1 Josiah Wilson Jennifer McKim English 2297: Shakespeare Unmaking a Villain An Experiment in Literature

The commonly accepted reading of Hamlet is that the titular prince is unbelievably clever and puts on a ruse of madness in order to cast doubt upon his uncle's reign; in this reading Hamlet is the only character who knows all that is taking place, Horatio is his accomplice, Claudius an unapologetic and murderous villain, and Rosencrantz, Guildenstern and Polonius are simply foolish lackeys, taken in by both the evil Claudius and the very clever Hamlet. There have been alternative readings and stagings of the play which toy with the idea that Hamlet may not be simply feigning madness, but skirting the edges of it: sometimes mad, sometimes merely pretending to be, taking advantage of the others' perceptions of him as a sort of cover for his machine tins of revenge. With so many different treatments of the hero of the play it seems somewhat surprising that there are comparatively few different versions of the villain, Claudius. Most of the variance within the treatment of the king comes from reduction of his lines, causing him to be more of a looming presence; not many productions or scholars have attempted to bring forth any more reflection on his methods or motivations. This is a subject ripe for examination in a play which has been examined from seemingly every angle, and for this reason it demands attention. It is possible, with some bold staging and directing choices, to make Claudius a far more sympathetic character than he is generally presented as being; and while there is nothing that would imply this to be a more correct reading it seems worth undertaking simply for the new perspectives it might allow. Moreover, while there is no evidence to promote the idea of Claudius as being truly heroic, he does have many admirable qualities which are all too often

2 minimalized. This may not be the staging that Shakespeare had intended, but it seems that after so many centuries of mistreatment Claudius deserves the benefit of the doubt, just this once. John Major assembled one of the strongest arguments in defense of Claudiuss character nearly fifty years ago. He points to the opinion of an even earlier scholar, Howard Mumford Jones, who posited in 1918 that Claudiuss decision to have Hamlet killed was not made until he had learned of Poloniuss death at his hands (Major 512). Major makes the argument that in establishing the sequence of events thus a strong case is made for Claudius having a good deal more conscience than he is generally credited with (513). This is a simple enough concept to rationalize, and it would be very easy to merely indicate this at the directors discretion in a given staging of the play. Major is not satisfied with simply proposing this as food for thought, however, and he formulates an argument to prove that it is not simply possible that this is what Shakespeare had intended to indicate when originally writing the play, but probable. Major sets out on this undertaking by establishing based on historical fact that there were in fact two letters written by Claudius and sent to England: one the commission which is essentially the document outlining the credentials of the diplomatic party (513-514), and a second, the mandate which contains the actual orders for the king of England (514). Moreover Major proposes that this mandate is rewritten: in its first occurrence he claims it merely demands the tribute owed to Denmark and indicates Hamlet as the one to bring it home, it is the second version of the mandate which Major claims is the one demanding Hamlets death (515-516). Atop this paper trail which he has rooted out Major also makes an argument based on several key scenes in the play. He points out that while Claudius plans at the end of III.i to send Hamlet with the double purpose of collecting the tribute and hopefully assuaging his madness (III.i.168-174), he agrees to delay this plan until Poloniuss theory of love has been once more

3 tested and Hamlet has spoken with Gertrude after the play is performed (175-187). It is not until after The Mousetrap has been performed that Claudius meets with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in III.iii to discuss the voyage with them and begins to make arrangements. Major argues that at this point a mandate has been written with orders for the king of England, but no commission has been drawn yet as Claudius still waits in accordance with his agreement with Polonius (Major 515). Furthermore, the mandate which has been written is quite probably different from the final mandate handed to the companions, as this discussion takes place immediately after the play and before the play Claudius had no reason to think that Hamlet suspected him of fratricide; it is the play that initially arouses these suspicions (515-516), and there would not have been sufficient time to draw up an official document in the interlude between the play and the prayer scene of the same evening (518). Ultimately it is not Majors intent to purge Claudius of all guilt, but merely to show that he is not the heartless villain that he is so frequently presented as. He admits that Claudius means of ascension is an evil one, but maintains that after assuming the throne Claudius is attempting to proceed in a noble way, as exhibited in the prayer scene (517-518). In fact Major invokes the nature of the soliloquy in Shakespeares plays to argue that if he were at this time contemplating the murder of Hamlet, he would announce the fact during the soliloquy. I can think of no soliloquy in a tragedy of Shakespeare's in which the speaker holds back anything as shocking to the audience as the intent to commit murder, and lists several corroborating examples (518). Thus is established a solid case upon which it can be argued that while Claudius does commit a second murder he does not do so until Hamlet has himself become a murderer, thus absolving him of some level of guilt.

