the question involved in such a critique. As it was, he allowed to the sceptics, that "all argument" was against ghost-belief, and thus quite incapacitated himself from writing anything valuable upon Hamlet, a work which most assuredly could no more have existed, and have been received as it is, if spiritualities were not realities, than a shadow could exist without some real object from which it might be projected.

Let us then learn to give criticism a more complete basis than it has hitherto possessed, by no longer omitting to consider the supernatural; and as an indispensable step in that direction, let us cease to think of that supernatural, as being either the suspension or the contradiction of material external laws, but as the manifestation of spiritual internal laws. We should not then find ourselves exclaiming "Why should the Divine permit his laws to be suspended, or contradicted, for this or that insufficient end?" And then, on the strength of our own assumptions, refusing to examine into facts, and often putting forth a very narrow and unjust critique upon the works of the greatest artists; men whom we ought, even for our own sakes, to be slow indeed in pronouncing to be wrong.

THE GHOST IN HAMLET.-AN ILLUSION.

The following passage from a work by Mr. Charles Ollier, strikingly shows how even able writers can forget what is in the author whom they admire and write about :

"It faded at the crowing of the cock," says Marcellus to Horatio, speaking of the grand phantom of Hamlet's father, the most awful apparition evoked by the imagination of man-a royal shade, more potent as the monarch of spirits, than when, in the body, it wielded the sceptre of then mighty Denmark. But with all its attributes of power, "the majesty of buried Denmark," could only "revisit the glimpses of the moon," making "night hideous." As dawn came on, the "illusion faded."

The above is the opening paragraph of a volume written to shew the fallacy of ghosts, dreams, and the like, and by one who is most clearly an ardent admirer of Shakespeare, but whose want of faith in the supernatural has here led him, unconsciously, to quote from Hamlet with a most strange one-sidedness. Who, not having read Hamlet, but would imagine that Mr. Ollier actually had Shakespeare upon his side of the question, or could conceive that every means had been adopted by Shakespeare, in order to give all the marks of reality to "the grand phantom," as Mr. Ollier styles the ghost.

Shakespeare has made the ghost visible and audible to three persons at once, and, as to Hamlet communicating facts before unknown to him; yet Mr. Ollier appears only to have remembered those things which seemed to harmonize with his own

views; namely, the night-appearances of the ghost, and his fading at the approach of the morning.

Mr. Ollier owns, as we perceive, to being deeply impressed by the ghost, and it cannot but be regretted, that instead of endeavouring to explain away the supernatural, he had not rather sought the still more difficult task of explaining away Shakespeare's artistic right to use supernatural themes, and the right of his readers to be delighted with that use. This, would at least have been new, and would have given an infinitely greater scope for argument and ingenuity than can possibly be shewn by any attempts to annihilate supernaturalism, those attempts being founded upon views merely physical; spiritual views and artconsiderations being altogether set aside.

ANTIGONUS.-HOTSPUR.

In a volume entitled Philosophy of Shakespeare, in which passages from the poet are ranged under certain headings, with occasional remarks, the author, Mr. Rankin, thus expresses himself

Shakespeare's superiority to the superstitious times in which he lived, is absolutely amazing; especially when we consider that such a mind as Sir M. Hale's succumbed to them. Read the speech of Antigonus on ghosts, the reasoning of Hotspur on omens and then admire a genius that

was centuries in advance of his age.

Now it is sufficiently curious, that Mr. Rankin has altogether forgotten that Antigonus, who intimates that he is a sceptic, is shewn in the play to be quite wrong, at least for once. The dream which had so much wrought upon him, as to make him say (after having pronounced "dreams to be toys"), that he will, nevertheless, be "superstitiously squared by this," is fulfilled, and the just inference might be, that the scepticism belongs to Antigonus alone, and the belief to Shakespeare. Those who have really gone into the subject, know what powerful evidence there is for the fact of prophetic dreams, and are satisfied that Shakespeare knew it also. Those who think that Shakespeare would introduce a prophetic dream, without having studied the subject of prophetic dreams, are requested to consider that a painter who loves his art, and seeks for lasting reputation, does not allow himself to introduce anything into his picture, even the meanest weed, without studying it.

The case with respect to Hotspur equally illustrates the forgetfulness of Mr. Rankin as to the real point in question. In the fine scene between Hotspur and Glendower, there is a great deal of smart, cutting scepticism evinced by the former. He is, however, checked by Mortimer, who assures him that Glendower is

A worthy gentleman, excccdingly well read, and profited in strange concealments.

And how does Shakespeare carry on the scene? Why, by making Glendower give an auricular proof of his open communication with the inner world. When Mortimer says that he will sit and hear his wife sing, Glendower replies:

Do so;

And those musicians that shall play to you,
Hang in the air a thousand leagues from hence;
Yet straight they shall be here: sit, and attend.

He then speaks some Welsh words, and then the music plays. But does this produce any effect upon Hotspur's unbelief? None in the least; and Shakespeare here has given the absolute proof of his observation upon a certain species of scepticism, which, instead of being at all moved to gravity or examination by some noteworthy fact, is only disposed to turn it into ridicule. Thus Hotspur, when he hears the music, only says,—

Now I perceive the devil understands Welsh;

And 'tis no marvel, he's so humorous.

By 'r lady, he's a good musician.

