DOCSLIB.ORG

Remedios Perni a Fellow of Infinite Jest

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Remedios Perni a Fellow of Infinite Jest Remedios Perni A Fellow of Infinite Jest William Shakespeare approaches visual experience in most of his plays, either to privilege the power of sight over any other sense or to mistrust images for their fictitious simulation of true objects or people. Shakespeare’s reflection on visual stimuli is often related to artistic imagery. When the avid reader/spectator sees Hamlet contemplating Yorick’s skull, she is actually experiencing the incarnation of a memento mori, one of the most reproduced iconographies in European art since the fifteenth century. Turned into the most common among illustrations of Hamlet, including paintings and photographs, this memento mori has re-emerged throughout time, attracting artists of all periods. This paper aims to examine the infinite circulation of energy from word to image and vice versa by focusing on the dialogic relations between Shakespeare’s plays and some old and recent visual appropriations of Hamlet’s memento mori. There has always been a mutual interest between William Shakespeare and the visual arts. William Shakespeare addresses the visual experience in most of his plays, either to privilege the power of sight over any other sense – ‘I might not this believe / Without the sensible and true avouch / Of mine eyes’ (Hamlet, 1.1 55-57)1 – or to mistrust images for their fictitious simulation of true objects or people: ‘I see thee still […] / There’s not such thing’ (Macbeth, 2.1, 45-47).2 The boundaries between illusion and reality become blurred through the madness of Lear, the hallucinations of Macbeth, and the Spectre of Hamlet’s father. In The Winter’s Tale, Leontes observes that, when looking at his wife’s sculpture, ‘the fixture of her eye has motion in’t / As we are mock’d with art’ and also that ‘Art tutors Nature’, or even that Art is ‘Nature’s Ape’ (The Winter’s Tale, 5.3, 66-67).3 In this play, Shakespeare presents both Art’s dependence on Nature and Art’s ability to outdo Nature’s power: ‘Yet Nature is made better by no mean, / But Nature makes that Mean: so over that Art / which you say adds to Nature / is an Art that Nature makes’ (The Winter’s Tale).4 Remarkably, Shakespeare’s reflection on visual stimuli is often related to artistic imagery (the abovementioned sculpture, as well as the art of miniature, etc.). This acquaintance with the conventions of the visual arts 1 All Hamlet quotations have been extracted from Hamlet, ed. by Ann Thompson and Neil Taylor, 1st edn, The Arden Shakespeare (London: Thomson Learning, 2006). 2 The Oxford Shakespeare: The Complete Works, ed. by Stanley Wells and Gary Taylor (Oxford: Clarendon Press / Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 223. 3 The Winter’s Tale, ed. by J. H. P. Pafford, The Arden Shakespeare (London: Methuen & Co. Ltd, 1963; repr. London: Thomson Learning, 2006). 4 Cited in Moelwyn Merchant, Shakespeare and the Artist (London, New York, Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1959), p. 10. 32 Remedios Perni may often be seen in his use of art metaphors. Mushat Frye mentions the moment in which Claudius kneels by the side of Ophelia’s grave, playing the role of what he himself calls ‘a living monument’. Claudius says, ‘This grave shall have a living monument. An hour of quiet shortly shall we see’ (Hamlet, 5.1, 293-294). These lines refer to what he had earlier called ‘the painting of a sorrow: / A face without a heart’ (Hamlet, 4.3, 91-92).5 Claudius can be seen as ‘the living pantomime’6 of one of those figures of widows and children in stereotyped poses of mourning which garnished tombs in Tudor and early Stuart England in the 1590s, for instance The Tomb of Saint Peter’s Church, Titchfield, Hampshire, for the second Earl of Southampton. Underneath the rigid figure of the dead, who appears praying in horizontal position, it is possible to see his heirs as ‘weepers’ or ‘sorrows’, this latter term being the common denomination of such carvings.7 In order to provide us with an example of this practice, Merchant mentions Shakespeare’s comments on perspective in Richard the Second: ‘For sorrow’s eye, glazed with blinding Tears, / Divides one thing entire, to many objects, / Like perspectives, which rightly gaz’d upon / Shew nothing but confusion, ey’d awry / Distinguish forme’.8 This image can be easily related to those elongated objects that have to be viewed at an oblique angle, specifically to Holbein’s Ambassadors (1533), in which the curious object in the foreground is a skull drawn in lengthened perspective. Placed at the bottom centre of the