Page:The Journal of English and Germanic Philology Volume 18.djvu/28

 22 The Play Scene in "Hamlet " fication of the "dozen or sixteen lines" inserted in the 'Murder of Gonzago' is impossible, and it does not appear that Shakspere meant the audience to identify them. If the attempt must be made, the probabilities are in favor of the speech of Lucianus the Poisoner. The play is a test of the Queen's guilt as well as of the King's; Hamlet probably gathers false conclusions from her de- meanor. The King does not stop the play, because to do so would be a tacit confession of guilt. His agitation lest the words of Ham- let, who is now in possession of his secret, or the words of the play itself, should reveal to the court the true facts of the murder, to- gether with his horror at seeing his crime literally reenacted, cause him to " blench," whereupon Hamlet breaks in with words and action so violent that the King has adequate excuse for stopping the play and leaving the hall. The court does not suspect the guilt of Claudius, for they have not been occupied, like Hamlet and Hora- tio, in watching his face, but they have all heard the wild outbursts of Hamlet, which are accepted as sufficient reason for stopping the performance. The King's determination to get rid of Hamlet thus gains added justification; it appears hazardous to allow him to re- main longer at the court. The analysis offered in the preceding pages is entirely in keeping with what may be called the traditional view of the play, as ex- pressed by the best critics of the present day. The lover of 'Ham- let' is not asked to accept a new and startling hypothesis which will totally change the significance of the piece; he is invited rather to consider Shakspere's art in the management of detail. Surely the main lines of the action are simple and definite, and have been accepted as such by generations of playgoers. Shakspere did not obscure the story so that it has been misunderstood for three hun- dred years. There is every indication, however, that he labored over 'Hamlet' more than was his wont, spending loving care on the nice adjustment of the smaller issues. We have endeavored to perceive his purpose in some of these subtler questions. Such minute study, surely, should not have the effect of blunting the poignancy of the tragedy or of diminishing its imaginative appeal. On the contrary, it should leave us with a new admiration for Shakspere's technical accomplishment, and a more sane and discriminating enjoyment of his greatest masterpiece. WILLIAM WITHERLE LAWRENCE Columbia University.