Hamlet: Typical Revenge Format?

[shaxper]

What are your thoughts on Hamlet's structure?  Does it fully comply with The Revenger's Tragedy, or does it stand on it's own in some ways?

Personally, I enjoy looking at Hamlet as a play that utilizes the Revenger's Tragedy's format, but which actually begins as a comedy.  Hamlet is closer to Benedict than, say, Othello in his character, other than the fact that his father has passed.  He is gloomy, but also playful and fun, especially when mocking Polonius, but also when talking with Caludius, and when toying with Ophelia at times.  I think it works well with the idea of Hamlet still being a young man (though there is confusion about his age in the play, I agree) who is trying to grow up and fill his father's shoes (thus, he carries his father's name, but does not have one of his own), yet is childish and afraid of growing up and taking responsibility; thus the joking and mocking, and the reluctance to take any real sort of action.  

The play works like this for a while, without any serious reprecussions or weight thrown upon the play, other than Hamlet's Ghost.  It isn't until Hamlet slays Polonius that it suddenly becomes a tragedy.  Then again, my opinion is highly influence by Mark Rylance's reading of Hamlet (which I was able to see at the Globe two years ago).  I would have liked Rylance's Hamlet to ultimately mature and treat the severity of his situation with more dignity and concern, but I still appreciate his reading, immensely.  It seems to work better than most of the interpretations I've seen, in which Hamlet's reasons for delaying and playing jokes makes little sense.   Your thoughts?

[Desdemona]

Might be a rather foolish question, but what exactly do you mean by 'The Revenger's Tragedy'? Is there such a typical format, like with some strict rules? Could you please give an example then of a 'typical' revenger's tragedy?

[shaxper]

well, it begins with Roman Tragic structure, but gets modified and has a pretty standard format in the Elizabethan age, begining with Gorabduc, and begins to really come into its own  in The Revenger's Tragedy, The Spanish Tragedy, and Hamlet (as well as others, I believe).  It's not my area of expertise, but the basic structure (as I understand it), is that someone in an official position (usually king) is murdered by an opportunist who then replaces him.  A mourning family member is visited by the ghost of the slain person towards the begining of the play, who then incites them to action.  Usually, the revenger then leaps to action immediately and begins planning an amazingly complex scheme for revenge.  In the end, the revenger, as well as the murderer (and sometimes everyone else) ends up dead by the end.  Gorbaduc is a particularly fun example because, from what I understand, the entire nation ends up getting slaughtered (though I haven't yet read it).

Hamlet follows this structure for the most part (even having Fortinbras conquer Denmark at the end) but Hamlet himself is the variable, since he does not launch into action right away, nor does he consistantly keep the somber, angry continance of the standard revenger.  The Ghost is also strange, since it appears three times, though the third time Gertrude cannot see him, and he never appears again after Polonius' death.  I could be wrong, but I believe the ghost usually only comes once.  I need to reread the other Revenger tragedies.  I admit that I skimmed through The Revenger's Tragedy and The Spanish Tragedy the first time around.  They seemed a bit dull.

[Ganymede]

As I understand it, one of the main themes of the Revenger's Tragedy is damnation.  The revenger damns himself by taking it upon himself to revenge the murder.  In a sense, he acts as the hand of the Divine Judge, but once he has enacted his revenge (by killing the murderer), he implicates himself and therefore damns himself along with the murderer.  

This theme runs heavily throughout Hamlet.  Hamlet recognizes his fate immediately: in Act 1, Scene 5 he says, "O cursed spite/ That ever I was born to set it right!" (189-190).  Once things have been set in motion, once his father's ghost has charged him to revenge his murder, Hamlet cannot escape his fate.  In has been thrust upon him, and he is doomed.  

[shaxper]

Very true, but there's also a necessary sadistic glee involved.  Those who are called to Revenge do so because a part of them wants to be the Revenger, despite the necessary damnation that follows.  

One of the strange thing about Hamlet is that his scholarly nature makes him view the Revenge format in a detached way.  Rather than simply take the Ghost at his word, Hamlet spends most of the play attempting to decide if the Ghost was real and, furthermore, how he should exact revenge.  One might even speculate that, as a scholar, Hamlet is familiar with the Revenge format.   As much as he doubts the Ghost's validity, he may also be doubting whether or not the damnation aspect of the formula will hold true.  Will all his sins be remembered, or will all his sins be remembered good, my lord?

[nolablue]

One of my term papers back for ol' JCB (don't tell him I called him that) dealt with this issue; I came to the conclusion that Hamlet was a self-aware revenger. As a college student, he would be more prone to introspection, and it's likely he would have read his Seneca. Certain moments in the play seem to indicate that he is specifically trying to avoid the traditional revenger's damnation, as when he refrains from killing Claudius at prayer (if Claudius was confessing at that moment, then killing him would be killing an innocent, clearly a damnable act). He is determined to save his mother's soul, despite his father's ghost telling him to leave her to her fate. Moreover, and particularly after his encounter with death in the graveyard scene, where he sees that everyone ultimately comes to the same fate, he resolves to let Claudius bring about his own destruction; at most Hamlet will just be there to deliver the killing blow ("readiness is all"). At the end, even if Hamlet hadn't struck at Claudius, Claudius would still have been finished, for Laertes revealed the plot to everyone in his dying moments and the poison in the cup was revealed by Gertrude's death. Finally, Hamlet ensures that his innocence and virtue will be remembered by commanding Horatio to live on to tell his story.

Whether or not Hamlet is actually damned is a subject of theological debate, but I think it's clear he was working at least as hard to avoid damnation as he was working towards revenge.

[shaxper]

GOOD point.

And you're then left to wonder if Hamlet's unknowingly ending up with the poisoned-tip foil is the inevitable will of Fate forcing him to become an unwilling Revenger, and whether or not that action still damns him.  

Coooool...

[Bardolph]

I think that Hamlet has a synthetic structure.  It mixes the revenge mythology of the clan filial revenge with the moral examination of revenge based on a Christian universe.  The two are incompatible.  The clan retribution chronicled by Saxo Grammaticus is written into the world of western religion.  One the one side, there is Hamlet's obligation to abide by his late father's wishes.  On the other is the impact of that act as examined by Christian moral sensibilities.  It straddles both worlds.  I believe that we are to take Hamlet as both damned and redeemed by his final act of revenge.  He is damned for his flaws, but he is redeemed because he has restored a king to the throne of Denmark who will begin a valid new line of succession by Divine Right.  This is why he uses some of his precious dying words to urge the election upon Fortinbras.  Fort's conquest of Denmark is blessed by these words.  Order is restored to a competent monarch who takes the thone lawfully.  The sickness in the realm of Denmark is cured by this.  

[shaxper]

Excellent point.  Fortinbras' own line of succession is (presumably) natural, and Fortinbras' conquest tactics, when compared against the intrigue and deception of Claudius' court would certainly have been viewed as more natural and honerable.  

Divine right is usually established in combat though.  Fortinbras seems to conveniently pop up after everyone has died.  He defeated the Danish army, but his conquest still doesn't seem quite "right" without a living ruler to oppose him (or to have led the troops).  Hamlet only has a breath or two left in him.  Surely, the Hamlet family must have had some surviving heir that could have ascended to the throne and led the Danish troops to a more legitamite combat against Fortinbras.

I think this goes back to the point you made about the conflicting viewpoints on revenge.  If this were simply a standard revenger's tragedy, then Fortinbras' conquest at the end would have been just as inevitable as the completion of the revenge format; both having been willed by the fates.  But as a Christian play concerned with divine right, does Fortinbras have the right to rule, or is he simply taking advantage of a crippling situation for the Danes?  

[Bardolph]

I don't see any evidence that Fort defeated the Danish army.  In fact, he uses clever subterfuge in order to enforce an agreement which allows him transit across Denmark with his army.  Since Claudius has not taken the threat seriously and has dismissed Fort as an upstart, Fort arrives to take control seemingly by accident.  Claudius, as an incompetent alcoholic, is too embroiled in the interal struggle to deal effectively with the safety of the realm.  This fault in the flawed Claudius is a metaphor for the whole realm.  

One way for Divine Right to assert itself is on the battlefield.  Right of conquest is thought to give God's validation to a royal claim.  This is clear enough in H5 where, "God fought for us," relieves young Henry of his father's fault in encompassing the crown.  But lawful succession is also very much within the realm of Divine Right.  European monarchies derived themselves, again quoting from H5, from the true line and stock of Charles the Great.

"does Fortinbras have the right to rule, or is he simply taking advantage of a crippling situation for the Danes?"

Fortinbras has the same right to avenge his father's death in combat as does Hamlet to avenge his father's murder.  Fortinbras, as both mirror and foil to young Hamlet, endorses Hamlet's nobility and declares that he would have "proved most royal had he been put on." Fortinbras is not a political scavenger.   He is a highly competent leader who has used military and diplomatic strategy to seek the vengeance that Hamlet should not have been so slow to seek for himself.  Fortinbras directs his fate.  Hamlet falls victim to his.   If you don't take hold of your fate, your fate will take hold of you.

[shaxper]

And yet I wonder if there is a third viewpoint on revenge tragedy that rears its head by the close of the play. In addition to the traditional revenge format and the Christian, divine right viewpoint, there may also be a sentiment of meritocracy.  It seems to me that the major point ignored throughout the play is the issue of actual rulership.  No mention is ever made of how good or bad either King Hamlet or Claudius were as kings (Laertes ability to round up supporters is attributed to his popularity rather than a general dissatisfaction).  I assume Claudius must have been a tolerably likable king since Horatio, Rosencrantz, and Guildenstern all came to see his marriage to Gertrude even though they missed King Hamlet's funeral.  When Hamlet is lamenting his father's death and his mother's quick marriage, no one says to him "Gee, you're right, and Claudius is nowhere near the king your father was".  Everyone expects him to adapt to the transtion, as they all have.

Yet, at the end of the play, the absense of the peoples' voice seems most noticable.  Fortinbras comes in and conquers Denmark.  Even in the great English histories, there was always some relic from the past monarchy who lamented the change.  In Hamlet, the rest is silence.  Perhaps I am adding my own contemporary ideas to a play that does not contain them, but I have a strong sense the absence was intended to be noticed.  Justice has been served according to the traditional revenge format, and probably for the Christian viewpoint, but do those two views add up to make a whole?  Are we supposed to notice that the people have been left out?

[Bardolph]

I think that the semblance of meritocracy filled a different need.  There are comments in the play regarding an election.  And we know that conventional patrilineal succession can be set aside because this happens.  Perhaps that's one of the reasons that Hamlet is described as being so absurdly of age, 30.  

I suggest that it was very necessary for WS to make sure that there was no confusion between the court on stage and the court in real life.  If we take 1601 as the first performance of the play as we know it, then this is at about the time of the Essex rebellion.  For all I know it may have followed Essex' role of the dice.  WS had to set the play not only outside of England but also outside the confines of Elizabethan politics.  This is particularly true in a play that has so many depositions.  

I'm going to disagree about the qualities of leadership shown by King Hamlet and his evil little brother.  The dead Kings conquest of Norway and his defeat of Old Norway in single combat is meant to confer competence upon him.  He is so mindful of the safety of the realm that he actually keeps watch even after death, armed cap a pe.  In contrast, Claudius never takes the threatening of Fort seriously.  He allows Fort and his troops a march across Denmark but never deploys a shadow force to verify their course.   We have no evidence that he agreed to sites of inspection or to a limit as to the number in the expeditionary force.  He rests all in the hope of his taking Fort as a bragging youth and on his meaningless diplomatic efforts.  

It is also not at all statesmanlike to carouse drunkenly, making wassail and drinking rhenish long into the night, and this at a time when there is a real military threat on the horizon.  

