THE PHILOSOPHY OF "HAMLET/' T,TYLER,M.A. Cornell University Library PR 2807.T98 The philosophy of "Hamlet". 3 1924 013 138 601 Cornell University Library The original of tiiis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924013138601 THE PHILOSOPHY OF ''HAMLET." . THOMAS JYLEE, M.A. OJ the University of London, ATTTHOB OF " ECCSLBSIABTES J A OONTKIBnTION TO ITS INTEEPBETATION," ETC. EIO. ' To hold, as 'twere, the mirror up to Nature." Hamlet, Act iii, Sc. i. WILLIAMS AND NOEGATE, 14, HENRIETTA STREET, OOVBNT GARDEN, AND 20, SOUTH FEBDBEIOK STREET, BDINBUEGH. 1874. [All Rights reserved.^ A:6^iyf'? TOWIK BEOTHBKS, PKINTEES. PEEFACE. QINCE books are commonly appraised, like wool and tallow, according to their weight and bulk, some apology may be necessary for offering to the public so small a treatise on so great a subject as " The Philosophy of Hamlet." I have, however, no great liking for big books ; and, besides, the opinions set forth in the following pages are likely to be so distasteful to a good many worthy people, that I am afraid they would not readily concede to me the praise of excellence, even if I should bury what I have to say in extraneous matter of fifty times its bulk. It should be premised, however, that my position is simply that of an interpreter. With the truth or falsity of the philosophical sentiments contained in Hamlet, I am not at present concerned. It is sufficient if I succeed in showing what these sentiments are, adducing on that behalf valid and conclusive evidence. T. T. November, 1874. a2 THE PHILOSOPHY OF "HAMLET." ON the question wlietlier Hamlet's madness was real or feigned, very much has been written, though there is not, I venture to think, even an approach to equality in the weight of evidence which may be adduced on the one side and on the other. That Shakespeare represents Hamlet as simulating madness is rendered likely a priori by the fact that such a representation would be in con- formity with the ancient legend which, as given in the Hystorie of Hamhlet,* was, not improbably, before the poet when he composed the tragedy. This may be said, whether we do or do not agree with Dr. Latham in the opinion that Hamlet was already a well-established dramatis persona, whose simulated madness was a characteristic as strongly stamped as, to the ancient dramatist, was the fury of Medea, or the revengeful anger of Achilles. t Of course, the a priori probabiHty might be at once rebutted by direct evidence that the poet in this, as in some other respects, "departed from the legendary narrative. But the very first intimation on the subject which the tragedy contains is in accordance with the position that the poet intended, in this particular, to conform to the legend. HaHilfi±r-aft«r""1*'ff~ revelation made to him by the Ghost, solemnly adjures Horatio and Marcellus not to betray, either by word or look, their knowledge of his real condition, or of the causes of his conduct, notwithstanding the strangeness and eccen- * Reprinted in the first volume of Mr. Collier's Shakespear's Library. f Two Dissertations on the Hamlet of Saxo-Grammatieus and of ShaJcespear, p. 81. b THE PHILOSOPHY OF "HAMLET." tricity of the behaviour which he may think proper to assume : — " How strange or odd soe'er I bear myself, (As I perchance hereafter shall think meet To put an antic disposition on).— (Act i. Sc. 5.)* But, it may he said, does not Hamlet excuse to Laertes the killing of Polonius, expressly on the ground that it was not Hamlet, hut Hamlet's madness, which had inflicted the injury ? — ■ " 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 fi:6m himself be ta'en away, And, when he's not himself, does wrong Laertes, Then Hamlet does it not, Hamlet denies it. Who does it then ? His madness." — (Act v. Sc. 3.) In reply, however, to any argument in favour of the reality of Hamlet's madness, based on the passage just quoted, it may be sufficient to point to the fact that, at the very time when Polonius is killed by the thrust through the arras, not only is Hamlet's sanity conspicuous in the discourse with the Queen, but he expressly denies that he is really mad : — " My pulse, as yours, doth temperately keep time. And makes as healthfal music. It is not madness That I have utter'd : bring me to the test. And i the matter wUl re-word ; which madness Would gambol from. Mother, for love of grace. Lay not a flattering unction to your soul. That not your trespass, but my madness speaks." — ^(Aot iii. So. 4.) The mere denial of madness,, standing alone, might not be of much weight ; but the case is different when this denial is taken in connection with the general sanity of the dis- course, and with the other facts to which reference has been already made, namely, Hamlet's expressed intention "to put an antic disposition on," and the account given in the legend with respect to Hamlet's simulated insanity. The conformity of the play with the Hystorie ofHamhlet is, it may be added, with regard to the closet-scene, on the * My quotations, though, of course, not following with constant literality the Foho of 1623> are to a great extent brought into conformity with that edition. Some important variations I have indicated in the notes. THE PHILOSOPHY OF HAMLET. 7 whole, particularly remarkable. It is therefore of no slight importance that, in both the tragedy and the legend, Hamlet discloses to his mother that he has feigned insanity to serve a purpose, and that he is not really mad. And we ought also not to forget the denial of real madness in Act ii. Sc. 2~ where Hamlet says, " My uncle-father and aunt-mother are deceived." "I am but mad north-north-west: when the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a hand-saw." •Polonius, after a remarkable display of Hamlet's "antic disposition," says, " Though this be madness, yet there is method in 't " (Act ii. Sc. 2). Is it possible for us to discern this " method ? " Can we discover any deeper meaning lying beneath what is outwardly so " odd " and " strange? " I think it is, to a great extent, quite possible for us to do so. The first example of Hamlet's madness is to be found in the description which Ophelia gives, when, struck with terror, she comes forward to meet her father, after the interview with Hamlet in her chamber : — " Pol. How now, Ophelia? what's the matter? Oph. Alas, my lord, I have been so afirighted. Pol. With what, in the name of heaven ? Oph. My lord, as I was sewing in my chamber, Lord Hamlet, with his doublet all unbrao'd, No hat upon bis head, his stockings foul'd, TJngarter'd, and down-gyved to his ancle. Pale as his shirt, his kaees 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. Pol. Mad for thy love? Oph. My lord, I do not know : But truly I do fear it. Pol. What said he ? Oph. He took me by the wrist, and held me hard ; Then goes he to the length of all his arm ; And with his other hand thus o'er his brow, He falls to such perusal of my face, As he would draw it. Long stay'd he so ; At last, a little shaking of mine arm ; And thrice his head thus waving up and down, — He rais'd a sigh so piteous and profound, That it did seem to shatter all Ms bulk. And end his being. That done, he lets me go, And with his head over his shoulder turn'd, He seem'd to find his way without his eyes, For out o' doors he went without their help, And to the last, bended their light on me." — (Act ii. Sc. 3.) 