. Halio. Newark; London: U of Delaware P;

aaaaaaaAssociated UP, 1993.

 Buchanan 9

This article bases itself from the scene of Ophelia’s funeral, where Prince Hamlet

describes Laertes’ drive for revenge as so strong that it would take a “Herculean task” to

restrain it, just as it would be impossible for staying a cat from mewing or keeping a dog

down. Sadowsky delves into the historic origins of the literary work, looking at Amleth

and other traditional Scandinavian and world myths that concern themselves with the

same style of revenge that is seen in Hamlet. He goes to demonstrate the comparisons

between the revenge structures of the Scandinavian, Greek, and Persian myth-legends and

Hamlet. However, Sadowsky recognizes Hamlet as an Elizabethan period character who

is contemplative, contrasting the ancient formulae of the vengeful hero who seems to seek

vengeance at all costs. But Sadowsky goes on to conclude that ultimately, Prince Hamlet

allows himself to fall into this category in the end, as evidenced by his actions and the

quote: “Let Hercules do what he may.”

Veith, Gene Edward, Jr. "'Wait Upon the Lord': David, Hamlet, and the Problem of

cccccccRevenge." The David Myth in Western Literature. Comp. Frontain, Raymond-

cccccccJean; Wojcik, Jan. West Lafayette: Purdue UP, 1980.

In this article, Veith demonstrates the striking similarities between the Biblical

account of King David and his rise to power and Prince Hamlet with a strong focus on the

similarities and differences of their problems of revenge. Veith shows that both are young

men with a right to the throne, have a king who both flatters and attempts to kill him, are

feigner of madness, and finds mercy when given the perfect opportunity to exact revenge.

Veith even goes on to say that Hamlet, in the end, like David, ascribes vengeance as God’s

domain.
 Buchanan 10

Willson, Robert F., Jr.. "Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet; or, the Revenge of Fortinbras." Z z z

z Shakespeare Newsletter 47(1997 Spring): 7,9.

This article concerns itself mainly with comparing the character of Fortinbras,

described by Willson as “the third avenging son” of Hamlet, with his role in the stage play

and his role in Kenneth Branagh’s cinema version of the play. Fortinbras is described as

more glorified in the movie than in the stage play, where cinema allows for scenes lacking

dialogue that depict Fortinbras better as Hamlet’s foil, by showing him actively planning

and putting into motion his plans to invade Denmark thus gaining his revenge, whereas

Prince Hamlet is seen continually delaying his revenge.

Watson, Robert N. "Giving up the Ghost in a World of Decay: Hamlet, Revenge, and

zzzzzzzDenial." Renaissance Drama 21(1990): 199-223.

In this article Watson addresses the use of the ghost of King Hamlet in the play

and its relation to revenge and death. It shows an immortality—a continuation of life that

Hamlet fears isn’t there. Watson goes on to show how this afterlife and revenge go hand

in hand, because if life isn’t continued in death, then revenge isn’t so important, because

nothing that now exists is offended and needs justification. Watson also goes on to show

the Christian symbolism in Hamlet’s revenge as a Christ-figure, where Claudius is the

serpent who brought death in the garden or orchard on King Hamlet who represents

Adam. Hamlet as a Christ-figure brings revenge against Claudius as the serpent or Satan

thus redeeming King Hamlet as Adam.