Talk:Sources of Hamlet

Hamlet's Mill

Why is it that Hamlet's Mill is not mentioned in this article at all? This, despite misuse by pseudo-historians, is still a worthwhile exploration of the root of the Hamlet myth. the infamous rmx (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• I've never heard of it. Our article on it makes it sound like it may mot be a reliable source. I'd say there's plenty of scope for expanding this article from the Arden Hamlet and other academic texts. What did you have in mind? AndyJones (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • That looks like a work of Archetypal criticism rather than an exploration of the source of Hamlet in the sense this article covers. Information from that book would probably be better placed in Critical approaches to Hamlet. Wrad (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Pre-GAN cleanup

I came across this article and tried to do some minor copyediting and fixing in the parts that I skimmed. I'm not here to review it, but would like to point out a few things that should be addressed right away, as they have the potential to negatively affect your GA review:

1. Lots of weasel words ("it is believed that," "it is theorized that," "scholars have," etc.). This sort of language should be avoided...it may help to go to every sentence where you have wording like that, and instead add a specific source to that sentence. For example, wording like "Shakespeare historians such as Saxo¹" is better than "Some scholars"—it specifies what kind of scholars you're talking about, and gives an exemplar to represent the ambiguous "scholars" who hold that view.

   They aren't weasel words if they are cited, which they are. I don't see any need to list the dozens of scholars who agree. Seems wasteful. Wrad (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

2. The majority of the information is from a single source. You may want to dig around and find some other sources to supplement what's here now.
3. The lead-in...I haven't read the whole article, but I did notice one instance (I mentioned it in my latest edit summary) of where a sentence in the main article is exactly the same as a sentence in the lead-in. This is generally frowned upon; the lead-in should be a relatively superficial summary of what's in the article. For example, the entire discussion of the Ur-Hamlet in the lead-in (a full paragraph) should probably just be a single sentence (pointing out that it was a main source, that its provenance is disputed, and that it shares some similarities, and some differences, with Hamlet), or maybe two. All the details (the specific differences, the dates it was performed, whether or not Shakespeare himself wrote it) should be in the main article, and probably not in the lead-in.

Hope this helps, —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 19:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I've requested a copyedit, which should help with a lot of this. Thanks for the advice. Wrad (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Article references

Regarding the current dispute over a "lack of references" for this article, I have just reread the piece and it appears to be properly referenced through-out. If there is a specific bit of info that someone feels is not adequately referenced, simply post a tag on the offending sentence and I'm sure a reference can be supplied.

On another subject, comparing this article with the corresponding sections in the main Hamlet article, is there anything new that this article covers? It appears to me that the two articles are almost entirely redundant. Is this article really needed?Smatprt (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your first question: there were several {{who}} tags in the article, and the author has removed them all. I'm not meaning to imply the information is "not referenced," but at least that the writing needs cleaned up (WP:WEASEL).

I don't know anything about the second issue. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that any of the writing constitutes weasel words at all. See the "exceptions" section, where it says:

As with any rule of thumb, this guideline should be balanced against other needs for the text, especially the need for brevity and clarity. Some specific exceptions that may need calling out...[for example,] When the holders of the opinion are too diverse or numerous to qualify. The statement made in this article qualifies wholeheartedly.

On your second point, yes, this article is still in early stages of development. It only says a few things not in the Hamlet article. My idea for creating it was that it could be expanded based on other sources of Hamlet besides just the legend, for example, biblical references, or the Catholic prayer which is the source of Horatio's invocation of angels in the final lines. That sort of thing. Wrad (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

that makes perfect sense. I look forward to seeing what you do to expand it. On the question of references, were there any cite tags removed that were not covered by the existing references? It looks to me that any debatable points are pretty well cited. Smatprt (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Influences on Saxo Grammaticus

Should this be Influence of Saxo Grammaticus? Otherwise, I'm not sure what the headline means. Fotoguzzi (talk) 02:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks correct to me. The section is about things that influenced Saxo Grammaticus, not on things that it influenced. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Fratricide Revenged (Der Bestrafte Brudermord)

The so called 'Germen Hamlet', seems to be very similar, almost identical to Shakespeare's Hamlet. Shouldn't this be mentioned here? A whole 'nother article would be even better for this story. --Xali (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Henry Brown's book

The title appears twice in the article, with slightly different renderings. Varlaam (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I read the referenced section of the book, and it has very little resemblance to the material given in the section. Both deleted. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Legend of Friedrich, Adelheid and Ludwig

The story of the Lady of Weissenburg became one of the most well-known dramas of the early medieval Europe. Its ‘theatrical’ quality, its dramatic power — a collision of love, betrayal and retribution — for centuries aroused the imagination of poets, singers, writers and painters. It entered the folklore of German-speaking people from Holland to northern Italy. In Slovakia, the version of the Ballade of the Lady of Weissenburg was known — and sung — up until after the second world war.

Count Friedrich, Imperial Palatine of Saxony, married Adelheid, daughter of the powerful Count of Stade. Things were rarely that simple in marriage even back then, and soon after the wedding, Adelheid fell in love with her neighbour – young Ludwig, Count of Thuringia and Friedrich III’s cousin. Together, they conspired to murder Friedrich, staging a hunting accident: One gloomy winter day a party of hunters enter the forest near Friedrich’s residence. Reacting to Adelheid’s warning, he dashed off to intercept and to arrest the trespassers, who ambushed him and killed him. He was buried at the Goseck monastery nearby.

However, while Friedrich was gone, his genetic legacy was not. Adelheid, who had by now wed Ludwig with almost indecent haste and without properly observing the period of mourning, bore the dead Count a son, Friedrich IV.

The young Friedrich was less than happy with his step-father, who was briefly detained by Emperor Heinrich IV of the time, but escaped – and earned the epithet ‘The Jumper’ – by jumping into the Saale River. As Ludwig won back favour with the Emperor over time, so his power as Count of Thuringia grew. He was no slouch as a politician, bestowing generous deeds of appropriated land and privileges on his subjects. He then built the Neuenburg Castle, barely 3km away from the Weissenburg Castle: Friedrich’s court. This was a grave affront to Friedrich, opening up the rift between them further. Friedrich would go on to openly accuse Ludwig of his father’s murder and challenge him to a duel.

In something of an anti-climax, the duel never happened. Friedrich left the state to marry Agnes, daughter of Count Henrik van Limburg, with whom he had two children. Most likely to his glee, he outlived his stepfather, who died in either 1123 or 1126. His mother had, meanwhile, died as a nun in 1111, in the monastery at Zscheiplitz which Adelheid had established as a place of repentance and remembrance for Friedrich III and which still stands today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0102031zz (talk • contribs) 22:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Deletion for WP:TOPIC

A chapter-by-chapter summary of Marić's Philosophy in Hamlet, ISBN 978-8690080205, is online here. The book's content doesn't relate to the sources of Hamlet. Deleting.--AntientNestor (talk) 10:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Giordano Bruno

In the article there is a brief consideration of Giordano Bruno's Lo Spaccio della besta trionfante (1584) as a possible influence on Hamlet, a theory first proposed in 1858 by Benno Tschischwitz, but since dismissed by many scholars such as H. H. Furness and John Mackinnon Robertson. Fish, Crocodiles, Whales, Ossa, Pelion and Olympus: Giordano Bruno’s The Expulsion of the Triumphant Beast as a Major Source for Hamlet, a WP:RECENT dissertation introducing "Christianity, thermodynamics […] coal and fossil fuels" into the discussion, is given far too much prominence here and I'm proposing to cut it, subject to other editor's views.--AntientNestor (talk) 07:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Done.--AntientNestor (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

References