Cintra Whitehead
CONSTRUING HAMLET
Cintra Whitehead
Ocala, Florida, USA
This essay should be viewed as a first or basic construct reading of Hamlet. Into this view of the main events and characters of the play, details may be integrated as they come to the reader’s, director’s, or actor’s attention. If some detail seems to contradict some conclusion, constructs and hypotheses can be modified to accommodate an improved construction. As George Kelly said, “A psychological theory should be considered ultimately expendable. The psychologist should therefore maintain personal inde- pendence of his theory" (Kelly 1955, 2.44). So should it be with psychological literary criticism and the critic.
Before we begin to construe Hamlet through est Jones in his Hamlet and Oedipus. Jones first Kellyan construct theory, and consider how a makes it clear that the purpose of his essay “is to production of the play based on a Kellyan read- expound and bring into relation with other work ing would differ from productions informed by an hypothesis suggested many years ago by other psychological theories, we need to refresh Freud in a footnote to ‘Traumdeutung’” (Jones, our memories about the psychoanalytic view of 1954 [1910], 23). Hamlet which has dominated the field of psy- Jones begins with the statement that one must chological literary and dramatic criticism for so pretend that the characters of a play are real liv- long, and contrast it with the less well known ing people in order to perform dramatic criticism Adlerian view of the play. (Jones, 1954 [1910], 20). He diagnoses Hamlet as a neurotic, making it appropriate for the critic to be a “medical psychologist” (Jones, 1954 THE FREUDIAN VIEW [1910], 18; 76). Jones then decides that Hamlet is paralyzed because of his neurosis by “intellec- The Freudian reading of Hamlet is so familiar tual cowardice, that reluctance to dare the explo- that I need describe it only rather briefly. It is ration of his inmost soul, which Hamlet shares firmly based on the concept of the oedipal con- with the rest of the human race” (Jones, 1954 flict, considered by psychoanalytic theorists to [1910], 103). Jones concludes that Hamlet’s con- be universal. Thus, Hamlet, like Oedipus and all flicts reflect those of Shakespeare and agrees other sons, unconsciously wishes to destroy his with Taine that “Hamlet is Shakespeare” (Jones, father and sexually possess his mother. It is his 1954 [1910], 24). uncle Claudius, however, who actually murders According to Jones, there is no doubt that Hamlet’s father, his own brother, and marries his Hamlet trusts the ghost from the beginning former sister-in-law, Gertrude, who is Hamlet’s (Jones [1910] 1954, 61). Jones is anxious to mother. Hamlet’s alleged hesitation about and prove that Hamlet never doubts the ghost, be- delay in meting out revengeful justice to his un- cause his argument that Hamlet delays when he cle according to psychoanalytic critics arise from has no conscious reason to do so is threatened Hamlet’s unconscious defense against the recog- otherwise. Jones acknowledges the live in the nition of his own repressed wish to do just what “To be or not to be” soliloquy in which Hamlet his uncle has done (Jones, 1954 [1910], 51-79; calls death “the undisover’d country from whose 94-95). bourn no traveller returns,” but denies that it In addition to this major element of the psy- means that he does not believe his father’s ghost choanalytic pronouncement on Hamlet, we has returned; he further denies that Hamlet’s should note the lesser but still significant details speech at the end of act 2 when he plans the of the psychoanalytic position as stated by Ern- mousetrap play means that Hamlet mistrusts the 108 Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 13, 2016
Construing Hamlet ghost, although Hamlet says that he fears the Lacan misread this passage by failing to apply ghost may be a devil which abuses him to damn the negative in live 182, “Not this by no means him. that I bid you do:” to the rest of Hamlet’s speech Hamlet is more interested in putting an end to which continues, “Let the bloat king tempt you Gertrude’s incestuous relationship with Claudius again to his bed” (3.4. 183-84). than with avenging his father’s murder, in And again Lacan seems to be reading a dif- Jones’s view (Jones, 1954 [1910], 110), and he ferent play when he says, “Or think of him believes that Hamlet’s attitude toward Ophelia is awakening in the dead of night on the storm- complex and largely conditioned by his attitude tossed ship, going about almost in a daze, break- to his mother, while as for her father, Jones ing the seals of the message borne by Rosen- thinks Hamlet sees Polonius as a “... prating sen- crantz and Guildenstern, substituting almost au- tentious dotard” (Jones, 1954 [1910], 98). tomatically one message for another ...” (Lacan Jones’s view of Hamlet has been to some ex- 1977, [1959] 24). The only account we have in tent supplanted among psychoanalytic thinkers the play of this scene is Hamlet’s own descrip- by the view of Jacques Lacan. Certainly Lacan’s tion of it to Horatio: emphasis is different, although he repeats many of the same psychoanalytic formulas. He sees Up from my cabin, Hamlet as a tragedy of human desire and accords My sea-gown scarfed about me, in the dark Ophelia a far more important part in the tragedy Groped I to find out them, had my desire, than does Jones (Lacan, 1977 [1959], 11). So Fingered their packet, and in fine withdrew important is Ophelia to Lacan that he invents an To mine own room again, making so bold, etymology for her name. He says, “I’m just sur- My fears forgetting manners, to unseal prised that nobody’s pointed out that Ophelia is Their grand commission; where I found, Horatio 0 phallos ...” (Lacan, 1977 [1959], 20). From – 0 royal knavery! – an exact command, this point on Lacan “harps on” the phallus quite ...... as much as Polonius perceives Hamlet to “harp My head should be struck off. on” his daughter. Lacan’s discussion seems ...... somewhat mystical and difficult to follow, and I sat me down, his perception of incidents in the play appears to Devised a new commission, wrote it fair. be somewhat inaccurate. He speaks, for instance, I once did hold it, as our statists do, of Hamlet’s appealing to Gertrude in the bed- A baseness to write fair, and laboured much room scene to abstain from going to Claudius’ How to forget that learning; but sir, now bed but says that he then sends her there “into It did me yeoman’s service ... the arms of the man who once again will not fail (5.2.12-37) to make her yield” (Lacan, 1977 [1959], 13). When we examine the scene, we find that Ham- Far from being in a daze and writing automati- let does indeed ask the queen to abstain from cally, Hamlet seems to have acted purposefully going to Claudius’ bed. He then warns the queen and energetically yet with the required stealth in that she must not let Claudius make her "ravel all discovering the commission and the plot against this matter out, / That I essentially am not in him. He then remedied the situation by devising madnesss, / But mad in craft” (3.4.187-89). He with great care and skill – the opposite of writing reminds the queen that he must go to England, automatically – the counterfeit commission prepares to remove Polonius’ body, and says which orders Rosencrantz’s and Guildenstern’s “Good night mother” (3.4.187-218).1 At no point deaths instead of his own. does he send her to Claudius’ bed. Perhaps Not only does Lacan seem to misperceive certain actions in Hamlet, but like Jones he pass- 1 These and all subsequent Hamlet quotations unless es over many events of the play which do not otherwise noted are from the New Cambridge interest him or do not fit his preconceptions. For Shakespeare edition of Hamlet, 1988 [1985], Philip instance, he attaches great phallic significance to Edwards, ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Ophelia’s drowning among the flowers called Press. 109 Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 13, 2016
Cintra Whitehead
“dead men’s fingers” (Lacan 1977, 23), but says case represents an extreme exacerbation of a nothing at all about the other flowers that Ophe- ‘complex’ which is present in every male human lia strews about just before her death, and he being” (Mairet 1969, 74-75). But he further be- makes no attempt to understand the language of lieves that in the final analysis the psychoanalyt- flowers that she uses in her last appearances be- ic interpretation, although that interpretation fore the audience. beautifully illustrates Freud’s theory of uncon- For Lacan, Hamlet seems to be reduced to scious motivation, “says nothing at all about simple “Phallophany” (Lacan, 1977 [1959], 39) Shakespeare’s Hamlet [italics mine] or of “the – evidently a learned word made up of phallos unique individual person, of the values, aim and and the element -phany which means manifesta- ambitions by which he lives” (Mairet, 1969, 75). tion or appearance. It is a play, Lacan seems to Mairet, as an Adlerian, prefers to examine say, about desire and mourning and the desire Hamlet’s life style. Hamlet, he believes, has a and mourning seem to be for the phallus, some- goal of godlikeness, and in modern Adlerian how real, somehow imagined, somehow symbol- language his life style, then, is that of The Per- ic. son who Has to be Right. If he is to commit sui- Any reader who is unfamiliar with the psy- cide, for instance, it must be a perfect suicide choanalytic interpretations of Hamlet, should with perfect result; if he is to carry out an act of certainly acquaint him/herself at the very least vengeance, it must be perfect vengeance. He with Freud’s discussion of the Oedipus legend, cannot, for example, risk killing Claudius when Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex and Shakespeare’s the king’s soul is clean from confession but must Hamlet in his The Interpretation of Dreams send him from life to hell in a state of sin. Fur- (Freud, 1965 [1900] [1913]). Further reading thermore, since Hamlet must be godlike, he dis- should include at least Hamlet and Oedipus by tances himself from other people, even from Ho- Ernest Jones (Jones, 1954 [1910]) which I have ratio. Although the solution to his problem lies discussed above, K. R. Eissler’s Discourse on in his leading a palace revolution, Hamlet iso- Hamlet and Hamlet: A Psychoanalytic Inquiry lates himself and is unable to relate to other peo- (Eissler 1973), and the Jacques Lacan essay on ple and, therefore, is incapable of such leader- Hamlet which I have just cited (Lacan, 1977 ship. [1959]). Hamlet’s tragic flaw in Mairet’s Adlerian view is his lack of social feeling which leads to his tendency to depreciate others. In his self- THE ADLERIAN VIEW imposed aloneness he resorts to an attitude of pessimism in which he must depreciate himself Adler never wrote about Hamlet in detail alt- too. Mairet clearly states, however, that he does hough he mentions Hamlet in his discussion of not wish to declare Hamlet neurotic. Hamlet melancholia (Ansbacher & Ansbacher, 1964, does not display the clinical symptoms of neuro- 446). However, Philip Mairet, who was an editor sis; rather, and translator of Adler’s works and a lecturer at “he exhibits the fundamental dilemma of a the International Society for Individual Psychol- mind pursuing its fictive goals of superiority in ogy in London, and who also was at one time a the face of harsh realities that it cannot cope Shakespearean actor, has published an Adlerian with. He still pursues what he feels to be an ob- interpretation of Hamlet. In his article he first jective duty, and ultimately fulfills it, though at reviews earlier criticism including that of Goe- the greatest cost to himself and others ... He is the, Coleridge, Bradley and finally that of Freud not mad at all; you cannot make drama out of as developed by Ernest Jones. He then offers the pathology, though madness may be introduced contrasting viewpoint of Individual Psychology. as an element in the whole ...” (Mairet 1969, 75) Mairet feels that, “Apart from certain exaggera- [An interesting theoretical statement, by the tions, the psychoanalytic theory of Hamlet is way.] deeper and more comprehensive than any of Mairet concludes that those we have mentioned. In this view, Hamlet’s “Hamlet’s tragedy is that he cannot take his
110 Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 13, 2016
Construing Hamlet friends into his (-confidence, since this would, rists of whatever persuasion often fail to notice after all, lead to action; and he cannot bring the presence of other types of materials, espe- about the action which the situation is demand- cially those that might seem to cancel out or ne- ing [sic] because in order to do so he would have gate their own preoccupations. They search, in to join with others on an equal footing as co- construct terms, for similarities to their own pre- conspirators, and descend from the height of his occupations while ignoring differences. The noble spirit and enter the common battle for a Kellyan construct critic, on the other hand, who desecrated crown" (Mairet, 1969, 86). is a process theorist would begin by looking at It is only “when [in the final duel] reality as many details as he/she could manage in order takes him inescapably by the throat [that his] to construe the play, constantly revising his/her godlike ambition vanishes and he acts with a constructions as different elements come to at- vigor nobody expected, himself least of all” tention, and would entertain the hypothesis that (Mairet, 1969, 86). Hamlet, like the rest of us, is man-the-scientist Mairet does not specifically discuss one tenet who experiences the universal need to predict of Adlerian psychology which should be made and control. A first reading from this point of explicit. That is, that Adlerians do not believe view would examine the text to see if the author that internal conflict exists. For the Adlerian, incorporated attempts to predict and control into every bit of behavior the person exhibits is in the his plot. What is predicted will be less important service of the final goal. Thus when a person at this point than the process of prediction. appears to be ‘conflicted’ he really has but one Unlike Ernest Jones, the construct theorist purpose and that is to delay – to maintain the will be quite aware that Hamlet is a fictional status quo. He uses the idea of internal conflict character and that it was only his creator Shake- as an excuse not to act. For the Adlerian, then, speare who was the living person; nevertheless Shakespeare seems to be investigating in Ham- he/she will from time to time talk about Hamlet let, as Mairet puts it, “the springs of inaction” and other characters as if they were real people. (Mairet, 1969, 72) in service of Hamlet’s final But the as if stance will never be forgotten. goal. Furthermore, the construct theorist/critic will not assume as does Jones, along with Taine, that Hamlet is Shakespeare but rather will believe THE CONSTRUCT VIEW that Hamlet and other characters in this and other dramas embody certain of their author’s(s’) con- In the construct view, there is no concern with structs. any repressed ‘unconscious’ or oedipal com- Character will be revealed through plot, and plexes as in the case of psychoanalytic theory, remembering Kelly’s indication that time is the and there is less concern with social interest than line along which the world must make sense be- in Adlerian theory. Although the psychoanalytic cause we abstract, predict and control on the ba- and Adlerian theories are diametrically opposed sis of chronological ordering of events (Kelly in many ways, they both might be called content 1955, 1:7), we will, at least in this instance, fol- theories in that they look at the content of the low the action of the plot chronologically, con- mind rather than the operation of the mind as struing character through events as we go. construct theory does. The tendency of critical Hamlet begins with a dramatic hint that the theorists of the content type is to go through a condition of Denmark is unsure. There is great work looking for bits and pieces of material that concern with the need to predict Denmark’s fate match the contents of their particular theory. and control it. In act 1, scene 1 there is much talk Thus any father/son/mother relationship is likely of omens, prophecies and foreshadowings – all to be seen as ‘oedipal’ by a psychoanalytic critic, the folk ways of predicting events. At this point while whenever Hamlet or any other character the appearance of the ghost of Denmark’s dead walks alone in order to think, he is likely to be king is associated in the minds of those who perceived as displaying a failure of social inter- have witnessed it with the situation of Denmark est to the Adlerian. Unfortunately content theo- and not with any suspicion that the king has been
