Rand - Family Romance or Family History. Psychoanalysis and Dramatic Invention in Nicolas Abraham's 'the Phantom of Hamlet

8/3/2019 Rand - Family Romance or Family History. Psychoanalysis and Dramatic Invention in Nicolas Abraham's 'the Phanto

1/12

Review: Family Romance or Family History? Psychoanalysis and Dramatic

Invention in Nicolas Abraham's "The Phantom of Hamlet"

Reviewed Work(s):

"The Phantom of Hamlet or the Sixth Act: Preceded by the Intermission of 'Truth'" by NicolasAbraham

Nicholas Rand

Diacritics, Vol. 18, No. 4. (Winter, 1988), pp. 20-30.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0300-7162%28198824%2918%3A4%3C20%3AFROFHP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I

Diacritics is currently published by The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtainedprior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content inthe JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/journals/jhup.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academicjournals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community takeadvantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

http://www.jstor.orgFri Oct 19 11:53:14 2007
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0300-7162%28198824%2918%3A4%3C20%3AFROFHP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Ihttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/journals/jhup.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/journals/jhup.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.htmlhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0300-7162%28198824%2918%3A4%3C20%3AFROFHP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I


2/12

FAMILY ROMANCE ORFAMILY HISTORY?PSYCHOANALYSIS ANDDRAMATIC INVENTION INNICOLAS ABRAHAM'S"THE PHANTOM OFHAMLET"Nicholas Rand

Nicolas Abraham. "THE PHANTOM OF HAMLET OR THE SIXTHACT: PRECEDEDBY THE INTERMISSION OF 'TRUTH."' Trans.Nicholas Rand. Diacritics18.4 (1988): 2-19.A voice from another wor ld . . .demands vengeance or amonstrous enormity, and the demand remains without effect; thecriminals are at last punished, but, as it were, by an accidentalb low. . . irresolute oresight, cunning treachery, and impetuousrage hurry on to a common destruction. . . . The destiny ofhumanity is exhibited as a gigantic Sphinx, which threatens toprecipitate into the abyss of scepticism all who are unable tosolve her dreadful enigmas.

-A. W. Schlegel,Lectures on Dramatic Art and LiteratureNicolas Abraham's "The Phantom of Hamlet," written in 1975as a sixthact to follow Shakespeare's Hamlet, is both intimately linked with andcontrary to traditions of Hamlet criticism prevalent since the eighteenthcentury.' His dramatic sequel reverses the effect of the final scenes ofHamlet by bringing the murdered Prince and the ghost once more on stage,and ends in the crowning of Hamlet as King of Denmark. This event followsan exchange among Hamlet, the ghost of his father, Horatio, and youngFortinbras. Assuming the role of psychoanalyst, Fortinbras investigates theprobable reasons for the destruction of the royal family of Denmark (KingI . See Abraham and Torok [447-741. My translation uses a com bination ofblank ver se, iambic pentameter, and prose. I would like to thank my colleagues andfriends Andrew Bush, Gail Dreyfuss, Mary Lydon, Elaine Markr, Judith Miller,Esther Rashkin, and Ma rian Rothstein for reading the translation and m akingvaluable suggestions.


