1

Faculty of Arts and Humanities

Department of English

Literary Studies Section

A Dissertation submitted partial fulfillment of the requirements of MA in

English Literary Studies

The Usurper Figure in King John and Hamlet:

An Analytical Approach

Supervised by:

Prof. Elias Khalaf Prof. Wasef Al-Salami

Submitted by:

Soha Khaled Al Ahmad

2

Abstract

This dissertation seeks to explore the usurper figure in Shakespeare's

King John and Hamlet. These two plays have been selected because the

first is an early play and the other is one of his most celebrated dramatic

masterpieces. This dissertation aims at showing the development of

Shakespeare's dramatic techniques of character portrayal in these plays

and emphasize that these plays emerge as dramas of personal sufferings

because King John and King Claudius experience a poignant humane

tragedy. Hence, we note that Shakespeare uses chronicle matter as an

outer framework to dramatise the pains of those who silence their

consciences and ignore them.

3

ملخص

الملك جون( (شخصية المستولي على العرش في مسرحيتي تسعى هذه الرسالة إلى استكشاف

لت( لشكسبير. لقد اختيرت هاتان المسرحيتان لأن الأولى مسرحية مبكرة و الأخرى و )هام

هذه الرسالة إلى إظهار تطور تقنيات شكسبير واحدة من روائعه الدرامية الشهيرة. تهدف

أن هاتين المسرحيتين تبرزان في تصوير الشخصيات في هاتين المسرحيتين، و تؤكد الدرامية

اة شخصية لأن الملك جون و الملك كلوديوس يعيشان مأساة إنسانية بصفتهما مسرحيات معان

بالغة التأثير، و من هنا نلحظ أن شكسبير يستخدم المادة التاريخية بوصفها إطاراً خارجياً

يُصمتون ضمائرهم و يتجاهلونها. ليمسرح آلام أولئك الذين

4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Particular gratefulness and numerous thanks to my dearest Prof. Elias

Khalaf for his guidance, and time invested in reading drafts of my thesis,

and for all his suggestions and inspiration.

I would also like to thank Prof. Wasef Al-Salami for his guidance and

helpful comments.

I am very grateful to my mother (Aziza Ali) and my father (Khaled

Alahmad) and to Rana, Rasha, and Ali Alahmad for their support.

Without them I could not have accomplished any of this.

Finally, many thanks and love to Maha and Ali Jad for all your love and

support.

5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Introduction…………………………………………… ……….…….1

Chapter One: King John as a usurper ………….…………................11

Chapter Two: Claudius as a subtle usurper …...……………….........42

Conclusion …………………………………………………………...74

Works Cited………………………………………………………… 81

6

Introduction

This dissertation seeks to investigate the wild, ambitious and

unfettered pursuit of power by exploring the stage image of the usurper

figure in two Shakespearean plays. The first is an early English history

play entitled King John (printed in 1584). The other play is Hamlet

(printed in 1599), which is one of Shakespeare's mature masterpieces.

Thus, I have selected these two plays for two major purposes; the first of

which is that this choice enables us to trace the dramatic development of

Shakespeare's characterization of the usurper figure because King John is

an early stage usurper, while Claudius is a late one. Thus, by highlighting

the main characteristics of these usurpers, this study will show the

development of Shakespeare's artistry as a dramatist concerned with the

personal lives of stage figures.

Second, this study is essentially an exploratory one because it

proposes to investigate these usurpers' personalities. The methodology to

be adopted here is a character approach which follows characters and

traces their hidden motives and fleshes out their traumatic experiences

which end in their appalling tragedies. This character approach proves to

be an apposite methodology because each usurper has his own

7

idiosyncratic predicament. Hence, this dissertation will reveal how they

have constant recourse to disguise or dissembling devices (such as the

aside, the soliloquy, role-playing, etc.). Through these devices they

manage to achieve their strategic objectives. Deep inspection shows that

these characters' dissimulation implies their split personalities because,

when alone, they act differently – they express their shattering guilt

which stems from their tragic awareness of regicide as an unforgivable

sin in the eyes of God because kings are believed to be divinely ordained,

as evidenced in The Holy Bible. But in public these usurpers role-play a

stage part and assume a rhetoric expressly tailored for their audience. By

dramatizing these usurpers' anxieties and conflicts, this study will

indicate that these plays emerge as dramas of tragic experiences rather

than mere treatments of English and foreign historical matter. This will

emphasize that Shakespeare is chiefly an artist or dramatist concerned

with the individual's quest for identity or self-fulfillment rather than a

mere historian or an allegorist keen to produce didactic chronicle plays

geared towards propagandist ends.

The issue of usurpation was a very prominent theme in

Shakespeare's time. But before looking at the connotations of the term

"usurpation", it is advisable to see it etymologically. "Usurp" was

borrowed into English in the fourteenth century from the Anglo-French

8

word "usurper", which in turn derives from the Latin verb

"usurpare", meaning "to take possession of without legal claim".

"Usurpare" was formed by combining "usu" (a form of "usus", meaning

"use") and "rapere", meaning to seize. ("Usurp". Merriam-Webster). This

point finds evidence in Shakespeare's use of the term "usurpation" in

Hamlet. Horatio exclaims at seeing the ghost as follows:

What art thou that usurp'st this time of night,

Together with that fair and warlike form

In which the majesty of buried Denmark

Did sometimes march? (Hamlet. I. i. 46-9)

From this, we note that the usurper does not have the right to accede the

throne because the office of monarchy is ordained by God. Usurpation

and rebellion were regarded as acts of breaching of the religious

orthodoxies at that time. To expatiate upon this point, let us look at the

religious and ideological background to Shakespeare's plays.

Usurpation of the throne emerges as an erasure of the doctrine of the

Divine Right of Kings. The usurper is someone who rebels against the

king and replaces him. A. O. Lovejoy maintains that the concept of a

hierarchical universe ordained by God was a dominant idea in the

medieval and Renaissance world. This ideological structure is known as

the "The Chain of Being" or "the Scala Natura" (scale of nature). This

9

"Chain of Being" is obviously headed by God, followed immediately by

the king or the ruler who is thus divinely ordained, followed by humans

and then the rest of the creatures. (Lovejoy, (1936), p. 150) A belief in

this concept leads to the other theory of the "Divine Right of kings". It is

a concept that kings have used to claim that their authority came directly

from God and that they are subject to no earthly authority. Amanda

Mabillard summarizes this concept as stated by John Figgis in his The

Divine Right of Kings:

The theory rests on four main statements: (1) the monarchy is a

divinely ordained institution; (2) heredity right is indefeasible (the

right acquired by birth to rule must not be forfeited through any

acts of usurpation); (3) kings are accountable to God alone; (4)

non-resistance and passive obedience are enjoined by God (under

any circumstances resistance to a king is a sin, and ensures

damnation) (Mabillard, (2000), p.2)

Thus, to depose the king is to offend God as well as man. The king may

not be the best king, but since he is appointed by God, we must obey him.

Moreover, since the king is acting as God's agent on earth, that gives

legitimacy to all of his actions.

This order led to the thriving of absolute monarchs who exploited

and propagated the doctrine of the Divine Right of kings. This idea can be

traced back to ancient and Egyptian times and it had been used by many

10

monarchs. Some even traced their ancestors back to the gods of their time

to help strengthen their claim on this divine right. In a letter to her brother

Edward, Queen Elizabeth explains the importance of the great chain of

being in society. (Collins(1746) ,‏, p.349) But with legitimacy comes

responsibility. The king is supposed to follow God's law and carry out

justice, but in most cases these laws become a disputable matter.

The doctrine of the divinity of kings was supported by arguments of

various kinds drawn from different sources. In the English-speaking

world, it was under the reign of King James I of England, also known as

James VII of Scotland, that this theory first took hold. In Europe in the

sixteenth century, the promulgation of notions of the sacredness of the

crown justified the king's absolute authority, thus establishing the

Absolutist State, and it also strongly promoted the theory of the "divine

right" of kings. (Sinfield, (1992), p.169) Also in France, Louis XIV was

also fond of this theory. The theory of divine right justified the king's

absolute authority in both political and spiritual matters. But the

eighteenth century revolutions in America and France undermined the

concept, and it gradually disappeared. (Magnette(2005) ,‏, p.103)

This idea first emerges in The Old Testament, where Prophet

Samuel anoints Saul to be king over Israel. Because Saul was anointed

and chosen by God, he got drunk with power, and he tried to kill David,

11

but David would not lay a hand on him; after all he was chosen by God.

Prophet Daniel supports the theory in his book: "God removes kings and

sets up kings"(The Holy Bible, Daniel 2: 21).The idea of the divine right

is also present in The Bible: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher

powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained

of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance

of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation" (The

Holy Bible, Romans 13: 1-2). The Irish monk Adomnan suggested in

about 780 BC that this applies to all monarchs. All monarchs were

appointed by God, so rebellion against a monarch was a rebellion against

God. (Enright(2011) ,‏, p. 15) Thus rebellion or treason became the most

heinous crime. The king's authority comes from God; therefore, we must

offer ourselves in submission to that authority. Kings were above the law

and were only answerable to God. These religious writings have been

used to support the idea that God is over man and the king is over man on

behalf of God.

Likewise, Tudor monarchs used a number of political and religious

tools to propagate and emphasize the doctrine of the Divine Right of

Kings. E. M. Tillyard in Shakespeare's History Play, identifies what is

referred to as "the Tudor myth". This myth supports the divine right of

kings, and claims that a curse has been put on England for deposing King

12

Richard II, and that the lifting of that curse can only be effected through

the Tudor dynasty as a part of God's providential plan. (Tillyard,

Shakespeare's History. (1944), pp.29-32) The Tudor dynasty is the fruit

of the union of the Yorkist and Lancastrian factions. In his The English

History Play in the Age of Shakespeare, Irving Ribner powerfully

highlights the ideological and the propagandist drift of the English Tudor

chronicle plays. He asserts that "the most common political doctrine" is

"that of the absolute authority of the king, his responsibility to God alone

for his deeds, and the sinfulness of any rebellion against him, no matter

what the provocation. (Ribner, (1957), p.309).

The conception of the royal office as being ordained by God

emerges in Tudor official doctrines which were conveyed in such

propagandist and didactic works like the church homilies, A Mirror for

Mgistrates and Edward Hall's chronicle. The 1571 homily, Against

Disobedience and willful Rebellion, is basically a didactic and doctrinal

tool as implied by its very detailed title: Certain Sermons or Homilies

Appointed by the King's Majesty, to be declared and read by All Parsons,

Vicars Curates every Sunday in their Churches, (Belsey, (1985), pp.94-

5). Here the homilist emphasizes the prevalent outlook upon the sanctity

of royalty and the law of obedience. He cites the Biblical view that

"Kinges and princes, as well the evil as the good, do raigne by gods

13

ordinaunce, and that subjects are bounden to obey them".(Campbell,

(1938), p.217). The sermons were placed in every English church during

that time. Thus, we see that the divinity of kings was almost an

undisputed concept at that time.

In Shakespeare's time, people saw the world in a very specific and

structured way; if people move out of their rightful place in this chain of

being, the whole chain falls into turmoil. Shakespeare's plays try to

convey the message to the audience that upsetting the hierarchy results in

destruction and chaos. E. M. W. Tillyard explores this concept of the

Chain of Being and claims that "with the general notion of order

Shakespeare was always concerned, with man's position on the chain of

being" (Tillyard, The Elizabethan (1962), p.34) Since Shakespeare's plays

are undoubtedly a mirror of their time, such concepts as the "Chain of

Being" and "the divine right of kings" have deeply affected the plot and

the characters of his plays. In Hamlet, Claudius pours poison in the ear of

his brother, the King, to kill him and subsequently usurp the crown. In

The Tempest, Frederick deposes Prospero and usurps his title as the Duke

of Milan and means to have him killed. In Henry IV, Part One, King

Henry IV feels some remorse for usurping the throne from King Richard,

the legitimate monarch. Each of these plays also features the

consequences of usurpation by a brother, but each play shows a different

14

kind of usurpation, seen through characters' motivations and the ultimate

results of this usurpation. And as mentioned earlier, this dissertation will

examine how Shakespeare views the issue of usurpation by characterizing

the usurper figures in King John and Hamlet.

