Talk:Hamlet/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

What Happens in Hamlet

What Happens in Hamlet byJ. Dover Wilson, is about the plot, including the implicit off-stage action and the staging; it should be consulted and cited. That is the meaning of the {{expand}} tag. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

We could probably use some Dover Wilson here, but normally it would be in the critical interpretation section of the article, not the plot section. Wilson goes over not just the plot, but also how Shakespeare puts together the plot, the story structure, etc. I agree with you, but have removed the tag from the plot section of the article.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

True, but he is also a secondary source for the plot description, which is (as he makes clear) controversial at points. I'm fine about the tag; its sole purpose is to attract attention, like yours. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

"murder and unfaithfulness, that is so outside normal Christian moral guidelines"

Well, fair enough, but in the context of Horatio's and Hamlet's differing worldviews a stronger source than one the "result of meticulous and hard work by our volunteers" is required: see WP:USERGENERATED for more. Tagged. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed by User:WickerGuy—thanks--Old Moonraker (talk) 10:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

MST3K

Good day everyone; I've noticed that this page has no reference to the MST3K episode from season 10 in which Mike and the bots riff on a German TV version that is dubbed into English (I know, not necessarily the respect the immortal bard deserves.) I also found it interesting that there is no mention of the German television version on the page as well. I just think would be a culturally significant addition to the page, even it's a brief footnote. Also, Mike describes the famous soliloquy, more accurately "to be or not to be ..." as the verbal equivalent to "dun dun dun dun" (Beethoven's 5th Symphony, first movement.) Since most people are probably looking to this page for information regarding the play and characters and not the pop culture references that is known from MST3K episodes and riffs, I'm not sure if it is suitable for this entry. Any thoughts folks? 173.35.94.75 (talk) 01:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

For anyone reading not familiar with the acronym, MST3K is Mystery Science Theatre 3000.

Pop culture references to the main subject of an article generally require a secondary source to establish a broader cultural significance and noteworthyness. See Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content for more info. Occasionally, stuff like this is broken off into a separate article. Pop culture references to Hamlet abound, and one must be selective.

I myself am very fond of the "Hamlet" spoof in the Arnold Schwarzenegger comedy The Last Action Hero but you usually need these things to have been discussed by at least one prominent cultural commentator and/or critic to get them included in Wikipedia.--WickerGuy (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Edits by user:Rpeate

Rpeaste added the following text:

In 1949 Richard Flatter published Hamlet's Father (Yale University Press), in which he outlines Hamlet's dilemma: his father's Ghost imposes an impossible circumstance upon Prince Hamlet, instructing him to take revenge without harming his mother, Queen Gertrude. This is of course impossible: to expose his uncle, Claudius, is to bring shame and dishonor upon Gertrude. Only when Gertrude is dead can Hamlet take action; the moment she dies he does so, freed of the dilemma caused by the injunction against harming his mother.

This theory is presented as fact, even though the text of the play provides no explicit support for it (indeed Hamlet says he does not know why the deed is not yet done, and gives quite different reasons for his refusal to kill Claudius while he is praying). Is there any evidence that this is a notable theory? Much discussed? Paul B (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Book's thesis seems to be that Hamlet is unsure of Gertrude's level of complicity. ON cursory glance, I believe the WP editor may have not quite given a complete or balanced presentation of book's thesis.

The book got a fairly negative review in Shakespeare Quarterly in 1951 citing exactly the problems you cite. It is described in a footnote as "unusual" in "Some necessary questions of the play" by Robert Wood 1994 and is discussed in a more flattering way in a footnote in 1981 "Man's estate: masculine identity in Shakespeare" By Coppélia Kahn. The book is briefly alluded to in a footnote re early cuts to the play in "Hamlet and Revenge" by Eleanor Prosser. Also footnoted in 2004 "Shakespeare's tragedies" by Emma Smith and footnoted a bit disparagingly in both "Suffocating mothers: fantasies of maternal origin in Shakespeare's plays" by Janet Adelman (1994) and Mutability and division on Shakespeare's stage by Yu Jin Ko 2004. Discussed in the main body of "Essays on Shakespeare" by William Empson, (editied by David Pirie) on p. 110

Hope this helps.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow that's quick research! Paul B (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Google books to the rescue.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Lede revisions

I have revised the lede to more closely conform to the order of the topics as presented in the article itself. Only two elements are now out of order, the performance history and influence, and that is because it would be awkward to separate them from the critical reception in the second graf. While I was at it I also streamlined the prose, which has always seemed to be choppy and awkward to me. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Madness

Why does Hamlet pretend to be mad? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.24.43.97 (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Blue Apple's Hamlet

Hi! I was wondering if it would be appropriate to put a brief mention, presumably in C21st Performance History, of the May 2012 touring production by Blue Apple Theatre that was notable for the historical first of starring an actor with Down's Syndrome...? (82.17.99.223 (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC))

Good-faith addition already deleted once as WP:RECENT. There are many, many stagings of this popular and important work and only the very significant (with reference to the play itself, not other topics) should be included here. This might be a better fit at Down syndrome#Society and culture. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Philosophy

'To be or not to be' is existentialist only if "to be" is "to take arms" and "not to be" is "to suffer" which is at best arguable since it reverses the order of expression in the speech and uncomfortably juxtaposes the 'being' side of the equation with "to die". There is also the anachronism of attributing a 20th century philosophy to a Shakespeare character. Also, article asserts that in 'To be or not to be' Hamlet believes we exist after death, also highly debatable because Hamlet says "perchance to dream" and "what dreams may come", that we "dread" things in death we "know not of" and that death is "undiscovered" (unrevealed) - in other words he specifically doesn't know what follows death. Pertin1x (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

While there are critics who see an existentialist philosophy in Hamlet, this ought to be attributed to a secondary source as a matter of critical opinion, rather than just making the flat-out assertion that "2B||~2B" IS existentialist, and only citing the text of Hamlet as a source as the article currently does. It is however OK to attribute a 20th century philosophy to a 16th century character if that is really their opinion. After all the term "existentialism" was coined long after the death of Soren Kierkegaard (another "melancholy Dane"), but everyone regards him as a (proto-)existentialist. The label is 20th century- the thinking is not necessarily entirely so.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

If your first point is right (and I agree with it) your second point is outside the scope of the article. Attribute the existentialism claim to someone else and let them justify it. For the record, though, I don't mean the label, I mean the way of thinking was not available. Kierkegaard was being explicitly original; Shakespeare was a popular playwright whose audience had no bearings for the identification of 'being' with 'doing'. It took Sartre whole books - how's Hamlet going to get away with it in a line? So technically you're right, he could be anticipating existentialism but it's vanishingly improbable. Pertin1x (talk) 06:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Also (back to the article): in what way was scepticism "prevalent" in Renaissance humanism? Humanism says man is great because of his reason, skepticism says the opposite. "What a piece of work is a man" is humanist but not at all what Montaigne thought unless you think Hamlet is being sarcastic. Pertin1x (talk) 09:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Re skepticism, the source cited in the article is MacCary, W. Thomas. 1998. "Hamlet": A Guide to the Play. Greenwood Guides to Shakespeare ser. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. so it would be interesting to see what that source says about it.

The older classical meaning of skepticism is the claim you cannot justify any truth old all. Montaigne was largely skeptical of classical philosophy especially medieval scholasticism. But this is compatible with Renaissance humanism insofar as the latter was focused on the practical/pragmatic and scientific approach to life. Both Renaissance humanism and skepticism are critical of medieval scholasticism. The skeptic talks of the limits of reason, whereas humanism is more focused on the proper use of reason, but the two are often seen as interrelated and closely associated points of view. Montaigne also celebrated the joy of living. the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ranks Montaigne as (partially) a humanist, insofar as "As a humanist, he considered that one has to assimilate the classics, but above all to display virtue, “according to the opinion of Plato, who says that steadfastness, faith, and sincerity are real philosophy, and the other sciences which aim at other things are only powder and rouge.”"

The Encyclopedia Britannica says of Montaigne

This self, with all its imperfections, constitutes the only possible site where the search for truth can start, and it is the reason Montaigne, from the beginning to the end of the Essays, does not cease to affirm that “I am myself the matter of my book.” He finds that his identity, his “master form” as he calls it, cannot be defined in simple terms of a constant and stable self, since it is instead a changeable and fragmented thing, and that the valorization and acceptance of these traits is the only guarantee of authenticity and integrity, the only way of remaining faithful to the truth of one's being and one's nature rather than to alien semblances.

