The Counterlife
So, as if it weren’t bad enough that I’ve discovered I’ve been laboring in the devil’s service for much of the decade, it turns out that what I should have been doing hasn’t waited for me to do it, but got itself done by somebody else.
A few years ago, I had an idea for a book about Shakespeare and the Hebrew Bible. It was intended to be a work of amateur scholarship – not so much an attempt to demonstrate concrete influences on Shakespeare from the Hebrew Bible as to use different biblical texts to “read” Shakespeare, and vice versa. The plan of the book was to be as follows:
Chapter 1: Introduction: The Folio of This World: Biblical Readings of Shakespeare, Shakespearean Readings of the Hebrew Bible
Chapter 2: Wise Children: King Solomon and King Henry V
Chapter 3: Isaac’s Ashes and the Poor Fool Hanged: The Unassimilability of the Akeda and King Lear
Chapter 4: Dark Corners and Hidden Faces: Providence in The Book of Esther and Measure For Measure
Chapter 5: Stubborn Faith: Shylock, Jonah and the Quality of Mercy
Chapter 6: A Late Divorce: Hosea and The Winter’s Tale
Well, I’ve noodled about with the idea now and again, but never done the proper research to really write the blasted thing. Then, a few weeks ago, I picked up a copy of Steven Marx’s book, Shakespeare and the Bible, thinking it might be useful research. Here’s the table of contents:
Chapter 1: Introduction: ‘Kiss the Book’
Chapter 2: Posterity and Prosperity: Genesis in The Tempest
Chapter 3: Historical Types: Moses, David, and Henry V
Chapter 4: ‘Within a Foot of the Extreme Verge’: The Book of Job and King Lear
Chapter 5: True Lies and False Truths: Measure for Measure and the Gospel
Chapter 6: ‘Dangerous Conceits’ and ‘Proofs of Holy Writ’: Allusion in The Merchant of Venice and Paul’s Letter to the Romans
Chapter 7: The Masque of Revelation: The Tempest as Apocalypse
No, it’s not the book I was planning to write. But still.
My friend Noah (who used to blog pretty actively at http://deadlymantis.blogspot.com/ , although he hasn’t posted much substance for a while) had a detailed argument that Macbeth/Duncan was meant as a twisted version of David/Saul. I’ll see if he ever posted it any where, it seems like the sort of thing you would like.
— DavidS · Nov 25, 04:30 AM · #
It’s interesting that you refer to the text as the “Hebrew Bible.” It’s not my intention to criticise your interpretation of our shared faith, I’m just more used to correcting goyim to call it the Torah rather than framing another religion’s text within their own structure. Do you disagree, or is the usage for simplicity of understanding in others?
— RichC · Nov 25, 05:47 AM · #
Noah — The similarity in structure of the chapter headings is just weird. If that happened to me, I’d be paranoid, ransacking my house for a bug.
I’d be very interested to read that book (your version), even if someone’s beaten you to the market with the idea. I hope that your thoughts on those topics see the light of day in one form or another, even if simply outlined in a series of posts. Better yet, if his book sells a ton, presumably you’d have an easier time selling your pitch.
Please do let us know what you think of the book you bought — I’d buy that one too, if any good.
— Rover · Nov 25, 05:41 PM · #
Oh, you haven’t been laboring in the Devil’s service! No, that would be inventors of Microsoft’s Vista. You should go ahead and write your book. I’ll bet it’d be worth reading—and it’d have your own particular approach and personality.
— Joules · Nov 25, 06:11 PM · #
RichC: Hebrew Bible is a neutral academic term; Old Testament is the Christian-framed way to refer to it. “Hebrew Bible” is also substantively different from the Torah – the latter either means “teaching” generally and could be used to encompass texts that are not biblical (e.g., the Talmud) or, when used narrowly, means the first 5 books – the Pentateuch – of the Hebrew Bible; that’s the usage contained within the acronym TaNaKh, which stands for Torah, Nevi’im (Prophets) and Ketuvim (Writings), and since my book idea included texts from the canon that are not part of the Pentateuch, “Torah” would be confusing or actually inaccurate.
Rover: yeah, I could do that . . . except his book came out in 2000, and I didn’t get my book idea until a few years after that. But I swear, I had no idea his book existed when I started thinking about my own.
As for how his book is: it’s good. Academic, but good.
— Noah Millman · Nov 25, 08:58 PM · #