Paul Adrian Fried / HAMLET'S BIBLE

In Hamlet 4.3, instead of “Long live King Claudius!” Hamlet names worms as emperors [1]: Eventually, worms will overcome every king, after which even a beggar might eat, digest, and defecate a monarch. In the end, the meek (including beggars and worms) inherit the earth and its kingdoms [2].  But how can a beggar defecate a king?  (Some people in the USA, terrorized by ICE, may be asking the same thing.)  Hamlet explains the food chain to Claudius, who has lied consistently in the play about a key murder for which he is responsible:  KING  Now, Hamlet, where’s Polonius? HAMLET  At supper. KING  At supper where? HAMLET  Not where he eats, but where he is eaten. A certain convocation of politic worms are e’en at him. Your worm is your only emperor for diet. We fat all creatures else to fat us, and we fat ourselves for maggots. Your fat king and your lean beggar is but variable service—two dishes but to one table. That’s the end. KING  Alas, ala...

Sometimes what looks like a gamble may be a risk taken in faith. (Does gambling for money parody such faith?) FORTUNE AND GAMBLING IN HAMLET : THE DEAD KING HAMLET GAMBLED, in an agreement with Old Fortinbras, to engage in single combat, described by Horatio in 1.1. The survivor won the loser’s land. We learn in 5.1 that this combat took place on the day that Hamlet was born.[1] CLAUDIUS BETS that Hamlet will win the duel with Laertes in 5.2, though he and Laertes plan to kill Hamlet. Claudius takes his chances that the plot will succeed, but to increase his chances, a poison cup is a back-up plan, and instead of Laertes merely using an "unbaited" rapier (with no blunt safety tip), Laertes also anoints the rapier with poison. This combines cheating with gambling. [EDIT: Grace Tiffany of Western Michigan University adds to the list of gambling references: Gertrude's marriage vows are "false as dicers' oaths" (3.4), referring to how gamblers, wh...