PERFORMING
HAMLET
‘s

RELIGIOUS
ALLEGORY



























By
John
Hudson




Introduction


Allegory
has
long
been
used
in
literary
works
to
communicate
hidden
meanings.
It
is


therefore
not
surprising
to
find
allegories
being
employed
on
the
English
Renaissance


stage.
These
include
the
plays
of
John
Lyly
and
Robert
Wilson,
Jonson’s
masques,
plus


the
allegories
in
Gorbudoc
and
other
entertainments
recommending
to
the
Queen
that


she
should
marry.
Allegory
solving
was
a
common
subject
of
conversation
at
Court,1
and


as
Elizabeth
I’s
cousin,
Sir
John
Harington,
remarked
in
the
introduction
to
his


translation
of
Orlando
Furioso
(1591),
the
“sweetness
of
the
verse”
is
not
where
the


underlying
meaning
of
a
text
is
to
be
found,
so
those
of
“stronger
stomachs”
should
look


beneath
the
surface
to
“digest
the
allegory.”2


It
is
unfortunate
therefore,
that
the
allegories
in
Shakespeare
not
only
have
received


little
attention
from
modern
literary
critics
but
that‐‐‐with
the
exception
of
one
small


experimental
theater
company
which
specializes
in
translating
them
into
performance‐‐


they
are
almost
never
performed
explicitly
on‐stage.
The
last
time
they
were


systematically
investigated
was
in
the
1930s
when
prominent
scholars
such
as
G.Wilson


Knight3
tried
to
show
that
the
3,000
religious
references
in
the
plays
created
a


consistent
Christological
allegory—and
failed.
It
is
now
clear
why.
Recent
identifications


of
Shakespearean
allegories
include
Patricia
Parker’s
identification
of
Pyramus
and


Thisbe
in
A
Midsummer
Night’s
Dream
as
a
comic
allegory
of
Jesus
and
the
Church,
in
a



 1

parody
of
the
Apocalypse
which
all
goes
wrong.4
There
is
also
the
“impious
parody”


identified
by
Steve
Sohmer
in
Julius
Caesar,
in
which
the
historical
details
of
Caesar’s


death
are
turned
into
a
comic
parody
of
the
death
of
Christ.5
These
allegories
do
not


reflect
traditional
Christian
doctrine,
and
scholars
nearly
a
century
ago
were
therefore


unable
to
apprehend
them
within
the
constraints
of
their
worldview.
They
are
rather,
a


parody
of
Christian
doctrine
and
appear
to
be
written
from
a
non‐Christian
perspective.



This
article
will
examine
how
the
allegories
work
in
Hamlet
and
discuss
an
attempt
by
an


experimental
Shakespeare
company,
the
Dark
Lady
Players,
to
depict
them
on‐stage
for


a
modern
audience.
Gabriel
Harvey
noted
that
the
“wiser
sort”
among
contemporary


Elizabethan
audiences
would
find
much
of
interest
in
Hamlet.6
However
for
a
modern


audience
not
used
to
thinking
about
play
composition,
and
lacking
the
background


knowledge
of
an
educated
Elizabethan,
substantial
dramaturgical
work
is
required
to


create
a
production
in
which
these
allegories
can
be
understood.



The
Sources
For
Hamlet


Towards
the
end
of
the
19th
century
a
group
of
scholars
suggested
that
Shakespeare’s


Hamlet
was
based
on
a
play
by
Thomas
Kyd.
This
has
survived
only
in
German,
and
has


been
retranslated
back
into
English
as
Fratricide
Punished.7
Drawing
on
histories
such
as


those
of
Saxo‐Grammaticus
and
Belleforest,
the
Ur‐Hamlet
as
it
is
known,
is
set
in


Denmark,
and
begins
with
a
long
pseudo‐classical
introduction.
Then
the
play
proper


begins
with
two
soldiers
waiting,
a
ghost,
and
the
entrance
of
Hamlet,
who
discusses
the



 2

ghost
with
the
men.
Then
the
Gertrude
character
enters
and
dissuades
Hamlet
from


going
to
Wittenberg.
The
Polonius
character
returns
to
announce
that
Hamlet
is
mad,


and
Ophelia
enters
to
complain
Hamlet
is
troubling
her.
Then
the
actors
arrive,
Hamlet


makes
a
few
rather
pedestrian
remarks
about
acting,
and
asks
to
see
their
play
about


king
Pyrrhus,
which
is
about
pouring
poison
into
a
brother’s
ear,
and
so
on.
The
Ur‐

Hamlet
contains
no
allegories
and
no
religious
references.


The
second
important
source
is
a
long
allegorical
religious
poem
A
Fig
for
Fortune
(1596)


written
by
a
Roman
Catholic,
Anthonie
Copley.8
It
has
3
sections
about
the
hero,
Elizan,


a
sort
of
Elizabethan
everyman.
In
these
three
sections,



• the
ghost
from
hell
and
the
goddess
of
revenge
urge
Elizan
to
murder
and


revenge;


• there
is
a
graveyard
scene
in
which
the
hermit,
equipped
with
a
skull
full
of


worms
and
the
picture
of
a
grave,
urges
Elizan
to
stop
being
a
beast
and
follow


Christ
and
let
go
of
his
impious
melancholy;


• there
is
a
scene
clearly
based
on
the
Book
of
Revelation,
in
which
the
hermit


leads
Elizan
to
the
heavenly
Jerusalem,
the
temple
of
Sion,
where
the
forces
of


Jerusalem
overcome
the
Whore
of
Babylon.


Hamlet
borrows
language
and
ideas
from
this
poem,
particularly
in
the
graveyard
scene‐

‐‐
but
turns
them
upside
down.
So
Hamlet
meets
a
gravedigger
with
the
skulls,
but


instead
of
giving
up
his
melancholy
and
following
Christ,
he
does
exactly
the
opposite.


As
we
shall
see,
instead
of
ceasing
to
be
a
beast,
Hamlet
goes
on
and
becomes
one
of



 3

the
beasts
of
Apocalypse from the
Book
of
Revelation.



