Hamlet [Vol. 1.] by Ann Thompson and Neil Taylor, and: Hamlet: The Texts of 1603 and 1623 [Vol. 2.] by Ann Thompson and Neil Taylor (review)

Abstract

YES, 38.I & 2, 2008 279 Stepping herway throughdance forms that may have been used forantimasques, for royal and aristocratic main masquers, and for social dances used in the revels that followed, she emphasizes the strong influence of Queen Anne and Queen Henrietta Maria, the latter importing French styles of dance to enhance native traditions. Discussing costume, she draws on Henrietta Maria's household accounts, demonstrat inga complex industryof preparation, maintenance and storage. She identifies'discreet cost-saving, which interfered as little as possible with the ostentation of luxury in performance' (p. I56). Some garmentsmight be recycled,but theQueen stipulated that masque costumes she had used were exclusively royal and should not be subsequently 'prostitutedupon anyMercenary stage' (p. I65). There are case studies of twoJonsonian masques (TheMasque of Queensand Oberon), one Carolingean (Coelum Britannium), and a record of an English wedding masque devised by Robert Bargrave, 'LevantMerchant' in Constantinople in i650. She shows how evidence of dancing, with itsaccompanying music, and of colourful costume, topped off withmask ormake-up and enhanced by lighting,can present amore vivid, albeit blurred, image of the theatrical impact and cultural significanceof theearly Stuartmasque than either InigoJones's designs,which were intended asworking drawings forscene painters and costume makers, or textual records intended, particularly inBen Jonson's case, to celebrate theprintedword asmuch as the event itcommemorated. Framing her studywith an account by a foreignvisitor of a Stuart masque and with themasque devised in Turkey,Ravelhofer creates a Verfrerndungseffekt inwhich we re evaluate how dimly-litmoving figures, obscure texts, arcane symbolism, creaking scenery, and backstage interference combine to create multimedia pieces, uniquely reflectingthe sometimes glorious, sometimes tottering,state of the early Stuarts. Occasionally, Ravelhofer's enthusiasm forcontextual exploration leads her intoeccen tricity, aswhen she explores the relevance of theambigram to InigoJones's experiments with perspective (p. 96). Once, her scholarship leads her to condemn as 'amateur and historicallyuninformed' (p. 7) amodern adaptation of historical dance (in the filmEliz abeth)inwhich thedance consultant, drawing freelyon authentic sources to realize the director's interpretation,actually showed an unpedantic theatricalprofessionalism that perhaps had itsroots in theStuart masque. Ravelhofer claims her work as 'a tribute to early studies by Allardyce Nicoll, Enid Welfor and Lily Campbell' (p.268). It isaworthy tribute,restoringemphasis to the 'living spectacle' (p. 269) of the early Stuart masque through robust evaluation of a dazzling array of familiar and unfamiliarmaterial. GUILDHALL SCHOOL OFMUSIC & DRAMA, LoDmON DIANA DEVLIN Hamlet. Ed. by ANN THOMPSON and NEIL TAYLOR. [Vol. i.]Arden Shakespeare: Third Series. 3rd edition. London: Arden Shakespeare. 2006. xxii + 6I3 pp. ?8.99. ISBN: 978-1-904271-33-8. Hamlet: The Textsof I603 and i623. Ed. byANN THOMPSON and NEIL TAYLOR. [Vol. 2.] London: Arden Shakespeare. 2007. xvi + 368 pp. ?I2.99. ISBN: 978-1-90427I-80-2. Editors of Shakespeare are oftenJekylland Hyde figures; they may talkat lengthabout the rational principles thatunderlie theirprocedures in their introductions, but their 280 Reviews practice ischaracterized by deeply subjective, literaryjudgements. Ann Thompson and Neil Taylor's edition has no such darker side; itsgreat achievement is topresent three texts,consistently and conservatively edited. Essentially, Thompson and Taylor deliver the texts that the arguments in favourof Shakespeare as reviser,and so against confla tion,demand. On those terms, their twovolumes provide themost accurate editions of theQi, Q2, and Folio texts(the firstand last in the second volume). Such consistent and conservative editorial practice produces quite radical effects:the Q2 Prince Hamlet now addresses his "'Seems", madam' speech tohis 'coldmother' and not his 'good mother'(I. 2. 77); while the Folio prince, apologizing to Laertes in the fencing scene, talksof shooting his arrow over thehouse and hurting his 'mother' and not his 'brother' (v. 2. I9I). Some will relish the changes; some, who have previously argued against conflated texts,may, I suspect, want to reconsider their positions. Thompson and Taylor have catered for such second thoughts; they lay out neatly the arguments fora conflated text. (Indeed, the thoroughness and intellectualmodesty with which theysurvey thevarious editorial arguments todate isremarkable.)Might theynot have provided such a conflated edition? As theypoint out, theyhad no need: Harold Jenkins's edition, itseems,might be considered the thirdvolume of theArden Hamlet. In the real world of the undergraduate market, almost no...