Inferring and Explaining

91 as well. Again, Jones ofers evidence. He points out that the Hamlet story was widely known in Shakespeare’s time, that the famous Tomas Kyd version was on the contemporary scene, and that “Shakespeare in 1585 christened his own son Hamnet, a frequent variation of the name.” 7 Te key, however, for Jones is Shake- speare’s own father. Highly suggestive, therefore, of the subjective origin of the psychical confict in the play is the fact that it was in September, 1601, that Shakespeare’s father died, an event which might well have had the same awakening efect on old “repressed” memories that the death of Hamlet’s father had with Hamlet; his mother lived till some seven years later. Tere are many indications that the disposition of Shake- speare’s father was of that masterful and authorita- tive kind so apt to provoke rebellion, particularly in a frst-born son. 8 Tus we get a linked argument reminiscent of the reasoning from the chalk on Watson’s hand to the decision not to invest or the two-step inferences in cases of testimony. e 1 . What we know from the text about Ham- let’s behavior—his inaction, his peculiar relationship with Gertrude, his misogynistic treatment of Ophelia, and so on t ′ 0 . Hamlet was sufering from an Oedipus complex. e 2 . Shakespeare’s familiarity with the Hamlet legend and Kyd’s version of the play e 3 . Shakespeare’s son’s name e 4 . Shakespeare’s father’s temperament e 5 . The death of Shakespeare’s father 1601 t ″ 0. Shakespeare himself sufered from Oedipus complex and unconsciously trans- ferred character traits from himself to Hamlet. textual InterPretatIon Te million-dollar questions are, of course, whether t ′ 0 and t ″ 0 are the best explanations of the textual and authorial data. I think we would be hard pressed to fnd many defenders of the Jones hypotheses. Te problem is not so much the quality of Jones’s reasoning but the Freud- ian paradigm that he so candidly and enthusi- astically buys into. If one is skeptical that such a thing as an Oedipus complex exists, one is going to fnd it very difcult to explain the actions and creations of literary characters and authors in terms of it. A Contemporary Psychological Interpretation of Hamlet It is interesting in this connection to consider a more contemporary psychological account of Hamlet . A. B. Shaw has recently argued that Hamlet sufered from depressive illness and that this diagnosis explains his failure to exact revenge. Hamlet is a creature of Shakespeare’s imagina- tion . . . He is not an actual patient. Terefore clini- cal diagnosis must be tentative, but there is good evidence in the play for depressive illness. Depres- sive illness is characterized by low mood, anhedonia, negative beliefs, and reduced energy. Hamlet actually calls himself melancholic and the very frst speech he makes in the play is devoted to a public statement of his melancholy. 9