Irodalom | Középiskola » Bc. Monika Olejnickova - Hamlet in Pictorial Art in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries

MASARYK UNIVERSITY BRNO FACULTY OF EDUCATION Department of English Language and Literature HAMLET IN PICTORIAL ART IN THE EIGHTEENTH AND NINETEENTH CENTURIES Master’s Thesis Brno 2018 Supervisor: Mgr, Lucie Podroužková, Ph.D Author: Bc. Monika Olejníčková Anotace Tato diplomová práce se zabývá studiem významu Shakespearova “Hamleta” ve výtvarném a divadelním umění. Zaměřuje se především na různé metody zpracování, od maleb a kreseb, přes rytiny, až po fotografickou reprodukci děl, jež byly v osmnáctém a devatenáctém století využívány pro reprodukci hromadnou. Cílem práce je nastínit vzájemný vztah mezi divadelními produkcemi a vizuálními reprezentacemi těchto představení. Práce je rozdělena do čtyř hlavních částí: úvod, způsoby inovace v distribuci kopií v osmnáctém a devatenáctém století, vizuální reprezentace scén z „Hamleta“ a závěr. Klíčová je část druhá, v níž jsou analyzovány obrazy

zobrazující důležité scény ze hry, ať už inspirované textem hry nebo divadelními produkcemi. Klíčová slova: Shakespeare, Hamlet, Ophelia, divadlo, obrazy, osmnácté století, devatenácté století, šílenství, rytiny, ilustrace, plátno, litografie, fotografie Abstract This master’s thesis focuses on the study of the importance of Shakespeare’s Hamlet in the visual and theatrical arts. It concentrates primarily on various methods of production from paintings and drawings, through engravings to photographic reproduction of works that were used in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries for mass reproduction. The aim of the thesis is to outline the mutual relationship between theatre productions and visual representations of those performances. The work is divided into four main parts: Introduction, Innovations Used for Distribution of Copies of Images in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries, Visual Representations of the Scenes in Hamlet, and Conclusion. The key

part is the third one; in this section, paintings depicting important scenes of the play, inspired either by the text of the play of theatre productions. Keywords: Shakespeare, Hamlet, Ophelia, theatre, pictures, eighteenth century, nineteenth century, madness, engravings, illustrations, oil on canvas, lithograph, photography Declaration: I hereby declare that I worked on this thesis on my own and all the sources used are included in the works cited. Prohlášení: Prohlašuji, že jsem závěrečnou diplomovou práci vypracovala samostatně s použitím pouze citovaných zdrojů, dalších informací a zdrojů v souladu s Disciplinárním řádem pro studenty Pedagogické fakulty Masarykovy univerzity a se zákonem č. 121/2000 Sb, o právu autorském, o právech souvisejících s právem autorským a o změně některých zákonů (autorský zákon), ve znění pozdějších předpisů. Brno, 2018 . Bc. Monika Olejníčková Acknowledgements: I would like to thank my

supervisor, Mgr. Lucie Podroužková, PhD, for her neverending patience and willingness to spend a lot of time discussing my work with me, but also for her motivating energy which helped me every time I felt stuck. I must also express my gratitude to my mother and grandmother, who have always supported me during my studies and writing the thesis. Contents Introduction . 6 1 Innovations used for distribution of copies of images in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries . 8 2 Visual Representations of the Scenes in Hamlet . 12 2.1 The Beginning 12 2.2 The Council Scene 13 2.3 Lord Chamberlain’s Family Discussion 16 2.4 Hamlet’s First Encounter with the Spirit 18 2.5 Hamlet Follows the Spirit 23 2.6 The Cellarage Scene 29 2.7 Hamlet Visits Ophelia in Her Closet 32 2.8 Hamlet with a Book 36 2.9 Hamlet’s “To be or not to be” Soliloquy 42 2.10 The Nunnery Scene 45 2.11 The Mouse Trap 50 2.12 The Prayer Scene 57 2.13 Closet Scene 62 2.14 Ophelia’s Madness 71 2.15

Ophelia’s Death 80 2.16 The Graveyard Scene 84 2.17 The Finale 91 Conclusion . 97 Works Cited: . 99 Introduction William Shakespeare, widely known as the Bard, has been a very influential and inspirational author ever since his plays first appeared on stage in the seventeenth century. Praise and criticism of his works began during his life, and by the time of his death, he was already considered a major dramatist of his generation, perhaps of his era. His probably most famous and controversial play, Hamlet, was already “en route” for earning its today’s fame (Wofford 182). Shakespeare’s popularity grew to a great extent in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when the cult of bardolatry and Shakespeare as a genius were created. During that time, the theatre was a mass entertainment and it was available for various layers of the society, from the richest to the poor. The performances were highly inspirational for different kinds of artists, such as writers, poets,

painters, critic, or illustrators, especially when they were played by gifted actors and actresses. Because most of the notable paintings, drawings, engravings and other visual representations were created in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the thesis attempts to map the situation in the visual arts and theatre in these two periods. The aim of this master’s thesis is to study visual representations of Hamlet in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries – whether the visual renditions were popular and to what extent, and which parts of the play were influential for the painters, engravers, and illustrators of the day and in what way. The thesis also aims at the mapping of the way in which many of these renditions of Shakespeare’s most renowned play, in turn, inspired changes in the future performances. A part of the research are comments by important critics from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries whenever it is possible. Of course, not all of the pictorial renditions

were inspired solely by theatre, some scenes (especially the imagined ones, that do not take place on the stage, but not only these) were an invitation for artists to use their rich imagination to modify their work according to their taste and needs. Because both groups of pictures – those inspired by theatre and those that are completely original – were very popular, a selected number of examples of each of them will be provided. For the purpose of the thesis, an extensive research was conducted and, based on its revelations, it might be concluded that almost every major scene of the play was of certain importance for various artists, with the extremely emotional or dramatic ones 6 were the most attractive and transitioned in pictures. Where possible, one example from each of the eighteenth- and one of the nineteenth-century visual representations is provided, firstly from the eighteenth and secondly from the nineteenth century. However, in some cases, a scene was popular in

the eighteenth but not in the nineteenth century or vice versa, therefore examples only from one century are presented. There are also some unusual instances of depicting the play in an original and innovative way. Each of the analyses of the pictures aims to put the works into the context of temporary stage conventions and the acceptance of refusal of the critics of the particular period. The chapters of the thesis follow the plot of the play. All the important scenes of all acts are mentioned, only the parts which were less attractive for pictorial artists are presented very briefly because although they were not appealing for painters and the like, they are an important part of the plot and determine its continuation. At the beginning of each chapter, a concise presentation of the important parts of each scene is provided, inspired mainly by comments presented in The Meaning of Hamlet by a German scholar L. L Schücking, followed by the theatrical conventions used in the eighteenth

and nineteenth centuries, described to a great extent in R. A Young’s publication Hamlet and the Visual Arts, 1709-1900. Finally, stage customs described are analysed in each of the pictorial examples presented. For the purposes of the thesis, a brief piece of information about some of the most common reproductive methods used in the discussed two centuries is provided in the first chapter, from engraving, through lithography up to photography, in order to ensure that the terms relating to the different pictures analysed are easily understandable for the reader. 7 1 Innovations used for distribution of copies of images in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries There have been numerous methods and techniques used for the copying of famous artworks since the dawn of mass reproduction of art, and some basic information should be provided in order to make sure that the following text is as easily understandable as possible. The aim of this chapter is to make the text more available

to the reader, therefore it provides a brief description of the replication techniques used in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, which are the periods important for this paper. A very common technique during the two centuries was engraving, “the art of drawing or writing on any substance by means of an incised line”, which originated in the fifteenth century and used various methods and materials (Hind 1). Hind explains that the most commonly used material for engraving was copper, but other materials were occasionally used by engravers as well, for instance, zinc, iron, silver, steel, brass, and even pewter plates (3). In the eighteenth century, copperplate engraving was a standard and a related technique mezzotint 1 became quite popular. This technique, in which the artist roughens the surface of the copperplate with special tools in order to create the texture that will catch the ink, while other parts, which are supposed to stay lighter, are smoothened, enables the

artist to create a more detailed work (Barker). Although mezzotint allowed artists to produce more complex pictures with a play of light and shadow than simple line engraving (“Line engraving”), it was quite complicated and time-consuming, therefore it was not a sufficient way of reproducing paintings for growing trade needs in the nineteenth century. A very important innovation was the invention of wood engraving as a reproductive method in the second half of the eighteenth century due to its ability to lower the labour, costs, and mainly time needed. During the 1840s and 1850s, it became established as the principal medium of illustration for books as well as newspapers and periodicals. This technology, together with mechanised paper-making and steam-powered printing presses, opened the gate for mass production of popular works (Young 95). However, even though it was widely recognised as an important tool for copying, wood engraving was not the only technique used at that time.

Young presents another way, which is 1 A mezzotint comes from Italian “mezzo” (half) and “tinta” (tone) – presents halftones (Barker). 8 quite different from the previous ones, called outline engraving – a technique using metal plates – which had been used in archaeological drawings for a long time. Because it did not focus on reproducing the tonalities and complexities of the original, the production was fast since “only a minimal number of lines were employed to convey the form of the original” (104). An example of this technology presented in this thesis is an outline engraving by Moritz Retzsch. A method of etching was also a popular way of reproducing Hamlet pictures; this method is similar to engraving since the aim is to produce lines and crevices in a metal, usually copper, plate. The difference between the two methods is that etching uses a kind of acid to create pictures instead of cutting into it with a sharp tool. The plate is covered with a layer of

wax, into which the etcher draws the picture. Once the ornaments on the layer are done, acid is applied to the gaps and lines in it, therefore the acid “bites” into the metal (“About Etchings”). The work with wax makes it easier for the artist to cut into, therefore finer details might be created (“About Etchings”). In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, a combination of engraving and etching, called stipple etching, was another popular way of replication. In this method, a design was “made up by countless small dots or flecks, producing softly graded tones.” (“Stipple Engraving”) An example of the method discussed in this paper is a picture of actor Edmund Kean by Thomas Woolnoth. Another method of engraving was steel engraving which replaced the copper engraving in the 1820s. The process of engraving resembled that of copper-plate engraving, however, this technique had the advantage of the steel plates being much harder and therefore more durable

than copper. Bartrick explains that this quality of steel allowed the printing industries print thousands of impressions before the plates became worn out, which means making much more copies than it was possible to create from a copper plate. And what more, the hardness of steel allowed the creation of finer and complex details (“Printing Methods”). An example of etching used in reproduction of pictorial representations of Hamlet is a series of etchings by the German etcher and painter Daniel Niklaus Chodowiecki, some of which are discussed later. Not long before etching became popular, a completely new and quite distinct technology for pictorial reproduction called lithography was invented in 1798. In the 9 lithographic process, ink is applied on a grease-treated image on the flat printing surface; blank areas, which hold the moisture, repel the lithographic ink. This inked surface is then printed – either directly on paper, by means of a special press, or onto a rubber

cylinder (“Lithography”). Young explains that “instead of cutting or scrapping into a wooden block or metal plate, the lithographer drew or painted his design directly upon a porous printing surface, usually a stone” (107). Compared with the previous methods of duplication, the material used in lithography does not suffer from any damage, therefore one stone might be reused as many times as needed. In the second half of the nineteenth century, colour lithographs, known as chromolithographs or oleographs, were founded and they also became quite popular, even though the final quality was mostly somewhat poor (“Oleograph”). Young claims that the nineteenthcentury lithographs of Hamlet were mostly made in colour (107) Regardless of their popularity and effectivity, the above-mentioned ways of art reproduction were quite soon surpassed by the development of photography in the early 1800s. Lambert explains that: The use of the action of light in the reproduction of an image was

achieved early in the century when in 1827 Joseph Nicéphore Niépce took an etching that had been made translucent with wax and placed it upon a metal plate. Because the plate had been coated with material that hardened on exposure to light, Niépce was able to reproduce the design of his original upon the plate which could then be etched and printed like any other etching (qtd. in Young 111) Not much later after photography was invented, new processes were discovered that made photomechanical reproduction possible. This development of technology started a new trend – portraits of famous actors were being made and reproduced. Because the initial technologies were relatively limited, and the photography of stage performances was impractical, the actors playing in Hamlet were very often captured in portraits made in studios, which were then reproduced for newspapers, books, and postcards – some examples of such portraits are described below. These widely available copies were

extremely popular due to “ Victorian enormous desire to possess photographic likenesses of celebrity figures no matter whether they were royalty, athletes, military leaders, statesmen, or actors” (Marx 470). Later in the nineteenth century, other subjects became popular as well; Young offers examples of exteriors and interiors of 10 productions of theatre plays, and, as a result of the development of reproduction of photographic material, it was possible to copy them in a larger number (111- 114). In the following chapters, selected examples of pictorial renditions are discussed, divided according to the acts and scenes they depict. Where possible, a description of the original work is provided; however, many of the presented works are available only in their reproductions, therefore the reproductions are analysed. 11 2 Visual Representations of the Scenes in Hamlet 2.1 The Beginning Even though the first scene of the first act was not particularly attractive to the

eighteenth- and nineteenth-century artists – the interest was in more dramatic or emotional moments – it is an important and inseparable part of the story, and consequently, a few lines are dedicated to the initial events. Hamlet opens outside the ramparts of the Elsinore castle at midnight, with Horatio meeting officers Bernardo and Marcellus, who have informed him about a strange and mysterious appearance of a ghost. Although he does not believe in the existence of ghosts, Horatio arrives to inspect the peculiar matter, and, after a short conversation with the guards, during which the two guards attempt to perceive him to believe by describing their experience from the previous day, the spirit really appears. It looks like the deceased old King Hamlet himself clad in full armour. Seeing the ghost, all three men are terrified, however, Horatio soon regains control over himself and manages to speak to it, but it disappears without a word. Horatio is afraid that the apparition is

an ill omen warning about the warlike threat from the young Norwegian Fortinbras; he even thinks of the fearful portents heralding Julius Caesar’s death. Unexpectedly, the ghost appears once again and Horatio, feeling pity for it and fear for the fate of the kingdom, speaks to the spirit to convince it to clarify the meaning of its presence. Unfortunately, a cock crows and the spirit disappears before it manages to answer. The three witnesses decide to find the Prince and inform him about what has happened. Theoretically, the first scene could have been skipped and described by a few lines only without influencing the story. Schücking in his The Meaning of Hamlet comments on Marcellus not appearing in the story anymore and Horatio playing a considerably smaller role, while he adds that their various guesses about the reason for the Ghost’s appearance turn up to be wrong, therefore the importance of the scene for the plot is minimal (71). However, Schücking further explains that

Shakespeare was “eager as usual to make the most of the dramatic possibilities of a good scene, is unwilling to shorten it in the interest of the general construction of the play.” (71) The introductory scene is important mainly for its “emotional value”; the atmosphere at the beginning sets the tone of the whole play (Schücking 71). 12 Showing the supernatural and fear that the brave strong men feel of it, instead of just describing it in a short text is a more powerful way to waken the interest of the audience or readers in what will happen next; and, according to Schücking “the mention of Caesar’s death, one of the most pregnant events in world history, is a presage of fateful events.” (71) The initial scene is full of mystery and it takes time until the first mention of the Prince is even made – it is pronounced only in Horatio’s last words: Break we our watch up, and by my advice Let us impart what we have seen tonight Unto young Hamlet; for upon my life

This spirit, dumb to us, will speak to him. (Shakespeare qtd in Hibbard 154) Horatio provides the audience only with Hamlet’s name and status; by saying that the ghost will speak to him, he hints at the Prince’s importance, but nothing more. This is another Shakespeare’s tool for attracting curiosity about the following actions, attracting interest in the whole play it might, consequently, be expected that it would inspire the visual artists; nevertheless, it did not happen, the thesis therefore continues with the following scene. 2.2 The Council Scene This pompous scene strikingly differs from the mysterious and dark first one – it presents the meeting of Council at the Danish Court where the new King Claudius delivers a speech about important events and tasks that the Government must take care of. The King appears friendly to his courtiers and he does not seem to be a reserved or despotic ruler; he gives clear orders which Schücking describes as presented “in a courteous

manner towards those about him, and in his serious words to the Ambassadors he happens in every way fitted for this position.” (72-73) Schücking comments on the fact that Claudius’ behaviour to Polonius’ son Laertes is quite benevolent, maybe too familiar – it shows that Polonius’ family has a special place at his court (73). When Laertes asks for permission to return to Paris to 13 continue with his studies, Claudius asks Polonius if he agreed with his son’s wish and only after Polonius approves the idea gives Claudius his permission. Schücking explains this reaction as a sign that “family bonds are sacred to him, and this is a matter best left to father’s authority.” (73) This comment on the sacredness of family bonds is somewhat bizarre and improbable because Claudius murdered his only brother to take his crown, therefore sacrificed his family for power. After accepting Laertes’ request and dismissing him, the King then turns his attention to his

son-nephew, who does not rejoice with the others but shows he is in a very bad mood, and asks him in an especially kind way what makes him so sad by starting to ask “But now, my cousin Hamlet, and my son –”, which is rudely interrupted by Hamlet’s “A little more than kin, and less than kind”, expressing clearly that Hamlet does not agree with the hasty marriage to his mother, and although he is now closer to him in family relationship, Claudius will never be his father. Claudius continues with his question: “How is it that the clouds still hang on you?”, receiving a sarcastic answer that Hamlet feels he is “too much i’th’sun.” (Shakespeare qtd in Hibbard 158) Schücking believes that by twisting the King’s words, the Prince tries to express his feeling of distress caused by the splendour of the Court (73); Hibbard further explains that by the word play, the Prince wants to say that he is too much in the sunshine of his uncle’s favour; at the same time,

Hibbard claims there is an obvious quibble son/sun, making it clear that Hamlet rejects to accept the role of Claudius’ son (158). Hamlet shows honest disgust for his uncle, he nevertheless tries to get into the Prince’s favour and tries to mitigate his grief. He even points out that it is against “nature” and reason to mourn so much. Claudius then quickly changes the topic – he has heard of Hamlet’s wish to travel back to Wittenberg. However, he asks the Prince to stay in Elsinore with them because he and his mother would miss his presence at the Court. When the Queen adds her wish to the King’s, Hamlet decides to accept, but his words “I shall in all my best obey you, madam” make it clear that he is addressing only his mother, completely ignoring Claudius (Shakespeare qtd. in Hibbard 161) The King, not expressing any possible negative feelings or impressions caused by his son/nephew’s behaviour, merrily decides to celebrate Hamlet’s decision to stay with them in

Elsinore. 14 During this scene, the figure of the King is the most prominent one and he seems to be a perfect and kind King. Shakespeare does not let him show his true hypocritical and villainous nature at this point, hence Hamlet’s unfriendly behaviour is not much understandable for the audience. Even though the stress is put on Claudius’ character, Shakespeare introduces also a bit of the nature of the other characters present, therefore the audience or reader has an idea of “the somewhat unintelligent Queen, entirely in the power of her husband; of the self-important bombastic Lord Chamberlain and his vigorous son, and, above all, of the hero of the play, Prince Hamlet” who, unlike the rest of the characters, does not enjoy being in the royal favour.” (Schücking 75-76) Only when left alone, Hamlet finally reveals more about himself and the reasons for his unhappiness and stand-offish behaviour. He is disgusted by life; his world has been shattered when his beloved

father died, and his dear mother married her brother-inlaw in two months, which is a critically short time for mourning. In the light of previous events, which are only briefly mentioned, Gertrude’s feelings seem superficial. On the other hand, Hamlet has very high moral values and this kind of demeanour is not in accordance with them – as a result, the moral order in which he believed has been shattered and life has lost its reason. Schücking believes it is mainly his mother’s hasty marriage that made him especially desperate (76). He also contemplates the question “If within two months [his] mother can transfer her love from a husband so noble as her first to one so worthless as her second”, what meaning life can possibly have for the Prince, and he claims that this soliloquy is probably the most important one in the whole play (76). This is the moment when the audience finally learn something about the Prince and start feeling sympathy for him because he is a man of high

moral ideals, and his sincere mourning for his father makes him a likeable person, intensifying this feeling by the fact that the loss is very recent. The behaviour, which he considers to be unjust, is not sustained quietly. On the contrary, Hamlet protests loudly, he is cruel towards those who – in his opinion – deserve it, while at the same time, he tortures himself as well, which is, according to Kerr, together with his rejection of the world around him and later contemplation on death and suicide a sign of melancholy (“Melancholic Depression”). His desperate meditation is interrupted by the arrival of his old friend Horatio and the officers Barnardo and Marcellus. He greets them warmly, putting his pain aside for a while, and 15 demands to know Horatio’s reason to come from Wittenberg. Horatio answers he has come to see the King Hamlet’s funeral, which results in the Prince’s bitter comment “Thrift, thrift, Horatio! The funeral baked meats did coldly furnish

forth the marriage tables”, expressing that the real reason was more the wedding than the funeral, but at least the two events were managed well from the economic point of view (Shakespeare qtd. in Hibbard, 2008 165) This is a mockery and cynicism that is another way of expressing Hamlet’s pain. Horatio finally reveals why he has come to him; he informs the Prince that he saw his father’s ghost last night, to which Hamlet responds passionately, as is usual for him when the father-topic is aroused, and he encourages Horatio and his companions to continue, concluding the conversation with a decision to attend the watch next night. When the other three men leave the scene, Hamlet is once again left alone with his unhappy thoughts: My father’s spirit, in arms! All is not well; I doubt some foul play. Would the night were come Till then sit still, my soul; foul deeds will rise Though all the earth o’erwhelm them to men’s eyes. (Shakespeare qtd in Hibbard, 2008 170) Although the

scene holds a potential for pictorial depiction – the artists might picture the differences in mood between the royal pair and the Prince – it seems it was not considered to be attractive for the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century artists. 2.3 Lord Chamberlain’s Family Discussion The dramatic revelation of the supernatural events in Elsinore is followed by the third scene of the first act, which focuses on Laertes’ and Polonius’ interview with the former man’s sister, Ophelia. The young lady is in love with Hamlet and he is courting her, and Laertes is afraid that the Prince’s feelings may not be sincere, and her reputation might be endangered. He comments on the fact that even if his intentions were sincere, the Prince is tied by the State, and hence he is not free to choose who to marry, therefore 16 she should be very careful. Ophelia promises to keep his advice close to her heart and, in exchange, gives him a relevant advice too, telling him not to, As some

ungracious pastors do, Show [her] steep and thorny way to heaven, Whilst like a puffed and reckless libertine Himself the primrose path of dalliance treads And recks not his own rede.” (Shakespeare qtd in Hibbard, 2008 173-174) While this kind of conversation might seem strange to modern audience or readers, at the time when the story takes place, that is the late middle ages, a family was considered a moral school and “even children were expected to be the mouthpieces of ethical maxims.” (Schücking 80) Yet there is something unusual in the situation – and Schücking comments on it as well – and it is that Ophelia does not react more strongly to Laertes’ words. It is quite the contrary, she seems to accept his warnings passively, there is no attempt to defend her suitor, almost as if her interest in the Prince is not so strong. Still, Schücking describes Ophelia as a woman who “has a docility that only women of dangerously oversensitive emotions show”, pointing out

that she is extremely sensitive and her hypersensitivity, which might prevent her from reacting, and which later changes her into a mad woman, might be recognisable from the beginning (81). The intimate conversation between the siblings is interrupted by the appearance of Polonius, who urges his son to hurry and with the same breath gives him moral maxims, reflecting “the practical wisdom of aristocratical society in the Elizabethan age” (Schücking 81). Immediately after Laertes leaves the scene, Polonius’ behaviour completely changes – he is pedantic and patronising, his communication with his daughter lacks any sign of sympathy that would be expected between a parent and a child when he starts interrogating her: POLONIUS: What is between you? Give me up the truth. OPHELIA: He hath, my lord, of late made many tenders of his affection to me. POLONIUS: Affection, pooh! You speak like a green girl unsifted in such perilous circumstance. (Shakespeare qtd in Hibbard, 177)

