- Publié sur Amazon.com
Naseeb Shaheen's book is a valuable resource (but perhaps too expensive). It's very similar to Charles Wordsworth's book, Shakespeare's Knowledge and Use of the Bible, originally published in the 1800s, and like C.Wordsworth's book, includes appendices that allow one to search according to scripture passage (what are ALL of the Shakespeare plays that contain a reference to a certain passage in the bible?), and by play (what is the progression of scripture references as one pages through a particular play?). C.Wordsworth devoted an early section of his book to the similarities in phrasing (between bible and Shakespeare), and admitted that perhaps this would seem superficial to some. Shaheen pays very close attention to detail, to distinguish when Shakespeare seems to be alluding to the Geneva (Protestant) Bible (often from the older Greek texts), or the Douay-Rheims (Catholic translation from the already-translated Latin), or from the liturgical translation of the Psalms in common use.
This is all fine and interesting, but it avoids the more interpretive questions that follow: In a particular play, at a particular point in the text, *why* would the author have alluded to a particular scripture passage? What does it mean? Why hold the scriptural mirror up to the audience at that particular moment? What does the author and play attempt to accomplish by pushing the buttons of the church-going, bible-reading Elizabethan audience in those ways? (Shaheen's book does not explore these questions, but Steven Marx's much shorter book, mentioned below, does.)
Shaheen is perhaps too quick to dismiss possible biblical references merely on the basis of a non-biblical reference being another option. For example, if a passage in Julius Caesar resembles a passage from the bible, but also resembles a passage from an ancient Greek or Roman text, Shaheen tends not to consider that it may reference both the biblical and non-biblical sources. This is a disappointment, but at least Shaheen attempts to note these places and argue his case.
Also, as with Charles Wordsworth's book, Shaheen tends to look much more to the surface of the text in the phrasing of the words, rather than to consider plot similarities or echoes. This is perhaps where this otherwise very valuable resource really falls short.
On this point, a better approach is outlined by Steven Marx's Shakespeare and the Bible (Oxford Shakespeare Topics), who not only considers the surface allusions, but also examines the plays as a sort of midrash, rethinking biblical themes and plots.
Steven Marx considers a handful of plays, but not all of them. For example, he does not consider Hamlet, which is rich in biblical plot echoes that are not touched by the surface allusions. He also misses some allusions that are really not far below the surface.
For example, early in Hamlet, when Horatio and Hamlet are first reunited after Horatio's first encounter with the ghost, Horatio declares himself to be Hamlet's servant, and Hamlet says, no, he would switch places with Horatio on that score. This is clearly a reference to the scriptural admonition from Jesus to his disciples that, if anyone wants to be the greatest, he must be servant of all. But the reference is not encapsulated in the superficialities of the language, and therefore, it can't be attributed to the Geneva Translation, or the Douay-Rheims, or the Book of Common Prayer, and in fact, it seems to escape Shaheen's gaze, at least in this book-length treatment. And this is only one example. There are many, many more in the plays, where the references are often not contained in the phrasing.
And in fact, it could be that some of the most important biblical references, by necessity, could not be so obviously contained in the phrasing, because of the government censors who had to approve the text. Certain similarities to biblical passages or stories might be more dangerous to make too obvious.
This is not to say the book is not a fine accomplishment and a most helpful resource. It certainly is. But perhaps too many readers will assume that it's an exhaustive treatment of the biblical references in the plays, when in fact it only tries to be an exhaustive treatment of the references in the phrasing of the plays, a level quite close to the surface. Yet we know that Shakespeare's plays are many fathoms deep, to paraphrase Hamlet, and if we ignore that, we may be blown at the moon for all we miss.