In the first place, he demands revenge. Is it too much to say that the mere fact of his demanding it is significant? 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. As one of Werder's earliest critics, Baumgart (Furness ii. 392-393), pointed out, the ghost says nothing of unmasking the king, of bringing him to the bar of justice: "It is revenge alone that the ghost calls for, and swift revenge that Hamlet promises." The greater part of the fine-spun argument of Werder is refuted by this simple consideration. And the chief test to be applied to Hamlet's conduct throughout the play is simply, with what degree of efficiency and fidelity does he devote himself to this sacred duty.
The next point in the ghost's command is, "Taint not thy mind." This has, I think, been commonly taken to mean that in pursuing his
