Talk:Hamlet/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikiproject collaboration

Is this atricle settled as the next wikiproject GA-drive collaboration? If yes, should that fact be advertised somewhere? (Or is it, and I missed it?) AndyJones 20:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is, I just haven't sent notices to everyone yet because I recently moved. The consensus was overwhelming. Wrad 06:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

New Hamlet images on Commons

Hello everyone. I've just uploaded a few new images of Hamlets thru the ages onto the Commons, in anticipation of development of the article.

Edmund Kean (1814); Charles Kean (1838); another Edwin Booth (1870); Beerbolm Tree (1892); another, better quality but only close-up of Henry Irving (1888); John Howard Payne (1813); John Philip Kemble (1802); and another colour version of Thomas Betterton (1661).

I have a great full-page reproduction of a signed autograph of John Barrymore as Hamlet from 1922, which would make a good article image, but I can't work out if it's still in copyright (I guess I'd need to somehow find out who the photographer is; the book Shakespeare: The Globe and the World doesn't give a specific source for that image, saying all non-mentioned sources are from the Folger, DC. Maybe someone has an idea how to find the record there?) DionysosProteus 03:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Synopsis (Sandbox)

842 words

Act one

On a cold winter night, two sentries try to convince the sceptical student Horatio that they have seen the ghost of the recently-deceased King Hamlet, when the ghost suddenly appears. Horatio tries to question it but it stalks away. He proposes they tell the old king's son, Hamlet.

Claudius, the new king, proclaims an end to the official mourning for his brother, in light of his marriage to Gertrude, his brother's queen. Claudius and Gertrude try to persuade Hamlet to abandon his melancholy and not to return to university in Wittenburg. Hamlet promises to try to obey his mother. Left alone, he vents his frustration at her hasty remarriage. He is interrupted by Horatio and the sentries, who inform him of the portentous apparition.

That night, Hamlet speaks to his father's ghost, who reveals that he was poisoned by Claudius. He commands Hamlet to avenge his murder. Hamlet vows to do so and swears his companions to secrecy. He decides to disguise his true intents by feigning madness.

Act two

Ophelia reports to her father, the King's counsellor Polonius, how Hamlet came to her bedroom in a fit of madness. Polonius deduces an "ecstasy of love" is to blame. Meanwhile, Claudius enlists two of Hamlet's school-friends, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, to discover the cause of Hamlet's madness. Polonius puts his theory to Claudius and Gertrude.

Hamlet greets Rozencrantz and Guildenstern warmly, but soon discerns their duplicity. He professes a disaffection with the world, for which Rozencrantz recommends a troupe of actors, who soon arrive. Hamlet solicits a passionate performance from one of them. Alone, he reflects on the feigned passion of the actor and his own failure to act. Uncertain whether the ghost was genuine, he resolves to confirm his uncle's guilt by observing his response to the staging of a play, which he later calls The Mousetrap.

Act three

Claudius agrees to attend the play, but first he and Polonius hide themselves, to spy on Hamlet with Ophelia. Thinking he is alone, Hamlet reflects on his predicament, until Ophelia alerts him to her presence. Hamlet berates her for her immodesty and dismisses her to a nunnery, causing her great distress. The king decides to send Hamlet to England, but Polonius persuades him first to allow the Queen to try to discover the cause of Hamlet's distemper.

Hamlet directs the actors' preparations. The court assembles and the play begins; Hamlet offers a running commentary throughout. When the action shows a king poisoned, Claudius rises abruptly and leaves, from which Hamlet deduces his guilt.

Hamlet is summoned to his mother's bedchamber. On his way, he discovers Claudius praying. Poised to kill, Hamlet hesitates. He reasons that to kill Claudius in prayer would send him to heaven.

Hamlet confronts his mother in her chamber. Gertrude panics and cries out. Polonius, hiding behind a tapestry, responds, prompting Hamlet to stab wildly in that direction. Hoping it was the king, he discovers Polonius' corpse. Hamlet directs a sustained accusation at Gertrude, who admits some guilt. The ghost appears to bid him treat her gently and to spur him on to his revenge. Unable to see the apparition, Gertrude takes Hamlet's behaviour for a sign of madness. Hamlet drags the corpse away.

Act four

Claudius sends Hamlet to England with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, who carry a secret request for his execution. Having watched the army of Fortinbras (nephew to the Norwegian king) pass through, Hamlet reflects on his own inaction.

Ophelia wanders the court in grief-induced madness, singing incoherently. Laertes (Polonius’s son recently returned from abroad), seeking revenge for his father's murder, bursts into the royal chamber at the head of a rabble that clamours for him to be king. The sight of his sister, Ophelia, in her distracted state further incenses him. Claudius convinces Laertes that Hamlet is to blame. Learning of Hamlet's escape and return to Denmark, Claudius proposes a rigged fencing-match, using poisioned rapiers, as a surreptitious vehicle for Laertes' revenge. Gertrude interrupts to report that Ophelia has drowned.

Act five

Two clowns debate the legality of Ophelia's apparent suicide, whilst digging her grave. Hamlet arrives with Horatio and banters with a gravedigger, who unearths the skull of a jester from Hamlet's childhood, Yorick. A funeral procession approaches. On hearing that it is Ophelia's and seeing Laertes leap into her grave, Hamlet advances and the two grapple.

Back at Elsinore, Hamlet tells Horatio the story of his escape and how he arranged the deaths of Rozencrantz and Guildernstern. A courtier informs Hamlet of the King's wager on a fencing match with Laertes. Hamlet agrees to participate.

The court enters, ready for the match. Claudius orders cups of wine prepared, one of which he has poisoned. During the bout, Gertrude drinks from the poisoned cup. Laertes succeeds in piercing Hamlet with a poisoned blade, but, in the struggle, is wounded by it himself. Gertrude dies. With his dying breath Laertes reveals the king’s plot. Hamlet kills Claudius and, before succumbing to the poison, names Fortinbras as heir. As Fortinbras arrives, Horatio promises to recount the tale. Fortinbras orders Hamlet’s body borne off in honour.

Sandbox

Not sure if this will work...

Anyway, what I'm trying to do is to slap a sandbox version of an old synopsis from this article onto the talk page, in a pink box, so that I and others can mess around with it until we're satisfied that it can go onto the article itself. I've used an old one (approx April this year) so that it's free from any potential "copyright" taint (see discussions above). AndyJones 12:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Although the article's version has problems, one feature that I think is worth trying to incorporate is the reference to scenes that have become critical shorthand proper names, as it were; the Nunnery scene, the closet scene, the gravedigger's scene. No commentary, just a labeling on the basis of the assumptions critics make that you'd know which scene that was, and only for the widely-used ones. I do cringe when I read that Polonius advises to thine own self be true, as this is clearly peripheral, but the placement of the major soliloquies is structural and significant. Again, no commentary, just a note that this one comes here, or some such. DionysosProteus 13:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Having tinkered with the first couple of scenes, maybe the soliloquies might be better handled by mentioning the dramatic situation and function (i.e.:"Alone, Hamlet vents his frustration" or whatever) and wiki-linking the 'alone' or synonym to a separate article that charts the progress of the soliloquies in the play? DionysosProteus 15:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we're both editing at the same time! :) I will break the synopsis up with sub-headings, which I think facilitates that. I don't propose to keep them in the final draft. DionysosProteus 17:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Act four is pretty slim. Should we outline a bit more there? Right now we're only sitting at about 650 words. Wrad 17:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea. The editing is removing superflous words from the existing copy, so I don't think there's a danger of getting too long. We can always trim afterwards. I'm trying to stick to the plot, rather than the story, too. DionysosProteus 17:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The word-count is rising steadily... 886 at present. I'd like to hash out the rest of the plot first then look at cutting. Two things stuck me thinking while away; firstly, it's all very hero's journey at the moment; and secondly, the women seem to have been marginalized. These aren't really concerns, so much a niggles at the back of my head. The count is rising, but I was thinking about the image of the parent-child relation in Laertes and especially Ophelia in 1.3, since the latter sense of overbearing paranoid control (heavily interpreted) is part of the motivational structure for her madness later. DionysosProteus 18:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Just remember that one reason we can afford to keep it simple is that the article will have a much larger analysis section in the recent future which can cover specifics. Wrad 19:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see. It's not that significant to the core plot. DionysosProteus 22:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Old Hamlet / King Hamlet

I think we can probably get away without reinforcing his title or seniority in 1.4 paragraph. Not so sure about the first para, though? What do you think? DionysosProteus 15:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed the first paragraph. Good point. Wrad 17:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Okaydoke. Apologies for the delete. DionysosProteus 18:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. There is actually a bot that archives things automatically after several days. Wrad 18:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Claudius feigns ignorance

Does he really? Or is this left open to interpretation? Wrad 17:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean that it should be unclear to the audience at that point whether he's truthful or not? I was trying to build up the resonance of the word feign, as in all the faking, showing, performing images. This is what he says (New Cambridge):
[...] What it should be,
More than his father's death, that thus hath put him
So much from th'understanding of himself,
I cannot dream of. (2.2.7-9)

Taking a break for a little while, having got a little through three. Was about to look at the long Hamlet to Horatio speech.