Polonius dismisses any possibility of Hamlet’s genuine love for her, he even treats his daughter’s opinion as pointless and childish. In Schücking’s view, Polonius intends 17 to prejudice his own daughter against the Prince by convincing her that she should not treat him with kindness because he is only taking advantage of his powerful position (82). Although these accusations are not true, as becomes clear later on, the submissive girl respects the authority of her father and obeys what he wants from her – to interrupt her relationship with the Prince. Despite appearing passive in the conversation, there is an undertone of sadness in Ophelia’s reactions, which supports Schücking’s claim that Ophelia must be a very sensitive girl. This scene, as well as the previous ones, was not inspirational for the artists, the thesis therefore continues with the first scene of the play depicted in visual arts – Hamlet’s first encounter with his father’s ghost. 2.4

Hamlet’s First Encounter with the Spirit Scene four in the first act directly follows the conversation between the daughter and father and finally brings the audience and readers to one of the most important parts in the play – a scene which determines the following events. Hamlet’s dramatic first encounter with the ghost is the first scene of the play which seems to have received the bigger attention of artists. In his study, Young claims that it could be due to Garrick’s famous performances as Hamlet (147). David Garrick was the predominant actor and manager of the eighteenth century, famous for naturalism and emotional power of his Hamlet performances, especially when showing his love for his father and his extreme terror when meeting the ghost. Georg Lichtenberg, an enthusiastic theatre-goer of Garrick’s time describes his experience with Garrick’s performance. His testimony supports Young’s claim that Garrick’s encounter with the spirit was highly dramatic and

therefore attractive for artists. When mourning for his father, Garrick was “completely overcome by tears of grief” and when the Ghost appears to his son, “Garrick’s whole demeanour is so expressive of terror that it made my flesh creep even before he began to speak” (qtd. in Young 147) Garrick was also known to wear a special wig, so-called “fright wig”, which had been designed by a hairdresser named Perkins. When activated, the wig would “stand” on the actor’s head (Price). When the ghost appears, it has an enormous effect on the Prince even though it was expected to arrive. In shock, he exclaims “Angels and ministers of grace defend us!” and stands in a position that is 18 often called a “start” position (Shakespeare qtd. in Hibbard 177) The reaction was typically played by the Prince’s extended arms in front of him, fingers upwards and palms turned towards the ghost. His weight was transferred backwards upon his left foot, and, in a piece of stage

business that is often mentioned, his hat fell upon the ground or was consciously removed in some productions. Hamlet’s face expressed intense fear and awe, and in Garrick’s case at least, Hamlet’s hair rose” (Young 149; “Mr Garrick in Hamlet”). Inspired by Garrick, many of the pictorial representations began to show Hamlet in his “start” position, hatless – the hat was sometimes lying on the ground, other times missing completely – with a face expressing intensive emotions. The setting in the pictures varied more than actors’ presentations. In some pictures, the focus was only on the figure on Hamlet, other artists depicted all the characters captured in a bigger scenery, to portray the overall effect of the scene. The following lines discuss two examples of pictorial representation of the scene, one example of the eighteenth-century and one of nineteenth-century art, as well as their importance to the arts and their connection with theatre. The first example is

a picture William Powel as Hamlet Encountering the Ghost by Benjamin Wilson (1768-9). It is an oil on canvas of dimensions 1263 x 116 cm, which is an instance of the use of the natural surroundings instead of just figures presenting an extended night landscape which is dominated by gloomy clouds and the wild sea. Young describes the sea as a symbol of turbulence and disorder, the instability of fortune, and the power of nature often found in representations of this moment (151). It might also symbolise the instability and wild emotions which are present in every moment of the tragedy, the wild nature of the Prince and his unexpectable feigned, or sometimes real, madness. The figures of Hamlet, Horatio, Marcellus, and the ghost are quite small in comparison to the surroundings. On the left, close to the Hamlet-group, there is a tall stone wall of the castle – as stated in Young, it is a typical feature of visual representations of this moment. There is a drawbridge to the left of the

painting, emanating from the castle wall, another motif which is, according to Young, inspired by the theatre (152). The Prince stands in a wide-legged stance, his weight falling on the 19 Fig. 1 Wilson, Benjamin William Powel as Hamlet Encountering the Ghost 1768-9 Oil on canvas The Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington DC. right leg which is behind him, so he leans backwards as if collapsing into his companions’ arms; a typical example of a “start” position inspired by Garrick. His left arm is stretched forward, the other grabbing a hand of one of his friends; his face is extremely pale as if highlighted by the moonlight. The game of light is an effect borrowed from Renaissance practice (Young 152). Even though he is described as a young man in Shakespeare’s text, Powel’s Hamlet looks quite old with the missing hair in this painting. His face shows intensive feelings of terror, his eyes are wide open and staring at the apparition, mouth open in astonishment. His

three-cornered hat lies on the ground in front of him, partially hidden in his shadow. The faces of his companions, Marcellus and Horatio, express fear as well. The ghost is in full armour, with a truncheon firmly held in its right hand, and it seems to be walking away from the three men. The visor of the helmet is up, showing a very sad face that is still turned towards them – it may be the spirit’s way of encouraging the Prince to follow him. The rendering corresponds with the instructions 20 for the scene in the text: “Enter the Ghost, clad in complete armour, with his visor raised, and a truncheon in its hand” (Shakespeare qtd. in Hibbard 145) As a result of the special lighting, facial expressions of the character, and the presence of the apparition, the atmosphere is extremely mysterious and dark. The following example is a wood engraving Ghost Scene in the First Act of Hamlet at Booth’s Theatre signed “Grey-Parker” without a particular date. The size of the

picture is 5/8 x 11 ¼ inches, which is considerably smaller than the previous instance. Despite the fact that the date is unknown, it is certain that it comes from the nineteenth century for Edwin Booth was a renowned American tragedian of that time (Ruggles). The original use of the picture is unclear but Young believes it was used in a newspaper or a magazine; his opinion is supported by information accompanying the picture on the website Luna (153; “Ghost Scene”). This engraving is but one of many pictorial representations of Booth. The picture shows the moment following the appearance of the ghost, when Hamlet has collected his thoughts and tries to break free from his companions, shortly before threatening them not to stop him, swearing that he will “make a ghost of him that lets me. I say, away!” (Shakespeare qtd in Hibbard 184) Despite being upset and scared, or, as Schücking describes it, “shaken to the very core of his being” (82), he attempts to communicate with

the spirit asking many questions and announcing that no matter whether it is A spirit of health or goblin damned, Bring with thee airs from heaven or blasts from hell, Be thy intents wicked or charitable, Thou com’st in such a questionable shape that I will speak to thee. (Shakespeare qtd in Hibbard, 181) Hamlet is determined to believe that the apparition really is his deceased father and his scepticism has left him. He is full of competing feelings drawn to the Ghost, although, at the same time, the apparition of the risen corpse is repulsive to him and it disturbs the calmness and beauty of the night (Schücking 85). 21 Fig. 2 Grey-Parker Ghost Scene in the First Act of Hamlet at Booth’s Theatre Nineteenth century Wood engraving. Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington DC The atmosphere in the picture is very dynamic; the figures of Hamlet, Marcellus and Horatio are pictured to the left of the work. They are in the middle of a struggle, Hamlet leans forward with his legs

wide apart as if trying to gain balance and free himself from the firm grip of his companions; his face reflects anger rather than fear. He frowns and looks intensely at the ghost of his father which stands on the right side of the engraving. In his right hand, Hamlet holds a dagger or a short sword, ready to strike if needed, his left arm is straightened and points at the ghost. His companions try to warn the Prince not to go because it might be a devil in disguise who wants to “tempt [him] toward the flood” or to “the dreadful summit of the cliff” where it could change its form and make Hamlet a mad man (qtd. In Hibbard 183) He is so attracted by the apparition that when his friends attempt to stop him, he threatens to kill anyone who stops him from following it. In the engraving, Horatio and Marcellus visibly struggle with the Prince, one of them has already lost control over him and the other seems to be going to lose it very soon too. The ghost of the old King Hamlet

stands on the right side of the engraving and patiently waits for its son to follow him. In comparison with the sad apparition in the 22 Wilson’s canvas, this one looks very respectable and noble. The King is fully armed in chain armour, his visor is up so the face with a long beard is exposed. The helmet has a kind of long and wide veil in the back, which falls to the calf of the spirits. In his right hand, it holds a short truncheon. Similarly to the Wilson’s version of the scene, the ghost’s appearance corresponds with the Shakespeare’s directions for the stage. There is, however, a slight difference – unlike the previous ghost, this one is clad in chain armour. All the figures stand in the foreground of the picture and appear quite small compared with the castle in the background; there is a stone wall with a large gate slightly to the right that is described in high detail. Behind the wall, there is the tall castle of Elsinore, which is more like an outline of the

building. The moon, which is hidden behind a cloud in the upper left corner, throws light on the scenery from the back so that the wall and all the figures of the characters – except for the ghost – cast shadows, therefore the picture looks quite realistic. In the foreground, a tree can be seen on each side of the engraving, as a reminder of the stage setting – in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the framing of the stage with trees was, based on Young’s and Andrews’ researches, a common practice (153; 120). As Young explains in his work, the moonlight was used in pictures as well as on the stage very often and provides specific examples of Booth’s, Henry Irving’s, and Charles Kean’s productions. In Irving’s production, the effect of moonlight “was created by blending the dim green light from the footlights (“floats”) with dimmer blue from rows of overhead gaslights behind the proscenium arch.” (153) 2.5 Hamlet Follows the Spirit When Hamlet follows

the old King in the fifth scene of the first act, a crucial scene, especially attractive one to the artists, begins. As soon as he is alone with his father’s ghost, the Prince asks warily: “Whither thou lead me? Speak, I’ll go no further.” (Shakespeare qtd. in Hibbard 185) The King then reveals how much suffering he has been through since his death and how he died in reality. For artists, the moment 23 provided a suitable dramatic context for portraits of Hamlet. A number of Hamlets were pictured in a pose similar to the end of the previous scene with their swords drawn, as if ready to fight any opponent. Garrick’s and Brockmann’s Hamlet are two examples of actors using the sword to threaten the ghost. Other actors, such as Edmund Kean, used the sword in a different way, holding it behind them or throwing it away. But the most interesting variation, often imitated by later actors, was the holding of the sword as if it was a cross, with the hilt up. The last way of using

the sword was, supposedly, introduced by the actor Edwin Booth. Marvin W Hunt explains that Booth claimed to have come upon the pose by accident when the sword slipped from his hand while Booth was drawing his sword during a rehearsal (165). Hunt clarifies that when Booth caught the weapon, the actor realised that it is a very powerful pose and decided to use it during his performance (165). In this pose, the Prince demands an explanation from the ghost. Another important feature of pictorial representations of this scene mentioned in Young is the fact that artists often portrayed actors in the role (155). Portraits of this part of the play typically ignore all scenic effects and, as in the case of some works depicting Hamlet’s “start”, they even omit the figure of the ghost (e.g Garrick in a mezzotint Mr Garrick as Hamlet, John Henderson in an engraving from 1779, or J. P Kemble in his 1799 engraving) As Young discovered in his research, artists’ intention was to make it easy

for the viewer to recognise Hamlet even without providing them with the famous quotation “Whither thou lead me? Speak, I’ll go no further.” (Shakespeare qtd in Hibbard 185) and, sometimes, even without the ghost. The main goal was to portrait the emotions clearly enough, so it was obvious who the character is, therefore, during the later eighteenth and in the nineteenth centuries, Hamlets would have been instantly recognisable in one of their typical poses. All the pictures found during the research for this paper were created in the nineteenth century, therefore the following two examples are both from this period – one is from the first half and the other from the end of the nineteenth century. The first instance of the portrayal of Hamlet alone with the ghost is a wood engraving by John Thompson after a design by John Thurston. It is one of the six Hamlet designs made by Thurston. Young found out that the set of pictures of the size 24 only 4 x 5 centimetres, published

in 1814, included a frontispiece and an engraving for each chapter of the tragedy. It was frequently reprinted and copied (167) The picture is accompanied by Hamlet’s “Whither thou lead me? Speak, I’ll go no further.” (Shakespeare qtd. in Hibbard, 185) Fig. 3 Thompson, John Hamlet on the Ramparts 1814 Wood engraving Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington DC. The ghost stands on the left of the picture on the platform in Elsinore, beckons to Hamlet, who is in the foreground, to follow him. The pale apparition appears to be walking slowly behind a wall at the left edge of the picture, its head turned toward Hamlet, with its left arm extended across its body. Hamlet, in a strong contrast with the ghost, is dressed in black in the front right part of the picture, with his back towards the viewer. His sword is raised in his right hand above his head, a gesture similar to the one which was often used in the previous scene (see above). The Prince’s left arm is extended toward the

ghost, and he appears to kneel on his left knee on the upper step of stairs, as if he has fallen or needs to rest after chasing the ghost; it is likely that he is tired and needs to catch his breath, and that is the reason he refuses to continue following his father. In the background, there is a night sky with a single white cloud and the moon which shines upon the scene and causes Hamlet to cast a shadow. 25 The scene rendered in Thompson’s engraving shows a platform of Elsinore castle, but it was not the only setting used in pictorial representations nonetheless. In the nineteenth century theatre, various scene changes were engaged, such as in Booth’s production between 1870-1878, which changed the battlements of the castle for “a Grove adjoining the castle as in the earlier Winter Garden production” (166). Another variation was in Henry Irving’s production in 1874 – the scene took place in a small glen between mountains, with the ghost standing on a small elevation

between two trees. In front of the ghost, there was a gauze to create an “appropriate ‘ghostly’ effect for the audience. Young mentions that in the 1878 production, another change was applied, putting the ghost “on rocks against a background depicting a wintry sea” (166). The following example depicts another change of surroundings, having Hamlet and his father near a ruin outside the castle. The picture is a pen and ink drawing of size 15 ¼ x 11 ¼ inches, signed by John Jellicoe and Herbert Railton, it shows the actor and theatre manager Sir Herbert Beerbohm Tree as Hamlet. Young assumes it might be a record of Tree’s production at the Haymarket, on 30th January 1892 (170). His assumption is supported by a piece of information accompanying the drawing on Folger Digital Image Collection as it offers the same information (“The Haymarket”). The drawing is accompanied by two smaller drawings in its upper and lower left corners (the former one shows Polonius with Ophelia,

the latter Ophelia’s mad scene). Hamlet stands in the foreground in the lower right corner, dressed in dark clothes, with a medallion on his neck which may be either a miniature of his father’s portrait used later in the play of the Order of the Elephant. The Prince stands with legs wide apart, putting weight on his right leg which is in the front of him, he has his sword in a scabbard fastened around his hips. His figure is twisted, with his legs facing the viewer, however the upper part of the body is turned to the ghost as his right arm reaches toward it with fingers fully extended; the overall stance expresses longing instead of fear. The ghost, a light apparition-like figure, stands in the background further from the Prince, in an upper position to the left of the picture with legs slightly apart. It holds its right arm akimbo while the left seems to be relaxing upon a truncheon which is supported against the ghost’s left hip. The spirit’s pose seems powerful as it looks

down 26 at Hamlet. Its helmet with lifted visor shows a white beard and its body is clad in full armour, as usual, and over the armour hangs a light translucent cloth. Fig. 4 Jellicoe, John, Railton, Herbert Hamlet, the Haymarket Theatre, January 30, 1892, Herbert Beerbohm Tree as Hamlet, Mr. Fernandes as the Ghost 1892 Pen and ink drawing Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington DC. As mentioned above, they stand outside the castle of Elsinore that is drawn in the upper right half of the picture. The size of the castle, which is in a Gothic style, indicates it is situated quite far from the characters. Behind the spirit, a disintegrated entrance part – probably a ruin of a building or a gate – can be seen, and in the darkness of the entrance, the shading creates an eerie effect of a possible presence of the structure of the inner wall of the ruin or, maybe, a figure to create an even darker and spookier atmosphere. The nature in the surroundings seems dry and dead, hence the

overall effect is depressing, although the picture itself is not drawn in a very dark spectre. In the play, the dramatic scene of meeting the ghost is followed by the moment when the ghost confides to its son that its soul cannot find peace. The ghost only hints at its suffering, but it has a strong effect on Hamlet; and when he hears the truth about his father’s death, a strong passion overcomes him. The Prince has always been suspicious, 27 and the revelation wakes a thirst for revenge in him; the details of the King’s death add only more fuel to the flames of Hamlet’s rage. The King is hurt by deception by his brother and tortured by hate towards him, but what especially burns his soul is that he truly loved his Queen and she betrayed his love by quickly remarrying, and that her new husband is his own murderer. Nevertheless, he still feels tender feelings toward her and although he demands a punishment for Claudius, he wants mercy for his Gertrude. In his critical book,

Schücking admires the way in which Shakespeare handled the supernatural in this part of the play. He compared old Hamlet’s ghost to ghosts created by other famous authors such as Keats and his sad ghost Isabella. Shakespeare’s ghost comes from another world where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth. He is subject to laws not valid for mankind and there is something pitiful in the way I which a King, whose merest gesture was but recently obeyed, must now tremble at the crow of a cock, and await this sign of daybreak as a convict anxiously awaits the signal of his warder. (Schücking 87) In his every word, the unbearable pain is sensible, and the reader or viewer may therefore feel sympathy for a good person, and his loving words about his faithless wife reveal how noble he used to be when alive. In the visual representations, the sadness is often pictured – and example presented is the Wilson’s canvas above. After revealing the abhorrent truth, the King disappears, but

Hamlet stays on the scene and is full of emotions, the only thing he can think of is to take revenge on his uncle. He vows “that nothing else shall have any meaning for him” than retaliate the evil deed. (Schücking 88) Schücking believes Claudius’ hypocrisy makes the Prince extremely outraged – not only is he a murderer of his beloved father, but he also pretends being someone better than he really is (88). This perseverance to honesty is a sign of his fanatical worship of truth and it is going to be his undoing because, as Goethe in Wofford points out, this task is too much for a person of a “pure, lovely, noble and most moral nature, without the strength or nerve which forms a hero” (qtd. in Wofford 185-186) Although this part of the scene is full of emotions and must have deeply affected the audience, it was not particularly attractive for the artists, therefore the following lines discuss the consecutive, more interesting part of the last scene of the first act, the

scene, in which Hamlet forces his companions to swear to keep silent. 28 2.6 The Cellarage Scene After the old King disappears, Hamlet is full of emotions, and when his companions finally manage to find him, he nearly reveals what he has learnt by uttering “There’s ne’er a villain dwelling in all Denmark but he’s an arrant knave.” (Shakespeare qtd in Hibbard 192) However, as Schücking explains, his natural reserve prevents him from telling what he knows and makes him keep it a secret instead. Although Horatio tries to persuade Hamlet to reveal the truth, the Prince only reassures him that the ghost is not an apparition from hell, but “an honest ghost”, therefore a trustworthy creature. The Prince then makes the other two swear upon his sword “never [to] make known what [they] have seen” (Shakespeare qtd. in Hibbard 193) Although Horatio and Marcellus swear to remain silent about everything they have seen the that night, the spirit seems unsatisfied by their

promise because it starts crying from the underground, demanding that they “swear” multiple times. In the end, Hamlet’s companions, in terror, swear upon the sword once again. The theatre performances, together with pictorial renditions inspired by the performances, record the common use of a sword as a cross, therefore it has a similar symbolical meaning to the previous moments, where it was used as a protection in case of danger. At this moment, Hamlet forces his companions to swear upon his sword, which is a practice that, as Pearce points out, goes back at least to the times of Crusades, thus making the whole story a kind of a crusade, for the Prince and his trustworthy ones are in “a war with the infidel” (161). Although the previous scene attracted a number of artists during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, it is this part of the play which seems to be even more attractive to them. The first example of pictorial renditions of the fifth scene of the first fact is

an etching Hamlet on Ramparts by Daniel N. Chodowiecki from 1778, with dimensions 7 x 4.9 centimetres, depicting one of Johann Brockmann’s performances This etching is one of a set of twelve Hamlet pictures which were published in the Berliner Genealogische Kalendar in 1779 and, based on Young’s research, it is one of the earliest Hamlet representations (52). Chodowiecki was an enthusiastic theatre goer, who was allowed to attend Brockmann’s performances for free to aid him in his work (Young 52). 29 The etching represents the moment when Horatio and Marcellus swear to remain silent. Horatio is pictured on the left, his right hand lying upon the sword close to the “cross”, Marcellus stands on the right, a bit further from the “cross”, his left hand upon the sword. Brockmann stands between his companions at the centre of the picture, Fig. 5 Chodowiecki, David N Cellarage scene 1778 Etching Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington DC. holding the sword by the hilt. The

