ances, I think, are of one and the same ghost, and they presented to the Elizabethan audience no such difference as is hinted at in the above subtle distinction. In fact, the Elizabethan ghost possessed the power not only of making himself visible or invisible at will, but also the power of rendering himself visible to some and invisible to others in the same room at the same time. In Act I. the ghost preferred to be seen by all the persons on the platform. At the later appearance he desired to remind Hamlet of his neglected duty, but did not wish to frighten the queen—hence he was visible to one and not to the other. This would be perfectly understood by the Elizabethan audience.
One could multiply the instances of ghost lore from the old plays ad infinitum. Ghosts figure in numerous plays by the older dramatists. From Locrine we learn that ghosts are subject to vexation from malicious spirits quite after the fashion of human beings; also that they are frightened by the baying of dogs. In Richard III. ghosts have the power of prophecy.
The generality of the belief of ghostly revelation introduced a quality, or rather, a condition, into Elizabethan crime which has sometimes been overlooked in criticising the relations between Hamlet and Claudius. To-day one who would
