Shakepeare's Concept Of Kingship 60226h

HEREDITARY KINGDOMS AND SHAKESPEARE’S CONCEPT OF KINGSHIP J.K.

INTRODUCTION (1) •

•

Many, if not most, kingdoms were officially elective historically. An elective monarchy is a monarchy ruled by an elected rather than hereditary monarch. The Saxon and Norman kings did not succeed each other by divine right or even by the principle of inheritance. On the death of the king, the throne stood vacant until his successor could be named by the witan, or lords of the council. But the natural preference of Englishman for an eldest son and a direct lineal descent gradually brought them to regard the crown as an inheritance. The right to rule over England had come to be acknowledged as an absolute property in one or other family, and the only way to settle whose it was was for the families to fight it out. However, there is a number of instances in the English history which show that some factors other than birth right were taken into consideration in the accession to the throne as no claimant could hold the throne without the acceptance of the governing elites (ei’li:ts), which raised questions about the location and limits of monarchical power in England. William Rufus, Henry I, Stephen of Blois (a grandson of William the Conqueror), John II, Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VI, Richard III and Henry VII had all reigned in defiance of the strict rule of descent.

INTRODUCTION (2) •

At the heart of the institution of kingship was an assumption inherited from biblical times: that kings were set over men by God. Kings got their right to rule directly from God rather than from the consent or wish of their people. This doctrine is known as the Divine Rights of Kings. The Tudors adopted the theory of the Divine Right of Kings in the attempt to maintain a strong government, and to counter the Papal authority as the state attempted to break away from the church. Numerous political treatises written in the 1590s argued that monarchy was a divinely ordained institution and that it was the duty of subjects to obey the monarch without question because everyone and everything had its place in the natural order of things. For such theorists of government the worst of all possible evils was rebellion: this was clearly expressed in the Homily Against Disobedience and Willful Rebellion (1570/71) published in the aftermath of the 1569 Northern Rebellion and ordered to be read out in church services at key intervals throughout the year. Its aim was to demolish the argument that rebellion can be justified in certain circumstances. Since man occupies such a crucial position in the Chain of Beign, he must not rebel against anointed of the Lord. If the sovereign should happen to be a tyrant, than the subjects' duty is to submit themselves to what God has ordained. Their only remedy lies in a prayer, or in „sighs and tears“ as James I was later to suggest. George Buchanon (1506-82) argued that kings were obliged to serve the people and if they failed in their duties could be overthrown by any of their subjects without further ado. The first significant attack upon the doctrine of ive obedience appeared in John Ponet Shorte Treatise of Politicke Power, printed in 1556 - the king is responsible to the community and the community is responsible to God.

INTRODUCTION (3) •

It is no exaggeration to claim that nearly all of Shakespeare's plays that deal with the question of kingship are centred on problems of legitimacy and the succession. A powerful recent interpretation of the history plays argue that Shakespeare was in favour of a strong leader to unite the factions struggling for political control throughout Britain, placing little stress on the legitimate claim of the monarch in question and emphasizing instead the ruler's personal abilities and charisma. Shakespeare did not invent drama concerned with political matters. Fulgens and Lucrece, Respublica, Gentleness and Nobility, Health and Wealth, Gorboduc and Jack Straw _ these are but a handful of the many plays on the sixteenth-century stage that dealt with right rule, the role of counsel and the possibility of popular rebellion.We know some 70 English history plays that were written over the stratch of some 15 years – between the Armada and the death of Elizabeth I. (but only 35 texts have survived) George Chapman, Samuel Daniel and Ben Jonson, Thomas Norton and Thomas Sackville -Writers became fascinated in and after 1591 by the themes of kingship, authority, and the acquisition of and retention of the power. Eight out of ten plays Shakespeare wrote on the subject of English history make up the first and the second tetralogies. Shak's main sources were, Edward Hall's The Union of the Two Noble and Illustre families of Lancaster and York (1548), Raphale Hollinshed's Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland, A Mirror for Magistrates was one of the most popular works of the 16th century, going through six editions, often involving additions and the reconfiguration of the text. It had a considerable impact on Shak's history plays. The Mirror consists of a series of poetic narratives, most of them complaints spoken by unfortunate or wicked princes and nobles, who have come to a bad end.

