GHOST-BELIEF OF SHAKESPEARE.
By Alfred Roffe.

3

INTRODUCTION.

To disbelieve in the objective reality of spiritual appearances in general is the rule of the present age, and is conceived to be one of the marks and consequences of its intellectual progression; and therefore is it, we think, to be accounted for, that the above subject has never (at least, so far as is known) been treated of. Most of Shakespeare's admirers doubtless imagine that such an intellect as his could never have given credence to a ghost; nor are they very curious to ask, how it was, on artistic grounds, that the greatest poet should have produced what many think his greatest work, upon a supernatural theme-upon a theme whose basis is either nervous disease, credulity, or imposture; for into some one of these things are all ghosts now resolved.

If, however, the modern philosopher holds it to be part of his appreciation of Shakespeare that he could not have believed in a ghost, it is also certain that the ghost-believing student of the poet-philosopher will claim him as a teacher, on spiritual grounds, and will at least endeavour to show cause why he does so. Holding that ghost-belief, rightly understood, is most rational and salutary, he will deem that it must have had the sanction of such a thinker as Shakespeare.

If there is any one principle which ought to be particularly adhered to above all others in any speculations regarding Shakespeare's opinions, it should surely be, never to adduce a mere opinion, expressed by one of his characters, as his opinion. Of those who do so, it will probably be found that, to use Horatio's expression, they do but "botch the words up fit to their own thoughts." In the essay now made to shew that Shakespeare, apart from his feelings as a poet, believed, as a philosopher, in

A

supernatural realities, no support to the idea will be sought from such means. Of course, such attempts must be held as equally illegitimate on the opposite side; and it does, indeed, seem wonderful that any real admirers of Shakespeare could ever make such attempts, since they may know that it is very easy so to attribute anything, even the most contrary things, to the author; as witness, for example, the dialogue between Posthumus and the Jailer, in Cymbeline.

any

Nothing, indeed, is easier, than for an author merely to make his characters express opposite opinions, without, however, having fixed opinions or clear knowledge of his own upon the matter in hand; but it is quite another thing so to state the opinion as to involve his own knowledge. In attempting this, every one conversant with any given subject knows how instantaneously ignorance is detected where it exists.

We are told that law terms, sea terms, &c., &c., are used by Shakespeare in a manner that implies real knowledge of more than the mere existence of the words. So the ghost-believer looks at Shakespeare, not to see what opinions are expressed about ghosts, but to ascertain whether what is said by the characters, or done in the story, implies that the author possessed a philosophy of the subject.

Here perhaps our sceptical friends will smile at the mere idea of a ghost-believer's philosophy. Nevertheless, they must be assured that, if we are mad, we do, at all events, claim to have 66 a method in our madness." For instance, a ghost-believer would say that the story of Hamlet might be a hard fact, as much as the story of Tom Jones might be one. He believes, and can therefore think that Shakespeare might have believed: 1st, That ghosts do appear objectively; 2nd, That several persons at once may see a ghost; 3rd, That one person may, and another may not, as with Hamlet and the Queen; 4th, That the ends for which ghosts appear may be good, bad, or indifferent-may succeed or may fail, and that there is both fact and philosophy for all this. So much received, we may believe in Hamlet.

If we are told that the men who can believe all this can

believe anything, we say, No! For example, we could not believe in such a story as that of Frankenstein and the monster whom he is represented as, in some sense, creating. We should say that such a story, as a hard fact, was altogether contrary to the laws both of the spiritual and of the natural worlds, and we are quite certain that, so understood, the writer did not believe in the like of it. Such stories, therefore, we conceive to be essentially faulty art, whatever talents may be shown in their execution. In saying thus much, it may be well, in a passing way, to note, as a circumstance not forgotten, that there are writings in which

(unlike Hamlet) the images are professedly allegorical or fanciful, although this essay does not pretend to touch upon them. Such writings, however, would have their true and false, as well as those which are professedly literal.

THE MEANING OF GHOST-BELIEF.

