Is Claudius A Hero Or A Villain

Cooper Langham
Freshman Writing ENGL1302
Dr. Jana Wesson-Martin
22 April 2014
Claudius
Claudius is the antagonist of William Shakespeare’s tragedy, Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. He’s quite natural and human in his desires and intentions, and only his murderous action distinguishes him as a malicious criminal. Coveting his brother’s power, wife, popularity, and general royal lifestyle drove him to committing the unspeakable action of poisoning his brother, King Hamlet. Initially, Claudius is driven by a selfish greed, a lust for power, and his sexual appetites. Over time, this all seems to transition into good intentions, guilty concern, and nervous paranoia. Claudius’ lust for power and determination for the maintenance of his power never
diminishes throughout the play, but is joined with seemingly good intentions. Perhaps Claudius could have been a good king if he had gone about achieving the throne in a better way. The one crime that led to his hypocritical life on his brother’s throne haunted him until it finally resulted in his death, thus abolishing any opportunity and potential he had for a good kingship. Whether the king’s wife was aware of Claudius’ crime is deliberately unclear; however, she certainly married her brother-in-law within a rather short amount of time.
It comes across to the reader and to Prince Hamlet, the son of the King and the play’s protagonist, that she is not entirely innocent. Hamlet himself states that she is a “pernicious woman.” Oh, most pernicious woman! / Oh, villain, villain, smiling, damned villain! / My tables - meet it is I set it down / That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain. (1.5.106-109)
Hamlet sees her as guilty for having moved on too quickly and, perhaps also, thinks she is not entirely innocent or oblivious concerning his father’s death. These are not, however, the only reasons for Hamlet to feel uncomfortable about his mother’s actions. According to Vernon E. Johnson’s Corruption in William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, “...although [Claudius’] marriage to the dead king’s widow has been sanctioned by the court, Elizabethans would see it as incest” (Johnson, 92). Johnson states that, not only is the marriage of Gertrude to Claudius hasty and suspicious, but also incestuous. Harold Bloom blames part of Hamlet’s state of mind on this incestuous
marriage: [Hamlet] suffers from misery at his father’s death and agony at his mother’s quick forgetfulness: such callousness is infidelity, and so impurity, and, since Claudius is the brother of the King, incest. It is reasonable to suppose that Hamlet’s state of mind, if not wholly caused by these events, is at least definitely related to them. Of his two beloved parents, one has been taken for ever by death, the other dishonoured for ever by her act of marriage. To Hamlet the world is now an ‘unweeded garden’. (Bloom, 81)
As a result of Claudius’ murder and marriage, Hamlet was thrust into a confused, unsatisfiable anger and a mournful misery. The “unweeded garden,” however, was only seen through the eyes of Hamlet and the ghost of Hamlet’s father. Through the eyes of the other characters, under the impression that the King’s death was due to natural causes and not a murderer, all was as it should have been. Despite Hamlet and the ghost, Claudius was on his way to a successful reign. Claudius had incredible potential to be a good king. Though his method of obtaining the throne was unacceptable, it is understandable from the reader’s perspective. His desires and intentions are relatable. Only his murderous action distinguishes him as a malicious criminal. His preceding and succeeding thoughts are understandable and relatable and his intentions as king were noble. Johnson states that Claudius was “a good and gentle king, enmeshed by the chain of causality linking him with his crime. And this chain he might, perhaps, have broken except for Hamlet, and all would have been well. But, granted the presence of Hamlet - which Claudius at first genuinely desired, persuading him not to return to Wittenberg as he wished - and granted the fact of his original crime which cannot now be altered, Claudius can hardly be blamed for his later actions” (Johnson, 86-87). In fact, Professor Howard Jones adds, “...he is precisely the type of king Denmark needs” (Jones, 20). With this thought in mind any individual would almost desire the success of the antagonist over the protagonist. With Hamlet out of the way, all would have been well in the minds of every one in Denmark, except for the shadow of convicting guilt that would continue to haunt the mind of Claudius until the end of his days. Despite this immense guilt, he never loses rationality, rather he conceals his emotions and never ceases to keep his whits about him. The only time Claudius ever seems to crack and reveal this nervous anxiety is during the play presented to him by Hamlet.
Otherwise, Claudius covers his actions and conceals the resulting emotions thoroughly, especially concerning Hamlet. “When Hamlet goes ‘mad,’” Jones says, “Claudius does everything that a reasonable and kindly man could be expected under such circumstances to do; he ... treats [Hamlet] throughout the greater part of the tragedy with amazing patience and kindness. ... The king’s methods are admirably calculated for the man he is dealing with, leaving Hamlet no opening to pick a quarrel, no occasion for complaint; forcing him back upon his purpose, making him doubt the ghost ... Claudius, far from proving a fool and a beast, is remarkable above everything else for his treatment of those about him.” (Jones 56). His wit is admirable. Suppressing his nervousness and paranoia, he carefully draws everyone around him with flattery and amiability. He strategically chooses his friends as if he were creating a network of unofficial social alliances, offering Hamlet a “polished and unassailable front” (Jones 56). With the support so unevenly balanced, the crowd would trust and favor Claudius’ rebuttal against any verbal accusation or statement Hamlet could make against him. Though a hypocritical, pathological liar would never do on the throne, Claudius’ impressive wit simply goes to verify the great potential he had within him for being a good
king. This is the case for many people worldwide who are struggling for success. Small mistakes can go a long way. Too often do our mistakes begin to define who we are and stifle and suffocate who we could be. Harold Bloom says that a man’s quality “may be inferred from the record of what he has done, or it may be inferred from what he is trying to make of himself at any given moment. The former is, so to speak, the case for the prosecution: you’ve done such and such, so that’s forever what you are. ... Claudius is someone of great potential fatally blocked by something he has done and can never undo” (Bloom 54) Claudius had great potential, but the one crime that put him in his brother’s place stifled his opportunity for greatness. Despite any genuine penitence or good qualities he might have had, the crime committed could not have been undone. It simply takes but one grand mistake to put a stop to great potentiality. The one crime that brought him to his place on the throne was the same crime that haunted him until it finally resulted in his death and ruined any opportunity he had for a good reign. When the majority of the characters were under the impression that the King’s death was not due to a murderer but a natural cause, all seemed right from their perspectives. Claudius might have had a successful reign if only Hamlet’s suspicions were not raised and the ghost had kept silent. Claudius had incredible potential to be a good king. Though the malfeasance of Claudius is difficult to relate to for many, his eager covetousness and lust for power is relatable. His desires and intentions were obviously quite natural and human. Perhaps Claudius could have been a good king if he had gone about achieving it in a more appropriate fashion. The one crime that led to his hypocritical life on his brother’s throne haunted him and then resulted in his death, thus prohibiting his opportunity for a successful rule.

Works Cited
Bloom, Harold. Hamlet. Chelsea House Publishers, 1990.
Johnson, Vernon E. Corruption in William Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2010. Print.
Jones, Howard Mumford. The King in Hamlet. Austin, Texas: University of Texas, 1918. Print.
Shakespeare, William. The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. Ed. David L. Pike and Ana M. Acosta. New Jersey: Person Education, Inc., 2014. Print.