Denmark and Hamlet - Research Paper Example

Module Denmark and Hamlet England was politically stable during most of Shakespearean time. Queen Elizabeth had appointed wise and efficient advisors who ensured that all the political structures were run smoothly and addressed the needs of the populace. Although England faced external threats especially from pro-catholic uprising or attack plots set by France and Spain, the internal political environment was peaceful and stable. However, the only internal instability emanated from Earl of Essex who unsuccessfully attempted to overthrow the Queen. Most of the administrative structures were inherited by the Queen’s successor. In the play, Elsinore is facing a grave political unrest. The popular king Hamlet is dead, and Claudius, his brother is the current king. He has been described as untrustworthy as most characters are blaming him for the murder of the slain king. The political system is in turmoil, with Claudius admitting that the leadership is out of balance (Act I, Scene II). The guardsmen admit that there is unrest and disorganization following the death of King Hamlet. They lament that they are guarding against war that is looming in the near future. The unstable political situation being experienced in Elsinore adds to the stress that Claudius and Hamlet are already experiencing. All the characters in the play are experiencing uncertainty and confusion on the most suitable person to succeed Hamlet. Political problems between Norway and Denmark have been portrayed in the play. The political instability in the play contributes to the creation of unstable mood that is rampant in the play. The manner in which King Hamlet is murdered does not only herald personal instability, but also political instability in Denmark that is facing a possibility of an external attack. This creates tension in the reader’s minds that helps them to compare the political situation in the fictional Elsinore in relation to what is happening in Denmark. Many readers would wonder why Claudius acceded to the throne, whereas Hamlet was supposed to be the one to take over (Wood 90). This is based on the fact that Hamlet was the Prince unlike Claudius who was the brother to King. However, according to Balmer (639-641), the Danish political history proves otherwise. During the Shakespearian time, Denmark was ruled by an elective monarchy which was later replaced by a hereditary monarchy. Therefore, Hamlet, in the fictional account whose setting is based on the legendary Dane on the Middle Ages, had no obligation of claiming the throne as a birth right. In the elective form of rule, the noblemen and court officials selected the person supposed to be the new king. However, the prince was the prime candidate for the elective post and always held a higher stake of being elected the king. This implies that the nobles had the right to reject a prince for the post. This is what happened in Hamlet’s Elsinore when nobles favored Claudius, the king’s brother. This is contrary to the hereditary monarchy where the eldest prince is supposed to automatically inherit the throne once the king dies. Neither Shakespeare nor the Danish laws vividly explain why the noble men decided to favor the King’s brother over the eldest son. However, deep analytical and critical focus of the book can help readers to discern that Claudius’ ascent to power was extraordinary although elected by the nobles (Welsh 125). In Act V, Scene II, 71-72, Hamlet explains to Horatio the reasons why Claudius was elected instead of him, “He that hath killed my king and whored my mother, Popped in between the election and my hopes.” The hope that Hamlet is referring to is the expectation that he is the one morally obligated to be the King and not Claudius. The Danish election (Nobles appointing the King) is again reflected by Hamlet, in his death bed, who alludes that Fortinbras should have been the king, “But I do prophesy the election lights / On Fortinbras: he has my dying voice” (Act V, Scene II, 300-301). This affirms that Claudius was unfairly assuming kingship and could have used unfair means to attain the status. The ghost’s insistence that Hamlet should carry out the vengeance is surmountable proof that Claudius could have assassinated the king to gain power. The failure of Prince to ascend to power affects Hamlet, King Hamlet, Claudius, and Laertes. Although Claudius may have been fortunate to be appointed to take over the throne and even possess an opportunity to remarry his brother’s wife, he was constantly and consistently haunted by the guilt of killing his brother. The stressful bit was the fact that he always strained to hide the truth even from his own wife, Gertrude. Claudius also lost the crucial love and support from his niece that could have been an add-on to the stability of his rule. Hamlet’s peril in the hands of his uncle was not just the loss of his father; the murderer is a close relative who should be supporting him. Additionally, his mother is intimately involved with the murderer to the extent of marrying him. The failure of the noble men to grant Hamlet the throne made him a vengeful person; always yearning to avenge his father’s death. In fact, the vengeful thoughts make him feign insanity to extent of attempting suicide. The experiences that Hamlet has endured under Claudius’ reign fogs his mind leading to the failure of rationalizing his own mind leading to gradual emotional lapse; insanity. His vengeful approaches are crude as they are loathed with doubts. This makes him an over-analytical procrastinator, “And now I'll do 't. [draws sword] And so he goes to heaven… That would be scanned: A villain kills my father, and for that, I, his sole son, do this same villain send to heaven. Why, this is hire and salary, not revenge.” (Act III, Scene III, 78-84). His father’s death and the remarriage of his mother to his uncle make Hamlet’s view towards life pessimistic. He has lost the purpose of life and only survives everyday obsessed by the vengeance of his father’s death. He confirms his loss of purpose for life in Act IV, Scene IV, 35-37: “And spur my dull revenge! What is a man, if his chief good and market of his time be, but to sleep and feed? a beast, no more.” Claudius snatched away everything that appeared like a promising future for the prince of Denmark. He laments, “O God, God how weary, stale flat and unprofitable seems to me all uses of this world!" (Act I, Scene II, 36-138)” Hamlet’s