Sunteți pe pagina 1din 7

Talk
on
Hamlet’s
Apocalypse
at
3.30
on
November
4th
at
Simon
H.


Rifkind
Center,

CUNY/
City
College
of
New
York,
138
Convent
Avenue,
New
York
10031.


OVERVIEW

Thank
you
for
inviting
me
to
talk
about
our
radical,
new,
and
experimental
production
of

Hamlet.
It
is
titled
Hamlet’s
Apocalypse
and
opens
this
Sunday

7
November,

for
only

three
nights,
and
there
will
be
a
student
discount
ticket,
of
$12
if
you
show
an
ID.
As

you
know,
what
we
are
putting
on
stage
is
the
evidence
that
shows
that
Hamlet
is
a

comic
parody
of
the
Book
of
Revelation.
In
this
talk
I
will
begin
by
looking
at
the

background
context.
Then
I
will
look
at
some
structural
comparisons
between
these

two
literary
works
–from
the
perspective
of
literary
criticism.
Then
thirdly
I
will
address

the
issue
of
theatrical
performance
and
what
it
means
to
try
and
perform
the

underlying
allegorical
meaning.
And
in
conclusion
I
will
turn
to
the
broader
implications,

if
it
turns
out
that
Hamlet
is
actually
a
black
parody
of
some
of
the
most
sacred
Christian

beliefs.


1.
CONTEXT

The
Book
of
Revelation
is
the
last
book
of
the
Christian
Bible.
It
was
created
in
part
as
a

fictionalization
of
the
Roman‐Jewish
war,
which
is
why
the
armies
assemble
at
Har‐
Megiddo
(Rev
16;16,)
sometimes
translated
Armageddon,
where
Titus
and
Vespasian

assembled
their
troops
before
destroying
Jerusalem.
Jerusalem
is
shown
as
the
whore

of
Babylon
who
has
given
herself
over
to
the
Romans‐‐‐who
are
represented
by
a
seven

headed
beast
whose
heads
can
be
identified
with
the
seven
hills
of
Rome
and
the

Caesars.
The
beast
can
also
be
identified
primarily
with
Vespasian
Caesar.
There
is
a

second
beast
who
makes
people
worship
the
first
beast
and
make
images
of
it—and
this

is
probably
Titus
implementing
the
worship
of
his
father
the
divine
Vespasian.
Onto
all

this
is
grafted
a
story
about
the
Woman
Crowned
with
the
Sun
(a
version
of
Mary),
the

Lamb
Jesus,
the
king
who
escapes
from
the
Pit,
and
the
Divine
Ruler
who
rules
with
a

rod
of
iron.
The
most
notable
feature
of
the
Book
of
Revelation
is
its
catalogues
of

sevens:
seven
angels,
seven
trumpets,
seven
letters,
seven
vials,
seven
plagues
etc.


This
narrative
was
used
by
the
church
around
the
year
1600‐‐‐as
it
is
used
by
the

Religious
Right
today‐‐‐as
an
instrument
of
power,
creating
fear
that
Doomsday
was

about
to
come
and
bring
about
the
End
of
the
World.
So
this
narrative
was
prevalent
in

Shakespearean
times
as
a
sacred
narrative
which
upheld
the
church
and
the
State.


Around
a
dozen
of
the
plays
concern
apocalyptic
themes.
But
this
could
not
be

expressed
directly,
because
it
was
illegal
to
bring
issues
of
religion
onto
the
stage.
It
had

to
be
done
covertly.
This
brings
us
to
the
issue
of
literary
style.


In
Elizabethan
literary
theory
it
was
normative
that
to
write
about
anything
risky
you

had
to
use
allegory‐‐‐in
which
you
said
one
thing
explicitly
but
it
was
a
semblance
of

false
seeming
that
stood
for
something
else.

You
created
a
deceptive
surface
for

everyone
to
consume
but
those
who
were
wise
would
“digest
the
allegory”
(Harrington)

underneath,
as
the
expression
went.

Pastorals,
in
particular,
were
especially
known
as
a



 1

pleasant
surface
that
concealed
much
darker
material
underneath.
So
well
known
works

of
literature
like
Spenser’s
Fairie
Queen
used
allegory.
But
so
did
the
theater.
The
best

known
writer
to
use
it
was
John
Lyly.
But
there
were
at
least
half
a
dozen
others.

