KALLENDORF, HILAIRE. “Intertextual Madness in ‘Hamlet’: The Ghost’s Fragmented Performativity.” Renaissance and Reformation / Renaissance et Réforme, vol. 22, no. 4, Renaissance and Reformation / Renaissance et Réforme, 1998, pp. 69–87, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43445198.
This essay is an in-depth examination of the character Hamlet and the ghost of King Hamlet who the author believes was the reason Hamlet became mad or feigned his madness. The fact of the ghost was the cause of Hamlet's madness can support my thesis because he could have been faking his madness as a distraction from the fact that he knew his uncle killed the king. It takes into account some very abstract ways of looking into Hamlet's madness. It’s reliable because it was written by professionals in the renaissance era.
“No man is lord ouer a spirit, to reteine a spirit at his pleasure.” (Kollendorf, 72)
Snider, D. J. “HAMLET.” The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, vol. 7, no. 1, Penn State University Press, 1873, pp. 71–87, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25665823.
This essay covers whether Hamlet’s madness was real or feigned, this idea of Hamlet’s madness being real or feigned relates directly into my thesis. My thesis is that his madness was feigned as a distraction until his madness became real through the mad habits that he developed over time. I know that it’s a reliable source because it was published by Penn State University.
“Spirits of this and former generations finding spiritual nourishment in the capricious oddities of a madman!” (Snider, 73)
Hamada, Shihoko. “Kôjin and Hamlet: The Madness of Hamlet, Ophelia, and Ichirô.” Comparative Literature Studies, vol. 33, no. 1, Penn State University Press, 1996, pp. 59–68, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40247038.
This essay compares two different plays, Hamlet and Kojin. The part about Kojin is practically useless to me but on the Hamlet side of things, it gives a very unique perspective as to why Ophelia went mad as well. This relates back to my thesis because if I know what exactly drove Ophelia mad then I have another reason for why he may have faked it. I know that the source is reliable because it was published by Penn State University.
“The combination of extreme grief and madness is an essential design for the character of Hamlet” (Hamada, 62)
Davis, Tenney L. “The Sanity of Hamlet.” The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 18, no. 23, Journal of Philosophy, Inc., 1921, pp. 629–34, https://doi.org/10.2307/2939352.
This essay heavily debated whether or not Hamlet’s madness was real or feigned, it debates the reasoning and the philosophy of his madness. This heavily relates to my thesis as it is trying to end the debate of whether Hamlet’s madness was real or feigned and I believe that his madness started out as feigned and became real over time. I know it’s reliable because it was published by the Journal of Philosophy.
“The questions of madness in hamlet, whether it was real or feigned” (davis, 629)
Stephenson, Henry Thew. “The ‘Spanish Tragedy’ and ‘Hamlet.’” The Sewanee Review, vol. 14, no. 3, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1906, pp. 294–98, http://www.jstor.org/stable/27530776.
This essay talks through the whole but what I found most interesting is it’s take on the Mousetrap play that Hamlet put on to figure out if his uncle was guilty or not. This relates back to my thesis because it shows one of Hamlet’s madest endeavors that actually does something, it also refers to during the play when Hamlet is essentially toying with Ophelia and his mothers emotions. I know this source is reliable because the publisher has published a multitude of papers on Shakespeare.
“Hamlet is spurred back to activity from the fit of despondency following the “moustraps” by the accidental sight of a company of fortinbras soldiers who remind him of his own unfinished debt of revenge.” (Stephenson, 297)
Comentários