GHOST AND ANTIC DISPOSITION s

A~t E~istential and PsyJaoanalytic Interpretat.~on of Shakespeare's t t a ~ e t

BY LASZLO VAI~GA, Ph.D., M.D., AND BON1NTIETA l~rE~ B.A.

I. Li terary greatness cannot be measured witch a scientific yard-

stick, and judgment in the field of aesthetics will probably always be formed on a subjective basis. Survival by admiration appears to remain ,as o,ne o~ tshe best indicators o~ artistic value. We shnp,ly witness the mir~acle that the human mind is ca~,able of creating s,omet!hing so timeless and universal, that sucveedin'g generations sp'are no egort in the seaxch for new meaning and identification. The li terary masterpiece is an inexhaustible source of emotional experience and aesthetic satisfaction. This may serve as reason for tt~e adventurous attempt to illuminate the r of Hamlet veith the views o,f a new trend that ~s gainhlg strength and in- fluene:e in c~ontemForpary ph~lo,s[o,phi~al and psychi'atric tho,ught.

Exi,stent~alSsm and existential analysis, like all philo,s,o,l~ies newly brought into p opu]'arity, may perhaps pr~ovide some valuable c~iteria in examJn.ing ~rt. I t should be an interesting study ~o C~Olnp~i~e the results of p revio,us psychoanalytic investigati, an, ,ws Ha~nlet~s personality ha~s been s~bjected Vo tho~rough "altd pene- tratin, g analytic scrutiny.

Naturally, no such idea i~s suggested .here ,as that Shake~speare himself in Hamlet .or :any other of h~s m~sterp~eces intended ~o, be the source o,r p,rop,agato,r of existealfial philo,sop~ly. The ap- pro,~h he,re may be co,tapered to the stage viexr o~f tIaznle,t'~s wo.rld t~!sing varic,olored arc li:gh~s to illmninate the scene. V'ar~o.u,s ~shades o~f facts gain pa.rt,icular significance, and details highlighted pre- viously eventually disappear. New ideas assume a dominant role and exert "a new sub~ec~,ive imp ressi,oa.

Any ,sc,h~olar, eventually convinced that he had the in,gennity or lu~ck to, unravel the ,se~refi .and succes,sfully exp~lain lshe "heart2' of Hamlet's "mys~tery," would p,rrobably delude himself with fal, se hoo,e as he has succ~es,sfully .de eo~ded only the speaifi, e meaning fo,r himsel~ and fo,r those who can share his views, that is, h~s o,wn

~Prom the Department ~f Psyc'~iatK% lVLarquette University, Sclm~l ef iViedieine, sad Milwaukee PSychiatric H~,spi~al~ W,~uwa~osa. Wis.

60~ GIzXOST AND ANTIC DISPOSITION

psyahological proce,ss o~f identification with tshe Shake~spearean world. L~terary critics reflec't the ch~ara.cteri, s,ties .o,f the eoa~tem1~o,- ra,ry woEd-view~s in the same manner that the o,riginal art wo,rk reveals its own time. The interpretat ion of an essayist, pervaded wit'h the doctrines of socialist realism in S,o~et l~us~sia, must be radically differ:out from that o.f a German sentimentalist in the late eigh.teenth ee~n~t~lry, educ,ated on the deluge of tea~r~s o~f Werther. Some o~ the v~e~s, when we compare the variou, s h~pres,si~on.s os Hamlet, ~re very str av~ge ir~deed. I t %s impo,ssible to. review moist o,f them s the present purpo~se, but i't ~s interest ing to mention a few o,f the more curious inte rp~retat~ons.

UJabelie~aMe a.s i t maly sound, the drama was presented as a comedy on the seventeenth century French stage, a rather ineom- prehe~sible in'terp,retation today. Hamlet 's feigned madnes,s was illumina.ted as a certain clever idiocy, and Shakespeare',s r~s,tie wit was exploited as hu~o,rous entertainment. ~ An essayis.t in the nine tee~th een~tury did n~o,t shrink f rom extrava~gance to ,as~on- }sh the innocent realc}er wi'tlh the information that Hamlet was actgMty a woman, reared as ,a man, the sole off, spring of the Royal couple in El, sin, ore. Thus, hi,s p~sychological problem,s and per,s,onal at t i tude o,ri'ginate,d f r o ~ this edu.cat~o,nal misdeed. ~ If the idea ,of ~sueh a royal blunder is ~ceepted, the reader mu,st wor~der with sarpri,se tha,t the D,ani~s,h p,rince, o,r prinees.s, h~d n~o too:re overt psyeh.o~o,a~hologieal reunite,starter, s than the eoatempo,rary .aaMysi, s im~o,o,sed up~o,n him. No. loses sensitive a per,sonality than the great Sara'h Bernhard t fell a victim to such an .outlandish opinion when she appeared o.n stage in the title role of Shake~speare's most "aato- bio.gr,ap~hieM" drama, one th.ou~ht by mmay to, por t ray Shake~ s,peare himself as Hamlet.

Among the numerous medical diagno, ses .os Hamlet presented in the l i terature p.erhap,s that of a,n American do,eto,r may seem the too.st cursors. He solved the. p,roblem of H, amlet"s br,ooding hesi'tation, W~o.vic~ing him merely wit5 a p:hysi.eally disqualifying disease. He proposed t~at the p.rinee was unable to move aro~und with vigor, ,simply because o.f overweight. Unimpressive .arid dis- appointing as the ,suggesti~on may be, it elear.ly indiea4.ed that H~amlet wa~s jus~c to,o obese, and his hear t ~s~affe.red fro,m malfu.ne- tioning in fat ty de,gener,ati, o,n:. ~

The.s.e are only :a few exa~mples of the highly spe.eulative, .s,tr,an'ge, but bravely pr:op,o,sed, theories about Hamlet which follow each

LASZLO VARGA~ 1VI.D.~ AND BONi~IETA FYEt B.A. 609

o the,r in an e~dless ,series, since haterp,retive studie,s are always in vogue in l i terary criticism. The present writers may say that c'ompared to those s tormy and fanciful l i terary g3nnnastics, an existential interp,retat~oa is a ra ther n~odest a t tempt to ~onstru,c~ a new concept about Hamlet 's personality.

IIo The,re ,a~re t, wo rather interest ing questions to be ao.nsi(tered.

The first o,ne is a,bol~t meaning, the second one about ,aesthetic pleasure. Did ,S.h.ake,spea.re po~ssibly intend any ,of the explanation,s ,s~aggested albo,l~t his plays, and is i t really important whether he should have ? This question eha,raeterists comes from the lay- man, wMle the pro fes,sional man of letters natural ly ass,ume,s that the art is t hin~self is never the eo,rrect interp~reter of his ,own oreat~o.n, p a:radox:ieal .as it may seem. A psye~ro,analytie e~p,lana. ~o,n by Ernes t J,one,s ques:t~oned the meaning o,f ou, r sear e~h when s,l~bjeating art to. p,sycho~analytic s cruthay. ~ We search for hicMen meaning, f0.r s ,omet~ng latent below the s ur+aee~wi th an ana log'y of the uneonsciou+s motivation behind t~e sup.erficiM and seemir~gly rational be]aavio,r. This, analogy t eud, s to be i de~rt~cal wi4h the actual explanntion, bezause ~he a,rtist also, has ~his uneo,rrsc~o,l~s, as well a,s his con,s,cio~s mental wo,rld; and, naturally, his creative ir~s~pi.ration sprha~s at leas* as fully f rom fl~e fornaer as f rom the latter. Modern plsycho~ogiea] reco,gn~ion.s of th,e uneouscio~s wo,rld st imulafed a new s earc~ for deeper meaning ~l ere,ative arr and has ~ahaed impetns with the extension of t~he ,stu~dies to ttle rMa- tiouship b,e,tween a+rt and the f, aee ts of the artistic pers,onali, ty, which mo,~ivate ~he creative process.

