Hamlet & King David, Part II /or/ Henry VIII’s to blame
A few weeks back, I listed ways that Shakespeare’s Hamlet parallels the biblical King David more than the Oedipus tale, and especially to the story of David's infidelity with Bathsheba and his arranging for the death of Bathsheba’s husband so he can marry her. (To view that very brief article, click here.)
Some may wonder: Why would there be so many allusions to the biblical King David in Hamlet?
There are three important things to remember while contemplating these parallels with the King David story in Hamlet:
First, bear in mind that people in Shakespeare's time could not openly criticize the government. Playwrights had to say things indirectly, or risk being caught by the censors and punished by the state.
Second, recall that Shakespeare wrote the play at the end of Elizabeth's life, and was probably using certain events in the play's fictional setting in Denmark as analogies for various things about the end of the House of Tudor, most notably, Henry VIII and the consequences of his break from Rome. The playwright was not a combination of genius and angel of God, writing about eternal truths; he was a human being writing in and responding to a specific historical, religious, and political context.
And third, Henry VIII liked the biblical King David stories and viewed himself as a kind of David figure.
TO ELIZABETHAN AUDIENCES, when Claudius mentions somewhat awkwardly (in the second scene) that he has married the recently widowed Gertrude, wife of his brother, everyone in the theater would take this as a reference to Henry VIII. As Hamlet is a play about the memory of a dead king who had been "pricked on by emulate pride" (the worst of the seven deadly sins), it is also, indirectly, a play about Henry.
Henry’s sickly older brother, Arthur, the heir apparent, had married Catherine of Aragon, but then Arthur died. Some claimed the marriage had been consummated; Catherine claimed it had not, and the Pope granted a special dispensation (not for average English subjects) so that Catherine could marry Henry and be his queen. Some historians claim that, since Henry would have had to support his brother's widow anyway, marrying her was a way of killing two birds with one stone (and thereby saving some money; Hamlet jokes that the marriage of Gertrude to Claudius came so soon after the funeral for King Hamlet, that the funeral meats supplied the marriage table, and this demonstrated the virtue of thrift). Henry's marriage to Catherine would be the focus of great trouble later, when she was unable to bear a male child who would thrive for long, so Henry would later claim that Catherine must have lied about not consummating the marriage to Arthur, and God must have cursed the marriage so that it would not produce a thriving male heir.
This is why Henry claimed later that he wanted a divorce. But it's not why he had an affair with Anne Boleyn, which was more about ego, lust, Henry's immaturity and roving eye.
So Henry married the widow of his brother, with special permission from the Pope, the sort of thing that most Englishman would never think to request.
And the point is not whether marrying your brother's widow was acceptable or not in Denmark in the time supposedly depicted in the play; Elizabethan audiences would have seen the Claudius-Gertrude marriage as prohibited, and Claudius as giving himself permission to marry in a way that would be prohibited to his subjects, just as Henry and Catherine got special permission for their marriage, and later, when the Pope refused to annul their marriage at Henry's request, Henry broke from Rome and gave himself the divorce he wanted from Catherine so that he could marry Anne Boleyn. From the start of the play, Claudius is a king who abuses his power for personal gain.
So to be absolutely clear (and to repeat), the marriage in Hamlet of Claudius to Gertrude, his brother's wife, would have reminded everyone in Shakespeare's original audiences of Henry VIII. For this reason, the David allusions relating to Claudius in the play are really references to Henry VIII, comparing him to David. This is the sort of indirect political commentary that may still have been somewhat risky, but may have avoided trouble with the censors (and worse).
This does not prove that Hamlet is a pro-Catholic play, written by a secret Catholic playwright, critical of Henry for having married his brother's widow, which led to a long list of problems. It may be tempting to jump to that conclusion. But in fact, on its surface, Hamlet is critical of Claudius for having killed a brother, married his widow, and usurped the throne. It could be argued that Henry VIII, in contrast, woke up to the error of his ways regarding his first marriage, and that he never murdered his brother Arthur, and never usurped the throne. Yes, the play Hamlet is about the end of a royal house, written at the end of a royal house in England, and yes, many aspects of the play call to mind Tudor scandals. But with all of its rich and suggestive allusions, it can't be reduced to a pro-Catholic political screed.
