Historical Criticism & Michael MacDonald's essay, "Ophelia's Maimèd Rites"
This past week, one generous reader on a FaceBook Shakespeare-related forum recommended a helpful essay by Michael MacDonald called "Ophelia's Maimèd Rites," published in Shakespeare Quarterly Vol. 37, No. 3 (Autumn, 1986), pp. 309-317 (9 pages). The recommendation was in response to my blog post from last week, "Coroner's Suicide Inquest as 'Crowner's Quest' in Hamlet" which quoted David Bevington's claim that coroner's inquests were pressured by the crown to rule questionable deaths as suicides, in which case the crown often took possession of the deceased's property, since suicide was considered sinful by the church and a crime by the state. It may also have tempted the crown to the sin or vice of greed.
[Painting by Benjamin West, 1789, Boydell Shakespeare Gallery]
MacDonald doesn't explicitly claim any support for a position like Bevington's regarding pressure on coroner's inquests; in fact, he takes a more neutral stance, claiming that any number of factors many have influenced the tendency to rule questionable deaths as suicides in a variety of cases, of which he offers many examples.
And yet by accident, MacDonald actually does offer support for Bevington's claim: He notes that in the relatively rare cases in which questionable deaths were ruled accidental, or that madness may have made the person innocent of suicide, the Star Chamber sometimes reviewed the cases and changed the outcome to favor the crown. MacDonald does not consider the possibility that juries for coroner's inquests may have felt pressured, therefore, to return judgments that were favorable to the crown. He gives at least one example of implied pressure in the case of a probable suicide by a noble, where the jury was told to ignore evidence so as to be fair (!). But perhaps it's better to assume that the idea of the Star Chamber's oversight was in itself a form of pressure.
The essay by MacDonald is perhaps best at offering a glimpse of the civil law system as it related to coroner's inquests and jurries, but also offers a few religious insights, such as the fact that The Book of Common Prayer in Shakespeare's lifetime had no clear guidelines for burial of suicides, but instead, spelled out the denial of normal Christian burial rites when a person had been excommunicated and had not been reconciled to the church.
MacDonald's essay is largely a response to a claim in Roland M. Frye's book, The Renaissance Hamlet, where Frye assumes that most of Shakespeare's early audiences would have been more sympathetic to Laertes regarding his desire for full rites of Christian Burial for his sister, and not sympathetic to the "churlish priest" who withholds those rites because Ophelia's death was "doubtful." MacDonald claims that this probably was not the case, and he uses evidence of the relatively very frequent findings of suicide as evidence to back up his assumption that most juries usually found questionable deaths to be suicides, so therefore, most in Shakespeare's early audiences would not have been sympathetic to Laertes or to Ophelia if she was a possible suicide.
This ignores the question of whether the relative frequency of the findings of suicide may have been due to pressure from the crown and not superstition or religious fear. It also takes the relatively narrow example of coroner's inquest juries, and extrapolates this both to the realm of religion, as well as to the realm of London theater audiences.
It also ignores the fact that people in England, who were required to attend church regularly, not only had a fear of sin and damnation related to suicide as a sinful death, but that they also were urged on a regular basis to refrain from, or to be careful when, judging their neighbors, for the judgment they rendered about their neighbors would also be used in judgment against them. In fact, this gospel passage (Judge not that you be not judged, for the measure one uses to judge others will be used against one) was a favorite of Shakespeare's. The gospel passage (Matt 7:1-5) includes the saying about not taking the mote or speck of dust from a neighbor's eye before taking the beam or plank from one's own:
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged, and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you again.
3 And why seest thou the mote, that is in thy brother’s eye, and perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how sayest thou to thy brother, Suffer me to cast out the mote out of thine eye, and behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Hypocrite, first cast out that beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye. (Geneva 1599, modernized spelling)
MacDonald's position assumes that such passages had no effect on coroner's juries considering questionable deaths, and that it was mostly fear of the evils of sin and suicide that motivated frequent findings of suicide in these cases, and not pressure from crown and Star Chamber. I'm unconvinced that the evidence he offers can bear the weight of his arguments. But the article is still quite interesting and thought-provoking.
