The history of disease and disease concepts are aspects of medical history fraught with problems and yet fl of possibilities. The history of “cemsumption’” before Rob- ert Kach is ony parialy continuous with the history of “euberculcss” after him. In one sense, the history of myocardial infarcion begins only about 1900, even though men and women suffered from aterasclecsis before that date. The history of chlor has been conceived in terms of dict, anemia, and other physical categories on the one hand, and in terms of Soil relation and repressed women onthe other. “Hysteria” bas been recently rite about as agely misdiagnosed epilepsy by one historian, and as a kind of alternative career for women denied adequate avenues of social expression by other historians (2) The fascination with reospecive diagnosis so beloved by practicing doctors ‘ho tum ther aftentin to history has been castigated by historians who find the exercise dtotve, Whigaish and history slevant. To ask, fr example, what was “really wrong" with Napoleot ce Dari hes been seen ag asking an unanswerable question, or as encour aging speculation in excess of the evidence. Those who hve insisted thatthe historian’ proper es to try to tindecstand the diagnostic categones and therapeutic options available to 3 doctor at any particular time only thin the terms of his own society ane responding to a real historical problem, for our own knowledge of the aflcions of earier generations soften limited by what they and thei docios made of it In the end, xe may well be forced to conde that an eighteenth-cenfury ley suring from the vapors or a rieteenth-entury ‘maniac ina Victoran country asylum were aflcted with preisely those dseeses. ‘Bat such historical coniextualsm can be pushed too 1. yea is a tepid Act fe te Hier of Me te Ve ste ir Hero Mei’ and Udy Clee Ldn es har tai Por nd. Bravu/of A Deorary the Hr f Since ext aor nro eho ery of srs. Hs say ees "nen a nad rie tet cnt pied by Carne Usinrsty Fes. Mad Ne atari Fry fri a! Urasty Cee Low Wane Int Hy ie. Tsar pinay prsion (fhe bis pon Tae Anstey of adres: Baye he Fy Cf Pasha, iy WF. Syn Prte at Sheed, a lsh 95 Tc Pollen, As: Te Wola te fet Hoey of Mos, 18 ison Rt, Ln NN 2, Egle 390 Amc Sti, lune 73 far. Ibis, pethaps, inevitable that we judge when we write history. We perceive good diagnastisans, and medio ones, in the past, just a5 we have variable confidence in different dociors—and histrians—in our oven time. And part of our historkal judgment beats dlrectly on the doctor relationship tothe reaites with which be was faced. Too few historians of psychiatry have concemed themselves wth these reali: with, for instance, the prevalence of neurcsyphiis ond other ganic disorders in Victorian asytums. Its not enough to-see psychiatric diggnases simpy in terms of ideologies or sail contol, just a6 it pat enough to view psychiatric, or mesial, disorders as timeless, ahistorical Categories wich dectrsin the gest have groped forand which we, sith the benefit of elecroencephalograms and cA" scanners, have at st discovered. To take a concrete example: the metic word of, John Conoly at Hanvwell Aslum can be only partially reconstructed. We are forever denied immediate access to the patiens he examined, though we cen know something —but only something —of their personalities, their phySiognomies, thet bodes. We can have reasor- able acces fo what he considered sigifcant in bis patients be hisories, psychological make ups, and so- Gl relatns we ca ner wht Bed rt onder worth noting oF ecting. But we cannot examine Fis patents ourselves, order an eetroencephalozrar, do a ‘mental status examination, or ask about their dreams or eatiy childhoods. The case of Hamlet There is, however, one psychiatric case about which dozens of psychitriss have writin and to which our wn acess i just as privileged as theirs: Hamlet, the Dane, about whom more has been writen thar about any Danish person of rea historical substance. Indeed, ‘more has been writen of Hamlet than of any doctor who ever lived. He has beoome pat of word culture, andthe literature about him knows no ondinary national or linguistic baeriers. The French find him fascinting and the Germans seem sometimes to believe that his orginal utterance vas “Sein oder nicht Sen” 2). It sould thus not come as a surprise to lear that Hamlet as aia poy ol the pst cenay and a hel, The rllall of rineteenth-cntury psychiae