; \0 '
cx
0. 0.
J
HAMLET;
OH,
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY.
1^
,
1 HAMLET;
OR,
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY
OF
HISTORY.
A STUDY OF THE SPIRITUAL SOUL AND UNITY OF HAMLET.
MEKCADE.
The extreme parts of time extremely forms
All causes to the purpose of his speed,
And often at his very loose decides
That which long process could not arbitrate.
LOVE'S LABOUR'S LOST.
WILLIAMS AND NOBGATE,
14, HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN, LONDON,
AND 20, SOUTH FREDERICK STREET, EDINBURGH.
1875.
PR-
2.807
HERTFORD :
PRINTED BY STBPHKN AUSTIN AND SONS.
CONTENTS
HAMLET.
PAQK
PREFACE vii
INTRODUCTION xi
A SUGGESTIVE KEY TO HAMLET xxxi
CHAPTER I. 1
CHAPTER II. 51
CHAPTER III 90
CHAPTER IV 113
, CHAPTER V 130
CHAPTER VI 135
CHAPTER VII. 155
CHAPTER VIII. . 167
A FEW WORDS UPON OTHELLO . .... 187
APPENDIX. 201
PKEFACE.
fTlHE author offers no apologies for his little work,
nor for his opinions. If true, then truth can
need no apology; although we know, thanks to
Eosencrantz and Guildenstern, it is " dreadfully at
tended," even in these days. If, on the other hand,
they are insane delusions, then the author will be
happy to have so illustrious an example as Hamlet,
and say with him, " His madness (if 't be so) is
poor Hamlet's enemy." The play of Hamlet is not
merely a piece of exquisite writing; it is a practi
cal and every-day affair. Hamlet is being acted
on the world's stage, by humanity, at this present
hour. And every momentous epoch in the world's
history only realizes some line or prognostication of
the play itself. Finally, we have to remark, the
interpretation of Shakespeare's plays is not an affair
which will remain for ever at the dispensation of
fancy or of carping criticism. Our Poet's own
PREFACE.
words will finally lift the veil off his works, and
then let those who think they know him best beware
of eating their own words.
It is high time some attempt be made to show
Shakespeare was a thinker, and not alone an artist.
We can imagine the rage such a question may
excite; but, nevertheless, we know absolutely no
thing of Shakespeare's own thoughts. The fragments
of beautiful mosaic in thought, which are all we at
present grasp, must not be mistaken for our Poet's
beliefs. Nor has any systematic attempt been yet
made to seize in synthesis the unity and symbolism
of one of his works. The sole way of meeting any
counter- charge to this fact, is to enunciate some
questions like the following. Do we know Shake
speare subjectively ? Are we intimate with the man
himself as we are with Milton, with Goethe, or
with any other genius? Do we know what Shake
speare's political, philosophical, or historical opinions
were? In short, can we as yet venture to separate
the author from his works, detecting in the unity
of the objective art the subjective man? Answers
to questions of this sort (which might be multi
plied ad infinitum) are not to be found, "Where
shall we search for them ? Echo answers, where
indeed? We are quite aware there are plenty of
PREFACE. IX
people who would attempt to answer these ques
tions readily. But let us assure them, no extracts
from the text will satisfy the problem. Shakespeare
was far too objective in his art to confound his own
thoughts with anything short of unity of idea.
Besides, if we appeal to the text, we could easily
find negations to almost every positive thought
somewhere else. No, it is alone in the unity of
the symbolic and spiritual soul of art that we can
find the true thought and inspiration of its creator.
With this opinion deeply rooted within us, we offer
the hypothesis worked out in this little work, as
help and suggestion towards final solution.
LONDON, February ISth, 1875.
IJSTTKODUCTION.
Kttle work is not addressed to those who see no
JL mystery in the works of Shakespeare. Those who can
read his plays, his poems, and his ambiguous language,
without any misgivings or further conjecturings, are only
to maintain this attitude always, and everything will remain
plain to them. In this world, where stale custom reduces
everything (to all but philosophers or poets) to the level
of the common-place, nothing but novelty succeeds. Ideal
ists and materialists quarrel over their narrow shibboleths,
forgetting that their criterions are such as mere blindness
alone prevents them from seeing to be as groundless and
unreal as the very questions they attack. Realism, that
hopeless chimera of philosophical debate, imagines that it
has grasped substantiality when it has only removed the
question a step further back. Thus we persist in calling
things supernatural and spiritual because uncommon, and
neglect the common itself, failing to see the transcendental
in it around us ; which defies comprehension in itself be
yond measurement, order, and relation. Perhaps we should
do well to take a lesson from Shakespeare, who refused to
acknowledge to names a reality existing beyond the ways
we look at things. If we turn to " The Tempest/' we find
we are told in one breath :
" .... We are such stuff
As dreams are made on."
Xll INTRODUCTION.
And a little before :
.... The great globe itself,
Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve
And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind."
There is neither materialism nor idealism here. Only the
great mystery, the great unknown, of which we know
nothing but our poor one-sided and limited views. As Mr.
Lewes truly says, in his " Problems of Life and Mind," the
world is mystic to man. Beyond relation it is probable we
can never pass. Indeed it will ever grow more questionable
whether mind and thought are in any way true guages of
this universe in itself. And this leads us to the comparison
of Shakespeare and the mysteries which philosophy seeks
to solve. Mr. Swinburne has well compared our Poet to
-the ocean. May we not apply Mr. Lewes's dictum about
the world to Shakespeare with as great felicity ? Are not
the works of Shakespeare mystic to man ? Who can deny
this? Who knows anything of Shakespeare himself? We
know a Goethe, we know a Milton ; but we do not equally
know the greatest of all poets.
Fortunately, to those we address, there is no need of such
a question. The growth of Shakespearian societies, and of
the literature which at home and abroad is ever swelling
around the works of our Poet, are sufficient proof that we
are beginning to realize the nature of the problem in down
right earnest. What is that problem ?
That problem, we answer, is the realization of the man
himself of Shakespeare as a thinker, not alone as an artist.
When we study a painting, we try and enter into its creator's
mind, to see what he thought and what he intended in his
work. We do not ignore the conception because the execu
tion is perfect. That is generally secondary, or it ought to
be so. If there is no conception, only a mere copy, we may
admire the artist, but the creator, the genius, is wanting.
Thought is at the bottom of all things, and thought alone is
INTRODUCTION. x iii
the true measure of genius. Thousands possess the artistic
gift, thousands execute like automatons. Witness the
artisan, it is he alone who builds the ship or rears the house ;
but who conceives it ? the architect. And we like to know
what manner of man the architect was. We wish to learn
what he thought ; and from his house or his ship we trace
the man in the unity and breadth of his design alone. We
do not take each column of a temple, each section of a ship,
and say this shows the man. It is the whole conception
alone which satisfies us. Now the nature of Shakespeare's
art is much of this character. We see a mosaic of beautiful
passages, love-stories, romances, tragedies, comedies, etc.
We read them, and we think we know Shakespeare. It is as
if we read " Gulliver's Travels " as a child, swallowing the
story oblivious of its irony, its philosophy, and its bitterness.
Suppose we were to see nothing in "Don Quixote" but a
lunatic? Or in "Zanoni" but a magician? We do not com
mit these errors here ; yet we transpose them easily to that
giant Shakespeare. Nobody thinks that Dante's work con
tains no allegory. Readers are not so dense as not to see the
"Divina Commedia" requires a key before it can be under
stood. And we maintain that every creation of genius in
literature is more or less of this character. No matter how-
early we go back, be it to the Bible or the earliest poetry, we
find the prevalence of word-painting, of metaphor, and im
agery. Now we contend these latter contain the principle of
symbolism in them. They are not direct ; on the contrary,
they avoid harshness by substituting one picture to call up
another, by its likeness and suggestiveness. The germs of
rationalism are hidden under this similarity, calling out
identity from out diversity. Art, we maintain, is easily
described as one large metaphor. It images the thoughts,
not by signs, but by pictures which resemble those thoughts ;
and, whilst touching the feelings, appeals to the mind also.
If we were to follow the steps of art in all its growth, we
XIV INTRODUCTION.
should find the symbolism growing wider, deeper, and more
intricate. As we ascend into the realms of dramatic literature,
we find in " Prometheus," " GEdipus Rex," and the Greek
drama generally, attempts to picture the relations of man to
destiny. This is the subject of the drama the struggle of
man with fate. Already we have made a gigantic stride ;
we have passed from poetry, say, like the Psalms with its
beautiful imagery, to unity of conception. The universal
verity of Prometheus is a gigantic symbol. Here we have
man tied to the rock of inexorable destiny, fate, or law. In
" (Edipus Eex " the Sphinx-like mysticism of this world is
well pictured. Like the King, we are hurried to our doom
irrespective of ourselves. "We have no control over circum
stances, chance, or fate. Indeed, as we proceed upon our
ascent into modern literature, we find a greater and greater
differentiation taking place.
Let us arrive at once to Shakespeare, who may well stand
for all art in himself alone. And we naturally ask ourselves,
what has Shakespeare symbolized ? There are thousands of
people who deny the symbolism of art. And let us ask
them if art can be direct ? As it can only speak to our
feelings and to our thoughts by a species of dumb language,
must it not be symbolical ? Is there no thought lurking in
the spire ? Does it not, like a silent and solemn finger,
point heavenward ? What is the aim of art ? the ideal.
What is the ideal but the voice of the absolute, the perfect,
the eternal ? Each man finds a different utterance for it ;
but whatever be that utterance, it must be symbolical. Is
not all mythology of this character ? The ideal is the ideal,
because it is not the real. But it is based upon thought, and
that thought is conception from abstractions. Out of large
generalizations in the philosophic world, gigantic thoughts
arise, which cloud-like would roll away, if genius Titan-
like did not embody them in types which fascinate us for
ever.
INTRODUCTION. XV
Hamlet is such an ideal, not real as a character, but ideal
as a creation, and real as a symbol and a thought. When
we rationalize the typifications of art into their symbolical
ideas and significations, we are in the land of thought and
reality once more. That is to say, of a reality in keeping
with the possible and the knowledge of this earth. If it is
true genius is above this every-day world, it is also true it
cannot leave it. Its force exists in its breadth of view. It
embraces the centuries in its gaze, and unrolls them like
a scroll. When it typifies them into characters, they are
gigantic indeed.
Independently of knowing nothing of Shakespeare's life
or his opinions, we know nothing of his works. As a genius
we know less about him than of any other genius. His
Sonnets are before every one ; we have but to read, yet who
understands them ? It is as yet undecided to whom they are
addressed. Some say a woman, others a man. Let us turn
to his plays. What do we know of them ? Not one alludes
in any way to the topics of their day. We can apparently
find no thought of the author behind them. Like an in
visible abstraction, the creator is not to be seen. The works
are there, but the man who conceived them is unapparent.
Now there is something about Shakespeare's works which
persuades us he is there. The profundity of his art, and prob
ably the width of his conceptions, in their gigantic unity and
design, prevents us from seeing the truth. Shakespeare is
so much above every other genius that he is perhaps out of
the range of ordinary criticism. We see his hands, his feet,
his legs, but we are too near the Colossus to see the whole
in perspective. Time will alone gradually heighten our view
of him. " He who wants the wealth of the Indies should
take wealth to the Indies," is an old saying. Do we take
anything to Shakespeare? And can we carry as yet a
measure sufficiently large to guage in any way this giant ?
That Shakespeare is behind his works is undoubted.
XVI INTRODUCTION.
Everything points towards this truth. In the first place,
no genius can so disassociate his works from himself in the
subjective design, as not to betray himself, if the unity of
the idea, hidden under the objective garb, is once seized.
That Shakespeare's works are not exhaustive on their mere
exoteric side, who can question ? Does not a profound idea
peep all through Hamlet? And can we not say the same
for almost every play ?
The theory we are about to enunciate in rationalizing
Hamlet is as follows.
Shakespeare has employed art (after the manner of all
genius) as the vehicle for his ideas and conceptions upon
the greatest and profoundest of subjects History. He
has idealized in Prince Hamlet the spirit of truth-seeking,
which realizes itself historically as progress. In that pro
found and philosophical character of the hero of the tragedy
we read a typical idealization of humanity, impelled by
that divine sense 'of justice, truth, and liberty, which, with
its still voice, unrolls itself as that divine evolution called
progress. The whole tragedy of Hamlet is therefore a
Dramatic Philosophy of History. Hamlet himself is pro
gress. Truth is not a concrete entity, but solely a relation ;
and its only expositor is history. Therefore it is alone in
the latter that we must seek for the history of Prince
Hamlet. There we find, as in the play, that the battle is
not to the swift, nor to the strong, but to time alone.
Hamlet's history is therefore the history of man during his
apprenticeship of conflict. With the end of that conflict
Hamlet's mission is accomplished, since he represents the
spirit warring for truth alone.
On the other hand, the King represents Hamlet's anti
thesis. As error, opposition to truth, injustice, and stag
nancy, Shakespeare has idealized in Claudius a gigantic type
of evil and historical oppression. To kill Claudius and
INTRODUCTION. X vii
rfevenge his father is the sole aim of Hamlet. This, in our
eyes, is symbolically to redress wrong, establish truth, and
secure liberty. The whole action of the tragedy revolves
upon the conflict of the King and Hamlet. That struggle
is accordingly the antinomy of past and present, or truth
and error. It is impossible to treat these abstractions by
themselves. Therefore, under that law which overrules
social development, and which Shakespeare evidently solved
and divined three centuries ago, we must seek for the inter
pretation of Hamlet.
Ever mindful of the double unity of art and idea, which
must be wedded to each other in exquisite harmony, Shake
speare has embodied in the central figures the qualities or
sum totals of which their respective followers and supporters
are the very constituents. Thus the King is a fiction, neces
sary for dramatic unity alone, and who is represented by his
Lord Chamberlain and courtiers. Hamlet again symbolizes
the action and progress of truth in history: He is also the
sum total of his partisans. 1 Thus the irresolution and
apparent inaction of Hamlet become constant action and
continual destruction of the King, as each of his organs is
successively killed by Hamlet. We at once recognize the
weakness of Hamlet, to be remedied by time ; and we notice
that the death of the King can only be accomplished with
the whole tragedy, since the latter is the history of the
continual death of the King alone. It is here we notice the
marvellous skill of Shakespeare. By embodying the King
in several characters, he has succeeded in representing the
gradual process and continuity of historical progress. Critics
are impatient because Hamlet fails to kill the King at once.
We would ask them, why truth does not realize itself at once ?
1 Shakespeare has evidently endeavoured to embody in characters the conflict
ing forces of history, which emerge in that resultant called Progress. Hamlet ia
this resultant.
I
XV111 INTRODUCTION.
Progress and truth are synonymous, and the former, as Mr.
Herbert Spencer has assured us, is a very gradual movement.
Hamlet, we again assert, is killing the King all through the
play. Polonius, Eosencrantz, Guildenstern, Laertes, are
successively destroyed ; and, with his last support, the King
has vanished. Thus, as Hamlet grows in strength and
power, the King is proportionally weakened.
The action of the tragedy becomes first the detection of
error by the birth of Hamlet. 1 Secondly, the action of
Hamlet and its results. The latter is another expression for
the growth of Hamlet ; which Goethe has so wonderfully
realized in those memorable and oft- quoted but misunder
stood words : " Here is an oak planted in a vase fitted for
the most delicate flowers, the roots strike out, the vessel flies
to pieces."
In short, the growth of Hamlet is the growth of man, of
progress the expansion of thought. Hamlet is the oak,
the King and his supporters the vase. The death of Polo
nius is the result of the growth of Hamlet, and thus the
vase is broken. Let us be clearly understood. The King
is slowly dying all through the play, because Hamlet is acting
all through the tragedy also. Hamlet's monologues are the
' expressions of fresh impetus, of action and reaction gained
j from the growth of liberty, knowledge, and progress in
I general. The whole play is a picture of some of the past
and a pure prophecy of much of the future. Let us now
'realize the character of the King through the detail of his
supporters.
In Polonius Shakespeare has philosophically summed up
certainty and absolutism ; he is therefore the very backbone
of the King. "With his death the climax of the tragedy
is reached. From that moment things take a new direction.
Polonius is the authority which antiquity and tradition,
1 This is the revival of learning.
INTRODUCTION. XIX
when united with autocratic Ophelia (or the Church), form,
and admit of no question nor misgivings. Polonius repre
sents broadly the past. Hamlet pictures in like manner the
present and future. Polonius is approached through Ophelia.
Hamlet first criticizes the latter. By doing this he is criti
cizing and inspecting Polonius. Father and daughter are
one Church and State before the Reformation. With the
death of Polonius certainty is dead. Ophelia is the daughter
of tradition and of certainty. As the latter becomes shaken,
so she becomes incoherent, dissents, drowns herself, and is
buried. Laertes is a continuation of Polonius in a modified
form. Since error cannot be questioned until certainty be
shaken, the growth of Hamlet is pictured in his satire of
Ophelia and Polonius. Polonius is everything which re
sisted -the Protestant Eeformation. His death historically
is the accomplishment of that Eeformation. From that
moment the past has been shaken by the present. Ration
alism has more and more encroached its domains upon
the claims of antiquity and belief in tradition. Two forces
were face to face at the Reformation. On the one hand
reason, asserting itself through the growth of learning,
advanced its claims in the teeth of ignorance and the
voice of antiquity. On the other, custom resisted this
new and unprecedented assertion of the fallibility of the
past.
We now turn to two more of the King's supporters.
They are the two courtiers Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.
Here Shakespeare's genius has italicized itself. In these
two we recognize the great passive opponents of progress
and truth. They are indifference, opposition of the self-
interested in power, and that optimism which, benefiting
by error, maintains things to be at their very best. They
evade truth, or Hamlet, by means of sophistry and casuistry.
As long as they come between the King and Hamlet, the
latter can effect nothing permanent. Nothing in our whole
XX INTRODUCTION.
exposition is less ambiguous and less equivocal than Shake
speare's meaning here. He has distinctly realized the oppo
sition which compromise and the languid indifference of the
children of fortune would put in the teeth of progress and
truth, or Hamlet. In continually dogging Hamlet, we find
how Shakespeare has made them come between the King and
our hero as a sort of shield. Hamlet effects nothing whilst
with these two sycophants ; and when he escapes them for
the first time, we have the term naked in connexion with him.
In these two characters Shakespeare has epitomized hypo
crisy and the abuse of reason, by that immense privileged
body who have thriven upon abuses in history, if they do
not do so to-day. If we only turn to the opposers of free
trade and of reform in this country, we realize, in the long
struggle for justice and truth, the recent opposition of
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Every true student of
history will recognize their significance as hardly second to
that of Polonius.
The next constituent of the King is Laertes. Here, again,
Shakespeare's genius reveals itself. Having artistically to kill
Polonius, Shakespeare felt he must yet continue him sym
bolically, as his power gradually and slowly decays. His son
not inaptly takes his place as opponent to Hamlet. But he
represents party, not a sole autocratic and tyrannical power.
Laertes defends Ophelia as supporter of Church and State.
The travels of Laertes, like the growth of Fortinbras, are
understood by us as silent. Laertes represents not only his
father, as the conservative and stable principle, but the
growth of that principle by education into a party. Simi
larly Hamlet, by the aid of Horatio, represents the opposite,
and progressive or liberal party. Thus the whole play is
the conflict of the two forces, statical and dynamical, whose
resultant is progress ; and who are respectively individualism
and authority.
As caution, Rosencrantz, by means of Guildenstern,
INTRODUCTION. Xxi
banishes Hamlet. They themselves provide. When our hero
returns, it is as naked and alone. Shakespeare's meaning is
undoubtedly as follows. Hamlet, as truth-seeking or pro
gress, having in the death of Polonius fulfilled the
death of intolerance and interference, has accomplished a
great political mission. But before rationalism can again
gather itself for another crisis, it must free itself from
Guildenstern and Rosencrantz. This it does by means of
Fortinbras or liberty, who rises with Hamlet, and is part of
him. Fortinbras rises, in the very opening of the play,
as abortive attempts at liberty. He disappears, to grow
with Hamlet silently. This growth is typified in his sudden
appearance as a large army in the centre of the play.
Finally he comes in as conqueror at the end of the tragedy.
He is part of Hamlet, and we are directly told in the Church
yard-scene that liberty and progress (or truth-seeking),
were contemporary and identical births. The First Clown
and Hamlet are one. Thus Hamlet is turned in upon him
self. The monologue which follows the interview with the
army of Fortinbras gives us to understand Hamlet benefits
by liberty (accruing from the death of Polonius), to use his
reason. In that use he gradually kills or escapes sophistry,
casuistry, and indifference. We therefore believe England
to typify science. The text is not unfavourable to such
an hypothesis. For the Ambassadors of England are
part holders of the dramatic situation at the end of the
play. But this is a part we do not feel so certain of as the
rest. We venture only to offer suggestions.
We may now turn to Hamlet and his partisans. Our
theory here is the same as that we have enunciated with re
gard to the King. Hamlet is a synthesis of qualities. He
is evolved in the first act as a force. His birth is the result
of Bernardo, Horatio, and Marcellus, furthered by the
Ghost. The play opens in the depth of the night. This
typifies ignorance and the undoubted reign of corruption,
XX11 INTRODUCTION.
which is given in the words "Long live the King."
Presently Francisco is relieved. In short, scholarship arrives
in the shape of Horatio. But he is the product of those before
him, whom we suspect to be reading and printing. Doubt,
as a Ghost, illuminates this revival of learning. And the
whole go far to form a young Hamlet. Liberty arises with
Fortinbras contemporary with these events ; and we are
thus given to understand that Hamlet is liberty, justice, and
knowledge in co-partnership. Truth or progress is thus
epitomized in Prince Hamlet.
In Hamlet's father we hear the ideal voice of Christ
ianity. The Queen is simply human belief and custom.
Her marriage to Claudius is the corruption of Christianity
the union of error in belief or belief in error. Hamlet is
son of belief, and of that unadulterated union of ideal justice
prior to the second century. Thus the gradual detection by
Hamlet of the murder of his father at the hands of his uncle,
is the artistic history of the Reformation. The Interlude
is actually and undoubtedly an artistic parallel of Luther
pointing out the corruption of the Romish Church. The
Ghost represents the revival and shadow of ideal truth and
justice, which, as scepticism, becomes a revelation in itself.
When the heart of the Queen is cleft in twain, we may
recognize Shakespeare's attempt to realize artistically the
Reformation completed in its Protestant schism. Thus
Hamlet's father is typical for truth as ideal justice, and
the divine spirit of Christianity itself. This may ac
count for the references of Horatio and Hamlet in con
nexion with him. However, this interferes very little,
whether accepted or not, with the whole character of the
tragedy, or with its signification.
The most important and confirming solution of the tragedy
will be found in our treatment of the Churchyard-scene.
Here we find the very key of the play contained in the
contemporary origin of Clown, Hamlet, and the rise of
INTRODUCTION. XX111
Fortinbras. Here we gasp for breath at the miraculous in
genuity and genius of Shakespeare. This scene has been a
veritable stumbling-block to all criticism. The introduction
of Clowns, and the curious conversations, are apparently out
of harmony with the rest of the play. But, by our solution,
the play comes out in double its striking clearness and
spiritual interpretational force. For this Churchyard-scene,
we maintain, is an epitome of progress and of the whole
play. The two Clowns are Time and Progress. The First
Clown is Hamlet himself. Shakespeare is laughing at us
when he says, " Every fool can tell that." 1 Hamlet and the
Clown are one. Our hero is studying himself, and at once
parallels historical criticism and the study of historical
philosophy in general. In short, man learns how progress
arose, and what it signifies. It is this part of our solution
of Hamlet which we particularly insist upon, and which we
claim as exposition of the extraordinary ingenuity of Shake
speare's genius and art. By turning Hamlet in upon him
self, by means of another character, artistically separate
but symbolically identical, Shakespeare gives us a sublime
picture of the present day as pure prophecy. Progress is
epitomized in this Churchyard-scene, where the ridicule
which kills by criticism, metaphysical discussion, and satire,
are given in two Clowns. They are actually Time and Pro
gress, or Hamlet himself reforming over great space of time.
Finally, Hamlet begins to study the science of history or
progress, and in doing this he studies himself. When he
learns how he was born, and that he is related to liberty
and knowledge in general, we may not be thought too bold
if we parallel such a recognition with Mr. Buckle's "History
of Civilization." However, there it stands, as a question
which criticism will finally decide to be the most marvellous
1 The wit lies in Hamlet asking the Clown (himself) when ht (himself) was
born. " Every fool can tell that"
INTRODUCTION.
piece of art and prophecy ever conceived and forestalled by
genius, or let it perish as the wild chimera of a madman.
In conclusion, feeling how out of place it would be to
carry into detail an interpretation of Hamlet, which might
be rejected by criticism altogether, we have refrained from
expanding this little work into those dimensions which could
alone do justice to the subject. Sufficient for us if we have
thrown a new light over this sublime tragedy.
Hastily written, our essay requires a few remarks in the
Introduction, if not in the Preface. Hamlet is a subject which
is always developing : it never stands still. We fancy we
have not sufficiently insisted upon the nature of the hero him
self. To us Hamlet represents humanity and the growth of
rationalism. He is both progress, truth-seeking, and liberal
ism. In the history of Hamlet we read the history of man.
We wish to insist also upon the identity of Hamlet with
Horatio. The latter seems the scholarship of the Hamlet
school of thought. Progress, liberty, and knowledge are
the constituents of Hamlet. They give birth to the latter in
simultaneous interaction. The Players, therefore, are Hamlet
himself in action. And they act and react upon each other.
These Players are undoubtedly typical for the Reformers.
Again, we would call notice to the revival of learning,
which we imagine is the main cause in the birth of
Hamlet. That revival is pictured in the speech of Polonius
to Reynaldo. Eeynaldo is to combat all unorthodoxy.
Whilst Laertes well represents his father in literature. This
speech, coming immediately after the first act, when Hamlet
and his friends determine "to go in together," shows us
what Laertes typifies. It is the step which Polonius takes
to combat the spread of learning and rationalism. To have
neglected it would have been to overlook the direction
Laertes takes. And the travels of Laertes represent that
learning itself very well. Hamlet and Laertes both repre-
INTRODUCTION. XXV
sent two branches which the revival of learning split itself
into. One was inquiry, reason, rationalism, resulting in
progress, science, and liberalism. The other, theological
orthodoxy and toryism ; opposing Hamlet, and leading into
the mild conservatism of to-day, which threatens some day
to coalesce with the principles of Hamlet (in all but name).
Laertes defends tradition, antiquity, authority, the past.
Hamlet attacks all the above. The result is a question of
time alone.
We would remark here, that Hamlet is, in short, not only
a political play, but essentially a philosophical one. For
its philosophy is the philosophy of development, of the
growth of knowledge, liberty, and progress. It is highly
optimistic if so taken, as it looks upon time as the friend
of man in the long run. Therefore we have termed it the
" Philosophy of History " of our Poet. The Philosophy of
History embraces two principles, individualism and authority.
Their mutual interaction is progress. We quote from the
recent volume of Professor Flint upon the Philosophy of
History :
"As soon as political thought comes forth into life, it is
found to oscillate between two poles between despotism
and anarchy the extreme of social authority and the ex
treme of individual independence. Before political thought
awakens, social authority predominates. The man as an
individual does not exist, but is merged in the family, the
clan, city, or nation. But in every progressive society there
comes a time when its stronger minds feel that they are not
merely parts of a social organism, that they have a life and
destiny, rights and duties of their own, and simply as men.
There are then two principles in the world--the principle
of authority and the principle of liberty, the principle of
society and the principle of individualism. These two
principles co-exist at first in a few individuals; but, in
process of time, they come not only to co-exist in some
XXVI ' INTRODUCTION.
degree in all, but to manifest themselves apart, and then there
are not only two principles in the individual, but two parties
in the state; the one inclining more to the side of social
authority, and the other more towards individual independence
a conservative and a liberal party ; each party existing in
virtue of its assertion of a truth, but existing only as a
party, because it does not assert the whole truth each con
ferring its special services each having its special dangers
each being certain to ruin any society in which it succeeds in
crushing the other but the two securing both order and pro
gress, partly by counteracting each other, and partly by co
operating with each other." (Introduction to first volume
of Philosophy of History.)
The italics in the above wonderful masterpiece of political
philosophy are our own. We claim for Hamlet the principle
above illustrated. And Hamlet is built as a tragedy upon
such principles. On the one side we have Hamlet, who,
with his friends, represents liberty, individualism, progress
the rights of man. On the other, we have authority,
certainty, and the whole array of the social forces. The
history of the story of Hamlet is the history of the conflict
of these two parties ; the result is order, yet progress, with
out anarchy, and the whole is the largest generalization
upon the Philosophy of History as yet extant. We have
identified our hero (Hamlet) with truth, the King with
error. Critics may quarrel over the distinction, but the
principle is the same. Truth is ultimately with Hamlet.
And the whole of historical progress is the rejection of past
errors hitherto considered truths, and the adoption of the
latter in their place. Thus truth and error are at the bottom
of all the great questions which agitate humanity. In con
clusion, we offer the whole more as a suggestion and an
hypothesis than as a solution, and we are quite ready to
acknowledge the insufficiency of some of the evidence
adduced.
INTRODUCTION. XXVli
Shakespeare has embodied in the characters of the play
the collective essence of the principles of society and the
principles of individualism. In Hamlet we recognize pro
gress, truth, and liberty. The latter is expressed through
the triumphant march of Fortinbras, which is going on all
through the play. His introduction in the middle of the
tragedy is to give expression to this march of liberty.
Horatio expresses the growth of liberal knowledge in Hamlet.
His scholarship is born through Bernardo and Marcellus,
and, when expressed in the symbol of Hamlet, is the growth
of rationalism. Justice, freedom, rationalism, and thus pro
gress, are condensed in the character of Prince Hamlet and
his friends.
On the other side, we have the King and Queen as mere
symbols of error in belief and belief in error. Superstition,
tyranny, falsehood, and every form of despotic authority and
oppression, are contained in the character of the King. His
death is therefore gradual, and contained in the death of his
Lord Chamberlain and courtiers. Polonius sums up the
principle of authority, bigotry, and tradition. Certainty
and infallibility are his characteristics. He thus embodies
the chief essence of social stability and order. He is the
continuation of history, and he is the very backbone of the
King. In his son Laertes we notice the same principle,
only modified and expressed through literature. Ophelia is
also the heir of tradition and of infallibility. The two
courtiers, Kosencrantz and Guildenstern, fill up the vacuum,
and represent perhaps the greatest opponents Hamlet has
to deal with. In the indifference and sophistry of these
courtiers we recognize the great enemies to truth and liberty,
and we are struck especially here with Shakespeare's genius.
He has succeeded in embodying in these characters the very
essence of that great body which, whilst professing to love
truth, are generally indifferent to it (whilst they remain un
affected by it), and are its deadly enemies when it touches
XXV111 INTRODUCTION.
them in any degree whatever. 1 The whole of history, and
particularly the history of opposition to reform, is alive with
them. "We have only to turn to the history of the early part
of this century in England to realize, in the opposition to the
Repeal of the Corn Laws and Reform in general, the power
and activity of this party in their persistent action of hinder
ing and embarrassing Hamlet. Rosencrantz and Guilden-
stern are the representatives of those who thrive upon
abuses and injustice, who hate Reformers, and who make
them suffer for their love of justice and truth. Their means
of action are sophistry, casuistry, hypocrisy, cunning, and
evasion. Naked truth alone can crush them, and naked
truth attains a rigid exposition and unequivocal demonstra
tion in the growth of knowledge, rationalism, and science
alone. England serves this purpose in the play, and Hamlet
having escaped them, returns naked.
The conflict of individuality and authority continues in
a modified form between Hamlet and Laertes. Osric re
presents the criticism of society, which, as opinion, is the
sole referee. Finally man's apprenticeship is accomplished,
and Hamlet (expressing the action of the conflict alone),
having performed his mission, dies.
This, in our opinion, is the main outline of the solution
and rationalistic interpretation of Hamlet. The play is thus
the battle-field of two political and historical parties.
Those are the weak out of power and the strong in power.
The subject of the conflict is that of liberty, truth, and
1 " "Who does not know this temper of the man of the world, that worst
enemy of the world ? His inexhaustible patience of abuses, that only torment
others ; his apologetic words for beliefs that may perhaps not be so precisely true
as one might wish, and institutions that are not altogether so useful as some
might think possible ; his cordiality towards progress and improvement in a
general way, and his coldness and antipathy to each progressive proposal in par
ticular ; his pigmy hope that life will one day become somewhat better, punily
shivering by the side of his gigantic conviction that it might well be infinitely
worse."
INTRODUCTION.
justice rationalism and individuality against ignorance,
authority, and falsehood. Time alone is the friend of Ham
let, and the King dies slowly through his supports. The
madness of Hamlet is the artistic expression of his evil in
the eyes of his enemies. His irresolution is another artistic
expression for weakness, which Time alone can rectify. The
monologues and soliloquies are the effects of action and re
action, expressed through time in the growth of knowledge,
liberty, and crises.
Finally, we may observe, two interpretations are open to
the student. One is to identify the play with much of the
history of the last few centuries, or to merely embrace the
more general and catholic views of a Philosophy of History
alone. In the latter case Polonius must stand for the
principle of certainty, and with his overthrow the climax
of a Philosophy of History would be well expressed. The
growth of knowledge, liberty, are expressed in the word
Truth. And this growth is the history of Prince Hamlet.
Although we have adopted a historical parallelism in our
interpretation, we are not inclined, upon such a profound
subject, to dogmatize, and we disclaim any pretensions be
yond hopeful and fruitful suggestion. 1
1 The reader will think perhaps we have fitted history to Hamlet, and begged
the whole question. But this is the astounding character of the play it does
parallel modern history up to this very hour. Why? Because Shakespeare prob
ably seized the secondary laws of historical science. Through the modification
and continuity of authority, resulting from the growth of individualism or liberty,
Shakespeare has anticipated the future.
A SUGGESTIVE
KEY TO HAMLET. 1
DRAMATIS PERSONS.
HAMLET A little History of Man.
Claudius } Error, injustice, etc. ( (Marriage) corruption
Gertrude } Human belief and custom \ of Christianity.
Hamlefs Father Unadulterated Christianity prior to the second century, ideal
truth and justice.
BULWARKS OF ERROR OR CONSTITUENTS OP THE KINO.
Orthodoxy and ma-
chinery prior to
the Reformation.
Relations of
Norway
Indifference
and hatred
to truth
("Weight of many). Certainty
p 7 or infallibility, authority, anti-
quity, and tradition. Bigotry,
intolerance, absolutism.
(Probably inquisition) (dis-
Reynaldo couragement of learning) (or
thodox bias).
Voltimand- Repression by force, persecution (?).
Cornelius Hard-heartedness(P).
Rosencrantz Opposition of those who benefit by j
abuses.
Guildenstern (Method of defence) Sophistry,
casuistry, hypocrisy, and evasion.
/ Ophelia Church.
Children of Polonius <
j rniHinmi \ ui uutiiuni
\ ture, conservatism.
Osric Society and criticism.
.KING.
BULWARKS OF TRUTH OR HAMLET.
Q^V lv \ End of Dark Ages, first movement oH
Horatio Spirit of justice, independence, and scholarship, resulting
from above.
/ (Fortinbras Might and right Liberty.
Born the same day ) First Clown (Artistic double to Hamlet)
(Vide Act v. Sc. 1) j Progress.
\ Hamlet Progress.
Ghost of Hamlet's Father Revival of Christianity Doubt.
Interlude Reformation.
HAMLET.
1 This key is of course absurdly crude and partial, but it simplifies the right
study of the play by not embarrassing us with too many abstractions. It is ideal.
" I am very far from censuring the plan of Hamlet ; on the other
hand, I believe there never was a grander one invented ; nay, it is not
invented, it is real" Wilhelm Meister's Apprenticeship.
" In "Hamlet we are taught another lesson : the hero is without a
plan, but the piece is full of plan." Wilhelm Neister's Apprenticeship.
"Genius has but little concern with the moment ; the 'eternities are
its seed field.' " Dr. Maudesley's Essays.
" The characteristic of genius of the first order is for each to pro
duce a copy of man. All present humanity with her portrait, some
laughing, some crying, some thinking. The latter are the greatest.
Plautus laughs and gives man Amphitryon. Eabelais laughs and gives
man Gargantua. Cervantes laughs and gives man Don Quixote.
Beaumarchais laughs and gives man Figaro. Moliere weeps and gives
man Alcestis. Shakespeare thinks and gives man Hamlet. '^Eschylus
thinks and gives man Prometheus. ^Eschylus and Shakespeare are
immense." Translated from Victor Hugo's Shakespeare.
"Every play of Shakespeare is a true poem, and has the spiritual
unity that is in every great work of art. Each play has its own theme
in some essential truth of life, which is its soul expressed in action,
and with which every detail is in exquisite accord." Professor Morley's
History of English Literature.
HAMLET;
OR,
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY,
CHAPTER I.
IT has often been remarked that the greatness of great
men consists in their living before their age. They
are in advance of their contemporaries. If this holds true
in every case, it must be true of that giant of all giants,
and whom could we mean alone by this except William
Shakespeare ? Was our Poet in advance of his age ? Did
he peer into Futurity? Did he foresee, through the dark
avenues of Time, the events which would be delivered from
the womb of centuries? What opinions had he upon all
those questions which are the prerogatives of all genius ?
Did he realize Progress in the sense that we do in this age ?
What were his political and historical prognostications?
These are questions which cannot at present apparently be
answered. Nothing is absolutely known of our Poet's
private life. His works are Sphinxes, which, ever propound
ing riddles, have as yet in no one case received any satisfac
tory solution.
SHAKESPEARE was born the same year Galileo was born
(1564). He was in the full tide of his manhood when
Giordano Bruno suffered at the stake for maintaining the
Heliocentric doctrine (1600). And Shakespeare, of all men,
must have realized most forcibly what the age he lived in
i
2 HAMLET J OR,
meant. He must have settled in his own mind, with genius-
like prescience, whether Authority, Antiquity, and Bigotry
were to crush out Reason, Inquiry, and Truth ; or whether
the latter, taking a fulcrum in the glorious movement of the
Reformation, would finally emancipate man from the thral-
. dom of the Night of Ignorance. Here was our Poet living
in a most marvellous age : one in which darkness was be
hind, and all was crescent, though faint, light in front.
The world re-echoed with the triumphs of the Reformation,
with the wonders of the New "World, with the scientific
truths of the "world moves." Perhaps the sixteenth
century is the one most important in man's history to man.
In it was contained the birth of all that liberty, of all that
enterprise, and of all that individuality, which has developed
into the nineteenth century. Of course all history is con
tinuous and unbroken. But some ages sum up the silent
work of centuries. Such an age was the sixteenth. Blow
after blow had been dealt against that tyrrany of man over
man, which had kept authority in a state of stagnancy, and
individualism in a state of thraldom. Light had been steal
ing in during the last three centuries, to accumulate at last
in the glorious sun of the Reformation. Such was the
strength of this movement, that it infected every department
of human thought. It was simply pure air and light after
darkness and corruption. No wonder this age abounds in
illustrious men. Like caged birds, they realized their free
dom in bursts of rapturous song. Spenser, Shakespeare, and
Ben Jonson are singers of that age ; Raleigh and the
discoverers of the New World are the men of action of
that age ; whilst we have science represented by Coperni
cus, Kepler, Galileo, and Bruno. The world had simply,
after some six centuries of torpor and night, awakened
itself out of its lethargy, and was realizing the birth of
Rationalism and its growth. But the very fact that England
enjoyed, under Elizabeth, such a great amount of toleration,
must have forced itself, in contrast, upon the mind of our
Poet. How his great mind must have sympathized with the
Copernican system, and with the glowing description of
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OP HISTORY. 3
Bruno (in England), upon the hypothesis of " a plurality of
worlds " ! Is it possible, we have to ask ourselves, Shake
speare escaped the enthusiasm of the age ? We feel at once
how absurd such a question sounds. But, at the same time,
we are face to face with another question, and one which
requires an emphatic solution : and we immediately wonder
why his plays contain nothing which seems to point in any
way to those times and those conflicts which were the birth
right of his age. The question is easily put upon two
footings, which admit of no equivocation whatever.
Either, we da not comprehend the Plays of Shakespeare,
or he has taken no literary interest in the great topics of his
day. These topics are, wonderful to say, exactly the ones
calculated to attract genius. They were topics of Reason
versus Authority and Tradition. Dante had prophesied the
Reformation : has one greater than Dante prophesied any
thing ? Bacon sat down and prophesied : surely one greater
than Bacon has done the same. And the topics which were
agitated in the age of William Shakespeare were of an
absorbing kind. Religion and dawning science were at
deadly feud. The latter was in the throes of a re-birth ;
struggling for its very life. Liberty, Knowledge, and Pro
gress ever co-partners and co-heirs had embraced, had
shaken hands, and were beginning their endless march in
the van of humanity. These are topics which interest most
the greatest minds.
On the one side, we have to confess that our age has not
grown up to our Poet's height. On the other, we are met
with the astounding necessity of showing Shakespeare's
mind to be deficient in all those qualities which go in other
men towards greatness and comprehensiveness. For what
is a great mind ? Largeness of view upon all those subjects
which must be eternally absorbing to man. Those are the
nature of man, of the future life, of his destiny below, and
of his destiny hereafter, philosophy and history, man in
the macrocosm, and man in the microcosm; these are topics
which genius never fails to handle. But, if we are not
entirely mistaken, the text of Shakespeare, taken simply
4 HAMLET; OR,
verbatim, gives us no positive views upon these subjects.
Splendid as the language, magnificent as the poetry^ of
thought, we still fail to find any definite opinions. Nothing
is to be found which we could call a discovery. Shakespeare
(as yet) has added nothing but beauty to man's store of
literature ; his own opinions, upon all those subjects which
have agitated and will continue for ever to agitate mankind,
are not to be found in the mouths of his characters. He
was far too great an objective genius to identify himself sub
jectively with his dramatis personw. He identified himself
with his meaning in quite another way. And to that we
shall arrive by and by. Had Shakespeare any opinions upon
history? Of course he had. But where are they then?
Had he a philosophy of history of his own ? Had he a
philosophy pertaining to himself concerning religion, con
cerning politics, concerning the future of man ? We reply,
with the greatest confidence, that he had; and those who
read his plays may find them there.
We have a distinct charge to bring against all Shake
spearian criticism. And this charge consists that Shakespeare
has been robbed of the principles which underlie all works
of the imagination. Critic after critic, with the exception of
Goethe (who plagiarized from his discovery), deny tacitly to
William Shakespeare what they willingly grant to a Cer
vantes or a Swift. Nay, to come down to modern times, we
find novelists like Hawthorne, the late Lord Lytton, and
George Eliot, enjoying their literary rewards based upon
true principles. Every great work is a creation. It does
not copy individualities. It creates or copies universalities.
What is permanent in man in the abstract, either ridiculous
or sublime, that is copied alone. It may be an age is thus
exemplified, or it may be an age is ridiculed. Again, it may
be the decay of a great empire, or the rise of a great power.
Yoltaire, who ridiculed Hamlet (because it was beyond him
and his age), wrote his plays upon such principles. Witness
Alzire, Mahomet, etc. And shall we deny to William
Shakespeare what we grant, without a murmur, to his very
inferiors ? Our Poet, it will be found, was the sole master
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 5
and originator of the principles which, underlie all Dramatic
Art. Goethe, who discovered them in Shakespeare, has
given us a complete exegesis of the same. And what are
they ? The typical representation of generalities clothed in
the particularization of idealized art. The difference be
tween a great work of art and a work of no art is in one,
the grandeur of the conception and its faultless execution;
in the other, the want of any conception, or its poverty
united to faulty execution. When we have poorness of con
ception, and good execution, we recognize that finish, or that
the technic itself has solely run away with the whole. A
great conception may be faulty in workmanship, and yet, on
account of its grandeur, may be redeemed from oblivion.
For example, Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress is a work whose
conception is most grand ; but the whole, as a work of art, is
most imperfect. Indeed it cannot be classed as a work of
art ; for unity of plan is the essential of art : whereas we
have no unity ; half is plain allegory, and half is here half-
finished art. A work of art has its two sides. These are
the esoteric and exoteric. An artist, no matter whether in
the Catholic sense, or in the narrower sense of painter,
sculptor, or musician, finds in art the vehicles of his ideas.
The better they are expressed, the more perfect the art. But
one side, instead of revealing the other at a glance, serves
rather to obscure it at first sight, though at a profounder
view to reveal it. Mere copying is not creation. Our ideas
are our own, and when we have clothed them in art, we are
then alone worthy of being styled artists. God is alone the
artist of artists. How simple is all in this world to the unin-
quiring! How self-evident does the realism of the every- day
world appear ! Yet philosophy, on deeper inspection, is still
at variance upon this same realism. Let us turn to Shake
speare, and apply all this to him. If art, and his art par
ticularly, was simply histrionic, why has he plagiarized, for
example, Hamlet from an old story in Saxo-Graminaticus ?
Why not create something quite original? We maintain
that in the same play he has created something quite original.
But it is not the exoteric and text side alone of the play. It
6 HAMLET J OB,
is the esoteric and symbolical idea upon which the play is
alone in its originality based. The story from which our
Poet borrowed served as a mere peg whereon to hang his
great drama of the Philosophy of History.
JT}~Why is it we are all fascinated by Hamlet? Because,
oeing an attribute of human nature generalized, we feel a
portion of him in ourselves. Through his artistic garb we
instinctively feel something which we dimly recognize a
great truth which we cannot express. We are all true to
ourselves in something, if not in everything ; and Hamlet
strikes this chord. The same may be said of Polonius.
Impossible to point him out individually, yet we are all well
acquainted with him. And this sort of ambiguous recogni
tion puzzles us, and we ask ourselves vaguely where. Again,
who does not recognize Guildenstern and Eosencrantz, and
again the same sort of intimate acquaintanceship and doubt
ful whereabouts. As in all great art, the generalization
holds good, but the individualization is nowhere in par
ticular. This constitutes the greatness of Shakespeare a
greatness hitherto unrationalized ; but a greatness which
every age recognizes. For Shakespeare's characters are the
essence and generalized attributes of collective humanity in
all times and throughout history. A great artist imitates
God. He creates a mystery. This mystery fascinates whilst
it perplexes. Like all problems, it is wooed by humanity as
long as it remains a mystery or a marvel. This mystery is
created with a two-fold purpose. First, to convey to pos
terity truths that are prematurely born ; and secondly to
obey the canons of true art, which admit of no one-sidedness.
