In the Hand of God

In the Hand of God

Hamlet is often viewed as a repugnant character. Some critics interpret his reluctance to kill Claudius as a sign of weakness or cowardice. Others argue that Hamlet loses his sanity, becoming the madness that he feigns. However, although Hamlet outwardly appears unstable, his reasoning and actions, if interpreted through cultural context, indicate rationality. Moreover, not only is Hamlet rational, he is also the heroic personification of intellect restraining passion, and justice conquering revenge. Specifically, this essay will argue the legitimacy of a noble Hamlet in light of Elizabethan conceptions of the divine right and personal revenge.

One of the defining aspects of Elizabethan government was the relationship between the crown and the divine. Although it can be difficult to apprehend this relationship in light of modern western thought, it is a crucial juxtaposition for understanding this period of English politics and culture. After Henry VIII’s severance from the Pope in 1534, political and religious power were consolidated, granting the monarch combined authority. Along with this unbridled power, the monarch gained another advantage. The throne became holy. Divine right established the monarch as God’s appointed official. This transformed the political sphere into a sacred occupation. One consequence of this cultural perception was the condemnation of political usurpation.

Political dissent or, to its fullest extent, a coup d’état was dangerous on two levels. First, it was physically dangerous. In Early Modern England, especially during Elizabeth’s reign, a vast network of spies prowled amidst the layers of the social hierarchy. Since federal enforcement was nonexistent, localities sought to regulate potential political complications with autonomy. Thus, spies were a tangible way for the monarch to stay informed concerning potential threats. If found out, conspirators met a speedy execution. Nonetheless, political usurpation was dangerous in another manner. Under a popular interpretation of Scripture, opposing the monarch was a sinful and unbiblical action.

William Dickenson, commenting on the divine right of kings, wrote: “It sufficeth that being under we must obey, not only for fear but for our conscience sake, lest through our disobedience, our conscience accuse us for resisting the ordinance of God, for the powers that be are ordained by God” (Jordan qtd. 205). Dickenson’s remark concerns the case in which a monarch is wicked, tyrannical, or unjust. He exhorts the reader to be long suffering. Although the ruler may abuse his power, God, in His sovereignty, has placed him on the throne. To defy the king would be to defy God. Thus, Dickenson concludes obedience is mandatory. Rebellion has no place in the Kingdom of God, and consequently no place in England.

Interconnected with the concept of divine sovereignty in the political realm was the concept of personal revenge. In Romans 13, Paul instructs Christians on the judicial and executive power of the state. He writes that rulers “do not bear the sword in vain” (13:4). God has given rulers the authority and responsibility to reward the righteous and punish the wicked. Thus, the monarch maintains the power to exact judgment on evil doers. This is a divinely appointed mandate, and being such, was not to be infringed upon. For a person to step outside the political system of retribution, established by Romans 13, was to venture outside the instruction of God. Ronald Broude writes, “It was simply asserted that in matters of felony God and the king were the parties most offended, and that to them was reserved the right to exact punishment” (50). Personal revenge was a disruption and defiance of God’s sovereignty through the crown. In addition, Francis Bacon called revenge “a kind of wild justice” (Jordan qtd. 208). It does not reflect the systematic and objective processes of the state. Rather, it is often driven by unbridled passion and fueled by hate. Henry Jacobs writes, “Revenge is the ultimate displacement of the God-centered discourse; it represents a personal usurpation of power that has already been appropriated explicitly by God (“Vindicta mihi,” Rom. 12:19) and implicitly by the church and the state” (105).

However, there is also scholarship that denotes a more positive cultural conception for revenge. After acknowledging the reservation of vengeance to the Divine and His monarch, Ronald Broude presents a more positive cultural view. He states that Elizabethan connotations of the noun revengeequated with retribution(40). Broude writes, “Revenge and vengeance could be used to describe the punishment meted out by the commonweal for acts defined by statute or custom as contrary to the public good (41). He also comments on the “Renaissance feeling for vengeance as a word proper to denote the retribution visited by God for transgression of His laws” (41). Both of these passages argue a more positive cultural acceptance of revenge. In addition, Broude acknowledges Francis Bacon’s quote on the wild nature of revenge. Nonetheless, he argues that this may be an overstated or amplified statement, expressing the individual opinion of Bacon on specific instances of revenge. As it is plausible for revenge to be enacted by hate, it is also feasible for revenge to have noble motivations. Vincentio Saviolo, an Elizabethan writer, stated that “revenge ought to be done honorably” (qtd. Broude 41). This exemplifies a more socially acceptable view of retribution. Central to its merit is the appeal to honor. In addition, Martin Luther wrote, “he [the good Christian] can and should seek vengeance and protection, and help and do as much as he can to achieve it” (qtd Broude). Although Luther is not condoning private vengeance, this passage encourages the individual to pursue the execution of justice. When considered, it appears that revenge was viewed circumstantially, not through a superlative lens.

