A
Study
of the Play Scene in Ｈａｍｌｅt(PartＴｗｏ）
Tenihiko Obayashi
(Ｄｅｐａｒtｍｅｎt ｏｆ Ｅｎｇｌｉｓh， Ｆａｃｕltｙ ｏｆ Ｈｕｍａｎｉtieｓ)
Part Two : The
Play Scene Examined
１
In Part One we have clarified our basic assumption of the whole play. It is on this assumption that we are now going to discuss the problems of the Play Scene. Approached in this way, those many questions raised by Dover Wilson, 1 for instance, will appear in ａ
very different light and point to ａ very different solution. Nor will our solution end with that obscurity which Robson's discussion of the dumb-show has finally reached.^
Our basic assumption of the whole play makes us assume, in the first place, that Hamlet's Mouse-trap is a perfect device without any single error or impulsive action in its execution. Hamlet plans it with care and executes it with the utmost composure.
displaying a perfect manipulation of his instruments. He not only adapts the acting of the players to his purpose, but also takes advantage of every expected response of the innocent spectators such as Ophelia and Gertrude. As far as this one scene is concerned, Clarke's observation is most pertinent :“that his intellects are in the very slightest degree disorder-ed, we cannot for one instant believe.”3 Even if he appears crazy sometimes during the performance, as it is the case when he talks to Ophelia, it is unmistakably ａ feigned madness calculated to have some certain effects upon his present purpose. He is free from every kind of scruple or doubt that has assailed his mind so much and that will still continue to do so no less obstinately after this scene. For the moment at least he can concentrate upon his purpose and display his abundant ability as an ingenious inventor of a plot.“He is in his elelment,”and the result is that “Hamlet's device proves ａ triumph far more complete than he had dared to expect,”as Bradley puts it." 。
Yet, at the same time, as we mentioned in our last discussion, his triumph is made possible only by the restricting effect of the magic circle which is drawn around･ him to confine his activity within certain limits. It is due to this restriction that he can act so effectively, freed from the obstinate questionings which would otherwise disturb him and quite paralyze his free activity. Because of this restriction he can be temporarily forgetful of his original motive and concentrate utterly on the matter in hand. Naturally, as ａ result, his success is also ａ narrow one. We must note that his success, no matter how
great it may be, is quite impotent in leading him to ａ further action. Hamlet says, “if he but blench/ l know my course.”and, as it turns out, the King does much more
than blench. Therefore he should know his course immediately. And yet he actually does not, as it is evident in the subsequent Prayer Scene. The reason is evident. The same magic circlやthat has facilitated his action now forbids him to jump to the final action, reminding him that ａ more important and more urgent problem stillremains unsettled in
46
Res. Rep. Kochi Univ., Vol.
29
his own mind −a spiritual problem which haunts his mind whenever he tries to step out of the circle. ソ ゛
By the way, we may note that this spiritual problem is rather a half-subconscious matter with Hamlet. And because he cannot S（joften well establish its identity in his own ふind is one of the reasons why it is so intractable and so haunting.' When he says, “if he but blench/ l know my course,”he does not know his own mind, just as it is the case later when he says, after brooding over the behaviour 6f Fortinbras,“O from this time forth, / My thoughts be bloody, or be nothing worth.”６ In Hamlet's mind, the revenge motive alone is glaring, noisy and clamourous, while the real thing is latent, deep-rooted and tenacious, and quite hampers his action which should be devoted to the accomplishment of his self-conscious motive｡
At any rate, Hamlet's action in the Play Scene is characterized by the two-sided quality clarified above. His device is a perfect success in so far as it is placed within that narrow circle, ･but, at the same time, this same success can have nothing positive outside the circle. that is to say, in reference to the spiritual problem. Thus we can say, ０ｎ one hand, that his device was “ａ triumph far more complete than he dared to expect,” and, ０ｎ the other, that it was an “abortive” endeavour.' However, we must be careful not to
confuse the two different respects in which these two different things can be said. If we fail to distinguish them, it will distort our understanding of the Play Scene, as it is the case with every interpretation that seeks to find out some errors or indiscretion in Hamlet's behaviour during the Play Scene. An example is found in Kenneth Muir's explanation. “This victory is imperfect, in any case,”he explains.
because Hamlet's behaviour during the performance, as well as the apparent gross lack of taste in his choosing a play with such ａ thertie, can allow the King to cover up his guilt with a show ,０ｆanger.『
There is an obvious error in such an ｅχp】anation, f!)r Hamlet is given ａ rare chance before the King has time enough to recover from the shock to cover up his guilt. and his inaction at that moment cannot be ascribed to any previous error or indiscretion in his outward action. What makes his device “abortive”is not his outward action but the spiritual something which resumes to haunt his mind ｗh9りever be tries to step out of the circle. The fact is that, within the narrow circle of the Play Scene, Hamlet has a difinite purpose and has achieved it most superbly. There is no error or indiscretion in his behaviour. Only the trouble is that such a success ir! outward action can have no effective power against that spiritual someting which is the true and the only cause of his subsequent failure｡
This is an important point, because it is this double-edged character that makes the Play Scene the central pillar of the whole drama. It impresses ０ｎ us Hamlet's superb ability,in outward action, and, at the same time, by doing so it brings his subsequent inaction into relief all the more clearly by contrast. His failure after such a great success and after such ａ rare chance all the more forcefully emphasizes the overwhelming weight of that spiritual burden which hampers his original motive. Here is an epitome of the
47
whole drama.
２
We
are now in a position to define the nature of this limiting circle which
thus at once
facilitates and restricts Hamlet's action
during
the Play Scene.
The
foregoing discussion
has shown
us that this circle works in such ａ way as to exclude everything that belongs to
the spiritualsomething
which
has hitherto socomplicatedly entangled his course of action.
The inside of the circle isa space wherein
Hamlet
can act freely, liberated from
those
obstinate questionings and the quaking
bog of uncertainties｡
He
has attained this freedom by
shutting out his ultimate purpose
from
his present
concern for the moment.
To put it another way,
Hamlet
enters this circlewhen
he turns
his eyes to the very grounds upon
which the melancholy burden of his mind is founded
(DI have grounds
/ More
relative than this.")， and decides to confine himself to
one palpable task to test the truth of the Ghost's story.
This task enables him to set aside
his spiritual burden for the moment
because it demands
him to concentrate on the
examina-tion of facts. No matter how difficult it maybe, the task is a welcome
one for Hamlet,
because it can free him from that spiritual quaking bog where every outward
effort turns
into lost labour. Here,
at any rate,
he can
tackle with his task by acting positively
instead of sitting and brooding in
melancholy. Thus
the task becomes
an absorbing
activity for him just in proportion as the weight of the spiritualburden has been oppressive
and intolerable to him｡
The
task undertaken by
him is to unmask
the “occulted guilt"of
Claudius. It is
essentially an act of mere observation and does
not involve any
moral decision in it.
He can devote his energies solely to the observation of facts without theleast danger
of
being allured into that quaking
bog of spiritualuncertainties. At the same
time, however,
this act of observation must be an active one because the fact to be observed is concealed
most carfully by his enemy.
It must be plucked off from the enemy
either by force or by
some
tricky device.
