safe. Granville‑Barker observes that the play's glancing attack upon the Queen together with Ｈａｍ!et's That's wormwood, wormwood！ ≒ encourages the King's growing certitude that here is a trap laid for him, no mere coincidence."''* But, if Claudius has such a growing certitude. why is it that he asks those silly questions ？ His questions are quite unbecoming to ａ man who is on the alert, fully conscious of the presence of the trap laid for him. The fact is, therefore, that Claudius has been deceived and, consequently, is now more and more nearing to the. fatal point of the trap without ever noticing it.
ｊ Another negative aspect that deceives Claudius is the tonal or stylistic feature of the second stage. The long conversation between the Player King and Queen, which constitutes the main body of the second stage, moves slowly and monotonously with every action or excitement suppressed. It's true, audience's attention as well as Claudius' may be arrested for ａ moment by the Player Queen's
In second husband let me be accurst ！
None wed the second but who kill'd the first. . . . The instances that second marriage move
Are base respects of thrift, but none of love : Ａ second time l kill my husband dead, When second husband kisses me in bed.
But the dark hint of killing coupled with the allusion t０ "second husband is wide of the mark in reference to the true fact (for it is Claudius and not Gertrude herself that killed her husband), and we find, on reflection, that the whole expression belongs to mere rhetoric. There is a deliberate suppression of excitement throughout the whole conversation.
And the style of the verse, too, is rigid and formal even to the point of dullness. At least, it is lacking in the usual brilliance and vitality of Shakespeare's dramatic poetry.
０ｆ course, this dullness is ａ necessary instrumenl for the author because he must give some impression that it is, above all, an old play acted by ａ travelling stage company in the Court of Denmark. The play is a play‑within‑a‑play and as such it cannot be
homogeneous with the Ｔｅａ＼Ｈａｍｌｅt. In fact, it is this long conversation that constitutes the substantial part of the interlude and, therefore, makes us feel that a play has been acted before the King. Moreover, the dullness itself does not make this conversation less interesting to the audience in the theatre, because this conversation contains an important topic which is the echo or reminiscence of Hamlet's first soliloquy and which
also is to provide Hamlet's accusation in the Closet Scene with its central theme (i. e., the theme of Frailty, thy name is woman ）･
Ｂｕt√ here within the context of the Play Scene, the monotony or dullness of the conversation is, first of all, part of the proper function of the second stage. It is quite in keeping with the function of patient waiting assigned to this stage of the Mouse‑trap.
The whole conversation makes its way with patience, suppressing excitement as much as possible, so as to prepare for the final snapping of the trap. It is ａ long and patient process of identification, which gradually reduces and resolves the distance or the gap which originally existed in Claudius' mentality between fiction and reality, between optimism and
86 Res. Rep. Kochi Univ. Vol. 29、 Hum.
suspicion, or between ignorance and realization. On!ｙ after that, the whole fact can be revealed with an unequivocal clarity, just as it was the case with the regicide episode in Ｍａｃｂｅth.
Themoment of revelation
After these careful precautions, Claudius is invited to see and hear Lucianus' action and speech. It is quite easy to guess how great his suprise will be. at that moment. During this final stage of the Mouse‑trap, Hamlet repeatedly tries to emphasizet he fictional nature of the players' play − fictional in the sense that the events in the play have nothing to do with the actual Danish Court :
(1) this play is the image of ａ murder done in Vienna : Gonzago is the Duke's name, his wife Baptista : you shall see anon ; 'tis a knavish piece of work : but what ｏ that ？
(2) This is one Lucianus nephew to the King. [' the King」
(3) his name's Gonzago : the story is extant and writ in choice Italian.
In all these Hamlet seems to be trying to counteract the fiction‑reality identification established so carefully in the second stage. And this, again, is ａ necessary precaution because here Claudius must be encouraged to watch the critica［scene to the end of it.
But, this time, even the assurance of the play's being fiction does not serve as a flattering unction to Claudius' growing fear. On the contrary, the scene becomes the most horrible one for him just because of its fictional character･. Once before Hamlet has wondered at the strange power of the flctiona】mode of art:
Is it not monstrous that this player here, But in a fiction, in a dream of passion, Could force his soul so to his whole conceit.
That from her working, all his visage wann'd ； Tears in his eyes, distraction in ゛saspect, A broken voice, and his whole function suiting With forms, to his conceit ？ and all for nothing ？
Actually, however, it is not ａ monstrous but ａ natural, inevitable thing to happen. It belongs to the peculiar power of art, for art, just because of its fictional nature, can become the mirror to show Virtue her own feature, Scorn her own image, and the very age and body of the time, his form and pressure, and can do it far better than the things themselves. For this reason, it is not unlikely that へ
guiltycreatures sitting at ａ play
I 11゛
Have by the very cunning of the scene, Been struck so to the soul, that presently They have proclai ｢d their malefactions
In fact, the scene of Lucianus is for Claudius the firstand the only true image of his
Scene in Haml。i'(Part two) (t. Obayashi)
87own crime that he can ever gaze upon.･ft is important to note that the scene reproduces not only the deed b叫also the psychology of the murderer:
Thoughts black, hands apt, drugs fit, and time agreeing : Confederate season, else no creature seeing ；
Thou mixture rank, of midnight weeds collected, With Hecate's ban thrice blasted, thrice infected, Thy natural magic and dire property。0h
wholesome life usurp immediately.
