If the presence of comprehensive philosophical systems undergirding the brutal revenges of both The Spanish Tragedy and Titus Andronicus seems surprising, the idea that Shakespeare's Hamlet likewise constructs a cohesive ontological framework that serves to shape its narrative may, at first glance, seem so commonplace as to not warrant much notice at all. The Spanish Tragedy and Titus Andronicus have garnered praise for their undeniable theatrical appeal, but they have not been considered – beyond perhaps a general appreciation of their broad Senecanism – as especially invested in classical philosophy. Hamlet, by contrast, a play as much concerned with metaphysics as with ‘carnal, bloody, and unnatural acts’ (5.2.364), has enjoyed unique praise among revenge tragedies for both its performative force and its wide range of philosophical interests. In ways charted out in my introduction, however, Shakespeare's play has frequently been understood as treating the components of philosophising and revenging as largely in tension with each other, with the protagonist's ruminations appearing, more often than not, as an impediment to revenge or, at the very least, as an exceptionally consuming prelude to it. But if Hieronimo's revenge is of a piece with his earlier desires to grow and preserve his household and Titus’ vengeance, a form of moderation-in-extremity, emerges from his pre-existing notions of a grounded ethical mean, might Hamlet's varied concerns likewise cohere more fully? Might his extended ruminations and sudden revenge appear similarly connected, that is, to a deeper network of ontological predicates, ones which subtly serve to align his deeds, as they did for Hieronimo and Titus, with the most rudimentary elements comprising the world he inhabits? In The Spanish Tragedy and Titus Andronicus, Kyd and Shakespeare situated their protagonists within worlds informed by philosophies particularly attentive to the imperceptible, immaterial realities undergirding embodied action, conditioning, in the process, perception of the retribution enacted on stage. Might we find such a clever and potent dramaturgical strategy at work in Hamlet as well, and, if so, what might that look like in a play where the chasm between immaterial and material – between, say, thought and action, spirit and embodied existence – has seemed rather pronounced indeed?