WHY GIFT-DYNAMICS MATTER FOR HAMLET & THE BIBLE: (Part 16) Labors of Gratitude and Regret in Hamlet
This is the latest installment in a multi-part series examining how characters interact in Hamlet, offering opportunities, gifts, planting seeds for future inspiration, or for changes of heart & mind. It follows ideas from Lewis Hyde (“The Labor of Gratitude,” a chapter in his book, The Gift: Imagination and the Erotic Life of Property). For more notes on the series and an index of previous posts in this series, see the end of this post.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WHY GIFT-DYNAMICS MATTER FOR HAMLET & THE BIBLE
Why might it matter whether, or how, characters in Shakespeare’s Hamlet demonstrate labors of gratitude and regret, or interact in ways that seem to conform to the transformative dynamics of gift exchange? Why does it matter that Claudius repeatedly refuses such moments of grace? What does it matter that so many other characters seem inclined toward some kind of transformation? And how might such interactions relate to biblical influences in the play?
The answer to these questions, it seems to me, has to do with how superficially or deeply we see the effects of biblical and religious influences in the play.
Obvious Scripture Allusions
It’s one thing to note that the play mentions biblical names like
Adam (“Adam digged,” 5.1);
Cain (“Cain’s jawbone,” 5.1);
Jephthah (2.2);
Herod (the Great, or Antipas, 3.2);
(John the) Baptist(a) (3.2);
Lazar(us and Dives, 1.5);
or that the play contains chapter-and-verse phrases from scripture such as
“Let be,” or “The readiness is all” (5.2) (or many others: See Naseeb Shaheem’s reference work, Biblical References in Shakespeare’s Plays, 1999).
Plot Echoes & Visual Echoes
It’s another thing to notice at a deeper level that there are plot echoes or visual echoes of biblical tales such as
the visual echo of the Annunciation in Ophelia and her prayer-book;
or the deeper echo of Suzannah and the Elders;
David and Bathsheba (“The play's the thing/ Wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,” 2.2);
or Jonah (Hamlet’s sea-voyage);
or Emmaus (graveyard, 5.1);
or the Agony in the Garden (3.3), or David sparing Saul (3.3).
These are all fascinating and varied, easy or slightly more difficult to spot.
But it is another thing entirely to reflect upon what is at the heart of Christian teachings about the Hebrew and Christian scriptures and to see if characters demonstrate key values Christians of Shakespeare’s time claimed to uphold, as reflected not only in scripture but also in the liturgical life of the church. Do characters bend toward transformation by the gifts they receive and by their efforts to repent of their mistakes? If characters do this, they embody the scriptural and liturgical values at a more subtle and deeper level than whether the text of the play merely quotes scripture.
The Greatest Law
Consider first the scripture passages in which Jesus speaks about the most important laws (to love God, and love neighbor as self): These include Mark 12:28-31, Matthew 22:36-40, and Luke 10:25-28. People in Shakespeare’s time would hear some version of this on two Sundays (in September and October), and they could also hear them nine times a year at morning prayer, according to the calendar of readings in the 1559 Book of Common Prayer.*
The Rhythms of Liturgical Life
Next, consider that for people who lived in Shakespeare’s time, their life in the church and in the rhythms of its liturgies reminded people of the many ways in which they received and gave gifts, laboring in gratitude, and how they called one another to repentance through sisterly, brotherly, friendly, neighborly correction. Baptism involved the gift of faith; confirmation involved the gifts of the Holy Spirit; Eucharist means gratitude and offered spiritual food and reaffirmation of membership in the body of Christ and of the church. Reconciliation or penance offered the gift of God’s mercy, and laboring in gratitude to repent of sin and reform one’s life. Ordination offered the gift of priestly charism. Last rites, or anointing of the sick or dying, included reconciliation (confession), communion, and anointing.
Although marriage was sexist in that the language seems to offer the bride as property given by father to groom, the language of the vows was the language of mutual giving and receiving: Do you take this man? Do you take this woman? Do you promise to be true in good times and bad?
So whether a person in Shakespeare’s time was a Protestant, a secret Catholic, a Puritan, or a secret atheist, the law required church attendance, and the language of the scriptures and the liturgies was the language of gifts, labors of gratitude, reconciliation, and labors of repentance from sin.
The language of the liturgy was also the language of personal and communal transformation, to "put on Christ" and to become more "Christ-like."
Embodied in Character Interactions?