composition, the skull is rendered in anamorphic perspective, so that the spectator can see nothing but confusion until s/he looks at the picture from the side. Nonetheless, the most relevant example is still the image of Hamlet, contemplating Yorick’s skull, and embodying in his pose a memento mori, perhaps the most reproduced iconography in the history of Western art since the fifteenth century. It has survived in the popular mind as the most memorable single image of the melancholic Prince. But, again, although the introduction of this image was probably a remarkable innovation on the London stage (also appearing in The Revenger’s Tragedy by Cyril Tourneur), Shakespeare was not creating something out of nothing. There was in fact a long and very popular tradition in which a man was shown carrying or contemplating a skull, and examples of this sprung in numerous art forms. 5 Also cited by Roland Mushat Frye, ‘“Looking before and after”: The Use of Visual Evidence and Symbolism for Interpreting Hamlet’, Huntington Library Quarterly, 45 (1982), pp.1-19 (p. 9). Frye quotes these lines in order to show the importance of visual symbols and visual references to understand Hamlet. 6 Frye, p. 10. 7 Ibid. 8 Merchant, pp. 9-10. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • PDF Download Hamlet: the Texts of 1603 and 1623 Ebook
    HAMLET: THE TEXTS OF 1603 AND 1623 PDF, EPUB, EBOOK William Shakespeare,Ann Thompson,Neil Taylor | 384 pages | 31 May 2007 | Bloomsbury Publishing PLC | 9781904271802 | English | London, United Kingdom Hamlet: The Texts of 1603 and 1623 PDF Book The New Cambridge, prepared by Philip Edwards, also conflated while using the Folio as its base text. It looks like you are located in Australia or New Zealand Close. For your intent In going back to school in Wittenberg, It is most retrograde to our desire, And we beseech you bend you to remain Here in the cheer and comfort of our eye, Our chiefest courtier, cousin, and our son. An innnovative and stimulating contribution. On approval, you will either be sent the print copy of the book, or you will receive a further email containing the link to allow you to download your eBook. This wonderful ternion gives the serious students of Hamlet everything they need to delve deeply into the Dane. You can unsubscribe from newsletters at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in any newsletter. A beautiful, unmarked, tight copy. By using our website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Cookie Policy. Password Forgot Password? What says Polonius? While Jonson and other writers labored over their plays, Shakespeare seems to have had the ability to turn out work of exceptionally high caliber at an amazing speed. Gerald D. May show signs of minor shelf wear and contain limited notes and highlighting. Who's there? But, look, the morn in russet mantle clad, Walks o'er the dew of yon high eastern hill.
    [Show full text]
  • The Shakespeare Authorship Companion
    All That Is Shakespeare Melts into Air The New Oxford Shakespeare Authorship Companion reviewed by Michael Dudley, Gary Goldstein, and Shelly Maycock. The New Oxford Shakespeare Authorship Companion. Edited by Gary Taylor & Gabriel Egan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. $168.84 USD. he Shakespeare deniers are at it again. Here is yet another book filled with so- called “evidence” hidden in the texts – which only the deniers can decode – Tto support their conspiracy theory that Shakespeare didn’t write Shakespeare. It’s the old hoary argument that a commoner from Stratford-Upon-Avon could not have possibly written the greatest works in the English language. By himself, at any rate. Yes, the argument in The New Oxford Shakespeare Authorship Companion – a supplemen- tary volume to Oxford University Press’ prestigious new edition of the Shakespeare plays – is that Shakespeare wrote with some eleven collaborators and co-authors. These would include Christopher Marlowe, Thomas Middleton, Thomas Dekker, and Anonymous on seventeen of the dramas; the editors also suggest we need to ex- pand the size of the canon from 37 to 44 plays, only two-thirds of which are entirely by Shakespeare. Yet, as we shall see, the theories and methods used to reach these conclusions are as problematic as the scholarship’s all but single-minded focus on cryptic analysis at the level of single words and even syllables, in service of a group authorship theory. The rhetorical conceit in the opening paragraph above is intend- ed to be more than tongue-in cheek; instead, it underscores the extent to which the Shakespeare establishment has started to resemble the nineteenth century Baconians it professes to abhor.
