No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 December 2020
What was Shakespeare's conception of Hamlet? That is the question. It is one which inevitably resolves itself into a reconstruction of the materials at his disposal, the dramatic problems with which he had to deal, and the means whereby he sought to satisfy contemporary dramatic taste. For such a reconstruction modern scholarship provides abundant information about both the theatrical practices and intellectual interests of the time and Shakespeare's habits as a craftsman. In particular should be noted his exceptional preoccupation with character portrayal and the scrupulous motivation of action; his conformity with changing theatrical fashion, yet at the same time his reluctance to pioneer in experiment; his sensitive, if sketchy, acquaintance with matters of contemporary interest; and his success as a skilled and inspired adapter rather than as an innovator. In the application of this knowledge two principles are fundamental. First, Hamlet must not be viewed in isolation, but in close conjunction with the theatrical environment which produced it. Second, Shakespeare must be recognized as primarily a practical playwright, a business man of the theater with obligations to fulfill, specific theatrical conditions to meet, and an audience to divert. For the rest, it is a pleasant exercise for the recreative imagination to try to think oneself into Shakespeare's mind, to face the problem of Hamlet as he faced it, and to trace the solution as he must have found it.
1 It is worth noting that, although Gabriel Harvey might observe “his Lucrece, and his tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmarke, have it in them to please the wiser sort,” the principal references to incidents in Hamlet are to Hamlet's mad conduct, the ghost that cried “Revenge!” and the skull episode of the graveyard scene.
2 Shakespeare first places the responsibility for inaction squarely upon Hamlet through his careful contrasts with Claudius and Laertes, clinching the point in Hamlet's refusal to kill the King at his prayers. He then emphasizes the fact that even Hamlet is aware of this responsibility, especially in such speeches as ii, ii, 576–616 and iv, iv, 32–66 (Neilson's text).
3 “Reconstruction of a Lost Play,” Philological Quarterly, vii (1928), 254–274.—For the present purpose it is unnecessary to enter into controversy over the interrelations of the various versions of Hamlet. It is generally agreed that both the first quarto and Fratricide Punished incorporate primitive features not in Shakespeare's final version. Whether these derive from the old Hamlet direct or from a preliminary revision by Shakespeare, the elements represented were probably in the pre-Shakespearean play. For if Shakespeare did revise Hamlet twice, the first revision must have been sufficiently perfunctory to give reason for a second within a brief interval. For myself, I can find no convincing evidence for more than a single thorough rewriting of the play, probably in 1601–02 (See my forthcoming article, “The Dates of Hamlet and Marston's The Malcontent,” The Review of English Studies). This, with certain minor revisions for publication, I believe embodied in the second quarto text.
As for the authorship of the lost Hamlet, although Nashe's reference in 1589 is inconclusive, the preponderance of evidence points to Kyd. The play resembles Kyd's known work; it reflects certain of his favorite devices; and, in the absence of definite contradictory evidence, similar dramatic predilections and technique provide a strong basis of probability. Even though, as has been suggested, the old Hamlet be by an imitator of Kyd, the result for our purpose is the same.
4 Lodge, in Wit's Misery (1596) refers to the “ghost which cried so miserably at ye Theator, like an oister wife, Hamlet, revenge.” Hamlet's swearing of his companions to secrecy and the echoes of the ghost may also have been part of the original. There is a somewhat similar oath-taking in Soliman and Perseda, i, iii, 164 ff.
5 In the matter of Ophelia's suicide Shakespeare is ambiguous. Act v, i, 250–255 implies at any rate a reasonable suspicion of suicide; the Queen's account (iv, vii) suggests accident. Fratricide Punished (v, vi) specifically states that “Ophelia went up a high hill, and threw herself down, and killed herself.” The whole confusion suggests a pre-Shakespearean suicide like that of Isabella. Hamlet's own contemplation of suicide may be a vestige of the old play. Hieronimo similarly considers killing himself.