As ａ result, this act of observation, instead of being mere passive
activity, takes on ａ character of ａ hunting or entrapping of･some
game.
as Hamlet's own
figures of speech suggest :
the play's the thing,
Wherein
I'llcatch the conscience of the King
if
his occulted gｕi】t，
Do not itselfunkennel in one spee‘ch,
It is a damned
ghost that we have seen :
KING : What do you call the play？
ＨＡＭＬＥＴ: The Ｍｏｕｓｅ-tｒａｐ:marry ｈｏｗ? Tropically :
[Italics added]
Hamlet is going to entrap the King so as to catch hissecret.
And‘it is this hunting or
entrapping that wholly occupies the interest of audience. 一
48 Res Kochi Univ. Vol. 29. Hum.
Here again we find the marked characteristic of the artistic world of the play, for here is a subtle shifting of the centre of gravity concerning what is going on on the stage. As we are perfectly aware at the outset, Hamlet is really uncertain about the truth of the Ghost's story, and to test it is his set purpose. Therefore, the result of the test should be his sole and all important concern. But it is not so wilh the audience. After so many suggestions, or rather so much expectation which the dramatist has given to audience, Claudius' guilt is ａ matter of mutual agreement not to be withdrawn by any means. To audience, the result of the test as such is too self-evident to be ａ main concern. All that matters is not the black-or-white of the criminal, but,, the tricky device itself whereby his secret guilt is unmasked. And this preoccupation of audience gradually changes the nature of Hamlet's original purpose. This is an illusion peculiar to the artistic world. Hamlet's original aim is a testing or an observation, intended to give some sure grounds to his subsequent “enterprise.”But actually his task comes to take on ａ self-satisfying nature, resembling, to use yet another comparison, that of ａ detective who hunts down a self-confident murderer with irrefutable proofs. Hence Hamlet's almost hysterical elation" at the end of it :“Why let the stricken deer go weep. . . .”It seems almost as if it were ａ victory rather than ａ mere discovery of ａ fact, 6r as if it were an accomplishment in itself rather than the mere beginning of an “enterprise.”‘
Thus Hamlet's task in the Play Scene ceases to be an act of mere observation or mere preliminaries for his subsequent decision. It becomes almost a psychological substitute for the actuall revenge which cannot be easily achieved. As we mentioned somewhere in Part One," the Play Scene makes ａ perfect parallel with the traditional revenge stories. Set-ting aside the only dぼerence that Hamlet seeks his enemy's secret instead of his life, here is condensed all the essence of the revenge stories； Hamlet comes to grips with one obvious task, and the task is difficult because the enemy is a cunning and powerful hypocrite ； so he needs help of others desperately (i.e., .the help of the Player and Horatio), and sets hiS“Mouse-trap”which is the･most ingenious plot ever conceived in revenge stories； and at the end he breaks down his enemy victoriously. The most
striking resemblance of all is the single-mindedness of his pursuit. Just like the heroes of the revenge stories, he has no doubt about the meaning or the necessity of his task ；
he believes that it is the natural, absolutely inevitab!ｅ thing to do; and any doubt about the moral quality of his action simply does not come into his perspective.
3
Thus the Mouse-trap is a psychological substitute for the actual revenge which is to be postponed tillthe final scene of the play and realized in a very different way from the case of the traditional revenge stories. It is a substitute not only with Hamlet but also with the audience of the play. It is not too much tｏ･say that audience expect all the essence and all the excitement of the revenge stories from this one scene. And as such the Mouse-trap must be ａ perfect device, planned most deliberatly and carried out in the finest possible way. Hamlet must be the ablest hunter or detective and, in so far as the dumb-show and the playlet are his instruments, he must be also the ablest dramatist and
stage-Scene in Ｈａｍｌｅt(Part Ｔｗｏ）（Ｔ.･ＯＢＡＹＡＳＨＩ） 49
director fully acquainted with every detail of･the players' acting and the spectators' response . Such is the nature of the Play Scene. Therefore, if we are to suppose, for example, that Hamlet's manipulation is not so perfect as to preclude the blunders of the players, and that his success is largely an accidental one, resting upon the good luck that the King does not see the dumb-show introduced by the “skulking iniquity” of the players ;ｕ or that he is so whimsical and extravagant as to present an “inexplicable”dumb-show against his better judgment and knowledge ;12 0r that he is so indiscrete and excitable as
to lose himself in a wild impulse to insult the Queen and threaten Claudius to no purpose" − that is to say, if we are to suppose Hamlet's outward behaviour to be defective or careless in any slightest degree, we are sure to miss the essential point of the Play Scene.
The so-called“second tooth”or “double test”theory" is inadequate for this reason. According to this theory, Hamlet's device comprises two separate sets of test, and the first one proves to be a failure, for it is noting but a failure after all if the enemy can stand it （“Claudius can stand seeng his murder performed only once”）.15 But such an episode of failure is quite irrelevant and even disappointing to the interest of audience, just as any failure on the part of Iago would be in the Temptation Scene. That Claudius will be entrapped, audience can easily guess. In fact, “if his occulted guilt do not itself unkennel in one speech,”then audience's response is :“It is ａ damned play that we are seeing.”
All that is left to attract their interest, therefore, should be the exciting and dexterously successful process in which the device is carried out. Any trivial failure would be a nuisance to the interest of the audience. Thus this theory quite inadvertently implies that the dumb-show is dramatically superfluous.
