The Tragic Conflict in Hamlet

Author(s): J. J. Lawlor
Source: The Review of English Studies, New Series, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Apr., 1950), pp. 97-113
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/510608 .
Accessed: 27/11/2014 13:08

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Review of
English Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 111.93.5.194 on Thu, 27 Nov 2014 13:08:53 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Reviewof
EnglishStudies
VOL. I, NEW SERIES, No. 2 APRIL 1950

THE TRAGIC CONFLICT IN HAMLET

By J. J. LAWLOR

MY delay
presentintentionis to ask again an old question,Why does Hamlet
his revenge? Considerationsofspace forbidmygivingreasons
for supposingthatthis is a question which can profitablybe asked. The
effectof some recentcriticismof Shakespearehas been to turnattention
away fromquestionsof characterand motiveto mattersoftheatrecraft and
the 'dramaticillusion'; we are recommended,above all, to considerthe
plays as poetry. But, howevermuch we welcome the modernmovement
away froma thorough-going psychologicalnaturalism,it is surelyto flyto
an extremeto refusein totothe conceptionof 'character'. The dramatic
illusionaims at convincingus oftherealityofthepersonsrepresented, their
truthto substantialhuman nature. We assentto the existenceof Hamlet,
Othello,Lear, and Macbeth as to the existenceof any of the great'charac-
ters' of naturalisticfiction.The meansemployedto thatend are in thetwo
cases totallydistinct-and it is here,withthe heightenedperceptionthat
comes withattentionto the playsas Elizabethandrama,thatwe recordour
debtto moderncriticism.But in playand novelaliketheartist'simmediate
end (and necessaryconditionof success) is the same-to win our assentto
the real existenceand momentousfateof personswho in theirown kind
are but shadows. Again,thoughit will be evident,I trust,in whatfollows
that I hold Hamlet to be a masterpiece,yet I have attemptedno detailed
critique of the positionsthat it is wholly or in part failure. A working
synthesisof the two prevalent schools of Shakespeare criticism-the
Naturalisticand the 'Realist'-is urgentlynecessary,but must receive
fullertreatment thancan be hereattempted.In whatfollowsI shallassume
thatthe problemof Hamlet's delayis valid forcriticalinquiry;and I hope
it may appear that an understandingof this delay is groundforassessing
the play as a masterpiece.
Let me put the problem in its simplestform. Hamlet delaysbecause,
fromthe outsetof the play, his is palpablya naturethatcannotenact the
4690.z 7
R.E.S. New Series, Vol. I, No. 2 (1950).

This content downloaded from 111.93.5.194 on Thu, 27 Nov 2014 13:08:53 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
98 J. J. LAWLOR
deed demandedof it. In his aversionfromthatdeed he calls in question
all thingsunder the sun, and contemplateswith longingan end of his
weariedlife. Nowhere does he giveus anyone,unmistakablereasonforhis
delay. I believemostcriticswould assent,no doubtwithvaryingemphasis,
to these propositions. But, here is the difficulty-howis the Elizabethan
audience to apprehendthis? We have seen no such lavish portrayaland
analysis of human nature in any Elizabethan play, nor does the Eliza-
bethantheatricaltraditionlend itselfto thistreatment.Great criticshave
discoveredthis complexityby minutecross-reference withinthe text; but
these correspondencesare to be made at peril of importinginto the work
standardsunguessedat by the author. If, disregarding thosewho will have
nothing whatever to do with the conception 'character',we persistwith
of
our inquiry,then we must put the question in this form-can the Type
under which Hamlet is presented-that of the Melancholy Man-have
allowedtheElizabethanaudienceto apprehendthecomplexityand subtlety
whichwe see in Hamlet's characterization?It is thisverycomplexitythat
is herein question. There is nothingto stop a greatcreativeartistmaking
his representationof human nature,whateverthe conventionalbase he
startsfrom,as profound or as greatas he will-as profoundas Shakespeare's
Macbeth or as greatas his Lear. But thisprofundity or greatnesswillbe a
unifiedconception,resolving, itmaybe,majordiscords-as Macbeth'sambi-
tionand vacillationare resolvedintoruthlessness-butresolving themnone
the less, to presenta single conception. Yet the unifiedconceptionis pre-
ciselywhatwe lack in Hamlet. How thento apprehendthetragicconflict ?
I thinkit may be allowed that only by layingaside our preconceived
notionsofwhatis properto thedramashallwe enjoywhatis in Shakespeare
in its own right,and avoid mistakingit for sheer inventionor arbitrary
method. If, then,the trueline of approachis by way of Elizabethanpro-
ductionin anykindunderreview,we maytakeup our questionconcerning
Hamlet in some hope of a solutionif we considerfirstthe kind to which
it belongs-the play of Revenge-and, second, Shakespeare's general
characteristics in the treatmentof Revengeand its relatedissues.
The RevengeTragedy,howevertreatedbythedramatist, quicklybecame
a dominantform. Kyd's Spanish Tragedymarkedout a coursefruitful for
his successorsin presentingthe delays of Hieronimobeforeachievingthe
carnage that the genre demands-revenge 'pressed down and running
over'. The delay in Kyd servesthis main end-a mountinghorrorfinally
resolvedin theblood-bath. Hieronimodelays; at firstin despairofexecut-
ingvengeance,laterin doubtwhetherto leave hiswrongsto Divine retribu-
tion: but finallyhe accepts the role of Avengerand his last act is thevery
top and bent of revenge. The murderplay withwhich he 'fits'the evil-
doers fulfilshis darkpromise: vengeanceis exacted