3/12

diacritics 1winter 1988 21


4/12

Hamlet, Claudius, Gertrude, Prince Hamlet) along with the House of Polonius (Polonius,Ophelia, Laertes). He questions the ghost's reasons for demanding vengeance andwonders why Hamlet's interview with the ghost throws the prince into confusion insteadof spurring him to action. Fortinbras further suggests that the ghost's appearance itself,and not Hamlet's indecision, is the appropriate object of inquiry. Piecing together cluesfrom the first act, young Fortinbras conjectures that the six characters who were killed orcommitted suicide in Shakespeare's tragedy were doomed by the devastating effects ofsecret crimes. The precise nature of the crimes comes to light when Fortinbras links thedouble poisoning of foil and drink in the duel of Hamlet and Laertes [act51 to Horatio'saccount [act 11 of another duel, one that took place between Kings Hamlet and Fortinbrason the day of Hamlet's birth, some thirty years prior to the action of the play. In this duel,King Hamlet appears to have used a poisoned sword. Young Fortinbras seeks to discoverthe identity of the original poisoner and finds-in the actions of Laertes, and in themadness and suicide of Ophelia-sufficient evidence to surmise that the poisoner wastheir father, Polonius. Polonius, who served as instigator for two separate murders, thoseof King Fortinbras and King Hamlet, becomes one of the pivotal figures in Abraham's"Phantom of Hamlet." Abraham gives Polonius a political motive for his crime: thedesire to avenge his country, Poland, which at various times had been conquered by bothKing Hamlet's DenmarkandFortinbrasYs orway. Theseclarifications explain Hamlet'sparalysis: because his father was himself a murderer, he cannot be avenged.Shakespeare'sHamlet has been aptly called the "Mona Lisa" of literature. The playhas enjoyed the same mixture of admiration and incomprehension as its pictorialcounterpart. The placidly mysterious smile of Mona Lisa and Hamlet's tortured inactionhave for centuries fascinated those who hoped to discover their essence or bring theclandestine core of their being to light. The comparison with Mona Lisa suggests that thecharacter of Hamlet is an impenetrable surface whose features-perhaps through theutterly arresting finish of the depiction-fail to yield the depth requisite to make theirhumanity credible.Critics who do not discount the problem of Hamlet's procrastination attempt tosupply psychological depth or show deficiency in Shakespeare's portrayal of his hero.Like Hamlet himself, Coleridge, Schlegel, and Hazlitt considered "the native hue ofresolution sickled o'er with the pale cast of thought." These readers classified the Princeas prey to the "vita contemplativa," deftly removing the vitals from the issue of Hamlet'sindecision. They saw Hamlet's inaction as inherently dilatory when it might in fact betaken to constitute the object of serious reflection: what is the impediment to Hamlet'sfulfillment of his own expressed wish that, "with wings as swift as meditation andthoughts of love, he may sweep to" his "revenge"?Coleridge and Hazlitt agree that in Hamlet the "ruling passion is to think, not to act"(Hazlitt) and that "resolving to do everything, he does nothing"; thus "the great object ofhis life is defeated by continually resolving to do, yet doing nothing but resolve"(Coleridge). Yet the expositors of this overbalance n the contemplativefaculty also pointto a form of insufficiency in Hamlet: "Something is wanting to his completeness-something is deficient which remains to be supplied" [Coleridge 477, 4791. Hazlitttantalizes himself and the reader with the suspense of an unposed question: "Hamlet'sindecision to act, and his over-readiness to reflect, are placed beyond the reach of criticaldiscovery by his own analytical motive-hunting, so eloquently expressed in the abstrusereasoning in which he indulges" [110].Inadequate motivation for Hamlet's flaw of paralysis is extended to include the entireplay inT.S. Eliot's essay "Hamlet and His Problems" (1920). Hamlet the play is deficientbecause it contains "no situation or chain of events" that might justify Hamlet's feelingsand behavior. "Hamlet (the man) is dominated by an emotion which is inexpressiblebecause it is in excess of the facts as they appear. It is thus a feeling he cannot understand


5/12

...anditthereforeremainstopoisonlifeandobstructaction"[loll.Eliotsuggeststhatintheplay"thereisamotivewhichismoreimportantthanthatof revengeandwhichexplicitly'blunts' thelatter"1971. Yetitwouldseemthattheonlycluepointingtotheexistenceofsuchamotiveispreciselythatit"blunts." AsEliotstates,nothingintheplayallowsHamlettounderstandhisindecision.Eliotgoessofarastodeclarethat"nothingthatShakespearecandowiththeplotcanexpressHamletforhim" [loll . YetHamletmustbeexpressed.Themotiveforhisfeelingsmustbefoundevenifitbebeyondthefactsof Shakespeare'splay. ThisisthecompellinginspirationbehindAbraham's"ThePhantomofHamlet." Abrahamcreatesasituationandachainofeventswithwhich,asEliotwished,Shakespeare'splayexpandsinto"a tragedy..ntelligible,self-complete,inthesunlight." AbrahamrespondstoHamlet's finalplea:

