Renaissance Code Of Honor In Hamlet

Words: 1921
Pages: 8

No work exists in a vacuum. Every work of art that has been created draws upon influences from the time and culture in which it was forged. Any work of art is a reflection of the world in which it was created. It is certainly possible to enjoy a piece of art as a self-contained work, and to understand a great deal about it by experiencing it in that limited way. It is not possible, however, to completely understand a work without understanding the By understanding those influences, it is possible to gain a deeper understanding of a work than could be gleaned through only the work itself. Shakespeare’s Hamlet was written and published at turn of the seventeenth century, and it reflects the cultural, political, and religious conditions of his …show more content…
Laertes’s greatest expression of outrage and anger comes when he swears to avenge his father. Both he and Hamlet have similar motivations, but while Hamlet tries to keep his actions honorable under the Renaissance code of honor, Laertes decides to disregard that modern honor entirely. Renaissance honor was based on a person’s relationship to God, and disobeying that code could lead to a person angering God. Despite knowing that, Laertes rejects any notions of being honorable in God’s eyes, saying “I dare damnation” as he swears revenge (IV.5.131). Laertes decides to focus his actions entirely on satisfying medieval honor, by taking revenge on his father’s murderer, but entirely and willingly ignores the potential for damnation under the modern moral code. Hamlet and Laertes present different paths taken from similar motivation, allowing Shakespeare to explore and portray different reactions to honor as it changed in the world around …show more content…
The idea of an uprising against the crown, as is led by Laertes in Scene 4, would have seemed to the audience as a realistic threat, one that could very easily throw their own kingdom into chaos (Kurland 288). To a twenty-first century reader, the idea of the people rising up and overthrowing an absolute ruler is a good thing, and is something that would be celebrated in the present day. This would be especially true of American readers, as they live in a country that exists directly as a result of rebellion against a monarch. For a person in seventeenth century England, however, there were no nations ruled by the direct will of the people. Even though England did have Parliament, which was an elected body, the sovereign’s divine right and power to rule would have been unquestioned. When a messenger reports that Laertes is leading a rebellion, and that “the rabble call him lord” (IV.5.102), it would have been interpreted not as a democratic revolt that ought to be supported, but as a treasonous insurrection. The use of the word “rabble” to describe Laertes’s supporters clearly demonstrates this point of view. The crowd is not a group of patriots, gathering to overthrow a despotic government. They are rabble: unsophisticated and easily manipulated fools who threaten the security of the state. As