House of Gonzaga
The House of Gonzaga was an Italian princely family that ruled Mantua, in northern Italy, from 1328 to 1708. Their family includes twelve cardinals and fourteen bishops. Two Gonzaga descendants became empresses of the Holy Roman Empire, one became queen of Poland; the first members of the family of historical importance are known to have collaborated with the Guelph faction alongside the monks of the Polirone Abbey. Starting from the 12th century they became a dominant family in Mantua, growing in wealth when their allies, the Bonacolsi, defeated the traditional familiar enemy, the Casalodi. In 1328, Ludovico I Gonzaga overthrew the Bonacolsi lordship over the city with the help of the Scaliger, entered the Ghibelline party as capitano del popolo of Mantua and imperial vicar of Emperor Louis IV. Ludovico was succeeded by Guido and Ludovico II, while Feltrino, lord of Reggio until 1371, formed the cadet branch of the Gonzaga of Novellara, whose state existed until 1728. Francesco I abandoned the traditional alliance with the Visconti of Milan, in order to align their rising power with the Republic of Venice.
In 1433, Gianfrancesco I assumed the title of Marquis of Mantua with the recognition of Emperor Sigismund, while obtaining recognition from the local nobility through the marriage of his daughter Margherita to Leonello d'Este, Marquis of Ferrara in 1435. In 1530 Federico II received the title of Duke of Mantua. In 1531, the family acquired the Marquisate of Montferrat through marriage. Through maternal ancestors, the Gonzagas inherited the Imperial Byzantine ancestry of the Paleologus, an earlier ruling family of Montferrat. A cadet branch of the Mantua Gonzagas became dukes of Nevers and Rethel in France when Luigi Gonzaga, a younger son of Federico II Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua and Margherita Paleologa, married the heiress; the Gonzaga-Nevers came to rule Mantua again when Louis's son Charles inherited Mantua and Montferrat, triggering the War of the Mantuan Succession. Another cadet branch were first sovereign counts dukes of Guastalla, they descended from a younger son of Duke Francesco II of Mantua.
Ferrante's grandson, Ferrante II played a role in the War of the Mantuan Succession. A further cadet branch was that of Sabbioneta, founded by Gianfrancesco, son of Ludovico III. Marie Louise Gonzaga, daughter of Prince Charles Gonzaga-Nevers, was a Polish queen consort from 1645 to her death in 1667. Two daughters of the house, both named Eleanor Gonzaga, became Holy Roman Empresses, by marrying emperors Ferdinand II of Germany and Ferdinand III, Holy Roman Emperor, respectively. From the latter Empress Eleanor, the current heirs of the Gonzaga descend. St. Aloysius Gonzaga was a member of a junior branch of this family; the House of Gonzaga is the inspiration for the play-within-the-play in Shakespeare's Hamlet. In Act 3 scene 2, they act out a play called The Murder of Gonzago. Gonzaga rule continued in Mantua until 1708 and in Guastalla until 1746. Both ruling lines became extinct, the headship of the House of Gonzaga passed to the Vescovato line, descended from Giovanni, a son of Federico I Gonzaga.
That branch, shorn of sovereign domains, is extant. Its head is Maurizio Ferrante Gonzaga; the branches of the Gonzaga family, showing marquises and dukes of Mantua in bold, dukes of Nevers and Rethel in italics and the Guastalla line to the right. Aloysius Gonzaga, SJ 1568–1591, canonized by the Catholic Church in 1726 Francesco Gonzaga Sigismondo Gonzaga Pirro Gonzaga Ercole Gonzaga Francesco Gonzaga Federico Gonzaga Giovanni Vincenzo Gonzaga Scipione Gonzaga Francesco Gonzaga Ferdinando Gonzaga, became Duke of Mantua, as Ferdinando I, in 1612 Vincenzo Gonzaga, became Duke of Mantua, as Vincenzo II, in 1626 Duchy of Mantua, a list of House of Gonzaga rulers; the Gonzaga. Lords of Mantua. London: Methuen. Marek, Miroslav. "Genealogy tree". Genealogy. EU. Giancarlo, Malacarne. "Family Tree of the Gonzaga". Albero genealogico dei Gonzaga
Prince Hamlet is the title role and protagonist of William Shakespeare's c. 1600 tragedy Hamlet. He is the Prince of Denmark, nephew to the usurping Claudius, son of King Hamlet, the previous King of Denmark. At the beginning of the play, he struggles with whether, how, to avenge the murder of his father, struggles with his own sanity along the way. By the end of the tragedy, Hamlet has caused the deaths of Polonius, Laertes and two acquaintances of his from the University of Wittenberg Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, he is indirectly involved in the deaths of his love Ophelia and of his mother Gertrude. The play opens with Hamlet depressed over the recent death of his father, King Hamlet, his uncle Claudius' ascension to the throne and hasty marriage to Hamlet's mother Gertrude. One night, his father's ghost appears to him and tells him that Claudius murdered him in order to usurp the throne, commands his son to avenge his death. Claudius sends for two of Hamlet's friends from Wittenberg, to find out what is causing Hamlet so much pain.