Horatio,I amdead.Thoulivest;reportmeandmycausearightTotheunsatisjied. ...0 God ,Horatio,whatawoundedname,Thingsstandingthusunknown,shalllivebehindme!If thoudidsteverholdmeinthyheart,Absent theefromfelicity awhile,And in thisharshworlddrawthybreathinpain,Totellmystory.[5.2.339-501

Atthestartof "ThePhantomofHamlet,"FortinbrasandHoratio,actingonHamlet'sbehalf,makeapacttounravelthemystery. Fortinbrassays:ThisPrincetome,hissuccessor,bequeathedYo u, Horatio,hisaithful witness,Hisbosom riend, hisheart'smostinwardear ,Alerttosecretsth'mindpreferstoshun. ...Ipleadwemayasonetodaylightbring,Amidtheshapeswhichtooureyesappear,Theunseenwebiniquityhascast. [6.1]

Fortinbras,havingbeengivenHamlet's"dyingvoice,"opensthestorysealedinHamlet'sfinalwords: "therestissilence"[5.2.357].TranscendingthissilencethroughapsychologicalexplanationforHamlet'sinactionwastheaimofSigmundFreudandErnestJones.TheearlypsychoanalyticinterpretationrestsonathematiccomparisonbetweenOedipusRexbySophoclesandShakespeare'sHamlet. Oedipus'sunwittingparricideandincestwithhismotherareseenasthetragicfulfillmentof auniversalunconsciouswishtoeliminatethemalechild'srivalforhismother'saffection.FreudwritesinTheInterpretationofDreams(1900):Another of thegreatcreationsof tragicpoetry,Shakespeare'sHamlet,hasitsrootsinthesamesoilasOedipusRex. Butthechangedtreatmentofthesamematerial revealsthewholedifference in themental lifeof these twowidelyseparated epochsof civilization; the secular advance of repression in theemotional lifeof mankind. In theOedipusthechild 'swishfulphantasy thatunderliesitisbroughtintotheopenandrealizedasitwouldbeinadream.InHamletitremainsrepressed;and--just as inaneurosis-we onlylearnof itsexistencefrom itsinhibitingconsequences. Strangelyenough,theoverwhelm -ingeffectproducedbythemoremoderntragedyhasturnedouttobecompatiblewiththeact thatpeople haveremainedcompletelyinthedarkastothehero's

diacritics / winter 1988 23


6/12

character. The play is built upon Hamle t's hesitations overfu@lling the task ofrevenge that is assigned to him ; but its text offers no reasons or motives or thesehesitations and an immense variety of attempts at interpreting them have ailedto produce a result. . . . The plot of the drama shows us , however, that Ham letisfa rfr om being representedasaperson incapable of taking any action. .. Whatis it , hen , that inhibits him in ulfilling the taskse t him by his ath er's ghost? Theansw er, once aga in, is that it is the peculiar nature of the task. Hamlet is ableto do anything--except take vengeance on the man who did away with his atherand took that father's place with his mother , the man who shows him therepressed wishes of his own childhood realized. Here I have translated intoconscious terms what was bound to remain unconscious in Hamlet's mind.[29&991

Both Freud and later Jones [inHam let and Oedipus, 19491 rely on the twofold hypothesisthat "Hamlet at heart does not want to carry out the task" [Jones 451 of revenge, and thathis countermotive-the satisfaction of seeing his father dead-is entirely hidden fromhim.2

"The Phantom of Hamlet," too, is infused with the Freudian idea that Hamlet'shesitation has an unconscious psychological basis which, though hidden, can be revealed.Yet the two interpretations diverge because Freud and Abraham seek their explanationsfor Hamlet's behavior in different sources: Freud in universal infantile complexes andAbraham in the text itself. In Freud's view, Shakespeare's Hamlet draws on a store ofideas absent from the play (the "text offers no reasons or motives") but present in everymale child's mind. Hamlet, the would-be avenger, is a would-be parricide whose long-dormant wish has become a harrowing reality. The symptom of inaction becomestransparent once the infantile mental configuration is supplied, that is, once the generalapplicability of the Oedipus complex is recognized. The idea of repression allows Freudto see the Oedipus complex at work even though no trace of it can be found in the play.In Jones's words: "If such thoughts had been present in [Hamlet's] mind, they evidentlywould have been 'repressed,' and all traces of them obliterated" [70].3 Freud assumesthat, due to repression, no reason can be given in the play and therefore he seeks a solutionoutside it. Abraham conjectures that the motive, though not stated, can be constructedfrom the complex of eventsand forces in the tragedy. While for Freudand Jones, Hamlet'sinaction is readily understood as part of a generalizableneuroticsyndrome (resulting froman unresolved Oedipus complex), Abraham sees Hamlet's symptom as a Sphinx-likeriddle--to be answered with the aid of Shakespeare's text. The difference between thetwo conceptions affects the attitude adopted toward Hamlet. While Freud and Jones seeHamlet's predicament in his inability to acknowledge unconscious desires not to act,Abraham interprets Hamlet's confused hesitancy as the symptom of a genuine desire toact that has been inhibited or thwarted. For Freud and Jones, Hamlet is a typicallyduplicitous neurotic whose flight into illness guarantees the avoidance of unbearable

2 . Jones sees in the potential reawakening of repressed infantile wishes (parricide and incest)the source ofHamletls conflict: Hamlet is torn betweenjilial piety and the murder of Claudius, theman who in broad daylight embodies desires which must remain uncomcious. Killing his ather'smurderer would be tantamount to Hamlet's mental annihilation since such an act would exposethoughtshe could not consciously tolerare.

3. The German critic Hermann Pongs notes in his essay "Psychoanalysis and Literature"(1933) [Bernd Urban, Psychoanalyse und Literaturwissenschaft: Texte zu r Geschichte ihrerBeziehungen (Tiibingen: Niemeyer, 1973)l: "The special difJiculty for the psychoanalyticinterpretation resides in the absence of any trace of incest or parricide wish in Hamlet" [ 242 ] . Byfocusing his attention on the role of the ghost, Abraham seeks aparticular rather than a universalexplanation or Hamlet's behavior.


7/12

fantasies; Abraham considers Hamlet's repeatedly stated perplexity a symptom of hisbeing someone else's involuntary instrument. Based on his evaluation of hints found inthe play, Abraham suggests that the source of Hamlet's behavior is not himself but thesecret influence of an other.Once the idea that the TragedyofHamletconceals a mystery is taken seriously, thepsychoanalysis of the entire play (and not simply of the hero) can be founded on thefollowing methodological premise: the plot, the characters, their speeches, their death,and even perhaps their names tacitly refer to unstated or concealed events and actions thattook place before the first scene of the play. Shakespeare's tragedy is then symbolicallyviewed as a vast graveyard scene in which the context for a hypothetical secret hasremained buried.In act 1of Hamlet,the ghost's apparition is accompanied by a persistent need forsecrecy. Horatio to Hamlet:Twonightstogetherhadthesegentlemen,MarcellusandBernardo,ontheirmarch . . .Beenthusencountered. A figure likeyourfather, .Appearsbeforethem,andwithsolemnmarchGoesslowandstatelybythem.. . . ThistomeIndreadfulsecrecyimparttheydid.[1.2.196-2071

Hamlet to Horatio, Marcellus, and Bemardo:Iprayyouall,

Ifyou havehithertoconcealedthissight,Letitbetenablein your silencestill,Andwhatsoeverelseshallhaptonight,Giveitanunderstandingbutnotongue;[1.2.247-501Dialogue between Hamlet and Horatio after the interview with the ghost:

Hor. Whatnews,mylord?Ham. 0,wonderful!Hor. GoodmyIord,tellit.Ham. No ,youwillrevealit.Hor. NotI,mylord,byheaven.. . .Ham. Howsayyouthen?Wouldheartofmanoncethinkit?Butyou'llbesecret?[1.5.117-231

