Professor Lellock
ARSC390083
4/8/11
The Phantom of Revenge: The Ghost as a Symbol of Vengeance
From the very inception of Hamlet, both the audience and characters are completely
bewildered; even Barnardo must question the identity of his friend and fellow sentry Francisco as
the former comes to relieve the latter of his post (1.1.1-14). Fittingly, such uncertainty and
distrust not only commences the story but also pervades the entire tale. Shortly after the
sentinels’ encounter, the audience is introduced to perhaps the most mysterious figure in
Shakespearean drama: the Ghost. The Ghost appears to be the soul of the late King Hamlet of
Denmark and later identifies himself as such to his supposed son, the melancholic Prince Hamlet.
Claiming to be a wandering spirit temporarily released from what sounds to be Purgatory, the
Ghost entreats the Prince of Denmark to avenge his father’s death (1.5.12-34). Bewitched by the
specter and his message, numerous scholars (indeed, four centuries worth of zealous academics)
have questioned the true identity of the Ghost and attempted to interpret the character’s nature in
several ways. Instead of adding yet another chapter to the massive anthology of interpretations, I
would like to focus on the correlations between the Ghost and the act of revenge. Surely the
ethereal nature of the Ghost at least partially determines the ethical weight of Hamlet’s revenge,
but the bond goes even deeper. King Hamlet’s alleged spirit and the concept of vengeance are
mirror images, each disturbingly ambiguous and an agent of madness. The Ghost reflects the
ambiguous morality and the haunting psychosis of revenge, creating interest in the mysterious
drama and externalizing Hamlet’s spirit of vengeance.
2
The post-Enlightenment connotation of the term “ghost” is remarkably different from the
Renaissance reaction to the word. As Robert West points out in his essay “King Hamlet’s
Ambiguous Ghost,” these supernatural entities were more than spooky children’s stories and
Halloween costumes for an audience before the Age of Reason. “Apparitions were a subject of
current and serious experience and speculation and… anybody might find himself confronted
with one…. Terrors of the night were a present reality clothed with awe and mystery” (West
1115). Elizabethan and Jacobean society was well acquainted with the possible presence of
otherworldly spirits; however, what realm such a creature was from was a matter of religious
debate. According to Eleanor Prosser in Hamlet and Revenge, the possible origins and natures of
a ghost differed among Protestants and Catholics. Since Protestants believed that people were
saved by their faith alone, believers automatically would go to Heaven and non-believers would
immediately be damned to Hell. On the other hand, Catholics argued that salvation was based on
both faith and good deeds; if a man was morally unprepared for Heaven but not so sinful as to
suffer eternal damnation, he would be temporarily placed in Purgatory to be cleansed of his sins.
Meanwhile, though souls were not permitted to leave Heaven or Hell, spirits in Purgatory were
sometimes allowed to return to the world of the living (Prosser 102-105).
As a result of their disagreement on the existence of Purgatory, Protestants and Catholics
deviated in the belief that a ghost could be a soul from Purgatory. Protestants argued that a ghost
was a hallucination, an angel, or a demon; in no case could the spirit actually belong to a
deceased person. Catholics, in contrast, agreed with the three Protestant interpretations of ghosts
but also granted the possibility that they could be the souls of the departed (103, 105). Some
possibilities were more probable than others, though. According to Prosser, King James
contended that all miracles, such as the divine intervention of angels, ceased to take place
3
following Christ and his apostles’ formation of the Church (104). With the theories of angelic
visitation and Purgatorial souls effectively dismissed, James I narrowed the already miniscule
Protestant view even further. A similar stance can be seen expressed by Sir Thomas Browne, a
17th century Anglican author. In his book Religio Medici, Browne ardently claims, “Those
apparitions and ghosts of departed persons are not the wandering souls of men but the unquiet
walks of devils, prompting and suggesting us unto mischief, blood and villainy” (Browne 46).
Still, while Browne and James would probably view King Hamlet’s Ghost as a malevolent
demon and considered its revenge to be a self-damning trick, not all Protestants dismissed the
idea of divine intercession in the form of angels (Prosser 104).
