Essay On Stolen Lineage: Empire And Marriage Within Hamlet

Stolen Lineage: Empire and Marriage within Hamlet The nuclear family, the traditional ideal of a husband and wife forming a household within wedlock, outlives both its strongest supporters and harshest critics. Providing a practical means for many basic human needs, the institution of marriage prevails throughout much of the pre-Renaissance world. While many individuals challenge the family unit’s effectiveness, often these alternative ideas lack the feasibility to sway the masses. Plato, a critic of the nuclear family, suggests that it prevents society from functioning at the highest possible level. However, as organized religion evolves in unison with society, some invoke doctrine that requires marriage, and thus, the formation of nuclear
households. Thus, royal families would form primarily for the purpose of maintaining power via this nuclear family structure. Henry VIII attacked the institution of marriage for his own social gain, which polarized England as he rewrote religious and legal code to satisfy his whims. Decades later in 1623 and using this social context, William Shakespeare pens Hamlet to comment on marriage’s impact on empire. Moreover, England’s continual struggle to maintain primogeniture for their monarchs inspires Shakespeare’s social undertone. Particularly, he explores Gertrude’s unconventional choices regarding marriage, and their impact on Hamlet, to display the negative effects of abandoning lineage. Thus, Shakespeare crafts Hamlet to show both the hierarchical and moral impact of diverging away from the traditional nuclear family. Tudor England, full of social challenges which stemmed from past monarchs, remained in turmoil because of the uncertainty towards marriage.
While often individuals played a role in the choice of their spouse, family member’s interests towards the gain of social position appear more pertinent. Thus, this union construct primarily existed to maintain family wealth, with the side benefit of companionship. Historians note that, “marriage was part of a system of inheritance and economics so ingrained and pervasive that the emotional affections or physical desires of a man and woman diminished in importance. This was especially true among the upper classes, where the amount of property being inherited could be substantial” (McDonald 266). In this way, English social standards dictated the continuation of the nuclear family. Furthermore, within this culture, romance remained an unthinkable concept amid a world of tactical marriage. Families relied heavily on the correct marriage for their children in order to continue lineage. Therefore, Henry VIII’s insistence on divorce redefined British matrimony on a plethora of levels. Historians note, “King Henry VIII had a strong desire to divorce his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, with whom he had a daughter…. but had no male heir. The king wanted to marry Anne Boleyn, with whom he had fallen in love” (Duiker Spielvogel 385). Beyond simply the revolutionary divorce, he also violated English convention when he risked social position in
order to chase a romantic interest. Henry VIII shattered the ideal of the nuclear family, and also established the precedent by which individuals would later nullify their marriages. Thus, his choice troubled one of their most stable social conventions, and created an internal struggle for people to balance their matrimony and morals. Referencing this earlier social context, Shakespeare uses the protagonist Hamlet to portray a precise tone towards the moral institution of marriage. Occurring from a society from which a monarch’s infidelity redefines the nation, Shakespeare argues strongly against the concept of thoughtless marriage. However, he particularly hones in on the idea of attacking the nuclear family to fulfill one’s carnal desires. “Had left the flushing of her galled eyes, / She married. O most wicked speed, to post / With such dexterity to incestuous sheets”, Hamlet elaborates, “It is not, nor it cannot come to good” (Shakespeare 1.2: 153-157). Besides the grief dispelling from his father’s death, Gertrude’s seemingly instant remarriage troubles Hamlet deeply. Moreover, Gertrude’s choice to remarry into her existing family disgusts Hamlet because it continually stands as a sexually impure mockery of his father. In these lines, Shakespeare acknowledges the changing view regarding marriage developing within Elizabethan England, and argues against it. While the English tradition towards marriage remains largely utilitarian, Shakespeare still strives to make an moral argument regarding the sanctity of the nuclear family. This argumentation continues, when Shakespeare writes, “The instances that second marriage move / Are base respects of thrift, but none of love. A second time I kill my husband dead / When second husband kisses me in bed” (Shakespeare 3.2: 176-179). In this way, Hamlet challenges Gertrude’s sincerity, insinuating that remarrying only happens for financial gain. Also, he poignantly reminds his mother that her nuptials devastates the honor of her first husband. Occuring within a classical playwright forme, Shakespeare creates a play within a play in order to enhance the its meaning. Although he buries these combatting speeches regarding marriage within layers of technical stage play, Shakespeare’s point comes across vividly. Hamlet specifically opposes the evolving English view for unloyal marriage, and forces the reader to observe the impact of abandoning morality within it. Elizabethan England, an era of uncertain royal lineage, looms as a background for Shakespeare’s discussion regarding family. Particularly, Shakespeare explores Gertrude’s series of deviant choices that impact Hamlet’s ability to claim kingship. Within this time, Elizabeth I struggles to maintain an heir, contrasting Hamlet, in which Shakespeare provides an heir but thwarts him from claiming the throne. Caught between his mother’s lustful marriage and his uncle’s greed, Hamlet understands the misfortune of his state. Thus, his struggle portrays romantic marriage’s potential to disrupt the transfer of empire, as it allows greater challenging over the heirship. Berating Gertrude for allowing Claudius’ unforeseen ascension to power, Hamlet states, “A murder and a villain / … A cutpurse of the empire and the rule / That from a shelf the precious diadem stole / And put it in his pocket” (Shakespeare 3.4: 90-92). Within this, Hamlet displays how Claudius robs him of his rightful position in life, to become the Danish king. He also makes mention towards the inherent value of the crown, evoking the idea the idea of the divine right of kings. Within this, Hamlet describes briefly how Claudius’ offense bears against man and God, making his kingship all the more undeserved. Hamlet provides an even more holistic description when he states, “He that hath killed my King and whored my mother / Popped in between th’election and my hopes / thrown out his angle for my proper life” (5.2-62). Within this scene, Hamlet claims that Claudius’ marriage to Gertrude exists primarily to rob him of his crown. Furthermore, in breaking the royal line, Claudius’ causes the downfall of an empire. Shakespeare carefully places this quote before the play’s final scene, in which the royal family collapses amid a series of betrayal. Like a battlefield, the halls of Denmark’s castle grow red with blood, and in this, he displays the results of failing to follow the rules of primogeniture. Shakespeare clearly connects the inability to abide by lineage with the turmoil, and eventual destruction of empire. Abandoning societal tradition in order to chase romance, King Henry VIII’s choice divides England regarding balance between morality and marriage.
From this context, Shakespeare’s Hamlet describes the potential downfall for rulers when a failure of lineage occurs. Furthermore, Shakespeare quietly contrasts the downfalls of Denmark’s empire and Hamlet, with the rise of Fortinbras and Norway. In this subtle commentary, Shakespeare truly shows that maintaining empire requires strong primogeniture. While King Hamlet loses the throne to his conniving brother, which disrupts the chain of succession, Old Norway’s methodical handing of the torch to his son maintains royal lineage. Arriving on the final scene of the play, Fortinbras signals Norway’s conquering of Denmark, and ultimately a realignment of kingly succession. In this, Shakespeare shows that abiding by traditional mandates for marriage leads to stronger empire. Empire, under the writing of Shakespeare, can refer to many iterations along a spectrum of wealth. From a simple family estate, to the fate of an empire, Shakespeare shows the vulnerability that can occur from dividing the traditional family unit. In this way, Hamlet urges individuals to consider more aspects than simply romance when determining a marriage partner. Moreover, people must wearily consider the impact marriage will cause on their estate and
descendants.