2437-50 Looke . . . . feede] Stubbs (1736, pp. 33-4): <p.33>“We are now come to a Scene which I have always much admired. I cannot think it possible, that such an incident could have been managed better, nor more conformably to Reason and Nature. The Prince, conscious of his own good Intentions, and the Justness of the Cause he undertakes to plead, speaks with that Force and </p.33><p.34> Assurance which Virtue always gives; and yet manages his Expressions so as not to treat his Mother in a disrespectful Manner. What can be expressed with more Beauty and more Dignity, that the Difference between his Uncle and Father! The Contrast in the Description of them both, is exquisitely fine: And his inforcing the Heinousness of his Mother’s Crime with so much Vehemence, and her guilty half Confessions of her Wickedness, and at last her thorough Remorse, are all Strokes from the Hand of a great Master in the Imitation of Nature.” </p.34>

2437 Picture] Steevens (ed. 1773): “It is evident from the following words, ‘A station, like the herald Mercury, &c. [3.4.58 (2442)]’ that these pictures, which are introduced as miniatures on the stage, were meant for whole lengths, being part of the furniture of the queen’s closet.’—like Maia’s son he stood, And shook his plumes.— Milton, B.V. Steevens.”

2437-55 Looke . . . . this] Pilon (1777, pp. 20-21): <p.20> “Hamlet’s producing the picture of his father and his uncle, is a happy and affecting incident; but we think Mr. Henderson’s conception, in one part of it, erroneous. When the pious prince dwells upon the personal beauty of his father, and contrasts it with the deformity of his uncle, admiration, not grief, is the </p.20><p.21> predominant passion; sorrow chills the fancy, and the following images appear to be the offspring of the most glowing imagination.—[quotes 2441-6]. Imagery rich as this, requires a firm animated tone of grandeur. But Mr. Henderson’s voice broke into a boyish whimper, which not a syllable he had to utter could justify, or dictate. Throwing away the king’s picture savours rather of trick; besides it does not seem to augment our sensibility.” </p.21>

2437 Picture] Malone (1780, 1: 624n1): “A counterfeit, it has been already observed, formerly signified a portrait.”

Ed. note: Malone wrote this note for Sonnet 53.

2437-55 Looke . . . . this] Richardson (1780, pp. 135-7): <p.135> “It is not suitable to the agitated state of his mind, to enter sedately into a formal and argumentative discussion of the impiety and immorality of her conduct: he mentions these in a </p.135><p.136> summary manner; and, following the impulse of his own mind, he speaks the language of strong emotion, addresses her feelings, and endeavours to convey into her heart some portion of the indignation with which he is himself inflamed. [cites 2437-49] The contrast in these lines co-operating with other causes, has a very striking effect. The transition from admiration to abhorrence, in a remarkable degree, </p.136><p.137> heightens the latter, Hamlet dwells minutely on every circumstance of his father’s character: but, passing from that to the picture of Claudius, his perturbation is visibly augmented; his indignation and abhorrence are almost too excessive for utterance: and the difference between the two characters appearing to him so manifest as to render a particular illustration needless, he reflects with severity on that woeful perversion of mind which blunted the feelings and perceptions of Gertrude [cites 2452-5].”</p.137>

2437 Picture] Malone (1783, p. 58): “The introduction of miniatures in this place appears to be a modern innovation. A print prefixed to Rowe’s edition of Hamlet, published in 1709, confirms Mr. Steevens’s observation. There, the two royal portraits are exhibited as half-lengths, hanging in the Queen’s closet; and probably such had been the stage exhibition, from the time of the original performance of this tragedy to the death of Betterton.”

2437 Picture] Davies (1784, pp. 106-7) <p.106> “It has been the constant practice of the stage, ever since the Restoration, for Hamlet, in this scene, to produce from his pocket two pictures in little, of his father and uncle, not much bigger than two large coins or medallions. How the graceful attitude of a man could be given in a miniature I cannot conceive.—In the infancy of the stage, we know that our theatres had no moving scenes; nor were they acquainted with them till Betterton brought some from Paris, 1662.—In our author’s time they made use of tapestry; and the figures in tapestry might be of service to the action of the player in the scene </p.106><p.107> between Hamlet and the Queen. ‘But,’ says Downs, ‘Sir William Davenant taught the players the representation of Hamlet as he had seen it before the civil wars.’ But, if the scantiness of decorations compelled the old actors to have recourse to miniature-pictures, why should the playhouse continue the practice when it is no longer necessary; and when the scene might be shewn to more advantage, by two portraits, at length, in different panels of the Queen’s closet? Dr. Armstrong, in his sketches, long ago pointed out the supposed absurdity of these hand-pictures. The other mode, of large portraits, would add to the graceful action of the player, in pointing at the figures in the wainscot. He might resume the chair immediately after he had done with the subject, and go on with the expostulation. However, this is only a conjecture which I throw out for the consideration of the actors.”

2437 Picture] Mason (1785, p. 390): “Steevens’s observation on this passage is not conclusive:—You may have a whole-length picture in miniature.”

2437 Picture] Malone (ed. 1790): “A print prefixed to Rowe’s edition of Hamlet, published in 1709, proves this. There, the two royal portraits are exhibited as half-lengths hanging in the Queen’s closet; and either thus, or as whole lengths, they probably were exhibited from the time of the original performance of this tragedy to the death of Betterton. To half-lengths, however, the same objection lies, as to miniatures. Malone.”

2437 Picture] Steevens (ed. 1793): “Hamlet, who, in a former scene, has censured those who gave ‘forty, fifty, a hundred ducats apiece’ for his uncle’s ‘picture in little,’ would hardly have condescended to carry such a thing in his pocket. Steevens.”

2437 Picture] Steevens (ed. 1793): “We may also learn, that from this print the trick of kicking the chair down on the appearance of the Ghost, was adopted by modern Hamlets from the practice of their predecessors. Steevens.”

2437-38 Looke . . . brothers] Whiter (1794): “It is evident (as the Commentators have remarked) from the following words, ‘A station like the herald Mercury’ [3.4.58 (2442)] that these pictures, which are now produced on the stage as miniatures, were meant as full lengths, ‘being part of the furniture of the Queen’s closet’; and that the introduction of these miniatures is a modern innovation.”

2437 Looke . . . this] Chedworth (apud Seymour 1805, p. 185): “These pictures should, certainly, be whole lengths, hanging in the queen’s closet. Lord Chedworth.”

2437 Picture] Chedworth (1805, p. 356): “These pictures should certainly be whole lengths hanging in the queen’s closet.”

2437 Looke . . . this] Seymour (1805, p. 185): “It is, I think, an egregious misconception, and a wretched device to make Hamlet come prepared with a couple of miniature pictures, for the purpose of expressing his reproaches at the queen’s conduct, and to utter these reproaches while he is seated on a chair:—the pictures pointed at are, surely, the portraits at length, of the late king and of the usurper, the latter, Gertrude might naturally enough have introduced into her closet, while prudence and decency still retained the former there: and this representation would materially improve the action of the scene.”