The
third
major
source,
identified
by
Linda
Hoff
in
her
book
Hamlet’s
Choice,9
is
the


Book
of
Revelation
itself.
This
is
the
last
book
of
the
Christian
Bible
and
describes
the


Apocalypse
or
Doomsday,
the
most
sacred
event
in
Christian
theology
because
it


describes
the
second
coming
of
Christ,
at
which
time
he
will
inaugurate
a
messianic
age.


Revelation
describes
a
great
battle
between
the
forces
of
evil
(the
beast
and
the
whore


of
Babylon,
the
beast
from
the
sea,
the
Anti‐Christ
and
the
king
of
the
pit),
all
of
whom


are
opposed
against
the
forces
of
God
led
by
Christ
and
the
Woman
crowned
with
the


sun.
The
forces
of
Christianity
win
in
the
end
and
a
new
heavenly
Jerusalem
descends


from
the
sky.


Hamlet’s
Structural
Resemblance
to
the
Book
of
Revelation


Structurally,
the
Book
of
Revelation
is
constructed
upon
a
theme
of
sevens:
seven


trumpets,
seven
letters
to
seven
churches,
seven
seals,
seven
judgments
and
seven


bowls
pouring
out
plague.
For
instance,
the
seven
trumpets
are
sounded
across


chapters
8‐11
of
Revelation.
Trumpet
1
is
associated
with
hail,
fire
and
brimstone.


Trumpet
2
with
a
great
mountain
and
fire
falling
into
the
sea.
Trumpet
3
with
a
star


called
Wormwood.
Trumpet
4
with
eclipses
and
darkness
of
the
sun,
moon
and
stars.


Trumpet
5
is
associated
with
the
abyss,
and
locusts
like
horses.
Trumpet
6
is
associated


with
a
great
river.
Finally
trumpet
7
is
associated
with
thunder,
and
unleashes
seven


bowls
of
God's
wrath
which
are
poured
out
by
seven
angels.



 4




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


sevens
to
the
Book
of
Revelation.
Revelation
has
seven
angels.
So
does
Hamlet.


Revelation
has
seven
trumpet
blasts,
so
does
Hamlet.
Revelation
has
seven
letters,
so


does
Hamlet.
Then
Hamlet
goes
on
and
creates
its
own
catalogue
of
seven
songs,
seven


soliloquies
and
the
prophesied
seven‐fold
deaths
that
accompany
the
slaughter
of
Cain.


• 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).


• 7
Soliloquies
'O
that
this
too
sullied
flesh
would
melt'
(1.2);
'O
all
you
host
of


heaven'
(1.5;
'O
what
a
rogue
and
peasant
slave
am
I!'
(2.2)
;
'To
be,
or
not
to
be,


that
is
the
question'
(3.1)
;
'Tis
now
the
very
witching
time
of
night'
(3.3):
'And
so



 5

 a
goes
to
heaven'
(3.3)
:
'How
all
occasions
do
inform
against
me'
(4.4).


• 7
Songs
are
sung
in
snatches.
Why
Let
the
Strucken
Deer
(3.2),
Hobbyhorse
(3.2),


Bonny
Sweet
Robin
(4.5),
Tomorrow
is
St
Valentine’s
Day
(4.5),
Walsingham


(4.5),
And
Will
He
not
Come
Again
(4.5),
I
loathe
that
did
love
(5.1).
 


• 7
fold
Deaths
for
the
death
of
Cain/Claudius
(Genesis
4:15
states
that
there
will


be
seven
deaths
if
Cain
is
killed,
and
in
addition
to
Cain/Claudius
there
are
7


corpses).



The
literary
structure
of
Hamlet
is
also
very
unusual.
In
Elizabethan
England
chiasmus
as


a
literary
form
was
used,
even
by
writers
like
Spenser,
in
an
unsophisticated
way.
Yet


Jan
Blits
in
his
book
Deadly
Thought:
‘Hamlet’
and
the
Human
Soul
has
shown
that
the


entirety
of
Hamlet
is
composed
using
a
highly
complex
chiastic
ring
structure.10
It
is


written
as
a
series
of
linked
rings,
with
internal
symmetry
within
each
scene,
as
well
as


overall
symmetry
between
scenes.
For
instance,
the
third
scene,
in
which
we
meet


Ophelia,
is
balanced
by
the
third
scene
from
last,
in
which
she
dies.
The
fifth
scene
from


the
beginning
tells
of
Hamlet
being
driven
mad
for
Ophelia’s
love;
in
the
fifth
scene
from


the
end,
Ophelia
sings
madly
of
love.
These
are
just
two
examples
of
an
unusual
but


extensive
chiastic
structure
that
resembles
that
found
in
Biblical
literature
such
as
the


Book
of
Revelation.



 6

The
Forces
of
Heaven
and
Hell
in
Hamlet



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


characters
do
as
well.
As
Linda
Hoff
has
shown,
the
playwright
has
transformed
the


characters
from
Kyd’s
Ur‐Hamlet
into
allegories
for
the
characters
from
Book
of


Revelation.
The
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.



• 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.
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.11
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.


• 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.



 7




• 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
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.12
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:


• 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.




 8

 


• 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.



• 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
“The
spirit
that
I
have
seen/May
be
the
devil:
and


the
devil
hath
power/
To
assume
a
pleasing
shape.”



 9




Hamlet
as
Lucifer,
the
Anti‐Christ


Prince
Hamlet
is
allegorically
the
son
of
the
devil,
but
as
the
son
of
Hyperion
he
is
also


an
allegory
for
Helios,
the
god
of
the
sun.
As
if
“loosed
out
of
hell”
(2,1,82),
he
frightens


and
interrupts
Ophelia
while
she
is
sewing
and
bends
the
“light”
(2,1,100)
of
his
eyes


upon
her.
This
parodies
the
beams
of
light
that
marked
the
Archangel
Gabriel’s


annunciation
to
Mary
while
she
is
sewing
as
shown
in
Renaissance
paintings.
Ophelia’s


later
appearance
with
her
abortifacient
herbs—identified
by
Newman13
and
others‐‐‐


suggests
that
she
aborts
the
baby.


