The Famous Shakespeare’s book Hamlet(Bacalah Buku Shakespeare Hamlet Yang Menakjubkan)

 

 MUSEUM DUNIA MAYA DR IWAN S.Dr IWAN ‘S CYBERMUSEUM THE FIRST INDONESIAN CYBERMUSEUM  MUSEUM DUNIA MAYA PERTAMA DI INDONESIA   DALAM PROSES UNTUK MENDAPATKAN SERTIFIKAT MURI     PENDIRI DAN PENEMU IDE      THE FOUNDER    Dr IWAN SUWANDY, MHA                          WELCOME TO THE MAIN HALL OF FREEDOM                 SELAMAT DATANG DI GEDUNG UTAMA “MERDEKA

The Driwan’s  Cybermuseum

                    

(Museum Duniamaya Dr Iwan)

Showroom :

Dr Iwan Rare Book Cybermuseum Showcase :

 

” The Old and Contemporary  Lithography Picture of Sheakpeare Book Hamlet Collections”

 

Frame One :

The Lithography Pictures collections:

(1)Hamlet,Horation and Clown

Hamlet, Act V, Sc. i, Churchyard, Hamlet, Horatio and Clown.Hamlet, Act V, Sc. i, Churchyard, Hamlet, Horatio and Clown.
Hamlet, Act V, Sc. i, Churchyard, Hamlet, Horatio and Clown.

(2)Hamlet and Horatio before the Grave Diggers


Artist: Eugene Delacroix

Completion Date: 1843

Style: Romanticism

Genre: literary painting

Technique: lithography

(3)Shakespeare, Hamlet , Delacroix

Shakespeare, Hamlet , Delacroix   (463-282001 / akg1en-130-p4-1835 © SuperStock)

 Photography Category:Image Keywords:1835, 19. JAHRHUNDERT, 19th Century, apparition, appearance, b & w, b&w, black and white, Delacroix, drama, DRUCKGRAFIK, DRUCKGRAPHIK, Eugene, father, FRANZOESISCHE KUNST, french art, Grafik, graphic art, graphic arts, GRAPHIK, Hamlet, Literatur, literature, lithograph, Lithographie, NB, Pere, Person, Personne, phenomenon, PRINT (ART), Schauspiel, Shakespeare, Vater, WilliamShakespeare’s HamletTable of Contents1. Shakespeare’s Hamlet and the English Renaissance Stage or Playhouse
2. The State of the Texts of Shakespeare’s Plays, Especially Hamlet; Foolishness of Writers Questioning Shakespeare’s Authorship of the Plays; Recommended Editions
3. Shakespeare’s Hamlet & the Visual Arts & Music

4. Shakespeare, Hamlet, and Classical (Greco-Roman) Culture — Works Covered at the Beginning of Humn. 2001
5. Plot Summary of the Play
6. Notes and Questions on the Play: General
7. Notes and Questions on the Play: Specific
1. Shakespeare’s Hamlet and the English Renaissance Stage or Playhouse

        As the ancient Greek playwrights Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, and Aristophanes wrote their plays — texts that were also scripts — they had in mind the particular stage, the ancient Greek stage, for which they were writing: its physical aspects, which are still evident today both in archeological remnants and in some instances, remodelings or recreations. They had in mind how the text or script would interact with physical aspects of the stage for production and communication (themes, symbolism, characterization). Likewise, Shakespeare and the other English dramatists of his era, when writing their plays — texts that were also scripts– had in mind the particular stage, the English Renaissance stage, for which they were writing: its physical aspects and how their texts or scripts could make use of these for production and communication (themes, symbolism, characterization). The English Renaissance stage and playhouse developed from a combination of stages:

** the plain planks-on-barrels “booth stage” of the Middle Ages, which lasted into the eighteenth century because of its utility for producing plays in the countryside and small towns or even villages (Shakespeare alludes in 2.2 [Act 2, Scene 2] of Hamletto this sort of touring enforced on adult acting companies because of competition from the privileged company of child actors, who were being favored by aristocratic audiences at the time to the annoyance of Shakespeare and other members of the professional adult acting community)

** the planks-on-barrels or “booth stage” that was moved into an inn-yard (Middle Ages onward), or bull-baiting or bear-baiting ring (Renaissance era: lots of fun from tethering a bull or bear to a post in the middle of the ring and then setting other wild animals, often dogs, on it to see how much physical damage could be done to the animals — cock-fighting and dog-fighting go on in twentieth-century and twenty-first-century America, incidentally, for those who find this activity “entertaining”)

** the architectural features of the typical aristocratic hall in one of the great houses or even a palace belonging to a member of the nobility

        The planks-on-barrels booth stage in the countryside had the advantage of being portable and easily set up; its disadvantage is that collecting money for the performance was more difficult than a restricted space entrance into which required an admission fee.

Shakespeare’s Hamlet

Daftar isi

1. Hamlet Shakespeare dan Inggris Tahap Renaisans atau Playhouse
2. Negara Teks dari Dimainkan Shakespeare, Hamlet Terutama; Kebodohan dari Penulis Mempertanyakan Karangan Shakespeare yang Dimainkan; Edisi Fitur
3. Shakespeare’s Hamlet & Seni Visual & Musik
4. Shakespeare, Hamlet, dan Klasik (Yunani-Romawi) Budaya – Bekerja Covered pada Awal Humn. 2001
5. Ringkasan Plot Mainkan
6. Catatan dan Pertanyaan pada Mainkan: Umum
7. Catatan dan Pertanyaan pada Mainkan: Spesifik

1. Hamlet Shakespeare dan Inggris Tahap Renaisans atau Playhouse

        Sebagai dramawan Yunani kuno Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, dan Aristophanes menulis drama mereka – teks yang juga script – mereka ada dalam pikiran tahap tertentu, tahap Yunani kuno, yang mereka menulis: aspek fisik, yang masih hari kedua di sisa-sisa arkeologi dan dalam beberapa, remodelings contoh atau rekreasi jelas. Mereka ada dalam pikiran bagaimana teks atau script akan berinteraksi dengan aspek-aspek fisik dari panggung untuk produksi dan komunikasi (tema, simbolisme, karakterisasi). Demikian pula, Shakespeare dan dramawan Inggris lainnya di jamannya, saat menulis memainkan mereka – teks yang juga skrip – ada dalam pikiran tahap tertentu, Inggris Renaissance panggung, yang mereka menulis: aspek fisik dan bagaimana mereka teks atau script dapat menggunakan ini untuk produksi dan komunikasi (tema, simbolisme, karakterisasi). Renaisans Inggris panggung dan tempat bermain dikembangkan dari kombinasi tahap:

** Dataran papan-on-barrel “stan panggung” dari Abad Pertengahan, yang berlangsung hingga abad kedelapan belas karena utilitas untuk memproduksi bermain di pedesaan dan kota-kota kecil atau bahkan desa (Shakespeare menyinggung dalam 2,2 [Act 2, Scene 2] dari Hamletto wisata semacam ini diterapkan pada perusahaan bertindak dewasa karena persaingan dari perusahaan istimewa aktor anak, yang sedang digemari oleh khalayak bangsawan pada waktu ke jengkel Shakespeare dan anggota lain dari komunitas bertindak profesional dewasa)

** Papan-on-barel atau “panggung booth” yang pindah ke sebuah halaman-penginapan (Abad Pertengahan dan seterusnya), atau cincin banteng-umpan atau beruang-umpan (Renaissance era: banyak menyenangkan dari penarikan banteng atau beruang untuk posting di tengah ring dan kemudian pengaturan binatang liar lainnya, sering anjing, di atasnya untuk melihat berapa banyak kerusakan fisik yang dapat dilakukan untuk binatang – ayam-melawan dan melawan anjing masuk di dalam abad kedua puluh dan dua puluh pertama abad ke Amerika, kebetulan, bagi mereka yang menemukan kegiatan ini “menghibur”)

** Fitur arsitektur ruang aristokrat khas di salah satu rumah besar atau bahkan sebuah istana milik seorang anggota bangsawan

        Papan-papan-atas panggung stan-barel di pedesaan memiliki keuntungan yang portabel dan mudah mengatur; merugikan adalah bahwa mengumpulkan uang untuk kinerja itu lebih sulit dari pintu masuk ruang terbatas dimana diperlukan suatu biaya pendaftaran.

 
 

The planks-on-barrels booth stage was easily set up in an inn-yard or bull-baiting (or bear-baiting) ring, and had the advantage of a location associated with “entertainment” and, most importantly, a restricted space entrance into which required an admission fee.

Papan-papan-atas panggung stan-barel dengan mudah dibentuk dalam halaman-penginapan atau bull-umpan (atau beruang-umpan) cincin, dan memiliki keuntungan dari lokasi yang terkait dengan “hiburan” dan yang paling penting, pintu masuk ruang terbatas dimana diperlukan suatu biaya pendaftaran.


 
 
 
 

The great houses of the aristocracy probably helped to contribute, along with the inn-yard, the idea of two doors at opposite ends of the stage, along with a balcony, for an elevated staging level.

What finally resulted was recorded by a visitor to England in 1596, Johannes De Witt, a Dutch priest, and is one of the few, precious contemporary drawings of what the public outdoors English Renaissance stage looked like (the picture is usually referred to as “the De Witt Swan drawing,” since it was a cartoon of the Swan playhouse):

        In 1576, just outside London, and not so incidentally just outside the jurisdiction of the litigious and somewhat malevolent City Council, whose Puritan members disapproved of drama and theaters (and indeed closed them down when the Puritans came to power in 1641-42), James Burbage built the first English playhouse, which he named with an inspired sense of descriptive simplicity The Theater. After The Theater, there followed a succession of public playhouses, including The Curtain (1577), The Rose (1586), The Swan (1595), The Globe (1599), The Fortune (1600), The Red Bull (1605), and The Hope (1614). Also following The Theater, though eschewing its rather unsavory and disreputable neighborhood of Shoreditch, were the private playhouses, so-called, in part, because the sponsors of the first one sought privileges not granted to public playhouses, and in part because they charged a higher admission fee and attracted a more aristocratic audience. These included Blackfriars (1576 and 1600), St. Paul’s or Paul’s School (1599), The Cockpit (also called The Phoenix), The Cockpit-in-Court (1632), Rutland House, Salisbury Court, Whitefriars, and Whitehall. Most of these theaters were on Royal property and thus, like the public theaters built outside the city limits, exempt from City Council jurisdiction. The combined catalogue of all these playhouses, public and private, helps to underline an important point: that English playhouses in the Renaissance were many and different. As articles and books (some of the latter, multivolumed) on the English Renaissance playhouse have steadily multiplied to a sum of seventy or more since the crucial publication of Henslowe’s Diary and Papers (1904-1908) and C.W. Wallace’s momentous discovery in the Public Record Office in London of legal documents connected with Burbage’s Theater (1910), an increasing number of critics have attempted to attack, qualify, or modify the concept of a “typical Elizabethan stage.” Not only does the open-roofed, naturally-lighted public playhouse (such as Shakespeare’s early theater, The Globe) differ from the enclosed, artificially illuminated private playhouse (such as Shakespeare’s later theater, Blackfriars), but as a relatively recent essay such as “Staging at the Globe, 1599-1613″ by J.W. Saunders (Shakespeare Quarterly, 11 [1960], 402-25) makes clear, so does public playhouse from public playhouse and even the same playhouse at one time from itself at another time. The facts that there were differences of size and proportion, that some playhouses were polygonal (or round) while others were square, that some had rectangular stages while others had trapezoidal ones, and that some had three stories while others two, provide a counterweight to the efforts of synthesizing critics and scholars.

        Of such critics, the one usually considered to be the most authoritative is John Cranford Adams. It is the information, extrapolation, and diagrams from his book The Globe Playhouse: Its Design and Equipment (1942, 1964) that the majority of other critics use in their discussion of British Renaissance drama. The evidence for such reconstructions, in Cranford’s book and others, is meager. It consists of (1) contemporary maps, engravings, and drawings (the latter often bearing the descriptive title of “panorama of London”), (2) a drawing made of the Swan Theater by a Dutch traveler named Johannes De Witt (1596) that rivals J.C. Adams’ diagrams and reconstructions in the frequency of its publication, (3) the Diaryof Philip Henslowe, manager of the Rose and Fortune theaters, and such other builders’ contracts and business records that have been accidentally preserved in bureaucratic or historical alluvia, (4) references in contemporary nondramatic writings (often satirical, Puritanical, or both), and finally (5) casual references and stage directions in the dramas themselves.

        The results of J.C. Adams’ laboriously documented and rigorously considered conclusions (together with some additional information from other sources) may be briefly summarized. Adams expounds his view in the very first paragraph of his book that “the Globe was a three-story, octagonal structure surrounding an unroofed, octagonal yard . . . . The playhouse measured 83 feet between outside walls, 34 feet high to the eaves-line, and 58 feet across the interior yard” (1). Actually there are five levels that make up the stage as Adams conceives it. The bottom level is the cellar underneath the stage, called “Hell” (which with the technical term for the roof that partly covered the platform stage, “Heaven,” serves as a reminder of the medieval religious origins of the British Renaissance drama and stage). Excavated a little to reach a depth of eight feet, the cellar area was large enough to receive or send anything through the trapdoors in the platform-stage up to and including a bedstead, Roman chariot, or troop of soldiers. “Hell” was also useful as a point for the origination of the sound of distant trumpets, cries, moans, or any of the other variegated off-stage noises that clamor for attention in English Renaissance drama.
 

        At the top level were the “huts,” where a windlass, two trapdoors, and, most important to the actor portraying the dead Antony being hauled up by Cleopatra and her maids, in Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra, a group of strong, experienced stagehands. The ascent and descent of a heavenly throne in Christopher Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus (V.ii), of a dragon-drawn chariot, or gods and goddesses from Classically-oriented dramas, was through the floor (corresponding on the other side to the stage-roof or “Heaven”) of a large rearward hut, which had a trapdoor no less than four feet wide and twenty feet long. Through a much smaller circular trapdoor a few feet in diameter in a hut toward the front of the stage came the fireworks through the stage-roof or “Heaven” that were the triple moons, blazing suns, comets, and similar fearsome portents in plays. In addition to these uses of the huts, says Adams: “There the trumpeter stood who ‘sounded’ thrice before the play began; there the cannon were shot off during battle and coronation scenes . . ; there hung the great alarum bell the dreadful midnight clamor of which roused the citizens . . ; [and] there the heavy ‘bullet’ was rolled to make thunder . . .” (366). Naturally, these huts had to incorporate enough storage space for this multiplicity of items.  A side view of a diagram of a different playhouse, the Swan, gives the idea about the use of the “Huts”:
 

        In between the top and bottom levels were three stories, called collectively the “tiring-house,” after the original medieval function of the curtained alcove, functioning as a dressing room, that could be put to a remarkable range of uses. The highest or third story was called alternatively the “high gallery” or “music gallery.” About eight feet deep and twelve and one-half feet long, it normally housed the musicians. It could also become the high gallery of a castle, a turret, tower, keep, or masthead. The function of music and of the musicians had more pragmatic theatrical value than a critical reading of a dramatic text is likely to reveal. For in addition to the two trapdoors located in the huts already mentioned, there are seven more in the first and second stories yet to be discussed, and the potential of these and all the other props and machinery for producing a distracting cumulative creaking, groaning, squeaking, and clatter was great. It is for this reason, consequently, and not only for dramatic effect and meaning, that music accompanies the sudden appearance of fairies, “spirits,” and other such apparitions. The thunder and general racket that attend on witches, devils, demons, and other unnatural monsters also has this twin purpose.
 

        With its complement of four separate dramatic areas or spaces, the two window-stages, the “Tarras” and “The Chamber,” the second story is one of the more complex and diversified of the Elizabethan playwright’s tools. The overall dimensions of the central room on the second floor when the curtains are drawn are 23 feet (length) by 10 feet (depth) by 11 feet (height). “The Chamber” in this situation may be used for all those purposes assigned earlier to the “gallery” and, in addition, as a living room, bedroom, dressing room, private room in a tavern, the second level of any of these, or of a palace or prison, or in conclusion simply an elevated vantage point. The ironic use of the Chamber for the latter, a trope in so many Elizabethan plays and signaled by the stage directions “enter X above,” may be even further accentuated by means of the trapdoor through which the character or characters above may be seen looking or listening by most of the audience. Adams notes that his specificity, new because the second story appeared only in the last decade of the sixteenth century, added a new verisimilitude to the drama. But beyond this, he says:

        Whereas previously dramatists had been forced to interpolate an exterior between a pair of interior scenes, particularly when the second interior differed in locality and setting from the first, they were now able to devise an action involving two adjacent interiors . . ; or an action involving two separated interiors in sharp dramatic contrast . . ; or an action which flows logically from one interior to another in the same building. (275-76)

        Here, too, there is the significant use of the curtain as part of the setting. While above in the music gallery the curtain serves mainly as a screen for the musicians in order to make the music seem nonlocalized or localized where the play requires, below, when the curtains are drawn in front of the Chamber, a “tarras” or projecting balcony, is created. About three-feet deep and about twenty feet long, the “tarras” may serve either as an anteroom, hallway, or more usually the walls of a besieged city from which the defenders parley with their assailants. Because the “tarras projected far enough to conceal actors standing under it on the lower stage[from those above on the 'tarras'] (or at least to give the effect of such concealment) [249], it can create a dramatic effect ironic or otherwise exactly the reverse of that created by the revelation of the Chamber to the central lower stage. Characters standing under the “tarras” also appear to be hidden from those at the window stages, a fact which also can be exploited for comic, ironic, satiric, or even tragic purposes.
 

        The window-stages are probably the most localized component of the three stories. According to W.J. Lawrence in The Elizabethan Playhouse and Other Studies (1912): “The supreme gracefulness of the casement as a permanent stage adjunct lay in the degree of illusion its employment lent to scenes of gallantry and intrigue. This is evidenced by the remarkable number of upper-window scenes in Elizabethan drama” (2:33-34). Adams adds that the windows “were provided with thin but opaque curtains installed primarily with a view to making the window-stages available for musicians to play or sing unseen during the progress of some inner-stage [first floor] scene” (269). As an adjunct to the Chamber, the window-stage can provide a good deal of suspense and action. Adams demonstrates this use in an analysis of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, III.iv, where the lovers part just as Lady Capulet appears in Juliet’s chamber or bedroom. Juliet’s delaying tactics give her just enough time to pull up and in the window the rope ladder by which Romeo has taken his leave.

        By far the most complicated of the three stories in its dramaturgical possibilities is the first story, which is composed of twin pillars supporting the “Heavens” (or stage cover, or simply “shadow,” as it is sometimes called), the large (942 square feet) stage-platform (replete with as many as five trapdoors), the twin stage doors, and study or inner stage (with its own trapdoor), Practically all the elements of this story can be used for some function, mimetic or symbolic. The posts or pillars, for example, might be used as “trees” or ships’ masts, which could be easily climbed part way because of their square base. The doors, however, might become symbolic as they do in the first scene of Romeo and Juliet, where the opposing families sally out of opposite doors–opposite sides helping to establish with visual symbolism their distinctive antagonism–while Prince Escalus (the mediator here and later) enters from the center or “study.”
 

        The “study” or inner stage (also called the “alcove” or “curtained recess”) of course is capable of being used for more than merely the place where Barabas (in Christopher Marlowe’s play The Jew of Malta), Faustus (in Christopher Marlowe’s play Dr. Faustus), or Ferdinand and Miranda (in Shakespeare’s play The Tempest), are “discovered” (the first two instances being those that helped determine the pattern). With the curtains of the study drawn, it becomes necessary, finally, to engage the question of whether or not there was scenery (in a modern sense) in the public playhouses. Most critics and scholars agree there was not. Lily B. Campbell in her book Scenes and Machines on the English Stage During the Renaissance (1923) makes a fairly strong case for movable scenery and painted backdrops, using perspective to create street scenes–in the academic and private theaters. But, she says in her chapter entitled “Scenery in the Public Theaters”: “The consideration of the public stage is, it is evident, a matter of secondary importance in the history of Renaissance stage scenery, for stage decoration had its rise in the imitation of the classical stage through the careful research of scholars devoted to the revival of the art and learning of the ancients, and their theories found early embodiment in luxurious dramatic representations [i.e., the masques] before courtly circles prepared by the greatest artists of the time” (116). But though the use of painted backdrops on the stage of the public theater is highly questionable, the popular dramatist’s masterful use of the curtain, traverse, and arras is not; nor is the use of props (some of them quite large), or striking and expensive costumes (which necessitated the sprinkling of rushes at strategic points on the stage to prevent the costumes, not the actors, from being hurt).

        In the diagram of a later scholar, C. Walter Hodges,  following up on Adams’ work, the whole Globe theater may very well have looked like this:


 
 
          How the components of this theater would have been used in staging Hamlet is suggested by the following drawings of how the scenes with the ghost in Act 1 probably would have been enacted, using the two doors at opposite ends of the stage, as well as the trapdoor into the basement or cellar or “Hell” (and, indeed, the scenes have in some of Shakespeare’s references in the text “in” jokes about the components of the stage being used to enact the scenes) :
 

        Likewise, the staging of the staging of Hamlet’s play within the play, in Act 3 (look up recursion in your collegiate dictionary, as well as metapoetics) makes interesting use of physical components of the playhouse:
 

        And finally, the funeral of Ophelia in Act 5, along with the fight between Hamlet and Laertes, would have to use various physical components of the English Renaissance stage:
 

        As I’ve indicated in my Notes and Questions about Sophocles’ Oedipus the King, the special components of drama include not only the set (not much scenery in either ancient Greek or English Renaissance drama, but imaginative use of the sets), but also props.  A fair sample of the variety possible in props emerges from a listing of the property-maker John Carow’s estate in 1574-75 and a complete inventory of the properties belonging to the Admiral’s Company in 1598 (both preserved in original legal and business documents). The first is comprised of:

properteyes videlicet Monsters, Mountaynes, fforestes, Beastes, Serpentes, Weapons for warr [such] as gunnes, dagges, bowes, ar[r]owes, Bills, holberdes, borespeares, fawchions[,] daggers, Targettes, poll-axes[,] Clubbes[,] headdes and headpeeces[,] Armor[;] counterfet Mosse, holly Ivye, Bayes, flowers quarters, glew, past[e], paper, and such lyke with Nayles[,] hoopes[,] hors[e] tails[,] dishes for devells eyes[,] heaven, hell, and the devell . . . . (L.B. Campbell, Scenes and Machines111-112)

The second list, from Philip Henslowe’s Papers (mentioned earlier) is even more impressive. In the items that follow, “i tomb of Dido,” “Tamberlaine’s bridle,” and 1 cauldron for the Jew,” there are obvious references to Marlowe’s plays The Tragedy of Dido, Tamburlaine, and The Jew of Malta:

i rock, i cage, i tomb, i Hell mouth. i tomb of Guido, i tomb of Dido, i bedstead. viii lances, i pair of stairs for Phaeton. ii steeples, i chime of bells, and i beacon. i heifer for the play of Phaeton, the limbs dead. i globe, and i golden sceptre; iii clubs. ii marchpanes [elaborate kinds of cakes] , and the City of Rome. i golden fleece; ii rackets; i bay tree. i wooden hatchet; i leather hatchet. i wooden canopy; old Mahomet’s head. i lion skin; i bear’s skin; and Phaeton’s limbs and Phaeton’s chariot; and Argus’ head. Neptune’s fork and garland. i ‘crosers’ staff; Kent’s wooden leg. Iris head and rainbow; i little altar. viii vizards; Tamberlain’s bridle; i wooden mattock. Cupid’s bow and quiver; the cloth of the Sun and Moon. i boar’s head and Cerberus’ iii heads. i Caduceus; ii moss banks; i snake. ii fans of feathers; Bellendon stable; i tree of golden apples; Tantalus’ tree; ix iron targets. i copper target and xvii foils. iv wooden targets; i greeve [governor's] armor. i sign for Mother Redcap; i buckler. Mercury’s wings; Tasso’s picture; i helmet with a dragon; i shield with iii lions; i elm bowl. i chain of dragons; i gilt spear. ii coffins; i bull’s head; and i ‘vylter.’ iii timbrels; i dragon in Faustus. i lion; ii lions heads; i great horse with his legs; i sackbut. i wheel and frame in the Siege of London. i pair of wrought gloves. i Pope’s mitre. iii Imperial crowns; i plain crown. i ghost’s crown; i crown with sun. i frame for the heading in Black Joan [a piece of stage machienry to produce the illusion of beheading]. i black dog. i cauldron for the Jew. (G.B. Harrison, Introducing Shakespeare101-02)

        Although its precise uses on the Elizabethan stage are still unsettled, the curtain seems to have been one of the most serviceable of all props. According to one much debated theory, curtains were stretched over wooden poles to form booths, which were in turn moved forward toward the front of the stage so that several more dramatic “spaces” might be created. The curtains could be drawn on one side of the booth, and with as many as eight or ten of these booths arranged in two stories, an effect similar to that of “rapid cutting” in the movies might have been produced. However this may be, curtains were almost certainly used for wall-hangings, arrases, and traverses. The wall-hangings, in harmony with the strong emphasis on generic appropriateness and decorum in the Renaissance, may well have indicated the kind of play being presented. Various areas of the stage may have been draped in black, for instance, in order to denote a tragedy. The arras is familiar to all readers of Shakespeare’s Hamlet as the locus of concealment, deception, and a rather unfortunate mistake the title character makes with respect (or disrespect) to Polonius, for whom the results are equally disagreeable. Actually, there could be as many as three arrases hanging in the “study” or inner stage, one on each side and one on the rear. Finally, the curtain was in all probability used as a traverse–a screen placed crosswise in the “study” or inner stage to create additional dramatic spaces. Such spaces might represent separate rooms, compartments, or tents for opposing armies. In this way the dramatist had available extra parallelism and contrast as conveyed by visual imagery and symbolism.  Hanging curtains in front of the doors and other entrances on stage would allow very swift entrances and exits, sometimes necessary in plays, like Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra, which have rapid cutting back and forth between Egypt and Rome.  Any play with staccato scenes would obviously benefit from this use of the curtains.

        The indoor theaters or stages of the time, including the theater that Shakespeare and his company used, Blackfriars, was similar to the outdoor public theaters in construction, as well as to one of their ancestors, the great hall of a noble house:
 

        While there was a good deal of paraphernalia involved in the staging of British Renaissance plays, the drama and dramatist still mainly depended on the audience’s imagination to supply many lacking details, on visual imagery and symbolism (gesture, stage grouping, movement, setting, and occasionally costume) and preeminently, of course, on language. There was no attempt to secure, nor even much concern to attain “realism” in any modern sense. The stage was extremely fluid and flexible, as it was relatively unencumbered, offering manifold visual possibilities both vertically and horizontally to convey movement, stasis, rapid or slow pace or tempo (e.g., change of setting or scene), symmetry, asymmetry, parallelism, and contrast. Counting the cellar, from which ghosts, devils, or a magical tree might arise, and the “huts,” from which a god or throne might descend, an actor might appear at five levels, these levels being consonant obviously with the concept of hierarchy central in the Renaissance. Including trapdoors, there were as many as twenty-two points of “discovery” or entrance (L.G. Salingar, “The Elizabethan Literary Renaissance,” in The Age of Shakespeare, Vol. 2 of The Pelican Guide to English Literature[Penguin Books, 1963], pp. 66-68).

        For all this, it was still an intimate theater, in which even from the worst vantage points minute visual and auditory details might be apprehended by the audience. As one critic notes, “Front stage, the actor stood next to the groundlings; rear stage, in the Globe, he was no more . . . than eighty-five feet away from the farthest spectator. There was thus no necessity to drop the old convention of direct address to the audience, in soliloquy or aside; it was a theatre for eloquence as much as for pageantry” (Salingar 68).

2. The State of the Texts of Shakespeare’s Plays; Shakespeare the Undoubted Author of the Plays; Recommended Editions

          Shakespeare was unquestionably the author of the plays usually attributed to him: the actors who put together the first collected edition, called the “First Folio” (1623) knew him and had been actors with him; likewise, the other actors in the various acting companies in which Shakespeare participated, and even a famous, younger rival dramatist, Ben Jonson. It is true, however, that Shakespeare, like most other dramatists of his time (with the notable exception of Ben Jonson), took little care over the printing of his plays, for two main reasons. First, drama was considered a lowerclass or less prestigious literary form than poetry; Shakespeare did take more care for his two main long poems (Venus and Adonis and Rape of Lucrece), written when the theaters in London were closed, as they were periodically, for an outbreak of bubonic plague; Shakespeare hoped to secure a reputation among the aristocracy from these poems. Second, the publication of a play was disadvantageous to the acting company producing it because then other acting companies would have access to the script and could put on productions that would take away money from the acting company for which the play had been written. One result of these conditions was the sometimes confusing differences between published versions of the same play. Third, an acting company would sometimes take a scaled-down version of the play (and text) for touring in the countryside (where some of the elaborate components of the theaters would not be available), and some of these scaled-down versions were printed. Fourth, and last, an individual actor — usually not one of the better-paid actors in the theatrical company — would write down the whole play as best he remembered it and then sell this “pirated” version to a publisher for extra cash  (usually the lines for his part or parts were very accurate, enabling later scholars to figure out which actor produced the “pirated” script). In the case of Hamlet, the play was published in three main versions (in 1603, 1604, and 1623), which have serious discrepancies, and force any editor to make difficult decisions about what a modern edition should look like.  This is a diagram indicating the probable complicated relationship between handwritten manuscripts and printed versions of Hamlet:
 

        As a result of the complicated state of the texts of individual plays by Shakespeare, some texts probably reflecting cut versions to better fit playhouse conditions in the city or in the countryside (the latter without elaborate theaters or stage machinery), some of the authoritative one-volume modern editions of Shakespeare’s works print two or even three versions of the same play. Older authoritative one-volume modern editions of Shakespeare’s plays usually printed a conflated version of a play, taking parts from different textual versions of the play, though adhering to one main version as much as possible. David Bevington and G. Blakemore Evans in their fine editions (see the editions listed below) continue this practice; on the other hand, the Greenblatt edition has three different texts of King Lear (the Quarto Text, the Folio Text, a Conflated Text), and, in effect, two different texts of Hamlet (passages from the different main textual version “are indented, printed, in a different typeface, and numbered in such a way as to make clear their provenance” [p. 1667]); likewise, the Orgel and Braunmuller edition has two versions of King Lear (the 1608 Quarto and the 1623 Folio versions) .  The reason for confusion about the texts of Shakespeare’s plays and many others in the period is that most English Renaissance playwrights did not have much concern about the publication of their plays. This indifference came from several causes. First, drama was considered a lower form of writing than poetry; Shakespeare had hoped to gain a reputation (and was more careful about the printing of the work) from his poems Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece. The one English Renaissance dramatist, Ben Jonson, who was careful about the printing of his plays and entitled the collection his Works was satirized repeatedly in the period for presumption about this lesser form of writing. Second, most dramatists did not own the finished product, having been paid for piecework by an acting company; consequently, the acting company would decide whether to publish or not. Most acting companies were not eager to publish scripts, since the book could then be used for a production of the play by a rival acting company and theater.  However, plays did get published, through several means. Sometimes an acting company, in urgent need of money (the theaters were repeatedly closed because of outbreaks of Plague, for example), would publish a play from the author’s papers (in handwritten form, which sometimes gave the printers a good deal of trouble in deciding about words or even whether a passage was prose or poetry). Sometimes an unscrupulous publisher would send a stenographer to a play to make an unauthorized transcription of the text for unauthorized publication. Sometimes one of the minor actors — not being paid on the same scale as the regular company — would memorize as closely as possible the other parts of the play and turn the transcript over to a publisher. (Texts from this source are easy to identify since the minor actor’s part is perfect, while the other parts are patchy.) Sometimes a play existed in several forms, depending on whether it was for performance at a regular theater or a cut version for touring in the countryside. And sometimes the acting company or printer had to work from different versions or states of the text (some in manuscript form, some in book form).

    Just as there are several wonderful one-volume study editions of the Bible today, so there are several excellent one-volume editions of Shakespeare’s works, which clearly surpass all other one-volume editions (listed alphabetically by surname of the general editor):

Bate, Jonathan, and Eric Rasmussen, eds. The RSC Shakespeare ; William Shakespeare: Complete Works. New York: Modern Library, 2007. [RSC = Royal Shakespeare Company; texts based as much as possible on the First Folio edition of 1623] [the title may make the book harder to order than the ISBN: 978-0-679-64295-4]

Bevington, David, gen. ed. The Complete Works of Shakespeare. 5th ed. New York: HarperCollins, 2004. [Scores on a 100-point basis: annotations - 90; materials about Shakespeare's life, times, career, texts, and bibliography - 90.]

Evans, G. Blakemore, and J.J.M. Tobin, gen. eds. The Riverside Shakespeare. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1997. [Scores on a 100-point basis: annotations - 87; materials about Shakespeare's life, times, career, texts, and bibliography - 88.]

Greenblatt, Stephen, gen. ed. The Norton Shakespeare: Based on the Oxford Edition. New York: W.W. Norton, 1997. [Scores on a 100-point basis: annotations - 90; materials about Shakespeare's life, times, career, texts, and bibliography - 88.] 2nd edition, 2008.

Orgel, Stephen, and A.R. Braunmuller, gen. eds. William Shakespeare: The Complete Works [The Complete Pelican Shakespeare]. 2nd ed. Penguin Books, 2002. [Scores on a 100-point basis: annotations - 85; materials about Shakespeare's life, times, career, texts, and bibliography - 73.]

        For students who have extreme difficulty in comprehending the text, the editions Simply Shakespeare: Hamlet or Shakespeare Made Easy: Hamlet, two series of titles  from Barron’s Educational Series (ISBN 0-7641-2084-0 or ISBN 0-8120-3638-7 ) may be helpful. The books have the original text on one page with a translation and expansion (for what would be footnoted) on the facing page. The most thoroughly annotated of the various series printing one separate volume per play of Shakespeare’s plays are the following (all in paperback, listed alphabetically by title of series): (a) The Annotated Shakespeare (ed. Burton Raffel; Yale UP); (b) The Arden or New Arden Shakespeare (various editors and publishers — in three separate editions over several decades; the first edition was the Arden, the second was the New Arden, and the third, confusingly, is the Arden); (c) The New Cambridge Shakespeare (gen. eds. Philip Brockbank, Brian Gibbons, and Robin Hood; Cambridge UP); (d) The New Penguin Shakespeare (Penguin Books); and (e) The Oxford [World's Classics] Shakespeare (Oxford UP).  For more information, see my Bibliography in my English 4420/Shakespeare webpage.  Just one instance among many instances of why a good annotated edition is necessary may be seen in Polonius’s listing of fencing as one of the delinquent activities that servant Reynaldo should inquire about, in investigating (spying on) Laertes: “Ay, or drinking, fencing, swearing, quarreling/ Drabbing” (2.1.25-26; line numbers are always approximate, varying somewhat from edition to edition of the play). After all, fencing is held up as an honorable, courtly activity in which Laertes and Hamlet are to engage in Act 5. The Bevington, Evans, Greenblatt, and Orgel one-volume editions all fail to solve this puzzle for the attentive reader; however, the answer may be found in the multivolume (one volume per play) Arden, New Cambridge, and Oxford editions.