tests who tued thet attention to him rads almost hike a Win’ Who of British, Amercen, and German psychit-Figure. The phos scene fom he it ac of Halts depiced in {his 105 engaved pein. nerpretion of Hal gly tr 09 the quetion of Hamlets mane. For mre thn a ear aie the prio the lay, Hane’ dns ws peal lewed 1 eid, and his destructive acs hea ths of biter, ‘sri nd cynical macotrt. By the etait cen, ever Hamlet was sos more sya 5 vig» compe, niga pyc, theres of power nics gente by his misfertanes othe Romani, he enbdid the ‘ny: Conoly himself, a5 well as J.C. Bock, Henry “Maudsley, and Forbes Winslow in England; Isaac Ray, Amar Brigham, and A. O. Kelogg in Ameria and from the Continent, Cesare Lombroso, 8. Debruck, Heinsch Lach, and H, Turek Even a Dr, Jekls has cntrbuted tothe iterature on psychopathology in Shakespeare (3). In this century, psychoanayss since Freud himsel ave been eager to add their solutions, most notably Emest jones and Otto Rank, and more recently Kurt Esler, W. .D. Sct, Theodore Lz, ving Edgar, and Noman Holland, Dr. Blot Sater, one of the most caganically orientated of lading contemporary Brish psychiatrists, even added his mit, arguing with playfu ness but with some interesting textual evidence that Hamie’s “problem” was the discovery that he and (Ophelia had actualy commited ines! together). ‘The range of other diagnoses has teen equally rearing huran duo even Boag dation ad as ‘has he te Het prayed «mee ag een hee Sgr The ipa ales eof nd ene shag eral mo, etal eal res the pes! ey, sng hut hanging vies fades ad termay- The engang, y Robe Tew er ping by ry Fs tom the Coleco of Pits polished 188 by the Boyde Shep Cally, ands epaced cutesy of te ‘Ye Cee fr Bish A Pele Cleon) wide. Hamlet has been confidenty diagnosed as a relanchlic, 2 maniac, and both—that 5, a mani depressive; be has been seen asa neurotic, most dass cay as one wih ameslved Oedipal conics, wih 2 variety of olher compulsions and obsessions; he has been pronounced a neurasthenic, a hysteria type of human degeneracy, and a classical case ofthe malingr- cx He bas been approeched as one who was criminally insane and had the extent of his criminal respons assessed, Oncasimally, psychiatrists have even dared suggest he was sane, although this diagnosis has aga been the province of terry arts; psychiatrists, it seems, are more prone to diagnose mena disturbance in individuals than are lay people. “Hamlin paix la,” wnies the American peychiatst Theodore Lidz, “atracts the psychiatrist because its a ply that dry ctellenges his professional acumen’ (). A century agp, enry Maudsley, Conoly’s sontaw and the prem‘nent Brtish psychiatrist of the send hal of the ine: teenth conta, Was 2 bt more modest ‘A attt tke Shkespere,penating with sute inigh the ‘svelte nd Sed enor feyen an fis ciewsancs, coming the onder which there emit Somueh apparent disorder, and revaing the mesa mode tthe evolution of he events lie—amshes, im the work of rete ar oe vale nermaton abet the aes tf SRsany| an ean be obtained om the tage an genera Steen’ wth whkh scene, nis present dteave Sate ontrack! tl [i Given the range of pychiai and cites comment already offered on Famet'spersonaty and psschoney, in shor, hip “problem,” there would be ite point ‘adding to the ile Rather, we propose to look a the Instoccal Hart, at a character—almos,t would seem, 8 peron—whe has in exsence been alive theve tree and a alt cenfures and more. Analysis teminable and interminable, one might say. But analysis there hes been ony 9 aston, of coe, ty Tacha, ut engug give afar precise Dev of chang psy Stic poets and perceptions, We ar onl sbech ‘Hamdet the person and con do ony a ise tore for Halt on the couch, but since Hart has no existence ‘outside the boundases of his pay, since xe can an theory know actly as much about him as did De Jahnsnn, or John Comal, or Erest Jones. we can use him a5 a kind of touchstone by which io measure changing. opinion prjchiatie and’ thersise-abeut normale and madnes. ‘roessional psychic concer seems alost cin cident withthe psychatre profession itell—from the idee decades of the nineteenth ceniusy. But what those peyhintiss had inert was a prince—a person ‘or part, or what you wil—who fad undergone a complex metamorphous over two and a third centres. Tat us mention Brey what tis was. Shakespeare Hamlet for histo purpes, was a text a et of ‘words stage directions, al mpi ations and