Again, an artist is compelled, by his love of the beautiful, to
clothe and paint his ideas, be it in poetry, in stone, or in
canvas ; but he feels there is little pause between true art
and rationalization. In fact, all art is the harmony of in
stinctive, and often unknown, rationalization. The greater
the rationalization, the greater the art, if art it be. But the
poetic or dramatic mode of expression may be lacking, and
then we have prose, science, logic. As Professor Bibot
aptly says, "the metaphysician is only a poet who has
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. . 7
missed his vocation." Thus the artist, like Shakespeare,
feels his work only perfect when the union of the esoteric
and exoteric sides are most perfect. When the art stands
perfect as art alone, and the truth of the work is in perfect
harmony with it, it is, as Shakespeare repeatedly tells us
in his sonnets, the marriage of Truth and Beauty. And we
feel the truth mysteriously, and vaguely, peeping out every
where in Hamlet.
We are, through all our criticisms upon Shakespeare,
driven to one inevitable conclusion. That is, his works are
still a mystery to man. The art of reading them is still
unborn; or, though appearing to possess the greatest com
prehensiveness, and the subtlest brain ever possessed by
mortal man, he refused to employ it any other way, but
embellishing plagiarized stories for merely histrionic and
dramatic purposes. But who can believe this ? It is essen
tially the prerogative of great minds to prophesy. In the
law of the present they surmise the law of the future.
Dante foretold the coming Reformation. Bacon sat down
and prophesied the marvellous mechanical fecundity of the
present day. Jomini, imbued with military genius, fore
stalled the battle of Jena. Minds are not so much unlike in
quality as different in degrees of power. We may depend
upon it, if Shakespeare did prophesy, he prophesied more
surely and more splendidly than any man before or after
him. What did he foresee ? Here is the question which
drives men over and over again to make his life and works
the subject of their own toil.
What we profess to do in this pamphlet is to offer an
hypothesis upon the subject of Hamlet. Every one has a
conception of his own concerning this play. But it is one
which is growing more and more positive every day. That
conception is that Hamlet is a sort of philosophy of our
Poet. It is so in one sense, but it is a Philosophy of
History. Men are beginning to grasp the fact that there is
more in Hamlet than meets the eye. That Hamlet is not
an individual is also gaining ground. As Dr. Maudesley
says, he is an " idealized creation " of humanity. We begin
8 HAMLET; OR,
to recognize the symbolical character of Shakespeare's works.
They are Sphinxes, which have been unread for three centuries,
and they still offer as yet insolvable problems. The Germans
have been long before us in this direction. Following the
leadership of Goethe (who of all men has furnished, as yet,
the most exhaustive and profound criticism upon Hamlet), they .
recognize in Hamlet's character analogies which have paral
leled their own country's history. But Goethe's work of the
"Wilhelm Meister is, as yet, another enigma to be solved.
As Lord Lytton justly remarks, it is undoubtedly the ap
prenticeship of man in life, and of man in art. But the
criticisms which it contains upon Hamlet are of too search
ing a nature to be quite understood as yet. The Wilhelm
Meister's apprenticeship is a plagiarism of Hamlet. It is a
prose Hamlet ; not written as an exegesis of the play alone,
but as a creation upon similar lines, and in many respects
the same. This will be thoroughly established by and by.
In the meanwhile we propose to take the play of Hamlet
in hand. "We shall attempt, first, to deal with the action.
Then with the text in connexion with each character. And
finally to contemplate its unity by the light so afforded.
The most profound modern work upon Shakespeare, as yet,
has been Professor Gervinus's Commentaries. But, beyond
thoughtful criticisms, no new light is thrown upon the subject.
The same may be said of Carl Elze's Essays. Professor
Morley, in his History of English Literature, makes a very
fair attempt to solve the spiritual unity of the Merchant of
Yenice. But the right sort of insight is still lacking.
To turn to Hamlet itself. The action of the play centres
upon what may be termed the conflict of two parties. On
the one hand, we have a King supported by five courtiers, a
Lord Chamberlain, his son and daughter. On the other,
a Prince, heir to a throne he never succeeds to, and his
friends (two officers and Horatio). We have one Fortin-
bras, who ostensibly takes neither side. But he evidently
acts powerfully upon Hamlet, and he runs, like a chorus,
obscurely through the play from first to last. The whole
action is thus a battle between the strong in power and the
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 9
weak out of power. Mysteriously our sympathies run with
the weak. It is part of the action of the play that Hamlet
should only find out that his enemies have unjustly got
power after they are in possession.
The whole play is the action or conflict of Hamlet and
friends versus King and supporters. Hamlet wants power
and resolution to effect his revenge. But time alone brings
it ; and this time is such an important element in the play,
that we believe it is the groundwork of it. The action of
*the play, again, is one in which the King is always losing
Ijpower, and Hamlet gaining it. For example : two of the
/King's supporters, Yoltimand and Cornelius, disappear at an
early period from the play. Thus, two of Hamlet's enemies
are gone, and the King's power lessened. Next, the chief
bulwark of the King dies at Hamlet's hands. With the
death of Polonius the King is visibly alarmed. So Hamlet
is banished. Next, Guildenstern and Rosencrantz disappear,
and Hamlet comes back alone. Lastly, Laertes dies ; when
Hamlet kills the King, dies himself, and the drama is
brought to a close. Let it be noticed how Hamlet gets
Jbolder and bolder, and more resolute in every act of the
play. He cannot kill the King, because he lacks power.
^ But he kills Polonius, and that is the only way to get at the
/ King. He is still nearer to the King when Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern are dead. And nearest when Laertes dies by
his own poison. We must, therefore, take these supporters
of the King as indispensables to his power and evil doing.
Let us begin with Yoltimand and Cornelius. They evidently
are only necessary at an early stage of the play. They
shortly disappear. All they complete, or the part they play,
is the putting down of a revolt. They are sent to Norway.
They savour of direct force. They disappear. So we must
take it that force disappears. Next comes Polonius, who
uses cunning, stratagem, and interference. He is fond of
espionage. Witness the task he sets his servant Reynaldo.
He repeats himself over and over again. He is certain he
can find truth anywhere. He is full of pedantic words. He
is old. He is tedious. What is he ? Antiquity on account
10 HAMLET; OR,
of his repetition, certainty on account of his self-conceit,
and thus infallibility. "We therefore see how perfectly
Polonius realizes Tradition, which repeats ever the same
monotone ; and Antiquity, on account of his age ; also
Pedantry, in his garrulous unmeaning jargon. He is wrong
in all his surmises, jet shows unrivalled worldly wisdom.
He is the very back-bone of the King, and does all the
spying and dirty work of that monarch. Now, the death of
Polonius is peculiar. He is killed as if by accident.
Hamlet thought he was killing the King. And he was
killed because he interfered between Hamlet and his mother.
Is this an end of interference ? Is this the end of religious
intolerance ? The death of autocratic authority and tradi
tion. The text, presently, will throw more light upon this
point. Thus another of the King's chief supports is gone.
And we must be struck with the helpless way Hamlet is
obliged to kill the King's bulwarks before he can get at the
King. And this leads us to conjecture that all these sup
porters of the King are the very substance of the King
himself. This is a conjecture which the text, by and by,
will strengthen. Hamlet only gets rid of what is imme
diately, and at a certain period, obstructive to himself. He
only kills Polonius when driven into it by his prying inter
ference. Until this is done he cannot speak to his mother.
Again, he only plots against his former friends, Guildenstern
and Rosencrantz, when he reads the grand commission of
the King. But we are more especially struck with the ir
resolution of Hamlet. Let us also remark how this irresolu
tion gets incentives to further resolution, from epochs in the
play. One of these is the appearance and revelation of the
Ghost. Again, the Player scene is another. The march of
Fortinbras a similar one'. And yet, after all, the death of
the King is almost forced upon him. What is the -meaning
of this apparent contradiction ? It is not one ; it merely is
meant to convey the meaning that the King and his sup
porters are one. The death of Laertes is the death of the
King. Law is the power which ties the hands of Hamlet.
Time alone sets them free in the last scene of all. After the
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 11
death, of Polonius, Hamlet has two more enemies, who, pre
tending to be his friends, are enlisted in reality upon the
King's side. Let us remark how these two, who are never
far apart from each other, hunt in couples. And they offer
a direct contrast to Polonius. For the interference and
pedantry of the latter, they substitute a form of bad logic
and optimistic view of life. They directly recommend the
banishment of Hamlet. At first they are his friends.
Latterly in the play Hamlet first suspects, then repudiates,
and finally escapes from them.
Thus the action of the play is one of unbroken continuity.
It is one of progress and development. The power of the
King is constantly getting weakened. With his last bul
wark, Laertes, he dies himself. Hamlet is the direct
means of the removal of all the King's supports. Force,
hard-heartedness, authority, bigotry, tradition, sophistry,
optimism, casuistry, and conservatism disappear before
Hamlet, one after another. Hamlet is only set naked in
the kingdom, when Hosencrantz and Guildenstern are
gone and are dead. He is no longer hampered with false
logic. He is indeed naked. The action of the drama, we
repeat, is one of devolopment, of continuity. There is no
break. It is all a chain of cause and effect, over which
there rests
^
"A divinity that shapes our ends, rough hew them how we will."
And we also notice how action and reaction have their legiti
mate and historical expression in this sublime drama.
The Players are prompted by Hamlet ; and they, in their
turn, react upon him, giving him further force. The march
of Fortinbras, as the chorus of liberty, acts and reacts in a
similar manner. But there is a long pause, whilst Hamlet
is being banished.
With regard to time, we must infer that epochs of moment
and movements of great strength are alone dramatically
portrayed in the action. The Player scene, which we shall
endeavour to show is the Reformation itself, is thus the most
important point in the whole action of the play. It is the
12 HAMLET ; OR,
direct recognition of error, and the drawing up of the two
great forces of society in Europe. These are the stationary
and the progressive. Antiquity, tradition, and the past are
for the first time face to face with inquiry, reason, truth, or
science and modern liberalism. From this point of the play
events take a new turn. Hamlet is no longer the irresolute
character some believe him to be. He soon (dramatically)
kills Polonius. And from the death of the latter results
the banishment of Hamlet. From the banishment of Ham
let results the death of Rosencrantz and Gruildenstern. And,
again, their death signifies the return of Hamlet. At this
point we have a rapidity of action, which defies any further
elaboration of the play as hitherto. Shakespeare, in all he
did, was eclectic ; and the fifth act of the play is in reality a
chorus of condensed time, in which great change is repre
sented in a striking and magnificent manner. But if we go
back to the beginning of the drama, we shall find little or no
action. The play opens with the deep stillness and darkness
of the
" Dead waste and middle of the night/'
"Not a mouse stirring."
One solitary sentinel alone on his watch ; and this solitary
being reports himself as cold, and sick at heart. Nothing
can be more impressive, and nothing could realize better the
darkness and ignorance of the Middle Ages, which are so
well expressed in the word ' waste.' This solitary sentinel,
Francisco, strangely disappears, at once and for ever, from
the play. And we ask ourselves why ? Because, if he is
ignorance, as we suspect, his relief by Bernardo would be
the relief of ignorance for enlightenment. And we suspect
Bernardo to mean education of some sort, or the art of
reading. And our reasons for this are very strong. In the
first place, the word Bernardo spells ' Born read. 9 Whether
this is simply accidental or otherwise, we leave to others to
decide. But when coupled with similar results, and when
classed with other facts of the same nature, we cannot escape
the conviction forced upon us. Without specifying any
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 13
direct attribute as to the spiritual meaning of Bernardo, we
will call him the growth of knowledge. And we must
notice that he is an officer, as is also his friend Marcellus.
Now Professor Morley says, in his History of English Litera
ture, that Shakespeare employs soldiers as symbols of whole
workers, body and mind. Francisco may thus stand for the
first feeble inquiries and questionings, which led from the end
of the Dark Ages (about the end of the tenth century) to
wards that ever-increasing movement which ended in the
Reformation. And the whole of the first act of Hamlet is
in accordance with this theory. For it is one of the accre
tion of doubt, and a growing certainty of the Ghost's reality
and truth. It is questionable, even, if Bernardo and Mar
cellus do not go far to form Hamlet himself. For Hamlet
does not appear until the second scene of the first act. And
Bernardo and Marcellus, like Francisco, disappear from the
play after the end of the first act. And why ? Because
they are understood in Hamlet. Hamlet himself says :
" Let us go in together ;
And still your fingers on your lips, I pray.
The time is out of joint ; cursed spite !
That ever I -was born to set it right !
-ZVay, come, lefs go together"
Thus we see Hamlet is himself an embodiment of many
elements. And those elements are, to our minds, inquiry
and doubt, a love of justice and truth, and liberty. The
first scene of the first act already points to a gradual increase
of light. And it ends with the beautiful words of Horatio :
" But, look, the morn, in russet mantle clad.
Walks o'er the dew of yon high eastern hill."
The darkness of the Dark Ages is thus typically portrayed
as breaking up. The dawn of modern Europe was dispers
ing the vapours of credulity and superstition. Confidence
in the Ghost gradually culminates into a greater and greater
scepticism on the part of Hamlet. And how beautifully is
all this gradually growing scepticism pictured in the play !
Seen by no one at first but Bernardo; then by Marcellus and
Horatio ; it remains a mere spectre, that cannot and will not
14; HAMLET ; OR,
be understood or questioned. This Ghost of Hamlet's father
well represents the shadows of the mind, which grow in
intensity until they become a revelation itself. This doubt
is communicated unto young Hamlet, who alone can under
stand his father's spirit, for Truth is the son of Doubt.
The whole of the first act is a growing scepticism, which
accumulates into a force of itself. And the action of the
play is one of silently gathering forces : forces which are
quietly surveying each other's strength. Fear on the one
side, hatred on the other. But still waiting for more deci
sive means wherewith to catch the conscience of the King.
What we merely wish to endeavour to instil into the
reader's mind is, that Time is the groundwork of the play,
and Time alone. Perhaps we may now announce our inter
pretation of Hamlet as a whole. That is, a Philosophy of the
History of Europe from the end of the Dark Ages, and carried
into the remote future. We are certain that the truth of
this will be eventually established ; and we offer what little
thought we have to the elucidation of the problem. Hamlet
is thus a history and a prophecy ; but more of the latter
than of the former. It is the most valuable of all Shake
speare's works, and that on account of its containing his
political, religious, and social opinions and prognostications.
We lay down as unquestionable, to all profound students
of Hamlet, the fact, that Time is the stage upon which
the play is built. Mankind the actors. Truth and Error the
action of the drama. Shakespeare distinctly recognized the
great dynamical principle of Modern History in Europe.
This principle is the resultant of two other principles, namely
that of authority and that of liberty. The principle of
society and the principle of individualism. History, to be
History, and not mere Eastern stagnancy, is the product or
resultant of these two forces. They may be paralleled in
mechanics, as the effect of gravitation versus motion. One
is cohesion, the other motion. One acting without the other
is stagnancy or anarchy. An harmonious interaction is the
result of a good constitution, which regulates the pace and
position of each. The reaction of to-day is a self- adjust-
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 15
ing increase of gravitation, by which the elliptic of progress
is for the time modified. Shakespeare undoubtedly was a
firm believer in progress, and understood history better, aye
far better, than even the late Mr. Buckle, or the great Her
mann Lotze. He clearly realized that all progress depends
upon the amount of knowledge and liberty an age or country
possesses. And therefore he has made Time the great ally
and friend upon whom Hamlet is dependent. Continuity of
cause and effect is seen running all through the tragedy. The
revelation of the Ghost is the key upon which the whole
play depends. And Shakespeare has made a shadow, which
grows in consistency, the means of this revelation. Scepti
cism is thus upheld as the liberator of modern Europe. But
how still more do we recognize in Ophelia and Laertes this
relation of cause and effect in continuity. In making these
two the descendants of Polonius, how true Shakespeare is to
actual history ! Who is Ophelia ? Who is Laertes ? Both the
children of Tradition and Antiquity. Both the scions of
authority, they are opposed to all liberalism, which is only
individualism. Laertes is ever true to his parentage. For
what is a true conservative but a child of authority, of the
past, of antiquity. His very conservatism indorses the
authority of the past. And what is liberalism but the child
of the future, hatched in doubt, and nurtured by inquiry.
Thus the continuity of Polonius is verified in Laertes.
Polonius only dies in one form, to give rise to another modi
fied Polonius in Laertes. And Ophelia, who is a Church,
whose very essence is the weight of authority, antiquity,
infallibility, and tradition, must necessarily go mad and
perish with the fall of these her very foundations.
Thus Time and Continuity are the basis and action upon
which the drama depends. We can already get a glimpse
at the way Shakespeare understood social evolution a
science still in its infancy, and upon which our Poet will still
be our best instructor. Indeed no Philosophy of History
can be more perfect than Hamlet. In it are contained all
the laws of social development contributing to future equi
librium. And now what is the action upon which the play
16 HAMLET; OR,
depends? Upon the struggle between the King and Hamlet.
Rather let us be clear, and say at once Truth and Error.
Broadly this is the subject-matter of the whole drama. All
the characters are ranged upon one side or other of these
two forces. But Time is the great ally of Hamlet. There
was no doubt who would ultimately win, in our Poet's lofty
mind. He saw how ignorance and error are but twin
brothers, whom the God of time and light would ultimately
strangle. Hamlet, as we have said, is truth. He is the
direct result of doubt, of liberty, and of inquiry. And from
these he gets fresh force, and to these he, in his own turn, im
parts fresh force. Thus the play is one vast conflict. An
historical and prophetical conflict, which at the present
moment has its counterpart in the contemporary age so well
portrayed, that it is marvellous men do not see it.
But let us now turn to the only true expositor of the
drama. That is the text. Without its overwhelming
evidence in our favour, it would be rash indeed to dogmatize
upon such a subject. But we remain firm in the conviction
that we shall carry the enlightened reader along with us.
That is to say, if history has to him any meaning, and such
a meaning as Mr. Buckle would especially give utterance.
To those who look upon history as a broken chain, as a
system of isolated facts, springing out of the conditions of
a spontaneous will, we say "Cudgel not thy brains" over
Hamlet. But let those who see in history a psychological
cause and effect, as much under law as the courses of the
stars, let them, we say, open Hamlet and read well into
futurity.
Again, we would say a word to those who repudiate the
attempt to rationalize the details of art. All imperfect art,
we grant, refuses to be so handled. But Shakespeare's was
and is perfect art, and allows itself to be examined micro
scopically in every line and in every word. The closer the
inspection, the greater the reward. There are others, who,
by some extraordinary process of logic, consider the very
conception of there existing a further meaning to our Poet's
works as rank blasphemy. And we should ask these persons
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 17
why so ? Can they furnish an answer ? Does it invalidate
the exoteric art of the conception, and does it lower the
claim of an author to genius ? We would rather reply, no
man has genius in art who does not possess the quality of
clothing his abstractions in the garb of idealized art. If he
has no abstractions, he may be an artist, but certainly no
genius, in the sense of creation alone. To proceed with the
text of the play. We shall not touch yet the beginning.
First, that we have already touched upon it. Secondly,
that the chief characters, seized in their essential meaning,
will make the earlier parts of the play speak for itself. And
thirdly, that there is little in the text of a sufficiently clear
evidence to be of any use in demonstrating any deduction
from such a part. We therefore shall not go regularly
from the very commencement of the play line for line. For
it would be beyond the limits of this paper. And we believe
greater light can be thrown by a less regular and more
eclectic mode of criticism. Let us take Hamlet himself, and
from the text alone endeavour to embody the abstraction, of
which he is the idealized representative. Opening our
Hamlet at the second scene, we find almost the first words of
Hamlet to be :
" Ham. Seems, madam ! nay it is ; I know not l seems.'
'T is not alone my inky cloak, good mother,
Nor customary suits of solemn black,
Nor windy suspiration of forc'd breath,
No, nor the fruitful river in the eye,
Nor the dejected 'haviour of the visage,
Together with all forms, moods, shapes of grief,
That can denote me truly : These, indeed, seem,
For they are actions that a man might play :
But I have that within which passeth show ;
These, but the trappings and the suits of woe." (Act i. Sc. 2.)
This excerpt seems the very key-note to the character of
Hamlet. It is the essence of verity itself. Surely a poet,
seeking to give expression to the beauty of truth, could not
realize it more forcibly than in the above passage. Truth
knows not seems. Yerity itself is not to be expressed by
"forms, moods, or shapes of grief." We are convinced at
once, when we read this passage, of the depth, profundity,
2
18 HAMLET ; OR,
and thoroughness of Hamlet's character. And as everything
real and true has a sympathy for us all, so the reader of
Hamlet for the first time is at once enlisted with a melan
choly interest upon his side. Again, Hamlet says at the
end of the first act, that " the time is out of joint." And
he realizes that he " is born to set it right." The profound
student will find in this remark, placed as it is at the finale
of an act, and that act the first, a hint of the greatest im
portance. Indeed, Goethe remarked it to be the key of the
whole play. For if we are firmly convinced of the thorough-
goingness of our hero's character, all his acts must be
genuine, and must therefore be the result of truth. What
ever opposition he meets with must be from the enemies of
truth alone. We shall examine their characters presently in
succession.
Hamlet's first monologue or soliloquy is in accordance
with our theory. As yet uninformed of the appearance of
his father's Ghost, he bewails the hard destiny of life and
the corruption of man :
" How weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable
Seem to me all the uses of this world !
Fie on 't ! fie ! 't is an unweeded garden,
That grows to seed ; things rank, and gross in nature,
Possess it merely." (Act i. Sc. 2.) l
But hardly is this monologue, the result of the King's sophis
tical speech, delivered, than the information of Horatio,
Bernardo, and Marcellus, inform him of the appearance of
his father's Ghost. Thus doubt comes fast upon doubt,
strengthening the growing scepticism. And this scepticism
is borne to Hamlet by three whom we believe are very
ingredients of Hamlet himself. These are the growth of
knowledge, the spirit of justice, and inquiry, which are the
collective and separate product of those ~three friends he
terms a little later, friends, scholars and soldiers. And let
1 These lines represent a gloomy pessimism, which takes its root in a profound
love of truth. They postulate gross corruption.
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 19
us mark the direct proof of all this in the decision of all
four to "go in together."
The second act opens with the instructions Polonius gives
his servant Reynaldo to keep a surveillance upon Laertes.
And this is one of the thousand proofs of the play and
its object. For the travels of Laertes l are the spread of
learning, which, of course, is general. And Polonius, as
Authority, takes care to make it as much in accordance with
his tradition as possible. Hence the duty of Reynaldo.
He is political espionage, who checks liberty of conscience,
and puts an end to free thought. Laertes may do almost
anything but one thing and that is be open to incontinence .
V " Pol. You must not put another scandal on him.
That he is open to incontinency ."
Thus we see how Laertes is to be kept in the path of his
father. He will be -successively in this play all that is
understood historically, by authority, antiquity, and tradi
tion. He will stand by Ophelia. He will oppose Hamlet.
He will be conservative to the backbone, no matter how
modified we find his character at the end of the play. The
introduction of Reynaldo was then a necessary addendum
to the unity of the play, For he shows how Polonius
works. Reynaldo's business is to discourage anything un
orthodox. He is part of Polonius and his machinery.
And his introduction gives us to understand the spread of
knowledge, and the means which Polonius takes to keep it
orthodox.
The first act of Hamlet's (in the second act) is the in
spection of Ophelia. We maintain, contrary to ordinary
criticism, that Hamlet never shows any irresolution, and is
always acting. He is at the work of killing the King all
through the play. And the King dies inch by inch all ;
through the play, as each of his organs is mortally wounded
and destroyed. The vulgar error is the belief that the King .
i * "We have taken Laertes to signify orthodox and traditional Literature. In
this guise he returns to combat with Hamlet at the finale of the play.
20 HAMLET ; OR,
is in full health at the end of the play. But a mere ghost
of the King is left in the person of Laertes. The real king
is a fiction, to represent the error 1 under which Laertes wars
against Hamlet. To return to Ophelia. Hamlet's first act
is the inspection of Ophelia ; as of a person much diseased.
She is at the bottom of all his unhappiness. For all his
happiness depends upon her favour. But her father and
her brother forbid her to have anything^*) do with Hamlet.
Hamlet is never really mad. His madness is only in the
eyes of others. And of whom, let us ask ? Of his enemies.
Ophelia thinks him mad, because she is a true daughter of
her father. But Horatio does not think him mad. Hamlet,
like all truth, seems mad to those to whom he appearrainy-
thing but truth. It is the old stoical idea of the world weing
mad to a philosopher; and the philosopher appearing mad
in the world's eyes. There is a good story of some person,
questioning an inmate of a lunatic asylum upon the reason
of his incarceration. The reply was witty : "I thought the
world mad.. But they say I am mad. And being the
stronger party, of course I am locked up ! "
There is hardly a great discovery before its time, which
does not receive the character of a mad scheme. Instances
might be numbered ad infinitum. The discovery of the
circulation of blood by Harvey, was derided and execrated
in his day. And we know he lost practice by it. Indeed,
for even a century after him, it was not universally accepted
by the Faculty. The dreams of a poor conchologist in the
eighteenth century were laughed at by Yoltaire as the
evidence of madness. Yet here was the great science of
geology being silently born. We are almost persuaded, after
great historical study, to exclaim of the world
"Her all, most utter vanity ; and all
Her lovers mad, insane most grievously,
And most insane, because they know it not." Pollok.
1 For the sake of clearness we term the King Error. He is everything con
tained in the falsehood, injustice, and superstition of social authority and op
pression.
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 21
But we deny Hamlet to be mad. He disclaims it, 1 and leaves
it an opinion of his adversaries alone. For in no single line
does Hamlet utter an incoherent word. There are many
passages which, being misunderstood, are looked upon as
the gibberish of a dangerous lunatic. But they are not
sounded by the general students of Shakespeare, who dive
no deeper than the text surface, and bring neither historical
nor speculative philosophy to aid in the solution of the ques
tion. Those that have no science and no powers of com
prehending truth, by its own light, will always adhere to the
old, and call every innovation madness. No doubt the
theory of Darwin is madness to thousands, who, imbued
witw tradition, are true descendants and cousins-german of
Polmrius and Laertes. No generation is therefore fit to
judge of the truth of new theories. Time alone will be
their patent. But to return to Hamlet's supposed madness.
JWhat does it mean artistically ? It signifies profound art
by which Hamlet's madness serves the purpose of the union
of double plot, so essential in such difficult art. It was
; necessary that our Poet, should keep the artistic side of the
drama free from being too one-sided. To make his spiritual
meaning too apparent was not his object. It was to be
carefully veiled under the form of perfect art. Thus
Hamlet's madness artistically (feigned or otherwise) serves
to express his wildness and evil in the eyes of others.
How exquisitely Shakespeare has escaped contradictions,
almost inevitable in such a subject, is worthy of a great work
of its own. Let us clearly define our position. Hamlet is
no more mad than the sanest of Her Majesty r s subjects in
our eyes. His madness 8 in our eyes, once for all, is only
his badness in the eyes of others, and an artistic cover
under which he may utter the most profound truths to
Polonius and Ophelia. As we have before remarked, it is
merely an artistic ruse, by which the fear of his adversaries
1 " If t be so ; " and again, " Hamlet is of the faction that is wrong' d."
2 At the end of the play Hamlet identifies his madness with his enemies "his
madness is poor Hamlet's enemy."
22 HAMLET J OR,
is expressed by calling him mad, and which puzzles those
who, criticizing the play, cannot grasp the meaning of
some of his speeches. The first act of Hamlet, we repeat,
is the criticism of Ophelia. This criticism she describes
herself. It is an examination, by long perusal and in
spection. It will simply lead to the Reformation, which is
dramatically pictured in the Player-scene. Ophelia is
diseased. And let it be particularly noticed, after the
Interlude or Player- scene, Hamlet is never seen with
Ophelia again. Hamlet is described by Ophelia as one
in a deplorable state of mind.
" Oph. My lord, as I was sewing in my closet,
Lord Hamlet, with his doublet all unbraced ;
No hat upon his head ; his stockings foul'd,
Ungarter'd, and down-gyved to his ancle ;
Pale as 'his shirt ; his knees knocking each other ;
And with a look so piteous in purport
As if he had been loosed out of hell,
To speak of horrors, he comes before me." l
In the above passage we have a great many touches which
illuminate the whole conception. We are bound to re
member the historical facts which preceded the Reformation,
and which accompanied it. Prison was the place, if not
the stake, to which the disciples of truth, of inquiry, or
what were termed heretics, went. Truth might well, at
such a time, have a
" Look so piteous in purport
As if he had been loosed out of hell."
Hamlet is a prince ; an heir who never comes to the
throne. Truth is the prince of thought its goal, its prize ;
but it never comes to the throne of mankind. So Hamlet
is pretty clearly criticizing severely a love who receives his
truth so unkindly. No wonder he
" Raised a sigh so piteous and profound
As it did seem to shatter all his bulk
And end his being."
1 Mr. Tyler, in his " Philosophy of Hamlet," has commented well upon this
passage.
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 23
Hamlet is clearly recognizing his great enemy, in the whole
of the scene from which these excerpts are made. And
Polonius is alarmed. For, as he remarks, this ecstasy of
love may
" Lead the will to desperate undertakings."
What is the cause of all this? The repulse of Hamlet by
Ophelia, at the instigation of Polonius. A Church which,
under an autocratic rule, will allow no room for truth, must
either keep her followers in ignorance, or consent to part
with some of them. And presently we have more direct
intimation of what Hamlet means. For we have a letter
written by Hamlet to Ophelia. And this letter is merely
a summary of the polity of the Church of the period. It
is as follows :
Doubt thou the stars are fire ;
\*~ Doubt that the sun doth move ;
\Doubt truth to be a liar ;
But never doubt I love.
dear Ophelia, I am ill at these numbers; I have not art to reckon my groans:
but that I love thee best, most best, believe it. Adieu.
Thine evermore, most dear lady, whilst
. this machine is to him, HAMLET." l
The above is as plain as plain can be. The lines to
Ophelia are Ophelia's own policy. That is, the policy of
the Church. It is the old conflict of to-day Eeligion
and Science. No wonder Hamlet is ill at these numbers.
For on one side Science tells him to doubt, and on the
other Religion to believe the opposite. Already Hamlet is
getting dangerous. He cannot believe two things at once.
Let us remember the continuity of the action of the play.
Growing discontent has caused Laertes and Polonius to warn
Ophelia against Hamlet. But Hamlet is ever gaining in
strength. Polonius cannot explain why Hamlet is mad.
He says :
" Madam, I swear I use no art at all.
That he is mad, 'tis true : 'tis true 'tis pity ;
And pity 'tis 'tis true : a foolish figure ;
But farewell it, for I will use no art."
1 The essence of the above is its principle of contradiction, as contained between
religion and science.
24 HAMLET ; OR,
/ What we gather from the above is the art and cunning
' of Polonius, and the danger of Hamlet, which Polonius
explains by reading his letter to Ophelia. Let us mark
how Polonius repeats and blunders pedantically over the
same thing in words, and nothing but words. This is the
essence of Tradition and Antiquity. And we are told in
directly that the lines of Hamlet to Ophelia are actually
Ophelia's :
" In her excellent white bosom, these."
And what are "these" in her excellent white bosom ? No
thing shorter than an emphatic denial of those questions
of the day, which are matters of fact in this day. For
Copernicus, Galileo and Bruno 1 established the Heliocentric
system, as against the Geocentric, which latter was the
orthodox one of the day. Everything was to be doubted
that interfered with the life of the Church. And Hamlet
is of those who did believe in these new facts of discovery.
Therefore, in Polonius's eyes, he is bad and mad; and he
denies him access to his daughter. The whole of this letter
to Ophelia is one of the simplest and amplest pieces of
evidence in the whole play. Polonius is explaining to the
Queen the evil and heresy of her son Hamlet. And
that heresy is his enmity to the tenets, traditions, and
doctrines of the Church. The latter was autocratic, and
explained the whole system of the universe. That system
was, that the world was a flat plane, round which the sun
moved. Bruno and Galileo destroyed for ever this delusion ;
but the former died at the stake in 1600 for his opinions.
Shakespeare must then have been thirty- six : 2 a period
1 Thinking men disbelieved the Geocentric system in the fifteenth century-
Let it be remembered that though Copernicus did not publish his work until
1543, it was completed in 1507, prior to the Reformation. The three great
voyages of Columbus (1492), Magellan (1519), and Vasco de Gama (1498), had
destroyed the old Geocentric tradition prior to the Reformation, by proving the
earth's rotundity. And the Reformation was, in truth, in full progress the whole
of the sixteenth century.
2 As a Philosophy of History expresses general movements, in the place of
particular facts, so here we contend our parallelism is only meant to be suggestive.
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 25
when the whole of his faculties of historical judgment must
have been singularly mature. He was alive during the
whole of that period when the old cosmogony was being
destroyed by men who dared to think for themselves. In
the lines from Hamlet to Ophelia we have these very ques
tions mooted. The old movement of the sun is or is not to
be doubted. The ancient theory that the stars were lights,
made especially to illumine this particular earth, had re
ceived its death-blow at the hands of Bruno, who discussed
the subject of a Plurality of Worlds.
Can one doubt truth to be anything but truth, and not a
liar ? Yet the Church, Hamlet tells us, says :
" But never doubt I love."
No wonder Hamlet has not " art to reckon his groans/' upon
the horns of such a dilemma. And he is, indeed, " ill at
these numbers." For the Church says, " Doubt all these
things ; though they seem true, yet they are not truth."
But Hamlet is still (though invisibly in the play) accom
panied by Bernardo, Horatio, and Marcellus. Inquiry,
study, reason, is part and parcel of Hamlet's constitution.
He says, later in the play :
" "What is a man,
If his chief good and market of his time
Be but to sleep and feed ? a beast, no more.
Sure, he that made us with such large discourse,
Looking before and after, gave us not
That capability and god-like reason
To fust in us unused."
No, Hamlet will rationalize and philosophize, as he does
from the first, whether he will or no. It is his idiosyncrasy
to use his reason. But this constitutes his badness in the
eyes of Polonius. He is especially dangerous to Ophelia.
For he threatens her very foundations, which are Infalli
bility. Again, we have the address of Hamlet's letter to
Ophelia. It is as follows :
" Pol. 'To the celestial and my soul's idol, the most beautified Ophelia,'
That's an ill phrase, a vile phrase ; beautified is a vile phrase."
26 HAMLET ; OR,
Now why does Polonius object to the word beautified ? Be
cause it has a reproach of manufacture about it. There is
a want of nature about such a word. It suggests artificial
means, by which Ophelia has been made. She is not truly
beautiful; she is made so by unnatural aids. We believe
this word to mean Bigoted. We shall arrive, by and by, to
facts of such similar nature, as to leave no question upon
the subject. Hamlet calls himself a machine. He is indeed
one, under the tyranny of intolerance and persecution.
But there may be reference to torture in this satirical re
mark, that truth is only Ophelia's, whilst the rack enforces
obedience. However we may quarrel over details, there can
be no doubt of the relations which exist between . Ophelia
and her father. Polonius says :
" I have a daughter have while she is mine
Who, in her duty and obedience."
She is only the daughter of Polonius whilst she is obedient
and servile to authority and to tradition. Polonius is full
of certainty :
"Pol. Hath there heen such a time (I'd fain know that)
That I have positively said ' 'Tis so,'
When it proved otherwise ? "
This is part of his infallibility. Polonius is positively sure
of the madness, or, as we take it, the errors of Hamlet.
We now have the entrance of Hamlet reading. He
is evidently gathering force from a criticism of the past.
And we are told he walks for hours in the lobby. Is not a
lobby an ante-chamber, where people have to wait before
they can find an entrance, or gain a hearing ? Hamlet is
as yet in this predicament. He is outside, and his princely
right to the throne a mere mockery and the deepest
irony.
Hamlet greets Polonius with the epithet of " God-a-
mercy." Polonius is a God of mercy with a vengeance.
What satire ! This is the thin edge of the wedge. Hamlet
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 27
will soon ridicule him. Polonius is termed by Hamlet a
fishmonger. Again, Hamlet says :
" Ay, sir ; to be honest, as this world goes, is to be one man picked out of ten
thousand."
Hamlet recognizes the character of those that deal in dead
fish ; and that Polonius falls short even of this standard.
What does all this mean ? We reply, it is a scene in which
the relations of Hamlet to the Church, and to authority
generally, are portrayed. It is part of the continuity of
the play. It is the ridicule and satire which will lead ulti
mately to the death of Polonius. Shakespeare has done
everything art can do in this play to bring out the con
tinuity of the characters and the modification of their
powers. The play begins with "Long live the King." The
existence of wrong-doing is recognized first by Hamlet in
the passage commencing :
" This heavy-headed revel."
And it is followed by the appearance of the Ghost. Thus
do doubt and certainty succeed each other, to be followed by
greater doubt and greater certainty.
Polonius, as authority, is always getting robbed of some
of his power by Hamlet. This is the result of the revela
tion of the Ghost. And the Ghost is the result of Bernardo,
Marcellus, Francisco, Horatio, and Hamlet. 1 Ophelia has
been severely criticized by Hamlet. Polonius is now being
ridiculed. Hamlet tells him that what he reads are merely
" Words, words, words ! "
That is, the whole of Polonius is a mass of words, without
sense or meaning. Hamlet mocks Polonius upon the subject
of his daughter :'
1 The reader is begged to remember our theory, viz. : Fortinbras (liberty),
Hamlet (progress and truth), Horatio (knowledge), all work together.
28 HAMLET J OR,
"Ham. For if the sun breed maggots in a dead dog, being a god kissing
carrion, Have you a daughter ?
Pol. I have, my lord.
Ham. Let her not walk i' the sun : conception is a blessing : but not as your
daughter may conceive. Friend, look to 't."
The whole of the above is profound scorn and the bitterest
irony. It is a recognition by Hamlet of the fear in which
Polonius holds all inquiry and knowledge. The sun we take
to be typically knowledge. Hamlet actually says to Polonius :
" If you let your daughter have liberty, she may conceive or
think, or she may bring a new birth to light ; and every
thing shows that knowledge can give new life and new
direction to what is old and corrupt."
Hamlet is thus giving us a hint of those thoughts which
filled the minds of men imbued with reforming principles.
Polonius begins to see method in the apparent delusions of
Hamlet. And Hamlet has begun to ridicule and satirize
authority, through the Church. Polonius replies by similar
taunts, and ironically asks Hamlet if he will walk out into t
the air. But Hamlet knows this is his grave. Hamlet has
recognized already the emptiness and the dotage of Polonius.
Hamlet says :
"Ham. You cannot, sir, take from me any thing that I will more willingly part
withal : except my life, except my life, except my life.
Pol. Fare you well, my lord.
Ham. These tedious old fools ! "
Here, then, we are assured that Polonius is thoroughly
appreciated by Hamlet. The latter would willingly part
with him. But he still lacks power. Polonius is in the
eyes of Hamlet a " tedious old fool."
Let us be clear as far as we have followed our chain of
continuity. Hamlet repudiates Polonius. But two friends
step in now, who play an important part throughout the
whole drama. Let us thoroughly realize them if we can.
These two are the courtiers Rosencrantz and Guilden-
stern. They are sent to Hamlet by the King and Queen,
and Hamlet has been brought up in their society. Indeed,
he seems to be at first partial to them. But he soon gets
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 29
suspicious, and finally fully recognizes both their emptiness
and their significance. Hamlet is some time in finding out
if these two courtiers are on the King's side or upon his.
We, who are readers of the play, and thus behind the
scenes, know more than Hamlet does, at some stages. For
we have the following words to reassure us :
ACT ii. SCENE n.
" Enter King, Queen, Rosencrantz, Guildenstcrn, etc.
King. Welcome, dear Rosencrantz and Guildenstern !
Moreover that we much did long to see you,
The need we have to use you did provoke
Our hasty sending."
In those two words "use you'' we have a key of the cha
racter of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. They are part of
the succession in the continuity of the play, or what we
would rather term a Philosophy of History dramatized.
These two courtiers have one quality in common, and they
hunt in couples, being only once apart (and only for a few
lines) in the whole play. They fill the places of the
now vanished Yoltimand and Cornelius. Everything in
their conduct suggests smoothness, caution, and craftiness.
They are going to be used by the King, and their use is to
come between Hamlet and himself. Now we shall realize by
the text alone in what their common quality consists ; and
we shall see that they are complements to each other, as in
dispensable as are the Siamese twins to each other's existence.
Polonius directs them to Hamlet; and it is necessary we
quote in full the meeting between Hamlet and them, to
thoroughly seize their full meaning :
" Enter Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.
Pol. You go to seek the Lord Hamlet ; there he is.
Bos. [To Polonius.] God save you, sir ! [Exit Polonius.]
Guil. Mine honoured lord !
Eos. My most dear lord !
Ham. My excellent good friends ! How dost thou, Guildenstern ? Ah, Rosen
crantz ! Good lads, how do ye both ?
30 HAMLET ; OR,
Eos. As the indifferent children of the earth.
Guil. Happy, in that we are not over-happy ;
On fortune's cap we are not the very button.
Ham. Not the soles of her shoe ?
Eos. Neither, ray lord.
Ham. Then you live about her waist, or in the middle of her favours ?
Guil. 'Faith, her privates we."
Here we pause in the quotation to see what we have gained
so far; and that is no small part of the sum of the characters
of these two courtiers. In reply to Hamlet, Rosencrantz
says that himself and Guildenstern are "as the indifferent
children of the earth." They represent indifference, and care
not for those questions which agitate Hamlet. Again, we
know they live in the middle of the favours of Fortune. This
is what makes them indifferent. Hamlet tells Rosencrantz
later
"Aye, sir, that soaks up the king's countenance, his rewards, his authorities."
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern thrive upon abuses and
errors. And why? Because they soak up the means, the
rewards, countenances, and authorities of error or the King.
Every innovation, every change, is a positive evil to people of
such a temper ; and that temper is the temper of the man of
the world. They are therefore staunch bulwarks of the King,
and the profoundest enemies of Hamlet. The characteristic
they hold in common is, as we have already said, indifference ;
an indifference which arises from circumstances which make
them the privates of Fortune. They consist of that large
body of every age, who have everything to lose by progress,
and everything to keep by stability. But now we have to
define their method of dealing with Hamlet; and that is by
the means of sophistry, casuistry, and a species of optimism,
which tries to maintain that everything is at the very best
possible point it can be. Henceforward we shall term Rosen
crantz and Guildenstern 1 as representing indifference, sophistry,
1 Rosencrantz, by himself, seems to represent the optimism of those who are
the friends of fortune, and who benefit by error. Guildenstern is more the method
by which the truth is evaded.
31
casuistry, and optimism. And let us first see to which
these respective terms individually apply. To both in
difference and a carelessness, if not hatred of truth. To
Guildenstern, especially, the art of trying to make the worse
side appear the better :
" Guil. What should we say, my lord ?
Ham. Why anything, but to the purpose." 1
This is exactly what Rosencrantz and Guildenstern succeed
in doing. They evade all truth and good logic, and " never
say anything to the purpose." Everything they say is as
wide from the point in hand as possible. See how Shake
speare has brought this out, in their argument with Hamlet.
The trenchant logic of Hamlet is contrasted with the evasive
and false sophistry of theirs. They see things utterly dif
ferently to Hamlet. To the latter the world is a prison ;
but to the two sycophants of the King the world is actually
honest :
" Ham What's the news ?
Ros. None, my lord, but that the world's grown honest.
Ham. Then is doomsday near : but your news is not true. Let me question
more in particular : what have you, my good friends, deserved at the hands of
fortune, that she sends you to prison hither ?
Guil. Prison, my lord !
Ham. Denmark 's a prison.
Ros. Then is the world one.
Ham. A goodly one ; in which there are many confines, wards, and dungeons,
Denmark being one o' the worst.
Ros. We think not so, my lord.
Ham. Why, then, 'tis none to you : for there is nothing either good or bad,
but thinking makes it so : to me it is a prison.
Ros. Why then, your ambition makes it one ; 'tis too narrow for your mind.
Ham. God, I could be bounded in a nutshell, 2 and count myself a king of
infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams.
1 In some editions there is a full stop after "anything." In either case
(comma or fullstop), we read Shakespeare's real meaning to be Hamlet's recog
nition of the evasive character of the two courtiers.
2 The word nutshell suggests Hamlet as the kernel. Thus truth is the core of
things.
32 HAMLET; OR,
Gull. Which dreams indeed are ambition, for the very substance of the
ambitious is merely the shadow of a dream.
Ham. A dream itself is but a shadow.
Eos. Truly, and I hold ambition of so airy and light a quality that it is but a
shadow's shadow.
Ham. Then are our beggars bodies, and our monarchs and outstretched heroes
the beggars' shadows. Shall we to the court P for, by my fay, I eannot reason."
In the above we notice the aim and drift of Shakespeare
in enforcing the contrast between Hamlet's perfect logic,
which annihilates the arguments of the two courtiers, and
their sophistry. Hamlet has been brought up with Rosen-
crantz and Guildenstern ; but it is the first time he disagrees
with them upon views of life. Hamlet is taking stock of
Rosencrantz and Gruildenstern, as he has done of Polonius ; and
he will by and by repudiate and escape their claims upon
him. Let us notice the different views which Hamlet holds
to these two courtiers. To our hero the world is a prison ;
to the other two the world has grown honest. The views of
the former are decidedly pessimistic ; those of the latter opti
mistic. And. the cause of this difference has much to do with
the circumstances in which both are respectively placed.
Hamlet, as we have already seen, knows more of the gyves,
of the prison, and of the stake, than do the other two. These
only are intimate with the rewards and countenances of the
King, upon whom they thrive, and by whom they alone exist.
Denmark to Hamlet is a prison ; and Denmark is identified
with the world by Rosencrantz. But what is Denmark?
In our opinion Denmark is literally dark men, of which it
is an anagram ; and it thus stands for ignorance, of which
Hamlet is the only light and the only prince Truth. As
J Hamlet remarks :
" Why, then, 'tis none to you : for there is nothing either good or bad, but
thinking makes it so : to me it is a prison."
