CORNELL 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 THIS BOOK IS ONE OF A 
 COLLECTION MADE BY 
 
 BENNO LOEWY 
 1854-1919 
 
 AND BEQUEATHED TO 
 CORNELL UNIVERSITY 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 'Wftt 
 
 wrji 
 
 -fhe 
 
 A^ 
 
 / 
 
 '-^ 
 
 OEoffm^^ 
 
 TXE 
 
 3 "^^ 
 
 m. 
 
 jUfH=MSS[r^ 
 
 m%^ 
 
 PRINTED IN U.S.A. 
 
 PR 2807.H2T" ""'""'"'"■"'"'>' 
 "^luSiuimMi''**''*^'*'® philosophy of h 
 
 3 1924 013 137 827 
 
The original of tliis 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/cu31 92401 31 37827 
 
HAMLET; ^ 
 
 OB, 
 
 SHAKESPEARE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTOHY. 
 

 /^. Gl ill OQ 
 
 HERTFORD! 
 
 FEINTED BY STEPHEN AUSTIN AND SONS. 
 
 AotA^i^ 
 
CONTENTS, 
 
 HAMLET. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Preface vii 
 
 Introduction xi 
 
 A Suggestive Key to Hamlet xxii 
 
 Chapter 1 1 
 
 Chapter II 51 
 
 Chapter III 90 
 
 Chapter IV 113 
 
 Chapter V 130 
 
 Chapter VI 135 
 
 Chapter VII 155 
 
 Chapter VIII 167 
 
 A Few Words upon Othello 187 
 
 Appendix 201 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 fTlHE author offers no apologies for his little work, 
 nor for his opinions. If true, then truth can 
 need no apology; although we know, thanks to 
 Eosencrantz and Guildenstern, it is " dreadfully at- 
 tended," even in these days. If, on the other hand, 
 they are insane delusions, then the author will be 
 happy to have so illustrious an example as Hamlet, 
 and say with him, "His madness {if H he so) is 
 poor Hamlet's enemy." The play of Hamlet is not 
 merely a piece of exquisite writing; it is a practi- 
 cal and every-day affair. Hamlet is being acted 
 on the world's stage, by humanity, at this present 
 hour. And every momentous epoch in the world's 
 history only realizes some line or prognostication of 
 the play itself. Finally, we have to remark, the 
 interpretation of Shakespeare's plays is not an affair 
 which will remain for ever at the dispensation of 
 fancy or of carping criticism. Our Poet's own 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 words will finally lift the veil off Hs works, and 
 then let those who think they know him best beware 
 of eating their own words. 
 
 It is high time some attempt be made to show 
 Shakespeare was a thinker, and not alone an artist. 
 We can imagine the rage such a question may 
 excite ; but, nevertheless, we know absolutely no- 
 thing of Shakespeare's own thoughts. The fragments 
 of beautiful mosaic in thought, which are all we at 
 present grasp, must not be mistaken for our Poet's 
 beliefs. Nor has any systematic attempt been yet 
 made to seize in synthesis the unity and symbolism 
 of one of his works. The sole way of meeting any 
 counter-charge to this fact, is to enunciate some 
 questions like the following. Do we know Shake- 
 speare subjectively? Are we intimate with the man 
 himself as we are with Milton, with Goethe, or 
 with any other genius? Do we know what Shake- 
 speare^s political, philosophical, or historical opinions 
 were ? In short, can we as yet ventm-e to separate 
 the author from his works, detecting in the unity 
 of the objective art the subjective man? Answers 
 to questions of this sort (which might be multi- 
 plied ad infinitum) are not to be found. Where 
 shall we search for them ? Echo answers, where 
 indeed? We are quite aware there are plenty of 
 
PREFACE. IX 
 
 people who would attempt to answer tliese ques- 
 tions readily. But let us assure them, no extracts 
 from the text will satisfy the problem. Shakespeare 
 was far too objective in his art to confound his own 
 thoughts with anything short of unity of idea. 
 Besides, if we appeal to the text, we could easily 
 find negations to almost every positive thought 
 somewhere else. No, it is alone in the unity of 
 the symbolic and spiritual soul of art that we can 
 find the true thought and inspiration of its creator. 
 With this opinion deeply rooted within us, we offer 
 the hypothesis worked out in this little work, as 
 help and suggestion towards final solution. 
 
 LoNDOif, February \?>th, 1875. 
 
INTRODUCTIOK 
 
 THIS little work is not addressed to those who see no 
 mystery in the works of Shakespeare. Those who can 
 read his plays, his poems, and his ambiguous language, 
 without any misgivings or further conjecturiags, are only 
 to maiutain this attitude always, and everything will remain 
 plain to them. In this world, where stale custom reduces 
 everything (to all but philosophers or poets) to the level 
 of the common-place, nothing but novelty succeeds. Ideal- 
 ists and materialists quarrel over their narrow shibboleths, 
 forgetting that their criterions are such as mere blindness 
 alone prevents them from seeing to be as groundless and 
 unreal as the very questions they attack. Realism, that 
 hopeless chimera of philosophical debate, imagines that it 
 has grasped substantiality when it has only removed the 
 question a step further back. Thus we persist in calling 
 things supernatural and spiritual because uncommon, and 
 neglect the common itself, failing to see the transcendental 
 in it around us ; which defies comprehension in itself be- 
 yond measurement, order, and relation. Perhaps we should 
 do well to take a lesson from Shakespeare, who refused to 
 acknowledge to names a reality existing beyond the ways 
 we look at things. If we turn to " The Tempest," we find 
 we are told in one breath : 
 
 " . . . . We are such stuff 
 As dreams are made on." 
 
XU IKTEODUCTION. 
 
 And a little before : 
 
 " . . . . The great globe itself, 
 Tea, all which it inherit, BhaU dissolve 
 And, like this insubstantial pageant faded. 
 Leave not a rack behind." 
 
 There is neither materialism nor idealism here. Only the 
 great mystery, the great unknown, of which we know 
 nothing but our poor one-sided and limited views. As Mr. 
 Lewes truly says, in his " Problems of Life and Mind," the 
 world is mystic to man. Beyond relation it is probable we 
 can never pass. Indeed it will ever grow more questionable 
 whether mind and thought are in any way true guages of 
 this universe in itself. And this leads us to the comparison 
 of Shakespeare and the mysteries which philosophy seeks 
 to solve. Mr. Swinburne has well compared our Poet to 
 the ocean. May we not apply Mr. Lewes's dictum about 
 the world to Shakespeare with as great felicity ? Are not 
 the works of Shakespeare mystic to man ? Who can deny 
 this? Who knows anything of Shakespeare himself ? We 
 know a Goethe, we know a Milton ; but we do not equally 
 know the greatest of all poets. 
 
 Fortunately, to those we address, there is no need of such 
 a question. The growth of Shakespearian societies, and of 
 the literature which at home and abroad is ever swelling 
 around the works of our Poet, are sufficient proof .that we 
 are beginning to realize the nature of the problem in down- 
 right earnest. What is that problem ? 
 
 That problem, we answer, is the realization of the man 
 himself — of Shakespeare as a thinker, not alone as an artist. 
 When we study a painting, we try and enter into its creator's 
 mind, to see what he thought and what he intended in his 
 work. We do not ignore the conception because the execu- 
 tion is perfect. That is generally secondary, lor it ought to 
 be so. If there is no conception, only a mere copy, we may 
 admire the artist, but the creator, the genius, is wanting. 
 Thought is at the bottom of all things, and thought alone is 
 
INTRODUCTION. Xlll 
 
 the true measure of genius. Thousands possess the artistic 
 gift, thousands execute like automatons. "Witness the 
 artisan, it is he alone who builds the ship or rears the house ; 
 but who conceives it ? — the architect. And we like to know 
 what manner of man the architect was. "We wish to learn 
 what he thought ; and from his house or his ship we trace 
 the man in the unity and breadth of his design alone. "We 
 do not take each column of a temple, each section of a ship, 
 and say this shows the man. It is the whole conception 
 alone which satisfies us. Now the nature of Shakespeare's 
 art is much of this character. We see a mosaic of beautiful 
 passages, love-stories, romances, tragedies, comedies, etc. 
 "We read them, and we think we know Shakespeare. It is as 
 if we read " Gulliver's Travels " as a child, swallowing the 
 story oblivious of its irony, its philosophy, and its bitterness. 
 Suppose we were to see nothing in "Don Quixote" but a 
 lunatic? Or in "Zanoni" but a magician? We do not com- 
 mit these errors here ; yet we transpose them easily to that 
 giant Shakespeare. Nobody thinks that Dante's work con- 
 tains no allegory. Readers are not so dense as not to see the 
 "Divina Commedia" requires a key before it can be under- 
 stood. And we maintain that every creation of genius in 
 literature is more or less of this character. No matter how 
 early we go back, be it to the Bible or the earliest poetry, we 
 find the prevalence of word-painting, of metaphor, and im- 
 agery. Now we contend these latter contain the principle of 
 symbolism in them. They are not direct ; on the contrary, 
 they avoid harshness by substituting one picture to call up 
 another, by its likeness and suggestiveness. The germs of 
 rationalism are hidden under this similarity, calling out 
 identity from out diversity. Art, we maintain, is easily 
 described as one large metaphor. It images the thoughts, 
 not by signs, but by pictures which resemble those thoughts ; 
 and, whilst touching the feelings, appeals to the mind also. 
 If we were to follow the steps of art in all its growth, we 
 
xiv INTKODUCTION. 
 
 should find the symbolism growing wider, deeper, and more 
 intricate. As we ascend into the realms of dramatic literature; :. 
 we find in " Prometheus," " (Edipus Eex," and the Greek 
 drama generally, attempts to picture the relations of man to 
 destiny. This is the subject of the drama— the struggle of 
 man with fate. Already we have made a gigantic stride; 
 we have passed from poetry, say, like the Psalms with its 
 beautiful imagery, to unity of conception. The universal 
 verity of Prometheus is a gigantic symbol. Here we have 
 man tied to the rock of inexorable destiny, fate, or law. In 
 " CEdipus Eex" the Sphinx-like mysticism of this world is 
 well pictured. Like the King, we are hurried to our doom 
 irrespective of ourselves. We have no control over circum- 
 stances, chance, or fate. Indeed, as we proceed upon our 
 ascent into modern Eterature, we find a greater and greater 
 differentiation taking place. 
 
 Let us arrive at once to Shakespeare, who may weU stand 
 for all art in himself alone. And we naturally ask ourselves, 
 what has Shakespeare symbolized ? There are thousands of 
 people who deny the symbolism of art. And let us ask 
 them if art can be direct? As it can only speak to our 
 feelings and to our thoughts by a species of dumb language, 
 must it not be symbolical ? Is there no thought lurking in 
 the spire ? Does it not, like a silent and solenm. finger, 
 point heavenward ? What is the aim of art ? — the ideal. 
 What is the ideal but the voice of the absolute, the perfect, 
 the eternal ? Each man finds a different utterance for it ; 
 but whatever be that utterance, it must be symbolical. Is 
 not all mythology of this character ? The ideal is the ideal, 
 because it is not the real. But it is based upon thought, and 
 that thought is conception from abstractions. Out of large 
 generalizations in the philosophic world, gigantic thoughts 
 arise, which cloud-like would roU away, if genius Titan- 
 like did not embody them in types which fascinate us for 
 ever. 
 
INTRODUCTION. XV 
 
 Hamlet is such an ideal, not real as a character, but ideal 
 as a creation, and real .as a symbol and a thought. "When 
 we rationalize the typifications of art into their symbolical 
 ideas and significations, we are in the land of thought and 
 reality once more. That is to say, of a reality in keeping 
 with the possible and the knowledge of this earth. If it is 
 true genius is above this every-day world, it is also true it 
 cannot leave it. Its force exists in its breadth of view. It 
 embraces the centuries in its gaze, and unrolls them like 
 a scroll. When it typifies them into characters, they are 
 gigantic indeed. 
 
 Independently of knowing nothing of Shakespeare's life 
 or his opinions, we know nothing of his works. As a genius 
 we know less about him than of any other genius. His 
 Sonnets are before every one ; we have but to read, yet who 
 understands them? It is as yet undecided to whom they are 
 addressed. Some say a woman, others a man. Let us turn 
 to his plays. What do we know of them ? Not one alludes 
 in any way to the topics of their day. We can apparently 
 find no thought of the author behind them. Like an in- 
 visible abstraction, the creator is not to be seen. The works 
 are there, but the man who conceived them is unapparent. 
 Now there is something about Shakespeare's works which 
 persuades us he is there. The profundity of his art, and prob- 
 ably the width of his conceptions, in their gigantic unity and 
 design, prevents us from seeing the truth. Shakespeare is 
 so much above every other genius that he is perhaps out of 
 the range of ordinary criticism. We see his hands, his feet, 
 his legs, but we are too near the Colossus to see the whole 
 in perspective. Time will alone gradually heighten our view 
 of him. " He who wants the wealth of the Indies should 
 take wealth to the Indies," is an old saying. Do we take 
 anything to Shakespeare? And can we carry as yet a 
 measure sufficiently large to guage in any way this giant ? 
 That Shakespeare is behind his works is undoubted. 
 
XVI INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Everything points towards this truth. In the first place, 
 no genius can so disassociate his works from himself in the 
 subjective design, as not to betray himself, if the unity of 
 the idea, hidden under the objective garb, is once seized. 
 That Shakespeare's works are not exhaustive on their mere 
 exoteric side, who can question ? Does not a profound idea 
 peep aU through Hamlet? And can we not say the same 
 for almost every play ? 
 
 The theory we are about to enunciate in rationalizing 
 Hamlet is as follows. 
 
 Shakespeare has employed art (after the manner of all 
 genius) as the vehicle for his ideas and conceptions upon 
 the greatest and profoundest of subjects — History. He 
 has idealized in Prince Hamlet the spirit of truth-seeking, 
 which realizes itself historically as progress. In that pro- 
 found and philosophical character of the hero of the tragedy 
 we read a typical idealization of humanity, impelled by 
 that divine sense of justice, truth, and liberty, which, with 
 its still voice, unrolls itself as that divine evolution called 
 progress. The whole tragedy of Hamlet is therefore a 
 Dramatic Philosophy of History. Hamlet himself is pro- 
 gress. Truth is not a concrete entity, but solely a relation ; 
 and its only expositor is history. Therefore it is alone in 
 the latter that we must seek for the history of Prince 
 Hamlet. There we find, as in the play, that the battle is 
 not to the swift, nor to the strong, but to time alone. 
 Hamlet's history is therefore the history of man during his 
 apprenticeship of conflict. With the end of that conflict 
 Hamlet's mission is accomplished, since he represents the 
 spirit warring for truth alone. 
 
 On the other hand, the King represents Hamlet's anti- 
 thesis. As error, opposition to truth, injustice, and stag- 
 nancy, Shakespeare has idealized in Claudius a gigantic type 
 of evil and historical oppression. To kill Claudius and 
 
INTRODUCTION. XVll 
 
 revenge his father Is the sole aim of Hamlet. This, in our 
 eyes, is symbolically to redress wrong, establish truth, and 
 secure liberty. . The whole action of the tragedy revolves 
 upon the conflict of the King and Hamlet. That struggle 
 is accordingly the antinomy of past and present, or truth 
 and error. It is impossible to treat these abstractions by 
 themselves. Therefore, under that law which overrules 
 social development, and which Shakespeare evidently solved 
 and divined three centuries ago, we must seek for the inter- 
 pretation of Hamlet. 
 
 Ever mindful of the double unity of art and idea, which 
 must be wedded to each other in exquisite harmony, Shake- 
 speare has embodied in the central figures the qualities or 
 sum totals of which their respective followers and supporters 
 are the very constituents. Thus the Eing is a fiction, neces- 
 sary for dramatic unity alone, and who is represented by his 
 Lord Chamberlain and courtiers. Hamlet again symbolizes 
 the action and progress of truth in history. He is also the 
 sum total of his partisans.^ Thus the irresolution and 
 apparent inaction of Hamlet become constant action and 
 continual destruction of the King, as each of his organs is 
 successively killed by Hamlet. We at once recognize the 
 weakness of Hamlet, to be remedied by time ; and we notice 
 that the death of the King can only be accomplished with 
 the whole tragedy, since the latter is the history of the 
 continual death of the King alone. It is here we notice the 
 marvellous skill of Shakespeare. By embodying the King 
 in several characters, he has succeeded in representing the 
 gradual process and continuity of historical progress. Critics 
 are impatient because Hamlet fails to kill the King at once.- 
 "We would ask them, why truth does not realize itself at once? 
 
 ' Shakespeare has evidently endeavoured to embody in characters the conflict- 
 ing forces of history, which emerge in that resultant called Progress. Hamlet is 
 this resultant. 
 
 i 
 
XVIU INTRODTJCTION', 
 
 Progress and truth are synonymous, and tlie former, as Mr. 
 Herbert Spencer has assured us, is a very gradual movement. 
 Hamlet, we again assert, is killing the King all through the 
 play. Polonius, Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, Laertes, are 
 successively destroyed ; and, with his last support, the King 
 has vanished. Thus, as Hamlet grows in strength and 
 power, the King is proportionally weakened. 
 
 The action of the tragedy becomes first the detection of 
 error by the birth of Hamlet.^ Secondly, the action of 
 Hamlet and its results. The latter is another expression for 
 the growth of Hamlet ; which Groethe has so wonderfully 
 realized in those memorable and oft- quoted but misunder- 
 stood words : " Here is an oak planted in a vase fitted for 
 the most delicate flowers, the roots strike out, the vessel flies 
 to pieces." 
 
 In short, the growth of Hamlet is the growth of man, of 
 progress — the expansion of thought. Hamlet is the oak, 
 the King and his supporters the vase. The death of Polo- 
 nius is the result of the growth of Hamlet, and thus the 
 vase is broken. Let us be clearly understood. The King 
 : is slowly dying all through the play, because Hamlet is aciing ' 
 j all through the tragedy also. Hamlet's monologues are the 
 expressions of fresh impetus, of action and reaction gained 
 from the growth of liberty, knowledge, and progress in 
 general. The whole play is a picture of some of the past 
 and a pure prophecy of much of the future. Let us now 
 realize the character of the -King through the detail of his 
 supporters. 
 
 In Polonius Shakespeare has philosophically summed up 
 certainty and absolutism ; he is therefore the- very backbone 
 of the King. "With his death the climax of the tragedy 
 is reached; From that moment things take a new direction. 
 Polonius is the authority which antiquity and tradition. 
 
 ' This is the revival of learning. 
 
INTEODTJCTION. XIX 
 
 when united with autocratic Ophelia (or the Church), form, 
 and admit of no question nor misgivings. Polonius repre- 
 sents broadly the past. Hamlet pictures in like manner the 
 present and future. Polonius is approached through Ophelia. 
 Hamlet first criticizes the latter. By doing this he is criti- 
 cizing and inspecting Polonius. Father and daughter are 
 one — Church and State before the Reformation. "With the 
 death of Polonius certainty is dead. Ophelia is the daughter 
 of tradition and of certainty. As the latter becomes shaken, 
 so she becomes incoherent, dissents, drowns herself, and is 
 buried. Laertes is a contiauation of Polonius in a modified 
 form. Since error cannot be questioned until certainty be 
 shaken, the growth of Hamlet is pictured in his satire of 
 Ophelia and Polonius. Polonius is everything which re- 
 sisted the Protestant Reformation. His death historically 
 is the accomplishment of that Reformation. From that 
 moment the past has been shaken by the present. Ration- 
 alism has more and more encroached its domains upon 
 the claims of antiquity and belief in tradition. Two forces 
 were face to face at the Reformation. On the one hand 
 reason, asserting itself through the growth of learning, 
 advanced its claims in the teeth of ignorance and the 
 voice of antiquity. On the other, custom resisted this 
 new and unprecedented assertion of the fallibility of the 
 past. 
 
 "We now turn to two more of the King's supporters. 
 They are the two courtiers RoSencrantz and Guildenstern. 
 Here Shakespeare's genius has italicized itself. In these 
 two we recognize the great passive opponents of progress 
 and truth. They are indifference, opposition of the self- 
 interested in power, and that optimism which, benefitting 
 by error, maintains things to be at their very best. They 
 evade truth, or Hamlet, by means of sophistry and casuistry. 
 As long as they come between the King and Hamlet, the 
 latter can effect nothing permanent. Nothing in our whole 
 
INTRODUCTIOTf. 
 
 exposition is less ambiguous and less equiTOcal than Shake- 
 speare's meaning here. He has distinctly realized the oppo- 
 sition which compromise and the languid indifference of the 
 children of fortune would put in the teeth of progress and 
 truth, or Hamlet. In continually dogging Hamlet, we find 
 how Shakespeare has made them come between the King and 
 our hero as a sort of shield. Hamlet effects nothing whilst 
 with these two sycophants ; and when he escapes them for 
 the first time, we have the term naked in connexion with him. 
 In these two characters Shakespeare has epitomized hypo- 
 crisy and the abuse of reason, by that immense privileged 
 body who have thriven upon abuses in history, if they do 
 not do so to-day. If we only turn to the opposers of free 
 trade and of reform in this country, we realize, in the long 
 struggle for justice and truth, the recent opposition of 
 Eosencrantz and Gruildenstern. Every true student of 
 history will recognize their significance as hardly second to 
 that of Polonius. 
 
 The next constituent of the King is Laertes. Here, again, 
 Shakespeare's genius reveals itself. Having artistically to kill 
 Polonius, Shakespeare felt he must yet continue him sym- 
 bolically, as his power gradually and slowly decays. His son 
 not inaptly takes his place as opponent to Hamlet. But he 
 represents party, not a sole autocratic and tyrannical power. 
 Laertes defends Ophelia as supporter of Church and State. 
 The travels of Laertes, like the growth of Fortinbras, are 
 understood by us as silent. Laertes represents not only his 
 father, as the conservative and stable principle, but the 
 growth of that principle by education into a party. Simi- 
 larly Hamlet, by the aid of Horatio, represents the opposite, 
 and progressive or liberal party. Thus the whole play is' 
 the conflict of the two forces, statical and dynamical, whose 
 resultant is progress; and who are respectively individualism 
 and authority. 
 
 As caution, Rosencrantz, by means of Guildenstern, 
 
INTRODUCTION. XXI 
 
 banishes Hamlet. They themselves provide. When our hero 
 returns, it is as naked and alone. Shakespeare's meaning is 
 undoubtedly as follows. Hamlet, as truth-seeking or pro- 
 gress, having in the death of Polonius fulfilled the 
 death of intolerance and interference, has accomplished a 
 great political mission. But before rationalism can again 
 gather itself for another crisis, it must free itself from 
 Guildenstem and Rosencrantz. This it does by means of 
 'Fortinbras or liberty, who rises with Hamlet, and is part of 
 him. Fortinbras rises, in the very opening of the play, 
 as abortive attempts at liberty. He disappears, to grow 
 with Hamlet silently. This growth is typified in his sudden 
 appearance as a large army in the centre of the play. 
 Finally he comes in as conqueror at the end of the tragedy. 
 He is part of Hamlet, and we are directly told in the Church- 
 yard-scene that liberty and progress (or truth-seeking), 
 were contemporary and identical births. The First 'Clown 
 and Hamlet are one. Thus Hamlet is turned in upon him- 
 self. The monologue which foUows the interview with the 
 army of Fortinbras gives us to understand Hamlet benefits 
 by liberty (accruing from the death of Polonius), to use his 
 reason. In that use he gradually kills or escapes sophistry, 
 casuistry, and indifference. We therefore believe England 
 to typify science. The text is not unfavourable to such 
 an hypothesis. For the Ambassadors of England are 
 part holders of the dramatic situation at the end of the 
 play. But this is a part we do not feel so certain of as the 
 rest. We venture only to offer suggestions. 
 
 We may now turn to Hamlet and his partisans. Our 
 theory here is the same as that we have enunciated with re- 
 gard to the King. Hamlet is a synthesis of qualities. He 
 is evolved in the first act as a force. His birth "is the result 
 of Bernardo, Horatio, and Marcellus, furthered by the 
 Ghost. The play opens in the depth of the night. This 
 typifies ignorance and the undoubted reign of corruption. 
 
INTKODUCTION. 
 
 wMch is given in tlie words "Long live the King." 
 Presently Francisco is relieved. In short, scholarship arrives 
 in the shape of Horatio. But he is the product of those before 
 him, whom we suspect to be reading and printing. Doubt, 
 as a Ghost, illuminates this revival of learning. And the 
 whole go far to form a young Hamlet. Liberty arises with 
 Fortinbras contemporary with these events ; and we are 
 thus given to understand that Hamlet is liberty, justice, and 
 knowledge in co-partnership. Truth or progress is thus 
 epitomized in Prince Hamlet. 
 
 In Hamlet's father we hear the ideal voice of Christ- 
 ianity. The Queen is simply human belief and custom. 
 Her marriage to Claudius is the corruption of Christianity 
 — the union of error in belief or belief in error. Hamlet is 
 son of belief, and of that unadulterated union of ideal justice 
 prior to the second century. Thus the gradual detection by 
 Hamlet of the murder of his father at the hands of his uncle, 
 is the artistic history of the Eeformation. The Interlude 
 is actually and undoubtedly an artistic parallel of Luther 
 pointing out the corruption of the Romish Church. The 
 Ghost represents the revival and shadow of ideal truth and 
 justice, which, as scepticism, becomes a revelation in itself. 
 When the heart of the Queen is cleft in twain, we may 
 recognize Shakespeare's attempt to realize artistically the 
 Peformation completed in its Protestant schism. Thus 
 Hamlet's father is typical for truth as ideal justice, and 
 the divine spirit of Christianity itself. This may ac- 
 count for the references of Horatio and Hamlet in con- 
 nexion with him. However, this interferes very little, 
 whether accepted or not, with the whole character of the 
 tragedy, or with its signification. 
 
 The most important and confirming solution of the tragedy 
 will be found in our treatment of the Churchyard-scene. 
 Here we find the very key of the play contained in the 
 contemporary origin of Clown, Hamlet, and the rise of 
 
INTRODUCTION. XXllI 
 
 Fortinbras. Here we gasp for breath at the miraculous in- 
 genuity and genius of Shakespeare. This scene has been a 
 veritable stumbling-block to all criticism. The introduction 
 of Clowns, and the curious conversations, are apparently out 
 of .harmony with the rest of the play. But, by our solution, 
 the play comes out in double its striking clearness and 
 spiritual interpretational force. For this Churchyard-scene, 
 we maintain, is an epitome of progress and of the whole 
 play. The two Clowns are Time and Progress. The First 
 Clown is Hamlet himself. Shakespeare is laughing at us 
 when he says, " Every fool can tell that."'^ Hamlet and the 
 Clown are one. O^ir hero is studying himself, and at once 
 parallels historical criticism and the study of historical 
 philosophy in general. In short, man learns how progress 
 arosje, and what it signifies. It is this part of our solution 
 of Hamlet which we particularly insist upon, and which we 
 claim as exposition of the extraordinary ingenuity of Shake- 
 speare's genius and art. By turning Hamlet in upon him- 
 self, by means of another character, artistically separate 
 but symbolically identical, Shakespeare gives us a sublime 
 picture of the present day as pure prophecy. Progress is 
 epitomized in this Churchyard-scene, where the ridicule 
 which kills by criticism, metaphysical discussion, and satire, 
 are given in two Clowns. They are actually Time and Pro- 
 gress, or Hamlet himself reforming over great space of time. 
 Finally, Hamlet begins to study the science of history or 
 progress, and in doing this he studies himself "When he 
 learns how he was born, and that he is related to liberty 
 and knowledge in general, we may not be thought too bold 
 if we parallel such a recognition with Mr. Buckle's "History 
 of Civilization." However, there it stands, as a question 
 which criticism will finally decide to be the most marvellous 
 
 ' The wit lies in Hamlet asking the Clown (himself) when he [himself) was 
 born. " Every fool can tell that." 
 
XXIV INTRODUCTION. 
 
 piece of art and prophecy ever conceived and forestalled by 
 genius, or let it perish as the wild chimera of a madman. 
 
 In conclusion, feeling how out of place it would be to 
 carry into detail an interpretation of Hamlet, which might 
 be rejected by criticism altogether, we have refrained frqm 
 expanding this Kttle work into those dimensions which could 
 alone do justice to the subject. Sufficient for us if we have 
 thrown a new light over this sublime tragedy. 
 
 Hastily written, our essay requires a few remarks in the 
 Introduction, if not in the Preface. Hamlet is a subject which 
 is always developing : it never stands s.till. "We fancy we 
 have not sufficiently insisted upon the nature of the hero him- 
 self. To us Hamlet represents humanity and the growth of 
 rationalism. He is both progress, truth-seeking, and liberal- 
 ism. In the history of Hamlet we read the history of man. 
 
 "We wish to insist also upon the identity of Hamlet with 
 Horatio. The latter seems the scholarship of the Hamlet 
 school of thought. Progress, liberty, and knowledge are 
 the constituents of Hamlet. They give birth to the latter in 
 simultaneous interaction. The Players, therefore, are Hamlet 
 himself in action. And they act and react upon each other. 
 These Players are undoubtedly typical for the Reformers. 
 
 ' Again, we would call notice to the revival of learning, 
 which we imagine is the main cause in the birth of 
 Hamlet. That revival is pictured in the speech of Polonius 
 to Eeynaldo. Reynaldo is to combat all unorthodoxy. 
 "Whilst Laertes well represents his father in literature. This 
 speech, coming immediately after the first afct, when Hamlet 
 and his friends determine "to go in together," shows us 
 what Laertes typifies. It is the step which Polonius takes 
 to combat the spread of learning and rationalism. To have 
 neglected it would have been to overlook the direction 
 Laertes takes. And the travels of Laertes represent that 
 learning itself very well. Hamlet and Laertes both repre- 
 
INTRODUCTION. XXV 
 
 sent two brandies whlcli the revival of learning split itself 
 into. One was inquiry, reason, rationalism, resulting in 
 progress, science, and Kberalism. The other, theological 
 orthodoxy and toryism ; opposing Hamlet, and leading into 
 the mild conservatism of to-day, which threatens some day 
 to coalesce with the principles of Hamlet (in all but name). 
 Laertes defends tradition, antiquity, authority, the past. 
 Hamlet attacks all the above. The result is a question of 
 time alone. 
 
 We would remark here, that Hamlet is, in short, not only 
 a political play, but essentially a philosophical one. For 
 its philosophy is the philosophy of development, of the 
 growth of knowledge, liberty, and progress. It is highly 
 optimistic if so taken, as it looks upon time as the friend 
 of man in the long run. Therefore we have termed it the 
 "Philosophy of History" of our Poet. The Philosophy of 
 History embraces two principles, individualism and authority. 
 Their mutual interaction is progress. We quote from the 
 recent volume of Professor Flint upon the Philosophy of 
 History : 
 
 " As soon as political thought comes forth into life, it is 
 found to oscillate between two poles — between despotism 
 and anarchy — the extreme of social authority and the ex- 
 treme of individual independence. Before political thought 
 awakens, social authority predominates. The man as an 
 individual does not exist, but is merged in the family, the 
 clan, city, or nation. But in every progressive society there 
 ■ comes a time when its stronger minds , feel that they are not 
 merely parts of a social organism, that they have a life and 
 destiny, rights and duties of their own, and simply as men. 
 There are then two principles in the world — the principle 
 of authority and the principle of liberty, the principle of 
 society and the principle of individualism. These two 
 principles co-exist at first in a few individuals ; but, in 
 process of time, they come not only to co-exist in some 
 
XXVI INTRODUCTION. 
 
 degree in all, but to manifest themselves apart, and then there 
 are not only two principles in the indimdual, but two parties 
 in the state; the one inclining more to the side of social 
 authority, and the other more toivards individual independence 
 — a conservative and a liberal party ; each party existing in 
 virtue of its assertion of a truth, hut existing only as a 
 party, because it does not assert the whole truth — each con- 
 ferring its special services — each having its special dangers 
 — each being certain to ruin any society in which it succeeds in 
 crushing the other — -but the two securing both order and pro- 
 gress, partly by counteracting each other, and partly by co- 
 operating with each other." — (Introduction to. first volume 
 of Philosophy of History.) 
 
 The italics in the above wonderful masterpiece of political 
 philosophy are our own. We claim for Hamlet the principle 
 above illustrated. And Hamlet is built as a tragedy upon 
 such principles. On the one side we have Hamlet, who, 
 with his friends, represents liberty, individualism, progress 
 — the rights of man. On the other, we have authority, 
 certainty, and the whole array of the social forces. The 
 history of the story of Hamlet is the history of the conflict 
 of these two parties ; the result is order, yet progress, with- 
 out anarchy, and the whole is the largest generalization 
 upon the Philosophy of History as yet extant. We have 
 identified our hero (Hamlet) with truth, the King with 
 error. Critics may quarrel over the distinction, but the 
 principle is the same. Truth is ultimately with Hamlet. 
 And the whole of historical progress is 'the rejection of past 
 errors hitherto considered truths, and the adoption of the 
 , latter in their place. Thus truth and error are at the bottom 
 of all the great questions which agitate humanity. In con- 
 clusion, we ofier the whole more as a suggestion and an 
 hypothesis than as a solution, and we are quite ready to 
 acknowledge the insufficiency of some of the evidence 
 adduced. 
 
INTRODUCTION. XXVll 
 
 Shakespeare has embodied in the characters of the play 
 the collective essence of the principles of society and the 
 principles of individualism. In Hamlet we recognize pro- 
 gress, truth, and liberty. The latter is expressed through 
 the triumphant march of Fortinbras, which is going on all 
 through the play. His introduction in the middle of the 
 ^ragedy is to give expression to this march of liberty. 
 Horatio expresses the growth of liberal knowledge in Hamlet. 
 His scholarship is born through Bernardo and Marcellus, 
 and, when expressed in the symbol of Hamlet, is the growth 
 of rationalism. Justice, freedom, rationalism, and thus pro- 
 gress, are condensed in the character of Prince Hamlet and 
 his friends. 
 
 On the other side, we have the King and Queen as mere 
 symbols of error in belief and belief in error. Superstition, 
 tyranny, falsehood, and every form of despotic authority and 
 oppression, are contained in the character of the King. His 
 death is therefore gradual, and contained in the death of his 
 Lord Chamberlain and courtiers. Polonius sums up the 
 principle of authority, bigotry, and tradition. Certainty 
 and infallibility are his characteristics. He thus embodies 
 the chief essence of social stability and order. He is the 
 continuation of history, and he is the very backbone of the • 
 King. In his son Laertes we notice the same principle, 
 only modified and expressed through literature. Ophelia is 
 also the heir of tradition and of infallibility. The two 
 courtiers, Eosencrantz and Guildenstern, fill up the vacuum, 
 and represent perhaps the greatest opponents Hamlet has 
 to deal with. In the indifference and sophistry of these 
 courtiers we recognize the great enemies to truth and liberty, 
 and we are struck especially here with Shakespeare's genius. 
 He has succeeded in embodying in these characters the very 
 essence of that great body which, whilst professing to love 
 truth, are generally indifferent to it (whilst they remain un- 
 affected by it), and are its deadly enemies when it touches 
 
XXVlll INTRODUCTION. 
 
 ttpm in any degree whatever.^ The whole of history, and 
 particularly the history of opposition to reform, is alive with 
 them. We have only to turn to the history of the early part 
 of this century in England to realize, in the opposition to the 
 Eepeal of the Corn Laws and Eeform in general, the power 
 and activity of this party in their persistent action of hinder- 
 ing and embarrassing Hamlet. Rosencrantz and Guilden- 
 stern are the representatives of < those who thrive upon 
 abuses and injustice, who hate Eeformers, and who make 
 them suffer for their love of justice and truth. Their means 
 of action are sophistry, casuistry, hypocrisy, cunning, and 
 evasion. Naked truth alone can crush them, and naked 
 truth attains a rigid exposition and unequivocal demonstra- 
 tion in the growth of knowledge, rationalism, and science 
 alone. England serves this purpose in the play, and Hamlet 
 having escaped them, returns naked. 
 
 The conflict of individuality and authority continues ia 
 a modified form between . Hamlet and Laertes. Osric re- 
 presents the criticism of society, which, as opinion, is the 
 sole referee, Finally man's apprenticeship is accomplished, 
 and Hamlet (expressing the action of the conflict alone), 
 having performed his mission, dies. 
 
 This, in our opinion, is the main outline of the solution 
 and rationalistic interpretation of Hamlet. The play is thus 
 the battle-field of two political and historical parties. 
 Those are the weak out of power and the strong in power. 
 (The subject of the conflict is that of liberty, truth, and 
 
 ' "Wlio does not know this temper of the man of the world, that worst 
 enemy of the world ? His inexhaustible patience of abuses, that only torment 
 others ; his apologetic words for beliefs that may perhaps not be so precisely true 
 as one might wish, and institutions that are not altogether so useful as some 
 might think possible ; his cordiality towards progress and improvement in a 
 general way, and his coldness and antipathy to each progressive proposal in par- 
 ticular ; his pigmy hope that life will one day become somewhat better, punily 
 shivering by the side of his gigantic conviction that it might well be infinitely 
 worse." 
 
INTRODUCTION. XXIX 
 
 justice — rationalism and individuality — against ignorance, 
 authority, and falsehood. Time alone is the friend of Ham- 
 let, and the King dies slowly through his supports. The 
 madness of Hamlet is the artistic expression of his evil in 
 the eyes of his enemies. His irresolution is another artistic 
 ■expression for weakness, which Time alone can rectify. The 
 monologues and soliloquies are the effects of action and re- 
 action, expressed through time in the growth of knowledge, 
 liberty, and crises. 
 
 Finally, we may observe, two interpretations are open to 
 the student. One is to identify the play with much of the 
 history of the last few centuries, or to merely embrace the 
 more general and catholic views of a Philosophy of History 
 alone. In the latter case Polonius must stand for the 
 principle of certainty, and with his overthrow the climax 
 of a Philosophy of History would be well expressed. The 
 growth of knowledge, liberty, are expressed in the word 
 Truth. And this growth is the history of Prince Hamlet. 
 Although we have adopted a historical parallelism in our 
 interpretation, we are not inclined, upon such a profound 
 subject, to dogmatize, and we disclaim .any pretensions be- 
 yond hopeful and fruitful suggestion.^ 
 
 ' The reader will think perhaps we have fitted history to Hamlet, and hegged 
 the whole question. But this is the astounding character of the play — it does 
 parallel modern history up to this very hour. "Why.? Because Shakespeare jdj-oJ- 
 ably seized the secondary laws of historical science. Through the modification 
 and continuity of authority, resulting from the growth of individualism or liberty, 
 Shakespeare has anticipated the future. 
 
A SUGGESTIVE 
 
 KEY TO HAMLET.' 
 
 DRAMATIS PERSONS. 
 
 Claudius 
 Gertrude 
 
 HAMLET— iL little History of Man. 
 I Error, injustice, etc. ( (Marriage) corruption 
 
 Samlets Father — XTnadulterated Christianity prior to the second century, ideal 
 truth and justice. 
 
 Bulwarks of Ebkor or Constituents, of the King. 
 
 Orthodoxy and ma- 
 chinery prior to< 
 the Reformation. 
 
 Relations of 
 Norway 
 
 Indifference 
 and hatred 
 to truth 
 
 Children of Polonius 
 
 Polonius 
 
 (Weight of many). Certainty 
 or infallibility, authority, anti- 
 quity, and tradition. Bigotry, 
 iutolerance, absolutism. 
 (Probably inquisition) (dis- 
 couragement of learning) (or- 
 thodox bias). 
 I Voltimand — Repression by force, persecution (F). 
 J Cornelius — Hard-heartedness (p). 
 Roseneranti — Opposition of those who benefit by 
 
 abuses. 
 Guildenstern — (Method of defence) — Sophistry, 
 casuistry, hypocrisy, and evasion. 
 / Ophelia — Church. 
 
 1 Laertes — (Modified Polonius) — Historical 
 j continuity of authority, orthodox litera- 
 V ture, conservatism. 
 Osric — Society and criticism. 
 
 So 
 
 a 
 
 
 ^EING, 
 
 Bulwarks of Truth or Hamlet. 
 
 Soldiers i Francisco \ ^^^ °^ ^^^^ ^^^^' ^''^^ movement of 
 (Whole workers, Bernardo '^« SF°^\tli °f knowledge (revival of 
 body and mind Marcellus learning), probably reading, criti- 
 
 ■' -'V / cism, inquiry, and printing. 
 
 Horatio — Spirit of justice, independence, and scholarship, resulting 
 
 from above. > HAMLET. 
 
 / {Fortinbras — Might and right — Liberty. 
 Bom the same day S First Clown — (Artistic double to Hanilet) — 
 [Vide Act V. So. 1) j ' Progress. 
 
 \ Hamlet — Progress. 
 Ghost of Hamlets Father — Revival of Christianity — Doubt. 
 
 Interlude — Reformation. 
 
 ' This key is of course absurdly crude and partial, but it simplifies the right 
 study of the play by not embarrassing us with too many abstractions. It is ideal. 
 
" I am very far from censuring the plan of Hamlet ; on the other 
 hand, I believe there never was a grander one invented ; nay, it is not 
 invented, it is reaV — Wilhelm Meister's Apprenticeship. 
 
 " In Hamlet we are taught another lesson : the hero is without a 
 plan, but the piece is full of plan." — Wilhelm Meister's Apprenticeship. 
 
 " Genius has but little concern with the moment ; the 'eternities are 
 its seed field.' " — Dr. Maudesley' s Essays. 
 
 " The characteristic of genius of the, first order is for each to pro- 
 duce a copy of man. All present humanity with her portrait, some 
 laughing, some crying, some thinking. The latter are the greatest. 
 Plautus laughs and gives man Amphitryon. Eabelais laughs and gives 
 man Gargantua. Cervantes laughs and gives man Don QuiKote. 
 Beaumarchais laughs and gives man Figaro. Mohfere weeps and gives 
 man Alcestis. Shakespeare thinks and gives man Hamlet, .^schylus 
 thinks and gives man Prometheus. iEschylus and Shakespeare are 
 immense." — Translated from Victor Hugo's Shakespeare. 
 
 "Every play of Shakespeare is a true poem, and has the spiritual 
 unity that is in every great work of art. Each play has its own theme 
 in some essential truth of life, which is its soul expressed in action, 
 and with which every detail is in exquisite accord." — Professor MorUfi 
 History of English Literature. 
 
HAMLET; 
 
 OB, 
 
 SHAKESPEAEE'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 IT Has often been remarked that the greatness of great 
 men consists in their living before their age. They 
 are in advance of their contemporaries. If this holds true 
 -in every case, it must be true of that giant of all giants, — 
 and whom could we mean alone by this except William 
 Shakespeare ? Was our Poet in advance of his age ? Did 
 he peer into Futurity ? Did he foresee, through the dark 
 avenues of Time, the events which would be delivered from 
 the womb of centuries? What opinions had he upon all 
 those questions which are the prerogatives of all genius ? 
 Did he realize Progress in the sense that we do in this age ? 
 What were his political and historical prognostications? 
 These are questions which cannot at present apparently be 
 answered. Nothing is absolutely known of our Poet's 
 private life. His works are Sphinxes, which, ever propound- 
 ing riddles, have as yet in no one case received any satisfac- 
 tory solution. 
 
 Shakespeare was born the same year Galileo was born 
 
 (1564). He was in the full tide of his manhood when 
 
 /Griordano Bruno suffered at the stake for maintaining the 
 
 Heliocentric doctrine (1600). And Shakespeare, of all men, 
 
 must have realized most forcibly what the age he lived in 
 
 1 
 
2 HAMLET ; OB, 
 
 meant. He must have settled in Ws own mind, with genius- 
 like prescience, whether Authority, Antiquity, and Bigotry 
 were to crush out Eeason, Inquiry, and Truth ; or whether 
 the latter, taking a fulcrum in the glorious movement of the 
 Eeformation, would finally emancipate man from the thral- 
 dom of the Mght of Ignorance. Here was our Poet living ■ 
 in a most marvellous age : one in which darkness was be- 
 hind, and all was crescent, though faint, light in front. 
 The world re-echoed with the triumphs of the Reformatioii| 
 with the wonders of the New "World, with the scientific 
 truths of the " world moves." Perhaps the siKteenth 
 century is the one most important in man's history to man. 
 In it was contained the birth of all that liberty, of all that 
 enterprise, and of all that individuality, which has developed 
 into the nineteenth century. Of course all history is con- 
 tinuous and unbroken. But some ages sum up the silent 
 work of centuries. Such an age was the sixteenth. Blow 
 after blow had been dealt against that tyrrany of man over 
 man, which had kept. authority in a state of stagnancy, and 
 individualism in a state of thraldom. Light had been steal- 
 ing in during the last three centuries, to accumulate at last 
 in the glorious sun of the Reformation. Such was the 
 strength of this movement, that it infected every department 
 of human thought. It was simply pure air and light after 
 darkness and corruption. No wonder this age abounds in 
 illustrious men. Like caged birds, they realized their free- 
 dom in bursts of rapturous song. Spenser, Shakespeare, and 
 Ben Jonson are singers of that age ; Raleigh and the 
 discoverers of the New "World are the' men of action of 
 that age ; whilst we have science represented by Coperni* 
 cus, Kepler, Galileo, and Bruno. The world had simply, 
 after some six centuries of torpor and night, awakened 
 itself out of its lethargy, and was realizing the birth of 
 Rationalism; and its growth. But the very fact that England 
 enjoyed, under Elizabeth, such a great amount of toleration, 
 must have forced itself, in contrast, upon the mind of our 
 Poet. How his great mind must have sympathized with the 
 Copernican system, and with the glowing description of 
 
SHAKESPEARE S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 3 
 
 Bruno (in England), upon the hypothesis of " a plurality of 
 worlds " ! Is it possible, we have to ask ourselves, Shake- 
 speare escaped the enthusiasm of the age ? We feel at once 
 how absurd such a question sounds. But, at the same time, 
 we are face to face with another question, and one which 
 requires an emphatic solution : and we immediately wonder 
 why his plays contain nothing which seems to point in any 
 way to those times and those conflicts which were the birth- 
 right of his age. The question is easily put upon two 
 footings, which admit of no equivocation whatever. 
 
 Either we do not comprehend the Plays of Shakespeare, 
 or he has taken no literary interest in the great topics of his 
 day. These topics are, wonderful to say, exactly the ones 
 calculated to attract genius. They were topics of Reason 
 versus Authority and Tradition. Dante had prophesied the 
 Reformation i has one greater than Dante prophesied any- 
 thing ? Bacon sat down and prophesied : surely one greater 
 than Bacon has done the same. And the topics which were 
 agitated in the age of' "William Shakespeare were of an 
 absorbing kind. Religion and dawning science were at 
 deadly feud. The latter was in the throes of a re-birth; 
 struggling for its very life. Liberty, Knowledge, and Pro- 
 gress — ever co-partners and co-heirs — had embraced, had 
 shaken hands, and were beginning their endless march in 
 the van of humanity. These are topics which interest most 
 the greatest minds. 
 
 On the one side, we have to confess that our age has not 
 grown up to our Poet's height. On the other, we are met 
 with the astounding necessity of showing Shakespeare's 
 miud to be deficient in all those qualities which go in other 
 men towards greatness and comprehensiveness. Tor what 
 is a great mind ? Largeness of view upon all those subjects 
 which must be eternally absorbing to man. Those are — the 
 nature of man, of the future life, of his destiny below, and 
 of his destiny hereafter, — philosophy and history, — man in 
 the macrocosm, and man in the microcosm ; — these are topics 
 which genius never fails to handle. But, if we are not 
 entirely mistaken, the text of Shakespeare, taken simply 
 
4 HAMLET ; OK, 
 
 verbatim, gives us no positive views upon these subjects.. 
 Splendid as the language, magnificent as the poetry of 
 thought, we still fail to find any definite opinions. Nothing 
 is to be found which we could call a discovery.^ Shakespeare 
 (as yet) has added nothing but beauty to man's store of 
 literature ; his own opinions, upon all those subjects whicli 
 have agitated and will continue for ever to agitate mankind, 
 are not to be found in the mouths of his characters. He 
 was far too great an objective genius to identify himself sub- 
 jectively with his dramatis personce. He identified himself 
 with his meaning in quite another way. And to that we 
 shall arrive by and by. Had Shakespeare any opinions upon 
 history? Of course he had. But where are they then? 
 Had he a philosophy of history of his own ? Had he a 
 philosophy pertaining to himself concerning religion, con- 
 cerning politics, concerning the future of man ? We reply, 
 with the 'greatest confidence, that he had; and those who 
 read his plays may find them there. 
 
 We have a distinct charge to bring against all Shake- 
 spearian criticism. And this charge consists that Shakespeare<,i 
 has been robbed of the principles which underlie all works 
 of the imagination. Critic after critic, with the exception of 
 Groethe (who plagiarized from, his discovery), deny tacitly to 
 "William Shakespeare what they willingly grant to a Cer- 
 vantes or a Swift. Nay, to come down to modern times, we 
 find novelists like Hawthorne, the late Lord Lytton, and 
 George Eliot, enjoying their literary rewards based upon 
 true principles. Every great work is a creation. It does 
 not copy individualities. It 'creates or copies universaHties. 
 What is permanent in man in the abstract, either ridiculous 
 or sublime, that is copied alone. It may be an age is thus 
 exemplified, or it may be an age is ridiculed. Again, it may 
 be the decay of a great empire, or the rise of a great power, 
 Yoltaire, who ridiculed Hamlet (because it was beyond him 
 and his age), wrote his plays upon such principles. Witness 
 Alzire, Mahomet, etc. And shall we deny to WilHam 
 Shakespeare what we grant, without a murmur, to his very 
 inferiors ? Our Poet, it will be found, was the sole master 
 
SHAKESPEARE S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 
 
 and originator of the principles which underiie all Dramatic 
 Art. Goethe, who discovered them in Shakespeare, has 
 given us a complete exegesis of the same. And what are 
 they ? The typical representation of generalities clothed in 
 the particularization of idealized art. The difference be- 
 tween a great work of art and a work of no art is — in one, 
 the grandeur of the conception and its faultless execution; 
 in the other, the want of any conception, or its poverty 
 united to faulty execution. When we have poorness of con- 
 ception, and good execution, we recognize that finish, or that 
 the technic itself has solely run away with the whole. A 
 great conception may be faulty in workmanship, and yet, on 
 account of its grandeur, may be redeemed from oblivion. 
 For example, Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress is a work whose 
 conception is most gratd ; but the whole, as a work of art, is 
 most imperfect. Indeed it cannot be classed as a work of 
 art ; for unity of plan is the essential of art : whereas we 
 have no unity ; half is plain allegory, and half is here half- 
 finished art. A work of art has its two sides. These are 
 the esoteric and exoteric. An artist, no matter whether in 
 the Catholic sense, or in the narrower sense of painter, 
 sculptor, or musician, finds in art the vehicles of his ideas. 
 The better they are expressed, the more perfect the art. But 
 one side, instead of revealing the other at a glance, serves 
 rather to obscure it at first sight, though at a profounder 
 view to reveal it. Mere copying is not creation. Our ideas 
 are our own, and when we have clothed them in art, we are 
 then alone worthy of being styled artists. God is alone the 
 artist of artists. How simple is all in this world to the unin- 
 quiring! How self-evident does the realism of the every- day 
 world appear ! Yet philosophy, on deeper inspection, is still 
 at variance upon this same realism. Let us turn to Shake- 
 speare, and apply all this to him. If art, and his art par- 
 ticularly, was simply histrionic, why has he plagiarized, for 
 example, Hamlet from an old story in Saxo-Grammaticus ? 
 Why not create something quite original? We maintain 
 that in the same play he has created something quite original. 
 But it is not the exoteric and text side alone of the play. It 
 
6 HAMLET ; OK, 
 
 is the esoteric and symbolical idea upon which the play is 
 alone in its originaKty based. The story from which our 
 Poet borrowed served as a mere peg whereon to hang his 
 great drama of the Philosophy of History. 
 
