|
Adolescence as represented in Hamlet by Meg Harris
Williams – talk given at Biella, May 2008 Internal objects
enable the analyst to Òseem to perform functionsÓ for the patient (Donald Meltzer) Selina has asked me to talk about adolescence in Hamlet
bearing in mind the fact you have
recently been reading DonÕs account of the interdigitating different Òworlds
of the adolescentÓ. Hamlet is a pivotal
play in ShakespeareÕs career. In
it he reviews and revises his idea of the playwrightÕs countertransference
relationship to his adolescent
ÒheroÓ. It is not just a case of
the qualities of the hero as a character – the Òsweet prince of
DenmarkÓ – but of the structural role of the hero in the play as a
whole. The hero has his dreams,
and the play consists of one dream after another; but also the playwright has
his dream which is the play itself.
The play is unrealistically long owing to ShakespeareÕs struggle with
evolving a new form, a new type of play – the dream-play. So when we look
at the group of adolescents in Hamlet, and especially at Hamlet himself, we need to constantly be aware of
the tension between the protagonist and the dramatist, and how it prefigures
the psychoanalytic situation of
transference and countertransference. Hamlet as a character is certainly the prototype for Òthe
adolescentÓ for centuries to come.
His ÒmadnessÓ is adolescent angst - not exactly standard since owing to his genuine ÒprincelyÓ
qualities he experiences its turbulence in a particularly rich and pronounced
form, as in the poetry of his speeches and the passion of his views on
reforming the world. All the
same this makes him an ideal vehicle for the clear representation of
adolescent struggles and instability. We see him in all the relevant contexts
–as a child in the family, as a rebellious adolescent, as a member of
an adolescent gang, and also, in isolation from his group. We get vivid pictures of Hamlet
at various stages of his life: the pre-latency child riding on his fatherÕs
shoulders (as in Yorick the jester in the Graveyard scene); as his motherÕs
favourite, rolled up in her skirts (as in the play and the closet scene); as
the schoolboy at ÒWittenbergÓ playing wordgames of bawdy sexual innuendo with
his peers Rosencrantz and Guildenstern (which he calls Òplaying on a pipeÓ),
or playing sporty homosexual games with Laertes (in the duel). We see his attempt to move from this
schoolboy world into heterosexual intimacy with LaertesÕ sister, Ophelia. In
terms of taking part in the adult world we see his awkward demeanour in
public and, on the intimate side, identification with one particular teacher,
Polonius, and their passionate interests in common, epitomised by the
production of plays. We see his doubts about his parentsÕ creativity –
to the extent he feels they cannot be his real parents – and his
conviction of universal adult hypocrisy in a world where no person seems
concerned with the difference between Òis and seemsÓ. In thematic terms, we see the oscillation between the
thirst for knowledge and the cynicism of omnipotence; between wonder at the
beauty of the world and disgust at the sexuality which is everywhere present
in it: Òwhat a piece of work is a man – in apprehension like the
angelsÉÓ etc, yet Òwhat is this quintessence of dustÓ? We see the struggle between the
dreamer in Hamlet (what Don calls Ògoing backwardsÓ to childhood dependency
on objects – a prince of contemplation) and the other type of prince,
the prince of action, who ruthlessly seeks – and gets – worldly
success, just as Hamlet succumbs to Òbeing FortinbrasÓ by the end of the
play. We see the impact of
femininity and the feminine world which appears to him as the aesthetic
object, and the confusion and ambivalence this arouses: this is shown in the
struggle between intrusive and communicative forms of identification not only
in his relationships with Ophelia and his mother, but also, in his
directorial attitude to the feminine world of the players, which he usurps in
omnipotent princely fashion.
Here he acts just like the primitive conqueror he despises in the form
of the Norwegian prince, or like the intruder into the mother-world of
knowledge that he despises in the form of Polonius. In other words, he is
full of contradictions. Hamlet sways between identifying with the intrusive
curiosity that his move out of latency has stimulated in his teacher
Polonius, and the passive receptive dependence that matches the function of
his analyst Horatio. He sways between thoughtfulness and grandiosity. He seeks containment in his
adolescent group and in his potential partner Ophelia, yet his hypersensitive
suspicion and distrust finds itself confirmed in their responses. His quickness is a personal
disadvantage, for he has outgrown their
reciprocation before they have adjusted to his latest phase. Ophelia
and Laertes are also adolescents and become victims of HamletÕs haste and
egocentricity; he drives Laertes to action, whereas Ophelia is moved into
another direction, away from Hamlet and into womanhood – which appears
to Hamlet another kind of madness. In all these groupings and confusion of directions, the
problem of sexuality is central.