2437 Picture] Caldecott (ed. 1819): “Mr. Malone tells us that in a print prefixed to Rowe’s edit. of 1709, the two royal portraits are exhibited as half lengths, hanging in the queen’s closet. There can be little doubt that such was the furniture of the stage in our author’s day, and that the respective portraits were pointed out by the finger in representation: and such, probably, continued down to the death of Betterton. In modern practice miniatures are produced from the neck and pocket. The ‘pictures in little’ of that age, of which, in common with his contemporaries, our author speaks in [2.2.367 (1412)] (Ham. to Rosencr.) might have been as commodiously used for this purpose as modern miniatures; but by this process the audience are not permitted to judge of what they hear, to make any estimate of the comparative defects and excellencies even of the features and as to the ‘station’ or imposing attitude, ‘the combination and the form,’ it is impossible, in so confined a space, that these could be presented to each other; that of these, even the parties themselves should be able to form any adequate idea.”

2437 Picture] Singer (ed. 1826): “It is evident from this passage that whole length pictures of the two kings were formally introduced.”

2437 Picture] Caldecott (ed. 1832): “Completely to do away with another objection, viz. the improbability that Hamlet should have about him his uncle’s picture, a Bath actor once suggested the snatching of it, while earnest in the discussion, from his mother’s neck.”

2437 Looke . . . this] Knight (ed. [1839] nd): “In a volume of Essays, written by Dr. Armstrong, under the assumed name of Lancelot Temple, we have the following observations on the common stage action which accompanies this passage,—’As I feel it, there is a kind of tame impropriety, or even absurdity, in that action of Hamlet producing the two miniatures of his father and uncle out of his pocket. It seems more natural to suppose, that Hamlet was struck with the comparison he makes between the two brothers, upon casting his eyes on their pictures, as they hang in the apartment where this conference passes with the queen. There is not only more nature, more elegance, and dignity in supposing it thus; but it gives occasion to more passionate and more graceful action; and is of consequence likelier to be as Sh’s imagination had conceived it.’ It is remarkable that this stage practice, which involved the improbability that Hamlet should have carried his uncle’s picture about with him, should have been a modern innovation. In a print prefixed to Rowe’s Shakspere, 1709, of which the following is a copy [reduced version of rowe1 frontispiece], we see Hamlet pointing to the large pictures on the arras. Our readers will smile at the costume, and will observe that the stage trick of kicking down the chair upon the entrance of the ghost is more than a century old.”

2437 Looke . . . this] Hunter (1845, pp. 256-5): <p.256> “It appears from the notes that when this play is represented two miniatures are produced by the actor, but that formerly, as we see in Rowe’s print, the two pictures were half-lengths hung up in the closet. Perhaps Holman’s way of representing this part of the scene was better than either. </p.256><p.257> The picture of the then King hung up in the lady’s closet, but the miniature of the King who was dead was produced by Hamlet from his bosom.” </p.257>

2437 Looke heere . . . on this] Verplanck (ed. 1847): “Dr. Armstrong thus remarks, on the common stage action which accompanies this passage: ‘There is a tame impropriety, or even absurdity, in that action of Hamlet producing the two miniatures of his father and uncle out of his pocket. It seems more natural to suppose, that Hamlet was struck with the comparison he makes between the two brothers, upon casting his eyes on their pictures, as they hang up in the apartment where this conference passes with the Queen. There is not only more nature, more elegance, and dignity, in supposing it thus; but it gives occasion to more passionate and more graceful action, and is, of consequence, likelier to be as Sh’s imagination had conceived it.’”

2437 Looke . . . this] Delius (ed. 1854): “Nach einer Abbildung auf dem Titelblatt von R o w e ’ s erster Ausgabe des Hamlet, 1709, hingen die beiden Königsbilder, auf die Hamlet seine Mutter verweist, "die bildliche Darstellung zweier Brüder," an der Wand des Zimmers.” [According to an illustration on the title page of Rowe’s first edition of Hamlet in 1709, the portraits of both kings, the pictorial representation of two brothers which Hamlet points out to his mother, hung on the wall of the room.]

2437 this Picture] Fiebig (ed. 1857): “It is evident from the following words, ‘A station, like the herald Mercury,’ etc. that these pictures, which are introduced as miniatures on the stage were meant for whole lengths, being part of the furniture of the queen’s closet: ‘—Like Maia’s son he stood,/And shook his plumes.’ Paradise Lost, B.V. The introduction of miniatures in this place, says Malone, appears to be a modern innovation. A print prefixed to Rowe’s edition of Hamlet, published in 1709, proves this. There, the two royal portraits are exhibited as half-lengths, hanging in the queen’s closet; and either thus, or as whole-lengths, they probably were exhibited in the time of the original performance of this tragedy.—We may also learn, as Steevens observes, that from this print the trick of kicking the chair down on the appearance of the Ghost, was adopted by modern Hamlets from the practice of their predecessors.”

2437-39 Looke . . . brothers] Hackett (1863, p. 79-80): <p.79>“In my youth I had read the work of Wilhelmeister’s Apprenticeship, and been struck with and remembered Goethe’s idea of causing, in representation, Hamlet’s description and comparison of his father’s and his uncle’s respective persons to be painted as full length portraits, and suspended in the Queen’s closet, and, with the aid of Mr. Thomas Barry (a most capital stage-director as well as good and sound actor), I determined to try such an effect on the occasion [of Hackett’s performance as Hamlet on Oct. 21, 1840]. Mr. Barry, who acted the Ghost, </p.79><p.80> consented to change the costume (armour) worn when it was seen upon the platform, and which, as it would seem, was designed to suggest surprise and increase Hamlet’s wonder—(‘My father’s spirit—in arms! all is not well!’ [1.2.254 (456)]—and to adopt one similar to that worn by ‘My father in his habit as he lived’ [3.4.135 (2518)] and painted for the portrait. The canvas was so constructed—by Mr. Barry’s direction—and split, but backed with a spring made from whalebone, which rendered its practicability unperceived by the audience, that it enabled him at the proper juncture, as the ghost behind, to step apparently out of it upon the stage; the rent through which the figure had passed was closed up again, and the canvas, with a light behind it, than looked blank and illuminated; but, the instant after the departure of the spirit from sight of the audience, the light was removed, and the painting appeared as before. The whole effect proved wonderful and surprising, and was vehemently applauded.” </p.80>

2437-8 Looke . . . brothers] Clark and Wright (ed. 1872): “Hamlet here points to two full-length portraits hanging on the wall of the queen’s closet.”

