FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   324   325   326   327   328   329   330   331   332   333   334   335   336   337   338   339   340   341   342   343   344   345   346   347   348  
349   350   351   352   353   354   355   356   357   358   359   360   361   362   363   364   365   366   367   368   369   370   371   372   373   >>   >|  
_. Then, on shifting his ground, he makes them swear never to speak of what they have _heard_. Then, moving again, he makes them swear that, if he should think fit to play the antic, they will give no sign of knowing aught of him. The oath is now complete; and, when the Ghost commands them to swear the last time, Hamlet suddenly becomes perfectly serious and bids it rest. [In Fletcher's _Woman's Prize_, V. iii., a passage pointed out to me by Mr. C.J. Wilkinson, a man taking an oath shifts his ground.] NOTE F. THE PLAYER'S SPEECH IN _HAMLET_. There are two extreme views about this speech. According to one, Shakespeare quoted it from some play, or composed it for the occasion, simply and solely in order to ridicule, through it, the bombastic style of dramatists contemporary with himself or slightly older; just as he ridicules in _2 Henry IV._ Tamburlaine's rant about the kings who draw his chariot, or puts fragments of similar bombast into the mouth of Pistol. According to Coleridge, on the other hand, this idea is 'below criticism.' No sort of ridicule was intended. 'The lines, as epic narrative, are superb.' It is true that the language is 'too poetical--the language of lyric vehemence and epic pomp, and not of the drama'; but this is due to the fact that Shakespeare had to distinguish the style of the speech from that of his own dramatic dialogue. In essentials I think that what Coleridge says[259] is true. He goes too far, it seems to me, when he describes the language of the speech as merely 'too poetical'; for with much that is fine there is intermingled a good deal that, in epic as in drama, must be called bombast. But I do not believe Shakespeare meant it for bombast. I will briefly put the arguments which point to this conclusion. Warburton long ago stated some of them fully and cogently, but he misinterpreted here and there, and some arguments have to be added to his. 1. If the speech was meant to be ridiculous, it follows either that Hamlet in praising it spoke ironically, or that Shakespeare, in making Hamlet praise it sincerely, himself wrote ironically. And both these consequences are almost incredible. Let us see what Hamlet says. He asks the player to recite 'a passionate
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   324   325   326   327   328   329   330   331   332   333   334   335   336   337   338   339   340   341   342   343   344   345   346   347   348  
349   350   351   352   353   354   355   356   357   358   359   360   361   362   363   364   365   366   367   368   369   370   371   372   373   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Shakespeare

 

Hamlet

 
speech
 

language

 
bombast
 

ridicule

 
ground
 

poetical

 
arguments
 

According


Coleridge

 
ironically
 

vehemence

 
narrative
 
superb
 

intended

 

criticism

 

dramatic

 

dialogue

 

distinguish


essentials
 

making

 
praise
 
sincerely
 

praising

 
ridiculous
 

player

 

recite

 

passionate

 
consequences

incredible
 

called

 
intermingled
 

describes

 

briefly

 
stated
 

cogently

 

misinterpreted

 

Warburton

 

conclusion


slightly

 

Fletcher

 

perfectly

 

passage

 

pointed

 
Wilkinson
 

taking

 

suddenly

 

moving

 
shifting