Critics vary in explaining Shakespeare's stance about the historical

period in question. Some critics argue that he is the monarch's poet whose

histories are a sophisticated tool for propagating royalist ideology and

propaganda. Tillyard, for example, sees Shakespeare as a believer in the

"divine right" of kings. (Spiekerman(2001) ,‏, p.72) Others argue that

Shakespeare was against this ideology and he refuted this doctrine under

the guise of literature and encouraged people to ponder about the political

climate of their time. For instance, Ornstein discards Shakespeare's

conventionality and asserts his innovation in writing the historical plays

as well as his rejection of the official doctrine. (Kastan, (2006), p.494)

Whatever Shakespeare's stance regarding these concepts is, he remains a

vital source for exploring the historical concepts and the orthodoxies of

that time

Furthermore, Shakespeare's depiction of the usurpers in his plays is

not restricted to issues of divine right and moral sin. He endeavors to tell

the story of the histories in a dramatic manner. He puts flesh on the bones

of these historical figures to introduce the notion of how every man seeks

15

to control and shape his own destiny. Shakespeare is able to fully

dramatize the complex web of motives that moves his usurpers. He also

gives an exposition of the kings' personalities; each of his characters is a

distinct being with her/his own individual features and psychological

traits. These histories may be centuries old but the themes, the politics,

the conflicts, and the motivations that they illustrate transcend the limited

frameworks of time and place. By putting a dramatic cloth on the body of

historical figures, Shakespeare manages to capture a glimpse of the

human nature. To study Shakespeare means to delve into the inmost

secrets from which human behavior springs. His ability to show us the

world through other people's eyes encourages us to challenge

conventional thinking and to dwell at the mysteries of human existence.

16

Chapter One: King John as a usurper

King John is the first play in this study that addresses the subject of

usurpation and what it involves of destructive ambitions and challenges

of the established authority. This play, like Shakespeare's other history

plays, is not a mere dramatic narration of historical events, rather it has a

decidedly political tint. It was written sometime between1590-1596 and

"designed to foreground current political issues of that time from a

philosophically reflective standpoint" (Matei-Chesnoiu, (2006), p.87). In

analyzing the character of King John, we will see how Shakespeare

tackles issues of great importance in the Elizabethan age: debatable

succession, concepts of usurpation, ambition and divine right. We will

also see the human and political boundaries that kings are willing to

traverse for the sake of protecting their thrones. This play, unlike

Shakespeare's other plays, has not received much critical attention.

Johnes Calderwood observes that the study paid to King John was only

limited to questions of source and as a result, "Shakespeare's play as a

work of art in its own right has largely been ignored" (Calderwood,

(1988), p.127). Emrys Jones emphasizes Calderwood's point of view,

noting:

King John is still misunderstood and absurdly underrated. Criticism

has failed to clarify its real character, its tone, its vision. Indeed, of

17

all Shakespeare's early plays this is the one that has receded

furthest from us, so that a special effort is needed to recover it.

(qtd. in Curren-Aquino,(1989), p.12)

Thus, by studying Shakespeare's play we get to "gain a deeper and more

abiding sense of the truth by the help of that fine function of the poetic

genius, by which the imagination gives unity and moral connection to

events that stand apart and unrelated" (Dowden, Shakespeare Scenes,

(1876), p.59) We also note how Shakespeare looked at the concepts of

usurpation and divine right in his dramatization of King John's reign as a

usurper.

Before exploring the theme of usurpation in the play, it is essential

to pause upon and comprehend the political context in which it was

written. The significance of Shakespeare's King John stems from the fact

that it "gives a dramatic and imaginative view of an important reign in the

annals of England" (Dowden, Shakespeare Scenes, (1876), p.59). It is

associated with the reign of Queen Elizabeth, the fifth Tudor monarch on

the throne because it was written and performed during her reign. Also, in

his book, The Origins of Shakespeare, Jones places this play in "the

critical period of Elizabeth's reign", following the 1586 Babington plot

when fears of civil war were at play. (Jones, (1977), p.119) This foggy

political atmosphere casts its shadows on the play's themes and

characters. In this light we are going to inspect how Shakespeare

18

examines the nature of kingship and issues of succession besides

conveying the prevailing doctrine of that time, namely, the Tudor myth.

After the death of King Henry II, his eldest son Richard (who was

known as Richard the Lionheart) succeeded him to the throne. Richard

did not beget legitimate children but he had two younger brothers,

Geoffrey and John. Richard's death left the issue of the succession in

doubt. (Saccio, (2000), p.190) Before he died, Geoffrey had a son with

Constance named Arthur. However, Richard "committed an irregularity"

when he left his kingdom to John instead of Arthur, his nephew, maybe

under the pressure of his controlling mother, Eleanor (Chadwick(1865) ,‏,

p.5). We are informed that:

In the twelfth century, procedures in this matter [of royal

succession] were almost entirely ad hoc…The real or supposed

wishes of the dying king, the preferences of the leading magnates,

the strength and celerity of the various heirs, and sheer luck were

all potentially powerful elements in the highly fluid situation

created by the demise of the crown. (Saccio, (2000), p.190).

Thus, we see that Arthur's claim to the throne was a disputable matter.

However, in the play, Shakespeare takes dramatic liberties in dealing with

some of the historical facts and he settles the issue by establishing John as

a usurper. George Fletcher notes:

19

Whatever doubts might exist at the historic period in question, as to

the validity of young Arthur's title to the crown of England, any

such doubtful title would have been little to the purpose of the

dramatist, and accordingly we find in the play, that Arthur's claim

and John's usurpation are regarded by all parties as clear and

indisputable (Fletcher, (1847), p.12).

Although Arthur is portrayed in the play as the rightful heir to the English

throne, he is just a little child, and he is not fit to be a king. Besides,

Arthur's legal right to rule is weakened by the fact that he does not have

the power to claim it. That is why John, who has a greater power and

influence, takes over the throne. Hence, Shakespeare leaves no doubt in

the mind of the reader as to the fact that King John is a usurper of the

throne of England.

The opening scene of the play is extremely significant mainly

because it sets the tone and foreshadows the way in which the issue of

inheritance and succession is going to be presented. King John has to

settle a dispute over inheritance between the two sons of the late Sir

Robert Faulconbridge. Robert, the younger, claims that his elder brother,

Phillip, is a bastard son of the former king, Richard Coeur-de-Lion and

that his father left a will stating that the inheritance belongs to him.

Despite Philip's illegitimacy, King John sides with him and rules that he

20

takes all his father's lands. By ruling in such a manner, King John

―undermines his own claim to the English crown‖ (Vaughan, (2003),

p.381) because he contradicts his later claim that Arthur has no right to

the throne because he is a bastard and not a natural son of his elder

brother. Furthermore, early in the play Shakespeare "casts [his] nominal

protagonist's authority comically in doubt" (Shaughnessy(2013) ,‏, p.148).

King John appears incompetent because his mother, Eleanor, is the one

who offers the final word in the dispute, and gives the Bastard the title of

a knight and puts him under her wing. Also, at the outset of the play,

Chatillon, ambassador of France, addresses the title character as "the

borrow'd majesty of England" (King John. I. i. 4). The term "borrowed" is

very significant here because it powerfully indicates that King John is not

a legitimate king but rather a usurper who has assumed the regalia of

royalty. The term "borrowed" is telling here primarily because it suggests

the idea of role-playing and usurping the trappings of his royal office.

This point is strongly reinforced by the ambassador who adds:

Philip of France, in right and true behalf

of thy deceased brother Geoffrey's son,

Arthur Plantagenet, lays most lawful claim

To this fair island and the territories …

Desiring thee to lay aside the sword

21

which sways usurpingly these several titles ,

And put the same into young Arthur's hand ,

Thy nephew, and right royal sovereign.

(King John I. i. 7 - 15)

This embassy statement has been cited mainly because it is so pregnant

with legal terms, such as 'right'; 'lawful claim'; 'usurpingly' and 'several

titles', which show King John as a usurper and his young nephew as the

legitimate king or rather the "right royal sovereign," to cite this

significant epithet again.

Saccio wrote that "The name John is associated with illegitimacy."

(Saccio, (2000), p.190) Indeed the fact that John is a usurper has been

stressed throughout the play. When Eleanor states that John was named as

an heir by King Richard himself in his will, Constance, Arthur's mother,

claims that this will was fabricated by Eleanor, and this accusation was

not refuted by anyone. Also, King Philip of France, in the early part of

Act II, publicly dismisses John‘s legitimacy and his right to succeed King

Richard. He maintains that Arthur, King Richard‘s nephew, has the right

to be the king of England. Interesting is the clutter of book and reading

imagery that features in the passage below:

Look here upon thy brother Geffrey's face;—

These eyes, these brows, were moulded out of his

22

This little abstract doth contain that large,

Which dy‘d in Geffrey; and the hand of time

Shall draw this brief into as huge a volume.

(King John. II, i, 99- 103)

Here King Philip draws attention to Arthur's similarity to his father in

order to stress the former's rightful claim to the throne. The terms

"abstract", "brief" and "volume" affirm that Arthur is Geoffrey's

legitimate son, and hence he is the heir apparent. These reading terms

imply that Arthur (and his father) will be recorded in written history as

the rightful heir to the throne of England. King Philip then powerfully

elaborates, emphasizing Arthur's genuine right and King John's

exteriority:

That Geffrey was thy elder brother born,

And this his son; England was Geffrey's right,

And this is Geffrey's : In the name of God,

How comes it then, that thou art call'd a king,

When living blood doth in these temples beat,

Which owe the crown that thou o'er-masterest?

(King John. II, i, 104-109)

He stresses the illegitimacy of King John who has usurped the crown

from the lawful Arthur whose veins are pumping with royal blood.

23

Evidently, John is "call'd a king" mainly because he has usurped the

trappings of the royal office which are Arthur's who "owe[s] (i.e. owns)

the crown that [John] o'er masterest." The prefix "o'er" (i.e. over) is so

significant here because it suggests King John's forceful usurpation of the

crown and the throne.

Even King John's own mother, his warmest and strongest partisan,

Queen Eleanor, states in a secret dialogue that John usurped the throne by

force and not by rightful claim:

King John: Our strong possession, and our right, for us!

Eleanor: Your strong possession, much more than your right;

Or else it must go wrong with you, and me:

So much my conscience whispers in your ear;

Which none but heaven, and you, and I, shall hear

(King John. I. i. 39-43).

The dichotomy between "possession" and "right" is of great importance

here because it sums up King John's whole public career. Thus, he has

usurped the throne and possessed it, but this throne is not his right. The

significance of Eleanor's confidential confession is of every moment here

because it springs from "conscience" which has whisper[ed] in her son's

ear. Obviously, Eleanor is an accomplice in his struggle to maintain the

crown because if he abdicates the throne, then she will no longer assume

24

her regal rank as the Queen Mother. Instead Constance, Arthur's mother,

will become the Queen Mother. At one point, even John's most loyal ally,

the Bastard (Philip Faulconbridge), refers to Arthur as "England," (King

John. IV. iii. 568) an epithet constantly recurring in propagandist and

ideological writings. It emphasizes the king's whole attachment to his

royal office and realm. Then he acknowledges Arthur's legitimacy,

calling him "the life, the right and truth of all this realm" (King John. IV.

iii. 570). Thus, John's two most loyal supporters (his mother and the

Bastard) establish their views of John's illegitimacy. Here we see that

Shakespeare begins the play by establishing the undisputable image of

King John as an outright usurper.

It is in view of his growing awareness of his predicament as a

usurper that we can best appreciate John's endeavors to hide his feelings

of his shaky possession. He tries to affirm his divine right as a king and

assumes a discourse loaded with terms of legitimacy and right. To the

King of France, John says:

Peace be to France; if France in peace permit

Our just and lineal entrance to our own!

If not; bleed France, and peace ascend to heaven,

Whiles we, God's wrathful agent, do correct

Their proud contempt that beat his peace to heaven.

