Paul Adrian Fried / HAMLET'S BIBLE

It was a great pleasure to attend the April 2026 conference of the Shakespeare Association of America in Denver, Colorado, and to participate in a 9 am Thursday seminar on April 2 titled “Shakespeare and the Forms of Religion,” along with an exceptional group of scholars. These included (top, left-to-right): Sean M. Benson (University of Mary Hardin-Baylor), who wrote about holy fools in a number of Shakespeare’s comedies, drawing on Erasmus and his idea of folly; James E. Berg (Middlebury College), who wrote about the Buddhist idea of “no mind” as a lens through which to view Romeo and Juliet; Paul Adrian Fried (yours truly), on often-overlooked biblical allusions or plot echoes in 𝘏𝘢𝘮𝘭𝘦𝘵 and their implications for expanding a taxonomy of such references; and (bottom, left-to-right): Trina Hyun (SUNY University at Buffalo), who wrote about Golding’s (mis-?) translation of Ovid and the idea of grace in Antony and Cleopatra; Joseph Navitsky (Champlain College, Saint-Lambert), wh...

Divine right of monarchs is challenged by Shakespeare's scripture allusions, especially in Hamlet. 1. When Hamlet spares Claudius at prayer [1], this echos of 1 Samuel 24 and 26, where David has chances to kill King Saul, but will not raise a hand against “God’s anointed.” Years before Saul’s death, Saul acted badly and fell to disfavor with God, whose prophet chose David as successor (1 Sam 16). This challenges unrestricted divine right. 2. St. Paul in Romans 13 urges obedience to rulers, as it is their job to maintain civil order, but does not include obedience to immoral orders of tyrants [2]. 3. Darren Freebury-Jones recently noted key ideas from John Neville Figgis’ book on the Divine Right of Kings, [3], including that the monarch is accountable to God alone. 4. More fundamentally, scriptures quote Jesus as saying, “whatever you do unto the least of these, you do unto me” [4]. By this logic, when monarchs treat “the least” badly, they treat Jesus Christ (the incarnate secon...

KING LEAR begins like a folktale: There was a king who had three daughters. He wished to retire and divide his kingdom among them, so he asked which loved him best. Two daughters, dishonest and greedy, flattered him, while the third refused, so he banished her. The divided kingdom descended into violence, while the king, expecting still to be treated as such, is shuffled back and forth, finally homeless. The story’s themes resonate with any age. Audiences will see in the play reflections of their own time: reckless aging leaders in a bleak world brightened occasionally by the compassion of the oppressed. What were some of the divisions in Shakespeare’s time that may have inspired the play, and resonated most with its first audiences? FLATTERY OF FAVORITES: Leaders are always tempted to surround themselves with those who say what they want, instead of need, to hear. England was no different. James was known to have charming, flattering favorites rewarded with wealth and status but w...

The ending of King Lear has inspired some modern critics to claim it is a godless play, without hope. The ending scene (5.3) - in which Lear howls and holds the corpse of the one daughter who loved him best - is filled with grief. Actors and directors (who perhaps have only been kings and queens of wishful thinking [1] and never literally monarchs) must draw upon general feelings of deep grief to enact their roles. Feelings are one thing. But how shall we express them? Cultures and art shape expectations, showing how we might act in such circumstances.  Profound grief may make some catatonic, or suicidal, causing self-harm, or seeking revenge. But was there a stage tradition in Shakespeare’s time for the grief of a parent at losing a beloved child? A young Shakespeare may have witnessed some of the last performances of medieval passion plays, as well as perhaps medieval mystery, miracle, and morality plays, increasingly prohibited under Elizabeth I. [2] In a 2005 book, Katharine...