An Interpretation of Hamlet SIR, —May I object that in the
following cardinal points your review of Dr. Flatter's book, Hamlet's Father, published in your columns on September 9th, appears to me damagingly contrary to the facts? Your reviewer says : -
(1) "The author never explains his standpoint, and his Hamlet is sadly undocumented," whereas his standpoint that Gertrude is guilty in the murder of her husband, as well as of adultery and incest, is clearly stated as a problem (page vii) and argued as a thesis throughout the book, If (as some may hold) he has established this thesis, it offers an original and convincing reason for the appearance of the Ghost in the Closet Scene such as no critic that I know of has hitherto perceived.
Dr. Flatter quotes liberally from the 1623 Folio and from both Quartos ; he also cites all the most distinguished and relevant critics, from Nicholas Rowe to Professor Dover Wilson (frequently and even generally with disagreement), adds interesting accounts of fantastic "translations" and " interpretations " in French and German productions, touches here and there on the sources and makes cross-references to other plays of Shake- speare, particularly Macbeth. All this constitutes a documentation per- fectly sufficient for his main thesis, whether one agrees with it or not.
(2) " His book is a symposium of accredited theories." On the contrary ; it is a well-articulated budget of paradoxes. " He differs only in detail from Professor Dover Wilson." On the contrary ; he differs from him on almost every point, and where he differs he is, in my opinion, almost always in the right.
(3) " He returns, in effect, to the view that Hamlet's delay was no delay at all . . . but in simplifying Hamlet's complexities and ignoring his pretext-hunting . . (he) desiccates the most attractive part of the play." It is not necessarily the duty of every critic of the play to deal at great length with the character of Hamlet, and Dr. Flatter has sufficiently ex- plained that his main arguments concern Gertrude and the Ghost. He does, however, throw out the interestingly argued thesis that " Hamlet is always one jump ahead," and in doing so dispels some mists without dispelling mystery. He lays some emphasis (which, were he writing a book on the character rather than the play, could be much enlarged, for it is on a new and right line) on the conflicts between Revenge, Justice and Mercy. It is worth noticing, when we talk of " delay " in Hamlet's execution of justice, that the time between the first intimation of the murder of his father, given by that father in Act 1, Scene 5, and the final catastrophe is less than three months, measured by the calendar. Dr. Flatter says much (though there is yet more to say) to explain why this brief interval seemed to Hamlet so long.
May I add that although I do not feel convinced that all the points presented by Dr. Flatter are what Shakespeare intended, nevertheless his book could be made the basis of a very original and moving production that may well be closer to what an Elizabethan would have understood by it than many we have recently scen.—Yours sincerely,
Previous page
