Shakespeare - a modern psychologist

Hamlet's and Other Experiments

However, before turning the floor over to Shakespeare himself, let us see what the common point of view is on the theme mentioned in the title. To experiment implies to bring about an especially devised situation in order to observe the pursued objects and phenomena that are being isolated from their usual environment for the very purpose of being examined. "Observation consists in the intentional and systematic follow up of an object or phenomenon." Being subjective, it also influences interpretations. Wundt laid an enthousiastical stress on it: "The best experience, then, is that in which personal observation plays the leading role and the outer experimental action is nothing more than a means capable of rendering personal observation possible".

Well, is it not the knowledge of such a psychological truth that persuades the former student of the Wittemberg University - Hamlet, Prince of Denmark - to give up trying to put an end to his doubts rationally and to proceed to the direct observation of how the conscience of his uncle Claudius reacts when submitted to artificial circumstances especially devised to repeat the dreadful crime he once carried out against his brother?

As we will see, Hamlet sets up a perfect experiment. There is no exaggeration in calling it "perfect", since the inherent subjectivity of observation is being balanced by a controlling observer - Horatio.

Let us step into the shadow of the castle's cold corridors. Polonius gives the gloomy Prince the good news: a team of actors has arrived. Hamlet knows them. He is glad. Seeing them ruffles the waters of memories long benumbed. From the depths of memory a feeling rises, of something known and forgotten for a long time that may prove useful to him in the present. The project of an experiment takes a dim shape in his mind. It is a play. He remembers neither its title, nor its subject. Regarding the performance that haunts his thoughts, Hamlet's conscience is being pervaded by feelings, by axiological and sociological judgments, by impressions about the atmosphere of the play and its impact on the public. He remembers nothing from the drama, yet requires, with an expert certainty, one particular monologue and indicates all the details needed to identify it. Let us now see him struggle with his own efforts to bring to light what lies benumbed in his subconscious, what his fear of the truth rejects because he guesses the part it is going to play in the unveiling of a crime implying his own mother: "HAMLET: I heard thee speak me a speech once, but it was never acted; or, if it was, not above once; for the play, I remember, pleased not the million; 'twas caviare to the general: but it was - as I received it, and others, whose judgments in such matters cried in the top of mine - an excellent play, well digested in the scenes, set down with as much modesty as cunning. I remember, one said there were no sallets in the lines to make the matter savoury, nor no matter in the phrase that might indict the author of affectation; but called it an honest method, as wholesome as sweet, and by very much more handsome than fine. One speech in it I chiefly loved: 'twas Aeneas' tale to Dido; and thereabout of it especially, where he speaks of Priam's slaughter: if it live in your memory, begin at this line; let me see, let me see. «The rugged Pyrrhus, like the Hyrcanian beast». it is not so: it begins with Pyrrhus. " (Act II, Scene 2). It is obvious that the Prince knows much better what he is talking about than any ordinary man might know about a play: how many of us know by heart a monologue we have "listened" to only once? But he is about to recite its first two lines. Although he remembers a thousand bits and pieces, he is unable, however, as with any slip of the mind, to remember either the title or the subject of the play: he is certain that it is about Aeneas, Dido and Priam, but makes no connection to the Trojan war! His physiological condition explains such a slip of the mind to a good extent: the fatigue he experiences following the events triggered by the death that has striken his family or the one caused by the perspective of revenge, that troubles him; the nervous maladjustment and cerebral excitement brought about by the vision of the ghost and the questions raised thereupon. Clearly, the physiological circumstances may have caused Hamlet's slip of the mind, but its reasons are to be found elsewhere. The Prince displays a tendency to forget the dreadful happenings in his family. He also tends to reveal those happenings and have justice prevail. In his detailed recollections and his wish to listen to one particular monologue so as to evaluate to what extent it may serve his planned experiment, the latter tendency should be inferred. The former accounts for the fact that he does not know the play's title, subject, or even author. (Slips of the mind occur "with the help or, rather, through the opposition of two different intentions". ) Hamlet's senseless behaviour is to be noticed, in its logical contradiction: he wants and does not want to be reminded of his father's death, nor of how his mother should have conducted herself (in the recited text, Hecuba is desperate). He wants and does not want: what a dychotomic-antonymical way of putting things!

