Literary Analysis of Shakespeare’s Hamlet Essay

In the English Renaissance, identity was an important concern, particularly the construction of identity. As Stephen Greenblatt argues, â€Å"there is in the early modern period a change in the intellectual, social, psychological, and aesthetic structures that govern the generation of identities †¦ that is not only complex but resolutely dialectical† (1). The identity of the sovereign was of particular importance: how monarchs shaped their own identities, and how these identities affected their subjects. Taking Greenblatt’s argument, this paper examines the construction and manipulation of identity in Shakespeare’s Hamlet: in particular, the ways in which Elizabeth I’s self-representations inform the play. In addition, the paper will show how the characterization of Hamlet is shaped by the rule of Elizabeth I, who controlled her public image through elaborately constructed self-representations. Reflecting her use of these representations, Hamlet, who possesses stereotypically feminine attributes, fights to recreate himself as a masculine character to recover his family’s and kingdom’s honor. The late Elizabethan period was filled with anxiety and dismay over the aging of Queen Elizabeth I. Concern about her impending death was only made worse by her refusal to name a successor. When Shakespeare composed Hamlet in 1600, the playwright was subject to an aging, infirm queen, who at sixty-seven had left no heirs to the English throne. In Hamlet, Shakespeare thus addresses two political problems that England faced at the beginning of the seventeenth-century: royal succession and female sovereignty. As Tennenhouse argues, â€Å"History plays could not be written after Hamlet, †¦ because †¦ the whole matter of transferring power from one monarch to another had to be rethought in view of the aging body of the queen† (85). The preoccupation of the English public with who would become their new ruler, along with eager anticipation of male kingship, is expressed throughout Hamlet. Although the play is not written as a political allegory, undeniable similarities do exist between aspects of Queen Elizabeth I’s public persona and the character of Hamlet. Before further explaining this comparison, however, it is necessary to describe how Elizabeth I shaped her public persona. Elizabeth I’s Image As head of the Anglican Church, Elizabeth I was wary to align herself in marriage with a Catholic. Accordingly, Carole Levin argues that Elizabeth I promoted the image of herself as a pristine maiden well into the middle and advanced years of her life: â€Å"Elizabeth presented herself to her people as a symbol of virginity, a Virgin Queen† (64). Whether political or personal, her refusal to marry was in many ways advantageous, for she avoided the disaster of Mary I’s match with Phillip II. Yet it also caused a great deal of concern among the populace. As Levin observes, by not marrying, Elizabeth also refused the most obvious function of being a queen, that of bearing a child. Nor would she name a successor as Parliament begged her to do, since Elizabeth was convinced this would increase, rather than ease, both the political tension and her personal danger (66). Elizabeth I’s strategy to retain political power may have prevented the usurpation of her authority by a husband, but it did cause disfavor among the English citizens, especially as she grew older without announcing an heir. Anxiety over the succession led to contempt for Elizabeth I, with many people gossiping that she did not marry because she was an unnatural woman. Levin writes, â€Å"there were rumors that Elizabeth had an impediment that would prohibit regular sexual relations† (86). Levin provides an example for these rumors in an excerpt of a letter from her cousin Mary Stuart: â€Å"indubitably you are not like other women, and it is folly to advance the notion of your marriage with the Duke of Alencon, seeing that such a conjugal union would never be consummated† (86). Others claimed that Elizabeth I had illegitimate children who were kept secret (Levin 85). These accusations indicate that English citizens, as well as family relations, perceived Elizabeth Fs prolonged maidenhood as unnatural and even monstrous. Although Elizabeth I was willing to admit to Parliament that she had spent much of her strength, she was careful to cultivate the image of herself as a young woman to the public. One important example of this method is the famous Rainbow Portrait, which Elizabeth I commissioned in approximately 1600, the same period Hamlet was written. Even though Elizabeth I was sixty-seven years old when the painting was commissioned, she appears in the painting to be a young woman (Levin). Elizabeth I created an intricate and diverse image of herself. As an unmarried monarch, she became England’s Virgin Queen. Possessing two bodies, Elizabeth I established masculine authority as Prince and as mother to her subjects. As Elizabeth I grew older, she relied on iconography to deceive the English populace into viewing her as young and vital. These diverse representations of Elizabeth I are complexly reflected in Hamlet. The similarities between Elizabeth I and Gertrude are obvious: both women are perceived as indulgent, sensuous monarchs and are criticized for attempting to act like women younger than their true ages. To Gertrude, Hamlet even states, â€Å"O shame, where is thy blush? † (3. 