Hamlet Strategic Reading Practices Resources #1
ENotes http://www.enotes.com/homework-help/does-hemlet-has-oedipuscomplex-41151
Homework Help
Does Hamlet display the Oedipus complex?
Topic: Hamlet
brightensky | eNotes Newbie
Posted October 12, 2008 at 7:43 PM via web
dislike2like
Does Hamlet display the Oedipus complex?
2 Answers | Add Yours
luannw | High School Teacher | (Level 2) Senior Educator
Posted October 12, 2008 at 8:32 PM (Answer #1)
dislike1like
Sources:
http://www.enotes.com/topics/hamlet
http://www.enotes.com/topics/hamlet/characters
http://www.enotes.com/topics/hamlet/themes
kindyc | Student, Undergraduate | eNotes Newbie
Posted May 28, 2011 at 4:23 PM (Answer #2)
dislike0like
I think it makes some sense. first, he starts to doubt about the worth of life and
Ophelia’s love that is indeed pure and deep, his mother’s remarry made him cast the
whole world into the shadow. It really makes people feel strange how his mother
could display such a big impact on him.second , hamlet is a thinker rather than a
single minded revenger, he is always hesitated on action, but in his mother’s
chamber, In Act 3, sc. 4, he just killed Polonius without thinking, and the single
minded blood action is just against his characteristic. In a word, his unusual behavior
towards his mother shows, to some degree, the Oedipus complex in him.
Hamlet Strategic Reading Practices Resources #2
Hamlet’s Oedipus Complex
http://hamletandoedipus.wikispaces.com/Hamlet%27s+Complex
As one of Shakespeare’s greatest tragedies, Hamlet may be the greatest and
one that can be viewed through the eyes of a different psychological . Taking
Hamlet’s various actions towards Claudius and Gertrude, it is somewhat
evident that the character of Hamlet suffers from an Oedipus Complex that
drives him towards the final conclusion in the play rather than just the simple murder of his father and his
uncle’s betrayal. To be able to identify with Hamlet though, it is necessary to look at whether they were in
boys (Oedipus Complex) or in girls (Electra complex) that are used to describe a child’s attraction the
respective parent and jealousy towards the other. (Gale Studen Resources in Context).This idea developed
further into the Freud’s theory of the mind and what the difference between the conscious mind and
unconscious mind is. By 1899, Freud had published The Interpretation of Dreams in which it not only lays
out the principles of psychoanalytic theory, it also suggests the importance of dreams (Gale Student
Resources in Context). As that is, in Freud’s mind, dreams are the way the brain works to understand the
minds unconscious offerings. From this, the idea that there is a unconscious mind which we repress, comes
the thought of repressing thoughts and ideas in which we would not normally act.
Could someone act without really knowing why they are acting this way? Is it possible to harbor feelings that
one isn’t truly aware of? It is here the Shakespeare’s play Hamlet comes to question. Were Hamlet’s actions
conscious in that he wanted to kill Claudius for his betrayal, or were they unconscious, full of instinct and
wishes towards his mother Gertrude?The Oedipus complex is in Hamlet, that is for sure, but where did it
come from? Was it just a term used by Freud that he pulled out of nothing? The answer is no. Oedipus was
actually a Greek myth, and finale of the myth itself is what gave Freud the idea to term this “complex” after
Oedipus. Oedipus, a Greek king, killed his father and married his mother. Sounds fitting then to term
“Oedipus complex” something that involves familial relations. How does the Oedipus complex work though?
In simple terms, the young boy starts to harbor sexual feelings for his mother and jealousy towards the
father for being with the mother. For example, did you ever look at your mom and dad and start identifying
the differences between them and finding that you’re more attracted towards your mom? Maybe try to push
“daddy” away so you can be with her? A Freudian would identify this as an Oedipal case. Furthermore, The
Oedipus Complex main antagonist in Freudian theory is the development of the super-ego whose job is to
basically police desires that would otherwise unacceptable to society, so what if the super-ego never fully
develops and the Oedipus complex is able to carry out its desires and thoughts? This would lead to the
subconscious mind acting in place of the conscious mind and things that, at face value, seem to propose a
true idea are actually hidden intentions in the bodies instincts and desires.
Has it ever occurred to you that while reading Hamlet, he offers different thoughts as to why he can’t kill
Claudius? Especially when he had the opportunity right there before him in which he could have gotten
away with it. Why didn’t he do it then? Was it really because he is a coward, or because the ghost wasn’t
real and then even when he has the chance to kill Claudius as he kneels to pray. All of these are very
plausible, but that doesn’t change that fact that Hamlet is still able to harbor an Oedipus Complex (Jones).
Furthermore, some people would argue that due to Hamlet’s intelligence, he is unable to act quickly for he
views the different outcomes that are possible from a single event, Jones would go on to argue that there
are at least there objections to this; general psychological consideration and objective evidence found in the
play. From the play, one can garner that Hamlet was indeed a man of action and not indecisions. His killing
of Polonius, the death of Guildenstern and Rosencrantz, his scorn towards his enemies and Ophelia, all of
these are facets of a character who is able to act, even if he is quite intelligent. To exemplify further, in the
quote, "Unhand me, gentlemen;/By heaven, I'll make a ghost of him that lets me;/I say, away!" Hamlet
shows a clear train of thought in what he wants nor is there anything to show he isn’t fit to the task at hand.
Goethe says Hamlet is “A lovely, pure, noble and most moral nature, without the strength of nerve which
forms a hero, sinks beneath a burden which it cannot bear and must not cast away.”(Brandeis.edu), and I
wholeheartedly disagree with this just as Jones. There is no difficulty in the task. To kill Claudius, that is
what Hamlet must do. Where does the difficulty lie, if not within his own subconscious. Besides Goethe,
other critics rose up to say that once again, the gravity of the task is what held Hamlet back. Their argument
being that had he killed Hamlet outright then the nation would not support his actions (Jones). This being
easily refutable by Claudius not punishing Hamlet in his killing of Polonius. (Act IV, Sc. 3),
“Yet must not we put the strong law on him; He’s loved of the distracted multitude, Who like not in their
judgment, but in their eyes;”
By this quote, already has the argument that the people would be against Hamlet for killing Polonius been
struck away. Furthermore into Jones’ essay on Hamlet, he argues on historical criticism of Shakespeare. It
is common knowledge that he named his son Hamnet, and that the date of his father’s death is September,
1601. Jones’ argues that this death of his father would awaken “repressed” memories inside of
Shakespeare before he wrote Hamlet. These repressed memories would, in turn, be written into the play in
the form of the character of Hamlet.
This view of Hamlet by Jones gives a new light to the issue. In the heart of his argument towards Hamlet
having an Oedipus Complex, Jones has linked the crime towards his mother and the crime towards his
father as both having a significant impact on Hamlet, but only the first has a true impact on him. As
aforementioned, the Oedipus complex is repressed in individuals, so in Hamlet, he must either come to
realize that he wants to kill his uncle, his mother’s husband who he abhors, and that this is the true reason
he wants to, or that he must answer the call of duty and seek vengeance.
In the end, Hamlet does neither throughout the play due to having to “repress” his innate, subconscious
reason and thus by repressing this one, he is also repressing the more obvious one which is to kill him for
betraying his brother. In final closings of this, knowing that the Oedipus complex is a repression of feelings
towards the mother, looking at Hamlet in this view gives the idea that he does have this complex. During the
play scene, Hamlet can be seen as almost telling his mother off for her betrayal of him by his preferring to
be beside Ophelia. It challenges her for being able to sleep with other men. Going so far as to say that
Hamlet not only envies Claudius for being with his mother, but for Claudius having the gall to carry out the
murder and take his mom for himself. In the end, this great tragedy written by Hamlet can be taken for its
face value; that of a tragic hero fated to die at the end, or it can be seen as the story of a man who has
repressed his feelings toward his mother and thus is unable to act throughout the play due to these
repressed feelings keeping him from action for if he does act, he would be admitting to himself his jealousy
of Claudius and his sexual feelings towards his own mother. Hamlet is neither the man described by other
critics, that of one who’s task is too large for him to accomplish, or one who’s afraid of the people’s
reactions. He is a man, like any other, who is tasked with killing the man who has killed his father and taken
his mother. The difference lies in his inability to act due the repressions of feelings that he has towards his
mother. Hamlet is, a man with an Oedipus complex.
Hamlet Strategic Reading Practices Resources #3
FREUD on HAMLET https://www.fpsct.org/uploaded/faculty/.../FREUD_on_HAMLET.doc
from Interpretation of Dreams [On Hamlet] (1900)
[Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), the father of psychoanalysis…examines Hamlet in light of his
theory known as the Oedipus complex.]
Another of the great creations of tragic poetry, Shakespeare’s Hamlet, has its roots in the same
soil as Oedipus Rex. But the changed treatment of same material reveals the whole difference in
the mental life of these two widely separated epochs of civilization: the secular advance of
repression in the emotional life of mankind. In the Oedipus the child’s wishful fantasy that
underlies it is brought into the open and realized as it would be in a dream. In Hamlet it remains
repressed; and—just as in the case of a neurosis—we only learn of its existence from its
inhibiting consequences. Strangely enough, the overwhelming effect produced by the more
modern tragedy has turned out to be compatible with the fact that people have remained
completely in the dark as to the hero’s character. The play is built up on Hamlet’s hesitations over
fulfilling the task of revenge that is assigned to him; but its text offers no reasons or motives for
these hesitations and an immense variety of attempts at interpreting them have failed to produce a
result. According to the view which was originated by Goethe and is still the prevailing one
today, Hamlet represents the type of man whose power of direct action is paralyzed by an
excessive development of his intellect. (He is “sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought.”)
According to another view, the dramatist has tried to portray a pathologically irresolute character
which might be classed as neurasthenic. The plot of the drama shows us, however, that Hamlet is
far from being represented as a person incapable of taking any action. We see him doing so on
two occasions: first in an outburst of temper, when he runs his sword through the eavesdropper
behind the arras, and secondly in a premeditated and even crafty fashion, when, with all the
callousness of a Renaissance prince, he sends the two courtiers to a death that had been planned
for himself. What is it, then, that inhibits him in fulfilling the task set him by his father’s ghost?
The answer, once again, it that it is the peculiar nature of the task. Hamlet is able to do
anything—except take vengeance on the man who did away with his father and took that father’s
place with his mother, the man who shows him the repressed wishes of childhood realized. Thus
the loathing which should drive him on to revenge is replaced in him by self-reproaches, by
scruples of conscience, which remind him that he himself is literally no better than the sinner
whom he is to punish. Here I have translated into conscious terms what was bound to remain
unconscious in Hamlet’s mind; and if anyone is inclined to call him a hysteric, I can only accept
the fact as one that is implied by my interpretation. The distaste for sexuality expressed by
Hamlet in his conversation with Ophelia fits in very well with this: the same distaste which was
destined to take possession of the poet’s mind more and more during the years that followed, and
which reached its extreme expression in Timon of Athens. For it can of course only be the poet’s
own mind which confronts us in Hamlet. I observe in a book on Shakespeare by Georg Brandes
(1896) a statement that Hamlet was written immediately after the death of Shakespeare’s father
(in 1601), that is, under the immediate impact of his bereavement and, as we may well assume,
while his childhood feelings about his father had been freshly revived. It is known, too, that
Shakespeare’s own son who died at an early age bore the name of “Hamnet,” which is identical
with “Hamlet.” Just as Hamlet deals with the relation of a son to his parents, so Macbeth (written
at approximately the same period) is concerned with the subject of childlessness. But just as all
neurotic symptoms, and, for that matter, dreams, are capable of being “overinterpreted” and
indeed need to be, if they are to be fully understood, so all genuinely creative writings are the
product of more than a single motive and more than a single impulse in the poet’s mind, and are
open to more than a single interpretation. In what I have written I have only attempted to interpret
the deepest layer of impulses in the mind of the creative writer.
