mercy and justice of God, and the utter folly of hypocrisy in prayer, is followed by the speech of Hamlet, “Now might I do it pat,” &c., containing sentiments which Johnson desig nates as atrocious.
We are inclined to think that in writing both this speech and the King's soliloquy, Skakespeare had in mind the in tention of conveying instruction on the nature and office of prayer, rather than that of developing his plot. From the King's speech, we learn that the mercy of the sweet Heavens is absolutely unlimited, the two-fold force of prayer to bring aid and pardon, the condition of forgiveness namely a true repentance which does not shame justice by retaining the offence, and the worthlessness of word prayers. We know that the prayers of the King are hollow and unavailing, but so does not Hamlet, who is made to bear testimony to the all-sufficient efficacy of prayer, since it can save so damnable a villain as his uncle.
His father had been
“Cut off even in the blossom of his sin, Unhousel’d, disappointed, unanel’d.” “He took my father grossly, full of bread;
With all his crimes broad blown, as flush as May.” so that his audit with Heaven was likely to stand heavy with him.
Willain as his uncle was, “Bloody bawdy villain Remorseless, treacherous, lecherous, kindless villain "
still there was that in prayer which would fit and season him for his passage to the future life, and, if taken “in the purging of his soul,” why, “so he goes to Heaven.”
Both of these speeches seem to have been written to im press most forcibly the efficacy of sincere and prayerful repentance. It was to the religious sentiment that the revival of play acting was due, but when Shakespeare wrote, this had already ceased to be a common subject of theatrical representation, and (Measure for Measure perhaps excepted,)
