m CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY ENGUSH COU.ECTION THE GIFT OF JAMES MORGAN HART raOFESSOR OF ENGUSH /^.?952*/3 THE IMPORTANCE OF THE GHOST IN HAMLET WILLIAM STRUNK , jrT Reprinted from Studies in Lanouaoe and Litbratube in honor of James Mohoan Hart K.7-<^5^H-'i Reprinted from Studies in LANQiTAaH and Litbbatijbii; m honor of PsoPBsaOB Jambb Moboan Habt THE IMPORTANCE OF THE GHOST IN HAMLET BY WILLIAM STBUNK, JB., PH.D. Hamlet holds a unique position among Shake speare's plays by reason of the challenge which it has offered to interpretation. As a whole and in its details the play has been the subject of more discussion than any other of its author's works. The judgments passed upon Hamlet's conduct have been of the most diverse kind, and correspondingly diverse theories have been formulated to account for his delay in carrying out his task, or to disprove that such delay exists. Not a few students of the tragedy, among whom may be mentioned J. Halliwell- Phillipps (Memoranda on Hamlet, 1879, pp. 6-7), have after long study expressed their conviction that the mystery of the play is insoluble. ' Since modern research has tended to lend support to the hypothesis that Hamlet, in its received form, represents Shakespeare's revi- sion and expansion of a first draft (represented imperfeelly by the First Quarto, 1603), itself a rewriting of a lost play by Thomas Kyd, 468 WILLIAM STRUNK, JR. other students, of whom one of the latest is Professor C. M. Lewis {The Genesis of Hamlet, 1907), have frankly admitted the inconsis- tencies of the text, accounting for them as resulting from the presence in the play of inharmonious material retained from the ori- ginal source and from Shakespeare's first ver- sion. No attempt to formulate a comprehen- sive explanation of Hamlet's conduct, from that of Goethe in 1795 to the latest with which I am acquainted, that of Dr. Ernest Jones {The American Journal of Psychology, Jan., 1910), has been generally accepted as satis- factorily accounting for everything in the play. Consciously or unconsciously, all the critics disregard some of the data. Professor Lewis, for example, deems it justifiable to disregard, in estimating Hamlet's character, such details as the sending of Rosencrantz and Guildenstem to their death, as Hamlet's remark about "per- fect conscience," as his soliloquy on meeting the troops of Fortinbras. " The composite Hamlet is not an entity at all, and therefore not a subject for psychological analysis" (p. 133). Whether or not the reader is prepared to go quite so far as this, he will, I think, be ready to concede that the main desideratum in interpreting Hamlet is not to provide an answer for every difficult question that may be asked in connec- tion with the play, but to discover, if that be possible, how Shakespeare intended his hero's THE GHOST IN HAMLET 469 course of action to be regarded. And if the reader will concede that the data afforded by the text are partly irreconcilable/ he will agree that the question at once arises, which of these data are to be considered as beyond question significant. In the opinion of the present writer, critics have hitherto, as a rule, overlooked the peculiar importance, in this connection, to be attributed to the utterances of the ghost. -Jfe ghere have I s een it affirmed that the first step in the inter- ^etatira_pf Bamlet i& to«eEutimiirthe actiohs and utterances of the ghost, to note what it jdoesl ^d wh&t it leaves undone, what it says and what it^r^rains. from saying, .and. to regard, the results of such scrutiny as Jhejhindamental data of the play. True, in the course of the con- stanflEudy to which the play has been subjected, the words of the ghost have not escaped notice, and his attitude towards Hamlet and his lan- guage have been cited in evidence of particular views. Thus Mr. Bradley says, with perfect justice {Shakespearean Tragedy, p. 100), "Surely it is clear that, whatever we in the twentieth century may think about Hamlet's duty, we ' "Again it may be held without any improbability that, from carelessness or because he was engaged on thisjjlay for several years, Shakespeare left inconsistencies in his exhibition of the character which must prevent us from being certain of his ultimate meaning." A. C. Bradley, Shake- spearean Tragedy, p. 93. 