“Ha! Goneril!—with a white beard!—They flattered me like a dog;
and told me, I had white hairs in my beard, ere the black ones
were there. To say _Ay_ and _No_ to every thing I said!—Ay and No
too was no good divinity. When the rain came to wet me once,” &c.
The thunder recurs, but still at a greater distance from our feelings.
_Ib._ sc. 7. Lear’s speech:—
“Where have I been? Where am I?—Fair daylight?—
I am mightily abused.—I should even die with pity
To see another thus,” &c.
How beautifully the affecting return of Lear to reason, and the mild
pathos of these speeches prepare the mind for the last sad, yet sweet,
consolation of the aged sufferer’s death!
“Hamlet.”
Hamlet was the play, or rather Hamlet himself was the character, in the
intuition and exposition of which I first made my turn for philosophical
criticism, and especially for insight into the genius of Shakespeare,
noticed. This happened first amongst my acquaintances, as Sir George
Beaumont will bear witness; and subsequently, long before Schlegel had
delivered at Vienna the lectures on Shakespeare, which he afterwards
published, I had given on the same subject eighteen lectures substantially
the same, proceeding from the very same point of view, and deducing the
same conclusions, so far as I either then agreed, or now agree, with him.
I gave these lectures at the Royal Institution, before six or seven
hundred auditors of rank and eminence, in the spring of the same year, in
which Sir Humphrey Davy, a fellow-lecturer, made his great revolutionary
discoveries in chemistry. Even in detail the coincidence of Schlegel with
my lectures was so extraordinary, that all who at a later period heard the
same words, taken by me from my notes of the lectures at the Royal
Institution, concluded a borrowing on my part from Schlegel. Mr. Hazlitt,
whose hatred of me is in such an inverse ratio to my zealous kindness
towards him, as to be defended by his warmest admirer, Charles Lamb—(who,
God bless him! besides his characteristic obstinacy of adherence to old
friends, as long at least as they are at all down in the world, is linked
as by a charm to Hazlitt’s conversation)—only as “frantic;”—Mr. Hazlitt, I
say, himself replied to an assertion of my plagiarism from Schlegel in
these words;—“That is a lie; for I myself heard the very same character of
Hamlet from Coleridge before he went to Germany, and when he had neither
read nor could read a page of German!” Now Hazlitt was on a visit to me at
my cottage at Nether Stowey, Somerset, in the summer of the year 1798, in
the September of which year I first was out of sight of the shores of
Great Britain.—Recorded by me, S. T. Coleridge, 7th January, 1819.
The seeming inconsistencies in the conduct and character of Hamlet have
long exercised the conjectural ingenuity of critics; and, as we are always
loth to suppose that the cause of defective apprehension is in ourselves,
the mystery has been too commonly explained by the very easy process of
setting it down as in fact inexplicable, and by resolving the phenomenon
into a misgrowth or _lusus_ of the capricious and irregular genius of
Shakespeare. The shallow and stupid arrogance of these vulgar and indolent
decisions I would fain do my best to expose. I believe the character of
Hamlet may be traced to Shakespeare’s deep and accurate science in mental
philosophy. Indeed, that this character must have some connection with the
common fundamental laws of our nature may be assumed from the fact, that
Hamlet has been the darling of every country in which the literature of
England has been fostered. In order to understand him, it is essential
that we should reflect on the constitution of our own minds. Man is
distinguished from the brute animals in proportion as thought prevails
over sense: but in the healthy processes of the mind, a balance is
constantly maintained between the impressions from outward objects and the
inward operations of the intellect;—for if there be an overbalance in the
contemplative faculty, man thereby becomes the creature of mere
meditation, and loses his natural power of action. Now one of
Shakespeare’s modes of creating characters is, to conceive any one
intellectual or moral faculty in morbid excess, and then to place himself,
Shakespeare, thus mutilated or diseased, under given circumstances. In
Hamlet he seems to have wished to exemplify the moral necessity of a due
balance between our attention to the objects of our senses, and our
meditation on the workings of our minds,—an _equilibrium_ between the real
and the imaginary worlds. In Hamlet this balance is disturbed: his
thoughts, and the images of his fancy, are far more vivid than his actual
perceptions, and his very perceptions, instantly passing through the
_medium_ of his contemplations, acquire, as they pass, a form and a colour
not naturally their own. Hence we see a great, an almost enormous,
intellectual activity, and a proportionate aversion to real action,
consequent upon it, with all its symptoms and accompanying qualities. This
character Shakespeare places in circumstances, under which it is obliged
to act on the spur of the moment:—Hamlet is brave and careless of death;
but he vacillates from sensibility, and procrastinates from thought, and
loses the power of action in the energy of resolve. Thus it is that this
tragedy presents a direct contrast to that of _Macbeth_; the one proceeds
with the utmost slowness, the other with a crowded and breathless
rapidity.
