One dilemma that is a common theme in stories, and that every single individual has faced at some point in their life, is justice versus revenge. The degree of severity varies, but in virtually every scenario the protagonist must choose between justice of the law and taking matters into his or her own hands. Often, it stems from the death of a lover, close friend, or family member, and culminates with an act of vengeance. In Hamlet, Shakespeare uses the characters of Hamlet and Claudius to both challenge and affirm early modern England’s attitudes concerning revenge.

In early modern England, the confines of the laws of church and state were much less defined, at least compared to the modern era. Many of the laws enforced by the monarchy had their foundations in the Bible. However, the Bible specifically forbids revenge of any means. Romans 12:19 states, “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine: I will repay, saith the Lord” (204). The most convoluted aspect of the Bible’s firm stance against vengeance is the lack of any recourse at all. For an individual who feels that they are owed some form of retribution, they receive little spiritual comfort.

Further enforcing the written laws was the concept of divine right. In The King’s Right, William Dickinson describes this idea, saying:

It is not for those whom God hath appointed to obey to examine titles and pedigrees, or how   kings came to their power and to be rulers over them. It sufficeth that being under we must             obey, not only for fear but for conscience sake, lest through our disobedience, our conscience       accuse us for resisting the ordinance of God, for the powers that be are ordained of God. (205)

The English during this time period believed that their king was appointed by God to rule over them. Therefore, any disobedience to the crown was an affront to God himself.

In early modern England as well as today, the judicial process revolved around an accused individual being granted a fair trial (Jordan 202). Claudius, however, was never fully afforded that luxury. After the ghost on the battlements identifies itself as his father, it describes the manner in which King Hamlet was killed by his brother Claudius, and implores Hamlet to take revenge (1.5.40-89). One aspect to consider is the uncertainty of the ghost’s claims. Even though the ghost claims to be King Hamlet, it is never completely certain, and Hamlet’s “test” with the traveling actors isn’t definitive. Even though he is completely convinced of Claudius’s guilt, the question still remains as to whether or not his own personal convictions are a satisfactory reason for killing another human being.

Complicating all of virtue of Hamlet’s actions is his status as royalty. The king was divinely appointed as the supreme judge, and if the ghost’s story is true, Hamlet is the rightful king. In addition, it could be argued that Hamlet is acting under orders from the true king. Therefore, it is his duty to ensure justice. However, if the ghost is lying, Hamlet is not only slandering the king, but also conspiring to commit regicide(Jordan 202-3). The audience and the rest of the characters are not as fully convinced as Hamlet of the ghost’s legitimacy, and Hamlet is accused of being mad on more than one occasion.

While Hamlet’s madness, real or feigned, causes many of the characters in the play to discount his claims, the audience can’t help but identify with him. Any individual who had a family member killed, especially by one as close as a blood relative, would immediately seek retribution. However, laws are put in place for a reason, no matter how archaic they may seem. If everybody who became offended was permitted to serve as judge, jury, and executioner, there would be no order to society. Shakespeare used notions of madness as well as the uncertainty of the ghost’s story to take credence from an otherwise clear cut case of murder, and instead mold it into a situation that is more reminiscent of real life, in which the answer to a question may never be definitively answered. In Hamlet’s case, had he resorted to the legal course of action, Claudius would have most likely never received punishment. In this case, Hamlet was correct, but his quest for revenge cost him his own life, as well as the lives of several others. Hamlet is an illustration of how the cost of order can mean deference to a higher power, even though it may not always achieve the desired outcome.

Works Cited

Dickinson, William. The King’s Right. By William Shakespeare. 2nd ed. New York: Pearson         Longman, 2005. Print.

Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Ed. Constance Jordan. 2nd ed. New York: Pearson Longman,       2005. Print.