3. Shakespeare’s Hamlet & the Visual Arts and Music

        Shakespeare’s Hamlet continues to fascinate, as indicated by P.M. Pasinetti’s introduction in the NAWM (Pasinetti is the general editor of the Renaissance section; I had him as a teacher of World Literature at UCLA); thousands and thousands of books, parts of books, and articles have been written about the play.  Also, it has inspired many famous or important artists, and many works of visual art. The French painter Eugene Delacroix (1798-1863), a central figure of Romantic art, was inspired to do many illustrations of literary texts (e.g., Dante’s Divine Comedy,  Shakespeare’s Hamlet). Delacroix did a whole series of lithographs in the 1850′s to illustrate Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Delacroix’s art may be exemplified by his lithograph of Hamlet and the Ghost, as well as his works in color of Hamlet and Horatio talking to the gravedigger, Hamlet retrieving the skill of Yorick referred to by the gravedigger, or Hamlet confronting his mother in front of the arras, or the death of Ophelia. (Hamlet and Horatio in the Graveyard [1839] and The Death of Ophelia [1844; 9" X 12"].) The important Anglo-Swiss artist Henry Fuseli (1741-1825) apparently did a painting of Hamlet confronting the ghost (1798), which was the basis of a lithograph in the 1800′s. Pre-Raphaelite artist Dante Gabriel Rossetti (1828-1882) portrayed Hamlet and Ophelia; John Everett Millais (1829-96) did a famous painting of the death of Ophelia — Ophelia (1852; 30″ x 44″) which varies somewhat in reproductions;  British Victorian artist Arthur Hughes (1832-1915) did paintings of Ophelia gathering flowers (1865) and Ophelia just prior to drowning herself; French painter Odilon Redon (1840-1916) did a painting of the doomed Ophelia (1905); British artist John W. Waterhouse (1849-1917) did paintings of Ophelia in a blue dress, in the field while gathering her flowers, and by the river just before drowning herself. W.G. Simmonds, like so many artists, did a painting of Ophelia’s death (1910). And Edwin Austin Abbey did a painting of Hamlet in Ophelia’s lap at the performance of the play The Mousetrap or The Murder of Gonzago (1897).

        With regard to music, music continued to be important in the drama in Shakespeare’s time, and indeed in Shakespeare’s plays, just as it was in the ancient Greek drama (and discussed as such by Aristotle in his treatise The Poetics). In Hamlet, Ophelia sings songs — explicitly identified in the original stage directions as “Song” — in Act 4, Scene 5 (4.5); likewise, one of the gravediggers sings two songs (or two stanzas from the same song) — explicitly identified in the original stage directions as “Song” — in 5.1. How does music contribute to theme, characterization, and meaning in each of the scenes? How does music create connections (comparisons or contrasts or both) between 4.5 and 5.1? Additionally, with regard to music, Shakespeare’s Hamlet has been the inspiration  of famous or important composers: a symphonic poem by Franz Liszt (composed 1858), written as a prelude to the play; a fantasy overture (1888) and incidental music (1891) by Pyotr (“Peter”) Tchaikovsky, and operas by Faccio, Gasparini, Scarlatti, Mercandante, Szokolay, and Humphrey Searle.

4. Shakespeare, Hamlet, and Classical (Greco-Roman) Culture — Works Covered at the Beginning of Humn. 2001

        Just as references to Classical culture — ancient Greece and ancient Rome — abound in Dante’s Inferno and Machiavelli’s The Prince, so they do in Shakespeare’s works generally, including Hamlet. Several of Shakespeare’s plays focus on material from ancient Greece (e.g., A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Troilus and Cressida, Timon of Athens) and ancient Rome (Titus Andronicus, Julius Caesar, Antony and Cleopatra, Coriolanus). How in 1.1 is material from ancient Rome cited and applied by Horatio?

5. Plot Summary of the Play
 
A difficulty for some readers is the presence of several doubles in the play, a motif that relates to one of the play’s subjects: identity (who is who? what comprises our individual identities?). There are two Hamlets: Hamlet senior (the former King, who has died, and now seems to be a ghost haunting the castle environs) and Hamlet [junior], the son of Hamlet senior; and there are two men named Fortinbras: Fortinbras senior or the elder (who in a war with Hamlet senior lost territory) and Fortinbras [junior], who now seeks through war or banditry to recover the territory lost by his father, Fortinbras [senior]. (Other doubles or parallels would include Hamlet and Laertes; Hamlet and Fortinbras; and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.)
 

Scene: Denmark

Pada tahun 1576, tepat di luar London, dan tidak begitu kebetulan di luar yurisdiksi Dewan Kota sadar hukum dan agak jahat, yang Puritan anggota menyetujui drama dan teater (dan memang ditutup mereka turun ketika Puritan berkuasa pada 1641-1642), James Burbage membangun rumah mungil Inggris pertama, yang ia beri nama dengan rasa terinspirasi kesederhanaan deskriptif Theater. Setelah The Theater, ada mengikuti suksesi playhouses publik, termasuk The Tirai (1577), The Rose (1586), Swan (1595), The Globe (1599), The Fortune (1600), The Red Bull (1605), dan The Hope (1614). Juga Berikut Theater, meskipun menghindari tetangganya yang agak buruk dan jelek dari Shoreditch, adalah playhouses pribadi, apa yang disebut, sebagian, karena sponsor yang pertama dicari hak istimewa tidak diberikan kepada playhouses publik, dan sebagian karena mereka dikenakan lebih tinggi biaya masuk dan menarik audiens yang lebih aristokrat. Ini termasuk Blackfriars (1576 dan 1600), St Paul’s atau Paul’s School (1599), The Cockpit (juga disebut The Phoenix), The Cockpit-in-Pengadilan (1632), Rutland House, Salisbury Pengadilan, Whitefriars, dan Whitehall. Kebanyakan teater ini berada di properti Royal dan dengan demikian, seperti teater publik dibangun di luar batas kota, dibebaskan dari yurisdiksi Dewan Kota. Katalog gabungan dari semua ini playhouses, publik dan swasta, membantu untuk menggarisbawahi satu poin penting: bahwa playhouses Inggris di Renaissance yang banyak dan berbeda. Seperti artikel dan buku (beberapa terakhir, multivolumed) pada rumah mungil Renaisans Inggris harus terus dikalikan dengan jumlah tujuh puluh atau lebih sejak publikasi penting dari Henslowe’s Diary dan Makalah (1904-1908) dan penemuan penting CW Wallace di Record Publik kantor di London dokumen hukum yang berkaitan dengan Burbage’s Theater (1910), semakin banyak kritikus telah berusaha untuk menyerang, memenuhi syarat, atau memodifikasi konsep “panggung Elizabeth khas.” Tidak hanya rumah mungil, terbuka beratap publik secara alami-terang (seperti teater awal Shakespeare, The Globe) berbeda dari rumah mungil, tertutup pribadi artifisial menyala (seperti teater kemudian Shakespeare, Blackfriars), tetapi sebagai esai yang relatif baru seperti “Staging di Globe itu, 1599-1613″ oleh JW Saunders (Shakespeare Triwulanan, 11 [1960], 402-25) membuat jelas, begitu juga rumah mungil publik dari rumah mungil masyarakat dan bahkan rumah mungil yang sama pada satu waktu dari sendiri di lain waktu. Fakta bahwa ada perbedaan ukuran dan proporsi, bahwa beberapa playhouses adalah poligonal (atau bulat), sementara yang lainnya persegi, bahwa beberapa orang tahap empat persegi panjang sementara yang lain telah yang trapesium, dan bahwa beberapa memiliki tiga cerita sementara yang lain dua, memberikan pengimbang untuk upaya sintesa kritikus dan sarjana.

        Dari kritik tersebut, salah satu biasanya dianggap paling otoritatif adalah John Cranford Adams. Ini adalah informasi, ekstrapolasi, dan diagram dari bukunya The Playhouse Globe: Its Desain Tetap (1942, 1964) bahwa mayoritas kritikus lain yang digunakan dalam pembahasan mereka tentang drama Renaisans Inggris. Bukti untuk rekonstruksi tersebut, dalam buku Cranford dan orang lain, adalah sedikit. Ini terdiri dari (1) peta kontemporer, ukiran, dan gambar (yang terakhir sering menyandang gelar deskriptif dari “panorama London”), (2) gambar yang terbuat dari Swan Teater oleh seorang Belanda bernama Johannes traveler De Witt (1596) bahwa saingan JC Adams ‘diagram dan rekonstruksi di frekuensi publikasi, (3) Diaryof Philip Henslowe, manajer teater Rose dan Fortune, dan pembangun lainnya seperti’ kontrak dan catatan bisnis yang telah sengaja disimpan dalam alluvia birokrasi atau sejarah , (4) referensi dalam tulisan-tulisan nondramatic kontemporer (sering satir, puritan, atau keduanya), dan akhirnya (5) referensi kasual dan arah panggung di drama sendiri.

        Hasil JC Adams ‘susah payah didokumentasikan dan gigih dianggap kesimpulan (bersama-sama dengan beberapa informasi tambahan dari sumber lain) dapat diringkas secara singkat. Adams menguraikan pandangannya di paragraf pertama bukunya bahwa “Globe adalah struktur, tiga-cerita oktagonal yang mengelilingi halaman, unroofed segi delapan…. Rumah mungil yang diukur 83 meter antara dinding luar, 34 kaki tinggi dengan atap- line, dan 58 kaki melintasi halaman interior “(1). Sebenarnya ada lima tingkat yang membentuk panggung sebagai conceives Adams itu. Tingkat bawah adalah ruang bawah tanah di bawah panggung, yang disebut “Neraka” (yang dengan istilah teknis untuk atap yang menutupi sebagian panggung platform, “Surga,” berfungsi sebagai pengingat asal-usul agama abad pertengahan drama Renaisans Inggris dan tahap ). Digali sedikit untuk mencapai kedalaman delapan kaki, area ruang bawah tanah cukup besar untuk menerima atau mengirim sesuatu melalui pintu jebakan dalam tahap-platform sampai dengan dan termasuk ranjang, kereta Romawi, atau pasukan tentara. “Neraka” juga berguna sebagai titik asal usul suara jauh terompet, teriakan, erangan, atau salah satu suara lainnya off-tahap beraneka ragam yang menuntut perhatian dalam drama Renaisans Inggris.
 

        Di tingkat atas adalah “pondok,” dimana mesin kerek, dua pintu jebakan, dan yang paling penting bagi aktor menggambarkan Antony mati yang diangkut oleh Cleopatra dan pelayan-nya, dalam Shakespeare Antonius dan Cleopatra, sekelompok yang kuat, stagehands berpengalaman . Pendakian dan keturunan dari tahta surgawi dalam Christopher Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus (V.ii), dengan kereta-naga ditarik, atau dewa dan dewi dari drama klasik berorientasi, adalah melalui lantai (sesuai di sisi lain untuk panggung- atap atau “Surga”) dari sebuah pondok belakang besar, yang memiliki trapdoor tidak kurang dari empat meter dan lebar dua puluh meter. Melalui trapdoor melingkar jauh lebih kecil beberapa meter dengan diameter di sebuah pondok menuju depan panggung terdengar kembang api melalui atap-panggung atau “Surga” yang menjadi bulan triple, terik matahari, komet, dan ayat-ayat menakutkan serupa di bermain. Selain penggunaan gubuk-gubuk, mengatakan Adams: “Ada terompet berdiri yang ‘terdengar’ tiga kali sebelum memainkan mulai, ada meriam ditembak off selama adegan pertempuran dan penobatan, ada tergantung bel alarem besar tengah malam mengerikan.. keributan yang membangunkan warga negara;.. [dan] ada ‘peluru’ yang berat telah diperpanjang untuk membuat guntur “… (366). Tentu, ini pondok harus menggabungkan ruang penyimpanan yang cukup untuk bermacam item. Sebuah pandangan sisi diagram dari sebuah rumah mungil yang berbeda, Swan, memberikan gagasan tentang penggunaan “Pondok”:
 

        Di antara tingkat atas dan bawah tiga cerita, yang disebut secara kolektif disebut “melelahkan-rumah,” setelah fungsi abad pertengahan asli dari ceruk bertirai, berfungsi sebagai ruang ganti, yang bisa dihukum berbagai kegunaan yang luar biasa. Kisah tertinggi atau ketiga disebut alternatif yang “galeri tinggi” atau “galeri musik.” Sekitar delapan meter dan dua belas dan kaki satu setengah panjang, biasanya ditampung para musisi. Hal ini juga bisa menjadi galeri tinggi istana, menara, menara, menyimpan, atau masthead. Fungsi musik dan para musisi memiliki nilai teater lebih pragmatis daripada pembacaan kritis teks dramatis mungkin untuk mengungkapkan. Untuk selain dua pintu jebakan terletak di gubuk yang telah disebutkan, ada tujuh lebih dalam cerita pertama dan kedua belum dibahas, dan potensi ini dan semua alat peraga lainnya dan mesin untuk menghasilkan berderit kumulatif mengganggu, mengerang, berdecit, dan kelontang hebat. Karena alasan ini, akibatnya, dan bukan hanya untuk efek dramatis dan makna, bahwa musik menyertai kemunculan tiba-tiba peri, “roh,” dan penampakan seperti lainnya. Guntur dan raket umum yang hadir pada penyihir, iblis, setan, dan monster tidak alami lain juga memiliki tujuan kembar.
 

        Dengan perusahaan komplemen dari empat bidang dramatis terpisah atau spasi, dua jendela-tahap, “Tarras” dan “The Chamber,” adalah kisah kedua salah satu yang lebih kompleks dan beragam alat penulis drama Elizabethan itu. Dimensi keseluruhan dari ruang tengah di lantai kedua ketika gorden yang ditarik adalah 23 kaki (panjang) dengan 10 kaki (kedalaman) dengan 11 kaki (tinggi). “Kamar” dalam situasi ini dapat digunakan untuk semua tujuan yang ditugaskan sebelumnya ke “galeri” dan, di samping itu, sebagai ruang tamu, kamar tidur, kamar ganti, ruang swasta di kedai, tingkat kedua dari salah satu, atau sebuah istana atau penjara, atau dalam kesimpulan hanya sebuah sudut pandang tinggi. Penggunaan ironis Kamar untuk yang kedua, sebuah kiasan dalam drama Elizabethan begitu banyak dan ditandai dengan petunjuk tahap “masukkan X di atas,” mungkin lebih jauh ditekankan dengan cara pintu jebakan melalui mana karakter atau karakter di atas dapat terlihat melihat atau mendengarkan oleh sebagian besar penonton. Adams mencatat bahwa spesifisitas-nya, baru karena cerita kedua muncul hanya dalam dekade terakhir abad keenam belas, menambahkan verisimilitude baru untuk drama. Tapi di luar ini, ia mengatakan:

        Padahal sebelumnya dramawan telah dipaksa untuk interpolasi eksterior sebuah antara sepasang adegan interior, terutama ketika bagian kedua berbeda dalam lokalitas dan setting yang pertama, mereka kini bisa menyusun tindakan melibatkan dua interior yang berdekatan. . , Atau suatu tindakan yang melibatkan dua interior dramatis dipisahkan dalam kontras yang tajam. . , Atau tindakan yang mengalir secara logis dari satu interior yang lain di gedung yang sama. (275-76)

        Di sini juga, ada penggunaan tirai signifikan sebagai bagian dari pengaturan. Sedangkan di atas di galeri musik tirai berfungsi terutama sebagai layar untuk para musisi untuk membuat musik tampak nonlocalized atau lokal di mana memainkan membutuhkan, di bawah, ketika gorden yang ditarik di depan Chamber, sebuah “tarras” atau memproyeksikan balkon, diciptakan. Sekitar tiga meter dan sekitar dua puluh meter panjang, “tarras” dapat berfungsi baik sebagai sebuah lorong, ruang tunggu, atau lebih biasanya tembok kota yang terkepung dari mana pembela perundingan dengan para penyerang mereka. Karena “tarras diproyeksikan cukup jauh untuk menyembunyikan pelaku berdiri di bawah itu pada tahap yang lebih rendah [dari yang di atas pada 'tarras' itu] (atau setidaknya untuk memberikan efek penyembunyian tersebut) [249], hal ini dapat menciptakan efek dramatis ironis atau persis kebalikan dari yang diciptakan oleh wahyu dari Kamar ke tahap yang lebih rendah pusat. Karakter berdiri di bawah “tarras” juga tampaknya disembunyikan dari orang-orang di tahap jendela, sebuah fakta yang juga dapat dimanfaatkan untuk komik, ironis , tragis tujuan menyindir, atau bahkan.
 

        Jendela-tahap mungkin komponen yang paling lokal dari tiga cerita. Menurut WJ Lawrence di The Playhouse Elizabethan dan Studi Lainnya (1912): “The keanggunan tertinggi tingkap sebagai tambahan tahap permanen terletak pada tingkat ilusi kerja yang dipinjamkan kepada adegan kesopanan dan intrik Hal ini dibuktikan dengan jumlah yang luar biasa. adegan atas-jendela di drama Elizabethan “(2:33-34). Adams menambahkan bahwa jendela “diberikan dengan tirai tipis tapi buram dipasang terutama dengan maksud untuk membuat jendela-stage yang tersedia bagi musisi untuk bermain atau bernyanyi tidak terlihat selama beberapa kemajuan dalam tahap [lantai pertama] adegan” (269). Sebagai tambahan ke Kamar, jendela-tahap dapat memberikan cukup banyak ketegangan dan tindakan. Adams menunjukkan ini digunakan dalam analisis Shakespeare’s Romeo dan Juliet, III.iv, sedangkan sebagian pecinta seperti Lady Capulet muncul di kamar Juliet atau kamar tidur. Juliet taktik menunda memberinya waktu cukup untuk menarik dan di jendela tangga tali dengan mana Romeo telah mengambil cuti nya.

        Sejauh ini yang paling rumit dari tiga cerita dalam kemungkinan dramaturgical adalah cerita pertama, yang terdiri dari pilar kembar mendukung “Surga” (atau penutup panggung, atau hanya “bayangan,” karena kadang-kadang disebut), besar ( 942 kaki persegi) tahap-platform (penuh dengan sebanyak lima pintu jebakan), pintu panggung kembar, dan studi atau tahap dalam (dengan pintu jebakan sendiri), praktis semua unsur cerita ini dapat digunakan untuk beberapa fungsi, mimesis atau simbolis. Tulisan atau pilar, misalnya, dapat digunakan sebagai “pohon” atau tiang-tiang kapal, yang bisa dengan mudah naik cara sebagian karena basis persegi mereka. Pintu, bagaimanapun, mungkin menjadi simbolik seperti yang mereka lakukan dalam adegan pertama Romeo dan Juliet, di mana keluarga menentang sally keluar dari pintu yang berlawanan – sisi yang berlawanan membantu membangun dengan simbolisme visual antagonisme khas mereka – sementara Pangeran Escalus (mediator di sini dan kemudian) masuk dari pusat atau “belajar.”
 

        The “studi” atau tahap dalam (juga disebut “ceruk” atau “istirahat bertirai”) tentu saja mampu digunakan untuk lebih dari sekedar tempat Barabas (dalam bermain Christopher Marlowe Yahudi Malta), Faustus (dalam Christopher Marlowe bermain Dr Faustus), atau Ferdinand dan Miranda (dalam bermain Shakespeare’s The Tempest), adalah “menemukan” (dua contoh pertama yang orang-orang yang membantu menentukan pola). Dengan tirai studi ditarik, menjadi perlu, akhirnya, untuk melibatkan pertanyaan apakah tidak ada pemandangan (dalam pengertian modern) di playhouses publik. Kebanyakan kritikus dan sarjana setuju tidak ada. Lily B. Campbell dalam bukunya layar dan Mesin di Panggung Inggris Selama Renaissance (1923) membuat kasus cukup kuat untuk bergerak dan latar belakang pemandangan dicat, menggunakan perspektif untuk menciptakan adegan jalan – di bioskop akademis dan pribadi. Tapi, dia mengatakan dalam bab yang berjudul “Pemandangan di Teater Umum”: “Pertimbangan dari tahap publik, jelas, masalah penting sekunder dalam sejarah pemandangan panggung Renaissance, untuk dekorasi panggung telah meningkat dalam imitasi tahap klasik melalui penelitian yang cermat sarjana dikhususkan untuk kebangkitan seni dan belajar dari dahulu, dan teori-teori mereka menemukan perwujudan awal representasi dramatis mewah [yaitu masques] sebelum kalangan sopan disiapkan oleh para seniman terbesar dari waktu “(116). Namun meskipun penggunaan latar belakang dicat di panggung teater publik sangat dipertanyakan, gunakan ahli yang dramawan populer dari traverse, tirai, dan Arras tidak; juga adalah penggunaan alat peraga (beberapa di antaranya cukup besar), atau mencolok dan kostum mahal (yang mengharuskan percikan bergegas pada titik-titik strategis di panggung untuk mencegah kostum, bukan pelaku, dari yang terluka).

        Dalam diagram sarjana kemudian, Walter C. Hodges, menindaklanjuti kerja Adams ‘, teater Globe keseluruhan mungkin saja tampak seperti ini:

 
 
          Bagaimana komponen teater ini akan digunakan dalam pementasan Hamlet yang disarankan oleh gambar berikut bagaimana adegan dengan hantu dalam Undang-Undang 1 mungkin akan telah diberlakukan, menggunakan dua pintu di ujung-ujung panggung, serta pintu jebakan ke basement atau gudang atau “neraka” (dan, memang, adegan dalam beberapa referensi Shakespeare dalam teks “dalam” lelucon tentang komponen panggung yang digunakan untuk memberlakukan layar):
 

        Demikian pula, pementasan pementasan bermain Hamlet dalam drama itu, dalam Undang-Undang 3 (melihat rekursi dalam Anda alumni kamus, serta metapoetics) memanfaatkan menarik dari komponen fisik gedung komidi ini:
 

        Dan akhirnya, pemakaman Ophelia dalam Undang-undang 5, bersama dengan pertarungan antara Hamlet dan Laertes, harus menggunakan berbagai komponen fisik tahap Renaisans Inggris:
 

        Seperti yang telah saya ditunjukkan pada Catatan saya dan Pertanyaan tentang Oedipus Sophocles ‘Raja, komponen khusus drama meliputi tidak hanya mengatur (tidak banyak pemandangan baik dalam drama Renaissance kuno Yunani atau Inggris, tetapi gunakan imajinatif set), tetapi juga props. Contoh wajar berbagai alat peraga mungkin muncul dari daftar pembuat-properti real John Carow di 1574-75 dan inventarisasi lengkap dari properti milik Perusahaan Admiral’s pada 1598 (keduanya disimpan dalam dokumen-dokumen hukum dan bisnis asli). Yang pertama adalah terdiri dari:

Monster properteyes videlicet, Mountaynes, fforestes, Beastes, Serpentes, Senjata untuk Warr [seperti] sebagai gunnes, dagges, Bowes, ar [r] berutang, Bills, holberdes, borespeares, fawchions [,] belati, Targettes, polling-kapak [, ] Clubbes [, headdes] dan headpeeces [,] Armor [; Mosse counterfet], holly Ivye, Bayes, bunga kuartal, glew, masa lalu [e], kertas, dan lyke tersebut dengan Nayles [,] hoopes [,] hors [e ] ekor [,] hidangan untuk [devells mata, surga], neraka, dan devell tersebut. . . . (L. B. Campbell, layar dan Machines111-112)

Daftar kedua, dari Philip Henslowe’s Papers (disebutkan sebelumnya) bahkan lebih mengesankan. Dalam item yang mengikutinya, “makam i Dido,” “kekang Tamberlaine”, dan 1 kawah untuk Yahudi, “ada referensi yang jelas untuk Marlowe memainkan Tragedi Dido, Tamburlaine, dan Yahudi Malta:

i rock, i kandang, i makam, i mulut neraka. i makam Guido, saya makam Dido, i ranjang. viii tombak, saya sepasang tangga untuk Phaeton. ii menara, berpadu i lonceng, dan suar i. i sapi untuk permainan Phaeton, anggota badan mati. i dunia, dan saya tongkat emas; klub iii. ii marchpanes [jenis kue rumit], dan Kota Roma. i emas bulu; raket ii; i pohon teluk. i kayu kapak; i kapak kulit. i kayu kanopi; kepala Mahomet tua itu. i singa kulit, kulit i beruang, dan anggota badan Phaeton dan kereta Phaeton’s, dan kepala Argus ‘. Neptunus garpu dan karangan bunga. i ‘crosers’ staf; kaki kayu Kent. Iris kepala dan pelangi; i altar kecil. viii vizards; i cangkul kayu; kekang Tamberlain’s. Cupid’s busur dan bergetar, kain dari Matahari dan Bulan. i babi’s kepala dan kepala iii Cerberus ‘. i Caduceus; ii lumut bank; i ular. ii penggemar bulu; Bellendon stabil; i pohon apel emas, pohon Tantalus ‘; target besi ix. i tembaga target dan foil xvii. iv kayu target; armor i greeve [Gubernur]. i tanda untuk Ibu pengangkut barang; naung i. Merkurius sayap; picture Tasso’s; i helm dengan naga; i perisai dengan singa iii; i mangkuk elm. i rantai naga; i tombak emas. ii peti mati; kepala banteng i; ‘. vylter’ dan i iii memukul rebana; i naga di Faustus. i singa; ii kepala singa; i kuda besar dengan kakinya; i sackbut. i roda dan frame dalam Pengepungan London. i sepasang sarung tangan tempa. i Paus mitra. iii Imperial mahkota; i mahkota polos. i hantu’s mahkota; i mahkota dengan matahari. frame i untuk heading in Black Joan [sepotong dari machienry panggung untuk menghasilkan ilusi pemenggalan kepala]. i anjing hitam. i kawah untuk orang Yahudi. (G. B. Harrison, Memperkenalkan Shakespeare101-02)

        Meskipun menggunakan tepat pada tahap Elizabethan tersebut belum diselesaikan, tirai tampaknya telah salah satu yang paling berguna dari semua alat peraga. Menurut salah satu teori banyak diperdebatkan, tirai yang terbentang di atas tiang-tiang kayu untuk membentuk stand, yang pada gilirannya bergerak maju ke depan panggung sehingga beberapa lebih dramatis “ruang” mungkin dibuat. Tirai dapat ditarik di satu sisi booth, dan dengan sebanyak delapan atau sepuluh dari stand diatur dalam dua cerita, efek mirip dengan “memotong cepat” dalam film mungkin telah dihasilkan. Namun ini mungkin, tirai yang hampir pasti digunakan untuk dinding-hiasan, arrases, dan melintasi. Dinding-hiasan, selaras dengan penekanan kuat pada kesesuaian generik dan kesopanan di Renaissance, mungkin telah menunjukkan jenis permainan yang disajikan. Berbagai area panggung mungkin telah terbungkus hitam, misalnya, dalam rangka untuk menunjukkan tragedi. The Arras akrab bagi semua pembaca Hamlet Shakespeare sebagai lokus penyembunyian, penipuan, dan kesalahan agak disayangkan karakter judul membuat dengan hormat (atau tidak hormat) untuk Polonius, untuk siapa hasilnya sama menyenangkan. Sebenarnya, mungkin ada sebanyak tiga arrases tergantung di “studi” atau tahap batin, satu di setiap sisi dan satu di belakang. Akhirnya, tirai dalam segala kemungkinan digunakan sebagai traverse – layar yang diletakkan melintang di “studi” atau tahap batin untuk menciptakan ruang dramatis tambahan. ruang tersebut dapat mewakili ruang yang terpisah, kompartemen, atau tenda untuk melawan tentara. Dengan cara ini sandiwara telah paralelisme ekstra tersedia dan kontras yang disampaikan oleh citra visual dan simbolisme. Tirai di depan pintu dan pintu masuk lainnya di atas panggung akan memungkinkan pintu masuk sangat deras dan keluar, kadang-kadang diperlukan dalam bermain, seperti Shakespeare Antonius dan Cleopatra, yang cepat memotong bolak-balik antara Mesir dan Roma. Setiap bermain dengan adegan staccato jelas akan mendapat manfaat dari penggunaan tirai.

        Teater indoor atau tahapan dari waktu, termasuk teater yang Shakespeare dan perusahaannya digunakan, Blackfriars, mirip dengan teater publik outdoor di konstruksi, serta salah satu nenek moyang mereka, aula besar sebuah rumah yang mulia:
 

        Meskipun ada cukup banyak perlengkapan yang terlibat dalam pementasan Inggris Renaissance drama, drama dan dramawan masih terutama tergantung pada imajinasi penonton untuk memasok rincian kurang banyak, pada citra visual dan simbolisme (gesture, pengelompokan panggung, gerakan, pengaturan, dan kadang-kadang kostum) dan unggul, tentu saja, tentang bahasa. Tidak ada upaya untuk mengamankan, tidak perhatian bahkan jauh untuk mencapai “realisme” dalam pengertian modern. Panggung sangat fluida dan fleksibel, karena relatif tidak dibebani, menawarkan kemungkinan visual manifold baik secara vertikal dan horizontal untuk menyampaikan gerakan, stasis, langkah cepat atau lambat atau tempo (misalnya, perubahan setting atau adegan), simetri, asimetri, paralelisme, dan kontras. Menghitung ruang bawah tanah, dari mana hantu, setan, atau pohon magis mungkin timbul, dan “gubuk,” dari mana suatu dewa atau tahta mungkin turun, aktor mungkin muncul di lima tingkat, tingkat ini menjadi konsonan jelas dengan konsep hirarki pusat di Renaissance. Termasuk pintu jebakan, ada sebanyak 22 titik dari “penemuan” atau pintu masuk (LG Salingar, “The Elizabeth Literary Renaissance,” dalam The Age of Shakespeare, Vol 2 dari Panduan Pelican. Ke Bahasa Inggris Sastra [Penguin Books, 1963 ], hlm 66-68).

        Untuk semua ini, masih merupakan teater intim, di mana bahkan dari titik pandang yang terburuk detail visual dan auditori menit mungkin ditangkap oleh penonton. Sebagai salah satu catatan kritikus, “panggung depan, aktor berdiri di samping Groundlings;… Tahap belakang, di Globe, ia tidak lebih dari delapan puluh lima meter dari penonton terjauh sehingga tidak ada keharusan untuk menjatuhkan. konvensi lama alamat langsung ke pemirsa, dalam solilokui atau samping; itu adalah teater untuk kefasihan sebanyak untuk arak-arakan “(Salingar 68).

2. Negara Teks dari Dimainkan Shakespeare; Shakespeare Penulis diragukan lagi dari Dimainkan; Edisi Fitur
          Shakespeare tidak diragukan lagi penulis memainkan biasanya dihubungkan kepadanya: para aktor yang menyusun dikumpulkan edisi pertama, yang disebut “First Folio” (1623) mengenalnya dan telah pelaku telah dengan dia, demikian juga, yang lain pelaku bertindak dalam berbagai perusahaan di mana Shakespeare berpartisipasi, dan bahkan dramawan, terkenal saingan yang lebih muda, Ben Jonson. Memang benar, bagaimanapun, bahwa Shakespeare, seperti kebanyakan dramawan lain pada masanya (dengan pengecualian Ben Jonson), merawat sedikit selama pencetakan bermain, karena dua alasan utama. Pertama, drama dianggap sebagai lowerclass atau bentuk sastra kurang bergengsi dibanding puisi; Shakespeare tidak mengambil lebih peduli dua puisi-puisi panjang utama (Venus dan Adonis dan Rape of Lucrece), yang ditulis ketika teater di London ditutup, karena mereka secara berkala, untuk sebuah wabah penyakit pes; Shakespeare berharap untuk mengamankan reputasi di antara aristokrasi dari puisi. Kedua, penerbitan memainkan adalah merugikan bagi perusahaan bertindak memproduksi karena perusahaan bertindak maka lain akan memiliki akses ke naskah dan bisa memakai produksi yang akan mengambil uang dari perusahaan bertindak yang memainkan telah ditulis. Salah satu akibat dari kondisi ini adalah perbedaan kadang-kadang membingungkan antara versi dipublikasikan bermain yang sama. Ketiga, sebuah perusahaan akting kadang-kadang akan mengambil versi skala-down bermain (dan teks) untuk tur di pedesaan (di mana beberapa komponen rumit teater tidak akan tersedia), dan beberapa versi ini skala-down yang dicetak. Keempat, dan terakhir, aktor individu – biasanya bukan salah satu aktor lebih baik dibayar di perusahaan teater – akan menuliskan seluruh bermain sebaik dia ingat dan kemudian menjual ini “bajakan” versi ke penerbit untuk uang ekstra (biasanya baris untuk bagiannya atau bagian sangat akurat, yang memungkinkan para sarjana kemudian untuk mencari tahu mana aktor menghasilkan “bajakan” script). Dalam kasus Dusun, bermain itu diterbitkan dalam tiga versi utama (pada tahun 1603, 1604, dan 1623), yang memiliki perbedaan serius, dan memaksa editor apapun untuk membuat keputusan sulit tentang apa edisi modern harus terlihat seperti. Ini adalah diagram yang menunjukkan hubungan rumit kemungkinan antara naskah tulisan tangan dan dicetak versi Dusun:
 

        Sebagai hasil dari keadaan rumit dari teks-teks drama individu dengan Shakespeare, beberapa teks mungkin mencerminkan versi dipotong menjadi lebih sesuai kondisi rumah mungil di kota atau di pedesaan (yang terakhir tanpa teater rumit atau mesin panggung), beberapa yang berwibawa -volume modern edisi cetak karya Shakespeare dua atau bahkan tiga versi dari bermain yang sama. Lama otoritatif satu-volume edisi modern Shakespeare memainkan biasanya dicetak versi tercampur bermain, mengambil bagian dari versi tekstual permainan yang berbeda, meskipun mengikuti salah satu versi utama sebanyak mungkin. David Bevington dan G. Blakemore Evans di edisi halus mereka (lihat edisi yang tercantum di bawah) terus praktek ini, di sisi lain, edisi Greenblatt memiliki tiga teks yang berbeda dari Raja Lear (Quarto Teks, Teks Folio, Teks tercampur) , dan, pada dasarnya, dua teks yang berbeda dari Dusun (bagian dari versi yang berbeda tekstual utama “adalah indentasi, dicetak, dalam jenis huruf yang berbeda, dan nomor sedemikian rupa untuk membuat jelas asal mereka” [hal 1667]); juga, edisi Orgel dan Braunmuller memiliki dua versi King Lear (yang 1608 dan 1623 Quarto Folio versi). Alasan untuk kebingungan tentang teks drama Shakespeare dan banyak lainnya dalam periode ini adalah bahwa Renaisans paling dramawan Inggris tidak memiliki keprihatinan banyak tentang penerbitan memainkan mereka. ketidakpedulian ini berasal dari beberapa penyebab. Pertama, drama dianggap sebagai bentuk yang lebih rendah penulisan dari puisi; Shakespeare berharap untuk memperoleh reputasi (dan lebih berhati-hati pencetakan karya) dari puisinya Venus dan Adonis dan The Rape of Lucrece. Yang Renaissance dramawan Inggris, Ben Jonson, yang sangat berhati-hati tentang pencetakan memainkan dan berjudul koleksi Pekerjaan adalah satir berulang kali dalam periode untuk anggapan tentang bentuk penulisan yang lebih rendah. Kedua, dramawan yang paling tidak memiliki produk jadi, yang telah dibayar piecework oleh perusahaan bertindak; akibatnya, perusahaan yang bertindak akan memutuskan apakah akan mempublikasikan atau tidak. Sebagian besar perusahaan bertindak tidak ingin mempublikasikan script, karena buku ini kemudian bisa digunakan untuk produksi bermain oleh perusahaan bertindak saingan dan teater. Namun, bermain tidak mendapatkan dipublikasikan, melalui beberapa cara. Kadang-kadang perusahaan bertindak, sangat membutuhkan uang (teater itu berulang kali ditutup karena wabah Wabah, misalnya), akan menerbitkan sebuah drama dari makalah penulis (dalam bentuk tulisan tangan, yang kadang-kadang memberikan printer cukup banyak masalah dalam memutuskan tentang kata-kata atau bahkan apakah bagian sebuah prosa atau puisi). Kadang-kadang penerbit yang tidak bermoral akan mengirim stenografer untuk bermain untuk membuat transkripsi tidak sah dari teks untuk publikasi tidak sah. Kadang-kadang salah satu aktor kecil – tidak dibayar pada skala yang sama sebagai perusahaan biasa – akan menghafal semaksimal mungkin bagian lain dari bermain dan putar transkrip ke penerbit. (Teks dari sumber ini mudah untuk mengidentifikasi karena sebagian aktor kecil adalah sempurna, sedangkan sebagian lainnya tidak merata.) Kadang-kadang memainkan ada dalam beberapa bentuk, tergantung pada apakah itu untuk kinerja di sebuah teater biasa atau versi dipotong untuk tur di pedesaan. Dan kadang-kadang perusahaan bertindak atau printer harus bekerja dari versi yang berbeda atau negara dari teks (beberapa dalam bentuk manuskrip, beberapa dalam bentuk buku).