111 Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 13, 2016
Cintra Whitehead murdered. The problems discussed by the sol- But the spirit is frightened away by the crow- diers at the guard post are ones of information, ing of the cock heralding dawn, and Horatio, construing, and prediction: What is happening in Marcellus and Bernardo are left behind to dis- Denmark? What is going to happen? Will there cuss what is said of spirits and to hypothesize be war with Fortinbras whose forces lie massed about them and how to control them. on the border? The nervous exchange between Horatio, breaking up the watch, now suggests Francisco and Bernardo at the change of the that they impart what they have seen to Prince watch at the very beginning of the play sets the Hamlet, and he ends the scene by making anoth- mood of uncertainty. The need to challenge and er prediction: “This spirit dumb to us, will speak to know who or what walks is in the air. Francis- to him” (1.1.171). The watchers thus have, as co says that he is “sick at heart,” and Horatio and men-scientists, made observations, formed theo- Marcellus, arriving, begin to talk of the “thing” ries, derived hypotheses, made predictions, have that has appeared, and immediately Horatio confirmed or disconfirmed them through tests, makes a prediction that the apparition will not have revised their hypotheses and made new come again. But his prediction is promptly inval- predictions. This pattern of hypothesis for- idated when the ghost of King Hamlet appears. mation, prediction, and test, which is developed The audience thus has one event (Horatio’s dis- in the first scene before the first appearance of confirmed prediction) from which to begin its the protagonist will continue throughout the own prediction of what will happen – in short play. The construct theorist seems on firm something strange and weird. ground in hypothesizing that Shakespeare, too, Horatio now views the appearance of the saw humans seeking to predict and control, pred- dead king as a prophecy (prediction) which icating their actions on the way they anticipate “bodes some strange eruption for our state” events. (1.1.69), and the talk turns naturally to the need Another pattern, the importance of which will for information. Marcellus asks why labor and appear later, has also been established: Horatio, warlike preparations go on day and night and who is not a soldier but a friend to Prince Ham- wonders, “What might be toward ...?” (1.1.77). let, has been invited to share the watch in order Horatio can only answer, in sibilants that intensi- to see the apparition which the others have wit- fy the clandestine spirit of the conversation, that nessed in order that he may “approve [test; try “the whisper goes so” (l.1.80) that young the goodness of] our eyes and speak to it” Fortinbras, Prince of Norway, comes to recover (1.1.28). This pattern of distrusting, to a greater lands forfeited by his father to the former king of or lesser degree, one’s own perceptions, of seek- Denmark whose apparition now walks the night. ing confirmation of observations and conclu- Bernardo and Horatio connect the apparition of sions from more than one observer, of being un- the dead King Hamlet with the preparation for sure what constitutes standards of evidence, is war and with Denmark’s danger. They talk of repeated over and over again throughout the precedents for prediction from history: In Rome, play. they say, “... graves stood tenantless and the The audience must wait several scenes for a sheeted dead / did squeak and gibber in the Ro- further investigation of the ghost, and this delay man streets,” and astrological signs appeared, is largely taken up with Claudius’ and Ger- similar to ones seen recently over Denmark, “As trude’s speculation about the threat Fortinbras harbingers preceding still the fates / And pro- poses. Claudius attempts to subsume the con- logue to the omen coming on ...” (l.1.115-23). structs with which Fortinbras construes the state As if to confirm their hypothesis, the ghost ap- of Denmark: pears again, and Horatio immediately demands of it, “If thou art privy to thy country’s fate, / ...young Fortinbras Which happily foreknowing may avoid, Oh Holding a weak supposal of our worth, speak” (l.1.133-34). A clearer expression of the Or thinking of our late dear brother’s death desire to predict and control would be hard to Our state to be disjoint and out of frame, imagine. Colleagued with this dream of his advantage,
112 Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 13, 2016
Construing Hamlet
He hath not failed to pester us with message “seeing” and “knowing” and “seeming,” indicat- Importing the surrender of those lands ing that cognitive and epistemological questions Lost by his father, with all bands of law, are to be a major part of this play. To our most valiant brother ... The principal question which arises for the (1.2.17-25) audience as the play progresses is why Claudius and Gertrude do not wish Hamlet to return to But Claudius’ construct system leads him to Wittenberg as he wishes to do. The audience has construe the situation more broadly and he pre- just heard Claudius give Laertes permission to dicts that “Norway, uncle of young Fortinbras,” return to Paris; it would seem that if Claudius who is “impotent and bedrid,” will suppress his fears Hamlet’s discovering the murder of his nephew’s warlike gestures toward Denmark father he would hurry him away. The audience when he hears of them, and Claudius sends em- therefore must assume that Claudius predicts that issaries to Norway to arrange with the king to no such thing will happen. Nor would it happen control Fortinbras. The audience first sees Clau- if it were not for the ghost. But it is clear that the dius, then, whatever evil may be in him, as a supernatural is not a part of Claudius’ construct man of clear thought with prompt decision and system, and he cannot anticipate the return of his action. His construct system later proves to be victim. It seems likely that Claudius and Ger- accurate in regard to Norway, for the emissaries trude wish Hamlet to remain in Denmark during return with news of the successful conclusion of this time of trouble because the prince is popular their mission. The busy administrator-king, after with the people and his presence signifies to dispatching his emissaries to Norway, gives his them the unity and strength both of the royal attention to Laertes who asks permission to leave family and of the country. Of course Hamlet Denmark and the home of his father Polonius, must stay or there would be no play, but Shake- who is the king’s Lord Chamberlain, to return to speare had to motivate his staying and the reason Paris. I have just suggested seems most likely to me. It Only when that business is efficiently dis- is of course possible to entertain a darker theory, posed of does Claudius turn to Hamlet. His ad- i.e., that Claudius and Gertrude, or at least Clau- dress to him reveals the present king’s difficulty dius, fear that Hamlet already knows that his in construing his cousin-son/subject-successor, father was murdered and believe that they must for he calls him “my cousin Hamlet, and my son keep him under direct surveillance to prevent his ...” (1.2.64). Hamlet’s first words reveal a subtle masterminding a counter plot. Although there is mind which is also experiencing difficulty in little or no direct evidence in the play to support construing the uncle-father, for the sardonic bi- this hypothesis, there is also little to contradict it. polar construct Hamlet offers to the audience for A director who chooses to interpret the play on the relationship is “A little more than kin, and a the basis of this view might give us a very intri- little less than kind” (1.2.65). guing production. It becomes immediately clear that the major Hamlet reveals his construct system and the problem in construing reality which faces Clau- reason for his melancholy to the audience and at dius and Gertrude is what to make of the melan- the same time brings them up to date on the re- choly of their son-nephew/subject-heir Hamlet. cent events in Denmark in his “that this too too Claudius’ method of argument to Hamlet is to solid flesh would melt” soliloquy. The emergent try to convince him that his predictive system poles of the constructs through which he views has failed in only one small area – i.e., in rela- the world are ‘weary,’ ‘stale,’ ‘flat,’ and ‘unprof- tion to the time of the death of his father – and itable.’ The submerged poles seem to lie in that that he need only rectify his constructs in regard area of never-verbalized perfection for which to this in order to find his way to felicity again. Hamlet apparently yearns. It is clear that his dis- Claudius argues that one must predict that soon- illusionment is due more to his mother's mar- er or later one’s father will die and that it is un- riage to his uncle so soon alter his father's death reasonable of Hamlet to be so upset about the than to the death itself as Claudius wishes to be- recent event. There is much talk in this scene of lieve – or at least wishes to make Hamlet be-
113 Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 13, 2016
Cintra Whitehead lieve. Hamlet obviously had not predicted that Hamlet’s attentions and can also predict that marriage, and clearly states how he construes the Hamlet, not having enough information to con- difference between his father and his uncle, i.e., strue the situation accurately, will see Ophelia’s as “Hyperion to a Satyr,” but he quickly adds, “I rejection of him as he already construes his must hold my tongue” (1.2.140,159). At this mother’s remarriage: as another instance (or rep- point he has no concrete evidence of any wrong- lication as Kelly would call it) of the inconstancy doing, only an intuition and judgment that his of women. Indeed even before Ophelia’s rejec- mother's remarriage, although not illegal, is un- tion of him, Hamlet has construed, and made a ethical and unfeeling. general statement of a construct based on his But then Horatio, Marcellus, and Bernardo mother’s behavior, "Frailty, thy name is wom- come to tell Hamlet that they have seen the dead an!" (1.2.146). king walk during the night watch and predict that Ophelia’s action dictated by Laertes and Po- the apparition will come again. Hamlet takes this lonius is to validate his construct and the predic- as an omen and his first instinct as man-the- tions he bases upon it. scientist is to state his constructs and offer a pre- Finally we come to the meeting between the diction: “My father’s spirit in arms! All is not spirit of the dead king and Prince Hamlet. While well. / I doubt some foul play ... Foul deeds will waiting for the appearance, Hamlet remarks sad- rise / though all the earth o’erwhelm them to ly on the noisy revelry of the king and his court men’s eyes" (l/2/254-57). The rhyming form of and points out that: the predictive words lends the certainty of clo- sure to their message. At this point, because of This heavy headed revel east and west the specter’s being armed, Hamlet’s prediction Makes us traduced and taxed of other nations. of evil-to-come is still related to the possibility They clepe us drunkards and with swinish of war with its attendant terror and destruction. phrase And yet again before we see the confronta- Soil our addition; and indeed it takes tion between Hamlet and his father’s ghost, we From our achievements, though performed at are given even more information with which to height, construe the events and characters in the play The pith and marrow of our attribute. and perfect our predictive systems. We now hear (1.4.17-22) in Laertes’ leave-taking speech to his sister Ophelia his appraisal of Hamlet’s intentions to- This is not just empty moralizing, nor is it just a ward her. Laertes, too, is involved in predicting lead-in to Hamlet’s characterization of Claudius – specifically in predicting Hamlet’s behavior as one who bears within himself some “vicious toward Ophelia. He hypothesizes that Hamlet’s mole of nature” (1.4.24) which will give rise to interest in her is transitory and predicts that corruption; it is a statement of a prince’s view of Hamlet will desert her, for he must marry ac- how his country is construed by other foreign cording to his station. Laertes warns her to be powers. The theme of Denmark’s place as a na- wary, “best safety lies in fear” (1.3.43). tion still holds the forefront of Hamlet’s concern And now, too, we meet Polonius and note which is, up until he speaks to the ghost, politi- that the advice he gives Laertes in his pompous cal. His personal grief at this father’s death and list of precepts (a parody, it seems, of the advice his mother’s remarriage is at this time secondary given Euphues by the old gentleman of Naples) to his concern for the nation ruled by Claudius is predictively useless, unlike the concrete con- and Gertrude to whom he gives his fealty out of structs Laertes has just shared with Ophelia. And national duty which overrides private unhappi- yet, once Laertes is gone, we learn that Polonius ness. can deal with the concrete. He, too, distrusts When Hamlet now sees the ghost he tries to Hamlet’s intentions toward Ophelia and orders construe it through several constructs of which her to see and talk with Hamlet no more. The both poles are emergent (verbalized): Spirit of audience can thus predict that Ophelia will, in health vs. goblin damned (1.4.40), heaven-sent obedience to her father and brother, now spurn vs. hell-devoured, wicked vs. charitable (1.4.41).
