Looking for Hamlet (review)

In his introduction, Marvin W. Hunt cites Harry Levin's pronouncement that the sheer volume of Hamletiana releases scholars from " 'the obligation to be definitive,' " as well as from " 'the endeavor to be wholly original' " (10). This new book, described as a narrative of the traditions of Hamlet reception in Anglo-American and European traditions, is neither definitive nor wholly original. However, Hunt has gathered together a selective array of scholarship in an accessible format. It is composed in a way that brings several issues of significant scholarly concern to the attention of a literate reading public. It is, as the author concedes, "a narrative, not the narrative" (11).

Beyond its title, there are early indications that this book has been designed for a diverse audience, as when Hunt offers an act-by-act summary of Hamlet for those who "haven't read it recently" (4). This user-friendly opening mutes the book's theoretical concerns by intimating, perhaps strategically, that the establishment of personal rapport with the reader is a principal concern. Walking readers through his summary of the plot, which he confesses is not easy to follow, given the play's "prolix nature" (4), Hunt dismisses the complexity in Claudius's interruption of the Mousetrap play by claiming that it "unequivocally indicates his guilt" (6). Such a remark is not inconsequential, particularly for readers familiar with the controversies over this scene. Furthermore, Hunt's occasional colloquialism creates the impression that he disdains formality for plain talk. For example, he refers to Nashe's remark about "tragical speeches" in the Ur-Hamlet as " junk speeches" (42), and he describes Hamlet's association of human conception with putrefaction (2.2.181–82)¹ as a linking of "fecundity with the smell of ripe road kill" (184). Some will undoubtedly find Hunt's simplifications and diction off-putting; however, his love for the play and his commitment to bring new and disaffected readers to a fresh appreciation of Hamlet and Hamlet are rarely in doubt.

Hunt's style is disarmingly self-conscious: for example, before explaining one of Lacan's theories, he confesses that he is "not up to the task" (183). Candor like this colors his investigations, and sensitivity is unmistakable in his personal musings. Anecdotes that at first seem digressive (for example, the story of the request by Laurence Shirley, fourth Earl Ferrers, to have Hamlet read to him on the night before his 1760 execution) or merely sentimental (the account of a Duke football player killed in an automobile accident) turn out to be both poignant and pertinent to the author's insistence that "our own place in time figures deeply in what we find when we look for Hamlet" (204).

The opening chapter surveys the prehistory of Shakespeare's Hamlet. Hunt's summaries of Saxo's history and Belleforest's adaptation are rich in detail and attentive to implications for Shakespeare's play. He also surveys speculations concerning the Ur-Hamlet, as well as departures from Hamlet in Der bestrafte Brudermord, in an effort to discover Shakespeare's originality. By the end of this chapter, he posits 5.1 as the most original scene in Hamlet and points to the meditation on Yorick's skull as the locus for his book's focus on interiority. In the end, Hunt will claim that the search for Hamlet has always been personal, "a search . . . for some idealized version of the self " (204).

The second chapter addresses the play's three earliest editions. Hunt makes clear the relative independence of these editions, noting that modern composite editions do not represent a version of the play ever produced in Shakespeare's time. This may be news to the general reader, although not to the scholar. In his consideration of the major textual variants, Hunt supports a "theory of Q1 as a version of a staged Hamlet" (39) and Q2 as a version "addressed to readers as opposed to playgoers" (59), and he credits F1 with deepening Hamlet's interiority and foregrounding...