Hamlet, Act III

Act III is the pivotal act in Hamlet. The Prince had been dragging his feet for months trying to force himself to avenge his father’s death. At one time, he’d be certain that the ghost was truly the restless spirit of his father seeking revenge; another time he’d fret that the ghost may be a demon sent to tempt the Prince into a fatal and condemning act. In scene i, he had his famous “get thee to a nunnery” fight with Ophelia. Frustrated with his own impotence, he extended the blame of his mother’s inconstancy to all women. Maddened at the thought of Ophelia’s future marriage to someone else; maddened at what he saw as her certain inconstancy in the future, he demanded that she commit herself to a convent. His interaction with Ophelia was observed by Polonius and Claudius, who decided that he was dangerously addled and must be sent away to England (presumably with hopes that the distraction would clear his mind). 

In scene ii Hamlet made pointed remarks during a play, hoping to draw out Claudius’ guilty response. Hamlet succeeded in drawing out Claudius, who angrily retorted at the content of the play and stomped out of the room. In the immediate rush of  fear at Hamlet’s knowledge, Claudius suddenly felt his own guilt. He regreted killing his brother – not because it was a treacherous act in itself, but because he had been found out and might suffer consequences. He knelt down and prayed that God help him; he asked forgiveness while simultaneously acknowledging that he’s not really sorry that he got the Crown and the Queen, but he was very sorry that Hamlet found out about the murder. The Prince discovered Claudius praying and at first set his mind upon killing the King here (when the royal back is turned). But then Hamlet worried: if he killed Claudius now, while praying, the King’s soul would be clean and he would be dispatched to heaven. Hamlet wanted Claudius to be damned, like the late King Hamlet. The prince decided to wait.

In the final scene, Hamlet was summoned to the Queen’s chambers, where she tried to talk sense into him. There, Hamlet swelled again into his accusatory rage at the inconstancy of women. Polonius, who had hidden himself behind the curtains upon Hamlet’s entry, thought to rescue the Queen from her raving son – but when he called out, the infuriated prince stabbed at the curtains and slayed Polonius. With this act, Hamlet’s path of revenge was cemented. He had killed once, he had no choice but to continue with his revenge quickly or fail entirely. Shakespeare punctuated this pivotal act with the ghost of dead King Hamlet – who only the prince can see. Prince Hamlet’s shock at the escalation of events and the sudden appearance of the ghost muddled his already maddened state, and he ranted wildly while the terrified Queen tried to calm him. The act ends with Hamlet lugging the body of Polonius off stage.


Hamlet and Ophelia
Hamlet (1996)
Directed by Kenneth Branagh

Act III, Scene i: The King and Polonius decided to observe Hamlet as he interacted with Ophelia. They told Ophelia to linger where she was sure to meet Hamlet, and the two men hid. Before noticing Ophelia, Hamlet was deep in his own meditations. To be or not to be? Apparently, Hamlet was considering suicide. Did he know the King was watching? Or was his doubt genuine? There is no indication that he knew the King was near. Personally, I think Hamlet was genuinely considering suicide. He’d experienced some terrible blows in the last few months – his father died unexpectedly, his mother married her brother-in-law, and Hamlet was being haunted by the ghost of his father who was making shocking demands of the Prince. Hamlet was tortured by a feeling of failure that he hadn’t avenged his father, stress at the idea of killing the King, and doubt about the nature and intentions of the ghost. That’s enough to make any sane person consider suicide. The sudden appearance of Ophelia reminded him of yet another failure in his life. 

Like Claudius and Polonius, I observed Hamlet very closely in this scene because I wanted to consider the age-old question: was Hamlet mad or was he faking it? I saw no signs of actual insanity, despite Hamlet’s nonsensical word-play and his irrational anger at Ophelia. He seemed genuinely enraged at Ophelia’s perceived inconstancy, and he blamed her for future inconstancies which she had not yet committed; but sane lovers can also be irrational in this way. 

Another question I pondered during this scene was whether Hamlet meant to imply that Ophelia wasn’t a virgin (since Harold Jenkins, the editor of my edition, claims that there is no evidence that Ophelia and Hamlet had any pre-action action). And, frankly, I have to agree with Jenkins. There is a lot of double-meaning innuendo during this scene (and the next), but that doesn’t prove that they’d been together. Men are quite capable of innuendo in the company of maidens. That proves nothing in itself. So I leave that one open to interpretation.

