A study of Hamlet

Front matter

."•is-'^flss.si^

A STHDY OF HAMLET

F, A. MARSHALL

Preface

" What ' another book on 'Hamlet !'" I seem to hear many, both critics and students of Shakespeare, exclaim with somewhat of a jaded air. " What can you have that is new t-o say about ' Hamlet ■!'" they ask — not unreasonably. My answer is that I hope I have something to say which is worth hearing, whether it be quite new, or whether it be old truths presented in a new guise ; though I must confess I have not hazarded any theories, or indulged in any criticisms, simply because I thought they were new. To those who seek for abstruse verbal commentaries, or for ingenious, but, to my mind, paltry attempts to nibbk away our greatest poet's reputation, this- book will not be welcome. I leave to others the task of treating our author like a prisoner arrested for felony, of turning his pockets inside out, and stripping him to- the skin, in order to see if they can discover a rag or two which might have belonged to some one else.

Those I would fain have as my readers are those wjio love Shakespeare as one who has added to the beauty and happiness of life ; who reverence his mind as one of those precious gifts of God to this world, whence beings, born of Fancy indeed, but none the less real in their nobleness and purity, may spring, to gladden the hearts of -those whose earthly lot it is to find few friends save in the realms of imagination. These persons

VIU PKEFACE.

will grudgs neither time nor trouble if, by their own efforts, or by the aid of others, they can gain a clearer insight into the beauties of Shakespeare's creations.

This book had its origin in a lecture which I was asked to give before the Catholic Young Men's Association. I chose " Hamlet" for my subject ; but I found it impossible to say what I wanted to say in the space even of two lectures. The greater- portion of the First and Second Parts of this work formed the matter of those lectures. It was always my ambition to give a series of lectures on Shakespeare, accompanied with readings ; but I have learnt to doubt my capacity for such a task. Though I have studied "Hamlet" more or loss for the last fourteen years, I never knew, till I began seriously to finish this work, how scanty was my knowledge of the grand subject I had undertaken to illustrate. One of my principal objects will have been gained, if I can induce any of my readers to study the text of Shakespeare's plays more carefully, and with a higher aim than mere verbal criticism ; they will find that he is himself his best commentator, and that such study will open to them new fields of enjoyment.-

I have made frequent allusions to the acting of three of the' most distinguished representatives of Hamlet on the stage that I have had the pleasure of seeing — namely, Tommaso Salviui, Ernesto Rossi, and Henry Irving. I had intended Jo have entered into a somewhat elaborate comparison of their respective interpretations of the character ; but for many reasons, some of which I will mention, I thought it better not to do so. Signer Salvini has as yet only appeared in a version of tlie play, so unsatisfactory to an English student of Shakespeare, that it would be scarcely possible to do justice to his great talents as displayed in the part of Hamlet ; the more especially as he intends to give us the privilege of seeing him in a fuller and more faithful translation. Signer Rossi has yet to appear before an English public ; he also may be enabled to correct some of the deficiencies of the

PKEFACE. IX

ver.iioii, which he uses in Italy, before lie encounters the criticism of Shakespeare's countrymen. Mr. Irving has exchanged Plamlet for another Shakespearian rule, after having given the almost incredible number of two hundred consecutive representations of the part : it was inevitable that his performance should suffer from so fatiguing a persistence in it, and I trust, for the s.ike of art, such a call may never again ba made on his strength. Acting is an art which cannot be preserved in any perfection, unless the actor has the opportunity of changing, not unfrequently, the character which he represents. If a painter were to spend a year in painting the same subject over and over again, he would lose most of whatever skill he ever possessed ; his delicacy of touch would be seriously impaired ; his colouring would be apt to grow coarse and careless; while his artistic perception would be diminished, and his power of execution would be worn away by very weariness. Art must have variety, or it pines and becomes cramped. I have ventured to make these remarks because the opinion I have incidentally expressed, in different parts of this work, of Mr. Irving's Hamlet was formed in the course of his first twenty performances ; and, judging by the portion that I saw of his two-hundredth performance, I should say that the prolonged strain on his powers had told prejudicially on his execution of what was, undeniably, a' singularly fine conception of the character. The. charming grace, and melodious elocution, of Signor Salvini could not be obscured by the fact that he was under the disadvantage of speaking a language, with which but very few of his audience were familiar : he has, by his performance of Othello and Hamlet, won a position among Englishmen, as an interpreter of Shakespeare, which few of our own countrymen have gained. Ernesto Rossi, whose style is totally different*

