an experiment in memorial reconstruction

An Experiment in Memorial ReconstructionAuthor(s): Betty ShapinSource: The Modern Language Review, Vol. 39, No. 1 (Jan., 1944), pp. 9-17Published by: Modern Humanities Research AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3716453 .

Accessed: 25/06/2014 07:19

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Modern Humanities Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend accessto The Modern Language Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.37 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:19:41 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mhra

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3716453?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


AN EXPERIMENT IN MEMORIAL RECONSTRUCTION

Of all the hypotheses advanced to account for the puzzling condition of the first Quarto of Hamlet and to explain its relationship to the authentic Shakespearian texts which followed it, perhaps the most acceptable on the score of cautious, detailed analysis which leaves as little as possible to undocumented assumption, is that of Dr George Ian Duthie in his recent book The 'Bad' Quarto of 'Hamlet'.' He says that the Q, text post-dates the authentic Shakespearian texts published later; that practically the whole content of it is dependent upon the full Shake- spearian text of Q2 or a stage version of it; and that it is a memorial reconstruction made by an actor who had the part of Marcellus, and who was able to write acceptable blank verse of his own when his memory failed him.

Therefore, in his treatment of the corrupted text of the Hamlet Q,, Dr Dutllie ascribes most of its variations from the authentic version to the faulty operation of the reporter's memory, and by detailed analysis demonstrates that almost all the blank verse peculiar to Q, consists 'of various fragments gathered together from widely separated source-passages and woven into a complex metrical whole'.2

But a question intrudes itself here. When an actor with a small part is attempting a memorial reconstruction of a play in which he has appeared, does his memory work in the fashion postulated by Dr Duthie ?

It was in an attempt to answer this question that I lundertook the experiment which is the subject of this article.

In October, the Columbia University Theatre Associates presented a play by Court Chamberlain, entitled Witch Hunt; a play which has not been published so that the cast had access only to their own manuscript 'sides'.3 With the assistance of Miss Lillian Pierson, who had the small part of Sarah, a maidservant, I made a memorial reconstruction of three sections of the play.

The result demonstrates that the types of variant between the authentic text and the reconstructed version of WVitch Hunt are identical with the variants found in the full and 'debased' versions of Hamlet. These variants include the omission of a short intervening line and the running together of speeches originally separated; the anticipation of a word or line and its omission from its rightful place; the transposition of clauses in a sentence; the assigning of lines to the wrong characters, and others which will be considered in detail as they appear.

Here are the parallel texts of the first reconstructed fragment:4

Qt Authentic text

Burroughs. All gone, boy? Fetch t'otller. Burroughs. All gone, boy? Nathaniel. Aye Bur. Fetch t'other barrel. I'll lielp.

Nath. It's all gone. There be no miore Nath. 'Tis the last of the peary. It was peary. 'Twas a bad year for peals. a bad year for pears.

Nafth. No. You do know that Mistress Nath. Mistress do not allow that, Morton says that the drink that you end Goodman Burroughs. The drink what you with lust be the same as the drink that end on must be same as what you begin you begin with. on.

1 George Ian Duthie, The 'Bad' Qtarto of of Columbia University, for the loan of the 'Hafmlet', Cambridge University Press, 1941. manuscript book of the play. 2 Duthie, op. cit. p. 95. 4 For the sake of convenient reference, I shall

3 I am indebted to the kindness of Associate call the memorial reconstruction of WVitch Hunt Professor Milton Smith of the Speech Department quarto one (Q1).



An Experiment in Memorial Reconstruction

Q1 Bur. The peary be weak like water and

the cider be no better.

Nath. Mistress Morton! Mistress Mor- ton! (exit)

Bur. Be I to sit with an empty tankard? I be an Englishman, I be. (exit) (enter Nath. followed by Elizabeth Morton)

Eliz. What is't, Nathaniel? Nath. It be that Goodman Burroughs

again. He did finish off the peary and now is drinking cider.

Eliz. Tell him I would speak with him. (enter Burroughs)

Eliz. Goodman Burroughs, that cider is the strongest in Massachusetts. You know if you do get drtmk I do lose my license. That drink will cost you twice its usual cost and it is your last drink at the Golden Lioness today.

Bur. I am not drunk.

