Beggars, Thieves, & Cranmer’s Conflations (Lazarus in Hamlet, Part 7)
Three official Cranmer & Jewell homilies mention the beggar Lazarus - and have many other connections to Hamlet. Shakespeare heard these homilies many times during his life.
The first, “An Exhortation Against The Fear Of Death” (Cranmer) comes uncomfortably close to conflating beggars and thieves (not necessarily synonymous). I will consider these three homilies in upcoming weeks, but for this week, will focus on a few key ideas from this one.
Some consider Shakespeare an atheist, but he probably didn’t (always) work secretly on poems and plays while homilies were read in church; in fact, he utilized their ideas and vocabulary in his writing, making them his own. Yes, if one is an atheist and wishes to view Shakespeare as an atheist because of certain things certain characters say, it's possible to find evidence for that. And it's certainly possible to sit in church while a priest is talking, and to have one's thoughts on other things instead of listening. But writers are always soaking up languae and ideas, even if they're required by law to attend church. We only know of Shakespeare because of his work as a dramatist, not because he was a notable atheist or believer, and yet he clearly utilized religious ideas, plots, and themes in his work.
Thomas Cranmer's book of Homilies was the first of two such approved books of homilies to be read in English churches on a regular basis (the second was by John Jewell). A good digital version of both can be found here, with modernized spelling (1859), and a version with something closer to the original spelling can be found here.
In Cranmer's book, the ninth homily is called "An exhortation against the fear of death," and it includes a number of passages and themes that one might think Shakespeare may have had in mind while writing sections of Hamlet. But something especially curious about this homily is that it includes references, sometimes in the same sentences, to both Lazarus (of the Lazarus-Rich Man parable), and also to the story of the "good thief" who was crucified with Jesus.
The two crucified with Jesus, and identified in Biblical translations of Luke's gospel in Shakespeare's time as criminals or thieves, are often identified in later translations as revolutionaries or insurrectionists, as crucifixion was a uniquely Roman method of executing insurrectionists and politically dangerous people: John the Baptist and Jesus, both drawing crowds of followers, would have been viewed by Roman and Jewish authorities as potential threats to the political order.
Later religious writing would sometimes compare the beggar Lazarus to the Hebrew scripture figure of Job, a just man who suffers, not because he is being punished by God, but because he is the victim of many misfortunes. But in Shakespeare's time, and many other times, many people were of the opinion that beggars were poor because of some moral failing on their part, such as laziness. If only they were more hard-working, this line of thought might say, they would not be poor. This is the sort of opinion that people of privilege often believe, rather than people in the midst of unexpected suffering or poverty.
Thomas Cranmer's mention of both the "good thief" and the beggar Lazarus may seem benign examples of two people in the gospels who are bound for heaven, and therefore have no reason to fear. But in another way, the citing of these two examples is notable: Most of the people hearing the homily across England on a given Sunday were not thieves or beggars. There are plenty of examples from the gospels of people who were not beggars or thieves, and who may have seemed presented as heaven-bound, or saints. And yet Cranmer chooses a thief and a beggar as examples of people who didn't need to fear death, and in fact may have viewed death as a release from suffering.
This may have encouraged both a conflation of thieves and beggars in the minds of listeners, and also an implied divine justification for the execution of criminals and the death of the poor and starving: As long as they repented of sin, they should have viewed death as a release from their suffering and a gateway to a heavenly reward. So why worry about the execution of criminals and the starving of beggars and the poor? They are in a better place now. And we are justified by faith, not by works, so we needn't worry, one might have said.
The story in Luke 16 challenges our notions of who is beggar, who is rich, and who is thief, and as such, suggests a way of approaching Hamlet. This week I'll explore especially the idea of the beggar in Luke 16, but also in larger spiritual and religious traditions, but also the rich man in the tale. I'll also consider just a few ideas from the first of these three Cranmer homilies that mention Lazarus, and in future weeks, I'll consider the ideas and vocabulary of these homilies compared to that of Shakespeare's Hamlet.