* A writer in tlio Times, speaking of Eossi's Othello, as given in Paris, said tliat the two great Italian actors were as similar in style as Phelps

X -PKEFAGE.

from that of Salvini, though he is in grace and talent his most worthy rival, will be sure of a generous welcome : his appearance amongst us will stimulate that revived interest in Shakespeare's plays which has been such a marked feature of the last year. As far as regards the Hamlet of the three great actors I have named, I should say that Salvini's interpretation was the most tender, Kossi's the most passionate, and Irving's the most intellectual.

Now that it has been proved that the plays of Shakespeare can be made to bring- money as well as glory to the managers, I live in the hopes of seeing some performances of our greatest dramatist's masterpieces worthy of the honour in which wc hold liim. I do not mean as regards scenery and dresses, but as regards the representation of the characters themselves ; one good actor cannot make an efficient cast ; and unless the minor characters in Shakespeare's plays are adequately represented, it is impossible to form any just conception of the excellence of his work. This can only be effected by actors, managers, and audiences, uniting together in making greater sacrifices to Art than they have hitherto seemed willing to do.

The text from which I have quoted throughout is the " Cambridge Shakespeare." All the references are to that edition, which I cannot praise too highly. The text of the Quarto 1603, which I have used, is that contained in Allen's Keprint, entitled " The Devonshire ' Hamlets,' " in which the Quartos of 1603 and 1604 are exactly reprinted in facsimile side by side. It is a most valuable book. I have exercised all possible care in the revision of the letterpress, especially of the quotations. For what few mistakes have still crept in I crave pardon.

and Maore/idy. I never saw Macready, but I am sure that all, wlio have seen Eossi and Salvini in the part, will admit that there could soarcely be two more dissimilar interpretations of Hamlet.

PREFACE. XI

The three first Parts have been ia print for some time ; various circumstances prevented my finishing the work, and delayed its publication. I hope I have succeeded in availing myself to some extent of the more important additions that have been made to Shakespearian criticism, especially as regards " Hamlet," since I began my task. I do not profess to have read all, or nearly all, that has been published on the subject ; but I can honestly say that the number of works referred to in the course of this book does not include one half of those I have consulted.

It only remains for me to thank most sincerely those friends, some of them men whose names are honoured in literature, who have helped me with their advice and encouragement. To Mr. Frederic Broughton, who has given me most valuable and timely aid in the revision of the work, I owe especial thanks. I also may perhaps be allowed to express my gratitude to my amanuensis, Mr. G. J. White, who, though suffering from a long and painful illness, has by his care and intelligence in verifying quotations and authorities, and in the laborious collation* of the first Quarto (1603) with the text of the Cambridge edition, been of invaluable service to me.

^f6 Foot-note, page 163,

Part 1

"Hamlet" popular, 9; cause of popularity, 9; "love interest" subordinate to love for his father, 10. Hamlet's wealcness of action, 10 ; his sjTupathy for good and contempt of evil, 12 ; fidelity to friends, 12 ; uncongeniality of his position, 18— 13. Summary of remarks, 13— li ; reasons for making them, 14. Voltaire's abuse of Shakespeare, 14 —15. Criticisms on Shakespeare, 15 -16. Excellency of Schlegel, 16. Hamlet's first entrance, 16—17; \'b first soliloquy, 18. Entrance of Horatio, Maroellus, and Bernardo, 18—19. Hamlet hears of the appearance of the Ghost, 19 ; his meeting with the Ghost, 19 — 21 ; second solilo.g M!:..21 ; remarks on it, 22. Coleridge s idea of Hamlet's madness, 22. Time elapsing bet^Yeen 1st and 2nd Acts, 2-3 ; how Hamlet employed it, 23. JIalone's remark on his assumption of madness, 23. Hamlet's resolve to break oi3f his aifeclionate relations with Ophelia, 24 ; her account of the last interview to Polonius, 24 ; remarks on his conduct, 25 — 26. Was Hamlet guilty of the ruin of Ophelia ? 26 ; Polonius' device to test his love for Ophelia, r7 ; their meotiiig, 27. Explanation of the scene with Ophelia, 28—29.

