The Divine and Justice in Hamlet

Part 1:

One of the defining aspects of Elizabethan government was the relationship between the crown and the divine. Although it can be difficult to apprehend this relationship in light of modern western thought, it is a crucial juxtaposition for understanding this period of English politics and culture. After Henry VIII’s severance from the Pope in 1534, political and religious power were consolidated, granting the monarch combined authority. Along with this unbridled power, the monarch gained another advantage. The throne became holy. Divine right established the monarch as God’s appointed official. This transformed the political sphere into a sacred occupation. One consequence of this cultural perception was condemnation of political usurpation.

Political dissent or, to its fullest extent, a coup d’état was dangerous on two levels. First, it was physically dangerous. In Early Modern England, especially during Elizabeth’s reign, a vast network of spies prowled amidst the layers of the social hierarchy. Since federal enforcement was nonexistent, localities sought to regulate potential political complications with autonomy. Thus, spies were a tangible way for the monarch to stay informed concerning potential threats. If found out, conspirators met a speedy execution. Nonetheless, political usurpation was dangerous in another manner. Under a popular interpretation of Scripture, opposing the monarch was a sinful and unbiblical action.

William Dickenson, commenting on the divine right of kings, wrote: “It sufficeth that being under we must obey, not only for fear but for our conscience sake, lest through our disobedience, our conscience accuse us for resisting the ordinance of God, for the powers that be are ordained by God” (Jordan qtd. 205). Dickenson’s remark concerns the case in which a monarch is wicked, tyrannical, or unjust. He exhorts the reader to be long suffering. Although the ruler may abuse his power, God, in His sovereignty, has placed him on the throne. To defy the king would be to defy God. Thus, Dickenson concludes we must obey. Rebellion has no place in the Kingdom of God, and consequently no place in England.

Walking alongside the concept of divine sovereignty in the political realm was the concept of personal revenge. In Romans 13, Paul instructs Christians on the judicial and executive power of the state. He writes that rulers “do not bear the sword in vain” (13:4). God has given rulers the authority and responsibility to reward the righteous and punish the wicked. Thus, the monarch maintains the power to exact judgment on evil doers. This is a divinely appointed mandate, and being such, was not to be infringed upon. For a person to step outside the political system of retribution, established by Romans 13, was to venture outside the instruction of God. Personal revenge was a disruption and defiance of God’s sovereignty through the crown. Francis Bacon called revenge “a kind of wild justice” (Jordan qtd. 208). It does not reflect the systematic and objective processes of the state. Rather, it is often driven by unbridled passion and fueled by hate, not justice.

 

However, because Elizabethan England was limited in their ability to establish centralized judicial and executive power, localities had to carry the weight of justice. Having an executive force of a few constables, many towns were largely inept to carry this responsibility. As result, injustice, including political injustice, could affect many people without retribution. This created a complicated question. If the state fails, can the individual enact retribution? Although Dickenson and popular opinion denied this request, there was support for the individual’s pursuit of revenge. Martin Luther wrote, “he [the good Christian] can and should seek vengeance and protection, and help and do as much as he can to achieve it” (qtd Broude). Although Luther is not condoning private vengeance, this passage encourages the individual to pursue the execution of justice. Yet, where is this pursuit allowed? This was the question that festered within victims of unrequited crimes. Where is justice? What is my role in accomplishing it?

 

Part 2:

The most famous line in Hamlet, and perhaps in all of Shakespeare’s plays, is found at the beginning of Act III. While Polonius and Claudius lurk in the shadows, Hamlet utters the famous line, “To be, or not to be, that is the question” (III. i. 56). Although these words will be forever immortalized, the proceeding monologue is often overlooked and marginalized. There tends to be a metaphysical interpretation of the opening line, distracting from the influential ensuing sentences. Yet, the proceeding lines construct the heart of Hamlet’s dilemma and the central tension in the play.

Hamlet laments, “Whether ‘tis 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. To die, to sleep…”(III. i. 57-60). Here, Hamlet considers two options: to take arms or to suffer. If he patiently suffers Claudius’ wickedness, Hamlet would obey the Lord’s command in the book of Romans. The Apostle Paul instructs, “Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord” (12:19). By patiently enduring Claudius’ injustice, Hamlet would place him into the hands of a vengeful God, allowing the possibility for the ultimate punishment of hell. Also, a suffering Hamlet would honor God’s sovereignty. God knows of King Hamlet’s murder and will bring Claudius accountable on the day of judgement. Hamlet can rest in this promise.

Yet, Hamlet’s position is nuanced. As discussed, God provided for an earthly form of justice through the state. However, in Hamlet’s case, the very person who ought to exact justice is the one deserving of recompense. In addition, Hamlet is a prince. Thus, he holds the political implications of a divine ruler. He holds the sword of the state. Simultaneously, Hamlet is a man and an instrument of the Almighty. This creates the central tension of Hamlet’s dilemma. Is Hamlet justified in taking arms against the king? What is his role? To add to the complication, Hamlet receives the revelation of the crime from the supernatural. Is this a sign from God? Perhaps it is message from God, transferring the divine authority from Claudius to Hamlet. Or, it may be a demon in the disguise of his father, sent to deceive Hamlet into taking personal revenge against God’s appointed ruler.

Oftentimes, Hamlet is considered a repugnant character. This distaste revolves around his inaction. Some interpret Hamlet’s inaction as cowardice. Other assign his actions to insanity. Still others will claim his inaction is merely a dramatic convention, used by Shakespeare to fulfil a plot function.  However, if one considers the religious and political environment surrounding the play, he can see that Hamlet’s inaction is due to solemn calculation. Hamlet recognizes the seriousness of spurring the divine through regicide, and concurrently retains a sense of responsibility for justice. Rather than acting rashly, Hamlet ponders his situation, displaying a high level of reason and a noble consideration of the good.

 

 

 

Works Cited

Broude, Ronald. “Revenge and Revenge Tragedy in Renaissance England.” Vol. 28, No. 1, Renaissance

    Quarterly, 1975. Pp. 38-58. 

Jordan, Constance, ed. Hamlet.By William Shakespeare. 2nd ed., Pearson Longman, 2005. Print.

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. 2016.