114 Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 13, 2016
Construing Hamlet
His first charge to the ghost is, “Let me not burst honesty of the ghost as he asks Horatio to watch in ignorance,” and he demands to know “What the king’s reaction to the mousetrap play: may this mean, / That thou, dead corse again in complete steel, / revisits thus the glimpses of the Observe my uncle. If his occulted guilt moon” (1.4.54). The information Hamlet re- Do not itself unkennel in one speech, ceives – that his father has been murdered by his It is a damned ghost that we have seen, uncle whom his mother has married – is blow And my imaginations are as foul enough, but, in addition to that, the ghost of the As Vulcan’s stithy. dead king charges Hamlet with the responsibility (3.2.70-74) for avenging the murder against Claudius with- out harming Gertrude. It is this charge which Hamlet’s encounter with the ghost has led him to provides the blow which shatters, for a time, hypothesize that his responsibilities for the wel- Hamlet’s construct system and his ability to cope fare of the state, for the troubled soul of his dead with events. He now sees that the interests of the father, and for the honor of the royal house state and his own personal grief are not separate. through the wreaking of vengeance on his uncle “O my prophetic soul!” (1.5.40) is his acknowl- who has murdered his father, seduced his moth- edgment that what he half suspected and intuited er, and usurped the throne are now joined. – that is, what he predicted on the basis of pre- The often asked questions: why does Hamlet verbal constructs – when he said he must keep delay vengeance? or, does Hamlet delay venge- silent is now confirmed to the extent that he can ance? can be answered in a new way by con- trust the spirit. struct theory. Since Hamlet construes the ghost But the specter’s validity, in spite of Ernest and the information it gives him through a bipo- Jones obdurate assertion to the contrary, is cer- lar construct, and since Hamlet cannot immedi- tainly in question. Hamlet tells those who have ately move from this construct to a higher level watched with him and seen the apparition that “It construct, he can do no more at this time than is an honest ghost” (1.5.138); however, he is not rattle back and forth in the slot between the two confident enough of that construct to predicate ends of his construct relevant to the ghost. When irrevocable action upon its honesty, for we see he is at the honest ghost end of the construct, he him still seeking evidence of the murder of his believes what the spirit has told him and feels father and Claudius’ responsibility for it when in that vengeance is the goal he must seek, but be- act 2 the players arrive. Hamlet is all too aware fore he can do anything about it he slides away of the opposite pole of his construct concerning to the opposite end of the construct ghost as dev- the ghost and causes the players to play “The il sent to damn. At that end of the construct he Murder of Gonzago” so that he may observe the knows he should not act without further evi- king’s reaction to a reenactment of King Ham- dence and doubts the ghost almost as much as he let’s murder in order to determine for himself doubts Claudius. Kelly sees this kind of move- whether or not the ghost was indeed honest. In ment as superficial and points out that the person his “O what a rogue and peasant slave am I” so- caught up in such a “contrast reconstruction” is liloquy Hamlet expresses quite clearly the oppo- likely to engage in “seesaw behavior” ad infini- site pole of his honest ghost construct: tum (Kelly 1955, 2:938). Hamlet recognizes his need to be sure which pole of the construct rele- The spirit that 1 have seen vant to the ghost accords with reality. The need May be a devil – and the devil hath power to be sure that he construes reality correctly and T’assume a pleasing shape. Yea, and perhaps, that the vengeance that seems to be required is Out of my weakness and my melancholy, indeed just leaves his construct system in shreds As he is very potent with such spirits, and largely inoperable. Abuses me to damn me. But even with his construct system in shreds, (2.2.551-56) Hamlet must try to predict and control. He swears his witnesses to secrecy, predicting that And again Hamlet expresses his doubt about the they may be tempted to seem wise when he puts
115 Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 13, 2016
Cintra Whitehead on the “antic disposition” he intends to employ. nature speech. But the four great soliloquies are He therefore forces them to swear that they will retained, and all the best passages of poetry in pretend to no knowledge of him at all. It is the those scenes which have been reduced. The re- most that he can do at that moment, for he must sult is a much faster-moving, unencumbered plot have time to reorganize his construct system. that keeps its emphasis upon emotion. I have taken so long to describe in detail the (Smith, 1982, 106-08) events of act 1 precisely because those events, with the exception of Hamlet’s encounter with The construct theorist could only say that it may the ghost, are judged relatively unimportant – be an “effective” production, but it is not Shake- indeed so unimportant that they are barely per- speare’s Hamlet. And with so much of the plot ceived – in the Freudian interpretation of Ham- eliminated, is the emotion which is expressed let. In that view the important elements are the valid? father-son relationship and the murder-incest To the Kellyan critic the ideal and constructs theme of the play which cannot be discerned of this first act regarding Norway and Fortinbras until after we have seen Claudius, Gertrude, and as well as the watches on the platform do not Hamlet interacting in a later scene, and after the encumber the plot but are absolutely essential to ghost has given Hamlet his message. Unfortu- the rest of the play. At the end of an uncut act 1 nately, modern directors, probably influenced by the audience knows that Denmark is in danger of the psychoanalytic reading of the play which has war from without and corruption from within; become so popular, tend to hurry through or that Hamlet is the only true hope, but that he, even cut parts of the first act. It is as though crit- disillusioned by his mother’s desertion to Clau- ics and directors believe that Shakespeare started dius, is soon to be rejected by Ophelia because his play too soon, i.e., not in medias res. Lines his intentions are misconstrued by her brother are rushed and action hurried in too many pro- and father. His main task seems to him to be to ductions; certain “unnecessary” or “irrelevant” determine the validity of the ghost’s message. If speeches or scenes are omitted in some produc- that message is true, then his task must become tions in order to cut playing time and bring the one of setting things right through revenge. play more into line with the popular psychoana- Hamlet trusts no one at this point except Ho- lytic view of Hamlet. Even when the director’s ratio and even seems to qualify his trust in him. reading is not overtly psychoanalytic, the influ- Hamlet, unsure of reality, faces the odds alone. ence seems to operate. Lest the reader think I am Even the first audience could not have helped exaggerating the abridgment of Hamlet in many predicting that he would lose the game he finds recent productions, I offer the following excerpt himself forced to play, but they must have been, from Gordon Ross Smith’s account of “The as we are, intrigued by the steps he takes to real- McCarter Theater Company’s Hamlet” (Prince- ize catastrophe. ton New Jersey, October 27–November 14, 1982). This account begins, “This production of Hamlet was one of the most effective 1 have ev- POLONIUS er seen ...” In the third paragraph, however, after talking about Hamlet as romantic hero, Mr. The Kellyan interpretation of Hamlet would not Smith says: only give greater attention to the human need to construe, predict and control in general and to In this production the text has been cut to three the problems of Denmark and the need to predict hours playing time. All references to Fortinbras national fortunes in particular, it would construe and Norway have been cut. Conversations with Polonius as a far more important and sinister Polonius, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Hora- character than he is usually thought to be. Silly tio and Osric have been heavily cut as well, and old fool that he may appear, Polonius sets the so also the bedroom scene, the long conspirato- style of both petty and grand intrigue in the rial interview of Claudius and Laertes, and the court. In spite of Ernest Jones’ belief that Hamlet watches on the platform, including the mole of sees Polonius as a fool and feels no need to re-
116 Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 13, 2016
Construing Hamlet strain his hostility against him because there is struct theorist hearing Ophelia describe how no family tie between them (Jones, 1954 [1910], Hamlet holds her by the wrist and “falls to such 98), the construct theorist will see that Polonius perusal of my face / As he would draw it” is not without power and will be aware that even (2.1.88-89) would very likely hypothesize that Prince Hamlet cannot shake off the influence of Hamlet is trying to decide whether or not he can Polonius and indeed falls into the same style of trust her, but Polonius immediately misunder- testing and attempting to validate hypotheses stands the situation and, using the only construct through keyhole listening and indirectly manipu- he has with which to construe it, decides that lating others in order to elicit evidence. Part of Hamlet is mad with love for Ophelia. Hamlet’s self-disgust may well lie in his recog- Ironically, Polonius herein seems to offer a nition that he is more like Polonius than he pattern of misinterpretation to Freud, and other would like to admit. It is in fact – thanks to Po- psychoanalytic critics who follow his reading, lonius and the style of intrigue that he has estab- for just as Polonius, using the only construct he lished – not the realistic dangers themselves has – an impoverished one at that – jumps to the which destroy the royal house of Denmark but conclusion that Hamlet is sick with love, Freud, the “accidental judgments,” the use of “cunning Jones, and Lacan using the only constructs and forc’d cause,” and the “purposes mistook” which they possess with which to construe Ham- which have “fallen on the inventors’ heads” let, rush to the conclusion that he is psychoneu- (5.2.399-64). rotic because of his oedipal sexual conflict or Significantly we see Polonius playing at in- that he is obsessed by the phallus [Ophelia – 0 trigue as act 2 begins. He is – in that scene which phallos, etc.,etc]. seemed to T. S. Eliot (Eliot, 1932, 46-50) so un- At any rate, Polonius now has an hypothesis related to the rest of the play – making explicit to to offer Claudius – one that will be welcome to the audience his preferred ways of obtaining in- him, since it seems to indicate that Hamlet does formation, for he is sending his envoy Reynaldo not suspect the murder of his father by Claudius to spy on his son Laertes to determine whether which, we must now conjecture, Polonius may that young man is engaging in “gaming,” “drink- be privy to. If I were directing the play I would ing, fencing, swearing / Quarrelling, drabbing” certainly see that it was played as if Polonius had (2.1.24-26), while away in Paris. He teaches the that guilty knowledge of the former king’s death, envoy-spy how to entrap and lead witnesses in for Polonius would become a much more dra- order to elicit intelligence about Laertes’ activi- matically interesting character than the silly old ties: fool the psychoanalytic critics, among others, make him out to be. See you now Acting upon Polonius’ construction of the Your bait of falsehood take this carp of truth, situation, Claudius and Polonius can now set up and thus do we of wisdom and of reach, a ‘laboratory’ test of their hypothesis that Ham- With windlasses and with assays of bias, let is mad with love for Ophelia by eavesdrop- By indirections find directions out. ping on a confrontation which they plan between So, by my former lecture and advice, the melancholy prince and the Lord Chamber- Shall you my son. You have me, have you not? lain’s daughter. Thus, a nice balance is achieved (2.1.60-66) between act 2, scene 1 in which Polonius uses an envoy to create intelligence about his son and act He has just dispatched the spy when Ophelia 2, scene 2 in which he uses his daughter as bait comes to him with the news that Hamlet has vis- for “lawful espials,” as Claudius calls the meth- ited her in a distraught state, “as if loosed out of od (3.1.32), to create intelligence about Hamlet. hell to speak horrors” (2.1.81-82). The audience, Seen in this way, Polonius’ scene with Reynaldo knowing Hamlet’s view of the inconstancy of is an integral part of the structure of the play, an women and his intention to put on an antic dis- event which must be construed and its similarity position (which Ophelia and Polonius have no to other events abstracted. We learn to construe knowledge of) sees what is happening. A con- Polonius through this scene and can better pre-
117 Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 13, 2016
Cintra Whitehead dict his behavior toward Ophelia and Hamlet I cannot dream of. because of it. Thus it reveals character and is (2.2.2-10) not, as Eliot seems to have believed, merely gra- tuitous. The audience is entitled to suspect, however, that Claudius by now does indeed fear that Hamlet may suspect the manner of his father’s death and HAMLET’S MADNESS hopes that he may employ Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to “by indirection find direction Hamlet in the meantime has chosen to assume out” as Polonius has put it. Claudius says that his antic disposition – a facade of madness used, they have sent for them to “draw [Hamlet] onto from the construct point of view, to give him pleasure,” but the most important part of their time to rebuild his construct system. His as- task is clearly to be to “glean / Whether aught to sumed madness will allow him, he hopes, to us unknown afflicts him thus” (2.2.15-18). catch people off guard. He can then, à la Poloni- Gertrude has said in greeting Rosencrantz and us, “by indirections find directions out,” and ob- Guildenstern that she is sure that “two men there serve how others react so that he can form some is not living / To whom he more adheres” conclusions about them. (2.2.20-21). If we believe that she construes ac- It is important from a Kellyan point of view curately and tells the truth as she sees it, we will to proceed through the play scene by scene as predict that Hamlet will welcome his two old Shakespeare wrote it, for, as Kelly said, “time friends with joy and will confide in them, but provides the ultimate bond in all relationships” before we can see whether our prediction is vali- (Kelly, 1955,1:6). We develop our systems by dated or not, we, like Claudius and Gertrude, construing the replications of events through must deal with Polonius and the ambassadors time. We thus need to see how the characters in who have returned from Norway. the play as well as the audience construe and The ambassadors bring the news that the king abstract replications from the incidents of the of Norway has suppressed his nephew’s levies plot and what they predict on the basis of their and has rebuked Fortinbras and has set him replications. Therefore, before we consider the against Poland instead of against Denmark. That meeting between Hamlet and Ophelia, we must matter settled in a manner which leads Claudius construe the arrival of Rosencrantz and Guilden- himself and the audience to view the Danish stern and try to understand their relationship to king as one who construes and predicts well, Claudius and Gertrude and to Hamlet, and also Polonius can now turn to his news that Hamlet is note, in its proper place, the return of the emis- mad with love for Ophelia. The letter from Ham- saries from Norway with the news that Norway’s let to Ophelia which he reads aloud to the king king has reacted as Claudius predicted he would. and queen does seem to indicate that Hamlet is, Claudius is clear enough in telling Rosen- or has been, in love with her. When Polonius crantz and Guildenstern why he has sent for tells them that he has instructed Ophelia not to them, and, since Gertrude too is present to wel- see or communicate with Hamlet, the king and come them, we can assume that the king speaks queen, somewhat doubtfully it seems, admit that for her as well when he says, it may be as Polonius believes – that Hamlet’s madness has resulted from his unrequited love Moreover that we much did long to see you, for Ophelia. Polonius, sensing their doubt, tests The need we have to use you did provoke their construing of his own reliability: Our hasty sending. Something have you heard Of Hamlet’s transformation – so call it, Hath there been such a time, I’ld fain know that, Sith nor th’exterior nor the inward man That I have positively said, ‘tis so, Resembles that it was. What it should be, When it proved otherwise? More than his father’s death, that thus hath put him When the king admits that he cannot remember So much from th’understanding of himself, an instance of Polonius’ being wrong and asks
