02.04.2013 Views

A History of English Literature

A History of English Literature

A History of English Literature

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

the men <strong>of</strong> the royal family; but Prince Hamlet had reason to feel that<br />

Claudius had taken advantage <strong>of</strong> his absence to forestall his natural<br />

candidacy. The respect shown throughout the play by Claudius to Polonius,<br />

the Lord Chamberlain, now in his dotage, suggests that possibly Polonius<br />

was instrumental in securing Claudius' election. A very few weeks after the<br />

death <strong>of</strong> King Hamlet, Claudius married Gertrude. Prince Hamlet, recalled to<br />

Denmark by the news <strong>of</strong> his father's death, was plunged into a state <strong>of</strong><br />

wretched despondency by the shock <strong>of</strong> that terrible grief and by his<br />

mother's indecently hasty marriage to a man whom he detested.<br />

There has been much discussion as to whether or not Shakspere means to<br />

represent Hamlet as mad, but very few competent critics now believe that<br />

Hamlet is mad at any time. The student should discover pro<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> this<br />

conclusion in the play; but it should be added that all the earlier<br />

versions <strong>of</strong> the story explicitly state that the madness is feigned.<br />

Hamlet's temperament, however, should receive careful consideration. The<br />

actual central questions <strong>of</strong> the play are: 1. Why does Hamlet delay in<br />

killing King Claudius after the revelation by his father's Ghost in I iv?<br />

2. Why does he feign madness? As to the delay: It must be premised that the<br />

primitive law <strong>of</strong> blood-revenge is still binding in Denmark, so that after<br />

the revelation by the Ghost it is Hamlet's duty to kill Claudius. Of course<br />

it is dramatically necessary that he shall delay, otherwise there would be<br />

no play; but that is irrelevant to the question <strong>of</strong> the human motivation.<br />

The following are the chief explanations suggested, and students should<br />

carefully consider how far each <strong>of</strong> them may be true. 1. There are external<br />

difficulties, _a_. In the earlier versions <strong>of</strong> the story Claudius was<br />

surrounded by guards, so that Hamlet could not get at him. Is this true in<br />

Shakspere's play? _b_. Hamlet must wait until he can justify his deed<br />

to the court; otherwise his act would be misunderstood and he might himself<br />

be put to death, and so fail <strong>of</strong> real revenge. Do you find indications that<br />

Shakspere takes this view? 2. Hamlet is a sentimental weakling, incapable<br />

by nature <strong>of</strong> decisive action. This was the view <strong>of</strong> Goethe. Is it consistent<br />

with Hamlet's words and deeds? 3. Hamlet's scholar's habit <strong>of</strong> study and<br />

analysis has largely paralyzed his natural power <strong>of</strong> action. He must stop<br />

and weigh every action beforehand, until he bewilders himself in the maze<br />

<strong>of</strong> incentives and dissuasives. 4. This acquired tendency is greatly<br />

increased by his present state <strong>of</strong> extreme grief and despondency.<br />

(Especially argued by Pr<strong>of</strong>essor Bradley.) 5. His moral nature revolts at<br />

the idea <strong>of</strong> assassination; in him the barbarous standard <strong>of</strong> a primitive<br />

time and the finer feelings <strong>of</strong> a highly civilized and sensitive man are in<br />

conflict. 6. He distrusts the authenticity <strong>of</strong> the Ghost and wishes to make<br />

sure that it is not (literally) a device <strong>of</strong> the devil before obeying it.<br />

Supposing that this is so, does it suffice for the complete explanation,<br />

and is Hamlet altogether sincere in falling back on it?<br />

In a hasty study like the present the reasons for Hamlet's pretense <strong>of</strong><br />

madness can be arrived at only by starting not only with some knowledge <strong>of</strong><br />

the details <strong>of</strong> the earlier versions but with some definite theory. The one<br />

which follows is substantially that <strong>of</strong> Pr<strong>of</strong>essor Lewis. The pretense <strong>of</strong><br />

madness was a natural part <strong>of</strong> the earlier versions, since in them Hamlet's<br />

uncle killed his father openly and knew that Hamlet would naturally wish to<br />

avenge the murder; in those versions Hamlet feigns madness in order that he<br />

may seem harmless. In Shakspere's play (and probably in the older play from<br />

which he drew), Claudius does not know that Hamlet is aware <strong>of</strong> his guilt;<br />

hence Hamlet's pretense <strong>of</strong> madness is not only useless but foolish, for it<br />

attracts unnecessary attention to him and if discovered to be a pretense<br />

must suggest that he has some secret plan, that is, must suggest to<br />

Claudius that Hamlet may know the truth. Shakspere, therefore, retains the<br />

pretense <strong>of</strong> madness mainly because it had become too popular a part <strong>of</strong> the

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!