In writing his plays, Shakespeare was known to adapt material from existing sources to craft his now-famous narratives. For Hamlet, he was inspired by pieces such as the Historica Danica written by Saxo Grammaticus. This text follows Amleth, a young prince who feigns dullness to plot revenge against his uncle and new king Feng, who killed Amleth’s father and married Amleth’s mother. At its core, this tale of revenge is quite similar to Hamlet, but Shakespeare makes a great departure from the original text by concluding his play with a deadly fencing match. The original text concludes with Amleth slaying Feng in his chambers after igniting the palace on fire, whereas Hamlet concludes with a tragic duel that claims the lives of much of the royal family. In this essay, I argue that Shakespeare chose to finish the play with a dueling scene as it provides Hamlet with an opportunity to perform his masculine duty of revenge. I will prove this point by first examining the duel and its consequences regarding Hamlet’s masculinity. Then, I will examine the characters of Hamlet and Amleth and their relationship to traditional masculine values. As I will show, Shakespeare’s depiction of Hamlet as indecisive, rather than deliberate like Amleth was portrayed, is evidence of his need for an outlet to express his masculine duties. Finally, I will contrast the destruction of the palace by way of fire in Historica Danica to the destruction of the royal family by poison in Hamlet. I argue that Shakespeare’s choice to write the latter scene is evidence of the corrupting powers of internal obligations, which reflects upon Hamlet’s destructive need for expressing masculinity through revenge.

To begin, it may help to understand fencing and duels outside the context of the play, such that it may inform how we understand the duel within the play. In England, around the time Shakespeare would have written Hamlet, duels were not just a method of settling a dispute, but were actually an element of the judicial system and carried religious connotations: “[t]he alternative term for the duel — trial by combat — derived from the duel’s position in late medieval English law as a supplement to criminal trial and judgment. The practice was generally understood as a test in which God’s hand would intervene on the right side… [the duel was] used to distinguish between two disputants when evidence could not determine the case” (Low 505). Knowing this, modern readers are now able to understand what the original audience would have known: a duel signifies an event wherein the participants are judged by fate. Due to the illegitimate and corrupt nature of the duel’s conception (Hamlet 4.7.149-68), one would conclude that this duel was fated for tragedy.

As for its implications for Hamlet and his masculine obligations for revenge, it is an opportunity for him to prove himself against a man of status. His opponent, Laertes, is described by the messenger Osric as “the card or calendar of gentry, for you shall find in him the continent of what part a gentleman would see” (5.2.122-124). This description paints Laertes as an analog to Hamlet, as he has entered the duel to enact revenge upon Hamlet for the murder of his father. Ultimately, both characters are dealing with the same internal dilemma and are attempting to resolve it through this corrupted duel. Though it should be mentioned, Hamlet does not enter the duel with the intention of taking revenge by killing Claudius or even Laertes. He is compelled to enter the duel as his public image is at stake. Osric states this quite clearly while explaining the nature of the duel: “I mean, my lord, the opposition of your person in trial” (5.2.185). Thus, given the intentions of the participants, the duel should be understood as a show of masculinity, wherein one man will defeat the other in order to publicly defend their honour or fulfill an inner desire for revenge. This relates to the performative nature of gender, wherein one is not only cognizant of their gender internally, but also must project it outwards for it to be recognized by others.

By looking back to the beginning of the play, we see that Hamlet is set upon this journey by the ghost of his father, which appears to him to tell him of his duty. Low points out that Hamlet is compelled to avenge his father due to the bond they share as father and son (502), as evidenced in this passage:

HAMLET. Speak. I am bound to hear.

GHOST. I am thy father’s spirit (1.5.11-14)

This scene is important in evaluating some of the differences in the depictions of Hamlet and Amleth. The apparition of the deceased father appears only in Hamlet, and not in Historica Danica. In the source material, Amleth is not commanded by a fatherly spirit to enact revenge, but takes it upon himself to fulfill this masculine duty: “Amleth beheld all this, but feared lest too shrewd a behaviour might make him suspect him. So he chose to feign dulness and pretend an utter lack of wits” (Grammaticus 208). I argue that this is the very first instance where Shakespeare began to create a distinction between Amleth and Hamlet. Where the former has a more comfortable relationship with his masculine values, the latter needs greater assistance, often finding himself at a loss of what to do and is shown to not progress his plot for revenge with the determination that one would attribute to a typical masculine hero. Shakespeare depicts Hamlet’s indecisive nature as womanly when he has Hamlet compare himself, in a moment of indecision and inaction, to “a whore” who “unpack[s] my heart with words, / And fall[s] a-cursing like a very drab” (2.2.614-15).