In the above we recognize that the world is a prison to all
truth. That good and bad depends, according to the dis
crepancy between the views of Hamlet and the courtiers,
either to difference of thinking, or to their obliquity. Of
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 33
course we feel the latter powerfully forced upon us. For we
feel there is something far more real than a mode of register
ing our particular circumstances. There is not one law for
the good, and one for the bad ; but one for both. And
Hamlet soon shows us how poorly these two courtiers can
rationalize upon the simplest subject. How magnificently
grand is Hamlet's logic ! And what a thorough collapse for
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern ! But we must always re
member that it is part and parcel of these two gentlemen to
say nothing to the purpose. The whole drift of Rosencrantz
and Guildenstern is to run down ambition ; and ambition is
desire for promotion. Hamlet himself says he lacks ad
vancement
" Sir, I lack advancement." J
Again, ambition is the result of bad dreams and dissatisfac
tion. But if ambition is nothing, as the courtiers insinuate,
then those who realize the dreams of ambition, as monarchs
and outstretched heroes, are nothing also.
The argument is too absurd to need even Hamlet's refuta
tion. For if ambition is nought, how is it that the aspira
tions of beggars are so substantially realized ? The whole
discussion is one in which Rosencrantz and Guildenstern
employ their talents to argue down and oppose Hamlet's
dissatisfaction and liberal impulses. We must clearly com
prehend the relations of the two parties. Everywhere, for
the future, we shall find Hamlet fettered by these two tools
of the King. And when, for the first time, he escapes from
them and returns to England alone, we have his letter to
the King, beginning
"High and mighty, You shall know I am set naked on your kingdom."
"We have no hesitation in thus understanding our Poet's
meaning ; and we are convinced that Hamlet, having got rid
of sophistry, casuistry, optimism hoc et genus omne is
This advancement we read as the liberal and reforming ambition of Hamlet.
34 HAMLET ; OR,
set naked in the play. Truth is at last unalloyed, and we
owe this blessing to England. We have somewhat antici
pated the gradual development of the play ; but it is neces
sary we should endeavour clearly to realize the meaning of
the two courtiers Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. The last
we hear of them is as follows :
" Hor. So Guildenstern and Eosencrantz go to 't.
Ham. Why, man, they did make love to this employment ;
They are not near my conscience ; their defeat
Does by their own insinuation grow :
5 Tis dangerous when the baser nature comes
Between the pass and fell incensed points
Of mighty opposites."
What could express the essence of our friends better than
the above ! Is not sophistry, is not indifference, and an opti
mistic philosophy, based upon plunder, the baser nature which
comes " between the pass and fell incensed points of mighty
opposites" ? Those opposites are Truth and Error. We shall
arrive by and by to an explanation of England. The latter
is the direct instrument of the disappearance and extinction
of these two " adders fanged." Our end at present is to
establish the nature of their characters plainly in the
reader's eyes ; and to do this it has been necessary to quit
the order of our advance with the text. Therefore, we now
return to the relations, and continuity in those relations, of
Hamlet and these two. We have seen how cheerfully
Hamlet greets them. And not only this, we hold direct in
timation of Hamlet's childhood being spent in their society.
"King I entreat you both,
That, being of so young days brought up with him,
And sith so neighbour'd to his youth and haviour," etc., etc.
But in the first interview between Hamlet and them we
find, first, disagreement in their views of life ; secondly,
mistrust and suspicion upon Hamlet's side
" Earn. [Aside} Nay, then, I have an eye of you."
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 35
And, lastly, we have positive hatred and a determination to
outmanoeuvre them in their own line.
" Ham. There's letters seal'd : and my two schoolfellows,
Whom I will trust as I will adders fanged,
They bear the mandate ; they must SAveep my way,
And marshal me to knavery. Let it work ;
For 'tis the sport to have the enginer
Hoist with his own petar : and 't shall go hard
But I will delve one yard below their mines,
And blow them at the moon : 0, 'tis most sweet,
When in one line two crafts directly meet."
So we perceive the same continuity with regard to Rosen-
crantz and Guildenstern as we have seen in Polonius. We
can never insist sufficiently upon this continuity and develop
ment of character which Shakespeare has so profoundly
realized. The whole play is the continuity of history ; and
this continuity is so interwoven with time and each part of
itself, that no one part should be taken alone. Everywhere
Fortinbras is slowly gaining ground. The reason of his
abrupt appearance in the midst of the play is thus an under
ground basis of action and reaction. But to proceed. Rosen-
crantz and Guildenstern are perhaps Hamlet's greatest
enemies ; for they hamper all his movements, and on every
occasion of note in the play, up to his actual escape from
them, they are the direct means of allowing Hamlet no
standing room. He is actually suffocated and oppressed by
their intense servility and apparent obsequiousness. They
profess to love truth ; but they never look it in the face.
At the best, their whole spirit is that of compromise.
Timidity and a constant fear of any change is their
characteristic. As Guildenstern remarks :
'" Guil. We will ourselves provide :
Most holy and religious fear it is
To keep those many many bodies safe
That live and feed upon your majesty.".
Nothing could express their whole policy better. They
are themselves the "many many bodies that live and feed
upon error;" and let us particularly take note of the part
36 HAMLET; OR,
they take in Hamlet's banishment. They are the direct cause
of it. As we have before said, the King is a fiction. He is
contained in Guildenstern and Rosencrantz. And to prove
this Hamlet says :
" Ham. The body is with the king, but the king is not with the body. The
king is a thing
GuiL A thing, my lord !
Ham. Of nothing : bring me to him. Hide fox, and all after."
Thus we see the King is a thing " of nothing ; " and error
and falsehood are by their very nature in themselves nothing.
" The body is with the king."
Authority is on the side of error, but error is not for
authority. Hamlet, as we know historically, when banished,
owes his exile to public opinion ; and that opinion is often of
the following description :
" Bos. The single and peculiar life is bound,
With all the strength and armour of the mind,
To keep itself from noyance ; but much more
That spirit upon whose weal depend and rest
The lives of many. The cease of majesty
Dies not alone ; but, like a gulf, doth draw
"What 's near it with it : it is a massy wheel,
Fix'd on the summit of the highest mount,
To whose huge spokes ten thousand lesser things
Are mortised and adjoin'd; which, when it falls,
Each small annexment, petty consequence,
Attends the boisterous ruin. Never alone
Did the king sigh, but with a general groan."
Putting aside the marvellous knowledge displayed in the
region of social psychology and the phenomena of belief, we
would call attention to the distinction our poet makes be
tween the individual and the social life. Hamlet is then
dangerous to the weal of the latter, and Rosencrantz not
only advocates his banishment, but accompanies Hamlet in
his exile, together with Guildenstern. Let us clearly realize
our position. The exile of Hamlet, which will come after the
effects of the Player-scene, will be exemplified by his being
hampered by the two courtiers. As long as our hero is with
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 37
them, he is not Hamlet " naked" but a Hamlet who has
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to come between him and truth.
This is his true exile, and England alone will break the
bondage, and set him " naked," for the first time, on the
King's kingdom. He will be more a prince then than when
mockingly called a prince, who has no followers. Hamlet
' knows this, for he says to our two friends :
" Ros. and Guil. We '11 wait upon you.
Ham, No such matter : I will not sort you with the rest of my servants, for,
to speak to you like an honest man, I am most dreadfully attended."
Whatever way we interpret the above, it remains still to
the purport. Hamlet does not consider the courtiers his
friends. He knows their business, and he is most poorly
attended, or shall we say, most cruelly attended, by the in
quisition, the stake, and the torture-chamber. But Rosen
crantz and Guildenstern bring Hamlet some good news.
That news is the rumour of the players. Who are these
players ?
" Earn What players are they ?
Ros. Even those you were wont to take delight in, the tragedians of the city."
These players are, in our opinion, the growing knowledge
and literature which led towards the Reformation. They are
the children of the revival of learning, the heirs of the
Renaissance. To define them would be to write a history of
the causes of the Reformation. But we need not doubt his
torical criticism and philosophy played a great part in that
movement. The schoolmen had long accustomed men to
the subtlest discussions. Indeed, we are far too apt in these
days to underrate their subtlety and ability. Many questions
are now being discussed, which were centres of fierce discus
sion in the Middle Ages. Luther was the product -of his
times. He merely gave, like all great men, direction to the
movement of those times. And we perceive what joy it gives
Hamlet to hear of the arrival of these Players. Their coming
is the first gathering of the storm. A storm which is the
result of greater knowledge. A knowledge which the Players
38 HAMLET J OR,
most fitly represent. Whatever in the mind of man pro
duced the Reformation must be understood by these Players.
We have had reference to Wittenberg early in the play :
" Ham. And what make you from Wittenberg, Horatio ? Marcellus ?
Mar. My good lord,
Ham. I am very glad to see you. Good even, sir,
But what, in faith, make you from Wittenberg ?
Hor. A truant disposition, good my lord."
Here we have Wittenberg mentioned twice. And Witten
berg is the very birth-place of the Reformation. Here it
was begun, and here it culminated. For here Martin
Luther burnt the Pope's Bull, as every school-boy knows.
Why does Horatio come from Wittenberg? Because Horatio
is a scholar, and in our eyes represents the spirit of justice
and independence.
" Ham. Horatio, thou art e'en as just a man
As e'er my conversation coped withal."
It is through Horatio, the staunch friend of Hamlet, that
our hero finds true support to carry out his ends. What is
a spirit of doubt or truth without an accompanying spirit of
justice, independence, and firmness ? Horatio's character
may be gathered from the speech of Hamlet to him ; and we
may be sure he is everything which is the essence of a bold
spirit of truth-seeking.
" Ham. Nay, do not think I natter ;
For what advancement may I hope from thee,
That no revenue hast but thy good spirits,
To feed and clothe thee ? Why should the poor be flatter'd ?
No, let the candied tongue lick absurd pomp,
And crook the pregnant hinges of the knee
Where thrift may follow fawning. Dost thou hear ?
Since my dear soul was mistress of her choice,
And could of men distinguish, her election
Hath seal'd thee for herself: for thou hast been
As one, in suffering all, that suffers nothing,
A man that fortune's buffets and rewards
Hast ta'en with equal thanks : and blest are those
Whose blood and judgment are so well commingled,
That they are not a pipe for fortune's finger
To sound what stop she please. Give me that man
That is not passion's slave, and I will we;ir him
In my heart's core, ay, in my heart of heart,
As I do thee."
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 39
In the last lines of this quotation we have the actual fact.
Our hero wears Horatio in his heart's core. And what he
wears is, as he has told us, independence, " good spirits" a
mind to endure all things, and an intense love of justice.
These are some of the qualities of a Luther. They are not
the more cautious ones, which go to form an Erasmus. How
ever, Erasmus was a tragedian of the city. He laid the egg,
and Luther, or Hamlet, hatched it. After this necessary
parenthesis upon Horatio's attributes, let us return to the
text in hand. Horatio has come from Wittenberg. And
Hamlet asks him what he makes from there. Hamlet half
answers the question himself; for he says, " Marcellus ? "
And Marcellus represents a spirit of inquiry, of search and
discovery, to whom it was given, with Bernardo l (reading),
to see the Ghost, or Doubt. Luther, studying the Bible, is
a fit emblem of Bernardo, Marcellus, Horatio, and Hamlet.
And how ? In reading, he uses the gift Bernardo brings into
the play. In criticism and examination, that of Marcellus.
He is impelled by a spirit of independence, that is, Horatio.
And, finally, the love he holds for Hamlet is at the bottom
of the whole affair. And Luther soon saw the Ghost. Thus
Hamlet's question is one of interrogation, and half surmisal
of the inquiry coming from Wittenberg. And we then
remark the answer of Horatio, which is, " a truant dispo
sition." Are we to understand that Horatio only sees fickle
ness, and a truant disposition, where Hamlet surmises more.
It is by the interaction of the friends, scholars and soldiers,
that the Ghost is appreciated, and makes a revelation. But
to proceed. The key-note of the Reformation is thus touched
in this reference to Wittenberg. The very name of the
place, fraught as it is with memories of the first great Re
bellion of the Intellect in Europe, ought to have made critics
more alive to the significance of Hamlet. And we shall
presently have plenty of evidence to show how that signifi
cance may be interpreted and rationalized in the play. We
1 Bernardo is not unlikely the art of printing.
40 HAMLET ; OR,
ask the indulgent reader, who has accompanied us so far, to
bear with any hypothesis, however wild it may appear at
first sight, for the sake of further proof, which we get when
deeper into the spiritual unity of the drama. Hamlet's
speech to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, beginning
"I will tell you why; so shall my anticipation prevent your discovery, and
your secrecy to the king and queen moult no feather."
is one which has a very profound meaning. Here we recog
nize, again, the craftiness of the two courtiers. For they
hunt with the hounds, and run with the hare. It is their
temper not so much to be blind to the changes of time, as
to resist them as long as they are perilous to their particular
interests. And they thoroughly understand their age with
regard to Hamlet. The latter is utterly in a state of de
plorable dyspepsia, produced by the unhealthiness of the
social atmosphere. And he has got to that point when he
cannot be any worse. It is just then he hears of the
Players. He wants to know why the Players travel ? And
he is told that it is on account of the "late innovation."
Now this innovation is, therefore, the direct cause of
Progress, if we so understand the word " travel." And we
must bear in mind the actors are the writers and thinkers
of the age. What they suffer from is criticism and direct
interference of certain "little e}'ases." In this word we
have mere spectators, and not actors, well expressed. No
doubt all this refers to religious controversy and interference
on the part of authority.
" Guil. 0, there has been much throwing about of brains.
Ham. Do the boys carry it away ?
Eos. Ay, that they do, my lord ; Hercules and his load too.
Ham. It is not very strange, for mine uncle is king of Denmark; and those
that would make mows at him while my father lived, give twenty, forty, fifty, an
hundred ducats a-piece, for his picture in little. 'Sblood, there is something in
this more than natural, if philosophy could find it out."
The boys we take to be the coming generation. They are
the youth of the day, who carry away, of course, some
thing original from all this throwing about of brains. And
41
Hamlet is surprised at nothing. For his uncle is King of
Denmark. And scepticism has been so nurtured in his
mind by these controversies, that he naturally expresses a
desire to bring a little philosophy to bear upon the subject.
His last words before the entrance of Polonius are :
" I am but mad north-north-west : when the wind is southerly, I know a hawk
from a handsaw."
Now we are going to astonish the reader, if he is not
already astonished. The seat of the Reformation was
Germany, and Germany is situated something between
north and west with regard to the rest of Europe. Hamlet
is only mad in Germany. And when the wind comes from
the Ultramontane side of the continent, " he knows a talk
from an answer." 1 Those who look upon this interpretation
as a piece of lunacy or wild imagination are requested to
pause as yet in their judgment. Polonius now enters. Let
us note how Hamlet no longer satirizes him covertly, but
mocks him openly. He is less and less afraid of him. He
will walk out into the air presently, and yet not into his
grave. However, before we proceed further, we would say
more as regards Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. After the
great events of the Reformation, and during its growth and
development, we find in contemporary literature accounts of
our two courtiers : " Thus Giordano Bruno, who was born
seven years after the death of Copernicus, published a work
on the infinity of the universe and of worlds. It added not
a little to the exasperation against him, that he was per
petually declaiming against the insincerity, and the impos
tures of his persecutors ; that, wherever he went, he found
scepticism varnished over and concealed by hypocrisy ; and
that it was not against the belief of men, but against their
pretended belief, that he was fighting ; that he was
struggling with an orthodoxy that had neither morality
1 The reader will notice we presently read "by lot" as "Bigot." The whole
of the conversation between the two courtiers and Hamlet is of the nature of
talk, not direct answers, but evasion.
42 HAMLET; OR,
nor faith." We quote the above from Dr. Draper's work
upon the conflict between religion and science. And it may
be asked, what can Bruno have in connexion with our
courtiers? Simply that the substance of the above was
delivered amidst lectures in England during Shakespeare's
life. And we must ask ourselves if our great Poet has not
partly realized the hypocrisy, the indifference, and pretended
belief which Bruno rails against, in Rosencrantz and Guil-
denstern ? Could it be possible that Shakespeare should be
indifferent, with his mighty brain, to the theories of the
Copernican system, published only nineteen years before his
birth, and furthered by Bruno ? It was the greatest blow
the Church or Tradition could receive ; and it was altering
slowly men's conceptions of the world. Guildenstern is
essentially varnished over. His very name savours of a
compound of Latin and English. If we take the last
syllable "stern," we are reminded of the Latin verb ster-
nere, "to .spread over," "to cover with." And "Guilden"
sounds very much like some light veneer, wanting in everything
but gilt. Thus, "to gild over," "to smooth down," "to hide,"
and finally " to pretend and deceive," is what we thus arrive
at. Taking Rosencrantz in a similar way, we have "crantz,"
clearly derived from cranium, "a head," and "Rosen," which
sounds very like Rose in head. This would be a good meta
phor for optimism, namely a rosy brain, and one who, from
his easy circumstances or other causes, always saw things in
a " couleur de rose light." However, these derivations may
be true or not, but the more eclectic they are, the more
likelihood have they to belong to Shakespeare ; as in all
things, the greater the genius, the greater the eclecticism.
We can now understand why the two courtiers are so friendly
with Hamlet. They perfectly realize the times they live in.
But they lack interest, courage, and unselfishness, to make
them supporters of Hamlet. They are wanting in Horatio's
character and type, as also in Hamlet's. Nothing is more
conspicuous than their guardedness. They never venture to
do anything but play upon or obstruct Hamlet by their
own passive and hypocritical natures ; and nothing is more
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 43
natural than that they should be for a long period mixed up
with him. From them he gets most of his information.
And none know better than they do his complete reason and
sanity. It is their especial attribute always to take care not
to commit themselves to anything ; and always to be on the
side of the strong. What does Goethe say of them ? He
calls them "amateurs:" "Out of these meditations he was
roused by the other actors, along with whom two amateurs,
frequenters of the wardrobe and the stage, came in and
saluted Wilhelm with a show of great enthusiasm. One of
these was in some degree attached to Frau Melina ; but the
other was entirely a pure friend of art ; and both were of
the kind which a good company should always wish to have
about it. It was difficult to say whether their love for the
stage, 1 or their knowledge of it, was the greater. They
loved it too much to know it perfectly ; they knew it well
enough to prize the good, and to discard the bad. But their
inclinations being so powerful, they could tolerate the
mediocre ; and the glorious joy which they experienced
from the foretaste and the aftertaste of excellence sur
passed expression. The mechanical department gave them
pleasure, the intellectual charmed them ; and so strong was
their susceptibility, that even a discontinuous rehearsal
afforded them a species of illusion. Deficiencies appeared
in their eyes to fade away in distance ; the successful
touched them like an object near at hand. In a word, they
were judges, such as every artist wishes in his own depart
ment. Their favourite movement was from the side scenes
to the pit, and from the pit to the side scenes ; their happiest
place was in the wardrobe ; their busiest employment was
in trying to improve the dress, position, recitation, gesture,
of the actor; their liveliest conversation was on the effect
produced by him; their most constant effort was to keep
him accurate, active and attentive, to do him service or
kindness, and without squandering to procure for the com
pany a series of enjoyments."
Nothing can surpass the keen satire and the truthful
1 The stage is here meant for the world.
44 HAMLET ; OR,
irony of the above picture. This is the man of the world.
Occupied in trifles, loving the mediocre, only acting where
public opinion is with him, and, finally, touched by the
successful and near at hand, before all things. If we have
been understood thus far, we can proceed with our hypo
thesis with greater confidence and assurance. If not exactly
right in every detail, still we are on the true path of dis
covery. A path which Goethe has only partially illuminated.
And in such a way as to substitute another difficulty for
the first. But to Goethe must be ever accorded the great
discovery of the nature of Shakespeare's works, and of the
method and principles which underlie them. But to pro
ceed. We will now turn to Polonius, who, at the juncture we
left in the text, makes his appearance. Hamlet, as we have
already remarked, openly mocks him, and turns him into
downright ridicule.
" Ham. I will prophesy he comes to tell me of the players ; mark it. You
say right, sir : o' Monday morning ; twas so indeed.
Pol. My lord, I have news to tell you.
Ham. My lord, I have news to tell you. When Roscius was an actor in Rome,
Pol. The actors aro come hither, my lord.
Ham. Buz, buz !
Pol. Upon mine honour,
Ham. Then came each actor on his ass,
Pol. The best actors in the world, either for tragedy, comedy, history, pastoral,
pastoral-comical, historical-pastoral, tragical-historical, tragical-comical-histori
cal-pastoral, scene individable, or poem unlimited : Seneca cannot be too heavy,
nor Plautus too light
Ham. Jephthah, judge of Israel, what a treasure hadst thou I
Pol. "What a treasure had he, my lord ?
Ham. Why,
' One fair daughter, and no more,
The which he loved passing well/
Pol. [Aside.} Still on my daughter.
Ham. Am I not i' the right, old Jephthah ?
Pol. If you call me Jephthah, my lord, I have a daughter that I love passing
well.
Ham. Nay, that follows not.
Pol. What follows then, my lord ?
Ham. Why,
'As by lot, God wot,'
and then, you know,
1 It came to pass, as most like it was,'
the first row of the pious chanson will show you more ; for look, where my
abridgment comes. "
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 45
The last time we had Hamlet in conversation with Polo-
nius, our hero spoke in parables, and in a state of cautious
satire and irony. He was afraid of Polonius. But not so
now. Polonius to Hamlet is an old tale twice told. Like
a parrot, or as Goethe says : "I will speak like a book,
when I am prepared beforehand; and like an ass, when I
utter the overflowings of my heart."
And nothing could express the state of Polonius better than
that of "a great baby," and an old one who has arrived at
his second childhood. To Hamlet Polonius is nothing but
words, repetition, and unmeaning ceremonies. Hamlet, after
mocking Polonius, and turning him into the most painful
ridicule, compares him to Jephthah. Now Jephthah is the
very incarnation of the champion of a Shibboleth, and this
is the likeness which Polonius and him share in common.
Polonius is the champion of a Shibboleth. That Shibboleth
is the Doctrine of the Church. Doctrine which, from the
end of the second century, had been accumulating error
upon error, and which the light, now steadily growing,
was showing in all its hideousness. We quote from Dr.
Draper as to the state of Europe before the end of the
Dark Ages had arrived :
" Doctrines were considered established by the number of
martyrs who had professed them, by miracles, by the con
fession of demons, of lunatics, or of persons possessed of evil
spirits : thus St. Ambrose, in his disputes with the Arians,
produced men possessed by devils, who, on the approach of
the relics of certain martyrs, acknowledged, with loud cries,
that the Nicean doctrine of the three persons of the Godhead
was true. But the Arians charged him with suborning these
witnesses with a weighty bribe. Already ordeal tribunals
were making their appearance. During the following six
centuries they were held as a final resort, for establishing
guilt or innocence, under the forms of trial by cold water, by
duel, by the fire, by the Cross." Those who require weightier
and more profuse evidence < than this should read Buckle's
History of Civilization in England, where, under the head
of " The Origin of Historical Literature," they will find an
46 HAMLET ; OR,
almost incredible array of the credulity which existed in
Europe barely three centuries ago. Putting ourselves once
more under obligations to the same source as before, we have
the following :
"As the thirteenth century is approached, we find un
belief in all directions setting in. First it is plainly seen
among the monastic orders, then it spreads rapidly among
the common people. Books such as the Everlasting Gospel
appear among the former ; sects such as the Catharists, "YVal-
denses, Petrobrussians, arise among the latter. They agreed
in this : That the public and established religion was a
motley system of errors and superstitions, and that the do
minion which the Pope had usurped over Christians was
unlawful and tyrannical ; that the claim put forth by Rome,
that the Bishop of Rome is the supreme lord of the universe,
and that neither princes nor bishops, civil governors nor
ecclesiastical rulers, have any lawful power in Church or
State, but what they receive from him, is utterly without
foundation, and a usurpation of the rights of man."
From this digression, necessary to keep History prior to
the Reformation itself before the reader's eyes, we return
to "Old Jephthah." Jephthah then will stand as a fit
emblem of the Romish Church in all ages. And he, Polo-
nius, like Jephthah, will sacrifice the life of his daughter,
before he yield one iota of her tenets. His daughter, we
need not repeat, is the Church ; and he only loves her
passing well. But how does he love her? That is the
question. And Hamlet tells us
" As bigot, God knows ; "
for such is the meaning of our Poet's following words,
" As by lot, God wot."
Hamlet then points to the Players, who are his abridgments.
They are impelled by Hamlet, and by love of Hamlet alone.
The Reformers of Wittenberg are the abridgments of truth.
Hamlet warns, nay, threatens Polonius. The first row or
break out of the religious chanson or rebellion will teach
47
Polonius more. And, lo ! here are the first stages of it at
hand. The entrance of the Players is the commencement
and gradual consummation of the Player-scene or Interlude.
And to put our view on a clear footing before the reader, we
will take it at once in hand.
Let us consider, first, a few facts. This scene is prompted
and got up by Hamlet. The Players act at the request, and
for the especial benefit of our hero.
They represent the murder of Gonzago. Who is Gon-
zago? And who is Baptista? Can wo find out who is
Lucianus? The whole scene is one which has been sug
gested to Hamlet by the Ghost. That Ghost means a suc
cession of long doubts, aided by inquiry and research.
Marcellus and Bernardo, with Horatio, have inspired
Hamlet, and he in his turn inspires the Players, and gives
them the key-note in his lines beginning "The rugged
Pyrrhus."
But the Player-scene is a mere summary of all their work.
In it we have the origin of error boldly thrown down in the
face of the times. The whole Interlude is a direct charge ;
and it is the charge which Luther brought against the
Romish Church. Let us try and see how Shakespeare has
realized this in the play ? We have an acted copy of our
hero's revelation received from the Ghost. And we shall first
lay down our own interpretation of that revelation. Doubt
first suggests to Hamlet with ever-increasing force, that
error has supplanted truth. We have already seen from
whence the source of this doubt, in the first act, and that
doubt grows into a certainty that error has poisoned truth
whilst sleeping in his orchard. Let us notice how typically
this act of poisoning is artistically rendered
j " Ghost. . . . Sleeping within mine orchard,
My custom always of the afternoon,
Upon my secure hour thy uncle stole,
"With juice of cursed hebenon in a \ial,
And in the porches of mine ear did pour
The leperous distilment."
Is it not through the ears of men that truth or error find
48 HAMLET ; OR,
admittance? And let us notice the poison used "Hebcnon."
This word is almost " non bene," literally not good, or evil.
We must remember that the art of this play requires a two
fold purpose : that of concealment, and that of yet keeping
the concealment within the bounds of discovery and the
spirit of rationalization. The mention of an orchard, and
particularly of a serpent, reminds us of the legend of the
Fall in the primeval Paradise of Scripture.
" Ghost Now, Hamlet, hear :
"Tis given out, that sleeping in my orchard,
A serpent stung me ; so the whole ear of Denmark
Is by a forged process of my death
Rankly abused : but know, thou noble youth,
The serpent that did sting thy father's life
Now wears his crown.
The meaning of the above may be taken as the identifica
tion by our Poet of error with the whole of the Biblical
tradition of the Temptation and Fall ; or it may not be so
taken. But when the whole play is completely worked out,
we shall find not only strong reasons for so thinking, but
ones which admit of very little choice, as far as consistency
is concerned. To return to the point in hand. Hamlet is
convinced that truth has been supplanted by error that is,
by his uncle, the King. The Player-scene is a trick by
which Hamlet catches the conscience of the King. And
how does he effect this ? By showing error its own face,
and by pointing out how he effected his crime. Let us
boldly define our position.
Lucianus in the Player- scene is Luther himself. Baptista
is human belief, and Gonzago 1 is Long-ago. The marriage
of Baptista and Gonzago is the pure apostolic faith in its
original simplicity as a scheme of benevolence ; and before
it began to be corrupted in the second century. That cor
ruption is the effect of Lucianus. But he is only acting ivhat
the King has done. And Luther did this. He pointed out what
the King had done. Lucianus (the break of day, translated
1 Gonzago is an anagram upon Long-ago in all but the z, which is perhaps
altered on purpose.
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 49
literally), prompted by Hamlet, is pointing out artistically
what the King has committed. And Luther, studying the
Bible, pointed out how the Romish Church had poured cor
ruption into the ears of a once pure and holy union. The
whole Player-scene, we repeat, is the act of the Reformation.
As Hamlet remarks :
"His name's Gonzago : the story is extant, and writ in choice Italian."
Shakespeare has taken actors as the type of true action in
the world. A hint which Goethe hastily seized, and repro
duced in the Wilhelm Meister. And we see actually in the
play what consternation and what mighty results spring
from this small interlude. The reader not seizing our
stand-point, may ask why Lucianus poisons Gonzago in the
piece ? We reply, Lucianus is only acting, and thus imitat
ing the King's crime. He is thus exposing the King.
Baptista is an image of the Queen, who, as Belief, has proved
false to her first love, and married the King. This is the
history of Christianity, as regards its Roman Catholic cor
ruption. It has allied itself to error. After the death of
Gonzago, or Long-ago, Luther pointed this out, and in
boldly doing this he effected and consummated the Pro
testant Reformation. But Luther, or Lucianus, and the
rest of the players are prompted by Hamlet. Hamlet is
therefore the real cause of all this. And our hero is ac
cording to us the Spirit of Truth, prompted by the Ghost
(Doubt), and aided by those who are part of him. The
whole scene is introduced "tropically," or figuratively. And
the murder was done in Yienna, which is another way of
cleverly expressing Yie, or life. No wonder Ophelia says
to Hamlet
" You are as good as a chorus, my lord."
Now we can understand why Hamlet takes up his position
at Ophelia's feet. It is the Church he is most interested
with. Religious reform is his business. And Polonius at
last has grown alarmed.
" Pol. [To the King'] 0, oh ! do you mark that?
50 HAMLET ; OR,
We can now understand why Hamlet calls himself the
"only jig-maker" to Ophelia. The introduction of the
word Baptista speaks for itself. And Lucianus represents
not only an approximation to Luther, but in its translation,
his very essence the break of day. Luther was indeed the
break of day, or rather we should say, the Reformation.
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 51
CHAPTER II.
TTAYIJTO got so far in advance of our subject as regards
*-' the text, we may return to that part of the drama
which precedes the Interlude. And we will take the passage
of passages the most beautiful as well as the best known of
all Shakespeare's profound soliloquies. That is, " To be, or
not to be." What does it mean ? To us it signifies a de
termination on the part of man to act. And it is a recogni
tion of how theology has always crippled action.
/ "Ham. Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
"With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action."
Immediately after this monologue, Hamlet repudiates and
insults Ophelia. The last time we have him with her, he
simply criticizes, sighs, and leaves her. Now he abuses, and
tells her to " get to a nunnery." The whole of this great
soliloquy is the change of a passive policy to an active one.
It is the determination of persecuted and oppressed humanity
to have no more of it to rise, to rebel, and to free them-
selves. It is the gathering thunder of the Reformation. It
is indeed a question of "To be, or not to be." All the
burthens of this world are summed up in it. Every calamity
which man tyranically heaps upon his fellow-man is touched
upon. "The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
52 HAMLET; OR,
the law's delay, the insolence of office, and the spurns that
patient merit of the unworthy takes." And what is Hamlet's
conclusion to all these ills? Nothing less than that they
are borne because man will not take arms against them;
and is hampered by those doubts which concern the future
life, and are expressed by religion. The whole soliloquy is
a review of two worlds : a passive one, and an active one ;
and it recognizes the grounds upon which the passiveness
rests. Every ill of man is thus put down to a want of
resolution. It is the dread of " something after death "
that "makes us rather bear those ills we have, than fly to
others that we know not of." " It is conscience which
makes cowards of us all." Our Poet knew how plastic a
thing conscience is, and he knew how much of it lay in the
hands of the Church. It is this which prevents "enter
prises of great pith and moment" from becoming action.
And let us ask ourselves if this great masterpiece of thought
uttered by Hamlet has not a deep and profound meaning,
with regard to the unity of the whole drama? If it has
not, what is its meaning ? Why is it introduced in such an
odd way, and at such a moment ? Hamlet, as man, at a
certain historical period and crisis, is deliberating upon
action and inaction : " Whether it is nobler to take arms
against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them?"
The whole piece is in exquisite harmony with the esoteric
and exoteric sides of the play. It is not too developed on
either side of art. We may take it as merely a beautiful
summing up of the miseries of life, and of the doubts which
perplex us as to an hereafter ; and thus place us on the
horns of a dilemma. Or, again, we may recognize through
its outer garb the profound identification of the ills of the
period, and the oppressive intolerance of the Church of
the age. Immediately after this soliloquy, Hamlet meets
Ophelia. And we notice how changed his manners are to
her. His letter to her was simply one of reproach. Now
he wantonly insults her. Are we to conclude that he has
decided in his mind that it is "to be," and looks firmly
forwards to combat with his "arms against a sea of troubles?"
53
It is difficult to escape such a conclusion - f particularly when
we take into consideration the correlation of the parts of the
play. At the end of the second act Hamlet has decided to
catch the conscience of the King. This decision would
only be in keeping with a gradual estrangement from
Ophelia. And, finally, he must arrive at a point of deter
mination and action in this respect. This is the realization,
in our opinion, of the necessity of immediate action ; and it
is the first determined step of the Reformers themselves.
But although we have endeavoured to parallel, step by step,
the play with actual history, we only do so, of course (on
hypothesis), for the sake of clearer exposition. Shakespeare
was far too catholic not to express rather the philosophy of
history than the detail of history. We recognize (ourselves),
under the mask of the Reformation, far wider principles than
the mere reform of a religion. In it we see the first direct
recognition by men of their own ignorance, of their own
error, and of the delusions of the past. Thus do we read,
so far, the tragedy of Hamlet. Let us now take a review of
the first two acts. The first is a summary of the gathering
scepticism and the causes of that scepticism, which, like the
break of a dawn, dispels the darkness of the midnight of
past ages. The soldier in ignorance is relieved by the officer
with less ignorance, and he brings another in necessarily
with him, and they together see a Ghost. That Ghost,
however, is at first very uncertain almost an
" Extravagant and erring spirit,"
which is contrasted with the reality of the noisy cock.
The cock is, by his comparison with Christmas, identified
with certainty.
"Mar. It faded on the crowing of the cock.
Some say that ever 'gainst that season comes
"Wherein our Saviour's hirth is celebrated,
The bird of dawning singeth all night long :
And then, they say, no spirit dares stir abroad ;
The nights are wholesome ; then no planets strike,
No fairy takes, nor witch hath power to charm,
So hallow'd and so gracious is the time."
54 HAMLET ; OR,
Thus doubt and certainty succeed each other until the first
pale streaks of dawn begin to illumine the Dark Ages.
" Sor. But, look, the morn, in russet mantle clad,
Walks o'er the dew of yon high eastward hill :
Break we our watch up ; and by my advice,
Let us impart what we have seen to-night
Unto young Hamlet."
Thus the first scene of the first act is the epitome of a
long lapse of time, and we first hear of Hamlet at the very
end of it. From whom? From Marcellus, whom we can
well understand is most fit to find him. Let us note the ex
pression, young Hamlet. The second secne introduces us to
the King, Queen, Hamlet, Polonius, Laertes, Yoltimand, and
Cornelius. We are informed of the position of affairs by
the King. We are put au courant with the pith of the
play. That is, the marriage of the King. A wedding
which Hamlet always recognizes as a source of sorrow
and regret. We are told how Fortinbras is
" Importing the surrender of those lands
Lost by his father." l
And Yoltimand and Cornelius are despatched to Norway to
aid in putting down the revolt. Yoltimand 2 and Cornelius
we suspect to- be Force and Hard-heartedness. Yoltimand
may mean to " put down revolt." And Cornelius is literally
" stony-hearted." Who are they sent to ? Norway. Him
we believe to be Wrong and Tyranny. And what signifies
Fortinbras? Let us remark he is nephew to Norway. Thus
he represents the same relation Hamlet holds to the King.
And we know Fortinbras is with Hamlet, as is Hamlet
with him. We therefore shall call Fortinbras (or strong in
arm) the Spirit of Liberty indispensable to the advance of
Truth. And though repressed at first, and put down by
Wrong, aided by Force and Hard-heartedness, he, never-
1 This is the first rise of liberty.
2 The verb mandere and volt, short for revolt probably.
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 55
theless, will come in triumphant at the end of the play.
Error is thus making use of his tools Yoltimand and Corne
lius. But they soon disappear in the development and con
tinuity of the play. The times soon become too advanced
for their use. Thus, at the opening of the second scene of
the first act, the King is in autocratic and uncompromised
power. Hamlet is actually but just born, and even then as
powerless as his early youth must make him. We now hear
for the first time of Laertes. He is identified with Reason :
" King. . . . You cannot speak of reason to the Dane,
And lose your voice."
Laertes is accordingly Education. His travels into France
are the gradual spread of learning, so indispensable to the
entire development of the play. But, owing to his
parentage, he always preserves a traditional and faithful
bias. He is true to his father's principles, though of course
modified by time, in question of autocracy. And he dis
appears for a long time from the play. 1 We shall meet him
again by and by. We would call attention to his name,
which, being connected with that of Ulysses, not inaptly
reminds us of his true mission wisdom and eloquence.
His father only gives his leave when wrung from him :
" Pol. ... By slow and laboursome petition."
This shows us what difficulties authority, bigotry, and tradi
tion threw in the way of all learning. Hamlet now gives
us the key to his own character in the speech we have already
quoted. His uncle tries to argue him down, and persuade
Hamlet that he (the King) is a true father to him. In
short, it is the effort of the age to put some stop to the
rising and growing discontent and doubt. Hamlet is en
treated not to go to Wittenberg^ This immemorial spot
not inaptly reminds us of the direction, rise, and purport
His disappearance, like that of Fortinbras, is his silent growth.
56 HAMLET ; OR,
of the Reformation. A movement which the King and
Queen are not slow in using all their persuasive powers to
prevent. The discontent, unhappiness, and misery of all
who recognize corruption is well personified in Hamlet's
first soliloquy. This is immediately followed by the action
and entrance of Horatio, Bernardo, and Marcellus. They
come to tell Hamlet of the Ghost. They, of course, come
from Wittenberg. This is the very head- quarters of the
Ghost. Presently, however, Hamlet inspires the rest, for
he says :
" Methinks I see my father."
And Horatio saw him once.
" Eor. I saw Mm once ; he was a goodly king."
Thus Hamlet acts upon the three, and they react upon
him in their turn. And now they first dare to exchange
suspicions and surmisals. The growing doubts gather
greater certainty, from the action and interaction of in
quiry, a growing spirit of justice and love of liberty.
To these must be added Bernardo, who is the very found
ation-stone, as he is the slow growth of printing and
reading.
The third scene opens with Laertes and Ophelia. The
former warns Ophelia against encouraging Hamlet. It is
the warning of traditional knowledge against the Reforming
schism. Polonius now enters. In the admirable precepts
he gives his son, we recognize much that applies to an
education kept strictly upon the lines of orthodoxy and
tradition. And education is not to be vulgar or common.
It is to be only studied by those who have costly purses.
How profoundly crafty and worldly-wise are these wonder
ful instructions. As usual, we recognize in this passage the
marvellous profundity of Shakespeare's art. For we may
read it without a thought of an ulterior meaning, beyond
what the plain text carries upon its surface. Or we may
see, without any great effort of imagination, how it applies
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 57
in every detail to the principles upon which Polonius grants
leave to Laertes to travel.
" Pol. . . . Give thy thoughts no tongue,
Nor any unproportioned thought his act.
Be thou familiar, hut hy no means vulgar.
Those friends thou hast, and their adoption tried,
Grapple them to thy soul with hoops of steel ;
But do not dull thy palm with entertainment
Of each new-hatch' d unfledged comrade."
In the above we have the essence of all traditional and
Tory principles. Education is not to be common or vulgar.
It is to remain faithful to its old friends and principles.
And it must " grapple them to its soul with hoops of steel."
This is all true conservatism. It is not to entertain new
ideas, or new-hatched doctrines and theories. It is to be
ware of controversy, as carrying danger with it. And it is,
when so provoked, to stamp out such controversy with a
strong hand.
" Pol. Give every man thy ear, but few thy voice ;
Take each man's censure, but reserve thy judgment."
Cautiousness is instilled in the above. Laertes is hardly
ever to be heard. Few are to hear his voice. But he is to
keep a sharp look out upon others. Again, fancy is a thing
to be repressed. And we see how much is insisted upon in
dress, and not in the " man " himself :
" The apparel oft proclaims the man."
Laertes is to cultivate the garb of learning, not its essence.
Style, bombast, and exterior, are to cover up an inner worth-
lessness. 1 Nor is he to borrow from others in any way.
Again, and lastly, he is to be true to himself; which means
true to Polonius and tradition.
Polonius now warns Ophelia against Prince Hamlet. She
is not to take him for sterling truth. It is the anger of the
1 At the end of the play we find this confirmed in the way Hamlet identifies
Laertes with diction, etc., etc.
58 HAMLET ; OR,
Church, prompted by authority, against our hero, which is
beginning to make itself evident.
The fourth scene opens with the entry of Hamlet, Horatio,
and Marcellus.
"Ham. The air bites shrewdly ; it is very cold.
Hor. It is a nipping and an eager air."
The above shows us how eager and sharp the age has grown.
Humanity are getting keen-scented, and they begin to smell
a rat. They are in a fit state to behold the Ghost. We
have travelled in time, histrionically, perhaps barely half
an hour. In time, historically, we have moved perhaps
two or three centuries since the opening of the play. It
is necessary to keep some such adequate proportions of the
requirements of time before our reader's eyes, in order that
they may endeavour to seize the right parallax of Hamlet.
The age has grown so eager, and the air bites so shrewdly,
that, with the aid of Hamlet, it takes direct umbrage for
the first time of the " King's wake " and " wassel." And
Hamlet begins to philosophize over the wrongs of the age.
He distinctly recognizes wrong, error, etc., and points it
out to Horatio and Marcellus. The Ghost, therefore, comes
in with startling effect. 1 Nothing is more likely than a
revelation :
" Ham. Thou comest in such a questionable shape
That I -will speak to thee."
The rest of the first act is the detection by Hamlet of
his father's murder. And the necessity of secrecy, due
to the age, is insisted upon by Hamlet. The act ends
with the joint action of the friends, scholars and soldiers.
They go in together. The first act is an explanation and
the dramatic action of the causes which led first to Hamlet's
birth; then doubt and final certainty of the existence of
error in the King, and the murder of truth in his father's
person by the former. The first act is the birth of Hamlet
and his growth. The second is his growth into certainty
and a determination to act. The third is the centre act of
1 Goethe has powerfully brought this out in Wilhelm Meister.
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 59
the tragedy, and the axis of the play. In it the determina
tion is effected, and its results portrayed. The fourth act
deals directly with the results springing from the death of
Polonius. The fifth act is a condensed chorus of time, and
the end of social conflict, as pictured by our poet.
We are now again in the second act. And as we have
already dealt with much of it, we will summarize the whole,
only dwelling on points omitted before. The act opens
with the means Polonius employs to keep Laertes true to his
parentage. It is the repression of all liberty of conscience,
and it is aided by the Inquisition and the " Index Expurga-
torius." Ophelia is profoundly criticized by Hamlet, who is
in prison, with gyves about his ancles.
" Oph. ... No hat upon his head ; his stockings foul'd,
Ungarter'd, and down-gyved to his ancle ;
Pale as his shirt ; his knees knocking each other ;
And with a look so piteous in purport
As if he had been loosed out of hell
To speak of horrors, he comes before me."
Here we have a dreadful picture of the way heresy was
being punished. Hamlet has long been under the ban of
heresy. In the above quotation we have all the horrors of
hell let loose upon us. We have the Inquisition, the rack,
the long lingering imprisonment, with the " gyves about the
ancles." What was this period ? and where can we find an
historical parallel ?
Dr. Draper says : l "To withstand this flood of impiety,
the Papal Government established two institutions : 1. The
Inquisition ; 2. Auricular Confession the latter as a means
of detection, the former as a tribunal of punishment. In
general terms the commission of the Inquisition was to ex
tirpate religious dissent by terrorism, and surround heresy
with the most horrible associations ; this necessarily implied
the power of determining what constitutes heresy. The
criterion of truth was thus in possession of this tribunal,
which was charged ' to discover and bring to judgment
heretics, lurking in towns, houses, cellars, woods, caves, and
1 History of the Conflict between Religion and Science. .
60 HAMLET; OR,
fields/ "With such savage alacrity did it carry out its object
of protecting the interests of religion, that between 1481
and 1808 it had punished three hundred and forty thousand
persons, and of these nearly thirty-two thousand had been burnt.
In its earlier days, when public opinion could find no means
of protesting against its atrocities, 'it often put to death
without appeal, on the very day that they were accused, nobles,
clerks, monks, hermits, and lay persons of every rank.' In
whatever direction thoughtful men looked, the air was full
of fearful shadows. No one could indulge in freedom of
thought without expecting punishment. So dreadful were
the proceedings of the Inquisition, that the exclamation of
Pagliarici was the exclamation of thousands : ' It is hardly
possible for a man to be a Christian and die in his bed.'
The Inquisition destroyed the sectaries of Southern France
in the thirteenth century. Its unscrupulous atrocities ex
tirpated Protestantism in Italy and Spain. Nor did it confine
itself to religious affairs; it' engaged in the suppression of
political discontent. Nicholas Eymeric, who was Inquisitor-
General of the kingdom of Aragon for nearly fifty years,
and who died in 1399, has left a frightful statement of its
conduct and appalling cruelties in his ' Directorium Inquisi-
torum: "
And again: "By the power of the fourth Lateran Council,
A.D. 1215, the power of the Inquisition was frightfully in
creased, the necessity of private confession to a priest
auricular confession being at that time established, not a
man was safe. In the hands of the priest, who, at the con
fessional, could extract or extort from them their most secret
thoughts, his wife and his servants were turned into spies.
No accuser was named; but the thumb-screw, the stretch
ing-rope, the boot, the wedge, or other enginery of torture,
soon supplied that defect, and, innocent or guilty, he accused
himself! Notwithstanding all this power, the Inquisition
failed of its purpose. When the heretic could no longer
confront it, he evaded it. A dismal disbelief stealthily per
vaded all Europe a denial of Providence, of the immor
tality of the soul, of human free will, and that man cannot
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. Gl
possibly resist the absolute necessity, the destiny which
envelopes him."
The whole of the above extract realizes the position of
Hamlet up to the death of Polonius. What does the Ghost say ?
" Ghost. Mark me.
Ham. I will.
Ghost. My hour is almost come,
When I to sulphurous and tormenting flames
Must render up myself."
Here we have the martyrdom of those who dare to doubt
heretics. Again :
" Ghost. I am thy father's spirit,
Doom'd for a certain term to walk the night,
And for the day confined to fast in fires ,
Till the foul crimes done in my days of nature
Are burnt and purged away."
So doubt is " confined to fast in fires." The stake and the
prison are clearly indicated here. And the " foul crimes "
will only be burnt and purged away when " the days of
nature," the apprenticeship of man, is past. So we see that
the fifth scene of the first act represents the beginning of
religious persecution of heresy.
As regards Hamlet, we find everywhere the expression of
a deep misery, as deep as is compatible with his rank as
Prince. Especially is his first monologue of this character :
" Ham. 0, that this too too solid flesh would melt,
Thaw and resolve itself into a dew !
These are almost the words of a man under excruciating
torture. And again, later :
"Ham. I have of late but wherefore I know not lost all my mirth, for
gone all custom of exercises : and indeed it goes so heavily with my disposition
that this goodly frame, the earth, seems to me a sterile promontory, this most
excellent canopy, the air, look you, this brave o'erhanging firmament, this
majestical roof fretted with golden fire, why, it appears no other thing to me
than a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours. "What a piece of work is a
man ! how noble in reason ! how infinite in faculty ! in form and moving how
express and admirable ! in action how like an angel ! in apprehension how like a
god ! the beauty of the world ! the paragon of animals ! And yet, to me, what is
this quintessence of dust ? man delights not me : no, nor woman neither, though
by your smiling you seem to say so."
62 HAMLET; OR,
Here we have that profound despondency which we have
had historically vouched for by Dr. Draper. And now, can
we wonder at the description given by Ophelia of Hamlet ?
After Ophelia's report to her father of Hamlet's criticism
and inspection, Polonius goes to the King and informs him
of it.
The whole of the second scene of the second act is a very
long one. And it is the history of the growth of Hamlet's
determination to act. We have (which we have already
treated at length) Hamlet's letter to Ophelia. We have
Ophelia's sequestration from Hamlet on this account. And
we also have the first encounter of Polonius and Hamlet.
The tone of the latter is hidden satire and contempt. Then
Eosencrantz and Gfuildenstern are recognized in their naked
ness by Hamlet. And now we hear, for the first time, of
the Players. Hamlet has recognized the bigotry of Polo
nius, and begun to mock him. We now reach a part of the
text we have hitherto left untouched. We allude to his
meeting with the Players. The description of the Players
is one which inclines us to believe these Players are not only
the knowledge of the age, but that they are prompted by
Hamlet. For Hamlet makes the first speech. And they
merely take up the cue he has given them. That cue is one
in which Hamlet appeals to the human* heart, and gives a
picture of the times. At the end of his speech he says,
" So proceed you." We believe Hamlet is inciting the
Players to continue in this strain. That strain is :
" An honest method, as wholesome as sweet, and by very much more handsome
than fine."
The whole of this piece upon Pyrrhus is but a picture of
the times. And Pyrrhus may stand for the Inquisition and
persecution of the age.
" Hath now this dread and black complexion smear'd
"With heraldry more dismal ; head to foot
Now is he total gules (blood) ; horridly trick'd
With blood of fathers, mothers, daughters, sons."
The persecution of the times and its horrors are admirably
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 63
painted in this classical speech. It is profoundly subtle and
difficult to fathom anywhere Shakespeare's true meaning.
No doubt the whole of Hamlet's intercourse with the Players
is a summary of the causes immediately prior to the Refor
mation. We recognize how powerfully the Players react
upon Hamlet. They alone give him direct force, to catch
the conscience of the King. We could hazard a great deal
of speculation upon this particular part of the play ; but it
is undoubtedly the profoundest, and requires a study beyond
our time and limits. The whole speech of Hamlet and
the Players, taken as a whole, is infinitely touching, and
calculated to move the heart. It is probably an appeal from
Genius to the human heart, by picturing the wretched state
of the "mobled" -Queen, and the tyranny and brutality of
Pyrrhus. The latter is called a " painted tyrant." The
word " mobled " is approved of by Polonius. Perhaps he
considers the Queen (who probably represents the per
secuted heretics) ' a belief which is mob-led, or only a
rabble led by false principles. She runs up and down,
"Threatening the flames with bisson rheum."
Pyrrhus is thus undoubtedly intended to represent, and
is held up to scorn as, the persecution and intolerance of
the times. The whole piece is an appeal to the heart. The
Players, who are the actors in deed and in thought of
the Reformation, are prompted, of course, first by Hamlet.
And so we find he starts the subject. This is the
leadership of genius. This is the work of an Erasmus.
The later work is that of a Luther and a Melancthon.
The whole speech is a history of the Romish Church, under
the artistic garb of Pyrrhus. And we are told how Pyrrhus
" Couched in the ominous horse."
that is, corrupted through the night of the Dark
has dyed his hands in blood. The old Priam, who may well
stand for the first and older faith before corrupted, is killed
by this younger birth, of
**-.... Sable arms,
Black as his purpose, did the night resemble."
64 HAMLET; OK,
And then the First Player proceeds to tell us how Pyrrhus
falls upon Priam.
" Out, out, thou strumpet, Fortune ! All you gods,
In general synod, take away her power."
This reference to "General Synod" seems to further our
criticisms. Then we have a piteous picture of the poor
Queen, calculated to stir the sympathy of our hearts. This
we believe is the trumpet call to arms on behalf of the
persecuted. However, the effect upon Hamlet is profound.
We have the first of those long soliloquies, which are full of
self-upbraiding and a consciousness of weakness. 1 Our hero
is acted upon most powerfully. His irresolution turns into
determination to act. Yet we feel he can be aided in his
entire revenge by time alone. He is too weak to do more
than hope that he may grow stronger, and do what lies
within his power. These soliloquies of Hamlet's are his
torical impulses. They are the actions of epochs momentous
in the world's history. They are the determination of
mankind to take steps, fraught with danger, but also fraught
with safety. In this Player-scene we have the first appeal
by man to man before the Reformation. It is an outspoken
voice. And we see in the soliloquy how it lifts, how it
gives force and determination to the still weak but resolute
Hamlet.
Tip to the end of the second act we have now. arrived.
How little we have done to illuminate the text, we are
aware. For Hamlet is, as Goethe puts it : " A trunk
with boughs, twigs, leaves, buds, blossoms, and fruit ? Is
not the one there -with the others, and by means of them ?"
Nothing could express the construction of Hamlet better.
Every part is connected with another part. Every ante
cedent has its consequent. It is in short the evolution of
history. A history which stops short with man's apprentice
ship, and is continued by Goethe in man's travels. Law is
epitomized throughout the play. Nothing is spontaneous,
1 These soliloquies are dramatic expressions of action and reaction.
65
nothing is premature. All is orderly, and everything falls
into its place by the necessity of sequence.
Our great aim has been so far to throw light upon the
author's signification and meaning. To give force to the
leaves, buds, and twigs, requires a profundity on a par
with our Poet's alone. We leave that work to those
who are more fitted to the task. "We must apologize for
the way in which the reader is taken, at one sweep, from
one part of the text to another part. For our purpose
being to suggest a Philosophy of Hamlet, we think proof
and connexion verified in the simplest manner more tell
ing than an esoteric essay based upon a comprehension of
Goethe's Wilhelm Meister. Let us pass over the early
part of the third act, and resume our thread after the end
of the Player-scene. This Player-scene is of course the
turning-point of the play. From it almost directly all the
other events succeed as a matter of course. The detection
of error or the King is now complete. Hamlet is no longer
troubled by further doubts. From this moment there is a
schism. The King recognizes the power and the reality of
Hamlet. Hitherto he has almost doubted Hamlet's madness.
Now he is certain of it. And in this sense we mean his
power and his badness in the eyes of the King. To prove
this we will quote a speech of the King's prior to the Player-
scene :
" King. Nor what he spake, though it lack'd form a little,
Was not like madness."
After the Player-scene we have the King saying :
" I like him not, nor stands it safe with us
To let his madness range."
Again (Act iv. Sc. 1)
"King. This mad young man."
From the end of the Player-scene we have a difference
of attitude between Hamlet and his partisans and those of
the King, to what we have hitherto found. Hamlet simply
5
66 HAMLET J OR,
defies the King. Polonius has now begun to mock Hamlet.
And though still accompanied by Guildenstern and Rosen-
crantz, Hamlet first repudiates the one, and then the other.
He clearly points out the nature of their characters. To
one he says
" Though you can fret me, yet you cannot play upon me." l
To the other he says
" You are a ' sponge,' and soak up the King's countenance, his rewards, his
authorities." 2
We must not leave out the important part Horatio has taken
in the Player-scene. He has been simply critical, and
although apparently passive, his work has been nobly shared
with Hamlet. He claims half a share.
" Hor. Half a share."
It is Horatio who has played the part of scholarly criticism.
Imbued with the spirit of Hamlet, he has supplied the
scholarly qualities, the earnestness, the independence of
spirit, and the love of justice. He is half of Hamlet, and
no mean part of the whole company of Players.
Hamlet supplies the instruction to the Players, which, let
us particularly remark, is alone that of truth. Every line
of his advice to the Players is to
"Hold, as 'twere, the mirror up to nature; to show virtue her own feature,
scorn her own image, and the very age and body of the time his form and
' pressure.'"
This is exactly what the Reformation succeeded in doing.
The result was that men " scorned her own image," and
followed " virtue " according to quite a new pattern.
Now let us try and follow what comes after the Player-
scene as regards the action alone of the tragedy.
1 This passage brings out forcibly our theory : that Guildenstern is Sophistry,
and evasion of truth.
2 Here we have the essence of Rosencrantz, as the self-interested alone.
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 67
The first great result is in the next or fourth scene of the
act. Hamlet, for the first time, has a private interview
with his mother. 1 Polonius, as usual, given to intolerance
and interference, tries to prevent this conference, and in so
doing loses his life. The death of Polonius is the death of
intolerance ; it is simply liberty of conscience. With it the
Reformation is completed not until. The Player-scene is.
the whole of the struggle of the Reformation. The death
of Polonius is the comparative end of bigotry, gross super
stition and interference. It is true that in some countries
these things have lingered on into comparatively modern
times. But the play is only concerned with the advanced
guard of Europe. The rest must follow, sooner or later, so
they are immaterial. Let us once more take a survey of
the character of Polonius. He is the bulwark and backbone
of the King. He is the greater part indeed in all ages of
the King. He is authority based upon the past, infallibility,
and bigotry. He is the Romish Church. He is everything
that is old, and that is venerated, not on account of its
intrinsic truth or worth, but on account of its age and its
familiarity with men's minds. As if the world had socially
no infancy, the adult social man would go back to his
childhood for instruction. Surely this is something foolish.
Individualism as personified by Hamlet is always at war with
Polonius. One is liberalism, the other we call all sorts of
names at different ages of its decline, and we recognize also
its usefulness. It is the scaffolding, which keeps the struc
ture firm, until it can stand by itself. "When each particle
is self-governed, we can remove the scaffold. And this we
do bit by bit. Sometimes so fast, that we have to repair
again what has been removed. And we call this con
servative reaction.
The death of Polonius is only the death of one of the
King's protean forms. And Polonius, though apparently
1 The Queen is, in our opinion, human belief. Her marriage is error in belief
or belief in error.
(jg HAMLET J OR,
dead, lingers on in a state of corruption, it is true, but still
for a part of the play. It is this continuity of the play
which makes it so difficult to fix upon the historical parallel
which accompanies it. Shakespeare has clearly realized that
there are no broken events in history. Some may seem so,
from the apparent obscurity of their causes. But on second
inspection they vanish in their causes themselves. The
King and Polonius are always dying slowly, and of an
almost imperceptible disease. And both the King and Polo-
'nius must not be separated. For one is the essence of the
other. Therefore we realize how our poet is compelled in his
dramatic art to give force to historical events, which have
occupied long periods in being brought about, by one stroke
of his pen. Such is the death of Polonius by Hamlet. Our
own interpretation of this climax of the play is, historically,
the completion and partial results of the Reformation. The
gains by man of liberty of speech, liberty of conscience,
and general independence of mind. It is realized in the
Protestant Reformation, and the freedom from Polonius
springing therefrom. Hamlet is always aiming at nothing
short but the death of the King. And who says he never
acts ? Is not the death of Polonius the greatest stab Hamlet
can give the King ? He Jias actually hacked off a large part
of him. For he has destroyed his defence, his impregna
bility, and the fortress is both sapped and mined. Time will
now blow up the whole edifice.
The death of Polonius is the dramatic climax and centre
of the tragedy. From it events take a completely new
direction and complexion. It leads to Hamlet's banishment.
Ophelia's madness is the direct offspring of it; and her
death follows, as a matter of necessity. The revolution of
Laertes is another direct consequence of the same event.
Let us clearly understand Polonius. Upon his life and
shoulders rest two institutions. These are Ophelia and
Laertes. The former is the very essence of Polonius. Can
we say more when we say Shakespeare has done mar
vellously well in making her the daughter of Polonius?
Her claims to existence are upon the grounds of the
i
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 69
validity of tradition. Her life depends upon that of her
father. As long as his integrity is preserved, she is safe ;
but with his fall, she is open to criticism, to inspection,
and to discussion. This is how the death of Polonius brings
about the suicide of Ophelia. Laertes, on the contrary, is
a modified Polonius. One who is quite unable to protect
Ophelia. The death of his father is a thing he is bound to
revenge. We notice what a weak copy he is of Polonius.
How abortive his revolution. How soon pacified he be
comes, and how he takes his father's place as the supporter
of the King. Laertes is the continuity of Polonius in the
shape of Toryism, of conservatism, of reaction. The death
of Polonius is therefore, we take it, the end of direct inter
ference. The closet-scene of Hamlet and the Queen is a
picture of man appealing to man's belief. The Queen we
identify with human belief and faith. She is the credulity
of the human heart, easily deceived by the King. Error
and belief are one. Hamlet knows this full well :
"Ham. . . Farewell, dear mother.
King. Thy loving father, Hamlet.
Ham. My mother : father and mother is man and wife ; man and wife is one
flesh; and so, my mother ."
Error only exists by the persistency of belief. And we see
how particular Shakespeare is never to let us know that the
Queen knows aught of her former husband's murder. Hamlet
reproaches her with it, it is true. But this is only con
sistent with the exposure of error. The whole address of
our hero to his mother is one in which an appeal is made
to humanity by man. We see how the Queen is identified
with custom.
"Ham. That monster, custom, who all sense doth eat,
Of habits devil, is angel yet in this,
That to the use of actions fair and good
He likewise gives a frock or livery,
That aptly is put on."
And the amazement of the Queen, when Hamlet says
" A bloody deed ! almost as bad, good mother,
As kill a king, and marry with his brother.
Queen. As kill a king ! "
70 HAMLET ; OR,
leads us to believe it is a novelty, that has never struck
her with any force hitherto. For her exclamation is one
of amazement, and not of guilt. A little later the Queen
" What have I done, that thou darest wag thy tongue
In noise so rude against me ?"
This does not look like the consciousness of overwhelming
guilt. And it takes a long time before Hamlet can make
an impression upon her. He says :
" If damned custom have not brass'd it so
That it is proof and bulwark against sense."
He uses the word sense, not the word truth. Custom is
again insisted upon as the source of all the evil.
The Queen even again protests her innocence, in words
which seem those of perfect innocence :
" Ay me, what act,
That roars so loud, and thunders in the index ? "
Finally, what does Hamlet point out to the Queen?
"Ham. ... 0, such a deed
As from the body of contraction plucks
The very soul, and sweet religion makes
A rhapsody of words-"
This is exactly what the Reformation pointed out. The
Romish religion is a rhapsody of words nothing more.
Hamlet now contrasts truth with error. He pictures his
father. And he pictures the King. The reader may ask,
Who is Hamlet's father ? We answer ideal truth implanted
in the mind of man. It is the voice of God whispering to
us. It is ideal justice, ideal liberty, ideal truth. Impos
sible quantities. The complements which separate man
from God. Not contained upon an earth, nor in humanity ;
but still conceived in a unity, that is divine, and as ideal
beacons to which we ever advance.
The Ghost of Hamlet's father is doubt. Doubt is the
71
complement to the next truth. For there is no absolute
truth for us. The ideal truth is realism. And that is God
alone. Doubt is therefore an active scepticism, the step
from one belief to a higher one. And this is the great
march of humanity. The truth of one age is the untruth
of another. And yet both were true in their way. The
justice of one age is not the justice of the next. Yet both
seem true in their respective ages. This is no contradiction,
not even a paradox. Absolute truth is not for man. Only
an eternal march towards a greater perfection. This world
seems almost the realization of God himself, unrolling him
self in an endless march towards himself. An infinite series
of terms, which, like himself, are endless.
The step, therefore, to every higher truth is by doubt.
And the Ghost is the shadow of the father. Doubt is the
shadow of truth. As it fades, it leaves the truth and cer
tainty in greater relief by contrast. Doubt is only a higher
reason. For who doubts, and why do we doubt ? Those
only doubt who have an ideal by which to criticize, and by
which to contrast what they doubt. And that ideal is in
itself a belief. Thus we only doubt because we believe
something else with a much stronger certainty than the
former. Doubt is thus only the son and the father of truth.
Hamlet cannot address his mother until Polonius is re
moved. Therefore our poet has made the direct interference
of the Lord Chamberlain the cause of his own death.
Hamlet at first thinks he has killed the King. But the
King is not to be killed so easily. The King is mortally
wounded, but not dead yet awhile for some few centuries to
come.
Shakespeare has completely realized the importance of
Polonius as the support of the King. He has therefore
made his death the pivot upon which the climax of the
drama is reached. From this time the King suffers a series
of reverses. Revolution stares him in the face. He shows
open fear of Hamlet. He says :
" Like to a murdering-piece, in many places
Gives me superfluous death."
HAMLET ; OR,
This is exactly what the life of the King realizes after the
end of Polonius. It is actually " a murdering- piece in many
Error, superstition, hypocrisy, authority, bigotry, dark
ness, are all giving way before the light of modern Europe.
But we must not anticipate. We return to the Player- scene,
which we have endeavoured to show is an artistic parallel
of the Eeformation. The result of this scene is the schism
which takes place between Ophelia and Hamlet. Let it be
well noted, they never meet again until Laertes and Hamlet
fight over her grave.
What a marvellous difference the Player- scene has brought
about in the character of Hamlet ! We notice a similar, but
opposite change on the King's side. Hamlet says
" Ah, ah ! Come, some music ! come, the recorders ! "
This is Shakespeare's way of expressing harmony. (See
" The Merchant of Yenice," and passim.) The Queen is
struck into " amazement and admiration." Surely, if she
were conscious of guilt, she would not use these words !
We maintain (though perhaps not wholly without the feel
ing of some doubt) custom and ignorance are her greatest
faults. Belief is going at last to have an interview privately,
in a closet, with Hamlet.
The entrance of the players with the recorders is the
union of music and action, of harmony and the age ? It is
perhaps the first harmony heard in Europe since the Dis
ciples of our Lord preached the life of righteousness.
Guildenstern is no longer able to play upon Hamlet.
Sophistry cannot make what it likes of truth. The arts of
Guildenstern have not been able to prevent things coming
to this pass. And Hamlet now compares himself to a pipe,
to harmony. And in this we recognize Shakespeare's
meaning through Hamlet. Guildenstern has no harmony
in him. He can reconcile nothing. And this is his fault,
he would reconcile the impossible, and he would play upon
truth. Hamlet therefore throws down his pipe, and magnifi-
SHAKESPEAKE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 73
cently exclaims with eyes of withering scorn and in a voice
of thunder :
" 'Sblood, do you think I am easier to be played on than a pipe ? Call me
what instrument you will, though you can fret me, yet you cannot play upon me."
Sophistry is the art of making the worse appear the
better. It is a direct evasion of truth by means of false
logic. Therefore it only frets truth. Truth is an instru
ment, it cannot
" Command to any utterance of harmony."
Hamlet drives Guildenstern to own this as regards a pipe.
And then he applies the same argument to himself. The
hypocrisy of Guildenstern is shown up and exposed for the
first time. And he in common with the rest of the King's
allies has felt a slight wound. Sophistry and hypocrisy,
the habit of not facing difficulties, and of deception, cannot
play upon truth. They do succeed for a time in keeping
it in the background. But the inevitable day must come
when it must die. Nothing kills like open discussion and
ridicule. Yoltaire is the best example of this species of
warfare.
The result of the Player-scene is that Hamlet gathers
sufficient force to kill Polonius. And the Player-scene, it is
possible, may not express more than the criticism of Luther,
which leads to the Reformation. To future criticism it must
be left to decide, whether the end of the third act alone
completes the Reformation. Nothing can be plainer than
the recognition by Hamlet of the character of the King
" Ham. For thou dost know, Damon dear,
This realm dismantled was
Of Jove himself; and now reigns here
A very, very pajock.
Hor. You might have rhymed."
What will rhyme with was? Something very like ass.
But we may have mistaken our poet's meaning. The way
Hamlet mocks Polonius when he enters is very marked.
74 HAMLET J OR,
.And Polonius is either humbly obsequious and servile, or
else he mocks our hero back again.
" Ham. Do you see yonder cloud that's almost in shape of a camel ?
Pol. By the mass, and 'tis like a camel, indeed.
Ham. Methinks it is like a weasel.
Pol. It is backed like a weasel.
Ham. Or like a whale ?
Pol. Very like a whale.
Ham. Then I will come to my mother by and by. They fool me to the top of
my bent. I will come by and by."
Truth will become belief " by and by." If authority is so
weakened as to be mocked openly by Hamlet, and to echo
our hero without a significance of its own, it seems there
is no alternative.
The third scene is the advice of the cautious ones. They
are our old friends we know so much about. They are
instrumental to the banishment of Hamlet. They are the
screens between him and the King. As long as they live
Hamlet can effect nothing permanent. The advice of Guil-
denstern and Eosencrantz is thus characterized by the ex
pression
" Guil. "We will ourselves provide."
The fourth scene of the same act is the interview between
Hamlet and his mother. It is a very long one, and there
fore we are justified in supposing its length to find some
parallel in time. It is one of great importance to the critic
of Hamlet. The entrance of the Ghost causes the exclama
tion of Hamlet: "a king of shreds and patches." 1 The
blindness of the Queen in not seeing the Ghost is a very
fine contrast between the Queen and Hamlet. To Hamlet
the Ghost is plain. To his mother there is nothing but
Hamlet's ecstasy to account for it.
Thus we see the death of Polonius is followed by another
stimulus. And this time it is the Ghost again.
1 Error is well expressed by patchwork.
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY or HISTORY. 75
The result of all is that the Queen has her heart " cleft
in twain."
" Queen. Hamlet, thou hast cleft my heart in twain."
At last Hamlet has produced some effect upon his mother.
And she even asks his advice.
In this expression " cleft in twain," we have the Reforma
tion completed. One side of her heart will be Protestant,
the other remain with the King. The Queen is belief, and
she is now divided by schism. Part of the Queen will be
now upon Hamlet's side. Finally, the whole will drink to
him.
"We have now arrived at the end of the third act. "Up to
this point Hamlet has been in active occupation. Now,
however, we shall miss him for a time. Though not for long
dramatically. We must realize the meaning of his banish
ment. As regards Church reform, Hamlet has done good
work. But in history there was to be a long pause before
any further important acts of Hamlet could be dramatically
portrayed. We recognize Hamlet silently at work in the
melancholy end and wreath-making of Ophelia. We re
cognize his work even in the revolution of Laertes. But
our poet has thought fit to consider him dead in an artistic
sense, as long as accompanied by Rosencrantz and Guilden-
stern. He has brought everything down to a state of what
we might term the level of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. 1
Everything above them has been cut down. But they are
long-lived gentlemen, and Hamlet's banishment is exactly
the length of their lives. Our hero is got rid of to give
greater effect to his return. And our poet in the meanwhile
takes the opportunity of working out the results which
follow the death of Polonius. We have seen how the third
act is made to contain the Player- scene, the death of Polo
nius resulting therefrom, and the free conversation which
ensues between Hamlet and his mother. It would be
1 Shakespeare has distinctly realized the long autocracy of the self-interested in
power.
76 HAMLET ; OR,
treating the intelligent reader like a child, to seek historical
parallels for all the above. Probably the reader will far
better find the interpretation than we could give it him.
In the fourth act we hear again of Polonius. That is, of
his remains. And this is needful to that continuity of
history, and the drama, with which Shakespeare has so
wondrously shown us his acquaintance. The dead body
of Polonius is still a witness to his former power. It will
still linger on, until corruption shall have made it unfit for
the senses of men. 1 It is to be hoped the reader begins to
see what Goethe meant when he called the play " a trunk,
branches, boughs, twigs, buds, and leaves."
And now in the beginning of the fourth act we have the
recognition by Hamlet of the character of Eosencrantz.
Upon that topic we have already dwelt.
" Bos. Tell us where 'tis, that we may take it thence
And bear it to the chapel.
Ham. Do not believe it."
This reference to the chapel is of course a hint that takes
us direct to the Church. Eosencrantz of course will keep
the body with the Church as long as he is Eosencrantz.
But Hamlet now knows the character of the courtier. He
sees his relation to the King, and he tells him he can keep
both his own counsel and that of Eosencrantz, If he can
keep the advice of the latter, he can also keep his own.
Eosencrantz however is a sponge. One who does the King
"best service in the end." And the King is the last to
believe in Eosencrantz.
" Ham. He keeps them, like an ape, in the comer of his jaw; first mouthed,
to be last swallowed."
Eosencrantz is again the King himself. And Hamlet
therefore knows exactly what the advice of Eosencrantz is
worth. That advice is the advice of self-interest alone, of
1 We believe the allusions to the body of Polonius to be an artistic endeavour
to represent the gradual decay of authority. Finally, Laertes, as a Party, takes
up his father's policy.
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 77
those who, having everything to gain by the embalment
of what is left of Polonius, would carry him into the chapel.
If a change in the state of the King leaves Rosencrantz
barren of his countenances, his rewards, his authorities, why
here is a new Rosencrantz ready to soak them all up again.
Presently Hamlet enters, accompanied by Gruildenstern.
This shows us how mixed truth must be at this period of
the drama. Always with either both or one of these two
courtiers. Though we cannot help looking upon Hamlet as
a separate and particular Hamlet of our own, to do justice
to the play, we must see him only through the light of those
who accompany him. This makes the work of interpreta
tion a multiplied difficulty ; for we are constantly interpreting
Hamlet's speeches as the speeches of a naked Hamlet. They
are not so, and we warn the student to beware of this error,
an error which we fear we are constantly falling uncon
sciously into ourselves. Our poet has made no confusion of
this kind in his meaning. He is now, at the stage we have
arrived, showing the increasing separation of truth from
sophistry and hypocrisy, from that which is self-interested,
from that which is mere party and that which is true in
itself. This is part of the great continuity of the plan of
the tragedy. Thus the advice of Rosencrantz is almost
Hamlet's own advice. But Hamlet is beginning to realize
the great difference between himself and Rosencrantz, and
to increase that divergence.
Hamlet now comes in with Guildenstern.
" King. Now, Hamlet, where' s Polonius ?
Ham. At supper.
King. At supper ! where ?
Ham. Not where he eats, but where he is eaten: a certain convocation of
politic worms are e'en at him. Your worm is your only emperor for diet : we
fat all creatures else to fat us, and we fat ourselves for maggots : your fat king
and your lean beggar is but variable service, two dishes, but to one table : that's
the end."
Public opinion is at work upon Polonius. Public opinion
is an emperor for diet. And Polonius is being fast eaten
by a " convocation of politic worms."
Hamlet is himself pointing out the danger of a too rapid
78 HAMLET; OR,
destruction of Polonius. This is our belief, for he is accom
panied by Guildenstern. We find Hamlet makes no objec
tion to his banishment to England.
" Ham. Nothing but to show you how a king may go a progress through the
guts of a beggar."
The whole question is one of " "Where is Polonius ? " The
same process which has destroyed and is destroying Polonius
may take a King through the guts of a beggar. No wonder
the King makes up his mind to banish Hamlet. Our hero
is too dangerous to be tolerated any further.
Historically we recognize the point at which Hamlet
suffers banishment. We have seen what a great impulse the
Reformation has given to civilization in Europe. But we
also recognize the slow progress of that civilization up to
the middle of the movement of the eighteenth century.
We of the present day have only recovered but yesterday
from a reaction following that movement. And we have
even a long period from the Reformation itself, up to the
beginning of the eighteenth century, when the Reformation
underwent a second Reformation in dissent. All this is
pictured in the wreath-making of Ophelia. But Hamlet
himself only comes back after the return of Laertes. He
is all this while waiting for the death of Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern, a deed undertaken by science, and which is"
so wonderfully paralleled in the present day.
"King. Hamlet, this deed, for thine especial safety."
The King, as we have identified him with the courtiers
and the corrupting body of Polonius, believes that the in
terests of truth are bound up in the exile of truth. This
is expressed in the sayings, " Truth is dangerous," " A little
learning is a dangerous thing," and " That truth is not for
man." We have not arrived even yet at the day when
outspokenness and truth, and nothing but the truth, is
considered a salutary thing for humanity to practise. Not
even in this wonderful age are we quite free from Rosen
crantz and Guildenstern.
79
Let us return to the exile of Hamlet, and to the signifi
cation of England. That signification we believe to be
science, or, as we think it, the exact sciences. What
evidence have we for such an astounding assumption?
We see the reader smile, and we see him lay down this
work with good-natured incredulity. But we only ask him
to hear us out.
Let us note the King's speech.
"King. . . . Therefore prepare thyself ;
The hark is ready, and the wind at help,
The associates tend, and everything is bent
For England."
The word associates is one that belongs to science. It is
ambiguous of course, and by itself says nothing. But like
everything else in this play, it is only a part of other evidence.
" King. And, England, if my love thou hold'st at aught
As my great power thereof may give thee sense,
Since yet thy cicatrice looks raw and red
After the Danish sword, and thy free awe
Pays homage to us thou mayst not coldly set
Our sovereign process ; which imports at full,
By letters congruing to that effect,
The present death of Hamlet. Do it, England;
For like the hectic in my blood he rages,
And thou must cure me : till I know 'tis done,
Howe'er my haps, my joys were ne'er begun."
Here two words are to be noticed cicatrice and present.
Why the present death of Hamlet ? As before, it is ambigu
ous, and may mean immediate. As we are studying a play full
of ambiguities, we are bound to notice that the word present
may mean a period alone. Again, why is not Hamlet banished
to Norway ? Why to England ? We want to know why
our poet has brought a fresh locality into the play, when, if
it has no particular meaning, Norway would have served the
same purpose. Again, we have Hamlet saying, on his return
from exile :
" Does it not, thinks't thee, stand me now upon
He that hath kill'd my king and whored my mother,
Popp'd in between the election and my hopes,
Thrown out his angle for my proper life," etc., etc.
g0 HAMLET J OR,
Here we have the word angle, ambiguous, as usual; but
capable of expressing mathematics. The word England, let
it be noted, may stand for the " Land of the Angles."
To quote again :
" Ham. An earnest conjuration from the king,
As England was his faithful tributary,
As love between them like the palm might flourish,
As peace should still her wheaten garland wear
And stand a comma 'tween their amities,
And many such like 'As'es of great charge."
All these "'As'es of great charge," remind us of Euclid. We
would ask the reader to ask himself what causes would lead
alone to the deaths of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern ?
Nothing but an inexorable necessity, such as implied in the
exactitude and inevitable logic of cause and effect, would
lead to the death of the courtiers. At the present day
we are beginning to witness the results springing from
the inexorable logic of Science.
The necessity of no compromise in all branches of human
knowledge speaking for themselves as the law of God, must
have an immense effect upon the whole mind of man. Am
biguities are rejected ; clearness, decision of outline, and
facts, take the place of shadows, compromise, and a habit of
self-deception, and sluggishness of thought. The nature of
science is the nature of law. It admits of no rejection. It is
iron-bound, and breaks the rash sophist into contradictions,
when confronted by experiment and verification. Science is
making the mind of man accustomed to definite answers, to
definite questions. It is codifying the universe. And the
day will come when anything unscientific will be considered
as outside the realms of truth. For Science, a name dreaded
and execrated by the ignorant as the technical name of
certain branches of human learning, is nothing less than
Truth itself. It is the systematization of the laws of God, or,
as Oersted beautifully puts it, "the thoughts of God." There
is nothing in this wide universe outside the domain of
science. And science is knowledge, foreshadowing happi
ness. Thought is under law ; and however stupidly we
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 81
may be thinking, there is a law for it contained within our
organism. Not a law, we should say ; for laws are not
entities: but relations of cause and effect, which are in
variable.
Our theory of the nature of England is one we shall
stand by. For our poet lived in an age in which England
was, without doubt, of all countries that in which liberty and
progress were far ahead of any other contemporary nation
of Europe. It was an age of greatness. A greatness par
tially due to the great intellect of one of the most intelligent
of women Elizabeth. And a greatness also due to that
impulse which the recent events in Europe had given to all
branches of learning, and thus to men's minds. It was an
age which abounded in men of genius. An age which, like
the present, was a boundary between the past and the future.
Behind, all was dark and unsettled ; in front, light, hope,
and discovery were dimly seen. But genius saw this plainer
than others. It was clear enough to Shakespeare. It was
clear even to Bacon. And who is Bacon by the side of the
swan of Avon ? There were others who, like Bacon, were
teaching Shakespeare what was the nature of induction.
Every great intellect is a machine, in which chains of de
duction and induction are established with greater exactitude
and with greater rapidity than by others. They may be
so rapid, so instantaneous, as to have the effect of pictures.
Their next to simultaneous concatenation is wrought by a
fervour of imagination which can alone find an outcome in
art. This species of intellect, which is imagination, differs
from the one which is content with logic, with patient
search, and with experiment. The former has the de
ductive brain of genius, the latter the inductive one of
science. But both employ more or less the methods of each
other.
There were men, who, like Copernicus, had given
the world a work on the revolutions of the heavenly
bodies, 1543. There were the discoveries of one Lipper-
shey, a Hollander, of the telescope, 1608. There were
men who, like Bruno and Galileo, were fixing men's
82 HAMLET; OR,
attention upon the grandeur of the universe, the insig
nificance of this- earth, and the falsity of the Geocentric
system.
All this must have found a place in Shakespeare's heart
and mind. A place of rejection or acceptation. A key to
the future and a contrast to the past, or a change in men's
habits of thought, which must mean something. Shake
speare must have made up his mind that man knew nothing,
or everything. The validity of innate ideas, or an d priori
and intuitive knowledge underlying our consciousness, must
have been questioned^ by him at a very early age. Every
where he was confronted by difference of opinion. The
watchword of the " World moves," was confronted by the
older tradition of the "World stands still." He must
have made up his mind to the fact that, either humanity
was in the earliest stage of its apprenticeship, or else that
it would never learn at all. We believe that figura
tively and scientifically he believed the former opinion,
that the world moves. In Hamlet we have the social
movement of man. A movement which must have found
its origin in the mind of Shakespeare, by means of some of
those questions which were showing the instability of human
belief.
We therefore believe that the prospects and state of
England with regard to the Continent during Shakespeare's
life were such as would induce him to believe that she
would in the future be the leader of science in Europe.
And the chief reason we have to assert for this assumption
is the political liberty she enjoyed. Bruno had found refuge
in England, where he lectured. Our Poet, of course, saw
science and all physical or philosophical investigations, as
they were then termed, would flourish alone in an atmo
sphere of liberty and freedom from restraint. The great
freedom of our great Queen's reign must have given our
Poet a reason for believing that England would be ahead
of all other nations in such liberty and in such freedom.
The development of our Constitution since Magna Charta,
the adoption of the comparatively free religion of Pro-
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 83
testantism, all tended to make that liberty peculiar to
England in the future. It was only natural then that
such a brain as our Poet's should from these and in
numerable other causes have forestalled the truth, and
made England the type of discovery in what is now
termed science.
"We have now to trace to the text some of the results
of the death of Polonius. One of these is the appear
ance of Fortinbras, with his forces, marching through
Denmark. Nothing has perplexed critics more than this
unexpected and apparently unconnected introduction of
Fortinbras. 1 Where does he come from? And whither is
he bound ? In the beginning of this work we had occasion
to refer to Fortinbras in the light of a chorus, Fortinbras
is the chorus of liberty. Everywhere repressed in the early
part of the tragedy, he has been in the background gain
ing and accumulating, inch by inch, forces, which now
appear as an army, to give Hamlet a new impetus and
fresh reaction. Therefore we have, after the conversation
of the Captain with Hamlet, one of those monologues which
are full of the contrast derived from resolution and irre
solution. These are, as we have often already observed,
the dramatic and artistic means by which Shakespeare
expresses the way in which Hamlet gains power and force.
Liberty acts upon Hamlet in a marvellous way. Therefore
Fortinbras, with his forces, sets Hamlet to work at self-
reproach and self- contrast. We have already traced a
similar result with regard to the speech of the first Player,
which we believe to be an appeal to the human heart from
growing knowledge. The appearance of Fortinbras is only
in harmony with the disappearance from the play of Yolti-
mand and Cornelius. The death of autocratic Polonius and
his gradual decay have still furthered his appearance.
Liberty is so indispensable to all progress, that if our Poet
1 This sudden appearance of Fortinbras is often omitted upon the stage, as
being out of harmony with the apparent unity of the tragedy !
84 HAMLET; OR,
had omitted this scene, we should have felt that the most
important element had been left out. The sudden appear
ance of Fortinbras is like a revelation, and he is wonderfully
expressed in a large army. Liberty is a force. Liberty is
concentrated individualism warring for self, and recognizing
the power of union. Thus the sudden appearance of
Fortinbras is brought in shortly after the death of Polonius.
Hamlet's banishment is the freedom of thought, which,
becoming relegated to particular channels, is in too crude
a state, and in too rude a relation to men's minds, to have
any outward effect as yet. Hamlet employs his freedom ; and
he works until he has escaped Rosencrantz andGuildenstern.
When they are dead, mankind are face to face with another
momentous epoch, and Hamlet is set naked in the kingdom.
Turning to the text, we find many expressions which give
us the key to the meaning of Fortinbras.
" Fort. Go, captain, from me greet the Danish king;
Tell him that, by his license, Fortinbras *
raves the conveyance of a promised march
Over his kingdom. You know the rendezvous.
If that his majesty would aught with us,
"We shall express our duty in his eye ;
And let him know so.'*
The word license is full of meaning. It is one allied to
liberty, and may signify the character of Fortinbras him
self, and the weakness of the King. Thus, the license of
liberty is expressive of its own progress. Or the license
of the King may mean the liberty extorted from him by
time. We must remember how Norway, at the request
of the King's ambassadors, Yoltimand and Cornelius,
rebukes Fortinbras for his preparations against the King.
This pictures an age of oppression and tyranny, of evil and
force, which strangles every abortive attempt of liberty.
But, nevertheless, by the demand of Norway for leave " to
give quiet pass" to Fortinbras through the King's do
minions, we infer that liberty is ostensibly checked, and
only gains ground in a wholly passive way. And we are
furthered in this opinion by the French name of Fortinbras,
85
and the French word rendezvous. 1 As in the case of Laertes,
France stands for liberty, for French leave and for free
dom. France as a word signifies freedom. We have ob
served before that the relation of Fortinbras to Norway
is of a similar nature to that of Hamlet and the King.
Both are nephews, and both are uncles. Does this not
suggest similarity in relationship of feeling and interests?
Therefore Norway should be allied with the King, and
Hamlet and Fortinbras to each other by community of
interests. We must infer Norway does his best to hamper
Fortinbras. The King gives no leave to the request of
Fortinbras for " quiet pass."
" Volt. That it might please you to give quiet pass
Through your dominions for this enterprise,
On such regards of safety and allowance
As therein are set down.
King. It likes us well ;
And at our more consider'd time we'll read,
Answer, and think upon this business."
Thus Shakespeare gives us no answer from the King that
may be considered decisive. We therefore conclude that
Fortinbras takes the French leave, so well in keeping with
his name force? The march of Fortinbras is probably
one which the King cannot possibly prevent.
Fortinbras is found in possession of the dramatic situation
at the end of the play. Hamlet gives him his dying voice.
Fortinbras comes from Poland. We believe Poland to be
the symbol for "many." Liberty can alone come from
the vox populi.
" Enter Hamlet, Rosencrantz, Guildenstern.
Ham. Good sir, whose powers are these ?
Cap. They are of Norway, sir.
Ham. How purposed, sir, I pray you ?
Cap. Against some part of Poland."
1 We suggest that Shakespeare has employed French words to hint the
character of Fortinbras and his mission.
2 The name Fortinbras, literally strong-in-arm, well expresses strength and
force.
86 HAMLET J OR,
Nothing would be, on this hypothesis of ours, clearer than the
above. The powers are here because of Norway, 1 and are only
necessary from the existence of that country. For the spirit
of liberty is only the antithesis of the spirit of bondage.
Again, nothing is plainer than that the spirit of liberty
has to fight against part of Poland. It is only at the end
that perfect liberty is summed up in the conquest of
Poland. Universal assent is not conflict. Our Poet has
well expressed his meaning in the words Poland, Polack,
and Pole.
" Ham. Goes it against the main of Poland, sir,
Or for some frontier ?
Cap. Truly to speak, and with no addition,
We go to gain a little patch of ground
That hath in it no profit hut the name.
To pay five ducats, five, I would not farm it;
Nor will it yield to Norway or the Pole
A ranker rate, should it he sold in fee.
Ham. Why, then the Polack never will defend it.
Cap. Yes, it is already garrison'd.
Ham. Two thousand souls and twenty thousand ducats
Will not debate the question of this straw :
This is the imposthume of much wealth and peace,
. That inward breaks, and shows no cause without
Why the man dies. I humbly thank you, sir,"
We are told already that Fortinbras is only going to march
against a part of Poland. And this part of Poland is the
Polack. This little patch of ground is one of those little
questions of liberty and right which are gained inch by
inch, and wrested by time from authority. It is the history
of progress, and thus the history of ever-gaining liberty.
"What is the history of England, but the defence and loss of
little patches of ground, which in time will make up the
whole sum of Poland ? It has no profit but the name. Yet
is it vigorously defended. And if it was sold in fee (a word
which belongs to Feudalism), it would lose nothing to
"Norway or the Pole." Hamlet is astonished it should be
1 Norway seems to represent autocratic force, and repression of liberty by its
means.
87
defended. And he says, "Two thousand souls and twenty
thousand ducats will not debate the question of this straw "
(union). The word debate gives us another clue. The
whole question is one of debate. And so have the liberties
of the English people been a question of debate. All this
Hamlet perceives is the direct heritage of wealth and peace,
which silently and peacefully, like a man with a secret and
internal disease, "shows no cause without why the man
dies." So slow and insidious is this march of Fortinbras,
that it shows no cause "outside" or "without," as it is
expressed. It is the silent revolution of opinion. The slow
march of liberty, which creeps almost imperceptibly along,
and kills its enemies by a subtle but certain poison. How
beautifully is all this expressed ! Now Hamlet tells Eosen-
crantz and Guildenstern to " go a little before." Our Poet
has meant all his soliloquies to be his own. They are the
utterances of untrammelled truth.
" Ham. How all occasions do inform against me,
And spur my dull revenge ! What is a man,
If his chief good and market of his time
Be hut to sleep and feed ? a heast, no more.
Sure, he that made us with such large discourse,
Looking hefore and after, gave us not
That capability and god-like reason
To fust in us unused. Now, whether it be
Bestial oblivion, or some craven scruple
Of thinking too precisely on the event,
A thought which, quarter'd, hath but one part wisdom
And ever three parts coward, I do not know
Why yet I live to say < This thing's to do ; '
Sith I have cause and will and strength and means
To do't. Examples gross as earth exhort me :
Witness this army of such mass and charge
Led by a delicate and tender prince,
Whose spirit with divine ambition puff 'd
Makes mouths at the invisible event,
Exposing what is mortal and unsure
To all that fortune, death and danger dare,
Even for an egg -shell. Rightly to be great
Is not to stir without great argument,
But greatly to find quarrel in a straw
When honour's at the stake. How stand I then,
That have a father kill'd, a mother stain'd,
Excitements of my reason and my blood,
And let all sleep ? while, to my shame, I see
88 HAMLET; OR,
The imminent death of twenty thousand men,
That, for a fantasy and trick of fame,
Go to their graves like beds, fight for a plot
Whereon the numbers cannot try the cause,
Which is not tomb enough and continent
To hide the slain ? 0, from this time forth,
My thoughts be bloody, or be nothing worth ! "
The recognition by Hamlet of the use of reason is an
epoch in the play. 1 Let it stand for itself, without further
comment. We would call attention to the word egg-shell.
The word yoke, so expressive of bondage, is by a play o'f
words (yolk) contained within an egg-shell. Fortinbras is
fighting to break the shell, and thus the yoke, so oppressive
to liberty. The last words of Hamlet are, "which is not
tomb enough and continent to hide the slain." This can
only be applicable to the everlasting conflict of the strong
and the weak. The cause for which this Prince, as Hamlet
calls him (thus identifying himself partially), fights, is one
eternal in a world, where every happiness depends upon
physical or mental force. The struggle for liberty (not
alone the liberty which we understand in this day) is at the
bottom of all human conflict. Money, means, power, are
only instruments of procuring for us greater liberty. The
struggle for liberty is the struggle of individualism against
social individualism, and that is too often tyranny over the
individual.
We remark the application of the word divine to
Fortinbras. Is not the struggle for liberty a divine prin
ciple ? Do we not desire in our earthly longing for a future
life to realize a divine liberty? In the early stage of
the tragedy we find Fortinbras making feeble and abortive
attempts with
" . . . . Here and there
Shark'd up a list of lawless resolutes,
For food and diet, to some enterprise
That hath a stomach in't ; which is no other
As it doth well appear unto our state."
1 It is through liberty that reason finds a fitting atmosphere to flourish in.
And Hamlet in using his reason silently escapes Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 89
We can understand the word lawless in all its meaning, as
regards these early and feeble attempts. What a vast
change has come over Fortinbras since these fiascos ! Now
he is a Prince, who, with a well-disciplined army, can
"express his duty" in the eye of the King. He can act
powerfully upon Hamlet. So immense is his influence upon
Hamlet all through the play, that we may fairly say, with
out his help, our hero would never return to Denmark.