    Sama seperti ada beberapa edisi studi indah satu-volume hari ini Alkitab, jadi ada beberapa edisi satu volume yang sangat baik dari karya-karya Shakespeare, yang jelas melampaui semua satu-volume edisi lain (terdaftar abjad berdasarkan nama dari editor umum):

Bate, Jonathan, dan Eric Rasmussen, eds. The RSC Shakespeare; William Shakespeare: Karya Lengkap. New York: Modern Library, 2007. [RSC = Royal Shakespeare Company; berbasis teks sebanyak mungkin pada edisi Folio Pertama 1623] [judul dapat membuat buku lebih sulit untuk memesan dari ISBN: 978-0-679-64295-4]

Bevington, David, gen. ed. The Complete Works Shakespeare. 5th ed. New York: HarperCollins, 2004. [Skor secara 100 poin: penjelasan - 90; bahan tentang kehidupan Shakespeare, kali, karir, teks, dan kepustakaan - 90.]

Evans, G. Blakemore, dan J.J.M. Tobin, gen. eds. The Riverside Shakespeare. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1997. [Skor secara 100 poin: penjelasan - 87; bahan tentang kehidupan Shakespeare, kali, karir, teks, dan kepustakaan - 88.]

Greenblatt, Stephen, gen. ed. The Shakespeare Norton: Berdasarkan Edition Oxford. New York: W.W. Norton, 1997. [Skor secara 100 poin: penjelasan - 90; bahan tentang kehidupan Shakespeare, kali, karir, teks, dan kepustakaan - 88.] 2nd edition, 2008.

Orgel, Stephen, dan A.R. Braunmuller, gen. eds. William Shakespeare: The Works Lengkap [The Pelican Shakespeare Lengkap]. 2nd ed. Penguin Books, 2002. [Skor secara 100 poin: penjelasan - 85; bahan tentang kehidupan Shakespeare, kali, karir, teks, dan kepustakaan - 73.]

        Bagi siswa yang memiliki kesulitan ekstrim dalam memahami teks, edisi Cukup Shakespeare: Hamlet atau Made Easy Shakespeare: Hamlet, dua seri judul dari Barron’s Educational Series (ISBN 0-8120-3638-7 ISBN 0-7641-2084-0 atau ) mungkin membantu. Buku-buku memiliki teks asli pada satu halaman dengan terjemahan dan ekspansi (untuk apa yang akan menjadi catatan kaki) pada halaman menghadap. Yang paling menyeluruh beranotasi dari berbagai seri mencetak satu volume terpisah per bermain dari drama Shakespeare adalah sebagai berikut (semua dalam kertas, terdaftar abjad menurut judul seri): (a) Annotated Shakespeare (ed. Burton Raffel, Yale UP); ( b) Arden atau New Arden Shakespeare (berbagai editor dan penerbit – dalam tiga edisi yang terpisah selama beberapa dekade, edisi pertama adalah Arden, yang kedua adalah Arden Baru, dan ketiga, membingungkan, adalah Arden); (c ) The New Cambridge Shakespeare (Kej. eds Philip Brockbank, Brian Gibbons, dan Robin Hood;. Cambridge UP); (d) The New Penguin Shakespeare (Penguin Books), dan (e) [Classics Dunia] Oxford Shakespeare (Oxford UP ).

I,i. Elsinore. A Platform in Front of the Castle

In bitterly cold weather Bernardo relieves Francisco on guard duty at midnight after challenges about “who goes there.” As Francisco prepares to go, Marcellus and Horatio join Bernardo for his watch. After inquiring anxiously if “this thing” has appeared again and learning that it has not, Marcellus tells Bernardo that he has brought Horatio with him to corroborate their story and speak to the apparition. Although the two officers claim to have seen the specter on two previous nights, Horatio is skeptical and predicts that it will not come again. But while Bernardo is describing their prior experiences, the Ghost appears. Because Horatio can address the spirit in scholarly fashion, his companions urge him to speak to it. Now harrowed with fear and wonder, Horatio agrees with Bernardo that the apparition resembles the recent King; he charges the Ghost to speak, but the spirit disappears. Forced to accept what he has seen, Horatio confesses his belief that the manifestation “bodes some strange eruption to our state.” The three men review the wartime vigilance and industry that Denmark has instituted in anticipation of an invasion by young Fortinbras of Norway. Recalling the omens and prodigies preceding the assassination of Julius Caesar, Horatio assumes that the Ghost of the elder Hamlet has returned to forewarn the nation.

Suddenly the Ghost reappears. Resolved to force a reply, Horatio inquires: (1) if he can do anything to comfort the spirit; (2) if it is trying to warn the state of some impending calamity; (3) if it is restless because it buried extorted treasure during its lifetime. The cock crows, and the Ghost vanishes in spite of the listeners’ efforts to detain it. The approach of day precludes any likelihood that the spirit will now return. Horatio advises that they inform Hamlet of all they have witnessed.

I,ii. Elsinore. A Room in the Castle

Claudius dispatches court matters efficiently. In graceful terms Claudius explains to the court how, having properly mourned the death of his brother, he has married Gertrude, his former sister-in-law. He then describes the threat of invasion by young Fortinbras, nephew to the present King of Norway. In an effort to preserve peace, Claudius dispatches the envoys Cornelius and Voltemand to the Norwegian king. Having thus attended to public business, Claudius turns to hear Laertes’s request for permission to return to France. Satisfying himself that Laertes has the approval of his father, Polonius, Claudius consents.

Now Claudius directs his attention to Hamlet and ingratiatingly asks the cause of his melancholy. Hamlet resents his uncle’s patronizing manner. Gertrude implores her son to accept the universal fact of death, cease mourning for his father, and let his eye “look like a friend” on Claudius. Taking his cue from Gertrude, Claudius delivers a short discourse on the futility of prolonged grief; asks Hamlet to think of him as a father, and urges the Prince to remain in Denmark instead of returning to school in Wittenberg. Gertrude adds her pleas to those of the King. Hamlet promises to obey his mother, and Claudius leads Gertrude away to celebrate the occasion.

In a passionate soliloquy Hamlet laments that divine law has condemned suicide as a means of escape from a “weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable” life. Rankled by his mother’s hasty marriage to Claudius, he deplores the frailty of women and his mother’s eager-ness “to post/With such dexterity to incestuous sheets.” Horatio, Marcellus, and Bernardo enter, as he is concluding, “break my heart, for I must hold my tongue!”

After Horatio and Hamlet exchange a warm greeting, Horatio amazes Hamlet with the statement that he thinks he saw the elder Hamlet on the preceding night. With Hamlet eagerly attending every word, Horatio relates the encounters Bernardo, Marcellus, and he have had with the Ghost. Hamlet questions the three men about the spirit, resolves to watch with them on the parapet, swears them to secrecy, and arranges to meet them that very night. To himself Hamlet reflects that “All is not well,” and impatiently awaits nightfall.

I,iii. Elsinore. Polonius’s House

Preparing to embark for France, Laertes cautions his sister Ophelia against taking Hamlet’s declarations of love seriously. Since even if Hamlet’s intentions are honorable, he cannot as a member of the royal family exercise freedom in his choice of a wife, Laertes advises Ophelia to control her emotions. Ophelia promises to remember her brother’s counsel but suggests that he be sure to follow his own advice. Laertes recollects that he is in a hurry as his father enters.

In a parting blessing, Polonius gives Laertes verbose, sound, but self-contradictory directions on how he should conduct himself in France. Laertes respectfully bids his father farewell, gives Ophelia a final word of caution, and departs. When Polonius questions Ophelia on what Laertes had in mind, she admits that their conversation related to Hamlet. Under her father’s persistent interrogation, she confesses that Hamlet has avowed his love for her. Chiding the girl for taking Hamlet’s wooing to heart, Polonius forbids her henceforth “to give words or talk with the Lord Hamlet.”

I,iv. Elsinore. The Platform in Front of the Castle

While Hamlet, Horatio, and Marcellus watch in the cold midnight air, cannon and martial music signal Claudius’s carousal. Hamlet bitterly criticizes the bad manners and heavy drinking that char-acterize the Danish court and people. As he concludes his tirade, the Ghost appears. Seeing the spirit’s resemblance to his late father and assuming that it has some message to impart, Hamlet addresses it.

The Ghost motions Hamlet to follow it. Horatio and Marcellus advise Hamlet not to accompany the spirit and try to restrain him by force, but the Prince breaks away and leaves with the specter. Anxious for Hamlet’s safety and convinced that “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark,” Horatio and Marcellus follow.

I,v. Elsinore. The Fortifications of the Castle

Commanding Hamlet’s careful attention, the Ghost identifies itself as his father’s spirit, doomed “to walk the night” until certain crimes done during his time on earth “Are burnt and purg’d away.” Abruptly the Ghost orders Hamlet to revenge his father’s “foul and most unnatural murder.” To Hamlet’s horror, the Ghost relates how Claudius first won Gertrude to an adulterous relationship and then poisoned his brother, thus taking the elder Hamlet’s life, wife, and crown. Moreover, the former King died with his sins unconfessed and unforgiven. Adjuring Hamlet to revenge his father’s murder and his mother’s dishonor, the Ghost warns him not to harm Gertrude in the process. Rather he is to leave her to heaven and the remorse of her own conscience. “Remember me,” the Ghost says and departs.

In a brief soliloquy, Hamlet pledges himself to keep the spirit’s words uppermost in his mind and writes a memorandum to himself in his notebook. When Horatio and Marcellus find him and inquire about his welfare, Hamlet diverts them with “wild and whirling words.” Horatio protests mildly, and Hamlet tells his friend that the “vision” they have seen “is an honest ghost” but to seek to know no more. Extending his sword hilt as a cross, he requests his two companions to swear on it that they will never reveal what they have witnessed that night, and beneath them the Ghost cries, “Swear.” Hamlet intimates to Horatio that he may find it necessary “To put an antic disposition on.” When he does, Horatio must not disclose by word or sign that he has any knowledge of the matter. Thanking his friends and again swearing them to secrecy, Hamlet escorts them into the castle. He declares, “The time is out of joint. 0 cursed spite,/ That ever I was born to set it right!”

II,i. Elsinore. Polonius’s House

Polonius is sending Reynaldo with money and letters to Laertes. Curious to learn how Laertes is conducting himself in Paris, Polonius instructs Reynaldo to make private and provocatively leading inquiries of his son’s friends and acquaintances. Reynaldo expresses surprise at these somewhat unethical tactics, but Polonius explains that in this way they may “By indirections find directions out.” Reynaldo leaves on his mission, and Ophelia enters.

Clearly unnerved, Ophelia describes how Hamlet, disheveled and with his clothes deranged, seized her by the wrist, gazed into her face, sighed without saying a word, and backed away, never taking his eyes off her. Diagnosing Hamlet’s behavior as “the very ecstasy of love,” Polonius asks if she has “given him any hard words of late.” Ophelia answers that, in accordance with her father’s command, she has rejected Hamlet’s letters and refused to meet him. Suddenly fearful lest his attempts to protect Ophelia from an improper relationship have resulted in Hamlet’s mental derangement, Polonius takes Ophelia to see the King.

II,ii. Elsinore. A Room in the Castle

Gertrude and Claudius, having observed the changes in Hamlet’s nature and manner, share a mutual, although not necessarily identical, concern. Hoping to learn the cause behind the Prince’s “transformation,” they have enlisted the services of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, onetime friends and schoolmates of Hamlet. The two courtiers indicate their readiness to undertake the commission and withdraw to talk with the Prince.

Polonius enters to announce the return of Cornelius and Voltemand from Norway. The Lord Chamberlain is more eager, however, to report that he has discovered “The very cause of Hamlet’s lunacy.” Claudius wants to know more about this, but Polonius insists that Claudius receive the ambassadors first and goes to usher them in. When Claudius repeats to Gertrude that Polonius has identified the source of Hamlet’s ailment, the Queen expresses assurance that her son still grieves for his father and resents her “o’erhasty marriage.”

Polonius brings in Voltemand and Cornelius. The envoys report that the King of Norway has effectively removed the danger of young Fortinbras’s attack on Denmark but has approved an invasion of Poland with the same troops. To this end the Norwegian king requests Claudius to grant Fortinbras’s army safe and peaceful pas-sage through Danish territory. Claudius commends Voltemand and Cornelius for discharging their mission satisfactorily and dismisses them.

Scarcely able to restrain himself until the ambassadors have gone, Polonius launches into an extended account of Hamlet’s love affair with Ophelia and his resulting madness. Gertrude attempts to shorten the old man’s recital, but he tediously reviews all the details in his characteristically loquacious style. Gertrude finds Polonius’s explanation plausible, but Claudius remains skeptical and determines to seek additional proof. Knowing Hamlet’s habit of walking for long intervals in the lobby, Claudius and Polonius arrange to eavesdrop on the Prince and Ophelia, whom Polonius will contrive to bring together at the appropriate moment. Hamlet enters “reading on a book,” and Claudius and Gertrude leave hastily with their attendants while Polonius prepares to converse with the Prince.

Hamlet pretends not to recognize Polonius and confuses him with wordplay that is both pertinent and nonsensical. More certain than ever that he has diagnosed Hamlet’s madness correctly, Polonius excuses himself to set up the encounter between Hamlet and Ophelia. On his way out he passes Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, who are coming to try their hand at finding the cause of Hamlet’s distraction. Speedily discerning the courtiers’ purpose and detecting their suspicion that he is disappointed at not succeeding to the throne, Hamlet baits them with suggestive but inconclusive observations on the topic of ambition. After skillfully parrying their questions, Hamlet wrings from them a tacit admission that they are agents of the King and Queen. By this time Rosencrantz is happy to turn the conversation to the imminent arrival of a company of strolling players. Suddenly curious, Hamlet inquires the identity of the troupe. While he and Rosencrantz discuss the company’s recent decline in popularity in the city and the reasons why the actors have come to Elsinore, trumpets outside signal the arrival of the Players. Shaking hands with Guildenstern and Rosencrantz in a sudden display of cordiality, Hamlet adds to their bewilderment by alluding to his own madness. Polonius reappears, and Hamlet’s speech grows even wilder and more irrational, although he cleverly manages to insert touches of shrewd insight into life and character. When the Players enter, Hamlet welcomes them heartily and asks the First Player to deliver several lines from a particular play. After the Player concludes, Hamlet charges Polonius to entertain the actors hospitably and adds that he wishes to hear a play the following day.

Detaining the First Player for a moment, Hamlet secures his promise to perform “The Murder of Gonzago” with the insertion “of some dozen or sixteen lines” that Hamlet will supply. Cautioning the Player to treat Polonius with respect, Hamlet sends him after his fellows and then dismisses Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. In a long soliloquy, Hamlet contrasts the energy and vitality of the actor in declaiming his speeches with his own failure to revenge his father’s murder. He wonders if he is actually a coward; then he chides himself for ranting and cursing instead of taking action. Finally he crystallizes a plan of inducing the actors to produce a play with action resembling his father’s murder. He will observe Claudius closely on the chance that the King may in some way betray his guilt and thus corroborate the revelation of the Ghost. Aware that the devil has the power to assume “a pleasing shape” and thus damn people by betraying them into violent deeds, Hamlet is determined to find addi-tional proof of Claudius’s crime. Confident of his scheme, he says, “The play’s the thing/ Wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the King.”

III,i. Elsinore. The Castle

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern report to the King and Queen that their efforts to pump Hamlet have revealed nothing more than “a crafty madness.” When Gertrude inquires if they tried to amuse the Prince, Rosencrantz mentions Hamlet’s pleasure at the arrival of the actors. Polonius conveys Hamlet’s invitation to the King to witness a play. Relieved to know that his nephew has shown this much interest in entertainment, Claudius gives his ready approval and sends Rosencrantz and Guildenstern back to Hamlet. Turning, Claudius informs Gertrude of his and Polonius’s scheme to overhear an apparently accidental meeting between the Prince and Ophelia. After wishing Ophelia well and approving the match, Gertrude retires. Quickly, Polonius briefs Ophelia and sets the scene for Hamlet’s appearance; he hears Hamlet coming and escorts Claudius to their hiding place.

“To be, or not to be-that is the question,” Hamlet says as he contemplates the significance of suicide and its possible results, possibly reflecting on his task of revenge and his inactivity up to this point. He would welcome such a release from life’s problems, but the uncertainty of what lies beyond death gives him pause. Suddenly Hamlet notices Ophelia, checks his philosophizing, and asks her to pray for him.

Patiently and repeatedly, Ophelia endeavors to determine the cause of Hamlet’s estranged manner and aloofness. Maintaining his role of insanity, Hamlet twists her words, denies that he ever really loved her, and gruffly orders her to enter a nunnery. Then, possibly suspecting the presence of the eavesdroppers, he abruptly inquires the whereabouts of Polonius. When Ophelia replies that her father is at home, Hamlet expresses the hope that the fool will remain there. Growing coarser in his speech, Hamlet denounces all women, again orders Ophelia to a nunnery, and leaves after making a cryptic statement that there will be no more marriages and that of those already married “all but one-shall live.”

Certain that her former suitor is completely mad, Ophelia laments the change that has reduced Hamlet, who was “The glass of fashion and the mould of form,” to such a pitiable condition. Claudius and Polonius emerge from concealment. Although Hamlet has successfully convinced others of his insanity, Claudius rejects both love and madness as factors in his behavior. Uncertain of the real cause of the Prince’s melancholy but apprehensive of its true nature, the King tells Polonius that he will dispatch Hamlet to England to collect overdue tribute. Possibly the voyage and change in environment will benefit the Prince. Polonius, on the other hand, continues to believe that Hamlet’s distraction springs from “neglected love.” In a final effort to prove his view, he urges Claudius to arrange a private conference between Gertrude and her son while Polonius overhears all they say. Claudius approves the plan and comments, “Madness in great ones must not unwatch’d go.”

III,ii. Elsinore. The Castle

Hamlet is giving three of the visiting actors detailed instructions on how to include the lines he has prepared and on the style in which he wishes them to enact the play itself. The Players leave; Polonius enters with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to inform Hamlet that the court is ready for the entertainment. Hamlet sends all three to hasten the preparations and calls for Horatio, who appears immediately. Assuring his friend of the trust and confidence he reposes in him, Hamlet explains his plan of testing Claudius’s guilt by means of the forthcoming play. Horatio promises to observe the King carefully for any sign of uneasiness or confusion.

To the accompaniment of trumpets and kettledrums, the King and members of the court assemble to view the drama. Greeting the King and Polonius in turn, Hamlet sustains his pretense of madness. Gertrude invites the Prince to sit by her, but Hamlet declines, settles himself at Ophelia’s feet, and launches into suggestive and obscene remarks. Hautboys play, and the dumb show begins. In this pantomime the actors sketch the plot of the play they are about to perform; it simulates the significant steps in the King’s murder of the elder Hamlet and subsequent marriage to Gertrude. While Hamlet provides flippant answers to Ophelia’s innocent questions, the Players commence “The Murder of Gonzago.” Gradually the play unfolds until Claudius inquires if “there is no offence in’t,” and demands to know the title. Hamlet replies that it is called “The Mouse-trap” and is based on a Viennese murder case. He adds that those who “have free souls” will find nothing objectionable in the story.

In a moment the player-murderer pours poison in the ears of the sleeping player-king, and Hamlet foretells how the assassin will win the love of his victim’s wife. Overcome with emotion, Claudius rises, calls for light, and departs with Gertrude and his attendants. Exultantly, Hamlet asks Horatio if he noted this confirmation of the Ghost’s report. Horatio says that he did, and Hamlet calls for music.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern report that Claudius is violently upset and indisposed and that Gertrude wishes Hamlet to come to her apartment. Rosencrantz makes another attempt to learn the cause of Hamlet’s conduct, but the Prince discloses nothing except the suggestion that he chafes at not succeeding to the throne. The Players bring in their musical instruments. Hamlet invites Guildenstern to play one of them. When he replies that he cannot, Hamlet informs him and his companion that they cannot “play upon” him either.

Polonius comes to summon Hamlet to the Queen. After a wild exchange of observations with the old chamberlain, Hamlet sends everybody out. In a brief soliloquy he states his intention of visiting his mother. Although his emotion has reached a new height of excitement and bitterness, he will not attack Gertrude physically. “I will speak daggers to her, but use none.”

III,iii. Elsinore. The Castle

Now thoroughly alerted to the danger Hamlet represents, Claudius tells Rosencrantz and Guildenstern that they must, for the security of the Crown, conduct him to England under royal commission. The two courtiers hasten off as Polonius appears on his way to hide behind the arras in Gertrude’s boudoir, where Hamlet is presently going. Promising to inform the King before bedtime of what he learns, Polonius leaves. Immediately Claudius starts to soliloquize on his sin. His sense of guilt and his conscience prompt him to pray, but he knows that prayer without repentance is ineffective, and repentance depends on surrendering his crown, his ambition, and his queen. He craves forgiveness for his murder, but he cannot relinquish the fruits of his crime. Desperately trying to find a measure of spiritual peace, he kneels.

As Claudius falls to his knees in a futile attempt at prayer, Hamlet enters, sees the King, and realizes that he can easily kill his uncle. But a moment later he reconsiders. If he were to slay the King in the act of praying, the villain’s soul might find eternal salvation. Remembering that Claudius killed the elder Hamlet without giving him opportunity for confession and extreme unction, the Prince resolves to delay his revenge until the King is engaging in some worldly or riotous pastime; then Claudius’s soul “may be as damn’d and black/As hell, whereto it goes.” Hamlet leaves to meet the Queen, and Claudius rises from his useless search for spiritual consolation.

III,iv. The Queen’s Closet (Private Bedroom)

Polonius admonishes the Queen to speak roundly with her son, who calls from outside. Gertrude agrees to follow instructions, and Polonius slips behind the arras. Entering, Hamlet rebukes his mother in a most unfilial manner. Ordering her to sit down and not to budge until he finishes what he has to say, he becomes so threatening in word and gesture that Gertrude, fearing physical violence, calls for help. Behind the arras, Polonius echoes her cry. Supposing that Claudius has concealed himself in the Queen’s chamber, Hamlet instantaneously draws his sword, thrusts it through the drapery, and kills Polonius. Horrified, Gertrude asks Hamlet what he has done and is bewildered when he implies that he has followed her example and killed a king.

Lifting the arras, Hamlet views the body of Polonius, whom he dismisses as a “wretched, rash, intruding fool.” Resuming his reproof of the Queen, Hamlet depicts the enormity of her disloyalty to his father and of her indecent relationship with Claudius. Overcome with shame and remorse, Gertrude begs him to say no more. Suddenly the Ghost appears, and Hamlet asks for guidance. The Ghost answers that it has come to whet Hamlet’s “almost blunted purpose” but urges him to comfort his mother. Because she neither sees nor hears the Ghost, Gertrude interprets Hamlet’s actions and words as further proof of his madness. Hamlet is similarly puzzled by his mother’s in-ability to discern the spirit, which vanishes.

Denying Gertrude’s suggestion that he is insane, Hamlet exhorts her to confess and repent. When she admits that he has moved her deeply, Hamlet entreats her not to return to Claudius’s bed. He adds that when she seeks divine blessing, he will ask her blessing on him. He repents his slaying of Polonius, an act by which heaven has punished him. Insisting that he has had to “be cruel, only to be kind,” he bids his mother good night. In a moment, however, he re-assumes his bitter and cynical manner, suggesting that the Queen may submit herself to the King’s wanton caresses and permit him to wheedle from her an account of all that has happened. Gertrude promises that she will tell nothing. Reminding his mother that he must leave for England, Hamlet indicates that he distrusts Rosencrantz and Guildenstern and that he is enjoying the contest of wits between himself and Claudius. The Prince then removes the body of Polonius, who is finally “most still, most silent, and most grave.”

IV,i. Elsinore. The Castle

Dismissing Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Gertrude describes her interview with Hamlet to her most attentive husband. When she relates how Hamlet, mad and in a “lawless fit,” slew Polonius, Claudius immediately realizes that the sword was intended for him. He argues that to leave the Prince at liberty is to endanger everyone in Denmark. Furthermore, public opinion will condemn Claudius for having failed to restrain and control him. Gertrude says that Hamlet is removing the corpse of Polonius, whose death he mourns. The King states that he must deport Hamlet at once. Recalling Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, he orders them to find Hamlet and the body of the old courtier. His soul “full of discord and dismay,” Claudius leads Gertrude off.

IV,ii. Elsinore. The Castle

Meeting Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Hamlet evades their questions about Polonius’s body and charges them with acting as informers to the King. Although he refuses to give them the information they seek, he agrees to accompany them to Claudius.

IV,iii. Elsinore. The Castle

Waiting the return of his two agents, Claudius reflects on how dangerous Hamlet is so long as he “goes loose.” The Prince’s popularity with his subjects makes it difficult to “put the strong law on him.” Rosencrantz enters, says that he has learned nothing, but adds that Hamlet is outside awaiting the King’s pleasure. In response to the King’s command, Guildenstern brings Hamlet in under guard. Claudius presses Hamlet to reveal the whereabouts of Polonius’s body. After teasing his uncle with a parable of “how a king may go a progress through the guts of a beggar,” Hamlet indicates the location of the corpse. Claudius sends attendants to fetch the body and then tells Hamlet that he must depart for England with “fiery quickness.” In a passionate show of madness, Hamlet says farewell to his absent mother and leaves. Claudius sends Rosencrantz and Guildenstern posthaste after the Prince to insure his embarkation. In a brief soliloquy, Claudius reveals that Hamlet’s two escorts carry instructions for the King of England to execute him on his arrival. Claudius will experience no joy until he hears that Hamlet is dead.

IV,iv. A Plain in Denmark

Fortinbras directs a Captain to proceed to the Danish court in order to secure authorization for his Norwegian troops to cross Den-mark. Fortinbras marches his army off, as Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, and Hamlet appear. In a brief conversation with the Captain, Hamlet learns that young Fortinbras is attacking Poland and is prepared to sacrifice many lives to acquire a small and worthless “patch of ground.” Requesting privacy for a little while, Hamlet soliloquizes on the contrast between his own character and that of Fortinbras. Fortinbras risks heavy casualties to satisfy a trivial motive; Hamlet, who has every reason to act, has done nothing to implement his revenge. Having renewed his determination, Hamlet exclaims, “0, from this time forth,/ My thoughts be bloody, or be nothing worth!”

IV,v. Elsinore. The Castle

A gentleman tells Gertrude and Horatio that Ophelia has gone out of her mind following Polonius’s death and that she wishes to speak with the Queen. At first, Gertrude refuses to see the unfortunate girl, but Horatio advises that she be admitted lest she “strew/Dangerous conjectures in ill-breeding minds.” Reluctantly the Queen consents, and Ophelia appears uttering wild and confused words and singing scraps of lyrics. Claudius comes in and endeavors to calm the girl, whose raving implies grief for her father and distress for her departed lover. Calling for her coach, Ophelia departs. Claudius sends Horatio after her to “give her good watch.”

Dismayed by this turn of events, Claudius laments to Gertrude that “When sorrows come, they come not single spies,/But in battalions.” Polonius has been slain; Hamlet, insane, has been deported; the people of Denmark are restless; Ophelia is mad; finally, Laertes has returned secretly from France and blames Claudius for his father’s death. A noise interrupts the King’s recital, and a messenger enters to report that Laertes is storming the castle with a mob seeking to make him king. Another noise signals that the crowd has broken down the castle doors.

Posting his followers at the door of the room, Laertes violently confronts Claudius and demands restitution. Calmly the King faces the would-be avenger and invites him to speak freely. Gertrude displays equal dignity and courage in supporting her husband. Laertes angrily swears to revenge his father’s death, whereupon Claudius replies that he will not be hindered. Rather, the King will prove his own innocence and give Laertes an accurate report of Polonius’s death. At this instant, the mad Ophelia returns, again raves, and departs. Pity and sorrow for his sister’s condition overwhelm Laertes. Swiftly Claudius promises Laertes to afford a detailed explanation and full satisfaction regarding all that has happened.

IV,vi. Elsinore. The Castle

Horatio directs his attendant to admit a group of sailors who wish to deliver a packet of letters. One is for Horatio. In it Hamlet requests Horatio to arrange for the sailors to convey other letters to the King. Hamlet also relates how pirates overtook his ship and he was able to escape with them. He intimates his imminent return to Denmark and says that Rosencrantz and Guilderstern have continued on course to England.

IV,vii. Elsinore. The Castle

Claudius has convinced Laertes of Hamlet’s responsibility in Polonius’s death and also of his attempt against the King’s own life. Claudius explains his failure to prosecute Hamlet on the grounds of the Queen’s love for her son and the Prince’s popularity with the people. Laertes vows to get his revenge. The King is starting to tell Laertes of the measures he has already taken against Hamlet when a messenger enters and announces that he brings letters from Hamlet to both Claudius and Gertrude. Dismissing the messenger, Claudius reads Hamlet’s brief note. In it the Prince says simply that he is “set naked” on Danish soil and requests permission to explain his return. Almost unable to believe the fact of Hamlet’s statement, Claudius rapidly formulates a plan in which he enlists Laertes’s will-ing assistance. Having heard from a Norman gentleman of Laertes’s expertness in fencing, the King proposes that he challenge Hamlet to a fencing match. If Laertes leaves one of the foils unbated (without the protective button), he may easily kill his unsuspecting opponent. Eager to make certain of his revenge, Laertes determines to anoint the point of the weapon with a deadly poison. Taking every precaution against a miscarriage of the plan and possible detection, Claudius suggests that he will make a serious wager on the contest to lend it more plausibility. At last, if Hamlet eludes Laertes’s specially prepared rapier, the King will have a poisoned drink ready for Hamlet’s refreshment.

Gertrude interrupts their scheming to announce that Ophelia, attempting to hang garlands on a willow tree over a brook, has fallen into the stream and drowned. Unable to control his emotions, Laertes dashes out. Claudius, afraid that grief will rekindle Laertes’s rage and reckless conduct, leads Gertrude after him.

V,i. Elsinore. A Churchyard

Two Clowns (rustics) are digging Ophelia’s grave. While they work they discuss the nature of her drowning, whether she was or was not a suicide and whether she is entitled to burial in Christian ground. Their conversation turns to other and less serious topics as Hamlet and Horatio approach. One of the Clowns leaves to fetch “a stoup of liquor,” and the other starts singing a garbled love lyric while he works. Hamlet and Horatio draw nearer, and the Clown turns up a skull with his spade. Hamlet begins to speculate on the identity and occupation of the person exhumed. After singing another stanza, the digger throws out a second skull, which inspires Hamlet to continue his discourse. Finally Hamlet asks the Clown whose grave he is preparing. In a rambling and ambiguous manner the man replies that it is for “One that was a woman” but is now dead. Slightly annoyed by the Clown’s dryly humorous equivocation, Ham-let asks how long he has been a “grave-maker.” The digger answers that he started work “the very day that young Hamlet was born” and has continued in the same occupation for thirty years. (These figures strongly imply that Hamlet is thirty years old, but this calculation conflicts with testimony by Ophelia and Laertes in the early part of the play that Hamlet is quite young. Editors have been unable to explain the discrepancy satisfactorily.) When Hamlet inquires how long a corpse lies in the earth until it rots, the Clown picks up one of the skulls he has uncovered and identifies it as I belonging to Yorick, the court jester, who died twenty-three years before. Taking the skull from the grave-digger, Hamlet examines it with distaste and recalls how the merry Yorick carried him “on his back a thousand times.” Hamlet lays down the skull and reflects that Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar disintegrated into dust in similar fashion. At this moment Ophelia’s burial procession approaches, and Hamlet and Horatio step aside.

While the Prince and Horatio listen, a priest explains to Laertes that a royal decree has superseded the church’s decision to forbid burial in holy ground because of the suspicion that the corpse was a suicide. Laertes commands the bearers to lower the body into the grave and upbraids the “churlish priest” for his refusal to sing a requiem as part of the burial service. Not until Laertes uses the word “sister” does Hamlet learn that the grave is Ophelia’s. Gertrude scatters flowers over the coffin. With bursting emotion, Laertes curses the person who caused Ophelia’s madness and leaps into the grave. Demanding to know by what right Laertes displays such emphatic grief and identifying himself as Hamlet the Dane, the Prince jumps into the grave after Laertes. The two men struggle with each other until the King orders attendants to separate them. Utterly be-side himself, Hamlet declares that he loved Ophelia more than forty thousand brothers could have. Accusing Laertes of trying to shame him with such a display of grief, he cries that he will outdo every conceivable demonstration of sorrow. Suddenly he asks Laertes why he treats him in this fashion. “I lov’d you ever,” he says to Ophelia’s brother and leaves. Claudius sends Horatio after Hamlet; he then reminds Laertes of their plan to destroy Hamlet and urges him to be patient.

V,ii. Elsinore. The Castle

Hamlet is telling Horatio about his experiences aboard ship. Prompted by anxiety, he impulsively stole the King’s commission from Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in the dark. When he took it to his cabin and examined it, he found that it was an order for his immediate execution. Horatio voices surprise, and Hamlet hands him the warrant to read at his leisure and continues his account. Thankful for his proficient handwriting, Hamlet thereupon substituted another commission purporting to be from Claudius and commanding the instant death of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Fortunately, Hamlet had his father’s royal signet with which to seal the document. Hora-tio remarks on the fate Hamlet prepared for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, but the Prince replies that they enjoyed their treacherous employment and he will not concern himself about them.

Horatio exclaims aloud at the enormity of Claudius’s nature. Hamlet says that now he is surely justified in killing the man who murdered his father, dishonored his mother, usurped the throne, and tried to slay Hamlet himself. Horatio reminds his friend that Claudius will shortly receive news from England. Hamlet agrees but says that the interim belongs to him. He then professes regret for his behavior to Laertes at Ophelia’s grave and says that he will make amends.