2437-38 Looke . . . brothers] Marshall (1875, pp.166-73): <p.166> “The question as to how the two pictures alluded to by Hamlet in the speech beginning—‘Look here upon this picture, and on this’—should be represented on the stage has given rise to much discussion, and to the most ingenious conjectures. The fact that both Mr. Irving and Signor Salvini, the two greatest representatives of Hamlet we have lately seen, have treated this passage as if the pictures existed only in the imagination of Hamlet, has inclined many persons, including some of our best critics, to adopt this view without, as it seems to me, sufficient consideration.

“I propose to give as complete an account as I can of the various ways in which these two pictures have been arranged by different actors in the part of Hamlet, and then to examine, by the light of such evidence as the text presents, what Sh’s intention probably was.

“On the ‘business’ (to use a technical term) of Burbage and Taylor in this scene we have no account; the following passage in Davies’ ‘Dramatic Miscellanies’ probably embodies the earliest </p.166><p.167> authentic information that we have as to the way in which the two pictures were represented (vol. iii., pages 106-7):—[quotes from Davies: ‘It has been . . . . consideration of the actors.’]

“It will be observed that Davies does not actually say that Betterton himself used the miniatures, though he implies it. In the accounts which Colley Cibber and Steele have left us of that great actor, in the part of Hamlet, there is no information on this point, Steevens’ Note is as follows:—[quotes from Steevens: ‘It is evident . . . . carry such a thing in his pocket.’] To which Malone adds (vol. vii, pages 391, 392, edit. 1811): [quotes Malone: ‘The introduction of miniatures . . . . as to miniatures.’ </p.167><p.168>

“I may add that of this edition (1709) I had a copy, and that the pictures were there represented as hung on different sides of the stage; but I do not know that such illustrations are to be taken as very accurate. Seymour, in his ‘Remarks,’ is strongly against the miniatures, and in favour of full-length portraits (vol. ii., page 185): [quotes Seymour: It is, I think . . . . action of the scene.’

“He quotes Lord Chedworth:—[quotes Chedworth: ‘These pictures . . . Queen’s closet.’]

“In Hunter’s ‘New Illustrations of Shakespeare’ there is the following note (vol. ii., pages 256, 257):—[quotes Hunter: It appears . . . . from his bosom.’]

“Caldecott refers to Malone’s note, and adds (note 85, pages 89, 90):—[quotes Caldecott: ‘There can be little . . . . </p.168><p.169> ]

“In Mr. Fitzgerald’s ‘Life of David Garrick’ I find the following paragraph in the account there given of Garrick’s Hamlet (vol. ii., page 65):—’It was a pity he did not break through the stale old tradition of Hamlet’s pulling out the two miniatures, instead of the finder notion suggested by Davies, of having them on the tapestry—or the better idea still, of seeing them with his mind’s eye only.’

“This is the only passage I have been able to find in any book on the subject of ‘Hamlet’ in which this suggestion is made, and I am inclined to believe that Salvini had already introduced this innovation, in which case Mr. Fitzgerald’s idea might not be so original as, at first sight, it appears.

“The annotators of the Clarendon Series ‘Hamlet’ adopt the full-length figures.

“Mr. Fechter was, I believe, the first to avail himself of the two miniatures in a manner which, whether justifiable or not, was certainly very effective. In his arrangement of this scene, the Queen wore the miniature of Claudius round her neck, while Hamlet wore that of his father; at the end of the eloquent description of the two portraits, Mr. Fechter tore the miniature of Claudius from off his mother’s neck and flung it away from him, while he subsequently made use of that of his father, which he wore himself, at the last ‘good night’ which Hamlet says to his mother, by pointing to it with pathetic earnestness, as if to enforce the remonstrance— ‘go not to my uncle’s bed.’

“Ernesto Rossi, when I saw him at Naples, had much the same arrangement, but he went further, and not only tore the portrait of Claudius from Gertrude’s neck, but broke it into pieces and trampled on the fragments.

“I have here collected all the evidence I can find as to the practice of the old actors in this scene, and I have mentioned that of some of the more celebrated living representatives of Hamlet. I have also given the opinions of some of the most able commentators on the point in question, and it will be seen that both practice and opinion are decidedly in favour of the actual representation of the two portraits on the stage. But the course adopted by Mr. Irving and Signor Salvini has found favour with so many of our critics, for whose judgment and taste I have the greatest respect and admiration, that I cannot but feel some hesitation in differing from them; </p.169><p.170> yet the more I examine the language of Sh. in this speech of Hamlet’s the more I am convinced that he intended the actor to draw his illustrations from real and visible portraits.

“The very first line— ‘Look her upon this picture, and on this’—seems to me totally inconsistent with anything but two actual pictures then before the Queen’s eyes. If the portraits existed but in ‘the mind’s eyes’ of Hamlet, what sense is there in using the two demonstrative pronouns?—how could he point out any contrast between two portraits which he had not yet drawn? He might have said, ‘Look upon this picture—that I am now going to draw in imagination,’ but he could not say, ‘Compare it with this which I am going to draw afterwards.’ The word ‘counterfeit’ seems to me inapplicable to a mere ideal representation; it is always used by Sh. of some actual imitation. We have, too, as every reader will remember, the same word used of a portrait in the well-known passage beginning ‘Fair Portia’s counterfeit! What demi-god Hath come so near creation? [MV 3.2.115 (1462)] There Bassanio is describing a portrait, and a portrait of remarkable excellence and accuracy. The beautiful details in Hamlet’s description are naturally suggested by a visible picture; and it seems to me they would lose all their force, as far as Gertrude is concerned, if they were not actually represented before her eyes. We may gather that no two men could be a greater contrast, physically and morally, than were Claudius and the elder Hamlet; and that contrast, even allowing for the proverbial flattery of painters, must have existed in their portraits: the eloquent description of Hamlet, aided by the actual pictures before him, would impress that contrast so forcibly on the Queen as to make her ashamed of her infidelity to her husband, even on merely physical grounds. This is what Hamlet aims at in the first part of his speech; he has to deal with a woman of hot passions, of fickle nature, of little depth of character, and certainly not possessed of a vivid imagination: how could he break down more effectively the barriers of self-deceit and shameless lust than by showing her that, even in outward and physical charms, her paramour was glaringly inferior to him whom she had betrayed? Having thus derided the personal appearance of Claudius, Hamlet proceeds to lay bare the deformities of his soul. Her idol has been subjected to a rude process of disenchantment; the mind of Gertrude is the more ready to listen to the vehement denunciation of his crimes which her son now pours forth.

