Aspects Of Being A Good King In William Shakespeare's Machiavelli

1267 Words 5 Pages
Another aspect of being a good king according to Machiavelli is being level-headed when it came to war and to killing people. This means that a king could not kill a person based on a hunch, and a king could not effectively start wars without any true cause. A true Machiavellian king is “slow to believe and to act” (Machiavelli 1523). This means that a king cannot act rashly about a situation and he must not believe what he is told upon first hearing it. He must investigate the matter and take all precautions to avoid unjustly acting against someone. Furthermore, if a king feels it is necessary “to proceed against the life of someone, he must do it in proper justification and for manifest cause” (Machiavelli 1523). This means that if a king believes someone to be deserving of death he must make sure it is fully justified and is not without apparent cause. If a king is able to do this he will avoid anger among his citizens and will be able to maintain a peaceful rule within his kingdom. Hamlet demonstrates that he can be prudent when it comes to war and to killing in two main instances: when he comments on the ramifications of Fortinbras’ war with Poland, and when he devises a plan to ensure that Claudius is guilty of killing King Hamlet. As Hamlet is waiting for his boat to England he is passed by Fortinbras’ troops as they march …show more content…
With all of these qualities in mind I propose that Hamlet would have made a good king had he survived the final scene of the play. Ultimately, Denmark would have greatly benefitted from Hamlet’s rule as Machiavellian political theory was based on creating the most effective European ruler. Finally, Hamlet would have been a good ruler for Denmark, and he avenged his father’s

Related Documents