So for these reasons, we might look to character interactions in Shakespeare's plays to see if these interactions carry any qualities of gifts, or of labors of gratitude or regret: Do characters do one another favors? Do they offer one another good examples, or ideas for future action? Do they correct one another’s faults? Do they express regret for mistakes, and strive to make things right? If so, we might observe that their character arcs embody the sort of gifts and transformations demonstrated in the scriptures and in the liturgical life of the church.
The Ideal Vs. Messy Reality
This is, of course, speaking in the ideal, when things are working well. But we know from the scriptures that people read in Shakespeare’s time as well as from other sources that things don’t always conform to the ideal. People who attend church and go through the motions can be hypocrites, selfish and nasty to their neighbors. They can be ungrateful for the gifts they receive, unforgiving, and unwilling to admit and repent of their mistakes. Atheists, sinners, and thieves can sometimes act with more kindness and generosity than people from whom we might expect better.
And in fact, in part, this is what Hamlet is about. Kings and queens were thought to rule by divine right, and people believed the monarch’s touch could heal them of illness. Yet Claudius is king, and he is a murderous usurper, and the brother and king that he killed seems to have died in a state of sin that kept him from heaven.
But as I’ve tried to show in previous posts, all of the other main characters might be seen as demonstrating some aspects of transformation by way of labors of gratitude and regret:
Polonius regrets that he may have misjudged Hamlet.
Gertrude has a guilty conscience after being confronted by Hamlet, and she might be seen as trying to make up for it in her account of Ophelia’s death, and in her drinking of the poison chalice.
Ophelia refers to the folktale about the baker’s daughter who is turned into an owl after being ungenerous with a beggar; she might be seen as expressing regret in this for turning Hamlet away in his time of need.
Later, she might be seen as achieving the gift of new insight about her true, spiritual heritage by way of her remark, “It is the false steward that stole his master's daughter,” recognizing how her father and brother were wrong to discourage her relationship with Hamlet.
Hamlet rants about how women tempt men to sin, and how Ophelia should get to a nunnery; later Ophelia rants about how men are unfaithful and use women. In this way, perhaps Ophelia receives Hamlet’s outspoken opinion as a gift that encourages her to express her own criticism of men. She becomes like him in this way, and one aspect of gift dynamics that Lewis Hyde describes is that the person who receives the gift becomes like the gift or giver. **
Hamlet receives a sort of tainted gift in the visitation of the ghost, but this only tempts him toward madness and violence.
Later, on his Jonah-like sea voyage, he is captured by pirates who might have killed him, but instead, they show him mercy. Hamlet calls them “thieves of mercy” and believes they were instruments of a merciful Providence, a God who is more forgiving than punishing. His life is spared and handed back to him as a gift.
Later in the graveyard, he receives another gift: He meets a gravedigger who knew Yorick and finds the skull of Yorick, who had been like an affectionate father figure to Hamlet. This meeting with a stranger who is a gravedigger bears resemblance to the story of the disciples on the road to Emmaus who meet a stranger, Jesus in disguise.
In the last scene, his mother offers him the gift of drinking first from the poison chalice, and when he and Laertes are dying, Laertes offers him the gift of a confession, that Claudius is to blame, and a request for forgiveness.
Even Claudius comes close to a labor of regret, but he refuses to give up his throne and queen, which he gained by murdering his brother, so he knows he will not be forgiven.
The transformations that these characters undergo (or refuse in Claudius’ case) are very much in harmony with the sorts of labors of gratitude and regret demonstrated in the scriptures and in the liturgical life of the church; so far from being unrelated to biblical influences in Shakespeare, they embody perhaps the most profound influence.
Notice also that these moments of transformation in the characters is often ambiguous, partial, incomplete:
Polonius regrets misjudging Hamlet, but he’s still too attached to the idea that lost love is the only things driving Hamlet mad, and he still meddles and puts his own life at risk by hiding behind the arras.
Gertrude’s account of Ophelia’s death perhaps helps to obtain Christian burial for her instead of the kind of burial given suicides at the time. Perhaps Gertrude has a hunch that the chalice may contain poison, but it’s unclear, and drinking from the chalice may buy time for her son, but it comes at the cost of her own life.
Laertes does turn, finally, against Claudius, but far too late. His planning for revenge with Claudius distracts him from protecting his sister, and in the end, he lets Gertrude die and poisons Hamlet, and is poisoned himself, before confessing the truth and seeking to reconcile with Hamlet.