One
way
of
reconciling
these
attributes
would
be
to
posit
Hamlet
as
representing
the


Archangel
Lucifer,
the
light
bearer,
the
star
who
fell
from
heaven
into
hell.
Lucifer
is


mentioned,
for
instance,
in
Henry
V,
“arrayed
in
flames
like
to
the
prince
of
fiends”


(3,3,16).
Further
support
is
found
in
the
idea
that
Polonius
is
killed
by
Hamlet
playing


the
part
of
the
simpleton
as
a
parallel
to
the
slaying
of
Julius
Caesar
by
Brutus‐‐‐whose


name
means
simpleton.
In
the
Roman
story
however
Brutus
is
not
the
character’s


original
name,
which
was
Lucius
meaning
‘light,
or
shining’,
which
is
paralleled
by


Hamlet’s
alter
ego
as
Lucifer
the
light
bearer.
Hamlet’s
identity
as
Lucifer
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
comic
devil
on
the
English
stage.
His
identity
as
an
Anti‐

Christ
is
further
made
clear
by
the
three
allegorical
identities
he
takes
on:



 10




• Martin
Luther,
regarded
by
Catholics
as
the
second
Anti‐Christ.
Steve
Sohmer


has
used
the
pattern
of
feast
days
in
the
play
to
work
out
that
the
initial
part
of


the
play
is
set
on
the
day
before
Luther
nailed
the
95
theses
of
the
Reformation


to
the
church
door
in
Wittenberg.14
In
addition
Hamlet’s
melancholy
parallels


Luther’s,
both
men
wore
black
and
he
is
associated
several
times
with


Wittenberg.



• Emperor
Nero,
regarded
as
the
first
human
Anti‐Christ.
Various
events
echo
the


Life
of
Nero
in
the
well
known
history
The
Twelve
Caesars
by
Suetonius:
the


matricide,
killing
of
the
Emperor
Claudius,
his
interest
in
music,
being
an
actor,


performing
onstage,
acting
in
a
play
about
Orestes,
writing
verse,
playing
pranks,


being
pursued
by
a
ghost,
and
being
mad.
Moreover,
according
to
Suetonius,15


Nero
was
known
as
Nero‐Orestes,
and
other
parts
of
Hamlet’s
character
come


from
Orestes.
Nero
was
also
compared
to
the
sun
god,
and
Hamlet
is
an
allegory


for
Helios
the
son
of
Hyperion.



• The
Sea
Beast,
Hamlet
comes
back
from
the
Sea
and
resembles
the
Beast
from


the
Sea
in
the
Book
of
Revelation
who
makes
images
of
the
first
Beast
(in
the


play,
the
odd
brooches/portraits
of
Claudius).



 11

This
Apocalypse
All
Goes
Wrong


In
sum,
Hamlet
parodies
the
catalogues
of
sevens
from
the
Book
of
Revelation,
and
the


main
characters
are
parodies
of
the
characters
in
Revelation.
In
addition
Hamlet
uses


some
of
A
Fig
for
Fortune,
an
allegorical
religious
poem.
The
play
is
set
on
Apocalypse
or


Doomsday,
which
is
mentioned
5
times
in
the
play.
Many
aspects
of
the
plot
such
as
the


references
to
Wormwood,
and
the
attack
by
Laertes
(as
Christ)
on
the
citadel
of


Claudius,
come
directly
from
the
Book
of
Revelation’s
depictions
of
Doomsday.


The
play
opens
with
the
cock
crowing
and
the
waiting
which
are
together
an
allusion
to


Advent—the
season
in
which
“our
Saviour’s
birth
is
celebrated”
(1,1,164).
But
Advent


could
also
imply
the
Second
Advent,
or
Parousia,
the
second
coming
of
Christ,
which


took
place
on
Doomsday.
This
is
why
the
gravediggers
say
that
graves
last
to
Doomsday.


They
then
proceed
to
unmake
those
graves
by
taking
the
skulls
out,
showing
that
it
is


therefore
Doomsday,
when
the
spirits
are
resurrected
from
their
graves.
Except
that
in


this
parodic
play,
their
skulls
are
crudely
thrown
out
rather
than
resurrected.


The
allegorical
plot
of
Hamlet
is
completely
opposite
to
the
Book
of
Revelation–a


complete
parody
of
the
most
sacred
Christian
doctrines.
The
king
of
hell
escapes
from


the
pit,
and
the
devil
tells
his
son
Lucifer
to
take
revenge
for
his
death
and
incarceration.


The
son
of
the
devil
takes
on
the
identity
of
3
Anti‐Christs.
He
first
impregnates
the


Virgin
Mary/Woman
Crowned
with
the
Sun
(Ophelia),
leading
her
to
abort
the
baby
and


then
die
in
a
parody
of
the
Assumption
of
Mary.
He
kills
God
the
father
(Polonius)
and



 12

then
the
Resurrected
Christ
(Laertes)
in
a
sword
fight.
He
then
ends
up
killing
directly
or


indirectly,
through
their
multiple
allegory,
both
the
Church
(Gertrude)
and
Rome


(Claudius).
The
Rule
of
God
(which
is
the
meaning
of
the
name
Osric,
a
minor
courtier
in


the
play)
is
utterly
ineffective.
The
playwright
is
parodying
the
Book
of
Revelation
in


showing
an
Apocalypse
that
fails
and
in
which
no
golden
city
descends
from
the


heavens.
Instead,
after
Horatio
refers
to
the
paradisum,16
a
prayer
asking
that
Hamlet


should
be
received
in
Jerusalem
(5,2,365),
what
arrives
is
Fortinbras.
This
is
an
apparent


comic
parody
of
Jerusalem,
alluding
to
the
analogous
Fort‐in‐Brass,
or
City
of
Brass,
in


The
Arabian
Nights.17



So
how
can
these
allegories
be
communicated
in
a
21st
century
performance?
This


article
will
discuss
the
implications
with
reference
to
two
productions
which
were
the


subject
of
a
recent
Hamlet
Roundtable
at
the
Alliance
of
Resident
Theaters
in
New
York.



