FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97  
98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   >>   >|  
voted Hamlet mad, or worse, and would have shut him up out of harm's way. He could not see what to do, therefore, and so he waited. Then came the actors, and at once with admirable promptness he arranged for the play-scene, hoping that the King would betray his guilt to the whole court. Unfortunately the King did not. It is true that immediately afterwards Hamlet got his chance; for he found the King defenceless on his knees. But what Hamlet wanted was not a private revenge, to be followed by his own imprisonment or execution; it was public justice. So he spared the King; and, as he unluckily killed Polonius just afterwards, he had to consent to be despatched to England. But, on the voyage there, he discovered the King's commission, ordering the King of England to put him immediately to death; and, with this in his pocket, he made his way back to Denmark. For now, he saw, the proof of the King's attempt to murder him would procure belief also for the story of the murder of his father. His enemy, however, was too quick for him, and his public arraignment of that enemy was prevented by his own death. A theory like this sounds very plausible--so long as you do not remember the text. But no unsophisticated mind, fresh from the reading of _Hamlet_, will accept it; and, as soon as we begin to probe it, fatal objections arise in such numbers that I choose but a few, and indeed I think the first of them is enough. (_a_) From beginning to end of the play, Hamlet never makes the slightest reference to any external difficulty. How is it possible to explain this fact in conformity with the theory? For what conceivable reason should Shakespeare conceal from us so carefully the key to the problem? (_b_) Not only does Hamlet fail to allude to such difficulties, but he always assumes that he _can_ obey the Ghost,[34] and he once asserts this in so many words ('Sith I have cause and will and strength and means To do't,' IV. iv. 45). (_c_) Again, why does Shakespeare exhibit Laertes quite easily raising the people against the King? Why but to show how much more easily Hamlet, whom the people loved, could have done the same thing, if that was the plan he preferred? (_d_) Again, Hamlet did _not_ plan the play-scene in the hope that the King would betray his guilt to the court. He planned it, according to his own account, in order to convince _himself_ by the King's agitation that the Ghost had spoken the truth. This is perfectly
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97  
98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Hamlet

 

England

 

easily

 
people
 

immediately

 

theory

 

Shakespeare

 

public

 
murder
 

betray


conceal

 
allude
 

difficulties

 
assumes
 

carefully

 

problem

 

external

 
beginning
 

slightest

 

conformity


conceivable

 
reason
 

explain

 

reference

 

difficulty

 

exhibit

 
preferred
 

planned

 
spoken
 

perfectly


agitation

 

account

 

convince

 

strength

 
asserts
 
raising
 
Laertes
 

revenge

 

imprisonment

 

execution


private

 

wanted

 
chance
 

defenceless

 

justice

 

consent

 
despatched
 

voyage

 

Polonius

 

spared