In the English Renaissance. individuality was an of import concern. peculiarly the building of individuality. As Stephen Greenblatt argues. “there is in the early modern period a alteration in the rational. societal. psychological. and aesthetic constructions that govern the coevals of individualities … that is non merely complex but resolutely dialectical” ( 1 ) . The individuality of the crowned head was of peculiar importance: how sovereigns shaped their ain individualities. and how these individualities affected their topics.

Taking Greenblatt’s statement. this paper examines the building and use of individuality in Shakespeare’s Hamlet: in peculiar. the ways in which Elizabeth I’s self-representations inform the drama. In add-on. the paper will demo how the word picture of Hamlet is shaped by the regulation of Elizabeth I. who controlled her public image through intricately constructed self-representations. Reflecting her usage of these representations. Hamlet. who possesses stereotypically feminine properties. battles to animate himself as a masculine character to retrieve his family’s and kingdom’s award.

The late Elizabethan period was filled with anxiousness and discouragement over the ripening of Queen Elizabeth I. Concern about her at hand decease was merely made worse by her refusal to call a replacement. When Shakespeare composed Hamlet in 1600. the dramatist was capable to an ripening. infirm queen. who at 67 had left no inheritors to the English throne. In Hamlet. Shakespeare therefore addresses two political jobs that England faced at the beginning of the seventeenth-century: royal sequence and female sovereignty. As Tennenhouse argues. “History dramas could non be written after Hamlet. … because …

the whole affair of reassigning power from one sovereign to another had to be rethought in position of the aging organic structure of the queen” ( 85 ) . The preoccupation of the English populace with who would go their new swayer. along with eager expectancy of male kingship. is expressed throughout Hamlet. Although the drama is non written as a political fable. undeniable similarities do be between facets of Queen Elizabeth I’s public character and the character of Hamlet. Before farther explicating this comparing. nevertheless. it is necessary to depict how Elizabeth I shaped her public character.

Elizabeth I’s Image As caput of the Anglican Church. Elizabeth I was wary to aline herself in matrimony with a Catholic. Accordingly. Carole Levin argues that Elizabeth I promoted the image of herself as a pristine maiden good into the center and advanced old ages of her life: “Elizabeth presented herself to her people as a symbol of virginity. a Virgin Queen” ( 64 ) . Whether political or personal. her refusal to get married was in many ways advantageous. for she avoided the catastrophe of Mary I’s lucifer with Phillip II. Yet it besides caused a great trade of concern among the public.

As Levin observes. by non get marrieding. Elizabeth besides refused the most obvious map of being a queen. that of bearing a kid. Nor would she call a replacement as Parliament begged her to make. since Elizabeth was convinced this would increase. instead than easiness. both the political tenseness and her personal danger ( 66 ) . Elizabeth I’s scheme to retain political power may hold prevented the trespass of her authorization by a hubby. but it did do disfavour among the English citizens. particularly as she grew older without denoting an inheritor.

Anxiety over the sequence led to contempt for Elizabeth I. with many people dish the dirting that she did non get married because she was an unnatural adult female. Levin writes. “there were rumours that Elizabeth had an hindrance that would forbid regular sexual relations” ( 86 ) . Levin provides an illustration for these rumours in an extract of a missive from her cousin Mary Stuart: “indubitably you are non like other adult females. and it is folly to progress the impression of your matrimony with the Duke of Alencon. seeing that such a conjugal brotherhood would ne’er be consummated” ( 86 ) .

Others claimed that Elizabeth I had illicit kids who were kept secret ( Levin 85 ) . These accusals indicate that English citizens. every bit good as household dealingss. perceived Elizabeth Fs prolonged girlhood as unnatural and even monstrous. Although Elizabeth I was willing to acknowledge to Parliament that she had spent much of her strength. she was careful to cultivate the image of herself as a immature adult female to the populace. One of import illustration of this method is the celebrated Rainbow Portrait. which Elizabeth I commissioned in about 1600. the same period Hamlet was written.

