This match--he is expressly told so--has been arranged by his deadly enemy the King; and his antagonist is a man whose hands but a few hours ago were at his throat, and whose voice he had heard shouting "The devil take thy soul!" But he does not think of that. To fence is to show a courtesy, and to himself it is a relief,--action, and not the one hateful action. There is something n.o.ble in his carelessness, and also in his refusal to attend to the presentiment which he suddenly feels (and of which he says, not only "the readiness is all," but also "it is no matter"). Something n.o.ble; and yet, when a sacred duty is still undone, ought one to be so ready to die? With the same carelessness, and with that trustfulness which makes us love him, but which is here so fatally misplaced, he picks up the first foil that comes to his hand, asks indifferently, "These foils have all a length?" and begins. And Fate descends upon his enemies, and his mother, and himself.
But he is not left in utter defeat. Not only is his task at last accomplished, but Shakespeare seems to have determined that his hero should exhibit in his latest hour all the glorious power and all the n.o.bility and sweetness of his nature. Of the first, the power, I spoke before,[67] but there is a wonderful beauty in the revelation of the second. His body already labouring in the pangs of death, his mind soars above them. He forgives Laertes; he remembers his wretched mother and bids her adieu, ignorant that she has preceded him. We hear now no word of lamentation or self-reproach. He has will, and just time, to think, not of the past or of what might have been, but of the future; to forbid his friend"s death in words more pathetic in their sadness than even his agony of spirit had been; and to take care, so far as in him lies, for the welfare of the State which he himself should have guided. Then in spite of shipwreck he reaches the haven of silence where he would be.
What else could his world-wearied flesh desire?
But _we_ desire more; and we receive it. As those mysterious words, "The rest is silence," die upon Hamlet"s lips, Horatio answers:
Now cracks a n.o.ble heart. Good night, sweet prince, And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest.
Why did Shakespeare here, so much against his custom, introduce this reference to another life? Did he remember that Hamlet is the only one of his tragic heroes whom he has not allowed us to see in the days when this life smiled on him? Did he feel that, while for the others we might be content to imagine after life"s fitful fever nothing more than release and silence, we must ask more for one whose "G.o.dlike reason" and pa.s.sionate love of goodness have only gleamed upon us through the heavy clouds of melancholy, and yet have left us murmuring, as we bow our heads, "This was the n.o.blest spirit of them all"?
2
How many things still remain to say of Hamlet! Before I touch on his relation to Ophelia, I will choose but two. Neither of them, compared with the matters so far considered, is of great consequence, but both are interesting, and the first seems to have quite escaped observation.
(1) Most people have, beside their more essential traits of character, little peculiarities which, for their intimates, form an indissoluble part of their personality. In comedy, and in other humorous works of fiction, such peculiarities often figure prominently, but they rarely do so, I think, in tragedy. Shakespeare, however, seems to have given one such idiosyncrasy to Hamlet.
It is a trick of speech, a habit of repet.i.tion. And these are simple examples of it from the first soliloquy:
O _G.o.d! G.o.d!_ How weary, stale, flat and unprofitable Seem to me all the uses of this world!
_Fie_ on"t! ah _fie!_
Now I ask your patience. You will say: "There is nothing individual here. Everybody repeats words thus. And the tendency, in particular, to use such repet.i.tions in moments of great emotion is well-known, and frequently ill.u.s.trated in literature--for example, in David"s cry of lament for Absalom."
This is perfectly true, and plenty of examples could be drawn from Shakespeare himself. But what we find in Hamlet"s case is, I believe, _not_ common. In the first place, this repet.i.tion is a _habit_ with him.
Here are some more instances: "Thrift, thrift, Horatio"; "Indeed, indeed, sirs, but this troubles me"; "Come, deal justly with me: come, come"; "Wormwood, wormwood!" I do not profess to have made an exhaustive search, but I am much mistaken if this _habit_ is to be found in any other serious character of Shakespeare.[68]
And, in the second place--and here I appeal with confidence to lovers of Hamlet--some of these repet.i.tions strike us as intensely characteristic.
Some even of those already quoted strike one thus, and still more do the following:
(_a_) _Horatio._ It would have much amazed you.
_Hamlet._ Very like, very like. Stay"d it long?
(_b_) _Polonius._ What do you read, my lord?
_Hamlet._ Words, words, words.
(_c_) _Polonius._ My honourable lord, I will most humbly take my leave of you.
_Hamlet._ You cannot, sir, take from me anything that I will more willingly part withal: except my life, except my life, except my life.
(_d_) _Ophelia._ Good my lord, How does your honour for this many a day?
_Hamlet._ I humbly thank you, well, well, well.
Is there anything that Hamlet says or does in the whole play more unmistakably individual than these replies?[69]
(2) Hamlet, everyone has noticed, is fond of quibbles and word-play, and of "conceits" and turns of thought such as are common in the poets whom Johnson called Metaphysical. Sometimes, no doubt, he plays with words and ideas chiefly in order to mystify, thwart and annoy. To some extent, again, as we may see from the conversation where Rosencrantz and Guildenstern first present themselves (II. ii. 227), he is merely following the fashion of the young courtiers about him, just as in his love-letter to Ophelia[70] he uses for the most part the fantastic language of Court Euphuism. Nevertheless in this trait there is something very characteristic. We should be greatly surprised to find it marked in Oth.e.l.lo or Lear or Timon, in Macbeth or Antony or Coriola.n.u.s; and, in fact, we find it in them hardly at all. One reason of this may perhaps be that these characters are all later creations than Hamlet, and that Shakespeare"s own fondness for this kind of play, like the fondness of the theatrical audience for it, diminished with time. But the main reason is surely that this tendency, as we see it in Hamlet, betokens a nimbleness and flexibility of mind which is characteristic of him and not of the later less many-sided heroes. Macbeth, for instance, has an imagination quite as sensitive as Hamlet"s to certain impressions, but he has none of Hamlet"s delight in freaks and twists of thought, or of his tendency to perceive and play with resemblances in the most diverse objects and ideas. Though Romeo shows this tendency, the only tragic hero who approaches Hamlet here is Richard II., who indeed in several ways recalls the emasculated Hamlet of some critics, and may, like the real Hamlet, have owed his existence in part to Shakespeare"s personal familiarity with the weaknesses and dangers of an imaginative temperament.
That Shakespeare meant this trait to be characteristic of Hamlet is beyond question. The very first line the hero speaks contains a play on words:
A little more than kin and less than kind.
The fact is significant, though the pun itself is not specially characteristic. Much more so, and indeed absolutely individual, are the uses of word-play in moments of extreme excitement. Remember the awe and terror of the scene where the Ghost beckons Hamlet to leave his friends and follow him into the darkness, and then consider this dialogue:
_Hamlet._ It waves me still.
Go on; I"ll follow thee.
_Marcellus._ You shall not go, my lord.
_Hamlet._ Hold off your hands.
_Horatio._ Be ruled; you shall not go.
_Hamlet._ My fate cries out, And makes each petty artery in this body As hardy as the Nemean lion"s nerve.
Still am I called. Unhand me, gentlemen.
_By heaven I"ll make a ghost of him that lets me._
Would any other character in Shakespeare have used those words? And, again, where is Hamlet more Hamlet than when he accompanies with a pun the furious action by which he compels his enemy to drink the "poison tempered by himself"?
Here, thou incestuous, murderous, d.a.m.n"d Dane, Drink off this potion. Is thy union here?
Follow my mother.
The "union" was the pearl which Claudius professed to throw into the cup, and in place of which (as Hamlet supposes) he dropped poison in.
But the "union" is also that incestuous marriage which must not be broken by his remaining alive now that his partner is dead. What rage there is in the words, and what a strange lightning of the mind!
Much of Hamlet"s play with words and ideas is imaginatively humorous.
That of Richard II. is fanciful, but rarely, if ever, humorous. Antony has touches of humour, and Richard III. has more; but Hamlet, we may safely a.s.sert, is the only one of the tragic heroes who can be called a humorist, his humour being first cousin to that speculative tendency which keeps his mental world in perpetual movement. Some of his quips are, of course, poor enough, and many are not distinctive. Those of his retorts which strike one as perfectly individual do so, I think, chiefly because they suddenly reveal the misery and bitterness below the surface; as when, to Rosencrantz"s message from his mother, "She desires to speak with you in her closet, ere you go to bed," he answers, "We shall obey, were she ten times our mother"; or as when he replies to Polonius"s invitation, "Will you walk out of the air, my lord?" with words that suddenly turn one cold, "Into my grave." Otherwise, what we justly call Hamlet"s characteristic humour is not his exclusive property, but appears in pa.s.sages spoken by persons as different as Mercutio, Falstaff and Rosalind. The truth probably is that it was the kind of humour most natural to Shakespeare himself, and that here, as in some other traits of the poet"s greatest creation, we come into close contact with Shakespeare the man.
