ACTA
UNIVERSITATIS
LODZIENSIS
FO LIA LITTERAR1A A N G L1C A 3, 1999
Jadwiga Uchman
THE QUANTUM MECHANICAL IMAGE OF THE WORLD
OF ESPIONAGE: TOM STOPPARD’S HAPGOOD
Hapgood, first produced at the A ldw ych T h eatre on 8 M arch 1988,
tak es up several m otifs sketched only in The Dog It Was That Died,
a 65-m inute radio play, first transm itted on BBC R adio T hree on 9 D ecem ber
1982. B oth o f the plays “ parody the double agent plot o f Le C a rre ” 1
em ploying S to p p a rd ’s fam iliar technique o f “ dislocation o f the audience’s
assu m p tio n s,” 2 and deal w ith the them es o f deceptiveness o f appearances
and “the m addening relative nature o f hum an perception and understanding.” 3
Like its radio predecessor H apgood is, o n the m o st obvious surface
level, a play ab o u t espionage. In both cases we encounter double (or even
triple) agents, a situ ation o f which the C hief in The Dog It Was That D ied
com plained saying: “These double and triple bluff's can get to be a bit o f
a h ead ach e.” 4 B oth plays focus on the struggle to distinguish betw een lies
and tru th , loyalty to oneself and o n e’s closest from loyalty to o n e’s agency.
T h e final scene o f The Dog It Was That Died, presenting the to p figures
o f intelligence service, evokes the notio n o f the futility and senselessness o f
espionage. T he sam e idea is again voiced in H apgood when, on being told
by her superior, Blair, th a t they have to carry on, this being a m a tte r of
w hether “I t ’s them or us, isn’t it?” , the heroine cries out: “ W ho? Us and
the K G B ? T h e opposition! W e’re ju st keeping each o th er in business, we
1 Susan Rusinko, Tom S toppard (Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1986), p. 110.
2 In the interview with Ronald Haym an Stoppard has defined the use o f this artistic
m ethod in Travesties: (I just wanted to dislocate the audience’s assum ptions every now and
again about what kind o f style the play was to be in. D islocation o f the audience’s
assum ptions is an im portant part o f what I like to write.” Ronald H aym an, Tom S toppard
(London: Heinem ann, 1979), p. 143.
3 K atherine E. K elly, “Tom Stoppard Radioactive: A Sounding o f the R adio Plays,”
M odern Drama 32 (1989): 451.
4 T om Stoppard, “The D o g It Was That D ied ,” in: The D og it W as That D ie d and
Other P lays (London: Faber and Faber, 1983), p. 43.
should send each o ther C hristm as cards - oh, f-f-fuck it, P aul!” 5 A nd,
finally, last n o t least, bo th o f them deal w ith the epistem ological question
o f w hat really constitutes reality and illustrate the n otion o f the difficulty
o f separating m ere illusion from actual reality.
H apgood starts with a bizarre stage image, so th a t w hat S toppard once
said ab o u t Jum pers and Travesties, “ Y ou start with a prologue w hich is
slightly strange,” 6 is also true o f this play. In the original L ondon production
the play began with a red d o t m oving ab o u t the m ap o f L ondon projected
o n to panels which filled the stage.7 T he w inking red light m oving along
the streets th u s represented a car under surveillance. H ap g o o d , talking to
som eone o n a short-w ave radio, provided a verbal com m entary to this
stro n g visual image. By the tim e the first person com es th ro u g h the d o o rs
o f the changing room o f the swim m ing baths which form the set o f this
scene, we know th at agents have been follow ing som eone all over L ondon.
W h at follows is a sequence o f entrances into and exits o u t o f b o th the
ro o m and the changing cubicles placed in it and a sm art sw itching o f
a ttach e cases.
In his n o te S toppard says: “ In the first production, all the foregoing
actio n was done to m usic and lightly ch o reo g rap h ed ” (4). T h e audience
w atching this “ ballet” becom e aw are th a t it is sim ply im possible to m ake
sense o f w hat is actually hap p en in g .8 T he opening stage im age, ju st as the
entire play, brings ab o u t confusion and the im possibility o f distinguishing
w h at is real and true and w hat is a m ere illusion. S toppard has com m ented
on this aspect o f the d ra m a saying:
T he play has been written about as though it were incomprehensibly baffling. It does
not seem to m e to be borne out by experience. After all these years one thing you learn
is w hat’s going on in an audience and by G od you know when you ’re losing them. It’s
like getting a temperature, you can’t miss it. M y impression is that your ordinary punter
has less trouble with it than som e critics.0
5 Tom Stoppard, H apgood (London: Faber and Faber, 1988), p. 87. A ll the references
in the text will be to this edition.
6 H aym an, op. cit., p. 12.
7 M ichael Billington, “Stoppard’s Secret A gent,” Guardian, 18 March 1988: 28.
8 Hersh Zeifman writes: “The confusion o f this opening scene is deliberate; there is no
w ay an audience can possibly follow all those com ings and goings, and Stoppard knows that.
We are thus immediately made to experience, structurally, what the play’s characters are
suffering from thematically: an inability to figure out what’s going on, to determine precisely
who is the traitor in their m idst.” Hersh Zeifman, “A Trick o f the Light: Tom Stoppard’s
H apgood and Postabsurdist Theater,” in: Enoch Brater and Ruby C ohn, eds, Around the
Absurd, Essays on M odern and Postmodern Drama (Ann Arbor: University o f M ichigan Press,
1990), p. 182.
9 Billington, op. cit., p. 28.
It is u n d oubtedly true th at, while m ost p robably finding it difficult to
understan d w hat is actually happening, the “ ordinary p u n te r” will find this
spy thriller thrilling. On the other hand, the fact th a t som e uncertainty
rem ains concerning the question o f w hat is taking place adds to the overall
im pact o f the play which is a b o u t uncertainty as such, ab o u t the difficulty
o f defining reality and ab o u t the prevailing relativity.
T h e scene at the pool opening the play foreshadow s the m ain them atic
and stru ctu ral interests o f the play. It indicates th a t w hat we are ab o u t to
w atch is a play ab o u t espionage. C hristopher Innes argues th a t “ the whole
play is structured on gam e-playing, using the K iplingesque im age o f spying
as ‘the G re at G a m e’, but taking the m etap h o r literally.” In his article he
discusses the num erous gam e strategies em ployed in the play and argues
th a t the very initial stage picture in the original presentation was evocative
o f “ a recently issued cops-and-robbers board gam e called Scotland Yard,” 10
It m ay be said th a t one o f the gam es introduced in the course o f the play
is th e gam e o f in te rp re ta tio n played b o th by th e ch aracters an d th e
audience. O ne can w onder w hether the th eatre audience w atching the
p ro d u ctio n are aw are th a t the very first scene presents tw o pairs o f twins
there are tw o Ridleys and tw o R ussians taking p a rt in it. Even if the
th eatre audience d o no t im m ediately realise th at a special dou b lin g effect
is em ployed, they d o discover it as the play progresses. If the audience are
tem porarily m isled, how ever, it m eans th a t S toppard, while em ploying one
o f his am bushes for the audience11 and w ithholding inform ation, has m ade
them interp ret the situation differently from w hat it actually is.
T h e printed text, on the o ther han d , does not perm it such a m isin ter­
p retatio n as the stage directions are quite telling:
The essence o f the situation is that R ID L E Y m oves around and through, in and out o f
view, demonstrating that the place as a whole is variously circumnavigable in a way which
will later recall, i f not replicate, the problem o f the bridges o f Königsberg. . . . A s a m atter
o f interest, the R ID L E Y who p osts the briefcase is not the same as R ID L E Y who entered
with it. (2-3)
T h e case o f the bridges o f K önigsberg is explained verbatim by K erner,
the atom ic physicist, who provides num erous scientific explanations o f w hat
the characters and audience alike are witnessing. In the P russian city ol
K önigsberg there were seven bridges and “ an ancient am usem ent o f the
people o f K önigsberg was to try to cross all the seven bridges w ithout
10 Christopher lnnes, “ H apgood -
A Q uestion o f G am esm anship?” , M odern D ram a
2 (1989): 316.
11 Stoppard him self has commented on this device in: Roger H udson, Catherine Itzin and
Simon Trussler, “Am bushes for the Audience: Towards a High Com edy o f Ideas (Interview
with Tom Stoppard), Theatre Quarterly 14 (1974): 6.
crossing any o f them twice.” It was the Swiss m ath em atician , L eonhard
E uler (1707-1783) who “ to o k u p the problem o f the seven bridges and
. . . presented his solution to the St P etersburg A cadem y o f Science in the
form o f a general principle based on vertices. T he conclusion the m a ­
th em atician cam e to was th at it cannot be done, tw o w alkers are needed.”
(45-46) T h e know ledge o f m athem atics and E uler’s solution enables K erner
to solve the m ystery o f the dressing room case. L ooking a t the situational
d iagram o f the initial scene o f the play he com es to the conclusion there
m u st be tw o Ridleys.
In H apgood S to p p ard tu rn s to m athem atics and physics in o rd e r to
supply an explanation o f the events presented. W hereas E u ler’s solution
provided a scientific explanation which shed light on reality and explained
it, the num erous references to physics in the play have an opposite effect
and stress the im portance o f relativity. It was Clive Jam es w ho first noticed
th e parallels betw een S to p p ard ian theatrics an d E insteinian physics. H e
argued th a t S to p p a rd ’s plays reflect the new, post-N ew tonian o u tlo o k based
o n the p ro p osition voiced by Einstein w ho “ found him self obliged to rule
o u t the possibility o f a view point at rest.” 12 In an interview S toppard said
th a t he considered Jam es’s article to be brilliant and added:
W hat he said was that you get into trouble with m y plays if you
a static viewpoint on the events. There is no observer. There is no
which everything takes its proper place, so that you see things flat
relate to each other. Although the Eisensteinian versus Copernican im age
I can’t think o f a better one to explain what he m eant - that there is
think that there’s
safe point around
and see how they
sounds pretentious,
no point o f rest.13
A lready G eorge M o o re in Jum pers com plained ab o u t the general u n ­
certain ty resulting from the developm ent o f science: “ C opernicus cracked
o u r confidence, and Einstein sm ashed it.” 14 T he case o f C opernicus is
sim ilar to th a t o f Euler in the sense th at bo th o f them described the n ature
o f reality and em ploying science explained it. T he case o f C opernicus is
also rem iniscent o f the W ittgenstein anecdote m entioned by G eorge. O n
being told by his friend th a t people assum ed th at the sun w ent round the
ea rth because it looked like this, W ittgenstein asked: “ Well, w hat w ould it
have looked like if it had looked as if earth was ro tatin g ?” 15 C opernicus, in
fact, proved th at som etim es o u r interp retatio n m ay be m isleading and th at,
due to im perfect perception, the description o f reality m ay be faulty.
F u rth erm o re, C opernicus’s discovery m ay also be viewed in the light of
E instein’s theory o f relativity concerning space.
12
13
14
15
Clive James, “Count Zero Splits the Infinite,” Encounter 5 (1975): 71.
H aym an, op. cit., p. 144.
Tom Stoppard, Jumpers (London: Faber and Faber, 1973), p. 75.
Ibid.
M ak in g n u m ero u s references to th e discoveries o f m o d e rn physics
H apgood dem onstrates the changes th a t have occurred in o u r conception
o f reality as the result o f the shift from N ew tonian m echanics to the
fo rm u latio n o f relativity and q u an tu m theory. C lassical N ew tonian physics
po stulated a perm an ent external w orld, fixed, objective and describable.
Scientific laws were always based on strict cause and effect laws and
independent o f the perceiver. M odern physics has show n th a t once it is
discovered th a t a law does n o t hold in conditions in w hich it has so far
been considered to hold, it is necessary to search fo r new explanations.
T his n o tio n was expressed by R ichard F eynm an in his Lectures on Physics
from which S to p p ard takes the m o tto for his play and to w hich he often
refers in course o f the dram a. In the lecture “ P robability and U ncertainty
- th e Q u a n tu m M echanical View o f N a tu re ” F ey n m an discusses th e
experim ents concerning defining the n atu re o f light.16
In his lecture F ey nm an describes an experim ent d u rin g which electrons
were supposed to get th ro u g h two holes and the observation o f their
m ovem ent was to bring ab o u t the answ er w hether they are particles or
waves. In o rd er to be able to observe the behaviour o f the electrons the
experim enter has to use light which “ affects the result. I f the light is on
you get a different answ er from th a t when the light is off. Y ou can say
th a t the light affects the behaviour o f electrons.” 17 T h e situ atio n , then,
provides no solution - it is simply im possible to state exactly w hat is
happening: either you tu rn the light o ff and are thus unable to w atch the
electrons because you sim ply do no t see w hat is happening, or you tu rn
it on and th u s affect their behaviour. F eynm an has written:
A philosopher once said “It is necessary for the very existence o f the science that the
same conditions always produce the same result.” W ell, they do not. Y ou set up the
circumstances, with the same conditions every time, and you cannot predict behind which
hole you will see the electron. Y et science goes on in spite o f it - although the same
conditions do not always produce the same results. That makes us unhappy, that we
cannot predict exactly what will happen.18
F ey n m an ’s experim ent is discussed by K ern er who calls it “ a trick oi
the lig h t.” (10) In discussing it he does no t seem to pay m uch attention,
th o u g h , to the changed circum stances (the light being either turned on or
off) b u t he concentrates on the perceiver: “ Every tim e we d o n t look we
get w ave p attern . Every tim e we look to see how we get wave p attern , we
get particle pattern. T he act o f observing determines the reality. F urtherm ore,
16
Richard
!965): 128.
