(Part 5) The targets of Hamlet's 3.2 ironic allusion to Luke 2:46-52

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
INDEX OF POSTS IN THIS SERIES:
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2023/01/index-hamlet-in-32-as-boy-jesus-lost.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As previously suggested in this series (especially Part Four),[1] Hamlet’s subtle allusion [2] to the boy Jesus among the temple elders [3] is an ironic allusion, perhaps deeply ironic, rich and complex. But who is the target of this irony, and who is aiming it?

AIMED BY HAMLET AT ROSENCRANTZ

Rosencrantz had been sent to tell Hamlet that his uncle is angry and his mother is upset that Hamlet angered his uncle. So Hamlet jokes that he amazed and astonished his mother Gertrude, like Jesus did his parents and the temple elders. Eager to please king and queen, Rosencrantz may not get the joke. (More irony.)

BY HAMLET, AT HIMSELF

Hamlet may be aware that as a revenger, perhaps called to his task by heaven and hell [4], he is no Jesus among temple elders.

BY HAMLET, AT MOTHER & UNCLE

Hamlet may be implying that his mother is no Virgin Mary, and his step-father Claudius (murderous usurper) not at all like the carpenter Joseph, step-father of Jesus.

BY SHAKESPEARE, AT HIS AUDIENCE

Shakespeare may have aimed Hamlet’s allusion with a wink toward the audience: They know that Hamlet is a revenger, perhaps hell-bound, unlike Jesus. This joke is subtle: The more obvious the allusion, the more sacrligious it may seem. (Think of Hamlet as Faust…)

BY SHAKESPEARE, AT HIS CULTURE

Shakespeare may have noticed that people often distort their understanding of Jesus: They transform the boy Jesus – who listens and asks questions – into a boy already more adversarial than the gospel claims, a master rhetorician, an omnipotent victor.

Such an approach takes an idea from the book of Revelations of the second coming of Jesus, triumphant avenger of God, and projects this, plastering this image thickly onto the boy Jesus.

Then they miss what the actual words say:

“...they found him in the temple courts,

sitting among the teachers,

listening to them and asking them questions[…]

all that heard him, were astoni[sh]ed...” [5]

This is not adversarial. This is no omnipotent victor.[6]

But as “A Gentleman” says of those listening to mad Ophelia, we botch things up to fit our own thoughts.[7]

In ages of strong rhetoric and clashing military empires, some reimagine Jesus in the image of their own desires – as adversarial, as victorious – especially during Christian Crusades, wars of religion between Protestants and Catholics, or inquisitions and executions of heretics.

No room for “love your enemies” or “turn the other cheek.”

What kind of Jesus would support the deaths of Protestant heretics and Catholic traitors burned at the stake, or drawn, hung until nearly dead, emasculated, disembowelled, beheaded, and quartered? [8]

What kind but a vengeful Jesus? [9]

Shakespeare has one character voice her opposition to such thinking:

“It is an heretic that makes the fire, Not she which burns in't.” [10]

~~~~~~~~~

NOTES:

[1] See Part four in this series:

See also Part One:

https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2023/01/hamlet-as-boy-jesus-among-synagogue.html

[2] Hamlet, 3.2.325-356: All references to Hamlet are to the Folger Shakespeare Library online version: https://shakespeare.folger.edu/shakespeares-works/hamlet/entire-play/

[3] Luke 2:41-52. See Bible Gateway for a modern spelling version of the Geneva translation: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%202%3A41-52&version=GNV

See StudyBible.info for original spelling: https://studybible.info/Geneva/Luke%202:41-52

[4] Hamlet 4.5.12

[5] Luke 2:46-47

[6] In the field of theology, there is a specialty called Christology which studies the nature of Jesus. Christian doctrine says that Jesus was both human and divine: one person, two natures. But scholars note that some theologians emphasize the divine perhaps at the expense of the human, or vice versa. A truly incarnate Christology might say that the divinity of Jesus is revealed through his humanity (at the risk of neglecting miracle tales, which might adapt older tales of Moses, prophets, and Greek myths…).

[7] Hamlet 2.2.613

[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanged,_drawn_and_quartered

[9] For more on the logic used to justify executions on religious grounds, see the following article by David Loades, professor of history, University of Wales, Bangor:

https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-48/why-queen-mary-was-bloody.html

See also Meilan Solly: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/myth-bloody-mary-180974221/

[10] The problem with a key assumption by Loades and Solly (above, FN 8) – that the burning of heretics was universally accepted – is that even widespread acceptance is not the same as universal acceptance. This might be seen in that single line spoken by Paulina in Shakespeare’s The Winter’s Tale: “It is an heretic that makes the fire, Not she which burns in't [in it].” (2.3.148-149)

~~~~~~~~

IMAGES:

LEFT IMAGE: This first image (also used in Part 2 of this series) seems to over-emphasize the boy Jesus as rhetorically victorious in the setting, instead of listening and asking questions as the Luke 2 passage says. This image is from about 40 years before Shakespeare’s Hamlet.

Christ Among the Doctors (or, "The dispute with doctors in the temple"), circa 1560, Paolo Veronese. Museo del Prado. Public domain, via

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Disputa_con_los_doctores_(El_Veron%C3%A9s)_grande.jpg

CENTER IMAGE: Star Wars, newly redesigned poster for the first film made for the series. (Freud, paraphrased: Sometimes a light saber is just a light saber?) Like Jesus, with Jospeh the carpenter, Luke Skywalker has a surrogate father, Obie-Wan Kenobie. Luke was the son of Anikin Skywalker, who was, like Jesus, born of a virgin; but although he started out well, Anikin turned to the “dark side” of the force. This offers an interesting Jungian twist: Carl Jung believed that religions sometimes emphasize the good forces inside of us at the expense of the shadow side. The hope had been that Anikin would bring “balance” to the force, a very Jungian idea.

Via Reddit, cropped. Fair use. https://i.redd.it/5y7z7ar2cyn21.png

RIGHT IMAGE: This third image (also used in part 2 of this series) also seems to over-emphasize the boy Jesus as rhetorically victorious in the temple instead of listening and asking questions as the Luke 2 passage says. This image is from about 125-150 years after Shakespeare’s Hamlet Was first published.

Twelve-year-old Jesus teaching in the Temple, c.1750-1774, Christian Wilhelm Ernst Dietrich. National Museum in Kraków. Public domain, via

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dietrich_Jesus_teaching_in_the_Temple.jpg

Search This Blog

Paul Adrian Fried / HAMLET'S BIBLE

(Part 5) The targets of Hamlet's 3.2 ironic allusion to Luke 2:46-52

Comments

Post a Comment