But Ralph Waldo Emerson saw this element of Montaigne's philosophy as in a sense "humanistic" (though Emerson did not use that term) in this (excessively verbose) excerpt from his essay "Montaigne or the Skeptic" illustrates

The philosophy we want is one of fluxions and mobility. The Spartan and Stoic schemes are too stark and stiff for our occasion. A theory of Saint John, and of nonresistance, seems, on the other hand, too thin and aerial. We want some coat woven of elastic steel, stout as the first, and limber as the second. We want a ship in these billows we inhabit. An angular, dogmatic house would be rent to chips and splinters, in this storm of many elements. No, it must be tight, and fit to the form of man, to live at all; as a shell is the architecture of a house founded on the sea. The soul of man must be the type of our scheme, just as the body of man is the type after which a dwelling-house is built. Adaptiveness is the peculiarity of human nature. We are golden averages, volitant stabilities, compensated or periodic errors, houses founded on the sea. The wise skeptic wishes to have a near view of the best game, and the chief players; what is best in the planet; art and nature, places and events, but mainly men.

Re existentialism. Hamlet's speech overtly connects life with action and death with non-action. That seems fairly existentialist to me.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

More broadly, existentialism is concerned with achieving authenticity in the face of deep emotions of anxiety and dread. There is surely an element of this in Hamlet.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, disentangle: Montaigne was humanist in the sense of one who studies the humanities but not in the sense that being human is great. His skepticism is compatible with the first but opposes the second. That's the one I mean. He specifically agrees with skepticism (actually Pyrrhonism) that man is too proud in his rationality and too fond of himself altogether (check out Hiram Haydn, Counter-Renaissance), so as I say, unless it is sarcastic 'What a piece of work' is the opposite of what Montaigne thinks.

On existentialism, see the first comment in this section: identifying 'To be' with 'to take arms' is textually awkward and at best a theory. Authenticity and dread are how post Sartreans may describe what's going on in Hamlet but to attribute those concepts to Shakespeare in any technical sense is just implausible. Yes, you could argue "elements" of existentialism are prefigured in Hamlet but not that it is existentialist. Pertin1x (talk) 08:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Humanism celebrates and focuses upon man, but doesn't necessarily exalt her/him or claim that humans are innately great. This is actually a claim more frequently made by enemies of humanism- its philosophical opponents - rather than by actual humanists!!! It is true, that humanism tends to reject stronger versions of the Christian notion of original sin, and the contrasting postulate of innate goodness of human nature is found in Jean-Jacques Rousseau who is often claimed by humanists, but the Rousseau-ian position is by no means universal to humanism. Humanism is mainly dedicated to rejecting authoritarianism and dogma, especially if the latter advocates life-styles perceived as morbid such as Puritanism. Humanism is especially skeptical of religious claims and as such the rejection of Christian original sin and its skeptical bent go very much hand in hand.

Pyrrhonism is somewhat connected with the rise of scientific method in the 17th century. There are several forms of philosophical skepticism, and there is a difference between Pyrrhonian Skepticism and Academic Skepticism. Basic to modern science (according to modern philosopher Karl Popper) is fallibilism which is a kind of modernized form of Pyrrhonism.

The concept of authenticity and dread pervades the writings of Soren Kierkegaard who lived roughly a century before Jean-Paul Sartre. I don't know if I would identify "to be" with take arms as with just simply to act!! An existentialist reading of Hamlet is elaborated at some length in the book The Heidegger-Buber controversy: the status of the I-Thou by Hayim Gordon in Chapter 3. It is Hamlet's resolve in "How all occasions do inform against me" that is seen as most especially existentialist, rather than 2B||~2b.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Put a bit differently, the humanist philosophy (both Renaissance and modern) is to center one's attention on man as exemplified in (18th century) poet Alexander Pope's line "Presume not God to scan/The proper study of man is man". This line unites both the sceptical motif and the human-focuses motif of humanism quite well. Seen in a properly nuanced way, the two philosophies are complementary not contradictory.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

"Humanism" is obviously slippery; Wiki says so. I think Pico-style human optimism is how most people understand the Renaissance movement (otherwise why call the Oration its manifesto?) and that's based on our possession of Reason. Skepticism/Pyrrhonism specifically decries reason as instrumental in our loss of ataraxia so the claim that skepticism is "prevalent in Renaissance humanism" jars. At any rate, "What a piece of work" (unless sarcastic) is practically a credo for Pico-humanism and therefore opposite to Pyrrhonist-Montaigne. I don't know what's peculiarly existentialist about "How all occasions" but the article claims "To be" as best exemplar of E-ism in Hamlet which requires "To be"="Take arms" (i.e. what you say: to act, not be passive) and I think that's a strained reading of the speech. Pertin1x (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep, Renaissance humanism emphasised studia humanitatis, what we now call humanities, stressing the cultivation of good character. And Pico della Mirandola's Oration on the Dignity of Man has indeed been called the manifesto of the Renaissance. Montaigne as the father of modern skepticism stands a bit at odds with Mirandola's thesis. Montaigne's influence has been detected by other scholars in both Hamlet and King Lear and perhaps Hamlet is in some ways reflective of the tension between Pico's point of view and Montaigne's. Pico is a product of a humanistic education, but Pico defended what he regarded as the best of medieval philosophy against humanist attacks. For this reason, Pico is sometimes called "Prince of Harmony". Pico's point of view has been described a "humanist syncretism" because he tries to combine both elements of humanism with some of the supernaturalist metaphysics of NeoPlatonism, which stricter forms of humanism often rejected. Pico is as much a Renaissance Neo-Platonist, which some would call a school of Renaissance humanism. Montaigne was born almost 40 years after Pico's death and by then I would think there would be a stronger trend to identifying the humanist impulse as being at odds with neo-Platonic thought, as the latter would be regarded as speculative and it was precisely metaphysical speculation that humanism had a growing tendency to avoid. Hamlet's first Quarto was published 8 years after the death of Montaigne who in turn was at the peak of his career almost a century after Pico. I think what happened is the humanist movement had adopted an increasingly skeptical, anti-speculative-metaphysics bent, and part of what you are seeing in Hamlet is the tension between two forms of "humanism".--WickerGuy (talk) 01:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The following four passages, two on Pico and two on Montaigne from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy online may clarify some matters

Before he left, at the age of twenty-two, he [Pico] had made his first important contribution to philosophy—a defense of the technical terminology which since Petrarch's time had incited humanist critics of philosophy to attack scholastic Latin as a barbaric violation of classical norms.

The most conspicuous pages of the Oration, celebrated by Garin and many others as the humanist charter of human freedom and dignity, are just the first few. Assured by them that we can be what we want to be, we are then told—contrary to the usual interpretation of the Oration—that what we must be is not human at all [but angelic]

The article generally hints that Pico became percieved as a champion of humanism in the 19th century but this may not be accurate.

As a humanist, Montaigne conceived of philosophy as morals. In the chapter “On the education of children”,[10] education is identified with philosophy, this being understood as the formation of judgment and manners in everyday life: “for philosophy, which, as the molder of judgment and conduct, will be his principal lesson, has the privilege of being everywhere at home”.[11] Philosophy, which exerts itself essentially by the use of judgment, is significant to the very ordinary, varied and ‘undulating’[12] process of life. In fact, under the guise of innocuous anecdotes, Montaigne achieved the humanist revolution in philosophy. He moved from a conception of philosophy conceived of as theoretical science, to a philosophy conceived of as the practice of free judgment.