The lines he listens to shake him more than expected (maybe at the subconscious level only). Polonius curbs the actor's impetus: "LORD POLONIUS: Look, whether he has not turned his colour and has tears in's eyes. Pray you, no more " (Act II, Scene 2). These tears have revealed the truth to the Prince and heir to the throne of Denmark. He has forgotten, because he wants to remember. He has forgotten, because he wants to know. The prospect of the experiment flashes through his gloomy mind. He lets go the players, but retains their foreman: "HAMLET : Dost thou hear me, old friend; can you play the Murder of Gonzago? - First Player : Ay, my lord. - HAMLET: We'll ha't to-morrow night. You could, for a need, study a speech of some dozen or sixteen lines, which I would set down and insert in't, could you not? - First Player : Ay, my lord " ( ibidem ). We do not know which lines he refers to, from the multitude about to be performed on the hurriedly erected stage of Elsinore Castle. But we can safely presume that they are meant to "isolate certain aspects" of that recent and terrible occurrence following which Claudius has vilely grabbed the throne: "HAMLET: [.] About, my brain! I have heard that guilty creatures sitting at a play have by the very cunning of the scene been struck so to the soul that presently they have proclaim'd their malefactions; for murder, though it have no tongue, will speak with most miraculous organ. [.] ( ibidem ). Indeed, Thomas Heywood informs us, in An Apology for Actors (1612), that many such confessions have taken place in public. What blessed times when actors were so deeply dedicated to their art, that they could act as substitutes for either judge or confessor, awaking the human conscience with a strength capable of shaking down any barrier put forward by the dread of punishment!

The time it took us to make this brief digression, the plan of the experiment has taken shape. Hamlet goes on: "HAMLET: [.] I'll have these players play something like the murder of my father before mine uncle: I'll observe his looks - the key-word pops up at once: it is observation -; I'll tent him to the quick: if he but blench, I know my course " ( ibidem ). He then explains why he has deemed necessary to undertake such an experiment: for fear he may have been the victim of some deception that has forced the idea of a murder upon his mind; hence, his wish to check it out: "HAMLET: .the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king " ( ibidem ). The said "thing" is called " The Mouse-trap " (Act III, Scene 2). We have seen how he has devised this mouse-trap that we would rather call an experiment: it is meant to create an artificial situation in which his uncle's crime be revived. The natural circumstances are different and the situation is set up and isolated on stage. It is not the crime itself that is supposed to be observed, however, but its reflection in the murderer's conscience, therefore the observation implies much more subtlety, insight, and detachment. The Prince fears most that he might lack this last quality. He knows himself too deeply anchored in his suspicions, too stuck in the mud of hatred, too subjective. Yet Shakespeare's genius overcomes the usual limitations of an experimenting scientist. How many are there who would request the presence of a second observer beside them, simply because they doubt their own capacities: "HAMLET: There is a play to-night before the king; one scene of it comes near the circumstance which I have told thee of my father's death: I prithee, when thou seest that act afoot, even with the very comment of thy soul observe mine uncle. " ( ibidem ). Hamlet briefs Horatio about the hypothesis of a would-be exposure, without however trying to persuade him of the subject's guilt; such an attitude is essential if he intends his method of investigation to remain absolutely unblemished: "HAMLET: [.] Give him heedful note; for I mine eyes will rivet to his face and after we will both our judgments join in censure of his seeming " ( ibidem ); one final precaution: " .They are coming to the play; I must be idle. Get you a place " ( ibidem ).

The experiment un folds as planned. Hamlet gloats impatiently over its foreseen result. The last words he utters before the pantomime about to describe the murder refer to a hobby-horse stuck in the text as a reflection of the apparent madness his speech reveals. The commentators either ignore it or make up ethnographical motivations for it, like, for instance: "One of the country games of the month of May used a wooden hobby-horse which was mentioned by the poets and ballad composers, at a time when the Puritan rules discouraged such frivolous entertainments, to emphasize how ridiculous the sect's precepts were". Such an explanation only spreads confusion. The allusion is obviously double-edged: 1. Claudius is going to be forgotten like the ludicrous wooden horse; yet - with the threat soaring in the air - 2) there was once a long-forgotten wooden horse that helped destroy a stronghold and its king; the Trojan horse is meant, of course - after all, Hamlet himself mentions Priam.

The Prince exults when King Claudius ragingly requests torches so he may leave the room on the spot. Confronting the observations has now become a futile undertaking. The cues that follow echo the joy of the discoverer. The psychology of the narrow circle comes first now, the capacity of intimate friends to understand one another from glances, syllables or slight gestures : "HAMLET: [.] Didst perceive? - HORATIO: Very well, my lord. - HAMLET: Upon the talk of the poisoning? - HORATIO: I did very well note him " (Act III, Scene 2). Then Hamlet bursts into laughter.