And perhaps the real question is not whether we should assume, like Frye, that most in the audience would have been more sympathetic to Laertes and Ophelia than to the churlish priest, but rather, whether Shakespeare has shaped the play in such a way as to evoke audience sympathies in that way. I think he has.
MacDonald is right to recognize the variety of responses to Ophelia's death represented in the play by Gertrude, the gravediggers, and the priest. He notes (on page 317) that Shakespeare's "treatment of suicide in Hamlet is a demonstration of his prismatic imagination. All of the hues of opinion that were present in his world are separated and made visible in the thoughts of characters who consider suicide or react to it."
Surely this is an exaggeration; "All of the hues of opinion" are not actually represented. But yes, there were diverse opinions on suicide in Shakespeare's culture, and yes, a rich diversity of opinions are represented in the play. (One might wonder: In this way, does the play offer this diversity of opinion for it's own sake, or merely as a broad appeal to differences among audience members, or is there some purpose for this prismatic view of diverse opinions? Given the evidence of the text of the play, do any of these people of diverse opinions seem to understand Ophelia perhaps better than others? Perhaps that's a topic for a future blog post....)
MacDonald concludes: "The task of cultural history is to identify the colors in the spectrum, not to resolve them into a single beam of light." He claims that this is what Frye does in assuming that the majority in Shakespeare's audience would have been more sympathetic to the cause of Laertes and Ophelia than to the priest.
As I've already suggested, perhaps Shakespeare does evoke that sympathy with his play, and the predisposition of the audience regarding suicide in the abstract is not the point.
But here as well as in the very beginning of his essay, MacDonald makes an interesting general point about how historical criticism is sometimes abused. In an effort to correct some perceived defect or lack in understanding on a given point in a play, historical critics explore writings and other artifacts of the period to discern prevalent opinions and assumptions. But perhaps too often, they assume that Shakespeare, other writers, and their audiences shared those prevalent opinions, and that Shakespeare's play is merely representative somehow of its time, when in fact, the reality might be more complicated, touching on the heart of a mystery not so easily plucked.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Disclaimer: If and when I quote or paraphrase bible passages in many of my blog posts, I do not intend to promote any religion over any other, nor am I attempting to promote religious belief in general; only to point out how the Bible may have 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 subscribing.
[Painting by Benjamin West, 1789, Boydell Shakespeare Gallery]
MacDonald doesn't explicitly claim any support for a position like Bevington's regarding pressure on coroner's inquests; in fact, he takes a more neutral stance, claiming that any number of factors many have influenced the tendency to rule questionable deaths as suicides in a variety of cases, of which he offers many examples.
And yet by accident, MacDonald actually does offer support for Bevington's claim: He notes that in the relatively rare cases in which questionable deaths were ruled accidental, or that madness may have made the person innocent of suicide, the Star Chamber sometimes reviewed the cases and changed the outcome to favor the crown. MacDonald does not consider the possibility that juries for coroner's inquests may have felt pressured, therefore, to return judgments that were favorable to the crown. He gives at least one example of implied pressure in the case of a probable suicide by a noble, where the jury was told to ignore evidence so as to be fair (!). But perhaps it's better to assume that the idea of the Star Chamber's oversight was in itself a form of pressure.
The essay by MacDonald is perhaps best at offering a glimpse of the civil law system as it related to coroner's inquests and jurries, but also offers a few religious insights, such as the fact that The Book of Common Prayer in Shakespeare's lifetime had no clear guidelines for burial of suicides, but instead, spelled out the denial of normal Christian burial rites when a person had been excommunicated and had not been reconciled to the church.
MacDonald's essay is largely a response to a claim in Roland M. Frye's book, The Renaissance Hamlet, where Frye assumes that most of Shakespeare's early audiences would have been more sympathetic to Laertes regarding his desire for full rites of Christian Burial for his sister, and not sympathetic to the "churlish priest" who withholds those rites because Ophelia's death was "doubtful." MacDonald claims that this probably was not the case, and he uses evidence of the relatively very frequent findings of suicide as evidence to back up his assumption that most juries usually found questionable deaths to be suicides, so therefore, most in Shakespeare's early audiences would not have been sympathetic to Laertes or to Ophelia if she was a possible suicide.
