With the theory, it has become possible to decode the hidden content of 'mysterious' masterpieces created by Shakespeare, Marlowe, Pushkin, Bulgakov, Joyce, and other authors.
Some structural details of Alexander Pushkin's menippeahs indicated that he might have been aware of the true content and inner structure of Hamlet. There appeared a temptation to employ the theory in the decoding the hidden content of Hamlet.
Creating menippeahs, all authors employ the same method of encoding, be it Shakespeare's Hamlet or Joyce's Ulysses, or Pushkin's Eugene Onegin. Factually, the method is neither coding nor ciphering. Ironically, it is a commonly known and broadly employed method of delivering information even in everyday communication. It is a specific way of narrating — say, when we ironically cite someone without mentioning directly that person's identity. In cases when such citation occupies practically the whole text, there appears the menippeah effect: the narrative with the most simple epic single-plot — single-subject structure turns into a multiple plot — multiple subject sophisticated construction. It contains at least three plot-subject couples each representing a different vision of the described events. From the point of view of the inner structure, another striking feature is that the titular Author (in our case, William Shakespeare ) factually delegates his narrating functions to the inner Narrator. That is a character who in all such cases is the object of satirical irony. Though this method of narrating is widely employed in satirical works, its properties as well as the sole existence have been ignored by the scholars. The multi-level inner structure of the menippeah has not yet been described elsewhere which hinders the proper evaluation of the content of the masterpieces created by Shakespeare.
From the point of view of the text structure, the 'relations' between Shakespeare and his Narrators look as if he has delegated to them his Author's functions. Thus Shakespeare adopted an imaginary position as if he were a mere publisher of the works created by the Narrators. This same satirical method was employed later by other authors 2.
So, the principal structural feature of the 'mysterious' works is the special composition function of the Narrators. They are special characters whose attitude towards the events they recount is always biased. Being unaware of that, we the readers treat such works as if they were bona fide epic stories narrated in a strictly neutral way. Being Shakespeare's composition means, the narrators of his works are erroneously perceived as Shakespeare himself, while their intention is controversial. It is due to this controversy (intended by Shakespeare) that there appears the phenomenon of multi-plot multi-subject structure along with additional levels of composition.
In their biased description of the events, the Narrators depict themselves as the most 'positive' characters (the case of Hamlet is an example of that). Their narrative occupying nearly the whole text presents the first of the three plot-subject couples. We erroneously take such a narrative for the ultimate content intended by Shakespeare.
If the titular Authors would not supply the readers with some hints, it would be impossible to disclose the intended (hidden) content. That is why the text of every menippeah contains masked indications that the narrated story does not represent the ultimate content. Such information cannot be delivered within the plot narrated by the Narrator (for that does not coincide with his intention). As any action described in a text should be contained within a plot, the Author's hints scattered over the text comprise another plot which I named 'the Author's plot'
When we perceive some action not described within the narrated plot (i.e., not intended by the Narrators), we traditionally accept that as 'contradictions' or the lack of 'objective correlative' (this definition was applied by T.S. Eliot to the image of Hamlet — see The Sacred Wood, 1920.) On the other hand, when we evaluate the content of the narrated story against the Author's prompts, it becomes clear that the Narrator is not an abstract figure as is the case with the epics. That is a special character while his narrative is but a part of the ultimate content.
In all menippeahs, the process of the narrating is a satirical object as well. As this process is not described within either of the above two plots, there exists the third one which I named 'the Narrator's plot'. Unlike the narrated text or the Author's plot, in some masterpieces (the case of Hamlet is a typical one) this plot is not expressed explicitly within the material text; it should be reconstructed intellectually (what we subconsciously do every time we see or hear or read a satirical sketch the inner structure of which is the same multi-plot feature as in the case of Hamlet.) Nevertheless, within the ultimate structure of any menippeah, this hidden plot is the most important one because it is the very structural element in which the satirical object is contained.