The Play
Hamlet (2009) Royal Shakespeare Company
Directed by Gregory Doran

Act III, Scene ii: In this scene, the troupe of traveling actors put on a play which closely resembled the murder of King Hamlet. The Prince made continual jibes and probes at the King until Claudius angrily announced that he’d had enough and stomped out of the room – which was exactly the guilty reaction that Hamlet was hoping for. Now Hamlet could avenge his father’s death with confidence that Claudius is guilty.

This scene is scrutinized closely by critics. The play began with a dumbshow which silently portrayed the murder – but Claudius apparently didn’t respond to this dumbshow. The King only responded upon seeing the murder in the spoken play. Critics ask the question: did the King see the dumbshow? Why wasn’t he offended by it? Why did he wait until the second enactment of murder before retorting? Some directors believe that Claudius didn’t see the dumbshow. They have him turned away from it, chatting with a neighbor. Others believe that Claudius saw the dumbshow, and silently blanched, but wasn’t truly provoked until Hamlet’s comments during the second enactment. Harold Jenkins (forever the literalist) believes that neither of these two things happened, because otherwise it would have been mentioned in the stage directions. 🙂 A sophisticated connoisseur of Hamlet apparently watches Claudius during this scene in hopes of determining which interpretation the director has chosen.

Hamlet almost kills Claudius
Hamlet (2009) Royal Shakespeare Company
Directed by Gregory Doran

Act III, Scene iii: Shocked by the realization that Hamlet knew Claudius’ guilt, the King prayed for help from God. Hamlet discovered Claudius praying, and almost killed him there…but then decided that if he killed Claudius when his soul was cleansed by prayer, Claudius would achieve salvation. Hamlet wanted Claudius to be damned, so he waited a better opportunity for revenge.

The question I asked while reading this scene: Was Hamlet just procrastinating, or did he really not kill Claudius in prayer because he wanted to damn Claudius’ soul? Personally, I think he was procrastinating. He had resolved that he must kill Claudius, but he didn’t have the nerve to do it in cold blood. 

Hamlet in the Queen’s Closet
Hamlet (2009) Royal Shakespeare Company
Directed by Gregory Doran

Act III, Scene iv: Hamlet ranted at the Queen in her chambers. Polonius, hidden behind the curtains, moved to assist the Queen, and Hamlet stabbed him. Hamlet seemed rather surprised to discover that he’d killed Polonius. What did he expect? That the King was hidden behind the curtains? Personally, I think he wasn’t thinking. He had worked himself up into a frenzy talking to the guilty Queen, and was surprised by Polonius’ sudden call. He stabbed the curtain, not knowing what lay behind it, and only afterwards asked “Is it the King?” His confusion at finally having spilled blood – though the wrong person’s blood – was compounded by the sudden appearance of the ghost. This is the first scene where Hamlet truly appeared, to me, to have lost his wits. He was acting violently without thought of consequence or purpose. His speech was confused. He was utterly out of his depth. 

Hamlet Act II

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead (1990)
Directed by Tom Stoppard
Clearly some time has passed since the first act. Enough time that Ophelia has been able to rebuff Hamlet’s attentions, for Hamlet to “go insane,” and for his royal parents to send off for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to come from abroad. Maybe a few weeks? A couple months? Hamlet still hasn’t done anything to avenge his father’s death, and he’s starting to feel worthless. He’s not quite sure whether his father’s ghost is a demon sent to tempt Hamlet into a wrongful act, but he feels like he ought to believe the ghost’s story. And he ought to have acted on it. When the troupe of actors arrives, Hamlet thinks this is his chance to throw a wrench in Claudius’ gears – to make him betray his guilty conscience in an unguarded moment. Hamlet admonishes himself for his weakness – he ought to act on his vengeful instincts, but he lacks the courage. 