25

(King John. II. i. 84 -8)

Lucidly, John's dialogue filled with legal terminology such as "our just

and lineal entrance to our own" (King John. II. i. 85) and "Our strong

possession and our right for us!" (King John. I. i. 39) shows his

assumption of the royal "we", which reveals his attempt to role-play the

part of a king, or rather, "God's wrathful agent" (King John. II. i. 87).

John's reference to himself as "God's wrathful agent" emphasizes his

incessant attempts to bolster his shaky office as a monarch. He strongly

believes that his assumption of the royal "we" and office makes him a

real king. But his royal idiom rings hollow as he is tacitly aware of the

weakness of his royal title and office. King John, at the peak of his

authority and glory, deems the Pope's power as "mortal" and his own as

divine and descending directly from God:

What earthly name, to interrogatories,

Can task the free breath of a sacred king?

………………………………………………

Where we do reign, we will alone uphold,

Without th‘ assistance of a mortal hand:

So tell the Pope; all reverence set apart

To him, and his usurp‘d authority

(King John. III. i. 149-62)

26

John's reference to the Pope's "earthly" and mortal status comes in sharp

contrast with the king's affirmation of his "sacred" office, a notion that

recalls the doctrine of the divine right of kings. However, John's assertion

of his "sacred" right is refuted by King Philip of France who accuses him

of breaching the very concept of divine right by usurping the throne that

belongs rightfully to his nephew Arthur:

But thou from loving England art so far,

That thou hast under-wrought its lawful king,

Cut off the sequence of posterity,

Out-faced infant state, and done a rape

Upon the maiden virtue of the crown.

(King John. II. i. 94- 98)

King Philip here accuses King John of "raping" the crown and depriving

Arthur of his right of traditional succession. The word "raping" indicates

John's use of force in taking something that does not belong to him. By

the same token, John's anger and frantic assertion of his right to rule

reveals his tacit awareness that his usurpation of the throne is illegal and

unacceptable, and so he attempts to convince himself or others that the

reverse is true--often in a much exaggerated manner. Since John is deep

down insecure about the firmness of his possession and hence position, he

gets overly outraged when his authority is questioned and challenged. He

27

lashes out at Chatillon, a messenger from France, who delivers Philip's

message that John should abdicate in favor of Arthur, the lawful heir

apparent:

Here have we war for war and blood for blood

Controlment for controlment: so answer France

(King John. I. i. 19-20)

John gets infuriated and desperately threatens to wage wars against

France because abdication, for him, means a decharactering and a fall

into nothingness and nonentity. Hence, he resolves to exert all his efforts

to maintain his office and status as a monarch:

Bear mine to him, and so depart in peace;

Be thou as lightning in the eyes of France;

For ere thou canst report I will be there,

The thunder of my cannon shall be heard.

so, hence! Be thou the trumpet of our wrath

(King John. I. i. 23-27).

John is so enraged and he also rumbles at King Philip:

France, I am burned up with inflaming wrath

A rage, whose heat hath this condition,

That nothing can allay, nothing but blood

28

(King John. III. i. 349-351).

Obviously, John's confrontation with the French King is a poignant

identity crisis since he has constructed himself around his royal office. It

is an "either… or" predicament: either kingship or nonentity. John is

willing to do anything in order to assert his divine right; he is all ready to

go to war lest he should lose the throne. He is solely motivated by his

longing to stay in power so he tries his utmost to bolster his own

uncertain frail possession. From this we can note that "the play as a whole

affirms that divine right was the foundation upon which the political,

religious and social order of England rested." (Cahn(2001) ,‏, p.56)

King John does everything in order to suppress his sense of

insecurity and his feelings that he might have breached the divine order.

That is why we see him taking other measures to maintain his crown. It in

terms of John's implicit consciousness of the fragility of his royal position

that we can best appreciate his immediate agreement to give his niece,

Blanche, in marriage to the French King's son, the Dauphin. Of course,

this shows that he is all ready to do anything that would bolster his shaky

office. This point is vigorously emphasized by the Bastard, who emerges

as a choric commentator here: "John to stop Arthur's title in the whole,

Hath willingly departed with a part" (King John. II. ii. 572- 3). The

"whole"… "part" deal shows that King John is ready to do anything so

29

that he can maintain his regal status. It is also in light of John's shattering

realization of his own illegitimacy that we can best apprehend his

arrangement of another drama of self-coronation, a drama which was

bitterly criticized by his entourage:

K. John: Here once again we sit, once again crown'd,

And looked upon, I hope, with cheerful eyes.

Pemb.: This 'once again' but that your highness pleas'd,

Was once superfluous: you were crown'd before

(King John. IV. ii.145-148).

Pembroke's deliberate "once again" and "superfluous" indicates his

sarcastic attitude because he knows that King John's re-coronation is no

more than a façade to conceal his usurpation. Then he proceeds to

elaborate on the unjustifiability of this second coronation:

And that high royalty was ne'er pluck'd off,

The faiths of men ne'er stained with revolt;

Fresh expectation troubled not the land

With any long'd-for change or better state

(King John. IV. ii. 149-152).

Lucidly, this statement ironizes King John's royal drama of re-coronation

as a silly and pathetic effort to invigorate his claim to the throne.

30

Likewise, Salisbury dismisses this scene of self-crowning as a "wasteful

and ridiculous excess":

Therefore to be possessed with double pomp,

To guard a title that was rich before,

To gild refined gold, to paint the lily,

… … … …

Is wasteful and ridiculous excess

(King John IV. ii. 157-164).

Thus, this is a bizarre playlet: "wasteful" and "ridiculous," chiefly

because all his endeavors cannot reinforce or legitimize his right to the

crown. This bizarreness is indicated in the superfluity of "possessing,"

"double pomp," "guard a title," already "rich," "gild[ing] refined gold,"

and "paint[ing] the lily." King John's silence amid these noblemen's bitter

criticism signifies his smothered awareness of his fear of Arthur who is

the true heir to the English crown. John does not mention Arthur

explicitly; he just alludes to him as follows:

Some reasons of this double coronation

I have possess'd you with, and think them strong;

And more, more strong (when lesser is my fear)

I shall endue you with

31

(King John. IV. ii. 184- 187)

King John's fear is of Arthur's title to the throne because he is the only

heir apparent.

Salisbury further comments that this coronation "makes sound

opinion sick and truth suspected."(King John. IV. ii. 170) The truth

Salisbury is alluding to is that of John's feebleness and the invalidity of

his title. John does his utmost in order to strengthen his position,

dismissing any voices against his legitimacy and rebuking anyone who

tries to propose anything otherwise.

As a usurper, King John is presented to us as a weak character. "The

King reigns neither by warrant of a just title, nor by warrant of the right

of the strongest", and although he does his utmost to disguise it, "he

knows that his house is founded upon the sand"(Dowden, Shakespeare: A

Critical Study (1875), p.169). John tries to turn his eyes away from facts

of which he is aware. He assumes an "air of authority and regal grandeur"

(Dowden, Shakespeare: A Critical Study (1875), p.169). First he plays the

role of a king well; however, little by little his weakness begins to appear

on the surface. Eleanor, John's mother, reproaches him for his lack of

effective diplomacy, and palpably recognizes his fragile claim to the

throne. Her relationship with her son stems from self-interest, that is, her

ambition to keep her title as the Queen Mother around which she has

32

constructed herself. She appears as the mastermind behind John, as

Chatillon observes:

With him along is come the mother queen,

An Até, stirring him to blood and strife

(King John II. i. 62-63).

An Até is "a feminine goddess that drives men to revenge and madness…

She represents a force that invades the minds of avengers, removing

reason or self-preservation and bringing with her the spirit of wild

destructiveness." (Tassi, (2011), p.35). Here Shakespeare stresses John's

weakness and dependence upon the wickedness of his clever mother; she

is the one who "stir[s] him to blood and strife." (King John. II. i. 63) She

was "very much the royal matriarch who … ruthlessly dominated her

children… It seems more than likely that her extreme possessiveness

helped to bring out their evil qualities" (Seward, (2014), p.1). Eleanor

proves that she has the perception and the strong character that John

himself lacks. In the first half of the play she is able to play a decisive

role in guiding John and making his rule outweigh that of Arthur. When

in the second half she dies, things start to deteriorate for John and his

reign. In these early scenes of the play, John appears pompous depending

on the strength of his cannons: "The cannons have their bowels full of

wrath" (King John. II. i. 216). Besides his mother, John also relies on

33

other characters in the play to do things for him like the Bastard and

Hubert. He suggestively alludes to Hubert that he wants Arthur dead, as if

he is reluctant to command it directly, and later tries to lay the blame on

Hubert for killing Arthur. Thus, when at first John has a group of

supporters rooting for him, and doing things on his behalf, he gives the

impression of a powerful king, but later his weakness starts to emerge.

In order to alleviate his premonitions of Arthur's taking over of the

crown, John has a tricky decision to make. He either has to kill Arthur or

to risk losing his crown. The decision is so well predicted and laid out by

Cardinal Pandolf in Act III:

A sceptre, snatch'd with an unruly hand

Must be as boisterously maintain'd as gain'd;

And he that stands upon a slippery place

Makes nice of no vile hold to stay him up:

That John may stand, then Arthur needs must fall.

(King John. III. iv.585-589)

Here Pandolf anticipates that John will have to kill his young nephew if

he wants to maintain his throne, because the "sceptre" (a symbol of

royalty) which has been usurped by force can only be protected by

recourse to force and bloodshed. John arrives at a crossroads; he is in a

"slippery place" (King John. III. iv. 587), that is, a difficult predicament

34

in which he has no other alternative but to liquidate Arthur or jeopardize

his regal office.

King John's endeavors to solidify his position as a monarch feature

prominently in the wake of his defeat of the French troops and the capture

of Arthur. At the peak of this glory and euphoria, King John bursts out so

frantically:

K. John: Death.

Hubert: My lord?

K. John: A grave.

Hubert: He shall not live.

K. John: Enough

(King John. III. iii. 438- 442).

This masterfully-depicted scene where the King obscurely insinuates his

dark order to Hubert is "one of the scenes", as George Steevens observes,

"to which may be promised a lasting commendation. Art could add little

to its perfection; and time itself can take nothing from its beauties"

(Steevens, (1819), p.8). With all its artistic beauty, this scene paints a

very appalling image of John's turbulent soul. With these simple

monosyllabic words, not only does John sanction his nephew to death,

but he also designs his own downfall. After this scene we see an

immediate conversion in the way he behaves. He no longer holds the

35

façade of a confident powerful king as his underlying insecurity comes

out to the surface. John's criminal deed strips him of "the show of kingly

strength and dignity" in which he has been "clothed in the earlier scenes"

(Dowden, Shakespeare: A Critical Study (1875), p.170) and his evil

character appears naked before our eyes.

However, as is always the case in Shakespeare's plays, we are

constantly tempted to seek the broader picture, to look for the affinity

between the play's stage characters and between us as human beings.

Shakespeare is extremely concerned with the motives from which the

human behaviour stems, such as greed, guilt, ambition, loyalty and other

aspects of human nature. The dominant motive in King John, as seen

earlier, is ambition or over-ambition. It is his excessive desire for power

and self-aggrandizement that leads King John to his irresponsible

viciousness. To elaborate on this, it is advisable to consider how the play

progresses towards its ultimate message. The first half of the play is very

slow, formal and public while the second half is fast and private.

(Maguire, (2008), p.165) Like a piece of music that starts with a slow

tempo then hastens and becomes fast and sonorous, the action of the play

does the same. And like a fast tempo is associated with high arousal, the

acts of the second half of this play proceed in the same manner.

36

The dramatization of John's sense of insecurity as a monarch figures

prominently in his fear of Arthur. His telling image of Arthur as "a very

serpent in [his] way" (King John III. iii. p.434) subtly explains his

constant anxieties as a usurper. However, John's capture of Arthur, the

biggest threat to his throne, his defeat of the French troops before

Angiers, and his being surrounded and supported by his loyal partisans

make him become overly confident and lead to the beginning of his fall.

