Hamlet oder Hekuba. Der Einbruch der Zeit in das Spiel.

by Carl Schmitt

Though Carl Schmitt is best known for his legal and political theory, his 1956 Hamlet or Hecuba provides an innovative and insightful analysis of Shakespeare s tragedy in terms of the historical situation of its creation. Schmitt argues that the significance of Shakespeare s work hinges on its ability to integrate history in the form of the taboo of the queen and the deformation of the figure of the avenger. He uses this interpretation to develop a theory of myth and politics that serves as a cultural foundation for his concept of political representation. More than literary criticism or historical analysis, Schmitt s book lays out a comprehensive theory of the relationship between aesthetics and politics that responds to alternative ideas developed by Walter Benjamin and Theodor W. Adorno. Jennifer R. Rust and Julia Reinhard Lupton s introduction places Schmitt s work in the context of contemporary Renaissance studies, and David Pan s afterword analyzes the links to Schmitt s political theory. Presented in its entirety in an authorized translation, Hamlet or Hecuba is essential reading for scholars of Shakespeare and Schmitt alike.

Praise for Carl Schmitt's Hamlet or Hecuba

"Beyond ancient tragedy and the Atreides, through the themes of vengeance, of the brother and of election, this essay also questions the political destiny of the 'European spirit.'"

--Jacques Derrida, The Politics of Friendship

"The intrusion into Shakespeare's Hamlet by the highly controversial German legal and political theorist and constitutional lawyer Carl Schmitt will raise eyebrows in the English-speaking world. The able English translation and introductions will engender a plethora of studies by Shakespeare scholars, and by political scientists and historians who will analyze subtexts in order to decipher Schmitt the man from Schmitt the thinker."

--George Schwab, President, National Committee on American Foreign Policy

"In his remarkable essay on Hamlet, Schmitt argues that the playwright's audience shared with him not only a horizon of cultural and historical knowledge; they were also, he claims, profoundly attuned to the symptomatic gaps and displacements, to the dream-like traces of a political unconscious, at work in the play. Here, Schmitt claims to have definitively deciphered what might be called the 'latent dream thoughts' of Shakespeare's most famous tragedy. It is, however, only by way of the inner tensions of Schmitt's own essay, made vibrantly legible in the brilliant introduction by this volume's editors, that the reader can fully grasp the ways in which the traumatic entry of historical time into the realm of aesthetic play generates Hamlet's persistent force as the paradigmatic tragedy of modern European theater."

--Eric Santner, Professor of Germanic Studies, The University of Chicago

"Like Hamlet's Mousetrap, Carl Schmitt's Hamlet or Hecuba is an incendiary provocation, one that still has the power to catch the conscience of Shakespeare critics half a century later. Schmitt's deep reflections on the nature of tragedy, the relations between the real and the aesthetic, and the barbarity of Elizabethan theater, will engage and sometimes irk Shakespeareans of every stripe. His critical practice--poised somewhere between a Kantian contest of faculties and an Anschluss--grates productively against the more pacific versions of interdisciplinarity that reign today. And Rust and Lupton's fine introduction lays bare the religious, political, and philosophical stakes of Schmitt's Shakespearean encounter."

--Richard Halpern, Professor of English, The Johns Hopkins University

Genres: Nonfiction, Literary Criticism, Shakespeare, Philosophy

Hardcover

First published January 1, 1956

About the author

Carl Schmitt's early career as an academic lawyer falls into the last years of the Wilhelmine Empire. (See for Schmitt's life and career: Bendersky 1983; Balakrishnan 2000; Mehring 2009.) But Schmitt wrote his most influential works, as a young professor of constitutional law in Bonn and later in Berlin, during the Weimar-period: Political Theology, presenting Schmitt's theory of sovereignty, appeared in 1922, to be followed in 1923 by The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy, which attacked the legitimacy of parliamentary government. In 1927, Schmitt published the first version of his most famous work, The Concept of the Political, defending the view that all true politics is based on the distinction between friend and enemy. The culmination of Schmitt's work in the Weimar period, and arguably his greatest achievement, is the 1928 Constitutional Theory which systematically applied Schmitt's political theory to the interpretation of the Weimar constitution. During the political and constitutional crisis of the later Weimar Republic Schmitt published Legality and Legitimacy, a clear-sighted analysis of the breakdown of parliamentary government Germany, as well as The Guardian of the Constitution, which argued that the president as the head of the executive, and not a constitutional court, ought to be recognized as the guardian of the constitution. In these works from the later Weimar period, Schmitt's declared aim to defend the Weimar constitution is at times barely distinguishable from a call for constitutional revision towards a more authoritarian political framework (Dyzenhaus 1997, 70–85; Kennedy 2004, 154–78).