We find two readings of Montaigne as a Sceptic. The first one concentrates on the polemical, negative arguments drawn from Sextus Empiricus, at the end of the ‘Apology’. This hard-line scepticism draws the picture of man as “humiliated”.[33] Its aim is essentially to fight the pretensions of reason and to annihilate human knowledge. “Truth”, “being” and “justice” are equally dismissed as unattainable. Doubt foreshadows Descartes' Meditations, on the problem of the reality of the outside world. Dismissing the objective value of one's representations, Montaigne would have created the long-lasting problem of ‘solipsism’....The second reading of his scepticism puts forth that Cicero's probabilism [we can know something is probably true] is of far greater significance in shaping the sceptical content of the Essays. After the 1570's, Montaigne no longer read Sextus; additions show, however, that he took up a more and more extensive reading of Cicero's philosophical writings. We assume that, in his search for polemical arguments against rationalism during the 1570's, Montaigne borrowed much from Sextus, but as he got tired of the sceptical machinery, and understood scepticism rather as an ethics of judgment, he went back to Cicero.[34] The paramount importance of the Academica for XVIth century thought has been underlined by Charles B. Schmitt. In the free enquiry, which Cicero engaged throughout the varied doctrines, the humanists found an ideal mirror of their own relationship with the Classics. “The Academy, of which I am a follower, gives me the opportunity to hold an opinion as if it were ours, as soon as it shows itself to be highly probable”[35]

I don't think any of that contradicts the initial suggestion that for wiki digestion scepticism can't reasonably be claimed to be "prevalent" in Renaissance humanism, "To be" can't easily be said to be existentialist (which you agreed) and "What a piece of work" does not express a Montaignean view. In fact your sentence "Hamlet is in some ways reflective of the tension between Pico's point of view and Montaigne's" is in my view spot on: check out Knowles, he's not far off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pertin1x (talk • contribs) 11:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

You're so right. I lost track of the fact we are talking about the article.--WickerGuy (talk) 13:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice chat tho'Pertin1x (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I've modified the existentialism thing and removed the claim about his contemplation of suicide being religious - see thread above about the speech specifically stating ignorance of what if anything follows death.Pertin1x (talk) 10:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we bring the authorship question to this discussion. You miss a lot about the plays if you think a provincial thug wrote them. It has been more than demonstrated that Edward de Vere was probably the author of this play--not Will Shaksper. Makes no sense to me why intelligent people cling to the fraud of Shakspere from Stratford upon Avon. Time to move forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.223.41 (talk) 01:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Authorship has been discussed at length before, please refer to the archive for the full record. Mediatech492 (talk) 01:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Americans

Odd that the photos in the article are mainly Americans. Far be it from me to suggest that Wikipedia has an American bias, but it's worth remembering that Hamlet was written by an Englishman. ...Historically there are (naturally) many more eminent English / British men that have played the character: for example: Richard Burton, Kenneth Branagh, Sir Laurence Olivier, Richard Burbage, Sir Henry Irving, Sir Ian McKellen, Sir John Gielgud, Sir Derek Jacobi... There's more information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamlet_in_performance 86.173.54.60 (talk) 15:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Credit where Credit is Due

"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.' " I find it remarkable that the writer cites Ms. Kiernan's rather obvious restatement - I don't say plagiarism - of a work published three quarters of a century earlier. I speak of course of [Empson]'s Seven Types of Ambiguity, and other of his writings which, to quote Wiki itself, "unearth layer upon layer of irony, suggestion, and argumentation in various literary works—a technique of textual criticism so influential that often Empson's contributions to certain domains of literary scholarship remain significant, though they may no longer be recognized as his." Orthotox (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Kiernan is the cited source. All the text does is use her name because her words are being quoted. There is no "plagiarism" involved. There is no claim that Kiernan was the first person to draw attention to ambiguity in poetic language, or even that Hamlet's thoughts are fragmented. She is just the authority being quoted to make that particular point. If you can find a relevant passage in Empson, then quote it, though I don't think he ever says quite the same thing. Paul B (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

What is the source of Aeneas' speech in Act II Scene II?

I assume the speech, recited by Hamlet and the first player, is from Virgil's Aeneid, but from which book and which lines is the speech taken? Is it known whose English translation is being used? Could it be Shakespeare's own translation? Bootboy41 (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it's written by Shakespeare. It's generally taken to be a pastiche of the overwrought bombast typical of Christopher Marlowe, especially the description of the fall of Troy in his play Dido, Queen of Carthage. It's a kind of affectionate parody, stressing how exciting this kind of dramatic rhetoric seemed to the young Hamlet when he first heard it. Obviously, to an extent it does trace back to the Aeneid, since that was the model-text all schoolboys of the era would have learned, and which Marlowe himself mimics. Paul B (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough and informative reply. I think it would be good to add this information to the section on Sources. Do you have a reference for the idea that this passage is a parady of Christopher Marlowe? Bootboy41 (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Maurice Charney's Marlowe and Shakespeare's African Queens discusses this in depth, as does Clare Harraway in Re-Citing Marlowe. Critics differ over the degree to which it is a parody, a tribute or both. Robert Logan's just-published Shakespeare's Marlowe: The Influence of Christopher Marlowe on Shakespeare's Artistry has a detailed discussion. You can access it on Google books [1]. Some other discussions: [2] [3] Paul B (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you again. I can see by skimming Logan's book that there is enough material on the relationship between Shakespeare and Marlowe to fill a seperate section or even an entire article. I haven't enough interest in the subject to write such a section, but I hope someone else will. Bootboy41 (talk) 12:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Plot summary

I just reverted the plot summary back to what it was in January 2008 when this article went through FAC. The version of the plot summary that was here before I did that was far too long and full of unnecessary details, such as stage directions indicating when ancillary characters enter and exit (someone wanting to know the general plot of the play does not need to know when various sentinels enter and exit before the plot even begins; a plot synopsis is not meant to be a point-by-point recap of every scene that happens). It was also full of quotations from the play, which is unnecessary (for example, saying that Hamlet feels remorse over killing Polonius does not need to be supplemented by quoting "I repent: but heaven hath pleased it so"). All in all, it read more like an homage to Hamlet than an actual plot summary. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree 100%. Markhh (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction states that "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"; while Gesta Danorum would indeed have been available, there is no conclusive evidence that Shakespeare had a copy in his possession nor that he read one. I therefore suggest an emendation in the introduction to the following effect: "It has been theorized that Hamlet is based 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". This structure removes assumptions regarding authorial intent.Cfsibley (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

How can hamlet top the RSC's performance tally since 1879 if RSC was only formed in 1961?Pertin1x (talk) 09:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The RSC was originally known as the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre, which began presenting plays in 1879. (I looked it up on Wikipedia!) Cheers, Markhh (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

That's the RST, not the RSC. One's a building, the other's a production company.86.26.237.225 (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Not really. If you are interested go to the RSC website for a summary of its history. Markhh (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't say the RSC was ever known as SMT, nor does wiki. Look it's simple: the claim is unclear because the RSC didn't exist in 1879.Pertin1x (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Read this: http://www.rsc.org.uk/about-us/history/ And this: http://www.rsc.org.uk/about-us/history/performance-database.aspx Also this: http://calm.shakespeare.org.uk/dserve/dserve.exe?dsqserver=srv-ex1&dsqApp=Archive&dsqDb=Catalog&dsqCmd=SearchRSC.tcl The RSC, though not known in its present form and by that name until 1961, clearly traces its history to when the SMT was established in 1875 and started performances in 1879. The RSC's performance database dates back to 1879. Which is why the claim about the number of Hamlet productions can be made dating to that time. Cheers, Markhh (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

That database says it's of performances by RSC "and its predecessors in Stratford-upon-Avon", i.e. anyone who performed in Stratford since there was a theatre there, or by the RSC wherever it went. The same phrase would clarify the wiki claim.Pertin1x (talk) 06:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Folio only passages

Hi. I corrected the linenumber according to Ard³ [4]. Thompson and Taylor says there are 77 lines added and they cite four passages. But there are Diffferences in the literature. Edwards says, that in F1 five new passages are added, totalling 83 lines. (NCS pg 9.) The solution of the riddle is, that Thompson and Taylor in Appendix 1 are only quoting passages wich are longer than three lines. Indeed there are about 20 small additions wich may summ up to 6-8 lines. Any idea how to find the best number or a proper formulation in the Article. Greetings -- Andreas Werle (talk) 08:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

mousetrap

I have not gone through history or archives, but should not the word "mousetrap" be in this article somewhere? Fotoguzzi (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Maxine Peake

It's arguable for sure, but I think she can be listed as the notability of her performance derives from the fact that she's female - not new, of course, famously Sarah Bernhardt took the role - but it has been widely discussed. I don't feel strongly about it, as there is a danger that other actors will be added and the list will become bloated. Paul B (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I see that Angela Winkler is already there - presumably solely because she is female. Maybe she and Peake should both be mentioned in a separate sentence, since this is partly a revival of the Bernhardt-period star worship, but partly about changing attitudes to gender. Though, if her article is correct, since Winkler appears to have played the role in 1999, she really shouldn't be in the 21st century section. Paul B (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Lion King

The Lion King is clearly a version of Hamlet, albeit with a Bowdlerized ending which sees Orphelia (Nala), Polonius (Rafiki), and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern (Pumba and Timon) rally together and so survive. Should this not be mentioned somewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.147.149 (talk) 11:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It's discussed in the linked page Hamlet on screen. Paul B (talk) 11:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Psychoanalytic

This section is turning into a mess. The last three paragraphs ought to be very much condensed or even completely deleted as they provide detailed accounts of individual scholars' theories that are not appropriate here. The final paragraph, now readded by Kyriou after my reversion, sounds a lot like WP:OR and needs to go entirely. agtx 05:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

It's cited to a youtube clip. That should see it off for starters. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Leading Tragedian?

The article says, "He [Shakespeare] almost certainly created the title role for Richard Burbage, the leading tragedian of Shakespeare's time." However, the article on Edward Alleyn says "He was rated by common consent as the foremost actor of his time; his only close rival was Richard Burbage." The inconsistency is obvious. So I suggest a change in the Hamlet article language, replacing "the leading tragedian..." with "the leading actor of Shakespeare's company the Lord Chamberlain's Men, later the King's Men." I'll go ahead and make the change, since I do think it needs to be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.136.212 (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. I disagree with this change. That Alleyn is "the foremost actor" is not necessarily in conflict with Burbage being "the leading tragedian" ("tragedians" are a subset of "actors"). Furthermore, the text in this article is quadruply cited (to Taylor, Banham, Hattaway, and Thomson), while the relevant part of Alleyn's article is cited to internetshakespeare.uvic.ca (which, while not a poor source per se, must be given less weight relatively speaking).

Further, I find the related prose changes to be needlessly complicating (the new information brings little added value, but at steep cost to prose quality).

I am therefore going to revert your entire edit. --Xover (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Opera adaptations

It seems odd to me that this article makes no mention of opera adaptations of the play, a topic covered thoroughly in many other Shakespear play articles on wikipedia. There should at least be a mention of Ambroise Thomas's Hamlet in this article which undoubtedly the most important opera adaptation. Several other composers have adapted the play. Please see here for other examples. 4meter4 (talk) 02:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Deterioration of the References section

I just quickly scanned the References section and note quite a bit of deterioration in the form of references to bare URLs, footnotes with the whole citation in the note (instead of Author Date), and some that at least superficially appear to be to very low quality sources. I've added a cleanup of this to my todo list and when I get around to it I plan to not just fix these but also backtrack the relevant refs back to the main body text and prune mercilessly where I think there is correlation between poor sourcing and poor additions to the article. You may consider this fair warning. :-)
While I'm at it I may (not sure yet, it's a big job and may not be worth it) also convert everything over to citation templates to ensure consistent formatting and enabling structured metadata (most likely using {{sfn}}, {{efn}}, {{reflist}}, and {{notelist}}).
Comments or objections would be most welcome, but preferably before I start work on it so I don't waste my time. It'll probably be at least a couple of weeks (and I'm apt to be distracted, so may well be longer), but please do share your comments sooner rather than later so that we have time to reach a proper consensus. I know most of the regular editors in the Shakespeare project don't check this talk page very frequently so I like to leave plenty of time for interested editors to be able to comment. --Xover (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Video game mention

If this is going to be categorized under "Plays adapted into video games", wouldn't it be worth mentioning the video game somewhere?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamlet_(video_game) Rampage470 (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Salvageable bit from Philosophy?

I've removed the following bit from the Philosophical section.

Text moved from Philosophical section

Nevertheless, if the sentence is analysed in the textual context it is easy to understand how Hamlet was being sarcastic: "Man delights not me", he concludes. Amaral argues that this is the result of melancholy. This condition was a main subject of philosophy in this epoch. After a period of confidence in reason's ability to unveil reality (Renaissance), 'Mannerism' started questioning its power. Hamlet shows traces of this. In this sense, Hamlet is not feigning madness, but he is indeed trapped between the world everybody expects him to see (the lies told by Claudius and accepted by all, i.e. social decorum) and the world revealed to him by knowledge (the reality of the murdering, as testified by his father's ghost). This condition of being trapped between two different ways of seeing reality was also pictured by Shakespeare's contemporary Cervantes, in Don Quixote. This profound meditation was examined by the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer in The World as Will and Representation. Schopenhauer uses Hamlet to clarify his main argument. He argues that the world as we see it is a conjunction of representations. These representations are formed by the projection of our will towards the world. We can only see objects of our desires. In this sense he argues that only art could show us that reality is such a construct. Exactly as Hamlet did: "If the whole world as representation is only the visibility of the will, then art is the elucidation of this visibility, the camera obscura which shows the objects more purely, and enables us to survey and comprehend them better. It is the play within the play, the stage on the stage in Hamlet." In his openness to embrace the ghost's message, Hamlet assuages Horatio's wonderment with the analytical assertion, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." References

I can't make heads not tails of the text, and it is in any case in dire need of copy-editing, and the two cites are suboptimal (one looks like someone's dissertation, in Portugese I think, and the other looks like a pretty blatant copyvio). Anyways, I've removed it from the article but I'm leaving it here in case someone feels like having a go at salvaging it. --Xover (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Featured article that lacks vital information

I haven't read it all through. Though the lead and a brief overview. But I think the standard for Featured article is not quite met here, currently. Worst is that it isn't stated where this play unfolds, according to the great author himself. (Kronborg Palace at Elsinore or Helsingør, where the Sound Dues was to be paid for sailing through Øresund for centuries. (some 45 km north of Copenhagen, certainly not a "17th Century suburb".) Also - a featured article should have a lead that covers the main body of the article, it shall be a summary of the article. All inline references are to be put in the article, and not in the lead. (This becomes obvious logic if following the rule about a (good) lead only should be a summary of the rest of the article) I hereby suggest the contributors to include the vital matter of where Shakespeare lets his play unfold - and to make a lead that's a summary of the main text, and having all inline references in the main text. Otherwise I will suggest that the featured status ought to become "good reading" only. And that would be very unnecessary, if needed. Boeing720 (talk) 03:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Boeing720: I'm sorry, but could you please indicate which parts of the article you did read, so that we may address your concerns above? The lede, as a summary, must necessarily omit some details; so without knowing which parts of the article you have read it's hard to tell which parts you find to be lacking. The lede, like the plot summary, are not usually cited on Wikipedia, but for this particular article it turned out to be necessary for various reasons. --Xover (talk) 08:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I read the lead. I'm not concerned with the describing of the play. But fact is, these words are omitted in the text Kronborg, Elsinore, Helsingør (and for that matter also "Helsingor"). The historical palace and the town where Shakespeare himself unfolded this great play. That alone is sufficient for a downgrade. (But I just want the article to become up to featured standard). About the lead - There seem to be more than one school of how a good lead ought to be. But others than me have thought me (years ago) that a good lead is like if the entire article is written first, and thereafter is the lead written as a summary which attempts to be encouraging to further reading. That way is all inline references assembled outside the lead. Now, I do not say this is how to actually create an optimal article, as it usually takes a long time and often is the work of many contributors. But - yes, a summary which make readers want to study further, and preferably with all inline references in the main body. But especially the omitted facts must be put in to the article. (I have even searched the entire article for the lacking words with a software tool, and neither Elsinore or Kronborg /Kronborg Palace are mentioned even once.) Boeing720 (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Boeing720: Well, I can certainly tell you with some certainty that the lede does not summarise the lede, for what I imagine are obvious reasons. I believe, however, that you would, if you read the article, find that it does summarise the article quite well. There were quite a few experienced editors, copy editors, and reviewers involved both before and during its FAC, and the lede received a significant amount of attention. However, where you might be getting led astray is that the lead section is not just a summary of the article, but also an introduction to the article.
Why you are so focussed on the play's setting escapes me, however. The lead mentions that the play is set in Denmark, and the second paragraph of the plot summary sets the action "… on the ramparts of Elsinore, the Danish royal castle". This is about as much weight as is appropriate given the attention paid this aspect by the reliable sources. --Xover (talk) 06:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Let's forget about the lead then. But now you say it yourself, Shakespeare unfolded the play at Kronborg in Elsinore. The weight you talk-about is sooner why there ? (and not in Copenhagen, Denmarks Capital City ?) My answer is the Sound Dues was to be payed just a bit south of this palace, not inside (Kronborg has an older origin as fortress, but during the 16th Century was it rebuilt to a Renaissance Royal Palace. It's further located at the peak where Øresund is most narrow. The Palace became famous among sailors and their officers after this rebuilding. And from the mid 1500'reds has the palace been famous all over the Western World. And it's still famous. Shakespeare had obviously also heard about this astonishing palace which seems to float on the sea.

