Meetings of the New York Psychoanalytic Society

DISCUSSION: Dr. Jacob Arlow noted that the Oedipal conflicts in the play are reflected in a series of siblinglike relationships—in the interaction between the cousins, Richard, Aumerle, and Bolingbroke. He postulated that Bolingbroke is Richard's rivalrous older brother; Richard and Aumerle are treated as a double, where the fate of either represents a different resolution of a central problem. It was as if Richard, from Oedipal guilt, had the fantasy 'if only my brother would return I'd give back the crown'; however, following thoughts might be 'but then he might kill me' or 'maybe he'd be nice to me'. The pertinence of Shakespeare's only son having been a twin to this theme of the double was noted.

Dr Edward Joseph thought that Richard's character and mercurial behavior could also be viewed as manifestations of his Oedipal success. Bolstered by the reality of his true kingship, Richard is given to omnipotent fantasies and the psychology of the exception, accountable to no one. This fostered his identification with former kings whom he raised to divine levels, and his psychological downfall could be ascribed to the collapse of this idealized self-image. Dr. Joseph questioned attributing Shakespeare's historical distortions to grief at his son's death, especially since some place the writing of the play prior to that event. Shakespeare had ample experience of grief before this death.

Dr. Robert Bak believed the methodologic approach of the paper hinged too much on psychoanalytic reconstructions and inferences about the life and reactions of Richard, using the chronicles of Shakespeare's time, whose historical value is equivocal. Dr. Bruce Ruddick noted that the various chronicles were more propaganda organs for political factions than valid history, and that psychological inferences about his characters could more validly be confirmed from Shakespeare's own life. Dr. Mark Kanzer believed the paper demonstrated the correct approach of applied psychoanalysis b