Hamlet bids his three companions swear and swear again:Ham. Nevermakeknownwhatyouhaveseentonight.Both. Mylord,wewillnot.Ham. Nay,butswear't.Hor. Infaith,Mylord,notI.. . .Ham. Uponmysword.Marc. Wehavesworn,mylord,already.Ham. Indeed,uponmysword,indeed.[1.5.143-481.

diacritics / winter 1988


8/12

Before they can consent to swear again, the ghost cries under stage:Ghost. Swear.Ham. .. . Consenttoswear.Hor. Proposetheoath,mylord.Ham. Never tospeakof thisthatyou haveseen.Swearbymysword. [1.5.155-591

The ghost calls on them twice more. They repeat their vows of secrecy, yet upon enteringthe castle, Hamlet again says: "And still your fingers on your lips, I pray" [1.5.188].What an extraord inary insistence on secrecy this is! It links Hamlet and the ghost ofhis father. But to what end? Shakespeare's play does not tell us explicitly. In the contextof "The Phantom of Hamlet," the calls for secrecy signal the presence of a secret out ofboth Ham let's and his companions' reach. Here, the excessive secrecy functions as thetelltale symptom of a genuine ly inaccessible secret. What the ghost tells Ham let is buta part, itself merely the trace of a silence the ghost declines to break.

I am thyfather's spirit,Doomedfor acertaintermtowalkthenight,Andfor thedayconfinedtofast infir es ,Tillthefoul crimes doneinmydaysof natureAreburnedandpurged away. ButthatIamorbidTotellthesecretsofmyprisonhouse,I couldataleunfold....Revenge hisfoul andmostunnaturalmurder....Murder mostfou l, asinthebestitis ,But thismostfou l, strangeandunnatural. [ l S.9-281

As before, even here insistence is a clue. The word "foul" recurs four times, once in self-reference to the crimes of the ghost, thrice refemng to the murder com mitted by Claudius.Hora tio completes the series of hints addressing the ghost:Ifthouhastsoundoruseofvoice,Speaktome.......ifthouhastuphoardedinthylifeExtortedtreasureinthewombofearth,Forwhich,theysay,youspiritsoftwalkindeath,Speakofit. Stayandspeak. [l.1.130-401

The psychoanalyst-de tective has a suspicion: the ghost walks with a secret, seeming toreveal one while withholding another. "Claudius is amurderer, letthere be no secret! Butwhy I am doomed to walk, none will ever know."4In A braham 's fiction, Fortinbras the analyst contends that traces of King Hamlet'ssecret are scattered throughout Shakespeare's text. No m ore than traces; the "rest"unfoldsasthe invention of the psychoanalytic imagination. One clue is the "unionw-thepearl. "Richer than that which four successive Kings In Denmark's crown have worn"

4 . Th is reconstruction of clues constitutes the groundwork of Abraham's premise: "The'secret' revealed by Ham let's 'phantom' . ..is merely a subterfuge . It masks another secr et, thisone genu ine and truthful but resulting from an infamy which the father, unbek nown st to his son ,has on his conscience" ["Th e Phantom of Hamlet" 31.


9/12

[5.2.274-751-that ClaudiusdroppedinHamlet'spoisonedcup. Ittellsofpoisonattherootof ClaudiusandGertrude'sunion. Hamletinact5says: "Here,thouincestuous,murd'rous,damnedDane,Drinkoffthispotion.Isthyunionhere?/Followmymother"[5.2.326-281. Thepoison-ladenunionbespeaksfoulplay in theunionof landsthatoccurredwhenKingHamletslewKingFortinbras,"whodidforfeit,withhislifeallthoselandsWhichhestoodseizedof,totheconqueror"[1.1.88-901. Thesefactsandcluescombinewithinventionin"ThePhantomofHamlet"torevealasituationthatremainedoutof reachforShakespeare'sHamlet.

A situationconcerningKingHamlet'sduelwithKingFortinbrasofNorwaycanbeimagined,giventhattheghost'sappearanceevokesthatcontestinHoratio'smind:"Suchwastheveryarmorhehadon/WhenhetheambitiousNorwaycombated"[I.1.10-111.TheghostintendstorevealhismurderbyClaudius,yethecomesdressedinthearmorthatisllnkedtohisduelwiththeKingofNorway.WhatmaythismeanThatthou,deadcorse,againincompletesteel,Revisitsthustheglimpsesofthemoon,Making nighthideous,andwefools ofnatureSohorridlytoshakeourdispositionWiththoughtsbeyondthereachesofoursouls?Say,whyisthis? [1.4.51-571

NowhereintheplaydoesHamletreceiveananswer. Fortinbrasprovidesonein"ThePhantomofHamlet." "Thestoryopenswithawager.Withawageritnearlyended.. ..Of thetwoduels,foughtthirtyyearsapart,thesecondmustincludethefirst.. . . AmemorymusthaveinspiredLaertes]toanointhisswordwithpoison"651.ClaudiusandLaertesconspiredtopoisonthenakedswordandroyaldrink. WhyresorttoriskystratagemswhenLaerteswasreadytoavengehisfather'smurderopenlybycuttingHamlet'sthroatinchurch?WhydoestheKingbidLaerteskeepclosewithinhischamberandinsecretrequiteHamletforhisfather?In Hamletsecrecyappearstooutweightheneedforrevenge.ThevenomousplottersClaudiusandLaertesareheirstoKingHamletandPolonius.Couldtheiractionsrepeattheirelders'? WasKingHamlet,murderedbyClaudius,asecretmurderer?WasPolonius,whosesonproposespoison,intruthapoisoner? ThisiswhatyoungFortinbrasdeducesin"ThePhantomofHamlet."sFortinbrasfurtherimaginesthatPoloniussuccessivelyservedKingsFortinbras,Hamlet,andClaudius,providingeachinturnwithhisdeadly instrument^.^ ButwhyPolonius,andhowdidhecometobe associatedwithKingsHamletandFortinbras? ListenagaintoHoratiospeakingoftheghostinact1,scene1:SuchwastheveryarmorhehadonWhenhetheambitiousNorwaycombated:Sofrowned heonce ,when,in anangryparle,HesmotethesleddedPolachontheice.'T i s strange. [ l .1.60-651

5. Ophelia's madness*alled "the poison of deep grief' by Claudius*ombined with hersuicide amid fantastic weeds, seem. to Fortinbras a urther conviction of Polonius. Let Polonius'sfoul deeds be seen; the "dead man'sfigers" [4.6.171] with weeds andflowers wrought confiusionfollowed by death.

6. Claudius hints at the crucial role Polonius has played in his acquiring the crown. Hedisplays gratitude when speaking tolaertes: "The head is not more native to the heart, The headmore instrumental to the mouth, / Than is the throne of Denmark to thy father [1 .2 .4649] .

diacritics l winter 1988 27


10/12

In "The Phantom of Ham let," Polonius-whose nam e means Poland-is assum ed to bea compatriot of the "Polacks" attacked by K ing Hamlet. Mo reover, young Fortinbras-"with conquest com e from Poland" [5.2.329]-might well imagine that his own trium-phant "Polack wars" are but the continuation of his father's, w aged in com petition withKing Hamlet. Abraham hypo thesizes that Polonius, caught between rivals equally benton conq uering his country, vowed to have revenge on both; he contrived to have K ingFortinbras killedby old Hamlet and helped the latter perish at the hands ofcla ud ius . W hatelse might he have done, had he not himself been slain? Killed Claudius and had Laerteselected King?Abraham's "Phantom of Hamlet" creates aprehistory for Shakespeare's Hamlet withthe purpose of extrapolating rom the play a fictive dram atic and psycho logical situationthat motivates the symptom of Hamlet's blun ted revenge. Abraham locates in thevengeful actions of Polonius the ultima te source of the dram a? From Polonius'sschem ing flows the rigged duel between Kings H amlet and Fortinbras, resulting in thelatter's murder. On the day of the infam ous combat was born Prince Hamlet, the unwittingheir to a crime perpetrated in secret by h is father. Ham let's psychic inheritance of thesecret occu rs through the tacit transmission of his mother, whose thwarted lov e for thedeadF ortinbras ofN orw ay motivates her com plicity in poisoning King Hamlet. Ham let'shaunting confusion or "phantom" is provoked by his unconsciously dawning yetincredulous suspicion that som ething shameful was left unsaid du ring the life of thed e c e a ~ e d . ~he Sphinx-like quality of S hakespeare's play is derived from the faint yetpervasive p resence of a secret shared silently by some (Po lonius, Claudius, Gertrude) andinsidiously haunting others (H amlet, Ophelia, Laertes).