Even though Elizabeth I was 67 old ages old when the picture was commissioned. she appears in the picture to be a immature adult female ( Levin ) . Elizabeth I created an intricate and diverse image of herself. As an single sovereign. she became England’s Virgin Queen. Possessing two organic structures. Elizabeth I established masculine authorization as Prince and as female parent to her topics. As Elizabeth I grew older. she relied on iconography to lead on the English public into sing her as immature and critical. These diverse representations of Elizabeth I are complexly reflected in Hamlet.

The similarities between Elizabeth I and Gertrude are obvious: both adult females are perceived as indulgent. sensuous sovereign and are criticized for trying to move like adult females younger than their true ages. To Gertrude. Hamlet even states. “O shame. where is thy bloom? ” ( 3. 4. 91 ) . Despite these correspondences. a more interesting analogy exists between Elizabeth I and the character of Hamlet. The paper will compare Elizabeth I. who claimed to hold “the bosom and tummy of a king” ( Levin 1 ) with Hamlet. a prince frequently castigated for moving in a stereotypically feminine mode. Contemplations of Elizabeth I’s Constructed Identities in Hamlet

One effort by Elizabeth I to keep her image as the Virgin Queen was a usage of heavy cosmetics in an attempt to do herself look younger and hence stronger. Mullaney quotes Jesuit priest Anthony Rivers as depicting Elizabeth I’s make-up at some jubilations in 1600. when Hamlet was written. to be “in some topographic points near half an inch thick” ( 147 ) . Unfortunately for Elizabeth I. this effort to conceal the failing of her age seems merely to hold exacerbated her subjects’ disdain for the false failing of her sex. M. P. Tilley observes that during the late Elizabethan period. there was a strong feeling against a adult female utilizing cosmetics ( 312 ) .

Womans who used cosmetics. harmonizing to popular feeling. altered their organic structures. the creative activities of God. and were hence non merely immodest but profane. Harmonizing to Mullaney. adult females who used cosmetics considered to be false adult females because they created a delusory face to replace the one given to them by God ; changing their natural female visual aspect made them non genuinely adult females. Not merely were cosmetics profane and dishonest. they were physically destructive. A adult female who painted her face in the Renaissance therefore arguably destroyed her individual in every manner possible: spiritually and bodily.

Hamlet shows noteworthy disgust toward painted adult females. yet critics have overlooked that many of the modern-day Renaissance expostulations to women’s usage of cosmetics apply to Hamlet’s actions. Similar to the manner that painted adult females used cosmetics to mask the faces that God had given them. Hamlet puts on his “antic disposition” to mask the modules of ground which God has given him ( 1. 5. 192 ) . modules which in the Renaissance were an indispensable facet of the virtuous adult male. Whether or non Hamlet is genuinely huffy. he constructs a character to dissimulate his intent of retaliation.

Painted adult females were disparaged for poisoning their organic structure with unsafe chemicals ; Hamlet engages in a unsafe pursuit to revenge his male parent. and because of his quest for retaliation. he is fatally poisoned. By presuming an “antic temperament. ” a false face. Hamlet is physically poisoned by the bated blade of Laertes. Laertes’ toxicant destroys Hamlet’s organic structure natural and symbolically disrupts the organic structure politic. since Hamlet will be unable to govern Denmark. In add-on to seting on an fantastic temperament. a type of face picture. Hamlet possesses other womanly attributes that would arguably hold caused some anxiousness.

Mullaney asserts that popular sentiment in the Renaissance. particularly in the concluding old ages of Elizabeth I’s reign. was against the regulation of a female sovereign. The English people had ever been hesitating to accept a female queen ; as Elizabeth I grew older and more infirm. their tolerance for being ruled by a adult female diminished. Mullaney farther argues that this intolerance was a portion of the English subjects’ realisation that Elizabeth I was lame and politically debilitative: “for the Renaissance …

misogynism may in fact be an built-in portion of the bereavement procedure when the lost object or ideal being processed is a adult female. particularly but non entirely when that adult female is a queen of England. too” ( 140 ) . As the English public’s heartache for the diminution of their queen’s strength increased. so excessively did their disdain for her bodily failing and inability to regulate efficaciously. Reflecting anxiousness about Elizabeth’s I old age and frailty. Hamlet displays a stereotypically feminine quality that makes him debatable as inheritor to the Danish throne.