470 WILLIAM STRUNK, JR. are meant in the play to assume that he ought to have obeyed the Ghost;" and again (p. 139), "We construe the Ghost's interpretation of Hamlet's delay ('almost blunted purpose') as the truth, the dramatist's own interpretation." Dr. Francis Maurice Egan's essay {The Ghost in Hamlet, 1906) stands by itself as a discrimi- nating study in which the ghost is constantly kept in the foreground. The distinction, how- ever, which Dr. Egan draws between the exalted mission of the ghost, seeking only the salvation of Denmark and the preservation of his royal line, and Hamlet's sinful eagerness to exact vengeance by returning evil for evil, is one which I have difficulty in reading into the play. Still less can I see in this the chief concern of the play, and the cause of Hamlet's failure. The play of Hamlet is c hara,cterized not merely by the presence of a supernatural being among _its persons, but by the actual participation of this supernatural being in the action.* Unlike the ghost of Andrea in The Spanish Tragedie, a mere spectator of the mortal struggle in which his enemies perish, tibejhost^of Hamlet's fatkerxJonceamslfflQirffiffacticall^^ * I am taking it for granted, in this paper, that the ghost is intended by Shakespeare as a genuine apparition, and not as a hallucination. This is so apparent that Professor StoU (The Objectivity of the Ghosts in Shakespeare, Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, N.8. xv. 203) regards it as a point not calling for demonstration. The opposite opinion has been maintained with great ingenuity THE GHOST IN HAMLET 471 .ofrevenge. He communicates to Hamlet infor :, mation which could have _reached_the. JEmice- EylioTotbetjeJiaap&Lheji^^ _pre= scrihes iapart the jBQaditiflQs~o£.this-te¥eiigfi,.aiid r eappears to reprove tb ^ ipstn^iDPiiit _q1 _his r6veiig;e_for_Jack_of.JifiaL His sup ernatur al quality jflaces his words and acticSsTn'a ciifife. gory by themielves7 b^ reason of which, above and beyond all else to be found in the play, they enable _us_ to determine the dramatist's underlying conceptions ofjituation and charac- ter.- I purpose justifying this view, and then pointing out some of the obvious consequences, if we apply it as a working principle. Whether or not infallibihty can be attributed to the ghost, it cannot be attributed to the mortal characters of the play. Students of the play cannot agree whether certain speeches (as, "He weeps for what is done," iv. i. 27) are to be taken as truth or falsehood; whether certain of Hamlet's doubts and hesitations (as his doubt of the genuineness of the ghost, ii. ii. 628; his fear of sending his uncle to heaven, in. iii. 74) are real or feigned or the result of self-deception. In the utterances of the char- by N. R. D' Alfonso (Lo Spettro dell' AnUeto, Rivista Ita- liana di Filosofia, anno viii, i. 358), but his analysis simply confirms in detail what Lessing had long since pointed out in a general way (Hamburgische Dramaturgie xi), namely, that the circumstances of the ghost's appearance are in per- fect conformity with the accepted notions of the behavior of ghosts. 472 WILLIAM STRUNK, JR. acters other than the ghost, we meet frequently with conscious deceit (lying and hsTDOcrisy, dissembling and the feigning of madncBs), self-deception (particularly in the case of Ham- let), and constantly with the limitations arising from fallible judgment, lack of information, or similar causes. Of the human characters, Hora- tio, indeed, displays honesty, sincerity, and common sense, but admirable as he is, there seems to be a general agreement that his more prosaic nature fails to understand that of Ham- let. Further, Horatio is comparatively taci- turn; he largely keeps his opinions to himself. Barring his seeming disapproval of Hamlet's way with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, his tardy remonstrance in the scene at Ophelia's grave, and his attempt to dissuade Hamlet from the fencing-match, Horatio seems to be ready to acquiesce in any opinion or action of Hamlet, once the story of the ghost has been repeated to him. It would be difficult to main- tain that he is intended to be Shakespeare's mouthpiece. None of the hiunan characters in the play sees the action steadily and sees it whole. B ut do these l imitati ons apply t o the ghost , a jupematura l-bfiingZ- Is-he^able to errorf-t& prejudice?