Of course, Catholic doctrines and the Protestant teachings of Browne, King James, and
other theorists only presented the possible nature of ghosts; if a person actually encountered a
spirit, he would still need to figure out which of the possible answers was correct. From there,
Roy Battenhouse relates in “The Ghost in Hamlet: A Catholic ‘Linchpin’?” that the Catholic
approach to evaluating a spirit consisted of four parts. During the Renaissance, if a spirit was
good, he would (1) initially frighten people but eventually comfort them; (2) take the form of a
man, a dove, a lamb, or a heavenly light; (3) not profess anything contrary to the beliefs of the
Church; and (4) act with meekness and virtue. And while these tests are certainly somewhat
useful, they are a bit vague. Case in point, Battenhouse and another scholar managed to come to
different conclusions using the same criteria to discern the identity of the Ghost (Battenhouse
172). Unfortunately, ambiguity appears to be an inherent trait of spirits, or at least
Shakespeare’s. Since religion only provides possibilities and flexible tests, the only consistent
way a person’s can analyze a ghost may be though fallible intuition. Shrouded in an air of
mystery, a ghost’s identity may be impossible to truly know by any method.
4
Vengeance in Renaissance England, meanwhile, had its own moral dilemmas without the
possibility of otherworldly influence. In the Elizabethan and Jacobean mindset, revenge was
scrutinized as a matter of religion nearly as much as ghosts. While arguing that avenging a loved
one makes a person just as wicked as the original perpetrator has become a bit cliché, Prosser
indicates that this belief was even more apparent during Shakespeare’s lifetime. Not only was
retributive homicide for the sake of personal vengeance considered murder, the offence was also
understood as a form of blasphemy. Both Protestants and Catholics, on the basis of particular
Biblical passages, recognized vengeance as God’s duty; an avenger would effectively question
and steal that judgment and retribution owed to God. Committing murder and blasphemy, then,
a revenger risked both punishment from the law and eternal damnation (Prosser 6-7). Still, the
consequences of seeking and taking revenge were not constrained to the spiritual. The unholy
desire for revenge was likewise understood to ravage the mind and the body, resulting in
obsessive thoughts and corporeal passion with dehumanizing effects (8-9). Overall, Prosser
introduces these Elizabethan musings to discredit other scholars’ arguments that a hidden code of
honor actually pervaded England at the time and required a son to avenge his father’s death to
redeem his honor (3-4).
However, these religious teachings and supposed physiological results do not change
human nature and the desire for “justice.” Being ruled by emotion as well as reason, mankind
can feel that a certain action is right and thereby be convinced that such urges guarantee the
morality of the act, “for there is / nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it / so” (2.2.268270). Prosser, though she wanted to demonstrate that a counter-code of revenge was not
prevalent in Shakespeare’s day, admits that an incongruity between ethics and instincts
undoubtedly existed as does today. This conflict of interests, this “ethical dilemma,” was at the
5
heart of the revenge tragedy genre and made vengeance a controversial and disturbing topic
(Prosser 4, 26). Thus, though perhaps not as intense a philosophical debate, the concept of
revenge was in many ways just as mysterious and unsettling as the nature of ghosts. Combining
each dilemma, consequently, manages to both simplify and complicate the situation.
The Ghost’s identity has a direct impact on the morality of Hamlet’s revenge. Simply
put, the sanctity of the spirit illustrates the justness of revenge and the ultimate consequences of
the action. Whether the Ghost is truly King Hamlet’s soul or an angel, Hamlet’s task is equally
sanctified. In either case, the spirit’s presence underlies an act of divine intervention. Just as an
angel would be a messenger of God, so too would a Purgatorial soul be constrained to fulfill
God’s will. Sister Miriam Joseph explains this idea in her article “Discerning the Ghost in
Hamlet,” noting that Catholics believed a person could only leave Purgatory with God’s consent
and could only give witness to the truth or a command from God (Joseph 499). As a result,
whether the Ghost is King Hamlet or an angel, the specific instance of revenge conforms to
divine will and must be morally acceptable. In fact, Hamlet wouldn’t be pursuing personal
revenge at all but a form of divine justice intended to install a legitimate king to the throne and
protect the common good of Denmark (Joseph 501-502). Hamlet’s belief in the play’s final
scene that “there’s a divinity that shapes our ends” reflects such Heavenly approval, the Prince
contending that God not only sanctions his mission but also provides aid so that he may succeed.
Conversely, if the Ghost is a demonic spirit, he must have ill intentions for Hamlet and/or
Denmark. Unlike a Purgatorial spirit, a demon would not be required to tell the truth, but this
detail does not ensure that a demon is absolutely lying. Rather, a demon could equivocate like
the witches in Macbeth or provide true information to advance a malignant end. Referring to the
work of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Battenhouse describes demons as having command of secular
6
and factual knowledge, but states that they are void of wisdom that brings a person closer to God
(Battenhouse 182). The Ghost, then, could know the particulars of King Hamlet’s death and
manipulate the facts for his own dark purposes. While Hell’s exact goals in manipulating
Hamlet may be unknown, the evil outcomes would certainly include the death of the royal
family, sheer chaos, and the possible damnation of Hamlet and others. Questioning the Ghost’s
identity throughout the play, Hamlet’s fears echo those of Browne: “Perhaps, / Out of my
weakness and my melancholy, / As he [the devil] is very potent with such spirits, / Abuses me to
damn me” (2.2.629-632). Damnation being the worst possible fate for any creature, the most
feared result would be the likeliest goal of a malevolent spirit already damned for eternity.
