Claudius: Good Ruler or Poor Ruler?

 

Claudius is a good king, but a bad man. Seen from the vantage point of Machiavellian values, Claudius is a good ruler. This is because potency and efficacy are the determining factors of a successful king, not his likeableness or morality. In general, good leaders are characterized by their ability to suppress their personal desires and strive to do what is best for the people as a whole. Although it is obvious that Claudius does the opposite of this, since his actions are all selfish in nature, he is excellent at executing his desires in a way that makes it believable that he is not acting for himself at all. An example of this is how he prevents Hamlet from escaping his oversight by asking him to stay in Denmark, stating that Hamlet’s “intent in going back to school in Wittenberg, it is most retrograde to our desire”(Shakespeare 26). With deliberate planning, Claudius makes it look as if it is his personal love for Hamlet that makes him withhold permission for Hamlet’s return to school. This ostensible reason is false, however, and Claudius fulfills his personal will of forcing Hamlet stay near him where he has control over him. Like in such a case, Claudius makes a point of making his love for Hamlet known to the public, in order to mask the fear he has of his nephew of him finding out the truth. Another example of Claudius’s effective reigning is seen when he is discussing Polonius’s death with Laertes. When Laertes demands to know why Claudius had not send Hamlet to his death right after the murder, Claudius justifies his actions by mentioning the people of Denmark in general, “who dipping all his faults in their affection, would, like the spring that turneth wood to stone, convert his gyves to graces...”(Shakespeare 258). Although by this time in the story it is very much Claudius’s own personal desire to kill Hamlet, as he shows himself to be an increasing threat, he chooses not to do so so that he will remain a good person in the eyes of the public. By doing this, Claudius protects his crown, as well as craftily bring Laertes onto his side, whom Claudius had once feared would dislodge him from his throne. As both men share their keen desire to get rid of Hamlet, the king eventually seeks to amalgamate forces with Laertes. In order to direct Laertes’ anger towards Hamlet, the king attempts to dissuade Laertes from blaming the death of Polonius on him. The king’s efforts at this expostulation succeed, and Laertes and he are both set to kill Hamlet by the end of the play.

 

 

Polonius: Good Father or Bad Father?

 

When Polonius approaches Claudius and Gertrude on the topic of Hamlet’s illness, he does not hesitate to disclose to them his own faults. He does this in an effort to shield his daughter Ophelia possible punishment for her rejection of him. Had Polonius not stated that Ophelia “took the fruits of my advice” of rejecting Hamlet due to Polonius’s belief that Hamlet was out Ophelia’s league, the blame of Hamlet’s state of probable madness would have been placed on Ophelia. By admitting his faults, he seeks to place the blame of Hamlet’s madness on himself, knowing that he is risking the favor and grace of the king by doing so. Admitting such a fault in the presence of a king and queen would require much courage and love for his daughter, whom he seeks to protect. Polonius would have acted cravenly and put the blame on his daughter had he not loved her so much.

 

Not only does Polonius admit to making the mistake of forbidding Ophelia to court Hamlet in front of the king and queen of Denmark, but he also does in the presence of his daughter Ophelia, whom he presumably hurt the most in through his actions. Polonius apologizes to her, stating that “[he is] sorry that with better heed and judgement [he] had not quoted [Hamlet]” (Shakespeare 84). He openly acknowledges his mistake, which would require much modesty. Modesty is not a characteristic the self-absorbed and imperious Polonius usually exhibits, but his confession shows that he is capable of acting selflessly in certain cases. As a father, Polonius sacrifices his pride for the trust and forgiveness of his children.

 

Many may consider Polonius requesting to have his son Laertes spied on a sign of bad parenting, as Polonius is infringing upon the privacy of his son. However, his actions show how much care and concern Polonius has for his son Laertes. Polonius may have feared that confronting Laertes openly about his self conduct in France may arise unneeded tension between their family, as Ophelia had previously confronted Laertes about not becoming a hypocrite by “showing her the steep and thorny way heaven whiles... himself the primrose path of dalliance treads and recks not his own rede” (Shakespear 42). Polonius goes to great lengths to ensure the wellbeing of his children, showing his deep care for them.

 

 

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern: Did they deserve their fate?

 

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern did not deserve their fate. Hamlet’s justification for killing them was that the two of them betrayed him by offering their services to the king, despite their old friendship with Hamlet. The relationship Rosencrantz and Guildenstern had with Hamlet was not inconsequential; Gertrude once stated that there were no two men who Hamlet considered more dear to him. Therefore, Hamlet’s utter lack of ability to commiserate with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern is contentious. However, it is not so certain that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern would have acted the way they did had it not been the king of Denmark who had asked them to spy on their friend. Even though it is mentioned that the king had not ordered Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to spy on Hamlet, but instead simply asked them to do so, betrayal should not be repaid with death. Even if it had not been an official order, refusing to act as the king asked will not be met with much a positive response. The two of them may have risked dishonor as well as punishment had they refused the king’s request. Having been friends with Hamlet, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern would have most likely heard of the cunning nature of Claudius, and feared his rage if they refused to act on his will.