The eompar~ative approac~h emp,hasize+s another p,sye~holog4eal ~ar,acteris~tic ha ar t interp.re+tation. In acMition to the involvemerrt o,f contempora.ry influence, creative process, and p ers,onality o,f the autho~r, th,ere is ,a p,sye:holog~cal re]a~o+s~p, unexplored *o ~ts 2u],l perspective,s, between the work of ar~ and its admirer, lm- div~dual ,opinio~n has always been encouraged as edueatio,n and respected .as a l i terary exercise, and the :scaholar has been welc~ome to endow the work with his own imagination. But his opinion has been valued ~aec,ording ,to p revioa]sly a ceep*e,d standards, and he has been expected Co direct Ms inte,rpretat~on to,ward a meaning, supposedly present in the work originally. The authors believe that ~he rMa,t~onship 'between art and its o~bserver s~ould ,be sur-

610 GHOST AND ANTIC DISPOSITION

veyed mor,e fully, a~d the examination of this relatior~slfip extended in ,a much bro,ader ~se,~se than has been done e o,nverd~o~a.lly. A mo~re lib~eral ir~tezpretive invest~gatio~ ~s quite ~aeee~lo,table, a.~d the re~der'.s interact ion with the w,o.rk may be valid :as a mear~s. o,f s,elf-exp,res,si, on witho,ut deluding tha t reader with the idea that hi, s inquiry is an objective ,study. Thus, int,ro.dueti, on o,f too.re per- sonal and ~ ,d~mitt, e dly s.ubj.eetive involvement in ar t .in..terp,reta~ tion may lead to new po,ssibilities in aest.hetic evalaation.

In t e r e s~ng .detai~s era,ergo ff one f~oe~,ses 'the ,sp,o~ctig~ht of exa~n- ination ,oi~ this relation,shill. It i,s no.t unilateral , as it may seean to, be. The effect ,of ~dmirat ion is ~an integral pa r t ~o~f the ma, ster- piece. If, fo.r example, we ,comp,are an imaginary rec.ent epic wo,rk, equivalerrt in M1 .eha~aeterh:s,tie.s to H,omer's Iliad, that new Iliad wo~uld be inferior t.o, the ,o.riginal in at least one resloeet: T,he o,r~g- inal work reflects the admirat ion o:f mankind thro.ughout its Msto,ry, exhibiti~rg a pe.rv~sive, unmistakable ,~t~o,sp~here .of 'gra,ce and di~gn,ity. Ar t h~as its o,wn 1.ire history. T.~e masterpiece has ,a rev- ererrt po,sses.sion ,of t r ibute a M homage, conferred uloon it by ~d- mirers th.rough centuries o~ in~a:r,d meditati, o,n an~d ~st.udy. T~o,ugh,ts and ,sentiments a l ready evoked must be ,as,s,oeiated involuntari ly with .one's mem.o,ries when pensively examining an .old ma~s,terpieee and .starYmg one's. ,o.wn inquiry.

Excuse not silence so, ~or't lies in thee To make him much outlive ,a gilded tomb, And tlO be preis'd of ages yet to be.

Then ~to thy .office, Muse, I teach thee how To make him seem long trence as he sho~s now.

(Sonnet CI)

III. The ,sec.o.nd question to, whi.eh brief eo.nsider~i,on .shoed be give~

concerns .aes~he.tic enj~oyment. ~s interio,retati.on likely to. ruin .o,r e:mhanee the emoti,o~al experience encountered w~th art? Do. we feel s t imulated when learning of an exp]a~n:ation p,r.opo~sed by o,thers, o,r do we feel es t ranged and reject the inter~preta.tion as. an embarr,assiag and unwel,c.ome influence? T~here ~s~ no. need to argue with in, divi.~tml ta~s~tes, as the questio,n involves the, personal preferertc,e of the individual a~d is not a ma t t e r of .dispute. tI,ew- .ever, the wri ters do behove that favnil~ar~ty with interp~re.tatioln is .one of the mo,s.t stimula.tin,g faeto,r~s in enhancing aesthetic en- joyment.

LASZL0 VARGA~ M.D.t AND BONNIETA FYE~ B.A. ~]_1

It may he mention@d briefly th~at the difference between inter- p retation and enjoyment o4 " art may follow aa an,alogy, that is, the difference between "reason" and "unders4anrdi~g" in philo,s- ophy. These represent two b as4aally different modes of access to knowledge. We explrMn the meaning of art by reas:on, and trader- stand its me amng by identification. Althou,gh these two ways to, acquire knowle4ge rare classified as very different entities, both in p,hil~so,phi~al ~a~d p,sychologicM inqu4ry, t~e wrir feel theft they are a~tua~y reducible %o a c~o.mmon den, omhn:a~r descriptive o~ one mental activity. The interpretation of Hamlet's personality, which is followed here, would be classified in the realm of "under- standSng."

In the existentia~l sense, "understanding" means that Haznlet's feelia~s will be ,shared, and the meaning and sig~ifican~ae os his wo,rld will be accepted as hi, s mind recar~s~ruets the wo,rld a, bo,ut h~m, ~hi,s fellow men, and ]~Jmself.

Among ~ e many interpretations hitherto s,~ggested, o~nly the psy~ho~analytic a~p,i'oae~h wit] be dis.a~ssed here for comp.ar~s,on. All in~erp,re~atSon, s agree that Eamle~. h~s ,a ,s.o.~emn duty to revenge 'his fiather'!s mu.rde~r, ,and ~hat h~s r eveng~e wou~.d be marde,r. ~ I t is also mentioned by all inve,stigat~o,rs that he is ,stru:gglin~g w ~ some particular, ~.n,ner in~bit~on which makes him unable to, ac,t and makes him s~hrink b~ack always a t thee las,t moment, under some superfici,ally re~s,o,rmble pretext.

Moreover, ,the romantic ]~iterary critics conch,fred that Hamlet mu.st have had a hidden ,secret, and all scholars o~f the play since their time have fel,t challenged to pro~pose a theory explMning the wo,rds that Hamlet ~s s~aying so~ angrily to o.ne os the courgers who is obviously spying on him : " . . . you would pluck out the heart of my mys,tery."

What is the exp,Ia~atfon of that "mps,tery~." Is there ~ny "my, s- tery" at all? Scholars tend to believe in the explanation th.at Hmn- let,s personality ~stru~ture cau:ses him to be un, able to act and ~,o. carry out h~s will. Goethe ,summarized this problem in a. vone~se manner and was the first to formulate Hamlet's problem as t~he inevitable result of in,ternal forces, :shapLng 'his ,c~taracter to- weird ,a t r a # e end2 In Goethe's mind, ~amlet is an extremely refined maa, muc,h too~ ,sen~sitive t,o bear the burden o~f h~s ~sk, ~/heres un~able 4o make up his mind to ~ t . M.any o,thers ,d~ ~to,t agree ~i th Goethe's interpretation that Hamlet is a weal~ char-

~E. J,~nes' book ~ , y also be c~nsulted for an exhaustive lis~ of re~evem~e~ on Shake~pea,re's Ha/inlet, fro,m the psyeholo.~cal po,i~t of view.

