The theme of revenge is crucial in Hamlet, serving as a framework for the entire play and intertwining with other significant themes. While Hamlet’s revenge sets the foundation for the story, the vengeance of Laertes and Fortinbras also mirrors Hamlet’s situation in various aspects.
Shakespeare brings attention to the different approaches and resolutions these avengers have towards the issue of revenge by juxtaposing them. The concept of revenge is initially introduced when the ghost appears in Act 1 Scene 5, and it is connected to the theme of hell and the afterlife. By the end of this scene, Hamlet is bound to seek revenge throughout the play, as he declares, “speak, I am bound to hear” and “So art thou to revenge”. The ghost’s purpose in appearing is solely to manipulate his son into getting revenge on his brother, thus every word he utters aims to enrage Hamlet and instill in him a desire for vengeance.
The author uses highly emotional language to exaggerate the magnitude of the crime and directs Hamlet’s attention towards Claudius’ betrayal. The author’s depiction of the actual murder degrades Claudius and includes numerous allusions to original sin, with lines such as “the serpent that did sting thy fathers life now wears his crown.” Hamlet, who has been raised with a strong sense of right and wrong, is susceptible to these religious allusions, exclaiming “o all you host of heaven! O earth! And shall I couple hell?” Interestingly, the ghost refers to its own torment in purgatory to show Hamlet the injustice of the situation, but this only serves as a warning about the potential consequences of seeking revenge. Rather than enrage him, this caution now makes Hamlet cautious about acting hastily or without evidence, as it could lead him into a similar predicament as his father.
In the play, Hamlet stands out for his caution compared to the other characters. While they act immediately without considering the spiritual consequences, Hamlet’s response is influenced by a warning from his father’s ghost. It remains uncertain whether he would have reacted similarly if not for this encounter.
Initially, Hamlet reacts with anger and a desire for revenge upon hearing about his father’s murder. However, by the end of the scene, this desire has already weakened. There are several reasons contributing to this change.
Unlike Laertes and Fortinbras, Hamlet receives information about his father’s murder through a secret and unreliable source. As a result, he not only questions its validity but also must seek revenge discreetly.
Throughout the play, Hamlet frustrates the audience with his lack of action in comparison to his peers who readily pursue vengeance.
Fortinbras is in a similar situation to Hamlet, as his father had been murdered by old Hamlet and his land taken. The land itself is worthless and Fortinbras stands to lose more than he can gain; yet like Hamlet it is a matter of honour. Both are exacting revenge for something that nobody else cares for or remembers; a dead king for whom nobody grieves and a patch of worthless land. Part of Hamlet’s dilemma is the moral question of whether his desire for revenge is worth disrupting and endangering the lives of all those around him, ‘whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or take arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them’ However, unlike Hamlet Fortinbras does not pause to contemplate the idea of revenge; he acts on it, ‘sharked up a list of lawless resolutes’ and marched on Denmark.
The difference in characteristics between Fortinbras and Hamlet is evident through their names. Fortinbras embodies strength and is known for his physical prowess. He is a decisive individual who prefers action over words. His imposing presence and authoritative manner command respect and unquestioning obedience: “Go captain, from me greet the Danish king,” to which the response is “I will do’t my lord.” Unlike Hamlet, Fortinbras faces fewer complexities in his situation. He sees clear demarcations between good and evil, the personal and the public, and right and wrong. Fortinbras can act openly and independently without being influenced by friends or family.
Hamlet faces a dilemma in which he is uncertain of whom to trust, as those around him have obligations to him and the king. This leaves him hesitant to take any action, fearing the potential consequences that could destroy his very existence. Despite despising himself for his lack of action, Hamlet chooses to endure his current problems rather than risk venturing into the unknown. The difficulty lies in the murder being too close to home for Hamlet, blurring the lines between personal and public boundaries. Without solid evidence, publicly confronting Claudius would jeopardize his claim to the throne, alienate his friends and family, and result in exile from Denmark. Seeking justice for his father’s murder might be misconstrued as an attempt to regain power instead of a son seeking justice.
Hamlet desires to protect his relationship with his mother and seek revenge on her simultaneously. To comprehend Hamlet’s mindset and his subsequent actions, it is crucial to acknowledge the impact of religion on all aspects of life during Elizabethan times. It was believed that confessing sins before death would grant redemption and access to heaven. Conversely, failure to do so would condemn the soul to purgatory until confession and repentance were made possible. As Old Hamlet’s soul is trapped in purgatory, Hamlet endeavors to ensure that Claudius suffers the same fate. He states, “a villain kills my father and for that, I send this same villain to heaven as his rightful son.”
Hamlet explains that his motivation for killing Claudius is not revenge, but rather a matter of justice. He believes that he must wait for the perfect opportunity to take action against Claudius, such as when he is intoxicated, in a state of anger, preoccupied with a game, swearing, or engaged in an irreligious act. However, religion poses another issue for Hamlet: the consequences of his actions on his own afterlife. If revenge is considered immoral, then by avenging his father’s murder and killing Claudius, Hamlet also damns his own soul.
Hamlet is torn between his duty to avenge his father’s murder and the potential dire outcomes if he chooses not to take action. Even contemplating suicide seems futile, as the fear of the unknown after death perplexes him and makes him prefer enduring his current hardships rather than facing uncertain ones. However, Hamlet’s indecisiveness does not solely stem from uncertainty about the consequences; he is also emotionally distressed and feels betrayed and abandoned by those he had previously depended on.
