Sleuthing Biblical Contexts of Lazarus Echoes in Hamlet (Part 5)
IF SHERLOCK HOLMES had been assigned to investigate a murder (perhaps of a king?), and if the evidence included multiple references to the tale of "Lazarus and the Rich Man," both explicit and subtle, implicit, or veiled, he would be remiss if he neglected to review one of the main sources of the tale, the 16th chapter of the Gospel of Luke (reprinted here from the Geneva translation at the end of this blog post).
If the murder involved Shakespeare references to the Lazarus tale, he might check both the Bishop's Bible translation (which was read in church in Shakespeare's lifetime), and the Geneva translation, most common in home copies of at the time.
Representations of the tale of Lazarus and the Rich Man were manifest in many ways in Shakespeare's England, in church art and architecture, in song and official sermons, and transformed in folk tales. Sherlock might check these as well. But one of the main and repeated ways Shakespeare would have encountered the tale was by hearing it in church or reading it at home in the Bible, broadly available in English in the popular Geneva translation only since Shakespeare's parents were young.
Throughout his life, Will Shakespeare would have had many opportunities to hear the story in church: It would have been read as the second lesson at morning prayer on 19 March, 16 July, and 16 October every year, as well as on the first Sunday after Trinity Sunday (which comes in late May this year, but varies a bit from year to year). Morning prayer may have been optional, but Sunday and high feast day attendance was required by law.
Every. year. of. his. life.
By hearing that chapter or parts of it in church, and by reading it at home, Shakespeare would have absorbed not only the tale itself, but probably other aspects of the gospel in which it is found, some of these echoed in Hamlet. And Shakespeare would have related the Lazarus-Rich Man tale to other bible passages, such as Hebrews 13:2, which counsels readers and listeners to greet strangers, for in doing so, some have entertained angels; or Genesis 18:2, where Abraham shows hospitality toward three angels, who tell him that at the same time the next year, his wife Sarah will have a son. When Horatio tells Hamlet that the antics of the ghost are wondrous strange, Hamlet says to welcome it like a stranger. In this analogy, the beggar Lazarus would be the stranger, who just might be an angel, perhaps sent to test the rich man.
Like Sherlock Holmes examining evidence and interviewing witnesses, one sometimes has to examine quite a bit of evidence and follow various leads, before one determines what is relevant and what is not. So if we seek to better understand the "Lazarus and the Rich Man" allusions and influences in Shakespeare's Hamlet, we might consider not only Luke 16, but also the Gospel of Luke. Upon doing so, we soon find that it reveals not only other themes related to the play, but also themes related to the English Renaissance and Reformation. Evidence tends to do that: it leads to surprises and insights.
LUKE'S GOSPEL
Written after Mark and before Matthew and John, Luke's gospel is the most Hellenized (showing Greek cultural influences), written for a Gentile Christian audience. It contains the first and longest narrative involving Mary becoming pregnant by the Holy Spirit, perhaps displaying how Jewish diasporaic monotheism borrowed Greek mythical themes of gods who impregnate human women; this may have added to a Renaissance appeal. (There is no parallel nativity tale in Mark, for example, written earlier and for a Jewish Christian audience.)
- Hamlet contains a reference to "that season... / Wherein our Savior's birth is celebrated..." (1.1.157-8), but Horatio only in part believes the superstititon of Marcellus regarding how the "bird of dawning" (159) sings all night long and keeps spirits of the dead from walking abroad (160).
- Dr. Watson might ask Sherlock: "Do you think this is relevant?"
- Sherlock might reply: "It's too soon to tell."
CORRUPT PRIESTHOOD
Luke 16 can be read as focused on a Jerusalem priesthood that had been corrupted by the Roman occupation, after the wealthy high priest Annas had been deposed, but continued to influence the temple through his sons and son-in-law, Caiaphas. Kuke 16:1-14 speaks of a corrupt steward who would do better with his master's riches if he used his power to make more friends in the world (as it seems he may soon lose his job). This may be like saying Annas the high priest lost his job, and his son-in-law took the position, but he might have done better if he had used his influence to make more friends with the common people and the poor instead of being greedy about the riches he could gain from his temple post.
HOW EXACTLY WAS THE JERUSALEM PRIESTHOOD OF LUKE 16 CORRUPT?