11 Ibid., p. 140.
18 Ibid., p. 147.
Feynm an, The Character o f Physical Law (London: C ox and W ym an Ltd,
as K e rn er continues, “ nobody know s” how this is possible: “ Einstein d id n ’t
know . I d o n ’t know . T here is no explanation in classical physics. Som ehow
light is particle and wave. T he experim enter m akes the choice.” (12) At
an o th er place in the play, K erner m entions H eisenberg’s uncertainty principle
and com pares the particle w orld and “ the dream world o f the intelligence
officer” :
A n electron can be here and there at the same m om ent. You can choose; it can go from
here to there without going in between, it can pass through two doors at the same time,
or from one door to another by a path which is there for all to see until som eone looks,
and then the act o f looking has made it take a different path. Its m ovem ents cannot be
anticipated because it has no reasons. It defeats surveillance because when you know
what it’s doing you can’t be certain where it is, and when you know where it is you
can’t be certain what it’s doing: Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle; and this is not because
you’re not looking carefully enough, it’s because there is no such thing as an electron
with a definite position and a definite momentum; you fix one, you lose the other, and
it’s all done without tricks, it’s the real world, it is awake. (48)
In this passage K erner concentrates n o t on the perceiver but on the
very n atu re o f electrons which seems to escape a clear definition. W erner
K a rl H eisenberg, m entioned by K erner, an atom ic physicist, a specialist in
q u an tu m m echanics, has form ulated the uncertainty principle which “concerns
a ttem p ts to m easure the position and m otion o f a q u an tu m object sim ul­
taneously. . . . T he very act o f trying to pin dow n an electron to a specific
place introduces an uncontrollable and indeterm inate d istu rb an ce to its
m o tio n and vice versa.” 19 F eynm an paraphrases this uncertainty principle
in o rd er to be able to use it while describing his own experim ent: “ It is
im possible to design any ap p a ratu s w hatsoever to determ ine th ro u g h which
hole the electron passes th at will not at the sam e tim e d istu rb the electron
enough to destroy the interference p a tte rn .” 20 A nth o n y Jenkins m entions
S chrodinger’s C at p arad o x (1935): “T he experim ent consisted in closing
a cat in a steel cham ber w ith a G eiger device which was to release a toxic
acid. T h e cat, according to the rules o f quantum m echanics, is bo th dead
and alive until the result is revealed the m om ent the box is o p en ed .”
Jenkins traces this source in connection with the scene w ith Celia pretending
to be H ap g o o d ’s twin sister: “ H ap g o o d , at the hotel, obeys these q u an tu m
rules: she is b o th Betty and Celia, since Ridley does n o t open the disc
box, b u t, as he says earlier, ‘I ’d trade it for m y cat if I had a c a t.1” 21
lg Werner Karl Heisenberg, P. G . D avies and J. R. Brown, eds, The Ghost in the A tom
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), p. 6; quoted in A nthony Jenkins, cd., C ritical
E ssays on Tom S toppard (Boston: G . K. Hall and Co., 1990), p. 174.
20 Feynm an, op. cit., p. 143.
21 A nthony Jenkins, “M oles and M olecules: T om Stoppard’s H apgood," in: Jenkins, op.
cit., p. 174.
T h e dual n atu re o f the agents, fu rth er underlined by the fact th a t often
they are literally doubled, appearing in couples as twins, is evocative of
the stru ctu re o f light as bo th a wave and a particle. T his m e ta p h o r o f the
w orld o f spies being rem iniscent o f the w orld o f q u an tu m m echanics is
enriched by the in troduction o f the “q u an tu m ju m p .” T he probability
function, introduced into physics by F eynm an, am ong others, does not in
itself represent a course o f events in the course o f time. It only indicates
a tendency o f the possible course o f events as well as o u r limited ability
to know it. T h e so-called “ q u an tu m ju m p ” is an expression o f the transition
between the “ possible” and the “ actu al” . A ccording to atom ic physicists the
pro b ab ility function is a m id-stage between the idea o f an event (our
perception and in terpretation) and the actual event. I his p oint is again
explained by K erner:
I cannot stand the pictures o f atom s they put in schoolbooks, like little solar system:
Bohr’s atom. Forget it. Y ou can’t make a picture o f what Bohr proposed, an electron
does not go round like a planet, it is like a m oth which was there a m om ent ago, it
gains or loses quantum o f energy and it jumps, and at the m om ent o f the quantum
jum p it is like tw o moths, one to be here and one to stop being there; an electron is
like twins, each one unique, a unique twin. (49)
S to p p ard uses the notio n o f the “q u an tu m ju m p ” three tim es in the
course o f the play to m ak e it w ork in visual term s. O n the first occasion,
it is introduced as a visual bridge between the first tw o scenes. Scene One
ends with Blair m aking arrangem ents to m eet K ern er and Ridley at twelve
in th e zoo. As it ends “ he puts the radio aw ay and looks at his w rist-w atch.
T he next tim e he m oves, it is twelve o ’clock and he is at the zoo. (9)
L ater on a sim ilar “q u an tu m ju m p ” o f Blair provides a link betw een scene
3 an d scene 4. (24) O n still an o th e r occasion, in th e inter-scene, as
S to p p ard calls it, it is Ridley who m akes som ething like “ a q u an tu m
ju m p ” . T he stage directions indicate th a t the Ridley we see in this inter-scene
is “ som ebody else” th an the Ridley presented in the preceding one (69).
W h at we are w atching, in fact, is R idley’s literal tw in m aterialising o u t of
now here. T he use o f the “ q u an tu m ju m p ” in connection w ith Blair and
R idley is differentiated. In the case o f Ridley the scene is m ean t to bring
o u t in visual term s the notion th a t Ridley is som ething o ther th a n he claim s
to be, th a t there are, in fact, tw o Ridleys, tw ins taking p art in espionage.
H e is (they are) a double agent in bo th senses o f the w ord — he is spying
b o th for the B ritish and the R ussians and there are tw o o f them . In the
case o f Blair the “ q u an tu m ju m p ” has an o th er m eaning. W hen we see B lair
as he ap p ears in consecutive scenes, we m ay realise th a t he has varied faces
to show in different situations. In scene one, appearing at the b ath , com ing
out o f the d arkness, he does n o t react to W ates’s d raw n revolver, rem ains
professional, cool and in control. A t several m om ents in the play, however,
he appears to care for his people, to be a kind o f loving, tender father
figure to them . Y et K erner com m ents on the other Blair when he says
th a t w hat counts for him is the “ technical” aspect o f espionage, not the
“ p erso n al” one, the espionage at large and no t the individual people
involved. K ern er m akes this point clear when he tells Blair th a t he would
betray H ap g o od if he th o u g h t it necessary. (73)22
Q uantum m echanics, the uncertainty principle, F ey n m an ’s experim ent,
the “q u an tu m ju m p ” , all contain the “m ystery” , m entioned in F ey n m an ’s
m o tto chosen by S toppard for the play and talked ab o u t by K erner:
“T h ere is a straight ladder from the atom to the grain o f sand, and the
only real m ystery in physics is the m issing rung. Below it, particle physics;
above it, classical physics; but in between, m etaphysics” (49). It seems
w orthw hile in this context to m ention the correspondence between S to p ­
p ard an d a theoretical physicist, J. C. P o lkinghorne, included in the
A ldw ych T h eatre program m e. S toppard w rote to Polkinghorne: “ I think
th a t the choice o f epigraph will irritate you and the w ord ‘m etaphysics’ in
scene five will infuriate y o u .” In his reply the physicist asserted th at
m ath em atical language can penetrate beyond “ the everyday dialectic o f
wave and particle” and m ake the dual n ature o f light “ free o f p arad o x
for those in the k now .” S toppard, how ever, refused to be included am ong
those “ in the kn o w ” and thus preferred to be puzzled by the q u an tu m
m ystery. H e responded:
1 think I understand your point, but it seems to me that in the case o f quantum
mechanics the difficulty is in reconciling the mathematical language with the commonsensical
view o f what is possible. Feynman who presumably understands the mathematics insists on
being amazed and so do I, so please forgive me . . ,23
T he m ystery inherent in q u antum m echanics m akes K erner, an atom ic
physicist, d o u b t the possibility o f describing objective reality. Twice in the
course o f the play, during conversations w ith Blair w ho insists th a t he likes
“ to know w h a t’s w h a t” , K erner rem arks ironically: “ objective reality.” (10
and 73) O n b o th occasions the exchange takes place w ithin the context of
a conversation concerning double agents. O n the first he starts talking
a b o u t “ th e trick o f light.” O n the second the following conversation takes
place:
22 Hersh Zeifman (op. cit., p. 191) while discussing the scene, notices: “A s an accomplished
Intelligence agent, Blair is a master o f ‘N ew speak’, the lies that posed as truth in Orwell’s
Nineteen-Eighty-Four. (Orwell, as we recall, was born as Eric Blair.)''
