Please understand, Ralph, I do not mean to be contrary. My educational CV includes Shakespeare, and the broad sweep of Literature, as such. I admit that apart from studying Hamlet and Lear and McBeth and much reading and familiarisation with some of the other works of this genius, including the Sonnets, I have not been aware of any 'Biblical' or religious bent to his work. In other words, I have assumed it was - as when Bach and Beethoven and Handel and Shutz and Biber etc approached Biblical texts, what distinguished them and enobled them was the genius of the music. And sure, one could not exist without the other, however, we listen to Missa Solemnis and the B Minor Mass not because of the texts but because of the wave of musical genius which strikes us like lightning might strike.
As I may have mentioned, my main passion in life is writing. I have 60 stories ready to be published by anyone who cares to recognize my genius - said in jest - and my understanding of the 'True' creative process is that it is not fished from the well of Dogma, but that it attempts to synthesize all of the mountains of obstacles which history and our culture and our upbringing and our faults and our strengths throw our way. Religious indoctrination ( poison ) is just one of the mountains we must climb. Maybe that's what you have fossicked from Shakespeare...? You obviously have gleaned these aspects and they obviously enrich your understanding of the work. I guess, in the end, a work as powerful as Hamlet stands on its own, it does not need the Religious Accruitements we ascribe to it - as with the B Minor Mass, of the Charistmas cantata. Then again, maybe my voice is simple the voice of a Philippine ( Sic ) crying in the wilderness.
My other question is simply that most scholars have no absolute certainty about who Shakespeare actually was.
Those religious issues were part of Shakespeare's daily, lived experience. Far from being the inventions of dry academics, they add enormously to dramatic tension of the play and are specifically debated within its text - as I could easily demonstrate to you, but clearly you are resistant to that assertion.
I hear the sounds of Post Hoc ergo Propter Hoc. Really, is that what was buzzing around the fertile well of Shakespeare's creativity? I bet it wasn't...Too much academia, too much academia...
Evan is right; "Hamlet" is suffused with the contradictions between Catholic and Protestant (represented by the University of Wittenberg) theology - the nature of the Ghost (demon or damned soul?), the existence of Purgatory, the efficacy of prayer, repentance and absolution (Claudius), the dilemma of Ophelia's suicide and burial in "unconsecrated ground" etc. It adds enormous complexity and ambiguity to the play, as Shakespeare borrows on the vacuum left by the usurpation of the Old Faith by the New.
Hear Hear, re your last paragraph - 'Personally, I like sitting quietly...'
Re Point 3, I fail to see what relevance Catholic Doctrine has with the great Literary texts you mention, especially the ancient texts. Sure, Dante, Goethe, Balzac and Tolstoy use religious texts as a springboard for their inspired imaginations but I'm equally sure that the well from which these texts are drawn are more to do with the capacity of the authors to point out how Religion, as such, has never saved one human being in its history. And, pray tell, in what sense is Hamlet theological????
A few stray thoughts.
1. When I first looked through Newman’s Collected Poems, and found myself contemplating Gerontius purely as a literary text for the first time, I was stunned. I had no idea it was so well written. It seemed to me far superior to N’s other verse (almost as if I came across Goethe’s Faust in the midst of a volume of Ella Wheeler Wilcox). In fact, I’d almost suggest it might be the best-written thing he ever did, even better than his prose (in which I always find a Pater-like streak of pose & artificiality & self-regarding in the mirror).
2. Why the bad reputation then? I’d say every century tends to reject the art of its predecessor. The 18th century rejected the Metaphysicals; the 19th rejected Dryden & Pope; the 20th rejected the Victorian poets, and we’re still trying to recover our balance from that. Even Tennyson hasn’t quite regained his reputation; and not only Gerontius , but lots of other first-rate 19th-cent poems are still under a cloud. Think of Southey’s dazzlingly inventive epics, Thomas Moore’s satires, Hartley Coleridge, Isaac Williams, Charles Tennyson Turner…. But the whirligig of time will presumably bring in its revenges. It always does.
3. As for theology… well, if we start discarding things on the ground that we object to their theology, we’ll throw out the Iliad and the Odyssey and the Aeneid and the Divine Comedy and the Comédie humaine and Faust and Anna Karenina and Hamlet and Macbeth …. Will any literature be left?
Personally, I like sitting quietly at the feet of wise people from other times & places every now & then… not arguing with them, just listening to what they say. Yes, their beliefs are different from mine. But I don’t necessarily feel confident that I’m right and they’re wrong. Sometimes, in fact, they ultimately persuade me of the opposite!
Thank you for taking part in the MusicWeb International Forum.
Len Mullenger - Founder of MusicWeb