Old

fashioned
plays
actually
told
people
they
were
using
an
allegory.
Thus
in
Dekker’s
Old

Fortunatus
(1598)
Fortune
enters
followed
by
nymphs
carrying
her
symbol
of
a
globe

and
a
wheel.
In
Wilson’s
The
Three
Lords
and
Ladies
of
London
(1588)
Pride
appears
with

a
shield
on
which
there
is
an
impressa
of
a
peacock.



But

there
was
another
trend
to
conceal
allegories‐‐‐as
writers
did
in
Court
pageants
and

as
Ben
Jonson
did.
Attempts
to
find
the
allegory
or
moral
of
plays
were
so
common
that

Jonson
complained
(in
the
introduction
to
Volpone)
about
those
who
kept
bothering

him
by
announcing
they
had
had
found
the
meaning
of
his
writing
and
“claim
to
have
a

key
for
the
deciphering”.
Mostly
the
true
meaning
was,
as
Jonson
scathingly
put
it

“steps
beyond
their
little,
or
(let
me
not
wrong
them)
no
braine
at
all”.


So
there
is
no
reason
why
there
should
not
be
allegories
in
Shakespeare,
including

Hamlet.
The
only
problem
is
that
the
last
time
it
was
fashionable
to
look
for
them,
in
the

1930s,
scholars
could
not
make
sense
of
the
3,000
religious
terms
in
the
plays,
because

they
didn’t
form
any
allegory
that
was
consistent
with
Christian
doctrine.
And
they
still

don’t.
Because
they
are
not
Christian.
They
are
a
parody
of
Christian
doctrine
and

Hamlet
is
one
of
the
simplest
examples.



2.
PLAY
ANALYSIS


So
turning
now
to
the
literary
research
and
the
comparative
study
of
the
play,
research

by
various
scholars,
most
notably
Linda
K.
Hoff,
which
I
have
expanded
on,
suggests
that

both
the
structure
of
Hamlet
and
its
main
characters
mirror
those
in
Revelation.


(a)
Structure
of
Hamlet

Perhaps
the
most
startling
thing
about
Hamlet
is
that
it
features
a
similar
catalogue
of

sevens
to
the
Book
of
Revelation.
Revelation
has
seven
trumpet
blasts,
so
does
Hamlet.

Revelation
has
seven
letters,
so
does
Hamlet.
Revelation
has
seven
angels.
Similarly

Hamlet
has
seven
mentions
of
angels.
Then
Hamlet
goes
on
and
creates
its
own

catalogue
of
seven
songs
and
seven
soliloquies
,
even
maybe
the
7
vials
corresponding

again
to
Revelation


• 7
trumpets
The
trumpet
blasts
are
1,2,1,
1,2,128;
1,4,7;
2,2,364;
3,2,89;
3,2,133;

5,1,220.

• 7
Angels
appear
in
Hamlet
“So
lust,
though
to
a
radiant
angel
linked”,“like
an
angel,
in

apprehension
how
like
a
god”,“Of
habits
devil,
is
angel
yet
in
this”,“A
ministering
angel

shall
my
sister“,“Art
more
engaged!
Help,
angels!
Make
assay”,“And
flights
of
angels

sing
thee
to
thy
rest!”,“angels
and
ministers
of
grace
defend
us!”


• 7
Letters
Claudius’
letter
to
England,
Norway's
letter
to
Claudius
delivered
by

Voltemand,
and
Hamlet's
five
letters
to
Ophelia,
Horatio
(4.6.8‐28),Gertrude
(4,7.36),

Claudius
(4.6.20
and
4.7.36‐46)
and
to
the
King
of
England
(5.2.31‐35).



 2



(b)
Characters
in
Hamlet

But
it
is
not
only
aspects
of
the
structure
of
the
play
that
follow
Revelation.
The

characters
do
as
well.
To
give
you
a
simple
example,
instead
of
the
Ruler
with
a
rod
of

iron
from
the
Book
of
Revelation
we
get
the
fop
Osric,
whose
name
in
old
English
means

the
Rule
of
God,
but
who
is
a
complete
dandy,
a
parody.



The
main
characters
are
divided
into
two
different
families,
one
good
and
the
other
evil.

Lets
look,
first,
at
the
forces
of
Christianity
who
form
the
first
Triad.
This
is
the
family
of

Polonius.
The
Holy
Family.


• Ophelia,
is
both
an
allegory
for
the
Virgin
Mary
and
also
for
Mary’s
equivalent
in

the
Book
of
Revelation,
the
Woman
crowned
with
the
sun.
This
is
why
Hamlet

addresses
her
in
his
letter
as
a
‘celestial’
heavenly
idol
while
the
name
Ophelia
is

the
Greek
for
Mary’s
property
of
‘succour’.



• Laertes,
is
the
resurrected
Christ
who
leaps
out
of
the
grave.
The
reason
why
this

young
man
bears
the
otherwise
inappropriate
name
of
an
elder
is
presumably

that
he
is
rejuvenated,
just
as
the
old
Laertes
was
in
Homer
by
Athena.
He
is

acclaimed
by
the
rabble
as
their
“lord”,
and
declares
that
he
will
stretch
out
his

arms
like
the
“kind
life‐rendering
pelican”
feeding
people
with
his
blood‐‐
a
well‐
known
Christ
symbol.


• Polonius,
is
the
“father
of
good
news”
(2,2,42),
the
term
“good
news”
being
the

literal
meaning
of
the
word
“gospel”.
As
the
allegorical
father
of
the
Virgin
Mary

and
of
Christ,
he
is
presumably
God
the
Father.
He
dies
by
being
stabbed

through
a
curtain,
in
an
odd
parallel
to
the
account
in
the
Talmud
of
how
Titus

Caesar
stabbed
the
curtain
in
the
Jerusalem
Temple,
and
thought
he
had
killed

the
god
of
the
Jews.


The
second
Triad,
the
Unholy
Family,
is
the
Danish
family
who
represent
the
forces
of

evil,
the
forces
of
Anti‐Christ.
Cherrell
Guilfoyle
has
suggested
that
the
setting
of
the

play
in
Denmark
indicated
that
this
second
Triad
represent
the
forces
of
Anti‐Christ.i

The
Danish
for
Denmark
is
‘Danmark’,
and
the
Danes
were
accordingly
sometimes

believed
to
be
the
offspring
of
the
tribe
of
Dan,
described
in
the
Bible
as
a
serpent,
and

whose
tribe
church
theologians
expected
to
give
birth
to
the
Anti‐Christ.
This
second

Triad
family
includes:


• Old
Hamlet,
is
in
Hell
at
the
beginning
of
the
play
because
he
is
specifically

identified
with
Hyperion.
Hyperion
was
the
Greek
god
of
light
who
was
similar
to

Apollo—the
god
of
the
sun,
fire
and
plagues—who
was
imprisoned
in
the
pit

Tartarus.
His
equivalent
in
the
Book
of
Revelation
is
Apollyon,
the
destroyer—
who
was
the
king
of
Hell—and
who
escapes
from
the
pit.
The
play
clearly

associates
him
with
the
devil.



 3


• Gertrude,
who
at
the
end
holds
the
poisoned
chalice
containing
a
pearl,

represents
the
Whore
of
Babylon,
adorned
with
gold
and
pearls,
who
holds
a

chalice
filled
with
abominations
and
will
be
made
to
drink
a
“double
draught”
of

it
(Rev.
18:6).
Dressed
in
scarlet
and
purple,
the
Whore
was
sometimes
regarded

as
an
allegory
for
the
church.



• Claudius,
is
the
“serpent”
who
stung
Old
Hamlet,
and
the
Hyrcanian
beast
(the

tiger),
who
is
called
an
“adulterate
beast”.
He
represents
the
Beast
from
the

Apocalypse
which
has
the
body
of
a
leopard,
heads
like
a
serpent,
and
on
whom

the
Whore
rides.
The
heads
are
associated
with
the
seven
Caesars
and

sometimes
with
the
seven
hills
of
Rome‐‐‐‐
and
Claudius
is
of
course
the
name
of

the
Julio‐Claudian
dynasty
of
Caesars.



Finally
what
about
Prince
Hamlet?
Hamlet’s
identity
as
Lucifer
son
of
the
Devil,
is
further

supported
when
he
imagines
wearing
Provincial
roses
on
his
shoes,
which
were
used
by

stage
actors
to
indicate
a
cloven
foot,
a
well‐known
signifier
of
the
devil.
He
also
uses

expressions
used
by
the
Vice
or

junior
comic
devil
on
the
English
stage.


He
also
represents
the
Anti‐Christ.
He
comes
back
from
the
sea
like
Beast
from
the
Sea

who
was
thought
to
be
the
Anti‐Christ.
This
is
confirmed
when
he
is
associated
with

events
in
the
life
of
the
Emperor
Nero
who
was
another
early
Anti‐Christ
figure
(who

also
killed
Claudius).
Finally
he
wears
black
and
comes
from
Wittenberg,
and
one
of
the

dates
in
the
play
is
the
day
before
Martin
Luther
nailed
up
the
95
theses
to
start
the

Reformation,
all
of
which
suggests
that
Hamlet
has
characteristics
of
Luther,
who

Catholics
regarded
as
the
Anti‐Christ.


(c
)
Parodic
plot

So
what
about
the
plot?
There
is
actually
an
underlying
allegorical
plot
if
you
put
it
all

together.

In
Revelation
the
woman
crowned
with
the
sun,
and
the
Christ
figure
win,
and

the
whore
and
the
beasts
are
defeated.
But
here
everyone
is
killed.
Here
Hamlet
as
the

Anti‐Christ
kills
Laertes
who
is
the
Christ
figure.
In
this
play
the
forces
opposed
to

Christianity
win,
and
everyone
dies—including
Ophelia
whose
life
is
based
partly
on
the

life
of
the
Virgin
Mary
except
when
she
ascends
to
heaven
to
become
the
woman

crowned
with
the
sun,
she
falls
into
the
water
and
dies.
So
what
does
it
mean
to
show

this
allegory
in
production?
I
am
going
to
take
a
couple
of
detailed
examples.


3.
HOW
CAN
THIS
BE
SHOWN
IN
PRODUCTION?

Obviously
to
show
any
of
this
in
production
means
using
experimental
and
meta‐
theatrical
techniques‐‐‐‐and
non
traditional
approaches.
To
show
this
in
production
we

face
several
huge
problems.
Firstly,
the
Decline
in
literacy
and
in
religious
knowledge
in

the
population.
For
example
the
Pew
Religious
Knowledge
survey
showed
that
under

half
the
US
population
know
that
Martin
Luther
started
the
Reformation.
That
is
a

problem
if
you
want
to
show
that
Hamlet
is
in
part
an
allegory
for
Luther.




 4


The
second
problem
is
Realism‐‐‐which
was
unknown
on
the
Elizabethan
stage,
which

was
highly
meta‐theatrical.
Women
were
played
by
boys,
you
could
see
across
the
stage

to
the
audience
the
other
side,
people
spoke
in
verse,
the
actors
told
you
they
were

actors
and
used
direct
address
to
breach
the
fourth
wall
showing
that
this
was
not
a

slice
of
life.

Yet
many
people
today
expect
that
a
production
of
Shakespeare
should
be

realistic,
but
that
is
based
on
anachronistic
modern
conventions‐‐‐which
actually
get
in

the
way
of
understanding
the
play,
since
these
characters
were
created
as
literary

figures
and
are

not
real
people.



(And
yes
I
know
that
is
contrary
to
what
people
get
taught
in
acting
school.
But
what

you
get
taught
in
acting
school
just
doesn’t
help
you
to
play
Hamlet
and
to
reveal
his

three
different
identities
as
different
kinds
of
Anti‐Christ
as
well
as
an
identity
as
Helios

the
sun
god,
whose
title
was
the
Mousekiller.)


The
third
problem
is
our
Entertainment
culture
and
its
superficiality.
Most
audiences

today
expect
to
go
to
a
play
to
be
entertained
and
just
to
see
the
surface
of
the
play.

We
have
to
attract
an
audience
that
wants
to
see
our
productions
because
they
are

interesting,
because
they
will
learn
to
think
differently.
Unlike
in
Elizabethan
London,

today
it
is
a
disadvantage
to
do
productions
that
are
intellectually
challenging.



And
the
fourth
problem
is
people’s
Expectations
about
Shakespeare.
Many
people
have

in
their
heads
the
model
of
the
New
Criticism,
that
the
text
is
a
sort
of
blueprint
for

performance
that
should
be
precisely
reproduced
on‐stage.
This
is
an
oppressive,

dominant
and
patriarchal
assumption
about
how
the
text
is
privileged
and
how
it

deserves
to
be
treated.
As
you
can
gather
that
is
an
assumption
I
do
not
share.
Firstly

this
assumption
assumes
that
all
that
matters
is
the
surface
of
the
verse,
and
not
what

lies
underneath
it.
That
is
not
correct.
Secondly
there
is
in
any
case
no
such
thing
as
a

definitive
text.
The
1603
and
1605
Quartos
are
different,
and
the
Folio
is
different
again.

Each
of
the
hundreds
of
surviving
Folios
is
even
different
from
each
other.
Every
modern

edition
is
different,
and
involves
editors
constructing
what
they
think
the
text
should
be,

and
what
other
materials
it
should
be
related
to
inter‐textually,
what
extracts
from
the

sources,
what
photos
etc.
Worst
of
all
are
the
people
who
support
‘original
practices’

and
think
that
by
having
the
actors’
trousers
woven
on
17th
century
looms
or
making

them
wear
Elizabethan
underwear
it
makes
the
performance
authentic.
It
doesn’t.
They

are
wrong.
It
makes
a
performance
a
museum
piece.
It
does
not
convey
the
meaning
of

the
play.



What
makes
a
performance
authentic
in
its
outcomes
is
if
what
happens
on
stage‐‐‐
regardless
of
what
that
stage
action
is‐‐‐helps
an
audience
to
deconstruct
something
of

the
same
meanings
that
the
author
intended
in
writing
it.
And
in
this
case
that
means

enabling
an
audience
to
understand
the
inter‐textual
relationship
to
the
Book
of

Revelation.
So
in
my
approach
to
Shakespearean
dramaturgy,
meaning
and
substance
is



 5

more
important
than
form.
So
if
we
have
to
cut
and
rearrange
the
play
and
insert
all

sorts
of
metatheatrical
devices
to
make
that
meaning
visible….then
that
is
fine.


So
the
first
thing
we
did
was
cut
the
play
to
highlight
all
the
pieces
where
the
allegorical

action
was
most
obvious.
Then
we
created
a
prelude
in
which
Hamlet
is
approached
by

a
troop
of
actors
who
want
to
perform
the
play
Hamlet.
Each
actor
has
their
own
ideas

which
all
illustrate
different
correspondences
to
Revelation.
Then
all
of
them
are
hung

up
on
the
wall
and
ticked
off
as
they
are
covered.
Then
the
play
proper
starts
with
the

dumbshows
and
play‐within‐the‐play.
This
is
how
some
of
the
characters—who
appear

typologically
in
each
of
these
as
well
as
the
main
play‐‐‐get
different
attributes
of
their

identity.
From
then
on
we
run
straight
through
the
main
elements
of
the
play.
However

as
people
put
on
costumes,
various
wardrobe
signs
indicate
what
character
that
belongs

to.
We
also
bring
18
books
on‐stage
so
whenever
someone
makes
an
important
allusion

it
can
be
visibly
read
out
of
the
inter‐text
that
is
being
referred
to.



So
let
me
just
give
two
examples
about
how
we
try
and
bring
out
the
allegories,
one

about
the
religious
allegory
and
one
about
the
parallel
astronomical
allegory.



We
bring
in
Hamlet’s
letter
on
stage
in
the
form
of
a
large
Fedex
envelope
so
it
is
very

clear
that
Ophelia
is
addressed
as
the
Virgin
Mary—as
a
celestial
idol‐‐
and
we
even

have
Gertrude
comment
on
it.
Work
by
Chris
Hassel
has
shown
that
the
way
that

Ophelia
is
interrupted
while
sewing
and
reading
is
a
parody
of
the
annunciation
to
the

Virgin
Mary.ii
The
references
to
pregnancy
and
maggots
in
a
dead
dog
are
allusions
to

medieval
theology
about
how
Mary
conceived
and
remained
a
virgin.
Ophelia’s
death

singing
lauds
and
with
a
coronet
is
a
parody
of
the
‘Assumption
of
Mary’
into
heaven
to

be
crowned.
So
when
Ophelia
is
interrupted
by
Hamlet
his
clothing
all
disordered,
she
is

like
the
Virgin
Mary
who
was
interrupted
by
the
Archangel
Gabriel,
and
a
ray
of
sunlight

shining
on
her
stomach
allowed
her
to
conceive
the
Christ.
But
here
Ophelia
is

interrupted
by
Hamlet
who
is
both
the
Archangel
Lucifer,
the
Anti‐Christ
and
also
Helios

the
sun
god,
who
bends
the
light
of
his
eyes
upon
her.
So
she
conceives
the
son
of
a

devil.
Which
is
why
later
in
her
scene
with
all
the
herbs—recognized
in
scholarship
to
be

used
for
abortion
recipes—she
is
aborting
the
baby.
So

in
our
production
we
are
going

to
show
this,
Ophelia
will
get
pregnant
when
Hamlet
shines
the
light
of
his
eyes
on
her,

and
we
will
bring
on
the
various
Herbals
showing
that
the
herbs
are
abortive
herbs.



My
second
example
is
the
astronomical
allegory
that
also
exists
in
Hamlet
which
has

been
identified
by
Peter
Usher.
The
characters
are
not
only
from
the
Book
of
Revelation,

they
are
also
astronomical.
As
Helios,
Hamlet
is
the
sun,
Ophelia
(whose
name
suggests

she
is
opposite
to
Helios)
is
the
moon
“the
moist
star”.
Claudius
is
the
Earth,
the
world,

who
is
named
after
Claudius
Ptolemy
and
is
surrounded
by
ten
thousand
stars
that

revolve
around
him.
The
struggle
goes
on
between
Claudius’
geo‐centric
model
of
the

solar
system,
which
Hamlet
wants
to
replace
by
a
helio‐centric
model.
So,
for
instance,

at
the
point
when
Gertrude
says
that
Hamlet
is
being
retrograde
in
wanting
to
go
back

to
Wittenberg,
this
is
a
particular
astronomical
term
referring
to
the
backwards



 6

movement
of
the
sun.
So
we
will
illustrate
this
with
movement

and
a
struggle
between

Claudius
and
Hamlet
in
which
Hamlet
actually
starts
walking
backwards.
And
Ophelia’s

astronomical
identity
as
the
moon
will
be
illustrated
simply
by
her
wearing
a
cardboard

crescent
moon.
For
the
last
few
weeks
we
have
been
using
our
Facebook
page
to

familiarize
some
of
our
potential
audience
with
these
ideas‐‐‐for
instance
by
showing
a

video
snippet
extract
from
rehearsal
of
the
struggle
between
Hamlet
and
Claudius,
and

putting
up
Durer’s
illustration
of
the
Virgin
Mary
seated
on
the
crescent
Moon,
and
so

on.


4.
IMPLICATIONS

What
the
Dark
Lady
Players
are
trying
to
do
is
create
an
allegorical
theater,
in
which

what
happens
on
stage
highlights
the
underlying
meanings
in
the
text.

We
are
doing
it

on
a
tiny
budget
with
no
production
values
and
someone
else’s
lighting,
but
we
are

doing
it
as
a
proof
of
concept
of
a
new
understanding
of
the
play.


The
full
text
of
Hamlet,
without
any
breaks
would
take
four
and
a
half
hours
to
read
and

could
only
have
been
performed
at
a
university
(where
it
was
possible
to
have

performances
between
four
and
five
hours.iii
The
London
stage
would
have
had
a
short

version
like
the
1603
Quarto
that
only
took
a
couple
of
hours.
Our
version
is
about
90

minutes
because
that
is
what
most
Off
Off
Broadway
audiences
want.
Of
course
what

we
are
doing
could
never
have
been
shown
on
the
Renaissance
stage—everyone
would

have
been
killed
by
the
Secret
Service.
Nonetheless,
these
are
the
meanings
that
an

intelligent
man
like
Gabriel
Harvey
probably
meant
when
he
wrote
cryptically
that

Hamlet
contained
much
of
interest
to
the
“wiser
sort”.



This
religious
parody
also
raises
very
significant
questions
of
why
a
Catholic
actor
like

William
Shakespeare
would
create
such
a
literary
play—which
had
limited
performance

and
revenue
opportunities
since
it
could
only
be
performed
at
Oxford
and
Cambridge

—and
which
challenged
everything
that
any
Christian
would
believe.
What
is

achieved

by
depicting

this
covert
version
of
Apocalypse
in
which
there
is
no
immortality
and
only

death
and
destruction?
Who
would
take
the
appalling
risks
to
write
such
a
thing
that

could
not
even
be
performed
on
the
London
stage?
The
answers
to
these
questions
will

change
everything
you
thought
you
knew
about
Shakespeare.
So
come,
join
us
this

Sunday,
Monday
or
Tuesday

for
Hamlet’s
Apocalypse.



























































i

Cherrell
Guilfoyle,
Shakespeare’s
Play
Within
a
Play:
medieval
imagery
and
scenic
form
in

Hamlet,
Othello,
and
King
Lear.
(Kalamazoo,
Michigan:
Western
Michigan
University,
1990).

ii

Chris
Hassel,
‘Painted
Women:
Annunciation
Motifs
in
Hamlet.’
Comparative
Drama,
32,

(1998):
47‐84.


iii
Orgel
and
Kean
Shakespeare
and
the
Editorial
Tradition
pg
115



 7


S-ar putea să vă placă și