interac tons. But ot cause Shakespear's Hane! ako related to ‘what we low about Shakespeare himsel and to 4 saracer and plot which Shakespeare inherited frum ‘arler sources end molded fo rut hs own particular stramase purposes, This Was undoubeely important to ‘Shakespeare’s audience, who would have been familiar with Thomas Kye’ eaier version and who would in ny cave have feat certain ways Wo Hamlet as haaciee in a revenge tragedy () This eater plot and this wel-esablshed tradition would have satfxtocly explained 1 Shakespeare's orignal audience two of the cena problems sfrich were s0 mach to exes ater cats and pyc Gist, was Hamlet aly mad, or did he merely feign madness? Unfoturstey, Hamlet doesnt heip us much at this port, fr he wams Horatio tnd Mares, ater his encounter with the ghost at he may have fitre oasion fo “put an antic ispsion con whereas, almost the end hen preparing to fight ents, Fe announces thal it was his madness which cused him io wrong Laer, and by extension, Plont us and Opheta os vel. What to believe, Harts fiction ce Hamlet’ election? Hamlet of Actor Ham- let of Act V? Fora century and more, it was the early Hamlot who was belived, one reason at least being ‘hat Kyd’s Hamlet unequivocally feigned madness. ‘Thesecond problem was not unrelated tthe fst. If ‘Hamlet was sane throughout, ‘she really the stuf of frag stature? Can fe realy be a tage hero? For he could be sad to procrastinate; he pits his true love and indielly couses her death; he kills her father and, eventual, her brother he sends Resenksantz and Gull denser to their deaths and generally vareaks havoc ‘wherever he goo. But this sto bring ster glosses onthe action, for the nagedy of revenge di not require moclly blameless heroes, and Shakespesr'sceventcenth-centu- ry auciences pecbobly saw Hamiet as a rather biter, ssrantic, gyal, and offen wity makontent, and if ‘mad, mad rather comically, in the way that al overs are aide mad (9, Buti any case, psychodogica eadings of Hamlet do not appear undl the eighteenth century. Classic and romantic Hamlets Dot hth, Dost as cet ech, Drone ee Ya are gee at isn ese tno ec he ps at cohen meechne oan ae eal cement Meher Say Sek Se ts mop Py, Ga i tH (auton: furans from mean stamped on hy slp arn ea acest pelea ps seen gre. ve a gs ge ere we sl eS ieee sey). Coca eer en wp cn et eed oo see Hager at a ie deh Ee aise Seaoirl cam ee Ban th agen cone tang ea er fae) dna Een paces rg an ee 2 popes suis hy ee a BT aaa fay mons satay ans Sea es feet ee ry Ay ny einen ee ee ears cuts ey eed eng the pious” (12) Tn France, Volare was unmoved. Weit- Oe eae bre Enplshmen beeve im ghoxs no moe than the Romans di, yt thoy tae pleasure the age of Har, which ho [host ola Kg eppears un the stage Farbe i fom me [sf everthing hat ngewe and artes ‘amu, which would rote tiated bythe les populace cf Franco Maly Hamlet bens crazy inthe second ct and Fis mites Decures ergy inthe tha, the pine sky the lather otis stress ar the pretence ting 2a: andthe hci tows hel ino the sven «gave is dug on the stage. andthe graveciggrs alk quod worthy 0 hem betes hie halding ssn the ards, are eeponds thar nasty vulgaris In sliness no ess dss In the ‘mearaheaner fhe Store concurs Plan Hams, is NE:BV ‘moter, and hither, crouse on he sage songs te sungat abl; theres quarreling fghing iling—one would imagine ts pce tobe th work cla drnken savage. 2] In the end, ofcourse, senstty won ou, and Romant dsm created its ow version of human nature sown Hamlet Fr the Romantics, Hamlet embodied quintes: senially the alochhuman dichotomy between thought and acon, between exon and despa. For Samuel Taylor Colerdge, he had “every excelence but the pover to at” (4), He wasa young Werther before his fime, and it % not surpring that the craior of Werther—Goethe have ket @ descioton of Farlet which embodied all the Romantic fsination ‘with Shakespeare's character. Of Hamlet, Goethe wrote: Teer and oy descended, is yal fone ge apuner the dit inferno ey tn de oe it ond pay ty, De eng tthe god and he paced ith the census of bs Bah ithe ne in kin tog He was 2 pre, &ban pance, Plein fe, Pasha tn, owatonna, he eats ode ef youth and the eh of he ward A ben, pre and ct mr a, hot he seongh of nerve whch kes the he, sis enath 4 Ere wih ex nt Bsr nro fy ty ‘niyo io bar. Tengo s requtedoh— rr thempossblin el, 8 pene fi, wd gig be woe sve reining selon st almost sesh apie fers hs shen gin cing po 