The Ethics of Revenge in Drama

In her study of English revenge dramas from 1562 to 1607, Eleanor Prosser concludes that they almost universally condemn the practice of revenge.

Of the twenty-one plays analyzed in the present chapter, only four are even slightly ambiguous in their condemnation of revenge. The evidence is even more striking when we consider the judgment on specific characters. We have encountered almost forty who are faced with the decision of whether or not to take revenge: of those who take action, only six are vindicated (whether by civil authorities, as in Antonio's Revenge, or by supernatural sanction, as in The Spanish Tragedy). These six would hardly represent the dominant theatrical tradition even if they were acting as the ministers of God. But they are not....The dominant theatrical tradition seems unmistakable when we consider the witness of six virtuous characters who explicitly reject revenge, five originally virtuous characters who turn villain when they embark on a course of vengeance, seventeen out-and-out villain-revengers, and many others whose threats or advice to pursue revenge are clearly judged as evil. --Eleanor Prosser, Hamlet and Revenge, Stanford, CA,Stanford Univ. Press, (1971) p.70.

A further statistical comparison occurs within Hamlet itself. There are three young men in the play, all whose fathers have been killed; Hamlet,Laertes,and Fortinbras. Only one of the three decides not to seek revenge, and his fate is far more fortunate than the others. Both Hamlet and Laertes are killed in their own process of vengeance. Fortinbras not only survives; he seems to be given command of the entire kingdom of Denmark at the end of the play.