118 Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 13, 2016
Construing Hamlet how they may test his hypothesis, Polonius pro- that a sexual image occurs to him. The construct poses that they arrange a meeting between Ham- theorist is quite willing to construe people and let and Ophelia while Polonius and the king hide characters under constructs of sexuality but in- behind an arras to mark the encounter. Polonius sists that other constructs also may be necessary is even willing to make a jocular bet on his pre- in order to understand the character or person diction, so sure is he: more fully. Hamlet in his conversation with Polonius ... if he love her not, takes a great risk of revealing that he is not mad; And be not from his reason fallen thereon, he ventures very close to manifesting his sanity Let me be no assistant for a state, to Polonius but gambles that he knows the old But keep a farm and carters. man’s construct system well enough to draw him out and still defeat Polonius’ probing of his as- Just as the king agrees to try the scheme, Hamlet sumed love-madness. Polonius unconsciously enters, reading a book. We can, if we like, sus- takes up Hamlet’s sexual imagery, since it seems pect that he has heard part of the conversation, to fit in with what he wants to believe, when he but whether he has or not, he is clearly suspi- says in his aside to the audience, “How pregnant cious of Polonius. When Polonius asks Hamlet if sometimes his replies are! a happiness that often he knows him, Hamlet answers that he is a fish- madness hits on, which reason and sanity could monger. When Polonius denies that calling, not so prosperously be delivered of [italics Hamlet counters with “Then I would you were mine]. I will leave him, and suddenly contrive so honest a man” (2.2.174). When we consider the means of meeting between him and my that fishmongers are notorious for swearing that daughter” (2.2.203-07). their wares are fresh when they are not, we can But before the meeting between Hamlet and see the depths of Hamlet’s skepticism about Po- Ophelia, the audience must deal with Hamlet’s lonius. Hamlet reveals so many cogent con- encounter with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. structs in riddles while keeping up his “antic dis- Shakespeare has cleverly used the structure of position” that even Polonius has to realize that his play both to allow us to predict, and to throw “Though this be madness, yet there is method us off balance. In this respect his plot is surely a in’t” (2.2.200). close representation of life, for he allows us to One of the points that encourages Polonius, construe characters in situations, form some con- however, is Hamlet’s “harping on his daughter.” structs about them, make some predictions about Like Freud, Jones and Lacan, Polonius can see in them and then makes us wait, just as we must Hamlet’s remarks about Polonius’ daughter often do in real life, to test those predictions. The (“Let her not walk i’th sun. Conception is a scenes are cleverly interwoven in order to sepa- blessing, but as your daughter may conceive – rate prediction from validation. Just as we begin Friend, look to’t” [2.2.182-83]) only sexual aber- to construe the relationship between Polonius ration, obsession and compulsion, and not what and Hamlet and Hamlet and Ophelia we are the sexual image conceals through Hamlet’s forced to reconsider the predictions we made adroit double entendre which reverses the usual about how Hamlet would greet Rosencrantz and process of the trope and states in apparently ris- Guildenstern. qué sexual terms the even more indecent manip- When Rosencrantz and Guildenstern enter ulation and use of Ophelia by her father and the just as Polonius is about to exit, it seems that king. The construct theorist, in contrast to the Hamlet, in accordance with the queen’s predic- psychoanalytic theorist, might interpret Hamlet’s tion, will greet them with sincere happiness to trope about conception in this manner: Let see them. When Hamlet asks, “How do you Ophelia not walk in enlightenment (the sun) or both?” Guildenstern clearly tries to identify with she may understand (conceive) what is going on Hamlet. He seems to predict that it would not do in your and the king’s exploitation of her. Look to appear too happy or afford too much contrast to it! Since Hamlet’s feelings for Ophelia have to the reputedly melancholy prince, and so he been both romantic and sexual it is no wonder answers, “Happy in that we are not over-happy;
119 Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 13, 2016
Cintra Whitehead
On Fortune’s cap we are not the very button” trap for the “conscience of the king” by having (2.2.220-21). the players play “The Murder of Gonzago,” so As the conversation continues, complete with that he can watch the king’s reaction to a re- sexual puns and pseudo-jolly-good-fellowship, enactment of the former king’s murder by his Hamlet questions them more in particular about brother. Hamlet’s “Oh what a rogue and peasant why they have come to “prison” in Denmark. slave am I” soliloquy which is usually cited as When they reply that it does not seem a prison to evidence of Hamlet’s disgust at his delay in them, Hamlet answers as many construct theo- avenging his father’s murder, must be examined rists might, “Why then, ‘tis none to you, for carefully by the construct theorist. It comes just there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking after Hamlet has instructed Polonius to “see the makes it so. To me it is a prison” (2.2.239-40). players well bestowed.” When Polonius answers (Or as George Kelly said, "Because he can rep- that he will use them according to their desert, resent the environment, he can place alternative Hamlet says, construction upon it and, indeed, do something about it if it doesn’t suit him. To the living crea- “God’s bodkin man, much better. Use every man ture then, the universe is real, but it is not inexo- after his desert and who shall scape whipping? rable unless he chooses to construe it that way" Use them after your own honour and dignity; the [Kelly, 1955, 1:8]). When Rosencrantz and less they deserve, the more merit is in your boun- Guildenstern insist that they have come only to ty.” visit Hamlet, he becomes more specific, “Were (2.2.485-88) you not sent for? Is it your own inclining? Is it a free visitation? Come, deal justly with me. Hamlet, it seems, is trying to follow his own ad- Come, come. Nay, speak” (2.2.261-62). When vice. The construct theorist begins to suspect that they still evade his question, Hamlet states his Hamlet is behaving, or trying to behave, toward construction of their visit: “You were sent for – Claudius and Gertrude, toward Polonius and and there is a kind of confession in your looks Ophelia, and toward Rosencrantz and Guilden- which your modesties have not craft enough to stern as well, with a strange kind of hostility – a colour. 1 know the good king and queen have hostility that is well understood from a Kellyan sent for you” (2.2.264-67). point of view, for he is indeed trying to extort Finally they confess that they were sent for. from these people in his life validation for a pre- And like a true construct theorist again, Hamlet diction that has already failed (Kelly, 1955 states his interpretation of their visit, “I will tell 1:510-14). Hamlet, who wants to be a good and you why. So shall my anticipation prevent your just man – a man who at least tries to use people discovery, and your secrecy to the king and according to his honour and dignity and not ac- queen moult no feather” (2.2.278-79). Hamlet cording to their failings – is trying to extort tells them of his melancholy; they to cheer him goodness, loyalty, and honesty from those whose tell him that a troupe of players are on their way frailty, pride, arrogance, or evil make it impossi- to the castle. Just before Polonius comes to an- ble for them to validate Hamlet’s wishful predic- nounce the arrival of the players, Hamlet, on tion of their behavior. In the construct theorist’s impulse it seems, tells Rosencrantz and Guilden- view of Hamlet, the protagonist prince does not stern, “ – but my uncle-father and aunt-mother delay because he cannot bring himself to punish are deceived ... I am but mad north-northwest. the man who has done the evil he unconsciously When the wind is southerly, I know a hawk from wanted to do, but because he cannot bear to cut a handsaw” (2.2.344-48). Does he speak on im- off all hope of validation of his prediction of pulse, or is he ready to have word get back to the goodness which has failed. Although his pro- king and queen that his madness is feigned? We phetic soul tells him otherwise, he hopes to be must reserve judgment and wait for more evi- proved wrong in his suspicions of evil and dence. proved right in his hopes for redemption of those Hamlet’s welcome to the players is clearly who have erred. He does indeed doubt the ghost sincere, and he seizes the opportunity to set the and in having the mousetrap play performed
120 Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 13, 2016
Construing Hamlet hopes to settle his doubts that the ghost abuses types of cycle but is unable to complete either of him to damn him. Hamlet in this soliloquy has them (Kelly 1955, 2:1061-63). rattled to the honest ghost end of his construct Kelly notes in Hamlet’s need to arrange the about the apparition and is thinking in terms of mousetrap play, his inability to articulate his the ghost’s reliability, although only moments problem clearly in words. Referring to his before at the devil sent to damn end of the con- Choice Corollary, Kelly points out that although struct, realizing that he is not sure of the reality Hamlet moves toward an elaborative choice he of the situation, he has arranged the mousetrap retreats into circumspection and fails to take ac- play in order to prove to himself that Claudius is tion early in the play. Kelly sees Hamlet, howev- guilty as the ghost says he is. Even at the honest er, moving toward a tightening of his constructs ghost end of the construct where vengeance which will lead him into impulsive action. Turn- seems appropriate, Hamlet cannot forget what it ing from Hamlet to clinical theory, Kelly con- feels like to be at the other end of the construct, cludes that although tightening of one’s con- and since this construct is subordinate to the structs is necessary to action, if such action is construct which determines his treating others premature it may lead to disastrous results according to his own honour and dignity rather (Kelly, 1955, 2:1063). And indeed so it is with than according to their deserts, he cannot and Hamlet, as we shall see when we come to the will not act vengefully unless and until further scene in which Hamlet stabs Polonius as he evidence of the King’s treachery changes the hides behind the arras in Gertrude’s bedroom. structure of his construct System. Although Kelly does not discuss the fact that The king now, in talking to Rosencrantz and the action of the mousetrap play is to be present- Guildenstern, seems no longer to doubt that ed in dumb show before it is presented with dia- Hamlet is feigning madness. We may assume logue, it is clean from a construct view that that they have told him that Hamlet has said that Hamlet is dealing with preverbal constructs and he is mad only north-north west, for at the be- that he is hoping somehow to elicit preverbal ginning of act 3 the king says to them, “And can constructs from those who witness the dumb you by no drift of circumstance / get from him show before the mousetrap play begins. We sus- why he puts on this confusion, / Grating so pect that Hamlet senses that the mime perfor- harshly all his days of quiet / with turbulent and mance that begins the play can, perhaps more dangerous lunacy?” (3.1.1-4). Receiving no de- clearly than the lines he is to insert in the play, finitive answer from Rosencrantz and Guilden- clarify other issues for him as well as the issue of stern, the king sends them back to Hamlet to en- the king’s guilt. courage him to enjoy the players, and turns to Hamlet’s attempt to order his construct sys- Polonius and his plot to eavesdrop on Hamlet tem in the “to be or not to be” soliloquy is inter- and Ophelia. rupted by the arrival of Ophelia, whom Hamlet Just before the meeting between Hamlet and apparently still thinks of hopefully and affec- Ophelia, the audience finds Hamlet alone and tionately, for when he sees her coming he says to hears his famous “to be or not to be” soliloquy. himself, “The fair Ophelia. – Nymph, in thy George Kelly commented on this passage at orisons / Be all my sins remembered” (3.1.89- length, exploring whether Hamlet was involved 90). As the interview progresses, however, it in a Creativity Cycle (which is characterized by becomes clear to Hamlet that he cannot extort loosely organized constructs which might lead to from Ophelia the loyalty he desires and by the an assortment of predictions but ends with tight- end of the interview he construes her no longer ening of construction and a validated prediction) as nymph but as breeder of sinners or as a wan- or in a Circumspection-Preemption-Control Cy- ton. cle (which involves propositional thinking, con- The audience is far better acquainted with sideration of an element under one superordinate Hamlet’s construct system than with Ophelia’s construct rather than under many, and a control when their meeting takes place in act 3, scene 2. choice which leads the individual into action). Not only have we followed Hamlet closely Kelly’s view is that Hamlet is involved in both throughout the play but we have his “To be or
121 Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 13, 2016
Cintra Whitehead not to be” soliloquy just before the meeting. We him, obedient to her father and the king, and would do well, however, to pause a moment to compliant to the queen’s wishes? And to make consider what constructs Ophelia must bring matters worse, it seems to the audience that with her. Perhaps Ophelia appears so inane Hamlet knows or at least suspects that the king and/or mindlessly wanton in so many produc- and Polonius are conducting one of their “lawful tions, precisely because no one has stopped to espials,” and plans to use this occasion as a test consider what she must be thinking or feeling at of Ophelia’s loyalty to him while maintaining this moment; or if anyone has, it seems he has his facade of madness. considered only her sex life and little else. The Hamlet upsets Ophelia’s precarious balance construct theorist/critic, however, will consider immediately, for when she tries to return certain that Ophelia has been through a rather discon- “remembrances” to him he denies that he ever certing time lately. The death of King Hamlet gave her anything. She insists that he knows that certainly would have distressed her, and she he did, and adds – rather wistfully – “And with must have been confused by the queen’s mar- them words of so sweet breath composed / As riage to her former brother-in-law. Ophelia’s made the things more rich ...” (3.1.97-99). Ham- own brother Laertes has come home from France let may be moved, he may simply want to con- for the king’s funeral and the wedding of the tinue with his test, but he asks “... are you hon- new king and queen and has no doubt upset her est?” (3.1.103). It has often been remarked by daily schedule, and has even taken it upon him- critics that the word honest in Elizabethan times self to give her big-brotherly advice. Hamlet has carried the connotation of chastity, but there is come home from Wittenberg and has wooed her, no doubt that it also carried the meaning that we but has then descended into a strange melan- understand most commonly today – that is a choly which she does not understand. Her father quality of being honorable and especially being has reinforced her brother’s doubts about Ham- sincere, candid and truthful. Hamlet, it seems, let’s intentions toward her and has told her to chooses again to speak in double entendre, using have nothing to do with the prince, and Hamlet sexual imagery to convey his deeper meaning. has come to her at least once in a condition Hamlet seems to be trying to give Ophelia a which leads her to doubt his sanity. Now her chance to be truthful and candid with him. When father and the king are using her as a decoy and she does not seem to understand he rephrases the she knows that they will be seeing and hearing question, asking “Are you fair?” (3.1.105). Fair all that passes between her and Hamlet. She is has a double meaning too. It can mean good to aware of her father’s theory that it is Hamlet’s look upon or, like honest, can mean truthful and love for her that has driven him mad and she just. Ophelia still does not understand or pre- must feel a strange mixture of guilt, power, and tends not to understand what Hamlet is asking. helplessness about all this. To crown it all, the He tries again, “... if you be honest and fair, your queen has just said to her, honesty should admit no discourse to your beau- ty” (3.1.107-08). And still Ophelia parries; And for your part, Ophelia, I do wish knowing that the king and her father are listen- That your good beauties be the happy cause ing, the best she can offer is the rhetorical ques- Of Hamlet’s wildness; so shall 1 hope your vir- tion, “could beauty, my lord, have better com- tues merce than with honesty?” (3.1.110). She is after will bring him to his wonted way again, all her father’s daughter. To both your honours. But Hamlet has given her her chance to indi- (3.1.39-42) cate that she knows she is being used as a decoy and she has failed the test. If she were to so Ophelia must be carrying a terrible burden of much as lift an eyebrow to indicate the presence responsibility and must be having a very difficult of the king and Polonius, Hamlet could trust her time in construing the tangled affairs in which and think her honest and fair in all senses of she finds herself and in sorting out her loyalties. those words, but he sees it is not to be and re- How is she to act towards Hamlet to be fair to gretfully says, “Ay truly, for the power of beauty