4 It seems that this view of Claudius gained a great deal of traction in the second half of the 20th century, leading to a reassessment of the character. While he has still not been treated with the wide variety of approaches that Hamlet has been afforded, he has at least been painted as having some amount of character depth. Marvin Rosenberg says of him He is roiled by fierce passions. He has a conscience. Give him more soliloquies and he could have been Macbeth (Rosenberg 47), and then cites several portrayals of Claudius on the stage in which he is played as a noble character, with the best interests of Denmark at heart (48). Rosenberg offers a great deal of scrutiny of various aspects of Claudiuss character as exhibited through the text, and yet even as he writes of Claudius as a person (55-57), as noble (48) (his quotation marks), and as a lover (60-61), not once does he make the argument that Claudius might be good or heroic. Claudius may have a conscience, but he is still decidedly a villain. This does not have to be the case. As an experiment it is a surprisingly simple matter to direct a version of Hamlet in which Claudius is definitively heroic and tragic. Departures must be made from the typical performances associated with some characters, and some dialogue will be performed with different intent, but very little must be removed and none requires changing. The character changes are the most drastic, and thus will be discussed first. Since Claudius is transitioning from one side of the spectrum to the other, going from the role of villain to the role of the tragic hero, his performance will be quite different. In this staging Claudius is innocent of the fratricide of which Hamlet suspects him to be guilty, and so he must remain completely aloof to any aspersions cast his way most notably he must be extremely careful when leaving The Mousetrap; this Claudius must present in his manner of exit a definite and non-guilty reason for leave, as will be discussed later. His attitude towards Hamlet must be sincere and paternal; this Claudius is one who is truly trying to fill the void that his brother has

5 left in Hamlet as much as in Gertrude and the Kingdom. Claudiuss interactions with both Hamlet and Gertrude are often played as though the king is suffering through some boring chore, but for this tragic Claudius he must be visibly struggling to fill this emotional void in his new family, not just the political void in his kingdom. Hamlet, situated as he is opposite Claudius, must take up the role of villain. This is not to say that he must become heartless and evil; far from it. In fact the script gives ample opportunity for Hamlets madness to be played true, rather than as a guise. In this staging Hamlet is the only character to see his fathers ghost Hamlet is in fact deliriously imagining his presence. Hamlet essentially plays accomplice to this imagined ghost, which is the true villain: Hamlet seeks revenge for a crime which did not (in this staging) occur, and as such the ruthlessness with which he pursues his revenge must be highlighted. Hamlet must be utterly careless in his interactions with Ophelia, and at no point should he appear to be truly in control of his senses or feigning madness. Hamlet becomes a villain, but a tragic one who is not able to help himself and simply hurts those around him as he seeks misguided justice. Gertrude must be played as being torn between her grieving son and her new husband. It should be apparent that she is not some frail and fickle woman, as Hamlet often accuses her of being, yet she should still pity him in his madness. The script suits this performance quite well, in that it offers several scenes in which she seems to vacillate in her loyalties, most notably in III.ii, and this is not an uncommon way for Gertrude to be portrayed. Horatios role will take on a good deal more nuance in this version of the play. As Horatio serves as an accomplice to Hamlet and helps to propagate the tale of his fathers ghost he must be shown to be either unreliable or lying throughout the course of the play. The options for his treatment are thus either his accompanying Hamlet in his madness, or his attempting to play

6 along with Hamlet for the princes benefit. While the former would be a simpler performance in many regards, the latter option is preferable as Horatios madness could too easily be construed as being a result of having interacted with the ghost in I.i, and it is imperative that no credence be given to the reality of the ghost in this production. As previously stated this version of the play requires surprisingly few textual subtractions, though reducing the length of the play further is certainly possible. In Act I of the play the only scene which requires considerable deletion or modification is I.i; in this scene the fear of the guards should be made apparent these men are quite terrified and are thus inclined to make much out of twisting mists and imagined shadows. Horatio must be portrayed as being aloof and a bit scornful when he agrees that the ghost looks much like Hamlets father he is simply going along for the ride and feeding the fear of the other guards (58-63). His expository statement should see him speaking sharply to the other guards, reminding them that the king is dead and buried and that they are being foolish (78-106), and the line whose image even but now appeared to us should be uttered sarcastically. The Q2 passage should be included, and Horatios speaking towards the ghost should be played as a challenging advance towards it, exhibiting to the other guards that he has no fear and doesnt believe anything is there (110-120). Marcellus lines upon the ghosts exit must be removed (123-128), and Horatio should continue to be snide in his treatment of the ghost, with a removal of line 146. He suggests that Hamlet be informed about it as a joke to make light of the other mens solemnity (150-153), but is instead taken seriously and for this reason must continue to play along with the princes fantasies later in the play. Hamlet must be portrayed as incredibly on edge when he first appears in I.ii. Not just brooding, he needs to be outrageously bitter, snapping viciously at Gertrude and Claudius. When

