Second Opinions

Eugène Delacroix - 1843

In the early generations, Freudian psychology took the form of a discipleship as well an understanding of human behavior. Freudian analysts were, by definition, part of a community which set itself off from other psychologists. Therefore, it it is not surprising that much of support for Sigmund Freud and Ernest Jones' interpretation of Hamlet came from within the psychoanalytic community and much of the opposition came from outside of it. In his book, The Design Within, M.D. Faber speaks of this dichotomy as follows:

From quarters inhabited by analysts and by critics with psychoanalytic leanings came numerous expressions of belief and gratitude: The mystery had been solved and hats off to those who had solved it. From literary circles, however, came a great many statements of disbelief and shock, as well as critical assaults that aimed at pointing up the erroneousness of regarding Hamlet in the Freud-Jones manner.  - MD Faber, The Design Within, Science House, N.Y.. 1970. p.111.

Faber's book, however, also acknowledges opposition from among Freudian analysts as well. Frederic Wertham, a psychoanalyst himself, led the attack on Freud's interpretation.

Hamlet expresses in the play his great love and admiration for his father. That this feeling may be accompanied by ambivalence must be conceded. But there is no evidence of this hostility against the real father in the text, and certainly no evidence either in the text or in the whole psychological setting of the story, that this assumed hostility is so strong and far-reaching that it can serve as the main explanation.  - Frederic Wertham, "Critique of Freud's Interpretation of Hamlet" in MD Faber, The Design Within, Science House, N.Y.. 1970. p.114.

The response from the psychoanalytic community centered on the universality of the Oedipal complex, as did the attack itself. Thus, the argument for and against became one of a willingness to accept one of the major tenets of the faith. The Freudian position was that the greater the Oedipal complex, the greater the effort will be to repress it. In the case of Hamlet, the fact that there is no visible evidence that Hamlet harbored the wish to kill his father further argues to the point that such a wish exists and that it is very strong. That it is so thoroughly repressed, say the Freudians, attests to the fact that it constitutes the greatest psychological threat to Hamlet.

In the end, the argument becomes one of doctrine. Either you accept the universal role of the Oedipal complex, or you do not. In response to opposition, Freud's contention was that critics who refuse to accept his theory are, themselves, repressing their own oedipal feelings. This response is echoed by MD Faber.

Freud also suggests (and this is perhaps the most brilliant stroke) that the difficulty critics have had lies in ... the critics' own unwillingness to consciously recognize the role that the Oedipal conflict has played in their own lives."  - The Design Within. p.80