Claudius and his advisor Polonius persuade Ophelia—Polonius' daughter and Hamlet's love interest—to speak with Hamlet while they secretly listen. Hamlet enters. Ophelia greets him, offers to return his remembrances, upon which Hamlet questions her honesty and tells her to "get thee to a nunnery." Hamlet devises a test to see whether Claudius is guilty: he hires a group of actors to perform a play about the murder of a king in front of the royal court, has Horatio gauge Claudius' reaction. Claudius demands the play be stopped half through; when Claudius leaves the audience upset, Hamlet knows that the ghost was telling the truth. He follows Claudius into his chambers in order to kill him, but stops when he sees his uncle praying. A second attempt on Claudius' life ends in Polonius' accidental death. Claudius, now fearing for his life, sends Hamlet to England, accompanied by Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Alone, Claudius discloses that he is sending Hamlet to his death. Prior to embarking for England, Hamlet hides Polonius' body revealing its location to the King.
Meanwhile, her father's death has driven Ophelia insane with grief, Claudius convinces her brother Laertes that Hamlet is to blame. He proposes a fencing match between the two. Laertes informs the king that he will further poison the tip of his sword so that a mere scratch would mean certain death. Claudius plans to offer Hamlet poisoned wine. Gertrude enters to report. In the Elsinore churchyard, two "clowns" represented as "gravediggers", enter to prepare Ophelia's grave. Hamlet arrives with Horatio and banters with one of them, who unearths the skull of a jester whom Hamlet once knew, Yorick. Ophelia's funeral procession approaches. Hamlet interrupts, grief for Ophelia, he and Laertes grapple. That day, Hamlet tells Horatio how he escaped death on his journey, disclosing that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern have been sent to their deaths instead. A courtier, interrupts to invite Hamlet to fence with Laertes. Despite Horatio's warnings, Hamlet accepts and the match begins. After several rounds, Gertrude toasts Hamlet, accidentally drinking the wine Claudius poisoned.
Between bouts, Laertes pierces Hamlet with his poisoned blade. Gertrude, in her dying breath, announces that she has been poisoned. In his dying moments, Laertes reveals Claudius' plot. Hamlet stabs Claudius with the poisoned sword, forces him to drink from his own poisoned cup to make sure he dies. In his final moments, Hamlet names Prince Fortinbras of Norway as the probable heir to the throne. Horatio attempts to kill himself with the same poisoned wine, but it was stopped by Hamlet, so he will be the only one left alive to give a full account of the story, he wills the throne of Denmark to Fortinbras before dying. The most straightforward view sees Hamlet as seeking truth in order to be certain that he is justified in carrying out the revenge called for by a ghost that claims to be the spirit of his father; the 1948 movie with Laurence Olivier in the title role is introduced by a voiceover: "This is the tragedy of a man who could not make up his mind." T. S. Eliot offers a similar view of Hamlet's character in his critical essay, "Hamlet and His Problems".
He states, "We find Shakespeare's'Hamlet' not in the action, not in any quotations that we might select, so much as in an unmistakable tone...". Others see Hamlet as a person charged with a duty that he both knows and feels is right, yet is unwilling to carry out. In this view, his efforts to satisfy himself on Claudius' guilt and his failure to act when he can are evidence of this unwillingness, Hamlet berates himself for his inability to carry out his task. After observing a play-actor performing a scene, he notes that the actor was moved to tears in the passion of the story and compares this passion for an ancient Greek character, Hecuba, in light of his own situation: O, what a rogue and peasant slave am I! Is it not monstrous that this player here, But in a fiction, in a dream of passion, Could force his soul so to his own conceit That from her working all his visage wan'd.
Milena Dravić was a Serbian film and theatre actress. Born in Belgrade, Dravić was involved with the performing arts from the age of four: at first with dance and classical ballet. In 1959, while in high school, director František Čáp saw her on the cover of a youth magazine in a ballet dancers' group photo and decided to approach her about being in his film Vrata ostaju otvorena. After appearing in a few more films, she decided to pursue acting full-time and enrolled in Belgrade's Dramatic Arts Academy, her big break came in 1962 when she won the Golden Arena for Best Actress for her role in Branko Bauer's film Prekobrojna. This was, she was recipient of 2 Golden arenas. Milena Dravić's career was long and versatile, she was memorable and believable, whether as the tragic heroine in state-sponsored World War II epics, the eccentric protagonist of experimental arthouse films like WR: Mysteries of the Organism or in romantic comedies. She excelled in the latter during the 1970s and 1980s, she won the Cannes Best Supporting Actress Award in 1980 for Special Treatment.
For her roles and contributions to domestic cinematography, she received the prestigious Pavle Vujisić Award in August 1994. On 15 December 2017 she was honored with the prestigious Dobričin prsten lifetime achievement award in Belgrade; the First Fires Kozara Destination Death Man is Not a Bird The Camp Followers Looking Into the Eyes of the Sun Rondo The Battle of Neretva Touha zvaná Anada W. R.: Mysteries of the Organism The Role of My Family in the Revolution The Battle of Sutjeska Acting Hamlet in the Village of Mrdusa Donja Special Treatment Three Summer Days Cabaret Balkan Sky Hook Zona Zamfirova Crazy, Normal Love and Other Crimes St. George Shoots the Dragon The village is burning, the grandmother is combing her hair Milena Dravić was married three times, her third husband was the prominent Serbian actor Dragan Nikolić, with whom she had co-hosted the popular 1970s television program Obraz uz obraz. She passed away on 14 October 2018, after a long battle with illness. Milena Dravić on IMDb Complete filmography at the Complete Index to World Film Dean Sinovčić.
"Milena Dravić - novi uzlet srpske glumačke zvijezde". Nacional. Archived from the original on 22 July 2012. Retrieved 22 July 2012
Sources of Hamlet
The sources of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, a tragedy by William Shakespeare believed to have been written between 1599 and 1601, trace back as far as pre-13th century. The generic "hero-as-fool" story is so old and is expressed in the literature of so many cultures that scholars have hypothesized that it may be Indo-European in origin. A Scandinavian version of the story of Hamlet was put into writing around 1200 AD by Danish historian Saxo Grammaticus in his work Gesta Danorum, it is this work Shakespeare borrowed from to create Hamlet. Similar accounts are found in the Icelandic Saga of Hrolf Kraki and the Roman legend of Lucius Junius Brutus, both of which feature heroes who pretend to be insane in order to get revenge. A reasonably accurate version of Saxo's story was translated into French in 1570 by François de Belleforest in his Histoires Tragiques. Belleforest embellished Saxo's text almost doubling its length, introduced the hero's melancholy. After this point, the ancestry of Shakespeare's version of Hamlet becomes more difficult to trace.
