Sample Student
English IV
Mrs. Murray
5-31-12
Kings and Beggars: Hamlet and the Roots of Modern Egalitarian Thought
The storm of media attention that the wedding of Kate Middleton, a ‘commoner’, and
Prince William gathered recently is a testament to the scrutiny that the British people places on
the affairs of kings. This vigorous attention isn’t new; English kings and queens have been in the
public eye as long as the crown has existed, but public criticism of monarchs without reprimand
would have been unheard of before the birth of the modern era (Paglia). Until the modern era,
the judgment of a monarch was considered to be direct from god, under a strict hierarchical
philosophy known as the “Great Chain of Being” (Fludd). Railing against the “Great Chain of
Being” in the vein of modern thought, Hamlet by William Shakespeare revealed structural social
and political problems with England’s system of governance during a tumultuous reformation
of popular philosophy.
Much like the scrutiny that modern leaders undergo, the bulk of Shakespeare’s message
on politics regards how leaders should make decisions and the necessity for honesty. In Hamlet
Shakespeare characterizes several leaders or potential leaders who behave in similar ways,
each character having a characteristic or flaw that differentiates him from the next, and
through this motif, shows his view of each flaw or virtue. Hamlet, the protagonist of the play, is
devoted to righteousness and effectiveness of his tactics, planning at length, even to a fault to
outwit his malicious adversaries with words instead of actions and preserve the honor of the
state of Denmark. Claudius, the antagonist of the play, also schemes behind closed doors, but
only for personal gain and is prone to violence, killing his brother and marrying his widow to
become king. Old king Hamlet appears to his son in the play as a ghost, urging him to seek
violent revenge for his murder, and in life, King Hamlet won territory from old King Fortinbras
of Norway in a questionable physical quarrel (Tiffany). Finally, young Prince Fortinbras of
Norway gathers a rogue army during the play and begins to fight publicly for the betterment of
Norway. The close characterization of the characters in the ruling class is used by Shakespeare
to reveal his image of an ideal leader.
The method by which Shakespeare judges the honor and righteousness of the actions of
these characters is by their fates, alive or dead. The fate of old King Hamlet was to suffer in
purgatory for sins that he committed in his lifetime, but the only real knowledge that the reader
has of King Hamlet’s actions is of his duel with King Fortinbras of Norway over a disputed
territory. If this brash action is enough in Shakespeare’s eyes to put someone in a symbolic
purgatory, although King Hamlet was not deceptive in his ruling, then Shakespeare was
condemning the prideful, violent, thoughtless action of monarch, private or public. Shakespeare
thought that a monarch should always know the impact of his actions on his people and act to
protect their interests. Young Hamlet acted in a nearly diametric manner from Old Hamlet; he
rarely acted without morality in mind, but he conducted much of his schemes in a clandestine
manner. Young Hamlet, at the end of the play dies, suggesting that honesty and transparency in
action was just as momentous a virtue in Shakespeare’s view as acting with the good of the
people in mind. Claudius is the pure example of an improper leader in Hamlet, both conducting
perfidious, violent plots, and rarely acting with the good of anyone but himself in mind, and in
the end is undone by his own plotting when Hamlet forces Claudius to drink from the poisoned
goblet intended for him. Claudius’s death at the hands of Hamlet further paints social and
governmental progression in England through the death of a dishonorable tyrant at the hands
of a much less malicious man. Unlike all of the other potential leaders of Denmark, Prince
Fortinbras solely lives to take the throne, and the reason for this is his governmental
philosophy. Fortinbras, unlike Prince Hamlet, actually goes to war for the rectification of
wrongs, over acquisition of the land wrongfully lost by his father, but unlike old King Hamlet, he
gathers an army from his home country, which is symbolic of gathering the will of the people.
Instead of for vainglory, Fortinbras fights for the good of the Norwegian people. Fortinbras’s
rightful actions constitute Shakespeare’s picture of what a monarch should be, an honest and
dedicated public servant.
Through some vicious criticism over class distinctions and heavy general public scrutiny,
the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton is widely accepted. Divergence from the
“Great Chain of Being” hasn’t always been accepted, however. We can trace this breaking of
social bonds to early modern philosophies, and notably, William Shakespeare’s Hamlet.
Shakespeare’s play shows social equality through repeated emphasis of the universality of
human possibility and through the tragic portrayal of the feminist power structure in his
writing.
Shakespeare felt that the worth of two different people was always, universally the
same, regardless of their positions in life. In a conversation with the avaricious and power
hungry Polonius, Prince Hamlet plays at this notion of universal equality when he mistakes the
noble for a fish salesman,” ’Do you know me, my lord?’’Excellent well. You are a fishmonger.’
