There is every reason to suppose that Hamlet knew beforehand that the dumb-show was to form a part of the performance. He was familiar with the 'Murder of Gonzago' long before the players visited Elsinore; he was well acquainted with the plot, the scenes, and the names of the characters—so much so as to be able to act as a kind of Chorus during the performance of the play. And he knew the Italian source. That he should be ignorant of the dumb-show is unthinkable. Moreover, he had especially prepared the play for the evening's performance. Had it interfered with his plans, he would surely have sacrificed it.
Greg thinks that the dumb-show was probably a surprise to Hamlet,[1] and that it must have interfered with his plans, because "the plot has been prematurely divulged, and the King has shown no symptoms of alarm. " But has the plot been prematurely divulged? We cannot see into Hamlet's mind, and his remark about "miching mallecho" is too vague to give a hint. We do know that after observing the moving power of words in the player's speech about Hecuba, Hamlet placed his chief reliance upon the speech to be inserted in the play—a fact which he mentions several times. But it is perfectly possible that he considered that the dumb-show would also aid his plot, since this would give two shots at Claudius, the one sudden, the other a more slowly developed emotional attack. As Dowden suggests,[2] "Hamlet would thus have a double opportunity of catching the conscience of the King." On the other hand, it is evident that the dumb-show, in failing to produce signs of guilt in the King, really hinders Hamlet's main plan, in that it puts the King on his guard, and renders him less likely to "blench" at what was to come. Furthermore, Hamlet's
- ↑ His argument at this point is very much a piece of special pleading. "[Hamlet's] comment on the [dumb-]show affords no indication that it [the show] was part of his plan. 'What means this, my lord?' asks Ophelia. 'Marry,' returns Hamlet, 'this is miching mallecho; it means mischief.' The reply is intentionally cryptic; if anything it suggests that the show was a surprise."—Does it? I cannot see the slightest reason for such a conclusion. His remark certainly affords no indication that the show was a part of his plan, but why should it? Why should Hamlet divulge his game to Ophelia, whom he has found he cannot trust, and before the whole court? We cannot, in any case, draw safe conclusions from Hamlet's "mad" speeches. But Greg goes on to argue that "if the dumb-show was unexpected on Hamlet's part, it must have been singularly unwelcome," etc. (loc. cit., p. 404).
- ↑ loc. cit., p. 116.
