Revenge In Hamlet

The question of how far the Ghost persuades Hamelt into action hinges almost entirely on whether the audience agree that revenge is indeed the primary function of the play. Although this seems to be the case, an argument can also be made that it is Hamlet’s journey to taking action that is the important part of the story, not the simple action of taking revenge. It also depends on whether the audience sees a desire in Hamlet to seek revenge even before the Ghost shares the story of his murder; and to this end whether the Ghost is simply a manifestation of Hamlet’s subconscious, persuading him to take an action he has already decided on.
The persuasion of Hamlet begins almost immediately after the Ghost stops to talk to him. He claims that he must soon return to ‘sulphurous and tormenting flames’ which references Purgatory, a reference which is later confirmed as truth by the Ghost stating that he is prevented from moving on until ‘the foul crimes done in my days of nature/Are burnt and purged away’ which is the definition of Purgatory. This would evoke a certain amount of sympathy both in Hamlet and in the Elizabethan audience, to whom the idea of purgatory would have seemed a fate almost more terrible than Hell. Evoking sympathy is an important part in manipulation and the Ghost covers in within his first few
lines of dialogue, possibly showing a determination to get his way with Hamlet. To this end, although the Ghost declares that he is ‘forbid’ to tell Hamlet any details of Purgatory, the Ghost still implies that he is put through awful pain and suffering, contributing to creating sympathy.
The Ghost also employs an often used device in persuasive speech and writing: a guilt trip. He suggests that if Hamlet does not take up the charge that the Ghost lays before him, then he did not ever truly love his father. Filial affection aside, Hamlet’s father was also the King, so it would be an even greater wrong to have not loved his King. This creates an atmosphere where Hamlet is almost bound by his duty as a son and as a subject to perform whatever task is asked of him, no matter his personal feelings on the topic. Although we know that Hamlet bears ill-will towards Claudius regardless, it still contributes to the sense of manipulation.
By describing his murder as both ‘foul’ and ‘unnatural’ the Ghost appeals to Hamlet’s sense of moral order and justice as it implies that it was not the Ghost’s time to die and he was therefore stripped of something essential to himself.
As Hamlet is an educated person, it’s likely that he would have a keen sense of justice and therefore would likely be riled by this fact in addition to the plain fact of murder, even if not to the same degree. It would also be seen as an atrocity as the Ghost was King and regicide is both a great crime and a great sin in a society that believed firmly in the Divine Right of Kings and the direct ordination of rulers by
God.
The Ghost’s comment of being bitten by a serpent who ‘now wear his crown’ could be seen as a reference to the story of Adam and Eve where the devil took the form of a serpent to induce them to sin and betray God’s trust. The religious imagery would be very important both to the character of Hamlet who has already been shown to be a religious character by his reference to suicide being against ‘the Everlasting’ and to the Elizabethan audience as religious was a great part of all of the society’s life at the time. By naming Claudius as a serpent seems to suggest that revenge would be an act condoned by God, as Claudius is similar to a manifestation of the Devil himself. This may help to remove any reservations the Hamlet would have about committing murder, even in revenge, as it is named as a sin.