Who does not lie in the grave?
Grave-digger, character “ Hamlet “ - one of the best-known heroes who were ever appearing on a scene. Its black humour, singing in a grave and the scornful address with poor Yorick`s skull are so strongly connected with his image that very few people think of his more than strange speeches and actions hidden behind a clownish mask.
Meanwhile it is much more interesting, than it seems. At least because he is the only character who not only speaks with the prince as equals, but even nonpluses him.
We will look narrowly at it more attentively.
When we see it for the first time, he sings a song about the earth lump expecting the future guest. Sometimes it interrupts singing to discuss thin legal aspects of a question of the status of the suicide with the companion, at the same time finding knowledge of both law, and Latin.
One of its phrases is very remarkable - that the drowned woman is considered a suicide if only it was not drowned “ in a condition of self-defense “. Not too it is clear, in what exactly here humour, except for that absurdity of the similar assumption is ridiculous in itself.
Speaking about that, how much time you need that the corpse decayed, he mentions that the skin of the skinner is stored 8 - 9 years. It is so written in the First quart of the edition of 1602. In 1603 in the Second quart this figure for some reason turned in “ ten years “.
When there are Hamlet with Horatio, the grave-digger meets them by the same song about the piece of the earth prepared for the guest`s meeting. As the guest already arrived, it is possible to assume that the earth is intended for him.
After that between the prince and the grave-digger strange dialogue in which the double sense of the words " is with might and main used is started; lie “ and “ quick “:
“ Hamlet. Whose is a grave, the sir?
Grave-digger. Washing, the sir (sings): “ Here still a piece of the earth for a meeting of our guest “.
Hamlet. I think, it truly yours because you are liest in`t (you lie in it - you lie in it).
Grave-digger. You are lie (you lie - you lie) not in it, the sir and therefore it is not yours. That to me, I am not lie (I lie, I lie) in it, and still it mine.
Hamlet. You are lie (you lie, you lie) in it because you are in it and you say that it yours - but it for the dead, but not for quick (live, bright) therefore you are liest (you lie, you lie).
Grave-digger. This quick lie (bright lie, bright lying, live lie, lying alive) will pass from me to you " again;.
The last phrase is absolutely unclear. Why “ bright lie “ it “ lying alive “ has to pass from the grave-digger to Hamlet moreover and “ again “?
Then the grave-digger tells Hamlet that thirty years - from that day when Hamlet was born work here.
Having led the conversation on Yorick, the grave-digger remembers how that once poured out to him on the head a champagne bottle. Means, they were familiar? But how if the grave-digger all this time worked at a cemetery? And when he managed to study law and Latin?
After dialogue with Hamlet and appearance of other characters the grave-digger disappears somewhere. It does not leave a scene - leaving of each character is followed by the note. However notes “ The Grave-digger leaves “ in the text is not present. In one edition. And it would be strange if it left before to dig Ophelia. It as if is dissolved - or becomes invisible to all, except Hamlet and Horatio.
All this seems strange and deprived of sense. Well, and if to assume that the sense in behavior of the grave-digger everything is is?
We will begin with “ skinner “. Marlo was a son of a bashmachnik, and one of its nicknames - “ skinner “. In 1602 there passed from 8 to 9 years from the date of it “ death “ and in a year, to an exit 2 editions, respectively - 10.
It “ murderer “ it was found not guilty as worked “ in a condition of self-defense “. The grave-digger speaks it Latin - official language of law. Comic absurd of the assumption that it is possible “ to be drowned in a condition of self-defense “ it is urged to draw special attention to these words.
We will return to dialogue - especially to the last two phrases. The grave-digger insists that it is his grave though he in it also does not lie (and at the same time does not lie, claiming that it is his grave).
The prince agrees that the grave though is intended for the grave-digger, but that will never lie in it because he too “ live “ and “ bright “. It is meant that if the grave-digger was a sluggish slowcoach, then it would be already dead and buried.
The grave-digger answers it that him “ bright lie “ (it - “ lying alive “) will pass from it to Hamlet. In other words, it, like the master a zen, WILL GIVE to Hamlet skill “ live, bright lie “ and “ lying alive “.
So who is he - the one who at the same time lies and does not lie in a grave and can teach it Hamlet? That, whose mind so oster? The one who is invisible to anybody, except Hamlet and his alter - ego? The one who remains on a scene - and disappears from it?
He says that he began work as the boy about thirty years ago. If to assume that he was at that time 8 - 10 years old, then to it about 40 now.
Marlo “ died “ when to it there were about 30. At the time of emergence “ Hamlet “ it was 8 - 9 years more senior.
Argal as the grave-digger could tell, it is the disguised senior Marlo - the true author of the play - the writer who has to lie in the grave, but does not lie. The prince, in turn, represents young Marlo at the time of his approach to “ death “ both the choice between life and a non-existence.
Conversation in this scene can be considered as an internal monologue between Marlo - the author “ Hamlet “ - and by itself is ten years younger - that who served as a prototype for Hamlet. This scene - a gap in narration fabric, dialectic verbal game, the self-understanding built in N - uyu degree. Like the wise grave-digger, all play takes the past from - under lands, covering some events of life and “ death “ true author.
Perhaps, it creates the atmosphere of duality, mysteriousness and a certain illusoriness: it seems, Hamlet - the author`s portrait, and, it seems, and not absolutely. If it is the author`s portrait in the past described from the future in which he saw everything already absolutely differently - more ripened, it is wiser, deeper - that this switching and creates with anything the incomparable atmosphere of reality - game - secret.