612 G ~ 0 S ~ AND ANTIC DISPOSITION

a~ter; bat t'he faei remains that ~somehow, the killing of the usurper king ~s always p.o,stponed, and only p~hilo,sophy is substituted for action. A multitude o.f explallations have been given f:o.r this .cu,rio~s behavier, mast o,f them--from the p~sychotog%eM point of ~iew-- are external, s~taation~al reas.ons. Political con~siderations, personal s.afe~y, respect f~or tl~e law, ,and s,aving the reputation :o~f f~e royal family have been .suggested; and las't, the ,simple technical arr:a~gement by the p~aywright which neces,sitates re~e~in~g the climax near ~he end. Mere technical reasons de no~ make a master- piece, thu, s: the riddle remains to. be an~swered: Why does Ha.mle~ hesitate?

Ernest Jones, in his psychoanalytic study, a masterpiece of work in itself, co,rues nearest to the s.olutio,n with a fine :su.spic~on thas the reason m]ls.t be in ~ e u~clon:s,aiou,s layerls ,o,f H.mnlet's pers~on- ality. Ace.o,rding to. J.ones~, I-Iamlet'.s reluctaalce to, murder is mo~ti- rated by his own inces,tuou:s wishes toward his mother, and his in, t eutio~t to. kill his; mother'~s hus'ban,d wo,uld intensify this feeling. The unbearable thought mus~t be r:ep.res,sed deeply into. the un- eonscio,~s.

I t is known that Gertrude is a beautiful, extremely sensual w.om.an, arid in ~all probability c:ommiLtted ,adultery with the new king while her h~usband was still living. Her clots.e attaehme~t to Hamlet and her tender feelings are ~(,ted aa~d respected by Clau~dius, who ,seems to, be very considerate of Gertrude's emo,- tional attachment to her son and, in the early part of the play, appeaT~s .~o rea,et to, H a~nlet's irritability in ~a rather m~ture :a~d impassionate manner: "The Queen, his mother live,s .almo,st by his looks."

tIam~et ~s ~a,cin,g, in Cl.audias, no~ only his mo,t'her% hu,s;b,amd, but als,o, a fathe,r-.sub,st~tute, his own uncle, who now .shares hi, s mo.t~q_er's bed and affections.. Murder is a .sin in all c~reur~sYa.nces ; ~so ~s incest; ,and in Itamlet~s time,, his mother',s remarriage: w~,s,

inc,estuo,n:s. T~h~as, tIamler is eo,nfro~n~tir~g both o~ the,se erimes~ ,a~d ~s ET:ne.s~t J]one~s lahrased the pr~oblecn: The killing o~ the father- s~b.stitate would be em.otionally equivalent to the o riginM Oedipal situation and re-instigate his own unbearable incestuous thoughts. T'hi.s is the e~plana/do.n of Hamlet's inahility ~o~ carry oust his oblig.aJo,ns) and his r:elu~tan:e.e to kill his uncle. The inees{uou~s tho.~ght must be kept rep,re.ssed. ~V, hat a wonderful psye.ho,analy-

LASZLO VARGA~ M.D.~ AND BONNIETA FYE, B.A. 613

tical expto.rati.o.n of the Oe,d~ipus complex i,s fo.tmd in II~m.l.et aa~d tfi, s Ncldle.

Psycho~analysis, a ,shockingly sincere theory of human emotionG anvei:led the "hea,rt of misery" of a "weak" charae,t.er inhibited by neu:ro,sis, witho,ut the 'gif* of ~rrsighg into. ~he re~s~o.ns .of his ,e~rta.iled potentialities..

Deprivatio~l of free will is pe.rhaps the mast crucial point in psychoanalyt ic Neo . ry~ the contention ~hat behavio,r is ,o~nly t'he after-e.ffeet of u.nconsci.ou~s impul.se.s, .similar 6o a sickly, thin fignre t ry ing to walk on a. t rembling soil. The idea of free will is a pe~r'- .ennial problem in philo,s.o,vhy N a t has been t.rinmphan~ly pro,p- agated, bell igerently opposed, or abandoned with pontifical hand- w~sM:ng and poetic lament.aNon. An a t tempt has been made to embrace a few ,divergen~t propo,sals in exis:t.ential p,syehiatry with the contention that d.eter~ninistie behavio,r may exist., but that i t is sick ,co.r~du,ef~d, r Cons,ei, ov.s beLhavior is .n..o~t merely an .ap,(~lo,gegre rationalization but the at t imate mea~s ~o command life f.o,r the h,eMthy mind, leavi.ng the mental ly i,ll in Ne iron chains of deter- rain}sin.

IV. W h a t is meant by ~being a "weak" .c~ara..eter in the eM.s%n,tiat

sense? Su~po,se we rotate tha~ theatr ical are lig~ht. Wil l the Danish prince appear the same ehar;aeter again? Let us recapit~arte fo,r a moment a few cri ter ia of weakness: vacillation, inabil i ty to re- solve ambivalence, lack ,os goal directed thinking, or wi,th exis~en- tim ter,minology, inabi'Hty to " transcend the immediate :situati, on. ''~ Life is ne t "authent ic" l iving with~out a "choice," as Antoine's life in Sar t re ' s peae,trr~ting existential novel, L a Nausde illustra,tes. The character and ,disp,osition IIamlet seems to reflec~ in, this new @n,d admit tedly very sloe,title appro,ach, a~pea,r,s to, be the opp,osite of tkat which i~s conventionally accepied aa.d psye'ho.analyifcally .explmned. In, stead ,of a he.s,Ra.ting, wobbly, .ne~rotic, pale-f~ced, aris,tocratie ma.rione,tte, ,o.ne .rather sees .a vacan t s,oldier .of tho.u'ght, who~--no,t wiNout inner to,rments~ree:ognizes reality, mas.ter~s his. blind imp~l.ses t~r�89 and follows the, loa.th;s of very ,definite plans, that his late and just .as lonely descendant, ,So,ten Kierke- g:aar,d, ,ano,ther Dane, wo,uN ,have selected. ~ Fdamlet, in thi.s Kierke- gaa~rdian view, is ,o.ne who has made a "choice," and with all hi, s power h~s tr ied to live an authenti.c life.

Drama demands inner ferments of its heroe,s, and one certainly

614 c~osT AND ANTIC DISPOSITION

goes no.t 4ep,rive I-Iaralet either of era~otional ~safferings or o,f guilt in this stu'dy. His guilt and to rraent, in truth, o riginMe fro,m the cruel misf.ortnne of his life) that he is a prince, the:refcrre unable to live up. ~o his potentialities as an artist, and as a poet. He re- raains M Elsino.re and poLstpo~nes his life a t Wit tenberg but four- ever longs ~o retarn. As a p,rineipal thesis o,f this inquiry, it is maintained that he, oat of his eonsciogs rain.d, oat of his f ree de- cision, has raa,de a "choice"; and vchen his plan is acc:omplished, he declares it with wo~r~4s, action,s, and general behavior. Acc~o,rd- ing to ~his inquiry, Hamlet 's unwillingmess to kill the u.surloer king is not a raeager r:ationaliza,tion, or the result .of his. guilt:ridde:n uncon, scion.s raotivation, but an exer'~se: of his free will. His in- tentions with the king are very subtle, ranch more subtle than mere murder. How do. we deraonsfr,ate this?

Man's vadllatio~n between two alternative% either ,sarrebnder- ing deterrainisra, or ac:eept~ng r e,spon~si'bi~i~y, ~s ,seen dear ly by Haralet. I~e kno.w:s be must make a choice. He kn,ows the treraen- d~us o,dd.s he raust: ove,reo.me t.o shape his own way o.f existence:

~y f~te cries out And makes ea,ch petty aetery 'in this body As tmedy as the Nemean lion's nerve.

