Hamlet and the Book of Job
Robert Stonehouse
...
>There has been some recent discussion concerning
>Hamlet's strange use of the word "peacock" or "pajock":
I missed this, and so may just be repeating what has been said
already.
...
>HAMLET
> A whole one, I.
> For thou dost know, O Damon dear,
> This realm dismantled was
> Of Jove himself; and now reigns here
> A very, very--pajock.
>
>HORATIO
> You might have rhymed.
>--------------------------------
> So the question is: "Why did Hamlet:
> 2) use "pajock" (= "peacock") and
The peacock was the sacred bird of Juno. The kingdom has been
divested of Jupiter (old Hamlet), who has been replaced as king by
his wife's bird (Claudius, new husband of Gertrude) a merely showy,
empty creature.
> 1) not rhyme?
He is elated to the point of light-headedness by the success of the
mouse-trap.
...
ew...@bcs.org.uk
Yu Xuan Li
I like to propose a little connection that I have noticed sometime ago
and would love to hear some feedbacks.
I was reading the Bible the other day, Book of Job to be specific. I
noticed a striking similarity between Hamlet and Job. I can't help
shaking off the feeling that perhaps Shakespeare based his play on the
Bible.
I am saying all of this with a very serious tone. While Hamlet suffers
in being born to set it right - a task which condemns him as a revenger,
Job suffers in being inflicted with pains that he does not deserve. One
of the major similarities is that both of these men do not deserve the
suffering and both voice their bitterness in the form of disillusionment
in man's place in Universe. There is even the common backdrop of
conventional reaction to such burden, in the form of Laerets and in the
voices of Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar. Even the vocabulary and the ideas
employed by both men have a striking similarity. Hamlet laments about
being born to set it right, Job laments about the day on which he is
born. Hamlet talks about the quintessential dust, Job talks about being
made from clay and returning to dust. (chapter 10) Even when Hamlet
talks about the undiscovered land of death from which no traveller
returns, Job talks about "land of darkness and the shadow of death" from
which he shall not return. Extraordinarily, both men are in full
awareness of the conflict within them, the conflict of being both a
marvelous creation and an insignificant quintessential dust to be
subjected to the cruelty of fate. Finally, while Hamlet realizes that
there is that there is a "special providence", Job recognizes that there
are "things too wonderful" for him to understand.
Well, that was a brief summary, and if I would love to hear any comments
and thoughts on it.
Yu Xuan Li
Syd
Oz
volker multhopp
> I was reading the Bible the other day, Book of Job to be specific. I
> noticed a striking similarity between Hamlet and Job. I can't help
> shaking off the feeling that perhaps Shakespeare based his play on the
> Bible.
> I am saying all of this with a very serious tone. While Hamlet suffers
> in being born to set it right - a task which condemns him as a revenger,
> Job suffers in being inflicted with pains that he does not deserve.
That, of course, is not a similiarity, but a fundamental difference.
Hamlet is wronged and seeks to make things right. God wrongs Job to see
how he'll react, and Job's reaction can rightly only to accept whatever
cruelties God dishes out.
>One
> of the major similarities is that both of these men do not deserve the
> suffering and both voice their bitterness in the form of disillusionment
> in man's place in Universe.
There's much suffering in the world, and little deserved. That the
sufferers becomes bitter is not too uncommon either.
>... Hamlet laments about
> being born to set it right, Job laments about the day on which he is
> born.
Enormous difference.
>Hamlet talks about the quintessential dust, Job talks about being
> made from clay and returning to dust.
Hamlet is merely borrowing the common Judeo-Christian metaphor.
[More minor similarities deleted]
To see Job in every good story where a sufferer laments his fate is to
desire a connection where none is warranted. The sufferings of Hamlet
are brought on by men, specifically Claudius, and not God. Hamlet deals
with his problems concretely as best he can. Job's job is to teach us
to accept the awfullest injustices without reaction. The differences in
the stories are much more important than their similarities.
--Volker
book...@my-dejanews.com
yux...@rivernet.com.au wrote:
> Hello all:
>
> I like to propose a little connection that I have noticed sometime ago
> and would love to hear some feedbacks.
> noticed a striking similarity between Hamlet and Job. I can't help
> shaking off the feeling that perhaps Shakespeare based his play on the
> Bible.