8 THE PHILOSOPHY OF So far as I know, no consistent explanation has yet been given of Hamlet's conduct towards Ophelia, as thus de- scribed. I think, however, that it may be seen upon reflection that the description of Hamlet's conduct would, in several particulars, not inaptly represent the behaviour of a person towards a dearly-loved friend in a. hopeless condition from some fatal malady. We may thus account for the long and intent gazing on OpheHa's face, the shaking of her arm, the waving' up and down of Hamlet's head, the piteous and profound sigh, and the turning back of his head over his shoulder, as he leaves Ophelia's chamber. Taking into account merely the passage above given, such a vi^w might be regarded as having a consider- able measure of probability. It will be shown in the sequel that this explanation is strongly confirmed by - other por- tions of the play.. For the present it may be sufficient to direct the- reader's attention to a part of the same passage — or perhaps I should rather say, the parallel passage — as given in the Quarto edition of 1603 ; an edition which — though possibly printed from a manuscript surreptitiously obtained — represeiits, as there is strdng reason to believe, Shakespeare's earlier conception of his great tragedy.* In this edition — ^the antiquated spelling of which need not be retained — we have, — " Small while he stood, but gripes me by the wrist, And there he holds my pulse, till with a sigh He doth Tinelasp his hold, and parts away Silent, as is the midtime of the night." It need hardly be said how perfectly the words' I have. * The fuUer development of this . conception was given in the Quarto of 1604, which — notwithstanding what - the editors of 1623 say of " diverse stolne and surreptitious copies, maimed, and deformed by the frauds and stealthes of injurious impostors "-^was probably published under the author's supervision, or at least with his sanction. The words just quoted are, it is Ukely, at most of partial application to the editions of separate plays published during the poet's, lifetime. It is possible that, subsequently to 1604,' the poet re-wrote Hamlet, and that the MS. came into the hands of the editors of the Folio. If so, the edition of 1623, whatever may be its defects, has manifestly a special importance. THE PHILOSOPHY OF ' HAMLET. « italicised accord with the idea that Hamlet conducted himself towards Ophelia as towards k person sick or diseased. The reason why the poet omitted from the later text the holding of Ophelia's pulse may haye been because, perhaps, he considered that such a circumstance, however suitable with respect to a physician, would not be equally appropriate in the case of a layman like Hamlet. I may add, that Hamlet's "going to the length of all his arm," according to the later text, after he had taken hold of Ophelia's wrist, would seem to accord with the idea that her disease was repulsive or offensive. If I am right in the view I have taken of Hamlet's conduct towards Ophelia, it cannot seem an altogether unreasonable supposition that there is, also, some special significance in Hamlet's garb and appearance, — " his doublet all unbrac'd, No hat upon his head, his stockings foul'4, Ungarter'd, and down-gyved to his ancle, Pale as his shirt ; his knees knocking each other, And with a look so piteous in piirport, As if he had been loosed oat of heU, To speak of horirors." It would certainly appear that this description was in- tended to depict the condition of a person who has just come forth from a prison or dungeon. Opheha says, that he looked " as if he had been loosed out of hell." His stockings are "foul'd," as they might well be, after con- finement in a filthy dungeon. They are " ungarter'd," and hang about the ankles, the fetters having kept them from being drawn fully up the leg. This I take to be the probable meaning of the expression "down-gyved to his ancle." His doublet was " unbrac'd," it having perhaps been loosened, in order to his lying down to sleep on the dimgeon-floor. Indeed the description would suit very weU if the poet conceived of Hamlet as having, not long before, awaked from such sleep. That this was really the poet's conception may appear probable*by and by, when we come to understand what was Hamlet's prison. For the present we must not rashly conclude that this prison was purgatory 10 THE PHILOSOPHY OF " HAMLET." or hell, notwithstanding the pallor of Hamlet's counte- nance, and "his knees knocking each other." I shall next direct the reader's attention to the account given by Polonius of Hamlet's love-letter to Ophelia : — " I have a daughter ; have, whilst she is mine, Who in her dufy and obedience, mark, Hath given me this : now gather and surmise. ' To the celestial, and my soul's idol, the most beautified Ophelia ' — That's an ill phrase, a vHe phrase, ' beautified ' is a vile phrase : but you shall hear. — ' These, in her excellent white bosom, these.' Queen. Came this from Hamlet to her ? Pol. Good madam, stay awhile, I wiU be faithful. ' Doubt thou the stars are fire, Doubt that the sun doth move ; Doubt truth to be a liar. But never doubt, I love. O dear Ophelia, I am ill at these numbers ; I have not art to reckon my groans ; but that I love thee best, O most best, believe it. Adieu. Thine evermore, most dear lady, whilst this machine is to him, Hamlet.' This in obedience hath my daughter showd me.'' (Act ii. Sc. 2.) I would particularly call attention to the word " beauti- fied," which certainly is not to be taken, in accordance with the view of some commentators, as equivalent merely to "beautiful." If this view were correct, surely the word " beautiful " would have been retained; for we find it in the Quarto of 1603 : — ; "Doubt that in earth is fire, Doubt that the stars do move. Doubt truth to be a liar But do not doubt I love. To the beautiful Ophelia : Thine ever the most unhappy Pkinoe Hamlet." The evidence thus afforded of the change into " beauti- fied," and the special emphasis given to the word by the remark of Polonius, "That's an ill phrase, a vile phrase; ' beautified ' is a vile phrase," seem clearly to show that Shakespeare used the word in its strict sense, and in ac- cordance with its form. The word " beautified " would thus appropriately represent the idea that Ophelia, though in reality, and beneath the surface, unsightly and repulsive, was yet rendered externally attractive and beautiful. A little further on in the same scene we come to a THE PHILOSOPHY OF " HAMLET." 11 passage, of which the critics and commentators seem to have been, on the whole, quite unable to give any satis- factory account. Hamlet enters reading, and Polonius asks after his health : — " How does my good lord, Hamlet ? " " Ham. Well, god-'a-mercy. Fol. Do you know me, my lord ? Ham. Excellent, excellent well ; you are a fishmonger. Pol. Not 1, my lord. Ham. Then I would you were so honest a man. Pol. Honest, my lord ? Ham. Ay, sir ; to be honest, as this world goes, is to be one man picked out of two thousand. Pol. That's very true, my lord. Ham. For if the sun breed maggots in a dead dog, being a good, kissing carrion— — ^Have you a daughter ? Pol. I have, my lord. Ham. Let her not walk i' th' sun : conception is a blessing, but not as your daughter may conceive. Friend, look to 't." Coleridge considered that Hamlet called Polonius " a fish- monger," as being sent to fish out Hamlet's secret.* But a "fishmonger" is one who sells fish: this designation does not imply that the person so called catches them. My own decided conviction is that it was Hamlet's nose which told him excellent well that Polonius was a fishmonger. In other words, Polonius is called" a fishmonger " as being morally corrupt ; and to moral corruption is transferred ideally the stench pertaining to actual material corruption. The old courtier, however, realist as he is, does not pene- trate to the idea lying beneath the word " fishmonger," and therefore gives a summary denial to Hamlet's assertion : — " Not I, my lord." Hamlet then takes the word in the ordinary sense in which Polonius had understood it, and rejoins, " Then I would you were so honest a man ; " but, by this rejoinder, he bends back the discourse towards the moral idea previously involved. This is rendered still more conspicuous by Hamlet's next utterance, "Ay, sir; to be honest, as this world goes, is to be one man picked out of two thousand; " there being still in Hamlet's mind that con- ception of the moral corruption and ■ putridity of human nature, which lay under the word " fishmonger," as applied to Polonius. It may thus be seen how consequential are/ * Literary Remains, vol. ii. p. 238. 