At this point Osric, a foppish and affected young courtier, approaches. Hamlet amuses Horatio and himself by making fun of Osric’s speech and manners. Osric’s intelligence and sense of humor are too limited to enable him to perceive what Hamlet is doing, and he grows increasingly bewildered and flustered. Finally he de-scribes the wager Claudius and Laertes have placed on the out-come of the fencing match in which they invite Hamlet to compete against Laertes. On learning the conditions, Hamlet accepts the challenge. Osric departs, and Hamlet and Horatio exchange deprecatory comments on his absurd affections. A lord appears to say that the King and Queen are ready to witness the match. He also mentions Gertrude’s hope that Hamlet will greet Laertes cordially.

Horatio is afraid that Hamlet will lose the contest, but Hamlet believes that he can win “at the odds,” which provide that Laertes must not exceed him by three hits in twelve passes. Nevertheless, Hamlet confesses to a certain uneasiness or presentiment of evil. Horatio urges him to withdraw from the match. The Prince, however, defies omens, says that death is certain except for the time when it comes; “the readiness is all.”

Immediately the court gathers. Claudius places Laertes’s hand in Hamlet’s. Pleading his madness as an excuse for his previous actions, Hamlet asks Laertes’s pardon and voices his own good will. Laertes replies that he is “satisfied in nature” but that he must withhold formal reconciliation with Hamlet until an official court of honor reviews the matter and frees him of further obligations; until then he accepts Hamlet’s friendship on equal terms. The two men call for foils, which Osric hands them. Claudius directs his retainers to provide “stoups of wine” with which he may toast Hamlet’s skill. If the Prince is successful during the first three exchanges, the King orders a salute from the battlements and promises to throw a large pearl into the wine cup.

Scarcely has the match begun when Osric rules that Hamlet has scored a hit. The King toasts Hamlet’s success; a drum rolls; trumpets sound; a cannon fires. Hamlet declines the proffered drink and returns to the contest. Immediately the Prince hits Laertes again. This time Gertrude drinks to Hamlet’s good fortune. Too late, Claudius observes that the Queen has drunk from the poisoned cup. Chiding his opponent for toying with him, Hamlet calls Laertes to the third pass. Laertes wounds Hamlet with the foil that is poisoned and unbated (not covered with a protective tip used in contest dueling rather than the real thing); they scuffle angrily together and exchange rapiers; Hamlet wounds Laertes with the fatal weapon.

In rapid succession, Gertrude falls; Laertes confesses his treachery; Claudius cries that the Queen has fainted; Gertrude calls that she has drunk poison. “O villainy! Ho! let the door be lock’d./Treachery! seek it out,” Hamlet says. Laertes, who has fallen, tells Hamlet that no medicine can combat the poison of the foil in his hand. Admitting his guilt, Laertes says that the Queen is poisoned and that the King is to blame. Hamlet wounds Claudius with the rapier he still clutches. “I am but hurt,” the King cries, but he dies immediately. With his last breath Laertes seeks Hamlet’s forgiveness.

Hamlet also is dying. He pardons Laertes and begs Horatio to report him and his cause aright to the uninformed. Horatio lifts the poisoned drink in order to end his own life, but Hamlet snatches the cup and implores Horatio to live and tell the story. Martial music rises in the distance, and Osric announces the arrival of English Ambassadors and Young Fortinbras, who is returning victoriously from Poland. Hamlet will not live to hear the news from England; he does, however, nominate Fortinbras as successor to the Danish throne. Hamlet dies as Fortinbras and the Ambassadors enter.

Fortinbras asks what death’s feast has required so many bodies. The Ambassadors report the execution of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern and inquire who will thank them for their message now that Claudius is dead. Horatio requests Fortinbras and the Ambassadors to order the corpses prepared for burial, on which occasion Horatio will relate all that has happened. Fortinbras accepts the Danish throne and commands four captains to carry Hamlet away with royal ceremony. Others bear off the remaining bodies. Cannon fire a salute.

I, i. Elsinore. Sebuah Platform di Depan Istana yang

Dalam pahit cuaca dingin mengurangi Francisco Bernardo bertugas jaga di tengah malam setelah tantangan tentang “siapa yang pergi ke sana.” Sebagai Francisco bersiap untuk pergi, Marcellus dan Horatio bergabung Bernardo untuk arlojinya. Setelah bertanya cemas jika “hal ini” telah muncul lagi dan pembelajaran yang belum, Marcellus Bernardo mengatakan bahwa ia telah membawa Horatio dengan dia untuk menguatkan cerita mereka dan berbicara dengan penampakan. Meskipun dua petugas mengaku telah melihat momok pada dua malam sebelumnya, Horatio skeptis dan meramalkan bahwa hal itu tidak akan datang lagi. Tetapi sementara Bernardo menggambarkan pengalaman mereka sebelumnya, Ghost muncul. Karena Horatio dapat mengatasi semangat dalam mode ilmiah, temannya mendesak dia untuk berbicara dengan itu. Sekarang dilukai dengan rasa takut dan bertanya-tanya, Horatio setuju dengan Bernardo bahwa penampakan menyerupai Raja terakhir; dia biaya Roh untuk berbicara, tetapi roh menghilang. Dipaksa untuk menerima apa yang ia telah melihat, Horatio mengaku keyakinannya bahwa manifestasi “menjadi pertanda suatu letusan aneh bagi negara kita.” Ketiga pria meninjau kewaspadaan masa perang dan industri bahwa Denmark telah melembagakan mengantisipasi invasi oleh Fortinbras muda Norwegia. Mengingat pertanda dan keajaiban sebelum pembunuhan Julius Caesar, Horatio mengasumsikan bahwa Roh dari Dusun tua telah kembali peringatan dini bangsa.

Tiba-tiba Ghost muncul kembali. Memutuskan untuk memaksa jawaban, Horatio bertanya: (1) jika dia bisa melakukan apa saja untuk kenyamanan roh; (2) jika mencoba untuk memperingatkan negara dari beberapa bencana yang akan datang, (3) jika gelisah karena terkubur diperas harta selama masa pakai baterai. Ayam jantan berkokok, dan Ghost lenyap meskipun upaya pendengar ‘untuk menahan itu. Pendekatan hari menghalangi setiap kemungkinan bahwa roh akan kembali. Horatio menyarankan bahwa mereka menginformasikan Dusun semua yang mereka saksikan.

I, ii. Elsinore. Sebuah kamar di Castle yang

Claudius kiriman hal pengadilan efisien. Dalam hal anggun Claudius menjelaskan ke pengadilan bagaimana, setelah benar berduka atas kematian saudaranya, ia telah Gertrude menikah, adik mantan-di-hukum. Dia kemudian menjelaskan ancaman invasi oleh Fortinbras muda, keponakan kepada Raja sekarang Norwegia. Dalam upaya untuk memelihara perdamaian, Claudius berita-berita yang Kornelius utusan dan Voltemand untuk raja Norwegia. Setelah demikian menghadiri dengan bisnis umum, Claudius ternyata mendengar permintaan Laertes untuk izin untuk kembali ke Prancis. Memuaskan diri sendiri bahwa Laertes memiliki persetujuan ayahnya, Polonius, persetujuan Claudius.

Sekarang Claudius mengarahkan perhatian ke Dusun dan secara menyenangkan meminta penyebab melankolis nya. Hamlet membenci cara menggurui pamannya. Gertrude mohon anaknya untuk menerima kenyataan universal dari kematian, berhenti berkabung untuk ayahnya, dan membiarkan matanya “tampak seperti seorang teman” pada Claudius. Mengambil isyarat dari Gertrude, Claudius memberikan wacana singkat tentang kesia-siaan kesedihan berkepanjangan; meminta Dusun menganggap dia sebagai ayah, dan mendesak Pangeran untuk tetap di Denmark bukannya kembali ke sekolah di Wittenberg. Gertrude menambahkan permohonan ke orang-orang dari Raja. Hamlet berjanji untuk mematuhi ibunya, dan Claudius mengarah Gertrude pergi untuk merayakan kesempatan.

Dalam solilokui gairah Hamlet menyesalkan bahwa hukum Tuhan telah mengutuk bunuh diri sebagai alat untuk melarikan diri dari “letih, basi, datar, dan tidak menguntungkan” kehidupan. Kesal karena perkawinan tergesa-gesa ibunya untuk Claudius, dia menyesalkan kelemahan perempuan dan bersemangat ibunya-ness “untuk posting / Dengan ketangkasan seperti untuk lembaran incest.” Horatio, Marcellus, dan Bernardo masukkan, karena ia menyimpulkan, “menghancurkan hatiku, karena aku harus menahan lidah saya!”

Setelah pertukaran Horatio dan Dusun salam hangat, Horatio Dusun heran dengan pernyataan bahwa ia berpikir ia melihat Hamlet tua pada malam sebelumnya. Dengan penuh semangat Dusun menghadiri setiap kata, Horatio menceritakan pertemuan Bernardo, Marcellus, dan dia telah dengan Ghost. Dusun pertanyaan ketiga orang tentang semangat, memutuskan untuk menonton dengan mereka pada tembok pembatas, bersumpah mereka untuk kerahasiaan, dan mengatur menemui mereka malam itu. Untuk dirinya Hamlet mencerminkan bahwa “Semua tidak baik,” dan tidak sabar menunggu malam tiba.

Aku, iii. Elsinore. Polonius Rumah

Bersiap untuk memulai untuk Prancis, Laertes memperingatkan adiknya Ophelia terhadap mengambil deklarasi Hamlet cinta serius. Karena bahkan jika niat Hamlet yang terhormat, ia dapat bukan sebagai anggota keluarga kerajaan kebebasan latihan di pilihannya seorang istri, Laertes menyarankan Ophelia untuk mengendalikan emosinya. Ophelia janji untuk mengingat nasihat kakaknya, tetapi mengisyaratkan bahwa ia pastikan untuk mengikuti nasihat sendiri. Laertes recollects bahwa ia terburu-buru karena ayahnya masuk.

Dalam berkat perpisahan, Polonius memberikan verbose Laertes, suara, tapi arah kontradiksi-diri tentang bagaimana dia harus melakukan sendiri di Perancis. Laertes hormat perpisahan tawaran ayahnya, memberikan Ophelia kata terakhir hati-hati, dan berangkat. Ketika Polonius pertanyaan Ophelia pada apa Laertes ada dalam pikiran, dia mengakui bahwa pembicaraan mereka terkait dengan Hamlet. Dalam interogasi gigih ayahnya, dia mengakui bahwa Dusun telah diakui cintanya. Menegur gadis itu untuk mengambil Hamlet merayu ke jantung, Polonius melarang dia selanjutnya “untuk memberikan kata-kata atau berbicara dengan Tuhan Dusun.”

I, iv. Elsinore. Platform di Depan Istana yang

Sementara Dusun, Horatio, dan menonton Marcellus di udara tengah malam dingin, meriam dan musik korsel sinyal bela diri Claudius’s. Dusun pahit mengkritik sikap buruk dan minum berat yang char-acterize pengadilan Denmark dan orang-orang. Saat ia menyimpulkan caciannya, Ghost muncul. Melihat kemiripan semangat untuk mendiang ayahnya dan berasumsi bahwa ia memiliki beberapa pesan untuk memberikan, Hamlet alamat itu.

Gerakan Roh Hamlet untuk mengikutinya. Horatio, dan Marcellus menyarankan Hamlet tidak untuk menemani semangat dan mencoba untuk menahannya dengan kekerasan, tetapi Pangeran melepaskan diri dan daun dengan hantu itu. Cemas untuk keamanan Hamlet dan yakin bahwa “Ada sesuatu yang busuk di negara Denmark,” Horatio, dan Marcellus ikuti.

I, v. Elsinore. Benteng dari Puri yang

Memerintahkan perhatian Hamlet, Roh menyatakan diri sebagai roh ayahnya, ditakdirkan “untuk berjalan di malam” sampai kejahatan tertentu dilakukan selama waktunya di bumi “Apakah terbakar dan purg’d pergi.” Tiba-tiba perintah Hantu Hamlet untuk membalas dendam ayahnya “pembunuhan busuk dan paling tidak wajar.” Untuk ngeri Hamlet, Ghost Claudius pertama berhubungan bagaimana memenangkan Gertrude untuk hubungan setia dan kemudian meracuni saudaranya, sehingga mengambil kehidupan yang lebih tua Hamlet, istri, dan mahkota. Selain itu, mantan Raja meninggal dengan dosa-dosanya belum diakui dan Unforgiven. Adjuring Hamlet untuk membunuh balas dendam ayahnya dan tidak menghormati ibunya, Ghost memperingatkan dia tidak merugikan Gertrude dalam proses. Sebaliknya ia harus meninggalkannya ke surga dan penyesalan hati nurani sendiri. “Ingat saya,” kata Roh itu dan berangkat.

Dalam sebuah monolog singkat, Dusun janji sendiri untuk menjaga paling atas kata-kata semangat dalam pikiran dan menulis sebuah memorandum untuk dirinya sendiri di bukunya. Ketika Horatio dan Marcellus menemukan dia dan menanyakan tentang kesejahteraannya, Dusun mengalihkan mereka dengan “kata-kata liar dan berputar.” Horatio protes ringan, dan Dusun temannya mengatakan bahwa “visi” mereka telah melihat “adalah hantu jujur” tapi untuk mencari tahu lagi. Memperluas gagang pedangnya sebagai, salib ia meminta dua sahabatnya untuk bersumpah di atasnya bahwa mereka tidak akan mengungkapkan apa yang mereka telah menyaksikan malam itu, dan di bawah mereka Ghost menangis, “Bersumpahlah.” Hamlet karib untuk Horatio bahwa ia mungkin merasa perlu “Untuk menempatkan disposisi antik di.” Ketika ia tidak, Horatio tidak harus mengungkapkan dengan kata atau tanda bahwa dia punya pengetahuan tentang masalah ini. Berterima kasih kepada teman-temannya dan lagi sumpah mereka untuk kerahasiaan, Hamlet escort mereka ke dalam benteng. Dia menyatakan, “Waktu keluar dari sendi 0 terkutuk. Meskipun, / Itu pernah saya dilahirkan untuk mengatur itu benar!”

II, i. Elsinore. Polonius Rumah

Polonius mengirimkan Reynaldo dengan uang dan surat kepada Laertes. Penasaran ingin belajar bagaimana Laertes sedang melakukan dirinya di Paris, Polonius memerintahkan Reynaldo untuk membuat pertanyaan pribadi dan provokatif terkemuka teman-anaknya dan kenalan. Reynaldo menyatakan heran dengan taktik ini agak tidak etis, tetapi Polonius menjelaskan bahwa dengan cara ini mereka mungkin “Dengan indirections menemukan arah keluar.” Reynaldo daun pada misinya, dan Ophelia masuk.

Jelas ketakutan, Ophelia menggambarkan bagaimana Dusun, acak-acakan dan dengan pakaiannya gila, menyambar nya dengan pergelangan tangan, menatap wajahnya, mendesah tanpa mengucapkan sepatah kata, dan mundur, tidak pernah mengalihkan pandangan dari nya. perilaku Mendiagnosis Hamlet sebagai “sangat ekstasi cinta,” tanya Polonius jika dia telah “memberinya kata-kata keras akhir-akhir ini.” Ophelia jawaban itu, sesuai dengan perintah ayahnya, ia menolak surat Hamlet dan menolak untuk bertemu. Tiba-tiba takut kalau-kalau upaya untuk melindungi Ophelia dari hubungan yang tidak benar telah mengakibatkan kekacauan mental Hamlet, Polonius mengambil Ophelia untuk melihat King.

II, ii. Elsinore. Sebuah kamar di Castle yang

Gertrude dan Claudius, setelah mengamati perubahan sifat Hamlet dan cara, berbagi, saling meskipun tidak harus sama jenisnya, perhatian. Berharap untuk mempelajari penyebab di balik Pangeran “transformasi,” mereka telah terdaftar layanan dari Rosencrantz dan Guildenstern, teman-teman sekali pakai dan schoolmates Dusun. Kedua istana menunjukkan kesiapan mereka untuk melakukan komisi dan menarik untuk berbicara dengan Pangeran.

Polonius masuk untuk mengumumkan kembalinya Kornelius dan Voltemand dari Norwegia. The Chamberlain Tuhan lebih bersemangat, namun, untuk melaporkan bahwa ia telah menemukan “Penyebab sangat gila Hamlet.” Claudius ingin tahu lebih banyak tentang ini, tapi Polonius menegaskan bahwa Claudius menerima duta besar pertama dan pergi untuk mengantarkan mereka masuk Ketika Claudius mengulangi untuk Gertrude yang Polonius telah mengidentifikasi sumber penyakit Hamlet, Ratu menyatakan jaminan bahwa anaknya masih sedih untuk nya ayah dan membenci “pernikahan o’erhasty.” dia

Polonius membawa dalam Voltemand dan Kornelius. Laporan utusan bahwa Raja Norwegia telah efektif menghilangkan bahaya serangan Fortinbras muda di Denmark tetapi telah menyetujui invasi Polandia dengan pasukan yang sama. Untuk tujuan ini raja Claudius Norwegia permintaan untuk memberikan tentara Fortinbras aman dan damai pas-bijak melalui wilayah Denmark. Claudius memuji Voltemand dan Cornelius untuk melaksanakan misi mereka memuaskan dan memberhentikan mereka.

Hampir tak mampu menahan diri sampai duta besar telah pergi, meluncurkan Polonius ke dalam rekening diperpanjang urusan cinta Hamlet dengan Ophelia dan kegilaan nya yang dihasilkan. Gertrude berusaha untuk memperpendek resital orang tua itu, tapi ia perlahan review semua detail dalam gaya khas banyak bicara. Gertrude menemukan penjelasan Polonius’s masuk akal, tapi Claudius tetap skeptis dan menentukan untuk mencari bukti tambahan. Mengetahui kebiasaan Hamlet berjalan untuk interval waktu yang panjang di lobi, Claudius dan Polonius mengatur menguping Pangeran dan Ophelia, yang Polonius akan merancang untuk membawa bersama-sama pada saat yang tepat. Hamlet masuk “membaca pada buku,” dan Claudius dan Gertrude meninggalkan buru-buru dengan pembantu mereka sementara Polonius mempersiapkan untuk berbicara dengan Pangeran.

Hamlet pura-pura tidak mengakui Polonius dan membingungkan dia dengan permainan kata yang bersifat relevan dan masuk akal. Lebih tertentu dari sebelumnya bahwa dia telah didiagnosa kegilaan Hamlet benar, Polonius alasan dirinya untuk mengatur pertemuan antara Hamlet dan Ophelia. Dalam perjalanan keluar ia melewati Rosencrantz dan Guildenstern, yang datang untuk mencoba tangan mereka di menemukan penyebab gangguan Hamlet. Cepat membedakan tujuan abdi dalem ‘dan mendeteksi kecurigaan mereka bahwa dia kecewa karena tidak berhasil naik tahta, Dusun umpan mereka dengan pengamatan sugestif tetapi tidak meyakinkan pada topik ambisi. Setelah terampil menangkis pertanyaan-pertanyaan mereka, wrings Hamlet dari mereka masuk diam-diam bahwa mereka adalah agen Raja dan Ratu. Pada saat ini Rosencrantz senang untuk menghidupkan percakapan kedatangan dekat sebuah perusahaan pemain berjalan. Tiba-tiba penasaran, Dusun bertanya identitas kelompok ini. Sementara ia dan Rosencrantz membahas penurunan baru-baru ini perusahaan populer di kota dan alasan mengapa para aktor datang ke Elsinore, trompet luar sinyal kedatangan Players. Berjabat tangan dengan Guildenstern dan Rosencrantz di layar tiba-tiba kebaikan, Dusun menambah kebingungan mereka dengan mengacu pada kegilaan sendiri. Polonius muncul kembali, dan pidato Hamlet bahkan tumbuh liar dan lebih rasional, meskipun ia cerdik berhasil menyisipkan sentuhan wawasan cerdas ke dalam kehidupan dan karakter. Ketika Pemain masukkan, Dusun menyambut mereka dengan tulus dan meminta Player Pertama untuk mengirimkan beberapa baris dari sebuah drama tertentu. Setelah Player menyimpulkan, Dusun biaya Polonius untuk menghibur para aktor ramah dan menambahkan bahwa dia ingin mendengar memainkan pada hari berikutnya.

Menahan Player Pertama sejenak, Hamlet mengamankan janjinya untuk melakukan “Pembunuhan Gonzago” dengan sisipan “dari beberapa baris lusin atau enam belas” yang Hamlet akan memasok. Memperingatkan Player untuk mengobati Polonius dengan hormat, Dusun mengirimkan dia setelah teman-temannya dan kemudian menolak Rosencrantz dan Guildenstern. Dalam solilokui panjang, Dusun kontras energi dan vitalitas aktor dalam pidatonya declaiming dengan kegagalan sendiri untuk membalas dendam pembunuhan ayahnya. Dia bertanya-tanya jika ia benar-benar seorang pengecut, kemudian ia chides dirinya untuk berteriak-teriak dan mengutuk bukannya mengambil tindakan. Akhirnya dia mengkristal rencana merangsang pelaku untuk menghasilkan memainkan dengan tindakan menyerupai pembunuhan ayahnya. Dia akan mengamati Claudius erat pada kesempatan bahwa Raja mungkin dalam beberapa cara mengkhianati kesalahannya dan dengan demikian menguatkan penyataan Ghost. Menyadari bahwa setan memiliki kekuatan untuk menganggap “bentuk menyenangkan” dan dengan demikian orang-orang yang peduli dengan mengkhianati mereka ke dalam perbuatan kekerasan, Hamlet bertekad untuk menemukan bukti-nasional Addi kejahatan Claudius’s. Yakin skema, ia mengatakan, “Drama itu adalah hal / Dimana Aku akan menangkap hati nurani Raja.”

III, i. Elsinore. Kastil

Rosencrantz dan Guildenstern laporan kepada Raja dan Ratu bahwa upaya mereka untuk memompa Hamlet telah mengungkap tidak lebih dari “sebuah kegilaan licik.” Ketika Gertrude bertanya jika mereka mencoba untuk menghibur Pangeran, Rosencrantz menyebutkan kesenangan Hamlet pada kedatangan pelaku. Polonius Hamlet menyampaikan undangan kepada Raja untuk menyaksikan drama. Lega untuk mengetahui bahwa keponakannya telah menunjukkan minat banyak hiburan, Claudius memberikan persetujuan siap dan mengirim Rosencrantz dan Guildenstern kembali ke Dusun. Turning, Claudius memberitahu Gertrude dari Polonius skema dan untuk mendengar pertemuan tampaknya disengaja antara Pangeran dan Ophelia. Setelah Ophelia ingin baik dan menyetujui pertandingan, Gertrude pensiun. Cepat, celana Polonius Ophelia dan menetapkan adegan untuk penampilan Hamlet, dia mendengar Hamlet datang dan pendamping Claudius ke tempat persembunyian mereka.

“Untuk menjadi, atau tidak akan-yaitu pertanyaan,” kata Hamlet sambil merenungkan makna bunuh diri dan hasil yang mungkin, mungkin merefleksikan tugasnya balas dendam dan aktif nya sampai ke titik ini. Dia akan menyambut seperti rilis dari masalah hidup, tetapi ketidakpastian dari apa yang ada sesudah kematian memberinya jeda. Tiba-tiba Ophelia Hamlet pemberitahuan, cek berfilsafat, dan meminta dia untuk berdoa baginya.

Sabar dan berulang-ulang, upaya Ophelia untuk menentukan penyebab cara Hamlet terasing dan sikap acuh tak acuh. Mempertahankan perannya kegilaan, Dusun berputar kata-katanya, menyangkal bahwa ia pernah benar-benar mencintainya, dan dengan kasar perintahnya untuk masuk biara. Kemudian, mungkin mencurigai kehadiran penyadap, ia tiba-tiba bertanya keberadaan Polonius. Ketika Ophelia menjawab bahwa ayahnya ada di rumah, Dusun mengungkapkan harapan bahwa orang bodoh akan tetap ada. Tumbuh kasar dalam sambutannya, Dusun mencela semua wanita, sekali lagi perintah Ophelia ke biara, dan daun setelah membuat pernyataan samar bahwa tidak akan ada pernikahan lebih dan bahwa dari mereka yang sudah menikah “semua kecuali satu-akan hidup.”

Yakin bahwa mantan peminang dia adalah benar-benar gila, Ophelia mengeluhkan perubahan yang telah mengurangi Dusun, yang “Kaca fashion dan cetakan formulir,” untuk kondisi yang menyedihkan. Claudius dan Polonius muncul dari penyembunyian. Meskipun Dusun telah berhasil meyakinkan orang lain dari kegilaannya, Claudius menolak cinta dan kegilaan sebagai faktor dalam perilaku-Nya. Pasti penyebab sebenarnya dari Pangeran melankolis tapi memprihatinkan alam sejati, Raja mengatakan Polonius bahwa ia akan mengirimkan Hamlet ke Inggris untuk mengumpulkan upeti terlambat. Mungkin pelayaran dan perubahan lingkungan akan menguntungkan Pangeran. Polonius, di sisi lain, tetap percaya bahwa gangguan Hamlet mata air dari “diabaikan cinta.” Dalam upaya terakhir untuk membuktikan pandangannya, ia mendesak Claudius untuk mengatur sebuah konferensi pribadi antara Gertrude dan anaknya sementara Polonius sengaja mendengar semua yang mereka katakan. Claudius menyetujui rencana dan komentar, “Madness dalam yang besar tidak harus unwatch’d pergi.”

III, ii. Elsinore. Kastil

Hamlet adalah memberikan tiga pelaku mengunjungi rincian petunjuk tentang cara untuk menyertakan garis dia telah disusun dan pada gaya di mana ia ingin mereka untuk memberlakukan bermain sendiri. Para Pemain pergi; Polonius masuk dengan Rosencrantz dan Guildenstern untuk menginformasikan Hamlet bahwa pengadilan siap untuk hiburan. Hamlet mengirim ketiga untuk mempercepat persiapan dan panggilan untuk Horatio, yang muncul segera. Menjamin temannya kepercayaan dan keyakinan dia reposes dalam dirinya, Dusun menjelaskan rencananya pengujian Claudius bersalah itu dengan cara bermain yang akan datang. Horatio berjanji untuk mengamati Raja hati-hati untuk tanda-tanda kegelisahan atau kebingungan.

Dengan iringan terompet dan kettledrums, Raja dan anggota pengadilan berkumpul untuk melihat drama. Sambutan Raja dan Polonius pada gilirannya, Hamlet pura-pura nya menopang kegilaan. Gertrude mengundang Pangeran untuk duduk dengan dia, tapi menurun Dusun, berdiam diri di kaki Ophelia, dan meluncur ke komentar sugestif dan cabul. Hautboys bermain, dan pertunjukan bisu dimulai. Dalam pantomim ini aktor sketsa plot memainkan mereka sedang melakukan, melainkan mensimulasikan langkah-langkah yang signifikan dalam pembunuhan Raja dari Dusun tua dan perkawinan setelah Gertrude. Sementara Dusun menyediakan jawaban untuk pertanyaan yang tidak bersalah sembrono Ophelia’s, yang dimulai Pemain “Pembunuhan Gonzago.” Secara bertahap bermain terungkap sampai Claudius bertanya jika “tidak ada in’t pelanggaran,” dan menuntut untuk mengetahui judul. Hamlet menjawab bahwa hal itu disebut “Mouse-perangkap” dan didasarkan pada kasus pembunuhan Wina. Dia menambahkan bahwa mereka yang “memiliki jiwa bebas” akan menemukan apa-apa keberatan dalam cerita.

Pada saat pemain-pembunuh menuangkan racun di telinga raja-pemain tidur, dan Dusun meramalkan bagaimana pembunuh akan memenangkan cinta dari istri korban-nya. Atasi dengan emosi, Claudius naik, panggilan untuk cahaya, dan berangkat dengan Gertrude dan pembantu-nya. Riang, Dusun Horatio bertanya apakah ia mencatat ini konfirmasi laporan Hantu. Horatio mengatakan bahwa dia, dan Dusun panggilan untuk musik.

Rosencrantz dan Guildenstern melaporkan bahwa Claudius adalah keras marah dan tidak sehat dan bahwa Gertrude Hamlet ingin untuk datang ke apartemennya. Rosencrantz membuat upaya lain untuk mengetahui penyebab perilaku Hamlet, namun Pangeran mengungkapkan apa-apa kecuali saran bahwa ia tidak berhasil radang di takhta. Para Pemain membawa alat musik mereka. Hamlet mengundang Guildenstern untuk memutar salah satu dari mereka. Ketika ia menjawab bahwa ia tidak bisa, Dusun memberitahu dia dan rekannya bahwa mereka tidak bisa “bermain pada” dia baik.

Polonius datang untuk memanggil Hamlet kepada Ratu. Setelah pertukaran liar pengamatan dengan bendahara lama, Dusun mengirimkan semua orang. Dalam sebuah solilokui singkat ia menyatakan niatnya untuk mengunjungi ibunya. Meskipun emosi telah mencapai ketinggian baru kegembiraan dan kepahitan, dia tidak akan menyerang Gertrude fisik. “Aku akan berbicara belati padanya, tetapi tidak digunakan.”

III, iii. Elsinore. Kastil

Sekarang benar-benar waspada terhadap bahaya merupakan Hamlet, Claudius mengatakan Rosencrantz dan Guildenstern bahwa mereka harus, untuk keamanan Mahkota, melakukan dia untuk Inggris di bawah komisi kerajaan. Kedua istana mempercepat off Polonius muncul dalam perjalanan ke bersembunyi di balik Arras di kamar kerja Gertrude, di mana saat ini akan Hamlet. Menjanjikan untuk menginformasikan kepada Raja sebelum tidur tentang apa yang dia belajar, Polonius daun. Segera Claudius mulai bercakap seorang diri pada dosanya. Nya rasa bersalah dan hati nuraninya mendorong dia untuk berdoa, tetapi dia tahu bahwa doa tanpa pertobatan tidak efektif, dan pertobatan tergantung pada menyerahkan mahkotanya, ambisi, dan ratu. Dia sangat membutuhkan maaf atas pembunuhan itu, tetapi ia tidak dapat melepaskan buah dari kejahatannya. Berusaha keras untuk menemukan ukuran ketenangan spiritual, ia berlutut.

Sebagai Claudius jatuh berlutut dalam sebuah upaya sia-sia di doa, Dusun masuk, melihat Raja, dan menyadari bahwa ia dapat dengan mudah membunuh pamannya. Tapi sesaat kemudian ia reconsiders. Jika ia adalah untuk membunuh Raja dalam tindakan berdoa, jiwa penjahat mungkin menemukan keselamatan kekal. Mengingat bahwa Claudius membunuh Hamlet tua tanpa memberikan kesempatan bagi pengakuan dan pemberian minyak suci ekstrim, Pangeran memutuskan untuk menunda balas dendam sampai Raja adalah terlibat dalam beberapa hobi duniawi atau liar; maka jiwa Claudius’s “mungkin sebagai damn’d dan hitam / Seperti neraka, whereto ia pergi. ” Hamlet daun untuk memenuhi Ratu, dan naik Claudius dari pencarian tidak berguna itu untuk penghiburan rohani.

III, iv. The Queen’s Closet (Bedroom Private)

Polonius menasihati Ratu untuk berbicara terus terang dengan anaknya, yang panggilan dari luar. Gertrude setuju untuk mengikuti petunjuk, dan Polonius slip belakang Arras. Memasuki, Dusun memarahi ibunya dengan cara yang paling berbakti. Menyuruhnya untuk duduk dan tidak beranjak sampai ia selesai apa yang dia katakan, ia menjadi sangat mengancam dalam kata dan sikap yang Gertrude, takut kekerasan fisik, panggilan untuk bantuan. Di balik Arras, Polonius gema menangis. Misalkan bahwa Claudius telah menyembunyikan dirinya di kamar Ratu, Hamlet seketika menarik pedangnya, menyodorkan melalui gorden, dan membunuh Polonius. Ngeri, Gertrude Dusun bertanya apa yang telah dilakukan dan bingung ketika ia menyiratkan bahwa ia telah mengikuti contoh dia dan membunuh raja.

Mengangkat Arras, Dusun pemandangan tubuh Polonius, yang ia menolak sebagai “ruam melarat,, mengganggu bodoh.” Melanjutkan teguran tentang Ratu, Dusun menggambarkan dahsyatnya ketidaksetiaan ke ayahnya dan hubungan tidak senonoh nya dengan Claudius. Atasi dengan rasa malu dan penyesalan, Gertrude memohonnya untuk mengatakan tidak lagi. Tiba-tiba Roh muncul, dan Dusun meminta bimbingan. Hantu Jawaban yang telah datang untuk mengasah “tujuan hampir tumpul” Hamlet namun mendesak dia untuk menghibur ibunya. Karena dia tidak melihat atau mendengar Ghost, Gertrude Hamlet menafsirkan tindakan dan kata-kata sebagai bukti lebih lanjut dari kegilaan-nya. Hamlet juga sama bingung dengan kemampuan ibunya-untuk melihat semangat, yang lenyap.

saran Menyangkal Gertrude bahwa dia gila, Dusun mendesak dia untuk mengakui dan bertobat. Ketika ia mengakui bahwa ia telah bergerak dia sangat, Dusun entreats untuk tidak kembali ke tempat tidur Claudius’s. Dia menambahkan bahwa ketika dia mencari berkat ilahi, ia akan meminta restu kepadanya. Ia menyesal membunuh nya Polonius, suatu tindakan di mana surga telah menghukumnya. Bersikeras bahwa dia memiliki “menjadi kejam, hanya untuk bersikap baik,” tawaran dia ibunya malam. Dalam sekejap, bagaimanapun, dia kembali menganggap sikapnya pahit dan sinis, menunjukkan bahwa Ratu dapat mengajukan diri untuk belaian nakal Raja dan mengizinkan dia untuk menggait dari account-nya dari semua yang telah terjadi. Gertrude berjanji bahwa dia akan memberitahu apa-apa. Mengingatkan ibunya bahwa ia harus pergi untuk Inggris, Dusun menunjukkan bahwa ia tidak percaya Rosencrantz dan Guildenstern dan bahwa ia adalah menikmati kontes kecerdasan antara dirinya dan Claudius. Sang Pangeran kemudian menghilangkan tubuh Polonius, yang akhirnya “sebagian besar masih, paling diam, dan paling serius.”

IV, i. Elsinore. Kastil

Mengabaikan Rosencrantz dan Guildenstern, Gertrude menggambarkan wawancara dengan Hamlet kepada suaminya paling penuh perhatian. Ketika dia menceritakan bagaimana Dusun, gila dan dalam “fit tanpa hukum,” membunuh Polonius, Claudius segera menyadari bahwa pedang itu ditujukan untuk dirinya. Dia berpendapat bahwa untuk meninggalkan Pangeran di kebebasan adalah membahayakan semua orang di Denmark. Selain itu, opini publik akan menghukum Claudius karena gagal mengendalikan dan mengontrol dia. Gertrude mengatakan bahwa Hamlet mengeluarkan mayat Polonius, yang kematiannya ia berduka. Raja menyatakan bahwa ia harus mendeportasi Hamlet sekaligus. Mengingat Rosencrantz dan Guildenstern, ia memerintahkan mereka untuk menemukan Hamlet dan tubuh punggawa lama. jiwa-Nya “penuh dengan perselisihan dan cemas,” Claudius memimpin Gertrude off.

IV, ii. Elsinore. Kastil

Rapat Rosencrantz dan Guildenstern, Dusun menghindar pertanyaan-pertanyaan mereka tentang tubuh Polonius dan biaya mereka dengan bertindak sebagai informan kepada Raja. Meskipun ia menolak untuk memberi mereka informasi yang mereka cari, dia setuju untuk menemani mereka ke Claudius.