INTRODUCTION (4)

•

The first tetralogy (1589-94?) deals with dynastic struggles known as the Wars of the Roses. It consists of the plays Henry VI part 1,2 and 3, and Richard III. The second tetralogy begins with the deposition of Richard II, continues with the reign of Henry IV, and culminates in the glorious victories of Henry V. Out of Richard's deposition immediately proceeds, not the cruelest of England's tyrants, but the greatest of English kings. What Shakespeare and his contemporaries probably feared most when the Lancastrian plays were being written was the accession of a weak king, one incapable of maintaining order, under whose reign powerful noble factions would again wage civil war in England. Those who the providential view of history believe that Shakespeare was influenced by so-called Tudor myth. According to this myth, at the beginning prosperity is destroyed by the deposition of Richard II, and God’s curse falls upon England; then follow the conscience-stricken Henry IV’s attempts to preserve his realm, the brief victory of Henry V, followed by the endless rebellions during Henry VI’s reign which culminate in the tyranny of Richard III. And then, at the end of the cycle, Henry of Richmond appears, God’s curse is removed, and order is restored. The concept of „inherited sin“ is alien to Shakespeare. The notion that the whole nation was doomed to suffer for the sin of its monarch is even more alien to Shakespeare, who is so profound a realist to subscribe to the metaphysics so characteristic of feudalism.

INTRODUCTION (5) •

•

Not only in his history plays, but also in the Roman plays and plays such as Hamlet, King Lear, Measure for Measure, Macbeth, The Tempest and so on, Shakespeare investigates various issues such as: Who has the right to be king? Can a king do wrong? What is the nature of kingship? What values are essential in a ruler? Are all who have power susceptible to abuse of that power and to what extent? Hamlet (1600-1) is set at the court of an elective monarchy at war with its neighbours, where the current king has murdered his predecessor. Measure for Measure (1602-3) imagines the issues presented when the legitimate ruler of a city state hands over the reins of power to a deputy in order to study his realm as a secret observer; King Lear (1605-6) concerns the disastrous attempt of one of Shakespeare's most powerful kings, who has united and pacified Britain, to secure the succession on his own . Macbeth (1605-6) deals with the problems of reestablishing legitimate government after the reign of a bloody usurper, and directly confronts the question of what gives a monarch his authority. The Tempest stages a series of issues relating to the question of the monarch's authority, from Gonzalo's pious meditation on governing the island, to Prospero's transfer of power at the end of the play.

RICHARD II •

Richard is the only monarch represented in the cycle of eight plays that make up the first and second tetralogies who actually has a strong claim to be king of England. However, throughout the history plays Shak makes it clear that rulers depend either on popular or on the good will of their mighty subjects, rather than on inherited titles for their survival in office. These are the sins with which Richard is charged throughout the play: of being ruled by "favorites" rather than by truth and justice, of separation from the commons, and of using the lands and goods of the realm for the king's benefit rather than the commonwealth's. Although in his conversation with the Dutchess of Gloucester John of Gaunt stresses the importance of the Divine Right of Kings, he condemns the present misgovernment of England, and foresees additional disasters resulting from the reckless conduct of the young king. In leasing out his realm, Richard has become a landlord of England, not king. The king, and England with him, is placed between John of Gaunt on the one hand and Bushy, Bagot, and Green on the other; Richard's uncle, the Duke of York, warns him not to seize the lands of the recently deceased John of Gaunt for his own benefit because he only holds the throne by „fair sequence and succession“. An inherited title which is not bolstered by more substantial will never be an adequate basis for government.