Indeed as Meltzer says, Òall work is sexual in its meaningÓ; and in
the world of the adolescent this is particularly crucial, since Don says the
adolescent needs his sexual relationships and phantasies in order
to sort out his confusions about knowledge and identity. For this reason both moral
disapproval and liberal laissez-faire are inappropriate attitudes –
they are forms of action or acting-out in response to the adolescentÕs provocativeness,
as epitomised by HamletÕs ÒmousetrapÓ intended to ridicule his parentsÕ
love-making. He has discovered
– in DonÕ s formula – that his parents may have sex – a
kind of bestial sport , Òstewing in the nasty styÓ - but are not thereby
creative in spirit and indeed, he doubts they really ever engendered him
– something borne out in terms of feeling in the play by the fact that
he appears far more intelligent than Claudius or Gertrude. Instead of action, aroused by such types of provocation,
what is needed on the part of the adults is understanding and a capacity to allow the adolescent to distance
himself when it gets too painful.
This mis-match between Hamlet and the adult world around him is
particularly vividly evoked in ShakespeareÕs play – where as Hamlet
says, his former friends and teachers all seek to Òpluck out the heart of his
mysteryÓ and keep his ÒmadnessÓ confined within limits, whilst at the same
time all their actions inflame his distress. He cannot walk in the Òlobby of dreamsÓ
alone, without being spied upon with a view to diagnosing his mental disease
and discomfort. And in particular we see the rocking backwards and
forwards of the adolescent between the various worlds, which is epitomised in
the evocative speech ÒTo be or not to beÓ [which I hope we will have time to look at a little more
closely]. These pictures of HamletÕs multiple worlds and unstable
aspects of identity are not presented to us chronologically, because Hamlet is a dreamplay, so they appear as they would in
dreams – according to the particular emotional problem that is being
tackled by each dream-symbol in turn.
I will give a brief sketch of the story of the play, not in terms of
its plot, but in terms of its dreams – these being at the core of
HamletÕs not entirely successful search for the Òundiscovered countryÓ of his
future self, the new shape of his mind as it might be after the catastrophic
change of adolescence. What is particularly important to the structure of the
play is the role of Horatio, who has little to say yet maintains a presence
at all the significant points.
Hamlet describes him as the ideal observer – as Òone who in
suffering all, suffers nothingÓ.
He allows the characters to dream and notes down what he sees. Like
the playwright himself, he is intimately identified with, and yet distanced
from, their emotional trials.
His job is to weave them together into a meaningful symbol, and this,
as Hamlet sees, is a type of ÒsufferingÓ also. The Ghost dream The Ghost makes clear HamletÕs claustrophobic state and
near-schizophrenic delusion that his father is his uncle. This dream of his father-uncle
(rather than his Òuncle-fatherÓ as he calls Claudius) who is lost in a kind
of hellish limbo, demonstrates his ambivalence to his internal father. A childhood idealisation of a godlike
and heroic figure who could defend his country by means of single-handed
duels, has switched to his current disillusion with ClaudiusÕ middle-aged
decay, depression, over-indulgence in sensual pleasures etc. The two images compare as ÒHyperion
to a satyrÓ in his mind. It
becomes clear that this ambivalence is rooted in his distrust of hidden,
invisible feminine treachery and false ÒbeautifiedÓ appearances in his mother
and Ophelia. The Ghost claims
the milky food of his mind has been poisoned by treachery (I.v.45-85) and
incites Hamlet to revenge, whilst at the same time warning him not to Òtaint
his mind or harm his motherÓ
(I.v.85). These are contradictory demands
of his internal object, and Hamlet reacts ambiguously: he is prompted to act
out his vengeance, and at the same time to seek a receiver for his dreams
– as is suggested by wanting to `write downÕ his feelings. As Don says of the adolescent, he is stimulated
to go forwards and backwards at the same time. The Òantic dispositionÓ which
he then adopts – his ÒmadnessÓ - becomes both a cover for the verbal
acting-out that follows, and his aesthetic self-expression. Polonius points this out when he
admiringly says that madness is often nearer the truth than sanity. It
is also noteworthy how Horatio, HamletÕs ÒobserverÓ, is involved on the
fringes of the Ghost sequences.
He comes into view as a supporter and a containing influence who has
more perception than the others of HamletÕs internal state. In fact he is the
first to see the Ghost, and brings him to HamletÕs attention.
To other characters, the Ghost is invisible; and indeed will only
speak to Hamlet, even though Horatio is termed a ÒscholarÓ – someone
who knows about how to speak to ghosts – about which there were
definite opinions in ShakespeareÕs day, just as there are today amongst
psychoanalysts, and speaking to ghosts was considered quite a science. The madman dream Hamlet feels the Ghost has projected its madness into him
and this exacerbates his intrusive intentions towards Ophelia. Hence his next dream conveys his
appearance in her ÒclosetÓ or private room, half undressed like a traditional
caricature of a madman, looking as if he had just been released from hell Òto
speak of horrorsÓ. This is in
response to PoloniusÕ interference with their relationship – Polonius
having told Ophelia to deny Hamlet access to her because his motivation was
bound to be dishonourable. Then
her obedience is taken by Hamlet as a masochistic passivity – this is
how he `draws her faceÕ in his mind, his interpretation. He has been easily led into a false
transference, and reacts automatically by means of intrusive access to her
`closetÕ (whether this represents her body or her mental ambience). The spirit of vengeance is
inextricable from a false aesthetics.
This episode is a prelude to the later similar scene in which Hamlet
tells Ophelia to go to a nunnery to conceal the falseness of her beauty. It
is important to remember that Polonius is a great admirer of Hamlet and in a
sense yet another father – the one who has nurtured his intellect and
his passionate interests such as philosophy and theatre. He is not to be dismissed as only a
senile old fool who talks too much.
His advice is good and his identification with Hamlet more perspicuous
than that of the other adults. Yet his methods of psychic investigation are all wrong – they are
anti-aesthetic, and stimulate to action rather than to contemplation. He tries to Òspy out where truth is
hidÓ, treating HamletÕs inner mystery as if it were a riddle to be
solved. He is oblivious to the
fact that the means are essential to the end – and as Bion points out,
those who disregard the means are on a path to the Sirens and will end up
with nothing but a pile of old bones. Although Hamlet is traditionally a play in which the hero thinks
too much and cannot act, in fact the opposite is the case. HamletÕs danger is in thinking too
little and acting too precipitously – it just happens that because of
his verbal virtuosity, his actions often take the form of words, speeches and
cutting remarks. The Mousetrap dream This dream lies at the heart of the play –
literally, for in Shakespeare such a play-within-a-play is generally either a
caricature or a simple yet true symbol of the larger playÕs significance. Between the Madman or closet
dream, and the Mousetrap, is the encounter with Ophelia which represents the
most delicate balance in the play between development and revenge. The encounter is prefaced by HamletÕs
famous soul-searching soliloquy, ÒTo be or not to beÓ (which I hope we can
read in more detail at the end), in which he considers the possibility that
his mind is an Òundiscovered countryÓ full of unknown, nascent dreams, and
his urge to act out his revenge becomes temporarily halted. His ÒwillÓ is ÒpuzzledÓ and he is
held in a state of contemplation.
However, by mischance – or psychic inevitability – this
temporary state is intruded on not by Polonius but by Ophelia as her fatherÕs
agent. She has been sent to give
him back the gifts or (in a less concrete sense) ÒremembrancesÓ that Hamlet has previously given her in
their courtship. Hamlet has that
very moment asked her to Òremember his sinsÓ in her prayers; yet instead, she
appears to throw them back in his face. The humiliation is too great and he
retaliates with verbal action in ÒGet thee to a nunneryÓ and the accusation
that all women are painted whores etc. The Mousetrap dream like the
closet dream is founded on intrusive projective identification. It represents
HamletÕs attempt to express his poisoned vision of the primal scene –
to Ophelia, his parents, and Horatio. It is his revenge on the
Polonius-father who is spying on his own internal world, in a way that has
been sanctioned by the king, his governing father-figure. HamletÕs
agents in this piece of acting-out are the professional actors, and he treats
them very much in the way that Polonius treats Ophelia. The Players are all male (including
the boy who plays the female lead), yet together as a troupe they are
associated with femininity, owing to their artistic function of capturing
emotionality. Immediately Hamlet
hijacks them and their play, and (being the prince) he can insist that they become agents in the enactment of his
own phantasy. They politely
endure his directorial harassment, when he lectures them on the art of acting
- `Suit the action to the word, the word to the actionÕ etc (III.ii.20). Then he inserts himself into the
inner sanctum of the play in the figure of `nephew to the kingÕ in order to
portray to his parents the pornographic nature of their lovemaking. Meanwhile, as the play is being
performed, he inserts himself into OpheliaÕs `lapÕ (his head on her lap) with
bawdy innuendo, to `see the puppets playingÕ. He calls this `interpreting between you and your loveÕ, a
form of false communication, analogous to a failed analytic
countertransference. She rebukes
him with a certain sense of humour for being `as good as a chorusÕ. The Mousetrap brings to the fore the aesthetic nature of
the art of acting, and how it can be abused – by the actors, or the
playwright, or indeed the audience, and turn into a travesty of itself, an
instrument for propaganda rather than for emotional containment. Hamlet
insists Horatio must watch his play.
And just before the play begins, he declares how he trusts Horatio
over and above all others, for he alone seems immune to the corruption that
infects not just the adult world but also the adolescent one, in which
supposed friends turn out to be traitors on the side of the king. Hamlet says: Give me that man that is not
passionÕs slave And I will wear him in my heart
of hearts, As I do thee. It is a moving passage, a moment of quiet in the midst of
mania, the nearest Hamlet comes to expressing love; yet there is a touch of
condescension in it. His praise
deskills Horatio, elevating him to an apparently intimate position, yet
really in a useless capacity.
From this point, we can sense HoratioÕs influence ebbing away him, and
also ShakespeareÕs interest in Hamlet as a hero. At the end of the play when
Hamlet has managed to create total confusion and the rest of the court have
been swept off the stage, he triumphantly sings a silly, dirty song to
Horatio, and Horatio replies moralistically: ÒYou might have rhymedÓ. His
urge to correct just feeds into HamletÕs reforming zeal, and Horatio is
powerless to prevent HamletÕs violence towards his mother in the scene which
follows, re-enacting with renewed force the earlier and more tentative closet
scene with Ophelia. This
is the scene in which Polonius is killed. Hamlet thinks he has impaled the
King, as if in the midst of the sexual act, but when he discovers it is
actually Polonius the murder takes on the significance of being the queenÕs
baby – hiding in her ÒarrasÓ.
In previous scenes Hamlet had compared Polonius to a baby. In the
middle of all this the Ghost appears again, not in armour but in soft bedroom
clothes, and once more we see Hamlet rocking back and forth for a few moments
between repentance and regression.
His statement ÒI do repentÓ lacks emotionality and there is none of
the poetic aura that surrounds ÒTo be or not to beÓ. The second half of the play is
written under a different aegis.
Shakespeare abandons all realism of plot and all attempts to fit the
play within normal play-time.
The feminine aspect of the countertransference (associated with
Horatio) captures ShakespeareÕs interest in this half of the play. It is governed by the imagery of
flowers and water, contrasting with the imagery of sickness and decay that
governed the first part. It
begins with Ophelia and her madness – for now it is her turn to use
madness as self-expression.
Meanwhile Hamlet is sent away to `EnglandÕ (by Shakespeare, as well as
Claudius) so she can become the focus without interference. The dream of OpheliaÕs madness The dream of OpheliaÕs madness is really a dream that
Horatio has on behalf of Hamlet .
The King appoints him to `watchÕ Ophelia – to become her special
observer. In literal terms of
the plot, Horatio makes a very bad guard, since Ophelia then goes and drowns
herself - and not only this, but
she appears to have done it in full view of the Queen. At least, this is what
the vividness of the QueenÕs narrative of the drowning appears to evoke. All this goes to emphasize the extent
to which Hamlet has become a dream
play, not an ordinary revenge tragedy.