frustration as a result of the nobles’ denial to grant him leadership made him kill Polonius, Laertes’ father. The return of Laertes is an attempt geared towards securing his inheritance against Claudius who is scheming to misappropriate it as well as avenging his father’s burial. The events that led to Hamlet’s denial to inherit kingship (King Hamlet’s murder) made his ghost restless. The kingdom was ruled contrary to what he could have expected. There are numerous scenes in the play that exemplify that King Hamlet was exclusively different in character and behavior from his brother, King Claudius. Their difference starts from character disposition in the play. King Hamlet is presented as an innocent victim of his brother’s cruelty while Claudius is presented as a cold-blooded fratricide. King Hamlet’s rule is portrayed as distinct from that of his brother Claudius. The once honorable and respected Kingdom had succumbed to bad leadership characterized by corruption and debauchery. Claudius confesses that the young Fortinbrus was capitalizing on the weakness of the Kingdom to wage war against them. While Claudius is too busy, cowardly admitting the weakness of the kingdom, the former king acquired it through an act of courage. He engaged in combat with King Fortinibras in the battlefield. Ironically, Claudius seems afraid of the son to king Fortinbras who only has a section of fighters under his disposal. Additionally, Claudius’s conniving murder is contrasted to the old Hamlet’s self confidence, nobility and honor. This is exemplified through agreeing to respectfully engage his opponent in a one-on-one fight instead of scheming or organizing surprise attacks. It is not clear whether Claudius applies negotiation to deal with Norway as no physical combat is encountered to protect Denmark. This has made many people dislike him to the extent of attempting to replace him with a rash teen like Laertes. King Hamlet may not have been a negotiator but he maintained popularity among people. Hamlet also makes contrasts between his father’s and uncle’s rule. While conversing with his mother, he affirms “Look here, upon this picture, and on this. The counterfeit presentment of two brothers... This was your husband. Look you now, what follows; here is your husband; like a mildewed ear” (Act III, Scene IV, 53-66). Horatio portrays King Hamlet as a noble king who ruled according to the interests of the kingdom and not according to his personal interests (Act I, Scene I, 85). He always targeted making peace with his neighbors. However, this does not mean that he would hesitate engaging anybody attempting to wage war upon his Kingdom. This is a trait that his vengeful son inherited from him; he was arguably determined to avenge, but he was hesitant until sure that his uncle killed his father. Just like his father, Prince Hamlet is portrayed as self-sacrificing yet heroic type. In the last speech of the play, Fortinbras affirms the ideality of the prince just like that of his father, “…have proved most royally.” The whole play portrays Hamlet attempting to avenge his father’s demise. The vengeful trait is a feature that can be linked to his father who, even in death, still seeks vengeance against his brother. In Act I Scene I, Horatio asserts that the ghost is really that of the dead King, “fair and warlike form in which the majesty of buried Denmark did sometimes march” The determination of ensuring that justice is served is exemplified in Laertes character; his daring quest to avenge his father’s death. In fact, he is ready to kill the king, whom he presumes to be his father’s killer. The one-on-one confrontation with the person presumed to be his enemy is similar to the self confidence that characterized the former king who conquered the Norwegian lands through the sword. Laertes was determined to honor his father through killing his murderer; regardless of their status in the society. Interestingly, Claudius manages to change his violent intentions and hatred making him an ally that eventually leads to his death; just like the old Hamlet whose trust to Claudius led to death. However, Laertes’ lack of thoughtfulness, contrary to King Hamlet’s character is portrayed when he attempts to kill King Claudius in front of a riotous crowd without prior confirmation of his claims, “. . . young Laertes, in a riotous head, O'erbears your officers ... Laertes shall be king, Laertes king (Act IV, Scene V, 101-108)” King Hamlet’s rule was characterized by soul-searching and worries about the conscience. This is a complete contrast to Laertes’ character that becomes excited at the thought of challenging Hamlet in the fencing match without realizing that Hamlet may overpower him (Keyishian, 72–84). Claudius takes advantage of Laertes’ naivety to incite him against Hamlet in carrying out his heinous vengeance upon Hamlet. When Laertes inquires where his father is, Claudius answers calmly, “Dead” (Act IV, Scene V, 123).” Just like King Hamlet is slain by his own brother, Laertes death arises from his own sword. His chain of revenge assumes a chain of events that eventually culminates into his death. CONCLUSION The reasons that could have made Claudius gain approval from the nobles can be related to the fact that he actively convinced them that he was the favorite candidate for the position. The queen could also have been too eager to retain her status under her brother-in-law’s reign. She was sure that Claudius will offer her the opportunity as they shared an illicit intimate relationship. The nobles feared that Hamlet was too young to assume leadership and support their views as they asserted that their views addressed the views of the kingdom even if unfair to people. Hamlet, King Hamlet, Claudius, and Laertes were negatively affected by the events that led to the prince being denied the chance to assume power. Works Cited Balmer, John, "Scrutinizing the British Monarchy: the Corporate Brand That Was Shaken, Stirred and Survived." Management Decision. 47.4 (2009): 639-641. Print. Keyishian, Harry. "Shakespeare and Movie Genre: The Case of Hamlet." 2000, 72–84. Shakespeare, William. Hamlet: Prince of Denmark. Leicester: Charnwood, 1991. Welsh, Alexander. 2001. Hamlet in his Modern Guises (New Jersey: Princeton) in Thompson and Taylor, 2006a, 125. Wood, Robert E. Some Necessary Questions of the Play: A Stage-Centred Analysis of Shakespeare's Hamlet. Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1994, 90-94. Print. Read More