Authentic text Bur. And be I to sit with empty

tankard? The peary is weak like water. The cider do be no better.

Nath. Mistress Morton ! (exit Nath.)

Bur. And be I to sit with empty tankard! I be an Englishman, I be. (exit) [detailed stage direction to same effect]

Eliz. What is't, Nathaniel? Nath. That Goodman Burroughs! He

have finished off the peary, and now he do be drinking cider!

Eliz. Tell him I would speak with him. Bur. (entering) Here I be mistress. Eliz. Goodman, that cider is the most

powerful in Massachusetts. 'Tis your last drink here today in the Golden Lioness, and it will cost you four times its usual price.

Bur. But mistress.... Eliz. If you do leave here drunk, I lose

my license. Bur. I ben't drunk..

In the first two lines of Q1 here, the reporter has omitted Nathaniel's short intervening line, so that Burrough's originally separated lines are run together as one speech. There are several examples of this type of memorial error in Hamlet Q1. Consider the following parallel texts from Q1 and the authentic Hamlet:1

vii, 8-14 Cor. Now my good Lord, do you know

me? Ham. Yea very well, y'are a fishmonger

Cor. Not I my Lord Ham. Then sir, I would you were so

honest a man For to be honest, as this age goes Is one man to be pickt out of tenne

thousand

ix, 79-81 Queene. Hamlet come sit downe by me,

Ham. No by my faith mother, heere's a mettle more attractiue: Lady will you giue me leaue, and so forth :2 To lay my head in your lappe?

1 In the close word for word comparison which was necessary for this paper, I found it most convenient to use the scene and line numbering of the reprint of Q, in vol. ix of the old Cam- bridge Shakespeare (ed. William Aldis Wright, London, 1893) and the act, scene and line numbering of the authentic Hamlet text in vol. vII of the same edition. All references to scene and line only are to Q.

2 The phrase 'and so forth' is puzzling here.

II, ii, 173-8 Pol. Do you know me, my lord?

Ham. Excellent well; you are a fishmonger.

Pol. Not I, my lord. Ham. Then I would you were so

honest a man. Pol. Honest, my lord! Ham. Ay, sir; to be honest, as this

world goes, is to be one man picked out of ten thousand.

III, ii, 105-8 Queen. Come hither, my dear Hamlet,

sit by me Ham. No, good mother, here's metal

more attractive. Pol. O, ho! do you mark that? Ham. Lady, shall I lie in your lap ?

Although it does occur elsewhere in Shakespeare, in these other cases it is either an addition to an itemized list (Twelfth Night, I, v, 228-32; in, iv, 64-70; 2 Henry IV, v, iii, 1-3; Hamlet, ii, i, 55-62), a substitution for an indecent word (Winter's Tale, I, ii, 218) or the conclusion of an unfinished quotation (Love's Labour's Lost, Iv, ii, 89). Here it would seem to be just another indication of the memorial nature of Q1.

10



BETTY SHAPIN

Q1 xi, 134-6

King. Now sonne Hamlet, where is this dead body?

Ham. At supper, not where he is eating, but where he is eaten...

Authentic text iv, iii, 17-20

King. Now, Hamlet, where's Polonius ?

Ham. At supper. King. At supper! where? Ham. Not where he eats, but where he

is eaten :

In Nathaniel's first line in Q1 the first phrase does not belong to him at all. This confusion as to who spoke a remembered line or phrase can be found in Hamlet Q1:

iv, 1-2 i, iv, 1-3 Ham. The ayre bites shrewd; it is an Ham. The air bites shrewdly; it is very

eager and An nipping winde, what houre . cold. i'st? Hor. It is a nipping and an eager air.

Ham. What hour now?

Other examples are the Queen's lines in v, i, 278-82 which in Q1 xvi, 160-3 are

spoke mistakenly by the King; Marcellus's line in i, v, 115, which is allocated to Horatio in iv, 154; another of the Queen's lines n, ii, 168, which is again given to the King in vi, 111; and finally in II, ii, 259, 264, Ophelia's line 'The King rises!' which is incorrectly added to Polonius's 'Lights, lights, lights !' at the corresponding point in Ql, producing the line at ix, 175, 'Cor. The king rises, lights hoe'.