“It must not be forgotten that the essence of dramatic writing consists in the writer being able to place himself in the same position and under the same circumstances, to feel the same passions, to be influenced by the same motives, as the characters of his play; the moment that he begins to address his dialogue more to the audience </p.170><p.171> than to the characters on the stage, he ceases to be dramatic. No dramatist has ever preserved the individuality of his characters with so much care as Sh.; nobody has ever made them act and react upon one another in a more natural way. With very few exceptions, and those only in his inferior works, do we find that Sh. ever makes his characters obviously talk at the spectators, and not to one another; his poetry, his pathos, and his humour very rarely, if ever, jar upon one’s sense of fitness; they belong essentially to the characters in whose mouth he puts them. Now it seems to me that it would be eminently undramatic to make Hamlet appeal solely to the imaginative power of Gertrude with regard to the ‘presentment’ of these two pictures: a woman who is so deficient in idealistic and imaginative power, whose fancy is so little impressionable as not to be able to imagine that she sees anything, when Hamlet is making his earnest appeal to the Ghost, would scarcely be able to realise the pictures in the air, which, if we follow Irving and Salvini, are the only pictures by which Hamlet illustrates his eloquent description. I must not be understood for one moment as complaining that the Queen does not pretend to see a Ghost which she cannot really see; I am only insisting on this evidence of the unimpressionable nature of her ideal faculties, as a reason why Sh. should not have represented Hamlet as appealing, unnecessarily, to those faculties when he might so easily appeal to her senses. There is no reason why the pictures should not be there; and there are very many reasons why they should. I cannot agree with those critics who see something intensely artistic and poetical in making these pictures exist only in the mind’s eye of Hamlet: the real poetic beauty of the passage lies in the language used by him in describing his father’s picture; and this beauty is no more lessened by the fact that the pictures are absolutely visible on the scene, than is the magnificent description of Cleopatra in her barge, given by Enobarbus, to be depreciated because he had absolutely seen what he so exquisitely describes. <n.> This must not be taken as expressing any partiality on my part for that practice of presenting to the audience pageantry only referred to in Sh’s plays; a practice begun, I believe, by Charles Kean, what I mean to insist upon is that no poetic description is less poetic because the poet himself, or the character through whose mouth he speaks, has actually seen what he describes. </n.>

“As far as concerns the actor himself, I think that he loses much in effect by the absences of the pictures.

“We have, then, the choice of several ways in which the pictures might be arranged; if they are miniatures, Hamlet could either produce them both from his pocket, as Davies mentions was the custom of the stage since the Restoration; or he could produce the one of his father from his own breast, while that of Claudius might be hanging round the neck of the Queen; or both might be on the Queen’s table. The mention by Hamlet of the fact that pictures in little (i.e., miniatures) of his uncle were being sold [2.2.367 (1412)] would account for his possessing one. I have often thought that most of the objections to the use of the miniatures might be got over by having two full-length miniatures, such as were not uncommon in the time of Sh., on the table at which Gertrude would be in the habit of sitting. If the pictures are represented on the walls they should not be half-lengths; nor should they be opposite, but close to one another. This arrangement would seem to be indicated by the line where Hamlet speaks of the portrait of Claudius— ‘Like a midew’d ear, Blasting his wholesome brother’ [2448-49] He could hardly say this of the two pictures at a long distance from one another; indeed, this line tells very much in favour of the use of miniatures, as with them it is very easy for Hamlet to place the two pictures close to one another, and so most forcibly to illustrate the simile which he uses.

“On the whole, I myself should prefer the portraits to be represented as full-lengths, fixed on two adjacent panels of the wall. In Mr. Drake’s ‘Sh. and his Times’ (vol.ii., page 119) I find the following passage:—‘Pictures constituted a frequent decoration in the rooms of the wealthy, and there are numerous instances to prove that those which were estimated as valuable were covered by curtains. Olivia, addressing Viola in TN [3.4.208 (1725)], says: ‘We will draw the curtain, and show you the picture.’ The same imagery occurs in Tro. [3.2.46-47 (1678-79)], where Pandarus, unveiling Cressida, uses almost the same words: ‘Come, draw this curtain and let us see your picture.’ The passage, however, which Mr. Douce has quoted in illustration of this subject, as it decides the point, will supersede all further reference: ‘In Deloney’s Pleasant History of Jack of Newbery, printed before 1597, it is recorded,’ he remarks, ‘that in a faire large parlour which was wainscotted round about, Jack of Newbery had fifteen faire pictures hanging, which were covered with curtains of greene silke, fringed with gold, which he would often shew to his friends.’

“This passage has suggested to me the idea that the picture in </p.172><p.173> the Queen’s closet might be fitted with curtains; and that while the curtain belonging to the portrait of Claudius might be drawn aside so as to show the whole of the picture, that belonging to the portrait of the elder Hamlet might be drawn across so as to conceal the picture. When the Queen asks of Hamlet—‘What act, That roars so loud, and thunders in the index?’—Hamlet might take hold of her hand and lead her up the stage, or, at any rate, turn her round so as to place her face to face with the portrait of her late husband. He might then go up to the portrait, and, drawing the curtain aside with a grand and dignified gesture, begin the speech— ‘What judgment Would step from this to this?’—he would by this time have begun to feel the shame which, at last, overwhelms her. This arrangement, while it gives variety to the attitudes of the actor, seems to me to lend force to the striking contrast which Hamlet draws between the two brothers.

“It is probable that, though Claudius, as I have said, was more jovial and voluptuous in appearance than King Hamlet, he was much inferior to his brother in grace and dignity: the contrast between the two portraits might well be such as to justify Hamlet’s language, if his father were represented as standing dressed in full armour, in an attitude of defiance, while his uncle was represented as seated, in his state robes, on the throne, or at the banquet-table, presenting an exact antithesis, in his realization of more sensual splendour, to the god-like majesty of his predecessor.” </p.173>

2437 Picture] Furness (ed. 1877): “Davies (Dram. Misc., Dublin, 1784, vol. iii, p. 63): It has been the constant practice of the stage, since the Restoration, for Ham. to produce from his pocket two pictures in little of his father and uncle, not much bigger than large coins or medallions. Instead of movable scenery, which was first introduced from France by Betterton in 1662, Sh’s stage made use of tapestry. Two full-length portraits in the tapestry of the Queen’s closet might be of service in this scene. Steevens: It is evident from the words, ‘A station,’ &c., that these pictures, which are introduced as miniatures on the stage, were meant for whole lengths, being part of the furniture of the Queen’s closet. Ham., who in a former scene had censured those who gave ‘forty, fifty ducats apiece’ for his uncle’s ‘picture in little,’ would hardly have condescended to carry such a thing in his pocket. Malone: The introduction of miniatures in this place appears to be a modern innovation. A print prefixed to ‘Rowe’s edition of Hamlet, 1709, proves this. There the two royal portraits are exhibited as half-lengths, hanging in the Queen’s closet; and either thus, or as whole lengths, they were probably exhibited from the time of the original performance to the death of Betterton. To half-lengths, however, the same objection lies as to miniatures. Steevens: We may also learn that from this print the trick of kicking the chair down on the appearance of the Ghost was adopted by modern Hamlets from the practice of their predecessors. Caldecott objects to miniatures, because the audience could not be permitted to judge of what they hear, nor make any estimate of the comparative excellence of the features, nor could the ‘station’ and the ‘combination and the form’ be adequately represented in so confined a space. Completely to do away with the objection that it is not probable that Ham. should have about him his uncle’s picture, a Bath actor once suggested the snatching of it from his mother’s neck. Hunter (ii, 256): Perhaps Holman’s way was the best. The picture of the then King hung up in the lady’s closet, but the miniature of the king who was dead was produced by Ham. from his bosom.” [Fitzgerald (Life of Garrick, ii, 65) suggests that the pictures be seen with the mind’s eye only; a suggestion adopted by Irving and Salvini. Fechter follows the suggestion of the Bath actor mentioned by Caldecott, and tears the miniature from his mother’s neck and casts it away. Rossi not only tears it from his mother’s neck, but dashes it to the ground and stamps on the fragments. Edwin Booth makes use of two miniatures, taking one from his own neck, and the other from his mother’s.—A.I. Fish.]