Moreover, the worst part of this theory is its failure to recognize the organic nature of Hamlet's device. The dumb-show and the playlet. far from being separate things, make an organic whole and work for ａ single purpose in order to heighten as much as possible the effect of that “one speech.”Indeed, its organic nature almost resembles that of ａ work of art − quite properly because Hamlet is to be the ablest dramatist, as this is ａ point we shall discuss later in more detail. ’
Our assumption is that the Mouse-trap is the most ingenious device which successfully throws the King into ａ panic. It brings about ａ complete (though psychological) defeat on the King, and just to that degree it proves to be ａ victory on the part of Hamlet. Therefore, any interpretation that fails to take into account the dynamic change of Claudius' plsychology is also inadequate and untenable. Its typical cases are
(1) [Claudius l has scented danger, and concludes that a diplomatic mission to England may 'expel the something-settled matter in his heartプ The
danger comes closer as he watches ‘The Murder of Gonzago', taking. . . the Dumb Show on the chin ； but when Lucianus pours the poison into the ear of the Player King, the memory of that sultry afternoon in the orchard is too much for him, and he interrupts the performance. If it proceeds. .. Gertrude will know that he has kiUed her husband. . . . But IClaｕdiｕsｄｏｅs ｎｏtloｓe hiｓｓelf-ｃｏｎtｒol―as he too often is made to do on the stage ； /lど ｓimやりcaJlｓ foｒlight ａｎｄｉｓａｌむａｙ.Only Hamlet is eχcited. le
5 0 ‘ Res. Kochi Univ.、 Vol. 29、 Ｈｕｍ･
(2) Claudius saw the dumb-show and ｖｕａs' ｉｍｍｅｄｉｄｉｅｌｙａｌｅｒtｅｄ tｏ Ｈａｍｌｅt'ｓ
戸Ｆ
ｂｒｅtｅｎｄｉｎｇｉｇｎｏｒａｎｃｅｏ? the play's argument、 to find some means to turn the
tables upon his nephew and then retire from the scene without betraying his
guilt to any onlookers. There is no reason to suppose that Claudius runs
shrieking from the room in terror. The plot depends in large measure upon
ａ Ｃｌａｕdiｕｓ ■ｗho iｓ ａ ｓtｒｏｎｇ、ｒｅｓｏｕｃｅｆｕ! ｍｏｎａΓch、ｎｏtｅａ％iりｐａｎｉｃｋｅｄ.17
[Italicsよadded 、in both citations]
Now, these ｅχplanations, just like that of Kenneth Muir which we examined above, seem to suggest that Hamlet's device is a failure because there is no defeat on the part of Claudius while Hamlet has quite uselessly endangered himeself. As we have seen up to ilo゛’･such interpretations 21「ｅ every inch incompatible りth 011「 assumption. And ａ striking error is found especially in their description of Claudius゛ mental state. They commit oversimplification when they assume that Claudius, is quite composed throughout the scene, just as he has ever been since the beginning of the play;" Actually, however, there is taking place in Claudius゛ mind ａ long and dramatic process in which his mind ranges from one pole to the other ； from utter ignorance to an unexpected revelation, from sanguine unpreparedness to ａ sudden alarm, and from ａ self-possessed composure to ａ frightening panic. The above quoted explanations both fail to take this change into account, and the second ｅχample even positively denies this change on the ・ground that Claudius is intended to be from first to last “a strong, resourceful monarch, not easily panicked.”It is certainly true that Claudius is the most self-possessed hypocrite least liable to be flurried. But this is the very reason why Hamlet's success is so rare ａ thing
and also so eχciting ａ matter for us. Hamlet's excessive elation at his success can be accounted for only in that way. Claudius' self-possession is entirely based upon his confident belief in the perfectness of his crime, and this confidence it is that is finally broken into pieces by Hamlet's device. Our discussion of the Play Scene cannot leave out an accurate description of this dynamic process which takes place in Claudius' psychology. It is indispensable in order to clarify to what degree Hamlet's device is a success｡
Thus, the Play Scene forms an organic whole with only one motive and with only one focus of interest ； and the point of focus is a psychological battle between Hamlet and Claudius. The aim of Hamlet's device is no other than the King, or, more ｅχactly,“the conscience･ of the Kingグ Shakespeare is always unequivocal in such ａ matter. Hamlet's “The play is the thing,/ Wherein I'll catch the conscience･ of the King", has an emphasis
enough to make his words reverberate in our mind. Some critics, however, deny this obvious fact and assert that the Mouse-trap iS･ aimed at the Queen, not the King."
Their argument is that since in this play the word “mouse”is used for the Queen （111. iv. 183 ) and the worrd “rat" for the King (III. iv. 24)√the “Mouse-trap” must be ａ device to entrap the Queen. This is certainly a logical ( because Hamlet might possibly ｀ Saｙ“Rat-trap”) but the most ridiculous reasoning ever conceived, and rather reminds us of some crossword puzzle, though it is very much doubtful whether the spectator can hit upon the right answer at this stage of the play where he hat not yet met any single
Scene in Hamlet (Part Ｔｗｏ）･(T. Obayashi) 51
instance in which the “mouse･’ is used for the Queen, and has been given, on the other hand, so many hints to ａ contrary eflfect (e.g., Hamlet's “the play is the thing,/ Wherein I'll catch the conscience of the King”）.
This theory becomes most obscure and absurd when it comes to explain the purpose of the device. P.J.Aldus, for example, is quite obscure about this point. While he emphasizes that the players' play and Hamlet's words point to the Queen's conduct and that the performance is ａ coarse insult to the Queen, he does not say anything as to what is Hamlet's purpose in such ａ behaviour. Haldeen Braddy, on the other hand, mentions three distinct purposes ； namly (1) to prove the guilt or innocence of the Queen," because Hamlet entertains doubts about her complicity in King Hamlet's murder," (2) to awaken the remorse of the Queen for her conduct (i.e., adultery ) in order to induce her
to abandon the couch of Claudius," and (3) to secure ・ her help so that she may cooperate with him in his scheme of retribution.*' However, Hamlet's doubts about his mother's complicity, the Queen's adulterous affair with Claudius before King Hamlet's death, and the contrite Queen's collaboration in her son's scheme of retribution − all these things have nothing to do with the real Hamlet ； they are no more than critics' inventions based upon ａ false reading of the text." Moreover, it will be easily found that actually none of these
alleged purposes is in any slightest degree effected in the Play Scene. Even Braddy himself admits the fact. In his argument, it is in the Closet Scene that those three purposes are actually achieved. ^^ This is in keeping with Aldus' assertion that“The true Mouse-trap begins. . . in the ‘very witching time of night' soliloquy.”26 But then what becomes of the Play Scene? Is it no better than ａ mere good for nothing or much ado about nothing? It is obvious that this theory has missed the true focus of the Play Scene. The fact is that there is another more fitting occasion prepared for the Queen, and
here in this Play Scene she simply recedes to the background ･like a less important charac-ter, serving there as ａ tool for Hamlet's device, just as it is the case with Ophelia. Certainly, both the Queen and Ophelia are much spoken to by Hamlet, and that in ａ very offensive manner ( according to the usual explanation). But Hamlet's behaviour to them is the necessary part of his device and is carefully calculated to have some certain effects upon his purpose. Here we must not miss the peculiar single-mindedness of his behaviour. His behaviour belongs to only one strategem through and through, and as such it must not be taken in any way to be reflective of his real feelings. His real feelings towards them have no place here within the strategic and also public atmosphere of the Play Scene ； his real feelings are too serious and too near to his inmost heart･and mind ( belonging to -“that within, which passeth show”）to be disposed of lightly by resorting to an open insult or mockery ； they require ａ more private heart-to-heart confrontation where they can be hurled at their targets directly without any use of periphrases. And intended to be such are the Nunnery Scene and the Closet Scene. Just for this reason, the Queen and
Ophelia can be temporarily removed from the focus in this Play Scene. It is only in this way that the Nunnery Scene, the Play Scene and the Closet Scene can attain each their intensity.
52 Res. Rep. Kochi Univ.
4
So far we have been concerned with the perspective of the Play Scene as suggested by our basic assumption of the whole play. Also we have cleared off several false theories which are obviously incompatible with our standpoint. It is in this perspective that we are now going to examine particular details in order to restore the true picture of the Play Scene. 1
“Ａ speech of some dozen or sixteen」ines”
Critics have been busy in identifying the “speech of some dozen or sixteen lines” which we are told Hamlet has inserted into the players' play." Such an efFort, however, is fruitless because it will only lead us astray into ａ documentary world, stepping out of the world of artistic impression within which we must‘ remain by all means if we are to appreciate any work of art. Furness was perfectly right in regarding this problem as ａ matter of impression, not ａ matter of an actual event. ^' His explanation runs as follows. “It is the very impression which . . . Shakespeare wished to convey.” “Shakespeare
represents Hamlet as adapting an ０１ｄplay to his present ｎ‘eeds by inserting in it some pointed lines.” And the spectator readily responds to this information, so that he “is prepared t0 listen to ａ play” which is “to hit Claudius fatally.” That is to say, this is essentially ａ matter of representation or promise and ａ matter of corresponding expectation on the part of audience − an event belonging typically to the world of artistic impression where everything depends upon author's design and audience's response.
