n p L ms nurvnn Reprinted from Bro om s m Lm evm u ;

in honor of Paornsso n Ja nus MO RGAN HART

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE GHOST IN HAMLET

B PH .D B" WILLIAM STRUNK, J . , .

Hamlet holds a unique position among Shake ’ Speare s plays by reas on Of the challenge which ' has Ofi a h it ered to interpretation. As w ole and in its details the play has been the subject ’ Of m ore discussion than any other of its author s ’ t works . The judgm ents passed upon Ham le s n n co duct have been Of the most diverse ki d , and correspondingly diverse theories have been form ulated to account for his delay in carrying o ut is a a u a h t sk, or to disprove th t s ch del y

st . N ed exi s ot a few students of the trag y, am n l o g whom may be m entioned J. Halliwe l hi Memo nd H . P llipps ( m a on amlet, 1879, pp 6 have after long study expressed their conviction that the mystery Of the play is

insoluble . Since modern research has tended to lend s a H upport to the hypothesis th t amlet, in its ’ e e m s n s S a a v rec iv d for , repre e t h kespe re s re i si on and expansion Of a first draft (represented im er e i b i a s p f oly y the F rst Qurto, it elf a e i n K d r wr ti g of a lost play by Thomas y , 4 AM T U . 68 WILLI S R NK, JR

h m o ne the a s is other students, Of w o Of l te t T enesis o Hamlet s M . Le he G Profes or C . wis ( f , have frankly admitted the inconsis a n n h m as tencies of the text , ccou ti g for t e resulting from the presence in the play Of inharm onious m aterial retained from the ori ’ ginal sour ce and from Shakespeare s fir st ver n att m t t m a a co m rehen sio . NO e p o for ul te p ’ a n H t s n t m sive explan tio of amle co duc , fro that o f Goethe in 1795 to the latest with which Dr r I am a a nt tha . n s J n cqu i ed , t Of E e t o es

The American ournal o c o an. ( J f Psy hol gy, J , has been generally accepted as satis f ct f r a orily accounting o everything in the play . s ll Consciou ly or unconsciously, a the critics m f dis a s o the a a . s L reg rd o e d t Profe sor ewis, am m s st a for ex ple, dee it ju ifi ble to disregard , ’ in s ma in am s ha s s e ti t g H let c racter, uch detail as the sending Of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern ’ “ to h ath as H t eir de , amlet s rem ark about per " ns n as his s o n feet co cie ce, oliloquy m eeting the t s o t n ras roop f For i b . The com posite Hamlet is no t an n at all e tity , and therefore not a subj ect " s h a ana s for p yc ologic l lysi (p . Whether or not the reader is prepared to go quite so far as s he wi I t thi , ll, hink, be ready to concede that the m ain desideratum in interpreting Hamlet is no t to provide an answer for every difficult question that m ay be asked in conn ec t n ith the a but to s io w pl y, di cover , if that be ’ how possible, Shakespeare intended his hero s THE GHOST IN HAMLET 469

And th course Of action to be regarded . if e reader will concede that the data aff orded r 1 he by the text are partly ir econcilable, will t n a s h agree that the question a o ce ri es, whic Of these data are to be considered as bevond question significant . he nt ti In the opinion of t prese writer, cri cs h a a the a have hit erto, s rule, overlooked peculi r m n in h nn t n to a r t i porta ce, t is co ec io , be tt ibu ed to the utterances Of the ghost w I seen it affirm ed that the first step in the inter ' ’ protation of Hamlet is to ser utnme t hg actio ns and utterances 9 t host to n ha t it he te _ g h g ‘ , o w d oes and what it leaves undo ne what it sa s _ y m n to a and a it refrains fro sayi g, a nd re rd _ g ’ w _ wh tMa w _ the results Of such scrutiny as the f undam ental f h a ln h f th c n data O t epl y . True, t e course o e o