DionysosProteus 18:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit so far

"Anyone can be creative,
it's rewriting other people
that's a challenge."
Bertolt Brecht

I've had a good bash at this, as has User:Wrad. I got as far as the end of act three. As time went on, though, I felt myself becoming more verbose. I've gone through the first three again, trying to be as harsh as I could bring myself to be. I've put elements that strike me as potentially expendable or offering opportunity for compression in square brackets. I'm sure there's more, too. I also added some comments on my reasoning behind those, in html brackets (invisible til edited). Sorry if that gets in anyone's way. The word count was 1,000, which is what initiated this last approach. What I found, though, was that even when expanding the outline to take cognizance of more plot elements (and being stricter about excluding everything except for present-tense events), cleaning up the copy led to an overall reduction in words. At least, it started out like that... Can I make a plea for the importance of all the meta-theatrical and meta-dramatic elements, which from a hero's journey POV can sometimes seem extraneous? The Player's Hecuba speech, the Speak the Speech, and the Clowns, I'm thinking of, especially. I know there's a tendency to treat the plays in an over-literary way, not attending to their status as theatre, so I wanted to flag that up early on. I also ditched that awful pre-Raphelite engraving; my reasoning was that it doesn't illustrate a scene (unless it's meant to be the nunnery, in which case it's a very idiosyncratic rendering); my impulse simply said 'yuk!' DionysosProteus 01:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

So in a nutshell, you're warning against skipping over the "boring" parts with lots of soliloquoy and little action? Wrad 02:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I should have a Shakespearean expletive to hand for such moments. DionysosProteus 02:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Need a shorter synopsis? How about:
Read the play, and you shall hear
Of carnal, bloody, and unnatural acts,
Of accidental judgements, casual slaughters,
Of deaths put on by cunning and forced cause,
And, in this upshot, purposes mistook
Fall’n on the inventors’ heads
=P Brandon Christopher 18:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It's pithy, I'll give it that. The moibus-like self-referentiality, though, is dizzying.

Just finished an edit of the synopsis as a whole. It is, I think, much improved. However, as it stands, the word count is 1,050. The one on the article at present is 1,020. I think there's room for a snip or two, some of which I've outlined. Act three looks heavy, but then it is the keystone of the arc.

Having snipped away a fair amount, the word count is now at

905 words

DionysosProteus 21:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've wiki-linked the soliloquy bits to the relevant articles - To be and What a piece of work; are there any others floating around out there? I'm going to create a Speak the Speech one, at least. DionysosProteus 22:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just standerdized the entire article, according to the ouline on the project page. I have yet to add a list summary at Shakespeare on Screen, but does anyone see the need for a Hamlet on Screen?

I put what was under Analysis and critism under the subheading Themes and motifs. Obviously not all of it is themes and motifs, rather critical history, which was its former heading, but I was simply trying to follow the outline as closely as possible.

To the Adaptations and cultural refrences section, we still need literary versions and cultural refrences. In Analysis and critism we need a structure section, language section, other interpretations section. I'll try to find some literature on these subjects... Bardofcornish 01:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll start working on it too. This is definitely going to be a bit tougher than Romeo and Juliet was... Wrad 16:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Claudius' fear

Started looking at act four synopsis. Looking at the text closely, I'm not sure we can say "Fearing for his own safety" as the motive for sending Hamlet abroad. He is, I don't doubt, but that looks like falling further down the scale of interpretation--description than the rest.

"His liberty is full of threats to all
To you yourself, to us, to everyone." (4.1.14-15)

DionysosProteus 13:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Domestic drama

Dear Andy,

Taken a look at the amendments you've made; they look good, though I don't think act one scene 2 is quite right.

The 'ceremony' and 'decree' were there doing double duty: firstly, to convey what we'd call the montage dramaturgy, with the collision between the scenes of dark, private, spooky into public, formal and bright (this contrast structures the opening of Macbeth too and a few others); secondly, the decree takes up the first half of Claudius' opening proclamation. Perhaps there is a better way to describe the precise sentiment, but the gestus is of a public audience with the monarch, a new status quo and Hamlet disrupting the formal symmetry (I can't remember which off the top of my head but either Gurr or Weimann talk about how that would have been visually supported through symmetrical-formal and dissonant blocking, like the Titus Andronicus drawing). Rather than only conveying the 'content', I think that a synopsis should indicate, or at least give a sense of through its construction (rather than explicitly state per se), the way that content is arranged formally; the plot rather than merely the story. Claudius' verbal mode sets the tone of the scene and presupposes a particular diagrammatic arrangement in space for the principals and a contrast in the main conflict's figure's performance modes (C is fourth wall formal public address, H is punning, in intimate contact with audience and on the borderline). It might also be desirable to flag up the beginning of the Fortinbras plot-line in his declaration.

The loss of Claudius' verbal mode has a knock-on effect of blurring the Claudius and Gertrude actions later in the scene. Claudius remains formal and rhetorical, reasoning with Hamlet in a very cool, disengaged and verbose manner; Gertrude is more intimate though she hardly speaks at all (9 lines against 41 from C directed to H). The sharp contrast in verbal modes between Claudius and Hamlet here initiates one of the structuring principles of the play. Without the sense of courtly formality, it all starts to sound like a bourgeois domestic drama (which is fine if you're reading as Freud, but not for anyone else). Most of Claudius' motivations that we hear about explicitly later in the play tend to focus on Hamlet's political threat.

Not sure that we need to specify that the Queen was his brother's wife having just specified that the throne was his brothers.

For Hamlet's soliloquy "too too solid/sullied flesh": I incorporated some previous text about this into its current formulation, but a little reluctantly (vents his frustration at C's usurpation); close scrutiny of the text, however, reveals that at this point in the play, there's really only one object of his frustration and that's mama. He mentions papa, but only to say how good he was compared to the present one, not to reflect on his loss. In light of this, I think that we should trim this down to "vents his frustration at his mother's hasty remarriage" or something along those lines. The rest is implied, no doubt, but not explicit.

The It for the Ghost in 1.4 was clumsy, I agree, but was there for a purpose, so it may be worth unpacking that. By the end of Act Two Hamlet is still not sure whether he can trust the evidence of the ghost. He interrogates Horatio and sentries for some time in 1.2 (like a good Renaissance skeptic) about the ghost's precise appearance. The motivational logic for Hamlet's not acting immediately relies on this doubt (am I being tricked or being a coward?). That this apparition may not be dear old papa motivates much of his doubt, and the him / it gap tried to mark that in some way. My sense, too, is that it is grammatically correct to use It for a ghost, but that strays into murky theological territory. But that's all just by way of an explanation; I think the trim's fine.

DionysosProteus 12:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


Aha, you've begun editing while I was typing this. Try to incorporate Horatio's skepticism in the initial situation, as that is the core of the dramatic conflict for the opening section, which is resolved by the surprise appearance of the ghost. DionysosProteus 12:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Claudius feigning ignorance is there in the text, and links together the setup (Hamlet decides to feign madness) and payoff (the court tries to work out what's causing Hamlet's madness). Otherwise, the decision to get R&G to inform and to spy themselves appears unmotivated. DionysosProteus 12:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, back to work. Haven't read this yet but will do so when I'm next here. This is my last edit for a few hours so feel free to do your own stuff again: you won't be edit-conflicting with me. AndyJones 13:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No probs. I'll take a look later. DionysosProteus 13:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, here's a few of my thoughts (not complete):
  • Don't disagree with you on the ceremony point, feel free to add that back, as you think.
  • Agree that we've skipped the opening of the Fortinbras subplot & it would be good to get that in, briefly.
  • I think we should deal with the differing verbal modes of characters in a sub-section of analysis: keeping the synopisis brief and kind-of pacey.
  • I think Hamlet's scepticism about the ghost should be stated explicity, rather than describing the ghost in a circumlocutory way whenever he appears.
  • I think a subsection of analysis on the solioquies would be more practical than trying (sometimes with difficulty) to link them into the plot section.AndyJones 18:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
(Probably won't get back onto wikipedia this evening. Will return to the page tomorrow, I hope. AndyJones 19:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC))
  • Righto, I've finished my go at the synopsis. Apart from my comments above, and my edit summaries, I don't think I've any more to add, so I'd encourage others to go over what I've done and to repair whatever you think. AndyJones 20:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Elected to the throne?

Just a quick question... the Character list describes Claudius as "elected" to the throne. What's the basis for that? Thanks, DionysosProteus 15:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Hamlet/Archive2 Paul B 15:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Aha, many thanks. Despite the comment there re:web forums, I think it might be appropriate to have an explanatory footnote in the article about the succession. DionysosProteus 15:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

As to the reference in the text, it's in Hamlet's complaint that Claudius "Popp'd in between the election and my hopes" at V ii 65. AndyJones 15:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, all that is quite interesting. I definitely think a note here or an explanation in one of the other Hamlet articles. DionysosProteus 19:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Not so much a trim...

