Neil Bowen on (Edited )
Some notes on Claudius
‘Textbook Machiavellian prince.’ Claudius is not actually particularly adept in following the ideas presented in The Prince. In Chapter 8 [Those who come to power by crime] the closing paragraph centres around the phrase, ‘When he seizes a state the new ruler ought to determine all the injuries that he will need to inflict.’
This exemplifies Claudius’ failure to become a ‘textbook’ Machiavellian villain, as he consistently proves incapable of efficiently silencing those who are a threat to him. This undermines the entire principle of the true Machiavellian prince, the construct of which is based upon two inseparable factors: gaining power and subsequently holding it. Claudius appears fairly incompetent at the retention of power, having his kingdom usurped by Hamlet, a character with little to no assets, asside from his wit, throughout the progression of the play.
This actually mimics the failure of Oliverotto of Ferno, mentioned in The Prince, who, after obtaining Princedom by parricide, within the space of a year is outwitted, trapped and killed by Cesare Borgia - probably the most palpable example of a real life Machiavellian villain. Although Claudius may be ‘ambitious,’ ‘ruthless’ and ‘underhand,’ all characteristics typical of archetype, he fails to achieve the status of a true Machiavellian villain, trapped by his own inefficiency and hesitation, in a “wannabe” status.
‘Contaminating other characters with his corruption.’ Throughout the course of the play, the narrative “high ground” is obtained by different primary characters. The currency, allowing obtention of this position, is, rather than conventional funds, characters, subsidiary to themselves. The process employing the gain and maintenance of these characters is solely contamination. Therefore, by implying that Claudius acts as the lone agent of contamination would be obtuse, as it indicates no involvement in the matter by other characters, such as Hamlet, who are also equal perpetrators of this agency. The obvious power dynamic is held between Hamlet and Claudius. Equally characters, such as Polonius and the Ghost, use the means at their disposal as instruments of contamination and to implement a hold upon the characters to whom they can apply control.
‘Allowing Gertrude to drink from the poisoned cup at the end of the play, Claudius reveals his true colours.’ This section is interpreted differently in the Tennant production, as Claudius insists, ordering Gertrude, ‘do not drink.’ Gertrude subsequently acts in an uncharacteristic manner, directly disobeying Claudius and committing suicide by drinking from the poisoned chalice. Claudius shows dismay at this action, however the significance of the matter lies in Gertrude’s deliberate consumption of the wine. The implication of this action is that Gertrude has been affected by guilt, damaging enough to promote impulsive suicide, as soon as the opportunity was presented. This begs the question, why was Gertrude thus affected? With a base reading of her character she is never implicated as a confidante to any of the murders in Elsinore. This interpretation, however, may imply a shared cognisance between Claudius and Gertrude. This suggests an ulterior perspective on the character of Claudius, advancing the idea that he may not be so ‘selfish’ as previously implicated.