The interaction of all three subjects reveals the 'true' character of the events along with the details of the Narrator's biased intention, the latter being the most important composition element of the highest level. (Such level does not exist in either lyrics or epics.) It is due to this composition element that all three subjects (each representing a particular vision of the content) interact, thus producing the ultimate content containing the true satirical intention of the titular Author. I named that structural element the metasubject.
A more complete description of theoretical aspects can be found in articles devoted to the issues of the Literary Theory, in my works on Mikhail Bulgakov's menippeah Mikhail Bulgakov's novel The Master and Margarita: a new approach (1994) and M. Bulgakov's novel The Master and Margarita: an everlasting love or a literary mystification? (1996), and especially in my book The Promenades with Eugene Onegin (1998).
In the process of decoding the true content of a menippeah, the most critical step is the identification of the character acting as the Narrator. With the application of the theory, the identity of the Narrator in Hamlet was disclosed in 20 minutes. That same operation with Joyce's Ulysses took less than five minutes. In both cases the narrators were defined before reading the novels. Factually, it was enough to just read the very first pages of comments. It should be added that as with every menippeah, the true content of Hamlet happens to differ very much from the traditional interpretation. That is the case of Ulysses as well.
For 'their own' plot, the authors of menippeahs employ remarks, notes, etc. making them to look like supplementary elements of no composition value, and placing them beyond the 'main text'. In Hamlet, Shakespeare did the same. Unfortunately, in the four centuries, attempting to 'improve' Shakespeare's texts and not realizing the composition significance of the 'supplementary remarks', the editors introduced some distortions preventing contemporary readers from noticing very important elements of Shakespeare's composition.
Unlike other authors creating menippeahs, Shakespeare extended 'his own' plot in Hamlet by introducing still another special character with specific functions which only titular authors possess: he made the grave-digger to disclose to the readers important cues necessary for the proper evaluation of the events described by the unscrupulous Narrator. By doing that, Shakespeare factually depicted himself as the grave-digger with university education who does not lie in his grave. A similar feature is the case with some other Shakespeare's works, as well as with Christopher Marlowe's menippeahs Doctor Faustus and The Jew of Malta.
As the biography of that seemingly insignificant character does not fit that of the Bard, it has become necessary to identify the actual person depicted in Hamlet as its Author — the grave-digger not lying in his grave for nine years (i.e., since 1593).
The true content of Hamlet defined by the multi-plot inner structure suggests the Author who possessed with university education was not the only person who had been working on the text. There are indications in the plot of Hamlet that Shakespeare's activities were constrained by his half-brother of very high standing; that person had been censoring everything Shakespeare created before it was published. Besides, the text contains indications that since early childhood and till his alleged death, Shakespeare (the Tanner not lying in his grave for nine years) was close to the Court.
That's what the structural analysis of the text of Hamlet presents. That was quite a surprise to me despite that I was already aware that Prince Hamlet was not a son to king Hamlet; that he did not die in the 'real' plot, and that his death was rather staged by his half-brother; that after Hamlet's disappearance, his half-brother would make drastic changes to the content of what Prince had written so as to hide from the public the actual fate of the real Author of Hamlet.
Considering the biographical aspects as they have emerged from the structure of Hamlet's, I have analyzed the texts of some other works attributed to William Shaksper of Stratford. The character carrying the principal composition functions of the Author in Hamlet does the same within the plot of the 1594 anonymously published version of The Taming of a Shrew. That character is present also in The Merchant of Venice. As in Hamlet, in both these cases he also seems to play insignificant role, and is depicted as a clown with a university background.
It has become obvious that the biographical aspects as they follow from Hamlet's inner structure were intended by Shakespeare. Moreover, in The Taming, the relations of the character representing Shakespeare's position with his patronizing Lord appeared to be the same as they are depicted in Hamlet. It should be added that similar relations exist between the two half-brothers of high standing in King Lear.