05 ‘The Romantics established once and forall what cates cries had only hinted at that Fret is Shake spears most personal play, and that Hemet himselt Gen be seen as an existent, univesal Everyman. "Hamlet sa name,” wrote Wiliam Halt in 181, “his spesches and sayings butte ile coinage ofthe poet's train What then, are they notre? They areas real as crown thoughts. Tei reat isin the reade/ min. It ise who are Hare” (16) We can see, then, that by the early rintenth century there had been many Hammes from the rather titer and cynical revenger of he seventeenth century to the psychologically rounded, sympattenc charade of Genk nthe eet nt, Fits “pce lets.” Tere ha been the oeasor- Sequoia Hanoy gs mada te py, but no more than suggestions, and forthe most part, Hamlet’ contemplative melancholy was simply part of his character. And the belance of theatrical opinion throughout the nineteenth century was that diagnosing madness kis the tragedy. Or as James Russell Lowell ult inthe 1860s, if Hamlet were relly mad he would ‘be imesponsible, and the whole ply acho (17, Most ofthe great ninetenthcentury actors, such a5 Henry Inving. or Edwin Booth, refised to interpret a med Hamlet. Booth was surounded by tragedy his brother John Wilkes Booth was Linck asain, his wie went rnd, be hans was consiutonaly melancholic But he aimed to present Hare as consistent sane “I do not consider Hamlet mad,” he said, “except in craft’ (18). Ivins Hamlet was described as “entirely ovale” Thus, ineeenthcentary crcal and. theatrical opinion continued lagely to operate within the fome- ‘work established by the Romantics. OF course, Hamlet ‘was an enigma, bt that was par of his fascination. Hamlet in the asylum Banded agains the etal and theatral views was @ tex of opinion which insisted that Hare was insane It detived almost entiey from the nascent psscirc NI profession in America and Britain, a speciality which in ts formative period canbe identiied withthe orely, moms, and ill optimistic word ofthe asyium, We have mentioned its main protagonists: John Canal, medial superintendent at Hanwell Asylam, neat Lon ion, were he intouced the “nonrestaint” stem; J.C. Bun reskdent superintendent of the Devon County Asylum fom 184 to 1862, first editor of the Tun of Mel Scene (853-2 anda cofounder af the Deurlogical journal Bran (1878, Amarigh Brigham, Buckalls complement as fist editor ofthe Aes ound of non (184), and superintendent o the New York State Lunatic Asyium; ac Ray, ake fguein the establishment of legal psychiatry in the United Sates, lke Brigham a founder ofthe Assodation of Medical Supeiniendents of Amescan rsitution forthe Insane, and physician in chief of Baler Hospital in Providence, Rhode Land; A. O. Kelogg, asian physian ofthe State Hospital for the Insane in Poughkeepsie, New York and an obscure English doer, possibly formed an ator, George aren, wo was described as cesident det of the Asylum Foreign and Domestic Life Assur ance Company inthe 163s. ‘There a’ a few diferencs in these datos’ pine fons, varius delivered in the halfcentury between the 180s and the 1880s, bt the diferences areas nothing ‘when compared wit her points of profesional agree ment and they may be treated esenialiy as 2 group. All ‘were cern that Hamlet wes of unsound mind, The problem with erties, Ise Ray complained, was that they laced the medical acumen “to sce the essen distinction between real and insanity” (9) A. . Kellogg beieved it impossible to “unlock the profound mystery with which Shakespeare] has su Ff e hana of his ey, ‘which sal nce furied bythe supposition ofthe ea! madness of Hamlet, wich, tothe experienced medical paychologist is quite... evident” (0, Hamlets fst solloguy (“0 that tis too too sold flesh would mel") already, Conlly insisted, demonstrates his predispos- tion to unsounness, Hamlet is “constitutionaly def cient in that quality ofa fealty brin oe mind which may be termed ils elasticity, in virtue of which the changes and chances of the mutable world should be sastaned without damage, and in various tals stead fesiness and trust still preserved” (2), ‘There were several reasons why these nineteenth century psychists belived Hae o be of unsound, rind. One was his suicidal tendencies. n Shakespeare's diay, suicide was a crime, and unless the person who took his ov fife coud be proved to have been mentally deranged, he dia felon and his property ws forted to the