> I am saying all of this with a very serious tone. While Hamlet suffers
> in being born to set it right - a task which condemns him as a revenger,
> of the major similarities is that both of these men do not deserve the
> suffering and both voice their bitterness in the form of disillusionment
> conventional reaction to such burden, in the form of Laerets and in the
> voices of Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar. Even the vocabulary and the ideas
> being born to set it right, Job laments about the day on which he is
> made from clay and returning to dust. (chapter 10) Even when Hamlet
> talks about the undiscovered land of death from which no traveller
> returns, Job talks about "land of darkness and the shadow of death" from
> which he shall not return. Extraordinarily, both men are in full
> awareness of the conflict within them, the conflict of being both a
> marvelous creation and an insignificant quintessential dust to be
> subjected to the cruelty of fate. Finally, while Hamlet realizes that
> there is that there is a "special providence", Job recognizes that there
> are "things too wonderful" for him to understand.
> Well, that was a brief summary, and if I would love to hear any comments
> and thoughts on it.
>
> Yu Xuan Li
> Syd
> Oz
>
central characters we examine to see how they cope with their predicament, but
find them different otherwise.
Where Job refuses to submit to his injustice, Hamlet actively pursues revenge,
falling into a spreading fatal design that engulfs everyone. I think
Shakespeare shows us Hamlet putting on the "mask of madness" while he spys out
the intrigue surrounding him, but in failing to act has the mask stuck on and
falls into a morbid state of mind.
The dialogue in Job seems like a dialectic back and forth as in Greek drama,
while in Hamlet the device of soliloquey and interior monologue association of
ideas seems more like modern stream of consciousness.
To me, these larger than life central characters equipped with special
atrributes of the hero are like versions of a superior being who test or
provoke the gods on Olympus, and are shown to be imperfect. In _Job_,though,
God finally descends to address him, at least in the edited Hebrew version,
and he is restored to health and wealth, which is not tragedy. -- "Nor are
those empty-hearted whose low sound/ Reverbs no hollowness." KL,I,i,Kent.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Neuendorffer
A very interesting idea Li!
There has been some recent discussion concerning
Hamlet's strange use of the word "peacock" or "pajock":
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark Act 3, Scene 2
HAMLET
Why, let the stricken deer go weep,
The hart ungalled play;
For some must watch, while some must sleep:
So runs the world away.
Would not this, sir, and a forest of feathers-- if
the rest of my fortunes turn Turk with me--with two
Provincial roses on my razed shoes, get me a
fellowship in a cry of players, sir?
HORATIO
Half a share.
HAMLET
A whole one, I.
For thou dost know, O Damon dear,
This realm dismantled was
Of Jove himself; and now reigns here
A very, very--pajock.
HORATIO
You might have rhymed.
--------------------------------
So the question is: "Why did Hamlet:
2) use "pajock" (= "peacock") and
1) not rhyme?
--------------------------------
Now there are only two references to peacock in the Bible:
1 Kings 10:
22: For the king had at sea a navy of Tharshish with the navy of Hiram: once
in three years came the navy of Tharshish, bringing gold, and silver, ivory,
and apes, and peacocks.
23: So king Solomon exceeded all the kings of the earth for riches and for
wisdom.
(repeated almost verbatim in 2 Chronicles 9:21) and
Job 39:
13: Gavest thou the goodly wings unto the peacocks? or wings and feathers
unto the ostrich?
14: Which leaveth her eggs in the earth, and warmeth them in dust,
15: And forgetteth that the foot may crush them, or that the wild beast may
break them.
----------------------------------------------------------
Shakespeare mentions "peacocks" 4 other times:
THE COMEDY OF ERRORS Act 4, Scene 3
DROMIO OF SYRACUSE
'Fly pride,' says the peacock: mistress, that you know.
KING HENRY V Act 4, Scene 1
WILLIAMS
You pay him then. That's a perilous shot out of an
elder-gun, that a poor and private displeasure can
do against a monarch! you may as well go about to
turn the sun to ice with fanning in his face with a
peacock's feather. You'll never trust his word
after! come, 'tis a foolish saying.
1 KING HENRY VI Act 3, Scene 3
JOAN LA PUCELLE
Dismay not, princes, at this accident,
Nor grieve that Rouen is so recovered:
Care is no cure, but rather corrosive,
For things that are not to be remedied.
Let frantic Talbot triumph for a while
And like a peacock sweep along his tail;
We'll pull his plumes and take away his train,
If Dauphin and the rest will be but ruled.