(I, iv, 81) ~

Nevertheless, acc,or,di~g to the literamy the,o~ries .o~ tragedy, the hero, raLn~st fall ~ct i ra to his fate, and this fate descends uta,on him with an o~inous continuity. At the end, he f.aa~ls ,~s any o~f the great heroes o~ tragedy, but let u.s first take a sarvey o,f hi~s, path toward this e~d.

How is it possible that for centuries the l i terary critics and the world expected Hanllet to. be blo,odthir~sty, and ~ a t when he refrained from slaughter, he was called a "weak" character? I t seems ths~t Shakes,pear% in lfis drama, is too.re dvih'zed ~ a n we. In the p~ay, the Gho~st ~s disapp.ointed tl~at the u:s~rper king is alive. A~s the spirit of a ju:st king and raurdered father, he ,seeras unable to sleep peacefully upon seeing saeh lack ef l~oyalty. In his se.~ond appear~ance, he scolds Hamlet with angry pa~ho~s and irapatierrt indignation :

~T]~e text followe,d here is in general that of the first folio, with a.dditio~al lines from the seem, el quarto o.f 1604 and the spelling modernized. The original distinction between 1)as4 tease '"el" and 'ted" has been retained, %d" in vorse form faust be pro~ro~need as a d~stinct syllable ~or scansion. The Globe line-n '~mbering is followed and, in some prose quotations is neeess~,41y approximate.

LASZLO u I'r AND BOI~NIETA FYE~ B.A. ~15

Do net forget: this viMtation Is but to whet thy almost blunted purpose.

(III, iv, 110)

There appears to be a strange phenomenon in the play, r a the r neglected in l i te rary eroticism, that Hamlet is most hesi tant to be- lieve in ,the Gho,st. Somehow, he does not seem to truest 'him aI~d, c,o,ntrary to, the obvi~o,us expectation, fails to show ,affection when the murde red and ,bel, oved " fa ther" is ]ecHr~ng him dmdng his sho~rt re turn f rom the "undiscovered co~untry." He does n.et appear to have learned m~c~h new f rom the pathet ic revelation tha t Claudius was a murderer . He always suspected: "0 my pro- phetic isou]."

He slls~)ecfs even mor:% mt~ch more than this. Wheat s t ronger st imulation wou,ld urge h~m to~ avenge his fa ther and take, Claud- iu~s' l ife than the ~ho.sfs c~ommand acc,ording to the Lex TMion: an eye for an eye? Yet, his bril l iant insight and asHte observa- tion le~d ~ m to reeo,gnize ,something mor% that the king is not 'hi,s only enemy. Blind revenge wauld n.ot serve hi,s real aim. I t v~o~ld fM1, not only because of external reasons, discussed by many investigators o~ the d rama ; reven~ge w.o,uM ruin him and his kingdom as well. I~e s,u.spects another plot behind the Ghast's appearance. Th~s titne a cunningly 1o:lanned threa t to ~,s~ own life, with the complicated, viperous spiri t ,o~ a skilled d~,lomat, a second conspira tor :

. . . The spirit ~hat I have seen May be the devil; and the devil ha~h power T' assume a pleasing shape, yea and perhaps Ot~t of my weakness and my melancholy, Abuses me to damn me.

(II, ii, 627) W h y ,did he say this? Wha t did he su sp~ t ? W h y did he call

the appearance o~ .his fa,ther% spiri~t an ~bus~e serving n:o o,the~ p,urpose than his o,wn dalIm,atio.n? Wi th v~lcat arti,stry Shakeslpeare weaves it~s ~hre~ten~r~g scheme,s. Ins tead of obeying the ~ho,stly de~nax~d, he ]s susp~cio~s. T~e "play" in the play is a much too,re s.]Ibtle, me re refined, indirect co.urse to punish the king; he con- tinue,s ~the verse with the l ines:

. . . I'll have grounds More relative than *his: ,the play's the thing Wherein I'll catch the conscience of r king.

(II, ii, 632)

616 GKOST Ah~D ANTIC DISPOSITION

l i e wants no~t Ks lff~e bat something more than that : his co,n- science. Hamlet , with the players ' performance before the court, is forcing the king thr,o~ugh an emotional ex.p.erience, the only correct way ,to ,acquire unders tanding into the truman ,situation in the ex~stentiM sense. Claudhls' intellectu,al cynicism is too weak to, withs,tand this indirect c~omm~nication. I t is clear tha~ ~ a m l e t kno~s acbo,ut the murde r :

For husband shelt thou-- O, confound the rest

S~eh l~ove must needs be ~reason in my breast: In se,eo~d h~sband let me be 'accurst! None wed the second but who Mll'd the iirst.

(III, ii, 187) The magic po.wer o,f p~oetry penetrates into the ldng',s co~scieI~ce

as a knife, with unbearable sharpne,ss, merciles,s~y destro~ying all his self-control. The words he cannot toJlerate hearing, ~he sight he is unable to withstand, the king hux:riedly leaves the scene, pant ing and covered with p er's,pirgtion, and flees to. the royal chapel tumbling @ere on hi.s knees in the deepest emo.tiosal tur- moil ,aald remorrse. Where e~se co,utd he go? Oo~nto~rted, blackened with the nnforgdvaMe sin of fr~t.ricide hero,re the whole C o~lrt, the meek words o,f p e~ tence seem to lose t~eir meaning in hi~s pr~ayer. The f r ~ h t is too ear@ly, the anxiety is o verwhel~aing, he canno.t p r ay :

My words fly up, my thoughts rem~ain below: Words withowt ~ho~ghts never to heuven go.

(III, iii, 98) Hamlet 's pxlrp,o~se ~t this point is a~complished. Ke has "caught"

the king, no,t tes,ted him. The f r ight and agony he had %o~ a ccep,t and live with, the idea tha t his murde r is not a rsecret anymore, made him a figurehead, a tot ter ing shadow. I t made him ridiemlo~us. Wo,r~s, the weapon,s ,of Hamlet 's ~hoi~e, the swo,rdp,oint of a poet destro~yed "with wings as swift as medit~atio.n" the image o.f a royal f~gure. The p lay within the p l a t as wri t ten in pa r t s by H:a~let ~as the goal and n:ot a~ intermedia~te e~isode foT collect- ing confirmatary evidence.

I~s elation :over ~is ~su~ece,s~s reflect,s an interest ing reference ~o the c o~temp,orary eI~terp~se in the Eliz.~bethaa tlheatri~al life. Senior actors, called .shearer~s, o,r fellows oavned the company :~

. . . Would not this, ,sir . . . . get me ~ fel~ov~ 'ship in ~ cry ef pluyers, sir? (III, ii, 286)

LASZLO V~kttGA~ :~r AND BONNIETA FXE~ B,A. 617

Ho,ratio, who may net have gained the Jsame ,satisfa~etion oin. view- ing the play, ,offers only 'qlalf a share" to ttamlet, per.hap,s~ with a csy~bolic meaning. After all, Hor:~tio, %oo., befl, ongs 40 tho,se Wh.o. vco.uld like to see the king m~rdered, r~th, er than only caught by co~sc~enee.