We will now, then, proceed to state what is meant by ghostbelief, and what are its supposed grounds. In the first place, then, the Spiritualist conceives it to be a great truth, that every human being is truly and properly a ghost, or spirit, clad for a time in an earthly body. Whether Shakespeare thought this or not, he has very beautifully expressed the idea, in his Twelfth Night, when he makes Sebastian say

A spirit I am indeed;

But am in that dimension grossly clad,

Which from the womb I did participate.-Act V., Scene 1. Although it has been assumed previously that no opinion, expressed by one of the poet's characters, is to be quoted as being necessarily the poet's opinion also, yet any piece of wisdom or of thought, as distinguished from an opinion, may be called his wisdom, or his thought. Now, if it should be deemed that no wisdom is contained in a given passage, say the one just quoted, still the fact remains, that the thought of the Spiritualist has been so felicitously expressed-and that too in a place where Shakespeare might just as easily have made Sebastian answer more like a modern philosopher, by saying that he was "not a spirit, but a man of flesh and blood." The character of Sebastian is one which may well justify us in concluding that, of the two possible answers to his sister's exclamation

If spirits can assume both form and suit,

You come to fright us

Shakespeare would assign to him the one which he himself considered as the most sensible. The same thought which has been thus assigned to Sebastian is to be found likewise in Lorenzo's speech in The Merchant of Venice (Act V., Scene 1), where he discourses of the harmony of the spheres, and tells Jessica that—

Such harmony is in immortal souls;
But whilst this muddy vesture of decay
Doth grossly close it in, we cannot hear it.

In the next place-and this is a point of the highest importance-the Spiritualist believes that the ghost, or spirit, which is truly the man, is in a human form, as much as the body is; the body being in that form, simply because the ghost or soul is so. Men instinctively personify the virtues and the vices by human forms. Ask the painter to delineate Revenge and Mercy, and he will, as a matter of course, present you with a male and a A 2

female figure, in which Revenge and Mercy will be depicted, not merely in the expression of the heads, but in the whole formation of the body, and in the action of every part. If the artist be competent to paint what he feels, and every one else feels, all will know his meaning. That every ruling passion affects and shapes the whole body, is conceived by the Spiritualist to be an irresistible argument for the human form of the ghost or soul, and the fact has been expressed by Shakespeare in his usual masterly style; it should also be well noted, that he has assigned the expression of the fact to the wise and observing Ulysses. Speaking of Cressida, Ulysses says—

Fie, fie upon her!

There's a language in her eye, her cheek, her lip;
Nay, her foot speaks; her wanton spirits look out
At every joint and motive of her body.

Again, how common is it for us to say of some one who at first sight we thought ordinary, or even ugly, but afterwards find to be morally amiable, that we have lost sight of the bodily defect, and have become conscious of a pleasing, and, in, some instances, of even a beautiful expression-a thing inconceivable upon any ground but that of the human form of the ghost or soul; a form beautiful if the moral state be good, ugly if the moral state be bad-which latter fact is again wonderfully exemplified in the diabolical expressions we sometimes perceive in faces naturally handsome. In both instances, the beautiful and the ugly ghost or soul shines through the external, earthly countenance, and actually, when the good or evil feeling is at work, alters the very form of that external countenance, thus furnishing the complete demonstration that good and evil feelings are absolutely in forms, and such forms, of course, as they mould the external into; that is, into forms beautiful and angelic, or monstrous and diabolical.

These all-important facts Shakespeare has fully included in Desdemona's words

I saw Othello's visage in his mind.

The common expression that we see the mind in the countenance, of course conveys a truth, or rather a part of the truth, but Desdemona's words are fuller; for they give the fact that the mind has a visage of its own. This is to be taken as being an absolute truth, which is also the reason why it is eminently poetical. To say that anything can be really poetical and yet not true is a mere contradiction. Moreover, Shakespeare did not so express Desdemona's feelings by a merely accidental stroke; we must always think that what in the most of persons is simply felt, was, by Shakespeare, also most clearly seen.