Prince looks quite old with his receding blonde hair; he is the only one without any cover on his head, his hat probably remained on the ground on the platform of the castle when the spirit appeared, as the stage conventions were. They are in a graveyard now – a place not uncommon for this moment in the play – and in the background, two graves accompanied by crosses can be seen. Dominating the picture is the building of the church to the left and a roof of a smaller building on the right side of the picture. Hamlet wears breeches, a shirt, and a three-quarter length cloak – dark as usual. Both his companions wear high boots and long cloaks; Horatio’s head is covered with a hat, while Marcellus wears a helmet. The drawing is accompanied by a German quotation meaning “We swore” (“Wir schwören”). 30 Another famous depiction of this point of the play is an illustration for an 1897 New York edition of Hamlet by Howard. Ch Christy It is quite small, having only 7 x 9

centimetres, and it is one of twenty-five illustrations Howard made for the edition. Compared to Chodowiecki’s etching, this picture is very simple, depicting only the three figures of men. Hamlet kneels on the right of the picture, his outstretched arms hold a sword with its hilt turned to the companions who kneel together on the left, therefore it looks like a cross. Marcellus and Horatio are about to put their hands on the sword and swear, a motif commonly used in the theatre. Fig. 6 Christy, Howard Ch 1897 Photographic reproduction of illustration by Christy Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington DC. All figures wear a long cloak, breeches and stockings; Hamlet is, again, easily recognisable since he is the only person dressed fully in black. Because there is no background in the picture, there is no reminder of the stage, although Young claims that it possibly depicts inspiration by Booth’s performances, based on the way Hamlet holds the sword (171). The design is

accompanied by Hamlet’s words “Swear by my sword” (Shakespeare qtd. in Hibbard 171) The act one scenes four and five collectively represent one of the most commonly depicted topics of the play (Young 171). Even though the pictures concentrate on the act 31 of swearing on the sword, which was, at least from the nineteenth century, of antique looks and a cross on the hilt, the scene is more complex, and it was handled in various ways. Hamlet’s behaviour was acted in different ways in order to give the drama great intensity; actors used to perform in various levels of hysteria caused by the meeting with the apparition. Rosenberg in Young explains that “after demanding that Horatio and Marcellus take a solemn oath upon his sword and upon hearing the Ghost from below also demand that they swear, certain Hamlets have become what they were supposedly only pretending to be – mad”, providing an example of Irving, Devrient and Rossi (qtd. in Young 170) Young lists other

Hamlets, such as Henderson or Kemble, who distinguished between Horatio and Marcellus, showing distrust of his latter companion (170). A challenging part of the scene was the depicting of the ghost. In the theatre, it was solely heard, hiding in the “hell” part below the stage, as Wofford names it, but not seen, therefore the spirit was usually absent from the pictures showing the swearing (10). Nevertheless, there were some artists who did not resist the possibility to incorporate the apparition, for example Retzsch responded to this difficulty by showing a completely transparent ghost in the foreground of the picture, halfway in the ground. To make it clear that the characters were hearing something other than their own voices, all three face away from each other and bend one ear toward the ground (Young 172). After Hamlet’s companions swear for the third time in the presence of the ghost, the Prince tells it to rest, asks Horatio and Marcellus to keep silent, and they then

together leave the scene, giving space for Polonius and Reynoldo, who has spied upon his son. Due to the fact it was not of special interest to the artists of the eighteenth and nineteenth century, the following chapter discusses Hamlet’s visit in Ophelia’s room. 2.7 Hamlet Visits Ophelia in Her Closet The early effects of the ghost’s revelations upon Hamlet’s psyche, though apparent in his “wild and whirling words” at the end of the first act, are not initially seen on stage – 32 the audience and readers have only information provided by Ophelia at the beginning of the second act (Shakespeare qtd. in Hibbard 193) Ophelia describes to her father how Hamlet entered her closet while she was alone sewing, his appearance and behaviour was very peculiar, it even seems he is on the verge of madness. Young describes her accounts as “a set-piece that was much admired in the 18th century.” (287) A British painter and scientist George Stubbes represents an example of a

supporter of Ophelia’s depiction of the visit, claiming that it “does as much Honour to our Poet as any Passage in the whole play, It is excellently good in the Picturesque Part of Poetry, and renders the Thing almost present to us” (qtd. in Vickers 54) An eighteenth century Irish poet, actor and dramatic writer Francis Gentleman also admired the “very picturesque manner” of Ophelia’s speech in 1770 (qtd. in Young 287) Hamlet’s face was very pale, and he broke a number of rules of decorum concerning dressing. The Prince’s appearance can be seen as a parallel to the later appearance of the mad Ophelia onstage – his doublet was undone, he was hatless, his stockings were dirty, “ungartered”, and hanging loose around his ankles, as his knees were knocking together. Ophelia reveals that he held her forcefully by her wrist, which is another breech of decorum, and stared at her face along the length of his arm while holding his other hand to his brow. He said nothing,

but after a pitiful sigh, he left the room, still staring at her. According to Schücking, Hamlet’s strange gestures and appearance are signs of someone who is tortured by love with doubts, the sign of “those grown melancholy through love” (93). This emotional description of a dramatic scene inspired, based on Young’s research, approximately a dozen of visual representations during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (288). The earliest and probably the most unusual representative is a 1775-6 pen and brown ink drawing by Henry Fuseli. The picture has 4233 x 3359 centimetres The brown ink is combined with grey, black and rose wash. 2 Hamlet is drawn on his way out from Ophelia’s closet, approaching the door that is flanked by two columns at the right edge of the picture. He is almost naked, therefore is musculature is visible His right arm is fully extended to the left (his right) and his head is bent down to his right shoulder. The Prince gazes along length of his

right arm toward Ophelia who is leaning, Wash in painting is a diluted watercolour or ink, which makes a semi-transparent layer (“Wash Drawing”) 2 33 Fig. 7 Fuseli, Henry Hamlet and Ophelia 1775-6 Pen and ink The British Museum Images or, as Young comments, seated at a table on the left side of the drawing. She rests her elbow upon the table and her chin is supported upon her hand as she leans forward gazing intently at Hamlet (288). The room is completely bare, only in the upper left corner the moonlight shines through a window, creating an atmosphere that helps focus the viewers’ attention on the two figures. This drawing is a typical example of Fuseli’s macabre images – he is known for drawing nude figures in quite uncomfortable or strain poses, suggesting strong emotions (“Henry Fuseli”). Young assumes that although Fuseli’s works were mostly intended for a private use and were not very known, they are probably the most powerful works on Hamlet (289). Young

believes that a more common version of the scene is a design for a wood engraving by an English book illustrator Gordon Browne engraved by C. Hentschel in 1890 (290). He claims the engraving was published in The Works of William Shakespeare, edited by Henry Irving and Frank A. Marshall from the same year (290) Ophelia is, similarly to Fuseli’s drawing, pictured sitting on a bed or bench to the left of the image. In her right hand, she holds a white cloth; her light-toned medieval dress is highlighted by the light shining from the window behind her. The aim was probably to 34 dramatize the sharp contrast between her innocence and vulnerability and the dark, troubled figure of Hamlet who “has intruded into the peace of her closet and interrupted Fig. 8 Henschel, C Hamlet and Ophelia 1890 Wood engraving Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington DC. the feminine occupation of her sewing.” (Young 290-291) As it was common in the theatre in many nineteenth-century productions,

Ophelia’s feet rest upon a rug made from the skin of a wild animal; a rug was used in a similar way in the Play Scene. Though its purpose is to create a Nordic and medieval setting for Hamlet, Young claims that “the conjunction of the rug with Ophelia creates a curious threatening ambiguity”, while Stabler in her article “Recent Studies in the Nineteenth Century” explains that rugs from animal skins were used to create erotic tension (291; 949). Ophelia leans back, as if in attempt to get away from Hamlet, who grasps her wrist and stares down at her as he leans toward her. His right boot virtually touches the hem of her dress. Although Hamlet often seems to be trying to escape from her in the pictures while being drawn to Ophelia at the same time, this Hamlet does not try to retreat from her at all and, as Young describes the situation, “his grasping of Ophelia’s wrist appears as an assault, the preliminary, perhaps, to something worse.” (291) Hamlet’s aggressive

behaviour, the wild animal skin, and Ophelia’s face showing fear 35 therefore present some disturbing hints of sexual passion. Next to Hamlet, at the extreme right of the picture, a piece of furniture can be seen. It looks like a prayer kneeler, which was often used in the nineteenth century (as is mentioned below in the chapter discussing the Closet scene), which was engaged to emphasise Ophelia’s innocence. Ophelia’s summary of what happened in her closet disturbs Polonius, and he begins to be afraid that his doubts about sincerity of Hamlet’s feelings for his daughter were not righteous, and that he has caused pain and chaos by giving her order to break their relationship. According to Schücking, he is not a harsh person and feels upset for a while, on the other hand, “he sees at once that this will afford him a welcome opportunity of directing the King’s attention towards himself.” (93-94) The Prince’s behaviour remains a mystery; Schücking describes the mad

behaviour that Hamlet shows when he interrupts Ophelia as a part of his role of madness, however, as mentioned above, it depends on the actor performing Hamlet’s role, because some actors played a truly mad Hamlet (95). Although these Hamlet’s actions are not physically performed in the play and their nature is not clear, they are of great influence over the following scene in the act two, scene two. 2.8 Hamlet with a Book At the beginning of this act, Hamlet’s former school friends, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, are invited to the court to examine the sudden change of the Prince’s behaviour. The readers or audience know only that the two gentlemen are obedient to the King’s wishes – Shakespeare does not provide the readers with any further characterisation of them. As soon as Claudius explains their task, Polonius presents his findings to the royal pair in his long speech expressing, in Schücking’s words, how his own “childish vanity and self-complacency prompt him

to make as much as possible of this great opportunity himself address the royal pair.” (97) Polonius enjoys the feeling of importance, which makes the Queen quite impatient; on the contrary, Claudius patiently waits for his servant to finish his extensive monologue. With his art of 36 theatricality, Polonius reveals Hamlet’s love-letter for Ophelia, which contains a short poem with a few accompanying words. Unusual about the letter is the way in which it is written – not in a customary gallant way, “with courtly euphuism”, but very honest in expressing Hamlet’s feelings (Schücking 97): Doubt thou the stars are fire, Doubt that the sun doth move, Doubt truth to be a liar, But never doubt I love. O dear Ophelia, I am ill at these numbers. I have no art to reckon my groans But that I love thee best, O most best, believe it. Adieu Thine evermore, most dear lady, whilst this machine is to him, Hamlet. (Shakespeare qtd in Hibbard 209) This short letter shows Hamlet’s

sincerity and a completely different way of thinking – it is full of positive and loving emotions and provides an insight to the former Hamlet, making his character more realistic and complete. The King expresses need to find out how far this affair has gone in order to be able to judge how important it is, and Polonius, in another extensive speech, is willing to show his personal honesty and his loyalty towards the King, and, above all, his authority over his daughter by promising to use Ophelia as a part of their plan. She is supposed to meet him, seemingly by accident, while he and the King will secretly watch them and therefore have a proof whether Hamlet’s madness is really caused by unrequited love. This part of the scene was not especially attractive for the artists; regardless of the importance of this scene to understand Ophelia’s and Hamlet’s relationship, together with the Prince’s personality, the next part is of much more importance in terms of artistic

influence. The discussion between the royal pair and Lord Chamberlain is interrupted by Hamlet, who enters the room with a book. Polonius hastily urges Claudius and Gertrude leave them alone and then begins his testing of Hamlet’s mental health by asking him “Do you know me, my lord?” which is a perfect chance for the Prince to practice his mad role (Shakespeare qtd. in Hibbard 212) He answers affirmatively, adding that Polonius is a fishmonger, letting the old man know that he is not of much importance to him. Hamlet starts talking about maggots being bred by the sun, then abruptly turns to talk about Polonius’ daughter, telling him not to let her walk in the sun because she 37 might get pregnant, and that she should be protected from all the world. This speech makes Polonius sure that Hamlet is undoubtedly mad, and his diagnosis was correct. In order to gain more information about the Prince’s illness, he proceeds asking what Hamlet is reading. Since he is, according to

Schücking, in no mood for a serious conversation with Polonius, he answers by describing the writer of his book writing about old men and their negative characteristics, which turn out to be a “malicious invective directed at Polonius’ senility” (100). Hamlet’s entry to the scene was handled in many different ways in the theatre; some Hamlets were ungartered with their stockings showing their socks, others with a powdered wig or dishevelled hair. Young presents a rich variety of Hamlet’s; some Princes entered barefoot, barking or imitating a chicken, crawling or pushing a cart of books, sometimes chewing pages from a book; other Hamlets had a dirty face, played a pipe, or even wore women’s dress (173). Madness of some Hamlets’ was but a disguise, others were truly mad. In this scene, a feigned madness was often revealed to the audience by Hamlet dishevelling his hair and disarranging his dress before approaching Polonius (Rosenberg 389). During his research, Young

discovered an “anomaly” concerning pictorial representations of the scene, concluding that the mad Hamlet, whether expressing real madness or feigned, was not a very common motif during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and, works created come almost exclusively from the eighteenth century; another interesting discovery is that most of the portraits depict real actors in the role (173). In pictorial art, typical of the eighteenth-century portraits were attempts to picture Hamlet’s madness; for example, David Ross, Garrick, or J. P Kemble were pictured hatless, with their hair or wig dishevelled and a few tresses of grey hair hanging loose around their left shoulder. As it was noted above, when a man wore no hat, it was a significant sign of madness. Young’s book names some actors, such as JP Kemble, who were captured wearing a contemporary dress, with a stocking with a loose garter so a part of their understocking was visible, corresponding with Ophelia’s former

description of the Prince’s appearance (174). An example of a typical portrayal of Hamlet’s madness in the eighteenth century is a 1794 caricature portrait of actor Stephen Kemble named Hamlet in Scotland by 38 Robert Dighton. This hand-coloured etching has 223 x 16 centimetres, and it depicts Hamlet’s customary appearance with a white, dishevelled wig. He is dressed in contemporary clothes, wearing mostly black with a white shirt. Kemble’s left stocking is loose around his knee, showing a white understocking; he stands wide-legged, with his body turned forward while his head faces to the left (his right). His right arm is outstretched to the left side of the picture, while his left arm points to the ground behind him. Across his body, he wears the Order of the Elephant on a blue Ribbon “The Order of the Elephant is one of the two chivalric orders in Denmark” (Kay). Kay claims this is Fig. 9 Dighton, Robert Hamlet in Scotland 1794 Hand-coloured etching National

Portrait Gallery the higher of the two and it has been used by Danish royal families since the fifteenth century, therefore it is another piece of realism sometimes engaged in the play (“The Order of the Elephant”). His face with pink cheeks shows concern and sadness, and, interestingly, he does not hold any book, and for that reason it is not possible to identify the specific moment – whether Hamlet is in the middle of the discussion with Polonius or is lost in his thoughts; the emphasis is put on his deranged state. By 1836, the practice of dropping one of Hamlet’s stockings was gradually abandoned as a result of contemporary critics’ comments on its absurdity, “especially when the stocking was so formally rolled over the calf as to afford proof that a great deal of trouble had been taken” (Rosenberg 390). For this reason, the nineteenth39 century artists stopped portraying Hamlet with such a sign of madness and adopted others instead. Rosenberg, in his The Masks

of Hamlet, mentions Hamlets who tore their clothes, lain in dust and then appeared dirty in front of Polonius (390). A common feature of the nineteenth-century artists’ works was a desire to portray only Hamlet, without picturing Polonius. Artists became attracted by depicting the Prince as a philosopher in his introverted state – he consequently became the man with a book, reading, sometimes looking up from his book, in some cases even gesturing with his arm as a hint of Polonius’ presence outside the frame of a picture. Since he is alone in the pictures, he seems as if in deep contemplation and looking up from the book only to follow his thoughts. From Young’s point of view, one of the first depictions of the reading Hamlet is a half-length portrait of Edmund Kean in the role by Thomas Charles Wageman, reproduced in a stipple engraving by Thomas Woolnoth in 1818 for Oxberry’s New English Drama. It has 138 x 96 centimetres and it was frequently reproduced (175) Fig. 10

Woolnoth, Thomas Edmund Kean as Hamlet 1818 Stipple engraving National portrait Gallery Maybe he is paying attention to Polonius or is lost in his thoughts as he puts his index finger to a particular place in the book in order to find it easily when he is ready to continue reading. His lips form a slight smile, but it is somehow malicious; moreover, 40 according to Young, there is a sign of aggressiveness in his face, which may remind the viewer of Hamlet’s treatment of Polonis at this point of the play (175). According to Schücking, Polonius recognises in the Shaespeare’s text that in Hamlet’s madness, there is apparent a method and logic, he nevertheless firmly believes that the madness is real; at the same time, he is unable to sense the tone of agony in the Prince’s words (101). Realizing that there is no reason in attempting to prolong the dialogue, Polonius disappears to prepare his daughter for his plan, and is replaced by Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Their

arrival makes Hamlet forget his pretended madness for a moment, and he expresses joy of meeting them. However, Schücking explains that his companions’ approach is too enthusiastic and in great “contrast with his own mood, and his depression quickly returns” as a result (101). Their conversation makes it clear that their friendship has cooled, and that Hamlet is not able to trust them anymore. They are interrupted by the arrival of the actors, who provoke another change of behaviour in the Prince – this time, Hamlet is excited, and he greets them warmly and treats them with kindness, which strongly contrasts with his way of behaving towards Polonius. The old man is so unpleasant in Hamlet’s eyes, that “he cannot resist trying to make him look ridiculous, even though this involves playing the fool himself” (Schücking 106). Once he is alone, Hamlet’s first soliloquy “O what a rogue and peasant slave am I!” follows (Shakespeare qtd. in Hibbard 233) In this monologue,

Hamlet realises he has been idle. In Schücking view, Hamlet is able to look at himself objectively, he realises he suffers from melancholy and that he is weak, which makes him extremely unhappy. Furthermore, his moral sense makes him torture himself to push himself into action (113). Despite the fact it is an emotional moment revealing the real Hamlet of this part of the story, allowing the audience or readers to learn something more about the Prince’s melancholy, it was not of special importance to the eighteenthand nineteenth-centuries artists, the paper hence continues with a discussion of Hamlet’s famous “To be or not to be” soliloquy. 41 2.9 Hamlet’s “To be or not to be” Soliloquy At the end of the second act, shortly after the actors, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern leave the scene, probably the best-known moment in the play follows – “to be or not to be” soliloquy (Shakespeare qtd. in Hibbard 239) The Prince thinks he is alone, however, he is secretly

watched by Claudius and Polonius and begins his desperate soliloquy, from which at least the first line, “To be or not to be, that is the question”, is probably the most popular part of the play even nowadays (Shakespeare qtd. in Hibbard 239). According to Young, it has become part of Western cultural heritage and is familiar even to those who know nothing of its source. It is not surprising, then, that there have been a significant number of attempts by artists to realize Hamlet’s speech in visual terms, although these are fewer in number than images of Hamlet’s entry with a book (180). In the theatre, there were many different choices for realisation of the scene, for example to decide whether the audience would easily see the Claudius and Polonius hiding behind the arras, whether Hamlet himself should know he is being watched or not, whether Ophelia hears Hamlet’s soliloquy or if Hamlet knows about her from the start, whether the eavesdroppers would hear Hamlet’s words

or not; even whether he would be just philosophical or suicidal, such as Booth was. Rosenberg offers an example from the stage: Tree’s Ophelia, for instance, was hidden in a small arbour situated at the edge of the stage, listening and praying for Hamlet, and when Hamlet was supposedly going to attempt to commit suicide, she even tried to interfere (465466). The earliest visual depiction is one of Chodowiecki’s etchings of Johann Brockmann’s performance from Berlin in 1779, which has 15.5 x 10 centimetres and was publishes in Genealogischer Taschenkalender auf das Jahr 1779. The etching portraits Hamlet with Ophelia holding an open book to the left of the picture. She watches Hamlet, who stands with his back to her as if he does not know of her presence. Brockmann wears a plumed hat, stands with his head leaning slightly to his left, he holds his left hand to his hip, while pointing with his right hand in front of him as if addressing someone outside the picture. Hamlet is

dressed in black clothes, according to the tradition, creating a complete opposite of Ophelia, who is dressed completely in 42 white, even the plumage in her hair is white. His stockings are not loose, his hair is not wild, and because he has his hat on his head, it can be claimed that there is no visual sign of Hamlet’s supposed madness – on the contrary, he looks very elegant. It is possible that Hamlet’s derangement is represented by him speaking and pointing at someone who is not there. Behind the characters, a large door can be seen set in a richly decorated wall with a chair standing to the extreme right of the picture. Fig. 11 Chodowiecki, Daniel N Hamlet and Ophelia 1779 Etching Phillips Universität Marburg, Germany. Below the etching, there is a quotation of the first half of the Hamlet’s soliloquy in German “Schlafen? Vielleicht auch träumen. Da, da liegts!”, in English “To sleep? Perchance to dream. Ay, there’s the issue!” (Young 182) Later images

