It was so common as to constitute convention, and an early example is from "The Jew of Malta" (1589–90): Barabas the Jew lays a trap involving a collapsing floor but falls through it himself and lands in a cauldron he had prepared for stewing Turks. In "Ironic Reversal in "Hamlet"" (1966), Thomas F. Van Laan argues that even further than the general Elizabethan dramatic convention, in "Hamlet" it is "… central and substantive. It lies at the heart of the play's mystery; it constitutes, in fact, a portion of that mystery." A central critical question in "Hamlet" is the degree to which Hamlet hesitates and procrastinates, or whether he is coldly determining Claudius's guilt and waiting for an opportunity to exact his revenge. One pivotal point in this question is the "Hoist with his own petard" speech: does it indicate merely that Hamlet suspects the plot against him and means to be on guard, or does it indicate that he has already planned a counter to it? In 1870, George Henry Miles published "A Review of "Hamlet"" in which he argued that the pirates that attack Hamlet's ship on the way to England, and on which he escapes and returns to Denmark, was not a chance encounter but rather a counter-plot planned ahead of time by Hamlet himself. According to Miles', the "Hoist with his own petard" speech is indicative of premeditation from Hamlet: it outlines future events and these are what actually turn out to take place. He particularly rests his argument on the "When in one line two crafts directly meet" line, seeing in it a pun on "crafts" ("stratagems" and "ships") indicating that Hamlet knows in advance that the two ships will encounter each other on the journey. William Witherle Lawrence, writing in 1944, dismissed the idea: "Little time need be wasted on the absurd idea that the pirate attack was not accidental, but planned by Hamlet." Writing in 1975, Martin Stevens attempted to revive the idea, but most critics who have addressed the issue have sided with Lawrence. However, their main argument against the idea has been based on the idea that the meaning of the word "craft" to mean "ship" was not in use until 1671, based on the Oxford English Dictionary entry's earliest dating for the word. In 1999 David Farley-Hills published an article in "The Review of English Studies" demonstrating that the relevant meaning was attested as early as 1450.