Advertisement

Shadow and Anima in Hamlet

Mermaid Allusion and the Stages of Eroticism
  • Matthew A. Fike
Chapter
  • 43 Downloads

Abstract

One may better understand the potency of Othello’s soldier persona in light of the following statements:

The more masculine his [a man’s] outer attitude is, the more his feminine traits are obliterated: instead, they appear in his unconscious. This explains why it is just those very virile men who are most subject to characteristic weaknesses; their attitude to the unconscious has a womanish weakness and impressionability. (CW 6, 804/469)

Outwardly an effective and powerful role is played, while inwardly an effeminate weakness develops in face of [sic] every influence coming from the unconscious. Moods, vagaries, timidity, even a limp sexuality (culminating in impotence) gradually gain the upper hand. (CW7, 308/194)

Jung emphasizes this compensatory relationship between persona and anima by stressing that a man’s identification with a masculine “mask” determines the degree to which “he is delivered over to influences from within,” specifically “feminine weakness … for it is the anima that reacts to the persona.” Furthermore: “Everything that should normally be in the outer attitude, but is conspicuously absent, will invariably be found in the inner attitude. This is the fundamental rule” (CW 7, 308–9/194–95; 6, 806/469). The phenomenon occurs whether the mask is martial as in Othello’s case or intellectual as in Hamlet’s.

