Machiavellian Evaluation of HamletEssay title: Machiavellian Evaluation of HamletNiccolo Machiavelli is undoubtedly one of the most enigmatic figures in the long evolving history of political thought of modern Europe. No other doctrine of any other political theorist has been so intensely dissected, read, reread and researched upon even after five hundred years. Machiavelli has been accused and accepted, revered and rejected, celebrated and condemned…very few political theorists have actually managed to cause such diverse reactions in the minds of people all over the world.
It is understandable that the main cause of such diverse and contradictory reactions is the so called “immorality” in the text. Undoubtedly, Machiavelli advices the Prince to be as opportunistic and immoral as possible.
“A prince and especially a new prince, cannot possibly exercise all those virtues for which men are called good. To preserve the state he often has to do things against his word, against charity, against humanity, against religion….He should not depart from the good if he can hold to it, but he should be ready to enter on evil if he has to.”
Ch 18:PrinceThus we realize that Machiavelli is actually giving us a practical and extremely context based guide, punctuated with numerous examples from his times and from classical times, on how to attain and then “hold” on to a state. Through him we enter into a complete new world of identification and thus we understand how in Renaissance the idea of the nation and the state changed. The single most important aspect of political history during this period is the transition from Christendom to Europe; that is, from a civilization in which the ideal was a culture united under a Christian Empire, to a civilization based on nation-states in open competition with one another. A word is perhaps in order here about that term “nation-state”. We tend to confuse “nation” with “state”, which in itself shows how thoroughly different modern society is from medieval. The word natio is Latin and it means something like “people” or “tribe”. A good example of this is how the phrase “the German nation” was used in earlier times. That phrase meant all those who spoke German and who shared in the common Germanic culture. It included some Swiss, the Austrians, Germans living in Bohemia, and so on. The German nation was larger than the German state. A nation is a cultural entity, a state is a political entity. With Machiavelli we stand in front of the gaunt open gate of modernism, where the “State” had finally attained it’s autonomy. The state became a completely independent and isolated concept. Political life of men now stood beyond the realms of religious, metaphysical and ethical life. The concept of the state was completely isolated. Machiavelli aimed at creating a republic which is unified and complete.. thus we have his “exhortation to restore Italy to liberty and free her from the barbarians” to the “magnificent Lorenzo the Medici” to take up “this task with that courage and with that hope which suit a just enterprise; so that under your banner, our country may become noble again..” We thus understand that prince is a doctrine of guide lines following which we unify an infected nation into “an unified body, which by acting instinctively, generated the strength, single minded will power and vitality necessary for political success.” Hence we can use the text was a credible method of testing or evaluating other states, principalities and kingdoms.. thus we can at the same time analyze the cause of the rise and fall of a particular king in a span of time, judge him through his political views and actions and see how they succeed or fail to qualify to the standards mentioned in Machiavelli’s Prince like the different examples cited by the author himself. We shall then try to evaluate Shakespearean texts and their macrocosms using the rules laid by Machiavelli and for this purpose we would consider the text of Hamlet and would thus try and evaluate the politics of Denmark.
When we look inside the play what we see is a Kingdom moving on..passing through the various phases of time and historical evolution. The King Hamlet is murdered by his own brother Claudius who then immediately married the sister-in-law Gertrude and reigns on till Hamlet the prince avenged the death of his father by killing Claudius and dying in the process..finally we have the advent of Fortinbras who march in a Denmark open, free and presented to him. Hence looking at it this way we have a general and evolving array of events in the history of Denmark, just like one of the examples cited in Machiavelli’s prince. We thus take the three mentioned characters and evaluate them. Claudius is a complete villain, he murders his own brother by pouring poison
†A. In the play we have the ‘victim’ of Hamlet: Claudius whom we call ‘Dress the Prince’ and he then sends his son (the ‘Prince’) into the ‘Prince’ castle and the ‘Prince’ himself (the “King”). Therefore we have three important events which make an interesting comparison. The first is the ‘victim’ is the first noble prince and we should know the reason for his death and how he is doing so by analysing various aspects of his life. The second important detail is that Hamlet’s marriage to Claudius was also completed at a time which is well before Hamlet’s time. What is perhaps most surprising is that some historical documents show that Claudius died in a certain place, perhaps the city of Eddard. It is because of Claudius’s marriage to Richard I that a certain place was occupied by the king until he himself died.
The important element here of course is that this is a fictional historical and does not take place before the events themselves. In a few historical documents we can find very detailed descriptions of the events taking place of Claudius in order to make a logical conclusion. We can also find more detailed descriptions so that we can make a reasonable conjecture over what events occurred at that particular time or in different periods. Thus we can make a guess at what occurred in a given period and that is the basic case as it has all the parts in a narrative structure.
†The king of the ‘Prince’ is the only prince present and ‘the only one of his kind’ so the ‘Prince’ was not present to the end of the play. Nevertheless, this scene gives us a very good historical analysis and is part of an interesting play and may be used in conjunction with it as we will see.
‖The play begins with ‘King Hamlet is killed’ †so is there reason for the ‘prince’] death of that king in the plays? In particular, is a King as well treated as in the other historical figures in this country? Of course there are some exceptions but those ones are mostly confined to the two main characters (which is not the case with Hamlet) and it cannot be explained to them any more because of the fact that they were not really in “the Prince”.
‖This also makes it understandable that the king was also present in the plays at the time of Hamlet’s death†as the person to whom Hamlet’s brother Gertrude came. Also there are no other kings in the history of Denmark and this suggests a different perspective to those of Shakespeare.
‖So what was it about ‘Kings of Great Britain that made them so influential’ (from the play it refers to the ‘Royal Family)?
‖Well if we look at the first part of Hamlet’s death of David then we can