Shakespeare's Hamlet is widely regarded as a profound examination of the theme of revenge. It grapples with the consequences of vengeance, exploring moral complexities, ethical dilemmas, and emotional turmoil. This theme is especially visible in the juxtaposition of Hamlet's introspective, philosophical approach to revenge against the more straightforward, action-driven attitudes of characters like Laertes and Fortinbras. Each of these characters represents a unique perspective on vengeance, offering a nuanced exploration of the theme.
Hamlet’s Approach to Revenge
Hamlet, the protagonist, is charged with the task of avenging his father’s death after learning from the ghost of King Hamlet that he was murdered by Claudius, Hamlet’s uncle. However, Hamlet’s approach to revenge is deeply reflective and philosophical. Unlike traditional revenge heroes, Hamlet’s journey is marked by hesitation, doubt, and self-reflection. This uncertainty is partly due to his moral and religious beliefs. He constantly questions the legitimacy of taking revenge, as well as the potential consequences on his own soul. His famous soliloquy, "To be or not to be," reflects this inner struggle, as he ponders life, death, and the morality of vengeance.
Hamlet’s hesitation is also influenced by his fear of damning his soul by committing murder. His Christian beliefs add another layer to his moral conflict, and he often debates whether revenge is even justified within this framework. For instance, when Hamlet finds Claudius praying, he decides not to kill him because he fears it will send Claudius to heaven rather than to eternal damnation. Hamlet’s delay reveals his intense concern for moral justice over mere vengeance.
Additionally, Hamlet views revenge as a kind of madness, and he resents the way it manipulates his life, trapping him in a vicious cycle of despair and duty. He expresses resentment toward the idea that he must abandon his own life goals and aspirations for the sole purpose of enacting revenge. For Hamlet, revenge is a poison that corrupts not only the body but the soul, robbing individuals of their humanity and leading to self-destruction.
Laertes’ Approach to Revenge
In contrast, Laertes, the son of Polonius, takes a more direct and impulsive approach. Upon learning of his father’s murder and his sister Ophelia’s subsequent madness and death, Laertes is consumed by rage and immediately seeks retribution. Laertes’ anger drives him to confront Claudius directly, demanding answers and threatening vengeance without hesitation. His approach reflects a sense of honor and loyalty to his family that propels him to action without Hamlet’s introspective delay.
Laertes’ response to revenge reflects the more conventional Elizabethan belief in personal honor and justice. Unlike Hamlet, Laertes doesn’t engage in philosophical debates or question the morality of revenge; instead, he sees it as his duty to his family. This difference emphasizes Laertes as a foil to Hamlet, highlighting Hamlet’s struggle between thought and action. Laertes embodies a more visceral, unrestrained approach to vengeance, reflecting a certain societal expectation of retribution as a natural response to injustice. However, Laertes’s willingness to commit to his revenge leads to his own demise, as Claudius exploits Laertes’ anger and manipulates him into a plot to kill Hamlet, which ultimately backfires.
Laertes’ downfall illustrates one of the play's central messages: that revenge, even when pursued out of loyalty and honor, ultimately leads to destruction. His final moments, where he reconciles with Hamlet, underscore a tragic realization that revenge has cost him his honor, integrity, and life.
Fortinbras’ Approach to Revenge
Fortinbras, Prince of Norway, offers yet another perspective on revenge. Fortinbras’ father was killed in a battle with King Hamlet, and Fortinbras seeks to reclaim the lands his father lost and avenge his death. Unlike Hamlet and Laertes, Fortinbras takes a calculated, political approach to his mission. His vengeance is not as personal or passionate as Hamlet’s or Laertes’; instead, it is controlled and strategic. Fortinbras channels his desire for revenge into political action, gathering an army to invade Denmark and assert his power rather than pursuing a bloody, personal vendetta.
Fortinbras’ pragmatism and control reflect his focus on the larger picture. Rather than becoming ensnared by personal grudges, he chooses to advance his family’s honor and regain lost territory. Fortinbras’s approach to revenge is portrayed as noble and organized, especially when compared to Hamlet’s internal conflict and Laertes’ impulsiveness. Fortinbras ultimately emerges as a figure of resolution and restoration by the play’s end, symbolizing a return to order and stability. His acceptance as the next king of Denmark signifies a shift from the chaotic and morally ambiguous quest for vengeance to a more orderly, responsible vision of justice and leadership.
Comparative Analysis of Hamlet, Laertes, and Fortinbras
The varying approaches of Hamlet, Laertes, and Fortinbras highlight the multifaceted nature of revenge. Hamlet’s philosophical introspection contrasts sharply with Laertes' impulsive fury and Fortinbras’ controlled pragmatism. Hamlet represents a man who is emotionally and morally torn, seeing revenge as a path to moral ruin; Laertes represents the traditional response to familial dishonor, driven by passion and a sense of immediate justice; and Fortinbras embodies a disciplined approach to reclaiming honor through calculated action.
Through these three characters, Shakespeare examines how revenge can consume individuals in different ways. Hamlet’s introspective approach emphasizes the psychological and moral implications of revenge, illustrating the inner turmoil it causes. Laertes, on the other hand, embodies the destructive potential of unrestrained vengeance, where one’s sense of duty to family honor can be exploited by others for malicious purposes. Finally, Fortinbras’s controlled pursuit of revenge reveals a form of retributive justice that respects societal order, as he channels his revenge into political action rather than personal vendetta.
The Tragic Consequences of Revenge
Hamlet ultimately illustrates the tragic consequences of revenge. Hamlet’s obsession with avenging his father’s death leads him down a dark path, ultimately resulting in his own death, as well as the deaths of Gertrude, Claudius, Laertes, and Polonius. The play suggests that revenge, regardless of one’s intentions, is a corrosive force that harms not only the avenger but also the people around them.
While Hamlet, Laertes, and Fortinbras each have different motives and methods for pursuing revenge, they are all touched by the ruinous effects of vengeance. Hamlet loses his sanity and ultimately his life; Laertes sacrifices his honor and succumbs to manipulation; and although Fortinbras survives and takes the throne, he inherits a kingdom that has been devastated by the cycle of retribution. In this way, Shakespeare underscores the idea that revenge often leads to a tragic chain reaction, affecting not only the individuals seeking revenge but also the larger society.
Conclusion
Through the character arcs of Hamlet, Laertes, and Fortinbras, Hamlet reveals the complexities of revenge and its capacity to consume and destroy lives. Hamlet’s philosophical musings, Laertes’ fiery impulsiveness, and Fortinbras’ disciplined strategy represent three approaches to vengeance, each with distinct motivations, ethical considerations, and consequences. Shakespeare uses these contrasting approaches to question the morality of revenge, ultimately suggesting that it is a self-destructive force that leads to chaos and death. In a larger sense, Hamlet serves as a cautionary tale, warning against the pursuit of revenge and the destructive power it holds over individuals and society.