Strachey : MAL (see n. 3848-9; Steevens ; Malone) : Ulrici (see n. 3851-2)
3561-5 Strachey (1848, pp. 94-8): <p. 94>“
Steevens and M
alone dispute as to Hamlet’s treatment of
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, which the former vehemently denounces as atrocious, while the latter justifies it. But as that justification can hardly be called satisfactory, I must try and improve it. We see that Hamlet knows as much as we do (though probably not more) as to the extent to which the two courtiers are aware of the King’s schemes, and we may safely assume that he is as able as we are to draw inferences from the facts. He then (like ourselves) is aware that his old schoolfellows have lost all personal regard for him, and have devoted themselves to obtain the King’s favour by servilely adopting and justifying his dislike to Hamlet, as far as be avows it, and by consenting to be employed by him in any way he pleases, against Hamlet. The </p. 94> <p. 95> King declares that his person and crown are not safe while Hamlet is at large, and sends him as a prisoner to England, with sealed instructions respecting the disposal of him, to the ruler of that country, who will certainly obey implicitly, as he is the lately conquered and humble tributary of Denmark.
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern readily accept the charge of the prisoner, and of the instructions, which they cannot doubt affect his liberty, if not his life, and are prepared to do their part zealously, whatever it may prove to be, in giving them effect. Hamlet might well say of them, ‘There’s letters seal’d : and my two schoolfellows,—Whom I will trust, as I will adders fang’d— They bear the mandate; they must sweep my way, And marshall me to knavery.’ When he opens the letters, and learns their contents, he adopts the only course for saving his own life which was conceivable under the circumstances. The king of England was quite subservient to Denmark, and even if he could have been roused to disobedience by the relation of Hamlet’s wrongs, and his uncle’s guilt, the chance of these being heard was precluded by the requirement, ‘That, on the supervise, no leisure bated, No, not to stay the grinding of the axe, His head should be struck off.’ And so, on the other hand, was it plain that if
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern could get a hearing from the king of England, they would be able to convince him that Hamlet was sent to him at least to be kept as. a prisoner, and that if the letters (however we suppose them altered by Hamlet) were of a more favourable tenour, there must have been some fraudulent chance made in them,—and Hamlet would inevitably have been so kept till further instructions could be obtained from Denmark. If indeed Hamlet had been able to foresee the consequences of meeting the pirate next day, he might have saved his </p. 95><p.96> own life, and yet spared those of
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, but this he could not do, and therefore acted as he did in mere self-defence. But something more than his own preservation is at stake: Hamlet is the representative and avenger of the rights of the crown and laws of Denmark, outraged by a murderer and a usurper, (for he was only elected because he contrived to murder the rightful possessor at a moment when his natural heir was absent) ; and he has therefore to act under those circumstances, which at rare and long intervals in the history of every country, call on some man to maintain the spirit of the laws, by disregarding for a moment their letter. It is Hamlet’s duty to avenge the crown and laws of Denmark by putting the tyrant to death; and if as a means to that end he has to sacrifice also the base instruments of the tyrant’s will, he is justified in doing it. In time of war the most just and humane general hangs or shoots, without hesitation or remorse, spies and deserters, for whose offences a civilian could hardly find punishment light enough: and we never doubt but that he is quite right. And Hamlet, with his princely and soldierly spirit, rests his defence of his conduct on this ground:—’Why, man, they did make love to this employment; They are not near my conscience; their defeat Does by their own insinuation grow: ’Tis dangerous when the baser nature comes Between the pass and fell incensed points Of mighty opposites.’
“Shakspeare seems to mean all Hamlet’s character to be brought together before his final disappearance from the scene;—his meditative excess in the grave-digging, his yielding to passion with Laertes, his love for Oplielia blazing out, his tendency to generalize on all occasions in the dialogue with Horatio, his fine gentlemanly manners </p. 96><p. 97> with Osric, and his and Shakspeare’s fondness for presentiment:—’But thou would’st not think, how ill all’s here about my heart but it’s no matter.’ [3661] To which summary I would add, his noble frankness in confessing his violence to Laertes and desiring his pardon, his friendship for Horatio, and his religious faith. I have asserted that it was Hamlet’s religion, his resorting to prayer, that saved him from utter loss of reason after his first interview with the Ghost, and now that it is his clear and religious faith in God’s presence and providence that dispels all the clouds from his path, and prepares a bright close to the stormy and shortened day of his life. It is true that the sentences and words on which these assertions rest are short and few: but I know not what other critical explanation of them can be given, and it must be always born in mind that the object of a Drama would be destroyed, and its perfectness as a poem, or work of art, all marred, if religion were brought prominently forward in it. For the aim of the drama is to exhibit the human, not the religious, side of man’s existence; and therefore though the two are inseparable, (for every man’s life is coloured and influenced either by the presence, or by the absence, of religious faith, nor is there any colour more marked than black, which is the absence of all colour,) the latter is to be assumed and suggested in a drama, rather than openly displayed and appealed to. The King’s soliloquy on prayer and repentance is an illustration of the distinction: for though the sentiments assume the true Christian doctrine of redemption as their groundwork, and as that which gives all their meaning to them, still they are not expressed at all in the language of Christian teaching; and the absence throughout of the Divine names where they would naturally have occurred, shows the poetic art with </p. 97> <p 98> which the whole is constructed, so as to avoid a colouring and tone which would have been out of keeping in a drama. With Ulrici I cannot concur on this point [see n. 3851-2].“</p. 98>
