Kategori arşivi: English Literature

Ian (Lancaster) FLEMING and James BOND

<strong>Ian</strong> (<strong>Lancaster</strong>) <strong>FLEMING</strong> <strong>and James BOND
</strong>                         -The Man and the Myth-

&lt;Written and prepared by Phyllis L. Kipp, a ‘Master’ student at the Salve Regina College (Now University), Newport, R.I., and her Psychology Professor and supervisor, Prof. Dr. Ismail Ersevim, as required for her graduation thesis. 1966 – USA&gt;


It cannot be denied that one of the mightiest influenceces on the past decades has been the writing of Ian Fleming. His series on the exploits of James Bond, has created greatest fiction character in modern times. The fictitious life of James Bond has actually become a desired hidden way of life for countless numbers of people who have read about him and have taken him to heart.

The reasons behind the success of James Bond are the basis of this thesis. It is the intention of the writer to set down the story of Bond telling why he has become a modern Ulysses to millions of people around the world.

To best do this, the paper has been divided into three chapters. The first chapter concerns the life of Ian Fleming. This chapter shows the similarities between the lives of Fleming and his created hero. The second chapter deal with the character of Bond. In this character, the writer has tried to show the reasons why the personality of Bond is the key factor behind the success of the Bond series. The third chapter attempts to prove that Ian Fleming is an author of high standards, using the familiar characte-
ristics of the era to captivate his audience.

The paper can also be seen in the light of its over-all effect. Too many people seem to think that the Fleming craze was only a bright flush which will die because Fleming himself has died. The author of this paper feels that Fleming has created a new type of fiction here which will be picked up by other authors and carried forth.

While it is very true that James Bond died with Fleming, the author of this paper feels that Fleming’s influence will continue. This will happen because Fleming has managed to catch the minds and hearts of his readers by giving them the certain something they needed to forget the problems of their times. This ability is not easily attained. Fleming, however, has set the pace. For this reason, Ian Fleming is worthy of a place of honor among modern authors.



<strong>A LOOK AT IAN FlEMING</strong>

“I knew Ian Fleming well and I liked him.” (1)  This statement made by Allen Dulles, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency for the United States government seems to sum up perfectly the feeling towards Ian Fleming shared by his many associates. To know him was to like him. The crux of the situation, however, seemed to lie in the fact that Fleming only allowed those people whom he liked to associate with him. Therefore, if he did not like a person, they were never given the opportunity to like him.

Fleming, being even more of an extrovert then his creation in fiction, James Bond, usually let the person know right off whether or not he liked them. He had two criteria in mind for all friends. Firstly, they could not a bore, and secondly, they could not be a hypocrite. (2)  Because of his vast love of life, Fleming constantly sought in his associate people who would complement his own interests. This desire to fullfill himself did not leave him the time to make long judgments about people. His first reaction would determine his next move. Fleming governed almost his entire life on split second decisions which either could not or would not change. Once he had commmitted himself, Ian Fleming was adament in the defense of his own actions. (3)

Besides the element of quick judgment, Ian Fleming also let the idea that society owed him an interesting life to rule his daily being. Every- thing  he did had to be exciting and different. Fleming pushed every this idea to such extremes that even his food was none but the best of exotic dishes, usually from the Orient. The prime example in which Fleming found the culmination of his desire for excitement, danger, and, actually, anything out of ordinary was the creation of James Bond, the super hero of the space age whose very life was the epitome of everything Fleming would have wanted himself to be.

Ian Fleming’s greatest desire for himself, the acquisition of wealth, undoubtedly stemmed from the fact that he was born, in 1908, with everything he needed except money. Both of his parents were Scottish. Although his father, Major Valentine Fleming, was a conservative member of Parliament, the office did not bring with it any great fortune. (4) Fleming found himself among the growing aristocracy of Europe which has its titles and lands, but did not have money to support it. However, as was the case in so many of Europe’s aristocratic families, a front was kept which drained every cent the family could acquire.

Fleming’s family ties did bring him into the circle of England’s elite. When his father was killed, in 1916, on the Somme River, it was Winston Churchill who wrote his obituary for “The Times”. (5)  Churchill,
who was a close friend of young Ian, gave him fatherly council whenever needed.

Keeping up the front of the English aristocracy, Ian Fleming was schooled at Eton and Sandhurst, the West Point of Great Britain. (6)  It was his training at Sandhurst which would later bring him into the service of the King as a Naval Intelligence Officer in World War II. This, however, did not come about until Fleming was given his first taste of writing in the news-paper business.

Fleming went to work for the Reuter new agency. Because of his background at Sandhurt, he was sent first to Berlin and then to Moscow to feel the pulse of impending war. (7)  By this time England was aware that Berlin and Moscow  were planning the fate of Europe over conference tables. Reuters wanted a correspondent there who would be aware of the movements and sent the stories back. Fleming went really for he was alredy gripped by the desire to seek out adventure whenever it might be.

The Reuter news agency was Fleming’s employer for a few short years. They could not offer him the one thing that he needed for his type of life, namely, money. Fleming had come to realization that his interests were costly. The salary of a news correspondent simply would not do. He turned to the high finance.

For six years he worked as a stockbroker. Fleming’s career, however, was never lucritive. Even he was perfectly willing to admit a small failure. Looking back upon the disaster Fleming gives as own defense the idea that, “I never could figure out what sixty-fourth of a point was.” (8)
Sandhurst had not trained him for this type of battle field.

The training at Sandhurst, however, did prove valuable to him during World War II. Fleming joined the Royal Navy at the outbreak of the war. He was assigned to Naval Intelligence. Fleming soon became an assistant to the Director of Naval Intelligence. In this position he travelled throughout the warring countries gathering much needed war information. (9)  It is undoubdetly because he loved this type of adventure to such an extreme that his career here was such a success.

At the end of the war Fleming returned to the life of a journalist, delicately passing by the money of his failure in the stock market. THis time he signed a contract with “<em>London Times</em>”. They, too, senf him off to Moscow. This time he was to report back all the vital facts of reconstruction. It might be assumed that they also wanted a trained eye to watch the happenings of government in that swiftly changing nation. Having six years in intelligence, Fleming was in a “knowing” position. His stories could be considered as accurate as possible in a country where intrigue is an everyday part of life. (10)

Fleming found himself still bogged down, however, by his constant worry over money. He decided to try his hand at writing. After all, he had had some experience in writing and writers make good money. When it came time for his contract with the <em>London Times</em> to be signed, Fleming insisted upon a two month vacation clause which would give him the opportunity to write for himself. He was granted his wish. (11)

Being the ever present wit, Fleming, of course, gives still another reason for his entrance into the world of fiction. At the age of forty-three,
Ian Fleming married Anna Geraldine Rothermere. This was only after he had been named corresponding in divorce proceedings by Lord Rothermere. Fleming told the story some years later that he took up writing “as a counterirritant or antibody to my hysterical alarm at getting married at the age of forty-three.” (12)

In 1952, Fleming took his vacation from the London Times and went to Jamaica. It was there that he created James Bond.

Allen Dulles concludes that Bond was created by Fleming as a way to round out the life he sought. (13)  James Bond would do it in fiction all the things Fleming wanted to do; he would see all the things Fleming wanted to see; he would be, in short, the man Fleming wanted himself to be.

Fleming from the outset was sure of the ultimate success of James Bond novels. He realized that with the constant built-up of the spy systems of all the great nations, the people would very soon be clamoring for spy stories. (14)  His idea proved true beyond his wildest dreams. James Bond caught on like a new form of mania, a mania striking every type of person possible.

It might be interesting to note that Ian Fleming was giving his public as many truths as he was fiction in his novels. He constantly delved back into his memory for facts about situations in his own intelligence career which would add sense of realism to his obviously preposterous
plots. Even “<em>Smersh</em>”, the “<em>Death to Spies</em>” organization of Soviet Union used in many of the novels in the Bond series, has a foundation in reality. Dulles affirms this fact by saying: “At the time, many of his readers thought that ‘Smersh’ was just another bit of James Bond fiction, but it was in fact a very real Soviet terror organization. (15)

Ian Fleming was an instant success with the publishing of :
<strong>Casino</strong> <strong>Royal</strong>. By 1961, hiz novels were being translated into ten languages, and netting Fleming the tidy sum of one millon dollars a year. Fleming could now do all the things he had always wanted to do. One thing, however, was destined to stop him: Ian Fleming had a heart condition.

When he was finally coming into his own, Fleming had a slight heart attack in 1961. He was ordered to slow down. Fleming did not know what this order meant. He was too full of life to take such an order seriously. There was too much he had not seen, too much he had not done. He disre-garded the doctor completely. In 1964, at the age of fifty six, Ian Fleming died.

Ian Fleming did not live long enough to do all the wonderfully exciting things he wanted to do. He did, however, live just long enough to create the greatest fiction hero of the generation, even of the century.

Because Fleming was highly attuned to the times, he was able to give the people exactly what they wanted. When an author is able to do this, he becomes at least a commercial success. Ian Fleming was more than this. His novels have been acclaimed by their reviewers as being written with a great flare for the dramatic. Critics might condem the materials handled in the book, but a criticism against the creative genius of Fleming was rare.

Ian Fleming might best be considered as <em>a man’s man</em>. He lived a life that was hard, but personally rewarding. He never had any regrets about anything he ever did. Fleming realized his own shortcomings, and tried to rectify them in the way that would help himself as well as his friends. By doing this he was striving to be the best man possible to himself.

Because Ian Fleming in a way was James Bond, Allen Dulles stipulates:
“No one, I feel, would ever have the audacity to try to bring Bond back. It took a Fleming to create him and together they gave great pleasure and relaxation to a multitude of poeple.”  (17)

This can very well be considered Fleming’s greatest success that in a time filled with the constant dangers of war, famine and disease, he was able to bring a moment of pleasure to people around the globe. In the stories woven by Fleming, countless number of people were given the
opportunity to forget. They were able to enter Fleming’s own world of adventure.

It is very possible that Ian Fleming will be remembered in the future as the writer who created James Bond. This will come about by a public only interested in the externals. If the full truth is to be known, it must also be remembered that Ian Fleming was a man of his own convictions ready o face the world, and to try and shape it. He recognized the fact that most people in the world today do not know how to live. Ian Fleming knew his own way of life and lived it. If one believes the statement, man to thyself be true, it must be admitted that Ian Flemimg lived this maxim to the best of his ability. He would not have asked more of a person. When thinking of Ian Fleming, we should judge him by this standard.


(1)   Dulles,  “Our Spy-Boss Who Loved Bond”, LIFE, 57:19, August 28, 1964.
(2)   Idem.
(3)   “Sorry to Have Troubled You”, NEWSWEEK, 64:37, August 24, 1964.
(4)   “Man With the Golden Bond”, TIME, 84:22-23, August 21, 1964.
(5)   Idem.
(6)   As the same of  (3).
(7)   Idem.
(8)   As the same of  (4).
(9)   Idem.
(10) “Master of Agent 007″, LIFE, 53:47-48; August 24,1964.
(11) As the same of  (4).
(12) Idem.
(13) As the same of  (1).
(14) Idem.
(15) Idem.
(16) As the same of  (4).
(17) As the same of  (1)



“<strong>THERE IS A MAN CALLED BOND</strong>”

The best detective-heroes have always been attuned to their own age. <strong>Sherlock Holmes</strong>, the master detective from the pen of Arthur C. DOYLE splendidly reflected the Victorian Edwardian belief in rationality and cool logic. His “<em>elementary</em>, <em>my dear Watson</em>” spotlighted the idea of complete rationalist in a single phrase repeated throughout the series. Cashiell HAMMETT’s hard nosed <strong>Sam Spade</strong>, and Raymond CHANDLER’s <strong>Philip Marlowe</strong> were exactly right for depression years. In their deeds of daring could be found an outlet from the trials and worries created by the economic situation of the time. Instead of worrying about a lost job, for even a single hour the reader could be caught up in the roaring lives of two-fisted fiction heroes. Identification with the detective hero, however, extended beyond the single hour into the very lives of the readers. James Bond, super-hero of the space-age, has taken up full force in a way never even dreamed of the Doyles, Hammetts and Raymonds of the past.

James Bond himself is only the representative figure of a select class of men around the world actually engaged in the touchy business of espionage. He is in fact a composite of commando and intelligence types Ian Fleming knew from his years of service in Britain’s Naval Intelligence. The big gambling scene in “<em>Casino Royal</em>” was, for example, suggested by a wartime encounter in Lisbon when Fleming sat down opposite the top German agent in Portugal at the “<em>chemin de fer</em>” &lt;Fransızca:  ‘demiryolu’ anlamına gelen ve enternasyonal, yüksek düzeydeki kumar merkezlerinde bulunan, bakara-poker oynanan masa. İ.E.&gt; table.  (1) The total affect of the James Bond hero vcan be summed up in a single sentence uttered to him in awa by a member of a lesser section then the “<em>Double-O</em>” branch of the intelligence service. “Of course, you’re all heroes. I was enchanted.”  (2)
James Bond, man licensed to kill, hastaken over completely the race to the ‘wonderland’ of escapism.

James Bond of the British Secret Service was born in the hot room of a Jamaican hotel in the summer of 1952. The doctor assisting at the delivery was, of course, the now famous surgeon of the world of intrigue Ian Fleming. From that first day, having since been translated into ten languages, Bond came to be heralded by millions of devotees the world over from Presidents (John F. Kennedy) and princess to postmen and plumbers. All were effortlessly drawn into a magic land of tension and torture, peopled
of self-sacrificing friends and hordes of mean-eyed villains possessing the questionable knack of shooting straight except when Agent <strong>Double-O Seven</strong> was the target. Auric <strong>Goldfinger</strong> was one of the few able to express his consternation at allowing some unknowing spiritual force to keep Bond alive: “You certainly turned out to be a snake in my pastures….. Why I kept you alive! Why I didn’t crush you like a beetle….. I was mad to have taken the chance. Yes mad.”  (3)  Thanks to Goldfinger’s ‘madness’ Bond did stay alive to ‘save’ Fort Knox and America’s Gold reserve. But, more important still, James Bond was ‘alive’ to seek new adventures as “007”.

The question that needs answering in the story of James Bond is just what makes this man agreeable to the masses? Surely it cannot be a total affect of the daring exploits of a secret agent. There are very few people who would trade their safe lives for that of a hunted man. A man who most constantly look over his shoulder searching for the enemy whose duty it will be to kill or be killed. Certainly few people would wish to trade places with a man being tırtured to within inches of his life for a secret he does not  under-stand or perhaps does not even possess. And most certainly few people would trade places with a man who cannot call anyone friend for fear that that one person will become a vulnerable spot to him. The majority of the reading public is too set in their ordinary way of life to be attracted to such a radical change. Still they read James Bond thrillers. Why? The final answer must be in the man himself.

Each of us at one time or another wishes that there were an air of mystery surrounding our own person. We sometimes even like to add a spotlight of intrigue into our everyday life. The ordinary man might do this by purchasing a shocking plaid sports jacket which is totally out of character from his usual gray suit. The housewife might do this by changing the color of her hair from a drab, mousy brown to an uplifting, exciting red. It is little wonder that just such ordinary people as these are attracted to a man of mystery like James Bond.

Little of the Bond background is ever divulged in any of the novels. There are only fragmented references to an early life in the hills of scotland. What does matter is that he received his early training in the Intelligence Service during the War, and continued on after as one of three men in the Double-O section. He was the number one man in this section. The one looked to when the best possible results were needed was James Bond. The man who kept the section moving at a fantastic speed was the man referred as ‘007’. He was the man whose ruin would mean the end of that section of Intelligence for England.

“Have they no one who is a hero to the Organization?
Someone who is admired and whose ignominious
destruction would cause dismay? Myths are built
on heroic deeds and heroic people. Have they no such
men?… There is a man called Bond.” (4)

The “man called Bond” has the well worn features of the master spy which become mysteriously attractive in the hands of Fleming.

“It was a dark, clean cut face, with a three-end scar
showing whitely down the sunburned skin of the right
cheek. The eyes were wide and level under straight,
rather long black brows. The hair was black parted on
the left, and carelessly brushed so that a thick black
comma fell down over the right eyebrow. The longish
straight nose ran down to a short upper lip below
which was a wide and finely drawn out cruel mouth.
The line of the jaw was straight and firm.  (5)

This face stood on the top of a slim body which stoof one hundred and and eighty-three centimetres. The features depicted decision, authority and a brand of ruthlessness; a man to be feared. He let no secrets penetrate his face. When the action was moving either for or against him nothing could be seen in his expressions except rapt concentration. The secrets of his mind were locked there. He never allowed them to be read by others. Bond would not even allow himself the pleasure of an agonized scream when being tortured. He was the man of rock. The man admired by his peers for being the best in the business. His body was only another tool of his trade spoken of in the same breath as his gun, assorted knives, or various pieces of luggand and his car.

It cannot be said, however, that James Bond had no heart. He hated thethought of killing, and never did so unless he was in a kill or be killed situation. Even then he was revolted by the thought of it afterward. There is only one death which James Bond ever acknowledged as as being unforgiveable. It is ironic that he was only an accessory before the fact to the murder.

“Bond closed his eyes tight, fighting with a wave
of mental nausea. More death! More blood on his
hands. This time, as a result of a careless gesture,
a piece of bravado that had led to a twenty-four
hour ecstasy with a beautiful girl who had taken his
fancy, and in the end, rather more than his fancy….
This death he would not be able to excuse as being
a part of his job. This death he would have to live
with.”  (6)

Whenever possible James Bond did not kill, but his training included every ruthless method known to man. When he retired, Bond wanted to write a book on the subject. He would never be given the chance.

When not condemning Bond for having to kill, critics take to condemning him for his love affairs. It is here that the writer would have to agree with the critics. Even with the idea in mind that Bond is a wanderer never to be allowed a home, “Home? This was his home, this cocoon of danger he had chosen to live in”, (7)  the over obundance of sex found in the novels is in far too many cases most unpleasant. (The books most enjoyable to the writer were the ones written purely for the adventure involved, namely, “<em>On Her Majesty’s Secret Service</em>” and “<em>Goldfinger</em>”. These two, play down the sex angle to the greatest degree, and by doing so they make the novel all the more enjoyable.)

Since Ian Fleming made it known that the James Bond series was written primarily for the money (8), it is not hard to understand why the novels were well spiced with sex. It is only a reflexion, however and it might be, of the generation in which we live. Being the practical man that he was, Fleming used every device at hand to make Bond the success he wanted him to be. As long as the money was good, the sex would stay in the life of Bond.

In one of his last novels, however, there seems to be a speck of light on the horizon. All of Bond’s affairs had been momentary subjects lasting no more than a week. In the novel “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”, Bond falls in love. By the end of the novel he is seriously thinking giving up the Service, realizing that love and espionage cannot be mixed with proportionately to come up with a complete life. He understands fully that it means a total change in his way of life, but he is willing to accept the change. His love is strong enough to enable him to find success even if it is only a fraction of success somehere else. He marries. In this one gesture the writer feels that Bond has almost erased all the accusations of total amorality leveled at him by his critics. It is unfortunate, however, that Fleming could not leave well enough alone. Following the epics of ancient Greece, the angry gods step in to give just one more fatal blow to the victor which will result in his actually becoming the vanquished. In this case the final blow is death. Tracy, his wife of a day, is killed in an automobile accident. Bond, who was driving the car, is left with a shattered life to piece back together again. Knowing one kind of life, he heads back to the Secret Service.

It is positive in the writer’s mind that Fleming was having some kind of tug of war within himself exactly as to where James Bond was head-ed. By his own life he understood that a man could not go on indefinitely without true love of any kind. To be complete James Bond  needed to love. The love Bond felt for Tracy was a genuine love which went against all the training of mind and body which had been his way of life for twenty years. “Bond found his voice saying those words that he had never said in his life before, never expected to say. ‘Tracy, I love you. Will you marry me?’ ”  It was, in the writer’s opinion, almost cruel of Fleming to allow him only a day of happiness. The writer can only guess that at the last moment Fleming had a second thought about the possible success of Bond trillers, and felt that he must have her die now. He could not wait for the sequel because there were people who would not buy a thriller containing a married hero. However thin the excuse aesthetically of money is, Fleming felt it great enough to give James Bond only a taste of victory.

The fact remains, however, that James Bond did love. In this single gesture he was able to become a complete man. Bond could no longer consider himself merely a machine in the service of Britain. He was now fulfilled in his manhood. Even in the remaining novel in the series and the one incomplete novel, the thought still remains – James Bond has loved, loved enough to forget self and country and enjoy the pleasure of marriage. The thoughts of Tracy follow him through the next two novels. Where his face had always been stoic, the thought of Tracy can make his eyes smile. Thanks to true love Bond would always be a complete man. Fleming could not kill this idea. Perhaps he did not want to do it.

James Bond, man of mystery, died when Fleming died in 1964. The one sad feature of an incomplete novel is that the person who takes over, cannot possibly take over in the exact footsteps of the originator. The real James Bond is dead now no matter how many future novels bearing his name appear on the shelves of bookstores around the world. In the brief ten years of his life he managed to bring to the lives of many the sense of mystery they wanted to live the selves but never could because they were the ordinary workers at the ordinary jobs that could make a country strong or weak, depending on how well they did their work. Not realizing their own importance, they sought escape in the mystery of a man whose life gave the impression of importance far beyond of their own. It is a common fallacy of human nature to be drawn to a man who was no past and no firm future. He lives only for the ever present now, something that each of us wishes we could do – not to worry about the past becuse it means nothing, and not to worry about the future because it is so indefinite it does not matter either. Jmes Bond was this type of man. By associating with him the reader was allowed to drift about in his world for a few hours in a suspended feeling of importance which ended when the book was put back on the shelf.


(1)   “The Man With the Golden Bond”, ” Time”, 84:22-23, August 21’1964.
(2)   Ian Fleming, “Casino Royale”, p.51.
(3)   ————— ,”Goldfinger”, p.182.
(4)   ————— , “From Russia With Love”, p.37.
(5)   Ibid., p.41.
(6)   As the same of (3), p.121.
(7)   Ibid., p.128.
(8)   As the same of (1), p.22-23.
(9)   Ian Fleming, “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”, p.137.

<strong>THE  ODD  BEDFELLOWS</strong>

<strong>                            </strong> With his early career as a journalist in London, Berlin and Moscow tucked neatly under his arms, it is of little surprise that Ian Fleming, now accustomed to the fast paced life as an intelligence officerr after six years in the service of his King, went back to his first calling, a calling which allowed him to keep on the move constantly. With his background as an intelligence officer, it is also of little surprise that the “London Sunday Times” made him their foreign manager.  (1)  He was quite used to dealing with other countries, a characteristic quality quite uncommon to the average English-man who, according to perhaps unfounded criticism, cannot see beyond the shores of his own island. The owners of the London Sunday Times could not, however, have realized the gravity of the stipulation made by Fleming in accepting the position. He made an annual two month vacation, during which time he would write only what he wanted to write, a part of his contract. It was during one of these vacations that James Bond emerged in <strong>Casino Royale</strong>.