^ Can_he deceive others, or. he-Mio- self deceived? The answer is best found by examining Shakespeare's practice with regard to similar beings in other plays. We find that THE GHOST IN HAMLET 473 in Richard III, in Julius Coesar, in Macbeth, in Cymbeline, in The Winter's Tale (the oracle), the supernatural beings, however diverse their nature, are alike in certain respects. They have sources of information denied to mort als. They are frge_from the encTmabr ancfi&jafjoiorMiiaiLfcy, and so far as they take upon themselves the responsibihty of speech and action, they possess virtual infallibil ity. The fairies of A Midsum- iner-Night's Srerni make ludicrous blunders, it is true, and show a plentifiil lack of wisdom, but this is a comic phantasy. In The Tempest again, the spirits are not free agents; it is Pro- spero in whom the supernatural power is really centered. But in serious actions .Shakfigi^je regularly represents the utterances of super- natural j3jSfflgS*-5dxenJihfi3LJBE§SL9£,.y^S^^ ^^tiatiye, as possessiM™t5ES.^Mia£±fia§ti£§ : perfect truth (though the form of the state- ment may be such as to mislead erring mortals), and, so far as the purpose of the speaker is concerned, gnff^ifnry for t^*^ ""^ prnpncoH The gh ost^ tXerefoje^jruiiyJbg_regajded, with- ih reasonable limitations, as sharing this infalh- ;;;^^yr3e3ias,passedb^!©iid4;he, possibility of mo rtal errors -of-4u4gment;he_-ha&-aourjC!es of knowledge .in_ which mortals -have, .no -patt. He returns toearth from purgatory, not from TieJaven, for_that would be incongruous with his.demand fQr-j;evenge; not from hell, for tliat would be incompatible jsyithHamlet/s duty to 474 WILLIAM STRUNK, JB. obey him . It may be pointed out that he-know s the circumstances^of his murder, t hough jg was asTeep whenTFwas committed. Though there would have been ho propriety in making him omniscient and omnipotent, he is, so far as concerns his ovm aims, all-suflBicient both in knowledge andjnjudsnent. Iffe^may have^ho "minute prophetic knowledge of the future, but he knows when interveotioiLis^necessary and "wE5iTie niay safely Jrust. Haml et to attain re-_ venge withojyii further j,(imonitjon. So far as TSis words throw light upon the nature of Ham- let's task, upon Hamlet's character, upon the efficiency with which Hamlet performs his task, they have an authority, and must have been intended by Shakespeare to have an authority, which gives them precedence over all the other data afforded by the play. Like Hamlet, we may say, "It is an honest ghost," and "take the ghost's word for a thoxisand pound." The .Worda-and-aetieRS -of ^;he -ghost in -many- cases fujmsLJhfi- test J^ which . we ,may-,detfinnine •the .truthor faJsity-of the indications afforded by the other charapterB in the play. One qualification must be made. In the at- tempt to attach significance to all that the ghost does and says, we miist not overlook the requirements of dramatic structure. I would not argue for a hidden meaning in the circum- stance that instead of appearing in Hamlet's bedchamber shortly after the murder, it waits THE GHOST IN HAMLET 475 nearly two months and then appears first to the guards without the palace. The exposition here is similar to that in Macbeth, the first, second, and fourth scenes of Hamlet fulfilling the same functions as the first three of Macbeth. That the scene in which Hamlet and the ghost meet may makeJiajaoper^impressKmirBEaEispe^ pares for it by scenes in whighjbhesg^twp char- acters are separately presented to us. Simi- larty,"~ffie"n^osVs1Eeckoning Hamlet away (i. iv) leai^'toademohstra^n^^^ partjof thepreliminary i^ipositlan albiaxharac- ter, and provides a means of , temporarily re- moving Horatio and Marcellus, in order that the Tntirest may be coftfiBBLtrated^upon the ghost's revelation and upon the manner in which Ham- let receiyes it. Nor would I lay stress upon the ghost's insistence that Horatio and Marcellus swear upon Hamlet's sword. Mysterious and impressive as the ghostly voice from below sounds in actual performance, its effectiveness is rather theatrical than dramatic. Even Coleridge admitted that "these subterraneous speeches of the ghost are hardly defensible." Coleridge, however, undertook to demonstrate the pro- priety of Hamlet's own share in the scene, and Mr. Bradley (pp. 412-413) gives his reasons for accepting the part taken by the ghost as Shakespearean in spirit, and not merely con- descension to the groundlings. I still believe that in the conduct