23 Tom Stoppard, “Som e Quotes and Correspondence,” in: H apgood Theatre Program m e
(London: Aldw ych Theatre, M arch 1988), p. 11; quoted in Paul D eloney, Tom Stoppard. The
M oral Vision o f H is P lays (London: M acmillan Press, 1990), p. 128.
K E R N E R : . . . So now 1 am a prime suspect - I love that phrase, it’s in nearly all the
books. A prime is a number which cannot be divided except by itself, and all the
suspects are prime; threes, fives, sevens, elevens . . . But really suspects are like
squares, the product o f twin roots, fours, nines, sixteens . . . what is the square
root o f sixteen?
BLAIR: Is this a trick question?
K E R N E R : For you probably.
BLAIR: Four, then.
K E R N E R : Correct. But also minus four. T w o correct answers. Positive and negative.
I am very fond o f that minus, it is why I am what I am, I mean not as a suspect
but as a physicist. Literally. I am an alchemist o f energy and mass, I can turn one
into the other and back again, because energy is m ass multiplied by the speed o f
light squared. But the fam ous equation was not precisely found in its fam ous form,
it was really the square o f that, and E equals M C squared is a square root. But
o f course so is E equals minus M C squared, an equally correct solution . . . just
like with your sixteen. N ob ody took notice o f the minus for years, it didn’t seem
to mean anything, there was nothing to which it belonged, you needed a minus
world, an anti-world, with all the charges reversed, positive for negative, negative
for positive. But finally som eone trusted the mathematics and said - W ell, maybe
there is anti-matter; anti-atoms made o f anti-particles. And lo!, they started to find
them. And so on, et cetera, until, here I am, Joseph Kerner, the anti-matter man
at the zoo. (Pause.) I’m not going to help you, you know. Yes - no, either - or
. . . Y ou have been too long in the spy business, you think everybody has no secret
or one big secret, they are what they seem or they are the opposite. Y ou look at
me and think: Which is he"! Plus or minus? If only you could figure it out like
looking into m e to find my root. And then you still w ouldn’t know . W e’re all
doubles. Even you. Your cover is Bachelor o f Arts first class, with an amusing
incom prehension o f the sciences, but you insist on laboratory standards for reality,
while 1 insist on its artfulness. So it is with us all, w e’re not so one-or-the-other.
The one who puts on the clothes in the morning is the working minority, but at
night — perhaps in the m om ent before unconsciousness — we meet our sleeper — the
priest is visited by the doubter, the M arxist sees the civilising force o f the bourgeoisie,
the captain o f industry admits the justice o f com m on ownership. (71-72)
A s a m a tte r o f fact, K ern er (Stoppard?) m akes three m athem atical
m istakes in th e above speech. F irstly, prim e m ay be divided b o th by itself
and by one. Secondly, E does n o t have to be a square, la k e , for instance
m = 2 and c = 3. C alculated on the basis o f E instein’s equation, E is
then 2 m ultiplied by 9 and equals 18 which is no t a square. Ih ird ly , it
does not follow from his discussion o f Einstein’s equation th at the anti-m atter
exists. W h at he “ p roves” at best is th at E, being a square num ber (a
m istak e in itself) has b o th a positive and a negative ro o t and thus
anti-energy exists. Strict m athem atical correctness does no t seem to be
im p o rtan t in this case. W hat is im p o rtan t is the p o in t m ade concerning
h u m an n atu re. A t the ro o t o f a single individual we m ay find tw o
(som etim es even m ore, in fact) opposites: priest and d o u b ter, p atrio t and
traito r, socialist and capitalist, “ sleeper” and “jo e . I h e indeterm inacies of
the su batom ic w orld and the square num bers are reflected in the am biguities
o f h u m an identity, the existence o f different selves w ithin a single individual.
T h is n o tio n o f doubleness inherent in hum an n atu re helps S toppard present
and solve the m ystery concerning espionage. N o t only are som e o f the
spies double-agents but, having twins, they are literally doubled.
T h e analogy betw een particle physics and sq u are n um bers extends
beyond espionage to include a m uch m ore general notion o f the m ystery
o f h u m an identity itself and the n ature o f reality as such. S toppard has
stressed this point in some o f his interviews, l i e told M ichael B illington
soon after the p lay’s opening night: “T he play is specifically ab o u t a w om an
- H ap g o o d - .... T h e central idea is th a t inside H apgood one there is
a H ap g o o d tw o sharing the sam e body; th at goes for m o st o f us.” 24 “T he
espionage th in g ,” he insisted in a talk with K a te K ellaw ay, “ cam e second.
It was ju st a consequence o f looking for som e so rt o f narrativ e which
would try to exemplify the first th o u g h t.” 25
E lizabeth H apgood, the only w om an in the m an dom inated world o f
espionage presented in the play, is undoubtedly the d ra m a ’s m ain ch aracter
as the title clearly indicates. She appears in nearly all the scenes, the only
tw o exceptions being scene tw o in A ct I and scene three in A ct II which
are set at the zoo and present K erner explaining to Blair F e y n m a n ’s
experim ent and the n atu re o f a square num ber. W hen we first see her,
d u rin g the opening scene at the pool, she is taking p a rt in the exchange
o f briefcases, an act which aim s to find the traito r. She is efficient, fully
in com m and o f the situation, it seems, until slightly later on it appears
th a t they have blow n it. W hen she m akes her second ap pearance in scene
three she is busy w atching her son playing rugby while discussing the
problem s concerning her netw ork with her superior, Blair. H er reactions
to her so n ’s achievem ents as well as the rem arks she m akes ab o u t him
clearly indicate th a t she is (or at least would like to be) a loving m other.
T h e first tw o glim pses o f her we get in the play, then, present her
“ technical” and “ p erso n al” sides.