When Hamlet whispers to the First Player :“ Dost thou hear me 01d friend. can you play the Murther of Gonzago?”， his confidential tone as well as the alarming title of the play makes us suddenly on the alert. We feel that something very serious has begun at last. And for ａ moment our mind becomes wholly occupied by ah･intense curiosity to know what is going on in the mind of Hamlet. And it is in this heated curiosity of our searching mind
that we listen to Hamlet゛s words :“You could for ａ need study ａ speech of some dozen or sixteen lines which ｌ would set down, and insert in ’t?” To our heated curiosity. Hamlet's words as such do not make the desired information. The words act rather as a stimulus which powerfully urges our mind to guess at his intention hidden behind them. Here, our reasoning assumes what is called abduction ― syllogism:of which the minor premiss, and therefore the conclusion. is only probable. In this case, the major premiss which is certain is Hamlet's request to the Player, and from this premiss we must infer the reason why such ａ request is made. Our attention is directed towards Hamlet's intention or the reason for his request, and not to the request itself, which is a meaningless fact in itself unless related to its purpose.
Ｏｎ･hearing Hamlet゛S words whispered in ａ confidental tone to the Player, our active mind instantly forms several probable conjectures : (1) Perhaps, the 01d play has some similarity to the circumstance of King Hamlet's murder, (2) Hamlet is going to adapt this play in order to make the similarity more conspicuous and startling, and (3) His adaptation is particularly to be effected by an insertion of one little speech. Now, these conjectures
Scene in Hamlet (Part Ｔｗｏ）（Ｔ.０ＢＡＹＡＳＨＩ）
55
are all focused on ａ general idea of the “Why” of Hamlet's request, and go to make up ａ conclusion, which, too, is only probable : (4) Hamlet is going to test the guilt of Claudius
by the performance of this adapted play. This probable conclusion, however, must be confirmed. But by what means is it to be confirmed? The information of the firstpremiss (i.e., Hamlet's request to the Player) has already been exhausted in the very process of
drawing this probable conclusion. Thus the confirmation must be postponed till some further information is given to us. In fact, it is to be postponed till Hamlet's later soliloquy where he explains to us that “the play is the thing, / Wherein I'll catch the conscience of the King.
And by this postponement the possible data for the “hoｗ” of Hamlet's plan, which were certainly contained in his mention of “some dozen or sixteen lines,”are quite obliterated and forgotten in the course of time. Our interest is in the meantime kept in a state（jf suspence. We are so eager to know Hamlet゛S intention that our interest would not receive any particular detail of the “hoｗ” until the general idea of “ｗhｙ”is finally confirmed. Moreover, at the same time we get the final confirmation just at the beginning of the Play Scene‘, we are given fresh and more vivid informations about the “ｈｏＷ”of Hamlet's plan. Hamlet's meticulous instruction given to the players at the beginning of the Play Scene makes us certain that the whole play has already been adapted by Hamlet, and that it is now going to be staged under his strict directions. And his speech to Horatio :
One scene of it comes near the circumstance Which ｌ have told thee, ０ｆmy father's death｡ l prithee. when thou seest that act afoot。 Even with the very comment of thy soul Observe mine uncle ； if his occulted guilt。 Do not itself unkennel in one speech。 It is a damned ghost that we have seen :
gives us the most complete information possible about the “hoｗ” of Hamlet's plan. Giving a perfect perspective of what follows, it makes us most anxious to observe the outcome of the event. And under the perfect control of these suggestions we no longer worry about the former information about the exact amount of the lines inserted. Not that the inform-ation was ａ needless one, but that it has already discharged its function in directing our attention just by its verisimilitude (condensed in “some dozen or sixteen lines”) towards Hamlet's intention hidden behind his mysterious request to the Player. It is. more than anything, a device for heightening our curiosity against the coming important event. Shakespeare's task here is not an honest documentation but, as usual, the manipulation of audience's response, and he was perfectly aware, taught by his deep dramatic sense, that his desired effect can be achieved just in this way without any harm upon the geeneral impression.
Dramatic
irony
54 Hum.
inference, from inference to confirmation, and from confirmation to exposition of details-. And while our curiosity is thus occupied, we find a highly ironical situation brough about on the stage ； that is, we see Claudius quite ignorant of this newly hatched plot just aimed at him ― not only ignorant but also even expecting the very opposite of what we are sure will happen. Immediately after our inference ｈ池 b＆ｎ confirmed by Hamlet's soliloquy, we find Claudius quite ignorantly eager to attend that dangerous entertainment :
With all my
heart, and it doth much
content me
To hear him so inclin'd.
Good
gentlemen, give him a further edge,
And
drive his purpose on to these delights.
What we are expecting to be ａ fatal trap for him, he takes as a desirable inclination of Hamlet's − desirable because, as it seems to him, it can alleviate his own growing fear at least for the moment. This gap of knowledge or dramatic irony provides the Play Scene
with ａ necessary tension or suspence. ’
During the Play Scene we are breathlessly waiting for the critical moment when this gap will finally be filledin. And, at the same time, we are also required to make an effort on our part to sustain the gap meanwhile, sticking tO the standpoint of Hamlet by all means tillthat moment arrives. In this effort we are unknowingly made･ to accept everything that we suppose to have been planned by Hamlet (such町ｅ the dumb-show, the long dialogue of the Player King and Queen, and' Lucianus' speech as well as Hamlet's comments upon them ) as ａ natural, inev叫ible thing to do, feeling as if it were just what we have been execting, and just what we might have done. In short, we are placed in the same position as Horatio, only with this difference, that what is a serious duty for Horatio is for us a sheer enjoyment. Thus the dramatic irony established before the Play Scene becomes the essential driving force of the whole scene｡
The situation is all the more ironical because ･Claudius haS。been so far trying most vigilantly to test and sift Hamlet He falls into error just on account of his own busy inquiry. For one thing, he is deceived by the very reports of the devoted informants dispatched by himself to sift Hamlet :
RＯＳＥＮＣＲＡＮＴＺ: Madam, it so fe】ｊout, that certain Players We o'er-raught on the way : of these we told him,
And there did seem in him a kind of joy
To hear of it : they are about the Court, ″ And ( as l think ) they have already order
This night to play before him. POLONIUS : 'Tis most true :
And he beseech'd me to entreat your Majesties To hear, and see the matter.
To which
the King
ignorantly gives his hearty assent, as 峠ｅｎabove.
Moreover,
this
suspicious inquiry
of Claudius' has inevitably brought him
to the puzzling uncertainty as
Scene in Hamlet (Part Ｔｗｏ）（Ｔ.０ＢＡＹＡＳＨＩ） 55
regards the cause of Hamlet's “antic disposition”. It is only t０９natural that it should be so. For who on earch can smell out such ａ tremendous event as the appearance of. the Ghost, which is the true cause of Hamlet's antic disposition? And so 】ong as this fact iS‘ concealed, every inquiry and every inference will lose effect. And yet this uncertainty stilldrives him to ａ further inquiry and thus deepens･ itself more and more. And this restless inquiry. this preoccuation, quite blinds him to the imminent thrust coming from Hamlet. For the present, though his suspicion has finally brought him to that “something -settled matter” in Hamlet's heart, he has stillenough of optimism in him to wish that his fear would prove to be ａ groundless one. say, madness for love, as Polonius so fondly believes to be the case. Thus for once this cunning King is deceived where he is least prepared for it, and sifted by the very person whom he has intended to sift.
