Differing Interpretations of Claudius Prayer free essay sample

Differing interpretations of Claudius’ prayer In the mastery of the art of literary critical analysis, understanding the context and various critical analyses of a piece is foundational. Though the contents of a piece of literature may be immortalized in physical, the actual interpretation of such a piece is subject to the effects of time. As the time gap between then and now increases, more discrepancies between the author’s original context and the context of the present take shape, and so more discrepancies between interpretations also form. Notably, the thoroughly studied works of the great playwright William Shakespeare were written during the Elizabethan era, an era of which was with many notable differences from today. These incongruities are seen in a particular scene Shakespeare’s Hamlet: the interpretation of the passage holding the Danish king Claudius’ prayer (Shakespeare, â€Å"Hamlet†, III iii 36-72) by an Elizabethan (1558-1603) (Secara) audience reveals ideas different to that of one by a contemporary modern (circa 1950 – present) audience. Claudius’ references to the venal justice of the temporal world, the limed state of his soul, and the divine justice of heaven are cases within this passage in which such differences in interpretations arise. As stated, Claudius’ passage on the venal justice of the temporal world would be interpreted differently between an Elizabethan and a contemporary modern audience. Said passage goes as follows: â€Å"In the corrupted currents of this world / Offence’s gilded hand may shove by justice, /And oft’tis seen the wicked prize itself /Buys out the law. (Shakespeare, 57-60) This was arguable for an Elizabethan audience whereas it would seem plausible for a contemporary modern audience. For the former audience, it would be known that chances for acquittal in all contexts of social class were slim. In fact, nobility could be convicted of crimes that others could not because of their stature (Alchin, â€Å"Elizabethan Crime and Punishment†), and so were m ore susceptible to the effects of justice. Seeing as Claudius is king of Denmark, he would be most susceptible to the hand of justice, and so the statement of a bribable justice system would seem questionable especially for his case. In contrast, the latter audience would see Claudius’ comment as plausible because of how often it happens during the era. For example, in the contemporary modern case of IBM, a multinational American company, information was disclosed that it was probed by the American Justice Department for international bribery allegations. Its not uncommon for companies to face scrutiny under the act [of bribery]. † (Whittaker) So, Claudius’ comment on the venal nature of earthly justice would be easy for this audience to believe considering that international briberies are a commonality in their era. This discrepancy in the standard of trust of temporal justice based on the comment proves that there is a difference in interpretations of the passage between the two audiences, and so support s the idea that different contexts beget different interpretations. Claudius also speaks on his soul being limed, and this would also be interpreted differently between an Elizabethan and a contemporary modern audience. His comment: â€Å"O limed soul, that struggling to be free / Art more engag’d! † (Shakespeare, 68-9) This would be more immediately understood as a metaphor of birdlime, a sticky bird trap used by fowlers, by an Elizabethan audience whereas the meaning of the analogy would be overlooked for a contemporary modern audience. For the former audience, birdliming (using birdlime) was still more readily known, though its use had ceased by the time of their era. This is proven by the fact that birdliming, dating back to ancient Greece, was an important hunting strategy until the widespread availability of firearms, (Platt) and although firearms were made available by the end of the 16th century (Alchin, â€Å"Elizabethan Weapons†), immediately before the turn of the century in which Hamlet was probably written and published (Wikipedia, â€Å"Hamlet†, annot. 34), the latter generation’s people would still be aware of what birdlime is, since the time discrepancy is within the human lifespan of the time, approx. 42 years, (The Shakespearean) and so would carry over people from the former generation. So, it would be understood that Claudius meant that, in trying to free himself the malice of guilt on his soul, he would find himself even more stuck to self-reproach. In contrast, the latter contemporary modern audience would have little awareness of what birdlime is, where their era has only a handful of mentions of birdlime in its news (Google News), which is likely do to birdlime’s prohibition of usage in many places and by many acts (DPIPWE, Jersey Law, p. 1 art. 9, Birdwork Aide-Memoire, SPNL, capt. 1) reducing and demotivating its day-to-day usage and therefore reducing its relevance in he time period. So, Claudius’ allusion to birdlime in mentioning his limed soul would be missed by this audience and so the idea of him being stuck would be lost. This discrepancy in the awareness of birdlime’s usage in the comment proves that there is another difference in interpretations of the passage between the two audiences, and so also supports the idea that differen t contexts beget different interpretations. Claudius’ passage proclamation on the divine justice of heaven would also be interpreted differently between the two audiences. But ‘tis not so above [in heaven]: / There is no shuffling, there the action lies / In his true nature, and we ourselves compell’d / Even to the teeth and forehead of our faults / To give in evidence. † (Shakespeare, 60-64) This passage would be an appeal to the Protestant methodology for an Elizabethan audience whereas it would be a general statement on Christianity (of Catholics and Protestants alike) for a contemporary modern audience. For the former audience, it would