TROILUS AND CRESSIDA Act 3, Scene 3
THERSITES
Why, he stalks up and down like a peacock,--a stride
and a stand: ruminates like an hostess that hath no
arithmetic but her brain to set down her reckoning:
bites his lip with a politic regard, as who should
say 'There were wit in this head, an 'twould out;'
and so there is, but it lies as coldly in him as fire
in a flint, which will not show without knocking.
The man's undone forever; for if Hector break not his
neck i' the combat, he'll break 't himself in
vain-glory. He knows not me: I said 'Good morrow,
Ajax;' and he replies 'Thanks, Agamemnon.' What think
you of this man that takes me for the general? He's
grown a very land-fish, language-less, a monster.
A plague of opinion! a man may wear it on both
sides, like a leather jerkin.
----------------------------------------------
Shakespeare mentions the ostrich only once:
2 KING HENRY VI Act 4, Scene 1:
CADE
Here's the lord of the soil come to seize me for a
stray, for entering his fee-simple without leave.
Ah, villain, thou wilt betray me, and get a thousand
crowns of the king carrying my head to him: but
I'll make thee eat iron like an ostrich, and swallow
my sword like a great pin, ere thou and I part.
----------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Neuendorffer
> ...
> >There has been some recent discussion concerning
> >Hamlet's strange use of the word "peacock" or "pajock":
> already.
> ...
> > A whole one, I.
> > For thou dost know, O Damon dear,
> > This realm dismantled was
> > Of Jove himself; and now reigns here
> > A very, very--pajock.
> >
> >HORATIO
> > You might have rhymed.
> >--------------------------------
> > So the question is: "Why did Hamlet:
> > 2) use "pajock" (= "peacock") and
Robert Stonehouse wrote:
>The peacock was the sacred bird of Juno. The kingdom has been
>divested of Jupiter (old Hamlet), who has been replaced as king by
>his wife's bird (Claudius, new husband of Gertrude) a merely showy,
>empty creature.
Pretty 'ballsy' on the Stratfordian man's part considering:
Isaac Oliver's "rainbow" portrait of Elizabeth I
in her 'golden peacock coat of eyes'
(_The Oxford Illustrated History of Britain_, p.288).
<<The Privy Council authorised torture to obtain informaion. The cruelty
of Norton, the Queen's "rack-master", incited public revulsion so
Elizabeth licensed her most effective agent Topcliffe to torture "in
private". The rack caused such dislocation and damage that Topcliffe
chose to hang men, by their hands , so their feet could not touch the
ground. It was a fortunate man who was sentenced to be hanged by the
neck until dead. Otherwise he could suffer quartering, and
disembowelment while still just alive following hanging.>>
(p.18 _William Shakespeare, the EXTRAORDINARY life of the most
successful writer of all time_ by Andrew Gurr (HarperCollins, 1995))
> > 1) not rhyme?
> He is elated to the point of light-headedness by the success of the
> mouse-trap.
Maybe he took some ministerial advice from Horatio:
<<When George III. had partly recovered from one of his attacks, his
Ministers got him to read the King's Speech, but he ended every sentence
with the word ``peacock.'' The Minister who
drilled him said that peacock was an excellent word for ending a
sentence, only kings should not let subjects hear it, but should whisper
it softly. The result was a perfect success: the pause at the close of
each sentence had an excellent effect.>>
Art Neuendorffer
Symposium1
In article <3644c566...@news.cityscape.co.uk>, ew...@bcs.org.uk (Robert
Stonehouse) writes:
>>HAMLET
>> A whole one, I.
>> For thou dost know, O Damon dear,
>> This realm dismantled was
>> Of Jove himself; and now reigns here
>> A very, very--pajock.
>>
>>HORATIO
>> You might have rhymed.
>>--------------------------------
>> So the question is: "Why did Hamlet:
>> 2) use "pajock" (= "peacock") and
>The peacock was the sacred bird of Juno. The kingdom has been
>divested of Jupiter (old Hamlet), who has been replaced as king by
>his wife's bird (Claudius, new husband of Gertrude) a merely showy,
>empty creature.
>> 1) not rhyme?
>He is elated to the point of light-headedness by the success of the
>mouse-trap.
>...
