Young Shakespeare's Young Hamlet

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 29.0273  Saturday, 11 August 2018

 

[1] From:        Tad Davis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         August 9, 2018 at 5:40:37 PM EDT

     Subj:         Re: SHAKSPER: Young Hamlet 

 

[2] From:        Steve Roth <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         August 9, 2018 at 8:12:54 PM EDT

     Subj:         Re: SHAKSPER: Young Hamlet 

 

 

[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Tad Davis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         August 9, 2018 at 5:40:37 PM EDT

Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: Young Hamlet

 

Julia Griffin writes:

 

He tells Barnardo and Marcellus that Old H looked as he now does when smiting the [dreaded] Pollack....

 

(Or the [dreaded] pole-axe....)

 

Tad Davis

 

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Steve Roth <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         August 9, 2018 at 8:12:54 PM EDT

Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: Young Hamlet

 

Adding my kudos for Julia Griffin to those from Larry Weiss. I hope she’ll be pleased to know that the redoubtable W. W. Greg agrees with her wholeheartedly. From the second paragraph of Greg’s 1925 review of Van Dam’s The Text of Shakespeare’s Hamlet:

 

“He has persuaded himself, on what he regards as irrefragable evidence, that the structure of English dramatic blank verse is of an invariable measure, permitting no license and demanding a practically constant syllabic pronunciation.”

 

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3714018

 

 

 

Young Shakespeare's Young Hamlet

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 29.0272  Thursday, 9 August 2018

 

From:        Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         August 8, 2018 at 1:02:39 AM EDT

Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: Young Hamlet

 

Kudos to Julia Griffin for her sensible take on the Hamlet Q1 controversy.

 

 

 

 

Young Shakespeare's Young Hamlet

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 29.0271  Tuesday, 7 August 2018

 

[1] From:        John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         August 7, 2018 at 8:58:49 AM EDT

     Subj:         Re: SHAKSPER: Young Hamlet 

 

[2] From:        Julia Griffin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         August 6, 2018 at 7:42:18 PM EDT

     Subj:         Re: SHAKSPER: Young Hamlet 

 

 

[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------

From:        John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         August 7, 2018 at 8:58:49 AM EDT

Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: Young Hamlet

 

Hardy M. Cook wrote: 

 

As a member of this list who is not well-versed in all of Shakespearean scholarship, I wonder if Gerald Downs would explain to me just who van Dam is and what his qualifications are.

 

B. A. P. van Dam, The Text of Shakespeare's Hamlet (London, 1924)

Regards,

John Briggs

[Editor’s Note: It was a two-part question. -Hardy]

 

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Julia Griffin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         August 6, 2018 at 7:42:18 PM EDT

Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: Young Hamlet

 

I’ve not followed all the Q1 Memorial Discussion (perhaps I am not alone in this), but I wanted to shove in my oar on this passage:

 

‘Smoothing Insertions.’ We pass on to a third group . . . .

 

        My father, me thinkes I see my father.

           Hora.   Where my Lord?

           Ham.   In my mindes eye Horatio.

           Hora.   I saw him once, a was a goodly King.

           Ham.   A was a man take him for all in all

        I shall not looke vppon his like againe.

           Hora.   My Lord I thinke I saw him yesternight.

           Ham.   Saw, who?

 

All the words italicized above are redundant and break the metre; if we omit them we keep an excellent text of five lines of regular blank verse . . . . Is it not strange that Horatio should have seen Hamlet’s father only once . . .

 

“My father, I see my father./ Where my Lord?” is not regular blank verse. Not that I think that matters so much, but Gerald Downs makes much of Van Dam’s idea that apparent irregularities may be corruptions.

 

Beyond that, I can’t quite believe in this exchange with the italics taken out. “I see my father”, when actually he doesn’t, would be awkward; “My Lord I saw him yesternight” would be perfectly true, of course, but loses the hesitation that sounds so much more natural there.  I’m interested in “I saw him once”.  Downs is right, it is odd - and yet it isn’t; perhaps it only sounds so natural because I’m so used to it, but I wonder if it really has to mean “I saw him one time [only]”. Enobarbus saw Cleopatra once hop forty paces through the public street - perhaps he saw her do it one time, or perhaps he just saw it in the past. Perhaps Horatio means something more like “I knew him once.”  

