Rudat states that his purpose is to compare Shakespeare's Hamlet with Nevile's translation of Seneca's Oedipus (published in 1581). His point is that conventional criticism (such as that of Brockbank) directed against reductionist psychoanalytic interpretation of Halmet is itself in error. It overlooks the possibility that the omnipresent oedipal allusions in Hamlet are there because Shakespeare was indeed alluding to Oedipus, by which Rudat means the version translated by Nevile. The possibility is compelling. Seneca's version features the ghost of Laius pursuing his own revenge against his son. Rudat points out that the father-ghost of Hamlet does not just reveal Claudius' incestuous crime but similarly torments Hamlet for his own unconscious triangular desires. The careful analysis provides substantial evidence that Shakespeare may indeed have meant to fuse the tragedy of the Oedipus theme with the suspense of the plot from the Historia Danica.