This faultless experiment should be corroborated with the one preceding it, for there is no important scene in Shakespeare's theatre, that is not preceded by a general rehearsal: "KING CLAUDIUS: Sweet Gertrude, leave us too; for we have closely sent for Hamlet hither, that he, as 'twere by accident, may here affront Ophelia. Her father and myself, lawful espials, will so bestow ourselves that, seeing, unseen, we may of their encounter frankly judge, and gather by him, as he is behaved, if 't be the affliction of his love or no that thus he suffers for " (Act III, Scene 1). This is the plan of another experiment. The phenomenon to be studied (not its reflection, which is a superior, much more difficult stage, hence the order in which the two are being distributed) is set up and isolated from the rest of Hamlet's life, its circumstances are modified according to the conclusions to be drawn. Yet how much different it is from the other one! The difference between them resides in one single word: "honesty", which is given contrary meanings by the two teams of experimenters (let us notice the reflection of dychotomic-antonymical thinking!): Polonius qualifies the King's political opponent thus: "LORD POLONIUS: .your noble son is mad: mad call I it. [.] Mad let us grant him, then: and now remains that we find out the cause of this effect. " (Act II, Scene 2). That is, we first call the political opponent a madman, then try to find an explanation for his madness - here is the kind of judgment engendered by the "honesty" of the two "lawful espials". The concocter of this profitable madness (in collision with reality) plans the faked experiment as well: "KING CLAUDIUS: How may we try it further? - LORD POLONIUS: You know, sometimes he walks four hours together here in the lobby. - QUEEN GERTRUDE: So he does indeed. - LORD POLONIUS: At such a time I'll loose my daughter to him. Be you and I behind an arras then; mark the encounter. " ( ibidem ). The kingly counsellor seems to be more of a director than an experimenter, since he also specifies the details, preparing Ophelia for an attitude that should not look unnatural when the Prince makes his appearance: "LORD POLONIUS: Ophelia, walk you here. Gracious, so please you, we will bestow ourselves. (To OPHELIA) Read on this book, that show of such an exercise may colour your loneliness " (Act III, Scene 1). How honest their experiment was meant to be may be inferred from Claudius' disappointment. After Hamlet's exit, he comments: "KING CLAUDIUS: [.] Nor what he spake, though it lack'd form a little, was not like madness " ( ibidem ). Then, after he expounds his plan to have the presumable claimer of the throne exiled to England (with the hidden intention of having him murdered there), he meditates, denying this very statement and treacherously parading a point of view that contradicts the truth: "KING CLAUDIUS: [.] Madness in great ones must not unwatch'd go " ( ibidem ). In his behaviour, it is easy to recognize the things we have dwelt upon so profusely in our Introduction .

It is essential for the theory we intend to illustrate that this earlier, simpler experiment was also preceded by a different approach to the psychological research, namely the interview or verbal inquiry. "This method is used to gather information about the activities, opinions, and attitudes of a group of people" or, in this particular case, of a single man. The very moment Polonius draws the coordinates of Hamlet's spying - as we have just mentioned it -, the latter enters the stage. So the counsellor urges the two royal spouses: "LORD POLONIUS: Away, I do beseech you, both away; I'll board him presently " (Act II, Scene 2). The famous dialogue follows in which Hamlet feigns madness to mock the old, venomous-hearted man.

Hence, in his tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark , Shakespeare introduces, in a dramatic form, three levels of psychological research arranged in their natural order: from simple to complex, from easy to difficult (we have just described them the other way round, because so it has served our purposes regarding the construction): first the interview or verbal inquiry, then the experiment with its testing (in both cases), the latter being of two types: (a) one observing someone's behaviour in a given situation, and (b) another observing the reactions of someone's conscience in a made-up situation. Among the countless psychic manifestations looked into, there is also that of the slip of the mind (so seldom analyzed by the writers), as a reaction of two opposed tendencies - that is, approached according to the latest criteria.

