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 pa.s.sionate speech'; and, being requested to choose one, he refers to a speech he once heard the player declaim. This speech, he says, was never 'acted' or was acted only once; for the play pleased not the million. But he, and others whose opinion was of more importance than his, thought it an excellent play, well constructed, and composed with equal skill and temperance. One of these other judges commended it because it contained neither piquant indecencies nor affectations of phrase, but showed 'an honest method, as wholesome as sweet, and by very much more handsome than fine.'[260] In this play Hamlet 'chiefly loved' one speech; and he asks for a part of it.

Let the reader now refer to the pa.s.sage I have just summarised; let him consider its tone and manner; and let him ask himself if Hamlet can possibly be speaking ironically. I am sure he will answer No. And then let him observe what follows. The speech is declaimed. Polonius interrupting it with an objection to its length, Hamlet snubs him, bids the player proceed, and adds, 'He's for a jig or a tale of bawdry: or he sleeps.' 'He,' that is, 'shares the taste of the million for sallets in the lines to make the matter savoury, and is wearied by an honest method.'[261] Polonius later interrupts again, for he thinks the emotion of the player too absurd; but Hamlet respects it; and afterwards, when he is alone (and therefore can hardly be ironical), in contrasting this emotion with his own insensibility, he betrays no consciousness that there was anything unfitting in the speech that caused it.

So far I have chiefly followed Warburton, but there is an important point which seems not to have been observed. All Hamlet's praise of the speech is in the closest agreement with his conduct and words elsewhere. His later advice to the player (III. ii.) is on precisely the same lines. He is to play to the judicious, not to the crowd, whose opinion is worthless. He is to observe, like the author of Aeneas'

speech, the 'modesty' of nature. He must not tear a 'pa.s.sion'

to tatters, to split the ears of the incompetent, but in the very tempest of pa.s.sion is to keep a temperance and smoothness. The million, we gather from the first pa.s.sage, cares nothing for construction; and so, we learn in the second pa.s.sage, the barren spectators want to laugh at the clown instead of attending to some necessary question of the play.

Hamlet's hatred of exaggeration is marked in both pa.s.sages.

And so (as already pointed out, p. 133) in the play-scene, when his own lines are going to be delivered, he impatiently calls out to the actor to leave his d.a.m.nable faces and begin; and at the grave of Ophelia he is furious with what he thinks the exaggeration of Laertes, burlesques his language, and breaks off with the words,

Nay, an thou'lt mouth, I'll rant as well as thou.

Now if Hamlet's praise of the Aeneas and Dido play and speech is ironical, his later advice to the player must surely be ironical too: and who will maintain that? And if in the one pa.s.sage Hamlet is serious but Shakespeare ironical, then in the other pa.s.sage all those famous remarks about drama and acting, which have been cherished as Shakespeare's by all the world, express the opposite of Shakespeare's opinion: and who will maintain that? And if Hamlet and Shakespeare are both serious--and nothing else is credible--then, to Hamlet and Shakespeare, the speeches of Laertes and Hamlet at Ophelia's grave are rant, but the speech of Aeneas to Dido is not rant. Is it not evident that he meant it for an exalted narrative speech of 'pa.s.sion,' in a style which, though he may not have adopted it, he still approved and despised the million for not approving,--a speech to be delivered with temperance or modesty, but not too tamely neither? Is he not aiming here to do precisely what Marlowe aimed to do when he proposed to lead the audience

From jigging veins of rhyming mother-wits, And such conceits as clownage keeps in pay,

to 'stately' themes which beget 'high astounding terms'? And is it strange that, like Marlowe in _Tamburlaine_, he adopted a style marred in places by that which _we_ think bombast, but which the author meant to be more 'handsome than fine'?

2. If this is so, we can easily understand how it comes about that the speech of Aeneas contains lines which are unquestionably grand and free from any suspicion of bombast, and others which, though not free from that suspicion, are nevertheless highly poetic. To the first cla.s.s certainly belongs the pa.s.sage beginning, 'But as we often see.' To the second belongs the description of Pyrrhus, covered with blood that was

Baked and impasted with the parching streets, That lend a tyrannous and d.a.m.ned light To their lord's murder;

and again the picture of Pyrrhus standing like a tyrant in a picture, with his uplifted arm arrested in act to strike by the crash of the falling towers of Ilium. It is surely impossible to say that these lines are _merely_ absurd and not in the least grand; and with them I should join the pa.s.sage about Fortune's wheel, and the concluding lines.