state. Chrstarity as interpreted by senth- and. severieent-eentury churchmen was fn in its prokii- tim ofsucde—as Hamlet himself recognizes: "Or thatthe Everasting had not fat /His canon “gainst sek slaughter.” Ophel’s suicide was done after overt dis fraction had supervened, and her maciness was never realy in doubt In general Shakespeare anc his fellow Elizabethan and Jacobean dramatists reserved suicide for ‘obvious villains oc noble Romars, for whom sukide was in some circumstances the only honorable way cut. By the eighteenth century, socal atitudes to suicide had relared, but the law hed not, s0 coroners juries routinely save a verdict of temporary madness a the time of the ‘act (or of accidental death, if this was a posable interpre- tation) so that the deceased's family could inherit his property. In Garck’s version Hamlet actually dies by running into Laeries's sword, and then joins Laeres' {tho survives) and Horatio's hands o pick up the pices othe rotten state of Denmark. Werther ofcourse des ky his own hand, and Hamle’s own deliberations were it tune with the cultural preoccupations of the early nine- teenth century By earl Victorian times, when psychiatric comment ‘on Hamlet began, suicide hed been more or less com: pletely medicalized, and was seen as evidence either of ‘cessive melancholy or of the same kind of iesistibe impulse seen in various forms of mania, such as hom sidal or erotic monomania, And Fanren added a strongly religous and moral jadgmen’ to Hamlet’ “To be or not to be” contempiation of suicide, claiming that he there ‘weighs the pros and cans of living so cold-blooded, and ireigously, that he mus already show evidence of his madness @2) TE was net simply Hamle’s meditations on suicide tht gave nineteenth psy the asirance to diagnose insanity. ronically t was also his waening to Horatio and the others that he might puton an “antic disposition’: that he might feign madness. Conoly insted that Hamlets caus ravture of feed ard real madness was “genealy only knows to these who live much among the insane” (23); Foren tiumphartiy concluded that ‘feigring madness isa theory with many persons who are to mental aberations” (2, More cautiously Buckail pointed out that since one of Shakespeare's sources depicted anather prince Hamlet feigning madness to escape the tyranny of his uncle, rot ico much should be constued from this twist of the plot (25) But Bucknill was at one with his psychiatric cok Feagues in seeing in Hamlet's ty 0 effect the revenge with wich the ghost had aged hms incapacity to act—the evidence of mental disease. It was 2 disjunction between desire and il which was com strued by Victorian psychiatrists as a common feature of the lunatic. Lunatics had simpy lost conta. inthe “nature of insaity to talk but not to ac, to resolve but not to execute” believed Ray (25). The Vicoran concept ‘of manliness, urged in dozens of pamphlets, sermons ad tats timed atthe young, and but ito the Vitoran pubic seco emphases on vigorous spor and the fair play they were supposed to engender, viewed ‘cessive introspection and preoccupation with self asa dangerous and vicious habit one step away from frank insanity (27), Hamlet early introspective cas of mind, Ray insisted, was but “the precursor of [his] decided insanity.” The Romantic critic Charles Lamb, who de- scrbed Hamlet as shy, negligent, and retiring, had Pointed Cut that nine-enths of what Hamlet says and does are “ronsactions between himself and hs moral Sense. effusions of his solary musings” (28). For the High Vielorian psychiatrist, this was evidence of a rmortid mind. A Hamlet paralyzed t inaction, unable t> call up the resources of willpower, unable o do his duty, isa Hamlet who isthe victim of disease. Batis not simply that Hamlot did not conform tN. the model preduct of the Victorian pablic schools Insenity, for nineteenth-century psychiatrists, was a physical disease the product of physiological dysfunc- tion or organic changes. Nineteenth-eentury psychia~ tists admitted the general relevance of certain psycho- logical factors in the causation of insnity—jealousy, profound somow, and other strong emotions, for it~ Stance—but they resisted the impulse to formulate the idea of primary mental disease. Thore were professional issues at stake here, for if insanity was a physical dlsease, litle diferent in theory from tuberculosis or typhus, their ov claims to being by