It is not difficult to identify the playwright considered to be dead since 1593. The inner structure of Christopher Marlowe's menippeahs Doctor Faustus and The Jew of Malta proved to be identical to that of Hamlet, of both versions of The Taming, and of The Merchant of Venice. The strophic method of separating the main plot (the prosaic text) from the pentameter 'inner dramas' is the same for all mentioned works as well as for some other Shakespeare's works. As far as I know, this very specific method of discriminating the main plot of a menippeah from the 'inner novel' has never been employed by any other author.
The identity of every structural detail within the unique and
extremely sophisticated construction suggests the only possible
logical conclusion: the mentioned above works the authorship of which
has been traditionally attributed to William Shaksper of Stratford and to Christopher Marlowe were actually created by the same person. By the Tanner with university education who did not lie in his grave since 1593. Namely, by Christopher Marlowe.
Top
I hope the above short description of the employed version of the Literary Theory will be helpful in evaluating the true content of Hamlet and other Shakespeare's works. For more detailed description of the Literary Theory and its practical applications, you are welcome to visit other pages with the front pages in English:
A collection of articles devoted to the Literary Theory.
A front page in English New Literary Theory decoding William Shakespeare's Texts where the issues of structure of Shakespeare's Hamlet are rendered as well.
The Aleksander Pushkin page containing the text of the 350 page book The Promenades with Eugene Onegin. This book contains the most complete description of the employed Literary Theory along with the analysis of the hidden content and the inner structure of Eugene Onegin and other Pushkin's menippeahs.
The Mikhail Bulgakov page with the analysis of the inner structure of The Master and Margarita novel presented in my book M. Bulgakov's novel The Master and Margarita: an everlasting love or a literary mystification?
For more information, see also three sites in Russian devoted to the Shakespeare authorship issue, to the William Shakespeare — Christopher Marlowe identity, and to content of Hamlet
1. I believe it is close to what is called in English the Menippe satires. The more widely used irony term might be applied to the phenomenon as well, though the definitions of both these notions do not meet strict demands of the scientific methodology. The irony notion is widely employed in philological papers, but as it has never been properly structured, it cannot be implemented in strict analysis.
(Back)2. Among them there are Laurence Sterne, James Joyce, Iris Murdoch, Alexander Pushkin, Mikhail Bulgakov, as well as some other English and Russian authors.
It should be noted that L. Sterne has created a very original menippeah structure comprised by two novels: The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman and A Sentimental Journey Through France and Italy. The latter one is considered to be incomplete. That is not true: L. Sterne's Sentimental Journey is complete, and there are grounds to consider that no continuation of the narrative has ever been planned by the author. The thing is that the true content of L. Strene's novel differs much from its traditional interpretation, and no continuation is lacking. Yes, its special composition provokes a strong impression of an incomplete fiction work, which is merely a false impression (intended by Sterne, though).
It could be argued that the narrative is interrupted at the point when the journey is not even halfway. That is absolutely true — from the point of view of what has been narrated by the Narrator. Although the interrupted narration occupies the whole text of the novel, it is only an inner story, just a fraction of L. Sterne's complete novel. The plot of the latter differs very much from what is narrated. That is, the 'direct' content of the narrated story is not the ultimate object of Sterne's description; it is but a composition means with which the profound image of the Narrator is created. Maybe, the most interesting feature is that the two stories with different plots are based on the same material text.
In every menippeah, there are at least two different authors. In this case the authorship of the interrupted story belongs to the Narrator while the authorship of the novel describing the Narrator and his intention belongs to Sterne. Without disclosing the identity of the Narrators, it is impossible to understand the content intended by titular authors. This is true for any menippeah, Shakespeare's Hamlet being a good example of that. Sterne's menippeah comprised by two novels is another example of how differently the content is perceived when we the readers realize the identity and the intention of the Narrator.
The same is true with Joyce's Ulysses: it's only after we begin to realize who 'factually' narrates the whole story that Joyce's satirical intention becomes clear. (I am afraid some of those engaged in the Ulysses studies will not be much happy to learn at whom Joyce's satire is aimed.)
(Back)
To the Contents
Copyright © Alfred Barkov 2000, 2003