As Claudius was second in line to the throne, he became king by divine right. The belief that a king is meant to rule by the will of God is absolute. Claudius is certainly a vile and corrupt monarch, but kings are above the law. Therefore, the only way Hamlet could have objected to Claudius's rulership is if he had concrete proof that Claudius killed King Hamlet. The ghost of Hamlet's father explained the circumstances of his murder in act 1, scene 5:
'Tis given out that, sleeping in my orchard,
A serpent stung me. So the whole ear of Denmark
Is by a forgèd process of my death
Rankly abused. But know, thou noble youth,
The serpent that did sting thy father’s life
Now wears his crown.
It would certainly have been helpful if the ghost of Hamlet's father had offered his son advice on how to prove this; for example, suggested that Hamlet find the poison that Claudius had used for the murder. However, if it had been easy to prove that Claudius had murdered the previous king, the plot would have been vastly different. Shakespeare would not have been able to convey key lessons and tragic elements associated with the plot; the corruption that had descended upon Denmark, which served as a warning to Elizabethan society about the issue of succession after Elizabeth I's death; and personal issues such as Hamlet's fatal flaw and Ophelia's suicide, and so on.
No comments:
Post a Comment