122 Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 13, 2016
Construing Hamlet will sooner transform honesty from what it is to in so far as saying that that is certainly one bipo- a bawd than the force of honesty can translate lar construct which Hamlet applies to women. beauty into his likeness. This was sometime a We can hypothesize that Hamlet’s use of the paradox, but now the time gives it proof. I did word nunnery may indicate that he is trying to love you once” (3.1.111-14). construe Ophelia under one or the other of the Hamlet has tried to use Ophelia according to poles of that construct, but the construct does not his honor and dignity but she has refused to be carry for Hamlet an exclusively sexual meaning, so honored. And, frustrated in his attempt to gain although that too is included. Hamlet looks to Ophelia’s loyalty, hostilely trying to coerce her both his mother and Ophelia for some kind of to validate his prediction concerning her which loyalty, a love that includes a personal allegiance has already failed, he goes further and says, “I to him, a steadfastness of concern, but they, loved you not.” Ophelia’s “I was the more de- troubled by conflicting loyalties, are unable to ceived” (3.1.118), conveys something of a sad give him what he seeks. and confused dignity, for the audience under- Ophelia’s “Oh what a noble mind is here stands, if Hamlet does not, that poor Ophelia is o’erthrown!” (3.1.144) has a rich ironic meaning in an impossible situation and that her construct for the audience, for, although Ophelia really system is far more in shreds than Hamlet’s. believes Hamlet to be mad – what else can the And now when Hamlet again begins to speak poor girl think, not understanding that Hamlet we must decide if he is using double entendre or knows her father and Polonius are hidden, not if he means to be taken literally when he says understanding his double entendre tropes – the “Get thee to a nunnery” (3.1.119). As in the case Kellyan critic sees that Hamlet’s nobility is less- of the word honest, critics have been fond of ened (o’erthrown) by his adopting Polonius’ de- pointing out that the word nunnery often was vious methods which Hamlet despises and yet used in Elizabethan times to mean its exact op- uses. Indeed, he has just set the trap with the posite – brothel (Jones, 1954 [1910], , 97). I be- players to “catch the conscience of the King.” In lieve that Hamlet means here just what he says accordance with the established pattern, he can- and that from this point to the end of the scene not trust his own perceptions but must enlist Ho- he speaks quite literally in asking, “Why would ratio to check his observations of Claudius’ reac- thou be a breeder of sinners?” And after analyz- tion to the “Murder of Gonzago” which the play- ing his own faults and stating his bitter pessi- ers are to play out before the king. mism about male/female relationships, he sud- But though he has tried to maintain his cover denly demands, “Where’s your father?” There is of madness, and has succeeded with Ophelia, no reason for Hamlet to ask, unless he is again Hamlet has revealed himself to Claudius who testing Ophelia to see if directly confronted she now exclaims to Polonius “Love? His affections will be honest and fair. Again she fails the test do not that way tend; / Nor what he spake, for she answers, “At home, my lord.” Hamlet though it lack’d form a little, / Was not like answers, “Let the doors be shut upon him, that madness” (3.1.156-58). And Claudius, a man he may play the fool nowhere but in’s own who construes reality with a high degree of accu- house. Farewell.” When Ophelia cries, “O, help racy, determines to send Hamlet to England, os- him sweet heavens!” (3.1.128-29), he continues, tensibly to collect Denmark’s neglected tribute “If thou dost marry, I’11 give thee this plague but in fact to be executed. Polonius, however, for thy dowry: be thou as chaste as ice, as pure still is convinced that the origin of Hamlet’s as snow, thou shalt not escape calumny. Get thee grief has sprung from neglected love (the con- to a nunnery, go farewell. Or if thou wilt needs struct theorist would agree but not in Polonius’ marry, marry a fool; for wise men know well sense of the word love), and in order to test his enough what monsters you make of them” construct sets up the next turn of the plot by re- (3.1.131-35). Ernest Jones has said that Hamlet questing that after the play the queen call Hamlet childishly sees women in general and Ophelia in to her apartment and “entreat him to show his particular either as madonna or whore (Jones, grief” (3.1.-176-77), while Polonius hides behind 1954 [1910], 97); we can agree with him at least the arras to overhear their conversation. Again
123 Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 13, 2016
Cintra Whitehead
Shakespeare has used structure as well as con- Corollary (Kelly, 1955, 1:95-102). Furthermore tent to force the audience to predict what will Hamlet has revealed his sanity, has put aside his happen and wait for a validation of their predic- mask of madness since he has learned from the tions, for the mousetrap play intervenes and we mousetrap play that the ghost did not lie. Hamlet must test our hypotheses concerning that before is ready to act. we see what happens between Hamlet, his moth- When Polonius enters to remind Hamlet that er, and the spying Polonius. the queen is waiting for him, Hamlet baits Polo- It is Hamlet’s turn to watch the king who re- nius into agreeing that a cloud he points out is acts during the mousetrap play as Hamlet has shaped first like a camel, then like a weasel, and predicted. Horatio, alerted to the trap, confirms finally like a whale, but we suspect that Ham- Hamlet’s judgment of the king’s guilty response. let’s taunting of the old man is nothing more Hamlet now believes the ghost, and says, “O than a rather hostile brand of teasing, for his good Horatio, I’ll take the ghost’s word for a need to dissemble madness at this point is past. thousand pound” (3.2.260-61). The individual Left alone, he communicates his resolve to the reader or member of the audience must now pre- audience; he is now sure of the king’s guilt; he is dict whether or not Hamlet will construe events ready to move against him. “Now could I drink from now on under the honest ghost pole of his hot blood, / And do such bitter business as the construct, suspending or submerging the devil day / Would quake to look on” (3.2.35 1-53). sent to damn pole, or whether he will again slide But first he must go to his mother. In regard to to that other end of his construct. her he says, “Let me be cruel, not unnatural: / I Hamlet is still exulting over the validation of will speak daggers to her but use none.” his prediction concerning the king’s reaction to (3.2.357-58) the mousetrap play when Rosencrantz and Guil- But again we must be patient and return to denstern come to convey the queen’s command the king and his plotting with Rosencrantz and that Hamlet come to her. When Rosencrantz fur- Guildenstern, and, that finished, hear Polonius ther seeks to do the king’s bidding and questions tell the king that he is going to the queen’s Hamlet about “the cause of his distemper,” there apartment to hide behind the arras since, “‘Tis occurs a scene that strikes delight into the heart meet that some more audience than a mother, / of the construct theorist/critic for Hamlet picks Since nature makes them partial, should o’erhear up a recorder and tells Guildenstern to play upon / The speech of vantage” (3.3.31-33). And then it. When he protests that he cannot, Hamlet says, we see the king at his prayers. In his one solilo- quy, the king confesses to the audience his guilt, Why look you now how unworthy a thing you and communicates his clear realization that he make of me. You would play upon me, you would cannot be forgiven his sins, since he retains seem to know my stops, you would pluck out the those effects for which he did the murder – “My heart of my mystery, you would sound me from crown, mine own ambition, and my queen” my lowest note to the top of my compass – and (3.3.55). Evil though he is, Claudius does not there is much music, excellent voice in this little deceive himself about his evil. Here is no denial, organ, yet cannot you make it speak. ‘Sblood, do no unconscious defense of rationalization; no you think I am easier to be play’d on than a hiding from reality in his unconscious as we pipe? Call me what instrument you will, though would expect if Shakespeare agreed with Freud you can fret me, you cannot play upon me. and Jones about the repressed unconscious. And (3.2.329-36) his honest attempt to face his guilt in prayer saves the king’s life for the moment at least but Hamlet, construing Rosencrantz and Guilden- dooms Polonius, for Hamlet seeing Claudius at stern at a higher level than he has been con- prayer decides not to kill him and risk sending strued, expresses his resentment that they have him directly to heaven but wait until he is in sin, tried to do the same to him and articulates here, so that his soul will go to hell. in figurative language and in action, precisely Psychoanalytic critics have made much of what George Kelly expresses in his Sociality this ‘delay’ of Hamlet’s, but from a construct
124 Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 13, 2016
Construing Hamlet point of view there is no delay to be explained at meaning of the line. Hamlet, who has learned his this point. Hamlet was not sure until he saw the own style and strategy from Polonius, although king’s reaction to the mousetrap play that the he has at times construed him through a con- ghost had told him the truth about Claudius. struct one end of which was fool, would not have Now he is ready to “drink hot blood,” but not to expected Polonius to make such a strategic error. send Claudius straight to heaven. Freud and In view of Hamlet’s striking through the arras Jones are willing to insist that their view of at what he thinks is the king, the construct theo- Hamlet’s motivation is the only correct one; the rist can say that Hamlet’s alleged delay in construct theorist is ready to predict that as soon wreaking vengeance on the king is clearly far as Hamlet finds the king in a damning situation more the construct of psychoanalytically orient- from which his death will dispatch him to hell, ed critics than an element of Shakespeare’s play, he will strike to kill. for had Claudius been in Polonius’ place where Hamlet validates our prediction, for when he Hamlet thought he was he would now be dead, comes to his mother’s apartment and begins his and Shakespeare would have had to write a very emotional and psychological struggle with her different end to his play. The construct theo- for her allegiance, he soon becomes aware that rist/critic will make a prediction from the inci- someone lurks behind the arras. Who would it be dent of Hamlet’s killing the wrong person, how- but the king in the queen’s bedroom? The con- ever. He/she will look at Hamlet’s rash act and struct theorist will assume that Hamlet knew that predict that Hamlet will move more cautiously in both the king and Polonius were hidden in order the future, and perhaps now will delay action to spy on the meeting they had arranged between because he must construe Polonius’ death as a him and Ophelia, but Polonius’ daughter was disaster, not only for himself and his plans but involved in that. It is reasonable to suspect now, for Ophelia whom, say what he will, Hamlet only the king. The argument that the king has not once loved and still regrets. had time to come to the queen’s room (Jones, The construct theorist is entitled to believe 1954 [1910], 37) will not wash. Dramatic time is that Hamlet, as Shakespeare created him, must very hard to pin down. The change of scene in- have deep regret over his killing of Polonius, for, dicates a passage of time but it is difficult to tell in spite of the fact that his actions must have how much time has passed. We also do not know seemed malignant to others because of his hos- the architectural plan of the castle and what short tile attempts to extort from them the kind of vir- cuts might be available to Claudius that might tuous behavior he desires, he still desires to, and bring him to Gertrude’s room before Hamlet’s tries to, use people according to his own honor arrival. But even if Hamlet, upon reflection and dignity rather than according to their deserts might realize that it could not be the king behind as he sees them. Hamlet must construe Polonius’ the arras, his next guess would no doubt be Ros- death as a serious mistake and must predict from encrantz or Guildenstern or both. But there is not it that rash action is likely to lead to further mis- time for him to be, as Kelly would say, circum- takes. Hamlet will thus err in future through an spective. He acts instinctively with tightened excess of sophrosyne and not through hubris. construct. After stabbing through the drapery Hamlet has violated the rights of Polonius by with his sword, when he hears Polonius’ voice taking his life and this seems to be the one inci- cry “Oh, I am slain!” (3.4.25) and before he sees dent of hubris on Hamlet’s part in the play. the old man, Hamlet can only ask in answer to The construct theorist is likely to believe that, his mother’s “Oh me, what has thou done?" in spite of his rueful view of the event, Hamlet “Nay I know not, is it the king?” (3.4.25-26). He would construe the accidental nature of Poloni- clearly still hopes it is, although Polonius’ voice, us’ death as more regrettable than the fact that he not quite recognized, has caused him to doubt has killed the old man. We might even have rea- that it is the king. When Polonius’ body is re- son to believe that he may feel – because of his vealed, Hamlet’s “I took thee for thy better” stupidly rash intrusion into Hamlet’s affairs – (3.4.32) leaves little doubt that he has expected that Polonius deserved to be killed but that Ham- the king, though we cannot neglect the double let did not deserve to be the instrument of his
125 Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 13, 2016
Cintra Whitehead death. Hamlet does not repent of his treatment of it as the unhealthy relationship of a spoiled only Ophelia, for he offered her a chance to be honest son to his too indulgent mother. Construct theo- with him, and he does not in a later scene regret rists can easily admit that the relationship of sending Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to their Hamlet and Gertrude may include, as Kelly said, deaths, for there is no mistake about the fact that “vaguely incestuous” feelings (though I person- they have betrayed him willingly and knowingly. ally reject that interpretation); they can under- They have given up their rights to be treated as stand, too, that Hamlet, once secure in his posi- honorable men; Hamlet has not taken away those tion as only son of the reigning monarch and rights arbitrarily, and Hamlet has warned them in apple of his mother’s eye, may be feeling a the scene in which he invites them to play upon spoiled child’s jealousy over his mother’s recent the pipe as they have tried to play upon him that re-marriage, but those perceptions would only he will brook no further such attempts. He has enrich the primary construct view that Hamlet thus treated them and has treated Ophelia ac- intends to coerce his mother and as many others cording to his sense of honor. Hamlet has issued as possible into rectitude and loyalty to him. no such warning to Polonius, however, and has When the queen now demands to know what she construed him, at one end of his construct, as an has done, Hamlet begins seriously to present his annoying old dotard even while at the other end case. She has done, he says, he saw him as a skilled Lord Chamberlain and imitated his methods. We can now predict that Such an act Hamlet will be prudent indeed and will try to That blurs the grace and blush of modesty, avoid any action of which he cannot foresee the Calls virtue hypocrite, takes off the rose outcome. He will, however, continue to try to From the fair forehead of an innocent love extort goodness from those who have invalidated And sets a blister there, makes marriage vows his predictions of goodness in the past. As false as dicers’ oaths. Oh such a deed And Hamlet turns immediately from Poloni- As from the body of contraction plucks us’ body to his mother and redoubles his efforts The very soul, and sweet religion makes to extort virtue from her. At the beginning of the A rhapsody of words. Heaven’s face doth glow; interview with Gertrude, Hamlet plays word Yea, this solidity and compound mass, games with his mother. When she begins by say- With tristful visage, as against the doom, ing “Hamlet, thou hast thy father much offended Is thought-sick at the act. [meaning Claudius],” he counters with “Mother, (3.4.40-51) you have my father much offended [meaning the dead King Hamlet].” When she chides his seem- When the queen still does not seem to under- ing impertinence with “Come, come, you answer stand, Hamlet shows her pictures of his father with an idle tongue,” he parries with “Go, go, and his uncle, comparing them as he has done you question with a wicked tongue” (3.4.9-12). before in his own mind. His hostility – that Kellyan hostility that would extort virtue from the queen – is mistaken by Look here upon this picture, and on this, Gertrude for another more commonly under- The counterfeit presentment of two brothers. stood type of hostility that seems to intend her See what a grace was seated on this brow; personal injury, and her fear that Hamlet means Hyperion’s curls, the front of Jove himself, to murder her, and her cries for help call forth ...... the movement from Polonius that ends in his This was your husband. Look you now what fol- death. When Hamlet sees that he has killed Po- lows. lonius, however, he gives up his word games and Here is your husband, like a mildew’d ear his ironic jeering and becomes quite direct and Blasting his wholesome brother. Have you eyes? serious. Could you on this fair mountain leave to feed Psychoanalytic theorists see this scene as the And batten on this moor? Ha! have you eyes? epitome of seductive incestuous love between You cannot call it love, for at your age Gertrude and Hamlet. Adlerian critics would see The heyday in the blood is tame, it’s humble,