Ophelia may regret rejecting Hamlet, and she may gain insight about a truer spiritual parentage by which she might be saved, but she still is destroyed and does not fight to live when she falls in the stream.
Hamlet idolizes his sinful father too much, and is too influenced toward violence and the madness of revenge and paranoia. He is far too harsh and unkind to Ophelia, who like him, is merely trying to obey her father. He discovers a merciful providence at the hands of the pirates who spare his life, but only after he has sent Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to their deaths.
Something is obviously rotten in Denmark, and the play would not be the same if any character had acted differently:
—If Gertrude had not married Claudius.
—If Polonius had not misjudged Hamlet’s intentions.
—If Ophelia had stood up to her father and brother and refused to reject Hamlet.
—If Hamlet had insisted that Claudius accompany him and the sentinels to see the ghost (and if the ghost had appeared to Claudius).
—If Hamlet had looked before stabbing the person behind the arras.
—If Laertes had been less trusting of Claudius regarding the circumstances of his father’s death, and had required a private audience with Hamlet to hear his account of Polonius’ death before settling on a plan of revenge.
All of these characters may seem to change for the better by the end, but the changes come too late, or are too incomplete, for more lives to be saved.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Notes:
* Besides the two Sundays on which they would hear the readings in which Jesus names the most important laws, people of Shakespeare’s time would hear them at morning prayer in church on the following occasions:
Matthew 22 on January 24, February 24, and September 21;
Luke 10 on February 27, June 27, and October 24;
Mark 12 on February 12, June 12, and October 9.
In Luke's gospel, another person names the two most important laws, and Jesus says he is correct.
These readings and dates were according to the schedule of the 1559 Book of Common Prayer whose text was sometimes revised and updated during Shakespeare’s life, but the schedule of readings remained basically the same.
I would like to speak of gratitude as a labor undertaken by the soul to effect the transformation after a gift has been received. Between the time a gift comes to us and the time we pass it along, we suffer gratitude. Moreover, with gifts that are agents of change, it is only when the gift has worked in us, only when we have come up to its level, as it were, that we can give it away again. Passing the gift along is the act of gratitude that finishes the labor. The transformation is not accomplished until we have the power to give the gift on our own terms. Therefore, the end of the labor of gratitude is similarity with the gift or with its donor. Once this similarity has been achieved we may feel a lingering and generalized gratitude, but we won’t feel it with the urgency of true indebtedness. (47)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[All Hamlet quotes are from the Modern, Editor's Version, edited by David Bevington, available at Internet Shakespeare, from the University of Victoria, Canada.]
[All quotes from the 1599 Geneva Bible are from BibleGateway.com, which has a wide range of Bible translations but modernizes spellings and is therefore not a preferred source for scholars, but more accessible.]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOTE ON THIS SERIES OF POSTS:
This is the latest installment in a multi-part series examining how characters interact in Hamlet, offering opportunities, gifts, planting seeds for future inspiration, or for changes of heart & mind. It follows ideas from Lewis Hyde (“The Labor of Gratitude,” a chapter in his book, The Gift: Imagination and the Erotic Life of Property).
- The more I examine characters in this way, the more I realize how the major characters in Hamlet are dynamic characters who change, becoming better or worse in one way or another. This approach goes against the grain of a great deal of scholarship that seems to reify (or thing-ify) too many characters (as foil, as Oedipal, as Machiavellian, etc.) and view them as more static, rather than as dynamic, fluid, interacting. For an index of previous posts in this series, see below.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Index of other posts in this series:
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2024/09/index-character-arcs-labors-of.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
YOU CAN SUPPORT ME on a one-time "tip" basis on Ko-Fi:
https://ko-fi.com/pauladrianfried
IF YOU WOULD PREFER to support me on a REGULAR basis,
you may do so on Ko-Fi, or here on Patreon:
https://patreon.com/PaulAdrianFried
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Disclaimer: If and when I quote or paraphrase bible passages or mention religion in many of my blog posts, I do not intend to promote any religion over another, nor am I attempting to promote religious belief in general; only to explore how the Bible and religion influenced Shakespeare, his plays, and his age.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks for reading!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My current project is a book tentatively titled Hamlet’s Bible, about biblical allusions and plot echoes in Hamlet.
Below is a link to a list of some of my top posts (“greatest hits”), including a description of my book project (last item on the list):
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2019/12/top-20-hamlet-bible-posts.html
I post every week, so please visit as often as you like and consider FOLLOWING.