The effect of this overbalance of the imaginative power is beautifully
illustrated in the everlasting broodings and superfluous activities of
Hamlet’s mind, which, unseated from its healthy relation, is constantly
occupied with the world within, and abstracted from the world
without,—giving substance to shadows, and throwing a mist over all
commonplace actualities. It is the nature of thought to be
indefinite;—definiteness belongs to external imagery alone. Hence it is
that the sense of sublimity arises, not from the sight of an outward
object, but from the beholder’s reflection upon it;—not from the sensuous
impression, but from the imaginative reflex. Few have seen a celebrated
waterfall without feeling something akin to disappointment: it is only
subsequently that the image comes back full into the mind, and brings with
it a train of grand or beautiful associations. Hamlet feels this; his
senses are in a state of trance, and he looks upon external things as
hieroglyphics. His soliloquy—
“O! that this too too solid flesh would melt,” &c.—
springs from that craving after the indefinite—for that which is not—which
most easily besets men of genius; and the self-delusion common to this
temper of mind is finely exemplified in the character which Hamlet gives
of himself;—
... “It cannot be
But I am pigeon-liver’d, and lack gall
To make oppression bitter.”
He mistakes the seeing his chains for the breaking them, delays action
till action is of no use, and dies the victim of mere circumstance and
accident.
There is a great significancy in the names of Shakespeare’s plays. In the
_Twelfth Night_, _Midsummer __ Night’s Dream_, _As You Like It_, and
_Winter’s Tale_, the total effect is produced by a co-ordination of the
characters as in a wreath of flowers. But in _Coriolanus_, _Lear_, _Romeo
and Juliet_, _Hamlet_, _Othello_, &c., the effect arises from the
subordination of all to one, either as the prominent person, or the
principal object. _Cymbeline_ is the only exception; and even that has its
advantages in preparing the audience for the chaos of time, place, and
costume, by throwing the date back into a fabulous king’s reign.
But as of more importance, so more striking, is the judgment displayed by
our truly dramatic poet, as well as poet of the drama, in the management
of his first scenes. With the single exception of _Cymbeline_, they either
place before us at one glance both the past and the future in some effect,
which implies the continuance and full agency of its cause, as in the
feuds and party-spirit of the servants of the two houses in the first
scene of _Romeo and Juliet_; or in the degrading passion for shows and
public spectacles, and the overwhelming attachment for the newest
successful war-chief in the Roman people, already become a populace,
contrasted with the jealousy of the nobles in _Julius Cæsar_;—or they at
once commence the action so as to excite a curiosity for the explanation
in the following scenes, as in the storm of wind and waves, and the
boatswain in the _Tempest_, instead of anticipating our curiosity, as in
most other first scenes, and in too many other first acts;—or they act, by
contrast of diction suited to the characters, at once to heighten the
effect, and yet to give a naturalness to the language and rhythm of the
principal personages, either as that of Prospero and Miranda by the
appropriate lowness of the style, or as in _King John_, by the equally
appropriate stateliness of official harangues or narratives, so that the
after blank verse seems to belong to the rank and quality of the speakers,
and not to the poet;—or they strike at once the key-note, and give the
predominant spirit of the play, as in the _Twelfth Night_ and in
_Macbeth_;—or finally, the first scene comprises all these advantages at
once, as in _Hamlet_.
Compare the easy language of common life, in which this drama commences,
with the direful music and wild wayward rhythm and abrupt lyrics of the
opening of _Macbeth_. The tone is quite familiar;—there is no poetic
description of night, no elaborate information conveyed by one speaker to
another of what both had immediately before their senses—(such as the
first distich in Addison’s _Cato_, which is a translation into poetry of
“Past four o’clock and a dark morning!”);—and yet nothing bordering on the
comic on the one hand, nor any striving of the intellect on the other. It
is precisely the language of sensation among men who feared no charge of
effeminacy for feeling what they had no want of resolution to bear. Yet
the armour, the dead silence, the watchfulness that first interrupts it,
the welcome relief of the guard, the cold, the broken expressions of
compelled attention to bodily feelings still under control—all excellently
accord with, and prepare for, the after gradual rise into tragedy;—but,
above all, into a tragedy, the interest of which is as eminently _ad et
apud intra_, as that of _Macbeth_ is directly _ad extra_.
