Hamlet Solved #6

When Shakespeare wrote the Hamlet play, he knew that it would be the most important play he ever wrote--with the most important character he would ever create.

Hamlet was very important to him. After all, Shakespeare named his first-born son after this famous prince.

This Hamlet character is based in large part on Shakespeare's closest friend and royal patron--the Earl of Essex. A few months before Shakespeare wrote this play, Queen Elizabeth had Essex beheaded.

As Shakespeare wrote this play, he did not know if it would be the very last play he would ever write. For all he knew, he might be imprisoned and executed. It was an incredibly dangerous time in England.

The Hamlet character is also based on Shakespeare himself. He had a lot he wanted to say on his own behalf, on the behalf of Essex, and on behalf of the people of England.

In writing this play, Shakespeare was trying to create a "Spartacus moment"--a moment when Shakespeare and his actors, and the people of London, would stand in solidarity against the injustice of the time, and against the government of Queen Elizabeth.

The famous quote "To be, or not to be" takes on a whole new meaning when we think of how Shakespeare did not know if he was going to exist or not exist, after the play ended.

Therefore, as soon as Shakespeare puts Hamlet on the stage, he wastes no time. The fireworks begin immediately.

Act 1 Scene 2 is Hamlet's very first scene. King Claudius talks with him, and does not call him nephew. He calls Hamlet his son.

Hamlet does not reply directly to Claudius. He breaks the fourth wall, and speaks to the audience--"A little more than kin and less than kind."

Right away, Shakespeare is making a point: Hamlet is one of us, one of the audience, on the audience's side--and not on the side of the King and his court.

Shakespeare also wants us to know that Hamlet has an agile mind. He likes to be ambiguous with his choice of words. He likes to make puns. He often says things that have more than one meaning.

With this very brief line--this aside to the audience--Hamlet is saying several things simultaneously.

This is very common in Shakespeare. He loved to build what I refer to as an "idea-constellation"--where he packs several different ideas and messages into one word or expression.

There is a related rhetorical device, known as polysemy. Shakespeare loved creating polysemes--a word or phrase that has multiple meanings, or, more specifically, multiple etymologically related meanings.

I like to think that the words polyseme and inseminate are related. This would mean that each polyseme is full of many seeds that Shakespeare is planting in his writings.

A similar contemporary term for this is Easter eggs--messages hidden in movies, games, etc.

Shakespeare creates these polysemes for many reasons. He wanted to make particular words or phrases resonate, like ringing bells in our minds. Sometimes such polysemes are like bombs that are meant to explode violently, to shock or disturb the people in the audience who were the intended targets of his writings.

As you will see, these very first lines by Hamlet are a massive bomb--which were written to cause a thermonuclear reaction. And this bomb was meant to be dropped on the head of a single person in the audience--Queen Elizabeth.

Shakespeare did not want to kill her. But he did want to test her--to evaluate her state of mind--like giving her a Rorschach test.

All of Shakespeare's plays written during the reign of Queen Elizabeth were such tests for her--and the plays he wrote in the reign of King James were tests for him.

Yes, of course Shakespeare wrote his plays for the audiences in the theatres of London. But his most important purpose was to "catch the conscience" of the monarch. By writing plays, he was attempting to prompt the monarch to reveal their true temperament publicly, while watching the play.

Elizabeth and James were very educated, and remarkably astute. They had to be, to survive on the throne for as long as they did.

Not every person in the audience would probe and ponder every last line of dialogue and every last word. Not everyone had studied etymology.

But Shakespeare knew Elizabeth and James well enough to know that they worked very hard at trying to decipher everything that they read and heard, and saw performed on stage.

Elizabeth and James always scrutinized everything that was given to them--to determine if it was a threat or not. They were the kind of people who always looked a gift horse in the mouth.

Here in Hamlet's very first line, he plays with the words kin and kind.

There are several layers of meaning in these words.

He is suggesting that family members should be good to each other. There should be kindness between kin.

