Shakspere and Montaigne An Endeavour to Explain the Tendency of 'Hamlet' from Allusions in Contemporary Works — Background and Themes

The Structure of the Argument

Feis builds his case in six chapters, moving from the general to the specific. After an introduction that surveys the critical confusion surrounding Hamlet, he traces the development of English drama as a medium for political and religious controversy, then examines Florio's translation of Montaigne. Only in the fourth chapter does he directly analyze Hamlet, followed by a detailed account of the Ben Jonson–Dekker dispute and its possible echoes in Shakespeare's play. The final chapter treats three plays by Jonson, Chapman, Marston, and Dekker as further evidence of the intellectual milieu. This structure suggests that Feis considers the external context—especially the clash between Humanist and orthodox positions—as essential to understanding Hamlet's philosophical core.

Recurring Images of Struggle and Restraint

Throughout the excerpts, Feis returns to the image of a gifted individual whose potential is thwarted by fear or superstition. He describes Hamlet as 'a gifted and noble man whose life becomes a scourge for him and his surroundings, because he is not guided by manly courage and conscience, but by superstitious notions and formulas.' This phrasing echoes his earlier lament that 'the life of the most gifted remains fruitless if, through fear of what may befall us in a future world, we cravenly shrink back from following the dictates of our reason.' The repetition of 'gifted' and the contrast between courage and fear form a leitmotif. Feis also highlights the tension between 'Reason' and 'Dogma,' 'Nature' and 'Tradition,' 'Self-Reliance' and 'Submission'—binary oppositions that structure his interpretation of the play's central conflict.

Movement Between Texts and Contexts

Feis moves nimbly between Hamlet, Montaigne's essays, and contemporary plays, often linking them through specific phrases or ideas. For instance, he notes that Hamlet's modes of asseveration—'Angels and ministers of grace,' 'God's love,' 'By St. Patrick'—reflect a blend of Catholic and Protestant oaths, which he connects to Montaigne's skepticism about religious certainty. He also points to the absence of certain passages in the 1603 quarto, such as Laertes's precepts to Ophelia, as evidence of revision. By juxtaposing the quarto and folio texts, Feis suggests that Shakespeare deliberately refined his philosophical argument. The movement between textual variants, contemporary allusions, and Montaigne's essays gives the study a layered, comparative texture.

The Role of the Ghost and the Reformation Context

Feis places Hamlet at 'the most critical epoch of mankind—the time of the Reformation.' He argues that the ghost is not merely a dramatic device but a symbol of the superstitious 'formulas' that inhibit action. In his reading, Hamlet's hesitation stems from a conflict between Humanist reason, learned at Wittenberg, and the dogmatic fear of damnation. Feis writes that 'no goblin damned' should be allowed to cross the path of action, and he insists that 'the mandate and commission for the task of our life' must come from reason and conscience, not from 'any mysterious messenger.' This interpretation aligns Hamlet with the broader Humanist project of self-reliance, and it frames the play as a warning against allowing religious fear to paralyze moral agency.

Feis's study is best approached as a historical argument rather than a literary analysis. Readers interested in the intellectual background of Hamlet will find his connections to Montaigne and the Jonson–Dekker quarrel suggestive, though the evidence is often circumstantial. The book rewards those who read it alongside the plays and essays it cites, as Feis expects familiarity with the texts he discusses. His central claim—that Hamlet dramatizes the struggle between Humanist reason and dogmatic faith—remains a provocative lens for interpreting the play's enduring power.

Sitting with Feis’s quiet argument about Hamlet’s humanist core, I kept thinking of an old, dog-eared copy of Morality as a Religion An exposition of some first principles — Themes and Context. Both feel like whispers against certainty. They turn on the same tender instinct—that faith might live better outside its stone walls. No thunder, just a shared, careful sigh for a warmer ethic.