Izaki Metropoulos
Elizabethan Pneumatology and King Hamlet’s Specter
The character of the Ghost in William Shakespeare’s Hamlet is undoubtedly a reflection of Elizabethan superstition; shrouded in ambiguity, the nature of the Ghost obscurely amalgamates with both Catholic and Protestant archetypal representations. In the Elizabethan era, the existence of apparitions was as sparingly disputed as the nature of God, and many axioms of Pagan superstition remained part of the collective consciousness. Rationalizing these pagan beliefs, the Catholic Church asserted that ghosts were manifestations of lost souls who had to repent by means of Purgatory for earthly sins. Reformist eschatology was drastically different: it instead condemned the dead strictly to either Heaven or Hell (Agboigba 26-7). Hamlet mirrors this sentiment when he awaits his initial confrontation with the Ghost: “Be thou a spirit of health or a goblin damned” (1.4.40).
At first glance, it appears plausible that Shakespeare purposely presented the Ghost in ambiguity. In Brett E. Murphy’s perspective, the textual details of the Ghost do not particularly support any category of belief: “Shakespeare strategically weaves ambiguous religious references into the Ghost’s lines and into the lines about him” (122). As Murphy posits, scholars of Shakespeare who debate the etiology of the Ghost frequently fall into two camps; they either observe Hamlet through a Catholic viewpoint or, less frequently, a Protestant viewpoint (117). For example, numerous references in the text alluding to the afterlife are primary points of controversy. The root of the argument that the Ghost is condemned to Catholic Purgatory partially stems from the Ghost’s insistence that he is “doomed for a certain term to walk the night” (1.5.10). However, contemporary Protestant theologians, such as Ludwig Lavater, rejected the concept of Purgatory and insisted that demonic spirits can leave Hell to visit and tempt the living (Murphy 119). Accordingly, cognizant of these balkanized Elizabethan beliefs, scholars have debated the nature of the ambiguous specter in three distinct ways: the ghostly appearance is Prince Hamlet’s father manifest, a demonic entity, or a product of Hamlet’s insanity. However, Shakespeare’s “Ghost” is best interpreted through the Reformist paradigm, as an evil spirit luring Hamlet into mortal sin. Due to the striking number of similarities between the Ghost and Protestant perceptions of ghosts in the Elizabethan Era, many in Shakespeare’s time would have sufficient justification in perceiving the Ghost as a devil in human form. Hence, Hamlet’s Ghost is the deliberate and demonic antagonist behind the play’s tragic bloodbath. The Ghost’s apparent intentions, its obscurantism through double-entendres, and its association with contemporary superstition surrounding demons imply a hellish origin.
Of “Ghostes” and Temptations
In the Elizabethan era, Swiss-Reformed theologian Ludwig Lavater authored a myriad of publications that were reprinted and translated across Europe. In his popular text on demonology, Of Ghostes and Spirites Walking by Nyght, he asserts that demons were more likely to visit from Hell, driven by the intention of luring humans to Hell by encouraging murder or suicide (“Ghosts”). Likewise, the Ghost’s repeated and urgent wishes for revenge coincide with Lavater’s conceptualizations of demonic entities.
Additionally, the Ghost also serves as a force to imply the pernicious demonic influence of supernatural intervention; a pertinent example lies in Act 1, Scene 5. According to Ann Thompson and Neil Taylor, “the space underneath the stage was associated with Hell” (223). The Arden Shakespeare also references a notable parallel in the dumb-show within Thomas Sackville and Thomas Norton’s 1561 play, Gorboduc: “There came from under the stage, as through out of Hell, three furies” (223). Similarly, the Ghost, speaking from Hell, repeatedly urges Horatio and Marcellus to swear to keep Hamlet’s secret (1.5.149-179). As the Ghost encourages Horatio and Marcellus to “swear by [Hamlet’s] sword,” Hamlet recognizes the demonic utterances and subtly offers the Ghost words of praise: “Well said, old mole, canst work i’th’earth so fast? A worthy pioner!” (1.5.161-162). Hamlet’s particular use of “mole” and “pioner” easily may be overlooked as a possibly subliminal message. András G. Bernáth mentions that “[a]part from some experts, few are now aware that ‘olde Mole’ (1.5.161) and ‘Pioner’ (1.5.162) may be functioning here as popular nicknames for the devil” (83). To further illustrate religious imagery, Horatio and Marcellus swear on Hamlet’s sword, which was commonly used in place of a crucifix to swear an oath during the Elizabethan Era (Thompson and Taylor 223). As Hamlet proposes the oath, he inquires “Hic et ubique?” a Latin phrase meaning, “here and everywhere” (1.5.156). Traditionally, the notion of ubiquity was solely associated with either God or the devil (Thompson and Taylor 224). Therefore, within Hamlet’s historical context, this act implies an unshakeable contract to either a divine or satanic entity.