 

How much Horatio, not a courtier, knew or knows of the royal family isn’t clear. He tells Barnardo and Marcellus that Old H looked as he now does when smiting the [dreaded] Pollack: Horatio won’t have seen that, presumably, nor the ambitious Norway. The point is to fill in some vivid background on the dead King, not to provide biography for Horatio.  Marcellus and Bernardo aren’t asking someone of superior knowledge about the King’s appearance: they just want corroboration of what they already know.

 

The fact that these additions make the dialogue flow more naturally does not, of course, disprove the idea that they are actors’ additions.  As the actors entered their parts, they might have started to say them: “In my mind’s eye, Horatio” [come on, old friend, keep up!]  “I saw him once” [I’m joining in these visual memories of yours before plunging into something that’s going to shock you]. “I thinke I saw him yesternight’ [I don’t want to be too assertive with you, my extravagantly affectionate but still very definitely superior friend].  

 

Or perhaps 'twere to consider too curiously to consider so.

 

Julia Griffin

 

 

 

Stratford Festival

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 29.0270  Tuesday, 7 August 2018

 

From:        Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         August 7, 2018 at 9:25:34 AM EDT

Subject:    Deep Dives Into Justice From Shakespeare, Wilde and Atticus Finch

 

From the New York Times:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/03/theater/stratford-festival-the-tempest-to-kill-a-mockingbird.html

 

Deep Dives Into Justice From Shakespeare, Wilde and Atticus Finch

 

By Jesse Green

Aug. 3, 2018

STRATFORD, Ontario — Weird things happen when you take a theatrical deep dive; you may even get a case of the bends.

 

About halfway through my recent visit to the Stratford Festival here, during which I saw six shows in four days, I found that the fiction onstage was starting to seem realer than the reality outside. That reminded me of the disorientation I experienced as a child when I went to an afternoon movie in winter: How did the world change from light to dark while I wasn’t looking?

 

But at Stratford the disorientation was moral. The question I asked myself between shows was: Why, after all I’d just seen in the theater, was the world outside still so benighted?

 

I’ve already written about the season’s cause célèbre (an innovative production of “Coriolanus” directed by Robert Lepage) and its unexpectedly mirror-image musicals (“The Music Man” and “The Rocky Horror Show,” both directed by Donna Feore). But those shows, being exceptionally showy, stood alone, aloof to the internal discussion among Stratford’s nine other productions.

 

Those nine are the festival’s meat and potatoes, and I got a good taste of them in “The Tempest,” “To Kill a Mockingbird” and “An Ideal Husband.” Since all three wrestle with formidable problems of justice and forgiveness — and, in this repertory company, share many cast members — they often seemed to be working in concert.

 

“The Tempest,” staged by the festival’s artistic director, Antoni Cimolino, is an elaborate production, with eye-popping costumes (by Bretta Gerecke) and plenty of magic. Its young lovers are lovely, its fools foolish, its Caliban reptilian and its Ariel, complete with a Bride of Frankenstein wig, otherworldly. It even includes the often-cut Act IV masque, in which goddesses arriving to bless the marriage of Miranda and Ferdinand wear what look like organza parade floats.

 

But the real magic and grandeur come from Martha Henry as Prospero. Ms. Henry is now in her 44th season at Stratford, having played Miranda in her first, in 1962. It goes without saying that she’s a flawless technician; she speaks the verse so clearly that you can feel the commas clicking into place. What such prowess does not necessarily guarantee is the thoughtfulness and warmth of her characterization, in a role often given to bluster.

 

Is it relevant that she’s a woman? The production makes the case that it is. Without changing her name to Prospera — as Julie Taymor did in her filmed “Tempest,” starring Helen Mirren — it nevertheless acknowledges the marooned wizard as a mother, mistress and duchess instead of a father, master and duke. The love she feels for Miranda is infused with the understanding of what it is to be female, and so is the framing of her betrayal by her brother, who usurped her power and sent her to sea to die.