“The scent and smoke and sweat of a casino are nausea-
ting at three in the morning. Then the soul-erosion pro-
duced by high gambling – a compost of greed and fear and
nervous tension- becomes unbereable, and the senses
awake and revolt from it. James Bond suddenly knew that
he was tired.”   (2)

As evidenced by the above quote, there are two facts of utmost importance here: firstly, Ian Fleming was diligently trained as a journalist bringing with it all the trappings of the journalistic style, primarily, minute description and episodic style; secondly, he was a trained officer in the intelligence branch of the Royal Navy which also includes the skills of exact and accurate observation and a somewhat loose style. Both these trainings merged in the James Bond adventure novels to form a style which combined the somewhat odd bedfellows odf easy, effortless reading and perfectly detailed description which is, in truth, as exact as many description to be found in the literature of the sixties. The writer would even go so far as to say that it is the best she has read in the novels of the past twenty years.

The description in the James Bond novels is equal to picking up a photograph in the  best of the four-color processses. Fleming himself points out this fact in a scene in one of the novels. Bond has been given a split second to look at a situation and memorize it. This is, of course, a cgore which is a well-known to any man who has dedicated himself to the some-what dubious life of a secret service agent. He must have trained his mind in the art of total and accurate recall. Without this amazing art, he would easily be placing his life into unnecessary jeopardy everyday. After Bond has looked at the scene, Fleming writes: “Then Bond sat down and meticulously went over the photograph that was in his brain.”  (3)  This single sentence is followed by two large paragraphs of minute detail, concerning the picture Bond has just made his mind of the scene.

In this picture can be found the placement of people and the details of how they are standing and what they are doing; situation of objects including a conveyor-belt extending out ito a jetty, a crane and a ship. Nothing of the greatest or smallest importance to the mind’s are is left out. Even the measurements of size and distance is given with approximations: the canvas sock which is “perhaps twelve feet above the quay”, and the “tender of around ten thousand tons deadweight”.  (4)  The reader is put into the position of seeing the words in print and believing they exist somewhere exactly as they are being described.

The writer considers this descriptive ability of Ian Fleming to be the greatest single factor enforcing her opinion concerning the literary value of the James Bond series.

Fleming had amitted that the entire series is in fact built on “hilariously preposterous plots hardly meant to be taken seriously”.  (5)  He meant them to be a source of momentary pleasure which would bring the reader back for a second reading of the same man. He wanted Bond to become a hero who would lure the people away from all other types of adventure stories. Ian Fleming did not want James Bond to become any kind of symbol, however. He had only contempt for any of his critics who tried to read anything at all into Bond.

The fact remains that many people, in a manner of speaking, did take Bond seriously. This is not to say that they became Bond. They went with him. They were transported the exact places, the very rooms, into which Bond travelled. They could ‘see’ through his eyesfor themselves the setting of the furniture, the decorations on the walls and table tops, the colors and textures of the rugs and, most importantly, the faces of the people.  This was all done by the vast amounts of description written throughout the novels. For this very reason, however brief the feeling might have lasted, it cannot be denied that the majority of James Bond readers were ‘there’ by his side through all his many adventures. The writer herself could not help being swept into the hot, sticky hotel rooms of Jamaica where the paint was falling off the walls, the somber offices in the London head-quarters of the service, or the dare-devil slopes of Switzerland were one false move could mean a mangled body and death.

Although it did not happen to this writer, she can easily see how it might be possible for a certain few of the Bond readers to identify with the people in the novels. It would be easiest for them to identify with the dashing Mister Bond himself. Fleming leaves nothing out of the characteri-zation of the hero. Each of his many and varied moods is shown in the finest detail. He is seen at both work and play. The reader follows him from morning to night through description resembling that of a movie camera. For just the briefest moment the reader might allow himself to be swept into the excitement of a life or death struggle against a giant squid, a race down a dangerous slope, or even a moonlight swim in the dark waters of the
Mediterranean Sea.

While Fleming does concentrate mainly on the character of Bond, he never allows one of the minor characters to slip away. Because time usually does not allow a complete psychoanalysis of the minor characters, Fleming usually characterizes them via physical. He uses many of time worn but effective stock types to portray one of the lesser heroes or the villain. Each of these usually has some trait or physical disability which sets him aside from all the rest. “<strong>Doctor No</strong>”, the power crazy genius from the East, has had both hands amputated by his enemies to show that they no longer considered him even worthy enough to be one of their band of saboteurs. Auric <strong>Goldfinger</strong>, the world’s richest and, at the same time, greediest man, shines in the sun because his coloring resembles that of gold he lives for. Earnst Stavio <strong>Blofeld</strong> had completely changed his appearance from the last time he had met Bond. The only think that could have given away his identity was his eyes, but Flofeld now kept them constantly in the shade of black glasses.

Following through to his idea that all of his plots would be totally out of proportion, Fleming has made all of his villains completely insane. Each is after the conquest of the world. Except for their various and unique traits, one could very easily be the other. Their minds are the same, but physically they are separate and unique.

The case of Earnst Blofeld brings to the foreground that part of the physical which Fleming seems to deal in the most; that which he has completedly mastered, the eyes.

It has always ben considered that the eyes are the only part of the anatomy which cannot be completely changed. As in the case of Blofeld, they could be covered by dark glasses, or, as in the case of Doctor No, they could be protected by contact lenses, but in the long run, the eyes cannot be totally changed, only camouflaged.

Because the eyes are unchangeable, they have bee  used constantly bu authors as a basis for description. They are considered the window or mirror of the soul. They allow another person to look directly into the depths of a character. The eyes cannot lie as often or as well as the other facial features. In most cases the eyes cannot lie at all. For this reason they have also been considered the source of beauty and truth in a person.

The writer would imagine that Ian Fleming had many opportunities to put the eyes of others to various tests while we was both a secret service agent and a journalist. When he did not know someone’s personality, it would be an easy task for this trained man to ‘read’ the truth in the other’s eyes. Fleming put this knowledge to use over and over again in the Bond series.

In one scene, from “Goldfinger”, Bond finds himself in a rather awkward position. He is working for for the insane genius with the single thought of immediate death hanging over his head if he made the wrong move. Goldfinger asks him to do just one thing. He wants him to look at the men he has gathered for a type of ‘convention’, and tell him afterward
whether or not they have been telling the truth. This, of course, would have been a tall order for most people untrained in the art, but Bond comes off well. He watches only one thing throughout the entire scene, the eyes.

He first noticed that <strong>Mr. Midnight</strong> while he seemed jovial enough had “slow careful eyes”. He founf himself fascinated by the eyes of <strong>Mr. Ring</strong> “which should have been plae blue” but “were a tawny brown”. “The whites showed all around the pupils and gave a mesmeric quality to the hard thoughtful stare, unsoftened by a tic in the right eyelid which made the right eye wink with the heart-beat”. Bond’s attention is then turned to <strong>Mr</strong>. <strong>Springer</strong> who “had the glazed eyes of someone wjo is either very rich or very dead”.  “The eyes were pale blue opaque glass marbles which briefly recognized Bond and then turned inwards in complete absorption with self.” <strong>Mr. Solo'</strong>s eyes were covered with hornrimmed glasses which “heliced briefly in Bond’s direction and than beat again to the business of cleaning Mr. Solo’s nails with a pocket knife.” Bond became aware of <strong>Mr. Strap</strong> knew “his eyes frightened people because now, presumably not wanting to frighten Bond, he gave them charm by crinkling them at the corners.” When the eyes
were not busy trying to deceive, they were the eyes of a ‘conjuror’ ”  (6)  With his years of reading eyes, however, Bond was able to detect only one of the men in a lie.

“Almost instinctively, Bond watched the eyes of  <strong>Mr.</strong>
<strong>Helmut Springer</strong> from Detroit. While affirmatives
in various tones of voice came from the others, Mr.
Springer veiled his eyes. His portentous, ‘You have
my solemn word,’ rang hollow. To Bond the condour
was as false as a second-hand motor salesman’s.
Casually he drew a short straight minus line beside
Mr. Springer’s name on the agenda.”  (7)

Goldfinger’s trust in Bond’s ability was such that his minus sign meant deah to the unknowing Mr. Springer
To demonstrate thenpower of eyes, Fleming shows the innocent <strong>Honeychile Rider</strong> “half hypnotized, like a bush mouse in front of a rattlesnake.” The cause of this spell is the evil Doctor No whose “eyes were hard as onyx under the billiard ball forehead and skull. The polite mask had gone. The Grand Inquisitor sat in the high-bcaked chair.”  (8) When Fleming says that ” the polite mask had gone,” he simply means that Doctor No had removed the lenses he usually wore before this final interview with Bond and the girl. When he did so the true evil which he represented was freely distributed to anyone in the room. Bond felt that the cold difference, but he was not about to let Doctor No recognize his fear as easily as he had seen the girl’s. He made himself stay calm even though he wanted to stop No’s staring at Honeychile.

A lesser literary condition which struck the writer as being very powerful in the writing of Ian Fleming is is his use of descriptive personification and animal imagery. The images he creates are extremely powerful and directly to the point. Each hits with the unmistakable precision of a master craftsman.

The writer has taken several examples from each of Fleming’s most popular novels to give some indication of his outstanding ability. It must be noted that they are taken out of context. It can be seen, however, that the power behind them is not lost.


(1)  A short crackle of talk with the central tower,
the central tower came through the open door to

David Herbert LAWRENCE: A Hippy Writer

              <Written and prepared by Elinore Jackson, a student in the ‘Master’ program of the Salve Regina College (Now University), Newport, R.I., and, her Professor of Psychology and supervisor: Prof.Dr. Ismail Ersevim, as a thesis, required for her graduation, in 1969 -USA>

                                                David Herbert LAWRENCE
                                                           < A ‘Hippy’ Writer >

                                                                    CHAPTER  I

                          If David Herbert Lawrence was still living today, he would be classified as a “hippy”, who was not only a believer in free love, but also a condemner of both Democracy and Christianity. To him, free love was the root of individualism and society as a whole was the root killer. Lawrence denounced all political systems and most religions, because they represented a community, and a community of any kind prevents the development of strong individuals. Under the political power of Democrasy, Communism and Socialism, and, under the religious strain of Christianity, man has a tendency to move towards nothingness. Thus, to Lawrence, “… Life, in the modern world was meaningless…”

                          Lawrence based his anti-intellectual philosophy around FREUD’s “Psychoanalytic” theory which states states that the sex drive is central to all behavior. <Note: It is not known, however, how early in life Lawrence was exposed to Freud. It would sem that he started reading Freud as early as his twentieth birthday, because all of his poems and short stories after that perid seem to show the Freudian influence.> Lawrence also based his philosophy on the belief that everything that exists, even a stone, has two sides to its picture: L i g h t n e s s,  the ordinary consciousness, and,  d a r k n e s s, the unconscious. He felt that in the tension of ‘opposites’, light and dark, mind and body, all things have their being; and this new whole being “which is created by establishing a relation between the opposites is not fusing of the two into one but a complementng of the one by the other.”
<H.M. Daleski, The Darked Flame, Evanston, 1965, pp.18-22>

                          Both his psychoanalytic theory and his dualistic theory are based on his early readings of the following: Schopenhauer, Nietszche, Samuel Butler and Bernard Shaw. SCHOPENHAUER stressed the importance of the will to live of which mind and knowledge are merely servants. All “reality” was dynamic through the will, unconscious in nature, but conscious in man. He felt that although man was moving toward nothingness, he could cure his pain through art, and that is just what Lawrence did; he turned to  his writing as his salvation.

                          NIETZSCHE emphasized the importance of both the “myth” and the knowledge of “blood conscious”. Instead of making the will move toward nothingness, he makes it move towards “power”. But first, man must remove the barrier of God, because the belief in God is what opposes man’s to power. God was the opposite of life; and for Nietzsche and for Lawrence unrestrained emotion was life.  Both BUTLER and SHAW believed in the necessity of control and direction of the lower by the higher, and the willingness tı rely on God, the life force. In a letter to Ernest Collins in 1913, Lawrence combined all of the above viewpoints onto one belief of his own.
He confessed:

                                                  “My great religion is a belief in the blood, the flesh
                                                  as being wiser than the intellect. We can go wrong in
                                                  our minds. But what our blood feels and believes 
                                                  and says, is always true. The intellect is only a bit 
                                                  and a bridle. What do I care about knowledge. All
                                                  I want is to answer my blood, direct, or moral, or
                                                  what-not. I conceived a man’s body as a kind of
                                                  flame, like a candle flame, forever upright and yet
                                                  flowing; and the intellect is just the light that is
                                                  housed onto the things around. And I am not so
                                                  much concerned with the things around – – which
                                                  is really mind – – but with the mystery of the flame 
                                                  forever flowing.”
                                                  <E.W. Tedlock, Jr.; “D.H. Lawrence”, Albuquerque,
                          Lawrence was concerned with the problem of human existence; the problem of what it means really to live as a man; and how does one live a truly human life. He ignored everything, but the singular and individual. Out of his dislike for the universal and the abstract arises his interest in human freedom. The universal and the abstract degenerates man into an object, a thing, an “it”. There is a loss of the “phallic consciousness” that was so impor-tant to Lawrence. He was opposed to the mechanical forces, because they threatened the natural. It would be “blood-knowledge” that would bring about the balance of life until the attainment of whole man is reached. As far as Lawrence is concerned there were no whole men or whole women in the world because no one was able to equally balance mysticism and common sense.

                          He makes freedom the very essence of man. Material things of life may perish, but the central function of life would remain secure. The act of sex became a form of rebirth. From such a preoccupation arises the realization of the inhumanity of the view of modern technology wherein man becomes an impersonal member and a mere member of a group.

                          Lawrence continually praised the self-made man. But he felt too many men were followers of the crowd; they were men whose personal judg-
ments are based on those of the crowd. The Freudian man of existence, on the contrary, is the self-thinking man, the man of decision, the free man. He felt one becomes free only by having a personal interest in things by making decisions and by consciously following one’s choice. He contends that the individual be personally involved in a situation and that he makes his deci-sion with passionate concern. A great man is free of conviction and he intro- duces his own will into things. But a lesser man needs a power beyond him for survival. Therefore, in Lawrence’s literature his lesser males rely on society to tell them what to do. Also, his incomplete males need an instru-ment beyond them such as a flute, a rocking horse, or a pipe, in order to feel fulfilled. But, his greater males, few in number, are their own source of power and no higher authority than the impulse of their own blood.

                          His male is fully committed to life and all that it entails. The strength and power of the senses is the most essential element in him. He sees each individual as the arbiter of all values, who must assume, therefore the awesome responsibility of being the supreme legislator for his whole destiny. There are no guilty men, just responsible ones.

                          Lawrence also applied his dualistic theory to the power of
Christianity. He felt:
                          “The Christian religion became dual. The religion of the strong
                           taught renunciation and love. All the religion of he weak 
                           taught   down to the strong and powerful and let the poor be
                          “Brave people add up to an aristocracy. The democracy of
                          ‘thou-shall-not’ is bound to be a collection of weak men . . .
                          When the will of the people becomes the sum of the weakness
                          of a multitude of weak men, it is time to make a break.

                          “So today, Society consists of a mass of weak individuals trying
                          to protect themselves, out of fear, from every possible imagine-
                          ry evil, and, of course, by their very fear, bringing the evil into 
                          being. This is the Christian community today, in its perpetual
                          mean thou shall not. This is how Christian doctrine has worked
                          out in practice.”
                          (4)   <Helen Corke. “H.D. Lawrence”, Austin, 1965, pp: 69; 80-81>

                          Lawrence thoıght of the “Book of Revelation” as a force which started a completely new trend in society, which was based on the theory of “Today you suffer, tomorrow you shall reign.” (5)  Through Christianity’s
“will to destroy all power”  (6), it was becoming the final ultimate power.
                          (5),(6) :   İbid (4), p: 69, 75

                          Since Lawrence emphasized man in his concreteness and individuality, there is a tendency for him to describe man as alone, solitary, cut off from his fellow men. There are no objective moral standards to guide man in his choice. Each man is on his own; he is left to make his own decisions. Modern man finds himself a line outsider for whom the reasons certainties of a past generation are no longer satisfying or assuring. Modern life results in bewilderment, anxiety and frustration. This anguish finds expression in Lawrence’s notion of human existence as a movemen toward the nothingness of the grave and in the lament that life is a useless position.

                          To Lawrence, man is the sole lawgiver in the domain of morality. He is the creator of all values and ends. Life is to be what man makes it to be. Frustration, annoyance, and sorrows are part of all human living. The tragic, the irrational and the depraved are constantly employed to indicate man’s freedom as a crushing responsibility in a world that is seen more as a condemnation to loneliness than as a call to knowledge, love and service of others.

                                                               CHAPTER   II

                           David Herbert Lawrence, English novelist, short story writer, essayist and poet, was born September 11, 1886, in the coal mining village of Eastwood, Notthinghampshire. His father was a blackbearded coalminer, un-interested in books and ideas, but clever with his hands. His mother was a cultured ex-schoolteacher, who was very serious and puritanical in nature. Mrs. Lawrence, who felt socially superior to her husband, was totally unprepared for the life of a miner’s wife and took her frustration out on her husband. The couple quarreled bitterly and as a refuge the husband took to excessive drinking and to keeping late hours. Becasuse of the father’s drunkennness, the children became closer to their mother and were passionately devoted to her. They hated their father and alienated him from the family circle. It was at ths time that Lawrence’s Oedipus Complex appeared to be in the highest intensity. (1)
                           < -1- Freud theorized that a body during his preschool years quite normally developed a strong attachment for his mother, sometimes even to the point of wanting to get rid of his father, so that he can have her all to himself.>
                           This passionate love for his mother was to remain as one of the major factors, influencing almost every piece of literary work.
                           Lawrence was educated at Nottingham High School and at Nottingham University, and began teaching at the age of eighteen in an elemmentary school at Croyden, near London.

                           In the early years of Adolescence Lawrence spent a majority of his time at Hagg’s Farm, visiting with his intimate friend, Jessei Chambers. Through his visits Hagg’s Farm, Lawrence developed a sensitivity for nature. From his mother, Lawrence had inherited his seriousness about life, but from Jessie he had received the freedom to form his imagination. It was Jessie who first encouraged Lawrence to write verse, and it was she who submitted his early verses to Ford Maddox Heuffer for publication in “The English Review” in 1909. As a result of this connection, in 1911 Lawrence published his first novel, “The White Peacock.”

                           In the autumn of 1908, at the age of twenty three, Lawrence left Eastwood and started his teaching career at Davidson Road School in Croyden. Lawrence soon wearied of his work and considered  the classrom to be a prison, smelling of sterility and of frustration. His revolting nature towards his students is clearly evident in the following passages of his “school” poems:

                           “I feel them cling and cleave to me
                           As vines going eagerly up; they twine
                           My life with other leaves, my time
                           Is hidden in theirs, their thrills are mine
                           When will the bell ring, and end this weariness?” (2)
                           <-2-Frederick J. Hoffman, “The Achievement of D.H. Lawrence,
                           “Norman”, 1953, p. 242>


                           “What does it matter to me, if they can write
                           A description of a dog, or if they can’t?
                           What is the Point? To us both it is all my aunt!
                           And yet I’m supposed to care with all my might.
                           I do not, and will not; and they won’t and they don’t;
                           And that’s all!
                           I shall keep my strength for myself; they can keep
                           theirs as well.
                           Why should we beat our head against the wall
                           Of each other? I shall sit and wait for ghe bell. (3)
                           <-3- Hugh Kingsmill, “The Life of D.H. Lawrence”, New York,
                           1938, p. 43>

                           Developing ‘double pneumonia’, Lawrence gave up teaching as a living and turned to the literature as a full-time pursuit. Lwrence was then able to begin to write his finest novel, “Sons and Lovers“, which was:

                           “… a backyard look for lawrence at the malaise of his youth at home in Eastwood, and through all the analysis of the causes of his failure in the relationships with Miriam (Jessie) and Clara runs the death-drift brought by the mother’s suffering, ending in fortuitous, and rahter blind choice of life…” (4)
                           <-4- E. W. Tedlock, Jr., “D.H. Lawrence”, Albuquerque, 1963,
                           p. 11>


                           In “D.H. Lawrence: A Personal Record“, Jessie writes that after reading <Sons and Lovers>, she feels that she had been betrayed. Their relationship ended with the completion of ‘Sons and Lovers.’

                           Shortly after, while in Germany in 1912, Lawrence met Frieda weekly, whom he married two years later in England and whom he spent his remaining years with, restlessly travelling in search of “a new life”, adhering to the rebellious philosophy. Frieda was in her early thirties when Lawrence met her, some years older than and the mother of three children. She was a woman who “lived in a placid dream, which was variegated at times by love affairs that were almost equally unreal.”  (5)  She had a strong influence over
him and helped greatly in forming his philosophy on sex.
                           <(5) Kingsmill, p.55>

                           During his early twenties Lawrence’s willingness to rely on God, the life force, was transformed into a belief in many gods as the true vitalistic force. He felt that the Christian world was too conscious of morality and too obsessed with “Thou shall not” that it tended to smother the natural instincts in man. In need of sympathy, Lawrence turned to Polytheism. Lawrence tried to resolve his Pan-Christ conflict in a poem, clarifying that Christ is the day-god of the human, responsible, civilized world; and that Pan is the night-god of the nonhuman, unconscious and mythical force:

                                     “But I am a nymph and a woman, and Pan is
                           for me, and Christ is for me.
                                      For Christ I cover myself in my robe, and
                           weep, and vow my vow of honesty.
                                      For Pan I throw my coverings down and run
                           headalong through the leaves, because of the
                           joy of running.
                                      And Pan will give me my man, and Christ
                           my husband.
                                       To Pan I am a nymph, to Christ I am a
                                       And Pan is in the darkness, and Christ is
                           in the pale light.
                                       And night shall never by day, and day shall
                           never by light.
                                       But side by side they shall go, day and
                           night, night and day, for ever apart, for ever
                                       Pan and Christ, Christ and Pan.
                                       Both moving over me, so when in the sunshine
                           I go in robes among my neighbors, I am a
                           Christian. But when I run robeless through the
                           dark-scented woods alone, I am Pan’s nymph…”   (6)
                           <(6) E.W. Tedlock, p.200>

                           Even his religion has a duality of nature; that is, in the poem his image of God is both a nymph and a woman – – the tension of opposites. It was that this unconscious world that was so important to Lawrence and it was this world that he was continually searching for.

                           The English novelist was unquestionably better at writing prose than verse. However, some of his later verse is quite noteworthy. In poetry his chief publications were: “Love Poems” (1913), “Look! We have come through.” (1917), “New Poems” (1918); “Birds, Beast and Flowers” (1923);
“Collected Poems” (1928); “Pansies” (1929); “Nettles” (1930); “Last Poems”  (1932).

                          Many of his early poems are distinguishingly horrible! The early Lawrence felt that consciousness spoiled poetry and thus dealt strictly with producing emotional satisfaction and unfortunately cared nothing for formal structure. Later, Lawrence realized the inadequacy of his early verse and wrote “Collected Poems” in 1928 as an apology.

