points out to himself his obvious duty, with the cruellest selfreproaches 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 performance 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 moment'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 different 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 lago, penetratingly observed, "nichts ist ein so guter Beweis fur die Unechtheit der Motive, die lago sich einreden will, als der stele Wechsel dieser Motive." 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's[2] summing-up of them is not too emphatic, when he says, "alle widersprechen sich, es sind samt und sonders falsche und Scheingrunde." The more specious the explanation Hamlet puts forth the more easily does;t satisfy 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 greatest perspicacity done this in detail, and has effectually demonstrated how utterly untenable they all are.[4]
Still, in his moments of self-reproach Hamlet sees clearly tough the recalcitrancy of his conduct, and renews his efforts o achieve action. It is interesting to notice how his out-