This ignores the question of whether the relative frequency of the findings of suicide may have been due to pressure from the crown and not superstition or religious fear. It also takes the relatively narrow example of coroner's inquest juries, and extrapolates this both to the realm of religion, as well as to the realm of London theater audiences.
It also ignores the fact that people in England, who were required to attend church regularly, not only had a fear of sin and damnation related to suicide as a sinful death, but that they also were urged on a regular basis to refrain from, or to be careful when, judging their neighbors, for the judgment they rendered about their neighbors would also be used in judgment against them. In fact, this gospel passage (Judge not that you be not judged, for the measure one uses to judge others will be used against one) was a favorite of Shakespeare's. The gospel passage (Matt 7:1-5) includes the saying about not taking the mote or speck of dust from a neighbor's eye before taking the beam or plank from one's own:
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged, and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you again.
3 And why seest thou the mote, that is in thy brother’s eye, and perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how sayest thou to thy brother, Suffer me to cast out the mote out of thine eye, and behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Hypocrite, first cast out that beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye. (Geneva 1599, modernized spelling)
MacDonald's position assumes that such passages had no effect on coroner's juries considering questionable deaths, and that it was mostly fear of the evils of sin and suicide that motivated frequent findings of suicide in these cases, and not pressure from crown and Star Chamber. I'm unconvinced that the evidence he offers can bear the weight of his arguments. But the article is still quite interesting and thought-provoking.
And perhaps the real question is not whether we should assume, like Frye, that most in the audience would have been more sympathetic to Laertes and Ophelia than to the churlish priest, but rather, whether Shakespeare has shaped the play in such a way as to evoke audience sympathies in that way. I think he has.
MacDonald is right to recognize the variety of responses to Ophelia's death represented in the play by Gertrude, the gravediggers, and the priest. He notes (on page 317) that Shakespeare's "treatment of suicide in Hamlet is a demonstration of his prismatic imagination. All of the hues of opinion that were present in his world are separated and made visible in the thoughts of characters who consider suicide or react to it."
Surely this is an exaggeration; "All of the hues of opinion" are not actually represented. But yes, there were diverse opinions on suicide in Shakespeare's culture, and yes, a rich diversity of opinions are represented in the play. (One might wonder: In this way, does the play offer this diversity of opinion for it's own sake, or merely as a broad appeal to differences among audience members, or is there some purpose for this prismatic view of diverse opinions? Given the evidence of the text of the play, do any of these people of diverse opinions seem to understand Ophelia perhaps better than others? Perhaps that's a topic for a future blog post....)
MacDonald concludes: "The task of cultural history is to identify the colors in the spectrum, not to resolve them into a single beam of light." He claims that this is what Frye does in assuming that the majority in Shakespeare's audience would have been more sympathetic to the cause of Laertes and Ophelia than to the priest.
As I've already suggested, perhaps Shakespeare does evoke that sympathy with his play, and the predisposition of the audience regarding suicide in the abstract is not the point.
But here as well as in the very beginning of his essay, MacDonald makes an interesting general point about how historical criticism is sometimes abused. In an effort to correct some perceived defect or lack in understanding on a given point in a play, historical critics explore writings and other artifacts of the period to discern prevalent opinions and assumptions. But perhaps too often, they assume that Shakespeare, other writers, and their audiences shared those prevalent opinions, and that Shakespeare's play is merely representative somehow of its time, when in fact, the reality might be more complicated, touching on the heart of a mystery not so easily plucked.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Disclaimer: If and when I quote or paraphrase bible passages in many of my blog posts, I do not intend to promote any religion over any other, nor am I attempting to promote religious belief in general; only to point out how the Bible may have 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 subscribing.
MacDonald concludes: "The task of cultural history is to identify the colors in the spectrum, not to resolve them into a single beam of light." He claims that this is what Frye does in assuming that the majority in Shakespeare's audience would have been more sympathetic to the cause of Laertes and Ophelia than to the priest. = Priceless observation. Reminds me of Conrad's 'Marlow' sitting in The Company's office observing "all the colours on the map" ('Heart of Darkness' pg.25).
ReplyDeleteThat is a cool connection, a good leap of the imagination, Michael!
Delete