 

Because so many of Shakespeare’s plays engage similar questions, the canon seems especially ripe right now for reimagining in this way. (I did not see the festival’s “Julius Caesar,” with Seana McKenna in the title role.) But Shakespeare, in his commodiousness, has always been amenable to updating. Not every play is, as Stratford’s “To Kill a Mockingbird” demonstrates.

 

[ . . . ]

 

 

 

Young Shakespeare's Young Hamlet

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 29.0269  Monday, 6 August 2018

 

[1] From:        Gerald E. Downs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         August 4, 2018 at 1:42:01 AM EDT

     Subj:         Re: Young Hamlet 

 

[2] From:        Gerald E. Downs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         August 4, 2018 at 1:42:01 AM EDT

     Subj:         Re: Young Hamlet

 

[3] From:        Steve Urkowitz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         August 3, 2018 at 5:42:07 PM EDT

     Subj:         Re: SHAKSPER: Young Hamlet

 

[4] From:        Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         Monday, August 6, 2018

     Subj:         Young Hamlet 

 

 

[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Gerald E. Downs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         August 5, 2018 at 9:52:41 PM EDT

Subject:    Re: Young Hamlet

 

I believe Q1 Hamlet is a shorthand report and that few critics (or none) have fully come to grips with the evidence for (or implications of) shorthand reporting. Bourus’s Ch. 3, while also failing in these respects, is the best Young Hamlet spot to review. Her case against memorial reconstruction (MR) neglects textual evidence, confuses issues, and too readily trusts authority. The question is not simply whether Q1 is MR. It’s about a textual history credibly explaining or accommodating as much evidence as possible. This last posting in response to Ch. 2 should be understood within the shorthand framework.

 

To identify Q2 interpolations (if any), we don’t need Interpol; but a critic as well ‘versed’ and insightful as van Dam helps to set the parameters. For example, I’ve previously discussed this exchange between Laertes and Claudius:

 

           King.  Good Laertes, / if you desire to know the certainty

        Of your deere Father, i’st writ in your reuenge,

        That soopstake, you will draw both friend and foe

        Winner and looser.

 

[Winner and looser (italicized as suspect)] is an inappropriate addition, and we should be at a loss to understand what gave rise to it if the word swoopstake did not precede it. (van Dam, 81)

 

I wondered what relevance ‘winner and loser’ had in context. For card games, horse races, and lotteries, sweepstake means ‘winner take all.’ But ‘indiscriminate’ seems more to the point; reference to ‘friend and foe’ as victims of revenge has nothing to do with ‘winners and losers.’ An actor may have mistakenly added the allusion to ‘soopstake’ for the ‘benefit’ of the audience. As one reads over more instances of insertion the criteria repeatedly assert themselves:

 

‘Explanatory Insertions.’ The first interpolation . . . that we recognized . . . more than twenty years ago are the two . . . italicized words:

 

   Ghost.         . . . but knowe thou noble Youth,

The Serpent that did sting thy fathers life

Now weares his Crowne.

   Ham.   O my propheticke soule! my Vncle.

 

No one who is aware of the poor anti-climax in . . . ‘my Vncle’ after ‘O my propheticke soule’, and . . . realized the comic effect [will believe them Shakespeare’s]. The words are redundant and extra-metrical . . . . Not before the number of instances . . . had largely increased, could we infer that ‘my Vncle’ [typically aims] at illustrating the text . . . . [It’s] in the actors’ interest that the audience should immediately understand . . . . (84)

 

Neither Hamlet nor his soul prophesied murder, but they know who ‘wears the crown,’ and the ghost knows they know: ‘I that incestuous, that adulterate beast’. Furness earlier reports of this passage that Seymour ‘considers [‘O God.’] as an unnecessary interpolation of some actors; so also the Ghost’s repetition of [‘Murther.’] in line 27.’

 

‘Smoothing Insertions.’ We pass on to a third group . . . .