7 Horatio speaks of the ghost he does so hoping to play on Hamlets sympathies and calm him down; to this end Horatio should speak haltingly, weighing his words and clearly unsure of whether this is the best course of action, but then committing to the plan and speaking more quickly in lines 203 on, inventing details to feed to the eager prince. He should be visibly less sure of his course in I.iv as he accompanies Hamlet along the battlements, and line 19 should be spoken by Marcellus. All else can be downplayed as going along with Hamlets growing mania, until he begins to follow the ghost, at which point Horatio decides that things have gone too far and attempts to put an end to the performance. The following scene presents a challenge: it must be made quite apparent that the ghost exists only in Hamlets mind. For this purpose it seems that the part should be played by the actor of another character, and Claudius is the most appropriate choice. Hamlets speech should grow increasingly agitated and erratic in meter as the scene progresses, and the ghosts speech should mirror this progression as he is a figment of the princes mind. When Horatio and Marcellus rejoin Hamlet they should be visibly fearful of the princes state, and hurriedly agree to everything he says in hopes of placating him rather than falling prey to his madness. It is better to take part in a vengeance plot than to be construed as a possible target. Act II needs no real changes, save for a continued advancement in Hamlets madness, which in this version of the play is not a ruse. His speech should, as a rule, be spoken at a fast and manic pace, with little regard for meter or rhythm. This should progress gradually, so that by the beginning of Act III he is babbling at a breakneck pace. Care should be taken in his interactions with Horatio and with the players to ensure that he does not come across as clever; rather he convinces himself that he is behaving in a clever manner, but he is in fact behaving quite madly.

8 As mentioned previously, the exit of Claudius from the play must be handled very delicately. His manner of leaving must be apparent to the audience as being for reasons other than guilt. Disgust seems to be the most plausible reason, as the play is a rather distasteful thing and Hamlets behavior during it is quite inappropriate for his station. Thus Claudius should appear increasingly uncomfortable, but his discomfort should not correspond to the actions of the actors on stage, but rather to Hamlet. Claudius should be positioned near Hamlet, and be seen to be looking at him as he cavorts around with Ophelia. Each time Hamlet makes a bawdy advance Claudius should shift uncomfortably, and when Hamlet finally blurts out the ending of the play (III.ii.239-242), that is the reason for Claudiuss exit; he simply cant take any more of the princes dreadful behavior. This also provides ample reason for Claudius to begin discussing Hamlets trip to England, as he is becoming more and more disturbed by the princes deranged outbursts. At this point his plan is simply as stated (and as established by John Major), to send him to England in the hope that his mental health will benefit, under the pretext of collecting a tribute. Here stands the only substantial change to the text, and the reason for which this cannot be submitted as more than an exercise: as he prays Claudius confesses his guilt at having murdered his brother (III.iii.36-72). This dialogue must be removed if Claudius is to be the hero, yet there is no scholarly argument that could possibly be made for its deletion; thus it is a directorial decision that may be carried out simply as an experiment. The scene is still vital as it shows Hamlet delaying his revenge, and so Claudius must simply be praying, either silently or as an unintelligible murmur while Hamlet walks by his chamber. Lines 36-72 are simply deleted, and Claudius just begins to pray once he is alone. Since he has been praying quietly his final couplet becomes somewhat jarring, so that ought to be removed as well (97-98).

9 The rest of the play proceeds virtually unchanged. Gertrude remains staunch in her disapproval of Hamlets behavior, while Claudius continues to try to hold his country together as Hamlet does his best to madly tear it from his rightful grasp. The text lends itself easily to this reading from this point on, as Hamlet leaves a trail of bodies in his wake and Claudius and Gertrude look on in horror. The final scene takes on a different tone, as Horatio is simply acting to cover his involvement in the germination of this tragedy: had he not encouraged Hamlet to speak with the ghost this might all have played out differently. And so he recasts Hamlet as the hero in his recounting of events to Fortinbras , and Claudius, the true hero of this version of Hamlet, passes on unloved and unmourned, a truly tragic figure. This is a radical, and many would say completely unwarranted, departure from the standard performance of Hamlet, and yet there is room for such a treatment. Substantial modifications of Shakespeare plays are numerous; that they have so long avoided certain of his tragedies does not mean that they should continue to do so. Anselm Haverkamp notes that this aversion to stirring the waters applies especially to Hamlet, and goes so far as to say that the fact that there is so much that has already been written about it that causes people to refrain from writing about it in bold new ways, they so fear treading off the beaten path (Haverkamp 171). But this is to dismiss the most important element of these plays, he says, Every new reading of literature allows history to be rewritten. This is what makes it literary: that it allows the old stories in history to be reconceived and rewritten. Thus decontextualizing Hamlet and reenvisioning Claudius as the hero rather than the villain is not simply an exercise in vanity, but an experiment in literature; in testing the resilience of the story to such dramatic changes it becomes possible to appreciate it on new levels and to see characters in different lights. It is a bold experiment, but one which yields fruitful and intriguing results.

10 Works Cited Haverkamp, Anselm. The Ghost of History: Hamlet and the Politics of Paternity. Law and Literature, 18.2 (2006): 171-198. Print. Major, John J. The "Letters Seal'd" in "Hamlet" and the Character of Claudius. The Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 57.3 (1958): 512-521. Print. Rosenberg, Marvin. The Masks of Hamlet. Cranbury: Associated University Presses, 2002. Print. Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. The Norton Shakespeare. Ed. Stephen Greenblatt. 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton, 2008. 1696-1784. Print.