The language used in critical readings of Hamlet is rife with implicitly teleological terms: according to many critics, and the ghost of King Hamlet, the story of his father's murder and Claudius' succession requires Hamlet to do something. I ask, why should Hamlet kill his uncle, revenge his father, correct his mother, become king, marry Ophelia, and produce heirs to rule when he is gone? While Hamlet's inaction is often described as delay or paralysis, I suggest that the Danish prince resists teleology through his studied ambivalence towards dynasty: land-owning, child-bearing, wars and marriage. Building on recent theoretical and historical work by scholars like Lee Edelman, Will Fisher, Margreta de Grazia and Madhavi Menon, I suggest that Hamlet, through the interventions of its main character, thwarts the assumption that the relationship between a nobleman and his land is natural, that the desire for possession and rule is inherent. Combining de Grazia's invaluable historicism with Fisher's discussion of prostheses, Ir ead the Renaissance nobleman as a prosthetic creature, physically and politically embodied by his marriage, his children, his land. In delaying the revenge he has been called upon to carry out, in hesitating to take up the crown, Hamlet defers the prostheses of nobility, and opens up a space from which to question the dynastic project.

The language used in critical readings of Hamlet is rife with implicitly teleological terms: according to many critics, and the ghost of King Hamlet, the story of his father's murder and Claudius' succession requires Hamlet to do something. I ask, why should Hamlet kill his uncle, revenge his father, correct his mother, become king, marry Ophelia, and produce heirs to rule when he is gone? While Hamlet's inaction is often described as delay or paralysis, I suggest that the Danish prince resists teleology through his studied ambivalence towards dynasty: land-owning, child-bearing, wars and marriage. Building on recent theoretical and historical work by scholars like Lee Edelman, Will Fisher, Margreta de Grazia and Madhavi Menon, I suggest that Hamlet, through the interventions of its main character, thwarts the assumption that the relationship between a nobleman and his land is natural, that the desire for possession and rule is inherent. Combining de Grazia's invaluable historicism with Fisher's discussion of prostheses, Ir ead the Renaissance nobleman as a prosthetic creature, physically and politically embodied by his marriage, his children, his land. In delaying the revenge he has been called upon to carry out, in hesitating to take up the crown, Hamlet defers the prostheses of nobility, and opens up a space from which to question the dynastic project.

The language used in critical readings of Hamlet is rife with implicitly teleological terms: according to many critics, and the ghost of King Hamlet, the story of his father's murder and Claudius' succession requires Hamlet to do something. I ask, why should Hamlet kill his uncle, revenge his father, correct his mother, become king, marry Ophelia, and produce heirs to rule when he is gone? While Hamlet's inaction is often described as delay or paralysis, I suggest that the Danish prince resists teleology through his studied ambivalence towards dynasty: land-owning, child-bearing, wars and marriage. Building on recent theoretical and historical work by scholars like Lee Edelman, Will Fisher, Margreta de Grazia and Madhavi Menon, I suggest that Hamlet, through the interventions of its main character, thwarts the assumption that the relationship between a nobleman and his land is natural, that the desire for possession and rule is inherent. Combining de Grazia's invaluable historicism with Fisher's discussion of prostheses, Ir ead the Renaissance nobleman as a prosthetic creature, physically and politically embodied by his marriage, his children, his land. In delaying the revenge he has been called upon to carry out, in hesitating to take up the crown, Hamlet defers the prostheses of nobility, and opens up a space from which to question the dynastic project. / Arts, Faculty of / English, Department of / Graduate

This thesis concerns the issues of leadership in the African context, but it derives its emphasis from the stories in Daniel 1–6 in the Old Testament, in order to comment on leadership styles, competencies, skills and the state of leadership in Africa. It is a reading from a specific context, that of someone living in present times in the Republic of Chad. The research focused mainly on the following issues: What can we learn from the stories concerning leadership in Daniel 1–6? Who are the leaders in these chapters? What is the quality of their leadership? In trying to answer these questions, the researcher had to consider the following: How was the book read and interpreted in the past? How is it currently interpreted? Looking at past research, the focus fell on: (1) the pre-critical period, (2) the historical-critical period, and (3) the period in which modern literary studies abound. Following the research history a personal reading and interpretation of the stories in Daniel 1–6 are presented. A narrative analysis is carried out and the plots of the different stories are analysed according to the quinary scheme (the initial situation, the complication, transforming action, the denouement and the final situation). The focus falls on the narrator’s presentation of the main characters and what readers can learn from these stories about leadership. Although there is attention to how scholars in the past and present have interpreted the Book of Daniel, the researcher tries to present a new interpretation by carrying out a contextual reading focusing on leadership. This aspect did not receive much attention in previous research. What is gained by this reading is then applied to the situation in the modern Republic of Chad. First, there is a detailed study of current writing by scholars as well as what they are saying about leadership. Following this, the African and Chadian contexts are considered. The final chapter synthesises all the issues that have been discussed. / Old Testament & Ancient Near Eastern Studies / D.Th. (Old Testament)

This thesis concerns the issues of leadership in the African context, but it derives its emphasis from the stories in Daniel 1–6 in the Old Testament, in order to comment on leadership styles, competencies, skills and the state of leadership in Africa. It is a reading from a specific context, that of someone living in present times in the Republic of Chad. The research focused mainly on the following issues: What can we learn from the stories concerning leadership in Daniel 1–6? Who are the leaders in these chapters? What is the quality of their leadership? In trying to answer these questions, the researcher had to consider the following: How was the book read and interpreted in the past? How is it currently interpreted? Looking at past research, the focus fell on: (1) the pre-critical period, (2) the historical-critical period, and (3) the period in which modern literary studies abound. Following the research history a personal reading and interpretation of the stories in Daniel 1–6 are presented. A narrative analysis is carried out and the plots of the different stories are analysed according to the quinary scheme (the initial situation, the complication, transforming action, the denouement and the final situation). The focus falls on the narrator’s presentation of the main characters and what readers can learn from these stories about leadership. Although there is attention to how scholars in the past and present have interpreted the Book of Daniel, the researcher tries to present a new interpretation by carrying out a contextual reading focusing on leadership. This aspect did not receive much attention in previous research. What is gained by this reading is then applied to the situation in the modern Republic of Chad. First, there is a detailed study of current writing by scholars as well as what they are saying about leadership. Following this, the African and Chadian contexts are considered. The final chapter synthesises all the issues that have been discussed. / Biblical and Ancient Studies / D. Th. (Old Testament)