focusing on the soliloquy concentrated on portraying the Prince as a melancholic and philosopher, avoiding showing signs of madness. The visual representations were often accompanied by one of the well-known lines in the soliloquy. Next example is a chromolithograph of Henry Irving in the role of Hamlet 43 after a design by H. Saunders The picture was published as the first plate in Mary Cowden Clarke’s Shakespeare’s Heroes and Heroines in 1891, which was dedicated to Mr. Irving Based on Young’s research, this chromolithograph is probably the most melancholic and philosophical-looking of all the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Hamlets in this moment of the play (183). Fig. 12 Saunders, H Henry Irving as Hamlet 1891 Photographic reproduction of the chromolithograph Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington DC. Irving’s Hamlet is portrayed sitting comfortably in a chair in a pose of the thinker or philosopher, which was a piece of stage business inspired by Booth’s

performance. He is dressed in a black tunic and a coat with a fur collar, his legs are clothed in dark stockings. His right arm rests on the chair’s arm, the left elbow rests on the other arm of the chair with his left hand supporting Irving’s chin. Young describes this soliloquy as spoken “in an undertone, expressive of depression and self-disgust” (183). The chromolithograph is accompanied by the quotation “To be, or not to be, that is the question” (Young 183; Shakespeare qtd in Hibbard 239) Henry Irving was, as Hapgood explains, the actor who introduced the ‘philosophical and intellectual Hamlet’; The Times noted that Irving’s Hamlet was “essentially tender, loving, and merciful a fine genial creature, who would willingly have clasped all the world to his bosom” (37). 44 2.10 The Nunnery Scene At the beginning of the third act, shortly after preparing Ophelia for the meeting with the Prince, probably the best-known moment in the play follows – “To be

or not to be” soliloquy (Shakespeare qtd. in Hibbard 239) As Claudius and Polonius watch from their hiding place, Hamlet notices Ophelia who was told by her father to read a prayer book in the lobby, where Hamlet may encounter her by accident. Ophelia asks Hamlet to take back the gifts he has given her, but he claims he does not know anything about aby gifts. The scene is very dynamic, and visual artists who have attempted to portray the scene could not, of course, show the frightening sequences of changes in Hamlet’s manner that make the scene so disturbing as it unfolds to the reader or to an audience experiencing the play in the theatre. Young’s research revealed that instead of attempting to do the impossible, artists selected one moment in the unfolding drama of the scene to reveal at least something of the tempestuous dynamics that make up the full experience of the scene on the page or on the stage (293). The first representative of a visual depiction of the scene is

supposedly the earliest rendition, created again by Daniel N. Chodowiecki It is a copper engraving, created in 1777 and, as well as the other two pictures presented above, it documents Johann Brockmann’s performance in Berlin. It has dimensions of 155 x 101 centimetres and was designed for Literatur und Theaterzeitung published in 1778. The engraving is accompanied by a quotation “Geh in ein Kloster, geh,” meaning “get thee to a nunnery, go”, which indicates the exact moment of the scene. Hamlet’s emotions are represented by the position of his body, which is in movement – he stands to the right of Ophelia, as in the previous picture, showing the audience his left side. However, he stands very close to her and looks directly at her this time. His weight is put on his right leg which is in front of his body while his left is far behind the first one, touching the floor only with a tip of his shoe, therefore he seems to have just approached Ophelia. Brockmann is dressed all

in black, he wears the same or very similar clothes as in the previous picture. As he leans forward, his face is almost at the same level as Ophelia’s face He stares intensely into her eyes from a short distance, expressing, as Young believes, the bitterness and passion of his feelings (294). His hands grasp her left wrist, in which she 45 holds her prayer book, which is a reminder of his visit in Ophelia’s closet and his repeated breaking of decorum; Young describes this action as “a convention for violence” (294). Ophelia is dressed in the same white rococo dress and white plumage in her hair as in the etching from 1779 (see above). Her face expresses shock, and, maybe, fear; other signal of her emotions is her right hand, which has sprung to her chest. The surroundings differ from the previous instance; the tiles on the floor are Fig. 13 Chodowiecki, Daniel N Hamlet and Ophelia 1777 Copper engraving Phillips Universität Marburg, Germany. bigger and more complex here.

In the background, a wall can be seen; it is simpler than the wall in the picture in the previous chapter, as well as the door, which has an arch in the above picture but is angular in this one. Above the characters, a drapery is seen along the upper side of the engraving, suggestive of the stage while no such element is present in the 1779 work. As the two pictures represent two parts of the same scene and 46 should have happened in the same room in the play, they probably are a record of changes in the stage setting done during a relatively short time. An example of the scene from the nineteenth century is a drawing by Dante Gabriel Rossetti, drawn in 1858. The picture has 12 x 105 inches; it is neither inspired by the theatre nor it represents particular actors; it only reflects Rossetti’s interest in the subject. This picture uses allegory which involves both the text and visual motifs Fig. 14 Rossetti, Dante G Hamlet and Ophelia 1858 Pen drawing with a black ink Folger

Shakespeare Library, Washington DC. The characters are dressed in medieval clothes, unlike in Chodowiecki’s representations. On the right side, Ophelia sits upon a high-backed bench, her prayer book lies open on her lap, with her right hand she holds up various gifts and letters Hamlet gave her in an attempt to give them back. Her head turns away from the Prince, as if it is too painful to look at him. Hamlet is dressed in black, according to the custom in pictorial depictions and in theatres, and he kneels upon a bench at the centre of the picture, gesturing with both of his hands horizontally raised. His right hand extends to the left where roses can be seen growing as he looks down at Ophelia. Young points out that it represents a hint of a crucifixion motif in the pose (296). The bench upon which Hamlet kneels runs at right angles to that on which sits Ophelia; the same bench then turns ninety degrees again and extends forward on the left side of the picture towards 47 the

viewer. The final effect is that the characters are literary boxed in on three sides, in order to emphasise the discomfort that they both appear to feel in each other’s presence at this moment. Rossetti’s composition shares some characteristics with a number of his earlier drawings created between 1849-53 – he presents his figures in a confined space to heighten the intensity of emotions generated by the uncomfortable situation of the characters portrayed. Furthermore, various symbolic motifs are included in the drawing, for example, to Hamlet’s right and below his arm to the viewer’s left, there is a carving on the back of the bench. The centre is decorated with the Tree of Life encircled by Serpent. To the right of the Tree, a figure is portrayed with a sword, but the top half of the figure is obscured by Hamlet’s clothing therefore it is difficult to recognise who it is, and to the left of the Tree of Life, the winged Archangel Michael with an unsheathed sword is drawn

as a reminder of the fall and repulsion of Adam and Eve from Paradise. The carving is accompanied by an inscription: “Eritis sicus deus scientes binum et malum” (You will be like God knowing good and evil), moreover, below is a Misericordia depicting the death of Uzzah after he disobediently touched the ark (2 Samuel 6:6-7, “Bible Gateway”). These allusions to the Fall are balanced by a small alcove with a small crucifix beside Ophelia to the right; its proximity to Ophelia symbolises the possibility of redemption in opposition to those images near Hamlet. The carvings invite the viewer to interpret them as an intriguing gloss on the drama being enacted in the foreground between Hamlet and Ophelia. Hamlet’s right hand grasps a rose that is growing from the flower pot on the extreme left of the picture, symbolising sexual passion (roses symbolising passion are a very common feature in Rossetti’s pictures). Behind the bench, which imprisons the characters, there are

battlements of the castle, and a small figure, perhaps, to remind the viewer of the ghost that Hamlet has recently encountered and that has set in motion the drama that is being enacted now. Young explains that the frame was originally decorated with an inscription of some verses from Ecclesiasticus 6:2: “Extol not thyself in the counsel thine own heart, that thy soul be not torn in pieces. Thou shalt eat up thy leaves and lose thy fruit, and leave thyself as dry tree”, which were accompanied by Hamlet’s speech “Get thee to a 48 nunnery; why shouldst thou be a breeder of sinners?” (Young 297; Shakespeare qtd. in Hibbard 243) Young believes that Rossetti’s intention was “to make Hamlet ramping and talking wildly hardly realising all he says and does, as he throws his hands this way along the edge of the carved screen” however, the final effect is highly static, both figures seem immobilised, lacking energy, and drained by the emotions that they have experienced and

that are extremely powerful in this representation (297). This drawing is not the only one by Rossetti on this topic, however, according to Young, it is the most complex one – it is the most complex and complicated visual representation presented in the thesis so far (298). The scene has been played in theatre in different ways; it has potential for moments of both extreme tenderness and moments of shocking verbal, and sometimes even physical, violence (Young 293). Hamlet’s behaviour is cruel as he treats Ophelia as “if she was a stranger, he appoints that her virtue is endangered by her beauty” and shows his pessimistic disbelief in women who are beautiful and virtuous at the same time (Schücking 120). He speaks of his former love for her, he confirms and denies it in the same breath and this denial strongly contrasts with what was said by Ophelia earlier in her testimony, therefore it has caused a lot of confusion concerning Hamlet’s true feelings. Thompson and Taylor

explain that eighteenth-century actors seem to have shouted and slammed doors, nineteenth-century Hamlets sometimes tried to soften even the character’s verbal harshness, and when Edmund Kean returned to kiss her hand at the end, while Herbert Beerbohm Tree stole back and, as she lay sobbing on a couch, silently kissed her hair. (68) Kean’s Hamlet influenced other Hamlets of the scene, such a s Booth, who kissed the package of remembrances earlier in the scene and at the end of it embraced Ophelia tenderly and kissed her forehead. This performance deeply affected Romantic critics, such as Hazlitt, who “explained the character as one of a disappointed hope, of bitter regret, of affection suspended, not obliterated” (qtd. in Young 286) Young offers some other examples of Kemble and Garrick who were known to bully their Ophelias (286). Therefore, it might be concluded that whether Hamlet loved and loves Ophelia or not depends on the perception of the reader or viewer together

with the way, in which a particular actor represents the role of Hamlet. There is one more important point in this part – when loving Hamlets were paired with attractive Ophelias, the erotic tensions of 49 the Nunnery Scene, and the painful subtext of the interaction between Hamlet and Ophelia later in the Play Scene were dramatically heightened (Young 286). The motives for his behaviour have puzzled many interpreters and they have faced issues such as whether his acts were caused by Hamlet detecting the secret onlookers and/or by discovering Ophelia’s deceptions, and if so, when exactly it might have happened; or maybe he did not love Ophelia at all. Young believes all the above motives are possible while Schücking argues that if Hamlet really knew about the eavesdroppers in the Nunnery Scene, he would probably make some reference to it during Polonius’ second eavesdropping, which causes him life, and, moreover, he would not utter a threat against the King if he suspected

someone is hiding and spying on them (293; 122). Young believes that it is possible he severs the relationship with the woman he loves in order to pursue the task the ghost has demanded of him (293). 2.11 The Mouse Trap At this point of the play, Hamlet organises a theatrical performance in an attempt to finally find out whether the King is really a murderer or not – his strong sense of morality tells him to verify the ghost’s claim rather than risk obeying a demonic creature and killing an innocent person. From his discussion with Horatio, instructing him to “ observe my [Hamlet’s] uncle. If his occulted guilt do not itself unkennel in one speech, it is a damned ghost that we have seen, ”, it is clear that the Prince is not sure whether to believe the ghost is really his father or just some “damned spirit” sent by the devil to fool him (Shakespeare qtd. in Hibbard 252) His feeling of fear is explained in Hamlet: The Complete Guide and resource: in Elizabethan times,

ghosts could be either good or evil spirits the ambivalent nature of ghosts is why it would have been perfectly natural for Hamlet to question its purpose and to revise a way of confirming that it is telling him the truth (43). The performance, representing an instance of metafiction, begins with a dumb show which intends to indicate the key points in the action of the play that is to follow. 50 Schücking claims it is a typical ‘prelude’ that had been known in English tragedies ever since Gorboduc (a play from the 16th century), although they were originally quite different from this one, for they normally had a curious symbolical and allegorical character (128). Hamlet provided a running commentary to make sure that the meaning of the play is fully understood by the King, although, according to Schücking, the similarity of the situation to that in Hamlet is not made too obvious because the murderer is not the brother but nephew, and the play is very unrealistic, and, what

more, not a drama at all; the characters are “puppet-like” and the overall “effect colourless” (130-131). The Queen’s behaviour has not revealed anything suspicious, she even answers Hamlet’s suspicious question “Madam, how like you this play?” with a comment that the acting Queen is not very realistic (Shakespeare qtd. in Hibbard 263) The King, on the other hand, is disturbed and agitated and demands Hamlet to tell him more about the play. The title of the play was intentionally omitted at the beginning, which Schücking finds very unusual; Hamlet reveals the name, The Mousetrap, immediately before unmasking the King (132). Claudius’ reaction finally provides Hamlet with a proof that he is the murderer and, in his triumph, emphasises that it is the story of Duke Gonzago, who is poisoned in the garden for his estate, and now the murdered is going to get the love of Gonzago’s wife (Hibbard 263). In theatre performances from the eighteenth century, the characters were

usually divided into three groups, the first being the Players performing the dumb show, the second group is formed by Claudius, Gertrude, and the courtiers (Polonius, Rosencrantz, and Guildenstern, sometimes even more people, as is explained above), and the last being Hamlet, Ophelia, and Horatio. To emphasize the conflict between the Prince and the King, they were usually placed in the opposite parts of the stage, with the players at centre in the background; Young points out that this way of organising the characters was often depicted in the pictorial renditions (185-186). Another regular stage business used was Ophelia’s fan – Hamlet took the fan and hid his face with it “so as to spy on Claudius”, sometimes also on Gertrude (Young 186). Moreover, Hamlets from Garrick through the nineteenth century used to do many different things with the fan, for instance Irving chewed it as he became more and more 51 excited. Young furthermore explains that other Hamlets used a

manuscript of the Hamlet’s improved play instead of the fan; it could also be used to hide Hamlet’s face as well as Ophelia’s fan, or for pointing, or even destroyed as a symbol of Hamlet’s extreme emotions (Young 186). Yet another important feature of many performances named by Young was Hamlet crawling towards Claudius and Gertrude to see their reactions better, jumping up as the climax of the scene approached (187). Four earliest visual representations recognised by Young were all painted by Francis Hayman. The piece of work presented below is an oil on canvas named The Play Scene from “Hamlet” painted in 1745 with dimensions of 34.8 x 296 centimetres Both Young and Raynie believe that it may represent an example of the current stage practice (189; 3). The canvas depicts the moments immediately after the revelation of Claudius’ crime. The focus is put on Claudius and his reaction instead of the conflict between him and Hamlet, therefore it is quite a special instance.

The King is at the centre of the picture; he is thus emphasised as he has stood up and is about to leave the hall. Hamlet and Ophelia sit in the lower right corner; he is seated on the ground while Fig. 15 Hayman, Francis 1745 The Play Scene from ‘Hamlet’ Oil on canvas Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington DC. 52 Ophelia sits on a chair next to him further from the viewer. The Prince looks intensely up at his uncle, while Ophelia fully concentrates on Hamlet, with her facial expression showing tender feelings, revealing that she is not aware of what is going on around her. Ophelia’s ignorance of the happening around her is a typical feature in pictures of visual representations of the scene. Hamlet is dressed in black, as it was usual in the eighteenth and nineteenth-centuries depictions, to emphasise his troubled soul, while Ophelia wears traditional white for innocence, and she holds a fan, which was another popular piece of stage business. On the left side of the

painting, dead Gonzago and his murderer Lucianus are in the middle of their performance. Lucianus not only pours poison in Gonzago’s ear but he also steals the crown at the same time to make the crime even more obvious. The characters are portrayed much closer to each other, the picture is thence more intimate than the others (Raynie 46). There is a detail – Claudius’s left hand – that has caused debates among critics about what he does with his hand, for example W. M Merchant and K. Newman in their comments both claim the King holds a sword: Merchant notes that "the king’s own emotion is shown solely in a restrained gesture and convulsive grip of the sword hilt" Newman, following Merchant’s lead, explains that “Claudius has started from his throne and grasps the hilt of his sword” (qtd. in Raynie 47). However, Raynie argues that Claudius is probably only making a fist and that the supposed “hilt” is possibly only a large ring and he defends his claim

with a note that if it was a hilt, there would be a sword, yet there is none. In his opinion, the clenched fist is a certain symbol of “anger, threat, menace, revenge, enmity, expresses hate, and offer injury”, all possible feelings Claudius might be experiencing at that moment (47). Beside Claudius on the left stands Polonius, who seems to be talking to his King, maybe asking about what the problem is or, perhaps, trying to calm him down or possibly simply staring at his lord in astonishment. On the right side of the picture, Gertrude can be seen sitting on her throne, looking up to Claudius with her face expressing surprise and helplessness, and Horatio standing to the extreme right of the picture, therefore only partially visible, gives “heedful note” to the distressed King’s reaction. Behind the main characters, there are a number of other figures, presumably 53 representing the courtiers. The stone walls of the hall are partly visible, decorated with two niches with

statues. The overall atmosphere of the canvas is dynamic and full of emotions; the painter used a variety of colours which make the scene lively and pleasing to watch. The oil on canvas called Play Scene by Edwin Austin Abbey from 1897 is a famous representative of the late nineteenth century, and the second example in this chapter. This large canvas of dimensions of 6125 x 965 inches was painted for an exhibition at The Royal Academy in the same year and it achieved gold medals in three international exhibitions. Young states that Abbey was a passionate theatre-goer; therefore, it is understandable that he drew inspiration from the stage, while his paintings influenced the following theatre performances (200). The painting is in a horizontal format, such as all of Abbey’s canvases depicting Shakespearean plays, which reminds the viewer of a stage performance (Hart 10). No “violent gesticulation” or movement can be seen here; Hart claims that important are facial expressions,

symbolising internal conflicts which “are rarely readable in a straightforward way” (10). Fig. 16 Abbey, Edwin A Play Scene 1897 Oil on canvas Yale University, New Haven The oil on canvas was accompanied by these lines: Give him heedful note For I mine eyes will rivet to his face; 54 And later, we will both our judgements In censure of his seeming. (Shakespeare qtd in Hibbard 252) Abbey intended to paint his canvas in a different way than the earlier, much renown painting The Play Scene by Daniel Maclise from 1842. The emphasis is put on the audience of the play here, primarily on Claudius and Hamlet and their reactions. The players are completely left out from the picture – they are supposed to be in the viewer’s space (“Play Scene”). The overall organisation is quite unusual for the nineteenth century since the theatre arrangement, as it is mentioned above, usually consisted of three parts or groups but there are only two groups in this representative, all put

together in one large group, except for Hamlet and Ophelia, who are pictured in the foreground. What is also quite surprising is the fact that Horatio is at the extreme right of the picture, being another member of the background cast instead of being close to Hamlet and Ophelia and thus highlighted as the rest of the key figures in the scene are. The Prince lies in an uncomfortable twisted position on the ground besides Ophelia, holding her hand on his left shoulder. He ignores the actors and his full attention belongs to Claudius’s reaction. As usually, he is dressed black, which is originally combined with purple medieval clothes, presumably inspired by one of Edwin Booth’s performances (“Play Scene”). The American historian Lucy Oakley noted that “Hamlet’s purple leggings, cross-gartered in black, resemble those worn by Edwin Booth”, whom Abbey might have seen in New York in the 1870s or in London in 1880” (“Play Scene”). The King’s facial expression and his

dark sight suggest that the play is in the part when the actor playing Lucianus, shortly before he pours the poison into the Gonzago’s ear, recites: Thoughts black, hands apt, drugs fit and time agreeing, Confederate season, else no creature seeing; Thou mixture rank, of midnight weeds collected, With Hecat’s ban thrice blasted, thrice infected, Thy natural magic and dire property On wholesome life usurp immediately. (Shakespeare qtd in Hibbard 263) It is clear that this is the moment when Claudius fully realises that the player Lucianus represents him and his heinous crime of fratricide, shortly before Hamlet confirms his fear that his guilt has been discovered by remarking that Lucianus “ poisons him 55 i’th’garden for’s estate. You [Claudius] shall see anon how the murderer gets the love of Gonzago’s wife.” (Shakespeare qtd in Hibbard 263) The Queen seems to be hiding her face behind a black veil, trying to keep distance between her and her husband, which is an

unusual and surprising gesture, for, according to the play and numerous critics, Gertrude knows nothing about Claudius’s evil deed, therefore she is not likely to be involved in her first husband’s murder in any way; Abbey might have had a different opinion on this. Another possible explanation for such a reaction is that she might be frightened by her second husband’s angry reaction. Both the King and the Queen are wearing dark red robes, Claudius’ robe is decorated with a serpent-like figure, emphasizing his diabolical nature (“Play Scene”). The only lightening character is the figure of Ophelia, who is, as usually, painted in a light pink dress that was, as Young believes, probably inspired by Ellen Terry’s costume, the light colour being a sign of her innocence creating Hamlet’s counterpart (201). Her young pale face shows distortion; she has apparently no idea of what is going on. Young describes her sight as “disturbingly vacant, perhaps hinting at her impeding

madness”; he probably supposes that Ophelia’s madness might have begun even before her father was murdered by her beloved Prince (201). Unlike Hayman’s oil, Abbey’s canvas is painted in a dark range of colours, giving the scene a sinister, gloomy atmosphere with the dominating scarlet red, which, according to Young, hints at blood and revenge (201). The uncomfortable atmosphere is emphasised by the glowing torches reminding the viewer of hell fire, on the other hand, it symbolises Claudius’ nature as seen by Hamlet (“Play Scene”). The setting is medieval – the gothic clothing of the participants, the wolf skins, and the decoration of the throne upon which the Queen and King sit are all designed in order to create a medieval scene. Besides the clothing of the characters, Oakley mentions another inspiration by the theatre; Abbey might have been influenced by Irving’s Play Scene which “featured a large cast”, as it can be seen in Abbey’s work – with a Fool

