Is "Hamlet" A Coded Rebuke Of The Evil Tudor Dynasty?

Image source

Chris  Veritas
ChrisVeritas.blogspot.com
February 13, 2016

I am thy father’s spirit, doom’d for a certain term to walk the night…

Shakespeare’s Hamlet has been looked at from myriad angles, from the psychological to the philosophical.

But for me, the key to the drama is this oft overlooked fact: that what drives the plot is that Hamlet’s father is a spirit come back from purgatory (the place of purification before entering heaven). 

This is really quite remarkable, given that the play was put on in Elizabethan England, a place where the Government had recently repudiated the Catholic Church (and whose censors were very strict regarding dramatic content). Hamlet's father's ghost would have been recognizable to anyone as belonging to the old/outlawed order of ideas; and, if you ask me, Shakespeare brought him back from the dead, in order to resurrect what the murdered King symbolically represents: the ancient Faith, and all the theology that was buried by Henry VIII.

I can only imagine the subdued ooh's and ah's, as the groundlings beheld this monarchic outlaw, passing portentous judgment on the unfaithful Queen, and her incestuous new marriage. A person could be forgiven, if the confluence of ideas caused him to believe that Hamlet was a coded rebuke of the Tudor Kings; who were, themselves, unfaithful to their Divine Spouse.

How did this play ever make it onto the stage, you might ask?! Well, remember, this is "Denmark", not England. And though I believe such heady subtext does exist within the play, it easily becomes lost due to the fiery theatrics and clever wordplay. 

It can't be overstated that Hamlet's father's ghost, who is "doom'd for a certain term" to suffer "tormenting flames", is what sets the entire plot in motion. This purgatorial theodrama, unabashedly inserted into the public arena, reflects directly on the Dynasty that banned it; killed it, essentially; just like the play's new King, Claudius, killed Hamlet's father. The death of the "Catholic King" is the central element of the play, and the conviction of the killer, the resolution. Along the way, the incestuous marriage of the "painted Queen", with her dead husband's inferior brother, is examined; and the whole affair ends in bloodshed (A Tudor specialty).

Speaking of bloodshed, the State was actively persecuting Catholics at that time, even repossessing land owned by the Roman Church. This backdrop provides extra drama to the play, as does the odd history of Henry VIII's choice to divorce his legal wife, and start a new religion out of whole cloth. There were beheadings of Catholics, the pursuit and murder of Lords who wouldn't convert; and, of course, the executions of several of Henry's wives. And then there was "Gloriana"! who finished the job her father started. 

Given all this, it seems Shakespeare found a clever way to dramatize the perfidy of Tudor England. Still, quite magnanimously, he makes Hamlet's best friend a Protestant; the venerable Horatio; who has just arrived back in Denmark. 

Horatio is a student at Wittenberg, the college where Martin Luther taught! Martin Luther, of course, precipitated the fracture of the Church by posting his 99 Theses on the door of a cathedral. The fact that Horatio attends the school where Luther is teaching is highly significant. Horatio cannot believe in a ghost come back from purgatory, because that is not Protestant dogma. This leads to the famous line, spoken by Hamlet, “There is more in heaven and earth… than is dreamed of in your philosophy.” In my opinion, this is directed right at the English monarchy. But in any case, the clash of ideas, and the conflict between Catholicism and Protestantism, goes right to the heart of the play. 

Despite the large gap in their theologies, Hamlet and Horatio are wonderfully close friends. Their bond strengthens the connection between Catholic and non-Catholic worlds. Clearly, the unity of Christendom is paramount in the mind of the author.

All importantly, Hamlet's devotion to his father, the "Catholic ghost", is the pivot-point of the entire story. And if Hamlet is a critique of Tudor England (and I think this is the case, "Catholic ghost", or no), then it could be argued that the new King, Claudius, is a stand in for Henry VIII; and that Shakespeare has him symbolically murdering the old Faith, in the person of his poisoned brother. Or he could represent the new faith; which, like himself, is an inferior copy of what came before. In a similar way, the Danish Queen can represent either Elizabeth I, or the England crown.

