A History of English Literature
A History of English Literature
A History of English Literature
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