This content downloaded from 111.93.5.194 on Thu, 27 Nov 2014 13:08:53 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE TRAGIC CONFLICT IN HAMLET 99
notas thevulgarwitsofmen
Withopen,but inevitable ills,
As by a secret,yeta certainmean,
Whichunderkindshipwillbe cloakedbest.
There is, however,anotheruse of delay which later dramatistsare to
employ,writerswho come afterHamlet and are not slow to learn fromit.
This use of delay may best be seen in Tourneur's Atheist'sTragedyand
in Chapman's Revenge of Bussy d'Ambois. In both these plays the
avengerdelays, not fromdespair or indecisionwhich are finallyrejected
in favourof the duty of Revenge, but-and this is of capital importance
forour inquiry-because thereis a scrupleabout revengeitself. The duty
of revenge,finallytriumphantin Kyd, is called into questionthroughout:
is it justice? The Ghost of Tourneur's play maintainsthat we mortals
must leave vengeanceto Heaven. It is the Ghost who tells Charlemont
thathe is a wrongedman; but the same Ghost adds
Attendwithpatiencethesuccessofthings,
But leaverevengeuntotheKing of Kings.
Later, when Charlemont,drawingto defendhimself,is about to kill his
assailantin the name of 'Revenge' the Ghost intervenes:
Hold, Charlemont!
Let Him revengemymurderand thywrongs,
To Whomthejusticeof revengebelongs.
'The justice of revenge'!-we have come a long way fromthe axiomatic
compulsionsof Kyd and Marstonand the earlyShakespeare. Tourneur's
play triesto demonstrate, in its own queer fashion,thetruthofthe Ghost's
solemn assertions: Charlemont,convinced of the truth,'sums up' (the
phrase is just):
Onlyto heavenI attribute thework
Whosegraciousmotivesmademe stillforbear
To be mineown revenger.Now I see
That Patienceis theHonestMan's Revenge.
Chapman's play, threeor fouryears later,rejectsthis simple solution,
'Leave it to Heaven'. Tourneur's hero had been the lay-figurein the
demonstration ofthismoral. Chapman's hero,Clermont,startswithwholly
explicitscruplesabout the justice of Revenge. Clermontis the wronged
man who will not take vengeance,one who asks:
Shallwe revengevillainywitha villainy? ...
Shallwe equal be
Withvillains?...
We mustwreakourwrongs
So as we takenotmore.

This content downloaded from 111.93.5.194 on Thu, 27 Nov 2014 13:08:53 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
100 J. J. LAWLOR
And, again,
menshouldeverbringtheirblood
All worthy
To bearan ill notto be wreak'dwithgood.
But this will not servethe needs of drama: the guiltymust not go wholly
unrequited. So the last Act opens withthe Ghost of Bussy,the murdered
man, risen from'the Chaos of Eternal Night', to controvertthis view of
Clermont. This Ghost,'themostphilosophicGhostinElizabethandrama','
roundlycondemnsClermontand proclaimsman's dutytoexactretribution:
Awaythen!use themeansthouhastto right
The wrongI suffer'd.
Clermontconsentsto performhis dutyofvengeance,but onlyon theterms
of a fairduel: and so the evil-doeris dispatched,dyingwith pardon for
Clermontand receivingin turn Clermont'sforgiveness.Honour is satis-
fied:thewrong-doerhas been fairlypunished. The wildjusticeof Revenge
has been overruledforthejustice of even combat.
Now, both these plays exhibitclear reminiscencesof Hamlet. Indeed,
in Chapman's case, as Mr. PercySimpsonhas pointedout,2thisis the only
play of his whichshows an unmistakabledebt to Shakespeare. It seems to
me, then,at least possiblethatthismajorvariationin the Revengematter,
the debating the issue Revenge versus Justice,followingas it does on
Shakespeare'sHamletand owingmuch in incidentalmatterand phraseto
Hamlet,may demonstratewhat Shakespeare'simmediateaudience and his
fellowdramatistsapprehendedin Hamlet-a reluctancetoactwhichsprings
froma scruple about the justice of Revenge. But we dare advance no
fartherwiththis conjectureuntilwe accountfora capital difficulty-that
Hamlet nowhere explicitlycalls in question his duty of Revenge. He
loathes it, spurnshimselfforloathingit, yet nowherequestionsit as the
deed he is bound to enact. Indeed, afterthe terrificsuccess of the Play
scene, Hamlet is hot for blood: he spares the kneelingClaudius only
because to kill the king at prayerwould not be measure for measure:
Claudius must be dispatchedas Hamlet's fatherwas. It is not Claudius's
meredeaththatwill requitethe originalcrime:thathe shall be unprepared
fordeath is all-important.Hamlet is here the trueAvenger.
What then shall we say of the cause of Hamlet's delay? If it were a
scrupleabout thejustice of Revenge,would it not be odd indeed thatthe
dramatisthas nowhere made this explicit? Alternatively,is there any
reasonassignableforthedramatist'smakinghis herocall in questionalmost
everything underthe sun exceptthe dutyof revenge?
Let us turn again to The Atheist'sTragedyand The Revengeof Bussy
Percy Simpson, The Themeof Revengein Elizabethan Tragedy [Brit. Acad. Lecture
I

2 Ibid., p. 22.
(Oxford, 1935)], p. 24.

This content downloaded from 111.93.5.194 on Thu, 27 Nov 2014 13:08:53 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE TRAGIC CONFLICT IN HAMLET 101
d'Ambois. I thinkwe may see at once what is wrongwith these plays.
Tourneur and Chapman have made an explicitconflictbetweenthe duty
of Revenge and the demands of justice. In makingthat conflictexplicit
they have insensiblydestroyedthe thematicunityof the Revenge kind.
For, raise and reiteratescruples about the obligationsof Revenge, and
inevitablythe universalissues will be subordinated;the focusof attention
willbe thepointofhonourand notthehumanagent. The intensity slackens
to the pace of a debatingmatch. The play becomes a thesis-play,from
which every spectator can go away with rational opinions about the
prudenceor moralityof the hero's acts. It is not so thatdramaticintensity
is achieved. The power thattragedyshould have, of presentinguniversal
issues, is lost; forall is subsumedunder a single dilemma; the hero must
bringall to the knife-edgeof a single question-'How can vengeancebe
justice?' These heroes openlymouththeirhorror,indignation,or condi-
tional acceptanceof the task laid upon them. For an age addicted to the
matterof Revengethis doubtlessrepresentsa new and pleasing variation
on an old theme: acceptingthe axioms of the Revenge play proper,the
contemporary public no doubt acceptedwithlittledifficulty thisratiocina-
tiveelement.But, for a laterage,the situationof Charlemont and Clermont
is perilouslyclose to farce. The reason, I take it, is in the dramatists'
havingmade whollyand elaboratelyexplicitthe conflictbetweenRevenge
and Justice. But how iftheyhad portrayedsuch a conflictin the hero,the
man on whom the duty of vengeanceis inescapablylaid, withoutmaking
himexplicitlyannouncehis scruples? In such a playwe shouldsurelyhave
a situationwhich was that of pure tragedy-man condemnedto do that
which he feels is no true settlementof his wrongs; 'condemned', for
example, by the inescapable authorityof a fatherfrombeyond the grave.
How, in effect,if that had alreadybeen done, and these dramatistswere
attempting, withless skill and withan eye to the real 'get-penny'qualities
of the Revenge play, to re-createsuch anotherscrupulous hero as had
delayed his revengeupon Claudius, King of Denmark?
If my suggestionhas any substance,we should look forit in the general
characteristicsof Shakespeare's tragic production,and especially in his
handlingof the Revenge theme. If we are able to arriveat certaincon-
clusions,albeit tentative,concerninghis approachto and handlingof this
theme,we may perhapsbe bolder in conjecture.
I begin by callingattentionto thataspectof Shakespeare'sartin general
which,as I believe,few criticswill dispute. However improbable,in the
everydaysense, his starting-point, the initialdata of the given play, what
followsfromthose data is alwayselaboratedin termsof universalhuman
nature. The situationwithwhichLear opens,the unfathomedwickedness
of Iago, have this in common-they are the facts fromwhich the play

