Hamlet, Emmaus, Eucharistic Controversy, and Semiotics (Part 5)

In Shakespeare’s time, people discussed and debated the Eucharistic controversy, and some think there are references to it (and to Emmaus[1]) in Hamlet.

When Jesus at the Last supper told the twelve to eat and drink the bread and wine as his body and blood, what did he really mean?

The way we choose to understand Jesus’ appearance to the disciples on the road to Emmaus might be viewed as resembling the Eucharistic controversy.

Also, in some ways, debates about what the gospel writers meant by things like virgin births, Eucharist, resurrections, and resurrection appearances (as on the road to Emmaus) have been described as debates about semiotics.[2]

[Image: Titian (1490–1576), "Pilgrims at Emmaus" (Français: LE SOUPER A EMMAUS), circa 1535. Louvre Museum. Public domain, via Wikipedia.]

What had the disciples originally experienced? What were Jesus and the gospel writers who claimed to quote him trying to say?

Did the gospel writers resort to figurative, symbolic, or mythical language to express something that was mysterious or seemingly inexpressible?

In semiotics, one might have
a signifier: the word “worm.”
The signified is an actual worm.
Together, signifier and signified make up a sign, or a sign system.

Eucharist is a bit more complicated:
Was Jesus using figurative/metaphorical language to describe how spiritually nourishing it was to “feed” on his teachings and example, and to be united to a “body” of other believers, or something to that effect?

Or was he literally changing bread and wine into his body and blood in some mysterous way not apparent to the senses?

I am summarizing and paraphrasing here, so apologies in advance for any inaccuracies.
In general:

The Catholic Church claims that in Eucharist, not only are the bread and wine signifiers, but they are actually changed into Christ, the signified (transubstantiation), but not in a cannibalistic way.[3]

This resembles a common (mis-?) understanding of the Emmaus tale in which the apparent stranger on the road is actually the risen Jesus whose corpse had been miraculously resuscitated: In his omnipotence as the second person of the Trinity, he either altered his form so as to go unrecognized at first, or clouded the minds of the disciples.

The Lutheran church claims the bread and wine are signifiers, and remain present, but Christ is also present (consubstantiation).

Calvinists (and the English Church in Shakespeare’s time) claimed the bread and wine were signifiers, but those who receive communion in faith receive Christ spiritually (not materially).[4]

This Calvinist understanding resembles a reading of Emmaus in which the stranger was really a stranger, whose biological body was not the resuscitated corpse of Jesus. The stranger did for the disciples the kinds of things Jesus had done, reminding them of him, making him spiritually present, recognized in breaking bread: The stranger was a signifier of Jesus, not literally Jesus.[5]

Yet Calvinists and other church authorities in Shakespeare’s time would have viewed this second reading of the Emmaus tale as atheistic or heretical: To them, Emmaus belonged to an age of biblical miracles.

~~~~~
NOTES:

[1] “Emmaus in Hamlet,” 21 May, 2018:
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2018/05/emmaus-in-hamlet-in-emmaus-story-1.html

[2] I don’t like it when people overuse technical or jargon words like “semiotics” when other words would suffice. But, that said…. The term “Semiotics” may have been first used by Henry Stubbe in 1670, but is usually attributed to Ferdinand de Saussure who developed it further in teaching about linguistics in Geneva (1906-1911), and many others later, including Umberto Eco.

[3] We might also recall that in 4.3, Hamlet’s words about fish, worms, and kings going “a progress through the guts of a beggar” can be viewed either as representing the Catholic idea of transubstantiation, or as some claim, a parody of it, and of those who are overly concerned about what happens to Eucharistic crumbs eaten by mice, or the assumed indignity of Eucharist passing through intestines. (See Hamlet in Purgatory, Stephen Greenblatt, 240-241 (2001, 2002 printing second ed.)

[4] Because Protestants focus more on the Word of God than on sacraments or Eucharist, Dale Ahlquist believes that paintings of the disciples in conversation with Jesus on the road to Emmaus might more appealing to Protestants (who are more focused on the Word than on sacrament),
while paintings of Jesus breaking bread with the disciples at Emmaus might be more appealing to Catholics, with their focus on Eucharist and sacraments. See Ahlquist, Faith and Culture: The Journal of the Augustine Institute:
https://www.faithandculture.com/home/2019/2/6/two-different-views-of-the-story-of-emmaus

[5] See earlier posts in this series:

Part 1
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2022/05/blasphemy-and-heresy-in-hamlets-emmaus.html

Part 2
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2022/05/heresy-in-hamlet-51-emmaus-figures-part.html

Part 3
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2022/05/from-fear-power-to-fools-affection.html 

Part 4
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2022/05/why-rhenish-not-bread-emmaus-in-hamlet.html
~~~~~


~~~~~
OTHER POSTS IN THIS SERIES:

INTRODUCTION: “Emmaus in Hamlet,” 21 May, 2018:
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2018/05/emmaus-in-hamlet-in-emmaus-story-1.html

"Emmaus in Merchant of Venice," 7 May, 2018:
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2019/01/emmaus-in-merchant-of-venice-in.html

1. Blasphemy in Hamlet 5.1 Emmaus figures: Part 1
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2022/05/blasphemy-and-heresy-in-hamlets-emmaus.html

2. Heresy in Hamlet 5.1 Emmaus figures: Part 2
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2022/05/heresy-in-hamlet-51-emmaus-figures-part.html

3. From Fear & Power to Fools & Affection (Emmaus in Hamlet 5.1, Part 3)
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2022/05/from-fear-power-to-fools-affection.html

4. Why Rhenish, not Bread? Emmaus in Hamlet 5.1, Part 4
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2022/05/why-rhenish-not-bread-emmaus-in-hamlet.html

5. Hamlet, Emmaus, Eucharistic Controversy, and Semiotics: Part 5
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2022/05/hamlet-emmaus-eucharistic-controversy.html

6. Emmaus Key Change in Hamlet & Merchant of Venice (Emmaus in Hamlet, part 6)
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2022/05/emmaus-key-change-in-hamlet-merchant-of.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Disclaimer: If and when I quote or paraphrase bible passages or mention religion 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 explore how the Bible and religion 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.