“A King of Shreds and Patches”…. an alternative, positive view of Claudius in Hamlet.

“A King of Shreds and Patches”…. an alternative, positive view of Claudius in Hamlet.

In Hamlet  there are so many layers of ambiguity that settling upon something that we believe we can grasp, understand and perhaps be (almost) sure about comes as a relief;  a fixed point amidst so much uncertainty.  The character of Claudius seems to represent this. To most, he’s a genuine “bad guy” whose guilt is rarely questioned and whose ultimate come-uppance is taken for granted. As a result, “he rarely gets from the reader the attention he deserves”, as A.C. Bradley recognises.

 Many readings support a negative, two-dimensional view which paints Claudius in pantomime colours.  Maynard Mack calls him a “…serpent-uncle…the core of the ulcer” while Kitto echoes this, calling him an “arch villain”.  Kitto goes further down this road; Claudius is “recklessly given to crime, devoid of any pure or disinterested motive”.  Such certainty is rare in Hamlet criticism, and it is easy to see how it might be eagerly seized upon as a constant from which other judgements can spring.  To make Claudius a moustache-twirling evil-doer enables a perspective which sets Hamlet, Gertrude and other characters in clear relief; Hamlet’s indecision can be seen to grow out of his own psychological issues, rather than from the knawing doubts he surely harbours over his stepfather’s true nature.

As Hamlet latches onto those words of the ghost that suit his existing views, Kitto’s conviction leads to an assumption that Claudius is a “drunkard”.  A more balanced view might acknowledge the new King’s desire to create a joyful, positive atmosphere at court while cementing his own popularity.  An unquestioning acceptance of Claudius’ guilt will naturally lead to assumptions that any care expressed for Hamlet must be Machiavellian, that his guilty prayers are deceptions and his stony-faced exit from The Mousetrap is evidence of his inability to live with his evil deeds.  Dangerously, it presents a view of Claudius’ relationship with Gertrude that goes a long way towards justifying Hamlet’s specious accusations of lechery, lust and incestuous desire.

All this certainty is therefore a concern. While the ghost’s words are indeed delivered with portentous conviction, we need to think more carefully about Claudius’ motives in killing a King who is also his brother.  Should we not consider more carefully the ghost’s own words at 1,v,12 when he admits that his place in purgatory is due to “the foul crimes done in my days of nature”? The purgatory that the ghost suffers certainly seems truly punishing (…assuming that we accept the ghost as real, and do not question how a man done to death while sleeping could possibly know who killed him- even with the potential omniscience that ghost-status  brings). The dark confessions by the ghost must lead us to examine Claudius’ motives, and we are given clear and important information by Shakespeare to help us explore and understand these.

Shakespeare is careful to make Claudius a man in late middle age; he is no headstrong, impetuous young fool.  In this regard, the decision to commit such a triple-damned murder (homicide, fratricide, regicide) at this late stage in his life raises big questions.  We are forced to acknowledge the possibility that Claudius’ act was altruistic, intent upon removing a King who in Claudius’ view was detrimental to the Denmark’s best interests.   Clearly, Claudius viewed his brother as reckless;  he had, after all, risked the whole kingdom in a vainglorious act of single combat.  Shakespeare leads us towards accepting the likelihood that, rightly or wrongly, Claudius firmly believed that he was morally obliged to kill the king who happened, tragically, to be his brother.  In putting the needs of the state first, Claudius’ behaviour can be explained.  Such an act of murder is difficult to justify under any circumstances;  but importantly,  if we accept that it was a painful act committed not for selfish reasons but out of patriotism, then Claudius’ actions throughout the rest of the play become easier to understand.

