Hamlet Through a Lens

Freudian and Feminist Approaches

One of the things you will undoubtedly encounter at university are different critical
approaches. It is not just that different readers will interpret texts differently, but that
different critics will have preferences for different theoretical approaches. In some cases you
will find that certain lecturers will push you towards certain theoretical approaches that they
favour, and in some universities you can take courses dedicated to specific theoretical
approaches such as feminism and queer theory. The different theories should not be seen as
competitors each striving to offer you the only correct way of understanding a text. Instead
you should look on theory as a kind of literary banquet from which you can select the dish
that most appeals at the time. Different theoretical approaches can be thought of as different
coloured lenses. Look at the text through a different theoretical lens and although the text
will be the same it will appear in different shades, perhaps offering new and unexpected
colours for the imagination. Particular texts have tended to attract particular theories, and
Shakespeare's plays and poetry are no exception. The Tempest for instance has traditionally
been looked at through a post colonial lens because it is, at one level, a story of slavery. The
Sonnets have traditionally been looked at through a queer lens because some of them are
addressed to a man. The Taming of the Shrew has invited critics to look through a feminist
lens because it addresses issues of male domination. This particular page looks at Hamlet
which has often been considered through Freudian and feminist lenses. It is easy to see why
Hamlet invites these two approaches: the hero appears to be psychologically complex,
perhaps because of the many internal motivations Shakespeare left to our imaginations and
he also voices some unusually strong views about women. Hamlet also contains a depiction
of female madness in Ophelia, which has been frequently appropriated - think how many
famous paintings there are of Ophelia...

When applying theory to a text you should remain a little sceptical that any theory can offer
the definitive answer to a text or to a character. There are many theoretical problems with
theory - some of which I will discuss later, and you should look on using theory as a kind of
intellectual gymnastics, rather than as any kind of ultimate truth. Whatever theoretical
approach you decide to try on for size and explore ask yourself what it can offer the
particular text you are studying. Hold up the lens and explore how the textual colours are
changed. Don't be intimidated by literary theory - it can be a lot of fun to explore the
different perspectives on offer.
For now we will explore how first feminist criticism and the then Freudian criticism can colour
the text of Hamlet.

Feminist Criticism
Feminist Criticism became popular in the 1970's and remains popular today, despite
theoretical debates as to whether or not we are now in a post-feminist era. Feminist Critics
have several aims some of which are listed below.
* Explore and expose stereotypes about men and women in literature and culture in Order to
consider what assumptions Shakespeare and his audiences, past and present, made about
men and women.
* To explore the representation of patriarchal cultures. Patriarchal cultures are those in which
men (husbands, brothers and fathers) have the power. Thus feminist criticism might explore
how men gain this power, or where this power is undermined or questioned by a text.
* To explore the representation of women. Thus feminist critics might ask: who are the
women in Shakespeare's plays? Are they stereotypes or more subtle characters?

With particular reference to Hamlet feminist critics might explore the characters of Ophelia
and Gertrude and how they challenge - or fail to challenge - the domination of male
characters.

Feminist critics would also be interested in exploring how the play expresses ideas about
femininity that were common in Shakespeare's lifetime and how complicit Shakespeare is in
Hamlet's personal misogyny. This page however will consider a feminist interpretation of
Ophelia.
Elaine Showalter's essay "Representing Ophelia: Women Madness and the Responsibilities of
Feminist Criticism" explores the difficulties, even embarrassments, that feminist critics have
had in approaching Ophelia. The problem is that Ophelia has tended to be over shadowed by
Hamlet, even by feminist critics, who then feel the need to liberate Ophelia from obscurity.
However even liberated Ophelia is problematic for she suggests some potentially troubling
connections between femininity, female sexuality and madness.

Three Feminist Approaches

Ophelia as the archetypal mad woman

Showalter asks: Does Ophelia represent a "document of madness (as Laertes Claims) or does
she represent the textual archetype of woman as madness or madness as woman?"
The issue that Showalter is exploring here is the issue of how closely Ophelia's madness is
connected to her femininity. Showalter is asking if Ophelia's image is so powerful that her
madness has set a precedent for all female characters. This would suggest that our culture
makes some intrinsic connection between femininity and insanity, as if to be female is in
some way to be insane.

Ophelia as the Impossible subject

French feminist theorists take this a bit further and suggest that Ophelia's madness suggest
the inability of male language to really represent femininity - so that female characters are
inevitably represented as fractured, broken, insane and reduced to nothing. This is a
sweeping claim. These critics are not claiming that Shakespeare failed to represent Ophelia
fairly but that because all language is male centred that it is quite literally impossible to
represent a whole female character using any existing language past or present. Instead
Ophelia can only be represented as silence, madness, incoherence and nothingness. As
Ophelia says: "I think nothing, my Lord"

Ophelia as the exiled feminine

Feminist critics accounting for Ophelia's madness and death have also suggested that she
represents the female side of Hamlet which must be rejected and killed. In this reading as
Showalter describes it "Hamlet's disgust at the feminine passivity in himself is translated into
violent revulsion against women and into his brutal behaviour towards Ophelia". Certainly
there is a tradition of seeing Hamlet as rather 'feminine' and a number of female actors have
taken on the role, believing that they could more fully explore this side of his nature. It is
also true that Hamlet berates himself for behaving in a too feminine manner asking why he is
unable to act but must instead, "like a whore, unpack my heart with words".

