RALPH:  In one of the first critical dissertations on Hamlet, published in 1736, the author described the scene in this way:  “There is something very bloody in it, so inhuman, so unworthy of a hero, that I wish our poet had omitted it”

SARAH:  Instead, it was the 18th century critics who omitted it  – the dominant productions of Hamlet during that period cut this scene. Moral education was considered an important function of theater, and this scene showed a very un-virtuous, un-Christian hero, someone who was so blood-thirsty with vengeance that death was not enough; his enemy had to go directly to hell.

RALPH:  Of course, this only sounds shocking if you have a strong belief in hell in the first place.  As that belief began to fade in Europe, a whole series of critics popped up to argue that this search for more powerful vengeance is just another excuse to keep Hamlet from taking action now, when Claudius is there for the taking. It’s as if Hamlet were saying:  “Phew – I thought I was really going to have to kill him this time; good thing I found a way to avoid it.”

SARAH:  So once again the critics have made convincing arguments for entirely contrary interpretations:  is Hamlet so hot with vengeance that he wants nothing less than eternal damnation for Claudius, or is Hamlet once again just finding an excuse to put off vengeance to another time, a time he might be hoping never really comes?

RALPH:  Shakespeare scholar Harold Jenkins thinks the second line of argument – that it’s just one more excuse – is, frankly, silly.  According to Jenkins, the audience of Shakespeare’s day would have been all too familiar with the medieval practice of taking satisfaction in the torments of heretics and sinners.  Evil people deserve punishment, and we should rejoice in the divine justice it represents.

SARAH:  These scholarly disagreements raise great questions about the history of criticism and about the changes in the audience reaction to the play over time:  does it matter that at one moment in history the character of Hamlet in this scene is properly vengeful and at another moment in history he’s a Hamlet who has yet another excuse?  Is that change in interpretation proof that we can never really see the play as Shakespeare and his audience did – that it’s forever out of reach – , or is this ability to take on new resonance with each generation part of the evidence that this is indeed a great and lasting work of art?