2437-38 Looke . . . brothers] Tannenbaum (n.d., p.380): “The juxtaposition of the portraits of his uncle and his father, combined with the disgusting images of lust he has just conjured, up brings about a frenzied mental state in which he sees his father’s spirit ‘in his habit as he lived’, as he is depicted in the counterfeit presentment hanging before him. Nothing else could have calmed Hamlet at this moment. But for that visitation the soul of Nero might indeed have entered his bosom.”

2437 Rolfe (ed. 1878): “The original practice of the stage seems to have been to have two pictures hanging in the queen’s closet. They are so represented in a print prefixed in Rowe’s Hamlet, published in 1709. Afterwards it became the fashion for Hamlet to take two miniatures from his pocket; but as Hamlet would not be likely to carry his uncle’s picture in that way, a Bath actor suggested snatching it from his mother’s neck. Another arrangement was to have the new king’s portrait hanging on the wall, while Hamlet took his father’s from his bosom. Fitzgerald, in his Life of Garrick, suggested that the picture’s be seen with the mind’s eye only; and this is followed by Irving and Salvini. Fechter tears the miniature from the queen’s neck and throws it away. Edwin Booth makes use of two miniatures, taking one from his own neck and the other from the queen’s (F.).”

2437-38 Halliwell-Phillipps (1879, pp. 66-7)” <p.66> “In the Satiro-mastix, 1602, Tucca comes upon the stage, ‘his boy after him with two pictures under his cloake,’ sig. L.2. These pictures are used in a manner somewhat similar to that adopted by modern actors of Hamlet, but differently, I believe, to the scene as ori- </p.66><p.67> ginally acted, So that the incident is not necessarily, as has been supposed, any evidence of its adaptation or imitation of one in any play of Hamlet. ‘How the graceful attitude of a man,’ observes Davies, ‘could be given in a miniature I cannot conceive. In the infancy of the stage, we know that our theatres had no moving scenes. In our author’s time they made use of tapestry; and the figures in tapestry might be of service to the action of the player in the scene between Hamlet and the Queen.’ In Rowe’s time, 1709, the pictures, two large framed portraits, were hung on the walls of the chamber, and this was probably the custom after the Restoration, the separate paintings taking the place of those in the tapestry, the latter accidental and imaginary, Hamlet on the ancient stage no doubt pointing to any part of the arrays in which figures were represented. In the old German play Hamlet is made to say to his mother,—‘but look, in the gallery hands the counterfeit of your present husband.’ It clearly appears from Hamlet’s speech in the genuine tragedy that the portraits were intended to be whole lengths and this would be inconsistent with the notion </p.67><p.68> of miniatures, to say nothing of the absurdity of his carrying about with him one of the ‘pictures in little’ the rage for the possession of which he elsewhere disparages [1412].” </p.68>

2437-8 MacDonald (ed. 1885): “He points to the portraits of the two brothers, side by side on the well.”

2437-8 Looke . . . brothers] E. Booth (ms. notes in PB 82, HTC, Shattuck 108): “Most Hamlets, from Kemble’s time, did this. I now place the full-length portrait of the old King on the wall and take from the Queen’s neck the ‘picture in little’ of the new one. Some wise ones insist that both should be together on the wall in order to carry out the idea of the ‘mildewed ear blasting his wholesome brother.’ In that case the two pictures should touch each other. Pictures are not so placed—except in crowded galleries. To my own thinking ‘tis the juxtaposition of the brothers, not their portraits, to wh[ich] these words refer. Besides, how about the other simile—the Mountain and the moon? To carry out that figure one must be higher than the other. As the first King’s person is described his ‘full-length’ is better placed in view, whereas no description is given of Claudius’ appearance & the miniature ‘serves his turn’ well enough, & as ‘twas the fashion to wear is picture about the neck at Court ‘tis not likely that his Queen would fail to do so. E.B. Criticism—Bosh!”

2437-8 Looke . . . brothers] Appleton Morgan (apud J. Taylor, ms. notes in PB 82, HTC, Shattuck 108): “Henderson, after the speech over the two portraits, pitches the uncle’s into the wings & William Barrett stamps his heel upon it.”

2437-8 Looke . . . brothers] London Sunday Times May 31st ( ms. notes in PB 83, HTC, not recorded by Shattuck): “A profound sensation was caused by the picture he conjured up of his father, & by the signs of affection he bestowed upon is own imaginings.”

2437-8 Looke . . . brothers] Taylor ( ms. notes in PB 83, HTC, 83, not recorded by Shattuck): “Salvini agrees with Irving & others & illustrates the two pictures mentally, & not by miniatures or tapestry, Macready had pictures on the tapestry.

“Hamlet points at pictures between the two sets of curtains, & at one around Queen’s neck, which he tears off.

“It has been the practice since the Restoration for Hamlet instead of pointing to representations upon the arras of the late & reigning monarchs to produce miniature of one from his breast & to hold up the pendant of the other hanging loosely from the Queen’s neck.”