of this part of the scene, 476 WILLIAM STRUNK, JR. Shakespeare did not feel himself free to depart widely from his original. The four speeches of the ghost beneath the stage, resulting in Ham- let's removal from one side of the stage to the other, have their counterpart in Fratricide Punished (Furness ii. 125-126), and hence, in the opinion of some, were a feature of the pre- Shakespearean version. The issue of secrecy is never again raised. Marcellus is no more heard of, and Horatio is the most loyal of con- fidants. The first oath, "In faith, my lord, no1i_ I," was really sufficient. We can, however, see a reason why the ghost should approve of Ham- ; let's swearing his friends to secrecy: this indi- cates Hamlet's purpose of undertaking the | revenge himself and of carrying it out with his / own hand. ^ But with these minor exceptions, occasioned by the dramatic form and by the established tradition among playgoers, we may look to th e words and actions of the ghost asjyur sole in- fallible guide in interprgtiag„thfi -play. WhaF indications do these afford? The ghost's command. to Hamlet iglhre^eld ^Tmsome, Shakespeare's Plots, p. 12) : If thou didst ever thy dear father love — Revenge his foul and most unnatural min*der. But howsoever thou pursuest this act, Taint not thy mind, nor let thy soul contrive Against thy mother aught. THE GHOST IN HAMLET 477 In the first p lace, he demands revenge . Is it too much to say tEafthe mere fact of his de- manding it is significant? Suppose the ghost had merely told Hamlet of the murder, what would have happened? Again, the ghost does not demand immediate revenge, nor does he specify the form. The act maY_ bfij3m^3ifid- as Hamlet thiaks_be§t. And to Shakespeare's audiences there could be no possible doubt as to the meaning of "revenge." Violent death, at Hamlet's hands, no more and no less, is what the ghost demands. The ingenious theory of Werder, according to which Hamlet's duty was to defer vengeance until he was in a posi- tion to convince all Denmark that it was right- eously taken, finds no support in the ghost's words. As one of Werder's earliest critics, Baumgart (Furness ii. 392-393), pointed out, the ghost says nothing of unmasking the king, of bringing him to the bar of justice: "It is revenge alone that the ghost calls for, and swift revenge that Hamlet promises." The greater part of the fine-spun argument of Wer- der is refuted by this simple consideration. And the g hief test to be applied to Ha mlet's conduct throughout the play is simply, with what^Sree . of effiE^eyIi5H^S^ty~djaesJLe devQteJbimsjdfJtojth^ sa^cedjduty. Iha-Jiext jaaint. in the ghost's command is, "Taint not thvjmind." This has, I thinETBeeii commonly taken to mean that in pursuing his 478 WILLIAM STRUNK, JR. revenge, Hamlet is not to behave unworthily, to blemish his character, or perhaps, that he is not to destroy his good name. As Mr. Ransome puts it (p. 12), "the punishment of the murderer was to be effected in such a way that the pro- priety of Hamlet's conduct in the matter should be evident." According to this interpretation, Hamlet's words (v. ii. 356-356), l' good Horatio, what a wounded name, I Things standing thus unknown, shall live behind ' me, may be taken as uttered in distinct remem- brance of the ghost's injunction. But this interpretaIion7~wteilfi' seems to lend support to the mistaken view that Hamlet must pub- licly demonstrate his uncle's guilt before taking vengeance upon him, I believe to be in- correct. The words, "Taint not thy mind," are immediately connected with those which follow, "Nor let thy soul contrive against thy I mother aught." The reference is to the melan- il choly, occasioned by the disgrace of his mother's II incestuous marriage, which has already brought "'Hamlet to the point of meditating suicide (i. ii. 131-132). This melancholy Hamlet is bidden to overcome. "Do not brood over thy griefsj do not yield to melancholy," is the true meaning of the ghost's words.' The conjunc- ' This is taking the word "mind" in its most natural and usual sense. The expression, "a tainted mind," would be closely similar to Spenser's expression {Faerie Queenevr. THE GHOST IN HAMLET 479 tion "nor" emphasizes the close connection between this part of the command and that which follows, for it is precisely this brooding upon his mother's conduct that might lead him to seek some means of involving her