Keywords

Conscious Awareness Feminine Trait Outer Attitude Compensatory Relationship Classical Mythology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 3.
    H. R. Coursen, The Compensatory Psyche: A Jungian Approach to Shakespeare (New York: University Press of America, 1986), 80–81, 88, 83, 96, 93, 97, 72–73, and 76.Google Scholar
  2. 7.
    Sally F. Porterfield, Jung’s Advice to the Players: A Jungian Reading of Shakespeare’s Problem Plays (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1994), 93–95.Google Scholar
  3. 8.
    Elizabeth Oakes, “Polonius, the Man behind the Arras: A Jungian Study,” in New Essays on Hamlet, ed. Mark Thornton Burnett and John Manning (New York: AMS Press, 1994), 103–12. Oakes uses the phrase “racial father.” Jung’s phrase is “tribal father.” She quotes CW 5, 396/261 (107–8).Google Scholar
  4. 10.
    Charlton Hinman, The Norton Facsimile: The First Folio of Shakespeare (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1968), 786.Google Scholar
  5. 11.
    Maud Bodkin, Archetypal Patterns in Poetry: Psychological Studies of Imagination (London: Oxford University Press, 1934).Google Scholar
  6. 12.
    Kenneth Tucker, Shakespeare and Jungian Typology: A Reading of the Plays (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 2003), 132, 111, 129, and 116.Google Scholar
  7. 14.
    James Hillman, Anima: An Anatomy of a Personified Notion (Dallas, TX: Spring Publications, 1985), 139.Google Scholar
  8. 18.
    Daryl Sharp, C G. Jung Lexicon: A Primer of Terms & Concepts (Toronto: Inner City Books, 1991), 124.Google Scholar
  9. 25.
    See Lawrence Babb, The Elizabethan Malady: A Study of Melancholia in English Literature from 1580–1642 (East Lansing, MI: Michigan State College Press, 1951), 106–10;Google Scholar
  10. Ernest Jones, Hamlet and Oedipus (Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1954), 23–50;Google Scholar
  11. Theodore Lidz, Hamlet’s Enemy: Madness and Myth in Hamlet (New York: Basic Books, 1975), 195–205;Google Scholar
  12. and W. I. D. Scott, Shakespeare’s Melancholics (London: Mils & Boon, 1962), 73–107.Google Scholar
  13. 31.
    Edward F. Edinger, The Psyche on Stage: Individuation Motifs in Shakespeare and Sophocles (Toronto: Inner City Books, 2001), 25.Google Scholar
  14. 36.
    Gwen Benwell and Arthur Waugh, Sea Enchantress: The Tale of the Mermaid and Her Kin (London: Hutchinson, 1961), 55.Google Scholar
  15. 37.
    Catharine F. Siegel, “Hands Off the Hothouses: Shakespeare’s Advice to the King,” Journal of Popular Culture 20 (1986): 84–85;Google Scholar
  16. and Wallace Shugg, “Prostitution in Shakespeare’s London,” Shakespeare Studies 10 (1977): 292.Google Scholar
  17. See also Ronald B. Bond, “‘Dark Deeds Darkly Answered’: Thomas Becon’s Homily Against Whoredom and Adultery, Its Contexts, and Its Affiliations with Three Shakespearean Plays,” The Sixteenth Century Journal 16 (1985): 191–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 42.
    Alex Aronson, Psyche & Symbol in Shakespeare (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1972), 179; Tucker, Shakespeare and Jungian Typology, 112; and Stanton, “Hamlefs Whores,” 168.Google Scholar
  19. 43.
    Robert Painter and Brian Parker, “Ophelia’s Flowers Again,” Notes and Queries N.S. 41 (1994): 42.Google Scholar
  20. 44.
    Benwell and Waugh, Sea Enchantress, 71; Ruth Berman, “Mermaids,” in Mythical and Fabulous Creatures: A Source Book & Research Guide, ed. Malcolm Smith (New York: Bedrick, 1988), 139; and OED, s.v. “Mermaid,” 3a. Benwell and Waugh critique the mermaid-prostitute linkage: “The Elizabethans sometimes gave a courtesan the name of ‘mermaid’—an unwarrantable slur on one who, though her favours might cost a man his life, never yet bartered her charms for gain” (239).Google Scholar
  21. 47.
    John Block Friedman, “The Nun’s Priest’s Tale: The Preacher and the Mermaid’s Song,” The Chaucer Review 7 (1973): 264. Robert E. Bell notes that the sirens “received [wings] at their own request, in order to be able to search for Persephone … or as a punishment from Demeter for not having assisted Persephone or from Aphrodite because they wished to remain virgins.… Once, however, they allowed themselves to be prevailed upon by Hera to enter into a contest with the Muses, and, being defeated, they were deprived of their wings …” (Dictionary of Classical Mythology: Symbols, Attributes & Associations [Santa Barbara, CA: ABC Clio, 1982], 278).Google Scholar
  22. 49.
    Peter M. Daly, ed., The English Emblem Tradition, 3 vols. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1988), 1:99.Google Scholar
  23. 57.
    Hyder E. Rollins, An Analytical Index to the Ballad-Entries (1557–1709) in the Registers of Stationers of London (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1924), 219, no. 2533.Google Scholar
  24. 61.
    Wayne A. Rebhorn, “Mother Venus: Temptation in Shakespeare’s Venus and Adonis,” Shakespeare Survey 11 (1978): 8.Google Scholar
  25. 63.
    Anthony S. Mercantante, The Facts on File Encyclopedia of World Mythology and Legend (New York: Facts on File, 1988), 592.Google Scholar
  26. 71.
    Erik Rosenkrantz Bruun, “‘As your daughter may conceive’: A Note on the Fair Ophelia,” Hamlet Studies 15.1–2 (1993): 99.Google Scholar
  27. 75.
    Michele Pessoni, “‘Let in the Maid, That out a Maid Never Departed More’: The Initiation of Ophelia: Hamlet’s Kore Figure,” Hamlet Studies 14.1–2 (1992): 35.Google Scholar
  28. 77.
    Joseph Campbell, The Hero with a Thousand Faces (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1949), 79.Google Scholar
  29. 79.
    Peter J. Seng, “Ophelia’s Songs in Hamlet” Durham, University Journal N.S. 25 (1964): 83; Aronson, Psyche & Symbol in Shakespeare, 180; and Elaine Showalter, “Representing Ophelia: Women, Madness, and the Responsibilities of Feminist Criticism,” in Shakespeare and the Question of Theory, ed. Patricia Parker and Geoffrey Hartman (New York: Methuen, 1985), 81; and A New Variorum Edition of Shakespeare, ed. Horace Howard Furness, 27 vols. (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1871–1955), 3:371.Google Scholar
  30. 80.
    Zachary A. Burks, “‘My Soul’s Idol’: Hamlet’s Love for Ophelia,” Hamlet Studies 13.1–2 (1991): 70.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Matthew A. Fike 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew A. Fike

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations