Latent Essence of Revenge in Hamlet and the Revenger\'s Tragedy

¶ … revenged activates the actual action of revenge, as demonstrated in "Hamlet" and "The Revenger's Tragedy," however, we may be in doubt when cataloguing their actions as logical and premeditated (Vindice) or full of incertitude and hesitance.

Indeed, in my opinion, it is an important note to be made, as the originality of each main character is not determined as much by their underlying motivation, common in both cases, but by the road that takes them to their revenge action. In this sense, it seems useful to emphasize that, despite the obvious similarities between the two plays and the two main characters, driven by the fact that they both belong to the revenge genre, there are differences worth noting in each approach towards revenge for each play in part.

Both plays share the same underlying motivation for Hamlet and Vindici: someone close has been treacherously murdered. In Vindici's case, it was his beloved, nine years before the play's action, poisoned by the Duke because she refused to submit to him. Additionally, Vindici's father also died because of the Duke. Opportunistic and realistic, perhaps reminding us of a modern paid assassin, with one goal in his mind, getting the job done. In the first scene, we are introduced to the reason behind his plotting and his revenge, "the old duke poison'd, / Because thy purer part would not consent / Unto his palsy-lust, for old men lustful" (Middleton, I.i.). Vindici simply awaits for the right moment to strike and achieve his vengeance: "the small'st advantage fattens wronged men, / It may point out. Occasion, if I meet her, / I'll hold her by the foretop fast enough" (Middleton, I.i.).

On the other hand, Hamlet never lets us believe that he may not have the opportunity of committing the act of revenge. As several critics point out, "there is no suggestion from Hamlet himself that there are any such external difficulties"

in his pursuing his act. The reason for revenge is pointed out in the famous dialogue with his father's ghost, in the first act, perhaps the key to the entire play.

Until then, we see Hamlet as a quiet, contemplative, melancholic character, seemingly with a lot on his mind and with a tendency to think things over and over, which creates the appropriate premises for his later constant waiting and pondering over the deed he has to perform. Very differently from Vindici, who we see already decided in the first scene of the first act, fully understanding his focus and concentrating his entire attention on completing the act of vengeance, Hamlet finds out in the fifth scene of the first act and produces his act only in the last scene of the last act. Closely connecting with the hesitance all the critics have been discussing, this is quite important to emphasize the difference in character between Vindici and Hamlet, despite the same motivation.

Going back to the fifth scene of the first act in Hamlet, this is defining to support the thesis as the action that activates the action of revenge. It is useful to then compare it to the way the action is triggered in "The Revenger's Tragedy," in order to be able to make a short note on the intensity of the provocation.

Hamlet meets face-to-face with his father's ghost (w should mention that the presence of a ghost is also one of the characteristics of revenge tragedies or revenge plays, however, in "The Revenger's Tragedy," there is no ghost of Vindici's fiance. He is already aware of her murderer) and it is the ghost that reveals to him the fact that he was killed by Claudius. The ghost gives us a clue of what is about to happen at the beginning of the scene, as it says "so art thou to revenge, when thou shalt hear" (Hamlet, I.v.) and then reveals his identity: "I am thy father's spirit; / Doom'd for a certain term to walk the night" (I.v.).

The ghost speaks of his murder and gives out the identity of the murderer as "the serpent that did sting thy father's life / Now wears his crown" (I.v.). Afterwards, he asks to be revenged: "Revenge his foul and most unnatural murder" (I.v.). I need to constantly draw a parallel with Vindici's triggering act: he already knows of his beloved murder and is set to revenge her. No spiritual apparition is necessary, he has known for ten years about his object of revenge. He just needs to find the right time. Finally, returning to Hamlet, he is set upon revenge the minute he receives the identity of the murderer: "Haste me to know't, that I, with wings as swift / As meditation or the thoughts of love,/

May sweep to my revenge" (V.i.).

We may get the impression that in Vindici's case, the act of revenge occurs a long time after the act that triggers the revenge, while in Hamlet's case, we may have a smaller time period, from a temporal point-of-view. This argument may partly stand and may somewhat contradict our thesis, with the counterargument that Vindici is also undecided and waits a long period of time, much longer than Hamlet, before acting the revenge.

We would be in the wrong had we not considered the actual cause of the period of elapsed time. In Hamlet's case, it is the constant indecision, meditation and philosophical evaluation of things, of his action and of the justifications for it. Here he is in the last part of scene 2 of act 2, pondering over his condition, angry because he is feeling weak and cannot pursue his task: "O, what a rogue and peasant slave am I!" And 'Yet I,

A dull and muddy-mettled rascal, peak,

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 damn'd defeat was made. Am I a coward?" (Act II, Scene ii).

On the other hand, we have Vindici's case, where the act of revenge was not possible because of external factors: Vindici was forced to leave the city and had found no opportunity to get close to the Duke. He is considered a threat and only comes close to the Duke by disguising himself as Piato. On one hand we have Hamlet, who is living at the court and is a constant presence with the king, on the other, Vindici who needs to conceive a shrewd plan in order to approach the Duke.

An additional difference between the two main characters is the fact that, for hamlet, his father's ghost is a constant, somewhat gruesome, reminder of what he must do. For him, there is no way out of the deal, because his destiny has set him out on this path and he must fulfill his condition. For Vindici, on the other hand, it is still a matter of choice. We have nowhere in the play the idea that perhaps revenge was suggested by his own beloved one. The fact that in one case, it is a sacred duty, while in the other it looks more like a personal issue, could only further strengthen our belief that the two characters have in common the initial motive for revenge, but their perception on the murder of the beloved one, their interpretation of the fact is entirely different.