in her husband's punishment. J The view which these words really support is not that of Werder, but that of Mr. Bradley. They also afford another test by which to appraise Hamlet's subsequent conduct. The prohibition of any attempt to punish his mother affords another test of Hamlet's later action, one so easy to apply that nothing further need be said here. The ghost's de- scription of himself as Cut off even in the blossoms of [his] sin, Unhousel'd, disappointed, unanel'd, No reckoning made, but sent to [his] account With all [his] imperfections on [his] head, indicates clearly that Hamlet's belief (m. iii. 73 ff .) in the significance of the last occupation of a man suddenly killed is not meant by Shake- speare to pass as pure folly. More will be said of this later on. I agree also with Mr. Bradley (p. 126) that "the Ghost, in fact, had more i. vii. 4), "her wounded mind," used with reference to Brito- mart, who is in love with Artegall. The mind may be "tainted" by melancholy, just as it may be "wounded" by love. It also seems more likely that the ghost should be concerning himself with a matter of present importance, than with a future contingency. 480 WILLIAM STRUNK, JR. reason than we suppose at first for leaving with Hamlet as his parting injunction the command, 'Remember me,' and for greeting him, on re- appearing, with the command, 'Do not forget.' " 5amlet's conduct from the beginning of the secqi^^^r is ^Sl^lljxamined jnTHe'Ti^t "of Jbhe .ghost's commands, literally interpreEedr His feigning of madness, I sh ould say , may^lie held to be sanctioned by the ghost's expres- sion, " howsoever thou 4)JUPCSUfi8t-this act? ' But the whole scheme of catching the conscience of the king by means of the play must be pronounced an inexcusable deviation from the path marked out for him. His recognition of the ghost as his father's spirithasjbeenjcomplete. "lEe^play is merely a jjreJbext^, .wh ich enabl es Hamlet to feel that he is doing something relat- ing "to" his revenge, a,nd thus Jojix^iise himself for putting off his main task. And the result is not simple postponement, for the play catches the king's conscience in a way that Hamlet had not anticipated, and thereby creates a new obstacle to the attainment of revenge. The king is led to feel remorse and to pray. Hamlet, searching for the king in order that he may kill him, finds him at prayer, and spares his life, in order to avoid the possi- bility of thwarting his vengeance by sending the king to heaven. Hamlet's reasoning, however it may shock modem sensibilities, is not with- out a certain plausibility, and according to the THE GHOST IN HAMLET 481 moral scheme of an Elizabethan revenge-play, would be perfectly justifiable, provided always that Hamlet were acting on his own responsi- bility. But Hamlet is not a free agent, and it should not be his to "reason why." To the objection that the ghost's words, "Cut off even in the blossom of my sin," imply an obligation upon Hamlet to kill his uncle in a moment of sin and thereby ensure his eternal damnation, it may be answered that the ghost had also said, "Howsoever thou pursuest this act," and that in the very next scene the ghost reproves Ham- let for his "blunted purpose," a reproof which it is natural to connect directly with Hamlet's failure to seize this particular opportunity. Further, Shakespeare makes it clear that even by his own principle, Hamlet was wrong in not accepting his chance, for this moment of apparent repentance is precisely the moment in which the king has definitely formulated his situation, and has resolved not to act as becomes a repentant man. Th e gh ost's reappearan ceshou ld be suffici ent evi 3ence~that Hamlet's conduct has not been blameles s^.Jhe repetition of a superna tural com mand, in, TCamlet's case as in that ofTEe prophet Jonah, is pr oof positive t hat the person commanded has^Hj^n remissr. The ^Host's words, "I come to whet thy almost blunted purpose," are incompatible with any beUef that Hamlet is a "man of action," deferring 482 WILLIAM STRUNK, JR. his revenge only for reasons of necessity. It is to be noted that although the ghost bids Hamlet calm his mother, "O, step between her and her fighting soul," it does not specifi- cally reprove Hamlet for having upbraided her, nor does it repeat the warning, "Taint not thy mind." If the ghost has nothing further to say upon these points, the reason