“Words, words, words”: Hamlet, the Second Commandment & Idolatries of Reformation Literalism (series)

“Words, words, words”: Hamlet, the Second Commandment & Idolatries of Reformation Literalism

In Shakespeare’s lifetime, Protestants accused Catholics of idolatry, taking too literally their Eucharist (“this is my body”). Protestants claimed that more figurative meanings had been intended. To them, Catholics - like the ghost in Hamlet - went through the motions mechanically, without sincerity. To Protestants, this was artificial and idolatrous [1].

Shakespeare scholar Jennifer Rust (2003) [2] has noted that the mechanical reproduction of translated Bibles created new, similar problems of idolatry for Protestants, citing Greenblatt (1980) [3] regarding what he calls a fetishism of the printed word (94).

Instead of a Latin Bible interpreted by the authority of bishops alone, greater access resulted in an exponentially higher number of contentious disagreements and potential idolatries [4].

Many factions claimed that they possessed true interpretations, and that others did not.

But true interpretations of what? Of transcendent mysteries?

Reducing these to “Words, words, words” (2.2.210)?

Risking pride and arrogance that would, too soon, carelessly pluck out the heart of mystery (3.2.395-6)?

Claiming certitude where there should be puzzlement, amazement, astonishment (3.2.355-6)? (5)

In Exodus 3:5, a voice from the burning bush tells Moses to take off his sandals, for he was “on holy ground” – but instead of taking off one's shoes, should one debate and plant flags, claiming exclusive rights? What if scripture is debated in ways that violate Christian charity?

Being too literal (as Rust describes it) can be like idolatry. This may shed light on Hamlet’s bitter, witty wordplay – contentious literalism that softens late in the play. 

Contentious literalism – whether about purgatory, ghosts, or what it means to see one’s “inmost part” [6], or whose grave one digs [7], can become like a fetish that falls short of charity, authentic mystery and transcendence. 

INDEX to this series on Hamlet and the Ten Commandments:
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2026/07/series-index-ten-commandments-in-hamlet.html

NOTES: All references to Shakespeare plays are to the Folger Shakespeare Library online versions: https://shakespeare.folger.edu

[1] The problem with idolatry: It falls short of the experience of mystery and transcendence. For Jews and Christians, the point was ideally not to worship an artifact – the Ark of the Covenant, or a statue, crucifix or cross – but a God who was present in human experience, as understood in a long tradition that worked hard to distinguish what was true and good from what was false or harmful. 

- The ghost in Hamlet 1.5 is preoccupied with the idea that, if only he had been given the last sacraments, he might have avoided being purged in fire of his foul crimes. He blames his brother instead of his own crimes. Having been raised Catholic and with a degree in theology, to me, this seems a falling short, an idolatrous attitude toward sacraments.

[2] Jennifer Rust, “Wittenberg and Melancholic Allegory,” in Shakespeare and the Culture of Christianity in Early Modern England, Eds. Dennis Taylor & David N. Beauregard, Fordham U. Press, 2003, p.262. 

[3] Rust refers to Stephen Greenblatt, Renaissance Self-Fashioning, 1980, 94). Greenblatt refers to how the Tyndale Bible translation was printed in Worms, mentioned in Hamlet (Diet of Worms: “Your worm is your only emperor for diet…” 4.3.24). 

[4] The popular Geneva Bible (which Shakespear quoted most often) had margin notes arguing for Calvinist readings.  Shakespeare even has Horatio in Hamlet 5.2 refer to these:  "I knew you must be edified by the margent ere you had done." (168-9)

[5] Martin Luther and others sometimes cited old tales warning of pride among monastics. One example cited by many others: A monk builds a chair or weaves basket, and his handiwork is praised by another monk, so the maker feels proud, and then realizes he must destroy the chair lest it tempt him to the sin of pride. 

[6] I have argued in the past that when Hamlet tells his mother he will (figuratively) hold up a glass in which she can see her “inmost part,” she takes him too literally: she thinks he might eviscerate her, as was done in Elizabethan executions, or the autopsy of Nero’s mother. This unintentionally gives the habitually witty and often too-literal Hamlet a taste of his own bitter wit. "See the inmost part of you": Gertrude's literalism, fear of evisceration in 3.4 - March 27, 2023: https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2023/03/see-inmost-part-of-you-gertrudes.html

[7] In 5.1.120, Hamlet asks the sexton/gravedigger “Whose grave’s this, sirrah?” and the gravedigger responds, “Mine, sir.” What follows is a string of witty literalisms, where the gravedigger repeatedly takes Hamlet too literally in order to be witty with him, just as Hamlet had done earlier in the play with Claudius and Polonius and others. But here, it’s no longer bitter, but perhaps with the playfulness and “infinite jest” that Hamlet would have experienced in Yorick. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 usually post every week.