Messenger from Hell

One of Shakespeare’s most famous plays, a title that almost everyone can recognize, is his masterpiece known as Hamlet.  It is a story full of revenge, plotting, spying, and murder.  The characters are well thought out, have their own sets of motives and convictions, and are strong enough to carry the story to a climactic finale.  However, there is one character that does not appear very often in the play, yet is the focal point of a major piece of controversy.  The ghost of Hamlet’s murdered father only appears in four out of the twenty scenes in the play, always carrying omens of evildoing, whether translated by tongue or by deed.  But when the ghost’s words and actions are thoroughly examined, questions arise as to its true intentions.  Is the ghost what he claims to be, the spirit of Hamlet’s father seeking revenge for his unjust murder, or could he be a messenger from hell, sent to wreak havoc in the kingdom of Denmark?

One reason given in the play that could provide insight into the origin of the ghost is his own words from Act I, Scene V when he says, “I am thy father's spirit, doom'd for a certain term to walk the night, and for the day confined to fast in fires, till the foul crimes done in my days of nature are burnt and purged away. But that I am forbid to tell the secrets of my prison-house, I could a tale unfold whose lightest word would harrow up thy soul, freeze thy young blood, make thy two eyes, like stars, start from their spheres, thy knotted and combined locks to part and each particular hair to stand on end, like quills upon the fretful porpentine: but this eternal blazon must not be to ears of flesh and blood.”  These words can be translated in two different ways.  “Confined to fast in fires” could refer to Purgatory, which is where the Catholics believe the soul of dead Christians go before Heaven to have their evil deeds purged from them before entering into the presence of God.  However, there is another destination in eternity that is believed in by all denominations of Christianity and contains torturous fires.  It is hell.  In Revelation the Bible describes this place as “the fiery lake of burning sulfur… the second death.”  In addition, the ghost says that, “I am forbid to tell the secrets of my prison-house, I could a tale unfold whose lightest word would harrow up thy soul, freeze thy young blood, make thy two eyes, like stars, start from their spheres, thy knotted and combined locks to part and each particular hair to stand on end, like quills upon the fretful porpentine: but this eternal blazon must not be to ears of flesh and blood.”  This seems to align with Matthew 13:50, which says “and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”  The terrors of hell are too much for humans to comprehend, just like the glory of God is too great for us to look upon.  So it would seem that even the ghost’s own words reveal him for what he might be.

Another piece of evidence that the ghost might have been a spirit of hell is the actual message that he delivers.  When telling Hamlet its tale in Act I he says, “Revenge his foul and most unnatural murder.”  The ghost is telling the young prince to take revenge for his father, murder his uncle in return, and take back the throne.  This might seem like wise counsel until Romans 12:19 is brought into play, “Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’”  Man is not responsible for getting even, since the Lord will handle evildoers in His own time.   When people seek revenge on their own, it creates a cycle of getting even, which will continue until either one of two things happens.  Someone breaks the chain and gives up their claim to revenge, or death takes one or all of the participants.  But the ghost is promoting the practice of seeking recompense alone and without waiting for God to handle it in his might and righteousness.  Supposing he really was a ghost that was waiting in purgatory, why would he be purposefully countering the teachings of God Himself?

Now that these two examples have been evaluated, an explanation must be given.  Some would say that the play could have taken place in Denmark at a time when Christianity had not been introduced into their world.  There are many ways to rebut this argument, but there is only one relevant to the points given.  If Denmark in the play had not been given the Gospel, they would not have known about the passage relating to the Lord taking on the responsibility of vengeance.  However, this would also mean that they would not have the Bible from which to form the theory that there is a purgatory between death and Heaven.  So therefore, if they had not Bible, they would not know about purgatory.  But if they did have the Bible, they would know that vengeance belongs to the Lord.  This means that the ghost can be seen as a messenger from purgatory that was rejecting the teachings of Christianity, or the ghost was a demon from hell, promoting actions that it knew would tear the kingdom down to ruins.

It is fun to think about what would have happened if Hamlet had recognized the “ghost” for what he really was, a servant of the Devil, and had not followed its instructions.  Much might have turned out differently.  Many of the characters that died might have lived, Hamlet might have one day married Ophelia, and the kingdom might have flourished rather than fallen to a foreign nation.  On the other hand, things might have turned out almost as badly.  Claudius would have still ruled from a stolen throne, Hamlet would have been sent away, and any number of other possibilities.  However, one thing is for sure: the “ghost” was not what it claimed to be.  It was an emissary of evil, sent to tempt Hamlet and ensure the destruction of Danish society.  Hamlet was fooled and the messenger from hell succeeded in his mission.