In his works and specifically in the play Hamlet, Shakespeare focuses on the concept of revenge to emphasize the role of justice within a Christian society (Jordan 202). During the Elizabethan era, the Christian belief stood on the division between rights of resistance and lawfully instituted authority (202). It was a common belief that those who were victimized by authority cannot act upon revenge except simply through prayer. This view was exaggerated through dramatizations of revenge during the era, ultimately exhibiting the flaws within the legal system and the assurance of fair trials (202). As we will see with Shakespeare’s Hamlet, playwrights typically exemplified common social concepts and inner conflicts, such as justice and the law, to demonstrate flaws within the social and political constructs of the time which otherwise wouldn’t be as identifiable.

Editor Constance Jordan identifies sources for which people of the Elizabethan era aligned their beliefs of justice and revenge, beginning with justification within the Bible (Jordan 203). People of the Elizabethan era viewed the Scriptures ultimately as divine law, thought to provide positive law to the court and state through its foundations (203). Specifically, the Old Testament account on brothers Cain and Abel exhibits this universal prohibition against vengeful murder and the implications of law administered by the state and by God (203). In Genesis 4.9-15, it states “Doubtless whoever slayeth Cain, he shall be punished seven-fold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain lest any man finding him should kill him” (204). This excerpt explicitly demonstrates the source for the Christian belief on the prohibition of revenge during the Elizabethan era (204). Further expanding upon this Christian perspective is William Dickinson’s assertion that positive law is derived from the Word of God, prohibiting any individual from seeking revenge and promoting adherence to all prescribed legal procedures (204). He states, “Let everyone, whether he be a vessel of honor or dishonor, content himself with his place and submit his will to the obedience of those laws which his maker hath set down to be observed…It hath pleased God even from the beginning to rule and judge by men” (204). Jordan further supports this Elizabethan belief on revenge by taking excerpts from Francis Bacon’s work Of Revenge which affirms that the injured party who renounces revenge will benefit wholly (207). Bacon states, “For as for the first wrong, it doth but offend the law; but the revenge of that wrong putted the law out of office” (208). Through this analysis of works during the Elizabethan era that portray the common perception on revenge in a Christian society, Jordan relates this theme back to Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Jordan validates that the play specifically exhibits this Christian perception of justice by capitalizing on the motivations for revenge versus divine law preventing these impulses and through his analysis of the characters and their interactions (202).

This debate between lawful authority and justice poses a question within Hamlet: does Claudius’s crime justify Hamlet’s position and desire for revenge (Jordan 202)? This ongoing debate throughout the play becomes a situation between de facto versus de jure, which is defined as the competing interests of justice and the law. Based on the Christian perception of revenge and divine law, one can assume that though it feels justified to support Hamlet in his exploit for revenge against Claudius, he is wrong to accept this role contending positive law. For example, Hamlet illustrates that inner debate between what is just and what is lawful throughout his soliloquoy in Act 3 Scene 1, where he questions his conscience:
To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And by opposing end them (Shakespeare III.i. 56-60).
Hamlet goes on to say,
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pitch and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry
And lose the name of action. (III.i. 83-88).
Hamlet’s hesitation with revenge on Claudius and the back-and-forth with his conscience demonstrates this social conflict of justice versus positive law. The emotions Hamlet is exhibiting at this moment in the play exemplifies the common inner turmoil that Christian individuals felt in this era, especially pertaining to their loyalty to the state. Hamlet’s hesitation for revenge continues throughout the play, and because of this, he never commits the act of murder for revenge but is instead successful due to Claudius’s pursuit of revenge against Hamlet. The conclusion of this play thus demonstrates the negative consequences of going against divine law and seeking personal revenge and justification. Shakespeare’s purpose of illustrating this inner debate between what is just and what is lawful through the interaction between Hamlet and Claudius is to emphasize the complication of the two ideals in a Christian society; though revenge may appear justified in every sense, the Elizabethan belief asserts that going against positive law is equivalent to going against God and justice.