In the time of Jesus, many viewed the Jerusalem priesthood as corrupt. The invading Romans and Roman occupation had initially installed Annas as high priest, but after he was deposed, many commentators say that he still exercised power through his sons and his son-in-law, Caiaphas.
- The Sadducean aristocracy restricted access to the temple for people such as lepers, and they had a virtual monopoly on the sale of sacrificial items used in temple rituals, resulting in gospel passages where Jesus condemns them for turning his "Father's house" into "a den of thieves." Profits from the money-changers went to the priests and their families, who became very rich (like the Walton family, key owners of the Walmart corporation, famous for under-paying their workers who often have to supplement their income with government assistance and food stamps). Not much trickled down to the lepers or the poor beggars.
- In this sense, the priesthood of Caiaphas (and through him, his father-in law) was like the rich man in the story, and the five brothers are the sons of Annas, the brothers-in-law of Caiaphas. They are greedy and lacking compassion, very strict in the interpretation of the law, especially if it is to their benefit.
WHY MIGHT THIS MATTER TO SHAKESPEARE'S AGE?
- Protestants would very likely have viewed priestly corruption portrayed in Luke 16 in light of their ideas of Roman Catholicism's corruptions;
- Catholics would likely have viewed it in light of the idea of England's church as schismatic and corrupted by English political authority.
- In Act 5, scene 1, the gravediggers describe corrupt practices whereby Ophelia, a daughter of nobility, can be buried on the sanctified ground of the church graveyard, while other suspected suicides would be buried in a potter's field. This implies religious authority corrupted by political connections.
- There is a second suggestion of priestly corruption in the same scene, one that Stephen Greenblatt discusses at length in his book, Hamlet in Purgatory: Laertes complains that the priest is being churlish, ungenerous, nit-picking about ceremony, whereas Laertes would find more comfort if the ceremony had not been abbreviated for suspicion of suicide. Laertes complains that the churlish priest will be howling in hell while his sister is an angel in heaven. In Laertes' mind, the priest is like the Rich Man in hell, and his sister is like Lazarus in heaven.
- Protestants viewed the abbreviation of funeral ritual as a necessary reform, believing that once people are dead, the prayers of the living cannot help them. But Catholics viewed this change as a corruption, and even a lack of generosity toward the grieving families who had found comfort in the old rituals.
Luke 16:16-18 speaks of John (the Baptist), alluded to in Hamlet, and also of divorce, and adultery: This is probably a reference to how John the Baptist condemned the "incestuous" marriage of Herod Antipas to his brother's divorced wife. Caiaphas the high priest may have failed to criticize the marriage, while John was eventually beheaded for criticizing it.
- How does this matter to Hamlet?
The themes of a corrupt priesthood granting a divorce, as a possible reference to the "incestuous" marriage of Herod Antipas to his divorced sister-in-law, echoes not only aspects of the incestuous marriage of Claudius to his dead brother's widow, but also the marriage of Henry VIII to his brother's widow. And the player queen is named "Baptista."
- Protestants in Shakespesare's time may have believed that Henry VIII received special permission (dispensation) to marry the widow of his dead older brother, and that this was an example of the corruption of Rome.
- Catholics may have believed that Henry VIII should not have divorced his first wife, and that he only obtained the divorce because he caused a schism with Rome and took over England's church, corrupting its priesthood. Catholics may have viewed Henry's political takeover of England's church as a kind of usurpation, like the Roman occupation of the Holy Land, and Rome deciding who should be the high priest in Jerusalem; in their minds, this may easily have resembled English political influence on appointments of English bishops.
- As Hamlet was written at the end of Elizabeth's reign, and as it's a play about the end of a royal house, we can assume that it very likely contains at least veiled commentary on the house of Tudor and its various corruptions.
PARABLE OR HISTORICAL?
The tale of Lazarus and the Rich Man (Lk 16:19-31) was considered by Luther to be a parable. But Calvin viewed it as historical, and referring also to Lazarus of Bethany referenced in John 11:1–44.
- As scholars are now in consensus that Luke was written before John, what does that mean about the two Lazarus figures? Did they both happen to have the same name (in the same way that John the Baptist is named John, and so is the beloved disciple of Jesus)? Or if are related by more than the coincidence of a shared name, how are they related?