Thus it is Fortinbras rises like a pyramid in the centre of
the drama, giving it force and giving direction, until his
triumphant entry, with drums sounding, at the conclusion
of the tragedy. 1
1 Let it be distinctly understood, Fortinbras is silently marching all through
the play with Hamlet. His sudden appearance illustrates this dramatically and
purposely.
90 HAMLET; OR,
CHAPTER III.
WE now leave Hamlet to the care of England and Fortin-
bras. And whilst his two enemies, Kosencrantz and
Guildenstern, are being slowly killed by England, we will
follow some of the legitimate consequences which follow the
death of Polonius.
The commencement of the fourth act shows us the sad
condition of Ophelia. The distinction between her madness
and that of Hamlet is very great. She is really mad. The
latter only appears to be insane. Ophelia is intended to
be understood as thoroughly insane. And what does in
sanity signify ? Want of coherence, want of reason, or
what we term loss of rationality. Thus the madness of
Ophelia represents her want of reason and coherence. The
Queen refuses to speak with her. But at the entreaty of
Horatio she overcomes her scruples. Ophelia x
" . . . . Speaks things in doubt,
That carry but half sense : her speech is nothing,
Yet the unshaped use of it doth move
The hearers to collection ; they aim at it,
And botch the words up Jit to their own thoughts.' 11
Does not the last line contain the principle upon which all
1 It is perhaps worth calling attention to a possible, but certainly far-fetched,
anagram upon Ophelia's name [HOPE (Ophe) I(n) A(fter) L(ife).]
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 91
dissent is based? Is not dissent the collection of "words
which, carry but half sense" to suit different types of
mind?
The death of Polonius has, of course, produced the in
sanity of Ophelia. Her foundations are sapped. She carries
but half sense. Nothing but the theological bias, as Mr.
Herbert Spencer might term it, keeps her from utter ruin.
And the Queen refuses to allow scepticism to enter her
mind at first. But time, with Horatio, who is the spirit of
earnestness and justice, brings Ophelia to the Queen. The
latter, be it remembered, is human belief. Ophelia is the
spirit of religion. She represents, in conformity to the
continuity of the play, the religious beliefs of the time.
And now, alas! they, are very sceptical. The Queen
seems quite reckless. She is not the Queen of the first
act. She has modified also her character with the de
velopment of the play. If the reader does not always
try and realize the parallelism of history, he will never
seize Hamlet.
" Queen. To my sick soul, as sin's true nature is,
Each toy seems prologue to some great amiss :
So full of artless jealousy is guilt,
It spills itself in fearing to be spilt."
We can grasp the state of the Queen's mind. It is im
pregnated with misgiving. Doubt follows doubt dramati
cally. The very act of not wishing to be made sceptical
brings a train of scepticism with it. The defence of a
daughter, whose father is always decaying, is full of danger.
The very defence exposes faults in her character.
Ophelia now enters with Horatio. The latter seems to be
looking after Ophelia. And here let it be remarked, Hamlet
effects little unless Horatio is with him. His exile is one
in which he is bereft of his friend.
The songs of Ophelia are full of the profoundest meaning.
They are different forms and stages of religious dissent, un
belief, and even materialism. Goethe has told us what her
chief song conveys. Doubt once entered can never depart
92 HAMLET; OR,
again. " Never departed more." The King has the per
spicacity to see it " springs all from her father's death."
" Oph. [Sings'] How should I your true love know
From another one ?
By his cockle hat and staff,
And his sandal shoon."
A cockle hat is a pilgrim's hat. Is Ophelia asking how one
faith is to be distinguished from another one? Is it, she
asks, hy ritual?
" Oph. Say you ? nay, pray you, mark.
[Sings] He is dead and gone, lady,
He is dead and gone ;
At his head a grass-green turf,
At his heels a stone.
Queen. Nay, but, Ophelia,
Oph. Pray you, mark.
[Sings] White his shroud as the mountain snow,
Enter King.
Queen. Alas, look here, my lord."
The whole of the above denotes controversy and difference of
opinion between Church and people. It is a divorcement
of beliefs. The Queen proves this in expostulating with
Ophelia. The last and next song of Ophelia is typical of
controversy over Polonius. He is authority and certainty.
It is polemical discussion over authority and certainty.
Ophelia shows great regret for her father. At the head of
Polonius, or in his place, everything is new, like green
grass. 1 Everything denotes hardness of belief stony
heartedness. Belief is growing very chilly and cold.
"White his shroud as the mountain snow." The coldness
and far-off effect of snowy mountains well represents the
increasing luke-warmness and the ever- increasing distance
of certainty and belief in tradition. The King now enters.
As scepticism, she says :
" Oph. "Well, God 'ild you! They say the owl was a baker's daughter. Lord,
we know what we are, but know not what we may be. God be at your table ! "
1 This seems to typify new thoughts and fresh ideas resulting from sceptici
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 93
In the last lines, " we know what we are, but know not
what we may be/' we read doubts as to the immortality of
the soul. The King says, " Conceit upon her father." The
question is one, indeed, of tradition ; and he may well call
it "conceit upon her father." The first two verses of the
song beginning "To-morrow is Saint Valentine's day"
signify increasing scepticism ; a scepticism which never
departs, but holds fast. They signify that once doubt has
entered, and that doubt religious doubt (or Ophelia), it
would never come out as it entered. Nothing less than
ruin is the result.
The next two verses are an apology for nature, and the
necessity of law. Can we therefore deduce our Poet's
meaning to be that increase of knowledge has been the
reason of the visit of scepticism ? The King appears to be
ignorant how long Ophelia has been in this state
" King. How long hath she been thus ?
Oph. I hope all will be well. "We must be patient : but I cannot choose but
weep, to think they should lay him i' the cold ground. My brother shall know of
it : and so I thank you for your good counsel. Come, my coach ! Good night,
ladies ; good night, sweet ladies; good night, good night."
In all the above criticisms upon Ophelia, convinced as we
are of Ophelia's identity with the state of religious belief
and feeling at successive epochs of history and of the play,
nevertheless in all these details we only venture to suggest to
the reader anything which may throw light upon the buds and
leaves of the play. Every word is the touch of a painter.
We may be sure no single epithet in Ophelia's lips is without
meaning. In her expression, " I hope all will be well. We
must be patient," we read hope for the future mixed with
misgiving; and in the next we read that there are many who
believe in either the virtue of time or the growth of other
violets. 1 Great regret over Polonius is a notable charac
teristic. Lingering looks, hopeless and despairing efforts to
bring him to life again. And the strong support of Laertes
Violets typify faith.
94 HAMLET ; OR,
in these efforts is relied upon. Thus we have a few hints
which are the history of an age in itself. An age which the
reader must parallel for himself.
Ophelia calls her coach. This word suggests her motion,
and how scepticism can never stand still, but is hurried
along in spite of itself. "Good night, ladies," which
Ophelia repeats so often, we read as, "Farewell, belief; fare
well, sweet belief; farewell, farewell! " "Women in this play,
of whom there are but two, seem both of the character of
belief.
For the first time we find the King now beginning to get
despondent. And can we wonder that his case begins to
look desperate ?
"King. Follow her close; give her good watch, I pray you.
0, this is the poison of deep grief; it springs
All from her father's death. Gertrude, Gertrude,
"When sorrows come, they come not single spies,
But in battalions. First, her father slain :
Next, your son gone ; and he most violent author
Of his own just remove : the people muddied,
Thick and unwholesome in their thoughts and whispers,
For good Polonius' death ; and we have done hut greenly,
In hugger-mugger to inter him : poor Ophelia
Divided from herself and her fair judgment,
Without the which we are pictures, or mere beasts :
Last, and as much containing as all these,
Her brother is in secret come from France ;
Feeds on his wonder, keeps himself in cloudSj
And wants not huzzers to infect his ear
"With pestilent speeches of his father's death ;
Wherein necessity, of matter heggar'd,
Will nothing stick our person to arraign
In ear and ear. my dear Gertrude, this,
Like to a murder ing -piece, in many places
Gives me superfluous death."
Nothing can excel the art, the truth, and the depth of
the above speech of the King. In it we read a summary of
the tragedy itself, as far as we have arrived. The re
cognition of the importance of Polonius by the King is
made manifest in every word. All these disasters are trace
able to his death. Sorrows are compared to spies. This
word suggests " errors," and we are thus told battalions
95
of spies are at the work of criticizing the King. The
people are muddied. This we understand as stirred up.
They are "thick and unwholesome in their thoughts and
whispers." The King regrets having buried Polonius so
quickly. Could he help it? Ophelia is divided from her
self. The Church is divided against itself. This is the result
of the death of Polonius. How well does our Poet express
his meaning when he points out the difference between man
and beast: "Without the which we are pictures, or mere
beasts. " The soul is the great distinction between man
and beast. Scepticism on this point reduces us to painted
pictures to mere beasts.
"We are told Laertes is come from France. The growth
of learning, the spread of the Arts and Sciences, are come
from freedom (France) ; and he, Laertes, " feeds on his
wonder,'* "keeps himself in clouds." Does the above want
any interpretation? The use of wonder need not be ex
patiated upon; we may say the same for its origin and
source knowledge. The whole phrase is a revelation in
itself.
"We must try and realize what Laertes has been about
since we last saw him depart into France. "We must bear
in mind he has been faithful to his father. He would not be
his father's son, indeed, if he were not. The return of Laertes
is like the return of Fortinbras dramatic. Goethe in his
novel has permitted every character to develope itself side by
side. But in a tragedy this was impossible. The exigencies
of effect necessitate only striking incidents. Action, and the
force of destiny in respect to man's action, is the character
of tragedy. A tame development, belonging to sentiments
and feeling alone, would not be in harmony with the
rugged outline of the tragic drama. We can only marvel
how Shakespeare has managed to express the interaction of
so many conflicting and developing forces. We see that,
being occupied with the centralization and prominence of
Prince Hamlet alone, a due subordination was to be given
to all minor characters. Hamlet and the King are therefore
the first two of importance. They are the lions. The rest
96 HAMLET; OR,
are merely the jackals. And our feelings are with Hamlet
of course. He is pictured as a noble Prince, full of truth,
goodness, and perfection, struggling against enormous odds.
The battle is not to the swift, nor to the strong. It is one of
time alone.
All those points which, being indispensable to the unity of
the play, would obtrude and crowd more important events,
are subordinated with marvellous skill.
Thus the introduction of Fortinbras gives us in a brief
scene the expression of liberty gaining ground and stimu
lating Hamlet. In like manner, the return of Laertes, in
the shape of revolution, is the epitomizing of the revolu
tionizing effect of the spread of learning. And it is made
to follow the death of Polonius, and more particularly the
madness of Ophelia. We do not believe anything further
is meant in this temporary insurrection than the general
revolutionary effects which education and the spread of it
must inevitably bring about. But if the reader must seek
an historical parallel, let him turn to the eighteenth century,
when he will find scepticism, and attacks upon the Church,
followed by revolution, and the enthronement of Eeason.
A reason well expressed in the words
" Laertes shall be king, Laertes king ! "
The death of Polonius has upset everything. Laertes
becomes a kind of Hamlet for a time. He is thrown off
his balance at the death of his father, and he seeks wildly
to find the King. But he has too strong a bias in him to
see things clearly, and he is soon enlisted once more on the
side of the King.
Let us once more re- assert, the King is a fiction. He
is only the symbol which- is dramatically necessary to re
present error in one character. The revolution of Laertes
is one then which is the direct result of a general upsetting
of principle. This revolution soon finds its equilibrium
again in an adjustment of the same parties in a more
modified form.
97
This revolution is the autocracy of opinion. For the first
time in the tragedy, we find a new power at work, and
brought into play. That is the power of party. The force
of collective humanity ; not a tyrannical Polonius, who
directs and spies into all things. Laertes is backed power
fully by Danes. And how entirely is the Polonius of early
times forgotten now ?
" Gent. Save yourself, ray lord :
The ocean, overpeering of his list,
Eats not the flats with more impetuous haste
Than young Laertes, in a riotous head,
O'erhears your officers. The rabble call him lord ;
And, as the world were now but to begin,
Antiquity forgot, custom not known,
The ratifiers and props of every word,
They cry ' Choose we : Laertes shall be king : '
Caps, hands, and tongues, applaud it to the clouds :
' Laertes shall be king, Laertes king ! ' " 1
" Antiquity forgot, custom not known." Polonius is
indeed forgotten, and he made a great error when he allowed
his son to go into France, for Laertes repudiates his own
father. Not dramatically, but he does so symbolically. He
asks for his father. He himself has been instrumental in his
death. But he is too blind to see this. He can see the past
is full of error, but the present is too close to him for self-
criticism.
This revolution of Laertes is a momentous epoch in the
play. It will take the events of the future out of the hands
of chance and stagnancy, and will hurry them into equi
librium. The death of Polonius, in the true sense, is
one of those historical epochs which cannot be exactly laid
upon with the finger, and said to be in such and such a
place. "We might point to a period, we might fix upon an
act, such as the act of toleration and of liberty of conscience.
But this will not embody the death of Polonius. It is a
gradual process. A process contained alone in a voluminous
1 There is no doubt that Shakespeare signifies in this passage a complete revo
lution of thought.
7
98 HAMLET ; OR,
work. One which shows the death of the protective spirit.
And one which is like the late Mr. Buckle's "History of
Civilization," exhaustive as far as it goes. So, in like
manner, it would be idleness to parallel the revolution of
Laertes with any particular revolution. It is the revolution
of thought, consequent upon the spread of knowledge, and
as such we prefer to leave it to other critics to embody in
more concrete forms. The student of the Philosophy of
History will allow this alone : that Shakespeare has shown
marvellous prescience in placing the revolution of Laertes
after the madness of Ophelia, and as one of the results of
the death of Polonius. For religion has always been the
chief and the main support of authority. We are but now
approaching an age when such a divorcement may be ex
perimented upon. Our Poet has also done well in identify
ing education and the spread of knowledge with the decay of
Polonius. For it is alone through authority and the forms
of tradition that knowledge has been prevented from spread
ing and percolating down into the lowest strata of life. The
seats of all learning have been under the control of Polonius.
The spread of all learning has been dependent upon the
weakening of Polonius. Therefore to bring revolution in
after a lapse of the decay of that power, in the shape of
a modified form of that power, is the work of a genius alone.
We need not linger upon the form which knowledge takes
under the leadership of Laertes. We have remarked over
and over again, he is the true scion of Polonius, and of
course will be faithful to his principles and the King. We
now turn to Ophelia again. In this re-introduction of this
insane girl, we have an explanation of the form she takes
with regard to her brother's return and to the popular will.
Her scepticism acts powerfully upon Laertes. Allied as he
is by ties of blood and of tradition, he is bound to combat
every stage of her dementia, and to fight to the death the
cause of it. 1 This, of course, is Hamlet. Laertes believes
1 The alliance of Ophelia and Laertes is not inaptly paralleled in Church and
State.
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 99
himself in the right. He has^a cause of his own, a losing
game, as the end shows, but no less a duty, and no less
a real and thorough one. Laertes differs from his father in
this: whereas the former was bigoted, conceited, cunning,
and more in earnest about his own interests and those of
the King than about Truth ; Laertes is in earnest, and is
more or less thorough. This is why Hamlet says to Horatio:
" But I am very sorry, good Horatio,
That to Laertes I forgot myself ;
For, by the image of my cause, I see
The portraiture of his: I'll court his favours."
The cause of Laertes is to avenge a father he believes
foully murdered. The cause of Hamlet is to vindicate, and
even justify that murder. Hamlet has every intention of
" courting the favours " of Laertes.
The words of Ophelia are
[Sings] " You must sing a-down a-down,
An you call him a-down-a.
0, how the wheel becomes it ! It is the false steward, that stole his master's
daughter."
The above seems plain enough. Our Poet would signify
how fiercely the fight is carried on over the decaying body
and thus lasting power of Polonius. He will last a long
time still. Nothing is so long in dying as the traditions and
policy of centuries. They are, as Mr. Herbert Spencer might
explain to us, welded into the organism. The forms of bias
are not only inherited, but have been first made. Nothing
is so strong as long- established pressure in belief. The refer
ence to the wheel suggests every side up at once. It re
presents revolution, many-sided opinion. "What expresses
revolution better than a wheel? Is not the former name
coined from the latter ?
It is the false steward that stole his master's daughter.
This is plain infidelity. An infidelity that has abused the
trust it has so long kept intact. Laertes replies
" This nothing's more than matter."
The above is difficult and incoherent. It is no apparent
100 HAMLET ; OR,
answer. It may suggest materialism. Or it may suggest
the conflict between materialism and spiritualism.
Laertes says the madness of Ophelia shall be paid in
weight until
u One scale turn the beam."
We see how divided society is by this expression. One
which shows the preponderance of Laertes.
" Oph. There's rosemary, that's for remembrance; pray, love^ remember: and
there is pansies, that's for thoughts.
Laer. A document in madness, thoughts and remembrance fitted."
The above, we take it, signifies the effect of the Church upon
Laertes. He is to remember his parentage. And he is to
fit his thoughts to that remembrance. Religion is thus
standing, with Laertes still as her support. Appeal to the
past theological controversy supported by Laertes, and vice
versa, is thus implied. We interpret the whole of these
esoteric speeches of Ophelia's to mean different stages in
the conflict between scepticism and orthodoxy. In it are con
tained every manner of opinion which such a conflict would
bring about. Is not Laertes, at the present stage of the
drama, all remembrance of his father? And his mode of
thinking is fitted to his mode of remembrance. He is
orthodox, and fights for the Church. He is thus orthodox
literature, defence of orthodoxy, etc. And his love for
Ophelia, and the alarm he feels for her state, makes him
more in earnest against the cause of this state.
" Oph. There's fennel for you, and columbines : there's rue for you; and here's
some for me : we may call it herb-grace o' Sundays : 0, you must wear your rue
with a difference. There's a daisy : I would give you some violets, but they
withered ail when my father died : they say he made a good end,
[Sings] For bonny sweet Robin is all my joy."
Fennel signifies strength, worthy all praise.
Columbine, folly (plain).
Columbine, resolve to win.
Columbine (red), anxious and trembling.
Daisy, innocence.
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 101
Daisy, I share your sentiments.
Daisy, farewell.
Daisy, I'll think of you.
Rue, disdain.
Violets, faith and faithfulness. 1
Now we are greatly perplexed in the choice of which
signification we are to apply in the multiplied meanings of
some of the same name-bearing flowers. Rue admits of no
ambiguity. Ophelia will have to suffer disdain, and so will
Laertes. Contempt is current of Ophelia, and also for Laertes.
But on Sunday there is a reprisal. An outward attendance
which may well be called " herb-grace o' Sundays." By
a daisy Ophelia perhaps signifies that Laertes and herself
share the same sentiments. She cannot give him any
violets. Faith, so well thus expressed, withered when Polo-
nius died. There is strength for Laertes, which is worthy
all praise. An essay might be written on the above passages
alone. Nay, a work a great work ; for it is the history of
the rise and progress of rationalism in Europe. In the
words
" For bonny sweet Robin is all my joy "
we might venture to suggest many ideas it gives rise to ;
but we prefer to leave it as it stands. 2 We will only remark
as a hint that the robin is a bird connected by vulgar
superstition with the Crucifixion, where a drop of blood is
supposed to have stained its chest. Hence its general
immunity, in comparison with the safety of other small
birds. The last song of Ophelia is full of import :
" And will he not come again ?
And will he not come again ?
No, no, he is dead :
Go to thy death-bed :
He never will come again.
1 We insert here a few of the significations of flowers as mere suggestions.
2 The reader is begged to remember we deprecate anything further than
suggestion.
102 HAMLET; OR,
His beard was as white as snow,
All flaxen was his poll :
He is gone, he is gone,
And we cast away moan :
God ha' mercy on his soul ! "
Here we have the continued appeal to the question of
certainty, as contained in tradition. And the result is
certainty will never come again. It is the expression of
the realization of the end of all certainty, upon religious
questions, which we find in this last song of Ophelia. It
is the finale of her madness. Nay, we are given to under
stand, reconcilement is found to this death of certainty.
For she says :
"He is gone, he is gone,
And we cast away moan :
God ha' mercy on his soul \ "
And in the last words which we ever hear Ophelia speak we
have this addendum
" And of all Christian souls, I pray God. God be wi' ye."
Mere hope and speculation is here expressed. The whole
song is one which implies the death and disappearance
of certainty and tradition for ever. When we meet
Ophelia again, a long period may have elapsed since the
point we are concerned with now has passed. So we must
understand how thoroughly our Poet grasped the slow evolu
tion and progress of thought, and how tenaciously Laertes
and Ophelia would stand by each other, and fight out every
inch of ground of her madness.
We now return to Hamlet once more. The first intima
tion we have of him is through Horatio. And he gains his
tidings of our hero through the instrumentation of sailors.
We are sorely puzzled to find an expression for them.
" Hor. I do not know from what part of the world
I should be greeted, if not from Lord Hamlet."
We have hitherto considered Horatio, from all we could
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 103
gather, as the spirit of justice and scholarship, who is part
of Hamlet, or the spirit of truth-seeking. We find him
for a time absent from his friend ; and it is during this
period that our hero, though silently accumulating fresh
force, which will presently show itself dramatically, is
absent also from the dramatic action of the play. Hamlet,
it must be remarked, never reaches England.
And in this we notice again our Poet's profundity. To
England is left the mere work of killing Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern. The banishment of Hamlet is probably meant
as a relegation of truth- seeking to specific branches of in
quiry alone. His absence from the play is the separation of
these specific lines of thought, from any great work, with
Horatio. We mean any historical crisis, as comprehended in
an artistic sense. No doubt Hamlet has everything to do
with the madness of Ophelia. But our Poet has not thought
fit to dwell upon it. It is implied in Hamlet's forsaking that
unfortunate lady ; and it is implied in the death of Polonius.
Now after the madness of Ophelia, we feel the necessity of
the presence, in a dramatic sense, of Hamlet once more. The
sea adventures of Hamlet are, in our mind, expressive of that
pause, of that reaction and misgiving, which separates an
age of certainty from an age of doubt. Hamlet is literally
and truly at sea. And we shall have cause to find, further
on, great probability of this being the truth. The Pirate
who captures Hamlet, and thus saves his life, may be Dis
covery. That discovery may necessitate the assistance of
Horatio. And a crisis may return the banished Hamlet
as naked for the first time. The reader may naturally
ask, why Hamlet does not proceed to England, find some
mode of killing Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, and then,
having enlisted England upon his side, return with an army
to Denmark? But we have not reached a point advanced
enough for this. England is as yet far too young and too
weak to venture openly against the King. Besides, our Poet
leaves England only to come in as a power at the end of the
play. The whole being the apprenticeship of man, and not
his travels, would be spoilt by making England too auto-
104 HAMLET ; OR,
cratic, and allied too soon to Hamlet. 1 Sufficient that Eng
land kills slowly Eosencrantz and Guildenstern. In this
she plays an important part on Hamlet's side. She does him
the best service she possibly can. And his escape from the
two courtiers may be expressed well by the boldness of a
Pirate. A pirate is lawless and undaunted. Therefore
Hamlet, by the force of genius and of discovery, may be
returned naked to Denmark
" Hor. [Reads] Horatio, when thou shalt have overlooked this, give these
fellows some means to the king : they have letters for him. Ere we were two
days old at sea, a pirate of very warlike appointment gave us chase. Finding
ourselves too slow of sail, we put on a compelled valour, and in the grapple I
hoarded them : on the instant they got clear of our ship ; so I alone became their
prisoner. They have dealt with me like thieves of mercy : hut they knew what
they did ; I am to do a good turn for them. Let the king have the letters I have
sent ; and repair thou to me with as much speed as thou wouldst fly death. I have
words to speak in thine ear will make thee dumb ; yet are they much too light
for the bore of the matter. These good fellows will bring thee where I am.
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern hold their course for England : of them I have
much to tell thee. Farewell.
He that thou knowest thine, HAMLET."
We are dealing with a text which bears directly upon the
escape of Hamlet from the two courtiers. And Horatio is
the first to hear of it, and to repair to him. It is through
Horatio the King receives the letter of Hamlet. It is only
through Horatio that Truth is once more in the ascendant.
And that Truth itself has first to react upon the spirit of
justice, of earnestness, and inquiry. The King soon hears
of it.
The sailors are truths themselves. They are the advanced
guards of Hamlet. And they soon carry Hamlet's letter to
the King.
This letter we have already commented upon. It is
a dramatic and artistic signification of the bare truth, and
1 Goethe, in his novel, says : " All these circumstances and events (alluding
amongst others to the despatch of Hamlet into England, his capture by pirates,
the death of the two courtiers by the letter which they carry, etc.) would be very
fit for expanding and lengthening a novel ; but here they injure excessively the
unity of the piece, particularly as the hero has no plan, and are in consequence
entirely out of place."
105
nothing but the truth. The reader will understand us.
The spirit of truth-seeking has thrown off its shackles. It
is openly above board; it is direct to its point. It has
neither equivocation nor shadow of turning. In freeing
itself, it has confined the King. In proportion as the King
is weakened, so Hamlet is strengthened. And this is the
structure of the whole tragedy.
Hamlet has but one opponent now. That is Laertes.
The King is contained in Laertes, and the latter in the
former. And Hamlet knows it too. The King and Queen
are belief in error and error in belief. They are fictions.
" King. . . . The queen his mother
Lives almost by his looks ; and for myself
My virtue or my plague, be it either which
She's so conjunctive to my life and soul,
That, as the star moves not but in his sphere,
I could not but by her."
Thus we understand the relation of the King and Queen.
They are one. They may both die, and yet we shall find
no contradiction nor difficulty.
Now we must ask ourselves what is this union of Laertes
and the King ? We believe it to be the union of literature,
and thus learning, against Hamlet. It is a union which has
probably either a false method or a false criterion of things.
To define it were absurd. We would call the reader's
attention to the Norman, who makes such masterly report of
Laertes. This Lamond we identify with Lamonde, or the
world. Presently we shall find him to be identical with Osric.
" Laer. Know you the hand ?
King. 'Tis Hamlet's character. ' Naked ! '
And in a postscript here, he says ' alone.'
Can you advise me ? "
The King, we see, relies upon Laertes. He asks him for his
advice. And the answer of Laertes is full of point :
" Pm lost in it, my lord. But let him come ;
It warms the very sickness in my heart,
That I shall live and tell him to his teeth,
'Thusdidest thou.'"
106 HAMLET J OR,
Laertes is naturally much stirred up at the advent of a
naked Hamlet. All his father's blood is roused in him.
He is indeed buried or lost in it. We shall now find out
what accomplishments Laertes has been acquiring since his
travels. Those are
" For art and exercise in your defence."
Thus we see Laertes is full of defence. His position is one
that is passive. He defends: Hamlet attacks. How per
fectly is the whole continuity of the tragedy expressed in
the following extract :
" King. Not that I think you did not love your father ;
But that I Mow love is begun by time ;
And that I see, in passages of proof,
Time qualifies the spark and fire of it.
There lives within the very flame of love
A kind of wick or snuff 1 that will ahate it ; l
And nothing is at a like goodness still ;
For goodness, growing to a pleurisy,
Dies in his own too much : that we would do,
"We should do when we would ; for this ' would ' changes
And hath abatements and delays as many
As there are tongues, are hands, are accidents ;
And then this 'should' is like a spendthrift sigh,
That hurts by easing. But, to the quick o' the ulcer :
Hamlet comes back : what would you undertake,
To show yourself your father's son in deed
More than in words ?
Laer, To cut his throat i' the church."
In the appeal of the King to Laertes we have the
words, "your father's son." In this expression the reader
needs no further explanation concerning Laertes. He
sees he is a modified Polonius, allied to the King by
identity of interest and historical association. "We would
call attention to the metaphysical nature of the King's
speech. It is almost a psychological one. It is profound,
and putting aside all reference to our subject, shows
clearly how Shakespeare recognized the nature of law in
the human mind. We see he recognizes that the wish
1 The whole of this passage, and this line in particular, seems to indicate
modification of the principles of Polonius.
107
to do a thing changes, and is not dependent on ourselves.
And the power of doing it depends upon the wish to do a
thing. Therefore the power of doing anything (volition) is
a thing which is the result of something we mistake for
originality. We mistake the consciousness of consciousness,
to be not alone a symbol of consciousness, but an entity, by
which we fancy we have some occult power. What we wish
we think. But that very wish is under law, and is the result
of antecedents; but as the symbol of self-consciousness ac
companies all thought, we labour under the pleasing delusion
of separating effect into cause, the knowledge of thought
into will or the resultant of thought. 1
To return to the play. The King clearly recognizes the
great change which has been effected in things. He dreads its
effect also in changing Laertes any farther than he has already.
His speech is a conservative re -action. It is alarm at the
already rapid change, and self-argument, and self-reproach,
to excite himself and Laertes against any further innovation.
The Queen now comes in to inform the King and Laertes
of the death of Ophelia. There is a continuity of Ophelia
as in Polonius. We can never say when they either exactly
die. Their influence is so indefinite, and both will have
adherents to such a length of time, that to bury them
straight off is an error of the grossest kind. We must
therefore temper the wind to the shorn lamb.
" Queen. One woe doth tread upon another's heel,
So fast they follow : your sister's drown'd, Laertes.
Laer. Drown'd ! 0, where ?
Queen. There is a willow grows aslant a brook,
That shows his hoar leaves in the glassy stream ;
There with fantastic garlands did she come
Of crow-flowers, nettles, daisies, and long purples
That liberal shepherds give a grosser name,
But our cold maids do dead men's fingers call them :
There, on the pendent boughs her coronet weeds
Clambering to hang, an envious sliver broke ;
1 It is perhaps worth suggesting that this dualism we all feel is due perhaps to
the successive character of thought. We cannot criticize a present thought, only
a past one.
108 HAMLET ; OR,
When down her weedy trophies and herself
Fell in the weeping brook. Her clothes spread wide ;
And, mermaid-like, awhile they hore her up ;
Which time she chanted snatches of old tunes ;
As one incapable of her own distress,
Or like a creature native and indued
Unto that element : but long it could not be,
Till that her garments, heavy with their drink,
Pull'd the poor wretch from her melodious lay
To muddy death."
We are about to examine our crucial test of the text in
relation to Ophelia. If we cannot rationalize this excerpt,
all we have done goes for nothing.
To begin. The willow, and in this case the water- willow,
signifies freedom and liberty. Running water is significant
of instability "unstable as water." The two together ^
namely, willow, which grows aslant, and the brook, are
the freedom and liberty of progress, and vice versa. Ophelia
expressed a state of sad scepticism, incoherence, and divi
sion from herself, prior to her death. Nothing is more
natural than that these signs of the times should be the
result of willow and water. And, of course, they in
crease. It is natural she should make fantastic garlands.
"We have met her before with straws (unions), as dissent
and church associations, and flowers in her hair. She is, in
fact, full of sentiment. We have her now hanging these
fantastic garlands upon the tree of liberty. But the tree
of liberty has its foundations laid over a brook. Of course
this is an insecure spot to hang garlands upon. What are
her garlands made of? "Long stings of conscience,"
which others laugh at. Long pricks of remorse, which are
laughed at by cold maids as the effect of the impress of
things with no longer any life in them. Nettles are slander,
in concert or union. The crow-flower may be the crow's-foot.
If so, it is "Justice shall be done." Daisies are "Farewell,"
or "Sharing of sentiments." The application of these senti
ments is of course left to the reader's choice. Climbing to
hang this fantastic garland, the tree of liberty breaks, and
casts her into the brook. Change is thus typified in this fall.
Her " weedy trophies " are thus cast into the brook. And
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 109
though her clothes keep Ophelia afloat for a time, and though
she chants snatches of old songs, nevertheless she is finally
drowned. How beautifully is all this rendered by our Poet.
The snatches of old songs are expressive of a still lingering
but expiring ritual and faith. The expression " muddy
death" is full of truth. Every thing stirred up from the very
bottom, or foundations, is thus well rendered. Laertes says :
" Too much of water hast thou, poor Ophelia."
He means that constant change of opinion, many diversities
of thought, have divided the house against itself. A remark
which is very applicable indeed to the present day. The
dramatic death of Ophelia, like the dramatic death of
Polonius, is not, however, her end. Ever bearing in mind
that continuity, which we are always insisting upon, we find
even after her death and burial the King saying :
" This grave shall have a living monument."
Even over the grave of Ophelia the fiercest fight is waged
between Hamlet and Laertes.
And now we may perhaps be allowed to look back and
see what the four acts have done for our hypothesis, and
whether there is any contradiction which, meeting us,
may be finally reconciled. We will therefore take the play
in a pure relation of action, and of action in its relation to
cause and effect alone. And we shall refrain from in any
way making allusion to history. Let us suppose our Poet
to have contemplated the construction of a tragedy, which
was to form the subject of the conflict of Truth and Error.
We might almost not be going too far to say Good and Evil,
so far as results are concerned. For Hamlet gives us the
impression of goodness. And the King gives us the
opposite one of evil. The result of the tragedy ia such a
case might seem pessimistic. One in which destiny or fate
overwhelmed good and evil indiscriminately. But we hope
to clear this up by and by, and show how purely optimistic
the whole tragedy is in its conclusion.
Shakespeare contemplating his idea of the conflict of
HO HAMLET J OR,
humanity, would first embody two characters to represent
the two ideas of Truth and Error in totality. All the rest
would be but so many followers, so many qualities, of these
two central figures. The latter must be in importance before
their inferiors. Therefore the one in possession has been
made a King, the one out of possession a Prince. He had to
make the relative importance of each character in harmony
with their order of time and their order of importance to
the central figure to which they belonged. Thus Hamlet
is the central figure on the side of truth. He is contained
by all his adherents. On the other side, we have the King,
who, being in possession, is wedded to human belief the
Queen. In the next order -of relative importance to the
King comes Polonius, who contains Ophelia and Laertes.
After Polonius, Yoltimand and Cornelius ; next Rosencrantz
and Guildenstern ; and lastly Osric. All these characters
would have to be more or less moulded, so as to suit the
continuity of the action of the drama. And nothing could
have been more admirable than to make Truth a Prince and
a rightful heir to the throne, which is in possession of error
and injustice. But here must have arrived a difficulty.
How express the error of the King ? How express his
wrongful possession ? And how express Hamlet's right to
the throne ?
It is easy to reply, as we have the play before us. Simply,
our Poet made the King the perpetrator of a great crime.
In this is his evil nature. That crime is only unfolded by
time and by the detectives who set to work to scent it out.
And it added no little to the impressiveness of the play, and
to its ingenuity of construction, to make the murdered man,
as a Ghost, participate in the discovery ! And here was a
grand union possible. The father of truth is doubt. Error
had murdered doubt, by certainty of belief, by union with
custom ; whilst doubt was still asleep in the minds of men.
Thus we have a magnificent conception already laid down
in its skeleton form. But Hamlet is the son of doubt, and
by that claim has a just right to the usurped throne. The
discovery of this right, and the struggle to put it in force,
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. Ill
is the action of the tragedy. So far so good. But how
is Hamlet to prove, dramatically, the King's guilt? By
an introduction alone of the revelations of doubts, contrasted
face to face with guilt. To show how the crime of the
King had been committed, was to show error its own face,
to expose it, and to show how it became error. In a mind
like Shakespeare's the rest of the work was easy. To make
support after support of the King fall before Hamlet, and
to make Hamlet proportionally stronger, was indispensable.
To make the groundwork one of time was also necessary of
course. And to work the interest up to the point of dis
covery was dramatically necessary. After this the final
catastrophe is brought bit by bit nearer and nearer. The
play is so built upon the interdependence of antecedent
and consequent, so under law, that it cannot fail to represent
history, if the action is only considered. We see why
Laertes and Ophelia are made the children of Polonius.
We see that they depend upon him entirely. They take
their very roots from out of him. And we see the absolute
necessity of it being so. An able lawyer could make a case
of Hamlet, which would defy contradiction. The action,
the text, the succession, and the continuity, are so inter
woven as to make anything of it but a philosophy of history
an absolute impossibility.
The first act would necessarily be one in which the first
rumours of a suspicious nature are made the subject of the
opening scene. Doubt upon doubt, by means of those to
whom doubt is accessible, go towards making a Hamlet.
The second act would be an assemblage of all those
scenes, which make the presence of a Hamlet and his
suspicions uncomfortable to the King, through his repre
sentatives. Polonius is reached through Ophelia. The
King through Polonius. The natures of the King's re
presentatives are examined by Hamlet. They grow more
and more offended at this scrutiny. They are gradually
recognized by Hamlet. At this juncture, the means by
which Hamlet may show error its own face, and how it
became so, is furnished by the arrival of certain Players.
112 HAMLET; OR,
These Players are prompted by Hamlet. The result is a
scene in which truth recognizes and exposes the usurpation
and crime of the King.
After this there is no further fencing. All is open war
fare. As if by accident, the first bulwark of the King dies.
His death is made the opportunity of a division in the
King's camp. For the Queen is able to listen to Hamlet's
discourse touching the character of her husband. The'
result of the death of the King's right-hand man is a great
change in the character of that right-hand man's- daughter.
And, lastly, Hamlet is so dangerous that all prudent people
think his banishment an indispensable thing. But another
result of the death of Polonius is the return of his son, to
avenge his father's death. In this way our Poet has con
tinued Polonius in his son. This son is a party, a very
large party, allied by ties of blood to Ophelia, and bound
to remain by his parent. Hamlet all this time has been
steadily working, and at last succeeds in getting rid of
another two of the King's supports. He returns, strange
to say, alone, yet stronger naked than when clothed. So
dangerous is he in this nude state, that the King and Laertes
plan together to oppose him by fraud and trickery. Here
we have arrived at the end of the fourth act. At this point
we have dissension and scepticism in Church matters or
religion, dissent, general unbelief, contained in the death of
Ophelia.
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 113
CHAPTER IV.
WE are now at the most interesting part of the tragedy.
We are about to discuss the famous churchyard scene.
A scene so pathetic, so touching, and so solemnly striking,
that we feel at once it is unparalleled in all literature. It has
formed, indeed, a literature of its own. We feel how sublime,
how magnificent, is this contrast of life and death. How
deep, how profoundly inquisitive the mind which conceived
it ! Life and death are well contrasted by the light and
shade of the clowns and death. It is painted by one who
loved effect, yet knew how to deepen the tones, and blend
the whole into an exquisite unity. But with all this we
have nothing to do; we are architects who seek the prin
ciples of construction, the relation of architecture to thought,
and we pass on with the knife of a dissector to the heart
of the structure. Whatever we suggest here, as hypo
thesis of the meaning of this scene, is our own, and ours
alone. We claim it particularly as a discovery. Goethe
has nothing to say of it. Valuable even as the Wilhelm
Meister's apprenticeship is to those who have already solved
Hamlet for themselves, it contains nothing about this
famous scene. At any rate we have no hint, 110 clue.
If contained, it is part of the story, part of that detail
which is found in Goethe's novel, not in Hamlet. And
now, what is Goethe's novel? It would not be inappro
priate to say here a few words concerning it. It is the
apprenticeship of humanity in life and their travels. That
H4 HAMLET ; OR,
is to say, the first part is the development of Hamlet in
detail, often by means of Hamlet. The travels take up
tlie story where Hamlet leaves off. Goethe, of course,
plagiarized from Hamlet. He felt most likely he would
further his own genius and his fame better by a work of
art, than by plain exegesis of Hamlet. Exactitude is
required in the latter. Obscurity of vision may be sup
plemented by obscurity, or originality. And it was a
grand conception to astonish futurity, first by an explana
tion of our Poet's spiritual unity, and secondly by a
philosophy of progress and history of his own upon the same
subject. Thus the two are blended Hamlet and man's
travels. The novel is Goethe's prose conception of Shake
speare's Hamlet, and of a Hamlet of his own. How much
is Shakespeare's is of course contained in the whole idea.
But how much is in accordance with Hamlet, and how
much out of accordance, is another thing. Perhaps,
first, we must firmly decide in our own minds what Hamlet
exactly realizes. And that we believe posterity will not find
a difficult task. A knowledge of Goethe's novel, Wilhelm
Meister, will not assist much to the solution of Hamlet.
Witness in proof of this, that even the Germans have not
given us a solution of Hamlet. Dr. Gervinus says the
whole of Hamlet has been treated exhaustively by Goethe.
Has it, we ask? And if so, where is the key to Goethe's
novel ? In England it is amusing to hear and read the
everlasting quotation from Goethe about Hamlet, in order
to explain his irresolution: "Here is an oak planted in a
vase, its roots strike out and expand. The vase flies to
pieces," etc. This is all that is ever gathered from Goethe.
Of course we see what Goethe meant. The expansion of
Hamlet is an expansion which bursts the vase, made of
King and company, to atoms. But it is not explained in
this light by the general run of critics. Hamlet is constitu
tional history.
Hitherto we have assumed a deduction of our own. Then
we have endeavoured to substantiate by induction, as far as
induction can be wedded to the text and to its connexion.
, SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 115
Our deduction is boldly the following. The whole of this
churchyard scene is a condensed chorus of time. Time and
Progress, as cloivns, epitomize much of that revolution which
would interfere with the dramatic limits of the tragedy, if
carried into actual detail. What do we mean ? the reader
asks. We reply that Shakespeare has given us, in this
churchyard scene, a continuation of the action of the drama
as hitherto. The difference is, however, great, with one
clown as Time and the other as Progress, a number of
skulls can be dug up in a shorter period than if carried on
as hitherto.
Time and Progress root up old institutions, and dig graves
for existing ones. Hamlet and Horatio soliloquize over this
strange scene.
Does the reader follow us? If he sees our drift, does he
believe it? No we answer for him. But we are never
theless ready to stake everything upon the truth of this
hypothesis.
Let us review some of the facts which make such an idea
defensible. Hamlet having come back to Denmark naked,
and having no opponent but Laertes, and his mad or dying
sister, has things very much his own way. Not entirely,
but of course the result must be one implying considerable
reform and rearrangement in the institutions, opinions, and
relations of men. Accompanied by Horatio, he would, of
course, be at one with Laertes upon all but fundamental
points. Those points being the character and sentiments
of Polonius. There would be a sameness in all these re
forms, and a tameness not indispensable to dramatic time
and effect. But they must be represented in some manner.
This scene is the short and striking way our great Shake
speare has solved the problem. Let us examine the
nhfljflp.tera firaf. pf the downs. They are metaphysical.
argumentative, and satirical. It has been__jgell _ said ,
" nothing__ki!lsJLike ridicule." ._. DiHnnsginn J gafir^ and phi
losophy, working by Time, are represented in these two
clowns. We briefly call one ProgresSj^muL tho other
TimeT They are burying Ophelia. That is, Christianity
116 HAMLET ; OR,
is slowly being sapped and put to bed by these jovial gentle
men. 1
The first discussion is about Ophelia.
" Is she to be buried in Christian burial that wilfully seeks her own
salvation ? "
And the answer from Time is
" She is The crowner hath sat on her, and finds it Christian burial."
The repetition of "Christian burial" leaves us no doubt,
when taken in connexion with Ophelia. 8 The death of
Ophelia may have meant a stage alone in the decay of the
Church. It may have meant decadence and disestablishment,
perhaps more we will not venture to say. But now we
have no equivocation. Our Poet has occupied so much time
with the madness, death, burial and end of Ophelia, that we
feel sure he realized the prominence, the length of time,
and the slowness of the events which lead to her end and
burial.
The above quotation seems to us the following : I tell thee
she > is, therefore make her grave immediately ; the owners
(crowner) have sat on her, and find it her end.
" First Clo. How can that be, unless she drowned herself in her own defence ?
Sec. Clo. Why, 'tis found so."
This is exactly the case. Ophelia has drowned herself in
her own defence, and "'tis found so." In the constant
change accomplished in the act of drowning, Ophelia has
destroyed herself.
" First Clo. It must be ' se offendendo.' "
In this we read, It must be the end end of it.
1 We have no hesitation in asserting that the proofs of this are beyond dispu
tation. Goethe has identified Ophelia with Aurelia, and the latter is the Church.
2 We can realize the profound art of Shakespeare in thus obscurely discussing
his meaning by means of a question of suicide.
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 117
The metaphysical discussions which follow show the
philosophical and dialectic nature of the age. Indeed,
Hamlet says :
" We must speak by the card, or equivocation will undo us. By
the Lord, Horatio, these three years I have taken a note of it ; the age is grown
so picked that the toe of the peasant comes so near the heel of the courtier, he
galls his kibe."
We understand what this means. Rosencrantz and Guild-
enstern are dying all this time. It is an age of rigor
ous logic, of exactitude, of minute search, and of less and
less trifling with words, and of a closer application of their
meaning to facts, to induction, to cause and effect.
" First Clo. For here lies the point : if I drown myself wittingly, it argues an
act : and an act hath three branches ; it is, to act, to do, to perform : argal, she
drowned herself wittingly.
Sec. Clo. Nay, but hear you, goodman delver,
First Clo. Give me leave. Here lies the water; good: here stands the man ;
good : if the man go to this water, and drown himself, it is, will he, nill he, he
goes, mark you that ; but if the water come to him and drown him, he drowns
not himself: argal, he that is not guilty of his own death shortens not his own
life."
The above, in our opinion, is a discussion over the nature
of will and law of necessity and free will. It is a dis
cussion over time and the gradual recognition of law in the
mind of man. Farias the Clown says, here lies the point,
or as we read it, here is the contradiction does man go
to change, or~does change come to him ? An act is to do
and to perform. Therefore Ophelia drowned herself wit
tingly or consciously. She did it spontaneously. This
(mark) is tjie^rsl^de^i8Jon_of_thej^lown. But a little later
he has blended the contradiction into the following.
Change is contradictory. If man changes his opinion,
it is because he cannot help it, " it is will he, nill he, he
goes." Andjf change conies_to_ jbim_ and changes him, he
is not responsible for his change. Therefore lifls altogether
out of his own hands. As the Second Clown asks
" Sec. Clo. But is this law ?
First Clo. Ay, marry, is't ; crowner's quest law."
118 HAMLET; OR,
Thus are we let into the secret of the gradual recognition
of law overlying the domain of thought. Various as the
interpretation and clearness with which the above may be
fought over by critics, the main point is evident : it is a
discussion of whether man can help changing or not. We
mean, of course, his beliefs. The conclusion is, we cannot.
