The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 37.001 Tuesday, 6 January 2026
From: Kenneth Chan <
Date: January 5 at 2:41 AM EST
Subject: Hamlet’s reaction to the Trojan war speech
There is great irony in Hamlet’s reaction to the actor’s emotional rendition of the Trojan war speech. Let us examine why.
The Trojan war speech is Shakespeare’s commentary on the horror of revenge. The last part of the player’s speech focuses on the terrible toll vengeance exacts on the innocent.
1st Player. But who—ah, woe!—had seen the mobbled queen …
Run barefoot up and down, threat’ning the flames
With bisson rheum, a clout upon that head
Where late the diadem stood, and, for a robe,
About her lank and all o’erteemed loins
A blanket, in th’alarm of fear caught up—
Who this had seen, with tongue in venom steeped,
’Gainst Fortune’s state would treason have pronounced.
But if the gods themselves did see her then,
When she saw Pyrrhus make malicious sport,
In mincing with his sword her husband’s limbs,
The instant burst of clamour that she made,
Unless things mortal move them not at all,
Would have made milch the burning eyes of heaven
And passion in the gods.
Polonius. Look whe’er he has not turned his colour and has tears in’s eyes. Prithee no more.
The actor’s emotional reaction ironically serves as a cue for Hamlet to chide himself for delaying his revenge. This sets the scene for Hamlet’s first long soliloquy on his delay in exacting his vengeance on Claudius.
Even at this stage of the play, Shakespeare has taken great pains to suggest that there is something deeply wrong with revenge. He reminds us many times that the ghost is not an enlightened being and that its counsel is suspect. He impresses upon us the diabolical nature of the ghost’s mandate through the eerie swearing ritual at the end of Act I. He illustrates the effect of this mandate on Hamlet’s mind—the transformation of his world into a sinister and dark prison. He also creates the experience of the horror of vengeance through the terrifying depiction of the avenger in the Trojan War speech.
Now, by placing Hamlet’s self-criticism for his delay immediately after this recitation, Shakespeare again suggests that Hamlet has good reason to hesitate. In fact, the entire play serves to impress upon us the error of revenge. It demonstrates why revenge is wrong and makes us experience it.
Let us now examine more closely Hamlet’s first soliloquy on his delay. He begins by contrasting the passion of the player in his speech with his own lack of positive action and chides himself for it. There is much irony in this attitude. First, the performer is only acting. His passion is conjured up without any actual cause and is merely an outer image made to fit what is conventionally expected. Thus, Hamlet is railing over mere appearance.
Also, the absence of a real motive for the actor’s passion dramatically depicts that emotional fervour can arise in the absence of rational cause. This fact reminds us that the thirst for vengeance results mainly from passion, not reason. We know that revenge cannot undo the harm already inflicted and is actually far more likely to aggravate it. Hamlet himself ironically emphasizes this problem of irrational passion later: “Give me that man that is not passion’s slave, and I will wear him in my heart’s core, ay, in my heart of hearts…” It is the tragedy of Hamlet that he often does not heed his own wise words.
Another irony lies in the fact that the passion of the actor is that of compassion for Hecuba, whose suffering has been inflicted by none other than an avenger. Hamlet’s self-reproach for his delay in seeking vengeance, therefore, is for a lack of what caused Hecuba’s anguish in the first place. Thus, Hamlet uses a totally inappropriate cue for chiding himself over the delay. By this deep irony, Shakespeare hints at the immoral nature of revenge.
Hamlet’s reaction to the emotional performance of the player in reciting the Trojan war speech is thus part of the cohesive unity of the play. Shakespeare crafts his plays so that every part of each play contributes to its central message. This cohesive unity, so that his play functions as a compact unified whole, is an essential technique Shakespeare uses to ensure that his intended meaning gets through.
The last part of Hamlet’s soliloquy has him wondering whether he is a coward for delaying his act of vengeance. From his manner of confronting the ghost and his reputation as a model soldier, we know, however, that Hamlet does not lack courage. Thus, Shakespeare’s aim here is to show that Hamlet himself is unsure why he delays.
The soliloquy ends with the hint that Hamlet doubts whether taking revenge on his uncle is the proper course of action. Unfortunately, and tragically, he only admits to doubts on the ghost’s honesty, not to doubts on the morality of vengeance. Hamlet thus prepares to spring his “mouse-trap” on the King. He follows the path of vengeance with disastrous consequences. Now, in the transformation of Hamlet from a sensitive philosophical being into a brutal and callous angel of death, we can experience for ourselves why revenge is wrong.
Kenneth Chan