The correlation between the nature of revenge and identity of spirits is also present in the
opposite direction. If a ghost tries to convince a person to do something contrary to the Gospel
and Church doctrine, the apparition must be a demon. Likewise, if we consider the Ghost’s
desire for vengeance to be immoral, the character has to be an evil spirit. Unfortunately, this
reverse thinking reveals a paradox in the system: the morality of revenge exposes the spectral
essence of the Ghost, and the metaphysical origin of the Ghost relates the righteousness of
revenge. Trying to understand one mystery by substituting in another problem results in circular
logic and only complicates the matter. Unless a person definitely knows the answer to one
question, which is unlikely, both variables remain unknown and render the equation unsolvable.
The issues are just as unclear together as on their own; both can be said to defy logic and
frustrate causality. The only tangible correlation between spirits and vengeance, then, is the
inability to easily evaluate either issue.
Of course, even a playwright such as Shakespeare would be hard-pressed to explain
dilemmas that theologians and philosophers struggled with. But there’s no evidence
7
Shakespeare actually wanted to understand such mysteries and divulge the answers to his
audience. As West aptly states, “To push an investigation beyond this is to suppose that
Shakespeare has left the ghost not as a mystery but as a puzzle” (West 1116). Furthermore, West
notes that this trend of leaving supernatural characters up to interpretation appears in several of
Shakespeare’s plays. Alongside the Ghost, the weird sisters of Macbeth and the spirit Ariel in
The Tempest remain vague; whether the weird sisters are truly human or the Fates and what type
of spirit (demonic, angelic, pagan, or other) Ariel is go unanswered. In West’s opinion, as well
as my own, Shakespeare included the paranormal ambiguities in each of these plays on purpose
(1111-1113).
On a dramatic level, West speculates that Shakespeare constructed his plays’
otherworldly forces into malleable characters the audience could shape for two reasons: (1) he
devoted more of his time and effort to dramatic purposes, and (2) he wanted to impart a sense of
realism onto the occult. Making the Ghost ambiguous allowed Shakespeare to focus on the story
rather than quibble with plot devices (such as Hamlet’s pirate friends) and create a spiteful yet
sympathetic character, the tale’s ideal ghost (1113). On the other hand, the Bard needed to
remind his audience that any one of them could be visited by such a spirit at any moment and
that, under the circumstances Hamlet was placed in, a person couldn’t be entirely sure where the
phantom came from (1115). To those two suggestions, I would like to add one of my own:
leaving certain riddles to be interpreted by the audience creates interest in the play. As modern
moviegoers and fans of certain television dramas know, storytellers sometimes decide to keep
some mysteries unanswered so that the audience can continue to debate and create theories,
which endows the story with greater popularity and a level of dramatic immortality. If
Shakespeare wasn’t aware of this effect, his plays may be some of the earliest evidence that
8
ambiguity creates such fame. Thematically, meanwhile, I believe Shakespeare cloaked his
occult plot devices in ambiguity so that they could parallel the abstract and cryptic themes of his
plays. In this way, the Ghost symbolizes revenge just as the weird sisters can be thought to
represent destiny or equivocation and Ariel might signify power. The Ghost, then, isn’t provided
to interpret the ethicality of revenge but to accurately capture the theme’s enigmatic qualities.
In terms of the importance of genre, theater reveals the limits on our knowledge of such
matters as revenge and ghosts, interpretation being the unstable foundation of our understanding
of metaphysical and moral mysteries. Both of these key aspects, the Ghost and Hamlet’s
revenge, are as debatable and subject to perception as the issues they derive from—the existence
of ghosts and justness of revenge—in reality. Regardless of the fact that these issues have
objective answers outside of the play, readers and audiences dispute over nothing more than
subjective theories on either end of the stage. A theory is always identified as the one truth by its
creator until proven wrong; the only difference between our conjecture of dramatic and real life
issues is that one particular solution exists in reality while none can be found in the rotten state of
Denmark. Even though we may claim to comprehend these problems when they’re staged in
front of us, the drama reflects the fact that we struggle with these concepts with as much
uncertainty and frustration as Hamlet.