Part II

fieception of Eosencrantz and Guildenstern by King and Queen, 31. Polonius it satire on Lord Burleigh, 32. Hamlet's welcome of Rosencrautz and Guildenstern, 32 — 33 ; he discovers they were " sent for," 33 - 34 ; his treatment at Court, 34 ; and non-assumption of madness before Eosencrantz and Gnildenstern, 34. Mischievous railleiy against Polonius on announcing the arrival of players, 34—35 ; excuses for it, 36 ; interview with players, 35;

5 X^ Tliird sol ilnqnv- 36 ; remarks on it, 37- 39. Interval between 2nd and 3rd Acts, 39. King's intemew with Eosencrantz and Guildenstern, 39. j'ourth soliloony, Ffl — 4fl : remarks_on it, 41 — 42. Design of sending Hamlet to

XIV CONTENTS.

England— great variety of the play, 4J —42. Samlet's speech to Horatio) 42. Play scene, 42 - 44 ; its success, 44. Insolence of Rosencrantz and Guildenstem When summoning Hamlet to his mother, 44—45. Next scene rarely represented, 45. Servility of Rosencrantz and Guildenstem, 45. ■>) -a King's soliloquy. 45. Hamlet's diabolical revenge, 45—46. Closet scene, 46—48. Death of Polonius, 48-49. Queen innocent of hypocrisy, 49, Hamlet's rebuie, 49—50. Appearance of Ghost, 50—62 ; eifectiveness of it, 52. Hamlet's eloquent appeal to his mother, 53. Hamlet's conduit to his mother discussed, 53—55. The guilt incurred ihroligh killing Polonius, 55. Was the Queen guilty of connivance at, or complicity in, her first husband's death ? 55—56. Expansion of this scene from that in the Quarto (1603), 56—57. Queen's promise that she would not betray Hamlet, 57. Hamlet sust)iciou3 of the King's design in sending him to England, 57 - 58.

Part III

Opening of 4th Act, 59. Queen's puzzling speech explained on reference to the Quarto (1603), 59-60. IhaJiypoorisy of Claudius,, 60. Inseparability of Rosencrantz and Guildenstem, 61 ; their endeavours to get from Samlet where he has put the body of Polonius, 61-62. Difficulty of the part the King has to play, 62 — 63 ; he informs Uamlet he is to go to England, 63 - 64 ; his confession of treachery to the Queen, 64. Hamlet's defence of his conduct towards Rosencrantz aud Guildenstem to lioratio, 64 — 68 ; can his conduct be justified? 68— '69. Scene 4, Act IV., awkwardly placed as regards tinle, 70; Well-devised, 71. Fifth soIi '"q"Y, 7^ - '^'' ; remarks on it, 72—75.

PARt IV

Events occurring between Act IV., Scene 4, and Act IV., Scene 5, 77. Popularity of Polonius, 78. Laertes' violent demeanour to Claudius and subsequent moderation, 78—81. Horatio visited by soliie sailors, 81 ; his position, 82. , The King having satisfied Laertes, receives news of Hamlet's return, 82 — 83. Plan of vengeance concocted by Claudius and Laertes, 84 — 86 ; contrast between the two characters, 86—87. Proportion of guilt assignable to . Laertes, 88 -90. Gervinus' lenient view of Laertes censured, 90. Denmark and Germany, 90—91. Grave-diggers' scene, 91—95. Ai-rival of the funeral party, 95. Conduct of Laertes and Hamlet, 96 -101. Queen's beaiitiful description of her son's state of mind, 101. Hamlet expresses his sorrow for his passion at Ophelia's grave to Horatio, 102. Scene with Osric, 102 — 103. Entry of King; Queen, arid Court, l04. Hamlet's apology to Laertes, and his reception of it, 104 —106. The fencing-bout, 107. Queen dies, 107. Death of Himlet, 108-109; remarksonhisoharacter, 109— 110. Concliision.

CONTEKTS. XV

PAGES.