The phrase "play-within-play" has been haunting literary history and criticism long enough to become hollow, devoid of any substance, to simply name one of the formal techniques of dramatic construction. Certainly, it is often used in the shakespearian drama, as well as in the whole literature of the Baroque. We have already come across it in Hamlet , on the occasion of Claudius' exposure. As Zoe Dumitrescu-Bu sulenga so subtly and profoundly remarks when she divides A Midsummer Night's Dream into four areas, the connection between those is indeed "the performance". The author's comments are of the essence: "Oberon, the king, contemplates what has happened on the world's stage as ordered by him. Being endowed with magical powers, he can interfere like a facetious or stern deity in the undergoing game below. The grand idea, the philosophical idea of the performance, reverberated in the mental and affective areas, becomes the instructive and aesthetic pleasure of those who attend the entertainings set up on the occasion of the two mythological heroes' wedding. Reverberated in the coarse world of the unpolished, uncultivated feelings, the idea of the performance turns into a parody in which one can no longer tell the comic from the tragic, the actor from the character he embodies, and so on. The realm of the senses unlit by the divine reason can only be a realm of confusion, so the parody becomes a symbol, a comical expression of such a confusion of values". We will talk again of the "play-within-play" when we meet Sly, the drunkard in The Taming of the Shrew . Until then, another use that is being made of it interests us, namely the conscious general rehearsal of an event about to take place, as a sort of experimental probing of the random alternatives of a possible future.

Here we are in the ever merry tavern that does duty for the court of the red-faced Falstaff. He scoffs at Prince Henry, who has been summoned to appear before the King, his father, the following morning, and recommends that he brace himself up beforehand for a confrontation that may not prove very friendly: "PRINCE HENRY: Do thou stand for my father, and examine me upon the particulars of my life? - FALSTAFF: Shall I? Content: this chair shall be my state, this dagger my sceptre, and this cushion my crown " ( Henry IV , Part I - Act II, Scene 4). The royal offspring mocks Falstaff's stage props, but his boastful friend anticipates the prince's theatrical gift: "FALSTAFF: Well, an the fire of grace be not quite out of thee, now shalt thou be moved. " ( ibidem ). The two go on with their exchange of sneerings, greatly admired by the inn-keeper and the other on-lookers, but Falstaff unexpectedly assumes his part: he starts finding faults with the behaviour of all his tavern pals and praising himself (he is supposed to speak in the king's stead), which ends up annoying the prince. The latter presents a new royal hypostasis, taking over from his impudent blow-out companion who now becomes the prodigal son. In Act III, Scene 2, however, occurs the genuine encounter between father and son. The noble attitude of the true king, as well as the likewise noble excuses made by the prince give the full measure of the difference between the parody and the act, between the playful fantasy of illusion and reality. Hence a value judgment is made possible by creating a hierarchy between the experimental probing of the future and the future itself become present, with the former being incorporated in the latter.

Another variety of "play-within-play", with a stronger emphasis on the experimenting, is the use of disguise in order to become a spectator of somebody else's life: "PRINCE HENRY: How might we see Falstaff bestow himself to-night in his true colours, and not ourselves be seen? - POINS: Put on two leathern jerkins and aprons, and wait upon him at his table as drawers " ( Henry IV , Part II - Act II, Scene 2). Without any provocation by the observers, Falstaff sets about slandering them and emphasizing his own qualities by way of comparison. The two break off his endless chattering, at a given moment, pretending to be angry and trying him, but it is to check on his resourcefulness rather than to look for some pitiful excuses.

But then again, Falstaff turns out to be a victim of Prince Henry's and his inseparable Poins' clever disguise. The two dress up, in fact, not to simply to laugh at his expenses, but to watch him open up as the formidable lier he essentially is. Their experiment observes every classical canon: "POINS: Now, my good sweet honey lord, ride with us to-morrow; I have a jest to execute that I cannot manage alone. Falstaff, Bardolph, Peto and Gadshill shall rob those men that we have already waylaid; yourself and I will not be there; and when they have the booty, if you and I do not rob them, cut this head off from my shoulders. - PRINCE HENRY: How shall we part with them in setting forth? - POINS: Why, we will set forth before or after them, and appoint them a place of meeting, wherein it is at our pleasure to fail, and then will they adventure upon the exploit themselves; which they shall have no sooner achieved, but we'll set upon them. - PRINCE HENRY: Yea, but 'tis like that they will know us by our horses, by our habits and by every other appointment, to be ourselves. POINS: Tut! Our horses they shall not see: I'll tie them in the wood; our vizards we will change after we leave them; and, sirrah, I have cases of buckram for the nonce, to immask our noted outward garment " ( Henry IV , Part I - Act I, Scene 2). The coordinates of the experiment are thus established. Its purpose is still to be stated, so Poins goes on to say: "POINS: [.] The virtue of this jest will be, the incomprehensible lies that this same fat rogue will tell us when we meet at supper: how thirty, at least, he fought with; what wards, what blows, what extremities he endured. " ( ibidem ). Things evolve just the way the two plan them: Falstaff reels off his spool of extravagant self-praising in Act III, Scene 4. When exposed and confronted with the truth, he still falls on his two feet, pretending that he has actually recognized the heir to the throne attacking him, but has given in to please him and to avoid raising his sword against his sovereign.