Hamlet Strategic Reading Practices Resources #4
http://bcs.bedfordstmartins.com/virtualit/drama/cultural.asp?e=6c
"Hamlet, Prince of Denmark"
Hamlet: Origins, Interpretations, and
Adaptations
Perceptions from the English Renaissance
Theater in Shakespeare's Time
Laurence Olivier as Hamlet speaks with the skull of
“Yorick” in the 1948 Universal-International production
of Hamlet. Credit: © Underwood &
Underwood/CORBIS
Laurence Olivier Comments on the Oedipus Complex in Hamlet
In 1910 Ernest Jones, a disciple of Sigmund Freud, proposed that Hamlet’s actions were fueled by an Oedipus complex, a strong
devotion to his mother and a jealous rejection of other men competing for her affection. Although this is only one of many ways to
interpret the character of Hamlet, it is a theory that captivated many in the last 100 years. Here the great British actor Laurence Olivier
discusses this theory and what it means for his acting of the part.
Laurence Olivier Comments on the Oedipus Complex
Many years ago, when I was first to play Hamlet at the Old Vic, I went with Tyrone Guthrie, who was going to direct it, and Peggy
Ashcroft, who was going to play Ophelia (but for some regrettable reason wasn’t able to), to see Professor Ernest Jones, the great
psychiatrist, who has made an exhaustive study of Hamlet from his own professional point of view and was wonderfully enlightening.
His book on the subject was called What Happens in Hamlet.
We talked and talked. He believed that Hamlet was a prime sufferer from the Oedipus complex. There are many signals along the
line to show his inner involvement with his mother. One of them is his excessive devotion to his father. Nobody’s that fond of his father
unless he feels guilty about his mother, however subconscious that guilt may be. Hamlet’s worship of his father is manufactured,
assumed; he needs it to cover up his subconscious guilt. The Oedipus complex may, indeed, be responsible for a formidable share of
all that is wrong with Hamlet. I myself am only too happy to allow to be added to Shakespeare’s other acknowledged gifts an intuitive
understanding of psychology. Why not? He was the world’s greatest man.
[...]
When Laertes has knifed him and death is a few breaths away, he is suddenly free to wreak vengeance because he has the
innocent, pure reason of vengeance for himself, not for his guilt over his mother. Once he realizes he is about to touch hands with
death, he is free, his guilt is expunged by his own murder, and he is able to feel, “You murder me and I’ll murder you.” For me that
makes a final keystone in the arch of the argument for the Oedipus complex.
Though I believe this theory, I do not believe it to the extent of letting the play be just about that. The play is about a character who
has that particular eccentricity, that particular thing in his character. When one thinks of audience after audience for nearly four hundred
years trying to work it out, it is fascinating. Shakespeare was simply pouring out all that was in his instinctive heart at the time; it is
extraordinary exploration into the human mind.
Source: Laurence Olivier, On Acting (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1986), 77-83.
Hamlet Strategic Reading Practices Resources #5
http://shakespeare.nowheres.com/queries/display.php?id=4520&replies=3
Hamlet And Oedipus Complex
What are the arguments for Hamlet suffereing from the Oedipus Complex and what are the proofs for
this?
posted by T (Abraham) on 2004-07-21 17:41:56
last updated 2004-07-21 17:41:56
Oedipus
Oedipus is a character in Greek mythology who killed his father and married his mother (he didn't know
it). The play, Oedipus Rex, by Sophocles, is a good introduction to this myth. Sigmund Freud used the
Oedipus myth as an archetype for a man who has an excessive love for his mother and hatred for his
father. Freud may have used Shakespeare's Hamlet as an example of this. In any case, Hamlet has been
held up as an example.
There is no proof--and precious little evidence--that Hamlet is Oedipal. If Shakespeare (who lived
centuries before Freud) believed that his Hamlet suffered from any medical condition, it was
melancholia--an excess of black bile which was then considered to be an actual medical diagnosis.
posted by Harry (Harry Connors) on 2004-07-21 22:16:26
last updated 2004-07-21 22:16:26
Book
There is a famous book on your subject by Ernest Jones, a friend of Freud and a psychoanalyst, titled
"Hamlet and Oedipus". If you get the Laurence Olivier movie (video) of Hamlet, you will see the influence
of this approach. I think it has some validity, but as with most criticism of Shakespeare plays, it is
overdone. Hamlet's thoughts about his mother, and conversation with her, are certainly unusual. Don't
forget, though, Shakespeare wrote long before Freud was born.
posted by Dave J on 2004-07-24 05:48:20
last updated 2004-07-24 05:48:20
Don't confuse Sophocles with Freud
A further comment. Oedipus, the character in Sophocles' play Oedipus Tyranus, did not have an Oedipus
complex as described in Freudian theory. Sophocles' Oedipus had no idea that the woman he loved and
married was his mother. He completely believed that Merope of Corinth was his mother, and he had no
reported sexual interest in her.
Freud named his Oedipus Complex both because the catchy name referred to a legendary son -- mother
incest, and more significantly because Freud thought that the popularity of Sophocles' play was rooted in
a subconscious interest of the male audience in the subject of son -- mother sexual attraction. But this is
Freud's interpretation of the audience appeal of a subconscious attraction in the play.
posted by Dave J on 2004-07-24 06:04:22
last updated 2004-07-24 06:04:22
Copyright © 2000-2004 Dana Spradley, Publisher, shakespeare.com. All rights reserved.
Hamlet Strategic Reading Practices Resources #6
HTTP
://THOUGHTS-ON-SHAKESPEARE.BLOGSPOT.COM/2011/04/OEDIPUS-COMPLEX-AND-HAMLET.HTML
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6, 2011
Oedipus Complex and Hamlet
In my Film Noir class, we have learned a great deal about the Oedipus complex, and how it pertained to that
film cycle. After reading ‘Hamlet, it becomes almost painfully clear that he was trapped inside this cycle. This
might even bring into question whether or not Hamlet had actually seen his father’s ghost. However unlikely it
may be, it is not out of the question to think that perhaps his ghost was a creation of Hamlet’s to justify his
exhibition of the Oedipus complex.
To understand how this complex fits into ‘Hamlet,’ we first have to understand what the complex truly is. In its
most basic form, the Oedipus complex is a childhood desire to kill the father so he can sleep with the mother.
To fulfill the Oedipal trajectory, however, the child must grow up, and fall in love with another woman who is
not his mother.
While it may seem like Hamlet is fulfilling his father’s request to avenge him, we never get a word of
endearment from Hamlet to his father. In fact, Hamlet never actually even calls him ‘dad’ or ‘father’ or any of
the sort. If he is indeed wrapped up in the Oedipus complex, it is entirely possible that Hamlet is internally glad
that his father is dead. He uses this envisioning (made up or not) as a way to justify his plot to kill Claudius.
Though it is likely that the Oedipus complex would have driven him to do that either way. Hamlet even goes as
far as to ask his mother to stop sleeping with Claudius. This would be an odd statement, but it can be qualified
simply by putting it into an Oedipal cycle.
While it may seem like Hamlet is in love with Ophelia, it is not hard to see that Hamlet may be using her
appearance to make his mother, Gertrude, jealous. He lays it out quite bluntly when he says ‘I loved you once…
I loved you not’ (III.1 47). Even after breaking up, Hamlet talks to her sexually, trying to make his mother
jealous.
Only after he is mortally wounded does it seem that Hamlet is able to escape the Oedipal trajectory. Since he
failed, he is able to see Gertrude as a mother, instead of anything else.
POSTED BY JACOB ZUBERI AT 11:03 AM
Hamlet Strategic Reading Practices Resources #7
The New Yorker AUGUST 14, 2013
Hamlet: A Love Story BY JOSHUA ROTHMAN
http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/hamlet-a-love-story
Around 1905 or 1906, Sigmund Freud wrote an essay, unpublished in his lifetime, called “Psychopathic Characters on
the Stage.” The essay addressed the question of what we, as spectators, get out of watching people go crazy. Freud’s
theory was that we’re fascinated by crazy characters because they help us express our own repressed impulses. Drama,
of course, can’t express our fantasies too literally; when that happens, we call it pornography and walk out of the
theatre. Instead, a good playwright maneuvers our desires into the light using a mixture of titillation and censure,
fantasy and irony, obscenity and euphemism, daring and reproach. A good play, Freud wrote, provokes “not merely an
enjoyment of the liberation but a resistance to it as well.” That resistance is key. It lets us enjoy our desires without
quite admitting that they’re ours.
“Hamlet,” Freud thought, best exemplified the appeal of managed self-expression. Watching “Hamlet,” we think that
it’s about revenge—a familiar, safe subject. In fact, “Hamlet” is about desire. The real engine of the play is Oedipal.
Caught up in Hamlet’s quest to kill Claudius—and reassured by his self-censure—we can safely, and perhaps
unconsciously, explore those desires. Freud thought that prudery and denial had for centuries prevented critics from
acknowledging the play’s propulsive undercurrent, which, he believed, the new psychoanalytic vocabulary made it
possible to acknowledge. “The conflict in ‘Hamlet’ is so effectively concealed,” he wrote, “that it was left to me to
unearth it.”
Freud’s hilarious (and no doubt self-conscious) boast is doubly resonant in “Stay, Illusion!,” the thoughtful, fascinating,
and difficult new book about “Hamlet,” by Simon Critchley and Jamieson Webster. Critchley, a philosopher at the New
School, and Webster, a psychoanalyst, can’t help but thrill to Freud’s “delightfully arrogant assertion”: they are, after all,
writing a book about “Hamlet,” and you only do that if you believe that nearly every great thinker in Western literature
has gotten it wrong. At the same time, they resist the idea that “the Oedipus complex provides the definitive
interpretation of ‘Hamlet.’ ” Critchley and Webster, a married couple, have clearly been conducting a long-running twoperson seminar on “Hamlet.” They call their book the “late-flowering fruit of a shared obsession.” Their book convenes a
sort of literary-philosophical-psychoanalytic roundtable—featuring Hegel, Nietzsche, Benjamin, Joyce, and Lacan, among
others—to question Freud’s interpretation.
Desire and its repression, they conclude, might be too small a frame for “Hamlet.” It’s better to think about the play
in terms of love and its internal contradictions. They argue that we tell the story wrong when we say that Freud used the
idea of the Oedipus complex to understand “Hamlet.” In fact, it was the other way around: “Hamlet” helped Freud
understand, and perhaps even invent, psychoanalysis. The Oedipus complex is a misnomer. It should be called the
Hamlet complex.
