One thing that stuck out to me in this play was the position of power and how no one seems to question those in the position, even when they are not following a “particular order.” Property is the main source of power during Shakespeare’s time. Whether that be materialistic property such as land in this case, or physical property such as a woman, almost anything will be done to gain such power. A feud and fight between Hamlet I and the King of Norway led to Hamlet I winning and claiming land as his prize: “Dared to the combat, in which our valiant Hamlet/ For so this side of our known world esteemed him/ Did slay this Fortinbras, who, by a sealed compact/ Well ratified by law and heraldry/ Did forfeit with his life all these his lands/ Which he seized of to the conqueror” (1.1. 83-88). This concept connects back to A Midsummer Night’s Dream and how Hippolyta was “won” in a military conquest. Women and property are considered the same value in Shakespeare’s time, and both having value to men.
The possession of this land led to a new fight where Fortinbras’s son, Polonius felt the need to reclaim what was rightfully his- in his defense it was supposed to be passed down to him as his “birthright.” The new feud between Hamlet II and Polonius caused a ripple in the play and is also a symbol for things not following the “status quo” or following a “particular order.” Land is supposed to be passed down to generations and that power will essentially stay in the family for generations. When Hamlet I conquers the land, it causes an issue. That land and power no longer belongs to the son next in line to receive it. This is an event that disrupts the social order of things and similarly, so does the marriage between Claudius and Gertrude.
How is it that no one has anything to say about the marriage between Gertrude and Claudius, and no one questions this?! Shortly after Hamlet I’s gruesome death, Claudius sneaks his way into the position and gains the role of King. It is ironic how he kills his brother, marries his wife and takes the throne all within a few short months. Again, offsetting the natural order of things. Hamlet would have been entitled to the throne, taking over his father’s position but since Cladius married his mother, the role is filled by marriage- not by blood. Hamlet’s death was another instance that proved to be “strange” and not normal: “Murder most foul, as in the best it is,/ But this most foul,strange, and unnatural” (1.5.27-28). When a person dies, they pray for their sins to be forgiven in order to go to heaven. There have been plays, like Othello, where the opportunity to pray was granted before death. Desdemona was allowed to pray before she was killed, allowing her sins to be forgiven. This is an act of love and respect, although ironic because they are being killed, it shows the belief in heaven and its importance. Cladius did not give Hamlet this opportunity and let him die without confessing his sins. Did he not belief in heaven or did he believe in the uncommon thought, purgatory? Or, simply did not care what happened, he just wanted the throne? The thought of purgatory as an option was not a common thought during Shakespeare’s time, so another instance of unusualness.
The phrase we discussed in class, “strange eruption” appears to be true in more ways than one: “This bodes some strange eruption to our state” (1.1.69). This play is displaying a variety of chaotic, unnatural events that derive from various sources and are all causing a significant amount of damage. The death of Hamlet I, the search of power between Polonius and Hamlet for what they believe to be their birthright and the arguments between Hamlet and Gertrude. The main idea is that characters in this play do not necessarily follow the social order or structure we would expect.
-Krysten Masztal (Blogging Circle 2)
I liked the part in your response when you talking about how women were viewed as objects or property in Hamlet. I think one of the best examples of this occurs in act five when Hamlet and Laertes are fighting over Ophelia’s grave because Ophelia has been reduced to a prop.
I completely agree with what you say about Cladius killing Hamlet I. I think Cladius was so one minded that all he could think about was killing Hamlet to take over the thrown. He had to do it as quickly as possible because what if someone found out and stopped him, then his plan wouldn’t have worked. I think that in all the madness he killed Hamlet without even thinking about letting him pray.
I agree with your analysis of the loss of order in Denmark. Your point about the unnatural nature of the death of Hamlet I without being allowed to pray for his sins before his death is again reflected in Act V, when none of the four that die are able to pray for their deaths either. Hamlet succeeds in killing Claudius without allowing Claudius to pray, just as Claudius did Hamlet’s father, which seems like vengeance fulfilled, but is offset by the deaths of the other three who all suffer as well. However, this seems to be the culmination of everything unnatural, including the corruption of power as you mention. As we discussed in class, the entrance of Fortinbras II seems to restore the order that was lost in Denmark while Claudius and Hamlet were still alive.
Hello Krysten,
I thoroughly appreciate your analysis regarding how the concept of property was valued in Shakespeare’s time and how women can be seen as such. Every play we read, the roles of women vary, but there’s usually a diminishing, less prominent quality to them in relation to men. I agree with your questioning about Claudius and Gertrude’s marriage and how society just blatantly accepts it. During my reading of Hamlet, I always just assumed that Claudius had this position of social power even before becoming king and that no one should dare to question his actions because of bad consequences. My other theory is perhaps this type of marriage was common in this time period but regardless, it is disgusting.
Hello Krysten,
I enjoyed your post very much regarding Shakespeare and his take on property being women. First off, just like you and I am sure many other classmates I am still disgusted and weirded out by the whole marriage between Gertrude and Claudius. I also discussed how Claudius killed Hamlet I and how it makes perfect sense in that time frame of Shakespeare. Gertrude was most likely most nervous and afraid about what would happen if she didn’t marry Claudius which I guess is the lesser of two evils.
Krysten,
First off, this was one of the most thought provoking featured post this semester for my person use of it. I think you hit the nail on the head in discussing the recurring theme of order or lack there of and how that affects our protagonists in all of Shakespeare’s plays that we have read so far. It’s a really interesting topic. Through your post I really was thinking about how this argument could be used as a counter argument for Hamlet’s madness which was a very popular topic among most of us this week. In a way, your post almost made me feel for Hamlet. Even in the short amount of time throughout the play his father is killed without a chance to pray so we can assume Hamlet thinks his father is not going to heaven. Then, as he would be the next to inherit the property of his family, his uncle slips into the picture and is his new dad…still his uncle (it’s still weird!). This really made me question if our interpretation of the scene between Hamlet and his mom was wrong. Maybe he didn’t actually want his mother, but was jealous of the position of his uncle and it just so happened to be that his uncle married his mom. I know this is a stretch because it was definitely followed by other motives but that’s another story. I think that overall you are correct that if there is a play that depicts the social order being turned upside down it is Hamlet!
Hi!
This is one topic that really interested me when we were talking about it in class. It doesn’t make any sense that all of these power roles are being switched around with no explanation. I thought the marriage between Gertrude and Claudius was extremely odd, and I don’t get why no one did anything about it? It was completely out of the norm for the time period, and technically takes away Hamlet’s place as King if his mother was to bore another son. I think the power scale that is in this play is extremely unnatural.