IV, iii. Elsinore. Kastil

Menunggu kembalinya dua agen, Claudius mencerminkan tentang bagaimana berbahaya Dusun begitu selama dia “pergi longgar.” Popularitas Pangeran dengan rakyatnya membuat sulit untuk “menempatkan hukum yang kuat pada dirinya.” Rosencrantz memasuki, mengatakan bahwa ia telah belajar apa-apa, tetapi menambahkan bahwa Hamlet berada di luar menunggu kesenangan sang Raja. Menanggapi perintah Raja, Guildenstern membawa Dusun di bawah penjaga. Claudius menekan Hamlet untuk mengungkap keberadaan tubuh Polonius’s. Setelah menggoda pamannya dengan perumpamaan tentang “bagaimana mungkin raja pergi kemajuan melalui keberanian dari pengemis,” menunjukkan Dusun lokasi mayat. Claudius mengirim petugas untuk mengambil tubuh dan kemudian memberitahu Hamlet bahwa ia harus berangkat ke Inggris dengan “kecepatan berapi-api.” Dalam sebuah acara yang penuh gairah kegilaan, Dusun kata perpisahan untuk ibu absen dan daun. Claudius mengirim Rosencrantz dan secepat kilat Guildenstern setelah Pangeran untuk memastikan embarkasi-nya. Dalam sebuah monolog singkat, Claudius mengungkapkan bahwa Hamlet dua escort membawa instruksi untuk Raja Inggris untuk mengeksekusi dia pada kedatangannya. Claudius akan mengalami sukacita tidak sampai ia mendengar bahwa Hamlet sudah mati.

IV, iv. A Plain di Denmark

Fortinbras mengarahkan suatu Kapten untuk melanjutkan ke pengadilan Denmark dalam rangka untuk mengamankan otorisasi bagi pasukan Norwegia ke Den-tanda silang. pawai Fortinbras pasukannya, seperti yang Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, dan Dusun muncul. Dalam percakapan singkat dengan Kapten, Dusun belajar bahwa Fortinbras muda menyerang Polandia dan siap untuk mengorbankan banyak kehidupan untuk memperoleh kecil dan tidak berharga “sepetak tanah.” Meminta privasi untuk sementara waktu, Dusun soliloquizes pada kontras antara karakter sendiri dan bahwa dari Fortinbras. Fortinbras risiko korban berat untuk memenuhi motif sepele, Dusun, yang memiliki segala alasan untuk bertindak, telah melakukan apa-apa untuk melaksanakan membalas dendam. Setelah diperbaharui tekadnya, Hamlet berseru, “0, dari waktu ini sebagainya, / pikiran saya menjadi berdarah, atau bernilai apa-apa!”

IV, v. Elsinore. Kastil

Seorang pria mengatakan Gertrude dan Horatio yang Ophelia sudah keluar dari pikirannya setelah kematian Polonius dan bahwa ia ingin berbicara dengan Ratu. Pada awalnya, Gertrude menolak untuk melihat gadis malang, namun Horatio menyarankan agar ia mengakui kalau-kalau dia “dugaan menaburi / Berbahaya dalam pikiran sakit-peternakan.” Enggan Ratu persetujuan, dan Ophelia muncul mengucapkan kata-kata liar dan bingung dan menyanyikan potongan-potongan lirik. Claudius datang dan berusaha menenangkan gadis, yang mengoceh menyiratkan kesedihan untuk ayahnya dan kesulitan untuk dia pergi kekasih. Memanggil untuk pelatihnya, Ophelia berangkat. Claudius mengirim Horatio setelah dia untuk “memberikan menonton yang baik.”

Kecewa dengan pergantian peristiwa ini, Claudius mengeluhkan untuk Gertrude bahwa “Ketika kesedihan datang, mereka datang bukan mata-mata tunggal, / Tapi dalam batalyon.” Polonius telah disembelih; Dusun, gila, telah dideportasi, orang-orang Denmark yang gelisah, Ophelia adalah gila, akhirnya, Laertes telah kembali diam-diam dari Perancis dan menyalahkan Claudius atas kematian ayahnya. Sebuah suara menyela resital Raja, dan utusan masuk untuk melaporkan bahwa Laertes adalah menyerbu benteng dengan massa berusaha membuat dia menjadi raja. Sinyal suara lain bahwa orang-orang telah meruntuhkan pintu benteng.

Posting pengikutnya di pintu ruangan, Laertes keras menghadapi tuntutan Claudius dan restitusi. Dengan tenang Raja wajah calon pembalas dan mengundang dia untuk berbicara dengan bebas. Gertrude menampilkan martabat yang sama dan keberanian dalam mendukung suaminya. Laertes marah bersumpah untuk membalas dendam kematian ayahnya, dimana Claudius menjawab bahwa ia tidak akan terhalang. Sebaliknya, Raja akan membuktikan tidak bersalah sendiri dan memberikan laporan yang akurat Laertes kematian Polonius’s. Pada saat ini, Ophelia gila kembali, lagi rave, dan berangkat. Kasihan dan kesedihan untuk kondisi adiknya menguasai Laertes. Cepat Claudius berjanji Laertes membeli penjelasan rinci dan kepuasan penuh tentang semua yang telah terjadi.

IV, vi. Elsinore. Kastil

Horatio mengarahkan petugas untuk mengakui sekelompok pelaut yang ingin menyampaikan paket surat. Satu untuk Horatio. Di dalamnya permintaan Dusun Horatio untuk mengatur para pelaut untuk menyampaikan surat-surat lain kepada Raja. Hamlet juga berhubungan bagaimana menyalip kapal bajak laut dan ia dapat melarikan diri dengan mereka. Dia kembali kawan-kawan karib dekat ke Denmark dan mengatakan bahwa Rosencrantz dan Guilderstern terus pada posisi ke Inggris.

IV, vii. Elsinore. Kastil

Claudius telah meyakinkan Laertes tanggung jawab Hamlet dalam kematian Polonius dan juga upaya melawan kehidupan Raja. Claudius menjelaskan kegagalannya untuk mengadili Hamlet atas dasar cinta sang Ratu untuk anaknya dan popularitas Pangeran dengan orang-orang. Laertes bersumpah untuk membalas dendam-Nya. Raja mulai memberitahu Laertes tindakan dia sudah diambil terhadap Dusun ketika utusan memasuki dan mengumumkan bahwa ia membawa surat dari Dusun baik Claudius dan Gertrude. Menolak utusan, Claudius membaca catatan singkat Hamlet. Di dalamnya hanya Pangeran mengatakan bahwa ia “diatur telanjang” di tanah Denmark dan izin permintaan untuk menjelaskan kembali. Hampir tidak bisa percaya kenyataan pernyataan Hamlet, Claudius cepat menyusun rencana di mana ia mendaftar bantuan Laertes akan-ing. Setelah mendengar dari seorang pria Norman dari kemahiran Laertes di pagar, Raja mengusulkan bahwa ia tantangan Hamlet ke pertandingan anggar. Jika Laertes meninggalkan salah satu dari foil unbated (tanpa pelindung tombol), ia dengan mudah dapat membunuh lawan tidak curiga nya. Bersemangat untuk membuat tertentu membalas dendam, Laertes menentukan untuk mengurapi titik senjata dengan racun mematikan. Mengambil setiap tindakan pencegahan terhadap keguguran dari rencana dan deteksi mungkin, Claudius mengisyaratkan bahwa ia akan membuat taruhan serius pada kontes untuk meminjamkan lebih masuk akal. Akhirnya, jika Dusun menghindar Rapier Laertes’s khusus disiapkan, Raja akan memiliki minuman beracun siap untuk penyegaran Hamlet.

6. General Notes and Questions

G1. (G1a) How is the subject or theme of a person’s identity repeatedly manifested in this play? (G1b) How would this subject be relevant to many persons today in the United States, and particularly to college students? How are college students trying to change or augment their identity, to become something more or something different? (G1c) In the view of the early Middle Ages, a person’s identity was fixed; a prevalent concept was that God meant or intended for a person to be born a Duke or to be born a struggling peasant, and that accepting that identity and role was a religious or spiritual duty.  (Such fixity was often a matter of law as well as religion; actual laws forbade a peasant to move from a particular place unless granted leave by the aristocrat presiding over the specific geographical area.) A change in that view can be seen in Chaucer’s General Prologue of The Canterbury Tales among some of the middle class pilgrims such as the Five Guildsmen and the Woman (or Wife) of Bath, who have some feeling for social mobility, for “movin’ on up” (was the Canterbury Cathedral on the East Side or West Side relative to where the Pilgrims started out?); how is this idea manifested in the pilgrims cited? (G1d) With increased prosperity (partly from better wages of workers who weren’t among the huge casualties of the Black Death in the Middle Ages, and partly from the raw materials, goods, and treasure that Renaissance explorers brought back to Europe from the New World), an idea of social mobility increased in the Renaissance.  Such a concept may be seen in the Oration on the Dignity of Man (1486) by the Renaissance scholar and (religious) humanist Giovanni Pico Della Mirandola, whose treatise elevates not only humanity but also the visual arts by repeatedly identifying God as architect or artist (or artisan):

    “But when His work was finished [in the Creation], the Artisan longed for someone to reflect on the plan of so great a creation, to love its beauty, and to admire its mnagnitude. When, therefore, everything was completed, as Moses [in the Pentateuch] and [Plato's] Timaeus testify, He began at last to consider the creation of man. But among His archetypes there was none from which He could form a new offspring, nor in His treasure houses was there any inheritance which He might bestow upon His new son, nor in the tribunal seats of the whole world was there a place where this contemplator of the universe might sit. All was now filled out; everything had been apportioned to the highest, the middle, and the lowest orders.

    But it was not in keeping with the paternal power to fail, as though exhausted, in the last act of creation; it was not in keeping with His wisdom to waver in a matter of necessity through lack of a design; it was not in keeping with His beneficent love that the creature who was to praise the divine liberality with regard to others should be forced to condemn it with respect to himself. Finally, the Great Artisan ordained that man, to whom He could give nothing belonging only to himself, should share in common whatever properties had been peculiar to each of the other creatures. He received man, therefore, as a creature of undetermined nature, and placing him in the middle of the universe, said to him: ‘Neither an established place, nor a form belonging to you alone, nor any special function have We given to you, O Adam, and for this reason, that you may have and possess, according to your desire and judgment, whatever place, whatever form, and whatever functions you shall desire. The nature of other creatures, which has been determined, is confined within the bounds prescribed by Us. You, who are confined by no limits, shall determine for yourself your own nature, in accordance with your own free will, in whose hand I have placed you. I have set you at the center of the world, so that from there you may more easily survey whatever is in the world. We have made you neither heavenly nor earthly, neither mortal nor immortal, so that, more freely and more honorably, the molder and maker of yourself, you may fashion yourself in whatever form you shall prefer. You shall be able to descend among the lower forms of being, which are brute beasts; you shall be able to be reborn out of the judgment of your own soul into the higher beings, which are divine.’” (in The Portable Renaissance Reader, 2nd ed., eds. James Ross and Mary McLaughlin [Penguin Books, 1968], pp. 477-78)

This idea of being able to ascend (although we may also descend, as well) also underlies the popularity of such books as Baldassare Castiglione’s The Courtier, which instructed some of those who were rising into higher ranks about how to think, behave, act, and talk. (G1e) How can the subject, issue, or theme of identity be seen in Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince? How is the idea of becoming someone better or superior (in a particular sphere of action) a key issue? How is instruction given about appearing or seeming to be something, as part of an identity? (G1f) How can the subject, issue, or theme of identity be seen in Miguel de Cervantes’ Don Quixote? How is the idea of becoming someone better or superior a key issue? (G1g) In contemporary America (as noted by Erving Goffman in his seminal work of sociology The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life), how do many of us (in contrast to the Middle Ages) have multiple identities during a single day, complete with changes in language, behavior, denomination (e.g., “student,” “mom”), and even clothing? (G1h) How is the issue of identity broached in the opening lines of Act 1, Scene 1 (1.1) of Hamlet? How do several characters identify themselves — state their identities — in 1.1 of the play, as well as later in the play? (G1i) How does Hamlet have a number of doubles in it (e.g., two men with the same name — Hamlet, Fortinbras; or Hamlet and Horatio; or Hamlet and Laertes)? How does this component relate to the subject of identity?

G2. As pointed out by noted historian Laurence Stone in his book The Crisis of the Aristocracy, with the centralization of power in the royal court in Europe (and reflected in the assigned works of Machiavelli and Shakespeare), came increased anxiety and backstabbing (sometimes literally) as people sought for advancement by competing for a set number of higher positions at the royal court or dispensed at the royal court. Part of the rivalry would naturally include spying, the gaining of intelligence (in the spying sense) that would help advance the cause of a position-seeker. (G2a) How is the motif of spying pervasive in Shakespeare’s Hamlet? For example, how is a parallel set of spying shown in 2.1 and 2.2 of Hamlet? (G2b) How has spying become pervasive in contemporary America? For example, what is “anti-spy software,” and why is it necessary? What goes with “quality assurance” as so often announced in recorded telephone menus from various businesses? How do police know in some places, even when no police car is present, that a person has gone through a red traffic signal? How and why is virtually every consumer who pays by check or credit card part of at least one database somewhere?

G3. P.M. Pasinetti in his NAWM introductions to Machiavelli’s The Prince and Shakespeare’s Hamlet notes connections between the two works. What are these connections pointed out by Pasinetti?

G4. From the late Middle Ages (e.g., Dante’s Divine Comedy) into the Renaissance (e.g., Machiavelli’s The Prince, Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Cervantes’ Don Quixote) a shift in the language chosen for writing important works of literature occurred from Latin to the vernacular (the common language of the country — Italian, for Dante and Machiavelli; English, for Shakespeare; Spanish, for Cervantes).  (G4a) In the Renaissance in Britain, most important writers evidence a great joy in discovering and using the new language (now, for the first time, modern English, as opposed to Old English and Middle English; see the brief history of the English language included in Prinsky’s Notes and Questions on Chaucer). How is this joy in discovering and using the vernacular, English, shown in Shakespeare’s Hamlet? (G4b) One figure of speech pervasive in Hamlet is antonomasia — e.g., when Marcellus identifies himself and Horatio as “and liegemen to the Dane” (1.1.15) — “the Dane” = the King of Denmark = King Claudius ; or when Horatio refers to the Ghost’s seemingly wearing “the very armor he [Hamlet Senior, the recently-deceased King] had on/ When he the ambitious Norway combated” (1.1.60-61) — “Norway” = King of Norway = Fortinbras Senior. How does this figure relate to — and help convey something about — the subject of identity in the play? (G4c) Another figure of speech pervasive in Hamlet is the pun (also called “paronomasia”) — the play on one word having two or more meanings, or two words sounding alike having different meanings. For example, when Horatio refers to “young Fortinbras,/ Of unimproved mettle” (1.1.95-96), there is a play on the words (and meanings) of “mettle” (= worth) and “metal” (= metallic substance, an idea picked up in the following lines). When Horatio refers to how young Fortinbrass (= Fortinbras Junior) has “shark’d up” some outlaw mercenaries “to some enterprise/ That hath a stomach in’t” (1.1.98-100), there is a play on the meaning of “stomach” as “importance or substance” as well as the literal physical organ (the latter connecting to “shark’d up” and “food and diet” in the passage). Why is this figure of speech, which depends on doubleness, so appropriate to the subjects and themes of this play?

G5.  (G5a) The subject of Romantic love occurs in this play. How could it be said that Hamlet drives his girlfriend crazy? How could it be said that his girlfriend drives Hamlet crazy? Such processes couldn’t happen today, could they? (G5b) As with Shakespeare’s play Romeo and Juliet, one issue in Hamlet relating to romantic love is the effects of external influence on a romantic relationship. How is this subject explored in Hamlet?

G6.  One issue in both Machiavelli’s The Prince and Shakespeare’s Hamlet is how important it may be for a leader or manager to have good morality. Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are rather famous as instances contrasting with each other in morality and in effectiveness. How do Machiavelli and Shakespeare compare on this subject? Carter and Clinton?

G7. Professor Walter Evans and others have noted certain general connections among literature, music, and art of the three units for the Renaissance in Humanities 2001. For Unit 1, Renaissance/Reformation I : Renaissance Court , these themes are (1) Rationality, (2) Growing Secularism / Worldliness, (3) Exaltation of Human Potential, (4) Psychological Complexity (sense of reality less simple and unified), (5) Individualism, and (6) Expanded Roles for Women. How may these components be found in Shakespeare’s Hamlet? For Unit 2, Renaissance/Reformation II: Christianity / Reformation / Counter-Reformation, connections among the literature, music, and art may be seen in how these subjects related to religion occur.


Frame Two :The History of Hamlet

 

The American actor Edwin Booth as Hamlet, ca. 1870

The Tragical History of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, or more simply Hamlet, is a tragedy by William Shakespeare, believed to have been written between 1599 and 1601. The play, set in the Kingdom of Denmark, recounts how Prince Hamlet exacts revenge on his uncle Claudius for murdering the old King Hamlet (Claudius’s brother and Prince Hamlet’s father) and then succeeding to the throne and marrying Gertrude (the King Hamlet’s widow and mother of Prince Hamlet). The play vividly portrays real and feigned madness — from overwhelming grief to seething rage — and explores themes of treachery, revenge, incest, and moral corruption.

Three different early versions of the play have survived: these are known as the First Quarto (Q1), the Second Quarto (Q2) and the First Folio (F1). Each has lines, and even scenes, that are missing from the others. Shakespeare based Hamlet on the legend of Amleth, preserved by 13th-century chronicler Saxo Grammaticus in his Gesta Danorum as subsequently retold by 16th-century scholar François de Belleforest. He may have also drawn on, or perhaps written, an earlier (hypothetical) Elizabethan play known today as the Ur-Hamlet.

The play’s structure and depth of characterization have inspired much critical scrutiny, of which one example is the centuries-old debate about Hamlet’s hesitation to kill his uncle. Some see it as a plot device to prolong the action, and others see it as the result of pressure exerted by the complex philosophical and ethical issues that surround cold-blooded murder, calculated revenge and thwarted desire. More recently, psychoanalytic critics have examined Hamlet’s unconscious desires, and feminist critics have re-evaluated and rehabilitated the often maligned characters of Ophelia and Gertrude.

Hamlet is Shakespeare’s longest play and among the most powerful and influential tragedies in the English language. It has a story capable of “seemingly endless retelling and adaptation by others.”[1] During Shakespeare’s lifetime, the play was one of his most popular works,[2] and it still ranks high among his most-performed, topping, for example, the Royal Shakespeare Company‘s list since 1879.[3] It has inspired writers from Goethe and Dickens to Joyce and Murdoch, and has been described as “the world’s most filmed story after Cinderella“.[4]

The title role was almost certainly created for Richard Burbage, the leading tragedian of Shakespeare’s time.[5] In the four hundred years since, it has been performed by highly acclaimed actors and actresses from each successive age.

Characters

Plot

Horatio, Marcellus, Hamlet, and the Ghost (Artist: Henry Fuseli 1798)[6]

The protagonist of Hamlet is Prince Hamlet of Denmark, son of deceased King Hamlet and his wife, Queen Gertrude.

The story opens on a chilly night at Elsinore, the Danish royal castle. Francisco, one of the sentinels, is relieved of his watch by Bernardo, another sentinel, and exits while Bernardo remains. A third sentinel, Marcellus, enters with Horatio, Hamlet’s best friend. The sentinels inform Horatio that they have seen a ghost that looks like the dead King Hamlet. After hearing from Horatio of the Ghost’s appearance, Hamlet resolves to see the Ghost himself. That night, the Ghost appears again. It leads Hamlet to a secluded place, claims that it is the actual spirit of his father, and discloses that he—the elder Hamlet—was murdered by Claudius’ pouring poison in his ear. The Ghost demands that Hamlet avenge him; Hamlet agrees, swears his companions to secrecy, and tells them he intends to “put an antic disposition on”[7] (presumably to avert suspicion). Hamlet initially attests to the ghost’s reliability, calling him both an “honest ghost” and “truepenny.” Later, however, he expresses doubts about the ghost’s nature and intent, claiming these as reasons for his inaction.

Polonius is Claudius’ trusted chief counsellor; Polonius‘s son, Laertes, is returning to France, and Polonius‘s daughter, Ophelia, is courted by Hamlet. Both Polonius and Laertes warn Ophelia that Hamlet is surely not serious about her. Shortly afterward, Ophelia is alarmed by Hamlet’s strange behaviour, reporting to her father that Hamlet rushed into her room, stared at her, and said nothing. Polonius assumes that the “ecstasy of love”[8] is responsible for Hamlet’s “mad” behavior, and he informs Claudius and Gertrude.

Perturbed by Hamlet’s continuing deep mourning for his father and his increasingly erratic behavior, Claudius sends for two of Hamlet’s acquaintances—Rosencrantz and Guildenstern—to find out the cause of Hamlet’s changed behavior. Hamlet greets his friends warmly but quickly discerns that they have been sent to spy on him.

Together, Claudius and Polonius convince Ophelia to speak with Hamlet while they secretly listen. When Hamlet enters, she offers to return his remembrances, upon which Hamlet questions her honesty and furiously rants at her to “get thee to a nunnery.”[9]

The “gravedigger scene”[10] (Artist: Eugène Delacroix 1839)

Hamlet remains uncertain whether the Ghost has told him the truth, but the arrival of a troupe of actors at Elsinore presents him with a solution. He will have them stage a play, The Murder of Gonzago, re-enacting his father’s murder and determine Claudius’s guilt or innocence by studying his reaction to it. The court assembles to watch the play; Hamlet provides an agitated running commentary throughout. When the murder scene is presented, Claudius abruptly rises and leaves the room, which Hamlet sees as proof of his uncle’s guilt.

Gertrude summons Hamlet to her closet to demand an explanation. On his way, Hamlet passes Claudius in prayer, but hesitates to kill him, reasoning that death in prayer would send him to heaven. However, it is revealed that the King is not truly praying, remarking that “words” never made it to heaven without “thoughts.”[11] An argument erupts between Hamlet and Gertrude. Polonius, spying on the scene from behind an arras and convinced that the prince’s madness is indeed real, panics when it seems as if Hamlet is about to murder the Queen and cries out for help. Hamlet, believing it is Claudius hiding behind the arras, stabs wildly through the cloth, killing Polonius. When he realizes that he has killed Ophelia’s father, he is not remorseful, but calls Polonius “Thou wretched, rash, intruding fool.”[12] The Ghost appears, urging Hamlet to treat Gertrude gently, but reminding him to kill Claudius. Unable to see or hear the Ghost herself, Gertrude takes Hamlet’s conversation with it as further evidence of madness.

Claudius, now fearing for his life, finds a legitimate excuse to get rid of the prince: he sends Hamlet to England on a diplomatic pretext, accompanied (and closely watched) by Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Alone, Claudius discloses that he is actually sending Hamlet to his death. Prior to embarking for England, Hamlet hides Polonius’s body, ultimately revealing its location to the King. Upon leaving Elsinore, Hamlet encounters the army of Prince Fortinbras en route to do battle in Poland. Upon witnessing so many men going to their death on the brash whim of an impulsive prince, Hamlet declares, “O, from this time forth, / My thoughts be bloody, or be nothing worth!”[13]

At Elsinore, further demented by grief at her father Polonius’s death, Ophelia wanders the castle, acting erratically and singing bawdy songs. Her brother, Laertes, returns from France, horrified by his father’s death and his sister’s madness. She appears briefly to give out herbs and flowers. Claudius convinces Laertes that Hamlet is solely responsible; then news arrives that Hamlet is still alive—a story is spread that his ship was attacked by pirates on the way to England, and he has returned to Denmark. Claudius swiftly concocts a plot to kill his nephew but make it appear to be an accident, taking all of the blame off his shoulders. Knowing of Hamlet’s jealousy of Laertes’ prowess with a sword, he proposes a fencing match between the two. Laertes, enraged at the murder of his father, informs the king that he will further poison the tip of his sword so that a mere scratch would mean certain death. Claudius, unsure that capable Hamlet could receive even a scratch, plans to offer Hamlet poisoned wine if that fails. Gertrude enters to report that Ophelia has drowned.

Hamlet avenged his father by killing his uncle[14] (Artist: Gustave Moreau date unknown)

In the Elsinore churchyard, two “clowns”, typically represented as “gravediggers,” enter to prepare Ophelia’s grave, and, although the coroner has ruled her death accidental so that she may receive Christian burial, they argue about its being a case of suicide. Hamlet arrives with Horatio and banters with one of them, who unearths the skull of a jester whom Hamlet once knew, Yorick (“Alas, Poor Yorick; I knew him, Horatio.”). Ophelia’s funeral procession approaches, led by her mournful brother Laertes. Distraught at the lack of ceremony (due to the actually-deemed suicide) and overcome by emotion, Laertes leaps into the grave, cursing Hamlet as the cause of her death. Hamlet interrupts, professing his own love and grief for Ophelia. He and Laertes grapple, but the fight is broken up by Claudius and Gertrude. Claudius reminds Laertes of the planned fencing match.

Later that day, Hamlet tells Horatio how he escaped death on his journey, disclosing that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern have been sent to their deaths instead. A courtier, Osric, interrupts to invite Hamlet to fence with Laertes. Despite Horatio’s warnings, Hamlet accepts and the match begins. After several rounds, Gertrude toasts Hamlet—against the urgent warning of Claudius—accidentally drinking the wine he poisoned. Between bouts, Laertes attacks and pierces Hamlet with his poisoned blade; in the ensuing scuffle, Hamlet is able to use Laertes’s own poisoned sword against him. Gertrude falls and, in her dying breath, announces that she has been poisoned.

In his dying moments, Laertes is reconciled with Hamlet and reveals Claudius’s murderous plot. Hamlet stabs Claudius with the poisoned sword, and then forces him to drink from his own poisoned cup to make sure he dies. In his final moments, Hamlet names Prince Fortinbras of Norway as the probable heir to the throne, since the Danish kingship is an elected position, with the country’s nobles having the final say. Horatio attempts to kill himself with the same poisoned wine, but is stopped by Hamlet—who commands him to tell the story, as he will be the only one left alive who can give a full account.

When Fortinbras arrives to greet King Claudius, he encounters the deadly scene: Gertrude, Claudius, Laertes, and Hamlet are all dead. Horatio asks to be allowed to recount the tale to “the yet unknowing world,” and Fortinbras orders Hamlet’s body borne off in honour.

Sources

Main article: Sources of Hamlet

A facsimile of Gesta Danorum by Saxo Grammaticus, which contains the legend of Amleth

Hamlet-like legends are so widely found (for example in Italy, Spain, Scandinavia, Byzantium, and Arabia) that the core “hero-as-fool” theme is possibly Indo-European in origin.[15] Several ancient written precursors to Hamlet can be identified. The first is the anonymous Scandinavian Saga of Hrolf Kraki. In this, the murdered king has two sons—Hroar and Helgi—who spend most of the story in disguise, under false names, rather than feigning madness, in a sequence of events that differs from Shakespeare’s.[16] The second is the Roman legend of Brutus, recorded in two separate Latin works. Its hero, Lucius (“shining, light”), changes his name and persona to Brutus (“dull, stupid”), playing the role of a fool to avoid the fate of his father and brothers, and eventually slaying his family’s killer, King Tarquinius. A 17th-century Nordic scholar, Torfaeus, compared the Icelandic hero Amlodi and the Spanish hero Prince Ambales (from the Ambales Saga) to Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Similarities include the prince’s feigned madness, his accidental killing of the king’s counsellor in his mother’s bedroom, and the eventual slaying of his uncle.[17]

Many of the earlier legendary elements are interwoven in the 13th-century Vita Amlethi (“The Life of Amleth”)[18] by Saxo Grammaticus, part of Gesta Danorum.[19] Written in Latin, it reflects classical Roman concepts of virtue and heroism, and was widely available in Shakespeare’s day.[20] Significant parallels include the prince feigning madness, his mother’s hasty marriage to the usurper, the prince killing a hidden spy, and the prince substituting the execution of two retainers for his own. A reasonably faithful version of Saxo’s story was translated into French in 1570 by François de Belleforest, in his Histoires tragiques.[21] Belleforest embellished Saxo’s text substantially, almost doubling its length, and introduced the hero’s melancholy.[22]

Title page of The Spanish Tragedy, by Thomas Kyd.

According to a popular theory, Shakespeare’s main source is believed to be an earlier play—now lost—known today as the Ur-Hamlet. Possibly written by Thomas Kyd or even William Shakespeare himself, the Ur-Hamlet would have been in performance by 1589 and the first version of the story known to incorporate a ghost.[23] Shakespeare’s company, the Chamberlain’s Men, may have purchased that play and performed a version for some time, which Shakespeare reworked.[24] Since no copy of the Ur-Hamlet has survived, however, it is impossible to compare its language and style with the known works of any of its putative authors. Consequently, there is no direct evidence that Kyd wrote it, nor any evidence that the play was not an early version of Hamlet by Shakespeare himself. This latter idea—placing Hamlet far earlier than the generally accepted date, with a much longer period of development—has attracted some support, though others dismiss it as speculation.[25]

The upshot is that scholars cannot assert with any confidence how much material Shakespeare took from the Ur-Hamlet (if it even existed), how much from Belleforest or Saxo, and how much from other contemporary sources (such as Kyd’s The Spanish Tragedy). No clear evidence exists that Shakespeare made any direct references to Saxo’s version. However, elements of Belleforest’s version which are not in Saxo’s story do appear in Shakespeare’s play. Whether Shakespeare took these from Belleforest directly or through the Ur-Hamlet remains unclear.[26]

Most scholars reject the idea that Hamlet is in any way connected with Shakespeare’s only son, Hamnet Shakespeare, who died in 1596 at age eleven. Conventional wisdom holds that Hamlet is too obviously connected to legend, and the name Hamnet was quite popular at the time.[27] However, Stephen Greenblatt has argued that the coincidence of the names and Shakespeare’s grief for the loss of his son may lie at the heart of the tragedy. He notes that the name of Hamnet Sadler, the Stratford neighbour after whom Hamnet was named, was often written as Hamlet Sadler and that, in the loose orthography of the time, the names were virtually interchangeable.[28] Sadler’s first name is spelled “Hamlett” in Shakespeare’s will.[29]

Scholars have often speculated that Hamlet‘s Polonius might have been inspired by William Cecil (Lord Burghley)—Lord High Treasurer and chief counsellor to Queen Elizabeth I. E. K. Chambers suggested Polonius’s advice to Laertes may have echoed Burghley’s to his son Robert Cecil. John Dover Wilson thought it almost certain that the figure of Polonius caricatured Burleigh, while A. L. Rowse speculated that Polonius’s tedious verbosity might have resembled Burghley’s .[30] Lilian Winstanley thought the name Corambis (in the Ist Quarto) did suggest Cecil and Burghley.[31] Harold Jenkins criticised the idea of any direct personal satire as “unlikely” and “uncharacteristic of Shakespeare”,[32] while G.R.Hibbard hypothesized that differences in names (Corambis/Polonius:Montano/Raynoldo) between the First Quarto and other editions might reflect a desire not to offend scholars at Oxford University.[33]

Date

“Any dating of Hamlet must be tentative”, cautions the New Cambridge editor, Phillip Edwards.[34] The earliest date estimate relies on Hamlet‘s frequent allusions to Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, itself dated to mid-1599.[35] The latest date estimate is based on an entry, of 26 July 1602, in the Register of the Stationers’ Company, indicating that Hamlet was “latelie Acted by the Lo: Chamberleyne his servantes“.

In 1598, Francis Meres published in his Palladis Tamia a survey of English literature from Chaucer to its present day, within which twelve of Shakespeare’s plays are named. Hamlet is not among them, suggesting that it had not yet been written. As Hamlet was very popular, the New Swan series editor Bernard Lott believes it “unlikely that he [Meres] would have overlooked … so significant a piece”.[36]

The phrase “little eyases”[37] in the First Folio (F1) may allude to the Children of the Chapel, whose popularity in London forced the Globe company into provincial touring. This became known as the War of the Theatres, and supports a 1601 dating.[36]

A contemporary of Shakespere’s, Gabriel Harvey, wrote a marginal note in his copy of the 1598 edition of Chaucer’s works, which some scholars use as dating evidence. Harvey’s note says that “the wiser sort” enjoy Hamlet, and implies that the Earl of Essex—executed in February 1601 for rebellion—was still alive. Other scholars consider this inconclusive. Edwards, for example, concludes that the “sense of time is so confused in Harvey’s note that it is really of little use in trying to date Hamlet“. This is because the same note also refers to Spenser and Watson as if they were still alive (“our flourishing metricians“), but also mentions “Owen’s new epigrams”, published in 1607.[38]

Texts

Title page of the 1605 printing (Q2) of Hamlet

Three early editions of the text have survived, making attempts to establish a single “authentic” text problematic.[39] Each is different from the others:[40]

  • First Quarto (Q1) In 1603 the booksellers Nicholas Ling and John Trundell published, and Valentine Simmes printed the so-called “badfirst quarto. Q1 contains just over half of the text of the later second quarto.
  • Second Quarto (Q2) In 1604 Nicholas Ling published, and James Roberts printed, the second quarto. Some copies are dated 1605, which may indicate a second impression; consequently, Q2 is often dated “1604/5″. Q2 is the longest early edition, although it omits 85 lines found in F1 (most likely to avoid offending James I’s queen, Anne of Denmark).[41]
  • First Folio (F1) In 1623 Edward Blount and William and Isaac Jaggard published the First Folio, the first edition of Shakespeare’s Complete Works.[42]

Other folios and quartos were subsequently published—including John Smethwick’s Q3, Q4, and Q5 (1611–37)—but these are regarded as derivatives of the first three editions.[42]

Early editors of Shakespeare’s works, beginning with Nicholas Rowe (1709) and Lewis Theobald (1733), combined material from the two earliest sources of Hamlet available at the time, Q2 and F1. Each text contains material that the other lacks, with many minor differences in wording: scarcely 200 lines are identical in the two. Editors have combined them in an effort to create one “inclusive” text that reflects an imagined “ideal” of Shakespeare’s original. Theobald’s version became standard for a long time,[43] and his “full text” approach continues to influence editorial practice to the present day. Some contemporary scholarship, however, discounts this approach, instead considering “an authentic Hamlet an unrealisable ideal. … there are texts of this play but no text“.[44] The 2006 publication by Arden Shakespeare of different Hamlet texts in different volumes is perhaps the best evidence of this shifting focus and emphasis.[45]

Traditionally, editors of Shakespeare’s plays have divided them into five acts. None of the early texts of Hamlet, however, were arranged this way, and the play’s division into acts and scenes derives from a 1676 quarto. Modern editors generally follow this traditional division, but consider it unsatisfactory; for example, after Hamlet drags Polonius’s body out of Gertrude’s bedchamber, there is an act-break[46] after which the action appears to continue uninterrupted.[47]

Comparison of the ‘To be, or not to be’ soliloquy in the first three editions of Hamlet, showing the varying quality of the text in the Bad Quarto, the Good Quarto and the First Folio

The discovery in 1823 of Q1—whose existence had been quite unsuspected—caused considerable interest and excitement, raising many questions of editorial practice and interpretation. Scholars immediately identified apparent deficiencies in Q1, which was instrumental in the development of the concept of a Shakespearean “bad quarto“.[48] Yet Q1 has value: it contains stage directions that reveal actual stage practices in a way that Q2 and F1 do not; it contains an entire scene (usually labelled 4.6)[49] that does not appear in either Q2 or F1; and it is useful for comparison with the later editions. The scene order is more coherent, without the problems of Q2 and F1 of Hamlet seeming to resolve something in one scene and enter the next drowning in indecision. This is a scene order many modern theatrical productions follow.[citation needed] The major deficiency of Q1 is that the language is not “Shakespearean” enough[citation needed], particularly noticeable in the opening lines of the famous “To be, or not to be” soliloquy: “To be, or not to be, aye there’s the point. / To die, to sleep, is that all? Aye all: / No, to sleep, to dream, aye marry there it goes.”

