William Strunk, Jr.

Summary

William Strunk, Jr. The Importance of The Ghost in Hamlet (1910)

Suppose the ghost had merely told Hamlet of the murder, what would have happened? Again, the ghost does not demand immediate revenge, nor does he specify the form. The act may be pursued as Hamlet thinks best. And to Shakespeare's audiences there could be no possible doubt as to the meaning of "revenge." Violent death, at Hamlet's hands, no more and no less, is what the ghost demands. The ingenious theory of Werder, according to which Hamlet's duty was to defer vengeance until he was in a position to convince all Denmark that it was righteously taken, finds no support in the ghost's words.
Source: Wikisource

William Strunk, Jr. The Importance of The Ghost in Hamlet (1910)

My aim has been to emphasize the importance of the words and actions of the ghost as the necessary point of departure for all interpretation of the play, and within due limits, as the final authority in such interpretation. An examination of these words and actions enables us in large measure to discriminate between the conclusions derived from other data. We are enabled to conclude with certainty that Hamlet essentially is not in madness, but mad in craft; that he is not temperamentally unfit for the task assigned him, but a fit instrument of revenge
Source: Wikisource

William Strunk, Jr. The Importance of The Ghost in Hamlet (1910)

The ghost, therefore, may be regarded, within reasonable limitations, as sharing this infallibility. He has passed beyond the possibility of mortal errors of judgement; he has sources of knowledge in which mortals have no part. He returns to earth from purgatory, not from heaven, for that would be incongruous with his demand for revenge; not from hell, for that would be incompatible with Hamlet's duty to obey him.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature