Introduction

Shakespeare is indeed the poet of nature. He knows the “deep psychology”

of humanity. In his vision, as shown in Hamlet, men often “war” for women.
In the family, the son is a “Ham-let” whose libidinous Id is repressed by both his
spiritual father (Super-Ego) and his corporeal father (shadow) and whose Ego is
pulled be- tween the two fathers as between his good angel and his bad angel.
As the son is not yet weaned from his Oedipus complex, he cannot achieve
individuation, thus psycho- logically still staying in the Imaginary Order though
he is already immersed in the Symbolic Order. In the play we see a split Hamlet
whose conscious self is in conflict with his unconscious self, while his persona
appears sanely above and his true ego hides madly below, attracted by his
anima Gertrude, who is occasionally displaced by Ophelia, and repressed by his
fathers. Thus, the play is Hamlet’s “strange eruption,” which comes from the
attraction and the repression. And thus the play is not a tradi- tional revenge
tragedy, but a new revenge tragedy in which the revenge is upon one- self and
suicide is a jouissance. This fact, then, can account for the hero’s inactivity or
delay in taking vengeance, and can bring forth the playwright’s particular vision
regarding the theme of war and woman in its sexual and symbolic aspects.

1
 Chapter one

1.1The Life of William Shakespeare. (1564–1616)

Within the class system of Elizabethan England, William Shakespeare did not
seem destined for greatness. He was not born into a family of nobility or
significant wealth. He did not continue his formal education at university, nor did
he come under the mentorship of a senior artist, nor did he marry into wealth or
prestige. His talent as an actor seems to have been modest, since he is not known
for starring roles. His success as a playwright depended in part upon royal
patronage. Yet in spite of these limitations, Shakespeare is now the most
performed and read playwright in the world.

Born to John Shakespeare, a glovemaker and tradesman, and Mary Arden, the
daughter of an affluent farmer, William Shakespeare was baptized on April 26,
1564, in Stratford-upon-Avon. At that time, infants were baptized three days after
their birth, thus scholars believe that Shakespeare was born on April 23, the same
day on which he died at age 52. As the third of eight children, young William grew
up in this small town 100 miles northwest of London, far from the cultural and
courtly center of England.

Shakespeare attended the local grammar school, King's New School, where the
curriculum would have stressed a classical education of Greek mythology, Roman
comedy, ancient history, rhetoric, grammar, Latin, and possibly Greek. Throughout
his childhood, Shakespeare's father struggled with serious financial debt.
Therefore, unlike his fellow playwright Christopher Marlowe, he did not attend
university. Rather, in 1582 at age 18, he married Anne Hathaway, a woman eight
years his senior and three months pregnant. Their first child, Susanna, was born in

2
1583, and twins, Hamnet and Judith, came in 1585. In the seven years following
their birth, the historical record concerning Shakespeare is incomplete,
contradictory, and unreliable; scholars refer to this period as his “lost
years.”(web1)
In a 1592 pamphlet by Robert Greene, Shakespeare reappears as an “upstart crow”
flapping his poetic wings in London. Evidently, it did not take him long to land on
the stage. Between 1590 and 1592, Shakespeare's Henry VI series, Richard III, and
The Comedy of Errors were performed. When the theaters were closed in 1593
because of the plague, the playwright wrote two narrative poems, Venus and
Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece, and probably began writing his richly textured
sonnets. One hundred and fiftyfour of his sonnets have survived, ensuring his
reputation as a gifted poet. By 1594, he had also written, The Taming of the Shrew,
The Two Gentlemen of Verona and Love's Labor's Lost.
His earlier plays were mainly histories and comedies such as 'Henry VI',
'Titus Andronicus', 'A Midsummer Night's Dream', 'The Merchant of Venice' and
'Richard II'. The tragedy, 'Romeo and Juliet', was also published in this period. By
the last years of Elizabeth I's reign Shakespeare was well established as a famous
poet and playwright and was called upon to perform several of his plays before the
Queen at court. In 1598 the author Francis Meres described Shakespeare as
England’s greatest writer in comedy and tragedy.

