intellect--it was too subtle and supreme, but he concealed all else.
Yet Hamlet could not escape his Destiny, by curbing his instincts. The
initiative of his soul worked against the duty he had to perform. And
it was through his "simple, tender, good," thoughts of, and love for
his father that he kept to his task, and could not "withstand his
complicated destiny." Maeterlinck is surely wrong, too, in saying
Hamlet was moved by a fanatical impulse to revenge for he spent his
life in weighing _pros_, and _cons_, and in combating the idea that he
must fulfil the duty laid upon him. So unfanatical was he that he even
doubted at times whether the apparition was his father's spirit. But
supposing there had been "one brave soul to cry out the truth"
(Maeterlinck does not say what the truth was); we will suppose that
Hamlet had resolved to forgive fully and generously, would he, then,
have gained the fortitude and serenity, which Maeterlinck evidently
means by inner happiness? Not if he kept a shred of his inner nature.
Hamlet "saw no course clear enough to satisfy his understanding."
Could such a nature be serene? But was it unwise? Judicious, wise, and
witty when at ease; he could not escape the dark moods that made him
indifferent to the visible world.

"If OEdipus had had the inner refuge of a Marcus Aurelius, what could
Destiny have done to him?" asks Maeterlinck. Fate we suppose would
have had no power over him, if he had calmly reasoned over the
terrible circumstances in which he found himself involved, and if he
preserved his equanimity to the end, as M. Aurelius would have done.
Does this prove more than that the two men may have had very different
temperaments? But, individuality cannot be made to agree with theory,
and can be tabulated in no _science_ book of humanity. When
Maeterlinck says, "Hamlet's ignorance puts the seal on his
unhappiness," we may well ask ignorance of what? Was it ignorance of