Hamlet and the Methods of Literary Analysis; A Note

Abraham and Lora Heller's essay* arguing that Hamlet has “regressed to the period of Oedipal conflict under the stress of three awful shocks” is most interesting. Its conclusions are provocative and set forth with a persuasive air of scientific objectivity. Yet in spite of its patina of good sense, the essay strikes me as unfortunate, perpetrating under the guise of socio-scientific methodology a number of critical crimes. And for the very reason that the Hellers are so well tempered, and thus their conclusions seemingly so authoritative, attention ought to be called to their offenses. I should like, therefore, to cite what appear to me to be serious flaws in their arguments, flaws found, incidentally, all too frequently in criticism that approaches its subject as though the characters of a play and the persons of real life were one and the same.

Perhaps the essay's most revealing characteristic is the manner in which the authors indulge themselves in arbitrary interpretations of the text, utilizing readings which fit their theories, but failing to demonstrate a critical basis for these readings even when they violate commonly accepted explications. For example: in arguing that a “harmonious relationship” existed between Hamlet and his father, the Hellers emphasize the passage in which the prince meets the ghost, for “if Hamlet's relationship with his father had been conflicted, surely there would be indications of such in their meeting.” They underscore Hamlet's “mature self-command” upon confronting his father's spirit and later contrast