 Why is it we are all fascinated by Hamlet? Because, 
 being an attribute of human nature generalized, we feel a 
 portion of him in ourselves. Through his artistic garb we 
 instinctively feel something which we dimly recognize — a 
 great truth which we cannot express. We are all true to 
 ourselves in something, if not in everything ; and Hamlet 
 strikes this chord. The same may be said of Polonius. 
 Impossible to point him out individually, yet we are all well 
 acquainted with him. And this sort of ambiguous recogni- 
 tion puzzles us, and we ask ourselves vaguely where. Again, 
 who does not recognize Gruildenstern and Rosencrantz, and 
 again the same sort of intimate acquaintanceship and doubt- 
 ful whereabouts. As in all great art, the generalization 
 holds good, but the individualization is nowhere in par- 
 ticular. This constitutes the greatness of Shakespeare — a 
 greatness hitherto unrationalized ; but a greatness which 
 every age recognizes. For Shakespeare's characters are the 
 essence and generalized attributes of collective humanity in 
 all times and throughout history. A great artist imitates 
 Q-od. He creates a mystery. This mystery fascinates whilst 
 it perplexes. Like all problems, it is wooed by humanity as 
 long as it remains a mystery or a marvel. This mystery is 
 created with a two- fold purpose. First, to convey to pos- 
 terity truths that are prematurely born ; and secondly to 
 obey the canons of true art, which admit of no one-sidedness. 
 Again, an artist is compelled, by his love of the beautiful, to 
 clothe and paint his ideas, be it in poetry, in stone, or in 
 canvas ; but he feels there is little pause between true art 
 and rationalization. In fact, all art is the harmony of in- 
 stinctive, and often unknown, rationalization. The greater 
 the rationalization, the greater the art, if art it be. But the 
 poetic or dramatic mode of expression may be lacking, and 
 then we have prose, science, logic. As Professor Eibot 
 aptly says, "the metaphysician is only a poet who has 
 
SHAKESPEARE S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 7 
 
 missed his vocation." Thus the artist, like Shakespeare, 
 feels his work only perfect when the union of the esoteric 
 and exoteric sides are most perfect. "When the art stands 
 perfect as art alone, and the truth of the work is in perfect 
 harmony with it, it is, .as Shakespeare repeatedly tells us 
 in his sonnets, the marriage of Truth and Beauty. And we 
 feel the truth mysteriously, and vaguely, peeping out every- 
 where in Hamlet. 
 
 We are, through all our criticisms upon Shakespeare, 
 driven to one inevitable conclusion. That is, his works are 
 still a mystery to man. The art of reading them is still 
 unborn; or, though appearing to possess the greatest com- 
 prehensiveness, and the subtlest brain ever possessed by 
 mortal man, he refused to employ it any other way, but 
 embellishing plagiarized stories for merely histrionic and 
 dramatic purposes. But who can believe this ? It is essen- 
 tially the prerogative of great minds to prophesy. In the 
 law .of the present they surmise the law of the future. 
 Dante foretold the coming Reformation. Bacon sat down 
 and prophesied the marvellous mechanical fecundity of the 
 present day. Jomini, imbued with military genius, fore- 
 stalled the battle of Jena. Minds are not so much unlike in 
 quality as different in degrees of power. We may depend 
 upon it, if Shakespeare did prophesy, he prophesied more 
 surely and more splendidly than any man before or after 
 him. What did he foresee ? Here is the question which 
 drives men over and over again to make his life and works 
 the subject of their own toil. 
 
 What we profess to do in this pamphlet is to offer an 
 hypothesis upon the subject of Hamlet. Every one has a 
 conception of his own concerning this play. But it is one 
 which is growing more and more positive every day. That 
 conception is that Hamlet is a sort of philosophy of our 
 Poet. It is so in one sense, but it is a Philosophy of 
 History. Men are beginning to grasp the fact that there is 
 more in Hamlet than meets the eye. That Hamlet is not 
 an individual is also gaining ground. As Dr. Maudesley 
 says, he is an "idealized creation "~'of humanity. We begin 
 
8 HAMLET ; OR, 
 
 to recognize the symbolical character of Shakespeare's works. 
 They are Sphinxes, which have been unread for three centuries, 
 and they stiU. offer as yet insolvable problems. The Germans 
 have been long before us in this direction. Following the 
 leadership of Goethe (who of all men has furnished, as yet, 
 the most exhaustive and profound criticism upon Hamlet), they 
 recognize in Hamlet's character analogies which have paral- 
 leled their own country's history. But Goethe's work of the 
 Wilhelm Meister is, as yet, another enigma to be solved. 
 As Lord Lytton justly remarks, it is undoubtedly the ap- 
 prenticeship of man in life, and of man in art. But the 
 criticisms which it contains upon Hamlet are of too search- 
 ing a nature to be quite understood as yet. The Wnhelm 
 Meister's apprenticeship is a plagiarism of Hamlet. It is a 
 prose Hamlet ; not written as an exegesis of the play alone, 
 but as a creation upon similar lines, and in niany respects 
 the same. This will be thoroughly established by and by. 
 
 In the meanwhile we propose to take the play of Hamlet 
 in hand. We shall attempt, first, to deal with the action. 
 Then with the text in connexion with each character. And 
 finally to contemplate its unity by the light so afforded. 
 The most profound modern work upon Shakespeare, as yet, 
 has been Professor Gervinus's Commentaries. But, beyond 
 thoughtful criticisms, no new light is thrown upon the subject. 
 The same may be said of Carl Elze's Essays. Professor 
 Morley, in his History of English Literature, makes a very 
 fair attempt to solve the spiritual unity of the Merchant of 
 Yenice. But the right sort of insight is still lacking. 
 
 To turn to Hamlet itself. The action of the play centres 
 upon what may be termed the conflict of two parties. On 
 the one hand, we have a King supported by five courtiers, a 
 Lord Chamberlain, his son and daughter. On the other, 
 a Prince, heir to a throne he never succeeds to, and his 
 friends (two officers and Horatio). We have one Portin- 
 bras, who ostensibly takes neither side. But he evidently 
 acts powerfully upon Hamlet, and he runs, like a chorus, 
 obscurely through the play from first to last. The whole 
 action is thus a battle between the strong in power and the 
 
shakespeake's philosophy of history. 9 
 
 weak out of power. Mysteriously our sympathies run witli 
 the weak. It is part of the action of the play that Hamlet 
 should only find out that his enemies have unjustly got 
 power after they are in possession. 
 
 The whole play is the action or conflict of Hamlet and 
 friends versus King and supporters. Hamlet wants power 
 and resolution to effect his revenge. But time alone brings 
 it ; and this time is such an important element in the play, 
 that we believe it is the groundwork of it. The action of 
 the play, again, is one in which the King is always losing 
 power, and Hamlet gaining it. For example : two of the 
 King's supporters, Yoltimand and Cornelius, disappear at an 
 early period from the play. Thus, two of Hamlet's enemies 
 are gone, and the K^^ing's power lessened. Next, the chief 
 bulwark of the King dies at Hamlet's hands. "With the 
 death of Polonius the King is visibly alarmed. So Hamlet 
 is banished. Next, Gruildenstern and Rosencrantz disappear, 
 and Hamlet comes back alone. Lastly, Laertes dies ; when 
 Hamlet kills the King, dies himself, and the drama is 
 brought to a close. Let it be noticed how Hamlet gets 
 bolder and bolder, and more resolute in every act of the 
 play. He cannot kill the King, because he lacks power. 
 But he kills Polonius, and that is the only way to get at the 
 King. He is still nearej to the King when Rosencrantz and 
 Gruildenstern are dead. And nearest when Laertes dies by 
 his own poison. We must, therefore, take these supporters 
 of the King as indispensables to his power and evil doing. 
 Let us begin with Voltimand and Cornelius. They evidently 
 are only necessary at an early stage of the play. They 
 shortly disappear. All they complete, or the part they play, 
 is the putting down of a revolt. They are sent to Norway. 
 They savour of direct force. They disappear. So we must 
 take it that force disappears. Next comes Polonius, who 
 uses cunning, stratagem, and interference. He is fond of 
 espionage. Witness the task he sets his servant Reynaldo. 
 He repeats himself over and over again. He is certain he 
 can find truth anywhere. He is full of pedantic words. He 
 is old. He is tedious. What is he ? Antiquity on account 
 
10 HAMLET ; OK, 
 
 of Ms repetition, certainty on account of Ms self-conceit, 
 and thus infallibility. We therefore see how perfectlj^ 
 Polonius realizes Tradition, which repeats ever the same 
 moilotone ; and Antiquity, on account of his age ; also 
 Pedantry, in his garrulous unmeaning jargon. He is wrong 
 in all his surmises, yet shows unrivalled worldly wisdom. 
 He is the very back-bone of the King, and does all the 
 spying and dirty work of that monarch. Now, the death of 
 Polonius is peculiar. He is killed as if by accident. 
 Hamlet thought he was killing the King. And he was 
 killed because he interfered between Hamlet and his mother. 
 Is this an end of interference? Is this the end of religious 
 intqlerance ? The death of autocratic authority and tradi- 
 tion. The text, presently, will throw more light upon this 
 point. Thus another of the King's chief supports is gone. 
 And we must be struck with the helpless way Hamlet is 
 obliged to kill the King's bulwarks before he can get at the 
 King. And this leads us to conjecture that all these sup- 
 porters of the King are the very substance of the King 
 himself. This is a conjecture which the text, by and by, 
 will strengthen. Hamlet only gets rid of what is imme- 
 diately, and at a certain period, obstructive to himself. He 
 only kills Polonius when driven into it by his prying inter- 
 ference. Until this is done he cannot speak to his mother. 
 Again, he only plots against his former friends, Guildenstem 
 and Rosencrantz, when he reads the grand commission of 
 the King. But we are more especially struck with the ir- 
 resolution of Hamlet. Let us also remark how this irresolu- 
 tion gets incentives to further resolution, from epochs in the 
 play. One of these is the appearance and revelation of the 
 Ghost. Again, the Player scene is another. The march of 
 Fortinbras a similar one. And yet, after all, the death of 
 the King is almost forced upon him. "What is the meaning 
 of this apparent contradiction ? It is not one ; it merely is 
 meant to convey the meaning that the King and his sup- 
 porters are one. The death of Laertes is the death of the 
 King. Law is the power which ties the hands of Hamlet. 
 Time alone sets them free in the last scene of all. After the 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 11 
 
 death of Polonius, Hamlet has two more enemies, who, pre- 
 tending to he his friends, a,re enlisted in reality upon the 
 King's side. Let us remark how these two, who are never 
 far apart from each other, hunt in couples. And they offer 
 a direct contrast to Polonius. For the interference and 
 pedantry of the latter, they substitute a form of bad logic 
 and optimistic view of life. They directly recommend the 
 banishment of Hamlet. At first they are his friends. 
 Latterly in the play Hamlet first suspects, then repudiates, 
 and finally escapes from them. 
 
 Thus the action of the play is one of unbroken continuity. 
 It is one of progress and development. The power of the 
 King is constantly getting weakened. "With his last bul- 
 wark, Laertes, he dies himself. Hamlet is the direct 
 means of the removal of all the King's supports. Force, 
 hard-heartedness, authority, Mgotry, tradition, sophistry, 
 optimism, casuistry, and conservatism disappear before 
 Hamlet, one after another. Hamlet is only set naked in 
 the kingdom, when Rosencrantz and Gruildenstern are 
 gone and are dead. He is no longer hampered with false 
 logic. He is indeed naked. The action of the drama, we 
 repeat, is one of devolopment, of continuity. There is no 
 break. It is all a chain of cause and effect, over which 
 there rests — 
 
 "A divinity that shapes our ends, rough hew them how we will." 
 
 And we also notice how action and reaction have their legiti- 
 mate and historical expression in this sublime drama. 
 
 The Players are prompted by Hamlet ; and they, in their 
 turn, react upon him, giving him further force. The march 
 of Fortinbras, as the chorus of liberty, acts and reacts in a 
 similar manner. But there is a long pause, whilst Hamlet 
 is -being banished. 
 
 With regard to time, we must infer that epochs of moment 
 and movements of great strength are alone dramatically 
 portrayed in the action. The Player scene, which we shall 
 endeavour to show is the Reformation itself, is thus the most 
 important point in the whole action of the play. It is the 
 
13 HAMLET ; OK, 
 
 direct recognition of error, and the drawing up of the two 
 great forces of society in Europe. These are the stationary 
 and the progressive. Antiquity, tradition, and the past are 
 for the first time face to face with inquiry, reason, truth, or 
 science and modern liberalism. From this point of the play 
 events take a new turn. Hamlet is no longer the irresolute 
 character some believe him to be. , He soon (dramatically) 
 kills Polonius. And from the death of the latter results 
 the banishment of. Hamlet. From the banishment of Ham- 
 let results the death of Eosencrantz and Gruildenstern. And, 
 again, their death signifies the return of Hamlet. At this 
 point we have a rapidity of action, which defies any further 
 elaboration of the play as hitherto. Shakespeare, in all he 
 did, was eclectic ; and the fifth act of the play is in reality a 
 chorus of condensed time, in which great change is repre- 
 sented in a striking and magnificent manner. But if we go 
 back to the beginning of the drama, we shall find little or no 
 action. The play opens with the deep stillness and darkness 
 of the 
 
 " Dead waste and middle of the night." 
 
 " Not a mouse stirring." 
 
 One solitary sentinel alone on his watch ; and this solitary 
 being reports himself as cold, and sick at heart. Nothing 
 can be more impressive, and nothing could realize better the 
 darkness and ignorance of the Middle Ages, which are so 
 well expressed in the word ' waste.' This solitary sentinel, 
 Francisco, strangely disappears, at once and for ever, from 
 the play. And we ask ourselves why ? Because, if he is 
 ignorance, as we suspect, his relief by Bernardo would te 
 the relief of ignorance for enlightenment. And we suspect 
 Bernardo to mean education of some sort, or the art of 
 reading. And our reasons for this are very strong. In the 
 first place, the word Bernardo spells ' Born read.' Whether 
 this is simply accidental or otherwise, we leave to others to 
 decide. But when coupled with similar results, and when 
 classed with other facts of the same nature, we cannot escape 
 the conviction forced upon us. Without specifying any 
 
SHAKESPEARE S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 13 
 
 direct attribute as to the spiritual meaning of Bernardo, we 
 win call him the growth of knowledge. And we must 
 notice that he is an officer, as is also his friend Marcellus. 
 Now Professor Morley says, in his History of English Litera- 
 ture, that Shakespeare employs soldiers as symbols of whole 
 workers, body and mind. Francisco may thus stand for the 
 first feeble inquiries and questionings, which led from the end 
 of the Dark Ages (about the end of the tenth century) to- 
 wards that ever-increasing movement which ended in the 
 Eeformation. And the whole of the first act of Hamlet is 
 in accordance with this theory. For it is one of the accre- 
 tion of doubt, and a growing certainty of the Grhost's reality 
 and truth. It is questionable, even, if Bernardo and Mar- 
 cellus do not go far to form Hamlet himself. For Hamlet 
 does not appear until the second scene of the first act. And 
 Bernardo and Marcellus, like Francisco, disappear from the 
 play after the end of the first act. And why ? Because 
 they are understood in Hamlet. Hamlet himself says : 
 
 " Let us go in together ; 
 And still your fingers on your lips, I pray. 
 The time is out of joint; — cursed spite ! 
 That ever I was bom to set it right ! 
 Nay, come, let's go together." 
 
 Thus we see Hamlet is himself an embodiment of many 
 elements. And those elements are, to our minds, inquiry 
 and doubt, a love* of justice and truth, and liberty. The 
 first scene of the first act already points to a gradual increase 
 of light. And it ends with the beautiful words of Horatio : 
 
 " But, look, the mom, in russet mantle clad. 
 "Walks o'er the dew of yon high eastern hUI." 
 
 The darkness of the Dark Ages is thus typically portrayed 
 as breaking up. The dawn of modern Europe was dispers- 
 ing the vapours of credulity and superstition. Confidence 
 in the Grhost gradually culminates into a greater and greater 
 scepticism on the part of Hamlet. And how beautifully is 
 all this gradually growing scepticism pictured in the play ! 
 Seen by no one at first but Bernardo ; then by Marcellus and 
 Horatio ; it remains a mere spectre, that cannot and will not 
 
14 ■ HAMLET ; OK, 
 
 be understood or questioned. This Ghost of Hamlet's father 
 well represents the shadows of the naind, which grow in 
 intensity until they become a revelation itself. This doubt 
 is communica;ted unto young Hamlet, who alone can under- 
 stand his father's spirit, for Truth is the son of Doubt. 
 
 The whole of the first act is a growing scepticism, wticli 
 accumulates into a force of itself. And the action of the 
 play is one of silently gathering forces : forces which are 
 quietly surveying each other's strength. Fear on the one 
 side, hatred on the other. But still waiting for more deci- 
 sive means wherewith to catch the conscience of the King. 
 
 What we merely wish to endeavour to instil into the 
 reader's mind is, that Time is the groundwork of the play, 
 and Time alone. Perhaps we may now announce our inter- 
 pretation of Hamlet as a whole. That is, a Philosophy of the 
 History of Europe from the end of the Dark Ages, and carried 
 into the remote future. "We are certain that the truth of 
 this will be eventually established ; and we offer what little 
 thought we have to the elucidation of the problem. Hamlet 
 is thus a history and a prophecy ; but more of the latter 
 than of the former. It is the most valuable of all Shake- 
 speare's works, and that on account -of its containing his 
 political, religious, and social opinions and prognostications. 
 We lay down as unquestionable, to all profound students 
 of Hamlet, the fact, that Time is the stage upon which 
 the play is built. Mankind the actors. Truth and Error the 
 action of the drama. Shakespeare distinctly recognized the 
 great dynamical principle of Modern History in Europe. 
 This principle is the resultant of two other principles, namely 
 that of authority and that of liberty. The principle of 
 society and the principle of individualism. History, to be 
 History, and not mere Eastern stagnancy, is the product or 
 resultant of these two forces. They may be paralleled in 
 mechanics, as the effect of gravitation versus motion. One 
 is cohesion, the other motion. One acting without the other 
 is stagnancy or anarchy. An harmonious interaction is the 
 result of a good constitution, which regulates the pace and 
 position of each. The reaction of to-day is a self-adjust- 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of histoey. 15 
 
 ing increase of gravitation, by which the elliptic of progress 
 is for the time modified. Shakespeare undoubtedly was a 
 firm believer in progress, and understood history better, aye 
 far better, than even the late Mr. Buckle, or the great Her- 
 mann Lotze. He clearly realized that all progress depends 
 upon the amount of knowledge and liberty an age or country 
 possesses. And therefore he has made Time the great ally 
 and friend upon whom Hamlet is dependent. Continuity of 
 cause and effect is seen running all through the tragedy. The 
 revelation of the Ghost is the key upon which the whole 
 play depends. And Shakespeare has made a shadow, which 
 grows in consistency, the means of this revelation. Scepti- 
 cism is thus upheld as the liberator of modern Europe. But 
 how still more do we recognize in Ophelia and Laertes this 
 relation of cause and effect in continuity. In making these 
 two the descendants of Polonius, how true Shakespeare is to 
 actual history ! "Who is Ophelia ? Who is Laertes ? Both the 
 children of Tradition and Antiquity. Both the scions of 
 authority, they are opposed to all liberalism, which is only 
 individualism. Laertes is ever true to his parentage. For 
 what is a true conservative but a child of authority, of the 
 past, of antiquity. His very conservatism indorses the 
 authority of the past. And what is liberalism but the child 
 of the future, hatched in doubt, and nurtured by inquiry. 
 Thus the continuity of Polonius is verified in Laertes. 
 Polonius only dies in one form, to give rise to another modi- 
 fied Polonius in Laertes. And Ophelia, who is a Church, 
 whose very essence is the weight of authority, antiquity, 
 infallibility, and tradition, must necessarily go mad ancj 
 perish with the fall of these her very foundations. 
 
 Thus Time and Continuity are the basis and action upon 
 which the drama depends. We can already get a glimpse 
 at the way Shakespeare understood social evolution — a 
 science still in its infancy, and upon which our Poet will still 
 be our best instructor. Indeed no Philosophy of History 
 can be more perfect than Hamlet. In it are contained all 
 the laws of social development contributing to future equi- 
 librium. And now what is the action upon which the play 
 
16 HAMLET ; OR, 
 
 depends? Upon the struggle between the King and Hamlet. 
 Rather let us be clear, and say at once Truth and Error. 
 Broadly this is the subject-matter of the whole drama. All 
 the characters are ranged upon one side or|Other of these 
 two forces. But Time is the great ally of Hamlet. There 
 was no doubt who would ultimately win, in our Poet's lofty 
 mind. He saw how ignorance and error are but twin 
 brothers, whom the God of time and light would ultimately 
 strangle. Hamlet, as we have said, is truth. He is the 
 direct result of doubt, of liberty, and of inquiry. And from 
 these he gets fresh for^e, and to these he, in his own turn, im- 
 parts fresh force. Thus the play is one vast conflict. An 
 historical and prophetical conflict, which at the present 
 moment has its counterpart in the contemporary age so well 
 portrayed, that it is marvellous men do not see it. 
 
 But let us now turn to the only true expositor of the 
 drama. That is the text. Without its overwhelming 
 evidence in our favour^ it would be rash indeed to dogmatize 
 upon such a subject. But we remain firm in the conviction 
 that we shall carry the enlightened reader along with us. 
 That is to say, if history has to him any meaning, and such 
 a meaning as Mr. Buckle would especially give utterance. 
 To those who look upon history as a broken chain, as a 
 system of isolated facts, springing out of the conditions of 
 a spontaneous will, we say " Cudgel not thy brains " over 
 Hamlet. But let those who see in history a psychological 
 cause and effect, as much under law as the courses of the 
 starsj let them, we say, open Hamlet and read well into 
 futurity. 
 
 Again, we would say a word to those who repudiate the 
 attempt to rationalize the details of art. All imperfect art, 
 we grant, refuses to be so handled. But Shakespeare's was 
 and is perfect art, and allows itself to be examined micro- 
 scopically in every line and in every word. The closer the 
 inspection, the greater the reward. There are others, who, 
 by some extraordinary process of logic, consider, the very 
 conception of there existing a further meaning to our Poet's 
 works as rank blasphemy. And we should ask these persons 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 17 
 
 why so ? Can they furnish an answer ? Does it inyalidate 
 the exoteric art of the conception, and does it lower the 
 claim of an author to genius ? We would rather reply, no 
 man has genius^ in art who does not possess the quality of 
 clothing his abstractions in the garb of idealized art. If he 
 has no abstractions, he may be an artist, but certainly no 
 genius, in the sense of creation alone. To proceed with the 
 text of the play. "We shall not touch yet the beginning. 
 First, that we have already touched upon it. Secondly, 
 that the chief characters, seized in their essential meaning, 
 will make the earlier parts of the play speak for itself. And 
 thirdly, that there is little in the text of a sufficiently clear 
 evidence to be of any use in demonstrating any deduction 
 from such a part. "We therefore shall not go regularly 
 from the very commencement of the play line for line. For 
 it would be beyond the limits of this paper. And we believe 
 greater light can be thrown by a less regular and more 
 eclectic mode of criticism. Let us take Hamlet himself, and 
 from the text alone endeavour to embody the abstraction, of 
 which he is the idealized representative. Opening our 
 Hamlet at the second scene, we find almost the first words of 
 Hamlet to be : 
 
 "Ham. Seems, madam ! nay it is ; I know not ' seems.' 
 'T is not alone my inky cloak, good mother, 
 Nor customary suits of solemn black,- 
 Nor windy suspiration of forc'd breath, 
 No, nor the fruitful river in the eye, 
 Nor the dejected 'haviour of the visage, 
 Together with all forms, moods, shapes of grief, 
 That can denote me truly : These, indeed, seem, 
 For they are actions that a man might play : 
 But I have that within which passeth show ; 
 These, but the trappings and the suits of woe." — ^(Aot i. Sc. 2.) 
 
 This excerpt seems the very key-note to the character of 
 Hamlet. It is the essence of verity itself. Surely a poet, 
 seeking to give expression to tbe beauty of truth, could not 
 realize it more forcibly than in the above passage. Truth 
 knows not seems. Verity itself is not to be expressed by 
 "forms, moods, or shapes of grief." "We are convinced at 
 once, when we read this passage, of the depth, profundity, 
 
 2 
 
18 HAMLET ; OB, 
 
 and thoroughness of Hamlet's character. And as everything 
 real and true has a sympathy for us aU, so the reader of 
 Hamlet for the first time is at once enlisted with a melan- 
 choly interest upon his side. Again, Hamlet says at the 
 end of the first act, that " the time is out of joint." And 
 he realizes that he " is bom to set it right." The profound 
 student will find in this remark, placed as it is at the finale 
 of an act, and that act the first, a hint of the ^eatest im- 
 portance. Indeed, Goethe remarked it to he the key of the 
 whole play. For if we are firmly convinced of the tborou^- 
 goingness of our hero's character, all his acts must be 
 ■genuine, and must therefore be the result of truth. "What- 
 ever opposition he meets with must be from the enemies of 
 truth alone. We shall examine their characters presently in 
 succession. 
 
 Hamlet's first monologue or soliloquy is in accordance 
 with our theory. As yet uninformed of the appearance of 
 his father's Grhost, he bewails the hard destiny of life and 
 the corruption of man : — 
 
 " How weary, stale, flat, and unprofitatle 
 Seem to me all the uses of this world ! 
 Fie on 't ! fie ! 't is an unweeded garden, 
 That grows to seed ; things rank, and gross in nature, 
 Possess it merely." — (Act i. Sc. 2.) ' 
 
 But hardly is this monologue, the result of the King's sophis- 
 tical speech, delivered, than the information of Horatio, 
 Bernardo, and Marcellus, inform him of the appearance of 
 his father's Ghost. Thus doubt comes fast upon doubt, 
 strengthening the growing scepticism. And this scepticism 
 is borne to Hamlet by three whom we believe are very 
 ingredients of Hamlet himself. These are the growth of 
 knowledge, the spirit of justice, and inquiry, which are the 
 collective and separate product of those three friends he 
 terms a little later, friends, scholars and soldiers. And let 
 
 1 These lines represent a gloomy pessimism, which takes its root in a profoimd 
 love of truth. They postulate gross corruption. 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 19 
 
 us mark the direct proof of all ttis in tlie decision of all 
 four to " go in together." 
 
 The second act opens with the instructions Polonius gives 
 his servant Reynaldo to keep a surveillance upon Laertes. 
 And this is one of the thousand proofs of the play and 
 its object. For the travels of Laertes ' are the spread of 
 learning, which, of course, is general. And Polonius, as 
 Authority, takes care to make it as much in accordance with 
 his tradition as possible. Hence the duty of Eeynaldo. 
 He is political espionage, who checks liberty of conscience, 
 and puts an end to free thought. Laertes may do almost 
 anything but one thing — and that is be open to incontinency. 
 
 " Pol. You must not put another scandal on hinu 
 That he is open to incontinency J' 
 
 Thus we see how Laertes is to be kept in the path of his 
 father. He will be successively in this play all that is 
 understood historically, by authority, antiquity, and tradi- 
 tion. He will stand by Ophelia. He will oppose Hamlet. 
 He will be conservative to the backbone, no matter how 
 modified we find his character at the end of the play. The 
 introduction of Reynaldo was then a necessary addendum 
 to the unity of the play. For he shows how Polonius 
 works. Reynaldo's business is to discourage anything un- 
 orthodox. He is part of Polonius and his machinery. 
 And his introduction gives us to understand the spread of 
 knowledge, and the means which Polonius takes to keep it 
 orthodox. 
 
 The first act of Hamlet's (in the second act) is the in- 
 spection of Ophelia. We maintain, contrary to ordinary 
 criticism, that Hamlet never shows any irresolution, and is 
 always acting. He is at the work of killing the King all 
 through the play. And the King dies inch by inch all 
 through the play, as each of his organs is mortally wounded 
 and destroyed. The vulgar error is the belief that the King 
 
 ^ We have taken Laertes to signify orthodox and traditional Literature, In 
 this guise he returns to combat with Hamlet at the finale of the play. 
 
20 HAMLET ; OR, 
 
 is in full health at the end of the play. But a mere ghost 
 of the King is left in the person of Laertes. The real kmg 
 is a fiction, to represent the errori under which Laertes wars 
 against Hamlet. To return to Ophelia. Hamlet's first act 
 is the inspection of Ophelia ; as of a person much diseased. 
 She is at the bottom of all his unhappiness. For all his 
 happiness depends upon her favour. But her father and 
 her brother forbid her to have anything to do with Hamlet. 
 Hamlet is never really mad. His madness is only in the 
 eyes of others. And of whom, let us ask ? Of his enemies. 
 Ophelia thinks him mad, because she is a true daughter of 
 her father. But Horatio does not thini him mad. Hamlet, 
 like all truth, seems mad to those to whom he appears any- 
 thing but truth. It is the old stoical idea of the world being 
 mad to a philosopher ; and the philosopher appearing mad 
 in the world's eyes. There is a good story of some person, 
 questioning an inmate of a lunatic asylum upon the reason 
 of his incarceration. The reply was witty : " I thought the 
 world mad. But they say I am mad. And being the 
 stronger party, of course I am locked up ! " 
 
 There is hardly a great discovery before its time, which 
 does not receive the character of a mad scheme. Instances 
 might be numbered ad infinitum.. The discovery of the 
 circulation of blood by Harvey, was derided and execrated 
 in his day. And we know he lost practice by it. Indeed, 
 for even a century after him, it was not universally accepted 
 by the Faculty. The dreams of a poor conchologist in the 
 eighteenth century were laughed at by Voltaire as the 
 evidence of madness. Yet here was the great science of 
 geology being silently born. We are almost persuaded, after 
 great historical study, to exclaim of the world — 
 
 " Her all, most utter vanity ; and all 
 Her lovers mad, insane most grievously, 
 And most insane, because they know it not." — Folloh. 
 
 1 For the sake of clearness we term the King Error. He is everything con- 
 tained in the falseliood, injustice, and superstition of social authority and op- 
 pression. 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 21 
 
 But we deny Hamlet to be mad. He disclaims it,^ and leaves 
 it an opinion of his adversaries alone. For in no single line 
 does Hamlet utter an incoherent vford. There are many 
 passages which, being misunderstood, are looked upon as 
 the gibberish of a dangerous lunatic. But they are not 
 sounded by the general students of Shakespeare, who dive 
 no deeper than the text surface, and bring neither historical 
 nor speculative philosophy to aid in the solution of the ques- 
 tion. Those that have no science and no powers of com- 
 prehending truth, by its own light, will always adhere to the 
 old, and call every innovation madness. No doubt the 
 theory of Darwin is madness to thousands, who, imbued 
 with tradition, are true descendants and cousins- german of 
 Polonius and Laertes. No generation is therefore fit to 
 judge of the truth of new theories. Time alone will be 
 their patent. But to return to Hamlet's supposed madness. 
 What does it mean artistically ? It signifies profound art 
 by which Hamlet's madness serves the purpose of the union 
 of double plot, so essential in such difficult art. It was 
 necessary that our Poet should keep the artistic side of the 
 drama free from being too one-sided. To make his spiritual 
 meaning too apparent was not his object. It was to be 
 carefully veiled under the form of perfect art. Thus 
 Hamlet's madness artistically (feigned or otherwise) serves 
 to express his wildness and evil in the eyes of others. 
 How exquisitely Shakespeare has escaped contradictions, 
 almost inevitable in such a subject, is worthy of a great work 
 of its own. Let us clearly define our position. Hamlet is 
 no more mad than the sanest of Her Majesty's subjects in 
 our eyes. His madness^ in our eyes, once for all, is only 
 his badness in the eyes of others, and an artistic cover 
 under which he may utter the most profound truths to 
 Polonius and Ophelia. As we have before remarked, it is 
 merely an artistic ruse, by which the fear of his adversaries 
 
 ' " If 't be so ; " and again, " Hamlet is of the faction that is wrmg'd." 
 ' At the end of the play Hamlet identifies his madness with his enemies— "his 
 madness is poor Hamlet's enemy." 
 
22 
 
 HAMLET ; OK, 
 
 is expressed by calling him mad, and which puzzles those 
 who, criticizing the play, cannot grasp the meaning of 
 some of his speeches. The first act of Hamlet, we repeat, 
 is the criticism of Ophelia. This criticism she describes 
 herself. It is an examination, by long perusal and in- 
 spection. It will simply lead to the Reformation, which is 
 dramatically pictured in the Player-scene. OpheHa is 
 diseased. And let it be particularly noticed, after the 
 Interlude or Player-scene, Hamlet is never seen with 
 Ophelia again. Hamlet is described by Ophelia as one 
 in a deplorable state of mind. 
 
 " OpJi. My lord, as I was sewing in my closet, 
 Lord Hamlet, with his doublet all unbraced ; 
 No hat upon his head ; his stockings foul'd, 
 Ungarter'd, and down-gyved to his ancle ; 
 Pale as his shirt,- his knees knocking each other; 
 And with a look so piteous in purport 
 As if he had been loosed out of hell, 
 To speak of horrors, — he comes before me." i 
 
 In the above passage we have a great many touches which 
 illuminate the whole conception. We are bound to re- 
 member the historical facts which preceded the Eeformation, 
 and which accompanied it. Prison was the place, if not 
 the stake, to which the disciples of truth, of inquiry, or 
 what were termed heretics, went. Truth might well, at 
 such a time, have a 
 
 " Look so piteous in purport 
 As if he had been loosed out of heU." 
 
 Hamlet is a prince; an heir who never comes to the 
 throne. Truth is the prince of thought— its goal, its prize ; 
 but il never comes to the throne of mankind. So Hamlet 
 is pretty clearly criticizing severely a love who receives his 
 truth so unkindly. Jfo wonder he 
 
 " Eaised a sigh so piteous and profound 
 As it did seem to shatter all his bulk 
 And end his being." 
 
 ' Mr. Tyler, in his "Philosophy of Hamlet," has commented weU upon this 
 
shakespeake's philosophy of history. 23 
 
 Hamlet is clearly recognizmg his great enemy, in the whole 
 of the scene from which these excerpts are made. And 
 Polonius is alarmed. For, as he remarks, this ecstasy of 
 love may 
 
 " Lead the will to desperate undertaMngs." 
 
 "What is the cause of all this? The repulse of Hamlet by 
 Ophelia, at the instigation of Polonius. A Church which, 
 under an autocratic rule, will allow no room for truth, must 
 either keep her followers in ignorance, or consent to part 
 with some of them. And presently we have more direct 
 intimation of what Hamlet means. For we have a letter 
 written by Hamlet to Ophelia. And this letter is merely 
 a summary of the polity of the Church of the period. It 
 is as follows : 
 
 " Doubt thou the stars are fire ; 
 Doubt that the sun doth more ; 
 Doubt truth to be a liar ; 
 But never doubt I love. 
 dear Ophelia, I am ill at these numbers ; I have not art to reckon my groans : 
 but that I love thee best, most best, believe it. Adieu.' 
 
 Thine evermore, most dear lady, whilst 
 this machine is to him, Hamlet." ' 
 
 The above is as plain as plain can be. The lines to 
 Ophelia are Ophelia's own policy. That is, the policy of 
 the Church.. It is the old conflict of to-day — Religion 
 and Science. No wonder Hamlet is ill at these numbers. 
 For on one side Science tells him to doubt, and on the 
 other Heligion to believe the opposite. Already Hamlet is 
 getting dangerous. He cannot believe two things at once. 
 Let us remember the continuity of the action of the play. 
 Growing discontent has caused Laertes and Polonius to warn 
 Ophelia against Hamlet. But Hamlet is ever gaining in 
 strength. Polonius cannot explain why Hamlet is mad. 
 He says : 
 
 " Madam, I swear I use no art at all. 
 
 That he is mad, 'tis true : 'tis true 'tis pity ; 
 
 And pity 'tis 'tis true : a foolish figure ; 
 
 But farewell it, for I will use no art." 
 
 1 The essence of the above is its principle of contradiction, as contained between 
 religion and science. 
 
24 HAMLET ; OK, 
 
 What we gather from the above is the art and cunning 
 of Polonius, and the danger of Hamlet, which Polonius 
 explains by reading his letter to Ophelia. Let us mark 
 how Polonius repeats and blunders pedantically over the 
 same thing in words, and nothing but words. This is the 
 essence of Tradition and Antiquity. And we are told in- 
 directly that the lines of Hamlet to Ophelia are actually 
 Ophelia's : 
 
 " In her excellent white hosom, these.'' 
 
 And what are " these " in her excellent white bosom ? No- 
 thing shorter than an emphatic denial of those questions 
 of the day, which are matters of fact in this day. Per 
 Copernicus, Galileo and Bruno ^ established the Heliocentric 
 system, as against the Greocentric, which latter was the 
 orthodox one of the day. Everything was to be doubted 
 that interfered with the life of the Church. And Hamlet 
 is of those who did believe in these new facts of discovery. 
 Therefore, in Polonius's eyes, he is bad and mad; and he 
 denies him access to his daughter. The whole of this letter 
 to Ophelia is one of the simplest and amplest pieces of 
 evidence in the whole play. Polonius is explaining to the 
 Queen the evil and heresy of her son Hamlet. And 
 that heresy is his enmity to the tenets, traditions, and 
 doctrines of the Church. The latter was autocratic, and 
 explained the whole system of the universe. That system 
 was, that the world was a flat plane, round which the sun 
 moved. Bruno and Galileo destroyed for ever this delusion ; 
 but the former died at the stake in 1600 for his opinions. 
 Shakespeare must then have been thirty-six:' a period 
 
 ' Thinking men disbelieved the Geocentric system in the fifteenth century- 
 Let it be remembered that though Copernicus did not publish his work until 
 1543, it was completed in 1507, prior to the Eeformation. The three great 
 voyages of Columbus (1492), Magellan (1519), and Vasco de Gfama (1498), had 
 destroyed the old Geocentric tradition prior to the Eeformation, by proving the 
 earth's rotundity. And the Reformation was, in truth, in fuU progress the whole 
 of the sixteenth century. 
 
 2 As a Philosophy of History expresses general movements, in the place of 
 particular facts, so here we contend our parallelism is only meant to be suggestive. 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 25 
 
 when the whole of his faculties of historical judgment must 
 have been singularly mature. He was alive during the 
 whole of that period when the old cosmogony was being 
 destroyed by men who dared to think for themselves. In 
 the lines from Hamlet to Ophelia we have these very ques- 
 tions mooted. The old movement of the sun is or is not to 
 be doubted. The ancient theory that the stars were lights, 
 made especially to illumine this particular earth, had re- 
 ceived its death-blow at the hands of Bruno, who discussed 
 the subject of a Plurality of Worlds. 
 
 Can one doubt truth to be anything bat truth, and not a 
 liar ? Yet the Church, Hamlet tells us, says : 
 
 " But never doutt I love." 
 
 No wonder Hamlet has not " art to reckon his groans," upon 
 the horns of such a dilemma. And he is, indeed, " ill at 
 these numbers." For the Church says, " Doubt all these 
 things ; though they seem true, yet they are not truth." 
 But Hamlet is still (though invisibly in the play) accom- 
 panied by Bernardo, Horatio, and Marcellus. Inquiry, 
 study, reason, is part and parcel of Hamlet's constitution. 
 He says, later in the play : 
 
 "What is a man, 
 If his chief good and market of his time 
 Be but to sleep and feed ? a beast, no more. 
 Sure, he that made us with such large discourse, 
 Looking before and after, gave us not 
 That capability and god-like reason 
 To fiist in us unused." 
 
 No, Hamlet will rationalize and philosophize, as he does 
 from the first, whether he will or no. It is his idiosyncrasy 
 to use his reason. But this constitutes his badness in the 
 eyes of Polonius. He is especially dangerous to Ophelia. 
 For he threatens her very foundations, which are Infalli- 
 bility. Again, we have the address of Hamlet's letter to 
 Ophelia. It is as follows : 
 
 "Po?. 'To the celestial and my soul's idol, the most beautified Ophelia,' — 
 That's an ill phrase, a vile phrase ; beautified is a vile phrase." 
 
26 HAMLET ; OR, 
 
 Now why does Polonius object to the word beautified ? Be- 
 cause it has a reproach of manufacture about it. There is 
 a want of nature about such a word. It suggests artificial 
 means, by which Ophelia has been made. She is not truly 
 beautiful; she is made so by unnatural aids. We believe 
 this word to mean Bigoted. We shall arrive, by and by, to 
 facts of such similar nature, as to leave no question upon 
 the subject. Hamlet calls himself a machine. He is indeed 
 one, under the tyranny of intolerance and persecution. 
 But there may be reference to torture in this satirical re- 
 mark, that truth is only Ophelia's, whilst the rack enforces 
 obedience. However we may quarrel over details, there can 
 be no doubt of the relations which exist between Ophelia 
 and her father. Polonius says : 
 
 " I have a daughter — ^have while she is mine — 
 Who, in her duty and obedience." 
 
 She is only the daughter of Polonius whilst she is obedient 
 and servile to authority and to tradition. Polonius is full 
 of certainty : 
 
 "Pol. Hath there been such a time — (I'd fain know that) — 
 That I have positively said ' 'Tis so,' 
 When it proved otherwise ? " 
 
 This is part of his infallibility. Polonius is positively sure 
 of the madness, or, as we take it, the errors of Hamlet. 
 We now have the entrance of Hamlet reading. He 
 is evidently gathering force from a criticism of the past. 
 And we are told he walks for hours in the lobby. Is not a 
 lobby an ante-chamber, where people have to wait before 
 they can find an entrance, or gain a hearing ? Hamlet is 
 as yet in this predicament. He is outside, and his princely 
 right to the throne a mere mockery and the deepest 
 irony. 
 
 Hamlet greets Polonius with the epithet of " God-a- 
 mercy." Polonius is a Grod of mercy with a vengeance. 
 What satire ! This is the thin edge of the wedge. Hamlet 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 27 
 
 will soon ridicule him. Polonius is termed by Hamlet a 
 fishmonger. Again, Hamlet says : 
 
 " Ay, sir ; to be honest, as this world goes, is to be one man picked out of ten 
 thousand." 
 
 Hamlet recognizes the character of those that deal in dead 
 fish ; and that Polonius falls short even of this standard. 
 What does all this mean ? We reply, it is a scene in which 
 the relations of Hamlet to the Church, and to authority 
 generally, are portrayed. It is part of the continuity of 
 the play. It is the ridicule and satire which will lead ulti- 
 mately to the death of Polonius. Shakespeare has done 
 everything art can do in this play to bring out the con- 
 tinuity of the characters and the modification of their 
 powers. The play begins with "Long live the King." The 
 existence of wrong-doing is recognized first by Hamlet in 
 the passage commencing : 
 
 " This heavy-headed revel." 
 
 And it is followed by the appearance of the Grhost. Thus 
 do doubt and certainty succeed each other, to be followed by 
 greater doubt and greater certainty. 
 
 Polonius, as authority, is always getting robbed of some 
 of his power by Hamlet. This is the result of the revela- 
 tion of the Ghost. And the Grhost is the result of Bernardo, 
 Marcellus, Francisco, Horatio, and Hamlet.^ Ophelia has 
 been severely criticized by Hamlet. Polonius is now being 
 ridiculed. Hamlet tells him that what he reads are merely 
 
 " Words, words, words ! " 
 
 That is, the whole of Polonius is a mass of words, without 
 sense or meaning. Hamlet mocks Polonius upon the subject 
 of his daughter : 
 
 1 The reader is begged to remember our theory, viz. : Fortinbras (liberty), 
 Hamlet (progress and truth), Horatio (knowledge), all work together. 
 
28 HAMLET ; OR, 
 
 "Ham. For if the sun breed maggots iu a dead dog, being a god kissing 
 carrion, — Have you a daughter ? 
 
 Fol. I have, my lord. 
 
 Bam. Let her not walk i' the sun ; conception is a blessing : but not as your 
 daughter may conceive. Friend, look to 't." 
 
 The whole of the ahove is profound scorn and the bitterest 
 irony. It is a recognition by Hamlet of the fear in which 
 Polonius holds all inquiry and knowledge. The sun we take 
 to be typically knowledge. Hamlet actually says to Polonius : 
 " If you let your daughter have liberty, she may conceive or 
 think, or she may bring a new birth to light ; and every- 
 thing shows that knowledge can give new life and new 
 direction to what is old and corrupt." 
 
 Hamlet is thus giving us a hint of those thoughts which 
 filled the minds of men imbued with reforming principles. 
 Polonius begins to see method in the apparent delusions of 
 Hamlet. And Hamlet has begun to ridicule and satirize 
 authority, through the Church. Polonius replies by similar 
 taunts, and ironically asks Hamlet if he will walk out into 
 the air. But Hamlet knows this is his grave. Hamlet has 
 recognized already the emptiness and the dotage of Polonius, 
 Hamlet says : 
 
 " Ham. You cannot, sir, take from me any thing that I will more willingly part 
 withal : ezcept my life, except my Kfe, except my life. 
 Fol. Fare you well, my lord. 
 Ham. These tedious old fools !" 
 
 Here, then, we are assured that Polonius is thoroughly 
 appreciated by Hamlet. The latter would willingly part 
 with him. But he still lacks power. Polonius is in the 
 eyes of Hamlet a " tedious old fool." 
 
 Let us be clear as far as we have followed our chain of 
 continuity. Hamlet repudiates Polonius. But two friends 
 step in now, who play an important part throughout the 
 whole drama. Let us thoroughly realize them if we can. 
 fhese two are the courtiers Rosencrantz and Guilden- 
 stern. They are sent to Hamlet by the King and Queen, 
 and Hamlet has been brought up in their society. Indeed, 
 he seems to be at first partial to them. But he soon gets 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of histoky. 29 
 
 suspicious, and finally fully recognizes both their emptiness 
 and their significance. Hamlet is some time in finding out 
 if these two courtiers are on the King's side or upon his. 
 We, who are readers of the play, and thus behind the 
 scenes, know more than Hamlet does, at some stages. For 
 ■ we have the following words to reassure us : 
 
 Act II. Scene ii. 
 " Enter King, Queen, Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, eie. 
 
 King. "Welcome, dear Eosencrantz and Guildenstern ! 
 Moreover that we much did long to see you, 
 The need we have to me you did provoke 
 Our hasty sending." 
 
 In those two words "use yon" we have a key of the cha- 
 racter of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. They are part of 
 the succession in the continuity of the play, or what we 
 would rather term a Philosophy of History dramatized. 
 These two courtiers have one quality in common, and they 
 hunt in couples, being only once apart (and only for a few 
 lines) in the whole play. They fill the places of the 
 now vanished Yoltimand and Cornelius. Everything in 
 their conduct suggests smoothness, caution, and craftiness. 
 They are going to be used by the King, and their use is to 
 come between Hamlet and himself. Now we shall realize by 
 the text alone in what their common quality consists ; and 
 we shall see that they are complements to each other, as in- 
 dispensable as are the Siamese twins to each other's existence. 
 Polonius directs them to Hamlet; and it is necessary we 
 quote in full the meeting between Hamlet and them, to 
 thoroughly seize their full meaning : 
 
 " Enter Eosencrantz and Guildenstern. 
 
 Fol. Ton go to seek the Lord Hamlet ; there he is. 
 
 Eos. [To Polonius.] God save you, sir ! [^Exit Polonius.] 
 
 Guil. Mine honoured lord ! 
 Eos. My most dear lord ! 
 
 ITam. My excellent good friends ! How dost thou, Guildenstern ? Ah, Eosen- 
 crantz ! Good lads, how do ye both ? 
 
30 HAMLET ; OR, 
 
 Bos. As tlie indifferent children of the earth. 
 Guil. Happy, in that we are not over-happy ; 
 On fortune's cap we are not the very button. 
 Sam. Not the soles of her shoe f 
 jRos. Neither, my lord. 
 
 Sam. Then you live about her waist, or in the middle of her favours ? 
 (3^j7. 'Faith, her privates we." 
 
 Here we pause in tlie quotation to see wliat we hare gained 
 so far; and that is no small part of the sum of the. characters 
 of these two courtiers. In reply to Hamlet, Eosencrantz 
 says that himself and Gruildenstern are "as the indifferent 
 children of the earth." They represent indifference, and care 
 not for those questions which agitate Hamlet. Again, we 
 know they live in the middle of the favours of Fortune. This 
 is what makes them indifferent. Hamlet tells Eosencrantz 
 later — 
 
 "Aye, sir, that soaks up the king's countenance, his rewards, his authorities." 
 
 Eosencrantz and Guildenstern thrive upon abuses and 
 errors. And why? Because they soak up the means, the 
 rewards, countenances, and authorities of error or the King. 
 Every innovation, every change, is a positive evil to people of 
 such a temper ; and that temper is the temper of the man of 
 the world. They are therefore staunch bulwarks of thcKing, 
 and the profoundest enemies of Hamlet. The characteristic 
 they hold in common is, as we have already said, indifference; 
 an indifference which arises from circumstances which make 
 them the privates of Fortune. They consist of that large 
 body of every age, who have everything to lose by progress, 
 and everything to keep by stability. But now we have to 
 define their method of dealing with Hamlet ; and that is by 
 the means of sophistry, casuistry, and a species of optimism, 
 which tries to maintain that everything is at the very best 
 possible point it can be. Henceforward we shall term Eosen- 
 crantz and Gruildenstern^ as representing indifference, sophistry, 
 
 ^ Eosencrantz, by himself, seems to represent the optimism of those who are 
 the friends of fortune, and who benefit by error. Guildenstern is more the method 
 by which the truth is evaded. 
 
SHAKESPEARE S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 31 
 
 casuistry, and optimism. And let us first see to which 
 these respective terms individually apply. To both in- 
 difference and a carelessness, if not hatred of truth. To 
 Guildenstern, especially, the art of trying to make the worse 
 side appear the better : 
 
 " Cruil. Wtat should we say, my lord ? 
 Sam. "Why anything, but to the purpose." ' 
 
 This is exactly what Rosencrantz and Gruildenstern succeed 
 in doing. They evade all truth and good logic, and " never 
 say anything to the purpose." Everything they say is as 
 wide from the point in hand as possible. See how Shake- 
 speare has brought this out, in their argument with Hamlet. 
 The trenchant logic of Hamlet is contrasted with the evasive 
 and false sophistry of theirs. They see things utterly dif- 
 ferently to Hamlet. To the latter the world is a prison; 
 but to the two sycophants of the King the world is actually 
 honest : 
 
 " Sam What's the news ? 
 
 Ros. ITone, my lord, but that the world's grown honest. 
 
 Sam. Then is doomsday near : but your news is not true. Let me question 
 more in particular : what have you, my good friends, deserved at the hands of 
 fortune, that she sends you to prison hither ? 
 
 Guil. Prison, my lord ! 
 
 Sam. Denmark 's a prison. 
 
 Sos. Then is the world one. 
 
 Sam. A goodly one ; in which there are many confines, wards, and dungeons, 
 Denmark being one o' the worst. 
 
 Sos. We think not so, my lord. 
 
 Sam. 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. 
 
 Kos. Why then, your ambition makes it one ; 'tis too narrow for your mind. 
 
 Sam. God, I could be bounded in a nutshell,' and count myself a king of 
 infinite space, were it not that I hare bad dreams. 
 
 ^ In some editions there is a full stop after "anything." In either case 
 {comma or fullstop), we read Shakespeare's real meaning to be Hamlet's recog- 
 nition of the evasiTe character of the two courtiers. 
 
 ' The word nutshell suggests Hamlet as the kernel. Thus truth is the core of 
 things. 
 
32 HAMLET ; OR, 
 
 Guil. ■Which dreams indeed are ambition, for the very substance of the 
 ambitious is merely the shadow of a dream. 
 
 Sam. A dream itself is but a shadow. 
 
 Eos. Truly, and I hold ambition of so airy and light a quality that it is but a 
 shadow's shadow. 
 
 Ham. Then are our beggars bodies, and our monarcbs and outstretched heroes 
 the beggars' shadows. Shall we to the court ? for, by my fay, I cannot reason." 
 
 In the above we notice the aim and drift of Shakespeare 
 in enforcing the contrast between Hamlet's perfect logic, 
 which annihilates the arguments of the two courtiers,- and 
 their sophistry. Hamlet has been brought up with Rosen- 
 crantz and Guildenstern ; but it is the first time he disagrees 
 with them upon views of life. Hamlet is taking stock of 
 E,osencrantz and Gruildenstern, as he has done of Polonius; and 
 he will by and by repudiate and escape their claims upon 
 him. Let us notice the difierent views which Hamlet holds 
 to these two courtiers. To our hero the world is a prison; 
 to the other two the world has grown honest. The views of 
 the former are decidedly pessimistic ; those of the latter opti- 
 mistic. And the cause of this difference has much to do with 
 the circumstances in which both are respectively placed. 
 Hamlet, as we have already seen, knows more of the gyves, 
 of the prison, and of the stake, than do the other two. These 
 only arte intimate with the rewards and countenances of the 
 King, upon whom they thrive, and by whom they alone exist. 
 Denmark to Hamlet is a prison ; and Denmark is identified 
 with the world by Eosencrantz. But what is Denmark? 
 In our opinion Denmark is literally dark men, of which it 
 is an anagram; and it thus stands for ignorance, of which 
 Hamlet is the only light and the only prince — Truth. As 
 Hamlet remarks : 
 
 " Why, then, 'tis none to you : for there is nothing either good or bad, but 
 thinling makes it so : to me it is a prison." 
 
