Sunday, June 18, 2023

Hamlet and Yorick

HAMLET AND YORICK
Wed. May 31st, 2023

 

In Act Five of Shakespeare's play Hamlet, Prince Hamlet comes across two gravediggers on the palace grounds, cheerfully digging a new grave.  It turns out the grave is for Hamlet's girlfriend Ophelia, who has committed suicide.  It seems that it is only during this scene that Hamlet finds out that Ophelia is dead.

In Shakespeare's day, a person who killed themselves could not be buried in a Christian graveyard, nor have a proper funeral.  But since Ophelia was of a noble family, she is afforded a semi-Christian burial, with a priest saying a curtailed mass; but she is not, it seems, to be buried in a regular graveyard with a tombstone.

As they dig, the grave diggers keep unearthing skulls and bones.  Now that I've grown up, that suggests to me that the palace servants did not receive a churchyard burial even if they had not committed suicide.  If the palace servants were buried in unmarked graves on the palace grounds, and Ophelia is to be buried in an unmarked grave even though in the presence of a priest,  then the grave diggers are doubtless digging in an area of the palace grounds where they have dug before, and they are unsurprised when they turn up the bones of earlier burials.  But one skull the first grave digger recognizes as the skull of Yorick -- the court jester to the late King of Denmark, the king that was Hamlet's father.  By this time Hamlet has joined the grave diggers' conversation.  The first grave digger passes Yorick's skull to Hamlet, and Hamlet proceeds to reminisce about Yorick the jester.  "He has bore me on his back a thousand times," Hamlet says, to indicate the rides Yorick gave him when Hamlet was a little boy (as pictured by the Spanish-English painter Philip Calderon, reproduced in Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yorick#/media/File:The_Young_Lord_Hamlet.jpg).

So when I woke up this morning, it struck me, perhaps an element of this complex stagecraft -- a layer undreamt of by the few commentators I was exposed to -- was that Shakespeare had seen to it that the plaster cast of a skull to be waved in the air when the play of Hamlet was being acted, might be crafted to bear an uncanny resemblance to Shakespeare's own skull -- still residing inside Shakespeare's head when Hamlet was first acted -- but then what a dome Shakespeare had!  Look at the engraving of Shakespeare published in the first folio of his plays -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portraits_of_Shakespeare#/media/File:Shakespeare_Droeshout_1623.jpg -- Shakespeare was most literally an egghead, his cranium giving ample space for a palatial, brainier-than-average brain.  The plaster skull, then, might have been a surplus joke riding the crest of the wave of the grave diggers' wit, beating against the level sand of Prince Hamlet's turgid and Poe-shaped morbidity, so that the audience was howling with laughter while the thoughtful heads among them were stunned by Prince Hamlet's phantasmagoric melancholy.

For the epitaph on his own tombstone Shakespeare had written "Good friend , for Jesus' sake forbear to dig the dust enclosed here . . . and cursed be he that moves my bones."  Perhaps Shakespeare wrote the grave diggers' scene in "Hamlet" from life, having witnessed and marvelled at the ability of a real and living grave digger to identify a skull of his own earlier burying, the while exchanging jokes with the second digger and treating the earlier bones unearthed while digging a spot for a newly-dead body with a cavalier disrespect.  Perhaps a younger Shakespeare had shuddered to witness such a scene, and resolved to do what he could to forestall grave diggers after his own death from tossing around his own bones in so jolly and unholy a manner.

Frank Newton

Wednesday, June 7, 2023

Women Priests and Hum and Screech

WOMEN PRIESTS AND HUM AND SCREECH
Wed. June 7th, 2023

 

My priest and I have been talking a little about the amplification of the voice of women priests in church, especially during their sermons, but also for the rest of the worship service.  It is totally theoretical, because I have no relevant knowledge.  I only have hunches.

I wrote on Facebook recently,  "If a woman comes to a woman priest and says 'I'd like to become a priest,'  I hope the woman priest will say "That's great, but we also need women sound engineers.  Part of the reason some men priests don't have to talk that loud but their voices get picked up really well is because all the sound engineers were men."  That is the way I see it. -- So now I have one more thing to add.  But first, an anecdote.  My friend Martin in Durham told me his father was a professor in divinity school, and he taught a course that the professors called "Homiletics and Speech."  But the students called it Hum and Screech (Hum and Screech 101).  Well the point -- the way I take it -- is that diction and elocution are part of the curriculum in schools of divinity.  That's a really good thing!  It's a little-known fact (among atheists) that Christians like to be able to hear what their preacher is saying. -- So therefore, I think part of the solution to creating an environment where women priests can really sock it to their congregation, is for the hum and screech professors to put their minds on the following question: What is the most effective way to teach hum and screech to the women candidates for the priesthood?  I happen to believe that is a doable project.

My priest is a little bit gloomy about the prospects.  I am somewhat optimistic.  Not optimistic in the sense that the issues can be solved in the next year.  But optimistic in the sense that the issues can be solved in the next ten years.  We all need to work together on this.

Frank Newton