PubMed1996
Whereas science refers to the real world existing independently and conditioned by cause and effect, the world of literature is fictitious, created by the artist in our imagination by means of language, an artefact conditioned by aesthetic laws, a world sui generis. Accordingly, Hamlet is no person, but a literary figure, doing, saying, thinking and feeling only what the poet dictated him word for word. The essential difference between the two worlds is often overlooked. That "blind spot" has a long-standing tradition in European intellectual history and goes back i.a. to the German "Hamlet experience" in the eighteenth, the "Hamlet fever" and the felt spiritual kinship (Seelenverwandtschaft) in the nineteenth century. Teleological literary criticism, centering around Hamlet's "character" and isolating his psychologically evaluated monologues (e.g. Bradley), refrained from Hamlet's fictionality and role-play and led to blurring beyond recognition the boundaries between real person and literary figure (e.g. Freud, Jones) and assisted in reducing a dramatic role to a medical case history. Speaking of Hamlet, one has to start from Shakespeare's text, our subject matter. A dramatic play being a plot turned into dialogue, the poet's vocabulary used (but indirectly also the vocabulary not used) is particularly informative. When referring to Hamlet's "antic disposition", Shakespeare uses a wide range of over 20 different terms, the most frequented being mad/madness (44 times). Evidence of primary importance are the five occasions after the apparition of his father's ghost, when Hamlet speaks of hist "madness" as an assumed role. In Act I "madness occurs first as a mere possibility when Hamlet informs his friends, he might "put an antic disposition on"; in Act II vis-a-vis Rosencrantz and Guildenstern ("I am but mad north-north-west") it is his deliberate action under certain conditions; in Act III it occurs thrice, first in his declaration of intent ("They are coming to the play, I must be idle" (i.e. "mad"), next in answering the king ("I fare of the chamaeleon's dish"), and once again in a particularly explicit distinction for his mother ("I am essentially not in madness, but mad in craft"). The evidence of all other instances of mad/madness represented here corroborates these findings: madness as an adopted role and not as a character trait. - It should also be noted that Shakespeare's main source (Belleforests adaptation of the Amleth-story from Saxo Grammaticus) already knew of the motive of stimulated madness as a cover for revenge. Hamlet assumes the role of a "madman" in order to have full scope for action, first, to test by help of the "play in the play" the truth of his father's apparition as a ghost demanding revenge as well as the actual guilt of Claudius and, when that is established, for preparing and executing his revenge. By acting himself, Hamlet becomes guilty and (Shakespeare having chosen the dramatic genre of tragedy) pays for his success with his life. Considering the constant border-crossings between the spheres of real persons and fictive literary figures in psychological approaches to Hamlet, we stressed the essential difference of a literary work of art from real life. At the same time, the inherent limitations of that difference must be shown as well. Although the world of belles lettres is fictive and non-existent in reality, it does not play in a vacuum. It is fed, in many ways, by the poet's experience of his own days as well as by the work's position within the realm of literary tradition (genre, sources, etc.). It is perhaps easy, to insist on the self-contained nature of literature, making literary criticism an arcane activity of a few elected professionals. The price to pay would be, as Laurence Lerner points out, that great literature will no longer tell us anything about life, and the poet's subtle insights, his wisdom, his understanding of the soul and of the world cease to enrich the general read