Is Hamlet Primarily a Tragedy of Revenge - Research Paper Example

Is Hamlet primarily a tragedy of revenge? One of the most celebrated tragedies in English literature, The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, or more simply Hamlet, is an important play by William Shakespeare which narrates the story of how Prince Hamlet takes revenge on his uncle Claudius, who has murdered his father, King Hamlet, and married his mother Gertrude. Set in Denmark, the play revolves around tragedy and revenge and several critics of the play have highlighted the quality of Shakespearean plays with regard to the theme of revenge. In the play, the protagonist’s pursuit to revenge his father’s murderer leads to the tragic death of Hamlet and people close to him. In his attempt to take revenge upon his uncle Claudius, Hamlet blinded his morals and intelligence which lead to the untimely death of the character and to the tragic elements of the play. It is important to recognize that the revenge theme is acted upon throughout the play and it is one of the most pertinent concerns of the playwright. Revenge has been one of the dominant themes in the play which presents three major characters of various contexts, Fortinbras, Laertes, and Hamlet, as seeking to take vengeance on the deaths of their fathers. Shakespeare’s Hamlet should be comprehended as a play that exhibits the struggles of various people and their inner demons which lead these characters to the path of revenge. Under the influence of these inner powers, the various characters in the play pursue the path of revenge and this ultimately brings about the tragic aspects of the play. Therefore, a careful reading, as well as a reflective exploration of the play Hamlet confirms that revenge is an underlying theme running all through the play and an essential question concerning the overall themes and plot of the play is: Is Hamlet primarily a tragedy of revenge? This paper makes a profound analysis of this question in order to determine the underlying theme which Shakespeare demonstrates through the actions of the various characters. In a careful analysis of the play Hamlet, it becomes lucid that the play is not the muddying of a minor tradition by an ambition of genius, but it inherits and self-consciously transforms a pattern of action, language and emotion which is rich and important. Hamlet is an astonishing consummation which incorporates the inherited complexity of dramatic tradition. “It is not, of course,” tells Peter Mercer, “just another revenge play. In fact it forces the revenge structure to the point where it turns it on its own forms and metaphors: that is, to the point where, because it can find expression only in acting – the performance of fiction – revenge losses indeed the name of action. Nevertheless, the structure it so radically transforms, the structure rediscovered by Elizabethan drama within the ancient myth of revenge, remains of the highest relevance to the play.” (Mercer, 7) Therefore, it is important to recognize that the play Hamlet incorporates various elements of revenge play and, as Mercer purports, it belongs to the structure rediscovered by Elizabethan drama within the ancient myth of revenge – however strange its labor. In his important work Hamlet and the Acting of Revenge, Mercer examines the play by Shakespeare in the context of Elizabethan revenge tragedy and he calls for a sweeping shift of critical attention from focusing on the ethical problems of revenge plays to the more formal conventions that underlie dramatic action of the play. Any critical study of the play Hamlet as a revenge tragedy investigates the fundamental assumption that the protagonist of the play is morally obliged to revenge his father’s death. It is also important to assess if the Ghost’s command morally binding to the protagonist. Significantly, an investigation of this ethical question underlying the basic dramatic problem of the play can logically answer the question: ‘Is Hamlet primarily a tragedy of revenge?’ “With few exceptions, critics have long agreed that in Shakespeare’s time the answer was an unqualified ‘yes’, and that the modern reader must adjust to this Elizabethan premise even if it runs counter to his own ethical intuitions.” (Prosser, 3) Several studies of the play Hamlet confirm the assumption that the conventional moral ideas of Shakespeare’s audience endorsed blood revenge as an unquestioned duty of the protagonist. Analyzing the studies by several modern scholars, such as Lily Bess Campbell, Willard Farnham, and Fredson Bowers, Eleanor Prosser maintains that the Elizabethan orthodoxy unanimously condemned private revenge and most critics of the play hold the view that the average Elizabethan believed a son morally bound to take vengeance upon his father’s murderer. According to Eleanor Prosser, the popular revenge plays in the Elizabethan era came up in a theatrical tradition that appealed to popular attitudes, rather than official attitudes. “Despite changing tastes and shifting interpretations, the history of Hamlet on the stage and in the study indicates almost unanimous agreement on one basic assumption: that Hamlet is morally obliged to obey the Ghost. It may well be, as many have suggested, that we today are so imbued with traditional attitudes toward the play that we can no longer trust our first impressions, but surely the reactions of actors, critics, and