V. HoraJt~o. do.es not gue,s:s the seater which Hamlet learned when

he met the Ghost. H,amlet hinted ~o him ,sligllfly, but 'he missed the p,ai~t. So did ~ e fit erary crises, ~he stage manager, the ,a~di- ence in the theater and the innocent reader or the drmma. Who is the @best? 0n]y ,a techniaa! means in Shakespeare',s inex'ha~s,tible dr azna.tic repertoire, or a real gho,st, the spirit of Ha~nlet's fsther? After all, it wa.s cu~st~o.mary tJo believe in gho,sts in that age. Wh.~t did Hgmlet believe ? What did he di~sc,over when he met the Gho,st arid with incredible courage folio,wed alone the royal specter, and surveyed him from a close range, perhaps much too close? When the d~stinguis'hed nightmare ,appears the fir~st time, he ~s impressed :

I'll call thee I~amle~, King, father, r,oyal Dane: O, answer me!

(i, iv, 44) Here starts the most complicated imbro~li~ .o~ the play. The

s~ecter answers him, and perhaps Iris voice seems much %o.0 h ~tman ~or his ges,tures much too familia.r, because all .'his dignity a~d Haznlet',s ~dmira~ion d~sappear suddenly after his pathetic lecturre is delivered. H.avalet .calls him father no ]o~ger and, with an a~ruptly cha~lged attitude, becomes rather ~sarcastic and r~dicules the nightmarish episode. He calls the Ghost "an old mole" and a "po~or fellow" and ~ries to give him re~sserance as tho,ugh he were overly excited. Indeed, the @h.os,t appear:s to be unkingly impatient. Dn~Gng the scene ~hen Hamlet, Horatio; and Mareellu~s are ,solemnly ~s.wo,rn~ the Gho,st hurries below the stage ,and con- tinues ;sho~ut~ng h~s ins.t~r~eti~ons to Hamlet, only t:o rece/ve mock- ing remarl~s for the ,speed o~ his return to the underv~orld so r~p~dly. I t i~s the effo,rt which l.ooks .saspici.ous in the Gho~s%'~s. be- havio.r a~s he olovio,usly tries to prove himself. In,stead .o~ a ~sl~ort, dignified, t.ruly supern.a,tural co, .rmnand, .he gives detailed ins~cruc- tions demanding immediate action with m~eh $oo, human im- patience,. I t makes the ~ho,s~ appear r~dicul,on~s, as he ":overplays" hi~s big ,scene. The "nightmare" left Hmnlet more .suspicio,u~s th~n reas*s,ured:

61~ GHOST AI~D A~'TIC DISPOSITI0~

My father's spirit in arras! All is not well; I doubt some foul p lay : . . .

(L ~i, ~55) Wha t ~s the "foal play" be guessed? Horatio,, w.ho. despite shar-

ing Hamlet 's confidence is certainly a much simpler personality, wonders abo~t t~e p~tzzting spectral appearance and ,says:

O clay and n~ght but this is w, ondre~s strange! (I, v, 164)

To w~iVh Ha~nCet answers: There are mere things in heaven and earth, Ho~ati.o, Than .are dreamt of in our philosophy.

(I, v, 166) Thins extensively quo,ted, p~eso,pLhically ~ague o~utcry has received much in terpre ta t ion as1 an example of exeep,tional wisdo,m; how- ever, in t~e ,context ~t may not hlave more specific mean~r~g t~an a fu r ther mocking remark o,f Hamle t that he s,uspee~.s who the "Gho~st" may be vehile He.ratio does not. Later, we lear,n hi,s plhitos- o phical conviction about the ghostly episode:

. . . The dread of somethLng after death, The undiscovered country from whese bourn No traveller retuims...

(III, i, 78) Tlhen w~to. ~s the, ~ho.st? Hamlet, who af ter a clo,se inspection

certainly becomes ,su, s~)~cious tha t the phantom may be a ~ake, an ins,tr~ment os a plot against .his life, f~,&s the sotution of the riddle in meeting t~he gro.up o,f actors c~ming to enter tain in Etsi- nora. His first comment, s to one of the playe.~s is to Lnquire:

. . . O, my old friend! thy face is v~anced since I saw thee l~st: eo~ne,st thou to beard me in Denmark?

(II, it, 440) Address ing Polonius about his past, shortly before the players '

per formance: "My lord, you played once in the universi ty yon say?" Po~Ioniu.s, ~he o~her~v~se c~unning and observant d[pl~o~t, makes iris fir s~t mistake a t this time, or perhap~s he c.o~ld net een- ceal his past under any circumstance. We learn fro,m h~s a~swer that he wa~s an .~ to r arid famil iar wi~h the v~siting t~eatri,~al co~n- p,any f rom Wit tenberg a~s well as H,aralet hhnself was. An a~tor cannet fo~ol an ac,to,r. I f lie tries, he fool, s only ~fimself. Here Polo~- ni~s, too, i's caught ,by Haunter, a~d commits his ~a~al misaa~cula- tion, not no,tieing t~hat he has revealed h~s secret. P olonias, t~i~s in4ell~gent, educated ~an,d villainous maln ~s t~he real m~s~er .of ,care-

LASZLO VARGA, M.D.~ AND BONNIETA FYEt B.A. 619

many in flhe drama, like Iago in another Slhake,s~eare mas.terp,ieee, Othdlo. "That did I, my Lord, and was accounted as a good actor," so Polonius inadvertent ly reveals his plot; the information is suffi- ,eien~ fo,r I-Ia~e,t'~s ~stute: ,obs~erva,tion: Fie ]~a:s solved ,the ~ d ~ e ; the Gh:ost i.s none ot~er than ,an actor hi red by Polo~nit~s with .the, obvious parpo.se o~f di, seredifi.'r~g Hamlet as bein,g a politiea.1 rebel .a,nd murd, erer. Why wo.uld Polonin,s do this.? We, have tw.o, p.o,s- s i n e mo~tives.

F}rst,, P.olo,nius v~an, ts his son, Laertes, to be N e king. He sends Reynaldo to. Paris to b,udl.d his reknown among t~e Dan~sker~s exiled there a~d the intelleetuals, and admonishes his son to be a warrio,r hero,. Working very hard in this direction, he almo.st succeeds. Hamlet 's protee{i've mask, his feigned m~dnes,s., as,s.ists him the. too,st. In the e~rly par t of the drama, i t appears N a t Hmnle.t, a darlin~g o.f the people, enjoys tmrivaled p.op~larity; the king does not gate to punish him, knowing that "He is 1.oved by the ,dis,traeted multi tude." But Polo nit~s~ whispering subver- sive p,ropagaalda, in which the alleged mental e onditi'on o,f the. prinee is a s,trong point, h,as effects, arid like. rust desiroying iron, the calumny wo,rks. In the last scenes of the play, the po,sition of the royal dynasty is weaken.ed and a curious restlessness seems to have ,s~.read among the p.eop~le. Their ~shou~ting in the ,s.tre:ets ~s well t~ea;r,d in the pal,ave : "Laertes for king." Did L,aertes take this pr'opaga:nda serio~.sly? His willingne.s,s to fi.g]~t with Hamlet may have been heated, no.t only by revenge for his father 's death, but Ms, o. by the po,ssible elimination o,f a rival.