This content downloaded from 111.93.5.194 on Thu, 27 Nov 2014 13:08:53 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
102 J. J. LAWLOR
proceeds; theydemand no explanationand assuredlyreceivenone at the
dramatist'shands. Make whatwe will of them,theseare the axiomsfrom
which we are to proceedifwe are to proceed at all. Modern criticismhas
re-emphasizedand givena new settingto this acceptanceby its insistence
on the conventionalbasis of Elizabethan playwriting.Yet, as I have
stressed,a just criticismwill not failto takeaccountof Shakespeare'sgreat
creativepower in relatingthe typesand outlinesof commonElizabethan
dramaticusage to the human naturewe knowand feel for. If he exacts
our willingsuspensionof disbeliefat the outset,he nowhereasks it in the
outworkingof the play. (I mean the major issues withwhich the play is
concerned,and notthoseminoruses of executiveconvention-as Impene-
trable Disguise, and the like,which,of course,abound in him,thoughto
be modifiedor superseded as suits his exquisite sense of theatre.) The
observationofJohnson,that'wheretheagencyis supernatural, thedialogue
is levelwithlife'is truein thewidestsense: Shakespeareis indeedthepoet
of 'Nature'.' It is thiswhichsurelycompelsour attentionin his tragedies
above all. He may call Fate by what name he will, whetherit is bodied
forthin the Witches or made the object of blind search by the defeated
Gloucesteror Othello. It is stillnone theless, exactlyin so faras theplay's
action is concerned,nothingotherthan a limitationof the hero's fieldof
choice-a limitationwhollyconsonantwithrealexperience,compellingthe
human agent,being such a man as he is, to make the choice thatinvolves
disaster. Macbeth,forexample,is at the outsetmerelyan ambitiousman.
He is established as such, before his fatal choice, by Lady Macbeth's
soliloquy: he alwayshas been ambitious;and, whatmakes for'the pityof
it', he could go on beingso.2 But thefieldofchoiceforthisambitiousman
narrows. As theconsequenceofCawdor's treachery a pathis openedto the
summitof ambition-the Crown. Confrontedwiththatchoice, Macbeth
behaves as we, the spectators,know he will behave, must behave if he is
to remaintheman we know. He passes fromvacillation,frommerehoping
' The observationswith which Dr.
Schiickingconcludes his BritishAcademy lecture,
The Baroque Characterof theElizabethan Tragic Hero (Oxford, 1938), are here of especial
interest. Comparing Shakespeare's treatmentof 'dramatic ingredients'with that of his
fellows, Dr. Schtickingobserves, 'he is on the whole always to be found on the side of
the natural-the word being used in a relative sense-as opposed to the mannered or
artificial'.
2 It will be understoodthatI am not speakingof our immediateexperienceas spectators,
but attemptingto make clear by analysis the ground of our intenseand immediatefeeling
for the hero. There is no escape fromthe analyticalmethod forexposition: but I do not,
of course,suggestthatthe hero's plightis put beforeus in these termsby the Elizabethan
dramatist,that there is any directappeal to our sense of what Macbeth was or mightbe.
He knows how to evoke our passionate interestwithoutrecourseto the elaborate 'verifica-
tion' proper to the naturalisticartist; yet the ground of that interest,however aroused,
remainsthe same. (We may well ask if this necessityof expositionis not a large cause of
misunderstandingbetween 'Naturalist' and 'Conventionalist' critic.)

This content downloaded from 111.93.5.194 on Thu, 27 Nov 2014 13:08:53 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE TRAGIC CONFLICT IN HAMLET 103
for the consummationhe desires, to decisive action. Nothing here is
strained,nowhereare we conscious of the author's hand overrulinghis
creationforhis own dramaticends. No Shakespearianmalefactoris evil
'by a divinethrustingon'. Shakespeareseems perfectlyin his tragicpro-
duction to have solved the capital problem of all creativeart where the
serious representationof human nature is in question. It in some sort
resembles the problem of the 'old world's debate'-Predestination as
against Free-Will. The author, whether dramatist,narrativepoet, or
novelist,has a plan forhis creatures,and to thatplan theymust conform.
But they representhuman creatures,whose outstandingcharacteristicis
a poweroffreechoice. Exactly,then,in as faras theauthoroverrulesthem,
so theydie upon his hands. They cease to interestus; losingthe recogniz-
able characteristic ofthe humannaturewe know,theybecome the author's
puppets.
This, ofcourse,can be doneforour diversionin thethesis-playor comedy
of types: but in tragedyany falsificationof the issues, any tamperingwith
the human nature we know and feel for,is intolerable. Shakespearian
tragedyis especiallystrikingin this respect. We may startwith any im-
probability,and may employaccepted conventionin the transitionsof the
play: but nowhereare we dealing with other than recognizablehuman
nature,personsdistinguishedby theirpowerto accept or rejectthe choices
open to them. That we shouldfeelpityand fear,thatthe spectatorshould
identifyhimselfwith the tragic hero-to bring this about is the tragic
artist's aim. But it is achieved only when the course of the drama has
seemed to us, sharingthe hero's humannature,wholly'probable or neces-
sary'. One manifestintervention by the dramatist,and awe is gone, and
with it all our interest.
Now, ifthisbe accepted,it is not hard to see whata problemthe matter
of Revengepresents. For the dutyof vengeanceofferseithersimplecom-
pulsion-the deed must be enacted-or, if thatdutyis explicitlycalled in
question, all thingsmust be broughtto the test of a single and wholly
rationalquestion. It may at thispointbe objectedthatthe argumentfrom
Shakespeare'sothertragediesis misleading; Hamlet,his firstmajor ven-
ture in tragedy,may be unrepresentative, may in factbe whollyor in part
failure. To this I would replythata considerationof Shakespeare'streat-
ment of Revenge elsewheremay sufficiently show that the treatmentin
Hamlet is at once a necessarydevelopmentand a master-stroke.I turn,
then,to a considerationof his productionin this kind. But beforeI take
it up, I feel it desirableto say somethingof continuityin Shakespeare's
productionas a whole.
In our veryproperdesireto avoid fatheringupon Shakespeareour own
partial apprehensionsof the contentof his plays-more especiallythose