.

Further connecting Elsinore and England is the connection between the character Polonius, and the real life Tudor Lord, Robert Cecil. Scholars generally agree Shakespeare was lampooning Cecil in the person of Polonius. Both characters were basically State Secretaries, and in charge of developing young Lords, as well. This historical link grounds Hamlet in a direct way to a member of the Tudor court; which connects the Danish castle right to the throne room of Elizabeth.

For those who support the Oxfordian thesis, which asserts Shakespeare was the 17^th earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere, an interesting avenue opens up, here. De Vere grew up in Robert Cecil’s household, and actually married his daughter, Anne Cecil. The brilliant de Vere, court playwright to Elizabeth, had a tumultuous relationship with his verbose stepfather, and butted heads with him, often.  

Interestingly enough, de Vere’s unfairness and jealousy ended up leading to Anne's death. It appears he never got over his guilt. Now, if it is true that de Vere was Shakespeare, then the repeated Shakespearean theme of the tragic heroine (for example, Hero), ill-used by a wanton man, becomes all the more understandable. And biographical.

The connection to Anne Cecil, and the tragic heroines, leads right to Ophelia, daughter of Polonius. Really, it's a perfect fit. If the aforementioned drama, which happened in the private life of de Vere, is really the drama of Shakespeare's private life, then Hamlet reflects a deeply autobiographical picture of the playwright - more so than could be imagined previously. You may balk at the notion that Shakespeare was not the man from Stratford; but is it really more comforting to think of him as the man who left his wife nothing more than his "second best bed"? and didn't own any books? 

The more Hamlet is grounded in reality, and linked to real individuals, the more its themes reflect the state of England at the time the play was written. If Shakespeare was really an Earl, it would make such perfect sense! Tell me, how could he lampoon famous public figures and get away with it, if he himself was not powerful? After all, Robert Cecil was not the only public figure he went after; nor did he restrain himself from dedicating scintillating material to other Lords.

As such, the actor, Shaksper (who appears not to have been able to write his name the same way more than one time), would have made a convenient cover for the English Lord. For whatever reason, it was considered unseemly for a royal to publish poetry and plays, especially on such topics as Sir Thomas More, the Catholic saint martyred by Henry VIII. (Recent scholarship favors the idea that Shakespeare contributed three pages to the play written about him.)

     

Beyond the fact that Hamlet’s plot revolves around a "Catholic ghost" returning to visit judgment on his unfaithful state, there are two symbols yet to explore. The Queen and new King die by drinking from a chalice, in which a poisoned pearl is placed. The chalice may well represent the ritual chalice of the Mass, and the pearl may be a reference to the Pearl of Great Price. The parable of the pearl teaches one ought to sell everything one owns, in order to purchase the only thing with true value, which is God (the Tudor's did the exact opposite, it seems). 

Shakespeare may be suggesting, that by destroying the Catholic Church in England, the Tudors had turned the Pearl of Great Price into a poisoned pearl, and the ritual chalice into the perfect place to put it.

Thus, the Queen and King die symbolic deaths, connected to betraying the Faith. “Denmark’s” royals are wiped out, and a neighboring state with an ancient claim sweeps in to restore order.

Whatever Shakespeare's personal beliefs were, it seems clear to me that he was very concerned with the dynamics between the divided branches of the Church. These dynamics are what animate Hamlet, and truly bring it's spirit to life. The playwright seems to be using taboo topics against the state, in daringly provocative ways, almost as if he wished to yell fire in a crowded theater. One can only imagine what Elizabeth must have been thinking, as she sat and watched her performance of Hamlet, as the "Catholic King's" murder is restaged within the drama, as if it were happening before her, and not before the players, themselves.

What I wouldn't give to have seen Elizabeth's "conscience caught", that day! This gives "the play's the thing" an entirely new meaning.

That play within a play within reality must have hit her like a ton of bricks. Now, if only we could do the same thing to Hillary Clinton...