Conflict:
LOAS:
1- Internal conflict of Claudius
2- Internal conflict of Hamlet, atypical- reflects debate on revenge-
conflict with Laertes who reflects stereotypical view of revenge for
honour
3- Conflict between the ghost and Claudius- religious + honour
Much like Claudius, Shakespeare presents Hamlet to be similarly plagued
by internal conflict, which frames him as an atypical revenge hero and
sets up an external conflict with Laertes, reflecting the debate on the
morality of revenge in the Elizabethan era. The tragic form of revenge
plays typically consists of a hero's quest for revenge by any means
possible, taking justice into their own hands following the murder of a
loved one. In Hamlet's case, he is wronged by the unjust murder of his
father at the hands of Claudius, leading to him attempting to enact what
Bacon calls “a wild kind of justice” in his vengeance. Hamlet seems to
initially embrace this role in his instinctive promise to “sweep to my
revenge” with “wings as swift as meditation or the thoughts of love.”
However, Shakespeare alludes to the atypical nature of Hamlet's revenge
immediately, in his use of the word “meditation,” foreshadowing his future
deliberation, as well as his atypical association of vengeful murder with
“the thoughts of love.” Shakespeare further subverts Hamlet's attempts to
embrace this role in his internalisation of “the rugged Pyrrhus,” a classical
revenge hero who avenges the killing of Achilles, his father, by killing
Priam. Although Hamlet “strives repeatedly to stick to the stage
revenger's script,” as Ryan points out in his desire to channel this typical
revenge hero, “whose sable arms [are] black as his purpose,” Hamlet
cannot help but recognise the immorality of this act in his reference to
“the hellish Pyrrhus.”
Whilst moral ambiguity plagues Hamlet's quest throughout the play,
musing of the consequences of revenge in saying, “for in that sleep of
death what dreams may come”, Shakespeare presents Laertes to be an
explicit foil to Hamlet, setting up a conflict between the pairs’ attitudes to
revenge. Unlike Hamlet, Laertes embraces the traditional revenge hero in
his total abandonment of conscience and disregard for the consequences
in seeking revenge against Hamlet, saying “I dare damnation”, with the
harsh dental alliteration reflecting his aggressive resolve of taking justice
into his own hands. This notion of revenge superseding moral action is
emphasised by Laertes’ vow to “cut [Hamlet’s] throat i’th’ church”,
LOAS:
1- Internal conflict of Claudius
2- Internal conflict of Hamlet, atypical- reflects debate on revenge-
conflict with Laertes who reflects stereotypical view of revenge for
honour
3- Conflict between the ghost and Claudius- religious + honour
Much like Claudius, Shakespeare presents Hamlet to be similarly plagued
by internal conflict, which frames him as an atypical revenge hero and
sets up an external conflict with Laertes, reflecting the debate on the
morality of revenge in the Elizabethan era. The tragic form of revenge
plays typically consists of a hero's quest for revenge by any means
possible, taking justice into their own hands following the murder of a
loved one. In Hamlet's case, he is wronged by the unjust murder of his
father at the hands of Claudius, leading to him attempting to enact what
Bacon calls “a wild kind of justice” in his vengeance. Hamlet seems to
initially embrace this role in his instinctive promise to “sweep to my
revenge” with “wings as swift as meditation or the thoughts of love.”
However, Shakespeare alludes to the atypical nature of Hamlet's revenge
immediately, in his use of the word “meditation,” foreshadowing his future
deliberation, as well as his atypical association of vengeful murder with
“the thoughts of love.” Shakespeare further subverts Hamlet's attempts to
embrace this role in his internalisation of “the rugged Pyrrhus,” a classical
revenge hero who avenges the killing of Achilles, his father, by killing
Priam. Although Hamlet “strives repeatedly to stick to the stage
revenger's script,” as Ryan points out in his desire to channel this typical
revenge hero, “whose sable arms [are] black as his purpose,” Hamlet
cannot help but recognise the immorality of this act in his reference to
“the hellish Pyrrhus.”
Whilst moral ambiguity plagues Hamlet's quest throughout the play,
musing of the consequences of revenge in saying, “for in that sleep of
death what dreams may come”, Shakespeare presents Laertes to be an
explicit foil to Hamlet, setting up a conflict between the pairs’ attitudes to
revenge. Unlike Hamlet, Laertes embraces the traditional revenge hero in
his total abandonment of conscience and disregard for the consequences
in seeking revenge against Hamlet, saying “I dare damnation”, with the
harsh dental alliteration reflecting his aggressive resolve of taking justice
into his own hands. This notion of revenge superseding moral action is
emphasised by Laertes’ vow to “cut [Hamlet’s] throat i’th’ church”,