 In the above we recognize that the world is a prison to all 
 truth. That good and bad depends, according to the dis- 
 crepancy between the views of Hamlet and the courtiers, 
 either to difference of thinkiug, or to their obliquity. Of 
 
SHAKESPEARE S PHILOSOPHT OF HISTOKY. 33 
 
 course we feel the latter powerfully forced upon us. For we 
 feel there is something far more real than a mode of register- 
 mg our particular circumstances. There is not one law for 
 the good, and one for the bad ; but one for both. And 
 Hamlet soon shows us how poorly these two courtiers can 
 rationalize upon the simplest subject. How magnificently 
 grand is Hamlet's logic ! And what a thorough collapse for 
 Rosencrantz and Guildenstern ! But we must always re- 
 member that it is part and parcel of these two gentlemen to 
 say nothing to the purpose. The whole drift of Rosencrantz 
 and Guildenstern is to run down ambition ; and ambition is 
 desire for promotion. Hamlet himself says he lacks ad- 
 vancement — 
 
 " Sir, I lack advancement." ' 
 
 Again, ambition is the result of bad dreams and dissatisfac- 
 tion. But if ambition is nothing, as the courtiers insinuate, 
 then those who realize the dreams of ambition, as monarchs 
 and outstretched heroes, are nothing also. 
 
 The argument is too absurd to need even Hamlet's refuta- 
 tion. For if ambition is nought, how is it that the aspira- 
 tions of ^beggars are so substantially realized? The whole 
 discussion is one in which Eosencrantz and Guildenstern 
 employ their talents to argue down and oppose Hamlet's 
 dissatisfaction and liberal impulses. We must clearly com- 
 prehend the relations of the two parties. Everywhere, for 
 the future, we shall find Hamlet fettered by these two tools 
 of the King. And when, for the first time, he escapes from 
 them and returns to England alone, we have his letter to 
 the King, beginning — 
 
 "High and mighty, You shall know I am set naked, on your kingdom." 
 
 We have no hesitation in thus understanding our Poet's 
 meaning ; and we are convinced that Hamlet, having got rid 
 of sophistry, casuistry, optimism — hoc et genus omne — is 
 
 ^ This advmeement we read as the liberal and reforming ambition of Hamlet. 
 
 3 
 
34 hamlet; ok, 
 
 set naked in tlie play. Truth is at last unalloyed, and we 
 owe this blessing to England. We have somewhat antici- 
 pated the gradual development of the play ; but it is neces- 
 sary we should endeavour clearly to realize the meaning of 
 the two courtiers Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. The last 
 we hear of them is as follows : 
 
 " Sor. So Guildenstern and Eosenorantz go to 't. 
 Sam. Why, man, they did make love to this employment ; 
 They are not itear my conscience ; their defeat 
 Does by their own insinuation grow : 
 ' Tis dangerous when the baser nature comes 
 Between the pass and fell incensed points 
 Of mighty opposites." 
 
 What could express the essence of our friends better than 
 the above! Is not sophistry, is not indifference, and an opti- 
 mistic philosophy, based upon plunder, the baser nature which 
 comes " between the pass and fell incensed points of mighty 
 opposites" ? Those opposites are Truth and Error. We shall 
 arrive by and by to an explanation of England. The latter 
 is the direct instrument of the disappearance and extinction 
 of these two " adders fanged." Our end at present is to 
 establish the nature of their characters plainly in the 
 reader's eyes ; and to do this it has been 'necessary to quit 
 the order of our advance with the .text. Therefore, we now 
 return to the relations, and continuity in thDse relations, of 
 Hamlet and these two. We have seen how cheerfully 
 Hamlet greets them. And not only this, we hold direct in- 
 timation of Hamlet's childhood being spent in their sogiety. 
 
 " King I entreat you both, 
 
 That, being of so young days brought up with him, 
 
 And sith so neighbour'd to his youth and haTiour," etc., etc. 
 
 But in the first interview between Hamlet and them we 
 find, first, disagreement in their views of life ; secondly, 
 mistrust and suspicion upon Hamlet's side — 
 
 " Mam. [Aside'l Nay, then, I hare an eye of you." 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 35 
 
 And, lastly, we have positive hatred and a determination to 
 outmanoeuvre them in their own line. 
 
 " Sam. There's letters seal'd :, and my two schoolfellows, 
 ■WTiom I -will trust as I will adders fanged, 
 They bear the mandate •■, they must sweep my way, 
 And marshal me to knavery. Let it work ; 
 For 'tis the sport to have the enginer 
 Hoist with his own petar :- and 't shall go hard 
 But I will delve one yard below their mines, 
 And blow them at the moon : 0, 'tis most sweet, 
 When in one line two crafts directly meet." 
 
 So we perceive the same continuity with regard to Rosen- 
 crantz and Guildenstern as we have seen in Polonius. We 
 can never insist sufficiently upon this continuity and develop- 
 ment of character which Shakespeare has so profoundly 
 realized. The whole play is the continuity of history ; and 
 this continuity is so interwoven with time and each part of 
 itself, that no one part should be taken alone Everywhere 
 Fortinbras is slowly gaining ground. The reason of his 
 abrupt appearance in the midst of tho play is thus an under- 
 ground basis of action and reaction. But to proceed. Rosen- 
 crantz and Guildenstern are perhaps Hamlet's greatest 
 enemies ; for they hamper all his movements, and on every 
 occasion of note in the play, up to his actual escape from 
 them, they are the direct means of allowing Hamlet no 
 standing room. He is actually suffocated and oppressed by 
 their intense servility and apparent obsequiousness. They 
 profess, to love truth ; but they never look it in the face. 
 At the best, their whole spirit is that of compromise. 
 Timidity and a constant fear of any change is their 
 characteristic. As Guildenstern remarks : 
 
 " Ouil. We will ourselves provide : 
 
 Most holy and religious fear it is 
 To keep those many many bodies safe 
 That live and feed upon your majesty." 
 
 Nothing could express their whole policy better. They 
 are themselves the "many many bodies that live and feed 
 upon error;" and let us particularly take note of the part 
 
36 HAMLET ; OR, 
 
 they take in Hamlet's banisliment. They are the direct cause 
 of it. As we have before said, the King is a fiction. He is 
 contained in Guildenstern and Eosencrantz. And to prove 
 this Hamlet says : 
 
 " Ham. The body is wiSh -the king, but the ting is not with the body. The 
 king is a thing — 
 
 Ouil. A thing, my lord ! 
 
 Sam. Of nothing : bring me to him. Hide fox, and all after." 
 
 Thus we see the King is a thing " of nothing ; " and error 
 and falsehood are by their very nature in themselves nothing. 
 
 " The body is with the king." 
 
 Authority is on the side of error, but error is not for 
 authority. Hamlet, as we know historically, when banished, 
 owes his exile to public opinion ; and that opinion is often of 
 the following description : 
 
 " Sos. The single and peculiar life is bound. 
 With all the strength and armour of the mind. 
 To keep itself from noyance ; but much more 
 That spirit upon whose weal depend and rest 
 The lives of many. The cease of majesty 
 Dies not alone ; but, like a gulf, doth draw 
 What 's near it with it : it is a massy wheel, 
 Fix'd on the summit of the highest mount, 
 To whose huge spokes ten thousand lesser things 
 Are mortised and adjoin'd ; which, when it falls, 
 Each small annexment, petty consequence. 
 Attends the boisterous ruin. Never alone 
 Did the king sigh, but with a general groan." 
 
 Putting aside the marvellous knowledge displayed in the 
 region of social psychology and the phenomena of belief, we 
 would call attention to the distinction our poet makes be- 
 tween the individual and the social life. Hamlet is then 
 dangerous to the weal of the latter, and Rosencrantz not 
 only advocates his banishment, but accompanies Hamlet in 
 his exile, together with Guildenstern. Let us clearly realize 
 our position. The exile of Hamlet, which will come after the 
 effects of the Player- scene, will be exemplified by his being 
 hampered by the two courtiers. As long as our hero is with 
 
SHAKESPEARE S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 37 
 
 them, he is not Hamlet "naked" but a Hamlet who has 
 Rosencraatz and Guildenstern to come between him and truth. 
 This is his true exile, and England alone will break the 
 bondage, and set him " naked" for the first time, on the 
 Kiiig's kingdom. He will be more a prince then than when 
 mockingly called a prince, who has no followers. Hamlet 
 knows this,, for he says to our two friends : 
 
 " Roa. and Chiil. We '11 wait upon you. 
 
 Ham- No such matter : I will not sort you with the rest of my servants, for, 
 to speak to you like an honest man, I am most dreadfully attended." 
 
 "Whatever way we interpret the above, it remains stiU to 
 the purport. Hamlet does not consider the courtiers his 
 friends. He knows their business, and he is most poorly 
 attended, or shall we say, most cruelly attended, by the in- 
 quisition, the stake, and the torture-chamber. But Rosen- 
 crantz and Gruildenstern bring Hamlet some good news. 
 That news is the rumour of the players. Who are these 
 players ? 
 
 " Bam What players are they ? 
 
 Sos. Even those you were wont to take delight in, the tragedians of the city." 
 
 These players are, ia our opinion, the growing knowledge 
 and literature which led towards the Reformation. They are 
 the children of the revival of learning, the heirs of the 
 Renaissance. To define them would be to write a history of 
 the causes of the Reformation. But we need not doubt his- 
 torical criticism and philosophy played a great part in that 
 movement. The schoolmen had long accustomed men to 
 the subtlest discussions. Indeed, we are far too apt in these 
 days to underrate their subtlety and ability. Many questions 
 are now being discussed, which were centres of fierce discus- 
 sion in the Middle Ages.. Luther was the product of his 
 times. He merely gave, like all great men, direction to the 
 movement of those times. And we perceive what joy it gives 
 Hamlet to hear of the arrival of these Players. Theircoming 
 is the first gathering of the storm. A storm which is the 
 result of greater knowledge. A knowledge which the Players 
 
38 HAMLET ; OR, 
 
 most fitly represent. Whatever in the mind of man pro- 
 duced the Eeformation must be understood by these Players. 
 We have had reference to Wittenberg early in the play : 
 
 " Ram. And what make you from Witteaberg, Horatio ?— Maircellus ? 
 
 Mar. My good lord, — 
 
 Ham. I am very glad to see you. Good even, sir, 
 
 But what, in fa;ith, make you from Witten'berg ? 
 Sor. A truant disposition, good my lord." 
 
 Here we have Wittenberg mentioned twice. And Witten- 
 berg is the very birth-place of the Reformation. Here it 
 was begun, and here it culminated. For here Martin 
 Luther burnt the Pope's Bull, as every school-boy knows. 
 Why does Horatio come from Wittenberg? Because Horatio 
 is a scholar, and in our eyes represents the spirit of justice 
 and independence. 
 
 " Sam, Horaflo, "thou art e'en as just a man 
 As e'er my eonversation coped withal." 
 
 It is through Horatio, the staunch friend of Hamlet, that 
 our hero finds true support to carry out his ends. What is 
 a spirit of doubt or truth without an accompanying spirit of 
 justice, independence, and firmness? Horatio's character 
 may be gathered from the speech of Hamlet to him ; and we 
 may be sure he is everything which is the essence of a bold 
 spirit of truth-seeking. 
 
 "JSiwa. Nay, do not think'I flatter ; 
 
 For what advancement may I hope from thee. 
 That no revenue hast hut thy good spirits, 
 To feed and clothe thee f Why should the poor he flatter'd ? 
 No, let the candied tongue lick absurd pomp, 
 And crook the pregnant hinges of the knee 
 Where thrift may foUow fawning. Dost thou hear f 
 Since my dear soul was mistress of her choice, 
 And could of men distinguish, her election 
 Hath seal'd thee for herself: for thou hast been 
 As one, in suffering all, that suffers nothing, 
 A man that fortune's buffets and rewards 
 Hast ta'en with equal thanks : and blest are those 
 Whose blood and judgment are so well commingled, 
 That they are not a pipe for fortune's finger 
 To sound what stop she please. Give me that man 
 That is not passion's slave, and I will wear him 
 In my heart's core, ay, in my heart of heart, 
 As I do thee." 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 39 
 
 In the last lines of this quotation we have the actual fact. 
 Our hero wears Horatio in his heart's core. And what he 
 wears is, as he has told us, independence, " good spirits" a 
 mind to endure all things, and an intense love of justice. 
 These are some of the qualities of a Luther. They are not 
 the more cautious ones, which go to form an Erasmus. How- 
 ever, Erasmus was a tragedian of the city. He laid the egg, 
 and Luther, or Hamlet, hatched it. After this necessary 
 parenthesis upon Horatio's attributes, let us return to the 
 text in hand. Horatio has come from Wittenberg. And 
 Hamlet asks him what he makes from there. Hamlet half 
 answers the question himself; for he says, "Marcellus?" 
 And Marcellus represents a spirit of inquiry, of search and 
 discovery, to whom it was given, with Bernardo ^ (reading), 
 to see the Ghost, or Doubt. Luther, studying the Bible, is 
 a fit emblem of Bernardo, Marcellus, Horatio, and Hamlet. 
 And how ? In reading, he uses the gift Bernardo brings into 
 the play. In criticism and examination, that of Marcellus. 
 He is impelled by a spirit of independence, — that is, Horatio. 
 And, finally, the love he holds for Hamlet is at the bottom 
 of the whole affair. And Luther soon saw_the Ghost. Thus 
 Hamlet's question is one of interrogation, and half surmisal 
 of the inquiry coming from "Wittenberg. And we then 
 remark the answer of Horatio, which is, " a truant dispo- 
 sition." Are we to understand that Horatio only sees fickle- 
 ness, and a truant disposition, where Hamlet surmises more. 
 It is by the interstotion of the friends, scholars and soldiers, 
 that the Ghost is appreciated, and makes a revelation. But 
 to proceed. The key-note of the Reformation is thus touched 
 in this reference to Wittenberg. The very name of the 
 place, fraught as it is with memories of the first great He- 
 bellion of the Intellect in Europe, ought to have made critics 
 more alive to the significance of Hamlet. And we shall 
 presently have plenty of evidence to show how that signifi- 
 cance may be interpreted and rationalized in the play. We 
 
 ' Bernardo is not unlikely the art of printing. 
 
40 HAMLET ; OK, 
 
 ask the indulgent reader, who has accompanied us so far, to 
 bear with any hypothesis, however wild it may appear at 
 first sight, for the sake of further proof, which we get when 
 deeper into the spiritual unity of the drama. Hamlet's 
 speech to Eosencrantz and GuHdenstern, beginning — 
 
 "I will tell you why; so shall my anticipation prevent your discoyery, and 
 your secrecy to the king and q^ueen moult no feather." 
 
 — is one which has a very profound meaning. Here we recog- 
 nize, again, the craftiness of the two courtiers. For they 
 hunt with the hounds, and run with the hare. It is their 
 temper not so much to be blind to the changes of time, as 
 to resist them as long as they are perilous to their particular 
 interests. And they thoroughly understand their age with 
 regard to Hamlet. The latter is utterly in a state of de- 
 plorable dyspepsia, produced by the unhealthiness of the 
 social atmosphere. And he has got to that point when he 
 cannot be any worse. It is just then he hears of the 
 Players. He wants to know why the Players travel ? And 
 he is told that it is on account of the "late innovation." 
 Now this innovation is, therefore, the direct cause of 
 Progress, if we so understand the word " travel," And we 
 must bear in mind the actors are the writers and thinkers 
 of the age. "What they suffer from is criticism and direct 
 interference ' of certain "little eyases." In this word we 
 have mere spectators, and not actors, well expressed. No 
 doubt all this refers to religious controversy and interference 
 on the part of authority. 
 
 " Guil. 0, there has heen much throwing ahout of hrains. 
 
 Sam. Do the boys carry it away ? 
 
 Bos. Ay, that they do, my lord ; Hercules and his load too. 
 
 Ham. It is not very strange, for mine uncle is king of Denmark; and those 
 that would make mows at him while my father lived, give twenty, forty, fifty, an 
 hundred ducats a-piece, for his picture in little. 'Sblood, there is something in 
 this more than natural, if philosophy could find it out." 
 
 The boys we take to be the coming generation. They are 
 the youth of the day, who carry away, of course, some- 
 thing original from all this throwing about of brains. And 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 41 
 
 Hamlet is surprised at nothing. For his uncle is King of 
 Denmark. And scepticism has been so nurtured in his 
 mind by these controversies, that he naturally expresses a 
 desire to bring a little philosophy to bear upon the subject. 
 His last words before the entrance of Polonius are : 
 
 " I am but mad north-north-west : when the wind is southerly, I know a hawk 
 from a handsaw." 
 
 Now we are going to astonish the reader, if he is not 
 already astonished. The seat of the Heformation was 
 Germany, and Grermany is situated something between 
 north and west with regard to the rest of Europe. Hamlet 
 is only mad in Germany. And when the wind comes from 
 the Ultramontane side of the continent, " he knows a talk 
 from an answer."^ Those who look upon this interpretation 
 as a piece of lunacy or wild imagination are requested to 
 pause as yet in their judgment. Polonius now enters. Let 
 us note how Hamlet no longer satirizes him covertly, but 
 mocks him openly. He is less and less afraid of him. He 
 will walk out into the air presently, and yet not into his 
 grave. However, before we proceed further, we would say 
 more as regards Eosencrantz and Guildenstern. After the 
 great events of the Reformation, and during its growth and 
 development, we find in contemporary literature accounts of 
 our two courtiers : " Thus Giordano .Bruno, who was born 
 seven years after the death of Copernicus, published a work 
 on the infinity of the universe and of worlds. It added not 
 a little to the exasperation against him, that he was per- 
 petually declaiming against the insincerity, and the impos- 
 tures of his persecutors ; that, wherever he went, he found 
 scepticism varnished over and concealed^ by hypocrisy ; and 
 that it was not against the belief of men, but against their 
 pretended belief, that he was fighting ; that he was 
 struggling with an orthodoxy that had neither morality 
 
 ' The reader will notice we presently read "ty lot" as "Bigot." The whole 
 of the conversation between the two couitiera and Hamlet is of the nature of 
 talk, not direct answers, but evasion. 
 
42 HAMLET ; OK, 
 
 nor faith." We quote the above from Dr. Draper's work 
 upon the conflict between religion and science. And it may 
 be asked, what can Bruno have in connexion with our 
 courtiers? Simply that the substance of the above was 
 delivered amidst lectures in England during Shakespeare's 
 life. And we must ask ourselves if our great Poet has not 
 partly realized the .hypocrisy, the indifference, and pretended 
 belief which Bruno rails against, in Eosencrantz and Guil- 
 denstern ? Could it be possible that Shakespeare should be 
 indifferent, with his mighty brain, to the theories of the 
 Copernican system, published only nineteen years before his 
 birth, and furthered by Bruno ? It was the greatest blow 
 the Church or Tradition could receive ; and it was altering 
 slowly , men's conceptions of the world. Guildenstern is 
 essentially varnished over. His very name savours of a 
 compound of Latin and English. If we -take the last 
 syllable "stern," we are reminded of the Latin verb ster- 
 nere, "to spread over," "to cover with." And "Gruilden" 
 sounds very much like some light veneer, wanting in everything 
 but gilt. Thus, "to gild over," "to smooth down," "to hide," 
 and finally " to pretend and deceive," is what we thus arrive 
 at. Taking Eosencrantz in a similar way, we have "crantz," 
 clearly derived from cranium, "a head," and "Eosen," which 
 sounds very- like Rose in head. This would be a good meta- 
 phor for optimism, namely a rosy brain, and one who, from 
 his easy circumstances or other causes, always saw things in 
 a "couleur de rose light." However, these derivations may 
 be true or not, but the more eclectic they are, the more 
 likelihood have they to belong to Shakespeare ; as in aU 
 things, the greater the genius, the greater the eclecticism. 
 "We can now understand why the two courtiers are so friendly 
 with Hamlet. They perfectly realize the times they live in. 
 But they lack interest, courage, and unselfishness, to make 
 them supporters of Hamlet. They are wanting in Horatio's 
 character and type, as also in Hamlet's. Nothing is more 
 conspicuous than their guardedness. They never venture to 
 do anything but play upon or obstruct Hamlet by their 
 own passive and hypocritical natures ; and nothing is more 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of. history. 43 
 
 natural than that they should be for a long period mixed up 
 with him. From them he gets most of his information. 
 And none know better than they do his complete reason and 
 sanity. It is their especial attribute always to take care not 
 to commit themselves to anything ; and always to be on the 
 side of the strong. What does Goethe say of them? He 
 calls them " amateurs : " — " Out of these meditations he was 
 roused by the other actors, along with whom two amateurs, 
 frequenters of the wardrobe and the stage, came in and 
 saluted Wilhelm with a show of great enthusiasm. One of 
 these was in some degree attached to Frau Melina ; but the 
 other was entirely a pure friend of art; and both were of 
 the kind which a good company should always wish to have 
 about it. It was difBcult to say whether their love for the 
 stage,! QP tiieir knowledge of it, was the greater. They 
 loved it too much to know it perfectly; they knew it well 
 enough to prize the good, and to discard the bad. But their 
 inclinations being so powerful, they could tolerate the 
 mediocre; and the glorious joy which they experienced 
 from the foretaste and the aftertaste of excellence sur- 
 passed expression. The mechanical department gave them 
 pleasure, the intellectual charmed them ; and so strong was 
 their susceptibility, that even a discontinuous rehearsal 
 afforded them a species of illusion. Deficiencies appeared 
 in their eyes to fade away in distance ; the successful 
 touched them Hke an object near at hand. In a word, they 
 were judges, such as every artist wishes in his own depart- 
 ment. Their favourite movement was from the side scenes 
 to the pit, and from the pit to the side scenes ; their, happiest 
 place was in the wardrobe; their busiest employment was 
 in trying to improve the dress, position, recitation, gesture, 
 of the actor ; their liveliest conversation was on the effect 
 produced by him; their most constant effort was to keep 
 him accurate, active and attentive, to do him service or 
 kindness, and without squandering to procure for the com- 
 pany a series of enjoyments." 
 Nothing can surpass the keen satire and the truthful 
 
 1 The stage is here meant for the world. 
 
44 HAMLET ; OR, 
 
 irony of the above picture. This is the man of the world. 
 Occupied in trifles, loving the mediocre, only acting where 
 public opinion is with him, and, finally, touched by the 
 successful and near at hand, before all things. If we have 
 been understood thus far, we can proceed with our hypo- . 
 thesis with greater confidence and assurance. If riot exactly 
 right in every detail, still we are on the true path of dis- 
 covery. A path which Goethe has only partially illuminated. 
 And in such a way as to substitute another difficulty for 
 the first. But to Goethe must be ever accorded the great 
 discovery of the nature of Shakespeare's works, and of the 
 method and principles which underlie them. But to pro- 
 ceed. We wUl now turn to Polonius, who, at the juncture we 
 left in the text, makes his appearance. Hamlet, as we have 
 already remarked, openly mocks him, and turns him into 
 downright ridicule. 
 
 " Kam.. I will prophesy he cornea to tell me of the players ; mark it. Tou 
 say right, sir : o' Monday morning ; 'twas so indeed. 
 
 Fol. My lord, I have news to- tell you. 
 
 Sam. My lord, I have news to tell you. When Roscius was an actor in Eome,— 
 
 Fol. The actors are come hither, my lord. 
 
 Sam. Buz, buz ! 
 
 Fol. Upon miue honour, — 
 
 Sam. Then came each actor on his ass, — 
 
 Fol. The best actors in the world, either for tragedy, comedy, history, pastoral, 
 pastoral-comical, historical-pastoral, tragical-historical, tragioal-comical-histori- 
 cal-pastoral, scene individable, or poem unlimited : Seneca cannot he too heavy, 
 nor Plautus too light 
 
 Sam. Jephthah, judge of Israel, what a treasure hadst thou ! 
 
 Fol. "What a treasure- had he, my lord ? 
 
 Sam. Why, 
 
 ' One fair daughter, and no more, 
 The which he loved passing well.' 
 
 Fol. [Aside.} Still on my daughter. 
 
 Sam. Am I not i' the right, old Jephthah ? 
 
 Pol. If you call me Jephthah, my lord, I have a daughter that I love passing 
 well. 
 
 Sam. Nay, that follows not. 
 
 Pol. What follows then, my lord ? 
 
 Sam. Why, 
 
 'As by lot, God wot,' 
 and then, you know, 
 
 ' It came to pass, as most like it was,' 
 
 the first row of the pious chanson wUl show you more ; for- loot, where my 
 abridgment comes. " 
 
SHAKESPEARE S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 45 
 
 The last time we had Hamlet in conversation with. Polo- 
 nius, our hero spoke in parables, and in a state of cautious 
 satire and irony. He was afraid of Polonius. Eut not so 
 now. Polonius to Hamlet is an old tale twice told. Like 
 a parrot, or as Goethe says : " I will speak like a book, 
 when I am prepared beforehand; and like an ass, when I 
 utter the oTerflowings of my heart." 
 
 And nothing could express the state of Polonius better than 
 that of " a great, baby," and an old one who has arrived at 
 his second childhood. To Hamlet Polonius is nothing but 
 words, repetition, and unmeaning ceremonies. Hamlet, after 
 mocking Polonius, and. turning him into the most painful 
 ridicule, compares him to Jephthah. Now Jephthah is the 
 very incarnation of the champion of a Shibboleth, and this 
 is the likeness which Polonius and him share in common. 
 Polonius is the champion of a Shibboleth. That Shibboleth 
 is the Doctrine of the Church. Doctrine which, from the 
 end of the second century, had been accumulating error 
 upon error, and which the light, now steadily growing, 
 was showing in all its hideousness. We quote from Dr. 
 Draper as to the state of Europe before the end of the 
 Dark Ages had arrived : — 
 
 " Doctrines were considered established by the number of 
 martyrs who had professed them, by miracles, by the con- 
 fession of demons, of lunatics, or of persons possessed of evil 
 spirits : thus St. Ambrose, in his disputes with the Arians, 
 produced men possessed by devils, who, on the approach of 
 the relics of certain martyrs, acknowledged, with loud cries, 
 that the Nicean doctrine of the three persons of the Grodhead 
 was true. But the.Arians charged him with suborning these 
 witnesses with a weighty bribe. Already ordeal tribunals 
 were making their appearance. During the following six 
 centuries they were held as a final resort, for establishing 
 guilt or innocence, under the forms of trial by cold water, by 
 duel, by the fire, by the Cross." Those who require weightier 
 and more profuse evidence than this should read Buckle's 
 History of Civilization in England, where, under the head 
 of " The Origin of Historical Literature," they will find an 
 
46 hamlet; ok, 
 
 almost incredible array of the credulity wMch existed in 
 Europe barely three centuries ago. Putting ourselves once 
 more under obligations to the same source as before, we have 
 the following : — 
 
 "As the thirteenth century is approached, we find un- 
 belief in all directions setting in. First it is plainly seen 
 among the monastic orders, then it spreads rapidly among 
 the common people. Books such as the Everlasting G-ospel 
 appear among the former ; sects such as the Catharists, Wal- 
 denses, Petrobrussians, arise among the latter. They agreed 
 in this : That the public and established religion was a 
 motley system of errors and superstitions, and that the do- 
 minion which the Pope had usurped over Christians was 
 unlawful and tyrannical ; that the claim put forth by Rome, 
 that the Bishop of Rome is the supreme lord of the universe, 
 and that neither princes nor bishops, civil governors nor 
 ecclesiastical rulers, have any lawful power in Church or 
 State, but what they receive from him, is utterly without 
 foundation, and a usurpation of the rights of man." 
 
 From this digression, necessary to keep History prior to 
 the Eeformation itself before the reader's eyes, we return 
 to " Old Jephthah. " Jephthah then will Stand as a fit 
 emblem of the Eomish Church in all ages. And he, Polo- 
 nius, like Jephthah, will sacrifice the life of his daughter, 
 before he yield one iota of her tenets. His daughter, we 
 need not repeat, is the Church ; and he only loves her 
 passing- well. But how does he love her? That is the 
 question. And Hamlet tells us — 
 
 " As tigot, God knows ; " 
 
 for such is the meaning of our Poet's following words, 
 
 "As by lot, God wot." 
 
 Hamlet then points to the Players, who are his abridgments. 
 They are impelled by Hamlet, and by love of Hamlet alone. 
 The Reformers of Wittenberg are the abridgments of truth. 
 Hamlet warns, nay, threatens Polonius. The first row or 
 break out of the religious chanson or rebellion wiU teach 
 
shakespeake's philosophy of histoet. 47 
 
 Polonius more. And, lo ! liere are the first stages of it at 
 hand. The entrance of the Players is the commencement 
 and gradual consummation of the Player-scene or Interlude. 
 And to put our view on a clear footing before the reader, we 
 will take it at once in hand. 
 
 Let us consider, first, a few facts. This scene is prompted 
 and got up by Hamlet. The Players act at the request, and 
 for the especial benefit of our hero. 
 
 They represent the murder of Gonzago. "Who is Gron- 
 zago? And who is Baptista? Can we find out who is 
 Lucianus? The whole scene is one which has been sug- 
 gested to Hamlet by the Ghost. That Ghost means a suc- 
 cession of long doubts, aided by inquiry and research. 
 
 Marcellus and Bernardo, with Horatio, have inspired 
 Hamlet, and he in his turn inspires the Players, and gives 
 them the key-note in his lines beginning — "The rugged 
 Pyrrhus." 
 
 But the Player-scene is a mere summary of all their work. 
 In it we have the origin of error boldly thrown down in the 
 face of the times. The whole Interlude is a direct charge ; 
 and it is the charge which Luther brought against the 
 Romish Church. Let us try and see how Shakespeare has 
 realized this in the play? "We have an acted copy of our 
 hero's revelation received from the Ghost. And we shall first 
 lay down our own interpretation of that revelation. Doubt 
 first suggests to Hamlet with ever-increasing force, that 
 error has supplanted truth. "We have already seen from 
 whence the source of this doubt, in the first act, and that 
 doubt grows into a certainty that error has poisoned truth 
 whilst sleeping in his orchard. Let us notice how typically 
 this act of poisoning is artistically rendered — 
 
 " GTiost. . . . Sleeping -srithin mine orchaTd, 
 My custom always of the afternoon, 
 Upon my secure hour thy uncle stole, 
 Vith juice of cursed hebenon in a ^vial. 
 And in the porches of mine ear did pour 
 The leperous distilment." 
 
 Is it not through the ears of men that truth or error find 
 
48 hamlet; or, 
 
 admittance? And let us notice the poison used — "Eehenon." 
 This word is almost " non bene" literally not good, or evil, 
 "We must remember that the art of this play requires a two- 
 fold purpose : that of concealment, and that of yet keeping 
 the concealment within the bounds of discovery and the 
 spirit of rationalization. The mention of an orchard, and 
 particularly of a serpent, reminds us of the legend of the 
 Fall in the primeval Paradise of Scripture. 
 
 " Ghost Now, Hamlet, hear : 
 
 'Tis given out, that sleeping in my orchard, 
 
 A serpent stung me ; so the whole ear of Denmark 
 
 Is by a forged process of my death 
 
 Rankly abused : but know, thou noble youth, 
 
 The serpent that did sting thy father's life 
 
 Now wears his crown. 
 
 The meaning of the above may be taken as the identifica- 
 tion by our Poet of error with the whole of^he BibHcal 
 tradition of the Temptation and Fall ; or it may not be so 
 taken. But when the whole play is completely worked out, 
 we shall find not only strong reasons for so thinking, but 
 ones which admit of very 'little choice, as far as consistency 
 is concerned. To return to the point in hand. Hamlet is 
 convinced that truth has been supplanted by error — that is,. 
 by his uncle, the King. The Player-scene is a trick by 
 which Hamlet catches the conscience of the King. And 
 how does he effect this ? By showing error its own face, 
 and by pointing out how he effected his crime. Let us 
 boldly define our position. 
 
 Lucianus in the Player-scene is Luther himself. Baptista 
 is human belief, and Gronzago^ is Long-ago. The marriage 
 of Baptista and Gronzago is the pure apostolic faith in its 
 original simplicity as a scheme of benevolence ; and before 
 it began to be corrupted in the second century. That cor- 
 ruption is the effect of Lucianus. But he is only acting what 
 the King has done. And Luther did this. He pointed out what 
 the King had done, Lucianus (the break of day, translated 
 
 ' Gonzago is an anagram upon Long-ago in all but the «, which is perhaps 
 altered on purpose. 
 
SHAKESPEARE S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 49 
 
 literally), prompted by Hamlet, is pointing out artistically 
 what the King has committed. And Luther, studying the 
 Bible, pointed out how the Romish Church had poured cor- 
 ruption into the ears of a once pure and holy union. The 
 whole Player-scene, we repeat, is the act of the Reformation. 
 As Hamlet rem~arks : 
 
 "His name's Gonzago : the story is extant, and writ in choice Italian.'" 
 
 Shakespeare has taken actors as the type of true action in 
 the world. A hint which Goethe hastily seized, and repro- 
 duced in the Wilhelm Meister. And we see actually in the 
 play what consternation and what mighty results spring 
 from this small interlude. The reader not seizing our 
 stand-point, may ask why Lucianus poisons Gonzago in the 
 piece ? We reply, Lucianus is only acting, and thus imitat- 
 ing the King's crime. He is thus exposing the King. 
 Baptista is an image of the Queen, who, as Belief, has proved 
 false to her first love, and married the King. This is the 
 history of Christianity, as regards its Roman Catholic cor- 
 ruption. It has allied itself to error. After the death of 
 Gonzago, or Long-ago, Luther pointed this out, and in 
 boldly doing this he efiiected and consummated the Pro- 
 testant Reformation. But Luther, or Lucianus, and the 
 rest of the players are prompted, by Hamlet. Hamlet is 
 therefore the real cause of all this. And our hero is ac- 
 cording to us the Spirit of Truth, prompted by the Ghost 
 (Doubt), and aided by those who are part of him. The 
 whole scene is introduced " tropically," or figuratively. And 
 the murder was done in Vienna, which is another way of 
 cleverly expressing Yie, or life. No wonder Ophelia says 
 to Hamlet — 
 
 " You are as good as a chorus, my lord." 
 
 ISTow we can understand why Hamlet takes up his position 
 at Ophelia's feet. It is the Church he is most interested 
 with. Religious" reform is his business. And Polonius at 
 last has grown alarmed. 
 
 " Fol. [To the King"] 0, oh ! do you mark that P 
 
50 HAMLET ; OR, 
 
 We can now understand why Hamlet calls himself the 
 "only jig-maker" to Ophelia. The introduction of the 
 word Baptista speaks for itself. And Lucianus represents 
 not only an approximation to Luther, but in its translation, 
 his very essence — the break of day. Luther was indeed the 
 break of day, or rather we should say, the Reformation. 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 51 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 TTAYINGI- got so far in advance of our subject as regards 
 -»-^ the text, we may return to that part of the drama 
 which precedes the Interlude. And we will take the passage 
 of passages — ^the most beautiful as well as the best known of 
 aU Shakespeare's profound soliloquies. That is, " To be, or 
 not to be." "What does it mean ? To us it signifies a de- 
 termiaation on the part of man to act. And it is a recogni- 
 tion of how theology has always crippled action. 
 
 " Sam. Thus conscience does make cowards of us all ; 
 And thus tlie native hue of resolution 
 Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought, 
 And enterprises of great pith and moment 
 With this regard their currents turn awry, 
 And lose the name of action." 
 
 Immediately after this monologue, Hamlet repudiates and 
 insults Ophelia. The last time we have him with her, he 
 -simply criticizes, sighs, and leaves her. Now he abuses, and 
 tells her to " get to a nunnery." The whole of this great 
 soliloquy is the change of a passive poKcy to an active one. 
 It is the determination of persecuted and oppressed humanity 
 to have no more of it — to rise, to rebel, and to free them- 
 selves. It is the gathering thunder of the Reformation. It 
 is indeed a question of "To be, or not to be." All the 
 burthens of this world are summed up in it. Every calamity 
 which man tyranically heaps upon his fellow-man is touched 
 upon. "The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely. 
 
52 HAMLET ; ORj 
 
 the law's delay, the insolence of office, and the spurns that 
 patient merit of the unworthy takes." And what is Hamlet's 
 conclusion to all these ills? Nothing less than that they 
 are borne because man will not take arms against them; 
 and is hampered by those doubts which concern the future 
 life, and are expressed by religion. The whole soliloquy is 
 a review of two worlds : a passive one, and an active one ; 
 and it recognizes the grounds upon which the passiveness 
 rests. Every ill of man is thus put down to a want of 
 resolution. It is the dread of " something after death " 
 that " makes us rather bear those ills we have, than fly to 
 others that we know not of." " It is conscience which 
 makes cowards of us all." Our Poet knew how plastic a 
 thing conscience is, and he knew how much of it lay in the 
 hands of the Church. It is this which prevents "enter- 
 prises of great pith and moment" from becoming action. 
 And let us ask ourselves if this great masterpiece of thought 
 uttered by Hamlet has not a deep and profound meaning, 
 with regard to the unity of the whole drama ? If it has 
 not, what is its meaning ? Why is it introduced in such an 
 odd way, and at such a moment ? Hamlet, as man, at a 
 certain historical period and crisis, is deliberating upon 
 action and inaction : " Whether it is nobler to take arms 
 against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them?" 
 
 The whole piece is in exquisite harmony with the esoteric 
 and exoteric sides of the play. It is not too developed on 
 either side of art. We may take it as merely a beautiful 
 summing up of the miseries of life, and of the doubts which 
 perplex us as to an hereafter ; and thus place us on the 
 horns of a dilemma. Or, again, we may recognize through 
 its outer garb the profound identification of the ills of the 
 period, and the oppressive intolerance of the Church of 
 the age. Immediately after this soliloquy, Hamlet meets' 
 Ophelia. And we notice how changed his manners are to 
 her. His letter to her was simply one of reproach. Now 
 he wantonly insults her. Are we to conclude that he has 
 decided in his mind that it is "to be," and looks firmly 
 forwards to combat with his " arms against a sea of troubles?" 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 53 
 
 It is difficult to escape sucli a conclusion ; particularly when 
 we take into consideration the correlation of the parts of the 
 play. At the end of the second act Hamlet has decided to 
 catch the conscience of the King. This decision would 
 only be in keeping with a gradual estrangement from! 
 Ophelia. And, finally, he must arrive at a point of deter- 
 mination and action in this respect. This is the realization, 
 in our opinion, of the necessity of immediate action ; and it 
 is the first determined step of the Reformers themselves. 
 But although we have endeavoured to parallel, step by step, 
 the play with actual history, we only do so, of course (on 
 hypothesis), for the sake of clearer exposition. Shakespeare 
 was far too catholic not to express rather the philosophy of 
 history than the detail of history. "We recognize (ourselves), 
 under the mask of the Eeformation, far wider principles than 
 the mere reform of a religion. In it we see the first direct 
 recognition by men of their own ignorance, of their own 
 error, and of the delusions of the past. Thus do we read, 
 so far, the tragedy of Hamlet. Let us now take a review of 
 the first two acts. The first is a summary of the gathering 
 scepticism and the causes of that scepticism, which, like the 
 break of a dawn, dispels the darkness of the midnight of 
 past ages. The soldier in ignorance is relieved by the officer 
 with less ignorance, and he brings another in necessarily 
 with him, and they together see a Grhost. That Grhost, 
 however, is at first very uncertain — almost an 
 
 " Extravagant and erring spirit,"' 
 
 which is contrasted with the reality of the noisy cock. 
 The cock is, by his comparison with Christmas, identified 
 with certainty. 
 
 " Jfa>-. It faded on tlie crowing of the cock. 
 Some say that ever 'gainst that season comes 
 Wherein our Sariour's birth is celebrated, 
 The bird of dawning singeth all night long : 
 And then, they say, no spirit dares stir abroad ; 
 The nights are wholesome ; then no planets strike, 
 No fairy takes, nor witch hath power to charm, 
 So haUo'w'd and so gracious is the time." 
 
54 HAMLET ; OR, 
 
 Thus doubt and certainty succeed eacli other until the first 
 pale streaks of dawn begin to illumine the Dark Ages. 
 
 " Sor. But, look, the morn, in rasset mantle clad, 
 Walks o'er the dew of yon high eastward hill : 
 Break we our watch up ; and hy my advice, 
 Let us impart what we have seen to-night 
 Unto young Hamlet." 
 
 Thus the first scene of the first act is the epitome of a 
 long lapse of time, and we first hear of Hamlet at the very 
 end of it. From whom? From Marcellus, whom we can 
 well understand is most fit to find him. Let us note the ex- 
 pression, young Hamlet. The second secne introduces us to 
 the King, Queen, Hamlet, Polonius, Laertes, Yoltlmand, and 
 Cornelius. We are informed of the position of affairs by 
 the King. "We are put au courant with the pith of the 
 play. That is, the marriage of the King. A wedding 
 which Hamlet always recognizes as a source of sorrow 
 and regret. We are told how Fortinbras is 
 
 " Importing the surrender of those lands 
 Lost by his father." ^ 
 
 And Yoltimand and Cornelius are despatched to Norway to 
 aid in putting down the revolt. Voltimand^ and Cornelius 
 we suspect to be Force and Hard-heartedness. Voltimand 
 may mean to " put down revolt." And Cornelius is literally 
 " stony-hearted." Who are they sent to ? Norway. Him 
 we believe to be Wrong and Tyranny. And what signifies 
 Fortinbras? Let us remark he is nephew to Norway. Thus 
 he represents the same relation Hamlet holds to the King. 
 And we know Fortinbras is with Hamlet, as is Hamlet 
 with him. We therefore shall call Fortinbras (or strong in 
 arm) the Spirit of Liberty indispensable to the advance of 
 Truth. And though repressed at first, and put down by 
 Wrong, aided by Force and Hard-heartedness, he, never- 
 
 ' This is the first rise of liberty. 
 
 ^ The yerb mandere and volt, short for revolt probably. 
 
SHAKESPEARE S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 65 
 
 theless, ■will come in triumphant at the end of the play. 
 Error is thus making use of his tools Yoltimand and Corne- 
 lius. But they soon disappear in the development and con- 
 tinuity of the play. The times soon become too advanced 
 for their use. Thus, at the opening of the second scene of 
 the first act, the King is in autocratic and uncompromised 
 power. Hamlet is actually but just born, and even then as 
 powerless as his early youth must make him. We now hear 
 for the first time of Laertes. He is identified with Reason : 
 
 " King. . . . You cannot speak of reason to the Dane, 
 And lose your Toice." 
 
 Laertes is accordingly Education. His travels into France 
 are the gradual spread of learning, so indispensable to the 
 entire development of the play. But, owing to his 
 parentage, he always preserves a traditional and faithful 
 bias. He is true to his father's principles, though of course 
 modified by time, in question of autocracy. And he dis- 
 appears for a long time from the play.^ We shall meet him 
 again by and by. We would call attention to his name, 
 which, being connected with that of Ulysses, not inaptly 
 reminds us of his true mission — wisdom and eloquence. 
 His father only gives his leave when wrung from him : 
 
 " Fol. . . . By slow and laboursome petition." 
 
 This shows us what difficulties authority, bigotry, and tradi- 
 tion threw in the way of all learning. Hamlet now gives 
 us the key to his own character in the speech we have already 
 quoted. His uncle tries to argue him down, and persuade 
 Hamlet that he (the King) is a true father to him. In 
 short, it is the eflfort of the age to put some stop to the 
 rising and growing discontent and doubt. Hamlet is en- 
 treated not to go to Wittenberg. This immemorial spot 
 not inaptly reminds us of the direction, rise, and purport 
 
 His disappearance, like that of Fortinhras, is his silent growth. 
 
56 HAMLET ; OK, 
 
 of the Eeformation. A movement wMcli the King and 
 Queen are not slow in using all their persuasive powers to 
 prevent. The discontent, unhappiness, and misery of all 
 who recognize corruption is well personified in Hamlet's 
 first soliloquy. This is immediately followed by the action 
 and entrance of Horatio, Bernardo, and Marcellus. They 
 come to tell Hamlet of the Grhost. They, of course, come 
 from Wittenberg. This is the very head-quarters of the 
 G-host. Presently, however, Hamlet inspires the rest, for 
 he says : 
 
 "Metbinka I see my father." 
 
 And Horatio saw him once. 
 
 " Mor. I saw him once ; he was a goodly king." 
 
 Thus Hamlet acts upon the three, and they react upon 
 him in their turn. And now they first dare to exchange 
 suspicions and surmisals. The growing doubts gather 
 greater certainty, from the action and interaction of in- 
 quiry, — a growing spirit of justice and love of liberty. 
 To these must be added Bernardo, who is the very found- 
 ation-stone, as he is the slow growth of printing and 
 reading. 
 
 The third scene opens with Laertes and Ophelia. The 
 former w;arns Ophelia against encouraging Hamlet. It is 
 the warning of traditional knowledge against the Eeforming 
 schism. Polonius now enters. In the admirable precepts 
 he gives his son, we recognize much that lapplies to an 
 education kept strictly upon the lines of orthodoxy and 
 tradition. And education is not to be vulgar or common. 
 It is to be only studied by those who have costly purses. 
 How profoundly crafty and worldly-wise are these wonder- ' 
 ful instructions. As usual, we recognize in this passage the 
 marvellous profundity of Shakespeare's art. For we may 
 read it without a thought of an ulterior meaning, beyond 
 what the plain text carries upon its surface. Or we may 
 see, without any great effort of imagination, how it applies 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 57 
 
 in every detail to the principles upon which Polonius grants 
 leave to Laertes to travel. 
 
 " tol. . . . Give thy thoughts no tongue, 
 Kor any unpropcrtioned thought his act. 
 Be thou familiar, but by no means vulgar. 
 Those friends thou hast, and their adoption ti-ied. 
 Grapple them to thy soul with hoops of steel ; 
 But do not dull thy palm with entertainment 
 Of each new-hatch' d 'unfledged comrade." 
 
 In the above we have the essence of all traditional and 
 Tory principles. Education is not to be common or vulgar. 
 It is to remain faithful to its old friends and principles. 
 And it must "grapple them to its soul with hoops of steel." 
 This is all true conservatism. It is not to entertain new 
 ideas, or new-hatched doctrines and theories. It is to be- 
 ware of controversy, as carrying danger with it. And it is, 
 when so provoked, to stamp out such controversy with a 
 strong hand. 
 
 "ToL Give every man thy ear, but few thy voice ; 
 Take each man's censure, but reserve thy judgment." 
 
 Cautiousness is instilled in the above. Laertes is hardly 
 ever to be heard. Few are to hear his voice. But he is to 
 keep a sharp look out upon others. Again, fancy is a thing 
 to be repressed. And we see how much is insisted upon in 
 dress, and not in the " man " himself : 
 
 " The apparel oft proclaims the man." 
 
 Laertes is to cultivate the garb of learning, not its essence. 
 Style, bombast, and exterior, are to cover up an inner worth- 
 lessness.i Nor is he to borrow from others in any way. 
 Again, and lastly, he is to be true to himself; which means 
 true to Polonius and tradition. 
 
 Polonius now warns Ophelia against Prince Hamlet. She 
 is not to take him for sterling truth. It is the anger of the 
 
 ' At the end of the play we find this confirmed in the way Hamlet identifies 
 Laertes with diction, etc., etc. 
 
58 hamlet; oe, 
 
 Church, prompted by authority, against our hero, which is 
 
 beginuing to make itself evident. 
 
 The fourth scene opens with the entry of Hamlet, Horatio, 
 
 and Marcellus. 
 
 "Jam. The air bites shrewdly ; it is very cold. 
 Hor. It is a nipping and an eager air." 
 
 The above shows us how eager and sharp the age has grown. 
 
 Humanity are getting keen-scented, and they begin to smell 
 
 a rat. They are in a fit state to behold the Ghost. We 
 
 have travelled in time, histrionically, perhaps barely half 
 
 an hour. In time, historically, we have moved perhaps 
 
 two or three centuries since the opening of the play. It 
 
 is necessary to keep some such adequate proportions of the 
 
 requirements of time before our reader's eyes, in order that 
 
 they may endeavour to seize the right parallax of Hamlet. 
 
 The age has grown so eager, and the air bites so shrewdly, 
 
 that, with the aid of Hamlet, it takes direct umbrage for. 
 
 the first time of the " King's wake " and " wassel." And 
 
 Hamlet begins to philosophize over the wrongs of the age. 
 
 He distinctly recognizes wrong, error, etc., and points it 
 
 out to Horatio and Marcellus. The Grhost, therefore, comes 
 
 in with startling effect.^ Nothing is more likely than a 
 
 revelation : 
 
 " Sam. Thon comest in such a questionahle shape 
 That I -will speak to thee." 
 
 The rest of the first act is the detection by Hamlet of 
 his father's murder. And the necessity of secrecy, due 
 to the age, is insisted upon by Hamlet. The act ends 
 with the joint action of the friends, scholars and soldiers. 
 They go in together. The first act is an explanation and 
 the dramatic action of the causes which led first to Hamlet's 
 birth; then doubt and final certainty of the existence of 
 error in the King, and the murder of truth in his father's 
 person by the former. The first act is the birth of Hamlet 
 and his growth. The second is his growth into certainty 
 and a determination to act. The third is the centre act of 
 
 ' Goethe has poTverfully brought this out in "Wilhelm Meister. 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 59 
 
 the tragedy, and the axis of the play. In it the determina- 
 tion is effected, and its results portrayed. The fourth act 
 deals directly with the results springing from the death of 
 Polonius. The fifth act is a condensed chorus of time, and 
 the end of social conflict, as pictured by our poet. 
 
 We are now again in the second act. And as we have 
 already dealt with much of it, we will summarize the whole, 
 only dwelling on points omitted before. The act opens 
 with the means Polonius employs to keep Laertes true to his 
 parentage. It is the repression of all liberty of conscience, 
 and it is aided by the Inquisition and the " Index Expurga- 
 torius." Ophelia is profoundly criticized by Hamlet, who is 
 in prison, with gyves about his ancles. 
 
 " Oph. . . . No hat upon his head ; his stockings foul'd, 
 TJngarter'd, and down-gyved to his ancle ; 
 Pale as his shirt ; his knees knocking each other j 
 And with a look so piteous in purport 
 As if he had been loosed out of hell 
 To speak of horrors, — he comes before me." 
 
 Here we have a dreadful picture of the way heresy was 
 being punished. Hamlet has long been under the ban of 
 heresy. In the above quotation we have all the horrors of 
 heU let loose upon us. We have the Inquisition, the rack, 
 the long lingering imprisonment, with the " gyves about the 
 ancles." What was this period ? and where can we find an 
 historical parallel ? 
 
 Dr. Draper says : ^ "To withstand this flood of impiety, 
 the Papal Grovernment established two institutions : 1. The 
 Inquisition ; 2. Auricular Confession — the latter as a means 
 of detection, the former as a tribunal of punishment. In 
 general terms the commission of the Inquisition was to ex- 
 tirpate religious dissent by terrorism, and surround heresy 
 with the most horrible associations ; this necessarily implied 
 the power of determining what constitutes heresy. The 
 criterion of truth was thus in possession of this tribunal, 
 which was charged ' to discover and bring to judgment 
 heretics, lurking in towns, houses, cellars, woods, caves, and 
 
 ' History of the Conflict between Eeligion and Science. 
 
60 HAMLET ; OK, 
 
 fields,' With such savage alacrity did it carry out its object 
 of protecting the interests of religion, that between 1481 
 and 1808 it had punished three hundred and forty thousand 
 persons, and of these nearly thirty-two thousand had been burnt. 
 In its earlier days, when public opinion could find no means 
 of protesting against its atrocities, 'it often put to death 
 without appeal, on the very day that they were accused, nobles, 
 clerks, monks, hermits, and lay persons of every rank.' In 
 whatever direction thoughtful men looked, the air was full 
 of fearful shadows. No one could indulge in freedom of 
 thought without expecting punishment. So dreadful were 
 the proceedings of the Inquisition, that the exclamation of 
 Pagliarici was the exclamation of thousands : ' It is hardly 
 possible for a man to be a Christian and die in his bed.' 
 The Inquisition destroyed the sectaries of Southern France 
 in the thirteenth century. Its unscrupulous atrocities ex- 
 tirpated Protestantism in Italy and Spain. I^or did it confine 
 itself to religious affairs ; it engaged in the suppression of 
 political discontent. Nicholas Eymeric, who was Inquisitor- 
 General of the kingdom of Aragon for nearly fifty years, 
 and who died in 1399, has left a frightful statement of its 
 conduct and appalling cruelties in his ' Directorium Inquisi- 
 torum.' " 
 
 m 
 
 And again: "By the power of the fourth Later an Council, 
 A.D. 1215, the power of the Inquisition was frightfully in- 
 creased, the necessity of private confession to a priest — 
 auricular confession — being at that time established, not a 
 man was safe. In the hands of the priest, who, at the con- 
 fessional, could extract or extort from them their most secret 
 thoughts, his wife and his servants were turned into spies. 
 No accuser was named; but the thumb-screw, the stretch- 
 ing-rope, the boot, the wedge, or other enginery of torture, 
 soon supplied that defect, and, innocent or guilty, he accused 
 himself! Notwithstanding all this power, the Inquisition 
 failed of its purpose. When the heretic could no longer 
 confront it, he evaded it. A dismal disbelief stealthily per- 
 vaded all Europe — a denial of Providence, of the immor- 
 tality of the soul, of human free will, and that man cannot 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of histoky. 61 
 
 possibly resist the absolute necessity, the destiny which 
 envelopes him." 
 