Many literary scholars believe that Shakespeare's main source was an earlier play—now lost—known today as the Ur-Hamlet. Written by Thomas Kyd, the Ur-Hamlet would have been in performance by 1589 and was the first to include a ghost in the story. Using the few comments available from theatre-enthusiasts at the time, scholars have attempted to trace where the Ur-Hamlet might have ended and the play popular today begins. A few scholars have suggested that the Ur-Hamlet is an early draft of Shakespeare's, rather than the work of Kyd. Regardless of the mysteries surrounding the Ur-Hamlet, several elements of the story changed. Unlike earlier versions, Shakespeare's Hamlet does not feature an omniscient narrator of events and Prince Hamlet does not appear to have a complete plan of action; the play's setting in Elsinore differs from legendary versions. The story of the prince who plots revenge on his uncle for killing his father is an old one. Many of the story elements—the prince feigning madness and his testing by a young woman, the prince talking to his mother and her hasty marriage to the usurper, the prince killing a hidden spy and substituting the execution of two retainers for his own—are found in a medieval tale by Saxo Grammaticus called Vita Amlethi, written around 1200 AD.
Older written and oral traditions from various cultures may have influenced Saxo's work. Amleth derived from an oral tale told throughout Scandinavia. Parallels can be found with Icelandic legend, though no written version of the original Icelandic tale survives from before the 16th century. Torfaeus, a scholar in 17th century Iceland, made the connection between Saxo's Amleth and local oral tradition about a Prince Ambales. Torfaeus dismissed the local tradition as "an old wive's tale" due to its incorporation of fairy-tale elements and quasi-historical legend and Torfaeus' own confusion about the hero's country of origin. Similarities include the prince's feigned madness, his accidental killing of the king's counsellor in his mother's bedroom, the eventual slaying of his uncle; the original Amlóði story has been surmised to be derived from a "10th-century" Old Icelandic poem, but no such poem is known. The "hero as fool" story has many parallels and can be classified as a universal, or at least common Indo-European, narrative topos.
The two most popular candidates for written works that may have influenced Saxo, are the anonymous Scandinavian Saga of Hrolf Kraki and the Roman legend of Brutus, recorded in two separate Latin works. In Saga of Hrolf Kraki, the murdered king has two sons—Hroar and Helgi—who assume the names of Ham and Hráni for concealment, they spend most of the story in disguise, rather than feigning madness, though Ham does act childishly at one point to deflect suspicion. The sequence of events differs from Shakespeare's as well. In contrast, the Roman story of Brutus focuses on feigned madness, its hero, changes his name and persona to Brutus, playing the role to avoid the fate of his father and brothers, slaying his family's killer, King Tarquinius. In addition to writing in the Latin language of the Romans, Saxo adjusted the story to reflect classical Roman concepts of virtue and heroism. A reasonably accurate version of Saxo's story was translated into French in 1570 by François de Belleforest in his Histoires Tragiques.
Belleforest embellished Saxo's text almost doubling its length, introduced the hero's melancholy. Shakespeare's main source is believed to be an earlier play—now lost—known today as the Ur-Hamlet. Written by Thomas Kyd, the Ur-Hamlet would have been in performance by 1589, was the first to include a ghost in the story. Shakespeare's company, the Chamberlain's Men, may have purchased that play and performed a version, which Shakespeare reworked, for some time. Since no copy of the Ur-Hamlet has survived, however, it is impossible to compare its language and style with the known works of any candidate for its authorship. There is no direct evidence that Kyd wrote it, nor any evidence that the play was not an early version of Hamlet by Shakespeare himself; this latter idea—placing Hamlet far earlier than the accepted date, with a much longer period of development—has attracted some support, though others dismiss it as speculation. Francis Meres's Palladis Tamia (published in 1598, probably
Critical approaches to Hamlet
From its premiere at the turn of the 17th century, Hamlet has remained Shakespeare's best-known, most-imitated, most-analyzed play. The character of Hamlet played a critical role in Sigmund Freud's explanation of the Oedipus complex and thus influenced modern psychology. Within the narrower field of literature, the play's influence has been strong; as Foakes writes, "No other character's name in Shakespeare's plays, few in literature, have come to embody an attitude to life... and been converted into a noun in this way." Interpretations of Hamlet in Shakespeare's day were concerned with the play's portrayal of madness. The play was often portrayed more violently than in times; the play's contemporary popularity is suggested both by the five quartos that appeared in Shakespeare's lifetime and by frequent contemporary references. These allusions suggest that by the early Jacobean period the play was famous for the ghost and for its dramatization of melancholy and insanity; the procession of mad courtiers and ladies in Jacobean and Caroline drama appears indebted to Hamlet.