This content downloaded from 111.93.5.194 on Thu, 27 Nov 2014 13:08:53 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
104 J. J. LAWLOR
themeswhichmake an immediateappeal to our own consciousness-there
is a dangerthatwe may overlookcertainaspectsofthemeand presentation
whichare relativelyconstantin him. In our anxietythathe shall nowhere
be identifiedwitha particularpersonor personsof his drama,we perhaps
tend to ignoreany evidence at all of 'personality'. Let me emphasize at
once that I here mean the author's literarypersonality-what Dryden
would call his 'character'"-those qualities of the chosen theme and its
executionwhich underlieour judgement,'This or thatis Shakespearian:
thisotheris not'. It is some yearssince R. W. Chamberszdrewattention
to the strikingcontinuity,fromthe earliestHistoryplays to the mature
tragicperiod,of Shakespeare'spresentationof the evil-doer'sawarenessof
the evil done. From Richardon Bosworthfieldto Macbeth awaitingthe
avengingarmy,themain agentof evil realizesthewastehe has wroughtby
seeinghimselffriendless,cut offfromthe naturaland fruitful humanrela-
tionships. Macbeth's greatstatement of disillusionspeaks once forall
at
evil-doersin Shakespeare'sdominantconception:
And thatwhichshouldaccompanyold age,
As honour,love,obedience,troopsof friends,
I mustnotlookto have...
I would go fartherand say that this conception,in its strictconverse,
determinesthe Last Plays. In the Tragedies the incalculable force of
'natural' loyaltyand love is pervertedby the main agent of evil. It is a
mightycurrentthatmustbe 'earthed'beforedisastercan come: so Ophelia
is thrustout of Hamlet's path; Lear chooses the unnaturaldaughters;
Lady Macbethunsexesherself.All occasionoftendernessmustbe removed
in orderto make finalruin. But in the Last Plays we have a triumphant
portrayalofthe potentialfriendliness of theworldman maymake forhim-
selfif onlythe naturaltie holds. It is set forthin the gravetendernessof
human relationships, especiallythe relationshipof parentand child. Here
the mightycurrentleaps unimaginablegaps: the lost are found,the dead
broughtback to life. So Prosperoabjures his 'rough magic' and takes his
place in the world of man: he is forNaples and the weddingof his dear
daughter.
If, then,this fundof 'Nature' is the dominantcharacteristic of Shake-
speare's workmanship,it may be agreedthatthe Revengematterpresents
the difficultyI have suggested. The Revenge kind is in its very nature
hostileto thistreatment.It will not do to have improbabilities,
departures
I
Cf. Dryden's advice to the translator:he must maintain'the characterof an author,
which distinguisheshim fromall others,and makes him appear thatindividualpoet whom
you would interpret'. [Pref.to Sylvae; Essays, ed. W. P. Ker (Oxford,19oo), i. 254.]
2
The Jacobean Shakespeareand 'Measure for Measure', Brit. Acad. Lecture (Oxford,
7937).

This content downloaded from 111.93.5.194 on Thu, 27 Nov 2014 13:08:53 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE TRAGIC CONFLICT IN HAMLET 105
fromuniversalhumannature,at the outset,and thereafter to mollifythem,
to bringa profoundknowledgeof humanityto bear on the outworkingof
the fable. For the Revengematterdemandsa just removefrom'Nature'
thewholewaythroughfromfirstto lastline. Bringin recognizablehuman
nature,and you ruin the thematicunity; for,ask the question,'How can
I do this thing?', and you prompt any audience not infatuatedwith
Revengeto reply,'Why do it at all?'
Nevertheless,it will be replied,the Elizabethans liked their Revenge
matter;no playwright whoselivingwas the theatrecould mulctthemofthe
sensationalismtheyloved. That is verytrue: but I thinkthatifwe consider
Shakespeare'sworkin this fieldwe may findthat he has gone some way
towardsat once gratifying thistasteand also makingittheatrically
plausible,
towardsshapingthe matterin termsof his own dominantconception.
I begin with TitusAndronicus.'Here, we have some attemptto present
thematterofRevengein termsthatdo notviolateoursenseofthe'credible';
we are not deliveredentireinto this world of inordinateblood-lust,but it
is placed at a removefromordinaryhuman concerns. Not, be it noted,
by mitigationof horror: Aaron the Moor is flatevil: Lavinia's entry,'her
hands cut off,and her tonguecut out, and ravished',spares not the least
refinedsensibility. Rather, the reverseis true. Aaron's wickednessis
thorough-going to an almost Puckish extent. His excesses include those
goblin-like thatvex the countryman;he will
activities
Make poormen'scattlebreaktheirnecks;
Set fireon barnsand hay-stacks in thenight,
And bid theownersquenchthemwiththeirtears....
He is a fiendwho gleefullyconfesseshis wickedness--'almostbroke my
heartwithextremelaughter'. His replyto thereproachesoftherealworld,
Artthounotsorryfortheseheinousdeeds?
is heartilyunrepentant:
Ay,thatI had notdonea thousandmore.
I do not thinkthatthe close comparisonone criticzhas drawnbetweenthis
playand A Midsummer Night'sDreamappeals merelyto our curiosity.The
'
My concernhere is whollywiththe developed characterizationof Aaron, whichseems
to me whollyShakespeare's work. The New Cambridgeedition(Cambridge, 1948), which
has come into my hands since writingthis essay, establishesadmirablythe point I have
triedto make in this briefaccount. I especiallyand warmlysubscribeto the view: 'Critics
have been unable to appreciateAaron to the full,because, led astrayby his superficialand
spasmodic resemblancesto Barabas, theyhave tended to take him too solemnly;theyhave
failed to enjoy him, because they have not noticed how thoroughlyhe enjoys himself'
(Introd. pp. lxii-lxiii).
(Arden Shakespeare), ed. 19o4, Introd.,
2 H. Baildon, in his edition of TitusAndronicus
pp. lxvi ff.,acknowledgingindebtedness to Crawford, Jahrb. der DeutschenSh.-Gesell-
schaft(Berlin, 19oo), p. I09.