’ ‘ ‘ a w h a has n s t st iit stiiély to hic the pl y bee ubjec ed, the s the h s a no t s a n word of g o t h ve e c ped otice, and his attitude towards Ham let and his lan guage have been cited in evidence of particular

Th Mr . a a h s . s view u Br dley s ys, wit perfect “ Tr d s Shakes earean a e . ju tice ( p g y, p Surely it a at at in th t h is cle r th , wh ever we e wentiet ’ n m a h a Ham c e tury y t ink bout let s duty, we

“ A n a h u n gai it m y be held wit o t a y impro bability that , from c arelessness or because he was engaged o n this p lay for se era ears hak eare e t inc o h v l y , S esp l f nsistencies in is exhibitio n of the character which m ust prevent us fro m being in f " c erta o his utim at meanin . A . B l e g 0 . radley, S ha ke

s earean Tra ed . . p g y, p 93 470 WILLIAM STRUNK, JR . are m eant in the play to assum e that he ought " to have obeyed the Ghost ; and again (i) . “ ’ We construe the Ghost s interpretation Of ’ ‘ ’ Hamlet s delay ( almost blunted purpose ) as ’ " h h am a s own n a n. the trut , t e dr ti t s i terpret tio ’ Mau an s ssa The Ghost Dr . Francis rice Eg e y ( 1 stan s as a discrim i in Hamlet, 906) ds by it elf nating study in which the ghost is constantly n n kept in the foreground . The disti ctio , how an d a s en the ever, which Dr . Eg r w betwe f n n the exalted mission o the ghost, seeki g o ly salvation Of Denm ark and the preservation Of ’ m s n a n ss his royal line, and Ha let s i ful e ger e to i exact vengeance by returning evil for evil, s o ne which I have difficulty in reading into the an I s in h s h play . Still less c ee t i the c ief ’ h a s am t s concern Of the play, and t e c u e of H le

failure . The play Of Hamletis charafi erized not m erely b hg resence a s na a being am ong yg t p fl of uper tur l its by the actual participation Of 2 this supernatural being in the action. Unlike

' the ghost of Andrea in The Spanish Tragedte, a m ere spectator of the mortal struggle in ’ h his n m s s h s of am s whic e e ie peri h, the g o H let tfi father concerns him self practically in the scheme

am takin it for ran e in thi h ho t I g g t d, s paper, t at the g s is inten e b hakes e are as a enuin a a n and no t d d y S p g e pp ritio , n T i as a hal luci atio n. his s t o apparent that P ro fessor Stoll The ecti it of the hosts in ha r P i ations ( Obj v y G S kespea e, ubl c o the Modern an ua Associat on 3 e i o A r ca N xv. 20 f L g g f me i , . S . ) re ar s it as a o n no g d p i t t c alling for dem onstratio n. The o ppo site Opinio n has been m aintained with great ingenuity THE GHOST IN HAMLET 471

mm n a s to am infor o f revenge . He co u ic te H let E M MA the Prince he m ands r M other channel; de reveng e, p e" e icns o Lthis reven scr b s im a t h Q ndit a nd h . i e p r t J Q ga

r a H1s s _ even zeal. na a ggm for l ck of uper tur l quality places his words and b themm s as n hi h a gory y by re o of w c , bove and n all s n in the beyo d el e to be fou d play, ’ they enable us to determine the dram atist s underlying conceptions of s at n and charac fi " itu io terj f s s n his " and f m po e ju tifyi g t iew, then n n out s m the s ns n s poi ti g o e Of Obviou co eque ce ,

if we apply it as a working principle . Whether or not infallibility can be attributed it nn t t to the ghost , ca ot be a tribu ed to the m th t ortal characters of e play . S udents of the play cannot agree whether certain speeches t i " 2 (as, He weeps for wha s done, I". i . 7) are to be taken as truth or falsehood ; whether ’ certain Of Ham let s doubts and hesitations (as his t the n in n ss the h s doub of ge u e e of g o t, II . 11 . 628 his a o f s n n his n to h a n ; fe r e di g u cle e ve ,