Some questions that I’m thinking about while reading this: 

First, I wanted to see for myself whether I thought Ophelia was a virgin or not. (Remember in my notes on the introduction by Harold Jenkins I said that Jenkins believed Ophelia died a virgin.) During Hamlet’s discussion with Polonius, Hamlet first compares Polonius to a fishmonger. According to Jenkins, the daughters of fishmongers are seen as having more than ordinary propensity to breed. Hamlet then says: “Let her not walk i’th’ sun. Conception is a blessing, / but as your daughter may conceive – friend, look to’t.” Now, outwardly, Hamlet referred “conception” to the breeding of maggots under the sun (from an earlier line), but how can there be any question that Hamlet meant also to suggest that Ophelia might conceive a child? But does Hamlet mean “Don’t let her out, or something bad might happen to her.” Or does he mean “Don’t let her out, because everyone will soon be able to see she’s pregnant.” I guess that’s open to interpretation. Later in the scene, Hamlet compares Polonius to the Hebrew judge Jephthah, who sacrificed his virgin daughter. That might be a hint that she’s still a virgin, and that Polonius is endangering her.

My second question was whether Hamlet is feigning madness or was really mad. I can see why many people believe he was only feigning madness – his “mad” ranting during this act was calculated to mock Polonius, Rosencrantz, and Guildenstern. There was a method to his madness. 🙂 But, as far as I’m concerned, the phrase “fake it till you make it” applies in Hamlet’s case. He certainly had enough to go mad over…

Polonius and Reynaldo
The Royal Shakespeare Production 2009
Directed by Gregory Doran
Act II, Scene i: The act starts with Polonius instructing his man Reynaldo to spy on Laertes. A very untrusting father, is Polonius. As soon as that important business is through, Ophelia dashes in to tell her father about a shocking encounter with Hamlet. The prince has apparently entered her chamber uninvited, grabbed Ophelia by the arm and creepily stared at her. Then he turned and left the room – eyes cast over his shoulder to gaze fixedly upon the distraught maiden. Polonius gets excited…not only has he discovered the reason for Hamlet’s madness (which the King and Queen want to know), but he now has the opportunity to say “Look! I did everything I could to discourage this mis-match, but the Prince is still in love with my daughter…perhaps they ought to marry?” *gleeful aspirations shine in eyes*

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern 
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead (1990)
Directed by Tom Stoppard
Act II, Scene ii: Hamlet’s friends Rosencrantz and Guildenstern have arrived in from abroad, and Claudius and Gertrude are asking them to check on Hamlet – to discover the reasons for his madness and perhaps soothe the melancholy prince. When they leave in search of Hamlet, Polonius comes with their messengers, newly arrived from Norway. The messengers tell Claudius that Fortinbras’ uncle has admonished the prince for threatening war with Denmark, but upon Fortinbras’ apology, his uncle has furnished the prince with more money for his army and told him to attack Poland instead. They now ask Claudius’ permission for Fortinbras’ army to cross through Denmark on the way to Poland.

Hmmm. Does someone smell a ploy? They’re just going to allow Fortinbras’ army to cross through Denmark? Oh well, it’s their kingdom. 

After the messengers have been thanked and sent away, Polonius tells the royal couple that Hamlet has gone mad with love for Ophelia. They decide to test this theory later by setting Ophelia loose on Hamlet. (Poor Ophelia.) Then Hamlet walks in. Polonius has a rather nonsensical conversation with Hamlet, partly because Polonius isn’t very clever and partly because Hamlet is playing with Polonius’ mind. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern walk in. The nonsensical conversation continues with them (and for the same reasons). *Why do Claudius and Gertrude keep sicing idiots on Hamlet? What do they hope to achieve?* Finally, a troupe of actors arrives, and Hamlet decides to use them as bait for Claudius’ guilty conscience.

Hamlet, Act I

In the first act of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, the scene is set. We meet the mournful young prince Hamlet who feels wronged by his mother’s hasty marriage to her deceased husband’s brother…and by their incessant partying in a time of sorrow. We meet Ophelia, admired by Hamlet, her brother Laertes and father Polonius. Finally, we are handed a juicy bit of gossip (adultery and murder!), which give Hamlet his excuse to vent his rage against the tyrant King Claudius. (For a more detailed summary, look below.)

This is my first time reading Hamlet since I was in high school, and I’m looking at it through very different eyes this time around. For instance, I’ve always been under the impression that Polonius was ridiculous. But this time, he appeared long-winded, but his advice seemed sound enough. Is he really ridiculous, or just verbose? I was gratified upon reading Harold Jenkins’ endnotes, where he suggests that Polonius was not meant to be ridiculous but paternal. Emphasizing Polonius’ fatherly relationship develops Laertes’ role as an avenger against Hamlet later in the play. 