In 1602 Shakespeare's continuing success enabled him to move to upmarket

Silver Street, near where the Barbican is now situated, and he was living here when
he wrote some of his greatest tragedies such as 'Hamlet', 'Othello', 'King Lear' and
'Macbeth'.
Shakespeare spent the last five years of his life in New Place in Stratford. He
died on 23 April 1616 at the age of 52 and was buried in Holy Trinity Church in
Stratford. He left his property to the male heirs of his eldest daughter, Susanna. He
also bequeathed his 'second-best bed' to his wife. It is not known what significance
this gesture had, although the couple had lived primarily apart for 20 years of their
marriage. (Web2)

3
 1.2 Hamlet Critical Evaluation

Hamlet, Prince of Denmark has remained the most perplexing, as well as the most
popular, of William Shakespeare’s tragedies. Whether considered as literature,
philosophy, or drama, its artistic stature is universally admitted. To explain the
reasons for its excellence in a few words, however, is a daunting task. Apart from
the matchless artistry of its language, the play’s appeal rests in large measure on
the character of Hamlet himself. Called upon to avenge his father’s murder, he is
compelled to face problems of duty, morality, and ethics that have been human
concerns through the ages. The play has tantalized critics with what has become
known as the Hamlet mystery, that of Hamlet’s complex behavior, most notably
his indecision and his reluctance to act.

Freudian critics have located Hamlet’s motivation in the psychodynamic

triad of the father-mother-son relationship. According to this view, Hamlet is
disturbed and eventually deranged by his Oedipal jealousy of the uncle who has
done what, Freud claimed, all sons long to do themselves. Other critics have taken
the more conventional tack of identifying as Hamlet’s tragic flaw the lack of
courage or moral resolution. In this view, Hamlet’s indecision is a sign of moral
ambivalence that he overcomes too late.

Both of these views presuppose a precise discovery of Hamlet’s motivation.

However, Renaissance drama is not generally a drama of motivation, either by
psychological character or moral predetermination. Rather, the Renaissance
tendency is to present characters with well-delineated moral and ethical
dispositions who are faced with dilemmas. It is the outcome of these conflicts, the
consequences rather than the process, that normally holds center stage. What
Shakespeare presents in Hamlet, Prince of Denmark is an agonizing confrontation

4
between the will of a good and intelligent man and the uncongenial role—that of
avenger—that fate calls upon him to play.( Charles 23,25)

The role of avenger is a familiar one in Renaissance drama. In the opening

description of Hamlet as bereft by the death of his father and distressed by his
mother’s hasty marriage, Shakespeare creates an ideal candidate to assume such a
role. Hamlet’s despondency need not be Oedipal to explain the extremity of his
grief. His father, whom he deeply loved and admired, is recently deceased, and he
himself seems to have been robbed of his birthright. Shakespeare points to
Hamlet’s shock at Gertrude’s disrespect to the memory of his father, rather than his
love for his mother, as the source of his distress. Hamlet’s suspicion is reinforced
by the ghostly visitation and the revelation of murder.

If Hamlet had simply proceeded to act out the avenger role assigned to him,
the play would have lacked the moral and theological complexity that provides its
special fascination. Hamlet has, after all, been a student of theology at Wittenberg,
and his knowledge complicates the situation. His accusation of incest is not an
adolescent excess but an accurate theological description of a marriage between a
widow and her dead husband’s brother. Moreover, Hamlet’s theological
accomplishments do more than exacerbate his feelings. For the ordinary avenger,
the commission from the ghost of a murdered father would be more than enough,
but Hamlet is aware of the unreliability of otherworldly apparitions and
consequently reluctant to heed the ghost’s injunction to perform an action that to
him seems objectively evil. In addition, the fear that his father was murdered in a
state of sin and is condemned to hell not only increases Hamlet’s sense of injustice
but also, paradoxically, casts further doubt on the reliability of the ghost’s
exhortation, for the ghost may be an infernal spirit goading him to sin.

5
 Hamlet’s indecision is therefore not an indication of weakness but the result
of his complex understanding of the moral dilemma with which he is faced. He is
unwilling to act unjustly, yet he is afraid that he is failing to exact a deserved
retribution. He debates the murky issue until he becomes unsure whether his own
behavior is caused by moral scruple or cowardice. His ruminations stand in sharp
contrast with the cynicism of Claudius and the verbose moral platitudes of
Polonius, just as the play stands in sharp contrast with the moral simplicity of the
ordinary revenge tragedy. Through Hamlet’s intelligence, Shakespeare transformed
a stock situation into a unique internal conflict. ( Harbage 12,15)

Hamlet believes that he must have greater certitude of Claudius’s guilt if he

is to take action. The device of the play within a play provides greater assurance
that Claudius is suffering from a guilty conscience, but it simultaneously sharpens
Hamlet’s anguish. Seeing a re-creation of his father’s death and Claudius’s
response stiffens Hamlet’s resolve to act, but once again he hesitates when he sees
Claudius in prayer. Hamlet’s inaction in this scene is not the result of cowardice or
even of a perception of moral ambiguity but rather of the very thoroughness of his
commitment: Having once decided on revenge, he wants to destroy his uncle body
and soul. It is ironic that Hamlet is thwarted this time by the combination of
theological insight with the extreme ferocity of his vengeful intention. After he
leaves Claudius in prayer, the irony of the scene is intensified, for Claudius reveals
to the audience that he has not been praying successfully and was not in a state of
grace after all.

That Hamlet loses his mental stability is arguable from his behavior toward
Ophelia and his subsequent meanderings. Circumstance has forced upon the prince
a role whose enormity has overwhelmed the fine emotional and intellectual balance
of a sensitive, well-educated man. Gradually, he is shown regaining control of

6
himself and arming himself with a cold determination to do what he has decided is
the just thing. Even then, it is only in the carnage of the concluding scenes that
Hamlet finally carries out his intention. Having concluded that “the readiness is
all,” he strikes his uncle only after he has discovered Claudius’s final scheme to
kill him.

The arrival of Fortinbras, who has been lurking in the background

throughout the play, superficially seems to indicate that a new, more direct and
courageous order will prevail in the place of the evil of Claudius and the weakness
of Hamlet. Fortinbras’ superiority is only superficial, however. He brings stasis
and stability back to a disordered kingdom but does not have the self-
consciousness and moral sensitivity that destroy and redeem Hamlet.( Jenkins
47,49)

7
 Chapter Two

2.1Psychological Analysis of Hamlet

Tragic man rejects the compensatory energy of the psyche. In tragedy hamartia can
often be defined as the hero's alienation from the anima, or the feminine principle
within him. Iago flatters Othello's self-conception, or persona, into alienation from
a Desdemona who had seen "Othello's visage in his mind" (I.iii.255), not just in his
"occupation" (III.iii.362). Lear discovers the feminine in him, or it discovers him
after his passionate efforts to keep "this mother" from his "heart" (II.iv.55) have
obliterated his former consciousness. He awakens to the loving gaze of his "child,
Cordelia" (IV.vii.72). Macbeth's nature, "too full o' th' milk of human kindness"
(I.v. 17) is discarded for a "mind . . . full of scorpions" (III.ii.39). Hamlet, however,
is the preeminent example of the rejection of the feminine.

All Hamlet criticism must be "psychological criticism," even when it claims

to be anything but. The play is uniquely framed to elicit from its auditors a
subjective response. No matter how "objective" a critic may try to be, he must, in
dealing with Hamlet, answer the question with which the play opens: "Who's
there?" (I.i.l). Any claim to critical objectivity signals an inevitable surrender to
unperceived subjectivity. The critic invariably stands and unfolds himself even as
he believes that he is illuminating that universe of shadows that is Hamlet character
and Hamlet play.

The greatest critics, I believe, admit their subjective stance and do not claim
to tell us "what Hamlet means," but "what Hamlet means to me." It follows then,
that the quality of the critique is not a function of any particular critical approach
but of the human qualities of the critic himself.

8
 We would not normally term Dr. Samuel Johnson a "psychological critic."
Johnson, however, had the courage—not always shared by his 18th century
colleagues—to admit that the plays moved him profoundly. His reaction to the
death of Cordelia, for example, must be attributed to more than that the ending of
King Lear may have violated Johnson's critical criteria:

I might relate that I was many years ago so shocked by Cordelia's

death, that I know not whether I ever endured to read again the last
scenes of the play 'till I undertook to revise them as editor.1

These words emerge, of course, during the almost century-and-a-half that Tate's
happier version of King Lear was performed exclusively.Johnson's comments on
Hamlet suggest that he looks upon the character as somehow "real," or, at least,
that Hamlet conforms to Johnson's sense of "nature." "I wish," Johnson says,
"Hamlet had made some other defence [to Laertes, before the duel]; it is unsuitable
to the character of a good or brave man, to shelter himself in falsehood."2 Placed
against Dr. Johnson's standard of "suitability," Hamlet disturbs the critic. In
objecting to the psychology Shakespeare attributes to Hamlet, Johnson reveals his
own psychology, one predicated on solid 18th century norms of decorum and
stereotypic humanity.( Adam 329,330)

Johnson could have read neither Thomas Erskine's defense of James

Hadfield (26 June, 1800)—perhaps the first defense by reason of insanity—nor
Darrow's defense of Loeb and Leopold, both of which Shakespeare anticipates in
Hamlet's apology to Laertes. Hamlet, of course, is his own attorney. Later
experience seems suddenly to illuminate what Shakespeare already knew. And,
although Johnson's moral criteria are not our own, he turns out to be right. He can
wish for another defense, but Shakespeare gives Hamlet the only apology he can

9
make for the sudden, impulsive, and destructive actions of someone who is and is
not Hamlet:

Was't Hamlet wrong'd Laertes? Never Hamlet. If Hamlet from himself

be ta'en away,And when he's not himself does wrong Laertes, Then
Hamlet does it not. Hamlet denies it.Who does it then? His madness.
If t be so, Hamlet is of the faction that is wrong'd, His madness is poor
Hamlet's enemy.(V.ii.230-237).

Since I do not believe that Hamlet is ever mad, except "north-north-west"

(II.ii.278). I believe that he does fabricate an elegant falsehood here, one that does
not square with anyone's sense of goodness or bravery. That his repressed feeling
level leaps past his rational persona—as it does so often in this play—and incites
actions that puzzle Hamlet, making of him a Hamlet who does not square with his
own sense of his personality, can only be termed, at best, "temporary insanity."
The arm that struggled to put the sword back on its hanger as Claudius knelt at
apparent prayer leaped out, almost by its own volition, to impale Polonius. But
Hamlet "thought" it might be the king. Was he insane, or just mistaken? His
mistake, however motivated by a sudden flash of feeling, becomes, later, "His
madness." But, by then, before the full court, Hamlet cannot say to Laertes, "I
thought your father was King Claudius."(ibid 330,334)

We would agree, I believe, that Coleridge is a psychological critic, perhaps

the first to whom the term can be applied, in that Coleridge is conscious of the
admixture of his own personality that enters into his response. The results are
brilliant and eccentric, profound and idiosyncratic, as great Hamlet criticism must
be, for a reason Coleridge arrives at in discussing the Prince:

10
 Hamlet's character is the prevalence of the abstracting and
generalizing habit over the practical. He does not want courage, skill,
will or opportunity, but every incident sets him thinking; and it is
curious and at the same time strictly natural that Hamlet, who all the
play seems reason itself, should be impelled at last by mere accident
to effect his object. I have a smack of Hamlet myself, if I may say so

All of us, perhaps, have a smack of Hamlet ourselves. We do not, however, see
Hamlet as Coleridge did— Ralph Fiennes as Hamlet in the Almeida Theatre's 1995
production of Hamlet.Hamlet as ineffective intellectual, "Hamlet as Coleridge"—
or as the romantic Hamlet of Henry Irving, laying the back of his hand against his
brow as he ponders the enormities of Elsinore, or as the slender delicate vase in
which an oak tree is planted, as in Goethe's brilliant metaphor.4

If we extend Coleridge's insight, however, we may discover a generalization

that incorporates it. Here is one possibility, presented by Bradley Pearson, the
protagonist of Iris Murdoch's The Black Prince: "Shakespeare [in Hamlet] makes
the crisis of his own identity into the very central stuff of his art. He transmutes his
private obsessions into a rhetoric so public that it can be mumbled by any child . . .
Shakespeare cries out in agony, he writhes, he dances, he laughs, he shrieks, and he
makes us laugh and shriek ourselves out of hell." Even if Pearson incorporates a
rather radical interpretation of Aristotelian catharsis and the fallacy of reading back
to an author's creative process, he accounts for the continuum of energy that gets
exchanged between Shakespeare's creation and our own psychology of perception.
The case for that continuum is made brilliantly in Norman Holland's book,
Shakespeare and Psychoanalysis. Holland restricts his thesis to Freudian concepts
of psychic energy by suggesting that a play like Hamlet moves us to respond by
recapitulating our own infantile fears and fantasies. It may do that, of course, but it

11
does much more than that, eliciting, as Coleridge proves, our response to who we
think we are as adults as well. Hamlet may be, as T.S. Eliot says, "the Mona Lisa
of Literature,"6 but Hamlet is a play, an action that imitates action, not a painting.
As Bradley Pearson says, "Being is acting. We are tissues and tissues of different
personae, and yet we are nothing at all."( Holland 55,57)

The fiction that is Hamlet, then, reveals whatever "reality" inheres in us and,
in turn, exposes the fictional premises of that perceived reality, particularly if we,
like Coleridge, respond to Hamlet from the level of our own mere persona. Pursued
to its conclusion, Pearson's thesis that being is acting and acting being would seem
to equate not to a set of existential premises but to a cultural and personal nihilism.
Hamlet the play will not support that conclusion, even though nihilism is one
dimension that Hamlet and the play surrounding him explore. We might pursue
Pearson's suggestion further to suggest that Hamlet's belief that "things" only "rank
and gross possess" his "unweeded garden" (I.ii. 135-136) signals a "mid-life
crisis," that terrible moment of pause, often activated by catastrophic personal
emergencies, when psychic content, dormant for a lifetime, explodes within us
with bewildering force. Suffice it that the principals of this play had reached
Elizabethan mid-life by 1601: Hamlet is 30. Richard Burbage, playing Hamlet, is
34. And William Shakespeare is 37.

The 19th century critic who tended to read the plays back to the psyche of
their creator was, of course, Edward Dowden. His work has been undervalued
because of his simplistic categorization of Shakespeare's "moods" and his
assignment of the plays to those moods. But here is Dowden's remarkable
description of Hamlet's behavior after the play-within-the-play: "Hamlet is forever
walking over the ice; his power of self-control is never quite to be trusted. The
success of his device for ascertaining the guilt of Claudius is followed by the same

12
mood of wild excitement which followed his encounter with his father's spirit;
again he seems incoherently, extravagantly gay; again his words are 'wild and
whirling words.'" Dowden's Hamlet is hardly Coleridge's, "who all the play seems
reason itself." Dowden captures Hamlet's erratic nature, as does Derek Jacobi, who
played the role recently both at the Old Vic and in the BBC-TV version: "Hamlet
swings into sudden intensely traumatic states."9 Interestingly, Jacobi does not
include Hamlet's behavior after "Gonzago" in his catalogue of these traumatic
states. At that moment in the play, Hamlet believes that he has won:

"For if the king like not the comedy, Why then, belike, he likes it not,
perdy."(III.ii.291-292).( Dowden 290,294)

I shall suggest that Hamlet himself has dictated, only moments before, something
other than comedy for himself, and for the play which bears his name.

13
 2.2 Appearance vs. Reality

Appearance vs. reality is verifiably a recurrent motif in Shakespeare. In his great

tragedies especially, we find the motif becomes a predominant element in
characterization and plot. In King Lear, for instance, we have the children who
appear to be filial (Goneril, Regan, Edmund) vs. those who are truly filial
(Cordelia, Edgar), the Fool who appears to be foolish but is wise in reality, and the
King, of course, who ap- pears to have power but actually has nothing to keep even
his dignity and life, and the tragedy is a history of finding the “real” children and
subjects (Lear finding Cordelia, Albany, Kent, the Fool, etc., and Gloucester
finding Edgar). In Othello, we have the “honest Iago,” who is honest only in
name, not in truth, and who through the whole play tries to appear friendly,
benevolent, loyal and kind to Othello and others while in reality he acts most like a
Machiavellian schemer or the Devil’s incarnation, and the play is also a history of
finding out the truth. In Macbeth, we have the Witches who seem to bring good
tidings and predict good future, but actually do the opposite; we have the brave
Macbeth who seems to be loyal at first but proves to be a traitor at last and who
seems to win at first but is only to lose at last; and we have so many words and
situations in the play which seem to be clear on the surface but actually ambiguous
in depth.

