Chameleon Hamlet & 1 Cor 9: Notes on Asimov on Hamlet, Part 5
Asimov notes the "formal politeness of Claudius' question (II.122) regarding how Hamlet "fares" - which to Claudius, means merely "How are you doing?" - but Hamlet takes the question and the word "fares" another way, deliberately misreading Claudius' meaning:
Asimov notes that Hamlet's response is "nonsensical" (II.122), and that it supports Hamlet's feigning of madness (II.122-3), but others might note that Hamlet is here channeling the spirit of Yorick the court fool, who might have been similarly witty in exploring a double-meaning of a word.
Asimov then comments upon characteristics of the chameleon, the idea of eating air, and (although he doesn't mention the air-heir pun) the connection between eating air and the hollow and perhaps dangerous promises of Claudius regarding Hamlet as heir to the throne:
OBSERVATIONS:
We might note that, although Asimov includes a lengthy index for each volume, he includes no footnotes: Who is it exactly that documented the Early Modern belief that Chameleons were believed to live on air? How did Asimov come by this knowledge? If Asimov were submitting this to a journal in an essay form, the joke would be that reviewer #3 might be especially harsh in rejecting it on the basis of this missing attribution.
DOES HAMLET WISH TO BLEND IN?
[Edit: Although it's a common assumption that chameleons change color to camouflage themselves against changing backgrounds, this may be a misconception. See article at this link.]
On first consideration, Hamlet may seem to do anything but blend in, as his playing mad makes him stand out like a sore thumb, a raving madman, or a reluctant prophet like Jonah, toying with the idea of speaking truth to power. His opposition to his mother's incestuous marriage, and to his uncle ascending the throne, helped by that marriage, makes him a prophetic figure ("O, my prophetic soul!"), comparable to John the Baptist opposing the incestuous marriage of Herod Antipas, and to the prophet Nathan, opposing King David having arranged the killing of Uriah to marry his wife, Bathsheba. William Rossky, in the late 1970s, also noticed echoes of the prophet Jeremiah in the play.
But on the other hand, the playing at madness is a kind of camouflage, to hide his true intentions. And Claudius is a murderer, a usurper, a liar, and a violator of social rules by way of an incestuous marriage. Hamlet becomes more like Claudius in the process of seeking revenge: He hopes to murder Claudius (and thinks he is doing so when he accidentally stabs Polonius); with Claudius out of the way, if Hamlet survives, Hamlet himself might ascend the throne, and he'd appear to be a usurper. His feigning of madness is a lie, a fiction. And by acting mad and planning a revenge killing, Hamlet is a different sort of violator of social rules. So to that extent, Hamlet seems, at first, to be blending in like a chameleon.
The more he acts mad and seeks revenge, the more he becomes like Claudius, and blends in with the corruption of the Danish court, like a chameleon.
OTHER CHAMELEON EFFECTS IN THE PLAY:
After Hamlet kills Polonius and departs for England, when we learn of Ophelia's madness in Act IV, scene 5, a gentleman (Second Quarto) or Horatio (Folio) remark upon what we might call a chameleon-effect: There is an old Latin saying, "Quidquid recipitur ad modum recipientis recipitur" (things are received according to the receiver); this is found not only in Aristotle, but also in Thomas Aquinas, and finds an echo here. Note the Gentleman in the Second Quarto:
In the First Folio, the same basic lines are given to Horatio:
We might note that, unlike a chameleon which adapts to its surroundings, this idea may be similar but in fact is quite different and involves not changing self to fit surroundings, but "botching up" what is heard (or "received" as the Latin saying goes) to fit one's already established assumptions.
WHAT WOULD WILLIAM HAZLITT SAY?
In his book, Murder Most Foul: Hamlet Through the Ages (2011, Oxford), David Bevington quotes William Hazlitt, who gave eloquent voice to the idea that Hamlet is each of us:
WHAT WOULD ST. PAUL SAY?
Shakespeare was clearly a fan of the writings of St. Paul, as we can see from his parody of a line from St. Paul in Midsummer Night's Dream, which we find in the 1599 Geneva translation as follows:
9 But as it is written, The things which eye hath not seen, neither ear hath heard, neither came into man’s heart, are, which God hath prepared for them that love him.On the lips of Bottom the Weaver, this becomes,
- 1 Cor 2:9
Methought I was, and methought I had -- but man is but a patched fool, if he will offer to say what methought I had. 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.
- 4.1.1735-40
Bottom botches it up, confusing eye with ear.