Before we get too deep in those allusions, and especially the ones that relate to David's infidelity with Bathsheba, consider a bit of background on Henry VIII's admiration for King David. Henry liked and saw himself in the biblical King David so much that he even had a book of psalms commissioned, containing illustrations in which Henry was portrayed in the role of David. Henry was a musician, known to have composed songs, so Henry was pictured on one page as David, playing his harp. When David triumphs over Goliath, the illustration for Goliath was made to look like the pope, with Henry triumphing over the pope.
But what the author of the play realized (and what Henry himself would not have wanted illustrated in his Book of Psalms) was that Henry was unfaithful to Catherine in his affair with Anne Boleyn, just as David and Bathsheba had been unfaithful in their affair. And Henry had other affairs as well. It may seem a little harsh and judgmental, then, that for this unfaithful king, two of his wives were accused of infidelity and treason, and beheaded. Given that the bible was very important to the culture, and given that the bible preached that all those who hoped for God's mercy should themselves be merciful, a Christian king who himself had multiple affairs might have been more merciful with wives who had been charged with being unfaithful. But no, he had them killed. So in a way, it could be said that, like David who arranged for the killing of Bathsheba’s husband in order to marry her, Henry arranged for the killing of two of his wives so that he could remarry.
Murder and marriage go together like . . . like King David and Henry VIII.
David’s children by his various marriages were later famous for their troubles, and because of these troubles, the kingdom of Israel shared in the suffering. David’s lust for wives was an Achilles heel that became a kind of curse, like the curse pronounced by the prophet Nathan after David had Bathsheba’s husband killed ("Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house, because thou hast despised me, and taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife." - 2 Sam 12:10).
Henry had a similar weakness, as the history of his many marriages and affairs demonstrates, and his actions similarly resulted in troubles for England through his children: Mary I (“Bloody Mary") burned Protestants at the stake as heretics; Elizabeth I had Catholics executed for treason. England was on the verge of religious civil war due in part to Henry's actions, marriages, and the differences among his children (especially Mary I and Elizabeth I).
[This is not to excuse Rome for its abuses of power; just an observation about where the King David allusions seem to be pointing in the play.]
So it is quite ironic: Henry liked the biblical David enough to commission a book of Psalms in which he is portrayed as David, but Henry also came to resemble David in some of the worst ways, including infidelities and a sort of curse that passed to the nation through his children.
It’s appropriate that Shakespeare would include these allusions in a play written at the end of Elizabeth’s life and the end of the House of Tudor, given the strife in England through Elizabeth's later years (executions, surveillance, enforced changes in religious observance, mandatory church attendance), tensions with Rome (excommunications, conspiracies), and war with Spain (Armada, 1588). England was hungry for healing and relief from Tudor-era concerns, and hopes were high that a new king (James) might bring that healing and relief.
So in some key ways, Claudius is like Henry, who was like David.
Fortinbras, the son of the king that old King Hamlet had killed, is like James, the son of the queen that Elizabeth had beheaded.
The play is, of course, more than that. Simple allegories break down at various points, and the play is richer than any single allegory, but these connections still hold important insights. References in the play to Henry VIII and the biblical King David would not have been missed by Elizabethan audiences, many of whom were avid bible readers and required to attend church weekly. If we wish to understand what the play meant to its original audiences, we should consider the author's triangulation, its safe way of commenting on Henry VIII by using Claudius and allusions to some of the darkest and most scandalous aspects of the reign and legacy of King David.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MORE:
KING DAVID & OEDIPUS in HAMLET
On this blog: https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2017/09/king-oedipus-king-david-hamlet-freud.html
On LinkedIn: https://lnkd.in/eeBvjjS
HENRY VIII & KING DAVID in HAMLET
On this blog: https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2017/09/king-oedipus-king-david-hamlet-freud.html
On LinkedIn: https://lnkd.in/e97bdG4
HAMLET HAS A DAVID COMPLEX
On this blog: https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2017/09/hamlet-has-david-complex-freud-claimed.html
INCESTUOUS, ADULTEROUS, MURDEROUS BEAST?
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2018/03/incestuous-adulterous-murderous-beast.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Paul Adrian Fried has an MFA in English & Creative Writing and taught university English for 21 years. His current project is a book, tentatively titled "Hamlet's Bible," about biblical allusions and deep plot echoes in Shakespeare's play. He posts weekly.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
#Shakespeare #Hamlet #Literature #Bible #Religion #Renaissance #EarlyModern #theatre #Drama #literarycriticism #henryviii
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Links to a description of my book project:
On LinkedIn: https://lnkd.in/eJGBtqV
On this blog: https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2017/05/hamlets-bible-my-book-project-im.html
[Originally posted 10/3/17 on LinkedIn]
Some may wonder: Why would there be so many allusions to the biblical King David in Hamlet?
