In act one scene four, Marcellus says, “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.” (p. 27). What Marcellus did not know was that “something” was the new king. Claudius is the antagonist of one of Shakespeare’s most well-known plays, Hamlet. In the play, Claudius has just risen to power by corrupt means. He killed the former King Hamlet by way of poison, and then he married King Hamlet’s wife, Gertrude, soon after the funeral. The main character, King Hamlet’s son, knows of what Claudius has done and is set on avenging his father’s death. Thus creating a storyline where Hamlet is trying to kill Claudius before Claudius can kill Hamlet. Along the way, Claudius’s internal conflicts reveal a little about humanity, even when it is at its
…show more content…
As the play’s antagonist, Claudius is deceitful, power hungry, and manipulative. He killed his brother, he is married to his dead brother’s wife, and he makes multiple attempts at killing his nephew, Hamlet. But, to say Claudius has no redeemable qualities would not be accurate. This is what makes the king such an intriguing character. He plays the villain of the play, but his character lacks the simplicity of outright wickedness. For example, Claudius feels remorse throughout the book, in act three scene one he says to Polonius, “How smart a lash that speech doth give my conscience! […] O heavy burden!” (p. 63). In scene three of the same act the audience sees the king repenting (attempting to repent) for his sin, starting with, “O, my offense is rank, it smells to heaven”(p.84). While speaking to his God, he questions whether he can actually be forgiven for his sin, since he is not willing to part with the benefits that his offense has brought him. Even though this is not repentance to its fullest extents, it speaks a lot to the king’s character. This changes the perception of Claudius from an absolute evil super villain to a morally weak human being. Claudius just falls victim to his power hungry nature, which can be assumed to be his core motive for all of his despicable deeds. He wanted to attain power and hold that power for as long as …show more content…
But, one could make the assertion that human’s at their core are immoral. A common way of saying this is that humans are born sinners. This would assert that Claudius had his agency throughout the play, and the only thing that would be restricting his agency would be his conscious, which he was able to overcome time and time again. In Christianity, there are names for these two schools of thought. St. Augustine taught the doctrine of total depravity, meaning that, because of the fall in Genesis, humans are all born enslaved to sin, with a sinful nature. Plagius taught that humans are born good but become “broken” or sinful. This is called Pelagianism. Pelagianism presents a view where there is redeemable value to any and every human being. Whereas total depravity represents a view where it is possible for someone to be entirely evil. This makes a huge difference in the perception of two areas: agency and humanity. From an Agency standpoint, total depravity would state that humans are not able to refrain from evil and that humans cannot even choose to follow God under their own will power. God’s grace is the only thing that can save us from an eternal life spent in hell, which really restricts our free will and puts
As the play’s antagonist, Claudius is deceitful, power hungry, and manipulative. He killed his brother, he is married to his dead brother’s wife, and he makes multiple attempts at killing his nephew, Hamlet. But, to say Claudius has no redeemable qualities would not be accurate. This is what makes the king such an intriguing character. He plays the villain of the play, but his character lacks the simplicity of outright wickedness. For example, Claudius feels remorse throughout the book, in act three scene one he says to Polonius, “How smart a lash that speech doth give my conscience! […] O heavy burden!” (p. 63). In scene three of the same act the audience sees the king repenting (attempting to repent) for his sin, starting with, “O, my offense is rank, it smells to heaven”(p.84). While speaking to his God, he questions whether he can actually be forgiven for his sin, since he is not willing to part with the benefits that his offense has brought him. Even though this is not repentance to its fullest extents, it speaks a lot to the king’s character. This changes the perception of Claudius from an absolute evil super villain to a morally weak human being. Claudius just falls victim to his power hungry nature, which can be assumed to be his core motive for all of his despicable deeds. He wanted to attain power and hold that power for as long as …show more content…
But, one could make the assertion that human’s at their core are immoral. A common way of saying this is that humans are born sinners. This would assert that Claudius had his agency throughout the play, and the only thing that would be restricting his agency would be his conscious, which he was able to overcome time and time again. In Christianity, there are names for these two schools of thought. St. Augustine taught the doctrine of total depravity, meaning that, because of the fall in Genesis, humans are all born enslaved to sin, with a sinful nature. Plagius taught that humans are born good but become “broken” or sinful. This is called Pelagianism. Pelagianism presents a view where there is redeemable value to any and every human being. Whereas total depravity represents a view where it is possible for someone to be entirely evil. This makes a huge difference in the perception of two areas: agency and humanity. From an Agency standpoint, total depravity would state that humans are not able to refrain from evil and that humans cannot even choose to follow God under their own will power. God’s grace is the only thing that can save us from an eternal life spent in hell, which really restricts our free will and puts