Hamlet is also sarcastic. He sees no such lovingkindness between himself and his uncle, King Claudius. Hamlet is saying in effect, "You may have gained a 'son'--but whatever affection we had before, it is now lost."

Shakespeare is also revealing that Hamlet knows etymology, the study of the origin of words, and how their meaning has changed over time. It is clear that Hamlet has an above average knowledge of language--just like Queen Elizabeth.

Hamlet would know that the words kin and kind are related to each other--and they are related to the word king.

Hamlet is speaking in the presence of King Claudius. Therefore, Hamlet is also criticizing his uncle as a king who does not know the difference between nephew and son, and does not know what kin and kindness mean.

The word kind also means people or things that are similar. When Hamlet says "less than kind" he is saying that he and Claudius are not similar. They are not the same kind of people.

What does Hamlet mean by this?

A few lines later he compares his dead father to Hyperion--a Greek god.

He compares his uncle to a satyr--which were half-man half-goat woodland gods. They were notorious for drinking too much, and for their promiscuity.

By saying "less than kind"--Hamlet is saying that he is more like his father, and not like his uncle.

Hamlet is saying that I am more godly than my uncle, who is more like some weird and sinful beast.

Hamlet is saying that he and his uncle are not of the same species. I think that he is being rather literal and not figurative. He thinks that his uncle is something less than human.

Is Hamlet wrong?

For the rest of the play, Hamlet demonstrates a greater complexity and depth of character and personality than his uncle.

Claudius is very two-dimensional. There is far less liveliness in his behavior, his words, and his mind.

Hamlet has the makings of a Philosopher King. Claudius is a boorish murderer.

Hamlet is saintly. Claudius is a demon.

The Hamlet character is as great an expression of being human that has ever been created in the history of the world.

Claudius is an banal evil monster.

Have you ever seen this version of Claudius on stage or screen?

Yeah, me neither.

I have seen probably about 20 productions of Hamlet. In every single one, Claudius is not all that bad as the play starts. He is shown as a jovial and decent man.

There is a negative consequence by showing him as a right proper king, at the beginning of the play. It makes Hamlet look crazy, unstable, and depressed by comparison.

In the mind of the audience, Claudius is saner and better man than Hamlet.

That is not Shakespeare's intention.

I want to see a production of Hamlet where Claudius is drunkenly slithering around the court, celebrating his ill-gotten gains, and coveting his crown that he got by murdering his brother, and behaving inappropriately with women.

And Prince Hamlet is watching the debauchery of the royal court with utter contempt. He is the only sober, moral, and awake person on stage.

That would be far closer to what Shakespeare had in mind.

This is yet another reason why Shakespeare is so misunderstood today. Evil characters like Claudius or Macbeth are shown as normal people--when in fact they are monsters. Such productions downplay their deviancy.

This is very similar to Mark Rylance's 1998 production at Shakespeare's Globe Theatre, of The Merchant of Venice.

Rylance removed the insults against Shylock, because they were so offensive.

However, by editing these lines out, the audience is unable to understand why Shylock is so upset, and why he seeks revenge against the people who insulted and hurt him.

Shakespeare wants us to know who Claudius really is, from Hamlet's very first line of the play.

It is also interesting to note that the King of Denmark--the real one in 1601--was Christian VI. He was a drunkard. He did have affairs and children out of wedlock.

He was even suspected at the time of murdering a famous astronomer, Tycho Brahe--only a couple of weeks before Shakespeare's premiere of Hamlet was performed.

There is another bomb that Shakespeare is detonating here. Hamlet says that he is not the same kind of person as the King of Denmark. In a later line he compares Claudius to a satyr, and his dead father to Hyperion.

Satyrs were gods at the very bottom of the pantheon of gods of Ancient Greece.

Hyperion was a Titan, much farther up the ranks of the gods.

Hamlet is attacking the divine right of kings. Monarchs like Queen Elizabeth and King James believed that their authority was from God, and that they were not bound by, limited by, or accountable to, any earthly authority.