But how can the insertion of these pa.s.sages possibly be explained on the hypothesis that Shakespeare meant the speech to be ridiculous?

3. 'Still,' it may be answered, 'Shakespeare _must_ have been conscious of the bombast in some of these pa.s.sages. How could he help seeing it?

And, if he saw it, he cannot have meant seriously to praise the speech.'

But why must he have seen it? Did Marlowe know when he wrote bombastically? Or Marston? Or Heywood? Does not Shakespeare elsewhere write bombast? The truth is that the two defects of style in the speech are the very defects we do find in his writings. When he wished to make his style exceptionally high and pa.s.sionate he always ran some risk of bombast. And he was even more p.r.o.ne to the fault which in this speech seems to me the more marked, a use of metaphors which sound to our ears 'conceited' or grotesque. To me at any rate the metaphors in 'now is he total gules' and 'mincing with his sword her husband's limbs' are more disturbing than any of the bombast. But, as regards this second defect, there are many places in Shakespeare worse than the speech of Aeneas; and, as regards the first, though in his undoubtedly genuine works there is no pa.s.sage so faulty, there is also no pa.s.sage of quite the same species (for his narrative poems do not aim at epic grandeur), and there are many pa.s.sages where bombast of the same kind, though not of the same degree, occurs.

Let the reader ask himself, for instance, how the following lines would strike him if he came on them for the first time out of their context:

Whip me, ye devils, From the possession of this heavenly sight!

Blow me about in winds! Roast me in sulphur!

Wash me in steep-down gulfs of liquid fire!

Are Pyrrhus's 'total gules' any worse than Duncan's 'silver skin laced with his golden blood,' or so bad as the chamberlains' daggers 'unmannerly breech'd with gore'?[262] If 'to bathe in reeking wounds,'

and 'spongy officers,' and even 'alarum'd by his sentinel the wolf, Whose howl's his watch,' and other such phrases in _Macbeth_, had occurred in the speech of Aeneas, we should certainly have been told that they were meant for burlesque. I open _Troilus and Cressida_ (because, like the speech of Aeneas, it has to do with the story of Troy), and I read, in a perfectly serious context (IV. v. 6 f.):

Thou, trumpet, there's thy purse.

Now crack thy lungs, and split thy brazen pipe: Blow, villain, till thy sphered bias cheek Outswell the colic of puff'd Aquilon: Come, stretch thy chest, and let thy eyes spout blood; Thou blow'st for Hector.

'Splendid!' one cries. Yes, but if you are told it is also bombastic, can you deny it? I read again (V. v. 7):

b.a.s.t.a.r.d Margarelon Hath Doreus prisoner, And stands colossus-wise, waving his beam, Upon the pashed corses of the kings.

Or, to turn to earlier but still undoubted works, Shakespeare wrote in _Romeo and Juliet_,

here will I remain With worms that are thy chamber-maids;

and in _King John_,

And pick strong matter of revolt and wrath Out of the b.l.o.o.d.y finger-ends of John;

and in _Lucrece_,

And, bubbling from her breast, it doth divide In two slow rivers, that the crimson blood Circles her body in on every side, Who, like a late-sack'd island, vastly stood Bare and unpeopled in this fearful flood.

Some of her blood still pure and red remain'd, And some look'd black, and that false Tarquin stain'd.

Is it so very unlikely that the poet who wrote thus might, aiming at a peculiarly heightened and pa.s.sionate style, write the speech of Aeneas?

4. But, pursuing this line of argument, we must go further. There is really scarcely one idea, and there is but little phraseology, in the speech that cannot be paralleled from Shakespeare's own works. He merely exaggerates a little here what he has done elsewhere. I will conclude this Note by showing that this is so as regards almost all the pa.s.sages most objected to, as well as some others. (1) 'The Hyrcanian beast' is Macbeth's 'Hyrcan tiger' (III. iv. 101), who also occurs in _3 Hen. VI._ I. iv. 155. (2) With 'total gules' Steevens compared _Timon_ IV. iii. 59 (an undoubtedly Shakespearean pa.s.sage),

With man's blood paint the ground, gules, gules.

