Hamlet's Age

[ina centaur]

While I hold my own perspective on this, I should ask a general question to hopefully get more people involved in this not-so-virtual discussion: how old is Hamlet?

[Jerry]

I would place Hamlet at about 17-18 max - in those days by the time you were 30 you were well into middle age with an average life expectancy of 40-50 years. Indeed he may have been considered younger - it was not uncommon in Shakespeare's time for royalty to be placed under pressure to marry to preserve the blood-line by about 16. English kings could ascend the throne at 17-18 or younger with a Regent.

[Corwyn Allen]

I would disagree somewhat and place him more in his mid to late 20s. I base this on a looking at the relative ages and periods of reigns and ages at death of a random sampling of English monarchs starting with William the Bastard (or the Conqueror if you prefer) whose reign began in 1066. He was 39 years old when he ascended the throne of England, reigned 21 years and died at approximately 60 years. The youngest was poor Edward V who was about 12 when he became king, reigned two months and was allegedly murdered by Richard III. The youngest actual reigning King was Edward VI who ascended the throne at the age of ten, reigned about six years and died at age fifteen (the dates look skewed because of the months of birth, ascension and death throwing off the the years by a few months either direction). This brings us to Gloriana, our own dear Bess, patroness of the arts in Shakespeare's time. She ascended the throne at age 25, reigned 45 years and died at the ripe old age of 69. She might have ascended the throne at a younger age had it not been for Bloody Mary.

So then, over the span of about 600 years of English history, we really find only one monarch below the age 21 (we can't really count porr Edward V). And so vis a vis Hamlet I think there's a good case to place him in that mid to late 20s bracket. Maybe early 20s if we want to make him seem even younger and thus more headstong because of his youth. But I don't know if age played as much a factor in youthful petulance as did the fact that the children of monarchs were, for the most part, the spoiled children of the ruling class, and often displayed this petulance through their dotage.

[Jerry]

Can't argue with that logic - except on two counts - does that also apply to Denmark? And secondly, the angst with which Hamlet deals with his love and loss of Ophelia and and with the politicking surrounding him.

While I certainly wouldn't rule out a Hamlet in his early 20s, I equally would be adamant that he is not as old as Wm the Conqueror - who spent much of his early life scheming and murdering his way from being Duke of Normandy to timing his move on England against Harold Godwinson to coincide in narrow fashion with the Danish king Harald Ardrada's attack to the north and the fateful battle of Stamford Bridge.

[ina centaur]

Yes, as Jerry points out -- would be curious to see how you tie in the events of the play with Hamlet's age. Also, don't you find it interesting that Hamlet doesn't assume Kingship, even though he's his father (the former King)'s son?

[Corwyn Allen]

Jerry, you make a very good point. I drew on my knowledge of English monarchs, and shamefully admit to having no knowledge of the Danish monarchy structure. I will go and do some more research. However, Shakespeare was English. How much knowedge can we assume he may have had about the Danish monarchy? I would suspect very little, and being an artist he paints from the pallette he has to hand and is most familiar with, that being England. I do however agree with you that Hamlet is not as old as William.

Ina, you also make a good point about Hamlet not assuming the throne upon the death of his father. Now this was either historically accurate for how the Danes handled succession, or it was Bill not having in depth knowledge and faking it to get a good story out. Again, this leads me to more research into Danish succession et. al. Ain't we got fun. ;)

[Corwyn Allen]

Oh my, research can turn up so many interesting things. In looking more deeply into the Danish monarchy and Danish rights of royal succession I came across Salic Law, originated by the Salic Franks some time between 507 and 511 CE. Salic Law states that no female may inherit salic lands. Shakespeare makes brief mention of salic Law in Henry V but with respect to Hal taking the French throne. There is an ammendment to Salic Law that came about around 570, and that is if a man had no sons to inherit but only a daughter, she may inherit. This explains Margarethe I who never styled herself Queen of Denmark except ever so briefly in 1375.

This of course means that Gertrude could not have inherited the throne, and it would have rightly gone to Hamlet upon his father's death. So now we have the dilema of why Claudius married Gertrude in order to gain the throne instead of having Hamlet killed outright much earlier on. This could be answered by going back to Jerry's original hypothesis that Hamlet is indeed much younger than I posited, possibly even in his young teens (13 - 16), and that Claudius is acting as Regeant until such time as he can have Hamlet discreetly disposed of.

Curioser and curioser.