    [Show full text]
  • READING LIST for IED 366 SHAKESPEARE
    READING LIST for IED 366 SHAKESPEARE Shakespeare’s Plays: Comedies: The Two Gentlemen of Verona The Comedy of Errors The Taming of the Shrew A Midsummer Night’s Dream Twelfth Night As You Like It History Plays: Richard III Richard II Tragedies: Romeo and Juliet Hamlet Othello Macbeth King Lear Problem Plays: The Merchant of Venice Troilus and Cressida Measure for Measure Romances: A Winter’s Tale The Tempest Criticism on Shakespeare, TheElizabethan Theatre, Modern Approaches and Interpretations: Stanley Wells Shakespeare: A Dramatic Life Sinclair and Stevenson, London, 1997. Stanley Wells Shakespeare: The Writer and His Work Longman, Essex, 1978. E.M.Tillyard The Elizabethan World Picture London, 1943. Andrew Gurr The Shakespearian Stage 1571-1642 Cambridge, 1970. J. Styan Shakespeare’s Stagecraft Cambridge, 1967. Leslie Hotson Shakespeare’s Wooden O London, 1959. Walter Hodges The Globe Restored Oxford, 1968. Emrys Jones Scenic Form in Shakespeare Oxford , 1971. Wolfgang Clemen Shakespeare’s Dramatic Art London, 1972. Alexander Leggatt Shakespeare’s Comedy of Love London, 1974. Bradbury and Palmer Shakespearian Comedy Stratford-upon-Avon Studies 14, 1972. Gary Walker Shakespeare’s Comedies Longman, London, 1991. Barbara Freedman Staging the Gaze: Postmodernism, Psychoanalysis and Shakespearean Comedy Cornell UP, London, 1991. A.C.Bradley Shakespearean Tragedy London, 1904. John Drakakis Shakespearean Tragedy Longman, London, 1992. Garner and Sprengnether Shakespearean Tragedy and Gender Indiana UP,1996 Lilly Campbell Shakespeare’s Tragic Heroes: Slaves of Passion Cambridge, 1930. Ernest Jones Hamlet and Oedipus London, 1949. Norman Holland Psychoanalysis and Shakespeare Peter Alexander Hamlet, Father and Son Oxford, 1955. Nigel Alexander Poison, Play and Duel London, 1971.
    [Show full text]
  • Sources of Lear
    Meddling with Masterpieces: the On-going Adaptation of King Lear by Lynne Bradley B.A., Queen’s University 1997 M.A., Queen’s University 1998 A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in the Department of English © Lynne Bradley, 2008 University of Victoria All rights reserved. This dissertation may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photo-copying or other means, without the permission of the author. ii Meddling with Masterpieces: the On-going Adaptation of King Lear by Lynne Bradley B.A., Queen’s University 1997 M.A., Queen’s University 1998 Supervisory Committee Dr. Sheila M. Rabillard, Supervisor (Department of English) Dr. Janelle Jenstad, Departmental Member (Department of English) Dr. Michael Best, Departmental Member (Department of English) Dr. Annalee Lepp, Outside Member (Department of Women’s Studies) iii Supervisory Committee Dr. Sheila M. Rabillard, Supervisor (Department of English) Dr. Janelle Jenstad, Departmental Member (Department of English) Dr. Michael Best, Departmental Member (Department of English) Dr. Annalee Lepp, Outside Member (Department of Women’s Studies) Abstract The temptation to meddle with Shakespeare has proven irresistible to playwrights since the Restoration and has inspired some of the most reviled and most respected works of theatre. Nahum Tate’s tragic-comic King Lear (1681) was described as an execrable piece of dementation, but played on London stages for one hundred and fifty years. David Garrick was equally tempted to adapt King Lear in the eighteenth century, as were the burlesque playwrights of the nineteenth. In the twentieth century, the meddling continued with works like King Lear’s Wife (1913) by Gordon Bottomley and Dead Letters (1910) by Maurice Baring.