King James had a severe God complex.

Hamlet is of course very shrewd. He does not say that King Claudius is not a god. But as a satyr--Claudius is a very minor and sordid and small god.

Shakespeare attacked the divine right of kings across many of his plays. King Lear goes mad. King John is a fool. King Claudius and King Macbeth commit murder--with their own hands!

None of these monarchs act very godly.

Shakespeare wanted his audience to question whether these monarchs--or any monarch for that matter--was truly godly.

Shakespeare never outright calls for abolishing the divine right of kings. But he comes very close. He wanted to prick these monarchs, as they watched his plays, to show that they were more human than they wanted to believe.

By parading such sordid monarchs for the audiences to see, Shakespeare wanted to inspire the public to shift power away from the monarchy.

It is also important to note that Hamlet does not say these words aloud to King Claudius. He says them as an aside--which means that Hamlet is speaking to us, the audience.

That means that he can not say what he wants to say, in the royal court of Denmark. There is no freedom, especially no freedom of speech, in Denmark--not even for a prince.

Hamlet does not publicly mock his uncle, because his uncle is the kind of king who would not take too kindly to being mocked. Hamlet knows that Claudius is a bad and perhaps even cruel monarch.

Hamlet is telling us, at the very beginning of the play, that there is "something rotten in the state of Denmark".

This of course is a criticism of England in the time of Queen Elizabeth--where there was no basic human rights.

With this line, Hamlet is also saying he knows the difference between nephew and son, which is to say that he knows more than Claudius.

Hamlet knows what kindness means, which means that he is a kind person, and his uncle is not.

Since king and kin and kind are related--Hamlet knows that to be a king, you should treat people with kindness, as if they are your own kinfolk.

Add this all together, and it is clear that Hamlet thinks that he would make a better king than Claudius--and that he should be the King of Denmark.

There is resentment in this line. Hamlet feels spurned.

Hamlet is not just sarcastic, he is sardonic. There is more than just mocking here--there is a grimness and graveness to him.

This is not a line that is meant to be funny. It is a line to reveal his seething rage, which might boil over at any moment.

In this all-too-brief line, Hamlet gives a bravura performance--full of information, ideas, attitudes, and emotions.

There is so many things to think about, and so little time to reflect on any of it--it can make your head spin.

That is Hamlet.

He is a brilliant young man who is exhausted by the madness all around him, and the sudden loss of his father. And rather than accept what is being done to him, he fights back with his wit and his willpower.

Yes, there is so much that Shakespeare packed into this one moment in the play, in this one line.

When Queen Elizabeth heard this line--when she first saw this play, in 1601--it would have hit her like a bomb dropping on her head.

The line would have haunted her, long after the play was over. The words probably echoed in her head, until her dying day, just over a year later.

And believe it or not, there are even more polyseme seeds in this line. Please forgive me for not revealing them to you now. I need to explain them carefully and slowly, in my novels.

After this first line, Shakespeare immediately dropped yet another bomb on Queen Elizabeth.

Claudius then asks Hamlet why he is so gloomy--"How is it that the clouds still hang on you?"

Hamlet replies that he is not gloomy at all--"Not so, my lord. I am too much i’ the sun."

The most basic translation of this line would be something like: "No, my lord. I am really happy."

As you can see, that is not what Hamlet means at all. There is far more to his words.

He is playing with the word sun--which sounds like the word son.

This is another "idea-constellation".

Hamlet is saying several things simultaneously:

1. He is saying that he is not under clouds, but that he is under too much sun. This is clearly a lie. He is indeed gloomy. This gives us an idea of how he feels about Claudius. He clearly does not like his uncle. Hamlet will lie and conceal his true feelings, even to the King of Denmark.

2. He is saying that he is "too much of a son". This means that he has lost a father, and he is now treated like a son by King Claudius. It is obvious that Hamlet does not like being his uncle's "son."

3. He is also saying that he is "too much in the role of a son". This is a hint that he is angry that he himself is not the King of Denmark.

