Dietrich, Julia. Hamlet in the 1960s: An Annotated Bibliography. Garland Shakespeare Bibliographies 18. New York: Garland, 1992.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC

This annotated bibliography of 1960's scholarship on Hamlet includes "all works dealing with the play, its influences, and its adaptations, excluding only the reviews of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern" (xxvi-xxvii). While "it would be difficult to generalize about Hamlet criticism over the decade," the Introduction surveys the major topics discussed (and the areas neglected) during this period (xi). Annotations are categorized by theme (e.g., criticism, dating, editions) and are subcategorized by year. They vary in length and depth, depending on the individual item listed.

[ top ]

Farley-Hills, David. Critical Responses to Hamlet, 1600-1900: Vol. 1: 1600-1790. Hamlet Collection 3. AMS P: New York, 1996.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC / RECEPTION THEORY

This collection of references to Hamlet includes manuscript notes, private epistolaries, literary allusions, unpublished scholarship (e.g., Ph. D. thesis), performance reviews, anonymous materials, diary entries, etc. Items are chronologically organized, and each is headed with an individual description of context and/or explanation of meaning. The volume's introduction refers to individual entries but also looks at the broad picture produced by this collage of Hamlet references. It discusses the history of criticism, which shifted from the study of the play on stage to the "neo-classical theory" of "application and adaptation of classical literary theory to contemporary conditions" (xix). This introduction charts the shifting attitudes of Hamlet audiences and of literary scholars.

[ top ]

Farley-Hills, David. Critical Responses to Hamlet, 1600-1900: Vol. 2: 1790-1838. Hamlet Collection 4. AMS P: New York, 1996.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC / RECEPTION THEORY

This volume spans a broad spectrum of sources between 1790-1838. The collage of insights and opinions from "major critics of the day" and "lesser commentators" allows the volume "to show what is characteristic of the age and, among other things, throw light on the attitudes of the audiences and readers" (xiii). Because the goal is "to show how Hamlet was received by the English-speaking public during the period in question," the selection is composed of "texts that were widely available in the nineteenth century" (ix). But the inclusion of French and German interpretations of Hamlet represent the intricacies of Shakespearean criticism becoming "truly international" (xiv). [NOTE: see detailed description of format under listing of Vol. 1]

[ top ]

Farley-Hills, David. Critical Responses to Hamlet, 1600-1900: Vol. 3: 1839-1854. Hamlet Collection 5. AMS P: New York, 1996.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC / RECEPTION THEORY

Spanning the years between 1839 and 1854, this volume is the first "in the series where foreign contributions in English outnumber the native British": "interest in Shakespeare was moving outwards from its British centre in ever widening circles" (ix). While French and American contributions are represented, German interpretations come "to be widely recognised during this period, and it is no exaggeration to say that in the second half of the nineteenth century British criticism of Shakespeare cannot be fully appreciated without taking the German influence into account" (xii). Rising conflicts over interpretations and the diversifying of critical styles also emerge during these years. [NOTE: see detailed description of format under listing of Vol. 1]

[ top ]

Mooney, Michael E., ed. Hamlet: An Annotated Bibliography of Shakespeare Studies, 1604- 1998. Asheville: Pegasus, 1999.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC

This “highly selective” bibliography includes “only work that is of high quality or of great influence” (vii). It begins with a section on principle editions and primary references to Shakespeare’s plays. The second section deals specifically with Hamlet; examples of subcategories include Criticism, Bibliographies, and Pedagogy. Annotations are “descriptive rather than evaluative” (viii), and cross-references appear at the end of each subsection (except for the unit titled Criticism).

[ top ]

Thompson, Ann and Neil Taylor. William Shakespeare: Hamlet. Writers and Their Works. Plymouth: Northcote House, 1996.

AUDIENCE RESPONSE / BIBLIOGRAPHIC / FEMINISM / NEW HISTORICISM / PERFORMANCE / RHETORICAL

This text begins with a questioning of Hamlet's status within the canon. Although other Shakespearean tragedies (e.g., King Lear) have threatened to displace Hamlet in the past, its position currently seems secure. The section titled "Which Hamlet?" discusses the Folio/Quartos debate, as well as how understanding of the play's meanings and values vary "according to the reader, the actor or the audience" (17). The third chapter examines Hamlet "as a self-contained fiction which takes history and politics as part of its subject matter" and "as a late-Elizabethan play which can be seen in relation to the history and politics of its own time" (23). The next section explores rhetoric in the play, such as how all of the characters seem to speak in the same linguistic style and how some quotes from the play "have passed into common usage," creating challenges for performers (33). The chapter on gender examines the history of female Hamlets, questions of Hamlet's sex/gender, the play's female characters, and feminism's influence on the study of this tragedy. "The Afterlife of Hamlet" discusses how editors, actors, and directors "have added to the multiplicity of Hamlets by cutting and rearranging that text" (52), how the drama has been adapted to popular mediums, and how it has been appropriated for political purposes in various countries. The conclusion foresees an optimistic future for Hamlet, and assortment of illustrations and a select bibliography round out the monograph.

[ top ]

This website is for educational purposes.
All information Copyright © 2002-2007 Harmonie Blankenship
Contact the author at h.blankenship@hamlethaven.com