FIRST THINGS: SOME CLARIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND
There are a few questions, bible characters and ideas we should clarify:
1. First, why consider Cranmer's homilies that mention Lazarus when thinking about Hamlet?
As mentioned in the first post of this series (and others along the way), in Hamlet Act 1, scene 5, the ghost describes the effect of the poison on his skin by saying it was "lazarlike," comparing it to the skin of Lazarus in the tale near the second half of Luke 16. Lazarus was a beggar whose skin was covered with sores licked by dogs, and he begged outside the rich man's gate, while the rich man neglected him. Shakespeare may would have learned of the Lazarus tale not only by hearing it read in church multiple times each year, but also by hearing it read in home, or reading it himself, probably from the Geneva translation of the Bible. In addition to the Bible, Shakespeare probably saw many representations of the tale in paintings, murals, tapestries, even carved into the stones of churches.
Church attendance in Shakespeare's lifetime was required by law. Services included the reading of scripture, singing of hymns, and a commemoration of the Last Supper. They also included long homilies, or reflections on topics of religious and moral concern. Because the new English Protestant authorities and the crown did not trust that all priests would compose homilies that would conform to the central truths of the English church, there were homilies that had been published in a first book by Thomas Cranmer, and a second mostly by John Jewell (with just a few exceptions).
Because these were official and required homilies, we can be more certain that Shakespeare heard these texts read in church a number of times each in his lifetime. And because three of the homilies mention the tale of the beggar Lazarus from Luke 16, it makes sense to examine these three homilies for ways they approach the tale and apply its lessons, as well as for other connections we might find to the play.
I used a digital version (easily searchable) of an 1859 edition of the books of homilies at Internet Archive at the following web address:
https://archive.org/details/twobookshomilie00grifgoog/page/n3/mode/2up
To find the three homilies that cite the tale of Lazarus and the rich man, I simply used the search feature in the upper left and typed in
2. The tale of the rich man and the beggar Lazarus is found only in the Gospel of Luke, 16:19-31, not in any of the other canonical gospels, but that later part of Luke 16 is also very related to what comes before it, as explained in a previous blog post about the Biblical context of the tale.
3. The tale of the one commonly called the "good thief" or "penitent thief" is found only in the Gospel of Luke, 23:38-43, where both the Bishop's Bible and the Geneva describe them merely as "evildoers." THe same chapter mentions Barabbas as having caused an insurrection, and many translations call the two crucified with Jesus "revolutionaries." It's clear that Jesus is being crucified by Roman soldiers, and the sign over him mocks him as "King of the Jews," implying that Jesus had gathered a large following and was viewed as a threat to the Roman bureaucrats.
But in Luke's version of the story, even one of the others crucified with him mocks him, saying that if people proclaim him to be the Messiah (perhaps in part understood as a return of a great and powerful king like David), then he should use his power and authority to save himself and the others being crucified.
Detail, Portrait of Thomas Cranmer, 1545, by Gerlach Flicke (1495-1558), National Portrait Gallery, UK. Via Wikipedia, public domain.
Der gute Schächer (The good thief), 1505, Albrecht Durer; Albertina, Vienna, Austria. Via Wikiart. Public domain.]
4. Why does Cranmer refer to both Lazarus and the "good thief" in the first of these homilies that mention Lazarus?
The title of the homily is "An Exhortation Against The Fear Of Death," so he uses Lazarus and the penitent thief as extreme examples: If even these Biblical figures inherit a heavenly reward after death, then the rest of us should supposedly not fear death - that is, if we are in fact living according to the gospels and the wisdom of the Bible. (Big if...)
One problem with this line of thinking is that many listeners might be more like the rich man than they are like Lazarus. Others - perhaps similar to the other thief crucified with Jesus - are sinners, and too proud to be moved to regret, or to make reparations for their mistakes. Adversity forces some to give up worldly possessions and honors, and by being emptied and becoming poor, some also become humble and spiritually rich.