3
The actor who plays the part of Hamlet must make up his mind as to the interpretation of every word and deed of the character. Even if at some point he feels no certainty as to which of two interpretations is right, he must still choose one or the other. The mere critic is not obliged to do this. Where he remains in doubt he may say so, and, if the matter is of importance, he ought to say so.
This is the position in which I find myself in regard to Hamlet"s love for Ophelia. I am unable to arrive at a conviction as to the meaning of some of his words and deeds, and I question whether from the mere text of the play a sure interpretation of them can be drawn. For this reason I have reserved the subject for separate treatment, and have, so far as possible, kept it out of the general discussion of Hamlet"s character.
On two points no reasonable doubt can, I think, be felt. (1) Hamlet was at one time sincerely and ardently in love with Ophelia. For she herself says that he had importuned her with love in honourable fashion, and had given countenance to his speech with almost all the holy vows of heaven (I. iii. 110 f.). (2) When, at Ophelia"s grave, he declared,
I loved Ophelia; forty thousand brothers Could not, with all their quant.i.ty of love, Make up my sum,
he must have spoken sincerely; and, further, we may take it for granted that he used the past tense, "loved," merely because Ophelia was dead, and not to imply that he had once loved her but no longer did so.
So much being a.s.sumed, we come to what is doubtful, and I will begin by stating what is probably the most popular view. According to this view, Hamlet"s love for Ophelia never changed. On the revelation made by the Ghost, however, he felt that he must put aside all thoughts of it; and it also seemed to him necessary to convince Ophelia, as well as others, that he was insane, and so to destroy her hopes of any happy issue to their love. This was the purpose of his appearance in her chamber, though he was probably influenced also by a longing to see her and bid her a silent farewell, and possibly by a faint hope that he might safely entrust his secret to her. If he entertained any such hope his study of her face dispelled it; and thereafter, as in the Nunnery-scene (III. i.) and again at the play-scene, he not only feigned madness, but, to convince her that he had quite lost his love for her, he also addressed her in bitter and insulting language. In all this he was acting a part intensely painful to himself; the very violence of his language in the Nunnery-scene arose from this pain; and so the actor should make him show, in that scene, occasional signs of a tenderness which with all his efforts he cannot wholly conceal. Finally, over her grave the truth bursts from him in the declaration quoted just now, though it is still impossible for him to explain to others why he who loved her so profoundly was forced to wring her heart.
Now this theory, if the view of Hamlet"s character which I have taken is anywhere near the truth, is certainly wrong at one point, viz., in so far as it supposes that Hamlet"s bitterness to Ophelia was a _mere_ pretence forced on him by his design of feigning to be insane; and I proceed to call attention to certain facts and considerations, of which the theory seems to take no account.
1. How is it that in his first soliloquy Hamlet makes no reference whatever to Ophelia?
2. How is it that in his second soliloquy, on the departure of the Ghost, he again says nothing about her? When the lover is feeling that he must make a complete break with his past, why does it not occur to him at once that he must give up his hopes of happiness in love?
3. Hamlet does not, as the popular theory supposes, break with Ophelia directly after the Ghost appears to him; on the contrary, he tries to see her and sends letters to her (II. i. 109). What really happens is that Ophelia suddenly repels his visits and letters. Now, _we_ know that she is simply obeying her father"s order; but how would her action appear to Hamlet, already sick at heart because of his mother"s frailty,[71] and now finding that, the moment fortune has turned against him, the woman who had welcomed his love turns against him too? Even if he divined (as his insults to Polonius suggest) that her father was concerned in this change, would he not still, in that morbid condition of mind, certainly suspect her of being less simple than she had appeared to him?[72] Even if he remained free from _this_ suspicion, and merely thought her deplorably weak, would he not probably feel anger against _her_, an anger like that of the hero of _Locksley Hall_ against his Amy?