Furthermore, Hamlet’s inner dialogue mirrors Protestant presuppositions, as he considers the notion of the Ghost as a demonic spirit: “The spirit that I have seen / May be a de’il, and the de’il hath power / T’assume a pleasing shape (2.2.533-535). Hamlet heeds the Apostle Paul’s warnings in 2 Corinthians 11:13-14: “For such false apostles are deceitful workers and transform themselves into the Apostles of Christ… for Satan himself is transformed into an Angel of light.” As construed in the New Testament, Satan and his army of demons are capable of masquerading themselves as any figures, preying upon weakness and appealing to the credulous. Indeed, Hamlet hypothesizes that the Ghost may similarly intend to take on a familiar appearance in order to conquer Hamlet’s soul.
Initially, the Ghost appears to be the manifestation of Hamlet’s dead father, condemned to Catholic Purgatory. However, the apparent malicious qualities of his ghost are not consistent with a soul seeking redemption. To demonstrate, the qualities that distinguish the ghost of Hamlet’s father from other spirits in Elizabethan dramas are his starkly vindictive motivations and behaviors. Robert H. West notes, “I know of no Elizabethan ghost, in drama or out, that comes from Purgatory and yet makes this blood demand” (1107). The closest example is in The Golden Legend (c.1260), a popular collection of medieval ecclesiastical texts, where one ghost’s role is not solely as a “punitive agent,” but rather a messenger “to warn the offender that he will… be taken by Hell” (Semper qtd. in West 1107). Conversely, the Ghost is explicitly provocative: “Revenge his foul and most unnatural murder!” (1.5.25). The burdening obligations of his father’s ghost force the already grieving Hamlet into a significant moral dilemma, between apathy and potentially committing a grave sin in murder. The grieving Hamlet is readily susceptible to demonic influence; he harbors a brewing resentment against the world around him. Consumed by his unbound grief, he defies God and wishes that, “The Everlasting had not fixed his canon ‘gainst self-slaughter” (1.2.131-132). He no longer wants to participate in the sinful world around him and is repeatedly lost in his brooding. In Act 3, the Ghost returns to sharpen his dull appetite for revenge, to “whet” Prince Hamlet’s “almost blunted purpose” (3.4.108). In both appearances, he manifests as a tyrannical father who attempts to manipulate Hamlet into the role of a dutiful son. Eventually, the exploited Hamlet fulfills the blood demands of the Ghost. Then, Hamlet, under the influence of the Ghost, follows a timeline of moral deprivation; as a result, his inherited revenge scheme leads to the death of almost every major character. He later sacrifices his childhood friends Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in a perfunctory manner merely to tie up loose ends. The outcome of the revenge scheme is a reflection of the catalyst behind it: a pernicious entity harboring the intention to bring more souls down to Hell.