111 iii. . 74) are real or feigned or the result Of s - In the t n s elf deception . ut era ce Of the char b D’ ’ . . Alfo nso Lo ettro e Amleto Rivista Ita y N R ( Sp d ll , lian i s d Ff os ia nno i. b t his an l of , a v nr, u alysis sim ply confirm s in detail what Lessing had long since pointed o ut ' ' in a enera a bur zsc Drama tur z n g l way (H m g he g e xi) , am ely, ’ that the circumstances o f the gho st s appearanc e are in per feet co nfo rmity with the ac cepted no tio ns o f the behavior o f h g o sts . 2 T E . 47 WILLIAM S RUN , JR

t s m un acters other than he gho t, we eet freq e tly and h s with conscious deceit (lying ypocri y, th n m a n s dissem bling and e feigni g Of d es ) , self-deception (particularly in the case Of Ham t nt the mita ns a s n let) , and cons a ly with li tio ri i g n a nf a n from fallible judgm e t, l ck of i orm tio , or t h a a s s . f he m an a s a similar c u e O u ch r cter , Hor s n s s n an tio , indeed, display ho e ty, i cerity, d t a as is th comm on sens e, bu adm ir ble he , ere seem s to be a general agreem ent that his m ore prosaic nature fails to understand that Of Ham ut H at is m a a ta let . F r her, or io co p r tively ci a s his n ns h m s turn; he l rgely keep Opi io to i elf . ’ Barring his seeming disapproval of Ham let s a h R s n an z and nst n his w y wit o e cr t Guilde er , ’ tardy rem onstrance in the scene at Ophelia s and his tt m t t ss a grave, a e p o di u de Ham let

- H t from the fencing m atch, ora io seem s to be ready to acquiesc e in any Opinion or action Of n s th h h Ham let, o ce the tory Of e g ost as been fi repeated to him . It would be dif cult to m ain ’ tain that he is intended to be Shakespeare s N t m outhpiece . one Of he hum an characters in the play sees the action steadily and sees it whole .

a supernaturaLbeing-l Is he liable to an on- " ta di ? Can v t s pr ju ce he decei e o her , or be . h im e w self deceived? The answer is best found by ’ examining Shakespeare s practice with regard m la in s in t a s to si i r be g o her pl y . We find that THE GHOST IN HAMLET 473

II uius ae ar in Macbeth in in Richard I, in J l C s , , ’ in inter Tale o a Cymbeline, The W s (the r cle) , the supernatural beings, however diverse their

a n s s . a nature, are alike in cert i re pect They h ve n n a s sources of inf orm atio de iedto mort l . They are th encumbran nrtalfi afl s fm t free m" e gg g y , m fro and so far as they take upon them selves the s lit an n h ss ss re ponsibi y of speech d actio , t ey po e f A m vir tual infallibility. The fairies O Midsu ’ ' mer- i s m us N ght Diea make ludicro blunders, it nd a n a O m is true, a show ple tiful l ck f wisdo , is a n as In The T e but this comic pha t y. emp st again, the spirits are no t free agents ; it is Pro spero in whom the supernatural power is really n ri s t ce tered . But in se ou ac ions S hakemw g

initiatiy e as ,“ perfect truth (though the form Of the state m n m a bes as mi a n rta e t y uch to sle d erri g m o ls) , a ar a nd, so f s the purpose Of the speaker is n rned co ce , MW . mor m The ghost me a wh a reksrded, E ith l n as na m a ns s a alli re o ble li it tio , a sh ring this inf

m o i- j udgment; Of

He ns at retu to a th from purg o y , not from r — A e r r h a n t nc n uu e ve , for tha would be i o gr o s with his dem and for r ev nge ; n ot from hell for th at e ,

