turies, must recognize the utter hopelessness of looking for a truthful and adequate presentation of the Prince's religious beliefs and practices. The more noted commentators, true enough, readily admit that he was a "very religious man"; but, unlike Carlyle, they seem to forget that the same Faith was his soul of practice and the primary fact of his life. Their commentaries, therefore, while most excellent in other respects, are unsatisfactory on the score of Hamlet's religion. Some ignore it altogether; others, failing to grasp its controlling influence, accord it but slight and incidental treatment; others whose religion is based on the principle of private judgment, measure his Faith with their own, and mis. judge him from a lack of correct information concerning the true nature of his tenets; others whose sole knowledge of the Church has been imbibed from hostile sources, asperse and malign his religion, and misrepresent its sway upon him; others again who reject all belief in Christianity and align themselves with one or other of the schools of Freethought, confound his Faith with that of the many Christian sects, and while decrying all dogmatic truths of divine revelation, are ever ready to dogmatize against all things Christian. would indeed be strange and a thing unheard-of, if under such conditions writers with minds thus indifferent, or obscured, or prejudiced, or hostile, were to give a just appreciation of a character whose thoughts and deeds are largely controlled by his Faith and its principles of morality.

It

This indifferentism and misapprehension concerning a most important element of the tragedy, the author purposes to expose, and, moreover, to exhibit how the hero's religion. wields a paramount influence in the development of the drama. No one can hope to attain a correct understanding of Hamlet unless he view, as far as possible, its action and per

sonages with the eyes of Shakespeare himself. He, as is well known, was familiar with the teachings and moral principles of the olden Church, and having once decided to make his hero a firm adherent of that Faith, he, a master artist, observed the law of consistency, and portrayed him in conformity therewith. But the Faith of His "most religious hero" is not mere emotion, nor sentiment, nor a something extrinsic, which, as a mantle, may be thrown on or off at pleasure. It is an intrinsic force. It is the primary vital fact of his life and the animating principle of his thoughts and actions; for, rooted in his intellect, enthroned in his will, and enshrined in his heart, it governs him in every crisis of conflicting interests and passions.

Hence, the exposition of this mastery will not only illumine, to a great extent, the many obscurities of the tragedy, but also save the reader, on the one hand, from a mere subjective concept of the hero, as an abstract or ideal personage, fashioned and colored according to the whim and fancy of each individual, and, on the other, hinder him from confining his attention solely to the externals of the man whom he considers the victim of chance, impulse, moods, and accidents. The comprehension of this grand central principle which animates and controls Hamlet's mind and heart, brings him more distinctly before us in a close and intimate relation; throws new light on his life, thoughts, acts, and sentiments; and, by disclosing the secret and invisible mainsprings of his movements, opens to our view a clearer vision of the mind of the hero and his creator, and so affords a solution of the several riddles which otherwise seem insoluble.

The author has not confined himself to a mere commentary. The nature of the work, he felt, required him to present pen-portraits of the various characters, not, indeed, in

1

accordance with popular fancy, but as mirrored in the text of the tragedy; to examine many opposing and misleading opinions of celebrated commentators, in order to expose in the light of the principles established, their discordance with the religious belief of Hamlet.

Part First is preliminary, and deals with many questions which, because of their important and intimate connection with The Tragedy, require a special and fuller treatment. Among them are the invalidity of Gertrude's marriage, Hamlet's right to the crown, his feigned madness, his commonly alleged vacillation and defective power of will, his character, as well as his religion and philosophy. All these present ditficulties, the solution of which will throw light upon the new point of view taken by the author, and in consequence lead to a clearer understanding of Part Second, or the commentary proper.

The book with its many new solutions may perhaps merit the attention of all who are desirous of reading something new upon the most popular of Shakespeare's tragedies. If the perusal of its pages afford to these lovers of the Bard of Avon even a small degree of interest, or entertainment, or illumination, the author shall deem himself well rewarded.

The work is mainly based on materials gathered together by the author during many years for the purpose of lectures given both in college courses and in public. When any one writes on Shakespeare he naturally is indebted to a host of scholars who for more than a century have delved in the same literary field of criticism, and it is next to impossible for him to state each source from which he derived his information. Where, however, the author has consciously availed himself of previous works, he acknowledges his obligation, and this in particular to the Variorum Shakespeare of Dr. Furness.

St. Ignatius College, Cleveland Ohio.

CHAPTER I

Identification of Characters

Attempts have been made to identify the characters of Hamlet with actual men and women of Shakespeare's day. If one critic holds that the hero is throughout a satire on the famous essayist, Montaigne, another is equally certain that the whole tragedy is a veiled picture of the relations between the Queen of Scots, Darnley, Bothwell and James I. Other theorists identify Hamlet with Sir Philip Sidney; Polonius with Lord Burghley; Laertes and Ophelia with Robert and Anne Cecil; and Bernardo with Sir Walter Raleigh. According to another theory, the dramas of Shake speare, whether comedies or tragedies, are largely Aristophanic in their intent, and are filled with topical sketches and allusions to which in many cases the clue is now lost. These theories, though entertaining to the curious reader, seem with the exception of that in regard to Sir Philip Sidney and Lord Burghley to have little objective reality, and to be the product of a playful imagination, rather than of sound critical judgment.

It is, however, highly probable that in moulding the character of the melancholy Dane, Shakespeare took a contemporary as a model in certain traits. Sir Philip Sidney had a remarkable personality, and was the most accomplished courtier of the Elizabethan era. He was curiously lacking in the characteristic blitheness of his times, and looked by preference on the gloomy side of things. Like Hamlet, he was a scholar and an idealist, and, living in an uncongenial environment, was ever striving in vain to escape from it into a life of action; and again, like Hamlet, in the lingering and futility of his later years, which were due in a great measure