‘The play Hamlet proves revenge to be a worthless cause.’
Using your knowledge of the play, show how far you agree with this view.
Sir Philip Sidney asserted that ‘the principal purpose of tragedy is to teacheth the
uncertainty of the world.’ Indeed, much of the uncertainty within Hamlet lies in its
ambivalent portrayal of revenge. Shakespeare undermines the value of revenge through his
eponymous tragic hero, who remains crippled by the overwhelming pressure to avenge his
father’s death. Vengeance is further indicated to be ‘a worthless cause’ through the
outcomes of the two revenge plots that dominate the play; whilst Hamlet’s killing of
Claudius leaves Denmark under foreign rule and strips the prince of his true identity,
Laertes’ murder of Hamlet leads to his own demise. However, acts of reprisal catalyse the
delivery of karmic justice during perhaps the most satisfying moments of the play, and,
therefore, revenge is indicated to hold some worth.
Hamlet is plagued by the prospect of avenging his father’s murder, and arguably, no cause,
not even revenge, is worth this torment. The Ghost demands that Hamlet ‘revenge [Old
Hamlet’s] foul and most unnatural murder’, yet the prince remains uncertain whether the
Ghost’s ‘intents’ when delivering this command are ‘wicked or charitable.’ In the late 19 th
and early 20th centuries, criticism largely failed to validate Hamlet’s doubts, with A.C.
Bradley arguing in 1904 that the Ghost is an incontrovertible ‘messenger of divine justice’,
and that Hamlet’s failure to trust the Ghost whole-heartedly is an ‘excuse for his delayed
revenge.’ However, it is perhaps rather negligent to belittle Hamlet’s fear of the Ghost, for
he commands the prince to abandon his religious morals and commit the gravest of sins –
murder. Indeed, the late twentieth century, in particular, saw interpretations of the play
that truly recognised the threat posed by the Ghost; the 1980 Royal Court Theatre
Production had the Ghost speak from within Hamlet, causing the prince to be bent double
with pain, and thus, suggesting the Ghost’s demand for revenge is not only mentally, but a
physically destructive force. Nevertheless, following The Mousetrap, it is confirmed through
Claudius’ guilty exit of the theatre, where he hastily proclaims ‘Lights! Lights! Lights!’, that
the Ghost was truthful in his account of Old Hamlet’s poisoning. However, Hamlet still
displays a reluctance to commit regicide, despite being given all the evidence he should
need to do so. In Act 3 Scene 2, the Prince appears resolute in his vindictive proclamation
that he could ‘drink hot blood/ And do such bitter business’; as Michael Billington notes,
audiences new to the play might think the prince will soon realise his vengeful ambitions.
Just a scene later, however, Hamlet fails to kill Claudius whilst he is alone in his private
chapel, and instead questions whether he is ‘revenged/ To take him in the purging of his
soul,/When he is fit and seasoned for his passage?’ The bitter irony is that audiences are
previously made aware that Claudius cannot pray, thus underscoring Hamlet’s reluctancy to
commit revenge. A strong dramaturgical tradition has emerged of using setting and props to
underscore the Prince’s aversion towards vengeance, particularly within the early to mid-
20th century, a period in which psychoanalysis became perhaps the most dominant lens
through which Hamlet was interpreted. Laurence Olivier’s 1948 performance saw the prince
hold a ‘bare bodkin’ towards him whilst standing at a cliff-edge, the sea below likely
symbolic of the ‘sea of troubles’ within his mind. This production likely inspired Trevor
Nunn’s 2004 version, in which Hamlet is seen debating whether to overdose with pills. Both
productions, therefore, suggest Hamlet sees suicide as a potential relief from the prospect
of seeking vengeance. Indeed, it is only after four acts of contemplation, throughout which
Using your knowledge of the play, show how far you agree with this view.
Sir Philip Sidney asserted that ‘the principal purpose of tragedy is to teacheth the
uncertainty of the world.’ Indeed, much of the uncertainty within Hamlet lies in its
ambivalent portrayal of revenge. Shakespeare undermines the value of revenge through his
eponymous tragic hero, who remains crippled by the overwhelming pressure to avenge his
father’s death. Vengeance is further indicated to be ‘a worthless cause’ through the
outcomes of the two revenge plots that dominate the play; whilst Hamlet’s killing of
Claudius leaves Denmark under foreign rule and strips the prince of his true identity,
Laertes’ murder of Hamlet leads to his own demise. However, acts of reprisal catalyse the
delivery of karmic justice during perhaps the most satisfying moments of the play, and,
therefore, revenge is indicated to hold some worth.
Hamlet is plagued by the prospect of avenging his father’s murder, and arguably, no cause,
not even revenge, is worth this torment. The Ghost demands that Hamlet ‘revenge [Old
Hamlet’s] foul and most unnatural murder’, yet the prince remains uncertain whether the
Ghost’s ‘intents’ when delivering this command are ‘wicked or charitable.’ In the late 19 th
and early 20th centuries, criticism largely failed to validate Hamlet’s doubts, with A.C.
Bradley arguing in 1904 that the Ghost is an incontrovertible ‘messenger of divine justice’,
and that Hamlet’s failure to trust the Ghost whole-heartedly is an ‘excuse for his delayed
revenge.’ However, it is perhaps rather negligent to belittle Hamlet’s fear of the Ghost, for
he commands the prince to abandon his religious morals and commit the gravest of sins –
murder. Indeed, the late twentieth century, in particular, saw interpretations of the play
that truly recognised the threat posed by the Ghost; the 1980 Royal Court Theatre
Production had the Ghost speak from within Hamlet, causing the prince to be bent double
with pain, and thus, suggesting the Ghost’s demand for revenge is not only mentally, but a
physically destructive force. Nevertheless, following The Mousetrap, it is confirmed through
Claudius’ guilty exit of the theatre, where he hastily proclaims ‘Lights! Lights! Lights!’, that
the Ghost was truthful in his account of Old Hamlet’s poisoning. However, Hamlet still
displays a reluctance to commit regicide, despite being given all the evidence he should
need to do so. In Act 3 Scene 2, the Prince appears resolute in his vindictive proclamation
that he could ‘drink hot blood/ And do such bitter business’; as Michael Billington notes,
audiences new to the play might think the prince will soon realise his vengeful ambitions.
Just a scene later, however, Hamlet fails to kill Claudius whilst he is alone in his private
chapel, and instead questions whether he is ‘revenged/ To take him in the purging of his
soul,/When he is fit and seasoned for his passage?’ The bitter irony is that audiences are
previously made aware that Claudius cannot pray, thus underscoring Hamlet’s reluctancy to
commit revenge. A strong dramaturgical tradition has emerged of using setting and props to
underscore the Prince’s aversion towards vengeance, particularly within the early to mid-
20th century, a period in which psychoanalysis became perhaps the most dominant lens
through which Hamlet was interpreted. Laurence Olivier’s 1948 performance saw the prince
hold a ‘bare bodkin’ towards him whilst standing at a cliff-edge, the sea below likely
symbolic of the ‘sea of troubles’ within his mind. This production likely inspired Trevor
Nunn’s 2004 version, in which Hamlet is seen debating whether to overdose with pills. Both
productions, therefore, suggest Hamlet sees suicide as a potential relief from the prospect
of seeking vengeance. Indeed, it is only after four acts of contemplation, throughout which