Apocalypse
as
‘High
Concept’



One
recent
attempt
to
highlight
the
religious
allegories
in
Hamlet
was
a
Midtown
New


York
City
production
by
New
Perspectives
Theater,
in
Spring
2010,
directed
by
Melody


Brooks.
Using
a
shortened
version
of
the
Folio
text,
it
treated
the
Apocalypse
as
a


directorial
‘high
concept’
informing
the
show.
The
acting
style
was
naturalistic,
and
the


costuming
of
Gertrude
in
a
series
of
red
dresses,
and
Ophelia
in
blue—while
matching


the
appropriate
traditional
colors
of
the
costuming
of
their
allegorical
characters—did


not
suggest
their
allegorical
identities.
Similarly,
Laertes’s
brown
modern
clothes
would



 13

not
have
been
understood
by
any
audience
member
as
indicating
his
allegorical
identity


as
Christ,
especially
since
the
Folio
misprint
of
‘politician’
was
used
instead
of
the
more


meaningful
‘pelican’
of
the
Quarto
text.
It
would
have
been
equally
impossible
to
infer


Claudius’s
allegorical
identity
as
the
scarlet
beast
of
the
Apocalypse
from
his
elegant


scarlet
silk
tie.



Furthermore,
on
entering
the
theater
the
audience
was
confronted
with
a
bank
of
tv


screens
depicting
scenes
from
programs
on
the
Religious
Right
and
religious
militias.


These
suggested
merely
the
context
of
a
police
State
rather
than
Doomsday.
Certain


scenes,
such
as
Hamlet’s
confrontation
of
Ophelia,
and
the
Mousetrap,
were
shown
as


video
recordings‐‐‐conveying
the
impression
that
Denmark
was
a
modern
State
with


extensive
video
surveillance.
Marcellus
and
Horatio
wore
earpieces
like
members
of
the


Secret
Service.
At
a
couple
of
points
during
the
production
the
screens
showed
a


quotation
from
the
Book
of
Revelation,
presenting
it
as
a
generalized
backdrop
for
the


show.
However
as
Show
Business
Weekly
concluded
“the
use
of
on‐screen
text
from
the


Book
of
Revelation…adds
little
value
to
a
story
that
is
already
apocalyptic
in
nature.”
18


This
production
was
an
invigorating
depiction
of
Hamlet
in
contemporary
times,
but
it



 14

did
not
successfully
make
individual
aspects
of
the
play
more
comprehensible
by


revealing
them
as
comic
parodies
of
the
Apocalypse.
Nor
did
this
production


demonstrate
how,
taken
together,
these
allegories
alter
the
entire
meaning
of
the
play


and
transform
it
from
a
tragedy
into
a
black
comedy.
Indeed
the
modern,
naturalistic,


costuming
and
the
suggestion
that
the
play
was
set
in
a
modern
police
State
prevented


any
Brechtian
‘alienation
effect’
that
would
have
encouraged
audiences
to
inquire


deeply
into
the
production
and
inhibited
any
ancient
allegorical
identification.


Issues
in
showing
the
allegory
on‐stage


Audiences
in
Elizabethan
London
went
not
to
“see”
but
to
“hear”
a
play:
it
was
an


auditory
rather
than
a
visual
culture
as
Lukas
Erne
has
shown.19
Players
gave
meta‐

theatrical,
oratorical
performances
designed
to
allow
theater‐goers
to
go
beyond
the


surface
text
to
discern
the
underlying
meanings.
Most
audience
members
knew


important
Biblical
passages,
and
some
also
knew
their
Josephus,
their
Roman
history,


and
understood
enough
about
rhetorical
figures
to
be
able
to
identify
some
of
the


allegorical
meanings.
However,
the
allegorical
system
would
have
been
very
hard
to


discern,
because
it
requires
reinterpreting
various
key
assumptions
in
Christian
doctrine.


To
enable
modern
audiences—used
to
a
visual
culture‐‐
to
discern
the
allegorical


meanings
during
performance
requires
making
them
highly
visible
though
costuming,


staging,
lighting,
props,
movement
and
other
theatrical
techniques.
This
means


transposing
the
allegories
from
covert
auditory
cues
into
a
system
of
overt
visual
cues‐‐‐

which
could
never
have
been
performed
on
an
Elizabethan
stage.
It
also
requires
a



 15

meta‐theatrical
and
non
realistic
acting
style
that
‘points’
at
the
underlying
meanings.


Allegorical
production
thereby
requires
actors
to
take
a
new
approach
to
their
craft


which
is
completely
different
from
modern,
internalized
techniques
of
acting.


An
Experimental/Original
Practices
Adaptation


Compared
to
the
other
production,
the
approach
taken
by
the
New
York
experimental


Shakespeare
company
the
Dark
Lady
Players,
directed
by
Jenny
Greeman,
was
more


radical,
lower
budget,
and
low
tech.
Their
adaptation
at
Manhattan
Theater
Source
in


Greenwich
Village,
was
also
aimed
at
a
different
audience
which
was
more
accustomed


to
experimental
theater.
The
Village
was
the
catchment
area
for
audiences
who
attend



productions
of
Shakespearean
parodies,
including
a
recent
movie
release
based
on
the


premise
of
Hamlet
as
a
vampire
and
the
production
of
a
zombie
version
of
Twelfth


Night.