For change comes to him, and he goes to change ; and neither
are aught but antecedent and consequent. An antecedent
and consequent traceable back to the first cause. Over
which
" There's a divinity that shapes our ends,
Hough-hew them how we will."
We do not need to go into this discussion any further.
To those who recognize that man is part of nature, and
that nature is under law, there is no escape from the con
clusion man is under law. And, indeed, it is impossible
to realize man not under law. It is impossible to realize
anything outside the chain of cause and effect. And even the
conception of a God not under law is no conception. It is a
negation.
We now will give our reasons for considering the Second
Clown in the light of Time.
" First Clo. Go, get thee to Yaughan : fetch me a stoup of liquor."
This word Yaughan is peculiar. It spells any augh(t).
From this we are inclined to think it may mean "any
cipher." " Go, get thee to any cipher." Literally, let time
multiply itself. Thus the chorus of Time going to Yaughan
allows the First Clown to uproot all sorts of institutions, and
reform them. We have first Politics, then the Court, next the
Law. And Hamlet says :
" Here's fine revolution, an we had the trick to see 't. Did these hones cost no
more the breeding, but to play at loggats with 'em ? "
119
Log gats may be the artistic and obscure for logic. The
First Clown digs and sings :
"In youth, when I did love, did love,
Methought it was very sweet,
To contract, 0, the time, for, ah, my hehove,
0, methought, there was nothing meet."
Presently he resumes
" But age, with his stealing steps,
Hath claw'd me in his clutch,
And hath shipped me intil the land,
As if I had never been such."
[Throws up a sA-w//.]
In the first verse we have evidence of a contract. " It was
very sweet to contract." There was nothing meet or fit for
the time or times. And this contract and unfitness of the
times was in the youth of the Clown, or of man's apprentice
ship. The sum total of our interpretation of this verse is
Man recognizes by means of his changes the reality of
progress. He sees that in early ages everything was a
contract, only fit for such an age. Presently, however,
Time, who is gone to Yaughan, alters him, as if he had no
relation with his former state. There is little doubt this
First Clown is an epitome of progress over a long period
of time. The early discussion of the two Clowns is one
respecting history, law, and the Bible. Ridicule is cast
upon the latter in the reference to Adam. When the First
Clown seizes his spade, he says :
" first Clo. There is no ancient gentlemen but gardeners, ditchers, and grave-
makers : they hold up Adam's profession.
Sec. Clo. Was he a gentleman ?
First Clo. He was the first that ever bore arms.
Sec. Clo. Why, he had none.
First Clo. What, art a heathen ? How dost thou understand the Scripture ?
The Scripture says ' Adam digged : ' could he dig without arms ? "
In the above there is direct satire and contradiction.
"First Clo. I'll put another question to thee : if thou answerest not to the
purpose, confess thyself
Sec. Clo. Go to."
120 HAMLET ; OR,
In this reply of the Second Clown, " Go to," we recognize
the esoteric character of that Clown. It is " To go," that
is, Time. 1
Presently we have the entrance of Hamlet and Horatio.
They only enter when the Second Clown has begun his
march to Yaughan. And there they stand by, and -criticize
whilst the First Clown throws up skulls. Let us take the
great key of the play, given us in the following : 2
"Ham. How long hast thou been a grave-maker ?
First Clo. Of all the days ' the year, I came to't that day that our last king
Hamlet overcame [sometimes overcame] Fortinbras.
Ham. How long is that since ?
First Clo. Cannot you tell that ? every fool can tell that : it was that very day
that young Hamlet was born ; he that is mad, and sent into England.
Ham. Ay, marry, why was he sent into England ?
First Clo. Why, because he was mad : he shall recover his wits there ; or, if he
do not, it's no great matter there.
Ham. Why?
First Clo. 'Twill not be seen in him there ; there the men are as mad as he.
Ham. How came he mad ?
First Clo. Very strangely, they say.
Ham. How strangely ?
First Clo. Faith e'en with losing his wits.
Ham. Upon what ground ?
First Clo. Why, here in Denmark : I have been sexton here, man and boy,
thirty years."
We have quoted here the very key of the tragedy.
If we fail to give a plain answer and to rationalize the
above in harmony with the whole of our conception, we
have only to apologize for throwing the reader's time away.
But if we can make the above as clear as we have the fore
going part of the tragedy, and if, in addition, we can
rationalize it and harmonize it to our interpretation, then
we think our case made out, inasmuch as we have solved the
unity of idea in Hamlet.
1 We have omitted the chief key to the signification of the Second Clown.
We find in this scene reference to the gallows, in connexion with this Clown.
This we believe to be symbolic for Time by a play upon words (all-ows). In
" Love's Labour's Lost" we find "five thousand years" termed " a shrewd un
happy gallows too " (Act v. Sc. 2).
2 We believe Shakespeare has purposely given us a key to the tragedy here.
121
"What are the coincidences which strike us in the above
conversation between the First Clown and Hamlet ? They
are three in number, and consist in an identity of origin
or commencement. They are mutually interdependent.
What are they? First, "the overcoming of Fortinbras"
by the "last King Hamlet." Second, the beginning of
the grave-making profession of the First Clown. Third,
the birth of Hamlet. These three events are all started
at one time. 1 To find the unity of this contemporary rela
tionship is to solve the problem.
We have called Hamlet the spirit of truth -seeking. We
have called the First Clown, for the sake of brevity, Pro
gress. Fortinbras, we have said, is the spirit of liberty.
Therefore the origin of Progress, and all that Progress
implies in its grave-digging profession, would be begun on
that day the spirit of truth-seeking was born, and vice versa.
They are identical and interdependent. The first criticism,
the first doubt, is identical with the first alteration it is
the same. And it is the same day that doubt begat (or
o'ercame) or became (as we understand it) the spirit of
liberty. Truth, Liberty, Progress, are all born at the same
moment. They are all coheirs, and all co-partners. To
recapitulate. Progress only commences when the spirit of
doubt becomes the spirit of liberty, and they both are iden
tical with the spirit of truth-seeking.
Every fool can tell when Fortinbras was overcome, or
when the "last king o'ercame Fortinbras." On that day
Hamlet was born. 2
The reference to England, and the men being " as mad as
he" there, strengthens our hypothesis upon the scientific
character of that country. " 'Twill not be seen in him
1 Hamlet is Progress itself. The First Clown is an artistic and mere dramatic
double to Hamlet. Shakespeare is clearly laughing at us when he says " Cannot
you tell that ? every fool can tell that." Hamlet is thus marvellously turned in
upon himself.
1 Hamlet and Fortinhras are part of each other. The Clown is also Hamlet
himself.
122 HAMLET; OR,
there." And why ? Because they all think the same way as
Hamlet. The Clown cannot say why Hamlet is mad, or
how he became mad. But we can understand how England
signifies the exact sciences, which gradually kill Rosencrantz
and Gruildenstern, and are as mad as Hamlet.
Let us define our position. In this scene Shakespeare has
given us progress of great length and great import.
Hamlet and Horatio are actually studying that progress.
They ask questions from it. The answers they get are
interpretations of Hamlet himself. They recognize, for the
first time, their own history. Hamlet learns, for the first
time, from the First Clown, when he was born, why he
was banished, etc., etc. 1 And, getting satisfactory answers,
he questions still further. He studies how long beliefs are
credited upon this earth. And this leads him to study the wliole
of history. The result is the repudiation of all history as
a standard or criterion of truth. In this scene our Poet has
pictured criticism of every kind, extending over the past ;
and historical criticism particularly. The scene opens with
metaphysical or philosophical discussion over Ophelia. It
leads to the question, whether the burial of Ophelia is to be
the end of Ophelia or not ? Time and progress decide in the
affirmative. Next comes the nature of progress itself is it
under law or not ? And again the answer is, Yes. Next we
have the entry of Hamlet and Horatio, who begin to
observe and comment over the Second Clown's doings. This
is the study of progress. From this study Hamlet gets
direct answers. Those answers are the history of himself
of man in his apprenticeship of Hamlet's origin and de
velopment. Marvellously our Poet has turned Hamlet in
upon himself. And by this means he gives us a key to com
parative criticism of every kind. It is paralleled in the
literature of to-day.
Lastly, Hamlet takes up Yonck's skull. Yorick is the
1 Hamlet is actually studying himself. The First Clown and himself are one ;
only different dramatic aspects of the same meaning. Thus Hamlet is learning
the nature of the rise and growth of Progress, or himself, from Progress itself.
123
King's jester. He is history. And Hamlet, criticizing
him, represents criticism of history. Finally, Hamlet
throws down Yorick's skull. In so doing our Poet signi
fies the repudiation of all past history as a criterion or
standard of truth. The word Yorick is a compound of
two words, critic and history ory, ick. And, indeed,
who could be termed better the King's jester than history?
For it makes in the end all error a jest for time to laugh
at. Whilst at the same time error in history has much
on its side to laugh at. History is indeed the King's
jester. It laughs at the King, whilst at the same time the
King laughs mockingly through its means. Is not history
a " fellow of infinite jest " ? History indeed laughs at all
things. Can we employ language adequate to such a con
ception ? No. A silent awe is more in keeping, when we
unfold the conceptions of a mind which was the epitome of
all humanity before, now, and for ever ! Again, how true
is it history has borne Hamlet a thousand times on his back !
And how true, too, it has drowned progress often in blood !
As we read, he " poured a flagon of Rhenish on my head once."
It would be out of place to philosophize or make comments
upon the tragedy and our Poet's genius here. It speaks
for itself. We are occupied with unfolding the play alone.
To proceed, or rather return :
" Ham. I will speak to this fellow. Whose grave's this, sirrah ?
First Clo. Mine, sir.
[Sings] 0, a pit of clay for to be made
For such a guest is meet."
Hamlet has here just commenced to study this Clown, who
is Change and Progress. The lines of the Clown express his
work. With pickaxe he roots up skulls. With that pick
axe criticism, discussion, philosophical and metaphysical,
and with the chorus of his co-mate Time, he saps, kills,
buries, and winds in a shrouding- sheet the past thoughts,
the past beliefs, institutions and contracts of men. What
a clown is this, who kills with ridicule ! What a genius
was that man, who, .in the sixteenth century, could peer
into the book of futurity ! Who dares say he knows more
124 HAMLET ; OR,
of the present, aye the future, than William Shakespeare ?
And his statue stands at last for the first time in the
capital of that country he called his own.
"Ham. I think it be thine, indeed; for thou liest in't.
First Clo. You lie out on't, sir, and therefore it is not yours : for my part
I do not lie in't, and yet it is mine.
Ham. Thou dost lie in't, to he in't and say it is thine : 'tis for the dead, not
for the quick ; therefore thou liest.
First Clo. 'Tis a quick lie, sir; 'twill away again, from me to you."
How plain is all the above by the light of our interpretation !
How the contradictions, which seem mere verbal quibbles of
wit, vanish beneath the profundity of the spiritual meaning !
The Clown calls the grave he is digging " mine." And it
is his, for it is the result of change or progress. And
Hamlet tells him he lies in it. Hamlet is, be it remembered,
studying the Philosophy of History. And progress, at first
sight, seems to lie unremittingly and constantly. But the
Clown announces a paradox. He lies not, and yet it is his
grave. Progress seems to lie, yet it does not. Progress
has a law, which Hamlet is trying to grasp. It is a quick
lie which will away from Hamlet to the Clown, and from the
Clown to Hamlet. 1 For Hamlet plays a great part in this lie
of progress. As the Clown remarks : u You lie out on't, sir."
But Hamlet thinks this clown Change only digs for the past,
for the dead. The further study of the subject teaches man,
or Hamlet, that it is a quick lie, a living lie, which is exist
ing, and always going forwards.
Hamlet has grasped the nature of Progress. Again,
"woman," throughout Hamlet, means belief:
" Ham. What man dost thou dig it for ?
Clo. For no man, sir.
Ham. What woman, then ?
Clo. For none, neither.
Ham. Who is to be buried in 't ?
Clo. One that was a woman, sir ; but, rest her soul, she's dead."
It was a belief, but the belief is dead.
Here again Shakespeare is laughing at us. Hamlet and the Clown are one.
125
There is a continuity and development, as in the rest of
the play, throughout this famous scene. The whole scene is
a study of man by man. That study is a study of sociology.
Anticipating Mr. Herbert Spencer, anticipating Mill, and all
the modern students of historical law, Shakespeare has
divined its existence three centuries ago. Let us notice
one thing. The order of revolution: Politics first; the
Court next, or, we should say, the kingly office, probably ;
and then the Law. Again, the study of man by himself
is full of apparent contradictions, and these our Poet has
expressed. The first solution is a recognition of social law ;
the next, a deep study of the past, or of Hamlet by him
self. In this Hamlet, or man, recognizes the unity of
progress, liberty, and truth. And this leads, of course, to
repudiation of history as a standard for aught but the
finding of law itself.
Time is indispensable to all this. So we have the intro
duction of Time, and his unrolling as he gets to Yaughan.
Let us note how Yorick's skull is made to turn up last, and
how it has lain twenty-three years in the ground, and yet
preserved. Who is a tanner ? He keeps out water or change
a long time. Is he a curer of skins (of sins) ? Is religion the
longest human institution to survive change ? How applicable
to all times are the words :
"First Clo. I' faith if he be not rotten before he die as we have many pocky
corses now-a-days, that will scarce hold the laying in."
How beautifully is every fantastic theory, the thoughts of
every day, the butterfly literature of an hour, here expressed !
Hamlet's speech about Alexander cannot be better dwelt
upon than by a quotation to be found in the late Mr. Buckle's
"Posthumous Works": "You remember that wonderful scene
in the churchyard, when Hamlet walks in among the graves,
where the brutal and ignorant Clowns are singing, and jeering,
and jesting over the remains of the dead. You remember
how the fine imagination of the great Danish thinker is
stirred by the spectacle, albeit he knows not yet that the
grave which is being dug at his feet is destined to contain all
126 HAMLET ; OR,
that he holds dear upon earth. But though he wists not of
this, he is moved like the great German poet ; and he, like
Goethe, takes up a skull, and his speculative faculties begin
to work. Images of decay crowd on his mind as he thinks
how the mighty are fallen, and have passed away. In a
moment, his imagination carries him back two thousand
years, and he almost believes that the skull he holds in his
hand is indeed the skull of Alexander; and in his mind's
eye he contrasts the putrid bone with what it once contained,
the brain of the scourge and conqueror of mankind. Then it
is that suddenly he, like Goethe, passes into an ideal physical
world, and seizing the great doctrine of the indestructibility
of matter, that doctrine which in his age it was difficult to
grasp, he begins to show how, by a long series of successive
changes, the head of Alexander might have been made to
subserve the most ignoble purposes ; the substance being
always metamorphosed, never destroyed. ' Why,' asks
Hamlet, * why may not imagination trace the noble dust of
Alexander ? ' When, just as he is about to pursue this train
of ideas, he is stopped by one of those men of facts, one of
those practical and prosaic natures, who are always ready
to impede the flight of Genius. By his side stands the
faithful, the affectionate, but the narrow-minded Horatio,
who, looking upon all this as the dream of a distempered
fancy, objects that ' 'Twere to consider too curiously to
consider so.' 0, what a picture ! what a contrast between
Hamlet and Horatio ; between the idea and the sense ;
between the imagination and the understanding. ' 'Twere
to consider too curiously to consider so.' '
Indeed all thinkers are convinced that this play of Hamlet
is a history of humanity, an idealized philosophy of history.
Every day this opinion is growing on us, and it only re
quires time to develope it most perfectly. Presently we
have the entrance of the funeral party. The Priest says
of Ophelia, "Her death was doubtful." Here, again, we
read the cause of Ophelia's death scepticism. The intro
duction of the burial party, and the fight over Ophelia's
grave between Hamlet and Laertes, signify one more, and
HISTORY. 127
the final controversy of humanity over Ophelia. It is the
end of Christianity as a creed. Perhaps it is more. But
we venture no comments upon that subject. Laertes is even
resigned. Hamlet is sorry, nay, deeply grieved.
" Queen. Anon, as patient as the female dove
When that her golden couplets are disclosed,
His silence will sit drooping."
His couplets are disclosed, and his silence will sit drooping.
Hamlet has been the cause of all this. But still he is sorry,
very sorry, over his own work. "We find that, according
to our Poet, " bell and burial are brought home." All this
part of the play is such pure prophecy belongs so much
to the future that we feel the great responsibility of
hazarding any uncertain criticisms upon it. Hitherto we
have found plenty of historical and contemporary parallelism.
From henceforward we are plunged into futurity. Never
theless, there is much here we cannot be mistaken about.
"We feel that in this fight over Ophelia's grave there is
more concerned than the end of a particular form of belief.
It is true, " violets may spring from her fair and unpolluted
flesh" (violets = faith). But in those references to the
Titans, and their efforts to scale the heavens, we read a
profound meaning.
" Laer. Now pile your dust upon the quick and dead,
Till of this flat a mountain you have made,
To o'ertop old Pelion, or the skyish head
Of blue Olympus."
Again
i
" Sam And, if thou prate of mountains, let them throw
Millions of acres on us, till our ground,
Singeing his pate against the burning zone,
Make Ossa like a wart ! Nay, an thou'lt mouth,
I'll rant as well as thou."
Our interpretation of the above passages are the efforts of
Hamlet and Laertes to scale the heavens. The reader will
understand us. Man is making in the above every exertion
to pierce that veil which hangs between mind and the
128 HAMLET ; OR,
absolute. But in vain. No positive knowledge can ever
be gained upon such a subject.
The attack of Laertes upon Hamlet is in keeping with
the subject of it. Hamlet bears it quietly, even passively.
Laertes can do him no harm. And Hamlet wisely recog
nizes that Laertes must have his day out :
"Ham But it is no matter ;
Let Hercules himself do what he may,
The cat will mew and dog will have his day."
How well Laertes is expressed as a dog ! He barks at
everything Hamlet does. And like a cat, he is treacherous
and spiteful. Hercules may do what he will, and Hercules
is Hamlet ; but still the scratching and barking will and
must have their day. How perfectly did out Poet recognize
the true character of the controversy, which would accom
pany the death of Ophelia, and the slow advance of man's
progress.
This is the last we hear of religion in the tragedy. We
have the hope of Laertes that violets, or faith, may spring
from Ophelia's dead body. And we have the testimony of
the King that the grave of Ophelia shall have a living monu
ment. In these words we comprehend the good Ophelia has
effected. How she has given man a system of ethics, ideal
it is true, but a noble one, based upon the scientific and
true foundations of the utilitarian relations of man to man.
It is for the future to show the relation existing between
the optimism of Ophelia and the divine plan of Evolution.
We would here go back to Alexander, and make a sugges
tion, which seems not unworthy of note. Alexander may
perhaps be taken to represent the kingly office. An office fitly
represented by one of its greatest occupants. And the words
of Hamlet may signify the decay of .that office into a mere
symbol, a mere cork, that might "patch a wall" "to keep the
wind away." We think beautiful as Mr. Buckle's idea seems,
it is rather far-fetched. For it is out of connexion with
the criticism of Yorick's skull. And nothing would be more
in keeping with that criticism than to follow it up with the
129
decadence of royalty. And we read in the words of Hamlet
a continuity, to which we have called attention throughout
the play. We may say of Polonius or Ophelia, as Hamlet
says of Alexander
" Ham. To what base uses we may return, Horatio! "Why may not imagination
trace the nohle dust of Alexander, till he find it stopping a bung-hole ?
Hor. 'Twere to consider too curiously, to consider so.
Ham. No, faith, not a jot ; but to follow him thither with modesty enough,
and likelihood to lead it: as thus: Alexander died, Alexander was buried, Alexander
returneth into dust ; the dust is earth ; of earth we make loam: and why of that
loam, whereto he was converted, might they not stop a beer-barrel ?
Imperious Csesar, dead and turn'd to clay,
Might stop a hole to keep the wind away :
0, that that earth, which kept the world in awe,
Should patch a wall to expel the winter's flaw ! "
The depreciation and contrast of the possible destiny of
two of the mightiest of rulers makes us inclined to believe
we are nearer the truth than Mr. Buckle. As we have
already hinted, Polonius and Ophelia died, Polonius and
Ophelia were buried, Polonius and Ophelia returned to dust ;
and why should not that office so well summed up in an
Alexander and a Caesar go through the same process of
decay ? Is it not going through it now ?
We have run over a great deal in a great hurry. We
have hardly sketched a theory of Hamlet. But what we
have done is rather in the hope of suggestion, of show
ing not what is true, but what a play like Hamlet may
possibly be. The reader, of course, will reject much of
our hypothesis. In the present state of Shakespearian
criticism, this is only to be expected. But nevertheless in
so doing, thoughts and suggestions will enter his head never
conceived there before. And we feel our work will not be
utterly cast upon sterile ground. For there is a growing
appreciation in the public mind of the profundity and double-
sidedness of Shakespeare's art. An art which will redeem
him a second time from the grave. And an art which will
form the study of future generations.
130 HAMLET; OR,
CHAPTER Y.
TTTE now approach the end of this stupendous tragedy.
* ' "We are dramatically nearing the end of man's ap
prenticeship. But Hamlet concerns us alone at present.
How far, in point of time, the dramatic situation is from
its parallel in future times, we know not. Who can tell
what to-morrow may bring but a Shakespeare ? And now we
have next on hand, in the order of the text, a retrospect by
Hamlet. This review and explanation by Hamlet concern
ing his escape from the Pirate and discovery of the King's
commission, seems to us to supply the missing links of the
tragedy. It thoroughly explains the position of Hamlet at
the time he was at sea, and had no decided plans of his own :
" Ham. Sir, in my heart there was a kind of fighting,
That would not let me sleep : methought I lay
Worse than the mutines in the bilboes. Rashly,
And praised he rashness for it, let us know,
Our indiscretion sometimes serves us well, -
"When our deep plots do pall : and that should teach us
There 's a divinity that shapes our ends,
Rough-hew them how we will."
We must return to Hamlet's exile for an instant. That
exile was one because he had no plans and no ends. After
the death of Polonius, Hamlet was almost frightened at
what he had done. He felt, as he himself says, worse than
"mutineers who lie in fetters." This expresses the whole
case. He had mutinied, and he was in fetters. His own
131
plans were even obscure to himself, but his very indiscretion
serves him well. What do we mean? We mean that
Hamlet, as represented in man's history, has had his doubts,
his fears ; he has not defined his ends even. Progress is but
a recognition of to-day or yesterday. Parties with their
different hopes and aims are the products of eminently
modern history. Presently we find Hamlet groping "to
find his ends "
" Ham. Up from my cabin,
My sea-gown scarf 'd about me, in the dark
Groped I to find out them ; had my desire,
Finger'd their packet, and in fine withdrew
To mine own room again."
If anything would convince a reader of the nature of
Hamlet, the above should be of a conclusive nature. Here
is Hamlet " in the dark," trying " to find out them." But
what are these which he terms them ? Clearly Hamlet's
"ends." And, thanks to his rashness and perseverance, he
succeeds in "fingering their packet." Nothing can be
clearer than all this. Reviewing his own history, he sees
the time when obscurity of vision made him feel like a
mutineer. He dared not stand still, he dared not look back.
And, praised be the rashness which casts the balance in
favour of progress, Hamlet finds his ends. Those ends are
the recognition that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern threaten
the very life of naked truth. He labours doubly accord
ingly, escapes from them by means of a Pirate (whatever that
may mean), whilst scientific proof slowly undermines evasion
and sophistry. Hamlet and Horatio are gathering their
forces together for the last struggle. Partly for the sake of
clearing ambiguities ; partly for the sake of showing how
man in Hamlet reviews his own history and gathers addi
tional strength from it, we have this scene.
The whole of the first part of this scene between Hamlet
and Horatio is a review of their own position, of the history
of that position, of the thought of Divine law ruling social
action, and of the great evil of compromise, hypocrisy,
sophistry, and casuistry, which science is slowly killing.
132 HAMLET; OR,
Hamlet expresses this science so beautifully that we must
quote again :
" Ham. Being thus be-netted round with villanies,
Ere I could make a prologue to my brains,
They had begun the play I sat me down,
Devised a new commission, wrote it fair ;
I once did hold it, as our statists do,
A baseness to write fair, and labour' d much
How to forget that learning, but, sir, now
It did me yeoman's service."
Hamlet writes fair. This is a naked Hamlet who writes fair.
This very fairness kills Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Who
are the statists who refuse to write fair, and consider it a
baseness to do so ? They are those wjio are for standing
still. They are the statics of society, in contradiction to
the dynamical principle represented by Hamlet. The word
"statists" is perhaps related to the word statics. 1 This
writing fair does Hamlet "yeoman's service." Nothing
kills like truth. Errors are obliged to assume the garb of
truth even to pass muster ; but like all false coin, they get
exposed sooner or later. England takes up the cue Hamlet
devises. England, as science, is prompted by a spirit of
truth. And this truth invades every domain of thought, until
it gives Hamlet power to return, with ever- gaining strength,
to kill and exterminate the King and all his myrmidons.
"What does Hamlet devise ? Nothing more nor less than a
rigorous logic, which is beautifully expressed by an imitation
of syllogistic reasoning
"Ham. As England was his faithful tributary,
As love between them like the palm might flourish,
4s peace should still her wheaten garland wear,
And stand a comma* 'tween their amities,
And many such-like ' As'es of great charge,
That, on the view and knowing of these contents,
Without debatement further, more or less,
He should the bearers put to sudden death,
Not shriving- time allow' d."
1 We are aware that the word statist signifies sometimes a legislator or law
maker. But we suggest the word may signify even more.
2 The word comma seems to suggest pause, not full stop.
133
Hamlet writes this, and in writing this our Poet shows
us how the spirit of truth inspires England to deal with
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. That method is one in
which close reasoning and trenchant logic (like the logic our
hero indulged in when first in conversation with Rosencrantz
and Guildenstern), allowing of no equivocation, infects the
thoughts of man, and slowly brings about an increasing
desire for rationalism in all things. This we see at the
present day, and the thirst for clear answers to plain ques
tions will ever be on the increase, in proportion as men think,
and thus in the ratio of their knowledge, liberty and love of
truth things which go hand in hand.
Hamlet knows the news will soon arrive from Eng
land. Our Poet here signifies the influence of England
upon human thought. He sees, as we may at the present
moment, the foreshadowing of the universality of science.
Hamlet foresees its widespread influence. He foresees the
unlimited sway it will have in the future destiny of man.
And foreseeing this, he is determined to hasten it, to do all
he can to bring things to that pass. He is acted upon by
this knowledge, and it stirs him up to fresh resolution :
" Hor. It must be shortly known to him from England
What is the issue of the business there.
Ham. It will be short : the interim is mine ;
And a man's life 's no more than to say ' One.'
But I am very sorry, good Horatio,
That to Laertes I forgot myself;
For, by the image of my cause, I see
The portraiture of his: I 1 II court his favours:
But, sure, the bravery of his grief did put me
Into a towering passion."
How admirable is the above ! Hamlet sees in the cause
of Laertes the portraiture of his ! Both grieve and fight
for the sake of their fathers. Both believe in those
fathers. Hamlet is always spurred on by doubt, to re
dress wrongs and kill error. Laertes is always spurred
on by a fatal but useful bias of certainty to defend the
King and uphold the past. Both are in earnest. One
is liberalism, the other conservatism. Their mutual death
134 HAMLET; OR,
is their final convergence and identification in equilibrium.
Everything points in England at the present day to such
a finale. Every day the Conservative policy becomes more
like the Liberal. And such is the history of the " statists,"
that they only let go when forced, and they will only cease
holding on when there is no longer anything left to hold
on to.
Hamlet will court the favours of Laertes. He will benefit
by the prudence of the latter. He will be prevented from
committing any imprudence by the latter. And he will find
criticism after all a useful ordeal. Laertes is indispensable
to the successful apprenticeship of a Hamlet. Were Hamlet
not checked in the often reckless way he would compromise
his health and conduct, he might sacrifice the terms of his
indentures. The bravery of Laertes' grief puts Hamlet
into a towering passion.. Hamlet evidently thinks the grief
of Laertes as unavailing, as even unnecessary ; and this
unavailing lament and fight over what Laertes can neither
bring to life again nor stop decaying is well calculated to put
Hamlet in a passion. At this instant we have the entrance
of one who is part of Laertes. He is a biassed judge. And
one in whom Hamlet recognizes this character as also that
of the sciolist. Of all our Poet's creations in this play, not
one is painted with so forcible, so delicate, and such refined
irony, as the courtier Osric. We reserve him for a chapter
to himself.
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 135
CHAPTER VI.
WE are now for the first time introduced to Osric. In
Osric we easily recognize society, and in Osric we
also recognize criticism. The great enemy and critic of
Hamlet is Osric, a gentleman who is decidedly of a bias of
mind in favour of Laertes. Osric is part of the continuity
and succession of the tragedy. To have left him out would
have been a gross error, and a gross neglect of the last and
not the least enemy of Hamlet. He is a critic, but a critic
who has stakes in the game over which he is judge. They
are balanced more heavily on one side than the other. He
has laid the odds upon Laertes. In the politeness of Osric we
recognize society. In his parrot-like speeches and empty
phrases, we recognize the pretender to learning. The mere
sciolist.
The point we have reached dramatically is not far off the
final catastrophe and end. And the real meaning of Shake
speare is that historically the last stage in man's apprentice
ship is reached. The last stake at issue over which Hamlet
and Laertes fight is one in which Osric is concerned. And
it is a stake of "six Barbary horses" against "six French
rapiers and poniards, with their assigns, as girdle, hangers,
and so: three of the carriages, in faith, are very dear to
fancy, very responsive to the hilts, most delicate carriages,
and of very liberal conceit."
The whole of the latter stake of the bet is imported, as
136 HAMLET ; OK,
Osric terms it, against six Barbary horses. It is not very
difficult to seize the side Hamlet is upon, or the side
Laertes defends. Hamlet will work for the six Barbary
horses. Laertes will defend the six French rapiers, etc.
At present we will refrain from giving our opinion of the
meaning of the above. "We will take the text first.
" Osr. Your lordship is right welcome back to Denmark.
Ham. I humbly thauk you, sir. Dost know this water-fly ? "
In this word "water-fly" an infinity of meaning is ex
pressed. We are instantly reminded of those flies we see
in summer skimming the surface of ponds. The surface of
things is here suggested. One who hovers upon the mere
outside and never penetrates. This is Osric.
"Ham. Thy state is the more gracious ; for 'tis a vice to know him. He hath
much land, and fertile : let a beast be lord of beasts, and his crib shall stand at
the king's mess : 'tis a chough ; but, as I say, spacious in the possession of dirt." l
In the above we have, as usual, a complete key to Osric's
character. He is rich, he is a possessor of land, and this is
quite enough to make him at one with the King. Rosencrantz
is evidently not dead yet. No, he "goes to't," but he will
not be dead until Hamlet's death. Osric is society, and that
part of society which stands by the King. The whole of this
part of the play is one which is concerned with the last
struggle of man and man. It is one in which society is con
cerned. One in which the classes of society are at war with
six Barbary horses. These latter are probably not unlike
what is known in the present day by Communism. Property,
capital, possession, social injustice, are allied with Laertes
against the principle of progress. The whole of the polite
ness of Osric shows his society manners, and gives us a
key^to his elucidation. He praises Laertes. For Laertes
is his backbone, his stand-by, his very life. And what is
1 Osric is Rosencrantz. It is quite sufficient that he is a large interested owner
io understand that he will side with the King. There is no escaping Shake-
speare's meaning here.
137
Laertes? "We have long ago identified him with learning
of an orthodox kind. He is literature of a conservative
character.
" Osr. . . . Sir, here is newly come to court Laertes ; believe me, an absolute
gentleman, full of most excellent differences, of very soft society and great show
ing: indeed, to speak feelingly of him, he is the card or calendar of gentry,
for you shall find in him the continent of what part a gentleman would see."
This is Osric's version of Laertes. Presently we shall have
Hamlet's. Osric speaks feelingly of Laertes. He is part of
Laertes himself, and no wonder he speaks feelingly. The
quotation we have made is a revelation in itself. Laertes
is the liberal education of a gentleman, as understood by
himself or Osric. But it is an education which Professor
Huxley and Hamlet hardly consider liberal in our days.
Laertes is the " card or calendar of gentry." In him you
see the whole of a gentleman's education. Now let us
compare Hamlet's definition of Laertes :
" Sir, his definement suffers no perdition in you ; though, I know, to divide him
inventorially would dizzy the arithmetic of memory, and yet but yaw neither, in
respect of his quick sail. But, in the verity of extolment, I take him to be a
soul of great article ; and his infusion of such dearth and rareness, as, to make
true diction of him, his semblable is his mirror ; and who else would trace him,
his umbrage, nothing more."
It is extraordinary how the speaking characters of pieces like
the above escape the keen eyes of critics, who are on the
look-out for a hint. Here we have, with a few touches, the
whole character and worth of Laertes. He is "diction" He
is a "soul of great article." And he is multitudinous in
his acquirements, which are very raw in consequence of his
quick sail. His motto is, Multa non multum. And the
result is the mere sciolist. Those that trace him will not
find anything but the shadow of Laertes. " His semblable"
or what seems to him the Truth (which is only a reflection
of himself), is all that is to be found in literature of this
description. Laertes is thus epitomized in the shallow
education and learning of what are called cultured men.
A culture which is strengthened on the side of error by the
wide extent of the study of the literature handed down by
138 HAMLET ; OB,
Polonius. Logical truth is not sought by such men. Eru
dition, or the soul of great article, is all that is required.
Authorities (as they are considered) already false help to
sustain error deduced from that authority. This class of
literature has its use, it is true ; and those things which cannot
stand its batteries are not worth their salt. But all followers
of Hamlet must recognize its emptiness, and its boast of a
strength which is in its very ignorance and the ignorance
of others. " His semblable is his mirror" a fit motto for
metaphysicians and transcendental philosophers generally !
To follow the thread of our fancy, and see a mirror in
our imagination concerning Truth, has been (putting all
science outside the question) the whole history of human
thought. Laertes is a liberal education, and he is more, he
is often profound scholarship and profound learning of every
description. But it is a learning which believes we are in
possession of Truth. It is an erudition which criticizes not
the sources and springs of its own fountain-head. It is
defensive, it is passive. There is no progress with such a
literature, unless there is an opposing one. This opposing one
must be inspired by a Hamlet, urged on by the revelation
of a Ghost, and must continually alternate the appearance
of the Ghost with the crowing of the cock. Thus Doubt
and Certainty, being active, and not passive, are that pleas
ing and invigorating suspension of judgment upon all
things until verified. Our scepticism is one which is satisfied
and allayed with the truths of nature, and in the exposition
of those laws. Nature is all things, God, man, time, space,
and every question which can agitate the mind of man.
The tragedy of Hamlet is the history of the rise of rational
ism in Europe. And to this end liberty, knowledge, and
inquiry, with Doubt, go hand in hand. Without knowledge
there is no inquiry ; without inquiry, no doubt ; without
doubt, no progress. And all interdepend upon an accom
panying spirit of liberty, which we have in Fortinbras. All
these conditions are fulfilled in the beginning of the tragedy.
And they are fulfilled in an orderly anil natural sequence.
We have Bernardo relieving and recognizing Francisco.
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 139
And we have the rivals of this watch following. The sure
accompaniments of the art of reading Inquiry and Scholar
ship (Marcellus and Horatio). Doubt follows as a Ghost.
Faintly, of course, at first. But increasing in power. The
cock crowing signifies Certainty following Doubt. And,
at the same time, we have the rise of Fortinbras and his
suppression. Thus the spirit of liberty goes hand in hand
in unity with the rest. 1
But to return, after this digression. We have recognized
the character of Osric and that of Laertes. Their cause is
common. The stability of society, the conservation of the
social hierarchy threatened by Hamlet (and ruin at the same
time), necessitate the voice of Osric upon the side of Laertes.
As we have before remarked, they are identical. Osric will
both fight and be judge. Laertes is literature, and Osric is
society itself. We shall see the result of the duel presently.
Hamlet, and all those who constitute Hamlet, are, as in the
present day, recognizing the worth of what has hitherto
been dignified by the title of education, learning, etc.
Hamlet has learnt some method of thinking, which puts
him above or over Laertes. He sees what the infusion
of Laertes is worth. Like his father, Polonius, Laertes
clings still to words, and, under their cover, tries to make
an escape from Hamlet, as the cuttle-fish does under cover
of his ink. As Hamlet remarks :
" To know a man well, were to know himself."
This criticism of self is very rare and very difficult. Hamlet
knows Laertes. But Laertes knows not himself. Nor does
Laertes know Hamlet. Hamlet knows exactly his own
strength and his own weakness.
The whole of this conversation between Osric and Ham
let is a picture of beauty, truth, and rarity. It is the
final duel of social man, being summed up in its causes,
in its forces, and in its nature. The wrongs and evils
1 "We are only too sensible of the cursory manner in which all this is discussed;
but until the nature of the play is clearly established, it were waste of time to
go deeper into the subject.
140 HAMLET J OR,
of a social state, handed down from a feudal system, are
in direct conflict with unvarnished justice. The daily
labourer, or artisan, is well pictured in a Barbary horse.
He works like a horse, and he is rough and uncultivated.
He is thus barbarous. Certain classes of society are well
pictured in the "rapiers and their hangers, carriages, as
signs." The assigns look very much like a term in heraldry.
The carriages, or hangers, are perhaps the aristocracy,
the landed gentry, or plutocracy. They are of a very
liberal conceit. And they are called by Horatio the
mar gent. It is their anger, or (h) angers (?), which
cause this duel. Property is perhaps the cause. "We
know not. But what Hamlet says is very true. Cannon
would be more likely to settle the question, if the angers
had their way. The whole bet is imported. This word
we believe to be from the Latin impono, "to beguile, to
wheedle, or trick out of; to lay upon/* etc., etc. The
reader must apply his own reading of this word. The
odds are placed by the King on the strongest side on that
of Laertes. And we would draw attention to the at first
sight contradictory evidence of the bet. For the Barbary
horses are wagered with Laertes. How is this to be recon
ciled ? There is no reconcilement needed. If Hamlet wins,
he wins the Barbary horses, or rather, to speak exactly, they
(the horses) win, whilst the six French rapiers, etc., etc.,
lose. Does the word imponed signify imperilled ? And
if so, we understand Hamlet's question. But if not, it
may mean " to be got out of stake," " out of pawn." We
see that in the bet of the King the odds are twelve to nine
upon Laertes. In fact, Laertes is to exceed Hamlet by
three hits.
" Osr. The king, sir, hath laid, that in a dozen passes between yourself and
him, he shall not exceed you three hits : he hath laid on twelve for nine ; and it
would come to immediate trial, if your lordship would vouchsafe the answer.
Ham. How if I answer ' no ' ?
Osr. I mean, my lord, the opposition of your person in trial.
Ham. Sir, I will walk here in the hall : if it please his majesty, 'ft* the breath
ing time of day with me; let the foils he brought, the gentleman willing, and the
king hold his purpose, I will win for him an I can ; if not, I will gain nothing
hut my shame and the odd hits."
141
The whole of Osric's message is a challenge and defiance.
It is, "Do your worst, I am so safe with Laertes that
the odds are all on my side." Hamlet says it is "the
breathing time of day " with him. That is, Truth has
an existence. The spirit of rationalism, of justice, has
long been roused ; and, as we know, Hamlet is a power
ful party, who has but another party to contend against.
Shakespeare evidently was determined to go as far as he
could. A short dramatic period may be a very long his
torical one ; and with these questions we are not con
cerned. Hamlet sums up the character of Osric in the
following :
" He did comply with his dug, before he sucked it. Thus has he and many
more of the same bevy that I know the drossy age dotes on only got the tune of
the time and outward habit of encounter ; a kind of yesty collection, which carries
them through and through the most fond and winnowed opinions ; and do but
blow them to their trial, the bubbles are out."
In these satirical remarks of Hamlet we recognize our
friend Osric still more forcibly as society. " He did comply
with his dug, before he sucked it." Literally, "nothing is
natural about him, all is made tip, and is a matter of
inheritance." Again, we may read in the above, "self-
interest is before all things, and his circumstances are
the result of accident." Hamlet calls it a "drossy age"
Money is the ruling principle of this society. The words
yesty and winnowed suggest froth, chaff, emptiness, no
thingness, shallowness. If Osric is put to the test,
" the bubbles are out." In short, we must make up our
ininds that this is rather a contemptible judge to de
cide between Hamlet and Laertes ; particularly when we
know how biassed Osric is in his own favour and that of
his friend.
"Lord. My lord, his majesty commended him to you by young Osric, who
brings ba"ck to him, that you attend him in the hall: he sends to know if your
pleasure hold to play with Laertes, or that you will take longer time."
Thus we see the King is commended to Hamlet by Osric.
142 HAMLET ; OR,
That is, Hamlet is going in again at the King, this time
represented in Laertes and Osric.
" Ham. I am constant to my purposes ; they follow the king's pleasure : if his
fitness speaks, mine is ready ; now or whensoever, provided I be so able as now.
Lord. The king and queen and all are coming down.
Ham. In happy time."
Hamlet never swerves from his purpose to kill the King
and avenge his father. He is indeed constant to his ends
when he knows them. Hamlet's purposes follow the King's
pleasure. And it is already realized that the fall of the
King and Queen are at hand. Hamlet says, "in happy
time." The reconciliation of Laertes and Hamlet is only
skin deep. It is the polish, the refinement, the for
bearance and amenities of modern and future polemical
literature.
We would here pause before we proceed any further.
"We are at a solemn point of the tragedy. We are un
veiling, or blaspheming, our Poet's thoughts as to the
future conflict of man on earth. And we would first make
clear our opinion concerning some, at first sight, gross
contradictions to our hypothesis.
The reader has probably long wanted to know why
Hamlet does not succeed to the throne of his uncle ? Why
does he die? Why should Truth be defeated in the
end ? Is it a dramatic necessity ? Or is it the limit of
Truth ?
We answer, neither one nor the other. The death of
Hamlet is not the death of Truth. For Hamlet is not
Truth itself. Indeed, there never can be for man absolute
truth. Only relative truth. What is Hamlet then? We
have all along identified him with Truth. Yes, but Hamlet
is the spirit in man of truth-seeking alone. Hamlet is the
spirit of conflict warring through man for truth's sake.
With the end of the apprenticeship of man Hamlet dies.
For his apprenticeship is done.
Let us clearly define our position. We have merely
employed the word truth as allied to Hamlet in the sense
of truth-seeking aiid progress. What is truth? This
143
has been a question which has never been satisfactorily
answered by man. We cannot discuss such a subject here.
But we may as well define our idea of truth as regards
Hamlet. Absolute truth can be for a God alone. But
relative truth is for man. That truth is best exemplified in
the laws of God, which have been beautifully termed by
Oersted "the thoughts of God." To this Hamlet or man
may attain. The rest is silence. But even in this we do
not apply the same line of argument to Hamlet. For the
tragedy of Hamlet is a social one. A conflict concerning
man's opinions. And its end is the end of this conflict.
The realization of harmony, liberty, justice, and science.
Thus the death of Hamlet is the death of the autocracy of
party. It is the finale of man's social antinomy. And as
Goethe has far better expressed it, the termination of man's
apprenticeship. Up to this point man has been divided in
opinion, unlearning the mistakes of his youth, and gradually
recognizing his place and the nature of himself in the order
of nature. However, to prove that this is what Shake
speare intended, we will appeal to the text again.
If the death of Hamlet were in reality more than the
death of mere conflict and difference of opinion, we should
hear no more of him. But Horatio tells us his " voice will
draw on more."
"Hor. Of that I shall have also cause to speak,
And from his mouth whose voice will draw on more"
Horatio thus tells us Hamlet is not dead. He is dramati
cally dead. And in this his after-continuity is on a par
with that of Polonius, of Ophelia, after their deaths. The
necessities of art are inexorable, when allied to rationalism.
The latter cannot be applied to the letter, though it may to
the spirit of the letter. Something, perhaps a good deal, is
to be said upon the necessities of dramatic art in Hamlet.
The grandeur of the tragedy is aided, nay fulfilled, by
Hamlet's death. And we have a lesson on the indis
crimination of law between good and evil. Destiny is no
distinguisher of persons. And thus the philosophy of
144 HAMLET; OR,
life is also true in Hamlet. But this does not necessitate
that Hamlet, as Mr. Tyler would have it, is a tragedy
whose philosophy is pessimistic. It is eminently optimistic,
for it points to an end of man's discord, to liberty, justice,
and progress of a different order to that of the play itself.
Nothing could be more hopeful, more Utopian, or more
optimistic than Hamlet throughout. The progress and
strength of rationalism, and all that it implies, is long, it
is true ; but as Hamlet says :
"These foils have all a length."
When reason is universal, and has taught social man what
is true here below, and what is false, then the tragedy
of Hamlet draws to its end on earth. Hamlet might be
termed the history of progress. It might be truly, as
Goethe thought, man's apprenticeship. Or, again> we
may call it a philosophy of history. There is little
philosophy, it is true, in the strict sense. But we can
find ourselves in it much historical philosophy. In the first
place, it recognizes social law. This is the root and key
stone of a philosophy of history. Secondly, it implies, in
a remarkable degree, that discovery which Comte claimed
for himself. That is the law of mechanics applied to history
and sociology. It implies in Hamlet and his supporters
a law of social dynamics, in contradiction to the King and
his supporters, who represent social statics. Indeed, the
structure and continuity of the play inclines us to a belief
that our Poet thoroughly not only recognized this law,
but that he seized what we cannot its secondary laws.
For how in heaven's name can we account for his marvellous
prophetic powers? Let the reader judge for himself. For
in our eyes history is paralleled line for line in this play.
Not only history, but contemporary, and the daily life even
of these our days are photographed in Hamlet. There
must have been intention or genius in this. To use the
latter word is to solve the whole question. And perhaps
the laws of progress may be better furthered by a study
of Hamlet than by aught else. There is not a principle in
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 145
Buckle's History of Civilization which is not grasped by
our Poet. The relations of knowledge, scepticism, liberty,
authority, religion, so insisted upon by Buckle, are here
dramatically exhausted in a two hours' play. And this play
was written when men did not seize even the idea of law as
regards man. "What are we to say to all this? Simply
that genius is the power of ratiocination on an infinite scale :
of following cause and effect into its remote sequences. And
how does this speak for the existence of law, which foolish
people still question? It proves it. It indorses it. For
were law not there, where would be the prophecy which
trusts to the invariability of that law in the future ?