The association between Polonius and Claudius should also be taken as an example of incompetence.  We have no evidence that Polonius is a war time consiglieri.  He is a obsequious doddering old fool.  He never recognizes the transparent effort by Fortinbras and never seeks to shelter Claudius for excess focus on internal matters.  A competent king would never have taken Fort's threats lightly.  Fort has lost his crown and sought to avenge his father on Denmark.  We know that WS knows this well enough.  H5, "In matters of defense 'tis best to weight the enemy more mighty than he seems."  

I think that Hamlet does leave out the people.  But what happens in a realm happens at court.  The simple people of the country go on plowing their fields and paying taxes to whomever occupies the throne.  Perhaps this was the sense brought to the play by the farm boy from Stratford.  

[nolablue]

This still raises the interesting question: why does everyone except young Hamlet and his closest friends expect the world to go on without batting an eye in the wake of King Hamlet's death? Certainly one wouldn't expect anyone to dwell on the old king's merits in front of the new king, but not a word is whispered even in private. This, I think, is what troubles Hamlet so, even before he knows of any treachery--he 'knows not seems' and doesn't understand why no one feels the absence of his father.  The contrast between old Hamlet and Claudius also demonstrates the extent to which the Danish court has fallen into the trap of blind sycophancy.

As for the Essex link, I guess it's time to pull Alison Weir's The Life of Elizabeth I off the shelf and look into that. I knew of the link between a staging of "Richard II" and the Essex rebellion, but not that there could be a relationship with "Hamlet."

[Bardolph]

First the issue of the play.  The court takes it's cue from the royal family, the primary courtiers.  The realm takes it's cue from the court.  If you look closely at the play you'll see that Claudius takes advantage of the Fortinbras emergency when selecting the time to kill the King.  King Hamlet took his repose daily in his private garden.  When Fort reared up Claudius struck.  He took advantage of the Queen with the weak will and the realm in crisis.  Young Hamlet was absent.  The marriage to Gertrude helped to seal the election for Claudius.  I imagine that he then spoke in favor of his election to swiftly deal with the upstart from Norway.  Then, when Hamlet is returned and the funeral and coronation are out of the way, Claudius makes light of the threat from Fort and settles into his new role.  He assures the realm that Hamlet is next in line of succession, "you are nearest to my throne," which should put the court and citizens at ease regardnig a squabble over the throne.  

Courtiers are followers.  They rely on the king for everything.  Polonius characterizes this.  We are perhaps to assume that Polonius gave counsel to King Hamlet and yet he shows devotion more to the occupier of the throne than the man who sits there.  

Now to Elizabeth.  Hamlet was performed and entered in 1601.  This about the time of the Essex rebellion.  It is well known that R2 factored directly into the event.  My point is that WS was always mindful of how he dealt with issues of usurpation before Essex.  After Essex he would have been much more cautious.  Leading up to 1623 Hemmings and Condell would have been compiling the plays with a mindset that was influenced by the post Essex years.  Southhampton, their friends patron, barely escaped loss of his head by outliving Elizabeth and moving out of the tower.  

One of the ways to measure the plays critically is to separate out the usurpation/monarchy issues and examine them as pre-Essex and post-Essex.  I don't make the case for a direct link between Hamlet and Essex, just a possibility of thematic influence as the result of events contemporaneous with composition and production.  

[N.N.W]

[glow=red,2,300] Fortinbras has to take the throne. It is inevitable. Fortinbras is a shining mirror set before Hamlet, lacking Hamlets hermatia -he is a decisive Hamlet - A Hamlet who acts.

Hamlet never acts, merely reacts throughout the text, as such, although he learns much about kingship throughout the play, he is tarnished by his journey, and therefore unfit to rule. He has taken the revengers path, and convention demands that he must die. Yet, we want - rather we need - Hamlet to take the throne to complete the catharsis - otherwise we lose our sense of ordered society - and disrupts the divine right of kings. Hamlet must take the throne, yet Hamlet must also die. As  Hamlet dies, his mirror enters the scene, effectively becoming Hamlet. [/glow]