The
Dark
Lady
Players
are
an
all
women
company
which
employs
a
highly
meta‐

theatrical
and
presentational
style
to
encourage
the
audience
to
look
beyond
the


surface
of
the
play
to
the
underlying
allegory.
Their
mission
is
not
to
perform
the


Shakespearean
plays,
but
to
perform
proof‐of‐concept
demonstrations
of
the
allegories


in
those
plays.
The
Dark
Lady
Players’
adaptation
concentrated
on
the
more
important


religious
and
astronomical
allegories.
The
play
was
renamed
Hamlet’s
Apocalypse
and


was
extensively
cut
to
a
90
minute
version
which
highlighted
the
lines
in
which
these


allegorical
identities
were
most
evident.
Seven
trumpet
blasts
echo
throughout
the



 16

adaptation,
although
they
were
repositioned,
beginning
with
one
blast
and
rising


successively
to
seven
in
order
to
emphasize
the
parallel
to
the
seven
trumpet
blasts
in


Revelation.


Drawing
on
both
Quartos,
the
Folio
and
the
Ur‐Hamlet,
the
cut
of
the
play
was
also


rearranged,
restructured,
and
some
lines
were
redistributed
between
minor
characters.


The
production
began
with
Hamlet
deciding
whether
or
not
the
soul
of
Nero
would


inhabit
his
bosom,
and
reading
about
Nero’s
characteristics
and
his
love
of
theater
from


the
biography
of
Nero
by
Suetonius.
Giving
in
to
temptation,
Hamlet
put
on
Nero’s
toga‐

‐‐Nero
being
one
of
the
three
figures
of
the
Anti‐Christ
in
the
play.
Immediately
the


players
enter
and
a
series
of
events
unfold
that
echo
Nero’s
biography,
in
which
Hamlet


interacts
with
the
actors,
writes
poetry,
and
like
Nero
acts
out
a
part
of
a
play
related
to


the
Orestia.
After
the
Mousetrap,
Horatio
inquires
if
Hamlet
is
ready
for
the
players
to


put
on
another
play—
it
is
called
Hamlet,
Prince
of
Denmark.
Each
of
the
five
players


then
describes
how
he
would
produce
the
play
in
terms
of
different
aspects
of
the


allegory.
The
players
mention
about
a
dozen
of
the
parallels
to
Revelation
which
are


hung
up
center‐stage
where
they
remain
throughout
the
performance,
like
the
plot


summaries
that
hung
in
Elizabethan
theaters.
Hamlet
then
gives
orders
that
all
of
these


different
understandings
shall
be
performed
together,
and
the
play
begins
with
the


watch
scene.
The
explanations
given
by
the
players
and
their
signs
on
the
wall
provide


the
primary
guide
for
the
audience.
Other
devices
used
in
this
adaptation
to
convey
the


allegorical
identities
of
the
characters
were
costuming,
dramaturgy,
and
the
kind
of



 17

labeling
used
on
the
medieval
stage—which
often
took
the
form
of
characters
reading


an
over‐large
‘book’
when
it
is
being
alluded
to
in
the
text.
This
article
will
now
consider


how
this
adaptation
used
these
techniques
to
convey
the
astronomical
and
religious


allegories.



The
Astronomical
Allegory


The
supernova
in
Cassiopea
which
begins
the
play
is
given
prominence
in
this


production
by
being
observed
by
Hamlet
through
his
telescope.
Horatio
is
given
extra


asides,
in
which
to
point
out
that
this
was
the
event
that
was
observed
by
Tycho
Brahe,


and
which
overthrew
the
conventional
models
in
which
the
stars
were
eternally


suspended
on
crystal
spheres
and
revolved
around
the
Earth.
In
the
play
Hamlet’s
helio‐

centric
model
overturns
that
of
Claudius
until
in
the
end
he
is
eclipsed.
One
way
in


which
this
is
indicated
is
the
reference
to
“god
kissing
carrion”
which
In
this
production


is
read
from
a
large
book,
the
Anti‐Claudianus
by
Alanus
de
Insulis
,
who
was
the


originator
of
this
idea.
Claudius
is
described
as
being
the
center
of
ten
thousand
stars


that
rotate
around
him
as
if
on
a
massy
wheel.
To
understand
that
Claudius
represents


the
Earth
in
the
astronomical
allegory
identified
by
Peter
Usher,20
and
also
represents


the
geocentric
universe
of
Claudius
Ptolemy,
requires
knowing
that
Claudius’
alter
ego


Pyrrhus
had
the
alternative
name
NeoPtolemus
the
New
Ptolemy‐‐‐which
in
this


production
is
indicated
in
an
aside.
As
the
center
of
a
geocentric
model
of
the
universe


Claudius
wishes
Hamlet,
as
the
Sun/
Son
of
Hyperion
(ie.
Helios),
to
revolve
around
him.


When
Hamlet
is
accused
of
actions
that
are
‘retrograde’
to
what
Claudius
desires,
this



 18

alludes
to
the
retrograde
movement
of
the
sun
that
was
inexplicable
in
Ptolemy’s


astronomy.
It
is
dramatized
by
having
Hamlet
walk
backwards,
in
a
circle
around


Claudius.



The
costuming
in
Hamlet’s
Apocalypse
was
not
naturalistic,
but
rather
meta‐theatrical
‐‐

‐for
instance
Hamlet’s
telescope
was
a
cardboard
tube,
as
were
the
swords
in
the
fight


scene.
Costuming
was
critical
to
conveying
the
allegorical
identities
and
a
costume‐rack


appeared
prominently
on
stage,
with
each
costume
hung
under
a
large
label
with
the


allegorical
identity
it
represented‐‐‐and
the
actors
putting
on
their
costumes
in
full
view


of
the
audience.
These
costume
elements
were
not
tailored
clothing
but
rather
large


bits
of
colored
cloth,
to
indicate
the
importance
of
the
color
and
that
these
characters


are
literary
figures
rather
than
real
people.
Guildernstern’s
identity
as
a
golden
star
was


conveyed
not
merely
by
his
name
but
was
signified
by
him
holding
a
large
yellow


cardboard
star.
Ophelia’s
lunar
allegory
was
conveyed
by
her
wearing
a
crescent
moon


as
a
brooch.
Hamlet’s
identity
as
Helios
was
indicated
by
his
wearing
a
hat
of
sun
rays—

made
out
of
red
and
yellow
paper.
The
astronomical
identity
of
Polonius
the
Pole
as
the


planet’s
rotating
axis
(and
paralleling
the
slaying
of
the
sledded
Poll‐ax
on
the
ice),
is


suggested
by
his
carrying
a
large
staff
which
he
periodically
rotated.
Since
Hamlet
is
a


rewriting
of
the
mythical
character
Amleth
or
Amlohdi
who
carried
the
polar
axis

or


‘mill’
from
one
sign
of
the
zodiac
to
another,
as
described
by
two
MIT
professors
in