There are three important things to remember while contemplating these parallels with the King David story in Hamlet:
First, bear in mind that people in Shakespeare's time could not openly criticize the government. Playwrights had to say things indirectly, or risk being caught by the censors and punished by the state.
Second, recall that Shakespeare wrote the play at the end of Elizabeth's life, and was probably using certain events in the play's fictional setting in Denmark as analogies for various things about the end of the House of Tudor, most notably, Henry VIII and the consequences of his break from Rome. The playwright was not a combination of genius and angel of God, writing about eternal truths; he was a human being writing in and responding to a specific historical, religious, and political context.
And third, Henry VIII liked the biblical King David stories and viewed himself as a kind of David figure.
TO ELIZABETHAN AUDIENCES, when Claudius mentions somewhat awkwardly (in the second scene) that he has married the recently widowed Gertrude, wife of his brother, everyone in the theater would take this as a reference to Henry VIII. As Hamlet is a play about the memory of a dead king who had been "pricked on by emulate pride" (the worst of the seven deadly sins), it is also, indirectly, a play about Henry.
Henry’s sickly older brother, Arthur, the heir apparent, had married Catherine of Aragon, but then Arthur died. Some claimed the marriage had been consummated; Catherine claimed it had not, and the Pope granted a special dispensation (not for average English subjects) so that Catherine could marry Henry and be his queen. Some historians claim that, since Henry would have had to support his brother's widow anyway, marrying her was a way of killing two birds with one stone (and thereby saving some money; Hamlet jokes that the marriage of Gertrude to Claudius came so soon after the funeral for King Hamlet, that the funeral meats supplied the marriage table, and this demonstrated the virtue of thrift). Henry's marriage to Catherine would be the focus of great trouble later, when she was unable to bear a male child who would thrive for long, so Henry would later claim that Catherine must have lied about not consummating the marriage to Arthur, and God must have cursed the marriage so that it would not produce a thriving male heir.
This is why Henry claimed later that he wanted a divorce. But it's not why he had an affair with Anne Boleyn, which was more about ego, lust, Henry's immaturity and roving eye.
So Henry married the widow of his brother, with special permission from the Pope, the sort of thing that most Englishman would never think to request.
And the point is not whether marrying your brother's widow was acceptable or not in Denmark in the time supposedly depicted in the play; Elizabethan audiences would have seen the Claudius-Gertrude marriage as prohibited, and Claudius as giving himself permission to marry in a way that would be prohibited to his subjects, just as Henry and Catherine got special permission for their marriage, and later, when the Pope refused to annul their marriage at Henry's request, Henry broke from Rome and gave himself the divorce he wanted from Catherine so that he could marry Anne Boleyn. From the start of the play, Claudius is a king who abuses his power for personal gain.
So to be absolutely clear (and to repeat), the marriage in Hamlet of Claudius to Gertrude, his brother's wife, would have reminded everyone in Shakespeare's original audiences of Henry VIII. For this reason, the David allusions relating to Claudius in the play are really references to Henry VIII, comparing him to David. This is the sort of indirect political commentary that may still have been somewhat risky, but may have avoided trouble with the censors (and worse).
This does not prove that Hamlet is a pro-Catholic play, written by a secret Catholic playwright, critical of Henry for having married his brother's widow, which led to a long list of problems. It may be tempting to jump to that conclusion. But in fact, on its surface, Hamlet is critical of Claudius for having killed a brother, married his widow, and usurped the throne. It could be argued that Henry VIII, in contrast, woke up to the error of his ways regarding his first marriage, and that he never murdered his brother Arthur, and never usurped the throne. Yes, the play Hamlet is about the end of a royal house, written at the end of a royal house in England, and yes, many aspects of the play call to mind Tudor scandals. But with all of its rich and suggestive allusions, it can't be reduced to a pro-Catholic political screed.
Before we get too deep in those allusions, and especially the ones that relate to David's infidelity with Bathsheba, consider a bit of background on Henry VIII's admiration for King David. Henry liked and saw himself in the biblical King David so much that he even had a book of psalms commissioned, containing illustrations in which Henry was portrayed in the role of David. Henry was a musician, known to have composed songs, so Henry was pictured on one page as David, playing his harp. When David triumphs over Goliath, the illustration for Goliath was made to look like the pope, with Henry triumphing over the pope.