Other aspects of the play were remembered. Looking back on Renaissance drama in 1655, Abraham Wright lauds the humor of the gravedigger's scene, although he suggests that Shakespeare was outdone by Thomas Randolph, whose farcical comedy The Jealous Lovers features both a travesty of Ophelia and a graveyard scene. There is some scholarly speculation that Hamlet may have been censored during this period: see Contexts: Religious below. Theatres were closed under the Puritan Commonwealth, which ran from 1640–1660; when the monarchy was restored in 1660, theatres re-opened. Early interpretations of the play, from the late 17th to early 18th century showed Prince Hamlet as a heroic figure. Critics responded to Hamlet in terms of the same dichotomy that shaped all responses to Shakespeare during the period. On the one hand, Shakespeare was seen as primitive and untutored, both in comparison to English dramatists such as Fletcher and when measured against the neoclassical ideals of art brought back from France with the Restoration.
On the other, Shakespeare remained popular not just with mass audiences but with the critics made uncomfortable by his ignorance of Aristotle's unities and decorum. Thus, critics considered Hamlet in a milieu which abundantly demonstrated the play's dramatic viability. John Evelyn saw the play in 1661, in his Diary he deplored the play's violation of the unities of time and place, yet by the end of the period, John Downes noted that Hamlet was staged more and profitably than any other play in Betterton's repertory. In addition to Hamlet's worth as a tragic hero, Restoration critics focused on the qualities of Shakespeare's language and, above all, on the question of tragic decorum. Critics disparaged the indecorous range of Shakespeare's language, with Polonius's fondness for puns and Hamlet's use of "mean" expressions such as "there's the rub" receiving particular attention. More important was the question of decorum, which in the case of Hamlet focused on the play's violation of tragic unity of time and place, on the characters.
Jeremy Collier attacked the play on both counts in his Short View of the Immorality and Profaneness of the English Stage, published in 1698. Comparing Ophelia to Electra, he condemns Shakespeare for allowing his heroine to become "immodest" in her insanity in the "Flower Scene". Collier's attack occasioned a widespread vituperative controversy. Hamlet in general and Ophelia in particular were defended by Thomas D'urfey and George Drake immediately. Drake defends the play's justice on the grounds that the murderers are "caught in their own toils", he defends Ophelia by describing her actions in the context of her desperate situation. In the next decade and Dennis agreed with Collier that the play violated justice. Criticism of the play in the first decades of the 18th century continued to be dominated by the neoclassical conception of plot and character; the many critics who defended Hamlet took for granted the necessity of the classical canon in principle. Voltaire's attack on the play is the most famous neoclassical treatment of the play.
Thus Lewis Theobald explained the seeming absurdity of Hamlet's calling death an "undiscovered country" not long after he has encountered the Ghost by hypothesizing that the Ghost describes Purgatory, not death. Thus William Popple praises the verisimilitude of Polonius's character, deploring the actors' tradition of playing him only as a fool. Both Joseph Addison and Richard Steele praised particular scenes: Steele the psychological insight of the first soliloquy, Addison the ghost scene; the ghost scenes, were particular favorites of an age on the verge of the Gothic revival. Early in the century, George Stubbes noted Shakespeare's use of Horatio's incredulity to make the Ghost credible. At midcentury, Arthur Murphy described the play as a sort of poetic representation of the mind of a "weak and melancholy person." George Colman the Elder singled out the play in a general discussion of Shakespeare's skill with supernatural elements in drama. In 1735, Aaron Hill sounded an unusual but prescient note when he praised the seeming contradictions in Hamlet's temperament.
After midcentury, such psychological readings had
Dumbshow dumb show or dumb-show, is defined by the Oxford Dictionary of English as "gestures used to convey a meaning or message without speech. In the theatre the word refers to a piece of dramatic mime in general, or more a piece of action given in mime within a play "to summarise, supplement, or comment on the main action". In the Oxford Encyclopedia of Theatre and Performance, Michael Dobson writes that the dumbshow was "an allegorical survival from the morality play", it came into fashion in 16th century English drama in interludes featuring "personifications of abstract virtues and vices who contend in ways which foreshadow and moralize the fortunes of the play's characters". There are examples in Gorboduc throughout which dumbshow plays a major part, in Thomas Kyd's The Spanish Tragedy, George Peele's The Battle of Alcazar and The Old Wives' Tale, Robert Greene's Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay and the anonymous A Warning for Fair Women. Shakespeare used dumbshow in Hamlet, for the play within a play staged by Prince Hamlet and the players for King Claudius.