In several places in the d ra m a references are m ad e to there being
a difference between the “ technical” and the “ personal” aspect bo th o f the
situ atio n and the characters involved (17, 24 and 52). T hus, then, tw o sides
o f H a p g o o d ’s character are presented. On the one hand, she is the netw ork
co-o rd in ato r: an intelligent and efficient person, n o t only know ing the tricks
of the trad e of espionage but also capable o f w inning a chess gam e w ithout
having a chess board in fro n t o f her. In this w orld she has her “jo e s” and
is called by them “ M o th e r” . Blair com m ents on the origin o f her code
24 Billington, op. tit., p. 28.
25 Tom Stoppard in an interview with Kate K ellaway, Review, BBC TV, 13 M arch 1988;
quoted in D eloney, op. tit., p. 130. See also: Peter Lewis, “ Quantum Stoppard,” Observer
M agazine, 6 M arch 1988: p. 58.
nam e: “ she w as called M o th e r w hen she joined th e D efence L iaison
C om m ittee - the tea w ould arrive and the M inister would say, ‘W h o ’s
going to be m o th er?” ’ (27). W hen the tea-tray is b ro u g h t in d u rin g one
o f the m eetings in course o f the play she asks “ brightly” w hether she
should be m o th er (39). T o some extent, at least, even in the present tim es,
she is a kind o f a m other figure for her joes, taking care they are treated
correctly and not harm ed by unjustified accusations and suspicion. O n the
whole, how ever, “ technically” speaking, she is a strong, m ost independent
fem ale w ho organises and supervises the work o f her netw ork and the m en
w orking in it.
On the “ p ersonal” level, on the other hand, she seems very vulnerable,
u nh ap py and to rn by conflicting em otions o f w hether to follow the line o f
d uty tow ards the netw ork or tow ards the closest ones, her tw o “Jo e s” ,
Joseph K ern er and her son, Joe H apgood. In the past, w hen she had a love
affair with Joe K erner and got pregnant, she decided to keep it secret,
because as Ridley phrases it, “ it was a choice between losing a dad d y and
losing a prize double, a turned m ole who w ould have been blow n overnight
if he was know n to be the father, and we a re n ’t in the daddy business,
w e’re in the m ole business” (81). A t present she senses th a t little J o e ’s
staying at a b o ard in g school and having to pretend he was adopted is very
stressful for him. A t the rugby pitch, while both o f them are w atching Joe
play, H ap g o o d tells Blair: “ H e ’s w orried ab o u t som ething, to o , w e’ve both
got the sam e look. . . . H e got unhappy ab o u t som ething once when he
was really little, he was crying, he co u ld n ’t tell m e w hat it was, he d id n ’t
know w hat it was, and he said, ‘T he thing is, M um m y, I ’ve been unhappy
for years'." (18-19) H a p g o o d ’s vulnerability is visible in this scene and in
the fact th at she invites Blair to have tea with her: “ D o you w ant some
tea? T hey lay it on for parents and h e’s entitled to tw o .” (24) She seems
to be dependent on Blair, her section chief, w hom she looks upon as
a su rrog ate father-figure for herself and her son. She needs his friendship
and responds to his affection and th at is why she is disappointed and
infuriated w hen it appears at the end o f the play th a t Blair jeopardised
little Jo e ’s safety m aking him com e to the swap scene (86).
D u rin g m o st o f her appearances in the play H ap good is presented on
the professional level. T here are m om ents, however, w hen her personal ,
private self is stressed. Such is also the case during the scene with K erner
when she tells him th at his career will be over after his cover as her joe
has been blown. T hen suddenly she switches from “technical to personal .
'I w o n ’t need you any m ore, I m ean I ’ll need you again — oh, sugar!
~ you know w hat I m ean — do you w ant to m arry me? I think I d like
to be m arried ?” K erner, however, tells her he has decided to go back to
R ussia and she concludes “ I d o n ’t think I ’m going to m arry you alter all .
(50) H er feelings fo r him seem not easy to define. It could be said th at
H ap g o o d does n ot know w hether or no t she really w ants to m arry K erncr.
It could be also said, however, th a t because her proposal has no t been
accepted she takes it back and pretends she does n o t really care. A t the
end o f the conversation she switches back to the “ technical” level and
rem inds him ab o u t their professional m eeting in the evening during which
they will set the tra p for Ridley.
T h e tra p consists o f tw o elem ents. F irstly, Ridley is told th a t little Joe
h as been kidnapped and will be exchanged for the m aterials delivered to
the R ussians by him . Only at the end o f the scene, when R idley has already
left the room and we w atch H apgood talking on the phone with her son
w ho is safe at school, do we discover th at the characters were pretending,
playing o u t a scene o f their ow n m aking in order to deceive Ridley. T he
am bush, then, has been set for Ridley and not for us. D uring the sw ap
scene, however, it appears th at Blair has acted on his own. H e has set his
ow n am bush and, w ithout w arning or consulting anyone, has had the boy
b ro u g h t to the pool. Secondly, in o rd er to achieve her aim , H apgood
decides to d o so with the aid o f her own tw in, Celia N ew ton. In this case,
how ever, th e am bush is set both for Ridley and the audience. W hen the
scene in a p h o to g rap h e r’s studio starts we see H apgood w ho “ is as different
from her o th er self as the flat is different from her office” (65). T alking
o n the radio with H apgood, while Celia has gone ou t to the kitchen, Ridley
com m ents on this saying: “ She m ay be your tw in sister bu t there the
resem blance en d s” (66). T h e disorderly, ab sen t m inded, pot-sm oking,
b o hem ian Celia is ju st the opposite o f the m atter-of-fact, well-organised
H apgood. T he gap separating them is also underscored by the differentiation
o f language they use. H apgood never swears, this being pointed out by
B lair b o th indirectly in teasing her with “ f-f-fiddle,” (19) the only swear
w ord she uses and directly, when he asks her: “ d o you never use bad
language, never ever?.” (23) Celia, on the other hand, uses a language full
o f slang expressions and obscenities, the very first word uttered by her
being scatological. It appears th a t Ridley w ants Celia to play the p a rt o f
H a p g o o d w hich seems to be a difficult task as the tw o w om en are
diam etrically different.
As we next see them they are in H a p g o o d ’s office. W hen M aggs,
H a p g o o d ’s secretary, enters Ridley has to be very inventive n o t to let the
disguise be revealed. H e does no t fully succeed, though, because Celia tells
M aggs to “ piss o f f ’ and “T he w orld ends fo r M A G G S , ju st for a m o m en t.”
(76) They are now w aiting for the phone call which is to settle the details
o f the sw ap and Celia m akes Ridley start playing a cardgam e. T h e situation
is com plicated as they do n o t have a deck and Ridley does no t know
w hich gam e they are playing. T he basis o f “ sn a p ”, the gam e they are
playing, is tw inning cards. T h e players reveal successive card s sim ul­
taneously and if they m atch the first one to say “ s n a p ” wins the pair.
