'The lines, as
epic narrative, are superb.' It is true that the language is
'too poetical--the language of lyric vehemence and epic pomp,
and not of the drama'; but this is due to the fact that
Shakespeare had to distinguish the style of the speech from
that of his own dramatic dialogue.
In essentials I think that what Coleridge says[259] is true.
He goes too far, it seems to me, when he describes the
language of the speech as merely 'too poetical'; for with much
that is fine there is intermingled a good deal that, in epic
as in drama, must be called bombast. But I do not believe
Shakespeare meant it for bombast.
I will briefly put the arguments which point to this
conclusion. Warburton long ago stated some of them fully and
cogently, but he misinterpreted here and there, and some
arguments have to be added to his.
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
passionate speech'; and, being requested to choose one, he
refers to a speech he once heard the player declaim.
Pages:
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592