Content uploaded by Asa Leininger
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Asa Leininger on Sep 28, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Asa Charles Leininger
Prof. Christopher Herr
THE 541: Theatre History I
8 Dec. 2021
Machiavellianism in Hamlet
Within Shakespeare’s Hamlet, the entire Danish royal family meets their demise and the
political order at Elsinore is completely upset. What sort of factors influence the action that leads
to this kind of chaos? Is it accurate to argue that such chaos erupts within the play because of the
thymos of the titular character? Should it instead be argued that the root cause of this violence is
the result of a male-imposed dichotomy wherein women are either Madonnas or whores – as
evidenced by Hamlet’s fraught relationships with both Gertrude and Ophelia? Certainly, these
arguments can add value to the discussion surrounding this dramatic masterpiece. However, to
ignore the role of political ideologies within the tragedy of Hamlet would be a disservice to one’s
own capacity as a reader, for it seems clear that one of the primary contributing factors in the
violence of the play is the presence of an ideology that allows for the justification of brutal
political aggression. The ideology in question was posited by Niccolò Machiavelli, one of
Shakespeare’s predecessors in the circle of dramatic literature, and through its prominence
within the narrative, Shakespeare offered his own commentary on the political trends present in
his day. Indeed, I argue that through Hamlet, Shakespeare posits what he believed would be the
natural outcome if such a political ideology were to be adopted in practice. To substantiate this
claim, the nature of Machiavellian ideals, specifically of Machiavelli’s The Prince, must be
examined. Likewise, it is necessary within the effort of effectively arguing this point to expose
within the text of Hamlet the occasions when Machiavellian ideals are referenced in speech and
2
action, paying specific attention to occasions when such ideals can be found within the speech
and action of the characters of Claudius, Polonius, and Hamlet. Finally, the correlation between
the presence of Machiavellian ideals and the noble characters’ actions - and justifications of
political violence - will be examined and used as a way to understand why such rampant
destruction is what Shakespeare sees as the natural conclusion of Machiavellianism.
Before one can understand how Machiavellianism prospers the destruction within the
action of Hamlet, they must first understand what Machiavellianism itself is. Machiavellianism,
posited in Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince, is a political theory that essentially states that if one
is to be a ruler who is not deposed by their own people, they must accomplish feats that benefit
the state, often at the expense of their own principles (Machiavelli, 15). This view of political
reality entails unethical leaders, or rather leaders who have sacrificed their own ethical stances in
favor of stances that will keep them in power. Indeed, in his essay, Political Prudence and the
Ethics of Leadership, J. Patrick Dobel explores the connection between ethics and positions of
leadership, stating that the “disjunction of ethics and achievement has inspired many to despair
of the relationship between ethics and leadership” (Dobel, 74). Thus, within the Machiavellian
frame of understanding, for a leader to maintain their position, more than anything else, they
must rule effectively, brutally, or with the use of deception. Indeed, as Mark Jurdjevic states in
his essay, “Virtue, Fortune, and Blame in Machiavelli's Life and The Prince,” people in positions
of authority can accomplish great things when they care little about their own principles
(Jurdjevic, 3). This pressure for leadership to be effective rather than moral is further explored in
an essay by Phil Harris for the Journal of Business Ethics. He posits that the first duties of a
leader within Machiavellianism are to the state and to the protection of each individual’s capacity
for self-determination, for it is only if the individuals that make up a state have the liberty to be
3
self-determinate that they will allow the ruler to rule. In this, then, it is necessary for the state to
maintain a semblance of strength, no matter the cost to others (Harris, 132). This is supported by
a quote from an essay by Gerald E. Tucker in The Journal of Modern African Studies. In the
essay, it is stated that Machiavelli had a reputation for giving primacy to ends in any undertaking
(Tucker, 400). If primacy is given to the ends, to a certain extent, the means by which political
ends are achieved are irrelevant. In this way, Machiavellianism can be viewed as a plight to
disregard one’s own convictions and instead sacrifice them for the end goal of public prosperity.
Thus, it becomes clear that Machiavellianism encourages its leaders to abandon any
moral principles they may hold in favor of pursuing any action that may protect and benefit the
state. Likewise, it also becomes clear that such a course of action is encouraged so that, by
protecting the liberty of self-determination extended to the individuals within that same state,
leaders may benefit their people and maintain their own positions by creating a prosperous,
secure reality.
Knowing a bit about Machiavellianism as is understood by examining The Prince and the
scholarship surrounding it, it is now vital that the moments in which such ideology is present in
Hamlet be discussed.
If one starts at the beginning of the play, they may see that Claudius is just as
Machiavellian as is the Ghost of Hamlet Senior or the titular character himself. Claudius can be
read as being a man of the times, aware of the current issues in Denmark, fed up with the
outdated and warlike conventions of Hamlet Senior, and prepared to take bloody action for the
benefit of the state. In this, the usurper King is very much in line with Machiavelli, who states,
“Success awaits the man whose actions are in accordance with the times and failure the man
whose actions are out of harmony with them” (Machiavelli, 99). Likewise, one need only look at
4
Act I, Scene II to understand that Claudius is driven by “duty” like horse is driven by the riding
crop (Shakespeare, 21). Within the scene, he recognizes duty to his people as being his foremost
concern. He speaks of his duty to take up the crown in the absence of his brother and his duty to
peacefully settle the conflict between Denmark and Norway – which was the result of his
brother’s outdated martial habits. Likewise, he speaks of duty to Cornelius and Voltemand,
encouraging them to speedily carry out his instructions so that crisis with Norway may be
averted, and to Hamlet, commending him for attending his duty to mourn his father’s death
(Shakespeare, 23-27). Because of the repeated emphasis Claudius gives to the idea of duty, and
the fact that he does, indeed adhere to his duties as king throughout the play, it becomes quite
clear that he is not just putting on an act but rather genuinely embracing his newly obtained
leadership. This dedication to ruling suggests that Claudius was also driven to murder his brother
by a genuine desire to protect Denmark from falling prey to the dangers of national stagnation.
