Heresy in Hamlet 5.1 Emmaus figures: Part 2

My last post explained potentially blasphemous implications of offering a fool/clown (Yorick or the gravedigger) as the Emmaus figure in Hamlet 5.1. I will explore other heretical or atheistic implications of the graveyard scene’s Emmaus echo in this post.

[Image: Painting by Caravaggio(1571–1610) "Supper at Emmaus," 1606. Collection: Pinacoteca di Brera. Pubic domain, via Wikipedia.]

If you missed that previous post, you can find it here:
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2022/05/blasphemy-and-heresy-in-hamlets-emmaus.html

In Shakespeare’s time (as now), the tale of Jesus’ appearance to the disciples on the road to Emmaus after his crucifixion [1] was commonly read as a tale of miraculous power. This Jesus, supernaturally and gloriously resuscitated, was one with God, omnipotent and capable of anything: to appear in a locked room, or to prevent disciples from recognizing him.

This may have distorted the original meaning of the tale: The disciples may have met a stranger who did for them many kinds of things that Jesus had done, but didn’t recognize the similarity until breaking bread.

But as it was the faith of emperors and monarchs, Jesus was often interpreted in terms of power.

Notice how Hamlet 5.1 offers the court fool Yorick as the Christ figure of "infinite jest":
But Yorick is dead.
His skull, like the relic of a saint, remains.
The gravedigger (a clown and kindred spirit) had been a drinking pal of Yorick’s, and identifies the skull, offering an epiphany for Hamlet.

This suggests a very different version of the Emmaus tale in which the Christ figure dies, and though his earthly body is a corpse, his mystical body remains in those whose lives remind us of him:
The gravedigger-clown— and at times Hamlet— play roles that remind us of Yorick.

In other words, Hamlet 5.1 reinterprets the Emmaus tale without the supernatural/divine powers often associated with the tale. It is a rational and humanistic reading, but it would have been considered atheistic and heretical in Shakespeare’s time.

Many Protestants believed the age of miracles had passed, and that miracles associated with Catholic saints were fictions, used by priests to deceive the faithful and take their money. So even if the graveyard scene reads Yorick as something like a saint or Holy Fool like St. Francis (“God’s Fool”), it attributes to him a power to appear as Jesus did on the road to Emmaus in the form of a stranger, to comfort and instruct troubled believers (as the gravedigger clown does for Hamlet, seeking to understand death and his own mortality).

This would have been considered atheistic or heretical, either attributing too little power to Jesus, or too much to a court fool, or figurative saint; power Protestants claimed was reserved only to God.

The Emmaus echo helps to make the graveyard scene the powerful scene that it is, but having a character say the word “Emmaus” may have been too explicit, opening Shakespeare to charges of atheism, or worse, heresy.

~~~~~ NOTES:

[1] The tale of the disciples on the road to Emmaus meeting a stranger who they later recognize as Jesus is based mostly on Luke 24:13-35, but also referred to in Mark 16:12 when it says, “he appeared unto two of them in another form, as they walked and went into the country.”

Nowhere in either of these gospel passages does it say that Jesus supernaturally altered his own appearance (what in science fiction today we sometimes hear as “morphing”), nor does it say Jesus clouded their minds. It simply says they were prevented at first, for some unstated reason, from recognizing him.


~~~~~
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.