sitting to the left beside the King’s throne, torch-bearing guards, noblemen, a priest and “the wolf skins upon which Hamlet lies” (“Play Scene”). The painting caused a large sensation when it was exhibited, and it was much praised for having a “decorative” and “forcible” effect at the 56 same time and being visually rich; “under the guise of decoration he [Abbey] contrives to express much of the strong dramatic feeling” (Hart 9). Besides Hamlet, Edwin Austin Abbey is known also for a number of paintings depicting various other plays by Shakespeare and was very popular because of his ability to engage a large detail and expression of hidden feelings in the characters. The above-mentioned representatives of pictorial art were chosen for using unusual perspective and setting, however, the pictures showing the usual three-groups stage setting dividing the key characters into three groups outnumber the inventive solutions. To name some examples, a famous 1842

painting by Daniel Maclise named The Play scene and an outline engraving of the scene by Moritz Retzsch from 1827 both use the same organisation of the characters with the players in the middle and Hamlet’s and Claudius’ groups put to the opposite sides of the pictures. They both include many people and they organise them in the same way, the only difference being that in the Maclise’s painting, Hamlet’s group is on the left, while in the Retzsch’s engraving, it is on the right. 2.12 The Prayer Scene At the end of the previous scene, Polonius informs the Prince his mother demands that he visits her in her closet, followed by the enraged King arranging with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Hamlet’s relocation to England on which they are expected to accompany him. After the two young men leave the King, Polonius approaches the King with a brilliant plan that he would hide behind the arras and secretly witness Hamlet’s conversation with his mother to inform Claudius about

anything he finds out. As soon as the King stays alone, he kneels and starts praying, probably affected by his own guilt, which he has fully realised during the Murder of Gonzago. He is found in this position by Hamlet, who is ready to strike and take revenge on Claudius. He draws his sword while saying to himself “Now might I do it pat, now he is praying. And now I’ll do’t” (Shakespeare qtd. in Hibbard 274) However, he changes his mind quickly and does not strike because he realises that while Claudius “took [his] father grossly, full of bread, 57 with all his crimes broad blown, as flush as May”, it would be unfair to kill him while he is praying, freeing himself from his sins, therefore he has to wait until He is drunk asleep, or in his rage, Or in th’incestuous pleasure of his bed, At gaming swearing, or about some act That has no relish of salvation in’t – Then trip him that his heels may kick at heaven, And that his soul may be as damned and black As hell,

whereto it goes. (Shakespeare qtd in Hibbard 275-276) In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the scene was considered controversial in the theatre; consequently, as Young explains, productions often cut Claudius’ soliloquy to eliminate possible sympathy for the villain (204). At the same time, some of the contemporary critics did not approve of Hamlet’s soliloquy. For instance, Stubbs despised it and expressed his opinion in the following words: “Hamlet’s speech upon seeing the King at Prayers has always given me great Offence. There is something so very Bloody in it, so inhuman, so unworthy of a Hero that I wish our Poet had omitted it” (qtd. in Young 204-205) Another eighteenth-century critic, Francis Gentleman, also objected to Hamlet’s speech. He claimed that “we cannot speak favorably, as it greatly derogates not only from an amiable but even a common moral character.” (qtd in Young 205) To calm the critics down and keep Hamlet’s positive face, actors often

omitted Hamlet’s speech. However, not all actors agreed with this solution – the actor F Pilon, for instance, complained that without the soliloquy, his sparing of Claudius was made into a weak and inconsistent procrastination in the remaining acts (Young 205). Nonetheless, the majority of leading actors cut the prayer scene completely, starting with Garrick and followed by Ch. Kemble, Macready, Ed And Ch Kean and it remained ignored until 1874 when Irving included it again, and “towards the end of the nineteenth century actors seem to have become more comfortable with it” and started performing it again (Young 205). Regretfully, the long ignoration of the scene resulted in a low number of visual representations of it being available, compared with other scenes, either real or imagined. Furthermore, Young found out that only a few actors were captured in their roles at this point of the story, for instance Irving, Booth and Bernhardt. Furthermore, only a few book illustrations

of the Prayer Scene were created 58 (Young 205). As a consequence of absence of pictorial renditions and general shortage of available resources, this chapter contains only one sample. The work that is to be discussed is an outline engraving by Moritz Retzsch from 1828, which is presumably the first representative of the scene and, as Young states, was widely distributed (208). The engraving depicts Claudius kneeling and praying, his hat lies on the floor next to him, his eyes look up to the crucifix on the wall at the very left of the picture. Hamlet, with his hand ready to draw his sword, stands with his legs wide apart on the right side at a door with an arch and looks at his uncle. The centre of interest is, in Young’s view, neither of the men, but the important element is the picture hanging on the rear wall above Claudius in a decorative frame (208). The picture shows dead Abel lying on the ground, while his brother and murderer in one person is “conscience stricken”

and is about to leave the scene (Young 208). The picture contains allegorical symbols, which is a typical feature of Retzsch’ works. This picture-within-apicture is undoubtedly intended to highlight the main event depicted here – the allusion of the Biblical fratricide places Claudius among the worst of sinners and he is aware of it, as can be understood from his prayer: Fig. 17 Retzsch, Moritz 1828 Outline engraving Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington DC 59 O my offence is rank, it smells to heaven. It hath the primal eldest curse upon’t – A brother’s murderer. (Shakespeare qtd in Hibbard 272) An interesting detail is a small detail of a scorpion that is stinging its own body which is pictured on the seat at which Claudius prays; according to Retzsch’s own comment on his engraving, the scorpion indicates the state of the King’s mind. The conscience of his guilt, the importance of his crime makes his prayer a vain attempt to redeem his soul (qtd. in Young 209)

Although there are not many visual interpretations, the scene, especially Hamlet’s delay, attracted many literary critics in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and became a topic of much discussion. The reason for Hamlet’s delay in avenging his father are various: Schücking explains that it is because true revenge has its rules; his father was murdered without any opportunity to repent of his sins and is now suffering in the purgatory, while Claudius is praying and therefore would probably be taken to Heaven, which would be unfair to his poor father and the bitter ghost would never be satisfied by this deed (137). He believes that Hamlet’s reasons for postponing his revenge are undoubtedly sincere and genuine because he has a highly established moral sense (138). Schücking is not the only critic commenting on the Prince’s delay. In a critical essay written supposedly by Thomas Hanmer much earlier (in 1736), there is a comment that “Hamlet’s delay is explained as a

necessary device of the poet to extend the action” to prevent the story from ending too soon (qtd. in Wofford 185) He also notes that by the middle and the end of the eighteenth century, there is a shift of focus and the plot becomes important to help with understanding and explaining Hamlet’s character (qtd. in Wofford 185) The Prince’s nature was described as someone who “was praised for his ‘variety’” but at the same time criticised for his “inconsistency” (Francis Gentleman qtd. in Wofford 185) The next critic, Boswell, assumes that Hamlet is “irresolute” and wanting “strength of mind”; the same sensitive Hamlet was made famous by Goethe in his novel Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre written in 1795, where “the principal character describes Shakespeare’s intentions as follows: 60 Shakespeare meant to represent the effects of a great action laid upon a soul unfit for the performance of it. A lovely, pure, noble and most moral nature, without the

strength of nerve which forms a hero, sinks beneath a burden which it cannot bear, and must not cast away. (qtd In Wofford 185) The perception of Hamlet’s character underwent a change, owing to the Romantic poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who was, according to Wofford, one of the most important literary critics of the day (186). Coleridge highlights on Hamlet’s intellectual power instead on his “sensitivity”, the Prince consequently becomes perceived as someone who thinks too much and is unable to act – the Hamlet that is still often recognised even nowadays. Wofford explains that Hamlet is characterised by his extreme intellectual activity which transforms into “aversion to real action” (186). As a result, Hamlet is perceived as a philosopher, not a hero, to whom the “endless reasoning and hesitating provides an escape from action” (Wofford 186). Nevertheless, although the Prince delays, Coleridge denies the idea of Hamlet as a coward “for he is drawn as one of the

bravest of his time”. He delays “merely from that aversion to action, which prevails among such as have a world in themselves” (qtd. in Wofford 186) Wofford claims that Hamlet became a figure generalising his own tragedy and that the readers and the contemporary critics such as Coleridge and Hazlitt identified themselves with him. Hazlitt believed that Hamlet’s thoughts “are as real as our own thoughts It is we who are Hamlet” (qtd. in Wofford 187) In the nineteenth century, the critics also discussed the question why Hamlet delays – Hanmers’ explanation that it is simply a plot device is not good enough for the Romantic and late-Romantic critics; consequently, Hamlet became a character that is too busy thinking. Furthermore, the critic A C Bradley, in his book Shakespearean Tragedy (1904), summed up a number of arguments from the nineteenth century which discussed another important question – whether Hamlet is only pretending his madness or is truly mad. For

Bradley, Hamlet’s psychology deserves to be imagined as a complete and real one (qtd. in Wofford 188-189) He also argues that the morbid melancholy that colours every aspect of his sensibility and prevents him from acting is not just a mood but an illness resulting in the mental condition which Hamlet himself does not fully understand (Bradley qtd. in Wofford 188-189) Bradley discusses the possible reasons for the Prince’s melancholy; it might have been a moral shock caused 61 by his mother’s hasty marriage to her brother-in-law together with her shallow feelings towards her first husband. Bradley’s sympathy for Hamlet is an example of how readers often identified themselves with the Prince. 2.13 Closet Scene The fourth scene of act three, which follows Hamlet’s unique opportunity to revenge his father which he did not seize, is considered to be “one of the most memorable, most anticipated, and most dramatic scenes in the play” (Young 210). Hamlet visits his mother

and, in a fit of temper, reveals all the reasons why his mind is so bitter to her. In the theatre, the killing of Polonius represented an opportunity to demonstrate a very violent action. Supposedly, Hamlet seems so threatening that Gertrude is afraid her son could kill her, and when she attempts to run for someone to deal with him, he thrusts her onto a chair. When she cries for help, Polonius, hiding behind the arras, answers his Queen’s calling and Hamlet turns his rage against him. Hamlet in his rage believes it might be the King he has killed, but then it turns out that he does not really care who his victim is, for, as Schücking points out, anyone who works against him “must face the consequences”, as not only Polonius, but also Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are about to find out soon (139). The theatre practice in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries shows various work with Hamlet’s sword; sometimes he has already his weapon with him, other times he has laid it down

while entering his mother’s room. Another element treated in different ways was the act of killing itself. In some versions, Hamlet stabbed the old man through the arras, while he disappeared behind the curtain in others, therefore the murder was not visible. Irving’s Hamlet presented a very different version; he lifted the arras and then killed the eavesdropper. There are not many eighteenth and nineteenthcentury actors portraited in this part of the scene because it was often cut out As it has been noted, actors influenced how their Hamlets’ were perceived, and killing of Polonius was, although an accident, seen as a cruel and insensitive act even though Polonius was often played as “a buffoon” (Rosenberg 262). In 1736, Stubbs expressed 62 his disapproval with the action, wishing that Shakespeare had omitted this terrible scene because it has too much Levity in it; and his [Hamlet’s] tugging him [Polonius] away into another Room is unbecoming the Gravity of the rest

of the Scene and is a Circumstance too much calculated to raise a Laugh, which it always does (qtd. in Young 213) Francis Gentleman also commented on the action negatively later in 1770; he claimed that by killing the old man, Hamlet does not show enough humanity to repent ending a life of an innocent man, who is at the same time father of a woman he loves (qtd. in Young 213). As a result of avoiding the end of the scene in on stage, Young feels the killing of Polonius seems to have been quite neglected in illustrated editions of Shakespearean plays in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries (213). The earliest actor portrait depicting this scene is an engraving by Thomas Cook, based on a design by J. H Ramberg This picture, named Mr Kemble as Hamlet (1785), shows J. P Kemble after he killed Polonius The size of the engraving is 3 ¾ x 2 ½ inches and it was printed in John Bell’s Dramatick Writings of William Shakespeare (Young 212). It focuses on the detail of the Prince and

the arras; Hamlet with a wild hair is dressed in dark clothes – a short coat and dark, striped breeches. Below the coat, the light collar of his shirt can be seen lying on his shoulders. He stands with his legs wide apart; in his right hand, he holds a sword across his body and points toward the arras, while his left arm is extended, pointing to a hand which lies protruding on the floor from behind the curtain. A part of Polonius’ foot and arm protrude from below the arras behind Hamlet; the Prince’s face is difficult to read – perhaps he is in a shock, or it might be Mr. Kemble’s way to show his cold-bloodedness The overall effect is static, frozen, as if capturing the moment of a shock. The picture is placed in an oval, accompanied by a quotation: “A bloody deed! Almost as bad, good Mother, as kill a king and marry his brother” (Shakespeare qtd. in Hibbard 279). After the murder, Hamlet is beside himself with rage and although he can be sure that his mother has nothing

to do with his father’s murder – Schücking believes that he did not think that she might be an accomplice, anyway – she is still guilty because she has rushed into the marriage with Claudius, and for Hamlet, this is the deadly sin of incest (140). He judges Gertrude, reveals all his feelings caused by the 63 Fig. 18 Cook, Thomas Mr Kemble as Hamlet 1785 Engraving Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington DC. whole situation, and, for the first time, the Queen is not convinced of her innocence. She feels deeply morally shaken after her son has told her that her behaviour is morally disgusting, and that he despises her. She cannot bear it anymore, and she thus covers her ears and begs Hamlet to stop. The Prince, satisfied with the effect the speech has on his mother, turns his attention to his uncle this time. Gertrude attempts to restrain his offences – in vain – and the Prince forces Gertrude to look at the portraits of his father and uncle to help her realise how low she

has got by the second marriage by comparing the two men: Look upon this picture, and on this, The counterfeit presentment of two brothers. See what a grace was seated in this brow – Hyperion’s curls, the front of Jove himself, An eye like Mars, to threaten or command, A station like the herald Mercury New lighted on a heaven-kissing hill; A combination and a form indeed Where every od did seem to set his seal To give the world assurance of a man. This was your husband. Look you now what follows 64 Here is your husband, like a mildewed ear Blasting his wholesome brother. Have you eyes? (Shakespeare qtd in Hibbard 280). Making Gertrude look at the two portraits was another opportunity for Hamlet to behave violently towards his mother. In the theatre, Gertrude was normally seated, therefore at least one chair was required on stage. Hamlet might have been also seated when showing the portraits to the Queen – the history of how the scene was originally realised raised a lot of

discussion. Young, based on his research, supposes that many productions used portraits on the wall, and he offers the earliest pictorial representation as an example. It is an engraving by Boitard/ Kirkal for Rowe’s 1709 edition of Shakespeare, and it perhaps depicts the leading male actor from the Restoration period Th. Betterton (217) When the wall portraits were used, Hamlet often dragged the Queen closer to them to force her look closely. From around 1730s, a different practice was introduced: instead of two large portraits, Hamlet might have had two miniatures taken out from his pocket, one of his father and the other of Claudius. Young states that this kind of stage business came into practice at the time of the Restoration (217). During act two scene two, preparations are made for the use of portraits when “Hamlet alludes somewhat bitterly to Claudius’s supporters spending between twenty and hundred ducats ‘for his [Claudius’] Picture in little’”, implying that

such miniatures are common, which annoys him (Young 217). Young further explains that when the miniatures were employed, Hamlet took the portrait of Claudius from Gertrude’s neck and threw in to the floor, sometimes stamping on the locket violently, while saying “[] would step from this to this” (221). In some of the nineteenth- and twentieth-centuries performances, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern wore the miniatures as another variety and it makes Hamlet angry; on the other hand, in Fechter’s production, only Guildenstern wore such a miniature, or, as in another variation, Hamlet wore only his father’s miniature. Because later it was felt that if Hamlet hates his uncle so much, wearing his miniature is a sign of inconsistency; therefore only Gertrude kept Claudius’s miniature, as a sign of love – this was the case of E. Kean’s and Booth’s productions (Young 218) In another variation, one wall portrait and one miniature were employed. Nonetheless, a radical version

mentioned in 65 Young was introduced by Irving, that is to leave out the pictures completely, and leave everything on the audience’s imagination (218-219). One of the earliest visual renditions of the portrait episode is an oval engraving named HAMLET and his MOTHER created in 1776 by Fr. Bartolozzi after a design by W. Hamilton It is accompanied by the following quotation: See what a grace was seated on this brow – Hyperion’s curls, the front of Jove himself An eye like Mars, to threaten or command, A station like the herald Mercury New lighted on a heaven-kissing hill; A combination and a form indeed Where every god did seem to set his seal To give the world assurance of a man. This was your husband. (Shakespeare qtd in Hibbard 280) The son and mother are seated on the Queen’s bed which is decorated with curtains. Gertrude sits on the left, she seems to be attempting to move away from Hamlet, and her face turned towards the Prince shows utter shock while her hands are

“raised in consternation” (Young 221). It is obvious she really fears her son; therefore, she obeys his instruction to look at the miniature – probably the picture of his father – he holds it in his left hand. Hamlet is to the right of her (her left side) His dark hair falls almost to his shoulders; he wears typical dark clothes symbolising his troubled, melancholic soul, and he leans toward his mother and describes the miniature which he has in his left hand while pointing to it by his right hand (Young 221). Hamlet’s face also shows signs of strong emotions, as he attempts to describe his father’s qualities, which are almost divine in his eyes. The engraving was discussed for its latent sexual aggression; Hamlet’s behaviour conveys breaking of the decorum by a verbal and physical attack on the Queen (Young 221). He sits too close to Gertrude with his right thigh seemingly pushing her left thigh, his right elbow seems to be pushing into the Queen’s waist – Young sees

the underlying sexual context in the action that was often used in pictorial representations of the scene (221-223). 66 Fig. 19 Bartolozzi, Francesco Hamlet and his Mother 1776 Engraving Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington DC. After making the comparison of the two kings, Hamlet’s emotions get even wilder. Gertrude, deeply shaken, admits she feels guilty in her following words: “Thou turns’t mine eyes into my very soul, and there I see such black and grained spots as will not leave their tinct.” (Shakespeare qtd in Hibbard 281) And then, desperate, she demands him to stop hurting her with his words: “O, speak no more! These words like daggers enter in my ears. No more, sweet Hamlet!” (Shakespeare qtd in Hibbard 281282) The Prince’s lamentations are suddenly interrupted by the appearance of the ghost; Hamlet’s rage is gone at once, alternated with a new emotion – fear. He believes his father’s appearance surely means that he has failed to take his revenge;

nevertheless, it seems the ghost came merely to pacify his son, and to turn his attention back to his purpose. Schücking claims that the revenge is not the only reason for the ghost’s visit, but that he also came to instruct his son to be gentler to his mother, who is “now almost prostrate” (140). Subsequently, Hamlet stops attacking his mother, but is not able to feel sympathy for her, because, as Schücking states, his moral-loving nature makes it unable for him to understand the sinner (140). The Queen suffers another shock; she does neither see nor hear her deceased husband and, based on her son’s behaviour, she believes that he has lost his mind completely. However, when the ghost disappears, Hamlet calms down and continues 67 moralising and advising his mother to purify her soul by breaking her incestuous relationship with Claudius; the manner in which he does it must be extremely painful for her, but Hamlet argues that he “must be cruel only to be kind”

(Shakespeare qtd. in Hibbard 286). In the theatre, the increasing force of emotions was occasionally accompanied with “physical and/or sexual threat by Hamlet, for example, in productions by Kean, Irving, Fechter and more. In the nineteenth century, the performances often showed Hamlet’s towering rage, Young’s research revealed that sometimes he even held a knife above the Queen’s head (226). After the desperate Queen repeats the words “No more”, the most dramatic scene – according to Young a least – begins when the ghost enters the room (226). Hamlet’s reaction was often the topic of discussion in the eighteenth century. He usually rose from his chair upon which he had been sitting, managed to kick the chair, which in some productions, such as Garrick’s, “by making a sudden noise, it was imagined would contribute to the perturbation and terror of the incident” (Davies qtd. in Young 226). Sometimes, the ghost appeared from a trap, or “the hell” of the stage,

other times it came from the wings; another possibility was when the ghost appeared from the portrait on the wall, for instance, in Macready’s Hamlet in 1840. The latter was quite a popular option – the late King appeared from the portrait on the wall or the split in the portrait, sometimes accompanied by a loud noise. Other ghosts mentioned by Young, for instance CH. Dillon, or Bernhardt, remained in the portrait (226) Young continues describing variations of presenting the dead King’s appearance; Shakespeare’s ghost was now, unlike at the beginning of the play, dressed in his night gown. However, in the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century theatre, he normally remained clad in his armour. Of course, there were exceptions, such as Irving’s ghost which appeared in a dark dressing gown; other ghosts were occasionally covered either in full regalia or painted white, while a number of other ghosts were highlighted by careful lightning in attempt to create a supernatural effect. An

example of the early eighteenth-century pictorial renditions is an engraving, supposedly by E. Kirkall after a design by Fr Boitard, created in 1709 This detailed engraving shows the Prince on the left, wearing a wig and an eighteenth-century dark dress representing his mourning, one of his stockings “down-gyved” as an allusion to 68 Ophelia’s description of his disturbing behaviour in the second act. He is depicted in his typical ‘start’ pose and near his front leg, a chair, another typical stage practice, lies on the floor. His father is dressed “in full armour, complete with truncheon” (Young 227). It might be concluded, as Young suggests, that this version is a typical representative of an eighteenth-century record of stage practice, perhaps depicting the actor Betterton (20). His next argument supporting his theory of the origin of the picture is the lack of furniture; there are only two chairs, no more furniture. There are further two wall scones above the

ghost’s head, which were a common theatrical way of providing light on the stage at the time. However, M T Burnett in his publication argues that the swag of fabric in this and many other plates [for engravings] to the Rowe 1709 edition has sometimes been mistaken for a theatrical reference. It is not an evocation of the stage, since English theatres at the time placed the action on the apron, not behind a proscenium arch (425). Burnett continues explaining that through the seventeenth century, drapes used to be portrayed in paintings, but not engravings, except for engravings reproduced from paintings, therefore the work by Boitard and Kirkall is not a representation of a stage performance (425). Whether a theatrical reference or not, both authors agree that it is supposed to depict Betterton as Hamlet in 1706 (Young 20; Burnett 425). The nineteenth-century pictorial representations of the scene are divided between those showing the ghost’s appearance and those portraying its

effect on the Prince after the old Hamlet’s departure. The following lines introduce an example of a late nineteenth-century pictorial representation of the ghost’s appearance. The work in question is a drawing by Hawes Craven created in 1897, which “was reproduced for Johnston Forbes Robertson (Young 236). Young explains that the picture represents a 1987 production at the Lyceum Theatre, starring J. Forbes Robertson as Hamlet, I Forbes Robertson as the ghost and Ch. Granville as Gertrude (236) Surprisingly, Robertson’s Hamlet was not terrified by the ghost, on the contrary, he probably wanted to communicate with it. The drawing shows a large medieval room showing two walls of, according to Young, the stage set (236). Compared to Boitard’s engraving, this one shows a room 69 Fig. 20 Craven, Hawes 1897 Photographic reproduction of a drawing Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington DC. quite richly furnished by chairs, and a kneeler by one of the stone walls. On each of the

walls, there is a life size portrait of one of the two Kings; the portraits are placed far from each other. Hamlet is on the left side of the drawing, leaning forward, dressed in black, standing with legs wide apart, his left leg is in front, right arm stretched to the middle part of the picture where the ghost stands. Young explains the pose as an attempt to reach the ghost, a transparent white figure, standing calmly and looking at his son, with its arms relaxed along its body, dressed in a long white robe, he probably has a crown on his head – it is difficult to recognise it from the picture. On the right side of the drawing stands Gertrude, leaning over her desk, clutching the sides of the table and staring at her son. It seems she has run behind it to protect herself from her son As Young believes, it seems that by placing the ghost between the son and mother, Craven attempts to emphasise the fact that she never sees the ghost and believes her son is mad; he explains that

