Cadet Michael A. Banholzer
ERH-321WX-01
COL Miller
1 DEC 2017
Hamlet
Early modern English attitudes about revenge are based strongly on religion. (Jordan 202) There are many places throughout the bible that provide a sense of revenge as wrong. Revenge is considered to be wrong due to the fact that it says explicitly in the bible and is thought of as a wild man’s answer to a wrong done against you. (Jordan 208) On top of the main conclusion that religion is supposed to be the driving factor in how you act and therefore you shouldn’t act out of spite and revenge, it also says in this reading that it is an honor and a privilege during this time, to forget and revenge and move in. It is a superior and “royal” thing to be able to do this. (Jordan 208) It’s ironic though because most of the high-ranking people in different society’s during this time was that a lot of them focused on revenge if something along those lines happened in their lives. It’s almost like if you ask anyone whether revenge is right or not, they would say no, yet they seem to be contradictory in their actions.
Regarding Hamlet, he is debating within himself almost the whole play. In scenes like when he doesn’t kill Claudius it shows that he has the ideals of the Christian religion in the back of his mind, however, he still continues to plot his revenge throughout the entirety of the play. Just like in the “Texts and Contexts” you see contradictory actions to the bible and the “right” thing to do during this time, in Hamlet. The way that Shakespeare presents the temptation of the devil, regarding Hamlet killing Claudius to avenge his father, is by the ghost of Kind Hamlet. This ghost in the play presents a physical means that Hamlet is tempted to go against what the bible says about revenge, however, Shakespeare does it in Hamlet for a very specific reason, in my opinion. All literature and just accepted thinking during this time about revenge, states that revenge is unholy and that those who truly are royal and of “higher-thinking” will not avenge something that has happened to them. Shakespeare presents this play with a character, Hamlet, that goes against what the bible says, but he tries to present it in a way that might allow people to understand and be able to see a different viewpoint of revenge in someone else’s shoes. Overall, I believe Shakespeare succeeds in making people take a second look at when revenge is actually acceptable, which is quite an astonishing feat due to how religiously dominant both law and reasoning was during this time.
Works Cited
- Jordan, Constance, ed. Revenge. Hamlet: Texts and Contexts. By William
Shakespeare. New York: Pearson/ Longman, 2005. Print.
- Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Ed. Constance Jordan. New York:
Pearson/Longman, 2005. Print.