Parolles, the boastful character in All's Well That Ends Well , is the object of a similar experiment undertaken by a great many observers. Its purpose is to prove that Parolles is not only a braggart and a coward, but a traitor as well. He is sent to retrieve a drum of the Florentine soldiers from the enemy, but is apprehended by his very brothers-in-arms whom he fails to recognize in the dark of night. He is blind-folded and threatened. He feels all the more tense as the ones surrounding him speak an imaginary, harsh, frightening language, with only one of them pretending to be the translator. When the latter questions him, Parolles covers with disgrace his friends, protectors, and commanders and lets out military secrets; to cut a long story short, he proves to be the meanest of scoundrels, unaware that he has never actually left his own camp (Act III, Scene 6; Act IV, Scenes 1, 3).

In Much Ado About Nothing , a new type of experiment is being introduced: the situation artificially set up tends to influence the feelings of the subjects who are given the opportunity to become observers themselves (without, however, being aware of it). Relying particularly on the subjectivity inherent to observation, Shakespeare proves that examining a deceitful situations may trigger conclusions that are equally false or even opposed to the entire intellectual and emotional system previously built up. Don Pedro, for instance, addresses Hero: "[.] I will teach you how to humour your cousin, that she shall fall in love with Benedick. "; then Leonte and Claudio: " .and I, with your two helps, will so practise on Benedick that, in despite of his quick wit and his queasy stomach, he shall fall in love with Beatrice " (Act II, Scene 1). In Scene 3, the object of the experiment makes a long statement against love. When Don Pedro shows up, together with the group of noblemen aware of the scheme, the whole atmosphere changes. They all gather to listen to a love song and to plan future serenades, then start talking about the beautiful Beatrice's secret love for the no-less handsome Benedick, with the latter in such a position as to be able to listen to everything without being seen (or so he thinks) and the former not even dreaming of such love for him. Upon hearing about the girl who praises him so much, yet accuses him of being so untouched by her so pure, yet unspoken passion, the young man takes the bait exclaiming: "BENEDICK: [.] happy are they that hear their detractions and can put them to mending " (Act II, Scene 3). The schemers thus win the first battle. On good account, it is the best of times to have Beatrice call him to dinner. She does so not only coldly, but also defiantly, as it were. When left alone, he comments on her words, recites them, explains them, until he manages to take them for the very thing they are not and, moreover, to feel flattered by those new feelings bred as required by the experiment: "BENEDICK: Ha! 'Against my will I am sent to bid you come in to dinner'; there's a double meaning in that 'I took
no more pains for those thanks than you took pains to thank me'. That's as much as to say: 'Any pains that I take for you is as easy as thanks'. If I do not take pity of her, I am a villain; if I do not love her, I am a Jew. I will go get her picture " ( ibidem ). Beatrice is likewise being submitted to the same illusion: she is also given the opportunity to overhear a fanciful talk about the gentleman's would-be love for her. She reacts identically and goes all the way to imagining herself calling him to her bridal bed (Act III, Scene 1). At the same time, let us notice the way in which dychotomic-antonymical thinking is induced.

A variant of this type of experiment is to be found in Othello and in King Lear : the observer draws subjective conclusions because he does not know all the facts, the purpose of the experimenter being the same: to alter his intellectual and emotional system. But there is no reason to anticipate.

The experiments we have described so far do not exhaust the theme; their variety proves that the Elizabethan playwright fully mastered, both theoretically and practically, this means of psychological investigation, that he handles far more subtly than displayed in any scholarly treatise.

Victor Târcovnicu, General Pedagogy , Timisoara , Facla Publishing House, 1975, p. 28.

Wilhelm Wundt, Hypnotismus und Suggestion , Leipzig , 1892.

Dr. Sigmund Freud, A General Introduction to Psychoanalysis (1910), translated into English in 1920.

William Shakespeare, Ouvres dramatiques de. , translated [.] by Georges Duval, Paris, Ernest Flammarion, [no date], vol. I, p. 59, note 1.

See also Mihai Radulescu, "Personajele lui Ibsen. Studiu stilistic antropologic" ("Ibsen's Characters. An anthropological study of style", in Studies and Researches of Art History - Theatre, Music, and Cinema Series , vol. 25, 1978, p. 131.

Victor Târcovnicu, op.cit. , p. 34.

Zoe Dumitrescu-Bu sulenga, Valori si echivalente umanistice ( Humanist Values and Equivalences ), Bucharest , Eminescu Publishing House, 1973.



[ inapoi ]  [ sus ]  [ inainte ]