- If Luke wrote first, why would a gospel about the risen Jesus enigmatically have Abraham tell the rich man that his five brothers would not believe one come back from the dead, if they did not believe the law and the prophets? Is he saying faith in Jesus is clearly not for the sons of Annas? Does the gospel writer know that the Jerusalem priesthood of Annas, his son-in-law Caiaphus, and is sons, all rejected Jesus as the messiah?
- In that case, is John's gospel a clarification/commentary on Luke, giving us a story of Jesus raising someone named Lazarus from the dead, to correct a misconception that may have resulted from the tale in Luke 16?
- Or does Luke know of a man named Lazarus who was raised from the dead, but for some strange reason, omit that miracle, but instead tells this tale of Lazarus in heaven, and John speaks of another man named Lazarus who was raised?
- (It is hard for me to believe, like Calvin, that the Lazarus in John, raised from the dead, is the same as the Lazarus in the parable of Luke 16; hard to believe that Luke would omit telling the story of such a miracle. I tend to think that both are fictions, created to convey religious truths.)
- The tale clearly was a focus of debate among Christians for some recorded reasons and likely for others not noted here. It also might inspire other reflections on a variety of points:
Purgatory:
- The existence of purgatory is neither denied nor affirmed in the parable. Catholics believed in purgatory and that prayer, good acts, and proclamations by popes and bishops could reduce one's loved ones' time in purgatory. This led to corruptions, where the rich could pay to have masses said for their dead relatives, while the poor could not afford such a system.
- Martin Luther famously opposed this corruption related to indulgences and purgatory.
- Later Catholics have clarified that purgatory is not a place but simply a process of purification.
- How does this relate to Hamlet? At first the prince doesn't care whether the ghost is from heaven or hell, but quickly trusts the ghost. Later he shares Horatio's question and concern: What if the ghost is from hell, and merely appearing in the form of Hamlet's father, in order to damn him by tempting him to revenge or suicide? This is a very important question, but it is left unresolved by the play.
No Development of Dogma:
- Christian authorities often viewed revelation as unchanging from the time of the oldest Hebrew scriptures through the latest Christian scriptures. Many still do. (For example, the heresy of Marcionism held that Jesus and Christianity represented a God of mercy and love, while the older Hebrew scriptures represented a different deity entirely, of wrath. This would be at odds with the idea that revelation was unchanging from the Hebrew scriptures through the Christian scriptures.)
- If one assumes that revelation is full from the beginning and doesn't develop over time, this leaves no room for a slow development of doctrines related to an afterlife, especially inasmuch as the Lazarus tale in Luke is inconsistent with aspects of previous references to an afterlife.
- Whereas older Hebrew scripture references imply that the afterlife involves a silence or sleep of death until an awakening at the judgment (a view more appealing to some Protestants of Shakespeare's time), the tale of Lazarus and the Rich Man implies an immediate judgment with reward for Lazarus and punishment for the Rich Man.
- The tale also claims that the souls of the dead can see each other across a chasm between heaven and hell. Such a way of imagining the afterlife may have been influenced by Greek myths, such as the myth of Orpheus and Eurydice (on which the hit musical, Hadestown, is based). - This is problematic to those Christians who expect more apparent doctrinal consistency from the Bible.
How might a Hellenized afterlife in Luke matter in Hamlet?
- One of Shakespeare's favorite Greek poets was Ovid, and Ovid was among those who told the tale of Orpheus and Eurydice (Shakespeare has a poem about Orpheus in Henry VIII), so the tale of Lazarus and the Rich Man, with the gulf between them in the afterlife, may have had extra appeal for that reason. (This is just a guess, one of those things that is impossible to know.)
- Because Shakespeare was a dramatist, and as such a storyteller, stories (including those in scripture) were of high importance, perhaps more than the alleged certitudes of Christian doctrine. Hamlet says to Horatio, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy" (1.5.863-4). He could also say, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, / Than are dreamt of in your religious doctrines."
- In this sense, the play never really resolves where the ghost is from, preferring to present the ambiguity and mystery of a story instead of the certitude of a doctrinal judgment. This may have been wise for him as a dramatist with a diverse audience, and also perhaps a more reverent position, respecting the mystery of lived experience instead of plucking mystery's heart.