This content downloaded from 111.93.5.194 on Thu, 27 Nov 2014 13:08:53 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
106 J. J. LAWLOR
evil of Aaron,likethe mischiefof Puck, is limitlessin its own sphere: but
betweenthemand the spectator,arthas placed a cordonsanitaire.Aaron's
place is not in this world; but, as he himselfconfesses,in a fieryhell-
So I mighthaveyourcompanyin hell,
But to tormentyouwithmybittertongue!
Shakespeare in his maturitytriumphsby showingthe Evil Man, in lago,
'as what he is, a symbol,not as what he is not, a human being'.' In this
earlyplay thereis a compromisesolution: where Aaron is wicked,he is
given full rein,and wickednessoverflowsinto impishness:but there is
also an attemptto givehima crediblehumanstature,in thesceneswithhis
black child. The effectis to assurethespectatorthatthefeignedeventsare
relatedto the real world; a worldwhich containsthe evil of Aaron and is
not containedby it. In TitusAndronicus and A Midsummer Night'sDream
alike, and by comparablemethods,our interestin the monstrousor the
marvellousis unhampered,for they are at a safe remove. The super-
normalis notherepresentedas havinga direct,thoughmysterious, relation
withthe world of real humanconcerns(thatis the tragicmethod). Here,
naturaland unnaturaloccurside by side: theunnaturalis in one sensequite
arbitrary, but in anotherall too possible. This reinforcingthe sense ofthe
evilthatmightbe is,ofcourse,all thatdistinguishes successin thiskindfrom
failure. If the horridmerelyoccurredand drew all thingsinto itself,we
should have Grand Guignol; but this is not the aim of Titus. The play's
effectiveness depends on our acceptance of the normal and the super-
normalexistingtogether.From thispointof view,it is true,the disasters
thatmortalsbringupon theirheads, by incurringthe wrathof the fiends,
are almosta kind of bad luck. But who, the play over,will deny thathe
knowswhat bad luck is ?
The solutionof what to do withthe vengefulman which we have just
consideredis, in effect-givehim fullrein; do not let his wickednessstop
short at one main deed of Revenge, but let it overflowinto sheer and
thorough-goingmalice. In the late play Timon of Athensthis principle
receivesits largestextension.The injuredTimon becomesa misanthrope:
we see the spectacleof human lifeas it presentsitselfto him; and as such
it makes no strainon our human awareness. Timon is the 'passionate'
man of a familiartradition.zIt is as naturalforhim to hate the world at
largeas it was forTamburlaineto subdue it to himself.He can be 'bloody,
bold and vengeful',forhe is a perversionof our commonnature. This the
playemphasizes;thereis no stayingatthelonelyeminenceTimon occupies:
Here lie I, Timon; who,alive,all livingmendid hate:
Pass by,and cursethyfill;but pass and staynotherethygait.
Sir E. K. Chambers, Shakespeare: a survey(London, 1925), p. 220.
2 On the 'passionate' hero, vide Schiicking,loc. cit.,passim.

This content downloaded from 111.93.5.194 on Thu, 27 Nov 2014 13:08:53 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE TRAGIC CONFLICT IN HAMLET 107
Between Titus and Timonthereoccurs what I take to be a substantial
rejectionof the Revengematter-MeasureforMeasure. This difficult play
has been variouslycondemnedand praised; but,withthe outstandingex-
ception of R. W. Chambers,' most criticshave agreed in findingsome
difficultyin the awkwardplot and the extremesof characterization-the
cold viciousnessof Angelo opposed to the inviolablechastityof Isabella.
Of this,at least,we can be sure-it is strangelyunlikewhat Shakespeare
givesus elsewhere. Not even Troilusand Cressida,whichis oftenmentioned
with it as a play about values ratherthan men and women,can compare
withit in thatmost irritating device which strainsour seriousattention-
the omnipresenceofthedisguisedDuke. How to takeseriouslythepredica-
ment of Claudio or Isabella once we knowthatthe Duke is fullyaware of
these goings-on,and will in his good time overruleall forgood? Shake-
speare is no merejourney-manof the theatre:how thento understandhis
choosingthis gravelydefectivepresentation?
I do not know that it has been noticed that in choosing to reshape
Whetstone'sPromosand Cassandra,a play at least twenty-five years old,
Shakespearehad necessarilytakenupon himselfthe task of remodelling
the theme; fortaste had changed in that quarterof a century.In Whet-
stone'splay,Cassandrayieldsto Promos: Andrugio,herbrother,sparedby
the gaoler,lurksin hidinguntil he comes to plead forPromos when the
King has pronouncedsentenceon him. Now, acceptableas thismay have
been in Whetstone'sday,it surelywould not do foran audiencehabituated
to Revenge. Andrugio-Claudio-once his sisteris shamed,and he released
fromprison,mustbecometheAvenger. Think whatTourneuror Webster
would have made ofsuch a plot!-the harpingon femalechastity,Isabella's
yieldingin passionateshame,the dastardlyact of Angelo in none the less
exactingthe penaltyof Claudio's life-all thisthe verysoul of that'drug-
damned Italy' of which the audience nevertired,and whichtheywere to
have in fullmeasurefromlaterdramatists.It is not, I feel,an impossible
suppositionthatShakespeare,whoseverylifewas thetheatre,saw in taking
up the old play that if Isabella were to yield, Claudio must become the
Avenger.
I followMr. R. H. Wilson2in holdingit at least possiblethatan original
ShakespearianMeasureforMeasuredid presentIsabella yieldingto Angelo.
But it seems to be inherentlymore likelythat Shakespearesubsequently
made Isabella preserveher honour not fromany difficulty of motivating
her yielding,as Mr. Wilson suggests,but from a desire to avoid the
complicationsof revengewhichmust,in the contemporary public's expec-
tancy,inevitablyfollowsuch yielding.The play came intoexistencewhen
' Loc.
cit.; expanded in Man's UnconquerableMind (London, 1939), PP. 250-31o.
2 'The Mariana plot of Measure for Measure', P.Q. (1930), ix. 341-50.

This content downloaded from 111.93.5.194 on Thu, 27 Nov 2014 13:08:53 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
108 J. J. LAWLOR
Revengewas verymuch in vogue,in transitionfromits first'classic' state,
owingitsmain debtto Seneca, to thatsecond state,wheretheauthorsneed
make no resortto Seneca. 'Kyd, Marston,and Shakespeareprovidedthem
withall thattheyneeded in the way of suggestion,and theirworkmoves
freelywithinthe lines of what had now become a traditionof the English
stage. The sole task whichtheyset themselveswas to varythe pattern'.'
Mr. PercySimpsongoes on to observethattheearliestofthesecond group,
Chettle'sHoffman,was acted in 1602, when the Spanish Tragedywas re-
published withthe 'Additions': as Mr. Simpson remarks,this is the time
when Revengeplays were a real 'get-penny'.zI suggestthat,at thistime,
adherenceto Whetstone'sfable of Isabella sacrificingher honourwould
almost certainlycall fora revengetreatment:Claudio the Avengerwould
be the centreof interest,and the thematicunityof the story,forgiveness,
inevitablyoverborne. Shakespearetherefore, I suggest,made Isabella in-
flexiblein herchastity-thatcharacterization whichhas troubledalmostall
who attendto theplay-and was facedat once witha further problem:how
to advancethe play at all? Angelomustbe shownas theperfidiouswretch
he is in all formsofthestory,in orderto effectthegreatscene oftheplay-
thewrongedIsabella pleadingforhis life. Shakespearethusintroducesthe
businessof the SubstitutedBride. But how to bringthisplausiblyin ? He
resortsto the unsatisfactory trickof the Duke's omnipresence.The world
of Measurefor Measure is one in which it is impossibleto get lost-the
disguisedDuke hoversover all: he 'pulls the stringslike a not-too-expert
showmanof marionettes'.3If I am not whollymistaken,Shakespearehas
in this play implicitlyrejectedthe matterof Revenge as intractable,alien
to his characteristictreatmentand methods. The cost of thatrejection,in
thisinstance,is a poor play. I do not dissentfromCroce's verdict:
This play,whichoscillatesbetweenthetragicand thecomic,and has a happy
endinginsteadofforming a dramaofthesarcastic-sorrowful-horrible
sort,fails
to persuadeus thatit shouldhavebeenthusdevelopedand thusended.4
The Editors of the New Cambridge Shakespearequote this observation
withapproval. But theirattemptto finda likelyexplanationforthisstate
of affairsby inquiryintotheplay's textualhistorydoes notgreatlyassistus.
For, even if we accept theirview thatthe Folio textcontainsadditionsby
a post-Shakespearianreviser,thereis yet no contentionthatthe shape of
the play as we have it-the 'story'as it would appear in a proseepitome-
has been significantly altered; and this is the cardinal difficulty
for all
readersand spectators.
I have suggestedthatthe matterof Revengewas peculiarlyunattractive
' P.
Simpson, loc. cit., p. 27. 2
Ibid.,p. 28.
3 Measurefor Measure; New Cambridge Edition (Cambridge, 1922), p. xv.
4 Ibid., quoted at p. xxv.

This content downloaded from 111.93.5.194 on Thu, 27 Nov 2014 13:08:53 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE TRAGIC CONFLICT IN HAMLET 109
to Shakespeareas a workingdramatist,and, more,thatin one instancehe
rejects it at the cost of writinga poor play. Nevertheless,the Revenge
matter,properlyhandled,offersgreatpossibilities. It makes possible the
presentationof the doomed man, one bidden by inescapable authorityto
certainacts. The intensitythis offersis incalculableif the hero is bidden
againsthis own conviction-more,againstall desireand longing;ifhisvery
natureis revoltedby whathe mustnone the less perform.Conceive a man
commandedto do whathe has no assuranceis right,and you have a situa-
tionofpuretragedy.But in thepresentationit is ofthehighestimportance
thatthe hero shall not openlycall in question the ethicsor the efficacyof
Revenge. Do that,and the thematicunityis broken;we pass fromtragic
intensityto controversialardour. The true solutionis to make the hero
call in question all thingsunder the sun exceptthe duty that is enjoined
upon him, for fromthat he cannotescape. This, I submit,is the tragic
conflictin Hamlet: the hero aversefromthe deed thatis requiredof him,
seekingendlesslythe cause of thataversion,callingit by any name but its
own, and failingto know it forwhat it is. The contemporary audience, I
suggest,and more particularlyShakespeare's fellowplaywrights,appre-
hended it as a conflictbetweenRevenge and Justice. But the important
considerationis that it remains unknown to Hamlet: Tourneur's and
Chapman's heroes are aware of this conflict,Hamlet is not. The Eliza-
bethanaudience sees in him delay springingfroma source thatremainsa
mysteryto Hamlet. Shakespeare's triumphis to make the hero fail to
understandhimself.Hamletgivesus reasonsenoughfordelay,causesnone:
forthe cause remainsunknownto him. In so doing Shakespeareis able
fullyto meetthe contemporary appetiteforthe sensationalismof Revenge,
while avoidingits greatestperil-that the centreof interestshould be in
one topicor dilemma,to revengeor not? Hamlet,I hold,is pure tragedy-
man condemnedto do what he has no assuranceis right. Shakespeareis
able to deriveall theforceofa mythology fromthecontemporary audience's
acceptanceof a central dilemma which the dramatistneed nowhere make
explicit. They feel, as we cannot, save by the exercise of the historical
imagination,thatHamlet has in realityno choice but to workvengeance.
They feel a despair which the modern critictoo oftenfindsin Hamlet's
temperamentratherthan his situation. It is not long, as we have seen,
beforeotherdramatists makethisconflictexplicit,and apparentto thehero.
Their heroes call in question this verydutyof Revenge. In doing so, as
we have seen, theydestroyany power of presentinguniversalissues, since
theybringthe centralissue to a whollyrationaland therefore limitedlevel.
But in Shakespeare's handlingof Revenge,the situationof pure tragedy
arises; for,in the hero's failureto understandhimself,we are nowhere
localizedto a singledilemma:everywhere, by everyresourceofimaginative