I know we need to keep it punchy, but I have added a little. Some of it is style, I confess. I think it's desirable to narrate the dramatic logic underlying the events, which is most visible in sentence structures "this expectation but that happened" or "this cause so that effect" and the like, mainly because its this logic that makes it drama, rather than any other form of fiction. As a synopsis, too, using that logic feels like a better read - a narrative rather than a list of events. That's why I've reverted to a version of the show/tell dynamic - we settle down to hear the tale, when--surprise--ghost appears.

I couldn't avoid describing the ghost as It in the opening scene; sorry :). If it's any use, Marcellus does say "Question it Horatio" (1.1.45). It/he gets a more human tone in the description of 1.5; the point about H's skepticism is covered adequately in his motivations for the Mousetrap, I think.

I've tried to kill two birds with one stone in the second scene of act one. I take the point about the difference between analysis and description, but my points about this scene turn on how it feels in performance, not any critical evaluation, and for an inexperienced reader that feeling can be difficult to detect when studying the play-text in isolation. Very rarely, of course, a production goes against this dynamic (Peter Brook's shamefully piss-poor production at the Young Vic did something like this); it's probably the memory of that that is making the previous edit feel too soapy to me. The second issue is again, perhaps, one of style, but I really dislike back-story in the description of a play. I know the parenthetical structure of the previous edit was long-winded, but it did at least frame the past in terms of present action. So I've attempted to combine the two by rendering the narration of the succession in terms of Claudius' formal opening proclamation (which is how the audience get most of the back-story). The formality of the scene is rendered, I hope, by the use of "proclaims" and "official mourning". It's a little more accurate than "decrees", too. I know Hamlet's promise is a little verbose, but it's more accurate, since he doesn't actually agree to anything. This edit for this scene is only six words longer than the previous one.

In act two, I've removed Gertrude, as she doesn't enlist R&G to do this, she just says, please stay at court and go see H now. I've also returned the title of the play to The Mousetrap, with the qualification of it being H's title. The reason I put this in in the first place wasn't because the play is important--because it clearly isn't--but because this title is - that scene is referred to in critical shorthand as 'the mousetrap scene'. I think it's important that someone can find where these famous scenes are in the play by referring to wikipedia's synopsis.

That's the reason why I've returned Hamlet's To Be or Not To Be to the description. It's perhaps the most famous scene in the play, so it really can't not be in there. The action is the plot, not merely the external events. It'd be like having a sports highlights segment that fails to show the crucial goal. I also clipped the description of Hamlet's treatment of Ophelia, as it seemed too interpretative; this is what he does, whether it's cruel or not is up to the actor & director and then audience to decide.

The rest is minor clipping and clarifying, I think. I changed 'arras' to 'tapestry' as its a more familiar word. The scene where "Claudius convinces Laertes that Hamlet is to blame" actually isn't described very well, as it opens with Laertes saying, yes, I know Hamlet did it; why didn't you take stronger measures? On reflection, though, this is not such a bad inaccuracy. Describing Ophelia's suicide as a suicidal action was designed to tie it in with the play's questioning of the nature of action ("to act, to do, to perform," as the gravedigger says), and whether her inaction (like Hamlet's hesitant inaction) is an action. This can be covered in analysis, though.

I miss the king's concluding Hamlet's not mad but malcontent, since it links the play into a wider generic structure, but that can be covered in analysis too.

There are two bits that I'm not sure about: the most important is the king's soliloquy before praying, which is a crucial scene, as it's the first real non-supernatural evidence we get that he really is guilty. He's confessing to us, and that revelation of information isn't captured by the synopsis yet. The second is less significant--the penultimate scene. After a play-full of his hesitant nail-biting, for the first time Hamlet is in his groove... it's from this position he goes to confront his destiny; his outlining of his 'case' against Claudius is kind of important in that regard; its his just cause for action (the pirates, btw, I don't think are very important). Oh yes, and one other thing... it kind of feels a little odd that the only scene in the play not to be narrated is 1.3. I know it's not terribly important, and is probably only there as a filler to cover the gap between Hamlet being told about ghost and then going to see it. But maybe we could stretch to a short sentence?

Anyhow, that's that. Not so much a trim as a slight restyle. The word count's not risen by much either - 18 extra words by my count.

By the way, is there any reason there are two Hamlet templates floating around out there--one for characters and another for crit and films etc.? Might be consider merging them?

DionysosProteus 19:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I created both templates. That's just how it worked out, I guess, but we could merge them easily. Wrad 19:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hamlet template

I've had a little play with the Hamlet template. This is what I've come up with:

{{Hamlet}}

The old one is preserved here:

{{Hamlet old}}

Let me know what you think and if any changes are desirable.

DionysosProteus 01:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Ooooo. I like it. Wrad 02:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I like it a lot. Is excellent. AndyJones 16:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Georgeous. One thought - how will you determine which adaptations to include (is HamletMachine truly notable?) Also - should the first Hamlet On Screen be a black heading as well, or should Adaptations be up one line? Anyhow - great work. Smatprt 01:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
There's no reason not to include all adaptations, I think. I know you can't tell from the crappy article on here at the moment, but Hamletmachine is arguably the most significant play written after Waiting for Godot; it's the postmodern drama (that's me saying yes, it's notable :) ). The Hamlet on Screen is blue because it's a link; it could be emphasized in two ways - either move it up to join 'critical approaches', where it'd be more prominent, or else it could be rendered in a big typeface. The row-header is where it is because the template's built out of a table, so like "Characters" it's centered in its box; it's perfectly possible to align it with the top of its box, though, if that's preferable. DionysosProteus 02:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
That was weird... it changed as I wrote about it. Wrad has absorbed the link into the Adaptations title. This is good, but I wonder whether it's too easy to miss the link? Maybe place it in the Sources/Criticism as well? Or maybe it doesn't fit in that category well enough? Not sure. Anyhow, I'm kind of moving on to the Stanislavski pages for a little bit, but I'll come back to Hamlet soon. Term starts next week, so I need to prioritize a little, and I've been juggling too many topics. I seem to remember a mention or two about looking for places to research on H; I've probably mentioned it before, but there're two chapters on the play's theorizing of the nature of action in Rayner's To Act To Do To Perform, which I've been enjoying lately, and also the theatrical-dramatic relations and early modern acting stuff is very good, specifically related to Hamlet, in Robert Weimann's two books. If you haven't come across either of these writers, they're recommended. DionysosProteus 02:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I linked it with the Adaptations group title. Wrad 02:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I predict that as this "Series" expands, we will have an article for each of the group titles. Criticism of Hamlet could conceivably have sub-articles in the future, meriting its own group. Soliloquies in Hamlet could be an article, as could Characters in Hamlet and Sources of Hamlet. There is just so much literature on this play that expansion extends way beyond what we're used to. Wrad 02:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Prefer Shakespeare on screen as an item in adaptations not in the title adaptations, FWIW. As it stands now, it could mislead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyJones (talk • contribs) 17:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree somewhat. I'm tranferring this discussion to the template's talk page, however. See my comment there. Wrad 18:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Conversation continues here. AndyJones 09:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Synopsis

Are we ready to put the sandbox synopsis onto the page? AndyJones 17:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll assume the answer's "yes", and I'll go ahead, if there are no more comments in this section in a day. AndyJones 20:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Top image

I really don't like the new one. I liked the grave digger picture. Anyone feel the same way? Wrad 04:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