- w 4 . 47 WILLIAM STRUNK, JR

I m a nt a knows obey him . t y be poi ed out th t E i m r w the circum stance f h s urde , though he as so ‘ n 1 a mm i tt d h asleepwh e t w s co e . Though t ere would have been no propriety in m aking him is so far as omniscient and omnipotent, he , n rns hi o wn a m s all- uffi ient t in co ce s i , s c bo h no t etic knowledge of the fu ure, but he knows when interventionj s necessary and safely m at Hamlet to attain re f venge without further adm onition. SO ar as hiswOrdsthrow light upon the natur e Of Ham ’ ’ s n t let tas k , upo Hamlet s charac er , upon the fi i c t e c en y wi h which Hamlet perform s his task , d h they have an authority, an must ave been in n ha s a an a te ded by S ke pe re to have uthority, which gives them precedence over all the other a a aff t a L d t orded by he pl y . ike Hamlet, we “ " “ m a a i y s y, It s an honest ghost, and take h ’ " t e ghost s word for a thousand pound . The E xh a ustio n O f t he— g ho st in m any cases t he truth or falsitymf the indications aff orded

‘ ’ Oiié a at n m qu lific io ust be m ade . In the at tempt to attach significance to all that the s s and sa s m t gho t doe y , we ust no overlook the m n I require e ts of dram atic structure . would no t argue for a hidden m eaning in the circum ’ stance that instead Of appearing in Ham let s am r a e m bedch be shortly ft r the urder, it waits THE GHOST IN HAMLET 475

nearly two m onths and then appears first to the s n guards without the palace . The expo itio here h t in Macbeth s s n is similar to t a , the fir t, eco d , and fourth scenes of Hamlet fulfilling the sam e h T a the functions as the fir st three of M acbet . h t scene in which Ham let and the

M scenes in which these two char mi acters are separately presented to us . Si " larlyf ( beckoning Ham let away

r and s a m ans of t m a i re te , provide e e por r ly m n at and Ma us in tha the ovi gHor io rcell , order t — ’ 1ntefest m ay be c oncentrated upon the ghost s revelation and upo n the m anner in which Ham -fi lé t s r I la s r ss n the freceive it . No would y t e upo ’ ghost s insistence that Horatio and M arcellus ’ a n am t M s s and swe r upo H le s sword . y teriou impressive as the ghostly voice from below ' n s a an t fiecti n sou d in ctual perform ce, i s e ve ess is r th h n am rathe eatrical t a dr atic . Even Coleridge “ admitted that these subterraneous speeches of "

the h s are ha ns . g o t rdly defe ible Coleridge, n t t m n t th however, u der ook o de o stra e e pro ’ ri t f Haml t a th p e y o e s own sh re in e scene, and

12— 1 Mr. Bradley (pp . 4 4 3) gives his reasons for accepting the part taken by the ghost as ha s a an in s r and no t m c n S ke pe re pi it, erely o s ns n t n I t de ce io o the groundli gs . s ill believe a in the n of s a n th t co duct thi p rt of the sce e, JR . 476 WILLIAM STRUNK,

Shakespeare did not feel him self free to depart a S of widely from his origin l . The four peeches th a s t n in Ham the ghost beneath e st ge, re ul i g ’ let s rem oval from one side o f the stage to the a t nt a in Fratricide other, h ve heir cou erp rt 12 and h n in Punished (Furness 11 . 5 e ce, a a o f the the opinion o f som e, were fe ture pre Th s s Shakespearean version. e i sue of ecrecy Ma lu is no m is never again raised . rcel s ore t is m s a c n heard of, and Hora io the o t loy l of o “ t a In a th m no fidants . The firs o th, f i , y lord , L "

I as n . can see , w really sufficie t We , however,

. a reason why the ghost should approve of Ham n ’ let s swearing his friends to secrecy "this indi ’ cates Ham let s purpose of undertaking the revenge hims elf and of carrying it out with his

own hand .