The next error in Witch Hunt Q1 occurs in Nathaniel's next speech, where the

reporter substitutes a familiar preposition 'begin with' for the somewhat unusual

'begin on'. There is an interesting example of this type of error in the two Hamlet texts:

ii, 44-5

King. It is a fault against heauen, fault against the dead,

A fault against nature....

i, ii, 101-2 King. Fie! 'tis a fault to heaven,

A fault against the dead, a fault to nature....

In Burroughs's retort to Nathaniel's reminder, the reporter has omitted, in Q1, the first phrase which, it should be noticed, is repeated verbatim in his next

speech. This omission of one incidence of a repeated line can be found in Hamlet Q1:

i, 7-10 Hor. Friends to this ground Mlar. And leegemen to the Dane,

0 farewell honest souldier, who hath re- leeued you!

1. (Fran.). Barnarda hath my place, giue you good night.

I, i, 15-17 Hor. Friends to this ground Mar. And liegemen to the Dane Fran. Give you good night. Mar. 0, farewell, honest soldier:

Who hath relieved you? Fran. Barnardo hath my place.

Give you goodnight.2

The next error occurs in Elizabeth's rebuke to Burroughs. The line, 'If you do leave here drunk, I lose my license', is misplaced in Q1. It belongs a line or two further down. This anticipation of a line is a frequent occurrence in the 'bad' text of Hamlet and, combined with the peculiar difficulties attendant upon the shorthand

1 See,also xi, 62-5 and in, iv, 103-6; xvi, 128 and v, i, 217-19. 2 See also II, iv, 88, 94 and xi, 47, 50; v, i, 194, 196 and xvi, 115, 117.

11



An Experiment in Memorial Reconstruction

system in use at the time,' effectively reporting:

Q, v, 12-14

Mon. (Reyn.) My lord, that will im- peach his reputation.

Cor. (Pol.) I faith not a whit, no not a whit,

Now happely hee closeth with you in the consequence....

vi, 162-4 Ham. I neuer loued you. Ofel. You made me beleeue you did

Ham. 0 thou shouldst not a beleeued me!

disposes of the stenographic theory of

Authentic text II, i, 27-30

Rey. My lord, that would dishonour him.

Pol. Faith no; as you may season it in the charge

You must not put another scandal on him, That he is open to incontinency....

II, i, 43-5 Pol. Having ever seen in the pre-

nominate crimes The youth you breathe of guilty, be

assured He closes with you in this consequence;

II, i, 115-20 Ham. ... I did love you once. Oph. Indeed, my lord, you made me

believe so. Ham. You should not have believed

me; for virtue cannot so inoculate our old stock but we shall relish of it: I loved you not.

Oph. I was the more deceived.2

To return to Witch Hunt, Elizabeth's rebuke to Burroughs contains in its last sentence an interesting error in the transposition of the clauses composing it. Now consider the following from the Hamlet texts:

iv, 65 Ham. Ile go no farther, whither wilt

thou leade me?

vi, 19-20 Cor. My Lord, the Ambassadors are

ioyfully Return'd from Norway.

ix, 205 Ham. You would seeme to know my

stops, you would play vpon mee...

I, V, 1

Ham. Whither wilt thou lead me? speak; I'll go no further.

II, ii, 40-1

Pol. The ambassadors from Norway, my good lord,

Are joyfully return'd.

ir, ii, 355

Ham. You would play upon me; you would seem to know my stops;

In that same sentence of Elizabeth's, the reporter has made another mistake. Whereas the authentic text has 'four times' Witch Hunt Q1 has 'twice'. This numerical error is common in Hamlet Ql:

ix, 100 Duke. Full fortie yeares are past, their

date is gone.

III, ii, 150

P. King. Full thirty times hath Phoebus' cart gone round

1 G. I. Duthie, op. cit. pp. 12-26. 2 See also v, 57 which should correspond to Ir, i, 107 but which is actually inserted after the

line corresponding to n, i, 84.