 The whole of the above extract realizes the position of 
 Hamlet lip to the death of Polonius. What does the Grhost say ? 
 
 " Ghost. Mark me. 
 
 Ham. I will. 
 
 Ghost, My hour is almost come, 
 
 When I to sulphurous and tormenting flames 
 Must render up myself." 
 
 Here we have the martyrdom of those who dare to doubt — 
 heretics. Again : 
 
 " Ghost. I am thy father's spirit, 
 Doom'd for a certain term to walk the night, 
 And for the day confined to fast in fires. 
 Till the foul crimes done in my days of nature 
 Are hurnt and purged away." 
 
 So doubt is " confined to fast in fires." The stake and the 
 prison are clearly indicated here. And the " foul crimes " 
 will only be burnt and purged away when "the days of 
 nature," the apprenticeship of man, is past. So we see that 
 the fifth scene of the first act represents the beginning of 
 religious persecution — of heresy. 
 
 As regards Hamlet, we find everywhere the expression of 
 a deep misery, as deep as is compatible with his rank as 
 Prince. Especially is his first monologue of this character : 
 
 " Sam. 0, that this loo too solid flesh would melt, 
 Thaw and resolve itself into a dew ! 
 
 These are almost the words of a man under excruciating 
 torture. And again, later : 
 
 "nam. I hare of late — but wherefore I know not — lost all my mirth, for- 
 gone all custom of exercises : and indeed it goes so heavily with my disposition 
 that this goodly frame, the earth, seems to me a sterile promontory, this most 
 excellent canopy, the air, look you, this brave o'erhanging firmament, this 
 majestical roof fretted with golden fire, why, it appears no other thing to me 
 than a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours. "What a piece of work is a 
 man ! how noble in reason ! how infinite in faculty ! in form and moving how 
 express and admirable ! in action how like an angel ! in apprehension how like a 
 god ! the beauty of the world ! the paragon of animals ! And yet, to me, what is 
 this quintessence of dust ? man delights not me : no, nor woman neither, though 
 by your smiling you seem to say so." 
 
62 hamlet; or, 
 
 Here we have that profound despondency which we have 
 had historically vouched for by Dr. Draper. And now, can 
 we wonder at the description given by Ophelia of Hamlet ? 
 After Ophelia's report to her father of Hamlet's criticism 
 and inspection, Polonius goes to the King and informs him 
 of it. 
 
 The whole of the second scene of the second act is a very 
 long one. And it is the history of the growth of Hamlet's 
 determination to act. "We have (which we have already 
 treated at length) Hamlet's letter to Ophelia. We have 
 Ophelia's sequestration from Hamlet on this account. And 
 we also have the first encounter of Polonius and Hamlet. 
 The tone of the latter is hidden satire and contempt. Then 
 Eosencrantz and Guildenstern are recognized in their naked- 
 ness by Hamlet. And now we hear, for the first time, of 
 the Players. Hamlet has recognized the bigotry of Polo- 
 nius, and begun to mock him. We now reach a part of the 
 text we have hitherto left untouched. We allude to his 
 meeting with the Players. The description of the Players 
 is one which inclines us to believe these Players are not only 
 the knowledge of the age, but that they are prompted by 
 Hamlet. For Hamlet makes the first speech. And they 
 merely take up the cue he_ has given them. That cue is one 
 in which Hamlet appeals to the human heart, and gives a 
 picture of the times. At the end of his speech he says, 
 " So proceed you." We believe Hamlet is inciting the 
 Players to continue in this strain. That strain is : 
 
 "An honest method, as wholesome as sweet, and by very mnoh more handsome 
 than fine." 
 
 The whole of this piece upon Pyrrhus is but a picture of 
 the times. And Pyrrhus may stand for the Inquisition and 
 persecution of the age. 
 
 " Hath now this dread and black complexion smear'd 
 With heraldry more dismal ; head to foot 
 Now is he total gules (blood) ; horridly trick'd 
 "With blood of fathers, mothers, daughters, sous." 
 
 The persecution of the times and its horrors are admirably 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 63 
 
 painted in this classical speecli. It is profoundly subtle and 
 difficult to fathom anywhere Shakespeare's true meaning. 
 No doubt the whole of Hamlet's intercourse with the Players 
 is a summary of the causes immediately prior to the Refor- 
 mation. We recognize how powerfully the Players react 
 upon Hamlet. They alone give him direct force, to catch 
 the conscience of the King. "We could hazard a great deal 
 of speculation upon this particular part of the play ; but it 
 is undoubtedly the profoundest, and requires a study beyond 
 our time and limits. The whole speech of Hamlet and 
 the Players, taken as a whole, is infinitely touching, and 
 calculated to move the heart. It is probably an appeal from 
 Genius to the human heart, by picturing the wretched state 
 of the " mobled " Queen, and the tyranny and brutality of 
 Pyrrhus. The latter is called a " painted tyrant." The 
 word "mobled" is approved of by Polonius. Perhaps he 
 considers the Queen (who probably represents the per- 
 secuted heretics) a belief which is mob-led, or only a 
 rabble led by false principles. She runs up and down, 
 "Threatening the flames with bisson rheum." 
 
 Pyrrhus is thus undoubtedly intended to represent, and 
 is held up to scorn as, the persecution and intolerance of 
 the times. The whole piece is an appeal to the heart. The 
 Players, who are the actors in deed and in thought of 
 the Eeformation, are prompted, of course, first by Hamlet. 
 And so we find he starts the subject. This is the 
 leadership of genius. This is the work of an Erasmus. 
 The later work is that of a Luther and a Melancthon. 
 The whole speech is a history of the Eomish Church, under 
 the artistic garb of Pyrrhus. And we are told how Pyrrhus 
 " Couched in the ominous horse." 
 
 — that is, corrupted through the night of the Dark Ages, 
 has dyed his hands in blood. The old Priam, who may well 
 stand for the first and older faith before corrupted, is killed 
 by this younger birth, of 
 
 " . . . . Sable arms, 
 Black as his purpose, did the night resemble." 
 
64 HAMLET ; OK, 
 
 And then the First Player proceeds to tell us how Pyrrhus 
 
 falls upon Priam. 
 
 " Out, out, thou strumpet, Fortune ! All you gods, 
 In gaieral synod, take away her power." 
 
 This reference to "Greneral Synod" seems to further our 
 criticisms. Then we have a piteous picture of the poor 
 Queen, calculated to stir the sympathy of our hearts. This 
 we believe is the trumpet call to arms on behalf of the 
 persecuted. However, the effect upon Hamlet is profound. 
 We have the first of those long soliloquies, which are full of 
 self-upbraiding and a consciousness of weakness.'^ Our hero 
 is acted upon most powerfully. His irresolution turns into 
 determination to act. Yet we feel he can be aided in his 
 entire revenge by time alone. He is too weak to do more 
 than hope that he may grow stronger, and do what has 
 within his power. These soliloquies of Hamlet's are his- 
 torical impulses. They are the actions of epochs momentous 
 in the world's history. They are the determination of 
 mankind to take steps, fraught with danger, but also fraught 
 with safety. In this Player-scene we have the first appeal 
 by man to man before the Reformation. It is an outspoken 
 voice. And we see in the soliloquy how it lifts, how it 
 gives force and determination to the stUl weak but resolute 
 Hamlet. 
 
 Up to the end of the second act we have now arrived. 
 How little we have done to illuminate the text, we are 
 aware. For Hamlet is, as Goethe puts it : — " A trunk 
 with boughs, twigs, leaves, buds, blossoms, and fruit? Is 
 not the one there with the others, and by means of them?" 
 Nothing could express the construction of Hamlet better. 
 Every part is connected with another part. Every ante- 
 cedent has its consequent. It is in short the evolution of 
 history. A history which stops short with man's apprentice- 
 ship, and is continued by Goethe in man's travels. Law is 
 epitomized throughout the play. Nothing is spontaneous, 
 
 1 These soliloquies are dramatic expressions of action and reaction. 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 65 
 
 nothing is premature. All is orderly, and everything falls 
 into its place by the necessity of sequence. 
 
 Our great aim has been so far to throw light upon the 
 author's signification and meaning. To give force to the 
 leaves, buds, and twigs, requires a profundity on a par 
 with our Poet's alone. We leave that work to those 
 who are more fitted to the task. We must apologize for 
 the way in which the reader is taken, at one sweep, from 
 one part of the text to another part. For our purpose 
 being to suggest a Philosophy of Hamlet, we think proof 
 and connexion verified in the simplest manner more tell- 
 ing than an esoteric essay based upon a comprehension of 
 Goethe's Wilhelm Meister. Let us pass over the early 
 part of the third act, and resume our thread after the end 
 of the Player-scene. This Player-scene is of course the 
 turning-point of the play. From it almost directly all the 
 other events succeed as a matter of course. The detection 
 of error or the King is now complete. Hamlet is no longer 
 troubled by further doubts. From this moment there is a 
 schism. The King recognizes the power and the reality of 
 Hamlet. Hitherto he has almost doubted Hamlet's madness. 
 Now he is certain of it. And in this sense we mean his 
 power and his badness in the eyes of the King. To prove 
 this we will quote a speech of the King's prior to the Player- 
 scene : — 
 
 " King. Nor what he spake, though it lack'd form a little, 
 Was not like madness." 
 
 After the Player-scene we have the King saying : — 
 
 " I like him not, nor stands it safe with us 
 To let his madness range." 
 
 Again (Act iv. Sc. 1) — 
 
 "King. This mad young man.'' 
 
 From the end of the Player-scene we have a difference 
 of attitude between Hamlet and his partisans and those of 
 the King, to what we have hitherto found. Hamlet simply 
 
66 HAMLET ; OR, 
 
 defies the King. Polonius has now begun to mock Hamlet. 
 And though still accompanied by Guildenstern and Rosen- 
 crantz, Hamlet first repudiates the one, and then the other. 
 He clearly points out the nature of their characters. To 
 one he says 
 
 " Though you can fret me, yet you cannot play upon me." ' 
 
 To the other he says 
 
 " You are a ' sponge,' and soak, up the King's countenance, his rewards, his 
 authorities."^ 
 
 We must not leave out the important part Horatio has taken 
 in the Player-scene. He has been simply critical, and 
 although apparently passive, his work has been nobly shared 
 with Hamlet. He claims half a share. 
 
 "Hor. Half a share." 
 
 It is Horatio who has played the part of scholarly criticism. 
 Imbued with the spirit of Hamlet, he has supplied the 
 scholarly qualities, the earnestness, the independence of 
 spirit, and the love of justice. He is half of Hamlet, and 
 no mean part of the whole company of Players. 
 
 Hamlet supplies the instruction to the Players, which, let 
 us particularly remark, is alone that of truth. Every line 
 of his advice to the Players is to 
 
 "Hold, as 'twere, the mirror up to nature; to show virtue her own feature, 
 scorn her own image, and the very age and body of the time his form mi 
 
 This is exactly what the Reformation succeeded in doing. 
 The result was that men " scoYned her own image," and 
 followed "virtue" according to quite a new pattern, 
 
 Now let us try and follow what comes after the Player- 
 scene as regards the action alone of the tragedy. 
 
 1 This passage hrings out forcihly our theory : that Guildenstern is Sophistry, 
 and evasion of truth. 
 ^ Here we have the essence of Eosencrantz, as the self-interested alone. 
 
SHAKESPEARE S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 67 
 
 The first great result is in tlie next or fourth scene of the 
 act., Hamlet, for the first time, has a private interview 
 with his mother.^ Polonius, as usual,, given to intolerance 
 and interference, tries to prevent this conference, and in so 
 doing loses his life. The death of Polonius is the death of 
 intolerance ; it is simply liberty of conscience. "With it the 
 Eeformation is completed — not until. The Player-scene is 
 the whole of the struggle of the Reformation. The death 
 of Polonius is the comparative end of bigotry, gross super- 
 stition and interference. It is true that in some countries 
 these things have lingered on into comparatively modern 
 times. But the play is only concerned with the advanced 
 guard of Europe. The rest must follow, sooner or later, so 
 they are immaterial. Let us once more take a survey of 
 the character of Polonius. He is the bulwark and backbone 
 of the King. He is the greater part indeed in all ages of 
 the King. He is authority based upon the past, infallibility, 
 and bigotry. He is the Romish Church. He is everything 
 that is old, and that is venerated, not on account of its 
 intrinsic truth or worth, but on account of its age and its 
 fanuliarity with men's minds. As if the world had socially 
 no infancy, the adult social man would go back to his 
 childhood for instruction. Surely this is something foolish. 
 Individualism as personified by Hamlet is always at war with 
 Polonius. One is liberalism, the other we call all sorts of 
 names at dififerent ages of its decline, and we recognize also 
 its usefulness. It is the scaffolding, which keeps the struc- 
 ture firm, until it can stand by itself. "When each particle 
 is self-governed, we can remove the scaffold. And this we 
 do bit by bit. Sometimes so fast, that we have to repair 
 again what has been removed. And we call this con- 
 servative reaction. 
 
 The death of Polonius is only the death of one of the 
 King's protean forms. And Polonius, though apparently 
 
 ' The aaeea-isrit^tti-opmioif, bumftii-Wiefe- Her laarr-iageis-eiiQr in belief 
 or belie f in e rror. 
 
68 HAMLET ; OR, 
 
 dead, lingers on — in a state of corruption, it is true, but still 
 for a part of the play. It is this continuity of the play 
 which makes it so difficult to fix upon the historical parallel 
 which accompanies it. Shakespeare has clearly realized that 
 there are no broken events in history. Some may seem so, 
 from the apparent obscurity of their causes. But on second 
 inspection they vanish in their causes themselves. The 
 King and Polonius are always dying slowly, and of an 
 almost imperceptible disease. And both the King and Polo- 
 nius must not be separated. For one is the essence of the 
 other. Therefore we realize how our poet is compelled in his 
 dramatic art to give force to historical events, which have 
 occupied long periods in being brought about, by one stroke 
 of hi* pen. Such is the death of Polonius by Hamlet. Our 
 own interpretation of this climax of the play is, historically, 
 the completion and partial results of the Reformation. _ The 
 gains by man of liberty of speech, liberty of conscience, 
 and general independence of mind. It is realized in the 
 Protestant Reformation, and the freedom from Polonius 
 springing therefrom. Hamlet is always aiming at nothing 
 short but the death of the King. And,who says he never 
 acts ? Is not the death of Polonius the greatest stab Hamlet 
 can give the King ? He has actually hacked off a large part 
 of him. For he has destroyed his defence, his impregna- 
 bility, and the fortress is both sapped and mined. Time wiU 
 now blow up the wTiole edifice. 
 
 The death of Polonius is the dramatic climax and centre 
 of the tragedy. From it events take a completely new 
 direction and complexion. It leads to Hamlet's banishment. 
 Ophelia's madness is the direct offspring of it; and her 
 death follows, as a matter of necessity. The revolution of 
 Laertes is another direct consequence of the same event. 
 Let us clearly understand Polonius. Upon his life and 
 shoulders rest two institutions. These are Ophelia and 
 Laertes. The former is the very essence of Polonius. Can 
 we say more when we say Shakespeare has done mar- 
 vellously well in making her the daughter of Polonius? 
 Her claims to existence are upon the grounds of the 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of histoky. 69 
 
 validity of tradition. Her life depends upon that of her 
 father. As long as his integrity is preserved, she is safe ; 
 hut with his fall, she is open to criticism, to inspection, 
 and to discussion. This is how the death of Polonius brings 
 about the suicide of Ophelia. Laertes, on the contrary, is 
 a modified Polonius. One who is quite unable to protect 
 Ophelia. The death of his father is a thing he is bound to 
 revenge. We notice what a weak copy he is of Polonius. 
 How abortive his revolution. How soon pacified he be- 
 comes, and how he takes his- father's place as the supporter 
 of the Xing. Laertes is the continuity of Polonius in the 
 shape of Toryism, of conservatism, of reaction. The death 
 of Polonius is therefore, we take it, the end of direct inter- 
 ference. The closet-scene of Hamlet and the Queen is a 
 picture of man appealing to man's belief. The Queen we 
 identify with human belief and faith. She is the credulity 
 of the human heart, easily deceived by the King. Error 
 and belief are one. Hamlet knows this full well : — 
 
 "Sam. . .. Farewell, dear mother.. 
 King. Thy loving father, Hamlet. 
 
 Sam. My mother : father, and mother is man and wife ; man and wife is one 
 flesh; and so, my. mother."' 
 
 Error only exists by the persistency of belief. And we see 
 how particular Shakespeare is never to let us know that the 
 Quee^Jinows aught of her former husband^ murder. Hamlet 
 reproaches^ier with it,, it is true. But this is only con- 
 sistent with the exposure of error. The whole address of 
 our hero to his mother is one in which -an appeal, is made 
 to htananity by man. We see how the Queen is identified 
 with custom. 
 
 '■'■Sam. That monster, custom, who all sense doth eat. 
 Of haWts devil, is angel yet in thia, 
 That to the use of actions fair and good 
 He likewise gives a ftock or livery, 
 That aptly is put on." 
 
 And the amazement of the Queen, when Hamlet says — 
 
 "A bloody deed! almost as bad, good mother, 
 As kill a king, and marry with his brother. 
 Queen. As kill a king ! " 
 
70 hamlet; or, 
 
 — leads us to believe it is a novelty, that has never struck 
 lier with any force hitherto. For her exclamation is one 
 of amazement, and not of guilt. A little later the Queen 
 says 
 
 "What have I done, that thou darest wag thy tongue 
 In noise so rude against me p" 
 
 This does not look like the consciousness of overwhelming 
 guilt. And it takes a long time before Hamlet can make 
 an impression upon her. He Says : 
 
 " If damned custom have not brass'd it so 
 That it is proof and bulwark against sense." 
 
 He uses the word sense, not the word truth. Custom is 
 again insisted upon as the source of all the evil. 
 
 The Queen even again protests her innocence, in words 
 which seem those of perfect innocence : 
 
 " Ay me, what act, 
 That roars so loud, and thunders in the index ? " 
 
 Finally, what does Hamlet point out to the Queen ? 
 
 "Sam. . . . 0, such a deed 
 .As from the body of contraction plucks 
 The very soul, and sweet religion makes 
 -d rhapsody of words." 
 
 This is exactly what the Reformation pointed out. The 
 Romish religion is a rhapsody of words — nothing more. 
 
 Hamlet now contrasts truth with error. He pictures his 
 father. And he pictures the King. The reader may ask, 
 Who is Hamlet's father ? We answer ideal truth implanted 
 in the mind of man. It is the voice of Grod whispering to 
 us. It is ideal justice, ideal liberty, ideal truth. Impos- 
 sible quantities. The complements which separate man 
 from Grod. Not contained upon an earth,. nor in humanity; 
 but still conceived in a unity, that is divine, and as ideal 
 beacons to which we ever advance. 
 
 The Ghost of Hamlet's father is doubt. Doubt is the 
 
shakespeaee's philosophy or history. 71 
 
 complement to the next truth. For there is no absolute 
 truth for us. The ideal truth is realism. And that is God 
 alone. Doubt is therefore an active scepticism, the step 
 from one belief to a higher one. And this is the great 
 march of humanity. The truth of one age is the untruth 
 of another. And yet both were true in their way. The 
 justice of one age is not the justice of the next. Yet both 
 seem true in their respective ages. This is no contradiction, 
 not even a paradox. Absolute truth is not for man. Only 
 an eternal march towards a greater perfection. This world 
 seems almost the realization of God himself, unrolling him- 
 self in an endless march towards himself. An infinite series 
 of terms, which, like himself, are endless. 
 
 The step, therefore, to every higher truth is by doubt. 
 And the Ghost is the shadow of the father. Doubt is the 
 shadow of truth. As it fades, it leaves the truth and cer- 
 tainty in greater relief by contrast. Doubt is only a higher 
 reason. For who doubts, and why do we doubt ? Those 
 only doubt who have an ideal by which to criticize, and by 
 which to contrast what they doubt. And that ideal is in 
 itself a belief. Thus we only doubt because we believe 
 something else with a much stronger certainty than the 
 former. Doubt is thus only the son and the father of truth. 
 
 Hamlet cannot address his mother until Polonius is re- 
 moved. Therefore our poet has made the direct interference 
 of the Lord Chamberlain the cause of his own death. 
 Hamlet at first thinks he has killed the King. But the 
 King is not to be killed so easily. The King is mortally 
 wounded, but not dead yet awhile for some few centuries to 
 come. 
 
 Shakespeare has completely realized the importance of 
 Polonius as the support of the King. He has therefore 
 made his death the pivot upon which the climax of the 
 drama is reached. From this time the King suffers a series 
 of reverses. Revolution stares him in the face. He shows 
 open fear of Hamlet. He says : — 
 
 " Like to a murdering-piece, in many places 
 Gives me superfluous death." 
 
72 HAMLET ; OR, 
 
 This is exactly what the life of the King realizes after the 
 end of Polonius.' It is actually " a murdering-piece in many 
 places." 
 
 Error, superstition, hypocrisy, authority, bigotry, dark- 
 ness, are all giving way before the light of modern Europe. 
 But we must not anticipate. "We return to the Player-scene, 
 which we have endeavoured to show is an artistic parallel 
 of the Reformation. The result of this scene is the schism 
 which takes place between Ophelia and Hamlet. Xet it be 
 well noted, they never meet again until Laertes and Hamlet 
 fight over her grave. 
 
 What a marvellous difference the Player-scene has brought 
 about in the character of Hamlet ! "We notice a similar, but 
 opposite change on the King's side. Hamlet says 
 
 " Ah, ah ! Come, some music ! come, the recorders ! " 
 
 This is Shakespeare's way of expressing harmony. (See 
 " The Merchant of "Venice," and passim.) The Queen is 
 struck into " amazement and admiration." Surely, if she 
 were conscious of guilt, she would not use these words ! 
 "We maintain (though perhaps not wholly without the feel- 
 ing of some doubt) custom and ignorance are her greatest 
 faults. Belief is going at last to have an interview privately, 
 in a closet, with Hamlet. 
 
 The entrance of the players with the recorders is the 
 union of music and action, of harmony and the age ? It is 
 perhaps the first harmony heard in Europe since the Dis- 
 ciples of our Lord preached the life of righteousness. 
 
 Guildenstern ia no longer able to play upon Hamlet. 
 Sophistry cannot make what it likes of truth. The arts of 
 Guildenstern have not been able to prevent things coming 
 to this pass. And Hamlet now compares himself to a pipe, 
 — to harmony. And in this we recognize Shakespeare's 
 meaning through Hamlet. Q-uildenstern has no harmony 
 in him. He can reconcile nothing. . And this is his fault, 
 he would reconcile the impossible, and he .would play upon 
 truth. Hamlet therefore throws down his pipe, and magnifi- 
 
shakespeake's philosophy of history. 73 
 
 cently exclaims with, eyes of withering scorn and in a voice 
 of thunder : 
 
 " 'Sblood, do you think I am easier to he played on than a pipe ? Call me 
 what instrument you will, though you can fret me, yet you cannot play upon me." 
 
 Sophistry is the art of making the worse appear the 
 better. It is a direct evasion of truth by means of false 
 logic. Therefore it only frets truth. Truth is an instru- 
 ment, it cannot 
 
 " Command to any utterance of harmony." 
 
 Hamlet drives Guildenstern to own this as regards a pipe. 
 And then he applies the same argument to himself. The 
 hypocrisy of Guildenstern is. shown up and exposed for the 
 first time. And he in common with the rest of the King's 
 allies has felt a slight wound. Sophistry and hypocrisy, 
 the habit of not facing difficulties, and of deception, cannot 
 play upon truth. They do succeed for a time in keeping 
 it in the background. But the inevitable day must come 
 when it must die. Ifothing kills like open discussion and 
 ridicule. Yoltaire is the best example of this species of 
 warfare. 
 
 The result of the Player-scene is that Hamlet gathers 
 sufficient force to kill Polonius. And the Player-scene, it is 
 possible, may not express more than the criticism of Luther, 
 which leads to the Reformation. To future criticism it must 
 be left to decide, whether the end of the third act alone 
 completes the Reformation. Nothing can be plainer than 
 the recognition by Hamlet of the character of the King 
 
 " Sam. For thou dost know, Damon dear, 
 
 This realm dismantled was 
 Of JoTe himself; and now reigns here 
 
 A very, very— pajock. 
 Sor. You might have rhymed." 
 
 What will rhyme with was ? Something very like ass. 
 But we may have mistaken our poet's meaning. The way 
 Hajnlfiijaocks Polonius when- he enters is very marked. 
 
74 hamlet; or, 
 
 And Polonius is either humbly obsequious and servile, or 
 else he mocks our hero back again. 
 
 " Ham. Do you see yonder cloud that's almost in shape of a camelf 
 Pol. By the mass, and 'tis like a camel, indeed. 
 Sam. Methinks it is like a -weasel. 
 Pol. It ia backed like a weasel. 
 Sam. Or like a whale ? 
 Pol. Very like a whale. 
 
 Sam. Then I will come to my mother by and by. They fool me to the top of 
 my bent. I will come by and by." 
 
 Truth will become belief "by and by." If authority is so 
 weakened as to be mocked openly by Hamlet, and to echo 
 our hero without a significance of its own, it seems there 
 is no alternative. 
 
 The third scene is the advice of the cautious ones. They 
 are our old friends we know so much about. They are 
 instrumental to the banishment of Hamlet. They are the 
 screens between him and the King. As long as they live 
 Hamlet can efiect nothing permanent. The advice of Gruil- 
 denstern and Eosencrtotz is thus characterized by the ex- 
 pression — 
 
 " Guil. We will ourselves provide." 
 
 The fourth scene of the same act is the interview between 
 Hamlet and his mother. It is a very long one, and there- 
 fore we are justified in supposing its length to find some 
 parallel in time. It is one of great importance to the critic 
 of Hamlet. The entrance of the Ghost causes the exclama- 
 tion of Hamlet : "-ar-fci]ig--ef-Bhred«^and.-patchfis." ^ The 
 blindness of the Queen in not seeing the Ghost is a very 
 fine contrast between the Queen and Hamlet. To Hamlet^ 
 the Ghost is plain. To his mother there is nothiag— but 
 Hamlet's ^ecstasy to account for at. 
 
 Thus we see the death of Polonius is followed by another 
 stimulus. And this time it is the Ghost again. 
 
 ' Error is well expressed by patchwork. 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 75 
 
 The result of all is that the Queen has her heart " cleft 
 in twain." 
 
 , " Quern. Hamlet, thou hast cleft my heart in twain." 
 
 At last Hamlet has produced some effect upon his mother. 
 And she even asks his advice. 
 
 In this expression " cleft in twain," we have the Beforma- 
 tion completed. One side_of-her heart wiE he Protestant, 
 the other remain with the King. The Queen is belief, and 
 she is now divided by schism. Part of the Queen will be 
 now upon Hamlet's side. Finally, the whole will drink to 
 him. 
 
 "We have now arrived at the end of the third act. Up to 
 this point Hamlet has been in active occupation. Now, 
 however, we shall miss him for a time. Though not for long 
 dramatically. We must realize the meaning of his banish- 
 ment. As regards Church reform, Hamlet has done good 
 work. But in history there was to be a long pause before 
 any further important acts of Hamlet could be dramatically 
 portrayed. "We recognize Hamlet silently at work in the 
 melancholy end and wreath-making of Ophelia. We re- 
 cognize his work even in the revolution of Laertes. But 
 our poet has thought fit to consider him dead in an artistic 
 sense, as long as accompanied by Eosencrantz and Guilden- 
 stern. He has brought everything down to a state of what 
 we might term the level of Bosencrantz and Guildenstern.^ 
 Everything above them has been cut down. But they are 
 long-lived gentlemen, and Hamlet's banishment is exactly 
 the length of their lives. Our hero is got rid of to give 
 greater effect to his return. And our poet in the meanwhile 
 takes the opportunity of working out the results which 
 follow the death of Polonius. We have seen how the third 
 act is made to contain the Player-scene, the death of Polo- 
 nius resulting therefrom, and the free conversation which 
 ensues between Hamlet and his mother. It would be 
 
 ' Shakespeare has distinctly realized the long autocracy of the self-interested in 
 power. 
 
76 HAMLET ; OK, 
 
 treating the intelligent reader like a child, to seek historical 
 parallels for aU the ahove. Probahly the reader will far 
 better find the interpretation than we could give it him. 
 
 In the fourth act we hear again of Polonius. That is, of 
 his remains. And this is needful to that continuity of 
 history, and the drama, with which Shakespeare has so 
 wondrously shown us his acquaintance. The dead body 
 of Polonius is still a witness to his former power. It will 
 still linger on, until corruption shall have made it unfit for 
 the senses of men.^ It is to be hoped the reader begins to 
 see what Goethe meant when he called the play " a trunk, 
 branches, boughs, twigs, buds, and leaves." 
 
 And now in the beginning of the fourth act we have the 
 recognition by Hamlet of the character of Rosencrantz. 
 Upon that topic we have already dwelt. 
 
 " Hos. Tell us where 'tis, that we may take it thence 
 And bear it to the chapel. 
 Sam. Do not believe it." 
 
 This reference to the chapel is of course a hint that takes 
 us direct to the Church. Rosencrantz of course will keep 
 the body with the Church as long as he is Rosencrantz. 
 But Hamlet now knows the character of the courtier. He 
 sees his relg,tion to the King, and he tells him he can keep 
 both his own counsel and that of Rosencrantz. If he can 
 keep the advice of the latter, he can also keep his own. 
 Rosencrantz however is a sponge. One who does the King 
 "best service in the end." And the King is the last to 
 believe in Rosencrantz. 
 
 " Sam. He keeps them, like an ape, in the comer of his jaw ; first mouthed, 
 to he last swallowed." 
 
 R osen crantz is again the King himself. And Hamlet 
 therefore knows exac^y^what the advice of Rosencrantz is 
 worth. That advice is the advice of self-interest alone, of 
 
 ' 'We believe the allusions to the body of Polonius to be an artistic endeavour 
 to represent the gradual decay of authority. Finally, Laertes, as uFartg, takes 
 up his father's policy. 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 77 
 
 those who, having everything to gain by the emhalment 
 of what is left of Polonius, would carry him into the chapel. 
 If a change in the state of the King leaves Rosencrantz 
 barren of his countenances, his rewards, his authorities, why 
 here is a new Rosencrantz ready to soak them all up again. 
 Presently Hamlet enters, accompanied by Gruildenstern. 
 This shows us how mixed truth must be at this period of 
 the drama. Always with either both or one of these two 
 courtiers. Though we cannot help looking upon Hamlet as 
 a separate and particular Hamlet of our own, to do justice 
 to the play, we must see him only through the light of those 
 who accompany him. This makes the work of interpreta- 
 tion a multiplied difficulty ; for we are constantly interpreting 
 Hamlet's speeches as the speeches of a naked Hamlet. They 
 are not so, and we warn the student to beware of this error, 
 an error which we fear we are constantly falling uncon- 
 sciously into ourselves. Our poet has made no confusion of 
 this kind in his meaning. He is now, at the stage we have 
 arrived, showing the increasing separation of truth from 
 sophistry and hypocrisy, from that which is self-interested, 
 from that which is mere party and that which is true in 
 itself. This is part of the great continuity of the plan of 
 the tragedy. Thus the advice of Rosencrantz is almost 
 Hamlefs own advice. But Hamlet is beginning to realize 
 the great diflFerence between himself and Rosencrantz, and 
 to increase that divergence. 
 Hamlet now comes in with Gruildenstern. 
 
 " King. Now, Hamlet, where's Polonius ? 
 
 Sam. At supper. 
 
 King. At supper ! where ? 
 
 ■Sam. Not where he eats, but where he -is eaten: a certain convocation of 
 politic worms are e'en at him. Tour worm is your only emperor for diet : we 
 fat all creatures else to fat us, and we fat ourselves for maggots : your fat king 
 and your lean beggar is but variable service, two dishes, but to one table : that's 
 the end." 
 
 Public opiaion is at work upon Polonius. Public opinion 
 is an emperor for diet. And Polonius is being fast eaten 
 by a " convocation of politic worms." 
 
 HamldC is himself pointing out the danger of a too rapid 
 
78 HAMLET ; OK, 
 
 destruction of Polonius. This is our belief, for he is accom- 
 panied by Guildenstern. "We find Hamlet makes no objec- 
 tion to his banishment to England. 
 
 " Sam. Nothing but to show you \ow a king may go a progress through the 
 guts of a beggar." 
 
 The whole question is one of ""Where is Polonius?" The 
 same process which has destroyed and is destroying Polonius 
 may take a King through the guts of a beggar. No wonder 
 the King makes up his mind to banish Hamlet. Our hero 
 is too dangerous to be tolerated any further. 
 
 Historically we recognize the point at which Hamlet 
 suffers banishment. We have seen what a great impulse the 
 Reformation has given to civilization in Europe. But we 
 also recognize the slow progress of that civilization up to 
 the middle of the movement of the eighteenth century. 
 "We of the present day have only recovered but yesterday 
 from a reaction following that movement. And we have 
 even a long period from the Reformation itself, up to the 
 beginning of the eighteenth century, when the Reformation 
 underwent a second Reformation in dissent. All this is 
 pictured in the wreath-making of Ophelia. But Hamlet 
 himself only comes back after the return of Laertes. He 
 is all this while waiting for the death of Rosencrantz and 
 Guildenstern, a deed undertaken by science, and which is 
 so wonderfully paralleled in the present day. 
 
 "King. Hamlet, this deed, for thine especial safety." 
 
 The King, as we have identified him with the courtiers ' 
 and the corrupting body of Polonius, believes that the in- 
 terests of truth are bound up in the exile of truth. This 
 is expressed in the sayings, " Truth is dangerous," " A little 
 learning is a dangerous thing," and " That truth is not for 
 man." We have not arrived even yet at the day when 
 outspokenness and truth, and nothing but the truth, is 
 considered a salutary thing for humanity to practise.' Not 
 even in this wonderful age are we quite free from Rosen- 
 crantz and Guildenstern. 
 
shakespeaee's philosophy of history. 79 
 
 Let us return to the exile of Hamlet, and to the signifi- 
 cation of England. Tha^ signification we believe to be 
 science, or, as we think it, the exact sciences. "What 
 evidence have we for such an astounding assumption? 
 We see the reader smile, and we see him lay down this 
 work with good-natured incredulity. But we only ask him 
 to hear us out. 
 ^ Let us note the King's speech. 
 
 "King. . . . Therefore prepare thyself ; 
 The bark is ready, and the wind at help, 
 T/ie associates tend, and everything is bent 
 For England." 
 
 The word associates is one that belongs to science. It is 
 ambiguous of course, and by itself says nothing. But like 
 everjrthing else in this play, it is only a part of other evidence. 
 
 " Xing. And, England, if my love thou hold'st at aught — 
 As my great power thereof may give thee "sense. 
 Since yet thy cicatrice looks raw and red 
 After the Danish sword, and thy free awe 
 Pays homage to us — thou mayst not coldly set 
 Our soTereign process ; which imports at fall. 
 By letters congruing to that effect, 
 The present death of Hamlet. Do it, England; 
 For like the hectic in my blood he rages. 
 And thou must cure me : till I know 'tis done, 
 Howe'er my haps, my joys were ne'er begun." 
 
 Here two words., are to be noticed — cicatrice and present. 
 Why the present death of Hamlet ? As before, it is ambigu- 
 ous, and may mean immediate. As we are studying a play full 
 of ambiguities, we are bound to notice that the -woxA present 
 may mean a period alone. Again, why is not Hamlet banished 
 to Norway ? Why to England ? "We want to know why 
 our poet has brought a fresh locality into the play, when, if 
 it has no particular meaning, Norway would have served the 
 same purpose. Again, we have Hamlet saying, on his return 
 from exile : — 
 
 " Does it not, thinks't thee, stand me now upon — 
 He that hath kill'd my king and whored my mother, 
 Popp'd in between the election and my hopes. 
 Thrown out his angle for my proper life," etc., etc. 
 
80 hamlet; ob, 
 
 Here we have tte word angle, ambiguous, as usual; but 
 capable of expressing mathematics. The word England, let 
 it be noted, may stand for the " Land of the Angles." 
 
 To quote again : 
 
 " Sam. An earnest conjuration from the king, 
 As England was his faithful tributary, 
 As love between them like the palm might flourish, 
 As peace should still her wheaten garland wear 
 And stand a comma 'tween their amities,! 
 And many such like 'As'es of great charge." 
 
 All these " 'As'es of great charge," remind us of Euclid. We 
 would ask the reader to ask himself what causes would lead 
 alone to the deaths of Eosencrantz and Guildenstem? 
 Nothing but an inexorable necessity, such as implied in the 
 exactitude and inevitable logic of cause and effect, would 
 lead to the death of the courtiers. At the present day 
 we are beginning . to witness the results springing from 
 the inexorable logic of Science. 
 
 The necessity of no compromise in all branches of human 
 knowledge speaking for themselves as the law of God, must 
 have an immense effect upon the whole mind of man. Am- 
 biguities are rejected ; clearness, decision of outline, and 
 facts, take the place of shadows, compromise, and a habit of 
 self-deception, and sluggishness of thought. - The nature of 
 science is the nature of law. It admits of "no rejection. It is 
 iron-bound, and breaks the rash soplrist into contradictions, 
 when confronted by experiment and verification. Science is 
 making the mind of man accustomed to definite answers, to 
 definite questions. It is codifying the universe. And the 
 day will come when anything unscientific will be considered 
 as outside the realms of truth. For Science, a name dreaded 
 and execrated by the ignorant as the technical name of 
 certain branches of human learning, is nothing less than 
 Truth itself. It is the systematization of the laws of God, or, 
 as Oersted beautifully puts it, "the thoughts of God." There 
 is nothing in this wide universe outside the domain of 
 science. And science is knowledge, foreshadowing happi- 
 ness. Thought is under law; and however stupidly we 
 
shakespeake's philosophy of history. 81 
 
 may be thinking, there is a law for it contained within our 
 organism. Not a law, we should say; for laws are not 
 entities: but relations of cause and effect, which are in- 
 variable. 
 
 Our theory of the nature of England is one we shall 
 stand by. For our poet lived in an age in which England 
 was, without doubt, of all countries that in which liberty and 
 progress were far ahead of any other contemporary nation 
 of Europe. It was an age of greatness. A greatness par- 
 tially due to the great intellect of one of the most intelligent 
 of women — Elizabeth. And a greatness also due to that 
 impulse which the recent events in Europe had given to all 
 branches of learning, and thus to men's minds. It was an 
 age which abounded in men of genius. An age which, like 
 the present, was a boundary between the past and the future. 
 Behind, all was dark and unsettled ; in front, light, hope, 
 and discovery were dimly seen. But genius saw this plainer 
 than others. It was clear enough to Shakespeare. It was 
 clear even to Bacon. And who is Bacon by the side of the 
 swan of Avon ? There were others who, like Bacon, were 
 teaching Shakespeare what was the nature of induction. 
 Every great intellect' is a machine, in which chains of de- 
 duction and induction are established with greater exactitude 
 and with greater rapidity than by others. They may be 
 so rapid, so instantaneous, as to have the effect of pictures. 
 Their next to simultaneous concatenation is wrought by a 
 fervour of imagination which can alone find an outcome in 
 art. This species of intellect, which is imagination, differs 
 from the one which is content with logic, with patient 
 search, and with experiment. The former has the de- 
 ductive brain of genius, the latter the inductive one of 
 science. But both employ more or less the methods of each 
 other. 
 
 There were men who, like Copernicus, had given 
 the world a work on the revolutions of the heavenly 
 bodies, 1543. There were the discoveries of one Lipper- 
 shey, a Hollander, of the telescope, 1608. There were 
 men who, like Bruno and Galileo, were fixing men's 
 
 6 
 
82 HAMLET ; OKj 
 
 attention upon the grandeur of the universe, the insig- 
 nificance of this earth, and the falsity of the Geocentric 
 system. 
 
 All this must have found a place in Shakespeare's heart 
 and mind. A place of rejection or acceptation. A key to 
 the future and a contrast to the past, or a change in men's 
 habits of thought, which must mean something. Shake- 
 speare must have made up his mind that man knew nothing, 
 or everything. The validity of innate ideas, or an d priori 
 and intuitive knowledge underlying our consciousness, must 
 have been questioned by him at a very early age. Every- 
 where he was confronted by difference of opinion. The 
 watchword of the "World moves," was confronted by the 
 older tradition of the "World stands still." He must 
 have made up his mind to the fact that, either humanity 
 was in the earliest stage of its apprenticeship, or else that 
 it would never learn at all. We believe that figura- 
 tively and scientifically he believed the former opinion, 
 that the world moves. In Hamlet we have the social 
 movement of man. A movement which must have found 
 its origin in the mind of Shakespeare, by means of some of 
 those questions which were showing the instability of human 
 belief. 
 
 We therefore believe that the prospects and state of 
 England with regard to the Continent during Shakespeare's 
 life were such as would induce him to believe that she 
 would in the future be the leader of science in Europe. 
 And the chief reason we have to assert for this assumption 
 is the political liberty she enjoyed. Bruno had found refuge 
 in England, where he lectured. Our Poet, of course, saw 
 science and all physical or philosophical investigations, as 
 they were then ternled, would flourish alone in an atmo- 
 sphere of liberty and freedom from restraint. The great 
 freedom of our great Queen's reign must have given our 
 Poet a reason for believing that England would be ahead 
 of aU other nations in such liberty and in such freedom. 
 The development of our Constitution since Magna Charta, 
 the adoption of the comparatively free religion of Pro- 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 83 
 
 testantism, all tended to make that liberty peculiar to 
 England in the future. It was only natural then that 
 such a brain as our Poet's should from these and in- 
 numerable other causes hare forestalled the truth, and 
 made England the type of discovery in what is now 
 termed science. 
 
 We have now to trace to the text some of the results 
 of the death of Polonius. One of these is the appear- 
 ance of Fortinbras, with his forces, marching through 
 Denmark. Nothing has perplexed critics more than this 
 unexpected and apparently unconnected introduction of 
 Fortinbras.' Where does he come from? And whither is 
 he bound ? In the beginning of this work we had occasion 
 to refer to Fortinbras in the light of a chorus. Fortinbras 
 is the chorus of liberty. Everywhere repressed in the early 
 part of the tragedy, he has been in the background gain- 
 ing and accumulating, inch by inch, forces, which now 
 appear as an army, to give Hamlet a new impetus and 
 fresh reaction. Therefore we have, after the conversation 
 of the Captain with Hamlet, one of those monologues which 
 are full of the contrast derived from resolution and irre- 
 solution. These are, as we have often already observed, 
 the dramatic and artistic means by which Shakespeare 
 expresses the way in which Hamlet gains power and force. 
 Liberty acts upon Hamlet in a marvellous way. Therefore 
 Fortinbras, with his forces, sets Hamlet to work at self- 
 reproach and self- contrast. We have already traced a 
 similar result with regard to the speech of the first Player, 
 which we beKeve to be an appeal to the human heart from 
 growing knowledge. The appearance of Fortinbras is only 
 in harmony with the disappearance from the play of Yolti- 
 mand and Cornelius. The death of autocratic Polonius and 
 his gradual decay have still furthered his appearance. 
 Liberty is so indispensable to all progress, that if our Poet 
 
 ' This sudden appearance of Fortinbras is often omitted upon the stage, as 
 being out of harmony with the apparent unity of the tragedy ! 
 
84 HAMLET ; OB, 
 
 had omitted this scene, we should have felt that the most 
 important element had been left out. The sudden appear- 
 ance of Fortinbras is like a revelation, and he is wonderfully- 
 expressed in a large army. Liberty is a force. Liberty is 
 concentrated individualism warring for self, and recognizing 
 the power of union. Thus the sudden appearance of 
 Fortinbras is brought in shortly after the death of Polonius. 
 Hamlet's banishment is the freedom of thought, which, 
 becoming relegated to particular channels, is in too crude 
 a state, and in too rude a relation to men's minds, to have 
 any outward effect as yet. Hamlet employs his freedom ; and 
 he works until he has escaped Eosencrantz and Guildenstern. 
 "When they are dead, mankind are face to face with another 
 momentous epoch, and Hamlet is set naked in the kingdom. 
 Turning to the text, we find many expressions which give 
 us the key to the meaning of Fortinbras. 
 
 " Fort. Go, captain, 'from me greet tlie Danish king; 
 Tell him that, by his license, Fortinbras 
 Craves the conveyance of a promised march 
 Over his kingdom. You know the rendezvous. 
 If that his majesty would aught with us, 
 "We shall express our duty in his eye ; 
 And let him know so." 
 
 The word license is full of meaning. It is one allied to 
 Uberty, and may signify the character of Fortinbras him- 
 self, and the weakness of the King. Thus, the license of 
 liberty is expressive of its own progress. Or the license 
 of the King may mean the liberty extorted from him by 
 time. We must remember how iPforway, at the request 
 of the King's ambassadors, Yoltimand and CorneUus, 
 rebukes Fortinbras for his preparations against the King. 
 This pictures an age of oppression and tyranny, of evil and 
 force, which strangles every abortive attempt of liberty. 
 But, nevertheless, by the demand of Norway for leave "to 
 give quiet pass" to Fortinbras through the King's do- 
 minions, we infer that liberty is ostensibly checked, and 
 only gains, ground in a wholly passive way. And we are 
 furthered in this opinion by the French name of Fortinbras, 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 85 
 
 and the Frencli word rendezvous.^ As in the case of Laertes, 
 France stands for liberty, — for French leave and for free- 
 dom. France as a word signifies freedom. "We have ob- 
 served before that the relation of Fortinbras to Norway- 
 is of a similar nature to that of Hamlet and the King. 
 Both are nephews, and both are uncles. Does this not 
 suggest similarity in relationship of feeling and interests? 
 Therefore Norway should be allied with the King, and 
 Hamlet and Fortinbras to each other by community of 
 interests. We must infer Norway does his best to hamper 
 Fortinbras. The King gives no leave to the request of 
 Fortinbras for " quiet pass." 
 
 " Volt. That it might please you to give quiet pass 
 Through your dominions for this enterprise, 
 On such regards of safety and allowance 
 As therein are set down. 
 
 King. It likes us well ; 
 
 And at our more consider'd time we'll read, 
 Answer, and think upon this husiness." 
 
 Thus Shakespeare gives us no answer from the' King that 
 may be considered decisive. We therefore conclude that 
 Fortinbras takes the French leave, so well in keeping with 
 his name — force? The march of Fortinbras is probably 
 one which the King cannot possibly prevent. 
 
 Fortinbras is found in possession of the dramatic situation 
 at the end of the play. Hamlet gives him his dying voice. 
 Fortinbras comes from Poland. We believe Poland to be 
 the symbol for "many." Liberty can alone come from 
 the vox popuK. 
 
 "Enter Hamlet, Eosencrantz, Guildensteru. 
 Sam. Good sir, whose powers are these ? 
 Cap. They are of Norway, sir. 
 Ham. How purposed, sir, I pray you ? 
 Cap. Against some part of Foland." 
 
 ' We suggest that Shakespeare has employed French words to hint the 
 character of Fortinbras and his mission. 
 
 ' The name Fortinbras, literally strong-in-arm, well expresses strength and 
 force. 
 
86 HAMLET ; OK, 
 
 Nothing would be, on this hypothesis of ours, clearer than the 
 above. The powers are here because of Norway,^ and are only 
 necessary from the existence of that country. For the spirit 
 of liberty is only the antithesis of the spirit of bondage. 
 Again, nothing is plainer than that the spirit of liberty 
 has to fight against part of Poland. It is only at the end 
 that perfect liberty is summed up in the conquest of 
 Poland. Universal assent is not conflict. Our Poet has 
 well expressed his meaning in the words Poland, Polack, 
 and Pole. 
 
 *'iram. Goes it against the main of Poland, sir, 
 Or for some frontier ? 
 
 Cap, Truly to speak, and with no addition. 
 We go to gain a little patch of ground 
 That hath in it no profit hut the name. 
 To pay 6ve ducats, five, I would not farm it ; 
 Nor will it yield to Norway or the Pole 
 A ranker rate, should it be sold in fee. 
 
 Sam. Why, then the Polack neyer will defend it. 
 
 Cap. Tes, it is already garrison'd. 
 
 Sam. Two thousand souls and twenty thousand ducats 
 Will not dehate the question of this straw : 
 This is the imposthume of much wealth and peace, 
 That inward breaks, and shows no cause without 
 Why the man dies. I humbly tliank you, sir." 
 
 We are told already that Fortinbras is only going to march 
 against a part of Poland. And this part of Poland is the 
 Polack. This little patch of ground is one of those little 
 questions of liberty and right which are gained inch by 
 inch, and wrested by time from authority. It is the history 
 of progress, and thus the history of ever-gaining liberty. 
 What is the history of England, but the defence and loss of 
 little patches of ground, which in time will make up the 
 whole sum of Poland ? It has no profit but the name. Yet 
 is it vigorously defended. And if it was sold in fee (a word 
 which belongs to Feudalism), it would lose nothing to 
 "Norway or the Pole." Hamlet is astonished it should be 
 
 ' Norway seems to represent autocratic force, and repression of liberty by its 
 means. 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 87 
 
 defended. And he says, "Two thousand souls and twenty 
 thousand ducats will not debate the question of this straw " 
 (union). The word debate gives us another clue. The 
 whole question is one of debate. And so have the liberties 
 of the English people been a question of debate. All this 
 Hamlet perceives is the direct heritage of wealth and peace, 
 which silently and peacefully, like a man with a secret and 
 internal disease, "shows no cause without why the man 
 dies." So slow and insidious is this march of Fortinbras, 
 that it shows no cause "outside" or "without," as it is 
 expressed. It is the silent revolution of opinion. The slow 
 march of liberty, which creeps almost imperceptibly along, 
 and kills its enemies by a subtle but certain poison. How 
 beautifully is all this expressed ! Now Hamlet tells Eosen- 
 crantz and Gruildenstern to " go a little before." Our Poet 
 has meant all his soliloquies to be his own. They are the 
 utterances of untrammelled truth. 
 
 " Ham. How all occasions do inform against me, 
 And spur my dull revenge ! "What is a man, 
 If his chief good and market of his time 
 Be hut to sleep and feed ? a beast, no more. 
 Sure, he that made us with such large discourse, 
 Looking before and after, gave us not 
 That capability and god-like reason 
 To fust in us unused. Now, whether it be 
 Bestial oblivion, or some craven scruple 
 Of thinking too precisely on the event, 
 A thought which, quarter'd, hath but one part wisdom 
 And ever three parts coward, I do not know 
 Why yet I live to say ' This thing's to do ; ' 
 Sith I have cause and will and strength and means 
 To do't. Examples gross as earth exhort me : 
 Witness this army of such mass and charge 
 Led by a delicate and tender prince, 
 Whose spirit with divine ambition puff'd 
 Makes mouths at the invisible event. 
 Exposing what is mortal and unsure 
 To all that fortune, death and danger dare, 
 Even for an egg-shell. Eightly to be great 
 Is not to stir without great argument, 
 But greatly to find quarrel in a straw 
 When honour's at the stake. How stand I then. 
 That have a father kill'd, a mother stain'd, 
 Excitements of my reason and my blood. 
 And let all sleep ? while, to my shame, I see 
 
88 HAMLET ; OK, 
 
 The imminent death, of twenty thousand men. 
 That, for a fantasy and trick of fame, 
 Go to their graves like heds, fight for a plot 
 Whereon the numbers cannot try the cause, 
 Which is not tomb enough and continent 
 To hide the slain ? 0, from this time forth, 
 My thoughts be bloody, or be nothing worth ! " 
 
 The recognition by Hamlet of tlie use of reason is an 
 epoch in the play.^ Let it stand for itself, without further 
 comment. We would call attention to the word egg-shell. 
 The word yoke, so expressive of bondage, is by a play of 
 words (yolk) contained within an egg-shell. Fortinbras is 
 iighting to break the shell, and thus the yoke, so oppressive 
 to liberty. The last words of Hamlet are, "which is not 
 tomb enough, and continent to hide the slain." This can 
 only be applicable to the everlasting conflict of the strong 
 and the weak. The cause for which this Prince, as Hamlet 
 calls him (thus identifying himself partially), fights, is one 
 eternal in a world, where every happiness depends upon 
 physical or mental force. The struggle for liberty (not 
 alone the liberty which we understand in this day) is at the 
 bottom of aU human conflict. Money, means, power,- are 
 only instruments of procuring for us greater liberty. The 
 struggle for liberty is the struggle of individualism against 
 social individualism, and that is too often tyranny over the 
 individual. 
 