But with these minor exceptions, occasioned by the dram atic form and by the established t a n am n a s m a r ditio o g pl ygoer , we y look to the words and actions of the s s o r sole ln g ot a “ u h “ fallible guide in interp reting What ‘ indications do these aflord? ’ The ghost s comm and to Hamlet is threefo ld ’ Réhsoiiaé S hakes e re s ( , p a Plots , p .

If tho udidst ever thy dear father love

R n his o u and m os eve ge f l t unnatural murder . But howso r th u ursuest this ac eve o p t,

Taint no t th min n r y d, o let thy soul contrive A ainst th m oth r h g y e aug t . THE GHOST IN HAMLET 477

m an s I In the first place, he de d rev s it to o much to say that the m ere fact of his de m anding it is significant? Suppose the ghost t th a had m erely told Ham le of e murder, wh t A s would have happened? gain, the ghost doe at n r no t dem and immedi e reve ge, no does he

. as specify the form . W ’ HW L And to Shakespeare s audiences there could be no possible doubt as “ n a to the m eaning of reve ge . "iolent de th, ’ a s n m d t Hamlet s hand , o ore an no less, is ha s The n r w t the ghost dem and . i genious theo y ’ i h t of Werder, accord ng to w ich Hamlet s du y was to defer vengeance until he was in a posi tion to convince all Denm ark that it was right ’ n eously taken, finds o support in the ghost s ’ s As ne s t word . o of Werder earliest cri ics, 2 a m e . 3 9 n t B umgart (Fu ss ii poi ted ou, n th n o f nm the ghost says o i g u asking the king, “ of bringing him to the bar of justice It is t t the revenge alone ha ghost calls for, and " s am t m wift revenge that H le pro ises . The greater part of the fine— spun argum ent of Wer this s m n der is refuted by i ple consideratio . And the W W IQ W S h t the a conduct throug ou pl y is simply, with

comm only taken to m ean that in pursuing his 4 78 AM T U JR . WILLI S R NK,

Haml is n t ha n revenge, et o t o be ve u worthily, sh his a a or a a is to blemi ch r cter, perh ps, th t he

A Mr . R ans m no t to destroy his good nam e . s o e the shm t of m ur puts it (p . puni en the derer was to be eff ected in such a way that the pro ’ priety o f Ham let s conduct in the m atter should " be evident . According to this interpretation, ’ Hamlet s words (v . ii . 355

0 o Horatio ha a w n nam g od , w t ouded e, Thin s standin hus un nown sha i hin g g t k , ll l ve be d

m e,

m ay be taken as uttered in distinct rem em ’ th brance of e ghost s injunction . But this

“ ‘ tio n h ch S m s to n inm , w i ee le d support to the mistaken view that Ham let must pub ’ licly dem onstrate his uncle s guilt before n n an n him I t in taki g ve ge ce upo , believe o be “ " t The s a n not m n correc . word , T i t thy i d, are imm ediately connected with those which “ No r t follow, let hy soul contrive against thy " The n i m other aught . refere ce s to the m elan " ’ l4 chol as n s y, occ io ed by the di grace of his m other s st ous m a m ce u arri ge, which has already brought W‘ Ham let to the point of m editating suicide

. 1 1 (1 ii . 3 This m elancholy Hamlet is “ id den m h to overco e . Do not brood over thy " s not m an grief ; do yield to el choly, is the true ’ m anin o f h 3 e g the g ost s words . The conjunc

“ " This is taking the word mind in its m o st natural and T “ " usua sense . he ex re si n a n l p s o , t ai ted mind, would be ’ c ose simi ar to e r l ly l Sp nse s expressio n (Faerie Queene I".

