Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam > Blaise Pascal Instituut > Girard Studiekring > COV&R 2007 > Abstracts Papers 

Thomas J. Cousineau

Mimetic Desire and Chiasmic Form in Hamlet

Email - Profile - Subtheme # 6 - Abstract

PAPER (Outline)

Part I: Mimetic Desire

n     Girard credits Shakespeare with having discovered the truth of mimetic desire very early in his career.

2. Application to Hamlet : “Hamlet’s Dull Revenge”(A Theater of Envy, 1991)

n     essentially, Girard sees Shakespeare as consciously contributing to the demystification of rivalistic violence in form of revenge

n     Hamlet does not kill Claudius because he does not believe in revenge

                                                    i.     Hamlet sees that Claudius’ murder of his father is just another link in an already long chain (of violent acts)

                                                  ii.     He shifts endlessly from one impasse to the other, unable to make up his mind because neither choice makes sense

                                                iii.     Hamlet is certainly no coward; his inaction results from his failure to muster the proper sentiments.

                                                iv.     He must receive from someone else a mimetic model, the impulse that he does not find in himself

                                                  v.     He ultimately finds this model in Laertes

Throughout his essay, Girard assumes an absolute identification between Shakespere and Hamlet (Hamlet as Shakespeare’s mouthpiece)

n     “weariness with revenge that can be read in the margins of the earlier  plays comes center stage in Hamlet”

3. Strength of Girard’s interpretation:

n     Calls attention to “mimetic” nature of relationships

 4.  weakness of interpretation

--  it involves purely speculative, unprovable, assertions about motivations

n     especially noticeable in analysis of Hamlet’s rage against Gertrude (he wants her to see a difference that he himself is incapable of seeing)

n     applies more broadly to Hamlet as a character and Shakespeare as the author of the play

n     in this respect it “emulates” Ernest Jones’ celebrated interpretation in  Hamlet and Oedipus (which serves as Girard’s rivalistic model):

                                                    i.     – Claudius’s murder of his father reawakens Hamlet’s own Oedipus complex

                                                  ii.     this “return of the repressed” effectively paralyzes him

Cf. Girard’s dismissal of Jones’s interpretation (quote)

But Girard’s analysis is no less speculative

n     it may not adequately explain why Shakespeare failed to communicate this intention to this audience

-- cf. Richard Levin’s dismissal in “The New Refutation of Shakespeare”

n     Levin criticizes Girard’s resort to the “two-audience” theory (ignorant masses vs. morally enlightened readers

n     Apparent vs. real meaning of play

n     But why has this “real” meaning not been recognized until now?

n     It turns Shakespeare into a rubber stamp who is forced to say what the critic wants him to say

 --  a further weakness is that this interpretation focuses narrowly on revenge as the principal action

n     the real motive that runs through out the play is in two parts:

                                                    i.     first, to discover the cause of the disease that is destroying Denmark

                                                  ii.     second, to eradicate this cause

(this interpretation was suggested by Francis Fergusson in The Idea of a Theater (1949)

n     as he points out, every character in the play is involved in this action

n     he further argues that this “mimetic desire” observable in every character produces conflicts between two sides:

                                                    i.     one sees the “Disease” in Claudius

                                                  ii.     the other sees it in Hamlet

Part II: Chiasmic Form

-- mimesis also == symmetry

                                                iii.     one thing mirroring another creates an aesthetically pleasing form

                                                iv.     precise example: the duel scene in Act V mirrors Laertes/Hamlet in the court scene in Act I (where Laertes is not needed)

                                                  v.     in effect, one scene “searches for a model” in another, but the outcome is creative rather than destructive (Girard mentions creative aspect of mimesis, but does not elaborate)

                                                vi.     touchstone: Hamlet’s recognition of resemblance between himself and Laertes (quoted by Girard as example of mimetic model): (V. ii. 75-80)

1.     “by the image of my cause I see/ The portraiture of his.

2.     ‘the bravery of his grief did put me/ Into a towering passion.”

-- note that both “chiasmic” and “mimetic” elements are present

5. Plot (explicit)  vs. Structure (implicit)

A.  Plot  (ethical dimension) of Hamlet is driven by mimetic desire

n     in form of rivalry (as Girard notes)

n     but also in form of desire to cure disease (Fergusson)

B.The structure (aesthetic dimension) of the play, however, based on the rhetorical figure of the chiasm, on both micro and macro levels

Discuss Handout

n     Girard says that Claudius develops Hamlet-like symptoms (psychological analysis) – p. 284

“When Laertes asks Claudius why he failed to punish a murderer, the reply  betrays embarrassment” (284)

--Girard’s implication is that Claudius also hesitates to resort to violence (recognizes the :”sickness of revenge”)

-- quote his reply to Laertes

but in terms of structure (not psychological motivation) this scene forms a chiasm with scenes in first half of play in which Hamlet examines his hesitation:

n     significant differences:

                                                    i.     – contrast between monologue and dialogue

                                                  ii.     a single episode vs. multiple episodes

                                                iii.     Claudius can give precise account of his reasons

 Distinctive between destructive and creative/playful mimesis summed up in difference between:

n     the duel that concludes the play

n     and the “duel” with which the play begins:

-- Bernardo:  Who’s there?

                                                    i.     --Francisco: Nay answer me

cause/effect model replaced by similarity/difference

“plot” replaced by “structure”

 The play begins with a literal changing of the guard and concludes with a figurative one

            -- this parallel completes the chiasmic configuration of the play

Conclusion

n     Francis Fergusson argues that the cure for the disease occurs with the arrival of Fortinbras: “Hamlet kills the king at last and Fortinbras arrives with the new faith and hope”

n     This assumes that the resolution is to be found on the level of plot/action

-- A bad ruler replaced by a good ruler

n     Girard’s interpretation relies on the “two-audience” theory

--  wrong interpretation replaced by correct interprettion

n     Third possibility: the harmony of the chiasmic form resolves (on the aesthetic level)  the mimetic conflicts that remain unresolved on the ethical level

5. The initial exchange between Bernardo and Francisco is chiasmic

6. Conclusion: good vs. bad mimesis