Hamlet’s
Mill,
21
when
he
kills
Polonius,
Hamlet
is
allegorically
striking
down
the
axis
of


the
age.
This
is
foreshadowed
earlier
in
the
production
when
one
of
the
players
brings



 19

onstage
a
blown
up
copy
of
Hamlet’s
Mill
and
describes
how
it
would
be
used
in
his


ideal
production
of
the
play.
That
concept
is
later
illustrated
by
Polonius
dying
in
a


strange
rotating
movement,
accompanied
by
a
grinding
noise,
intended
to
represent
the


rotation
of
the
polar
axis.
It
thereby
puts
an
end
to
the
2,200
year
span
of
a
Zodiacal
Age


as
marked
by
the
precession
of
the
equinoxes.


This
astronomical
allegory
has
political
importance
since
it
overthrows
not
only
the


seven
spheres
but
the
polar‐axis
of
the
State‐‐‐a
metaphor
which
the
Elizabethans


applied
to
Elizabeth’s
Government
and
specifically
to
Lord
Burghley
who
was
referred
to


as
the
Pole
or
‘Polus’,
and
for
whom
Polonius
is
a
contemporary
allegory.
In
a
well


known
book
on
statecraft
the
Sphaera
Civitatis
(1588)
–which
is
brought
on
stage
in
this


production‐‐‐
Elizabeth
was
even
shown
on
the
frontispiece
as
upholding
the
universe.


The
seven
spheres
of
the
heavens
nestle
in
her
dress,
and
the
Court
of
Star
Chamber


entrenched
in
the
sphere
of
the
fixed
stars
along
with
princes
and
heroes.
Since
the


order
of
the
stars
was
replicated
in
the
order
of
human
government,
in
the
Great
Chain



 20

of
Being
overturning
the
astronomical
order
went
hand
in
hand
with
overthrowing
the


political
order.



The
Religious
Allegory


In
parallel,
the
religious
allegory
in
the
play
puts
an
end
to
the
Book
of
Revelation’s


traditional
model
of
the
victory
of
Christ
on
Doomsday.
The
religious
identities
of
the


characters
in
this
production
were
again
indicated
through
costuming.
Polonius
was


costumed
in
white
and
given
a
long
beard
as
the
“father
of
good
news”,
God
the
father.


Similarly
dressed
was
the
Christ
figure
Laertes,
the
life‐giving
pelican,
arms


outstretched,
who
jumps
out
of
his
grave
on
Doomsday
‐‐‐his
very
name
echoing
the


figure
rejuvenated
by
a
goddess
in
the
Odyssey.
Ophelia
was
costumed
in
white
with
a


blue
cloak
and
head‐dress
in
the
traditional
iconography
of
the
Virgin
Mary.
Rosenkrantz


carried
a
large
set
of
rosary
beads,
as
indicated
by
his
name
which
means
‘rosary’.
The


whorish
Gertrude
as
the
whore
of
Babylon
was
costumed
in
pearls,
scarlet
and
purple,


and
carried
her
chalice
at
all
times.
She
also
made
her
entrance
riding
on
the
back
of


Claudius
as
the
Beast,
illustrating
the
text
in
Revelation.
Claudius
had
blood‐stained


hands
and
was
dressed
in
scarlet,
echolng
the
description
of
his
analog
Pyrrhus
as


covered
in
blood,
“total
gules.”
He
also
wore
a
snake
decoration
echoing
his
description


as
a
“serpent”
and
alluding
to
the
serpentine
heads
of
the
Beast
of
the
Land.
Over
his


tunic
he
wore
the
purple
robe
of
a
Caesar,
since
his
name
is
that
of
the
Julio‐Claudian


dynasty
of
Caesars
and
the
Beast
also
conventionally
symbolized
the
dynasty
of
the


Caesars.




 21




Appropriate
for
Nero
(whose
name
means
‘black’),
Hamlet
wore
stage
black,
on
top
of


which
he
wore
signifiers
of
his
three
different
identities
as
the
anti‐Christ:
a
purple
robe


as
Caesar
(Nero
was
the
first
human
anti‐Christ
and
the
last
of
the
Julio‐Claudian


dynasty),
a
black
cloak
for
his
allegory
to
Martin
Luther
of
Wittenberg
(regarded
by


Catholics
as
the
second
human
anti‐Christ),
and
the
sea‐robe
alluding
to
the
sea‐Beast


(the
original
anti‐Christ).
In
addition
at
other
points
in
the
play
he
wore
small
red
horns


indicating
his
diabolical
identity.
In
a
visual
pun,
Osric
(whose
name
means
the
‘rule
of


God’
and
alludes
to
the
one
who
rules
with
a
rod
of
iron
in
the
Book
of
Revelation),


carried
instead
a
large
three
foot
ruler,
with
which
he
measured
the
swords
and
the


distances
between
the
protagonists
in
the
fight
scene.


In
addition
to
costuming,
extra
dialogue
and
occasional
stage
actions
were
added
to


clarify
certain
points.
For
example
the
gravediggers
put
up
a
sign
‘The
Place
of
the
Skull’


indicating
that
their
allegorical
location
is
Golgotha,
which
is
reinforced
by
the
skulls


that
are
dug
up.
Then
the
second
gravedigger‐‐‐having
realized
that
graves
last
until


Doomsday
and
that
these
graves
have
not
lasted‐‐‐suddenly
draws
the
logical


conclusion
that
today
must
be
Doomsday.
Later,
he
is
sent
to
get
a
drink
from
Yaughan


(Yohannan,
the
Hebrew
version
of
John,
who
supposedly
wrote
the
Book
of
Revelation).