 We remark the application of the word divine to 
 Fortinbras. Is not the struggle for liberty a divine prin- 
 ciple ? Do we not desire in our earthly longing for a future 
 life to realize a divine liberty? In the early stage of 
 the tragedy we find Fortinbras making feeble and abortive 
 attempts with 
 
 " . . . . Here and there 
 Shark'd up a list of lawless resolutes. 
 For food and diet, to some enterprise 
 That hath a stomach in't ; which is no other — 
 As it doth well appear unto.our state—." 
 
 ^ It is through liberty that reason finds a fitting atmosphere to flourish in. 
 And Hamlet in using his reason silently escapes Eosencrantz and Guildenstem. 
 
shakespeake's philosophy of history. 89 
 
 We can understand the word lawless in all its meaning, as 
 regards these early and feeble attempts. What a vast 
 change has come over Fortinbras since these fiascos ! Now 
 he is a Prince, who, with a well-discipKned army, can 
 "express his duty" in the eye of the King. He can act 
 powerfully upon Hamlet. So immense is his influence upon 
 Hamlet all through the play, that we may fairly say, with- 
 out his ielp, our hero would never return to Denmark. 
 Thus it is Fortinbras rises like a pyramid in the centre of 
 the drama, giving it force and giving direction, until his 
 triumphant entry, with drums sounding, at the conclusion 
 of the tragedy.^ 
 
 ' Let it be distinctly understood, Fortinbras is silently marching all through 
 the play with Samlet. His sudden appearance illustrates this dramatically and 
 purposely. 
 
90 hamlet; or, 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 WE now leave Hamlet to tlie care of England and Fortin- 
 bras. And whilst his two enemies, £,osencrantz and 
 Gruildenstern, are being slowly killed by England, we will 
 foUow some of the legitimate consequences which follow the 
 death of Polonius. 
 
 The commencement of the fourth act shows us the sad 
 condition of Ophelia. The distinction between her madness 
 and that of Hamlet is very great. She is really mad. The 
 latter only appears to be insane. Ophelia is intended to 
 be understood as thoroughly insane. And what does ia- 
 sanity signify ? Want of coherence, want of reason, or 
 what we term loss of rationality. Thus the madness of 
 Ophelia, represents her want of reason and coherence. The 
 Queen refuses to speak with her. But at the entreaty of 
 Horatio she overcomes her scruples. Ophelia ' 
 
 " . . . . Speaks things in doubt, 
 That carry but half sense : her speech is nothing, 
 Tet the unshaped use of it doth move 
 The hearers to collection ; they aim at it, 
 And botch the words up fit to their own thoughts!' 
 
 Does not the last line contain the principle upon which all 
 
 ' It is perhaps worth calling attention to a possible, but certainly far-fetched, 
 anagram upon Ophelia's name [HOPE (Ophe) I(n) A(fter) L(ife).] 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 91 
 
 dissent is based? Is not dissent the collection of "words 
 which carry but half sense" to suit different types of 
 mind? 
 
 The death of Polonius has, of course, produced the in- 
 sanity of Ophelia. Her foundations are sapped. She carries 
 but half sense. Nothing but the theological bias, as Mr. 
 Herbert Spencer might term it, keeps her from utter ruin. 
 And the Queen refuses to allow scepticism to enter her 
 mind at first. But time, with Horatio, who is the spirit of 
 earnestness and justice, brings Ophelia to the Queen. The 
 latter, be it remembered, is human belief. Ophelia is the 
 spirit of religion. She represents, in conformity to the 
 continuity of the play, the religious beliefs of the time. 
 And now, alas! they are very sceptical. The Queen 
 seems quite reckless. She is not the Queen of the first 
 act. She has modified also her character with the de- 
 velopment of the play. If the reader does not alwaj'^s 
 try and realize the parallelism of history, he will never 
 seize Hamlet. 
 
 " Queen. To my siek soul, as sin's true nature is, 
 Eack toy seems prologue to some great amiss : 
 So full of artless jealousy is guilt, 
 It spilla itself in fearing to be spilt." 
 
 We can grasp the state of the Queen's mind. It is im- 
 pregnated with misgiving. Doubt follows doubt dramati- 
 cally. The very act of not wishing to be made sceptical 
 brings a train of scepticism with it. The defence of a 
 daughter, whose father is always decaying, is full of danger. 
 The very defence exposes faults in her character. 
 
 Ophelia now enters with Horatio. The latter seems to be 
 looking after Ophelia. And here let it be remarked, Hamlet 
 effects little unless Horatio is with him. His exile is one 
 in which he is bereft of his friend. 
 
 The songs of Ophelia are full of the profoundest meaning. 
 They are different forms and stages of religious dissent, un- 
 belief, and even materialism. Goethe has told us what her 
 chief song conveys. Doubt once entered can never depart 
 
92 hamlet; or, 
 
 again. " Never departed more." The King lias the per- 
 spicacity to see it " springs all from her father's death." 
 
 " Oph. [Sings'] How should I your true love know 
 From another one ? 
 By his cockle hat and staff, 
 And his sandal shoon." 
 
 A cockle hat is a pilgrim's hat. Is Ophelia asking how one 
 faith is to be distinguished from another one? Is it, she 
 asks, by ritual? 
 
 " Oph. Say you p nay, pray you, mark. 
 ISings] He is dead and gone, lady. 
 He is dead and gone ; 
 At his head a grass-green turf. 
 At his heels a stone. 
 Queen. Nay, hut, Ophelia, — 
 Oph. Pray you, mark. 
 [Sings] White his shroud as the mountain snow, — 
 
 Snter King. 
 Queen. Alas, look here, my lord." 
 
 The whole of the above denotes controversy and difference of 
 opinion between Church and people. It is a divorcement 
 of beliefs. The Queen proves this in expostulating with 
 Ophelia. The last and next song of Ophelia is typical of 
 controversy over Poloniils. He is authority and certainty. 
 It is polemical discussion over authority and certainty. 
 Ophelia shows great regret for her father. At the head of 
 Polonius, or in his place, everything is new, like green 
 grass."^ Everything denotes hardness of belief — stony- 
 heartedness. Belief is growing very chilly and cold. 
 ?' White his shroud as the mountain snow." The coldness 
 and far-oflp effect of snowy mountains weU. represents the 
 increasing luke-warmness and the ever-increasing distance 
 of certainty and belief in tradition. The King now enters. 
 As scepticism, she says : 
 
 " Oph. Well, God 'ild you! They say the owl was a baker's daughter. Lord, 
 we know what we are, but know not what we may be. God be at your table ! " 
 
 This seems to typify new thoughts and fresh ideas resulting from scepticism. 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 93 
 
 In the last lines, " we know what we are, but know not 
 what we may be," we read doubts as to the immortality of 
 the soul. The King says, " Conceit upon her father." The 
 question is one, indeed, of tradition ; and he may well call 
 it "conceit upon her father." The first two verses of the 
 song beginning " To-morrow is Saint Valentine's day " 
 signify increasing scepticism ; a scepticism which never 
 departs, but holds fast. They signify that once doubt has 
 entered, and that doubt religious doubt (or Ophelia), it 
 would never come out as it entered. Nothing less than 
 ruin is the result. 
 
 The next two verses are an apology for nature, and the 
 necessity of law. Can we therefore deduce our Poet's 
 meaning to be that increase of knowledge has been the 
 reason of the visit of scepticism P The King appears to be 
 ignorant how long Ophelia has been in this state — 
 
 " King. How long hath she been thus ? , 
 
 Oph. I hope all will be well. "We must be patient ; but I . cannot choose but 
 weep, to think they should lay him i' the cold ground. My brother shall know of 
 it : and so I thank you for your good counsel. Come, my coach ! Good night, 
 ladies; good night, sweet ladies ; good night, good night." 
 
 In all the above criticisms upon Ophelia, convinced as we 
 are of Ophelia's identity with the state of religious belief 
 and feeling at successive epochs of history and of the play, 
 nevertheless in all these details we only venture to suggest to 
 the reader anything which may throw light upon the buds and 
 leaves of the play. Every word is the touch of a painter. 
 We may be sure no single epithet in Ophelia's lips is without 
 meaning. In her expression, " I hope aU will be well. We 
 must be patient," we read hope for the future mixed with 
 misgiving; and in the next we read that there are many who 
 believe in either the virtue of time or the growth of other 
 violets.! Grreat regret over Polonius is a notable charac- 
 teristic. Lingering looks, hopeless and despairing efibrts to 
 bring him to life again. And the strong support of Laertes 
 
 Violets typify faith. 
 
94 HAMLET ; OE, 
 
 in these e£Ebrts is relied Tipon. Thus we have a few hints 
 which are the history of an age in itself. An age which the 
 reader must parallel for himself. 
 
 Ophelia calls her coach. This word suggests her motion, 
 and how scepticism can never stand still, but is hurried 
 along in spite of itself. "Good night, ladies," which 
 Ophelia repeats so often, we read as, "Farewell, ibelief ; fare- 
 well, sweet belief; farewell, farewell! " Women in this play, 
 of whom there are but two, seem both of the character of 
 belief. , ' 
 
 For the first time we find the King now beginning to get 
 despondent. And can we wonder that his case begins to 
 look desperate ? 
 
 "King. Follow her close; give her good watch, I pray you. 
 0, this is the poison of deep grief ; it springs 
 All from her father's death. Gertrude, Gertrude, 
 When sorrows come, they come not single spies. 
 But in battalions. First, her father slain : 
 Next, your son gone ; and he most violent author 
 Of his own just remove : the people muddied, 
 Thick and unwholesome in their thoughts and whispers, 
 For good Polonius' death ; and we have done but greenly, 
 In hugger-mugger to inter him : poor Ophelia 
 Divided from herself and her fair judgment, 
 Without the which we are pictures, or mere beasts : 
 Last, and as mmeh containing as all these. 
 Her brother is in secret come from France; 
 Feeds on his wonder, keeps himself in clouds, 
 And wants not buzzers to infect his ear 
 With pestilent speeches of his father's death ; 
 Wherein necessity, of matter beggar'd, 
 Will nothing stick our person to arraign 
 In ear and ear. my dear Gertrude, this, 
 Zike to a murdering-piece, in many places 
 Gives me superfluous death." 
 
 Nothing can excel the art, the truth, and the depth of 
 the above speech of the King. In it we read a summary of - 
 the tragedy itself, as far as we have arrived. The re- 
 cognition of the importance of Polonius by the King is 
 made manifest in every word. AH these disasters are trace- 
 able to his death. Sorrows are compared to spies. This 
 word suggests " errors," and we are thus told battalions 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 95 
 
 of spies are at the work of criticizing the King. The 
 people are muddied. This we understand as stirred up. 
 They are "thick and unwholesome in their thoughts and 
 whispers." The King regrets having buried Polonius so 
 quickly. Could he help it? Ophelia is divided from her- 
 self. The Church is divided against itself. This is the result 
 ~6f the death of. Polonius. How well does our Poet express 
 his meaning when he points out the difference between man 
 and bea^: "Without the which we are pictures, or mere 
 beasts." The soul is the great distinction between man 
 and beast. Scepticism on this point reduces us to painted 
 pictures — to mere beasts. 
 
 We are told Laertes is come from Prance. The growth 
 of learning, the spread of the Arts and Sciences, are come 
 from freedom (France) ; and he, Laertes, " feeds on his 
 wonder," "keeps himself in clouds." Does the above want 
 any interpretation? The use of wonder need not be ex- 
 patiated upon; we may say the same for its origin and 
 source — knowledge. The whole phrase is a revelation in 
 itself. 
 
 We must try and realize what Laertes has been about 
 since we last saw him depart into France. We must bear 
 in mind he has been faithful to his father. He would not be 
 his father's son, indeed, if he were not. The return of Laertes 
 is like the return of Fortinbras — dramatic. Goethe in his 
 novel has permitted every character to develope itself side by 
 side. But in a tragedy this was impossible. The, exigencies 
 of effect necessitate only striking incidents. Action, and the 
 force of destiny in respect to man's action, is the character 
 of tragedy. A tame development, belonging to sentiments 
 and feeling alone, would not be in harmony with the 
 rugged outline of the tragic drama. We can only marvel 
 how Shakespeare has managed to express the interaction of 
 so many conflicting and developing forces. We see that, 
 being occupied with the centralization and prominence of 
 Prince Hamlet alone, a due subordination was to be given 
 to all minor characters. Hamlet and the King are therefore 
 the first two of importance. They are the lions. The rest 
 
96 HAMLET ; OK, 
 
 are merely the jackals. And our feelings are with Hamlet 
 of course. He is pictured as a noble Prince, fuU of truth, 
 goodness, and perfection, struggling against enormous odds. 
 The battle is not to the swift, nor to the strong. It is one of 
 time alone. 
 
 All those points which, being indispensable to the unity of 
 the play, would obtrude and crowd more injportant eyents, 
 are subordinated with marvellous skill. 
 
 Thus the introduction of Fortinbras gives us in a brief 
 scene the expression of liberty gaining ground and stimu- 
 lating Hamlet. In like manner, the return of Laertes, in 
 the shape of revolution, is the epitomizing of the revolu- 
 tionizing effect of the spread of learning. And it is made 
 to follow the death of Polonius, and more particularly the 
 madness of Ophelia. We do not believe anything further 
 is meant in this temporary insurrection than the general 
 revolutionary effects which education and the spread of it 
 must inevitably bring about. But if the reader must seek 
 an historical parallel, let him turn to the eighteenth century, 
 when he will iind scepticism, and attacks upon the Church, 
 followed by revolution, and the enthronement of Reason. 
 A reason well expressed in the words — 
 
 " Laertes shall be king, Laertes king ! " 
 
 The death of Polonius has upset everything. Laertes 
 becomes a kind of Hamlet for a time. He is thrown off 
 his balance at the death of his father, and he seeks wildly 
 to find the King. But he has too strong a bias in him to 
 see things clearly, and he is soon enlisted once more on the 
 side of the King. 
 
 Let us once more re-assert, the King is a fiction. He 
 is only the symbol which is dramatically necessary to re- 
 present error in one character. The revolution of Laertes 
 is one then which is the direct result of a general upsetting 
 of principle. This revolution soon finds its equilibrium 
 again in an adjustment of the same parties in a more 
 modified form. 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 97 
 
 This revolution is the aufbcracy of opinion. For the first 
 time in the tragedy, we find a new power at work, and 
 brought into play. That is the power of party. The force 
 of collective humanity ; not a tyrannical Polonius, who 
 directs and spies into all things. Laertes is- backed power- 
 fully by Danes. And how entirely is the Polonius of early 
 times forgotten now ? 
 
 " Gent. Save yourself, my lord : ' 
 
 The ocean, overpeering of Ms list, 
 Eats not the flats with more impetuous haste ' 
 Than young Laertes, in a riotous head, 
 O'erbears your oflicers. The rabble call him lord ; 
 And, as the world were now but to begin. 
 Antiquity forgot, custom not known. 
 The ratifiers and props of every word, 
 They cry ' Choose we : Laertes shall be Tting : ' 
 Caps, hands, and tongues, applaud it to the clouds : 
 ' Laertes shall be king, Laertes king ! ' " i 
 
 "Antiquity forgot, custom not known." Polonius is 
 indeed forgotten, and he made a great error when he allowed 
 his son to go into France, for Laertes repudiates his own 
 father. Not dramatically, but he does so symbolically. He 
 asks for his father. He himself has been instrumental in his 
 death. But he is too blind to see this. He can see the past 
 is full of error, but the present is too close to him for self- 
 criticism. 
 
 This revolution of Laertes is a momentous epoch in the 
 play. It will take the events of the future out of the hands 
 of chance and stagnancy, and will hurry them into equi- 
 librium. The death of Polonius, in the true sense, is 
 one of those historical epochs which cannot be exactly laid 
 upon with the finger, and said to be in such and such a 
 place. We might point to a period, we might fix upon an 
 act, such as the act of toleration and of liberty of conscience. 
 But this wiU not embody the death of Polonius. It is a 
 gradual process. A process contained alone in a voluminous 
 
 ' There is no doubt that Shakespeare signifies in this passage a complete revo- 
 lution of thought. 
 
98 HAMLET ; OK, 
 
 work. One whicli shows the death of the protective spirit. 
 And one which is like the late Mr. Buckle's "History of 
 Civilization," exhaustive as far as it goes. So, in like 
 manner, it would he idleness to parallel the revolution of 
 Laertes with any particular revolution. It is the revolution 
 of thought, consequent upon the spread of knowledge, and 
 as such we prefer to leave it to other critics to embody in 
 more concrete forms. The student of the Philosophy of 
 History will allow this alone : that Shakespeare has shown 
 marvellous prescience in placing the revolution of Laertes 
 after the madness of Ophelia, and as one of the results of 
 the death of Polonius. For religion has always been the 
 chief and the main support of authority. We are but now 
 approaching an age when such a divorcement may be ex- 
 perimented upon. Our Poet has also done well in identify- 
 ing education and the spread of knowledge with the decay of 
 Polonius. For it is alone through authority and the forms 
 of tradition that knowledge has been prevented from spread- 
 ing and percolating down into the lowest strata of life. The 
 seats of all learning have been under the control of Polonius. 
 The spread of all learning has been dependent upon the 
 weakening of Polonius. Therefore to bring revolution in 
 after a lapse of the decay of that power, ip. the shape of 
 a modified form of that power, is the work of a genius alone. 
 We need not linger upon the form which knowledge takes 
 under the leadership of Laertes. We have remarked over 
 and over again, he is the true scion of Polonius, and of 
 course will be faithful to his principles and the King. We 
 now turn to Ophelia again. In this re-introduction of this 
 insane girl, we have an explanation of the form she takes 
 with regard to her brother's return and to the popular will. 
 Her scepticism acts powerfully upon Laertes. Allied as he 
 is by ties of blood and of tradition, he is bound to combat 
 every stage of her dementia, and to fight to the death the 
 cause of it.^ This, of course, is Hamlet. Laertes believes 
 
 ' The alliance of Ophelia and Laertes is not inaptly paralleled in Church and 
 State. 
 
shakespeake's philosophy of history. 99 
 
 himself in the right. He has a cause of his own, — a losing 
 game, as the end shows, — but no less a duty, and no less 
 a real and thorough one. Laertes di£Pers from his father in 
 this: whereas the former was bigoted, conceited, cunning, 
 and more in earnest about his own interests and those of 
 the King than about Truth; Laertes is in earnest, and is 
 more or less thorough. This is why Hamlet says to Horatio : 
 
 " But I am very sorry, good Horatio, 
 That to Laertes I forgot myself ; 
 For, by the image of my causey I see 
 The portraiture of his: I'll court his favours." 
 
 The cause of Laertes is to avenge a father he believes 
 foully murdered. The cause of Hamlet is to vindicate, and 
 even justify that murder. Hamlet has every intention of 
 " courting the favours " of Laertes. 
 
 The words of Ophelia are — 
 
 [Sings'] " You must sing a-down a-down, 
 An you call him a-down-a. 
 0, how the wheel becomes it ! It is the false steward, that stole his master's 
 daughter." 
 
 The above seems plain enough. Our Poet would signify 
 how fiercely the fight is carried on over the decaying body 
 and thus lasting power of Polonius. He will last a long 
 time still. Nothing is so long in dying as the traditions and 
 policy of centuries. They are, as Mr. Herbert Spencer might 
 explain to us, welded into the organism. The forms of bias 
 are not only inherited, but have been first made. Nothing 
 is so strong as long- established pressure in belief. The refer- 
 ence to the wheel suggests every side up at once. It re- 
 presents revolution, many-sided opinion. "What expresses 
 revolution better than a wheel? Is not the former name 
 coined from the latter ? 
 
 It is the false steward that stole his master's daughter. 
 This is plain infidelity. An infidelity that has abused the 
 trust it has so long kept intact. Laertes replies — 
 
 " This nothing's more than matter." 
 The above is difficult and incoherent. It is no apparent 
 
100 HAMLET ; OR, 
 
 answer. It may suggest materialism. Or it may suggest 
 the conflict between materialism and spiritualism. 
 
 Laertes says the madness of Ophelia shall be paid in 
 weight until — 
 
 " One scale turn the beam." 
 
 We see how divided society is by this expression. One 
 which shows the preponderance of Laertes. 
 
 " Oph. There's rosemary, that's for rememhrance; pray, love, remember: and 
 there is pansies, that's for thoughts. 
 Zaer. A document in madness, thoughts and remembrance fitted." 
 
 The above, we take it, signifies the efiect of the Church upon 
 Laertes. He is to remember his parentage. And he is to 
 fit his thoughts to that remembrance. Religion is thus 
 standing, with Laertes still as her support. Appeal to the 
 past theological controversy supported by Laertes, aaivice 
 versa, is thus implied. "We interpret the whole of these 
 esoteric speeches of Ophelia's to mean difierent stages in 
 the conflict between scepticism and orthodoxy. In it are con- 
 tained every manner of opinion which such a conflict would 
 bring about. 'Is not Laertes, at the present sta,ge of the 
 drama, all remembrance of his father? And his mode of 
 thinking is fitted to his mode of remembrance. He is 
 orthodox, and fights for the Church. He is thus orthodox 
 literature, defence of orthodoxy, etc. And his love for 
 Ophelia, and the alarm he feels for her state, makes him 
 more in earnest against the cause of this state. 
 
 " OpA. There's fennel for you, and columbines : there's rue for you; and here's 
 some for me : we may call it herb-grace o' Sundays : 0, you must wear your rue 
 with a difference. There's a daisy : I would give you some Tiolets, but they 
 withered all when my father died : they say he made a good end, — 
 
 [Swffsl For bonny sweet Eobin is all nvy joy." 
 
 Fennel signifies strength, worthy all praise. 
 
 Columbine, folly (plain). 
 
 Columbine, resolve to win. 
 
 Columbine (red), anxious and trembling. 
 
 Daisy, innocence. 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 101 
 
 Daisy, I share your sentiments. 
 
 Daisy, farewell. 
 
 Daisy, I'll think of you. 
 
 Kue, disdain. 
 
 Violets, faith and faithfulness,' 
 
 Now we are greatly perplexed in the choice of which 
 signification we are to apply in the multiplied meanings of 
 some of the same name-bearing flowers. Bue admits of no 
 ambiguity. Ophelia will have to suffer disdain, and so will 
 Laertes. Contempt is current of Ophelia, and also for Laertes. 
 But on Sunday there is a reprisal. An outward attendance 
 which may well be called "herb-grace o' Sundays." By 
 a daisy Ophelia perhaps signifies that Laertes and herself 
 share the same sentiments. She cannot give him any 
 violets. Faith, so well thus expressed, withered when Polo- 
 nius died. There is strength for Laertes, which is worthy 
 all praise. An essay might be written on the above passages 
 alone. Nay, a work — a great work ; for it is the history of 
 the rise and progress of rationalism in Europe. In the 
 words — 
 
 " For bonny sweet Eobin is all my joy " 
 
 — we might venture to suggest many ideas it gives rise to ; 
 but we prefer to leave it as it stands.^ We will only remark 
 as a hint that the robin is a bird connected by vulgar 
 superstition with the Crucifixion, where a drop of blood is 
 supposed to have stained its chest. Hence its general 
 immunity, in comparison with the safety of other small 
 birds. The last song of Ophelia is full of import : 
 
 " And vdll he not come again ? 
 And will he not come again ? 
 
 No, no, he is dead : 
 
 Go to thy death-hed : 
 He never will come again. 
 
 ' We insert here a few of the significations of flowers as mere suggestions. 
 ^ The reader is begged to remember we deprecate anything further than 
 Euggeetion. 
 
102 HAMLET ; OR, 
 
 His beard was as white as snow, 
 All flaxen was his poll : 
 
 He is gone, he is gone. 
 
 And we cast away moan : 
 God ha' mercy on his soul ! " 
 
 Here we have the continued appeal to the question of 
 certainty, as contained in tradition. And the result is 
 certainty will never come again. It is the expression of 
 the realization of the end of all certainty, upon religious 
 questions, which we find in this last song of Ophelia. It 
 is the finale of her madness. Nay, we are given to under- 
 stand, reconcilement is found to this death of certainty. 
 For she say« : 
 
 " H« is gone, he is gone, 
 
 And we cast away moan ; 
 God ha' mercy on his soul ! " 
 
 And in the last words which we ever hear Ophelia speak we 
 have this addendum — 
 
 " And of all Christian souls, I pray God. God be wi' ye." 
 
 Mere hope and speculation is here expressed. The whole 
 song is one which implies the death and disappearance 
 of certainty and tradition for ever. When we meet 
 Ophelia again, a long period may have elapsed since the 
 point we are concerned with now has passed. So we must 
 understand how thoroughly our Poet grasped the slow evolu- 
 tion and progress of thought, and how tenaciously Laertes 
 and Ophelia would stand by each other, and fight out every 
 inch of ground of her madness. 
 
 We now return to Hamlet once more. The first intima- 
 tion we have of him is through Horatio. And he gains his 
 tidings of our hero through the instrumentation of sailors. 
 We are sorely puzzled to find an expression for them. 
 
 " Hot. I do not know from what part of the world 
 I should be greeted, if not from Lord Hamlet." 
 
 We have hitherto considered Horatio, from all we could 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 103 
 
 gather, as the spirit of justice and scholarship, who is part 
 of Hamlet, or the spirit of truth-seeking. "We find him 
 for a time absent from his friend ; and it is during this 
 period that our hero, though silently accumulating fresh 
 force, which will presently show itself dramatically, is 
 absent also from the dramatic action of the play. Hamlet, 
 it must be remarked, never reaches England. 
 . And in this we notice again our Poet's profundity. To 
 .England is left the mere work of killing Rosencrantz and 
 Guildenstern. The banishment of Hamlet is probably meant 
 as a relegation of truth- seeking to specific branches of in- 
 quiry alone. His absence from the play is the separation of 
 these specific lines of thought, from any great work, with 
 Horatio. We mean any historical crisis, as comprehended in 
 an artistic sense. Ko doubt Hamlet has everything to do 
 with the madness of Ophelia. But our Poet has not thought 
 fit to dwell upon it. It is implied in Hamlet's forsaking that 
 unfortunate lady ; and it is implied in the death of Polonius. 
 Now after the madness of Ophelia, we feel the necessity of 
 the presence, in a dramatic sense, of Hamlet once more. The 
 sea adventures of Hamlet are, in our mind, expressive of that 
 pause, of that reaction and misgiving, which separates an 
 age of certainty from an age of doubt. Hamlet is literally 
 and truly at sea. And we shall have cause to find, further 
 on, great probability of this being the truth. The Pirate 
 who captures Hamlet, and thus saves his life, may be Dis- 
 covery. That discovery may necessitate the assistance of 
 Horatio. And a crisis may return the banished Hamlet 
 as naked for the first time. The reader may naturally 
 ask, why Hamlet does not proceed to England, find some 
 mode of killing Rosencrantz and Gruildenstern, and then, 
 having enlisted England upon his side, return with an army 
 to Denmark? But we have not reached a point advanced 
 enough for this. England is as yet far too young and too 
 weak to Tenture openly against the King. Besides, our Poet 
 leaves England only to come in as a power at the end of the 
 play. The whole being the apprenticeship of man, and not 
 his travels, would be spoilt by making England too auto- 
 
104 
 
 HAMLET ; OR, 
 
 cratic, and allied too soon to Hamlet.^ Sufficient that Eng- 
 land kills slowly Rosencrantz and Gruildenstern. In this 
 she plays an important part on Hamlet's side. She does him 
 the best service she possibly can. And his escape from the 
 two courtiers may be expressed well by the boldness of a 
 Pirate. A pirate is lawless and undaunted. Therefore 
 Hamlet, by the force of genius and of discovery, may be 
 returned naked to Denmark — 
 
 "Sor. \_Eeada] Horatio, when thou shalt have OTerlooked this, give these 
 fellows some means to the king : they have letters for him. Ere we were two 
 days old at sea, a pirate of Very warlike appointment gave us chase. Finding 
 ourselves too slow of sail, we put on a compelled valour, and in the grapple I 
 hoarded them : on the instant they got clear of our ship ; so I alone hecame their 
 prisoner. They have dealt with me like thieves of mercy : hut they knew what 
 they did ; I am to do a good turn for them. Let the king have the letters I have 
 sent ; and repair thou to me with as much speed as thou wouldst fly death. I have 
 words to speak in thine ear will make thee dumb ; yet are they much too light 
 for the bore of the matter. These good fellows will bring thee, where I am. 
 Eosencrantz and Guildenstern hold their course for England : of them I have 
 much to tell thee. Farewell. 
 
 He that thou knowest thine, Hamlet." 
 
 "We are dealing with a text which bears directly upon the 
 escape of Hamlet from the two courtiers. And Horatio is 
 the first to hear of it, and to repair to him. It is through 
 Horatio the King receives the letter of Hamlet. It is only 
 through Horatio that Truth is once more in the ascendant. 
 And that Truth itself has first to react upon the spirit of 
 justice, of earnestness, and inquiry. The King soon hears 
 of it. 
 
 The sailors are truths themselves. They are the advanced 
 guards of Hamlet. And they soon carry Hamlet's letter to 
 the King. 
 
 This letter we have already commented upon. It is 
 a dramatic and artistic signification of the bare truth, and 
 
 ' Goethe, in his novel, says ; " All these circumstances and events (alluding 
 amongst others to the despatch of Hamlet into England, his capture by pirates, 
 the death of the two courtiers by the letter which they carry, etc.) would be very 
 fit for expanding and lengthening a novel ; but here they injure excessively the 
 unity of the piece, particularly as the hero has no plan, and are in consequence 
 entirely out of place." 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 105 
 
 nothing but the truth. The reader will understand us. 
 The spirit of truth-seeking has thrown off its shackles. It 
 is openly above board; it is direct to its point. It has 
 neither equivocation nor shadow of turning. In freeing 
 itself, it has confined the King. In proportion as the King 
 is weakened, so Hamlet is strengthened. And this is the 
 structure of the whole tragedy. 
 
 Hamlet has but one opponent now. That is Laertes. 
 The King is contained in Laertes, and the latter in the 
 former. And Hamlet knows it too. The King and Queen 
 are belief in error and error in belief. They are fictions. 
 
 " King. . . . The queen his mother 
 Lives almost by his looks ;- and for myself — 
 My -virtue or my plague, be it either which — 
 She's so cotijuneiive to my life and soul. 
 That, as the star moves not but in his sphere, 
 I could not but by her." 
 
 Thus we understand the relation of the King and Queen. 
 They are one. They may both die, and yet we shall find 
 no contradiction nor difficulty. 
 
 Now we must ask ourselves what is this union of Laertes 
 and the King ? "We believe it to be the union of literature, 
 and thus learning, against Hamlet. It is a union which has 
 probably either a false method or a false criterion of things. 
 To define it were absurd. "We would call the reader's 
 attention to the Norman, who makes such masterly report of 
 Laertes. This Laniond we identify with Lamonde, or the 
 world. Presently we shall find him to be identical with Osric. 
 
 " Laer. Know you the hand ? 
 King. 'Tis Hamlet's character. 'Naked!' 
 
 And in a postscript here, he says ' alone.' 
 Can you advise me f " 
 
 The King, we see, relies upon Laertes. He asks him for his 
 advice. And the answer of Laertes is full of point : 
 
 " I'm lost in it, my lord. But let him come ; 
 It warms the very sickness in my heart, 
 That I shall live and tell him to his teeth, 
 ' Thus diUest thou.' " 
 
106 HAMLET ; OR, 
 
 Laertes is naturally much stirred up at the advent of a 
 naked Hamlet. All his father's blood is roused in him. 
 He is indeed buried or lost in it. We shall now find out 
 what accomplishments Laertes has been acquiring since his 
 travels. Those are — 
 
 " For art and exercise in your defence." 
 
 Thus we see Laertes is full of defence. His position is one 
 that is passive. He defends: Hamlet attacks. How per- 
 fectly is the whole continuity of the tragedy expressed in 
 the following extract : 
 
 " Kinff. Not that I think you did not love your father j 
 JBut that I know love is begun by time ; 
 And that I see, in passages of proof. 
 Time qualifies the spark and fire of it. 
 There lives within the very flame of love 
 A kind of wick or snuff that will abate it ; ' 
 And nothing is at a like goodness still ; 
 For goodness, grovring to a pleurisy, 
 Dies in his own too much : that we would do, 
 We should do when we would ; for this ' would ' changes 
 And hath abatements and delays as many 
 As there are tongues, are hands, are accidents ; 
 And then this 'should' is like a spendthrift sigh, 
 That hurts by easing. But, to the quick o' the ulcer : — 
 Hamlet comes back : what would you undertake. 
 To show yourself your father's son in deed 
 More than in words ? 
 
 Zaer. To cut his throat i' the church." 
 
 In the appeal of the King to Laertes we have the 
 words, "your father's son." In this expression the reader 
 needs no further explanation concerning Laertes. He 
 sees he is a modified Polonius, allied to the King by 
 identity of interest and historical association. We would 
 call attention to the metaphysical nature of the King's 
 speech. It is almost a psychological one. It is profound, 
 and putting aside all reference to our subject, shows 
 clearly how Shakespeare recognized the nature of law in 
 the human mind. "We see he recognizes that the msh 
 
 ' The whole of this passage, and this line in particular, seems to indicate 
 modification of the principles of Polonius. 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of histoky. 107 
 
 to do a thing changes, and is not dependent on ourselves. 
 And the power of doing it depends upon the wish to do a 
 thing. Therefore the power of doing anything (volition) is 
 a thing which is the result of something we mistake for 
 originality. "We mistake the consciousness of consciousness, 
 to be not alone a symbol of consciousness, but an entity, by 
 which we fancy we have some occult power. What we wish 
 we think. But that very wish is under law, and is the result 
 of antecedents; but as the symbol of self-consciousness ac- 
 companies all thought, we labour under the pleasing delusion 
 of separating effect into cause, the knowledge of thought 
 into will or the resultant of thought.^ 
 
 To return to the play. The King clearly recognizes the 
 great change which has been effected in things. He dreads its 
 effect also in changing Laertes any farther than he has already. 
 His speech is a conservative re-action. It is alarm at the 
 already rapid change, and self-argument, and self-reproach, 
 to excite himself and Laertes against any further innovation. 
 
 The Queen now comes in to inform the King and Laertes 
 of the death of Ophelia. There is a continuity of Ophelia 
 as in Polonius. We can never say when they either exactly 
 die. Their influence is so indefinite, and both will have 
 adherents to such a length of time, that to bury them 
 straight off is an error of the grossest kind. We must 
 therefore temper the wind to the shorn lamb. 
 
 " Quem. One woe dotli tread upon another's heel, 
 So fast they follow : your sister's drown'd, Laertes. 
 
 Zaer. Drown'd ! 0, where ? 
 
 Queen. There is a willow grows aslant a brook, 
 That shows hia hoar leaves in the glassy stream ; 
 There with fantastic garlands did she come 
 Of crow-flowers, nettles, daisies, and long purples 
 That liberal shepherds give a grosser name. 
 But our cold maids do dead men's fingers call them : 
 There, on the pendent boughs her coronet weeds 
 Clambering to hang, an envious sliver broke ; 
 
 ' It is perhaps worth suggesting that this dualism we all feel is due perhaps to 
 the amcessive character of thought. We cannot criticize a present thought, only 
 a pait one. 
 
108 HAMLET ; OK, 
 
 When down her weedy trophies and herself 
 
 Fell in the weeping brook. Her clothes spread wide ; 
 
 And, mermaid-like, awhile they bore her up ; 
 
 ■Which time she chanted snatches of old tunes ; 
 
 As one incapable of her own distress, 
 
 Or like a creature native and indued 
 
 Unto that element : but long it could not be, 
 
 Till that her garments, heavy with their drink, 
 
 PuU'd the poor wretch from her melodious lay 
 
 To muddy death." 
 
 We are about to examine our crucial test of the text in 
 relation to Ophelia. If we cannot rationalize this excerpt, 
 all we have done goes for nothing. 
 
 To begin. The willow, and in this case the water- willow, 
 signifies freedom and liberty. Running water is significant 
 of instability — "unstable as water." The two together, 
 namely, willow, which grows aslant, and the brook, are 
 the freedom and liberty of progress, and vice versa. Ophelia 
 expressed a state of sad scepticism, incoherence, and divi- 
 sion from herself, prior to her death. Nothing is more 
 natural than that these signs of thp times should be the 
 result of willow and water. And, of course, they in- 
 crease. It is natural she should make fantastic garlands. 
 "We have met her before with straws (unions), as dissent 
 and church associations, and flowers in her hair. She is, in 
 fact, full of sentiment. "We have her now hanging these 
 fantastic garlands upon the tree of liberty. But the tree 
 of liberty has its foundations laid over a brook. Of course 
 this is an insecure spot to hang garlands upon. What are 
 her garlands made of? "Long stings of conscience," 
 which others laugh at. Long pricks of remorse, which are 
 laughed at by cold maids as the efiect of the impress of 
 things with no longer any life in them. Nettles are slander, 
 in concert or union. The crow-flower may be the crow's-foot. 
 If so, it is "Justice shall be done." Daisies are "Farewell," 
 or "Sharing of sentiments." The application of these senti- 
 ments is of course left to the reader's choice. Climbing to 
 hang this fantastic garland, the tree of liberty breaks, and 
 casts her into the brook. Change is thus typified in this fall. 
 Her " weedy trophies " are thus cast into the brook. And 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 109 
 
 thougli her clothes keep Ophelia afloat for a time, and though 
 she chants snatches of old songs, nevertheless she is finally- 
 drowned. How beautifully is all this rendered by our Poet. 
 The snatches of old songs are expressive of a stiU lingering 
 but expiring ritual and faith. The expression " muddy 
 death " is full of truth. Every thing stirred up from the very 
 bottom, or foundations, is thus well rendered. Laertes says : 
 
 " Too much of water hast thou, poor Ophelia." 
 
 He means that constant change of opinion, many diversities 
 of thought, have divided the house against itself. A remark 
 which is very applicable indeed to the present day. The 
 dramatic death of Ophelia, like the dramatic death of 
 Polonius, is not, however, her end. Ever bearing in mind 
 that continuity, which we are always insisting upon, we find 
 even after her death and burial the King saying : 
 
 " This graye shall have a living monument." 
 
 Even over the grave of Ophelia the fiercest fight is waged 
 between Hamlet and Laertes. 
 
 And now we may perhaps be allowed to look back and 
 see what the four acts have done for our hypothesis, and 
 whether there is any contradiction which, meeting us, 
 may be finally reconciled. "We will therefore take the play 
 in a pure relation of action, and of action in its relation to 
 cause and effect alone. And we shall refrain from in any 
 way making allusion to history. Lelt us suppose our Poet 
 to have contemplated the construction of a tragedy, which 
 was to form the subject of the conflict of Truth and Error. 
 We might almost not be going too far to say Good and Evil, 
 80 far as results are concerned. For Hamlet gives us the 
 impression of goodness. And the King gives us the 
 opposite one of evil. The result of the tragedy in such a 
 case might seem pessimistic. One in which destiny or fate 
 overwhelmed good and evil indiscriminately. But we hope 
 to clear this up by and by, and show how purely optimistic 
 the whole tragedy is in its conclusion. 
 
 Shakespeare contemplating his idea of the conflict of 
 
110 HAMLET', OK, 
 
 humanity, would first embody two characters to represent 
 the two ideas of Truth and Error in totality. All the rest 
 would be but so many followers, so many qualities, of these 
 two central figures. The latter must be in importance before 
 their inferiors. Therefore the one in possession has been 
 made a King, the one out of possession a Prince. He had to 
 make the relative importance of each character in harmony 
 with their order of time and their order of importance to 
 the central figure to which they belonged. Thus Hamlet 
 is the central figure on the side of truth. He is contained 
 by all his adherents. On the other side, we have the King, 
 who, being in possession, is wedded to human belief — the 
 Queen. In the next order of relative importance to the 
 King comes Polonius, who contains Ophelia and Laertes. 
 After Polonius, Voltimand and Cornelius ; next Rosencrantz 
 and Guildenstem; and lastly Osric. AH these characters 
 would have to be more or less moulded, so as to suit the 
 continuity of the action of the drama. And nothing could 
 have been more admirable than to make Truth a Prince and 
 a rightful heir to the throne, which is in possession of error 
 and injustice. But here must have arrived a difficulty. 
 How express the error of the King ? How express his 
 wrongful possession ? And how express Hamlet's right to 
 the throne ? 
 
 It is easy to reply, as we have the play before us. Simply, 
 our Poet made the King the perpetrator of a great crime. 
 In this is his evil nature. That crime is only unfolded by 
 time and by the detectives who set to work to scent it out. 
 And it added no little to the impressiveness of the play, and 
 to its ingenuity of construction, to make the murdered man, 
 as a Ghost, participate in the discovery ! And here was a 
 grand union possible. The father of truth is doubt. Error 
 had murdered doubt, by certainty of belief, by union with 
 custom ; whilst doubt was still asleep in the minds of men. 
 Thus we have a magnificent conception already laid down 
 in its skeleton form. But Hamlet is the son of doubt, and 
 by that claim has a just right to the usurped throne. The 
 discovery of this right, and the struggle to put it in force, 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. Ill 
 
 is the action of the tragedy. So far so good. But how 
 is Hamlet to prove, dramatically, the King's guilt? By 
 an introduction alone of the revelations of doubts, contrasted 
 face to face with guilt. To show how the crime of the 
 King had been committed, was to show error its own face, 
 to expose it, and to show how it became error. In a mind 
 like Shakespeare's the rest of the work was easy. To make 
 support after support of the King fall before Hamlet, and 
 to make Hamlet proportionally stronger, was indispensable. 
 To make the groundwork one of time was also necessary of 
 course. And to work the interest up to the point of dis- 
 covery was dramatically necessary. After this the final 
 catastrophe is brought bit by bit nearer and nearer. The 
 play is so built upon the interdependence of antecedent 
 and consequent, so under law, that it cannot fail to represent 
 history, if the action is only considered. We see why 
 Laertes and Ophelia are made the children of Polonius. 
 We see that they depend upon him entirely. They take 
 their very roots from out of him. And we see the absolute 
 necessity of it being so. An able lawyer could make a case 
 of Hamlet, which would defy contradiction. The action, 
 the text, the succession, and the continuity, are so inter- 
 woven as to make anything of it but a philosophy of history 
 an absolute impossibility. 
 
 The first act would necessarily be one in which the first 
 rumours of a suspicious nature are made the subject of the 
 opening scene. Doubt upon doubt, by means of those, to 
 whom doubt is accessible, go towards making a Hamlet. 
 The second act would be an assemblage of all those 
 scenes, which make the presence of a Hamlet and his 
 suspicions uncomfortable to the King, through his repre- 
 sentatives. Polonius is reached through Ophelia. The 
 King through Polonius. The natures of the King's re- 
 presentatives are examined by Hamlet. They grow more 
 and more offended at this scrutiny. They are gradually 
 recognized by Hamlet. At this juncture, the means by 
 which Hamlet may show error its own face, and how it 
 became so, is furnished by the arrival of certain Players. 
 
112 HAMLET ; OR, 
 
 These Players are prompted by Hamlet. The result is a 
 scene in which truth recognizes and exposes the usurpation 
 and crime of the King. 
 
 After this there is no further fencing. All is open war- 
 fare. As if by accident, the first bulwark of the King dies. 
 His death is made the opportunity of a division in the 
 King's camp. For the Queen is able to listen to Hamlet's 
 discourse touching the character of her husband. The 
 result of the death of the King's right-hand man is a great 
 change in the character of that right-hand man's daughter. 
 And, lastly, Hamlet is so dangerous that all prudent people 
 think his banishment an indispensable thing. But another 
 result of the death- of Polonius is the return of his son, to 
 avenge his father's death. In this way our Poet has con- 
 tinued Polonius in his son. This son is a party, — a very 
 large party, — allied by ties of blood to Ophelia, and bound 
 to remain by his parent. Hamlet all this time has been 
 steadily working, and at last succeeds in getting rid of 
 another two of the King's supports. He returns, strange 
 to say, alone, yet stronger naked than, when clothed. So 
 dangerous is he in this nude state, that the King and Laertes 
 plan together to oppose him by fraud and trickery. Here 
 we have arrived at the end of the fourth act. At this point 
 we have dissension and scepticism in Church matters or 
 religion, dissent, general unbelief, contained in the death of 
 Ophelia. 
 
shakespeake's philosophy of history. 113 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 WE are now at the most interesting part of the tragedy. 
 "We are about to discuss the famous churchyard scene. 
 A scene so pathetic, so touching, and so solemnly striking, 
 that we feel at once it is unparalleled in all literature. It has 
 formed, indeed, a literature of its own. We feel how sublime, 
 how magnificent, is this contrast of life and death. How 
 deep, how profoundly inquisitive the mind which conceived 
 it ! Life and death are well contrasted by the light and 
 shade of the clowns and death. It is painted by one who 
 loved efiect, yet knew how to deepen the tones, and blend 
 the whole into an exquisite unity. But with all this we 
 have nothing to do ; we are architects who seek the prin- 
 ciples of construction, the relation of architecture to thought, 
 and we pass on with the knife of a dissector to the heart 
 of the structure. Whatever we suggest here, as hypo- 
 thesis of/ the meaning of this scene, is our own, and ours 
 alone. We claim it particularly as a discovery. Goethe 
 has nothing to say of it. Valuable even as the Wilhelm 
 Meister's apprenticeship is to those who have already solved 
 Hamlet for themselves, it contains nothing about this 
 famous scene. At any rate we have no hint, no clue. 
 If contained, it is part of the story, part of that detail 
 which is found in Goethe's novel, not in Hamlet. And 
 now, what is Goethe's novel? It would not be inappro- 
 priate to say here a few words concerning it. It is the 
 apprenticeship of humanity in life and their travels. That 
 
114 HAMLET ; OE, 
 
 is to say, tlie first part is the development of Hamlet in 
 detail, often by means of Hamlet. The travels take up 
 the story where Hamlet leaves off. Goethe, of course, 
 plagiarized from Hamlet. He felt most likely he would 
 further his own genius and his fame better by a work of 
 art, than by plain exegesis of Hamlet. Exactitude is 
 required in the latter. Obscurity of vision may be sup- 
 plemented' by obscurity, or originality. And it was a 
 grand conception to astonish futurity, first by an explana- 
 tion of our Poet's spiritual unity, and secondly by a 
 philosophy of progress and history of his own upon the same 
 subject. Thus the two are blended — Hamlet and man's 
 travels. The novel is Groethe's prose conception of Shake- 
 speare's Hamlet, and of a Hamlet of his own. How much 
 is Shakespeare's is of course contained in the whole idea. 
 But how much is in accordance with Hamlet, and how 
 much out of accordance, is another thing. Perhaps, 
 first, we must firmly decide in our own minds what Hamlet 
 exactly realizes. And that we believe posterity will not find 
 a difficult task. A knowledge of Goethe's novel, "Wilhelm 
 Meister, wiU. not assist much to the solution of Hamlet. 
 Witness in proof of this, that even the Germans have not 
 given us a solution of Hamlet. Dr. Gervinus says the 
 whole of Hamlet has been treated exhaustively by Goethe. 
 Has it, we ask? And if so, where is the key to Goethe's 
 novel ? In England it is amusing to hear and read the 
 everlasting quotation from Goethe about Hamlet, in order 
 to explain his irresolution : " Here is an oak planted in a 
 vase, its roots strike out and expand. The vase flies to 
 pieces," etc. This is all that is ever- gathered from Goethe. 
 Of course we see what Goethe meant. The expansion of 
 Hamlet is an expansion which bursts the vase, made of 
 King and company, to atoms. But it is not explained in 
 this light by the general run of critics. Hamlet is constitu- 
 tional history. 
 
 Hitherto we have assumed a deduction of our own. Then 
 we haye endeavoured to substantiate by induction, as far as 
 induction can be wedded to the text and to its connexion. 
 
shakespeake's philosophy or history. 115 
 
 Our deduction is boldly the following. The whole of this 
 churchyard scene is a condensed chorus of time. Time and 
 Progress, as clowns, epitomize much of that revolution which 
 would interfere with the dramatic limits of the tragedy, if 
 carried into actual detail:. What do we mean? the reader 
 asks. We reply that Shakespeare has given us, in this 
 churchyard scene, a continuation of the action of the drama 
 as hitherto. The difference is, however^ great, with one 
 clown as Time and the other as Progress, a number of 
 skulls can be dug up in a shorter period than if carried on 
 as hitherto. 
 
 Time and Progress root up old institutions, and dig graves 
 for existing ones. Hamlet and Horatio soliloquize over this 
 strange scene. 
 
 Does the reader follow us ? If he sees our drift, does he 
 believe it? No — we answer for him. But we are never- 
 theless ready to stake everything upon the truth of this 
 hypothesis. 
 
 Let us review some of the facts which make such an idea 
 defensible. Hamlet having come back to Denmark naked, 
 and having no opponent but Laertes, and his mad or dying 
 sister, has things very much his own way. Not entirely, 
 but of course the result must be one implying considerable 
 reform and rearrangement in the institutions, opinions, and 
 relations of men. Accompanied by Horatio, he would, of 
 course, be at one with Laertes upon all but fundamental 
 points. Those points being the character and sentiments 
 of Polonius. There would be a sameness in all these re- 
 forms, and a tameness not indispensable to dramatic time 
 and effect. But they must be represented in some manner. 
 This scene is the short and striking way our great Shake- 
 speare has solved the problem. Let us' examine the 
 characters first ^f^ the clown s. They are metjtphysical, 
 argumentative, and^_satirical. It has been well said, 
 '^othing^ kills like ridicule." Discussion, satire, and phi- 
 losophy, working by Time, are represented in these two 
 clowns. We briefly call one Progress, and the other 
 Time. They are burying Ophelia. That is, Christianity 
 
116 HAMLET ; OR, 
 
 is slowly being sapped and put to bed by tbese jovial gentle- 
 men.' 
 
 The first discussion is about Ophelia. 
 
 "Is she to be buried in Christian burial that wilfully seeks her own 
 salvation?" 
 
 And the answer from Time is 
 
 " She is The crowner hath sat on her, and finds it Christian burial." 
 
 The repetition of " Christian burial " leaves us no doubt, 
 when taken in connexion with Ophelia.^ The death of 
 Ophelia may have meant astage alone in the decay of the 
 Chin'ch. It may have meant decadence and disestablishment, 
 perhaps more — we will not venture to say. But now we 
 have no equivocation. Our Poet has occupied so much time 
 with the madness, death, burial and end of Ophelia, that we 
 feel sure he realized the prominence, the length of time, 
 and the slowness of the events which lead to her end and 
 burial. 
 
 The above quotation seems to us the following : I tell thee 
 she is, therefore make her grave immediately ; the owners 
 (crowner) have sat on her, and find it her end. 
 
 " First Glo. How can that be, unless she drown§d herself in her own defence ? 
 Sec. Glo. Why, 'tis found so." 
 
 This is exactly the case. Ophelia has drowned herself in 
 her own defence, and "'tis found so." In the constant 
 change accomplished in the act of drowning, Ophelia has 
 destroyed herself. 
 
 " Mrst Glo. It must be ' se offendendo.' " 
 In this we read. It must be the end end of it. 
 
 ' We have no hesitation in asserting that the proofs of this are beyond dispu- 
 tation. Goethe has identified Ophelia with Aurelia, and the latter is the Church. 
 
 * We can realize the profound art of Shakespeare in thus obsourely discussing 
 his meaning by means of a question of suicide. 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 117 
 
 The metaphysical discussions which follow show the 
 philosophical and dialectic nature of the age. Indeed, 
 Hamlet says : 
 
 " '. We must speak by the card, or equivocation will undo us. By 
 
 the Lord, Horatio, these three years I have taken a note of it ; the age is grown 
 so picked-that the toe of the peasant comes so near the heel of the courtier, he 
 gaUs his kibe." 
 
 We understand what this means. Kosencrantz and Guild- 
 enstern are dying all this time. It is an age of rigor- 
 ous logic, of exactitude, of minute search, and of less and 
 less trifling with words, and of a closer application of their 
 meaning to facts, to induction, to cause and efiect. 
 
 " Mrst do. For here lies the point : if I drown myself wittingly, it argues an 
 act: and an act hath three branches ; it is, to act, to do, to perform: argal, she 
 drowned herself wittingly. 
 
 See. Clo. Nay, but hear you, goodman delver, — 
 
 First Clo. Give me leave. Here- lies the water ; good : here stands the man ; 
 good : if the man go to this water,, and drown himself, it is, will he, nill he, he 
 goes, — mark you that ; but if the water come to him and drown him, he drowns 
 not himself : argal, he that is not guilty of his own death shortens not his own 
 life." 
 
 The above, in our opinion, is a discussion over the nature 
 of will and law — of necessity and free will. It is a dis- 
 cussion over time and the gradual recognition of law in the 
 mind of man. For, as the Clown says, here lies the point, 
 or as we read it, here is the contradiction — does man^o 
 to change^ or does change come to him ? An act is to do 
 and to perform. Therefore Ophelia drowned herself wit- 
 tingly or consciously. She did it spontaneously. This 
 (mark) is the first decision of the Clown. But a little later 
 he has blended the contradiction into the following. 
 
 Change is contradictory. If man changes his opinion, 
 it is because he cannot help it, "it is will he, nill he, he 
 goes." And if change comes to him and changes him, he 
 is^otresponsible for his change. Therefore it is altogether 
 out of his own hands. As the Second Clown asks — 
 
 " Sec. Clo. But is this law ? (''' "" ' 
 
 First Clo. Ay, marry, is't ; crowner's quest law." 
 
118 hamlet; oe, 
 
 Thus are we let into the secret of the gradual recognition 
 of law overlying the domain of thought. Various as the 
 interpretation and clearness with which the above may be 
 fought over by critics, the main point is evident : it is a 
 discussion of whether man can help changing or not. We 
 mean, of course, his beliefs. The conclusion is, we cannot. 
 For change comes to him, and he goes to change; and neither 
 are aught but antecedent and consequent. An antecedent 
 and consequent traceable back to the first cause. Over 
 which 
 
 ' There's a diTinity ttat shapes our ends, 
 Eough-hew them how we will." 
 
 "We do not need to go into this discussion any further. 
 
 To those who recognize that man is part of nature, and 
 that nature is under law, there is no escape from the con- 
 clusion — man is under law. And, indeed, it is impossible 
 to realize man not under law. It is impossible to realize 
 anything outside the chain of cause and effect. And even the 
 conception of a Grod not under law is no conception. It is a 
 negation. 
 
 "We now will give our reasons for considering the Second 
 Clown in the light of Time. 
 
 " First Oh. Go, get thee to Yaughan : fetch me a stoup of liquor." 
 
 This word Yaughan is peculiar. It spells any augh{t). 
 From this we are inclined to think it may mean "any 
 cipher," " Go, get thee to any cipher." Literally, let time 
 multiply itself. Thus the chorus of Time going to Yaughan 
 allows the First Clown to uproot all sorts of institutions, and 
 reform them. We have first Politics, then the Court, next the 
 Law. And Hamlet says : 
 
 " Here's fine revolution, an we had the trick to see 't. Did these hones cost no 
 more the hreeding, hut to play at loggats with 'em ? " 
 
shakespeake's philosophy of history. 119 
 
 Loggafs may be the artistic and obscure for logic. The 
 First Clown digs and sings : 
 
 "In youth, when I did love, did love, 
 
 Methought it was very sweet, 
 To contract, 0, the time, for, ah, my hehove, 
 0, methought, there was nothing meet." 
 
 Presently he resumes — 
 
 " But age,jwith his stealing steps. 
 Hath claw'd me in his clutch. 
 And hath shipped me intil the land, 
 As if I had never heen such.^ 
 
 IThrows up a skull.] 
 
 In the first Terse we have evidence of a contract. " It was 
 very sweet to contract." There was nothing meet or fit for 
 the time or times. And this contract and unfitness of the 
 times was in the youth of the Clown, or of man's apprentice- 
 ship. The sum total of our interpretation of this verse is — 
 Man recognizes by_ means of his, changes the reality of 
 progress. He sees that in early ages everything was a 
 contract, only fit for such an age. Presently, however, 
 Time, who is gone to Yaughan, alters him, as if he had no 
 relation with his former state. There is little, doubt this 
 First Clown is an epitome of progress over a long period 
 of time. The early discussion of the two Clowns is one 
 respecting history, law, and the Bible. Ridicule is cast 
 upon the latter in the reference to Adam. When the First 
 Clown seizes his spade, he says : 
 
 " First Clo. There is no ancient gentlemen but gardeners, ditchers, and grave- 
 makers : they hold up Adam's profession. 
 
 See. Qlo. Was he a gentleman p 
 
 First Clo. He was the first that ever bore arms. 
 
 Sec. Clo. Why, he had none. . 
 
 First Clo. What, art a heathen ? How dost thou understand the Scripture ? 
 The Scripture says ' Adam digged : ' could he dig without arms ? " 
 
 In the above there is direct satire and contradiction . 
 
 "First Clo. I'll put another question to thee; if thou answerest not to the 
 purpose, confess thyself — 
 Sec. Clo. Go to." 
 
120 HAMLET ; OR, 
 
 In this reply of the Second Clown, " Go to," we recognize 
 the esoteric character of that Clown. It is " To go," — that 
 is, Time.^ 
 
 Presently "we have the entrance of Hamlet and Horatio. 
 They only enter when the Second Clown has begun his 
 march to Yaughan. And there they stand by, and criticize 
 whilst the First Clown throws up skulls. Let us take the 
 great key of the play, given us in the following : ^ 
 
 "Sam. How long hast thou been a grave-maker ? 
 
 First Glo. Of all the days i' the year, I came to't that day that our last hing 
 Samlet overcame [sometimes o'ercame'] Fortinhras. 
 
 Sam. How long is that since ? 
 
 First Glo. Cannot you tell that ? every fool can tell that : it was that very day 
 that young Samlet was born ; he that is mad, and sent into England. 
 
 Sam. Ay, marry, why was he sent into England ? 
 
 First Olo. "Why, because he was mad: he shall recover his wits there; or, if he 
 do not, it's no great matter there.. 
 
 Sam. Why? 
 
 First Clo. 'Twill not be seen in him there ; there the men are as mad as he. 
 
 Sam. How came he mad? 
 
 First Clo. Very strangely, they say. 
 
 Sam. How strangely ? 
 
 First Olo. Faith e'en with losing his wits. 
 
 Sam. Upon what ground ? 
 
 First Clo. Why, here in Denmark: I have been sexton here, man and boy, 
 thirty years." 
 
 We have quoted here the very key of the tragedy. 
 If we fail to give a plain answer and to rationalize the 
 above in harmony with the whole of our conception, we 
 have only to apologize for throwing the reader's time away. 
 But if we can make the above as clear as we have the fore- 
 going part of the tragedy, and if, in addition, we can. 
 rationalize it and harmonize it to our interpretation, then 
 we think our case made out, inasmuch as we have solved the 
 unity of idea in Hamlet. 
 
 1 We have omitted -the chief key to the signification of the Second Clown. 
 We find in this scene reference to the gallows, in connexion with this Clown. 
 This we believe to be symbolic for Time by a play upon words (all-ows). In 
 " Love's Labour's Lost " we find "five thousand years" termed " a shrewd un- 
 happy gallows too " (Act V. Sc. 2). 
 
 ^ We believe Shakespeare has purposely given us a key to the tragedy here. 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 121 
 
 What are the coincidences which strike us in the above 
 conversation between the First Clown and Hamlet ? They 
 are three in number, and consist in an identity of origin 
 or commencement. They are mutually interdependent. 
 What are they? First, "the overcoming of Fortinbras" 
 by the "last King Hamlet." Second, the beginning of 
 the grave-making profession of the First Clown. Third, 
 the birth of Hamlet. These three events are all started 
 at one time.^ To find the unity of this contemporary rela- 
 tionship is to solve the problem. 
 
 We have called Hamlet the spirit of truth-seeking. We 
 have called the First Clown, for the sake of brevity, Pro- 
 gress. Fortinbras, we have said, is the spirit of liberty. 
 Therefore the origin of Progress, and all that Progress 
 implies in its grave-digging profession, would be begun on 
 that day the spirit of truth-seeking was born, and vice verm. 
 They are identical and interdependent. The first criticism, 
 the first doubt, is identical with the first alteration — it is 
 the same. And it is the same day that doubt begat (or 
 o'ercame) or became (as we understand it) the spirit of 
 liberty. Truth, Liberty, Progress, are all born at the same 
 moment. They are all coheirs, and all^co-partners. To 
 recapitulate. Progress only commences when the spirit of 
 doubt becomes the spirit of liberty, and they both are iden- 
 tical with the spirit of truth-seeking. 
 
 Every fool can tell when Fortinbras was overcome, or 
 when the "last king o'ercame Fortinbras." On that day 
 Hamlet was born.^ 
 
 The reference to England, and the men being " as mad as 
 he" there, strengthens our hypothesis upon the scientific 
 character of that country. " 'Twill not be seen in .him 
 
 ' Hamlet is Progress itself. The First Clown is an artistic and mere dramatic 
 double to Hamlet. Shakespeare is clearly laughing at us when he says " Cannot 
 you tell that P every fool can tell that." Hamlet is thus marvellously turned in 
 upon himself. 
 
 ' Hamlet and Fortinhras are part of each other. The Clown is also Hamlet 
 himself. 
 
122 
 
 hamlet; or, 
 
 there." And why ? Because they all think the same way as 
 Hamlet. The Clown cannot say why Hamlet is mad, or 
 how he became mad. But we can understand how England 
 signifies the exact sciences, which gradually kill Rosencrantz 
 and GuUdenstern, and are as mad as Hamlet. 
 
 Let us define our position. In this scene Shakespeare has 
 given us progress of great length and great import. 
 Hamlet and Horatio are actually studying that progress. 
 They ask questions from it. The answers they get are 
 interpretations of Hamlet himself. They recognize, for the 
 first time, their own history. Hamlet learns, for the first 
 time, from the First Clown, when he was born, why he 
 was banished, etc., etc.^ And, getting satisfactory answers, 
 he questions still further. He studies how long beliefs are 
 credited upon this earth. And this leads him to study the whole 
 of history. The result is the repudiation of all history as 
 a standard or criterion of truth. In this scene our Poet has 
 pictured criticism of every kind, extending over the past; 
 and historical criticism particularly. The scene opens with 
 metaphysical or philosophical discussion over Ophelia. It 
 leads to the question, whether the burial of Ophelia is to be 
 the end of Ophelia or not P Time and progress decide in the 
 affirmative. Next comes the nature of progress itself — is it 
 under law or not P And again the answer is, Yes. Next we 
 have the entry of Hamlet and Horatio, who begin to 
 observe and comment over the Second CloWH's doings. This 
 is the study of progress. From this study Hamlet gets 
 direct answers. Those answers are the history of himself — 
 of man in his apprenticeship — of Hamlet's origin and de- 
 velopment. Marvellously our Poet has turned Hamlet in 
 upon himself. And by this means he gives us a key to com- 
 parative criticism of every kind. It is paralleled in the 
 literature of to-day. 
 
 Lastly, Hamlet takes up Yorick's skull. Yorick is the 
 
 ' Hamlet is actually studying himself. The First Clown and himself are one ; 
 only different dramatic aspects of the same meaning. Thus Hamlet is learning 
 the nature of the rise and growth of Process, or himself, from Progress itself. 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 123 
 
 King's jester. He is history. And Hamlet, criticizing 
 *him, represents criticism of history. Finally, Hamlet 
 throws down Yorick's skull. In so doing our Poet signi- 
 fies the repudiation of all past history as a criterion or 
 standard of truth. The word Yorick is a compound of 
 two words, critic and history — ory, ick. And, indeed, 
 who could be termed better the King's jester than history? 
 For it makes in the end all error a jest for time to laugh 
 at. Whilst at the same time error in history has much 
 on its side to laugh at. History is indeed the King's 
 Jester. It laughs at the King, whilst at the same time the 
 ^ingjaughs mockingly through its means. Is not history 
 a "fellow of infinite jest"? History indeed laughs at all 
 things. Can we employ language adequate to such a con- 
 ception ? No.- A silent awe is more in keeping, when we 
 unfold the conceptions of a mind which was the epitome of 
 aU humanity before, now, and for ever ! Again, how true 
 is it history has borne Hamlet a thousand times on his back ! 
 And how true, too, it has drowned progress often in blood ! 
 As we read, he "poured a flagon of Rhenish on my head once." 
 It would be out of place to philosophize or make comments 
 upon theTragedy and our Poet's genius here. It speaks 
 for itself. We are occupied with unfolding the play alone. 
 To proceed, or rather return : 
 
 "Sam. I will speak to this fellow. Whose grave's this, sirrah ? 
 First Clo. Mine, sir. 
 
 [Singa\ 0, a pit of clay for to he made 
 For such a guest is meet." 
 
 Hamlet has here just commenced to study this Clown, who 
 is Change and Progress. The -lines of the Clown express his 
 work. With pickaxe he rootsji^^skulls. With that pick- 
 axe criticism,__diseussion, philosophical- -andr-metapbysical, 
 and with the chorus of his co-mate Time, he saps, ^iUs, 
 b uries, and winds in a shrouding-sheet the past t houghts, 
 the past beliefs, institutions and contracts^ men. What 
 a clown is this, who kills with ridicule ! What a genius 
 was that man, who, in the sixteenth century, could peer 
 into the book of futurity ! Who dares say he knows more 
 
124 HAMLET ; OB, 
 
 of the present, aye tlie future, than 'William Shakespeare ? 
 And his statue stands at last for the first time in the 
 capital of that country he called his own. 
 
 " Sam. I think it be thine, indeed; for thou liest in't. 
 
 First Clo. Tou lie out on't, sir, and therefore it is not yours v for my part 
 I do not lie in't, andyet it is miiie. 
 
 Ham. Thou dost lie in't, to be in't and say it is thine : 'tis for the dead, not 
 for the quick ; therefore thou liest. 
 
 First Clo. 'Tis a quick lie, sir ; 'twill away again, from me to you." 
 
 How plain is all the ahove by the light of our interpretation ! 
 How the contradictions, which seem mere verhal quibbles of 
 wit, vanish beneath the profundity of the spiritual meaning ! 
 The Clown calls the grave he is digging-" mine^ ATi4,it 
 is his, for it is the result of change^ or progress. And 
 Hamlet tells him he lies in it. Hamlet is, be it remembered, 
 studying the Philosophy of History. And progress, at first 
 sight, seems to lie unremittingly and constantly. But the 
 Clown announces a paradox. He lies not, and yet it is his 
 grave. Progress seems to lie, yet it does not. Progress 
 has a law, which Hamlet is trying to grasp. It is a quick 
 lie which wiU away from Hamlet to the Clown, and from the 
 Clown to Hamlet.' For Hamlet plays a great part in this lie 
 of progress. As the Clown remarks : " Tou lie out on't, sir." 
 But Hamlet thinks this clown Change only digs for the past, 
 for the dead. The further study of the subject teaches man, ' 
 or Hamlet, that it is a quicklie, a living lie, which is exist- 
 ing, andalways going forwards. 
 
 Hamlet has grasped the nature of Progress. Again, 
 " woman," throughout Hamlet, means belief: 
 
 " Sam. What man dost thou dig it for ? 
 
 Clo. For no man, sir. 
 
 Sam. What woman, then P 
 
 Clo. For none, neither. 
 
 Sam. Who is to be buried in 't ? 
 
 Clo. One that was a woman, sir ; but, rest her soul, she's dead." 
 
 It was a belief, but the belief is dead. 
 
 ' Here again Shakespeare is laughing at us. Hamlet and the Clown are one. 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 125 
 
 There is a continuity and development, as in the rest of 
 the play, throughout this famous scene. The whole scene is 
 a study of man by man. That study is a study of sociology. 
 Anticipating Mr. Herbert Spencer, anticipating Mill, and all 
 the modern students of historical law, — Shakespeare has 
 divined its existence three centuries ago. Let us notice 
 one thing. The order of revolution : Politics first ; the 
 Court next, or, we should say, the kingly office, probably; 
 and then the Law. Again, the study of man by himself 
 is fuU of apparent contradictions, and these our Poet has 
 expressed. The first solution is a recognition of social law ; 
 the next, a deep study of the past, or of Hamlet by him- 
 self In this Hamlet, or man, recognizes the unity of 
 progress, liberty, and truth. And this leads, of course, to 
 repudiation of history as a standard for aught but the 
 finding of law itself. 
 
 Time is indispensable to all this. So we have the intro- 
 duction of Time, and his unrolling as he gets to Yaughan. 
 
 Let us note how Yorick's skull is made to turn up last, and 
 how it has lain twenty-three years in the ground, and yet 
 preserved. Who is a tanner ? He keeps out water or change 
 a long time. Is he a curer of skins (of sins) ? Is religion the 
 longest human institution to survive change ? How applicable 
 to all times are the words : 
 
 "First Clo. V faith if he he not rotten before he die— as we have many pocky 
 corses now-a-days, that will scarce hold the laying in." 
 
 How beautifully is every fantastic theory, the thoughts of 
 every day, the butterfly literature of an hour, here expressed ! 
 Hamlet's speech about Alexander cannot be better dwelt 
 upon than by a quotation to be found in the late Mr. Buckle's 
 "Posthumous Works": "You remember that wonderful scene 
 in the churchyard, when Hamlet walks in among the graves, 
 where the brutal and ignorant Clowns are singing, and jeering, 
 and jesting over the remains of the dead. You remember 
 how the fine imagination of the great Danish thinker is 
 stirred by the spectacle, albeit he knows not yet that the 
 grave which is being dug at his feet is destined to contain all 
 
126 HAMLET ; OK, 
 
 that he holds dear upon earth. But though he wists not of 
 this, he is moved like the great German poet ; and he, like 
 Goethe, takes up a skull, and his speculative faculties begin 
 to work. Images of decay crowd on his mind as he thinks 
 how the mighty are fallen, and have passed away. In a 
 moment, his imagination carries him back two thousand 
 years, and he almost believes that the skull he holds in his 
 hand is indeed the skull of Alexander; and in his mind's 
 eye he contrasts the putrid bone with what it once contained, 
 the brain of the scourge and conqueror of mankind. Then it 
 is that suddenly he, like Goethe, passes into an ideal physical 
 world, and seizing the great doctrine of the indestructibility 
 of matter, that doctrine which in his age it was difficult to 
 grasp, he begins to show how, by a long series of successive 
 changes, the head of Alexander might have been made to' 
 subserve the most ignoble purposes ; the substance being 
 always metamorphosed, never destroyed. ' Why,' asks 
 Hamlet, ' why may not imagination trace the noble dust of 
 Alexander ? ' "When, just as he is about to pursue this train 
 of ideas, he is stopped by one of those men of facts, one of 
 those practical and prosaic natures, who are always ready 
 to impede the flight of Genius. By his side stands the 
 faithful, the affectionate, but the narrow-minded Horatio, 
 who, looking upon all this as the dream of a distempered 
 fancy, objects that ' 'Twere to consider too curiously to 
 consider so.' 0, what a picture ! what a contrast between 
 Hamlet and Horatio; between the idea and the sense; 
 between the imagination and the understanding. ' 'Twere 
 to consider too curiously to consider so.' " 
 
 Indeed all thinkers are convinced that this play of Hamlet 
 is a history of humanity, an idealized philosophy of history. 
 Every day this opinion is growing on us, and it only re- 
 quires time to develope it most perfectly. Presently we 
 have the entrance of the funeral party. The Priest says 
 of- Ophelia, "Her death was doubtful." Here, again, we 
 read the cause of Ophelia's death — scepticism. The intro- 
 duction of the burial party, and the fight over Ophelia's 
 grave between Hamlet and Laertes, signify one more, and 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 127 
 
 the final controversy of humanity over Ophelia. It is the 
 end of Christianity as a creed. Perhaps it is more. But 
 we venture no comments upon that subject. Laertes is even 
 resigned. Hamlet is sorry, nay, deeply grieved. 
 
 " Queen. Anon, as patient as the female dove 
 When that her golden couplets are disclosed, 
 His silence will sit drooping." 
 
 His couplets are disclosed, and his silence will sit drooping. 
 Hamlet has been the cause of all this. But still he is sorry, 
 very sorry, over his own work. We find that, according 
 to our Poet, " bell and burial are brought home." All this 
 part of the play is such pure prophecy — belongs so much 
 to the future — that we feel the great responsibility" of 
 hazarding any uncertain criticisms upon it. Hitherto we 
 have found plenty of historical and contemporary parallelism. 
 From henceforward we are plunged into futurity. Never- 
 theless, there is much here we cannot be mistaken about. 
 We feel that in this fight over Ophelia's grave there is 
 more concerned than the end of a particular form of belief. 
 It is true, "violets may spring from her fair and unpolluted 
 flesh" (violets = faith). But in those references to the 
 Titans, and their efibrts to scale the heavens, we read a 
 profound meaning. 
 
 " Zaer. Now pile your dust upon the quick and dead, 
 TiU of this flat a mountain you have made, 
 To o'ertop old Pelion, or the skyish head 
 Of blue Olympus." 
 
 Again — 
 
 "Sam And, if thou prate of mountains, let them throw 
 
 Millions of acres on us, till our ground. 
 Singeing his pate against the burning zone, 
 Make Ossa like a wart ! Nay, an thou'lt mouth, 
 I'll rant as well as thou." 
 
 Our interpretation of the above passages are the efibrts of 
 Hamlet and Laertes to scale the heavens. The reader will 
 understand us. Man is making in the above every exertion 
 to pierce that veil which hangs between mind and the 
 
128 HAMLET ; OE, 
 
 absolute. But in vain. No positive knowledge can ever 
 be gained upon such a subject. 
 
 The attack of Laertes upon Hamlet is in keeping with 
 the subject of it. Hamlet bears it quietly, even passively. 
 Laertes can do him no harm. And Hamlet wisely recog- 
 nizes that Laertes must have his day out : 
 
 "Sam But it is no matter ; 
 
 Let Hercules himself do what he may, 
 
 The cat will mew and dog will have his day." 
 
 How well Laertes is expressed as a dog ! He barks at 
 everything Hamlet does. And like a cat, he is treacherous 
 and spiteful. Hercules may do what he will, and Hercules 
 is Hamlet; but still the scratching and barking will and 
 must have their day. How perfectly did out Poet recognize 
 the true character of the controversy, which would accom- 
 pany the death of Ophelia, and the slow advance of man's 
 progress. 
 
 This is the last we hear of religion in the tragedy. We 
 have the hope of Laertes that violets, or faith, may spring 
 from Ophelia's dead body. And we have the testimony of 
 the King that the grave of Ophelia shall have a living monu- 
 ment. In these words we comprehend the good Ophelia has 
 effected. How she has given man a system of ethics, ideal 
 it is true, but a noble one, based upon the scientific and 
 true foundations of the utilitarian relations of man to man. 
 It is for the future to show the relation existing between 
 the optimism of Ophelia and the divine plan of Evolution. 
 
 We would here go back to Alexander, and make a sugges- 
 tion, which seems not unworthy of note. Alexander may 
 perhaps be taken to represent the kingly office. An office fitly 
 represented by one of its greatest occupants. And the words 
 of Hamlet may signify the decay of that office into a mere 
 symbol, a mere cork, that might "patch a wall" "to keep the 
 wind away." We think beautiful as Mr. Buckle's idea seems, 
 it is rather far-fetched. For it is out of connexion with 
 the criticism of Yorick's skuU. And nothing would be more 
 in keeping with that criticism than to follow it up with the 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 129 
 
 decadence of royalty. And we read in the words of Hamlet 
 a continuity, to which we have called attention throughout 
 the play. We may say of Polonius or Ophelia, as Hamlet 
 says of Alexander — 
 
 " Sam. To what base uses we may return, Horatio! Why may not imagination 
 trace the noble dust of Alexander, tiU he find it stopping a bung-hole ? 
 Mor. 'Twere to consider too curiously, to consider so. 
 
 S'am. No, faith, not a jot ; but to follow him thither with modesty enough, 
 and likelihood to lead it: as thus : Alexander died, Alexander was buried, Alexander 
 retitrneth into dust ; the dust is earth ; of earth we mahe ham : and why of that 
 ham, whereto he was converted, might they not stop a Beer-barrel ? 
 Imperious Csesar, dead and tuin'd to clay, 
 Might stop a hole to keep the wind away : 
 0, that that earth, which kept the world in awe, 
 Should patch a wall to expel the winter's flaw ! " 
 
 The depreciation and contrast of the possible destiny of 
 two of the mightiest of rulers makes us inclined to believe 
 we are nearer the truth than Mr. Buckle. As we have 
 already hinted, Polonius and Ophelia died, Polonius and 
 . OpheHa were buried, Polonius and Ophelia returned to dust ; 
 and why should not that office so well summed up in an 
 Alexander and a Csesar go through the same process of 
 decay ? Is it not going through it now ? 
 
 We have run over a great deal in a great hurry. We 
 have hardly sketched a theory of Hamlet. But what we 
 have done is rather in the hope of suggestion, of show- 
 ing not what is "true, but what a play like Hamlet may 
 possibly be. The reader, of course, will reject much of 
 our hypothesis. In the present state of Shakespearian 
 criticism, this is only to be expected. But nevertheless in 
 so doing, thoughts and suggestions will enter his head never 
 conceived there before. And we feel our work will not be 
 utterly cast upon sterile ground. For there is a growing 
 appreciation in the public mind of the profundity and double- 
 sidedness of Shakespeare's art. An art which will redeem 
 him a second time from the grave. And an art which will 
 form the study of future generations. 
 
130 HAMLET ; OR, 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 WE now approach the end of this stupendous tragedy. 
 We are dramatically nearing the end of man's ap- 
 prenticeship. But Hamlet concerns us alone at present. 
 How far, in point of time, the dramatic situation is from 
 its parallel in future times, we know not. Who can teU 
 what to-morrow may hring hut a Shakespeare ? And now we 
 have next on hand, in the order of the text, a retrospect by 
 Hamlet. This review and explanation by Hamlet concern- 
 ing his escape from the Pirate and discovery of the King's 
 commission, seems to us to supply the missing links of the 
 tragedy. It thoroughly explains the position of Hamlet at 
 the time he was at sea, and had no decided plans of his own : 
 
 " Sam. Sir, in my heart there was a kind of fighting, 
 That would not let me sleep : methought I lay 
 Worse them the mutines m the bilboes. Kasbly, 
 And praised be rashness for it, let us know, 
 Our indiscretion sometimes serves us well. 
 When our deep plots do pall : and that should teach us 
 There's a diyinity that shapes our ends, 
 Eough-hew them how we will." 
 
 We must return to Hamlet's exile for an instant. That 
 exile was one because he had no plans and no ends. After 
 the death of Polonius, Hamlet was almost frightened at 
 what he had done. He felt, as he himself says, worse than 
 "mutineers who lie in fetters." This expresses the whole 
 case. He had mutinied, and he was in fetters. His own 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 131 
 
 plans were even obscure to himself, but his very indiscretion 
 serves him well. "What do we mean? We mean that 
 Hamlet, as represented in man's history, has had his doubts, 
 his fears ; he has not defined his ends even. Progress is but 
 a recognition of to-day or yesterday. Parties with their 
 different hopes and aims are the products of eminently 
 modern history. Presently we find Hamlet groping "to 
 find his ends'" — 
 
 " Ham. Up from my cabin. 
 My sea-gown scarf 'd about me, in the darh 
 Groped I to find out tbem ; had my desire, 
 Finger'd their packet, and in fine withdrew 
 To mine own room again." 
 
 If anything would convince a reader of the nature of 
 Hamlet, the above should be of a conclusive nature. Here 
 is Hamlet " in the dark," trying " to find out them." But 
 what are these which he terms them ? Clearly Hamlet's 
 "ends." And, thanks to his rashness and perseverance, he 
 succeeds in "fingering their packet." Nothing can be 
 clearer than all this. Reviewing his own history, he sees 
 the time when obscurity of vision made him feel like a 
 mutineer. He dared not stand still, he dared not look back. 
 And, praised be the rashness which casts the balance in 
 favour of progress, Hamlet finds his ends. Those ends are 
 the recognition that Eosencrantz and Guildenstern threaten 
 the very life of naked truth. He labours doubly accord- 
 ingly, escapes from them by means of a Pirate (whatever that 
 may mean), whilst scientific proof slowly undermines evasion 
 and sophistry. Hamlet and Horatio are gathering their 
 forces together for the last struggle. Partly for the sake of 
 clearing ambiguities ; partly for' the sake of showing how 
 man in Hamlet reviews his own history and gathers addi- 
 tional strength from it, we have this scene. 
 
 The whole of the first part of this scene between Hamlet 
 and Horatio is a review of their own position, of the history 
 of that position, of the thought of Divine law ruling social 
 action, and of the great evil of compromise, hypocrisy, 
 sophistry, and casuistry, which science is slowly killing. 
 
132 hamlet; ok, 
 
 Hamlet expresses this science so beautifully that we must 
 
 quote again : 
 
 "Sam. Being thus be-netted round with villanies, — 
 Ere I could make a prologue to my brains, 
 They had begun the play — I sat me down, 
 Devised a new commission, wrote it fair ; 
 I once did hold -it, as our statists do, 
 A iaseifess to write fair, and labour'd much 
 How to forget that learning, but, sir, now 
 It did me yeoman's service." 
 
 Hamlet writes fair. This is a naked Hamlet who writes fair. 
 This very fairness kills Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Who 
 are the statists who refuse to write fair, and consider it a 
 baseness to do so ? They are those who are for standing 
 still. They' are the statics of society, in contradiction to 
 the dynamical principle represented by Hamlet. The word 
 " statists " is perhaps related to the word statics.^ This 
 writing fair does Hamlet "yeoman's service." Nothing 
 kills like truth. Errors are obliged to assume the garb of 
 truth even to pass muster ; but like all false coin, they get 
 exposed sooner or later. England takes up the cue Hamlet 
 devises. England, as science, is prompted by a spirit of 
 truth. And this truth invades every domain of thought, until 
 it gives Hamlet power to return, with ever- gaiuing strength, 
 to kill and exterminate the King and all his myrmidons. 
 What does Hamlet devise ? Nothing more nor less than a 
 rigorous logic, which is beautifully expressed by an imitation 
 of syllogistic reasoning — 
 
 "Ham. As England was his faithful tributary, 
 As love between them like the palm might flourish, 
 As peace should still her wheaten garland wear, 
 And stand a comma' 'tween their amities, 
 And many 6uch-like 'As'es of great charge, 
 That, on the view and knowing of these contents, 
 "Without debatement further, more Or less. 
 He should the bearers put to sudden death. 
 Not shriving-time allow' d." 
 
 1 We are aware that the word statist signifies sometimes a leg'islator or law- 
 maker. But we suggest the word may signiiy even more. 
 ^ The word comma seems to suggest pause, not full stop. 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 133 
 
 Hamlet writes this, and in writing this our Poet shows 
 us how the spirit of truth inspires England to deal with 
 Eosencrantz and Guildenstern. That method is one in 
 which close reasoning and trenchant logic (like the logic our 
 hero indulged in when first in conyersation with Rosencrantz 
 and GuUdenstern), allowing of no equivocation, infects the 
 thoughts of man, and slowly brings about an increasing 
 desire for rationalism in all things. This we see at the 
 present day, and the thirst for clear answers to plain ques- 
 tions will ever be on the increase, in proportion as men think, 
 and thus in the ratio of their knowledge, liberty and love of 
 truth — things which go hand in hand, 
 
 Hamlet knows the news will soon arrive from Eng- 
 land. Our Poet here signifies the influence of England 
 upon human thought. He sees, as we may at the present 
 moment, the foreshadowing of the universality of science. 
 Hamlet foresees its widespread influence. He foresees the 
 unlimited sway it will have in the future destiny of man. 
 And foreseeing this, he is determined to hasten it, to do all 
 he' can to bring things to that pass. He is acted upon by 
 this knowledge, and it stirs him up to fresh resolution : 
 
 " Sar. It must be shortly known to him from England 
 What is the issue of the business there. 
 
 Kam. It will be short : the interim is mine ; 
 And a roan's life 's no more than to say ' One.' 
 But I am very sorry, good Horatio, 
 That to Laertes I forgot myself; 
 For, by the image of my cause, I see 
 The portraiture of his: I'll court his favours : 
 But, sure, the bravery of his grief did put me 
 Into a towering passion." 
 
 How admirable is the above ! Hamlet sees in the cause 
 of Laertes the portraiture of his I Both grieve and fight 
 for the sake of their fathers. Both believe in those 
 fathers. Hamlet is always spurred on by doubt, to re- 
 dress wrongs and kill error. Laertes is always spurred 
 on by a fatal but useful bias of certainty to defend the 
 King and uphold the past. Both are in earnest. One 
 is liberalism, the other conservatism. Their mutual death 
 
134 . HAMLET ; OR, 
 
 is their final convergence and identification in equilibrium. 
 Everything points in England at the present day to such 
 a finale. Every day the Cpnservative policy becomes more 
 like the Liberal. And such is the history of the " statists," 
 that they only let go when forced, and they wiU only cease 
 holding on when there is no longer anything left to hold 
 on to. 
 
 Hamlet will court the favours of Laertes. He will benefit 
 by the prudence of the latter. He will be prevented from 
 committing any imprudence by the latter. And he will find 
 criticism after all a useful ordeal. Laertes is indispensable 
 to the successful apprenticeship of a Hamlet. Were Hamlet 
 not checked in the often reckless way he would compromise 
 his health and conduct, he might sacrifice the terms of his 
 indentures. The bravery of Laertes' grief puts Hamlet 
 into a towering passion. Hamlet evidently thinks the grief 
 of Laertes as unavailing, as even unnecessary ; and this 
 unavailing lament and fight over what Laertes can neither 
 bring to life again nor stop decaying is well calculated to put 
 Hamlet in a passion. At this instant we have the entrance 
 of one who is part of Laertes. He is a biassed judge. And 
 one in whom Hamlet recognizes this character as also that 
 of the sciolist. Of all our Poet's creations in this play, not 
 one is painted with so forcible, so delicate, and such refined 
 irony, as the courtier Osric. We reserve him for a chapter 
 to himself. 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of histoky. 135 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 WE are now for the first time introduced to Osric. In 
 Osric we easily recognize society, and in Osric we 
 also recognize criticism. The great enemy and critic of 
 Hamlet is Osric, a gentleman who is decidedly of a bias of 
 mind in favour of Laertes. Osric is part of the continuity 
 and succession of the tragedy. To have left him out would 
 have been a gross error, and a gross neglect of the last and 
 not the least enemy of Hamlet. He is a critic, but a critic 
 who has stakes in the game over which he is judge. They 
 are balanced more heavily on one side than the other. He 
 has laid the odds upon Laertes. In the politeness-ofXlatic we 
 recognize society. In his parrot-like speeches and empty 
 phraseSj^we recogmze-the pretender to learnihg. ZEh e mere 
 gcidiat. " 
 
 The point we have reached dramatically is not far off the 
 final catastrophe and end. And the real meaning of Shake- 
 speare is that historically the last stage in man's apprentice- 
 ship is reached. The last stake at issue over which Hamlet 
 and Laertes fight is one in which Osric is concerned. And 
 it is a stake of "six Barbary horses" against "six French 
 rapiers and poniards, with their assigns, as girdle, hangers, 
 and so: three of the carriages, in faith, are very dear to 
 fancy, very responsive to the hilts, most delicate carriages, 
 and of very liberal conceit." 
 
 The whole of the latter stake of the bet is imponed, as 
 
136 HAMLET ; OK, 
 
 Osric terms it, against six Barbary Lorses. It is not very- 
 difficult to seize the side Hamlet is upon, or the side 
 Laertes defends. Hamlet will work for the six Barbary 
 horses. Laertes will defend the six French rapiers, etc. 
 At present we will refrain from giving our opinion of the 
 meaning of the above. We will take the text first. 
 
 " Osr. Tour lordship is right welcome bad to Denmark. 
 Sam. I humbly thank you, sir. Dost know this water-fly ? " 
 
 In this word "water- fly" an infinity of meaning js_fix- 
 pressed. We are instantly^ reminded of those flies we see 
 in summer skrmniing_the surface of ponds. The surface of 
 J;hingsjs^iere_suggested. One who hovers upon~tKe mere 
 outside and never penetrates. This is Osric. 
 
 " Ham. Thy state is the more gracious ; for 'tis a vice to know him. He hath 
 much laud, and fertile : let a beast be lord of beasts, and his crib shall stand at 
 the king's mess : 'tis a chough ; but, as I say, spacious in the possession of dirt." ' 
 
 In the above we have, as usual, a complete key to Osric's 
 character. He is rich, he is a possessor of land, and this is 
 quite enough to make him at one mth the King. Rosencrantz 
 is evidently not dead yet. No, he "goes to't" but he will 
 not be dead until Hamlet's death. Osric is society, and that 
 part of society which stands by the King. The whole of this 
 part of the play is one which is concerned with the last 
 struggle of man and man. It is one in which society is con- 
 cerned. One in which the classes of society are at war with 
 six Barbary horses. These latter are probably not unlike 
 what is known in the present day by Communism. Property, 
 capital, possession, social injustice, are allied with Laertes 
 against the principle of progress. The whole of the polite- 
 ness of Osric shows his society manners, and gives us a 
 key to his elucidation. He praises Laertes. For Laertes 
 is his backbone, his stand-by, his very life. And what is 
 
 ' Osricjs Rosencra ntz. It is quite sufficient that he is a large interested owner 
 to understand that he will side with the Eing. There is no escaping Shake- 
 speare's meaning here. ~~ -' 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 137 
 
 Laertes? "We have long ago identified him with learning 
 of an orthodox kind. He is literature of a conservative 
 character. 
 
 " Oar. . . . Sir, here is newly come to court Laertes ; believe me, an absolute 
 gentleman, full of most excellent differences, of very soft society and great show- 
 ing: indeed, to speak feelingly of him, he is ^he card or calendar of gentry, 
 for you shaE find in him the continent of what part a gentleman would see." 
 
 This is Osric's version of Laertes. Presently we shall have 
 Hamlet's. Osric speaks feelingly of Laertes. He is part of 
 Laertes himself, and no wonder he speaks feelingly. The 
 quotation we have made is a revelation in itself. Laertes 
 is the liberal education of a gentleman, as understood fey 
 himself or Osric. But it is an education which Professor 
 Huxley and Hamlet hardly consider liberal in our days. 
 Laertes is the " card or calendar of gentry." In him you 
 see the whole of a gentleman's education. Now let us 
 compare Hamlet's definition of Laertes : 
 
 " Sir, his definement suffers no perdition in you ; though, I know, to divide him 
 inventoriaUy would dizzy the arithmetic of memory, and yet hut yaw neither, in 
 respect of his quick sail. But, in the verity of extolment, I take him to be a 
 soul of great article ; and his infusion of such dearth and rareness, as, to make 
 true diction of him, his senjblable is his mirror ; and who else would trace him, 
 his umbrage, nothing more." 
 
 It is extraordinary how the speaking characters of pieces like 
 the above escape the keen eyes of critics, who are on the 
 look-out for a hint! Here we have, with a few touches, the 
 whole character and worth of Laertes. He is "diction." He 
 is a "soul of great article." And he is multitudinous in 
 his acquirements, which are very raw in consequence of his 
 quick sail. His motto is, Multa non multum. And the 
 result is the mere sciolist. Those that trace him will not 
 find anything but the shadow of Laertes. " Sis semblahle," 
 or what seems to him the Truth (which is only a reflection 
 of himself), is all that is to be found in literature of this 
 description. Laertes is thus epitomized in the shallow 
 education and learning of what are called cultured men. 
 A culture which is strengthened on the side of error by the 
 wide extent of the study of the literature handed down by 
 
138 hamlet; or, 
 
 Polonius. Logical truth is not sought by such men. Eru- 
 dition, or the soul of great article, is all that is required. 
 Authorities (as they are considered) already false help to 
 sustain error deduced from that authority. This class of 
 literature has its use, it is true ; and those things which cannot 
 stand its batteries are not worth their salt. But all followers 
 of Hamlet must recognize its emptiness, and its boast of a 
 strength which is in its very ignorance and the ignorance 
 of others. " His semblable is his mirror," — a fit motto for 
 metaphysicians and transcendental philosophers generally ! 
 
 To follow the thread of our fancy, and see a mirror in 
 our imagination concerning Truth, has been (putting all 
 science outside the question) the whole history of human 
 thought. Laertes is a liberal education, and he is more, he 
 is often profound scholarship and profound learning of every 
 description. But it is a learning which believes we are in 
 possession of Truth. It is an erudition which criticizes not 
 the sources and springs of its own fountain-head. It is 
 defensive, it is passive. There is no progress with such a 
 literature, unless there is an opposing one. This opposing one 
 must be inspired by a Hamlet, urged on by the revelation 
 of a Ghost, and must continually alternate the appearance 
 of the Ghost with the crowing of the cock. Thus Doubt 
 and Certainty, being active, and not passive, are that pleas- 
 ing and invigorating suspension of judgment upon all 
 things until verified. Our scepticism is one which is satisfied 
 and allayed with the truths of nature, and in the exposition 
 of those laws. Nature is all things, God, man, time, space, 
 and every question which can agitate the mind of man. 
 The tragedy of Hamlet is the history of the rise of rational- 
 ism in Europe. And to this end liberty, knowledge, and 
 inquiry, with Doubt, go hand in hand. Without knowledge 
 there is no inquiry ; without inquiry, no doubt ; without 
 doubt, no- progress. And all interdepend upon an accom- 
 panying spirit of liberty, which we have in Fortinbras. All 
 these conditions are fulfilled in the beginning of the tragedy. 
 And they are fulfilled in an orderly and natural sequence. 
 We have Bernardo relieving and recognizing Francisco. 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 139 
 
 And we have the rivals of this watch following. The sure 
 accompaniments of the art of reading — Inquiry and Scholar- 
 ship (Marcellus and Horatio). Doubt follows as a Ghost. 
 Faintly, of course, at first. But increasing in power. The 
 cock crowing signifies Certainty following Doubt. And, 
 at the same time, we have the rise of Fortinbras and his 
 suppression. Thus the spirit of liberty goes hand in hand 
 in unity with the rest.' 
 
 But to return, after this digression. We have recognized 
 the character of Osric and that of Laertes. Their cause is 
 common. The stability of society, the conservation of the 
 social hierarchy threatened by Hamlet (and ruin at the same 
 time), necessitate the voice of Osric upon the side of Laertes. 
 As we have before remarked, they are identical. Osric will 
 both fight and be judge. Laertes is literature, and Osric is 
 society itself. "We shall see the result of the duel presently. 
 Hamlet, and all those who constitute Hamlet, are, as in the 
 present day, recognizing the worth of what has hitherto 
 been dignified by the title of education, learning, etc. 
 Hamlet has learnt some method of thinking, which puts 
 him above or over Laertes. He sees what the infusion 
 of Laertes is worth. Like his father, Polonius, Laertes 
 clings still to words, and, under their cover, tries to make 
 an escape from Hamlet, as the cuttle-fish does under cover 
 of his ink. As Hamlet remarks ; 
 
 " To know a man well, were to know himself." 
 
 This criticism of self is very rare and very difficult. Hamlet 
 knows Laertes. But Laertes knows not himself. Nor does 
 Laertes know Hamlet. Hamlet knows exactly his own 
 ' strength and his own weakness. 
 
 The whole of this conversation between Osric and Ham- 
 let is a picture of beauty, truth, and rarity. It is the 
 final duel of social inan, being summed up in its causes, 
 in its forces, and in its nature. The wrongs and_ evils 
 
 ' We are only too sensible of the cursory manner in which all this is discussed; 
 but until the nature of the play is clearly established, it were waste of time to 
 go deeper into the subject. 
 
140 HAMl.ET ; OR, 
 
 of a social state, handed down from a feudal system, are 
 in direct conflict with unvarnished justice. The daily 
 lahourer, or artisan, is well pictured in a Barhary horse. 
 He works like a horse, and he is rough and uncultivated. 
 He is thus barbarous. Certain classes of society are well 
 pictured in the "rapiers and their hangers, carriages, as- 
 signs." The assigns look very much like a term in heraldry. 
 The carriages, or hangers, are perhaps the aristocracy, 
 the landed gentry, or plutocracy. They, are of a very 
 liberal conceit. And they are called by Horatio the 
 margent. It is their anger, or (h)angers (?), which 
 cause this duel. Property is perhaps the cause. We 
 know not. But what Hamlet says is very true. Cannon 
 would be more likely to settle the question, if the angers 
 had their way. The whole bet is imported. This word 
 we believe to be from the Latin impono, "to beguile, to 
 wheedle, or trick out of; to lay upon," etc., etc. The 
 reader must apply his own reading of this word. The 
 odds are placed by the King on the strongest side — on that 
 of Laertes. And we would draw attention to the at first 
 sight contradictory evidence of the bet. For the Barbary 
 horses are wagered with Laertes. How is this to be recon- 
 ciled ? There is no reconcilement needed. If Hamlet wins, 
 he wins the Barbary horses, or rather, to speak exactly, they 
 (the horses) win, whilst the six French rapiers, etc., etc., 
 lose. Does the word imponed signify imperilled ? And 
 if so, we imderstand Hamlet's question. But if not, it 
 may mean "to be got out of stake," "out of pawn." "We 
 see that in the bet of the King the odds are twelve to nine 
 upon Laertes. In fact, Laertes is to exceed Hamlet by 
 three hits. 
 
 " Osr. The king, sir, hath laid, that in a dozen passes between yonrself and 
 Mm, he shall not exceed you three hits : he hath laid on twelve for nine ; and it 
 wonld come to immediate trial, if yonr lordship would Touchsafe the answer. 
 
 Ham. How if I answer ' no ' ? 
 
 Osr. I mean, my lord, the opposition of your person in trial. 
 
 Bam. Sir, I wiU walk here in the hall : if it please his majesty. Vis the breath- 
 ing time of day with me; let the foils be brought, the gentleman willing, and the 
 king hold his purpose, I will win for him an I can ; if not, I will gain nothing 
 but my shame and the odd hits," 
 
shakespeaee's philosophy of history. 141 
 
 The whole of Osrio's message is a challenge and defiance. 
 It is, "Do your worst, I am so safe with Laertes that 
 the odds are aU on my side." Hamlet says it is "the 
 breathing time of day " with him. That is, Truth has 
 an existence. The spirit of rationalism, of justice, has 
 long been roused ; and, as we know, Hamlet is a power- 
 ful party, who has but another party to contend against. 
 Shakespeare evidently was determined to go as far as he 
 could. A short dramatic period may be a very long his- 
 torical one ; and with these questions we are not con- 
 cerned. Hamlet sums up the character of Osric in the 
 following: 
 
 " He did comply witli his dug, before lie sucked it. Thus has he — and many 
 more of the same bevy that I know the drossy age dotes on— only got the tune of 
 the time and outwai'd habit of encounter ; a kind of yesty collection, which carries / 
 them through and through the most fond and winnowed opinions; and do but' 
 blow them to their trial, the bubbles are out." 
 
 In these satirical remarks of Hamlet we recognize our 
 friend Osric still more forcibly as society. "He 4i<i comply 
 with his dug, before he sucked it." Literally, ".apthing^s 
 natawJ^-about -iiair-*^ ^^ -M4^e up, and is a matter of 
 inheritance." Again, we may read in the above, "self- 
 interest is before _all- - things, and his circumstances are 
 the result of accident." Hamlet calls it a " drossf/ age." 
 Money is the ruling principle of this society. The words 
 yesfy and wiiiiioiecd suggest froth, chaff, emptiness, no- 
 thingness, shallowness. If Osric is put to the test, 
 "the bubbles arc out." In short, we must molce up our 
 minds that this is rather a contemptible judge to de- 
 cide between Hamlet and Laertes ; particularly when we 
 know how biassed Osric is in his own favour and that of 
 his friend. 
 
 "Lord. My lord, his majesty commended hira to you by young Osric, who 
 brings back to him, that you attend him in the hall : he sends to know if your 
 pleasure hold to play with Laertes, or that you will take longer time." 
 
 Thus we see the King is commended to Hamlet by Osric. 
 
142 HAMLET ; OR, 
 
 That is, Hamlet is going in again at the King, this time 
 represented in Laertes and Osric. 
 
 " Sam. I am constant to my purposes ; they follow the king's pleasure : if his 
 fitness speaks, mine is ready ; now or whensoever, provided I be so able as now. 
 Lord. The king and queen and all are coming downi 
 Kam. In happy time." 
 
 Hamlet never swerves from his purpose to kill the King 
 and avenge his father. He is indeed constant to his ends 
 when he knows them. Hamlet's purposes follow the King's 
 pleasure. And it is already reaKzed that the fall of the 
 King and Queen are at hand. Hamlet says, "in happy 
 time." The reconciliation of Laertes and Hamlet is only 
 skin deep. It is the polish, the refinement, the for- 
 bearance and amenities of modern and future polemical 
 literature. 
 
 We would here pause before we proceed any further. 
 We are at a solemn point of the tragedy. We are un- 
 veiling, or blaspheming, our Poet's thoughts as to the 
 future conflict of man on earth. And we would first make 
 clear our opinion concerning some, at first sight, gross 
 contradictions to our hypothesis. 
 
 The reader has probably long wanted to know why 
 Hamlet does not succeed to the throne of his uncle ? Why 
 does he die? Why should Truth be defeated in the 
 end? Is it a dramatic necessity? Or is it the limit of 
 Truth ? 
 
 We answer, neither one nor the other. The death of 
 Hamlet is not the death of Truth. For Hamlet is not 
 Truth itself. Indeed, there never can be for man absolute 
 truth. Only relative truth. What is Hamlet then? We 
 have all along identified him with Truth. Tes, but Handet 
 is the spirit in man of truth-seehing alone. Hamlet is the 
 spirit of conflict warring through man for truth's sake. 
 With the end of the apprenticeship of man Hamlet dies. 
 For his apprenticeship is done. 
 
 Let us clearly define our position. We have merely 
 employed the word truth as allied to Hamlet in the sense 
 of truth-seeking and progress. What is truth? This 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 143 
 
 has been a question which has never been satisfactorily 
 answered by man. We cannot discuss such a subject here. 
 But we may as well define our idea of truth as regards 
 Hamlet. Absolute truth can be for a God alone. But 
 relative truth is for man. That truth is best exemplified in 
 the laws of God, which have been beautifully termed by 
 Oersted "the thoughts of God." To this Hamlet or man 
 - may attain. The rest is silence. But even in this we do 
 not apply the same line of argument to Hamlet. For the 
 tragedy of Hamlet is a social one. A conflict concerning 
 man's opinions. And its end is the end of this conflict. 
 The realization of harmony, liberty, justice, and science. 
 Thus the death of Hamlet is the death of the autocracy of 
 party. It is the finale of man's social antinomy. And as 
 Goethe has far better expressed it, the termination of man's 
 apprenticeship. Up to this point man has been divided in 
 opinion, unlearning the mistakes of his youth, and gradually 
 recognizing his place and the nature of himself in the order 
 of nature. However, to prove that this is what Shake- 
 speare intended, we wiU appeal to the text again. 
 
 If the death of Hamlet were in reality more than the 
 death of mere conflict and difference of opinion, we should 
 hear no more of him. But Horatio tells us his " voice will 
 draw on more." 
 
 "Sor. Of that I shall have also cause to speak, 
 And from his mouth whose voice will draw on more." 
 
 Horatio thus tells us Hamlet is not dead. He is dramati- 
 cally dead. And in this his after-continuity is on a par 
 with that of Polonius, of Ophelia, after their deaths. The 
 necessities of art are inexorable, when allied to rationalism. 
 The latter cannot be applied to the letter, though it may to 
 the spirit of the letter. Something, perhaps a good deal, is 
 to be said upon the necessities of dramatic art in Hamlet. 
 The grandeur of the tragedy is aided, nay fulfilled, by 
 Hamlet's death. And we have a lesson on the indis- 
 crimination of law between good and evil. Destiny is no 
 liistinguisher of persons. And thus the philosophy of 
 
144 HAMLET ; OR, 
 
 life is also true in Hamlet. But this does not necessitate 
 that Hamlet, as Mr. Tyler would have it, is a tragedy 
 whose philosophy is pessimistic. It is eminently optimistic, 
 for it points to an end of man's discord, to liberty, justice, 
 and progress of a different order to that of the play itself. 
 Nothing could be more hopeful, more Utopian, or more 
 optimistic than Hamlet throughout. The progress and 
 strength of rationalism, and all that it implies, is long, it 
 is true ; but as Hamlet says : 
 
 " These foils have all a length." 
 
 When reason is universal, and has taught social man what 
 is true here below, and what is false, then the tragedy 
 of Hamlet draws to its end on earth. Hamlet might be 
 termed the history of progress. It might be truly, as 
 Groethe thought, man's apprenticeship. Or, again, we 
 may call it a philosophy of history. There is little 
 philosophy, it is true, in the strict sense. But we can 
 find ourselves in it much historical philosophy. In the first 
 place, it recognizes social law. This is the root and key- 
 stone of a philosophy of history. Secondly, it implies, in 
 a remarkable degree, that discovery which Comte claimed 
 for himself. That is the law of mechanics applied to history- 
 and sociology. It implies in Hamlet and his supporters 
 a law of social dynamics, in contradiction to the King and 
 his supporters, who represent social statics. Indeed, the 
 structure and continuity of the play inclines us to a belief 
 that our Poet thoroughly not only recognized this law, 
 but that he seized what we cannot — its secondary laws. 
 For how in heaven's name can we account for his marvellous 
 prophetic powers? Let the reader judge for himself. For 
 in our eyes history is paralleled line for line in this play. 
 Not only history, but contemporary, and the daily life even 
 of these our days are photographed in Hamlet. There 
 must have been intention or genius in this. To use the 
 latter word is to solve the whole question. And perhaps 
 the laws of progress may be better furthered by a study 
 of Hamlet than by aught else. There is not a principle in 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 145 
 
 Buckle's History of Civilization whiQh is not grasped by 
 our Poet. The relations of knowledge, scepticism, liberty, 
 authority, religion, so insisted upon by Buckle, are here 
 dramatically exhausted in a two hours' play. And this play 
 was written when men did not seize even the idea of law as 
 regards man. What are we to say to all this? Simply 
 that genius is the power of ratiocination on an infinite scale : 
 of following cause and effect into its remote sequences. And 
 how does this speak for the existence of law, which foolish 
 people still question ? It proves it. It indorses it. For 
 were law not there, where would be the prophecy which 
 trusts to the invariability of that law in the future ? 
 