To find the FOLLOW button, go to the home page: https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/
see the = drop-down menu with three lines in the upper left.
From there you can click FOLLOW and see options.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WHY GIFT-DYNAMICS MATTER FOR HAMLET & THE BIBLE
Why might it matter whether, or how, characters in Shakespeare’s Hamlet demonstrate labors of gratitude and regret, or interact in ways that seem to conform to the transformative dynamics of gift exchange? Why does it matter that Claudius repeatedly refuses such moments of grace? What does it matter that so many other characters seem inclined toward some kind of transformation? And how might such interactions relate to biblical influences in the play?
The answer to these questions, it seems to me, has to do with how superficially or deeply we see the effects of biblical and religious influences in the play.
Obvious Scripture Allusions
It’s one thing to note that the play mentions biblical names like
Adam (“Adam digged,” 5.1);
Cain (“Cain’s jawbone,” 5.1);
Jephthah (2.2);
Herod (the Great, or Antipas, 3.2);
(John the) Baptist(a) (3.2);
Lazar(us and Dives, 1.5);
or that the play contains chapter-and-verse phrases from scripture such as
“Let be,” or “The readiness is all” (5.2) (or many others: See Naseeb Shaheem’s reference work, Biblical References in Shakespeare’s Plays, 1999).
Plot Echoes & Visual Echoes
It’s another thing to notice at a deeper level that there are plot echoes or visual echoes of biblical tales such as
the visual echo of the Annunciation in Ophelia and her prayer-book;
or the deeper echo of Suzannah and the Elders;
David and Bathsheba (“The play's the thing/ Wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,” 2.2);
or Jonah (Hamlet’s sea-voyage);
or Emmaus (graveyard, 5.1);
or the Agony in the Garden (3.3), or David sparing Saul (3.3).
These are all fascinating and varied, easy or slightly more difficult to spot.
But it is another thing entirely to reflect upon what is at the heart of Christian teachings about the Hebrew and Christian scriptures and to see if characters demonstrate key values Christians of Shakespeare’s time claimed to uphold, as reflected not only in scripture but also in the liturgical life of the church. Do characters bend toward transformation by the gifts they receive and by their efforts to repent of their mistakes? If characters do this, they embody the scriptural and liturgical values at a more subtle and deeper level than whether the text of the play merely quotes scripture.
The Greatest Law
Consider first the scripture passages in which Jesus speaks about the most important laws (to love God, and love neighbor as self): These include Mark 12:28-31, Matthew 22:36-40, and Luke 10:25-28. People in Shakespeare’s time would hear some version of this on two Sundays (in September and October), and they could also hear them nine times a year at morning prayer, according to the calendar of readings in the 1559 Book of Common Prayer.*
The Rhythms of Liturgical Life
Next, consider that for people who lived in Shakespeare’s time, their life in the church and in the rhythms of its liturgies reminded people of the many ways in which they received and gave gifts, laboring in gratitude, and how they called one another to repentance through sisterly, brotherly, friendly, neighborly correction. Baptism involved the gift of faith; confirmation involved the gifts of the Holy Spirit; Eucharist means gratitude and offered spiritual food and reaffirmation of membership in the body of Christ and of the church. Reconciliation or penance offered the gift of God’s mercy, and laboring in gratitude to repent of sin and reform one’s life. Ordination offered the gift of priestly charism. Last rites, or anointing of the sick or dying, included reconciliation (confession), communion, and anointing.
Although marriage was sexist in that the language seems to offer the bride as property given by father to groom, the language of the vows was the language of mutual giving and receiving: Do you take this man? Do you take this woman? Do you promise to be true in good times and bad?
So whether a person in Shakespeare’s time was a Protestant, a secret Catholic, a Puritan, or a secret atheist, the law required church attendance, and the language of the scriptures and the liturgies was the language of gifts, labors of gratitude, reconciliation, and labors of repentance from sin.
The language of the liturgy was also the language of personal and communal transformation, to "put on Christ" and to become more "Christ-like."
Embodied in Character Interactions?
So for these reasons, we might look to character interactions in Shakespeare's plays to see if these interactions carry any qualities of gifts, or of labors of gratitude or regret: Do characters do one another favors? Do they offer one another good examples, or ideas for future action? Do they correct one another’s faults? Do they express regret for mistakes, and strive to make things right? If so, we might observe that their character arcs embody the sort of gifts and transformations demonstrated in the scriptures and in the liturgical life of the church.