4. 91). Despite these correspondences, a more interesting analogy exists between Elizabeth I and the character of Hamlet. The paper will compare Elizabeth I, who claimed to have â€Å"the heart and stomach of a king† (Levin 1) with Hamlet, a prince often castigated for acting in a stereotypically feminine manner. Reflections of Elizabeth I’s Constructed Identities in Hamlet One attempt by Elizabeth I to maintain her image as the Virgin Queen was a use of heavy cosmetics in an effort to make herself look younger and therefore stronger. Mullaney quotes Jesuit priest Anthony Rivers as describing Elizabeth I’s makeup at some celebrations in 1600, when Hamlet was written, to be â€Å"in some places near half an inch thick† (147). Unfortunately for Elizabeth I, this attempt to hide the weakness of her age seems only to have exacerbated her subjects’ contempt for the assumed weakness of her sex. M. P. Tilley observes that during the late Elizabethan period, there was a strong feeling against a woman using cosmetics (312). Women who used cosmetics, according to popular feeling, altered their bodies, the creations of God, and were therefore not only immodest but blasphemous. According to Mullaney, women who used cosmetics considered to be false women because they created a deceptive face to replace the one given to them by God; altering their natural female appearance made them not truly women. Not only were cosmetics blasphemous and dishonest, they were physically destructive. A woman who painted her face in the Renaissance thus arguably destroyed her person in every way possible: spiritually and bodily. Hamlet displays notable disgust toward painted women, yet critics have overlooked that many of the contemporary Renaissance objections to women’s use of cosmetics apply to Hamlet’s actions. Similar to the way that painted women used cosmetics to disguise the faces that God had given them, Hamlet puts on his â€Å"antic disposition† to disguise the faculties of reason which God has given him (1. 5. 192), faculties which in the Renaissance were an essential aspect of the virtuous man. Whether or not Hamlet is truly mad, he constructs a persona to dissimulate his purpose of revenge. Painted women were disparaged for poisoning their body with dangerous chemicals; Hamlet engages in a dangerous quest to avenge his father, and because of his quest for revenge, he is fatally poisoned. By assuming an â€Å"antic disposition,† a false face, Hamlet is physically poisoned by the bated sword of Laertes. Laertes’ poison destroys Hamlet’s body natural and symbolically disrupts the body politic, since Hamlet will be unable to rule Denmark. In addition to putting on an antic disposition, a type of face painting, Hamlet possesses other womanly attributes that would arguably have caused some anxiety. Mullaney asserts that popular opinion in the Renaissance, especially in the final years of Elizabeth I’s reign, was against the rule of a female monarch. The English people had always been hesitant to accept a female queen; as Elizabeth I grew older and more infirm, their tolerance for being ruled by a woman diminished. Mullaney further argues that this intolerance was a part of the English subjects’ realization that Elizabeth I was feeble and politically weakening: â€Å"for the Renaissance †¦ misogyny may in fact be an integral part of the mourning process when the lost object or ideal being processed is a woman, especially but not exclusively when that woman is a queen of England, too† (140). As the English public’s grief for the decline of their queen’s strength increased, so too did their contempt for her bodily weakness and inability to govern effectively. Reflecting anxiety about Elizabeth’s I old age and infirmity, Hamlet displays a stereotypically feminine quality that makes him problematic as heir to the Danish throne. Early in the play, Claudius chides Hamlet for his â€Å"unmanly grief concerning the passing of his father (1. 2. 98). Elaine Showalter claims that â€Å"Hamlet’s emotional vulnerability can †¦ readily be conceptualized as feminine† (223). Discussing Hamlet’s creation of a mad persona, Carol Thomas Neely also lists â€Å"passivity and loss of control† among Hamlet’s feminine attributes during his period of madness (326). Hamlet’s emotional vulnerability and passivity, when considered in the politically-charged atmosphere of the late Elizabethan period, can even be seen as his downfall. Mullaney, quoting Tennenhouse, argues that â€Å"Hamlet is a play keenly aware of its late Elizabethan status, in which the impending transfer of power ‘from one monarch to another had to be rethought in view of the aging body of the queen'† (149). He goes on to view Hamlet as inhabiting a male-constructed world. Mullaney asserts that â€Å"like other Shakespearean males, Hamlet achieves a partial if suicidal resolution of the contradictions of patriarchy by constructing a world that is not so much gendered as free from gender differentiation—a world that is all male† (158). It is believable that Hamlet’s true problem is actually the opposite—his world is too female, or rather feminine. Despite the small number of females in the play, Hamlet presents a feminine character in a male body, a twisted reflection of Elizabeth I, who claimed to have â€Å"the body of a weak and feeble woman, but †¦ the heart and stomach of a king† (Levin 1). Hamlet possesses the body of a prince, but the heart and stomach of a woman: a fusion which was particularly problematic in the misogynistic environment that prevailed during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. As a feminine character in the body of a male, particularly one who, as Claudius observes, is â€Å"most immediate to the throne† (1. 