education, Know edge, and social function obvious experts in looking after the insane logically followed. A considerable amount of recent historia work has examined the professional side of Vietoran psychiatry, and it was consistent with these poychiatrsts’ mare general Kleas of insanity, and their Professional aspirations, that our nineteenth-century commentators on Hamlet should stress that his insanity wes organically grounded. Amariah Brigham summa- ried this atitude a follows: ‘An examination of Shakespeare's writings wil show that he boieved the folowing facts, allof which werein advance ofthe ieneral opinions ofthe age, and ere row deemed: cmc. (0) Thata welLformed brain, a good shaped head, is essentil oa good (2) That insniy is «disease ofthe bran (9) That there 2 general and partial insanity (4) Thatit isa disease which can be cured ky medical means. (5) That the cuses are various, the most eam of which he has parteulasty noticed. 25) Shaiespeae thse rinelenthcentuy commenter, inst, wh He mute penis recognized many of the physical indications of insanity. For instance when Hamlet, closeted with his mother, having just killed Polonias and having seen forthe ast time the ghost of his fther, is unping her frantically to abstain from the ‘ncestuous bed, and is acused by his tered mother of distraction, he replies, “Ecstasy? / My pulse as yours doth temperately keep time / And makes as healthfl ‘music. [18 not madness | That [have uttered: bring me to the test | And I the matter will reword, which mad ness / Would gambel from.” A normal pulse and the ability to repeat what has been said withoa! confusion: these, Hamlet insists, are prof of sanity. To this Buckrll replies: the pulse in mania averages about ten beats above that in health; that ofthe insane generally, indud- ing maniacs, only averages nine beats above the heathy standards; the pulse of melancholia and monomania is not above the average” (30), “tf curious to observe,” Concly added, “thatthe arguments [Hamlet] adduces {0 disprove his mother’s supposition [of his madness] ate precisely such a certain ingenious madmen delight to employ” (32). Put to the test, both Corolly and Bucknil imply, Hamlet would fai his eater bouts offeigned madness i feigned they were) are gone, and he is physiologically deranged Inthe end, however, nineteenth-centary psychi {rss judged Hamlet mad on moral grounds. They found him sympathesc and moving oniy if mad. For, afer al, in their eyes, he botches just about everything he attempts, Everything he iouches tums to dss. Hs in tum capricious and obscene with Ophelia; he feels no remorse after kiling Polonis; contemplates killing his uncle when the ater isa itl prayer and decies for fear that is uncle might go to heaven, thereby ‘aking, ‘upon himself the right of judgment which God alone should possess he cold-bondedly sends Rosenkrantz and Guidenstem to their deaths; he causes Ophai's distraction and death; his mother and Laeres die a5 a result of his bungling, He is, within the moral world of ‘Vistorian psychiatry, either an unfeeling, egocentric cad ‘ora madman, and itis ony if his actions ore expained by reference fo his madness that our psychiatrists could ‘view his tragedy in sympathetic terms, o: could rational ize ther own emotional responses to his story. Nineteeth-century psychiatrists analyzed Hamlet in terms of his ations, and thei lation to his expressed sloes of mind and emotions. They ated, of course, his obsession with his mother remarriage but were mich more interested in his relationship with Ophelia. They saw his delay as symptomatic of his mebarehlic disposi tion, his morbidly intspective personality, and his inappropriate and blunted emotional responses. They assumed his love of Ophelia to be pure ard sraghtor- ‘ward, and attrbated some of his psychological prablems to her contadictry behavior towards rim The psychoanalyzed Hamlet But Hamlet changed with the coming of psychoanalysis. He agpired a sewal identity, his intrepectveness became part of his fascination instead of a part of his disease, his musings on suicide again, es in Romant- «ism, became painful evocatons of the exstental human condition insted of an indication of insanity. Freud was alas crawn towards Shekespeae’s plays, and it was he who firs propesed what wih varaions and endless elaborations, has become a standard psychoanalytic in- ferpretaon in the present