Hamlet and the Conversion of Saul

[Detail: Conversion on the Way to Damascus: Caravaggio (c.1600-1). Image from Wikipedia, in the public domain. Full image below.]

I have been thinking about Pauline influences on, or echoes in, Hamlet. Some of these in particular are in the first scene, some in a middle scene, and some in the last.

In the first scene of Hamlet, Francisco might be the first sentinel on stage. The second sentinel, Bernardo, enters cautiously and asks a question. But instead of answering, sentinel Francisco demands that Bernardo answer his own question first:

Bernardo: Who’s there?
Francisco: Nay, answer me: stand, and unfold yourself!

This construction of dialogue is notable for having one character ask a question, and the other, more authoritatively, turn it back on him. Most Shakespeare scholars assume Francisco is still on duty and the person in charge, coming to the end of his shift; Bernardo is coming on duty to relive him, but perhaps nervous and not quite following protocol. Since Francisco seems to be in charge of this particular post until relieved, he won't let another person in the dark usurp his watch. He lets Bernardo know who is boss. This feels a bit like some themes in the play: Claudius was a usurper. Is he the rightful king, or just faking it? If someone steps out of line and wants to invade or usurp your watch—or take your kingdom's throne—, what is the right thing to do? Franciso knows it's his job to assert his authority.

None of the major authors of books on Shakespeare and the Bible since 1850 (C. Wordsworth, W. Burgess, T. Carter, R. Noble, N. Shaheen, P. Milward, H. Hamlin) identify this as being an allusion to scripture.

But instead of looking for an exact or nearly exact quote to match it in scripture, perhaps we should look for a well-known scriptural precedent with which Shakespeare would certainly have been familiar, and which might have some similar characteristics, and/or characteristics in common with the play. I have a passage in mind.

Consider Acts 9:1-7 (1599 Geneva):
1 And Saul yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high Priest,

2 And desired of him letters to Damascus to the Synagogues, that if he found any that were of that way, (either men or women) he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.

3 Now as he journeyed, it came to pass that as he was come near to Damascus, suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven.

4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying to him,
Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord?
And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against pricks.
[“kick against the pricks” (or in later translations, “against the goads”): Hard for an ox being driven to plow a field by a farmer to kick against the sharp instrument being used by the farmer to discipline the ox into staying the right course; it would be wiser for the ox to cooperate. - PF note.]

6 He then both trembling and astonied, said, Lord, what wilt thou that I do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou shalt do.

7 The men also which journeyed with him, stood amazed, hearing his voice, but seeing no man. *
~~
In Shakespeare's lifetime, this reading was read as the second lesson of Morning Prayer on April 12, August 11, and December 9, as well as on every January 25th, the feast of the Conversion of St. Paul. **

Here is the larger image by Caravaggio (article continued below it):


[Conversion on the Way to Damascus: Caravaggio (c.1600-1). Image from Wikipedia, in the public domain.] ***

This comparison is interesting for a number of reasons:

A. Shakespeare would have certainly been familiar with it, and shows that he’s familiar enough with the writings of Paul that he even has fun with Paul (1 Cor 2:9), mangled on the lips of Bottom the Weaver in Midsummer Night’s Dream (“The eye of man hath not heard, the ear of man hath not seen, man's hand is not able to taste, his tongue to conceive, nor his heart to report, what my dream was”, 4.1.737-40).

B. Even in Hamlet, scholars have noted: When Hamlet apologizes to Laertes in 5.2 and says it was not him but the madness in him, that he shot his arrow over the house and accidentally hurt his brother, this sounds like St. Paul saying that it is not him, but sin in him, that does bad things. ****

C. The passage from Acts 9 starts with a question from heaven, followed by a second question of “who’s there?” This is then followed by a reply regarding the speaker’s identity and an authoritative command from heaven to Saul.
—As in Acts 9, we find in Hamlet 1.1 that Francisco and Bernardo reflect an imbalance of propriety and power: In Acts, Jesus is doing his job in heaven, but Saul is acting inappropriately, so the voice of Jesus from heaven corrects him. This is like Bernardo, speaking out of turn, and Francisco’s authoritative response, correcting Bernardo, commanding that Bernardo “stand and unfold” himself.
- Certainly, a similar rhetorical structure of a question being answered by a question or a demand instead of an answer might have been present in a variety of ancient or contemporary sources with which Shakespeare was familiar. In fact, it may have been present in non-Biblical sources Shakespeare alludes to in this same play. But the fact that this was present in Acts 9 and in the opening of Hamlet might confirm for us that this Biblical type of rhetorical structure was strongly present in Shakespeare's culture, and may have had an influence in this way, along with other texts, and other influences of Acts 9 or Paul's writings.