be known that during their era Protestantism was the religion advocated by their monarchy (Alchin, â€Å"Religion in Elizabethan England†). It was also known that, with the Elizabethan era’s Catholic consent, one could purchase â€Å"indulgences† (Secara: â€Å"Comparative Religion: Catholicism†), which are drafts on grace that would allow one access to heaven regardless of participation of faith in the Mysteries of Penance and Eucharist; said drafts were offered by the 16th – 18th century Greek church (Govorun), of which time frame included the Elizabethan era. However, Puritans (Protestants further removed from Catholicism) rejected this notion and adhered rather to exclusively Scripture (Secara, â€Å"Comparative Religion: The Church of England†). This observation of the appeal to Protestantism would be easier seen by recalling the previous era’s 1517 pre-Protestant Ninety-Five Theses, which publically abhorred many Catholic beliefs and practices, including indulgences, in favour of Protestant ones and brought in the era of Protestant reformation (Leckwold). So, Claudius’ comment on heaven’s exclusive right to judgment would be seen as agreeing with anti-indulgent Protestant beliefs and therefore be interpreted as an appeal to Protestantism. In contrast, the latter audience has a Catholic dogma that is stricter with the handling of indulgences by the 1967 Catholic Indulgentiarum doctrina, actually requiring participation of faith, and so the allusion to indulgences and therefore the appeal specifically to Protestants would not have been detected by a contemporary modern audience: â€Å"For indulgences cannot be acquired without a sincere conversion of mentality (metanoia) and unity with God, to which the performance of the prescribed works is added. † (Pope Paul VI, art. 1) So, Claudius’ comment on the divine justice of heaven would be interpreted as accordant of both Catholic and Protestant beliefs by this audience because of indulgences stature of either justifiably earned or heretical. This discrepancy in the belief of the comment’s way of pertinence to specific branches of Christianity proves that there is yet another difference in interpretations of the passage between the two audiences, and so further supports the idea that different contexts beget different interpretations. To recap, the passage of Claudius’ prayer found in Shakespeare’s Hamlet is interpreted differently with different contexts, and key examples of such varying interpretations include one on the venal nature of earthly justice, the meaning of â€Å"liming† when used to describe Claudius’ soul, and the incorruptible nature of heavenly justice by an Elizabethan versus a contemporary modern audience. All this proves that there are discrepancies in the interpretation of Hamlet between different contexts, and this in turn suggests that such discrepancies of interpretation can exist between any contexts for any literary work. In understanding that such discrepancies exist between different contexts, one can take the effort to reduce the discrepancy between their own personal understanding of a literary work and the understanding of not only the original context’s interpretation, but also to the various existing contextual interpretations that make up the history of the work’s critical analysis. In doing so, one can have a more complete and thorough understanding of the work by having many different scopes of analyses, and thus they can have a greater appreciation for not only the work in question but to the great harmony of literature made by innumerable connections between every work extant. To understand the various contextual interpretations fulfills a person beyond what’s immediately found in the work, making them privy to the information of such a work’s encompassing universe’s literature and thus holding mastery over the art of critical analysis. Works cited Alkin, Linda. Elizabethan Era. Web. 8 May 2013. Bird Legislation.   Networkbird. net. Birdwork Aide-Memoire, n. d. Web. 11 May 2013. lt;http://www. networkbird. net/pdf/Aide-Memoires-bird-legalisation. pdfgt;. Conservation of Wildlife (Jersey) Law 2000.   Jerseylaw. je. Jersey Law, n. d. Web. 11 May 2013. Game Hunting Requirements, Licence Costs amp; Bag Limits.   DPIPWE. Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, n. d. Web. 11 May 2013. â€Å"Birdlime: Google News. † Google. com. Google. 11 May 2013. Web. 11 May 2013. Refined search from Jan 11 1950 – May 10 2013. Elizabethan England.   The Shakespearean. Tripod, n. d. Web. 11 May 2013. Finches Are Singing a Sad Song.   Independent. ie. Irish Independent, 22 Apr. 2012. Web. 11 May 2013. lt;http://www. independent. ie/lifestyle/finches-are-singing-a-sad-song-26845521. htmlgt;. Govorun, Sergei. Indulgences in the History of the Greek Church. OrthoChristian. Com. Pravoslavie, 25 Nov. 2004. Web. 10 May 2013. Hamlet.   Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 05 Oct. 2013. Web. 10 May 2013. Leckwold, Thomas. Ninety Five Theses and the Revolution That Followed. MilitaryHistoryOnline. com. Military History Online, 31 Mar. 2012. Web. 10 May 2013. Platt, Steven G. , Kalyar Platt, Thet Z. Naing, Hong Meng, and Win Ko Ko. Birdlime. Ethnobiology. org. Society of Ethnobiology, 17 Dec. 2012. Web. 10 May 2013. Pope Paul VI. Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul VI: Indulgentiarum Doctrina. Vatican. va. Vatican, n. d. Web. 09 May 2013. Originally published 1 Jan 1967. Shakespeare, William, and Harold Jenkins. Act III. Scene iii.   Hamlet. London: Methuen, 1982. 314-6. Print. Lines 36-72. Sustainable Hunting.   SPNL. Society for the Protection of Nature in Lebanon, n. d. Web. 11 May 2013. lt;http://www. spnl. org/sustainable-hunting/gt;. Whittaker, Zack. IBM Probed by U. S. Justice Dept. over Bribery Allegations.   ZDNet. CBS, 6 May 2013. Web. 08 May 2013. Secara, Maggie Pierce. Life in Elizabethan England: A Compendium of Common Knowledge.   Elizabethan. org. Ed. Paula Kath erine Marmor. Renaissance: The Elizabethan World, n. d. Web. 08 May 2013. References