A phrase that jumped out at me on this reading was when the ghost told Hamlet (I.v): “Taint not thy mind nor let thy soul contrive against thy mother aught.” Interesting. Because I recall Hamlet being very lusty in his anger against the Queen later in the play. Do I remember wrongly? Or is Hamlet disobeying the ghost? I will have to read on and see. Also, what did the ghost mean by “taint not thy mind”? Was the it admonishing Hamlet to keep his mind clear? Because Hamlet either feigns madness or actually goes mad later in the play. Again, did Hamlet disobey the ghost? 

The final thing that struck me in Act I was the questionable nature of the ghost. If Horatio (a clear-headed scholar) hadn’t believed in the ghost, I would suspect that Hamlet had hallucinated it in a fit of psychotic rage. Hamlet does incoherently rant during the scenes with the ghost. In his endnotes, Harold Jenkins suggests another alternative – perhaps Shakespeare meant the ghost to be a devil – an evil apparition sent to drive young Hamlet to vengeful madness. After all, the ghost has gone below stage, which represents Hell in classical theater. In a later scene (II.ii), Hamlet even questions the nature of the ghost: “The spirit that I have seen May be a devil.” However, based on all the swearing which closes Act I, Hamlet does seem to believe the ghost’s story, even if the ghost’s nature is questionable.

Perhaps I’ll be able to answer these questions as I read on…


Claudius and Gertrude
Kenneth Branagh’s 1996 film

Act I, Scene ii: Only months after King Hamlet’s death, his brother Claudius has married the Queen, and wrested the throne Denmark. Claudius scolds Hamlet mourning the  dead King and then leaves to continue reveling in his new-found power. Left behind, Hamlet bemoans the disgraceful marriage…How could his mother have married so quickly? And to such a man?! Horatio then rushes in to tell Hamlet about the king’s ghost. Hamlet decides that he MUST see this for himself.

Ophelia, Laertes, and Polonius
The Royal Shakespeare Production 2009
Directed by Gregory Doran

Act I, Scene iii: Ophelia believes that Hamlet loves her, but her brother Laertes and her father Polonius both caution her against the young prince. Laertes believes that Hamlet, as heir to the throne, will not choose Ophelia for future Queen. Polonius agrees. “Hamlet is young!” he says. “Don’t set your heart on him.” Despite her assertions that Hamlet is courting her in a gentlemanly manner, Ophelia agrees to be cautious. After a long-winded speech from Polonius, Laertes departs for France.

Plate XLIV from Volume II
Boydell’s Shakespeare Prints
Image taken from Emory’s Shakespeare Illustrated

Act I, Scene iv and v: It’s night, and Hamlet, Horatio, and Marcellus are looking for the ghost. When the apparition appears, it beckons Hamlet to follow. Hamlet desperately tries to follow, while his friends hold him back. Finally, he orders them to let him be.

Once alone, the ghost demands that Hamlet avenge his death. But it admonishes: “Taint not thy mind nor let thy soul contrive against thy mother aught.” Hamlet swears to avenge his father’s death, and then forces Horatio and Marcellus swear an oath of silence.

Hamlet: Act I, Scene i

BBC’s Dramatic Works of Shakespeare Collection
Image taken from Hyperion to a Satyr

Act I Scene i: 

Setting: Sentinels stand on the battlements of the castle


  • Barnardo, Marcellus, and Francisco of the King’s guard. 
  • Horatio, an educated gentleman, skeptical of ghosts, friend of Hamlet


Twice recently, Barnardo and Marcellus have had their watch interrupted on the stroke of 1AM by an apparition in the form of the recently deceased King Hamlet. Fearing to speak to the ghost themselves, they had invited the skeptical scholar Horatio. Upon the tolling of the hour, the ghost appears, and Horatio calls out, charging it to speak. But the ghost stalks silently away. Our skeptical scholar (and therefore our audience) is now convinced that the ghost is not a fantasy. Aggrieved, Horatio suggests that the ghost is an ill omen. 

The three men then begin gossiping about an upcoming war, for which the ghost might be a portent. Thus, the audience is educated: Many years before, the late King Hamlet had slain in battle Fortinbras, the King of Norway. King Hamlet had confiscated some treasures and lands in that battle, which were given to young Hamlet upon his father’s death. The son of the late King Fortinbras, also named Fortinbras, has decided (after brooding for 30 years) to avenge his father’s death and seize the lands back from young Hamlet. He’s been gathering a band of misfits to wage war on Denmark. (This band of misfits apparently morphs into a well-organized army by the end of the play…nice to have footnotes to point out all the inconsistencies!) 

Gossip-fest complete, the ghost reappears and Horatio calls out, commanding it to speak. The ghost is about to answer when the cock crows. The ghost starts, and fades away as on a dreadful summons. Horatio decides that perhaps the ghost didn’t speak because it wants young Hamlet. The men resolve to tell Hamlet about the ghost.

My thoughts: Suspenseful first scene. I think it’s fascinating the way Shakespeare has managed to introduce several very important points into the scene, without distracting from the ghost. We now know that Horatio is a skeptical scholar, that the ghost is likely the spirit of the dead king, and that Denmark is about to be attacked by the vengeful young King of Norway. All that information flowed so smoothly into the dialog that the audience wouldn’t even realize they were being educated. I also like the suspense. What does the ghost want to say? We’ll have to wait and see.

See all my posts about Hamlet on my Hamlet Master Post.

Shakespeare’s Hamlet – Notes on Introduction by Harold Jenkins

I’m reading the Arden Shakespeare version of Hamlet, edited by Harold Jenkins. Harold Jenkins’ Introduction had a LOT of information, and I highly recommend it to someone who’s serious about reading this play. Jenkins started by discussing the date of original release. Apparently there is some controversy among scholars about when the play first came out. There’s about 2-3 years wiggle room of uncertainty. Apparently, this is an important question since there is a play that was released around the same time called Antonio’s Revenge. Either Hamlet or Antonio’s Revenge was plagiarized. We’re talking the plot, the circumstances, and some of the dialog–all copied. Jenkins comes to the conclusion from his three-paged discussion about dates that Hamlet was released first. Originally, it was generally accepted that Antonio’s Revenge was released first and that it was used as “source material” for Hamlet. I wasn’t entirely convinced by Jenkins’ argument, and am not certain whether most scholars today agree with him or accept the original conclusions that Hamlet was the later play (though I suspect the former). After so much time has passed, and considering that plagiarism wasn’t as big a deal in the 16th century as it is now, I hesitate to give Shakespeare all the credit simply because he’s Shakespeare. However, Jenkins did provide one argument that I found convincing. Shakespeare was basing his play on a well-known Danish tale. He shouldn’t have had any use for an unrelated secondary source like Antonio’s Revenge. On the other hand, Marston would have been searching for ideas for a sequel to his earlier play, Antonio and Mellida, and would have had more need for source material.

Jenkins then spends a good deal of space discussing the publication of Hamlet and the differences between existing manuscripts. I skipped that section, but it certainly contained a good deal of information that a serious scholar would find interesting.

The sources of Shakespeare’s Hamlet are then discussed. Apparently, it is generally accepted that the major source of Shakespeare’s Hamlet was a contemporary play dubbed by today’s scholars as Ur-Hamlet. This play was never printed, so we can’t compare it to Shakespeare’s work, but Shakespeare would certainly have been familiar with the play since it was put out by his own company. The story that we now call Hamlet was first published in Saxo’s Historiae Danicae, written at the end of the twelfth century and published in 1514. The story was then retold by the Frenchman Belleforest–translations (or the original French version) were probably what the author of Ur-Hamlet used when writing his play. It is clear that Belleforest was the source material, rather than Saxo’s original work, because that Belleforest introduced some dramatic elements to the story which were present in Hamlet. For instance, the adultery of Amleth’s mother was Belleforest’s idea. Although it is clear that Belleforest is the source of Hamlet, it is unclear whether Shakespeare read Belleforest himself, or simply inherited the allusions from Ur-Hamlet