Textual Analysis
Madness as sexual excess
The Feminist interpretation of Hamlet that we are going to consider in most detail brings
together elements of the first two ideas. Many feminist critics have suggested that Ophelia's
madness is directly related to her sexual nature. The aim of this approach is not to treat
Ophelia as if she were a real woman who could be sat on the therapist's couch, but rather to
examine what kinds of connections are suggested by the text. This in turn highlights how the
text reflects cultural concerns; in this case it highlights a fear of female sexuality. Ann
Thompson and Neil Taylor write in their essay "Hamlet and Gender" that in Shakespeare's
literature "men may go mad for a number of reasons including mental and physical stress,
but women's madness is relentlessly associated with bodies and their erotic desires". This is
a statement which can easily be applied to the text itself, so let's take a section from Hamlet
and see if, looking through the feminist lens, we can detect a connection between sexuality
and madness... Firstly read the sections through for yourself and try out your own feminist
criticism. Then click on the linked sections to explore our feminist interpretation.
This is from Act 4, scene 5, Ophelia, spurned by Hamlet and facing the death of her father
has apparently gone insane. Called before the king and queen she proceeds to sing bawdy
songs...

OPHELIA
Tomorrow is Saint Valentine's day,
All in the morning betime,
And I a maid at your window,
To be your Valentine.

Then up he rose, and donn'd his clothes,

And dupp'd the chamber-door;
Let in the maid, that out a maid
Never departed more.

KING CLAUDIUS
Pretty Ophelia!

OPHELIA
Indeed, la? Without an oath, I'll make an end on't.
(Sings)
By Gis, and by Saint Charity,
Alack, and fie for shame!
Young men will do't if they come to't;
By Cock, they are to blame.

Quoth she 'Before you tumbled me,

You promised me to wed.'
So would I 'a' done, by yonder sun,
An thou hadst not come to my bed.

Having followed through that speech you might like to ask yourself some further questions
about feminist criticism.

Questions and Problems

What is threatening about Ophelia's madness? To the other characters? To Renaissance

audiences? To modern audiences?
What is the message implied by Ophelia's death?
Look at Gertrude's character and explore the representation of sexuality there. Why is
Gertrude sane and Ophelia mad?
Can you detect latent signs of the desire to talk about sex in other female characters? In
Hamlet or in other plays?
Is there a big difference between Hamlet's feigned madness and Ophelia's real madness?
How many differences could be ascribed to the fact that Ophelia is female and Hamlet male?

Problems with the feminist theory approach to criticism is that it is often, by necessity, based
on very little textual evidence. Ophelia for instance is only on stage in five of the play's 20
scenes. Of course feminist critics would say that it is this very brevity that makes it all the
more important to explore Ophelia. The problem only really becomes critical when an
attempt is made to understand the whole work of literature through this single theoretical
lens. Certainly the feminist approach can help us to explore particular aspects of the play, but
like any single theoretical approach it is limited. Another problem faced by feminist critics is
where to take their theoretical findings. Feminism was initially a political movement to
emancipate women; if the feminist critic is to emancipate Ophelia, he or she will have to
make a disruptive reading of Shakespeare's play. Whether such a move is culturally valuable
or ultimately a false start is a question that, should you decide to pursue this kind of
criticism, you will have to decide for yourself.

Freudian Approaches
Freudian criticism really began in the 1920's and is still remarkably popular today.
* Based on Freud's understanding of the human mind, Freudian criticism explores how the
text gives us insights into the psychology of the characters or the author.
* It often focuses on exploring the 'subconscious' motivations of characters, looking at the
things that their words imply but don't say outright. Freud thought that the connotations of
the words we choose often highlight our unconscious motivations, so Freudian critics will
focus particularly on things like puns and other sexual connotations.
* Freudian critics may treat the characters as if they are real people, exploring their
childhood and the conflicts it caused. Alternatively, Freudian critics, may use the text to
explore the psychology of the author, assuming that the language used provides an insight
into the mind that imagined it.