audience closer to Shakespeare’s day must be heeded.” (Prosser, 242) Thus, various critics hold the view that Hamlet is morally obliged to obey the Ghost to revenge the murder of his father and the elements of a revenge play are greatly apparent in Hamlet. However, a profound understanding of the protagonist’s response to the Ghost request for revenge offer considerable doubt among the readers on determining whether the play is basically a revenge play. For several scholars of the revenge plays, revenge is not a central issue in many of the greatest works in world literature, although it is a strong motif in some tragedies. Analyzing Hamlet as revenge tragedy, R. A. Foakes purports that “it can be argued that revenge is not really the basic issue in Hamlet, which is commonly been regarded as the greatest of revenge tragedies.” (Foakes, 113) According to him, various critics of the twentieth century hold the view that Hamlet’s ‘task’ or ‘duty’ is to carry out his revenge upon the murderer of his father. It is essential to investigate why the protagonist delays or avoids taking revenge upon Claudius, who is the assassin of his father, albeit there are several opportunities open to him. The central concern of the play, according to various modern studies, has been the need for Hamlet to carry out the Ghost’s demand for revenge. However, the protagonist is noted for his inability to act and he cannot obey the demands of the Ghost for revenge. It is also important to consider that Hamlet does not respond to the Ghost by promising to revenge. “Revenge is not the dominant concern in Hamlet, as can be seen in comparing it with a play that is in some measure a spin-off from it, namely The Revenger’s Tragedy.” (Foakes, 114) There is an important view that the play by Shakespeare cannot be regarded as a revenge play in the modern period, although it was regarded as a revenge play by the Elizabethan popular convention. According to this argument, it is too late for scholars to treat Hamlet as a revenge play, because the play clearly fails to meet the essentials of a revenge tragedy. However, it is important recognize that the meaning of Hamlet has for us is inseparable from that traditional plot which gives it its unity of structure. Analyzing the structure of a revenge play, it becomes apparent that the typical revenge plot, in its bared essentials, is a play in which a crime is committed, normally a murder, and revenge is wrought upon the perpetrator of the action. In a revenge play, therefore, the dramatic action centers upon the opposition between the avenger and the murderer. “In the old Danish story of Hamlet… a king was murdered by his brother, and the avenging of such a crime…is regarded by the story as a natural duty developing upon the murdered man’s son. To provide a cover for his designs of vengeance the Prince in the story pretends to be mad, and to get behind his guard of madness his uncle has recourse to various plots.” (Nicoll, 45) It is also significant to relate here that Shakespeare incorporates a play-within-the-play, which is used to prove the murderer’s guilt and it is a customary element in traditional revenge tragedies. Thus, there are various elements of revenge tragedy apparent in the play Hamlet by Shakespeare. A careful exploration of the elements of the tragic play within Shakespeare confirms that the play closely follows the dramatic conventions of revenge in Elizabethan theater. Hamlet has been regarded as one of the most famous English revenge tragedies written in the Elizabethan era and the dramatist clearly makes use of all the Elizabethan conventions for revenge tragedies. “Shakespeare’s Hamlet is one of many heroes of the Elizabethan and Jacobean stage who finds himself grievously wronged by a powerful figure, with no recourse to the law, and with a crime against his family to avenge.” (Mangan, 116) All through the play, Shakespeare incorporates elements of dramatic conventions of revenge during his period and he clearly sets the right platform for a revenge tragedy at the outset of the play. Thus, he sets up the scene with a Ghost on a dark night, in the beginning of the play and there is a clear indication of something “rotten in the State of Denmark.” (Shakespeare, 134) Therefore, it is obvious to the careful viewer and reader of the play that Shakespeare follows regular convention of revenge tragedy to a great extent in his Hamlet. In conclusion, a profound investigation of the question, whether Shakespeare’s Hamlet is primarily a tragedy of revenge, reveals that the play incorporates various essential elements of the convention of revenge tragedy. It is also important to recognize that, to the Elizabethans, Hamlet one of the two most significant revenge plays, according to the standards of popular conventions. Works Cited Foakes, R. A. Shakespeare and violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2003. P 113. Mangan, Michael. A preface to Shakespeare's tragedies. New York: Longman. 1991. P 116. Mercer, Peter. Hamlet and the acting of revenge. University of Iowa Press. 1987. P 7. Nicoll, Allardyce. Shakespeare Survey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2002. P 45. Prosser, Eleanor. Hamlet and revenge. New York: Stanford University Press. 1967. P 3. Shakespeare, William. Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. Robert Hapgood. (Ed). Cambridge University Press. 1999. P 134. Read More