Q1 is considerably shorter than Q2 or F1 and may be a memorial reconstruction of the play as Shakespeare’s company performed it, by an actor who played a minor role (most likely Marcellus).[50] Scholars disagree whether the reconstruction was pirated or authorised. Another theory, considered by New Cambridge editor Kathleen Irace, holds that Q1 is an abridged version intended especially for travelling productions.[51] The idea that Q1 is not riddled with error but is instead eminently fit for the stage has led to at least 28 different Q1 productions since 1881.[52]

Analysis and criticism

Critical history

From the early 17th century, the play was famous for its ghost and vivid dramatization of melancholy and insanity, leading to a procession of mad courtiers and ladies in Jacobean and Caroline drama.[53] Though it remained popular with mass audiences, late 17th-century Restoration critics saw Hamlet as primitive and disapproved of its lack of unity and decorum.[54] This view changed drastically in the 18th century, when critics regarded Hamlet as a hero—a pure, brilliant young man thrust into unfortunate circumstances.[55] By the mid-18th century, however, the advent of Gothic literature brought psychological and mystical readings, returning madness and the Ghost to the forefront.[56] Not until the late 18th century did critics and performers begin to view Hamlet as confusing and inconsistent. Before then, he was either mad, or not; either a hero, or not; with no in-betweens.[57] These developments represented a fundamental change in literary criticism, which came to focus more on character and less on plot.[58] By the 19th century, Romantic critics valued Hamlet for its internal, individual conflict reflecting the strong contemporary emphasis on internal struggles and inner character in general.[59] Then too, critics started to focus on Hamlet’s delay as a character trait, rather than a plot device.[58] This focus on character and internal struggle continued into the 20th century, when criticism branched in several directions, discussed in context and interpretation below.

Dramatic structure

Hamlet departed from contemporary dramatic convention in several ways. For example, in Shakespeare’s day, plays were usually expected to follow the advice of Aristotle in his Poetics: that a drama should focus on action, not character. In Hamlet, Shakespeare reverses this so that it is through the soliloquies, not the action, that the audience learns Hamlet’s motives and thoughts. The play is full of seeming discontinuities and irregularities of action, except in the “bad” quarto. At one point, as in the Gravedigger scene,[10] Hamlet seems resolved to kill Claudius: in the next scene, however, when Claudius appears, he is suddenly tame. Scholars still debate whether these twists are mistakes or intentional additions to add to the play’s theme of confusion and duality.[60] Finally, in a period when most plays ran for two hours or so, the full text of Hamlet—Shakespeare’s longest play, with 4,042 lines, totalling 29,551 words—takes over four hours to deliver.[61] Even today the play is rarely performed in its entirety, and has only once been dramatized on film completely, with Kenneth Branagh‘s 1996 version. Hamlet also contains a favourite Shakespearean device, a play within the play, a literary device or conceit in which one story is told during the action of another story.[62]

Language

Hamlet’s statement that his dark clothes are the outer sign of his inner grief demonstrates strong rhetorical skill. (Artist: Eugène Delacroix 1834).

Compared with language in a modern newspaper, magazine or popular novel, Shakespeare’s language can strike contemporary readers as complex, elaborate and at times difficult to understand. Remarkably, it still works well enough in the theatre: audiences at the reconstruction of ‘Shakespeare’s Globe’ in London, many of whom have never been to the theatre before, let alone to a play by Shakespeare, seem to have little difficulty grasping the play’s action.[63] Much of Hamlet’s language is courtly: elaborate, witty discourse, as recommended by Baldassare Castiglione’s 1528 etiquette guide, The Courtier. This work specifically advises royal retainers to amuse their masters with inventive language. Osric and Polonius, especially, seem to respect this injunction. Claudius’s speech is rich with rhetorical figures—as is Hamlet’s and, at times, Ophelia’s—while the language of Horatio, the guards, and the gravediggers is simpler. Claudius’s high status is reinforced by using the royal first person plural (“we” or “us”), and anaphora mixed with metaphor to resonate with Greek political speeches.[64]

Hamlet is the most skilled of all at rhetoric. He uses highly developed metaphors, stichomythia, and in nine memorable words deploys both anaphora and asyndeton: “to die: to sleep— / To sleep, perchance to dream”.[65] In contrast, when occasion demands, he is precise and straightforward, as when he explains his inward emotion to his mother: “But I have that within which passes show, / These but the trappings and the suits of woe”.[66] At times, he relies heavily on puns to express his true thoughts while simultaneously concealing them.[67] His “nunnery” remarks[68] to Ophelia are an example of a cruel double meaning as nunnery was Elizabethan slang for brothel.[9][69] His very first words in the play are a pun; when Claudius addresses him as “my cousin Hamlet, and my son”, Hamlet says as an aside: “A little more than kin, and less than kind.”[70] An aside is a dramatic device in which a character speaks to the audience. By convention the audience realizes that the character’s speech is unheard by the other characters on stage. It may be addressed to the audience expressly (in character or out) or represent an unspoken thought.

An unusual rhetorical device, hendiadys, appears in several places in the play. Examples are found in Ophelia’s speech at the end of the nunnery scene: “Th’expectancy and rose of the fair state”; “And I, of ladies most deject and wretched“.[71] Many scholars have found it odd that Shakespeare would, seemingly arbitrarily, use this rhetorical form throughout the play. One explanation may be that Hamlet was written later in Shakespeare’s life, when he was adept at matching rhetorical devices to characters and the plot. Linguist George T. Wright suggests that hendiadys had been used deliberately to heighten the play’s sense of duality and dislocation.[72] Pauline Kiernan argues that Shakespeare changed English drama forever in Hamlet because he “showed how a character’s language can often be saying several things at once, and contradictory meanings at that, to reflect fragmented thoughts and disturbed feelings.” She gives the example of Hamlet’s advice to Ophelia, “get thee to a nunnery”, which is simultaneously a reference to a place of chastity and a slang term for a brothel, reflecting Hamlet’s confused feelings about female sexuality.[73]

Context and interpretation

Religious

Ophelia depicts lady Ophelia’s mysterious death by drowning. In the play, the clowns discuss whether Ophelia’s death was a suicide and whether or not she merits a Christian burial. (Artist: John Everett Millais 1852).

Written at a time of religious upheaval, and in the wake of the English Reformation, the play is alternately Catholic (or piously medieval) and Protestant (or consciously modern). The Ghost describes himself as being in purgatory, and as dying without last rites. This and Ophelia’s burial ceremony, which is characteristically Catholic, make up most of the play’s Catholic connections. Some scholars have observed that revenge tragedies come from traditionally Catholic countries, such as Spain and Italy; and they present a contradiction, since according to Catholic doctrine the strongest duty is to God and family. Hamlet’s conundrum, then, is whether to avenge his father and kill Claudius, or to leave the vengeance to God, as his religion requires.[74]

Much of the play’s Protestantism derives from its location in Denmark—then and now a predominantly Protestant country, though it is unclear whether the fictional Denmark of the play is intended to mirror this fact. The play does mention Wittenberg, where Hamlet, Horatio, and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern attend university, and where Martin Luther first proposed his 95 theses in 1517, effectively ushering in the Protestant Reformation.[75] In Shakespeare’s day Denmark, as the majority of Scandinavia, was Lutheran.[76] When Hamlet speaks of the “special providence in the fall of a sparrow”,[77] he reflects the Protestant belief that the will of God—Divine Providence—controls even the smallest event. In Q1, the first sentence of the same section reads: “There’s a predestinate providence in the fall of a sparrow,”[78] which suggests an even stronger Protestant connection through John Calvin’s doctrine of predestination. Scholars speculate that Hamlet may have been censored, as “predestined” appears only in this quarto.[79]

Philosophical

Philosophical ideas in Hamlet are similar to those of the French writer Michel de Montaigne, a contemporary of Shakespeare’s. (Artist: Thomas de Leu, fl. 1560–1612).

Hamlet is often perceived as a philosophical character, expounding ideas that are now described as relativist, existentialist, and skeptical. For example, he expresses a subjectivistic idea when he says to Rosencrantz: “there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so”.[80] The idea that nothing is real except in the mind of the individual finds its roots in the Greek Sophists, who argued that since nothing can be perceived except through the senses—and since all individuals sense, and therefore perceive, things differently—there is no absolute truth, only relative truth.[81] The clearest example of existentialism is found in the “to be, or not to be[82] speech, where Hamlet uses “being” to allude to both life and action, and “not being” to death and inaction. Hamlet’s contemplation of suicide in this scene, however, is less philosophical than religious as he believes that he will continue to exist after death.[83]

Scholars agree that Hamlet reflects the contemporary skepticism that prevailed in Renaissance humanism.[84] Prior to Shakespeare’s time, humanists had argued that man was God’s greatest creation, made in God’s image and able to choose his own nature, but this view was challenged, notably in Michel de Montaigne’s Essais of 1590. Hamlet’s “What a piece of work is a man” echoes many of Montaigne’s ideas, but scholars disagree whether Shakespeare drew directly from Montaigne or whether both men were simply reacting similarly to the spirit of the times.[85]

Hamlet’s skepticism is juxtaposed in the play with Horatio’s more traditional Christian worldview. Despite the friends’ close bond, Hamlet counters Horatio’s faith with the seemingly agnostic comment, “There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

Psychoanalytic

In the first half of the 20th century, when psychoanalysis was at the height of its influence, its concepts were applied to Hamlet, notably by Sigmund Freud, Ernest Jones, and Jacques Lacan, and these studies influenced theatrical productions.

Freud suggested that an unconscious oedipal conflict caused Hamlet’s hesitations. (Artist: Eugène Delacroix 1844).

In his The Interpretation of Dreams (1900), Freud’s analysis starts from the premise that “the play is built up on Hamlet’s hesitations over fulfilling the task of revenge that is assigned to him; but its text offers no reasons or motives for these hesitations”.[86] After reviewing various literary theories, Freud concludes that Hamlet has an “Oedipal desire for his mother and the subsequent guilt [is] preventing him from murdering the man [Claudius] who has done what he unconsciously wanted to do”.[87] Confronted with his repressed desires, Hamlet realises that “he himself is literally no better than the sinner whom he is to punish”.[86] Freud suggests that Hamlet’s apparent “distaste for sexuality”—articulated in his “nunnery” conversation with Ophelia—accords with this interpretation.[88][89] John Barrymore introduced Freudian overtones into his landmark 1922 production in New York, which ran for a record-breaking 101 nights.

Beginning in 1910, with the publication of “The Oedipus-Complex as An Explanation of Hamlet’s Mystery: A Study in Motive,”[90] Ernest Jones—a psychoanalyst and Freud’s biographer—developed Freud’s ideas into a series of essays that culminated in his book Hamlet and Oedipus (1949). Influenced by Jones’s psychoanalytic approach, several productions have portrayed the “closet scene”,[91] where Hamlet confronts his mother in her private quarters, in a sexual light. In this reading, Hamlet is disgusted by his mother’s “incestuous” relationship with Claudius while simultaneously fearful of killing him, as this would clear Hamlet’s path to his mother’s bed. Ophelia’s madness after her father’s death may also be read through the Freudian lens: as a reaction to the death of her hoped-for lover, her father. She is overwhelmed by having her unfulfilled love for him so abruptly terminated and drifts into the oblivion of insanity.[92] In 1937, Tyrone Guthrie directed Laurence Olivier in a Jones-inspired Hamlet at the Old Vic.[93] Olivier later used some of these same ideas in his 1948 film version of the play.

In the 1950s, -Lacan’s structuralist theories about Hamlet were first presented in a series of seminars given in Paris and later published in “Desire and the Interpretation of Desire in Hamlet“. Lacan postulated that the human psyche is determined by structures of language and that the linguistic structures of Hamlet shed light on human desire.[87] His point of departure is Freud’s Oedipal theories, and the central theme of mourning that runs through Hamlet.[87] In Lacan’s analysis, Hamlet unconsciously assumes the role of phallus—the cause of his inaction—and is increasingly distanced from reality “by mourning, fantasy, narcissism and psychosis“, which create holes (or lack (manque)) in the real, imaginary, and symbolic aspects of his psyche.[87] Lacan’s theories influenced literary criticism of Hamlet because of his alternative vision of the play and his use of semantics to explore the play’s psychological landscape.[87]

Feminist

Ophelia is distracted by grief.[94] Feminist critics have explored her descent into madness. (Artist: Henrietta Rae 1890).

In the 20th century feminist critics opened up new approaches to Gertrude and Ophelia. New Historicist and cultural materialist critics examined the play in its historical context, attempting to piece together its original cultural environment.[95] They focused on the gender system of early modern England, pointing to the common trinity of maid, wife, or widow, with whores alone outside of the stereotype. In this analysis, the essence of Hamlet is the central character’s changed perception of his mother as a whore because of her failure to remain faithful to Old Hamlet. In consequence, Hamlet loses his faith in all women, treating Ophelia as if she too were a whore and dishonest with Hamlet. Ophelia, by some critics, can be honest and fair; however, it is virtually impossible to link these two traits, since ‘fairness’ is an outward trait, while ‘honesty’ is an inward trait.[96]

Hamlet tries to show his mother Gertrude his father’s ghost (artist: Nicolai A. Abildgaard ca. 1778).

Carolyn Heilbrun‘s 1957 essay “Hamlet’s Mother” defends Gertrude, arguing that the text never hints that Gertrude knew of Claudius poisoning King Hamlet. This analysis has been championed by many feminist critics. Heilbrun argued that men have for centuries completely misinterpreted Gertrude, accepting at face value Hamlet’s view of her instead of following the actual text of the play. By this account, no clear evidence suggests that Gertrude is an adulteress: she is merely adapting to the circumstances of her husband’s death for the good of the kingdom.[97]

Ophelia has also been defended by feminist critics, most notably Elaine Showalter.[98] Ophelia is surrounded by powerful men: her father, brother, and Hamlet. All three disappear: Laertes leaves, Hamlet abandons her, and Polonius dies. Conventional theories had argued that without these three powerful men making decisions for her, Ophelia is driven into madness.[99] 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. Showalter points out that Ophelia has become the symbol of the distraught and hysterical woman in modern culture.[100]

Influence

See also Literary influence of Hamlet

Hamlet is one of the most quoted works in the English language, and is often included on lists of the world’s greatest literature.[101] As such, it reverberates through the writing of later centuries. Academic Laurie Osborne identifies the direct influence of Hamlet in numerous modern narratives, and divides them into four main categories: fictional accounts of the play’s composition, simplifications of the story for young readers, stories expanding the role of one or more characters, and narratives featuring performances of the play.[102]

Henry Fielding‘s Tom Jones, published about 1749, describes a visit to Hamlet by Tom Jones and Mr Partridge, with similarities to the “play within a play”.[103] In contrast, Goethe’s Bildungsroman Wilhelm Meister’s Apprenticeship, written between 1776 and 1796, not only has a production of Hamlet at its core but also creates parallels between the Ghost and Wilhelm Meister’s dead father.[103] In the early 1850s, in Pierre, Herman Melville focuses on a Hamlet-like character’s long development as a writer.[103] Ten years later, Dickens’s Great Expectations contains many Hamlet-like plot elements: it is driven by revenge-motivated actions, contains ghost-like characters (Abel Magwich and Miss Havisham), and focuses on the hero’s guilt.[103] Academic Alexander Welsh notes that Great Expectations is an “autobiographical novel” and “anticipates psychoanalytic readings of Hamlet itself”.[104] About the same time, George Eliot‘s The Mill on the Floss was published, introducing Maggie Tulliver “who is explicitly compared with Hamlet”[105] though “with a reputation for sanity”.[106]

In the 1920s, James Joyce managed “a more upbeat version” of Hamlet—stripped of obsession and revenge—in Ulysses, though its main parallels are with Homer‘s Odyssey.[103] In the 1990s, two women novelists were explicitly influenced by Hamlet. In Angela Carter’s Wise Children, To be or not to be[107] is reworked as a song and dance routine, and Iris Murdoch‘s The Black Prince has Oedipal themes and murder intertwined with a love affair between a Hamlet-obsessed writer, Bradley Pearson, and the daughter of his rival.[105]

There is the story of the woman who read Hamlet for the first time and said, “I don’t see why people admire that play so. It is nothing but a bunch of quotations strung together.”

Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s Guide to Shakespeare, pg vii, Avenal Books, 1970

Performance history

The day we see Hamlet die in the theatre, something of him dies for us. He is dethroned by the spectre of an actor, and we shall never be able to keep the usurper out of our dreams.
Maurice Maeterlinck (1890).[108]

Shakespeare’s day to the Interregnum

Shakespeare almost certainly wrote the role of Hamlet for Richard Burbage. He was the chief tragedian of the Lord Chamberlain’s Men, with a capacious memory for lines and a wide emotional range.[5] Judging by the number of reprints, Hamlet appears to have been Shakespeare’s fourth most popular play during his lifetime—only Henry IV Part 1, Richard III and Pericles eclipsed it.[2] Shakespeare provides no clear indication of when his play is set; however, as Elizabethan actors performed at the Globe in contemporary dress on minimal sets, this would not have affected the staging.[109]

Firm evidence for specific early performances of the play is scant. What is known is that the crew of the ship Red Dragon, anchored off Sierra Leone, performed Hamlet in September 1607;[110] that the play toured in Germany within five years of Shakespeare’s death;[111] and that it was performed before James I in 1619 and Charles I in 1637.[112] Oxford editor George Hibbard argues that, since the contemporary literature contains many allusions and references to Hamlet (only Falstaff is mentioned more, from Shakespeare), the play was surely performed with a frequency that the historical record misses.[113]

All theatres were closed down by the Puritan government during the Interregnum.[114] Even during this time, however, playlets known as drolls were often performed illegally, including one called The Grave-Makers based on Act 5, Scene 1 of Hamlet.[115]

Restoration and 18th century

The play was revived early in the Restoration. When the existing stock of pre-civil war plays was divided between the two newly created patent theatre companies, Hamlet was the only Shakespearean favourite that Sir William Davenant’s Duke’s Company secured.[116] It became the first of Shakespeare’s plays to be presented with movable flats painted with generic scenery behind the proscenium arch of Lincoln’s Inn Fields Theatre.[117] This new stage convention highlighted the frequency with which Shakespeare shifts dramatic location, encouraging the recurrent criticisms of his violation of the neoclassical principle of maintaining a unity of place.[118] Davenant cast Thomas Betterton in the eponymous role, and he continued to play the Dane until he was 74.[119] David Garrick at Drury Lane produced a version that adapted Shakespeare heavily; he declared: “I had sworn I would not leave the stage till I had rescued that noble play from all the rubbish of the fifth act. I have brought it forth without the grave-digger’s trick, Osrick, & the fencing match”.[120] The first actor known to have played Hamlet in North America is Lewis Hallam. Jr., in the American Company‘s production in Philadelphia in 1759.[121]

David Garrick‘s iconic hand gesture expresses Hamlet’s shock at the first sight of the Ghost. (Artist: unknown).

John Philip Kemble made his Drury Lane debut as Hamlet in 1783.[122] His performance was said to be 20 minutes longer than anyone else’s, and his lengthy pauses provoked the suggestion that “music should be played between the words”.[123] Sarah Siddons was the first actress known to play Hamlet; many women have since played him as a breeches role, to great acclaim.[124] In 1748, Alexander Sumarokov wrote a Russian adaptation that focused on Prince Hamlet as the embodiment of an opposition to Claudius’s tyranny—a treatment that would recur in Eastern European versions into the 20th century.[125] In the years following America’s independence, Thomas Apthorpe Cooper, the young nation’s leading tragedian, performed Hamlet among other plays at the Chestnut Street Theatre in Philadelphia, and at the Park Theatre in New York. Although chided for “acknowledging acquaintances in the audience” and “inadequate memorisation of his lines”, he became a national celebrity.[126]

19th century

A poster, ca. 1884, for an American production of Hamlet (starring Thomas W. Keene), showing several of the key scenes

From around 1810 to 1840, the best-known Shakespearean performances in the United States were tours by leading London actors—including George Frederick Cooke, Junius Brutus Booth, Edmund Kean, William Charles Macready, and Charles Kemble. Of these, Booth remained to make his career in the States, fathering the nation’s most notorious actor, John Wilkes Booth (who later assassinated Abraham Lincoln), and its most famous Hamlet, Edwin Booth.[127] Edwin Booth’s Hamlet was described as “like the dark, mad, dreamy, mysterious hero of a poem … [acted] in an ideal manner, as far removed as possible from the plane of actual life”.[128] Booth played Hamlet for 100 nights in the 1864/5 season at The Winter Garden Theatre, inaugurating the era of long-run Shakespeare in America.[129]

In the United Kingdom, the actor-managers of the Victorian era (including Kean, Samuel Phelps, Macready, and Henry Irving) staged Shakespeare in a grand manner, with elaborate scenery and costumes.[130] The tendency of actor-managers to emphasise the importance of their own central character did not always meet with the critics’ approval. George Bernard Shaw’s praise for Johnston Forbes-Robertson’s performance contains a sideswipe at Irving: “The story of the play was perfectly intelligible, and quite took the attention of the audience off the principal actor at moments. What is the Lyceum coming to?”[131]

In London, Edmund Kean was the first Hamlet to abandon the regal finery usually associated with the role in favour of a plain costume, and he is said to have surprised his audience by playing Hamlet as serious and introspective.[132] In stark contrast to earlier opulence, William Poel’s 1881 production of the Q1 text was an early attempt at reconstructing the Elizabethan theatre’s austerity; his only backdrop was a set of red curtains.[133] Sarah Bernhardt played the prince in her popular 1899 London production. In contrast to the “effeminate” view of the central character that usually accompanied a female casting, she described her character as “manly and resolute, but nonetheless thoughtful … [he] thinks before he acts, a trait indicative of great strength and great spiritual power”.[134]

In France, Charles Kemble initiated an enthusiasm for Shakespeare; and leading members of the Romantic movement such as Victor Hugo and Alexandre Dumas saw his 1827 Paris performance of Hamlet, particularly admiring the madness of Harriet Smithson’s Ophelia.[135] In Germany, Hamlet had become so assimilated by the mid-19th century that Ferdinand Freiligrath declared that “Germany is Hamlet”.[136] From the 1850s, the Parsi theatre tradition in India transformed Hamlet into folk performances, with dozens of songs added.[137]

20th century

In 1908, Edward Gordon Craig designed the MAT production of Hamlet (1911–12). The isolated figure of Hamlet reclines in the dark foreground, while behind a gauze the rest of the court are absorbed in a bright, unified golden pyramid emanating from Claudius. Craig’s famous screens are flat against the back in this scene.

Apart from some western troupes’ 19th-century visits, the first professional performance of Hamlet in Japan was Otojiro Kawakami’s 1903 Shimpa (“new school theatre”) adaptation.[138] Shoyo Tsubouchi translated Hamlet and produced a performance in 1911 that blended Shingeki (“new drama”) and Kabuki styles.[138] This hybrid-genre reached its peak in Fukuda Tsuneari’s 1955 Hamlet.[138] In 1998, Yukio Ninagawa produced an acclaimed version of Hamlet in the style of theatre, which he took to London.[139]

Constantin Stanislavski and Edward Gordon Craig—two of the 20th century’s most influential theatre practitioners—collaborated on the Moscow Art Theatre’s seminal production of 1911–12.[140] While Craig favoured stylised abstraction, Stanislavski, armed with his ‘system,’ explored psychological motivation.[141] Craig conceived of the play as a symbolist monodrama, offering a dream-like vision as seen through Hamlet’s eyes alone.[142] This was most evident in the staging of the first court scene.[143] The most famous aspect of the production is Craig’s use of large, abstract screens that altered the size and shape of the acting area for each scene, representing the character’s state of mind spatially or visualising a dramaturgical progression.[144] The production attracted enthusiastic and unprecedented world-wide attention for the theatre and placed it “on the cultural map for Western Europe”.[145]

Hamlet is often played with contemporary political overtones. Leopold Jessner’s 1926 production at the Berlin Staatstheater portrayed Claudius’s court as a parody of the corrupt and fawning court of Kaiser Wilhelm.[146] In Poland, the number of productions of Hamlet has tended to increase at times of political unrest, since its political themes (suspected crimes, coups, surveillance) can be used to comment on a contemporary situation.[147] Similarly, Czech directors have used the play at times of occupation: a 1941 Vinohrady Theatre production “emphasised, with due caution, the helpless situation of an intellectual attempting to endure in a ruthless environment”.[148] In China, performances of Hamlet often have political significance: Gu Wuwei’s 1916 The Usurper of State Power, an amalgam of Hamlet and Macbeth, was an attack on Yuan Shikai’s attempt to overthrow the republic.[149] In 1942, Jiao Juyin directed the play in a Confucian temple in Sichuan Province, to which the government had retreated from the advancing Japanese.[149] In the immediate aftermath of the collapse of the protests at Tiananmen Square, Lin Zhaohua staged a 1990 Hamlet in which the prince was an ordinary individual tortured by a loss of meaning. In this production, the actors playing Hamlet, Claudius and Polonius exchanged roles at crucial moments in the performance, including the moment of Claudius’s death, at which point the actor mainly associated with Hamlet fell to the ground.[149]

Mignon Nevada as Ophelia, 1910

Notable stagings in London and New York include Barrymore’s 1925 production at the Haymarket; it influenced subsequent performances by John Gielgud and Laurence Olivier.[150] Gielgud played the central role many times: his 1936 New York production ran for 136 performances, leading to the accolade that he was “the finest interpreter of the role since Barrymore”.[151] Although “posterity has treated Maurice Evans less kindly”, throughout the 1930s and 1940s he was regarded by many as the leading interpreter of Shakespeare in the United States and in the 1938/9 season he presented Broadway’s first uncut Hamlet, running four and a half hours.[152] Olivier’s 1937 performance at the Old Vic Theatre was popular with audiences but not with critics, with James Agate writing in a famous review in The Sunday Times, “Mr. Olivier does not speak poetry badly. He does not speak it at all.”.[153] In 1937 Tyrone Guthrie directed the play at Elsinore, Denmark with Laurence Olivier as Hamlet and Vivien Leigh as Ophelia.

In 1963, Olivier directed Peter O’Toole as Hamlet in the inaugural performance of the newly formed National Theatre; critics found resonance between O’Toole’s Hamlet and John Osborne’s hero, Jimmy Porter, from Look Back in Anger.[154]

Richard Burton received his third Tony Award nomination when he played his second Hamlet, his first under John Gielgud’s direction, in 1964 in a production that holds the record for the longest run of the play in Broadway history (136 performances). The performance was set on a bare stage, conceived to appear like a dress rehearsal, with Burton in a black v-neck sweater, and Gielgud himself tape-recorded the voice for the Ghost (which appeared as a looming shadow). It was immortalized both on record and on a film that played in US theatres for a week in 1964 as well as being the subject of books written by cast members William Redfield and Richard L. Sterne. Other New York portrayals of Hamlet of note include that of Ralph Fiennes‘s in 1995 (for which he won the Tony Award for Best Actor) – which ran, from first preview to closing night, a total of one hundred performances. About the Fiennes Hamlet Vincent Canby wrote in The New York Times that it was “…not one for literary sleuths and Shakespeare scholars. It respects the play, but it doesn’t provide any new material for arcane debates on what it all means. Instead it’s an intelligent, beautifully read…”[155] Stacy Keach played the role with an all-star cast at Joseph Papp‘s Delacorte Theatre in the early 70′s, with Colleen Dewhurst‘s Gertrude, James Earl Jones‘s King, Barnard Hughes‘s Polonius, Sam Waterston‘s Laertes and Raul Julia‘s Osric. Sam Waterston later played the role himself at the Delacorte for the New York Shakespeare Festival, and the show transferred to the Vivian Beaumont Theatre in 1975 (Stephen Lang played Bernardo and other roles). Stephen Lang‘s Hamlet for the Roundabout Theatre Company in 1992 received positive reviews, and ran for sixty-one performances. David Warner played the role with the Royal Shakespeare Theatre in 1965. William Hurt (at Circle Rep Off-Broadway, memorably performing “To Be Or Not to Be” while lying on the floor), Jon Voight at Rutgers, and Christopher Walken (fiercely) at Stratford CT have all played the role, as has Diane Venora at the Public Theatre. Off Broadway, the Riverside Shakespeare Company mounted an uncut first folio Hamlet in 1978 at Columbia University, with a playing time of under three hours.[156] In fact, Hamlet is the most produced Shakespeare play in New York theatre history, with sixty-four recorded productions on Broadway, and an untold number Off Broadway.[157]

Ian Charleson performed Hamlet from 9 October to 13 November 1989, in Richard Eyre‘s production at the Olivier Theatre, replacing Daniel Day-Lewis, who had abandoned the production. Seriously ill from AIDS at the time, Charleson died eight weeks after his last performance. Fellow actor and friend, Sir Ian McKellen, said that Charleson played Hamlet so well it was as if he had rehearsed the role all his life; McKellen called it “the perfect Hamlet”.[158][159] The performance garnered other major accolades as well, some critics echoing McKellen in calling it the definitive Hamlet performance.[160]

Dukuh

 

Aktor Amerika, Edwin Booth sebagai Hamlet, ca. 1870
Sejarah tragis Dusun, Pangeran dari Denmark, atau lebih sederhana Hamlet, adalah tragedi karya William Shakespeare, diyakini telah ditulis antara 1599 dan 1601. Bermain, diatur dalam Kerajaan Denmark, menceritakan bagaimana Pangeran Hamlet menuntut balas dendam pada Claudius pamannya untuk membunuh Raja Hamlet tua (kakak Claudius dan ayah Pangeran Hamlet) dan kemudian berhasil naik tahta dan menikahi Gertrude (janda Dusun Raja dan ibu Dusun Pangeran). Drama tersebut jelas menggambarkan kegilaan nyata dan pura-pura – dari kesedihan besar untuk kemarahan menggelegak – dan mengeksplorasi tema pengkhianatan, balas dendam, inses, dan korupsi moral.

Tiga versi awal permainan yang berbeda telah selamat: ini dikenal sebagai Quarto Pertama (Q1), maka Quarto Kedua (Q2) dan Folio Pertama (F1). Masing-masing memiliki garis, dan bahkan adegan, yang hilang dari yang lain. Hamlet Shakespeare berdasarkan pada legenda Amleth, diawetkan dengan abad ke-13 parah Saxo Grammaticus dalam bukunya Gesta Danorum sebagaimana telah diceritakan kembali oleh abad ke-16 sarjana François de Belleforest. Dia mungkin juga ditarik pada, atau mungkin tertulis, seorang (hipotetis) Elizabethan sebelumnya bermain sekarang dikenal sebagai Ur-Hamlet.

Struktur bermain dan kedalaman karakterisasi telah menginspirasi banyak pengawasan kritis, yang salah satu contoh adalah perdebatan berabad-abad tentang keraguan Hamlet untuk membunuh pamannya. Beberapa melihatnya sebagai perangkat plot untuk memperpanjang tindakan, dan lain-lain melihatnya sebagai akibat dari tekanan yang diberikan oleh isu-isu filosofis dan etis kompleks yang mengelilingi pembunuhan berdarah dingin, dendam dihitung dan keinginan digagalkan. Baru-baru ini, kritik psikoanalitik telah memeriksa keinginan tidak sadar Hamlet, dan kritik feminis harus mengevaluasi ulang dan merehabilitasi karakter sering difitnah dari Ophelia dan Gertrude.

Hamlet adalah bermain Shakespeare terpanjang dan di antara tragedi yang paling kuat dan berpengaruh dalam bahasa Inggris. Ini memiliki kisah mampu “menceritakan kembali yang tampaknya tak berujung dan adaptasi oleh orang lain.” [1] Selama masa Shakespeare, bermain adalah salah satu karya yang paling populer, [2] dan masih peringkat tinggi di antara yang paling-dilakukan, topping, untuk Misalnya, daftar Royal Shakespeare Company sejak 1879 [3]. Ia telah mengilhami penulis dari Goethe dan Dickens untuk Joyce dan Murdoch, dan telah digambarkan sebagai “yang paling cerita dunia difilmkan setelah Cinderella”. [4]

Peran judul itu hampir pasti diciptakan untuk Richard Burbage, yang penulis cerita sedih terkemuka waktu Shakespeare. [5] Dalam empat ratus tahun sejak, telah dilakukan oleh pelaku sangat diakui dan aktris dari setiap usia berturut-turut.

Isi
[Hide]
1 Karakter
2 Plot
3 Sumber
4 Tanggal
5 Texts
6 Analisis dan kritik
6.1 Kritis sejarah
6.2 Struktur Drama
6.3 Bahasa
7 Konteks dan interpretasi
7.1 Agama
7.2 Filosofis
7.3 psikoanalitik
7.4 feminis
8 Pengaruh
9 Kinerja sejarah
9.1 Shakespeare hari ke peralihan yang
9.2 Restorasi dan abad ke-18
9.3 abad ke-19
9.4 abad ke-20
9,5 abad ke-21
Layar 9.6 pertunjukan
10 Referensi
10.1 Catatan
10.2 Edisi Dusun
10.3 Sekunder sumber
11 Pranala luar
 

Karakter
Claudius-Raja Denmark
Dusun-Anak mantan raja, dan keponakan dari Raja ini
Gertrude-Ratu Denmark, dan ibu untuk Hamlet
Polonius-Lord Chamberlain
Ophelia-Putri untuk Polonius
Horatio-Friend untuk Hamlet
Laertes-Anak untuk Polonius
Voltimand, Cornelius-orang istana
Rosencrantz, Guildenstern-istana, teman untuk Hamlet
 Osric-Punggawa Istana a
Marcellus-Pejabat yang
Bernardo-Pejabat yang
Francisco-Soldier sebuah
Reynaldo-Hamba untuk Polonius
Hantu Bapa Hamlet
Fortinbras-Pangeran Norwegia
Penggali Kubur-A penjaga gereja dan badut
Raja Player, Player Ratu, Lucianus, dll-Pemain
 

Alur

Horatio, Marcellus, Hamlet, dan Ghost (Artist: Henry Fuseli 1798) [6]
Protagonis Dusun adalah Dusun Pangeran dari Denmark, putra almarhum Raja Dusun dan istrinya, Ratu Gertrude.