In
the
Shakespearean
text
he
never
returns.
But
in
Hamlet’s
Apocalypse
in
order
to


emphasize
the
parody
of
the
Passion
story,
a
new
piece
of
stage
business
is
inserted
in


which
he
returns
with
a
dram
of
St
John’s
Eisel
Vinegar
just
in
time
for
Hamlet’s



 22

reference
to
drinking
eisel.
The
gravedigger
follows
the
gospel
in
administering
the


vinegar
to
Laertes
who
has
jumped
out
of
the
grave
with
his
arms
still
outstretched
in
a


cross,
while
Hamlet
is
referring
to
“God’s
wounds.”


However
the
religious
and
the
astronomical
allegory
in
Hamlet
do
not
operate
in


isolation
from
each
other‐‐‐they
are
closely
interwoven,
which
can
be
illustrated
by
how


this
production
depicted
Ophelia.
Her
costume
of
blue
and
white
cloth
clearly
signified


the
Virgin
Mary.
This
identity
was
emphasized
by
the
address
on
Hamlet’s
letter
–


actually
a
large
FedEx
envelope
so
it
was
visible
on‐stage.
As
the
characters
read
the


address
on
that
letter
they
noted
in
asides
that
‘celestial’
indicates
heavenly,
while


Ophelia
is
the
Greek
for
Mary’s
property
of
‘succour’
and
‘soul’s
idol’
refers
to
idolatry.


Ophelia
is
twice
interrupted,
once
while
reading,
the
other
time
while
sewing,
which


were
the
two
normal
ways
that
the
Virgin
Mary
was
shown
being
interrupted
by
the


angel
of
the
Annunciation.
Hamlet
warns
that
Ophelia
may
conceive,
if
exposed
too


much
to
the
sun,
and
compares
her
to
the
way
that
the
carcass
of
a
dead
dog
can


generate
maggots
in
the
sun
by
“a
god
kissing
carrion”.
This
image
was
used
in
Christian


theology
as
a
way
of
explaining
how
Mary
might
have
conceived
Jesus,
by
supernatural



 23

means.
Similarly
in
Renaissance
art
Mary
was
shown
as
conceiving
Christ,
while


remaining
a
virgin,
in
the
same
way
that
sunbeams
pass
through
a
glass
window.


Hamlet,
as
the
son
of
Hyperion,
represents
Helios
the
sun
god,
signified
by
his
hat
of
red


and
yellow
sun‐rays.



He
bends
the
light
of
his
eyes—sun
beams‐‐
to
Ophelia,
without
looking
away,
even


while
he
walks
out
of
the
room.
This
is
staged
in
dumbshow,
while
Ophelia
pulls
the


maggots
out
of
her
pregnant
belly
to
indicate
the
conception.
Ophelia’s
pregnancy
is


resolved
later
in
the
play
by
the
explanation
of
Ophelia’s
flowers
–
almost
all
of
which


are
used
in
abortion
recipes.

As
Ophelia
names
each
of
the
flowers,
a
messenger
opens


up
a
contemporary
Herbal
and
reads
a
one
line
description
of
how
the
flower
is
used
to


procure
an
abortion.
In
this
way
the
astronomical
allegory
of
Hamlet
as
Helios


interworks
with
a
black
religious
parody
of
the
Archangel’s
annunciation
to
Mary.
In


Hamlet,
the
angelic
visitor
is
evidently
not
the
Archangel
Gabriel
but
the
Archangel


Lucifer.



 24

Conclusion


It
would
appear
that
Hamlet
was
written
in
order
to
create
a
parody
of
the
Apocalypse’s


promise
of
the
return
of
Christ
and
the
coming
of
a
new
Jerusalem,
by
depicting
a
very


different
Doomsday.
In
Hamlet
both
the
forces
of
Christ
and
the
forces
of
the
Anti‐Christ


destroy
each
other,
leaving
the
world
entirely
free
from
their
mythology.
Indeed
the


entire
Zodiacal
age
of
Pisces,
and
the
hierarchical
geo‐centric
model
of
the
universe
are


overthrown
and
with
them
the
political
order.
The
Mousetrap,
which
forms
the


centerpiece
of
the
play,
leads
to
the
overthrow
of
the
State
and
acts
as
a
catalyst
for
all


the
deaths
in
the
play.

In
the
covert
classical
allegory
this
is
represented
by
the
deaths


of
the
three
‘kings’
Julius
Caesar,
Claudius
Caesar
and
Nero
Caesar,
spanning
the
entire


Julio‐Claudian
dynasty.


Yet
there
is
one
more
complication.
There
is
no
reason
why
either
the
king
of
Denmark


or
at
an
allegorical
level,
Claudius
Caesar
should
be
caught
in
a
literary
device,
let
alone


why
it
should
be
called
a
Mousetrap
or
why
it
should
be
at
the
center
of
the
play.
There


are
also
a
number
of
details
which
suggest
that
the
three
Caesar
figures
are
actually
rare


double
allegories
and
represent
another
dynasty
of
Caesars,
the
Flavians.
Claudius
is


described
as
treating
men
like
sponges‐‐which
does
not
appear
in
the
biography
of


Claudius—but
does
appear
in
the
biography
of
Vespasian
Caesar,
the
founder
of
the


Flavian
dynasty.
His
son
Domitian
Caesar
was
sometimes
believed
to
be
the
re‐

incarnation
of
Nero‐‐who
was
a
member
of
the
Domitian
family
and
originally
bore
the



 25

names
Lucius
Domitius—and
in
the
play
is
represented
by
Hamlet.
This
leaves
the
third


of
the
Flavians,
Titus
Caesar
who
was
described
in
the
Talmud
as
stabbing
through
the


curtain
of
the
Temple
and
thinking
he
had
killed
the
god
of
the
Jews.
He
is
ironically


represented
in
Hamlet
by
the
character
Polonius,
who
has
played
the
part
of
a
Caesar,


who
represents
the
god
of
the
Christians,
and
who
is
killed
by
being
stabbed
through
a


curtain.