, Early life of Hamlet 113-123

First soliloquy 123—127

On the soliloquy, " all you host of hearen I" ... 127-128

The character of Ophelia ... 128—151

On the soliloquy, " 0, what a rogue and peasant slave

On the soliloquy, "To be or not to he" 154—167

On the play s cene '^ ... ; 157—161

On the soliloquy, "Now might I do it pat" 161— 1C6

On the tViTO pictures in the closet-scene 166—174

Closet-scene from the Quarto 1603 and the Camhridge

Shakespeare compared 174-176

„ M. Scene between the Queen and Horatio from the Quarto

1603, omitted in the Oatotridgg edition 176

,, N. King'3_Bpeetili_to_the_Queen from the Quarto 1603 corresponding to his apology in Act IV., Scene 3, of

the Camtridge edition ,., 176

„ P. Hamlet's age ... , 181

Scheme of Time occupied by the events of the play 201^202 dix A.

tt

B.

ii a it

D.

It

E.

It

F.

It

G.

It

H.

It

K.

j>

L.

EEEATA.

Page ii, Line 26, (in quotation) for " to" read "in." • 24, ,, 42, (do. do. ) dele "and" after "waving." 41, ,, 7, dele comma after "fflH-^oicw/ui." 63, ,, 42 and 43, for "fuur first " read "first four." 95, ,, i2, aitev "ceremony" mseit comma. 99, ,, 3, (in quotation) for "«pfo»ett?)e" read ".'.^Zemi^we," 102, „ 21, for " their" read "those." 115, ,, 3, for " IFi<te»6«rg'" read " WtWemSer^." 115, Fooif-note, for do. read do.

136, Line 39, after "page" insert "120."

137, „ 9, for "^ffl^e.8" read "jjB^'e 120." 168, ,, 2, after "transitions" insert comma. 168, „ 3, after " BaTO^ei'* " insert comma.

Note. — In the taWe of " Contents," page xv, at Appendix M, the words " omitted in the Camhridge Edition" do not mean " omitted oply in that edition ;" the soene referred to, as is well- known, heing omitted in all the Quartos and Polios, except the Quarto 1603.

A STUDY OF HAMLET.

Part I

" Hamlet " is perhaps the most po;^ular of all Shakespeare'^ plays. Nearly all people have either read it, or seen it upon the stage, more than once. I will not say that it is the one most often quoted, yet perhaps the quotations taken from it are the best known of any of those lines of 'Shakespeare' which have hecome household words. I do not think it is difficult to understand the universal popularity of, this play; if we do not all agree in considering it Shakespeare's greatest work, it certainly is his most human ; though less pathetic than " Othello," less sublime than " Macbeth," less touching than " Lear," it is certainly of all his -tragedies the one which appeals most widely to human sympathy ; because the character of Hamlet has more in common with all mankind than any other hero. His_ very weakness, which has been so severely censured by some critics, is greatly the cause of this ; for most tragic heroes are endowed with such gigantic intellect, and monstrous passions, as to place them beyond both the understanding and the sympathy of ordinary mortals. Deeply as we are moved by the agonising jealousy of Othello, freely as we weep with Lear over the body of the loving Cordelia, instinctively as we shudder with Macbeth at the unearthly apparitions which so mysteriously control his fate, few of us ever feel that Othello, or Lear, or Macbeth, might be our very own self; but when Hamlet speaks, it seems as if thoughts and feelings, long pent up in us, had found their most natural utterance : the least philosophical comprehends his philosophy ; the L".st melancholy muses sadly with him over the mysteries of life ; the least humorous of us smiles

" with him as odd fancies and playful satire break forth from him in the midst of the most tragic surroundings.

No doubt the question of suicide might be debated more learnedly, certainly more sensationally, than in the celebrated soliloquy of Hamlet : but if philosophers and novelists were to try their very utmost, they never could express more clearly, more vividly, certainly not more beautifully, than Shakespeare has in those few lines, the struggles of a mind weighed down by the sense that the burden imposed upon it was too heavy to bear.

The popularity of " Hamlet " is the more remarkable when we consider how subordinate in it is what we commonly call the " love interest." Few plays except Shakespeare's have retained their hold upon the popular mind either on the stage or in the study, the principal motive of which has not been, in some form or other, the love of man for woman, or of woman for man. In Hamlet the chief motive is filial affection ; one which I hope will always inspire the deepest and most general sympathy ; but which, it would be idle to deny, exercises a less powerful charm over the vulgar mind than that more selfish, and intrinsically less noble affection which sometimes threatens to monopolise the name of Love. If for no other reason, I should be deeply grieved to see the character of Hamlet losing any of its hold upon the minds of my contemporaries, and especially of the young ; for if there is any one of the natural affections which the rapidly advancing steam-engine of improvement seems likely to improve off the face of the earth, it is that most holy, unselfish, and noble affection — an affection rooted in humility and in a single-minded sense of duty; incompatible alike with intellectual pride, or with enervating self-indulgence — the affection of a son for his father. ITo one can ever hope to appreciate Hamlet who does not cherish unsullied within his soul, in youth, in maturity, and in old age, ' that reverential love of parents which is the foundation-stone of all social virtue.

The intense love and worship which Hamlet feels for the memory of his father, mark him out, on his very first entrance, as alone in the crowd of. courtiers around him; alone, too, even in the presence of those who should have loved and revered that memory as highly, if not more highly, than Hamlet himself. The noble excess of his love tends, hardly less than the inherent weakness of his character, to paralyse his capacity for action when it is most needed : of this I shall have to speak more fully, and I will now pass on to notice briefly those other points in the character of Hamlet which ensure him the sympathy of mankind.

As I have said before, the very weakness of Hamlet makes us love him the more, because it brings him nearer to our own level. Who has not known what it is to feel life, with its glorious opportunities, slipping away from ixs day by day, without bringing us any nearer the fulfilment of some great duty, or the execution of some noble purpose, to which either the example, or the exhortation, of others, or the voice of our own conscience has caUed us ? It may be by the death-bed of some very dear one ; it may be in the wearying discipline of some long illness ; it may be in the close and earnest contemplation of the evils around us, that we hear the first sound of the voice that calls us to sacrifice our ease, and our pleasures, for the sake of righting some wrong, or destroying some abuse, to the full heinousness of which our minds have been roused. Perhaps, like Hamlet, we sit down and contemplate the horrid features of the monster, till the very acuteness of the pain and disgust, which such a contemplation inspires, obtaining complete mastery over our feelings, and occupying our thoughts to the exclusion of almost any other subject, gradually wears away our energies, without their finding vent in that prompt and decided action which alone, as we know, can accomplish the great end we have set before us. In this state of mind, the'desire to act is never lost; it is only the power to do so which is swallowed up in excess of feeling. Another state is when we simply content ourselves with exclaiming against the injustice and wickedness of the world in general, or of some persons in particular, but weakly decline to act, from despair at the magnitude of the labour involved in any attempt to remedy the evils to which we cannot blind ourselves. In such a staie of mind we might slightly alter the words of Hamlet —

"The world is out of joint, oh cursed spite ! JBut I was never born to set it right. "

To this canker of cowardice, which blights the lives of so many in whom great sensibility is coupled with indolence, and in whom the reflective part of the mind is morbidly developed at thfe expense of the executive part — it is to this that Hamlet alludes in the words —

That craven scruple 0£ thinking too precisely on the event, A thought which quartered hath but one part wisdom, And ever three par. s coward.

This weakness may be developed into a worse form, till it

B 2 assumes the most repulsive of all shapes, that impotent snarling cynicism, which yaps like a cur at the heels of every wrong-doer, but never attempts to help the wronged.

One feature in the character of Hamlet, which most attracts us, is his keen sympathy with all that is good, his contempt for what is mean and evil ; this he shows without regard of place or person ; and it is more admirable in a prince, whose temptations to acquiesce in things as they are, and to accept the world's standard of right and wrong, are greater than those of one in a lower station of life.

The fidelity which Hamlet shows to his friends, few indeed, but chosen for their merit alone ; as well as the dignified courtesy, with which he treats all but those whom he knows to be practising some treachery towards him, add to the affection with which we regard him.