How about Sarah? (commons Hamlet) DionysosProteus 05:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Not really my taste. I like Henry F. or the gravedigger painting. Wrad 05:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I hate to add to the contention, but I like the Edwin Booth one. AndyJones 09:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I've uploaded my favourite Hamlet image so far, which is John Barrymore. Take a look at that one. DionysosProteus 16:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I guess the thing I don't like about these is that you can't really tell that it the picture is of Hamlet. It just looks like a guy sitting in a chair. I'd like a more telling scene. Wrad 16:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I see. I moved the top picture so as to be able to use the gravedigger in the synopsis, where, I felt, a visual closeness to the events seemed more important. Perhaps, though, the seated Hamlets are a little too far in the other direction. I have to say that I really don't like the Fuseli that points to the left (this one), mainly because the composition points in the wrong direction (at least in terms of principles of stage composition, founded on the habit of reading from left to right that creates 'irresistability' on that flow), but also because he's practically naked. The other Fuseli is good, I think, but again, works well for the synopsis. How about Mr Kemble? He's a major figure in the tradition and is holding a skull, producing a kind of iconography without falling into the cliché of Tree's portrait? DionysosProteus 21:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
(After edit conflict) Of those two, I think I prefer the Tree to the Kemble. I've nothing against the cliche: it's a man dressed in black contemplating a skull. It screams "Hamlet" to me. AndyJones 22:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Kemble and Fuseli ghost are moves in the right direction. However, we are currently going against guidelines by having so many images in the synopsis, so we should be able to afford more from that section. Having two images opposite each other on both sides of lines of text is generally frowned upon in wikipedia. It can cause problems for people with small screens, among other things... Wrad 21:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Agree that we've got too many images at the moment. Pruning needed. AndyJones 22:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
When pruning, please try to attend to the usefulness of the scene labels I've mentioned - I'm thinking of the closet scene in particular (since it's not obvious to layman which this is, i think), but also nunnery, maybe mousetrap, maybe gravedigger. The ghost one doesn't serve this function, though if going to use that as top image, maybe we should try to seek out a higher resolution version? I denigrated the Tree because, I don't know, there's something strangely Pythonesque to my eyes about it; it's not great res. either (came from a very small, blurring reproduction in my book. DionysosProteus 22:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
How about this sequence? Ghost-right, mousetrap-left, closet-right, gravedigger-left. Although we may have to have three images instead of four, these seem clear candidates to stay. Wrad 22:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Another thing I don't like about actor-images in general is that they place too much emphasis on that one actor or performance. I think images of that nature should stay in the performances section, where they won't discriminate. Paintings, however, strictly portray the character, without favoring any one performance. Plus, they are in color, which is more attractive. I would just say, does Booth really represent Hamlet? I don't think so. But the grave digger picture did, with the skull, and with multiple characters present. A ghost image would, as well. I just don't want to favor any single character or actor. And I would prefer a color photo. Not everyone cares enough about Hamlet to go beyond the first picture, if it doesn't strike them as interesting, and Booth, frankly, looks pretty bored. Wrad 23:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... that would be fine if we were talking about a Dicken's novel, for example, in relation to film versions. But Hamlet is a play - the relationship with particular actors is an inherent part of the medium. Without the tradition of great actor performances, we wouldn't be discussing it in the first place. The paintings are further from the 'source' than representations of production, in this sense, as, with the exception of cinematic adaptations, no scene has ever looked like those paintings. The play was written for realisation through actor performance and costume, rather than location and context; the body of the performer rather than background. I agree that the top image has a greater functional burden than the rest of them, and that consideration of this should determine the selection. In defense of Booth, the play is about inaction (at least in one branch of its reading); he's on the edge of his seat, and appears tense and caught up in thought, rather than listless. That pose is pretty iconic too - see Gielgud's photo. Hamlet isn't a character in a story - he's a virtual configuration actualized in a series of embodiments. But, having descended even lower than usual into pretentiousness, I'll stop there. DionysosProteus 00:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm interested in the text and the theater both. Many Shakespeare plays have one iconic moment that everyone connects to the play. For example, for Romeo and Juliet, it's the balcony scene. In Macbeth, it's the bloody hands scene, in Hamlet, it's the gravedigger scene, hands down. Whenever you see a guy in funky old clothes holding a skull you immediately think "Hamlet!" Everybody does. The picture needs to reflect that. Wrad 01:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to move the Booth image to the new Language section. It illustrates the "trappings and suits of woe" moment which is important in the establishment of Hamlet's rhetorical skill. Wrad 21:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I've got a problem with another image: Image:Hamlet quarto 3rd.jpg doesn't appear on my computer, ever. It's fine if I follow the link to it but the thumbnail is just a white rectangle. Is anyone else getting that? All the other images work fine. AndyJones 18:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
No problems on my end. Wrad 18:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That image thing is a problem with the servers. Clearing its cache fixes (temporarily) DionysosProteus 14:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Progress

Our biggest problem with the GA drive on this article is that it has sooooooo many sub-pages: including several new ones we have created recently in the process of cleaning up and splitting out this main page. How do we feel about focusing for a while on the main Hamlet page, and getting it up to GA? (It's clearly got FA potential, but let's take one step at a time.)

Here are some of the items which I think ought to be on our to-do list. Feel free to add or amend this. Items 1-3 are on my personal to-do list and I'll start working on them. Beyond that it's things I hope someone else will take on.

  1. Improve "performances", with some new sources.
  2. Reorganise "performances" so as to lead into adaptations and films.
  3. Improve "on screen" with material from Hamlet on screen.
  4. Improve and expand "analysis and criticism". Presumably the sub-pages have lots of material we can draw on, although I'm not sure how well-sourced it all is. I think this is our biggest task, although I have to say I do like the material that's already there.
  5. Hamletmachine needs a mention under "Adaptations". —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyJones (talk • contribs) 07:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. Do something with "Influence", even if it's only to remove it and slap the link elsewhere (e.g. the lede).
  7. At that point, do a check to see whether the page is too long or too short, against the FA criteria. (I don't know how that's done, does anyone?) I'm not suggesting that for FA purposes, but because we need to know whether we ought to be tightening or expanding.
  8. Tidying, very thorough proofread. (Get RedRabbit on board at this point, if not before, hopefully!)
  9. Get a thorough peer review. (Wrad, you've much more experience at GA than the rest of us: do you find it helps to do a peer review first, or does the GA/holdon procedure give you an adequate peer review?) Either way, Wrad I think you may be well-placed to ask Awadewit and Qp10qp if they will give a review. I think we'd strongly benefit from their high standards and attention to detail.
  10. Deal thoroughly with the peer review. (I think with hindsight this was one of our mistakes on the William Shakespeare FA-drive, since we found ourselves facing objections at FAC which had been raised at peer-review.)
  11. GA application. (Should fly through if we've done eveything above, well.) AndyJones 10:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I just got a very nice book. I'm going to start at date and text and work my way down. I'm also formulating a way to bring more information in from subpages. We'll see how this works. On GA, I've gotten to a point where I can tell if it's ready or not without a peer review, so we shouldn't need one until after unless something comes up. Just cite everything well, don't get into any authorship arguments :) , and after it passes we should be ready for a solid peer review and FAC. (Which reminds me, I need to put page numbers on a few citations...) Wrad 15:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll be starting at the bottom and working up, so we shouldn't edit-conflict for a while. Glad to learn you don't think a peer-review is needed pre-GA - it'll make our process a bit more straightforward. AndyJones 17:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Good to learn you're thinking in terms of FA, too. AndyJones 18:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree there's a problem with page numbers: "Thompson & Taylor 2006" & (especially) "ibid" are particularly unspecific. AndyJones 21:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
So I've noticed. This reminds me of the ref situation for the William Shakespeare article. I think I'm going to remove these vague references and put them on the talk page (If I don't find it in the sources I have. Wrad 21:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Those books are on sale here in the UK. They were "display case" material not so long ago when they were brand new. I'm kinda tempted to buy them on Amazon because they'll be great resources - probably the best available - for this page. Not rushing into that, though. If I do buy them I might post a message here so that other users will know I have them available. If, perchance, they're at anyone's university library, perhaps they could mention that fact, here??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyJones (talk • contribs) 21:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I was going to start with date and text, but my book is unable to cite any information not already cited, and then it gets too specific to give anything else, so I'm moving on until later. Wrad 00:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

A thought on the performance history and adaptations sections--Origanilly, both of the adaptation sections were in the performance history section untill I weeded it all out, with films being toward the end, so I think that the performance history does lead rather tidly into the next section. Thoughts?

Oh, and a complete bibliography of Hamlet adapations can be found at http://www.shaksper.net/archives/files/spinoff.biblio.html Bardofcornish 21:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the organization of Romeo and Juliet on these subjects. The guidelines on the project page aren't really fleshed out yet. Things usually work out different in practice than in theory. That's what we learned as we wrote R&J. Wrad 23:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've done items 1-3, above, and I think I've done as much as I'm going to do on this page. I've no enthusiasm for working on the analysis and criticism sections, and it seems to me that's the only part that still needs expanding. Obviously, I'll watch the page and improve it in any ways I actually think of. Also, I'll be here when the page is complete, to help with the tidying and copyediting. AndyJones 19:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, actually analysis/criticism has expanded a lot since I last looked at it. Kudos to Wrad, mainly, by the look of it. Where do we think this article stands, now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyJones (talk • contribs) 19:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to add a contexts section, a few more themes, and some interpretations (we've got to have a psychoanalytic section). Also, an Influences section somewhat similar to the one in Romeo and Juliet. After that, all we really need is for someone to cite the Date and texts section and I think we have the breadth parameter covered for GA. After that, a simple reevaluation and copyedit would be sufficient before GA nomination. Wrad 23:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and we need a better intro now, too. Wrad 23:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the analysis and criticism is getting a bit to long, but I don't have any experience with GA, so I could be wrong.