It is not clear in the play how Claudius became King. Why didn't the crown go to King Hamlet's son, Prince Hamlet?

What is the line of succession in Denmark, in the play?

Shakespeare does not answer that. He willfully omits that question--precisely in order to to plant that question in the mind of everyone in the audience.

Why?

Because the play is not really about Denmark. The play affords Shakespeare the opportunity to ask the question: What is the line of succession in England?

Shakespeare wrote the play in 1601. Queen Elizabeth was quite old, past the age of having children, without a husband, without siblings, and without any children of her own.

She stubbornly resisted announcing who would take the throne after her. It was a massive crisis, and the only person who could solve the problem was the Queen--the very person who was creating the problem.

The biggest question for much of the reign of Queen Elizabeth was "Who comes next?"

But it was the most dangerous question to ask. It was even against the law to speak about the succession of the Queen aloud!

So, with this one little line, in one play, Shakespeare is boldly asking this question--without actually asking the question.

This is very common across all of Shakespeare's writings. He is constantly saying things without saying things. He is constantly putting invisible daggers on the stage.

By writing such ambiguous lines, he gives himself plausible deniability.

There was a famous quote during her reign. In 1561, Queen Elizabeth said that she would not name an heir, because "more men worship the rising than the setting sun."

Shakespeare is using her own quote--and the idea of her as a "setting sun" who will not allow a "rising sun"--against her.

Shakespeare wrote the play for Queen Elizabeth, first and foremost. This line is a direct attack on her own words.

Shakespeare coined the phrase "Hoist with his own petard" in this same Hamlet play. It means that someone who makes a bomb is going to blow themselves up with their own bomb.

With this simple line, Shakespeare is hoisting Queen Elizabeth with her own petard. He is blowing her up, with her own explosive 1561 declaration that she would not choose an heir.

In fact, the whole of the Hamlet play is about how the "setting suns" of Denmark--Claudius, Gertrude, and Polonius--conspire to keep Hamlet from becoming a "rising sun" to replace them.

Claudius seized power by killing his brother, King Hamlet--and Claudius now must fight off Prince Hamlet, as a claimant to the throne.

That makes Claudius just as evil as Macbeth, who murdered King Duncan with his own hands.

Claudius and Gertrude and Polonius have taken over the government of Denmark, in a coup of sorts. They are prepared to do just about anything to hold onto that power. They are even willing to murder Hamlet--which they succeed in doing.

Later in the play, Hamlet has an argument with his mother, Gertrude. He tells her that he will "set you up a glass / Where you may see the inmost part of you". He is going to hold up a mirror for her, in order for her to see herself clearly, and to examine her conscience.

With this second line of the play, Shakespeare is holding up a glass to Queen Elizabeth, to show her the damage that she is doing to herself and to England, in not naming an heir.

She is holding on to power too tightly. She had even allowed her own government to behead the most likely heir to the throne, the Earl of Essex.

As you can see, when you or I read these lines today, they can seem simple or plain. They might not seem to be very important.

But when we consider how such lines were heard by Queen Elizabeth, they can take on a whole new meaning.

This brief moment in the play, with these lines, Shakespeare is sending the strongest and most political messages he possibly can write.

With each play and poem he wrote, he was challenging the monarch to a duel of wits. Hamlet was the greatest of all battles royal.

With Hamlet's first two explosive lines, Shakespeare is throwing down a gage (or gauntlet) to initiate a fight with Queen Elizabeth.

In an earlier play of his, Shakespeare has King Henry V rally his troops into battle, with a call to action: "The game's afoot!"

This entire Hamlet play is a "Spartacus moment."

It was a call to action for the actors, and for the audience, to stand in solidarity against the "oppressor’s wrong"--the oppression by powerful people like Queen Elizabeth and her government.

But it is also a call to action for us today, too--to protect our freedoms from powerful people who seek to rule us.

If we do not come together and stand united--where everyone is another Spartacus, another Hamlet--then we will have only ourselves to blame, if our world turns rotten.