From now on, John begins to gradually lose his confidence. He soon

surrenders and hands over his crown when he can no longer afford to

challenge the Pope. The false news of Arthur's death brings out John's

smothered feelings of guilt. Moreover, the successive tidings of the death

of his mother in France, the news of the French invasion and the revolt of

the nobles against him aggravate John's insecurity and put an immense

pressure on him. We note John's weakness in his crumbling under

pressure when this great deal of bad news is delivered to him. He tries to

turn a deaf ear to the unfortunate news:

King John: Thou hast made me giddy

With these ill tidings.—Now, what says the world

To your proceedings? do not seek to stuff

My head with more ill news, for it is full

(King John. IV. ii. 277-280).

37

John's complaint that these "ill tidings" have made him giddy gestures

towards his "head" which has been stuffed with "ill news". Within the

furnace of his giddy head rages the trauma of his sense of fear, insecurity

and anxiety. These are the feelings which torment King John.

It is to be stressed that John tries to pull himself together only after

the Bastard's note to him:

But if you be afeard to hear the worst,

Then let the worst unheard fall on your head

(King John. IV. ii .281 -282).

King John appears as a feeble, unconfident individual. "The show of

kingly strength and dignity in which John is clothed in the earlier scenes

of the play, must be recognized as no more than a poor pretence of true

regal strength and honour." (Dowden, Shakespeare: A Critical study

(1875). p.170) Indeed, he is bold only from outside, with a pompous,

arrogant exterior hiding his cowardly, sneaky and insecure personality.

John's evil side has the upper hand and it strips him of all

appearances of honour and dignity. In order to attain the height of

worldly ambition and political power, John feels that his only possible

direction is downwards on the steps of the moral ladder. From now on

John's gradual deterioration begins. The nobles turn against him, and with

38

the news that the French invasion is near, John has no other choice but to

surrender to the Pope. He laments his difficult situation:

K. John: My nobles leave me; and my state is brav‘d,

Even at my gates, with ranks of foreign powers

(King John. IV. ii. 393-94).

In his superb craftsmanship, Shakespeare employs the lamentations

of the grieving mother, Constance, to direct the audience's sympathies

away from John. The image of his evil character is established in the

audience's minds by the painful and pathetic first scene of act IV in which

Arthur pleads with Hubert for his eyes. The fact that these events are

historical deepens our sense of sympathy, as William Hazlitt notes: "That

the treachery of King John, the death of Arthur, the grief of Constance,

had a real truth in history sharpens the sense of pain, while it hangs a

leaden weight on the heart and the imagination" (Hazlitt, Characters of

Shakespeare. (1818), p.242). The King is portrayed as someone who is

willing to do anything in order to maintain his crown, even at the expense

of others.

Until a certain point in the play, John gives the impression that he is

successfully securing his possession. However, a sudden change comes

after John gives his order to Hubert to kill Arthur. In the scene of the

second coronation, John's former confidence changes into hesitation and

39

dissimulation. This change is further exposed in the turbulence with

which John receives the false news of Arthur's death:

Salisbury: The colour of the king doth come and go

Between his purpose and his conscience

(King John. IV. ii. 220- 221).

Salisbury is so subtle that he notes the internal drama which rages in King

John's mind. His assertion that "the colour of the king doth come and go"

indicates that this inner struggle is exteriorized through the King's

countenance and facial expressions. This inward conflict is between two

forces: King John's purpose, namely, his ambition for royalty with its

power and pomp, and his conscience which torments him because he

ordered the murder of Arthur. Gradually we see John expressing remorse.

John tries to disown his guilt by projecting it outside himself, placing the

responsibility of the crime on Hubert. He hypocritically laments the

behavior of "slaves" who, "on the winking of authority" (King John. IV.

ii. 359- 61), do not hesitate to commit murder. Also, after John loses the

loyalty of his nobles because of Arthur's death, he expresses his remorse,

and realizes the futility of his recourse to bloodshed.

They burn in indignation. I repent.

There is no future foundation set on blood

(King John. IV. ii. 247-248).

40

John states his fear of damnation after Hubert informs him that the killing

order has been carried out under his hand and seal. He penitently laments:

Oh when the last account 'twix heav'n and earth,

Is to be made, then shall this hand and seal

Witness against us to damnation

(King John. IV. ii. 366- 368).

And as the drama of his sufferings augments, he pathetically moans that

the pangs of guilt agonize his conscience:

Hostility and civil tumult reigns,

Between my conscience and my cosin's death

(King John. IV. ii. 397-398).

Another aspect of his tragic experience consists in his sense of

solitude after the nobles desert him. Prior to his death, after being

poisoned by a resentful monk, John feels isolated and rejected. He

laments to his son Prince Henry that he is "forsook" and "cast off" (King

John. V. viii. 451). The words "forsook" and "cast off" exteriorize the

tragic feelings of his solitude because the nobles have deserted him.

Within this traumatic drama, King John likens his pain to the

damnation of foul murders. He painfully declares that his suffering is akin

to that in Hell:

41

Within me is a hell; and there the poison

Is, as a fiend, confin‘d to tyrannize

On unreprievable condemned blood.

(King John. V. vii. 463-65)

John Alan Roe argues that: "In the king's final moments, it is hard to

distinguish between the pangs of remorse he may feel over Arthur and the

physical pain induced by poison. If anything the latter over-shadows the

former" (Roe, (2002), p.129). Ironically enough, at the end of the play

John dies of poison after describing Arthur as a "very serpent in [his]

way" (King John. III.iii.434). John dies of poison while tasting the

metaphorical poison of his own venomous deeds, and not that of Arthur's

threat.

In the first half of the play, Shakespeare presents the exterior part of

John's personality. The author shows the part that John wants to exhibit; a

calm, confident and all-powerful king. The second half shows his true

hidden interior; insecure turbulent soul whose weakness eventually

exteriorizes itself to the surface. John's inflated over-ambition and

constant yearning for pomp and power leads him to push others aside and

hence to lose contact with their needs and rights. This leads him to

become ostracized. This becomes clear in the way that John's nobles

abandon him after they know of Arthur's death. This resulting isolation,

42

in turn, increases his insatiable need for the others who are expected to

love, praise and reassure him all the time. John's discourse becomes filled

with expressions of love to Hubert when Arthur's killing becomes near.

This becomes evident through:

But ah, I will not – Yet I love thee well

And, by my troth, I think, thou lov'st me well

(King John. III. iii. 430- 431).

He even assures Arthur that he will be like a father to him:

Cousin, look not sad:

Thy grandam loves thee; and thy uncle will

As dear be to thee as thy father was

(King John. III. iii. 369- 371).

And it is in view of his need for praise and love that we would best

assimilate his utter readiness to make any reforms demanded by his peers:

K. John: ……. Meantime but ask

What you have reform'd that is not well

And well shall you perceive how willingly

I will both hear and grant you your requests

(King John. IV. i. 187-190).

43

Furthermore, his intention behind performing the drama of his second

coronation is that he wants to be looked upon with greater respect and to

get more praise:

K. John: Here once again we sit, once again crown‘d,

And look‘d upon, I hope, with cheerful eyes

(King John. IV. ii. 145-146).

Finally, at the end of the play, when John can no longer keep up the

pretence of being powerful and independent, he collapses lamenting that

he has been "forsook" and "cast off" (King John. V. vii. 451). J. L.

Simmons argues that "Shakespeare's play represents a situation of

profound moral complexity" (Simmons, (1983), p.61). This is true

because this mighty king that spent his days plotting and devising ways to

maintain his crown appears like a little child terrified of death, of

isolation, and of being unloved.

Eventually, John's feelings of guilt as a usurper shatter him. Prior to

his death, he sums up his royal career in terms that have to do with

writing and hence chronicling:

I am a scribbled form, drawn with a pen

Upon a parchment; and against this fire

Do I shrink up (King John. V. vii.447- 49).

44

The writing terms "scribbled form, drawn with a pen", "parchment"

suggests that the dying King is seeking to write his own tragic history. He

realizes the futility of his pursuit of royalty because he ended as an

isolated figure suffering the physical pain of poison and the internal

scruples of a guilty conscience.

John thus distinguishes between his earlier public image as an all-

powerful king, and that of the private vulnerable human being. This is the

tragic image of the usurper whose life ended in sheer nothingness and

emptiness. This is emphasized in his last dying speech. To those who

came to see him, John laments:

All this thou seest is but a clod

And module of confounded royalty

(King John. V. vii. 474- 75).

"A clod" is a lump of earth or clay, then it serves to show that King John

realizes that his royal career has ended in nothingness and has dissolved

into mere clay because it was no more than an assumption of a role that is

not his own. Thus, he laments his physical death.

This idea is further emphasized by John's son, Prince Henry who

sees himself as follows: "I am the cygnet to this pale faint swan/ Who

chants a doleful hymen to his own death"(King John. V, vii. 436-37).

Here Prince Henry likens his father to a dying swan. In the Dictionary of

45

Literary Symbols we are informed that "it was thought that swans sang at

their deaths … Swans are migratory, and are frequently seen alone, they

can be imagined as exiles from their homelands" (Ferber, (2007), pp.

214- 215). Therefore, John is like an outcast who got exiled

metaphorically despite all his efforts to gain the other's recognition.

However, in his pursuit for recognition, he wrecked all the ties with

everyone around him. John tried to act the role of a powerful king and to

disguise his weaknesses, but his sense of insecurity kept tormenting him.

August W. Schlegel argues:

The last moments of John- an unjust and feeble prince, whom we

can neither respect nor admire - are yet so portrayed as to

extinguish our displeasure with him, and fill us with serious

considerations on the arbitrary deeds and the inevitable fate of

mortals (Schlegel , (1892), pp.423- 424).

In sum, John is merely a defected human being afflicted with the

tyranny of over-ambition, who in his efforts to satisfy a basic human need

for recognition, destroys many people's lives including himself. Despite

John's exterior wickedness and erroneous deeds, Shakespeare does not

paint him merely as a scoundrel. "If to call King John a tragic figure is an

exaggeration, it is also misleading to claim that as usurper he forfeits all

sympathy." (Wilson. (1951), p.27) Readers feel obliged to think of the

motives that spurred him to act mischievously. John was not accepted by

46

his family, and was called John Lackland. As a result he started to crave

love and attention. However, his over-ambitious nature led him to seek

more attention, and the more he got, the greedier he became. King John

explores the story of a usurping king and how he struggled with royalty,

and what he was prepared to do to attain his purpose. It is a story of a

power-hungry ambitious king and the power that corrupts, a poison in the

soul to which no one is immune.

47

Chapter Two: Claudius as a subtle usurper

Hamlet is the other play to be examined here as it addresses the issue

of usurpation. Most of the critical work on the play has been directed

towards Hamlet, the main character. However, in this dissertation I would

like to look at this tragedy as a usurper's play. Claudius took control of

the kingdom of Denmark without having the right to. He killed his

brother, King Hamlet, and deprived his nephew of his right to the throne.

This play, described by T. S. Eliot as "the Mona Lisa of literature" (Eliot,

(1975). p.47), is undoubtedly an exemplary Elizabethan tragedy as it both

chronicles historical matter and turns its artistic focus towards human

suffering and existence. In general, Hamlet has been translated and

performed more than any other play in the world. Hamlet's passionate

outburst "To be or not to be, that is the question" (Hamlet. III. I. 55) is

probably one of the most famous lines in English language, and it

expresses many of the issues that Shakespeare put into his plays. Indeed,

it is a masterpiece because it is both thought-provoking and a work of

artistic mastery. "Perhaps some of the very charm of the play to the adult

mind is its mysteriousness. It awakens not only thoughts of the grand and

the beautiful, but the incomprehensible. Its obscurity constitutes a portion

of its sublimity" (Knight, (1853). P.321).

48

The events take place in Denmark in pre-Viking times.