I've found a book refrenced online, that has what seems to be a very useful article about psychoanalytic critism of Hamlet. I'll have it out of the library by tomorrow night (24 hours).Bardofcornish 01:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Right now the article is about 10,000 Kb shorter than Romeo and Juliet, which made GA, although length is a legitimate concern. I'd say don't worry about it until we look things over near the end of the process. Thanks for the info on feminism, by the way. Psycholanalytic stuff would be wonderful. It plays a big part in analysis of the play. Wrad 01:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I see that editing over the weekend was pretty quiet on this article. Am I right to infer that none of us are in the process of expanding it? If yes, are we ready to proceed to points 7 and 8 of the progess checklist above? It would be good if as many people as possible could reply to this posting: if I get three responses from project members of the "not expanding" variety then I'll start to push ahead. AndyJones 17:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm planning to expand analysis and criticism, I was just busy over the weekend... Wrad 17:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
OK. One person who still wants to expand is enough reason for me to hold fire. AndyJones 17:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to get it done soon, in the meantime, there's quite a few citation tags that need fixing... Wrad 18:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

How do we feel about splicing up the "Date and text" section into sections? I know it's not mentioned in the outline on the project page, but I think it might make it a bit easier to digest? Bardofcornish 00:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with you, if we are keeping the text as it is. Reading it, though, I think there's quite a bit of redundancy. Maybe it could become easier to digest if it was tightened up? I'm afraid I cannot look at this until next week, however (unless I do some bits and pieces today) as I'm away at a conference and I'm unlikely to get onto the internet. AndyJones 07:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I've changed my mind slightly, on re-reading. It's only the first couple of paragraphs that really need tightening (and sourcing!). I will have a look again when I get back. AndyJones 07:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Excellent work by Ugajin. Looking better, already. AndyJones 12:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Revision to Synopsis

Hello all.

Just passing through briefly, when I noticed the changes to the synopsis.

They're described in the history as "correcting errors", which is very strange, as I can't see any errors in the corrections (sentinel is a far more obscure synonym for sentry, for example).

All of the changes seemed to me to have made the description less precise, sometimes grammatically incorrect, unnecessarily elaborate (antic disposition, murder most foul and unnatural, etc.), and to have introduced an interpretive bias that the development process of the synopsis worked hard to exclude - Ophelia only 'appears' mad?; the sexually-suggestive nature of one or two lines of her songs is hardly the most significant part of her behaviour in that scene; that thing about the Ghost's identity again. The synopsis has been through a fairly rigorous process of collective editing and evaluation; we have looked at it pretty much sentence by sentence, and worked hard to make it concise, precise, factual and objective - the present form is the result. This doesn't mean that there are no further improvements possible, but they need to be discussed and approved here first.

By the way, sorry for my non-participation lately - real life troubling me again. Will be returning soon. BTW, something's gone awry with the R&J template?

DionysosProteus 14:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see you back! I kind of thought the same thing about the synopsis changes, but I'm open to suggestions as to how to improve it. Also, what exactly is wrong with the R&J template? I put it on the mainspace, since I figured that even if it wasn't complete, it was good enough to be featured there. I hope nothing's gone wrong. Wrad 15:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and Horatio really does contemplate suicide in the last scene. We might want to consider putting that back in. Wrad 15:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. The R&J has merged its film versions and film adaptations, so at least on my pc they spill out over into the picture.

Horatio's line - yes, hmmm... not so sure about that. He says he's more a roman than a dane and sees the poison left, but not sure that's the same thing. Anyhow seems a minor element in the action, there to motivate giving it to Hamlet. DionysosProteus 16:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Every scholar I've ever read says it's a suicide, but it probably is a minor element. I was just surprised how you reacted to the statement, since it's such a mainstream idea. Wrad 17:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, my bad - I glanced too quickly and concluded that he was offering the poison rather than proposing to drink it. still not so sure, though, mainly because its hard to motivate. the dramatic function's clear, but in terms of character psychology, I struggle a bit. DionysosProteus 02:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
No problem. We'll just leave it out. Wrad 02:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Lead

The lead needed to be expanded to summarize the article as a whole before GA, so I tried my hand at it. I don't know much about the performances, though, so someone else will have to do that paragraph. I also expect hammering this out will involve a lot of discussion. Wrad 17:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added a bit about performance history. I don't know whether we should expand it, or whether keeping it in one nice, tidy little package is desirable. Thoughts? Bardofcornish 21:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Image rearranging

I reorganized the images so that the synopsis wouldn't be so cluttered. Also, the manual of style indicates that editors should not apply specific sizes to images without a compelling reason, so I removed most of those parameters. We could still use more images, though, to illustrate each major section better. Wrad 17:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Analysis section

Whew! I've got about everything done except the themes section. That was the hardest part of R&J, and it will probably be here as well. I've just got to tie everything together in the sections we have, and add one more, and then we've got it done. Wrad 04:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


Burbage info

The article states, several times, that - "Shakespeare wrote the role of Hamlet for Richard Burbage," - we know this for certain? What contemporary document backs this up? Did Burbage play the part in the so-called Ur-Hamlet as well? All of this seems like a real stretch.Smatprt 02:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw that too, and wondered if it should be worded different. Wrad 03:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
With respect, I don't see this as a stretch. The sentence is sourced to Gary Taylor. Burbage was the lead tragedian of the Chamberlain's Men, and far from being a "stretch" to say that the role was written for him it's pretty clear that it would have been. Shakespeare wrote for his company. If the wording of this page starts to be driven by authorship doubters who will nit-pick the detail until "possibly" and "probably" have to be slapped on every sentence that doesn't suit the (frankly bizarre) idea that the play was written by someone other than the resident playwright of the Chamberlain's Men then I want no part of it. AndyJones 09:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
No disrespect intended to Mr. Taylor or to Andy, but my issue isn't authorship driven. It's an honest question. So again I ask, where is the back-up for this assertion? I readily admit that Burgage probably played the role - it makes common sense. But common sense is not the reqirement for an encyclopedia. Does Taylor reference this, or did he just assume this like most SH biographers? Since Shakespeare was listed first in the actors, who is to say that he didn't play the role? Not likely, but just as "provable" as Burbage. Wrad saw the same problem and he isn't an authorship advocate, so let's not throw insults around or, like a child, threaten to take your ball and go home, just because I happen to make a valid point.Smatprt 13:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
No personal offence to you intended. However we don't deal in truth: we deal in verifiability. and we don't debate the issue on the talk page, using primary sources, come to our own conclusion, then try to source that as best we can. What we do do is look to the reliable sources, and whatever they say we put it in the article. In this case, the most reliable source we have is Gary Taylor of the University of Alabama, who has said in an essay on Shakespeare on Renaissance Stages, in a book published by the Cambridge University Press that the part of Hamlet was written for Burbage. So that is what the article must say. That is, unless we find an equally qualified, also mainstream, source which states that there is a controversy on the issue, in which we can consider whether the article should say that, also. AndyJones 17:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Gee - I thought the article included whatever the editors choose to include. I wasn't aware that the article "must say" something. However, the article "should say" where the fact came from - and if it's conjecture by Mr. Taylor, then we should say just that (unless Taylor cites an actual reference and didn't just "assume".) In this case, should we not say "Gary Taylor believes" or "according to Gary Taylor...", or "the incredibly brilliant elizabethan slueth Gary Taylor, who, unlike most Sh scholars, never made up a fact in his life, says..." or some such?Smatprt 17:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, very funny. Of course (as I realised while I was out today) I should have said in my comment above, ""possibly" or "probably" or "Gary Taylor says..."". Perhaps we should just apply that logic to the whole article: "Gary Taylor says that Hamlet is a play which Gary Taylor says is by William Shakespeare..." and so forth. Anyway, please remember that it's not my ball. If I'm sufficiently angry about this rubbish that I decide to walk away from this article then the article still endures. It still has the benefit of the research I've done so far. It will still walk it's GA review because it is a great article. It will still have FA potential. Anyway, I'm not walking away at the moment: I bought a copy of Thompson & Taylor today which should prove an excellent source for this article. My plan is to retire early to bed with my copy of it tonight, though (my wife is staying up with a complicated patchwork quilt!) but I will look in on this debate again, tomorrow or Monday. AndyJones 19:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe Andy is right here; if a reputable source says so, it's a Wikipedia 'fact'; in order to throw that fact into question, we'd need another reputable source that says that this is a doubtful claim; it's not enough for us mere editors to feel a touch of skepticism. Only under those circumstances, i.e., where the claim is verifiably contentious, should it need an inline "Gary claims..." or some such. DionysosProteus 16:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
It's obviously well sourced so I agree it certainly qualifies for inclusion in the article. But having said that, I wonder if any of your sources actually cites a reference for their information? Forgive me, but SH biographers are notorious for making assumptions and this seemed one of those cases. And if we could actually cite some contempoary reference, the article itself would be strongerSmatprt 03:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Here [[1]], the researchers at the British Library specifically say "probably". They recognize that it is not a verifiable "fact". I would hope that they would be reliable on this issue. The rest of their write-up is excellent, by the way. We ought to look to it to verfy what we have.Smatprt 05:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Tannenbaum had doubts too - "He’s fat, and scant of breath] Tannenbaum (n.d., pp. 378-9): <p. 378> “A line about which there has been much throwing about of brains is the Queen’s remark that ‘He’s fat and scant of breath’. A fat hamlet seems about as impossible as a lean Falstaff. Commentators have therefore proposed either to substitute ‘hot’ or ‘faint’ for ‘fat’, or to interpret ‘fat’ as meaning ‘not in good form’, ‘untrained’, or ‘perspiring’. Some have taken refuge in the conjecture that Shakspere was referring not to Hamlet’s physique tbut to that of Burbage, the first impersonator of the rôle. But I am not satisfied that Burbage was the first Hamlet or that Shakspere would have done violence to his creation by an unnecessary and indefensible reference to one of the physical caracteristics [sic] of the actor.Smatprt 06:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

New Progress Request

Is anyone still expanding this article? I see a message from Wrad about 5 days ago which could be interpreted as "nearly there". Is it time to switch to proofing-and-tidying mode? AndyJones 12:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say yes. I think we have the breadth parameter covered. Wrad 18:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Excellent work by whoever-it-was on the sources section. I've proofread it a couple of times without finding a single amendment I wanted to make. And that's pretty rare. AndyJones 21:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Dionysus helped copyedit my writing awhile back. Wrad 23:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

4th most popular play?