Besides ambiguity, the Ghost and Hamlet’s revenge have a second similarity that
thematically connects them. Another question presented by the play is Hamlet’s sanity, whether
or not the unfolding drama truly drives him mad. Yet within this suspicion rests a secondary
query: what would have driven Hamlet mad? At first glance, the answer seems fairly obvious,
Hamlet speaking crazed riddles in the scene immediately following his discussion with the
Ghost. But this assumption fails to identify which part of the encounter disturbed Hamlet
9
beyond reason. Considering the prince places a continued emphasis on the decision to trust the
Ghost and kill his uncle, I believe either the thought of revenge or the spirit itself would be
responsible.
Judging by Horatio’s frightened reaction, the Ghost would strike unnerving terror in the
greatest skeptic; perhaps the specter’s harrowing presence, combined with the appearance of his
venerated father, devastated Hamlet’s already troubled mind. On the other hand, the
implications of revenge could have likewise damaged his psyche. As discussed earlier, Prosser
argues that a moral dilemma arose from the conflicting ethics and emotions on revenge in
English society (Prosser 4-6). Quite possibly, this incongruity was too great for Hamlet’s
conscience to reconcile and subsequently disintegrated his entire consciousness. Prosser also
highlights the theory that someone sworn to revenge would become obsessed with vengeance
until all thoughts and emotions were eclipsed by blind malice (8). In this case, perhaps Hamlet’s
monomania ravaged his mind to the point of insanity.
Admittedly, none of these theories can be proven, but each answer shows that apparitions
and vengeance have the ability to drive a person crazy. Meanwhile, until a person encounters a
phantom or feels the passion of vengeance, she would probably ascribe such “hallucinations” to
a form of madness. Indeed, Gertrude doesn’t understand her son’s thirst for vengeance in the
same manner she can’t see the spirit of her murdered husband (3.4.117-156). Murderous
vindictiveness and otherworldly meetings can emulate psychosis or actually warp the mind. The
Ghost, then, captures the ambiguity of revenge as well as the effects of revenge. Both in
substance and results, the undead “soul” of King Hamlet can be seen to symbolize the fatal deed
he assigns his “son.”
10
Since aspects of the text are open to subjective analysis, the audience certainly has an
active role in the drama. Particularly, readers (as opposed to viewers) of Hamlet shape the
unclear aspects of the tragedy. Since the dilemma of revenge and discernment of ghosts require
a degree of interpretation and such scrutiny was quite possibly hoped for by Shakespeare, our
readings of the Ghost and his need for vengeance should be encouraged. In fact, the views on
each quandary should be virtually limitless. Because choosing one attitude to defend is such a
daunting and ultimately vain task, West ends his essay suggesting that the audience may be
better off absorbing the dramatic impact of the Ghost and admitting that he has no true identity to
prove (1117). I must disagree with West on this point, though. At least a small part of Hamlet’s
success and popularity over the last four centuries must have something to do with the play’s
ambiguity. The challenge, though futile, to analyze the Ghost and Hamlet’s revenge creates
interest in the play and stands as one of the tragedy’s most significant dramatic and thematic
devices. As an incarnation of revenge, the Ghost personifies our own interest in and disturbance
by these mysteries as much as he embodies Hamlet’s. The Ghost brings the message of revenge
to both Hamlet and the audience, revealing in himself the ambiguity that vaguely shapes
vengeance as well as the shadow of destruction and madness that follows.
11
Annotated Bibliography
Battenhouse, Roy. “The Ghost in Hamlet: A Catholic ‘Linchpin’?” Studies in Philology 48.2
(1951): 161-192. JSTOR. Web. 28 Mar. 2011.
Battenhouse denies the common assumption that the Ghost is a soul from Catholic
Purgatory; he argues that the Ghost seems more like a spirit from pagan purgatory or hell.
To support his claim, Battenhouse provides seven characteristics of the Ghost to show
that he acts without the Christian virtues of a soul from Purgatory and that the characters
he interacts with only recognize him as an angel or a demon. Battenhouse bases his
argument on primary sources that explain Catholic doctrine on Purgatory and frequently
cites other interpretations of the Ghost to disprove his colleagues’ opposing theories.
Though Battenhouse quickly takes on the burden of proof, he seems to discredit his
opponents with an air of superiority. Overall, while the essay may not convince the
reader to adopt Battenhouse’s interpretation, the article makes a convincing argument that
there are more ways to read the Ghost than traditionally thought. For my paper, I plan to
use Battenhouse’s essay to illustrate the Catholic criteria for evaluating a ghost and
provide support for the theory that the Ghost is an evil spirit.
Browne, Thomas. Religio Medici. 1643. Ed. James Winny. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1963. Print.
