Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2000 :: May ::
Re: Fortinbras
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0989  Tuesday, 9 May 2000.

From:           Edmund M. Taft <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 08 May 2000 21:57:39 +0000
Subject:        Fortinbras

In discussing Hamlet's killing of Claudius, David Bishop writes, "What
this act isn't, it seems to me, is the original revenge commanded by the
ghost."  Really?  From line 305 on, Hamlet is a walking, talking dead
man-the very image of his father!  Old Hamlet does not have to be
mentioned in 5.2, for young Hamlet now plays his part!  And Gertrude's
end HAS been left to heaven: neither Claudius not Hamlet wills it,
though Claudius IS responsible for it.

Bishop goes on to argue that whether the king is under the law is a
debatable point in Renaissance legal scholarship.  Well, yes, but the
whole point of Richard II (on which the second scene of Hamlet is
modeled) is that Richard IS under the law.  His failure to appreciate
that fact leads to robbing Bolingbroke of his title, land, and money-all
of which, ineluctably, causes Richard's own downfall.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.