Critics across time: Power and Politics Flashcards
To enable students to access AO5 (OCR spec) in a part (b) response.
“By mystifying the procedure through which Claudius came to power, the drama gives multiple impressions about mechanisms of state: they malfunction while no one notices or cares; they are inherently corruptible; they are mysterious, and not to be questioned or trusted.”
Eric S Mallin, 1995
Mallin, in ‘Inscribing the Time’, discusses politics in ‘Hamlet’ and the oddness of Hamlet not being King already; yes, there was an elective monarchical system in Denmark (i.e. royal successors were elected) but if Hamlet was not elected despite “the great love the general gender bear him” (4:7:19), then questions are raised about the nature of Claudius’ election. Was it public or done by biased councillors in private? Did Gertrude have any influence? By referring to her as “th’imperial jointress”, is he implying there was some sort of pre-nuptual agreement re: power sharing? Mallin suggests these unanswered questions contribute to the play’s political intrigue and its ambiguities re: who really holds power over whom.
“[as a play] Hamlet abounds most in striking reflections on human life…the distresses of Hamlet are transferred, by the turn of his mind, to the general account of humanity. Whatever happens to him, we apply to ourselves”
Hazlitt, 1817
As a thinker, critic and Shakespeare afficionado (=fan) in the Romantic era, Hazlitt focuses on how Hamlet’s character is read by audiences according to the part of themselves they see in him; his mental sufferings and uncertainties reflect those of wider society, and he legitimises or sanctions the flaws or sense of bewilderment at the injustice and immorality in the world that real people feel. Hence Hamlet’s often rash actions and/or failures to act in a politically appropriate or expedient manner, in juxtaposition with Claudius’ Machiavellian machinations, make Hamlet the more endearing character.
“Claudius can hardly be blamed for his later actions. They are forced on him. As King, he can scarcely be expected to do otherwise. Hamlet is a danger to the state.”
G. Wilson Knight 1930
Knight’s reading of Hamlet’s character is that he is inherently “cruel” and his “consciousness …is centred on death.” In support of this he provides an early historicist interpretation of Claudius’ political predicament which reads like a defence of the antagonist; he appears to be very selective in this, as he disregards Claudius’ alleged crimes and even suggests that to a Christian audience, Claudius’ prayer while Hamlet stays his own vengeance in the hope of killing Claudius in a more immoral setting makes Claudius seem “nearer the Kingdom of Heaven”. This offers fertile critical material for arguing against in an essay.
“Ophelia..is at the same time part of the [political] Mechanism and its victim. Politics hangs here over every feeling, and there is no getting away from it. All the characters are poisoned by it. The only subject of their conversation is politics. It is a kind of madness.”
Jan Kott 1964
Kott sees the politics of ‘Hamlet’ as an infection that corrupts characters’ inter-relationships because nobody can fully trust anyone else, or fully reveal their own feelings for fear of being misinterpreted or exploited; this combination of fear and mistrust, fuelled by the knowledge that those in power are spying on everyone else, leads the characters of Hamlet and Ophelia towards genuine madness, as the “rotten” atmosphere denies their love any chance to flourish. Kott cites the 1956 Cracow production, as presenting Hamlet as genuinely mad “because politics is itself madness when it destroys all feeling and affection.”
“[Hamlet’s]personal vendetta against Claudius is in reality a struggle for political power, just as Claudius’ murder of Old Hamlet was a political assassination. Such political struggles mirrored the anxieties of Shakespeare’s England. ”
Richard Andrews 1994
Andrews’ New Historicist reading of the characters’ political motivations implies Shakespeare was influenced by the political uncertainties of the late 1500s as the aging Elizabeth 1 moved nearer death without a direct successor; in the play, this would suggest Hamlet’s professed disgust at Gertrude and Claudius’ relationship is a smokescreen for his real motive, which is to regain the political power he believes (from what the Ghost said) was stolen from him. The soliloquy where he rejects his book-learning (“I’ll wipe away…all saws of books” 1:5:99-104) presents a flare-up of vengeful resolution that suggests frustration at his previous intellectual activity as a student and a need to emulate his father’s militaristic outlook; while in his later soliloquy his own self-loathing (“Am I a coward?” 2:2:506) (1:5) stems from a sense of failure to do this, through political inertia, or incapability, or moral scruple.
“Hamlet’s claim to power derives from his position as son in a patrilinear system as well as from ‘popular support’. It is this support which Claudius consistently lacks and which, at the same time, prevents him from moving openly against Hamlet.”
Leonard Tennenhouse, 1986
Tennenhouse’s observation (also a historicist reading, i.e. citing aspects of the contemporary political structures to explain the power dynamic between characters) could be referred to in analysis of Claudius’ political manoeuvrings and power play in interactions with Hamlet, for example in 1:2 where scene structure helps Claudius’ purposeful demeaning of Hamlet’s status in public, only speaking to him after Laertes, and emasculating him through criticism of his “unmanly” grief, before acknowledging “you are the most immediate to our throne”; he accepts the public’s need for Hamlet to be named as his heir, but in doing so he also asserts his own legitimacy as King, through subtle politics.
It is only later in 4:7, after receiving Hamlet’s letter that he is “set naked on [his] kingdom”- ostensibly ‘unarmed’ (“naked”), but the tone is arguably militaristic- that Claudius appears briefly rattled and realises he has to manipulate Laertes to challenge Hamlet, as to do so himself (“move openly”) would incite the wrath of the “general gender” (common people); politically very risky.
“King Hamlet .. was a warrior king who did not respect the laws of war. [His] reckless actions directly led to the endangerment of Denmark and the need for guards to be posted on watch.”
Jeffrey R Wilson, 2015
Wilson interprets the actions of Old Hamlet, as reported by Horatio in 1:1, as being rash and politically provocative; if he “in an angry parle…smote the sledded Polacks on the ice” and later “did slay..(Old) Fortinbras”, then the question is raised of whether Claudius- a more shrewd politician- was, to some observers, justified in his alleged regicide (removing an unstable tyrant in order to effect political stability in the realm?) and even subtly invokes the question of Gertrude’s complicity, if she had given way to “Lewdness” and “Lust” as the Ghost accuses her. It also questions the appropriateness of Hamlet’s idealising of his father, implying that, as victor, Old Hamlet’s exploits were reported with a golden glow of heroism (“valiant Hamlet”, as Horatio describes him) which Hamlet does not question.