So
why
should
Hamlet
parody
the
Flavian
Caesars
in
this
complex
and
circuitous


fashion?
What
would
such
a
parody
have
to
do
with
depicting
the
end
of
Christianity?


Firstly,
equivalent
parodies
have
been
found
in
some
of
the
other
plays
such
as
A


Midsummer
Night’s
Dream,
so

this
is
not
an
isolated
example.
More
specifically,
recent


scholarship
on
the
Testimonium
Flavianum
(The
Flavian
Testament
which
is
part
of


Josephus’s
Jewish
Antiquities)
suggests
that
the
“World
Mouse”
described
there


represents
the
three
Flavian
Caesars.22
Read
laterally,
the
account
describes
them
as


inventing
the
figure
of
Jesus
as
a
false
god‐‐‐‐a
Roman
literary
device
to
trap
Jews
into


following
a
pacifistic,
literary
messiah.
A
detailed
comparison
of
their
literary
structures


shows
that
this
is
the
trap
that
is
being
parodied
in
Hamlet.
In
the
play
however,
the


trap
is
reversed
and
the
Mousetrap
becomes
instead
a
trap
to
catch
Caesars.
To
make


this
relationship
evident
the
Dark
Lady
Players
not
only
placed
the
Mousetrap
section
at


the
beginning
of
Hamlet’s
Apocalypse,
they
designed
it
to
be
presented

in
a
double
bill


with
The
Big
Mouse,
which
was
the
world’s
first
transposition
of
the
Testimonium


Flavianum
as
a
stage
play.




 26




Work
on
depicting
the
allegories
in
the
Shakespearean
plays
is
in
its
infancy.
However
it


is
probably
the
most
exciting
area
for
future
development
of
Shakespearean


performance.
As
the
research
becomes
better
known
and
attracts
other
scholars,


dramaturges
and
directors,
it
will
offer
new
ways
of
attracting
audiences,
and

enable


theater
companies

to
present
the
underlying
meanings
in
these
400
year
old
plays


which

the
author
intended
the
‘wiser
sort’
should
be
able
to
comprehend.



Notes


























































1

Marion
A.
Taylor,
Bottom
Thou
Art
Translated:
Political
Allegory
in
A
Midsummer
Night’s

Dream
and
Related
Literature
(Amsterdam:Rodopi,
1973),16.

2

Sir
John
Harington,
Orlando
Furioso
in
English
Heroical
Verse
(London:1591),4.

3

G.Wilson
Knight,
Shakespeare
and
Religion:
Essays
of
Forty
Years.
(London:
Routledge
and

Kegan
Paul,
1967).

4

Patricia
Parker,
‘Murals
and
Morals;
A
Midsummer
Night’s
Dream’
in
Editing
Texts

APOREMATA;
Kritische
Studien
zur
Philologiegeschichte
ed.
by
Glenn
W.Most
(Gottingen:

Vanenhoeck
&
Ruprech,
1998).


5

Steve
Sohmer,
Shakespeare’s
Mystery
Play:
the
Opening
of
the
Globe
Theatre
1599

(Manchester:
Manchester
University
Press,1999),130.

6


G.C.Moore
Smith,
Gabriel
Harvey’s
Marginalia
(Stratford‐upon‐Avon:
Shakespeare
Head
Press,


1913).

7

Anon,
Der
Bestrafte
Brudermord
oder
Prinz
Hamlet
Aus
Daennemark
(Fratricide
Punished),

Variorum
Hamlet
ed.
Horace
H.
Furness
(Philadelphia:Lippincott,
1877).

8

Anthonie
Copley,
A
Fig
for
Fortune
(London:
The
Spenser
Society,
1883).

9

Linda
K.
Hoff,
Hamlet’s
Choice
(Lewiston;
Edwin
Mellen
Press,
1988).

10


Jan
H.
Blits,
Deadly
Thought;
‘Hamlet’
and
the
Human
Soul

(New
York;
Lexington
Books,

2001).

11

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

(1998):
47‐84.

12

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).

13

L.Newman,‘Ophelia’s
Herbal’
Economic
Botany
33,
2
(1979):
227‐32.

14

Steve
Sohmer,
"Certain
Speculations
on
Hamlet,
the
Calendar,
and
Martin
Luther."
Early

Modern
Literary
Studies
2.1
(1996):
5.1‐51

15


Suetonius,
The
Twelve
Caesars
ed.
Catherine
Edwards
(Oxford:
Oxford
University
Press,
2000)

195‐227.

16


This
is
an
antiphon
from
the
Latin
liturgy
of
the
Catholic
burial
service.




 27


























































17


Anon,
Stories
from
the
Thousand
and
One
Nights,
trans.

E.W.Lane
(New
York:
P.F.Collier
and

Son,
1909‐14).

18


Giovanni
Palumbo
,‘Hamlet:
review’
Show
Business
Weekly,
downloaded

on
June
4
from


http://www.showbusinessweekly.com/archive2010/592/hamlet.shtml

19


Lukas
Erne,
Shakespeare
as
Literary
Dramatist

(Cambridge;
Cambridge
University
Press,

2003).

20


Peter
Usher,
Hamlet’s
Universe

(San
Diego:
Aventine
Press,
2007).

21


Giorgio
de
Santillana
and
Hertha
von
Dechend,
Hamlet’s
Mill;
An
Essay
on
Myth
and
the

Frame
of
Time,
(Boston:
Gambit,
1969).

22


Joseph
Atwill
Caesar’s
Messiah

(Berkeley;
Ulysses
Press,
2005)226‐49



 28