must be that Ham- let is in need of no further exhortation. It is to be noted likewise thg^tthe g host d oes not iqr- bid Hamlfit'a_^oing to JjiUgland. ^ow it has been alleged again aad" again that Hamlet's departure from Denmark seems to imply an abandonment of his purpose; that he should have remained in Elsinore, because only there could his revenge be accompUshed. Indeed, it is even xirged that this absence from Den- mark, at the critical moment of the return of Laertes, is what alone makes possible the sub- sequent catastrophes: the death of Laertes, of the queen, and of Hamlet himself. But the real causes of these events lie further back, in the sparing of the king at prayer and in the de- lays and hesitations which preceded this. The departure for England is, as it were, linked with dreadful consequences, but it is not their cause. Hamlet's fault is not that he sets out for Eng- land, but that he should have placed himself in a position which made this course necessary. The silence of the ghost should be conclusive. And the necessity of Hamlet's setting out for THE GHOST IN HAMLET 483 England is otherwise apparent. After the killing of Polonius he is placed under guard (iv. iii. 14). His only practical course is that which he actually takes: to leave Denmark quietly with his guards, and to elude them at the first opportunity, once the shores of Den- mark have been left behind. After the third act the ^host doesnotreappear. The plain inference is that inter^ntiorTis no longer necessary, that Ham3eFFcoiu'se,"reckIess ^s it m ay "seeiS^ p^TeuE^tb those who wish, like GoeSie^ to conceive of him as a tender, fragile, or flower-like creature, unfitted to take risks or confront dangers, leads directly to the fulfillment of his task. He feels himself to have the caution, the strength, the resourcefulness, the courage, and the determination to accom- plish his purpose. The time of irresolution and delay is past. His words to Horatio, "The in-'^J terim is mine" (v. ii. 73) are those of a man con- 1 fident of his mastery of the situation. If he holds a blunted foil in one hand, he holds an unbated dagger in the other. He twice refuses the poisoned cup. He is no longer the hesitat- ing and meditative Hamlet of the second and third acts, but a Hamlet who in a school of bitter experience has learned how to overcome his own weaknesses, and has thus fitted himself for the task of overcoming his enemy. The supernatxiral judgment of the ghost was not at fault. 484 WILLIAM, STRUNK, JR. The conclusions resulting from this principle of the virtual infallibility of the ghost are in large part not new. Indeed, any comprehensive dis- cussion of Hamlet's conduct which is wholly new can hardly escape being fantastic. My aim has been to emphasize the importance of the words and actions of the ghost as the necessary point of departure for all interpretation of the play, and within due limits, as the final authority in such interpretation. An examination of these words and actions enables us in large measure to discriminate between the conclusions derived from other data. We are enabled to conclude with certainty that Hamlet essentially is not in madness, but mad in craft; that he is not temperamentally imfit for the task assigned him, but a fit instrument of revenge; that his task does not include self-justification or the bringing of the king to public ignominy, but is linutedto the attainment of vengeance, a task possible to him only when he shall fiirst have succeeded in overcoming his inclination to melancholy and in banishing from his mind his indignation at his mother's frailty. In the sec- ond and third acts we see him fail to carry out the ghost's command, because he has not yet overcome these obstacles. But his efforts at self-mastery have so far availed that the re- appearance of the ghost, aided by his own self- reproaches, makes it possible for him to advance thenceforward steadily and surely toward the THE GHOST IN HAMLET 485 goal of his revenge. The lives that seem to be needlessly sacrificed, in the last two acts are the price of Hamlet's previous hesitation and delay. For all this, so far as I can interpret the text, we have the authority of the ghost, which, from the nature of the case, is as much as to say, we have Shakespeare's own authority. Cornell Unlverally Library PR 2807.S92 The importance of the ghost in Hamlet. 3 1924 013 138 577 0«*"'