Critchley and Webster are proud as well as nervous about the fact that they’re “outsiders to the world of Shakespeare
criticism.” “What is staged in ‘Hamlet,’ ” they write, “touches very close to the experience of being a psychoanalyst, that
is, someone who has to listen to patients day after day, hour after hour.” Rather than get caught up in the “game of
scholarship and interpretation,” their plan is to “cup [their] ear”—that is, to attend to and elaborate on the themes that
the play obsesses about. Nothingness is one of those themes; it comes up over and over in the text of the play. (Ophelia
to Hamlet: “You are naught, you are naught.” Hamlet to himself: “How weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable / Seem to me
all the uses of this world!”) Is “Hamlet,” they wonder, “a nihilist drama”? Love or, more accurately, the failure to love is
also a theme. Shame is another. (“For us,” they write, “at its deepest, this is a play about shame.”)
Accounting for the action of the play, to most people, means accounting for Hamlet’s famous “delay” in killing
Claudius. (This delay was Shakespeare’s big innovation when he wrote his own version of the already extant Hamlet
story: in earlier versions, Hamlet either flew swiftly to his revenge or spent a long time meticulously planning it.) Broadly
speaking, there have been two explanations for the delay. The first is that Hamlet waits because he is a sane person in
an insane world. To begin with, he is unsure about trusting the ghost and must stage “The Mouse-Trap,” the play within
the play, to verify Claudius’s guilt. Then, later, Hamlet must confront his own thoughtful, nonviolent nature. After
Hamlet tells Ophelia, “Get thee to a nunnery!,” she rebukes him this way:
O, what a noble mind is here o’erthrown!
The courtier’s, soldier’s, scholar’s, eye, tongue, sword,
Th’expentency and rose of the fair state,
The glass of fashion and the mould of form,
Th’observ’d of all observers, quite, quite down!
Hamlet, in other words, is a well-rounded person; to kill Claudius, he has to narrow himself into a kind of action hero.
That requires time and psychic work. Taken to its logical conclusion, this reading of “Hamlet” suggests that the word
“delay” actually does him a disservice. What sane person, finding himself in Hamlet’s position, wouldn’t delay? Perhaps
there’s something a little unhinged about the whole problem. In the nineties, in a brilliant essay called “Hamlet’s Dull
Revenge,” the writer René Girard faulted critics for writing as though “no more was needed than some ghost to ask for
it, and the average professor of literature would massacre his entire household without batting an eyelash.” Our
response to “Hamlet,” he thought, said more about our bloodlust (and about the roots of theatre in religious sacrifice)
than it did about Shakespeare. Some critics have brought gender into the discussion: most “Hamlet” criticism has been
written by men, and perhaps they’ve yearned for a manly, decisive killer-hero.
Webster and Critchley recoil from this line of argument. They incline toward the Freudian reading of “Hamlet,” which
holds that Hamlet delays because he feels guilty. Hamlet’s problem, they argue, isn’t really that he’s hesitant about
violence. Rather, it’s that the possibility of being violent fills him with shame. In “Hamlet,” they write, shame is
pervasive; it has settled on Elsinore like a fog. For Freud, Hamlet’s shame has to do with his Oedipal desires. But for
Webster and Critchley it’s more abstract. It has to do with the shame of needing to love, the shame about the emptiness
that, they hold, is at the center of the experience of love.
The idea of love as something tied to emptiness or nothingness is central to psychoanalysis. Often, Webster and
Critchley write, we’re inclined to think of love as the opposite of emptiness—we see it as “a system of mutual favors”
that acts as a kind of bonus to life, a surplus. Instead, we love because we lack. Inside each of us there’s an emptiness,
and that emptiness can never be filled. None of us can ever be loved enough—by our parents, by our children, by our
husbands or wives. The bottomlessness of our need for love means that, even in our most stable, permanent, and
healthy relationships, love “can only be renewed and invented anew, again and again. I love you. I love you. I love you.”
Each time you declare your love, you admit that there’s a lack in yourself. And when two people are in love with one
another, they’re offering up their equivalent emptinesses. When love works, it makes something out of nothing.
If the essence of love is wanting, it’s no wonder that shame and narcissism are so often part of love. It’s intrinsically
shameful to need and need and need, and the bottomlessness of this need breeds anger and resentment. Your love is
genuine, but so are your perpetual feelings of emptiness and of powerlessness. What’s most galling, perhaps, is the
realization that the people whom you love are similarly empty. If this is love, then you can come to resent the people
you love simply because you love them.
Webster and Critchley read “Hamlet” as a story about love and its shameful, empty, needy interior. Hamlet loves his
parents while also, like any child, resenting that love. The ghost’s command forces him to look deep within his love for
them, and what he finds is disappointing, even chilling. Does Hamlet really love his father? Or is he, in fact, envious of
him? Does he really love his mother? Perhaps he actually holds her in contempt. Do they really love him? Perhaps all
they want is the outward show of his love for them. Everyone is insatiable, selfish, and disappointing. The ghost tells
him:
Howsomever thou pursues this act,
Taint not thy mind, nor let they soul contrive
Against thy mother aught.
But Hamlet finds that his mind is already tainted, not with incestuous desires but, rather, with the desperate
neediness and angry narcissism that are nonnegotiable parts of real love. Hamlet is disgusted. Even revenge, he realizes,
is narcissistic. (What act of love could be more self-involved?) It’s all about nothing. We’re all just living in our own
heads, chasing after impossible fulfillment. We claim to love one another, but it’s just “words, words, words.” If this is
what love is, then Hamlet doesn’t want it.
It may be that Hamlet is seeing the truth about love. But that, Webster and Critchley argue, is where the
psychoanalytic attitude is useful. People tend to think of psychoanalysis as a technique for effecting the dispersal of
fantasy in favor of the reality. In fact, they write, for the psychoanalyst, “speaking the truth is not necessarily a sign of
mental health”; “perhaps illness and truth telling are more closely allied than we might want to believe.” It’s important
to acknowledge the truth, of course. But “the analyst confirms the truth only in order to finally get beyond it.” Yes,
Hamlet Strategic Reading Practices Resources #8
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00CcUM
Hamlet and Gertrude Relationship/ Oedipal Complex
greenspun.com : LUSENET : Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet : One Thread
In 'Hamlet', there is suggestions of Hamlet being a suffer of the 'Oedipal Complex', invovling his mother, Gertrude.
In certain adaptions, it seems to be apparent, in the Mel Gibson (Zeffirelli) version, Hamlet (gibson0 is quite sexually
violent towards Gertrude.
Could anyone shed some light on their views of this topic?
-- Carolyn Howard (angry_bumblebee@yahoo.co.uk), December 23, 2004
Answers
There's a lot of good information in the thread titled "Oedipus Complex": http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetchmsg.tcl? msg_id=004XT6
-- Virginia (vsmleong@yahoo.com), December 23, 2004.
But briefly, the topic you have is simply wrong.
In "Hamlet" there is no suggestion of Hamlet being a sufferer of the 'Oedipal Complex'. This is a suggestion that has been
made ABOUT the play, since the twentieth century. That is, it is something theoretical that some people like to try to
impose on the play, but it isn't in the play itself.
-- catherine england (catherine.england@arts.usyd.edu.au), December 25, 2004.
I was plesently surprised that someone actually replied to this. Thanks everyone who did.
I'm an A-Level English Literature, and our topic is 'Hamlet'.
I chose a question, asking 'Is Hamlet a loving son who wants to save his mother's soul or does it run deeper that
this....being a lover torn apart by Gertrude and Claudius.
It is pre-freudian...of course. Maybe basis on this suggests that Hamlet is a suffer?
Thank you once again for replying and maybe we can discuss this further?
Carolyn
-- Carolyn Howard (angry_bumblebee@yahoo.co.uk), December 28, 2004.
There is no way that Hamlet has and Oedipus Complex, even a pre-Freudian one. It just does not fit with the words and
language he uses, ever, about Gertrude, nor with his love and admiration for his father. In addition, his hatred of
Claudius is wholly and only because of Claudius's incest in marrying Gertrude, Claudius's dissolute character (indicated
by drunkenness as well as the incest), and of course Claudius's murder of King Hamlet. That is all quite enough, without
there being any suggestion that he is jealous of Claudius.
But your question seems a bit academic. Certainly III.iv and elsewhere shows that Hamlet is a loving son who wants to
save his mother's soul. However it is natural that he can't view this wholly calmly and detachedly. Whilst not being 'a
lover', 'in love' with his mother, he is nevertheless very much emotionally torn apart by the situation. He hates Claudius
for the reasons given above. He is angry with his mother for marrying Claudius so fast - as if just immediately forgetting
her love for King Hamlet - as well as for marrying Claudius at all. He is probably deeply afraid for his mother's soul, just
as he shows in a few places that he is for his own, since he does love her deeply as her son.
-- catherine england (catherine.england@arts.usyd.edu.au), December 28, 2004.
To counter your reply:
The 'Closet' Scene
hamlet has a long speech in this and he uses sexual remarks about his mother's insecurity and inability to control sexual
desires; 'Sense you sure have, Else could you not have notion'...Sense meaning sexual desire.
'Nay, but to live In the rank sweat of a inseaméd bed, Stewed in corruption, honeying and making love, Over the nasty
sty'
This 'obsession' with his mother and claudias in bed is very strong to prove that his is a oedipal sufferer.
Also, I have to compare text with movie versions (Zeffirelli and Branagh).....the Mel Gibson (Zeffirelli) is quite explicit in
the 'Closet' scene because there is a bed used in the process of telling Gertrude what has happened and what he thinks
of her. It is very sexually driven.
I don't know if you have seen any versions like this...surely strong suggestion?
I have to argue both sides of it so if you could see and suggestion, I'm thankful.
-- Carolyn Howard (angry_bumblebee@yahoo.co.uk), December 29, 2004.
As Virginia said, we've been over all this territory at length in the other question, and I've given my four thousand plus
words' worth there. But I just have to say again to what you've put forward here with the quotes - look, Hamlet's anger
with his mother for having sex with her husband's brother does not 'prove' he has any sexual desire for her himself. I
don't even get the logic of the claim that it does.
As to comparing Zeffirelli's and Branagh's versions with the text, with a stipulation that you have to argue both sides, I
think that's a bit Irish. As far as I'm concerned there are two different things. There is what the text says, and there is not
the faintest suggestion in it anywhere that Hamlet is sexually desirous of his mother. Then there is what a director such
as Zeffirelli wants to make his actors do whilst they are speaking the text. Obviously in my view, Zeffirelli's direction of
that part of III.iv simply doesn't make any sense with the words of the text that the characters speak, both there and in
the rest of the play. So I would want to argue this.
-- catherine england (catherine.england@arts.usyd.edu.au), December 29, 2004.
I quite agree, any Oedipal undertones in the closet scenes are a needless perversion of the text. Perhaps a more
plausable explanation for Hamlet's disgust, and one which has been overlooked here, is that Hamlet feels uncomfortable
with the fact that his mother is still sexually active. Her hastiness to remarry proves this. When he says to her: 'You
cannot call it love, for at your age/ The hey-day in the blood is tame' he is saying what he wants desperately to be the
truth. This would not be a Freudian interpretation; the feeling that middle-aged women shouldn't be having sexual
desires was widespread throughout the literature of the age and is expressed in several of Shakespeare's works.
A modern audience may well feel that Hamlet's response is discreditable, and of course they are entitled too. However,
the original audiences would've seen nothing out of the ordinary in his views.
-- Vivien Jones (vivra_la_diva@hotmail.com), January 10, 2005.
Yes. I think this was mentioned this in the other question too. But I think that his disgust is not exactly at her sexual
activity, but at her giving herself over wholly to immoderate lust (purely fleshly desire). It seems as though he wouldn't
have minded appropriate sexual activity in the context of love such as she was supposed to feel for King Hamlet.
