In Hamlet, Shakespeare presents Claudius as the Machiavellian archetype: a pragmatic but corrupt monarch figure – and blurs the lines between Hamlet as the tragic hero, an impossible protagonist, and Claudius as the capable antagonist. Claudius is similarly depicted alongside images of disease, poison and rot, picturing him as the sign of death and corruption in Denmark. Shakespeare’s metatheatrical allusions coinciding with Claudius further establish the knowledge imparted on Hamlet, and by extension the audience, by the Ghost, of Claudius’ inner corruption and outward astuteness. Shakespeare uses the body politic, such as ‘but the king is not with the body’ and distorts the domestic and national spheres to demonstrate Claudius’ deceit, namely the domestic issue of adultery (Leviticus) and the national/political issue of invasion.
Claudius is the epitomised portrayal of the Machiavellian prince, a mirror of the archetype set out by Niccolo Machiavelli in ‘The Prince’. A figure of duality, Claudius embodies the outwardly patriotic and capable ruler who gained his position through corruption, deceit and murder – all in order to achieve an end goal of power. In Act 1.2, Claudius embodies political pragmatism; he is able to combine the national problem of a potential conflict with Norway, and also the domestic issue of his brother’s death – placing himself at the top of both the public and private hierarchy, tying them together: ‘the whole kingdom / To be contracted in one brow of woe’. Claudius’ political machinations pander to Denmark’s patriotism, and Claudius’ Machiavellian mastery of duality can be seen in his blending of the national and the domestic, but also his blending of mourning and celebration. He assumed the role of the chief mourner, and his speech juxtaposes the people’s loss to the new beginning of his reign – the funeral to the wedding. In this way, Claudius outwardly proves himself capable of his office – it is only Hamlet who seems preoccupied on scandalous behaviour – and even this is focused on the ‘incestuous sheets’, seemingly making his mother the ‘damned smiling villain’. Despite Claudius’ sterling reputation, managed through the rationalisation of his actions through his pseudo-patriotic rhetoric, Lokse argues that "On the whole, then, there emerges a King who is well qualified for his office...there continually appears on the stage a man who is utterly unlike the descriptions, and this in turn gives to Hamlet's words their real value." The Elizabethan audience, privy to the inner thoughts of Hamlet through his monologues, and having self-verified the Ghost on stage, are therefore privy to what is ‘rotten in the state of Denmark’: Claudius. Outwardly a great king, Claudius is masking fratricide, regicide and ‘adultery’ – these sins scandalous to the Elizabethan audience, who are well acquainted to primogeniture through the Tudor reign. As such, Claudius embodies the most well-known figure of duality, the Machiavellian Prince archetype.
In Hamlet, images of rot and poison occur alongside mentions of Claudius, notably in the last scene, but also cyclically before the play starts, such as the unseen moment where Claudius pours poison in King Hamlet’s ear, and in the middle of the play, Act 3, Scene 2, during the metatheatrical depiction of this unseen moment: ‘the Mousetrap’. The common images of disease and death hint towards Claudius’ corruption and sins, but also his role as the driver of death in the play, with his actions spurring the deaths and murders of other characters, namely Polonius, Ophelia, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Gertrude, Laertes and Hamlet; the appearance of Fortinbras at the end of the play could also represent the national ‘murder’ of Denmark as a whole, also spurred in part by Claudius, but also in part by Fortinbras himself, as the successful tragic hero of ‘Hamlet’. As such, the end could be seen as a late catharsis, instead of Denmark’s ‘murder’, with the successful revenge plot of Fortinbras similarly concealing the faults of Hamlet’s and the antagonism of Claudius.