 

        My father, me thinkes I see my father.

           Hora.   Where my Lord?

           Ham.   In my mindes eye Horatio.

           Hora.   I saw him once, a was a goodly King.

           Ham.   A was a man take him for all in all

        I shall not looke vppon his like againe.

           Hora.   My Lord I thinke I saw him yesternight.

           Ham.   Saw, who?

 

All the words italicized above are redundant and break the metre; if we omit them we keep an excellent text of five lines of regular blank verse . . . . Is it not strange that Horatio should have seen Hamlet’s father only once . . . . Let us return to other passages . . . .

 

           Hora.    . . . . I knewe your father,

        These hands are not more like.

           Ham.  His beard was grisl’d, no.

           Hora.  It was as I have seene in his life

        A sable silver’d.

 

Bernardo and Marcellus too ask Horatio whether the ghost looks like the king, and why should they ask unless they knew Horatio to be well informed . . .

 

   Bar.    Lookes a not like the King? marke it Horatio.

   Hora.  Most like, it horrowes me with feare and wonder

   

   Mar.   Is it not like the King?

   Hora. As thou art to thyselfe.

Such was the very Armor he had on,

When he the ambitious Norway combated,

So frowned he once, when in angry parle

He smote the [dreaded] pollax on the ice.

 

. . . Horatio cannot have [said] ‘I saw him once’. . . . [T]he contradiction in the lines 186 and 211 occurs on the same occasion, in the same conversation. . . . Horatio does not think, but knows that he has seen Hamlet’s father . . . . (van Dam, 90-91)

 

I’ve noticed how much of Act One is regular verse unadorned by superfluous words and phrases; though I claim no special feel for such things, omission of suspect, hypermetrical, redundant words often seems to enhance the power of the verse. When something is apparently wrong, interpolation becomes more likely. The number of instances is large. It’s clear to me (if not to van Dam) that Q2 printer’s copy wasn’t holograph. Rather than uncritically to suppose Shakespearean revision, we should turn to such talents as van Dam for guidance. His book is available from ‘Hamlet Works Library,’ online. His ‘Prosody’ chapter is especially valuable, though ‘Prosody and Text’ is free on Google Books.

 

I’ll spend some time on Bourus’s Chapter 3, after which it may not pay to argue that a bad quarto (a very bad one) does not precede the versions it is based on, except by date of printing.

 

Gerald E. Downs

 

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Gerald E. Downs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         August 4, 2018 at 1:42:01 AM EDT

Subject:    Re: Young Hamlet

 

An involved but interesting topic arises in Young Hamlet, where Terri Bourus criticizes Kathleen Irace, who argues that

 

Q1 contains ‘interpolations’ by actors . . . . [Irace’s Appendix], which lists those alleged interpolations, is rhetorically effective, because the added words—interjections, connectives, commonplace modifiers, mundane phrases—are all unremarkable . . . . Irace . . . endorses Harold Jenkins’s analysis of actors’ interpolations in [F], and [her Q1 items resemble his]. They epitomize what nonactors expect actors to do: fill pauses with ill-considered verbiage, or dilute the precision and formal polish of Shakespeare’s language. . . . [M]y list above (table 2.1) modifies Irace’s list. . . . In each case, the italicized words do not appear in either of the other texts of the play. All the italicized words and phrases are superfluous . . . . The forgoing list demonstrates, comprehensively and in detail, the kind of evidence that has convinced so many scholars that [Q1] contains actors interpolations. But . . . the 37 ‘Possible Actors’ Additions’ I list above are all unique to Q2, rather than Q1. Which is to say: the criteria that Irace applies can just as easily identify ‘evidence of [MR]’ in . . . [Q2]. . . .

 

[Every hypothesis about a [MR] or [BQ] cites . . . cases where the indicted text produces an ‘extrametrical’ or ‘unmetrical’ line. But these claims [assume] that Shakespeare’s verse was always perfectly regular . . . . The sanest and most comprehensive discussion of ‘Shakespeare’s Metrical Art’ remains [George T. Wright’s 1988] book . . . . He simply describes, and illustrates, Shakespeare’s repeated use . . . . [YH, 46 – 48).

