Religions in Shakespeare’s Writings, Edited by David V. Urban

Abstract

Shakespeare’s engagement with the issue of religion is complex. There can never be an overarching system of religious belief extracted from his writings; instead, there are religions, as demonstrated by vigorous scholarship in recent decades, among which the present collection is a very good example. Fifteen essays appearing first in the journal Religions in 2018 and 2019 are reprinted, preceded by an introduction by the editor. Together they present a complex overview of Shakespeare’s creative use of religious references that can best be summarised, as in the collection’s title, with the plural form ‘religions’. Leading the essays is John D. Cox’s richly informed review of current studies in this field, unveiling a sizeable proportion of scholarly attention paid to tensions between religions in Shakespeare, a point also highlighted in David V. Urban’s introduction. Indeed, Shakespeare’s use of religious elements often results in a paradox. To begin with, certain ambiguities in the plays allow contestations between different religions. Grace Tiffany explores how Shakespeare reforms pagan images and ideas and makes them attain Christian (Calvinist in particular) meanings. As Tiffany argues, Shakespeare’s evocations of Diana, the pagan goddess of virginity, present the playwright favouring marital blessings over celibacy. Marriage takes on different meanings in Benjamin Lockerd’s article, which locates the contestation of religions in Hamlet as between the heretical beliefs of the Albigensians and orthodox Christianity. The Albigensians believe the human flesh to be evil because it belongs to the physical world created by an evil god; therefore, marriage and procreation should be avoided as they bring more sinners to the world. Lockerd argues that such is the message Hamlet hints at when expressing disgust at his bodily existence and when telling Ophelia ‘we will have no more marriage’ (3.1.147). Yet, in the end, the Danish prince claims his love towards Ophelia and asks for pardon before the duel, signalling his possible acceptance of Christian love and forgiveness. Lockerd’s reading further consolidates Hamlet as a hesitant and unsure prince. Equally hesitant is Othello, who shifts back and forth between his Muslim origin and Christian identities, as disclosed in Debra Johanyak’s article. Johanyak argues that Othello’s resorts to punishments on the adulteress resemble those in the Sharia practice. Slapping Desdemona in public can be seen as a symbolic action of 100 lashes on adulterers in the Qur’an, and the final killing of her comes from the desire to restore honour to his name. Yet, Johanyak also shows that Othello does not take action without inner struggles. Also very useful is Johanyak’s account of possible sources of Muslim knowledge accessible to Shakespeare.