Early on in the drama. Claudius chides Hamlet for his “unmanly heartache refering the passing of his male parent ( 1. 2. 98 ) . Elaine Showalter claims that “Hamlet’s emotional exposure can … readily be conceptualized as feminine” ( 223 ) . Discoursing Hamlet’s creative activity of a huffy character. Carol Thomas Neely besides lists “passivity and loss of control” among Hamlet’s feminine attributes during his period of lunacy ( 326 ) . Hamlet’s emotional exposure and passiveness. when considered in the politically-charged ambiance of the late Elizabethan period. can even be seen as his ruin.

Mullaney. citing Tennenhouse. argues that “Hamlet is a drama keenly cognizant of its late Elizabethan position. in which the impending transportation of power ‘from one sovereign to another had to be rethought in position of the aging organic structure of the queen’” ( 149 ) . He goes on to see Hamlet as populating a male-constructed universe. Mullaney asserts that “like other Shakespearian males. Hamlet achieves a partial if self-destructive declaration of the contradictions of patriarchate by building a universe that is non so much gendered as free from gender differentiation—a universe that is all male” ( 158 ) .

It is credible that Hamlet’s true job is really the opposite—his universe is excessively female. or instead feminine. Despite the little figure of females in the drama. Hamlet presents a feminine character in a male organic structure. a distorted contemplation of Elizabeth I. who claimed to hold “the organic structure of a weak and lame adult female. but … the bosom and tummy of a king” ( Levin 1 ) . Hamlet possesses the organic structure of a prince. but the bosom and tummy of a adult female: a merger which was peculiarly debatable in the misogynous environment that prevailed during the sixteenth and 17th centuries.

As a feminine character in the organic structure of a male. peculiarly one who. as Claudius observes. is “most immediate to the throne” ( 1. 2. 113 ) . Hamlet can non be allowed to last and presume the throne. His decease. every bit good as the transition of the Danish monarchy to the quintessential warrior figure. Fortinbras. reflects the passage of the throne from Elizabeth I to James I. James I’s Ascension to the English throne alleviated some anxiousness of female sovereignty. although his reign showed his peevish. cowardly. and self-indulgent temperament.

When Hamlet puts on an “antic temperament. ” crafting himself as mad. he evinces natural traits that are normally associated with feminine failing. Hamlet is beset with passiveness and indecisiveness. two qualities frequently ascribed to adult females in the Renaissance ( Woodbridge 275-99 ) . Passivity and indecisiveness impede and about queer his quest to obey his father’s demand for retaliation. Davis D. McElroy claims that Hamlet. in add-on to sing the ghost’s exhortation to revenge him. contemplates taking no action at all. McElroy examines the gap five lines of the “to be or non to be” monologue: To be. or non to be. that is the inquiry:

Whether is nobler in the head to endure The slings and pointers of hideous luck. Or to take weaponries against a sea of problems. And by opposing. stop them. ( 3. 1. 64-8 ) McElroy alleges that these lines. which are by and large believed to be Hamlet’s statement sing self-destruction. represent a different deliberation on retaliation: violent death Claudius. as the alleged shade of his male parent demands. or taking no action at all—a more fearful determination. surely. but decidedly safer. McElroy compares the two options by analyzing the rhetoric of chiasmus—claiming that “to be” refers to “taking arms” against Claudius and “not to be” refers to “suffering …

hideous luck. ” He argues that the address pertains more moderately to avenge than suicide because killing oneself is more like “avoiding” one’s problems than “opposing” them ( 544 ) . It can be posited that Hamlet’s indecisiveness refering his vow to revenge his male parent analogues Elizabeth Fs refusal to call an inheritor. As Tennenhouse observes. Where Claudius would be 2nd to Hamlet and Hamlet’s line in a patrilineal system. the queen’s hubby and uncle of the king’s boy occupies the privileged male place in a matrilineal system. .