Shakespeare's true inspiration in writing it is uncertain. However, most

scholars refer to "Ur-Hamlet", that was believed to be written by Thomas

Kyd who based it on a tale in François Belleforest's collection Hisoires

Tragiques. (Miller, (1994), p.4) Another potential source is the twelfth-

century historian Saxo Grammaticus's Latin text Historica Danica

(Danish History). Grammaticus tells the tragic story of Prince Amleth,

son of the heroic Horwendil and his wife Gerutha. Deprived of his

inheritance by a villainous uncle, Amleth feigns insanity to hide his plans

of revenge. The word "amleth" means "dimwit" or "simpleton"—a

reference to the prince's feigned madness, which was a popular theme in

Icelandic and Viking folk tales. (Jolly, (2014), p.34) Whatever the

inspiration that propelled Shakespeare to write Hamlet might be, there is

no doubt that it remains one of the most popular and influential stories in

history. On this point Edmund B. Hackett writes about Hamlet's

unprecedented acclaim within critical scholarship: "No play has had such

admiring readers, none has had such multiform criticism and analysis,

none such scrutiny of competent judges, and nonesuch study of loving

disciples" (Hackett, (1875), p.3).

At the outset of the play, we note that Claudius has descended to the

throne and married the widowed Queen whose husband's death he

49

engineered. But Shakespeare invites us to suspect what has taken place

for we learn that: "Something's rotten in the state of Denmark". (Hamlet.

I. v. 100) At first, Claudius is seen as a usurper or a murderer through the

suspicious eyes of Hamlet. Then these doubts are deepened by the

appearance of the ghost of the dead monarch. The Ghost tells Hamlet of

the exact details of his murder by the present king, Claudius, and

demands Hamlet to avenge him:

Ghost: If thou didst ever thy dear father love—

Hamlet: O God!

Ghost: Revenge his foul and most unnatural murder.

Hamlet: Murder?

Ghost: Murder most foul, as in the best it is,

But this most foul, strange, and unnatural.

(Hamlet. I. v. 29-34)

Here we note that The Ghost's report is a narration of Claudius's

clandestine murder of his brother. The Ghost is an artistic device because

he functions as a chorus who retells past events and spurs Hamlet towards

vengeance. Hamlet, who has been suspicious about the murder: "Oh my

prophetic soul! MY uncle!" (Hamlet. I. v.48) falls a prey to his doubts.

Hamlet expresses his fear that this Ghost may be the devil himself. This

50

shows that Hamlet is a conscientious man who represents right and truth.

He does not want to rush into hasty decisions and actions.

… The spirit that I have seen

May be a dev‘l, and the dev‘l hath power

T‘ assume a pleasing shape, yea, and perhaps,

Out of my weakness and my melancholy,

As he is very potent with such spirits,

Abuses me to damn me…

(Hamlet. II. ii. 627- 632)

Thus, Hamlet is on the alert. He suspects the Ghost's story, so he

seeks corroborative evidence of his uncle's complicity in his father's

murder. Hence, he devises a plan in order to ease his doubts; he asks a

band of travelling actors to perform a play that will replicate his uncle's

murder. The play-within-the-play is Hamlet's instrument to discover

Claudius's reaction to a murder akin to the one he secretly committed and

skillfully concealed. Claudius's immediate and furious exit during the

performance of that play, The Mousetrap, affirms his guilt, as the

following exchange elucidates.

Ophelia: The king rises.

Hamlet: What, frighted with false fire!

… … … …

51

Why, let the strooken deer go weep,

The hart ungalled play

(Hamlet. III. ii. 291 – 299)

It is noteworthy that Shakespeare employs drama as an artistic tool that

exteriorizes people's concealed acts. Hamlet contemplates Claudius's

grievous reaction as he watches the play, and his "murder, though it have

no tongue" (Hamlet. II. ii. 622) speaks and reveals his guilt. Claudius's

furious departure makes Hamlet sure about his uncle's guilt, so he decides

to take action. Hamlet is motivated to vengeance because Claudius

murdered a king who is viewed as God's agent on earth. Hamlet decides

to revenge upon his uncle who murdered God's agent and corrupted the

whole kingdom:

… ‘tis an unweeded garden

That grows to seed, things rank and gross in nature

Possess it merely. (Hamlet. I. ii. 139- 141)

Interesting is the image of Denmark as an "unweeded garden" because

Claudius has corrupted it by uprooting its gardener king, i.e., the former

Hamlet. So, young Hamlet sees himself as an agent whose mission is to

uproot that dissembling gardener.

52

In addition to the apparitions of the Ghost and Claudius's reaction,

Shakespeare presents Claudius's own confession of his murder in the so-

called prayer scene as the long-awaited testimony of king's guilt

O, my offense is rank, it smells to heaven;

It hath the primal eldest curse upon't,

A brother's murder.( Hamlet. III. iii. 40- 42)

Here, Claudius likens his fratricide to that of Cain who was the first to

murder his noble brother, Abel. Claudius's confession and his hasty

marriage to the Queen denote two aspects of his usurpation; his murder of

the previous king and his transgression on Hamlet's more rightful claim to

the throne. Carl Schmitt points out that Claudius has deprived Hamlet of

his right of primogeniture as an heir apparent:

By assassinating Hamlet's father, King Claudius, the murderer,

unexpectedly and swiftly deprived his victim not only of his life

but also of the ability to designate his son Hamlet as his successor.

Claudius suppressed the dying voice and violated young Hamlet's

right of succession to the throne (Schmitt, (1985), p. 50).

In his confession, Claudius also alludes to his bribery of the authorities

for the purpose of taking over the crown, a confession that blackens his

regal career as a usurper who is ready to do anything for the sake of

sovereignty.

Offence's gilded hand may shove by justice,

53

And oft 'tis seen the wicked prize itself

Buys out the law: but 'tis not so above.

(Hamlet. III.iii. 62-64)

While it is true that the Danish monarch is elected by the parliament,

Claudius's murder must disqualify him in the royal election. Thus,

Claudius's slaughter of the monarch, who at that time was regarded as

God's agent, emphasizes his act of usurpation.

After Claudius's usurpation and his murder of the late King are

verified by the Ghost of the late King, and Claudius's reaction to the play

within the play, Hamlet vows to take revenge, conceiving of himself as

God's agent on earth.

The time is out of joint: O cursed spite,

That ever I was born to set it right!

(Hamlet. I. v. 210- 211)

Here, Hamlet views himself as a man entrusted with the mission to

revenge upon the reigning king who murdered the former monarch and

usurped the crown. Of course, he is not happy about this role, but he has

no other choice.

In endeavoring to exact his revenge, Hamlet pretends that he is mad

in order to find a proof of his uncle's felony. As a usurper, Claudius

54

suspects his nephew's madness, so he insists on Hamlet to let go of his

father's memory:

… But to persever

In obstinate condolement is a course

Of impious stubbornness, ‘tis unmanly grief,

It shows a will most incorrect to heaven,

(Hamlet. I. ii. 96- 99)

Claudius is so cunning that he chides Hamlet for mourning his father in

an exaggerated manner. In fact, Claudius emerges as a subtle dissembler

because he pretends to be a religious man who advises Hamlet to accept

his father's death as a natural act and not to exaggerate his sadness by

prolonging his mourning for him. As a cunning usurper, Claudius

cautiously watches over Hamlet. He fears that Hamlet might be plotting

to obtain the crown back, and therefore, he expresses his desire to have

him stay in Denmark so that he can keep his eyes on him:

And we beseech you bend you to remain

Here in the cheer and comfort of our eye,

(Hamlet. I. ii. 119- 20)

Evidently, these passionate outbursts ring hollow as he is mainly a

dissembler who does everything so that he can maintain the crown he has

usurped. Careful inspection indicates that Claudius's fear of the revelation

55

of his crime is equivalent to his fear of Hamlet's political rivalry. Hamlet

possesses a considerable amount of popularity among the Danish people,

which makes his claim to the throne more powerful. Claudius repeatedly

expresses his anxiety about the public's "great love" for Hamlet. (Hamlet.

IV. vii. 20) Therefore, Claudius does not penalize Hamlet for his murder

of Polonius because the public would turn against him:

How dangerous is it that this man goes loose!

Yet must not we put the strong law on him:

He's loved of the distracted multitude,

Who like not in their judgment, but their eyes;

(Hamlet. IV. iii. 2-5)

This is a good political move which shows that the dead Polonius means

nothing for Claudius who mainly wants to maintain his usurped throne.

Claudius explains the danger that Hamlet poses because of the popularity

that he has amongst the people of the kingdom. The common people

would side with Hamlet, and Claudius's charges would certainly backfire

upon him.

… …. … … [s]o that my arrows,

Too lightly tempered for o loud a wind,

Would have reverted to my bow again,

56

But not where I had aimed them.

(Hamlet. IV. vii. 23-26)

This image suggests the proverb: the "Biter-bit" which eloquently stamps

the play as a tragedy of divine justice; a regicide and a usurpation cannot

go unpunished.

In an effort to maintain his usurped crown, Claudius plots to have

Hamlet killed in England. This shows that Claudius conceives of himself

in terms of the office he has usurped, thus, he wants to cast Hamlet aside

in order to hold on to the crown which has become his raison d'etre. It is

in view of his incessant endeavors to maintain the crown that Claudius

pretends to be a good king who is wholly concerned about the well-being

of his kingdom. He seeks to assume his role as a charming social leader

with charisma. So, he "smile[s] and smile[s]" (Hamlet. I. v. 115) in order

to give the impression that he loves all his subjects. Shakespeare stresses

Claudius's "gift for seduction"; and his influence on others by the

"witchcraft of his wits":

With witchcraft of his wits, with traitorous gift

O wicked wit and gifts that have the power

So to seduce! (Hamlet. I. v. 50- 52)

57

As Dover J. Wilson points out, Claudius seeks to appear, contrary to our

expectations, as someone who is not a "criminal", but quite plausibly as

"a good and gentle king" (Wilson, (1951), p. 33). Furthermore, in his

diplomatic negotiations with the Old King of Norway to restrain his

nephew from attacking Denmark, Claudius appears to be a crafty

politician, and "on the whole, [he] emerges a king who is well qualified

for his office" (Lokse, (1960), p. 79). He takes a decisive action by

dispatching ambassadors to Norway in order to avert international crisis,

and keeps the peace of his kingdom:

Thus much the business is: we have here writ

To Norway, uncle of young Fortinbras—

Who, impotent and bed-rid, scarcely hears

Of this his nephew‘s purpose—to suppres

His further gait herein, (Hamlet. I. ii. 27- 31)

Stephen Greenplatt argues that, "Shakespeare risked this

uncharacteristically dull speech in order to convey [Claudius's] voice of

authority: businesslike, confident, decisive, careful, and politically astute"

(Greenplatt, (2010), p. 80). It is in terms of his dissimulation that we can

best comprehend that Claudius seeks to appear as a glib politician whose

speeches are so fluent that they give an impression of self-confidence and

personal power. This glibness appears at its best in his opening speech.

58

When justifying his marriage to the widowed Queen, he declares that it is

the result of consultation with his courtiers:

With mirth in funeral, and with dirge in marriage

In equal scale weighing delight and dole,

Taken to wife; nor have we herein barr‘d

Your better wisdoms, which have freely gone

With this affair along (Hamlet. I. ii. 12- 16).

As a consummate dissembler, Claudius even deems his courtiers'

opinions to be wiser than his own; "your better wisdom" (Hamlet. I. ii.

15). And it is in the same effective vein that he proceeds to assert that he

is all ready to listen to his advisors and seek their sound judgments. To

Laertes he says:

The head is not more native to the heart,

The hand more instrumental to the mouth,

Than is the throne of Denmark to thy father.

What wouldst thou have, Laertes?

(Hamlet. I. ii. 47-50).

Claudius's terms "head", "heart", "mouth" show his efforts to give the

impression that he is at one with his subjects and that they complement

each other. This image of complementarity is utterly in line with his

59

character as an arch-dissembler whose foremost aim is to maintain his

usurped office. It is in view of his dissimulation that Claudius acts as an

affectionate father, who with such endearment epithets as: "my cousin

Hamlet, and my son" (Hamlet. I. ii. 66), moves to express his fatherly

love to Hamlet:

Claudius: … and think of us

As of a father: for let the world take note,

You are the most immediate to our throne;

And with no less nobility of love

Than that which dearest father bears his son,

Do I impart toward you... (Hamlet. I. ii. 111-116)

Obviously, these sentiments are the outcome of his dissimulation to

which he has recourse in order to preserve the crown which he has

usurped and around which he has constructed himself.