2. 113), Hamlet cannot be allowed to survive and assume the throne. His death, as well as the passage of the Danish monarchy to the quintessential warrior figure, Fortinbras, reflects the transition of the throne from Elizabeth I to James I. James I’s ascension to the English throne alleviated some anxiety of female sovereignty, although his reign showed his peevish, cowardly, and self-indulgent disposition. When Hamlet puts on an â€Å"antic disposition,† crafting himself as mad, he evinces natural traits that are usually associated with feminine weakness. Hamlet is beset with passivity and indecision, two qualities often ascribed to women in the Renaissance (Woodbridge 275-99). Passivity and indecision impede and nearly thwart his quest to obey his father’s demand for revenge. Davis D. McElroy claims that Hamlet, in addition to considering the ghost’s exhortation to avenge him, contemplates taking no action at all. McElroy examines the opening five lines of the â€Å"to be or not to be† soliloquy: To be, or not to be, that is the question: Whether is nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing, end them. (3. 1. 64-8) McElroy alleges that these lines, which are generally believed to be Hamlet’s argument regarding suicide, constitute a different deliberation on revenge: killing Claudius, as the alleged ghost of his father demands, or taking no action at all—a more cowardly decision, certainly, but definitely safer. McElroy compares the two options by examining the rhetoric of chiasmus—claiming that â€Å"to be† refers to â€Å"taking arms† against Claudius and â€Å"not to be† refers to â€Å"suffering †¦ outrageous fortune. † He argues that the speech pertains more reasonably to revenge than suicide because killing oneself is more like â€Å"avoiding† one’s troubles than â€Å"opposing† them (544). It can be posited that Hamlet’s indecision concerning his vow to avenge his father parallels Elizabeth Fs refusal to name an heir. As Tennenhouse observes, Where Claudius would be second to Hamlet and Hamlet’s line in a patrilineal system, the queen’s husband and uncle of the king’s son occupies the privileged male position in a matrilineal system.. . It is to be expected that Claudius could not legally possess the crown, the matrilinear succession having the weaker claim on British political thinking. (89) Hamlet’s duty is not merely to uphold his promise of vengeance. He also has an obligation to his country to see Claudius removed from the throne and Hamlet, the rightful ruler in patrilineal succession, put in his place. When Hamlet contemplates neglecting this obligation, he endangers the succession to the Danish throne in much the same way that Elizabeth I’s secrecy concerning her own succession endangers England. Arguably, Hamlet fails in his responsibility to protect the Danish succession: after Hamlet’s death, Fortinbras, a Norwegian, assumes the throne. Although Fortinbras is a better candidate than the corrupt Claudius, he is a member of Norway’s royal line, not Denmark’s. Elizabeth I’s refusal to marry consigns England to a similar fate regarding kingship and royal lines. James I is a member of the British royal family, but he is a Stuart, not a Tudor. As the Virgin Queen, Elizabeth I secures her own power by refusing to name a successor during her lifetime, but she allows her familial line to die with her. Elizabeth I also protected her political authority by crafting several personas. As seen in the Rainbow Portrait, she took liberally from mythological figures, such as Astraea, Flora, and Diana. Just as Elizabeth I appropriated the appearance and femininity of goddesses, Hamlet appropriates the masculine authority he observes in Fortinbras. Hamlet attempts to construct a persona that goes beyond an antic disposition, wanting to fashion himself as a strong son and leader of Denmark. After hearing of Fortinbras’s plan to attack a desolate stretch of Poland, Hamlet resolves to emulate the militant Fortinbras by fashioning himself as a â€Å"bloody† avenger: How stand I, then, That have a father killed, a mother stained, Excitements of my reason and my blood, And let all sleep †¦ †¦ O, from this time forth My thoughts be bloody or be nothing worth! (4. 4. 59-62, 68-9) Although Hamlet desires to construct himself as an aggressive and violent fighter, he is never able to attain Fortinbras’s forcefulness. Hamlet’s passivity here shows weakness and debility, not qualities appropriate in a military leader or a monarch. Although Hamlet attempts to assume the masculinity of Fortinbras, shaping himself as a potent agent of revenge, Hamlet’s attempted emulation of Fortinbras’s masculinity is merely another false front. Hamlet recognizes his own passivity, but however much he tries to counter and suppress it, his femininity is too firmly a part of his personality for him to overcome it completely. Even though Hamlet seeks to avenge his father’s murder, he is unable to kill Claudius in Act three, scene three. Hamlet decides not to kill Claudius at his attempted prayer, and he thus does not do what he has resolved to do. At this point in the play, the audience sees a fluid character, one who first fashions himself as mad, then earnestly attempts to mold himself like the soldier Fortinbras. However much Hamlet views himself as mutable, he cannot override his passive nature. Hamlet attempts to put on Fortinbras’s masculine disposition after killing Polonius and assuring the deaths of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, yet even after returning from his voyage to England, Hamlet is caught in his feminine passivity. Despite his earlier resolve that â€Å"his thoughts be bloody or be nothing worth† (4. 