Claudius: The Machiavellian Ruler

[Rachel]

Whenever I read one of Claudius' soliloquies, I am always reminded of The Prince by Machiavelli. In this book, Machiavelli says that you don't necessarily have to be nice to be a good ruler. The people don't need to adore you and you shouldn't pine for their affection. If you are a pragmatic and manipulative ruler, "the ends will justify the means." Do the end justify the means in Claudius' case?

In my opinion, Claudius' ends do not justify his means. He brings about the death of Laertes, Rosencrantz, Gertrude and many more, just so his secret plot to kill Hamlet will not be revealed. Can you think of any more examples that would describe Claudius as a Machiavellian ruler? Or any examples that disprove that statement?

[Hillary]

I agree with you in saying that Claudius' ends do not justify his means. Claudius still put up a facade and tried to maintain an admirable public image, but his plan ultimately backfired. Starting with the murder of King Hamlet, Claudius can be considered responsible for everyone's death in the play. Claudius is certainly manipulative but I would not classify him as being pragmatic. Everything he did was out of self-interest and not once did he give thought to the people of Denmark and their interests.

[Rachel]

I agree with both of you. I do not think Claudius' ends justify his means. Machiavelli said that it was justified to rule harshly, that one was better feared than loved, if it made him a better ruler and therefore lead to a better state. Claudius, however, has not proven himself to be a good enough ruler to justify his methods or mannerisms. In Machiavelli's eyes, it might have been justifiable for Claudius to kill King Hamlet if Claudius was a more apt ruler. Since Claudius has ascended the throne, however, and changed King Hamlet's peaceful kingdom into one on the brink of war with Norway, as well as completely destroy the royal family, he is not a good leader and therefore cannot justify his ends to his means.

- Rachel

[Ada]

I agree with Rachel W (nice picture by the way). In fact, I think in some ways Claudius is the opposite of a Machiavellian ruler. He seems to strive to be loved, by manipulating everyone to side with him. For example, when Laertes accuses him of killing Polonius, he reassures Laertes that Hamlet was the one who murdered his father, and encourages him to take revenge on Hamlet. He also has little regard for the state as a whole. He seems more preoccupied with securing his position on the throne than worrying about conflicts brewing between countries.

[Randie]

I think that Claudius' repeated attempts to ship and exile Hamlet off to England is a perfect example of how he is a Machiavellian ruler. This is Claudius' way of being 'pragmatic'--it is simply easier for himself and the kingdom of Denmark if Hamlet is out of the picture, and telling everyone that he has a mental disease is an easy way out. Surely, no one will question Hamlet's sanity after all that he has done throughout the play, and furthermore, nobody wants to deal with a lunatic. Many people, when they hear that somebody is "crazy" or "mentally diseased" just want to stay as far away as possible.

[Catie]

I agree with just about everyone. The end can't justify the means if Claudius is dead and Denmark is in a bad place. Claudius was a ruthless leader, but he accomplished nothing by being that way. Machiavelli talks about people being ruthless and successful. Claudius is missing a key part of that. Also I don't think the people dislike Claudius. No one knows that he is behind the old King's death, so they don't have much of a reason to dislike him other than the fact that he isn't a great king. In addition, the end would justify the means had Claudius' plan been successful. If everything had gone the way he wanted the end would justify the means for him. So he is not like a Machiavellian ruler.

[Arielle]

I agree with Catie, and the rest above her. Although Claudius will kill to get what he wants, his ends aren't worth it. He starts the killing-spree to become king. He then lies with his late brother's wife, and anyone who gets in his way, he will kill. This isn't Machiavellian, this is cruel insanity. If his plan had worked, maybe he could have been considrered to be a Machiavellian ruler, but that would only have been the view of an insider of the royal court. The citizens of Denmark really have no idea what is going on, thus he cannot be called a true Machiavellian ruler.

[Alon]

As has been already repeatedly said and enforced, I agree with everyone and do not believe that the ends justify the means. One of the most interesting characteristics I found in Claudius was the ease with which he maintans his duplicity, and in fact seems, in my opinion, to be the most inhumane character in the drama. Hamlet, for better or worse, constantly ponders the significance of his actions and decides accordingly. Claudius, however, appears to have been blinded by ambition and to have give little thought to the consequences of such actions of murdering his brother and seducing King Hamlet's wife.

[Ian]

I definitely agree with what everyone else has said so far. The ends definitely do not justify the means in this case. Claudius. Just by looking at how Denmark was at the start and end of "Hamlet," one can easily see this. At the start of the book, although he rose to power through illegitimate means (namely, killing his brother and defying the usual patrilineal path of power from father to son). At the end of the book, the whole Danish royal family has been eradicated and the state of Denmark, although replaced by Fortinbras, is left devastated by the tragedy. From this, it is easy to say that Claudius is the one at fault, but is he truly the one at fault here? I'm really tempted to say that none of this would have happened had Hamlet not 'stirred the pot' so to speak and tried to expose Claudius, which effectively led to the rest of the events in the book from Act 3 onwards.

[Eitan]

Just like everyone else, I agree that Claudius' ends do not justify the means. At the end of the play the whole ruling structure of Denmark is in shambles. Most are dead and it is all Claudius' fault. His lust for power started the series of events that ended very badly for Denmark. Not only are the ends not justified in and of themselves but the means are equally repugnant. Claudius used regicide and fratricide in order to attain the throne and that is wrong. While some may blame Hamlet for continuing the feud and mixing things up by trying to show Claudius as guilty, Hamlet is not at fault because he was simply a victim of circumstance. He would not have been put in the position he was in if it were not for Claudius.