By the way, Hamlet's madness is a puzzling matter also for us, though in a different way. It is puzzling to us because it cannot be explained in the same manner as the ordinary revenge strories. Whether it is a feigned madness or not, the fact is that we cannot decide upon the exact degree in which it is feigned or genuine. We are not sure about its reasonability in either case. Here, the similar Sitﾘation inＴｈｅ ＳｂａｊxiｓhTｒａｇｅｄｙ! is illuminating in that it brings" into relief the peculiarity of Hamlet's case. In the case of Hieronimo, we know that his madness is a feigned one inasmuch as it is intended to be the device for concealing his knowedge and purpose, and ａ genuine one, too, inasmuch as it is the result of his sorrow and frustration in purpose. There is no ambiguity in the situation. He has every reason to feign madness and to conceal his purpose because the enemies suspect of it (as this is the case also with the hero of Belleforest's story ). Again he has enoiigh reason to feel sorrow even 'to madness because his son's death comes upon him combined with the fact that there is no retribution possible for the cruel murder. In the case of Hamlet, ０ｎ the other hand; there is no such clarity. For one thing, he has no good reason to feign madness in order to conceal his knowledge. After imposing silence on his fellow witnesses at the Ghost Scene, the best policy should be to try t０look ordinary as much as possible. Who but the devi卜can be so suspicious as to imagine that a ghost will appear and reveal ａ secret? Indeed, it is Hamlet's antic disposition that actually awakens the suspicions of Claudius. His madness is apparently not only useless"' but also even dangerous to himself.
It is by this reflection that we are foi･ced to suppose that Hamlet is involuntarily mad. But the most difficult trouble here is that we do not actually find him really mad in any single moment. ０ｎ the contrary, he appears to be perfectly and terribly sane even in his melancholy. About this point, after referring to J. Q.Adams's suggestion that“Hamlet's madness. . . was conspicuously ａ madness ‘in clothes∵' Dover Wilson expresses his own opinion that Hamlet “retained the same admired disorder until his departure for England under guard."3o But such a supposition is forcing things." For one thing, Hamlet's
disorder in clothes, even if there is any dramatical relevance in it, must be ａ very different thing from that of Edgar or Lear, for instance. Moreover, this supposition will instantly raise new difficulties as to the exact point where this disorder ends in the course
of events. Is it indeed in such ａ slovenly dress that Hamlet gives directions to the players or opens his heart full 0f admiration for Haratio? Also we have no good reason to suppose
56 Res. Rep. Kochi Univ. Vol. Hum.
that it ends with his departure for England, as Wilson ･believes to be the case. Ｓ０long as his conjecture is founded upon the Queen's eχclamation : “But look where sadly Zたε ｂｏｏｒ･ｗｒｅtｃｈcomesreading,”32 Wilson ought to have explained away the similar remarks
made both by the Queen and the King in the Graveyard Scene :“Ｏ he is mad Laertes, ” “This is mere madness. ...”Then, are we to suppose that Hamlet's disorder in clothes
extends to this scene, tｏｏ? However, this will only bring us to ａ fruitless discussion, for, after all, the fact will remain that any such outward disorder alone would not persuade us out of the overwhelming impression that Hamlet is perfectly sane. Indeed, if we believed him to be irrational in any way, we would have no need to be curious about his words and doings. We only assume that he is mad (whether in craft‘or involuntarily) because other characters within the play suggest or positively insist upon it； not only they but also Hamlet himself once and again admits itべII. ii. 306 ff.). 丿一
Thus Hamlet's madness is ａ perfect enigma for us. Not only are we unable to decide whether it is a feigned or ａ genuine madness, but also we do not know for certain whether he is （ｏr feigns to be ) mad or not. But, in admitting this fact. ｌ am not going to agree with W.W.Robson that there are many things in this p ｙ which are essentially enigmas in the last analysis because there is no adequate evidence in the text. While finding it much enigmatic, we know this for certain ； that 心 is intｅｎｄｅｄtｏ ｂｅ ｓo bｙ Ｓｈａｋｅｓｐｅａｒら and we can identify hisintention in it. Here, Shakespeare's craftsmanship is not that of a dishonest “journeyman”who only mystifies by leaving things only half done, but that of a past master who has lest no trace of vagueness or obscurity in his work. In the firstplace. it is just by this enigmatic uncertainty that we are introduced to that spiritual journey which is going on in Hamlet's mind quite apart from the level ０ｆexternal actions. As we have already seen, it is ａ journey wherein Hamlet again and again broods over his task （“an enterprise of great pith and moment”), its meaning and quality, till he brings himself, just for his generalizing inclination, face-to-face with the ultimate mystery of human existence, captivated and paralyzed by it, and hesitating before his task as at a standstill. Our uncertainty, therefore, is one which will dissolve itself into a higher recognition in course of time. There is ａ moment when we at last･come up with the standpoint of Hamlet and take part in his spiritual questionings. Intended to be such is Hamlet's “To be or not to ｂｅ”soliloquy, for instance.
Moreover, the enigmatic nature of Hamlet゛s madness has another function. Our uncertainty as to the nature of his madness differs in kind as well as in degree from the ignorance of those curious observers within the play (i.e., Claudius, Gertrude, Polonius and Ophelia ), because we have one solid fact which they little dream of : the appearance of the Ghost. Here is, therefore, another dramatic irony. which, .in fact, dominates the scene or scenes preceding the Play Scene. This gap of knowledge enables us t０look down upon their vain endeavours" from a higher point of view. It is due to this gap, for instance, that Polonius' explanation (i.e.,“madness for love”）iS felt to be so ridiculous. His use of syllogism only emphasizes the impression. Gertrude's inference (II. ii. 56-57), on the other･ hand, comes near to the truth, but,･paradoxically, this nearness only emphasizes the fatal lack of the essential knowledge, even suggesting thereby the shallow-ness and bluntness of her conscience quite unfit for such a serious matter. This gap of
Scｅｎｅｉｎ Ｈａｍｌｅt(Part Ｔｗｏ）（Ｔ.０ＢＡＹＡＳＨＩ） 57
knowledge, however, is intended especially to emphasize the ironical blindness of the most shrewd observer, viz., Claudius. Claudius' inference that ＼
There'ssomething in his soul,
O'er which his melancholy sits on brood,
And l do doubt the hatch, and the disclose
Will be some
danger,
is decidely beside the mark, if we view it in reference to the true cause of Hamlet's madness. We have already by this time been introduced to Hamlet's spiritual journey. We know that the spiritual burden puts an insurmountable obstacle in his way of accomplishing his original purpose −ａ purpose which, once put into practice, will greatly threaten the life and safety of Claudius. We also know that this restriction or obstacle is now going to be removed just for the moment. This is our view of the situation of which we are fairly certain at this stage of the play. But Claudius takes this situation just in its reversal. What is actually an obstacle for Hamlet, he takes to be ａ dangerous inclina-tion which will threaten his own safety. After all, he is too earthly ａ creature to be intimated to that sort of spiritual questionings. Also ･he is so self-centred as to interpret everything in terms of his own safety. In fact, his essential difference from the other observers is that he is “preoccupied rather with his own safety than with Hamlet's health,” as Wilson puts it " As a result, quite ironically he now expects that the supposed “danger” will be removed just for the moment during the entertainment. He fondly hopes
that the play can dispel the dangerous“hatch”ａｎｄ“disclose”from Hamlet's mind｡ Therefore,･even his “quick” countermeasure :
He shall with speed to England For the demand of our neglected tribute : Haply the sea and countries different With variable objects, shall expel
This something-settled matter in his heart :
is not quick enogh
to preclude the imminent
thrust of Hamlet.