RICHARD II (2) •

• • • • •

•

Through greed, complacency, and naivete, Richard loses the of the people and incurs their contempt, and, subsequently, leaves himself vulnerable to plots and attacks. When he returns from Ireland and finds out that Bolingbroke is in arms against him, Carlisle and Aumerle encourage him to collect his strength and take action against his enemies. God will aid the lawful king if he knows how to fend for himself. But Richard will not assert his power; the sole protection he calls upon is the divinity of his kingship— “Is not the king’s name twenty thousand names?” or: Not all the water in the rough rude sea Can wash the balm off from an anointed king. The breath of worldly men cannot depose The deputy elected by the Lord. (3.2.53-56) There is, moreover, in Richard II some evidence that Shakepeare had come to regard the very notion of the divinity of kings with some degree of skepticism. Richard repeats the basic doctrines of Tudor absolutism as accurately and as often as perhaps any other character in the whole range of Elizabethan drama. The issue the nobles are faced with is what to do with a monarch who has committed serious and habitual offenses, on whose crown, “A thousand flatterers sit” (2.1.100).

RICHARD II (3) •

•

If the anointed king has demonstrated his unfitness to rule, the alternative to Gaunt’s ive obedience is a backing of “a banished traitor”. In order to maintain the illusion of an unbroken succession, Bolingbroke does his best to present Richard’s deposition as an abdication; and when York arrives to announce that Richard has agreed to step down, Henry promptly announces, “In God’s name, I’ll ascend the regal throne”. the Bishop of Carlisle steps forward to deplore “so heinous, black, obscene a deed” (4.1.131). If “the figure of God’s majesty” (4.1.125) is deposed, he warns: • The blood of England shall manure the ground • And future ages groan for this foul act; In the drama, Carlisle does not only oppose Henry’s assent to the throne, he prophesies that England shall pay dearly for crowning Henry. Although Richard acquires a new strength through suffering, he never shows real awareness of the causes of his downfall. What Richard has learned by now is that there can be no king without community. Had not an ear to hear my true time broke: I wasted time, and now doth time waste me. (V.v.42-49)

RICHARD III (4) •

•

Henry IV displays the specific qualities of leadership which Richard lacks. In putting down the rebellion, he gives evidence of political sagacity the lack of which costs Richard his crown and life. Bolingbroke is a better king for England than Richard can ever be. His type of rule would mean justice and mercy (note his pardon of Aumerle who will live to be the gallant Duke of York of Henry V) and the preservation of civil order in England. Henry IV’s overthrow of Richard makes it possible for any person, of any bloodline, of any status, to proclaim the king unjust and proceed to challenge the king’s authority to rule. Crucial to the two Henry IV plays is the fact that Henry IV openly rejects any connection his kingship has with the divine. Henry IV’s deathbed speech to his heir, Prince Henry, describes how Henry IV usurped the throne from Richard rather than be appointed to the throne by God. Henry describes his ascension to the kingship “But as an honor snatched with boist’rous hand/And I had many living to upbraid/My gain of it by their assistances/Which daily grew to quarrel and to bloodshed” (2H, IV.iii.319-323). One interesting thing about this play is that the deposition scene was never staged during Elizabeth’s lifetime. It is presumably the play performed on the eve of the Essex rebellion, which, in turn, reportedly prompted Elizabeth to say, “I am Richard II. Know ye not that?”It was a very difficult problem for Shakespeare to portray the ineffectiveness of Richard as a king and illustrate that England was better ruled by Bolingbroke without seeming to rebellion. Richard’s fall and the usurpation of Bolingbroke emphasize between them the necessity of the political qualities for the successful exercise of kingship. By his possession of these qualities Bolingbroke justifies his otherwise indefensible seizure of the crown. That Richard's downfall was the inevitable result of his own conduct is one of the surest political lessons of the play.

RICHARD III (1) •

The entire play is dominated by the single figure of Richard of Gloucester. In his great soliloquy in the preceding play, 41 he had already established himself as the cynical villain-hero who would "set the murderous Machiavel to school,"advancing through villainy after villainy until he seized the crown. Richard is the logical outcome of his society; a hypocrite, yet more sincere in his self-awareness than those he ruins and deceives; a villain who is also the hero of the chronicle-cycle. In the Wars of the Roses, Shakespeare shows that men, Richard being one of them, are governed by their ions—by ambition, anger, animosity and revenge. Henry VI is the regulating principle of traditional society. He is mercy, pity, love, human kindness, reinforced by God's ordinating fiat. It is this which Richard kills. Right up to Henry's murder Richard has been a typical member of the Yorkist group. The conflict about the throne has been conducted as a dynastic rivalry. The killing of the King marks the transcendence of this code. The dynastic issue is left behind, and it is now a question of Richard's personal ambition. Richard's skill at manipulation can be seen at once, as he maneuvers his brother George, Duke of Clarence, to the Tower. He then wooes Lady Ann over the corpse of her father-in-law (Henry VI). Both the Duchess and the Queen have felt, and recognize Richard’s demonic nature which will bring about the annihilation of their house. A reflection of the same presentiment is given in the conversation of the three citizens who are lamenting the king’s death, regretting the extreme youth of the new monarch, and utterly distrusting Richard of Gloucester, “O! full of danger is the Duke of Gloucester!” (2.3.27), says one of these citizens.

RICHARD III (2) •

•

The dangers of that society become apparent when we learn that Lord Rivers (brother) and Lord Grey (son), as well as Sir Thomas Vaughan, have been taken prisoner to Pomfret Castle, where many others, including Richard II, have died. Hastings: I'll have this crown of mine cut from my shoulders Before I'll see the crown so foul misplac'd. Richard has created an atmosphere of mistrust in which everyone is suspect. Richard still needs mass . He knows that the power of the people should not be ignored by someone who seeks to exercise power of his own. The commoners may at times warrant contempt, but never should they be overlooked.The king-making strategy that Richard and Buckingham masterfully design and then implement is a brilliant example of political manoeuvring and manipulation. Buckingham records that he is faced with silence when he proclaims „God save Richard, England's royal King“, the people „like dumb statues or breathing stones / Star'd each on other, and °look'd deadly pale“, hardly an auspicious sign for the prospect of the new reign. This fact exposes the limits of his political skill, showing that he can succeed in outmanoeuvring corrupt and naive nobles but cannot deceive the people. Furthermore, it indicates that without a wider basis of he will not be able to rule for any length of time, as the play subsequently demonstrates. If Richard cannot be made king by popular acclaim, he must be presented in a different light— the devout man reluctant to accept the proffered throne .

RICHARD III (3) •

Everything which has befallen the House of York is a picture of what it did to the House of Lancaster. Margaret's curse has been fulfilled in every particular. The death of his wife Anne has opened the opportunity for Richard to marry Edward’s daughter Elizabeth, his last challenge to the throne. Only if he manages to secure her mother’s consent will his reign be secure. However, Richmond has come from to claim the crown, and he, as the audience will later learn, has asked for and has been promised the “virtuous and fair” Elizabeth, daughter of Edward IV. Richmond as well as Richard is trying to strengthen his title to the throne by marriage with the only living representative of the first Yorkist king. The short speeches of those in Richmond’s party revolve around the idea that Richard has been a murderous and oppressive king who deserves to be overthrown and that, as a result, Richmond’s army is morally unwavering in its quest to overthrown him. As a plotting usurper, he was, indeed, thoroughly successful; but as a sovereign, he seems to have shown far less ability. For the sake of becoming an absolute monarch, he destroyed all his near relatives, alienated his chief adherents, forcing them to his enemies, and thus increasing the opposition on all sides. Having exalted Richard, Shakespeare judhed and condemned him according to his basic political beliefs.

RICHARD III (4) •

Richard is a scoundrel; such man is not fit to control the reins of state. Shakespeare's condemnation of Richard indicates a definite political view. Power based on villainy, violence and usurpation undermines its own roots. The violation of the tradition of succession to the throne, so dear to the heart of Hastings, is of no importance; in Shak's days, change sin the law of succession were constantly being formulated and accepted. Shakespeare was not opposed to such changes. Bolingbroke had at least maintained his usurpation through the of the masses, whose hearts he succeeded in winning, but Richard was forced to rely on his mercenaries and on those lords who were attached to him for reasons of their own. Immediately after his seizure of the throne, Richard's allies demand an ing. New revolts, new wars are imminent. None of Richard's actions had been dictated by concern for the welfare of the nation, but were all products of his boundless ambition and egoism. That such man could have ever ruled the English nobility, or the nation at large, was surely impossible. in Richard III the doctrine of ive obedience had to be somewhat modified, for the rebellion against Richard had to be justified. Henry of Richmond was the ancestor of Elizabeth, and his victory had ushered in the great age which God had granted to England after her atonement for her sins. Tillyard (p. 212) holds, in explanation, that Richard III, "was so clearly both a usurper and a murderer that he had qualified as a tyrant; and against an authentic tyrant it was lawful to rebel."But orthodox Tudor doctrine had never endorsed rebellion against a tyrant. Although there is no sign of it in Henry VI, in Richard III we have an important distinction between lawful king and tyrant, and the implicit doctrine that a tyrant--a usurper who rules for his own aggrandizement rather than the good of his people and who is destructive of the commonwealth--is not entitled to the rights and privileges of a lawful king. This doctrine, as we shall see, Shakespeare was to develop further in Macbeth.

HAMLET (1)

• As in Julius Caesar and Macbeth the stage is set by the murder of a good King. The rightful King has thus been slain and the throne is occupied by a machiavel. Whatever might be rotten in the state of Denmark there are no obvious repercussions in the sphere of public life or of the general weal. What has happened, of course, is that Shakespeare is treating the killing of a King as a merely private murder. To everyone except Hamlet Claudius is as good as his predecessor. Hamlet's mother certainly thinks so. He has the machiavel's cunning (the 'witchcraft of his wits'), the same ability to simulate the appearance of virtue, and like Richard III he can persuade his victim's wife to marry him. Like Richard, too, he uses a pair of toolvillains. Hamlet's role requires him to be the man entrusted with the task of killing the King, to restore righteousness to the order of things as well as to revenge his father. It is a machiavel-King, and a King-slayer, Hamlet sees himself opposed to. His problem is to devise a strategy that will circumvent the machiavel's. This strategy is, of course, that of feigned madness.

HAMLET (2) • The Danish throne itself was not subject to the same rules of kingship as the English throne. In an elective monarchy, court officials selected the new king by vote. Although the son of a king was the prime candidate for the throne, the voting nobles had the right to choose another candidate if they considered him a better choice. And that was what precisely happened in Elsinore. The nobles approved the king's brother, Claudius. The reason why these lords preferred Claudius over Hamlet might be the comparative youth of Hamlet and his mental state, and the fact that the kingdom was at that time threatened by an invasion of the Norwegians under young Fortinbras. The royal councillors believed that Claudius was better able to cope with the affairs of the state. Under King Hamlet the kingdom of Denmark had been respected abroad. It is evident from the speech of Hamlet’s school-fellow Horatio that Hamlet’s father was a valiant king, “For so this side of our known world esteem’d him” (1.1.85). When Fortinbras of Norway challenged him to war, he took up the challenge, and very speedily overcame and slew him. By this victory the lands that were in dispute fell to Denmark, and so long as King Hamlet lived they remained his without question. However, young Fortinbras, desiring to avenge his father’s death and regain the lost properties, has scraped together an army of desperadoes with which to attack Denmark.

HAMLET(3) • Young Fortinbras was not, at any rate, old enough to ascend the throne at the time of King Fortinbras' death; thus the brother of King Fortinbras, uncle to the delicate and tender prince, had gained the crown. In both Norway and Denmark there is an uncle on the throne to thwart the impulses of a headstrong nephew who is the royal heir in direct line. On the confession of Claudius himself, it appears that young Fortinbras thinks the weakness of Denmark affords him a good opportunity to make war on it, and a fitting time to seize lands that his father had lost to King Hamlet. Claudius is clearly a wise politician, great orator, and knows exactly what he has to do to strengthen his position on the throne. Interestingly, Hamlet seems unaware of the Norwegian threat. His chief thought, stressed at the beginning and at the end of his first soliloquy, is the degradation of the kingdom. It is now enslaved by what he will later call “damned custom” (3.4.37). The swift marriage of his mother to his uncle rounded and perfected his outrage by its complete disregard of his father's memory, and by the stability it gave to his uncle's position on the throne. Hamlet's father claims to have been betrayed by his “most seeming-virtuous queen” and murdered by “that adulterate beast” (1.5.46, 42) his brother Claudius. The official version of his father’s death was that he was stung by a serpent while sleeping in the palace gardens.