T he player who gets the bigger num ber o f pairs wins. T he choice o f the
gam e m etaphorically underscores the doubling o f the players and spies,
there being tw o Ridleys as well as twin sisters. Celia wins this deckless
card g am e ju st as H a p g o o d wins her boardless chessgam es. W hen th e
telephone rings Ridley nearly breaks her han d , so th a t w hen she starts
speaking “ she is w him pering and disoriented” (79). N o t only does he
w ant Celia to pretend she is Ilap g o o d but he also w ants her to sound as
if she were in pain over the loss o f her son. T his scene clearly dem o n ­
strates the no tio n so im p o rtan t in the play th a t “ the act o f observing
determ ines the reality” (12). T he obvious explanation o f her sounding as
if she were in pain is th at she actually is in pain. H er interlocutor on the
phone m ay well be justified in thinking th at her sobbing is an expression
o f her grief and sorrow concerning Joe. W e, as the audience, how ever,
know th a t her cry o f pain has quite a different source. T he in terp retatio n
given by a perceiver is thus determ ined by his individual perception and
in fo rm atio n provided for him . As the scene ends and R idley has left, the
audience discover they have been am bushed: H apgood tells M aggs w hat
the next chess m ove is to be. It is only then th at the audience learn there
is no Celia: H ap g o od is playing the role o f her tw in sister in ord er to
tra p Ridley.
In scene five, set in the hotel room we see H apgood (playing the role
o f Celia) sleeping. In the preceding scene K erner, while discussing everyone’s
doubles m entioned m eeting o u r “ sleepers” , o u r hidden selves (72). A t the
sam e tim e he com plained ab o u t never having seen E lizabeth sleeping (74).
N ow we w atch her sleeping, the scene evoking num erous possible in ter­
p retations. F irstly, the sleeping w om an is Celia, the opposite o f H apgood
who never sleeps. Secondly, she is H a p g o o d ’s “ sleeper” , her double, her
“ p erso n al” self. A nd thirdly, she is, as she puts it, R idley’s “dream g irl” ,
“ H ap g o o d w ith o u t the brains or the taste,” this being her answ er to his
question: “ W ho the hell are you?” (83). In the next scene, set at the pool,
Ridley m eets his double and “ the tw o m en em brace briefly” (83). T he
ensuing exchange o f briefcases points to Ridley as the traito r, a double
agent who is also physically doubled, w orking w ith a twin brother. It is
n o t quite clear w hether he realises th a t H apgood does no t have a twin
sister. I f we consider the final sentence uttered by him before being shot,
“ Well, now I d o n ’t know which one you are. One o f them can shoot and
one o f them can
(85), we can assum e th at he believes there are tw o o f
them . Y et, if this in terp retatio n is accepted, it is difficult to account for
his earlier speech:
Listen, be yourself. These people are not for you, in the end they get it all wrong, the
dustbins are gaping for them. Him m ost. H e’s had enough out o f you and you ’re getting
nothing back, he’s dry and you’re the juice. We can walk out o f here, Auntie. (83)
His using the w ord “A u n tie” indicates th a t he is speaking to Celia and
no t to H ap g o o d. Y et, if this is the case, w hat he is saying does n o t m ake
sense, the w ords being addressed to H apgood and n o t Celia. Besides, in
the earlier scene he prom ised he would kill H apgood (and no t C elia) if
she set him up (82). It seems therefore, th a t he does know C elia has never
existed as an individual, but has been only the other self o f H ap g o o d , her
sleeper, her private self. If this interp retatio n is taken, the w ords “ be
y o u rs e lf’ are an urge directed to H apgood asking her to stop treating her
“ technical” side as m ore im p o rtan t and to concentrate on her m ore real,
“ p erso n al” self.
H ap g o o d , however, does no t o r cannot respond and R idley, feeling
betrayed, reaches for his gun and is shot by her. As R idley’s body is
carried aw ay W ates spits a t her a particularly well chosen epithet, “ O h,
you m o th e r” (86). G radually a change begins taking place w ithin H ap g o o d ,
“ H e r anger starts dispersing into m isery” (86). She becom es fully aw are o f
all the im plications o f the situation and o f the fact th a t she has killed
a m an who, even though suspecting a possible risk, decided to help her
son. W hile taking this decision Ridley considered the “ p erso n al” m ore
im p o rtan t th an the “ technical” . W hile shooting him she acted as M other
and n o t as the m o th er o f a child w ho has been saved by R idley. T he
killing o f Ridley becom es a great burden for her. F irstly, as an ultim ate
act o f killing a person and, secondly, as the killing o f a person w ho loves
her and is willing to sacrifice his safety in order to protect her and her
child. T here is yet one m ore aspect o f the situation w hich should be
stressed here. Ridley, who p u t the “ personal” before the “technical” , is
dead. Blair, on the o ther hand, for w hom the “ technical” dom inates over
th e “ p erso n al” , w ho has pu t little Joe at risk, thinks th a t H ap g o o d will
get over it. H apgood, however, has decided to w ithdraw . W hen he insists
th a t “ O ne has to pick oneself up and carry on. I t’s them or us, isn’t it?” ,
she finishes her answ er insisting on the need to w ithdraw by saying “ oh,
f-f-fuck it, Paul!” (87) T he phrase she uses is evidently one o f C elia’s no t
one o f H a p g o o d ’s. It is, how ever, H apgood who uses it. O ne can argue
th a t her using o f this phrase is an indication th a t her “ sleeper” has at last
aw akened. D u e to the newly reached understanding o f the rules governing
espionage resulting from the recent events, she has decided to w ithdraw
and to concentrate on the “ p erso n al” w hich is, as she has found ou t, m ore
im p o rtan t th an the “ technical” .
T h e last glim pse we get o f her in the play is her “ p erso n al” self: she
is a t the rugby pitch, w atching her small Joe taking p a rt in the gam e. H er
o th er Joe, Joseph K erner, is standing next to her, having com e to say
good-bye to her before his d ep artu re for R ussia. K ern er is introduced to
Jo e, the boy is n o t told, how ever, th a t this is his father. H ap g o o d suggests
to K ern er th a t they could go to have tea together, “ T hey lay it on for
p aren ts” (88). T his p a rt o f the conversation is rem iniscent o f the earlier
conversation at the pitch between H apgood and Blair, yet now she does
n o t utter the end o f the earlier sentence (“ and h e’s entitled to tw o ,” 24)
W hen K ern er refuses to join her “ She breaks d o w n .” and he tries to
com fort her. As he gets ready to leave she cries ou t “ H ow can you go?
H ow can y o u T T h en she turns away to start w atching the gam e which
has ju st begun. A few m om ents later “ She turns round and finds th a t
K E R N E R is still there. She turns back to gam e and com es alive” (89).
T h e ending o f the play is am biguous. A ccording to R oger Rees w ho played
the p a rt “m aybe K ern er does no t stay at the rugby pitch o r m aybe he
stays for the rest o f his life or m aybe he stays for tw o days.” 26
T h e ending o f the play does no t provide a clear answ er as to w he­
th er K ern er will leave o r stay yet it states explicitly w hat is m o st im p o r­
ta n t in o n e’s life. Simon Jones, w ho played Blair in the Los Angeles
pro d u ctio n has rem arked th a t “ the events o f the p lay ” m ake it obvious
th a t w hat is m ost real and im p o rtan t in life are “ straightforw ard o r­
dinary h u m an relationships.” 27 As the curtain falls we know th a t H a p ­
good has given up the “ technical” for the sake o f the “ personal . Little
Jo e, who earlier did n o t even have a m other, H a p g o o d ’s “ p erso n al’ self
being suppressed by her “ technical” self, now gets his m o th e r back.
M aybe he will also have a father in the end, the closing o f the play
indicating th a t K ern er m ight stay, after all. In his earlier play S toppard
argued th a t every good boy deserves a la th e r and there is no reason to
suspect th a t Joe m ight be an exception to this rule. The F a b e r and
F a b e r edition o f Hapgood, presenting three num bered booths at the pool
and tw o briefcases placed outside them , refers to the technical side ol
the play and is evocative o f the beginning o f the play as far as the
w orld o f espionage is concerned. T he cover o f the program m e oi the
A ldw ych T h eatre, on the o th er hand, was “ dom inated by the p h o to ­
graph o f young H ap g o o d , its edges tattered where his father has to rn it
from a team picture, and m eeting directly over the h ea rt o f the boy are
a pair o f rifle sights” 28 which referred to and stressed the personal
aspect o f S to p p a rd ’s dram a.
26 Roger Rees, interview with D eloney, London, 16 June 1988; quoted in D eloney, op.
cit.,
p. 147.
27 Simon Jones, Morning Edition, N ational Public Radio, 12 April
D eloney, op. cit., 157.
28 D eloney, op. cit., p. 140.
1989; quoted in
T he duality inherent in hu m an n ature is not restricted to H ap g o o d only,
even th o u g h in her case it is m ost evident. T his notion is evoked in the
play by a specific use o f nam es. H apgood is given a great num ber o f them .
T h e agents Ridley and M erryw eather call her “ M o th e r” , her secretary,
M aggs, calls her “ M rs H a p g o o d ” , W ates uses the form “m a ’a m ” , Blair
calls her “ M o th e r” and “ E lizabeth” , little Joe uses the phrases “ M u m m y ”
and “ M u m ” and Celia speaks o f “ B etty” . A nd finally K erner em ploys the
R ussian form o f her nam e, “ Y elizaveta” , its dim inutives, “ L ilya” and
‘L ilitchka” , and “m am ushka” . H ersh Zeifm an also discusses the etym ological
m eaning o f her two o th er nam es. This critic notices th a t the h ero in e’s
nam e, H ap g o o d , consists o f tw o elem ents and “ H a p (defined by the O ld
English Dictionary as ‘chance o r fortune, luck, lo t’) is specifically linked to
good.” H e fu rth erm ore stresses the fact th at when H ap g o o d chooses to
play her tw in sister “ she slyly nam es herself Celia (L atin caelium : heaven)
N ew ton.”29 T h e variety o f nam es used for H apgood seems to p oint ou t to
the fact th at, even though she is the sam e individual, she yet presents
divergent images to different people.
T he nam es o f other characters are also telling and add to the overall
im pact oi the play. Ridley (a telling nam e in itself as the characters and
the audience alike have to solve the riddle o f his identity) appears to have
E rn est as his first nam e which becomes very telling if we realise th a t while
he is a tra ito r in the “ technical” sense he is m ost earnest in the “ p erso n al”
sense.30 H ersh Zeifm an points o u t th a t “ K ern er is thus as m u ch a riddle
as Ridley is, . . . - the enigm a o f K e rn er’s identity, like R idley’s, is
em bodied in his very nam e (G erm an K ern: the nucleus o f a to m ).” 31 It can
be said, then, th a t the use o f specific telling nam es is one o f the ways of
in trod u cin g the m ain them atic interest o f the play th a t is the difficulty o f
establishing the n atu re o f h u m an identity and, by extension, the n atu re o f
reality as such.
T he m ain idea o f Hapgood, a play using the subatom ic m e ta p h o r and
stressing the difficulty o f interpreting reality is th a t “ the act o f observing
determ ines the reality.” T he play presents an im age o f the m ysteries o f
h u m an n atu re and reality and m akes us aw are o f the fact th a t in the act
o f observing we are in p a rt determ ining the m eaning we will find in them .
1 his n o tio n is evoked no t only by w hat K ern er says but also by a specific
use o f language, setting and lighting. T he co n v ersatio n on the ra d io
29 Zeifman, op. cit., pp. 194, 196.
30 T w o critics m ention the affinities between H apgood and The Importance o f Being
Earnest: Ruby Cohn, R etreats from Realism in Recent English Drama (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1991), p. 144 and T oby Silverman Zinman, “Blizintsy/Dvojniki, Twins/Doubles,
H apgood /H apgood ,” M odern D ram a 2 (1991): 316.
31 Zeifman, op. cit., p. 191.
opening the play contains a num ber o f specific phrases used in the code
language o f espionage. T he sam e kind o f language is often used in course
o f the play, especially during the conversations on the radio and on the
telephone. W hen we hear M aggs tell H ap g o o d th a t a reply has com e from
O ttaw a (“ Exchange bishops, and queen to king o n e” , p. 35) or w hen we
w atch him say into the telephone (“ One square finding W hitaker for
M a tro n ” , p. 26) we think these are espionage m essages. Soon, how ever,
we become aw are o f the fact that we have been m istaken. Some conversations,
even those m ade on the security link, are not connected with espionage at
all. It appears th a t the tw o m essages, which sounded like coded espionage,
were a boardless chess gam e and a m essage from little Joe. T w o language
system s have overlapped and we m isinterpreted the sentences using the
espionage code and no t the everyday language code, a co ntravention o f
co-referential rules having taken place. T he play also dem onstrates an
opposite kind o f m isunderstanding and m isin terp retatio n w hen H ap g o o d ,
playing the p a rt o f Celia, pretending not to know the code language o f
espionage seems to understand only the everyday, literal m eaning o f certain
phrases. T h a t is why, w atching Ridley trying to reach M o th er on his radio,
she asks: “ E rnest . . . I can hardly d are ask you this, but is your m o th er
in the secret service too?” (80) A sim ilar m isunderstanding is connected
w ith the use o f the expression “ yo-yo” (“ Y o u r eyes only” , p. 25). T he
specific use o f language on all these occasions indicates th a t the interpretation
depends to an equal extent bo th on w hat is said and on the listener, on
the thing perceived and o n the perceiver as such and his ability to draw
the p ro p e r conclusions.
T he dual n atu re o f reality and hum an identity is also stressed by m eans
o f theatrical com ponents o f the production. O ne o f these is a specific use
o f light in the play. In scene tw o, set in the zoo, K e rn er explains his notio n
th a t “A double agent is m ore like a trick o f the light” (10). T he point he
is m aking is underlined by the stage directions which say: “W e need one
p articu lar and distinct d em arcation o f light and shadow on the floor,
p erhaps throw n by the edge o f a w all” (9). W hile K ern er is speaking ab o u t
the dual n atu re o f light (its being a particle and a wave) we perceive
a visual im age o f the duality inherent in light (light versus shadow on the
floor). T h e tw o im ages, visual and verbal one, m etaphorically refer to the
d uality inherent in hu m an nature. A sim ilar effect is achieved in scene six
when the to rch held by Ridley produces a beam o f light in w hich we see
the tw o Ridleys em bracing. Slightly later on, w hen Ridley is shot by
H ap g o o d , the stage directions ask for “ S trobe lighting” (85). T he fact th a t
the light focuses on R idley, th a t it becomes, in a sense, associated w ith
him , m akes it possible to com pare his identity o f a double agent to the
d u al n atu re o f light, as described by F eynm an.