Shakespeare has also kept close to nature in not giving any remark upon Glendower's power to the other persons present, to whom, supposing that power to have been familiar, it had ceased, in some sense, to be marvellous. Had Shakespeare, however, been a sceptic, and yet so regardless of his own ideas of truth, as to have introduced the spiritual music for the sake of something called effect, there could not have been this quietness of treatment; light jesting on the part of Hotspur, and absolute silence with the rest.

It may be added, that even Mr. Charles Knight also, has evidently overlooked what Shakespeare has made Glendower do, and the unavoidable inference from his doings. Mr. Knight contrasts "the solemn credulity" of Glendower with the "sarcastic unbelief" of Hotspur; but we have now seen, that, on Shakespeare's shewing, it should have been "solemn certainty, and not "solemn credulity," which is to be affirmed of Glendower; for in this scene, he not only believes that he can, and says that he will, do a certain thing; that is, summon musicians of the inner world, but he actually does do it.

It is, certainly, one of the most striking proofs of the effect which preconceived opinions have upon criticism, that such points as the above, in a writer like Shakespeare, should have remained totally unnoticed, nay, unseen. Every one will admit, that in order to be a critic upon Shakespeare, human nature must be studied by the critic, otherwise he cannot appreciate the author's treatment of it. It remains to be admitted, that the manifestations of the inner world must also be studied by the critics for the same reason.

TROILUS.-THESEUS.

In addition to the cases of Antigonus and Hotspur, those of Troilus and Theseus may be adduced as fresh instances of the manner in which Shakespeare shews the sceptic to be in error, by placing him in opposition to the facts of the story. Thus Troilus treats his brother Helenus, and his sister Cassandra, very cavalierly, after the approved fashion of the doubters. He says to Helenus:

You are for dreams and slumbers, brother priest.

And when Hector, upon the entrance of Cassandra, raving and prophesying, asks,—

Now, youthful Troilus, do not these high strains

Of divination in our sister, work

Some touches of remorse.

The reply shews Troilus as only seeing that "Cassandra's mad," "her raptures brainsick," &c., yet "the high strains of divination" really were within her.

Finally, in the Midsummer Night's Dream, Theseus makes a celebrated speech, every line of which is sceptical, yet the conduct of the play falsifies the Duke's reasonings, or, as they should rather be called, his assertions. Hippolyta having observed to him,

"Tis strange, my Theseus, that these lovers speak of. He thus replies, paying no attention, be it observed, to the fact that Hippolyta is speaking from the testimony of four persons; artful stroke on the part of Shakespeare at the sceptics. Theseus. More strange than true. I never may believe

a very

These antique fables, nor these fairy toys.

Lovers and madmen have such seething brains,

Such shaping fantasies, that apprehend

More than cool reason ever comprehends.

The lunatic, the lover, and the poet

Are of imagination all compact;

One sees more devils than vast hell can hold

That is the madman; the lover, all as frantic,

Sees Helen's beauty in a brow of Egypt;

The poet's eye, in a fine frenzy rolling,

Doth glance from heaven to earth, from earth to heaven;

And, as imagination bodies forth

The forms of things unknown, the poet's pen

Turns them to shapes, and gives to airy nothing
A local habitation and a name.

Such tricks hath strong imagination

That if it would but apprehend some joy,

It comprehends some bringer of that joy;
Or in the night, imagining some fear,
How easy is a bush supposed a bear.

To this speech Hippolyta very justly answers, that-

All the story of the night told over,

And all their minds transfigured thus together,

More witnesseth than fancy's images,

And grows to something of great constancy,
But, howsoever, strange, and admirable.

Here again, Shakespeare shows his nice observation of the sceptical mind. Every one who has conversed on any subject, with persons predetermined, on that subject, not to believe, must have observed how common it is for the latter, when fairly brought to a stand-still, to lapse into a dead silence, instead of saying, as the lover of truth would do," What you have alleged is very reasonable, and I will now examine." They can say no more, nor may you. Accordingly, to the incontrovertible speech of Hippolyta, Theseus makes no reply.

It is a truly noteworthy and significant fact, that to the sceptical Theseus should have been allotted by Shakespeare the sceptical idea concerning the poet; namely, as being the embodier of the unreal, and not as being the copyist of what is true. It is exactly in character, that the doubting Theseus should thus speak of the poetic art, and thence we may be sure that the poet who wrote the lines for him, thought precisely the very reverse. Owing, however, to the general doubt concerning the supernatural, and the consequent assumption of Shakespeare's disbelief, this point seems never to have been considered, and it may be safely affirmed that nine hundred and ninety-nine readers out of every thousand, would gravely quote the lines upon the poet, as containing Shakespeare's own idea, although, only five lines previously, Theseus has placed the poet in the same category with the lunatic. From the purely dramatic character of his works, Shakespeare can never speak in his own person, but he can always act; that is, so frame his story as that scepticism shall be shewn to be entirely at fault: and this he does.

CONCLUSION.

In conclusion, the following axioms are submitted to the consideration of those who are interested in criticism respecting Shakespeare.

1st. That all good art is absolutely true, or it could not be good.

2nd. That to the true artist, whatever he cannot feel to be absolutely true in its foundations, is altogether intolerable.

3rd. That all the difficulty in intellectually admitting these things, lies in the non-admission of an internal, causal world as absolutely real. It is said, in intellectually admitting, because the influence of the arts proves that men's feelings always have dmitted, and do still admit, this reality.

4th. That neither pure Immaterialism (nor Idealism), on the one hand, or pure Materialism, on the other, can be considered