 

Bourus repeats Irace’s Q1 list in five pages, mostly of single words, and often rightly questions their value as evidence. Even so, Bourus further asserts that

 

All three early texts . . . could, by these loose criteria, be stigmatized as actors’ additions. We cannot use such data . . . unless we concede that the memory of an actor corrupted all the texts. . . . [I]t actually forces us to dismiss all three texts as the products of an actor’s memory. So this ‘evidence’ is meaningless. (YH, 55)

 

Van Dam analyzes Hamlet interpolations per se after his chapter on Q1 (where Variations and Additions cover a lot of the same ground). Headed ‘Interpolations in [Q2] and [F],’ he begins with a letter to the Transactions of the New Shakspere Society (ed. Furnivall,1880):

 

It is the custom now-a-days—and it has been the custom as far back as the memory of any living actor extends—to extract the parts . . . and to deliver them to the actors . . . . After the production . . . the parts are returned . . . marked with such alterations, cuts or interpolations, as may have arisen during the rehearsals. . . . The prompter’s and stage-manager’s copy (generally the same thing) differs as a rule from the author’s private MS., inasmuch as it is marked with the stage business and alterations . . . rendered necessary. . . . In cases of illicit publication—procured, for instance, from shorthand notes . . . the result [often differs] both from the stage-manager’s copy and the author’s MS., since it frequently contains alterations, interpolations, or ‘gags’, which have grown gradually . . . . (Arthur W. Pinero)

 

From the last sentence . . . it appears that in our time too actors do not scrupulously adhere to what the author has laid down . . . . this, considered in connection with . . . the preceding chapter, would seem to show that the liberties taken by the actors of former times . . . do not differ fundamentally but in degree. (van Dam, 73)

 

Assuming Pinero knew something about actors of his day, his description contradicts Bourus’s ‘epitome of what nonactors expect actors to do: fill pauses with ill-considered verbiage, or dilute the precision and formal polish of Shakespeare’s language.’ Her own loaded language, ‘presentism,’ and Bardolatry notwithstanding, interpolation in Shakespeare’s days and plays seems reasonable enough; it’s a matter of evidence and literary judgment. For van Dam, with whom I agree, it’s also about prosody, which may entail ‘precision and formal polish’ here and there: 

 

Insertions . . . are rendered conspicuous by more or less characteristic peculiarities. They are redundant, they break the metre, they are inferior, and—what is no less important—they suit some purpose. . . . It is, in most cases, easy to determine whether words and short sentences are redundant; it is not so easy to determine . . . whether they are at variance with . . . blank verse, for it is generally accepted that . . . Shakespeare allowed himself all sorts of irregularities, or, in other words, that [his verse] was not tied down by . . . a definite number of syllables, any more than by fixed rules . . . . But what is generally accepted need not be true. And certainly not when it appears that not a single one of [his] contemporaries shares the modern views . . . . It is . . . difficult to determine what was true of Shakespeare’s metrical looseness, as one cannot make sure of his prosody if one is not certain of having a perfectly unadulterated text as material for research. . . . And the more seriously we study the language of the old plays, the greater will become the number of apparent irregularities which will be seen to be really corruptions . . . . [W]e already apply in the present chapter the thesis that all the words that can be omitted from the text without any harm to the sense, while leaving a regular decasyllabic line, may be looked on as breaking the metre.

 

As I’ve noted before, George T. Wright treats Shakespeare’s texts as ‘perfectly unadulterated,’ when identification of corruption is this investigation’s purpose. A criterion is that suspected interpolations be unique (or distinctive, with exceptions) to one of the three Hamlet texts (Q1, Q2, or F). A goodly number of instances, even if arguable in probability, will itself indicate corruption if van Dam’s other conditions are met. Categories include ‘insertions to suit the action’ for numerous reasons, ‘smoothing insertions,’ and ‘printer’s insertions.’ As Jenkins lists F candidates, I’ll note a few of van Dam’s Q2 analyses in a last posting on Bourus’s Chapter 2.

