To answer this question, this essay will focus on the play in its context first: How did the Elizabethan society think about vendetta, and which typical revenge tragedies did they already know? What were the main features of the typical revenge tragedy? In the second part I want to examine to what extent Shakespeare adhered to these genre conventions and what he changed.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Elizabethan Perspective on Vendetta
3. Conventions of Revenge Tragedy
4. Analysis of Hamlet
4.1 The Ghost and the Burden of Responsibility
4.2 Conscience and Delay
4.3 Madness and Identity
4.4 Melancholy and Character Development
4.5 The Villain and the Play-within-a-Play
5. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
This essay explores the extent to which William Shakespeare incorporates or modifies the established genre conventions of Elizabethan revenge tragedy in his play Hamlet, specifically focusing on the tension between societal expectations of vengeance and the psychological complexity of the protagonist.
- The historical and religious context of vendetta in Elizabethan England.
- Core generic conventions established by Seneca and Thomas Kyd.
- Hamlet's internal conflict regarding conscience, morality, and divine judgment.
- The evolution of the "revenge tragedy" archetype into deeper psychological character studies.
- Structural elements such as the play-within-a-play and the role of the ghost.
Excerpt from the Book
The complexity of Hamlet’s round character is a typical feature of the revenge tragedy.
The words “to heaven” stand alone after an enjambment and are therefore particularly stressed. The prayer causes further delay, because Hamlet realizes that he might do Claudius a favour if he should kill him in an act of regret. The question he is asking himself is: ‘Is there a chance for Claudius to clear himself of his sins, and if I save my father from hell by avenging him, will I have to take his place?’ Again, the complexity of Hamlet’s round character is a typical feature of the revenge tragedy.
Moreover, Hamlet is acting mad – but it is difficult to be sure at all times if Hamlet is faking his madness or not. Immediately after he decides to avenge his father, he informs his friends that they may notice some strange behaviour from him.
This passage conveys that Hamlet is just “putting something on” not actually being something. But the turning point is probably when Hamlet accidentally kills Polonius and reacts with the following statement.
Hamlet, who fears to go to hell, does suddenly not know better than insulting an innocent victim he just killed. This clearly shows that he finally has gone mad and is not just acting anymore. This scene is also important in terms of the general bloodiness of the play. Polonius is not the only one to die innocently – his death triggers the drowning of his daughter. So general bloodiness throughout the play is given, too.
Chapter Summaries
1. Introduction: This chapter outlines the scope of the essay, defining the historical context of Elizabethan attitudes toward revenge and establishing the intent to compare Shakespeare's Hamlet with classical revenge genre conventions.
2. Elizabethan Perspective on Vendetta: This section examines the social and religious conflict regarding private blood-revenge in Elizabethan society, highlighting the tension between the perceived right to defend family honor and Christian doctrines.
3. Conventions of Revenge Tragedy: This chapter defines the "Kydian formula" and the influence of Seneca, listing key structural features such as the appearance of a ghost, hesitation, feigned madness, and the presence of a Machiavellian villain.
4. Analysis of Hamlet: This section provides a close reading of Hamlet’s actions, internal monologues, and encounters with other characters to evaluate how the protagonist conforms to or deviates from traditional revenge tragedy archetypes.
5. Conclusion: This summary reflects on the findings, concluding that while Hamlet adheres to the structural framework of the revenge tragedy, it significantly elevates the genre through the psychological depth and rounding of its characters.
Keywords
Shakespeare, Hamlet, Revenge Tragedy, Elizabethan Drama, Kydian Formula, Vendetta, Claudius, Ghost, Conscience, Madness, Melancholy, Play-within-a-play, Psychology, Genre Conventions, Machiavellian Villain.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this essay?
The essay investigates how Shakespeare’s Hamlet aligns with or diverges from the traditional genre conventions established in Elizabethan revenge tragedies by authors like Thomas Kyd and Seneca.
What are the central themes discussed in the work?
The work explores themes of blood-revenge, the conflict between religious belief and duty, the psychological state of the avenger, and the nature of morality in a violent society.
What is the main research question of the study?
The study asks to what extent and in what specific ways Shakespeare incorporates or modifies the established conventions of revenge tragedy within the narrative of Hamlet.
Which scientific methodology is utilized?
The author employs a comparative literary analysis, evaluating primary source text against the historical genre definitions of revenge tragedy as established by critics such as Fredson Bowers.
What topics are covered in the main body?
The body analyzes the ghost’s role, Hamlet’s internal struggle with conscience, the ambiguity of his madness, and the shift from flat to round characterization in both the avenger and the villain.
Which keywords best describe this research?
Key terms include Shakespeare, Hamlet, Revenge Tragedy, Elizabethan Drama, Kydian Formula, Conscience, and Psychological Complexity.
Why does the author consider Claudius a 'round' character?
The author argues that Claudius’s internal monologue and expression of guilt during his prayer reveal his complexity, moving him beyond the traditional, one-dimensional Machiavellian stereotype.
How does the 'play-within-a-play' function in this analysis?
The play-within-a-play is analyzed as a structural device that serves to confirm the villain's guilt, though the author notes that in Hamlet, it fails to trigger the immediate revenge that the Kydian formula usually dictates.
What is the significance of Hamlet's 'madness' according to the text?
The text differentiates between Hamlet’s performance of madness for strategic reasons and his later, genuine descent into a state of instability, particularly following the accidental killing of Polonius.
What conclusion does the essay reach regarding Hamlet as a revenge tragedy?
The essay concludes that Hamlet remains a revenge tragedy at its core but represents an evolved, modern form that prioritizes the psychological development of characters over mere adherence to plot tropes.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Sonja Kaupp (Autor:in), 2010, To what extent, and in what ways, does Shakespearean tragedy incorporate and/or modify the conventions of revenge tragedy?, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/180021
