• Journal of English Language & Literature
• /
• v.58 no.5
• /
• pp.975-999
• /
• 2012

This paper interrogates what a new point Schmitt shows concerning the problem of sovereignty in Hamlet or Hecuba in comparison with his Political Theology. Schmitt reveals his political stand on sovereignty through ‘political representation’ that connects the politics to the aesthetics in Hamlet or Hecuba since Hamlet is above all aesthetic work as play. He stresses the determining effect of political reality over the play as he links the story of Hamlet to the tragic family of James I and the religious conflicts of the Stuart dynasty. This leads to, on the one hand, supporting the myth of absolute sovereignty by elevating Hamlet to the transcendental and the exceptional status of sovereign. However, Schmitt’s intent over the absolute sovereignty is, on the other hand, demolished with the two shadows that he scrutinized through the couple of Hamlet and James I: first, the suspect that Gertrude(Mary Stuart) was involved in the murder of Hamlet(James I)’s father, and second, the century’s conflicts with religious reformation and civil war. The perils of sovereignty are manifested not only in these two, “the taboo of the Queen,” and “the Hamletization of the avenger.” It is most of all evidenced in Hamlet itself that subverts the unconditional sovereignty consistently. Hamlet’s selfreflective remarks likening the king to the beggar and the reality of Denmark succession prove that Hamlet’s political discourse is totally different from the politics that accentuates the divine sovereignty.