Lawrence <r This fits well with Hamlet's request before the play that Horatio shall narrowly observe the King, and see if "his occulted guilt do not itself unkennel in one speech." But I do not believe that Shakspere felt it necessary for his audience to identify the inserted speech, since this evidence comes after the play. No dramatic purpose would be served by such knowledge, as far as the play- scene itself is concerned. On the other hand, the interest is height- ened if the audience is kept wondering which the fatal speech is to be, and watching, like Horatio, who has not been told which speech it is, for the king's self-betrayal. 10 It is not a matter of consequence, and perhaps cannot be deter- mined, whether Hamlet's preparations also involved alteration of the action. Shakspere twice warns the audience through the mouth of Hamlet that the action of the play is to be strikingly like that of the murder. When Hamlet is elaborating his plan, some little time later than his first avowal of intention to make use of the 'Murder of Gonzago,' and insert a speech, he muses, I'll have these players Play something like the murder of my father. And still later, in his words to Horatio, There is a play tonight before the king; One scene of it comes near the circumstance Which I have told thee of my father's death. So no strain is imposed upon the credulity of the audience, after all this preparation, to find the action of the play and of the dumb- show so like the murder. In point of fact, playgoers never are disturbed by it. And unless they are gimlet-eyed critics, they will not stop to inquire where the "dozen or sixteen lines" are, or whether Hamlet modified the action, inserting, let us say, the detail 10 Greg (p. 402, note) thinks it inadmissible to regard the Poisoner's speech as the insertion, "for that speech is clearly an integral part of the play, and does not particularly point at Claudius." I should like to know how Mr. Greg knows that the Poisoner's speech is an integral part of the play. Are we to be- lieve that Hamlet's dozen or sixteen lines would have betrayed themselves by their style? As regards its not pointing particularly at Claudius, I am equally at a loss. It does everything but call him by name. For an explanation of the rather commonplace character of the lines, in contrast to the effect they produce , see below, p. 19. Bradley, 'Shakespearean Tragedy,' p. 133, has no doubt that the Poisoner's
speech is the inserted lines.