. It is to be expected that Claudius could non lawfully possess the Crown. the matrilineal sequence holding the weaker claim on British political thought. ( 89 ) Hamlet’s responsibility is non simply to continue his promise of retribution. He besides has an duty to his state to see Claudius removed from the throne and Hamlet. the rightful swayer in patrilinear sequence. put in his topographic point. When Hamlet contemplates pretermiting this duty. he endangers the sequence to the Danish throne in much the same manner that Elizabeth I’s secretiveness refering her ain sequence endangers England.

Arguably. Hamlet fails in his duty to protect the Danish sequence: after Hamlet’s decease. Fortinbras. a Norse. assumes the throne. Although Fortinbras is a better campaigner than the corrupt Claudius. he is a member of Norway’s royal line. non Denmark’s. Elizabeth I’s refusal to get married consigns England to a similar destiny sing kingship and royal lines. James I is a member of the British royal household. but he is a Stuart. non a Tudor. As the Virgin Queen. Elizabeth I secures her ain power by declining to call a replacement during her life-time. but she allows her familial line to decease with her.

Elizabeth I besides protected her political authorization by crafting several characters. As seen in the Rainbow Portrait. she took liberally from fabulous figures. such as Astraea. Flora. and Diana. Just as Elizabeth I appropriated the visual aspect and muliebrity of goddesses. Hamlet appropriates the masculine authorization he observes in Fortinbras. Hamlet attempts to build a character that goes beyond an fantastic temperament. desiring to manner himself as a strong boy and leader of Denmark.

After hearing of Fortinbras’s program to assail a desolate stretch of Poland. Hamlet resolves to emulate the activist Fortinbras by forging himself as a “bloody” retaliator: How stand I. so. That have a male parent killed. a female parent stained. Exhilarations of my ground and my blood. And allow all kip … … O. from this clip forth My ideas be bloody or be nil deserving! ( 4. 4. 59-62. 68-9 ) Although Hamlet desires to build himself as an aggressive and violent combatant. he is ne’er able to achieve Fortinbras’s strength. Hamlet’s passiveness here shows failing and infirmity. non qualities appropriate in a military leader or a sovereign.

Although Hamlet efforts to presume the maleness of Fortinbras. determining himself as a powerful agent of retaliation. Hamlet’s attempted emulation of Fortinbras’s maleness is simply another false forepart. Hamlet recognizes his ain passiveness. but nevertheless much he tries to counter and stamp down it. his muliebrity is excessively steadfastly a portion of his personality for him to get the better of it wholly. Even though Hamlet seeks to revenge his father’s slaying. he is unable to kill Claudius in Act three. scene three. Hamlet decides non to kill Claudius at his attempted supplication. and he therefore does non make what he has resolved to make.

At this point in the drama. the audience sees a fluid character. one who first manners himself as mad. so seriously attempts to model himself like the soldier Fortinbras. However much Hamlet views himself as mutable. he can non overrule his inactive nature. Hamlet attempts to set on Fortinbras’s masculine temperament after killing Polonius and guaranting the deceases of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. yet even after returning from his ocean trip to England. Hamlet is caught in his feminine passiveness. Despite his earlier resoluteness that “his ideas be bloody or be nil worth” ( 4. 4. 69 ) . Hamlet makes no move against Claudius.

He walks with Horatio in the cemetery. where he learns of Ophelia’s decease ( 5. 1. 253 ) . and he attacks Laertes at her gravesite ( 5. 1. 273 ) . but he still clings to his false fantastic temperament. Gertrude calls his behaviour “mere madness” and compares Hamlet to a “female dove” ( 5. 1. 302. 304 ) . Hamlet’s daze and heartache at larning about Ophelia’s decease could pardon his distraction from assailing Claudius. but Hamlet delays his undertaking excessively long. By waiting for Laertes’ challenge alternatively of taking his ain clip to face Claudius. Hamlet is forced to contend on the unreliable king’s footings and dies at the tip of Laertes’ poisoned blade.