12 THE PHILOSOPHY OP " HAMLET." /Hamlet's next words, though they have so greatly puzzled /some of the commentators : " For if the sun breed maggots ' in a dead dog, being a good, kissing carrion^ Here Ham- let breaks off, without giving the aftJSoBisfat least in form ; for it is virtually given in the caution to Polonius not to let his daughter walk in the sun. The sense may thus be given : "If the sun breed maggots in carrion, the case cannot be otherwise with anything so thoroughly corrupt and putrid as human nature. There is danger lest even the fair and beautiful Ophelia should swarm with maggots, if she walks in the sun." We are noW in a position to understand that "ill phrase," that " vile phrase," " the most beautified Ophelia." Her grace and beauty were a mere outward adorning; within she was a mass of moral carrion. And it is favour- able to this explanation that the word " beautified " and the utterances about the sun kissing carrion and Polonius's daughter walking in the sun, are alike absent from the edition of 1603. So 'far as the evidence goes, Shakespeare introduced them together into the text. And thus evidence of no slight importance is given in favour of the position that there is a mutual relation between the one and the other. As we are thus able to explain the word "beautified," so are we able to understand why Hamlet should conduct himself towards Ophelia as towards a person sick or diseased ; why,' after taking her by the wrist, he should draw back " to the length of aU his arm ; " why he should " wave his head up and down," as though looking upon a dear friend in a hopeless condition; and why he should raise that " sigh so piteous and profound, That it did seem to shatter .all his bulk, And end his being." It must not be, however, for a moment supposed that it was the intention of the poet to depict Ophelia as singularly depraved, notwithstanding even that, in her aberration, she could give utterance to verses of a somewhat questionable THE PHILOSOPHY OP " HAMLET." 13 character (Act iv. Sc. 5), — a fact which Goethe has not inaptly explained in Wilhelm Meister. No : the idol of Hamlet's heart, the maiden whom he loved with a lovej greater than that of " forty thousand brothers," was no' singularly depraved. Her disease was the disease of hu manity. Indeed it would appear to have been the poet's in tention to represent Ophelia as distinguished, in comparison with others, by a high degree of moral purity. Shakespeare's general conception of her character, in this respect, is not unsuitably expressed by the words which her brother ad- dresses to the priest, by her grave : — " Lay her i' th' earth, And from her fair and unpolluted flesh May violets spring ! I tell thee, churUsh priest, A minist'ring angel shall my sister be, When thou Uest howling." — (Act v. So. 2.) Taking, then, what is said of Ophelia as descriptive of the J condition of mankind in general, we shall find in harmony with the view just given, Hamlet's reply to Polonius, with respect to what he was reading. We may discern that there is still in the poet's mind the contrast between the outward seeming and the inner subst3,nce. As the beautiful and attractive in humanity was mere superficial show, and beneath was loathsome corruption, so what Hamlet was reading was, on the outside, but " words, words, words : " the sense beneath was an offensively accurate description of old age, Avith its wrinkled face, its weak eyes, its grey beard, its enfeebled intellect. Hamlet's pessimistic philo-1 sophy, which had previously spoken of man's moral con- dition, now concerns itself with a portion of his physical ' life-history : — " What do you read, my lord ? Ham. Words, words, words. Pol. What is the matter, my lord ? Ham. Between who ? Pol. I mean the matter you read,* my lord. Ham. Slanders, sir ; for the satirical slave says here that old men have grey beards ; that their faces are wrinkled ; their eyes purging thick amber, or plum-tree gum ; and that they have a plentiful lack of wit, together with weak hams. All which, sir, though I most powerfully * The Folio has the misprint " meane." 14 THE PHILOSOPHY OF " HAMLET." and potently believe, yet I hold it not honesty to have it thus set down ; for you yourself, sir, should be old as I am, if like a crab you could go backward." — (Act ii. Sc. 2.) With respect to Hamlet's interview with Ophelia in her chamber, it has not yet, however, been explained why there should have been in his garb and demeanour that which may suggest the idea of his having been a prisoner. We can, I think, find the explanation at no great distance from the passage last quoted. After Kosencrantz and Guilden- stern have made their appearance for the first time, and, in answer to Hamlet's inquiry as to their weKare, have given an account of their position with regard to Fortune — an account which need not now detain us — Hamlet asks, " What's the news ? " "Bos. 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 ? Ouil. Prison, my lord ? Ham. Denmark's a prison. Bos. Then is the world one. Ham. A goodly one, in which there are many confines, wards, and dungeons ; Denmark being one of the worst. Bos. 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. iZos. Why then yourambitionmakesitone: 'tis toonarrowforyourmind. Ham. O God, I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams." The statement that, "if the world's grown honest, then is doomsday near," is quite in accordance with those strik- ing representations of the corrupt condition of mankind, to which the reader's attention has been already directed. But we are now more particularly concerned with the de- scription of the world as " a prison." This description, it should be observed, is absent from the Quarto of 1603. And it is especially deserving notice that this same edition of 1603 is deficient also in those particulars which suggest the idea of Hamlet's having been imprisoned when he came to Ophelia, and so greatly affrighted her. We read of his coming, — " with a distracted look. His garters lagging down, his shoes untied," THE PHILOSOPHY OF "HAMIET." 15 but there is no mention of his stockings being "down-gyved" and " foul'd," or of his looking " As if he had been loosed out of hell To speak of horrors." It would thus appear probable that the poet introduced into his portraiture of Hamlet those particulars which have just been quoted, at the time when he inserted in the play the description of the world as a prison. It is, therefore, not wholly unreasonable to look upon this description as intended to explain the particulars to which reference has just been made. Moreover — in accordance with what I have before said — there is, in the portraiture, that which suits very_ well the idea -that Hamlet had been sleeping on the dun- geon-floor, and had just awaked from a frightful dream. Thus there is the terror expressed in his pallid countenance, the doublet unbraced, the stockings fouled. And now we find that the world is a prison to Hamlet, because he has " bad dreams." What, then, is meant by these " bad dreams," which made the world a prison ? This expression, as I take it, indicates those pessimistic views of the condition of mankind and of the order of nature, which Hamlet had formed as the result of philosophic observation and reflec- tion. In accordance with this explanation is the fact that, because Eosencrantz and Gmldenstern did not participate in Hamlet's "thinking," the world was not to them a prison. They were altogether unphUosophical persons : they had no "bad dreams." But Hamlet's philosophic insight pene- trated beneath the outward seeming, and discerned, in mankind around, living and moving masses of moral car- rion. To one who looked upon the world as thus tenanted, it might well seem " a prison," from which he would gladly escape. And so, when Polonius asks Hamlet whether he will " walk out of the air," the reply is, " Into my grave." And