A New Interpretation of Hamlet

That Hamlet is generally acknowledged to be the greatest of Shakespeare's plays and one of the masterpieces of all time is, indeed, stating the obvious. The product of a genius, a brilliant example of dramatic craftsmanship and superb theatre in every sense of the expression, Hamlet has held a consistent and universal appeal since its introduction on the Elizabethan stage in about 1603.

No small measure of the play's success lies in the emotional impact of the tragedy itself, stemming from the central problem—the indecision of Hamlet who, openly avowing revenge for his father's murder, cannot act when presented with the chance. This seemingly irrational behaviour, never consciously explained by word or action within the play, has intrigued literary scholars since at least the beginning of the eighteenth century. Historians and critics have probed the enigma again and again, advancing this theory, disproving that or debating still another in an incredible volume of commentary. Stimulating as their hypotheses have been, they have none the less failed satisfactorily to explain the reason for Hamlet's vacillation. Viewed in the perspective of the years, their efforts loom as painstaking trial and error attempts at the breaking of a code which, while logic said an answer must exist, remained unsolved.

With the introduction of psycho-analytical techniques, the problem was approached anew in terms of human behaviour and the unconscious motivations of a neurotic personality. It was Freud, through references to the Danish prince coupled with discussions of the Oedipus complex, who first pointed in the direction where the psycho-analytical key to Hamlet would be found.

Describing this deep-rooted psychological phenomenon, he stated, 'The son when quite a little child, already begins to develop a peculiar tenderness towards his mother, whom he looks upon as his own property, regarding his father in the light of a rival who disputes this sole possession of his. … Observatio