[Jerry]

Yes Bill was English, but not as parochial as one might think. He was living and working on the banks of the Thames - gateway to the world. As a writer he would have listened to travellers tales of other places near and far by talking to the seamen and merchants - the latter having a keen sense of political life - as that was how they would find their next market. The Thames river was like the information superhighway of its day, and all that was new and different and Other would have sailed in and out of England via the Thames. Bill being an intelligent and active writer and actor would have embraced it as we embrace SL and blogging and twitter and facebook - building communities among progressive people of the day. My sense is therefore that Bill would have known quite a bit about the Continent - and remember at this time Copenhagen (literally translated as 'safe harbour') was just opening up as a copy of Holland's Amsterdam so there would have been quite a bit of news and information from and about the Danes.
Cheers Jerry//Aiji Ducatillon

[Corwyn Allen]

Jerry, you make an excellent point about the Thames being the gateway to Bill's world. But I wonder how much of Law and such Bill's informants there would have understood vs. just being knowledgeable of the given political climate. It's one thing to say So and So is at war with Such and Such, but it's quite another to fully embrace and understand the politics behind that war. For the traders it's about what harbor is safe and what goods they can get the most profit from. They would not have been as concerned about rights of succession and all, and that understanding is, I think, the crux of determining Hamlet's age at this point.

Now, that having been said, I will agree that Bill probably did a fair amount of research, and he may very well have had others within the Royal Court or at least on the fringes to garner more in depth info for his stories. So he would have likely had more knowledge of such things as Salic Law (obvious from the aforementioned Henry V). But would he have applied it in its pure form, or is he taking license. I think, based on my previous comments about Salic Law and Danish succession that Gertrude would not inherit thereby making it pointless for Claudius to marry her for the throne. But if she was acting as Regeant for Hamlet because he was underage, whatever that means in the Renaissance/Middle Ages, then Claudius would have much better reason for that.

So, I think you have a good case for placing Hamlet in his teens, and I retract my previous statement about him being in his 20s. By his 20s he'd be king and Claudius would have no claim and Will would have no play. And as we all know, the play's the thing.... ;)

[Jerry]

Corwyn - just to take your first point - actually I think the traders would take a great deal of interest in the finer points of succession for two reasons: firstly, courtly stories would be the stuff of the equivalent of Women's Weekly or the gossip columns of the day - hence of broad interest - especially in England where they could feel smug while other countries struggled with their succession; and secondly - and more importantly, trade would hinge on successful peaceful succession, and wherever that was in doubt there would be questions about whether that port would be safe to go back to as any difficulty with succession usually meant war - civil or cross-border.

Bill would certainly have used license for dramatic effect, and he would be able to weave this into an allegory of English politico/royal life, while staying just on the right side of being seditious. He would have had to tread a fine line with the official censors who determined whether or not the playhouse would open. So, to make a scathing point about political back-stabbing in (English) court, he could conveniently set it abroad and avoid jail - however narrowly at times!

I guess another factor in Shakespeare's understanding of Danelaw is that he was himself a Northerner - where even today various forms of Danelaw are practiced in the local councils - and he was only 400 years removed from the wise Danish king Cnut's reign over most of northern England. And that is where Bill had the advantage over his predecessors and indeed ourselves - it was a time of amazing transition in the English language - he was no longer restricted to saxon words like 'Kingly' he could draw on 'regal' and royal' with their evocative roots in words for blood-line derived from the romance languages, and the double entendres of 'nunnery' for convent and brothel :-)

As you say, the play is the thing :-) And all the (known) world's a stage :-)

[Freydis Constantine]

Succession to the throne in "Hamlet" (the play) wasn't automatic: Hamlet himself talks about the "Election" lighting on Fortinbras after H is dead. It's likely that Claudius was elected by a group of ministers (probably lead by Polonius) Firstly, cos he was on the spot at a time of national emergency and not playing the eternal undergrad in Wittenburg and secondly because he had no doubt worked and planned and influenced people prior to the poison down the ear episode.

The gravedigger says Hamlet is 30. Yorrick has been dead 23 years but Hamlet remembers playing with him. Common sense and instinct makes Hamlet a broody, moody teenager but maybe growing up is another thing to which he can't commit. He has some views on middle age sex which are mostly found amongst the under 20's!

In performance actors seem to get away with a wide variety of ages for Hamlet: you can certainly play him later in your career than you can play Romeo. Over 35 and you are definitely pushing at credibility (especially with a 45 year old mum!).

Shakespeare might have had all the knowledge and/or done all the research into Danish history and law that you suggest.Or he might just have followed his source text Amleth from The History of the Danes by Saxo Grammaticus (12th Century)