The second reason Polonin,s mig:ht wish to have Cl~udiu,s. mur- dered is hi~s ,own desire fo.r the queen. Gertrude's sen,saNity, he,r vcantonnes.s, is certainly no,t a secret from the paunchy prime min.- ister who. moves feverishly behind the scenes, and tries to..save his daughter from the man whom he has decided to saerifie~e. This may be the reason why the Ghost so cautiously emphasizes his in,str~eti,ons to. H.~mlet to save the queen. Yes, Hamlet saves the queen, b~t doe.s not ,save Po.lonins. Slauffhtering the ama~t:o.ry trot~ble monger, who.se po.tbelly was pro.tru.ding thro,ugh ~he :eur- tMn, is by no m,ean:s an accident. Hamlet was aware it v~a~s nat the, Nag, ~s many ~seh.o.lars of the drama have believed. The king's pre,s.ene,e in Gertrude',s bedchamber is a prhysSeal imp,assibil~ity as well, since Hamlet left hhn in t.he eh,ap,el only see.onds e,arlie.r. ~~

Mueh le,s;s .could the king have been able to hide behind tJhe

~ 2 0 GHOST AND ANTIC DISPOSITION

eurtains, when IIarnle~c arrives. The .situation with Po,lonills is diffe,ren, t. He had very good r'e.~son,s fo.r hiding the.re. I-Ie lo.ves hi, di~g ~nyvaay. Ke was ~he one who a l ready pro[posed hidin:g to, overhear IIa~rdet's c,onver, s.ation with Ophelia. t I i s n, atn.ral euxi- o,sity :and s en,s,e of anxiety led him. to ~ d e and witness the per- fo~rmanee os his h i red actor, ,the Ghost, who, wars to appear the sec,ond time. H e also tho.ught to be near if ~anytlhing went wrong; p erhap,s he would t~ave killed the @host if Hamle t s ta r ted to, in- terr,o~alte the "poo.r fellow." As we ,se% IIamle,t with his b ril~liant insight w~s ahead in the life-,arid-death race between himself ,and Polonius, and interfered, ,bnt differer~tly f, rom the pr ime minis- ter 's expectatio.n.

VI. Wt~,o is this man Hamlet , who, is being a,evused of being a fo~ol,

but cannot be fooled, who sees t~ro~gh everyone, but who, can be seen throug~h by none, who easily ridiaules others bus who, him- seif never becomes ridie~.lo~s? Shakesloeare m~st have had an immense respect for ~ s heroes. I f we a~c.e.pr the view os tho,se invest igators wKo, believe that tIamle~t v~as a ,self-portrait, we n~ust .conclude .~a t Shakespeare ll~d extremely noble p.r~de, dignity, and ,self-respect.

The. wo,rld of I-Iamlet~hi,s Umwelt in existential t e rminology-- is .eer~ainly N a t of ,a genius, limi~tless .and eosmie. His iutelleetu~M ,scope i,s comprehensive, ,su~perior ~az~d never one-,s~ded. Eve,n tho,se who ~are hl, clined t.o, ,believe in his madness and ~ake advantage 'o.f his ",antic disposition," like Polo:niu.s., have ~.o ar r ive at the con- etusion : "Though tl~s be ~adness , ye t there is method Ln'~," a~d e:ontimfiag with ,arnazem.er~t: "How pregnan t sovaetimes his re]?,]ies are." Polonius. felt the "double ente, n.dre" in a remark f rom t i n n i e r when he: used these words, and a few miuntes l~ter he bud to swallow another, evert less .covert ,allusion: Polonius . . . . --My honorable lord, I will most humbly take my le~w of

you. Hamlet. You cannot, sir, take from me any thing that I will more willingly

p~ar~ withal: except my life... (II, i~, 217)

l~a~e~, ,eoz~stru.eLs his o~vn wo,r]~d a~d fills i t wi th his, , o ~ .e~hie~l eor~ter~t. No rno,re er.roneo,us .a ,speculation can ,be eonceive,d tl%am thut H.aanlet i's ,s~ffering fr:o.m a kind o,f psychosis, enhanced by melancho.lia. This is a ra ther grave mental ,s~tus in cer ta in

LASZLO u M.D.t A~D DO/q~TIETA FYE~ B.A. 621

sahizophenic conditions. ,I-Iamlet talks about his "melax~c2ao,lia." However, the literary meaning of ~he word i,s quite different from the psychiatric terminus technicus. For the man os let.ters, though melancholia means sadness, it also means an exceptionally fine fee]trig qu~ality in accep,ting artistic impressions,, an alert r ea lnes s of the psyche four a es,thetic expe:rie~ce. Compared to. t~he shrunken, perforated, impoverished world of the mentally afflicted, the Hamletian reaJlm i,s boundless, all-inclusive, charged with the riches,t feelings and t,ho~ghts. A return %o, his philosophy will be made shortly: Let us inves.tigate first his :tragedy.

The writer:s agree wi:th tihe late Harry Stack Sullivan that havaan character cannort be explained and understood without an under- standing of interpersonal relationship2 ~ There are few descriptive terms in o~r psychological vocabulary which do ~ot involve our relationship to our fellow men. Existential psychology has taken account of human re~latedness to such an extent as to, postulate that the ego 5ec,omes cognizant of itself in the fight .of o,t~e~s. T~nls,, t~e compartment of personality, called Mitwelt, becomes p erhap~s the mo~s,t crucial one in th}s investigation og Hamlet,s tragedy. Trois{ is probably next in imp,orta~ee %o lo~e in the field of our e~otion,al needs. Sheared, it contribt~tes to ghe fee l~g os s ecnr~y. Horatio ~s the only one with whom ~amlet is con~den~;, but Jsro~eho,w, f~]l t,r~st does no~t fall even to Nm. With an ex- treme se~sitivene~s,s a~ad as~ute ability to ob~serve) Hamlet looks thro~ugh everyoee and finds their motives with e~se. The p rincae p,oint!s wit~o,ut hesgtation to. the true c~aracter a~d seeon&ary mo- tives of those who try to comfort him in a hypocritical manner: Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. It is much more difficult for the characters in the play to understand him. After meeting the Ghost, discovering that a second plot exists more villainous than the King's--~ctJ~mizing bhm ,as an instrument in the eowr/t in- trigue, he selee.ts a defen~se maneuver whi(~h isolates him fr~om his friends and allies ~a~d from t~he , people:

I perchance hereafter shall think meet T:o pu~ an .an%~c d~sposi~ion on...

(I, v, 171)

Th~s declaration is another ~sign that Hamlet's madx~ess is feigned. But this feigned madnes~s is the ,so~rce of hi~s tragedy. The ~somewhat suspicio,u~s, philosophical Hamlet, who is inclined

622 GHOST AN]) ANTIC DISPOSITION

to ~ecelo,t soHtl~de and merge into meclitati, o,n, clo~s.es down his Mitwelt reLatio~n~s~ip,, ~h, anging by choice from mutuali ty into~ a strange, lonely relatedness to his fellow men. The t ragedy is, that feigned m~dness mutst be feigned pel:fectly; etherwLse it becomes a ~he,ap fake. ~arnlet , who never hesitates to. aim hi, s jokes ,at the lfl.ter~or too,tires ,or other,s, bec, o,mes very i r r i ta ted when any- one ~ttempts to..disc~,ss his own secondary m,o.tives. To act his role obviou~sly means ,a .considerable str,ain .and bul~den and cau~ses him to be i.rr~tabte:

. . . Call me what instrulneI~t you will, though you can fret me, you can- not play upon me.

(iii , ii, 388)

snapping rather nervously at l~osencrantz, who w, a s a univer- sity elas,smate and friend. He does not wish to take any ohanee, any risk o,f being revealed. His life is at stake.