126 Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 13, 2016
Construing Hamlet
And waits upon the judgment; and what judg- own – or at least his view of his own – he con- ment tinues: Would step from this to this? (3.4.53-71) It will but skin and film the ulcerous place, Whiles rank corruption, mining all within, In true construct fashion, Hamlet puts his argu- Infects unseen. Confess yourself to heaven, ment in the form of making explicit the two con- Repent what’s past, avoid what is to come trasting poles of the bipolar construct through And do not spread the compost on the weeds which he construes his mother’s situation. He To make them ranker. Forgive me this my virtue, demands that she too construe King Hamlet and For in the fatness of these pursy times King Claudius through this same construct. He Virtue itself of vice must pardon beg ... clearly states a part of his own personality theo- (3.4.148-56) ry: When the queen exclaims that Hamlet has cleft ... madness would not err, her heart in twain he entreats her to throw away Nor sense to ecstasy was ne’er so thrall’d, the worser part and now consciously stating But it reserv’d some quantity of choice what he has been trying to extort from her, ad- To serve in such a difference. monishes his mother to “assume a virtue if you (3.4.71-75) have it not” (3.4.161). In a sketch of role playing that George Kelly would have understood and When Hamlet says that youth has no hope of described as an attempt to achieve movement virtue if “Rebellious hell” can “mutine in a ma- through exhortation (a kind of directive therapy tron’s bones,” so that “reason panders will” as opposed to non-directive) (Kelly, 1955, (3.4.82-88), Gertrude begins to succumb to 2:584), Hamlet says, in asking his mother to Hamlet’s argument. She begs him not to contin- move from the evil pole to the virtue pole of the ue for she says he has turned her eyes into her evil vs. virtue construct, very soul where she sees “... such black and grained spots / As will not leave their tinct” – but go not to my uncle’s bed; (3.4.90-91). Hamlet, sensing her weakening, Assume a virtue if you have it not. continues to accuse Claudius as “A murderer and ...... a villain, / A slave that is not twentienth part the ...... Refrain to-night; tithe / of your precedent lord ...” (3.4.97-99), but And that shall lend a kind of easiness he is interrupted by the ghost of King Hamlet To the next abstinence, the next more easy, who comes to whet his “almost blunted pur- For use almost can change the stamp of nature, pose.” Mere physical vengeance against Claudi- ...... us, it seems, is all that the dead king wants. (3.4.160-70) When the queen cannot see the ghost, she re- turns to the mad pole of the bipolar construct George Kelly would expect such exhortation to through which she has recently viewed Hamlet, produce only superficial movement: the other pole apparently being sane or more likely the old Hamlet or simply my Hamlet. The therapist [and Hamlet is playing therapist to Hamlet, in order to salvage the change he has his mother in this scene] who attempts to move a wrought in the queen’s construct system, must client by exhortation is essentially saying to him, protest his sanity. “Look, this is what I would do if I were in your place.” If the client is able to construe himself as Lay not that flattering unction to your soul, being like the therapist in some way, he may be That not your trespass but my madness speaks; able to cast himself in the new role. If not, the admonition is likely to fall on deaf ears. The par- And if we have any doubts about Hamlet’s inten- ticular kind of exhortation is actually a form of tion to extort virtue from the queen to match his construct formation, in that the client is asked to
127 Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 13, 2016
Cintra Whitehead identify his future self with the therapist and to Claudius that Hamlet, mad, in a lawless fit has contrast the two with his past self. killed Polonius. The king’s immediate reaction, (Kelly, 1955, 2:584-85) “It had been so if we had been there” (4.1.13), seems a masterpiece of understatement, but he is Hamlet as therapist and moral guide is asking the quick enough to turn the event to his own ad- queen to identify her future self with him and vantage and point out that Hamlet, mad, is a contrast this self with her former self. He is not danger to everyone and on this basis rationalizes concerned that he is being authoritarian as a his plot to send Hamlet to England, ostensibly modern therapist might. He can only hope that for his own good, actually, without Gertrude’s once set upon a virtuous course of action, the knowledge, to be put to death. queen will deal constructively and elaboratively with the new situations which Hamlet at this point no doubt means to provide. OPHELIA’S MADNESS Before he leaves his mother Hamlet realizes that he must maintain that facade of madness Ophelia, the one person who seems to have be- which he had earlier been ready to abandon, be- lieved completely in Hamlet’s madness, has now cause now that he has killed Polonius he is sure been driven mad herself. It is the death of her to be the object of the king’s retaliation – not father at Hamlet’s hands that seems to have de- only because Hamlet has killed his confederate stroyed her wits, but the construct theorist will but because the king will understand that Hamlet see that calamity simply as the last straw which meant to kill him. For his own protection Hamlet caused the collapse. Freud and Jones say surpris- makes one stipulation. The queen’s compliance ingly little about Ophelia’s madness – one would with his request will be a test by which both he have expected them to diagnose – but then and the audience will construe the change, if Ophelia, being a woman, commands relatively any, which Hamlet has wrought in the queen. little interest. Freud and Jones are much more Hamlet’s stipulation is stated thus in answer to interested in Hamlet’s attitude toward Ophelia the queen’s “What shall I do?” than in Ophelia herself. Lacan calls her “that piece of bait” (Lacan, [1959] 1977, 11), and is Not this by no means that I bid you do: more concerned with turning her name – with no Let the bloat king tempt you again to bed, etymological basis – into 0 phallos than with her Pinch wanton an your cheek, call you his mouse; character. Mairet, the Adlerian critic, barely And let him, for a pair of reechy kisses, mentions her. The construct theorist, however, Or paddling in your neck with his damned fin- finds her an intriguing character because the gers, Kellyan theorist asks, how must Denmark and Make you ravel all this matter out, the characters of the play be construed by Ophe- That 1 essentially am not in madness, lia. What does she expect to happen and what But mad in craft ... can she control? We have already examined her (3.4.183-89) construct system to some extent, but we need now to review and extend our understanding of The queen answers, “Be thou assur’d, if words Ophelia. be made of breath And breath of life, I have no Ophelia must have grown up protected and life to breathe what thou hast said to me” secure. Denmark has apparently been at peace (3.4.198-200). We can predict that the queen will since the battle with Norway was concluded on or will not keep her promise to Hamlet but we the day young Hamlet was born. Her father has have not long to wait to test our predictions. held a high position of trust and though her own As act 4 begins we see the king, the queen, mother is evidently dead she has not lacked for a Rosencrantz and Guildenstern enter and hear the feminine role model, for she has been close king ask Gertrude about her son’s whereabouts. enough to Queen Gertrude, it seems, to be held Sending Rosencrantz and Guildenstern away, the in daughterly esteem by her. queen, keeping her promise to Hamlet, tells But then unexpected events began to happen.
128 Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 13, 2016
Construing Hamlet
The first of these was the sudden death of King her seemingly meaningless patter, for once she is Hamlet and then Gertrude’s unforeseen marriage in the presence of the queen – who refuses to see to Claudius. Still these events of themselves her until Horatio reminds her that “’Twere good would not have seemed a direct threat to the she were spoken with; for she may strew dan- young girl. But then Hamlet has come home be- gerous conjectures in ill-breeding minds” cause of his father’s death, and his attentions to (4.5.14-15) – she sings a little verse that indirect- her and his behavior have both flattered her and ly points up the need to construe and predict: troubled her. Her older brother has taken it upon himself to advise her to be wary with Hamlet How should I your true love know and her father has forbidden her to see him, so From another one? that she has begun to feel very confused indeed. By his cockle hat and staff, She had made predictions that she would be And his sandal shoon. Hamlet’s wife; now she has been told that such (4.5.23-26) predictions cannot be expected to come true. Now, too, there is talk of war and the whole Readers have been fond of asking why it is that kingdom seems to be disordered. Hamlet’s ec- an innocent young girl then sings in her madness centricity suddenly has seemed to become overt a seemingly irrelevant bawdy ballad. It seems to madness and he has broken in upon her in a some to indicate that Ophelia is not so innocent manner that frightens her. When she has dutiful- after all. The construct theorist would go a step ly told her father about it, he has jumped to the further and ask why the bawdy ballad that she conclusion that Hamlet is mad with love for her sings is about the seduction and betrayal of a and she has found herself being used as a decoy young girl. The ballad goes like this: to determine if that is so, and she has had to try to talk to Hamlet while the king and her father Tomorrow is Saint Valentine’s day, hid themselves to listen and observe. The queen All in the morning betime, has said that if her beauties have driven Hamlet And I a maid at your window, mad it is to be hoped that her virtues will bring To be your Valentine. him to himself again. She must do what her fa- ther and the king and queen expect of her, but Then up he rose, and donned his clothes she cannot be devoid of feelings for Hamlet. And dupped the chamber-door; Now when he speaks to her cruelly, crudely, and Let in the maid that out a maid tauntingly in riddles she does not understand, she Never departed more. can only assume that he is truly mad and beg heaven for him. Claudius: Pretty Ophelia! And then Hamlet kills her father. She must wonder how much she might be to blame. It Ophelia: Indeed la! Without an oath I`ll make an must seem to her that there is indeed a Maniche- end on’t. an Devil running the universe, changing not only the rules but the game itself every time she dares By Gis and by Saint Charity, a gambit. Ophelia has not one person to whom Alack, and fie for shame, she can turn for support. Hamlet has rejected her, Young men will do’t if they come to’t. and she must now consider him an enemy of her By Cock, they are to blame. family; her brother is in France, but if he were at home he would only lecture her; her father is Quoth she "Before you tumbled me, dead; the queen is not accessible to her. Ophelia You promis’d me to wed. « can neither construe her world nor predict one event that will happen in it. She has no control He answers: over her life, but has been exploited by everyone she trusted. No wonder she is as Shakespeare “So would I ‘ha done, by yonder sun, puts it, “distracted.” Her confusion is mirrored in And thou hadst not come to my bed.”
129 Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 13, 2016
Cintra Whitehead
(4.5.48-66) sibilities of the flowers called “dead men’s fin- gers”), fails to understand the language of flow- Just as Hamlet has done in his feigned madness, ers and the ballads Ophelia sings, and rejects Ophelia in her genuine delirium uses an upside- Ophelia’s attempt to make some sense of the down double entendre trope with the usually world and communicate her trials. Laertes sees disguised risqué sexual content made explicit in only that, “She turns to favour and to prettiness” order to represent deeper, preverbal constructs (4.5.184). concerning betrayal and exploitation. Ophelia is Laertes is more interested in revenge than in vaguely aware that like the maid in the ballad his sister’s troubles, and Claudius, anxious that she has misunderstood the rules of the game. She that revenge shall not be directed toward him, has tried to comply with what she thought was plots to justify himself in Laertes’ view. Hamlet, expected of her and has been rejected, exploited Claudius believes, is on his way to England and and bereaved by those she believed she could to death and the king must predict that if he can trust. control Laertes, he can resolve the crisis. He will And like Hamlet, there is method in her mad- not hesitate to use Polonius’ death and Ophelia’s ness too, though not the calculated method of an madness to his own advantage against Hamlet. antic disposition but the natural method of a hu- man mind trying to construe, trying to represent what it has no verbal constructs to represent. HAMLET RETURNS Ophelia in her distraction talks a great deal about knowing; she poses enigmas and says things that Horatio and the audience learn before Claudius she could never say were she deemed responsi- does that Hamlet has returned. To Horatio and ble. For instance when the king asks, “How do the audience Hamlet reveals that he has discov- you pretty lady?” Ophelia answers, [and if I ered the plot to send him to his death, and has were directing the play she would answer with contrived to provide Rosencrantz and Guilden- some asperity, not with the wistful gentleness so stern with a counterfeit commission that orders often imposed upon her] “Well God dild you! their execution as soon as they arrive in England, They say the owl was a baker’s daughter. Lord, and has escaped their ship by boarding a pirate we know what we are, but know not what we ship during a brief skirmish. Hamlet sends letters may be. God be at your table” (4.5.42-44). The to the king which arrive while Claudius is en- need to know, that is to construe and predict, gaged in convincing Laertes that Hamlet alone shows clearly through Ophelia’s deranged wits, was to blame for Polonius’ death and that he in- for when the king offers a diagnosis, “Conceit tended to kill the king as well. When Laertes upon her father,” she counters with “Pray let’s questions the king about why he did not proceed have no words of this; but when they ask you against Hamlet, the king answers that there are what it means, say you this:” and she begins the two reasons: ballad about betrayal which I have printed above. The queen his mother And Ophelia has found another way of strug- Lives almost by his looks, and for myself, gling with and expressing her preverbal con- My virtue or my plague, be it either which, structs – i.e., through the language of flowers. She’s so conjunctive to my life and soul After her brother Laertes arrives, she offers That, as the star moves not but in his sphere, rosemary for remembrance, pansies for thoughts, I could not but by her. The other motive, fennel and columbines, daisies and rue – espe- Why to a public count I might not go, cially rue – (“We may call it herb of grace a Is the great love the general gender bear him... Sundays. O, you must wear your rue with a dif- (4.7.11-18) ference” (4.5.178]). The well-established lan- guage of flowers must serve as constructs Claudius, as all skillful plotters do, tells the truth through which to represent her world. Laertes whenever he can. When Laertes vows revenge, (like Lacan who can only grasp the phallic pos- however, he cannot risk telling him that Ham-
