IB Literature HL Essay
'How does William Shakespeare critique the monarchy’s assertion to power in The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark?'
Marxist theory claims that the conflict between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is the driving force of societal change and eventual revolution (Wolff and Leopold). Such oppression is evident in the play The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, by William Shakespeare, a playwright who often examines the direct oppression and conflict between classes. Claudius, the antagonist of the play, assumes power after killing his brother, King Hamlet. Young Hamlet, our protagonist, engages in an intense conflict with Claudius upon learning this information, which lasts for the majority of the play. While the main conflict is between two members of the upper-class, the actions of the King and of the Danish royals reveal crucial insight regarding the acquisition of power and the structure which supports and retains the power of the monarchy. The focus of this essay will be to examine the critique Shakespeare makes against the assertion of power and status of the monarchy expressed through the text. We are led to develop the thesis that in Hamlet, William Shakespeare uses the motifs of sin, corruption, and divinity in order to critique the assertion of monarchical power.
Much of Claudius's internal struggle focuses on the conflict between salvation and the King’s desire to acquire and retain power. Claudius, in his soliloquy while praying, states that he has no ability to be saved by God, as he still possesses the “effects for which I did the murder,” (3.3.58) such as his “crown,” his “ambition,” and “his queen” (3.3.59). This evidence conveys the corruption that great power can instill within a person. Claudius's hierarchical power invades and roots itself into every aspect of his life so that he is paralyzed to take real action or repentance to save his soul in Heaven. This idea is further reinforced as Claudius reflects that he stands “in pause” and “neglect” (3.3.47). The allure of the power which the King possesses weighs more heavily over him than his desire for salvation. The guilt of his crimes make him wary and unable to act, desperate for salvation, yet his own power constricts him, and drowns him in sin and inaction.
Claudius does not deny the true weight of his heinous actions and the weakness of his character, saying that his crimes are “rank” and “smell to heaven” (3.3.40). This contrasts greatly with Claudius's own position of power, one that the monarchy would assert has been given to him by God. Shakespeare is illustrating the fact that true power does not discriminate against the morals and character of its beholder, and that anyone, no matter their true essence, can be corrupted by power. Even more importantly, Shakespeare is saying that monarchical power rests on a factor other than divine ordainment, for how could Claudius, a man of sin and crime, be chosen by God to lead his country? Shakespeare is demonstrating how power can paralyze and harm its beholder. In Claudius's case, the hold that his power and status have over his life makes him unable to act decisively or clearly. Shakespeare is saying that monarchical power is inherently destructive and that concentrating too much power in a ruler can significantly affect the efficiency and effectiveness with which they lead.
A major theme of Hamlet is self-destruction, whether it be the actions of the characters, the tension of external forces on Denmark’s throne, or the general mood of the play. More specifically, Shakespeare continually focuses on the corruptive power of the throne, and how it makes one act against rational self-interest, and the protection of those around them. King Hamlet’s ghost talks of the sly “serpent” that “now wears the crown” (1.5.47). The metaphor of the serpent here implies that power is a force of corruption that can turn the beholder into a conniving and evil snake, quietly undermining the security of the present in order to acquire more power for themself. Then, once Claudius is securely in power, he asks Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, close friends of Hamlet, to “gather much” (2.2.15-16) about the Prince and report back to the King and Queen. Claudius is willing to sacrifice the mental health, security, and trust of Hamlet in order to gain more information about him. And, although he describes wanting to help and tend to Hamlet through uncovering the cause of his irrational behavior, his true motives are simply to stop a potential attack on his power and status. Towards the end of the play, Claudius's conflict coalesces into the removal of Hamlet from Denmark to England, where Claudius delivers a letter to England calling for “the present death of Hamlet” (4.3.74). Claudius becomes increasingly self-destructive throughout the play. This tendency is driven by his desire to control and retain power. He makes almost irrational decisions which, in the process, destroy the Danish upper-class through the deaths of Polonius, Ophelia, and others. The throne does not persuade Claudius to act in the interest of Denmark, or even in the interest of his close circle of friends. He acts only for himself, making power-drunk decisions that kill his closest advisor, his wife, Hamlet, and many other members of the royal class. The critique that Shakespeare is making on the monarchical system is that power can corrupt and cause people to act in ways against their own self interest, the interest of their loved ones and the interest of their country. Power is a strong force of self-destruction. It made Claudius act in irrational, paranoid ways in order to attempt to preserve his power. If he had not gone through with some of these “self-preservative” actions, perhaps he could have retained the status and power that he fought so hard to protect.
During the final act of the play, Laertes returns to the castle accompanied by a mob of commoners who are in favor of him on the throne rather than Claudius. To put a man not of royal blood on the throne, in that era, was completely revolutionary. The mob is described as having forgotten all “custom” and “antiquity,” (4.5.114) by declaring that “‘Laertes shall be king!’” (4.5.116) Claudius protects himself from this threat to his power, stating that “such divinity doth hedge a king,” (4.5.138) thus he will be defended by the forces of God. Claudius has no real divine right to rule; he is sinful, unable to truly pray, and his soul will surely go to Hell. Therefore, his divine claim is merely a tool to retain his power. Additionally, the reaction of the bourgeoisie to this mob proves that the power of the monarchy rests solely in the compliance of the proletariat. When said compliance fails, and the working class becomes aware of the recklessness of the King, the entire system ceases to function. Shakespeare is expressing the revolutionary sentiment that monarchs are not ordained to rule by God. Their assertion to power is derived from no real factor other than compliance of the proletariat, and they achieve this compliance through deception and denying class consciousness to the poor. In Marxist theory, class consciousness is defined as the awareness of one’s role within their own class, society, and history (Wolff and Leopold). Therefore, to keep the lower-class unaware of their economic and social abuse is to simultaneously preserve the power of the monarchy, and when this consciousness is lost, the power of the king starts to degrade. The critique that Shakespeare is making on the monarchical system is that their assertion comes from no real place of value other than compliance (and therefore, oppression) of the lower-class. These critiques were so revolutionary considering the widespread acceptance of monarchical rule in Europe at the time. To directly challenge the assertion of the monarchy, and the validity of their divine ordainment would oppose some of the most powerful rulers in the world.
In the time during which William Shakespeare wrote The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Europe was controlled by monarchs: powerful rulers who supposedly received their right to rule from God, a seal of validity that made the lower-class generally compliant and accepting of their rule and the power that was exerted over them. The character of Claudius in this play is a nuanced depiction of the effects of positions of absolute power on a leader. The corruption of Claudius’s social power seeps into his actions and his essence as a human being. He is unable to morally better himself, as his lust for power outweighs the influence of divinity and the desire of religious salvation. He is unable to think or act without being influenced, in one way or another, by his status and paranoia of losing his position. He acts irrationally in destructive ways, driven by the intrinsic desire to retain his power. Shakespeare demonstrates that putting individuals into these positions of power will only drive them to adopt these traits; therein lies his true critique of the monarchy and its assertions to power.
​
Works Cited
Shakespeare, William. The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. Edited by Barbara A. Mowat and Paul Werstine, Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 2012.
Wolff, Jonathan, and David Leopold. “Karl Marx.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 26 Aug. 2003, plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/.