4 0 AM T U . 8 WILLI S R NK, JR reason than we suppose at first for leaving with th mm a Hamlet as his parting injunction e co nd , ‘ ’ a d t n him o n re Rem em ber m e, n for gree i g , ‘ ’ h the mm an not . appearing, wit co d , Do forget ’ Hamlet s conduct from the beginning of the — second e ct is o f

held to be sanctioned by the " t tMS 53 132 But s n . io , houmumuest the whole schem e o f catching the conscience o f the king by m eans o f the play m ust be pronounced an inexcusable deviation from the t n path m arked o ut for him . His eco ni io of _ r g ’ the ghost as his father sgpml hgsbggm g plfi’ifi

Hamlet to feel that he is doing something relat in “ his n and thus ceuse ims l g T reve ge, j fi h e f ' ’ t n o fi his m t for puti g ain task . And he result t s m st n m n th is no i ple po po e e t , for e play ’ catches the king s conscience in a way that Haml had no t an t t et ticipa ed , and hereby creates a new obstacle to the attainm ent o f The n is t revenge . ki g led o feel rem orse and H ml a . a s a n to pr y et, e rchi g for the king in hat he m a k him n him at a order t y ill , fi ds pr yer, nd a s in a sp re his life, order to avoid the possi bility o f thwarting his vengeance by sending the H ’ in to a n . aml t s as nin k g he ve e re o g, however m a sh m rn ns it y ock ode se ibilities, is not with a ta n a s li an out cer i pl u ibi ty, d according to the THE GHOST IN HAMLET 48 1

than n e- a moral schem e of an Elizabe reve g pl y, a a s would be perfectly justifiable, provided lw y that Ham let were acting on his own responsi lit But Ham is no t a a nt and it bi y. let free ge , “ " n h To the should no t be his to reaso w y . ’ i s Cut off n object on that the ghost s word , eve " in th ss m m sin m an at n e blo o of y , i my oblig io upon Ham let to kill his uncle in a m om ent of t n sin and thereby ensur e his eternal damna io , it s a m ay be answered that the ghost had al o s id, “ H th est this act and at owsoever ou pursu , th in the very next scene the ghost reproves Ham “ " let f r hi n s a hi h o s blu ted purpo e, reproof w c ’ it is natur al to connect dir ectly with Ham let s r t failure to seize this particular Oppo tuni y. i that n Further, Shakespeare m akes t clear eve his o wn n Haml t was n in by pri ciple, e wro g no t t n his h n th s m m nt accep i g c a ce, for i o e of apparent repentance is precisely the m om ent in which the king has definitely form ulated his s t t d h n t act as i ua ion, an as resolved ot o m beco es a repentant m an. ’ The ghost s reappearance should be sufficient

’ mm an i a et s a as in hat 0 co d , in c se t e Jona is s t hat the s n prophet h , proof po i ive t per o v ' ’ mm n The h ost s a has e mi . co ded h enm re ss “ s I m h t th t nt d word , co e to w e y almos blu e r i purpose, a e incom patible with any bel ef “ " tha Haml t is a m n t e an o f action, deferri g T JR . 482 WILLIAM S RUNK,

his revenge only for reasons of necessity . It is to be noted that although the ghost bids “ m 0 n Hamlet calm his other, , step betwee " h r ht n s no t s ecifi her and e fig i g oul , it does p cally reprove Ham let for having upbraided her, “ r th Ta n no t th no does it repeat e warning , i t y " th st has n t n sa mind . If e gho o hi g further to y h as n m st a Ham upon these points, t e re o u be th t It is t let is in need of no further exhortation. o be noted likewise th t the ghost does not for it has n to n ' New oi g ES—fi W ’ been alleged again and again that Ham let s departure from Denm ark seem s to imply an abandonm ent of his purpose ; that he should a m a n in s n a s h ve re i ed El i ore , bec u e only there s n could hi reve ge be accom plished . Indeed , it is even urged that this absence from Den m a t rk, a the critical m om ent of the return of La s is a a a erte , wh t lone m kes possible the sub s n atas s " a f L eque t c trophe the de th o aertes, of the n and H quee , of amlet him self . But the a a s n s a in re l c u es of these eve t lie further b ck, the sparing of the king at prayer and in the de a s and s a l y he it tions which preceded this . The a r for n an is as l nk dep rtu e E gl d , it were, i ed with a ns n s is not a s dre dful co eque ce , but it their c u e . ’ Ham let s fault is not that he sets out for E ng an l d, but that he should have placed him self in a s t n i m a s s n a po i io wh ch de thi cour e ecess ry. The s n the s ile ce of ghost hould be conclusive . ’ And the necessity of Hamlet s setting out for THE GHOST IN HAMLET 483