 

Hamlet’s decision to kill Rosencrantz and Guildenstern may not have formed in his mind had he not been under so much stress and tension, under the weight of the impending revenge he would have on Claudius. Hamlet was constantly under much distress and confusion, to the point that he had to tell himself that “from this time forth, my thoughts be bloody, or be nothing worth” (Shakespeare 232). Under such circumstances, such as the time Hamlet killed Polonius, it is easy to act without considering the consequences of his actions. Furthermore, when he wrote the letter, he was on a pirate ship, captured and uncertain of whether he would make it out alive. After opening Claudius’s letter to the king of Britain and discovering the king’s plot to kill him, Hamlet must have misdirected his anger to rosencrantz and guildenstern, whom he without proper consideration had killed by the king of England.

 

 

Hamlet’s Revenge: Justified or Not?

 

Throughout the play, Hamlet struggles with the idea of life and death, and how these matters tie in with the revenge he was assigned by the ghost of his deceased father. The ghost beseeches Hamlet to avenge him, and seeks to impress upon Hamlet the gravity of what Claudius has done. When Hamlet hears of how his father was “of life, of crown, of queen at once dispatched”(Shakespeare 64), instead of rushing to conclusions and brashly avenging his father, he seeks confirmation before he carries out his plans. To do this, Hamlet has “players play something like the murder of [his] father before [his] uncle” so that “if [Claudius] do blench, [Hamlet knows his] course” (Shakespeare 132). Even after he sees Claudius’s reaction to this play and is convinced that Claudius had infact slain his father, Hamlet does not immediately kill Claudius. The progress he makes is piecemeal, and at one point Hamlet criticizes himself for not enacting revenge on Claudius fast enough. The careful manner in which Hamlet goes about enacting revenge justifies his actions, as well as the reason for his planned revenge. Not only does Claudius slay his own brother and take his place as king and as Gertrude’s brother, but he strategizes to kill Hamlet, when his behavior starts to change from mournful to insane. Hamlet’s oblique references to different matters confuses Claudius, who starts to regard Hamlet as mad. However, readers can see that Hamlet’s behavior is in fact all an act, as he remains imperturbable and rational around those few people he trusts. Yet another reason for Hamlet having the right to enact revenge is his willingness to risk everything for the sake of his father. Had Hamlet been a commoner whose name was not known throughout the country of Denmark, he may have found it easier to carry out the revenge ordered by the ghost. As a prince, however, he surely would not have gotten away with the murder of the king for nothing, and Hamlet was supposedly very much aware of this. The fact that Hamlet would even consider taking orders from a ghost for the sake of this father shows the amount of devotion he had to the late king, making his revenge an understandable act.

 

 

 

 

Hamlet in the 21st Century: Does the Play Have a Role?

 

Even within the first few chapters of the play, Hamlet touches on universal themes that people today can relate to in their personal lives. As Hamlet learns of how his father's death took place, he is visibly shaken up, to the extent that Ophelia describes him to be “Pale as his shirt; his knees knocking each other; And with a look so piteous in purport as if he had been loosed out of hell to speak of horrors” (Shakespeare 82). An event that causes a man to be reduced to such a haggard appearance must concern something that is very dear to the person. Hamlet’s love for his father and his hatred for his uncle are the sole driving forces for his consideration of revenge. Love and hatred are one of the most powerful human emotions regardless of time, location, or culture, and many contemporary issues, if scrutinized enough, are fundamentally based off these two emotions.

 

Although powerful emotions can drive people to make lasting decisions in life, these emotions can be suppressed if one is able and required to be conscious of how their decisions will impact the people around them, especially if they have a high social standing. Although Hamlet strives to seek revenge the most effective way possible, carefully weighing his options in his head, he fails to prevent the series of unfortunate events unfolding around him partly due to his demeanor, such as the deaths of Polonius, Ophelia, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. The tendency for one party to be harmed as a result of effort to please another is another timeless phenomenon, concerning issues with warfare and the environment, for example.

 

Upon learning the news of his father, Hamlet declares that he "does not set [his] life in a pin's fee", as he struggles to find value in a life ridden with hardships. Such hardships lead one to question one's purpose in life, and this is a timeless phenomenon; people today are faced with obstacles in life which they point out as a reason for their sudden disillusionment. The story of Hamlet, regardless of the outcome of the story, provides insight into a character who struggles with his own conscience as he decides on the course of action to take, whether it be revenge, suicide, or the suppression of his feelings. These possible responses to obstacles are also timeless, and readers today may find Hamlet’s thoughts and feelings easy to relate to.