century. For Freud, Hamlet was simply another version of the universal Oedipal sirvings which, unresoed, are the origin of rich neurotic behavior in adults. Hamlet was Shakespeare's ‘unique craton indeed, Hamlet ats Shakespeare, creat ed while mourning the death o his father, and the death of bis small son, named Harnet, and reflecting Shake- speae’s own suicl longings, his own weariness with this sterile promontory, his own sexual fantasies and conflicts, Symbolically, the ghost—Hamlet’sfatheris ne o the roles Shakespeare the actor has been thought to play. These biographical implications of Shakespeare naming his son Hamnet, and paying the ghost, were ‘used by james Joyce when, in Ulisse, he rote: [sit poste thatthe player Shakespeare, a ghost by absence, ard in the vestue of buried Denmanh,& ghost by death, speaking his own words ois own sors name (hd Hamnot Shakespeare lived he would have been Prince Hare’ tt), is it posse, { want to know, or probcbl tht he did not foresee the logic conclusion of these premises: You are the ispossssed son, Lam the murdeved ater, your mothers the sity queen, Ann Shakespeare, brn Hathaway. For Freud, Hamlet cannot kil his uncle because of these Oedipal strivings; because he idetifies—uncon- soously—with his unde as having done presely what every male child fantasies: killed his father and married bis own mother. By this, Feud could explain at once Hamlet’ delay (indeed, even in the final a, he can Kill | his uncle only after his mother is dead) and Hamlet's intense emotional reaction to his mother’s remarriage and sevuaity. Curiously enough, Freud changed his rind: not about the Oedipal interpretation but about the authorship ofthe play. He became 2 ken sudent ofthe ceriytwenteth-century suggestions that this untutored actor from Stratiord coud not possibly have writen such frat works of art, Fread was atiacted bythe possibilty that England's national poe! was not even Engish— pethaps it was a coruption ofthe French name Jacques Piece? (2) Then, an Engishman with the appropraie name of Thomas Looney published in. 1230 a. work centile “SJakespene’ ewe in which Edward de Ver, Eat of Oxford, vas confidently asseried asthe author of the pays bearing Shakespeare's name, Its, ofcourse, in {he nature of psychoanalysis that tan explain not oniy Hamlet, but the resons why Freud could not accept Shakespeare asthe author of hs own plays: as Norman Holland has writen, Freud's urge to dethrone Shake- speae stemmed fom his view of "the ast a kind of tofem whom he bath resented and emulated” (33). At any rate, Fred's final pronouncement was that the mame “Win Shakespeare” is very prokebly 2 pseudo nym behind which a reat unknown les conceae Etvard de Vere, Fart of Onford, aman wino has been thought to be idenied ith the author of Skakespeae’s works, ost = beloved and admired. father white he was sill 9 boy and Completely repudiated his mother, who contacted @ new mariage very soon ater her husbar’ death. [i Freud’s defection was a source of some embaass ment to his biographer, Emest jones, who earlier had extended Freud initial brief comments on the Oedipal theme in Hal into a fll essay, entitled “A Paycho analytic Study of Hamlet weaving Shakespeare's ie as it known or conjectured with the themes fram the play, end finally pronouncing, Hamlet a eycothymic hysterc Jones sums up The main home o Hane] is 2 highly elaborated and ds fpised acount of a bay's lve for his mother and consent [elo of and hatred towards is father Thre ‘easoa fo bee tha he new ie wich Shakespeare poured ino the old story was the euteome o inspirations tha took theron the deepest an dake eons hs ind. 5] Jones's discussion, couched inthe language of psy choanalyss, is concemed with neurosis, not madness Like other psychiatrists before and sine, he used his coven peculiar spectacles to view the world of Hamlet, For instance Theodore Lidz, concerned in research with the ‘amily dynamics of schizophrenia, has emphasized the comlex series of famubal and surogate familial relation ships in the pay (36); WI. D. Scot, more interested in paychotc iliness and in Jungian typologies, analyzed Hamlet asa menicdepressive with a variable mental and emotional site @ “morally orientated introverted! int- ‘ive’) G7; Norman Hallang, coming to psychoanalysisfrom iterate, used the nhole Shakespearean canon to attempt to ilaminate many facets of Shakespeare's per- sanity, insisting