For others, adversity may make them worse than before they suffer their losses.
THE PROBLEM OF CONFLATING BEGGARS AND THIEVES: FALSE ASSUMPTIONS
Another problem with Cranmer's homily is that some might hear mention of the beggar Lazarus and the good thief, and conflate the two.
In the 1992 film Hero (released as Accidental Hero in the UK and Ireland), the character Bernie LaPlante (played by Dustin Hoffman) advises his son not to give money to beggars because they are lazy, rich con-artists (tricky thieves, often in plain sight).
Many Christians in Shakespeare's time (as today) were told that people who are not willing to work should not eat, because in their understanding, when God cast Adam and Eve out of the garden of Eden, he told them they would have to live by sweat and toil (Genesis 3:19).
These ideas were used to justify laws against begging and the practice of punishing and publicly humiliating beggars before requiring that they return to their place of birth, where they would either be put to work, or if it was determined that they were unable to work, they would be given some meager form of charity (as described in a previous blog post).
Of course, it may very well be true that some beggars are lazy con-artists, but so are some very rich people. The tale in Luke 16:19-31 is not about a beggar who is also a con-artist, but merely about a beggar and a self-centered rich man.
This attitude about the poor and about beggars is still quite dominant, especially among conservatives in countries like the USA, or others where conservatives promote "austerity" and dismantling social safety nets.
Meanwhile, some of the worst thieves include those billionaires who make their riches by paying as little as possible to their workforce, essentially stealing from them the true value of their labors. Wage theft is also a huge problem, where employers fail to pay their employees their full wages, or even minimum wage in some cases. This adds up to billions every year (as explained by the Economic Policy Institute). If a person steals $100 from their employer, they often go to jail, but if an employer steals even more over the course of a year through wage theft, they usually escape jail time.
[Ambrose of Milan, representation via Christianity Today. Fair use (and link to interesting article).]There is a very old religious and spiritual tradition that views all things as belonging to God, and humans as merely stewards of God's creation and wealth. In this tradition, Ambrose of Milan wrote, "superfluum quod tenes tu furaris" (the superfluous property which you hold you have stolen) (see 1886 source here, and a more clearly explained 1912 source here).
According to this tradition, billionaires like Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and Jeff Bezos are very much thieves.
"THEY'RE IN A BETTER PLACE"
Another problem that many might have with Cranmer's "Exhortation Against the Fear of Death" is that by emphasizing how Lazarus and the Good Thief died and went to heaven, their suffering was ended, and they are in paradise, so perhaps things are much better for them now. By that logic, all the better for us to withhold charity from beggars so that they starve more quickly and hasten to their heavenly reward, and for thieves and revolutionaries to be executed as soon as possible, because if they merit heaven, their suffering will be relieved much better than our efforts at prison reform or rehabilitation could hope to achieve, and if they don't, then perhaps it's better for us not to bother with them.
THE POOR IN THE TIME OF JESUS, AND JESUS' DECLARATION OF A JUBILEE YEAR
Because of the Roman occupation, many people in Jesus' time became homeless. Some lost their land because new towns were being built in honor of Caesar, and named after him, ready to house Roman bureaucrats and their families. The people who previously lived there became landless, and in some cases, homeless. Others could not afford to pay taxes and lost their land. Roman taxes were likely viewed as part of the oppression of the Roman occupation, like the USA occupying Iraq, and some in the US claiming that Iraqi oil should be seized as an asset to be used to pay for the US expense of liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein.
A 2013 CNN op-ed by Antonia Juhasz noted,
Yes, the Iraq War was a war for oil, and it was a war with winners: Big Oil.The Roman occupation had a similar effect on the economy of the Roman province of Judea in the time of Jesus. Like the landowners in England who violated the Charter of the Forest by enclosing (and stealing) the commons (as described in a previous blog post), the Roman occupation stole land from the people of Judea.
