This week, I've been reading a very interesting essay that I wanted to share with you all: "The Oedipus-Complex as an Explanation of Hamlet's Mystery: A study in motive" written by Dr. Ernest Jones in 1910. As the title suggests, Jones analyzes several hypotheses that could explain Hamlet's inability to revenge his father, using psychoanalysis as well as textual evidence to support his claims. Here, I have taken excerpts from the paper to outline the general argument. You will see the three main hypotheses, proposed by scholars, Jones’ response to them and his main argument.
Question: Why does Hamlet not act?
1. “the difficulty in the performance of the task in Hamlet's temperament, which is not suited to effective action of any kind” – overly intelligent, analytical, pensive etc.
-Jones: “there is every reason to believe that,
apart from the task in question, Hamlet is a man capable of
very decisive action. This could be not only impulsive, as in
the killing of Polonius, but deliberate, as in the arranging for
the death of Guildenstern and Rosencrantz. His biting scorn
and mockery towards his enemies, and even towards Ophelia,
his cutting denunciation of his mother, his lack of remorse
after the death of Polonius, are not signs of a gentle, yielding
or weak nature”
apart from the task in question, Hamlet is a man capable of
very decisive action. This could be not only impulsive, as in
the killing of Polonius, but deliberate, as in the arranging for
the death of Guildenstern and Rosencrantz. His biting scorn
and mockery towards his enemies, and even towards Ophelia,
his cutting denunciation of his mother, his lack of remorse
after the death of Polonius, are not signs of a gentle, yielding
or weak nature”
2. “the nature of the task, which is such as to be almost impossible of performance by any one”, “a complicated
bringing to judgment” – needed to murder and provide hard evidence for that murder
bringing to judgment” – needed to murder and provide hard evidence for that murder
-Jones: “This distortion of the meaning of the revenge is purely
gratuitous and has no warrant in any passage of the play, or
elsewhere where the word is used in Shakspere. Hamlet
never doubted that he was the legitimately appointed instru
ment of punishment, and when at the end of the play he secures his revenge, the dramatic situation is correctly resolved,
although the nation is not even informed, let alone convinced,
of the murder that is being avenged….On which side the people would have been
in any conflict is clearly enough perceived by Claudius, who
dare not even punish Hamlet for killing Polonius”.
gratuitous and has no warrant in any passage of the play, or
elsewhere where the word is used in Shakspere. Hamlet
never doubted that he was the legitimately appointed instru
ment of punishment, and when at the end of the play he secures his revenge, the dramatic situation is correctly resolved,
although the nation is not even informed, let alone convinced,
of the murder that is being avenged….On which side the people would have been
in any conflict is clearly enough perceived by Claudius, who
dare not even punish Hamlet for killing Polonius”.
3. “some special feature in the nature of the task which renders it peculiarly difficult or repugnant to Hamlet” – ethically opposed to revenge
-Jones: “why did Hamlet in his mono
logues give us no indication of the nature of the conflict in his
mind?...Throughout the play we see his
mind irrevocably made up as to the necessity of a given course
of action, which he fully accepts as being his bounden duty;
indeed, he would have resented the mere insinuation of doubt
on this point as an untrue slur on his filial piety.”
logues give us no indication of the nature of the conflict in his
mind?...Throughout the play we see his
mind irrevocably made up as to the necessity of a given course
of action, which he fully accepts as being his bounden duty;
indeed, he would have resented the mere insinuation of doubt
on this point as an untrue slur on his filial piety.”
Jones’ argument:
“Hamlet's hesitancy may have been
due to an internal conflict between the need to fulfill his task
on the one hand, and some special cause of repugnance to it
on the other;
due to an internal conflict between the need to fulfill his task
on the one hand, and some special cause of repugnance to it
on the other;
"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….When a man gives at different times a dif
ferent reason for his conduct it is safe to infer that, whether
purposely or not, he is concealing the true reason."
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….When a man gives at different times a dif
ferent reason for his conduct it is safe to infer that, whether
purposely or not, he is concealing the true reason."
"As a child Hamlet had experienced the warmest affection for his mother, and this, as is always the case, had contained elements of a more or less dimly defined erotic quality…Now comes the father's death and the mother's second marriage. The long 'repressed' desire to take his father's place in his mother's affection is stimulated to unconscious activity by the sight of some one usurping this place exactly as he himself had once longed to do."
“He is therefore in a dilemma between on the one hand allowing his
natural detestation of his uncle to have free play, a consummation which would make him aware of his own horrible
wishes, and on the other ignoring the imperative call for vengeance that his obvious duty demands...The call of duty to slay his uncle
cannot be obeyed because it links itself with the call of his
nature to slay his mother's husband, whether this is the first
or the second; the latter call is strongly "repressed," and
therefore necessarily the former also”
natural detestation of his uncle to have free play, a consummation which would make him aware of his own horrible
wishes, and on the other ignoring the imperative call for vengeance that his obvious duty demands...The call of duty to slay his uncle
cannot be obeyed because it links itself with the call of his
nature to slay his mother's husband, whether this is the first
or the second; the latter call is strongly "repressed," and
therefore necessarily the former also”
This was only an outline – Jones speaks in length about ethics, religion, murder, revenge, sexual repression, the relationships between father and son, father and daughter, mother and son etc. Some very interesting points made (on both sides). Hope this is helpful!
No comments:
Post a Comment