“[in] a later moment, he [Craven] even had Gertrude stretch her hand out to Hamlet and appear to come in contact with the ghost without knowing it.” (237) At the end of the scene, Hamlet’s anger is gone; before he leaves, he expresses superficial regret about Polonius’ death. According to Schücking, he believes it is 70 “more or less a dispensation of Providence.” (142) Before he leaves, Hamlet makes it clear that he knows about Claudius’s decision to send him to England and forces Gertrude to promise not to say anything about his pretended madness to her husband. She promises to remain silent: “Be thou assured, if words be made of breath, and breath of life, I have no life to breathe what thou hast said to me.” (Shakespeare qtd in Hibbard 287) He then finally leaves the Queen’s room, dragging the dead body with him. Young claims that theatre productions tended to cut the last part of the scene because this behaviour appeared too crude to suit Hamlet’s

nature; as a result, the scene usually ended on the couplet “I must be cruel only to be kind. This bad begins and worse remains behind.” (210; Shakespeare qtd in Hibbard 286) The following chapter continues directly with another extremely emotional scene – Ophelia’s madness, which is the consequence of her father’s murder. 2.14 Ophelia’s Madness This chapter focuses on act four, scenes five to seven; it is the act where Ophelia appears as mad for the first time. The scene takes place months after the preceding events; Fortinbras has already started his journey home after a victorious campaign, and Laertes has returned from Paris. The atmosphere differs greatly from the initial festive scene, and, according to Schücking’s belief, the shadows of the approaching calamities are already noticeable here (150). The Queen seems deeply touched by her conversation with Hamlet and she seems extremely anxious and worried. Her troubled soul is now burdened yet by another serious

trouble – Ophelia, who has lost her mind as a result of Hamlet’ cruel behaviour towards her, and her dad’s death, enters Gertrude’s chamber inappropriately dressed, with disordered hair, singing unsuitable songs, making wild gestures, and playing the lute. In comparison with Hamlet’s feigned madness, Ophelia, in Young’s view, represents a real madness in its full powers, which was irresistible for visual artists from the end of the eighteenth century (304). Ophelia’s songs are not known anywhere else except for this play; Hibbard believes they are probably just “snatches´” of different songs combined together so that they fit Shakespeare’s purpose. 71 Their task is to reflect pain and madness caused both by Hamlet’s rejection and the death of Polonius, killed by her former lover. Hibbard explains that “the two losses compete for attention in her mind, and thus, literally, distract it, tear it apart.” (298) Although it is generally believed that

Ophelia’s madness is real, there are art historians, for instance Harley Wong, who suppose that she is not truly mad, but just uses the same disguise as the prince and her usage of flowers was a threat to powerful people cleverly hidden behind a mask of madness (Wong 88). However, this is a very fresh point of view on the matter, for, traditionally, Ophelia was considered truly mad, and her flower language was the only possibility for her to communicate her pain. Maybe she had a moment of recognition when she was able to choose the flowers before one of her fits overcame her consciousness, or perhaps she had just picked the flowers unconsciously, based on her previous knowledge of flowers and their meanings. The King suffers from a great stress as well as his wife because rebellion is at his doorstep, organised by Laertes and his loyal ones, who seek immediate vengeance on his father’s killer and attacks Claudius. Gertrude, who is blindly in love, throws herself between the two to

protect her husband. Claudius, however, shows no fear, he “does not for an instant lose his royal bearing, and by his imperturbable behaviour succeeds in persuading Laertes to restrain himself and discuss things reasonably.” (Schücking 151) The King’s persuasive abilities are extremely well-developed and he proceeds with his manipulation. When it seems that the situation is saved and Laertes is comforted, they are interrupted by the arrival of Ophelia, who is “a document in madness”, singing her songs and dispersing flowers – her appearance and behaviour awaken Laertes’ rage and bitterness once more, so he listens to no reasoning (Shakespeare qtd. in Hibbard 307) Ophelia’s mad scene is the only moment when the young lady is seen in a different light; the young, pure, innocent girl has changed into a completely different woman with a split personality. This dramatic scene became another irresistible inspiration for the artists, writers, actors, and also painters from

the eighteenth century. It was depicted in many different ways during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, there are, however, two distinct groups of pictorial representation: portraits of Ophelia alone and pictures of her madness surrounded by the other characters of the play. 72 As mentioned above, the mad Ophelia came into interest in the eighteenth century. Although she appears only in five scenes of twenty in the tragedy, her tragedy is not of such an importance as that of Hamlet, and there is not much information about her background, she is the most popular and most represented of all Shakespeare’s heroines. Even though Ophelia is a minor character, depictions of her are more common than those of Gertrude, although she might have been of more importance (“Ophelia, Gender”). The representation of Ophelia in the theatre has had many different forms, such as the other characters. According to Young, probably the first pictorial representation of mad Ophelia is a

portrait of actress Jane Lessingham in the role designed by James Roberts and engraved by Charles Grignion in 1775 for a six-penny edition of Hamlet from the same year. Although Lessingham was, according to Young, the first actress brave enough to get herself pictured as the mad heroine, there are many more influential pictures of her (306). The example that is to be discussed in detail here is the famous Benjamin West’s Ophelia and Laertes with the dimensions 276.9 x 3874 centimetres, created in 1792 This large oil on canvas was made for the Boydell Gallery. Boydell greatly respected West’s work and, based on Young’s research, he offered for the work 1000 Guinee’s in advance (320). Fig. 21 West, Benjamin Ophelia and Laertes 1792 Oil on canvas Cincinnati Art Museum, Ohio, USA. 73 West portrayed Ophelia bare-footed and bare-armed in the foreground of his canvas, making her the centre of attention. Her long golden hair is wildly dishevelled, she is dressed in a white

diaphanous dress with a pink petticoat; she holds the hem of her skirt in her left hand. Flowers, which were originally kept in the hem, seem to be falling from her dress and some already lie on the ground by her feet. Around the young lady’s neck a black piece of cloth can be seen, probably a veil or a shawl, which, as Young’s research shows, was often used on stage for a mock funeral of Polonius in the nineteenth-century performances (306). Ophelia seems to be dancing with her arms outstretched to her left side, right arm across her body. While her face, partially covered by her hair, is turned forward to the audience, her wild eyes look behind her, maybe trying to catch a glimpse of Laertes, who stands to the left of the picture behind her, holding her right arm below the shoulder. Her hair is wild and in movement as she drops the petals to the ground, a standard sign of female madness and sexuality (Young 320). Laertes seems to be attempting to stop Ophelia’s mad dance, he

holds her with his right hand and raises his left hand towards heaven, looking upwards in desperation. His red hat, likely as a result of struggling with his sister, has fallen from his head and lies between his legs. On the right part of the painting, there is the royal couple sitting on their thrones elevated on a dais beneath a golden canopy. Gertrude leans forward, supporting her chin by her right hand, her eyes stare down, as if she feels sad or possibly sick of the scene in front of her. On the other hand, Claudius sits closer to the foreground with frowning eyebrows and firmly clenched fists that display, according to Young, bewilderment or perhaps fear (320). Five more people can be seen in the background of the canvas, witnessing the scene in surprise. The atmosphere of this painting is extremely dynamic and full of movement and diverse emotions and West’s mad Ophelia became an important inspiration for the artists in the nineteenth century. Young explains that a contributor

to the Examiner (7 February 1808), for example, described Ophelia as follows: ‘robed in white; her flaxen locks hang in loose disorder over her forehead and down to her waist, with her left hand extended she carelessly strews around the rue and thyme; her eyes exhibit a wandering mind and delicious indecisiveness, yet she is gentle; rage makes no part of her character. (321) 74 This description fits with most pictorial renditions of mad Ophelia for next roughly hundred years (“Benjamin West”). The painting was engraved in a large format by Francis Legat shortly after being exhibited in the Shakespeare Gallery. West did not like the engraving and “felt it was stilted and did not adequately capture the emotion and spirit of his original” (“Benjamin West”). The nineteenth-century representative of this scene is a photographical portrait of Ellen Terry, who was a very famous actress of the century; during the Victorian age, she was the leading actress of Henry Irving’s

theatre (“The Actor and the Maker”). An unconventional persona in her life as well as work, she was the object of interest of feminist critics for she was the first one to rebel against the typical Ophelia’s white dress and “exercised a great deal of control over what she wore” (“The Actor and the Maker”). According to an article on Victoria and Albert Museum website dedicated to Ellen Terry, she had a highly developed visual sense and was renowned for making her costume fit the overall picture of each scene; she explained her choice: first scene: pinkish – ‘It’s all rose-coloured with her. Her father and brother love her The prince loves her – and so she wears pink Nunnery scene: a pale, gold, amber dress, the most beautiful colour. The material is a church brocade It will tone down the colour of my hair. Last scene: a transparent black dress’ However, Irving insisted that Hamlet should be the only black figure in the play, and the completed black dress was

jettisoned for one in white. ‘So instead of the crepe de Chine and miniver I had for the white dress Bolton sheeting and rabbit, and I believe it looked better’. (“The Actor and the Maker”) Showalter and Young both explain that for her role of Ophelia, Terry visited a lunatic asylum to gain inspiration from truly mad women and make her performance natural and realistic. However, she was quite disappointed because there was no beauty in the mad women, nothing to admire or pity about them. She stated that they were too “theatrical” for her (qtd. in Wofford 231; 309) Young concludes this experience in the asylum by citing Terry’s own revelation while she was leaving the asylum and finally noticed a girl who was mad and lovely at the same time: 75 I noticed a young girl gazing at the wall. I went between her and the wall to see her face. It was quite vacant, but the body expressed that she was waiting, waiting Suddenly se threw up her hands and sped across the room like

a swallow. I never forgot it. She was very thin, very pathetic, very young, and the movement was a poignant as it was beautiful. (qtd in Young 309) The experience inspired Terry into creating her gentle Ophelia. In 1878, a famous black and white photographical portrait by Window and Grove was created, depicting her debut in the role at three-quarter length. There are three versions of the copy, with dimensions 14.4 x 10 centimetres or smaller (“Terry as Ophelia”) Fig. 22 Window and Grove Ellen Terry as Ophelia in ‘Hamlet’ 1878 Photography, platinum print National Portrait Gallery, the UK. Terry is turned slightly to the left with her face turning slightly to the right. She wears a simple white, long sleeved dress with a V-neck and her pretty face looks sad and vacant. Her hair is slightly dishevelled so as to express her insanity, but no flowers can be seen in it. It does not seem she is mad at all, apart from the hair; on the contrary, she looks simple and decent,

especially when compared with West’s version; her shoulders and arms are hidden by the dress and the neck is not cut too low, therefore no inappropriateness might be detected. Ophelia holds a bunch of lilies before her, which are, together with her unusual dresses, a typical feature of her performance. As Young 76 states, she was known for insisting on having always fresh flowers for her performances, regardless or the price, and a part of her Ophelia representation were lilies (308). In her book, Terry remembers that Oscar Wilde was so amazed by her performance with the lilies that he paid tribute to her after watching one of her plays and wrote her a sonnet (Terry). The overall atmosphere is calm and dreamy, expressing no strong emotions of dynamics, it stresses pathos and beauty rather than madness and suffering (Young 309). Terry is very gentle with her vacant gaze, very distant from the real mad women she witnessed when she visited the asylum. Various authors, such as Young,

Brooker and Widdowson, and Wofford, cite one of Showalter’s essays, in which she claims that during Elizabethan times, Ophelia’s behaviour and appearance were a characteristic of the malady the Elizabethans would have diagnosed as love-melancholy or erotomania, therefore Ophelia’s malady was labelled sexual, not intellectual as Hamlet’s (Showalter qtd. in Young 308; qtd in Brooker and Widdowson 1.3; qtd in Wofford 225) Moreover, Young claims that “Ophelias” became a phenomenon “medical science has already established that Shakespeare’ Ophelia provided a model for a particular type of female hysteria not uncommon in adolescence.” (308) According to Showalter, theatrical representations have shifted according to the theories and images of female insanity which dominated at each time, while from the historical point of view, the images of Ophelia have played a considerable role in the construction of medical theories of insanity in young women (“Ophelia, Gender”).

These theories have contrasted Hamlet and Ophelia as a prototype of difference of masculine and feminine experience since the seventeenth century (Wofford 214). Wofford explains that for Elizabethans, Hamlet represented a prototype of melancholy and madness, intellectual and imaginative genius, while Ophelia’s affliction was erotomania, or love-madness (sometimes called love-melancholia, as in Wofford) which was caused by Hamlet’s rejection of her love and repressed sexual desire (214). On the stage virginal white was a common, prototypical way to contrast Hamlet’s scholarly black; in the mad scenes, Ophelia appeared with dishevelled hair, singing bawdy songs, and giving away her flowers, according to Showalter, “symbolically 77 deflowering herself” (qtd. in Wofford 225) Drowning was, as Showalter names it, a symbolically feminine death (qtd. in Wofford 225) In Elizabethan and Jacobean drama, when a woman entered the stage with dishevelled hair, she was considered either

mad or a victim of rape; mad Ophelias were presented in a way, which was innocent and seductive at the same time (Showalter qtd. in Wofford 224) Showalter’s study states that on the eighteenth-century stage, possibilities for Ophelia to express her madness realistically were nearly eliminated since any images of female sexuality were supressed; for instance, Jane Lessingham played Ophelia as a “sentimentalized” heroine of “decorous style relying on the familiar images of the white dress, loose hair, and wild flowers to convey a polite feminine distraction, highly suitable for pictorial reproduction” (qtd. in Wofford 226) Another example was Mrs Siddons’ madness, which became an image of stately dignity through major part of the period. Showalter points out that, as a result of objections during the Augustan Age (first half of the eighteenth century to approximately 1740s) to the levity and indecency of Ophelia’s language and behaviour, her part was censored, her role

became sentimentalised, and often assigned to a singer rather than an actress (“Ophelia, Gender”). To contrast the eighteenth-century conventions, the nineteenth-century Romantics, especially in France, fully embraced Ophelia’s madness and sexuality which had been denied by Augustans. As a result, the Romantic Ophelia changed into a character that is too sensitive, while Hamlet is someone who overthinks everything. An example of a mad Ophelia during the Romantic period is Ch. Kemble’s Ophelia Harriet Smithson. During her performances, she wore long black veil, “suggesting the standard imagery of sexual mystery in the Gothic novel” (“Ophelia, Gender”). Young describes Harriet Smithson’s performance as a very naturalistic portrayal that had an unexpected and startling effect on many writers, artists, and musicians who attended her performance, during which she wore long black veil that she dropped to the ground and later mistook it for Polonius’ shroud, and

finally used it for a mock burial of her father (306). He believes that stage business with Ophelia’s mock burial of her father became a common practice in the nineteenth century; in a number of editions, she is even pictured kneeling by the veil to sing a dirge (307). 78 Ophelia’s madness was used by psychiatrists as a case study in hysteria and mental breakdown in sexually turbulent adolescence in the nineteenth century. Many images and staged photographs of Ophelia-like mad women, taken in asylums and hospitals, anticipated the fascination with the erotic trance of the hysteric which would be studied by the Parisian neurologist Jean-Martin Charcot and his student Sigmund Freud. The Victorian Ophelia, a young girl passionately and visibly driven to picturesque madness, became the dominant international acting style for the next 150 years, from Helena Modjeska in 1871, to the 18-year-old Jean Simmons in the Laurence Olivier film in 1948 (Showalter qtd. in Wofford 227-228)

Luckily for Claudius, he is a great manipulator, and manages to comfort the enraged young man once again and use his sister’s state to turn his rage against Hamlet, who, as Laertes claims, deserves to be killed and left with an Obscure burial – No trophy, sword or hatchment o’er his bones, No noble rite or formal ostentation (Shakespeare qtd. in Hibbard 309) At this moment, a news comes announcing that the Prince has returned to Denmark, a piece of information the audience or readers already know from a letter brought to Horatio. Laertes becomes a victim and a tool of Claudius’ murderous mind and agrees to his plan for luring Hamlet into a seemingly innocent fencing match with foils, during which Laertes will have “a sword unbathed”. Laertes is excited and even improves the plan by offering to poison his weapon to ensure that the bout will be the last one of the Prince’s life. Claudius decides to put, in Schücking’s words, “the crowning touch to the plan by

announcing that in any case he will have a cup of poison ready for Hamlet.” (152) As soon as they hatch their devilish plan, the Queen comes and tells them the sad news of Ophelia’s death, turning Laertes’ anger into mourning. This matter is the object of discussion in the following chapter. 79 2.15 Ophelia’s Death The death of Ophelia, the seventh scene in the fourth act, is solely described in the play, never played on stage. The topic was represented in pictorial art both in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, however, in the late nineteenth century, it became an extremely popular topic for visual artists, almost an obsession. It was also a discussed topic for literary critics (Showalter in Wofford 229). At that moment in the play, Ophelia, driven out of her senses when her father is killed by her beloved Hamlet, drowns herself in a stream. Showalter claims that the trend of depicting Ophelia’s death was started by the Romantic Eugene Delacroix and his lithograph

A Mort d’Ophélie from 1843, and it became extremely popular with Pre-Raphaelites (qtd. in Wofford 229). Because this artistic group became quite influential in contemporary and future pictorial art, the examples in this chapter were both made by authors associated with Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood. One of the greatest works of the Pre-Raphaelite era is probably Ophelia by John Everett Millais, one of the founders of Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood. His large painting of dimensions 76.2 x 1118 centimetres, which was represented in a Royal Academy show of 1852, is a realistic depiction of the scene described by Gertrude (Tate). It is an oil on canvas brushwork that represents much of what the Pre-Raphaelite artists originally stood for: in Hoe’s words, important was “high detail, close attention to nature, abundant colours, and non-simplistic composition, with subjects frequently stemming from the Romantic, the medieval and the literary” (“The Meaning”). The canvas realistically

captures the moments shortly after Ophelia falls into the stream. Her body floats in the water, gradually sinking, in the middle part of the picture. As Gertrude remarks, “her clothes are spread wide, and mermaid-like awhile they bore her up” (Shakespeare qtd. in Hibbard 319) She is dressed in an antique brocade gown made from white, silver and gold fabric, which was purchased specially for this painting. The gown pulls Ophelia under the water, only a few folds of her skirt are still above the water. The situation presented here is probably only a few moments before the gown pulls “the poor wretch from her melodious lay to muddy death.” (Shakespeare qtd in Hibbard 319) Her young pale face, shows a broken expression, or an expression of exhausted defeat; her lips are still 80 Fig. 23 Millais, John Everett Ophelia 1852 Oil on canvas Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington DC parted as “she chanted snatches of old lauds” (Shakespeare qtd. in Hibbard 319) as she died. Her

long auburn hair floats around her head, her hands lie on the water surface with palms turned upwards as if showing that Ophelia did not fight death but embraced it. In Showalter’s point of view, she looks as a sensuous siren and a victim at the same time (qtd. in Wofford 229) The pale, lifeless body strongly contrasts with the lushness of the nature around it; the surroundings are painted in rich colours, they are similar to the description of the place in the play. Numerous flowers bearing symbolic meanings are depicted in great detail, and their appearance is, in Hoe’s view, botanically correct (“The Meaning”). The roses are a remainder of Ophelia’s nickname ‘Rose of May’; a willow grows to the left of the picture, “aslant the brook that shows his hoar leaves in the glassy stream”, which symbolises pain, forsaken love and Ophelia’s innocence, as well as nettles and daisies (Shakespeare qtd. in Hibbard 318-319) Next are violets representing chastity and

faithfulness, but also death she must face, while pansies symbolise love in vain. Other death elements in this painting are poppies and forget-me-nots (Hoe). The background of the creation of the painting is equally interesting as the story in the picture. The nature was painted outdoors near Ewell in Surrey in July 1851, 81 therefore it represents a real place – not theatre as usually, though (“Sir John Everett Millais”). “He [Millais] reported that he got up every day at 6 am, began work at 8, and did not return to his lodgings until 7 in the evening”. Not only the work outside was uncomfortable, he was also afraid of being fined for “trespassing in a field and destroying the hay”. (“Sir John Everett Millais”) After finishing the background, Millais started painting Ophelia; his model was young Elizabeth Siddal, the future wife of Rossetti. Millais spent four months working on her figure, while his model was lying in a bathtub full of warm water. The water was

kept warm thanks to lamps under the bathtub; one day, however, the lamps died, and the water went cold, resulting in Siddal’s serious illness. The young lady was close to death and her father threatened Millais he would sue him unless he paid the doctor’s bill (Riggs). Although Millais’s Ophelia was the most famous Pre-Raphaelite artwork, it was not the only depiction of Ophelia by the Brotherhood. Another example of a painting of Ophelia’s death by Pre-Raphaelites was painted by Arthur Hughes in 1852. It was also presented in the Royal Academy show in that year. This large oil on canvas measuring 27 x 49 inches, depicts a situation earlier in the scene than Millais’s painting, only a few moments before Ophelia falls into the river and drowns. Young claims that Hughes’ Fig. 24 Hughes, Arthur Ophelia 1852 Oil on canvas Manchester Art Gallery, UK 82 canvas presents a “child-like, emaciated Ophelia, her arms bare and her right shoulder exposed.” (331) Her

extraordinarily pale sad face strongly contrasts with her dark red lips. Showalter describes Ophelia as a “tiny waiflike creature – a sort of Tinker Bell Ophelia – in a filmy white gown, perched on a tree trunk by the stream.” (qtd in Wofford 229) Her white gown is very simple and only a bit lighter than her skin. Many authors depicted Ophelia with bare feet and shoulders, sometimes even breasts, to emphasise her madness, similarly to the depiction of the mad scene earlier in the play. Nevertheless, Hughes’ Ophelia has completely covered legs, therefore “the overall effect is softened, sexless, any hazy” (Showalter qtd. in Wofford 229) Some authors depicted her madness by her face expressions, but Hughes’s Ophelia’s mental state is pictured by her inappropriate gown; although her legs are dressed, her shoulders and arms are bare, which was not acceptable for a proper, decent lady. Pieces of straw can be seen in her hair, resembling a crown of thorns (Young 332)