Another factor shaping the Elizabethan conception of revenge was the monarch’s limited ability to establish centralized judicial and executive power. Specifically, the state was incredibly inept in enacting criminal punishment. Because of the lack of centrality, local officials carried the weight of justice. Having an executive force of a few constables, many towns were largely incompetent to carry this responsibility. As result, injustice, including political injustice, could affect many people without retribution. Within this vacuum of local justice emerged a fascinating solution: duels. Duels were incredibly prevalent in Elizabethan England. They offered the occasion for men to settle personal wrongs in a manner that was deemed equal and under the sovereignty of God. Broude writes, “the duel both reflected and contributed to Renaissance Englishmen’s continued belief in the principles of self-government” (47). This self-government was the alternative to suffering unrequited crimes under a weak central judicial system.

The dynamic for Elizabethan revenge ideology creates a complicated question: If the state fails, can the individual enact retribution? Shakespeare explores this question in Hamlet. Although there is ambiguity surrounding the Elizabethan conception of revenge, Shakespeare makes Hamlet a noble character who acts as a divine minister of justice, not a murderer (Wagenknecht 192). Hamlet’s reluctance to kill Claudius is not due to cowardice or madness, it is a refusal to act “rashly or hastily”, embodying a heroic, shrewd, and calculating virtue (192).

Before exploring the quality of Hamlet’s character, one must understand the nature of Hamlet’s dilemma, and how it relates to cultural ideas of retribution. The most famous line in Hamlet, and perhaps in all of Shakespeare’s plays, is found at the beginning of Act III. While Polonius and Claudius lurk in the shadows, Hamlet utters the famous line, “To be, or not to be, that is the question” (III. i. 56). Although these words will be forever immortalized, the following monologue is often overlooked and marginalized. There tends to be a metaphysical interpretation of the opening line, distracting from the influential ensuing sentences. Yet, the proceeding lines construct the heart of Hamlet’s dilemma and the central tension in the play.

Hamlet laments, “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. To die, to sleep…”(III. i. 57-60). Here, Hamlet considers two options: to take arms or to suffer. If he patiently suffers Claudius’ wickedness, Hamlet would obey the Lord’s command in the book of Romans. The Apostle Paul instructs, “Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord’” (12:19). By patiently enduring Claudius’ injustice, Hamlet would place the king into the hands of a vengeful God, resigning Claudius to the potential punishment of hell. Also, a suffering Hamlet would honor God’s sovereignty. God knows of King Hamlet’s murder and will bring Claudius accountable on the day of judgement. Hamlet can rest in this promise.

Yet, Hamlet’s position is nuanced. As discussed, God provided for an earthly form of justice through the state. However, in Hamlet’s case, the very person who ought to exact justice is the one deserving of recompense. In addition, Hamlet is the prince. Thus, he holds the political implications of a divine ruler, but not the title of king. He tentatively holds the sword of the state. Hamlet is simultaneously a man and the political instrument of the Almighty. This creates the central tension of Hamlet’s dilemma. Is Hamlet justified in taking arms against the king? What is his role? To add to the complication, Hamlet receives the revelation of the crime from a supernatural source. Is this a sign from God or a demon in disguise of his father? Millicent Bell remarks that “there is a strong Protestant theological argument behind Hamlet’s idea that it could be an impersonating fiend” (327). Certainly, this deception would fit into the play’s theme of false appearances. Nevertheless, perhaps it is message from God, transferring the divine authority from Claudius to Hamlet. The ghost’s true identity is left mysterious, increasing the stressfulness of Hamlet’s moral dilemma. David Kastan aptly describes Hamlet as caught “between an inescapable psychological obligation to revenge and unavoidable moral abhorrence of it” (118).

