The book W. Shakespeare and M. Bulgakov: the cases of unclaimed geniality (Kiev, Raduga Press, 2000, ISBN 966-7121-04-6) is actually a collection of two papers, the first one being Hamlet: A Tragedy of Errors Or the Tragical Fate of Shakespeare? rendered on this WEB page. The author of the other one is Mr. Pavel Maslak who analyses the same issues of the hidden content, inner structure, and the influence of the Narrator's intention on the ultimate aesthetic form (i.e., the true content) of The White Guard novel by Mikhail Bulgakov.
I would restrict the description of the Theory to the most important issues which should be considered in the analysis of any work belonging to the menippeah class. They include Shakespeare's Hamlet, King Lear, Makbeth, Othelo, The merchant of Venice, Romeo and Juliet, The Taming of a (the) shrew, as well as Doctor Faustus and The Jew of Malta by Christopher Marlowe.
With the application of the Literary Theory, it has been revealed that the traditional interpretations of the content of any menippeah are impregnated with unexplainable plot contradictions. Referring to the contradicting image of Hamlet, T.S. Eliot defined them as the lack of objective correlative (The Sacred Wood, 1920). Factually, we treat these contradictions as Shakespeare's flaws thus forgiving the genius what we just do not understand. The fundamental presumption of my theory is that the level of the art of such Authors as Shakespeare (or Pushkin, or Joyce, or Bulgakov) is so high that any manifestation of negligence in their works is impossible. Therefore, such contradictions should be treated as being of some composition value, and therefore, as important composition elements intended by the authors. One of the primary objectives of structural analysis of menippeahs is to determine the real composition significance of what is perceived as contradictions.
In the majority of known cases, the phenomenon of the 'contradictions' appear as the result of two factors. The first factor is that the inner construction of Shakespeare's menippeahs consists of several plot-subject couples with similar (though not identical) characters. Being unaware of such structural feature, the readers attempt to squeeze the features pertaining to different characters into a single image. Compiled within a nonexistent figure, the controversial qualities of different characters produce what Eliot labeled as the lack of objective correlative. That is, the Hamlet in the traditional interpretation does no exist as a character of Shakespeare's book: factually, in two different plots, there exist two different Hamlets with different biographies.
The other factor producing the effect of the lack of objective correlative is the presence of a special (in the majority of cases, hidden) character performing the most important composition function: the narrating. In any work belonging to epics or lyrics, the Narrator's position is very close to that of the author's. That is why the narration issue is not that urgent when we deal with epics or lyrics. With the menippeahs, the situation is different. In such works, the Narrators' intention is always contradicting to that of the titular authors' (see my book The Promenades with Eugene Onegin). In other words, the Narrator's story occupying nearly the whole text is factually a lie. On the other hand, though hidden, the real plot (i.e., the one describing the 'real' events) is also present in the construction intended by titular authors.
Therefore, the contradictions traditionally perceived as Shakespeare's faults (or the lack of objective correlative) are the result of the coexistence within the same text of two plots featuring similar characters. When two Hamlets of different plots are treated as a single character, the intermixing of contradicting characteristics within a single image becomes unavoidable. The effect is magnified with the fact that the Narrator's position towards the described events is biased. For example, in the case of Hamlet the Narrator happens to be Hamlet's antagonist.
Due to the multi-plot structure of the menippeah, there exist additional levels of composition nonexistent in the epics, lyrics, and drama with their single plot — single subject structure. The additional level of composition integrates the multiple subjects into the ultimate content. It should be noted that Shakespeare's Hamlet is not a dramatic work but is rather a prosaic novel with the pentameter inner drama. That should be taken into consideration while analyzing the content of other Shakespeare's and Marlowe's works with the same inner structure.
The multi-plot construction of menippeahs is not a unique feature. Any satirical sketch has the same multi-plot inner structure. Moreover, the menippeah constructions are employed very often in everyday communication. Yes, we use them even at home though do not guess their inner structure is that sophisticated.
As a special character, the Narrator is employed in every menippeah, be it a part of a conversation at home or a masterpiece created by Shakespeare. The difference is that in everyday communication we clearly demonstrate the act of ironical citing of some other person's speech. In menippeahs created by novelists, the Narrators are endowed with the liberty to lie anything they wish, and they do that so effectively that we do not even guess of their existence. In the case of Hamlet, the readers are deceived by the Narrator (he is Hamlet's half-brother) for four hundred years in succession.
I hope this brief excursion into the issues of the Literary Theory will be helpful in realizing what really happens in the plots of Shakespeare's works.
Unfortunately, the Philology does not possess with effective instruments capable to reveal the content of such works and to describe their inner structure. Moreover, it does not possess with a strict scientific description of such fundamental notions as plot, subject, and composition. The scholars engaged in Philology are still unaware there exists a special class of fiction that cannot be attributed to either epics, or lyrics, or drama, and which possesses with such an exotic quality as multiple plot — multiple subject inner structure. (There follows a definition of the epics, the lyrics, and the drama from the point of view of Narrator's position; it is explained that the position of the menippeah Narrator does not comply with the types of narration yet described in the Philology.)
Despite of the complicated inner structure, the true content of any menippeah can be easily understood by anybody without being aware of any theory. Indeed, even a child understands the true content of satirical sketches on TV, while their inner structure does not differ much from that of Shakespeare's masterpieces. What the readers need is just a prompt that there is present a hidden character performing the functions of a 'proxy author' (though I believe it would be wise to supply such texts with generous comments featuring the most important composition elements.)
Further, the true content of Hamlet is surveyed. When we begin to realize that the narrative is conducted by some character not identical to Shakespeare, it becomes clear that the pentameter dramatic text is a satire aimed at Prince Hamlet. After some analysis of the Narrator's position it becomes obvious that it was Hamlet himself who had created that self-satire. The most interesting feature is that Hamlet intended his Mousetrap as a satire aimed at his half-brother Horatio. To achieve that goal, he made Horatio to narrate the text of the Mousetrap and to depict Hamlet in a negative way.
Yes, we the readers have the complete text of the Mousetrap before us. It is the whole pentameter text of Shakespeare's novel Hamlet. According to the true plot, it was Prince Hamlet who is its author.
The readers interested in more detailed description of the Literary Theory including the theory of menippeah are invited to visit another site with the text of an introduction in English to my book The Promenades with Eugene Onegin.
We urge the readers of our book to check every our assertion against the texts of Hamlet and The White Guard. However unfamiliar our conclusions might seem, all they are based entirely on the facts contained in the texts. Sooner or later the scholars will have to recognize that the text of Hamlet has never been read attentively, and that too many details of key importance are being either ignored or misunderstood.
We ask our readers to read again the texts before reading our papers, and to recur to them regularly. We do not employ any assumptions of intuitive nature, and our statements and conclusions are based only on the realities of the texts. This is the method of analysis that completely complies with the strict demands of the Science (the Philosophy) which still remains alien to the Philology.
The four centuries of the misinterpreting of Hamlet is too a high price the human civilization has been paying for the inability to read a bit more attentively. The true content of Hamlet intended by Shakespeare is much deeper than the traditional wrong interpretations suggest.
Yes, we urge our readers to resist our argumentation. But in case the resistance we deliberately provoke is overcome, that will not mean your defeat. On the contrary, that will be your bona fide victory over the stereotypes of thinking. I define it as the cancer of intellect.
Without having overcome that kind of impairment, we would hardly ever understand what treasures the Great have left to us.
Chapter I: Did Shakespeare mean Prince Hamlet as a son to king Hamlet?
Copyright © Alfred Barkov 2000, 2003