 

For now, consider her ‘scientific method’: If independent evidence meets the criteria for interpolation in all three texts, “We cannot use such data . . . unless we concede that the memory of an actor corrupted all the texts. . . . [We are forced] to dismiss all three texts as the products of an actor’s memory. So this ‘evidence’ is meaningless.”

 

Of course, Bourus cannot mean one actor, or even memory, per se. Interpolations may be deliberately repeated or included in written texts as revisions. Van Dam infers that actors recorded them in their playhouse manuscripts, as Pinero describes. I would discriminate between permanent and one-time insertions, if possible, but otherwise my interest is to help identify shorthand reports of performance, where their written existence will have originated the extant affected playtexts.

 

If we concede that evidence indicates interpolation in any number of texts, we are ‘forced’ rather to respect the data by hypothesizing all the texts as shorthand reports. Evidence is never meaningless, except to bad science (history). John of Bordeaux is a ‘good’ shorthand report with some convincing interpolations to Greene’s regular verse. Although no one else, as far as I know, has ever proposed Q2 and F Hamlet, specifically, as shorthand reports, I suggest we ought not to dismiss any possibility that answers to the evidence.

 

Gerald E. Downs

 

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Steve Urkowitz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         August 3, 2018 at 5:42:07 PM EDT

Subject:    Re: SHAKSPER: Young Hamlet

 

(2) In response to Jerry Downs and “transpositions” in Q1 -Q2 - F HAMLET, I have been teasing out different experimental strategies to tie together the strings of Jerry’s application of stenographic reporting, the all-too-conventional memorial reconstruction gambits, every possible and some impossible other authors and helter-skelter bits-and-bobs collaborators found by my current obsessively favorite textual sportspeople the “stylometrists.”   

 

So try out this: suppose we generously grant a complete amnesty and total forgiveness for everyone’s errors AND a Gold Participation Medal or bowling trophy to ALL the players who have ever shown up to play this batty game.    

 

I will grant this IF  ----  BIG BIG IF --- the interested parties will just once-in-a-while return to READING and ACTING separately the various scripts, playfully, imaginatively, artistically, in classrooms, on stages, during conferences, at summer camps.

 

I want to be there when, perhaps, a stylometrix will get to read out loud Q1 Corambis’s line to his daughter when he says: 

 

 Well, I am sory

That I was so rash: but what remedy?

Lets to the King, this madnesse may prooue,

Though wilde a while, yet more true to thy loue.

 

“Maybe things will work out for your love.” And in my fantasy of theatrical generosity, Ms Stylometrix will also have somewhere in consciousness Q2 Polonius’s equivalent speech

 

I am sorry, that with better heede and iudgement

I had not coted him, I fear'd he did but trifle

And meant to wrack thee, but beshrow my Ielousie:

By heauen it is as proper to our age

To cast beyond our selues in our opinions,

As it is common for the younger sort

To lack discretion; come, goe we to the King,

This must be knowne, which beeing kept close, might moue

More griefe to hide, then hate to vtter loue.

 

I’d be happy. It don’t take much, really.  However, Q1 came about, Corambis holds out hope.  Whoever gave us Q2 writes a poppa who sees only “griefe” or “hate.”  Seeing the Two Choices will make a kid love his sophomore high school English class. I betcha!

 

Another playwright? A stenographer? An actor who plucked out an exit rhyme not the same as had been written in his part? Okay! Don’t much matter. What does matter is the emotional and experiential recognition that what I see and wonder at right now is what people 400 years back also saw and wondered at.

 

Gold Medals to all !

 

Steve GradeInflatowitz

 

[4]-----------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Hardy M. Cook <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         Monday, August 6, 2018

Subject:    Young Hamlet

 

As a member of this list who is not well-versed in all of Shakespearean scholarship, I wonder if Gerald Downs would explain to me just who van Dam is and what his qualifications are.

 

Hardy

 

 

 

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Gift to SHAKSPER

Consider making a gift to support SHAKSPER.