’Not I, my lord’ ‘Then I would you were so honest a man.’”(2.2.174-77). In extolling the virtues
of a fishmonger as greater than a noble, Shakespeare rejects the traditional value system of the
“Great Chain of Being” and places value upon an individual’s integrity. In another conversation
with Polonius, who, through his constant devotion to his socioeconomic betterment, is a
symbol of the class-valuing old order, Prince Hamlet shows the variability in the interpretation
of the shape of a cloud, ” ‘Do you see yonder cloud that’s almost in the shape of a camel?’ ‘By
th’ mass, and ‘tis like a camel indeed.’ ‘Methinks it is like a weasel.’ ‘It is backed like a weasel.’
‘Or like a whale’ ‘Very like a whale’ ” (3.2.347-52). This cloud that can be interpreted as many
different animals is analogous to the worth of the individual in Shakespeare’s purview. The
infinite range of possibility for individual development suggested by the cloud flies in the face
of a rigid class structure and favors individual rights at an unprecedented level for the time in
England. Shoring up his commentary, Shakespeare notes the democratic elements of death in a
scene where Hamlet reveals the location of Polonius’s body, “a man may fish with the worm
that hath eat of a king, and eat of the fish that hath fed of that worm” (4.3.28-9) the notion that
a king might pass through a peasant implies both that kings will ultimately serve the peasants,
and that there is nothing heavenly to keep a king above a beggar. Ultimately, Shakespeare
found no logic in the archaic precept of divine right to rule.
In addition to general celebration of the individual, Hamlet emphasized the feminine
struggle in the early modern world. In regards to the gender commentary in Hamlet, the literary
concept of vampirism is essential. Vampirism in literature is signified generally by an older
figure representing corruption and outworn values, sustaining itself through the destruction or
exploitation of a younger figure, generally a female (Foster 19). In Hamlet the two main female
characters are consumed by the plotting of the figures representing the old order, namely
Polonius and Claudius. In the play, Ophelia and Hamlet are engaged in a love affair that the
male members of Ophelia’s family do not allow because of class distinctions. Later on in the
plot, Ophelia is used as a bait to flush out the reason for Hamlet’s insanity, and while she is
doing the bidding of the old order, Hamlet becomes privy to her father’s scheme against him
and instructs Ophelia to,” Let the doors be shut upon him, that he may play the fool nowhere
but in ‘s own house”(3.1.133-34) Ophelia is driven to insanity after any chance of her
relationship with Prince Hamlet is destroyed and when her father dies because of another plot
against Prince Hamlet. Gertrude is killed when she drinks from a poisoned goblet that was
intended for Hamlet, and some of her last words serve to cement the denial of freedom that
Shakespeare commented on through the play. When told not to drink from the cup by Claudius,
she remarks, “I will, my lord. I pray you, pardon me. (drinks)” (5.2.287) her resistance to male
domination was met with death, and the tragic depiction of these destructions of women’s
rights are a large part of Shakespeare’s thesis against rigid social order.
Kate Middleton and Prince William, in getting married, may have stirred up mild
controversy, but they owe the possibility of their union to the first modern individualist English
philosophers. Without them, love would have had no place in their lives. Moreover, there
would be no free forum for the controversy of the people if modern philosophy had never
taken hold. One of the first great works of the modern era, Hamlet attacks the rigidity of the
past in favor of a celebration of the inherent worth of everyone and a call for accountability in
leaders.
Works Cited
Fludd, Robert. Urtriusque Cosmi Maioris Scilicet Et Minoris Metaphysica, Physica Atque
Technica Historia, in Duo Volumnia Secundum Cosmi Differntiam Diuisa. Digital image.
Folger Shakespeare Library. Folger Shakespeare Library. Web. 21 May 2012.
<http://www.folger.edu/eduPrimSrcDtl.cfm?psid=147>.
Foster, Thomas C. How to Read Literature like a Professor: A Lively and Entertaining Guide to
Reading between the Lines. New York: Harper, 2003. Print.
Paglia, Camille. "'Stay, illusion': Ambiguity in Hamlet." Ambiguity in the Western Mind. Ed. Craig
J. N. De Paulo, Patrick Messina, and Marc Stier. New York: Peter Lang, 2005. 117-130.
Rpt. in Shakespearean Criticism. Vol. 111. Detroit: Gale, 2008. Literature Resource
Center. Web. 21 May 2012.
Shakespeare, William. Hamlet: William Shakespeare. New York: Spark Pub., 2002. Print.
Tiffany, Grace. "Hamlet, reconciliation, and the just state." Renascence: Essays on Values in
Literature 58.2 (2005): 111+. Literature Resource Center. Web. 21 May 2012.