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.
3 January 1911
407 Brunswick Avenue
Toronto
Dear Professor Freud,
Your second letter has just come, re the Hamlet paper. I apologise for giving you so much trouble; it is very good of you to take it.1 The first passage (P. 75) “without reference to the past or future evolution of motive” is certainly very condensed, and attains a quite Nietzchean obscurity, though it has its meaning all the same. It refers to your demonstration (e.g. in the Gradiva) that a given piece of conduct, poetic creation etc. etc. relates to (a) past experiences and (b) future ones (Wunsch), in other words is past—one stage—of an evolution. I think that Shakspere describes conduct intuitively without consciously tracing it to either its past roots or its future connections. The idea in the next sentence is taken from Shaw, who points out that Shakspere was a blind artist rather [than] a conscious philosopher. (This is stupidly put, I know, but you will gather what I am driving at).
P. 77. “the argument, then, must remain unconvincing except to those who already accept it.” I am not sure that I understand the difficulty here, but I will try to put my meaning in another way. The reasons given by critics for H's general aboulia are not adequate psychologically (H's scepticism etc.). This will be obvious to some readers. I mention shortly an argument why the reasons of the critics are inadequate, but do not fully discuss it as it is irrelevant, for I go on to show that H. had no general aboulia. Therefore the readers who appreciate the argument briefly hinted at are already convinced; others will not be convinced without a longer discussion which it is not worth while to enter on as it is irrelevant; they must therefore remain unconvinced—the point makes no difference.