In all the best attested stories of ghosts and visions, as in that of
Brutus, of Archbishop Cranmer, that of Benvenuto Cellini recorded by
himself, and the vision of Galileo communicated by him to his favourite
pupil Torricelli, the ghost-seers were in a state of cold or chilling damp
from without, and of anxiety inwardly. It has been with all of them as
with Francisco on his guard,—alone, in the depth and silence of the night;
“’twas bitter cold, and they were sick at heart, and _not a mouse
stirring_.” The attention to minute sounds,—naturally associated with the
recollection of minute objects, and the more familiar and trifling, the
more impressive from the unusualness of their producing any impression at
all—gives a philosophic pertinency to this last image; but it has likewise
its dramatic use and purpose. For its commonness in ordinary conversation
tends to produce the sense of reality, and at once hides the poet, and yet
approximates the reader or spectator to that state in which the highest
poetry will appear, and in its component parts, though not in the whole
composition, really is, the language of nature. If I should not speak it,
I feel that I should be thinking it;—the voice only is the poet’s,—the
words are my own. That Shakespeare meant to put an effect in the actor’s
power in the very first words—“Who’s there?”—is evident from the
impatience expressed by the startled Francisco in the words that
follow—“Nay, answer me: stand and unfold yourself.” A brave man is never
so peremptory, as when he fears that he is afraid. Observe the gradual
transition from the silence and the still recent habit of listening in
Francisco’s—“I think I hear them”—to the more cheerful call out, which a
good actor would observe, in the—“Stand ho! Who is there?” Bernardo’s
inquiry after Horatio, and the repetition of his name and in his own
presence indicate a respect or an eagerness that implies him as one of the
persons who are in the foreground; and the scepticism attributed to him,—
“Horatio says, ’tis but our fantasy;
And will not let belief take hold of him,”—
prepares us for Hamlet’s after eulogy on him as one whose blood and
judgment were happily commingled. The actor should also be careful to
distinguish the expectation and gladness of Bernardo’s “Welcome, Horatio!”
from the mere courtesy of his “Welcome, good Marcellus!”
Now observe the admirable indefiniteness of the first opening out of the
occasion of all this anxiety. The preparation informative of the audience
is just as much as was precisely necessary, and no more;—it begins with
the uncertainty appertaining to a question:—
“_Mar._ What, has _this thing_ appear’d again to-night?”—
Even the word “again” has its _credibilising_ effect. Then Horatio, the
representative of the ignorance of the audience, not himself, but by
Marcellus to Bernardo, anticipates the common solution—“’tis but our
fantasy!” upon which Marcellus rises into—
“This dreaded sight, twice seen of us”—
which immediately afterwards becomes “this apparition,” and that, too, an
intelligent spirit—that is, to be spoken to! Then comes the confirmation
of Horatio’s disbelief;—
“Tush! tush! ’twill not appear!”—
and the silence, with which the scene opened, is again restored in the
shivering feeling of Horatio sitting down, at such a time, and with the
two eye-witnesses, to hear a story of a ghost, and that, too, of a ghost
which had appeared twice before at the very same hour. In the deep feeling
which Bernardo has of the solemn nature of what he is about to relate, he
makes an effort to master his own imaginative terrors by an elevation of
style,—itself a continuation of the effort,—and by turning off from the
apparition, as from something which would force him too deeply into
himself, to the outward objects, the realities of nature, which had
accompanied it:—
“_Ber._ Last night of all,
When yon same star, that’s westward from the pole
Had made his course to illume that part of heaven
Where now it burns, Marcellus and myself,
The bell then beating one.”
This passage seems to contradict the critical law that what is told, makes
a faint impression compared with what is beholden; for it does indeed
convey to the mind more than the eye can see; whilst the interruption of
the narrative at the very moment when we are most intensely listening for
the sequel, and have our thoughts diverted from the dreaded sight in
expectation of the desired, yet almost dreaded, tale—this gives all the
suddenness and surprise of the original appearance:—
“_Mar._ Peace, break thee off; look, where it comes again!”
Note the judgment displayed in having the two persons present, who, as
having seen the Ghost before, are naturally eager in confirming their
former opinions,—whilst the sceptic is silent, and after having been twice
addressed by his friends, answers with two hasty syllables—“Most
like,”—and a confession of horror:—
“It harrows me with fear and wonder.”
O heaven! words are wasted on those who feel, and to those who do not feel
the exquisite judgment of Shakespeare in this scene, what can be said?
Hume himself could not but have had faith in this Ghost dramatically, let
his anti-ghostism have been as strong as Sampson against other ghosts less
powerfully raised.