This predicament composes the central conflict of the play, a conflict which is internal. Hamlet struggles to determine his role within the divine narrative. In Act 4, Hamlet finally commits to his role as divine avenger. After observing Fortinbras and his army, Hamlet announces in his soliloquy, “Oh, from this time forth / My thoughts be bloody or be nothing worth! (IV. iv. 65-66). Here, Hamlet resolves to kill Claudius. Rather than a revenge craven promise, this statement is the resolution of Hamlet’s internal conflict. Henry Jacobs writes that Hamlet “never creates a religion of vengeance;” rather he maintains religious orthodoxy (106). He resolves to be the minister of divine retribution. The audience see an instance of this divine role when Hamlet kills Polonius. He states, “but heaven hath pleased it so…/That I must be their scourge and minister. (III. iv. 175, 177). After further deliberation and his encounter with Fortinbras, Hamlet fully embraces his retributory role. Nonetheless, Hamlet’s actions before and after this resolution are noble. Although his final decision arrives later in the play (Act 4), his noble and calculating character is constant throughout.

A first piece of evidence concerning Hamlet’s noble character is his orchestration of the play in Act 3. Instead of immediately reacting to the ghost’s instruction and killing Claudius, Hamlet exhibits patience. In his instructions to Horatio, Hamlet states, “It is a damned ghost that we have seen, / And my Imaginations are as foul / As Vulcan’s stithy. Give him heedful note, / For mine eyes will rivet to his face, / And after we will both our judgements join.” (III. ii. 76-80). Hamlet is wary of the ghost’s reliability. With an action as serious as regicide, he wants to be sure he is acting on the truth. With careful planning, Hamlet creates a test of conscience and recruits an outside party to help him judge Claudius’s reaction. By doing so, Hamlet can test the validity of the ghost’s story and his own imagination. This is not a sign of madness or cowardice; rather, it displays Hamlet’s patience and carefulness. He recognizes the severity of the situation and refuses to act rashly.

A second instance of Hamlet’s nobility is his refusal to kill the praying Claudius. When Hamlet approaches the kneeling king, he has already determined Claudius’ guilt by his reaction to the play. The ghost’s words and his intuition are validated. Now, it is time for Hamlet to strike. But he balks. Why? Hamlet does not kill Claudius in Act 3 because he is grounded in a desire for justice and full retribution. When Hamlet first sees Claudius, he watches him pray. Although the audience know Claudius’ prayers are empty and hypocritical, Hamlet is fooled by the feigned repentance. Contemplating the situation, Hamlet exclaims, “A villain kills my father, and for that, / I, his sole son, do this same villain send / to heaven.” (III. iii. 75-78). Convinced of Claudius’ repentance, Hamlet refrains from killing him. It is clear that Hamlet is ready to do the action. He draws his sword and states, “And now I’ll do’t.” (III. iii. 73). But upon reflection, Hamlet stays his hand. He does not hesitate because of timidity; rather, Hamlet demands complete justice. He believes that sending Claudius to heaven, while his Father wanders the earth, would be a breach of justice. Claudius deserves complete recompense for killing King Hamlet without his final repentance.

By attempting to damn Claudius, Hamlet takes on a divine power. This oversteps his role as a tool in the hand of the Almighty, and exemplifies a failure in Hamlet’s theology. However, Hamlet’s motivation is justice. He desires to administer retribution. For Hamlet, it cannot be partial. He must achieve a perfect revenge. He must return the scale of justice to complete equilibrium. Thus, instead of faltering from cowardice, Hamlet delays killing Claudius out of a deep desire and consideration of justice, reinforcing his noble character.

