Marxist Approach in the Hamlet

Before we discuss the presence of Marxism in Shakespeare’s Hamlet, let’s first discuss the ground-lying questions of Marxism in literature. Some of these questions could include:

·         Whom does it benefit if the work or effort is accepted/successful/believed, etc.?

·         What is the social class of the author?

·         Which class does the work claim to represent?

·         What values does it reinforce?

·         What values does it subvert?

·         What conflict can be seen between the values the work champions and those it portrays?

·         What social classes do the characters represent?

·         How do characters from different classes interact or conflict?

In Hamlet, we do see a sense of class struggle in some characters but we also see huge gaps in the classes. Barnardo, Marcellus, Guildenstern, Rosencrantz, and Horatio all represent the lower classes for the way they are addressed. Barnardo’s line “Who’s There?” could simply just be Barnardo asking who is there but it also could represent the people of Denmark asking about the situation on the throne. The reader soon learns of King Hamlet’s murder but the people of Denmark never know the truth but many become suspicious like Hamlet of why Gertrude would marry Claudius so fast? This could be seen as a way of Gertrude preserving her power. In Claudius’ address to “Denmark”, he only speaks to the royalty but not the common people because he wants to make sure nothing suspicious rises in the common people. After Marcellus and Horatio see the ghost, Marcellus says one of the most important lines in the play, “Something is rotten in state of Denmark” meaning the corruption of the throne.

Shakespeare presents us with many characters both of royalty and middle class to show the relations between them or even the struggle between the two. Whenever one looks for Marxist principles in Hamlet, it is important to note the character’s class and the struggle between two different classes.

1.      How does Marxist theory apply to Hamlet?

One can argue that Claudius killed his brother King Hamlet in order to gain political, social, and economic power. This reflects the Marxist concept that economic power is the motive behind all social and political activities and the damaging effects on human values. 

2.      Is Hamlet a bourgeoisie?

Examples of the bourgeois would be Hamlet, Claudius and Gertrude, the ones with the most power and the royal status. Directly beneath these characters are the middle class which includes Polonius, Laertes, Horatio, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. 

3.      Negativity in Feudalism

Marxist theory illuminates power struggles in Shakespeare's play, Hamlet by demonstrating that a feudal society naturally leads to corruption which can be seen by examining the levels of violence, lust for power, excessive class struggle, as well as a lack of justice.

4.      Class Struggle

There is profound reasoning behind "[h]amlet's reluctance to murder Claudius while praying, lest his soul should enter heaven" (Smirnov 1). His withdrawal from committing the murder is indicative that the two social classes exist even in the afterlife; the closest resemblance of heaven would be the bourgeoisie class in life while hell would be categorized as proletariat. Hamlet was violent enough to think about killing Claudius and postponing his plan so he doesn't enter the bourgeoisie class even after death. Claudius expresses violence by killing King Hamlet so the person that was once the biggest bourgeoisie during his lifetime is now a proletariat since he is in hell. This is the case for as long as his sins are not forgiven. The violent actions are portrayed to affect other people, therefore a universal truth that everyone must face including someone as prestigious as King Hamlet. He was happy being the king, but is now going to struggle for power as he compensates for all of his previous sins now that he is dead.

Next, the priest expresses to Laertes that “[s]hards, flints and pebbles should be thrown on [Ophelia]; Yet here she is allow’d her virgin crants,”(5.1.232-233). In other words, he is against the idea of Ophelia being buried in the churchyard. So, there are classes of dead bodies, too.

  In Marxism, getting and keeping economic power is the motive behind all social and political activities. There are a few substantial examples of Marxism throughout Hamlet, one of them being the continuous tension between the dialogues of Hamlet and Claudius. Hamlet’s rhetoric conveys notions of the more lowly classes, as his dialogue shows him being rather respectful to those lesser than him and identifying the significance of things other than money and power in one's life. For example, Act 3, scene 2, line 61 shows Hamlet telling Horatio, “that no revenue hast but thy good spirits." This shows that Hamlet recognizes the worth of Horatio’s life because of his charm and happiness, rather than needing money to be happy and move forward. In addition to this, Hamlet also mocks those whose true motives of getting economic power (Claudius) rule their lives. An example of this is in Act 3, scene 2, lines 99-101 Hamlet is seen responding to Claudius in a sarcastic manner, saying,  “Excellent, i' faith, of the chameleon’s dish. I eat the air, promise-crammed. You cannot feed capons so." Hamlet speaks to Claudius in a nonsensical, almost vulgar way, one which boldly clashes with Claudius’s more poised and elite language, saying “I have nothing with this answer, Hamlet. These words are not mine.” This is a reserved response to a vulgar claim. Overall, the king speaks in a more authoritarian, direct and “royal” manner, compared to Hamlet’s playful and sarcastic banter. This clash between the two verbal styles creates a socially charged energy throughout Hamlet, as the literary styles throughout the play and seen in the royal court seem to be constantly changing between the respectful and disrespectful. This clash between the vulgar and elite is still evident in the streets and in some cases even in courts today. Hamlet denounces Marxism, whereas Claudius reinforces it.

Another significant Marxist element in Hamlet is the character of Claudius himself. Claudius's killing of the king shows the struggles of the lower classes to move themselves up in the social hierarchy. Claudius will do absolutely anything to keep his new found power, and his murder of Hamlet's father proves to show to what lengths he will go to for wealth. Power itself seems to have a strong grip over Claudius, as he is willing to send his wife's son to England rather than have himself be dethroned for his previous actions.

Lastly, one of the most prominent Marxist elements in Hamlet is the parallel between Claudius and Hamlet's relationship and class struggles. It seems that as the tension builds between Claudius and Hamlet, the status of Fortinbras's nation seems to become less stratified as well. In the beginning of the play, the issues of Fortinbras’s nephew are briefly mentioned, while the conflict between Claudius and Hamlet begins to brew. Just as Hamlet is sent away from his home, a climactic scene in the play and a significant moment between Hamlet and Claudius, he runs into Fortinbras, who is fighting for land for his nation. Just as Hamlet has struggled against his now superior stepfather, a nation is struggling against others. In this section of the play, Hamlet makes an extremely Marxist remark after having witnessed the struggles of Fortinbras and his people. Hamlet claims, “This is th' imposture of much wealth and peace, That inward breaks and shows no cause without Why the man dies” (Act 4 scene 4 lines 28-30). Hamlet directly denounces how wealth can destroy a nation, just as Marxists say capitalism can destroy a nation because it takes the focus away from the real issues of society.

In act II, scene 2, there is a notable difference between the working class and royalty. King Claudius and Queen Gertrude tell officers Guildenstern and Rosencrantz to spy on Prince Hamlet to find out what hurts him; to what they answer: “But we both obey, / And here give up ourselves in the full bent / to lay our service freely at your feet, / to be commanded.” (1375) Another difference between classes exists in act III scene 3. King Claudius tells Guildenstern and Rosencrantz to take Hamlet to England. Both courtiers assures they will do the job. In both examples, it is easy to recognize that Guildenstern and Rosencrantz belong to the working class. King Claudius do not ask them to do something, he tells them what to do without asking if they could it; and both courtiers admit that is their wish.

Base/Superstructure: Their morality depends upon their social class: Ophelia is ‘gentlewoman', Hamlet is ‘rude’ yet ‘noble’