2437 Looke . . . this] Symons (in Irving & Marshall, ed. 1890): “Marshall, in his Study of Hamlet, has a long note on ‘two pictures in the closet scene,’ pp. 166-173. He quotes Davies, Dramatic Miscellanies, vol. iii. pp. 106, 107: ‘It has been the constant practice of the stage, ever since the Restoration, for Hamlet, in this scene, to produce fromhis pocket two pictures in little, of his father and uncle, not much bigger than two large coins or medallions . . . But, if the scantiness of decorations compelled the old actors to have recourse to miniature pictures, why should the playhouse continue the practice when it is no longer necessary; and when the same scene might be shown to more advantage by two portraits, at length, in different panels of the Queen’s closet?’ Steevens and Malone both express their approval of the whole lengths rather than miniatures, on the ground that Hamlet could not, in the latter case, have referred to ‘a station, like the herald mercury,’ &. It also seems obvious that Hamlet would not be likely to have with him a miniature of his uncle. Fechter, indeed, gets out of that difficulty by tearing the miniature of Claudius from the queen’s neck, and flinging it away; Rossi tears off the miniature, dashes it to the ground, and tramples on the fragments. Mr. Irving and Salvini suppose the pictures to be seen with the mind’s eye alone, a conclusion which Mr. Marshall strongly, and, as I think, conclusively, argues against in his note. ‘The very first line— ‘Look there upon this picture, and on this— ‘seems to me totally inconsistent with anything but two actual pictures then before the Queen’s eyes. If the portraits existed but in ‘the mind’s eye’ of Hamlet, what sense is there in his using the two demonstrative pronouns?—that I am now going to draw in imagination,’ but he could not say ‘Compare it with this which I am going to draw afterwards.’ The word ‘counterfeit’ seems to me inapplicable to a mere ideal representation; it is always used by Sh. of some actual imitation’ (p. 170).”

2437 this Picture . . . this] Deighton (ed. 1891): “there is much discussion here as to whether any pictures are really shown, if so, whether they are pictures hanging on the wall, or miniatures produced for the occasion, one, of his father, possibly hanging round Hamlet’s neck, the other, of the king, round that of the queen.”

2437 Looke . . . this] Dowden (ed. 1899): “Restoration actors made Hamlet produce two miniatures; but miniatures could hardly represent Hamlet’s father at full-length, as he is described. A print, prefixed to Rowe’s ed. of Hamlet, 1709, exhibits half-lengths hanging on the wall. The actor Holman had a picture fo Claudius on the wall, and a miniature of the dead king produced from Hamlet’s bosom. Fechter had two miniatures, one worn round Gertrude’s neck, the other by Hamlet; he tore the miniature from Gertrude and flung it away; so Rossi, who stamped upon it. Edwin Booth used two miniatures. Sir H. Irving and Salvini have represented the portraits as seen only by the mind’s eye.”

2437 Herford (ed. 1900): “It has been doubted whether Hamlet here points to two portraits hung on the walls or takes a miniature of his father from his pocket. Irving and Salvini even suppose the pictures to be drawn only in the imagination. That the Elizabethans understood actual paintings of considerable size may probably be gathered from the German version, where Hamlet says: ‘Aber sehet, dort in jener Gallerie hÄngt das Conterfait Eures ersten Ehegemahls, und da hÄngt das Conterfait des itzigen’ (3.5.).”

2437 Picture] Porter & clarke (ed. 1903): “According to Davies, from the Restoration two medallion pocket-pictures were used on the stage at this point until Betterton, in 1662, made use of full-length portraits in the tapestry. An actor on the famous Bath Stage was the first to snatch up the locket of the uncle from the queen’s neck. Fechter, the Booths, and Wilson Barrett did the like, using the miniature round Hamlet’s own neck for the dead king. Salvini and Irving see both pictures with the mind’s eye.”

2437 Verity (ed. 1904): “The stage-tradition favours miniatures (one worn by Hamlet, they other by the Queen), perhaps because this gives scope for more effective ‘business.’ Thus some actors make Hamlet tear the miniature of Claudius from the Queen’s neck and fling it away, or stamp on it. But the description of the elder Hamlet, especially 58-62, certainly indicates a portrait on the wall (and it is quite possible that Sh. knew of the gallery of portraits in the Castle at Elsinore – see Introduction). (F.)

“The theory that the ‘pictures’ are imaginary seems to me essentially unsound. It makes the whole episode practically an anticipation of the great incident of the scene. The suggestion of hallucination here would sensibly diminish the dramatic effect–the surprise–of the apparition at 101.”

2437-8 Subbarau (ed. 1909): “It seems to me that not only [2442-3] imply full-length portraits, but the words ‘like a mildew’d eare blasting his wholesome brother’ clearly indicate that the pictures have been standing in close juxtaposition; and it is not improbable that Sh. had heard about the interior of the castle at Elsinore and of the tapestry-hangings ‘wherein all the Danish Kings were exprest in antique habits.’”

2437-63 Werder (1907; rpt. 1977, p. 60 ): <p. 60> “In the third act, in the only scene in which the son, although he has long known of his mother’s sin, speaks to her about it his expression of the feeling to which I refer is the more intense from the fact that it has been so long repressed.” </p. 60>

2437 McCarthy (1928, p. 617) questions, given Lawrence’s excellent study of the staging of Hamlet, whether he is right to posit portraits hung upon the arras; would the company have gone to the expense of creating paintings that resembled the ghost and the present king? Or, as Thomas Davies declares for his time (18th century), were they pictures in little? The only “arras” available to Sh. would have been the curtain for the inner stage and because Polonius has to be behind it and Hamlet has to draw the “arras” (curtain) a bit to see him, portraits hung thereon would be unlikely.

Lawrence in responding in a later issue (p. 632) defends his theory of full-length portraits in Sh’s time and in the Restoration, as demonstrated by Rowe’s frontispiece [which of course shows a different kind of staging from Sh.’s.] Ed. note: Hers had been a mild letter, with praise for Lawrence in every aspect but the one she argues against. His is full of scorn for her understanding (he identifies her as a professor at an American college) and her reliance on “Tom” Davies, whom he diminishes with a shortened name, whose work is full of errors.

2437 Poel (1928, p.667) finds no evidence in the text for ascertaining how the portraits appear on stage, and he lists 4 ways that will work: 1. miniatures, 2. pictures hung as Lawrence describes, 3. imaginary pictures, and 4. off-stage pictures Hamlet points to—visible to the queen but not to the audience. Poel likes the last way best, to fix the audience’s attention on Hamlet’s description

Poel denies Dr. Edith McCarthy’s supposition that Hamlet lifts up the arras; this is old stage business but not in the text. Because the death of Polonius is the crisis of the play, Poel would like Polonius to stagger out and die in Hamlet’s arms, at forestage, a grouping that “deepens the pathos of the situation.” Poel thinks Hamlet does weep as the queen says, and that the ghost reassures him that he will succeed in the end. Ed note: In 2407 Hamlet does not know whom he has killed and in 2413 he does; that could be effected by having Polonius stagger out rather than have Hamlet leave the fore-stage to look behind the curtain. But the ghost’s lines do not appear to promise anything

2437 Ham] Travers (ed. 1929): “pointing apparently, as in the illustration in Rowe (pp. 1 n. 1, 65 n. 5), at full-length (58-59) portraits.”

2437 Wilson (ed. 1934): See SD for [2374]

2437 vpon this . . . and on this] Wilson (ed. 1934): “Ll. 58-9 indicate full-length portraits, and in Der bestrafte Brudermord they are referred to as in a ‘gallery.’ Cf. Sh.Eng. ii.11.”