In one way,
his inference
has hit the mark ； itis in effectａ perfect descritpion of what
we know
is just about to
happen,
but, taking white for black and black for white, he simply cannot identify the
dangerous
brooding,“the
hatch and the disclose”of the imminent
Mouse-trap.
That any
countermeasure can
be postponed tillthe end of the entertainment is taken for granted by
him just as much
as by Polonius who says,
if
you hold it fitα加八＆μり，
Let his Queen
mother all alone entreat him
To show
his grief.［Italics added l
This ironical appreciation.
mixture of shrewdness and error in Claudius has a sure effect upon ｏμ「 It shows us that Claudius is potentially vulnerable to the trap inasmuch as
58 Res. Rep. Kochi Univ.) ＶＯ】. 29. ＨＵｍ｡ 一一
he is capable of full understanding when ａ threat of dar!ger comes upon him. Here is ａ picture of ａ full qualified victim of the trap ； he is ignorant‘enough to be allured into the trap, and also suspicious enough to be factaily hit when the critical moment finally arrives.
Hamlet's true Ｓｅ】ｆand crafty madness
The stage is now all ready for the entertainment Up to now, Hamlet゛S outward action has been restricted or paralyzed by his own spiritual burden, though it is in itself an eloquent testimony to his high nobility. As ａ resu!t， he has been far from being an active hero. He has been idling away his time in meditation, accusations, questionings, and occasional cynical sneers. Now, we are expecting just the reverse to happen. With the arrival 0f the Play Scene, the pressure of the spiritual burden ｗ川be temporarily removed, and Hamlet's superb ability as ａ revenge hero will be prominently shown. But just before the exciting event begins, there comes ａ little breathing space in which we have ａ glimpse .０ｆHamlet's true self as least affected by the circumstances. I mean Hamlet's speech to the
players and his dialogue with Horatio. There, the absorbing .business is imminent enough to dispel from his mind the pressure of that spiritual burden, and, at the same time, he has al】but finished his cautious preparations for the business･ with only ａ few directions left to be given, so much so that he has no need to be nervous about his plan nor about its outcome. Thus both the obstinate questionings and the fervent zeal for revenge now cease to affect him for ａ moment, receding, as it were, to the background, and he appears before us in his true self. Perhaps this is the most fitting situation for the author to present that perfect mixture of ability and nobiﾘty that his hero tS‥
As we mentioned earlier, Hamlet's speech to the players and his dialogue with Horatio are both inserted here in order to give us necessary informations about Hamlet's plan. We see him adding, so to speak, the finishing touches･to his elaborate preparations. But both these brief scenes have something more than that - sc mething very precious for our appreciation, because these scenes are intended chiefly to offer the most impartial evidence for the true character of our hero as least affectedパby the pressure of circumstances. Here before us appears a prince who is simply superb as ａ man. It is as if we had a glimpse of his true self just as it was described by Ophelia :“The courtier's, soldier's, scholar's eye, tongue, sword.”We are suddenly proud of our hero and seem to see him as he really is for the first time in this play. “
The main point of Hamlet's directions to the players is that they should be faithful to the very spirit of the text just readjusted by him。 It is a r!lecessary precaution in order to secure his desired effect. And we feel little ａｎχiety about the trustworthiness of these players. we witness their leader accept HamletﾀS advice submissively. Moreover, we know that this is the same acting troupe that the connoisseur Hamlet once took the keenest delight in when he was a student in “the city"べII. ii. 341-342) - a point, by the way, quite neglected by Dover Wilson when he discussed the problem of the dumb-show. ●●. 1But what is more central and more important from the viewpoint just clarified above is
Hamlet's statement that the end of every dramatic art should be “to hold as 'twere the mirror up to Nature."Perhaps, this is the brilliant expression ever conceived of the most
Scene in Ｈａｍｌｅt(Part Ｔｗｏ）（Ｔ.０ＢＡＹＡＳＨＩ） ･59
c】assicaltheory of art as mimesis. To speak more particularly, it is a theory which asserts that every artistic imitation should be an ｉｄｅａｌｉｚｅｄimitation − an imitation of the essence which cannot be known to us by any other means as long as we are to remain in the world of gross facts. The imitation can be degraded into an abominable one whenever it fails to imitate essence and ends in ａ mere copy of those gross facts. Thus,“ａ robustious periwig-pated fellow tear[ ing ｌ ａ passion to tatters, to very rags"is not an artistic imitation, no matter how faithful it may be as ａ copy of gross facts. Now, it is probable that this was Shakespeare's own artistic belief. But such ａ conjecture is simply irrelevant to our appreciation. Shakespeare's task here is to describe the most refined taste of his hero. How natural it is then that he should put what he believes to be the surest truth into his hero's mouth in its most exalted form! The same is true with Hamlet's suggestion that in the matter of artistic taste “the censure of the judicious o'erweighs a whole theatre of others.”It might be another commonplace saying, but how relevant and how brilliant it sounds in this context･ of Hamlet's speech I No doubt, all these utterances are not the author's idle self-assertion, but his deliberate device for increasing the stature of Hamlet in our eyes｡
Also, Shakespeare uses another device for the same purpose. By exaggerating as much as possible the absurdity of those players who most please the groundlings, Shakespeare seeks to widen the distance between Hamlet's taste and that of the groundlings, and thus to heighten our impression of Hamlet's brilliance more clearly by contrast. As ａ matter of fact, he may have had in his mind some actual instances of his contemporary stage companies, or possibly had some grudges against the general public whose taste was all for those sensational performances which appeared obviously inferior in his clear judgment.
But here again his task is not any satirical criticism of contemporary stage world. His intention is wholly and exclusively dramatic ； he seeks to establish in our impression the clear picture of his hero whose taste is superb in everything｡
After this. there comes ａ short interruption, with the entrance of Polonius, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, who appear as usual before Hamlet officiously in so characteristic ａ way.
Hamlet's conversation with them is markedly brief. But the brifness itself is quite telling. It is all packed with the thrilling anticipation of the･ coming event. It assures us of the King's attendance to the play. which is so essential to the event Moreover, it stresses Hamlet's contemptuous treatment of them, quite in contrast with the intimacy he shows toward the players and Horatio･， and also stresses the ironical situation in which these three spies, who have been so far great nuisance to Hamlet, are now unknowingly turned by Hamlet into handy tools for his plot :
HAMLET : Bid the Players make haste. Ｅ衣t Ｐｏｌｏｎｉｕｓ.
Will you two help to hasten them? BOTH : We will my Lord.
Ｅエｅｕれt、
60 Res./ Rep. Kochi Univ., Vol. 29, Hum.
moment. ツ.
But ａ very different mood or tone again prevails when Hamlet becomes alone with Horatio on the stage, and our breathing space is prolon‘ged a little further. Of course. t硲S time, too, Hamlet is working at his preparations ； he is securing the help of the most trustworthy collaborator in his plot. But, just before it, he indulges in ａ loving praise of his friend, even forgetting his present purpose for ａ moment, as he himself admits when he says, “Something too much of this.”And in this speech of praise he becomes again suddenly detached from the emotional disturbance of the coming event, and appears before us in his true self. As to the meaning of this speech, some critics have asserted that Horatio's virtues described in it reflect or show up by contrast Hamlet's own weaknesses as passion's slave with his blood and judgment ill Ｃｏｍｍｉｎ炉ed.35 Butsuch ａ view obviously ignores the dramatic context of the speech. Are we to believe, for ｅχample, that Hamlet i'S really “very proud, revengeful, ambitious. .ﾌﾞ' because he himself confesses it ？ Ａ character's speech is not a direct description of the character itself, but is always concerned obliquely with the character in action. Here, too, Hamlet's speech is not a direct ｅχposition of the character of Horatio or Hamlet, but is in itself an act and ａ datum 4 ■ ･Ifrom which we must infer the character. It is, above all, an ･act of utterance − utterance of the most frank and the most disinterested recognition of what is virtuous in one's friend, uttered whole-heartedly for its own sake without any practical purpose or any smack even of envy in it. And such an act does not bring any bl‘ｏトon thecharacter of the speaker. On the contrary, it bespeaks a most beautifuトsoul, sensitive, open, and ready to recognize all that is virtuous in others. ≒
It is such an impression that we receive from Hamlet's description of Horatio's virtues. We naturally accept it as ａ true and most ，impartial judgment, coming from the mouth of our admired hero. We see before us a devoted friend of our hero, ａ perfect Stoic-Christian man and the only trustworthy friend among so many false ones. Indeed, we share our hero's admiration for him. But we are 一一struckagain on reflection with the grandeur of our hero, for Horatio's virtues seem to serve as a kind of foil in our mind to emphasize the surpassing greatness of our hero, though our admiration for Horatio is not in the least clouded by it. We know that our hero, too, has his blood and judgment so well commingled that he is never“ａ pipe for Fortune's finger."36 And our hero is even more than that； he is different from this perfect Sencal man in that he is ａ man of action capable of ｂｅｉｎｇｐｅｒｆｅｃtりaliｖｅ,instead of remaining in α戸athea, in the midst of the “slings and arrows of outrageous Fortune."It is a virtueごmore heroic and more precious for our appreciation.'''
The image of Hamlet's true self has been thus established in･our mind as ａ most refined, beautiful and heroic figure. Then, after it and also after some necessary directions given to Horatio, we hear Hamlet゛S “They are coming to the play : l must be idle." The contrast is sudden as well as unmistakable. Here, almost for the first time in the play, we feel that his antic disposition becomes ａ crafty madness and that ａ very effective one. Hamlet has now every reason to conceal his intention under ･the feigned madness till the critical moment arrives when he will take his enemy by surprise. Moreover, his antic
Scene｡in Hamlet (Part Two)
(T. Obayashi)
61disposition will keep his enemy in a state of tantalizing uncertainty. which is essential to make the trap really effective. His sudden putting on of antic disposition here （“l must be idle”) marks the completion of his preparation as well as the commencement of his action. The situation suddenly comes to take on the atmosphere suitable for ａ revenge play. Our hero sets his mind on one palpable target. He has secured the help of the trustworthy collaborators for that purpose. Also he has prepared the most crafty trap, and it is concealed under his crafty madness. Thus we are invited to enjoy all the essence of ａ revenge play.
His feigned madness instantly brings an immediate result on the enemy. The King enters the stage, expecting to find that the “something‘settled matter” has been expelled from Hamlet's mind on this occasion of ｈａｒｍｌｅｓｓｉｎｄｕｌｇｅｎｃｅｉｎ ｓｉｍｂｌｅｄｅｌｉｇｈtｓ.He is determined that he will be friendly :
KING : How fares our Cousin Hamlet?
But his cheerful greeting meets with Hamlet's antic disposition, which is still threatening in some way and hurls his mind again back to the tantalizing uncertainty :
HAMLET : Excellent i’faith, 0f the chameleon's dish : ｌ eat the air, promise- cramm'd, you cannot feed capons Ｓ０.
The passing shadow of the dangerous “ambition”,38 however, soon fades away and is replaced by an apparently harmless indulgence in ａ nonsensical joke when Hamlet addresses himself to Polonius, changing the topics. And the theme of “madness for love”becomes prevalent for ａ moment to an intense delight of Polonius :
QUEEN : Come hither my good Hamlet, sit by me.
ＨＡＭＬＥＴ:Ｎ０， good mother, here's metal more attractive. POLONIUS : Ｏ ｈ０，do you mark that?
This‘'flattering unction”, too, does not last long. appears the argument of“madness of sorrow and while :
Out of this seeming love-madness accusation,” and settles there for ａ
HAMLET : Ｏ God, your only jig-maker : what should ａ man do, but be merry? for look you how cheerfully my mother looks, and my father died within ’Stwo hours.
At such ａ chameleonic change, Claudius' mind is sent to and fro like ａ ball among those three suggested theories in tantalizing uncertainty. Here is an epitome of all the former episodes of eavesdropping, observation and would-be deduction and induction, which, as Dover Wilson rightly points out," make one of the central topics of the preceding several scenes. Here is an eavesdropper Claudius, who is shrewd, at any rate, enough to scent something dangerous in Hamlet, though without identifying its approach. And yet, in his busy inquiry, Claudius is so engrossed in his role as an observer,･as an eavesdropper, that he is perfectly blind to the possibility of himself being observed, tested and sifted by Hamlet. Thus the King stands before the trap as its suitable victim, off his
62 Res.
Rep. Kochi Univ･， Vol.
29， H1!ｍ･_｀･･
guard
enough
to be allured into it, and,
at the same
time,
alert ｅりough to be fatally
vulnerable to it. Such is the effect of Hamlet's feigned madness ／
Tripleconstruction of the Mouse-trap
｡ ● 「 ； ●
Hamlet゛Ｓ plan now begins to be put into practice. It consists of three successive stages each with a different feature and function. To speak metaphorically, they are (l) the 1 . tlinitial scenting of the smell of the bait, (2) the slow process of approaching, and (3) the final snapping of the trap. And ゛ｅ cannot dispense any one ０ｆthem. If ゛ｅ ｄｏ･the whole mechanism will simply collapse. It is a most elaborate trap, all compact, and most resembling the organic structure of an artistic work. This is the very reason why Hamlet゛Ｓ
Mouse-trap is so full of thrill and excitement. Hieronimo's. staging of“Soli man and Perseda," for instance, is indeed an ingenious device. but that is all. That breathless waiting, and that sharp point of focus, which we find so thrilling in Shakespeare's play, simply do not exist. We find only on reflection that it was an ingenious device.
By the way, it is well for us here to anticipate some of our later conclusion. 0f those interpretations which run counter to our judgment, the principal ones are (l) the theory which holds that the dumb-show is irrelevant and even damaging to Hamlet's plan (e.g., Dover Wilson's), (2) the theory which, admitting that the dumb-show is essential tｏ’ Hamlet's plan, yet actually fails to explain satisfactorily the organic nature of the trap (e. g., S。L. Bethell's, not to mention the “second t㈲th” or l“double test” theory ), and lastly, the most formidable one, (3) the theory which asserts that the event is essentially
an enigma, susceptible of several interpretations if tried, because we have no certain evidence ； the text is reticent about many crucial points such as whether or not the King has really been hit by the trap (e.g., W.W.Robson's). All these theories will be touched on or examined in detail in the course of our subsequent discussion concerning the true picture of the Play Scene.