when the old courtier "takes his leave," Hamlet rejoins, " You cannot, sir, take from me anything that I will more willingly part withal, except my life, my life. " ■ — To Hamlet's philosophic eye, nature around, also — the 16 THE PHILOSOPHY OF "HAMLET. earth, the sky, the stars — appeared in a form altogether different from that which ordinary men could perceive : — " This goodly frame, the earth, seems to me a sterile promontory ; this most excellent canopy, the air, look you, this brave o'erhanging, this majestical roof fretted with golden fire : why, it appears no other thing to me than a foul and pestilent oojigregation of vapours." — (Act ii. So. 2.) That the earth should he regarded as a promontory is not very difficult to understand, since the earth might well be conceived of as jutting out into the unhounded ocean of eternity. The reader may compare the words of Macbeth (Act i. Sc. 7), "this bank and [shoal] of time." But still' it may be asked, why a " sterile promontory ? " Probably beca^use Hamlet was conscious of wants and cravings which the earth produced nothing to satisfy or allay ; or, pos- sibly, because the earth was looked upon as yielding for the bodily wants of mankind in the aggregate, but a scanty provision, and that provision such as could not be secured without severe and painful toil. So, from a sandy waste by the sea-shore, the husbandman, even by persistent toil, can secure no sufficient and satisfying harvest. The con- ception of the earth as, in this last sense, " a sterile pro- montory " would suit well the comparison of the aur and sky to a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours, since this comparison manifestly has reference to man's bodily nature, and to the various causes of disease and death con- cealed in or borne upon the air and winds. The thought is in accordance with that expressed in Measwe for Measure (Act iii. Sc. 1), where the life of man is spoken of as " a breath," — " Servile to all the sldey influences." Such a view of external nature gives additional reason for the world appearing a prison to Hamlet, a prison from which^hejsEOuldJiaye gladly escaped into the grave. ^JU mlet's pes sifflis^, however, reaches its climax in the malogue with Ophelia, which follows the renowned soliloquy, " To be or not to be " (Act iii. Sc. 1). Previously what was beautiful in humanity had been regarded as being THE PHILOSOPHY OP " HAMLET." 17 depraved and corrupt within, and as having only an out- ward adorning, like " The harlot's cheek, beautied with plast'ring art." But now even beauty itself is spoken of as ineradieably corrupt and corrupting. Between beauty and integrity there must be neither commerce nor alliance, if integrity is to retain its true character : " For the power of beauty will sooner transform honesty from what it is, to a bawd, than the force of honesty can translate beauty into his likeness." And the best thing for mankind would be, that there should be no more marriages, but that the race should come to an end as speedily as possible. After the soliloquy, Ophelia offers to " re-deliver " Ham- let's "remembrances." It would seem probable that we ought to understand that she does this, with some idea that she may thereby elicit a renewed declaration of love, and an offer of marriage; This view appears in accordance with the hope which the Queen had just before expressed : — " And for your part, Ophelia, I do wish, That your good beauties be the happy cause Of Hamlet's wildness : so shall I hope your virtues Will bring him to his wonted way again." But, on this view of the matter, how startling must we conceive to have been that utterance of Hamlet's pessi- mistic philosophy, " Get thee to a nunnery. Why would'st thou be a breeder of sinners?" If she married Hamlet, what could she expect but tciJ3fi_Uie,mother of a brood of sinners " crawling betweeaWieaven ano^rth ? " He was indeed " indifferent honest ;" but such was his moral cha- racter, and such had been his conduct, that it would have been better if his mother had never borne him. j And, in relation to marriage, so perverse and so corrupt was the state of things in the world, that no matron, however chaste and pure, could "escape calumny." Taking this into account, it might be thought that; when Hamlet advises Ophelia, if she " will needs marry, "^ to " marry a fool : for wise men know well enough, what monsters you make of them," he uses this language with allusion to infidelity to the marriage-vow. But I should rather think that women B 18 THE PHILOSOPHY OF " HAMLET." fere spoken of as making monsters of men, -with reference lio their making them fathers of creatures so hideous in /their moral deformity as those which constitute the corrupt /race of mankind. No man could beget such creatures, without "playing the fool." On this view we can see the meaning of what Hamlet just before subjoins, when Opheha tells him that her father is at home : — " Let the doors be shut upon him, that he may play the fool no way, but in 's own house." Hamlet's excitement, however, reaches its highest pitch in this remarkable scene, when he contemplates the fact that women are not satisfied with the natural inducements to marriage, but that — in their wantonness, affecting igno- rance of the real state of the matter — they artificially sti- mulate men towards marriage, and towards that greatest of aU abominations to a consistently pessimistic philosophy, the perpetuation of the corrupt race of mankind : — " I have heard of your paintings, too, well enough. God has given you one face, and you make yovirselves another : you jig, you amble, and you lisp, and nickname God's creatures, and make your wantonness your ignorance. Go to, I'll no more on 't; it hath made me mad. I say, we wifl. have no more marriages. Those that are married already, all but one, shall live ; the rest shall keep as they are. To a nunnery go." (Act iii. So. 1.)* With respect to the review which has thus been presented of some of the principal utterances of Hamlet's madness, I think it probable that the reader will not have much diffi- culty in assenting to the conclusion that this was indeed " madness " which had " a method init ; " .and that the deeper meaning'which has' been disclo'sed renders manifest the real character of Hamlet's "odd and strajige" behaviour. There are, however, some other places in the tragedy which agree with what ha^s been ab-eady said, and of these some mention should not be omitted. It is, I think, not unimportant to observe that Hamlet's pessimistic view of the moral condition of the world appears even before the commencement of his assumed madness. The same view is present, though with different imagery, in the first soliloquy : — • * The first Folio has " pratlings " for " paintings," " pace " for " face " "gidge"for "jig." THE PHILOSOPHY OF " HAMLET." 19 " Fie on 't ! fie ! 