Abraham considers the perplexity of readers to be an echo of the play itself. Ham let'sown dilatory speculation and ba fflement at the absence of m otive for his inaction areparalleled by the myriad efforts to interpret his predicament.I do not knowW hy yet I live to say this thing's to do ,Sith I have cause, and will, and strength, and meansTo do't . . . . How stand I then,That have a father killed, a mother stained,Excitements o f my reason and my blood,And let all sleep [4.4.44-591

7. Abra ham calls this the ultimate and abominable "T ruth" of the play. Th e "truth" ( inAbraham 's cautionary quotation m a r h ) is understood here as the willfully concealed point oforigin who se manifestations are consequently lies. Furthermore, "truth" is specific (not anabstraction or ontological abs olute) in thut the actions of the play can b e traced to their individualsource.8. Elaborating on the interpersonal consequences of silence, the concept of the phantom isa direct extension ofAbraham and Toro k's wo rko n secrets and crypts. S ee Th e Wolf Man's MagicWord: A Cryptonymy (Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1986);L'Bcorce et le noyau; and "Noteson the Phanfom" in FranqoiseMeltzer, ed .,TheTrial(s)of Psychoanalysis Chicago: UofChicagoP , 198 8). For an exposition of "Th e Phantom of Hamlet" in the larger context of Abraham andTo rok 's wo rk, see Esther Rashkin, Family Secrets and the Psychoanalysis of Narrative (forthcom-ing) . The reader intrigued by the implications of Abra ham and T oro k's work for the study ofliterature, philosop hy, and Freud ianpsych oana lytic theory may wish to consult my Le cryptage etla vie des oeuvres (Paris: Aubier, 1 989) (no w in press).


11/12

0 whatarogueandpeasant slaveam I! Is itnotmonstrousthatthisplayer here ,Butinafiction,inadreamofpassion,Couldforce hissoulso tohisownconceitThatfromherworkingallhisvisagewanned,Tea rsin hiseyes, distractioni n 's aspect.. . .And allfor nothing? . . .Whatwouldhedo,Had hethemotiveandthecuefor passionThatI have? .. .YetI , A dullandmuddy-mettled rasca l,peakLikeJohn-a-dream,unpregnantofmycause,And cansaynot hi ng -n o, notfor aking ,Upon whoseproperty andmostdearlifeAdamneddefeatwasmade. Am Iacoward?Whocallsmevillain,breaksmypateacross,Plucksoffmybeard andblowsitinmy face,Tweaksmebyth'nose,givesme theliei'th'throatAsdeepas tothelungs? Who doesmethis? (2.2.502-271Hamlet's question "Who does me this?" receives an answer in "The Phantom ofHam let." By revealing a secret and inventing concea led dramas in King Ham let,Gertrude, and Polonius's past, Abraham lends coherence to aspects of the play that havebeen repeatedly designated as inconsistencies. Samuel Johnson sum marized some of thedisparities in 1765:

