anne-richard
» » Hamlet Himself

Download Hamlet Himself epub

by Bronson Feldman




Feldman's examination of Shakespeare's play from the point of view that it was written by the Earl of Oxford serves not only to shed new light on the play, but also constitutes a new argument for Oxford as Shakespeare.
Download Hamlet Himself epub
ISBN: 1450211852
ISBN13: 978-1450211857
Category: Literature
Subcategory: History & Criticism
Author: Bronson Feldman
Language: English
Publisher: iUniverse (February 24, 2010)
Pages: 172 pages
ePUB size: 1304 kb
FB2 size: 1331 kb
Rating: 4.5
Votes: 615
Other Formats: docx lrf doc lrf

RUsich155
The literary scholar and psychoanalyst Bronson Feldman's book comes along at a propitious time, when the Oxfordian cause he did much to advance is rapidly gaining in credibility and support. Graham Bradshaw famously said `Hamlet can seem [to be] an actual person who somehow has been caught inside a play' (quoted by Harold Bloom in Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human, p. 401). Feldman's book elucidates who this `actual person' is. Building on the work of Looney and other Oxfordians, Feldman (1914-1982) attempted to reconstruct in detail the events in Edward de Vere's life that shaped this highly autobiographical play. The book serves as a superb antidote to such toxically misleading works as Stephen Greenblatt's Will in the World: How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare. Where Greenblatt just makes it up as he goes along in telling Shakespeare's `story,' Feldman persuasively linked Hamlet with a wealth of documented facts about de Vere's life and emotional conflicts. Roughly a third of Feldman's 108 references are to manuscripts and to archival records of State Papers, a reflection of his painstaking scholarship. The publication of Feldman's book is an encouraging sign of the growing acceptance of Looney's 1920 Oxfordian authorship hypothesis.

We all owe Feldman a large debt of gratitude for withstanding enormous pressure to relinquish his `heretical' opinions. Freud's stature lends significant credibility to the Oxfordian authorship claim. Stratfordians are well aware of this, and they have made repeated attempts to undermine the legitimacy of Freud's opinions in this matter. Regrettably, psychoanalysts have used their professional skills not to deepen our understanding of the implications of de Vere's authorship, but instead to `analyze' the ostensible psychopathology that led Freud astray about Shakespeare.

Feldman read Hamlet as a roman à clef, and he offered many keys to unlock the secrets of the actual people who are depicted (and often lambasted) in it. For example, he viewed Claudius as a composite figure who alludes not only to de Vere's step-father Lord Burghley, but also to Robert Dudley, who won control of de Vere's inheritance when his father died. `It would not have been unreasonable for de Vere to have entertained the suspicion of foul play in the death of his father ...nor to have written a play about his suspicions, casting Dudley in the role of the usurper, King Claudius' (65). Such a formulation is consistent with Feldman's emphasis on de Vere having `converted the death of Hamlet's father from butchery done in the open at a feast [in his sources] to a crafty assassination in solitude' (67).

What did Feldman bring from psychoanalysis to his reading of Hamlet? Most significantly, he believed that knowing the identity of its author matters, in contrast with traditional Stratfordians who, when confronted with incontrovertible evidence against their man, ask `What difference does it make who the author was??' The identity of the author matters a great deal, because psychoanalysts' cumulative clinical experience fully vindicates Freud's theory of psychic determinism. That is, every human action, thought, feeling, and creative endeavor is influenced by a range of conscious and unconscious psychological conflicts, based on that individual's unique life experiences, fantasies, and ways of coping with core neurotic conflicts.

Feldman's book on Hamlet deserves a wide readership. His friends who had it re-published deserve our deepest thanks. I hope it will encourage the many people who love Hamlet to investigate the Oxfordian authorship hypothesis.

For more on psychoanalysis and Shakespeare, see www dot oxfreudian dot com.
Pedar
Far more in here to help you understand Hamlet than all the pseudo-academic tomes based on the ignorant official story.
Opithris
This is a re-issue of the extended essay originally published in 1977, where Professor Feldman takes up the challenge posed by the famous psychiatrist Sigmund Freud to re-analyze Shakespeare's works to reveal clues to the character of the great author himself. Hamlet appears to be the most autobiographical of the plays, if one is open-minded and willing to consider the 17th Earl of Oxford, Edward De Vere, as a candidate.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this, and am grateful to Warren Hope for seeing it brought back into print for a wider audience.

Highly recommended to all those interested in the Shakespeare authorship question.

Note: The one-star reviewer clearly did not read this book and can safely be ignored.
Dominator
The previous reviewer is obviously a protege of B. Feldman...both psychoanalyts first and "literary scholars" second...Hamlet has been on the couch of more analysts than Woody Allen....and each has a different diagnosis..to try this on a fictional character is, well, not worth the paper it is printed on....

Here is a book that admits that "Hamlet" was written by William Shakespeare, like all the tragedies put out by the Oxfordians do, you it presents an Oxfordian analysis of Hamlet, in other words the view that Oxford wrote the play because it is about his life...In other words a totally subjective evalution/interpretation of the play, a play that has been been under a microscope for many years with many different interpretations...

Oxford, they say wrote the tragedies...how about the other works by Shakespeare? Did Oxford also write them? Or only the timeless tragedies??? Did he write any of the plays before he died, or only after he died?

Oxfordians are in poor shape because they always have to bend the facts to fit their theory...Yet they don't have the nerve to put Oxford's name on any of the plays....they know they would be laughed at by every scholar, academic, and professional educator in America, the world....

"Hamlet Himself" is saying that Eddie de Vere was Hamlet and wrote Hamlet as an autobiography, one of the most preposterous, ridiculous, notions ever put forward...but there are obviously some people who believe this garbage, which is what it is...At least Hamlet was written and performed before de Vere died...why do Oxfordians claim de Vere wrote plays after he died, or wrote them all before he died and somehow gave them to Shakespeare? Why don't they ever, except for Romeo and Juliet, claim plays that were written before he died? Titus Andronicus, Two Gentlemen of Verona, Henry IV, Merchant of Venice, As You Like It?

Which Hamlet did Eddie write? Quarto 1, Quarto 2, or Hamlet as it appeared in the First Folio? They are all very different...Hamlet is not about de Vere's life...it is based on an old Nordic legend/story....

Has anybody come up with the idea that Shakespeare wrote the play about Eddie de Vere? It seems to be a good compromise...a book about their Golden Boy, but not written by him...by the greatest writer in the English language, William Shakespeare!!!

What "incontrovertible evidence" is there Dr.W? I have never heard any...True, it is the Oxfordians, like Charlton Ogburn, who stress that it is very important to know who the author is (of just Hamlet or all the plays?) It's easy...William Shakespeare, whose name is on every copy of every edition of Hamlet and every other play...Why? Because the large preponderance of the evidence points towards him...We don't need no psychological theories....we need facts, and they all point the The Gent from Strat...Nothing points to Eddie, except the passages they want assigned to him, although they could be assigned to a number of other persons...