Shakespeare's Political Criticism in Hamlet: Rule of One

Introduction: Treachery, Ambition, and the Fragility of Rule

Treachery, intrigue, ambition, and lust — all emotions and situations the modern world is intimately familiar with, yet universal in their historical hold over humankind. Unresolved grief is, for many, the cornerstone of madness; the death or subversion of reason as the monitor of emotion is the greatest fear within Shakespeare's Hamlet — within the play itself and within the character of Hamlet.

Stricken by the universal outgrowth of treachery, intrigue, ambition, and lust, Hamlet struggles to regain control over his emotions (Levy 83). He wavers between the rational and the emotional, with only marginal ability to govern either, and within his struggle lies the fate of a nation.

Hamlet, as a literary work, is clearly a critique of the fragile nature of a monarchical government controlled by one fragile man and his selfish desires. Shakespeare challenges the status quo not with what is present in the work but with what is left out: any mention of the population of lives altered by the treachery, intrigue, ambition, and lust inherent in humankind. Shakespeare's subtlety allows viewers to overlook the political critique in the work as it boldly announces the very personal and local consequences of the literal assassination of a king.

In David Linton's work on Shakespeare as a media critic, he describes what it means to be a critic. There is little doubt that Shakespeare had both motive and intention for challenging history and change. Though Linton's aim is to argue that Shakespeare's messages constitute media criticism, his analysis creates an important link between Shakespeare's art as a medium for criticism of any kind:

Shakespeare as Political and Cultural Critic

"Content analyses most often deal with controversial subjects such as violence, erotica, propaganda or political messages, while effects analyses focus on the social, psychological or cognitive alterations that result from the use or exposure to a given medium." (Linton 1)

Shakespeare clearly demonstrates, through the sheer diversity of his work, that it functions as cultural, social, and even political criticism at any given moment. Within Hamlet there is no desire to assail the man for his inability to subvert emotion through reason, but rather a very personal demonstration of the danger of one man — with all his human frailty — holding the fate of an entire population in his hands.

Though speaking of another work, Linton assigns Shakespeare the role of ventriloquist, carrying a greater message than the apparent theme of his plays: "As ventriloquist, Shakespeare has slyly made the dummy express the dangerous truth and then reprimanded the dummy on the point of Iden's sword" (Linton). In this manner, Shakespeare's Hamlet offers the masses a view of the fragility of despotic rule. Though Hamlet is presumably a good man — and we are drawn into his desire to right great wrongs — he nonetheless loses his mind over personal anguish. The question the play poses is simple: is any one man fit to rule?

The system of patronage that governed the arts in Shakespeare's time demanded decorum. An artist could say certain things, but only within the context of more neutral dramatic frameworks. Allegorical representations of well-known historical situations were Shakespeare's preferred vehicle — much like the true-crime fiction that popular American culture has embraced over the last twenty years, where the stories are, as they say, "ripped from the headlines." If a work was deemed too political, too critical, or too thought-provoking for either the masses or the aristocracy, it was simply not produced or commissioned and, without such support, it died as pre-performance text.

Shakespeare is a skilled political critic, with his messages subverted behind the guise of the emotionally independent individual — as in Hamlet — or sheltered within the relative safety of comedy, as in Much Ado About Nothing, a clear critique of the institution of marriage that was foundational to both the economy and the culture of Shakespeare's time. It is even suggested that Much Ado About Nothing would have had a limited production history in Shakespeare's era precisely because it was too controversial.

Hamlet's Wavering Between Reason and Emotion

Hamlet is a man consumed by revenge. He is destined to manifest his madness through that revenge, and the work portrays this powerfully in its depiction of Hamlet's individual wavering between the rational and the emotional. His relationship with Ophelia is a direct reflection of this tension, with a political dimension layered beneath. On the one hand, Hamlet is aware that allying with Ophelia would be a rational second choice to his more natural position as his father's heir.

He finds himself drawn to her as a person, which makes the internal conflict even more acute. Yet he simultaneously resents what she represents: an acceptance of his mother and uncle's treachery and the ambition they have realized. Hamlet knows he should love and accept marriage with Ophelia as an alternative to his original design. It is presumed that, without further treachery, such an alliance would allow him to step into the role of assumed heir to his uncle rather than his father. Yet Hamlet's emotions rule the day, as we all know, and Ophelia sacrifices herself as the scorned pawn she has become, while Hamlet sinks further into his madness.

"Did these bones cost no more the breeding, but to play at loggats with 'em? Mine ache to think on't." (Hamlet, V.i.99–101; Hibbard 325)

The death of individuals is thus rendered as tragedy, as they are born only to become pawns in the service of one man's power over another. Hamlet asks whether we are all to become pawns to the treachery of the mighty.