Claudius is no power-crazed Macbeth, no malcontent- Edmund, and no evil-hearted Iago. He perceives wisdom in Polonius’ buffoonery; his first act upon gaining power is prudent- to secure Denmark’s relations with Norway, and unlike Macbeth, he seeks no dynasty. He marries Gertrude, his “imperial jointress”,  for either love, or domestic continuity or both; if lust, or the production of an heir had been his motivation, he would surely have chosen elsewhere. Hamlet’s unhealthy fixation with wantonness, lechery and incest is therefore a misguided obsession;  his accusations barely hold water.   Hamlet himself acknowledges that at Gertrude’s age, “the heyday in the blood is tame”.  Crucially, he has failed to recognise the true reason behind Gertrude’s decision to marry her brother-in-law:  the need to find political sanctuary for herself and, more importantly, visibility and therefore safety for her son.  Hamlet’s many insulting allegations are therefore doubly painful to his mother- she can hardly admit her motives at this stage as she and Claudius are likeminded in their desire to protect Denmark.

Claudius’ prayers of contrition in Act Three, then, are convincing because they are heartfelt; but they are flawed. His guilt is real and comes from having to kill his own brother, which he believed was for the greater good and which, despite being in many ways unnatural, he must not allow himself to regret as it was more important for him to kill an unworthy King.  Shakespeare tells us that Claudius must be a man “to double business bound”, and the “ambition” he refers to at 3,iii,55 is for a secure Denmark, the “wretched state”, not for himself.  He cannot repent because he still believes that he was, ultimately, justified- and believes that God knows and accepts this, and that “all may be well”. 

Claudius’ behaviour during The Mousetrap, however, is inspired by different fears. Seeing the nephew-murderer on stage, he realises that Hamlet plans to kill him, and it is at this point his very survival is threatened, even as he sits watching the dumb-show.  Hamlet’s increasingly erratic behaviour reinforces this.  Claudius realises that his earlier, sincere pledge that Hamlet is “most immediate to our throne” must now be rescinded.  While his occasional use of the royal “we” might be politically motivated, at 3,iii,1 the phrase “…nor stands it safe with us…to let his madness rage” indicates that it is the safety of Denmark which Claudius prioritises.

Claudius is no practised schemer.  In fact, his ineptitude is palpable. From The Mousetrap on, his inexpert and  ill-founded plots lack conviction.   In sending Hamlet to his death, Claudius wants to save the state from a disastrous future under an unsuitable monarch; his decision to effect this quietly, abroad, is understandable but flawed and indecisive.  His openness regarding keeping his ministers informed of his intentions (“We’ll call up our wisest friends”) is hardly the action of a secretive schemer. He seems to be making it up as he goes along.

Has Claudius been a dark Machiavellian manipulator, his hastily contrived plot with Laertes would surely have been more effectively conceived.  “I ha’t!”, his flash of inspiration at 4,vi,154, implies hare-brained thinking on the hoof.  The highly emotionally-charged Laertes falls for the King’s gushing, unrehearsed flattery (“I will be ruled!”)…. and ultimately, all goes awry.  When the terrible ending comes, Claudius’ patriotism overcomes even his deep love for Gertrude. By not warning her of the fatal dose of poison, Claudius also seals Hamlet’s fate; this was clearly his painful priority.  She must die so that the crazed Hamlet can never rule. Claudius sacrifices her for Denmark.

This view of Claudius is not widely held. Typically, A.C. Bradley flatly condemns Claudius by stating that any “innocent uncle” theory is “lunatic”.  Yet if we are thus determined to view the play through Hamlet’s eyes, we risk ignoring the many signposts provided by Shakespeare which guide us toward the probability that Claudius is a man of integrity, deserving more thoughtful and balanced consideration.  Whatever we think of Claudius’ murder of King Hamlet, he does it with integrity and patriotism.  Hamlet’s desire for revenge is understandable, but he delays because he senses that Claudius may not be as guilty as his instincts first told him.  In both misreading and wilfully ignoring much of what the ghost tells him, Hamlet embarks on the wrong journey, looking to address the supposed faults of others- rather than those within himself.

 

M. Mack               “The World of Hamlet” (1952)

H D F Kitto           “Hamlet as Religious Drama” (1956)

A C Bradley         “Shakespearean Tragedy” (1904)