This sense of changing something to conform with something else - either the self, like the chameleon, or "what is received," as with perceptions of Ophelia's mad words - comes up again very explicitly in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 (which was read in Shakespeare's time during evening prayer every 28 January, 26 May, and 24 September). In this example from Paul, instead of changing what is received, we are back to something closer to the chameleon, a changing of the self, this time to serve those to whom Paul evangelizes:
19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all men, that I may win the more.Might this passage have influenced Shakespeare's view of his role as an entertainer and playwright? When Horatio, in the second scene of the play, calls Hamlet his "lord" and offers himself to Hamlet as "your servant ever," Hamlet responds that he would change those names - meaning Hamlet would be servant, and Horatio would be lord. St. Paul seems to have had a similar sense of his own role as that of a servant, not to flatter in hopes of personal gain, but to serve a higher purpose. Writers of the Christian canonical gospels also convey a similar sense of humble service as central to an authentic sense of self for Christians.
20 And unto the Jews, I become as a Jew, that I may win the Jews: to them that are under the Law, as though I were under the Law, that I may win them that are under the Law:
21 To them that are without Law, as though I were without Law, (when I am not without Law as pertaining to God, but am in the Law through Christ) that I may win them that are without Law:
22 To the weak I become as weak, that I may win the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
23 And this I do for the Gospel’s sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.
- 1599 Geneva Translation
HOW MIGHT HAMLET THE PLAY CONVEY THIS PAULINE SENSE OF SERVICE?
Shakespeare's play, The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, might be viewed in light of this Pauline sense of service: It is widely acknowledged that there seems to have been an earlier Hamlet (or Ur-Hamlet) that pre-dated Shakespeare's effort, and perhaps was purchased from its original playwright and revised, or perhaps (as often happened) the basic plot and many of its elements were stolen or "borrowed" by Shakespeare (who borrowed plots from many sources).
Shakespeare's Hamlet, as we know it, especially in the Second Quarto or First Folio versions, seems to have more biblical allusions, plot echoes, and influences than any of his other plays. If the original Ur-Hamlet was popular and still somewhat in demand before Shakespeare re-wrote it, it would seem to involve a kind of service in the name of theater: Give the people what they want. But with its many biblical influences, the play also wrestles with the transcendent ideas and religious assumptions of its time, raising many questions:
- Is revenge always wrong, even when it involves killing a murderous, usurping king?
- Who can bring a monarch to justice, if the monarch is above the law?
- What prophetic figure must come forward to call a monarch to justice, if the age of prophecy is declared closed by the church, and all proper prophesies are written down in the Bible?
- At what point do prophetic figures - who point out the sins of another (like Hamlet pointing to the sins of the murderous usurper, Claudius) - cross a line and become sinners themselves, as Hamlet does in killing Polonius? (And were there prophetic figures in Shakespeare's time who seemed more focused on the sins of others while having a blind spot for their own?)
- If a monarch is considered the representative of God on earth, then what about inauthentic and usurping monarchs, as compared to rightful heirs? How can a usurper be a representative of God on earth?
- How can even a rightful heir be a representative of God, if he or she murders to achieve the throne?
- What sort of monarchy or kingship was more important to Shakespeare: The leader of a nation? Or the kingship that Christians in Shakespeare's time believed all Christians shared with Christ?
- Given the expectations of both the censors and Shakespeare's audiences, how was Shakespeare to tell a tale that involved a prince killing a king, without allowing such a prince to escape without punishment, and without angering the authorities for dramatizing a controversial subject?
By taking a previous revenge tale and adapting it to some of the questions of his time, to the demands of censors, and to the expectations of his audiences, as well as to certain aspects of Christian faith, Shakespeare may have become "all things to all" people and therefore (without being preachy or didactic), given his own kind of witness to a Christian faith.
Some have proposed this before, described as the "school of Knight" - as in G. Wilson Knight - by Roland Frye in his book, Shakespeare and Christian Doctrine, chapter 1, page 19:
This is a valid concern, and it plagued many of the early authors who wrote about Shakespeare and the Bible, including (perhaps especially) Charles Wordsworth, the author of a substantial 1864 book about biblical allusions in Shakespeare:
Charles Wordsworth was an English bishop, and his book was very popular and went through multiple printings, but his methods were cumbersome and over-reaching: He believed that the mere mention of ideas from scripture and the catechism, in Shakespeare's plays, was proof enough that Shakespeare was a devout Christians who evangelized for Christianity through his plays. It's definitely not that simple.
Yet many continue to believe that Shakespeare may have been influenced by the Christianity of his time in writing his plays. When one studies the many religious and biblical allusions and plot echoes in the plays, it's hard to think otherwise. This does not mean one should use Shakespeare to evangelize for Christianity, but rather, that it may help us understand Shakespeare better as a product of his own time and culture.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THIS POST HAS BEEN PART OF A LARGER SERIES, reflecting on an in reaction toIsaac Asimov's treatment of Hamlet in his two-volume work, Asimov's Guide to Shakespeare.
Comments
Post a Comment