It has been 10 years since Operation Iraqi Freedom’s bombs first landed in Baghdad. And while most of the U.S.-led coalition forces have long since gone, Western oil companies are only getting started.
Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq’s domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms.
From ExxonMobil and Chevron to BP and Shell, the West’s largest oil companies have set up shop in Iraq. So have a slew of American oil service companies, including Halliburton, the Texas-based firm Dick Cheney ran before becoming George W. Bush’s running mate in 2000.
The war is the one and only reason for this long sought and newly acquired access.
Oil was not the only goal of the Iraq War, but it was certainly the central one, as top U.S. military and political figures have attested to in the years following the invasion.
“Of course it’s about oil; we can’t really deny that,” said Gen. John Abizaid, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, in 2007. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan agreed, writing in his memoir, “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.” Then-Sen. and now Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the same in 2007: “People say we’re not fighting for oil. Of course we are.”
For the first time in about 30 years, Western oil companies are exploring for and producing oil in Iraq from some of the world’s largest oil fields and reaping enormous profit. And while the U.S. has also maintained a fairly consistent level of Iraq oil imports since the invasion, the benefits are not finding their way through Iraq’s economy or society.
Mosaic law said that debts should be forgiven every seven years, and debt-prisoners set free, but especially so in the 50th year (or 49th, seven-times-seven: Leviticus 25:10-13, a "jubilee year"). The basic idea is that one should not be condemned to living one's entire life in prison for debt, nor should one lose one's ancestral lands forever.
Yet one can imagine how unlikely it would be for a Sadducee high priesthood in Jerusalem, co-opted by the Roman occupation, to declare a Jubilee year and the return of ancestral lands.
It is therefore remarkable that, only in Luke's gospel (Luke 4:16-22), does Jesus declare a jubilee, when debt-prisoners should be set free, and ancestral lands returned to the families that lost them. To accomplish this, the Romans would have to be asked to move out or find other accommodations, perhaps rental arrangements? (I am joking.)
(For more on the Jubilee Year, see this article by Albert Vanhoye at the Vatican website, in preparation for a church jubilee year.)
Some (like Reza Aslan) claim that Jesus was a zealot (and therefore a revolutionary in favor of getting Rome out of Judea), but others note that his teachings about love of enemies, and turning the other cheek, show that his methods and goals were very different from the violent methods of the zealots.
If this is true, and Jesus' methods and goals were quite determined but peaceful, then for Jesus to declare a jubilee year in the tradition of Isaiah 61 was not a call to revolution, but a call to both economic justice and spiritual renewal.
BEGGARS, EMPTINESS, SILENCE, AND THE MOVEMENT OF GIFTS
In his 1983 book, The Gift: Imagination and the Erotic Life of Property, Lewis Hyde writes,
The gift moves towards the empty place. As it turns in its circle it turns towards him who has been empty-handed the longest, and if someone appears elsewhere whose need is greater it leaves its old channel and moves toward him. Our generosity may leave us empty, but our emptiness then pulls gently at the whole until the thing in motion returns to replenish us. Social nature abhors a vacuum. (23)There are spiritual traditions in which people go off to a quiet place, sometimes temporarily as on a retreat, and other times perhaps for the rest of their lives: For Christianity before Shakespeare's lifetime, this usually meant a hermitage, convent, or monastery. But there are retreats for Muslims, and certainly for Buddhists and even Buddhist-skeptics. My own experience of silent retreats has been very positive: Our lives are cluttered with noise about minor and relatively insignificant things: TV, internet, emails, practical but otherwise minor conversations. I attended a silent retreat because a friend said he had done so and had a profound, even visionary experience. Even meals are taken in silence, although people pass dishes around a table. The noises and images that clutter the mind are abandoned. When these fall away, and when the focus is to reflect for long periods on short sacred texts, the texts evoke insights or memories and sometimes something like waking dreams, in which one closes one's eyes and envisions or remembers something important.