Claudius's constant endeavors to emerge as a charismatic and

skillful politician aim at giving the impression that he is a legitimate king

who can eloquently address people and construct a rapport with them.

Minute attention reveals that Claudius, as an over-ambitious usurper, is

driven by a will that makes him unable to accept his status as the king's

brother. His grandiose will which fills him with a sense of exceptional

worth has been the dynamo which has energized him to kill his own

60

brother in order to become the monarch. His sense of grandeur manifests

itself in the very idiom which betrays his hubris:

No jocund health that Denmark drinks to-day,

But the great cannon to the clouds shall tell,

And the king's rouse the heavens all bruit again,

Re-speaking earthly thunder.

(Hamlet. I. ii. 129-132)

Thus, Claudius's inflated will has stirred him to compare the cannons

which celebrate his coronation to the "earthly thunder" (Hamlet. I. ii.

132). This indicates that he views himself as Jupiter, the God of thunder

in classical Roman methodology, as the sky is going to celebrate and

echo his cannons. Thus he sees his celebratory cannons as akin to

Jupiter's thunder.

In addition to constructing his pretentious grandeur, Claudius

appropriates the rhetoric of his office; "Claudius speaks in the language

of public command, with phrases tailored and balanced, the royal 'we'

firmly affixed to his crown" (Smith, Shakespeare's Tragedies (2004), p.

126). He constantly refers to himself as "Denmark", using the royal 'we',

'us' and 'ours'.

Claudius: … and this vile deed

61

We must with all our majesty and skill,

Both countenance and excuse.

(Hamlet. IV. i. 31-33)

As a consummate dissembler, Claudius reassures Gertrude that Laertes's

threats are of no import as he is divinely protected as God's agent on

earth, thus trying to forget his own "treason" and usurpation:

Let him go, Gertrude; do not fear our person

There's such divinity doth hedge a king,

That treason can but peep to what it would,

Acts little of his will

(Hamlet. IV.v.137-140)

In this scene of his dramatic confrontation with the impetuous Laertes,

Claudius emerges as a calm and overly-confident politician who seeks to

manipulate Laertes into revenge upon Hamlet. As a haughty monarch,

Claudius does not acknowledge the people he is interacting with, mainly

because he conceives of them as mere pawns in his game to maintain the

crown. Patronizing Laertes, Claudius has recourse to affectation in his

following address:

Why, now you speak

Like a good child and a true gentleman

62

(Hamlet. IV. v. 170- 172)

The epithets "good child" and "true gentleman" are part and parcel of his

efforts to manipulate Laertes into siding with him against Hamlet.

Claudius's exaggerated sense of self-entitlement is powerfully

reinforced by the people around him who deeply believed in the religious

concept of the divine right of kings. The Queen herself tells Hamlet to be

friendly and respectful of her new husband, referring to him as

'Denmark': "Let thine eye look like a friend on Denmark" (Hamlet. I. ii.

71). Likewise, Guildenstern and Rosencrantz point out that the life of

'majesty' is of far more importance than that of an ordinary man:

Guildenstern: To keep those many many bodies safe

That live and feed upon your majesty

(Hamlet. III. iii. 10-11)

Hence, we see that the people surrounding Claudius are no more than

mere subordinates akin to parasites:

… A sponge … …

that soaks up the King‘s countenance,

his rewards, his authorities.

(Hamlet. IV. ii. 14- 16)

63

These parasites keep on inflating the usurper's sense of worth and

grandeur intensifying his self-image that he is the best and most

important person, and that they only exist to attend to his needs. Thus, his

entourage had put Claudius on such a pedestal that he no longer saw his

faults or thought of his ultimate downfall.

When carefully considered, Hamlet appears as the play's noble hero

who really sees Claudius's true character as a villain. Although Claudius's

crime seems to be almost forgotten, Hamlet emerges as a constant

reminder of it. He de-characters him as a "Remorseless, treacherous,

lecherous, kindless villain!" (Hamlet. II. ii. 509) To his mother, Hamlet

re-presents his uncle as follows:

A murderer and a villain!

A slave that is not twentieth part the tithe

Of your precedent lord, a Vice of kings,

A cutpurse of the empire and the rule,

That from a shelf the precious diadem stole,

And put it in his pocket—

(Hamlet. III. iv. 110- 115)

The epithet "cutpurse" is so telling that it emphasizes his image as a

usurper who has violated the religious doctrine of the sanctity of the regal

office.

64

Even Claudius's excessive propensity to feast and revel emerges as a

"defect" and a "vicious mole of nature" (Hamlet. I. iv. 24) that corrupts

any virtues that he may have. Hamlet states:

So, oft it chances in particular men,

That for some vicious mole of nature in them,

… … …

His virtues else, be they as pure as grace,

As infinite as man may undergo,

Shall in the general censure take corruption.

(Hamlet. I. iv. 26- 38)

Hamlet's view of Claudius's viciousness is strongly endorsed by the

Ghost sketching of an image of Claudius as a mere "wretch":

… whose natural gifts were poor

To those of mine. (Hamlet. I. v. 58-59)

As soon as the Ghost reports so vividly the circumstances of

Claudius's crime, his further vices follow, i.e. his fratricide, adultery and

incest. Indeed, Claudius is an abominable villain as the Ghost's detailed

report of the former's treachery suggests.

Ay, that incestuous, that adulterate beast,

With witchcraft of his wit, with traitorous gifts,

65

(Hamlet. I. v. 49- 50)

Thus, Claudius's image as a murderous usurper is so powerful that we see

him increasingly fixed into this vicious and foul role. M. Mercade

describes Claudius as follows: "The King [Claudius] represents Hamlet's

antithesis. As error, opposition to truth, injustice, and stagnancy,

Shakespeare has idealized in Claudius a gigantic type of evil and

historical oppression" (Mercade. (1875) Intro. p.xvi).

Claudius's role as a reigning charismatic figure with flattering

glibness begins to be exposed as a mere tool for dissimulation and deceit.

"Claudius knows all too well that he is deceitful, and admits his deceit, to

the audience if not to the other characters, in an aside... as well as in his

private prayer" (Orgel and Holland. (2006), p. 234). His recourse to

deceit occurs early in the play in his opening speech:

Though yet of Hamlet our dear brother‘s death

The memory be green, and that it us befitted

To bear our hearts in grief, and our whole kingdom

To be contracted in one brow of woe,

Yet so far hath discretion fought with nature

That we with wisest sorrow think on him

Together with remembrance of ourselves.

(Hamlet. I. ii. 1-7)

66

Here, Claudius emerges as a "unifier of the contraries" (Booth, (1974),

p.292). He skillfully feigns that he is mourning the death of his brother

who he himself has massacred. His pretentious speech is so lively and

flows smoothly almost as if it were pre-prepared, and as to be uttered to

impress the others. Michael Davies‏ states:

Claudius's opening speech in 1.2. in its greasy ability to yoke

together weddings and funerals, mirth and mourning, can only

confirm the hypocrisy of a villain who is capitalizing on his own

treachery, and flaunting his new-found power through a rhetoric

characterized by oxymoron and antithesis, as if by force of will he

can make the unnatural appear natural, and the abnormal

normal.(Davies, (2008), p.80)

Claudius's subtle dissimulation features prominently in his scheme to

send Hamlet to England. He asserts that he is concerned for Hamlet's

safety, while he is indeed sending him to his death:

King: Hamlet, this deed, for thine especial safety—

Which we do tender, as we dearly grieve

For that which thou hast done—must send thee hence

With fiery quickness; (Hamlet. IV. iii. 44- 47)

But, Hamlet is fully aware that Claudius is a dissembler. When Claudius

endeavors to show his affected paternal love for Hamlet, the latter voices

his doubt in an aside:

67

King: But now, my cousin Hamlet, and my son—

Hamlet: [Aside] A little more than kin, and less than kind.

(Hamlet. I. ii. 66- 67)

The word 'kind' is ambiguous because it means both 'affectionate' and

'type'. Therefore, Hamlet seems to be saying that Claudius has been

unkind to him and is not of the same kind, or type of creature, as Hamlet

is. Once again, Hamlet feels Claudius's deceit when he says:

Excellent, i‘ faith, of the chameleon‘s dish: I

eat the air, promise-cramm‘d—you cannot feed capons so.

(Hamlet. III. ii. 99- 100)

"The reference to the ‗cramming‘ of the capon could imply that

Claudius‘s polite concern is merely a way of fattening Hamlet up for

impending slaughter" (Smith, (2004), Shakespeare's Tragedies p.173).

Thus, we see that Claudius's regicide by pouring poison in the former

king's ear resonates throughout the play because this actual poison has

turned into a metaphorical poison, that is, the poison of deceit and glib

rhetoric:

Ghost: Tis given out that, sleeping in my orchard,

A serpent stung me; so the whole ear of Denmark

Is by a forged process of my death

68

Rankly abused: but know, thou noble youth,

The serpent that did sting thy father's life

Now wears his crown. (Hamlet. I. v. 42- 47)

As a cunning usurper, throughout the play, Claudius casts aside all

the morals about which he so audaciously speaks, such as conscience,

honour and filial duties. Hence, he appears as a dissembler whose skilful

glibness is part of his scheming and deceitful machinations. Claudius's

deceitful manipulation has been at play since he won over the court and

convinced Gertrude to marry him shortly after her husband died. Such a

hasty marriage has been vigorously denounced by Hamlet:

Hamlet: A little month, or ere those shoes were old

With which she followed my poor father‘s body,

Like Niobe, all tears—why, she, even she—

O God, a beast that wants discourse of reason

Would have mourn‘d longer…

(Hamlet. I. ii. 151- 155)

Telling is Hamlet's allusion to Niobe, a daughter of Tantalus and wife of

Amphion who in the wake of her loss of her children, turned to a stone

and became a mountain whose flowing streams are her mournful tears.

(See, (2014), p. 150) Obviously, the contrast is sharp enough because

Gertrude has not adequately mourned her husband, possibly due to her

69

susceptibility to the "witchcraft of [Claudius's] wit", (Hamlet. I. v. 43) as

we have already seen.

Claudius's rhetorical witchcraft as a usurper has also manifested

itself in his attempts to recruit Hamlet's close school-mates. To them,

Claudius says:

Welcome, dear Rosencrantz and Guildenstern!

Moreover that we much did long to see you,

(Hamlet. II. ii. 1-2)

It is in the light of Claudius's manipulation that we can best assimilate his

sugary discourse; "dear", his assertion that he has much longed to see

them and his implied ingratiating smiles and gestures.

Cunningly enough, Claudius exerts all his rhetorical capacities in

order to convince Rosencrantz and Guildenstern (and hence deceive

them) that he is concerned for Hamlet, and he implores them to see and

cheer him up because he is suffering from severe depression after his

father's death.

I entreat you both

That, being of so young days brought up with him,

And sith so neighbored to his youth and havior,

That you voutsafe your rest here in our court

70

Some little time, so by your companies

To draw him on to pleasures, …

(Hamlet. II. ii. 10- 15)

Yet, Claudius, as a subtle politician, does not trust his stooges,

Guildenstern and Rosencrantz, because he does not inform them of the

content of the letter which he orders them to deliver to the King of

England:

By letters congruing to that effect,

The present death of Hamlet. Do it, England;

For like the hectic in my blood he rages,

And thou must cure me:

(Hamlet. IV. iii. 73-76)

Claudius's conception of Hamlet as "the hectic" (namely, a "fluctuating"

or "persistent fever") ("Hectic" Merriam-Webster‘s Collegiate

Dictionary) is of every moment here chiefly because it exteriorizes the

former's pains and anxieties as a usurper and explains his clandestine

conspiracy to liquidate the latter.