Now, in Hamlet we find the appearance vs. reality motif occurs even more
fre- quently. Claudius only appears to be good to Hamlet, Gertrude is a “most
seem- ing-virtuous queen” (I, v, 46), Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are actually
spies on Hamlet rather than his friendly schoolmates, and Hamlet is
“but mad north-north-west” (II, ii, 375), not truly mad beyond knowing a hawk
from a handsaw. Hamlet himself is most aware of the discrepancy between
appearance and reality. He reminds Ophelia that “God hath given you one face,
14
and you make yourselves an- other” (III, i, 144-5). He wants Horatio to join
judgments in censure of Claudius’s “seeming” (III, ii, 86-7). And he sighs to his
schoolmates:
What piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how infinite
in faculties, in form and moving how express and admirable, in action how
like an angel, in apprehension how like a god: the beauty of the world, the
paragon of animals—and yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust? (II,
ii, 303-8)

Hamlet is indeed most aware of “the evil reality under the good appearance”
(Spencer39).Evidently, the play is full of ideas, images, episodes as well as
characters that can suggest the appearance/reality contrast. In his “The World of
Hamlet,” Maynard Mack has discussed the ideas of seeming, assuming, and
putting on; the images of clothing, painting, mirroring; the episode of the dumb
show and the play within the play, together with the characters of Polonius,
Laertes, Ophelia, Claudius, Gertrude, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, and Hamlet
himself. And his conclusion is: “all these at one time or another, and usually
more than once, are drawn into the range of implications flung round the play by
‘show’” (Maynard 52).
The idea of “show” brings us to the Freudian concept of the conscious and
un- conscious levels of mental activity. In this concept, the human mind is
structured like the iceberg: what is shown above or appears to be seen is the level
of conscious- ness, while what lies hidden beneath the surface or what counts as its
great real weight is the level of unconsciousness. If we consider the appearance
vs. reality motif in the light of the conscious vs. unconscious psyche, we may find
that Hamlet is indeed a show of the conscious Hamlet in conflict with the
unconscious Hamlet.

15
 Conclusion

As Hamlet’s psychic volcano erupts unconsciously now and then, what sort
of person does he seem to be? Among other things, we have seen a Hamlet
seemingly as mad as Orlando and as revengeful as Hieronimo. Yet,
Shakespeare has not made the play into a love story like Ariosto’s, nor a revenge
tragedy like Thomas Kyd’s. In- stead, he has written a play the concern of which
is primarily not with the sensational effect of mad love or mad revenge, but
with the original cause of madness for love and for revenge. And, thus, the
play has presented before us a vision that shows Shakespeare’s deep
understanding of our basic human nature.

We have argued that “Hamlet” can be “Ham-let” in Shakespeare’s mind. In

fact, Shakespeare is always very careful and artful in giving his characters’
names. In Hamlet, his namesmanship is shown not only in changing “Amleth”
to “Hamlet.” In the original source of the play, as we know, Hamlet’s father is
called Horvendile, his mother Geruth, and his uncle Fengon. By replacing
“Horvendile” with the “Old Hamlet” or “King Hamlet,” that is, by using the
same name “Hamlet” for both father and son, Shakespeare naturally suggests
closer ties between the father and the son, thus helping us to claim that the
ghost Hamlet is in reality the identical soul of the prince.

16
 References
 Adams, Hazard, ed. Critical Theory Since Plato. New York: Harcourt
Brace Jo- vanovich, 1971.

 Charles Lamb. Hamlet - The story of Shakespeare's play. . Cambridge:

Cambridge UP, 1977.
 Dowden, Edward .Shakspere : a critical study of his mind and art. Publisher
New York : Harper & brothers.1881.
 Harbage, Alfred, ed. Shakespeare: The Tragedies. 20th Century
Views. Engle- wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1964.
 Jenkins, Harold, ed. Hamlet. The Arden Shakespeare. London & New
York: Methuen, 1982.
 Mack, Maynard. “The World of Hamle,” New York: Simon and
Schuster,1952 44-60.
 Norman ,Holland.Psychoanalysis and Shakespeare. New York: McGraw-
Hill Book Co., c1966.
 Spencer, Theordore. “Hamlet and the Nature of Reality.” Journal of
English Lit- erary History, V (December, 1938), 253-77. Rpt. in
Bevington, 31-42.
 Web1 http://www.shakespeareinamericancommunities.org/education/life-
william-shakespeare 2015/12/22/1:15am
 Web2http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/people/william_shakespeare/2016/01/4:3
2 pm

17