Graham's Magazine, Vol. XXXVI, No. 5, May 1850

“I am almost frighted at my own temerity; and when I estimate the fame and the strength of those that maintain the contrary opinion, I am ready to sink down in reverential silence, as Æneas withdrew from the defense of Troy when he saw Neptune shaking the wall, and Juno heading the besiegers.”

But the enthusiastic study of Shakspeare was then just beginning. How many antiquarians, book-worms and hypercritics have since toiled and quibbled over him! how many philosophers have deeply meditated him! how many ponderous volumes have been written upon him? How many great actors have played him? How many nations have heard and read him? Surely this mine, however deep and fruitful, must long since have yielded all its treasures.

If, indeed, the shadows of mighty names could subdue the inquiring spirit of this age to any degree of fear or reverence, the Shakspeare student might now be content to receive, with implicit confidence, the creed which has been written. But whilst the works of Nature are daily undergoing new investigations, and receiving new illustrations, it is fit that those works which of all human productions most resemble them—the works of Shakspeare—should be subjected to a similar scrutiny. And so they have been, and with results worthy of the days of telegraphs and locomotives. A German critic, named Ulrici, has recently made a discovery which as far surpasses all former Shaksperian discoveries, as the voyage of Columbus surpassed the voyages of those navigators who before him had timorously hugged the shore.

A writer in the North British Review, for November, 1849, explains the subject briefly thus:

“Ulrici’s most remarkable discovery is, that each of Shakspeare’s plays has for its foundation some moral idea or theme, which is reflected and echoed over and over again with endless variety and profit, in all the characters, expressions, and events of the piece. The subtle German critic would have produced more converts to his doctrine had he illustrated it fully by the analysis of some one play, instead of having merely suggested its prevalence by means of a slight sketch in each.”

The reviewer, then, observing that Ulrici’s views had been received in England with a “wide skepticism,” proceeds to prove them by analyzing the “Merchant of Venice.” He also, incidentally, mentions the theme of “Timon of Athens,” and of “Love’s Labor Lost.” Beyond this no hint is given as to the “ground-idea” (as it is termed) of any of the plays; and yet so palpable is Ulrici’s theory, that the writer of these pages, after having read the reviewer’s remarks, found no difficulty in applying it to any of the plays with which he was familiar, by simply revolving them in his mind. As any person tolerably read in Shakspeare may do the same, the “wide skepticism” above referred to must soon give way to universal conviction, accompanied by astonishment that the discovery was not sooner made, and the frank admission that Shakspeare has been understood by Ulrici alone.

Our author has always been called the Poet of Nature; and the better he is understood, the better he is found to deserve the title. The leading features of all mountains, of all lakes and rivers, of all mankind, are the same; yet in the whole world there are no two of either precisely alike. The theme in each of Shakspeare’s plays is one—pervading every part of it, and giving tone and color to the whole. Yet how endless the variety of character, of action, of sentiment! So striking, indeed, is the diversity, that the unity has, for more than two hundred years, been strangely overlooked; so consummate is the art, that it has wholly “concealed the art.”

If we examine the play of Hamlet by the light of Ulrici’s torch, we shall find that its subject, like its plot, is very comprehensive. Yet there is in it a “central idea,” to which all the various topics discussed are more or less intimately related. This idea may be expressed by the single word DISCRETION—discretion in its most comprehensive sense, as signifying, “prudence, discernment and judgment, directed by circumspection.” I propose to show that with this idea every incident, every character, every speech, I might almost venture to say, every sentiment of the play is connected, by the relation either of resemblance or of contrast.

It will be most convenient (on account of the intricacy of the play) to examine the several scenes and speeches, in connection with different aspects of the theme. I shall therefore employ the following division:

I. Reserve; contrasted with which (1) Extravagance of conduct and language; (2) Espionage; (3) Inquisitiveness; (4) Flattery.

II. Vacillation.

III. Craft.

The reader will readily perceive that all these qualities have an intimate relation with the quality of discretion, directly or by contrast, in its use or its abuse. As it is Shakspeare’s custom to pursue his subject into all its collateral branches, there are doubtless many other modifications of the theme of Hamlet, but the above division will answer our present purpose.

I. Reserve.

In the second scene of Act First, the king and queen expostulate with Hamlet on his immoderate grief for the death of his father; reminding him that it is a common occurrence, and urging him to “cast his nighted color off.” In the next scene, Laertes, who is about to embark for France, makes a long speech to Ophelia, recommending throughout reserve in her conduct toward Hamlet:

The chariest maid is prodigal enough, If she unmask her beauty to the moon.

The admirable speech of Polonius to Laertes, which immediately follows, is composed of ponderous maxims, all of the same import; as, for example, “Give every man thine ear, but few thy voice;” “Take each man’s censure, but reserve thy judgment;” “Neither a borrower nor a lender be,” etc., etc. And the scene closes with a speech from Polonius to Ophelia, in which he cautions her respecting Hamlet, telling her to be “somewhat scanter of her maiden presence,” etc.

In the next scene (the fourth) occurs Hamlet’s speech to Horatio on drunkenness, which, it will be observed, in conformity with the theme, turns entirely upon the imprudence of the practice. In the fifth scene of the same act, Hamlet, after his interview with the Ghost, baffles the curiosity of Horatio and Marcellus. Not content with keeping his own secret, and swearing them not to reveal what they had seen, he makes them further promise that if he should see fit “to put an antick disposition on,” they never will, “with arms encumbered thus, or this head-shake, or by pronouncing of some doubtful phrase, as Well, well, we know; or, we could, and if we would; or, if we list to speak, or such ambiguous giving out,” intimate that they “knew aught of him.” In the same scene the Ghost says: “I could a tale unfold,” etc. “But that I am forbid to tell the secrets of my prison-house.”

In the first scene of the third act, Hamlet’s rude speeches to Ophelia, “Get thee to a nunnery,” etc., are mainly on the same subject; and the next following scene contains the celebrated advice to the players, every word of which inculcates reserve or moderation; it teaches the same lesson as the speeches of Polonius and Laertes, above referred to, though it is applicable to very different circumstances. Hamlet’s speech to Horatio, immediately after, is to the same purpose:

“Blessed are those Whose blood and judgment are so well co-mingled, That they are not a pipe for fortune’s finger To sound what stop she pleases; Give me that man That is not passion’s slave,” etc.

In the same scene Rosencrantz and Guildenstern endeavor to find out Hamlet’s secret; but he baffles and rebukes them with the beautiful illustration of the flute:

Ham. Will you play upon this pipe?

Guild. My lord, I can not.