Showalter also sees a connection to religion when she describes this painting as a “juxtaposition of childlike femininity and Christian martyrdom” (qtd. in Wofford 229) In the middle of the picture, “there is a willow aslant the brook that shows its hoar leaves in the glassy stream” (Shakespeare qtd. in Hibbard 318-319) and on which Hughes Ophelia is seated, staring at the water while firmly holding a bunch of vegetation and flowers as if she is afraid the plants could fall into the brook, while her other hand, stretched above the water level, drops some of the flowers into the brook. The atmosphere here is completely different from Millais’s canvas; while Millais’s Ophelia is full of rich bright colours, Hughes’s Ophelia offers a dark, murky atmosphere. Young describes the water as coloured in dark tones with “a sickly green moss” making an effect of a dirty, muddy brook, different from Gertrude’s description of the clear, glassy stream or Millais’s brook, which,

even though it is similarly painted in dark colours, is full of living vegetation and resembles depth more that dirt (332). The greenery around Ophelia is quite dark, the moonlit background makes it likely that the action happens at night; on the left side of the canvas, there is a little bat flying, another hint of the possible period of day. These Pre-Raphaelite images of drowning Ophelia “were a part of a new intricate traffic between images of women and madness in the late nineteenth-century literature, psychiatry, drama, and art.” (Showalter qtd in Wofford 229) 83 Schücking points out that Gertrude’s account of Ophelia’s end “is, in its incomparable pictorial quality and evocative power, a testimony to Shakespeare’s supreme lyrical gifts.” (155) He continues explaining that the way in which she describes the nature, lovely and peaceful, makes death itself less terrifying, “becoming a gentle farewell to life (155). Although the Queen describes the event as an

accident, the later happening makes it clear that this version is not accepted by everyone; for instance, the priest expresses his doubts about the circumstances of Ophelia’s demise and refuses to provide a proper burial that would be suitable for a lady of her social standing. Whether it was an accident of not, the event has a strong effect on Laertes, who longs for revenge even more than before. 2.16 The Graveyard Scene The last act opens with two gravediggers, clowns, or a clown and the other, as they are called in different versions of the text, beginning their work on a grave for Ophelia and discuss her death as a possible suicide. The first gravedigger initially shares jokes with the other one and then sends him for some water; this is when Hamlet and Horatio find them, and the Prince begins his meditation on death and transience of life. At first, Hamlet is shocked that the gravedigger makes fun while doing such a grim job and treats the skulls of deceased people with

indifference. The Prince has morbid thoughts about the grotesque nature of the fate that awaits everyone, regardless of fame and power, which is another typical sign of melancholy (Schücking 157). He demands to learn some details about the digger’s job, which gives the joker an opportunity to play with the traveller – he probably does not recognise his Prince – and confuse him a bit. Schücking comments on the duel of wits that begins between Hamlet and the digger; the latter “feels compelled to try his skill on this stranger, and as Hamlet himself has a love of sophistry, and a weakness, [] for measuring himself against any one (sic) who for some reason impresses him, a kind of duel of with develops between them, in which the grave-digger, comically enough, gets better of the Prince.” (157) 84 Hamlet soon learns that the grave is being prepared for a woman, but not that the woman is his beloved Ophelia. His melancholic personality, fascinated by and attracted to

macabre and morbid, asks the gravedigger about topics such as the decay of a dead body. Their conversation leads to the Prince’s emotional meditation on Yorick’s skull when the Prince takes, or, in some versions, is handed, the jester’s skull in his next soliloquy starting with “Alas, poor Yorick.” (Shakespeare qtd in Hibbard 329) During this emotional speech, he lively describes the times when he was little and Yorick played with him, how full of life he used to be, while he is just an empty skull at present. His words express love, friendship, and honest gratitude, showing yet another side of the Prince’s personality. According to Young, the soliloquy is perhaps the bestknown incident in the play and its popularity equals the popularity of “To be or not to be” statement (240). For the artists, the scene was an irresistible topic; Young explains the reason might be the fact that even before Shakespeare composed Hamlet, the image of a man with a skull had become an

instantly “recognisable version of memento mori, and Hamlet’s words on human mortality and vanity, when added to this image, create a powerful stage emblem related to the key terms of the play.” (245) Although, as Schücking claims, it is not very important for the course of the action, the moment is so powerful that it inspired numbers of artists to rework it; according to Young, in the nineteenth century, the graveyard scene was the most popular subject for visual representations of Hamlet (159, 246). It offered a unique opportunity for the stage artists to emphasise the emotional atmosphere, with the Prince’s reaction to the odour in the graveyard, his loving contemplation on the jester, the cortege which interrupts the conversation, the flowers being put into the grave (Schücking 159). The gloomy atmosphere is lightened by the wit and jokes by the gravedigger – Schücking points out that by making the gravedigger a clown, Shakespeare made a very clever move, because his

audience enjoyed having the tragic tension disrupted by humour from time to time (160). The scene offers a comparison of digger’s lack of reverence strongly contrasting with Hamlet’s extreme sensitiveness which continually disagrees with the world around him. The graveyard situation causes certain confusion concerning Hamlet’s actual age – Schücking comments that Hamlet’s thoughts and words at this point of the play are 85 too serious for a young man he is believed to be (160). At the beginning of the play, Shakespeare describes Hamlet as a young Prince, it might, therefore, be thought that he was in his teens or around twenty. According to Hibbard and Cohen, in the early 1600s edition of Hamlet, Yorick’s “skull has lain in the earth three and twenty years.”, while in a later folio (1623), the gravedigger says that the skull has been in the earth for “this dozen.” (328; 115) Schücking believes the problem of Hamlet’s age would not be so confusing and

attractive for speculations had it not been for the information that Hamlet has just left the University, which is typical for young people; moreover, Laertes describes his love for Ophelia as a kind of a “youthful foolishness, ‘a violet in the youth of primy (sic) nature’, and the psychological crisis he goes through is, in fact, hardly conceivable except as a result of that boundless disillusionment which comes only to idealistic youth.” (161) In pictorial arts, most of the focus was on the skull incident; the artists sometimes pictured only Hamlet holding the skull, other times with the other characters. A number of visual representations Young revealed in his research even depicted the scene with the cortege in the background, and a few artists concentrated only on the gravediggers (240). The following lines, in order to illustrate the typical features of the pictorial renditions in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, present one example of Hamlet with the gravedigger

and one of Hamlet solely. The first example of the graveyard scene, an engraving by John Hall after a design by Edward Edwards from 1773, which includes both the gravedigger and Horatio. This relatively small illustration (it measures only 8 x 13 centimetres) was published in Bell’s Edition of Shakespeare’s Plays, and it is the first visual representation of Hamlet with the skull (Young 64). “The first Bell’s Hamlet plate was designed by Edward Edwards, who designed thirty-two of the thirty-six scenes”; Hall did one-third of the engravings (64). Accompanied by the quotation “Alas, poor Yorick!”, the engraving shows Hamlet at the centre, Horatio to his right and the gravedigger, bare-footed and bare-chested to the right of the picture. The quite young-looking digger stands by the edge of a freshlydug grave, leaning on a shovel and looking at the other two men; next to the grave, a skull lies on the ground. Hamlet, standing at the centre beside the grave, holds Yorick’s

86 Fig. 25 Hall, John The Graveyard Scene 1773 Copperplate engraving Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington DC. skull in his left hand, looking at it. His right arm is in front of his chest as if he is in the middle of a speech. Horatio watches the skull, which is, in Young’s view, made the prominent element “by being silhouetted against the background”, created by a large church, the tall wall of which can be seen, with a clouded sky above (247). Both the Prince and Horatio are dressed in a kind of Elizabethan costume: a plumed hat, breeches, stockings, and a short cloak; Horatio leans upon a cane. An interesting detail is the colouring of Hamlet’s clothes – although the picture is black-and-white, it is clear that the Prince’s clothes are not black; on the contrary, it seems that the colouring of the costume is quite light. Many versions of this part of the scene soon followed, some artists using the same composition, others different variations (see above). The

second representative is an original oil portrait of J. P Kemble by Sir Thomas Lawrence from 1801, which is, in Young’s view, the most popular and extraordinary 87 depiction of the Prince alone with Yorick’s skull (248). The canvas of dimensions of 306,1 x 198,1 centimetres was greatly admired when it was exhibited; in fact, this painter inspires portrait artists even nowadays (“Thomas Lawrence”). To offer an example of positive criticism, Allan Cunningham, a Scottish writer famous for his The Cabinet Gallery of Pictures by the First Masters of the English and Foreign School (1836), wrote: Lawrence resolved to reach a grace above the art of mere portraiture; he sought for the philosophic Dane in the person of the great actor, and caught much of his stateliness and contemplative melancholy: the figure, the posture, and the graceful colouring pleased the multitude, and silenced, but did not satisfy, criticism.” (CUNNINGHAM, 1836) There are various versions of the work, for

instance, an autograph, studio, and other; a mezzotint reproduction by S. Reynolds was created four years after the original was made (1805) and it had over thirteen additional engraving versions during the next fifty years. Young’s research even discovered the existence of two watercolours and a drawing based on Lawrence’s portrait of Kemble (248). According to Young, Lawrence’s oil is one of “the first attempts to capture the Romantic critics’ conception of Hamlet’s angst-ridden psyche, a man of too heightened a sensibility to carry out the role fate has assigned him.” (248) Hamlet is portrayed alone, isolated, as if in his own dark world and dominates the whole canvas. He wears a long dark-red cloak and a dark, probably black, plumed bonnet; in fact, it seems that all of Hamlet’s clothes are black, except for the cloak and a white shirt. Around his neck hangs the Order of the Elephant on a blue ribbon, which has been commented on above. In the shadow of his cloak,

the hilt of Hamlet’s sword can be seen gently glittering. He holds Yorick’s skull in his left hand and stares up slightly to the right of the painting towards heaven as if thinking or meditating upon every human’s fate. He does not seem to have noticed that he stands by a freshly-dug grave – Ophelia’s grave – which might also symbolise his own gradual approach to his own ending. The lightning of the picture is extremely dark with only the Prince’s hands and face, together with the skull being highlighted. According to Young, it is a remainder of Kemble’s stage performance for it resembles a stage use of light creating a sad, melancholy atmosphere, typical of the Romantic Hamlet, expressing his unhappy introspection (250). 88 In the background on the left side of the picture, a silhouette of a building, perhaps a church, can be seen, lightened by a yellow glow; maybe it is supposed to be a setting sun, or the cortege approaching after Ophelia’s obsequies. The

composition of the painting encourages the viewer to concentrate on the contemplating figure of the Prince, and the other things seem like unimportant details which creates a very powerful effect. When Hamlet’s meditation is interrupted by the approach of the funeral procession, a quite different composition of which differed in various production was created. Young states that the nineteenth-century productions often ignored hints of the possibility that Ophelia’s death was a suicide; for example Kemble included lords, ladies, and priests; Irving included an incense boy, a priest with a cross, two boys with candles, six monks chanting, with a head priest, six ladies with baskets of flowers, Laertes and two friends, The King and Queen, a page with a basket of flowers, four pages, six gentlemen mourners with cloaks, six armored (sic) men with halberds, peasants to follow. (262) Another example of depicting a large procession for a noble person were productions by Booth and Sarah

Bernhardt. Booth’s performance seems to have the corpse of Ophelia wrapped and strapped to a board while Bernhardt included the body carried on a bier, which excited and scandalised the audience at the same time. Even though it was a controversial topic, some artists, although only few, created the visual renderings of the funeral, such as Retzsch, Delacroix, or Gilbert (Young 263). Before the burial starts, Hamlet witnesses and argument between Laertes and a priest who is going to conduct the goodbye ceremony for Ophelia, because the priest, as Schücking points out, “has not accorded her full Christian burial rites because of the suspicion of suicide, and Laertes is greatly enraged at such clerical intolerance” (163). Young believes that after placing Ophelia into her grave, one of “the most violent and troubling moments in the play occurs” – the confrontation between Hamlet and Laertes (265). Just after first earth is about to fall upon the corpse, Laertes jumps into

the grave crying “Hold off the earth awhile, till I have caught her once more in mine arms.” (Shakespeare qtd in Hibbard 332) Laertes sees Hamlet as the real murderer of 89 Ophelia due to the fact that she became mad and died because of him. He leaps into the grave and demands to be buried with his sister, crying that they should Now pile [the participants’] dust upon the quick and dead, Till of this flat a mountain [they] have made To o’ertop old Pelion or the skyish head Of blue Olympus.” (Shakespeare qtd in Hibbard 332) These words, as Hibbard explains, allude to the war of the gods and giants in the Greek mythology, during which the giants attempted to scale Olympus by pilling Mount Ossa upon Mount Pellion, are too much for Hamlet who quickly follows his former friend into the grave; Schücking believes that Hamlet takes Laertes’ behaviour as a challenge to himself and that is the reason he jumps out of his shelter and starts struggling with Laertes in the grave

(322; 163). The Prince feels that Laertes’ affection for his sister and his grieving is nothing in comparison with his own feelings for her; he expresses his feelings in words “I loved Ophelia. Forty thousand brothers could not, with all their quantity of love, make up my sum.” (Shakespeare 333) He repeatedly attacks Laertes with wild words, as is his habit, leading the situation, which seems a parade of madness to the audience, to culminate until it results in a fencing match challenge, after which, according to Schücking, Hamlet’s excitement fades away, although “he still remains with a sense of deep injury, for, as he says, he has always had a certain affection for Ophelia’s brother.”(164) According to Young, it was a common practice for actors playing Laertes to jump into the grave in the eighteenth-century theatre (265). Wofford explains that the burial place on the stage was placed in the “hell” part of the stage, so Hamlet and Laertes jumped straight into it

(10). Kemble embraced a different approach; Laertes jumped out of the grave as soon as Hamlet revealed himself, therefore the struggle could take place outside the grave, not on top of Ophelia’s body. Young’s research revealed that in order to prevent too much scandal, most of the eighteenth-century Hamlets followed this practice (265). Only few visual artists decided to depict this dramatic scene, possibly because of its extremely disturbing and morbid nature; based on Young’s research, the only artist in the eighteenth century handling the scene was Henri Fuseli’s drawing made in 1774, 90 while in the nineteenth century, Retzsch’s outline engraving of the scene appeared in 1828 among the first artists dealing with the topic; in the latter century, there were more visual representations of the scene. In this popular work by him, Retzsch pictured Hamlet and Laertes fighting in the open grave, Ophelia is partially visible – a very controversial motif to capture at that

time. Another nineteenth-century artist, Delacroix, avoided this controversy of fighting upon a corpse by leaving Ophelia in a coffin beside the grave in his lithograph from 1863. Young admits it is possible that Delacroix chose to leave Ophelia in a coffin in order to make the scene less disturbing, or, perhaps, because he depicted a custom in Elizabethan England, when parishes used to lend coffins for funerals to carry the bodies in, to lift the corpse from the coffin a the graveside, and put it to the grave just in a shroud – in that case, Ophelia’s body must have been in the grave (267). As Young points out, other artists left Ophelia inside the grave in an open coffin, Laertes looking at her and lamenting, such as in an undated engraving by engraver A. C F Villerey after a design by Emanuel Opiz (267) 2.17 The Finale The next scene that seems to have attracted the attention of the artists in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries is the tragic conclusion of the play. After

the violent confrontation in the graveyard, a series of very quick events follows, which ends with a bloodbath resulting in most of the characters dead. At the opening of the second scene of the last act, Hamlet explains Horatio his reasons for his return – how suspicions led him to discover the King’s treacherous letter which demanded Hamlet executed, how he managed to change so Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were killed instead and how pirates consequently escorted him back to Denmark. They are interrupted by the arrival of Osric, the King’s messenger. The man’s arrival, together with his exaggerated courtesy and unnatural pronunciation, for example, ‘imponed’ for ‘impawned’, which was, according to Schücking, a characteristic feature of the court during Shakespeare’s life (166). This comic figure, probably a reminiscent of Polonius, quickly awakens Hamlet’s love for satire and mimicry once again, which lightens the depressive atmosphere for a short time

(Schücking 166). 91 Horatio is suspicious about this duel and senses danger; although he, as a good friend, tries to warn Hamlet to be careful, the Prince refuses to pay attention to his friend’s advice. Not long after, the time of the duel comes During the match, it seems that Hamlet’s characteristic irony in his words and his anger has left him; he compares the death of Polonius to a mere accident and asks Laertes for forgiveness in his words: Let my disclaiming from a purposed evil Free me so far in your [Laertes’] most generous thoughts That I have shot my arrow o’er the house And hurt my brother.” (Shakespeare qtd in Hibbard 345-346) Unfortunately, this expression of sincerity has no effect on Laertes who is ready to end his opponent’s life as a revenge. Young in his study lists different versions of the forty depictions of the episode he managed to identify, some of the visual representations capture Claudius, Gertrude, Laertes and other courtiers gathered for

the fencing duel, others Hamlet studying the foils and Claudius poisoning the drink for the Prince (269). The next motifs he discovered are the match, Gertrude drinking from the poisoned cup and dying, the killing of Claudius, Hamlet dying, Fortinbras’ arrival, and the final ceremony of carrying Hamlet’s body away (269). It seems that no artists were interested in depicting “the processional entry of the court”, probably as a result of absence of such processions during theatre performances, such as Irving’s production in 1878 or Charles Kemble’s and Garrick’s rendition (Young 269). Instead of this, the scene was revealed with all the courtiers already waiting for the match, directly following the previous discussion between Hamlet, Horatio, and Osric. In the eighteenth century, only a few visual representations of the scene were identified by Young; Chodowiecki’s 1779 engraving of Johann Brockmann’s theatre performance, another example is Charles Taylor’s engraving

after Robert Smirke’s design showing the death of Hamlet created in 1783 (269). Very rare are also renditions depicting specific actors – for example, George Scharf’s outline engraving of Macready, Charles Witham’s detailed wood engraving of the fencing match by Booth’s company in 1864-65 at Winter Garden Theatre; the last example of an actor depicted in this scene is Johnston Forbes Robertson (Young 270). 92 Young discovered that the most popular motives in pictorial art were the killing of Claudius and the death of Hamlet. In the play, Hamlet kills Claudius by “stabbing him with Laertes’ poisoned foil, subsequently forcing him to drink the poison” which was intended for him, nevertheless, the part with forcing the King to drink from the cup was often cut in the theatre in order to save Hamlet’s positive face (270). One of the earliest depictions of Claudius’ death is the tableau by Hodgson included in a juvenile drama set which was published between 1822-1830.

It shows the dead Queen and Laertes dying with Osric leaning over him. Laertes’ left arm is extended towards Claudius, who is being attacked by Hamlet at the centre rear. Young claims that “this scene became popular in many homes, providing an exciting and violent climax to many a toy theatre performance of the play.” (270-271) As a consequence of the shortage of earlier works depicting the end of the play and the unavailability of them, the following two examples are both from the nineteenth century. The first example is an engraving from 1868 by Frederick Wenworth after a design by Henry Courtney Selous. It is one of the illustrations for a volume of The Plays of Shakespeare edited by Ch. And M Cowden Clarke in the same year (Young 276) It depicts the deaths of Hamlet, Laertes, Claudius, and Gertrude, and the arrival of Prince Fortinbras. Selous had to arrange all the important characters into a book illustration format, which is relatively small, therefore there is a lot of

action in small space. At the centre of the engraving, Hamlet is supported dead by two soldiers, so he seems to have only fainted; his figure is the only one dressed in black, therefore it has a special prominence. To the left of the picture, the dying Laertes can be seen, dressed in dark clothes too, but not completely in black, supported by a man – it might be Osric, based on some other pictures presented by Young, which depicted Osric taking care of the dying Laertes (270). Laertes’ left arm is outstretched up as if trying to reach Horatio, or, perhaps, Hamlet; behind them, there is Gertrude lying dead on a set of stairs which lead to the dais with royal thrones. In the further background, there are four other men, running towards the open gate, in which stands Fortinbras together with his soldiers. 93 Fortinbras looks very noble, and although his face shows utter consternation, his body stands upright, making him look like a proper ruler. Fig. 26 Wenworth, Frederick The

Death of Hamlet 1868 Wood engraving Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington DC. Behind the Prince in the left part of the picture stands desperate Horatio, staring at Hamlet and gesturing with his right hand that is “lifted in consternation.” (Young 275) Behind and below the Prince’s feet, the corpse of Claudius can be seen lying with its face down; the King’s crown he took after murdering his brother is depicted beside him lying on its side, therefore it appears to be rolling on the floor. To the left of the crown, there lies Hamlet’s sword and the cup with a poisoned drink, the rest of which has spilt on the floor. The choice of swords is quite peculiar because not swords, but foils were used in the match based on the text. The gate in the right background is decorated by winding lines while the wall to the left (from the viewer’s point of view) is accompanied by two columns – the one 94 closer to the gate is square and very wide, the other one is round and thinner.

