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 towards Poland. As he speaks to the Captain he remarks to himself that “Two thousand souls and twenty thousand ducats/Will not debate the question of this straw./This is th ' impostume of much wealth and peace,/That inward breaks and shows no cause without/Why the man dies” (4.4.24-29). In saying this Hamlet demonstrates that he understands the cost and ramifications of war, both in terms of monetary and human cost. He also is able to recognize that there is no real reason that this war is being fought other than for Fortinbras to occupy his time. This recognition demonstrates that Hamlet would have made every effort to avoid unnecessary wars as war without cause unjustly takes the lives of men. Hamlet further demonstrates that he is opposed to the unjust taking of life by ensuring that what the Ghost has told him about Claudius killing King Hamlet is true. Hamlet devises a plan to ensure that Claudius is guilty. As he speaks to Horatio about the players he tells Horatio that “[t]he play’s the thing/Wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the king” (2.2.616-617). This investigation into the truth regarding the death of King Hamlet demonstrates that he will not kill a man without proof of wrong doing. Hamlet also tells Horatio that “after [they] will both [their] judgements join/In censure of his seeming” (3.2.88-89). This demonstrates that Hamlet will not make decision that affects another man’s life without first consulting with trusted advisors about the proof that has been gathered against the person. This in turn demonstrates that he is slow to act upon information that he is given that is unverified. In summary, Hamlet looks at the ramifications of his actions and verifies that the taking of a life is justified before he acts. Hamlet’s prudence in regards to war and killing demonstrates that he would be able to fulfill Machiavelli’s expectation of a king to be slow to act, and believe. It also demonstrates that he would be level-headed if he ever was faced with a situation where he had to kill someone as king. He would make sure that it was just to take the person’s life. Simply put, Hamlet would make a good Machiavellian king in this aspect of Machiavelli’s political theory. According to Machiavelli a king must also be able to be cunning when he needs to be. Machiavelli states that: A prince, therefore, being compelled knowingly to adopt the beast, ought to choose the fox and the lion; because the lion cannot defend himself against snares and
…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
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