    [Show full text]
  • "'A Complicated and Unpleasant Investigation': the Arden Shakespeare 1899-1924" by Gabriel Egan This Paper Arises From
    Egan, Gabriel. 2007d. "'''A complicated and unpleasant investigation': The Arden Shakespeare 1899-1924': A paper delivered on 12 July at the conference 'Open the Book, Open the Mind: The 2007 meeting of the Society for History of Authorship, Reading, and Publishing (SHARP)' at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 11-15 July." "'A complicated and unpleasant investigation': The Arden Shakespeare 1899-1924" by Gabriel Egan This paper arises from a survey of Shakespeare play editions in the twentieth century. I'm particularly interested in what those who made editions thought they were doing, how confident they felt about their work, how they thought readers would respond to the textual problems that arise in editing old plays, and how editors' assumptions about their readers were manifested in the editions that they produced. My published title in the programme covers the whole century of editions, but I'm going largely to confine my remarks to just one editorial project. For those of you who like to see the big picture first, however, I can offer a brief overview of just one of those variables I mentioned: editorial confidence [SLIDE]. I see it going like this, from a low at the start of the twentieth-century, through to a peak in the 1970s, and back to a low now. From the detailed history behind this pattern, I have room on this chart to pull just a few keys moments. [SLIDE] First, A. W. Pollard's book Shakespeare Folios and Quartos (1909) distinguished the good from the bad quartos and gave editors reasons to suppose that the good ones are textually close to Shakespeare's own papers.
    [Show full text]
  • William Shakespeare. Love's Labour's Lost
    1 William Shakespeare. Love’s Labour’s Lost Bibliographie établie par Sophie Chiari * Une étoile signale un article ou un ouvrage particulièrement utile dans le cadre de la préparation au concours. ** Deux étoiles indiquent les textes à consulter en priorité. I. Bibliographie HARVEY, Nancy Lenz et Anna Kirwan Carey, Love’s Labor’s Lost : An Annotated Bibliography New York, Garland, 1984. II. Éditions (19 e et 20 e siècles) Note : l’in-quarto de la pièce (1598) est consultable sur le site de la British Library, http://www.bl.uk/treasures/shakespeare/labours.html • En anglais ——. A ew Variorum Edition of Love’s Labour’s Lost (1904), Réimprimée par Dover Publications, New York, 1964. ——. Love’s Labour’s Lost , ed. H.C. Hart, Londres, The Arden Shakespeare, 1 st Series, 1906. ——. Love’s Labour’s Lost , eds. Arthur Quiller-Couch et John Dover Wilson, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, The New Shakespeare, 1923 (2 e édition de Dover Wilson seul, 1962). ——. Love’s Labour’s Lost , ed. Richard David, Londres, Methuen & Co Ltd, 1951. ——. Love’s Labour’s Lost , ed. AlFred Harbage, Londres, Penguin, The Pelican Shakespeare, 1963 (édition révisée, 1973). ——. Love’s Labour’s Lost , ed. John Arthos, New York, Signet, Signet Classic Shakespeare, 1965 (édition révisée, 1988; 2e édition révisée, 2004). ——— in The Complete Works , eds. Stanley Wells et Gary Taylor, OxFord, Clarendon Press, (1986), 2005. **—. Love’s Labour’s Lost , ed. John Kerrigan, Harmondsworth, Penguin Books, The New Penguin, (1982), 1986. **——. Love’s Labour’s Lost , ed. G. R. Hibbard, OxFord, OxFord University Press, 1990. ——. Love’s Labour’s Lost in The orton Shakespeare , eds.