The atmosphere of the picture is very dynamic; although there are a lot of things happening at the same time, each part of the action is clearly distinguished. Everybody seems to be in movement, except for the dead characters. Overall, Selous and Wentworth managed to express strong emotions in the faces of the figures in a small book illustration format. The engraving is accompanied by Horatio’s words shortly after Hamlet dies: “Now cracks a noble heart: - good night, sweet prince; And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest!” (Shakespeare qtd. in Hibbard 352) The second example in this chapter and the last one in this paper is another design by Hawes Craven, whose other work is presented earlier in the chapter discussing the Closet scene. It is one of the designs for the published Souvenir for Forbes Robertson’ 1897 production of Hamlet at the Lyceum Theatre (Young 278). This picture shows a later moment in the scene, depicting a goodbye ceremony for the dead Prince, who is,

as Young describes it, being carried by four men on a bier “towards the rear of the stage” (278). He is dressed in black, as normally, it is thus easy to instantly recognise him He is being parted with exactly according to Fortinbras’ order to Bear Hamlet like a soldier to the stage; For he was likely, had been put on, To have proved most royally; and for his passage, The soldiers’ music and the rites of war Speak loudly for him.” (Shakespeare qtd in Hibbard 354) Fig. 27 Craven, Hawes 1897 Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington DC 95 There are even more people in this picture than in the Selous’ version; the rear of the stage is made by a wall with three large arches, behind which a large number of Fortinbras’ soldiers can be seen standing and carrying burning torches, spread across the whole background. In the right foreground, there is Laertes’ corpse utterly ignored by everyone; in the centre foreground is the kneeling Horatio. Fortinbras, in the double-pointed

helmet, stands at the right, and a woman stands beside the now empty throne. The body of Gertrude is partially masked but is close to the standing woman beside the throne. Claudius, in accord with the stage notes for the scene, dies eventually to the right of the table at right. His body, partially masked, can be seen just behind Fortinbras, a strategy that would then have permitted all the attention to be placed upon Hamlet at centre stage. (Young 278) Many of the people present kneel on the ground, others stand, but all look at the Prince as the soldiers carry him towards the rear of the stage and showing respect to him. The picture is quite dark, it probably takes place in the evening, based on the number of torches. The overall atmosphere is solemn and medieval, highlighted by the wild skin under the throne (an element commonly used on stage and consequently captured in some of the pictures – see above), as well as by the arches, stone walls and a simple table to the right of

the picture. The illustration portrays a sad, bud epic ending of the play. 96 Conclusion The aim of this master’s thesis was to study eighteenth- and nineteenth-century representations of Hamlet in pictorial art – whether the visual renditions were popular, to what extent, and which parts of the play were influential for the artists and in what way. Because Shakespeare’s popularity and the cult of bardolatry was growing to a great extent during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the focus was put on the pictorial art of these two periods. The thesis demonstrates how the play itself, together with its stage performances, influenced various artists, and how many of pictorial renditions of Hamlet of the day inspired changes in the future stage performances. The research proved that theatre was a mass entertainment in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, available for people of most social layers, Shakespeare therefore became a widely popular author. There was a

relationship among the Shakespeare’s play, its theatrical productions, and visual art. Performances played inspired many artists, and their works consequently inspired next performances in turn. It was explained that not all the paintings were inspired by the stage but that some scenes depicted were not presented physically in the theatre at all. Another confirmed fact is that almost all the important scenes were popular inspirations for painters, engravers, and others although some of them were favoured only in the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries, either partially or completely omitted in the other. Not only was the popularity of theatre performances of Hamlet growing, but also the visual representations became very attractive and many of pictorial renditions were used in various eighteenth- and nineteenth-century editions of Shakespeare’s books. As a consequence, the technologies used for reproduction of these works needed to be improved in order to keep up with the

customers’ demands. The research further revealed that most of the important scenes were commonly reworked into pictures and although some scenes were not very inspirational for the visual artists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, they were considered to be an important part of the play by literary critics because they introduce the atmosphere of the whole play. The initial scenes also introduce Hamlet’s melancholic nature and other characters to the reader or to the audience and they were very creatively represented on stage as well. 97 In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, parts of the play were commonly edited or even cut so that they were appropriate for the social or political situation of the day. The popularity of the scenes was also influenced by their representations by the leading actors on stage. When, for example, the prominent actors (such as Garrick, Kemble or Kean) chose to include a scene in their performance, it was a stimulus for multiple

pictorial renditions while when the stars cut a scene out, it usually lost its value to visual artists. Other scenes, such as the killing of Polonius or fight over Ophelia’s grave, which were believed to be controversial and sometimes received a negative acknowledgement, were retained in the play but they were quite often modified in order to fit the expectation of the critics in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries; these controversial scenes seem to have been especially appealing to the painters. The scenes known only from a description by some of the characters – namely Hamlet’s visit in Ophelia’s closet and Ophelia’s death – were also attractive motifs for visual representations because there were no limitations in terms of stage performances and the artists could have used their creativity to its full extent. Some of the artists were very active in their production of Hamlet representations (Thurston, Rossetti, Chodowiecki) and were commonly reprinted. To sum up,

the pictorial renditions of scenes from Hamlet, although their connections to the famous tragedy are not always recognised, have been inspiring for many artists since they began to be reproduced, and some of them are popular in wide society even nowadays – it was Ophelia by Millais that inspired me to write this thesis. 98 Works Cited: Primary sources: Hind, Arthur M. A History of Engraving and Etching From the 15th Century to the Year 1914. 3rd ed Dover Publications, 1963, pp 1-3 Schücking, Levin L. The Meaning of Hamlet Barnes & Noble, 1968 Shakespeare, William, HIBBARD, G. R, ed The Oxford Shakespeare: Hamlet Reissue edition. Oxford University Press, 2008 Wofford, Susanne L. a William SHAKESPEARE Hamlet: Case Studies in Contemporary Criticism. Bedford/St Martins, 1993 Young, Alan R. Hamlet and the Visual Arts, 1709-1900 University of Delaware Press, 2002. Secondary sources: “About Etchings and Engravings.” Intaglio Fine Art 2018,

wwwintaglio-fineartcom/etching-info-aboutphp Accessed 27 Februay 2018 Andrews, Malcolm. Landscape and Western Art Oxford University Press, 2000, p 120 Barker, Elizabeth E. „The Printed Image in the West: Mezzotint See works of art “ The Metropolitan Museum of Art 2003, October 2003, www.metmuseumorg/toah/hd/mztn/hd mztnhtm Accessed 9 October 2017 “Benjamin West. Ophelia” Emory College of Arts and Sciences 2017, www.englishemoryedu/classes/Shakespeare Illustrated/WestOpheliahtml Accessed 18 February 2018. Birkner, Nina. “Hamlet on the German Scene: The Contribution of Friedrich Ludwig Schröder.” Open Edition No 5, 2007, http://journalsopeneditionorg/rgi/193#ftn46 Accessed 8 March 2018. Brooker, Peter, and Widdowson, Peter. A Practical Reader in Contemporary Literar Theory. Routledge, 1997 Chapter 13 Google Books, https://books.googlecz/books?id=5nGhAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT60&lpg=PT60&dq=Broo

ker+and+Widdowson+elain+showalter&source=bl&ots=7pCC7hrK53&sig=LioutrZAtb nU b0VeqzqSvtJU9c&hl=cs&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj7rOaRturZAhWPhaYKHX9yCO AQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=elizabethan&f=false. Accessed 5 March 2018 Burnett, Mark Thornton, Adrian STREETE a Ramona WRAY. The Edinburgh Companion to Shakespeare and the Arts. Edinburgh University Press, 2011 P 425 Cohen, Robert. Shakespeare on Theatre: A Critical Look at His Theories and Practices Routledge, 2016. p 115 99 Encyclopaedia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, wwwbritannicacom Accessed 15 September 2017. Hamlet: The Complete Guide and Resource. The English Experience 2013, www.englishexperiencecoza/sample-sections/hamlet/EE-Hamlet-Samplepdf Accessed 1 March 2018. Hart, Imogen. “History Painting and Its Critics, ca 1870-1910” Nineteenth-Century Art Worldwide: A Journal of Nineteenth-Century Visual Culture. Vol 14, no 2, summer 2015, pp. 9-10,

www19thc-artworldwideorg/summer15/hart-on-history-painting-andits-critics-ca-1870-1910 Accessed 5 March 2018 “Henry Fuseli.” Britannicacom 2018 Web 25 February 2018 www.britannicacom/biography/Edwin-Booth Accessed 14 February 2018 Hoe, Hellen. “The Meaning of ‘Ophelia’ by John Everett Millais” The Culture Trip, 28 December 2016, https://theculturetrip.com/europe/unitedkingdom/england/london/articles/the-meaning-of-ophelia-by-john-everett-millais/ Accessed 4 March 2018. Hunt, Marvin W. Looking for Hamlet St Martins Press, 2007, p 165 Intaglio Fine Art. 2003-2017 wwwintaglio-fine-artcom/etching-info-aboutphp Accessed 13 February 2018. Kay, Ella. “The Order of the Elephant” The Court Jeweller, 1 January 2014, www.thecourtjewellercom/2014/01/the-order-of-elephanthtml Accesed 14 February 2018. Kerr, Michael. “Melancholic Depression: Symptoms, Treatment, Tests, and More.” Healthline, March 26, 2012, www.healthlinecom/health/depression/melancholic-depression Accessed 7

March 2018. Kleiner, John. “The Chairs Hamlet and Stage Fright” Literary Imagination, 20 November 2015, vol. 17, no 3, 2015, https://academicoupcom/litimag/articleabstract/17/3/276/2578914 Accessed 7 March 2018 “Line engraving.” Britannicacom 2018 Web 25 February 2018 “Lithography.” Britannicacom 2018 Web 25 February 2018 Marx, Peter W. Hamlet-Handbuch: Stoffe, Aneignungen, Deutungen JB Metzler, 2014, p. 470 “Mr Garrick in Hamlet.” The British Museum 2017, www.britishmuseumorg/research/collection online/collection object detailsaspx?obje ctId=1648189&partId=1&searchText=&images=&people=107698&place=&from=&fr omDate=&to=&toDate=&object=&subject=&matcult=&technique=&school=&material =&ethname=&ware=&escape=&museumno=&bibliography=&citation=&peoA=10769 8-1-9&plaA=&termA=&sortBy=&page=1. Accessed 20 February 2018 100 “Oleograph.” Britannicacom 2018 Web 25 February

2018 Pearce, Joseph. Through Shakespeares Eyes: Seeing the Catholic Presence in the Plays Ignatius Press, 2010. p161 Price, Cecil. “David Garrick and Evan Lloyd” The Review of English Studies 1 January 1952, https://academic.oupcom/res/articleabstract/III/9/28/1554589?redirectedFrom=fulltext Accessed 10 January 2018 “Printing Methods.” Steve Bartrick Antique Prints and Maps 2018, www.antiqueprintscom/Info/engravingphp Accessed 10 March 2018 Raynie, Stephan Alan. Francis Hayman: an Artist Reading British Literature in the 1740s. Dissertation, Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College , 2000, UMI Number 9984361. https://digitalcommons.lsuedu/cgi/viewcontentcgi?referer=https://wwwgooglecz/&htt psredir=1&article=8292&context=gradschool disstheses. Accessed 10 February 2018 Riggs, Terry. “Sir John Everett Millais, Bt: Ophelia 1851-2” Tate February 1998, www.tateorguk/art/artworks/millais-ophelia-n01506 Accessed 18 January 2018 Rosenberg,

Marvin. The Masks of Hamlet University of Delaware Press, 1993, pp 389390 Ruggles, Eleanor. “Edwin Booth: American Actor” Britannicacom 2018, www.britannicacom/biography/Edwin-Booth Accessed 14 February 2018 Shakespeare, William and Robert HAPGOOD, EDWARDS, Phillip, ed. Hamlet, Prince of Denmark: The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Updated edition Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 37 Shakespeare, William, Neil TAYLOR and Ann THOMPSON. Hamlet: Arden Shakespeare: Third Series). 3rd edition Arden Shakespeare, 2006, p 68 Showalter, Elaine. “Ophelia, gender, and madness” British Library 15 March 2016 www.bluk/shakespeare/articles/ophelia-gender-and-madness Accessed 9 March 2018 “Sir John Everett Millais, Ophelia. YouTube, uploaded by Smarthistoryart, 2 April 2012. wwwyoutubecom/watch?v=I2M7U8eCeHA Accessed 9 March 2018, Stabler, Jane. “Recent Studies in the Nineteenth Century” SEL Studies in English Literature 1500-1900, vol.55, no 4, 2015, pp 949

https://research-repositorystandrewsacuk/bitstream/handle/10023/8277/Stabler 2015 NineteenthC SEL FinalPub Version.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Accessed 4 March 2018 Steve Bartrick: Antique Prints & Maps. 2017 www.antiqueprintscom/Info/engravingphp Accessed 13 February 2018 “Stipple engraving.” Oxfordreferencecom 2018 Web 25 February 2018 101 Terry, Ellen. The Story of My Life: Recollections and Reflections Doubleday, Page &Co. 1908 pp wwwfullbookscom/The-Story-of-My-Life4html Accessed 28 February 2018. “The Actor and the Maker: Ellen Terry and Alice Comyns-Carr.” Victoria and Albert Museum. 2016, wwwvamacuk/content/articles/t/the-actor-and-the-maker-ellen-terryand-alice-comyns-carr/ Accessed 8 March 2018 “Thomas Lawrence (1769-1830).” Encyclopedia of Visual Artists, wwwvisual-artscorkcom/famous-artists/thomas-lawrencehtm Accessed 8 March 2018 Vickers, Brian. William Shakespeare: The Critical Heritage, Volume 3 Routledge, 1975. p 54 “wash drawing.”

Britannicacom 2018 Web 25 February 2018 Wong, Harley. “The Murder of Ophelia” Prized Writing 2015-2016, p 88, prizedwriting.ucdavisedu/sites/prizedwritingucdavisedu/files/users/mtrujil3/85PW%2 0Wong.pdf Accessed 18 January 2018 “Bible Gateway”Biblegateway, 2018. www.biblegatewaycom/passage/?search=2+Samuel+6%3A6%2C2+Samuel+6%3A7& version=NIV. Accessed 25 March 2018 Sources of the figures: Fig. 1 Wilson, Benjamin “William Powel as Hamlet Encountering the Ghost” 1768-9 The Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington DC. The Collation: Research and Exploration at the Folger, https://collation.folgeredu/2011/10/a-ghost-for-halloween/ Accessed 20 February 2018. Fig. 2 Grey-Parker “Ghost Scene in the First Act of Hamlet at Booth’s Theatre” Nineteenth century. Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington DC Luna, https://luna.folgeredu/luna/servlet/detail/FOLGERCM1~6~6~295210~122556:Ghostscene-in-the-first-act-of-Ham Accessed 20 February 2018 Fig. 3 Thompson, John “Hamlet on the

Ramparts” 1814 Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington DC. The Shakespeare Electronic Archive, http://shea.mitedu/ramparts/readingroom/art/seg4/f10049htm Accessed 20 February 2018. Fig. 4 Jellicoe, John, Railton, Herbert “Hamlet, the Haymarket Theatre, January 30, 1892, Herbert Beerbohm Tree as Hamlet, Mr. Fernandes as the Ghost” 1892 Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington DC. Luna, https://luna.folgeredu/luna/servlet/detail/FOLGERCM1~6~6~497546~135441:Hamlet,-The-Haymarket-Theatre,-Jan?qvq=q:john%2Bjellicoe&mi=27&trs=44 Accessed 20 February 2018. 102 Fig. 5 Chodowiecki, David N “Cellarage scene” 1778 Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington DC. The Shakespeare Electronic Archive, http://shea.mitedu/ramparts/readingroom/art/images/seg7/zoom/z01014jpg Accessed 20 February 2018. Fig. 6 Christy, Howard Ch 1897 Photographic reproduction of illustration by Christy Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington DC. Hamlet and the Visual Arts, 1709-1900 By Alan R. Young University

of Delaware Press, 2002 172 Print Fig. 7 Fuseli, Henry “Hamlet and Ophelia” 1775-6 The British Museum, London The British Museum Images, www.bmimagescom/resultsasp?image=01613196379&imagex=4&searchnum=0001 Accessed 20 February 2018. Fig. 8 Henschel, C Hamlet and Ophelia 1890 Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington DC. Hamlet and the Visual Arts, 1709-1900 By Alan R Young University of Delaware Press, 2002. 290 Print Fig. 9 Dighton, Robert “Hamlet in Scotland” 1794 National Portrait Gallery, London National Portrait Gallery, www.npgorguk/collections/search/portrait/mw63979/Stephen-Kemble-Hamlet-inScotland Accessed 20 February 2018 Fig. 10 Woolnoth, Thomas “Edmund Kean as Hamlet” 1818 National portrait Gallery, London. National Portrait Gallery, www.npgorguk/collections/search/portraitLarge/mw216443/Edmund-Kean-as-Hamlet Accessed 20 February 2018. Fig. 11 Chodowiecki, Daniel N “Hamlet and Ophelia” 1779 Phillips Universität Marburg, Germany. Open Edition,

http://journalsopeneditionorg/rgi/193 Accessed 20 February 2018. Fig. 12 Saunders, H Henry Irving as Hamlet 1891 Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington DC. Hamlet and the Visual Arts, 1709-1900 By Alan R Young University of Delaware Press, 2002. 184 Print Fig. 13 Chodowiecki, Daniel N “Hamlet and Ophelia” 1777 Phillips Universität Marburg, Germany. Open Edition, http://journalsopeneditionorg/rgi/193#ftn46 Accessed 20 February 2018. 103 Fig. 14 Rossetti, Dante G Hamlet and Ophelia 1858 Pen drawing with a black ink Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington DC. English Emory, http://www.englishemoryedu/classes/Shakespeare Illustrated/RossettiHamlethtml Accessed 20 February 2018. Fig. 15 Hayman, Francis 1745 “The Play Scene from Hamlet” Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington DC. Luna, https://luna.folgeredu/luna/servlet/workspace/handleMediaPlayer?lunaMediaId=FOLG ERCM1~6~6~50924~103778. Accessed 20 February 2018 Fig. 16 Abbey, Edwin A “Play Scene 1897” Yale University, New

Haven English Emory, http://www.englishemoryedu/classes/Shakespeare Illustrated/AbbeyHamlethtml Accessed 20 February 2018. Fig. 17 Retzsch, Moritz 1828 Folger Shakespeare Library Washington DC Hamlet and the Visual Arts, 1709-1900. By Alan R Young University of Delaware Press, 2002 208 Print Fig. 18 Cook, Thomas “Mr Kemble as Hamlet” 1785 Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington DC. Luna, https://luna.folgeredu/luna/servlet/detail/FOLGERCM1~6~6~324821~126350?qvq=q %3ARamberg&mi=40&trs=66. Accessed 20 February 2018 Fig. 19 Bartolozzi, Francesco Hamlet and his Mother 1776 Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington DC. Hamlet and the Visual Arts, 1709-1900 By Alan R Young University of Delaware Press, 2002. 222 Print Fig. 20 Craven, Hawes 1897 Photographic reproduction of a drawing Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington DC. Hamlet and the Visual Arts, 1709-1900 By Alan R. Young University of Delaware Press, 2002 236 Print Fig. 21 West, Benjamin “Ophelia and Laertes” 1792

Cincinnati Art Museum, Ohio Museum Syndicate, http://www.museumsyndicatecom/itemphp?item=8078 Accessed 20 February 2018. Fig. 22 Window and Grove “Ellen Terry as Ophelia in Hamlet” 1878 National Portrait Gallery, London. National Portrait Gallery, 104 https://www.npgorguk/collections/search/portrait/mw135893/Ellen-Terry-as-Opheliain-Hamlet Accessed 20 February 2018 Fig. 23 Millais, John Everett “Ophelia” 1852 Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington DC. Tate, http://wwwtateorguk/art/artworks/millais-ophelia-n01506 Accessed 20 February 2018. Fig. 24 Hughes, Arthur “Ophelia” 1852 Manchester Art Gallery, Manchester Jesse Waugh, https://www.jessewaughcom/museum-of-pulchrism-blog/2015/4/2/ophelia-byarthur-hughes-1852 Accessed 20 February 2018 Fig. 25 Hall, John “The Graveyard Scene” 1773 Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington DC. AbeBooks, https://www.abebookscom/servlet/SearchResults?cm sp=pan- -srp-

loc&curl=%2Fauthor%2Fshakespeare%2Fpublisher%2Fbell%2F&n=200000080 Accessed 20 February 2018. Fig. 26 Wenworth, Frederick “The Death of Hamlet” 1868 Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington DC, Triggs.djvu, http://triggsdjvuorg/globallanguagecom/ENFOLDED/YOUNG/indexhtml Accessed 20 February 2018 Fig. 27 Craven, Hawes A photographic reproduction 1897 Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington DC. Hamlet and the Visual Arts, 1709-1900 By Alan R Young University of Delaware Press, 2002. 278 Print 105