Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2000 :: February ::
Re: Ur-Hamlet
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0273  Wednesday, 9 February 2000.

[1]     From:   Mike Jensen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 08 Feb 2000 09:02:00 -0800
        Subj:   SHK 11.0267 Re: Ur-Hamlet

[2]     From:   Kevin De Ornellas <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 08 Feb 2000 17:49:34 GMT
        Subj:   Re: Information on Ur-Hamlet

[3]     From:   Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 08 Feb 2000 17:58:29 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0267 Re: Ur-Hamlet


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 08 Feb 2000 09:02:00 -0800
Subject: Re: Ur-Hamlet
Comment:        SHK 11.0267 Re: Ur-Hamlet

David suggestion, out of Bloom,

> Harold Bloom argues well in his recent book that Shakespeare wrote the
> Ur-Hamlet. If he wanted the new Hamlet to supersede the old, wouldn't
> that be a good reason for the Ur-Hamlet to have vanished?

seems too simple.  Many plays from the early modern period have not
survived and have no second, revised edition succeeding them.  Some
plays, possibly A and The Shrew, and some say the two Lears, exist in
both versions.  The Book of Sir Thomas More survived in manuscript
despite not being published for many, many years after it was written.
The vagaries of survival are too unpredictable to make this a
satisfactory assertion.  Besides, how can the lack of a play support an
authorship theory?  You can't give rare word or metrical tests to a play
if you don't have a copy of the play, all assuming ur-Hamlet actually
existed.

Am I wrong?

Mike Jensen

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Kevin De Ornellas <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 08 Feb 2000 17:49:34 GMT
Subject:        Re: Information on Ur-Hamlet

In his ancient edition of Kyd, Frederick Boas waffles speculatively on
Ur-Hamlet.

Sincerely,
Kevin

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 08 Feb 2000 17:58:29 -0500
Subject: 11.0267 Re: Ur-Hamlet
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0267 Re: Ur-Hamlet

David Bishop wrote:

> Harold Bloom argues well in his recent book that Shakespeare wrote the
> Ur-Hamlet. If he wanted the new Hamlet to supersede the old, wouldn't
> that be a good reason for the Ur-Hamlet to have vanished?

Actually, Bloom offers no evidence at all, just a sort of wistful
speculation.  I would be interested if he persuades anyone, and, if so,
how.  Surely, one cannot build an argument for Shakespearean authorship
on the unavailability of the text.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.