| dc.contributor.author | Holderness, G. | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2010-08-10T08:54:16Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2010-08-10T08:54:16Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2005 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | Holderness , G 2005 , ' Vanishing point: looking for Hamlet ' , Shakespeare , vol. 1 , pp. 154-173 . https://doi.org/10.1080/17450910500399273 | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 1745-0918 | |
| dc.identifier.other | dspace: 2299/4733 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/2299/4733 | |
| dc.description | Original article can be found at: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t714579626 Copyright Taylor and Francis/ Informa | |
| dc.description.abstract | ‘If the Mona Lisa is in the Louvre’, asked F.W. Bateson, ‘where is Hamlet?’ (74). The distinction is a common one in aesthetics, between the autographic and the allographic work (McLaverty 87). A painting (or sculpture) is unique, singular, atemporal, created directly by the artist, and can be forged as well as copied. A work of literature (or music) is plural, temporal, consists physically of things not made by the artist, is performed by others, and cannot be forged, only imitated, approximated, copied. ‘If the Mona Lisa is burnt, we say the work is lost, no matter how many copies remain … but an author's manuscripts may come (that is, be rediscovered) and go without any necessary effect on the existence of the work of art’ (McLaverty 85). When it comes to works of literature, ‘We have no originals’, as Jonathan Goldberg said, ‘only copies’ (213). | en |
| dc.format.extent | 169813 | |
| dc.language.iso | eng | |
| dc.relation.ispartof | Shakespeare | |
| dc.title | Vanishing point: looking for Hamlet | en |
| dc.contributor.institution | English Literature and Creative Writing | |
| dc.description.status | Peer reviewed | |
| rioxxterms.versionofrecord | 10.1080/17450910500399273 | |
| rioxxterms.type | Journal Article/Review | |
| herts.preservation.rarelyaccessed | true | |
