Why Rhenish, not Bread? Emmaus in Hamlet 5.1, Part 4

Bread and wine.
Wine and bread.
To-MAY-to, To-MAH-to. [1]
Does it matter what we emphasize or begin with?

In previous posts, I’ve explored echoes in Hamlet 5.1 of the Emmaus tale from Luke 24:13-35. [2]

[Image: Altar of the Sienese cathedral, reverse, main register with scenes from Christ's passion, scenes: Christ appears to two pilgrim apostles in Emmaus. 1308-1311. Artist: Duccio di Buoninsegna (1255–1319). Collection: Museo dell'Opera del Duomo, Siena. Public domain, via Wikipedia.]

Between Luke’s version of the tale and Shakespeare’s in Hamlet, we noted a difference of bread and wine:

In the original story from Luke, the stranger on the road to Emmaus is not recognized as an appearance of the risen Jesus until they break bread with him.

But in Hamlet 5.1 we noted that broken bread is replaced with spilled wine:

Hamlet had been holding an unrecognized skull, and asked the gravedigger whose it was; the gravedigger replied, saying it belonged to Yorick, and telling how Yorick once poured a “flagon of Rhenish” on his head! (5.1.180-187)

This allows Hamlet the moment of recognition, not only to realize whose skull it was, but also to realize that the gravedigger-clown was a kindred spirit of the court fool, Yorick, and had been figuratively baptized in wine.

It may seem a trivial difference in light of the fact that breaking bread and sharing wine were both Last Supper actions, but still, let’s ask:
Why might Shakespeare have switched this detail from bread to wine in his adaption of the Emmaus plot?

One reason might be to prevent the Emmaus echo from being too explicit, so as to avoid blasphemous or heretical implications. [3]

Also, consider that it’s “Rhenish” wine, or in other words, wine from the region of the Rhine River in Germany. This may point (perhaps in the playful, foolish, clownish way of parody) not only to Germany, but also to Martin Luther and Protestantism, important topics in Shakespeare’s time.

Those familiar with the history of the Reformation may recall that one of the objections raised by Protestants was that, while Roman Catholic priests at Mass took in communion in both forms, bread and wine, [4] the rest of the Catholic faithful (since sometime in the Middle Ages) had only shared in the bread, not the wine. [5]

The Czech priest Jan Hus [6] (associated with the Czech or Hussite Reformation [7]) had been condemned at the Council of Constance in 1415 for his advocacy of communion under both kinds (or “species”) of bread and wine. This created anxiety for some pious Catholics who may have feared the spilling of any drop of consecrated wine.

Such anxiety may have made these Catholics the butt of jokes about Eucharistic crumbs or spilling holy wine (accidentally or intentionally). [8]

This may also help explain why Shakespeare’s retelling of the Emmaus tale in Hamlet 5.1 switches broken bread to spilled wine as the moment of recognition, a moment of "infinite jest."

Topics like the Reformation, or taking communion of both the species of bread and wine, are hardly hot topics today. Yet they were in Shakespeare’s time, so Yorick the fool’s spilled flagon of wine may have offered more potential meaning to early audiences of the play. [9]

~~~~~
NOTES:
[1] See “Let's Call the Whole Thing Off (You Say Tomato, I Say Tomato)” by George and Ira Gershwin, sung by Ella Fitzgerald and Louie Armstrong.
https://youtu.be/RJHbTuVcSwE

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

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

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

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

[3] On the possibly blasphemous implications of making Yorick and the gravedigger-clown the Christ-figures in the Emmaus echo:
Blasphemy in Hamlet 5.1 Emmaus figures: Part 1
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2022/05/blasphemy-and-heresy-in-hamlets-emmaus.html

On the possibly atheistic or heretical implications of dividing the Christ-figure (Yorick) from the stranger in which he appears,
Heresy in Hamlet 5.1 Emmaus figures: Part 2
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2022/05/heresy-in-hamlet-51-emmaus-figures-part.html

[4] The article on Wikipedia about the history of communion under both kinds is helpful:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communion_under_both_kinds#Roman_Catholicism

[5] Eastern Orthodox still received both kinds.

[6] Jan Hus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Hus

[7] Bohemian or Hussite reformation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohemian_Reformation

[8] Later reformers and polemicists made fun of Catholics who were concerned about mice eating crumbs of consecrated bread, using this to try to demonstrate how transubstantiation was a ridiculous idea. (See Hamlet in Purgatory, Stephen Greenblatt, 244.)

[9] On the use of Wikipedia:
Why do I use Wikipedia links in my blog posts, when as an instructor of college writing, I would discourage students from using it?

Good question!

Blogs are more informal than college essays (or essays submitted to scholarly journals); I may have readers who are entirely unfamiliar with certain subjects, so Wikipedia may be useful for them.

But I still support the practice in academic writing to discourage use of most non-encyclopedic sources (almost always, unless encyclopedic sources are a focus of the writing!), and to encourage the use of primary and secondary sources of higher quality (the kind often cited even at the end of Wikipedia articles!).


~~~~~
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.