The Ideal Vs. Messy Reality
This is, of course, speaking in the ideal, when things are working well. But we know from the scriptures that people read in Shakespeare’s time as well as from other sources that things don’t always conform to the ideal. People who attend church and go through the motions can be hypocrites, selfish and nasty to their neighbors. They can be ungrateful for the gifts they receive, unforgiving, and unwilling to admit and repent of their mistakes. Atheists, sinners, and thieves can sometimes act with more kindness and generosity than people from whom we might expect better.
And in fact, in part, this is what Hamlet is about. Kings and queens were thought to rule by divine right, and people believed the monarch’s touch could heal them of illness. Yet Claudius is king, and he is a murderous usurper, and the brother and king that he killed seems to have died in a state of sin that kept him from heaven.
But as I’ve tried to show in previous posts, all of the other main characters might be seen as demonstrating some aspects of transformation by way of labors of gratitude and regret:
Polonius regrets that he may have misjudged Hamlet.
Gertrude has a guilty conscience after being confronted by Hamlet, and she might be seen as trying to make up for it in her account of Ophelia’s death, and in her drinking of the poison chalice.
Ophelia refers to the folktale about the baker’s daughter who is turned into an owl after being ungenerous with a beggar; she might be seen as expressing regret in this for turning Hamlet away in his time of need.
Later, she might be seen as achieving the gift of new insight about her true, spiritual heritage by way of her remark, “It is the false steward that stole his master's daughter,” recognizing how her father and brother were wrong to discourage her relationship with Hamlet.
Hamlet rants about how women tempt men to sin, and how Ophelia should get to a nunnery; later Ophelia rants about how men are unfaithful and use women. In this way, perhaps Ophelia receives Hamlet’s outspoken opinion as a gift that encourages her to express her own criticism of men. She becomes like him in this way, and one aspect of gift dynamics that Lewis Hyde describes is that the person who receives the gift becomes like the gift or giver. **
Hamlet receives a sort of tainted gift in the visitation of the ghost, but this only tempts him toward madness and violence.
Later, on his Jonah-like sea voyage, he is captured by pirates who might have killed him, but instead, they show him mercy. Hamlet calls them “thieves of mercy” and believes they were instruments of a merciful Providence, a God who is more forgiving than punishing. His life is spared and handed back to him as a gift.
Later in the graveyard, he receives another gift: He meets a gravedigger who knew Yorick and finds the skull of Yorick, who had been like an affectionate father figure to Hamlet. This meeting with a stranger who is a gravedigger bears resemblance to the story of the disciples on the road to Emmaus who meet a stranger, Jesus in disguise.
In the last scene, his mother offers him the gift of drinking first from the poison chalice, and when he and Laertes are dying, Laertes offers him the gift of a confession, that Claudius is to blame, and a request for forgiveness.
Even Claudius comes close to a labor of regret, but he refuses to give up his throne and queen, which he gained by murdering his brother, so he knows he will not be forgiven.
The transformations that these characters undergo (or refuse in Claudius’ case) are very much in harmony with the sorts of labors of gratitude and regret demonstrated in the scriptures and in the liturgical life of the church; so far from being unrelated to biblical influences in Shakespeare, they embody perhaps the most profound influence.
Notice also that these moments of transformation in the characters is often ambiguous, partial, incomplete:
Polonius regrets misjudging Hamlet, but he’s still too attached to the idea that lost love is the only things driving Hamlet mad, and he still meddles and puts his own life at risk by hiding behind the arras.
Gertrude’s account of Ophelia’s death perhaps helps to obtain Christian burial for her instead of the kind of burial given suicides at the time. Perhaps Gertrude has a hunch that the chalice may contain poison, but it’s unclear, and drinking from the chalice may buy time for her son, but it comes at the cost of her own life.
Laertes does turn, finally, against Claudius, but far too late. His planning for revenge with Claudius distracts him from protecting his sister, and in the end, he lets Gertrude die and poisons Hamlet, and is poisoned himself, before confessing the truth and seeking to reconcile with Hamlet.
Ophelia may regret rejecting Hamlet, and she may gain insight about a truer spiritual parentage by which she might be saved, but she still is destroyed and does not fight to live when she falls in the stream.
Hamlet idolizes his sinful father too much, and is too influenced toward violence and the madness of revenge and paranoia. He is far too harsh and unkind to Ophelia, who like him, is merely trying to obey her father. He discovers a merciful providence at the hands of the pirates who spare his life, but only after he has sent Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to their deaths.