'tis an unweeded garden That grows to seed : things rank and gross in nature Possess it merely.'' — (Act i. So. 2.) Hamlet's pessimism affords, moreover, some explanation of that remarkable oath or protestation which he makes to Eosencrantz, whom he assures, that he stiU loves him, " by these pickers and stealers : " — Eos. My lord, you once did love me. Ham. So I do still, by these pickers and stealers. The words " pickers and stealers " have been taken, in ac- cordance with the well-known clause in the Church Cate- chism, as equivalent to " hands." But, if the hands are called "pickers and stealers," it would seem that theft is a purpose, if not the purpose, which the hands of men very usually subserve, so usually that they may be appropriately designated therefrom. And in the same vein, a very little fur- ther on, Hamlet tells Guildensternthat to make the recorder * " discourse most excellent music " is " as easy as lying." There are, also, passages not concerned with the moral condition of man, in which Hamlet's pessimistic philosophy is apparent. (Deajh wm an e^Jwhich, in Hamlet's view, could not be aHevialed by reflecting on its commonness. The Queen urges this reflection, with the intent of cheeking Hamlet's grief for his father : — " Thou know'st 'tis common ; all that lives must die, Passing through nature to eternity." The fact that death is the common lot of men could, however, only render Hamlet's sorrow more deep and in- tense. He replies to the Queen : — "Ay, madam, it is common. Queen. If it be, Why seems it so particular with thee ? Ham. Seems, madam ? Nay, it is : I know not seems." (Act i.So. 2.) Men die, pass away, and are forgotten for ever. Even a great man cannot secure any lengthened immortality for his name and memory : both are very soon lost in the general oblivion: — " heavens ! die two months ago, and not forgotten yet? Then there's hope a great man's memory may outlive his life half-a-year : but * The " recorder '' was a kind of musical pipe. B 2 20 THE PHILOSOPHY OF " HAMLET." by 'r lady, he must build ohurehes then ; or else shall he suffer not thinking on, with the hobby-horse." — (Act iii. So. 2.) And, in its material Aspect, the future awaiting man is mean, humiliating, loathsome. The polished courtier may have his chapless skuU " knocked about the mazzard with a sexton's spade." The lawyer's subtlety and acute learn- ing are unable to prevent his having '• his fine pate fuU of fine dirt." The great conqueror, when laid in the earth, has the same repulsive appearance, the same foul smell, as the jester. The dust of Alexander or of Csesar might have been used to patch a wall or stop a beer-barrel (Act v. Sc. 1). And ".a king may go a progress through the guts of a beggar ; " for " a man may fish with the worm that hath eat of a king, and eat of the fish that hath fed of that worm." * All man's care to provide for and feed his body is but to prepare it for the worm's table : — " Your worm is your only emperor for diet. We feed 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."— (Act iv. Sc. 3.) How hard, in Hamlet's view, were the conditions of human existence, how oppressive the burden of life, appears from the well-known words of the great soliloquy," To be or not to be: " " Who would these fardels bear, To grunt and sweat under a weary life. But that the dread of something after death. The undiscovered country, from whose bourne No traveller returns, puzzles the will ; And makes us rather bear those ills we have, Than fly to others that we know not of?" — (Act iii. Sc. 1.) And the painful character of human life is expressed in stiU more forcible language when Hamlet, just before his death, diverts Horatio from his purpose of drinking from the poisoned cup : — " Absent thee from felicity awhile. And in this harsh world draw thy breath in pain, To tell my story."— (Act v. Sc. 2.) The words of Hamlet previously quoted, " I know not seems " (Act i. Sc. 2), may be taken, with some probability, in a general sense, as denoting the habit of his mind, the endeavour to look beneath the surface of things into their * The words " A man may flsh," &c., are omitted in the Folio. THE PHILOSOPHY OF " HAMLET." 21 essence and reality. At thirty years of age Hamlet was still a student at Wittenberg, and at the time at which the play commences it was still his intention to return to that university. At Wittenberg, as we may reasonably suppose, much of his attention had been given to philosophy. We may trace the effect of philosophical study on the language which he employs when, in the subscription to his love- letter, he speaks of his body as a "machine" (Act ii. Sc. 2). And still more clearly is the effect of such study; discernible when he calls the sun " a good " (Act ii. Sc. 2) j " If the sun breed maggots in a dead dog, being a good, kiss| ing carrion." The supposition of Hamlet's previous philo- sophical studies enables us to account for this somewhat difficult word. And there is thus reason for thinking that the change of " good" into " God," as suggested by Warburton, is unnecessary, and would, in fact, vitiate the passage. In the subtleties of such philosophy as we must suppose" Hamlet had been studying, we may find an explanation of another passage which has also a good deal puzzled the commentators. Eosencrantz and Guildenstern have been sent to Hamlet from the King for the body of Polonius : — " Bos. My lord, you must teU us where the body is, and go with U8 to the king. Ham. The body is with the king, but the king is not with the body. The king is a thing. Ouil. A thing, my lord ? Ham. Of nothing : bring me to him. Hide fox and all after." — (Act iv. Sc. 3.) In the words I have italicised "with " cannot denote near- ness or local contiguity. This, I think, may be certainly affirmed. Shakespeare, as it seems to me, affords us a clue to his meaning by making Hamlet say, " the king is a thing of nothing." Probably the sense is to be given after this manner : " The body is, like the king, a thing of no- thing : therefore it is with the king in its worthlesshess." But worthlessness is the only quality you can predicate of the body; for such material qualities as weight appear to be excluded. The body is not, as yet, offensive, though a month hence " you shall nose him as you go up the stairs into the lobby." But the King possesses other qualities, 22 THE PHILOSOPHY OF " HAMLET." besides wortUessness ; he possesses, for. example, active mp,lignity. But' in these other qualities the King is not with the body ; and so the King as a whole, being a congeries of qualities, " the king is not with the body," though at the same time, as already said, " the body is with the king " in its one quality — worthlessness. The words " Hide fox and all after," found in the Folio, may have a double reference — ^namely, to the concealment of the body, and to the obscurity of Hamlet's enigma. A question may arise as to whether in the conception of the poet Hamlet's pessimism owed its origin mainly to a philosophical consideration of the world, or to melancholy engendered by the death of his father and the facts con- nected therewith. It is, perhaps, most fully in accord- ance with the conditions- presented to look upon Hamlet's philosophical views as previously tending to pessimism, but as acquiring a far deeper and darker shade, in consequence of the circumstances in which he found himself at the time when the play commences, and when the terrible revelation has been made to him by his father's ghost. This view wUl perhaps agree best with all the facts. =T^here are several things in Hamlet's philosophy which may recall some of the opinions of the Stoics, and it is at least worthy of consideration whether in making Hamlet, the philosopher of the play, appear to be a madman, the poet may not have had in view the well-known Stoical dic- tum, to the effect that the philosopher is the only sane man in a world of madmen. Of this dictum Hamlet's madness is not in reality a reversal, though it is such in appearance. Not less does the philosophic ideahst appear a madman to the realistic world, than, from the standing-point of the philosopher, does this same world appear to be a world of madmen. Among the particulars in which Hamlet's philosophy re- sembles that of the' Stoics is the doctrine of an overmaster- ing Fate or Destiny — ^the belief that all things in the world do in reality eventuate conformably to a predestined design and intention. Thus with reference to the warrant for his THE PHILOSOPHY OF " HAMLET." 