4. 69), Hamlet makes no move against Claudius. He walks with Horatio in the graveyard, where he learns of Ophelia’s death (5. 1. 253), and he attacks Laertes at her gravesite (5. 1. 273), but he still clings to his false antic disposition. Gertrude calls his behavior â€Å"mere madness† and compares Hamlet to a â€Å"female dove† (5. 1. 302, 304). Hamlet’s shock and grief at learning about Ophelia’s death could excuse his distraction from attacking Claudius, but Hamlet delays his task too long. By waiting for Laertes’ challenge instead of choosing his own time to confront Claudius, Hamlet is forced to fight on the treacherous king’s terms and dies at the tip of Laertes’ poisoned sword. Hamlet’s struggle mirrors the rule of Elizabeth I, who controlled her public image through elaborately constructed personas. Similar to Hamlet, Elizabeth I attempted to disguise or suppress her feminine weakness. She proclaimed that she possessed a masculine body politic despite her female body natural. Elizabeth I maintained supremacy throughout her reign—no easy task for a woman in the Renaissance—yet her refusal to marry and produce heirs ended the Tudor line of succession. Hamlet’s plight reflects the anxiety experienced by many English subjects as Elizabeth I grew older with no children to succeed her: as Elizabeth I aged, the question of the sovereign’s role or representation to provide for the common welfare became increasingly critical. The Queen was still a mere woman, even though she had the â€Å"heart and stomach of a king† (Levin 1). Equally, Hamlet strives to create a public persona that corresponds with the masculine strength of Fortinbras, but he ultimately succumbs to feminine passivity, even though he is a prince. Conclusion Hamlet reflects the anxiety of many of Elizabeth I’s subjects concerning the strength of their Queen and the succession of the monarchy. With no husband and no heir to the throne, the political security of the country was at stake. Furthermore, many citizens were concerned with Elizabeth I’s aging body and her undignified attempts to appear younger. This concern developed in many cases into contempt for Elizabeth I’s deceptive manipulations of her image. Hamlet has many feminine characteristics that, especially in the climate of Elizabeth I’s decline, make him unsuitable as a ruler or potential king. Although he is not naturally suited to the masculine requirements of kingship, Hamlet strives to overcome his feminine nature in order to reinstate the honor and dignity of his family and kingdom. Although he accomplishes this end, his femininity delays him until he is betrayed by Claudius’ treachery. Hamlet removes Claudius from the throne, but at the cost of many lives, and the Danish monarchy passes to a Norwegian ruler. Like Elizabeth I, Hamlet tries to recreate his identity to gain needed respect and authority, but ultimately fails to protect his father’s line of succession. In Hamlet, readers can surmise some of the feelings Shakespeare may have experienced in the growing misogyny that permeated the final years of Elizabeth I’s reign. Like Hamlet, Elizabeth I was not without flaws, and her subjects came to resent her for these weaknesses, anticipating the advent of a more powerful—and masculine—monarch. As Shakespeare demonstrates with Hamlet’s poignant death and with Fortinbras’s triumph, a stronger, more manful monarch is not necessarily a more admirable or worthy one. Works Cited Greenblatt, Stephen. Renaissance Self-Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1980. Levin, Carole. â€Å"The Heart and Stomach of a King†: Elizabeth I and the Politics of Sex and Power. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 1994. McElroy, Davis D. â€Å"To Be, or Not to Be’—Is That the Question? † College English 25. 7 (1964): 543-545. Mullaney, Steven. â€Å"Mourning and Misogyny: Hamlet, The Revenger’s Tragedy, and the Final Progress of Elizabeth I, 1600-1607. † Shakespeare Quarterly 45. 2 (1994): 139-62. Neely, Carol Thomas. ‘†Documents in Madness’: Reading Madness and Gender in Shakespeare’s Tragedies and Early Modern Culture. † Shakespeare Quarterly 42. 3 (1991): 315-38. Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Eds. Barbara A. Mowat and Paul Werstine. New York: Washington Square P, 1992. Showaiter, Elaine. â€Å"Representing Ophelia: Women, Madness, and the Responsibilities of Feminist Criticism. † Hamlet: Complete, Authoritative Text with Biographical and Historical Contexts, Critical History, and Essays from Five Contemporary Critical Perspectives. Ed. Susanne L. Wofford. Boston: Bedford Books of St. Martin’s Press, 1994. Tennenhouse, Leonard. Power on Display: The Politics of Shakespeare’s Genres. New York: Methuen, 1986. Tilley, M. P, ‘†I Have Heard of Your Paintings Too’. (Hamlet III, i, 148). † The Review of English Studies 5. 19 (1929): 312-17