D. The passage in Acts 9 involves a supernatural voice and a light from heaven, but only Saul sees the light flashing; the others do not see it. This is similar to Hamlet in 3.4, in Gertrude’s closet, seeing and hearing the ghost which Gertrude cannot see. This scene confuses some readers and scholars: Why do the sentinels see the ghost in 1.1, 1.4, and 1.5, but not Gertrude in 3.4? Is this a sign that Hamlet is crazy? Well, no: Shakespeare was familiar with the scriptural precedent in which Saul hears a voice and sees a light, but the others with him have a slightly different experience that doesn't include all of what Saul perceived.
(Edit, 1 August, 2022: In John Erskine Hankins' book, The Character of Hamlet, on page 52, he notes that when the ghost appears to Hamlet in his mother's closet, it stops Hamlet from being so harsh on his mother; Hankins compares this with Saul having his vision on the road to Damascus. //Some - perhaps those attached to the idea of a ghost from hell, not purgatory - suggest that the ghost actually wants Gertrude to be damned, so he stops Hamlet because the prince is forcing his mother to confront her sins, and the result may be that she will be saved. I suspect that some of these same critics may prefer to believe that Gertrude does not repent, and does nothing worth redemption by the end of the play, but I have argued otherwise here: https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2019/10/gertrude-as-recipient-giver-of-gifts.html ).

E. Saul has a conversion and goes from being a persecutor of Christians to being a famous Christian himself.
—The play, Hamlet, is about a prince who has a similar conversion that begins to move him away from persecuting others toward something better.
—Hamlet descends into evil and persecutes people (harsh and unkind with Ophelia; harsh with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern after the "Mousetrap" play; harsh with his mother; kills Polonius; sends Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to their deaths).
—He has a conversion after a Jonah-like encounter at sea, swallowed by a pirate ship instead of a fish.
—He also has an Emmaus-like encounter with a stranger-clown-gravedigger and a skull he is told belonged to Yorick, the affectionate court fool Hamlet knew in his youth, like an affectionate surrogate father; this seems to further solidify his conversion.
—In other words, After meeting with the ghost and descending into evil, Hamlet goes from bloody thoughts and persecuting many around him, to reconciling in the end with Laertes whose poison sword is fatal, and perhaps offering reparation to Fortinbras whose father was killed by Hamlet’s father.
—Yes, Hamlet kills Claudius finally, and he accidentally poisons Laertes without knowing the switched sword is poison. But he intentionally reconciles with more people in the last scene than he intentionally kills in that scene. He goes from being a persecutor and perhaps madman to perhaps being more like the prince he was meant to be -- Even as Saul becomes a better person after his conversion.

Few people would claim that the exchange between Bernardo and Francisco is a direct allusion to the exchange Saul had with a heavenly questioner. But it seems this passage from Acts and others from the letters of Paul may have influenced Shakespeare's writing of the play, perhaps in ways like the five listed above (A-E).

Writers are more likely to write in certain ways if they live in a culture that has stories or literature that use similar forms of rhetoric, expression, and ideas. Shakespeare's culture was heavily influenced by the Bible and by Paul, so while I admit it's a stretch to claim any of these instances are direct allusions (I tend to think not), it's not a stretch to say Shakespeare in these instances is writing in ways similar to precedents in the book of Acts (parts relating to Paul) and similar to the letters of Paul with which he was familiar.

What do you think?

~~
NOTES:
Unless otherwise noted, all quotes from Shakespeare's plays are taken from InternetShakespeare at the University of Victoria, Canada.
Quotes from Hamlet unless otherwise noted are taken from that same site, the Modern, Editor's Version, ed. David Bevington.

* Although it was not used in church services, all Bible quotes are from the 1599 Geneva Bible, the most popular personal edition of the Bible in Shakespeare’s lifetime. Quotes are taken from BibleGateway.com, chosen more for its search engine and accessibility than its modernized spelling.

** John E. Booty, ed., The Book of Common Prayer 1559 (Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia, 1976)

*** As the Wikipedia article on this painting notes, Caravaggio made a few attempts at painting this Biblical scene, but they were not acceptable, so he tried again.

**** See Thomas Carter, Shakespeare and Holy Scripture: With the Version He Used (1905), 381-2;
also Peter Milward, Biblical Influences in Shakespeare's Great Tragedies, 1987, 57-8.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 subscribing.