Page:The Journal of English and Germanic Philology Volume 18.djvu/14

8 that dumb-shows giving a more or less definite foretaste of the action to come were common enough in Shakspere's day, so that the use of one here in connection with the testing of the King's guilt would not have seemed so strange to the Globe Theatre audience as it does to us. As has several times been remarked, the dumb-show in 'Hamlet' is of a less usual type, in that it gives, not "an allegorical presentment," but a close representation of the spoken drama to follow. This departure from the usual order of such "shows" is not without significance. In any case, the pantomime must have been put there with a purpose, and we ought to try to divine Shakspere's intention. I cordially agree with Greg, who has discussed it at some length, that it "was actually designed for its present position, and was intentionally made to anticipate the representation of the spoken play. And no theory of 'Hamlet' is tolerable that does not face this fact and offer a rational explanation of it." But while Greg thinks it was intended to prove to the spectators of 'Hamlet' that Claudius did not murder his brother by pouring poison into his ears, since he could behold a representation of this unmoved, I believe that the dumb-show was inserted to show the Globe Theater audience (not the Danish court audience) that Claudius knew, before the spoken play, that Hamlet was fully informed of the circumstances of the murder. This increases greatly, as we shall see, the dramatic effectiveness of the scene.

Why do not the King and Queen take offence at all this? "Is it allowable to direct," as Halliwell, following earlier conjectures, suggested, "that the King and Queen should be whispering confidentially to each other during the dumb-show, and so escape a sight of