I would further Robert's reasoning and say it's MUCH funnier to not-rhyme,
replace the obvious "ass" with "pajock." Also, the peacock, a showy plumed
animal, sort of ties in with the "seems" concentration, and the loud salutes.
--Ann
"Is it a world to hide virtues in?" (Twelfth Night, I.iii.131)
Neuendorffer
> >> A whole one, I.
> >> For thou dost know, O Damon dear,
> >> This realm dismantled was
> >> Of Jove himself; and now reigns here
> >> A very, very--pajock.
> >>
> >>HORATIO
> >> You might have rhymed.
> >>--------------------------------
> >> So the question is: "Why did Hamlet:
> >> 2) use "pajock" (= "peacock") and
> >The peacock was the sacred bird of Juno. The kingdom has been
> >divested of Jupiter (old Hamlet), who has been replaced as king by
> >his wife's bird (Claudius, new husband of Gertrude) a merely showy,
> >empty creature.
> >> 1) not rhyme?
> >He is elated to the point of light-headedness by the success of the
> >mouse-trap.
Symposium1 wrote:
> I would further Robert's reasoning and say it's MUCH funnier to not-rhyme,
> replace the obvious "ass" with "pajock."
Oh MUCH funnier - I was rolling in the aisles.
> Also, the peacock, a showy plumed
> animal, sort of ties in with the "seems" concentration, and the loud salutes.
Sort of ties in with the First Folio frontispiece as well:
http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/Library/special/exhibits/clastext/clspg100.htm
http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/Library/special/exhibits/clastext/images/big/sha1968a.jpg
where a 'PEACOCK constellation' replaces SCORPIUS as the target
of leg less archer constellation SAGITTARIUS
It happens that the *new* CORNUCOPIA constellation in between
SAGITTARIUS & (the "peacock") SCORPIUS lies at the precise location
of Kepler's 1604 NOVA including flanking planets Jupiter & Saturn.
(See Chet Raymo's 365 Starry Nights, p. 216.)
------------------------------------------------------------
"Sweet swan of AVON! what a fight it were
To see thee in our waters yet appeare,
And make those flights upon the bankes of Thames,
That so did take Eliza, and our James !
But stay, I see thee in the Hemisphere
Advanc'd, and made a CONSTELLATION there !
Shine forth, thou Starre of Poets, and with rage,
Or influence, chide, or cheere the drooping Stage;
Which, since thy flight fro' hence, hath mourn'd like night,
And despaires day, but for thy Volumes light."
B E N: J O N S O N.
------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Robert Stonehouse
>There has been some recent discussion concerning
>Hamlet's strange use of the word "peacock" or "pajock":
A second thought about this. According to the Shorter Oxford, the
original printed source (the Folio?) has, not 'pajock', but
'Paiocke'. It describes 'pajock' as a 'modernised' spelling.
Presumably it arose when the letters 'i' and 'j' came to be printed
differently. Someone had to decide which to use and chose 'j'.
If we start from 'Paiocke', the simplest assumption would be that it
is a misprint for 'Pacocke' or perhaps 'Paicocke'. That would
justify a modern editor in printing 'peacock'. ('Pacock' and
'pocock' are northern versions of 'peacock'.) It would be only a
small misprint.
Alternatively, we could say Hamlet tends to compress words when he
is talking colloquially. For example, 'Woo't drink up eisel?' where
'Woo't' is a shortened form of 'Wouldst thou'. So 'Pai'ocke' might
be a shortened form of 'Paicocke'. I think this is comparatively
weak. Why shorten if you do not save any syllables? But it might be
possible and might have helped to baffle the printers or the
editors. (Incidentally, this principle is used in explaining the
'dram of eale' passage. 'Eale' is taken as a shortened form of
'eisel' (vinegar) which appears in the quotation above. But that
saves a whole syllable.)
'Peacock' is Latin 'pavo' plus English 'cock'. Hence also 'peahen'.
So there is no etymological reason to think there was ever a regular
form without a 'c' in the middle.
I suggest 'pajock' is a non-word that should disappear from the
canon.
ew...@bcs.org.uk
Caius Marcius
>
>>
I am reminded of a little satire I composed on the Book of Job just
over a decade ago (the spring of '88, when Gov. Dukakis was the
front-runner for the presidency). Here, the Lord, in rhymed couplets,
is musing upon a resolution to the Job dilemna:
I *could* restore him to his former prosperity;
Good Job at good wages might boost my popularity!