Paul Adrian Fried / HAMLET'S BIBLE

Two weeks ago, my blog post mentioned Paul A. Cantor’s insightful introduction to the Cambridge University Press Hamlet (2004, 2012) , including his use of Hegel's idea of Tragedy as conflicting ideas of the good. Cantor also does a good job not only identifying the importance of both Christian and classical allusions, but also of noting that Christian and Classical worldviews are in an uncomfortable dialectic in the play. [Paul A. Cantor, image from screenshot, Youtube ] In act 1, scene 2, Claudius describes Denmark not as a Christian state, but a "warlike state." The classical code of honor and revenge is demonstrated by the ghost's commission that Hamlet avenge his murder, and also by the first performance of a speech by the players about the story of Hecuba witnessing Pyrrhus's revenge on Priam. Christianity is demonstrated at many turns in the play, with allusions and plot echoes, from Horatio as the doubting Thomas of the first scene, to the very last ...

What came first: warlike Denmark, or Sabbath-violating? In Hamlet, 1.1, Marcellus talks about “post-haste” preparations for war, urgent (enforced) labor that "Does not divide the Sunday from the week." Some questions: 1. If a nation truly honors the Sabbath in all its depth of meaning, why would they choose war over humility and reconciliation, as the gospels teach love of even enemies? 2. Yes, the pragmatic might put all else aside to make needed preparations for war; but isn’t war itself a sign of failure on a grand scale of human values and of transcendent spiritual values, which urge people to love one another as they love themselves? 3. Didn't Claudius violate the spirit of the Sabbath by killing his brother? And King Hamlet, by giving in to “emulate pride” and killing Old Fortinbras, whose son would later seek vengeance and the land back, leaving Denmark with the looming threat of war? Doesn’t this show how the rotten fruits of sin are passed down through g...