But what the author of the play realized (and what Henry himself would not have wanted illustrated in his Book of Psalms) was that Henry was unfaithful to Catherine in his affair with Anne Boleyn, just as David and Bathsheba had been unfaithful in their affair. And Henry had other affairs as well. It may seem a little harsh and judgmental, then, that for this unfaithful king, two of his wives were accused of infidelity and treason, and beheaded. Given that the bible was very important to the culture, and given that the bible preached that all those who hoped for God's mercy should themselves be merciful, a Christian king who himself had multiple affairs might have been more merciful with wives who had been charged with being unfaithful. But no, he had them killed. So in a way, it could be said that, like David who arranged for the killing of Bathsheba’s husband in order to marry her, Henry arranged for the killing of two of his wives so that he could remarry.
Murder and marriage go together like . . . like King David and Henry VIII.
David’s children by his various marriages were later famous for their troubles, and because of these troubles, the kingdom of Israel shared in the suffering. David’s lust for wives was an Achilles heel that became a kind of curse, like the curse pronounced by the prophet Nathan after David had Bathsheba’s husband killed ("Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house, because thou hast despised me, and taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife." - 2 Sam 12:10).
Henry had a similar weakness, as the history of his many marriages and affairs demonstrates, and his actions similarly resulted in troubles for England through his children: Mary I (“Bloody Mary") burned Protestants at the stake as heretics; Elizabeth I had Catholics executed for treason. England was on the verge of religious civil war due in part to Henry's actions, marriages, and the differences among his children (especially Mary I and Elizabeth I).
[This is not to excuse Rome for its abuses of power; just an observation about where the King David allusions seem to be pointing in the play.]
So it is quite ironic: Henry liked the biblical David enough to commission a book of Psalms in which he is portrayed as David, but Henry also came to resemble David in some of the worst ways, including infidelities and a sort of curse that passed to the nation through his children.
It’s appropriate that Shakespeare would include these allusions in a play written at the end of Elizabeth’s life and the end of the House of Tudor, given the strife in England through Elizabeth's later years (executions, surveillance, enforced changes in religious observance, mandatory church attendance), tensions with Rome (excommunications, conspiracies), and war with Spain (Armada, 1588). England was hungry for healing and relief from Tudor-era concerns, and hopes were high that a new king (James) might bring that healing and relief.
So in some key ways, Claudius is like Henry, who was like David.
Fortinbras, the son of the king that old King Hamlet had killed, is like James, the son of the queen that Elizabeth had beheaded.
The play is, of course, more than that. Simple allegories break down at various points, and the play is richer than any single allegory, but these connections still hold important insights. References in the play to Henry VIII and the biblical King David would not have been missed by Elizabethan audiences, many of whom were avid bible readers and required to attend church weekly. If we wish to understand what the play meant to its original audiences, we should consider the author's triangulation, its safe way of commenting on Henry VIII by using Claudius and allusions to some of the darkest and most scandalous aspects of the reign and legacy of King David.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MORE:
KING DAVID & OEDIPUS in HAMLET
On this blog: https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2017/09/king-oedipus-king-david-hamlet-freud.html
On LinkedIn: https://lnkd.in/eeBvjjS
HENRY VIII & KING DAVID in HAMLET
On this blog: https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2017/09/king-oedipus-king-david-hamlet-freud.html
On LinkedIn: https://lnkd.in/e97bdG4
HAMLET HAS A DAVID COMPLEX
On this blog: https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2017/09/hamlet-has-david-complex-freud-claimed.html
INCESTUOUS, ADULTEROUS, MURDEROUS BEAST?
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2018/03/incestuous-adulterous-murderous-beast.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Paul Adrian Fried has an MFA in English & Creative Writing and taught university English for 21 years. His current project is a book, tentatively titled "Hamlet's Bible," about biblical allusions and deep plot echoes in Shakespeare's play. He posts weekly.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
#Shakespeare #Hamlet #Literature #Bible #Religion #Renaissance #EarlyModern #theatre #Drama #literarycriticism #henryviii
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Links to a description of my book project:
On LinkedIn: https://lnkd.in/eJGBtqV
On this blog: https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2017/05/hamlets-bible-my-book-project-im.html
[Originally posted 10/3/17 on LinkedIn]
Comments
Post a Comment