|
PAGE 111
EXPLANATION OF HAMLET'S MYSTERY
in the saga whole-heartedly devoted himself. The actual mode
of operation of his simulation here is very instructive to ob-
serve, for it gives us the clue to a deeper psychological inter-
pretation of the process. His conduct in this respect has three
characteristics, first the obscure and disguised manner of speech
just referred to, secondly a demeanour of indolent inertia and
purposelessness, and thirdly conduct of childish and at times
almost imbecillic foolishness (Dummstellen); the third of these
is well exemplified by the way he rides into the palace seated
backwards on a donkey. His motive in so acting was, by
playing the part of a harmless fool, to deceive the king and
court as to his projects of revenge, and unobserved to get to
know their plans and intentions; in this he admirably suc-
ceeded. It has been maintained that even in the play this mo-
tive of spying on the king and disarming his suspicions was at
work, but even if this was the case, and there are grave reasons
for doubting it,1 it is certainly more evident in the saga. Now,
in observing the kind of foolishness simulated by Hamlet in
the saga, we cannot help being impressed by the childish char-
acteristics it throughout manifests, and Freud points out how
accurately it resembles a certain type of demeanour adopted at
times by some children. The motive with these children is
further a like one, namely to simulate innocence and an ex-
aggerated childishness, even foolishness, in order to delude
their elders into regarding them as being "too young to under-
stand" and even into altogether ignoring their presence. The
reason for the artifice with such children most frequently is
that by this means they may view and overhear various private
things which they are not supposed to. It need hardly be said
that the curiosity thus indulged in is in most cases concerned
with matters of a directly sexual nature; even marital embraces
are in this way investigated by quite young children far more
frequently than is generally supposed. The subject is one that
would bear much exposition, but it would be too far from the
main theme of this essay to render justifiable its inclusion here.
It is highly instructive now to note the respects in which
Shakspere's plot deviates from that of the original saga; we
are, of course, not here concerned with the poetic and literary
representation, which not merely revivified an old story, but
created an entirely new work of genius. The changes are mainly
two2 in number. The first is as follows: in the saga Claudius
1See on the point Loening. Loc. cit., and S. 387.
2Lesser points, important as they are, cannot here be followed out.
Such is for instance the way Shakspere accepts Belleforest's altera-
tion of the original saga in making the Queen commit incest during
the life of her first husband. The significance of this will be obvious
to those who have followed the argument above presented.
|