 Now we shall endeavour to explain the finale of the 
 tragedy as regards the catastrophe. It will be noticed 
 Laertes wounds Hamlet, and then Hamlet in his turn wounds 
 Laertes, with the poisoned rapier of the latter exchanged 
 in scuffling. What does this mean? It means the death 
 of Laertes by means of bis own error. It is turned in upon 
 Mm. In his conflict with Hamlet he probably uses a false 
 method, a false criterion, which, being erroneous, when 
 once exploded by Hamlet, puts an end to the party Laertes 
 represents. And of course the King dies when Laertes 
 dies. For he is the error for which Laertes fights ; ^ and to 
 prove this, Hamlet stabs the King with the same rapier he 
 has stabbed Laertes, and by which he has himself been 
 stabbed. That ra|}ier, we have said, belongs to Laertes. 
 Thus the King's death, Laertes's death, and Hamlet's death, 
 are aU the result of one rapier. And so the error exploded, 
 the King dies through Laertes, the latter with his error, 
 and Hamlet through, the end of conflict. The death of 
 the Queen is the death of the King. Both are wedded in 
 beHef. Both King and Queen drink the same potion ; that 
 potion, poisoned and set for Hamlet, is like the rapier in 
 the case of Laertes, again turned in upon themselves. 
 
 ' The King is made up of his adherents. Thus he disappears with his last 
 constituent. And Hamlet thus is acting and killing the King all through the 
 play. 
 
 10 
 
146 HAMLET ; OK, 
 
 Belief in error and error in belief both die, with the ex- 
 plosion of their beliefs and errors. Thus the symbols of 
 the play die, in harmony with our whole exegesis. The 
 poisoned cup is perhaps a dramatic necessity, to get rid of 
 the Queen. Hamlet says, as the King drinks off, or is 
 supposed to swallow the poison : 
 
 " Drink off this potion. Is thy union here ? 
 Follow my mother." 
 
 The union of the King and Queen is in the poison. It is 
 union of belief and error (erroneous beliefs), and the poison 
 represents the efforts they make to foist upon Hamlet those 
 beliefs. Obliged to swallow their own words, and thus 
 exposed, they die. In the death of Hamlet and Laertes 
 we read the end of party. We read the union and mergence 
 of Hamlet and Laertes. The former (Hamlet) represents 
 social dynamics, the latter social statics. Now both are 
 one in union. The social statics have become so weakened 
 by the social dynamics that finally both are merged. Party 
 is abolished. And identity of interests, of beliefs, spring- 
 ing from the unity of science alone, makes man at peace 
 with man and self-governed. Individualism has conquered 
 social authority, by the latter becoming identified with the 
 former.^ 
 
 Hardly is Hamlet dead or dying, when Fortinbras " with 
 conquest comes from Poland." Liberty, coming from many, 
 gives to the Ambassadors from England (science) " a warlike 
 volley." How splendid is all this ! And how thoroughly 
 plain is the whole tragedy ! 
 
 We now would go back to the text, and illustrate all 
 those points hitherto left in obscurity. The madness of 
 Hamlet is thoroughly identified with our conception of its 
 nature in the following extract : 
 
 1 That such is the prospect of party politics is only too plain at the present 
 day. ■ And the philosophic student of history will find that this is the destiny of 
 all constitutional history. 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 147 
 
 '^ King. Come, Hamlet, come, and take this hand from me. 
 
 l^The King puts Laertes' hand into Samlets, 
 - Sam. Give me your pardon, sir : I've done you wrong : 
 But pardon't, as you are a gentleman. 
 This presence knows, 
 
 And you must needs have heard, how I am punish'd 
 With sore distraction. AVhat I have done. 
 That might your nature, honour and exception 
 Eoughly awake, I here proclaim was madness. 
 . Was't Hamlet wrong'd Laertes p Never Hamlet : 
 If Samlet from himself he ta'en away. 
 And when he's not himself does wrong Zaertes, 
 Then Samlet does it not. Samlet denies it. 
 Who does it, then p Sis madness : if't be so. 
 Samlet is of the faction that is wrong'd ; 
 Sis madness is poor Samlet's enemy. 
 Sir, in this audience. 
 
 Let my disclaiming from a purposed evil 
 Free me so far in your most generous thoughts, 
 That I have shot mine arrow o'er the house, 
 And hurt my brother." 
 
 The whole of the above is Hamlet's justification of himself 
 and his deeds. The key-note Kes in the utterance — 
 
 " Hamlet is of the faction that is wrong'd ; 
 His madness is poor Hamlet's enemy." 
 
 Here we have the essence of Hamlet. He is "of the 
 faction that is wrong'd," And his madness lies in trying 
 to redress these icrongs. In redressing these wrongs he 
 "shoots his arrow o'er the house, and hurts his brother" 
 Laertes. This falls in with our conception of Hamlet's 
 madness. His madness is his badness and his incoherence 
 in the eyes of his enemies. Dramatically Hamlet's madness 
 is a perfect expression of the stoical idea we have already 
 dwelt upon. Every reform, every progress, until it falls in 
 with the age, is first the scheme of a madman, next of a 
 theorist, and finally it is accepted, so that men wonder 
 they could ever have done without it. So with Hamlet : 
 " Mad for Ophelia's love," is in reality " Bad for Ophelia's 
 life." And the end proves it so indeed. All those of 
 the opposite faction to Hamlet call him mad. This is 
 why " his madness is poor Hamlet's enemy." Literally the 
 
148 hamlet; ok, 
 
 great enemies of Hamlet are those who term him mad. 
 And his enemies and his madness are identified. The mad- 
 ness is in reality upon their side. They are in the position 
 of the lunatic who ascribed his own lunacy tojhe blindness 
 or madness of the world. There is not a shadow of doubt 
 that this is our Poet's exact meaning. He has made the spirit 
 of progress, in truth and justice-seeking, mad in the eyes 
 of those who cannot see aught but their own view of things. 
 Everything outside these views is madness. Hamlet goes so 
 far as to assert he cannot have wronged Laertes. If truth, 
 or Hamlet, be taken from himself, then untruth wrongs 
 Laertes, it is not Hamlet. Thus Hamlet, in the above 
 quotation, justifies his own deeds and character. First he 
 shows how impossible it is for truth to wrong anybody. 
 And if truth does wrong anybody, it must be simply his 
 enemies. And in this they are not wronged, but righted. 
 For as Hamlet wrongs his enemies, he rights himself, and he 
 rights his enemies. The madness of Hamlet is the madness 
 of Laertes. And Hamlet shows that this madness of 
 Laertes is his (Hamlet's) enemy. All the ambiguity which 
 arises from any other conception of madness utterly vanishes 
 with our explanation. The difficulty lay in reconciling 
 what appeared at times as madness and what seemed at 
 others profound method and sanity in Hamlet. The sane- 
 ness of Hamlet lay, in the eyes of critics, in our hero's 
 philosophy, and in his repudiation of madness ; as also in 
 his sanity of action. But his wild and incoherent words 
 to Ophelia, to Polonius, gave a direct contradiction to the 
 above. All this vanishes when we see this apparent inco- 
 herence is but profound meaning, hidden under artistic 
 unity. Shakespeare had ever a double plot to wed in 
 harmony — artistic and spiritual unity. How he has real- 
 ized the harmonious working of this dual unity the reader 
 will see for himself. First, an artistic development, which 
 must in reality be the servant of the spiritual soul and 
 idea. Second, the spiritual development, to hide under an 
 artistic envelope. It is the peeping out of the former, 
 through the often thin dress of the latter, which has given 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 149 
 
 rise to every ambiguity and perplexity in tlie various criti- 
 cisms upon this tragedy. 
 
 The union of the exoteric and esoteric sides are so 
 perfect, that neither is developed at the expense of the 
 other. " In Nathaniel Hawthorne's Transformation," Lord 
 Lytton says, "we have the classical sensuous life typical 
 through Donato ; the Jewish dispensation by Miriam ; and 
 the Christian dispensation shadowed forth by Hilda. Those 
 who do not follow the mysticism, of which the above are 
 the exponents, can never understand the story ; the concep- 
 tion is most grand ; although the way it is carried out is 
 imperfect." 
 
 "We have quoted the above from the late Lord Lytton's 
 Essays (Oaxtoniana), to show what that great writer thought 
 of the principles of art which underlie all works of the- 
 imagination. 
 
 "We here again quote Lord Lytton on the duality of art : 
 "The writer who takes this duality of purpose, who unites 
 an interior symbolical signification with an obvious popular 
 interest in character and incident, errs, firstly in execution, 
 if he render his symbolical meaning so distinct and detailed 
 as to become obviously allegorical; unless, indeed, as in 
 the PUgrim's Progress, it is avowedly an allegory. And 
 accordingly he errs in artistic execution of his plan, when- 
 ever he admits a dialogue not closely bearing on one or the 
 other of his two purposes, and whenever he fails in merging 
 the two into an absolute unity at the end." 
 
 Here we have a complete definement of the rules of 
 what we might call double plot. Goethe has pointed out 
 Shakespeare as the great master of them. It is the im- 
 possibility of recognizing and harmonizing one side without 
 the other, — the artistic without the symbolical, — which has 
 been the stumbling-block to critics. Both Shakespeare and 
 Goethe have so marvellously brought their symbolical mean- 
 ings under the dominion of art, that there is little or no 
 conception of the very existence of the former in the minds 
 of ordinary people. Imagine Goethe or Shakespeare writing 
 plays, like a Sheridan or a Vanburgh, for mere his- 
 
150 HAMLET ; OK, 
 
 trionic effect, or to satirize an age! Their works of art 
 are but the vehicles and the preservative wrappers of their 
 thoughts, opinions, and prophecies. There is a rich mine 
 for futurity in all Shakespeare's works, down to his very- 
 sonnets. It is Shakespeare alone who has so developed and 
 perfected this great art of arts that three centuries have 
 hidden his meaning, until the age recognizes in Hamlet its 
 own knowledge. Thus we grow up to genius, and not 
 until we have reached, by the aid of time, the level of 
 genius, do we understand it. Dr. Maudesley remarks in 
 his Essay upon Hamlet : " The right aim of a critic, who 
 is conscious of the exalted scope of art, is to show how he 
 has developed nature; to unfold the idea which inspires 
 and pervades the wondrous drama." 
 
 This is exactly what we have endeavoured, though 
 lamely, to effect in this short sketch. We quote from Pro- 
 fessor Morley's History of English Literature the follow- 
 ing as to Shakespeare's spiritual unities : " Every pjay of 
 Shakespeare's has its own theme in some essential truth 
 of life, which is its soul expressed in action, and with which 
 every detail is in exquisite accord." 
 
 This is what a large body of Englishmen tacitly deny. 
 They have devoted themselves to the language, and surface 
 of the text, and have ignored, or refused to acknowledge, 
 the very existence of quite another side of Shakespeare's 
 works. In doing this the Poet is robbed of his true soul, 
 and the principles of all true art are forgotten. 
 
 Coleridge, Malone, Johnson, and a host of English critics, 
 have done nothing for Shakespeare's thought and soul. 
 Their criticisms are with art, and art alone. The French 
 mind seems farther off than even ours from a true conception 
 of the meaning of Shakespeare. "We must make one ex- 
 ception in favour of Victor Hugo, who, in addition to trans- 
 lating the works of our Poet, has written an admirable 
 work upon him. Hamlet, he says, " c'est I'univers." But 
 we have no direct light beyond this. The latest French 
 critic is M. Taine, who, in his History of English Literature, 
 of course discusses Shakespeare, and Hamlet in particular. 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 151 
 
 M. Taine recalls the dictum of Voltaire upon that play. 
 The latter, who understood perfectly the uses of dramatic 
 art, has immortalized himself in the following, which is 
 not unlike M. Taine's criticism : " Hamlet is mad in the 
 second act, and his mistress is so in the third. The Prince 
 kills the father of his mistress, feigning to kill a rat. 
 The heroine throws herself into the river. They bury her 
 on the stage ; the grave-diggers utter quodlibets worthy of 
 them, holding skulls in their hands. Prince Hamlet replies 
 to their disgusting follies with coarseness not less disgusting. 
 Daring this time one of the actors makes the conquest of 
 Poland. Hamlet, his mother, and his stepfather, drink 
 together on the stage, they sing at tables, they quarrel, they 
 strike, and kill! "1 
 
 M. Taine, in a similar manner, tells us "Hamlet talks 
 in a style of frenzy." That the play is the produce of a 
 "night's delirium." Skilled in generalizations, with the 
 Hterature of Europe at his fingers' ends, M. Taine writes 
 to the countrymen of Shakespeare in this manner. 
 Does M. Taine understand his own metier of writing 
 histories of thought, since he cannot comprehend the greatest 
 master of .that art? "We must nevertheless acknowledge 
 the candour of M. Taine. There are thousands who refuse 
 to see a difficulty in criticizing Hamlet. They show in- 
 capacity in harmonizing the artistic development of the 
 play, and refuse to own it is a problem. They thus shut 
 their eyes to their own ignorance, and succeed in perpet- 
 uating this delusion. 
 
 To turn to the Grerman mind, we find ourselves im- 
 mediately in presence of our true masters, in respect to 
 Shakesperian criticism. Goethe has been the true discoverer 
 of Shakespeare's secret. In his novel, the "Wilhelm Meister's 
 Apprenticeship, we have an exegesis of Hamlet. The true 
 value of that work is its interpretation of Hamlet. Hamlet 
 
 ' The cvirious part of Voltaire's blindness to Shakespeare's meaning lies in the 
 fact that he ■wrote his own plays upon similar principles. See Brutus, Mahomet, 
 Alzire, etc., etc. 
 
152 hamlet; or, 
 
 is incorporated with Wilhelm, Serlo with Polonius, Aurelia 
 with Ophelia, and Laertes remains Laertes. The play is 
 used in the development of the novel. That novel is a 
 prose Hamlet. It would be easy to rationalize it thoroughly. 
 Philina is Philosophy, Mignon Poetry, etc., etc. It is a 
 history of man, in which Hamlet is blended. Thus an 
 interpretation of Hamlet is given in a detailed and lengthy 
 manner. It is not our province or desire to solve the 
 Wilhelm Meister here. We ourselves were only led to 
 its comprehension by a first and earlier conception of 
 Hamlet. It has never thrown any distinct, or aught but 
 false light, upon the reading of Hamlet. No one has solved 
 the latter by means of Goethe's novel. To prove this, we 
 take a countryman of Groethe's, who is the latest and the 
 profoundest critic upon our Poet. Dr. Gervinus, in his 
 Commentaries, adds nothing new to the criticism of Hamlet. 
 Let us see first what Professor Gervinus, speaking for 
 Germany, says of the latter: "It is a text from nature 
 of truest life, and therefore a mine of the profoundest 
 wisdom ; a play which, next to Henry the Fourth, 
 contains the most express information of Shakespeare's 
 character and nature, a work of such a prophetic design, 
 of such anticipation of the growth of mind, that after 
 nearly three centuries it is first perceived and appreciated ; 
 a poem, which has so influenced and entwined itself with our 
 later Germanic life, as no other poem even of our own age 
 and nation could boast, with the exception of 'Faust' alone." 
 This is a refreshing contrast to the extravaganza of M. 
 Taine, and a direct proof how Shakespeare is cultivated 
 and reverenced throughout Germany. But with regard to 
 Hamlet, the Professor says : " Since this riddle has been 
 solved by Goethe in his Wilhelm Meister, it is scarcely 
 to be conceived that it ever was one, and one is hardly 
 disposed to say anything more towards its elucidation." ^ 
 
 1 This shows how utterly unconscious Professor Gervinus is of the - character 
 and nature of Hamlet. The riddle of Hamlet will prohably remain one of the 
 remotest and most dii&cult of sciences, since it embraces aU other sciences. 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of his'bory. 153 
 
 Is this the way the Philosophy of History, by the greatest . 
 genius the world has ever seen, and written three centuries 
 ago, is to be treated? Nevertheless, Professor Gervimis 
 proceeds to discuss the play, suggesting much, and hinting 
 much ; but still clearly no nearer the real solution of either 
 Goethe or Shakespeare than he likes to confess. Thus we 
 are driven from the Continent home again in a discon- 
 tented frame of mind. -We must help ourselves. And it is 
 only right Englishmen should be first in this work. Dr. 
 Maudesley, in his recently published Essay on Hamlet, truly 
 says: "No one who sets himself anew to the earnest study 
 of the drama is content with what others have done, but 
 believes he can add something important from his own re- 
 flections." All that Dr. Maudesley tells us, however, is 
 that " Hamlet is a poetical creation, and never was a living 
 reality." His essay is deeply interesting, and full of valu- 
 able reflections on the play. He says truly, "Hamlet is 
 so acted upon, that events rather prick him on than his own 
 feeHngs." This is a profound recognition. For everywhere 
 in Hamlet we recognize this "pricking on." No one 
 realized better than Shakespeare how certain events, such 
 as Hberty, knowledge, and progress, go hand in hand. So 
 much so that each monologue of Hamlet is hand in hand 
 with either Fortinbras, the Players, or some movement 
 which is indispensable to any further resolution, or action, 
 on the part of Hamlet. 
 
 All that hitherto has been said in connexion with Goethe 
 and Shakespeare is the criticism of JefFrey in the Edinburgh 
 upon Wilhelm Meister. That criticism was to the effect 
 that the novel " is a most exhaustive criticism of Hamlet." 
 It is the recognition of a certain subtle relationship, but a 
 kind not easily rationalized. 
 
 The last notice we have upon Hamlet is Mr. Tyler's 
 "Philosophy of Hamlet." Mr. Tyler is one who has 
 suddenly been bitten with a Hamlet mania. He has been 
 suddenly illuminated with a revelation. But though partial, 
 it is a true one. And Mr. Tyler, believing that he of all 
 mortals is the first to make this discovery, takes good care 
 
154 . HAMLET ; OR, 
 
 to let the public know of it. We are however little better 
 off than before. There is nothing new in his demonstrat- 
 ing the relation of Ophelia to Hamlet. No one could help 
 seeing who Aurelia was in Goethe's Wilhelm Meister, and 
 one could hardly help seeing that she is only Ophelia in 
 another guise. But is this sufficient to justify a claim to 
 a great discovery? If so, we must also make that claim. 
 But we thought any suggestions not in harmony with the 
 whole play, action, text, etc., to be absurd in the face of 
 Goethe's novel. And we have waited until, word for word 
 and line for line, we have had the play partially revealed 
 to us.^ 
 
 ' Nothing but a work of a lifetime could do justice to Hamlet, and it is 
 probable that each century will see more exhaustiye interpretations of the play. 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 155 
 
 CHAPTER yil. 
 
 rpHE first thing to be done in criticizing a work of art 
 -^ is to separate the main lines upon which it is built 
 from the secondary and correlated parts. In doing this 
 with Hamlet, we find the whole play to rest upon one first 
 cause. That is, the unjust usurpation of a throne from its 
 just heir by crime. The action will be then, first, the 
 detection of this crime; secondly, the attempts to revenge, 
 and turn the unjust occupant off his throne. Upon this 
 discovery and action the whole play will revolve. All 
 the rest of the dramatis personce are but accessories to 
 the discovery, to the revenge, and to the opposition to 
 that revenge. Fi^st, we have a King in possession. 
 This possession has been effected by crime. The right- 
 ful heir first discovers and then avenges the crime. 
 The details of this discovery, and the struggle to avenge, 
 and resist this revenge, is the action, the detail, the whole 
 story of the tragedy of Hamlet. 
 
 The King is human error.^ He is a mere symbol for 
 every injustice as regards man. He is, in possession. 
 Prince Hamlet is the spirit of truth-seeking in man. He 
 is the rightful King by every right. But though a prince 
 
 ,' Historically and philosophically alone. And he is the sum total of his 
 partisans. He dies as they separately are destroyed. 
 
156 HAMLET ; OR, 
 
 and the rightful heir, he never succeeds to the throne. The 
 King is married to the Queen. The Queen is human belief. 
 She is wedded to error. But truth must be also beHef. 
 Therefore the prince is made her son. He laments her bad 
 marriage. But it is some time before he detects crime to 
 have been perpetrated, and that he has been not only robbed 
 of a father, but tricked out of the throne. As long as he 
 knew nothing of the crime of the King, he sees in the 
 King's marriage to his mother a just claim to the throne. 
 But when he discovers the crime of the King, he sees his 
 mother must be spoken with, reproached, and induced to 
 relinquish the King. To avenge the crime of the King is 
 then his only thought. To oust him from the throne — to 
 kill him by so doing — is the action of the play. 
 
 Now let us take this theory of ours as exemplified ia 
 history, and try and wed it to the structure of these main 
 lines. 
 
 There was a time when man knew, not that error was in 
 dominion over him. Such times were the Dark Ages. The 
 discovery of error is to recognize its unlawful dominion. 
 To recognize that unlawful dominion is to wish to re- 
 pair it, by getting rid of it. First, the discovery must 
 be made. Then the efforts to carry it into effect. The 
 last will be a work of time. It will be done only by 
 successive stages. To render that discovery possible, we 
 must have the means of discovery. To carry that dis- 
 covery into action, we must have further means. And 
 over time will be spread the battle, which must be repre- 
 sented by growth of power, implying loss of power on the 
 other side.' 
 
 But this is the plan of the play. Characters inform 
 Hamlet of his father's Ghost. The Ghost informs Hamlet 
 of the King's crime. Hamlet then charges the King with 
 the crime. And then we have, with the successive fall of 
 the King's Lord Chamberlain and Courtiers, a successive 
 
 ' Thus Hamlet is born, grows to manhood, and accomplishes his mission and 
 destiny. 
 
■ shakespeake's philosophy of history. 157 
 
 weakening of tlie King. "Whilst with the means of Hamlet, 
 as contained in the characters who lead to discovery, we 
 have also the Players, the march of Fortinbras, and the 
 address to the Queen. The whole history of progress and 
 reform is one of time. So is the play of Hanalet. The 
 history of man's progress (as exemplified in Europe) is one 
 in which error is constantly weakened — injustice and error 
 of course are the same. The spirit of truth gains at the 
 expense of error. But time is required, and the spirit of 
 truth is always lacking power to crush out every wrong at 
 a blow. It only gains strength very slowly indeed. Thus 
 Hamlet's want of power, or irresolution, is explained.^ Time 
 alone can give it to him. In the death of Polonius we read 
 the first destruction of one of the King's bulwarks. What 
 should that bulwark be ? Certainty, we reply. For error only 
 exists in proportion to its being believed in with certainty 
 by men's minds. Wlien this Certainty is dead, belief can 
 be shaken. So we have Hamlet's address to his mother, 
 and his direct charge to her for the first time after the death 
 of Polonius. 
 
 The discovery of error is only efiected by the unity and 
 co-existence of three things. The spirit of Kberty, know- 
 ledge, and doubt. But we have all this in the play. We 
 have Bernardo relieving Francisco, as implying knowledge 
 relieving ignorance by the art of reading. Next, Marcellus 
 and Horatio, who are probably produced by the above 
 two. Scholarship and inquiry result from printing and 
 the diffusion of reading. Then the Ghost, or doubt, comes 
 in the train of the above. Knowledge brings criticism, 
 and criticism brings scepticism. And contemporary with 
 these we have the rise of Fortinbras, who represents 
 the spirit of liberty. Thus knowledge, liberty, and progress, 
 enter the play almost hand in hand. All these will 
 form the spirit of justice and truth-seeking, who is realized 
 presently in Hamlet. They then "go in together" to set 
 
 ' Ve cannot too mucli insist that Hamlet is acting all through the play, as he 
 kills the King through his adherents. 
 
158 hamlet; oe, 
 
 the times, " tohich are out of joint, right." That is to 
 attack error, the King, wedded to human belief. But how 
 are they to effect this ? They must first prove the King is 
 guilty of crime. They must show he is error. And this 
 they effect by showing the King how he became the 
 occupant of the throne. They point out his crime, which 
 is a revelation from scepticism. Error is only recognized 
 by showing how it is error. And the King is only King 
 in virtue of error. Therefore the Player-scene embrapes the 
 Reformation, and the first revolt of Hamlet or man.^ IJpon 
 this revolt, and its proof the play must hinge. From this 
 time the King must continuously lose power. This he does 
 first by the death of certainty shaken by the Player-scene. 
 And mark how this is effected by the Player-scene. The 
 Queen only wishes to speak to Hamlet in consequence of 
 that Player-scene. And this leads to the death of Polonius. 
 Thus the Player-scene is artistically shown to be the cause 
 of the death of Polonius. The first blow at the King is 
 the death of certainty. From this time he continues losing 
 -power, and Hanilet in gaining it. After the death of 
 Polonius, Hamlet can address his mother. Belief is shaken, 
 is divided, and, from this time, she gets less and less faithful 
 to the King, until she dies, which is merely the death of 
 belief in error, and error in belief. 
 
 "Who are the next enemies to truth and justice-seekers? 
 Clearly those who are benefited by error, or by the King. 
 They will not care about Hamlet, since he seeks to rob them 
 of their possessions in destroying abuses.^ They will be in- 
 different to reform. They must live in the lap of fortune. 
 They will therefore oppose Hamlet by every means in their 
 power. They must be pictured all this, and they are so 
 pictured. The weapons they use must be hypocrisy, cunning, 
 sophistry, indifference, and casuistry. The text will show 
 that the characters of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are all 
 
 ' It is impossible to separate truth from progress, or the latter from history. 
 ^ Those who understand history will see that Eosencrantz, by means of 
 Guildenstern, represents the chief opposition of authority. 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of histoky. 159 
 
 tUs, and more, They will only be got rid of by time and by 
 a system of thought, which will crush them out. England 
 does this. And England is perhaps science. Science is truth, 
 which admits of no equivocation and no sophistry. The 
 action and growth of liberty, knowledge, and truth-seeking, 
 must be expressed. It is so expressed in the march of 
 Fortinbras, the speech of the Players, and by every soliloquy 
 or self-r6proach of Hamlet. The continuity and gradual 
 death and lessening of certainty must find utterance. It 
 does so in the faint continuation of Polonius by Laertes, who 
 finally represents conservative literature. The growth of 
 Hamlet must be also expressed. It is done by touches of 
 the text. Such is the letter of Hamlet stating his naked- 
 ness. The death of the King must be contemporary 
 with the death of the Queen and the death of his last 
 adherent. And the end of the conflict must be also 
 pictured. All this is done by the deaths of King, Queen, 
 Laertes, and Hamlet, almost simultaneously. "Why must 
 this be so? Because error lives by belief in error. And 
 error lives by its representatives in the play. When 
 injustice is dead, the work of Hamlet is done. The crime 
 is avenged. Therefore when the Queen dies, error dies, 
 and vice versa. "When Laertes dies, the King or the error 
 must die. And, as Hamlet's work of warring for truth 
 is finished, he must die also.^ And how is error found 
 out? By turning it in upon itself. Therefore the same 
 weapon must kiU Hamlet, the King, and Laertes. And this 
 is the case. The Queen dies by the same potion as the King 
 also. Next, by what should the spirit of truth-seeking be 
 best accompanied? By a spirit of liberty. And this is 
 marching with Fortinbras all through the play. The next 
 best friend to truth-seeking is the spirit of justice and in- 
 dependence. And by knowledge, Horatio represents all three. 
 
 ' If we go deeply into the subject, we find our Poet is obliged to kill Hamlet. 
 Since truth is not ^n entity, but a movement, and the tragedy is concerned with 
 conflict alone, with the end of the latter, the personality of Hamlet disappears, 
 as hi represents conflict alone. 
 
160 , HAMtiET ; OK, 
 
 And Horatio comprises Marcellus, Bernardo, and the Ghost. 
 Thus Hamlet is only an expression of liberty, knowledge, 
 justice, and. truth- seeking. He is all in one. He is the 
 symbol of progress. And the King is the symbol of error 
 contained by his adherents. He is backed up first by cruelty, 
 force, and despotism. Voltimand, Cornelius, and Norway 
 express all these. When they die, he has Poloaius, — 
 certainty. Next Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Then 
 Laertes and Osric, who are inheritors of Polonius and his 
 direct heirs. They are orthodoxy, literature based upon 
 certainty, and society. 
 
 The Church must find expression. It does so in being 
 pictured the daughter of Certainty. And as there is a period 
 in history when she is autocratic, the first attack of Hamlet 
 upon Certainty must be through her. Therefore she is 
 criticized by Hamlet, She is supposed to be sequestrated 
 from Hamlet. This is the recognition of their mutual 
 antagonism. As liberty and all free thought is considered 
 dangerous to the Church (who is one with Polonius and 
 the King), the representation of this must be given. And 
 we find it in Hamlet's supposed madness. Next, as 
 difference of opinion arises between autocratic Certainty, 
 through Intolerance, and the growing Hamlet, the text 
 furnishes in Hamlet's letter to Ophelia the grounds of his 
 madness. His madness is his badness in the eyes of his 
 enemies. The growth of learning and criticism must be 
 expressed. The arrival of the Players supplies it. And 
 then we have the Eeformation. The means Polonius takes 
 to keep Laertes orthodox is found in Reynaldo. The 
 Players are also to be prompted by Truth. How is this 
 to be expressed? In the instructions given to them by 
 Hamlet. How is general reform and progress to be re- 
 presented ? By an introduction of Time and Progress, 
 in a scene effecting their ends. In this scene the progress 
 of the age is represented by criticism of every sort and 
 the recognition of social law. How is the decadence of 
 the Church to be represented? By real madness or in- 
 coherence, by change in drowning, and by final burial. 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 161 
 
 And this is stown to be the result of the death of Certainty. 
 What is the advice of Laertes to his sister ? The support 
 of the Church by orthodox literature. How is the persecu- 
 tion of the spirit of reform to be artistically rendered ? 
 By touches of" the text. How is the growing criticism 
 of authority and error to be portrayed? By satire, 
 irony, and mockery, under cover of madness. How is the 
 continuity of the dead characters ' to be portrayed ? By 
 sometimes artistic reference to the body, and gradual burial, 
 as in the case of Polonius and Ophelia. How is the weak- 
 ness of progress to be expressed in the play? By the 
 irresolution of the spirit of progress, viz. Truth. 
 
 To do justice to Hamlet would be to take the tragedy line 
 for line and word for word. Then to exhaust the historical 
 parallelism of the History of Europe since the end of the 
 Dark Ages. And finally to discuss the Philosophy of 
 History therein contained. But before a work of this sort 
 is attempted let us have a flood of criticism. For this is 
 the ordeal of every truth, 9,nd the better the truth the worse 
 for criticism. There are many points we have refrained 
 from touching upon in the play. Such is the praying of 
 the King, and Hamlet's thoughts of killing him. We think 
 this is meant to illustrate the weakness of the King. A 
 weakness springing from Hamlet's corresponding strength. 
 We must never forget the great difficulties which art must 
 encounter in expressing truth. Much must be taken as 
 understood. Thus we see that the arrival of the Players is 
 the arrival of Hamlet to a state of manhood. He has grown, 
 and he has expanded into " Learning," which soon shows 
 itself in the action of the Player-scene. Shakespeare has 
 made actors artistically the type of true actions in the world. 
 And the contrast between the acted upon and those who act 
 is very striking. 
 
 The end of the tragedy is in perfect accordance with our 
 efforts at interpretation. Fortinbras, though not seen, has 
 
 ^ And by the continuation of Polonius through Laertes. 
 
 11 
 
162 HAMLET ; OR, 
 
 been marcliing silently all through the play.^ The death of 
 Hamlet is his signal to appear in complete conquest from 
 Poland.^ Liberty, which we found expressed in abortive 
 revolt at the earliest part of the tragedy, has shown itself 
 once with forces marching in the middle of the play. It • 
 then gave Hamlet a tremendous impulse. For he used his 
 reason with England ; and thus liberty and science, with 
 justice, have possession of the field. Every word of the 
 text is in harmony with the above. 
 
 Haw perfectly the death of Rosencrantz and Guilden- 
 stern is in harmony with our hypothesis as regards 
 England! And we do not hear of their deaths until 
 Hamlet is dead ! 
 
 "First Ami. The sight is dismal ; 
 
 And our affairs from England come too late : 
 The ears are senseless that should give us hearing, 
 To tell him his commandment is fulfiU'd, 
 That Rosencrantz and Guildenstem are dead : 
 Where should we havfe our thanks ? 
 
 Sor. Not from his mouth. 
 
 Had it the ability of life to thank you : 
 Se never gme eommtmdmmt for their death." 
 
 In the last lines we have an apparent contradiction. Did 
 not Hamlet give commandment for their death? Artistically, 
 yes ; truly, no. They died by the letter of the King. That 
 letter, being signed by Hamlet, was their death, by their own 
 errors.^ Rosencrantz and Guildenstem died of their own 
 "baser natures," by the progress of the systematization of 
 truth — science. Horatio says : 
 
 " . . . . Give order that these bodies 
 High on a stage be placed to the view ; 
 
 ' Fortinbras, it is plain, is might and right. The conquering march of Hamlet 
 is thus artistically expressed. But this is liberty. 
 
 ^ The sudden introduction of Fortinbras and the Ambassadors from England 
 exactly as Hamlet dies proves our theory, that Hamlet is conflict alone. For it is 
 only with the end of conflict that perfect liberty and justice can be realized, as 
 also science. 
 
 3 As in the case of Laertes, both Rosencrantz and Guildenstem die when their 
 errors are turned in upon them, by the contradiction of truth when contrasted with 
 the false. 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 163 
 
 And let me speak to the yet unknowing world 
 How these things came about : so shall you hear 
 Of carnal, bloody, and unnatural acts, 
 Of accidental judgments, casual slaughters, 
 Of deaths put on by cunning and forced cause, 
 And, in this upshot, purposes mistook 
 Fall'n on the inventors' heads : all this can I 
 Truly deliver." 
 
 The above is the history of history. One of conflict, of 
 slaughter, and of accidental judgments, all at last to fall 
 upon the inventors' heads. This is the history of man, iden- 
 tical with Pisistratus Caxton's intended history of " human 
 error." Hamlbt.is the history of human error — past, present, 
 and to come. Horatio will deliver — " all this (can I) truly 
 dehver." For Horatio is to Hamlet what Laertes was to the 
 King — literature. And all through the last scenes Hamlet 
 is warring through Horatio. We have a condensed history 
 of history in the play of Hamlet. The name of Hamlet is 
 not unsuggestive of Manlet, "A Little History of Man." 
 It is the history of progress. And it is a sublime prophecy. 
 The last words of the play should be written on the heart 
 of every true lover of progress, " Qo, bid the soldiers 
 shoot." 
 
 The play is continuous, blended, and gradual. No 
 abrupt halts. Insensible deaths and insensible progress. 
 All dovetailed, all connected, until the whole conflict is over, 
 . and harmony and equilibrium are established in identity 
 of interests and purpose. Thus man's apprenticeship ends, 
 leaving complete liberty, complete justice and science to 
 contiaue his travels. This is the tragedy of Hamlet. An 
 eminently optimistic view of life, and without doubt the 
 real one, which will arrive at some future day. 
 
 This is only a sketch — the briefest sketch — over a subject 
 actually limitless and boundless. Every Kne, every word, 
 could be taken as the text of a sermon, article, or essay upon 
 humanity. It is, as a whole, the Philosophy of History in 
 Europe. It is a solution of that Philosophy of History. 
 Because, if true up to the present day, and that after three 
 centuries of prophecy, everything pointing as it does to 
 
164 HAMLET ; OR, 
 
 fulfilment of the rest, makes us inclined to believe Shake- 
 speare before all men. 
 
 The subject of Hamlet is positively a limitless one. "We 
 leave the reader to read a volume between the lines of the 
 text. He will find every word a revelation, every touch 
 the work of a painter who has used up nature, and even 
 the play upon words, to illustrate his deep meaning. Hamlet 
 is the work of a great historian. It is the result of a great 
 philosophy. And it is the prophecy of a more than in- 
 spired teacher. Artist, historian, philosopher, dramatist, 
 prophet, are all contained in Hamlet. A god could have done 
 no better than our Poet has in this marvellous work. For 
 a god could but have been understood within the limits of 
 human comprehension. Hamlet has a threefold unity. The 
 unity of art, the unity of rationalism, and the unity of 
 history. 
 
 To add to all this, the whole three are united in perfect 
 harmony. Take the touches of the Churchyard-scene, and 
 its succession. First, discussion as to progress, and its re- 
 cognition. Then the surmisal of law, next the criticism 
 of progress, and that of history. Finally, if Mr. Buckle 
 is not far wrong, the reduction of all life to an eternal 
 conservation and reappearance. Hamlet is indeed a little 
 history of man. It is the microcosm of the macrocosm. 
 No wonder Hamlet was a play our Poet constantly retouched 
 and altered.' His conception of this tragedy must have 
 gone through many slow processes and evolations of thought. 
 The length of Hamlet's address to his mother is in keeping 
 with the importance of the Reformation. But we see how 
 difficult, nay impossible, to realize the schism in the action 
 of the play. For the Queen can only in words divide her 
 heart in twain; not in action. But finally we have her 
 drinking to Hamlet. Shakespeare has dwelt dramatically 
 
 ' Knight, Delius, and Staunton give good evidence tkat Shakespeare constantly 
 altered Hamlet. There is an earlier edition extant, in which the names of the 
 characters are different. For example, Polonius in this first (quarto, 1603} edition 
 is entitled Corambis, 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 165 
 
 alone upon the epochs and crises of history. The Player- 
 scene, the revelation of the Ghost, the death of Polonius, 
 all these are points upon which history and the play itself 
 hinge. Every minor event, every gradual decay or growth, 
 is in the text, or summed up in an appearance or return. 
 Such is the grand chorus of Fortinbras, running like a 
 thread all through the play. Another is the spread of 
 education, by the revolution of Laertes. A third, by 
 Hamlet's banishment to England. And over aU this the 
 insanity of Ophelia, in contrast to the one-sided mania of 
 Hamlet, hangs like an unutterable pall, to heighten the 
 contrast and the effect. 
 
 But before all this comes the exquisite beauty of the 
 Churchyard-scene. The decay of what is dearer to men 
 even than their Hves (which they count as nought in its 
 defence), is represented by the aptest of images, a church- 
 yard. Death is indeed at its busiest when progress and 
 behefs are at stake. How many lives have been sacrificed 
 over questions of policy and belief ! And here we have the 
 sharp contrast of mockery, ridicule, and laughter, with the 
 dread end. Everything gives way before those arch-clowns 
 Time and Progress. What genius, to represent Progress 
 uprooting institutions as skulls ! And how great the 
 art, that could represent man interrogating Progress, and 
 criticizing himself, by Hamlet's conversations with him- 
 self. 
 
 Hamlet must be recognized as the History of Man. No- 
 body recognized more distinctly than our Poet that Reason is 
 the son of Time. We are. told so in more than one play. 
 Shakespeare was the most complete evolutionist that we can 
 realize. He was a firm believer in science. And he was 
 a Utopian believer in the future of man — an optimistic 
 future — after the end of the tempests of Man's Appren- 
 ticeship. 
 
 The words of one Leonard Digges promise to be fulfilled to 
 the letter, aye, to such a degree as to make men believe that 
 they have indeed shaken hands with Shakespeare, but have 
 not known him until three centuries have passed over his 
 
166 
 
 HAMLET ; OK, 
 
 head. Those words are (speaking of his works) : " They 
 would keep Mm young for all time, and the day would come 
 when everything modern would he deipised, everything that 
 was not Shakespeare's would be esteemed an abortion; tJien 
 every verse in his works would rise anew, and the Poet be 
 redeemed from the grave." 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of histoey. 167 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 WE may now endeavour to realize the whole unity of 
 Hamlet. That unity is the unity and prospects of 
 history, when the latter becomes worthy of its name. Eor 
 mere despotism and stagnancy is not properly history. 
 Chronicles may hand down records of the deeds of kings 
 and of nations, but progress ^ only exists with the first in- 
 'spiration of the breath of freedom. Shakespeare has there- 
 fore very properly left out all irrelevant matter. The Dark 
 Ages are the proper starting-point of modern history. As 
 they broke up, so the history of Europe began to evince 
 a growth and development, which is in striking contrast 
 with the credulity, superstition, and ignorance of anterior 
 centuries. The first thing to be represented dramatically 
 was the breaJsing up of darkness and ignorance. Doubt 
 illuminates itself by the light of the revival of learning. 
 Increased liberty gives and takes fresh power from this 
 movement, whilst out of it springs a force which is well 
 represented by Hamlet. The latter, we maintain, like the 
 King, is an attribute, not a personification. Hamlet re- 
 presents the genius of truth and justice-seeking. He is 
 the human symbol, which wars for righteousness on earth. 
 He is well indicated when we use the word Truth in con- 
 nexion with him. 
 
 ' We mean progress in the sense of modern history. Erolution is progress, of 
 course, and is identical with universal history ; hut we believe that in this cos- 
 mical sense Shakespeare has given us the " descent of man" in " The Tempest." 
 
168 HAMLET ; OE, 
 
 As the birtli of Hamlet is contemporary with that of 
 liberty, Shakespeare has opened his play with the feeble 
 and abortive attempts of Fortinbras. At the same time 
 Doubt and Certainty succeed each other at intervals, until 
 Certainty is expressed by the revelation of the Ghost.^ 
 Hamlet recognizes evil, and sees that he is born merely 
 to set things right. This is his sole mission, and, prompted 
 by justice and reason, he makes up his mind to expose error, 
 wrong-doing, or evil. 
 
 Side by side with Hamlet, we are presented with his 
 enemies. These are expressed successively by despotism, 
 tyranny, authority, bigotry, self-interest, and gradually 
 modified into literary controversy. The principle of each 
 side is never lost to view. And this principle is explained 
 artistically by making the son of Polonius revenge his 
 father. Ghiildenstern and Rosencrantz' fill up the interval 
 by personifying self-interest in power and the languid in- 
 difference of the world generally. Hamlet is pictured as 
 first attacking and repudiating the Roman Catholic Church 
 pictured in Ophelia. The result is the Reformation, which 
 we must understand completed when he persuades his mother 
 to cleave her heart in twain, and throw away the worser half 
 of it. 
 
 With this act authority and the spirit of certainty is over- 
 thrown. Therefore it is contemporary with the death of 
 Polonius. Soon after, we have the appearance of Fortinbras, 
 which expresses the immense stride liberty has gained 
 through the Reformation. The death of Certainty being 
 gradual, we have Ophelia continuing this deca;y in phases 
 of dissent and scepticism. She finally is buried. All this 
 time Hamlet artistically seems to lack power to kill the 
 King. But we maintain the King is only a fiction, or 
 symbol of abstract error, necessary for the drama alone. 
 Therefore the King is in. reality dying all through the 
 
 ' We have not sufficiently explained Hamlet's father. Our belief is that Christ 
 or pure Christianity is typified through him. Thus the Ghost is a revival of, 
 purity leading to the Reformation. 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 169 
 
 play, as each of his supports and memhers of his court are 
 killed by Hamlet. Irony, satire, and open ridicule also grow 
 successively out of each other as Hamlet gains strength. 
 I The banishment of our hero well expresses the apparent 
 reaction of history. During this time forces are working 
 silently, and they do not break out again until Laertes, or 
 education, completes the revolution of authority from the 
 hands of the State into the hands of the people. The 
 return of Laertes is the complete revolution of politics. 
 In it the State exists for the people, not the latter for the 
 former. 
 
 But Laertes is still true to his principles. He expresses 
 in the place of sovereign, or State power, the principles of 
 a party. This party is of course the social and the stable 
 one. This stat? of things is most favourable to the growth 
 of Hamlet. Gradually, through reform, Hamlet escapes 
 from the trammels of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. He 
 returns thoroughly accepted by the opposite, or liberal party 
 of individualism. This is beautifully expressed in the word 
 mhed. The relations of Laertes and the King are still 
 more beautifully insisted upon. And the questions at issue 
 DBCome fought in a literary arena. Those questions are ones 
 beyond our age. They are social ones, which probably 
 affect the interests of privileged classes alone. 
 
 In the meanwhile Shakespeare has given us a beautiful 
 picture in the Churchyard-scene of progress generally, in 
 thought and in historical criticism. Our conception of that 
 scene is our particular claim to discovery. Much of what 
 we have already pointed out may be easily believed to have 
 been borrowed from Goethe. But this scene, which, un- 
 rationalized, gives no force to our interpretation, is in our 
 behef the very keystone of proof. Our conception of the 
 first scene of the fifth act is that Shakespeare has here 
 revealed the criticism of Hamlet by himself. The Clown 
 whom we have termed Progress, or Change, is only Hamlet 
 himself tracing his own genesis. Any fool can tell the 
 day Progress was born, for Hamlet was born that day. 
 Hamlet and the Clown are identical. In the progress of 
 
170 HAMLET ; OR, 
 
 truth we recognize, not a particular and separate birth, but 
 a progress synonymous with general progress. To trace 
 the genesis of progress is to trace that of truth, and vice 
 versa. Truth is an attribute, not a concrete something. 
 It is a relation, not a thing. Shakespeare has thus magnifi- 
 cently realized, artistically and symbolically^, the historical 
 criticism of man by man. The answers of the First Clown 
 are the direct results of historical criticism and retrospect 
 grown scientific. In these days, when every science tends 
 to grow historical and history scientific, we can perfectly 
 comprehend our Poet's meaning. It is just at this point 
 of the play that we should halt, and suggest the parallelism 
 of our own times and progress in general. The very 
 same Progress which was born with Hamlet, and which 
 arose with liberty in Fortinbras, is artistically represented 
 in the Churchyard-scene, as criticizing and uprooting in- 
 stitutions. In short, Hamlet is grave-digging in reality. 
 The Clown is only an artistic double to Hamlet. Hamlet' 
 has begun to evolve the science of history. Law, at first 
 ambiguous, appears in the simultaneous birth and growth 
 of liberty, knowledge, and truth. But it is subtle law, 
 which wiU away from the present to the past, and from 
 the past to the present. In fact, whilst we are eliminating 
 law, we are working under law. A procedure we do not 
 venture to fathom. We certainly believe that the Second 
 Clown is merely the symbol of time. For we have omitted 
 perhaps the most important element in proof of it. It 
 wiU be seen by the text that the Second Clown is termed 
 "gallows." We believe this to be artistic for all O's (OOOO).i 
 This would well represent time. In Love's Labour's Lost 
 we have a specimen of the same word, which can throw 
 great light here. 
 
 ■ " Sosalind. That was the way to make his godhead wax ; 
 For he hath heen five thousand years a boy. 
 Kath. Ay, and a- shrewd unhappy ^aKoMis too." . 
 
 1 See also " Cymbeline," Act y. So. 4. 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 171 
 
 Here we have five thousand years only applicable to time 
 through the word gallows. If we are right, our Poet could 
 nowhere have found a word more fitted to express in a 
 hidden and esoteric way both symbolically and artistically 
 Time. 
 
 The whole Churchyard-scene stands for progress and criti- 
 cism of a searching and profoimd character. "We are not 
 inclined, upon second thoughts, to reject Mr. Buckle's inter- 
 pretation of " Alexander." However that may be, " Yorick " 
 is clearly history. Nothing could be more admirable than 
 to represent Time and Progress «s two clowns, who, by 
 mockery, satire, and discussion, laugh at everything in their 
 inexorable march together. The discussions between the 
 two are often metaphysical, and would well signify the fierce 
 discussion of philosophy through a length of time. "We can 
 understand how Time thus instructs Progress as to Ophelia's 
 burial, and how Progress would evolve itself through Time. 
 This we believe most religiously to be Shakespeare's inten- 
 tion, though we of course deprecate any intention on our 
 part to give the right meaning to each Mne and word. The 
 anomaly of clowns in a churchyard is thus easily rationalized. 
 Shakespeare has distinctly realized the fierce and prolonged 
 decay of Ophelia. Even in her very grave the fight is 
 waged between Laertes and Hamlet. Truth is truth, and 
 Hamlet is in the hands of higher law, of reason, and of 
 evidence. 
 
 We have been forced by the nature of the problem in 
 Hamlet to attempt to solve it historicaUy and universaUy. 
 Truth is not a thing ; it is an attribute. By itself it has no 
 existence. We can find its birth and its growth alone in 
 the history of humanity. The philosopher feels there is no 
 real separation in life and history. Politics, rationalism, 
 philosophy, art and religion, are all parts of one great whole, 
 and are all related to each other in unity. When we 
 speak of truth, it is only relatively that it can even have a 
 meaning. And the only human signification it can have 
 must be sought for in history. There we immediately 
 recognize it in the presence of the great dynamical principle 
 
172 hamlet; or, 
 
 of progress. Within the dominion of thought it strives 
 to show itself in action, until, accumulating force enough 
 through' time as a party, it enters into the heart of 
 political, philosophical, and religious life, to reveal itself 
 finally in the civilization of humanity. Truth is thus the 
 principle which, by its appeals to justice, to liberty from the 
 absolute or Divine in all things, manifests itself in religion, 
 in politics, and in philosophy. Whence it comes, or whither 
 it goes, is not for us to determine. Sufficient is it to us that 
 this divine idea of truth is implanted within us. Satisfied it 
 can never be, except in realizing God alone — an impossibility 
 — which still as an ideal unrolls and evolves the godhead 
 and essence of the divine in itself. 
 
 The whole of history is in reality the history of the 
 progress of truth. Its life is a growth which manifests 
 itself by political growth. The latter is the expression of 
 how truth permeates each individual and unit of the com- 
 munity. Where individualism, which is self-knowledge and 
 self-development, slumbers, we have despotism and tyranny. 
 When it awakes, it begins to realize its manhood, first in 
 self-government, afterwards in self-criticism. Thus we see 
 how impossible it is to deal with a problem like Hamlet, 
 and not treat it historically. For truth and error are 
 only attributes of humanity, and the latter are fully ex- 
 pressed alone in history. Truth, justice, and liberty are 
 the real incentives which lead Hamlet forward. But these 
 require time to expand themselves through the growth 
 of education and knowledge. The more knowledge spreads, 
 the greater must be the latitude and force which truth 
 has to express itself. Based upon the order of nature 
 outside us, it can only find its expression and reflexion 
 within us, by the spread of knowledge and rationalism. 
 Science is thus the classification of the real relations and 
 truths of nature. The growth of rationalism is the recog- 
 nition of the nature of reason, and of its basis in cause and 
 efiect outside us. Knowledge and education depending upon 
 liberty have slowly to wait upon the political development- 
 of the latter and the infiltration of themselves through the 
 
shaicespeaee's philosophy of histokt. 173 
 
 units. Liberalism is thus a growth of units of individualism, 
 showing themselves as a force, and understanding more 
 and more the nature of the past, present, and future of 
 humanity. It is a pet theory of M. Thiers that, given the 
 art of a people, we may surely infer everything else about 
 them. And it is the truth. Art, philosophy, religion, 
 poHtics, are so related and bound together, that we only 
 lack proper data and knowledge to deduce one from the 
 other. The science of history is based upon their interde- 
 pendence. Politics, we can easily see, express the know- 
 ledge and liberty of a country. E.eligion, again, being a 
 reflexion of past and present knowledge, will find its 
 solution in philosophy, in. rationalism, and in science, when 
 complements to the absolute in thought. 
 
 Hamlet, striving to act, is a magnificent picture of the 
 weakness of humaff^thqught, as it ' collectively begins to 
 realize its force in European history. The long irresolution 
 of man prior to the Reformation is thus expressed. And 
 this irresolution finds its true strength in the march of For- 
 tinbras ' or liberty alone. Out of this political development 
 of liberty all the rest ensues as a necessity. "We cannot 
 too much insist upon the co-partnership of liberty, know- 
 ledge, and progress. They are a triumvirate which spring 
 naturally out of congenial conditions, and mutual interde-^ 
 pendence. Liberty awakens individuality, and the latter the 
 reason in each man. Again, political strife must be the 
 first expression of this growth of liberty. The history of 
 European civilization is the history solely of freedom, of 
 individualism, and of truth. Truth is bound up with reli- 
 gion. It expresses itself in those ideals termed justice, 
 liberty, equality, and goodness. The kingdom of Christ is 
 an awakening and an endeavour to realize these ideas in 
 Europe. Hearkening to this spiritual appeal through de- 
 velopment, man has so far progressed, as is compatible with 
 
 ' The reader may question our interpretation of Fortinbras as liberty. But, if 
 he reflects, he will see that Fortinbras is intended to be might' and right, and the 
 growth or progress of Hamlet. "What can this be but liberty f 
 
174 HAMLET ; OR, 
 
 the .nature of force, to realize already some of these divine 
 ideas, if even in a faint degree. 
 
