University of Alberta The Possible Worlds of Hamlet: Shakespeare as Adaptor, Adaptations of Shakespeare by Cindy Chopoidalo A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Comparative Literature Program, Interdisciplinary Studies ©Cindy Dawn Louise Chopoidalo Fall 2009 Edmonton, Alberta Permission is hereby granted to the University of Alberta Libraries to reproduce single copies of this thesis and to lend or sell such copies for private, scholarly or scientific research purposes only. Where the thesis is converted to, or otherwise made available in digital form, the University of Alberta will advise potential users of the thesis of these terms. The author reserves all other publication and other rights in association with the copyright in the thesis and, except as herein before provided, neither the thesis nor any substantial portion thereof may be printed or otherwise reproduced in any material form whatsoever without the author's prior written permission. Examining Committee Jonathan Hart, Comparative Literature / English & Film Studies Gary Kelly, Comparative Literature / English & Film Studies Massimo Verdicchio, Comparative Literature / Modern Languages & Cultural Studies Irene Sywenky, Comparative Literature / Modern Languages & Cultural Studies David Gay, English & Film Studies Troni Grande, English, University of Regina Though this be madness, yet there is method in’t. (Hamlet II.ii. 205-206) Abstract Adaptation has been an important part of the appreciation and study of Shakespeare’s plays from the beginning. As was usual for playwrights of his time, Shakespeare adapted the majority of his writings from other literary and/or historical works; and in the centuries since, other writers have used his texts as inspiration for their own. Examining adaptations of literary works in relation to their ‘original’ source texts, to their performance/printing history, to each other, and to the world(s) of authors and readers allows us to explore the relationships of textual worlds to the actual worlds in which those texts are produced and read/seen/listened to, and the intertextual relationships between the worlds of the original work and an adaptation of that work into a new text. As Shakespeare’s best-known and most written-about text, indeed one of the world’s most studied texts, Hamlet has inspired countless interpretations and adaptations by artists and writers the world over. These adaptations are worthy of study in their own right, both as transformations of Shakespeare’s original text and as distinct literary works themselves. At the same time, Hamlet is itself an adaptation, what William F. Hansen describes as “a revision of a dramatic treatment...of a retelling...of a literary treatment...of a Scandinavian legend” (67). This dissertation examines Shakespeare’s Hamlet as an adaptation of its historical and literary source texts, alongside a representative sample of texts, in English, French, and Spanish, which use Hamlet as their source texts. The theoretical basis for this study is possible/fictional-worlds theory, as outlined in Lubomír Doležel’s Heterocosmica, especially the taxonomy of adaptations presented in its closing chapter. A similar taxonomy of adaptations put forth by Douglas Lanier in Shakespeare and Modern Popular Culture is also used. The dissertation begins with an overview of possible/fictional-worlds theory and its use in the study of adaptations. It then discusses the source texts of Hamlet and the use Shakespeare made of them in his play. This is followed by a comparison of four translations in French and Spanish, as well as texts which present counterparts of the plot and/or characters of the play. Acknowledgements First of all, to my family, for your love and support, even during the most difficult times. To Jonathan L. Hart, truly the best of all possible supervisors. Thanks for helping me develop a love for all things Shakespearean over the past fifteen years. I hope I will someday be as much of an inspiration to my own students as you have been to me. To Uri Margolin, who introduced me to possible-worlds theory and suggested the idea for this thesis. To Irene Sywenky, for support and encouragement in teaching and editing. To the members of my defence committee: Gary Kelly, Massimo Verdicchio, and Troni Grande. Thanks for the kind words and helpful questions and comments. To Claudine Potvin and Julian Martin for your contributions on my candidacy committee. To the directors, actors, designers, and organizers of the various productions of Hamlet and related plays I attended during the composition of this thesis. To Brahma and Nandini Chaudhuri for providing me with experience in the academic environment. Special thanks for the earliest root of this thesis: the Hamlet essay in English 101, 1992-93. To Barbra Churchill and Paul Campbell for the guest-lecture opportunities (and everything else); and to Mike Perschon for agreeing to guest-lecture for me. To the students of Comparative Literature 342. Thanks also to SubSpace for inspiration. I