This content downloaded from 111.93.5.194 on Thu, 27 Nov 2014 13:08:53 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
110 J. J. LAWLOR
penetration,we are confrontedwith the eternalissue-shall man endure
this hostileuniverse? 'To be or not to be ?-that is the question.'
If this interpretation
is anywherenear the truth,certainepisodes and
utterancestake on a deeper significance.For example, the play-scene:
Hamlet's aim hereis certainlyto provethe authenticity of the Ghost; but
more, I think-there is the suggestionof 'the intellectual'srevenge'.
Claudius is to 'unkennel' 'his damned guilt'. If we see Hamlet as the
scrupulousAvenger,thereis thesuggestionhereofprocessoflaw following
on the guiltyman's confession.We recall Hieronimo'sfirstimpulsewhen
the proofof his son's murderis at hand: he will 'Cry aloud forjustice
throughthe Court'. But this resolveis overbornein Hieronimo; he will
be revenged. If we conceive Hamlet averse fromthe deed of vengeance,
the solution of bringingClaudius to open confessionmay well be the
secondaryfunctionhe conceives for The Mousetrap.' With the terrific
success of the Play, however,all doubtsmomentarily at rest,Hamlet rages
for blood. But, the fit past, the aversion comes back with redoubled
strength:that aversionwhichtormentsHamlet and whichhe will call by
any name but its own.
Again, if this view be accepted, thereis a greateremphasisand signi-
ficancefor the theme of Death-'the subject of Hamlet is death' says
Mr. Lewis.2 In the Elizabethanacceptanceof Revengethereis no escape
forHamlet fromhis duty,exceptin death: so he recoilsfroma worldinto
whichit had been betternot to be born. He sees humanityas propagated
corruption:it is betterthat Ophelia go to a nunnerythan breed sinners.
In thisplaytheold tragedyofRevenge,'blood will have blood', comes face
to face withthe new, 'O cursedspite,thateverI was bornto set it right!'
I have suggestedthat Hamlet delays his revengeon Claudius because
of an aversionfromthe deed of vengeance,an aversionwhose true nature
remainshiddenfromhim,but is apprehendedby theElizabethanaudience
as a deep-seatedscrupleabout thejustice ofRevenge. Hamlet,aversefrom
the deed, is contrastedwith Laertes, hot to avenge the wrongdone him.
Shakespearemakesclearwhatwe are attendingto whenhe places Hamlet's
procrastination in thesame contextas Laertes'simpetuousdecision.Laertes
respondseagerlyto Claudius's suggestions:forvengeance,anythingwill
I would thereforeinterpretthe conclusion of Hamlet's soliloquy at the end of Act II
thus: the best to be hoped forfromthe play is open confessionfromClaudius; but even
the least signof disquietwill be proofofguilt. The King is thereforeto be watchedintently,
and in this Hamlet enlists the aid of Horatio (iII. ii. 80-91). This will be unnecessary
labour if Claudius should behave like those 'guiltycreatures' Hamlet has heard of, who
were moved to proclaim 'their malefactions'. But of course it is vital that the least sign
of uneasiness be not missed. On this, then, Hamlet concentrates,and plans his meeting
with Horatio afterthe play shall have been enacted: no need to plan what is to be done if
the best comes off,and Claudius is a self-confessedvillain!
2
'Hamlet': the Prince or the Poem?, Brit. Acad. Lecture (Oxford, 1942), P. 12.

This content downloaded from 111.93.5.194 on Thu, 27 Nov 2014 13:08:53 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE TRAGIC CONFLICT IN HAMLET 111
serveagainsttheenemy; Laertesis prepared'tocuthisthroati' thechurch'.
Claudius speaks forall avengersin the old tradition:
No place,indeed,shouldmurdersanctuarise;
Revengeshouldhaveno bounds...
I agreewithMr. PercySimpsonthatwe can find'a hintof what he [Shake-
speare] thoughtof the rantof the RevengePlay'I in the scene of Laertes's
leapinginto his sister'sgravewiththe cry:
Now pileyourdustuponthequickand dead,
Till ofthisflata mountain you havemade
To o'er-topold Pelionor theskyishhead
Of blue Olympus.
Hamlet's stingingrejoinder
Nay,an thou'ltmouth,
I'll rantas wellas thou,
puts this fustian contemptuously aside. So, as I think,Laertes's principle
of Revenge-Revenge should have no bounds-is equally abhorrentto
Hamlet: while Revenge yet remainsthe deed he must spur himselfto.z
Let us turn to his self-examination when put to shame at sight of the
Norwegianexpedition. Hamlet here makes the best analysishe can of the
reasonsforhis delay:
Now, whetherit be
Bestialoblivion,or somecravenscruple
Of thinking too precisely
on theevent-
A thought, which,quarter'd,hathbutone partwisdom
And everthreepartscoward-I do notknow
WhyyetI liveto say,'This thing'sto do',
SithI havecause,and will,and strength, and means
To do't...
-'I do not know': so he makes an end of knowledge,of the search for
reasons:
Oh, fromthistimeforth,
My thoughts be bloody,or be nothingworth!3
Loc. cit., p. 17.
2 Cf. the terms in which Laertes rejects all considerationsother than the pursuit of
Revenge for a father (IV. v. I30-5):
To hell, allegiance! vows, to the blackest devil!
Conscience and grace, to the profoundestpit!
I dare damnation. To this point I stand,
That both the worlds I give to negligence,
Let come what comes; only I'll be reveng'd
Most throughlyfor my father.
WVesee the significanceof the Ghost's admonition,'Taint not thymind': Laertes's wild
rage forvengeance is a 'point' to which Hamlet may not come.
3 Hamlet's aversion fromthe code of Revenge is movinglyexpressed in his amazement