12



BETTY SHAPIN

Q1 xvi, 72-3

Ham. ... by the Lord Horatio, This seauen yeares haue I noted it....

xvi, 107 Ham. ....he hath caried mee twenty

times vpon his backe,

Authentic text v, i, 134-5

Ham. By the Lord, Horatio, this three years I have taken note of it;

v, i, 181 Ham. ... he hath borne me on his back

a thousand times;

The second reconstructed fragment repeats many of the errors found in the first, and so I shall quote here only that part of it which introduces a new type of memorial mistake, the anticipation of a whole section of dialogue:

Eliza. Come now, the book Charles. 'Tis a book I have especially

kept from you. 'Tis by one Shakespeare. Eliza. Shakespeare! In London I did

see a play by him. 'Twas called Macbeth. A terrible tragedy and yet I did enjoy it

Charles. Well, this be poetry. Does that please you?

Eliza. Should I say I prefer a sermon? Char. Then indeed Mr. Williams' visit

had a strange effect on you. Did you hear this in London? When in disgrace with fortune and men's

eyes I all alone beweep my outcast state

Eliza. The book. What is it? Charles. 'Tis a book I've been keeping

from you. Eliza. Cruel! What is it?

Charles. Poetry. Does that please you?

Eliza. Should I say I prefer a sermon? Char. Then Mr Williams' visit had a

strange effect. Why did he come? Eliza. That story can wait. You tor-

ment me about the book. Charles. This poetry is by one Shake-

speare. Eliza. Shakespeare. In London I once

saw a play by him. Macbeth. A dreadful tragedy, and yet I did enjoy it.

Charles. Did you hear this in London? When in disgrace... etc.

This misplacing of a whole section of dialogue can be found in very many places in Hamlet QI:

III, iv, 156-8 Queen. 0 Hamlet, thou has cleft my heart in twain. Ham. O, throw away the worser part of it,

And live the purer with the other half.

In Q1 these lines appear at xi, 59-61, some fifty lines earlier in the scene, and before the entrance of the Ghost, instead of after it, as in the authentic texts. Then again, the dialogue at III, ii, 328-32:

Ros. Good my lord, what is your cause of distemper?... Ham. Sir, I lack advancement. Ros. How can that be....

occurs in Q1 at vii, 53-6, which approximates II, ii, 291 in the full version.2 The third reconstructed fragment is a long one, so I shall deal with it in sections,

omitting as far as possible those parts which contain only errors which have already been dealt with:

1 See also xvi, 151 and v, i, 263. 363 ff.; and III, v, 185-95, which is at xiii, 30-40 2 See also iv, ii, 12-20 which, occurring at or Iv, v, 39 if.; and then iv, vii, 25-6, which is

ix, 211-21, is in that situation actually at in, ii, put at xiii, 114-15 or iv, v, 197-8.

13



14 An Experiment in A

Q1 Will. I have finished with this Sar. Aye, sir. Will. I wish to rehearse my sermon.

I do not wish to be disturbed, unless I am needed upstairs. Can Mistress Williams have anything to eat?

Sar. The midwife don't want her to eat sir.

Will. I see. Sar. What when Mr. Moody come from

Boston, sir? Will. Show him into the study at once. Sar. Aye, sir. (exit)

(Prudence knocks) Will. Who's there? Pru. 'Tis only me, sir. You did say I

might listen again to your sermon.

lemorial Reconstruction

Authentic text Will. I have finished with this. Sar. Aye, sir. Will. I wish to work on my sermon.

Let no one disturb me. Unless I am needed upstairs.

Sar. Aye, sir. Will. Could Mistress Williams eat

anything? Sar. The midwife don't want her to

eat, sir. Will. I see. Sar. What when Mr. Moody arrive from

Boston, sir? Will. Call me at once. Sar. Aye, sir. (exit)

(Prudence knocks) Will. Who's there? Pru. 'Tis only me, sir. You did say

that again this Friday I might hear you rehearse your sermon.

The word rehearse, placed in the first line of Williams's second speech in Q,, does not belong there at all. It is an anticipation of the word which belongs rightfully in Prudence's last speech, from where it is omitted in the reconstructed version. Hamlet Q1 has some interesting examples of this anticipation of a word and its omission from its proper place.

ix, 1 Ham. Pronounce me this speech trip-

pingly a the tongue as I taught thee,

III, ii, 1 Ham. Speak the speech, I pray you, as

I pronounced it to you, trippingly on the tongue:

And in in, ii, 578-9, Hamlet says:

Why, what an ass am I! This is most brave, That I, the sone of a dear father murder'd....

The word ass is missing from the corresponding place in Q1, being anticipated at vii, 217, which corresponds to n, ii, 562:

Yet I like to an asse and Iohn a Dreames....

And there are still further examples:

iv, 103-4 Ghost. 0 wicked will, and gifts! that

haue the power So to seduce my most seeming vertuous

Queene,

iii, 54 Cor. So well as befits my honor, and

your credite.

I, v, 44-6 Ghost. O wicked wit and gifts, that

have the power So to seduce !-won to his shameful lust The will of my most seeming-virtuous

queen: I, iii, 97

Pol. As it behoves my daughter and your honour.1

The last reconstructed fragment, while unavoidably containing some errors that have been commented upon before, presents two additional mistakes.

1 See also i, 1 and I, i, 14; ix, 74, 78 and m, ii, 99, 103.



BETTY SHAPIN

Q1 Eliz. Know you not the dullness that

lies ahead for these men on the long winter nights? They have nothing to do but drink.

Will. That time might be better spent (like me) on their knees in prayer.

Eliz. They are simple men whose sins are confessed in a moment.

Will. Do you imply, madam, that mine take hours to confess?

Authentic text Eliz. Know you not what these long

cold months mean to common menl? They have naught but drink and worse amusements to turn to.

Will. After billiards and bowls, you will ask next for dancing. The dancer, madam, breaks all tile ten commnand- ments of God.

Eliz. I'll not ask for dancing, Mr. Williams. Only the games.

Will. My answer must be no. Eliz. Don't answer at once. Consider

it. Remember that a bear may lie in a hole through the winter, with food for neither mind nor body, but men are different.

WIill. Assuredly men are different. That time you would hlave theml spend in gaming, they had better spend upon their knees.

Eliz. They'll never do tliat. WIill. I find no more profitable way of

spending my time. Eliz. But they are simple men, whose

simple sins are confessed in a moment. Will. Do you mean that my sins take

me llours to confess?

Elizabeth's first sentence here presents an error of the type dealt with by Dr Duthie in his treatment of the blank verse peculiar to Q1; that is, it consists of fragments imperfectly remembered from widely separated sections of the full text and woven into an intelligible whole. The words lies and winter are remembered from Elizabeth's later speech (omitted altogether in the reconstructed version):

Remember that a bear may lie in a hole through the winter, with food for neither mind nor body....

and also perhaps from a much earlier scene between Elizabeth and Williams, where Williams says:

For though snakes lie idle all winter in their holes, yet the old serpent is as busy as ever.

The last error to be dealt with arises from a revision made by my reporter when an inconsistency indicated that something had been left out. It occurs in Williams's line:

That time might be better spent like me on their knees in prayer.

This line was originally remembered as follows:

That time might be better spent on their knees in prayer.

But the next lines:

Eliz. They are simple men whose sins are confessed in a moment. Will. Do you imply, madam, that mine take hours to confess?

troubled my reporter, because although she was absolutely sure of them (and they are the only ones in this section which are accurate), she realized that they did

15



16 An Experiment in Memorial Reconstruction

not follow naturally and logically what had gone before. She therefore inserted the words 'like me' in a suitable place in the preceding line, producing:

That time might be better spent like me on their knees in prayer.

Now this is an awkward, ungrammatical and loosely expressed line, not at all

typical of the measured, somewhat pedantic utterances of Mr Williams, and bears

quite clearly the marks of a disjointing revision. Now consider these passages from the two Hamlet texts:

Q1 xi, 138-146

Ham. Father, your fatte King, and your leane Beggar

Are but variable seruices, two dishes to one messe:

Looke you, a man may fish with that worme

That hath eaten of a King, And a Beggar eate that fish, WThich that worme hath caught.

King. What of this? Ham. Nothing father, but to tell you,

how a King May go a progresse through the guttes of

a Beggar.

The lines:

Authentic text

Iv, iii, 23-31 Ham. ...your fat king and your lean

beggar is but variable service, two dishes, but to one table: that's the end.

King. Alas, alas! Ham. A man may fish with the worm

that hath eat of a king, and eat of the fish that hath fed of that worm.

King. What dost thou mean by this? Ham. Nothing but to show you how a

king may go a progress through the guts of a beggar.

And a Beggar eate that fish Which that worme hath caught

are the only two lines here which differ materially in Q1 from the authentic text.

They are awkward, jerky, pedestrian lines, constituting a distinct break in the

rhythm of that speech. It is evident that the reporter, coming to the phrase

through the guttes of a Beggar,

realized that the 'Beggar' had not been previously mentioned, and therefore returned to Hamlet's preceding speech and inserted the word 'Beggar' in what seemed the most appropriate place.

The same thing occurs in xi of Q1, which, in the imperfect text, follows im-

mediately upon the Closet Scene. This corresponds to iv, iii in the authentic text

(which is, however, separated from the Closet Scene by Iv, ii), which takes place not, as in Q1, in the Queen's bedroom, but in a hall of the castle. In this scene, in both texts, the lines occur:

Ham. Farewell, dear mother. King. Thy loving father, Hamlet. Ham. My mother: father and mother is man and wife; man and wife is one flesh,

and so, my mother.'

At the end of this scene in both texts the King utters a soliloquy in which he reveals to the audience his plot against Hamlet's life. Obviously, this speech would not be spoken in the Queen's presence. Here the reporter is faced with a double confusion. Having omitted the intervening scene (iv, ii) between Hamlet and the

1 That is, the content, which is all that is important here, is the same. The actual wording differs slightly. See Q1, xi, 161-5.



BETTY SHAPIN 17

two courtiers, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, which removes the action from the Queen's bedroom to another part of the castle, the reporter runs Iv, i and rv, iii together in Q1 xi, the whole scene mistakenly taking place in the Queen's room, without removing her from the stage. The error is accentuated, or even possibly caused, by a misunderstanding of Hamlet's subtly derisive farewell quoted above, which Shakespeare addressed to the King, but which the reporter evidently thought was spoken to the Queen. He therefore finds it necessary to get rid of the Queen somehow before the King's soliloquy, and so at xi, 166 we have the King's line:

Gertred, leaue me,

which does not appear at all in the authentic text, and which, abrupt, uncivil, and distinctly different from the King's usual courtesy to his wife, is strikingly out of place just before the measured lines which follow it.1

There is necessarily some difference involved in the reconstruction of a play like Witch Hunt and the memorial reconstruction of Hamlet. For one thing, Hamlet is mostly in blank verse. It might be interesting to notice here that Witch Hunt has a species of substitute for the blank verse of Hamlet in its distinct seventeenth- century verbal idiom, which probably presented almost as much difficulty to my reporter's memory as did the blank verse of Hamlet to its reporter. It can be seen throughout the quoted parallel texts of both plays, that the effort involved led my reporter to cast her sentences in the old idiom when they were actually modern in construction in the authentic text, and that probably a similar effort was responsible for the fact that parts of Q1 are written as verse which appear as prose in the authentic version.

There is also the fact that in any non-professional performance the actor is too much concerned about his own cues and lines to pay much attention to what the other characters are saying, and so the level of reporting while Sarah is on the stage is no better than when she is not, whereas the professional actor who took the part of Marcellus was most likely troubled by no such preoccupation. The level of the reporting while Marcellus is on the stage is very much higher than at any other time.2

Otherwise, I think it is interesting to find that the types of variant in the imperfect and authentic texts of Hamlet, attributed by Dr Duthie to the faulty memory of a hypothetical reporter making a deduced memorial reconstruction, are identical with the variants in the imperfect and authentic texts of Witch Hunt, which are known to be due to the faulty memory of an actual reporter making a deliberate memorial reconstruction.

BETTY SHAPIr NEW YORx

1 For other indications of revision in Hamlet suggest that in spite of all the differences between QI, see Duthie, op. cit. pp. 150-64. The instances Hamlet and Witch Hunt, the memorial recon- I have cited are not mentioned by Dr Duthie. struction of the latter play is more valid as an

2 Professor 0. J. Campbell of the Graduate experiment than would be an attempt to re- English Faculty of Columbia University, for construct Hamlet to-day, because of the fact that whose advice and encouragement I can never be the printed text of Hamlet is so widely known. sufficiently grateful, has been kind enough to



an experiment in memorial reconstruction

Documents