Though Schmitt had not been a supporter of National Socialism before Hitler came to power, he sided with the Nazis after 1933. Schmitt quickly obtained an influential position in the legal profession and came to be perceived as the ‘Crown Jurist’ of National Socialism. (Rüthers 1990; Mehring 2009, 304–436) He devoted himself, with undue enthusiasm, to such tasks as the defence of Hitler's extra-judicial killings of political opponents (PB 227–32) and the purging of German jurisprudence of Jewish influence (Gross 2007; Mehring 2009, 358–80). But Schmitt was ousted from his position of power within legal academia in 1936, after infighting with academic competitors who viewed Schmitt as a turncoat who had converted to Nazism only to advance his career. There is considerable debate about the causes of Schmitt's willingness to associate himself with the Nazis. Some authors point to Schmitt's strong ambition and his opportunistic character but deny ideological affinity (Bendersky 1983, 195–242; Schwab 1989). But a strong case has been made that Schmitt's anti-liberal jurisprudence, as well as his fervent anti-semitism, disposed him to support the Nazi regime (Dyzenhaus 1997, 85–101; Scheuerman 1999). Throughout the later Nazi period, Schmitt's work focused on questions of international law. The immediate motivation for this turn seems to have been the aim to justify Nazi-expansionism. But Schmitt was interested in the wider question of the foundations of international law, and he was convinced that the turn towards liberal cosmopolitanism in 20th century international law would undermine the conditions of stable and legitimate international legal order. Schmitt's theoretical work on the foundations of international law culminated in The Nomos of the Earth, written in the early 1940's, but not published before 1950. Due to his support for and involvement with the Nazi dictatorship, the obstinately unrepentant Schmitt was not allowed to return to an academic job after 1945 (Mehring 2009, 438–63). But he nevertheless remained an important figure in West Germany's conservative intellectual scene to his death in 1985 (van Laak 2002) and enjoyed a considerable degree of clandestine influence elsewhere (Scheuerman 1999, 183–251; Müller 2003).

Unsurprisingly, the significance and value of Schmitt's works

Reviews

[Rüveyda · Rating 4 out of 5]

hamlet, tanrı'nın inayetiyle, yas oyunu için yegâne seyircidir; ama onu tatmin edebilecek şey, onun için sergilenen bu oyun değil sadece ve sadece kendi kaderidir.

[deniz · Rating 3 out of 5]

finals forced me to read a fascist's opinion about hamlet...

[Kapo Kap · Rating 3 out of 5]

No Hecuba just Hamlet. Because of the title I thought it is going to be a comparative analysis of two revenge plays, but laughs on me, because it was mostly Carl Schmitt drawing parallels between Hamlet's characters and historical figures of the time of the play's creation and speculating how it affected the final work. He argues that contemporary audience would link Hamlet's plot to King James and his late mother Mary Stuart who may or may not have killed his father. Presumably, this historical reality is what prompted Shakespeare to leave the question about the mother's involvement in the Hamlet's father murder unanswered.

[Hakan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Eser, Carl Schmitt'in aslında bir bakıma Walter Benjamin'e cevaben yazdığı bir Hamlet incelemesini ihtiva ediyor. Burada Hamlet'in zaman çerçevesi ve egemenlik ilişkisi irdelenirken bunlar tarihsel bir bağlam içinde anlamlandırılır ve Schmitt'in, belki de hep yaptığı gibi, konu, ek bölümlerde, bir egemenlik meselesine de kaymakta. İlgilisi olanların okumasını tavsiye ederim. Anca önce Hamlet eserinin kendisi mutlaka okunmalı.

[Emine · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hamlet'in tarihselci bakis acisi ile yapilmis tefsiri. Hamlet'in absurt davranislarini anlamlamdirma acisindan faydali buldum ama sadece Hamlet'i ve iktidar iliskileri baglaminda konuyu incelemis, keske Ophelia'nin yaptiklarini da anlamlandirma firsati sunsa idi.

[Anna · Rating 4 out of 5]

«[…] η ευρωπαϊκή ποίηση δημιούργησε τρεις μεγάλες συμβολικές μορφές: τον Δον Κιχώτη, τον Άμλετ και τον Φάουστ. Από αυτές η μία τουλάχιστον, ο Άμλετ, μετατράπηκε ήδη σε μύθο. Και οι τρεις, όλως περιέργως, είναι αναγνώστες βιβλίων, και άρα διανοούμενοι, αν μπορούμε να το θέσουμε έτσι. Και οι τρεις είναι διαταραγμένοι πνευματικά. Ας προσέξουμε την προέλευση και την καταγωγή τους: ο Δον Κιχώτης είναι Ισπανός και ρητά καθολικός· ο Φάουστ είναι Γερμανός και προτεστάντης· ο Άμλετ στέκει μεταξύ των δύο, στη μέση του σχίσματος που καθόρισε τη μοίρα της Ευρώπης.»

[Piper Rutchik · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pretty good, a little circular but I guess he wanted to make points clear…though I still am not fully sure where he stands DESPITE his “results” page. Some good thoughts in there and was worth the read to know more history and analytic history of Hamlet…though it was funny because it was wrong…

Weird semi-expected undertones and an attack on Nietzsche but…oh well.

[Christine · Rating 1 out of 5]

My main quibble with this piece, which I did read in its entirety, is the fact that Schmitt uses the words "objective historical reality" in the same sentence sequentially...and he doesn't use the phrase derisively...

[Melanie · Rating 1 out of 5]

Meh. Inoffensive literary criticism at best, and gross historical pastiche at worst.