Something is obviously rotten in Denmark, and the play would not be the same if any character had acted differently:
—If Gertrude had not married Claudius.
—If Polonius had not misjudged Hamlet’s intentions.
—If Ophelia had stood up to her father and brother and refused to reject Hamlet.
—If Hamlet had insisted that Claudius accompany him and the sentinels to see the ghost (and if the ghost had appeared to Claudius).
—If Hamlet had looked before stabbing the person behind the arras.
—If Laertes had been less trusting of Claudius regarding the circumstances of his father’s death, and had required a private audience with Hamlet to hear his account of Polonius’ death before settling on a plan of revenge.
All of these characters may seem to change for the better by the end, but the changes come too late, or are too incomplete, for more lives to be saved.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Notes:
* Besides the two Sundays on which they would hear the readings in which Jesus names the most important laws, people of Shakespeare’s time would hear them at morning prayer in church on the following occasions:
Matthew 22 on January 24, February 24, and September 21;
Luke 10 on February 27, June 27, and October 24;
Mark 12 on February 12, June 12, and October 9.
In Luke's gospel, another person names the two most important laws, and Jesus says he is correct.
These readings and dates were according to the schedule of the 1559 Book of Common Prayer whose text was sometimes revised and updated during Shakespeare’s life, but the schedule of readings remained basically the same.
**
In his book, The Gift: Imagination and the Erotic Life of Property, in the chapter called “The Labor of Gratitude,” Lewis Hyde writes,I would like to speak of gratitude as a labor undertaken by the soul to effect the transformation after a gift has been received. Between the time a gift comes to us and the time we pass it along, we suffer gratitude. Moreover, with gifts that are agents of change, it is only when the gift has worked in us, only when we have come up to its level, as it were, that we can give it away again. Passing the gift along is the act of gratitude that finishes the labor. The transformation is not accomplished until we have the power to give the gift on our own terms. Therefore, the end of the labor of gratitude is similarity with the gift or with its donor. Once this similarity has been achieved we may feel a lingering and generalized gratitude, but we won’t feel it with the urgency of true indebtedness. (47)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[All Hamlet quotes are from the Modern, Editor's Version, edited by David Bevington, available at Internet Shakespeare, from the University of Victoria, Canada.]
[All quotes from the 1599 Geneva Bible are from BibleGateway.com, which has a wide range of Bible translations but modernizes spellings and is therefore not a preferred source for scholars, but more accessible.]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOTE ON THIS SERIES OF POSTS:
This is the latest installment in a multi-part series examining how characters interact in Hamlet, offering opportunities, gifts, planting seeds for future inspiration, or for changes of heart & mind. It follows ideas from Lewis Hyde (“The Labor of Gratitude,” a chapter in his book, The Gift: Imagination and the Erotic Life of Property).
- The more I examine characters in this way, the more I realize how the major characters in Hamlet are dynamic characters who change, becoming better or worse in one way or another. This approach goes against the grain of a great deal of scholarship that seems to reify (or thing-ify) too many characters (as foil, as Oedipal, as Machiavellian, etc.) and view them as more static, rather than as dynamic, fluid, interacting. For an index of previous posts in this series, see below.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Index of other posts in this series:
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2024/09/index-character-arcs-labors-of.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
YOU CAN SUPPORT ME on a one-time "tip" basis on Ko-Fi:
https://ko-fi.com/pauladrianfried
IF YOU WOULD PREFER to support me on a REGULAR basis,
you may do so on Ko-Fi, or here on Patreon:
https://patreon.com/PaulAdrianFried
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Disclaimer: If and when I quote or paraphrase bible passages or mention religion in many of my blog posts, I do not intend to promote any religion over another, nor am I attempting to promote religious belief in general; only to explore how the Bible and religion influenced Shakespeare, his plays, and his age.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks for reading!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My current project is a book tentatively titled Hamlet’s Bible, about biblical allusions and plot echoes in Hamlet.
Below is a link to a list of some of my top posts (“greatest hits”), including a description of my book project (last item on the list):
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2019/12/top-20-hamlet-bible-posts.html
I post every week, so please visit as often as you like and consider FOLLOWING.
To find the FOLLOW button, go to the home page: https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/
see the = drop-down menu with three lines in the upper left.
From there you can click FOLLOW and see options.
Comments
Post a Comment