Several critics have stressed the im portance o f C arl T o m ’s set and
D avid H ersey’s lighting in the original L ondon production. C hristopher
in n es has written: “T he settings continually required the spectators to
revaluate their perception th ro u g h trompe I ’oeil distortions o f scale, or
deceptive perspectives. T hus the boarding school building in the backg­
ro u n d to the rugby-m atch scenes . . . which at first glance appeared
convincingly three-dim ensional, was a flat card b o ard cut-out. T h e p h o to g ­
ra p h e r’s studio (in which H apgood plays the p art o f her ow n sister)
contained an eight-foot long to o th p aste tube, m onstrously out o f scale.” 32
H ersh Z eifm an discusses the setting o f scene two: “ this conversation at the
zoo occurred directly in fro n t o f an enorm ous giraffe - or ra th e r a pair
o f giraffes, positioned in such a way th a t we seemed to be seeing a tw ohead giraffe em anating from a single body.” 33 W hile K ern er was arguing
th a t “ objective reality is for zoologists. ‘A h, yes, definitely a giraffe.’ But
a do u b le agent is no t a giraffe” (10), the setting indicated th a t even in
co n n ectio n w ith a giraffe objective reality does not seem to exist. T he
th em atic d o m in an t o f the piece was brought ab o u t by its visual, theatrical
com ponent.
T he specific setting o f the original pro d u ctio n seems n o t only to have
stressed the them atic issues o f the dram a but, being so obviously non-realistic,
also underscored the fact th a t w hat the audience were w atching was not
reality as such but only its theatrical representation. T he text o f the play
itself m akes also references to the relationship between reality and art, or,
to be m o re specific, to spy stories. In a conversation with H ap good K e rn er
praises this genre:
I like them. W ell, they’re different, you know. N o t from each other naturally. I read in
hope but they all surprise in the same way. Ridley is not very nice: he’ll turn out to be
all right. Blair will be the traitor: the one you liked. This is how the author says, “Y ou
see! Life is not like books, alas!” . . . . When 1 have learned the language 1 will write
m y own book. The traitor will be the one you d on ’t like very much, it will be a scandal.
A nd I will reveal him at the beginning. 1 d on ’t understand this m ania for surprises. If
the author knows, it’s rude not to tell. (47)
It could be argued th at the description o f w hat K e rn e r’s novel will be
like is th e description o f Hapgood. T he a u th o r, S toppard him self, does no t
reveal Ridley as the tra ito r at the beginning and he does like surprises, yet
he constructs the play in a way sim ilar to the rules governing an experim ent.
32 Christopher Innes, Modern British Dram a (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1992), p. 345.
33 Zeifman, op. cit., p. 183. For a discussion o f other elements o f the setting see also
Katherine E. K elly, Tom S toppard and the Craft o f Comedy. M edium and Genre at P lay (Ann
Arbor: University o f M ichigan Press, 1991), p. 154.
F ro m the beginning o f the play we are aw are th a t the tra ito r is to be
found while the whole play presents the act o f setting up the experim ent
whose aim is to discover w hether Ridley is the guilty one o r not. U nlike
a physics experim ent, how ever, the d ra m a n o t only tells us how th e
world o f things w orks but also w hat the w orld o f things m eans. T he
relativity and uncertainty concerning both the w orld o f physics and the
w orld o f h u m an beings are un q u estio n ab le yet the overall im p act o f
the play and its final scene indicate th at one should no t sacrifice the
“ p erso n al” to the “ technical” , th a t one should rem ain faithful to oneself
and the beloved ones. P aradoxically enough, am ong the num erous di­
chotom ies discernible in the play (light as bo th particle and wave, double
agents, twins, art and science, illusion and reality) we can notice yet
a n o th er one: the overall relativity is put side by side w ith idealism visible
in the stress being pu t o n the n o t relative value o f sim ple and basic
hum an relationships.
D epartm ent o f Studies in English Dram a and Poetry
University o f Łódź
Jadwiga Uchman
SIATKA SZ PIE G O W SK A A M ECH ANIK A KW ANTOW A:
H A P G O O D T O M A ST O P P A R D A
W swojej twórczości dramatycznej Tom Stoppard zajmuje się bardzo często zagadnieniami
dotyczącym i relatywizmu poznaw czego. T a sama osoba czy też zjawisko m ogą być inaczej
opisywane przez różnych obserwatorów ze względu na zm ienione warunki sam ego procesu
poznaw czego i różnice występujące w interpretacji.
W dramacie H apgood artysta wykorzystał najnowsze osiągnięcia z zakresu mechaniki
kw antowej. Sztuka ta odwołuje się w sposób bezpośredni d o wyników badań Richardsa
Phillipsa Feynm ana, noblisty z 1965 r., twórcy relatywistycznej elektrodynamiki kwantowej,
i d o zasady nieoznaczoności sformułowanej przez Wernera K arla Heisenberga. W prze­
prowadzonym przez siebie doświadczeniu Feynm an obserwował strumień elektronów, starając
się ustalić, czy zachowują się one jak fale, czy też jak cząsteczki. W zależności od warunków
doświadczenia konkluzje były odmienne. Badania te zostały opisane przez słynnego fizyka
w wykładzie, którego tytuł zawierał symptom atyczne słowa: „praw dopodobieństw o” i „niepew­
ność” . Ponadto Stoppard posługuje się również matematyką: kwadrat dowolnej liczby m oże
mieć podstaw ę ujemną lub też dodatnią, przeciwstawne wartości m ogą więc dać ten sam
wynik.
Badania Feynm ana, teoria nieoznaczoności Heisenberga i specyficzny charakter kwadratów
liczb posłużyły Stoppardowi d o stworzenia metaforycznego obrazu świata siatki szpiegowskiej
i działających w jej ramach konkretnych ludzi. W ystępujące w dramacie postaci charakteryzuje
specyficzna dw oistość. N a płaszczyźnie zawodowej wielu z nich działa jako podwójni agenci,
pracując jednocześnie dla A nglików i Rosjan. Ponadto niektórzy z nich działają wspólnie
z bliźniakami. Jeżeli rozpatrywać te postaci jako konkretne osoby, niejednokrotnie cechuje je
również brak jednorodności charakterologicznej - jawią się inaczej na płaszczyźnie zawodowej,
a inaczej na prywatnej. W ielorodność osobow ości postaci podkreślona została przez użycie
różnych im ion w stosunku d o tej samej osoby.
R elatyw istyczne pojm ow anie postaci, będące podstaw ą tem atyczną dram atu, zostało
podkreślone przez teatralne elementy przedstawienia. W idz niejednokrotnie zmuszony jest do
zdania sobie sprawy z tego, że daje się zwieść grze pozorów, że istnieje zasadnicza różnica
między konkretną rzeczywistością a jej iluzją. Podobnie jak w świecie współczesnej fizyki,
również w otaczającej nas rzeczywistości brak jest całkowitej jednoznaczności.