to let the public know of it. We are however little better off than before. There is nothing new in his demonstrating the relation of Ophelia to Hamlet. No one could help seeing who Aurelia was in Goethe's Wilhelm Meister, and one could hardly help seeing that she is only Ophelia in another guise. But is this sufficient to justify a claim to a great discovery? If so, we must also make that claim. But we thought any suggestions not in harmony with the whole play, action, text, etc., to be absurd in the face of Goethe's novel. And we have waited until, word for word and line for line, we have had the play partially revealed to us.1

1 Nothing but a work of a lifetime could do justice to Hamlet, and it is probable that each century will see more exhaustive interpretations of the play.

CHAPTER VII.

THE first thing to be done in criticizing a work of art is to separate the main lines upon which it is built from the secondary and correlated parts. In doing this with Hamlet, we find the whole play to rest upon one first cause. That is, the unjust usurpation of a throne from its just heir by crime. The action will be then, first, the detection of this crime; secondly, the attempts to revenge, and turn the unjust occupant off his throne. Upon this discovery and action the whole play will revolve. All the rest of the dramatis persona are but accessories to the discovery, to the revenge, and to the opposition to that revenge. First, we have a King in possession. This possession has been effected by crime. The rightful heir first discovers and then avenges the crime. The details of this discovery, and the struggle to avenge, and resist this revenge, is the action, the detail, the whole story of the tragedy of Hamlet.

The King is human error.1 He is a mere symbol for every injustice as regards man. He is in possession. Prince Hamlet is the spirit of truth-seeking in man. is the rightful King by every right. But though a prince

He

And he is the sum total of his

1 Historically and philosophically alone. partisans. He dies as they separately are destroyed.

and the rightful heir, he never succeeds to the throne. The King is married to the Queen. The Queen is human belief. She is wedded to error. But truth must be also belief. Therefore the prince is made her son. He laments her bad marriage. But it is some time before he detects crime to have been perpetrated, and that he has been not only robbed. of a father, but tricked out of the throne. As long as he knew nothing of the crime of the King, he sees in the King's marriage to his mother a just claim to the throne. But when he discovers the crime of the King, he sees his mother must be spoken with, reproached, and induced to relinquish the King. To avenge the crime of the King is then his only thought. To oust him from the throne—to kill him by so doing—is the action of the play.

Now let us take this theory of ours as exemplified in history, and try and wed it to the structure of these main lines.

There was a time when man knew not that error was in dominion over him. Such times were the Dark Ages. The discovery of error is to recognize its unlawful dominion. To recognize that unlawful dominion is to wish to repair it, by getting rid of it. be made. Then the efforts to last will be a work of time.

First, the discovery must carry it into effect. The It will be done only by

successive stages. To render that discovery possible, we must have the means of discovery. To carry that discovery into action, we must have further means. And over time will be spread the battle, which must be represented by growth of power, implying loss of power on the other side.1

Characters inform

But this is the plan of the play. Hamlet of his father's Ghost. The Ghost informs Hamlet of the King's crime. Hamlet then charges the King with the crime. And then we have, with the successive fall of the King's Lord Chamberlain and Courtiers, a successive

1 Thus Hamlet is born, grows to manhood, and accomplishes his mission and destiny.

weakening of the King. Whilst with the means of Hamlet, as contained in the characters who lead to discovery, we have also the Players, the march of Fortinbras, and the address to the Queen. The whole history of progress and reform is one of time. So is the play of Hamlet. The history of man's progress (as exemplified in Europe) is one in which error is constantly weakened-injustice and error of course are the same. The spirit of truth gains at the expense of error. But time is required, and the spirit of truth is always lacking power to crush out every wrong at a blow. It only gains strength very slowly indeed. Thus Hamlet's want of power, or irresolution, is explained.1 Time alone can give it to him. In the death of Polonius we read the first destruction of one of the King's bulwarks. What should that bulwark be? Certainty, we reply. For error only exists in proportion to its being believed in with certainty by men's minds. When this Certainty is dead, belief can be shaken. So we have Hamlet's address to his mother, and his direct charge to her for the first time after the death of Polonius.

The discovery of error is only effected by the unity and co-existence of three things. The spirit of liberty, knowledge, and doubt. But we have all this in the play. We have Bernardo relieving Francisco, as implying knowledge relieving ignorance by the art of reading. Next, Marcellus and Horatio, who are probably produced by the above two. Scholarship and inquiry result from printing and the diffusion of reading. Then the Ghost, or doubt, comes in the train of the above. Knowledge brings criticism, and criticism brings scepticism. And contemporary with these we have the rise of Fortinbras, who represents the spirit of liberty. Thus knowledge, liberty, and progress, enter the play almost hand in hand. All these will form the spirit of justice and truth-seeking, who is realized presently in Hamlet. They then "go in together" to set

1 We cannot too much insist that Hamlet is acting all through the play, as he kills the King through his adherents.

the times, "which are out of joint, right." That is to attack error, the King, wedded to human belief. But how are they to effect this? They must first prove the King is guilty of crime. They must show he is error. And this they effect by showing the King how he became the occupant of the throne. They point out his crime, which is a revelation from scepticism. Error is only recognized by showing how it is error. And the King is only King in virtue of error. Therefore the Player-scene embraces the Reformation, and the first revolt of Hamlet or man.1 Upon this revolt and its proof the play must hinge. From this time the King must continuously lose power. This he does first by the death of certainty shaken by the Player-scene. And mark how this is effected by the Player-scene. The Queen only wishes to speak to Hamlet in consequence of that Player-scene. And this leads to the death of Polonius. Thus the Player-scene is artistically shown to be the cause of the death of Polonius. The first blow at the King is the death of certainty. From this time he continues losing power, and Hamlet in gaining it. After the death of Polonius, Hamlet can address his mother. Belief is shaken, is divided, and, from this time, she gets less and less faithful to the King, until she dies, which is merely the death of belief in error, and error in belief.

Who are the next enemies to truth and justice-seekers? Clearly those who are benefited by error, or by the King. They will not care about Hamlet, since he seeks to rob them of their possessions in destroying abuses. They will be indifferent to reform. They must live in the lap of fortune. They will therefore oppose Hamlet by every means in their power. They must be pictured all this, and they are so pictured. The weapons they use must be hypocrisy, cunning, sophistry, indifference, and casuistry. The text will show that the characters of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are all

1 It is impossible to separate truth from progress, or the latter from history. 2 Those who understand history will see that Rosencrantz, by means of Guildenstern, represents the chief opposition of authority.