The Complexity of Revenge and Identity in Shakespeare’s Hamlet

Abstract

This research paper examines the multifaceted nature of revenge and identity in William Shakespeare's "Hamlet." Through close textual analysis and consideration of historical context, this study explores how Hamlet's quest for vengeance becomes inextricably linked with his existential crisis and search for authentic selfhood. The paper argues that Shakespeare's portrayal of revenge transcends the conventional revenge tragedy formula by embedding it within a sophisticated philosophical exploration of human existence, morality, and identity. By analyzing key soliloquies, character interactions, and dramatic structure, this research demonstrates how "Hamlet" uses the revenge motif to probe deeper questions about action, thought, performance, and the human condition.

William Shakespeare's "Hamlet," likely written between 1599 and 1601, stands as one of the most profound literary explorations of revenge in Western literature. While the play follows the basic structure of a revenge tragedy popular in Elizabethan theater, Shakespeare transforms this convention by infusing it with unprecedented psychological depth and philosophical complexity. The central protagonist, Prince Hamlet of Denmark, faced with the task of avenging his father's murder, does not merely pursue vengeance but becomes entangled in fundamental questions about existence, identity, and moral action.

The play opens with the appearance of the ghost of King Hamlet, who reveals to his son that he was murdered by his brother Claudius, now king and married to Hamlet's mother, Queen Gertrude. This supernatural revelation sets in motion the revenge plot, yet what follows is not a straightforward pursuit of retribution but rather a complex journey through doubt, delay, and philosophical inquiry. Hamlet's famous hesitation has been the subject of extensive critical debate, with interpretations ranging from psychological analyses of his indecisiveness to philosophical readings of his moral dilemma.

This research paper contends that Hamlet's struggle with revenge is fundamentally a struggle with identity—both personal and performative. As Hamlet navigates the corrupt court of Denmark, he constantly negotiates between authentic selfhood and performed roles, between private thought and public action. This negotiation transforms the conventional revenge plot into a profound meditation on what it means to be human in a world of deception, corruption, and moral ambiguity.

The Elizabethan Revenge Tragedy Context

To fully appreciate Shakespeare's innovations in "Hamlet," it is essential to understand the revenge tragedy genre that flourished in English Renaissance theater. Heavily influenced by the Roman playwright Seneca, revenge tragedies typically featured a protagonist seeking vengeance for a murder or other grave injustice, often involving elaborate plotting, disguise, madness (real or feigned), and culminating in bloody catastrophe. Thomas Kyd's "The Spanish Tragedy" (c. 1587) established the formula that would influence subsequent revenge plays, including elements such as a ghost calling for vengeance, delays in execution, and meta-theatrical devices.

Elizabethan audiences were drawn to revenge tragedies for their sensational elements—violence, intrigue, and supernatural occurrences—but also for their exploration of justice in a world where legal and social institutions might fail to provide it. In a society transitioning from medieval to early modern conceptions of justice, the revenge play offered a dramatic space to explore questions of personal versus institutional justice, divine law versus human action, and the moral complexities of taking justice into one's own hands.

Shakespeare's innovation in "Hamlet" lies not in rejecting this formula but in transcending it. While maintaining the structural elements of revenge tragedy, he shifts the focus from the mechanics of revenge to the philosophical and psychological implications of vengeance itself. Unlike protagonists in conventional revenge tragedies who might struggle with the practical aspects of their revenge, Hamlet's struggle is fundamentally existential—he questions not just how to exact revenge but whether revenge itself is justified, what it means for his soul, and how it defines his identity.

Hamlet's Identity Crisis and the Problem of Action

Central to understanding Hamlet's relationship with revenge is his profound identity crisis throughout the play. Before the ghost's revelation, Hamlet is already in mourning, disconnected from the court that has too quickly moved on from his father's death. His famous first soliloquy, "O, that this too, too solid flesh would melt" (1.2.129-159), reveals a young man alienated from himself and his surroundings, expressing a desire for self-dissolution. The ghost's command to "Remember me" (1.5.91) and seek vengeance further complicates Hamlet's sense of self—now he must reconcile his identity as a grieving son with that of an avenger.