Salvation by Faith, or Suffering?
- If one assumes one is saved by faith (as many Protestants tend to do), the faith of Lazarus is never explicitly referenced as the reason for his being saved; in fact, it seems the beggar Lazarus inherits heaven merely due to his great suffering, in which case the afterlife seems merely a divine re-balancing of the scales of justice after great injustices suffered in life.
- This is potentially hugely problematic for Protestants who believed in salvation by faith alone, and one can easily find Christian writers who try to resolve this in favor of their doctrine, claiming that faith alone can be the reason for Lazarus ending up in heaven, and not simply his great suffering.
- How does this matter in Hamlet? Ophelia suffers and dies. If we assume that the judgment of a transcendent God is a mystery, how can we assume that, as a suspected suicide, she must not be buried on "holy ground" in a church graveyard?
- Shakespeare gives us hints that she may be working out her mistakes and making peace with God ("the owl was a baker's daughter" and "It is the false steward that stole his master's daughter" hint at this in 4.5), but who are priests and gravediggers to judge?
- In the mystery of God's judgment, can we allow no room in an afterlife for a God who re-balances the scales of justice after a life of suffering?
- Or should we view the begging of Lazarus as an act of faith, a confidence that God will help him through the charity of others and alieviate his suffering? (Was there any evidence for that sort of thinking about beggars in the sermons or writings of other religious thinkers with whom Shakespeare might have been familiar?) - Hamlet also suffers (the "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune," 3.1). When judging a life, even a fictional life like that of Hamlet, do we discount the suffering? Must we only look for how Hamlet rediscovered a faith in Providence on his sea-voyage and during his rescue by pirates?
- If our adherence to religious doctrine (or psychological doctrine?) is of a higher priority to us than our experience of the play, then if the issue is salvation by faith alone, of course we might look for a moment in the play when Ophelia reconciles with her conscience and comes to an affirmation of faith. Of course, we might look to Hamlet's sea-voyage and his Jonah-like conversion to Providence.
- But then we might miss out on the riches of the play because we're too busy plucking the heart of it's mystery with our predetermined assumptions and doctrines.
...and by Works?
- Lazarus does not seem to inherit heaven because of good works, but the Rich Man seems to lose any chance at a heavenly reward because of his lack of good works.
- Unless of course we view the begging of Lazarus as an act of charity, in that it gives the rich man an opportunity to help a poor beggar and save his soul from hell? (Again, was there evidence that anyone in Shakespeare's time with whom he may have been familiar believed such a thing about beggars?)
- Technically, both Protestantism and Catholicism believe we are saved by faith, but that works are important. But is this consistently reflected in scripture?
- Shakespeare scholar David Bevington described himself as a "mostly lapsed Episcopalian." I could similarly describe myself as a "mostly lapsed Catholic," and my bias may be showing here, but it seems to me that while some scripture passages emphasize the importance of faith, others emphasize the importance of works. One example is from Matt 25:40, "Whatever you do to the least of these, you do unto me."
- By this passage, some might claim that even atheists who do well to "the least of these" can inherit heaven (should they be surprised after death by an afterlife), and for that reason, should not be judged too harshly by their religious neighbors for lack of faith.
...or Both Faith and Works?
- Is Hamlet saved by faith, or works, or both?
- If Hamlet is indeed saved (if we believe, like Horatio, that angels should sing Hamlet to his rest), is it because he rediscovered his faith in a merciful Providence when the pirates of mercy spared his life and returned him to Denmark (for a fee)?
- Is it because, like the disciples meeting a stranger who turns out to be Jesus on the road to Emmaus, he encounters a stranger/gravedigger who reveals to him the skull (and memory) of Yorick, a man of "infinite jest"?
- Is it because he comes to a moment of faithful surrender in saying, "Let be" and "the readiness is all"? Or in other words, is it solely because of his faith?
- Or is it because of his works, such as his reconciliation with Laertes before dying, and his gift of his dying breath to Fortinbras, son of his father's enemy? Is it because he has rid Denmark of a murderous usurper, his uncle, by killing him, when as king, he was beyond the reach of human justice?
- Or is Hamlet perhaps saved, for both his faith and his works?
