Certain Speculations on Hamlet, the Calendar, and Martin Luther
Sohmer, Steve
Early Modern Literary Studies 2.1 (April 1996)
Abstract
In Shakespeare’s England the principal calendar was the church calendar. Letters, appointments, contracts, liens, leases, and tenancies were dated with reference to this calendar’s orderly succession of holy days. Consequently, it is not surprising that scholars have identified scenes in Shakespeare’s plays where the playwright has linked action to a recognizable holy day, effectively infusing the scene with religious and/or metaphysical overtones. This article suggests that the links between principal scenes in Hamlet and specific holy days were apparent to Shakespeare’s first audiences. The author traces linguistic cues in the text which identify these holy days, which include three important Catholic feasts which had been rejected by English Protestants: All Souls’ Day, Candlemas, and Corpus Christi. Further, the author argues that all the dates alluded to in Hamlet are recoverable, and that identifying these dates casts new light on the reason why Hamlet did not succeed to the throne on his father’s death. This information illuminates Hamlet’s “dram of eale” speech (Q2 1.3.17-38), which at least one editor considers the greatest crux in Shakespeare. Reflexively, the author argues that the recovered holy days and dates tend to support the view of several contemporary scholars that Hamlet is concerned with the Protestant Reformation. The author argues that Shakespeare was knowledgeable about the life and theology of Martin Luther, and exploited the information available to him in the writing of Hamlet.
Click here to read/download this article (HTML file)
Related posts:
- The Return of Elizabeth: William Poel’s Hamlet and the Dream of Empire
- Response to Ofelia: Lawrence Nowel: Excerpta Quaedam Danica (1565)
- The Postcolonial Tempest: Response to Peter Hulme’s ‘Stormy Weather’
- King Lear in Its Own Time: The Difference that Death Makes
- Personations: The Taming of the Shrew and the Limits of Theoretical Criticism