Op~aelLa is a ,selected exception. He tries to tru~s.t thLs del~eate adolescent, this impassioned and obedient daughter of Pol.onius. But Ophelia i.s not like Ja]Set. She is more afraid than the Capulet girl, more educated and certainly less pa~ss;i, onate: After all, she has no Italian heri tage from Verona. ~ a m l e t ~s not less gallant in ccmrts~lip nor le,ss .s~ensiiive to f~m~iaaine beauty t~an l~omeo, hi's aaaoroas counterpar,t in Sh~akespeare's romantic imaghaatLon, hut he is bo~md by heavier burdens and immen.sely more di~ault ~asks. Intere,stin~ly, both become murderers of ~he b ro~her:in- law-roSe, the protector figure in a merciless duel. Hamlet fails to establish tru, s,t in Ophelia and t~.s to.re and tendernes,s a re n,o~t returned. The gir~l betray~s him. "I shall obey" is her pr, omise to her father, who h,~s more ambit~o,u~s plans for the family. The writers disagree wi~h tho~se interpretat ions which explain Hamlet 's relationship to Op~helia as a sacrifice ~of love in the intere,st of a solemnly s~vorn duty. Precisely the .contrary is tmle. While Himxde~t's mental clarity is a s~bject o~ various arguments, there is 11.o question about Ophelia and her tragic break with reality. The behavior and affect she d~splays have an element of flatness, he:r d~scipline ~s self-imposed while submitting herself a,s an in- s trument to betr,ay the man ~ho loves her. I t is not Hamlet who is sacrificing 0lShelia. She is the ,one, w.ho, following parei~tal instrnctionrs, abandons her lo~er. Ophelia, with well-a~ted inno- cence, perhaps a symboli.cally hypocritical gesture, is reading a prayer b,o,ok when Haznlet appears :

LASZLO V.kRGA~ M~D.: A~D BO~qIETA FYE~ B.A. 623

The fair Opheliu! Nymph, in thy orisons Be all my sins rememb~r'd.

(III, ~, 89)

T~hese int~rod~ctory lines ~ppear ,a~s me dita~h~g vr o,f Haznlet, o:~y to ~hi~self. Actu~allly Ophelia open~s b e s,cene, re tu rn ing Itazn- let 's poems and love letters, an a ge-o~]d co,nvention in brea~l~g an e~gagement. Ka~nlet becomes very embarrassed here and does not kno~ how to be,have. H~,s jokes a re feigned, not his m~dness : Hamlet. tt~, h~! are you honest? Ophelia. My Lord? Hamlet. Are you fair? Ophelia. What meaas your ~or&shi, p?

(IIL i, 103)

ttaznlet is hurt. Suddenly ..he nonces Folo~iu;s behind the c~rt~m - - t ~ a t p~unch ~s ha~d, led very poo.rly by ~ e p r i ~ e min~s~ter~ and re,Mizes the fact that Ophelia }s eo-o~era,ting in the ~ourt in- t rigues~, sp,ying u po,n him: Hamlet . . . . Where's your f~ther? Ophelia. Al home my lord. Hamlet. Let the doors be shut up.on him, that he

~ay play the fool no where but in's own house. Farewell . . . . To a nunnery, go, ,and quickly too. Farewell.

(III, i, 133)

T huJs, Hmn~let remain~s al,one, betr,ayed, deceived, ~bandoned, and Ophel~ds t reason is the most paL~ul o~ all. When Ehe ,glaze on the s,urf~ce--~er ,se,]f-imposed obedience---cracks, the adoles- ce:~t girl'~s sexual fantaLsy begins to cree~ for th :

To-morrow is Saint Valentine's d uy All in the morning betime,

And I a maid at your window To be your Valentine.

T~en up he rose 'and don~'d h~s clothes, And dupp'd the chamber-door,

Let in the maid, that out a maid Never departed more.

(IV, v, 48)

But it is 1,~te. Op:he,l~a wanders f a r f rom r ea~lity and t t amle t remains captive o~ his own, fa teful ly chosen world, victhnized by hi,s Mitwe l t sSbuatien. He ]s folio,wed only by a ~alflfful friend,

624= t ~ O S T AND ANTIC DISPOSITIOI~

Hera.Lie, who. does noJt unders,tand him comple~tely a~s, Saue.ho~ ,arid Lepocello fo,l~o,~e,d :their n~as,ter~s, ~b..u.t d~d aao~ an.dots,rand. His captivi ty in hi, s o,wn world, perhap~s lo,ved by the, "mul t i tude" but cevtaJn:ly no,t un.der~sto, o~d, ~s not a cir~e~ms:tauti.al ,constraint in the drama. I t ,comes f rom within; t`herefore it is tragic. He ran, st idents wit`h the r'ole in order to be: perfect, ,lest he: aploear to, be a "~ake." The si~perbly acted ma~dness is Inore dignified and respectful t`han epi,a:o,dic manipulat ion betwe:en frenzy and sanity. Thu,s, like Pir,andello.'~s king, Hamle t fags victim .to his pergecCJy played role ~and remains isolated within. ~osen,c:rmltz, to,r get t ing for a moment that he i~s to ,spy on H:amlet, comments with .trae a~s'tonishment and genuine a~gulsh:

. . . my 1,o~d, you &o freely bar *he door of your own liberty . . . . (III , ii, 350)

Later , in the bedeha,Inber scene, he finds i,t ,difficult to. prove t~o his ,own mother tha t he is not insane:

. . . it is not madness that I have llts162 Bring me to the test.

(III, iv, 14i)

In th~s tense, pa~sio,nate arg~ame~t between Hamle t ,and the q~een, the dr, aar~a h~s r e ~ h e d a c~knkn, at ing p,o~nt. He re js an o,p,p,o.rtu~ity to ex~lo.Lo.re his inner wo,rld, his Eigenwelt:

~ake y.eu to ravel .all th~s matter out, Thai I essentially am not in madness, But m~d in cr.a~t . . . .

(III, iv, 186)

Wha t does he mean when ,he ,s,ays, being "m~d in c raf t?" Wha t ldnd ,o~ craf t? The ,craft ,he meant is, o.f cour,se, his, devotion ~o poetry. This is. I-Iam_les existential ",r '' /and his deepes,t urge. Hi~s. inner p~hilo!sop`hy reve~Ms that ar t ,and p~oetry ,are his ~asylum. His, p,o~i%ical task is an unwelcome burden. As ~a prince, he is unable to follow `his deepest inclinations. He must live in f~e ese of the people, a task which he des,p~ses., unable to "choo,se" and fulfill his po,tenti.alities a.s ~an art ist . The r i f t bet.ween e t~ca l demand and hur~,ai~ achievement icon~stit.u.tes Hamlet 's inner bit[e.~- nes,s land is ,t~e s~o~rc.e of ~i/s guilt feelin.g~s:

�9 .. Whar a piece ~f w~rk is a man! h~w ~oble in resson! how infinite ha ~a~ulty!... in a~i~on i~ow like 'an-angel, in appzehens~on how l~ke a god! the beauty of .the world! the p~ragon .of anima,lsl AI~d yet, to me, wh~t is Ells quintessence of dust? man deligh*s not m e . . .