Devil’s Origins and Obfuscation
Although the ambiguity surrounding the Ghost’s origins engenders conflicting perspectives, closer inspection of the dialogue and context points to an underlying Protestant purview. When the Ghost initially manifests itself and proclaims, “I am thy father’s spirit, / Doomed for a certain term to walk the night” (1.5.9-10), at first, his message potentially implies a condemnation to Catholic purgatory. However, Lavater’s eschatology enables another interpretation of the origins of Hamlet’s Ghost. Contrary to Catholic presuppositions, Lavater contends that “spirits are able to leave Hell for a short term to come and visit the living” (Murphy 120). Therefore, within Lavater’s perspective, Hamlet’s Ghost is not doomed but rather permitted to “walk the night” in order to tempt the living. There are multiple instances in which Hamlet alludes to contemporary Protestant eschatology. Before his encounter with the Ghost, he prepares himself to face a spirit from either heaven or hell, ultimately excluding Purgatory: “Be thou a spirit of health or a goblin damned, / Bring with thee airs from heaven or blasts from hell, / Be thy intents wicked or charitable” (1.4.40-43). In Act 2, he proclaims that he is obligated to “revenge by heaven and hell[1]” (2.2.521). Similar to Hamlet’s dichotomy of “heaven and hell,” the word “purgatory” is not mentioned once in the play; it is merely implied when the Ghost states “for a term.” Conversely, the dead’s condemnation to Hell is also temporary, for in the Final Judgment, “death and hell delivered up the dead… and they were judged every man according to their works” (Revelations 20:13). Furthermore, the vengeful utterances of the Ghost are not consistent with either a good entity or a soul seeking purification through Catholic purgatory. To Lavater, one of the primary reasons for ghosts returning is “for the comfort and warning of the living, and partly to pray aide of them” (Murphy 118). However, in Hamlet, although the Ghost only provides a “warning of the living,” or a revelation of Claudius’ murderous act, the “comfort” that Lavater describes is completely lacking. The Ghost’s closing lines in Act 1, “Adieu, adieu, adieu, remember me,” complete his initial order: “So art thou to revenge when thou shalt hear” (1.5.8). Rather than Hamlet receiving comforting words to reduce his grief, he is instead burdened with images of his father’s condemnation to “sulphurous and tormenting flames” and the injunction to “revenge his foul and most unnatural murder” (1.5.25).
The Ghost’s unclear accounts of its origins point to deliberate obfuscation. The frightening depiction of the “eternal blazon” from which he arrived (1.5.21) is often interpreted as a condemnation to an “eternity” in the “blaze.” However, in Shakespeare’s time, the word “blazon” primarily meant a coat of arms. When preceded by the word “eternal,” Shakespeare allows the Ghost to proclaim his eternal royalty (Murphy 121). The word “eternal” evokes images of the divine right of kings and therefore enables the Ghost to appeal to Prince Hamlet’s idealism: to Hamlet, his father exists as an archetype, a ruler divinely appointed with an “eye like Mars to threaten and command” (3.4.53). Thus, Shakespeare portrays the specter’s “eternal blazon” as a multi-dimensional allusion—a subtle nod to a devil that exploits through wit and wordplay. The Ghost usurps Hamlet’s intellectual hegemony; he exploits Hamlet’s idealism while transforming him into an agent of revenge.
Further obscurity lies in the manner in which the Ghost speaks of Gertrude. His contradictory advice appears to prey upon Hamlet’s fractured state of mind. The specter primarily instills two notions within Hamlet. First, in his initial dialogue with Hamlet, he mockingly describes his “seeming-virtuous Queen” who lustfully succumbed to the “incestuous, adulterous beast” (1.5.42). Although the unjust usurpation of the throne should be Hamlet’s primary concern, he is instead more infuriated by the corruption of his mother (Javed 328). Even if Elsinore lies in the hands of a corrupt king, the words of the Ghost fuel the fires of Hamlet’s preexisting resentment against his mother; he views her as a foul opportunist and adulteress, leaping “with such dexterity to incestuous sheets!” (1.2.158). Conversely, despite the palpable resentment, the Ghost nonetheless portrays Gertrude as both victim and perpetrator and antithetically instructs Hamlet to spare her life: “[T]aint not thy mind, nor let thy soul contrive against thy mother aught” (1.5.84-85). Likewise, after the murder of Polonius in Act 3, in a sympathetic manner the Ghost subsequently instructs Prince Hamlet to “step between her and her fighting soul” (3.4.109). Indeed, the Ghost imposes a labyrinth of contradictions by appealing to Hamlet’s patriarchal ideal of how Gertrude should act, depriving Hamlet of his “sovereignty of reason” and drawing him, as Horatio foreshadows, “into madness” (1.4.73-74).
Time, Environment and Religious Symbolism
The moments in which the Ghost appears are exclusively during times traditionally associated with supernatural and demonic activity. Both appearances in Act 1 follow after the clock “lacks of twelve” (1.4.5). Furthermore, as Amanda Jane McKeever notes, “Protestant ghosts were trapped in a cyclical loop of time, in the sense that they reappeared at exactly the same time every day” (252). Additionally, in the Elizabethan Era, midnight hours were typically associated with witches and other evil entities. Henry Thew Stephenson notes that midnight hours were associated with “charmes often composed of a nonsensical succession of syllables, sentences, foul images… the magic numbers three, and three times three” (331-2). Hamlet is cognizant of Elizabethan superstition, describing midnight as “the very witching time of night / When…hell itself breathes out / Contagion to this world” (3.2.378-80). Similar to how Hamlet’s Ghost is only seen walking at night, Lavater insists that evil spirits typically associated themselves with darkness (Murphy 119).
Furthermore, a point of emphasis is the precise number of the Ghost’s appearances: three, twice in Act 1 and once in Act 3. Evidently, a mystery of King Hamlet’s ghost is his recurring use of triplets:
“List, list, O list,” (1.5.22)
The use of the word “foul” occurs thrice:
“Revenge his foul… murder most foul… but this most foul…” (1.5.25-28)
O horrible, O Horrible, most horrible!” (1.5.80)
“Adieu, adieu, adieu…” (1.5.91)
Similarly, in The Tragedy of Macbeth the number is prevalent: the three witches appear three times and also frequently reference the number three, reinforcing demonic imagery and exploiting Elizabethan superstition. For example, in Act 1 of Macbeth, the witches chant, “Thrice to thine and thrice to mine / And thrice again, to make up nine” (3.36-37). In Act 4, they repeat the famous “double, double toil and trouble” incantation three times (4.1.10). Acknowledging that both Hamlet and Macbeth are predominantly supernatural plays with demonic underpinnings, the Ghost’s recurring association with multiples of three has a hellish implication.
The Question of Hamlet’s Sanity
To contrast, within Lavater’s perspective it is possible that the presence of ghosts is a product of a melancholic or insane mind. Lavater acknowledges that, “Melancholike perfons, and mad men, imagine many things which in verie deed are not,” and “moreover [they] mistake things which procede of natural causes, to be… spirites” (9). Hamlet’s first soliloquy displays the symptomology of a melancholic mind: “O that this too too sallied flesh would melt, / Thaw and resolve itself into a dew, / …How weary, stale, and unprofitable / Seem to me all the uses of this world!” (1.2.129-134). However, although Hamlet could imagine his father due to his melancholy, Shakespeare’s inclusion of several other characters as witnesses solidifies the existence of the Ghost. For example, the level-headed Horatio, although initially skeptical, declares that “I heard and do in part believe it” (1.1.164). In Act 1, Marcellus questions whether the apparition has “appear’d again,” nullifying the possibility of a single, anomalous appearance. As mentioned before, Horatio initially dismisses the Ghost as an illusion and is subsequently proven wrong. His later depiction of an armor-clad king is unchallenged. Therefore, the protagonist’s alleged insanity and the presence of apparitions are mutually exclusive. Similarities again can be found in The Tragedy of Macbeth because, although Banquo and Macbeth both encounter the weird sisters, Macbeth is the only one arguably mad.
Fundamentally, debating the existence of the Ghost is an etiological debate that acknowledges that Shakespeare created a universe in which the supernatural reigns and demons and ghosts exist outside of a man’s psyche. As François P. Agboigba proclaims, Shakespeare “embodies his century. He does nothing but exploit the cultural patrimony of his country about beliefs and superstitions” (26). In Hamlet, God has authority over even the most trivial matters, and he has “special providence in the fall of a sparrow” (5.2.197-198). Therefore, the supernatural exists insofar as the characters shape their realities.
