Page:The Journal of English and Germanic Philology Volume 18.djvu/8

2 of far greater importance to inquire the dramatic purpose of the dumb-show, the reason why the King and Queen betray no sign of guilt at this representation of the crime, why the King allows the play to continue so long, why the speech of the Poisoner, preceding the King's exit from the hall, seems, in its conventionality, so little likely to have produced his collapse, why the 'Murder of Gonzago,' or the 'Mouse-Trap,' as Hamlet calls it, reproduces so coincidentally the main facts of the murder as revealed by the Ghost, if only a dozen or sixteen lines have been inserted in it, and why the court does not suspect the King of the murder, after the play is over. Such questions as these, and others connected with them, must be settled by those who would be at their ease in their interpretation of the greatest of English tragedies. For the actor and the stage director they are of the highest importance. Moreover, a misunderstanding of these matters may lead to erroneous conceptions of other scenes, and perhaps of the entire play. This may be illustrated, I think, by an elaborate study by Mr. W. W. Greg, 'Hamlet's Hallucination,' in the Modern Language Review, Vol. XII, pp. 393-421 (Oct., 1917). In this paper, a new interpretation of the play-scene is made to support the hypothesis that the revelations of the Ghost on the battlements of Elsinore are only a projection of Hamlet's imagination. With this theory, which on other grounds appears absolutely untenable, I am not at present concerned. Nor is my object the refutation of Mr. Greg's explanation of the play-scene, which is as little likely to carry conviction as his views about the Ghost. But his work must be given some prominence, because, by subjecting this scene to a searching scrutiny, it defines certain problems which have been only vaguely realized hitherto. For the benefit of those who desire a condensed statement of his views at this point, I subjoin the following brief outline, with particular reference to the play-scene. Mr. Greg believes that "the current interpretation of Hamlet presupposes an altogether unreasonable want of dramatic capacity in the author," and that "an alternative should be found" (p. 421); that Shakspere must have written Hamlet for the closet as well as for the stage, providing a subtler explanation of the Ghost for the judicious than the objective reality which would be the conception of the general public; and that it is "impossible to regard the narrative of the Ghost as a genuine revelation, but that, on the contrary, it bears internal evidence of being but a figment of Hamlet's brain." He then queries whether Shakspere did not intend the Ghost to be an hallucination throughout, (p. 419). But if the King at the play does break down upon the talk of the poisoning, says Mr. Greg, how are we to reconcile this with the assumption that the Ghost is but a phantasm of Hamlet's imagination? How could Hamlet have known about the poison if the Ghost did not tell him? Mr. Greg's answer is that the