That's quite a lofty statement. I wouldn't say Shakespeare intended [what would now be considered] a Freudian reading of Hamlet. It's certainly one critical interpretation of Hamlet's relationship with his mother, however it is not the definitive reading of the play. There are many Shakespearean scholars who disagree with this reading quite vehemently.
Well...kinda, but not really. While Shakespeare obviously predates Freud by hundreds of years, the idea of a man supplanting his father by sleeping with his mother/stepmother (and this being a great sin) appears in the Bible and the ancient Greek plays, both of which Shakespeare knew. Since he was obsessed with ancient Roman history, he'd have also known about the Roman obsession with the sanctity of the paterfamilias.
Basically, Hamlet is trapped in a cultural conundrum, partly due to his mother having married his father's brother (which, as has been pointed out, was considered incest in Shakespeare's time)--he is expected to avenge his father or be damned. But if he avenges his father, he *will* be damned, particularly when he thinks he has to take revenge on his mother, as well (though, in this scene, his father's ghost appears and tells him not to harm her). And part of this involves literally replacing his father as King, which means, in a way, emotionally marrying his mother thanks to her unfortunate second marriage to his uncle. His is Orestes and Oedipus' dramatic conflicts wrapped up in one.
There's another wrinkle, in that there was an idea at the time that ghosts were not necessarily who they appeared to be. So, Hamlet wasn't entirely sure at first whether this was really his father's ghost or some demonic spirit, or if there had even been a murder. Hence the whole thing with the play to make sure there really was a crime to avenge.
Innsmouth Free Press
http://www.innsmouthfreepress.com
reply
share