                          Lawrence’s pre-war verse was a product of the “New Freedom”. Being an anti-Victorian he revolted against the conventionalism of Swinburn and Tennyson. His poetry of this period was modeled after Hardy, filled with realism and a sense of fatalistic disaster. His people were stark, plain-spoken and of the earth itself.

                          “Lightning”, published in 1913, in “Love Poems” is full of this earthly diction. The poem is not a love poem, but an accusation against the lady’s coldness. The poem also points out Lawrence’s sensitivity for linguistics:

                           “I leaned in the darkness to find her lips
                                    And claim her utterly in  kiss,
                           When the lightning flew accross her face
                           And I saw her for the flaring space
                                    Of a second, like snow that slips
                           From a roof, inert with death, weeping
                                    “Not this!  Not this!”

                           A moment these, like snow in the dark
                                    Her face lay pale against my brest,
                           Pale love lost in a thaw of fear
                           And melted in an icy tear,
                                    And open lips, distressed;
                           A moment; then darkness shut the lid
                                    of the sacred ark.

                           And I heard the thunder, and felt the rain,
                                    And my arms fell loose, and I was dumb.
                           Almost I hated her, sacrificed;
                           Hated myself, and the place, and the iced
                                    Rain that burnt on my rage; saying: Come
                           Home, come home, the lightning has
                                    made it too plain!.” 

                           The language is direct, natural, forceful, and concrete; Lawrence, like Pound, was obsessed with the purification of diction.
Lawrence ignored stanziac pattern of rhyme and concentrated heavily on diction and rhythm and his later poetry contradicts his earlier theory that content is all important and that form will take care of itself. His poetry became less sentimental and less prettified, and more specific and more natural. Lawrence has a great gift in the interpretation of natural scenery. It sometimes caused him to be classified as an Imagist.

                           “Bavarian Gentians”, based on mythology, takes a Lawrencian reader on a tour through the interior or an Etruscan tomb:

                           “Reach me a gentian, give me a torch!
                           Let me guide myself with the blue, forked touch/
                                                                               of flower
                           Down the way Persephone goes, just now, in/
                                                                               first-frosted September
                           To the sightless realm where darkness is/
                                                                               married to dark
                           And Persephone herself is but a voice, as a/
                           A gloom invisible enfolded in the deeper dark
                           Of the arms of Pluto as he ravishes her once/
                           And pierces her once more with his passion/
                                                                                of the utter dark.”

                           The “I” is the poet’s soul on a dark journey to the unconscious, non-human world. The marriage of Persephone and Pluto represents the final union of the soul and the unconscious and the rebirth of life in death. “For I will go to the wedding, and be wedding-guest/ So the marriage of the living dark.”

                           Mrs. Lawrence’s influence over her son was strengthened with her death and in honor of her death Lawrence wrote “Piano” and “Hymns to Priapus”. Richard Ellman Gray says that “Hymn of Priapus” is a triumph of self-examination, so harsh that it almost ridicules his sorrow. It begins with the thought of his dead mother, then describes his lovemaking with a live country girl and ends by considering the limits and checks which have beeen put upon human grief:  (7)
                            <(7) F.J. Hoffman, p.262>

                            “My love lies underground
                            With her face upturned to mine,
                            And her mouth unclosed in a last long kiss
                            That ended her life and mine.

                            I danced at the Christmas party
                            Under the mistletoe
                            Along with a ripe, slack country lass
                            Jostling to and fro.
                            She fares in the stark immortal
                            Fields of death;
                            I in these goodly, frozen
                            Fields beneath.

                            Something in me remembers
                            And will not forget.
                            The stream of my life in the darkness
                            Deathward set!

                            And something in me has forgotten,
                            Has ceased to care.
                            Desire comes up, and contentment
                            Is debonair.

                            I, who am worn and careful,
                            How much do I care?
                            How is it I grin then, and chuckle
                            Over despair?

                            Grief, grief, I suppose and sufficient
                            Grief makes us free
                            To be faithful and faithless together;
                            As we have to be.”

                            Whitman’s beliefs, that both blood and self were of primary importtance and not the intellect of man, predominated as the main theme in Lawrence’s “Love Poems”, especially in “The Ship of Death” which is said to be an echo of Whitman’s “Passage to India“. However, Lawreence felt that Whitman was indiscriminate and that his theory of self had become “an empty allness”. In “The Ship of Death” Lawrence also stressed that, ‘death’ is only a part of life, the longest journey, and maybe the greatest adventure.

                            “Now it is Autumn and the falling fruit
                            and the long journey towards oblivion.

                            The apples falling like great drops of dew
                            to bruise themselves an exit from themselves.

                            And it is time to go, to bid farewell
                            to one’s own self, and find an exit
                            from the fallen self.

                            Build then the slip of death, for you must take
                            the longest journey, to oblivion.

                            And die the death, the long and painful death
                            that lies between the old self and the new.

                            Already our bodies are fallen, bruised, badly/
                            already our souls are oozing through the exit
                                                                                          of the cruel bruise.”

                            Death is only the beginning of a new dawn, a new birth, “A flush of rose and the whole thing starts again.” Lawrence realized that his illness was getting worse and anticipated the arrival of death in the above poem. In 1930 Lawrence died at the age of 44 of tuberculosis. He had built his ship through his travels and had finally found “new life” that he was continually searching for.

                                                             CHAPTER   III

                            The later Lawrence thought of himself as a prophet in need of saving the world. He felt individualism was dissolving in the soup of the masses. Man was so caught up in materyalism that he had lost contact with nature and all that was truly beautiful and necessary in the universe. Society was colorless and everyone of its members was nothing more than a copy of the other. Man is so blinded by making money that he can no longer see the stars and moon as one of life’s greatest phenomena. Living among the masses has caused man to think of the stars and the moon as only instruments, reminding him that it is no longer day but night. Lawrence felt the cosmos was a vital part of man. Therefore, the Sun, one of the planets in the cosmos, became a common symbol of the unconscious world im his anti-intellectual philosopht. To Lawrence, the night represented coldness and death, but with the dawn of the Sun came warmth and rebirth. It is with the direct contact to the sun, the life-giving power, that man is able to escape from collectivity and experience a new way of living.

                            His theme of vitalistic rebirth is artistically and effectively exploited in ‘Sun’, which is a short story about the vitalistic resurrection of a woman. The story is cleverly divided into five parts, each part suggesting one of the progressive steps taken toward her awakening into the real world. The first part is concerned with the balancing of the unconscious with the conscious in the inner her until she is one; and then with her desire to help her sun grow up into a Lawrencian “true male”. Part II involves the child’s fears of the sun and his slow transgression into an animalistic male, who has escaped captivity. During this time the mother continues to strenghthen her union with the sun. Part III ends with bother mother and son oversoming such worldly fears as the danger of a snake, because nothing presented itself as a threat and all was accepted under “the power of the sun”.

                            In Part IV the contrast of the man-made-power with the vital power is brought to the forefront with the arrival of the husband, who ‘looked pathetically out of place, in that resplendent sunshine and the grace of the old Greek World; like a blot of ink, on the pale, sun glowing slope.”  The conflict of powers is also emphasized by the comparison of this modern family with one of the Italian peasant families. The modern American family symbolizes the ‘intellect in man’, while the Italian peasant family symbolizes the “will in man’. Like of all Lawrence’s works, a harmony between ‘will’ and ‘intellect’ is made possible with the inclination of conceivable love affair between the American wife and the Italian peasant. But, again like all of his works, theh harmony is never reached. The possibility of balancing ‘will’ and ‘intelligence’ is crushed by the wife’s realization that it will have to be her husband’s baby that she bears and not the peasant’s.

                            “Sun” is obviously one of Lawrence’s later masterpieces, because although it is typical of his man-woman relationships, it is not typical of his earlier treatment of his woman characters. Generally, in such earlier stories as “The Witch a la Mode” or “Strike Pay”, the women represent the evil civilized world and consequently are not fulfilling their real destiny in life; they are practical first and impulsive second; they are citizens first and women second. Up until his encounter with Frieda, his wife, Lawrence had a strong hatred for woman-kind, which was due to his Oedipal complex, which had caused an inner conflict of feelings as to the question of who should dominate, man or woman. Ironically, in “Sun” it is not the husband who is trying to escape conformity, but the wife. It is she who rebels against the dead life; it is she who must bear the judgment of both the moral and social world; and it is she who suffers the pain of alienation. The sun is her god, who bathes away the impurities in her soul with every electrifying and vital ray that he delivers from his hot body. Finally, she had become the priestess of the sun, carrying his message forward to her son.

                              The story begins with the doctors saying, “Take her away, into the sun.” The doctors are Lawrence delivering his sermon to his readers. Also, from that first line the reader is prepared for an uncoming baptism that may never be completed. His dualisitic theory, that everything has two sides of it, one of ‘lightness’ and the other of ‘darkness’, is present once again in the story through the contrasting descriptions of New York, which represents civilization, and of Italy, which represents the old paganistic world. It becomes evident that both New York and Italy are struggling within the wife. They are both fighting for power, each wishing to be the dominant power, yet as Lawrence continually points out, “peace of mind” can only be reached when the two are in harmony with one another. It is the wife’s duty to bring them together giving each equal power. The wife seems to accomplish her mission, but then fails at the end.

                             In the opening of Part I,  the husband saying goodbye to hiw wife and son in New York. “It was a black night” and although the couple bitterly “wanted to get away from one another” they were filled with “aprehension, misgiving and there was a certain note of clinging to the last straw of hope”. The wife was going  “Out to sea” to Italy, but for the husband it was “All shore”. This separation between both husband and wife was to continue throughout the whole story, which was typical to Lawrence’s marital relationships. The husband was a prisoner of the earth aith its “deep iron rhythm of habit, the year-long, life-long habits; the seepset stroke of power” as a need so be the possessor of standard conformity.

                              Through his use of color, Lawrence’s hatred for the mechanical world begins to shine out. Thus, New York was not lavishly alive with people who were dressed in bright pinks and lavenders, and the sun did not shine with rays of yellow, orange and red, but all that was bright that nights was “the poor harvest of lights at the Battery.” When “Liberty flung up her torch in a tantrum, so did the tension and anguish within both the city and the individuals come flying out. The reeder sees the uneasiness of the situation and feels the lack of tranquility in the air.

                              But, as the ship moves out to sea, the blackness slowly drifts away. Contrary to New York, in the Sicilian town there are no statues and everything is alive with the vital colors of “red”, “gold”, “green” nd “yellow.” The contrasting description from New York into the little town of Sicily os so gracefully displayed by Lawrence in the following paragraph:

                                                   “And though the Atlantic was grey and lava, 
                                                   she did come at last into the Sun. Even she had
                                                   a  house above the bluest of seas, with a vast
                                                   garden, or vineyard, all vines and olives steeply,
                                                   terrace after terrace, to the strip of coast-plain;
                                                   and the garden full of secret places, deep groves
                                                   of lemon far down the cleft of the earth, and hidden,
                                                   pure green reserviors of water; then a spring
                                                   issuing out of a little cavern, where the old Sicules
                                                   had drunk before the Greeks came; and a grey goat
                                                   bleating, stabled in n Ancient tomb, with all the 
                                                   niches empty. There was the scent of mimosa, and
                                                   beyond, the snow of volcano.” 
                              One could almost visualize his own Shgangrila as maybe looking for just like that. It possesses the same serenity and loveliness that could be in the “Parliament of Fowls”.

                              The mastery of color, which is redundantly used in each section, becomes one of the Lawrence’s major tools. Every necessary step taken toward the wife’s resurrection takes place through the contrast of colors. For example, her union with the “hot sun” is described with her removing her “dove-grey wrapper” and exposing her white “naked body” to the “gold and scarlet” sun. “And the moment she was covered again she was grey and invisible.” In the following excerpt, her climatic baptism from the dead life into the vital world is paralelled with the tanning of her body. Also, the passage depicts Lawrence’s strong belief in the true necessity of man and nature becoming one, each being a complement of the other:

                                                   “When, out of sun at noon, sometimes she stole 
                                                   down over the rocks and the cliff edge, down to 
                                                   the deep gully where the Lemons hung in cool
                                                   eternal shadow, and in the silence slipped off her
                                                   wrapper to wash herself quickly at one of the deep,
                                                   clear green basins, she would notice, in the bare
                                                   green twilight under the lemon leaves, that all her
                                                   body was rosy, rosy and turning gold. She was like
                                                   another person… With her knowledge of the sun,
                                                   and her conviction that the sun knew her, in the
                                                   cosmic carnal sense of the word, came over her a
                                                   feeling of detachment from people, and a certain
                                                   contenpt for human beings altogether. They were
                                                   so un-elemental, so unsunned. They were so like    
                                                   graveyard worms… So she remembered that the
                                                   Greeks had said, ‘a white, unsunny body was fishy
                                                   and unhealthy.’ ” 

                             Lawrence believed that the Greeks were closer to finding the
absolute truth than his present day Christians. At last, the Greeks were not tied down by the moral “responsibility” that Christianity had placed upon the modern man’s back. As E.W. Tedlock,Jr. explains in “D.H. Lawrence: Artist and Rebel”, all of the Lawrence’s later literacy works were primarily concer-ned with “his longing for a paradisal state of being through purification.” With the wife’s rejection and contempt for the conscious world, she has now reached that perfect, heavenly state of being that Lawrence so desires to obtain himself.

                             But ‘morality’ supressed the wife’s new born freedom when she surrenders to her husband’s sexual passions instead of her own. Although Christianity respects her decision and admires her strength to overcome temptation, Lawrence does not. He punishes her by leaving her in a state of pain and anguish. She is left with the same unrestful soul that Lawrence died with.

                             The wife’s final decision at tye end represents the new and mature Lawrencian philosophy, which states that the blood, the flesh and the instincts should operate in balance with the intellect and not alone. His earlier theories about “blood and darkness” remained as the central point of his philosophy. However, the belief in the tension of opposites is still present because, although the wife makes this rational decision through the mind, the heart is not happy.

                             The whole new philosophy of balancing mind and heart is repeated in “Lady Chatter’s Lover“, only on a much deeper scale than “Sun“. Thus, ‘Sun’ is just smaller copy of ‘Lady Chatterley’s Lover’ However, in Lady Chatterley’s Lover it is not the wife who joines the blood and darkness with the intellect, but the gardener, who represented the true Lawrencian hero. He tells the wife at the end that it is impossible to carry on a love affair behind her husband’s back, and that their love for one another would have to remain in vain.

                             Thus, both wives are forced to remain with their husbands, while still desiring a “true male”. In all of Lawrence’s literature, the hero is not the aristocrat with his abundance of material wealth and charm, but the peasant with his sun-tanned body as his only asset. The husband in each ttheme is portrayed as an indoor man, who might be standing “gray-faced, in his grey felt hat and his dark grey suit”.  The husbands lack the vitalism of the sun. Yet, both the gardener and the Italian peasant belong to the soil; they are both vegetables getting nourishment from the sun; they need only the basics in life just as that was all their ancestors before them needed. At the end of his life, wityh death so near, Lawrence’s rebellion against the world calmed down. Instead of condemning everything in society, he started working toward some type of balance between his beliefs and his world’s beliefs. However, he could not help feeling that maybe the world would be better off being half civilized and half animalistic, just as it was so many, many years ago.


(1)    “The Complete Poems of D.H. Lawrence”, Vols. I&II, The Viking Press,
          N.Y., 1964.
(2)    “The Complete Short Stories”, Vols. I&II; William Heinemann Ltd.,
          London, 1963.
(3)    Corke, Helen; “D.H. Lawrewnce: The Croyden Years”, Univ.of Texas 
          Press, Austin, 1965.
(4)    Daleski, H.M.; “The Forked Flame”, Northwestern University Press,
          Evanston, Ill, 1965.
(5)    Hoffman, E.J.; ” The Achievements of D.H. Lawrence”, University of
          Oklahoma Press, Norman, 1953.
(6)    Kingsmill, Hugh; “The Life of D.H. Lawrence”, Dodge Publishing Comp.,
          New York, 1938.
(7)    Lindren, R.C. & Byrne, Donn; “Psychology”, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
          New York, 1965.
(8)    Sagar, Keith; “The Art of D.H. Lawrence”, Cambridge University Press,
          Cambridge, Mass, 1966.
(9)    Tedlock, E.W.; “D.H. Lawrence: Artist and Rebel”, The University of
          New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1963.
(10)  Wilson, Edmund; Ed., “The Shock of Recognition”, Grosset & Dunlop,
           N.Y., 1963.



                      The USE of SONGS in SHAKESPEARE’s COMEDIES

            <Written and prepared by Sr. Maria Cecilia Polka, the ‘Master’ student at the Salve Regina College  (Now University) in Newport, R.I., and her Psychology Professor and supervisor Prof.Dr. Ismail Ersevim as her graduation thesis in 1967 -USA>

                           M u s i c  has been frequently called “the universal language” and rightly so. There is no other means of communication which has so adequately spoken to peoples of all nations and cultures. Through its flowing measures, sometimes vibrant, light and fanciful, and at other times, solemn, majestic, and awe-inspiring, music has satisfied the need of expression and fulfillment in the human personality.

                           Whether he is aware of it or not, man is engulfed in and attuned to a world of music. Music is very much part of him, as well as all around him. Tne music of nature, continually speaks to him and the music of life man can never escape. It is no wonder that Shakespeare has mainingfully said through the character of Lorenzo, speaking to Jessica in “The Merchant of Venice”: “The man that hath no music in himself… Is fit for treasons strategems and spoils…”  Being the man of such universal appeal in the literary field, Shakespeare has not overlooked this universal power of music. In addition, living in a century which considered music a required culture and an integral part of man’s life, Shakespeare found it almost necessary to include it within his many masterpieces. In his plays he can very readily spot diverse musical allusions with regard to instruments, terms, nd techniques as well as numerous songs.

                            In the first chapter of the following thesis, I have tried to establish the musical background of the Elizabethan period by making detailed references to the prominent role music played in the education, the homne life, and lastly the social life of the people of the age. I have also tried to show how Shakespeare, being a product of his time, incorporated this musical spirit into his work. This he accomplished with the technique of a true artist. Since every musical reference made in his plays could not possibly be treated of in one thesis, I have considered the use of song in six of Shakespeare’s comedies in my second and third chapters. Chapter two specifically deals with the songs in the comedies: “Love’s Labor’s Lost“, “The Merchant of Venice“, and “A Midsummer Night’s Dream“; while chapter three considers the songs in “As You Like It“, “Twelfth Night“, and “The Tempest“. The order of which the plays are taken is significant since they follow a gradual, progressive development of the author’s use of song in his comedies. For example, in “Love’s Labour’s Lost” song is merely used as an added entertainment in the play while “The Tempest” song moves to a peak, being used as the life and plot of the play. We, therefore, witness Shakespeare’s progress as a dramatist as well as being a true product of tyhe musical spirit of the Elizabethan Age.

                                                             If Music and Sweet Poetry agree
                                As they must needs, the sister and the brother,
                                Then must the love be great, twixt thee and me,
                                Because thou lovest the one and I the other.
                                Dowland to thee is dear, whose heavenly touch
                                Upon the lute doth ravish human sense;
                                Spencer to me, whose deep conceit is such,
                                As passing all conceit, needs no defense.

                                                                                       THE PASSIONATE PILGRIM

                        With these words, Shakespeare signs of the estimate relation between music and poetry. No other dramatic post has exhibited in his works such great admiration of music and such technical knowledge as did Shakespeare. “Of all his dramatic works, but five are without allusion to music.” (1)  As we can see there is a very intimate association between Shakespeare and music, for he lived at a time in which much vitality was exhibited in musical circles. The voice of  music was abroad. Every aspect of life was accompanied by appropriate strains. “Across the wooded hills, on the village common, in mansion and cottage, a real love of the art revealed itself in diverse manners.” (2)

                        Yes, England in the reign of Elizabeth was young again with the sound of music. The reigns of Henry VII and Henry VIII had given time for the middle class to develop, and for minds to turn to culture. With ERASMUS came a new interest in the humanities; and increasing intercourse with Italy brought in Italian literature, architecture, art and music. The last quarter of the sxteenth century, in particular, witnesses a tremendous growth of wealth and consequent luxury. In certain directions this led to much vulgarity, a feature that has always accompanied a sudden access of wealth. Fortunately the taste of the day was by no means generally on the side of vulgarity. “The fine taste that was inherent in the Elizabethan resulted not only in the composition of so much splendid music, but also in the widespread custom of singing and playing it.” (3)  Music shared in the great movement towards expansion and development which was so conspicuous a feature of the sinteenth century throughout the whole Europe. It is a well known fact that Elizabeth herself had a great love for music. The following lines prefixed to a musical publication in 1573, show how the queen’s encouragement of music appreciated:

                               The queen, the glory of our age and isle,
                               With royal favour bis this science smile;
                               Nor hears she others’ labor’d lays,
                               But artist-like, herself both signs and plays.”  (4)

                         Yes, the Age of Elizabeth was an age of music – not the music of great composers, but the native song, the familiar playing of instruments, the continual breaking out into country rounds or court measures. “In Elizabethan England there was much much less professionalsim, but town and country rang with the melody and song of the amateurs, and there is very little to suggest that this was done by incompotent handlers.”  (5) If England had no opportunity of hearing and of creating church music, her people found widespread joy in madrigals, glees and catches. Every house had its lutes and viols, every barbar’s shop had an instrument ready for the hands of the waiting customers. In the theatres, particularly song was an integral part of plays, and music before and during the performance formed part of the attraction of the private houses. Ballads were sung in the streets and at innummerable fairs.

                         To indicate more specifically the significant role played by musiz in the sixteenth century in England, we will attempt to give an expose of musical life in the areas of education, the home and the society. The value of music in school was urged by most writers. Their reasons were gravely heard because of the feeling that “original sin had closed the ear to heavenly harmonies and education might possibly correct the deficiency.”  (6)

                         In 1561, Sir Nicholas Bacon drew up a curriculum for the education of the Queen’s wards according to which the hours from twelve to two and before retiring at nine, were to be spent with the music master. In the scheme for Queen Elizabeth’s Academy, about 1572, there was to be one teacher of music “to play the lute, the bandora and cittern, 26 1., per annum.”  (7)   In 1857, William Byrd of the Chapel Royal published a treatise on why all people should learn to sing, though from the time of Henry VIII and even before, England had been noted for her ‘sweet singers’. The following states the reasons set down by the author to persuade everyone to learn how to sing:

                         1. First it is a knowledge easily taught and quickly learned where
                              there is a good master and an apt scholar.
                         2. The exercise of singing is delightful to Nature and good to pre-
                              serve the health of man.
                         3. It doth strenghten all parts of the breast and doth open the
                         4. It is a singular good remedy for a stuttering and stammering
                              in speech.
                         5. It is the best means to procure a perfect pronuncation, and
                              to make a good orator.
                         6. It is the only way to know where Nature hath bestowed the
                              gift of a good voice; which gift is so rare, as there is not one
                              among a thousand that hath it, and in many, that excellent
                         7. There is not any music of instruments whatsoever compara-
                               ble to that which is made of the voices of men; where the
                               voices are good, and the same well-sorted and ordered.
                          8. The better voice is, the meeter it is to honour and serve God
                               therewith; and the voice of man is chiefly to be employed to
                               that end. (8)

                           Henry Peacham in his work “Complete Gentleman” devotes a
chapter to music. In it he speaks of those who dislike music, and quoting an Italian proverb (which he admits he dare not adopt -):
                               “Whom God loves not, that man loves not music  – But I am
                               verily persuaded that they are by nature very ill-disposed,
                               and of such a brutish stupidity that scarce anything else that
                                is good and savoureth of virtue is found in them.”  (9)

                           He adds: “I desire no more of you than to sing your part sure, and at first sight.”  (10) 
                           We have thus evidenced that during Elizabeth’s reign, music became a necessary part of every gentelman’s education, without the exclusion of women.

                            Besides being interwoven with education, music for the Eliza-bethan was an intimate portion of home life. It can be adequately expressed that the Elizabethan tenaciously held to two faiths: “faith in home and faith in music.”  (11)  These two faiths were the essential means by which thoughtful Elizabethans sought to order their private lives. Where the home was, there was also music. “If music round the universe to make of it one harmonic whole, then men mast let music creep into his ears till he, like the stillness of night or the very smallest activities of day, was touched by immortal sounds.” (12)   Although these two faiths in home and music did not fully arm Elizabethans against the usual frailties of human beings, they did produce  manner of living sufficient to inspire any age.

                           From 1560 on, pious homes of Puritans depended much upon singing of psalms for their enjoyment of music, and this custome continued until long past the sixteenth century. In the home gardens, however, the singing was bound to be more informal. For more formal entertainment of guests in the gardens of the cultivated Elizabethans, there might be instrumental music in the banquet house, either for its own sake or for those who wished to dance, and if the household had its own band of musicians, they were an important part of the establishment.  (13)

                           Because musicians were obtainable singly or in groups, it was customary, even in taverns, to demand music at meals or to while away the time. Fine inns, of course, had lutes, bandores, and sometimes virginals to entertain their guests. Since few households were so poor that among the servants no singers or musicians could be found to entertain the master or mistress, music was a popular and favorite means of relaxation for husband or wife. It was common to see a 
                            “mistress, while sitting busily sewing with her maids, often
                            calling one of them to entertain their group by singing or
                            playing on some instrument, particularly the lute, which ser-
                            ved as both instrument and decvoration in the house.” (14)

                            The elizabethans may not have been above reproach in his choice of certain pastimes, but he undoubtedly had music in his soul.

                            More important tan musical instruments was the musical voice, of which there were many. “Each village, for example, had its own 
choir as well as a team of bell ringers that was likely to be the chief pride of the community.”  (15)  In the home when guests dined, they were expected to contribute to the madrigal singing between courses or at the end of the meal. All through the Tudor Age singing voices of fine quality were always in demand that England became famous for its ‘choir of sweet singers’.  “It was music, then, that made life go around for these people, and it was music in one form or another that took most room on the shelves of their libraries.”

                            In spite of the fact Elizabethans lived at such a quick tempo they did not direct their music toward a frenzied or distracting mode of entertainment. At home, especially they sought for expansion of the soul by means of a cultivated living, in spite of what, to us, may seem like flagrant vulgarities in their way of life.

                            “The tinkling notes of an instrument, accompanied perhaps,
                            by the voice of the child or servant, was their relief from the
                            tension caused by some  exciting or dangerous or merely
                            monotonous enterprise. Even among the poor, the love of the
                            music was not stifled.”  (17)

                           Thus far we have seen that music was very much a part of the
domestic life of the Elizabetan home. It would necessarily follow that musical life would overflow into the social life of the Elizabethans.

                            “They had music at dinner, music at suppper, music at wed-
                            dings, music at funeral, music at dawn, music at night… He
                            who felt not, in some degree, its soothing influences, was
                            viewed as a morose unsocial being whose converse ought
                            to be shunned and regarded with suspicion and distrust.” (18)

                            An Elizabethan expected a social caller to pick up a music book and read an elaborate part song for four or five voices and sing his part at sight; when the dinner was over he called his music books and he and his guests, his children and servants sang them as probably no haphazard gath-
ering or ordinary folk has been able to sing since.

                             In Morley’s “Plain and Easy Instruction to Practical Music” – 1597, we read of a dinner party, a ‘banket’ at which the conversation was entirely concerned with music. After supper, Morley relates, “according to custom” parts were handed round by the hostess. One guest, a Philomathes, has to make many excuses as to his vocal inability, and finally is obliged to confess that he cannot sing at all. At this the rest of the company ‘wonder’ and some whisper to their neighbors: “Haw was he brought up?” Certainly a gentleman with any social ambitions would see that his children were brought up to sing and play.” (19)  In Elizabeth’s reign it was “… the custom for a lady’s guests to sing unaccompanied music from parts, after supper;”
(20)   and that inability cast a doubt on the person having any title to
education at all.

                              There are numerous examples of personages of the sixteenth century who considered music a vital part of social life. It appears from the diary of King Edward VI that he was a musician, as he mentions playing on the lute before French Ambassadors as one of several accomplishments which he displayed before that gentleman. There is also a letter from Queen Catherine of Arragon, the mother of Queen Mary, in which sher exh0rts her “to use her virginals and lute.” As for Elizabeth there is abundant evidence that she was a good virginal player. George Herbert, who was by birth a courtier, found in music “his chiefest recreation, and did himself compose many divine hymns and anthems in Royal Chapel and would play his part exactly well in the bass-violl.” (22)  His love for music was such that he went usually twice every week to the cathedral church in Salisbury; at his return he would say that his time spent in prayer and cathedral music elevated his soul, and was was heaven on earth. We evidence, then, that in this period of England’s history a practical acquaintance with music was a regular part of the education of both sovereign, gentlemen of rank and the higher middle class.

                              However, musical lifa was not restricted to just the upper and middle classes of society. There is plenty of evidence, though more indirect in kind, that the lower classes were enthousiastic about music as the higher. A large number of passages of several authors shows clearly that singing in part (especially of ‘catches’) was a common amusement with blacksmiths, colliers, clothsworkers, caloblers, tinkers, watchmen, country persons and soldiers. In “Old Wives’ Tales” Feele says: “This ‘smith’ leads a life as merry as a king; Sirrah Frolic, I am sure you are not without some ’round’, or ‘other, no doubt but Clunch <the smith> can bear his part.”  (23)  Beaumont and Fletcher’s “Coxcomb” has the following: “Where were the watch the while? good sober gentlemen.” ” They were like careful members of the city, 
/Drawing in diligent ale, and singing catches.” (24)  In Sir William Davenant’s
The Wits“, Snore, one of the characters, says: “It must be late, for gossip Nock, the mailman, / Had catechized his maids, and sung three catches/  And a song ere <Eski dil’de: Önce, evvel -poetic language- İ.E.> set forth.”

                              All the aforesaid leads to the just conclusion that if ever a country deserved to be called musical, that country was England in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. King and courtier, peasant and ploughman could eacah ‘take his part'; with each, music was part of his daily life. But more than all else concerned with the musical field, as we have evidenced, England was a country of SONG.

                              Shakespeare has truly proven himself a product of his time. His frequent tribute to the power of music, his apt use of musical terms and his many allusions to musical instruments, are well-known. His excursions in the musical providence are a direct outcome of a great joy in its charms. “He is always happy when speaking on music and its place in life. To him it is something real. It is the human side of its that attracts him.”  (26)  It is  evident that to Shakespeare, the art of sound was full of fascination. Whether his reference is humorous or full of enhusiasm, he speaks with the voice of one who knows and understands. The numbers and diversities to music in its many forms proves an active interest in it. A clever man can write eloquent-ly about it, without being particularly sensitive to its influence, but that by Shakespeare it was regarded seriously, must be obvious to the careful student of his works.

                              Certainly even that trained musician who idly turns the poet’s leaves to all the musical allusions he makes, is astounded at his intimate knowledge of music, that art which so many of the poets rave about he was talking about, and could move at ease among musical techniques. Music with Shakespeare was a natural and powerful means of expression; he used it to carry his purpose a little further than the spoken word would take. Yes, Shakespeare’s knowledge and appreciation of music is obvious. “Harmony to him, and to the Elizabethan’s mind was one of the principles of a good life in politics as well as in the arts. He loathed a discord in affairs of state as much as he loathed a jarring note upon his ear.”  (27)

                               The prevalent study of a prominent position of music in Elizabethan times would make it advisable for any clever dramatist to introduce lyrics and instrumental music onto his plays. And this is what Shakespeare did to a remarkable extent.

                               “Music in the Tudor Theatre was plentiful. The trumpets
                               proclaimed the opening of the play; the historical dramas
                               resounded with the drums. The strings heightened the emo-
                               tion of the tragic scene. The song and dance of the jig sent the
                               spectators away with a laugh and a melody. In between, there
                               had been incidental music and the songs written into the      
                               plays by the dramatist.”  (28)

                               As we have previously mentioned a careful study of Shakes-peare’s plays will reveal innumerable allusions to the musical world. Out of thirty-seven plays there are no less than thirty-two which contain interes-ting references to music and musical matters in the text itself. There are over three hundred stage directions which are musical in their nature and these occur in thirty-six out of thirty-seven plays.

                               “The musical references in the text are most commonly    
                               found in the comedies, and are generally the occasion or
                               instrument of word quibbling and witticisisms while the
                               musical stage directions beling chiefly to the tragedies, and
                               are mostly of a military nature.” (29)

                               Song, particularly in Shakespearean drama played a useful, and at times, significant role. The songs were composed for both dramatic and practical purposes. “They were neither interludes nor mere decorative flourishes, garlands, nor amorini.”  (30)  Many of them on the open, uncurtained stage of the period were a graceful and ingenious cover for entry or exit.

                               “…The Elizabethan theatre lacked modern front, drop 
                               curtains, pictorial painrted scenery, and means to change  
                               the amount of light. Shakespeare therefore, in several
                               situations introduced songs to get characters on and off the   
                               stage gracefully… and also to create atmosphere and to con-
                               jure up imaginary stage settings to the audience.”  (31)

                               The songs, again are incantation; they were intended to be sung. Shakespeare’s natural language indeed was that of poetry, and so always related to music. “Song writing, then must have been a curious joy to Shakespeare, a sort of busman’s holiday.”  (32)

                               An admirer of Robert Frost‘s poems lately declared and justly, that “the very sound of his poem is true. In some the sound is not only as important as the meaning, but most of the meaning.”  (32)  So, too, the same can be said of Shakespeare’s songs with a slightly different bearing. They also are true, though not in a personal sense. They are true in their context, aesthetically right. They have a natural singing quality and many of them were written with a specific air of melody in Shakespeare’s mind. He lived, as we have stated, in the supreme hayday of English music, a music so much beloved by him and so frequently in his remembrance. Truly, the more closely we examine the Songs of Shakespeare’s plays, the more we marvel at his consummate mastery over words.

                                The ease, brevity of expression and rapidity of development, all markedly characteristics of Shakespeare’s Songs serve to distinguish them from those of any other dramastist of his period. Although other dramatists, notably Ben Johnson, Thomas Dekker, and John Fletcher, wrote many songs occupying deservedly a high place in our literature; yet theirs appear to some disadvantage when contrasted with those by Shakespeare. They do not exhibit a like spontaneity of effort, and their art is not concealed in the same degree. So skilfully has Shakespeare hidden his craftsmanship, that Milton’s “Wood notes wild” has been specifically applied to the songs. Such a description is not altogether fortunate, for it has begotten the impression that the lyrical excellence of Shakespeare is some wild, uncultivated product, whereas a close examination of the songs reveals evidence of the most painstaking labor. Otherwise the words of Milton are singularly felicitous, “…for in all the songs there is a seemingly careless invitation to sing… A presence of a distinct, natural singing quality may be taken as an essential constituent in any song it may be sought to ascribe to him.”  (34)

                              While it is true that Shakespeare did not invent the use of songs in play, he it was who made the play with song occurring in it, a consistent are form. It was he who “grasped all possibilities afforded by song for forwarding the action and who made it vital part in his dramatic sceheme.”  (35)

                                                   FOOTNOTES   –   CHAPTER  I

(1 )    F.J. Kelly, “Shakespeare and the Art of Music”, The Catholic World,    
(2)     Idem.
(3)     Edmund H. Fellowes, “The English Madrigal”, p.10.
(4)     “English Music”, p.16.
(5)     Ivor Brown, “Shakespeare and His Time”, p.26.
(6)     Morrison Comegys Boyd, “Elizabethan Music and Musical Criticism”,
(7)     Idem.
(8)      Henry Thew Stepehenson, “The Elizabethan People”, pp:200-1.
(9)      The same as (4), p.168.
(10)   Idem.
(11)    Lu Emily Pearson. “Elizabethans at Home”, p.517.
(12)    Idem.
(13)    Idem., p.520.
(14)    Idem.
(15)    Idem.
(16)    Ibid, p.608
(17)    Idem.
(18)     The same as (8), p.220.
(19)     Edward W. Taylor, M.A., “Shakespeare and Music”, p.5.
(20)    Ibid., p.7.
(21)     Ibid., p.10.
(22)     Ibid., p.11.
(23)     Ibid., p.16.
(24)     Idem.
(25)     Ibid., p.17.
(26)     The same as in (1), p.498.
(27)     The same as in (5), p.152.
(28)      Idem.
(29)      The same as in (19), p.8.
(30)     Tucker Brooke, Ed., “The Shakespeare Songs”, p.xvı
(31)      The same as in (6), p.192.
(32)      The same as in (30), p.xıx.
(33)      Ibid., p.xxııı.
(34)      Richmond Noble, M.A., “Shakespeare’s Use of Song”, s.9.
(35)      Ibid., p.12.

                                                                 CHAPTER    II


                                 A variety of song used for a variety of purpose is found particularly in Shakespeare’s comedies. This particular chapter will be devoted, as was mentioned in the preface, the three fairly early comedies of Shakespeare: “Love’s Labour’s Lost“, “The Merchant of Venice“, and, “Midsummer Night’s Dream“. In this consideration the reader will evidence a certain progression in the drama and dramatist through his use of song in the following plays.

                                  “Love’s Labour’s Lost“, is generally agreed, in its main part to be Shakespeare’s first venture in comic drama. It was a conversa-tional, satirical comedy, and appears to be devoif of any moral or serious intension. It represents his nearest approach to the true comic attitude to life. “Its very little contains an alliterative joke not unlike the pun in ‘The Importance of Being Earnest’ “. (1)  Such a comedy, dependent as it is on conversational brillance for effect, is very difficult to act, and even when well-presented, requires a special kind of audience to appreciate it.

                                  “It is, therefore plausible to assume that, in its original
                                  form without the Epilogue Songs, it was intended for an
                                  audience more exclusive than that to be found in a public
                                  theatre; its pointed shafts would be more likely to be
                                  appreciated by an educated audience, keenly alive to the
                                  foibles of the age.”  (2)

                      Shakespeare’s satire was directed against and extravagant form of utterance. He derided not only pedantic ornamentation of language but also the pseudopastoral romanticism which pervaded the dainty sonnets to whose composition courtiers and their imitators were addicted. Hence, on the revival of the comedy in 1597, Shakespeare appropriately added “two songs as Epilogues, wherein pretty pastorales and sententious verses are mercilessly ridiculed.”  (3)

                        The two songs help to clear the stage and as Epilogues, they are used to sustain, even at the end, the laughing character of the comedy. Evidently the play in its original form had ended with Browne’s “That’s too long for a play.” Not only was such an ending too abrupt and ineffective for clearing the stage, but also something had to be done to restore the spirit of the comedy, banished by the news of the death of the Princess’s father. The songs relate to three characters – ARMADO, with his “mint of phrases, who presents the songs; HOLOFERNES the Pedant with his Latin and Latinized words and Sir NATHANIEL the Curate, their two authors.”  (4)  Armado announces the songs in Latin as well as in English:” This side is Hiems, Winter/ This Ver, the Spring:/ The one maintained by the owl, the other by the Cuckoo. Wer begin.”  (5)   The spectators are thus prepared for a learned and tedious argument according to academic precedent. Instead there follows the inimitable Cuckoo Song:

                     Spring:   When daisies pied of violette blue
                                       And lady-smocks all silver-white
                                       And cuckoo-birds of yellow hue
                                       Do paint the meadows with delight,
                                       The cuckoo then on every tree,
                                       Mocks married men; for thus he sings,
                                       Cuckoo, cuckoo, O word of fear,
                                       Unpleasing to a married ear!

                                       When shepherds pipe on oaten straws,
                                       And marry larks are ploughman’s clocks, 
                                       When turtles tread, and rooks and daws,
                                       And maidens bleach their summer smocks,
                                       The cuckoo then, on every tree,
                                       Mocks married men; for thus sings he,
                                       Cuckoo, cuckoo: O word of fear
                                       Unpleasing to a married ear!   (6)

                     Here, everything is bright and gay, all except married men, whom the Cuckoo’s call makes fearful of their freehold. The comic intent, in keeping with the play, is manifest.

                                        “All the learned men’s idealism of the meadow flowers,
                                        the shepherd’s piping on oaten straws and the merry
                                        larks waking the ploughmen is dissipated by the fear
                                        of the woeful tragedy with which, as the Cuckoo’s habits
                                        remind them, married men are threatened in the Spring,
                                        when inclinations are suppose to be amorous and lovers

                      The song feigns seriousness in its conceits just like any of the pretty verse of the time. However, there is a fall from the sublime to the ridiculous, a transition from serious conceit to the ludicrous and comic in the lines:

                                        The cuckoo, then on every tree
                                        Mocks married men, for thus sings he.

                       Then there is a long drawn out cuckoo as is indicated by the full stop, followed by a couple of sly echoing calls where the singer shivers fear and shakes his head at the impropriety of such a call being sounded in the presence of married men. “A joke of such a kind was dear to Elizabethan hearts and Shakespeare was never tired of resorting to the theme.”  (8)

                       When learned men came to compile “The Owl Song“, obviously the same joke could not carry:

                                     When icicles hang by the wall
                                     And Dick the shepherd blows his nail
                                     And Thom bears logs into the hall,
                                     And milk comes frozen home in pail,
                                     When blood is nipp’d and ways be foul,
                                     Then nightly sings the staring owl,
                                      Tu-who, a merry note,
                                      While greasy Joan doth keel the pot.

                                      When all aloud the wind doth blow,
                                       And coughing drowns the parson’s saw,
                                       And birds sit brooding in the snow,
                                       And Marian’s nose looks red and raw,
                                       When roasted crabs hiss in the bowl,
                                       Then nightly sings the staring owl,
                                       Tu-who, a merry note,
                                       While greasy Joan doth keel the pot.  (9)

                       In the first stanza romance is contrasted with reality, the picture-
esque with the disagreeable, and in the second comic objects are cunningly interspersed among ordinary objects of natural history. In the first, on the one hand we have icicles hanging by the wall, and on the other, the frozen milk, the nipped blood and the muddy roads; and in the second, we have the coughing, drowning the parson’s saw. “But the most disagreeable by the sight and smell of the sluttish Joan ‘keeling the pot’ ” (10)  She makes the farm kitchen uncomfortable which is the only refuge from the inclement weather of the winter season. The unmusical laughing hoot of the owl acts as a diversion where all else is depressing. “Pastoral romance gives way to pasto-
ral realism.”  (11)

                       Both the Cuckoo and the Owl songs are Elizabethan comic songs without any aerious intention whatever.
                                     “That the affected learning of the lean and cadaverous
                                     looking Holofernes could evolve nothing more serious,
                                     enriches the comedy and there can be no doubt that,
                                     then the songs are well and significantly rendered, the 
                                     fooling is admirable.”  (12) 

                        It is frequently said that songs in Shakespeare’s festive comedies are usually composed with explicit or implicit reference to a holiday occasion. The cuckoo and owl songs are cognate to such compositions. These two songs of summer and winter are the Shakespeare used instead of a wedding dance or masque; and  “they are exactly right, not an afterthought, but a last and full expression of the controlling feeling for community and season. The songs evoke pleasures of the most traditional sort, at the opposite pole from facile improvisations.”  (13)

                        Who were the singers of the songs? The stage direction for entrance is “Enter All” which presumably implies all the actors in attendance and not merely those who have been taking part in the ‘show’. Whatever may have been the standard of singing demanded by the songs “The Cuckoo Song” requires the better actor. It is usually that Moth is one of the singers, but for this assumption there is little support.  (14)
                        Composers have frequently set these two Epilogue Songs as genuine pastorals, simply because they have culled them from antologies and their obvious prettiness has appealed to them.

                                    “Both songs require very simple treatment and they 
                                    ought to be regarded as music-hall songs; but, of 
                                    course, of a type considerably better than we are
                                    accustomed to hear hearing from artists on such a
                                    stage.”  (15)

                        In considering the next play “The Merchant of Venice“, we find only one song. The song, however, which occurs in Act III, scene 2, is significant, for it serves as a “device to confer distinction on Bassanio’s approach to the three caskets and as a means to allow him time consider his choice.”  (15)  The lyrics, in its felicitous choice of the subject suitable for the occasion, is one of the most charming in the whole range of the comedies:
                                   “Tell me where is fancy bred,
                                   Or in the heart or in the head?
                                   How begot, how nourished?
                                                           Reply, reply.
                                   It is engender’d in the eyes,
                                   With gazing fed; and fancy dies
                                   In the cradle where it lies.
                                   Let us all ring fancy’s kneel
                                   I’ll begin it, -Ding, dong, bell.”  (17)

                        As we see, the song opens with the query as to where is fancy bred? Is it of the heart? or is it of reason, of the head? That is to say is it of affection, of true love, or is it born of calculation? Then the query proceeds:
Whence does it come? Hos is it sustained?  “The answer is that it is of the eyes, by gazing fed, a mere whim, a delusion of the senses which never attains maturity, but vanishes before even it can be weaned.”  (18)  The tenor of the song and the very plain hint is to beware of that which is pleasing to the sight, for it has no substance and at best its superficial glory is transient, for, when it ceases to be present to the view, it is forgotten and its power to attract no longer exists. Such evidently was the line of thought it suggested to Bassanio, “whose sensitiveness of ear was enhanced by his anxiety and by the hazard of fortune he was essaying.”  (19)  Almost without waiting for the last strains of song to fade away, he observes very abruptly:

                                   “So may the outward shows be least themselves
                                   The world is still deceived with ornament.”  (20)

                         This comment is clearly enough inspired by the song. The injunction to distrust fancies bred of the view was sufficient, and it was natural for Bassanio to include:

                                   “. . . But thou, thou meagre lead,
                                   Which rather threatenest than dost promise
                                   Thy paleness moves me more than elooquence:
                                   And here choose I.”  (21)

                        To perceive progress in the part songs play in Shakespeare’s dramatic scheme we could compare  “Tell me where is fancy bred?” with its immediate predecessor  “Who is Sylvia?” from “The Two Gentlemen of Verona“, a song not specifically treated of in this thesis. The serenade, “Who is Sylvia”, is made to serve as a covering device for linking the action up and it only faintly, in its contents, reflects it context. Here, in this comedy, the song practically performs “the function of dialogue and its relation to its situsation is vital, for it is largely on the understanding of its message that the fırtunes of those, who have good wishes of the audience, depend.”  (22)

                        In another respect the two songs are of the same kind. Neither of them is properly a dramatic song, neither requires action from its singer, and either it is suitable to the concert room as to the theatre. Otherwise the songs differ slightly.

                                   “For the serenade the action is suspended, but for the
                                   other it continues – Bassanio examines the exterior of
                                   the caskets, then his attention having been caught by
                                   the words of the song, he listens eagerly, and excitedly
                                   opens his soliloquy.”   (23)

                      Again for “Who is Sylvia”, the musicians who participitated in the ‘consort’ came specially on stage, and on the completion of their appointed task they retired. Here, for this later song, “the musicians were presumably of Portia’s household and were included in all their trains, which the stage direction indicates.”  (24)   The musicians remained on stage till the conclu-sion of the episode.  “In  ‘The Two Gentlemen of Verona’  and ‘The Merchant of Venice’ solo singers come on for the occasion only.”  (25).  However, in
“The Merchant of Venice” some of the minor actors & attendents were ‘All’ is indicated in the scene, “bear the burden”, i.e., they sing the refrain: “Ding, dong, bell.”  “Very few Elizabethans, on stage or off, would not have been able to so that respectably.”  (26)

                      In general no vital, dramatik significance has been attached to this song in “The Merchant of Venice”. However, its presence as a specific device related to Bassanio’s approach to the three caskets indicates a gradual progression in Shakespeare’s use of song in contrast to the Owl and Cuckoo Songs which are simply added to the end of “Love’s Labour’s Lost” to prevent an abrupt termination of the comedy. The song in “The Merchant of Venice” definiyely gives a suggestion to aid in Bassanio’s choice of caskets. Even the lines, if we were to examine minutely, end in words rhyming with lead: ‘bred’, ‘head’, ‘nourished’.  (27)   The lead casket, as the reader knows, of course, contains what Bassanio is looking for. There is, therefore a definite place and purpose for this song.

                      However, “A Midsummer’ Night’s Dream” marks a very important stage in Shakespeare’s song career. Shakespeare up until 1595, had had to resort to professional musicians. Here, in this play “he would appear to have
at his disposal, plenty of children able both to sing and to act.”  (28)  The play was written for a special occasion – there is no evidence that it was ever seen upon the public stage at all – for such occasions  “children could easily be recruited”.  (29)  Chorister schools in England at this time contributed their strength to the adult company.

                      Apart altogether from the question of singers in “A Midsummer Night’s Dream”, Shakespeare exhibits a great advance on his previous efforts in his management of song, although, here it must be noted, that except for Bottom’s breaking into song, to show that he was not afraid, “we have only one indisputably genuine song in the whole piece.”  (30)  There are, however, several passages which may have been songs but are not definitely so marked. This one song is sufficient to demonstrate what it meant. In the two plays previously considered, the songs were all in the nature of vocal entertainments. The action was restrained in order to enable them to be performed; and although none of them could be said to occur abruptly, “yet the preparation was obvious and there was not an entire absence of awk-
wardness.”  (31)  It is far otherwise with the lullaby in Act II, scene 2, where at Titania’s command, the fairies gather around her and sing and dance her to sleep. The song is as follows:

                               “You spotted snakes with double tongue,
                               Thorny hedgehogs, be not seen;
                               Newts and blind-worms, do no wrong,
                               Come not near our fairy queen.

                               ‘Philomel, with melody,
                               Sing in our sweet lullaby;
                               Lulla, lulla, lullaby; lulla, lulla, lullaby;
                                                   Never harm,
                                                   Nor spell, nor charm,
                               Come our lovely lady night;
                               So good night, with lullaby.’

                               Weaving spiders, come not here,
                               Hence, you long-egg’d spinners hence!
                               Beetles black, approach no near;
                               Worm, nor snail, do no offense. (32)


                      If the reader examines the scene, he will observe how easily and naturally the song somes into being, how it relieves from awkwardness and makes Titania’s retirement interesting: “how it imparts to the whole play a fairy-like atmosphere, how perfectly it is ended and the continuation provided for, and how it leads us to and facilitates Oberon‘s little plot.”  (33)
These are all very important points: never before had Shakespeare exhibited such easy mastery in the setting of the songs. With the exception possibly of “As You Like It“,  a comedy to be considered in the following chapter, Shakespeare was “to show the same command in the perfectly natural way the songs were to occur.”  (34)  Always in regard to the songs in his plays Shakespeare had striven to avoid artificiality, but henceforward, beginning with this play, he was to be more successful.

                      A greater part of this comedy has been set to music than is the case with any of the others. This is because all the “fairies’ parts are in singing lyrical verse, and recitative with occasional aria might not be altogether inappropriate.”  (35)  Care would, however, have to be taken to avoid violence; and musical treatment of passages not definitely marked for music, must be in accord, as regards management, with the standard set by “You spotted snakes”, and the action must be continuous.  This standard is, however, is difficult to achieve.  (36)

                      In the forgoing pages there has been evidenced a gradual deve-lopment in Shakespeare’s use of song in three early comedies:  “A Midsum-
mer Night’s Dream” being the most significant since its song is naturally woven into the action of the play. As  Shakespeare continued to write his comedies he naturally progressed as an artist, therefore, the songs Shakespeare utilized in his later comedies reflect his artistic perfection. The use of song in the three comedies considered in the next chapter becomes most significant, since song unfolds as the very life of these plays.

                                                  FOOTNOTES   –    CHAPTER II

(1)    Richmond Noble, “Shakespeare’s Use of Song”, p.34.
(2)    Idem.
(3)    Idem.
(4)    Idem.
(5)    William Shakespeare, “Love Labor’s Lost”, Act V, ıı.
(6)    Idem.
(7)    Noble, p.35.
(8)    Idem.
(9)    Shakespeare, Act  V, ıı.
(10)  Noble, p.36.
(11)  Idem.
(12)  Idem.
(13)  C.L. Barber, “Shakespeare’s Festive Comedy”, p.113.
(14)  Noble, p.37.
(15)  Ibid., pp.36-7.
(16)  Ibid.,  p.45.
(17)  Shakespeare, “The Merchant of Venice”, Act III, ıı.
(18)  Noble, p.45.
(19)  Ibid., p.46.
(20)  Shakespeare, “The Merchant of Venice”, Act III, ıı.
(21)  Idem.
(22)  Noble, p.47.
(23)  Idem.
(24)  Idem.
(25)  Harley Granville-Barker & G.B. Harrison, Eds., “A Companion to
           Shakespeare Studies”, p.154.
(26)  Ibid., p.155.
(27)  Leonard F. Dean, Ed., “Shakespeare: Modern Essays in Critism”, p.69.
(28)  Noble, p.52.
(29)  Granville-Parker, p.155.
(30)  Noble, p.53.
(31)   Idem.
(32)   Shakespeare, “A Midsummer Night’s Dream”, Act. III, ıı.
(33)   Noble, p.53.
(34)   Idem.
(35)   Idem.

                                                            CHAPTER    III


                     In three of Shakespeare’s later comedies: “As You Like It“, “Twelfth Night“, and “The Tempest“, we observe a more concentrated use of song and music in general. While it can hardly be maintained that “As You Like It” attains the high perfection of gay comedy of “Twelfth Night”, there can be no doubt that none of Shakespeare’s comedies surpasses its appeal to the hearts of men. “It is the comedy of romantic unreality, the Arcadian existence.” (1)
To such a comedy the service of song is indispensable, for without the aid of music, we should be unable to realize its ideality or its entire removal from any kind of life with which we are acquainted. “The interest of the play lies in what its characters think and say and as to how they dispose of their leisure, of which despite the hardness of the plot, they seem to have an ample supply.” (2)   The plot is a minor consequence. It appears to be an excuse for conveying to us as a picture of the simple life in the forest, far away from the frequented hunts of men. All men delight to dream of an existence in picturesque surroundings, far removed from the drab conditions of their everyday life, as it is possible for the imagination to make it. It is there that the secret of the charm of the comedy lies.

                     Since the plot of “As You Like It” is lazy and moves by violent fits and starts, it is not surprising that none of the songs helps to develop the action.

                                “Neither is there any song, if we execpt those by Hymen,
                                which is part and parcel of the action… In fact, in the case
                                of all the songs except ‘Blow, blow, thou winter wind’, the
                                scenes would appear to have been created in order that
                                the songs might be sung.”  (3)

                     Nevertheless each song fulfills a very important dramatic function – “that of conveying color of scene and sense of atmosphere to make good the lack of the assistance of a scene painter in appealing to the imagination of the audience.”  (4)   In this play, therefore, song is employed definitely as scenery and for this reason “As You Like It” constitutes a considerable advance in the dramatist’s use of song.

                     Amiens, the principle singer, is a poet and a gifted amateur. His two songs are favors besought not commanded. They are both extremely important in the history of English dramatic song, for they are the first where in the temperament of the singer is reflected in lyric.

                                     “Both songs are charged with poetic emotion, tinged
                                     with misanthropy – their object is to extol unsheltered
                                     solitude and thereby by contrast to make society appear
                                     unfavorably.”  (5)

                      The first song “Under the Greenwood Tree”, serves to make us
personally acquainted with Jacques.

                                      “Under the greenwood tree
                                      Who lives to lie with me,
                                      And turn his merry note
                                      Unto the sweet bird’s throat,
                                 Come hither, come hither, come hither:
                                       Here shall he see
                                       No enemy
                                  But winter and rough weather.”   (6)

                     “In this scene Jacques is the champion of realism just as event-
ually his contrary spirit leads him to become a convert to romanticism on the restoration of his friends’ fortunes.”   (7)  Amiens sings of the joy of careless existence, where one lies under the tree and emulates the notes of the birds with nothing to annoy but the inclemency of the season. Jacques finds the singing so pleasing that he importunes Amiens for a second stanza in which all are required to join:

                                  “Who doth ambition shun
                                  And loves to live in the sun,
                                  Seeking the food he eats,
                                  And pleased with what he gets,
                             Come hither, come hither, come hither:
                                   Here shall he see
                                   No enemy
                              But wind and rough weather.”   (8)

                      Then Jacques turns around and parodies the whole theme of the song – “I’ll give you a verse to this note, that I made yesterday in spite of my

                                   “If it do come to pass
                                   That any man turn ass,
                                   Leaving his wealth and ease
                                   A stubborn will to please,
                              Ducdame, ducdame, ducdame:
                                    Here shall he see
                                    Gross fools as he,
                              And if he will come to me.”   (9)

                     Unfortunately, when this scene occurs on the stage, it is usual for Jacques to recite his parody, whereas it would be more effective were he to make some effort to sing it. “It is not clear in the original whether Jacques was meant to sing or not, but probably he was, for did he not sing in the second stanza?” (10)   No serious meaning ought to be attached to “Ducdame” which occurs in this parody instead of “Come hither“. It is just ‘Jacques’ jargon, improvised or imitated from some stray vagabond.” (11)  Most likely he uses it as “a token of their eaasy-going acceptance of order”  (12)  in the 
forest of Arden: “This a Greek invocation,” he explains, “to call fools into a circle.” 

                         The second song, “Blow, blow, thou winter wind”, Act II, vıı, is sung by Amiens in response to Duke‘s “Gives us some music; and, good cousin, sing”.  Amiens then begins:

                              “Blow, blow, thou winter wind,
                              Thou art not so unkind
                              As man’s ingratitude;
                              Thy tooth is not so keen,
                              Because thou art not seen,
                              Although thy breath be rude
                        Heigh-ho! sing heigh-ho! unto the green holly:
                        Most frienship is feigning, most loving more folly:
                               Then heigh-ho, the holly!
                               This life is most jolly.

                               Freeze, freeze, thou bitter sky,
                               Thou dost not bite so nigh
                               As benefits forgot:
                               Though thou the waters warp,
                               Thy sting is not so sharp
                               As friend remember’d not.
                        Heigh-ho!  sing, etc.

                        This song affords an opportunity opportunity for the Duke to be informed of Orlando‘s circumstances without the spectators being wearied by the repetition of that which is already familiar to them. “The theme of the song is variant of ‘Under the greenwood tree’, only its misanthropic vein is more pronounced.”  (14)  Winter, with all its harshness is more tolerable than the ingratitude and insincerity of man.            

                        This song, like the Cucoo and Owl song in “Love’s Labour’s Lost” is also considered a seasonal song. The lines:

                              “Then, heigh-ho, the holly!
                               This life is most jolly.”

are a “crystallization of the mood of Christmas cheer, when it was customary for the men to sing songs in praise of holly, as their emblem… This custom explains why the ‘As You Like It” chorus begins with a vocative: “Heigh-ho, sing high-ho, unto the green holly!”  (15)   Shakespeare uses the gesture of group singing in the hall ogether to express the solidarity of the banished Duke and his merry men in Arden. He takes the Christmas feeling of “mastering the cold by good life around a great fire and uses it to convey the exiles’ feeling of mastering ingratitude by pastoral fellowship.”  (16)

                       In a side scene, Act IV, ıı, usually omitted in modern representations, we have, at Jacques‘ request, a song “What shall he have that killed a deer?”  The scene itself is evidently intended to cover up the break of two hours agreed upon in the previous scene between Rosalind and Orlando – a device rendered superfluous by the modern drop-curtain. The song sung by the foresters, is as follows:

                              “What shall he have that killed a deer?
                              His leather skin and horns to wear.
                              Then sing him home:
                              Take thou no scorn to wear the horn;
                              It was a crest ere thou wast born:
                              Thy father’s father bore it,
                              The horn the horn, the lusty horn
                              Is not a thing to laugh to scorn.”  (17)

                      After the conclusion of the song, the scene ends very abruptly in a manner quite unlike Shakespeare’s usual practice. “That Jacques should be dumb after the song has been rendered, passes belief.”  (18)  Possibly some lines have been dropped by the printer. More probable it is “that the party, which Jacques has encountered is on its road home to the Duke, and it stops for a moment by the way and that the last strains of the song are uttered as the singer and his companions are leaving the stage.”  (19) 

                      Finally in Act IV, ııı, we have the ever-delightful Spring Song, “It was a lover and his lass”, sung by two page boys sitting on either side of Touchstone who presumably joined in the lines common to all stanzas.

                              “It was a lover and his lass,
                              With a hey and a ho, and a hey nomino,
                              That o’er the green corn-field did pass
                              In the spring time, the only pretty ring time
                              When the birds do sing, hey ding a ding, ding:
                              Sweet lovers love spring.

                              Between the acres of the rye
                              With a hey, and a ho, and a hey nomino,
                              How that a life was but a flower
                              In spring time, etc.

                              And therefore take the present time,
                              With a hey, and a ho, and a hey romino,
                              For love is crowned with the prime
                              In spring time, etc.”  (20)

                      From the context it may be presumed that two pages sing in unison, “both in a tune like two gypsies on a horse.”  (21)

                      The scene wherein the song is contained was most likely added. It has no bearing on the development of the action, unless we assume that it was designed that by means of the song, lapse of time should be iindicated and that the season’s change from winter to summer be made evident. “It is, however, more probably that the episode was specially devised to meet the growing taste for song and possibly to counter the attraction of the children at Brickfriars, where there were the best-trained choristers the metropolis possessed.” (22)   But while the addition may have been made for and for the motive named, yet it is no less clear that Shakespeare did not allow the feature to go to waste, but caused it to serve the same dramatic end, as did the other songs in the comedy, namely to act as scenery.

                     By universal consent the very height of gay comedy is attained in “Twelfth Night” and therefore, this play lends itself to an abundant atmosphere.

                              “In his comedy, Feste, the clown does all the singing,
                              if we except a few maudlin snatches by Sir Toby and
                              a part in a catch by Sir Andrew; and this concentration
                              enables a modern manager to engage a better man to
                              fill the part than would be possible were the singing
                              distributed among several players as in “As You Like It.” (23)

                      Feste in this comedy is not only a witty fool and a plausible beg-gar, but domestic minstrelsy in his profession, and Malvolio distinguished him from Sir Topas by his breaking into song.

                      The first song “O Mistress Mine” in Act II, ııı, is as follows:

                              “O Mistress mine where are you roaming?
                              O stay and hear; your true love’s coming,
                              That can sing both high and low;
                              Trip no further, pretty sweeting;
                              Journey’s end in lovers meeting
                              Every wise man’s son doth know.

                              What is love? ’tis not hereafter;
                              Present mirth hath present laughter;
                              What’s to come is still unsure:
                              In delay there lies no pleny;
                              Then come kiss me, sweet and twenty,
                              Youth’s a stuff will not endure.”  (24)

                      The song serves as a prelude to a good evening leading to a ‘catch’
                              “From that to snatches of ballads, and generally to so
                              noisy and riotous a time that Malvolio is constrained
                              to intervene, and the resentment bred by this interfer-
                              ence with the revellers’ gaiety gives birth to the conspi-
                              racy against him.”  (25)

                      The whole scene is contrived skilfully – the episode is a development of the song.  “There is a deliberate variation from the expected in the fact that it is a love song about spring pleasures, and not the within-doors drinking party.”  (26)

                      It is interesting to note that this particular song has presented problems to the Shakespearean student. “Twelfth Night” is assumed to have been a new play in 1601-2; but “O Mistress Mine” was the title of a consort which appeared in Morley‘s “Consort Lessons” in 1599, and likewise was used as a theme for the virginal by Bird. It was of the opinion, ten, that this was a popular song of the day which Shakespeare incorporated in the play. However, the late Dr. Furneas, as authority on Shakespeare observes:

                              “Oxen and wainropes cannot hale me from the belief that
                              this song is Shakespeare’s very own. Its phraseology, its
                              histrionic quality (it is a drama in miniature), its senten-
                              tiousness – ‘Journey’s end in lovers’  meeting’, ‘Youth’s
                              stuff will not endure’ (the very word stuff is Shakespearean),
                              its interrogation – ‘What is love?’ (like ‘Tell me where is
                              fancy bred?), its defining love by what it is not than what 
                              it is – all these proclaim its author to be either Shakespeare
                              – aut Diabolus.”  (27)

                      Feste is make to sing the second song:  “Come away, come away death” by a convenient and very obvious device. Duke Orsino is an exotic in search of sensation; his love affair and his attachment for music move him to ask Feste to sing. Perhaps the most delightful feature of Feste‘s song is its humorously playful pity for the Duke‘s sad love grief; ‘no one takes the poor nobleman’s passion at a high value’, and Feste hints that a beneficial medicine for such constancy might be found in employment. ”  (28)  It pro-
ceeds as follows:

                              “Come away, come away, death,
                              And in sad sypress let me be laid;
                              Fly away, fly away breath;
                              I am slain by a fair cruel maid.
                              My shroud of white, stuck all with yew,
                                                   O, prepare it!
                              My port of death, no one so true
                                                   Did share it.

                              Not a flower, not a flower sweet,
                              On my black coffin let there be strown;
                              Not a friend, not a friend greet
                              My poor corpse, where my bones shall be thrown:
                              A thousand thousand sighs to save,
                                                   Lay me, O, where
                              Sad true lover never find my grave,
                                                   To wheep there.”   (29)

                     The third song “I am gone Sir” in Act IV, ıı, occurs at the end of the very scene where Feste tantalizes Malvolio. Feste again sings:

                              “I am gone sir.
                              And anon, sir,
                              I’ll be with you again,
                              In a trice,
                              Like to the old vice,
                              You need to sustain:
                              Who with dagger of lath,
                              In his rage and his wrath,
                              Cries, ah ha, ‘  to the devil:
                              Like a mad lad,
                              Pare thy nails dad;
                              Adieu, goodman devil.”  (30)

                      The interest of the song lies entirely in its illustration of Shakes-peare’s dramatic craftsmanship, and helps to bear out Irwing’s remark “that no actor could ever complain that Shakespeare had sent him tamely off the stage.”  (31)  The genius of this song is in covering the clown’s exit; Feste is enabled to withdraw gradually and with mock ceremony and to disappear of the final insult ‘devil’, hurled decisively at the much-wronged Malvolio.

                     Appropriately enough Feste winds up this high-spirited comedy with an Epilogue in the form of a song round – a popular refrain, which in all probability the groundlings would take up. Though the clown actually sings five stanzas, the first two stanzas will be sufficient here to give an expose of this type of song it is:

                               “When that I was a little tiny boy,
                               With hey, ho, the wind and the rain,
                               A foolish thing was but a toy,
                               For the rain it raineth every day.

                               But when I came to man’s estate,
                               With hey, ho, the wind and the rain,
                               ‘Gainst knaves and thieves men shut their gate,
                               For the rain it raineth every day.”  (32)

                     “To Warburton, Steevens, Staunton, and a host of other grave Georgian and Victorian editors the song was anatema, and they would have consigned the ditty to the footnote as being the gag of an actor.”  (33)  It is of importance to remember that Shakespeare was not a dry antiquarian cast of mind like some of his commentators. He was an actor and a practical man of affaires, out to entertain all those willing to pay for their amusement, and he well knew the value of nonsense in attacking that end.

                               “Every one, whose life is at all worth living, has a 
                               capacity for nonsense in its proper in its proper
                               season, and where could it be more timely than at
                               the end of ‘Twelfth Night’, for the wise nonsense
                               contained in this ditty serves as a commentary on
                               the events of the play, and is a fitting corollary to
                               the first song, ‘O Mistress Mine’ ”   (34)

                    We have thus seen in the consideration of “Twelfth Night” the vital part music and song plays. Song has become almost essential to sustain the tenor of gaiety throughout. Here, Shakespeare has progressed to such an extent in his use of song that now scenes result from the songs; while, at the same time, the songs fulfill a need for Shakespearean audience. We, however, reach the height of Shakespeare’s use of song in the “The Tempest”.

                    Music is the very life of “The Tempest“; without its aid in the play would be impossible for presentation. Caliban says of the scene of its action:

                             “… the isle is full of noises,
                             sounds and sweet airs that give delight
                                   and hurt not.”  (35)

                    In addition Stephano says that the island “will prove a brave king-dom to me, where I shall have my music for nothing.”  (36)  There are frequent opportunities not only for vocal music but also for instrumental music as well. “The Tempest” is a dream, through a wonderful prophetic dream on Shakespeare’s part, of the effect which music drama was to achieve. Even as it is, Shakespeare came nearest in the play to “making a musical play natural and free from absurdity.”  (37)   “The Tempest”, then, marks the culminating point in the use made of song. The more Shakespeare gained in experience, the more relevant did he make his songs to their context, and the more important was their office in promoting his dramatic ends.

                    In “The Tempest”, with the exception of the characters in the Masque, which Prospero discloses, Ariel, Stephano and Caliban do all the singing. The singing in every time in character – Ariel’s is distinctly ethereal, Stephano has a very human, work-a-day note, and caliban has all the intensity of a primitive in giving in to his hatred of drudgery.”  (38)

                    Of Ariel’s songs, Hazlitt observed that “without conveying any distinct images (they) seem to recall all the feelings connected with them, like snatches of half-forgotten music heard indistinctively and at intervals.”(39)  This is just the effect in Act I, ıı, of the first two songs -“Come unto these yellow sands“, and, “Full fathom five”.

                    The first song, a laughing invitation, has drawn Ferdinand hither from the sea and the illusion of firm soil is given by dogs barking and cocks
                               “Come unto these yellow sands,
                               And then take hands:
                               Courtsied when you have and kiss’d
                               The wild waves whist:
                               Foot it featly here and there;
                               And, sweet sprites, the burthen bear.
                                                    Hark, hark.
                               The watch dogs bark:
                               Hark, hark, I hear
                               The strain of strutting Chanticleer
                               Cry, Cock-a-diddle-dow.”  (40)

                  The singing has hardly ceased when it recommences with Ariel‘s second song. “Full fathom five” is in another strain and from the waters rather than from the sands:

                               “Full fathom five thy father lies;
                               Of the bones are coral made
                               Those are pearls that were his eyes:
                               Nothing of him that doth fade,
                               But doth suffer a sea-change
                               Into something rich and strange.
                               Sea-nymphs hourly ring his knell:
                                                                  Ding, dong.   (41)

                  Here, Ferdinand is mocked into the belief that his father is drowned and the nymphs no more than formerly grieve. The impression is given that Ariel has translated into song Ferdinand‘s imaginings and fears.

                  Ariel, as an unsubstantial creature of the air, can hardly talk otherwise than in song. Where music in any form is, he is there too. It is Ariel who intervenes and corrects with tabor and pipe the following ‘catch’ which Stephano and Trinculo are endeavoring to sing in Act III, ıı.

                              “Flout  ‘em and scout  ‘em,
                              And scout  ‘em and flout  ‘em;
                                                 Thought is free.”  (42)

                  When in Act II, ı, Gonzalo is to be warned of the assasination, Sebastian and Antonio are devising, it is by singing in Gonzalo‘s ear that
Ariel awakens the sleeper:

                              “While you here do snoring lie,
                              Open-eyed conspiracy
                              His time doth take.
                              If of life you keep a care,
                              Shake off slumber and beware:
                                                 ware, awake!”   (43)

                  Finally, in Act V, just as he is about to be freed, Ariel sings of himself, as if to himself.

                              “Where the bee sucks, there suck I:
                              In a cowslip’s bell I lie;
                              There I couch when owls do cry.
                              On the bat’s back I do fly
                              After summer merrily.
                              Merrily, merrily shall I live now
                              Under the blossom that hangs on the bough.”  (44)

                  Here Ariel exposes an ideal life in just a few words. It is this brevity and speed of development which distinguish Shakespeare’s songs from all others. “There is motion also suggested; one can almost see him pirouetting with ecstasy as he sings:  ‘Merrily, merrily, shall I live now!’   (45) 

                  In contrast to Ariel are Stephano and Caliban, and a song is made to be the means of Stephano‘s introduction to the audience in Act II, ıı.  “We
observe Stephano, ‘reeling ripe with wine’, stagger onto the scene wherein
he, Trinculo and Caliban form their stupid and vicious alliance against Prospero.”  (46)

                              “The master, the swabber, the boatswain, and I,
                              The gunner, and his mate,
                              Loved Moll, Meg, and Marian and Margery,
                              But none of us cared for Kate;
                              For she had a tongue with a tang,
                              Would cry to a sailor, Go hang!
                              She loved not the savor of tar nor of pitch;
                              Yet a tailor might scratch her where  ‘er
                                          she did itch,
                              Then, to sea, boys, and let her go hang.”  (47)

                  Of course, Stephano sings because he is drunk, but the nature of both the singer and the song reveals symbolic connotations.  “In contrast to the spirit – music provided by Ariel, this is a scurvy tune sung by a carnal oaf much befuddled by drink.”   (48)    The bawdy song, the gross nature of Stephano, his drunkenness – all these reveal in the character of Stephano the earthiness, sensuality and disharmony personified. A modern dramatist probably would have put into Stephano‘s mouth a landman’s song of the sea, but Shakespeare, with his usual artistic truth, “provides us with a genuine article – a song which a sailor might sing and his fellows would relish.”  (49)

                  Our third singer Caliban, stands in a class by himself. The only near-human creature lower than Stephano and Trinculo in the chain of creatures, soon gilds himself with the celestial liquor borne by Stephano. In his drun-ken condition, delighted by the license promised him by his new god, Caliban burst into song:

                            “No more dams I’ll make for fish;
                            Nor fetch in firing
                            At requiring;
                            Nor scrape trencher, nor wash dish:
                            ‘Ban, ‘Ban, Cacaliban
                            Has a new Master: get a new man.”   (50)

                   The song is here used to suggest license and lack of harmony.
Caliban cannot sing as does Ariel, or even Stephano. What he ‘howls’ as Trinculo describes his performance, is “strange doggerel quite different from the music heard previouslyin the play.”  (51)   An interesting feature of the song is the ‘Ban, ‘Ban, Cacaliban which is characteristic of the triumphal chorus aboriginal savages in its emphasis and repetition of parts of a name. If it does not indicate, on Shakespeare’s part, a study of music more search-ing than he has hitherto been credited with, it does at any rate illustrate the minute care he bestowed on his characters at crucial dramatic moments. 

                            “It is highly improbable that Shakespeare had knowledge
                            of tyhe music of man in a primitive state, but it is evident
                            that Shakespeare had observed the improptu musical efforts
                            of young, untrained boys who, like savages, make a chorus 
                            by emphasizing and repeating parts of a name, and with an
                            instinct unerring in its judgment he thought fit to invest
                            Caliban’s ebulition of defiance with the same peculiarity.” (52)

                  We have thus evidenced Shakespeare at the height of musical effort in his late comedy “The Tempest”.  The songs sung by the individual characters are significant not only in giving insight into the specific treats of the characters but also in contributing to the plot and action of the comedy. We cannot overlook the constant employment of instrumental music throughout the entire play which adds to the airy and fanciful atmosphere. Truly we can say the “Tempest”, Shakespeare’s final great comedy, with the world of love and harmony and it surges of language reveals Shakespeare at the peak of his artistic treatment of song.


                   The foregoing study has attempted to illustrate Shakespeare’s interest in music as a handmaid in drama. Being the product of his age, the
sizteenth century, imbued with tyhe musical spirit of the period. We have seen how music was an integral part of the educative, domestic and social life of Elizabethan England; music, therefore, would be a natural, appealing element for audiences of the drama of the time. Shakespeare did not neglect this element, but employed it in his plays, not only to satisfy his audience, but also to effect specfic dramatic ends.

                   To use of song in six of Shakepeare’s comedies has been treated with somewhat  in detail. The early comedies, “Love’s Labour’s Lost”, and “The Merchant of Venice” in particular, manifested the use of song in an elementary fashion while “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” depicted a prog-ression in its use of song as part of the action. Three later comedies, “As You Like It”, “Twelfth Night”, and “The Tempest”, revealed the use of song as a significant factor in the plays’ action, characterization, and plot.

                  Studying te comedies in this order we have also witnessed the prog-ression of Shakespeare as an artistic dramatist. Shakespeare tried as far as possible never use song and musiz as an additional element, but rather as a means of fulfilling a dramatic purpose.  The plays of Shakespeare have spoken to peoples of all ages; and the music employed in the plays have contributed to their universal appeal to all audiences.

                                              FOOTNOTES   –    CHAPTER  III

(1)    Richmond Noble, “Shakespeare’s Use of Song”, p.71.
(2)    Idem.
(3)    Ibid., p.72.
(4)    Idem.
(5)    Idem.
(6)    William Shakespeare, “As You Like It”, Act II, v.
(7)    Noble, p.73.
(8)    Shakespeare, Act II, v.
(9)    Idem.
(10)  Noble, p.73.
(11)  Noble,  p.73.
(12)  John Russel Brown, “Shakespeare and His Comedies”, p.154.
(13)  Shakespeare, Act II, vıı
(14)  Noble, p.73.
(15)  C.L. Barber, “Shakespeare’s Festive Comedy”, pp.115-6.
(16)  Ibid., p.116.
(17)  Shakespeare, Act. IV, ıı.
(18)  Noble, p.75.
(19)  Idem.
(20) Shakespeare, Act.IV, ııı.
(21)  Idem.
(22)  Noble, p.72.
(23)  Ibid., p.80.
(24)  Shakespeare, “Twelfth Night”, Act II, ııı.
(25)  Noble, p.82.
(26)  Barber, p.115.
(27)  As quoted from ‘Dr. Furness in Richmond Noble’, “Shakespeare’s Use Of
           Song”, p.81.
(28)  Noble, p.83.
(29)  Shakespeare, “Twelfth Night”, Act II, ıv.
(30)  Ibid., Act II, ıı
(31)  Noble, p.84.
(32)  Shakespeare, “Twelfth Night”, Act IV, ı.
(33)  Noble, p.85.
(34)  Idem.
(35)  Shakespeare, “The Tempest”, Act III, ıı.
(36)  Ibid., Act II, ıı.
(37)  Noble, p.100.
(38)  Idem.
(39)  As quoted by Hazlitt in Richmond Noble, “Shakespeare’s Use of Song”,
(40)  Shakespeare, “The Tempest”, Act III, ıı.
(41)  Idem.
(42)  Ibid., Act III, ıı.
(43)  Ibid., Act II, ı.
(44)  Ibid., Act V, ı.
(45)  Noble, p.101.
(46)  John H. Long, “Shakespeare’s Use of Music – The Final Comedies”, p.142.
(47)  Shakespeare, “The Tempest”, Act II, ıı.
(48)  Long, p.103.
(49)  Noble, P.102.
(50)  Shakespeare, “The Tempest”, Act II, ıı.
(51)  Long, p.102.
(52)  Noble, p.103.

                                                                 -B o o k s-

Arthos,  John:   “The Art of Shakespeare”, Barnes & Noble, Inc., New York,
Barber,  C.L.:      “Shakespeare’s Festive Comedy – A Study of Dramatic Form
                                 & Its Relation to Social Custom”, Princeton University Press,
                                 New Jersey, 1959.
Boyd,  Marrison Comegya :    “Elizabethan Music & Musical Criticism”, Univ.
                                 of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1940.
Bridge,   Sir Frederick :    “Shakespearean Music in the Plays & Early Operas”,
                                 J.M. Dent & Sons, Ltd., London & Toronto, 1923.
Brooke,   Tucker;  Ed. :    “The Shakespeare Songs”, William Morrow & Comp.,
                                 New York, 1929. 
Brown,   Ivor:   “Shakespeare in His Time”, Thomas Nelson & Sons, Ltd.,
                                 Edinburgh, England, 1960.
Brown,   John Russel :   “Shakespeare & His Comedies”,  Methuen & Comp.,
                                 Ltd., London, 1957.
Byrne,   M. St.Clare :    “Elizabethan Life in Town and Country”, Methuen &
                                 Comp., Ltd., London, 1925.
Chute,   Marchette :    “Shakespeare of London”, E.P. Dutton & Comp., Inc.,
                                 New York, 1949.
Dean,    Leonard F.,  Ed.:     “Shakespeare: Modern Essays in Criticism”, 
                                  Oxford University Press, New York, 1957.
Dodd,   A.H. :      “Life in Elizabethan England”, G.P.Putnam’s Sons,
                                  New York, 1961.
Elson,  Louis C. :    “Shakespeare in Music”, L.C. Page & Comp., Boston,1900.
English Music :   Being in the Lectures given at the ‘Music Loan Exhibition’
                                  of the Worshipful Company of Musicians held at Fishmonger
                                  Hall, London Bridge, June-July, 1904.
                                  The Walter Scott Publishing Company, Ltd., London, 1904.
Fellows,   Edmund H. :    “The English Madrigal”, Oxford University Press,
                                  London, 1925.
Granville-Barker, Harley & G.B. Harrison, Eds. :  “A Companion to Shakes-
                                  peare Studies”, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1949.
Long, John H. :   “Shakespeare’s Use of Music – The Final Comedies”,
                                  The Gainsville Univ. of Florida Press, 1961.
Naylor,  Edward W. :   “The Poets and Music”,  J.M. Dent & Sons, Ltd.,
                                  London & Toronto,  1928.
Naylor,  Edward W. :   “Shakespeare and Music”, J.M. Dent & Comp.,
                                  Aldine House, E.C., 1896.
Nicoll,   Allardyce :    “The Elizabethans”, Cambridge University Press,
                                  Cambridge, 1957.
Noble,    Richmond :     “Shakespeare’s Use of Song”, Humphrey Milford,
                                  Oxford University Press, 1923. 
Pearson,    Lu Emily :     “Elizabethand at Home”, Stanford University Press,
                                  Stanford, California, 1957.
Shakespeare,    William :      “As You Like It”, The Complete Works of William
                                  Shakespeare; William Aldis Wright, Ed., Doubleday & 
                                  Comp., Inc., New York, 1936.
—————————- :       “Love’s Labor’s Lost”, The Complete Works of
                                   William Shakespeare; William Aldis Wright, Ed., Doubleday
                                   &  Comp., Inc., New York, 1936.
—————————- :        “The Merchant of Venice”, The Complete Works
                                   of William Shakespeare; William Aldis Wright, Ed.,
                                   Doubleday & Comp., Inc., New York, 1936.
—————————- :        “A Midsummer Night’s Dream”, The Complete
                                   Works, William Aldis Wright, Ed., Doubleday & Comp., Inc.
                                   New York, 1936.
—————————- :         “The Tempest”, The Complete Works, William 
                                   Aldist Wright, Ed., Doubleday & Comp., Inc., New York,
—————————- :          “Twelfth Night”, The Complete Works, William
                                   Aldist Wright, Ed., Doubleday & Comp., Inc., New York,
Stepehenson,   Henry Thew :  “The Elizabethan People”, Henry Bolt & Comp.,
                                   New York, 1910. 
                                                        -P e r i o d i c a l s-

Kelly,    F.J.:    “Shakespeare and the Art of Music”, The Catholic World,
                              CX  658,  January 1920.


Shakespeare’s : HAMLET

                                                              H A M L E T

                   (Bu makalenin ilk kısmı, “FREUD ve Psikanalizin Temel İlkeleri” adlı kitabımızdan –Assos Yayınları-, 2. baskı, 2002 İstanbul- alınmıştır.)
<Anahtar Sözcükler :  SHAKESPEARE; HAMLET; HAMNET; MELANCHOLIA; ERSEVİM, Prof.Dr.İsmail; JONES, Ernest; OEDIPUS Complex; ELECTRA Complex; LIDZ, Theodore; MYTH; RITUEL.> 


                   Hiç şüphesiz, SHAKESPEARE’in  Hamlet’i, Ödipus Karmaşası’nın doruğunu en dramatik bir şekilde ifade eden kahramandır. Hamlet, tüm gelmiş geçmiş dünya literatürünün (Dante ve Goethe dahil), en dikkati çeken kişiliğidir. Hz.İsa’dan, Napoleon’dan ve Shakespeare’in kendinden sonra en çok bahsedilen kişi  H a m l e t’tir.

                  BRADBY’ye göre Hamlet, FREUD’un self-analizi’ne paralel, kişisel bir yaşan-tının dramatizasyonudur. Shakespeare’in 1585’de biricik oğlu  H a m s e t’in baptizm’ini yaptırıp ‘Hamlet’i de babasının ölümünün hemen ardından yazdığını gözönüne alırsak, bu paralellikte belki bir gerçek payı görürüz.

                  Oyuna  a n a l i t i k  bir açıdan bakarsak görüriz ki, Hamlet çocukken annesinden çok ilgi görmüştü. Kraliçe de oğlunu çok severdi, fakat onun davranışında sansüel bir nitelik vardı. Claudius (Perde:4, sahne:7) konuşur:

                 “Kraliçe annesi nerdeyse yalnız onun (Hamlet’in) bakışlarıyla yaşıyor..” Hamlet nihayet kendini bir az zorluka annesinden ayırabilir ve Ophelia ile niteliği pek belli olmayan bir aşka düşer. Ophelia, zaten Kraliçe’nin birçok niteliklerine sahiptir. Oyunda bir ara annesi onun yanına oturmasını sorunca, Hamlet hiddetle cevap verir: “Hayır, iyi anne, şu metal (senden) daha çekicidir!” ve
Ophelia’nın ayaklarına uzanır.

                  Hamlet’in babası ölüp de annesi ikinci kez, hem de amcasıyla evlenince, bu ‘incestual’ ilişki, Hamlet’in kendisinin represe edilmiş cinsel hislerini uyandırır. Bu hisler, sanki kendinden gelmiyorlarmış gibi bir ‘hayalet’e yansıtılır; hem Hristiyanlığın (super-ego) ve hem de Hamlet’in bilinçötesi’nin simgesi olan ‘hayalet’, şüphelerini söyler: tıpkı SOPHOCLES’in kahini gibi.. Ne de olsa, kendi hislerini de aksettirmesi (projection) nedeniyle, Şekspiryen stilde, herkes cezalandırılacaktır.

                  Hamlet’in ‘kendi işini kendi yapmayışı’, yani elinde tüm nedenleri ve kudret olduğu halde amcasını öldürmeyişi, ciddi tartışmalara neden olmuştur. Evet, ‘hayalet’ gerçeği söylemişti, fakat ölüm emretmemişti. Hamlet ve Shakespeare, a b u l i k bir kişiliğe (abulia=zayıf iradeli olma, karar verememe) mi sahiptiler? Yoksa içinde yumuşak (kadınımsı) bir yapı mı vardı? (Her erkeğin içinde gerek genetik “kromozomal XY yapısı” ve gerekse tüm kadınlık alternatiflerini içeren bir kadın imajının mevcut olabileceğini savunan görüş). Kayda değer diğer eleştiriler:

                  T.S. ELLIOT : “Hamlet.. Shakespeare’in artistik bir zaafı..”
                  MONTAIGNE : “Trajedi’nin seyri ve bitimi tamamen tesadüfi..”
                  GOETHE : “.. Aşırı duyarlılık..Kudretli bir insan, esrarlı bir inhibisyon ile engizisyon’a yakalanmış.. (Goethe, büyük bir olasılıkla, aynı ‘hassas ruhu’, ‘Genç Werther’in Çektikleri’nde aksettirecektir)
                  Otto RANK : “Hamlet: Phantasie-mensch..” (fantazi mahsulu insan) 
Dover WILSON : “Hamlet, bir illüzyon’dur ve bu illüzyon, Shakepeare’in kıyas kabul etmez drama tekniğinin bir zaafıdır..”
                  TRENCH : ‘.. Biz, Shakespeare’in yardımıyla bile Hamlet’i anlamakta güçlük çekiyoruz.. Kesinlikle Shakespeare’in kendisi Hamlet’i anlamakta güçlük çekmişti.. Hamlet, kendini anlamasını imkansız görmüştü.. İnsan, başkalarının kalbini ve hayattaki motiflerini daha iyi anlayabilmesine karşın, belki kendininkilerini anlamaktan acizdir.
                  SCHÜCKING : “.. Hamlet, melankoli nedeniyle bir paralizi geçirmektedir..”
                  DOWDEN : “.. Shakespeare, Timothy BRIGHT’ın çalışmasından (A Treatise of Melancholia) yararlanarak Hamlet’in melankolisini sahneye koymuştu <Gerçekte ondan bir iki satır almıştır ama, kopya değil. Kütüphanemde adı geçen kitabın ‘re-print’i var ve ben inceledim).
                  LAEHR : “.. Hamlet’in melankolisi sahne olarak en presentable’dır; zira ‘ghost’- halüsinasyonlar Melankoli’de olur..”

                 Son olarak, analitik kuramları kanıtlarcasına, Ödipal çocuğun ebeveynlerinin kendilerinin çözülmemiş Ödipal Karmaşalarından ıstırap çektiklerini not etmek isteriz. İşte piyesten başka bir parça:

                KRALİÇE (alarme olup Hamlet’e sorar) : Ne yapacaksın, beni de öldürecek misin?
                HAMLET : “Sevgili anne.. Anne ve baba, adam ve kadındır.. Adam ve kadın bir vücut, aynen benimle annem gibidir..”

                FREUD,   H a m l e t  hakkında “Mourning and Melancholia”sında <Collected Works, Vol.14, pp.:245-7> ondan, prensip itibariyle ‘yasını geciktirmiş’ biri olarak bahseder:

                 “Şimdi, ‘yas tutma’ hakkında ne öğrendiysek, onu Melankoli’ye uygulayalım. Melankoli’de, sevilmiş bir nesne’nin kaybı söz konusudur. Bu, ‘ideal’ bir nitelik taşıyabilir, örneğin gerçekte ölmüş olmayıp sadece bir kayıptan ibaret olabilir. Bazı vak’alarda da kişi, kaybın ne olduğuna inanır, fakat net olarak “ne”olduğunu ayırdedemez. Hasta hatta ona melankoliye malolan kayıp nesne’sinin ‘kim’ olduğunu bilir ama, onunla “ne” kaybettiğini bilemez. Bu bakımdan Melankoli’nin, bilinç alanından çekilmiş bir nesne kaybı ile ilişkisi olabilir. Buna karşılık y a s   t u t m a ’da ise, bilinçötesi bir kayıp yoktur.”

                  “Yas Tutma’da (mourning), kişi’nin inhibisyon’u ve yapması gerektiği işler konusunda ilgisini  kaybetmesi, onun ego’sunun ‘yas tutma’ işlemiyle süregelmekte olan çalışmasının ürünüdür. Melankoli’de, “bilinmeyen kayıp”, aynı şekilde içsel (internal) bir çalışma yaratır ve ‘melankolik inhibisyon’ ile sonuçlanır. Fark şudur ki, melankoliğin inhibisyonu, onu neyin  bu derece meşgul ettiği hususunda bizi şaşırtabilir, zira göze görünen bir ‘neden’ yoktur. Melankolik, ‘yas tutan’dan daha farklı bir tablo yaratmaktadır: kendine karşı güven son derece azalmış ve ego zayıflamıştır. Yas Tutma’da, fakirleşen ve içi boşalan dünya’dır, melankolide ise ego’dur. Melankolik kendini (ego’sunu) değersiz, boş, hiç birşey başaramayan, kudreti ve yeteneği olmayan ve dolayısıyla ‘cezalandırılması’ gereken bir varlık olarak sunar. O, kendi içinde olan bu ‘yeni’ değişikliğin farkında değildir, tersine, kendini bildi bileli böyle olduğuna inanır.
                  “Gerek bilimsel ve gerekse tedavisel bakımlardan, ego’suna bu ithamlarda bulunan böyle bir hastayı ikna etmek mümkün değildir. Gerçekte de, onun kendine yönelik bazı değerlendirmelerini onaylamak zorundayız. O, gerçekten ilgisini ve sevme yeteneğini kaybetmiştir, başarılı değildir, ama tüm bunlar ‘ikincil’dir (secondary).‘Birincil’ (primary) neden, yas tutma’da işlevsellik gösteren ve ego’ya musallat olan bir “içsel çalışma”nın  (internal work)  ürünüdür. Esasında; egoistik, bağımsız olamamaktan acı çeken ve bu zayıflıklarını hayat boyunca saklamaya yetenmiş melankolik, bu ‘kendi-kritik’ (self-critic) ve ithamlarıyla, ‘gerçek-kendi’ye (real-self) epeyce yaklaşmış demektir. Tabiatıyla bir insanın bu tür gerçeğe bu kadar yakın gelmesi için ‘niye’ hasta olması gerektiği ayrı, fakat düşündürücü bir konudur. 