"Hamlet was the 4th most popular play during Shakespeares lifetime" - howzat? By what count? We know this how? This article seems to make some grand statements that are simply impossible to prove.Smatprt 14:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Also we have : "They suggest that Ophelia goes mad with guilt because when Hamlet kills her father he fulfills her sexual dreams to have Hamlet kill her father so they can be together." This is a bit rough... as is the whole "feminist" paragraph - a paragraph that is also a stretch in itself, but I guess all views (even the bizarre) must be represented.Smatprt 14:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

In my view, anything connected to Freud is a stretch, but yes, we can't ignore it. That line in particular is one of the two basic Feminist interpretations. I don't really think the Gertrude thing is a stretch, though, but I'm a bit of a fan of feminist criticism in many cases. Wrad 18:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

For the worse...

The sources section has gained a little since I last took a look at it. Apart from far too many commas and the like, which I'm about to purge, I can't follow the logic of the following addition:

As far as I can tell, the logic goes like this:

  • 1) Alexander says Hamlet is a reworking of UrHamlet, both of which are by WS
  • 2) Cairncross (we believe he's a prof... don't need to be reassured. Methinks he may protest too much) agrees
  • 3) But then it says Cairncross thinks UrHamlet = Hamlet
  • 4) Which the Klingons agree with, claiming there IS NO UrHamlet, but Hamlet was written in 1589 etc.

Everyone appears to be agreeing with each other in this sequence--or at least, that's how they've been linked--yet it seems clear to me that (1) and (4) are very different positions. So I'm confused. Can anyone help me unpack this a little more clearly? DionysosProteus 21:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see now. Having edited the grammar a little, it's clearer. So I see now that we have four expressions of the same view... They're all saying WS wrote it a decade earlier and kept revising. I feel a purge coming on. DionysosProteus 21:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I see no reference to Klingons in the article. Oh - wait, I believe you are being insulting. NIce. Just a reminder that deleting properly referenced material has been called a form of vandalism.Smatprt 10:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
An insult wasn't intentional. Perhaps an facetious attempt at humour would be more accurate. My apologies if you found it insulting. I think it is fair to say I was gnashing my teeth a little at the time to find a paragraph I found incomprehensible having appeared in the section I'd copy-edited very thoroughly only recently. "Klingons" was a symptom of that gnashing. DionysosProteus 00:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Notes

I tried to disentangle the notes, but found them very difficult to follow. After some research - some people's names were wrong, it turns out - I've started to simplify the notes. The idea being that using the author-date system consistently will make it easy to locate a citation, without having a) to trawl back through the notes til you find the first use and b) keep repeating info about the same book (The Cambridge Guide, for instance). Will return to it tomorrow. DionysosProteus 03:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we discuss your intentions before you do so? Maybe slap a couple of examples of how you intend to fix them here at talk? I don't want to stop you doing good work, but I found the footnotes to the parts of this article drafted by me particularly tricky, and doing-what-seemed-best-at-the-time created a problem at the FA review for "William Shakespeare", and led to someone re-doing the whole thing. AndyJones 07:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course, sorry. I've started, so you can see from the first ten notes or so. The author-date system means that in the bibliography section (or whatever its called), the entry is arranged Name, First Name. Date. Title. Then, in the footnotes, all you have to do is to cite the author's name, date and page number, according to Proteus (2007, 15). This means also that all of the articles from the Cambrdige guide don't have to have their biblio info repeated each time, so the notes will be shorter. Instead each article has a name date entry, like "This Essay" in Wells and Someone (2002, 23-45). I tried to follow some of the citations already there and it took me far too long to find, and sometimes unsuccessfully abandon the search, the relevant book. The author date system means that all the books are in one place and you know where to look for them. Just checking in before off to work, so a little rushed reply. Will be back later in the day. DionysosProteus 16:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me in principle. Don't let me stop you. AndyJones 17:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I've converted the Sources and Dates sections' notes into the author-date system. You can see what I mean about the articles in the Cambridge Guide by looking at Taylor's biblio info in the bibliography. DionysosProteus 01:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to work very well: I like it, and I think the FA reviewers will, too. (If that turns out to be that case, maybe we should roll-out your method into all future collaborations). AndyJones 08:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
You'll see I've done a tweak, putting the footnotes after the bibliography, as a subsection of "References". I think it's an improvement, but feel free to undo if you disagree. AndyJones 08:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a sourcing problem which will become a major one if we apply for FA: lots of sources without page references. I've just tried and failed to verify one of our statements. Sources need page refs. The statement that a big book says something somewhere just isn't good enough to a researcher using this page as a basic reference. AndyJones 18:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Another more minor but related question, specifically for Proteus: is your method to put page numbers as Bloggs (2002, 56-58) or as Bloggs (2002) pgs.56-58? I see both on the page. I guess I prefer the second, FWIW. AndyJones 18:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

GA focus

Right now, I think the only thing keeping us from GA is a solid copyedit and review of the Analysis section. After that, we can focus on FA if we want to. Anyway, once that's done, I'm nominating it for GA unless someone beats me to it. Wrad 18:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to work my way through a copy-edit to pick out what I can notice. I do have some material for the analysis section too, but don't hold back for that (unless it would be a problem to add it afterwards?). I'm also getting anal about the citations, so if there's more info anyone has on those, please add it (page numbers start/end for articles within collections of essays, for example, or ISBN numbers). DionysosProteus 22:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's important for FA status. Good to look ahead. I need to fish page numbers out of my Saxo source. Wrad 22:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Wow. I was just looking over my own prose in the Analysis section and it was painful. We might have a chore ahead of us. Wrad 22:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Who wrote Ur-Hamlet?

I've just removed the section reinserted into the sources section on who wrote ur-Hamlet. I'm assuming you didn't notice the paragraph above, into which I had copy-edited the info. There was much repetition, and the debate is--metaphorically and, now, literally--a footnote to an article on Hamlet; that is to say, I have kept the information that that bit contained, but within the footnote to the sentence: "This latter idea—that Shakespeare himself wrote a now-lost version of Hamlet a decade earlier than the play we know—has attracted some support, while others dismiss it as groundless speculation." The footnote then specifies that support, in chronological order.

I'm not attempting to shut down the exposition of that particular debate, but it belongs, I believe, in the Ur-Hamlet article; it is relevant to this article that there is a debate, but unnecessary to give a blow-by-blow account of it. Besides which, as it stood, it was a paragraph that, in logical terms, repeated the same information over and over again, only slightly rephrased each time.

The copy-edit railroad rolls on...

DionysosProteus 00:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so the bit's been reinstated, slightly amended, but still unsatisfactory to my eyes, so I'm moving it here as a request for a process of consensus-forming:

Ur-Hamlet debate

}

Request for consensus process

So here's my position. The problems I have with this section are the following:
1) It's too long given the relative significance of this debate to Hamlet. I'm happy for as much detail as anyone could wish for to be elaborated in the Ur-Hamlet article on this subject. I'm not attempting to oppress or censor anyone, just to have a good article that's well written and appropriate.
2) It is poorly written. Take the POV of the double-negative "nor evidence was not"; a more neutral phrasing is in the present version - that is, Kyd or Shakes are both evidence-less.
3) It's repetitive and logically redundant. It's repeating exactly the same argument in different phrasings, in the form x and y 'have accepted' (why is their process of acceptance notable?) y's case stating what's already been said in the previous sentence. This is also held by z, with another restatement. And then "the anti-S support this, believing that" with yet another restatement. Jen says 'no'.
4) My choice of placing this info in this article in the form of a concise footnote:
^ Andrew Carincross assumed that the Ur-Hamlet was written by Shakespeare in his 1936 book The Problem of Hamlet: A Solution; Peter Alexander (1964), Eric Sams (according to Wells 2002, 267) and, more recently, Harold Bloom (2001, xiii and 383; 2003, 154) have agreed. It is an opinion that is also held by anti-Stratfordians (Ogburn 1988, 631). Harold Jenkins, the well-respected editor of the Arden edition of the play, dismisses the idea as groundless (1982, 84 n4).
is not about saving space. It's about having a well-written flow of information in the article. That means that it is not a matter of indifference whether the info is in the main subsection or in a note.
5) I can't see any justification for its inclusion in the main section. The note offers the list of people who've held this opinion. This bit of copy appears to be dilating that information into a paragraph.
That's how I see it. If the consensus is that it is notable enough for inclusion, can we at least agree on a decent re-write before it goes back in? DionysosProteus 00:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I liked DioPro's version better mostly, except for the fact that it needed to be referenced better with inline citations. I thought it summarized the subject well. Detail belongs in the Ur-Hamlet article. Wrad 00:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I think this is an improvement, too. Isn't it unnecessary to describe Harold Jenkins as "well-respected"? AndyJones 08:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this is an improvement, but strongly feel that it belongs in the article (as shortend and rewritten) and not buried to the footnotes. Given the amount of space devoted to sources, it certainly does not overwelm the article in any way. In fact, the sources section is so long, I wonder why anyone would think that this bit upstages the article itself. I simply don't see it. Given the other odd theories allowed to stand (like the feminism section - a whole section!), I think it fair and proper that this (reduced) section be allowed to stay as well. Besides, if it's in the footnotes, it's in the article, just harder to find. I think the footnotes should be for references and the like, not more prose. And I agree with Andy as well - I would hope that most editors are "well-respected" or someone would not have asked them to be an editor! Thanks. Smatprt 14:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Another thought - why not give the reduced and rewritten "ur-hamlet" bit a subsection within sources, since sources is so long, and bits like "feminism" has its own subsection under themes?Smatprt
Final thoughts - having just reread the article and having looked at the notes section I wonder why we are reinventing the horse because of this one issue. The article has sections and subsections for a slew of controversial theories (feminism, madness (feigned or real?), Why does Hamlet wait so long?, etc. ONLY in this case is the material being suggested for the note section. (Oh - and I forgot, same with the burgage issue). Seriously - why the special treatment?? It really does smack of hiding any material that gives any acknowlegment of "The Issue That Can Not Be Named". Don't you see the double standard being applied here? Thanks for hearing me out. Given the other topics covered IN the article, I think the most appropriate action would be to take the rewritten and shorted version and put it into a subsection called "Ur-Hamlet" at the bottom of the sources section. The subsection could also have a link to the "main article". Would not that be a more standard (and fair) approach? Smatprt 14:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not attempting to hide anything, much less am I in a state of psychoanalytic denial (the issue that dare not speak its name); to compare the debate over who wrote Ur-Hamlet to Feminist interpretations of Hamlet is chalk and cheese. Feminism and feminist literary criticism is a major branch of contemporary literary and theatre theory; every student of those disciplines studies it. They are writing about Hamlet too, not a text that we aren't even sure exists. Ur-Hamlet has its own page. With regard to 'well-respected' Jenkins, that's a detail from whoever wrote the original copy; I, too, felt it was a little POV-y and smack of special pleading. I allowed it to stay because a list of three or four people saying yes to the idea then one saying no has a subjective implication of who's in the right (irrational though that may be), so I thought it offered something of a counter-balance. Happy to see it go, though. The other issues (madness feigned or real, etc.) have structured the major debates about the play through the centuries; the authorship of Ur-Hamlet has not. I disagree that it merits a subsection. This is, in no way, a reflection of any desire on my part to silence the expression of these ideas, but rather a recognition that it belongs in Ur-Hamlet. It makes no practical difference to the study of Hamlet (if we had the text, on the other hand, then I imagine it might have been a major strand of inquiry). This isn't double standards--the critera that I (think I) am applying is prominence in the history of analysis and criticism of the play under discussion. I've yet to see any evidence that this is anything other than marginal (hence the footnote). The main article on Ur-Hamlet has a wikilink when it is introduced as a subject already. My notes-rather-than-main preference is a recognition that a list of who agrees with an idea doesn't offer any more substance to that idea. The idea is expressed in the current version. The chronology of people who've agreed doesn't seem to me to offer anything more. Its not that I feel it 'upstages' the sources section in any way; the basic idea is there and relevant; the blow-by-blow of who 'accepted', agreed with, restated, etc. doesn't seem to me to be relevant to an understanding of Hamlet, interesting though it no doubt is. DionysosProteus 18:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

A few points needing fixes

New Historicism

Is someone able to look at the source for the sentence:

Most recently, New Historicist critics have begun looking at the play in its historical context, attempting to piece together the backdrop that created the play.

...and clarify whether it means:

  1. the historical context of the characters (Denmark in the period of the legend); or
  2. the historical context of the play (Shakespeare and his company and late-Tudor literature/politics)?

I couldn't work that out and I think a reader needs to know which is meant. AndyJones 08:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Number two would be correct. Wrad 18:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Fortinbras

I'm not sure about this, but was reluctant to change a sourced sentence:

Fortinbras attacks Poland, rather than the guilty Denmark.

I think the issues here are:

  1. If we accept the gravedigger's timeline, Fortinbras has delayed 30 years before this attack.
  2. If we accept the evidence of the first act (and Kenneth Branagh's interpretation of the last act?!?) Fortinbras' designs against Denmark are violent.
  3. His reasons for attacking Poland are completely unrelated to revenge for his father's death.
  4. He is often presented as the most successful of the revenge-seeking sons. He bides his time, and ends the play up sitting upon the throne his father died trying to attain. AndyJones 09:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I guess the author of this article interpreted Fortinbras differently. To be honest, this section on revenge and delay worries me the most. Right now I think we've got more of a list of what different people think than a summary of the most common arguments. Wrad 18:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Feminist

"Feminist theorists argue that she goes mad with guilt because, when Hamlet kills her father, he has fulfilled her sexual desire to have Hamlet kill her father so they can be together." This line needs serious attention, yes? The whole section seems questionable to me, so I am loathe to make any changes other than deleting the whole paragraph - but every (almost) theory has its place, so I imagine it will remain. So can someone who gets this, clean it up? thanks.Smatprt 14:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, not just because of the odd repetitiveness of the sentence, but also because I'm not sure we've captured the point. I think someone with access to the source needs to look at it. AndyJones 14:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Basically, feminists have argued that Ophelia goes mad because of her strong will, not because she has a weak will. She wanted Hamlet to kill her father, secretly, but when Hamlet actually does it she goes mad with guilt. This is a recent trend in feminist thought, and is easily notable enough within that mode of interpretation to merit a sentence. But, yeah, I admit it was badly written. Wrad 18:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't get this. Surely "secretly wanting someone dead" is a symptom of a weaker-will rather than a stronger one. Strong willed people are less prone to feeling threatened by others and in the less-likely event that they really do want someone dead they are more capable of realising that wish. Breaking up with guilt when an intervening cause realises a subconscious wish for you isn't "strong-willed" behaviour either. I think this has to be expressed in a way that the reader can "get". AndyJones 18:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Secretly desiring your father's murder shows a much stronger will than being a complete puppet, which is how most non-feminists portray her. She has a will of her own in the first case, in the second she doesn't. It is that will which destroys her. I think it's hard to understand because most people are so used to the weak Ophelia. Wrad 19:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Having a secret desire has nothing whatever to do with having either a strong or a weak will. We all have secret desires. They come unbidden, and are quite distinct from will power. To claim for her a secret desire for the death of her father which produces confusion and mental disorder seems like an appropriation of pop Freudian models. To suggest that it implies a strong will seems like desperate special pleading, especially when defined in relation to the non-existent argument that she is "a complete puppet". The main problem with this section is its sweeping assertions about what "feminists" in general think set in opposition to what "conventional" critics have allegedly said. Really, how many "conventional" critics have said that without "three powerful men making decisions for her, Ophelia was driven into madness". Can you find any who actually say that she goes mad for lack of people "making decisions for her"? The fact that the man she loves apparently goes mad, repeatedly insults her, then murders her father is a rather more ovious explanation for her mental breakdown! Paul B 19:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
And you may think that, but many feminist sources think otherwise. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just trying to explain their point of view, which is the whole point of the feminist section. Wrad 22:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Er no, you miss the central issue. Making sweeping statements about what "feminists" say and what "conventional" opinions is can't stand on the basis of one or two citations. They sa what one or two authors think, and what they claim that others believe. You have provided no evidence that anyone actually does believe that without "three powerful men making decisions for her, Ophelia was driven into madness". And yet it is presented as the actual opinion of unnamed "conventional" writers. That's not acceptable. Paul B 00:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I've just read an excellent essay by Elaine Showalter called "Representing Ophelia: women, madness, and the responsibilities of feminist criticism". She is a major, heavy-weight writer in the field and there's lots of great material there (though a fair amount probably belongs in the Ophelia article). I'm planning to continue with my copy-editing drive, but once that's done I'll make a start on working that stuff in. Hopefully that might make it clearer. DionysosProteus 18:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's a major article about how Ophelia has come to represent the madwoman in society. I've mentioned it briefly, but if you want to elaborate more give it a try. Wrad 19:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Act and scene divisions

"The first two quartos did not divide the play into acts and scenes, and the First Folio only divided the first two acts, leaving the rest continuous. Modern scholars still question whether the scene divisions are correct or even a part of the original intent of the author at all."