The basic idea is to empty one's self of extraneous activities and thoughts, and by becoming more empty (sometimes especially in the company of others with a similar goal), spiritual riches may move to fill the void that nature abhors.
The beggar and thief may seem very different in that the beggar asks, and the thief takes: The beggar seems to respect the free will of potential donors, while the thief violates that consent by taking without consent.
Yet the beggar and the repentant thief may have more in common: The beggar is empty and asks, and the repentant thief empties herself or himself, and perhaps asks forgiveness.
THE BEGGAR LAZARUS AS AN ANGEL OF GOD
In Genesis 18, Abraham and Sarah are visited by three strangers. They show the strangers hospitality, and before they strangers go on their way, they give the old couple a blessing that, by the same time next year, they will have a child.
In the Christian scriptures, Hebrews 13:2 later says that strangers should be shown hospitality because in doing so, some have entertained angels.
It may be annoying to some religious critics of films like Frank Capra's It's a Wonderful Life, that sometimes Broadway or Hollywood characters die become angels, or some other kind of messengers from heaven, as the rich man in Luke 16 asks Abraham to send Lazarus as a messenger to his brothers. To the minds of some, the only messengers of God are angels, and the dead do not return to life as messengers of God. There was similar debate in Shakespeare's time about ghosts.
But in a sense, before the beggar dies, we might view the beggar as a sort of messenger of God to the rich man: The empty hands of the beggar Lazarus are a message and an opportunity to the rich man to earn his heavenly reward, in the logic of Luke 16. Share your good fortune with the beggar, and things will go well for you. Refuse, and, well....
By the same logic, it makes sense that Laertes tells the "churlish priest" in 5.1 that his sister will be a ministering angel while the priest is howling from hell (5.1.3431-3). The mad Ophelia is a kind of beggar in need of care, and in part because she is neglected, she drowns. If she was an angel to her brother and to the court that they needed to look beyond their own selfish concerns, they fail the test (as I've explained in a previous blog post).
LIKE THIEVES OF MERCY
In Hamlet, there is a reference to the pirates that sheds light on this dynamic of repentant thieves or criminals. It comes in Act 4, scene 6, and uses the phrase "thieves of mercy" (emphasis mine):
Ere we were two days old at sea, a pirate of very / warlike appointment gave us chase. Finding ourselves too / slow of sail, we put on a compelled valor, and in the grapple I / boarded them. On the instant they got clear of our ship, so / I alone became their prisoner. They have dealt with me like / thieves of mercy, but they knew what they did: I am to do / a good turn for them. (4.6.2988-94)"Thieves of mercy" may seem at first glance a strange phrase, unlike "the good thief" or "the penitent thief." It may seem to refer to something like a legend of Robin Hood, stealing from the rich (a thief) to give to the poor (an act of mercy).
But if one reads the story of the good thief or criminal in Luke, 23:38-43 carefully, one finds that he may be considered a thief of mercy in at least two ways:
1. While the other criminal crucified with them seems selfish and mocking toward Jesus, the "good thief" is more merciful and tells the first to stop, because they deserve their punishment, while Jesus does not. The good thief shows mercy toward Jesus.
2. Having shown Jesus mercy, Jesus does a good turn for him, saying that this day, they will be together in paradise. Jesus shows mercy toward the penitent thief.
So I think we can say with some certainty that "thieves of mercy" is a reference to the good thief of Luke, 23:38-43: He is a thief "of mercy" both in that he gives mercy to Jesus, and in that he receives it as well.
This follows the formula that Hamlet describes: the pirates do a good and merciful thing for Hamlet, and he is to do some good thing in return.
The gift moves toward the empty place. Poor Hamlet begs mercy of the pirates, so their mercy moves toward him, toward the empty place. Having spared his life and returned him to Denmark, he is now full, and they have nothing yet for their efforts, so he knows and they know that some reward is due.