6 Hamlet, i, iii, 99 ff., and v, i, 292–294.
7 Ibid., i, iii, 91–93.
8 Ibid., ii, i, 75 ff.
9 Professor Gray (loc. cit.) has worked out some implications of this hypothesis which, however, need not be accepted wholly for purposes of the present discussion.
10 This prologue with its personified Night and its Furies resembles Kyd's prologues and choruses to The Spanish Tragedy and Soliman and Perseda. Like them it foretells the kind of action to follow. In part Night addresses the Furies thus: “Therefore be ready to sow the seeds of disunion, mingle poison with their marriage, and put jealousy in their hearts. Kindle a fire of revenge, and let the sparks fly over the whole realm; entangle kinsmen in the net of crime, and give joy to hell, so that those who swim in the sea of murder may soon drown.”
Surely this implies more than the restricted domestic disturbance of Shakespeare's Hamlet. The concluding remarks of Horatio bear the same significance: “Alas! what has not this kingdom suffered for ever so long from hard wars? Scarcely is there peace but internal disturbance, ambition, faction, and murder fill the land anew.”
11 The situation may be suggested in the words of Hieronimo (iii, xiii, 39 ff.):
“No, no, Hieronimo, thou must enioyne
Thine eies to obseruation, and thy tung
To milder speeches then thy spirit affords;
Thy hart to patience, and thy hands to rest,
Thy Cappe to curtesie, and thy knee to bow,
Till to reuenge thou know when, where, and how.“
With this contrast Hamlet's (iv, iv, 43–46):
“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.“
12 It is not impossible that Hamlet's melancholy may have existed embryonically in the old play. Both Hieronimo and Erastus enjoy referring to their melancholy, which with them is simply grief or discouragement.
13 A comprehensive study of these plays and their relation to Hamlet is given in A. H. Thorndike's “The Relation of Hamlet to Contemporary Revenge Plays,” PULA, xvii (1902), 125 ff.
14 E. E. Stoll, Hamlet; an Historical and Comparative Study (1919), pp. 8–13.
15 See the present writer's discussion in the introduction to Early Seventeenth-Century Plays, ed. by H. R. Walley and J. H. Wilson (Harcourt, Brace, 1930), especially pp. 12–20.
16 iii, ii, 165–172.
17 As You Like It, iii, ii, 295–296.
18 Every Man in His Humour, iii, i.
19 As You Like It, iv, i, 10 ff.
20 The academic plays, The Pilgrimage to Parnassus and The Return from Parnassus, are filled with references to the notorious melancholy of the scholar's lot.
21 Much of Hamlet could be explained as simple imitation if it could be shown, as Professor Stoll believes, that Marston's The Malcontent preceded Shakespeare's Hamlet. The evidence, however, points to the contrary. (Cf. my article, “The Dates of Hamlet and Marston's The Malcontent,” referred to above.) A detailed study of the malcontent figure in its relation to contemporary drama and the spirit of the age is contained in a forthcoming monograph by the present writer.
22 It will be noted that Hamlet's doubt of the ghost comes as a climax to the distrust inspired by his previous disillusionments. Thus Shakespeare is able to suggest a logical motive for the otherwise incongruous play scene.
23 As evinced in even his opening soliloquy, “O that this too too solid flesh.” I agree that Shakespeare does not palter with his audience, but that information conveyed in soliloquy is to be accepted at its face value.
24 By reluctance I do not mean to imply that Hamlet doubts the righteousness of his obligation. Of this he is at all times entirely convinced.
25 The Malcontent, i, ii, 85 ff.
26 Hamlet, iv, iv, 56–59
27 Hamlet, iii, ii, 68 ff. A recent illuminating account of Elizabethan psychological and philosophical theories about the passions in their relation to the drama may be found in L. B. Campbell's Shakespeare's Tragic Heroes: Slaves of Passion, Cambridge, 1930.