cannot resist mentioning here: “To be or not to be; that is the question… The answer is 42.” To the graduate students whose works I edited: Uzma Qazi, Asma Sayed, Guo Rong, Xinhui Liu, Lidiane da Cunha, Kazuko Masumitsu, Andrei Zlatescu, and Khalida Tanvir Syed. The experiences and suggestions are very much appreciated. To my professors and fellow students of Linguistics (1992-96), English (1996-2000), and Comparative Literature (2004-09), too many to mention here. To the University of Alberta Library, especially the Interlibrary Loan Department. To Greenwood’s Bookshoppe for assistance in obtaining some of my source texts. To the organizers and attendees at the various conferences at which portions of this thesis were originally presented. Special thanks to the Canadian Comparative Literature Association. To the guest lecturers and conference presenters who provided inspiration for some of my own academic work, especially J. Hillis Miller, Hans Bertens, and Marjorie Garber. To the Government of Alberta for the Profiling Alberta’s Graduate Students Award, and to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research for the Queen Elizabeth II Doctoral Scholarship. To Janey Kennedy, Barb Heagle, Sheila Troppmann, Hiroko Ono-Paul, and everyone at the Office of Interdisciplinary Studies. To Dr. Dobrofsky and the staff of the University Health Centre. To the Creative Writing Club at Archbishop MacDonald High School, 1989-92, for early inspiration, especially our 1990-91 and 1991-92 anthologies: Here the Poor Wretch Comes Reading and The Abstract and Brief Chronicles of the Time. In memory of Milan V. Dimic, John Orrell, and Terry Butler. And to everyone I have not otherwise named who contributed to the making of this project. Cindy Chopoidalo Edmonton, Alberta, Canada August 2009 Table of Contents I. Abstract iv. II. Acknowledgements vi. III. Introduction 1. IV. Chapter One: Possible Worlds and Fictional Worlds 13. 1. The Atomists 15. 2. Descartes, Leibniz, and Early Fictional-World Theories 17. 3. Kripke: Modal Logic and Naming 21. 4. Lewis: Truth and Fiction, Counterpart Theory, and Modal Realism 27. 5. Fictionality and Intertextuality 32. 6. Doležel and Lanier: Classifying Adaptations 39. V. Chapter Two: Shakespeare as Adaptor: The Case of Hamlet 47. 1. The Historical and Literary Backgrounds of the Play 48. 2. Saxo Grammaticus’ Historiae Danicae 52. 3. Belleforest’s Histoires Tragiques 66. 4. The Revenge Tragedy, The Spanish Tragedy, and Hamlet 72. 5. Hamlet and Shakespeare’s Contemporary History 82. VI. Chapter Three: Translations and/as Adaptations 93. 1. The Possible Worlds of Translation 94. 2. Ducis and Moratín: Early Translations 96. 3. Gurik and Mayer: (Post)Modern Translations 107. VII. Chapter Four: Expansions: Hamlet Without the Prince 118. i. Hamlet Before the Prince: Claudius, Gertrude, and King Hamlet as Main Characters 120. ii. He Has My Dying Voice: Fortinbras and Horatio as Main Characters 152. iii. Revising Ophelia: Ophelia as a Main Character 170. iv. Minor Characters in Hamlet, Major Characters in Adaptations 192. 2. Chapter Five: Hamlet in His Postmodern Guises 209. i. Transpositions of Hamlet 210. ii. Hamlet, Thy Name is Woman: Gender and Hamlet Adaptations 226. iii. Hamlet and Possible-Worlds Fantasy 240. VIII. Chapter Six: Hamlet in Art: Visual and Literary Possibilities 262. IX. Conclusion 276. X. Notes 283. XI. Works Consulted 291. The Possible Worlds of Hamlet: Shakespeare as Adaptor, Adaptations of Shakespeare Introduction The processes of adaptation, whether in creating a play from a narrative source text, preparing a play text for performance, translating a text from one language to another, altering a text from one culture to fit better with another culture’s literary conventions, or creating a new text as a reply to an earlier one, permeate virtually every aspect of the study of Shakespeare’s plays and their reception by audiences and readers from the time of their first performances to the present day. However, critical analysis of and responses to the various ways in which Shakespeare’s works have been adapted for contemporary audiences and readers, as well as how these works were themselves adapted from existing materials, have historically been mixed. Thanks in part to the concepts of literary originality and genius that originated in the Romantic period and are still very much with us today, a prevailing tendency among many discussions of adaptations, especially of Shakespearean adaptations, has been to view adaptations as adulterations, as something ‘less’ than the original, for as Susan Bassnett notes, “In the case of Shakespeare...there is a strong belief that his works should not be tampered with” (“Engendering Anew” 57) but should be revered as works of ‘high art’ that exist above and beyond the specific needs of the audience/ readership. Especially in the academic environment, adaptations have traditionally been dismissed in favour of originals, and especially so in the case of literary texts which have inspired non-print adaptations.