-- catherine england (catherine.england@arts.usyd.edu.au), January 10, 2005.
Yes, you have a good point there Vivien. This is all interesting. I have to do a comparative essay on the parent-child
relationships. I have decided to do Gertrude, Claudius and Hamlet Sr.'s relationship with Hamlet. I think I have my work
cut out for me. Otherwise I could do Ophelia-Polonius and Laertes-Polonius.
-- Jessily Turcotte (jturcotte88@aol.com), January 11, 2005.
You could also maybe compare different parents with the children - say, compare Ophelia-Polonius with HamletClaudius, or, probably very interesting, Ophelia-Polonius with Hamlet-Gertrude.
-- catherine england (catherine.england@arts.usyd.edu.au), January 11, 2005.
Hamlet Strategic Reading Practices Resources #9
Hamlet Character Analysis
http://www.shmoop.com/hamlet/hamlet-character.html
Hamlet and Sex
So, you've probably noticed that Hamlet is seriously angry with his mother—especially her sex life. Here's what
Hamlet says in his first soliloquy after he tells us he wants his "flesh" to "melt."
That it should come to this!
But two months dead: nay, not so much, not two:
So excellent a king; that was, to this,
Hyperion to a satyr; so loving to my mother
That he might not beteem the winds of heaven
Visit her face too roughly. Heaven and earth!
Must I remember? why, she would hang on him,
As if increase of appetite had grown
By what it fed on: and yet, within a month–
Let me not think on 't—Frailty, thy name is woman! —(1.2.5)
OK, we get that Hamlet's ticked that mom's moved on so quickly —less than two months after his old man
died. Fine. But here's the thing: Hamlet says he can hardly stand to "remember" the way his mother couldn't
get enough of his father when he was alive —"she would hang on him" with a major sexual "appetite" that she
seems to have simply transferred over to her new husband.
So what's the deal? Is he mad that Gertrude is into her new husband, or that Gertrude is into any man at all,
including his dead dad? And check out that, by the end of this passage, Hamlet's attitude toward his mom has
generously expanded to include all women, who, according to Hamlet, are "frail," or morally weak, because
they're so lustful. But this also has major consequences for Hamlet's relationship with his girlfriend—it might
even drive her all the way to her death. (You can check out our discussion of "Sex" and "Gender" if you want to
know more about Hamlet's attitude toward women and sexuality in general.)
Hamlet and The Really Big Question
That's interesting and all, but, truth: there's only one big question we're really interested in. Why does Hamlet
delay so long in carrying out his revenge? We (and scholar-types) have a few theories.
Theory #1: He doesn't believe the ghost.
The political and religious turmoil of the Protestant Reformation were only a few decades in the past
when Hamlet was written, and these new Protestants had different views of Christianity than the previous
ruling team, the Catholics. From what the ghost says, it sounds like he's coming from Purgatory, a sort of
waiting room where souls chilled out before they could get to Heaven.
But Protestants denied the existence of Purgatory. This means the ghost may be a demon from hell, which is
why Hamlet wonders if the spirit is a "goblin damned" (1.4.5). So what is Hamlet —Protestant or Catholic?
Protestant. Hamlet's chilling in Denmark, which is definitely Protestant nation, and he goes to the University of
Wittenberg (where all the cool kids go), which was Martin Luther's university and also home to the church door
he so famously nailed his theses to. This means the ghost could possibly be a devil that has come to tempt
him and is, therefore, not telling the truth about Old Hamlet's murder.
Theory #2: Hamlet has some scruples.
There's a famous passage in the Christian Bible, from Romans, xii, 19: "Avenge not yourselves […] vengeance
is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord."
Translation: It's not man's place to take vengeance on anyone, period. That's God's job. Plus, everyone knows
that murder is a sin. Shakespeare's inclusion of Christian morality doesn't necessarily square with the basic
tenets of revenge tragedy, which calls for bloody vengeance. (See "Genre" for more on this.)
At work in Hamlet is also the notion of the old, pagan revenge code that says when someone kills your father,
you have to get your revenge on. Which, of course, means that person's kid will eventually kill you, and so on
and so on ad infinitum until everybody dies and entire families are wiped out. What does that mean? Hamlet is
a Christian hero with a pagan duty. Pretty confusing, whether you're 13 or 30.
Theory #3: Hamlet stinks. Shakespeare stinks.
We're not kidding. Some people say that you can't answer the question of why Hamlet delays seeking revenge
because there is no answer. Stop trying to preserve the play's integrity and/or psychological accuracy,
because there isn't any to be preserved. Who thought this? Oh, just super famous author Voltaire. And super
famous poet T. S. Eliot.
According to this school of thought, Hamlet is only "mysterious" to us because he's a poorly drawn dramatic
figure. Shakespeare didn't give him enough of a motive to make any sense of his behavior. But remember from
your lesson in Historical Context that there's a Renaissance crisis going on at the time: nothing is supposed to
make sense. Around 1600, everyone's confused about religion, geography, and the state of the universe. If a
play doesn't make sense… maybe it's not supposed to. Hamlet is full of contradictions, inconsistencies, and
uncertainties —just like the rest of the world at the time.
Theory #4: Hamlet suffers from an Oedipus Complex
Some people believe Hamlet is, in some ways, a re-telling of Oedipus the King by Sophocles. Doesn't ring a
bell? Oedipus was an ancient Greek king who, according to legend, was fated to kill his father and marry his
mother. Fast-forward to the late 19th or early 20th century, and you've got Sigmund Freud going around talking
about the "Oedipus Complex," which basically says every man wants to do what Oedipus did. Sure, Freud
came around a few hundred years after Hamlet —but since Oedipus the King was written in the 400s B.C., it's
safe to say that it's an old idea.
Bear with us on this for a minute. Let's say Hamlet does suffer from an Oedipus Complex. If this is true, then
Claudius has done what Hamlet wants to do: kill King Hamlet (senior), and sleep with Gertrude. Hamlet can't
kill Claudius, because secretly, he wants to be Claudius. If you want to add some weight to this theory, check
out all those scenes where Hamlet displays a gnawing obsession with his mother's sexuality, down to the tiny
details in his imaginings of her and Claudius getting it on. Also, think about it this way: if Claudius is in a way
like Hamlet, then killing Claudius would be like killing himself. Revenge would be like suicide, which is why the
two get so mixed-up, and why Hamlet has the same feelings about both.
When you put it like that, it sounds pretty convincing, right?
Regardless of what school of thought you subscribe to, there is no question that Hamlet is one of the most
complex, compelling, and fascinating characters in literary history. Shakespeare created a hero whose inner
thoughts and quandaries dominate the audience's experience of him… and literature hasn't been the same
since.
Hamlet Strategic Reading Practices Resources #10
Hamlet and the Oedipus Complex by ceres-andraste, Jan 10, 2008, 5:18:07 PM
http://ceres-andraste.deviantart.com/art/Hamlet-and-the-Oedipus-Complex-74311168
"Seems," madam! Nay, it is; I know not seems.
'Tis not my inky cloak, good mother,
Nor customary suits of inky black,
Nor windy suspiration of forced breath,
No, nor the fruitful river in the eye,
Nor the deject haviour of the visage,
Together with all forms, moods, shows of grief,
That can denote me truly: these indeed seem,
For they are actions that a man might play,
But I have that within which passages show;
These, but the trappings and the suits of woe.
(Hamlet 1.2.78-88)
To most people this speech suggests that Hamlet is indeed grieving for his father, because he is wearing black and talking about
woe. The reader must remember that he lost his father only tow months ago, but he is not yet aware that his father was murdered. At
this point in the story it is easier to conclude that he is indeed upset that Claudius has done what he, Hamlet, has wished to do all
along, which is kill his father to marry his mother. The desire to kill one's father to marry one's mother is called the Oedipus Complex.
What does this have to do with Hamlet? Well, interestingly enough it does bring up another facet of what Shakespeare may have
been trying to get across. Why else would Hamlet have withheld killing Claudius for so long? Now it is very believable that Hamlet did
not want his uncle to go to heaven when he was killed since he was praying at the time, but he had plenty of opportunity after that
particular incident. And indeed when he kills Polonius behind the curtain while he is convincing his mother he says, "…is it the
King?"(3.4.23). This makes it appear that perhaps he had been intending to kill the King but from this part all the way to the end of the
play Hamlet makes no move to kill the King for the deed he has done.
There are many instances like the one that was quoted before to suggest that Hamlet might have a more than innocent love for his
mother. For example, in his soliloquy right after the king and queen leave the room, but before he finds out about his father's murder
he says,
…Hyperion to a satyr: so to my loving mother,
That he might not beteem the winds of heaven
Visit her too roughly. Heaven and Earth!
Must I remember? why she would hang on him,
As if increase of appetite had grown
By what it fed on: and yet, within a monthLet me not think on't;-frailty thy name is woman!
(1.2.140-145)
Now what could this quote possibly mean? The ending is clear enough, he is speaking of the love his mother has for Claudius and
the fact that she barely waited a month from the time of his, her husband's, death to marry Claudius. But this also seems like he is
jealous of the love his mother has for Claudius, and not in a son-mother like way "Visit her too roughly. Heaven and Earth! / Must I
remember? why she would hang on him…"
Another example of Hamlet being in love with his mother appears later in the play when Claudius and Polonius are watching
Hamlet walk in the castle shortly before they send Ophelia to talk to him. Out of one of the best soliloquies in the play he says this,
…For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of deprized love, the laws delay,
That insolence of office, and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With fair bodkin? Why would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered country, from where bourne
No traveler returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to thoers that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
Is sickled o'er with the pale cast of thought;
And enterprises of great pitch and moment,
And lose the name of action.
(3.1.69-86)
Now the idea that one can easily grasp I this particular speech from Hamlet is the idea of suicide. There is no doubt that this is
what Hamlet is contemplating. He spends most of the speech trying to work out the enigma of death and what happens after one dies.
But why would Hamlet wish to commit suicide? To most this si just another act of his insanity, but we must remember that at this point
he knows that he is being watched by Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, who were sent by Claudius, but he is unaware at this moment
before Ophelia walks in that he is being watched by anyone else.
Therefore, why is he contemplating suicide? Is it because Ophelia scorns his love, due to her father and brother's commands? Or
is it for a deeper more sinful reason, that he loves is mother in a way that is unacceptable? He does seem to be pinning for a love, but
as was mentioned before, he was pinning for this love even in the first scene of the play, long before Ophelia scorned his attentions.
Therefore, it is much more likely that he is in love with his mother, and not Ophelia. The scene, again later in the play, where he is in
his mother's bedroom talking to her also becomes rather passionate and aggressive with the way he is speaking to her, and he also
comes close to telling her how he feels. He does however tell his mother that he is not mad,
My pulse, as yours, doth temperately keep time,
And makes healthful music: it is not madness
That I have uttered: bring me to the test,
And I the matter will re-word, which madness
Would gambol from…
(3.4.148-142)
Shortly after in the same scene he tells her not to sleep with Claudius anymore,
Oh, throw away the worser part it,
And live the purer with the other half.
Good night: but go not to mine uncle's bed;
Assume a virtue, if you have it not.
That monster, the custom, who all sense doth eat.
Of habits devil, is yet angel in this,
That to the use of actions fair and good
He likewise gives flock or livery,
That aptly is put on. Refrain to-night,
And that shall lend a kind of easiness
To the next abstinence: and the next more easy;
For use almost can change the stamp of nature,
And either master the devil, or throw him out
With wondrous potency. Once more, good night:
And when you are desirous to be blessed,
I'll blessing beg of you.
(3.4.155-170)
While he is talking to his mother she interjects telling him to say no more for "…thou has cleft my heart in twain."(3.4.153). When
he hears this he tells her to throw away the worst part of her heart, which is the part that has married Claudius and slept with him in an
incestuous relationship. He follows this statement with a request, nay a command, for her not to sleep with Claudius any longer. He
states that if she can but stay away from him one night each night after will become ever easier. He also states that when she wishes o
be "blessed" he will beg a "blessing" from her. This seems very odd, among other ideas that Shakespeare has shown in the play, this
seems an underhanded way to tell his mother the secret feeling he has for her. For why else would he tell her that when she wishes to
be blessed that he would ask a blessing of her? This seems a very strange idea to me, almost backwards in logic. It seems as if he
was saying, in modern terms, "When you have need of a dollar, I will beg a dollar from you."
In conclusion, the fact that Hamlet has the Oedipus Complex is rampant in the play. There are many more examples than the ones
listed here, and one only needs to look further into the play than skin deep to see the inner workings of Hamlet's mind.
Hamlet Strategic Reading Practices Resources #11
ISSN 1798-4769 Journal of Language Teaching and Research, Vol. 2, No. 6, pp. 1420-1424, November 2011
© 2011 ACADEMY PUBLISHER Manufactured in Finland. doi:10.4304/jltr.2.6.1420-1424 © 2011 ACADEMY PUBLISHER
http://ojs.academypublisher.com/index.php/jltr/article/viewFile/020614201424/3860
Oedipus Complex in Literature Works by Yan Liu
Abstract—In psychoanalytic theory, Oedipus complex denotes the emotions and ideas that the mind keeps in the
unconscious, via dynamic repression, that concentrate upon a boy's desire to sexually possess his mother (Freud.1900).
In the course of his psychosexual development, the complex is the boy's phallic stage formation of a discrete sexual
identity; a girl's analogous experience is the Electra complex. Freud first mentioned the Oedipus complex in 1897. After
his father's death, he began to make self-analysis, then the formation of the concept. The Interpretation of Dreams,
published in 1900, it is the official presentation of the concept. Oedipus complex has always been a cornerstone of
psychoanalytic theory. In classical, Freud's psychoanalytic theory, the child's identification with the same-sex parent is
the successful resolution of the Oedipus complex and of the Electra complex; his and her key psychological experience
to developing a mature sexual role and identity. Sigmund Freud further proposed that girls and boys resolved their
complexes differently — he via castration anxiety, she via penis envy; and that unsuccessful resolutions might lead to
neurosis, paedophilia, and homosexuality. Hence, men and women who are fixated in the Oedipal and Electra stages of
their psychosexual development might be considered "mother-fixated" and "father-fixated" as revealed when the mate
(sexual partner) resembles the mother or the father. This paper uses analysis and comparison method, through
comparing the prototype of the Oedipus complex in Greek mythology, the similarities and differences between Oedipus
King and the literatures contain the Oedipus complex--Hamlet, Sons and Lovers, Thunderstorm and A Dream of Red
Mansions. It discusses the main reason for the formation of their differences. It further reveals the Oedipus complex
which impact on generations and promote the study of it.
Index Terms—Oedipus complex, psychoanalysis, literature comparison, son and moth
II. LITERATURE COMPARISON
A. The Similarities and Differences between Oedipus King and Hamlet
Shakespeare and his work make a tremendous impact on the world are almost household names to the world, and his
work, Hamlet is not only a familiar name to us but also a summit. In comparing and contrasting Oedipus and Hamlet, I
see Oedipus as more of a man given to sudden, rash decisions and quick temper. Oedipus is definitely a man of action,
where Hamlet stews over whether he should kill Claudius. Oedipus is a proud and selfless man, but is more concerned
about his image than Hamlet. Hamlet is a very sensitive, moody person, very much in awe of his deceased father, who
obviously didn't care about his image or he wouldn't have feigned "madness". Oedipus was a very passionate man,
passionate about his position, his wife/mother, people of Thebes, and passionate about his concern for Polybus and
Merope. Hamlet shows no genuine love for anyone except for his father and maybe his mother, but this is questionable
because he would've killed his mother had the ghost instructed him to. Even when Hamlet declares his love for Ophelia,
he later claims it's not true. He is, however, passionate about killing Claudius. Another contrast is that Hamlet is a
thinker and a planner, where Oedipus is more emotional and wasn't patient enough to fully investigate the murder of
Laius.
It is difficult to abandon the emotion to our mothers, a psychological fear of failure, afraiding to lose his mother,
subsequently arise the antipathy to her. The result is the appearance of the personality of the beloved mother being
affronted and ridicule. This complex, extremely abnormal behavior comes from Hamlet's subconscious. Similarly, the
role of Oedipus in Oedipus King do these things is totally unconscious, it is precisely because of these "unconscious", it
proves the existence of the Oedipus complex from the side. Who is initiative to love mother but hate father since the
baby was born? How much of the psychological pressure he has to bear!
As Hamlet concentrated to the extreme, he is contradictory, his self-condemnation is punishing him, he even
thought of life and death issues. This is the most famous passage of Hamlet:
To live or to die--that is a question .Whether it is nobler to merely suffer from the blow of doom or to fight against
the troubles, and end them by opposing them. To die: it means to sleep and wake no more. And by it, we end the
sufferings that are doomed in bodily life, which is a devoutly desired ending. (Shakespear, 1602,P110--111)
Hamlet Strategic Reading Practices Resources #12
http://resurrectionjoe.tripod.com/film.html
Oedipal Hamlet J.C. Maçek III English 490 Dr. James H. Lake 12-8-97
It’s 1602, Do You Know Who Your Parents Are?
It has commonly been suggested by such disciples of Sigmund Freud as Ernest Jones that Shakespeare’s character of
Hamlet is the victim of an Oedipus complex. While any reading of the play Hamlet, Prince of Denmark that focuses on the
text and not the psychoanalytical fads of the current age disproves any notion of Hamlet’s oedipal nature, many film artists
have followed popular psychology and have adopted this theory for the screen. Whether out of precedent, pressure, or
some need to discover some complex in Hamlet, this has become a very popular trend for filmmakers. Seeing as how it is
impossible to do a production of Hamlet without addressing Hamlet’s relationship with Gertrude, Hamlet, Sr., and Claudius,
the following will be a discussion of several filmic Hamlets, and the presence, or absence of these Freudian notions.
While certainly not the first production of Hamlet for the big screen, Laurence Olivier’s 1948 adaptation is the first full length
commercial version, and is still highly regarded today. In this film Gertrude looks at Hamlet more like a lover than a mother,
gazing at him lustfully whenever he is present. Gertrude’s affection is not limited to these gazes, however, as upon Hamlet’s
agreement to remain at Elsinore she kisses him deep and long on the lips, like a lover.
Olivier’s Hamlet is initially aggressive toward Gertrude during the closet scene, but after the visit from the ghost he
becomes as affectionate as Gertrude is in the beginning. Hamlet speaks to Gertrude tenderly, and she responds
accordingly. He then gives her a deep long kiss to seal their pact against Claudius. Taken out of context the scene would
appear to be a conversation and love-pact between two young lovers. This gives the viewer the impression that Hamlet has
convinced Gertrude to chose him over his rival Claudius, in keeping with the theories of Ernest Jones.
Clearly the relationship between Hamlet and Gertrude, at least emotionally, goes somewhat deeper than family. In order
to accomplish this Olivier makes several textual edits and free adaptations. For example, Gertrude’s death is a suicide
intended to expose the king and save her son in a final fruition of the love-pact. Gertrude knowingly drinks the poisoned
wine, sacrificing herself, and repenting in order to try to rescue her love, Hamlet. This Gertrude is not defined by her
appetites, but by her quasi-sexual lust, reminiscent of that of Venus for Adonis, which is so strong that she willingly gives
her life because of it.
"Olivier’s psychological interpretation of an Oedipus complex… was very much in keeping with the themes of 1940s
films, Freud and psychoanalysis were in vogue, a fashion that found cinematic expression in films such as … Spellbound
(1945)." (Leong). Because of precedent, Olivier gives us a Gertrude who is more attached to her son than his father, or
even Claudius, and a Hamlet who is trapped in a circle of confusion, unable to make up his mind due to a sexual
incontinence.
Olivier’s own precedent (as it is safe to say that there is nothing oedipal in Gade’s 1921 film) along with the incessant
ravings of psychoanalytical critics seem to have spawned similar ideas in such filmmakers as Franco Zeffirelli. Mel Gibson’s
Hamlet is, as the video cover claims "more macho than melancholy," and director Zeffirelli has Gibson’s machismo erupt in
various directions. Not excluded from this testosterone attack is the bubbly Gertrude, played by Glenn Close. But it is not
only Hamlet, as this Gertrude seems promiscuous in her affections, not focusing only on Hamlet, as in Olivier’s version.
Gertrude loves Claudius, is playful with Polonius, and is simply crazy about her son.
Like Olivier, Zeffirelli cuts many key lines describing Hamlet’s relationship with his mother. Such lines as "let not ever /
The soul of Nero enter this firm bosom. / Let me be cruel, not unnatural" (Hamlet, III.ii.393-395) are likewise cut. Zeffirelli
lets the audience know that Hamlet is aggressive, but not at whom his aggression is intended. Hamlet’s drinking of hot
blood seems more aimed toward Claudius than Gertrude, and has no disclaimers surrounding it.
During the actual closet scene Hamlet climbs into his mother’s bed and proceeds to simulate sex with her while speaking
daggers to her. Gertrude responds with kisses so deep and passionate that Olivier himself would blush. Hamlet does not
fight this kiss, and in fact only disengages because the ghost of his father enters, and then guiltily he pulls away as if to hide
his act. Hamlet’s almost blunted purpose is lain naked before the ghost, as it would have been to Freud. In contrast to
Olivier’s version, this Hamlet seems to feel that he has been caught in the incestuous act with Gertrude, and guilt
overpowers his expressions. Whereas Olivier’s tenderness is amplified by the ghost’s appearance, who provokes a gentler
love for Gertrude, Gibson’s guilt reminds him that he must distance himself from this action, regardless of his physical or
emotional feelings in order to complete his quest.
Hamlet’s father in this film is not a disdainful figure Hamlet would feel threatened by, rather he seems a weak and broken
down king who poses no threat even as a spectre. Hamlet is more likely to take up this quest out of pity for his fallen father
than an anger toward Claudius, whom the Freudians claim Hamlet is jealous of. This pathos ridden ghost is not someone
Hamlet would have wished to usurp, but more of one whom Hamlet would apologize to for usurping Claudius in his mother’s
bed. Clearly Zeffirelli was aiming for an oedipal tone between Hamlet and Gertrude, even if he had to alter the text, and
stretch his concepts to achieve it.