HAMLET (4) •

The Ghost's words “Hamlet, me” (1.5.91) seem to require from Hamlet the wiping out of all other memories, of the very sense of his own identity. He has to forget himself. He swears to become a new person, a revenger. He must erase all ties, bonds, relations. Hypocrisy and dishonesty now rule in Denmark. The queen is a “most pernicious” (1.5.105) person because she is, as the Ghost said, “seeming-virtuous” (46). Claudius is damned, not chiefly because of his adultery and murder, but because he has concealed all his wickedness with a genial, virtuous smile. Professor Khan says that Hamlet's picture of Claudius does not correspond to the reality. Claudius has already showed his political capabilities by saving the country from the war and it is clear by now what the reasons were for such urgent royal marriage. Hamlet has the most powerful motives which can urge the human breast to kill the king; his struggle is with one who has murdered his father, disparaged his mother, and usurped his throne. King Claudius is, in the eyes of his subjects, a legitimate monarch and, by killing him, Hamlet would commit high treason and dispatch an emissary from God at the same time. Hamlet's situation is made worse by the fact that no one else in the court, except Horatio, is aware of the murder Claudius has committed. Moreover, Claudius seems to be a popular ruler, which makes Hamlet's position more dangerous. Conventional morality, backed by religion, was against any private revenging. “What justice required was a regular impeachment and trial of the usurper, but Hamlet is tied to the primitive code under which only a son's sword could wreak sufficient retribution.” Apart from Horatio, Hamlet cannot trust anyone, which further aggravates his sense of isolation.

HAMLET (5) •

Claudius is extraordinarily disturbed by Hamlet's transformation, wondering broodingly “What it should be / More than his father's death” (2.2.7-8) Gertrude is convinced that her son's transformation is due to his father's death and her hasty marriage to Claudius. Convinced that Hamlet's madness is caused by Ophelia's rejection of his advances, Polonius suggests to the king to arrange a meeting between two young people, with two of them spying behind the arras. Thus Ophelia becomes an instrument against Hamlet through her father. A peculiar type of espionage permeates the court of Elsinore. There is father spying on son, friends spying on friend, a lover used as decoy by those who spy on her loved one, a subject spying on his Queen and her son, and the tormented prince who sets the actors on as his decoys to spy out the King's guilt. Claudius engages Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, former schoolmates of Hamlet's, to probe his nephew's threatening transformation. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern believe that Hamlet's behaviour is the result of Hamlet's not succeeding his father on the throne. They are faceless courtiers easily manipulated by Claudius and deceived by Hamlet. Hamlet is in the hell of doubt, doubt of the Ghost, doubt of Ophelia, doubt of his own sanity and judgment. He has learned that mankind has a terrifying capacity to reject reason, to descend to the bestial level: subjects may murder kings, brother may kill brother; wives and mothers may rush to incestuous sheets; boyhood friends may be used as spies. When the professional players arrive at Elsinore, Hamlet will have the players reenact the murder of his father and observe Claudius’s reaction. He hopes this play will strike Claudius to the soul.

HAMLET (6) •

• • • •

For the courtiers the Play scene has meant merely a crucial outbreak of Hamlet's initial unrestrained importunity: his unmastered emotionalism, his bitter ambition for the throne, his idealistic dislike of the quick wedding, and, above all, his hatred of the accomplished and charming king. The danger, formerly alluded to by Claudius in general is now very specific: “I like him not, nor stands it safe with us” (3.3.1). Rosencrantz and Guildenstern unintentionally increase the King's anguish when they remind him how much the health of the nation is dependent upon his own state: The cease of majesty Dies not alone, but, like a gulf doth draw What's near it with it; it is a massy wheel, Fix’d on the summit of the highest mount... Instead of providing comfort, however, such sentiments distress Claudius, who knows that he has gained the throne through regicide and fratricide. He is not a Devine Right King, but a usurper and bloody murderer. Hamlet has done something more than murder Claudius; through the Gonzago play he has aroused a conscience in him. Claudius, primarily a diplomat, has learned the fine art of deceit. But the internal pressure caused by his guilt is now beginning to work on him, “O! my offence is rank, it smells to heaven” (3.3.36). He attempts prayer. Repentance means an entire turning away of his soul from his sin, and therefore involves penance and restitution, a giving up of the effects for which he did the murder, “My crown, mine own ambition, and my queen” (3.3.55). Unable to repent, Claudius commences plotting against the life of Hamlet.