Indeed, here is presented the true image of the thrice damned soul of the murderer.
Robert Speaight says that when Lucianus pours the poison into the ear of the Player King, the memory of that sultry afternoon ｉｎ theバjrchard is too much for him 【i.e., C】audius］，
and he interrupts the performance. 75 But this explanation oversimplifies the matter a little too much. It is no mere reminiscence but the first true realization of the wickedness of his own crime that is now forced upon Claudius. Such a genuine self‑knowledge is a rare thing in real' life (though the pricks of conscience are sometimes possible even for this impudent hypocrite),"whereas, here in the fictional world of the players' play, Claudius is for the first time struck by the wickedness of his deed, which he could not realize even when he was in the very act ･of committing it. Indeed, here it is that art can come into full force and achieve such ａ monstrous effect as Hamlet wondered at so admiringly.
Thus, the realization of his own wickedness is the first obvious aspect of Claudius' recognition he gets from the scene of the poisoning. And its impact upon Claudius is to be seen in its fullness in his later speech as he tries to pray in vain (Act Ill iii. 46 ff.,
O, my offence is rank, it smells to heaven. . . ). There, we find him quite overwhelmed by the wickedness of his own crime. W.W.Robson suggests that Claudius might have referred here also to his own realization that Hamlet knew his secretﾌﾞ 77 But the fact is simply that Claudius is too overwhelmed by his own wickedness to be aware of any other matter for the moment. And this is quite natural, because the scene he witnessed was the first occasion for him to recognize his real self. The representation of the crime as in ａ
mirror had such a great effect upon him. Indeed, this alone would have been more than enough to confound him.
But there is another, more tremendous aspect involved in the final snapping of the trap.
While astounded at the vivid representation of his own crime, Claudius also cannot help realizing that his occulted guilt is evidently known to someone else (and that no one else
but Hamlet) in some miraculous way that he cannot understand. He must feel somehow that such an exact coincidence cannot be accidental. Moreover, Hamlet's comments during the presentation of this scene (that is, his comments during the third stage which we already examined) seem to point to this incredible fact in some unmistakable manner.
This second aspect seems to be Shakespeare's deliberate addition to the original material.
The first aspect (i. e., Claudius' being struck by his own image as in ａ mirror) is to be found already in Ｕｒ‑Ｈａｍｌｅt ',both ＤｅｒＢｅｓけａμｅＢｒiｔｄｅｒｍｏｒｄ and the First Quarto have the speech of Claudius kneeling in prayer." But the second aspect (i. e., Claudius' suprise at finding that Hamlet knows his occulted guilt) is obviously not. In ￡）ｅｒＢｅｓtｒａflｅ
88 Res. Rep. Kochi Univ., Vol. 2 Hum.
Bｒｕｄｅｒｍｏｒｄ,we have only one reference in this connection, and that is Corambus' The actors will get ａ poor reward, for their acting has sore displeased the King."
This, however, is beside the mark because Corambus lays the blame solely on the players.
The First Quarto comes nearer to our text, but the reference is scanty. All that we have is the Queen's "丿
Hamlet, thou hast thy father much offendec!.８０
Compared with these, our version of Hamlet tells us more about Hamlet's behaviour and Claudius' response, that is to say, about the second aspect mentioned above :
(1)ＧＵＩＬＤＥＮＳＴＥＲＮ: The King, sir. ，‑
HAMLET : Ay sir, what of him ？
GUILDENSTERN : In his retirement, marvellous distemper'd.
(2)ＲＯＳＥＮＣＲＡＮＴＺ: Then thus she says : . your behaviour hath struck her into amazement, and admiration.
(3)ＰＯＬＯＮＩＵＳ: Tell him his pranks have been too broad to bear with And that your Grace has screen'd, and stood between
Much heat. and him.
(4) QUEEN : Hamlet, thou hast thy father much offended･
And we find ａ more direct and more telling reference in Claudius' (5)I like him not, nor stands it safe with us.
Ｔ０ let his madness range.
０ｆ course, we cannot overlook an essential gap which exists between Claudius' recognition and the Court's. All that is entertained by the Court (including Gertrude) is the vague impression that Hamlet has done something very offensive to the King. They suspect no further. Nor do we, ０ｎ our part, need to know more about their response, because their response as such simply does not interest USj･What really interests us is, again, the response of Claudius, and we find it described suggestively in those remarks by other characters (i. e., (l) to (4) listed above). They point to one fact； that Hamlet's behaviour has somehow offended the King. And the nature of that offence can be inferred from Caludius' own speech (i. e., (5) above). Evidently, what constitutes the offence is nothing but the King's tremendous surprise and fear as he realizes that his secret guilt is known to Hamlet in some mysterious way. ，
Thus, the final revelation, or the final snapping of the trap, consists of the two items that Clauc!ius' recognition amounts to : .‑ ・
(1) the vivid representation of his crime as in ａ mirror･.
(2) the realization that his secret is known to Hamlet.
And it is important to note that these two items do not belong to the usual, intellectual kind of cognition. They have not the coolness or the sobriety accompanying our theoretical or moral judgement. Rather they belong to that kind of cognition which we often ｅχperience in artistic appreciation, and which we find typically in the 'primitive's consciousness―
mythical thinking , in Ernst Cassirer's words '^ When struck by the tremendous fact
Scene in Hamlet (Part Ｔｗｏ）（Ｔ.０ＢＡＹＡＳＨＩ） 89
presented before him, Claudius' mind becomes entirely overwhelmed and enslaved by intense emotions such as terror, suprise and fear, and, as ａ result, the tremendous fact as such is felt or conceived (in the mind of the astounded Claudius) as something almost daemonic and untouchable―just the same thing as the primitive's taboo . For this reason, it is quite natural that Claudius should not mention or describe his realization in any articulate term, but merely indulge in the intense emotions, which are the very impact or
■consequence of the realization. He does not express his realization as such but only its impact, which consists of various intense emotions such as terror, surprise and fear.
Thus, as ａ response to the firstitem, Claudius indulges in an intense horror of his own ■damned crime and expresses it in his soliloquy of desperate prayer ( O, my offence is rank . . . ), as we already noted. And, as regards the second item. he responds to it by succumbing to an unfathomable fear of Hamlet's madness, which now seems to him to have some supernatural power almost resembling that of ａ seer. And the fear is most vividly evinced in his speech ；
1 like him not, nor stands it safe with us, T6 let his madness range ...
and also in his later desperate attempts to send Hamlet over to England and to death.
Now, at last we have reached the position where we can best refute χＶ.W. Robson's formidable assertion that the whole event in the Play Scene is essentially an enigma because we have no adequate evidence in the text. After dismissing several theories, Robson refers to the theory which holds, like ours, that What finally overcomes him [i. e., Claudius］is not the mere representation of his own crime, but the growing realization that Hamlet knew he had committed it. (Exactly speaking, even this theory is not identical with our view, because it underrates the tremendous effect of the firstitem examined above and also because it fails to take into account the peculiar nature of Claudius' realization as an emotional intensity rather than any intellectually articulate cognition'.) And Robson dismisses this theory, too, as untenable :
l find the theory hard to accept. With all its merits, it suffers from the same drawback as all those reconstructions which proceed by way of filling up gaps.
And this drawback is that there is not one word in' the text to indicate that the King realized Hamlet knew his secret. The opportunity for such ａ word is obviously the self‑revealing soliloquy at III. iii 46 fF. But there is nothing here, or later."
Perhaps, we can say that our foregoing discussion has already proposed an answer to Robson's skepticism. His skepticism is concerned chiefly with the second item in our list, and we have seen that there αΓe words and evidence in the text to indicate the King's realization of it. His speech （ I like him not ‥. ) and his subsequent resort to desperate machinations are evidence enough to indicate the unutterable fear born out of his realization.
And we need no more than that." Nor can Claudius articulate his fear any further, because it is an intense emotion almost resembling the primitive's response to ａ taboo. Robson's mistake comes from his supposition that Claudius' realization belongs to the intellectual
9{} Res. Re Kochi Univ Vol. 29 Hum.
cognition, conceived in ａ sober state of mind. He has overlooked its peculiar nature as an emotional intensity. In fact, if Claudius had had composure enough to reflect upon the whole affair soberly with an intellectual coolness, it would.have soon occur red to him that such ａ knowledge of the secret crime was absolutely impossible for Hamlet who was at that time out in Wittenberg. Claudius knows that it was a perfect crime. There cannot have been ａ single soul that witnessed the actual scene except the murderer himself: Moreover, Hamlet so repeated】ｙ encouraged him to see the play as fiction which has nothing to do with the Danish Court. In fact, he may have thought of all this. And yet the obstinate fact stillremains that the coincidence has been too unmistakable. The play has reproduced the actual scene so exactly − not only the peculiar circumstance of it but also the psychology of thとmurderer. And, what is more, Hamlet has even> hinted his hidden inter!tion of revenge in his passing comment : This is one Lucianus nephew to the King. 84 There is an ambiguity in the figure of Lucianus, because of his being nephew to the King. He represents Claudius the poisoner, ０ｎ one hand, ａｎとtquite ambiguously Hamlet the revenger, ０ｎ the other. Therefore, when Hamlet says. Begin murderer. Poχ, leave ･thy damnable faces, and begin, it is an expression of his intense hatred against Claudius the murderer.
And when he says (remembering the lines from an old familiar play), Come, the croaking raven doth bellow for revenge, he is urging ht７ｎｓｅげpsychologically^'to the revenge which must ensue. The passing words of Hamlet, nephew and revenge," must have been received by Claudius as the most frightening menace." ，
In short, what has happened before Claudius is the most incredible thing ever to happen.
It is a miracle, as Hamlet once ｄｅＳとribedit:
For murther, though it have no tongue, will speak
With most miraculous organ. ＼ ノ ヽ
It iS･ａ miracle which simply refuses reduction to any intellectually articulate recognition. In such ａ case as this, all the powers of sober judgement must simply cease to function.
Now, let us take all these circumstances into account. Then, we shall realize how natural and how inevitable Claudius' speech is as an expression of his nondescript fear when he says of HamJet (after he has recovered from the shock, though the self‑composed assurance of ａ hypocrite is no longer his),
1 like him not, nor stands it safe ･with us.
To let his madness range .... ， And he to England shall along with you : The terms of our estate, may not endure ･Hazard so dangerous as doth hourly grow ， Out of his lunacies. . . .
. . . we will fetters put upon this fear, Which now goes too free‑footed,
It is quite natural that his word for this miraculous event should be no other than the word lunacies. After all, it is the only word that he can apply to the tremendous fact he at last realized. Also his subsequent machinations which lead to his own destruction can be
of the Play Scene inＨａｍｌｅt(Part Ｔｗｏ）（Ｔ.０ＢＡＹＡＳＨＩ） 91
accounted for only in that way
The aftermath ･of the Mouse‑trap
The Mouse‑trap turns out to be a splendid success on the part of Hamlet. As we mentioned earlier, the whole scheme was undertaken by Hamlet with the force and energy･
enough to make it almost a psychological substitute for the real revenge. Hence his elation at the end of it. His elation iS almost as if he had attained ａ substantial success.
But, as ａ mtter of fact, the impact of this success upon Hamlet is one which goes more and more to impede his ultimate aim of action. It intensifies his spiritual burden by adding the
weight of evidence to it. As ａ result, he becomes more and more involved in his spiritual journey almost to the extent that he is quite unable to take any actual course of actions, quite ironically when we remember his words : if he but blench / l know my course."
From this point on, he does practically nothing of his own free will except in the final scene. He becomes ａ passive hero, always meditating upon spiritual problems, and even
when he takes to an action, it is always an evasion of free acts or, at b est,an impulsive action undertaken merely from self‑defence, It is significant that Hamlet should not aim at, nor attain, any practical efTect in his accusation of his mother in the Closet Scene ｡ ０ｎ the other hand, the Mouse‑trap event has left a different impact upon Claudius. It effects ａ complete change in the mind of this hypocrite. The nature of this change is aptly described by Haldeen Braddy as follows :
By Act IV the once suave Claudius has become ａ desperate, nervous man. All his clever ruses have come to naught. Hamlet has utterly outwitted him on the terra firma of Denmark. The King thereupon proposes to vanquish his enemy on the sea."
In fact, all his subsequent machinations are the consequence of the nondescript fear the Mouse‑trap event has left upon his mind so poignantly. His actions become more and more desperate tillthey bring about his own ruin in the final scene｡
And yet there remains ａ remarkable fact. This self‑destruction of Claudius has nothing to do with the intention or calcul ation of the inventor of the trap. On the contrary.
Claudius' desperate attacks seem more and more to jeopardize Hamlet's life. And HamJet, ０ｎ his part, becomes more and more obliged to stand on the defensive, far from taking
advantage of his success in the Mouse‑trap scheme. It is in this sense that Hamlet's success can be described aS ａ barren victory, "" abortive 88 and imperfect. 89 But, ０ｆcourse, it is only ａ partial view, for, as we mentioned above, the antago ｢st, too, is
to suffer ａ fatal defeat. The Mouse‑trap event leads him to the desperate machinations which, ironically, bring about his own ruin in the end. Thus, the aftermath of the Mouse‑trap consists of the two distinct movements each intensified by the impact of the event : Hamlet's spiritual journey and Claudius' machinations. And they ultimately meet in the final denouement. It is in the spirit of such ａ reflection that we become conscious of some spiritual presence, ０r some order which cannot be friendly to evil or indifferent between evil and good, as Bradley puts it 90 And it is this mysterious order that seems