130 Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 13, 2016
Construing Hamlet let’s death in England is already arranged. The acceptance of the dueling weapons. And if the queen might hear of it. He says merely that “You king has any doubt about Laertes resolve, it is must not think that we are made of stuff so flat dispelled by the queen’s announcement that his and dull / That we can let our beard be shook sister Ophelia has drowned. The audience’s with danger and think it pastime. You shortly tense anticipation of the duel to come between shall hear more” (4.7.33). Claudius’ prediction is Hamlet and Laertes is now drawn out by the fa- validated immediately. mous Graveyard Scene. They do indeed hear more, but not what Claudius expects to hear, for a letter from Ham- let is now brought to him. The construct theorist THE GRAVEYARD SCENE will see that the letter Hamlet has written is well calculated to upset Claudius’ construct system Ernest Jones says very little about the Graveyard and his predictions. Hamlet says that he is “Set Scene. Because he is primarily interested in fi- naked” on Claudius’ kingdom and that he will nessing the play to agree with his and Freud’s come tomorrow to recount the occasion of his view of it as an expression of the oedipal com- “sudden and more strange return.” A postscript plex, Jones seems barely to perceive this scene says “alone” (4.7.43-46;50). Claudius is human (and several others for that matter), for he is able enough to allow his difficulty in construing the to extort little oedipal material from it. Jacques letter to be apparent to Laertes, but recovers con- Lacan talks about the Graveyard Scene at some trol and, using Laertes’ desire for revenge, con- length in terms of mourning, the object of desire, cocts a final plot against Hamlet. and “the veiled phallus – the signifier that can be The king construes Hamlet extraordinarily purchased only with your own flesh and your well and decides to play upon Hamlet’s pride in own blood” (Lacan, [1959] 1977, 38), and K. R. his swordsmanship by setting others to praise Eissler calls the Graveyard Scene “the peak Laertes’ skill. Hamlet, to defend his honor, the point of the play” (Eissler, 1971, 402). When he king knows, will allow himself to be manipulat- discusses Osric’s part in it (Eissler, 1971, 402- ed into a duel with Laertes. Laertes need have no 03), however, I begin to wonder if we are talking fear that Hamlet will win, for the king will ar- about the same scene, for Osric does not appear range it so that Laertes may kill him. Claudius at all in act 5, scene 1 which is the Graveyard states one of his constructs concerning Hamlet Scene, but does his sinister comic bit in scene 2 and makes a prediction about his behavior based which takes place, not in the graveyard, but in on this construct: the Castle. I will limit my discussion of the Graveyard Scene to the events which take place He being remiss, in act 5, scene 1 and will consider Osric when Most generous, and free from all contriving, we come to him in the following scene. Will not peruse the foils, so that with ease, As in many other instances, construct theory Or with a little shuffling, you may choose does not have to disprove or invalidate another A sword unbated, and in a pass of practice view in order to assert its own view; construct Requite him for your father. theory can simply subsume as much of any other (4.7.133-38) as seems appropriate. For instance, Eissler’s dis- cussion of the Graveyard Scene in which he In case this plan should fail, the king will have takes into account what he calls a “three-layered ready a poisoned cup to offer Hamlet when he structure” (Eissler, 1971, 402) has much of value becomes hot and calls for drink. The construct in it. The gravediggers might indeed be seen as theorist, aware of the evil of Claudius, cannot representatives of a realistic or naturalistic view help but admire his ability to construe accurately of death, Hamlet’s ruminations do seem to pro- and predict and control, for knowing Hamlet’s vide a metaphysical view, and Ophelia’s funeral view that he should use others according to his does present “the shattering actuality of death’s own honor and dignity we do not doubt that presence”. When Eissler begins to talk of the Claudius is right about Hamlet’s unquestioning “highly cathected imagery referring to life and
131 Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 13, 2016
Cintra Whitehead death” (Eissler, 1971, 403), the construct theo- strue not only Ophelia but salvation vs. damna- rist/critic must politely say he is not much inter- tion and perhaps Christianity as well. The ested in the concept of ‘cathexis,’ for he is con- clowns’ pseudo-juridical arguments, complete vinced that the idea of an investment of emo- with decomposed Latin affectations like se tional energy in an idea or image is an unfortu- offendendo – so meaningful in its naivete – for nate reification of an intervening variable se defendendo, and argal in place of ergo (5.1.8- adapted from the physical sciences and will be- 11), distract us from death and make us laugh at lieve, like George Kelly, that “that which is con- the incongruous, case-hardened disinterest with sidered by the analysts as ‘emotional’ is often which they prepare a grave for a fellow mortal. better understood merely as that which is not As Hamlet has done in earlier scenes, they deal word-bound” (Kelly, 1955, 2:803). in riddles. Indeed, the two gravediggers, the first The construct theorist, then, is likely to see the leader and chief jokester, the second the loy- the highly verbal graveyard scene in Hamlet as a al follower, may be perceived as parodies of masterpiece of representing imagistically and Hamlet and Horatio, forming an opposite pole to connotatively in words and in action (certainly our imagistic construct through which we con- there are ‘sight gags’ in Shakespeare’s tragedy) strue the prince and his noble friend. that which cannot be stated directly in denotative And indeed when Hamlet arrives with Hora- words. Bipolar constructs are presented tio, he does take up, in a more exalted vein and imagistically from the very beginning. As soon in more dignified diction, themes similar to those as the audience realizes that the two Clowns who which the clowns have been developing. And he enter are grave diggers and that they are digging too assumes an air of disinterested inquiry into Ophelia’s’ grave, the contrast between the death. When the gravedigger throws skulls up young, beautiful, delicate, and aristocratic Ophe- onto the stage, Hamlet can speculate whether lia and the coarse, contentious, insensitive each, as it arrives at his feet, might have be- bumpkins who are alive while she is dead take longed to a politician, a courtier, or a lawyer and control of the scene. can invent amusing ironies to divert himself, The type of word play most prevalent in the Horatio, and the audience form a closer perusal scene is punning which by a construct definition of death while still offering constructs relevant involves subsuming one word under at least two to human life and death. But finally they come to constructs. In addition to the punning, Shake- the skull of Yorick, and when the gravedigger speare seems to invite the audience to try to con- names the skull and reminds Hamlet of the strue characters, and, by extension humankind in king’s fester, Hamlet begins to be less objective, general, under constructs of their rank and sta- for he remembers Yorick. Even so, his grief is tion in life contrasted to the absurdity of these in remote and philosophical rather than immediate the face of death; e.g., consider one of Hamlet’s and emotional; he can throw down Yorick’s musings: skull in disgust at its evil smell and go on to more half-playful, half-ironic talk of Alexander’s Why may that not be the skull of a lawyer? dust stopping the bung-hole of a barrel of beer. Where be his quiddities now, his quillets, his The turn in the scene comes now, as Ophe- cases, his tenures, and his tricks? Why does he lia’s funeral procession enters. Hamlet must rec- buffer this rude knave now to knock him about ognize that it is some member of the royal the sconce with a dirty shovel, and will not tell household who is to be buried, for the first per- him of his action of battery? son he sees is the king. He recognizes that the (5.1.83-87) rites that the members of the royal party are of- fering are “maimed” and that the corpse “with The first Clown begins the scene with the mar- desperate hand [did] fordo its own life” (5.1.187- velously ironic question about Ophelia for whom 88). He further realizes that the dead person is they prepare the grave, “Is she to be buried in “of some estate.” He would not think it strange Christian burial, when she willfully seeks her that Laertes is among the party, for he would own salvation?” (5.1.1-2). We are asked to con- have been sent for upon the death of Polonius. It
132 Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 13, 2016
Construing Hamlet is not until Laertes chides the churlish priest and in Ophelia, would have found reason to doubt says, “I tell thee ... a minist’ring angel shall my that all women are as frail in their commitments sister be when thy liest howling” (5.1.207-08) as his mother seems. Ophelia’s love and loyalty that Hamlet realizes that it is Ophelia’s funeral might not only have distracted him from his ob- which he is witnessing. Each reader, actor, or session with an unrealistic revenge on Claudius director must decide for him/herself why Horatio but might have helped him determine on a realis- has not told Hamlet of Ophelia’s madness and tic cleansing of Denmark. Perhaps just because death. Horatio was present at the first “mad” Laertes does experience some guilt, he now, scene and was ordered by Claudius to follow leaps into Ophelia’s grave and calls down curses Ophelia and watch her closely (4.5.73), so that on Hamlet’s head: we assume that he knows of her death as well as of her madness. This seeming fault in the plot O, treble woe may arise more from a textual than an artistic Fall ten times treble on that cursed head lapse, but should be noted. At any rate, Hamlet Whose wicked deed thy most ingenious sense has not heard of these events and the unexpect- Depriv’d thee of! ...... edness of Ophelia’s death and the manner of his ...... learning of it cannot fail to move him in some Now pile your dust upon the quick and dead ... way. (5.1.213-16) The construct theorist must also note that it does not seem that Laertes and Polonius con- Hamlet, stung into action as much by the curse, strued and predicted very accurately when early we suspect, as by his grief over Ophelia’s death in the play they warned Ophelia that Hamlet was now comes forward and declares himself. What merely trifling with her affections and that he seems to some to be Hamlet’s hypocrisy is un- would have to marry someone else whose station derstood in a construct view as his once more more nearly matched his own, for the queen now rattling from one end of a construct to another. scatters flowers on the grave and says, Hamlet has suddenly bolted from one pole of his construct concerning Ophelia which seems to Sweets to the sweet farewell. have been something like frail, disloyal, or even I hoped thou shouldst have been my Hamlet’s perhaps (figuratively) whore to the opposite pole wife. beloved. The construct theorist/critic will be in- 1 thought thy bride-bed to have decked, sweet terested that during the fight at the grave with maid, Laertes, Hamlet tells him how to construe him: And not t’have strew’d thy grave. (5.1.210-13) For though I am not splenitive and rash, Yet have 1 in me something dangerous Laertes seems unwilling to see or at least to ad- Which let thy wiseness fear. mit that he is at least partly responsible for his (5.1.228-30) sister’s death. If he had kept his brotherly advice to himself, he might have avoided erecting a bar- How one construes Hamlet’s protestations of rier between Ophelia and Hamlet, for Polonius love for Ophelia and his contest with Laertes seems not to have worried about their relation- over who loved her more, will depend, perhaps, ship until Laertes began his campaign. If Hamlet on constructs not derived entirely from the play. had not found, and resented the fact, that Ophelia Somehow to my ear, both Hamlet and Laertes was more loyal to the commands of her father seem, as Gertrude said of the queen in the and brother than to his hinted love and devotion, mousetrap play, to protest too much. The queen, the outcome (and we must speak here as if these knowing full well that Hamlet is not mad, seems are real people, not predetermined puppets of the to think it is time to stop the extravaganza, and playwright, never forgetting, however, that they using the now-accepted myth of Hamlet’s mad- are fictional characters) might have been very ness – for after all the king is there to hear – different indeed, because Hamlet, finding loyalty says,
133 Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 13, 2016
Cintra Whitehead
THE NEW HAMLET, HORATIO, AND This is mere madness, OSRIC And thus awhile the fit will work on him; Anon, as patient as the female dove Osric is now about to have his day. Ernest Jones When that her golden couplets are disclosed, does not discuss Osric, nor does the Adlerian His silence will sit drooping. critic Mairet mention him. Eissler, seemingly (1.5.251-54) confused about just where Osric appears, says in his discussion of the Graveyard Scene, “To be Hamlet, perhaps chastened by his mother’s un- sure, it is only Osric who is a truly comical fig- flattering image and prediction, tries to recover a ure in this scene, and the role is usually acted in bit of his dignity. He does not seem to under- a laughable manner. The gravediggers, by con- stand, however, why Laertes is so wroth with trast, occupy a middle ground between the tragic him and seems slightly bewildered when he asks, and the comical; they are truly naturalistic in “What is the reason that you use me thus? I character” (Eissler, 1971, 403). A few pages lat- loved you ever” (5.1.156-57). Eissler, focused er he quotes Harold C. Goddard’s view that unwaveringly on sex as usual, sees in this state- “Hamlet himself passed through an Osrician ment a conversion of “fraternal rivalry and jeal- stage of which the letter is a relic” (Eissler, ousy into homosexual attachment” (Eissler, 1971, 421). 1971, 417). A construct theorist/critic at this The letter in question is of course the letter, point sees a Hamlet who is not construing Laer- ostensibly from Hamlet to Ophelia, which Polo- tes very well but expects Laertes to construe him nius reads to the king in act 2, scene 2. If the as he wishes to be construed. We long to take letter, which surely is of less than poetic quality, Hamlet aside and point out that Laertes may be was meant by Shakespeare to be accepted as just slightly upset because Hamlet – mad or sane written by Hamlet, there is – without assuming – has killed his father Polonius, and might point some kind of identity or doubling between Osric out that should Claudius make the same argu- and Hamlet – a perfectly acceptable reason for ment to him [Look, Hamlet, I murdered your its lack of style. The construct theorist/critic will father, but 1 have always loved you, so why do remember what Hamlet tells Horatio about his you behave as if I were some kind of monster?], forging of the commission which is to send Ros- he would be, with good reason, infuriated. Ham- encrantz and Guildenstern on to their deaths in let seems to feel, however, that Laertes should England. Hamlet, you will remember, says, understand that he did not mean to kill Polonius and that he is trying to treat Laertes – and in 1 once did hold it, as our statists do, spite of appearances treated Ophelia as well – A baseness to write fair, and laboured much according to his own honor and dignity, failing How to forget that learning; but sir, now to take into consideration their honor and digni- It did me yeoman’s service. Wilt thou know ty, and failing to subsume the constructs through Th’effect of what 1 wrote? which they have construed his actions. A con- (5.2.33-37) struct theorist would say that Hamlet’s rhymed couplet of prediction which he offers as a parting His account of his flowery phrases makes it clear shot to Laertes and the royal family, is a cryptic he is talking of diction and structure, not mere expression of his new fatalism which he ex- penmanship when he speaks of writing “fair.” presses to Horatio in the next scene. Hamlet has simply written to Ophelia in the graceless manner dictated by the baseness to Let Hercules himself do what he may, write fair end of his construct. That construct is The cat will mew, and dog will have his day. evidently subsumed under another through (5.1.258-59) which he would construe “statists” like Polonius and his poor imitation Osric as contemptible. There is no reason to cloud our construing of Hamlet by talking about his “Osrician stage.”