As a personal account of his own religious beliefs and attitudes toward science, Sir
Thomas Browne’s Religio Medici can be easily regarded as nothing more than one man’s
journal of opinions, especially since he hadn’t intended to publish the book while he
wrote it. However, this reflection on the external world and the author’s relation to it also
12
represents the prevalent mind-sets of 17th century England. Thus, revealing one
Anglican’s worldview and self-examination, this book grants readers insight into popular
assumptions and doctrines of the time period. All of Browne’s beliefs spurn modern
science and are based on Scripture, the teachings of Roman and Greek philosophers
renewed during the Renaissance, and his own observations of the world. If Browne is
making any argument at all, then it is not very effective. As for my ability to make use of
this text, Browne states in Part 1 Section 37 that all ghosts are not deceased souls but evil
spirits meant to treacherously damn mortals. I will use this source to provide one
Anglican interpretation of ghosts in Renaissance England.
Joseph, Miriam. “Discerning the Ghost in Hamlet.” PMLA 76.5 (1961): 493-502. JSTOR.
Web. 28 Mar. 2011.
In response to Battenhouse and other critics, Joseph argues that the initial ambiguity of
the Ghost is an intentional dramatic tool to develop suspense and that the spirit may
indeed be a soul from Purgatory. Basing her argument on The Golden Legend and The
Supplication of Souls, Joseph illustrates that the description of the Ghost’s afterlife is
consistent with traditional depictions of Catholic Purgatory. From there, Joseph states
that the Ghost’s apparent self-righteousness is actually objective and that his concern for
his wife’s safety and the sacraments he was unable to receive before his death reveal the
character’s underlying compassion and piety. The most unique facet of Joseph’s essay,
however, is her attempt to defend Hamlet’s quest for revenge as an outlet of divine
justice, Hamlet being the appointed harbinger of judgment and protector of the common
good. Referring to Scripture and at least two saints, Joseph presents herself as an
authority of Church teachings and history, a credential that notably strengthens her
13
argument. In regards to my essay, I will use Joseph’s argument to briefly defend the idea
that the Ghost is a good spirit and that his revenge is just.
Prosser, Eleanor. Hamlet and Revenge. 2nd ed. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1971.
Print.
According to Prosser, Shakespearean scholars have frequently dismissed any misgivings
from modern audiences that Hamlet’s desire for revenge is morally question, arguing that
the original Elizabethan audience understood blood revenge as an obligated duty. Prosser
then uses primary sources to undermine the idea that personal revenge was necessitated
by an unorthodox code of honor and support her claim that even the play’s original
audience would scrutinize Hamlet’s actions. Overall, Prosser establishes revenge as a
moral quandary, being spiritually evil and psychologically damaging but at the same time
representing an instinctual urge for justice. Prosser goes on to illustrate the possible
religious interpretations of the Ghost. Because each sect of Christianity had different
beliefs about Purgatory and the means of salvation, Catholics and Protestants had
different attitudes toward ghosts. Protestants would have viewed the spirit either as an
angel, a demon, or a hallucination, while Catholics would add the possibility that the
Ghost was indeed a soul from Purgatory. Taking on the burden of proof while revealing
flaws in the assumptions of others, Hamlet and Revenge effectively establishes the moral
ambiguity of revenge as a legitimate concern for the audience. I will use this book to
provide the historical perspectives of my topics.
West, Robert. “King Hamlet’s Ambiguous Ghost.” PMLA 70.5 (1955): 1107-1117. JSTOR.
Web. 28 Mar. 2011.
14
After devoting the first part of his essay to a summary of the more popular interpretations
of the Ghost (include Battenhouse’s), West decides not to explain his own reading of the
spirit. Rather, West argues that the Ghost’s identity is intentionally ambiguous for the
sake of dramatic effect. West goes on to compare the uncertain nature of the Ghost with
those of the weird sisters in Macbeth and Ariel in The Tempest: just as the Ghost’s
station in the afterlife is unbeknown, so too are the witches’ humanity and Ariel’s
sanctity matters of interpretation. Showing that Shakespeare tended to keep the
supernatural elements of his plays mysterious, West maintains that such vagueness
mirrors the protagonist’s uncertainty and the philosophical debates of the time.
Furthermore, leaving the Ghost’s essence unclear allows greater emphasis to be put on
the drama, the character’s contradictory traits being thematically and narratively
essential. West’s essay is effective in that it rejects the limiting idea that the Ghost is a
puzzle to be solved but coincides with the audience’s natural inclination to interpret the
mystery in a number of ways. Using West as my source, I will argue that Shakespeare
intentionally made supernatural forces in his plays vague for the sake of dramatic effect.