|
PAGE 87
EXPLANATION OF HAMLET'S MYSTERY
points out to himself his obvious duty, with the cruellest self-
reproaches lashes himself to agonies of remorse, and once more
falls away into inaction. He eagerly seizes every excuse for
occupying himself with any question rather than the perform-
ance of his duty, just as on a lesser plane a schoolboy faced
with a distasteful task whittles away his time in arranging his
books, sharpening his pencils, and fidgetting with any little
occupation that will serve as a pretext for putting off the
task.
Highly significant is the fact that the grounds Hamlet gives
for his hesitancy are grounds none of which will stand a mo-
ment's serious consideration, and which continually change
from one time to another. One moment he pretends he is too
cowardly to perform the deed or that his reason is paralysed
by "bestial oblivion," at another he questions the truthfulness
of the ghost, in another, when the opportunity presents itself
in its naked form, he thinks the time is unsuited,--it would be
better to wait till the king was in some evil act and then to
kill him, and so on. When a man gives at different times a dif-
ferent reason for his conduct it is safe to infer that, whether
purposely or not, he is concealing the true reason. Wetz,1
discussing a similar problem in reference to Iago, penetrat-
ingly observed, "Nothing proves so well how false are the
motives with which Iago tries to persuade himself as the con-
stant change in these motives." We can therefore safely dismiss
all the alleged motives that Hamlet propounds, as being more
or less successful attempts on his part to blind himself with
self-deception. Loening's2 summing-up of them is not too
emphatic, when he says, "They are all mutually contradictory;
they are one and all false pretexts." The more specious
the explanation Hamlet puts forth the more easily does it sat-
isfy him, and the more readily will the reader accept it as the
real motive. The alleged motives excellently illustrate the
mechanisms of psychological evasion and rationalisation I
have elsewhere described.3 It is not necessary, however,
to discuss them individually, for Loening has with the great-
est perspicacity done this in detail, and has effectually demon-
strated how utterly untenable they all are.4
Still, in his moments of self-reproach Hamlet sees clearly
enough the recalcitrancy of his conduct, and renews his efforts
to achieve action. It is interesting to notice how his out-
1Wetz: Shakespeare vom Standpunkt der vergleichenden Littera-
turgeschichte, 1890, Bd. I, S. 186
2Loening: Op. cit., S. 245.
3Op. cit., p. 161.
4See especially his analysis of Hamlet's pretext for non-action in
the prayer scene. Op. cit., S. 240-242.
|