Because of this, it seems quite clear that Claudius is a truly Machiavellian man.
One can look at the character of Polonius and see traces of Machiavellianism, as well.
Polonius is defined by his loyalty to Claudius but is also concerned with protecting the honor of
his children (Shakespeare, 43). Such a character should be labeled a hypocrite for caring about
honor only to turn around and give his loyalty to a liar and a usurper. However, Polonius is
genuine in both his concern for his children and in his loyalty to Claudius. This, then, can be
used as evidence to argue that Polonius perceives that Claudius is working towards the
betterment of the state. Additionally, Polonius does not shy away from using deceitful means to
surveil Hamlet – and his own children - throughout the play (Shakespeare, 73, 93). Thus,
because of his dedication to the state, and his willingness to take mischievous action in order to
5
better protect that same Danish state, one can easily posit that Polonius possesses Machiavellian
tendencies.
Hamlet, too, is not without Machiavellian tendencies, though throughout the play he is
driven more explicitly by personal motives than is Claudius. This is not to discount the likely
influence of personal motives on the character of Claudius – his actions were surely directed by a
degree of resentment towards his brother – but is simply to acknowledge the fact that more of
Hamlet’s motives are made aware to us through the text than are Claudius’. Likewise, it should
be stated that though Hamlet’s motives are deeply personal, they are also political. In his first
soliloquy, Hamlet laments not only the death of his father, but also of his king, remembering him
as being an “excellent” ruler (Shakespeare, 29). Furthermore, in Hamlet’s attempts to honor his
fallen king, and thereby his country, he does not shy away from using trickery to in order to
prove Claudius’ guilt (Shakespeare, 135). Such a character can hardly be described as lacking
attributes of Machiavellianism.
Now that the presence of Machiavellianism has been established as being present within
the characters in Hamlet, it would be prudent to examine how the presence of Machiavellianism
leads to violence within the narrative. Such an examination will reveal how Shakespeare uses
dramatic literature to postulate what happens when Machiavellianism is allowed in the court.
In his desire to better Denmark, thus ensuring the liberties of his people, Claudius takes
violent action against his own brother. The consequences of such violent action as poisoning
King Hamlet are less important to Claudius than the welfare of the state. This sets the play into
motion as Hamlet, driven by personal motives of revenge and also by a sense of duty to his
father as king, sets about to prove the misdeeds of Claudius. Upon proving Claudius’ guilt as an
offender of the state, Hamlet then intends to kill his usurping uncle both out of a duty to himself
6
and to the state which he loved. Within the narrative, it becomes evident that the apathy towards
Hamlet which Claudius must possess in order to achieve his end becomes his undoing. Likewise,
the apathy which Hamlet shows people like Ophelia becomes his undoing as well. Where
Claudius did not foresee the vengeance of Hamlet, Hamlet did not foresee the vengeance of
Laertes; they merely wanted to achieve their goals and did not care who got hurt in the process.
Thus, Shakespeare posits that Machiavellianism ends with a pile of bodies being wheeled in on
an eccyclema precisely because the prioritization of ends over means in any political effort will
likely result in the creation of an embittered enemy.
Hamlet is, among many other things, a dramatic critique of a political theory created by
Niccolò Machiavelli. Shakespeare paints a vivid picture of what would happen if the
Machiavellian philosophy was actually implemented in the political sphere. He does this by
masterfully characterizing Machiavellianism in the forms of Claudius, Polonius, and Hamlet.
Each of these characters has a strong sense of political duty which they carry out over the course
of the play with little regard to the methods by which they are carried out. Such action creates
enemies and the ensuing conflict with those newly made enemies spells the doom of each of
these characters. Thus, Shakespeare argues, in Hamlet, that Machiavellianism is a dangerously
flawed political philosophy.
7
Works Cited
Dobel, J. Patrick. “Political Prudence and the Ethics of Leadership.” Public Administration
Review, vol. 58, no. 1, [American Society for Public Administration, Wiley], 1998, pp.
74–81, https://doi.org/10.2307/976892.
Harris, Phil. “Machiavelli and the Global Compass: Ends and Means in Ethics and Leadership.”
Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 93, Springer, 2010, pp. 131–38,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/27919158.
Jurdjevic, Mark. “Virtue, Fortune, and Blame in Machiavelli’s Life and The Prince.” Social
Research, vol. 81, no. 1, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2014, pp. 1–30,
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26549600.
Machiavelli, Niccolò, and George Bull. The Prince. New York: Penguin Books, 2005.
Shakespeare, William. The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. New Folger's ed.
Washington Square Press/Pocket Books, 1992.
Tucker, Gerald E. “Machiavelli and Fanon: Ethics, Violence, and Action.” The Journal of
Modern African Studies, vol. 16, no. 3, Cambridge University Press, 1978, pp. 397–415,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/160034.