In this section the women come to the fore and express their feelings
in a different kind of symbolic language. With OpheliaÕs mad songs, music
enters in to the play, having been notably absent (for Shakespeare) till that
point. The concept of femininity
does in a sense recover from the degradation of the `poisoned milkÕ `rotting
weedÕ and `stewing pigstyÕ emotional context in which it was originally
embedded. In the Mousetrap scene
Ophelia had said to Hamlet, `I think nothingÕ, meaning, she did not want to
collude in his dirty thoughts, contain his `sinsÕ. Now in the Mad Scene she introjects something of his
madness but she reshapes it, figuring her condition of pregnancy, just as
Polonius thought HamletÕs madness was ÒpregnantÓ in intellect. OpheliaÕs speech is described as
`nothingÕ and `unshapedÕ yet it has an impact on those around her. Like the players, her language makes
her listeners `collectÕ their feelings and match her words `to their own
thoughtsÕ in the archetypal manner of art (V.v.6-12). She becomes the artist
or player-queen not through face-painting and deception, as Hamlet accused
her, but through poetic and musical speech. There is a sense in which all poetry seems nonsense, yet
it speaks through its music and, as Bion says, it has ÒdurabilityÓ even
though nobody can say exactly what it means. Ophelia seemed retiring and
over-obedient at first, as though still stuck in latency. Yet when pushed to the point she
shows she has more resilience in a sexual relationship than either Hamlet or
Laertes. Her implied pregnancy – implied by the poetic imagery of
flowers and water – represents her flowering as an individual in a kind
of quiet rebellion that distances her from the rotting values of the adult
world (the court). Meanwhile Horatio has remained with the family, watching
what is going on, and this watching is his countertransference dream. The Grave dream Hamlet,
however, has followed a different path.
It is the one represented by his dream of Fortinbras (strong-arms),
the primitive military adventurer who is not even seen actually fighting but
merely leading thousands of men to their doom for a piece of land Ònot worth
an eggshellÓ. This is what Don
calls the ruthless thrust for success that some adolescents retreat into when
the dreaminess becomes too painful and makes them feel too helpless. It is really an extended latency and
it only shows symptomatically later – from about age 30 – when
they become ÒneuroticÓ. Hamlet
is age 30 when he reappears, having come back from his voyage to England via
the Òpirate shipÓ – that is, having made his mark and asserted his
independence – he comes back to claim his inheritance: ÒIt is I, Hamlet
the DaneÓ he announces to his hated father-figure. He appears cured of his madness, as they said he would be
if he made this journey. Nonetheless
the dream of the Gravedigger shakes his equanimity and shows him the ruin of
his childlike and his feminine side – the child in the picture of
riding on YorickÕs back, and now all that remains is an empty skull, like an
empty stage, where once there was a face and lips: ÒHere hung those lips that
I have kissed I know not how oftÓ. The skull turns into Òmy ladyÕs chamberÓ
– the feminine space – and revolts him – Òhow abhorred it
isÓ. He has got into a
repetition mode and advanced no further than in the Nunnery scene years
before. Horatio
tries to stop HamletÕs phantasy going entirely down the anal route – to
AlexanderÕs ÒbungholeÓ – but his efforts are aborted by the next dream,
the one of OpheliaÕsÕ burial, which is in a sense also the grave of HamletÕs
hopes of being a Òsweet princeÓ in his adulthood as he was in his
childhood. His feminine side is
buried and his Fortinbras-side takes over the kingdom of his mind. Hamlet
himself recovers his inner poetry in his final words, in which he hands his
story over to Horatio: Absent thee from felicity a while, And in this harsh world draw
thy breath in pain, To tell my story. Only Horatio is left to try to make sense of HamletÕs
story. It was not Hamlet the
character who was so important after all, but Hamlet the play. The life and soul of the play –
its inner music or Òbasic, fundamental realityÓ as Bion would say –
moved from Hamlet the character over to Ophelia, the heroine of adolescence,
and then finally into Horatio the counter-dreamer, like the playwright. The characters were all dreamers in
their way, and as Don says, ÒThe thinker is the dreamer and the analyst the
comprehender of his thoughtÓ. In order to follow the method properly and not
fall into mistakes of acting-out the countertransference, the analyst must be
Òin love withÓ the method, no less.
At the end of Hamlet, Shakespeare
realises that like the analyst, his role is not to be in love with any
particular character, but with the method – the method of writing
plays. It was the end of one adolescent dream and the beginning of an adult
one. From now on he would not
try to construct a hero from qualities that he personally admired, but simply
follow the dreams presented to him by the entire cast of characters whom he
would observe with evenly-suspended attention. [As Coleridge said about ShakespeareÕs ÒProtean geniusÓÉ] Meg Harris Williams To read ÒThe Undiscovered CountryÓ from The Apprehension of Beauty click
here |