Il romanzo descrive un singolare intreccio di eventi; di epoche e zone geografiche diverse; che si organizzano secondo la logica del simbolismo ermetico. La costruzione appare seducente e ricca di spunti avvincenti che si riferiscono a fatti reali; interpretati secondo un nuovo paradigma meta-forico. Lanalisi di alcune famosissime opere pittoriche offre lo spunto di una nuova serie di considerazioni iniziatiche che troveranno nella Matrice Massonica la loro limpida coerenza.
#4246916 in eBooks 2013-08-15 2013-08-15File Name: B00FJYJRP6
Review
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful. Hamlet a mystery no longerBy Gerald BakerHamlet isnrsquo;t the enigmatic puzzle-play you think it is. Therersquo;s an early short version of the play that makes perfect sense and answers all the problems people have had with it over the years. The reason we donrsquo;t realise it is that the short version has been neglected for decades by scholars and editors; though theatre people have done a bit better with it. Terri Bourus is a theatre person and a scholar-editor and her book pretty much demolishes everything we thought we knew about the short version. Itrsquo;s not a version thrown together from by memory by bit-part actors for a catchpenny publisher; itrsquo;s Shakespearersquo;s own first pass at the most famous play by the worlds most famous dramatist. Itrsquo;s the version that probably launched his career and brought him to popular and intellectual recognition. Bourus explains all the specialist terms and contexts in a way that scholars donrsquo;t always do; so her argument can be followed by non-specialists as well. Shersquo;s got a lively sense of how actors work and how plays get on stage. And her book means we have to rewrite the history of Shakespearersquo;s early career and the history of the theatre world he worked in. NB I posted this review originally on UK; where .com reviews are visible. The function seems not to work the other way; so I have re-posted on .com; because the implications of this book are seismic for Shakespeare studies and early modern theatre history.2 of 2 people found the following review helpful. Bourus is a wonderful scholar-adventurer!!By Jane C. MallisonI loved this book! Im not a textual scholar--just a high school English teacher who knows "Hamlet" well and loves it. This book held me riveted as I relished Bouruss combination of scholarship and commonsense. Someone who knows all about the early 17th century publisher Nicholas Ling (first name an anagram for a phonetic spelling of "honeysuckle"!) but can quote the Yahoo movie misquotation list to make a telling point is to be cherished.So if youve ever wondered why there are three versions of "Hamlet" (or why most modern editions are a conflated 4th version); youll like this book. And if youve ever heard people talk about the "Ur-Hamlet;" youll really enjoy Bouruss destruction of its mysterious non-)existence.2 of 2 people found the following review helpful. Bourus writes for an intelligent reader interested in Shakespearersquo;s stage as much as his poetic prowess.By Paige AmbroziakNot too long ago I came across ldquo;Shakespearersquo;s Badass Quartordquo; in the ldquo;Chronicle of Higher Education;rdquo; which details the latest controversy about the first edition of ldquo;Hamlet.rdquo; Though I have worked on ldquo;Hamletrdquo; and am inclined to linger over its narrative aspects; debates about the historicity of the text are riveting; nonetheless. For anyone who doesnrsquo;t know; there are three printed versions of the tragedy; the First Quarto (1603); the Second Quarto (1604); and the First Folio edition of 1623. The First Quarto has always been suspect and a bit of a bastard child; if it is even considered the masterrsquo;s offspring. I happen to love that edition best. It is shorter; tighter; and less about a hesitant and incapable prince than a young heir facing a suspect stepfather. The differences between the editions have been widely examined and discussed; as well as prove viable as evidence for both sides; which brings me to my point. After reading Ron Rosenbaumrsquo;s article in the ldquo;Chronicle;rdquo; I picked up Terri Bourusrsquo;s ldquo;Young Shakespearersquo;s Young Hamlet;rdquo; which he had discussed in depth since it convincingly heralds a much needed change to our perception of Shakespearersquo;s most famous tragedy. Bourus claims the 1603 ldquo;Hamletrdquo; is the playwrightrsquo;s original version; first performed on the Elizabethan stage in 1589.Thankfully; books by academics are becoming less and less jargon-laden; and are now some of the most fluid and comprehensible texts written. There are practical reasons for writing for a general audience; and it can be done without dumbing down content or stripping away erudition. I wonrsquo;t belabor the point; but; simply put; a theory is useless if no one understands it. I like to think those invested in literary criticism have picked up on this since academic book sales are in desperate need of a revival. Bourusrsquo;s work is well-researched and a fine example of what Irsquo;m talking about. One need not jump-start his or her brain every few passages; rebooting lost connections due to dense material that requires grand assimilation. Bourus writes for an intelligent reader interested in Shakespearersquo;s stage as much as his poetic prowess. I found myself gobbling up her arguments as each of my questions was answered at every turn. There seems to be little that Bourus has not considered. She faces other critics head-on; even those whose work has become canonical and most certainly considered an authoritative voice on the matter. I would venture to say that she untangles ldquo;Hamletrsquo;srdquo; textual web; and impressively so.Some of the theories she dismantles concern piratical publishers; stealing a copy of the text to publish without authority for financial gain; piratical actors; compiling sides to make a full copy of the text to sell to a publisher for financial gain; and piratical reporters; watching the play in performance and taking notes; transcribing most from memory to put together a completed text to sell to a publisher for financial gain. It is clear that the belief until recently has been that the only possible reason for this bastard copy was for someone other than the playwright to make a profit.But Bourusrsquo;s argument goes further; taking on Hamletrsquo;s age; a bane with which some of the greatest literary critics of the twentieth century have grappled. The First Quarto seems to support the notion that Hamlet is in fact a teenager; not yet university age; and perhaps not old enough to step in as King of Denmark upon Old Hamletrsquo;s death. Not only does Bourus turn to the source material; Belleforestrsquo;s ldquo;Amleth;rdquo; but also the reasonable argument that Ophelia is more likely Juliet Capuletrsquo;s age than the twenty-something she seems to be in the 1604 and 1623 editions. Her age analysis digs deeper still; tackling the maturing Richard Burbage; the historical evidence that supports political issues of a young heir; Gertrudersquo;s relationship to her son; as well as her second marriage; and uses of certain terms; such as young and old; in the early modern period. The clarity Bourus brings to the confusion about Hamletrsquo;s age should more than convince any reader of her weighty scholarship.The real strength of her argument; however; lies in her reliance on the elements of performance to explain quite readily some of the more puzzling details about the 1603 text. Bourus is an academic; an equity actor; and a theatre director who has directed performances of ldquo;Hamlet;rdquo; among other theatrical whales. As they say in the biz; she is a triple threat; and uses her firsthand experience both on stage and with dramatic texts to peel away some of the critical layers under which ldquo;Hamletrsquo;srdquo; script has lain for centuries.