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