Hamlet's adoption of an "antic disposition" (1.5.180) represents his most explicit performance of identity. This strategic madness allows him to navigate the treacherous court while investigating his father's murder, yet it also raises questions about the boundaries between performed and authentic selfhood. As Hamlet tells Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, "I am but mad north-north-west: when the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw" (2.2.378-379), suggesting his awareness of the fluid line between performed madness and genuine disturbance. The play repeatedly questions whether Hamlet's madness is entirely feigned or partially real, reflecting his fragmenting identity under the pressure of his revenge mission.

The famous "To be, or not to be" soliloquy (3.1.56-89) represents the pinnacle of Hamlet's identity crisis, framing the question of existence itself as a choice between action and inaction, life and death. While not explicitly about revenge, this meditation on suicide implicitly addresses the question of action that haunts Hamlet's revenge quest. His contemplation of whether it is nobler to suffer life's injustices or to actively oppose them mirrors his central dilemma regarding revenge. The soliloquy's exploration of how "conscience does make cowards of us all" (3.1.83) suggests that moral consciousness itself—Hamlet's tendency to reflect deeply on the implications of his actions—may be what impedes his revenge.

Performance, Authenticity, and the Play-within-a-Play

The theme of performance versus authenticity permeates "Hamlet," reaching its most explicit expression in the play-within-a-play, "The Mousetrap." Hamlet's use of theater to "catch the conscience of the king" (2.2.605) demonstrates his understanding of performance as both a mask and a means of revealing truth. By staging a play that reenacts his father's murder, Hamlet transforms art into a tool for justice, blurring the boundaries between theatrical representation and reality.

Hamlet's interactions with the traveling players further emphasize the play's preoccupation with the relationship between performance and authenticity. His advice to the players to "suit the action to the word, the word to the action" and not to "o'erstep the modesty of nature" (3.2.17-22) suggests an ideal where performance achieves a kind of truth through its fidelity to human nature. Yet Hamlet himself struggles to achieve this harmony between action and intention in his own life, particularly in his revenge plot.

The play's treatment of performance extends beyond literal theater to encompass the social performances demanded by the Danish court. Claudius performs the role of legitimate king and caring stepfather; Gertrude performs contentment in her new marriage; Polonius performs the wise counselor while engaging in deception and surveillance. In this environment of pervasive performance, Hamlet's quest for authentic action becomes all the more challenging. His famous line to his mother, "Seems, madam? Nay, it is. I know not 'seems'" (1.2.76), highlights his initial resistance to performance and his yearning for authentic being. Ironically, he soon adopts the most elaborate performance of all with his feigned madness.

Moral Philosophy and the Ethics of Revenge

Hamlet's hesitation in pursuing revenge can be understood not merely as psychological indecisiveness but as a profound moral questioning of revenge itself. Renaissance humanism, with its revival of classical philosophy and emphasis on moral inquiry, provides a context for Hamlet's ethical dilemma. As a student at Wittenberg, Hamlet would have been exposed to both classical ethical traditions and contemporary debates about justice, free will, and moral action.

Throughout the play, Hamlet wrestles with competing ethical frameworks. The ghost's command represents a medieval concept of honor and filial duty that demands blood revenge. Yet Hamlet's humanist education suggests a more reflective approach to justice and moral action. His concern for his own soul—"And shall I couple hell?" (1.5.93)—indicates awareness of Christian prohibitions against revenge and murder. This tension between medieval codes of honor, Renaissance humanism, and Christian ethics creates a complex moral landscape that Hamlet must navigate.

Hamlet's encounter with Fortinbras's army in Act 4 prompts another significant reflection on action and honor. Observing how Fortinbras would sacrifice thousands of lives "for a fantasy and trick of fame" (4.4.61), Hamlet questions his own inaction: "How stand I then, / That have a father killed, a mother stained, / Excitements of my reason and my blood, / And let all sleep?" (4.4.56-59). This comparison with Fortinbras highlights another dimension of Hamlet's ethical dilemma—the tension between reasoned moral action and action motivated by honor or passion.

The Transformation of Hamlet: Return from England

Hamlet's return from his aborted journey to England marks a significant transformation in his character and approach to revenge. Having narrowly escaped Claudius's plot to have him executed, and having arranged for the deaths of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern instead, Hamlet returns to Denmark with a new perspective. His declaration to Horatio that "There's a divinity that shapes our ends, / Rough-hew them how we will" (5.2.10-11) suggests a newfound acceptance of providence and his role within it.

The Hamlet who returns from England appears more resolved and less tortured by the philosophical questions that previously paralyzed him. His encounter with mortality—both in his escape from death and in his contemplation of Yorick's skull in the graveyard scene—seems to have clarified his perspective on life and action. The graveyard scene, with its meditation on the leveling nature of death, contextualizes Hamlet's revenge within the broader scope of human mortality: "Alexander died, Alexander was buried, Alexander returneth into dust" (5.1.207-208).

This transformation culminates in Hamlet's declaration, "The readiness is all" (5.2.218), suggesting an acceptance of fate and a willingness to act when the moment arrives, without the excessive deliberation that characterized his earlier approach. His revenge, when it finally comes, is not the product of elaborate planning but arises from Claudius's own treachery in the final duel. This alignment of justice with providence represents a resolution of sorts to Hamlet's ethical dilemma—his revenge becomes an instrument of divine justice rather than merely personal vengeance.

Shakespeare's "Hamlet" transforms the conventional revenge tragedy into a profound exploration of identity, performance, and moral philosophy. Through the character of Hamlet, Shakespeare examines how the quest for revenge intersects with fundamental questions about authentic selfhood, the relationship between thought and action, and the ethical complexities of justice in a corrupt world.

The play's enduring resonance lies in its refusal to provide simple answers to the questions it raises. Hamlet's revenge is neither straightforwardly heroic nor unambiguously condemned; instead, it becomes a vehicle for exploring the human condition itself. His famous hesitation, rather than a flaw or plot device, opens a space for philosophical inquiry that transcends the revenge plot and addresses universal aspects of human experience.

In the end, "Hamlet" suggests that the pursuit of authentic action in a world of performance and deception is necessarily complex and fraught with uncertainty. Hamlet's journey from paralyzed contemplation to "readiness" represents not a rejection of thought for action but an integration of both—a form of action informed by moral consciousness yet not immobilized by it. This integration offers a model of human agency that acknowledges both the necessity of action and the value of ethical reflection, a balance that remains relevant to contemporary discussions of justice, identity, and moral responsibility.

References

Bloom, Harold. "Hamlet: Poem Unlimited." Riverhead Books, 2003.

Bradley, A.C. "Shakespearean Tragedy: Lectures on Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, Macbeth." Macmillan, 1904.

Greenblatt, Stephen. "Hamlet in Purgatory." Princeton University Press, 2001.

Kerrigan, John. "Revenge Tragedy: Aeschylus to Armageddon." Clarendon Press, 1996.

Knights, L.C. "An Approach to 'Hamlet'." Chatto & Windus, 1960.

Prosser, Eleanor. "Hamlet and Revenge." Stanford University Press, 1971.

Shakespeare, William. "Hamlet." Edited by Ann Thompson and Neil Taylor, The Arden Shakespeare, Third Series, Bloomsbury, 2006.

Stoll, Elmer Edgar. "Hamlet: An Historical and Comparative Study." University of Minnesota Press, 1919.

Wilson, Dover. "What Happens in Hamlet." Cambridge University Press, 1935.

Did you like this example?

282

12