View 8 comments on “Claudius: everything’s sorted then: CHEERS! DRINK! (1.2.121-8) #InkyCloak #SlowShakespeare”

1. Is Claudius a good king?
   I had never considered that as a question until a production two years ago (American Players Theatre, Wisconsin) made me re-evaluate the role and character. This close reading of Act I. Sc 2 reinforces the idea that he is an exceptionally skillful politician. The way he manipulates public perception while dealing with family dynamics, deals with foreign threats decisively and overall seems to actually care about governing. I could never imagine Hamlet (Jr) as a good king, though he is exceptionally smart.
   Was Hamlet Sr a good king? He certainly was a good warrior, but as to his rule and even if he was a good person, we don’t have much to go on. The young prince praises him, but always sells it too hard as if he is willing himself to believe it. Looking forward to the portions coming up…

   Reply

   1. I think it can be much much more interesting if it’s clear that Claudius IS a good king – that seems to be part of what’s going on in 1.2 – old Hamlet might have been good at soldiering but Claudius is good at politics and diplomacy. C20 criticism played down the politics of the play and often saw it as a family drama above all – and Claudius is clearly a bad husband, brother, uncle. But Shakespeare had done a LOT of thinking about kings and fathers by the time he came to write Hamlet, and it’s all in there!

      Reply

2. It seems to me that nobody apart from his son seems particularly affected, let alone traumatised, by the death of Hamlet senior. Less than two months since the king has unexpectedly dies, but everyone seems to have moved on. No abiding sense of shock or grief, no reminiscing or nostalgia, no complaints that that’s not how the old king would have done things…perhaps there’s a feeling that actually times have rather moved on from diplomacy being conducted through one-on-one combat.

   I can also never escape the thought that Hamlet would have been a disappointment to his father, being the sort if youth more interested in books and university than gaining experience in military exploits.

   Reply

   1. Oooo, I don’t know. Is that starting to think about them like characters in a novel? Maybe the old king was rubbish. Maybe everyone was relieved when his nap went so badly wrong… The fin de siecle moment is important, perhaps: there’s anxiety about the end of Elizabeth’s reign, but also a sense that something new is needed, especially at court: stagnation, young men not gaining advancement etc. Maybe the old king liked reading too – after all the warrior version of him that we hear about is perhaps shaped by being part of a conversation with soldiers. (But I’m playing devil’s advocate!)

      Reply

3. Isn’t it both or neither? Hamlet to me is the ultimate Rorschach test in theatre where almost every line reading can change its meaning depending on actor/director choices. Since the backstory is from unreliable narrators, productions can and do make strong choices.
   I have seen the Ghost played benevolently as a wise father figure disappointed with how it turned out, still caring about his wife (think of the Player King being a true representation). I have also seen the other extreme where the Ghost was a patriarchal figure from hell exhorting his son to avenge. Both choices worked because of how everything else was interpreted.
   I am always amazed at how slippery this play is and how many interpretations are possible. This close reading is opening my eyes to nuances I had not thought of before.
   [On another note, Jon Foster, I hope you got to see Coriolanus. It is the right Roman play for these times- people don’t deserve democracy, but it is still what we got. I kept revisiting Julius Ceasar when I should have been paying attention to the other Roman play about democracy!]

   Reply

   1. I absolutely agree re all those possible choices – and sometimes the possibility of leaving them all in play, even the ones that seem mutually contradictory. Hamlet’s the most unreliable of the lot… It’s incredibly slippery yes!

      Reply

4. Thanks, Sunil – sadly Coriolanus finishes it’s run tomorrow and I didn’t have sufficient time to rebook. Ah well, years of commuting to London have taught me that having to rely on London Underground is an occupational hazard.

   And thanks both for your thought-provoking comments. Only on Act 1 Scene 2, and there’s so much to think about!

   Reply

   1. that’s such a shame re Coriolanus! I imagine it’ll be in cinemas eventually? (and yes, SO much to think about, somewhat daunting! not least, will this be my longest blog ever?!)

      Reply