HAMLET (7) •

•

• • • •

On his way to the ship in which Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are taking him to England and death, Hamlet meets the Norwegian army which is to attack some part of Poland, marching unmolested across Denmark as promised by King Claudius. Fortinbras is the man of action, and this element is brought into greater prominence by the small value of its object. The prize is a worthless patch of ground, yet here is a youth who defies fortune to the utmost for its possession. The contrast strikes Hamlet in the most forcible manner. He has a father murdered, a mother stained, a throne despoiled – and still he does not act. The popular discontent is turned not against Hamlet who slew Polonius, but upon Claudius who was himself nearly the victim. Unlike Hamlet, Laertes is willing to overthrow the political structure of Denmark in his pursuit of revenge. To Hell, allegiance! vows, to the blackest devil! Conscience ad grace to the profoundest pit! I dare damnation. (4.5.130-31) Claudius, like Richard II, takes refuge behind divine right as if he had forgotten that the same right was of no avail to King Hamlet, the brother he has killed.

HAMLET (8) • • • •

•

There's such divinity doth hedge a king That treason can but peep to what it would, Acts little of his will. (4.5.123-25) In seeking revenge for his father, Laertes has no conscience, no inner conflict. His actions illustrate what Hamlet ought to have done to fulfil the Ghost's demand. Laertes openly and uncompromisingly demands justice, fearlessly challenges the king in public, reasserts his filial duty, and rejects feudal duty and other laws and norms. Claudius continues to exert his political skills as he persuades Laertes to follow another route to revenge. He explains his scheme to draw Hamlet into a sword fight with Laertes, who agrees to arrange that the tip of one of his weapons be poisoned. For all his external confidence in Laertes, Claudius has another plan in reserve, and conspires to have a poisoned drink in preparation. For Hamlet the world is a prison with many dungeons, Denmark being one of the worst, but he returns to it but as a changed man. Professor Khan observes that Hamlet has reached his spiritual maturity. Hamlet goes back to Elsinore alone, without a plan; for him, “There's a divinity that shapes our ends . . . there's a special providence in the fall of a sparrow . . . the readiness is all” (5.2.10, 232, 237).

HAMLET (9) • •

•

“He now can view the death of Claudius not as a sinful act of private vengeance which must be his own damnation, but as lawful act of public duty, that of a minister of God and not of a scourge.” Young Fortinbras, Laertes, and Hamlet were all looking to avenge the deaths of their fathers. They all acted on emotion, and this led to the downfall of two, and the rise to power of one. Unlike Hamlet, both Laertes and Fortinbras are men of prompt action. Hamlet was a prince who, according to Fortinbras, would have become a great king, martial and commanding, but courteous, wise, and just if only he had not fallen victim to his uncle’s scheming. Hamlet endures as the object of universal identification because his central moral dilemma transcends the Elizabethan period, making him a man for all ages. In his difficult struggle to somehow act within a corrupt world and yet maintain his moral integrity, Hamlet ultimately reflects the fate of all human beings. “The Prince of Denmark has earned his rest. His countrymen have earned and deserved much less; and monarchical rule in Denmark, which can only be rescued from itself by the killing of the man on the throne, has reached an ime.”The play begins with Fortinbras, and ends with Fortinbras; his activity is the frame in which the whole movement is set. Thus the poet has portrayed him as the absolute contrast to Hamlet, and made him triumphant, at the close, as the man of action. V. Kiernan, op. cit., p. 87