Now, returning to Hamlet's plan, one certain 辱知ect of its organic nature is the fact that its three individual parts are combined to form a successive continuum. To clarify this point, let us focus our attention on Hamlet's ‘comments uttered during the performance. The principal ones that belong to the first stage are :
(1) Marry this is miching mallecho, that means mischief.
(2) We shall know by his fellow:the players cannot keep, counsel; they'll tell aU.
(3) Is this a prologue, ０r the posy of ａ ring？
Now, all these comments denote some certain distance between Hamlet and the performance, though it is important, at the same time, to note that this distance is not ａ real but ａ feigned one. In other words, Hamlet is now assuming that sort of attitude or stance which we take when ｗｅ’are seeing things with some detachment. To speak more particularly, it is a stance ･peculiar to satirical writings − a stance which iS･located in the direct opposite of all sorts of sympathy. Sympathy will kil! ａ satirist, because "Tout comprendre c'est tout pardonner” and it is fatal to him. He ought to be the most uncomprehending man
Scene in Hamlet (Part Two)･(t.
Obayashi)
6ろwho resists all sorts of sympathy.'"' And it is this stance that Hamlet is now assuming. ･Perhaps, these things depend upon the way we interpret Hamlet's mysterious expres-sions, such as “miching maliecho” and “the players cannot keep counsel ； they'll tell aU. ” The meaning of these expressions is by no means self-evident. ０ｎ the contrary, it is one of the controversial topics. So it is best for us here to dwell upon it, and resume our discussion more properly after that.. ，
The explanation of Dover Wilson is that both the “miching mallecho” and the words “the players cannot keep counsel. . .”, refer to “the ｓkｕlkinginiｑｔiiりof the players, who have introduced this unauthorized and ridiculous dumb-show.”41 The weakness and absurdity of this interpretation have often been pointed out by critics.*' Our former discussion, too, seems to supply another strong argument against it. As we mentioned there, some certain orientation has been given to us before the Play Scene concerning the trustworthiness of this acting troupe. We have been persuaded that they are the trustworthy collaborators secured by our hero. The “skulking iniquity”of the players. if indeed any such thing did happen, would be simply a breach of mutual understanding.
Also it is wrong as well as absurd to imagine that ，the “miching mallecho”refers to the crime of Claudius." 1f it means“mischief” （aS it is certainly the case since Hamlet has no ｐ･ositivereason to deceive us in such ａ matter ), it is not ａ very suitable expression for the murder which is “most foul, strange, and unnatural” ； “mischief” is too light for it.
As compared with these, S.L.Bethell's interpretation, which he gives after refuting Wilson's explanation, seems to be more plausible. He explains that“its first obvious meaning is ａ dark reference to the play's function as 'Mouse-trap∵’44 Now, this interpretation leaves some obscurity as to who is the intended hearer of the“reference.” The speech might be ａ secret signal to audience informing that the Mouse-trap is now set in motion, in which case Hamlet is saying to ｕS，“The King does not know but, between you and me, ｌ am now intending ａ very mischievous thing against him.”This seems to be what is meant by Bethell, because he mentions that the dumb-show is ’ａ “private communication between the author and themselves [ i.e., his audience］.”45 But
equally, or more plausibly, it might be a hidden threat to Claudius, just as it seems to be the case with Hamlet's later speech : ’
you shall see anon ； 'tis a hα石硫 piece, of work : but what ｏ’that? your majesty and we that have free souls, it touches us not : ［Italics added]
All the same, however, this interpretation, too, is erroneous. Neither the secret signal nor the hidden threat can be the “first obvious meaning” of Hamlet's speech. Both these things belong to the hidden implications rather than the meaning proper of the speech.. The secret signal would be relevant as the primary meaning if the speech were an aside spoken to audience. But, as it is, Hamlet's speech is an answer to Ophelia's “What means this, my Lord?”Moreover, such a signal is rather superfluous because the “private communication between the author and his audience” has a!ready been firmly established before the Play Scene, as we have concluded. The breathless waitir!g of audience has
64 Res. Re Kochi Univ. Vol. 29, Hum.
already been started by so many suggestions made ６y the author. ０ｎ the other hand, whether or not the speech is ａ threat to Claudius must be reserved for later discussion. But, to anticipate our point, the fact is that Hamlet's‘ chief business here at the first stage of the Mouse-trap is to hide rather than reveal such ａ threat. Not that it is utterly absent. But the threat is there just in order to be held back by Hamlet. ■
In its dramatic context, Hamlet's speech is an answer tｏ’Ophelia's “What means this, my Lord ?” − an answer spoken with full knowledge of its bgiりg heard also by the King. Its “first obvious meaning” must be, therefore, an open reference to the dumb-show or, more
particularly, to its mystifying inexplicability. Hamlet is saying that it is mischievous of these players to mystify audience by such an inexplicable show. ０ｆ course, it is not the expression of his real emotion. It is a feigned stance, as we mentioned above. And this central meaning is charged with the tone of antic disposition. If the primary meaning were all that matters, it would be sufficient for Hamlet to say, for instance, “Ay, this is mischievous, " without recourse to the mysterious “miching maUecho.”Thus the tone of antic disposition forms the secondary meaning of the speech, and works to keep Claudius in tantalizing uncertainty. The meaning proposed by Bethell comes, if it comes, only
after these two levels of meaning. It belongs to the most hidden layer of meaning. It is not until the Mouse-trap reaches its final stage that such ａ meaning (i.e., a threat ) comes up to the surface, though even there it is stilltantalizingly ａ dark one.
The same thing holds true with Hamlet's speech about the players' telling all. Bethell is indeed very successful in refuting Dover Wilson's interpretation. But as he comes to develop his own explanation, he falls into ａ very damaging simplification. He suggests that what Hamlet's speech amounts to is :“it is a player's job to disclose things.”46 This interpretation fails to take into account what is very impoリant in literary expressions ； that is, the attitude with which an utterance is given. We may call to our mind, for instance,
Hamlet's later “the readiness is all,”or Edgar's“Ripeness is all,”or Keats's “Ａ thing of beauty is a joy forever, " and be struck with the difference which lies between any one of these utterances and Hamlet's “the Players cannot keep −counsel : they'll tell aU. ”And yet all these utterances are uniformly concerned each with an expression of some general truth, and we cannot dismiss any one of them as untrue. The speech in question is not an exception. Who can refute the truth of its assertion that a player's job is to disclose things? Witness dramatists' use of monolgue, or the omniscient point of view so often adopted by epic writers and novelists. Disclosing all is an essence of dramatic and every literary art. Then, where is the difference? ヅ
Hamlet's speech reminds us of Touchstone's answer to Audrey concerning what is
poetical.*' The situation, too, is similar. Here is Audrey, just like Ophelia, innocent and quite unable to grasp the full meaning of the circumstances. Here is Touchstone, like Hamlet, apparently idling away his time in nonsensical conversation. Also here is Jaques, like Claudius, eavesdropping their conversation and murmuring, “This is not mere ｆｏｏ!ery,
never, never. . . .”Touchstone says (in answer to Audrey's “ｌ do not know what ‘poetical' is : is it honest in deed and word? is it g true thing? ”），“No, truly； for the