At the beginning of the play, Hamlet is filled with anger and frustration towards his mother’s behavior. This anger is heightened by her apparent lack of grief and contributes to his desire for revenge. However, as the play progresses, Hamlet’s focus shifts from seeking revenge on Claudius to dealing with more immediate concerns – his relationships with Ophelia and his mother. In addition to his mother’s actions, Hamlet also feels betrayed by Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, as well as Ophelia, which further deepens his sense of isolation. The strained relationship between Hamlet and Claudius forces everyone involved to take sides and decide where their loyalties lie.
During the Shakespearian era, women such as Ophelia were seen as possessions and had to conform to their father’s authority. Being under her father Polonious’ control, who was Claudius’ trusted aide, Ophelia had no choice but to obey his commands. Going against her father’s instructions would be regarded as an act of treason due to the immense emphasis placed on family duty and loyalty in that period. Similarly, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern received a direct order from their king, and defying it would also be deemed treasonous.
Despite lacking knowledge of Hamlet’s true situation and the deception from both Hamlet and Claudius, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern showed no sympathy towards his mental instability or fixation on his father’s death. Hamlet failed to understand their difficult position and resented them for abandoning him when he needed support, despite being caught up in his own conflict with Claudius. Feeling betrayed, Hamlet manipulated them for personal gain. In the end, all three became victims of Hamlet’s revenge against Claudius as he orchestrated the deaths of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern while driving Ophelia into madness, leading her to take her own life.
In the play, both Ophelia and Hamlet are depicted as victims. Ophelia’s obedience to her father results in her losing not only Hamlet but also causing his actions that lead to Polonious’ death. Furthermore, with Laertes being away, she becomes exposed and alone. On the other hand, Hamlet is a victim of revenge himself, as his father influences him to seek retribution for his own murder. This burden, along with his emotional instability, eventually causes Hamlet to become indecisive.
Hamlet’s inability to enact revenge or make significant decisions is expected, considering the immense emotional and mental strain he is under. Likewise, Laertes faces a similar predicament as his father has been murdered by Hamlet and his sister has succumbed to madness. This vulnerability makes Laertes susceptible to manipulation by Claudius, who uses him as a pawn against Hamlet. Consequently, both friends become tools in the power struggle between the two brothers that extends beyond mortality. Therefore, Laertes’ situation shares resemblances with Hamlet’s.
Both Hamlet and Laertes are connected by their love for Ophelia. Hamlet loves her as his lover, while Laertes loves her as his brother. When Laertes comes back and finds out about his father’s murder, he faces a similar dilemma to what Hamlet initially faced – the belief that the king of Denmark was responsible for their father’s death. However, unlike Hamlet who decides to use deception against Claudius’s deceit, Laertes directly confronts Claudius without hesitation. This immediate action allows Laertes to seek revenge much faster than Hamlet, but it also makes him a pawn in Claudius’s plan against Hamlet.
Although these two revengers have different methods for seeking revenge, they ultimately reach the same outcome. Both characters become victims of the corruption that engulfs the Danish court, largely due to the influence of Claudius. Throughout the play, Claudius employs deceit to mask the truth, creating a façade of dishonesty. Additionally, Claudius manipulates others as pawns in order to achieve his goals, ensuring that he avoids taking the blame if his plans fail.
Throughout the play, Shakespeare utilizes various characters to manipulate the truth in Denmark. He orchestrates the involvement of Polonious, the king of Norway, and Laertes to serve his ulterior motives. As a result of this corrupting influence, the people of Denmark remain ignorant of the actual state of affairs. Hamlet’s sole endeavor to unveil this veil of deceit inadvertently leads to the demise of Polonious instead of Claudius. In act 3 scene 3, Shakespeare metaphorically represents the pervasive corruption enveloping Denmark through the use of a curtain concealing Polonious. This symbolizes the hindrance to Hamlet’s pursuit of vengeance as he remains unaware of the truth. Despite his attempts to sever this curtain, he is unsuccessful and tragically ends up killing the wrong individual.
This demonstrates that Hamlet realizes that he cannot effectively confront the issue at hand without exposing Claudius for who he truly is. In his attempts to circumvent this problem, Hamlet resorts to deception, while Laertes chooses to directly confront the problem. However, both of their approaches result in being manipulated and ultimately lead to their deaths. Despite the deaths of almost all the characters, the conclusion of the play is deeply satisfying. In order to have a tidy resolution, it was essential for all the characters to obtain their revenge. Given the complex web of revenge within the play, it was inevitable that a significant number of characters would perish.
The play concludes with a fresh start, as the corruption in Denmark perishes alongside Claudius and Hamlet. Hamlet achieves his goal of avenging Claudius and exposing his true character, while Laertes successfully kills Hamlet but loses his life in the process. These events pave the way for Fortinbras, who emerges as a more capable leader compared to the hesitant Hamlet. Fortinbras outshines both Hamlet and Laertes in seeking revenge for various reasons.
Hamlet’s dilemma, which presents the choice between betraying his father’s trust or losing the throne and alienating his loved ones, does not hinder Fortinbras. Unlike Hamlet, Fortinbras is not constrained by proximity to Claudius and the situation and thus can act freely. Additionally, Fortinbras stands out because he alone made the decision to seek revenge, making it solely his responsibility. In contrast, both Hamlet and Laertes must nurture their desire for revenge and are manipulated as pawns in the ongoing feud between their respective brothers.
Fortinbras, unlike Hamlet, is not one to contemplate the philosophical aspects of seeking revenge. He takes action without hesitation. Unlike Laertes, he carefully plots and prepares for his revenge rather than hastily jumping into a confrontation. In fact, he embodies the admirable qualities of both characters, resulting in his survival and eventual claim to the throne of Denmark.