a A t England is otherwise app rent . f er the killing of Polonius he is placed under guard His n a t a s is tha (Iv . iii . o ly pr c ic l cour e t which he actually takes "to leave Denm ark a s and h m a quietly with his gu rd , to elude t e t n h D the first opportunity, o ce t e shores of en h n m ark have been left be i d . M M SM M W W o a 0 o M ' w 1 \ The plam m ference Is that 1ntervent10n Is no ' ’ that Hahile s kl s longer necessary, t course, rec e s

or r n s ea ir to the , n risks conf o t da ger , l ds d ectly a He s m h fulfillm ent of his t sk . feel hi self to ave the a t n n th the n s c u io , the stre g , resourceful es , a the t m n the cour ge, and de er i ation to aecom s The m plish his purpo e. ti e of irresolution and “ i s delay s pas t . His word to Horatio, The in ar terim is mine (v . ii . 73) e those of a m an con fi e t ma th I d n of his stery of e situation. f he s a n in on hold blu ted foil e hand, he holds an at in the th unb ed dagger o er . He twice refuses s is n the poi oned cup . He o longer the hesitat ing and m editative Ham let of the second and t a a am hird cts, but H let who in a school o f bitter experience has learned how to overcom e w s and h h his o n weaknesse , as t us fitted hims elf for a min m the t sk of overco g his ene y. The supernatural judgm ent of the ghost was no t at

fault . 484 AM T U . WILLI , S R NK, JR

The conclusions resulting from this principle of the virtual infallibility of the ghost are in large an m n part not new. Indeed, y co prehe sive dis ’ cussion of Hamlet s conduct which is wholly new M can hardly es cape being fantastic . y aim has been to emphasize the im portance of the words and actions of the ghost as the necessary point ar r for all r a n a of dep tu e inte pret tio of the pl y, and in im as na a with due l its, the fi l uthority in a such interpret tion. An examination of these words and actions enables us in large m easure to discriminate between the conclusions derived e are from other data . W enabled to conclude with certainty that Hamlet essentially is not in s m adnes , but m ad in craft ; that he is not temperamentally unfit for the task assigned him a , but fit instrum ent of revenge ; that his tas k does not include self-justification or the n n the n n bri gi g of ki g to public ig ominy, but is im to a a nm n n a l ited the tt i e t of ve ge nce, a task possible to him only when he shall fir st have succeeded in overcoming his inclination to m elancholy and in banishing from his mind his ’ n na n at i dig tio his m other s frailty . In the sec o nd and third acts we see him fail to carry out ’ the mm an a s h ghost s co d, bec u e he as not yet m t es s a s overco e h e ob t cle . But his eff orts at self-m astery have so far availed that the re a a an o i s a ppe r ce the gho t , ided by his own self a s m a repro che , kes it possible for him to advance thenceforward steadily and surely toward the THE GHOST IN HAMLET 485

n Th tha s m goal of his reve ge . e lives t ee to be ss sa in the ast a s are needle ly crificed, l two ct ’ the price of Ham let s previous hesitation and all h s so far as I can n r delay . For t i , i terp et t ha the a h the h st the tex , we ve ut ority of g o , m th nat f th as is as m h which, fro e ure o e c e, uc ’ as to say, we have Shakespeare s o wn authority.