    [Show full text]
  • Learning to See the Theological Vision of Shakespeare's King Lear
    Learning to See the Theological Vision of Shakespeare’s King Lear Learning to See the Theological Vision of Shakespeare’s King Lear By Greg Maillet Learning to See the Theological Vision of Shakespeare’s King Lear By Greg Maillet This book first published 2016 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2016 by Greg Maillet All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-4438-9729-9 ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-9729-7 TABLE OF CONTENTS Polemical Prologue .................................................................................... vii Criticism, Theology, and the Value of Shakespeare’s King Lear Chapter One ................................................................................................. 1 “See Better”: Christian Paradox in Act One of King Lear Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 27 “I Nothing Am”: Confusion and Clarification of Identity in Act Two of King Lear Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 51 “This Night will turn us all to Fools and Madmen”: Storm and the Transformation of Identity
    [Show full text]
  • AW. Pollard and Twentieth-Century Shakespeare Editing
    Shakespeare, More or Less: A-W. Pollard and Twentieth-Century Shakespeare Editing Paul Werstine Those who have disputed Shakespeare’s authorship of the plays and poems usually attributed to him have been inclined to name the eminent Shakespeare scholars who have vilified the anti-Stratfordian cause. In the Preface to his 1908 book The Shakes­ peare Problem Restated, the urbane Sir Granville George Greenwood quoted Sidney Lee, then chair of Shakespeare’s Birthplace Trust, mocking the Baconian theory as ‘“foolish craze,’ ‘morbid psychology,’ ‘madhouse chatter”’ (vii) and John Churton Collins, chair of English Literature at the University of Birmingham, denouncing it as “‘ignorance and vanity”’ (viii). More recendy, Charlton Ogburn has listed among the detractors of the Oxfordian theory Louis B. Wright, former director of the Folger Shakespeare Library (154, 161,168); S. Schoenbaum, author of Shakespeare’s Lives, which devotes one hundred pages “to denigration of...anti-Stratfordian articles and books” (152); and Harvard Shakespeare professors G. Blakemore Evans and Harry Levin (256-57). In view of the energy and labour expended by numerous prominent scholars defending Shakespearean authorship, it is not surprising to dis­ cover that this defence has influenced reception of Shakespeare’s works and their edi­ torial reproductions. This essay deals with the very successful resistance movement against the anti-Stratfordians that was led by A.W. Pollard from 1916 to 1923, and with the peculiar influence that Pollard’s efforts have continued to exert, even upon today’s Shakespeare editors. FlorUegium 16 (1999) Like those Shakespeareans mentioned by Greenwood and Ogburn, Pollard, as an editor of the important bibliographical and editorial quarterly The Library and as Keeper of Printed Books at the British Museum, was well placed to fend off anti-Stratfordians.
    [Show full text]
  • The Oxford Shakespeare Pdf Free Download
    HENRY V: THE OXFORD SHAKESPEARE PDF, EPUB, EBOOK William Shakespeare,Gary Taylor | 352 pages | 01 Aug 2008 | Oxford University Press | 9780199536511 | English | Oxford, United Kingdom Henry V: The Oxford Shakespeare PDF Book The book uses t Academic Skip to main content. Thank you for shopping at our store. Overview The introduction includes an examination of the Quarto and texts, and of the relationship between them; a critical discussion of the play's historical and literary sources; an examination of conflicting critical attitudes to the play, and of its fluctuating theatrical fortunes; and a demonstration of the range and variety of Shakespeare's characterization. Tillyard supports the idea of the Tudor myth , which considers England's 15th century to be a dark time of lawlessness and warfare, that after many battles eventually led to a golden age of the Tudor Period. Oxford World's Classics Series. Description About the Author s Description Henry V , the climax of Shakespeare's sequence of English history plays, is an inspiring, often comic celebration of a young warrior- king. The French suffered 10, casualties; the English, fewer than Keywords: Shakespeare , Henry V , warfare , ordinances , Renaissance , war , medieval laws , nations. More Shakespeare's Henry V has traditionally been acclaimed for its impressive depiction of the psychological and political impact of warfare, and it remains one of the most widely-discussed plays in the canon. All Rights Reserved. The conductor was Sir Neville Marriner. If you have any queries, please contact us via ebay. Shakespeare Survey , volume 38, Cambridge University Press The Star Ledger. Shakespeare's Money Robert Bearman.