In this section I am going to focus on the most common Freudian interpretation of Hamlet
that which explores Hamlet's Oedipus complex. Freud hypothesised that part of the normal
progression from childhood to adulthood involved a small boy identifying with his mother and
desiring his father. As the child gets older he realises he is not the same as his mother, he
also notices that his father has his mother's attention and that if he desires that he will have
to displace his father as the centre of his mother's world. This is why Freud imagined that the
child goes through a phase in which he wishes he could kill his father and become the object
of his mother's desire. Again as the child ages he comes to realise that he cannot challenge
his father's power (we'll skip the bit about castration anxiety as it doesn't apply much to
Hamlet) but must instead become like his father in order to attract the attentions of someone
like his mother. According to Freud coming to this conclusion meant that male children ended
childhood identifying with their fathers (i.e. masculine) and desiring someone like their
mothers (i.e. heterosexual). For Freud a number of psychological problems could be
explained as a child's failure to have negotiated all these stages of development, resulting in
an adult with unresolved issues about identification and desire.

Textual Analysis
Identification and Desire

When literary critics wanted to explore why Hamlet fails to act out the revenge he so desires
they turned to Freud for an explanation. If Hamlet were to sit on Freud's couch one
explanation that might be offered for his resistance to killing Claudius would be an
unresolved Oedipus complex. In this theory Hamlet still desires his mother, rather than
someone like his mother, and hence feels rather too much identification with her husband
and lover. Because he identifies with the surrogate father he is unable to kill him despite his
intense dislike. As one critic puts it "his uncle incorporates the deepest and most buried part
of his personality so that he cannot kill him without killing himself." Another critic Ernest
Jones who offered the classic psychoanalytic interpretation of Hamlet is summarised as
saying "Claudius has taken Hamlet's place with Gertrude and although Hamlet's incestuous
desire is obviously unconscious it blocks him from killing his alter ego Claudius."

Let's have a look at Hamlet's first soliloquy from Act 1, Scene 2 and see if we can use Freud
to help understand his troubled mind.

This is Hamlet's opinion on the state of Denmark before he sees the ghost of his father. What
kind of issues can Freudian critics pick up on? Read the speech and think about it for yourself
and then click on the linked sections to see what I thought.
HAMLET
O, that this too too solid flesh would melt,
Thaw and resolve itself into a dew,
Or that the Everlasting had not fix'd
His canon 'gainst self-slaughter! O God! O God!
How weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable,
Seem to me all the uses of this world!
Fie on't, ah fie, fie! 'Tis an unweeded garden,
That grows to seed; things rank and gross in nature
Possess it merely. 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 -
A little month, or ere those shoes were old
With which she followed my poor father's body,
Like Niobe, all tears, why she, even she -
O, God! a beast, that wants discourse of reason,
Would have mourn'd longer! - Married with my uncle,
My father's brother, but no more like my father
Than I to Hercules: within a month,
Ere yet the salt of most unrighteous tears
Had left the flushing in her galled eyes,
She married. O, most wicked speed, to post
With such dexterity to incestuous sheets!
It is not, nor it cannot come to good.
But break, my heart, for I must hold my tongue.

Sex, sex, sex...

Is it always about sex?

Although Freud is famous for inspiring interpretations that are sometimes rather ridiculously
sexualised, Freudian interpretations don't have to be about sex. If you would like to explore
Freudian interpretations further but fancy an approach somewhat less based in the bedroom
of the mind you might like to look at the process of mourning. Freud called his theory about
dealing with death 'The work of mourning'. Here he explores the normal processes that allow
us to come to terms with the death of the loved one and Hamlet fits his description very
closely. Arthur Kirsch explores this idea in his essay "Hamlet's Grief" and as he explains one
of the standard stages of grieving is anger: "initially anger at being wounded and abandoned,
but fundamentally a protest both conscious and unconscious, against the inescapably mortal
condition of human life". This process would involve Hamlet identifying at first with his lost
father and contemplating suicide as a way of killing the sense of self which is invested in the
dead person. A quick perusal of Hamlet's soliloquies will amply repay this line of
investigation.
Problems with Freud

As H.R. Coursen points out in his essay "Who's there? Hamlet", "Freudians tend to
concentrate on the inner conflicts that render Hamlet incapable of killing Claudius, thus
ignoring the titanic external issues that confront Hamlet. Such neglect of the play's world
equates to thinking too precisely on a physic event isolated in Hamlet's unknown infancy and
excited to potency by events that occurred shortly before the play begins". The point of this
is that Freudian criticism should be used with caution, remember not to venture too far
beyond the text and keep in mind the context suggested by the play.
As Kenneth Muir pointed out "some critics will argue that Freud's theories were not
propounded until 300 years after Shakespeare began to write and that it is absurd for us to
interpret his plays in the light of psychoanalysis."
Freudian critics would argue that Freud's theories are universal and that they apply equally
well to Hamlet as to the modern man. However, a real problem with this is that Hamlet is not
a real person at all; how far can we psychoanalyse a fictional character? If you do want to
focus on this kind of theoretical approach then it is important to decide what it can really tell
us. Try to take it further than Hamlet's mind; perhaps it tells us something about the way
father son relationships are represented? Perhaps it tells us something interesting about how
we deal with fictional characters? Perhaps it can shed light on the way sex is dealt with in the
family?

Plenty for you to think about - have fun digging the dirt on Shakespeare's fictional
characters!