Hamlet’s battle mirrors the regulation of Elizabeth I. who controlled her public image through intricately constructed character. Similar to Hamlet. Elizabeth I attempted to mask or stamp down her feminine failing. She proclaimed that she possessed a masculine organic structure politic despite her female organic structure natural. Elizabeth I maintained domination throughout her reign—no easy undertaking for a adult female in the Renaissance—yet her refusal to get married and bring forth inheritors ended the Tudor line of sequence.

Hamlet’s predicament reflects the anxiousness experienced by many English topics as Elizabeth I grew older with no kids to win her: as Elizabeth I aged. the inquiry of the sovereign’s function or representation to supply for the common public assistance became progressively critical. The Queen was still a mere adult female. even though she had the “heart and tummy of a king” ( Levin 1 ) . Equally. Hamlet strives to make a public character that corresponds with the masculine strength of Fortinbras. but he finally succumbs to feminine passiveness. even though he is a prince. Decision

Hamlet reflects the anxiousness of many of Elizabeth I’s subjects refering the strength of their Queen and the sequence of the monarchy. With no hubby and no inheritor to the throne. the political security of the state was at interest. Furthermore. many citizens were concerned with Elizabeth I’s aging organic structure and her undignified efforts to look younger. This concern developed in many instances into disdain for Elizabeth I’s delusory uses of her image. Hamlet has many feminine features that. particularly in the clime of Elizabeth I’s diminution. do him unsuitable as a swayer or possible male monarch.

Although he is non of course suited to the masculine demands of kingship. Hamlet strives to get the better of his feminine nature in order to reinstate the award and self-respect of his household and land. Although he accomplishes this terminal. his muliebrity delays him until he is betrayed by Claudius’ perfidy. Hamlet removes Claudius from the throne. but at the cost of many lives. and the Danish monarchy base on ballss to a Norse swayer. Like Elizabeth I. Hamlet tries to animate his individuality to derive needful regard and authorization. but finally fails to protect his father’s line of sequence.

In Hamlet. readers can surmise some of the feelings Shakespeare may hold experienced in the turning misogynism that permeated the concluding old ages of Elizabeth I’s reign. Like Hamlet. Elizabeth I was non without defects. and her topics came to resent her for these failings. expecting the coming of a more powerful—and masculine—monarch. As Shakespeare demonstrates with Hamlet’s affecting decease and with Fortinbras’s victory. a stronger. more manly sovereign is non needfully a more admirable or worthy one.

Plants Cited Greenblatt. Stephen. Renaissance Self-Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare. Chicago: Uracil of Chicago P. 1980.

Levin. Carole. “The Heart and Stomach of a King” : Elizabeth I and the Politicss of Sexual activity and Power. Philadelphia: Uracil of Pennsylvania P. 1994. McElroy. Davis D. “To Be. or Not to Be’—Is That the Question? ” College English 25. 7 ( 1964 ) : 543-545. Mullaney. Steven. “Mourning and Misogyny: Hamlet. The Revenger’s Tragedy. and the Final Progress of Elizabeth I. 1600-1607. ” Shakespeare Quarterly 45. 2 ( 1994 ) : 139-62. Neely. Carol Thomas. ‘”Documents in Madness’ : Reading Madness and Gender in Shakespeare’s Tragedies and Early Modern Culture. ” Shakespeare Quarterly 42. 3 ( 1991 ) : 315-38. Shakespeare. William. Hamlet. Eds. Barbara A.

Mowat and Paul Werstine. New York: Washington Square P. 1992. Showaiter. Elaine. “Representing Ophelia: Women. Madness. and the Responsibilities of Feminist Criticism. ” Hamlet: Complete. Authoritative Text with Biographical and Historical Contexts. Critical History. and Essays from Five Contemporary Critical Perspectives. Ed. Susanne L. Wofford. Boston: Bedford Books of St. Martin’s Press. 1994. Tennenhouse. Leonard. Power on Display: The Politicss of Shakespeare’s Genres. New York: Methuen. 1986. Tilley. M. P. ‘”I Have Heard of Your Paintings Too’ . ( Hamlet III. I. 148 ) . ” The Review of English Studies 5. 19 ( 1929 ) : 312-17