    [Show full text]
  • “Gary Taylor and Terri Bourus Make Shakespeare Come Alive with Such Enthusiasm, You’D Swear the Bard Himself Was Sitting in the Room with Them
    P RAISE FOR T HE CREATION AND RE -CREATION OF C ARDENIO: PERFORMING SHAKESPEARE, T RANSFORMING CERVANTES! “Gary Taylor and Terri Bourus make Shakespeare come alive with such enthusiasm, you’d swear the Bard himself was sitting in the room with them. Meticulous and passionate scholars, they don’t shy away from questioning long-held theories and testing them—not only through extensive research— but also through the crucible of live performance. It does not surprise me that they would tackle the reconstruction of Cardenio or that Gary would take some twenty years to do it. When they’re done, Cardenio will certainly stand as a testament to how painstaking line-by-line scholarship can combine with academic imagination to create pure joy.” —Jim Simmons, Producer/Writer of “Shakespeare Lost/Shakespeare Found” TV documentary about The History of Cardenio “This persuasive book should put to rest nearly three hundred years of debate over the lost King’s Men play of 1613. Cardenio was indeed a Fletcher/ Shakespeare collaboration, based on episodes from Cervantes’ bestseller Don Quixote. Lewis Theobald was not a forger: his 1727 adaptation Double Falsehood does derive from Cardenio. With meticulous scholarship and cre- ative theatrical acumen the editors assemble a formidable case, and also tri- umphantly publish for the first time Taylor’s ‘unadaptation’ of The History of Cardenio.” —David Carnegie, Emeritus Professor FRSNZ, School of English, Film, Theatre, and Media Studies, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand; and co-editor of The
    [Show full text]
  • DVSNL Nov12highqual Corrected
    November 2012 What Malone Really Said De Vere Society Newsletter :KDW0DORQHUHDOO\VDLGDERXW6KDNHVSHDUH E\.HYLQ*LOYDU\ Edmond Malone (1741-–1812) is the scholar most cal account of Shakespeare’s works with some bio- credited with establishing the biography of ‘William graphical comments. Rowe treats biographical data Shakespeare. in about 1000 words, just under one-eighth of his Samuel Schoenbaum refers to him as “per- introductory essay, concerned almost entirely about haps the greatest of all Shakespearean scholars” his life in Stratford (up-bringing and retirement), and (1970, ix). Wells and Taylor describe him as “one of he offers few biographical data about Shakespeare in the greatest intellectuals of the English Enlighten- London despite some investigation on his own part. PHQWWKHPRVWWDOHQWHGDQGLQÁXHQWLDORIDOOVFKRODUV Later, Malone would dismiss Rowe’s Account as to have dedicated his energies to the explication of containing only ten biographical facts, of which eight Shakespeare’s life and work.” (1987, 55). His re- were false. cent biographer, Peter Martin, calls him a “scholar- Rowe’s Account was abridged and re-or- collector, editor, biographer, and critic”, referring to ganised by Alexander Pope in 1725, but without ac- his “heroic and obsessive” approach to his work and knowledgement. This Rowe-Pope version was fre- his “enormous contribution to Shakespeare studies” quently reprinted in the eighteenth century, appearing (1995, xv-–xvii). as a separate pamphlet in 1740 as a preface to the However, a careful reading of Malone’s collected works edited by Thomas Hanmer (1743), works reveals his own considerable scepticism re- William Warburton (1747), Samuel Johnson (1765) garding previously published assertions concern- and George Steevens (1773, 1778, 1785, 1793, 1803, ing Shakespeare’s life and writings.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Shakespeare's Hamlet'?
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE 遠藤：What do you mean by‘Shakespeare’s Hamlet’? What do you mean by‘Shakespeare’s Hamlet’? Hanako Endo ‘What do you mean by ‘Shakespeare’s Hamlet’?’1 is a question Edwards asks himself in his in- troduction to Hamlet. The similar question, ‘what does Hamlet mean?’2, is raised in the edition of Hamlet by Thompson and Taylor. Edwards’ answer is that the ideal text of Hamlet ‘does not exist in either of the two main authoritative texts, the second quarto and the Folio, but somewhere between them’,3 whereas Thompson and Taylor do not specify their answer, offering the wider view beyond editing texts. They state as follows: The question is of course impossible to answer in the space of this Introduction: we can only give some pointers towards current debates and hope that readers will also find sug- gestions in the reminder of the Introduction and in the commentary as to how modern performers and critics are interpreting the play, questioning or reaffirming old readings and finding new ones.4 Although the view of Thompson and Taylor is rather ambiguous and does not provide the editorial answer, Edwards and Thompson and Taylor acknowledge that Hamlet is obviously one of the most difficult plays to edit. This essay will venture to find what the text is or what the text should be for modern readers in order to solve the above question. It will give some examples of the problems of editing Hamlet but will also make a general comment on editing.
    [Show full text]