You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
Shakespeare and psychoanalysis have enjoyed a poignant reciprocity of insights. There is, of course, no better case in point than Hamlet. Hamlet aided the budding science of psychoanalysis by throwing considerable light on the dynamics of the Oedipus complex, displaying before the entire world the aptness of Freud's thought, and in turn was significantly clarified and even deepened as drama through the application of psychoanalytic findings. In this tradition of fruitful symbiosis, a discussion of specific aspects of Hamlet's language may add to our understanding as well as give us a new appreciation of the action of the play as a whole.
That language is commonly employed as an aggressive tool hardly needs to be pointed out.2,3 What may be somewhat surprising, however, is that until quite recently little attention has been paid by anyone, psychoanalysts included, to the specific subject of sarcasm. This is unfortunate, for as a pioneering contribution by Dr. Slap5 makes clear, an analysis of sarcasm can help us to better understand the dynamics of many important affects, including depression, dependency, regression, rage and others. But it is the fact that Slap's discussion bears directly upon the character of Hamlet, as well as upon the nature of the tragedy's whole design, which prompts me to present that discussion in considerable detail here.
Slap begins with a few semantic and etymological notes. The word sarcasm, he tells us, is derived from the Greek sarkazein meaning