23 execution wlaich Eosencrantz and Guildenstern were con- veying to England, Hamlet ascribes his success in inter- cepting the document to the governance of a higher power : — " Let us know Our indiscretion sometimes serves us well, When our dear plots do pall, and that should teach us There's a divinity that shapes our ends. Rough-hew them how we wiU." — (Act v. Sc. 2.) And when he felt a serious presentiment with respect to the fencing match with Laertes, and Horatio urged him to de- chne the challenge, he replied that if the predestined time for his death had come, any attempt to avoid the stroke of destiny would be fruitless and vain : — "There's a special providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be now, 'tis not to come ; if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it win come : the readiness is all.'' — (Act v. So. 2.) It is worth while to .observe that in the Quarto of 1603, in- stead of "there's a special providence in the fall of a spar- row," we have " there's a predestinate providence in the fall of a sparrow." It is, as it appears to me, in connection with this doc- trine of a special or predestinate providence, of a divinity ever shaping the ends which men rough-hew, that we may find a reasonable solution of some of the more dif&cult pro- blems presented by the character and conduct of Hamlet. Much has been said on Hamlet's reluctance to avenge his father's murder, not only after the " dread command " of the Ghost had been given, but even after the successful stratagem of the play had ratified and confirmed the reve- lation which the Ghost had made. As the cause of this reluctance insufficient strength of character has been very usually alleged, at least since Goethe compared Hamlet to a fragile vase burst and broken by the roots of an oak tree growing within it. The true explanation, I venture to think, lies deeper than this. Dr. Johnson, however far wrong in certain other respects, made, as it seems to me, some ap- proach to the true view of Hamlfet's character, when he spoke of him as " rather an instrument than an agent ; " or, as Mr. Knight puts it, "We see that Hamlet is pro- pelled rather than propelling." " There is," says the author just named, " something altogether indefinable and mys- omgth: 24 THE PHILOSOPHY OF " HAMLE±." terious in the poet's delineation of this character, something wild and irregular in the circumstances with which the character is associated. We see that Hamlet is propelled rather than propelling. But why is this turn given to the delineation ? We cannot exactly tell. Perhaps some of the very charm of the play to the adult mind is its mysterious- ness. It awakes not only thoughts of the grand and beautiful, but of the incomprehensible." * In Hamlet's relation to the unseen and incomprehensible, and not in his deficiency of energy or weakness of charac- ter, we may find, I think, a key to the problem which his conduct presents. Hamlet is the chosen instrument of I a higher power, and it' is by Hamlet's hand that the I murderer of his father is to be punished. But the way of [that higher power is not Hamlet's way. Hamlet's feigned tnadness, instead of leading directly to the death of the King, conduces apparently but little to this result, or at least is connected with it in no such manner as Hamlet could have foreseen and contrived. The additional dis- closure gained through the play is followed by no imme- diate action, even though Hamlet had been previously persuaded that he should then "know his course." The death of the King is destined to be the result of a seeming accident ; an ac^dent which, however, has in it a " special providence," and towards which the appearance of the Ghost, and Hamlet's feigned madness, and the device of the play, had all been tending in a sure, though circuitous course. Except at the time predestined for action, an in- visible restraint keeps back Hamlet's hand. When this restraint is removed there is no lack of decision. He can then suddenly leave his cabin in the dark, with bis " sea- gown scarf 'd about him ;" can seize the "grand commis- sion " of Eosencrantz and Guildenstern, and can at once devise and substitute a new commission, ordering the sudden death of the bearers, " not shriving time allowed." But there had been previously in his heart " a kind of fighting which would not let him Sleep;" and to the enterprise * Knight's ShaJfsfere, vol.'viii. p. 170. THE PHILOSOPHY OF " HAMLET." 25 " was heaven ordinant " * (Act v. Sc. 2). Similarly when I "his fate cries out," he resists with the utmost determi- i nation, all attempts to prevent him from following his ' ' father's ghost, " not setting his life at a pin's fee : " — / " My fate cries out, And makes each petty artery in this body As hardy as the tiemean lion's nerve." — (Act i. So. 5.) i And when the destined hour for the final catastrophe has j at last come, Hamlet " defies augury." Thrusting aside with decision Horatio's kindly proffered excuse, he expresses J his fixed determination to accept the challenge of Laertes. But here again there is indication of the working of the invisible. " Thou wouldest not think," he says, "how ill all's here about my heart ; but it is no matter." t " But it is such a kind of gain-giving as would perhaps trouble a woman." (Act v. Sc. 2.) It may be asked, however, how far the explanation of Hamlet's conduct just suggested agrees with those disclo- sures of the working of his mind which Hamlet makes in the soliloquies ; and the demand that my theory should be tried by this test is certainly not unreasonable. The first soliloquy (Act i. Sc. 2) precedes the revelation made by the Ghost, and the second (Act i. Sc. 5) follows immediately afterwards. These need not detain us. I do not know that any argument of weight one -vsjay or the other can be drawn from the description of the King being "set down" in Hamlet's " tables." It is sufficient for our present pur- pose that the second soliloquy strongly expresses Hamlet's determination to remember the command of the Ghost. We come then to the third soliloquy, which follows the con- versation with the players (Act ii. Sc. 2), and commences : — " Now I am alone. 0, what a rogue and peasant slave am I ! " In this soliloquy we may, I think, find strong evidence in support of the position that Hamlet was under restmint. He would avenge his father's death; but he is held back by * The Quarto (1604) has " ordinant," the FoUo " ordinate." \ The Polio has probably a misprint : — " Thou wouldest not thinke how all heare about my heart." The Quarto of 1603 gives :— " My hart is on the sodaine Very sore, all here about.'' 26 THE PHILOSOPHY OF " HAMLET. an incomprehensible power, and can only give vent to his passion in words : — " O vengeance ! Who ? * What an ass am I ! ay, sure, this is most brave That I, the son of the dear mnrdered, Prompted to my revenge by heaven and hell, Must, like a whore, unpack my heart. with words, And fall a cursing, like a very drab, A scullion ! " I would particularly call the attention of the reader to the word ■ ' must." If Hamlet were regretting his deficiency of energy, feebleness of purpose, and tendency to vacillation, he would rather have said, " That I should unpack my heart with words," not, "ThatImMs«"doso. Theuseof theword"must" is the more noteworthy, since, if we trust the evidence of the edition of 1603, the poet substituted " must " for " should." We have in the edition just mentioned : — " Why this is brave, that I the son of my dear father. Should, hke a scullion, f like a very drab, Thus rail in words." It would thus appear probable that the poet introduced the word " must," in order that the passage might more fuUy 'accord with his conception of Hamlet as beiag curbed and restrained from action. Hamlet saw that his failure to act — whatever might be the true cause — had the appearance of cowardice ; but his spirit within rose against the imputation : — " Am I a coward ? Who calls me villain ? breaks my pate across ? Plucks off my beard, and blows it in my face ? Tweaks me by the nose ? gives me the lie i' the throat. As deep as to the lungs ? Who does me this ? Ha!" It seems to me not easy to suppose that the poet would have thus written, if it was his intention to portray in Hamlet a character too feeble for the due performance of the task required. On the other hand, the passage just quoted is entirely in accordance with my theory that Hamlet's energy would have been sufficient, if it had been * If the " Who ? " of the Folio be retained, the structure of the line may be regarded as expressing