In order to bolster the idea that Hamlet is lacking in traditional masculine values when compared to Amleth, I will analyze the steps they take towards revenge near the end of the play. A typical depiction of masculine values would show a hero who is not only brave and strong, but also cunning, depicting a balanced view of traditional masculinity wherein one is able to act, analyze, and command. We see examples of this kind of masculinity in classic heroes like Odysseus, who is known not only for his ability to fight, but for his wisdom as well. Amleth’s plan begins well in advance of the climax of the play. Before he is sent off to England, he tells his mother to make tapestries and hang them in the main hall (Grammaticus 212). A year later, he made use of these tapestries by trapping the noblemen who he had intoxicated such that they may not escape when he lit the palace ablaze (Grammaticus 214). He then made his way to Feng’s chamber, took the man’s sword while he slept, woke him, and killed him (Grammaticus 214). None of this planning and direct action is present in Hamlet’s quest for revenge. The duel is actually planned by Claudius and Laertes (4.7.149-168), and Hamlet is only able to enact revenge by chance, as the poisoned rapier Laertes used to kill Hamlet was accidentally switched in a moment of confusion, and since the Queen accidentally drank the poison intended for Hamlet:

KING. Gertrude, do not drink.

QUEEN. I will, my lord; I pray you pardon me. [She drinks.]

KING. [aside] It is the poisoned cup. It is too late.

….

LAERTES. Have at you now!

[Laertes wounds Hamlet. Then <in scuffling they change rapiers,> and Hamlet wounds Laertes.] (5.2.317-19, 330)

It is only after the orchestration of the duel fails that Hamlet is given an opportunity to enact revenge by poisoning Claudius (5.2.356-358). The way Shakespeare has departed from the source material indicates a deliberate choice to emasculate Hamlet. He does not act with the agency that Amleth does and falls prey to the orchestrations of Claudius. Amleth, however, triumphs over the corrupt king due to his agency, planning, and command over others. Recognizing this, the outcome of the duel can be seen as an addition that indicates Shakespeare’s belief that in order to succeed men must make use of their agency, else they will fall victim to the corruptions of others.

Finally, I will look to the broader context of these final scenes to explain what they may reveal about masculine performance. Specifically, both final scenes depict the destruction of a kingdom. In Historica Danica, “[a]fter [Amleth trapped the sleeping noblemen] he set fire to the palace. The flames spread, scattering the conflagration far and wide. It enveloped the whole dwelling, destroyed the palace, and burnt them all while they were buried in sleep or vainly trying to arise” (Grammaticus 214). The way Grammaticus describes this fire brings to mind a powerful force, which destroys and engulfs that which is in its path. This depiction mirrors that of Amleth, someone who was set on vengeance, and who did not compromise on the path towards his goal, even while deflecting suspicion. This scene is made to represent the passionate yet incredibly dangerous manner in which prideful men enact vengeance. The fire is meant to be understood as the masculine powers which compelled and assisted Amleth in his goal of destroying a corrupt kingdom. In Hamlet, the destructive force of masculinity is pointed inwards instead. In its final scene, the royal family, along with Laertes, are killed by poison. Unlike Amleth, Hamlet does not triumph over the illegitimate king, but is killed by him. By reframing the destruction by way of fire, to destruction by way of poison, Shakespeare is not depicting the triumph of a man’s desire, but man’s destruction by way of his internal machinations. Mark Breitenburg on the subject of masculinity says that “the constitutive feature of early modern maleness is not its unquestionable power, but its anxiety” (Feather 137). I think this notion of masculinity describes perfectly how the poisoning of the royal family depicts the ways in which masculine ideals warped the narrative of Hamlet and created the conditions for tragedy. Hamlet feels anxiety throughout the play, exemplified clearly in his famous “To be or not To be” soliloquy (3.1.64-96), due to his inability to perform what he believes is expected of him by his late father. Due to this, he jumps at the chance to prove himself in the public arena of a duel, only to have said opportunity taken from him due to the duel being rigged from the very start.

Overall, these texts are like two sides of the same coin; each offers a slightly different perspective, but neither side is complete without the other. What I mean by this is that together, the texts offer a more complete conception of masculinity than separately. Historica Danica offers a very traditional approach to a depiction of masculinity. Amleth uses his wits and strength to best the man who did him wrong; he is a traditional hero. On the other hand, Hamlet conjures a much more complex conception of masculinity, asking the audience to reflect upon how our normative gender expectations influence the way we act and perceive ourselves. We see Hamlet struggling throughout the play to act like the man he wants to be, and ultimately fails when he is given what he sees as an opportunity to do just that. With him, he brings down the rest of the royal family. Shakespeare shows that our compulsion to adhere to gender based expectations can be incredibly complicated internally, and have nasty external consequences. These kinds of conclusions are only possible once we look past the assumed normality for masculine depictions in media and begin to inquire more deeply into the significance of these masculine narratives.

Works Cited

Feather, Jennifer. “Shakespeare and Masculinity.” Literature Compass, vol. 12, no. 4, Apr. 2015, pp. 134–145. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1111/lic3.12221.

Grammaticus, Saxo. “Historica Danica (1180-1208).” William Shakespeare, Hamlet. Edited by Robert S. Miola, Norton Critical Edition, W.W. Norton and Company, 2019, pp. 207-215.

Low, Jennifer. “Manhood and the Duel: Enacting Masculinity in Hamlet.’” The Centennial Review, vol. 43, no. 3, 1999, pp. 501–512. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/23739979.

Shakespeare, William. The Tragedy of Hamlet Prince of Denmark. Edited by Barbara A. Mowat and Paul Werstein, Simon and Schuster Paperbacks, 1992.