Contrary to these films, Tony Richardson’s 1960s version of Hamlet is loaded with sex of a different kind. The king and
queen hold court from their very bed (reminiscent of John Lennon, and Yoko Ono at the same time), Laertes and Ophelia
(played by pop singer and soft-core erotic thriller actress Marianne Faithfull) fondle each other incessantly, and nearly
everyone seems to be overtly sexual. Everyone but Nicol Williamson’s Hamlet, that is. Williamson offers us a Hamlet who’s
energy is expelled with great force in his lines and body-language, not through perverse sexual leering. Everyone else
seems relatively calm in comparison, as they apparently have found alternate outlets for their frustration. While it can be
said that Williamson’s Hamlet is truly repressed and angry, he certainly has no Oedipus complex, likely because in the
swinging sixties incestuous liaisons and mother complexes were no longer fashionable film topics, and were therefore not
sought out in texts where none are present.
While Branagh’s 1996 version of Hamlet is short on incest it is not short on sex. Branagh’s Hamlet, and Kate Winslet’s
Ophelia engage in sex during several flashbacks, seeming to show that Hamlet’s interest in real sex, not maternal lust.
Shakespeare’s entire script is represented in Branagh’s screenplay (Branagh uses the First Folio with some additions from
the Second Quarto), and thus all lines chronicling Hamlet’s aversion to incest, his loyalty to his father, and his intense
aggression toward his mother are intact. The viewer therefore gets a fuller idea of Hamlet’s mind without the text having to
be edited to accommodate a Freudian reading.
Branagh also adds a fascinating new take on the relationship with his three parents. Branagh shows us scenes of Hamlet’s
childhood, coupled with some of the relationships he had. The one constant in these familial flashbacks is the presence of
Gertrude, always accompanied by Claudius. This causes the audience to wonder how long the relationship between
Claudius and Gertrude had gone on, as it was never explained in Shakespeare. Branagh further gives us Brian Blessed’s
ghost who looks almost nothing like Branagh whatsoever. The characters of Hamlet, and Derek Jacobi’s Claudius are both
presented as robust, canary-haired, blue eyed men, resembling each other much more than either represents Hamlet, Sr.
Although it is never fully explored in the film, the suggestion that Claudius is Hamlet’s actual biological father is present in
this adaptation. By offering this interpretation, Branagh sheds all new light on the relationship between Hamlet and his
parents. If Claudius is Hamlet’s actual father, Hamlet does fall into the oedipal cycle of wanting to murder his father. It is
however, never even remotely suggested that Branagh’s Hamlet intends to replace Claudius in his mother’s affection after
the murder takes place.
When dealing with Julie Christie’s Gertrude, Hamlet is not at all lustful. Passionate kisses, and simulated sex are forgone
for a more Nicole Williamson-like rage toward his betraying mother. The ghost appears seemingly to protect Gertrude from
Hamlet’s mad rage, not to prevent a coupling, and Hamlet is moved to a childlike sweetness at the sight of his dear father.
While still disdainful of his mother, Hamlet tones down his aggression toward her in order only to obey his father’s order.
This intense and full dislike for Gertrude, and unrelenting reverence for the ghost completely opposes the concept of the
Oedipus complex in Hamlet.
Although it has been a popular notion to ascribe an Oedipus complex to Hamlet, regardless of what the text spells out for
us, there is clearly not one present. Such undaunted filmmakers as Franco Zeffirelli, and Laurence Olivier, for reasons of
popular precedent, or their own reading between the lines, have added this complex into their filmic adaptations, cutting
lines and scenes wherever necessary to achieve this. Other filmmakers such as Kenneth Branagh and Tony Richardson
have left out the supposed complexes and have given us Hamlets free of supposed incestuous wishes and confused
notions. This reverence for the script and lack of supposition give the viewer a more accurate view of Hamlet that is more in
keeping with the complex mind Shakespeare offered his audience.
==============================================================
WORKS CITED
Leong, Virginia. "Hamlet Article from The Australian." 06 December 1997. (07 December 1997)
Shakespeare, William. Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. The Riverside Shakespeare. ED. G. Blakemore Evans. Boston: Haughton Mifflin Company, 1974.
WORKS CONSULTED
Branagh, Kenneth. "Hamlet" by William Shakespeare: Sreenplay, Introduction, and Film Diary. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1996.
Guerin, Wilfred L., Earle Labor, Lee Morgan, Jeanne C. Reeseman, and John R. Willingham. A Handbook of Critical Approaches to Literature. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1992.
Hamlet Strategic Reading Practices Resources #13
http://theprosceniumarch.weebly.com/2/post/2013/04/oedipal-complexes-in-hamlet-and-frankenstein.html
Oedipal Complexes in Hamlet and Frankenstein 04/23/2013 0 Comments
Productions of Shakespeare’s tragedy Hamlet have kept the titular prince’s oedipal complex no surprise. In fact,
audience members might almost expect it, however they react outwardly to Hamlet and his mother. The idea of the
oedipal complex in Hamlet has been obvious since Sigmund Freud coined the term, as shown in his student Ernest
Jones’s essay concerning the link between these two. Similarly, a psychological critic can find a paralleling complex in
Mary Shelley’sFrankenstein, in both the creator and his creation. Though coming from different historical periods and
cultural contexts, Frankenstein and Hamlet possess many similar elements that I will explore here, chiefly that of
sexuality and revenge.
Victor, as he identifies other women with his dead mother, shares the greatest similarity in complexes with
Hamlet. Not only does he parallel the Danish prince with his semi-repressed maternal desire, but in projected sexuality
on to the other women of the story, and a paralysis of inaction that eventually ends the story in tragedy. The monster,
on the other hand, shares Hamlet’s drive for revenge and physical violence, mirroring the most superficial study of
Shakespeare’s tragedy, but also possesses unfulfilled desires that bring him closer even than Victor to the Danish
prince.
One major similarity shared between all three characters – the monster, Frankenstein, and Hamlet – is that of
parental abandonment and the death or lack of one parent. In Frankenstein, Caroline Frankenstein’s death is what
drives her son’s oedipal complex. Conversely, Hamlet’s loss of his father facilitates his maternal desire. Frankenstein’s
abandoned creature has only one parent on which to project desire: Victor.
Maternal Desire
Many productions of Hamlet make the prince’s Act Three accusatory confrontation with Gertrude into an
erotically charged assault – notably, Laurence Olivier’s 1948 film, where the prince’s mother was portrayed as hardly old
enough to have borne him.The oedipal urges are still present in the original text, however, and not merely a construct of
modern-day interpretation. When Hamlet enters his mother’s room, he states, amid the acidic wordplay he throws at
her, “would it were not so, you are my mother” (3:4, line 16) and immediately confronts her in such a way that she calls
out for help. There are no stage directions, but it is obvious from the suddenness of his actions that there is violence
involved. Considering the line just before then, there are overtones of a sexual attack where Hamlet begins to give free
reign to his oedipal feelings, which – though repressed – have still been present in the play up until this point.
Hamlet carries a chip on his shoulder and expresses disgust from the very beginning over his mother’s marriage,
prior to learning that his father died at his brother Claudius’s hand. Ernest Jones points out that Gertrude’s marriage to
Claudius “awakes in [Hamlet] the intensest horror,” (Jones, 91) rather than the King’s murder and the ensuing revenge
that drives the rest of the play. The jealousy and disgust Hamlet shows concerning the marriage from the start gives
cause to wonder whether he might have gone on to get some kind of revenge on Gertrude without the manifestation
from his dead father that redirected his rage towards his uncle. The King even has to make it a point to “leave her to
heaven” (1:5, 86) rather than stay silent and give Hamlet leave to take revenge on the queen.
Jones also makes note of the fact that Hamlet is suicidal, as shown in his Act One, Scene Two soliloquy, which
illustrates that it is not entirely his inability to kill Claudius that makes the tragic hero contemplate death. In fact, Hamlet
shows all the angst of an unrequited lover, when one considers certain other works of the Bard’s where a lover desires
death when without his or her counterpart.
Mary Shelley’s Victor Frankenstein possesses similar yearnings towards his mother, who – unlike Gertrude – is not
present long due to her death early on in the novel. Elizabeth, practically a copy of her foster mother, replaces Caroline
as one of the feminine objects of Victor's desire.
Victor also shows a maternal desire markedly different than the wish to possess his mother. He wants tobe a
mother of sorts, bypassing natural procreation and going straight to an artificial birth. This takes the Oedipal desire far
beyond what Hamlet ever could accomplish. In doing so, Victor only manages to increase his obsession with his mother
as it projects onto other people and pursuits. Victor’s success in becoming a maternal figure on his own spurs the
creature’s desire for him, the only parent that the monster can ever know and therefore the only object of such
affection possible.
Projection
Obviously, Victor and Hamlet are not able to possess their mothers, whether by ghostly intervention, social
propriety, or a conscious disgust at such an act. They repress such desires. For Victor, such repression comes out in
dreams. However, this mere repression is not quite enough to control the desires of the id. Both men have a tendency
to project these desires and opinions of their mothers onto their potential wives.
The main female love interests of these two stories, Elizabeth and Ophelia, are mostly neglected story-wise, and
are not lucky enough to survive the events of their respective tragedies. The male protagonists use them to project their
own forbidden maternal desires, arguably the reason they do not manage to survive the stories. Hamlet takes out his
maternal frustrations on Ophelia, who may or may not have committed suicide because of his abuse. Victor dreams of
embracing Elizabeth only for her to transform into the corpse of Caroline Frankenstein. Even the creature, seeking an
outlet of affection and physical fulfillment since Victor shuns him, receives a bride only for Victor to destroy her.
Victor chooses to project his oedipal yearnings from his absent mother to science, and later, to Elizabeth herself.
Science in the novel is referred to as female and is a much more mystical field of study than the usual "male" pursuits of
law and language. The obsessive pursuit of science, so soon after Caroline dies, fulfills at least part of his repressed
oedipal desires. Waldman's encouragement of Victor's scientific study, related in a voice that was "the sweetest [Victor]
had ever heard" (Frankenstein, 53) is seductive and highly descriptive, even erotic sometimes. Still, science itself is not
enough; Victor must chase after that which is forbidden, much like the mother-son relationship of the Oedipus complex
is socially forbidden and repressed.
Another problematic element in Frankenstein's life is Elizabeth, who seems nearly identical to his mother. The
overtones of maternal desire are particularly strong here and Shelley draws the reader's attention to the horrific
elements of this desire. Shortly after giving the monster life, Victor has a dream of "Elizabeth, in the bloom of health"
(61) and he embraces her, only for her to transform into his dead mother. Because Elizabeth so closely resembles
Caroline - so much that she becomes the dead mother in a dream, Victor keeps her at bay rather than fulfill his
repressed desires. This conscious repression drives him deeper into science and solitude.
However, Frankenstein is not entirely able to escape the Oedipus complex in its entirety, especially not though his
scientific study. Further complicating matters is his own creature. David Collings notes that Frankenstein "attempts to
re-create [Caroline] by reassembling her dead body", throwing the creature into this Freudian mass of repression and
desire. Frann Michel even argues that the creature can be represented as female in and of itself. However, Victor’s
decidedly male relationships cause him to ignore all the female influences in his life – including the monster, as if trying
to deny that the monster may represent his mother. This serves to aggravate Victor's desires, and his obsession with his
mother and science now become projected onto the monster, who is equally obsessed with his creator.
The monster has his own highly complex and violent desires projected onto Victor.Without making the monster
female as justification – as shown in Frann Michel’s essay “Lesbian Panic and Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein” – there is a
certain amount of repressed desire between him and Victor. This repression seeks an outlet in the female creature, but
Victor denies his monster this fulfillment.