134 Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 13, 2016
Construing Hamlet
Eissler believes that the comparison of Hamlet to encrantz and Guildenstern as soon as they set Osric goes too far and says that “... Osric is at foot on English soil. best a caricature of what Hamlet was up to the Heaven was even “ordinant” in that Hamlet point when the trauma brought about by the rev- had with him his father’s signet which was the elation of his mother’s behavior cruelly taught model of the Danish seal and so could give a him that the world in which he believed did not convincing finish to his new forged document. exist” (Eissler, 1971, 421). The construct theorist When Horatio seems perhaps a bit troubled would believe that if Osric is intended as a cari- about Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Hamlet cature of any other character in the play it would dismisses them. They will receive only what be of Polonius, and would say that a comparison they have bargained for. Horatio reminds him of Osric to Hamlet depends on the fallacy of that it cannot be long before information about talking of likeness without talking of difference. the end of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern arrives The construct theorist/critic will take quite a dif- from England, but Hamlet says that the interim ferent view of Osric. But before we deal with is his. He clearly has a plot in mind, but before that messenger of death, we must examine the he can reveal it, talk turns to Laertes, and Hamlet few brief minutes Hamlet and Horatio have to- says, gether before Osric’s entrance. Since Hamlet’s return, he has seemed differ- But I am very sorry, good Horatio, ent somehow. He has forgotten himself at Ophe- That to Laertes I forgot myself, lia’s grave and has shared in that emotional sce- For by the image of my cause, I see ne with her brother, but before that, in talking to The portraiture of his. I’ll court his favors. Horatio and the gravediggers, it seemed some- But sure the bravery of his grief did put me how that Hamlet was no longer melancholy, no Into a towering passion. longer immobilized in seeking the solution to the (5.2.75-79) problems of Denmark. We sense that same mood in him at the beginning of act 5, scene 2 as he Psychoanalytic critics might be expected, as in tells Horatio about his escape and return. He the case of Osric and Hamlet just discussed, to says that he has come to trust in a kind of fate, in seize this statement of Hamlet’s construing a a “divinity that shapes our ends, rough-hew them certain similarity between his own and Laertes’ how we will” (5.2.10-11). It is not that he is re- situations as a reason to postulate ‘doubling# or lieved of acting, but that he now has some sense identity between the two characters, just as they that fate is on his side and after he begins to hack also see ‘decomposition’ of certain characters – out justice, fate will do the fine finishing. He has i.e., as Jones puts it, “we can regard Hamlet and come to this feeling of trusting fate through his Polonius as two figures resulting from ‘decom- experience at sea. At first, he says, position’ of Laertes father, just as we did with the elder Hamlet and Claudius in relation to Sir, in my heart there was a kind of fighting Hamlet” (Jones, 1954 [1910]. 158). The con- That would not let me sleep. Methought I lay struct theorist, on the other hand, will argue that Worse than the mutines in the bilboes. similarity does not necessitate a construct either (5.1.4-5) of doubling or decomposition; to the construct theorist, similarity does not constitute a mysteri- But, having nothing to lose, he rashly stole out ous identity between the two characters but of his cabin and groped until he found the com- simply means (as it apparently did to Shake- mission which Rosencrantz and Guildenstern speare), that in some respect Hamlet and Laertes were carrying to England. Thanks to his rash- are alike and different from someone else. Ham- ness, his presence of mind, and his skill, and to let cannot be faulted for hoping to show Laertes the power that he has come to trust – call it des- how he is like Hamlet and different from Clau- tiny or fate – he was able to replace the commis- dius. It is in demonstrating that likeness and dif- sion which commanded his death with one ference to Laertes that Hamlet means to “court” which he forged to command the death of Ros- Laertes’ favors.
135 Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 13, 2016
Cintra Whitehead
And what has Hamlet in mind for the king? (or Shakespeare’s) stroke of genius in sending When we think about it carefully, it is no wonder Osric to Hamlet with his invitation to the duel that Hamlet can now resign himself to some con- with Laertes, for the Kellyan theorist will see struct of fate or destiny and use it to predict suc- that the king knows that Hamlet will construe his cess. He can do so, for he now holds some very messenger as a silly fop and will never think him strong cards in his game with the king. Hamlet sinister. Hamlet will spend so much time gulling now has in his possession the original commis- Osric into absurdities, trying to extort from him sion commanding his death – that evidence of validation of his failed prediction of what a true “royal knavery” which he shows to Horatio. And Danish courtier should be, that he will not notice besides, he had known before he was forced to that it is he himself who is gulled. And then too, leave for England that his mother had kept her Hamlet wishes to somehow make it up to Laertes promise not to reveal his sanity. Because she has for his behavior at the grave of Ophelia. It would kept her promise to Hamlet and has now twice be churlish to refuse an honest challenge, and the used Hamlet’s madness as an excuse for him, rules of duelling have been so time-honored; the though she knows full well he is sane, Hamlet sport is so hemmed round with custom and the has good reason to believe that he has begun to heritage of chivalry, and Hamlet is so “remiss, win her from her attachment to Claudius. He is most generous and free from all contriving,” as sure of Horatio, and now it seems that he begins the king has told Laertes, that there is little doubt to court Laertes. Perhaps he is about to lead that that Hamlet will accept the challenge that Osric palace revolution that Mairet saw as the remedy simperingly delivers, although he might suspect to his situation. If I were Hamlet 1 would play the invitation if it were delivered by another em- the game in this way. I would do all I could to issary. Again Hamlet seems to believe that he gain support from the queen and the rest of the can extort virtue from Claudius – at least in re- court and would bide my time until the messen- gard to honoring the courtly rules of fair gers should come from England with news of swordsmanship, though he has construed him as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern’s deaths; then I murderer and villain for some time. would produce in front of Claudius, Gertrude Horatio, however, has not so much trust in and the whole court that royal commission the conventions of the duel. He rapidly construes which had ordered my own death, and before the situation and immediately predicts, “You those ambassadors and the court confront the will lose this wager, my lord” (5.2.183). Hamlet king with hard evidence of his treachery. How counters that he does not think so. He has, he could the king escape? says, been in continual practice. He predicts that But the king is an experienced player at this he will win at the odds, but then he adds, con- game. The construct theorist will see that he struing through some preverbal construct he must predict that some information will soon cannot or will not name, come from England, and, although he cannot anticipate the news of the deaths of Rosencrantz But thou wouldst not think how ill all’s and Guildenstern, he must anticipate some an- here about my heart; but it is no matter. swer to his commission. He cannot want Ger- (5.2.185-86) trude to hear a message which says that the Eng- lish very much regret that because he has been The construct theorist would think Hamlet had captured by pirates they cannot strike of her son learned to trust those intuitions when he ex- Hamlet’s head as Claudius requested. He must claimed to the ghost, “O my prophetic soul,” but forestall that and he must eliminate Hamlet. We he has committed himself to his new trust in des- have already seen what his plans are and how he tiny. He will listen to no predictions but those he intends to use Laertes. He must strike quickly, wants to hear, and speaking from his new con- and so he sends Osric to tell Hamlet of the king’s struct, when Horatio advises him to listen to his wager on his swordsmanship in a bout against preverbal construing, he says: Laertes. The construct theorist will admire Claudius’ 136 Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 13, 2016
Construing Hamlet
... we defy augury: Hamlet acts now with the tightened construct There is a special providence in the fall of a that irrefutable evidence has given him – irrefu- sparrow. If it be now, ‘tis not to come; if it table evidence not only of the king’s guilt but be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, that time has run out. He stabs the king with the yet it will come – the readiness is all. Since no poisoned blade and forces him to drink from the man owes of aught he leaves, what is’t to leave poisoned goblet. The king dies. betirres? Let be. Hamlet, a character created by a true con- (5.2.193-96) struct theorist, spends his last moments in reor- dering his own construct system. He has learned And with his new-found trust in face, predicting something extremely important to him. He now that Laertes and Claudius muss behave honora- knows by the manner of her death that his moth- bly at least in public, he accepts the challenge of er was not a party to this plot on his life, and this the duel. one fact, had he time enough, could lead him to reconstrue the events of recent months and per- haps his view of women and his relationships to CATASTROPHE his mother and to Ophelia, but now that he con- strues reality more accurately, there is no time to The king has construed and predicted accurately communicate his constructs. of course. Hamlet does not check the foils, but only asks casually, “These foils have all a Had I but time, as this fell sergeant Death length?” (5.2.237), and prepares to play. Laertes Is strict in his arrest, Oh I could tell you – with no difficulty can choose the poisoned foil, (5.2.15-16) the point of which is unguarded. Claudius can even put the poison in the wine in front of Ger- He must leave it to Horatio to tell the story, and trude and the whole court by pretending to drop he prepares him to be sure that Horatio will do only a pearl in the cup, saying, “This pearl is just that, predicting and forestalling Horatio’s thine”. (5.2.258). intention to die with him by drinking the dregs Hamlet does well. He scores the first two hits. of the poisoned goblet himself to keep the poison The king, keeping up appearances, predicts to from Horatio. Gertrude, “Our son shall win” (5.2.263). Ger- With his last breath, Hamlet, construct theo- trude, who seems to state reality bluntly when rist and man-the-scientist to the end, utters a she sees it, answers, “He’s fat, and scant of prediction, breath” (5.2.264). No wonder Claudius fears what would happen if she ever discovered his I cannot live to hear the news from England. intrigues. But he has failed to predict that she But I do prophesy th’election lights would drink to Hamlet from the poisoned cup. On Fortinbras; he has my dying voice. He does not wish her death and tries to stop her, So tell him, with th’occurents, more and less but he is too late. Her collapse at first seems a Which have solicited – the rest is silence. response to the sudden wounding of Hamlet by (5.2.333-37) Laertes who, his sword being taken by Hamlet, is himself wounded with the poisoned blade. But Hamlet’s last prediction is immediately verified, the queen is not dead, and with her dying words for Fortinbras and the ambassadors from Eng- she reveals that she has been poisoned by the land arrive. drink. Hamlet is now fully aware that there is The audience should be aware that the scene treachery afoot, but does not yet know that he of arrival of the British ambassadors, had Shake- and Laertes have both been wounded with the speare not been bent on writing a tragedy and poisoned foil. It is Laertes who for the first time had allowed Hamlet to predict and control more in public speaks the truth about the king which accurately, would have been the denouement of Hamlet has uttered often enough in private. “– the play. The audience should feel the deep the king. The king’s to blame” (5.2.300). poignancy and irony of the scene and the first
137 Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 13, 2016
Cintra Whitehead ambassador’s “The sight is dismal, / And our and holds up as the ambassador says his line affairs from England come too late” (5.2.347- about arriving too late. And as Horatio speaks 48). The ambassador is concerned with reporting his following lines and comes to the words, to Claudius and receiving his thanks, not realiz- “And let me speak to th’ yet unknowing world / ing that had he arrived a half hour earlier he How these things came about” (5.2.358-59), let would have altered the face of Hamlet and of him lay the commission that would have indicted Denmark. Claudius open on Hamlet’s chest and fold his How are director and actors to emphasize the dead hands across it. This action will help to re- poignancy of this scene? Somehow, although mind the audience of what might have been if Shakespeare did not write the scene, we must Hamlet had predicted more accurately and had imagine what it would have been like, and the therefore been able to control events until the audience cannot grasp the significance if the ac- arrival of the news from England. This bit of tors do not. As a construct theorist I would sug- stage business would serve to clarify not to dis- gest that the director carefully arrange improvi- tort, I believe, and would surely be less of an sations of that imaginary scene of the timely ar- intrusion on the play than many of the cuts or rival of the English ambassadors. Although it added stage business we have seen in recent pro- will never be played in front of the audience, it ductions.. must be played in the actors’ minds. Let us place this scene at act 5, scene 2, line 239, just as, be- As it is it is left to Horatio to explain fore the duel begins, Claudius says, “Set me the stoups of wine upon that table.” ...to th’ yet unknowing world Before the ensemble improvisation begins, How these things came about. So shall you hear the director would be wise to discuss privately Of carnal, bloody, and unnatural acts, with each actor his or her character, helping the Of accidental judgments, casual slaughters, actor review the character’s construct system and Of deaths put on by cunning and forc’d cause, the predictions which he or she makes about And in this upshot, purposes mistook what is to come. The emotion generated by this Fall’n on th’inventors’ heads – All this can I improvisation should energize the scene of the Truly deliver. arrival of the English ambassadors as Shake- (5.2.357-64) speare wrote it to an extent to allow the actors to better convey the poignancy and the loss of what As Hamlet’s body is borne away, his stillness, might have been. the martial music of his dirge, and the sound of And the director might add a bit of stage soldiers shooting in salute offer us the final im- business which would emphasize what might agistic preverbal constructs through which to have happened had the ambassadors arrived ear- construe Hamlet and Denmark. lier. Remember that in an earlier scene Hamlet Horatio and Fortinbras to a certain extent, and has shown Horatio the original commission in the audience to a greater extent, have come which Claudius had ordered Hamlet’s execution. through the play with elaborated construct sys- The director must see to it that this commission tems never permitted to the protagonist or the is a quite recognizable stage property. He must other characters in the play. Hamlet is thus a then decide whether Hamlet keeps it or gives it tragedy of knowing vs. not knowing, but of to Horatio when he says, “Here’s the commis- knowing with the emotions and the will as well sion, read it at more leisure” (5.2.26). My prefer- as with the intellect. The personal construct theo- ence would be for Hamlet to keep it, putting it rist will suspect that the play’s unrivaled position carefully inside his doublet or shirt with just an in English drama results from its dramatization edge of it showing. After Hamlet’s death, when of the human need for all of us, like Hamlet, to the English ambassadors arrive, Horatio might be man-the-scientist who must decide when to be kneeling by Hamlet, laying his hand on his trust intuition and emotion (which is after all a chest, hoping to discern breath or heart beat and way of construing through preverbal constructs) noticing the commission which he draws forth and when and how to state and test hypotheses
138 Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 13, 2016
Construing Hamlet about life and the universe in order to predict Lacan, J. (1977 [1959]). Desire and the interpretation and control life events. of desire in Hamlet. Yale French Studies 55/56:11-52. Mairet, P. (1969). Hamlet as a study in Individual REFERENCES Psychology. Journal of Individual Psychology 25:71-89. Smith, G. R. (1982). The McCarter Theatre Compa- Ansbacher, H. L. & Ansbacher, R. (Eds.) (1964). The ny’s Hamlet. Hamlet Studies, 4:106-08 individual psychology of Alfred Adler: A systemat- ic presentation in selections from his writings. New York: Harper & Row. Edwards, P. (Ed.). (1989 [1985]). Hamlet, Prince of ABOUT THE AUTHOR Denmark. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Cintra Whitehead (1929-2015) held an interdis- Eissler, K. R. (1973). Discourse on Hamlet and Ham- ciplinary doctorate in psychology and English let. New York: International Universities Press. literature and has taught in both fields. For a Eliot. T.S. (1932). Hamlet and his problems, rpt. in time she was publisher and contributing editor of Selected Essays: 1917-1932. New York: Har- Constructive Criticism: A Journal of Construct court,Brace. Psychology and the Arts. Retired from teaching, Freud, S. (1965 [1900] [1913]). The interpretation of she lived in Ocala, Florida as a freelance writer dreams. New York: Avon. Jones, E. (1954 [1910]). Hamlet and Oedipus. New and lecturer, concentrating on psychological lit- York: Doubleday Anchor. erary criticism, critical theory, and personality Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal con- theory. structs. 2 Vols. New York: Norton.
REFERENCE
Whitehead C. (2016). Construing Hamlet. Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 13, 108-139 (Retrieved from http://www.pcp-net.org/journal/pctp16/whitehead16-6.pdf)
Reprinted from: Whitehead, C. (1991). Construing Hamlet. Constructive Criticism, 1, 33-100
Published 1 May 2016
139 Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 13, 2016