I will here allude to, one other circumstance of his condition, which appeals to the sympathy of many readers of this tragedy — I mean the uncongeniality from which it is manifest, the moment he enters on the stage, that Hamlet suffers. I do so merely to warn the younger amongst you against allowing a natural sympathy for one, whose sun'oundings.are most distasteful and antagonistic to his own feelings, to develope itself into that most mischievous of all morbid fancies — a belief that we are superior to all around us ; that we are crushed by want of sympathy in our associates ; that we are wasting our energies and talents on work which is far too dull and insignificant for us ; that, in order to prove our superiority to the persons and circumstances among which our lot is cast, we ought to assume a gloomy dignity of manner ; to shun this uncongenial society, thoiigh it be the only society within our reach ; and vent our pent-up feelings in dismal and foolish verses, or in unwholesome and tedious exposition of our own misery ; till we succeed in exalting our wretched selves into as corrupt and mischievous idols as it is in the power of" man to create. No doubt it would be very pleasant if we all could live with persons whose tastes were similar to our own; who never differed with us in opinion ; who never, morally, trod on our corns ; among circumstances which never jarred upon our feelings, and duties, which were no less delightful than obligatory to perform. But the world was not made according to every one's fancy ; and we must accept it as it is, with its sorrows, and its uncongenialities, and its duties, however unpleasant they may be. I do not know any phase of character, short of that of the merest sensualist, into which I would more warn the young against drifting, than that of the interesting victim of uncongeniality. It is bad enough in women, it is worse in men, because it saps all capacity for practical usefulness in life. If your mind, if your tastes, be superior to those of your friends, relations, and companions, show it by an increase of courtesy, of amiabUity, towards them ; and you will find none, or few, to dispute your superiority. If your duties be distasteful, even repulsive to you, so long as they are your duties, fulfil them as perfectly and as cheerfully as you can ; and perhaps in good time you will find yourself raised t'^ higher ones more worthy of the talents which you maj possess : but to walk about with your nose in the air, and to furnace forth sighs — like a self-exhausting wind-bag — to despise those about you simply because you imagine yourself better than them, and to neglect your duties because you think yourself too good for them, can end in nothing else but in earning for you the contempt, if not the detestation, of your companions, and in convincing your employers, whoever they may be, that you are not fit for any duties at all.

Briefly then, I would attribute the popularity of this play not only to the inherent interest of the story and the dramatic skill with which, in spite of many blemishes of construction, it is developed ; but even more to the sympathetic character of Hamlet himself: sympathetic, because he has more in common with mankind than any other tragic hero ; because the motives of his conduct, the idiosyncrasies of his nature, the very blemishes which mar his virtues, his strength of feeling, his weakness in action, all alike endear his character to us. The creation of the poet is imbued with the very essence of hiunan nature, while it is beautified by the infusion of so lovable and noble a spirit, that what we instinctively admire we are also able to comprehend, This is the chief difference -between real greatness and mere excellence, whether in poet, sculptor, painter, or actor. The great poet appeals not only to the intellect which some men possess, but to the heart which all possess ; everyone feels the meaning of his words, though everyone cannot explain it. I do not deny that the most exquisitely finished style in poetry, or in any other art, is perfectly compatible with greatness ; but in work that is not only clever, but great, the style is subordinate to the matter ; regularity of metre and precision of detail are sacrificed to nobility of thought and beauty of subject. The most faultless poems and pictures are rarely the noblest. Genius is impatient of restriction, seeking truth in great, rather than accuracy in little things ;

and so it happens that talent often exceeds genius in beauty of form, but never in grandeur of imagination. Talent is apt to imitate, genius is sure to create ; but be careful not to fancy yourselves geniuses simply because you are impatient of conventionality : vagueness and inaccuracy are not proofs of genius, though too' often the blemishes which detract from its beauty. Cultivate style as carefully as you can ; let it yield, if it must yield, to the force of your subject, not to the weakness of your execution.

I have been led to make these remarks, because those who detract from the merits of Shakespeare's plays in general, and of " Hamlet" in particular, are especially severe upon the want of regularity in the construction, and of natural sequence in the incidents of this tragedy ; they also delight in pointing out the ruggedness of metre, and the crudeness of imagery, which are to be found in all Shakespeare's works. There is no doubt that " Cato," for instance, that solemnly elegant tragedy of Addison's, contains far fewer faults in scansion and regularity of metre than " Shakespeare's Hamlet ;" but those persons who derive more pleasure from reading Cato than from studying Hamlet, must be allowed to exist, happy in that world of metrical proprieties which they have chosen to occupy ; for my own part I dare not attempt to follow theiii. I have patiently read " Cato," some of Eowe's afflicting tragedies, and many others based upon the same models, which adorned the literature of the last century. I have no doubt that every line of these beautiful works contains some veiy pretty language, and the proper number of feet ; but in very few lines do they contain anything which can touch the heart, charm the imagination, or elevate the soul.