The failure of Claudius's scheme to rid himself of Hamlet leads the

former to make up further plots. Laertes is the next prey to Claudius's

deceitful machinations. But before launching into Claudius's next

71

scheme, I think it is apt to stress that his deceptiveness is his

characterizing demerit:

Claudius is skilled at deceiving others. From the beginning there is

the court and Gertrude and Polonius, but for the later part of the

play his adept manipulation of that fiery wildcat of a young man,

Laertes, is even more important (Frye, (2014), p.138).

Claudius's endeavor to seduce Laertes to a duel with Hamlet deserves full

attention. Claudius follows a subtle tactic that is so adeptly crafted that it

easily lures Laertes to fall prey to his schemes. He first shows empathy

with Laertes in his rage, "Let him demand his fill" (Hamlet, Iv. v. 147).

Then he asserts that he is not responsible for the death of his father, and

that he has grieved for him:

That I am guiltless of your father‘s death,

And am most sensibly in grief for it,

(Hamlet. IV. v. 172-173)

As a cunning dissembler, Claudius then moves to manipulate Laertes by

praising the latter's fencing techniques:

And that in Hamlet‘s hearing, for a quality

Wherein they say you shine. Your sum of parts

Did not together pluck such envy from him

As did that one, and that, in my regard,

72

Of the unworthiest siege.

(Hamlet. IV. vii. 82- 86)

Thus, Claudius seeks to convince Laertes to kill Hamlet. Claudius plants

in Laertes's mind that he is far stronger than Hamlet is, and that Hamlet is

envious of Laertes's strength and fencing techniques. In the course of his

manipulations, Claudius at last questions Laertes's love for his father

because of his reluctance to avenge him:

Laertes was your father dear to you?

Or are you like the painting of sorrow

A face without a heart.

(Hamlet. IV. 7. 122-124)

The disguising (and hence costuming and theatrical) term "painting" is

extremely telling because it shows Claudius's incessant endeavors to

penetrate into Laertes's most inward filial feelings for his dead father.

This theatrical term also betrays Claudius's own recourse to dissimulation

and disguise in his well-directed manipulative playlet with Laertes.

Claudius's arranged duel playlet is basically a scheme through which

he seeks to rid himself of Hamlet as an heir apparent. Hamlet is expected

to die with Laertes's poisoned sword or with the poisoned cup of wine

which Claudius has secretly poisoned. This fencing playlet shows that

Claudius is so cunning and he maneuvers so skilfully that he manages to

73

appropriate Laertes's wrath and cast him as an antagonist to Hamlet in

this duel. Here Claudius appears as a master-mind who plans and directs

a complicated playlet in order to exact his vengeance against Hamlet and

bolster his office as a monarch, and Laertes emerges as a mere puppet in

his hands.

Claudius's continuous attempts to conceal his conscience-motivated

remorse come to nothing because he admits his guilt as a fratricide.

Indeed, Polonius's assertion that the "devil himself" may be "sugared"

with a pious "visage" (Hamlet, III. i. 53- 55) elicits Claudius's long-

smothered sense of guilt in a soliloquy which deserves full citation:

King Claudius Aside: O, 'tis too true!

How smart a lash that speech doth give my conscience!

The harlot's cheek, beautied with plastering art,

Is not more ugly to the thing that helps it

Than is my deed to my most painted word:

O heavy burthen! (Hamlet. III. i. 56-61)

Claudius's employment of such a dissimulation terms as "beautied",

"plastering", "art" and "painted" backfires upon him because they

represent his royal career as a dissembling usurper. Claudius's summary

74

outburst "O heavy burthen" [i.e. burden] (Hamlet, III. i. 62) powerfully

brings out his sense of guilt which is weighing heavily on him.

Claudius's poignant outcry "O heavy burthen" asserts itself as an

invitation to the furnace of his chaotic conscience which has filled him

with tormenting feelings of guilt. In an effort to mitigate these gnawing

feelings, Claudius seeks to pray for divine mercy so that he can feel at

ease. He conceives of himself as a Cain-like figure whose hands have

been tainted with his brother's blood. He so pathetically cries:

What if this cursed hand

Were thicker than itself with brother's blood,

Is there not rain enough in the sweet heavens

To wash it white as snow?

(Hamlet. III. iii. 47- 50)

Shakespeare problematizes Claudius's penitential and anguished prayer

that the "rain" of the "sweet heavens" would not "wash" his "cursed hand"

"white as snow" because the latter is fully aware of his inability and

unreadiness to relinquish what he has possessed in the wake of his

usurpation. Therefore, Claudius feels that he has no alternative but to

reconcile himself to the prospect of his incapability of praying for divine

mercy. As a dissemble/actor, Claudius throws his newly-reached

awareness into the sharp "words"… "thoughts" dichotomy:

75

My words fly up, thoughts remain below

Words without thought, never to Heaven go"

(Hamlet. III. Iv.102-3)

Claudius's use of "words" implies that he is merely airing a prayer, but

this prayer does not stem from his heart, the seat of his "thoughts". His

explication of his inability to seek divine forgiveness powerfully suggests

his awareness of the futility of his attempts at prayer. He reasons as

follows:

Forgive me my foul murther‖?

That cannot be, since I am still possess‘d

Of those effects for which I did the murther:

My crown, mine own ambition, and my queen.

May one be pardon‘d and retain th‘ offense?

(Hamlet. III. iii. 56- 60)

Obviously, Claudius realizes that he is in a difficult situation because his

conscience prompts him to seek divine forgiveness but his mind (the seat

of his "ambition") prevents him as he expresses every desire to maintain

the crown, together with the pomp and the power it entails, as well as the

Queen whom he has widowed. On this point, J. E. Hirsh states:

Claudius soliloquizes for 37 lines about the difficulty he is having

in attempting to pray. Shakespeare here dramatizes a clear contrast

76

between the Claudius who speaks this soliloquy and who wants to

repent and some unvoiced part of Claudius's mind that resists his

effort to do so. (Hirsh, (2003), p. 160)

This is a sound interpretation of Claudius's frame of mind in the prayer

scene. He follows that "unvoiced part of [his] mind", as he has

constructed himself around his office. He therefore convinces himself to

proceed in his attempts to maintain the status quo. "Claudius has a clearly

objective conception of Christian ethics ... In his view, mercy means to be

let off from the inevitable consequences of sin with no strings attached"

(King, (2011), p.92). Claudius is hesitant in his prayer; he wants divine

mercy and earthly possessions at the same time. Thus, his guilt seems

superficial and insincere.

Hence, we note that Claudius's villainous cast of mind asserts itself

in his reluctance to cast aside his crown and his vehement desire to

annihilate Hamlet as an heir apparent. "Even when he is nearest to God,

in III, iii, in his mind is at least festering the plan to send Hamlet to his

death" (Rosenberg, (1992), p. 66). Thus, for Claudius, conscience seems

to be an insufficient restraint on his unfettered ambition. When such an

ambition is put on one side of the scale with conscience on the other, it

weighs more.

77

Although Claudius seeks to appear as a gracious; suave and

intelligent monarch, he is basically a villainous murderer. His villainies

begin to assert themselves little by little. He is so drifted away with his

unfettered ambition that he fails to estimate the disastrous consequences

of his villainies. Marvin Rosenberg rightly describes him as "the would-

be lion who seems every inch a king – except that, when tested, the

crucial inches can't be there" (Rosenberg, (1992), p.52). When Gertrude

takes the cup of poisoned wine, Claudius just feebly says: "Do not drink"

(Hamlet. V. ii. 317) so that he does not ruin his well-designed plan. He

lets her drink from that wine so long as there still may be a chance for

Hamlet to drink as well.

Careful attention shows that Claudius emerges as someone who is

emotionally detached and indifferent about others. Laertes's confession of

Claudius's clandestine schemes powerfully indicts him as an arch-

dissembler and a murderer for whom conscience means nothing. What

matters most for him is the end he incessantly seeks to attain. John Alan

Roe notes that bangs of remorse are foreign to Claudius as a

Machiavellian figure: "Machiavelli does not permit an inquiry into the

part of conscience in the making of political decisions" (Roe, (2002).

P.129).

78

One last word has to be emphasized here. Claudius's deserved end

emerges as the ultimate punishment for a usurper who defied Heaven's

ordained plan of the royalty of Denmark and showed no hesitation to cast

aside any one hindering his efforts to maintain his usurped throne.

79

Conclusion

This dissertation has shown that the primary focus in King John and

Hamlet lies in Shakespeare's dramatization of the perennial violation and

defiance of the heavenly-ordained monarchy on the part of over-

ambitious usurpers who commit regicide and usurp the crown, and hence

suffer a deserved punishment as an illustration of divine justice. Indeed,

usurpation appears as a disruption of the concept of the Divine Right of

kings. In both of these plays there is a usurper who deposed the legitimate

king and kinged himself. Each of these usurpers is the victim of two

forces: his over-ambitious nature and his mistaken belief that he, as a de-

facto king, enjoys heavenly protection. Shakespeare skillfully dramatizes

these usurpers' apprehensions and presents his audience with colorful

masterpieces of gloomy chronicles and tragic dramas.

As we have already seen, King John behaves in a manner driven by

an implicit fear of what fate might have for him. He exacts all his power

to stop his feelings of guilt for having broken the divine right of kings. He

has always shown his utter readiness to make compromises for the sake

of the crown without which he cannot live. That is why we see him stage

the playlet of a second coronation and give his niece, Blanche, in

marriage to the French prince, the Dauphin. Yet, he is incapable of

80

disguising his suffering due to his dissimulation he has recourse to; for

from the outside he is an all-powerful king but with a feeble and insecure

interior. John's unnecessary cruelty towards Arthur proves him unfit for

the throne, but above all, his weak character emerges as the obstacle that

thwarts his excessive ambition and brings him down to his ultimate end.

Hence, the play's focus is on his illegitimacy as well as his unsuitability

to rule. In the end, and while King John is dying in a pathetic manner, he

voices his sense of tormenting solitude, and he acknowledges his personal

tragedy. He pathetically experiences a moment of self-knowledge, that is

the truth of himself as a mere usurper whose incessant endeavors to

become a de-jure king came to nothing. Thus, he expresses his final

experience of disappointment and frustration and accepts his deserved

end with utter patience.

However, the presentation of King John seems to have undermined

the audience's pathetic response to him: "King John is an unsettling play,

quite literally so in its leaving of audiences with nowhere to settle,

uncertain where, if anywhere, to allow their sympathies to rest"

(Smallwood, (2004). p.13). Thus, the play's recipients are unable to fully

sympathize with John as a usurper or to denounce him for his legitimacy

and villainy. This confusion reminds us of the answer that the citizens of

Angiers reply with to King Phillip's question: "who's your king", they

81

say: "The king of England, when we know the king". (King John, II. ii.

369-370). This answer problematizes the presentation of King John's

royal career and ushers in the dichotomy of a de-facto ruler and a de-jure

king. "The King is the king: the circularity of the argument replaces

patrilineal succession with cyclical obfuscation and substitutes political

pragmatism for the mystification of divine right." (Smith, The Cambridge

Guide (2012). p.77). But an in-depth reading of the play subtly reveals

that Shakespeare uses the historical story of King John as a starting point

and proceeds to present a most poignant dramatization of the trauma of

his self-knowledge as a usurper who exerts all his military powers to

maintain his office and become a de-jure king.

Claudius, on the other hand, is a skilled politician, a subtle and

cunning dissembler. He has all the traits of a confident king; he has an

exaggerated sense of grandeur and importance, he is always in pursuit of

power and status but he has difficulty empathizing with the feelings of

others. He ascends to the throne by murdering his own brother, King

Hamlet, and seducing his brother's widow. His insatiable ambition is best

revealed in his reference: "My crown, mine own ambition and my queen"

(Hamlet, III, iii. 59). Like King John, Claudius tries to get rid of his

nephew, the rightful heir to the throne: "his existential dread of Hamlet is

a powerful realization of a contemporary view of ambition's

82

destructives." (Shanker, (2018). p.98). However, Claudius is so cunning

that despite all his power he does not kill Hamlet himself because of his

fear of the people's violent reaction. In his cunning mind, he orchestrates

a plot in which he recruits the irrational Laertes to kill Hamlet. In the end,

Claudius's plan backfires upon him and he dies with a poisoned blade

intended for Hamlet. He is brought to his end by his own wickedness.