Now we shall endeavour to explain the finale of the
tragedy as regards the catastrophe. It will be noticed
Laertes wounds Hamlet, and then Hamlet in his turn wounds
Laertes, with the poisoned rapier of the latter exchanged
in scuffling. "What does this mean? It means the death
of Laertes by means of his own error. It is turned in upon
him. In his conflict with Hamlet he probably uses a false
method, a false criterion, which, being erroneous, when
once exploded by Hamlet, puts an end to the party Laertes
represents. And of course the King dies when Laertes
dies. For he is the error for which Laertes fights; 1 and to
prove this, Hamlet stabs the King with the same rapier he
has stabbed Laertes, and by which he has himself been
stabbed. That rapier, we have said, belongs to Laertes.
Thus the King's death, Laertes's death, and Hamlet's death,
are all the result of one rapier. And so the error exploded,
the King dies through Laertes, the latter with his error,
and Hamlet through the end of conflict. The death of
the Queen is the death of the King. Both are wedded in
belief. Both King and Queen drink the same potion ; that
potion, poisoned and set for Hamlet, is like the rapier in
the case of Laertes, again turned in upon themselves.
1 The King is made up of his adherents. Thus he disappears with his last
constituent. And Hamlet thus is acting and killing the King all through the
play.
10
146 HAMLET; OR,
Belief in error and error in belief both die, with the ex
plosion of their beliefs and errors. Thus the symbols of
the play die, in harmony with our whole exegesis. The
poisoned cup is perhaps a dramatic necessity, to get rid of
the Queen. Hamlet says, as the King drinks off, or is
supposed to swallow the poison :
" Drink off this potion. Is thy union here ?
Follow my mother."
The union of the King and Queen is in the poison. It is
union of belief and error (erroneous beliefs), and the poison
represents the efforts they make to foist upon Hamlet those
beliefs. Obliged to swallow their own words, and thus
exposed, they die. In the death of Hamlet and Laertes
we read the end of party. We read the union and mergence
of Hamlet and Laertes. The former (Hamlet) represents
social dynamics, the latter social statics. Now both are
one in union. The social statics have become so weakened
by the social dynamics that finally both are merged. Party
is abolished. And identity of interests, of beliefs, spring
ing from the unity of science alone, makes man at peace
with man and self- governed. Individualism has conquered j
social authority, by the latter becoming identified with the |
former. 1
Hardly is Hamlet dead or dying, when Fortinbras " with
conquest comes from Poland," * Liberty, coming from many,
gives to the Ambassadors from England (science) " a warlike
volley." How splendid is all this! And how thoroughly
plain is the whole tragedy !
We now would go back to the text, and illustrate all
those points hitherto left in obscurity. The madness of
Hamlet is thoroughly identified with our conception of its
nature in the following extract :
1 That such is the prospect of party politics is only too plain at the present
day. And the philosophic student of history will find that this is the destiny of
all constitutional history. V *J
147
"King. Come, Hamlet, come, and take this hand from me.
[The King puts Laertes' hand into Hamlet's.
Ham. Give me your pardon, sir : I've done you wrong :
But pardon't, as you are a gentleman.
This presence knows,
And you must needs have heard, how I am punish'd
With sore distraction. What I have done,
That might your nature, honour and exception
Roughly awake, I here proclaim was madness.
Was't Hamlet wrong' d Laertes ? Never Hamlet :
If Hamlet from himself be to? en away,
A.nd when he's not himself does wrong Laertes,
Then Hamlet does it not, Hamlet denies it.
Who does it, then ? His madness : if't be so,
Hamlet is of the faction that is wrong' d ;
His madness is poor Hamlet's enemy.
Sir, in this audience,
Let my disclaiming from a purposed evil
Free me so far in your most generous thoughts,
That I have shot mine arrow o'er the house,
And hurt my brother."
The whole of the above is Hamlet's justification of himself
and his deeds. The key-note lies in the utterance
" Hamlet is of the faction that is wrong'd ;
His madness is poor Hamlet's enemy."
Here we have the essence of Hamlet. He is "of the
faction that is wrong'd," And his madness lies in trying
to redress these wrongs. In redressing these wrongs he
"shoots his arrow o'er the house, and hurts his brother"
Laertes. This falls in with our conception of Hamlet's
madness. His madness is his badness and his incoherence
in the eyes of his enemies. Dramatically Hamlet's madness
is a perfect expression of the stoical idea we have already
dwelt upon. Every reform, every progress, until it falls in
with the age, is first the scheme of a madman, next of a
theorist, and finally it is accepted, so that men wonder
they could ever have done without it. So with Hamlet:
"Mad for Ophelia's -love," is in reality "Bad for Ophelia's
life." And the end proves it so indeed. All those of
the opposite faction to Hamlet call him mad. This is
why " his madness is poor Hamlet's enemy." Literally the
148 HAMLET J OR,
great enemies of Hamlet are those who term him mad.
And his enemies and his madness are identified. The mad
ness is in reality upon their side. They are in the position
of the lunatic who ascribed his own lunacy to the blindness
or madness of the world. There is not a shadow of doubt
that this is our Poet's exact meaning. He has made the spirit
of progress, in truth and justice-seeking, mad in the eyes
of those who cannot see aught but their own view of things.
Everything outside these views is madness. Hamlet goes so
far as to assert he cannot have wronged Laertes. If truth,
or Hamlet, be taken from himself, then untruth wrongs
Laertes, it is not Hamlet. Thus Hamlet, in the above
quotation, justifies his own deeds and character. First he
shows how impossible it is for truth to wrong anybody.
And if truth does wrong anybody, it must be simply his
enemies. And in this they are not wronged, but righted.
For as Hamlet wrongs his enemies, he rights himself, and he
rights his enemies. The madness of Hamlet is the madness
of Laertes. And Hamlet shows that this madness of
Laertes is his (Hamlet's) enemy. All the ambiguity which
arises from any other conception of madness utterly vanishes
with our explanation. The difficulty lay in reconciling
what appeared at times as madness and what seemed at
others profound method and sanity in Hamlet. The sane-
ness of Hamlet lay, in the eyes of critics, in our hero's
philosophy, and in his repudiation of madness ; as also in
his sanity of action. But his wild and incoherent words
to Ophelia, to Polonius, gave a direct contradiction to the
above. All this vanishes when we see this apparent inco
herence is but profound meaning, hidden under artistic
unity. Shakespeare had ever a double plot to wed in
harmony artistic and spiritual unity. How he has real
ized the harmonious working of this dual unity the reader
will see for himself. First, an artistic development, which
must in reality be the servant of the spiritual soul and
idea. Second, the spiritual development, to hide under an
artistic envelope. It is the peeping out of the former,
through the often thin dress of the latter, which has given
149
rise to every ambiguity and perplexity in the various .criti
cisms upon this tragedy.
The union of the exoteric and esoteric sides are so
perfect, that neither is developed at the expense of the
other. " In Nathaniel Hawthorne's Transformation," Lord
Lytton says, "we have the classical sensuous life typical
through Donato ; the Jewish dispensation by Miriam ; and
the Christian dispensation shadowed forth by Hilda. Those
who do not follow the mysticism, of which the above are
the exponents, can never understand the story ; the concep
tion is most grand ; although the way it is carried out is
imperfect."
We have quoted the above from the late Lord Lytton's
Essays (Caxtoniana), to show what that great writer thought
of the principles of art which underlie all works of the
imagination.
We here again quote Lord Lytton on the duality of art :
" The writer who takes this duality of purpose, who unites
an interior symbolical signification with an obvious popular
interest in character and incident, errs, firstly in execution,
if he render his symbolical meaning so distinct and detailed
as to become obviously allegorical; unless, indeed, as in
the Pilgrim's Progress, it is avowedly an allegory. And
accordingly he errs in artistic execution of his plan, when
ever he admits a dialogue not closely bearing on one or the
other of his two purposes, and whenever he fails in merging
the two into an absolute unity at the end"
Here we have a complete definement of the rules of
what we might call double plot. Goethe has pointed out
Shakespeare as the great master of them. It is the im
possibility of recognizing and harmonizing one side without
the other, the artistic without the symbolical, which has
been the stumbling-block to critics. Both Shakespeare and
Goethe have so marvellously brought their symbolical mean
ings under the dominion of art, that there is little or no
conception of the very existence of the former in the minds
of ordinary people. Imagine Goethe or Shakespeare writing
plays, like a Sheridan or a Yanburgh, for mere his-
150 HAMLET; OB,
trionic effect, or to satirize an age! Their works of art
are but the vehicles and the preservative wrappers of their
thoughts, opinions, and prophecies. There is a rich mine
for futurity in all Shakespeare's works, down to his very
sonnets. It is Shakespeare alone who has so developed and
perfected this great art of arts that three centuries have
hidden his meaning, until the age recognizes in Hamlet its
own knowledge. Thus we grow up to genius, and not
until we have reached, by the aid of time, the level of
genius, do we understand it. Dr. Maudesley remarks in
his Essay upon Hamlet : " The right aim of a critic, who
is conscious of the exalted scope of art, is to show how he
has developed nature; to unfold the idea which inspires
and pervades the wondrous drama."
This is exactly what we have endeavoured, though
lamely, to effect in this short sketch. We quote from Pro
fessor Morley's History of English Literature the follow
ing as to Shakespeare's spiritual unities: "Every play of
Shakespeare's has its own theme in some essential truth
of life, which is its soul expressed in action, and with which
every detail is in exquisite accord/'
This is what a large body of Englishmen tacitly deny.
They have devoted themselves to the language, and surface
of the text, and have ignored, or refused to acknowledge,
the very existence of quite another side of Shakespeare's
works. In doing this the Poet is robbed of his true soul,
and the principles of all true art are forgotten.
Coleridge, Malone, Johnson, and a host of English critics,
have done nothing for Shakespeare's thought and soul.
Their criticisms are with art, and art alone. The French
mind seems farther off than even ours from a true conception
of the meaning of Shakespeare. We must make one ex
ception in favour of Victor Hugo, who, in addition to trans
lating the works of our Poet, has written an admirable
work upon him. Hamlet, he says, " c'est 1'univers." But
we have no direct light beyond this. The latest French
critic is M. Taine, who, in his History of English Literature,
of course discusses Shakespeare, and Hamlet in particular.
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 151
M. Taine recalls the dictum of Voltaire upon that play.
The latter, who understood perfectly the uses of dramatic
art, has immortalized himself in the following, which is
not unlike M. Taine's criticism: "Hamlet is mad in the
second act, and his mistress is so in the third. The Prince
kills the father of his mistress, feigning to kill a rat.
The heroine throws herself into the river. They bury her
on the stage ; the grave-diggers utter quodlibets worthy of
them, holding skulls in their hands. Prince Hamlet replies
to their disgusting follies with coarseness not less disgusting.
During this time one of the actors makes the conquest of
Poland. Hamlet, his mother, and his stepfather, drink
together on the stage, they sing at tables, they quarrel, they
strike, and kill I" 1
M. Taine, in a similar manner, tells us "Hamlet talks
in a style of frenzy." That the play is the produce of a
"night's delirium." Skilled in generalizations, with the
literature of Europe at his fingers' ends, M. Taine writes
to the countrymen of Shakespeare in this manner.
Does M. Taine understand his own mdtier of writing
histories of thought, since he cannot comprehend the greatest
master of that art? We must nevertheless acknowledge
the candour of M. Taine. There are thousands who refuse
to see a difficulty in criticizing Hamlet. They show in
capacity in harmonizing the artistic development of the
play, and refuse to own it is a problem. They thus shut
their eyes to their own ignorance, and succeed in perpet
uating this delusion.
To turn to the German mind, we find ourselves im
mediately in presence of our true masters, in respect to
Shakesperian criticism. Goethe has been the true discoverer
of Shakespeare's secret. In his novel, the Wilhelm Meister's
Apprenticeship, we have an exegesis of Hamlet. The true
value of that work is its interpretation of Hamlet. Hamlet
1 The curious part of Voltaire's blindness to Shakespeare's meaning lies in the
fact that he wrote his own plays upon similar principles. See Brutus, Mahomet,
Alzire, etc., etc.
152 HAMLET J OR,
is incorporated with Wilhelm, Serlo with Polonius, Aurelia
with Ophelia, and Laertes remains Laertes. The play is
used in the development of the novel. That novel is a
prose Hamlet. It would be easy to rationalize it thoroughly.
Philina is Philosophy, Mignon Poetry, etc., etc. It is a
history of man, in which Hamlet is blended. Thus an
interpretation of Hamlet is given in a detailed and lengthy
manner. It is not our province or desire to solve the
"Wilhelm Meister here. We ourselves were only led to
its comprehension by a first and earlier conception of
Hamlet. It has never thrown any distinct, or aught but
false light, upon the reading of Hamlet. No one has solved
the latter by means of Goethe's novel. To prove this, we
take a countryman of Goethe's, who is the latest and the
profoundest critic upon our Poet. Dr. Gervinus, in his
Commentaries, adds nothing new to the criticism of Hamlet.
Let us see first what Professor Gervinus, speaking for
Germany, says of the latter: "It is a text from nature
of truest life, and therefore a mine of the profoundest
wisdom ; a play which, next to Henry the Fourth,
contains the most express information of Shakespeare's
character and nature, a work of such a prophetic design,
of such anticipation of the growth of mind, that after
nearly three centuries it is first perceived and appreciated ;
a poem, which has so influenced and entwined itself with our
later Germanic life, as no other poem even of our own age
and nation could boast, with the exception of 'Faust' alone."
This is a refreshing contrast to the extravaganza of M.
Taine, and a direct proof how Shakespeare is cultivated
and reverenced throughout Germany. But with regard to
Hamlet, the Professor says : " Since this riddle has been
solved by Goethe in his "Wilhelm Meister, it is scarcely
to be conceived that it ever was one, and one is hardly
disposed to say anything more towards its elucidation." 1
1 This shows how utterly unconscious Professor Gervinus is of the character
and nature of Hamlet. The riddle of Hamlet will probably remain one of the
remotest and most difficult of sciences, since it embraces all other sciences.
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 153
Is this the way the Philosophy of History, by the greatest
genius the world has ever seen, and written three centuries
ago, is to be treated? Nevertheless, Professor Gervinus
proceeds to discuss the play, suggesting much, and hinting
much ; but still clearly no nearer the real solution of either
Goethe or Shakespeare than he likes to confess. Thus we
are driven from the Continent home again in a discon
tented frame of mind. We must help ourselves. And it is
only right Englishmen should be first in this work. Dr.
Maudesley, in his recently published Essay on Hamlet, truly
says : " No one who sets himself anew to the earnest study
of the drama is content with what others have done, but
believes he can add something important from his own re
flections." All that Dr. Maudesley tells us, however, is
that " Hamlet is a poetical creation, and never was a living
reality." His essay is deeply interesting, and full of valu
able reflections on the play. He says truly, "Hamlet is
so acted upon, that events rather prick him on than his own
feelings." This is a profound recognition. For everywhere
in Hamlet we recognize this "pricking on." No one
realized better than Shakespeare how certain events, such
as liberty, knowledge, and progress, go hand in hand. So
much so that each monologue of Hamlet is hand in hand
with either Fortinbras, the Players, or some movement
which is indispensable to any further resolution, or action,
on the part of Hamlet.
All that hitherto has been said in connexion with Goethe
and Shakespeare is the criticism of Jeffrey in the Edinburgh
upon Wilhelm Meister. That criticism was to the effect
that the novel " is a most exhaustive criticism of Hamlet."
It is the recognition of a certain subtle relationship, but a
kind not easily rationalized.
The last notice we have upon Hamlet is Mr. Tyler's
"Philosophy of Hamlet." Mr. Tyler is one who has
suddenly been bitten with a Hamlet mania. He has been
suddenly illuminated with a revelation. But though partial,
it is a true one. And Mr. Tyler, believing that he of all
mortals is the first to make this discovery, takes good care
154 HAMLET J OR,
to let the public know of it. We are however little better
off than before. There is nothing new in his demonstrat
ing the relation of Ophelia to Hamlet. No one could help
seeing who Aurelia was in Goethe's "Wilhelm Meister, and
one could hardly help seeing that she is only Ophelia in
another guise. But is this sufficient to justify a claim to
a great discovery? If so, we must also make that claim.
But we thought any suggestions not in harmony with the
whole play, action, text, etc., to be absurd in the face of
Goethe's novel. And we have waited until, word for word
and line for line, we have had the play partially revealed
to us. 1
1 Nothing but a work of a lifetime could do justice to Hamlet, and it is
probable that each century will see more exhaustive interpretations of the play.
155
CHAPTER VII.
rPHE first thing to be done in criticizing a work of art
-- is to separate the main lines upon which it is built
from the secondary and correlated parts. In doing this
with Hamlet, we find the whole play to rest upon one first
cause. That is, the unjust usurpation of a throne from its
just heir by crime. The action will be then, first, the
detection of this crime; secondly, the attempts to revenge,
and turn the unjust occupant off his throne. Upon this
discovery and action the whole play will revolve. All
the rest of the dramatis personce are but accessories to
the discovery, to the revenge, and to the opposition to
that revenge. First, we have a King in possession.
This possession has been effected by crime. The right
ful heir first discovers and then avenges the crime.
The details of this discovery, and the struggle to avenge,
and resist this revenge, is the action, the detail, the whole
story of the tragedy of Hamlet.
The King is human error. 1 He is a mere symbol for
every injustice as regards man. He is in possession.
Prince Hamlet is the spirit of truth-seeking in man. He
is the rightful King by every right. But though a prince
1 Historically and philosophically alone. And he is the sum total of his
partisans. He dies as they separately are destroyed.
156 HAMLET; OR,
and the rightful heir, he never succeeds to the throne. The
King is married to the Queen. The Queen is human belief.
She is wedded to error. But truth must be also belief.
Therefore the prince is made her son. He laments her bad
marriage. But it is some time before he detects crime to
have been perpetrated, and that he has been not only robbed
of a father, but tricked out of the throne. As long as he
knew nothing of the crime of the King, he sees in the
King's marriage to his mother a just claim to the throne.
But when he discovers the crime of the King, he sees his
mother must be spoken with, reproached, and induced to
relinquish the King. To avenge the crime of the King is
then his only thought. To oust him from the throne to
kill him by so doing is the action of the play.
JNow let us take this theory of ours as exemplified in
history, and try and wed it to the structure of these main
lines.
There was a time when man knew not that error was in
dominion over him. Such times were the Bark Ages. The
discovery of error is to recognize its unlawful dominion.
To recognize that unlawful dominion is to wish to re
pair it, by getting rid of it. First, the discovery must
be made. Then the efforts to carry it into effect. The
last will be a work of time. It will be done only by
successive stages. To render that discovery possible, we
must have the means of discovery. To carry that dis
covery into action, we must have further means. And
over time will be spread the battle, which must be repre
sented by growth of power, implying loss of power on the
other side. 1
But this is the plan of the play. Characters inform
Hamlet of his father's Ghost. The Ghost informs Hamlet
of the King's crime. Hamlet then charges the King with
the crime. And then we have, with the successive fall of
the King's Lord Chamberlain and Courtiers, a successive
1 Thus Hamlet is born, grows to manhood, and accomplishes his mission and
destiny.
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 157
weakening of the King. Whilst with the means of Hamlet,
as contained in the characters who lead to discovery, we
have also the Players, the march of Fortinbras, and the
address to the Queen. The whole history of progress and
reform is one of time. So is the play of Hamlet. The
history of man's progress (as exemplified in Europe) is one
in which error is constantly weakened injustice and error
of course are the same. The spirit of truth gains at the
expense of error. But time is required, and the spirit of
truth is always lacking power to crush out every wrong at
a blow. It only gains strength very slowly indeed. Thus
Hamlet's want of power, or irresolution, is explained. 1 Time
alone can give it to him. In the death of Polonius we read
the first destruction of one of the King's bulwarks. What
should that bulwark be ? Certainty, we reply. For error only
exists in proportion to its being believed in with certainty
by men's minds. When this Certainty is dead, belief can
be shaken. So we have Hamlet's address to his mother,
and his direct charge to her for the first time after the death
of Polonius.
The discovery of error is only effected by the unity and
co-existence of three things. The spirit of liberty, know
ledge, and doubt. But we have all this in the play. We
have Bernardo relieving Francisco, as implying knowledge
relieving ignorance by the art of reading. Next, Marcellus
and Horatio, who are probably produced by the above
two. Scholarship and inquiry result from printing and
the diffusion of reading. Then the Ghost, or doubt, comes
in the train of the above. Knowledge brings criticism,
and criticism brings scepticism. And contemporary with
these we have the rise of Fortinbras, who represents
the spirit of liberty. Thus knowledge, liberty, and progress,
enter the play almost hand in hand. All these will
form the spirit of justice and truth-seeking, who is realized
presently in Hamlet. They then "go in together" to set
1 We cannot too much insist that Hamlet is acting all through the play, as he
kills the King through his adherents.
158 HAMLET; OR,
the times, "which are out of joint, right." That is to
attack error, the King, wedded to human belief. But how
are they to effect this ? They must first prove the King is
guilty of crime. They must show he is error. And this
they effect by showing the King how he became the
occupant of the throne. They point out his crime, which
is a revelation from scepticism. Error is only recognized
by showing how it is error. And the King is only King
in virtue of error. Therefore the Player- scene embraces the
Reformation, and the first revolt of Hamlet or man. 1 Upon
this revolt and its proof the play must hinge. From this
time the King must continuously lose power. This he does
first by the death of certainty shaken by the Player-scene.
And mark how this is effected by the Player-scene. The
Queen only wishes to speak to Hamlet in consequence of
that Player-scene. And this leads to the death of Polonius.
Thus the Player-scene is artistically shown to be the cause
of the death of Polonius. The first blow at the King is
the death of certainty. From this time he continues losing
power, and Hamlet in gaining it. After the death of
Polonius, Hamlet can address his mother. Belief is shaken,
is divided, and, from this time, she gets less and less faithful
to the King, until she dies, which is merely the death of
belief in error, and error in belief.
Who are the next enemies to truth and j ustice- seeker s ?
Clearly those who are benefited by error, or by the King.
They will not care about Hamlet, since he seeks to rob them
of their possessions in destroying abuses. 2 They will be in
different to reform. They must live in the lap of fortune.
They will therefore oppose Hamlet by every means in their
power. They must be pictured all this, and they are so
pictured. The weapons they use must be hypocrisy, cunning,
sophistry, indifference, and casuistry. The text will show
that the characters of Eosencrantz and Guildenstern are all
1 It is impossible to separate truth from progress, or the latter from history.
2 Those who understand history will see that Eosencrantz, by means of
Guildenstern, represents the chief opposition of authority.
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 159
this, and more. They will only be got rid of by time and by
a system of thought, which will crush them out. England
does this. And England is perhaps science. Science is truth,
which admits of no equivocation and no sophistry. The
action and growth of liberty, knowledge, and truth-seeking,
must be expressed. It is so expressed in the march of
Fortinbras, the speech of the Players, and by every soliloquy
or self-reproach of Hamlet. The continuity and gradual
death and lessening of certainty must find utterance. It
does so in the faint continuation of Polonius by Laertes, who
finally represents conservative literature. The growth of
Hamlet must be also expressed. It is done by touches of
the text. Such is the letter of Hamlet stating his naked
ness. The death of the King must be contemporary
with the death of the Queen and the death of his last
adherent. And the end of the conflict must be also
pictured. All this is done by the deaths of King, Queen,
Laertes, and Hamlet, almost simultaneously. Why must
this be so ? Because error lives by belief in error. And
error lives by its representatives in the play. When
injustice is dead, the work of Hamlet is done. The crime
is avenged. Therefore when the Queen dies, error dies,
and vice versa. When Laertes dies, the King or the error
must die. And, as Hamlet's work of warring for truth
is finished, he must die also. 1 And how is error found
out? By turning it in upon itself. Therefore the same
weapon must kill Hamlet, the King, and Laertes. And this
is the case. The Queen dies by the same potion as the King
also. Next, by what should the spirit of truth-seeking be
best accompanied ? By a spirit of liberty. And this is
marching with Fortinbras all through the play. The next
best friend to truth-seeking is the spirit of justice and in
dependence. And by knowledge, Horatio represents all three.
1 If we go deeply into the subject, we find our Poet is obliged to kill Hamlet.
Since truth is not an entity, but a movement, and the tragedy is concerned with
conflict alone, with the end of the latter, the personality of Hamlet disappears,
as he represents conflict alone.
160 HAMLET; OR,
And Horatio comprises Marcellus, Bernardo, and the Ghost.
Thus Hamlet is only an expression of liberty, knowledge,
justice, and truth-seeking. He is all in one. He is the
symbol of progress. And the King is the symbol of error
contained by his adherents. He is backed up first by cruelty,
force, and despotism. Yoltimand, Cornelius, and Norway
express all these. When they die, he has Polonius,
certainty. Next Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Then
Laertes and Osric, who are inheritors of Polonius 'and his
direct heirs. They are orthodoxy, literature based upon
certainty, and society.
The Church must find expression. It does so in being
pictured the daughter of Certainty. And as there is a period
in history when she is autocratic, the first attack of Hamlet
upon Certainty must be through her. Therefore she is
criticized by Hamlet. She is supposed to be sequestrated
from Hamlet. This is the recognition of their mutual
antagonism. As liberty and all free thought is considered
dangerous to the Church (who is one with Polonius and
the King), the representation of this must be given. And
we find it in Hamlet's supposed madness. Next, as
difference of opinion arises between autocratic Certainty,
through Intolerance, and the growing Hamlet, the text
furnishes in Hamlet's letter to Ophelia the grounds of his
madness. His madness is his badness in the eyes of his
enemies. The growth of learning and criticism must be
expressed. The arrival of the Players supplies it. And
then we have the Reformation. The means Polonius takes
to keep Laertes orthodox is found in Reynaldo. The
Players are also to be prompted by Truth. How is this
to be expressed? In the instructions given to them by
Hamlet. How is general reform and progress to be re
presented ? By an introduction of Time and Progress,
in a scene effecting their ends. In this scene the progress
of the age is represented by criticism of every sort and
the recognition of social law. How is the decadence of
the Church to be represented? By real madness or in
coherence, by change in drowning, and by final burial.
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 161
And this is shown to be the result of the death of Certainty.
What is the advice of Laertes to his sister ? The support
of the Church by orthodox literature. How is the persecu
tion of the spirit of reform to be artistically rendered ?
By touches of the text. How is the growing criticism
of authority and error' to be portrayed ? By satire,
irony, and mockery, under cover of madness. How is the
continuity of the dead characters l to be portrayed ? By
sometimes artistic reference to the body, and gradual burial,
as in the case of Polonius and Ophelia. How is the weak
ness of progress to be expressed in the play? By the
irresolution of the spirit of progress, viz. Truth.
To do justice to Hamlet would be to take the tragedy line
for line and word for word. Then to exhaust the historical
parallelism of the History of Europe since the end of the
Dark Ages. And finally to discuss the Philosophy of
History therein contained. But before a work of this sort
is attempted let us have a flood of criticism. For this is
the ordeal of every truth, and the better the truth the worse
for criticism. There are many points we have refrained
from touching upon in the play. Such is the praying of
the King, and Hamlet's thoughts of killing him. We think
this is meant to illustrate the weakness of the King. A
weakness springing from Hamlet's corresponding strength.
We must never forget the great difficulties which art must
encounter in expressing truth. Much must be taken as
understood. Thus we see that the arrival of the Players is
the arrival of Hamlet to a state of manhood. He has grown,
and he has expanded into " Learning," which soon shows
itself in the action of the Player-scene. Shakespeare has
made actors artistically the type of true actions in the world.
And the contrast between the acted upon and those who act
is very striking.
The end of the tragedy is in perfect accordance with our
efforts at interpretation. Fortinbras, though not seen, has
1 And by the contiuuation of Polonius through Laertes.
11
162 HAMLET ; OR,
been marching silently all through the play. 1 The death of
Hamlet is his signal to appear in complete conquest from
Poland. 2 Liberty, which we found expressed in abortive
revolt at the earliest part of the tragedy, has shown itself
once with forces marching in the middle of the play. It
then gave Hamlet a tremendous impulse. For he used his
reason with England; and thus liberty and science, with
justice, have possession of the field. Every word of the
text is in harmony with the above.
How perfectly the death of Rosencrantz and Guilden-
stern is in harmony with our hypothesis as regards
England! And we do not hear of their deaths until
Hamlet is dead !
" First Amb. The sight is dismal ;
And our affairs from England come too late :
The ears are senseless that should give us hearing,
To tell him his commandment is fulfill'd,
That Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead :
Where should we have our thanks ?
Hor. Not from his mouth,
Had it the ahility of life to thank you :
Se
In the last lines we have an apparent contradiction. Did
not Hamlet give commandment for their death ? Artistically,
yes ; truly, no. They died by the letter of the King. That
letter, being signed by Hamlet, was their death, by their own
errors. 3 Rosencrantz and Guildenstern died of their own
" baser natures," by the progress of the systematization of
truth science. Horatio says :
" . . . . Give order that these bodies
High on a stage be placed to the view ;
1 Fortinbras, it is plain, is might and right. The conquering march of Hamlet
is thus artistically expressed. But this is liberty.
2 The sudden introduction of Fortinbras and the Ambassadors from England
exactly as Hamlet dies proves our theory, that Hamlet is conflict alone. For it is
only with the end of conflict that perfect liberty and justice can be realized, as
also science.
3 As in the case of Laertes, both Eosencrantz and Guildenstern die when their
errors are turned in upon them, by the contradiction of truth when contrasted with
the false.
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 163
And let me speak to the yet unknowing world
How these things came about : so shall you hear
Of carnal, bloody, and unnatural acts,
Of accidental judgments, casual slaughters,
Of deaths put on by cunning and forced cause,
And, in this upshot, purposes mistook
FalVn on the inventors' heads : all this can I
Truly deliver."
The above is the history of history. One of conflict, of
slaughter, and of accidental judgments, all at last to fall
upon the inventors' heads. This is the history of man, iden
tical with Pisistratus Caxton's intended history of "human
error." Hamlet is the history of human error past, present,
and to come. Horatio will deliver " all this (can I) truly
deliver." For Horatio is to Hamlet what Laertes was to the
King literature. And all through the last scenes Hamlet
is warring through Horatio. We have a condensed history
of history in the play of Hamlet. The name of Hamlet is
not unsuggestive of MANLET, "A Little History of Man."
It is the history of progress. And it is a sublime prophecy.
The last words of the play should be written on the heart
of every true lover of progress, " Go, bid the soldiers
shoot."
The play is continuous, blended, and gradual. No
abrupt halts. Insensible deaths and insensible progress.
All dovetailed, all connected, until the whole conflict is over,
and harmony and equilibrium are established in identity
of interests and purpose. Thus man's apprenticeship ends,
leaving complete liberty, complete justice and science to
continue his travels. This is the tragedy of Hamlet. An
eminently optimistic view of life, and without doubt the
real one, which will arrive at some future day.
This is only a sketch the briefest sketch over a subject
actually limitless and boundless. Every line, every word,
could be taken as the text of a sermon, article, or essay upon
humanity. It is, as a whole, the Philosophy of History in
Europe. It is a solution of that Philosophy of History.
Because, if true up to the present day, and that after three
centuries of prophecy, everything pointing as it does to
164 HAMLET J OR,
fulfilment of the rest, makes us inclined to believe Shake
speare before all men.
The subject of Hamlet is positively a limitless one. We
leave the reader to read a volume between the lines of the
text. He will find every word a revelation, every touch
the work of a painter who has used up nature, and even
the play upon words, to illustrate his deep meaning. Hamlet
is the work of a great historian. It is the result of a great
philosophy. And it is the prophecy of a more than in
spired teacher. Artist, historian, philosopher, dramatist,
prophet, are all contained in Hamlet. A god could have done
no better than our Poet has in this marvellous work. For
a god could but have been understood within the limits of
human comprehension. Hamlet has a threefold unity. The
unity of art, the unity of rationalism, and the unity of
history.
To add to all this, the whole three are united in perfect
harmony. Take the touches of the Churchyard-scene, and
its succession. First, discussion as to progress, and its re
cognition. Then the surmisal of law, next the criticism
of progress, and that of history. Finally, if Mr. Buckle
is not far wrong, the reduction of all life to an eternal
conservation and reappearance. Hamlet is indeed a little
history of man. It is the microcosm of the macrocosm.
No wonder Hamlet was a play our Poet constantly retouched
and altered. 1 His conception of this tragedy must have
gone through many slow processes and evolutions of thought.
The length of Hamlet's address to his mother is in keeping
with the importance of the Reformation. But we see how
difficult, nay impossible, to realize the schism in the action
of the play. For the Queen can only in words divide her
heart in twain; not in action. But finally we have her
drinking to Hamlet. Shakespeare has dwelt dramatically
1 Knight, Delius, and Staunton give good evidence that Shakespeare constantly
altered Hamlet. There is an earlier edition extant, in which the names of the
characters are different. For example, Polonius in this first (quarto, 1603) edition
is entitled Corambis.
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 165
alone upon the epochs and crises of history. The Player-
scene, the revelation of the Ghost, the death of Polonius,
all these are points upon which history and the play itself
hinge. Every minor event, every gradual decay or growth,
is in the text, or summed up in an appearance or return,
ouch is the grand chorus of Fortinbras, running like a
thread all through the play. Another is the spread of
education, by the revolution of Laertes. A third, by
Hamlet's banishment to England. And over all this the
insanity of Ophelia, in contrast to the one-sided mania of
Hamlet, hangs like an unutterable pall, to heighten the
contrast and the effect.
But before all this comes the exquisite beauty of the
Churchyard-scene. The decay of what is dearer to men
even than their lives (which they count as nought in its
defence), is represented by the aptest of images, a church
yard. J>eath is indeed at its busiest when progress and
beliefs are at stake. How many lives have been sacrificed
over questions of policy and belief! And here we have the
sharp contrast of mockery, ridicule, and laughter, with the
dread end. Everything gives way before those arch- clowns
Time and Progress. What genius, to represent Progress
uprooting institutions as skulls ! And how great the
art, that could represent man interrogating Progress, and
criticizing himself, by Hamlet's conversations with him
self.
Hamlet must be recognized as the History of Man. No
body recognized more distinctly than our Poet that Reason is
the son of Time. We are told so in more than one play.
Shakespeare was the most complete evolutionist that we can
realize. He was a firm believer in science. And he was
a Utopian believer in the future of man an optimistic
future after the end of the tempests of Man's Appren
ticeship.
The words of one Leonard Digges promise to be fulfilled to
the letter, aye, to such a degree as to make men believe that
they have indeed shaken hands with Shakespeare, but have
not known him until three centuries have passed over his
166 HAMLET J OR,
head. Those words are (speaking of his works) : " They
would keep him young for all time, and the day would come
when everything modern would be despised, everything that
was not Shakespeare's would-be esteemed an abortion; then
every verse in his works would rise anew, and the Poet be
redeemed from the grave."
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 167
CHAPTER VIII.
TT7E may now endeavour to realize the whole unity of
* * Hamlet. That unity is the unity and prospects of
history, when the latter becomes worthy of its name. For
mere despotism and stagnancy is not properly history.
Chronicles may hand down records of the deeds of kings
and of nations, but progress l only exists with the first in
spiration of the breath of freedom. Shakespeare has there
fore very properly left out all irrelevant matter. The Dark
Ages are the proper starting-point of modern history. As
they broke up, so the history of Europe began to evince
a growth and development, which is in striking contrast
with the credulity, superstition, and ignorance of anterior
centuries. The first thing to be represented dramatically
was the breaking up of darkness and ignorance. Doubt
illuminates itself by the light of the revival of learning.
Increased liberty gives and takes fresh power from this
movement, whilst out of it springs a force which is well
represented by Hamlet. The latter, we maintain, like the
King, is an attribute, not a personification. Hamlet re
presents the genius of truth and justice-seeking. He is
the human symbol, which wars for righteousness on earth.
He is well indicated when we use the word Truth in con
nexion with him.
1 We mean progress in the sense of modern history. Evolution is progress, of
course, and is identical with universal history ; but we believe that in this cos-
inical sense Shakespeare has given us the " descent of man" in " The Tempest."
168 HAMLET ; OR,
As the birth of Hamlet is contemporary with that of
liberty, Shakespeare has opened his play with the feeble
and abortive attempts of Fortinbras. At the same time
Doubt and Certainty succeed each other at intervals, until
Certainty is expressed by the revelation of the Ghost. 1
Hamlet recognizes evil, and sees that he is born merely
to set things right. This is his sole mission, and, prompted
by justice and reason, he makes up his mind to expose error,
wrong-doing, or evil.
Side by side with Hamlet, we are presented with his
enemies. These are expressed successively by despotism,
tyranny, authority, bigotry, self-interest, and gradually
modified into literary controversy. The principle of each
side is never lost to view. And this principle is explained
artistically by making the son of Polonius revenge his
father. Guildenstern and Rosen crantz fill up the interval
by personifying self-interest in power and the languid in
difference of the world generally. Hamlet is pictured as
first attacking and repudiating the Roman Catholic Church
pictured in Ophelia. The result is the Reformation, which
we must understand completed when he persuades his mother
to cleave her heart in twain, and throw away the worser half
of it.
With this act authority and the spirit of certainty is over
thrown. Therefore it is contemporary with the death of
Polonius. Soon after, we have the appearance of Fortinbras,
which expresses the immense stride liberty has gained
through the Reformation. The death of Certainty being
gradual, we have Ophelia continuing this decay in phases
of dissent and scepticism. She finally is buried. All this
time Hamlet artistically seems to lack power to kill the
King. But we maintain the King is only a fiction, or
symbol of abstract error, necessary for the drama alone.
Therefore the King is in reality dying all through the
1 We have not sufficiently explained Hamlet's father. Our belief is that Christ
or pure Christianity is typified through him. Thus the Ghost is a revival of
purity leading to the Reformation.
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 169
play, as each of his supports and members of his court are
killed by Hamlet. Irony, satire, and open ridicule also grow
successively out of each other as Hamlet gains strength.
The banishment of our hero well expresses the apparent
reaction of history. During this time forces are working
silently, and they do not break out again until Laertes, or
education, completes the revolution of authority from the
hands of the State into the hands of the people. The
return of Laertes is the complete revolution of politics.
In it the State exists for the people, not the latter for the
former.
But Laertes is still true to his principles. He expresses
in the place of sovereign, or State power, the principles of
a party. This party is of course the social and the stable
one. This state of things is most favourable to the growth
of Hamlet. Gradually, through reform, Hamlet escapes
from the trammels of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. He
returns thoroughly accepted by the opposite, or liberal party
of individualism. This is beautifully expressed in the word
naked. The relations of Laertes and the King are still
more beautifully insisted upon. And the questions at issue
become fought in a literary arena. Those questions are ones
beyond our age. They are social ones, which probably
affect the interests of privileged classes alone.
In the meanwhile Shakespeare has given us a beautiful
picture in the Churchyard-scene of progress generally, in
thought and in historical criticism. Our conception of that
scene is our particular claim to discovery. Much of what
we have already pointed out may be easily believed to have
been borrowed from Goethe. But this scene, which, un-
rationalized, gives no force to our interpretation, is in our
belief the very keystone of proof. Our conception of the
first scene of the fifth act is that Shakespeare has here
revealed the criticism of Hamlet by himself. The Clown
whom we have termed Progress, or Change, is only Hamlet
himself tracing his own genesis. Any fool can tell the
day Progress was born, for Hamlet was born that day.
Hamlet and the Clown are identical, In the progress of
170 HAMLET; OR,
truth we recognize, not a particular and separate birth, but
a progress synonymous with general progress. To trace
the genesis of progress is to trace that of truth, and vice
versa. Truth is an attribute, not a concrete something.
It is a relation, not a thing. Shakespeare has thus magnifi
cently realized, artistically and symbolically, the historical
criticism of man by man. The answers of the First Clown
are the direct results of historical criticism and retrospect
grown scientific. In these days, when every science tends
to grow historical and history scientific, we can perfectly
comprehend our Poet's meaning. It is just at this point
of the play that we should halt, and suggest the parallelism
of our own times and progress in general. The very
same Progress which was born with Hamlet, and which
arose with liberty in Fortinbras, is artistically represented
in the Churchyard- scene, as criticizing and uprooting in
stitutions. In short, Hamlet is grave-digging in reality.
The Clown is only an artistic double to Hamlet. Hamlet
has begun to evolve the science of history. Law, at first
ambiguous, appears in the simultaneous birth and growth
of liberty, knowledge, and truth. But it is subtle law,
which will away from the present to the past, and from
the past to the present. In fact, whilst we are eliminating
law, we are working under law. A procedure we do not
venture to fathom. We certainly believe that the Second
Clown is merely the symbol of time. For we have omitted
perhaps the most important element in proof of it. It
will be seen by the text that the Second Clown is termed
"gallows" We believe this to be artistic for all O's (OOOO). 1
This would well represent time. In Love's Labour's Lost
we have a specimen of the same word, which can throw
great light here.
" Rosalind. That was the way to make his godhead wax ;
For he hath been five thousand years a boy.
Kath. Ay, and a shrewd unhappy gallows too."
1 See also " Cymbeline," Act v. Sc. 4.
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 171
Here we have five thousand years only applicable to time
through the word gallows. If we are right, our Poet could
nowhere have found a word more fitted to express in a
hidden and esoteric way both symbolically and artistically
Time.
The whole Churchyard-scene stands for progress and criti
cism of a searching and profound character. We are not
inclined, upon second thoughts, to reject Mr. Buckle's inter
pretation of " Alexander." However that may be, " Yorick "
is clearly history. Nothing could be more admirable than
to represent Time and Progress as two clowns, who, by
mockery, satire, and discussion, laugh at everything in their
inexorable march together. The discussions between the
two are often metaphysical, and would well signify the fierce
discussion of philosophy through a length of time. We can
understand how Time thus instructs Progress as to Ophelia's
burial, and how Progress would evolve itself through Time.
This we believe most religiously to be Shakespeare's inten
tion, though we of course deprecate any intention on our
part to give the right meaning to each line and word. The
anomaly of clowns in, a churchyard is thus easily rationalized.
Shakespeare has distinctly realized the fierce and prolonged
decay of Ophelia. Even in her very grave the fight is
waged between Laertes and Hamlet. Truth is truth, and
Hamlet is in the hands of higher law, of reason, and of
evidence.
We have been forced by the nature of the problem in
Hamlet to attempt to solve it historically and universally.
Truth is not a thing ; it is an attribute. By itself it has no
existence. We can find its birth and its growth alone in
the history of humanity. The philosopher feels there is no
real separation in life and history. Politics, rationalism,
philosophy, art and religion, are all parts of one great whole,
and are all related to each other in unity. When we
speak of truth, it is only relatively that it can even have a
meaning. And the only human signification it can have
must be sought for in history. There we immediately
recognize it in the presence of the great dynamical principle
172 HAMLET J OR,
of progress. "Within the dominion of thought it strives
to show itself in action, until, accumulating force enough
through time as a party, it enters into the heart of
political, philosophical, and religious life, to reveal itself
finally in the civilization of humanity. Truth is thus the
principle which, by its appeals to justice, to liberty from the
absolute or Divine in all things, manifests itself in religion,
in politics, and in philosophy. "Whence it comes, or whither
it goes, is not for us to determine. Sufficient is it to us that
this divine idea of truth is implanted within us. Satisfied it
can never be, except in realizing God alone an impossibility
which still as an ideal unrolls and evolves the godhead
and essence of the divine in itself.
The whole of history is in reality the history of the
progress of truth. Its life is a growth which manifests
itself by political growth. The latter is the expression of
how truth permeates each individual and unit of the com
munity. "Where individualism, which is self-knowledge and
self-development, slumbers, we have despotism and tyranny.
When it awakes, it begins to realize its manhood, first in
self-government, afterwards in self-criticism. Thus we see
how impossible it is to deal with a problem like Hamlet,
and not treat it historically. For truth and error are
only attributes of humanity, and the latter are fully ex
pressed alone in history. Truth, justice, and liberty are
the real incentives which lead Hamlet forward. But these
require time to expand themselves through the growth
of education and knowledge. The more knowledge spreads,
the greater must be the latitude and force which truth
has to express itself. Based upon the order of nature
outside us, it can only find its expression and reflexion
within us, by the spread of knowledge and rationalism.
Science is thus the classification of the real relations and
truths of nature. The growth of rationalism is the recog
nition of the nature of reason, and of its basis in cause and
effect outside us. Knowledge and education depending upon
liberty have slowly to wait upon the political development
of the latter and the infiltration of themselves through the
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 173
units. Liberalism is thus a growth of units of individualism,
showing themselves as a force, and understanding more
and more the nature of the past, present, and future of
humanity. It is a pet theory of M. Thiers that, given the
art of a people, we may surely infer everything else about
them. And it is the truth. Art, philosophy, religion,
politics, are so related and bound together, that we only
lack proper data and knowledge to deduce one from the
other. The science of history is based upon their interde
pendence. Politics, we can easily see, express the know
ledge and liberty of a country. Religion, again, being a
reflexion of past and present knowledge, will find its
solution in philosophy, in rationalism, and in science, when
complements to the absolute in thought.
Hamlet, striving to act, is a magnificent picture of the
weakness of human thought, as it collectively begins to
realize its force in European history. The long irresolution
of man prior to the Reformation is thus expressed. And
this irresolution finds its true strength in the march of For-
tinbras l or liberty alone. Out of this political development
of liberty all the rest ensues as a necessity. "We cannot
too much insist upon the co-partnership of liberty, know
ledge, and progress. They are a triumvirate which spring
naturally out of congenial conditions, and mutual interde
pendence. Liberty awakens individuality, and the latter the
reason in each man. Again, political strife must be the
first expression of this growth of liberty. The history of
European civilization is the history solely of freedom, of
individualism, and of truth. Truth is bound up with reli
gion. It expresses itself in those ideals termed justice,
liberty, equality, and goodness. The kingdom of Christ is
an awakening and an endeavour to realize these ideas in
Europe. Hearkening to this spiritual appeal through de
velopment, man has so far progressed, as is compatible with
1 The reader may question our interpretation of Fortinbras as liberty. But, if
he reflects, he will see that Fortinhvas is intended to be might and right, and the
growth or progress of Hamlet. "What can this be but liberty ?
174 HAMLET ; OR,
the nature of force, to realize already some of these divine
ideas, if even in a faint degree.