(3) With 'baked and impasted' cf. _John_ III. iii. 42, 'If that surly spirit melancholy Had baked thy blood.' In the questionable _t.i.t. And._ V. ii. 201 we have, 'in that paste let their vile heads be baked' (a paste made of blood and bones, _ib._ 188), and in the undoubted _Richard II._ III. ii. 154 (quoted by Caldecott) Richard refers to the ground

Which serves as paste and cover to our bones.

(4) 'O'er-sized with coagulate gore' finds an exact parallel in the 'blood-siz'd field' of the _Two n.o.ble Kinsmen_, I. i. 99, a scene which, whether written by Shakespeare (as I fully believe) or by another poet, was certainly written in all seriousness. (5) 'With eyes like carbuncles' has been much ridiculed, but Milton (_P.L._ ix. 500) gives 'carbuncle eyes' to Satan turned into a serpent (Steevens), and why are they more outrageous than ruby lips and cheeks (_J.C._ III. i. 260, _Macb._ III. iv. 115, _Cym._ II. ii. 17)? (6) Priam falling with the mere wind of Pyrrhus's sword is paralleled, not only in _Dido Queen of Carthage_, but in _Tr. and Cr._ V. iii. 40 (Warburton). (7) With Pyrrhus standing like a painted tyrant cf. _Macb._ V. viii. 25 (Delius). (8) The forging of Mars's armour occurs again in _Tr. and Cr._ IV. v. 255, where Hector swears by the forge that st.i.thied Mars his helm, just as Hamlet himself alludes to Vulcan's st.i.thy (III. ii. 89). (9) The idea of 'strumpet Fortune' is common: _e.g._ _Macb._ I. ii. 15, 'Fortune ...

show'd like a rebel's wh.o.r.e.' (10) With the 'rant' about her wheel Warburton compares _Ant. and Cl._ IV. xv. 43, where Cleopatra would

rail so high That the false huswife Fortune break her wheel.

(11.) Pyrrhus minces with his sword Priam's limbs, and Timon (IV. iii.

122) bids Alcibiades 'mince' the babe without remorse.'[263]

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 259: It is impossible to tell whether Coleridge formed his view independently, or adopted it from Schlegel. For there is no record of his having expressed his opinion prior to the time of his reading Schlegel's _Lectures_; and, whatever he said to the contrary, his borrowings from Schlegel are demonstrable.]

[Footnote 260: Clark and Wright well compare Polonius' ant.i.thesis of 'rich, not gaudy': though I doubt if 'handsome' implies richness.]

[Footnote 261: Is it not possible that 'mobled queen,' to which Hamlet seems to object, and which Polonius praises, is meant for an example of the second fault of affected phraseology, from which the play was said to be free, and an instance of which therefore surprises Hamlet?]

[Footnote 262: The extravagance of these phrases is doubtless intentional (for Macbeth in using them is trying to act a part), but the _absurdity_ of the second can hardly be so.]

[Footnote 263: Steevens observes that Heywood uses the phrase 'guled with slaughter,' and I find in his _Iron Age_ various pa.s.sages indicating that he knew the speech of Aeneas (cf. p. 140 for another sign that he knew _Hamlet_). The two parts of the _Iron Age_ were published in 1632, but are said, in the preface to the Second, to have 'been long since writ.' I refer to the pages of vol. 3 of Pearson's _Heywood_ (1874). (1) p. 329, Troilus 'lyeth imbak'd In his cold blood.'

(2) p. 341, of Achilles' armour:

_Vulcan_ that wrought it out of gadds of Steele With his _Ciclopian_ hammers, never made Such noise upon his Anvile forging it, Than these my arm'd fists in _Ulisses_ wracke.

(3) p. 357, 'till _Hecub's_ reverent lockes Be gul'd in slaughter.' (4) p. 357, '_Scamander_ plaines Ore-spread with intrailes bak'd in blood and dust.' (5) p. 378, 'We'll rost them at the scorching flames of _Troy_.' (6) p. 379, 'tragicke slaughter, clad in gules and sables'

(cf.'sable arms' in the speech in _Hamlet_). (7) p. 384, 'these lockes, now knotted all, As bak't in blood.' Of these, all but (1) and (2) are in Part II. Part I. has many pa.s.sages which recall _Troilus and Cressida_. Mr. Fleay's speculation as to its date will be found in his _Chronicle History of the English Drama_, i. p. 285.

For the same writer's ingenious theory (which is of course incapable of proof) regarding the relation of the player's speech in _Hamlet_ to Marlowe and Nash's _Dido_, see Furness's Variorum _Hamlet_.]