This was taken out as Andy said he'd heard something different. Yes? We need to get to the bottom of it. It's pretty important. Wrad 18:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes. There's a section on this in the book I'm reading at the moment. I'll get back to you unless someone else does so, first. AndyJones 18:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
    • this edit is what I've put back. Feel free to tidy it up. AndyJones 18:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Major editions final dating decision

Hello all. I'm working my way through the Date section, and need citations for the dates that each of the major editions settle on. I only have Edwards (New Cambridge), who goes for mid-1601. It'd be good to have Arden 2, Arden 3 and Oxford at least. Would you be kind enough to check and add to the note if you have a copy? Ta, DionysosProteus 00:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the claim that Hamlet may be dated to 1589. The Caesar references set an earliest limit of 1599. Beyond that, we are talking about a different play / different version of the play. The Shapiro citation needs a page number too, if someone has it to hand. DionysosProteus 21:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
For the same reason, 1598 is too early. Beyond 1598 we are talking about a different play. DionysosProteus 21:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
That is your POV. If Dover-Wilson says so, then how can you dispute it? Can you site a source that says Dover-Wilson is wrong? If so, add it in. But deleting things you don't agree with is just wrong. The Caesar references are by no means conclusive, especially for a play that was revised numerous times. I've added 1598, based on Dover-Wilson, however to say "scholars say" implies some sort of concensus, which is obviously not the case. Carincross, Bloom, et al, dissent and it is not for us to say whether we are talking about a different play or a different version. Edwards points out that dating Hamlet must be "tentative" - we should honor that.Smatprt 21:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
It is tentative within the boundaries that our two major pieces of evidence establish. The Dover Wilson source is not saying what you're claiming it does. It argues that S was revising the Hamlet being played by the LCMen, not the Hamlet that we know. Besides which, you are referring to an argument made 70yrs ago. Modern scholarship and the editors of all major editions recognise the 1599-1602 boundaries. We should be respecting mainstream critical consensus, not indulging in flights of fancy to support a tenuous theory about Burleigh (which is, I presume, why you're insisting on 1598; the idea looks silly if its written after that date, no?). DionysosProteus 22:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually - while investigating the Burbage question, I found these other references. Hamlet making allusions to Caesar, when both are by the same author, is hardy solid "evidence" of when the play was written. Evidence on the latest date is easy - it's the earliest date that is always, to some degree, conjecture. As the article says "it helps" - it does not say that it "defines" the boundaries. I'm glad to see you finally recognize 1599 instead of 1600, though. I will say that I am shocked at your "tenuous theory" statement about Burleigh/Polonius. From Chambers to Dover to Rowse - all the fathers of Sh scholarship recognized the Polonius/Burghley connection. And even Schoenbaum, Wilson and Kathman admit that a "reasonable case can be made". Modern scholarship has not changed this. On this point, at least, you should do your homework. And Dover-Wilson makes the point that Sh added his hand no later than 1598 - are you saying Dover-Wilson was suggesting that Sh worked on one Hamlet in 1598 and then wrote his own between 1599 and 1601? That sounds kind of silly, doesn't it? Frankly, it's a small point because it's certainly possible to lampoon a recently deceased figure just as easy as it is to lampoon an old dying one!Smatprt 23:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
They are hardly "allusions", they are references. And see note #6 with regard to Burbage. And from where does this "finally recognise" nonsense spring? I expanded the Caesar note to establish the 1599 limit. I don't have the other editions here, so couldn't cite a 1599, which is why I made a request for it. I was going on the contemporary scholarly editions--I suggest you do the same. I search in vain for any mention of Burghley in any of the books on Hamlet here; modern scholarship appears to be strangely silent about the idea from that perspective. From your own citation: "Hamlet the play goes back a long way, and was in some form or other being acted by Shakespeare's company as early as 1594. Shakespeare himself had probably handled it by 1598"; the sources section on Ur-Hamlet follows the same line; "handled it" suggests revising Ur-Hamlet, not composing the play we know.
Let me be clear: I have no line nor agenda to pursue with this article; I want a reputable encyclopedic article that reflects the current critical consensus, that is all (or, that's the only 'line'). This nonsense about "probably" Burbage is a good example--the scholarly consensus is that it was for him. See the four, count them, reputable sources, along with the internal evidence they cite. We do not base statements in wikipedia on what web sources "imply", but rather on what reputable sources explicitly state. With that in mind, "probably Burbage" is a misrepresentation of the mainstream critical community. I understand that you have a marginal and minority agenda to pursue and am quite happy, where that is appropriate to the purpose of the wikipedia project as a whole, for you to pursue that agenda, in this article and any others. But where that pursuit begins to offer a distorted perspective on what mainstream opinion is, there is a duty to the readership to correct it. As far as I can see, 1598 is such a distortion. DionysosProteus 00:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
As far as I've seen, 1599-1601 is the range most critics agree on. Proof is a difficult thing to come by in literary studies, though. We should focus on the most common theories, and focus only marginally on the less-common and less-current theories. I would be a bit more careful abut removing things you can't find a ref for, though. There was a ref already for the 1599 fact, but you removed it anyway. I'm the one who added it. Just because you don't see it in your source doesn't mean it isn't out there. I'm not really that upset, it's just best to ask before deleting in some cases. Something like "Could you double-check the ref on this?" It assumes good faith. Wrad 01:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

While having this conversation about what is "evidence" and what is conjecture, I found some interesting info and would be interested in what everyone thinks of this and how it should be acknowledged. It is an extract from the Rose Playhouse Receipts for early June 1594. According to Philip Johnson, "A restraint had closed the playhouses, but the Admiral’s Men (with whom Henslowe was involved) were permitted to share the theatre at Newington Butts, with the Chamberlain’s Men. Henslowe records all the performances by both companies and the receipts (rd).

In the name of god Amen begininge at newington my Lord Admeralle men & my Lorde chamberlenmen As ffolowethe 1594


3 of June 1594 Rd at heaster & ashweros viij s


4 of June 1594 Rd at the Jewe of malta x s


5 of June 1594 Rd at andronicous xij s


6 of June 1594 Rd at cvtlacke xj s


8 of June 1594 - ne -Rd at bellendon xvij s


9 of June 1594 Rd at hamlet viij s


10 of June 1594 Rd at heaster v s


11 of June 1594 Rd at the tamynge of A shrowe ix s 


12 of June 1594 Rd at andronicous vij s


13 of June 1594 Rd at the Jewe iiij s


Two of the plays came from the Admiral’s repertoire - The Jew of Malta by Marlowe and Cutlack. The new play Bellendon was the Admiral’s, because it was next performed at The Rose exactly a week later, when it reopened. The other four were in the Chamberlain’s Men’s repertoire: Hester and Ahasuerus (a biblical drama), Titus Andronicus (“almost certainly Shakespeare’s”, writes Rutter, at its first mention in January 1594 when Sussex’s Men premiered it at The Rose), Hamlet and The Taming of a Shrew." (Document source - Documents of the Rose Playhouse, revised edition (1999), edited by Carol Chillington Rutter, Senior Lecturer in English at Warwick University, and published by Manchester University Press in The Revels Plays Companion Library.)Smatprt 01:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Psychoanalytic critcism

I've started to expand the psychoanalysis section. I've covered Freud's comments in The Interpretation of Dreams, but there's more on Hamlet in "Psychopathic Characters on the Stage" (1905/6), so I'm going to settle down with that. I've only mentioned Lacan so far. Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of his essay on Hamlet, but only secondary sources commenting on it. If anyone else has the desire to investigate it directly (Ophelia is "O-phallus", apparently) it's "Desire and the interpretation of desire in Hamlet", in Literature and Psychoanalysis: The Question of Reading Otherwise, ed. Shoshana Felman (Baltimore, 1982). I'll flesh out what my sources offer. Feminist section after that. DionysosProteus 01:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Layout question

I notice an odd effect of the layout. In the performances section, the 4th line of the Restoration section, the EDIT bits appear to be overlaying the text. I'm assuming this has something to do with the placement of the pictures. Anyone else see that, or is it something to do with my browser? DionysosProteus 02:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I see it. It's the pictures, there're too many of 'em. Wrad 02:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have a play with that section to see if I can remove it. I vaguely remember that moving them slightly fixed a similar problem elsewhere ages ago. Apologies for the multiple edits that this will involve - it doesn't show up on Preview. DionysosProteus 14:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh! That was actually much easier than I anticipated. For future reference, it was caused by having two pictures next to each other. By moving the second down in the text to where it more or less actually begins to be displayed, the problem is avoided. DionysosProteus 14:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Hello. I have started to add infoboxes to Shakespeare's plays. I have done about 4 so far but for some reason can't get it to work on the Romeo and Juliet page. I will try again later. Also, if anybody has any information about a possible Shakespeare infobox then let me know as I don't know how to create infoboxes from scratch. Thanks.Wikiadam 16:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ Shakespeare Survey By Stanley W Wells, Cambridge University Press. 2002, pp267
  2. ^ Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human Bloom, pp. xiii, 383 and Hamlet: Poem Unlimited
  3. ^ Alfred F. Carincross, The Problem of Hamlet: A Solution, London, Mcmillan, 1936
  4. ^ Charlton Ogburn Jr., The Mystery of William Shakespeare, Cardinal, 1988,pg 631
  5. ^ Jenkins, p. 84, note 4
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hamlet/Archive_4&oldid=981677555"