(II , ii, 316)

LASZLO VAI~GA, h$.D., AND BONNIETA FYE, B.A. 625

Nat~ura]ly, he ta;lks about himself. In all 'his: .seven soliloquies a nos~algic :s,igh van ..be fel t ; he wo~fld like to: leave the c,o~n,rt a~d live in a different world. Is life: .at all w o,rth v~hi;le if ,he ,canno,t be a poet? The werld for him is a "weary stale, ~at and an.prof- i t a b l e . . , unweeded garden that grows to ,seed." In Witten,berg, he has been happT. ~i,s excellence in h~s "craft" ~flares to, bril- liance in Elsinore when, ,suddenly re-vitalized, 'he instructs the players how to ~ct. Only one .of Ms ,seven ,soli]~o.quie,s js longer than his technical instructions to the members of the theatrical co~pany. In tt~es,e ~6 lines, ,Shakes~,eare's abundant experience in the t~eater can be ,studied with revealing information. No.thing is too,re "m~.portant for Hamlet than his art. The play ~s his greates t ~ctory, becau~se he p,ro~es the mind's s~periority over brute fo,rce. I t s feels an urgent wis.h to re turn to Wit tenberg where he had enjoyed peace of mind, lived in the sweet calmness o~ phitosoplty, fo.u~.d inbsp.iration and felt the unforge~ta,ble scen, t ,o~ universi ty life, and the, pro,raise of h,appines.s. "The:re ~s much music in me,," he cries o,ut. Th~s i.s. #~te muMc to. whi.cth Ophe~a ~a,s a f r ~ d to. li, s,ten and .o.fller:s .dM no,t he~r at ,all.

Un, o,r~o,dox .~s it m~y sppes~r, Ka~nlet, co~p,a.re,d to t~e, r ven,t~o.n,a] exp,lfan~tiorns, .seems to be ,a:n entirely different character in the accompanying su~m. ary in table form.

Hamlet in Existential and Psychoanalytical Frame of Reference

Ckaraeter Actions

Guilt

Duty

Play ~n the Play

Antis Disposition

~~

b,

ao

b.

e.

Existential St rang Has free will Transcends his immediaIe situation Unable to fulfill his potentialities

Psychoanalytical Weak Deterministic Vaeiil.a~es

Incest wishes

R E V E N G E His Mm is to lead the king through an emoti, onal experience Fulfilled Kierkegaard's in- direst communica- tion Mitwelt problem

tIis aim is murder

U~able to carry .sue

Dream in a dream

Malingering

626 ~ o s T A~D A~T~C D~Se0S~m~

VII. Ka~nlet d~d no,t ir~te~d to kill the king. Claudius? blind rfLisoal-

culation, his s~pe,rc~liou:s tyranny is the so,nine :o~ the b,l,oodb,a~h where the, r,oy, al dyna,sty is fin,ally drowned. I t ha,s been pointed out ,already tha,t I4an~e,t ~on, sidered h~s revenge c,o~plet.e .a~ter the co~n, sc;ience os the king wa.s "caught." I t was n.ot his life that he vcanted.

He even forgives and seeks recondliation. He is "beco~ming" a new K.a~nlet in a Imnnanent re-creat$on of his freedo~n and ex- istence, earning it ,almo,st every day anew. Unper turbed he ~t- tempts reconciliation even after learning, on his sea voyage, that C}~dins h~d given o,rders to s'lau,~M.er him. He extends hi~s tm~d tow'.a~rd h~s un:de .and offer~s love in exohange fo,r has Did he realize that r.emor~se ~s too,re d, eva:s'tati:n,g than phys.icM pMn? Did he feel .obliged to ask pa:r~d, on for his ~nde 's mental agony?

"tti~h a~d mighty, you shall know I am ~et naked .on your kingdom. Tomorrow shall I beg leave to see your kingly eyes: -~hen I shall, first asking your p~r,don thereunto, recount the oc,e~sions .o~ my sudden and more strange return.

"HAMLET" (IV, Vii, 42)

In a p~stc~ript, he says "Mone," that ~s, he comes w~i,thoxlt weapons or g~.~rds. He is cert~ain]y ,a c~anged Hamlet, a ,staid, svber-minded, mature man, deliberately serio,u,s in ~is efforts to iInpve,s,s the kir~g with the bomest ~.tention o,f es,tablishSng family p,e~ce. ]~t is the eml~hatic ,arg~u~nent for his c'ban~ed atti tude that 'he 'has given up ~Frs "antic disposition" and ~der~t~fie,s himself with c~ignity o,f grea~ purpor t : "Th~s ~s. I, t tam]et, the Dm~e." I t is not t tamle t who. ~s unable to ~orgive, b~t the king. The king is the me re~le,s,s elder, bloodthirsty, .cruel, cynical, jealoa~s guardian of an un:r~vMed ,tyrannical po,si,tio.n behind the mask o,f wisdovn a.nd diplom.acy.

There is an.other important change in I-Iam~et's be.hay]o% the mos~t reveMing o.f all. I-Ie is no longer s~s,picious, but gallantly offers tru, st. I-Ie accep~s L,aertes' .challenge to a due] ~ f:ace value. Before bJ,s re,turn, it would have been impo,s,sible to. foot h im witch poisoned, unblur~ted foils. Previously, he had seen 'through even more comloli,e.ated t,rickery with ease. He falls victim of the: new plot ~gain, st .his life when he most genuinely longs for love and friendship, and, ~s a token gesture of go,o,d inten~tions, h, as thr'o,wn .away s,u.spiei.o~sne's,s, l i e beg,s fo.r peace befom'e t~e v/hole eo.nrt:

LASZLO VARGA~ M.D., AND BONNIETA leYE~ B.A. 627

Give me your pardon, sir: I've done you wrong.

Sir, in this audierme, Let my discl~Mmi~_g from a purpos'd evil Free me so far in your most. generous Vhought.s Tt~t I have shot mine arrow o'er ~lte house Arid hu~ my brother.

(V, it, 237)

But tlhe s pitJ]e,ss, unmerciful, irresistible s in'herited from the Greeks in our Western literary tradition, is approaching ,and descending upon Hamlet, a~d cannot be reeoncited. Its ine~tsbili ty is tr~ditiona]ly missed or disregarded by all tr~gSc heroes. Hamlet, able to outwit everyone, .an~d t~e mo,cker~ beea~ne mocked by the gravedigger.

,I4~mlet is not Vhe only hero in the literary hi,s:tory of the ,dragon who fails in the moment of unsuspecting effort to reach harmony and understanding with his fellow men. He is cheated in return for trust. Only after t~te recognition that he, has been deceived and t ~ t death en,ei~les ~im, does he stab t~he Mn!g on the spurr o,f the too,men,t, without pre corteeived in'tentions.

Milwaukee Psychiatric Hospitu] 1220 De~vey Avenne, Box 7095 Wauwatosa, Wisconsin 53213

R.EFEI~ENCES

1. Wa~d, A. G. : Illustrated tIist.or 2 of English Literature. Longmans Green. New York. 1953.

2. YJning, E. P.: The Mystery of ~umlet, 1881. (refference in E. $ones: tIa~nlet and Oedipus.) P. 27. Doubleday, Anchor. New York. 19~4.

3. Blake, E. V. : Po.pular Science Monthly. P. 60. 1880. 4. Jones, Ernest: Hamlet an(] Oedipus. Doabieday~ Anchor. New York. 1954. 5. Goethe, Johann Wolfgang yon: Wilhelm Meistexs Lehrjare. 1795. 6. May, Rollo (editor): Existence. Basic Books. New Yvrk. 1959. 7. Allots, R.: Existentia)ism and Psychiatry. Thomas. Springfield, Ill. 1961. 8. De Ro~uger~ont D. : Kierkegaard aa]d Hamlet. Doubleday, Anchor. New York. 1955. 9. Bentley, G. E : Shakespeare, A Biographical tIaadbook. Yalo University Press.

New tt~ve~a. 1961. 10. Levln~ H.: The Qnes~ion of I~a~nIet. Viking. Ne~v York. 1959. 11. Sullivan, H. S.: The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. In" Ooncep.~ions of 1Vfodern

Psychiatry. William Alanson White Psychiatric l~enndatioa. Washington, D.C. 1947.