2437 vpon this . . . on this] Wilson (ed. 1936): “The picture of this scene in Rowe’s ed. Of 1709 shows half-length portraits on the wall; cf. add. note 2.2.159 S.D. [1190] and Stow (Annals, p. 1436) speaks of a great chamber in the palace at Elsinore ‘hanged with Tapistary of fresh coloured silke without gold, wherein all the Danish kings are exprest in antique habits, according to their several times, with their armes and inscriptions, conteining all their conquests and victories.’ But cf. Hazelton Spencer, ‘How Sh. staged his plays’, Johns Hopkins Alumini Magazine, xx, 205-21.”

2437 this Picture] Kittredge (ed. 1939): “Station (‘atitude of standing’) in l. 58 is enough to prove that this portrait was full-length, and if so, the portrait of Claudius was doubtless of the same sort. Miniatures have often been substituted on the stage. Cf. TNK [4.2.1 (2343)]. In the old German Hamlet (Der Bestrafte Brudermord). iii, 5, Hamlet speaks of the portraits as ‘dort in jener Gallerie.’ 1.

<n1> “1For portraits (real or imaginary) hanging on the wall see Webster, The Devil’s Law-Case, ii, 3, 379 ff. (ed. Lucas, II, 284); Middleton, Blurt, Master Constable, ii, 1, 174 ff; ii, 2, 85 ff., 110 ff., 159-162; iii, 1, 1 (ed. Bullen, I, 33, 37, 38, 40, 50); Heywood, If You Know Not Me, Part II (Pearson ed., I, 275 ff.). Small portraits (miniatures or the like) are common in stage business. See Marlowe, Edward II, I, 4, 127 (ed. Dyce, II, 185; ed. Charlton and Waller, p. 92); A Merry Knack to Know a Knave, 1594 (Hazlitt’s Dodsley, VI, 565); Fletcher, The Custom of the Country, v, 3, 17, 18; Fletcher, The Humourous Lieutenant, v, 5, 28 ff.; Dekker, Satiromastix (Pearson ed., I, 157); Ford, The Lover’s Melancholy, ii, 1; iv, 3; v, 1 (ed. Gifford and Dyce, I, 37, 86, 98); Brome, The Novella, iv (Pearson ed., I, 147); Brome, The Queen’s Exchange (Pearson ed., III, 474, 475); The Puritaine Widow, i, 1, 135-138 (ed. Brooke, Shakespeare Apocrypha, p. 222). On the whole question see W. J. Lawrence, Pre-Restoration Stage Studies, 1927, pp. 111-116.” </n>

2437 this Picture . . . this] Rylands (ed. 1947): “Perhaps Gertrude wears a miniature of Claudius round her neck and Hamlet one of his father; or perhaps the portraits (or one of them) may be hanging on the walls of the bedchamber.”

2437 this Picture . . . this] Spencer (ed. 1980): “It is uncertain whether these are miniatures or large pictures hanging on the wall. Miniatures have generally been preferred; Hamlet wears one and his mother another, and he can force her to gaze up on them as he puts them together. Moreover, two large pictures would be inconvenient stage properties, quite apart from the indecorum of the Queen’s having portraits of both her husbands in her closet. Nevertheless, the pose described in lines 55-63 [2437-46] would best suit a full-length portrait; and in the first illustration of this scene (in Rowe’s edition, 1709) wall portraits (but half-length) are shown. Some actors have preferred to suppose the pictures to be in the mind’s eye only, but counterfeit presentment (line 55) is strongly against this.”

2137 this Picture . . . this] Jenkins (ed. 1982): “The pictures are presumably produced by Hamlet. ln. In the debate on the pictures it is important to distinguish, as has often not been done, the question of how they might or should be represented from that of how they were represented on Sh.’s stage. On the second, which is what concerns us, there has been much unnecessary controversy, especially on whether the pictures were wall portraits or ‘miniatures’, a term which has itself confused the issue. It is true that Elizabethan plays afford instances of pictures hanging on the wall of the stage, the most famous perhaps in The White Devil (ii.ii.dumb-show), where the portrait is revealed when ‘they draw a curtain’, while a scene in Heywood’s If You Know Not Me, pt 2, requires a whole gallery of portraits; but there is far too much of taking portraits out of bosoms, passing them from hand to hand, and holding htem while apostrophizing or discussing them for there to be any reasonable doubt of the kind of stage-business called for in Hamlet. In The Puritan (1607) the Widow, ‘drawing out her husband’s picture’, speaks to it and kisses it (i.i.135ff.). In TGV , Silvia sends for the portrait which she hands to Julia, who addresses it for 20 lines (4.4.113-14, 180-201 [1936-37, 2002-23]). Bassanio takes from the casket the portrait of Portia which he then rhapsodically describes (MV. 3.2115-29 [1462-77]). In TNK and Satiromastix, as in Hamlet and perhaps through its influence, there are two companion portraits: Emilia addresses the portraits of her two lovers as she turns from one to the other (4.2.1-54), and Tucca forces the new Horace to look at the portrait of the true Horace and contrast it with his own (5.2..278-96). In both cases dialogue and stage-directions together make the business clear: ‘Enter Emilia . . . with 2 pictures . . . Lie there, Arcite . . . Stand both together . . .’; ‘Enter Tucca, his boy after him with two pictures under his cloak . . . Look here . . . here’s the sweet visage of Horace . . . here’s the copy of thy countenance’. In these instances the characters bring the pictures on and dispose them in the course of their roles, and Hamlet by all the analogies must be supposed to have done the same. It does not of course follow that all these portable pictures were in any strict sense miniatures. The portraits of Horace need a cloak to conceal them; the one that Silvia sends by Julia is referred to as ‘hanging in’ her ‘chamber’ (iv.ii.117); in Blurt Master Constable a ‘wooden picture’ delivered to a lady by a servant is handed about, hung up, gloated over, and taken down again all in full view (2.2.85ff.; 3.1.1. Cf Webster, The Devil’s Law-Case, iii.iii.379ff.). But true miniatures are also familiar (e.g. TN. [3.4.208 (1725)]; Marlowe, Ed.II, 1.4..127; Ford, The Lover’s Melancholy, 2.1.224; 4.3.132; 5.1.251-78; Shirley, The Lady of Pleasure 3.1.152-72), and when pictures are produced without forewarning and, failing other indication, apparently from the person, the probabilities point to miniatures, which hence may have been used in Hamlet. A tradition ‘for Hamlet . . . to produce from his pocket two pictures . . . not much bigger than two large coins or medallions’ was said to be established from Restoration times and was taken by Thos. Davies to have been handed down from Sh’s day (Dramatic Miscellanies, London, 1784, iii.106-7). Whatever the truth of that may be, it at least accords with the evidence that easily handled portraits were a favourite item in stage-business. The idea that Sh. had in mind the portraits of the Danish kings in a famous tapestry in the castle of Kronborg at Elsinore (Jan Stefansson, Contemporary Review, lxix, 25-9, and others) is no more than a pleasant fancy. Theories of life-size portraits in the form of wall-paintings or tapestries hanging on the stage, though often confidently asserted, are without substance Der Bestrafte Brudermord, in which Hamlet says ‘Dort in jener Gallerie hängt das Conterfait Eures ersten Ehegemahls, und da hängt das Conterfait des itzigen’, and the famous illustration in Rowe’s Shakespeare (1709), with its portraits hanging over the Queen’s head, afford some evidence, however we interpret it, of stage practice in a later period, but none at all for Sh’s. Against them may in any case be set an early 18th-century promptbook which requires Hamlet to bring on ‘2 pictures’ with him (see McManaway, PBSA, lxiii, 318-19, reprinted in Studies in Shakespeare, Bibliography and Theater, pp. 188-20). The Rowe engraving, regularly relied on by the advocates of wall-paintings, has proved something of a red herring. Though it demonstrably owes something to stage tradition, it can hardly be a reliable witness of actual performance (cf. Sprague, Shakespeare and the Actors, pp. 162-8) and its portrait of Hamlet’s father in half-length notoriously fails to show the ‘station’ described in 2442-3. It is often said that this reference to a standing posture is incompatible with and even disproves the use of miniatures; yet a full-length is not to be confused with a large-scale portrait, and full-length miniatures are in fact quite well known. (It will be enough to glance at the plates in C. Winter’s Penguin Elizabethan Miniatures.) The literalists none the less object that with a miniature the audience could not see the detail Hamlet describes. It is a curious fallacy that what is visible to the characters in the play should be equally visible to the audience. On the contrary, the verbal description may work better if it is not. The language of poetic hyperbole seeks to evoke for the imagination what no stage-property could easily depict, and this is something that life-size paintings on the stage might more damage than assist. This does not mean that the pictures can be dispensed with altogether, as Irving and Salvini among others tried to do. To suppose them to exist in the mind’s eye only is hardly in compliance with the text [3.4.53-54 (2437-8)]. Though we need not see in it what Hamlet sees, there must be some ‘counterfeit’ which we can see him exhibit.

