This is a limited free preview of this book. Please buy full access.
presentations and publications have, on occasion, raised more hackles than eyebrows, but objectivity requires interpreters to follow evidence wherever it might lead. To that extent, this text is heuristic and exploratory. It must be questioned whether historical and literary coincidences are self-consistent and whether their incidence is sufficiently high to make a plausible case. Whether selection effects and other cognitive distortions are minimal must also be considered. However, in the end it is up to the reader to decide on how fine the interpretive mesh must be to constitute an acceptable level of plausibility. Healthy skepticism will obviate what Jonathan Swift observed, that “learned commentators view / In Homer more than Homer knew,” and if the ideas put forth here are wrong, I shall be the first to engage in what Alexander Pope considered the “last and greatest art, the art to blot.”
The interdisciplinarity of this endeavor needs no apology, as it is common to promote understanding in various fields by examining the works of contemporary writers. Shakespeare is for everyone, and “almost every writer about Shakespeare has at least a few grains to add to the general stock of knowledge” (Levi xviii). In understanding what is arguably Shakespeare's most famous play, Hamlet, both professional and “non-professional scholars” have made important contributions (Edwards 36), and as far as the chief theme of this book is concerned, in the great Apollonian democracy of the nine Muses, Urania, the goddess of Astronomy, is the equal of the other eight who bear responsibility for the arts of song, dance, poetry, tragedy, and comedy.
Throughout this book, I introduce propositions and evidence in order to incorporate them into the dialectic process. Of course, novel insights and theories remain provisional, but in order not to litter the text with expressions of that provisionality, and because I believe that the interpretations offered “hang together,” I refrain from overusing words like “possibly,” “perhaps,” “may” and “might.” The text is closely argued, so some familiarity with the plays would be helpful. However, some readers may prefer to soldier on in order to appreciate the overall flow of argument and the structure of the book. This in turn would promote retrospective understanding of the chapters.