Cerita terbuka pada malam dingin di Elsinore, benteng kerajaan Denmark. Francisco, salah satu penjaga, dibebaskan dari arlojinya oleh Bernardo, sentinel lain, dan keluar sementara Bernardo tetap. Sebuah sentinel ketiga, Marcellus, masuk dengan Horatio, teman Hamlet terbaik. Para penjaga memberitahu Horatio bahwa mereka telah melihat hantu yang terlihat seperti Dusun Raja mati. Setelah mendengar dari Horatio dari penampilan Hantu, Hamlet memutuskan untuk melihat Roh sendiri. Malam itu, Ghost muncul lagi. Dusun itu mengarah ke tempat yang terpencil, mengklaim bahwa itu adalah roh sebenarnya ayahnya, dan mengungkapkan bahwa ia-penatua Dusun-dibunuh oleh racun Claudius ‘mengalir di telinganya. Hantu menuntut bahwa Dusun membalaskan dendamnya, Dusun setuju, bersumpah sahabatnya untuk kerahasiaan, dan mengatakan kepada mereka dia berniat untuk “menempatkan disposisi antik pada” [7] (mungkin untuk menghindari kecurigaan). Hamlet awalnya membuktikan keandalan hantu itu, memanggilnya baik sebagai “hantu jujur” dan “orang jujur.” Kemudian, bagaimanapun, ia menyatakan keraguan tentang sifat dan maksud hantu, mengklaim ini sebagai alasan untuk tidak bertindak nya.

Polonius dipercaya Pembimbing Utama Claudius ‘; anak Polonius’s, Laertes, adalah kembali ke Perancis, dan putri Polonius’s, Ophelia, yang didekati oleh Dusun. Baik Polonius dan Laertes memperingatkan bahwa Ophelia Hamlet pasti tidak serius tentang dia. Tak lama kemudian, Ophelia adalah khawatir dengan perilaku aneh Hamlet, melaporkan kepada ayahnya bahwa Hamlet bergegas ke kamarnya, menatapnya, dan berkata apa-apa. Polonius mengasumsikan bahwa “ekstasi cinta” [8] bertanggung jawab untuk “gila” perilaku Hamlet, dan ia memberitahu Claudius dan Gertrude.

Terganggu oleh Hamlet terus mendalam berkabung untuk ayahnya dan perilaku yang semakin tidak menentu, Claudius mengirim untuk dua-kenalan Hamlet Rosencrantz dan Guildenstern-untuk mengetahui penyebab perilaku Hamlet berubah. Hamlet menyapa teman-temannya hangat tapi dengan cepat discerns bahwa mereka telah dikirim untuk memata-matai dia.

Bersama-sama, Claudius dan Polonius meyakinkan Ophelia untuk berbicara dengan Hamlet sementara mereka diam-diam mendengarkan. Ketika Hamlet masuk, dia menawarkan untuk kembali kenangan itu, atas mana Dusun pertanyaan kejujuran nya dan mati-matian rants padanya untuk “pergilah ke biara.” [9]

The “Penggali Kubur adegan” [10] (Artist: Eugène Delacroix 1839)
Dusun masih belum jelas apakah Roh telah mengatakan kebenaran, tetapi kedatangan rombongan aktor di Elsinore menyajikan dia dengan solusi. Dia akan memiliki panggung mereka bermain, Pembunuhan Gonzago, kembali memberlakukan pembunuhan ayahnya dan menentukan bersalah atau tidak bersalah Claudius dengan mempelajari reaksinya itu. Pengadilan merakit untuk menonton memainkan; Dusun memberikan komentar berjalan gelisah di seluruh. Ketika adegan pembunuhan disajikan, Claudius tiba-tiba naik dan meninggalkan ruangan, yang Hamlet melihat sebagai bukti bersalah pamannya.

Gertrude panggilan Hamlet untuk lemari untuk meminta penjelasan. Dalam perjalanan, melewati Dusun Claudius dalam doa, tapi ragu-ragu untuk membunuhnya, penalaran bahwa kematian dalam doa akan mengirimnya ke surga. Namun, ia mengungkapkan bahwa Raja tidak benar-benar berdoa, berkomentar bahwa “kata-kata” tidak pernah berhasil ke surga tanpa “pikiran.” [11] Argumen Sebuah meletus antara Hamlet dan Gertrude. Polonius, memata-matai adegan dari balik Arras dan yakin bahwa kegilaan sang pangeran memang nyata, panik ketika tampaknya seolah-olah Hamlet adalah untuk pembunuhan Ratu dan berteriak minta tolong. Hamlet, percaya itu adalah Claudius bersembunyi di balik Arras, menusuk liar melalui kain, membunuh Polonius. Ketika ia menyadari bahwa ia telah membunuh ayah Ophelia, dia tidak menyesal, tetapi panggilan Polonius “Engkau melarat, ruam, mengganggu bodoh.” [12] Hantu muncul, mendesak Hamlet untuk mengobati Gertrude lembut, tapi mengingatkannya untuk membunuh Claudius. Tidak dapat melihat atau mendengar Ghost sendiri, Gertrude mengambil percakapan Hamlet dengan itu sebagai bukti lebih lanjut dari kegilaan.

Claudius, sekarang takut untuk hidupnya, menemukan alasan yang sah untuk menyingkirkan pangeran: ia mengirim Hamlet ke Inggris pada alasan diplomatik, disertai (dan diawasi ketat) oleh Rosencrantz dan Guildenstern. Sendirian, Claudius mengungkapkan bahwa ia sebenarnya mengirim Hamlet ke kematiannya. Sebelum memulai untuk Inggris, tubuh Hamlet’s menyembunyikan Polonius, akhirnya mengungkapkan lokasinya kepada Raja. Setelah meninggalkan Elsinore, Dusun pertemuan tentara Pangeran Fortinbras perjalanan untuk melakukan pertempuran di Polandia. Setelah menyaksikan begitu banyak orang akan mati mereka pada tingkah kurang ajar dari seorang pangeran impulsif, Hamlet menyatakan, “O, dari waktu ini sebagainya, / pikiran saya menjadi berdarah, atau bernilai apa-apa!” [13]

Pada Elsinore, lebih gila oleh kesedihan di Polonius kematian ayahnya, Ophelia mengembara benteng, akting tak menentu dan menyanyikan lagu-lagu mesum. Kakaknya, Laertes, kembali dari Perancis, ngeri dengan kematian ayahnya dan kegilaan adiknya. Dia akan muncul sebentar untuk memberikan tumbuhan dan bunga. Claudius Laertes meyakinkan bahwa Hamlet bertanggung jawab, kemudian berita datang bahwa Hamlet masih hidup-cerita ini tersebar bahwa kapalnya diserang oleh bajak laut dalam perjalanan ke Inggris, dan dia telah kembali ke Denmark. Claudius cepat concocts sebuah plot untuk membunuh keponakannya tapi membuatnya tampaknya kecelakaan, mengambil semua menyalahkan dari pundaknya. Mengetahui cemburu Hamlet dari kecakapan Laertes ‘dengan pedang, ia mengusulkan pertandingan anggar di antara keduanya. Laertes, marah pembunuhan ayahnya, memberitahu raja bahwa ia akan lebih racun ujung pedangnya sehingga goresan hanya akan berarti kematian tertentu. Claudius, yakin bahwa Dusun mampu dapat menerima bahkan goresan, berencana untuk menawarkan anggur Hamlet beracun jika gagal. Gertrude masuk untuk melaporkan bahwa Ophelia telah tenggelam.

Hamlet membalas ayahnya dengan membunuh pamannya [14] (Artist: Gustave Moreau tanggal tidak diketahui)
Dalam gereja Elsinore, dua “badut”, biasanya digambarkan sebagai “penggali kubur,” masukkan untuk mempersiapkan kuburan Ophelia, dan, meskipun koroner telah memerintah kematiannya disengaja sehingga ia dapat menerima pemakaman Kristen, mereka berpendapat tentang tidak menjadi kasus bunuh diri . Hamlet tiba dengan Horatio dan banters dengan salah satu dari mereka, yang menggali tengkorak seorang badut yang Hamlet pernah tahu, Yorick (“Alas, Poor Yorick, aku kenal dia, Horatio.”). pendekatan prosesi pemakaman Ophelia’s, yang dipimpin oleh Laertes sedih kakaknya. Bingung pada kurangnya upacara (karena bunuh diri benar-benar-dianggap) dan diatasi dengan emosi, Laertes melompat ke kubur, Dusun mengutuk sebagai penyebab kematiannya. Dusun menyela, mengaku cinta sendiri dan kesedihan untuk Ophelia. Dia dan Laertes grapple, tetapi melawan rusak oleh Claudius dan Gertrude. Claudius mengingatkan Laertes pertandingan pagar direncanakan.

Kemudian hari itu, Dusun Horatio menceritakan bagaimana dia lolos dari kematian di perjalanannya, mengungkapkan bahwa Rosencrantz dan Guildenstern telah dikirim ke kematian mereka sebagai gantinya. Seorang punggawa, Osric, menyela untuk mengundang Hamlet untuk pagar dengan Laertes. Meskipun peringatan Horatio’s, Hamlet menerima dan pertandingan dimulai. Setelah beberapa putaran, Gertrude toast Dusun-terhadap peringatan mendesak Claudius-sengaja minum anggur yang beracun. Antara buti, serangan Laertes dan menembus Dusun dengan pedangnya beracun, dalam perkelahian berikutnya, Hamlet dapat menggunakan pedang sendiri Laertes’s meracuni terhadap dia. Gertrude jatuh dan, dalam napas sekarat, mengumumkan bahwa dia telah diracuni.

Pada saat-saat sekarat, Laertes diperdamaikan dengan Hamlet dan mengungkapkan plot membunuh Claudius’s. Hamlet Claudius menusuk dengan pedang beracun, dan kemudian memaksa dia untuk minum dari cangkir sendiri diracuni untuk memastikan ia meninggal. Pada saat-saat terakhirnya, nama Dusun Pangeran Fortinbras Norwegia sebagai kemungkinan ahli waris takhta, karena kerajaan Denmark posisi terpilih, dengan para bangsawan negara yang memiliki kata terakhir. Horatio mencoba untuk membunuh dirinya dengan anggur beracun yang sama, namun dihentikan oleh Dusun-yang perintah dia untuk bercerita, karena ia akan menjadi satu-satunya masih hidup yang dapat memberikan laporan lengkap.

Ketika Fortinbras tiba untuk menyambut Raja Claudius, ia bertemu adegan mematikan: Gertrude, Claudius, Laertes, dan Dusun semua mati. Horatio meminta diizinkan untuk menceritakan kisah ke “dunia belum ketidaktahuan,” dan tubuh Fortinbras perintah Hamlet ditanggung off untuk menghormati.

Sumber
Artikel utama: Dusun Sumber

Sebuah faksimili Gesta Danorum oleh Saxo Grammaticus, yang berisi legenda Amleth
Dusun-legenda seperti begitu banyak ditemukan (misalnya di Italia, Spanyol, Skandinavia, Bizantium, dan Arabia) bahwa inti “pahlawan-as-bodoh” tema yang mungkin Indo-Eropa berasal [15] Beberapa. prekursor tertulis kuno Hamlet dapat diidentifikasi. Yang pertama adalah Saga Skandinavia anonim dari Hrolf Kraki. Dalam hal ini, raja dibunuh memiliki dua putra-Hroar ​​dan Helgi-yang menghabiskan sebagian besar cerita yang menyamar, di bawah nama palsu, bukan pura-pura gila, dalam urutan peristiwa yang berbeda dari Shakespeare’s [16]. Yang kedua adalah Romawi legenda Brutus, dicatat dalam dua karya Latin terpisah. pahlawan Its, Lucius (“bersinar, cahaya”), perubahan namanya dan persona untuk Brutus (“membosankan, bodoh”), memainkan peran bodoh untuk menghindari nasib ayah dan saudara-saudara, dan akhirnya pembunuh membunuh keluarganya, Raja Tarquinius. Sebuah Nordic sarjana abad ke-17, Torfaeus, dibandingkan pahlawan Amlodi Islandia dan pahlawan Spanyol Pangeran Ambales (dari Saga Ambales) untuk Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Kemiripan termasuk kegilaan pura-pura sang pangeran, membunuh kebetulan tentang konselor raja di kamar ibunya, dan akhirnya membunuh pamannya. [17]

Banyak elemen sebelumnya legendaris terjalin di Amlethi Vita abad ke-13 (“The Life of Amleth”) [18] oleh Saxo Grammaticus, bagian dari Gesta Danorum. [19] Ditulis dalam bahasa Latin, itu mencerminkan konsep-konsep klasik Romawi kebajikan dan kepahlawanan, dan banyak tersedia di hari Shakespeare. [20] signifikan paralel meliputi kegilaan pangeran pura-pura, pernikahan terburu-buru ibunya untuk perampas, para pangeran membunuh seorang mata-mata tersembunyi, dan pangeran menggantikan pelaksanaan dua pengikutnya untuk dirinya sendiri. Sebuah versi cukup setia cerita Saxo itu diterjemahkan ke dalam bahasa Prancis tahun 1570 oleh François de Belleforest, dalam tragiques nya Histoires [21] Belleforest menghiasi teks Saxo’s substansial, hampir dua kali lipat panjangnya, dan memperkenalkan pahlawan melankolis.. [22]

Judul halaman Tragedi Spanyol, oleh Thomas Kyd.
Menurut teori populer, sumber utama Shakespeare adalah diyakini hari ini bermain-sekarang hilang-dikenal sebelumnya sebagai Ur-Hamlet. Mungkin yang ditulis oleh Thomas Kyd atau bahkan William Shakespeare sendiri, Ur-Hamlet akan kinerja oleh 1589 dan versi pertama dari kisah yang diketahui untuk memasukkan hantu [23] perusahaan Shakespeare, Pria yang Chamberlain, mungkin. Telah dibeli yang memainkan dan melakukan versi untuk beberapa waktu, yang Shakespeare ulang. [24] Karena tidak ada salinan dari Ur-Hamlet telah selamat, bagaimanapun, adalah mustahil untuk membandingkan bahasa dan gaya dengan karya-karya yang dikenal dari salah satu penulis putatif nya. Akibatnya, tidak ada bukti langsung bahwa Kyd menulisnya, maupun bukti bahwa bermain itu bukan versi awal dari Hamlet oleh Shakespeare sendiri. Ide ini terakhir-menempatkan Dusun jauh lebih awal dari tanggal yang berlaku umum, dengan yang jauh lebih lama pembangunan-telah menarik dukungan beberapa, meskipun orang lain menganggapnya sebagai spekulasi. [25]

Hasilnya adalah bahwa ulama tidak dapat menyatakan dengan keyakinan berapa Shakespeare bahan banyak mengambil dari Ur-Hamlet (jika bahkan ada), berapa banyak dari Belleforest atau Saxo, dan berapa banyak dari sumber-sumber kontemporer lainnya (seperti The Kyd’s Spanyol Tragedy). Tidak ada bukti yang jelas bahwa Shakespeare membuat setiap referensi langsung ke versi Saxo’s. Namun, elemen versi Belleforest’s yang tidak dalam kisah Saxo kita lakukan muncul dalam bermain Shakespeare. Apakah Shakespeare mengambil ini dari Belleforest secara langsung atau melalui Ur-Hamlet masih belum jelas. [26]

Kebanyakan sarjana menolak gagasan bahwa Hamlet adalah dengan cara apapun berhubungan dengan putra tunggal Shakespeare, Hamnet Shakespeare, yang meninggal pada tahun 1596 pada usia sebelas tahun. kebijaksanaan konvensional berpendapat bahwa Hamlet terlalu jelas berhubungan dengan legenda, dan Hamnet nama cukup populer pada waktu [27]. Namun, Stephen Greenblatt berpendapat bahwa kebetulan nama dan kesedihan Shakespeare untuk kehilangan anaknya dapat terletak pada jantung tragedi. Dia mencatat bahwa nama Hamnet Sadler, tetangga Stratford setelah yang Hamnet bernama, sering ditulis sebagai Dusun Sadler dan bahwa, dalam ortografi lepas dari waktu, nama-nama itu hampir dipertukarkan nama pertama [28] Sadler adalah. Dieja ” Hamlett “akan Shakespeare. [29]

Para ahli telah sering berspekulasi bahwa Polonius Hamlet mungkin telah terinspirasi oleh William Cecil (Lord Burghley)-Tuhan Tinggi Bendahara dan konselor kepala kepada Ratu Elizabeth IEK Chambers menyarankan Polonius saran untuk Laertes mungkin telah bergema Burghley untuk putranya Robert Cecil. John Dover Wilson pikir itu hampir pasti bahwa sosok Polonius Burleigh karikatur, sementara AL Rowse berspekulasi bahwa verbositas membosankan Polonius’s mungkin mirip Burghley [30]. Lilian Winstanley berpikir Corambis nama (dalam Quarto Ist) tidak menyarankan Cecil dan Burghley. [ 31] Harold Jenkins mengkritik ide dari setiap sindiran pribadi langsung sebagai “tidak mungkin” dan “seperti biasanya Shakespeare”, [32] sementara GRHibbard hipotesis bahwa perbedaan dalam nama (Corambis / Polonius: Montano / Raynoldo) antara Quarto Pertama dan edisi lainnya mungkin mencerminkan keinginan untuk tidak menyinggung sarjana di Universitas Oxford. [33]

Tanggal
“Setiap kencan Dusun harus tentatif”, memperingatkan editor New Cambridge, Phillip Edwards. [34] Perkiraan tanggal awal bergantung pada sindiran sering Hamlet untuk Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, dirinya tanggal ke pertengahan 1599. [35] Perkiraan tanggal terakhir didasarkan pada entri, 26, Juli 1602 dalam Daftar Perusahaan Stationers ‘, menunjukkan bahwa Hamlet adalah “latelie Bertindak oleh Lo: Chamberleyne servantes nya”.

Pada tahun 1598, Francis Meres diterbitkan dalam bukunya Palladis Tamia survei sastra Inggris dari Chaucer ke hari yang sekarang, di mana dua belas dari drama Shakespeare yang bernama. Hamlet tidak di antara mereka, menunjukkan bahwa itu belum ditulis. Seperti Hamlet sangat populer, Swan Baru seri editor Bernard Lott percaya “tidak mungkin bahwa dia [Meres] akan diabaikan … begitu signifikan sepotong”. [36]

Ungkapan “eyases kecil” [37] dalam Folio Pertama (F1) mungkin menyinggung kepada Bani Kapel, yang popularitasnya di London memaksa perusahaan Globe ke tur provinsi. Hal ini kemudian dikenal sebagai Perang Theatres, dan mendukung 1601 kencan. [36]

Sebuah kontemporer Shakespere’s, Gabriel Harvey, menulis catatan pinggir dalam salinan edisi 1598 karya Chaucer, yang beberapa sarjana kencan digunakan sebagai bukti. catatan Harvey mengatakan bahwa “jenis bijaksana” menikmati Hamlet, dan mengimplikasikan bahwa Earl of Essex-dilaksanakan di Februari 1601 untuk pemberontakan-masih hidup. ulama lainnya menganggap ini tidak meyakinkan. Edwards, misalnya, menyimpulkan bahwa “rasa waktu sangat bingung dalam catatan Harvey bahwa itu benar-benar digunakan sedikit berusaha untuk tanggal Hamlet”. Hal ini karena catatan yang sama juga mengacu pada Spenser dan Watson seolah-olah mereka masih hidup (“metricians berkembang kami”), tetapi juga menyebutkan “epigram baru Owen”, diterbitkan pada tahun 1607. [38]

Teks

Judul halaman pencetakan 1605 (Q2) dari Dusun
Tiga edisi awal teks selamat, melakukan upaya untuk mendirikan satu “otentik” teks bermasalah [39] Masing-masing berbeda dari yang lain:. [40]

Pertama Quarto (Q1) Pada 1603 para penjual buku Nicholas Ling dan John Trundell diterbitkan, dan Valentine Simmes dicetak yang disebut “buruk” kuarto pertama. Q1 berisi lebih dari setengah dari teks kuarto kemudian kedua.
Kedua Quarto (Q2) Dalam 1604 Nicholas Ling diterbitkan, dan James Roberts tercetak, kuarto kedua. Beberapa salinan adalah tanggal 1605, yang mungkin mengindikasikan kesan kedua; akibatnya, Q2 sering tanggal “1604 / 5″. Q2 adalah edisi awal terpanjang, meskipun menghilangkan 85 baris ditemukan di F1 (paling mungkin untuk menghindari menyinggung ratu James I, Anne dari Denmark). [41]
Pertama Folio (F1) Dalam 1623 Edward dan William Blount dan Ishak Jaggard menerbitkan Folio Pertama, edisi pertama dari Shakespeare Pekerjaan Lengkap. [42]
folio lain dan quartos selanjutnya diterbitkan-termasuk John Smethwick’s Q3, Q4, dan Q5 (1611-1637)-tetapi ini dianggap sebagai turunan dari tiga edisi pertama. [42]

Awal editor karya Shakespeare, dimulai dengan Nicholas Rowe (1709) dan Lewis Theobald (1733), bahan gabungan dari dua sumber awal dari Dusun tersedia pada Q2, waktu dan F1. Setiap teks berisi materi yang kekurangan yang lain, dengan perbedaan kecil banyak kata-kata: hampir 200 baris yang identik dalam dua. Editor telah menggabungkan mereka dalam upaya untuk menciptakan satu “inklusif” teks yang mencerminkan membayangkan “ideal” dari Shakespeare aslinya. versi Theobald’s menjadi standar untuk waktu yang lama, [43] dan “teks penuh” pendekatan terus mempengaruhi praktek editorial untuk hari ini. Beberapa beasiswa kontemporer, bagaimanapun, diskon pendekatan ini, bukan mempertimbangkan “sebuah Hamlet otentik yang ideal terwujud … ada teks dari bermain, tapi tidak ada teks.”. [44] Publikasi 2006 oleh Arden Shakespeare teks Hamlet yang berbeda dalam volume yang berbeda barangkali merupakan bukti terbaik dari pergeseran fokus dan penekanan. [45]

Secara tradisional, editor dari sandiwara Shakespeare membagi mereka menjadi lima tindakan. Tak satu pun dari teks-teks awal Dusun, bagaimanapun, telah diatur cara ini, dan pembagian bermain ke dalam bertindak dan adegan-adegan berasal dari kuarto 1676. editor modern umumnya mengikuti pembagian tradisional, tetapi menganggapnya tidak memuaskan;. sebagai contoh, setelah Hamlet menyeret keluar tubuh Polonius tentang kamar tidur Gertrude, ada break-tindakan [46] setelah aksi muncul untuk melanjutkan tanpa gangguan [47]

Perbandingan dari ‘Untuk menjadi, atau tidak menjadi’ solilokui dalam tiga edisi pertama dari Dusun, menunjukkan kualitas yang berbeda dari teks dalam Quarto Bad, yang Quarto Baik dan Folio Pertama
Penemuan pada tahun 1823 Q1-yang keberadaannya sudah cukup tak terduga-menyebabkan minat dan kegembiraan, mengangkat banyak pertanyaan praktek editorial dan interpretasi. Sarjana segera diidentifikasi kekurangan jelas di Q1, yang berperan penting dalam pengembangan konsep “kuarto buruk” Shakespeare [48] Namun Q1 memiliki nilai:. Mengandung arah panggung yang mengungkapkan praktek tahap aktual dengan cara yang Q2 dan F1 melakukan tidak; itu berisi adegan keseluruhan (biasanya diberi label 4.6) [49] yang tidak muncul baik dalam Q2 atau F1, dan itu berguna untuk perbandingan dengan edisi nanti. Urutan adegan yang lebih koheren, tanpa masalah Q2 dan F1 Dusun tampaknya untuk menyelesaikan sesuatu dalam satu adegan dan masukkan tenggelam berikutnya dalam keragu-raguan. Ini adalah pesanan banyak adegan produksi teater modern ikuti. [Rujukan?] Kekurangan utama dari Q1 adalah bahwa bahasa tidak “Shakespeare” cukup [rujukan?], Khususnya terlihat dalam baris pembukaan yang terkenal “Menjadi, atau tidak menjadi “solilokui:”. Untuk menjadi, atau tidak akan, aye ada titik / Untuk mati, untuk tidur, adalah bahwa semua Aye semua:? / Tidak, untuk tidur, untuk bermimpi, aye menikah sana pergi “.

Q1 jauh lebih pendek dari Q2 atau F1 dan mungkin rekonstruksi peringatan bermain sebagai perusahaan Shakespeare dilakukan itu, oleh seorang aktor yang memainkan peran kecil (paling Marcellus mungkin). [50] Ulama tidak setuju apakah rekonstruksi itu bajakan atau resmi. Teori lain, yang dianggap oleh editor New Cambridge Kathleen Irace, berpendapat bahwa Q1 merupakan bentuk singkat dimaksudkan terutama untuk produksi bepergian [51] Gagasan bahwa Q1 tidak penuh dengan kesalahan tetapi bukan sungguh cocok untuk panggung telah. Menyebabkan setidaknya 28 berbeda Q1 produksi sejak 1881 [52].

Analisis dan kritik
Artikel utama: pendekatan Kritis untuk Hamlet
Sejarah Kritis
Dari abad ke-17 awal, memutar terkenal dengan hantu dan dramatisasi hidup dari melankolis dan kegilaan, mengarah ke prosesi istana marah dan wanita di Jacobean dan drama Caroline [53] Meskipun. Itu tetap populer dengan khalayak massa, akhir 17- Restorasi abad kritikus melihat Dusun sebagai primitif dan menyetujui kurangnya persatuan dan kesopanan [54] Pandangan ini berubah drastis pada abad ke-18, ketika kritikus dianggap Dusun sebagai-pahlawan murni dorong, orang muda yang brilian ke dalam keadaan malang.. [55 ] Pada pertengahan abad ke-18, bagaimanapun, munculnya sastra Gothic membawa pembacaan psikologis dan mistis, kembali kegilaan dan Ghost mengemuka [56]. Tidak sampai akhir abad 18 melakukan kritik dan penyanyi mulai melihat Hamlet sebagai membingungkan dan tidak konsisten. Sebelum itu, dia baik gila, atau tidak; baik pahlawan, atau tidak; tanpa [di-perantara [57] Perkembangan ini merupakan suatu perubahan mendasar dalam kritik sastra, yang datang lebih fokus pada karakter dan kurang pada plot.. 58] Pada abad ke-19, kritikus Romantis dihargai Dusun untuk internal konflik, individu mencerminkan penekanan kontemporer kuat pada internal perjuangan dan karakter batin pada umumnya [59.] Kemudian juga, kritikus mulai fokus pada menunda Hamlet sebagai sifat karakter, agak dari perangkat plot [58] Hal ini berfokus pada karakter dan perjuangan internal berlanjut sampai abad ke-20, ketika kritik bercabang di beberapa arah, dibahas dalam konteks dan interpretasi di bawah ini..

Drama struktur
Dusun berangkat dari konvensi kontemporer dramatis dalam beberapa cara. Misalnya, dalam hari Shakespeare, memainkan biasanya diharapkan mengikuti saran dari Aristoteles dalam Poetics-nya: bahwa drama harus fokus pada tindakan, bukan karakter. Dalam Hamlet, Shakespeare membalikkan ini sehingga adalah melalui soliloquies, bukan tindakan, bahwa penonton belajar motif Hamlet dan pikiran. bermain ini penuh dengan diskontinuitas tampak dan penyimpangan tindakan, kecuali dalam kuarto “buruk”. Pada satu titik, seperti dalam adegan Penggali Kubur, [10] Dusun tampaknya memutuskan untuk membunuh Claudius: di adegan berikutnya, ketika Claudius muncul, ia tiba-tiba jinak. Para sarjana masih perdebatan apakah liku adalah kesalahan atau penambahan yang disengaja untuk menambah tema drama kebingungan dan dualitas [60] Akhirnya,. Dalam periode ketika bermain paling berlari selama dua jam atau lebih, teks lengkap dari bermain Hamlet-Shakespeare terpanjang, dengan 4042 baris, sebanyak 29.551 kata-mengambil alih empat jam untuk memberikan [61] Bahkan hari ini. memainkan jarang dilakukan secara keseluruhan, dan hanya pernah mendramatisir pada film sepenuhnya, dengan versi 1996 Kenneth Branagh’s. Hamlet juga berisi perangkat favorit Shakespeare, sebuah drama dalam bermain, perangkat sastra atau kesombongan di mana satu cerita diceritakan selama aksi cerita lain. [62]

Bahasa

Hamlet pernyataan bahwa pakaian gelap adalah tanda luar kesedihan dalam dirinya menunjukkan keahlian retorika kuat. (Artist: Eugène Delacroix 1834).
Dibandingkan dengan bahasa di majalah, surat kabar modern atau novel populer, bahasa Shakespeare bisa menyerang pembaca kontemporer sebagai kompleks, rumit dan kadang-kadang sulit untuk dipahami. Hebatnya, itu masih bekerja cukup baik dalam teater: penonton di rekonstruksi ‘Shakespeare’s Globe’ di London, banyak di antaranya belum pernah ke teater sebelumnya, apalagi untuk sebuah drama oleh Shakespeare, tampaknya memiliki sedikit kesulitan menangkap drama . tindakan [63] Sebagian besar bahasa sopan Hamlet adalah: rumit, wacana cerdas, seperti yang direkomendasikan oleh panduan etiket Baldassare 1528 Castiglione, The Punggawa Istana. Karya ini khusus menyarankan pengikut kerajaan untuk menghibur tuan mereka dengan bahasa inventif. Osric dan Polonius, terutama, tampaknya untuk menghormati perintah ini. Claudius pidato yang kaya dengan retoris tokoh-seperti Hamlet dan, di kali, Ophelia’s-sementara bahasa Horatio, para penjaga, dan para penggali kubur lebih sederhana. Claudius status tinggi adalah diperkuat dengan menggunakan orang pertama kerajaan jamak (“kami” atau “kami”), dan Anafora dicampur dengan metafora bergema dengan pidato-pidato politik Yunani. [64]

Hamlet adalah yang paling terampil dari semua di retorika. Dia menggunakan metafora yang sangat maju, stichomythia, dan di sembilan menyebarkan kata-kata kenangan baik Anafora dan asyndeton: “untuk mati: tidur-/ Untuk tidur, barangkali untuk bermimpi”. [65] Sebaliknya, bila tuntutan kesempatan, dia tepat dan mudah , seperti ketika ia menjelaskan emosi batin kepada ibunya: “Tapi aku bahwa dalam yang lewat menunjukkan, / ini namun riasan dan baju celaka” [66] Pada waktu-waktu, ia sangat bergantung pada permainan kata untuk mengungkapkan pikiran sejati. sementara secara bersamaan menyembunyikan mereka. [67] “biara” Nya komentar [68] untuk Ophelia adalah contoh dari arti ganda kejam biara itu slang Elizabeth untuk bordil [9] [69] kata-Nya yang pertama dalam permainan ini. pun sebuah ; ketika Claudius alamat dia sebagai “sepupu saya Hamlet, dan anak saya”, kata Hamlet sebagai samping: “Sedikit lebih dari kerabat, dan kurang dari jenis.” [70] Sebuah samping adalah perangkat dramatis di mana karakter berbicara penonton. Dengan konvensi penonton menyadari bahwa pidato karakter adalah terdengar oleh karakter lain di panggung. Ini mungkin ditujukan untuk penonton secara tegas (dalam karakter atau keluar) atau mewakili pikiran tak terucapkan.

