Horatio (1.1.43 – 54, 1.1.128 – 146). At this point the ghost is still not identified with the late king, although a similarity is noted several times throughout the scene.
197This threatening uncertainty about the cause and significance of the
196 If the presence of skepticism in Shakespeare’s work is usually attributed to his reception of Montaigne, which is clearly evident in the case ofThe Tempest(dated around 1610) (the point of reference being Essay I, 31:Des cannibales; cf. to this, Olejniczak Lobsien,Skeptische Phantasie[cf. note 2], pp. 232–242), forHamlet, this is quite controversial: although French versions were already circulating before the English translation by John Florio appeared, the first edition of theEssays of Montaignewas published in 1603, thus dating afterHamlet. On the reception of skepticism in England, see Hamlin,Tragedy and Scepticism in Shakespeare’s England(cf. note 2), pp. 29–115. On the aspect of skepticism inHamletare to be mentioned:
Millicent Bell,Shakespeare’s Tragic Skepticism, New Haven/London 2002, pp. 29–79; Graham Bradshaw, Shakespeare’s Scepticism, Brighton 1987, pp. 95–125; Stanley Cavell, Disowning Knowledge in Six Plays of Shakespeare, Cambridge/New York 1987, pp. 179–192; John D. Cox,
“Shakespeare and the French Epistemologists,”Cithara45 (2006), pp. 23–45; Küpper,“Hamlet andLa vida es sueño”(cf. note 2), pp. 376–396; Aaron Landau,“‘Let me not burst in igno-rance.’Skepticism and Anxiety inHamlet,”English Studies82 (2001), pp. 218–230; Olejniczak Lobsien, Skeptische Phantasie (cf. note 2), pp. 102–126; Christoph Menke, “Tragödie und Skeptizismus. Zu Hamlet,” Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte75 (2001), pp. 561–486; Ritter,Montaignes Skeptizismus und dramatisierte Skepsis bei Shakespeare(cf. note 2).
197 “MAR.: [. . .] Look where it comes again. / BAR.: In the same figure like the King that’s
dead. / [. . .] / Looks a not like the King? Mark it, Horatio. / HOR.: Most like. [. . .]”(1.1.43–46);
apparition (see, e.g., “ H
OR.: [ . . . ] It harrows me with fear and wonder ” 1.1.47) evokes attempts at interpretation that draw upon both mythical explanations and the current political and military situation. Only a few weeks have passed since the sudden and mysterious death of King Hamlet. Denmark is now mak-ing evident preparations for war, although against whom and for what purpose is unclear (1.1.73 – 82). Horatio states that, according to rumors, an attack from Norway is imminent because young Fortinbras is said to be intent on recaptur-ing the territory his father had lost in the battle to Krecaptur-ing Hamlet (1.1.83 – 110). On the one hand, the ghost is perceived as a “ portentous figure ” (1.1.112), an omi-nous sign of the future of the state (1.1.72), drawing parallels to the mysterious events that supposedly took place before the death of Caesar in Ancient Rome (1.1.16 – 128). On the other hand, it is connected with topoi based on popular be-liefs about apparitions (see, e.g., 1.1.139 – 141, 154 – 170).
198There are explicit references to the realm of speculation ( “ H
OR.: So have I heard and do in part believe it. ” 1.1.170; “ M
AR.: Some say that [ . . . ] ” 1.1.163); and the uncertainty about what is seen manifests itself in the irritated exclamations, as the ghost disappears in the mist of dawn: “ B
AR.: ’ Tis here. / H
OR.: ’ Tis here. / M
AR.: ’ Tis gone ” (1.1.145 – 147). This atmosphere of the dark, doubtful, and nebulous per-vades the entire play, and is already present in the opening verses that describe the changing of the guards: “ B
AR.: Who ’ s there? / F
RANCISCO: Nay, Answer me.
Stand and unfold yourself. / B
AR.: Long live the King! / F
RAN.: Barnardo? / B
AR.:
He ” (1.1.1 – 5).