 The unity of Hamlet is, as we have remarked already, 
 to be found alone in the spiritual soul afld_iiiterpreted 
 symholism of the play. For example, the abrupt intro- 
 duction of Fortinbras has never been understood by critics 
 who merely comment upon the artistic side of Hamlet. 
 So great is the objection to this introduction, that it is 
 frequently left out upon the stage. And we can quite 
 comprehend the objections which arise solely from an 
 apparent, not a real want of purport and unity. The 
 sudden appearance of Fortinbras is on- the merely artistic 
 side an excrescence and an anomaly. It signifies nothing, 
 and adds nothing to the beauty or the complication or 
 development of the plot. But what a light it throws upon 
 the unity and aim of the play, when we interpret and 
 rationalize the whole in one idea and plan ! 
 
 Then at once we see Fortinbras to be connected between 
 beginning and end of the play. The underground thread 
 is thus linked and pointed out as understood to be gaining 
 stealthy ground all through the story. Besides, the death 
 of Polonius being the result of the manhood of liberty, 
 necessitates the artistic expression of this growth of liberty. 
 And we see how it reacts once more with double strength 
 upon Hamlet. Thus, what has hitherto been considered the 
 great blot of the play becomes, by the light of reason, the 
 great connecting thread and ground plan. The aim and 
 end of the play is, that Fortinbras, as liberty, should finally 
 conquer. Horatio, as justice, also conquers. The Ambas- 
 sadors of England, representing truth in knowledge, also 
 come in for the ultimate possession of the situation. This, 
 we think, is Shakespeare's aim.^ Hamlet and the King are 
 symbols of a period of strife and conflict alone. Their 
 death represents the end of the struggle and the solution 
 of the problem. The dramatic situation is left in the hands 
 of liberty, justice, and science. This is our firm belief. A 
 
 1 Thus Hamlet's constituents do not die. 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 175 
 
 belief which Goethe indorses in terming the first part of his 
 own work the Apprenticeship of Wilhelm Meister. Hamlet 
 is Shakespeare's Apprenticeship of Man. 
 
 We would say something here as regards the profound 
 knowledge portrayed in placing Ophelia's burial after the 
 conversation of Hamlet with the Clown. Historical criti- 
 cism is the great agent in theological change of opinion and 
 in the decadence of forms of belief. Without a retrospec- 
 tion, which includes the rise and origin of creeds, there is 
 no scepticism, no unorthodoxy, aad no falling off in point 
 of belief. Shakespeare has done well to make Hamlet's 
 knowledge of his own progress and genesis the forerunner 
 of the ultimate burial of Ophelia. Again, Shakespeare has 
 plainly pointed out, by OpheKa's beKef in Hamlet's madness, 
 the disfavour in which the latter is held by the former. 
 To represent this real enmity, and yet reconcile an artistic 
 side, was Shakespeare's great problem. He has solved it, 
 in making Hamlet abandon Ophelia, and artistically ascribing 
 it to ambiguous madness. 
 
 The history of modern Europe is in a great measure the 
 history of the decline of the temporal power of religion. 
 As liberty and knowledge have expanded their wings into 
 the realms of poKtical life, so we trace the gradual segrega- 
 tion of theology to a position of less and less authority and 
 power. Prior to the Reformation, we find the State another 
 name for a religious hierarchy. Cardinals are prime 
 ministers, and the Pope a king over kings. To trace the 
 decadence of priestcraft would be to follow step by step the 
 history of Europe to the present day. But we may ask 
 ourselves the cause of this, and then we shall not have far 
 to search. The growth of rationalism is antagonistic to 
 the reign of superstition. 
 
 It is ignorance alone which can believe that one man 
 holds a divine commission to govern the other. Bit by 
 bit the sacred veil of reverence and fear, which shrouds the 
 priest, shows him to be a man often less inspired than his 
 lay brother. Shakespeare, in making Ophelia the ground 
 and basis of Hamlet's madness, has only actually pictured 
 
176 HAMLET ; OR, 
 
 history as it was. Ophelia and Polonius are bound by blood. 
 Not less strong was the historical tie of authority and the 
 Church at a period prior to the Reformation, if not later. 
 The philosopher of history must take into account the 
 criticism of Ophelia by Hamlet. And he is also bound to 
 recognize the relations of Ophelia to Polonius. Before 
 Polonius can be killed, Ophelia must be repudiated. In 
 short, an attack upon one is an attack upon the other. 
 They do not exist separate, but incorporated, and we must 
 never forget, therefore, that Hamlet's relations and conduct 
 to Ophelia are intended by our poet to signify his treatment 
 of Polonius and the King also. This is the reason why we 
 find Ophelia playing such a large part in the play. And this 
 is why what passes between Hamlet and herself possesses 
 such vital interest in the eyes of King, Queen, and Polonius. 
 By herself, and deprived of support in her father, Ophelia 
 sinks into insignificance. She becomes incoherent, she is 
 forsaken by Hamlet, and she not unnaturally commits 
 suicide. 
 
 The growth of Hainlet is one of the expansion of thought. 
 His repeated'soliloquies in solitude have the effect of clearing 
 his intellect. He sees his way more clearly. And as all 
 intellectual development is fatal to the growth of emotion 
 and feeling, we find him becoming indifferent to the exist- 
 ence of his once great love. 
 
 Polonius represents the principle of absolutism. And as 
 dramatic exigency necessitated his death, Shakespeare has 
 continued the slow decadence of this power through Laertes. 
 Ophelia and Polonius are one. Church and State for a 
 time represent authority and absolutism. 
 
 The resemblance which the action of Hamlet bears to 
 our modem conceptions of law is startling. Over the real 
 course of events the hero has no control. Hamlet has to 
 take his chance in his endeavours to kill the King. His 
 will does bring it about in a way ; but, let us mark, not in 
 a direct way. Hamlet is_actedupon powerfully by circum- 
 stances. The latter are completely beyond his control, yet 
 they are parts of the chain of destiny which bring about the 
 
shakespeake's philosophy of history. 177 
 
 denouement. However, we know that^amlet's irresolution 
 is not forgetfulness ; it is_ only^eakness. And this latter 
 well expresses the impotency of the human will over events, 
 except in an indirect and unknown way. Whilst striving 
 for the thing at hand, we are gradually bringing about 
 something far off and undreamt by us. Unconsciously we 
 evolve a divine plan, or a procession of events, which we 
 understand alone historically. The human will, as depicted 
 in Hamlet, is entirely the slave of time and circumstances. 
 It is only by introspection, by knowledge of its own weak- 
 ness, that it gathers strength. Again, it is entirely depen- 
 dent upon others: only as a whole, as social unity, has 
 the human will any power. In short, it is the conflict of 
 opposing wills, of collective forces, which emerge in that 
 resultant which we call history. The individual will by 
 itself has no power. It becomes autocratic when it identifies 
 itself with the social will. The contradictions of progress 
 and history are the effects of our not being able to estimate 
 the several values of the forces engaged, either in opposition 
 or in influencing each other. The history of Hamlet is the 
 history of his gradual growth from a small fraction to a 
 great community of people. Fortinbras only comes with 
 conquest from Poland when the majority and the most 
 powerful are identified with him. Thus the idea of liberty 
 and the progress of truth are growths which have their 
 foundations in the amount of education and knowledge the 
 units of a people possess. The more independent the 
 electors, the more independent ought to be the constituents. 
 And thus the institutions, the beliefs, and the general state 
 of a country, are dependent upon the action and reaction of 
 individualism and authority. If the latter were identical 
 with the former, we should have realized Utopia. Each 
 man would be self-governed ; the wishes of the many, the 
 wishes of the units. But as long as such is not the case, 
 there must be an antagonism more or less between the 
 majority who govern and the minority who are governed. 
 Fortunately this minority is always altering, and promis- 
 ing to become the majority. Things are thus kept going, 
 and each party lives to be somewhat satisfied. 
 
178 HAMLET ; OE, 
 
 Hamlet exemplifies this in a striking degree. His pro- 
 gress is one in which authority is always getting more 
 nearly identified with individualism. The direct antagonism 
 of the early portion of the play is substituted later for the 
 graceful courtesies which pass between Laertes and our hero. 
 It is the breathing time of day with Hamlet ; and he has 
 been long set naked in the kingdom. The march of Fortin- 
 bras has given Hamlet time to think a,nd use " that godlike 
 capability " — reason. One of its consequences is the death 
 of Eosencrantz and Guildenstern at the hands of England. 
 The law of progress is one which admits of increasing 
 exactitude and differentiation. This can come alone from 
 individual effort in thought. The State as authority can 
 encourage or, depress these efforts — even quench them. So 
 we see how essential it is that a Fortinbras should march 
 hand in hand with Hamlet. Not alone is Fortinbras neces- 
 sary, but the accompaniment of a ghost as doubt, which 
 by means of an active scepticism should constantly enlarge 
 our conceptions, and prevent us from falling into the delusion 
 that our relative knowledge is absolute, or that it is in- 
 capable of extension. But here society - steps in, and, as 
 .Eosencrantz and Guildenstern, offers its graceful and easy 
 optimism in the teeth of all unpleasant and naked truths. 
 The force of social opinion, of conventional thought, cannot 
 be over-estimated. It is here Shakespeare has underlined 
 his genius. The next great enemy to Truth, after special 
 authority in Polonius, is public opinion, expressed in the 
 social fitness of things, in careless indifference, in slothful 
 optimism, and in conventionalities.^ These are well pictured 
 in Eosencrantz and Guildenstern. Their of&ce is to run 
 with the hare and hunt with the hounds. They alone 
 banish Hamlet. With them he is indeed not naked. And 
 we can alone imagine the death of these two courtiers by 
 the hand of Hamlet through England. Truth, accompanied 
 by an army under Fortinbras, gradually realizes its deter- 
 
 ' Eosencrantz cannot exist without Gvuldenstern. The latter is method and 
 weapon alone. 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 179 
 
 mmation to use its reason. AH this time it is banished, 
 and working, as Fortinbras works, silently and very gradu- 
 ally. In the fulness of time it returns, without the two 
 courtiers, naked. How has it attained this result P We 
 reply, by the rigid method of England. That is, an expo- 
 sition of truths, through scientific method. "Would religion 
 and science ever have been at conflict, if the latter had not 
 offered evidence at variance and unequivocal in the face of 
 •traditional contradictions ? 
 
 Guildenstern and Kosencrantz- are safe upon the vague 
 and shifting sandbanks of ignorance. As long as proof is 
 wanting, sophistry can flourish. Verification is a deadly 
 enemy to mere dialectic and casuistry. Indifierence 
 cannot maintain its light and careless air in the face of 
 relentless science. The easy way with which science was 
 once relegated to a few, and easily pooh-poohed, is now 
 past. Guildenstern and Rosencrantz can no longer take a 
 happy middle course. We speak out in these days; and 
 we are forced not to ignore things, but to take our positions 
 upon one side or the other. 
 
 It is essentially necessary we should realize the import- 
 ance of Rosencrantz and G-uildenstern. Everywhere they 
 embarrass, and they hamper Hamlet. As long as he is 
 -with them, he is actually banished, and, in short, stifled 
 under indifference and the self-interested by means of 
 sophistry and evasion. Hamlet is simply out of court. 
 And we have only to examine the play to realize every- 
 where this interpretation of the two courtiers.^ 
 
 Shakespeare knew that there were two powers in the 
 world — apolitical authority and public opinion. He knew 
 the latter would step in and fill up the place of the former 
 when it had declined in autocracy. We therefore see the 
 exile of Hamlet following the death of Polonius. Public 
 opinion banishes Hamlet where before intolerance and perse- 
 cution had acted. 
 
 1 This is the period also when Hamlet is pictured at sea and groping for his 
 ends. This is historical reaction and pause. 
 
180 HAMLET ; OK, 
 
 Shakespeare knew there could be no progress, unless the 
 majority of a people were for progress. That majority- 
 would only become in time liberal. And since he also knew 
 how legislation in England would become more and more 
 the voice of the people, he saw that no progress would be 
 realized whilst the enemies to progress held power. This 
 he represents in Hamlet's irresolution and weakness, which 
 is a proof of the minority of Hamlet.^ Eosencrantz and 
 Guildenstern represent not alone society, but political power.' 
 As the interested in office, they have successively repre- 
 sented themselves as opposers of free trade, of Parliamentary 
 reform, and of every piece of just and righteous legislation. 
 They (Eosencrantz and Guildenstern) represent - the con-^ 
 tinuity of Polonius, and are themselves modified in 
 Laertes. 
 
 Hamlet, we repeat, seems to us to embody man, stimulated 
 by a divine idea. That idea is the eternal which is implanted 
 within us, and which permeates our being in the craving 
 for liberty, justice, and truth. 
 
 It remains now to trace the artistic resemblance between 
 our theory and Hamlet. The latter is painted as a gloomy 
 and profoundly philosophical young man. So far we recog- 
 nize the gloom as the result of a recognition by truth- seekers 
 of the corruption and pessimism of certain historical periods. 
 Without an ideal of good, of justice, and of progress, there 
 can be no pessimism. Hamlet is painted wretched, and his 
 misery arises from his being discontented and unsatisfied 
 with his surroundings. In his philosophical disposition, we 
 recognize a mind satisfied with reason alone. Thought iajn 
 him the governing principle. Disinterestedness and fidelity 
 to his father is his especial characteristic. The whole of his 
 character is a vindication of the beauty of truth. Alone and 
 by himself he manages to crush Polonius, Eosencrantz, 
 Guildenstern, Laertes, and King. It has been strangely 
 
 1 It is plain Shakespeare did seize in his mind what we term constitutional 
 growth. There were signs enough since Magna Charta and Henry the Third's 
 reign, to show a genius like our Poet what the future might bring forth. 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 181 
 
 overlooked by critics, that,. tliQugli Hamlet cliesi_lie alone, by 
 the power of thought, managesto crush_an_immense con- 
 spiracy against himself. It is extraordinary to notice, how in 
 the play he destroys not only Ophelia and her father, but all 
 his enemies. Yet he is termed repeatedly weak and unsuc- 
 cessful. Let us also remark how his friends, Horatio and 
 Fortinbras, survive him. It is for these latter and England 
 that Hamlet becomes, strives, and accomplishes his destiny 
 and himself. 
 {_ Hamlet's grandeur consists in his patience, in his prolonged, 
 but still determined purpose, and in his truthful thought and 
 philosophy. Justice is his great aim, and his great desire. 
 He lives for it alone, strives for it, and sacrifices himself in 
 order to accomplish it. Justice and freedom are alone realized 
 in his death. Thus his whole life is one vast sacrifice, which 
 attains its end only at self-cost. 
 
 To many Hamlet may appear weak. To others unfaithful 
 in his renouncement of Ophelia. Z* But, merely looking at the 
 play from the artistic side, we are struck with the un worthi- 
 ness of the heroine. She has no individuality whatever. 
 She looks upon her duty to her father as before her love to 
 her lover. She is in all things servile to the former, never the 
 heroine worthy of a Prince like Hamlet. As for our hero's 
 forsaking her, it is a strong proof of the meaning of the play. 
 For it proves to us Hamlet's madness, or it proves to us 
 Shakespeare's signification. But Hamlet's madness cannot 
 be even decided upon a purely dramatic and artistic side. 
 We say it is one of those shadowy contradictions which 
 symbolic art necessitates. The rationalism of the spiritual 
 soul of the play cannot possibly find art to convey it, which 
 can also bear on its side perfect consistency, and be free 
 from ambiguities. In our belief these latter heighten the 
 charm of the conception, and, by their mysteries, add to the 
 effect. 
 
 Finally, we may remark that the Philosophy of History 
 contained in Hamlet is, in our eyes, exhaustive as far as 
 dramatism is concerned. What we gather from it is as 
 follows. 
 
182 HAMLET ; OK, 
 
 Individualism finds its true strength in thouglit. The ■ 
 growth of the latter is the growth of progress or of 
 man. The Divine idea unrolls itself as the psychologjical 
 principles gain in strength and in comprehensive powers. 
 The growth of rationalism is the unrolling of the cosmos. It 
 is the reflexion in the microcosm, not of the macrocosm, but 
 of how the microcosm is related to itself and to others. 
 Misery, oppression, and stagnation, are the direct results of 
 ignorance. The latter of ' bad government or want of 
 liberty. In political progress alone a nation first realizes its 
 individuality — itself. That is the reason England bears 
 such an advanced position in European thought and science. 
 Germany, in the growth of her national life, is an example, 
 difierent in degree, but not in kind. Progress is the realiza- 
 tion of idea, and the birth of new ideas. These ideas are 
 always latent ; they show themselves in the manhood of 
 nations. They are eternal, and find satisfaction alone in 
 metaphysical speculation, which, defeated, turns as a resource 
 to positive thought and action. They are the absolute as 
 conceived of God, as the infinite — the unity and equation 
 of all things. The next lesson from Hamlet is the reign of 
 law, which dominates the individual, and, through the latter, 
 social man. That law is defined by our desires and apti- 
 tudes. They are born, or inherited, acted upon by surround- 
 ings, and developed by circumstance. The social man acts 
 and reacts upon the individual man. The latter is kept within 
 his orbit by authorityj which ought to be the voice of the 
 many units. The individual, in his turn, influences according 
 to his genius the social mass, and so affects his own life. Two 
 problems are presented in life. First, to secure freedom 
 without anarchy, and without stagnation. Secondly, to secure 
 order and law without violating individual freedom and happi- 
 ness. This can alone be realized when the two terms are 
 identical — when each man's happiness is identical with social 
 happiness. But all this is within law. That law is to be 
 formulated alone by means of psychological analysis and 
 disoovei'y. One thing is plain. "We recognize law. We 
 know knowledge increases our liberty, for it enlarges our 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of histoky. 183 
 
 aptitudes, our choice, and our alternatives.^ And knowledge 
 itseli IS verification, by means of substituting our rude guesses 
 to the test of the order in nature. We thus discover order in 
 ourselves, and order outside of us. The order outside of us 
 has made order within us. That " divinity that shapes our 
 ends" is not a Divine intervention, but a psychological growth 
 by means of accretion and accumulation of knowledge. Facts 
 are piled up, whilst the organism extends in its turn the 
 neural groupings from particulars to generals. We thus 
 bind the separate links of life together. 
 
 Hamlet bears some resemblance to Prometheus, and again 
 to (Edipus E,ex. There is the same savage grandeur about 
 his character as we recognize in that of Prometheus. 
 Like the latter, he is chained to the rock of necessity ; like 
 the Grreek drama, the play exhibits the same inexorable 
 character of fate. Hamlet has a fatal mission to fulfil, and that 
 mission is one not of his own making. It is imposed upon 
 him by the chain of life. And there is something about 
 the way in which he goes to his own doom, whilst obeying 
 his father's dread command, which reminds us of the story 
 of Jocasta and her son. His weakness puts him within the 
 pale of our sympathies ; his lofty and ideal massiveness of 
 thought, hurried along as it is by the cruelty of fate, im- 
 presses us with awe and solemn mystery. Like Prometheus, 
 he is in the hands of the gods ; like Prometheus, he sub- 
 limely bears his doom. 
 
 The whole life of Hamlet seems to us an accompKshment 
 of purport. This purport is laid upon him by " that di-dpity 
 that shapes our ends, rough-hew them how we will." i^nd 
 his whole character and aspect impress us with the belief that 
 Shakespeare has painted him as an ideal of man fulfilling an 
 historical mission. Qn his passionate love of truth, in his pro- 
 found philosophy, in his weakness and his unselfishness, he 
 
 1 Every man ia free mthin the range of his character. But the latter is imposed 
 upon him by heredity, circumstances, etc. We can do what we wish, but this 
 latter is under law. Thus we never feel want of freedom, because we cannot get 
 outside of ourselves. Law and thefeelinn of liberty are thus combined. . 
 
184 hamlet; ok, 
 
 seems to portray the noblest part of human nature. His life 
 is devoted to others [ of his own happiness he takes no heeiSJ 
 A gloomy pessimism has its groundwork in his love of the 
 good and true, and his whole life is to revenge the noble and 
 root out the evil. Here we have the self-sacrifice of man, 
 who lives not for himself, but for an idea, for truth, for 
 liberty, or for humanity. Again, his whole development is 
 one which is gained by inward introspection and thought. 
 The strength and feebleness of the will has its ideal aspects 
 'portrayed in HamletT?" He recognizes his own irresolution, 
 and he gains further strength from it. He merely falters — 
 he never gives way nor forgets his father's command entirely. 
 And the will, as expressed in Hamlet, is entirely at the con- 
 trol of circumstances ; thus exemplifying the necessity of law. 
 Nevertheless, he carries within him a freedom which finally 
 finds sufficient strength to kill the King. He thus again 
 idealizes human liberty, controlled under higher law. 
 
 There is no character in all literature, ancient or modem, 
 which equals, in point of the sublime, that of Hamlet. We 
 must never forget he is human. We must not pass over the 
 fact that he- is not a god. The sublime in the drama rests 
 almost entirely with the conflict of man and destiny. Whether 
 it be an Atlas bowed down under the weight of a world, or 
 Prometheus chained to a rock, the grandeur of the story re- 
 mains, not with rude conquest and illimitable power, but with 
 the heroic' with the tragic, with destiny, and suffering. In 
 Hamlet we have a character who realizes at once the profound 
 questionings of Titan thought, and the weakness of human 
 wiU, under the dominion of law. He appears, at one and the 
 same time, human nature in the abstract, and human nature 
 in the individual. The finiteness of knowledge, and question- 
 ings of genius, are face to face with mystery, with destiny, 
 and with heroic suffering. 
 
 Hamlet seems to us the ideal apotheosis of thought, and of 
 truth. It is his thought which constitutes at once his strength 
 and his weakness. In his contemplations he discloses a power 
 of mental action which endows him with the attribute of 
 force, lacking opportunity. By the side of the King and his 
 
Shakespeare's philosophy of history. 185 
 
 myrmidons he yet appears a giant, who draws his strength 
 from fidelity and truth alone. We feel he represents the ideal 
 aspects of humanity, yearning after the absolute, in justice, 
 in liberty, and in truth. The whole world to him is an 
 "unweeded garden." The glory of the firmament "a congre- 
 gation of pestilent vapours." Everything is oblique. And he 
 alone lacks power to realize the glorious ideal of which he is 
 the true representative. His whole duty and mission is to 
 set " the times right," which are " out of joint." And we 
 immediately recognize strength of thought struggling against 
 strength of physical force and injustice. In his philosophy we 
 recognize a spirit of rationalism which is content with nothing 
 short of pure reason. He is not carried away by his feelings. 
 He forsakes Ophelia, to fulfil his duty, which speaks to him 
 from his own conscience. Life to him has but one aim — 
 extirpation of the^King. Of himself he cares nothing. He 
 easily detects the interested, the false, the mean, and the 
 sophist. Patience sits crowned upon him like a dove, yet 
 bears he for his motto — Death or Freedom. 
 
A PET "WORDS 
 
 OTHELLO. 
 
OTHELLO. 
 
 WE should like here to say a few words about another 
 of Shakespeare's plays. We mean "Othello." That 
 play presents difficulties to criticism, which are fortunately 
 absent in Hamlet. The diversity of the latter favours 
 satisfactory solution. For if we can find identity, which 
 can satisfy every diversity, in one unity and one plan, 
 we at once feel our proof more complete. In Othello 
 there is little to apprehend. It is a simple story of the 
 effects of jealousy alone. But none the less are we positive 
 that it has a symbolical idea, of which it is the mere ex- 
 ponent. As in the case of Hamlet, Othello is borrowed 
 from a foreign source. Cinthio's novel is now supposed to 
 be the basis of Othello, The recognition that Shakespeare 
 has borrowed from novels and stories plots for his plays, 
 strengthens our idea of the symbolical character of all his 
 works. If he sought merely plots whereon to hang his 
 symbolical ideas and conceptions of great subjects, we can 
 understand the secondary light in which plagiarism of this 
 kind stands. But if, on the other hand, his plays are self- 
 existent, and .exhaustive on their artistic and exoteric side 
 alone, we feel that his originality must seriously suffer 
 in the thefts. Our own belief is that he was absorbed in 
 his great conceptions of truths, and that, in reading Cinthio's 
 novel, or Belleforet's tales, he immediately saved himself 
 further trouble by adopting the plot for his own uses. It 
 would be only in character with genius if he did so. For 
 the latter incorporates and embellishes aU it comes across. 
 
190 OTHELLO. 
 
 Goethe acknowledged his indebtedness to every one with, 
 whom he conversed. Thus Shakespeare, to save himself 
 trouble and time probably, immediately recognized the 
 apposite character of a story, in relation to an idea or a 
 truth. We have already touched upon the symbolic character 
 of all works of genius. Indeed, an appeal to this truth is 
 absurd. Every work of genius is a living example of it. . 
 Groethe's poems are all symbolic, never. direct and simple. 
 Genius is genius, because it sees the many in the one, and 
 the one in the many. Generalization is synthesis, and the 
 latter is another name for unity of idea. Shakespeare, who 
 has profoundly analyzed over everything human, could only 
 have done so in disintegrating synthesis by analysis. Those 
 who perform the latter process must perform the former also. 
 The one is only the inverse of the other. The subtlest 
 thinkers are not only the keenest to mark the finite and 
 small, but the infinite and large as well.^ Symbolism is the 
 highest order of thought we possess. It is the algebra, of 
 which mere feeling is the arithmetic. In conception and the 
 highest order of thought we do not image concrete things, 
 but formulate them. The imagery of imagination can give a 
 concrete artistic idealism to this symbolism. Thus the artist 
 in literature paints his conceptions in characters who image 
 in their actions, etc., his profound conceptions. Shakespeare 
 has undoubtedly employed his artistic genius in this manner. 
 And it is the nature of genius to create in art ; because it is 
 not satisfied with cold logic and bald dialetic. It must have 
 life, because its imagery is not successive as a chain of 
 reason, but intuitive, instantaneous, and pictorial in con- 
 sequence. A tableau is formed in the mind, not a se- 
 quence of syllogistic reasoning. This is why artistic 
 genius is before all other genius. It satisfies the feel- 
 ings which play such a great part in it. Cold logic has 
 no feelings. None the less for all this is the rationalism 
 
 ' We are quite aware that a power of deep and searching analysis is often 
 accompanied by want of comprehensiTe power. But this is only found in scien- 
 tific thought. 
 
OTHELLO. 191 
 
 of symbolism in art absent. Intuition is to genius what 
 necessary truths are to others. A flash, not a laborious 
 process. For genius is born with inborn harmony — 
 an organism which reasons unconsciously — without effort. 
 This IS why poets must sing. They cannot or care not 
 to reason ; for they feel what others require explained, and 
 they often sing what they could not rationalize them- 
 selves. We therefore claim for Shakespeare, in the name 
 of all genius, and in common with all genius, symbol- 
 ism under forms of art. Yictor Hugo tells us he wrote his 
 three novels, " Notre Dame de Paris," " The Toilers of the 
 Sea," and "The Miserables," as vehicles of three aspects of 
 life: Religion — Nature — Society.^ Lord Lytton's novels are 
 examples of the same principles; which, in an essay in 
 " Caxtoniana," he has brilliantly explained under the title 
 of "Principles which Underlie all Works of the Imagination." 
 Again, what is George Eliot's " Middlemarch " but a picture 
 of this nineteenth century ? We are very much mistaken if 
 Casaubon is not a scholastic and metaphysical " witches' 
 circle," and Ladislaw positive thought. If in selecting the 
 name of Casaubon, George Eliot has selected one which 
 recalls Isaac Casaubon (who, whilst adding nothing original 
 to thought, represents well the barrenness of erudition and 
 mere scholarship), why has she at the same time made the 
 Casaubon of Middlemarch a fruitless Dry-as-dust also ? Are 
 we far mistaken in the parallel? However, symbolism is and 
 must be the true function of genius. Art is thus wedded to 
 rationalism, and so blended as to delicately convey truths, 
 which, in a less esoteric disguise, might do harm, and shake 
 the equilibrium of those who have not intellectual force 
 enough to think for themselves independently. 
 
 From this digression we turn to OtheUo. Here, as in 
 Hamlet, the first question we ask ourselves is, where is the 
 unity and plan of the play? If we take the latter solely as it 
 
 • It seems almost cMldisli to dwell upon this question. "WTiat is Dante's 
 "Divina Ooramedia" without a key? Have "Easselas," "Don Quixote," 
 " Gulliver's Travels," no symholic meanings? 
 
192 
 
 OTHELLO. 
 
 stands, in its simple " unvarnished " garb, as one of the fatal 
 effects of love and jealousy, we find the unity of text and 
 action, character and consistency, strangely conflicting. For 
 example, the great stumbling-block to all critics has been the 
 reference to Cassio in the opening of the play. Here he is 
 called a " great arithmetician." ^ Again, he is mentioned 
 as married — 
 
 " Almost damned in a fair wife. " 
 
 "We never hear of Cassio's arithmetic in the play, nor can we 
 imagine the necessity of it at all.^ There is no mention 
 of Cassio's wife, though there is of Bianca, his mistress. How 
 are we to reconcile these anomalies ? Are they anomaKes ? 
 Is Othello, like Hamlet, something more than a tale of love 
 and jealousy P Even supposing the latter to be all, we find it 
 most difficult to carry any deduction of a philosophic character 
 away from the play. We are deeply moved; but we are 
 puzzled also with other things. For example, we cannot see 
 why Othello should be so soon and unaccountably supplanted 
 by Cassio. Nor can we understand the role of Roderigo. 
 What part does he play, and why is he introduced at all ? 
 The song of Desdemona is also very ambiguous, as is Cassio's 
 intoxication. Now we propose to offer a solution of the whole, 
 merely as an hypothesis. We cannot even attempt to solve 
 the question by aid of the text. All we do is to give a 
 mere suggestion, that may find favour among some few 
 profound thinkers, not, we know, the many. 
 
 Cassio is termed a Florentine. His name is Michael. He 
 is called " a great arithmetician," and one of mere " theoric " 
 "prattle without practice." Galileo was a Florentine. His 
 name was Michael. He was a great arithmetician. Besides, 
 
 ' " loffo For, ' Certes,' says he, 
 
 ' I have already chose my officer.' 
 And what was he ? 
 Forsooth, a great arithmetician, 
 One Michael Cassio, a Florentine, 
 A fellow almost damn'din a fair wife." 
 2 Cassio as a soldier has no necessity in the play to be "a great arithmetician.' 
 
OTHELLO. 193 
 
 he was a contemporary of Shakespeare's, being actually born 
 the same year. Is it not just possible our poet has pictured 
 in Cassio ' science, or knowledge of natural laws and discov- 
 eries, which, through Galileo and others, were revolutionizing 
 men's thoughts during Shakespeare's life? By the term 
 " theoric " we can understand well the light science is held in 
 by some people. And let us remember how all we have said 
 in our essay upon Hamlet, in respect of the sixteenth 
 century, is connected with the conflict of religion and grow- 
 ing science. Shakespeare must have seen, as did many others, 
 that the whole question of the future lay in whether the 
 autocracy of religious intolerance would stifle the discoveries 
 of science, or be beaten and annihilated by the latter. It 
 was a battle which needed no great intelligence to foresee its 
 consequences. The Reformation had struck the first blow. 
 Men's beliefs in tradition and in the certainty of the past 
 were being shaken to their foundations for the first time. 
 We have endeavoured to picture this in the death of Polonius. 
 
 The conflict between religion and science is magnificently 
 centred and typified in the life and persecution of Q-alileo.^ 
 We suggest Shakespeare in Othello has pictured, through 
 Cassio, science, or the growth of natural knowledge. 
 Othello, as black, seems to us to personify human ignorance, 
 lago expresses perhaps the influence of the past, of tradition, 
 upon men. His name easily stands for any number of years 
 ago. If we insert noughts between the I and ago, we have 
 10 or 1000 (years) ago. "We merely suggest this. lago is 
 termed ancient to Othello. The latter places infinite cre- 
 dence in him. Cassio is the lieutenant of Othello. That 
 is to say, on our suggestion, he has supplanted by proof the 
 claims of the past to infallibility and belief. But Othello 
 will still be gulled, and believe in the past. 
 
 Suppose now we were to take Desdemona as truth. Her 
 name sounds not very unHke testimony. "Would not the 
 
 ' The name of Cassio suggests that it may be related to scto, scire,— from which 
 the word science is derived. 
 2 Not alone by Galileo ; hut through Bruno' also. 
 
 13 
 
194 
 
 OTHELLO. 
 
 stifling of Desdemona by Othello well represent the way 
 that ignorance has stifled truth when guUed by the voice of 
 tradition? The disgrace of Oassio is entirely on the back 
 of lago. And the latter raises Othello's suspicions against 
 Cassio and Desdemona. Does not this well represent the 
 conflict of religion and science? According to us, all 
 Othello's miseries come from his easy credulity. And half of 
 the ills of humanity, wars, persecutions, etc., come from a too 
 easy credulity. We have nothing in common with those 
 optimists, who see the right (like Gruizot) in everything. 
 Those who hold such a theory destroy the freedom of 
 law within law, of moral choice, and vindicate error and 
 evil at once. History is the history of human error, or it 
 is not so. However, we can see a parallel (whether true or 
 not) between Othello's credence in lago and in the beliefs 
 of humanity. The death of Desdemona, the disgrace of 
 Cassio, the torture and perplexity of Othello, are all upon 
 the back of that magnificent rascal lago. He is well termed 
 an "ancient" indeed. Let us notice how Cassio supplants 
 Othello. The whole play is in reality the history and pro- 
 gress of Cassio. He finally rules in Cyprus. This has 
 puzzled critics sadly. Because, judging him by his intoxica- 
 tion, they cannot see the grounds of promotion. But do we 
 read the true idea of the play aright ? Is Cassio's drunken- 
 ness perhaps not the symbolism of religious conflict? In 
 the play we find the song of lago very curious and am- 
 biguous. Cassio talks about "souls that must be saved and 
 must not be saved." Again, it is through Desdemona's 
 influence Cassio is finally reinstated. Cassio seems to be 
 defeated, only that further promotion may be gained from it. 
 Othello doubting Desdemona is a true parallel of ignorance 
 ignoring the truth, and believing it false through science. 
 The belief of man in the past, in the voice of antiquity, is 
 well pictured in Othello's credenjce in lago. The latter hates 
 Cassio, despises Othello, and sows mischief everywhere. He 
 not inaptly pictures Ultramontanism in the way he trades 
 upon Roderigo, who may well represent the foolish dupes of 
 superstition. 
 
OTHELLO. 196 
 
 Othello says of lago at the end of the play : 
 
 " I look down towards his feet; tut that's a fable." 
 
 This not unreasonably suggests that lago is in some way 
 connected with the past. His feet would express the earliest 
 history, and Othello may well say " but thafs a fable." 
 The whole conflict of history is one of two forces — past and 
 present. The past, by its antiquity, custom, authority, and 
 endurance, is always, like lago, persuading and influencing 
 the lives and beliefs of men. The present, born of know- 
 ledge slowly accumulated, throws light upon truths hitherto 
 unapprehended, and which are at variance with the voice of 
 the past. Until man clearly learns to comprehend the 
 nature of progress and development, the discoveries of 
 science are looked upon by many as dangerous innova- 
 tions. Truth is rejected, and before truth can be accepted 
 the nature of lago must be thoroughly understood by 
 Othello. In short, Othello is a phase of ignorance. "With 
 comparative criticism, and the intergrowth and dependence 
 of aU the sciences, the character of lago is more clearly 
 defined. Instead of looking back with reverence, we look 
 forward with hope. And this is what we fancy Shakespeare 
 has somehow pictured in Othello. It is a picture of one 
 " being wrought, perplexed in the extreme." Shakespeare, 
 without doubt, by the nature of his genius, clearly saw the 
 relation of man to nature. That relation is pictured, we 
 believe, in "The Tempest." And he must have accepted 
 the discoveries of science before the voice of ignorance. Of 
 course he saw also discoveries would accumulate ; and he 
 understood that for some time the greater part of men, 
 and authority in particular, would throw the truth away, 
 and believe the assumptions of tradition. This we believe 
 he has pictured in Othello. Here we behold a noble man 
 who, from a too easy credulence, is excited to murder 
 his faithful wife, and lay traps for his weak but faith- 
 ful lieutenant. The whole of the play is the trium- 
 phant march of Cassio. It seems as if his very weaknesses, 
 at tiertain periods of the play, are historical expressions of 
 
196 OTHELLO. 
 
 want of power. "We may notice the way musicians are in- 
 troduced; which seems very much like the harmony of 
 gathering force. Shakespeare lived at exactly the time when 
 Cassio, as science, may be well represented as stepping into 
 lago's shoes. The play opens with the non-suiting of lago's 
 mediators. But the power of lago, and the misery which he 
 entails upon Othello, seems also to symbolize the long con- 
 flict of religion and science (another term for the past and 
 present), which has continued from the sixteenth century 
 to the present day. How many truths have been post- 
 poned, laughed down, and stifled, because the past did not 
 agree with them? How often has truth been persecuted, 
 and oppressed, for the same reason ! 
 
 It seems to us that Shakespeare has purposely allowed the 
 soul of his work to crop up in places dfevoid of artistic 
 covering and unity. For example, this association of Cassio's 
 name in Othello with arithmetic, seems to point directly to a 
 profounder meaning than has hitherto been surmised. It is 
 absurd, as well as most shallow, for criticism to try and over- 
 look such a subtle hint. No one can calmly assert that 
 Shakespeare had no purport when he put these words into 
 lago's mouth. Until we can reconcile every line and every 
 word of the text with the unity of idea which pervades the 
 play, we must acknowledge ourselves in fault. 
 
 Wondrous as is the play of Othello, we instinctively feel 
 that, like all Shakespeare's works, it is great on not alone 
 the purely artistic side. We are certain that something 
 more than the bare and vulgar efiects of jealousy is pointed 
 at. We are bound, when we criticize Shakespeare, to allow 
 that it is possible his philosophy and art may be wider 
 and deeper than we dream. If Cassio represents, as we 
 surmise, science, then we claim for Othello a place only 
 second to Hamlet. We see at once that, taking GalUeo 
 as a type and forerunner of the fiery trial which science 
 would have to suffer at the hands of the past, Shakespeare 
 has embodied, in the disgrace and final rule of Cassio, 
 the persecutions and triumphs of pure reason. Again, em- 
 bodying in lago the principle of absolutism and certainty, 
 
OTHELLO. 197 
 
 arising from antiquity and tradition, our Poet has realized 
 the long autocracy and tyranny of the past oyer the mind of 
 man. In Desdemona's song of Willow we seem to hear a 
 long sigh for liberty, which alone through Lodoyico would 
 realize her happiness. Othello, we repeat, seems the sum 
 total of certain ages, "perplexed in the extreme," and be- 
 lieving, to their own ruin, in lago rather than in Cassio. 
 Of course with the detection of lago,. Othello, as representing 
 a phase of human progress alone, must die. Othello believes 
 his wife unfaithful to him, through Oassio. Plain sym- 
 bolism is at once at hand. The truth, which man loves or 
 pretends to love so dearly, is evidently untrue, since Othello 
 believes lago, whose evidence is at variance with that of 
 Cassio. Simply Othello rejects such a truth (or dramatically 
 stifles it) as a lie. He lives to find out that it is not Cassio 
 who has done him wrong, but lago, who is a lying rascal — a 
 fable. With this discovery (which of course is an end of 
 Othello as a phase of ignorance), he finds that Desdemona 
 was really true, and not false. Thus long-rejected truth and 
 persecuted science are pictured in Othello. At any rate, 
 whether true or not, we would institute this parallel, for the 
 sake of drawing attention to the nature of some of the 
 problems which Shakespeare must have realized during his 
 life, and which are being so wonderfully realized at the 
 present day. Thus the question which distracts us at this 
 moment is the comparative criticism of the characters of 
 lago and Cassio. 
 
 Shakespeare's century (the sixteenth) was the great criti- 
 cal period of European history. The past and the present 
 were face to face for the first time. Science and religion, or 
 reason and antiquity, were struggling for -existence-^ We 
 believe Cassio represents, in his promotion over the head of 
 lago, an exact parallel to the growth of science during our 
 Poet's life. Copernicus, Kepler, Bruno, Galileo, had clearly 
 
 1 The sixteenth century will some day be looked upon as the turning point of 
 man's intellect. Eehellion, misgivings as to the past, were born then, to grow 
 into hope in the future. 
 
198 OTHELLO. 
 
 stepped into the shoes of the past. But there was to be a 
 terrible struggle, and revenge on the part of the Church and 
 tradition, before this step would be consummated in men's 
 minds. Shakespeare saw this plainly. In the martyrdom of 
 Bruno he read the trials and triumphs of reason in the 
 future. And he has therefore made the career of Cassio 
 triumphant and successful. If we calmly ask ourselves 
 whether Shakespeare believed in the past and antiquity, or 
 in present discoveries of science during his life, can we 
 hesitate for a moment in our answer? We have an only 
 too clear exponent of Shakespeare's cosmical beliefs in " The 
 Tempest." There we have evolution. For Caliban, Trin- 
 culo, Stephano, are undoubtedly three links, whose rise from 
 each other is successive. They connect together the other 
 and higher thread contained in Alonso, Gonzalo, Sebastian, 
 and Antonio. 
 
 Prospero is probably Time, in which Shakespeare has put 
 his whole trust. Ariel is perhaps Nature itself, through law 
 and through reality, the servant of time and the worker of 
 miracles. That Shakespeare has clearly realized through 
 Caliban, Trinculo, and Stephano, evolution, is unquestionable. 
 The name of Trinculo is clearly an intermediate stage (three 
 in one) between Caliban and Stephano. The way Trinculo 
 hides himself under the gaberdine of Caliban during the 
 storm, is an artistic picture of a higher form evolved out of 
 a lower. Stephano by his name — a-step-on-h(igher) — clearly 
 realizes his mission. In the other characters Shakespeare 
 has taken large syntheses of human epochs and progress. 
 Gronzalo is Prospero's true servant and preserver, antiquity 
 and continuity. 
 
 Of all Shakespeare's plays " The Tempest" is the plainest. 
 Like Hamlet, it literally seems the tempest of man's appren- 
 ticeship, who is tossed about by time, without knowledge of 
 self or aim. Time and nature land man at last on the en- 
 chanted island of futurity, when time reveals (as it does now 
 to us) its character and its mission. With this knowledge 
 Ariel is indeed free. In picturing Ariel as living in a " cow- 
 slip's beU," Shakespeare has exquisitely pictured nature. 
 
OTHELLO. 199 
 
 Prospero or time teaches Caliban language, etc. Two 
 ihreads are noticeable in the play. One thread is that by 
 iphich we are let into the magic of time and nature; and 
 she other is a purely human side alone. Through the 
 nasque Shakespeare has undoubtedly given us as a corollary 
 ;he different stages of man's progress. Agriculture alone, 
 ;he blessings of the union of mind and labour in knowledge, 
 ire successively pictured leading up to the highest idealism 
 md Carlyleism. Those who fail to realize the nature of 
 Shakespeare's "Tempest" must be bHnd indeed. In Miranda 
 ive have the human intellect, that " wonder," of which 
 Prospero is master in "a full poor cell." Thus Shake- 
 speare has interwoven in his play several aspects of evolu- 
 tion. He has pictured mind as a psychological growth alone, 
 md led human development into something higher out of 
 1 Caliban up to the finding of Ferdinand. But with all 
 this we are not concerned, except so far as they prove Shake- 
 speare to have been an evolutionist and a Darwinian. 
 Therefore we may say, with some likelihood, that in Othello 
 Shakespeare has pictured that struggle between past and 
 present which was so wondrously commenced during Shake- 
 speare's life, and which is still working itself out at the 
 present day. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 A FEW GEI^RAL REMARKS. 
 
 "We would here deprecate any too close interpretation 
 being assigned to our interpretation of Hamlet. We rather 
 wish to have exemplified the scheme, the plot, the sub- 
 ject-matter, than the exact Hamlet of our Poet. The latter 
 would be too great an assumption. Whether we take Ham- 
 let as the growth of rationalism, resulting from the revival 
 jf learning and the Reformation, or simply as truth, the 
 principle involved remains the same. Hamlet is humanity, 
 n historical continuity and development. This is all we 
 nsist upon. To affix too narrow a signification to any of 
 he characters is not our intention ; and when such a broad 
 ubject as History is in question, the mind must indeed fill 
 ip the vacuum. We have only called the dramatis personce 
 ruth, error, certainty, or indifference, to illustrate what we 
 lelieve Shakespeare's meaning. If we have gone into detail 
 ^here we should not, it is rather in the hope of suggestion 
 ad of showing how every line might be rationalized. The 
 baracters of Shakespeare are far too collective in essence to 
 e exhausted in any words. 
 
 As regards Ophelia, we can come to no certain conclusion, 
 b more is heard of her after her burial in the play. 
 Whether the hope of Laertes, that violets might spring 
 
'202 APPENDIX. 
 
 from her unpolluted flesh, is fulfilled we know not. The 
 play of OtheUo seems to us to deal more directly with this 
 subject. 
 
 With regard to Hamlet's madness, we hope we have made 
 its nature pretty clear to the student. In respect of Hamlet's 
 banishment to England, his capture by a pirate, and his 
 return to Denmark, we would venture to suggest that our 
 Poet would have been clearer and (it seems) done better, to 
 have made our hero accompany the courtiers to England, 
 and, after having seen them killed by a slow and insidious 
 death, to have returned with Fortinbras in conquest from 
 England. We have as high an authority as Groethe on our 
 side, who evidently took the same view. But probably 
 Groethe erred, as we do, from want of real insight. And we 
 believe further elucidation will only redound to Shake- 
 speare's perfection in every detail. 
 
APPENDIX. 203 
 
 HISTORICAL CHARACTEE OF HAMLET. 
 
 The historical and real nature of the tragedy cannot be 
 argued away. The student can say with Fabian in "Twelfth 
 Night": 
 
 " fah. I will prove it legitimate, sir, upon the oaths of judgment and reason. 
 Sir To. And they have been grand-jurymen since before Noah was a sailor." 
 
 The proofs of the historical nature of Hamlet are abundant. 
 
 First. The references to Wittenberg. 
 
 Secondly. The names of Baptista, Lucianus, Bernardo. 
 
 Thirdly. The introduction of Fortinbras, and the identity 
 in the Churchyard-scene, of the birth of Fortinbras, Clown, 
 and Hamlet at the same time. 
 
 Fourthly. Their actual identity of birth in the beginning 
 of the play. 
 
 Fifthly. The harmony shown in the relations of Ophelia 
 and Laertes to Polonius, by their continuity and their con- 
 duct and action towards Hamlet. 
 
 Sixthly. The steady progress of Hamlet and his irresolu- 
 tion. Also the incentives to action he gets from what really 
 are impulses to progress in life, but which cannot be ex- 
 plained rationally otherwise, viz. the march of Fortinbras 
 (growth of liberty). 
 
 Seventhly. The ready and easy way the play falls into 
 historical parallelism; but refuses any rationalism other- 
 wise. 
 
204 APPENDIX. 
 
 HAMLET'S FATHER. 
 
 The murder of Hamlet's father is actually, in our eyes, 
 the corruption of Christianity. Thus the Grhost represents 
 the resurrection and revival of the pure Apostolic faith 
 through Protestantism. This Ghost may therefore be well 
 termed the spirit of doubt as regards its criticism of E-oman 
 Catholicism. We immediately recognize, therefore, in the 
 Player-scene, the principles of the Reformation. Here we 
 have a scene by which the King is exposed and detected, by 
 acting or demonstrating the corruption he has effected 
 through the ears of men. This is artistic for the famous 
 protest itself, as the essence of the Reformation. Corrup- 
 tion is not only detected, but laid bare. Hamlet's father 
 being the spirit of Christianity, is the subject of rumours 
 and disturbances in the opening of the tragedy. And we 
 can well understand our Poet's meaning. The play opens 
 with those early disturbances (paralleled perhaps through 
 the "Waldenses, etc.) which foreshadowed the Reformation. 
 Symbolically the Ghost typifies the shadowy revival and 
 resurrection of the spirit of Christianity and truth which 
 accompanied the revival of learning. The true sons of 
 Hamlet's father are the Reformers themselves. In short 
 they are young Hamlet. And Shakespeare has identified 
 the spirit of Christianity with the spirit of truth-seeking 
 all through the play.^ "We can now understand the allusions 
 
 ' Readers may think the hurial of Ophelia a contradiction in the teeth of all 
 this. But possibly Christianity was more an ideal subjective revelation in Shake- 
 speare's eyes than an objective fact, Christianity is more powerful and holds 
 more true to the former position than to the latter. 
 
APPENDIX. 205 
 
 of Horatio in connexion with the late King. And Hamlet's 
 speech, where he says "He was a king," leaves us no doubt 
 that Christ is here typified and pointed at as the representa- 
 tive and true symbol of Christianity itself. The Reformation 
 was in reality a revival of Christ. And the Ghost is the 
 artistic parallel, in our beUef, of this rebirth. Gradually 
 what first reveals itself by surmise and doubt, grows into 
 certainty by the light of knowledge and liberty. Finally, 
 corruption and error are exposed and denounced. Naturally 
 this is followed by the death of Polonius, who represents 
 so well certainty or infallibility, authority, bigotry, and in- 
 terference. Thus we believe has Shakespeare artistically 
 paralleled the Reformation. 
 
206 APPENDIX. 
 
 THE FATNESS OF HAMLET. 
 
 In tlie following expression of the Queen with regard to 
 
 Hamlet — 
 
 " He's fat, and scant of breath. 
 Here, Hamlet, take my napkin, rub tby brows : 
 The Queen carouses to thy fortune, Hamlet " — 
 
 we read the prosperity and well-to-do circumstances of 
 our hero. In fact, symbolically, things go very much his 
 own way, with the exception of Laertes. That is to say, 
 Hamlet is fat for want of exercise. The reader will under- 
 stand lis. And we believe this still further from the words of 
 the Queen. She says she drinks to Hamlet. Thus belief is 
 almost universally on Hamlet's side, or Progress. And this 
 state of Hamlet is well expressed in the words "fat and 
 scant of breath." 
 
 HAMLET ON THE STAGE. 
 
 It is only since this work has almost passed through the 
 press that we have been made aware that Mr. Irving and 
 Signor Salvini hold a copy of Hamlet in their hands, whilst 
 striving (during the Interlude) "to catch the conscience of 
 the King." This shows a thorough comprehension of Ham- 
 let (up to that point) as History. It is possible (if our in- 
 terpretation with regard to the Churchyard- scene is finally 
 accepted) to add to the force of the play upon the stage, by 
 still further histrionic symbolism. For example, if the First 
 Clown (dramatic double to Hamlet) were dressed as a second 
 Hamlet, it would distinctly symbolize Hamlet's self-criticism 
 with startling effect. 
 
APPE^'DIX. 207 
 
 HAMLET'S HISTORY. 
 
 The following is a brief analysis of the artistic and symbolic 
 continuity, in respect of Hamlet's progress : 
 
 1. The Birth of Hamlet compriBes : Bernardo, Marcellus, Horatio, the early 
 
 revolts of Fortinbras, and the Ghost's revelation. 
 1. The Growth of Hamlet comprises : Hamlet's madness, his satire of Polo- 
 
 nius, his persecution, his criticism of the Church, and the arrival of the 
 
 Players. 
 3. The Maiihocd of Hamlet comprises; His determination to act in " To be, 
 
 or not to be," his mockery of Polonius, his inspiration and address to the 
 
 Players, his action in getting up the Player-scene, and the Player-scene 
 
 itself. 
 i. The Action of Hamlet comprises : Death of Polonius, address to his mother, 
 
 banishment to England, death of Bosencrantz and Guildenstem, and 
 
 finale of the tragedy. 
 
 Eestjlts of the Death of Polonius. 
 
 1. Death of Ophelia. 
 
 2. Eetum of Laertes. 
 
 3. Death of Rosencrantz and Guildenstem. 
 i. March of Fortinbras. 
 
 6. Address to his mother. 
 
 6. Death of Laertes. 
 
 7. Death of King, Queen, Laertes, and HAMLET. 
 
208 APPENDIX. 
 
 THE SOLUTION OF HAMLET. 
 
 The interpretation of Hamlet should be the work of many. 
 Each character, every line of the text, should be made the 
 subject of special study. The same process employed in 
 scientific discovery should be used in detail. Gruesses should 
 be made until they are wedded by induction with the text 
 and the unity of the whole play. If half a dozen resolute 
 thinkers would give their time to this work, we should 
 soon understand Shakespeare. As for ourselves, the opinions 
 herein contained are the results of -years of patient thought. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 ^ 
 
 STEPHEN AU8TIM AND B0N8, PRINTERS, HERTFORD,