That, like Revenge's dumbshow in The Spanish Tragedy, suggests by mime the action soon to take place in the main spoken drama. In Dobson's view the dumbshow was becoming old-fashioned by Shakespeare's time, the playwright's most elaborate dumbshows are in Pericles, a play intentionally constructed in "a mock-medieval dramatic idiom". In the 17th century, dumbshow survived as an element of the courtly masque, in the Jacobean tragedies of Webster and Middleton dumbshows are featured in masque-within-the-play episodes. From the 1630s the dumbshow no longer featured in mainstream British drama, but it resurfaced in harlequinades and melodramas in the 19th century. Thomas Holcroft introduced a dumb character in his play A Tale of Mystery, the device of using a mute to convey essential facts by dumbshow became a regular feature of melodramas. In his Dictionary of Literary Terms, J. A. Cuddon lists 19th century plays with the titles The Dumb Boy, The Dumb Brigand, The Dumb Recruit, The Dumb Driver and The Dumb Sailor.
Cuddon notes three 20th century instances of dumbshow in André Obey's Le Viol de Lucrece, Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot and Tom Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. Cuddon, J A. A Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory. Cambridge: Blackwell. ISBN 978-0-631-20271-4
Krsto Papić was a Croatian screenwriter and film director whose career spanned several decades. Papić was born near Nikšić in today's Montenegro, his early feature films and documentaries were part of Croatian and Yugoslav New Cinema, regarded as Croatian echo of the Black Wave artistic movement that took place within Serbia. Additionally, Papić himself was connected to the Croatian Spring political movement during the early 1970s, he was the member of the Zagreb filmophile circle influenced by the French New Wave, so-called "Hitchcockians", along with film-makers and critics Ante Peterlić, Zoran Tadić, Branko Ivanda, Petar Krelja and centered on film critics Vladimir Vuković and Hrvoje Lisinski. Papić's two best-known early feature films and Predstava Hamleta u Mrduši Donjoj, were attacked from the government sources. Lisice did not get permission to represent Yugoslavia in the Cannes Film Festival, so it entered Quinzaine program in 1970. Izbavitelj was criticised by Stipe Šuvar, who alluded that film's allegory about Fascism also refers to the Communism.
Papić's subsequent feature films were more classical in its narration, but again politically controversial in the last decade of Yugoslavia. My Uncle's Legacy, critical picture of Yugoslavia's political situation under titoism during Informbiro period, nominated for Golden Globe in 1989, has been surrounded by controversy and political attacks from traditional Party circles and Partisan Veterans' organisations, so the production was delayed for couple of years, but achieved due to support of intellectuals and Party fractions in the time of disolvement and fight among Party fractions in last years of the Yugoslav federation. Papić was awarded with Croatia's highest Vladimir Nazor Award for live achievement in cinema in 2006, with Grand Prix Special des Amériques in 2004, he died in Zagreb on 7 February 2013 after a battle with stomach cancer. 1965 – The Key – An omnibus film with sections directed by Vanča Kljaković, Krsto Papić and Antun Vrdoljak. 1967 – Illusion 1969 – Handcuffs – entered Quinzaine 1973 – Acting Hamlet in the Village of Mrdusa Donja (Predstava Hamleta u selu Mrduša Donja – entered official selection of the Berlin Film Festival 1976 – The Rat Savior – known as "The Redeemer" - first prize at the Trieste International Science Fiction Film Festival in 1977 and at Fantasporto in 1982 1980 – The Secret of Nikola Tesla – in English language 1988 – My Uncle's Legacy – nominated for the Golden Globe Award 1991 – Story from Croatia – known under distributor's title Idaho Potato 1999 – When the Dead Start Singing 2003 – Infection – remake of The Redeemer 2012– Flower Square Krsto Papić on IMDb