Horatio decides to inform Hamlet about what he believes he has seen, be-cause: “ H
OR.: This spirit, dumb to us, will speak to him ” (1.1.176). But even be-fore the ghost is mentioned in their conversation in the second scene of the first act, Hamlet says: “ My father ― methinks I see my father ― / H
OR.: Where, my lord? H
AMLET: In my mind ’ s eye, Horatio ” (1.2.184 f.). This reference to the
“HOR.: What art thou that usurp’st this time of night, / Together with that fair and warlike form / In which the majesty of buried Denmark / Did sometimes march? [. . .] / MAR.:“It is offended. BAR.: See, it stalks away”(1.1.49–53);“MAR.: Is it not like the King? / HOR.: As thou art to thyself. / Such was the very armour he had on / When he th’ambitious Norway com-bated. / So frown’d he once, when in angry parle / He smote the sledded Polacks on the ice. /
’Tis strange”(1.1, 61–67); “BAR.: [It] [c]omes armed through our watch so like the King” (1.1.113). Furthermore, the use of both the neutral personal pronoun as well as the personal forms (“a”and“he,”e.g.“With martial stalk has he [the ghost] gone by our watch”[1.1.69]) to designate the ghost (as well as in 3.4.136–139) is to be emphasized here, for this also may refer to its dubious status.
198Such as wandering at night in places where illegally accumulated treasures are hidden (1.1.139–141) or their disappearance at the cockcrow and its use to drive away evil spirits in the nights of the Christmas season (1.1.154–170).
internal senses, that is, to the realm of the imaginary, of vision and dream, is relevant in light of Hamlet ’ s ‘ actual ’ encounters with his father ’ s ghost (in 1.4 – 5 and 3.4), to the extent that there is no certainty as to whether these encounters are real (that is, are perceived by the external senses), or whether they too hap-pen only in Hamlet ’ s “ mind ’ s eye. ” The distinction between external and inter-nal sense perception ( “ fantasy ” ) is frequently thematized in the play, most prominently in Horatio ’ s reaction to the first appearance of the ghost: “ B
AR.: Is not this something more than fantasy? / [ . . . ] / H
OR.: Before my God, I might not this believe / Without the sensible and true avouch / of mine own eyes ” (1.1.
57 – 61; my italics).
Hamlet is incredulous ( “’ Tis very strange ” 1.2.220) and unsettled ( “ but this troubles me ” 1.2.224) by the report of his friend and the guards and asks de-tailed questions regarding the appearance of the apparition.
199Nevertheless, the scene closes with the statement: “ H
AM.: My father ’ s spirit ― in arms! All is not well. / I doubt some foul play. Would the night were come. / Till then sit still, my soul. Foul deeds will rise, / Though all the earth o ’ erwhelm them, to men ’ s eyes ” (1.2.255 – 258).
200The uncertainty and unease felt by the protagonist in the face of his father ’ s untimely and unexpected death and his mother ’ s rapid subsequent marriage to his uncle – now in possession of the crown – are articulated very clearly from the beginning of the play.
201However, the vague
199 “HAM.: Arm’d, say you? HOR./BAR./MAR.: Arm’d, my lord. / HAM.: From top to toe? HOR./
BAR./MAR.: My lord, from head to foot. / HAM.: Then saw you not his face? / HOR.: O yes, my lord, he wore his beaver up. / HAM.: What look’d he, frowningly? / HOR.: A countenance more in sorrow than in anger. / HAM.: Pale, or red? / HOR.: Nay, very pale. HAM.: And fix’d his eyes upon you? / HOR.: Most constantly. HAM.: I would I had been there. / HOR.: It would have much amaz’d you. HAM.: Very like. / Stay’d it long? / HOR.: While one with moderate haste might tell a hundred. / MAR./BAR.: Longer, longer. / HOR.: Not when I saw’t. / HAM.: His beard was grizzled, no? / HOR.: It was as I have seen it in his life, / A sable silver’d”(1.2.226–242).
200 The disclosure of a crime represents anothertoposof ghost appearances (see the editor’s commentary in: Shakespeare,Hamlet[cf. note 191], p. 197).
201 See Hamlet’s first monologue (1.2.129–158), cf. for instance: “[. . .] O God! God! / How weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable / Seem to me all the uses of this world!”(1.2.132 ff.) and“O God, a beast that wants discourse of reason / Would have mourn’d longer―married with my uncle, / My father’s brother―but no more like my father / Than I to Hercules. Within a month, / Ere yet the salt of most unrighteous tears / Had left the flushing in her galled eyes, / She married―O most wicked speed! To post / With such dexterity to incestuous sheets! / It is not, nor it cannot come to good”(1.2.150–158); his conversation with Horatio:“HAM.: But what is your affair in Elsinore? / [. . .] / HOR.: My lord, I came to see your father’s funeral. / HAM.: I prithee do not mock me, fellow-student. / I think it was to see my mother’s wedding. / HOR.: Indeed, my lord, it follow’d hard upon. / HAM.: Thrift, thrift, Horatio. The funeral bak’d meats / Did coldly furnish forth the marriage tables. / Would I had met my dearest foe in