There were, of course, elements in Hamlet that were not evident in Belleforest’s work. For instance, the complexity of Hamlet’s character was Shakespeare’s doing. Also, the ghost of Hamlet’s father is only hinted at in Belleforest. During the revenge scene in his tale, Belleforest made passing reference to the shade of Amleth’s father–that it may now rest in peace. The leap between a metaphorical shade and a full-fledged haunting was made somewhere between Belleforest and Shakespeare. Jenkins’ introduction contains a lot more information about the little differences between Belleforest and Shakespeare with some speculation about Ur-Hamlet, but I’ll leave all of that unsummarized so you have a reason to read the Introduction yourself. 😉

Finally, the Introduction ends with a critical analysis of Hamlet. It has been so long since I’ve read Hamlet, that I feel I need to go back and read this critical analysis after re-reading the play. I’ll post more detailed comments on it later. The only thing that really jumped out at me during this first perusal of Jenkins’ critique is that he believes that Ophelia died a virgin. I’d always heard that Ophelia and Hamlet had had relations at some point before the action commenced. The difference between these two interpretations changes Ophelia’s character immensely. I’ll read very carefully this time and come to my own conclusions.

Another thing that struck me while I was reading the introduction (though it wasn’t directly discussed by Jenkins) is that when I first read Hamlet as a teen, I never questioned the reason why people considered the relationship between Gertrude and Claudius to be incestuous. But now I wonder. Why is it incestuous to marry your brother’s widow?

This subject also came up in Wolf Hall, by Hilary Mantel. There was much discussion about Henry VIII’s relationship with Catherine being incestuous because Catherine MIGHT have consummated her marriage to Henry’s brother Prince Arthur. I don’t recall which Bible passages were quoted in those discussions, but I remember thinking it odd that such a marriage would be considered incestuous. 

I wondered at what point did it become incestuous in Christian culture for a man to marry his brother’s widow? If I recall correctly the Hebrew Bible says that thou shalt not have relations with the wife of your father, but thou must marry the widow of thy brother. Well. Maybe it was phrased differently…but I’m pretty sure that was the general idea. I don’t recall anything in the New Testament saying that a man shouldn’t marry his brother’s widow, so where did this idea of incestuousness come from? 

I asked this question on my LibraryThing thread, and my father came up with this answer: 

Complex subject. First off, reference Leviticus 25:5

“If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her.

The duty of a surviving brother to carry on his brother’s family was very important–but the issue would be his late brother’s child and not his own. Thus the story of Onan in Genesis 36. Onan went to Tamar, the late Er’s wife. But he withdrew early and “cast his seed upon the ground.” For that, Yahweh decreed capital punishment, so Onan died as well. But the brother did not strictly marry his sister-in-law. He just got her pregnant, and it was known as a Levirate marriage. Many readers considered Onan’s crime as masturbation (aka Onanism) and considered masturbation a serious sin for centuries.

As to marriage to a mother-in-law, sister-in-law, etc., these people were considered part of a household, especially if they lived in the same manor. Marriages to such always had overtones of incest, but such overtones were easily overridden among the aristocracy. But then as now, there were strict conservatives, many who held places in the hierarchy who pronounced dire consequences for everyone who did not follow the conservatives’ conscience. Especially if the conservative was opposed to the marriage for politiical or economic (his own economy) reasons. Monks and priests who vowed celibacy (whether they kept their vows or now) tended to look down their Pecksniffian noses at people who did not remain celibate. 

I also wonder (maybe there are some Shakespeare scholars reading this?)…if Shakespeare had strong feelings about the incestuous nature of marrying your brother’s widow, does that imply that he questioned the legitimacy of his king, James I, who was grandson to Henry VIII’s “incestuous” marriage to Catherine?

Things that make you go “hmmmm.”

Edited to add that Alex (in comments below) has pointed out that James I was not the grandson of Henry VIII. That just shows you what I know.

Shakespeare’s Hamlet: Master Post

I am reading Shakespeare’s Hamlet. I’ve read this play twice before, but never as an adult. I imagine my understanding of the play will be VERY different this time around. In addition to reading the play, I’m going to watch some movies, read critiques, and try out a couple of re-tellings. Not all of this will happen in only one month’s time, so I will be making several posts over the next year. I will keep updating this master post each time I do so that everyone can keep track of my posts. 🙂

Notes on Introduction by Harold Jenkins
Act I, Scene i
Act I, Scenes ii – v
Act II