Theconducti sperhaps notwhollysecureagainstobjections .Theaction isindeedfor themostpart incontinualprogression, buttherearesome sceneswhichneitherforward norretardit.Of thefeigned madnessofHamletthereappearsnoadequatecause,or hedoesnothingwhichhemightnothavedonewiththereputationofsanity. .. .Hamletis ,throughthewholeplay, ratheran instrument thananagent.After he has ,by thestratagemof theplay, convicted theKing,hemakesnoattempt topunish him,and hisdeathis at lasteffected by an incidentwhichHam lethasnopart inproducing. . . .The poet isaccusedofhavingshewnlittleregardtopoeticaljustice, andmay bechargedwithequalneglectofpoeticalprobability. Theapparition lefttheregionsofthedeadtolittlepurpose;therevengewhichhedemandsisnotobtainedbutbythedeathofhimthatwasrequiredtotakeit;andthegratijicationwh ichwouldarisefromthedestructionofanusurperandamurderer,isabatedbytheuntimelydeathofOphelia,heyoung,thebeautiful,theharmless,andthepious. [Bronson 344-451

The forcible confluence of characters who actively conceal and of those who staggerunder the oppressive seal of secrecy accommodates the madness of Ophelia and thediscom fiture of H amlet to the apparition of the gho st, the scheming of Polonius, and theprobable complicity of Gertrude.Shakespeare's Hamlet is traditionally classified asa revenge tragedy. Ye t, as ourfour-centuries-old fascination has show n, it is also a tragedy of enigm a. Ab raham 'ssequel proposes that the fateful acts happen before the opening but are never revealed tothe hero. In this respect, Hamlet is radically different from OedipusRex. While indiacritics 1winter 1988 29


12/12

Oedipus Rex-another revenge tragedy-the decisive act (the murder of Laios) alsooccurs before the opening, the play itself performs an investigation, he murderer is found,and the crime is avenged. In Hamlet, too, a murder has been committed before the firstscene and an investigation carried out, through the ploy of Hamlet's Mousetrap,a part ofthe drama itself. The murderer is found-yet no revenge takes place. As in OedipusRex,our attention is gradually focused on the inquirer himself. In the ancient play, the processof self-discovery by Oedipus constitutes the plot, and the recognition of his identitycoincides with the climax of the tragedy. In Shakespeare'sHamlet, the process of inquiryremains incomplete since the recognition of King Hamlet's murderer does not producethe clarity necessary for the play to reach its cathartic resolution. Whereas in OedipusRexthe revelation sought is achieved, inHamlet what persists, despite the investigation, is abewildering sense of nonrevelation. "The Phantom of Hamlet" provides Shakespeare'splay with a fictive structure of catharsis similar to that of OedipusRex. The inquiry iscarried to the end until all the precipitating causes of the tragedy have been revealed orinvented. "The Phantom of Hamlet" thus supplies the process of discovery exemplifiedin Oedipus Rex but mysteriously absent fromHamlet. By casting young Fortinbras as theanalyst of secret dramas inherited from another generation, to which Hamlet's perturbedmind is an unwitting host, Abraham has created an emblematic expression of psychoana-lytic inquiry into haunting. He has thereby altered the terms ofHamlet criticism, since thehero's inaction has ceased to be the main focus of the inquiry. Rather, Abraham sees inthe general obscurity and structural unrest of the play a mark of the unspeakable secretthat constitutes its unrevealed core.

WORKS CITEDAbraham, Nicolas, and Maria Torok. L'icorce et le noyau. Paris: Flammarion,1978;1987. Will be published in English by the University of Chicago Press as The Shelland the Kernel.Bronson, B. H., ed. Selec tionsfi-om ohnson on Shakespeare. New Haven: Yale UP,1986.Coleridge, Samuel. Lectures on Shakespeare. New York: Dutton, 1951.Eliot,T. S. The Sacred W ood. London: Methuen, 1972.Freud, Sigmund. The Interpretation of Dream s. New York: Avon, 1965.Hazlitt, William. Characters of Shakespeare's Plays. London: Reynell, 1817.Jones, Ernest. Hamlet and O edipus. New York: Norton, 1976.

Documents

Rand - Family Romance or Family History. Psychoanalysis and Dramatic Invention in Nicolas Abraham's 'the Phantom of Hamlet