Another example of a noble Hamlet is his submission to the Divine. After Hamlet returns to the Castle in Act 5, he proclaims, “Our indiscretion sometimes serves us well / When our deep plots do pall, and that should learn us / There’s a divinity that shapes our ends, / rough-hew them how we will-” (V. ii. 8-11). Hamlet acknowledges that despite his careful planning and calculated action, he is ultimately not in control. This response follows Hamlet’s narrow escape from his casket of a ship. After switching his death letter and daringly boarding a pirate ship, Hamlet reflects on the suddenness of his actions. They are not carefully planned, but marked by indiscretion. From this observation Hamlet draws a lesson: whether planned or rash, man’s actions will ultimately serve a divine purpose. Here, Hamlet displays a deep humility. He does not suppose that he will enact revenge through his own strength. Instead, only by a divine shaping will he accomplish his task. Hamlet’s surrender to the sovereignty of God displays his deep concern for righteousness and reinforces his self-perception as a holy minster of justice. Before he faces Laertes, Hamlet is not crazy or overwhelmed with blood thirst. He calmly reflects on his humble role as the instrument of God.

A final piece of evidence for a heroic and noble Hamlet is found in the manner in which Shakespeare ends the play. After Hamlet returns to Denmark, Claudius and Laertes plot to murder him. By doing so, Shakespeare makes Hamlet into a victim. He places him into a reactionary position of self-defense. Henry Jacobs writes, “Shakespeare radically breaks with tradition and allows Claudius (the villain) rather than Hamlet (the revenger) to establish the shape of events” (106). Any doubt as to whether Hamlet makes the right decision to avenge is obliterated by placing Hamlet into a reactionary position. The murder of Claudius becomes secondarily justified through self-defense. Shakespeare does this to secure the nobility of Hamlet’s character. There are two concrete passages that support this view. First, after Laertes falls to Hamlet’s blade, he proclaims, “Exchange forgiveness with me, noble Hamlet. / Mine and my father’s death come not upon thee.” (V. ii. 314-315). Here, Laertes clearly affirms Hamlet’s previous and present actions. It is a moment of realization for Laertes. He recognizes that he hurried into a reckless action and became a pawn on Claudius’ chess board. Not only does Laertes’ final absolving remark present himself as a foil, it also justifies Hamlet’s revenge and proclaims him noble. The second passage is Horatio’s comment in Act 5. As Hamlet dies, Horatio laments, “Now cracks a noble heart. Good night, sweet prince, / And flights of angels sing thee to rest!” (V. ii. 344-345). Horatio, who had faithfully ministered at Hamlet’s side, gives a beautiful farewell. He calls Hamlet noble and mentions his heavenly destination. Shakespeare uses this comment, and Laertes’ comment to reinforce a noble and heroic perception of Hamlet.

Inexhaustibility is a mark of great literature. It cannot be limited to a single authoritative interpretation. It maintains the complexity of human experience and the limitations of knowledge. With countless avenues of scholarship, Hamletstands as a pillar of great British literature. Shakespeare centers the play around a strikingly complex protagonist, who navigates a labyrinth of desire and duty. Yet, despite his convolution, there are distinct characteristics that define Hamlet. Rather than a cowardly madman, Hamlet is a shrewd intellectual who recognizes the severity of his decisions, responding in an appropriate and honorable manner. He displays patience, self-control, and humility, honoring the Lord and his father’s ghost. He is the sword of justice, wielded in the hand of the God.

Bibliography

Bell, Millicent. “Hamlet, Revenge!” Vol. 51, No. 2, The Hudson Review, 1998, pp. 310-328.

Broude, Ronald. “Revenge and Revenge Tragedy in Renaissance England.” Vol. 28, No. 1,

    Renaissance Quarterly,1975, pp. 38-58.

Friedman, Michael D. “Shakespeare and the Catholic Revenger: ‘V for Vendetta.’” Vol. 38, No. 2,

    Literature/Film Quarterly, 2010, pp. 117-133.

Jacobs, Henry E. “Shakespeare, Revenge Tragedy, and the Ideology of the Memento Mori.” Vol. 21,

    Shakespeare Studies, 1993, pp. 96-107.

Jordan, Constance, ed. Hamlet.By William Shakespeare. 2nd ed., Pearson Longman, 2005.

Kastan, David Scott. “‘His semblable in his mirror’: Hamlet and the Imitation of Revenge.” Vol. 19,

    Shakespeare Studies, 1987, pp. 111-122.

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. 2016.  

Wagenknecht, Edward. “The Perfect Revenge – Hamlet’s Delay a Reconsideration.” Vol. 10,  No. 4,

    College English, January 1949, pp.188-195.