The unity of Hamlet is, as we have remarked already,
to be found alone in the spiritual soul and interpreted
symbolism of the play. For example, the abrupt intro
duction of Fortinbras has never been understood by critics
who merely comment upon the artistic side of Hamlet.
So great is the objection to this introduction, that it is
frequently left out upon the stage. And we can quite
comprehend the objections which arise solely from an
apparent, not a real want of purport and unity. The
sudden appearance of Fortinbras is on the merely artistic
side an excrescence and an anomaly. It signifies nothing,
and adds nothing to the beauty or the complication or
development of the plot. But what a light it throws upon
the unity and aim of the play, when we interpret and
rationalize the whole in one idea and plan !
Then at once we see Fortinbras to be connected between
beginning and end of the play. The underground thread
is thus linked and pointed out as understood to be gaining
stealthy ground all through the story. Besides, the death
of Polonius being the result of the manhood of liberty,
necessitates the artistic expression of this growth of liberty.
And we see how it reacts once more with double strength
upon Hamlet. Thus, what has hitherto been considered the
great blot of the play becomes, by the light of reason, the
great connecting thread and ground plan. The aim and
end of the play is, that Fortinbras, as liberty, should finally
conquer. Horatio, as justice, also conquers. The Ambas
sadors of England, representing truth in knowledge, also
come in for the ultimate possession of the situation. This,
we think, is Shakespeare's aim. 1 Hamlet and the King are
symbols of a period of strife and conflict alone. Their
death represents the end of the struggle and the solution
of the problem. The dramatic situation is left in the hands
of liberty, justice, and science. This is our firm belief. A
1 Thus Hamlet's constituents do not die.
175
belief which Goethe indorses in terming the first part of his
own work the Apprenticeship of Wilhelm Meister. Hamlet
is Shakespeare's Apprenticeship of Man.
We would say something here as regards the profound
knowledge portrayed in placing Ophelia's burial after the
conversation of Hamlet with the Clown. Historical criti
cism is the great agent in theological change of opinion and
in the decadence of forms of belief. Without a retrospec
tion, which includes the rise and origin of creeds, there is
no scepticism, no unorthodoxy, and no falling off in point
of belief. Shakespeare has done well to make Hamlet's
knowledge of his own progress and genesis the forerunner
of the ultimate burial of Ophelia. Again, Shakespeare has
plainly pointed out, by Ophelia's belief in Hamlet's madness,
the disfavour in which the latter is held by the former.
To represent this real enmity, and yet reconcile an artistic
side, was Shakespeare's great problem. He has solved it,
in making Hamlet abandon Ophelia, and artistically ascribing
it to ambiguous madness.
The history of modern Europe is in a great measure the
history of the decline of the temporal power of religion.
As liberty and knowledge have expanded their wings into
the realms of political life, so we trace the gradual segrega
tion of theology to a position of less and less authority and
power. Prior to the Reformation, we find the State another
name for a religious hierarchy. Cardinals are prime
ministers, and the Pope a king over kings. To trace the
decadence of priestcraft would be to follow step by step the
history of Europe to the present day. But we may ask
ourselves the cause of this, and then we shall not have far
to search. The growth of rationalism is antagonistic to
the reign of superstition.
It is ignorance alone which can believe that one man
holds a divine commission to govern the other. Bit by
bit the sacred veil of reverence and fear, which shrouds the
priest, shows him to be a man often less inspired than his
lay brother. Shakespeare, in making Ophelia the ground
and basis of Hamlet's madness, has only actually pictured
176 HAMLET ; OR,
history as it was. Ophelia and Polonius are bound by blood.
Not less strong was the historical tie of authority and the
Church at a period prior to the Eeformation, if not later.
The philosopher of history must take into account the
criticism of Ophelia by Hamlet. And he is also bound to
recognize the relations of Ophelia to Polonius. Before
Polonius can be killed, Ophelia must be repudiated. In
short, an attack upon one is an attack upon the other.
They do not exist separate, but incorporated, and we must
never forget, therefore, that Hamlet's relations and conduct
to Ophelia are intended by our poet to signify his treatment
of Polonius and the King also. This is the reason why we
find Ophelia playing such a large part in the play. And this
is why what passes between Hamlet and herself possesses
such vital interest in the eyes of King, Queen, and Polonius.
By herself, and deprived of support in her father, Ophelia
sinks into insignificance. She becomes incoherent, she is
forsaken by Hamlet, and she not unnaturally commits
suicide.
The growth of Hamlet is one of the expansion of thought.
His repeated soliloquies in solitude have the effect of clearing
his intellect. He sees his way more clearly. And as all
intellectual development is fatal to the growth of emotion
and feeling, we find him becoming indifferent to the exist-
.ence of his once great love.
Polonius represents the principle of absolutism. And as
dramatic exigency necessitated his death, Shakespeare has
continued the slow decadence of this power through Laertes.
Ophelia and Polonius are one. Church and State for a
time represent authority and absolutism.
The resemblance which the action of Hamlet bears to
our modern conceptions of law is startling. Over the real
course of events the hero has no control. Hamlet has to
take his chance in his endeavours to kill the King. His
will does bring it about in a way ; but, let us mark, not in
a direct way. Hamlet is acted upon powerfully by circum
stances. The latter are completely beyond his control, yet
they are parts of the chain of destiny which bring about the
177
denouement. However, we know that Hamlet's irresolution
is not forgetfulness ; it is only weakness. And this latter
well expresses the impotency of the human will over events,
except in an indirect and unknown way. Whilst striving
for the thing at hand, we are gradually bringing about
something far off and undreamt by us. Unconsciously we
evolve a divine plan, or a procession of events, which we
understand alone historically. The human will, as depicted
in Hamlet, is entirely the slave of time and circumstances.
It is only by introspection, by knowledge of its own weak
ness, that it gathers strength. Again, it is entirely depen
dent upon others : only as a whole, as social unity, has
the human will any power. In short, it is the conflict of
opposing wills, of collective forces, which emerge in that
resultant which we call history. The individual will by
itself has no power. It becomes autocratic when it identifies
itself with the social will. The contradictions of progress
and history are the effects of our not being able to estimate
the several values of the forces engaged, either in opposition
or in influencing each other. The history of Hamlet is the
history of his gradual growth from a small fraction to a
great community of people. Fortinbras only comes with
conquest from Poland when the majority and the most
powerful are identified with him. Thus the idea of liberty
and the progress of truth are growths which have their
foundations in the amount of education and knowledge the
units of a people possess. The more independent the
electors, the more independent ought to be the constituents.
And thus the institutions, the beliefs, and the general state
of a country, are dependent upon the action and reaction of
individualism and authority. If the latter were identical
with the former, we should have realized Utopia. Each
man would be self-governed ; the wishes of the many, the
wishes of the units. But as long as such is not the case,
there must be an antagonism more or less between the
majority who govern and the minority who are governed.
Fortunately this minority is always altering, and promis
ing to become the majority. Things are thus kept going,
and each party lives to be somewhat satisfied.
12
178 HAMLET ; OE,
Hamlet exemplifies this in a striking degree. His pro
gress is one in which authority is always getting more
nearly identified with individualism. The direct antagonism
of the early portion of the play is substituted later for the
graceful courtesies which pass between Laertes and our hero.
It is the breathing time of day with Hamlet ; and he has
been long set naked in the kingdom. The march of Fortin-
bras has given Hamlet time to think and use " that godlike
capability " reason. . One of its consequences is the death
of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern at the hands of England.
The law of progress is one which admits of increasing
exactitude and differentiation. This can come alone from
individual effort in thought. The State as authority can
encourage or depress these efforts even quench them. So
we see how essential it is that a Fortinbras should march
hand in hand with Hamlet. Not alone is Fortinbras neces
sary, but the accompaniment of a ghost as doubt, which
by means of an active scepticism should constantly enlarge
our conceptions, and prevent us from falling into the delusion
that our relative knowledge is absolute, or that it is in
capable of extension. But here society steps in, and, as
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, offers its graceful and easy
optimism in the teeth of all unpleasant and naked truths.
The force of social opinion, of conventional thought, cannot
be over-estimated. It is here Shakespeare has underlined
his genius. The next great enemy to Truth, after special
authority in Polonius, is public opinion, expressed in the
social fitness of things, in careless indifference, in slothful
optimism, and in conventionalities. 1 These are well pictured
in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Their office is to run
with the hare and hunt with the hounds. They alone
banish Hamlet. With them he is indeed not naked. And
we can alone imagine the death of these two courtiers by
the hand of Hamlet through England. Truth, accompanied
by an army under Fortinbras, gradually realizes its deter-
1 Rosencrantz cannot exist without Guildenstern. The latter is method and
weapon alone.
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 179
mination to use its reason. All this time it is banished,
and working, as Fortinbras works, silently and very gradu
ally. In the fulness of time it returns, without the two
courtiers, naked. How has it attained this result ? We
reply, by the rigid method of England. That is, an expo
sition of truths, through scientific method. Would religion
and science ever have been at conflict, if the latter had not
offered evidence at variance and unequivocal in the face of
traditional contradictions ?
Guildenstern and Rosencrantz are safe upon the vague
and shifting sandbanks of ignorance. As long as proof is
wanting, sophistry can flourish. Verification is a deadly
enemy to mere dialectic and casuistry. Indifference
cannot maintain its light and careless air in the face of
relentless science. The easy way with which science was
once relegated to a few, and easily pooh-poohed, is now
past. Guildenstern and Rosencrantz can no longer take a
happy middle course. We speak out in these days ; and
we are forced not to ignore things, but to take our positions
upon one side or the other.
It is essentially necessary we should realize the import
ance of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Everywhere they
embarrass, and they hamper Hamlet. As long as he is
with them, he is actually banished, and, in short, stifled
under indifference and the self-interested by means of
sophistry and evasion. Hamlet is simply out of court.
And we have only to examine the play to realize every
where this interpretation of the two courtiers. 1
Shakespeare knew that there were two powers in the
world political authority and public opinion. He knew
the latter would step in and fill up the place of the former
when it had declined in autocracy. We therefore see the
exile of Hamlet following the death of Polonius. Public
opinion banishes Hamlet where before intolerance and perse
cution had acted.
1 This is the period also when Hamlet is pictured at sea and groping for
ends. This is historical reaction and pause.
180 HAMLET; OR,
Shakespeare knew there could be no progress, unless the
majority of a people were for progress. That majority
would only become in time liberal. And since he also knew
how legislation in England would become more and more
the voice of the people, he saw that no progress would be
realized whilst the enemies to progress held power. This
he represents in Hamlet's irresolution and weakness, which
is a proof of the minority of Hamlet. 1 Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern represent not alone society, but political power.
As the interested in office, they have successively repre
sented themselves as opposers of free trade, of Parliamentary
reform, and of every piece of just and righteous legislation.
They (Rosencrantz and Guildenstern) represent the con
tinuity of Polonius, and are themselves modified in
Laertes.
Hamlet, we repeat, seems to us to embody man, stimulated
by a divine idea. That idea is the eternal which is implanted
within us, and which permeates our being in the craving
for liberty, justice, and truth.
It remains now to trace the artistic resemblance between
our theory and Hamlet. The latter is painted as a gloomy
and profoundly philosophical young man. So far we recog
nize the gloom as the result of a recognition by truth-seekers
of the corruption and pessimism of certain historical periods.
"Without an ideal of good, of justice, and of progress, there
can be no pessimism. Hamlet is painted wretched, and his
misery arises from his being discontented and unsatisfied
with his surroundings. In his philosophical disposition we
recognize a mind satisfied with reason alone. Thought is in
him the governing principle. Disinterestedness and fidelity
to his father is his especial characteristic. The whole of his
character is a vindication of the beauty of truth. Alone and
by himself he manages to crush Polonius, Rosencrantz,
Guildenstern, Laertes, and King. It has been strangely
1 It is plain Shakespeare did seize in his mind what we term constitutional
growth. There were signs enough since Magna Charta and Henry the Third's
reign, to show a genius like our Poet what the future might bring forth.
181
overlooked by critics, that, though Hamlet dies, he alone, by
the power of thought, manages to crush an immense con
spiracy against himself. It is extraordinary to notice, how in
the play he destroys not only Ophelia and her father, but all
his enemies. Yet he is termed repeatedly weak and unsuc
cessful. Let us also remark how his friends, Horatio and
Fortinbras, survive him. It is for these latter and England
that Hamlet becomes, strives, and accomplishes his destiny
and himself.
Hamlet's grandeur consists in his patience, in his prolonged,
but still determined purpose, and in his truthful thought and
philosophy. Justice is his great aim, and his great desire.
He lives for it alone, strives for it, and sacrifices himself in
order to accomplish it. Justice and freedom are alone realized
in his death. Thus his whole life is one vast sacrifice, which
attains its end only at self-cost.
To many Hamlet may appear weak. To others unfaithful
in his renouncement of Ophelia. But, merely looking at the
play from the artistic side, we are struck with the unworthi-
ness of the heroine. She has no individuality whatever.
She looks upon her duty to her father as before her love to
her lover. She is in all things servile to the former, never the
heroine worthy of a Prince like Hamlet. As for our hero's
forsaking her, it is a strong proof of the meaning of the play.
For it proves to us Hamlet's madness, or it proves to us
Shakespeare's signification. But Hamlet's madness cannot
be even decided upon a purely dramatic and artistic side.
We say it is one of those shadowy contradictions which
symbolic art necessitates. The rationalism of the spiritual
soul of the play cannot possibly find art to convey it, which
can also bear on its side perfect consistency, and be free
from ambiguities. In our belief these latter heighten the
charm of the conception, and, by their mysteries, add to the
eflect.
Finally, we may remark that the Philosophy of History
contained in Hamlet is, in our eyes, exhaustive as far as
dramatism is concerned. What we gather from it is as
follows.
132 HAMLET; OR,
Individualism finds its true strength in thought. The
growth of the latter is the growth of progress or of
man. The Divine idea unrolls itself as the psychological
principles gain in strength and in comprehensive powers.
The growth of rationalism is the unrolling of the cosmos. It
is the reflexion in the microcosm, not of the macrocosm, but
of how the microcosm is related to itself and to others.
Misery, oppression, and stagnation, are the direct results of
ignorance. The latter of bad government or want of
liberty. In political progress alone a nation first realizes its
individuality itself. That is the reason England bears
such an advanced position in European thought and science.
Germany, in the growth of her national life, is an example,
different in degree, but not in kind. Progress is the realiza
tion of idea, and the birth of new ideas. These ideas are
always latent; they show themselves in the manhood of
nations. They are eternal, and find satisfaction alone in
metaphysical speculation, which, defeated, turns as a resource
to positive thought and action. They are the absolute as
conceived of God, as the infinite the unity and equation
of all things. The next lesson from Hamlet is the reign of
law, which dominates the individual, and, through the latter,
social man. That law is defined by our desires ands- apti
tudes. They are born, or inherited, acted upon by surround
ings, and developed by circumstance. The social man acts
and reacts upon the individual man. The latter is kept within
his orbit by authority, which ought to be the voice of the
many units. The individual, in his turn, influences according
to his genius the social mass, and so affects his own life. Two
problems are presented in life. First, to secure freedom
without anarchy, and without stagnation. Secondly, to secure
order and law without violating individual freedom and happi
ness. This can alone be realized when the two terms are
identical when each man's happiness is identical with social
happiness. But all this is within law. That law is to be
formulated alone by means of psychological analysis and
discovery. One thing is plain. "We recognize law. "We
know knowledge increases our liberty, for it enlarges our
SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 183
aptitudes, our choice, and our alternatives. 1 And knowledge
itself is verification, by means of substituting our rude guesses
to the test of the order in nature. We thus discover order in
ourselves, and order outside of us. The order outside of us
has made order within us. That " divinity that shapes our
ends " is not a Divine intervention, but a psychological growth
by means of accretion and accumulation of knowledge. Facts
are piled up, whilst the organism extends in its turn the
neural groupings from particulars to generals. We thus
bind the separate links of life together.
Hamlet bears some resemblance to Prometheus, and again
to (Edipus Rex. There is the same savage grandeur about
his character as we recognize in that of Prometheus.
Like the latter, he is chained to the rock of necessity ; like
the Greek drama, the play exhibits the same inexorable
character of fate. Hamlet has a fatal mission to fulfil, and that
mission is one not of his own making. It is imposed upon
him by the chain of life. And there is something about
the way in which he goes to his own doom, whilst obeying
his father's dread command, which reminds us of the story
of Jocasta and her son. His weakness puts him within the
pale of our sympathies ; his lofty and ideal massiveness of
thought, hurried along as it is by the cruelty of fate, im
presses us with awe and solemn mystery. Like Prometheus,
he is in the hands of the gods ; like Prometheus, he sub
limely bears his doom.
The whole life of Hamlet seems to us an accomplishment
of purport. This purport is laid upon him by " that divinity
that shapes our ends, rough-hew them how we will." And
his whole character and aspect impress us with the belief that
Shakespeare has painted him as an ideal of man fulfilling an
historical mission. In his passionate love of truth, in his pro
found philosophy, in his weakness and his unselfishness, he
1 Every man is free within the range of his character. But the latter is imposed
upon him by heredity, circumstances, etc. We can do what we wish, but this
latter is under law. Thus we never feel want of freedom, because we cannot get
outside of ourselves. Law and the feeling of liberty are thus combined.
184 HAMLET; OR,
seems to portray the noblest part of human nature. His life
is devoted to others ; of his own happiness he takes no heed.
A gloomy pessimism has its groundwork in his love of the
good and true, and his whole life is to revenge the noble and
root out the evil. Here we have the self-sacrifice of man,
who lives not for himself, but for an idea, for truth, for
liberty, or for humanity. Again, his whole development is
one which is gained by inward introspection and thought.
The strength and feebleness of the will has its ideal aspects
portrayed in Hamlet. He recognizes his own irresolution,
and he gains further strength from it. He merely falters
he never gives way nor forgets his father's command entirely.
And the will, as expressed in Hamlet, is entirely at the con
trol of circumstances ; thus exemplifying the necessity of law.
Nevertheless, he carries within him a freedom which finally
finds sufficient strength to kill the King. He thus again
idealizes human liberty, controlled under higher law.
There is no character in all literature, ancient or modern,
which equals, in point of the sublime, that of Hamlet. We
must never forget he is human. We must not pass over the.
fact that he is not a god. The sublime in the drama rests
almost entirely with the conflict of man and destiny. Whether
it be an Atlas bowed down under the weight of a world, or
Prometheus chained to a rock, the grandeur of the story re
mains, not with rude conquest and illimitable power, but with
the heroic, with the tragic, with destiny, and suffering. J[n'
Hamlet we have a character who realizes at once the profound
questionings of Titan thought, and the weakness of human
will, under the dominion of law. He appears, at one and the
same time, human nature in the abstract, and human nature
in the individual. The finiteness of knowledge, and question
ings of genius, are face to face with mystery, with destiny,
and with heroic suffering.
Hamlet seems to us the ideal apotheosis of thought, and of
truth. \Tt is his thought which constitutes at once his strength
and his weakness. In his contemplations he discloses a power
of mental action which endows him with the attribute of
force, lacking opportunity. By the side of the King and his
185
myrmidons he yet appears a giant, who draws his strength
from fidelity and truth alone. We feel he represents the ideal
aspects of humanity, yearning after the absolute, in justice,
in IiBerty, and in truth. The whole world to him is an
"un weeded garden." The glory of the firmament "a congre
gation of pestilent vapours." Everything is oblique. And he
alone lacks power to realize the glorious ideal of which he is
the true" representative. His whole duty and mission is to
set " the times right/' which are " out of joint." And we
immediately recognize strength of thought struggling against
strength of physical force and injustice. In his philosophy we
recognize a spirit of rationalism which is content with nothing
short of pure reason. He is not carried away by his feelings.
He forsakes Ophelia, to fulfil his duty, which speaks to him
from his own conscience. Life to him has but one aim
extirpation of the King. Of himself he cares nothing. He
easily detects the interested, the false, the mean, and the
sophist. Patience sits crowned upon him like a dove, yet
bears he for his motto Death or Freedom.
A FEW WOEDS
UPON
OTHELLO
OTHELLO.
WE should like here to say a few words about another
of Shakespeare's plays. We mean " Othello." That
play presents difficulties to criticism, which are fortunately
absent in Hamlet. The diversity of the latter favours
satisfactory solution. For if we can find identity, which
can satisfy every diversity, in one unity and one plan,
we at once feel our proof more complete. In Othello
there is little to apprehend. It is a simple story of the
effects of jealousy alone. But none the less are we positive
that it has a symbolical idea, of which it is the mere ex
ponent. As in the case of Hamlet, Othello is borrowed
from a foreign source. Cinthio's novel is now supposed to
be the basis of Othello. The recognition that Shakespeare
has borrowed from novels and stories plots for his plays,
strengthens our idea of the symbolical character of all his
works. If he sought merely plots whereon to hang his
symbolical ideas and conceptions of great subjects, we can
understand the secondary light in which plagiarism of this
kind stands. But if, on the other hand, his plays are self-
existent, and exhaustive on their artistic and exoteric side
alone, we feel that his originality must seriously suffer
in the thefts. Our own belief is that he was absorbed in
his great conceptions of truths, and that, in reading Cinthio's
novel, or Belleforet's tales, he immediately saved himself
further trouble by adopting the plot for his own uses. It
would be only in character with genius if he did so. For
the latter incorporates and embellishes all it comes across.
190 OTHELLO.
Goethe acknowledged his indebtedness to every one with
whom he conversed. Thus Shakespeare, to save himself
trouble and time probably, immediately recognized the
apposite character of a story, in relation to an idea or a
truth. We have already touched upon the symbolic character
of all works of genius. Indeed, an appeal to this truth is
absurd. Every work of genius is a living example of it.
Goethe's poems are all symbolic, never direct and simple.
Genius is genius, because it sees the many in the one, and
the one in the many. Generalization is synthesis, and the
latter is another name for unity of idea. Shakespeare, who
has profoundly analyzed over everything human, could only
have done so in disintegrating synthesis by analysis. Those
who perform the latter process must perform the former also.
The one is only the inverse of the other. The subtlest
thinkers are not only the keenest to mark the finite and
small, but the infinite and large as well. 1 Symbolism is the
highest order of thought we possess. It is the algebra, of
which mere feeling is the arithmetic. In conception and the
highest order of thought we do not image concrete things,
but formulate them. The imagery of imagination can give a
concrete artistic idealism to this symbolism. Thus the artist
in literature paints his conceptions in characters who image
in their actions, etc., his profound conceptions. Shakespeare
has undoubtedly employed his artistic genius in this manner.
And it is the nature of genius to create in art ; because it is
not satisfied with cold logic and bald dialetic. It must have
life, because its imagery is not successive as a chain of
reason, but intuitive, instantaneous, and pictorial in con
sequence. A tableau is formed in the mind, not a se
quence of syllogistic reasoning. This is why artistic
genius is before all other genius. It satisfies the feel
ings which play such a great part in it. Cold logic has
no feelings. None the less for all this is the rationalism
1 We are quite aware that a power of deep and searching analysis is often
accompanied by want of comprehensive power. But this is only found in scien
tific thought.
OTHELLO. 191
of symbolism in art absent. Intuition is to genius what
necessary truths are to others. A flash, not a laborious
process. For genius is born with inborn harmony
an organism which reasons unconsciously without effort.
This is why poets must sing. They cannot or care not
to reason ; for they feel what others require explained, and
they often sing what they could not rationalize them
selves. "We therefore claim for Shakespeare, in the name
of all genius, and in common with all genius, symbol
ism under forms of art. 'Victor Hugo tells us he wrote his
three novels, " Notre Dame de Paris," " The Toilers of the
Sea," and "The Miserables," as vehicles of three aspects of
life : Religion Nature Society. 1 Lord Lytton's novels are
examples of the same principles ; which, in an essay in
" Caxtoniana," he has brilliantly explained under the title
of " Principles which Underlie all Works of the Imagination."
Again, what is George Eliot's " Middlemarch " but a picture
of this nineteenth century ? We are very much mistaken if
Casaubon is not a scholastic and metaphysical "witches'
circle," and Ladislaw positive thought. If in selecting the
name of Casaubon, George Eliot has selected one which
recalls Isaac Casaubon (who, whilst adding nothing original
to thought, represents well the barrenness of erudition and
mere scholarship), why has she at the same time made the
Casaubon of Middlemarch a fruitless Dry-as-dust also ? Are
we far mistaken in the parallel ? However, symbolism is and
must be the true function of genius. Art is thus wedded to
rationalism, and so blended as to delicately convey truths,
which, in a less esoteric disguise, might do harm, and shake
the equilibrium of those who have not intellectual force
enough to think for themselves independently.
From this digression we turn to Othello. Here, as in
Hamlet, the first question we ask ourselves is, where is the
unity and plan of the play? If we take the latter solely as it
1 It seems almost childish to dwell upon this question. What is Dante's
"Divina Commedia" without a key? Have "Easselas," "Don Quixote,"
" Gulliver's Travels," no symbolic meanings?
192 OTHELLO.
stands, in its simple " unvarnished " garb, as one of the fatal
effects of love and jealousy, we find the unity of text and
action, character and consistency, strangely conflicting. For
example, the great stumbling-block to all critics has been the
reference to Cassio in the opening of the play. Here he is
called a " great arithmetician." 1 Again, he is mentioned
as married
" Almost damned in a fair wife."
We never hear of Cassio's arithmetic in the play, nor can we
imagine the necessity of it at all. 2 There is no mention
of Cassio's wife, though there is of Bianca, his mistress. How
are we to reconcile these anomalies ? Are they anomalies ?
Is Othello, like Hamlet, something more than a tale of love
and jealousy ? Even supposing the latter to be all, we find it
most difficult to carry any deduction of a philosophic character
away from the play. We are deeply moved; but we are
puzzled also with other things. For example, we cannot see
why Othello should be so soon and unaccountably supplanted
by Cassio. Nor can we understand the role of Roderigo.
What part does he play, and why is he introduced at all?
The song of Desdemona is also very ambiguous, as is Cassio's
intoxication. Now we propose to offer a solution of the whole,
merely as an hypothesis. We cannot even attempt to solve
the question by aid of the text. All we do is to give a
mere suggestion, that may find favour among some few
profound thinkers, not, we know, the many.
Cassio is termed a Florentine. His name is Michael. He
is called " a great arithmetician" and one of mere " theoric "
(< prattle without practice" Galileo was a Florentine. His
name was Michael. He was a great arithmetician. Besides,
1 " lago For, CertesJ says he,
' I have already chose my officer.'
And what was he ?
Forsooth, a great arithmetician,
One Michael Cassio, a Florentine,
A fellow almost damn'd in a fair wife."
2 Cassio as a soldier has no necessity in the play to be "a great arithmetician''
OTHELLO. 193
he was a contemporary of Shakespeare's, being actually born
the same year. Is it not just possible our poet has pictured
in Cassio 1 science) or knowledge of natural laws and discov
eries, which, through Galileo and others, were revolutionizing
men's thoughts during Shakespeare's life ? By the term
" theoric " we can understand well the light science is held in
by some people. And let us remember how all we have said
in our essay upon Hamlet, in respect of the sixteenth
century, is connected with the conflict of religion and grow
ing science. Shakespeare must have seen, as did many others,
that the whole question of the future lay in whether the
autocracy of religious intolerance would stifle the discoveries
of science, or be beaten and annihilated by the latter. It
was a battle which needed no great intelligence to foresee its
consequences. The Reformation had struck the first blow.
Men's beliefs in tradition and in the certainty of the past
were being shaken to their foundations for the first time.
"We have endeavoured to picture this in the death of Polonius.
The conflict between religion and science is magnificently
centred and typified in the life and persecution of Galileo. 3
We suggest Shakespeare in Othello has pictured, through
Cassio, science, or the growth of natural knowledge.
Othello, as black, seems to us to personify human ignorance,
lago expresses perhaps the influence of the past, of tradition,
upon men. His name easily stands for any number of years
ago. If we insert noughts between the I and ago t we have
10 or 1000 (years) ago. We merely suggest this. lago is
termed ancient to Othello. The latter places infinite cre
dence in him. Cassio is the lieutenant of Othello. That
is to say, on our suggestion, he has supplanted by proof the
claims of the past to infallibility and belief. But Othello
will still be gulled, and believe in the past.
Suppose now we were to take Desdemona as truth. Her
name sounds not very unlike testimony. Would not the
1 The name of Cassio suggests that it may be related to scio, sctre t from which
the word science is derived.
2 Not alone by Galileo ; but through Bruno also.
13
194 OTHELLO.
stifling of Desdemona by Othello well represent the way
that ignorance has stifled truth when gulled by the voice of
tradition? The disgrace of Cassio is entirely on the back
of lago. And the latter raises Othello's suspicions against
Cassio and Desdemona. Does not this well represent the
conflict of religion and science? According to us, all
Othello's miseries come from his easy credulity. And half of
the ills of humanity, wars, persecutions, etc., come from a too
easy credulity. We have nothing in common with those
optimists, who see the right (like Guizot) in everything.
Those who hold such a theory destroy the freedom of
law within law, of moral choice, and vindicate error and
evil at once. History is the history of human error, or it
is not so. However, we can see a parallel (whether true or
not) between Othello's credence in lago and in the beliefs
of humanity. The death of Desdemona, the disgrace of
Cassio, the torture and perplexity of Othello, are all upon
the back of that magnificent rascal lago. He is well termed
an "ancient" indeed. Let us notice how Cassio supplants
Othello. The whole play is in reality the history and pro
gress of Cassio. He finally rules in Cyprus. This has
puzzled critics sadly. Because, judging him by his intoxica
tion, they cannot see the grounds of promotion. But do we
read the true idea of the play aright ? Is Cassio's drunken
ness perhaps not the symbolism of religious conflict? In
the play we find the song of lago very curious and am
biguous. Cassio talks about " souls that must be saved and
must not be saved" Again, it is through Desdemona's
influence Cassio is finally reinstated. Cassio seems to be
defeated, only that further promotion may be gained from it.
Othello doubting Desdemona is a true parallel of ignorance
ignoring the truth, and believing it false through science.
The belief of man in the past, in the voice of antiquity, is
well pictured in Othello's credence in lago. The latter hates
Cassio, despises Othello, and sows mischief everywhere. He
not inaptly pictures Ultramontanism in the way he trades
upon Eoderigo, who may well represent the foolish dupes of
superstition.
OTHELLO. 195
Othello says of lago at the end of the play :
" I look down towards his feet; but that's a fable"
This not unreasonably suggests that lago is in some way
connected with the past. His feet would express the earliest
history, and Othello may well say " but that's a fable."
fhe whole conflict of history is one of two forces past and
present. The past, by its antiquity, custom, authority, and
endurance, is always, like lago, persuading and influencing
the lives and beliefs of men. The present, born of know
ledge slowly accumulated, throws light upon truths hitherto
unapprehended, and which are at variance with the voice of
the past. Until man clearly learns to comprehend the
nature of progress and development, the discoveries of
science are loolgd_jipon by many as dangerous innova
tions. ' Truth His rejected, and before truth can be accepted
the nature of lago must be thoroughly understood by
Othello. In short, Othello is a phase of ignorance. With
comparative criticism, and the intergrowth and dependence
of all the sciences, the character of lago is more clearly
defined. Instead of looking back with reverence, we look
forward with hope. And this is what we fancy Shakespeare
has somehow pictured in Othello. It is a picture of one
" being wrought, perplexed in the extreme?* Shakespeare,
without doubt, by the nature of his genius, clearly saw the
relation of man to nature. That relation is pictured, we
believe, in "The Tempest." And he must have accepted
the discoveries of science before the voice of ignorance. Of
course he saw also discoveries would accumulate ; and he
understood that for some time the greater part of men,
and authority in particular, would throw the truth away,
and believe the assumptions of tradition. This we believe
he has pictured in Othello. Here we behold a noble man
who, from a too easy credulence, is excited to murder
his faithful wife, and lay traps for his weak but faith
ful lieutenant. The whole of the play is the trium
phant march of Cassio. It seems as if his very weaknesses,
at certain periods of the play, are historical expressions of
196 OTHELLO.
want of power. We may notice the way musicians are in
troduced; which- seems very much like the harmony of
gathering force. Shakespeare lived at exactly the time when
Cassio, as science, may be well represented as stepping into
lago's shoes. The play opens with the non-suiting of lago's
mediators. But the power of lago, and the misery which he
entails upon Othello, seems also to symbolize the long con
flict of religion and science (another term for the past and
present), which has continued from the sixteenth century
to the present day. How many truths have been post
poned, laughed down, and stifled, because the past did not
agree with them? How often has truth been persecuted,
and oppressed, for the same reason !
It seems to us that Shakespeare has purposely allowed the
soul of his work to crop up in places devoid of artistic
covering and unity. For example, this association of Cassio' s
name in Othello with arithmetic, seems to point directly to a
profounder meaning than has hitherto been surmised. It is
absurd, as well as most shallow, for criticism to try and over
look such a subtle hint. Wo one can calmly assert that
Shakespeare had no purport when he put these words into
lago's mouth. Until we can reconcile every line and every
word of the text with the unity of idea which pervades the
play, we must acknowledge ourselves in fault.
>-^ Wondrous as is the play of Othello, we instinctively feel
that, like all Shakespeare's works, it is great on not alone
the purely artistic side. We are certain that something
more than the bare and vulgar effects of jealousy is pointed
at. We are bound, when we criticize Shakespeare, to allow
that it is possible his philosophy and art may be wider
and deeper than we dream. If Cassio represents, as we
surmise, science, then we claim for Othello a place only
second to Hamlet. We see at once that, taking Galileo
as a type and forerunner of the fiery trial which science
would have to suffer at the hands of the past, Shakespeare
has embodied, in the disgrace and final rule of Cassio,
the persecutions and triumphs of pure reason. Again, em
bodying in lago the principle of absolutism and certainty,
OTHELLO. 197
arising from antiquity and tradition, our Poet has realized
the long autocracy and tyranny of the past over the mind of
man. In Desdemona's song of Willow we seem to hear a
long sigh for liberty, which alone through Lodovico would
realize her happiness. Othello, we repeat, seems the sum
total of certain ages, "perplexed in the extreme," and be
lieving, to their own ruin, in lago rather than in Cassio.
Of course with the detection of lago, Othello, as representing
a phase of human progress alone, must die. Othello believes
his wife unfaithful to him, through Cassio. Plain sym
bolism is at once at hand. The truth, which man loves or
pretends to love so dearly, is evidently untrue, since Othello
believes lago, whose evidence is at variance with that of
Cassio. Simply Othello rejects such a truth (or dramatically
stifles it) as a lie. He lives to find out that it is not Cassio
who has done him wrong, but lago, who is a lying rascal a
fable. With this discovery (which of course is an end of
Othello as a phase of ignorance), he finds that Desdemona
was really true, and not false. Thus long-rejected truth and
persecuted science are pictured in Othello. At any rate,
whether true or not, we would institute this parallel, for the
sake of drawing attention to the nature of some of the
problems which Shakespeare must have realized during his
life, and which are being so wonderfully realized at the
present day. Thus the question which distracts us at this
moment is the comparative criticism of the characters of
lago and Cassio.
Shakespeare's century (the sixteenth) was the great criti
cal period of European history. The past and the present
were face to face for the first time. Science and religion, or
reason and antiquity, were struggling for existence. 1 We
believe Cassio represents, in his promotion over the head of
lago, an exact parallel to the growth of science during our
Poet's life. Copernicus, Kepler, Bruno, Galileo, had clearly
1 The sixteenth century will some day be looked upon as the turning point of
man's intellect. Rebellion, misgivings as to the past, were born then, to grow
into hope in the future.
198 OTHELLO.
stepped into the shoes of the past. But there was to be a
terrible struggle, and revenge on the part of the Church and
tradition, before this step would be consummated in men's
minds. Shakespeare saw this plainly. In the martyrdom of
Bruno he read the trials and triumphs of reason in the
future. And he has therefore made the career of Cassio
triumphant and successful. If we calmly ask ourselves
whether Shakespeare believed in the past and antiquity, or
in present discoveries of science during his life, can we
hesitate for a moment in our answer? We have an only
too clear exponent of Shakespeare's cosmical beliefs in " The
Tempest." There we have evolution. For Caliban, Trin-
(5ulo, Stephano, are undoubtedly three links, whose rise from
each other is successive. They connect together the other
and higher thread contained in Alonso, Gonzalo, Sebastian,
and Antonio.
Prospero is probably Time, in which Shakespeare has put
his whole trust. Ariel is perhaps Nature itself, through law
and through reality, the servant of time and the worker of
miracles. That Shakespeare has clearly realized through
Caliban, Trinculo, and Stephano, evolution, is unquestionable.
The name of Trinculo is clearly an intermediate stage (three
in one) between Caliban and Stephano. The way Trinculo
hides himself under the gaberdine of Caliban during -the
storm, is an artistic picture of a higher form evolved out of
a lower. Stephano by his name a-step-on-h(igher) clearly
realizes his mission. In the other characters Shakespeare
has taken large syntheses of human epochs and progress.
Gronzalo is Prospero's true servant and preserver, antiquity
and continuity.
Of all Shakespeare's plays " The Tempest" is the plainest.
Like Hamlet, it literally seems the tempest of man's appren
ticeship, who is tossed about by time, without knowledge of
self or aim. Time and nature land man at last on the en
chanted island of futurity, when time reveals (as it does now
to us) its character and its mission. With this knowledge
Ariel is indeed free. In picturing Ariel as living in a " cow
slip's bell," Shakespeare has exquisitely pictured nature.
OTHELLO. 199
Prospero or time teaches Caliban language, etc. Two
threads are noticeable in the play. One thread is that by
which we are let into the magic of time and nature ; and
the other is a purely human side alone. Through the
masque Shakespeare has undoubtedly given us as a corollary
the different stages of man's progress. Agriculture alone,
the blessings of the" union of mind and labour in knowledge,
are successively pictured leading up to the highest idealism
and Carlyleism. Those who fail to realize the nature of
Shakespeare's "Tempest" must be blind indeed. In Miranda
we have the human intellect, that " wonder," of which
Prospero is master in "a full poor cell." Thus Shake
speare has interwoven in his play several aspects of evolu
tion. He has pictured mind as a psychological growth alone,
and led human development into something higher out of
a Caliban up to the finding of Ferdinand. But with all
this we are not concerned, except so far as they prove Shake
speare to have been an evolutionist and a Darwinian.
Therefore we may say, with some likelihood, that in Othello
Shakespeare has pictured that struggle between past and
present which was so wondrously commenced during Shake
speare's life, and which is still working itself out at the
present day.
APPENDIX.
A FEW GENERAL REMARKS.
"We would here deprecate any too close interpretation
being assigned to our interpretation of Hamlet. We rather
wish to have exemplified the scheme, the plot, the sub
ject-matter, than the exact Hamlet of our Poet. The latter
would be too great an assumption. Whether we take Ham
let as the growth of rationalism, resulting from the revival
of learning and the Reformation, or simply as truth, the
principle involved remains the same. Hamlet is humanity,
in historical continuity and development. This is all we
insist upon. To affix too narrow a signification to any of
the characters is not our intention ; and when such a broad
subject as History is in question, the mind must indeed fill
up the vacuum. We have only called the dramatis persona
truth, error, certainty, or indifference, to illustrate what we
believe Shakespeare's meaning. If we have gone into detail
where we should not, it is rather in the hope of suggestion
and of showing how every line might be rationalized. The
characters of Shakespeare are far too collective in essence to
be exhausted in any words.
As regards Ophelia, we can come to no certain conclusion.
No more is heard of her after her burial in the play.
Whether the hope of Laertes, that violets might spring
202 APPENDIX.
from her unpolluted flesh, is fulfilled we know not. The
play of Othello seems to us to deal more directly with this
subject.
With regard to Hamlet's madness, we hope we have made
its nature pretty clear to the student. In respect of Hamlet's
banishment to England, his capture by a pirate, and his
return to Denmark, we would venture to suggest that our
Poet would have been clearer and (it seems) done better, to
have made our hero accompany the courtiers to England,
and, after having seen them killed by a slow and insidious
death, to have returned with Fortinbras in conquest from
England. "We have as high an authority as Goethe on our
side, who evidently took the same view. But probably
Goethe erred, as we do, from want of real insight. And we
believe further elucidation will only redound to Shake
speare's perfection in every detail.
APPENDIX. 203
HISTORICAL CHARACTER OF HAMLET.
The historical and real nature of the tragedy cannot be
argued away. The student can say with Fabian in "Twelfth
Night":
" Fab. I will prove it legitimate, sir, upon the oaths of judgment and reason.
Sir To, And they have heen grand-jurymen since before Noah was a sailor."
The proofs of the historical nature of Hamlet are abundant.
First. The references to Wittenberg.
Secondly. The names of Baptista, Luciamis, Bernardo.
Thirdly. The introduction of Fortinbras, and the identity
in the Churchyard-scene, of the birth of Fortinbras, Clown,
and Hamlet at the same time.
Fourthly. Their actual identity of birth in the beginning
of the play.
Fifthly. The harmony shown in the relations of Ophelia
and Laertes to Polonius, by their continuity and their con
duct and action towards Hamlet.
Sixthly. The steady progress of Hamlet and his irresolu
tion. Also the incentives to action he gets from what really
are impulses to progress in life, but which cannot be ex
plained rationally otherwise, viz. the march of Fortinbras
(growth of liberty).
Seventhly. The ready and easy way the play falls into
historical parallelism ; but refuses any rationalism other
wise.
204 APPENDIX.
HAMLET'S FATHER.
The murder of Hamlet's father is actually, in our eyes,
the corruption of Christianity. Thus the Ghost represents
the resurrection and revival of the pure Apostolic faith
through Protestantism. This Ghost may therefore be well
termed the spirit of doubt as regards its criticism of Roman
Catholicism. We immediately recognize, therefore, in the
Player- scene, the principles of the Reformation. Here we
have a scene by which the King is exposed and detected, by
acting or demonstrating the corruption he has effected
through the ears of men. This is artistic for the famous
protest itself, as the essence of the Reformation. Corrup
tion is not only detected, but laid bare. Hamlet's father
being the spirit of Christianity, is the subject of rumours
and disturbances in the opening of the tragedy. And we
can well understand our Poet's meaning. The play opens
with those early disturbances (paralleled perhaps through
the Waldenses, etc.) which foreshadowed the Reformation.
Symbolically the Ghost typifies the shadowy revival and
resurrection of the spirit of Christianity and truth which
accompanied the revival of learning. The true sons of
Hamlet's father are the Reformers themselves. In short
they are young Hamlet. And Shakespeare has identified
the spirit of Christianity with the spirit of truth-seeking
all through the play. 1 We can now understand the allusions
1 Readers may think the burial of Ophelia a contradiction in the teeth of all
this. But possibly Christianity was more an ideal subjective revelation in Shake
speare's eyes than an objective fact. Christianity is more powerful and holds
more true to the former position than to the latter.
APPENDIX. 205
of Horatio in connexion with the late King. And Hamlet's
speech, where he says " He was a king" leaves us no doubt
that Christ is here typified and pointed at as the representa
tive and true symbol of Christianity itself. The Reformation
was in reality a revival of Christ. And the Ghost is the
artistic parallel, in our belief, of this rebirth. Gradually
what first reveals itself by surmise and doubt, grows into
certainty by the light of knowledge and liberty. Finally,
corruption and error are exposed and denounced. Naturally
this is followed by the death of Polonius, who represents
so well certainty or infallibility, authority, bigotry, and in
terference. Thus we believe has Shakespeare artistically
paralleled the Reformation.
206 APPENDIX,
THE FATNESS OF HAMLET.
In the following expression of the Queen with regard to
Hamlet
" He's fat, and scant of breath.
Here, Hamlet, take my napkin, rub thy brows :
The Queen carouses to thy fortune, Hamlet "
we read the prosperity and well-to-do circumstances of
our hero. In fact, symbolically, things go very much his
own way, with the exception of Laertes. That is to say,
Hamlet is fat for want of exercise. The reader will under
stand us. And we believe this still further from the words of
the Queen. She says she drinks to Hamlet. Thus belief is
almost universally on Hamlet^s side, or Progress. And this
state of Hamlet is well expressed in the words " fat and
scant of breath."
HAMLET ON THE STAGE.
It is only since this work has almost passed through the
press that we have been made aware that Mr. Irving and
Signer Salvini hold a copy of Hamlet in their hands, whilst
striving (during the Interlude) "to catch the conscience of
the King." This shows a thorough comprehension of Ham
let (up to that point) as History. It is possible (if our in
terpretation with regard to the Churchyard- scene is finally
accepted) to add to the force of the play upon the stage, by
still further histrionic symbolism. For example, if the First
Clown (dramatic double to Hamlet) were dressed as a second
Hamlet, it would distinctly symbolize Hamlet's self-criticism
with startling efiect.
APPENDIX,
>07
HAMLET'S HISTORY.
The following is a brief analysis of the artistic and symbolic
continuity, in respect of Hamlet's progress :
1 . THE BIRTH OF HAMLET comprises : Bernardo, Marcellus, Horatio, the early
revolts of Fortinbras, and the Ghost's revelation.
1. THE GROWTH OF HAMLET comprises: Hamlet's madness, his satire of Polo-
nius, his persecution, his criticism of the Church, and the arrival of the
Players.
3. THE MANHOOD OF HAMLET comprises: His determination to act in " To be,
or not to be" his mockery of Polonius, his inspiration and address to the
Players, his action in getting up the Player-scene, and the Player-scene
itself.
4. THE ACTION OF HAMLET comprises: Death of Polonius, address to his mother,
banishment to England, death of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, and
finale of the tragedy.
RESULTS OF THE DEATH OF POLONIUS.
1. Death of Ophelia.
2. Return of Laertes.
3. Death of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.
4. March of Fortinbras.
6. Address to his mother..
6. Death of Laertes,
7. Death of King, Queen, Laertes, and HAMLET.
208 APPENDIX.
THE SOLUTION OF HAMLET.
The interpretation of Hamlet should be the work of many.
Each character, every line of the text, should be made the
subject of special study. The same process employed in
scientific discovery should be used in detail. Gruesses should
be made until they are wedded by induction with the text
and the unity of the whole play. If half a dozen resolute
thinkers would give their time to this work, we should
soon understand Shakespeare. As for ourselves, the opinions
herein contained are the results of years of patient thought.
THE END.
STEPHEN AUSTIN AND SONS, PRINTERS, HERTFORD.
1 1 1977
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY
PR Mercade
2807 Hamlet
