ANTONIO PINTA GUERRERO - Teatro de Shakespeare

WHY DOES HAMLET QUESTION PROVIDENTIALISM, AND WHY IS HE

PERCEIVED AS A THREAT?

These lines appear in Act 4 Scene 3 and represent a moment of maximum tension, with a
depth and a metaphorical load quite revealing if we think about the evolution of Hamlet's
character during the play. This essay aims to answer the questions raised and to give the
necessary approach to understand the background in which this precise moment of the play
takes place, where we find a strong relationship with religion, loyalty (kingship), death and
revenge, main elements in the whole play.

To start with, these lines deal with the theme of death as Claudius wants to know where
Polonius is, whom Hamlet has just killed by accident, and through a philosophical play on
words Hamlet treats death as the great leveller: “two dishes, but to one table” Hamlet shows
us that death is a democracy in which one day everyone will die - rich and poor, high and
low. This metaphor is a way of making Claudius see that he will be no different than a "lean
beggar" and that we will simply be worm food. Therefore, These lines show us how Hamlet
seems to be questioning the Catholic belief in heaven or hell after death or whether our fate
rests in God's hands or in our own actions. Hamlet gives us a rather nihilistic view of life (and
death) or closer to Protestantism, contrasting with his purely Catholic beliefs which we
observe, for example, in the moment when Hamlet does not kill Claudius while praying
because he believes that killing him while praying would be a kind of reward-sending
Claudius to Heaven:"And now I'll do it (...)A villain kills my father, and, for that, I, his
only son, this same villain sends to heaven. Oh, this is wages and salary, not revenge.
(Shakespeare, 3.3.74-83) And what he really desires as revenge is that Claudius's soul "may
be as damned and black / As hell, to which he goes" (Shakespeare, 3.3.98-99).

In addition to, he also questions the way in which he should be loyal to the king and his
closeness to God as this idea (kingship) was quite important at the time and well described by
Baker "Organised under the general form of hierarchy, sanctioned in practice by force and
metaphysically by God the King and God the Father (.... ) The figure of the king guarantees,
as locus and source of power and as master-signifier, a network of subsidiary relations that
constitute the actual practice and intelligibility of the life of the subjects" Hamlet does not
feel Claudius as a king worthy of that position since he has killed his brother and taken his
throne and his wife. In a catholic society the marriage of Claudius and Gertrude is considered
a sin (incest), apart from, obviously, killing your king and brother.

On the other hand, we can say that Hamlet poses a threat because he is perceived as an
individual who thinks for himself and does not accept a corrupt system, he is actually aware
of bad actions that Claudius has caused to become king while the others accept it without
question. Sinfiel notes: "At the beginning of the play he is still mourning the death of his
father, King Hamlet, while everyone else is celebrating his mother's wedding to the new king,
his uncle Claudius (...) Hamlet's mental state is important because it threatens the Danish
state. "Madness in great men must not go unattended", declares the king (Shakespeare ,
3,3,189). Basically, this model of behaviour posed a threat at the time, because individuals
were not supposed to think for themselves and question authority, which in this case is the
King who by providentialist law has been appointed by God, and Hamlet does not see that
this idea corresponds to reality. In fact, Hamlet seems to have fun here “At supper.” trying to
frighten Claudius, making an implicit threat on his life and his power like a king.

Finally, in my opinion I could say that Hamlet's quest is complete when he dies because he
has killed Claudius, his monarchy has been abolished. Thus, we can say that Hamlet is a
successful character even though he dies and cannot rule Denmark as a successor to his
father. Their sorrows are finally gone even if it has been through death and revenge has been
carried out with no injustice left unresolved.

WORK CITED:

Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Oxford.

Barker, Francis 1992: “Hamlet’s Unfulfilled Interiority”.
Sinfield, Alan: Introduction to Hamlet. Penguin.