Motivated by his over-ambitious nature, his yearning for power and even

his sexual lust, Claudius commits murder and incest.

King John is an early play. It is not a mature play like Hamlet.

Nonetheless it is a very significant chronicle play. The fact that

Shakespeare's artistry has vastly grown and expanded by the time he

constructed Hamlet does not belittle the dramatic excellence of King John

that exhibits his marvelous creativity, especially in the scene of

Constance's impassioned lamentation over her son.

Although King John is not a simplified version of the stereotype

usurper, he is a tragic figure who falls because of his over-ambitious

nature. He has constructed himself around his office as a monarch. It is to

be stressed that only when Arthur's claim to the crown is advanced does

John seek to re-present himself as a de-jure king. He performs the

charade of re-coronation and orders the death of Arthur who is an

obstacle to his status as a de-jure king. His pathetic outbursts and

83

lamentation prior to his death show Shakespeare's endeavors to re-present

John as a weak figure whose self-enlightenment elicits our empathy and

commiseration.

Claudius, however, is a complex and multi-faceted figure. He is the

fruit and acme of Shakespeare's rich and sophisticated techniques of

characterization. He is a fabulous actor and dissembler. He emerges as a

skilled politician and orator in his scenes with the ambassadors from

Norway. He is also a brilliant rhetorician in his first scene with Hamlet

when he endeavors to convince him to accept his bereavement as

something very natural as death is everybody's end.

Claudius's histrionic exquisiteness also emerges in his persuasive

scenes with Guildenstern and Rosencrantz where he exports his rhetorical

verbosity to entice them away from Hamlet; their school fellow, to spy on

him and finally take him to his pre-meditated death for the sake of royal

favor. And evidently, the duel playlet is the consummation of Claudius's

craftsmanship as an author and director of clandestine schemes.

An investigation of these playlets shows the steady development of

Shakespeare's meta-dramatic capabilities as an artist who seeks to show

that drama, as an art, is no more than a mirror of the human nature and

life at large. Shakespeare's meta-dramatic histrionics took the form of

trying to convince a spectatorship who seems to be taken in by the

84

dictionary sense of words. Hence, Claudius's recourse to oratory

reinforces his image as a dissembler who is ready to do anything for the

sake of the crown he has illegally worn. On the whole, Claudius's career,

like that of King John, is no more than an endeavor to bolster his de facto

status and gain that of a de jure monarch through various playlets and

scenes.

One last word has to be said here. Classical mythologies and folk

tales have always set kings apart from human beings because they

depicted them as noble giants almost akin to deities and virile and

chivalrous warriors. But Shakespeare meticulously punctured this time-

honored tradition of portraying kings as infallible heroes by presenting

two usurpers who were given to committing villainies. Thus, unlike

mythologizers and folk romancers who busied themselves in the

externalities of their imaginary heroes' adventurous feats of valor and

unprecedented chivalry, Shakespeare paused to delineate these stage

figures' personal traumas as human beings. He subtly probed into the

intricacies and peculiarities of their motives which prompted their actions

and reactions. Thus, Shakespeare's originality and contribution take the

form of chronicle plays imbued with individuated dramaturgies of

anxiety, suffering and deserved punishment. In brief, Claudius and King

John are arrant villains for bloodshed constitutes no more than a way on

85

their progression towards the throne. This point finds every force in Jan

Kott's telling description of feudal history: "Feudal history is like a great

staircase on which there treads a constant procession of kings. Every step

upwards is marked by murder, perfidy, treachery" (Kott, (2015), p.4).

86

Works Cited

Belsey, Catherine. The Subject of Tragedy. London and New York:

Methuen, 1985.

Booth, Steephen. "On the Value of Hamlet." Literary Criticism--Idea

and Act: The English Institute: Selected Essays, edited by William

Kurtz Wimsatt, California: University of California Press, 1974, pp.

284- 310.

Cahn, Victor L. The Plays of Shakespeare: A Thematic Guide.

London: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2001.

Calderwood, Johnes. "Commodity and Honour in King John". King

John and Henry VIII: Critical Essays, Frances A. Shirley ed. London:

Routledge, 1988, pp. 127-169.

Campbell, Lyly B. ed. A Mirror for Magistrates. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1938.

Chadwick‏, William. King John of England: A History and

Vindication, Based on the Original Authorities. London: J.R. Smith,

1865.

Collins, Arthur. Letters and Memorials of State in the Reigns of Queen

Mary, Queen Elizabeth, King James, King Charles the First (etc.).

Osborne: Osborne, 1746.

87

Curren-Aquino, Deborah T. King John: New Perspectives. Delaware:

University of Delaware Press, 1989.

Davies, Michael. Hamlet: Character Studies. Oxford: A&C Black,

2008.

Dowden, Edward. Shakespeare: A Critical Study of his Mind and Art.

London: Henry S King & Co, 1875.

---. Shakespeare Scenes and Characters: A Series of Illustrations.

Designed by Adamo, Hofmann [and others]. London: Macmillan &

co, 1876.

Eliot, T.S. Selected Prose of T. S. Eliot. Michigan: Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich, 1975.

Enright, Michael. Iona, Tara, and Soissons: The Origin of the

Royal Anointing Ritual. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2011.

Ferber, Michael. A Dictionary of Literary Symbols. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Fletcher, George. Studies of Shakespeare. London: Green and

Longmans, 1847.

Frye, Ronald Mushat. The Renaissance Hamlet: Issues and Responses

in 1600. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014.

Greenplatt, Stephen. Shakespeare's Freedom. Chicago: The University

of Chicago Press, Ltd. 2010.

88

Hackett, Edmund B. A Study of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. London:

Thomas Scott, Warwick Court, Holborn, 1875.

Hazlitt, William. Characters of Shakespeare's Plays. London: Wells

and Lilly, 1818.

---. Lectures on the English poets. Pennsylvania: University of

Pennsylvania, 1819.

―Hectic‖ Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed.,

Merriam-Webster, 2003, p. 576.

Hirsh, James E. Shakespeare and the History of Soliloquies.

Bucharest: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2003.

Hornby, A. S. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current

English. Ed. Sally Wehmeier. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2005.

Jolly, Margrethe. The First Two Quartos of Hamlet: A New View of

the Origins and Relationship of the Texts. California: McFarland,

2014.

Jones, Emrys. The Origins of Shakespeare. Oxford: Clarendon Press,

1977.

Kastan, David Scott. The Oxford Encyclopedia of British Literature.

Vol.1. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

King, Walter N. Hamlet's Search for Meaning. Georgia: University of

Georgia Press, 2011.

89

Knight, Charles. The Comedies, Histories, Tragedies, and Poems of

William Shakespeare with a Biography and Studies of His Works.

London: George Cox Covent Garden, 1853.

Kott, Jan. Shakespeare our Contemporary. New York: Knopf

Doubleday Publishing Group, 2015.

Lokse, Olav. Outrageous Fortune: Critical Studies in Hamlet and

King Lear. Oslo: Oslo University Press, 1960.

Lovejoy, Arthur O. The Great Chain of Being: A Study of the History

of an Idea. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1936.

Transaction Publishers, 2011.

Mabillard, Amanda. Representations of Kingship and Power in

Shakespeare's Second Tetralogy. Shakespeare Online. 19 Aug. 2000.

Web. 6 Apr. 2016.

Magnette, Paul. Citizenship: The History of an Idea. London: ECPR

Press, 2005.

Maguire, Laurie. Studying Shakespeare: A Guide to the Plays.

London: John Wiley & Sons, 2008.

Matei-Chesnoiu, Monica. Shakespeare in the Romanian Cultural

Memory. Bucharest: Fairleigh Dickinson UP, 2006.

90

Mercade, Mercade. Hamlet; Or, Shakespeare's Philosophy of History;

A Study of the Spiritual Soul and Unity of Hamlet. London: Williams

and Nokgate. 1875.

Miller, Joanne K. William Shakespeare's Hamlet: Literature Guides.

London: Research & Education Assoc., 1994.

Orgel, Stephen. and Peter Holland, eds. From Performance to Print in

Shakespeare's England. London: Springer, 2006.

Ribner, Irving. The English History Play in the Age of Shakespeare.

Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957.

Robertson, A.F. Greed: Gut Feelings, Growth and History. California:

John Wiley & Sons, 2013.

Roe, John Alan. Shakespeare and Machiavelli. New York: DS

Brewer, 2002.

Rosenberg, Marvin. The Masks of Hamlet. Delaware: University of

Delaware Press, 1992.

Saccio, Peter. Shakespeare's English Kings: History, Chronicle and

Drama. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Schlegel, August Wilhelm. Lectures on Dramatic Art and Literature.

London: George Bell & Sons, 1892.

Schmitt, Carl. Hamlet or Hecuba, the Irruption of Time into Play.

New York: Plutarch Press, 1985.

91

See, Sally. The Greek Myths. London: S&T, 2014

Seward, Desmond. Eleanor of Aquitaine: The Mother Queen of the

Middle Ages. California: Pegasus Books, 2014.

Shakespeare, William. The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. St.

Paul, Minnesota: EMC/Paradigm Publishing, 1998.

---. King John. London: Bell Publishing, 1786.

Shanker, Sidney. Shakespeare and the Uses of Ideology. Berlin:

Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG, 2018.

Shaughnessy‏, Robert. The Routledge Guide to William Shakespeare.

London: Routledge, 2013.

Shirley, Frances A. King John and Henry VIII: Critical Essays.

London: Routledge, 2015.

Simmons, J.L. "Shakespeare's King John and its Source: Coherence,

Pattern and Vision." in Tulane Studies in English. Louisiana: Tulane

University, 1983.

Sinfield, Alan. "Macbeth: History, Ideology and Intellectuals." in New

Historicism and Renaissance Drama, edited by Richard Wilson and

Richard Dutton. London and New York: Longman, 1992.

Smallwood, Robert. Players of Shakespeare: 6 Essays in the

Performance of Shakespeare's History Plays. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 2004.

92

Smith, Emma. Ed. Shakespeare's Tragedies. Oxford: Blackwell

Publishing Ltd, 2004.

---. The Cambridge Shakespeare Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 2012.

Spiekerman‏, Tim. Shakespeare's Political Realism: The English

History Plays. New York: SUNY Press, 2001.

Steevens, George. and Samuel Johnson. Annotations Illustrative of the

Plays of Shakespeare. London: Tower Hill, 1819.

Tassi, Marguerite A. Women and Revenge in Shakespeare: Gender,

Genre, and Ethics. Pennsylvania: Susquehanna University Press,

2011.

The Holy Bible, King James Version. Cambridge Edition: 1769; King

James Bible Online, 2017. www.kingjamesbibleonline.org.

The Holy Bible, The World English Bible: The New Testament with

Psalms and Proverbs, aBOOKS Distributing, 2003.

The Two Books of Homilies Appointed to be Read in Churches. ed.

John Griffiths. Oxford: St. Giles. 1859.

Tillyard, E. M. W. Shakespeare’s History Plays. London: Penguin

Books, 1944.

93

---. The Elizabethan World Picture. Washington: Library of Congress

Cataloging in Publication Data, 1898-1962. Transaction Publishers,

2011.

"usurp." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, 2011.

Web. 8 May 2017.

Vaughan, Virginia Mason. ―King John‖, in A Companion to

Shakespeare’s Works. VolumeII: The Histories, eds. Richard Dutton

and Jean E. Howard, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2003.

Wilson, Dover J. What Happens in Hamlet. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1951.

94

‏لبعثجاهعة‏ا

‏الإنسانية‏والعلىم‏الآداب‏كلية

‏الانكليزية‏اللغة‏قسن

‏الأدبيةالدراسات‏

‏

شخصية المستولي على العرش في مسرحيتي )الملك جون( و )هاملت( : مقاربة تحليلية

‏د.‏واصف‏السلاهيأ.‏د.‏الياس‏خلف‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏:‏أ.بإشراف‏

الأحود‏خالد‏الطالبة‏:‏سها