“Something is rotten in the State of Denmark.”
– Marcellus, Hamlet, Act I Scene 4, lines 87–91
In an essay titled “Towards a People’s Shakespeare”, published in Martin Orkin’s book Shakespeare Against Apartheid, Stephen Greenblatt writes:
Those of us who seek an equitable, just and democratic South Africa, working as we must within existing institutions, need to recognise that there is no neutral territory for Shakespeare studies in present-day South Africa. If this book will have any value at all it will be as a first step in the struggle to wrest the Shakespeare text from the conservative grasp of traditionalist critics. We need to work for the development of readings of the texts that will free them from ruling class appropriation, from their present function as instruments of hegemony. In doing so we may pave the way for a new educational dispensation, a dispensation that will include one day, amongst many other more important things, the emergence, perhaps, of a people’s Shakespeare. (1987:184)
This essay is an attempt to respond to the sort of challenge that Greenblatt imposes on us in his essay. He places an ethical and moral onus on us as teachers and academics to innovate and not close our options in our engagement with the Shakespeare text. He, by extension, calls on us to move away from the monolithicism and conservatism that has for a long time been a dominant feature of approaching literary texts in South Africa. We need to broaden the base and create an enabling environment and space for a thousand flowers to bloom.
This essay looks at how Claudius uses his maiden address as King of Denmark as an occasion to entrench and legitimate his tenuous and illegitimate rule. It also argues that Claudius is a politically savvy man who knows how to invest his newly acquired political capital – he cunningly cashes in on a national sense of unity generated by the loss of his brother.
The delivery of this speech is well-timed. It is delivered to a nation that is still shell- shocked; emotionally bruised and grieving. A nation that is yet to come to terms with the sudden and permanent loss of their beloved king, Hamlet.
How does Claudius go about his business of consolidating his newly acquired political power? He hits the ground running by portraying himself to the unsuspecting and mourning nation of Denmark as a responsible leader who fully embraces some of the core tenets of democratic governance such as accountability, respect for the governed and consensus. It is a well-structured and well-thought-out address in which he moves strategically from the well-known subject, ie the death of his brother Hamlet, and proceeds to the slightly controversial and eyebrow-raising subject, his recent and hasty marriage to Gertrude, his late brother’s wife. He thanks the nation for going along sheeplike with his controversial marriage to Gertrude, whom he aptly refers to as “our sometime sister”, but he cleverly offers no details in terms of what prompted or necessitated it. It is also interesting to note how he deploys carefully throughout words of endearment in reference to his departed brother, such as “dear brother” and “our most valiant brother”, to divert attention or suspicion from him as the chief culprit or strategist behind his brother’s sudden death. From family or in-house matters Claudius moves seamlessly to state security matters or potential threats to his hegemony, such as the demands made by young Fortinbras:
He hath not failed to pester us with message
Importing the surrender of those lands
Lost by his father with all bands of law …
(I. ii 23–5)
Claudius sees the land question as posing a potential threat to the stability of his new rule. But being the calculating and savvy tactician that he is, he also knows that he can gain much-needed political mileage out of it, and use it as an instrument for rallying the nation behind him.
But how does he try to stymie this potential threat embedded in Fortinbras’s demand? Cleverly, instead of trading insults and threats with the young Fortinbras, who probably thinks the timing is right for making his demands, Claudius invokes the tried and tested strategy for the resolution of disputes and tensions between nations: diplomacy. He also knows that if he handles this ticking time bomb wisely and responsibly enough it will significantly boost his chances of holding on to power for a lengthy period. Self-preservation and longevity are considered indispensable by people in positions of power – especially those who ascend the throne through corrupt methods, such as Claudius.
This is what he tells the perplexed nation of Denmark:
We have here writ to Norway, uncle of young Fortinbras – who, impotent and bedrid, scarcely hears of this his nephew’s purpose. (I. ii 28–30)
Claudius emerges as a master tactician here: he chooses to engage directly with the mature and experienced Norway rather than the impetuous, ambitious, opportunistic, inexperienced and trigger-happy young Fortinbras, who has no clue about the complexity, magnitude and wider political ramifications of this contentious land question.
Is Claudius a democrat? His words to Cornelius and Voltemand, whom he sends to old Norway, are indeed instructive:
You, good Cornelius, and you, Voltemand
For bearers of this greeting to old Norway;
Giving to you no further personal power
To business with the king, more than
the scope of these delated articles allow.
(I. ii 34–8)
He appears to be a control freak who will leave no room for error or sabotage, and he warns Cornelius and Voltemand not to overstep their brief. This injunction to these young gentlemen is an act of self- preservation specifically designed to prevent any potential erosion of his authority.
Look, too, at how his obsession with power plays itself out in the following brief conversation he holds with Laertes, the son of Polonius:
Have you your father’s leave? What says Polonius?
(I. ii 57)
It is a revealing dialogue which betrays his intolerance of dissent, even though here it is cunningly veiled as a legitimate concern for the recognition of parental authority. This concern is nothing else but a political gimmick. It is probably the sort of dialogue that sets out the parameters of his reign as the king of Denmark – acquiescence and blind loyalty.
In many ways one could read this address as a public relations exercise in which Claudius cleverly projects himself as a paragon of democratic governance who will always take the nation into his confidence. Not only that – by paying so much attention to detail in terms of what is unfolding in Denmark, the strategy is to project himself as equal to the task of leading this bleeding nation and to assure them that he is on top of things, and that their future is in safe hands.
Claudius is an astute operator. He knows he lacks legitimacy; he knows he has no moral authority, because he has “stolen” the throne of Denmark and therefore needs to work extra hard and assiduously in order to remain at the helm – even if his stratagem entails a sustained and relentless programme of action centred on posturing and the wearing of masks.
Bibliography
Orkin, M. 1987. Shakespeare Against Apartheid. Cape Town: AD Donker.
Shakespeare, W. 1980. Hamlet. London: Penguin Books. Editor TJB Spencer with an introduction by Anne Barton.
Kommentaar
How thought-provoking! This is wonderful.