|
PAGE 79
EXPLANATION OF HAMLET'S MYSTERY
for murdering his uncle to seize the throne himself, but also for
selfishly seeking to cast an infamous slur on the memory of a
man who could no longer defend his honour. This would have
resulted in the sanctification of the uncle, and so the frustra-
tion of the revenge. In other words it was the difficulty not
so much of the act itself that deterred Hamlet as of the situa-
tion that would necessarily result from the act.
Thanks mainly to Werder's ingenious presentation of this
view, several prominent critics, including Rolfe,1 Corson,2
Furness,3 Hudson4 and Halliwell-Phillips5 have given it their
adherence. It has not found much favour in the Hamlet-litera-
ture itself, and has been crushingly refuted by a number of
able critics, particularly by Toman,6 Loening,7 Hebler,8 Rib-
beck,9 Bradley,10 Baumgart,11 and Bulthaupt.12 I need, therefore,
do no more than mention one or two of the objections that can
be raised to it. It will be seen that to support this hypothesis
the task has in two respects been made to appear more difficult
than is really the case; first it is assumed to be not simple
revenge in the ordinary sense of the word, but a complicated
bringing to judgement in a more or less legal way; and secondly
the importance of the external obstacles have been exagger-
ated. This distortion of the meaning of the revenge is purely
gratuitous and has no warrant in any passage of the play, or
elsewhere where the word is used in Shakspere.13 Hamlet
never doubted that he was the legitimately appointed instru-
ment of punishment, and when at the end of the play he se-
cures his revenge, the dramatic situation is correctly resolved,
although the nation is not even informed, let alone convinced,
of the murder that is being avenged. To secure evidence that
would convict the uncle in a court of law was from the nature
of the case impossible, and no tragical situation can arise from
an attempt to achieve the impossible, nor can the interest of
1Rolfe: Introduction to the English Translation of Werder, 1907.
2Corson: Cited by Rolfe. Loc. cit.
3Furness: A New Var. Ed. of Shakespeare, Vol. III and IV, 1877.
4Hudson: Shakespeare's Life, Art, and Characters, 2nd ed., 1882.
5Halliwell-Phillips: Memoranda on the tragedy of Hamlet, 1879.
6Tolman: Views about Hamlet and Other Essays, 1904.
7Loening: Op. cit., S. 110-113 and 220-224.
8Hebler: Aufsatze über Shakespeare, 2e Ausg., 1874, S. 258-278.
9Ribbeck: Hamlet und seine Ausleger, 1891, S. 567.
10Bradley: Shakespearian Tragedy, 1904, Art. Hamlet.
11Baumgart: Die Hamlet-Tragödie und ihre Kritik, 1877, S. 7-29.
12Bulthaupt: Dramaturgie des Schauspiels, 4e Aufl., 1891, II, S. 237.
13Loening: (Op. cit., Cap. VI), has made a detailed study of the
significance of revenge in Shakspere's period and as illustrated
throughout his works; his conclusion on the point admits of no
questioning.
|