This content downloaded from 111.93.5.194 on Thu, 27 Nov 2014 13:08:53 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
112 J. J. LAWLOR
But whateverHamletfailsto know,we thespectatorshave someknowledge
of Hamlet that will enable us to interpretthis torturedself-communing.
We know thatno 'bestial oblivion'has possessionof Hamlet; thatindeed
the thoughtofthe deed will givehim no rest. More, we knowthatHamlet
is no coward in the ordinarysense. He does not hesitateat the fact of
bloodshed; not even the grim necessity of dispatchinghis enemies,
Rosencrantzand Guilderstern,will deter him. Hamlet does not shrink
frombloodshed in a faircause; forit is a necessityof virtualwarfarethat
thesetwo be sentto death. And, most important,thereis no hesitationin
Hamlet when,engagedas he thinksin fairfight,he knowsthatthe foilsare
unbated: trickedupon the pointof honour,Hamlet strikesback, blow for
blow. His enemieshave betrayedhim withthe envenomedpoint; he will
requitethemin the same mode--and amongthemis that Claudius, King
of Denmark,who, payingforhis practiceat Hamlet's life,pays at once for
the greaterwrongthathas made Hamlet's a life in death. Hamlet's aver-
sion to Revenge is overbornein thatduel whichChapman seized upon to
resolvehis hero's dilemma,the duel thatin his play requitesthe evil-doer
whilehonourablyacquittingtheavenger. The pointis of some importance,
for it shows at once how Shakespearehas resolvedhis hero's anguished
indecisionand also how mightya consequence the act has forthe hero.
Let us look again at thislast act of Hamlet's.
Hamlet strikesdowntheKing forhis partin thetreachery oftheunbated
and envenomedfoils. Immediatelyhe strikestheKing withtheenvenomed
point,thereis Hamlet's revengeaccomplished,thoughall withouthis con-
triving.But his lastact is characteristic
of theman we know; althoughit is
unnecessarylabour,Hamlet will of his own choicecontribute to Claudius's
death. Claudius is alreadypoisoned to the deathforhis partin treachery:
but Hamlet, cryingout the King's deeper guilt,will forcethe poisoned
wine betweenhis teeth. Hamlet has fulfilledhis mission. Though death
has come to Claudius by no means thatHamlet had premeditated,yet at
this ultimatemoment,when he and Hamlet are both hasteningto death,
Hamlet will dispatch the King in obedience to his father'scommand.
Hamlet has notsolvedhis greatquestion; but now thatwhathe was bidden
to exact as Revenge has been accomplishedas a just returnfortreachery,
at the 'examples grossas earth'which 'exhort'him to the deed, concludingin his definition
of 'honourable' conduct:
Rightlyto be great
Is not to stirwithoutgreat argument,
But greatlyto findquarrel in a straw
When honour's at the stake.
This is all that 'god-like reason' can conclude. It is echoed in his words of apology to
Laertes, the 'honourable' man by this code, beforethe duel: and receivesthe veiled reply
that 'honour' is not so easily satisfied-'in my terms of honour I stand aloof', says the
vengefulman; that 'honour' which sanctionsthe treacheryof the foils.

This content downloaded from 111.93.5.194 on Thu, 27 Nov 2014 13:08:53 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE TRAGIC CONFLICT IN HAMLET 113
Hamletpostponesforeverhisquestioningand actsas theAvenger. Hamlet,
then,achieveshis end; but not 'honourably',as Chapman's fantasticCler-
montis to do, forthe centreof interestin Shakespeare'splay is not in the
ethicof Revenge,but in the overburdenedhumanagent. Hamlet achieves
his end by layingaside for ever the scruple that had tormentedhim.
I think,then,we may see why Hamlet becomes an enigmaticfigureto
latergenerations.I date the failureto understandHamletpotentiallyfrom
theclosingofthetheatres.When theyreopen,the wild themeof Revenge,
howevertreated,demandsexplicitportrayal;the axiomaticcompulsionsof
the revengecode are forgotten.They are to be revivedforus onlyby the
exerciseofthehistoricalimagination.But, whenthe historicalimagination
is broughtto bear, we ask fordata in the hero's utterance,forgetting, as I
see it, thatwhat forus is necessary-an explicitquestioning-is given by
an audience who know what theyhave come to see: and, more, that an
explicittreatmentof the conflictin the hero's soul will tend inevitablyto
ruin the play's power of presentinguniversalissues. The contemporary
success ofHamletwillmean thatotherdramatistswillbe quick to makethis
conflictwhollyand elaboratelyexplicit. Their heroes will openlymouth
theirhorror,indignation,and reluctanceto obeythecode of Revenge. But,
in doing so, the dramatistwill hopelesslylimitthe scope of his play: for
all issues will be broughtto the single dilemma-Justice or Revenge?
Dealing with the dangerousmaterialof the Scrupulous Avenger,Shake-
spearetriumphs:avoidingthe peril ofmakinghis heromouthhis scruples,
Shakespearemakes him failto understandhimself,castinghim in thetype
of the MelancholyMan. In so doing,he is able to make Hamlet call in
question all thingsunder the sun, including,most poignarrtly, the nature
of Man, withoutonce bringingto the lightthe cause of his own aversion.
That cause, I have suggested,the Elizabethanaudience apprehendedas a
scrupleabout thejustice of Revenge. But, in the last resort,it is not ofthe
highestimportanceto ask whetherHamlet had any inklingat all of the
at understanding
truth,or whetherall his efforts fellhopelesslyshort. The
importantthingis thathe shouldfail to know-by whatevermargin-and,
failing,that he should persist in his seeking. From this endless quest
proceedsthe mightypowerofthe play: thoughthewild themeof Revenge
has fadedforus, our assentis stillwon to thisportrayalofman questioning
all things,and understanding nothing,least of all one man's aversionfrom
a dutywhichmust be performedin the teethof all inclinationand desire.
To those who finda failurein universalappeal, we must replythatthisis
the universaltragedy. For, as the beginningof wisdomis self-knowledge,
so the universalpredicamentis that of Hamlet; for all his impassioned
questioning,man failsto know himself.
4690.Z 8

This content downloaded from 111.93.5.194 on Thu, 27 Nov 2014 13:08:53 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions