Talk:Hamlet

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)

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)

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?