strong emotion. " Who ? " may be taken as equivalent to " Who am I ? surely I am not the brave Hamlet." f Spelt, however, " scalion." THE PHILOSOPHY OF ." H4MLBT." 27 freed from invisible restraint. The particular manner of restraint, at th6 time of this soliloquy, appears to have been by a vivid suggestion that, after all, the revelation made by the Ghost may have been an illusion diabolical in its origin, and of pernicious intent. Hamlet, therefore, summons his powers to action with the view of obtaining better and more conclusive evidence : — " About, my brain ! I've heard That guilty creatures sitting at a play Have, by the very cunning of the scene. Been struck so to the soul, that presently They have proclaimed their malefactions." " The spirit that I have seen May be the devil ; and the devil has power To assume a pleasing shape ; yea, and perhaps Out of my weakness and my melancholy. As he is very potent with such spirits, Abuses me to damn me. I'll have grotmds More relative than this. The play's the thing Wherein I'U catch the conscience of the king." During the interval before the soHloquy, " To be or not to be," wemay supposethat Hamlet has reflected that his strata- gem will probably be successful, and that then it wiU be for him to execute the command of the Ghost, and to put his uncle to death. At this juncture, as would appear probable, there arises in Hamlet's "prophetic soul" a mysterious presentiment that the act of vengeance will be closely followed by his own death, If he takes arms against the "sea of troubles," op- poses them, and, by opposing, ends them, he must die : — " To be, or not to be, that is the question ; Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The stings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against a sea of troubles. And by opposing end them ? To die — to sleep — No more ; and by a sleep, to say we end The heart-ache, and the thousand natural shocks That flesh is heir to — 'tis a consummation Devoutly to be wiah'd. To die — to sleep — To sleep — perchance to dream — ay there's the rub : For, in that sleep of death, what dreams may come. When we have shuffled off this mortal coil, Must give us pause." The view I have given appears to me preferable to the opinion which has been suggested, that Hamlet anticipated that there would be a mM6e consequent on the King's death, and that he would then be slain. But even this latter view appears preferable to the more usual interpretation of this 28 THE PHILOSOPHT OF " HAMLET." soliloquy, which regards it as speaking of a contemplated act of suicide. The common interpretation -would be more suitable with reference to the soliloquy as it stands in the edition of 1603, where we find no mention of " taking arms against a sea of troubles," or of " enterprises of great pith and moment." And it is worthy of observation that, in this edition, the soliloquy, " To be, or not to be," precedes that which now stands at the end of the second Act, and of which I have already spoken,— " 0, what a rogue and peasant slave am I ! " Whether the transposition of these soliloquies, and other changes — ^including those to which reference has been made — indicate a change in the poet's conception, it is perhaps impossible now to say. Certainly it would appear, as the text now stands, that Hamlet speaks of executing the task imposed upon him, that is, putting his uncle to death ; and with this act he mysteriously con- nects his own death. And so, as we may with probabihty conclude, by a suggestion emanating from a supernatural power, his hand is stUl restrained : — " And ttus 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 away, And lose the name of action." In the soliloquy, which is spoken when Hamlet enters next after the play-scene, and finds the King on his knees at prayer, there is perhaps nothing which necessarily requires us to suppose the intervention of the supernatural, unless, indeed, it be the extreme suddenness with which Hamlet's purpose is changed, and his hand stayed : — " Now might I do it pat, now he is praying, And now I'll do 't — and so he goes to heaven : And so am I reveng'd. That would be scann'd : A villain MUs my father ; and, for that, I, his sole son, do that same villain send To heaven." — (Act iii. Sc. 4.) The soliloquy offers nothing in opposition to my theory, even if, by itself, it could not be relied upon as giving any adequate support. Moreover, we ought always to bear in mind that such an artist as Shakespeare would probably so blend the natural with the supernatural, that it would not be possible always to distinguish sharply between the one THE PHILOSOPHY OF " HAMLET." 29 and the other. Hamlet, though possessing both courage and energy,' has, nevertheless, a peculiarly reflective dispo- sition, a mind ever prone to turn inwardly on itself, A mind of such a nature, we may reasonably suppose, was \ regarded by the poet as especially susceptible of impression \ and suggestion from unseen and supernatural influence. / But such influence might well be sometimes more and sometimes less manifest. We now come to the soliloquy following the entry of Fortinbras and his forces, on their march against Poland (Act iv. Sc. 4). The testimony of this soliloquy is very important, and deserves especial attention. Hamlet dis-. tinctly declares that the reason why he does not perform the ! required task is to him incomprehensible. He cannot tell why it is that he stUl fails to act : — " Now whether it he Bestial ohlivion, or some craven scruple Of thinking too precisely on the event — A thougbt which quarter'd hath bat one part wisdom, And ever three parts coward — I do not Imow Why yet I live to say, This thing's to do ; Sith I have cause, and will, and strength, and means, To do 't." -"' ^ - The reader will observe that, of the two opposite conditions of "bestial oblivion" and "thinking too precisely on thej event," Hamlet is unable to tell which has been operative. I cannot easily see how any man could say this, if his mind was ia an ordinary and normal state. But we have at once a reason for Hamlet's so speaking, if an invisible power was restraining him from action. And this explanation derives additional and very strong confirmation from the fact that Hamlet has not only " cause " for action, and "means" wherewith to accomplish the required task, and "-Strength " ad equate to its performance ; he has also the " will to do 't."^ After the evidence thus afforded by this larst soliloquy, mere need not be, I think, much doubt as to the true reason why Hamlet delayed so long to execute the command of the Ghost, and avenge his father's murder. * * It must be here, however, observed that this important soliloquy, together with the dialogue following the exit of Fortinbras and his forces, is absent from the Folio of 1633. Mr.Knight remarks : "The whole of this 30 THE PHILOSOPHY OF " HAMLET." We may, then, with probability conclude that we have in ^the conduct of Hamlet a dramatic representation of the will of man as governed by a Higher Will, a Will to which all actions and events are subordinate, and which, in a mysterious and incomprehensible manner, is ever .tending to the accomplishment of inscrutaiilfltfpurposes. ^^Taking this view of Hamlet's conduct, we shall find, I think, entirely in accordance therewith the particulars con- nected with the catastrophe, a portion of the play which, like Hamlet's seemingly ineffective stratagems, has afforded a stumblingblock to some of the critics. Indeed, on a superficial view, it may well seem that Hamlet, after avenging his father's death, ought to have ascended the throne. And it is especially worthy of notice that in the Hystorie of Hamblet, he does so ascend the throne. What then, it may be asked, was the poet's intention in thus departing from the customary legend ? To this question I would answer. To set forth that in the course of things in the world there is no manifest allotment of good and evil, according to each man's deserts. " All things come aHke to all ; there is one event to the righteous and to the wicked."