as is cormmon, that Hames a unigue- ly personal statement by the Bard ‘With the tiumph ofthe psychoanalytic interpreta- tion of Haret, we retum, not necessary tothe charac ter Shakespeare created, but io a Hamlet much cioser to that ofthe Romantics: of Goethe, Scheling, Coleridge, Haat, and Charles Lamb. While psychosnalyticalread- ings have met with a mixed response from crits, they have at last provided a set of more fledbe, culturally rooted cancepis with which to join the word fatto the ‘world of psychiatry. Any reader of Henn Ellenberger’s Discovery of he Unconscious wil already beve noted the Romantic rots of dynamic psychiatry 38). And so with poychaanaljss, a5 he was for the Romantic ents, Hamlet has oce again become for us Everyman, But ‘with a diference, perhaps, for the psychoanalytial B as been medicalized, become the modern Oedipal neurotic in need of professional help Bat in conclusion we must give Shakespeare—and Hamlet—the last word. Would Shakespeare have wel comed the coming of psychoanalysis? We cannot of couse know, but there i 2 theme in Hamlet which suggests that ke the High Victorians, thee were areas ‘fife about which he knew but about which he might ‘choose to remain silent For Femi is a play not jost about madness, real or feigned, but about te intrusive ness of spying. Rosenkrantz. and Guildenstern are brought in to spy on Hamlet; Folonis, Gertrude, and ‘Claudius spy on Hamiet and Ophelia Plonivs spies on Hamlet and Gertrude; Polonius sends Reynaldo to spy on Laeres in Pais. Infact, Polonus isthe arch spy, rmasterminding a whole intiate netwerk of intrigue, He is als, as Erk Enkson once noted, a kind of resident psychiatrist (‘T have found the very cause of Hame’s acy”) 9, But what di Hamlet himself think of it al? Would he have enjoyed being on the couch? Aer the Payer Scene, Hamlet and Rosenkrantz and Guildenstem are speaking, Hamlet i fending himself fom the persistent questioning. and. spying of his erstwhile frends. A recorder is brought on, and Hamlet challenges Guilden- stern to play upon it “ariet Wil yo play upon this pipe? Galenten: My Loe, farnot Heri I pay you Gailenten:Baive me, I cannot. Hlnlet Ido beseech you Galeton: [now 9 touch of, my Lord aries Ts 3s easy as ng: gover these ventage wih your finger and thumb, give itbrath with your mouth, andit wi dlsourse mest doquent music. Look you, these are the re Gl: ut se ao oman t any wean of anmony, vente kl rk Why lo yo ns, hor meth thing you make fine: you nol la upon ne you weal seo how stp you would plocot eRe ofay mystery you ‘tl sud fn ny ws noe 0 he poy at tee nh muss cet woke ths Tee organ yet canct youre speak. Why 3 you think tt Ta ener be pede, tana ip Calle what inromert you wil thong ou i et ae, jou cnet play pone References |. Bae coxape se of noes, se ths tie in The rate Mares ssn the itr 9 Pach, dF. ra, R. ove aad Shepherd. 91, pp. 29-90 Tasos, 6S Winns, e950. Rang one Oe of Halt, 161 TBH Laon len and Unwin | Bag. BP, Shure, fie, en Pair. Lond: Vision Sheer (978, What happened at Gnome A iensen. [a Pury, Gi, ed Page ed M Rot and V. Cowie IO, London Cased Lia 196 Bam Ey Mans gin “ae, p98, Lenser: Vise. He Moule, 197 Mat Rly ad Ala 2nd. Londen Maca, .M.Fpe 96 The Roaisane Hei, Pst Uri Pass 8. Cokin. 17. A Ht of Hand Cit, Londo: Fan Cos, 4, Ral 195. Ht of Sheeran Cc, 9D, Humane 10, Re 8,9 1. W. E. Byam, B85. The renoss puto in eigheenty: and ‘anetendcenay Bis nT Aho aes: Esse Foy Bc, ed W.F Byrn R Porter, and M.S bed Tove 1 RED pH 15, Ret 2 pp. 1, 1 Re 2 pp. 3, 15, Re.2 pp. 28 16, Re 2p. 17. Re pp. 8 18, Weer. 15, Skene on the Se, p38. 3. Bloor. 18. Ray, 183. Sakespear's delet of sey bo Cn ano Mts Pegs, p35. Lt, Brown 210, 8.0. Kel 186 Sapa Diino by Ideily, ‘a Sip. 52. Now York Hrd and Houghton 2, F Cony. 13 Stay of Han, p24, Lord: E, Mose 2G. Fan, ISS, Ease he Vie Mas, Ebi by Bo Grr of Hon, Cpe, Lar anal Ele pH Lond Dean and Mine ps 25, [Cl 159 The gc Stsspn pp. SI, Lone Logan 2%, Ro 18, p 50 2.8. Hy, 19%, The His By ond Virion Cale, Had Unie Fes 28, Re 2 pp. $48 28. A. agham. 16M. Shoespean’s usttns oni. Am. Irom 25, p 8, 21, p 1S. 32S. Schoertaum. 197. Sulagnan’s Lies, pp. IB. Oxon! Chander 33, N, Hund 185, Phonan Sogn, = 38. eGo Ha 1M, Re 3, pu 35, E Js, 108. A Bychoaaic stl of Hamlet In fsa in ‘Aged Fons, p88. Leder: Inertions Psycho aijtal Fr, 36. Fes. MWD, Sot 8 Soper Mais Lr: Mand HP Elenbep. 1970 The Dicey of ie Usins. Bs. Re 3, p