“The objection that Hamlet, who complained of those who bought his uncle’s ‘picture in little’ [2.2.367 (1412)], would be unlikely to have such a picture himself demands too much of psychological consistency. Verisimilitude could equally 0bject to the Queen’s having portraits of two husbands in her chamber. It may be more to the point dramatically – and a clue to the dramatist’s mind – that the earlier reference to a ‘picture in little’, when Hamlet is contrasting the two kings, prepares for him now to produce such. It was probably to meet the supposed claims of verisimilitude quite as much as to achieve a striking stage-effect that there grew up in the 19th century the practice of having Hamlet wear one miniature and the Queen the other. This, no less than life-size wishes, but the text does nothing to suggest it. A further variant in which Hamlet wears a miniature of his father while a portrait of his uncle hangs in the Queen’s chamber goes against the obvious intention of juxtaposed companion portraits [3.4.53-54 (2437-8)].

“The case for ‘miniatures’ is well put in Sprague, Shakespeare and the Actors, pp. 166-8, and The Stage Business in Shakespeare’s Plays: A Postscript, pp. 19-20. On the other side see W. J. Lawrence, Pre-Restoration Stage Studies, pp. 112-16.”

2437 this Picture . . . this] Wilkes (ed. 1984): “portraits of his father and his uncle: it was a theatre custom in the nineteenth century for Hamlet to wear one miniature and the Queen the other.”

2437-38 Looke heere . . . brothers] Hibbard (ed. 1987): “Perhaps the most useful comment on these lines is Arthur Colby Sprague’s: ‘traditional business accompanies the lines addressed to Gertrude . . . as the Prince forces her to examine actual miniatures . . . of the old King and the new. So he was accustomed to do through much of the I8th century if not before. Against his use of miniatures . . . only one piece of evidence is of much weight. In Rowe’s Shakespeare is an engraving of the Closet Scene at the moment of the Ghost’s return. Several details suggest that the artist was remembering the play as he had seen it acted. And on the wall two half-length portraits are partly visible, those presumably of the two kings. Hamlet, it is urged, had only to point at one of these as he spoke. But because some details in the engraving are theatrical in origin it does not follow that all must be. An illustrator of the scene might have been tempted to introduce the pictures, regardless of what was done on the stage. And one further detail, long overlooked, is curious. For Gertrude is certainly wearing a chain, on which is suspended what appears to be a locket, the locket containing we may suppose, the picture in little of Claudius which Hamlet will snatch from her a moment later, to contrast with that of his father (Arthur Colby Sprague and J.C. Trewin, Shakespeare’s Plays Today, 1970, pp. 26-7).”

2437 Picture] According to Dessen & Thomson (1999), a SD in A Warning for Fair Women (1599, E3v) indicates that a picture might be hanging on a wall: “brings her to her husband’s picture hanging on the wall.” Several other plays call for pictures hanging on walls.”

2437 Greenblatt (2001, p.222) poses the possibility that Hamlet’s “intense idealization” is “oddly unconvincing” because it turns his father into a painting, a way to forget, and his eulogy of his father quickly turns into “an elaborate, nauseated vision of his mother’s sexual intimacies with her new husband: [quotes (3.4.91-94 (2468-71)]. Even more than his doubts about the origin of the Ghost, this obsessive, fascinated loathing seems to stand between Hamlet and full remembrance, or so at least the Ghost’s sudden appearance in the closet suggests.”

2437 this. . . this] Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “It is clear from 52 that Hamlet is comparing a picture of his father with one of the present King; onstage, the pictures can be large formal portraits, miniatures, coins or even photographs, depending on the overall concept of the production. Some commentators have argued that the audience needs to see the pictures to judge for themselves, but this may not be necessary, given that they have seen the Ghost and the King in person. InFratricide Punished Hamlet says, ’But look, there in that gallery hangs the counterfeit resemblance of your first husband, and there hangs the counterfeit of your present one’ (3.5; Bullough, 7.145), perhaps implying that he gestures towards unseen pictures offstage. Jenkins (LN) argues plausibly with reference to the occurrence of portraits in other plays (e.g. TNK 4.2) that relatively small portable versions would have been used at the Globe, though the illustration in Rowe’s 1709 edition showing large pictures may reflect later stage practice. John Philip Kemble is credited with (re)introducing miniatures to the London stage in 1783, though his grandfather John Ward seems to have used them in the provinces (see Thompson, ’Ward’). James Henry Hackett describes a striking effect in a production in 1840 in which the Ghost seemed to step out of a full-size portrait on to the stage (Hackett, 79-80).”