Conclusion
A common theme in plays involving demonic influence is inevitable self-alienation and detachment; these notions mentioned are apparent in Hamlet, Macbeth, and Christopher Marlowe’s Dr. Faustus. For example, before his death, Hamlet parrots the Calvinist dogma regarding a declaration of “Providence,” or divine intervention (5.2.197-198). Prince Hamlet, in some respect, absolves himself by believing he is merely a pawn of the supernatural. Macbeth is eventually consumed by intense cynicism and self-alienation, viewing himself as a “walking shadow” or “a poor player / That struts and frets his hour upon the stage…signifying nothing” (5.5.23-27). Dr. Faustus has the opportunity to repent in his final moments– but refuses it when he proclaims “for nothing can rescue me” (5.1.81). Parallels can be drawn between the protagonists of these tragic plays, such as encounters with pernicious and demonic entities; intense, brief bouts of control or illusions of power; and the realization of damnation preceded by debilitating cynicism.
Prince Hamlet is a character dominated by demonic influence. The devil assumes the form of his father, preys upon his melancholy and consuming idealism, and uses Hamlet to spur a bloodbath that envelopes every character– even the innocent– into sin. Given the nature of the tragedy and moral degeneracy, Hamlet’s Ghost is best interpreted through the Reformist paradigm because of its malevolent intent, association with darkness, and unmatched manipulative skill.
Works Cited
Agboigba, Francois P. “Significance of the Ghost Appearance in Hamlet.” International Journal of Humanities, Arts, Medicine and Sciences, Vol. 3, no 12. 2015. pp. 25-34. BEST Journals. https://www.academia.edu/21874181/SIGNIFICANCE_OF_THE_GHOST_APPEARANCE_IN_HAMLET.
Bernáth, András G. Hamlet, the Ghost and the Model Reader. Dissertation, Université Catholique de Louvain, Université Catholique de Louvain, 2013. https://doktori.bibl.u-szeged.hu/2315/1/Disszertacio%20Bernath.pdf.
Clark, Sandra, and Pamela Mason, ed. Macbeth by William Shakespeare. Bloomsbury, 2015.
The Geneva Bible: A Facsimile of the 1560 Edition. The Internet Archive, https://archive.org/details/TheGenevaBible1560.
“Of Ghosts and Spirits Walking by Night by Ludwig Lavater, 1572.” The British Library, 26 Jan. 2016, www.bl.uk/collection-items/of-ghosts-and-spirits-walking-by-night-by-ludwig-lavater-1572#.
Javed, Tabassum. “Perfect Idealism in Shakespeare’s Prince Hamlet.” The Dialogue, vol. 8, no.3, 30 Sept. 2013, pp. 327–333. https://www.qurtuba.edu.pk/thedialogue/The%20Dialogue/8_3/Dialogue_July_September2013_327-333.pdf.
Lavater, Ludwig, and Robert Harrison. “Of Walking Spirits.” Of Ghostes and Spirites. Thomas Creede, 1596, p. 53. EEBO-TCP, https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A05186.0001.001?view=toc.
Kastan, David Scott, ed. Doctor Faustus by Christopher Marlowe. Norton Critical Edition, Norton, 2007.
McKeever, Amanda Jane. The Ghost in Early Modern Protestant Culture: Shifting Perceptions of the Afterlife, 1450-1700. Dissertation, University of Sussex, 2010. https://sro.sussex.ac.uk/6903/1/McKeever%2C_Amanda_Jane.pdf.
Murphy, Brett E. “Sulphurous and Tormenting Flames: Understanding the Ghost in Hamlet.” Shakespeare in Southern Africa, vol. 26, no. 1, Jan. 2014, pp. 117–122. Sabinet, doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.4314/sisa.v26i1.7.
Stephenson, Henry Thew. The Elizabethan People. H. Holt and Co., 1912.
Thompson, Ann, and Neil Taylor, ed. Hamlet by William Shakespeare. Bloomsbury, 2006.
West, Robert H. “King Hamlet’s Ambiguous Ghost.” PMLA, vol. 70, no. 5, 1955, pp. 1107–JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/459890.
[1] My emphasis.