Closer to Victor’s form of repression than the creature’s is Hamlet. Hamlet projects his desire – and his anger at
his mother’s perceived sins – onto Ophelia. This is especially obvious during his “get thee to a nunnery” speech. Like his
later speech to Gertrude, he rebukes her pretty much for being a woman and demands that she be chaste. His
frustration over his mother’s hasty marriage provokes him to exclaim to Ophelia that they “will have no more marriage”
(84) and marks his disgust and desire of women. As Victor Frankenstein emotionally distances himself from Elizabeth,
Hamlet continuously holds Ophelia at bay because of a similar disgust for his unrealized maternal longing.
Hamlet Strategic Reading Practices Resources #14
http://www.speakwithoutinterruption.com/site/2009/09/hamlets-oedipal-complex/
September 19, 2009
Hamlet’s Oedipal Complex
Posted by steve sangirardi in: Literature, Opinion, The Writer's Corner
13 comments
Stephen Sangirardi Bard715@aol.com
Every “school” or discipline in the world seems to have a theory for Hamlet’s procrastination as to
why he can’t kill Claudius. Is Hamlet a coward, an excessive doer rather than thinker, a refined
religious man who finds murder abhorrent, ad infinitum? (Even the Circuit City people have their own
explanation vis-à-vis the size of Denmark receipts and text messages.) So why shouldn’t the
Freudians join in the fun? In 1924, a Freudian disciple named Ernest Jones arrived at this conclusion.
Hamlet has an Oedipal Complex. Let us recall what that means: every boy until the age of seven or
eight or nine unconsciously wants to kill his father and unconsciously marry his mother. If that boy
doesn’t outgrow or reconcile this dilemma, he will have issues and be disinclined to play Texas
Hold‘em on Friday night.
According to Jones’ ingenious theory—which is after all a theory—Hamlet is a victim of his
complicated ambivalence. He cannot kill the man, Claudius, who has done what Hamlet has always
wanted to do, namely,20kill Old Hamlet and marry Gertrude. ‘You the man, uncle.’ Hamlet, of course,
is unconscious or unaware of this tension within himself. For on a conscious level he clearly hates
Claudius and always has. Below the tip of the iceberg, however, there lurks in Hamlet this secret
admiration of Claudius, the man who had probably seduced Gertrude long before tainting his
brother’s ear. During the famous bedroom scene, when Hamlet confronts Gertrude, he speaks to her
in startling imagery that no son should ever use with his mother. (No antic disposition here. He has
just killed Polonius and is enraged.) He hisses sexual stuff apparently cooed by Claudius within the
frame of that same bed and somehow heard by the son, as though Hamlet were a voyeur privy to his
mother’s groove in those “lascivious sheets.” (Maybe Old Hamlet can see and hear the same thing:
how Claudius is causing sexual moans in Gertrude that Old Hamlet never could cause.) Obviously, the
Mel Gibson/Glenn Close tête-à-tête is based on Hamlet’s minted Oedipal career. Even the famous
Laurence Olivier film of 1947, when Freudian notions were very much in the air, reveals Oedipal
overtones. I say even because Olivier was a Shakespearean actor of the highest thespian regard who
never debased himself or pandered to vulgarity when playing a role.
I suppose the logical question becomes this: was Shakespeare purposely including the Oedipal
thing when he=2 0wrote Hamlet in the 1600s? Impossible to answer, so maybe we should bear in
mind D.H. Lawrence’s dictum—trust the tale, not the author. Shakespeare was probably familiar with
the Oedipus story when he scribed the play, but who really knows? To this day Hamlet’s
procrastination remains a mystery for every reader. Hamlet does not understand himself, as he
soliloquizes to kingdom come and verbally abuses Ophelia with that touch of sexual unease. Again,
Hamlet treats Gertrude as though she were his gal, and scolds Ophelia as though she were his mom.
The Prince of Denmark has his wires crossed; he desperately needs a date with the right woman. He
needs to get laid.
As for me, I believe that Shakespeare was mainly portraying, in its endless ramifications, the
difficulty of pleasing one’s father. Sometimes, a son (or daughter) just can’t satisfy dad, no matter
how much Hebona is lodged within daddy’s ear. Poisoned in the Eustachian Canal, the father can’t
seem to make the son listen with unclogged lobes.
Hamlet Strategic Reading Practices Resources #15
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1090643-hamlet-s-relationship-with-his-mother
Hamlet question
118 views
Hamlet's relationship with his mother
Lauren Nov 08, 2012 11:42AM
In a film version that I watched in my English class after reading this play, Hamlet and his mother passionately embrace during
the scene in her closet while I did not see it that way in the text until a closer examination of the implications. Most of us have
the idea that there is an Edipul complex in the play. What are your thoughts? Or is this common knowledge and am I just an
idiot for not noticing it right away?
RK-ique Nov 11, 2012 09:02PM 2 votes
Last time I checked, Shakespeare wasn't a Freudian.
You come home. Your father is dead. Your mother has quickly married your uncle who is now king. And, your father's ghost
has appeared to you to demand revenge for his murder. Would you not have some hard feelings towards your mother? ...at
least be a little stand offish?
Maybe Jungian.
Mohamed Mar 11, 2013 05:02AM 0 votes
In a film version that I watched in my English class after reading this play, Hamlet and his mother passionately embrace during
the scene in her closet while I did not see it that way in the text until a closer examination of the implications. Most of us have
the idea that there is an Edipul complex in the play. What are your thoughts? Or is this common knowledge and am I just an
idiot for not noticing it right away?
Patrick Nov 11, 2012 03:30PM 0 votes
I'm guessing the reason people often play it very Oedipal is because of Hamlet's obsession with her bed. He describes her sex
in great detail (for the time) which most people would probably be unwilling to talk about even if they knew what was
happening. Personally I think playing this element strongly takes away from the other themes of the play.
Mohamed Mar 11, 2013 05:02AM 0 votes
I remember most of my readings of this play tended to lean toward Hamlet being disgusted & angered at the quickness with
which his mother "forgot" his father & remarried. In high school, our readings leaned toward the Oedipal complex because it
led nicely into our next unit, but our teacher spent a lot of time convincing us it was there.
We watched the Branagh version of the film to accompany our high school reading, by the way.
My university readings of this play didn't really get into this. It would be brought up in seminars but quite briefly. There's just
so much other good stuff in this play!
Lucy Feb 06, 2013 02:53PM 0 votes
In the historical context of the the play, Hamlet is a haunted man, literally. He isn't mad. He isn't crazy, he is haunted
continually by his fathers ghost. Our modern and moderist veiws of the play through the social norms and science of the day
are just that. They are OUR frames of reference would not have been in the viewing of the original reading of the text.
It is a ghost story. A revenge story. While it does touch of larger themes of what is life and what is death, the reviling of his
mothers lusts is that. Do bear in mind that many of the stage directions, the actions (other than entraces and exits) were not
wrtten at all in the text they were add much much later and the text was not written down as it is read in the modern way for
many years.
Hamlet Strategic Reading Practices Resources #16
http://www.studymode.com/essays/Oedipus-Relationship-Between-Hamlet-And-Gertrude-1324799.html
Oedipus Relationship Between Hamlet and Gertrude
By sateshs | December 2012
Page 1 of 4
The Oedipal Relationship between Hamlet and Gertrude
Throughout William Shakespeare's Hamlet, Shakespeare portrays Hamlet with the same types of
behaviors and frustrations in humans that Sigmund Freud saw at a much later date. When the relationship
between Hamlet and his mother is analyzed Freud's oedipal complex theory comes to mind.
Sigmund Freud first wrote about his theory in his book An Interpretation of Dreams in 1899. Simply put,
Freud states that it is normal for children to have sexual desires for their parent of the opposite sex. He
says that it is also normal to have feelings of hatred for the other parent that is of the same sex as the
child. Most children experience these feelings between the ages of three and five, after which the feelings
go away or in some individuals become deeply suppressed. Those that carry on these feelings into
adulthood are considered to have an Oedipus Complex.The oedipal complex is a theory created by Freud
that states that "The child takes both of its parents, and more particularly one of them, as the object of its
erotic wishes."(51) Because of this desire to be with the parent of the opposite sex, a rivalry is formed with
the parent of the same sex. In the play, Hamlet shows great hostility toward his uncle Claudius because
his mother's remarriage to him. Hamlet sees his mother's remarriage as disgusting and sees murdering
Claudius as a way of freeing his mother of an incestuous marriage as well as avenging his father. Hamlet
and his mother's relationship is also shown as more sexual than the traditional mother son relationship
because of Hamlet's language and private interaction with his mother, as well as his rivalry toward
Claudius for his mother's attentions. This suggests that Shakespeare saw the behavioral characteristics of
the oedipal complex in humanity that Freud did and chose to display them through the relationship of
Hamlet and his mother.
Hamlet's inner monologues reveal much about what he is...
(requires sign up for site to see other pages)
Hamlet Strategic Reading Practices Resources #17
http://englishessay2.tripod.com/newpage11.htm
Psychological Projections... Freudian Psychoanalysis in Hamlet:
One of the most interesting ways of analysing the play is through Freud’s psychoanalytic perspective,
viewing the conflict of the play as a manifestation of prince Hamlet’s own unresolved oedipal
complex. Applying the Oedipal theory to Hamlet, of course, assumes the influence of a universal,
unconscious drive (in males) to murder their father and replace him as their mother’s sexual partner. This
approach is probably popular due to its shock value, but it also does a surprisingly good job of explaining
the conflict in Hamlet (both the play and the individual), as well as the roles of Claudius, Hamlet's mother,
and the ghost of Hamlet's father.
The usual oedipal triangle of mother, son, and father has been altered by the addition of Claudius in Place
of Hamlet's original father. No wonder Hamlet looks disturbed. (from the Branagh version)
Claudius can be explained through a psychoanalytic model in in two ways: either he is a psychological
projection of Hamlet’s unconscious mind, or a real person who has coincidentally fulfilled Hamlet’s
unconscious fantasies. If the first is true, then we are presumably interpreting the play a psycho-drama,
replacing the man-against-man conflict with a strictly internal one. If the second is true, and we view
Claudius as a real man (who happens to also be a psychological projection of Hamlet), then Hamlet is
incapable of killing Claudius because he identifies too strongly with him. Either way, Hamlet’s muchdebated inaction throughout the play is explained.
As a ghost, Hamlet’s father is both real and unreal by nature, so it's natural to view him as some type of
symbolic projection. Unlike Claudius with his hidden, secret motivations, the ghost gives Hamlet tangible
information and clear instruction for action. Thus, he/it can be understood as a manifestation of Hamlet’s
conscious mind. The ghost’s command to Hamlet not to "let thy soul contrive against thy mother"(1.5.86),
is an example of the socially constructed super-ego and the ego (the primary element of the conscious
mind) attempting to keep the unconscious impulses of the id under control. The "Closet Scene" (3.4)
reaffirms this notion of conflicting psychological forces, when the ghost returns to prevent Hamlet from
enacting his oedipal fantasy with his mother.
