McKenzie Raber
Colonel Miller
HNL 380WX
10 April 2017
Part 1.
During the 16th century, the predominant opinion of revenge was that it was abominable and unjustifiable under the eyes of God and the state and would be punished accordingly. Such opinions were molded by Biblical doctrines which also provided basis for the practice of the divine right theory. The government relied on divine law in which the rulers were seen as officials appointed by God and therefore could not be contradicted, protecting themselves from vengeful desires of their subjects (Jordan 203).
The Bible provided the greatest basis for opposition towards vengeance. In a society where Christianity was predominant, and people were seen as witches for not believing in God, scripture was often read very literally and the commoners and government officials used it in conjunction with and often as the basis for their laws. In Romans 13:1 of the Bible it says, “Let every soul be subject unto higher powers. For there is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation” (King James Version, Romans 13.1-2). This verse supports divine law, in which citizens are subject to the rule of their king and kings are subject to the rule of God. In William Dickinson’s The King’s Right, he defines the divine right theory saying, “It is not for those whom God hath appointed to obey to examine titles and pedigree, or how kings came to their power and to be rulers over them” (Dickinson 205). In Romans 12:19, it says, “Dearly loved, avenge not yourselves, but give place unto wrath: for it is written, vengeance is mine, I will repay it” (King James Version, Romans 12.19). Romans 12:19 explicitly states that humans are not to take revenge on one other for being wronged, but instead the offender will receive God’s vengeance. It is not the choice or responsibility of an individual to punish or seek revenge against his offender. Dickinson expounds upon how although men are not to take revenge, a ruler placed in office by divine law is responsible for ensuring that justice is upheld. He states, “It hath pleased God even from the beginning to rule and judge by men. Some power he hath put over and deputed to such amongst us as he knoweth fittest for so high a calling” (Dickenson 204-05) A ruler, acting as a liaison between God and man must enforce justice upon a transgressor, but not cross the line between justice and revenge.
During this time most people believed that the rightful response to tyranny was prayer (Jordan 202), for if all were given the right of revenge, “there will [would] soon be an end to all civil society, and good order amongst the affairs of men” (Dickinson 206). While revenge was looked down upon, in his Essays, Francis Bacon states that, “The most tolerable sort of revenge is for those wrongs which there is no law to remedy, […] else a man’s enemy is still beforehand, and it is two for one” (Bacon 208). Although a man may physically get away with revenge, his mind and soul are likely forever scarred by his action. “A man that studieth revenge keeps his own wounds green which otherwise would heal and do well” (Bacon 209). Additionally, it was believed that a man would be driven mad by his conscience after committing an egregious act of violence (murder) or revenge against the king. In Thomas Beard’s The Theater of God’s Judgements, he describes how not only did the murderer of a rightful king receive more than a gruesome death in return, but while he was still living, “His guilty conscience were more than all the rest, for it is most certainly reported that after this abominable deed done, he never had quiet in his mind” (Beard 206-07). During the 16th century, the vengeance was a treacherous game to play, one in which both the wrong doer and the wronged likely ended up dead or in great misfortune.
Part 2.
In William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Hamlet struggles with the idea of revenge and how he might avenge his murdered father’s death throughout the play. At the beginning of the play, shortly after his father’s ghost relayed how he was murdered and instructs Hamlet to avenge his death, Hamlet struggles with the idea of killing his uncle, knowing the societal views on revenge and retribution for killing a king.
Like John-a-dreams, unpregnant of my cause,
And can say nothing – no, not for a king
Upon whose property and most dear life
A damned defeat was made. Am I a coward? (II.ii.546-449)
Hamlet recognized that the consequence for killing a king, given that kings were placed in power by divine right, would be insufferable and in doing so he would essentially send himself to hell (Beard 206-207). At the same time, Hamlet feels like a coward for not acting swiftly upon hearing the news that his uncle killed his father.