WE'VE ONLY JUST BEGUN (to explore Lazarus and Hamlet connections in Cranmer's Homilies):
This official homily by Thomas Cranmer, "An Exhortation Against The Fear Of Death," has many connections to Hamlet, including not only references to Lazarus (like the ghost in 1.5, "lazarlike") and to the good thief of Luke, 23:38-43 ("thieves of mercy, 4.6), but also (as its title makes clear), connections with Hamlet's fear of death, of "what dreams may come" (3.1.1720) in the "undiscovered country from whose bourn / No traveler returns" after death (1733-4).
AND MORE.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MORE TO COME: This is part 7 in a multi-part series on how the Lazarus allusion in Hamlet 1.5 can be considered as a mirror held up to the play, or a lens through which to view various characters and scenes. There are a variety of beggar Lazarus figures, and people who are beggars in one scene might be something else in another. Various aspects of how the tale was manifest in Shakespeare's culture will be considered. More to come.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
POSTS IN THIS SERIES SO FAR:
1. New Series: Lazarus & Dives (the Rich Man) in Hamlet - 16 February, 2021
2. If the Ghost was Like the Rich Man, Who was His Lazarus? - 23 February, 2021
3. Illegal to be Beggar Lazarus in Shakespeare's England - 3 March, 2021
4. Beggars & Players' Ill Report: Polonius Measuring, Being Measured - 9 March, 2021
5. Sleuthing Hamlet's Lazarus Echoes in their Biblical Contexts & Implications - 16 March, 2021
6. Ophelia in 1.3 as the Beggar Lazarus - 23 March, 2021
7. Beggars, Thieves, & Cranmer’s Conflations - 30 March, 2021
8. Welcome Lazarus & Lord Strange's Men, for You Were Once Strangers - 5 April, 2021
9. Lazarus & the Beggar-Thief-Rioter-Revolutionary Continuum - 13 April, 2021
10. Lazarus & other Hamlet-correlations in Cranmer's Homily IX - 20 April, 2021
11. The Beggar Lazarus at the Baker's Door in Hamlet 4.5 - 27 April, 2021
12. Jewell's Homily V & Lazarus-Hamlet-Claudius Correlations - 4 May, 2021
13. Beggars and Rich Men at Ophelia's Grave - 18 May, 2021
14. Hamlet Nunnery Scene Haunted by Homily VI, Book 2 - 25 May, 2021
15. Hamlet, beggar-prince: Horatio's allusion to Lazarus and requiem Mass in 5.2 - 1 June, 2021
16. Monarchs as Beggars’ Shadows: Lazarus in Hamlet 2.2 - 8 June, 2021
17. Kings, Beggars, Worms, Excrement, Eucharist, Buddha Bunny, and Lazarus in Hamlet 4.3 - 14 June, 2021
18. In service of art: How art may have influenced the Lazarus theme in Hamlet - 22 June, 2021
19. Preview: Other instances of Lazarus/lazar/beg/beggar/poor in Shakespeare - 13 July, 2021
20. Lazarus & prodigals in Henry IV, Part I, and in Hamlet - 20 July, 2021
21. Other instances of "lazar" in Shakespeare besides Hamlet - 27 July, 2021
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hamlet quotes: All quotes from Hamlet are taken from the Modern (spelling), Editor's Version at InternetShakespeare via the University of Victoria in Canada.
- To find them in the first place, I often use the advanced search feature at OpenSourceShakespeare.org.
Bible quotes from the Geneva translation, widely available to people of Shakespeare's time, are taken from an internet source somewhat close to their original spelling, from studybible.info, and in a modern spelling, from biblegateway.com.
- Quotes from the Bishop's bible, also available in Shakespeare's lifetime and read in church, are taken from studybible.info.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 another, 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.
Comments
Post a Comment