The "Closet Scene" is probably the scene that gives the most credit to Freudian interpretations
of Hamlet. Without this scene, it would seem unlikely that Shakespeare had any intentions of suggesting
an oedipal relationship between Hamlet and his mother. In this scene, Hamlet directs an intense amount
of negative emotion towards his mother, which is understandable given the particular situation. Instead of
focusing on the obvious – Gertrude’s possible involvement in old Hamlet’s death, or at least her present
marriage to his murderer – young Hamlet focuses primarily on his mother’s sexuality. Actually, early on
in the scene Hamlet briefly mentions the more practical topic of his father's murder (28), but quickly shifts
the focus to a comparison of the physical characteristics of his uncle and father. Hamlet then conjures up
some pretty shocking imagery in showing his disgust over Gertrude and Claudius’ "incestuous"
relationship: "to live in the rank sweat of an enseamed bed, stewed in corruption, honeying and making
love over the nasty sty"(92-3). At the end of the scene, it seems that Hamlet’s verbal assault has been
successful and the queen seems to be at the point of breaking. But when she asks Hamlet, "what shall I
do?"(180), he responds not by demanding a confession but by demanding that she abstain from sexual
activity with Claudius (159- 67). If we see Hamlet’s strange focus in this scene as being representative of
his true motivations, then it’s possible that Shakespeare intends Hamlet’s conflict to be somewhat oedipal
in nature. Shakespeare’s first wife, remember, was old enough to be his mother…
Hamlet Strategic Reading Practices Resources #18
http://books.google.com/books?id=0zlaK9hovZcC&pg=PA156&lpg=PA156&dq=hamlet+oedipal+complex&source=bl&
ots=4CiMF0VjXw&sig=G3myJo9DvwtMozemKGR_De1L7R8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VH9FVIbAGIf7igKL9YC4CQ&ved=0CCcQ6
AEwATgo#v=onepage&q=hamlet%20oedipal%20complex&f=false
Hamlet Strategic Reading Practices Resources #19
Hamlet is not mad and does not have an Oedipus Complex
Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,236 |Likes: 5
Published by JOHN HUDSON
Why Hamlet does not have an Oedipus Complex, and how such character centric readings of the
play disregard the Elizabethan allegorical and typological meanings that actually do explain his
behavior. A background paper for the Dark Lady...
DARK LADY PLAYERS WORKING PAPER (2009) NUMBER 5
WHY HAMLET DOES NOT HAVE AN OEDIPAL COMPLEX:THE FAILURE OF AN EXPLANATORY
FRAMEWORKby John Hudson
Many bad productions of Hamlet have been engendered by Ernst Jones’s unfortunate
psychoanalytic paper "The Oedipus-Complex as An Explanation of Hamlet's Mystery: A Study in
Motive" (1910). Jones refers in particular to one passage:"Let the bloat king tempt you again to bed;
Pinch wanton on your cheek; call you his mouse; And let him, for a pair of reechy kisses, Or paddling
in your neck with his damn'd fingers, Make you to ravel all this matter out."
In an attempt to explain Hamlet’s behavior by using 19th century psycho analytic theory, Jones
claims that in this passage Hamletʼs feeling about his motherʼs misconduct “ expresses itself in that
almost physical disgust which is so often the manifestation of intensely repressed sexual feeling”.
Jonesʼs assumptions here are that Hamlet sexually desires his mother, that this is why he focuses so
intensely upon her incestuous sex with the King, and that this helps explain why he wants to kill the
King who stands for his substitute father---as Oedipus killed his father. We must however reject this
attempt at explanation. Lacking time machines, Elizabethan playwrights did not equip their characters
with 19th century psychoanalytic speculation. On the contrary, the reasons for a characterʼs behavior
were not to be found by pretending that literary figures were real people with inner motives of their
own, but to be found in their external allegorical and typological identities, and the classical and
Biblical figures of which they were a type. This was the set of allusions that the playwright had used to
construct a character which the audience was expected to identify.
Thus in terms of the Classical allegory, as the son of Hyperion, Hamlet has the title the ʻmousekillerʼ. His mother who has been given the name Gertrude (not in the original source) echoes St
Gertrude the saint of mice plagues, who in paintings often had a mouse running up her staff. Since
the play features mouse poisons such as wormwood and chameleon, and Hamlet is in the process of
creating a Mousetrap, Hamletʼs disgust –which Jones correctly notices--is the disgust of the mousekiller for the mouse he will exterminate.
In terms of the Biblical allegory, as Linda Hoff noted, Queen Gertrudeʼs identity is hinted at in
the phrase that the king “whorʼd my mother” (5,2,64). Much of Hamletʼs emphasis on the sex, such as
the reference to the en-semened bed, is disgust with this whoring. This has been put into the play to
link Queen Gertrude the whore with another Queen who was a Whore, the Whore of Babylon,
sometimes seen as an allegory for the Catholic church. She appears in the Book of Revelation riding
on a seven headed beast—sometimes interpreted as the seven hills of Rome. As shown in
contemporary illustrations, the Whore is raising a golden cup. At the end of the play Gertrude is also
shown raising a cup in a toast (5,2,292). If the stage action showed Gertrude sitting in the Kingʼs lap,
this would emphasize his identity as the seven headed “scarlet” beast of Rome that the Whore rides
upon. It was normally painted as having serpentine necks. The king is referred to as the “adulterate
beast” (I,5,42) and the “serpent” (1,5,39).
The playwright also uses the Playerʼs speech to rewrite part of the Aeneid in a classical allegory.
The speech relates how king Priam of Troy (an allegory for Hamletʼs father) was murdered by Pyrrhus
who is described as a “beast” who is “hellish”, a “painted tyrant” who is totally red from blood “total
gules” (2,2,53) as the result of his murders. This red coloring links him to the scarlet beast from the
bottomless pit in the Book of Revelation, and thus to Claudius, as Kaula observes.
His name Claudius, which is never uttered on-stage, is an allusion not just to Claudius Ptolemy,
but to Claudius Caesar. After the assassination of Caligula, Claudius took the throne and married
Agrippa. She was killed by her son Nero, and at one point (3,2,385) Hamlet denies being the Emperor
Nero (meaning black). But also Hamlet was educated at Wittenberg, which is where Luther began the
task of the Reformation, in overthrowing Catholicism. So the Biblical allegory constructs Hamlet as a
church reformer destroying Rome and the Church, in a new Apocalypse. Hamletʼs disgust with
Gertrudeʼs relationship to the King, is his disgust with Roman Catholicism.
This is paralleled by the Astronomical allegory in the play, in which Hamlet is over-throwing
the current zodiacal orientation of the Polar Axis. pollax or polus (Polonius), and moving from the geocentric astronomy of Claudius Ptolemy and his fixed stars, to a new Helio-centric astronomy in which
Hamlet himself, as Helios, will be the new center.
However identifying Claudius as a Caesar, as Rome, and as the center of a astronomical
system does not explain how these things relate to each other. It does not explain why Polonius acted
the part of Julius Caesar in a play and is now a rat, why Gertude should be a mouse, or why the
playwright arranged for Hamlet to be a mouse-killer who is very improbably constructing a mouse trap
that traps Caesars right in the central part of the play. Why does the playwright associate these
characters with mice at all? The answer to that is in the Jewish theological allegory. This refers to a trap
constructed by the 3 Flavian Caesars—who took on the identity of a fictional character whose name
was a pun meaning World Mouse—in order to construct a literary trap to catch Jews. This literary trap
is part of Josephusʼs Jewish Antiquities and is discussed in chapter 11 of Atwillʼs book Caesarʼs
Messiah. It has the same literary structure as the mousetrap in Hamlet which used it as a model.
The playwright constructs her own version of the trap that was set by a Caesar/Mouse
character to catch Jews by trapping them in a false religion, and reverses it so that it catches
mice/Caesars. Ultimately it is this that drives Hamletʼs behavior.
email to;Darkladyplayers@aol.com
Hamlet Strategic Reading Practices Resources #20
http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/0305/hamlet.html
Harold Bloom Interprets "Hamlet"
Author Discusses Shakespeare Classic at Library
By YVONNE FRENCH
Shakespeare's "Hamlet," "after four centuries, is still the most experimental play ever written," literary
critic and Yale University professor Harold Bloom argued before a capacity Library audience in March.
"We read to reflect and to be reflected. … You can make of the play ‘Hamlet' and the protagonist pretty
much what you will, whether you are playgoer or reader, critic or director, actor or ideologue; push any
stance or quest into it and the drama will illuminate what you have brought with you," Bloom said.
Prosser Gifford, director of the Library's Office of Scholarly Programs, introduced Bloom as "a force of
nature, a storm of intellectual activity, whose commentaries are, in the words of Mike Abrams of Cornell,
like reading classical authors by flashes of lightning."
Bloom is Sterling Professor of Humanities at Yale University and Berg Professor of English at New York
University. The winner of a MacArthur Foundation Fellowship in 1985 and an American Academy of Arts
and Letters Gold Medal for Criticism in 1999, he is the author of more than 20 books.
The John W. Kluge Center at the Library of Congress and the Office of Scholarly Programs sponsored the
lecture, which Bloom based largely on his new book, "Hamlet: Poem Unlimited" (Riverhead, 2003). Bloom
said he wrote this book to fill a gap he left in "Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human" (1998), in which
he argued that "The Complete Works of William Shakespeare" is "a secular scripture from which we derive
much of our language, our psychology and our mythology."
In "Hamlet: Poem Unlimited," Bloom suggested reading the play as if Hamlet the prince were a "mortal
god in an immortal play."
Bloom dismissed the notion that Hamlet, goaded by his father's ghost, was motivated by revenge to kill
his uncle Claudius, who had ascended the throne and married the queen, Gertrude, Hamlet's mother. He
also said Freud's attempt "to fasten the Oedipus complex on Hamlet … will not stick."
"Something in Hamlet dies before the play opens, and I set aside the prevalent judgment that the deepest
cause of his melancholia is his mourning for the dead father and his outrage at his mother's sexuality,"
Bloom said. "The only vital relationship Hamlet has ever had was with Yorick, the King Hamlet's jester,
who died, the Grave-digger tells us, when the prince was seven. … Yorick the jester was Hamlet's true
father and mother."
"The play's subject … is neither mourning for the dead or revenge on the living. … All that matters is
Hamlet's consciousness of his own consciousness, infinite, unlimited, and at war with itself," Bloom said.
In a running battle of wits, Hamlet also contends with his creator, Shakespeare. "In the book I propose
that a civil war goes on between Hamlet and his maker," said Bloom. "Shakespeare … cannot control this
most temperamentally capricious and preternaturally intelligent of all his creations."
The war with Shakespeare takes place in the play within the play, which, Bloom explained, begins in Act II
and takes up 1,000 lines of the play, Shakespeare's longest at 4,000 lines. He said this interlude was the
playwright's attempt to wrest the drama back from the genius he created in the character of Hamlet.
Hamlet's character changes after the graveyard scene in Act V, according to Bloom. Here Hamlet's
consciousness is "drastically purged of self," he said. "Hamlet discovers that his life has been a quest with
no object except his own endlessly burgeoning subjectivity. This truth, intolerable to any of us, helps turn
Hamlet into an angel of destruction," he said.
Bloom wrote: "Contending with unknown powers within his own self, the prince seems to struggle also
with the spirit of evil in heavenly places. …
"Hamlet … is not going to heaven, hell, purgatory, or limbo, or to any other theological fantasy. He has
been there, done that, in his exhaustive drama. … For Hamlet himself, death is not tragic but an
apotheosis."
Bloom concluded: "The enigma of Hamlet is that so many are moved to identify with him, and he does not
want or need such identification. Yet he urges Horatio to stay alive to retell the play's story lest the prince
bear a wounded name forever. Why does Hamlet still care? Why do any of us care whether our name will
be remembered and how?"