Political theology is a distinctly modern problem as it takes seriously the recurrence of religious patterns that continue to animate forms of political thinking and organization in the modern world. What prompted the current focus on political theology was the end of the Cold War, which brought with it not the victory of the liberalism but a resurgence of religious fundamentalism and a war on terror justified as a holy cause. It was in this context that intellectuals have begun to probe with vigor the theological underpinnings of the modern state. Shakespeare`s dramas and his period have played an important role in modern recurrences of political theology as the 16th and 17th centuries witnessed “the entanglement of the political and the theological” our of which modern concepts of politics were born, and his dramas are the records and the exploration of the historical transition. Then how do Shakespeare`s dramas help to explain the character and persistence of political theology in modernity? How does the reemergence of political theology in the 20th and 21m centuries help to reshape our understanding of Shakespeare`s period and dramas? This article aims to answer these questions by reading Carl Schmitt`s Hamlet or Hecuba. Schmitt is one of the modern thinkers who have investigated the persistence of religious forms within a modern political order founded on the neutralization of religion. According to Schmitt, theology and the modern state have the same systematic structure, whose salient feature is its dependence upon a certain transcendence. He criticizes the liberal theory of the state for effacing the originary relationship of the political to transcendence and insists that the rule of law ultimately hinges on an act of violence in the state of exception. In Hamlet and Hecuba, Schmitt turns to Shakespeare in order to elaborate his own political theology by reading Hamlet as a “counter-myth of early modern politics,” which calls for the Sovereign`s decision in the face of the secularization of politics. There is, however, an ambiguity or lack of logic in Schmitt`s reading of Hamlet, which also reveals the aporia of his political theology, and behind this lies Hamlet which shows us not the necessity of the Sovereign`s decision but the impossibility of it.