EN
203 Guy Tiphane
Prof. A. Davaran April 15, 2002
The Character of Hamlet
Sigmund Freud used Hamlet in the development of his theory of the Oedipus Complex. As a consequence, much has been written about and against the psychoanalytic reading of the play and its main character. Most opposition to character analysis dwells in the fact that literary characters are invented and enclosed in the rather limited, invented world of the work of art. We only know of the fictitious Hamlet’s life and interactions from a brief snapshot of his life focused on the issues presented in the play. Although a character coming out of Shakespeare’s mind and its modeling by its early actors would be inspired by a touch of realism, it is not possible to interrogate the character, only to observe the interactions he has with other invented characters. With these limitations in mind, this paper condenses some of the findings of the psychoanalytic criticism founded by Freud as they relate to the character of Hamlet. Readers interested in a more thorough treatment of the subject should refer to N. Holland’s book Psychoanalysis and Shakespeare[1] from which this paper is inspired.
At the basis of Freud’s analysis, described more thoroughly by Ernest Jones, is the Oedipus Complex which he not only derived from Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex but also from Hamlet. The complex would be a set of behavioral patterns caused by the unconscious desire of a boy to acquire the mother’s love by replacing, or killing, the father. In Freud’s view, the character of Hamlet succeeded in drawing the sympathy of its audience because we all repress the same impulse.
A first issue with Hamlet is that his father is already dead, murdered by his own brother Claudius. Claudius however replaces Old Hamlet as Gertrude’s lover, which may be enough for a transfer of the complex from the real father to Claudius. In the issue of why Hamlet delays killing Claudius, Freud advanced that Hamlet could not bring himself to kill Claudius because of his childhood repression against killing the father. There would also be a conflict with Claudius having already performed the deed that Hamlet wished to do. But looking further into the cast of characters and their actions in the play, we find many father figures: the Ghost, with its commands, Claudius, because he marries Gertrude, and Polonius as Ophelia’s controlling father and counselor to the parents.
Hamlet frees himself from the Oedipal repression gradually through the play. His first victim is Ophelia, who becomes a mother figure, not only as a woman he no longer loves, or in his own words whom he did not love, but also as a woman under control of a father figure, Polonius. He will then kill Polonius hidden behind the curtain, hoping for a moment he might have killed Claudius. This killing coincides with a reconciliation with Gertrude, under the influence of the Ghost who then withdraws as if its earthly issues had been resolved. Hamlet insists that Gertrude should not join Claudius in bed to keep the situation clear, to keep his mother as his sole lover.
Expanding the work of Freud, Erik Erikson saw Hamlet in a developmental crisis and introduced the notion of a “negative identity.” Hamlet, as a delayed adolescent, is in search for loyalty and fidelity to an identity which he seeks by playing and trying different ones. The frequent references to playing, his feigned madness, his sympathy for the players, and his appreciation for Horatio’s sincerity would all be signs of an adolescent in search for an identity. The player in Hamlet, the one seeking revenge, is not what he likes to be.
This identity crisis may explain also his treatment of Guildenstern, Rosencrantz, and Laertes, all of whom, it has been argued, are brother figures that are in one way or another submissive to parental authority. It may also explain his delegation to Fortinbras, whom he would like to be: a man of action.
It would seem that when psychoanalytic critics chose to address the character of Hamlet (rather than the play) they differed only slightly from the Freudian view. Radical views of E.E. Krapf and Marcel Pagnol made of Hamlet a homosexual or effeminate for his rejection of Ophelia and his unmanly actions, but the basis of the Freudian observations remains solid as a rock as long as Hamlet is treated as a living person. Whether we should treat Hamlet as a real person is, really, the question.