And also the Hamlet play has been played every year for a long time now. So - in a featured article, nothing must of this magnitude be forgotten. Please also read the Kronborg and Helsingør articles. Boeing720 (talk) 01:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Boeing720: Ah, I see now from whence the confusion stems. Yes, you are quite right that Kronborg is quite remarkable, and famous in its own right. However, that is an argument in favour of an article on Kronborg, or the expansion of that article. For this article, however, the relevant criteria is to what degree the play is tied to Kronborg, as determined by what the reliable secondary sources focus on; and that must be weighed against all the other details that could be included in the article. Since none of the major critical editions of the play, that I am aware of, focus on the actual historical or modern location (Kronborg and Elsinore), it would be giving the issue undue weight to discuss it further or give it greater prominence in this article. --Xover (talk) 06:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Here are various kinds of sources alright. [5] ,[6], [7], [8], [9], [10] You have also forgotten about the annual celebrations and lots of other essential matters, related to this play and thia article. Perhaps Kronborg Castle is better however. Boeing720 (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

And to Xovers second matter, how is Kronborg and Elsinore tied to the play. Sometimes things are so simple, that one "cannot see the wood for all the trees". Shakespeare himself chose this particular place, and is even the inventor of the English name Elsinore (in Danish "Helsingør") The Telegraph appear to more or less think as I wrote above. If he never had visited Denmark at all, must he have heard of Kronborg by sailors. Anyway all are in agreement - can you find a source which even puts a shadow of doubt that Shakespeare didn't specifically set the play to this castle - and not any other, real or imagined ? Is it undue weight to mention the 911-terrorism act to have occurred at Downtown Manhattan, New York City ? Why mention Denmark at all , if the actual location is "undue" ? Hamlet could do as any Prince couldn't he ? Boeing720 (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

@Boeing720: It appears that you are starting from Kronborg and then looking for connections to the play. This will inevitably give you a false impression: while Kronborg historically had geopolitical, military, and economic significance, its modern notability stems largely from its claimed connections with Hamlet. Hence why two thirds of the articles you found were on travel and tourist sites.

However, when you start in the other direction—that is, from the play itself, which is the subject of this article—the impression is quite different. In the 613 pages of The Arden Shakespeare edition of Hamlet, Elsinor is discussed specifically only once: in a note to 1.2.173 that reads "Elsinor modern Helsingor; the first mention of the play's specific location". The Oxford Shakespeare edition (416 pages), the New Cambridge Shakespeare edition (270 pages), and the Folger Shakespeare Library edition (342 pages) do not discuss it at all. None of these editions even mention Kronborg, and nor does any of the extant versions of the play (Q1, Q2, F1).

The connection is obvious, certainly, but it's not an issue the major modern critical editions have chosen to discuss. If over 2000 cumulative pages (counting the Q1/F1 companion edition from Oxford) of the primary critical editions do not consider the matter of sufficient import to devote space to, how much more disproportionate would it be in the 30-odd pages of this article? --Xover (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Kronborg Castle is also reported to be the setting in this article. I do think that Boeing720 makes a fair point when noting that the wording should not give the impression that Hamlet takes place in all of Denmark. Could it perhaps be said that the work is set "in a Denmark town" or "in a town in Denmark"? AndrewOne (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@AndrewOne: You're citing a travel guide, in this instance not significantly more reliable than the local tourist board site cited above. I have, personally, no doubt Kronborg is the inspiration for the castle in Hamlet's "Elsinore" (but to what degree it's the real place and to what degree it's Shakespeare's imagination I am less certain), nor even that some suitably reliable source could be dug up that discusses it (but that won't be the NYT travel section!). However, the issue is one of (un)due weight: the article has already been cut drastically (take a look at the number and size of the {{main}} links in there) to keep it at a manageable size, and the copyediting to keep the prose comprehensible even when cramming a lot of information into each sentence was extensive. The coverage this issue currently receives is commensurate with its prominence in the sources (see the edit conflict above).

Think of it this way: everyone knows that something is rotten in the state of Denmark, and Hamlet is well known as the Prince of Denmark, but asking random people on a college campus about "Kronborg" will likely get you guesses about German beers and battery-operated sex aides. I fear "Elsinore" will elicit a similar response, but that I chalk more up to the failings of the modern educational system. In any case, that the play is set in Denmark (as mentioned in the lede), and that the scene is set (1.1) on the ramparts of a castle in Elsinore (as mentioned in the plot summary), is in line with both the level of detail the average reader might be expected to possess, and the prominence supported by the sources. Anything more would be according it undue weight. --Xover (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not begin in one end or the other, please. Kronborg is tied to this play the same way the play is tied to the Castle. Through William Shakespeare. Some English sources may well have forgotten to mention it, but most modern ones do. We are further obliged to use a global perspective, please do not forget that. I originally didn't want to make changes to this excellent featured article. But to simply state where Shakespeare himself chose to unfold this great play, is not undue. And just like stated in the Telegraph article, was this fortress from the Middle Ages rebuild and finished some 15-18 years before the very first performance. It's not really a castle that very special by itself. Notably smaller than the Tower, just as an example. (And there is a in my opinion far more beautiful castle or palace in Hillerød just 10 miles away - but that one isn't visible from the sea.) Kronborg's location is without doubt unusual, at a peak, at low altitude (not on top a cliff; daily tides are of little impact there), which has caught the eyes of sailors, sailing in or out of the Baltic Sea for centuries. (And strengthen by the fact that the Sound Dues were to be payed in the bay just south of the castle; Today the bay is a harbor). This isn't said in order to "begin" at Kronborg, but purely as an explanation. I doubt if Shakespeare knew very much about it, but he certainly had heard about it somehow. Anyway, the fact, that William Shakespeare himself, chose this castle - and no other, is not undue in relation to either the play or to this splendid article. But what has German beer has to with this ? I flew from Heathrow to Copenhagen just last month, and as the English lady beside me appeared slightly uncomfortable by not hearing a message from the Captain, I told her what "runway 22 left" meant. And as we flew over Northern Zealand and the weather was excellent I just briefly showed her the narrow strait between Elsinore and Helsingborg. She then instantly began to ask something about Hamlet. So Elsinore and Kronborg are not unknown in England, as suggested. (About those German beers only). To omit imperative facts, can't I see anything good in. Shakespeare could easily have chosen some other castle , town and country, but he did chose Kronborg (in Elsinore). Presumed reasons explained. (also by the Telegraph) And don't we have any educational striving for those who read our articles ? Boeing720 (talk) 01:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The link doesn't work. About "the article has already been cut drastically" - this is news to me. And nothing I support (assumed the standard was of equal level). But I can't see any connection. Xover, you appear to have great knowledge as well as sources. Couldn't you make an effort to put the cuts back (instead) ? Boeing720 (talk) 01:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

About undue. This sentence from the lead, or part of ...and has been described as "the world's most filmed story after Cinderella" - what's that if not undue ? A fairy tail don't compare to a Shakespeare Play, does it ? And King Lear isn't Cinderella either. This was just a comparison. I don't suggest to cut that part out too. And even if Kenneth Branagh never mentions Kronborg or Elsinore in the TV-version , are we talking about Shakespeare's original. And there is Kronborg mentioned, isn't it ? Boeing720 (talk) 04:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Boeing720: I'm outdenting and replying point by point as this thread is beginning to get hard to follow.

• "… we talking about Shakespeare's original. And there is Kronborg mentioned, isn't it ?"
  • No, as I mentioned above, none of the extant versions of the play (Q1, Q2, F1) mention Kronborg at all. They mention Denmark, and they mention Elsinore, and it's made clear most of the action takes place in and on a castle in Elsinore; which makes Kronborg a reasonable assumption, but not explicitly named by Shakespeare or his early editors (Heminge and Condell, say). And, crucially, his modern editors have chosen to discuss the play's many film adaptations but not the potential connection with the real Kronborg. In fact, they hardly even discuss Elsinore: only incidentally, and only in a single footnote in a single edition (of the 5 i checked).
• "… Shakespeare could easily have chosen some other castle , town and country, but he did chose Kronborg (in Elsinore)."
  • Even apart from the question of Kronborg, it's debatable how much "choice" was involved there. Shakespeare got most of the story from Saxo's Gesta Danorum, by way of Belleforest's Histoires tragiques, so the setting in Denmark was probably inherited from his sources. Whether Shakespeare actually picked Elsinore, or inherited that detail too, depends on the Ur-Hamlet, which is sadly lost. See the #Sources section and the Ur-Hamlet article.
• "About 'the article has already been cut drastically' - this is news to me. And nothing I support … Couldn't you make an effort to put the cuts back (instead) ?"
  • I don't mean that in the sense that some mean person showed up one day to hack off bits and pieces of the article. Wikipedia has policies, guidelines, a manual of style, and processes (such as the FA process and its criteria) designed to make sure all articles fulfil certain goals. One, among many, such is that articles are limited in their total size (out of concern for the reader). Thus, when preparing this article for the FA process, the editors working on it were obliged to identify sections that were too long and too detailed, and either delete them or split them out into separate articles. You can see examples of this in Characters in Hamlet, Sources of Hamlet, Critical approaches to Hamlet, Literary influence of Hamlet, Hamlet in performance, and Hamlet on screen. All these articles were made with the material removed from the corresponding section in this article. The point of bringing this up is to illustrate that there are constraints on what can be included in an article; and this particular article is bursting at the seams already.
• And when working under a size constraint, one must necessarily prioritise between what to include and what to leave out. Since leaving that judgement entirely up to the whims of the Wikipedia editors working on the article would leave the project vulnerable to the biases of those editors, the guideline is to instead rely on the reliable secondary sources to tell us what is significant enough, in this context, to include. And as enumerated above, the main authorities for this—the major modern critical editions—simply do not consider it of sufficient relevance to devote space to it. And if they do not, then for us to do so would be to accord the issue undue weight.
• Note that I am not in any way opposed to discussing this somewhere; it's just that that "somewhere" can't be this article. If suitable reliable sources could be found—and popular press travel guides are not sufficient: it should be supported by scholarly works published in peer-reviewed scientific journals or published on a university press—the issue might find a place as a section in the Kronborg article, or possibly as a separate standalone article. --Xover (talk) 07:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

OK - if Kronborg isn't mentioned by name in the play, then I can see your point. And I was wrong. But nevertheless is "Denmark" far too vague, and since Elsinore is mentioned by Shakespeare that ought to be included in the lead instead. You really impress me with this deep knowledge and I do not question reliable. But the BBC and the Telegraph are recognised as reliable. Now just wait here a moment. I assume you then will say, your very deep sources are superior according to secondary sources or something like that. And from certain perspectives they naturally are. But in what sense ? They obviously go deep in historical research, deep in all famous quotes and in dialogue, history etc. But just don't bother to examine the more well-known matters - or simply oversees them. Anyway, the level which for instance BBC and the Telegraph explain their stories at, are not less reliable than what f.i. Thompson and Taylor explain at their level. Who are they, by the way ? Actually are errors in general more likely to occur in deeper research than in less deeper. At the very least, I hope we can agree that reliability doesn't equal examin-depth ? (any objection to that ?) I'm truely not interested in destroying the article nor its status. (The headline I chose might suggest that, I just want to clear that bit up. And please forgive me if I have made any such impression).

Even though Elsinore isn't a big deal in the play, is it still there. (I have watched both "the Kenneth Brannagh version" and earlier a similar TV-version.) And with your reasoning one could equally say that Denmark also is undue. It's only that quote - "something's rotten in the state of Denmark", which comes very, very early, in which Denmark is mentioned, (or next to) and (please correct me if I'm wrong) is said by a nameless guard of some kind. And has presumably become somewhat famous over time. Perhaps not really intended to by Shakespeare ? And in any case could the play have been unfolded in any European country by the change of very few word, compared to it all (except for England, which I believe would have been dangerous to use, during the 17th Century). So why is this particular balance, if I may call it so, the only acceptable ? I'm sorry but I think "Denmark" is insufficient. Deeply so, as we have an undisputed answer. Also - we have an international perspective to remember as well as our readers (we all hope our articles to be read, don't we ?) expects something of an article, and in this case I strongly believe they would like to know "Where in Denmark ? If that's known", and otherwise will Copenhagen be assumed. Isn't that a valid point ? I neither can see what harm this article would suffer, by mention "set in the Danish town Elsinore" instead of "set in Denmark". I think most would find the most possible precision to be better. And you do yourself admit that Elsinore is, the in the play mentioned location. It isn't really a question of sources. You find it undue, only by your own interpretation of your sources, not the sources themselves. I'm sorry to say. Would a part of (a great) English culture kind of "be stolen" if the article mentions Elsinore the way I (now) suggest ? Xover, with the minor exception of your talk about our guidelines, you really impress me, but not convince me. Boeing720 (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

You can find the full citation in the article, but "Thompson and Taylor" are Ann Thompson and Neil Taylor, and their 2006 publication is Hamlet from The Arden Shakespeare, third series. Both of them are, obviously, specialists in this field; and their being the editors (a term of art here; think "author" in colloquial terms) of one of the main critical editions of the play is ipso facto proof that they are among the leading specialists on that play. The Arden Shakespeare, along with the Oxford Shakespeare and the New Cambridge Shakespeare, are the main critical editions of the Shakespeare canon, and have been publishing successive individual play and Complete Works editions for decades (since 1899, in Arden's case). These editions' raison d'être are to provide the text of the play, edited to choose the best parts of the various early texts (see #Texts for why that's necessary) with explanatory notes (fully half of each page is typically such notes). However, each of these editions also includes prolegomena as an introduction to the play, whose scope is roughly analogous to Wikipedia's article on the play (except, of course more detailed and in a different context, and for a different audience). Thus the prefatory material in these editions provides the best guidance for the relative importance of various aspects of the play, so that when we are forced to prioritise we do not do so based solely on our own (inherently biased) preference (personally I would probably expand the "Sources", "Date", and "Texts" sections tenfold if left unchecked, and most people would be bored to death by the third paragraph).

Quite apart from these series of editions having an inherent interest in preserving their own reputation (the same would be true of a newspaper like the NYT, say), they are academic publications whose whole point is verified knowledge, provided by specialists, subjected to formal peer review, and published by an academic publisher with broader scope of reputation than that single series of publications (e.g. Bloombury Academic wouldn't let the Arden Shakespeare push sub-par work because it impacts the reputation of all their titles); and in two cases, on university presses with the prestige of the university on the line (Oxford and Cambridge in this case). Something similar is the case for the journal articles cited in the article. Contrast this with sources such as the New York Times and other popular press publications: their publishing schedule is fast (daily, or several times a day, often), their resources for fact checking are stretched thin, all their product are written by non-specialists, and for a non-specialist audience. The article cited above is even more problematic because it is from the NYT's "Travel" section, so, far from being concerned with scientific accuracy, it is what the journalists and editors of the paper would themselves call a "fluff piece"; and whose chief aim is to make a location sound interesting, entertaining, and worth visiting. For instance, several of those travel guide articles quote the same "William" who is a resident of Elsinore (it's not clear whether he's a local history buff or actually employed by the tourist board) and use him and the Elsinore tourist board as the authority for their information on the play and its setting. That is, they are inherently biased, and lack the mechanisms to correct for it as well as the incentive to do so.

So, yes, for most such issues, the scholarly publications have primacy over popular press publications, when they are available. This is not always the case, of course. Wikipedia has tons of articles on popular culture (I believe Pokémon is the canonical example) where only "low quality" (and I don't intend that phrase to have negative connotations; I'm using it strictly descriptively) sources would be available. So, for instance, we have several articles on stage performances and movie adaptations of Hamlet where we liberally cite newspapers' reviews of the performance or movie. And for most other topics a reliance on such sources is necessary because scholarly sources are simply not available. However, for Shakespeare in general, and especially for Hamlet, the amount of scholarly attention over the centuries is so vast that there is almost no detail not covered at least once. And in fact, quickly searching JSTOR and Oxford Journals I found a few (surprisingly few, actually) articles discussing Kronborg in the context of Hamlet (they appear to be focussing on what level of information Shakespeare had on Kronborg, but I haven't read them yet so I might be mistaken).

In any case, my point above is that almost every article on Kronborg will mention Hamlet, but virtually no publication on Hamlet mentions Kronborg. That is, what the reliable sources tell us is that while Hamlet is very important for Kronborg, Kronborg is not really very relevant to Hamlet, and so we shouldn't artificially inflate its prominence in this article.

The same reasoning applies, to a lesser degree, for Denmark and Elsinore. As I explained (and cited) above, none of the critical editions discuss Elsinore directly (a single, short, footnote in a single edition), despite Elsinore actually being mentioned several times in the play's text. "Denmark" on the other hand is somewhat more prominent: the play refers to King Hamlet (Prince Hamlet's father) as "Old Denmark", and King Claudius as "Denmark", and the critical editions usually explain that this is a reference to the respective king as a personification of his country. And, as mentioned, the "something rotten" quote and Hamlet being the "Prince of Denmark" are well known associations with the play. Combine this with the fact that the plot is closely tied to the succession of the throne of Denmark, and there is grounds to include mention of it in the lede. Elsinore on the other hand, has far less significance to the play, and so it is relevant to mention it only in the plot summary where it sets the scene (it locates the action for the reader, providing context for the following plot summary).

You argue for "most possible precision", which, taken without context, is a good thing; but the highest possible level of precision is also the highest level (amount) of detail. That is, precision and space (in the "readability" sense) are here competing concerns. We cannot include all possible detail, for the highest possible precision, and so we must choose what details (level of precision) we include. This is generally true of the article, and especially so in the lede, and yet more so in the first paragraph of the lede. Anywhere else in the article I probably wouldn't have cared enough to argue the point of whether to include Elsinore or just Denmark (I might still disagree, I just wouldn't have bothered arguing about it); but in the beginning of the lede the requirements for clarity, readability, and economy of prose are such that even issues otherwise small are made significant. And here the reliable sources tell us that this detail (Elsinore) is too much precision relative to its import. --Xover (talk) 09:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I admire your passion. And - I have to (and do also willingly) trust everything you have enlighten me about, regarding the sources you have mentioned. No doubt about that. But when arguing "Wikipedian guidelines", you actually reverse the intentions of them. Or does any of your sources specifically (or at all) state "Elsinore is not of importance to the play" or anything in line with that ? If not so, what you wrote earlier "the main authorities for this—the major modern critical editions—simply do not consider it of sufficient relevance to devote space to it.", becomes your own interpretation of the deeper sources. And then I can go back to the Telegraph, BBC and presumably hundreds of "more shallow" but still well-recognised sources that mention Elsinore directly with both Shakespeare and Hamlet. An analogy - if a well respected Oxford professor in military history put together a major comprehensive 2000 pages work about "Adolf Hitler as military commander", and fails to mention the Holocaust (due to the limited scope). Then could this work, as a source be used here in order to declare "the Holocaust" to be undue for our article "Adolf Hitler" !? (please remember it was an analogy) Further Hamlet to Elsinore or Elsinore to Hamlet, you may have some points there. But if you had payed Helsingør a visit, then I'm certain that you no longer would find Elsinore to be undue for a brief mentioning in this article and its setting. Not essential, but as I wrote, from a such perspective neither is Denmark. But not of so little matter that it's undue. I find that to be utterly wrong. However I certainly do not want to cause the destruction of this article, which you appear to fear, so I simply give up - but under protest and a plead or entreat for you to reconsider this tiny matter about "Where in Denmark ?" for the future. Thanks Boeing720 (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I generally don't recommend using Hitler as an example: it's fraught and easy to get wrong, is still to some degree personal to a lot of people (just think i terms of Sweden's "neutrality" during the war, and how it is viewed in Denmark and Norway), and there are infinite other options available.

So let's use Alexander the Great as an easy substitute: a work on Alexander as military commander might very well omit mention of Aristotle due to its narrow scope. Much like Susanne L. Wofford's "A Critical History of Hamlet" (1994) might omit mention of Elsinore due to its narrow scope. However, the critical editions of the play are general overviews of the topic; they do not go into as much detail on its critical history as Wofford does, because they are broader in scope and must cover everything just at a lower level of granularity. In other words, they are not Alexander as military commander but rather Alexander III of Macedon.

And in this particular case I checked five different such general works, by six authors, and by four different publishers (that is, with slightly different approaches and editorial focuses); none of whom considered it important enough to discuss. Had these suggested sufficient import to include it, then, yes, we could have supplemented their coverage with details from the popular press sources (BBC and The Telegraph, say).

To expect these sources to say "Issue X is not important" is circular reasoning: it's impossible, and pointless, for them to list all the myriad things that they consider unimportant, and by virtue of mentioning them they would have implicitly indicated import ("The lady doth protest too much").

But all that being said, I want to thank you for bringing this issue up here. I was quite surprised to find that so little attention has seemingly been paid to the play's historical setting, and, it seems, none at all to Kronborg specifically. The connection appears obvious to me, personally, so I would have expected to find more scholarship devoted to it. As time allows I may do some digging to see what can be turned up, so that, for example, our article on Kronborg could be expanded with more information about this. For instance, the story (plot) in the play far predates the Sound Dues and the building of Kronborg (something like 5–6th century), so the specific setting is much more likely to have been added by Shakespeare or one of his immediate antecedents (Belleforest et al). In the many thousands of books and journal articles published on Hamlet, there must be someone that has covered this sufficiently that we could explain the connections in the Kronborg article. --Xover (talk) 06:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, lets be general here first, any comprehensive "deep" work can avoid bringing up "normal stuff" about a historic person or event, due to its perspective or / and scope. Hence, rather than to use interpreted omissions in deeper sources, are actual statements in well-respected media sources preferable. About the talk-page here, discuss Hamlet when someone like you is involved may possibly intimidating others (meant in the good way). I myself surely wouldn't - with the tiny exception for, what I now refer to as the "Where in Denmark ?" question. Who knows ? My admiration for your knowledge and passion for this topic is huge. But that also makes me a little sad. As Shakespeare mentions Elsinore to be the place where his version takes place. About what predates what, I read about Ur-Hamlet (briefly), but that version does not predate either the Sound Dues and certainly not the first Kronborg. Which was a pure fortress, of which a tower of similar age exist just across the water in Scanian Helsingborg; Kärnan (Swedish) or Kærnen (Danish) (which means "the core", just by the way).

All three are of Medieval origin. (the first Kronborg, Kärnan and the Sound Dues ; introduced in 1429). And the Renaissance had at that time not yet began, atleast not ouside Florence. 1475 is a good approximation for the end of the Middle Ages in Europe in general, according to myself that is... But you now introduce Hrólfs saga kraka (sounds Icelandic, but doubt Iceland was inhabited that early) from the 5th or 6th Century to be something of "absolute-Ur-Hamlet" ??? I was obviously wrong about Kronborg to be mentioned in the play, but Elsinore is. I have only meant that "Where in Denmark ?" (still) seem to be obvious question for all who read this excellent article. There are also the Great Belt for ships that wanted to sail to or from the Baltic Sea, but Øresund is the shortest way by far. And even before the Sound Dues was (and still is) Øresund's most narrow part both easy to sail and normally catches the eyes of any sailor. It's about 3 nautical miles between Elsinore/Helsingør and Helsingborg and with Kärnan and the first Kronborg on opposite sides, isn't strange at all that Helsingør became Elsinore for British sailors. And here am I and the Telegraph correspondent in agreement, or next to. Someday you should pay the Northern Øresund area a visit. Sorry but I'm feeling sleepy. I thank you for your politeness, thoroughness, passion and knowledge of this topic. Now I really must go to bed. Cheers, Xover. Boeing720 (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

POLONIUS by Victor Cilinca

– moved here from Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/WikiProject_desk - Evad37 [talk] 23:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam, I'd just like to suggest you should include on the PLAYS INSPIRED BY HAMLET site a play called POLONIUS by Victor Cilinca, a Romanian dramatist. The play, in my translation and Richard Wright's, was published in 2011 by Wildsidepress. You can find it on Amazon. All the best, Petru Iamandi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.117.43.190 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Petru. I wasn't previously familiar with Cilinca's Polonius, so thanks for teaching me something new today! However, what is included in articles on Wikipedia is mainly dependant on its coverage in reliable secondary sources. A quick and superficial search did not turn up much coverage for this play, so until that changes it will have to wait. If you would like to encourage coverage of it on Wikipedia, the best thing to do would be to find any reliable sources about the play (books discussing it, particularly those issued on university presses, or articles in scholarly journals, or reviews by well known critics in a well-regarded newspaper or magazine) that we could use to support its inclusion. --Xover (talk) 02:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Hamlet (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Major Themes: Lies, Corruption and Rebellion

The 2 major themes in Hamlet are nowhere cited in this article; what a travesty.

Poison dripped in the ear is a metaphor for a lie. The theme of the lie is present in this reference, as well as being present throughout the play:

The unweeded garden in act 1 scene 2 - "Fie on ’t, ah fie! 'Tis an unweeded garden / That grows to seed. Things rank and gross in nature / Possess it merely."

Is an allusion to Hosea 10:4 - "They make many promises, take false oaths and make agreements; therefore lawsuits spring up like poisonous weeds in a plowed field."

These are clear references to corruption.

As an additional popular culture reference: The anime "Code Geass: Lelouch of the Rebellion", which was inspired by Hamlet, is littered with lies and corruption.

Rebellion is also a major theme in Hamlet, against lies and corruption.

Furthermore, too much prevalence is being given to the section on Psychoanalysis. 174.95.105.40 (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. I agree that themes and motifs are perhaps not sufficiently prominently covered in the article. Could you perhaps provide a reliable source for your suggestions that could be used to improve the article? --Xover (talk) 08:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

That's my major issue with WP. Often there are no so-called 'reliable sources', except me. Although one is not necessary if they're obviously implied and can be inferred from the text. Can't recall where I saw that policy though. Most 'reliable sources' are misguided opinions anyways, and simply used to support someone's bias, rather unfortunately.

Re: Psychoanalysis - One only need look at the absurdity that is Sigmund Freud's or Jacque Lacan's interpretation to observe this. It's so misinformed that I can't even wrap my head around it. They're the fantasies of sick men, not Hamlet's... and this: "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." (Ernest Jones). If that isn't Original Research (by Jones), presented as 'credible source', then I seriously don't know what is... and Joshua Rothman (from the New Yorker? wtf?): "The Oedipus complex is a misnomer. It should be called the 'Hamlet complex'." - All of these seem to be attempts to discredit/disrepute Hamlet's character, and nothing more. 174.95.105.40 (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah. Your issue, then, is not really with the Wikipedia article, but with what the reliable sources say. The article is merely reporting that Freud and Laclan wrote what they wrote, which is the essence of our policy against original research. It's Wikipedia editors who are forbidden from engaging in it, not, obviously, the sources we cite. Which also means we cannot report what "someone using the IP 174.95.105.40" said: we need something published in a peer-reviewed journal, or a monograph issued on a major press, or reported in a news medium with known editorial policies and a good reputation. And even then the opinion in question would, in practice, have had to have been cited by others in order for us to assess the source's relative weight and reliability.

PS. You're thinking of the exception that allows uncontroversial facts to reported from a primary source directly (not mediated through a secondary source). The second there is interpretation involved, the exception no longer applies. "Themes", by their very nature, can never be anything but interpretation. --Xover (talk) 14:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I think you're misrepresenting the situation. First on all, this isn't about what I think, or some 'user at my IP' as you put it. The New Yorker or some random author at a random newsprint organization is not a 'credible source', by the same token. This is Original Research.

Furthermore, if enough people repeat a the same lie, it's still a lie. That doesn't make it any more 'credible'. Credibility is manufactured in such a way.

In conclusion, my complaint about the section on Psychoanalysis is that it is given far too much weight, includes 'non-credible' and fanciful opinions of individual authors, who were not peer reviewed, but simply imitated the opinions of others, thereby manufacturing 'credibility'.

It's ironic you say 'themes' can be nothing but interpretation, yet Oedipus is a theme... seriously, attempting to even discuss anything on Wikipedia is a waste of time. Take care. 174.95.105.40 (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I failed to mention that Oedipus didn't even have a sexual desire for his mother, because he wasn't even aware it was her. For Freud to characterize it as such discredits his analysis as a child-like fantasy he possessed, and nothing that is inherent in Oedipus Rex. - "His explorations of his feelings of hostility to his father and rivalrous jealousy over his mother's affections led him to fundamentally revise his theory of the origin of the neuroses." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud (I didn't have to look that up though, since it's obvious from his Oedipus rant).

In summary, it's obvious that Hamlet draws from themes in Oedipus Rex, but it has absolutely nothing to do with phallic imagery or repressed sexual desires. None of that is apparent in Hamlet at all. In fact, the part where he excoriates his mother for marrying his uncle so soon after his father's death seems to suggest otherwise; that he had none.

Instead of being about lies, corruption and rebellion, this article portrays Hamlet as some sort of atypical neurotic individual, in some attempt to discredit the anti-aristocratic nature of this work. In other words, it defines Hamlet as crazy and not mad (angry).

Actually, Oedipus_Rex#Sigmund_Freud and Oedipus_Rex#Relationship_with_mythic_tradition makes a mention Homer's Odyssey where supposedly "it is said that the gods made the matter of his paternity known, whilst in Oedipus the King, Oedipus very much discovers the truth himself." - On which Freud based his 'theory' of sexuality. I can't recall that from Odyssey, and I'd have to revisit the issue. However, it's still a personal delusion Freud had himself which he super-imposed onto the Oedipus tale/myth. Most of Freud's theories have been discredited anyways, and hold little weight in modern analysis. It should be a footnote if anything (as it is on the page for Oedipus Rex), but comprises the major portion of interpretation in this article.

From this article - "he was either mad" - Here we have a failure to deliberate on the meaning of 'mad', which means 'angry' in the common sense, and 'crazy', which is sometimes called 'mad'. This form of mad doesn't even denote mental insanity, but a type of physical rage. see https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mad#English "enraged" (also: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/madden). The meaning of this word has been twisted in modern history to support certain biases, as are inherent here.

And this from the original text - "I am but mad north-north-west: when the wind is / southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw." which remarks on the double meaning of the word 'mad', and the meaning of words in general. Hamlet exclaims that he is not 'mad' in the sense that Polonius describes the condition, but that he is simply 'angry'; being silly and rhetorical. There being a 'reason/method' to his madness, as Polonius himself describes. 174.95.105.40 (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

One final mention: WP does not consider the 'original source' to be credible, yet fanciful interpretations as 'credible'. That's Orwellian to the extreme, and it's only done to support the biases I spoke of. For reference, on the theme of rebellion: "Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer / The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, / Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles, / And by opposing end them:". More on corruption: "the pangs of despised Love, the Law’s delay, / the insolence of Office, and the spurns / that patient merit of the unworthy takes". This statement is also contrary to the Oedipal interpretation (In simply terms: Hamlet has given up on love, despises it, and has embraced his anger/hate. That's all it means, stop over-psychoanalyzing). So good luck finding these 'credible sources', since they apparently don't exist. 174.95.105.40 (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

You appear to be confused about the purpose of Wikipedia. It is a fact that Freud wrote what he did about Hamlet. It is also a fact that the reliable secondary sources accord Freud's interpretations weight. Consequently, we report the fact that Freud had this interpretation. Whether or not we, or the secondary sources, agree with Freud is beside the point. The interpretation exists and is notable, so it is reported.

If there is a perspective or aspect you think is missing or underserved in the article, you need to provide citations to reliable secondary sources that support your position. And given the huge amount written on this topic, these sources need to be pretty high quality (a monograph from a well-respected specialist in the field, published on one of the big university presses, or an article from one of the relevant peer-reviewed journals, and so forth). What you or I think isn't all that relevant: it's what the experts in the field think that we report. --Xover (talk) 06:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Quoting you - "What you or I think isn't all that relevant: it's what the experts in the field think that we report"

Experts? Some experts.... lmao... not much more than amateurs if you ask me. Professionals? You know, Mark Twain once said...

Suppose you were a professional, and suppose you were an idiot; but I repeat myself. This they call professional idiot. :\

Anyways, this article remains a travesty because of this exact issue. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing; as they say. https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/a-little-knowledge-is-a-dangerous-thing.html

- or I could quote Thomas Hobbes on the definition of former authors, but I think that will suffice.

Ah, alright. I think I understand now. You only publish what Aristocrats have to say - how ironic in this case.

Quoting Aristocrats on Shakespeare is like quoting racists on equality. 174.95.104.133 (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't a reliable source be the printed play of Shakespeare itself? I mean, I relation to the themes contained within the play, they're in the play, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kate Butch (talk • contribs) 1 May 2019 04:23 (UTC)

@Kate Butch: As I outlined above, Wikipedia has a policy that prohibits original research, and one consequence of this policy is that any interpretive statement must be verifiably cited to a reliable secondary source. Themes of the play are inherently interpretive. (PS. please sign your posts) --Xover (talk) 08:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The photograph of the American actor

For reasons given already, can the proof be produced that the photo is actually of the actor dressed as Hamlet, and not of the actor in some other role? It would look stupid to have an entry on Hamlet with an actor playing, say, Richard III or Coriolinus, and goes to strengthen one of the points already raised, as to using the photo due to an American centric bias. If proof can't be produced that the actor IS portraying the character of Hamlet in that photograph, should it continue to be used? Kate Butch (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Kate, the image is decidedly of Booth as Hamlet, as demonstrated by this print in the Library of Congress: https://www.loc.gov/item/2005696075/. Also, I would appreciate if we could come to some agreement about what the first image should be before making any changes to the page. As you can see above, there is an ongoing discussion on the topic, and as of my last check, most of the editors who have weighed in are in favor of the status quo, at least until something better is proposed. Let's not allow this to devolve into an edit war. Thanks, Swper (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)