"Start writing, no matter what. The water does not flow until the faucet is turned on." --Louis L'Amour
An unexpected find led to this post. I was cleaning my apartment recently, although cleaning might be too strong a term. I found some folders in the Hamlet collection and started sifting through them to see what was there. I found some junk that went straight into the scrap paper bin, following a "Why did I keep that?" moment. I found other things that weren't discoveries but rather remembrances: "I knew I had that!" This post's topic, however, came from the third category: "Where did that come from?"
What turned up was an article from The New Yorker, circa November 20, 1995. Written by David Remnick, it is entitled "Hamlet in Hollywood." I have no idea how it ended up in my collection. The time frame would have put me in college, so perhaps it was from the Shakespeare course that has been mentioned in previous posts. As the article was in a different folder, though, I'm not entirely sure. Either way, this old something became a new something, albeit 26 years after the fact.
The article describes a legal conflict over a supposedly new theory on Hamlet. The combatants were Steve Sohmer, the one-time president of Columbia Pictures, and Mary Ann McGrail, a Boston University Shakespeare scholar. The argument involved the origination of "a theory that the life of Martin Luther is the hidden source of the play" (66).
"Sohmer's work emphasized Shakespeare's use of the calendar in "Hamlet" and how it might provide hints of the character's relation to Luther" (68). He contended that he hired McGrail to work with him as an assistant of sorts. When she attempted to write her own article about the life of Luther as the basis for Hamlet, Sohmer undertook legal action.
The author interviewed both McGrail and Sohmer for their perspectives on the issue. They take themselves very seriously. Of course, they were embroiled deeply within the matter. It is the interviews of third parties that provide the objective distance. Princeton's Lawrence Danson discounts the work. "Yes, of course Hamlet went to Wittenberg, but Marlowe's Dr. Faustus lived there, too. What then?" (81). What then would be David Davalos' play, Wittenberg, which was published in 2010, well after The New Yorker article. (See 4/20/14 post). It took the notion that Hamlet, Luther, and Faustus were familiars to great dramatic and comedic effect. I wonder if the playwright used the work of Sohmer or McGrail as a basis for his work.
Another scholar, Peter Blayney of the Folger Shakespeare Library, shot down McGrail's notion that capitalization of animal names in the Second Quarto was somehow significant. "[This] is extremely far-fetched. It just doesn't sound as if she were within her area, here at least..." (81). James Shapiro of Columbia University also seemed skeptical of the arguments. "With enough inventiveness, almost anything can be argued about Shakespeare's plays--and most of it has been" (82). Hearing about the legal conflict, he replied, "An intellectual-property dispute over this is hilarious. In fact, it's sad" (82). That statement pretty much summarized it for me. Sensibly, both parties dropped the lawsuit and went their separate ways with their research.
Twenty-six years later, what had happened? Certainly David Davalos' play explored the ideas that Sohmer and McGrail seemed to be attempting to develop here, but in a more literal fashion by putting Hamlet and Luther together. What about the one-time legal combatants, though? A search on Amazon provided a bit of an answer. Steve Sohmer is listed as the author of several Shakespearean books. One is a 2017 title, Reading Shakespeare's Mind. Another is a 2007 work, Shakespeare For the Wiser Sort. Mary Ann McGrail is listed as author of one title, Tyranny in Shakespeare (2001). It may be a published version of her dissertation as described in The New Yorker article. All are available for a price. While there are synopses and reviews, none sounds interesting enough for further investigation.
And so an old magazine article on an even older play provided some enjoyment and an excuse, as Louis L'Amour put it, to start writing, no matter what. Another chapter completed in this ongoing project. Until the next one...
P.S. A bonus Hamlet appearance in today's NY Times Crossword. 36 across (13 letters): "Hamlet's dilemma...with a phonetic hint..." That one was not too tough to figure out. It led one to solve answers containing "habit" and "rabbit" and also "treble" and "pebble."
P.P.S. Another clue in the same puzzle. 52 across (four letters): "Schemer against Othello." I've known that one for years! (See 2/14/21 post.)