Why, what an ass am I! This most brave,
That I, the son of a dear father murdered,
Prompted to my revenge by heaven and hell,
Must like whore unpack my heart with words
And fall a-cursing, like a very drab (II.ii.561-565)
Hamlet recognizes that vengeance of his father’s death will not go unpunished. If his uncle is the rightful king of Demark then Hamlet would be committing treason, regardlessly, the Bible states that it is up to God to determine retribution (King James Version, Romans 12.19). If Hamlet’s uncle is not the rightful king and he is, then Hamlet’s action of vengeance is warranted as justice. According to beliefs at the time, God uses those he places in power to rule over the people and maintain order (Dickinson 204-05). Killing Claudius is therefore defensible as Hamlet’s responsibility for enforcing justice as the rightful King.
In act three, scene three, Hamlet moves from contemplating the nature of killing Claudius, to the exact best time that he takes his life. Hamlet readies his sword to kill Claudius in his bedchamber, but stops when he notices that he appears to be praying. Hamlet doesn’t want Claudius to go to Heaven upon killing him since he didn’t give Hamlet’s father time to repent his sins before dying.
A villain kills my father, and for that
I, his sole son, do this same villain send
To heaven.
Why, this is hire and salary, not revenge. (III.iii.76-79)
Hamlet desires more than revenge for the murder of his father, he desires that Claudius’ soul forever pay for the crime he committed.
And am I then revenged,
To take him in the purging of his soul
When he is fit and seasoned for his passage? (III.iii.84-86).
By deciding where and when he will take Claudius’ life, he essentially takes on the role of God. He desires to damn Claudius to hell, taking his life when Claudius is in the act of sinning. If Hamlet is the rightful king, then he is not acting out of justice on the behalf of God, but out of revenge. If Hamlet isn’t the rightful king, then his plots are treasonous and the only rightful remedy to his grievances is prayer (Jordan 202).
In the last scene of the play, all retribution is made for the sinful and vengeful acts and thoughts committed throughout the play. Hamlet swiftly kills Claudius often realizing that he has been mortally wounded by Laertes poisoned sword. It is only when Hamlet realizes that he has but a few moments of life left to avenge his father’s death that he acts. Hamlet stabs Claudius with the poisoned sword and forces him to drink the poisoned wine that Claudius had intended to use against Hamlet.
Here, thou incestuous, murderous, damned Dane,
Drink off this potion, Is they union’ here?
Follow my mother. (V.ii.310-12.)
Hamlet’s swift action against Claudius prevents him from repenting his sins before his last breath. Hamlet has avenged his father’s death, but not without himself receiving justice for murdering a king. Hamlet is not left unscathed, suggesting that he may not have been the rightful king while Claudius was in power. Upon his last breath, Laertes utters,
He is justly served.
It is a poison tempered by himself.
Exchange forgiveness with me, noble Hamlet.
Mine and my father’s death come not upon thee,
Nor thine on me! (V.ii.313-316)
Laertes statement highlights that not even a king is exempt from the power of God. A king’s act will be justly served as the king justly serves the acts of those below him. Claudius received justice for murdering his brother and Hamlet received justice for taking revenge.
Works Cited
Bacon, Francis. Essays. Hamlet, Prince of Denmark: Texts and Contexts. By William Shakespeare. Ed. Constance Jordan. New York: Pearson/Longman, 2005. 208-209. Print.
Beard, Thomas. The Theater of God’s Judgments. Hamlet, Prince of Denmark: Texts and Contexts. By William Shakespeare. Ed. Constance Jordan. New York: Pearson/Longman, 2005. 206-207. Print.
Dickinson, William. The King’s Rights. Hamlet, Prince of Denmark: Texts and Contexts. By William Shakespeare. Ed. Constance Jordan. New York: Pearson/Longman, 2005. 204- 206. Print.
Jordan, Constance. ed. Hamlet, Prince of Denmark: Texts and Contexts. By William Shakespeare. New York: Pearson/Longman, 2005. Print.
Shakespeare, William. Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. Ed. Constance Jordan. New York: Pearson/Longman, 2005. Print.
Shakespeare, William. Hamlet, Prince of Denmark : Texts and Contexts. New York: Pearson/Longman, 2005. Print.
The Bible, King James Version, Crown.