* Though there be " a predestinate providence" comprehending even the "fall of a sparrow," yet "a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun : be- cause though a man labour to seek it out, yet he shall not find it ; yea farther ; though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it."+ " Irresolute foresight," says Schlegel, "cunning treachery, and impetuous rage, hurry on to a common destruction ; the less guilty and the innocent are equally involved in the general ruin. The destiny of humanity is there exhibited' as a gigantic sphinx, scene, in which a clue is so beautifully furnished to the indecision of Hamlet, is wanting in the Folio. It was perhaps omitted on account of the extreme length of the play, and as not helping on the action." The clue here furnished does not seem, however, to have guided Mr. Knight to the true explanation of Hamlet's indecision. He says — in opposition to Hamlet's statement that he could not tell which of the two causes mentioned was operative — " It was not ' bestial oblivion,' — O no. The eternal presence of the thought — ' this thing's to do,' made him in- capable of doing it. It was the ' thinking too precisely on the event' that destroyed his will." — (Knight's Shakspere, vol. viii. pp. 122, 181.) * Ecclesiastes ix. 2. t Ecclesiastes viii. 17. THE PHILOSOPHY OF " HAMLET." 31 which threatens to precipitate into the abyss of scepticism all who are unable to solve her dreadful enigmas."* But it may be asked, does' not the tragedy, by the apparition of the Ghost and otherwise, point to a future state of retribution, in which the anomalies of the present world will be redressed, and God's moral administration fully vindicated ? It must be said, I think, in reply, that the testimony of the tragedy with regard to the doctrine of immortaUty is, on the whole, by no means clear and unam- biguous. At least, this must certainly be maintained, if Hamlet is to be regarded as interpreter. Hamlet knows that consisience has mighty power ; and he is persuaded that such conduct as that of his uncle and his mother " — is not, nor it cannot come to good ;" but tbis does not induce a firm and enduring persuasion of a life beyond the grave. He is indeed at first confident that the spirit of his father has revisited earth : but soon this con- fidence gives way to scepticism and doubt. How can he be sure of the return of a spirit from the regions of the dead, when the immortality of the soul lies entirely beyond the sphere of experience ? Immortality is merely possible : — " To die — to sleep — To sleep — perchance to dream.'' This expression of possibility is the more significant, because, in the parallel passage of the edition of 1603, there is no " perchance : " — " To be, or not to be, ay there's the point, To die; to sleep, is that all? Ay all : No, to sleep, to dream : ay marry there it goes, For in that dream of death, when we awake, And borne before an everlasting Judge, From whence no passenger ever return'd, The undiscover'd country, at whose sight The happy smile, and the accursed danm;d.'' Thus the certainty of the "d ream of deal^ ." as expressed in the earlier text, has become in the later text a mere possibility — " perchance to dream." After the play-scene, "when Hamlet enters, while the King is at prayer, he seems to have a firm confidence in the reality of the unseen state of reward and punishment ; but afterwards, in the dialogue * Lectures on Dramatic Art and Literature, translated in Bohn's Lib. p. 406. 32 THE PHILOSOPHY OF " HAMLET." in the churchyard, he gives no indication of any belief beyond the merest materialism. And his very last dying words are contained' in that ambiguous and doubtful utterance, " The rest is silence." The philosophy, then, of Hamlet, with regard to the state of_ things in j the_wgrld. and especially with respect to the moral condition of mankind, i^^^j^essimistigi Still, notwith- standing the general depravity, and the harsh and ungenial conditions of human Hfej^aU^acJiooa, and" all events are under the jet5nlronof a superintending Providence. Man must executeTEepurpose of a Higher Power. But what is the nature of that purpose, what its intent, what its destined issue, is shrouded in mystery. Calamity and disaster fall upon men without regard to individual cha- racter. A retribution beyond death is possible; but the future destiny of mankind is obscure and doubtful. Now if such is the philosophy of this great tragedy, we may easily see with what propriety it opens in the dark, cold, still midniight; I should think it, however, not quite impossible that there is a symbolical meaning in the fact that the darkness is not altogether complete, but that, on the . first night, stars are shining, and on the second there are " glimpses, of the moon," the sky being apparently, for the most part, concealed by clouds. Possibly we may look upon this mention of the " moon " and " stars " as intima- ting that the condition of the world is not altogether hopeless, notwithstanding the deep overhanging gloom. The question may, however, be asked, whether we have in Hamlet those views of the condition of the world and mankind which the great poet himself entertained, or whether we should recognise simply a dramatic presenta- tion of certain philosophical opinions. The question is one which I shall not now attempt to answer. Such an attempt ought not, perhaps, to be made without a careful con- sideration of other of the poet's works. But in estimating the relative value of the evidence thus afforded, special regard should undoubtedly be given to the veil of enigma thrown over the philosophy of Hamlet. BY THE SAME AUTHOR, Demy 8vo., price 7s. 6d. cloth. ECCLESIASTES: A CONTEIBUTION TO ITS INTEE- PEETATION ; containing an Introduction to theBook, an Exegetical Analysis, and a Translation with Notes. " The very interesting question of the extent to which Greek philosophy influenced Jewish thought in the period following on the conquests of Alexander the Great enters largely into " Boolesiastes : a Contribution to its Interpretation," by Mr. T. Tyler (Williams and Norgate). Ascribed almost unanimously in early times to Solomon, later criticism is pretty well agreed in assigning to the book of "the Preacher" a date much subsequent to the Captivity. It is Mr. Tyler's endeavour, from a consideration of the evident traces of postr Aristotelian philosophy, both Stoic and Epicurean, in Scclesiastes, to narrow this date to the period between 250 e.g., when Zeno must have been dead, to 180 B.C., when the Wisdom of the Son of Siraoh, a work clearly subsequent to Eoclesiastes, was probably written ; or, to be more definite still, to somewhere about 200 B.C. (a date also given on other grounds by Hitzig), when Stoicism had become fully developed as a system. Written thus at a time when Greek influences were strongest in Judea, it may be taken to reflect in the seeming contradictions of different chapters the rival speculations of a Jewish academy of philosophy, while in its general design It marks the beginning of that reaction against the " many books and much study " of the Greeks, and return to the simple wisdom of the old law " to fear God and keep his commandments," which later on found strong expression in the Mishna, and almost blotted out from Jewish memory those rival sects of Stoic and Epicurean, whose Oriental counter- parts we trace in the early separation of Pharisee and Sadduoee. Mr. Tyler has evidently studied with attention the latest German authorities, and both his Exegetical Analysis and revised Translation of the book are very carefully executed." — The Qra/pMc, August 29th, 1874. s Also lately pubHshed, price Is. stitched, 0MB NEW EVIDENCE AS TO THE DATE OF ECCLESIASTES. " Contains matter not unimportant even for more exact scienoe."- Professor Ewald, in QHUngische gelehrte Anzeigen, October 23rd, 1872. Williams & NoEaATE : London and Edinburgh.