Perangkat retoris yang tidak biasa, hendiadys, muncul di beberapa tempat di bermain. Contoh ditemukan dalam pidato Ophelia di akhir adegan pertapaan:. “Th’expectancy dan naik negara adil”, “Dan Aku, wanita yang paling mematahkan semangat dan sengsara” [71] Banyak sarjana telah menemukan bahwa Shakespeare aneh akan , tampaknya sewenang-wenang, gunakan formulir ini retorika seluruh memutar. Satu penjelasan yang mungkin bahwa Dusun ditulis di kemudian hari Shakespeare, ketika ia mahir perangkat retoris yang cocok untuk karakter dan plot. Linguis George T. Wright menunjukkan bahwa hendiadys telah digunakan sengaja untuk meningkatkan pengertian drama dualitas dan dislokasi. [72] Pauline Kiernan berpendapat bahwa Shakespeare berubah drama bahasa Inggris selamanya di Dukuh karena dia “menunjukkan bagaimana bahasa sebuah karakter sering bisa mengatakan beberapa hal sekaligus, dan makna kontradiktif pada saat itu, untuk mencerminkan pikiran dan perasaan terfragmentasi terganggu. ” Dia memberi contoh nasihat Hamlet untuk Ophelia, “pergilah ke sebuah biara”, yang secara bersamaan referensi ke tempat kesucian dan istilah slang untuk pelacuran, mencerminkan perasaan bingung Hamlet tentang seksualitas perempuan. [73]

Konteks dan interpretasi
Agama

Ophelia menggambarkan kematian misterius wanita Ophelia’s karena tenggelam. Dalam drama itu, badut membahas apakah kematian Ophelia adalah bunuh diri dan apakah dia jasa penguburan Kristen. (Artist: John Everett Millais 1852).
Ditulis pada saat pergolakan agama, dan di bangun dari Reformasi Inggris, bermain adalah bergantian Katolik (atau saleh abad pertengahan) dan Protestan (atau sadar modern). Hantu itu menggambarkan dirinya sebagai berada di api penyucian, dan mati tanpa upacara terakhir. Ini dan upacara pemakaman Ophelia, yang bersifat Katolik, membuat sebagian besar koneksi Katolik bermain itu. Beberapa ahli telah mengamati bahwa balas dendam tragedi berasal dari negara-negara Katolik tradisional, seperti Spanyol dan Italia, dan mereka hadir kontradiksi, karena menurut doktrin Katolik tugas terkuat adalah untuk Tuhan dan keluarga. teka-teki Hamlet, kemudian, adalah apakah untuk membalaskan dendam ayahnya dan membunuh Claudius, atau untuk meninggalkan dendam kepada Allah, sebagai agama membutuhkan. [74]

21st century

In May 2009, Hamlet opened with Jude Law in the title role at the Donmar Warehouse West End season at Wyndham’s Theatre. The production officially opened on 3 June and ran through 22 August 2009.[161][162] A further production of the play ran at Elsinore Castle in Denmark from 25–30 August 2009.[163] The Jude Law Hamlet then moved to Broadway, and ran for 12 weeks at the Broadhurst Theatre in New York.[164][165]

Screen performances

Sarah Bernhardt as Hamlet, with Yorick‘s skull (Photographer: James Lafayette, c. 1885–1900)

Main article: Hamlet on screen

The earliest screen success for Hamlet was Sarah Bernhardt‘s five-minute film of the fencing scene,[166] produced in 1900. The film was a crude talkie, in that music and words were recorded on phonograph records, to be played along with the film.[167] Silent versions were released in 1907, 1908, 1910, 1913, 1917, and 1920.[167] In the 1920 version, Asta Nielsen played Hamlet as a woman who spends her life disguised as a man.[167] Laurence Olivier’s 1948 film noir Hamlet won best picture and best actor Oscars. His interpretation stressed the Oedipal overtones of the play, to the extent of casting the 28-year-old Eileen Herlie as Hamlet’s mother, opposite himself, at 41, as Hamlet.[168] Gamlet (Russian: Гамлет) is a 1964 film adaptation in Russian, based on a translation by Boris Pasternak and directed by Grigori Kozintsev, with a score by Dmitri Shostakovich.[169] Innokenty Smoktunovsky was cast in the role of Hamlet, which won him praise from Sir Laurence Olivier. Shakespeare experts Sir John Gielgud and Kenneth Branagh consider this work the definitive rendition of the Bard’s tragic tale.[170] John Gielgud directed Richard Burton in a Broadway production at the Lunt-Fontanne Theatre in 1964–5, the longest-running Hamlet in the U.S. to date. A live film of the production was produced using “Electronovision”, a method of recording a live performance with multiple video cameras and converting the image to film.[171] Eileen Herlie repeated her role from Olivier’s film version as the Queen, and the voice of Gielgud was heard as the Ghost. The Gielgud/Burton production was also recorded complete and released on LP by Columbia Records. Tony Richardson directed Nicol Williamson as Hamlet and Marianne Faithfull as Ophelia in his 1969 version. Franco Zeffirelli’s Shakespeare films have been described as “sensual rather than cerebral”: his aim to make Shakespeare “even more popular”.[172] To this end, he cast Mel Gibson—then famous for the Mad Max and Lethal Weapon movies—in the title role of his 1990 version, and Glenn Close—then famous as the psychotic other woman in Fatal Attraction—as Gertrude.[173]

In contrast to Zeffirelli, whose Hamlet was heavily cut, Kenneth Branagh adapted, directed, and starred in a 1996 version containing every word of Shakespeare’s play, combining the material from the F1 and Q2 texts. Branagh’s Hamlet runs for around four hours.[174] Branagh set the film with late 19th-century costuming and furnishings;[175] and Blenheim Palace, built in the early 18th century, became Elsinore Castle in the external scenes. The film is structured as an epic and makes frequent use of flashbacks to highlight elements not made explicit in the play: Hamlet’s sexual relationship with Kate Winslet’s Ophelia, for example, or his childhood affection for Yorick (played by Ken Dodd).[176] In 2000, Michael Almereyda’s Hamlet set the story in contemporary Manhattan, with Ethan Hawke playing Hamlet as a film student. Claudius (played by Kyle MacLachlan) became the CEO of “Denmark Corporation”, having taken over the company by killing his brother.[177]

Notable made-for-television productions of Hamlet include those starring Christopher Plummer (1964), Richard Chamberlain (1970; Hallmark Hall of Fame), Derek Jacobi (1980; Royal Shakespeare Company, BBC), Kevin Kline (1990), Campbell Scott (2000) and David Tennant (2010).[178]

References

Notes

All references to Hamlet, unless otherwise specified, are taken from the Arden Shakespeare Q2 (Thompson and Taylor, 2006a). Under their referencing system, 3.1.55 means act 3, scene 1, line 55. References to the First Quarto and First Folio are marked Hamlet Q1 and Hamlet F1, respectively, and are taken from the Arden Shakespeare “Hamlet: the texts of 1603 and 1623″ (Thompson and Taylor, 2006b). Their referencing system for Q1 has no act breaks, so 7.115 means scene 7, line 115.
  1. ^ Thompson and Taylor (2006a, 74).
  2. ^ Crystal and Crystal (2005, 66).
  3. ^ Thompson and Taylor (2006a, 17).
  4. ^ a b See Taylor (2002, 4); Banham (1998, 141); Hattaway asserts that “Richard Burbage … played Hieronimo and also Richard III but then was the first Hamlet, Lear, and Othello” (1982, 91); Peter Thomson argues that the identity of Hamlet as Burbage is built into the dramaturgy of several moments of the play: “we will profoundly misjudge the position if we do not recognise that, whilst this is Hamlet talking about the groundlings, it is also Burbage talking to the groundlings” (1983, 24); see also Thomson on the first player’s beard (1983, 110).
  5. ^ Hamlet 1.4.
  6. ^ “Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 5, Line 172.”. http://shakespeare-navigators.com/hamlet/H15.html#171
  7. ^ Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 5, Line 99.
  8. ^ a b This is widely interpreted as having a double meaning, since ‘nunnery’ was slang for a brothel. Pauline Kiernan, Filthy Shakespeare, Quercus, 2006, p. 34. This interpretation has been challenged by Jenkins (1982, 493–495; also H. D. F. Kitto) on the grounds of insufficient and inconclusive evidence of a precedent for this meaning; Jenkins states that the literal meaning is better suited to the dramatic context.
  9. ^ a b The Gravedigger Scene: Hamlet 5.1.1–205.
  10. ^ Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 3, Line 98.
  11. ^ Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 4, Line 31.
  12. ^ Hamlet, Act 4, Scene 4, Lines 65–66.
  13. ^ The Killing Scene: Hamlet 5.2.303–309.
  14. ^ Saxo and Hansen (1983, 36–37).
  15. ^ Saxo and Hansen (1983, 16–25).
  16. ^ Saxo and Hansen (1983, 5–15).
  17. ^ Books 3 & 4 – see online text
  18. ^ Saxo and Hansen (1983, 1–5).
  19. ^ Saxo and Hansen (1983, 25–37).
  20. ^ Edwards (1985, 1–2).
  21. ^ Saxo and Hansen (1983, 66–67).
  22. ^ Jenkins (1982, 82–85).
  23. ^ Saxo and Hansen (1983, 67).
  24. ^ In his 1936 book The Problem of Hamlet: A Solution Andrew Cairncross asserted that the Hamlet referred to in 1589 was written by Shakespeare; Peter Alexander (1964), Eric Sams (according to Jackson 1991, 267) and, more recently, Harold Bloom (2001, xiii and 383; 2003, 154) have agreed. Harold Jenkins, the editor of the second series Arden edition of the play, dismisses the idea as groundless (1982, 84 n4).
  25. ^ Saxo and Hansen (1983, 66–68).
  26. ^ Saxo and Hansen (1983, 6).
  27. ^ Greenblatt (2004a, 311); Greenblatt (2004b).
  28. ^ Shakespeare’s Last Will and Testament.
  29. ^ Chambers (1930) 418: J.D. Wilson (1932) 104: Rowse (1963) 323.
  30. ^ Lilian Winstanley, Hamlet and the Scottish Succession, Cambridge University Press, 1921, 114.
  31. ^ H.Jenkins (ed.) Hamlet, Methuen, 1982, p.142.
  32. ^ Polonius was close to the Latin name for Robert Pullen, founder of Oxford University, and Reynaldo too close for safety to John Rainolds, the President of Corpus Christi College. G.R.Hibbard (ed.) Hamlet, Oxford University Press, 1987, pp.74–5.
  33. ^ MacCary suggests 1599 or 1600 (1998, 13); James Shapiro offers late 1600 or early 1601 (2005, 341); Wells and Taylor suggest that the play was written in 1600 and revised later (1988, 653); the New Cambridge editor settles on mid-1601 (Edwards 1985, 8); the New Swan Shakespeare Advanced Series editor agrees with 1601 (Lott 1970, xlvi); Thompson and Taylor, tentatively (“according to whether one is the more persuaded by Jenkins or by Honigmann”) suggest a terminus ad quem of either Spring 1601 or sometime in 1600 (2001a, 58–59).
  34. ^ MacCary (1998, 12–13) and Edwards (1985, 5–6).
  35. ^ a b Lott (1970, xlvi).
  36. ^ Hamlet F1 2.2.337. The whole conversation between Rozencrantz, Guildenstern and Hamlet concerning the touring players’ departure from the city is at Hamlet “F1″ 2.2.324–360.
  37. ^ Edwards (1985, 5).
  38. ^ Hattaway (1987, 13–20).
  39. ^ Chambers (1923, vol. 3, 486–487) and Halliday (1964, 204–205).
  40. ^ Halliday (1964, 204).
  41. ^ a b Thompson and Taylor (2006a, 78).
  42. ^ Hibbard (1987, 22–23).
  43. ^ Hattaway (1987, 16).
  44. ^ Thompson and Taylor published Q2, with appendices, in their first volume (2006a) and the F1 and Q1 texts in their second volume (2006b). Bate and Rasmussen (2007) is the F1 text with additional Q2 passages in an appendix. The New Cambridge series has begun to publish separate volumes for the separate quarto versions that exist of Shakespeare’s plays (Irace 1998).
  45. ^ Hamlet 3.4 and 4.1.
  46. ^ Thompson and Taylor (2006a, 543–552).
  47. ^ Jenkins (1982, 14).
  48. ^ Hamlet Q1 14.
  49. ^ Jackson (1986, 171).
  50. ^ Irace (1998); Thompson and Taylor (2006a, 85–86).
  51. ^ Thompson and Taylor (2006b, 36–37) and Checklist of Q1 Productions in Thompson and Taylor (2006b, 38–39).
  52. ^ Wofford (1994) and Kirsch (1968).
  53. ^ Vickers (1974a, 447) and (1974b, 92).
  54. ^ Wofford (1994, 184–185).
  55. ^ Vickers (1974c, 5).
  56. ^ Wofford (1994, 185).
  57. ^ a b Wofford (1994, 186).
  58. ^ Rosenberg (1992, 179).
  59. ^ MacCary (1998, 67–72, 84).
  60. ^ Based on the length of the first edition of The Riverside Shakespeare (1974).
  61. ^ Also used in Love’s Labour’s Lost and A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Kermode (2000, 256).
  62. ^ Adamson, Sylvia; Hunter, Lynette; Magnusson, Lynne; Thompson, Ann; Wales, Katie (Oct 1 2010). Arden Shakespeare: Reading Shakespeare’s Dramatic Language. Los Angeles: Arden. ISBN 978-1-903436-29-5
  63. ^ MacCary (1998, 84–85).
  64. ^ Hamlet 3.1.63–64.
  65. ^ Hamlet 1.2.85–86.
  66. ^ MacCary (1998, 89–90).
  67. ^ Hamlet 3.1.87–148 especially lines 120, 129, 136, 139 and 148.
  68. ^ Oxford English Dictionary (2004, CD).
  69. ^ Hamlet 2.1.63–65.
  70. ^ Hamlet 3.1.151 and 3.1.154. The Nunnery Scene: Hamlet 3.1.87–160.
  71. ^ MacCary (1998, 87–88).
  72. ^ Pauline Kiernan, Filthy Shakespeare: Shakespeare’s Most Outrageous Sexual Puns, Quercus, 2006, p.34
  73. ^ MacCary (1998, 37–38); in the New Testament, see Romans 12:19: ” ‘vengeance is mine, I will repay’ sayeth the Lord”.
  74. ^ MacCary (1998, 38).
  75. ^ Asimov, Asimov’s Guide to Shakespeare(1970, 92)
  76. ^ Hamlet 5.2.197–202.
  77. ^ Hamlet Q1 17.45–46.
  78. ^ Blits (2001, 3–21).
  79. ^ Hamlet F1 2.2.247–248.
  80. ^ MacCary (1998, 47–48).
  81. ^ Hamlet 3.1.55–87 especially line 55.
  82. ^ MacCary (1998, 28–49).
  83. ^ MacCary (1998, 49).
  84. ^ Knowles (1999, 1049 and 1052–1053) cited by Thompson and Taylor (2006a, 73–74); MacCary (1998, 49).
  85. ^ a b Freud (1900, 367).
  86. ^ a b c d e Britton (1995, 207–211).
  87. ^ Freud (1900, 368).
  88. ^ The nunnery conversation referred to in this sentence is Hamlet 3.1.87–160.
  89. ^ The American Journal of Psychology 21.1 (January, 1910): 72–113.
  90. ^ The Closet Scene: Hamlet 3.4.
  91. ^ MacCary (1998, 104–107, 113–116) and de Grazia (2007, 168–170).
  92. ^ Smallwood (2002, 102).
  93. ^ Hamlet 4.5.
  94. ^ Wofford (1994, 199–202).
  95. ^ Howard (2003, 411–415).
  96. ^ Bloom (2003, 58–59); Thompson (2001, 4).
  97. ^ Showalter (1985).
  98. ^ Bloom (2003, 57).
  99. ^ MacCary (1998, 111–113).
  100. ^ Hamlet has 208 quotations in “The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations; it takes up 10 of 85 pages dedicated to Shakespeare in the 1986 Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations (14th ed. 1968). For examples of lists of the greatest books, see Harvard Classics, Great Books, Great Books of the Western World, Harold Bloom‘s The Western Canon, St. John’s College reading list, and Columbia College Core Curriculum.
  101. ^ Osborne (2007, 114–133 especially 115 and 120).
  102. ^ a b c d e Thompson and Taylor (2006a, 123–126).
  103. ^ Welsh (2001, 131).
  104. ^ a b Thompson and Taylor (2006a, 126–131).
  105. ^ Novy (1994, 62, 77–78).
  106. ^ Hamlet 3.1.55–87.
  107. ^ Writing in La Jeune Belgique in 1890; quoted by Braun (1982, 40).
  108. ^ Taylor (2002, 13).
  109. ^ Thompson and Taylor (2006a; 53–55); Chambers (1930, vol. 1, 334), cited by Dawson (2002, 176).
  110. ^ Dawson (2002, 176).
  111. ^ Pitcher and Woudhuysen (1969, 204).
  112. ^ Hibbard (1987, 17).
  113. ^ Marsden (2002, 21).
  114. ^ Holland (2007, 34).
  115. ^ Marsden (2002, 21–22).
  116. ^ Samuel Pepys records his delight at the novelty of Hamlet “done with scenes”; see Thompson and Taylor (1996, 57).
  117. ^ Taylor (1989, 16).
  118. ^ Thompson and Taylor (2006a, 98–99).
  119. ^ Letter to Sir William Young, 10 January 1773, quoted by Uglow (1977, 473).
  120. ^ Morrison (2002, 231).
  121. ^ Moody (2002, 41).
  122. ^ Moody (2002, 44), quoting Sheridan.
  123. ^ Gay (2002, 159).
  124. ^ Dawson (2002, 185–187).
  125. ^ Morrison (2002, 232–233).
  126. ^ Morrison (2002, 235–237).
  127. ^ William Winter, New York Tribune 26 October 1875, quoted by Morrison (2002, 241).
  128. ^ Morrison (2002, 241).
  129. ^ Schoch (2002, 58–75).
  130. ^ George Bernard Shaw in The Saturday Review 2 October 1897, quoted in Shaw (1961, 81).
  131. ^ Moody (2002, 54).
  132. ^ Halliday (1964, 204) and O’Connor (2002, 77).
  133. ^ Sarah Bernhardt, in a letter to the London Daily Telegraph, quoted by Gay (2002, 164).
  134. ^ Holland (2002, 203–205).
  135. ^ Dawson (2002, 184).
  136. ^ Dawson (2002, 188).
  137. ^ a b c Gillies et al. (2002, 259–262).
  138. ^ Dawson (2002, 180).
  139. ^ For more on this production, see the MAT production of Hamlet article. Craig and Stanislavski began planning the production in 1908 but, due to a serious illness of Stanislavski’s, it was delayed until December, 1911. See Benedetti (1998, 188–211).
  140. ^ Benedetti (1999, 189, 195).
  141. ^ On Craig’s relationship to Symbolism, Russian symbolism, and its principles of monodrama in particular, see Taxidou (1998, 38–41); on Craig’s staging proposals, see Innes (1983, 153); on the centrality of the protagonist and his mirroring of the ‘authorial self’, see Taxidou (1998, 181, 188) and Innes (1983, 153).
  142. ^ The First Court Scene: Hamlet 1.2.1–128. A brightly lit, golden pyramid descended from Claudius’s throne, representing the feudal hierarchy, giving the illusion of a single, unified mass of bodies. In the dark, shadowy foreground, separated by a gauze, Hamlet lay, as if dreaming. On Claudius’s exit-line the figures remained but the gauze was loosened, so that they appeared to melt away as if Hamlet’s thoughts had turned elsewhere. For this effect, the scene received an ovation, which was unheard of at the MAT. See Innes (1983, 152).
  143. ^ See Innes (1983, 140–175; esp. 165–167 on the use of the screens).
  144. ^ Innes (1983, 172).
  145. ^ Hortmann (2002, 214).
  146. ^ Hortmann (2002, 223).
  147. ^ Burian (1993), quoted by Hortmann (2002, 224–225).
  148. ^ a b c Gillies et al. (2002, 267–269).
  149. ^ Morrison (2002, 247–248); Thompson and Taylor (2006a, 109).
  150. ^ Morrison (2002, 249).
  151. ^ Morrison (2002, 249–250).
  152. ^ “Olivier” by Robert Tanitch, Abbeville Press, 1985
  153. ^ Smallwood (2002, 108); National Theatre reviews Retrieved: 4 December 2007.
  154. ^ Vincent Canby, “Theatre Review: Ralph Fiennes as Mod Hamlet,” The New York Times May 3, 1995.
  155. ^ Ari Panagako, “Dandy Hamlet Bows Uptown”, Heights/Inwood Press of North Manhattan, June 14, 1978.
  156. ^ According to the Internet Broadway Database “show”. http://www.ibdb.com/show;.  Romeo and Juliet is the second most-produced Shakespeare play on Broadway, with thirty-four different productions, followed by Twelfth Night, with thirty.
  157. ^ Ian McKellen, Alan Bates, Hugh Hudson, et al. For Ian Charleson: A Tribute. London: Constable and Company, 1990. p. 124.
  158. ^ Barratt, Mark. Ian McKellen: An Unofficial Biography. Virgin Books, 2005. p. 63.
  159. ^ “The Readiness Was All: Ian Charleson and Richard Eyre’s Hamlet,” by Richard Allan Davison. In Shakespeare: Text and Theater, Lois Potter and Arthur F. Kinney, eds. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1999. pp. 170–182
  160. ^ Mark Shenton, “Jude Law to Star in Donmar’s Hamlet.” The Stage. 10 September 2007. Retrieved 19 November 2007.
  161. ^ “Cook, Eyre, Lee And More Join Jude Law In Grandage’s HAMLET.” broadwayworld.com. 4 February 2009. Retrieved 18 February 2009.
  162. ^ “Jude Law to play Hamlet at ‘home’ Kronborg Castle.” The Daily Mirror. July 10, 2009. Retrieved July 14, 2009.
  163. ^ “Shakespeare’s Hamlet with Jude Law”. Charlie Rose Show. video 53:55, 2 October 2009. Retrieved 6 October 2009.
  164. ^ Dave Itzkoff, “Donmar Warehouse’s ‘Hamlet’ Coming to Broadway With Jude Law.” New York Times. June 30, 2009. Retrieved September 10, 2009.
  165. ^ The Fencing Scene: Hamlet 5.2.203–387.
  166. ^ a b c Brode (2001, 117–118).
  167. ^ Davies (2000, 171).
  168. ^ Guntner (2000, 120–121).
  169. ^ “Innokenti Smoktunovsky – Biography – Movies & TV – NYTimes.com”. Movies.nytimes.com. http://movies.nytimes.com/person/66625/Innokenti-Smoktunovsky/biography. Retrieved 2010-05-29. 
  170. ^ Brode (2001, 125–127).
  171. ^ Both quotations from Cartmell (2000, 212), where the aim of making Shakespeare “even more popular” is attributed to Zeffirelli himself in an interview given to The South Bank Show in December 1997.
  172. ^ Guntner (2000, 121–122).
  173. ^ Crowl (2000, 232).
  174. ^ Starks (1999, 272).
  175. ^ Keyishian (2000, 78–79).
  176. ^ Burnett (2000).
  177. ^ Hamlet Great Performances, PBS

Editions of Hamlet

  • Bate, Jonathan, and Eric Rasmussen, eds. 2007. Complete Works. By William Shakespeare. The RSC Shakespeare. New York: Modern Library. ISBN 0-679-64295-1.
  • Edwards, Phillip, ed. 1985. Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. New Cambridge Shakespeare ser. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-29366-9.
  • Hibbard, G. R., ed. 1987. Hamlet. Oxford World’s Classics ser. Oxford. ISBN 0-19-283416-9.
  • Hoy, Cyrus, ed. 1992. Hamlet. Norton Critical Edition ser. 2nd ed. New York: Norton. ISBN 978-0-393-95663-4.
  • Irace, Kathleen O. 1998. The First Quarto of Hamlet. New Cambridge Shakespeare ser. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-65390-8.
  • Jenkins, Harold, ed. 1982. Hamlet. The Arden Shakespeare, second ser. London: Methuen. ISBN 1-903436-67-2.
  • Lott, Bernard, ed. 1970. Hamlet. New Swan Shakespeare Advanced ser. New ed. London: Longman. ISBN 0-582-52742-2.
  • Spencer, T. J. B., ed. 1980 Hamlet. New Penguin Shakespeare ser. London: Penguin. ISBN 0-14-070734-4.
  • Thompson, Ann and Neil Taylor, eds. 2006a. Hamlet. The Arden Shakespeare, third ser. Volume one. London: Arden. ISBN 1-904271-33-2.
  • ———. 2006b. Hamlet: The Texts of 1603 and 1623. The Arden Shakespeare, third ser. Volume two. London: Arden. ISBN 1-904271-80-4.
  • Wells, Stanley, and Gary Taylor, eds. 1988. The Complete Works. By William Shakespeare. The Oxford Shakespeare. Compact ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-871190-5.

Secondary sources

  • Alexander, Peter. 1964. Alexander’s Introductions to Shakespeare. London: Collins.
  • Banham, Martin, ed. 1998. The Cambridge Guide to Theatre. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-43437-8.
  • Baskerville, Charles Read. ed. 1934. Elizabethan and Stuart Plays. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
  • Benedetti, Jean. 1999. Stanislavski: His Life and Art. Revised edition. Original edition published in 1988. London: Methuen. ISBN 0-413-52520-1.
  • Blits, Jan H. 2001. Introduction. In Deadly Thought: “Hamlet” and the Human Soul: 3–22. Langham, MD: Lexington Books. ISBN 0-7391-0214-1.
  • Bloom, Harold. 2001. Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human. Open Market ed. Harlow, Essex: Longman. ISBN 1-57322-751-X.
  • ———. 2003. Hamlet: Poem Unlimited. Edinburgh: Cannongate. ISBN 1-84195-461-6.
  • Braun, Edward. 1982. The Director and the Stage: From Naturalism to Grotowski. London: Methuen. ISBN 978-0413463005.
  • Britton, Celia. 1995. “Structuralist and poststructuralist psychoanalytic and Marxist theories” in Cambridge History of Literary Criticism: From Formalism to Poststructuralism (Vol 8). Ed. Raman Seldon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1995. ISBN 978-0-521-30013-1.
  • Brode, Douglas. 2001. Shakespeare in the Movies: From the Silent Era to Today. New York: Berkley Boulevard Books. ISBN 0-425-18176-6.
  • Brown, John Russell. 2006. Hamlet: A Guide to the Text and its Theatrical Life. Shakespeare Handbooks ser. Basingstoke, Hampshire and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 1-4039-2092-3.
  • Buchanan, Judith. 2005. Shakespeare on Film. Harlow: Pearson. ISBN 0-582-43716-4.
  • Buchanan, Judith. 2009. Shakespeare on Silent Film: An Excellent Dumb Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-87199-9.
  • Burian, Jarka. 1993. “Hamlet in Postwar Czech Theatre”. In Foreign Shakespeare: Contemporary Performance. Ed. Dennis Kennedy. New edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. ISBN 0-521-61708-1.
  • Burnett, Mark Thornton. 2000. ” ‘To Hear and See the Matter’: Communicating Technology in Michael Almereyda’s Hamlet (2000)”. Cinema Journal 42.3: 48–69.
  • Carincross, Andrew S. 1936. The Problem of Hamlet: A Solution. Reprint ed. Norwood, PA.: Norwood Editions, 1975. ISBN 0-88305-130-3.
  • Cartmell, Deborah. 2000. “Franco Zeffirelli and Shakespeare”. In Jackson (2000, 212–221).
  • Chambers, Edmund Kerchever. 1923. The Elizabethan Stage. 4 volumes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-811511-3.
  • ———. 1930. William Shakespeare: A Study of Facts and Problems. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988. ISBN 0-19-811774-4.
  • Crowl, Samuel. 2000. “Flamboyant Realist: Kenneth Branagh”. In Jackson (2000, 222–240).
  • Crystal, David, and Ben Crystal. 2005. The Shakespeare Miscellany. New York: Penguin. ISBN 0-14-051555-0.
  • Davies, Anthony. 2000. “The Shakespeare films of Laurence Olivier”. In Jackson (2000, 163–182).
  • Dawson, Anthony B. 1995. Hamlet. Shakespeare in Performance ser. New ed. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1997. ISBN 0-7190-4625-4.
  • ———. 2002. “International Shakespeare”. In Wells and Stanton (2002, 174–193).
  • Eliot, T. S. 1920. “Hamlet and his Problems”. In The Sacred Wood: Essays in Poetry and Criticism. London: Faber & Gwyer. ISBN 0-416-37410-7.
  • Foakes, R. A. 1993. Hamlet versus Lear: Cultural Politics and Shakespeare’s Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-60705-1.
  • French, George Russell. 1869. Shakspeareana Geologica. London: Macmillan. Reprinted New York: AMS, 1975. ISBN 0-404-02575-7.
  • Freud, Sigmund. 1900. The Interpretation of Dreams. Trans. James Strachey. Ed. Angela Richards. The Penguin Freud Library, vol. 4. London: Penguin, 1991. ISBN 0-14-013794-7.
  • Gay, Penny. 2002. “Women and Shakespearean Performance”. In Wells and Stanton (2002, 155–173).
  • Gillies, John, Ryuta Minami, Ruru Li, and Poonam Trivedi. 2002. “Shakespeare on the Stages of Asia”. In Wells and Stanton (2002, 259–283).
  • Greenblatt, Stephen. 2004a. Will in the World: How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. ISBN 0-393-05057-2.
  • ———. 2004b. “The Death of Hamnet and the Making of Hamlet”. N.Y. Review of Books 51.16 (Oct. 21, 2004).
  • Greg, Walter Wilson. 1955. The Shakespeare First Folio, its Bibliographical and Textual History. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ASIN B0000CHBCM.
  • Guntner, J. Lawrence. 2000. “Hamlet, Macbeth and King Lear on film”. In Jackson (2000, 117–134).
  • Halliday, F. E. 1964. A Shakespeare Companion 1564–1964. Shakespeare Library ser. Baltimore, Penguin, 1969. ISBN 0-14-053011-8.
  • Hattaway, Michael. 1982. Elizabethan Popular Theatre: Plays in Performance. Theatre Production ser. London and Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul. ISBN 0-7100-9052-8.
  • ———. 1987. Hamlet. The Critics Debate ser. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Macmillan. ISBN 0-333-38524-1.
  • Holland, Peter. 2002. “Touring Shakespeare”. In Wells and Stanton (2002, 194–211).
  • ———. 2007. “Shakespeare Abbreviated”. In Shaughnessy (2007, 26–45).
  • Hortmann, Wilhelm. 2002. “Shakespeare on the Political Stage in the Twentieth Century”. In Wells and Stanton (2002, 212–229).
  • Howard, Jean E. 2003. “Feminist Criticism”. In Shakespeare: An Oxford Guide: 411–423. Ed. Stanley Wells and Lena Orlin. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-924522-3.
  • Howard, Tony. 2000. “Shakespeare’s Cinematic Offshoots”. In Jackson (2000, 303–323).
  • Hurstfield, Joel, and James Sutherland. 1964. Shakespeare’s World. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
  • Innes, Christopher. 1983. Edward Gordon Craig. Directors in Perspective ser. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-27383-8.
  • Jackson, MacDonald P. 1986. “The Transmission of Shakespeare’s Text”. In The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare Studies Ed. Stanley Wells. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-31841-6. 163–185.
  • ———. 1991. “Editions and Textual Studies Reviewed”. In Shakespeare Survey 43, The Tempest and After: 255–270. Ed. Stanley Wells. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-39529-1.
  • Jackson, Russell, ed. 2000. The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare on Film. Cambridge Companions to Literature ser. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-63975-1.
  • Jenkins, Harold. 1955. “The Relation Between the Second Quarto and the Folio Text of Hamlet“. Studies in Bibliography 7: 69–83.
  • Jones, Gwilym. 2007. Thomas Middleton at the Globe. London: Globe Theatre education resource centre. Retrieved: 30 December 2007.
  • Kermode, Frank. 2000. Shakespeare’s Language. London: Penguin. ISBN 0-14-028592-X.
  • Keyishian, Harry. 2000. “Shakespeare and Movie Genre: The Case of Hamlet“. In Jackson (2000, 72–84).
  • Kirsch, A. C. 1968. “A Caroline Commentary on the Drama”. Modern Philology 66: 256–261.
  • Knowles, Ronald. 1999. “Hamlet and Counter-Humanism” Renaissance Quarterly 52.4: 1046–1069.
  • Lacan, Jacques. 1959. “Desire and the Interpretation of Desire in Hamlet“. In Literature and Psychoanalysis: The Question of Reading Otherwise. Ed. Shoshana Felman. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982. Originally appeared as a double issue of Yale French Studies, nos. 55/56 (1977). ISBN 0-8018-2754-X.
  • Lennard, John. 2007. William Shakespeare: Hamlet. Literature Insights ser. Humanities-Ebooks, 2007. ISBN 1-84760-028-X.
  • MacCary, W. Thomas. 1998. “Hamlet”: A Guide to the Play. Greenwood Guides to Shakespeare ser. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. ISBN 0-313-30082-8.
  • Marsden, Jean I. 2002. “Improving Shakespeare: from the Restoration to Garrick”. In Wells and Stanton (2002, 21–36).
  • Matheson, Mark. 1995. “Hamlet and ‘A Matter Tender and Dangerous’ “. Shakespeare Quarterly 46.4: 383–397.
  • Moody, Jane. 2002. “Romantic Shakespeare”. In Wells and Stanton (2002, 37–57).
  • Morrison, Michael A. 2002. “Shakespeare in North America”. In Wells and Stanton (2002, 230–258).
  • Novy, Marianne. 1994. Engaging with Shakespeare: Responses of George Eliot and Other Women Novelists. (Athens, Georgia) in Thompson and Taylor (2006a, 127).
  • O’Connor, Marion. 2002. “Reconstructive Shakespeare: Reproducing Elizabethan and Jacobean Stages”. In Wells and Stanton (2002, 76–97).
  • Osborne, Laurie. 2007. “Narration and Staging in Hamlet and its afternovels” in Shaughnessy (2007, 114–133).
  • Oxford English Dictionary (Second Edition) on CD-ROM version 3.1. 2004. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-861016-8.
  • Pennington, Michael. 1996. “Hamlet”: A User’s Guide. London: Nick Hern. ISBN 1-85459-284-X.
  • Pitcher, John, and Woudhuysen, Henry. 1969. Shakespeare Companion, 1564–1964. London: Penguin. ISBN 0-14-053011-8.
  • Quillian, William H. Hamlet and the New Poetic: James Joyce and T. S. Eliot. Ann Arbor, MI:UMI Research Press, 1983.
  • Rosenberg, Marvin. 1992. The Masks of Hamlet. London: Associated University Presses. ISBN 0-87413-480-3.
  • Rowse, Alfred Leslie. 1963. William Shakespeare: A Biography. New York: Harper & Row. Reprinted New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1995. ISBN 1-56619-804-6.
  • Saxo, and Hansen, William. 1983. Saxo Grammaticus & the Life of Hamlet. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. ISBN 0-8032-2318-8.
  • Schoch, Richard W. 2002. “Pictorial Shakespeare”. In Wells and Stanton (2002, 58–75).
  • Shapiro, James. 2005. 1599: A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare. London: Faber, 2006. ISBN 0-571-21481-9.
  • Shaughnessy, Robert. 2007. The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare and Popular Culture. Cambridge Companions to Literature ser. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-60580-9.
  • Shaw, George Bernard. 1961. Shaw on Shakespeare. Ed. Edwin Wilson. New York: Applause. ISBN 1-55783-561-6.
  • Showalter, Elaine. 1985. “Representing Ophelia: Women, Madness, and the Responsibilities of Feminist Criticism” In Shakespeare and the Question of Theory: 77–94. Ed. Patricia Parker and Geoffrey Hartman. New York and London: Methuen. ISBN 0-416-36930-8.
  • Smallwood, Robert. 2002. “Twentieth-century Performance: The Stratford and London Companies”. In Wells and Stanton (2002, 98–117).
  • Starks, Lisa S. 1999. “The Displaced Body of Desire: Sexuality in Kenneth Branagh’s Hamlet“. In Shakespeare and Appropriation: 160–178. Ed. Christy Desmet and Robert Sawyer. Accents on Shakespeare ser. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-20725-8.
  • Taxidou, Olga. 1998. The Mask: A Periodical Performance by Edward Gordon Craig. Contemporary Theatre Studies ser. volume 30. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers. ISBN 90-5755-046-6.
  • Taylor, Gary. 1989. Reinventing Shakespeare: A Cultural History from the Restoration to the Present. London: Hogarth Press. ISBN 0-7012-0888-0.
  • ———. 2002. “Shakespeare Plays on Renaissance Stages”. In Wells and Stanton (2002, 1–20).
  • Teraoka, Arlene Akiko. 1985. The Silence of Entropy or Universal Discourse : the Postmodernist Poetics of Heiner Müller. New York: Peter Lang. ISBN 0-8204-0190-0.
  • Thompson, Ann. 2001. “Shakespeare and sexuality” in Catherine M S Alexander and Stanley Wells Shakespeare and Sexuality: 1–13. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-80475-2.
  • Thompson, Ann and Taylor, Neil. 1996. William Shakespeare, “Hamlet”. Plymouth, UK: Northcote House. ISBN 0-7463-0765-9.
  • Thomson, Peter. 1983. Shakespeare’s Theatre. Theatre Production ser. London and Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul. ISBN 0-7100-9480-9.
  • Uglow, Jenny. 1977. Hogarth: A Life and a World. New ed. London: Faber and Faber, 2002. ISBN 0-571-19376-5.
  • Vickers, Brian, ed. 1974a. Shakespeare: The Critical Heritage. Volume one (1623–1692). New ed. London: Routledge, 1995. ISBN 0-415-13404-8.
  • ———. 1974b. Shakespeare: The Critical Heritage. Volume four (1753–1765). New ed. London: Routledge, 1995. ISBN 0-415-13407-2.
  • ———. 1974c. Shakespeare: The Critical Heritage. Volume five (1765–1774). New ed. London: Routledge, 1995. ISBN 0-415-13408-0.
  • Vogler, Christopher. 1992. The Writer’s Journey: Mythic Structure for Storytellers and Screenwriters. Second revised ed. London: Pan Books, 1999. ISBN 0-330-37591-1.
  • Ward, David. 1992. “The King and ‘Hamlet’ “. Shakespeare Quarterly 43.3: 280–302.
  • Weimann, Robert. 1985. “Mimesis in Hamlet“. In Shakespeare and the Question of Theory: 275–291. Ed. Patricia Parker and Geoffrey Hartman. New York and London: Methuen. ISBN 0-416-36930-8.
  • Wells, Stanley, and Stanton, Sarah, eds. 2002. The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare on Stage. Cambridge Companions to Literature ser. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-79711-X.
  • Wilson, John Dover. 1932. The Essential Shakespeare: A Biographical Adventure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • ———. 1934. The Manuscript of Shakespeare’s “Hamlet” and the Problems of its Transmission: An Essay in Critical Bibliography. 2 volumes. Cambridge: The University Press.
  • ———. 1935. What Happens in Hamlet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959. ISBN 0-521-06835-5.
  • Welsh, Alexander. 2001. Hamlet in his Modern Guises (New Jersey: Princeton) in Thompson and Taylor (2006a, 125).
  • Winstanley, Lilian. 1921. Hamlet and the Scottish succession, Being an Examination of the Relations of the Play of Hamlet to the Scottish Succession and the Essex Conspiracy. London: Cambridge University Press. Reprinted Philadelphia: R. West, 1977. ISBN 0-8492-2912-X.
  • Wofford, Susanne L. 1994. “A Critical History of Hamlet” In Hamlet: Complete, Authoritative Text with Biographical and Historical Contexts, Critical History, and Essays from Five Contemporary Critical Perspectives: 181–207. Boston: Bedford Books of St. Martins Press. ISBN 0-312-08986-4.

the end @ Copyright Dr Iwan Suwandy 2011

About these ads

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s