- If we are stuck in religious assumptions about what makes us saved or not, and if the play, and the Lazarus tale, don't move us to those kinds of questions, perhaps they should.
UNTIL NEXT WEEK
I hope all of this sheds a bit more light on the tale of the beggar Lazarus and the rich man. In upcoming weeks through the end of this series, I will continue to explore other aspects of the tale, its manifestations in Shakespeare's Hamlet, and also how official homilies read in church used the tale, and sometimes in the process, how the same homilies also mentioned other issues that come up in the play.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Luke 16, Geneva translation:
1 And he sayde also vnto his disciples, There was a certaine riche man, which had a stewarde, and he was accused vnto him, that he wasted his goods.
2 And hee called him, and saide vnto him, Howe is it that I heare this of thee? Giue an accounts of thy stewardship: for thou maiest be no longer steward.
3 Then the stewarde saide within himselfe, What shall I doe? for my master taketh away from me the stewardship. I cannot digge, and to begge I am ashamed.
4 I knowe what I will doe, that when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receiue mee into their houses.
5 Then called he vnto him euery one of his masters detters, and said vnto the first, Howe much owest thou vnto my master?
6 And he said, An hudreth measures of oyle. And he saide to him, Take thy writing, and sitte downe quickely, and write fiftie.
7 Then said he to another, How much owest thou? And hee sayde, An hundreth measures of wheate. Then he saide to him, Take thy writing, and write foure score.
8 And the Lord commended the vniust stewarde, because he had done wisely. Wherefore the children of this worlde are in their generation wiser then the children of light.
9 And I say vnto you, Make you friends with the riches of iniquitie, that when ye shall want, they may receiue you into euerlasting habitations.
10 He that is faithfull in the least, hee is also faithful in much: and he that is vniust in the least, is vniust also in much.
11 If then ye haue not ben faithful in the wicked riches, who wil trust you in the true treasure?
12 And if ye haue not bene faithfull in another mans goods, who shall giue you that which is yours?
13 No seruaunt can serue two masters: for either he shall hate the one, and loue the other: or els he shall leane to the one, and despise the other. Yee can not serue God and riches.
14 All these thinges heard the Pharises also which were couetous, and they scoffed at him.
15 Then he sayde vnto them, Yee are they, which iustifie your selues before men: but God knoweth your heartes: for that which is highly esteemed among men, is abomination in the sight of God.
16 The Lawe and the Prophets endured vntill Iohn: and since that time the kingdome of God is preached, and euery man preasseth into it.
17 Nowe it is more easie that heauen and earth shoulde passe away, then that one title of the Lawe should fall.
18 Whosoeuer putteth away his wife, and marieth another, committeth adulterie: and whosoeuer marieth her that is put away from her husband, committeth adulterie.
19 There was a certaine riche man, which was clothed in purple and fine linnen, and fared well and delicately euery day.
20 Also there was a certaine begger named Lazarus, which was laide at his gate full of sores,
21 And desired to bee refreshed with the crommes that fell from the riche mans table: yea, and the dogges came and licked his sores.
22 And it was so that the begger died, and was caried by the Angels into Abrahams bosome. The rich man also died, and was buried.
23 And being in hell in torments, he lift vp his eyes, and sawe Abraham a farre off, and Lazarus in his bosome.
24 Then he cried, and saide, Father Abraham, haue mercie on mee, and sende Lazarus that hee may dippe the tip of his finger in water, and coole my tongue: for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham saide, Sonne, remember that thou in thy life time receiuedst thy pleasures, and likewise Lazarus paines: now therefore is he comforted, and thou art tormented.
26 Besides all this, betweene you and vs there is a great gulfe set, so that they which would goe from hence to you, can not: neither can they come from thence to vs.
27 Then he said, I pray thee therfore, father, that thou wouldest sende him to my fathers house,
28 (For I haue fiue brethren) that he may testifie vnto them, least they also come into this place of torment.
29 Abraham said vnto him, They haue Moses and the Prophets: let them heare them.
30 And he sayde, Nay, father Abraham: but if one came vnto them from the dead, they will amend their liues.
31 Then he saide vnto him, If they heare not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rise from the dead againe.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MORE TO COME: This is part 5 in a multi-part series on how the Lazarus allusion in Hamlet 1.5 can be a mirror to hold 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. 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