                  “Böylece, ‘kendi’ ve ‘diğerleri’ hakkında bu tür kanaatler veren bir kimse, gerçekten hasta sayılabilir, örneğin Hamlet..”

                   FREUD’un tanı’sını kabul edersek, Hamlet, Melankoli’den ıstırap çekmektedir ve depresif mizacı (mood), onun hayata karşı davranışını, insanlarası ilişkilerini ve işlevsellik kapasitesini belirlemektedir.

                   Freud’un da işaret ettiği gibi, y a s   t u t m a ’nın  patolojik olması ve o nedenle tedaviye gereksinim göstermesi şart değildir. Genellikle, kaybolmuş nesne’ye fazlasıyla yatırılmış libido  (hypercathexis)  zamanla geri çekilir ve ‘yaşama değer diğer nesneler’e yatırılır. Hamlet’in annesi ve üvey babası, onun yas tutma süresini aşamadığından, dengesini bulamayıp daha öncelerden kendini verdiği uğraşılara dönemeyişinden endişelidirler. Freud,  pathologic mourning  tutan kimsenin, ölen kimseye karşı duyduğu  i k i l e m’den (ambivalence), özellikle ona karşı hissettiği ‘ölüm’ duygularından nedenlenen “kendini cezalandırma gayreti”nin oluştuğunu idia etti. Ek olarak, bu kimseler, belki de yakındıkları ölü kimsenin, bu bilinçötesi tılsımlı düşüncelerin etkisi ile öldüğüne inanırlar. Hamlet küçükken babası hakkında öyle hisler duymuş olabilir. Mamafih, Hamlet’in melankolisi’nin, onun çocukken babasına karşı beslemiş olabileceği öldürücü hislerden nedenlendiğini sanmıyoruz. Metni dikkatle okursak görürüz ki, Hamlet artık babasının ölümünden ziyade, annesinin alelacele amcasıyla evlendiğinden yakınmaktadır.


                   İleri derecede deprese olan bir kimse kendini değersiz hisseder ve aynı zamanda birtakım ahlaki noksanlıkları olduğuna inanır. Hamlet, sürekli olarak kendini aşağılamakta ve benzeri nitelikleri, kendi çevresindeki insanlarda da sezmektedir. Freud, kayde değer bir içgörü ile şunu kaydetti: Eğer melankolik hastanın çok ve çeşitli hikayelerini dinlersek, onların çok şiddetli (violent) ve hastanın kendine uygulayamayacak bir nitelikte olduklarını görürüz. Yakın bir gözlem, onların, hastanın sevdiği (veya sevmek zorunda olduğu) bir kimseye uyduğunu kolayca ortaya çıkarır.”
                   Dış nesneler’den çok kendini lanetleten deprese bir vak’anın anlaşılması bir az güç olup, olaya çeşitli yönlerden bakılabilir, örneğin önemli bir şahısla  özdeşleşme ve hatta bağımlılık sözkonusu olabilir. O taktirde o kimsenin kaybı, ‘kendi’de (self) ve ‘kendi’ye karşı öz saygı’da  (self-esteem) bir kayıp yaratır. “Kendi-değerini düşürme” (self-depreciation), kişinin bütünlüğüne model olmuş kimsenin kaybıyla bağdaşabilmek için yaratılmış bir savunma mekanizmasıdır. Bu mekanizma ile, yansıtılması gereken kınama içe alınmıştır (introjection) ve ‘kendi’nin (self) bir parçası haline gelmiştir; hasta, ”terkeden, o davranışında haklıdır, zira, benim gibi değersiz bir kişiyi kimse sevmez!” diye düşünür.

                   H a m l e t  de, annesinin davranması gerektiği ideal durumda davranmamasını,  -bu, kendine ve hatta tüm insanlığa boş ve pespaye niteliğinden dolayı-  beklemediğini kendi kendine söylemektedir. ‘Depresyon’ ve ‘entrojeksiyon’ mekanizmalarına karşın  Hamlet,  ‘pozitif bir anne imajı’nı korumak zorundadır. 
                                                                  *       *
                   Şimdi de, büyük analist Ernest JONES’un “Hamlet and Oedipus”  (Anchor Books, New York 1949) adlı eserinden bazı alıntılar sunacağız:
                   “H a m l e t  trajedyası ile sunulan “Hamlet” problemine iki yönden bakılabilir. İlki, oyun’un gelmiş geçmiş en belli başlı şaheser yapıtlarından biri olarak kabul görmesidir. O belki Shakespeare’in hayat hakkındaki kendi özel görüşlerini ve yaşam felsefesini tüm diğer eserlerinden çok daha kudretle ifade ettiği eserdir. BRADLEY, “Hamlet, hiç bir zaman yitirilmeyen ve tüm yaratıcı literatürün en ilginç siması olarak daima yaşıyacaktır!” der. Nasıl olmasın, dünyanın en büyük şairi (Belki Homeros’dan sonra. İ.E.), tüm yaratma kudretini Hamlet’in konuşmalarında görüntüledi.

                     FIGGS, Hamlet’i “Shakespeare’in tümüyle kendini deklare etmesidir,” der.  TAINE’e göre, “Hamlet, Shakespeare’in ta kendisidir. Shakespeare, tüm sanat galerileri içinde kendini en belirli bir şekilde portleledi.”

                     İkinci nokta, Hamlet’in bir sahne eseri olarak son derece başarılı icra edilişidir. 1711’de Lord SHAFTESBURY, ondan, “İngiliz halkının kalbini fetheden sahneye konmuş en seçkin eser” olarak bahsetmişti. Bu sahne eserine karşı gösterilen tepki, yalnızca dram alanından gelmemektedir. Hamlet hakkında, Hz. İsa, Napoleon ve Shakespeare’in kendisi hariç, gelmiş geçmiş karakterlerden çok daha fazla şeyler yazılmıştır (Dünya klasmanında üçüncülüğü Agatha Christie almaktadır. İ.E.)

                     Drama’nın en merkezi gizemi, Hamlet’in, Babasının öldrülmesi olayı karşısında harekete geçmekteki gösterdiği  t e r e d d ü t ’tür. Bu, “Modern Edebiyatın Sphinx”i olarak kabul ve münakaşa edilmiştir.
                     (Antik Yunan Edebiyatı’nın Sphynx’i ve Oedipus Myth’ini yeri geldiği gerekçesiyle, sizlere, yine kendimin “Freud ve Psikanalizin Temel İlkeleri” kitabımdan aldığım aşağıdaki bölümleri araya koyuyorum.)
                     Sophocles, “Oedipus Rex” oyununda yalnızca bahtsız bir kral ailesinin değil, bütün insanlığın ‘Kader ve Seçim’ ilkelerini ve özellikle ‘Nesillerin Devamı’ (succesion of generation) tema’sını da ele almıştır.

                     Kıral Oedipus efsanesi’nin ana hatları şudur: Oedipus, Thebes kıralı Laius ve onun karısı Jocasta’nın oğludur. Daha doğmadan evvel bir kahin (oracle), kırala, bir erkek evladı olacağını ve bu çocuğun, büyüyünce onu öldürüp annesi ile evleneceği hususunda kehanette bulundu. Kıral da bunun üzerine, oğlu doğunca, onun ayaklarını delip ölsün diye çayırlara attı. Oedipus, bir çoban tarafından bulundu ve bakıldı, üstelik onu alıp Corinth’e getirdi. Yavrunun güzelliği orada kıraliyet sarayının dikkatini çekti ve Kıral Polybus ve eşi Kraliçe, çocuğu evlat edindi.

                     Oedipus, Corinth’de büyür. Bir gün sarayda adamın biri  onun ne olduğu bilinmeyen doğumu hakkında alaylı bir şey söyleyince buna üzülen Oedipus, babası Kıral Polybus’a baskı yapar, onun gerçeği söylemesini rica eder, fakat bir yanıt alamaz. Bunun üzerine Corinth’i terkederek Delphi Tapınağı’na gidip rahip ile görüşmek ister ve yola çıkar, mamafih hedefine hiçbir zaman ulaşamaz. Yolda, yanında beş refakatçı silahşörü olan yaşlı bir adam ile karşılaşır, bir yol sormak yüzünden (coming to cross-roads = bir ayrılık noktasına, yolların ayrışımına gelmek, buradan gelir) aralarında bir kavga çıkar ve Oedipus, yaşlı adamı ve dört refakatçısını öldürür. Tabiatıyla genç adam, öldürdüğü kimsenin, babası Kıral Laius olduğunu bilmez. Bu suretle, yaşlı kahinin birinci kerameti gerçekleşir.

                     Nereye gittiğini bilmeksizin yoluna devam eden genç Oedipus, Thebes’e yaklaşır ve şehrin kapılarında yarısı aslan ve diğer yarısı kadın olan bir sfinks (sphynx) ile karşılaşır. Bu canavar, şehre dışardan gelenlere bir bilmece sorar, yanıtını alamayınca da hemen öldürürmüş (Sphynx, Eski Yunanca’da ‘sphyngein’ = bağlamak, sıkmak sözcüğünden gelir. Tabiatıyla, buradaki Sfinks, bir tür Soperego, toplumun gözle görülen ya da görülmeyen koruyucu jüri’si gibi, imtihan edici kudret simgesi olarak alınabilir). İnsan başlı, aslan gövdeli, kanatlı ve pençeli yaratık, genç adama sorar: “Ne çeşit yaratık ki, sabahları dört ayak üstünde yürür, öğlenleri iki ayak ve akşamları ise üç ayak üzerindedir?” “İnsan!” yanıtını verir Oedipus. “Zira, bebekliğinde elleri ve ayaklarıyla, gençliğinde yalnızca ayaklarıyla, yaşlılıkta ise baston ile yürür!” Yanıt doğru olduğundan Sfinks, kendiliğinden ölür. Bu, Musevilerin Bar Mitzvah, Müslümanların Sünnet ve ilkel kabilelerin genç üyelerini erginliğe kabul; Şamanlığa başlayış sınavına benzer bir ‘başlama, kabul” (initiation) törenine benzer.

                     Bu mit’de (myth)  S f i n k s  bulmacası, bir ‘kehanet’ olarak yorumlanabilir. O zaman birçok kehanetler zaten bulmaca biçiminde sunulurdu. Böylece, Delphi’nin dini liderleri tarafından yasaklanan hisler, açıkça sergilenemezlerdi. Gerçekten de, Vatican Museum’daki M.Ö. 5. yüzyıla ait “Oedipus and Sphynx” tablosunda, Sfinks, korkutucu bir canavardan çok, bir kahin gibi betimlenmiştir.

                     Sfinks’den kurtulan Thebes halkı, genç Oedipus’a en derin şükranlarını sunmak için, -Kıral’ın maiyetinden sağ kalan son askerin getirdiği acıklı haber üzerine- matem tutan, dul Kıraliçe’leri Jocasta’yı ona eş olarak sunarlar. Böylece, anne ve oğul evlenerek, yaşlı kahin’in ikinci kehanetini de gerçekleştirirler. Gerçek ilişkilerinin ne olduğunu bilmeyen Oedipus ve Jocasta, birlikte mutlu yıllar sürerler ve dört çocukları olur. Yıllar geçer, bir gün esrarengiz bir veba salgını Thebes’i kırar geçirir. Herkes, kırallığın, tanrıların bir gazabına uğradığını düşünür. Derde deva bulmak için, Oedipus, karısı (esasında annesi) Jacosta’nın erkek kardeşi Creon’u Delphi’ye, baş kahine “tanrılarla sulh yapmanın” yollarını öğrenmek için gönderir. Baş kahin, soru sorulunca, ilk kez Kıral Laius’un katilinin bulunması gerektiğini tavsiye eder. Creon, Thebes’e döner ve hikayeyi iletir. Jocasta eşine, eski yaşlı Kıral’ın dağda, ‘bilinmeyen bir insan tarafından öldürüldüğünü’ söyler. Oedipus, o katilin ‘kendisi olma’ olasılığından endişeyle bahseder. O anda saraya bir haberci gelerek Corynth’de Kıral Polybus ve Ana Kraliçe’nin öldüğünü haber verir. Oedipus, ayni haberciden, onların oğlu olmayıp bir çoban tarafından kurtarılıp yetiştirildiğini dehşetle öğrenir. Bu feci gerçek üzerine Jocasta kendini öldürür ve Oedipus, gözlerine mil çekerek kör olur. Bunu takiben de, Oedipus, yanında kızı Antigone olduğu halde, ama bir dilenci olarak memleketi dolaşır durur, en sonunda da Athens yakınlarında Colonus köyünde hayatının sonuna kadar yaşar. -Sophocles’in diğer eserlerinin: “Antigone”, ve “Oedipus Colonos’da” olduğunu hatırlatalım.- Dr.İ.E.”

                                                                    *       *
                   “Genel inanç, Shakespeare’in oyununu, hemencecik alınacak bir intikam ile bitirmek istemediği gibi, kasten de uzatmadığı yolundadır. Herhalde ‘ilkel’ bir intikam hissi, oynayan karakterlerin spiritüel varlıklarının bir süre hissedilmesinin engellenmesini gerektiriyordu. Sonuç, eninde sonunda nasıl olsa gelecekti, acele etmeye lüzum yoktu.

                     MERCADE (1875), Hamlet ve diğer karakterleri şöyle niteliyor:
                     H a m l e t , ‘gerçeği’ arayan bir ruh,
                     C l a u d i u s , şeytan ve kötülüğün temsilcisi,
                     O p h e l i a , ‘kilise’nin ta kendisi,
                     P o l o n i u s , ‘mutlakiyetçilik’in – saltçılık’ın (absolutism) ve              ‘gelenekçilik’in (tradition) sembolü,
                     H a y a l (ghost) , Hıristiyanlığın ideal sesi,
                     F o r t i n b r a s , özgürlük. 

                     Kuno FISHER, Hamlet’in, durum hakkında çok yoğun ve kudretli hayal gücü olması dolayısıyla, aksiyon’a zaman ve zemin bırakmadığını söylüyor. “Eğer bir ihtiras, sözcüklerle o denli ilerlere uzanıyorsa, o sözcüklerin aksiyon’a dönme olasılığı da o kadar azdır.” 


                     (Daha önceden belirtildiği gibi) Otto RANK’ da, Hamlet’i “Phantasie-mensh” (Hayal adamı) olarak isimlendirmişti. Ona göre de, Hamlet’in hayalindeki aksiyon’ları, onun gerçekte -eğer girişseydi- fiili olarak yapacaklarına hemen hemen eşdeğerdi. Bu arada Shakespeare’in kendisinin de aktörlük mesleğinden geldiğini ve bazen, sözlerin, akt’lar kadar değer kazanabileceklerini de hatırlattı.

                     Hamlet’in, olaylar oluşuncaya kadar, daha önceden ‘normal’ gibi geliştiğini, ama babasının, zehirli bir yılan tarafından ısırılarak öldüğünün tersine, bir cinayete kurban gitmesiyle sonuçlanan ölümü gerçeği karşısında şoke olduğu söylenir. İnsan yapısının (özellikle Kıraliyet düzeyinde)  idealizm’ine karşı vurulan bu darbe ile, yeni Kıral’ı öldürmekle hiçbir yere varamayacağının da farkındadır. (Kendini sonsuz suçlu hissettirecek) öyle bir aksiyon yerine, “tiyatral akt”ı yeğlemiş olabilir.

                     COLERIDGE Okulu’nun düşünceleri de, Hamlet gibi yüksek zekalı ve kudretli bir insanın herhangi bir soru’yu basit ve direkt bir şekilde yanıtlayacağına, birden fazla olasılığı inceden inceye düşünmesinin de pek normal olabileceği yolundadır. Ne olursa olsun, has amcası Claudius’u öldürmesi için, ulusunun gözü önünde, onun işlediği cinayetin son derece korkunç ve sıradışı oluşunu mutlak kanıtlarla gözler önüne serebilmeliydi, yoksa tahtta gözü olup bu cinayeti kendisinin de işleyebileceği düşünülebilirdi.

                    ULRICI  Hipotezi de (1939), Hamlet’in, yüksek Hıristiyan etiği ve amcasını öldürmek zorunluğu arasında kaldığını vurgular. Von BERGER de (1890), Hamlet’in asaletini öne sürer, “O…, bu kokuşmuş, çürümüş dünya için son derece akıllı ve çok asildi..”

                                                                    *      *

                   “H a m l e t ’ in, “içsel bir çatışma” dan ıstırap çektiği ve  bunun nedenine ulaşamayıp, alabileceği en şiddetli intikam ateşiyle yanarken hala aksiyon’a geçememesi, Sir James PAGET tarafından “histerik bir paralizi” olarak nitelendirilmiştir (Aboulia – Zayıf iradeli olmaktan daha önce bahsedilmişti).  Analist’ler bunu kolayca açıklayabilirler: Bir insanın bilinçli  olarak yapması gerekli olmasına karşın, eğer yapamıyorsa, bunda ‘içten gelen’  ve ‘yapılmaması’ gerektiğini savunan, bilmediği (ya da bilmek istemediği) bir ‘neden’ vardır. Babasının hayaleti Hamlet’e göründüğü zaman, o, bu hayalet’in babasının ‘gerçek hayaleti’ mi yoksa ‘şeytan’ın bir oyunu’ mu olduğu hususunda şüpheye düşmüştü. Bu şüphe, zaten, yukarda bahsettiğimiz ‘iç savunma’yı destekliyordu.

                    Hamlet, klasik, derin bir Melankoli içindeydi: Dünyaya ve hayatın değerlerine karşı ümitsizdi ve ölüm’den nefret ediyordu. Kötü kötü rüyalar görmeye ve kendi kendini itham etmeye devam ediyordu. Tüm bunlara, yapması gerektiği ödevi ertelemesinden dolayı duyduğu pişmanlık ve yetersizlik de caba.


                    FREUD ve Ekolü’nden öğrendiğimiz üzere, hepimiz, çocukluğumuzdanberi, inanç ya da değer yargılarımıza uygun düşmeyen duygu ve olayları “bastırma”ya (repression) devam ederiz. Bu aktif, dinamik (tabiidir ki bilinçötesinin düzenlediği) bir süreçtir. Genel inanç, bastırılan duyguların ve fantazilerin daha ziyade  c i n s e l   d ü r t ü l e r l e  ilintili olduğudur.

                    Yeni Kıral (amca) Claudius’un iki büyük suçu var: Kıraliçe ile olan ensest (incest) ve kendi öz kardeşi Kıral’ı öldürmek. Hamlet doğal olarak babasının intikamını almak ister, fakat FURNIVALL’in de işaret ettiği gibi, Hamlet’i yürekten sarsan, son derece şaşırtan,  Kıraliçe’nin (annesinin) babasının asil anısına karşı işlediği ihanet ve insest olmuştu. Sorulan klasik soru şudur: Hamlet’in içsel-ruhsal problemleri çok evvellerdenberi mi mevcuttu ve bu vahim olay dolayısıyla daha da derinleşmişti; yoksa, olay sonucu, direkt olarak etkilenerek bu hale düşmüştü. T.S. ELIOT, zarif bir şekilde şöyle demişti: “Hamlet’in zihinsel hastalığı bir akıl hastalığından daha az, ama hasta numarası yapmaktan daha derindi.”

                    Hamlet’in ruhsal rahatsızlığı konusunda, çeşitli psikiyatr’lar tarafından konulmuş çeşitli tanı’lar vardır: “Hystero-neurasthenic”, “melancholia”, “manic-depressive illness”, “depression on a cyclothymic basis” vb. Ama tanı her ne olursa olsun, Shakespeare’in genius’u, daha bu tanımların bilimsel olarak yapılmadığı o devirde, sanki zamanımızda da hissedilen tüm yaşam senfonisi’nin ıstırabını: insanoğlunun sürekli düş kırıklığı ve yetersizlik duygularını, Hamlet’in kişiliğinde ölümsüzleştirmişti.

                    H a m l e t ’i n   z i h n i n d e  represe  o l a n   m a t e r y a l   n e y d i ?  Hiç şüphesiz, onun küçük yaşındanberi, annesinin sevgisine (kendinden daha fazla) mazhar olan babasını kıskanması ve onun, günün birinde, ‘ortadan kaybolması’ (arzulu düşünce = wishfull thinking) idi. (Hemen her çocuk bunu arzular, ama, büyüdükçe ve kendini çevre’ye yaydıkça, bu fantazi, günün birinde babası gibi olacağına ve annesi gibi biriyle evleneceğine dönüşür. Dr.İ.E.) Burada dönüp dolaşıyoruz ve yine Oedipus Karmaşası’nda karar kılıyoruz. Hamlet’in yazgısında onun bu çocukluk arzusu yerine gelmişti, ama ‘ortadan kaybolma’, aynı duyguları yaşamış ve affedilmez bir suç işlemiş amcası tarafından hunharca ifa edilmiş, üstelik annesi, babasına da (hem de kendine) ihanet etmişti. Sonuçta, kendisinin de, bir zamanlar arzuladığı, haz alabileceği bir bütünleşme, kan akıtılacak bir gerçeğe dönmüştü.”

                     (Sigmund FREUD,  hayatında en sevdiği edebi eserin “Karamazov Kardeşler” olduğunu söylermiş. Tabii bu, asillerin, saray hayatının çok daha altında, halk düzeyinde, kardeşler arası müsabakanın, aşkın, şehvetin, duyguların son derece şiddetli olarak, ve daha gerçekçil düzeylerde ifade edildiği Rus toplumunda oluşmuştu. Başka bir Oedipal şaheser. Ama bence, Hamlet, hala erişilemeyecek bir boyutta, tepede, Çoban Yıldızı gibi parlamaya devam ediyor. Dr.İ.E.)

                                                                    *      *

                     Son yılların yıldızı yeni yeni parlayan analistlerinden biri olan Theodore LIDZ, “Hamlet’in Düşmanı – Hamlet’te Delilik ve Mit”(Hamlet’s Enemy; Madness and Myth in Hamlet) (Int.Univ.Press, New York, 1990, orig.1975 Basic Books) adlı eserinde, Hamlet’i alışılagelenin ötesinde ve üstünde, çok derin ve etraflı bir şekilde inceliyor. Hamlet konusunu hayatının son yirmi beş yılında ‘hobi’ haline getirmiş by çok değerli yazarın üstün değerdeki kitabından bazı önemli notları aktarmaya çalışacağım.

                     Lidz, eserinin önsözünde; bir psikanalist’in tiyatro’ya karşı gösterdiği ilginin çok natürel olduğunu; zira, mit-yaratan (myth-maker) sahne eserleri yazarının (playwright) ve psikanalist’in yeterli derecede yaratıcı olduğundan bahsediyor. Mit’ler, insanlığın, doğa’nın akışını izlemek ya da onu kontrol etmek için yarattığı ritüel’lerden doğmuştur. Natürel olayları yorumlamaya ya da anlamaya çalışan mit’ler, insanlarda, ihtiras yaratan birçok çatışma’lara (conflict) da ortak olmuşlardır; ya da onlarla bağdaşmak zorunda kalmışlardır. Aynı şekilde, “yarı-tanrı”(demi-god) kahramanların insan olmaya izin verilmedikleri ya da insanların “tanrı-benzeri” olup ıstırap çekme yeteneklerini kullandıkları durumlarda da bu çatışmalarla sarman dolman olmuşlardır.

                     D r a m a’ ya gelince, o, r i t ü e l’ in ve ona refakat eden  m i t’ in direkt sonucudur. Drama yazarı da, sanki bir ‘süperego’ rolü oynamaktadır: tabu’ları yıkma sonucu oluşacak cezaları dinleyicilere sunar ve onları, trajik kahramanların yazgılarını yeğlemeleri dolayısıyla, yavan, hatta üzüntülü bir hayatı kabul etmeye zorlar.

                     Hamlet karakterinin bir psikiyatrı kendine çekmesi gayet doğaldır; Shakespeare’, ruh hastalıklarına maruz kalmış birçok kişilikleri birçok eserlerinde sahnelemiştir (Kıral Lear, Lady Macbeth vb). Ama Hamlet’de tüm aksiyon, kahramanın dağınık ruh hali ve kadın kahramanın da akıl hastalığı üzerinde cereyan eder. Shakespeare, bilinçötesi alanına dalmakla, tüm mantıkdışı (irrational) sayılabilecek, anneye yönelik ‘ensest’ dolu dürtülerle hareket eden, aşırı kızgın ya da ruh hastası kahramanları kolaylıkla seçebildi.

                     Freud ve Jones’un yorumlarına ek olarak Gilbert Murray, yazdığı “Hamlet ve Orestes” adlı eseriyle ve daha sonraları Frederic Wertham, O r e s t e s  hakkında yazılmış Eski Yunan trajedileri arasında bir paralel çizdiler. “Orestes Complex” de, birçok erkekler; sevgi verme yetileri olmayan anneleriyle kendi aralarında gelişen ‘nefret’in, “anneyi öldürme” (matricide) dürtü’süne varan bir şiddete yöneldiğini ifade etmişti. Mamafih, Hamlet’ten farklı olarak, Orestes’in Elektra adlı bir kızkardeşi vardır. Onun, babasına karşı olan kuvvetli bağları, Orestes’e annesini öldürtmüştü. (Bugün, klasik psikanaliz’de, erkeklerdeki Oedipal karmaşa’ya karşıt olarak, kızlarda bir Elektra kompleks’i olduğu genellikle kabul olunur. Dr.İ.E.)

                    On yıl evvel ebediyete göç eden diğer bir önemli analist, Erik Erikson, Hamlet için şunu demişti: “Hamlet yalnızca, kendinin, etik anlayışının kabul edemeyeceği bir ‘akıl hastası intikamcı’ olarak, ‘negatif kişiliği’ konusunda başarılı olmuştur.”


                    Psikanaliz’den öğrendiğimize göre, Hamlet’in de içinde bulunduğu Oedipal durum, bir “üçgenler” açmazıdır. Aile durumuna göre bu üçgen, Baba-anne-oğul; Baba-anne-kız; Kayınpeder-kayınvalde-gelin; Kayınpeder-kayınvalde-damat; Üvey baba-anne-oğul (Hamlet); Baba-üvey anne-kız vb. kombinasyonlarında olabilir.

                    H a m l e t  oyununda birbirleriyle etkileşimde bulunan birçok üçgenler şunlardır (Zaten birden fazla üçgenin içiçe oluşa bu esere şaheser damgasını vurdurtuyor):

                    1) HAMLET –  MOTHER (Gertrude) –  ÜVEY BABA (Kıral-amca Claudius) Hamlet, hem annesiyle evlendiği için üveybabasını kıskanmakta ve hem de öldürülen kocası (babası) için anne kıraliçeyi suçlamaktadır.

                    2) ANNE (Gertrude) – BABA (Ölü Kıral HAMLET) – ÜVEY BABA (Kıral Claudius, Amca) İki kardeş arasındaki mücadele, aralarındaki çözülmemeiş Oedipus karmaşanın sonucudur. (Freud’un ‘Totem ve Tabu’sunda büyük abinin ilk kez babayı, sonra daha küçük kardeşin onu öldürmesi ve encest’in aynı aile-klan’da tabu’laşmanın başlaması; Adem’in oğlu Kabil’in Habil’i öldürmesi vb. Dr.İ.E.)

                    Metin’den, bu olasılıkları kanıtlayan sahneler:

                    Perde ııı, sahne ııı 
                    KIRAL (CLAUDIUS) :  Ah, suçum leşler gibi, kokusu göğü kaplıyor. Üstünde o ilk, o en eski laneti taşıyor. Kardeş kaatili! Azmettiğim kadar arzu da ettim, ama dua edemiyorum. Günahım, kararımdan ağır basıyor. İki işe birden bağlanmış adam gibi önce hangisine başlayacağımı kestiremeden duruyor, ikisini de ihmal ediyorum. Bu melun el, üstündeki kardeş kanıyla iki misli ağırlaşmışsa bile ne olur sanki? Rahim olan göklerde onu yıkayıp kar gibi beyaz edecek kadar rahmet yok mu?

                    Perde ııı, sahne ıv
                    HAYALET (Hamlet’e babasının hayaleti tekrar görünür) :  Claudius’tan intikam al, ama annene zarar verme; yalnızca o ve onun savaşan ruhu arasına gir!  

                    Perde ııı, sahne ıv
                    KRALİÇE :  Ah, Hamlet, yüreğimi iki parça ettin.
                    HAMLET :   Fena tarafını çıkarıp atın; öbür yarısıyla daha temiz bir hayat sürün. Geceniz hayrolsun. Fakat amcamın yatağına girmeyin, faziletiniz yoksa bile varmış gibi görünün.  

                    Perde ıv, sahne ıv
                    HAMLET :   Onu bilen bir melek biliyorum. Ama hadi öyle olsun; İngiltere’ye! Hoşça kalın anneciğim (Kırala hitap etmektedir!)
                    KIRAL :   Ben, ben senin babanım, Hamlet!
                    HAMLET :   Annem: baba ile karı kocadır. Karı koca tek bir vücuttur. Onun için, annem. Haydi bakalım, İngiltere’ye!


                    3) HAMLET –  POLONIUS (Sevgilisinin babası) – OPHELIA (Polonius’un kızı, Hamlet’in sevgilisi).. Oğlu’nun da etkisiyle, kızının Hamlet’le ilişkisini hazmedemeyen baba, zaten karısını kaybetmiştir, yalnızdır.

                    Perde ı, sahne ııı
                    POLONIUS :  Efendimiz Hamlet’e gelince: şu kadarını hatırında tut ki, kendisi gençtir, bildiğini işlemek için senden serbesttir. Kısacası onun yeminlerine inanma, Ophelia. Çünkü onlar göründükleri gibi değildirler; daha iyi aldatmak için sofu kılığına girmiş aracılar, dinden dem vuran ahlaksızlardır. Diyeceğim şu: bundan böyle efendimiz Hamlet’le konuşup görüşerek tek bir dakika için bile kendine söz getirmene razı değilim, doğrusu bu. Sana söylüyorum, dikkat et, haydi bakalım.
                    OPHELIA :  Başüstüne, efendimiz.

                    Perde ıı, sahne ı
                    POLONIUS :  Hadi, benimle gel. Gidip Kıralı bulacağım. Bu tam aşktan gelme çılgınlık…. Doğrusu üzüldüm. Yoksa, son zamanlarda kendisine ağır bir söz filan mı söyledin?
                    OPHELIA :  Hayır, iyi efendimiz. Ama, emrettiğiniz üzere, mektuplarını geri çevirdim; kendini de yanıma kabul etmedim.
                    POLONIUS :  Onu, bu çıldırtmıştır.

                    Perde ııı, sahne ıv
                    KIRALİÇE :  Ne istiyorsun? Beni öldürmeyeceksin, değil mi? İmdat, aman imdat!
                    POLONIUS, arkadan :  Hey! İmdat! İmdat! İmdat! 
                    HAMLET, kılıcını çekerek :  Ne! Bir fare ha. Geberdi, bir altına bahse girerim ki geberdi! (Kılıcını perdeye saplar.)
                    POLONIUS, arkadan :  Ay, vuruldum! (Düşer, ölür.)
                    KIRALİÇE :  Aman yarabbi, ne yaptın?
                    HAMLET :  Ne bileyim ben. Kıral mıydı?
                    KIRALİÇE :  Ah ne çılgın, ne kanlı iştir bu!
                    HAMLET :  Kanlı bir iş! Bir kıral öldürmek, sonra da bir kardeşine varmak kadar fena bir iş anneciğim.
                    KIRALİÇE :  Bir kıral öldürmek mi? 
                    HAMLET :  Evet efendim, öyle dedim.

                    Perde ıv, sahne vıı
                    OPHELIA (babasının ölümünde sonra), şarkı söyler :
                    Demek ki gelmeyecek?
                    Demek ki gelmeyecek?
                    Öldü, o gelmek nerde!
                    Gidip uzan, öl sen de.
                    Bir daha gelmeyecek.
                    Sakalı süt beyazı,
                    İpek gibi saçları,
                    Gitti bir kere gitti,
                    Boş göz yaşı bizimki,
                    Tanrım ruhuna acı!
                    Dini bütün olanların hepsinin ruhuna da Yarabbi. Tanrıya emanet olun. (Çıkar.)
                    4) HAMLET – OPHELIA (Sevgilisi) –  LAERTES (Ophelia’nın erkek kardeşi)
                    Burada, Laertes de babasıyla özdeşmektedir, Hamlet’e güvenmemesini söyler. Babasını kaybettikten sonra çıldıran kızkardeşinin mezarı başında Hamlet ile kavga eder. Babasını öldüren Hamlet’den intikam almaya yeminlidir: Tıpkı Hamlet’in, babasını öldüren Claudius’tan intikam almaya yeminli olduğu gibi.)

                    Perde ı, sahne ııı
                    LAERTES :  Hamlet’in sana gösterdiği o geçici ilgiye gelince: bunu bir heves, bir delikanlılık ateşi; baharın ilk günlerinde gözüken, erken açıp geçen, tatlı fakat ömürsüz, kokusu bir anda uçan bir menekşe şey, fazla değil.
                    OPHELIA :  Fazla değil mi, o kadarcık mı?
                    LAERTES :  Daha fazla bir şey sanma. Çünkü büyümekte olan bir insanın sade kasları, gövdesi gelişmez; bu bina geliştikçe, onunla birlikte, zihnin ve ruhun içten içe çalışması da artar……. oy’u, başında bulunduğu insanların düşünce ve arzularyla sınırlanmıştır. Buna göre, seni sevdiğini söylediği zaman, bu konumda olan biri, sözünü ne kadar tutabilir diye düşünüp öyle inanmak akıl karı olur; o ise, Danimarka halkının dediğinden dışarı çıkamaz. Onun tatlı dillerine kulak verip her dediğine inanır, gönlünü kaptırırsan, yahut durmadan üstüne varmasına dayanamayıp iffet hazineni ona açarsan, şerefinden ne büyük şey kaybedeceğini düşün.”

                    5) HAMLET – CLAUDIUS (Kıral, Üvey Baba) – POLONIUS (Saray Nazırı, Laertes ve Ophelia’nın babası.) (Hamlet, Polonius’tan Ophelia’yı kıskanır; Hamlet, sanki amcası Kıral Claudius’u öldürür gibi Polonius’u öldürür ve şöyle der: Seni, olduğundan üstün sanmıştım. Yolun açık olsun!  (I took thee for thy better. Take thy fortune. )

                    Aile içindeki bu karmaşık üçgenlere bir karmaşa daha getirebilmek için şunu da ekleyebiliriz ki, yirmi yıl kadar önce, öldürülen Kıral Hamlet, şimdi Norveç Prens’i olan Fortinbras’ın babasını (ki Polonius’un kardeşiydi.) legal sayılabilecek bir duello’da öldürmüştü.

                    Bu sayfanın arkasına eklenen, ve 1840’larda Moritz Retzsch tarafından çizilen bir skeç, bu durumu açıkça sergilemektedir. Üçgen’lerin tariflerinden sonra küçük punto’larla yazılmış türkçe tiyatro örnekleri, Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı’nın ‘Hamlet’ isimli Tiyatro Klasiğinin (No.1) 1995 basımından (Çev.: Orhan Burian) tarafımdan düzenlenmiştir.(Dr.İ.E.)

                    Shakespeare’in Hamlet’i yazdığı anlarda otuz yaşında olduğu ve biricik oğlu Hamnet’in henüz 11 yaşında iken öldüğü bilinir. Kimbilir Shakespeare, belki de oğlunun imajını yeniden yaratıp, eğer her ikisi de sağ olsalardı ve kendisi yaşlansaydı, o zaman ne olabileceğini portrelemişti. Oğlunun ölümüyle oluşan ‘hayalet’, onun kendi ismini de telaffuz ederek kendi Oedipal duygularını ifade etmişti. Belki, Hamnet yaşasaydı, Prince Hamlet’in ikizi olurdu.

                                             H a m l e t ’ t e k i   m i t  (myth)

                     Hamlet çalışmasında gözlemlediğimiz mit’in, insan davranışına nasıl uygulandığı ilginçtir. Drama da, mit’te olduğu gibi, orijinini ritüel’den alır ve klasik drama, hemen daima mit’le ilintidedirler. Büyük trajediler genellikle insanoğlunun başına gelmiş geçmiş ebedi ve esasta var olan ve ihtiraslarını kontrol edememekten nedenlenen problemlerden doğarlar.

                     Daha önceden de belirttiğimiz gibi, Freud ve Jones, analitik olarak, Hamlet’in problemlerini Oedipus’a, Gilbert Murray ve Frederic Wertham ise daha ziyade Orestes’e bağlamışlardı.

                     Freud, kendisinin en derin ve içgörülü sunularından birini insan davranışına uygularken, bir mit’i, Sophocles’in trajedisine dönüştürdü. Böylelikle, bir mit’in benzerini (analogy) almakla, insanoğlunun bilinçötesinin motivasyon ve çatışmalarını (conflicts), ikilem ve şüpheleriyle (ambiguity), zıtlıklarıyla (contradiction), yoğunluklarıyla (condensation), yer değiştirmeleriyle (displacement) ve sembolleştirmeleriyle (symbolization) -aşağı uyukarı- betimledi. Psikanaliz, insanların bilinçlerine uzun, güç ve karmaşa yollarla iletebildikleri mit’leri başkalarına ‘nasıl’ taşıdıklarınını keşfetmekle kalmayıp, çeşitli hastalardan türlü türlü çeşitlerde mit’ler keşfederler.

                     M i t  ve  k l a s i k   t r a j e d i l e r , aile içi kuvvetler ve onların kişiler üzerine etkileriyle meşgul olduklarından; öyle ailelerin nasıl birbirleriyle etkilendikleri, ebeveynlerin iş-güçlerinin ve çocuklarının hayatlarının devamı ve ailenin yaşam ve kader çizgisi boyunca, -nedeni hemen farkedilmeyen- felaketlerin kuşaklardan kuşaklara, hatta yurtlarını değiştirseler bile, bir birey’de nasıl su yüzüne çıktıkları, psikiyatr’ı son derece ilgilendirir.

                     Evet, sık olarak mit’te -ki drama’ya kristalize olmuştur- psikiyatrist, vak’anın materyaline paralel bulur. Bu materyal, çoğu kez, insanların yaşam durumlarının doğal sonuçları olan ve sonsuza dek yineleyen ögelerden yapılıdır. Bu tema’lar ve problemler üzerinde odaklanmakla, psikiyatrist, “varoluşçu”(existentialistic) ve “yapısalcı”(structuralist) yaklaşımlar keşfeder.

                     Shakespeare’in dikkati, farklı kökenli çeşitli efsanelere ve mit’lere yönelmişti: Norse (İskandinavya’ya ait) ve Eski Yunan Mitolojisi; Roma Tarihi ve Ahdi Atik (Tevrat). Büyük bir olasılıkla, büyük şair, onların genel ve birbirlerine benzer ana tema’larnın farkına varmıştı. Bu tema’ları da, büyük bir cesaretle, kahramanlarının karakterlerinde canlandırdı. Şimdi; bizler Shakespeare’in özel hayatı ve duygusal problemleri konusunda pek çok şey bilmemekle beraber, Hamlet’i yazarken, kendi içsel dengesini (homeostasis) ciddi olarak tehdit eden bir ruh haleti yaşıyordu. Örneğin, August STRINDBERG’in, kendisinin ilk karısına karşı duyduğu paranoid kıskançlığını “Baba”yı (The Father) yazarak üstesinden geldiğini biliyoruz. Aynı şekilde, ancak “Rüya Oyunları”nı (Dream Plays) yazmak suretiyle kişisel hayat sorunlarını çözebildi.


                     Eugene O’NEILL, kendisini son derece kötü etkilemiş olan ebeveynleriyle olan ezeli ve ebedi çatışmalarını, “Uzun Günün Yolculuğundan Gecenin İçine” (Long Day’s Journey into Night) siyle silebildi.

                     Tennessee WILLIAMS, kendisinde sürekli suçluluk hisleri yaratmış olan psikotik kız kardeşinin etkisinden ancak, “Cam Hayvan Koleksiyonu” (The Glass Menagerie) ile kutulabildi. Onun hemen diğer tüm oyunları, yoğun olarak, kendi içsel, psikolojik problemlerini yansıtır. Bir  o y u n’ un duygusal bir katarsis (emotional catharsis = ruhsal yatırım) yaratabilmesi ve kişisel dengeyi (homeostasis) yeniden düzenleyebilmesi, pek sık olarak, onun yaratmasıyla başlar.

                     16. yüzyılın sonuna yaklaşırken, Shakespeare’in oyun’ları, yeni bir nitelik kazanmaya başladı. Bu, daha ziyade, yazarın deprese mizacını ve kadınların bozduğu sadakat bağlantılarından nedenlenen düşkırıklıklarını akseder gibiydi.

                     Eğer Shakespeare, Hamlet’i yazmakla kendi ruhsal yaşamının merkezi problemlerine dokunuyor idiyse, o zaman, artık tüm insanlara da merkezi bir konumda olan tema’lara ve çatışmalara da değinmiş oluyordu.

                                                           *         *        *


                     Ben, 1945’de, henüz 16 yaşındayken, Denizli Lisesi son sınıf öğrencisi olarak, edebiyat hocamız çok sayın Prof.Dr. Şükrü Elçin’in ki okul arkadaşım çok değerli, rahmetli Şükran Güngör’ü keşfedip toplumumuza kazandıran da odur- liderliğinde oynadığımız ‘Hamlet’de, -küçük de olsa- Fortinbras rolündeydim. Tiyatro’ya ilgim de o zamanlardan başlar. Aynı yıl, Reşat Nuri Güntekin’in “Gazeteci Düşmanı” adlı küçük bir piyesini Osmanlıca’dan çevirip başrolü oynamıştım. Seyirciler arasında bulunan bazı gözlemciler beni Ankara Devlet Konservatuvarına aktörlük eğitimine gitmemi önermişlerdi, ancak ben tıbbı ve müziği seçtim. Her neyse, ben, Hamlet’in böylece 57 yıldır hayranıyım. Psikiyatr ve analist oluşum, bilgime ve duygularıma çok daha derin ve farklı boyutlar  kazandırdı.

                    Bence, tüm dünyanın kabulendiği gibi, oyun’da merkez tema: Oedipus Karmaşası’dır. İster Nordic, ister Scotch ve isterse Antik Yunan ya da hangi kültürden oursa olsun, bu üniversal ruhsal olgu Adem zamanındanberi mevcuttu ve insanlığın var olduğu sürece varlığına devam edecek, ancak Shakespeare’in kendisinin de dediği gibi, yalnızca sahne ve oyuncular değişecek.

                    Shakespeare, eserinin bir tarafında da dediği gibi, “Hamlet’in en büyük düşmanı kendi ruh hastalığıydı!” ki sayın Theodore Lidz bu tema üzerine koskoca ve pek derin bir eser yazmış. Shakespeare’in gerçeğe çok yakın bir analizini yapmaya ne benim kudretim yeter ve ne de o iş bu küçük bir makalenin yeridir. Fakat gerçek şudur ki, eğer mantık ve psikiyatri bilimlerini yanyana getirirsek, Lidz dahil, birçok büyüklerin ne gibi analiz hataları yaptıkları ve görüşlerinin bir az eksik kaldığını beraberce izleyebiliriz.


                    Herşeyden önce, Hamlet bir psikotik, yani akıl hastası mıydı? Freud (kısmen) hariç, hemen herkes bu tanıdan yana. Neden? Zira kararsız, annesini-üvey babasını öldürmeyi planlıyor, birçok adam öldürüyor,  en önemlisi  h a ya l   g ö r ü y o r : babasının hayaleti. Hamlet’in deprese olduğu muhakkak. Nasıl olmasın? Babası amcası tarafından öldürülmüş, annesi babasına, tahta, Danimarka halkına ve oğluna ihanet etmiş, ve genç prens kararsız. Bundan daha doğal ne olabilir? Psikiyatri’de, bir kimsenin “Psikotik – Akıl hastası” sayılabilmesi için, onun hemen daima  g e r ç e k d ı ş ı  (out of reality) yaşaması, oriyantasyon’unun bozuk olması, yani kendi kimliğini, nerede olduğunu, zaman ve mekan yanılgılarını sürekli yaşaması gerek. Muhakeme kusurları da caba. Hamlet, daima gerçeğin içindeydi. Hastalar hayal görürlerse, buna “hallucination” diyoruz. Şimdi, Allah rizası için, hayali ilk gören kimdi, Hamlet mi, yoksa şatodaki nöbetçiler: Bernardo, Marcellus, Horatio mu? Hamlet’e hayal hakkında ilk bilgi veren onlar değil mi? Psikiyatri tarihinde kim, hele usta bir doktor olarak ben bile, bir hastasında halüsinasyon yaratabilir ? Macbeth’ler de havada ‘kama’ görmüşlerdi, zira o işledikleri suçun kanıt aletiydi. Onlar da psikotik miydiler? Biz bu görüntülere: “Hallucinosis” diyoruz, yani bunlar, hastaların uydurdukları ve içeriğinde kayboldukları bilinçaltı-rüya gibi materyal değil, zihinlerini ve vicdanlarını sürkli işgal eden önemli konuların neredeyse gün-düşlemeleri gibi canlı bir şekilde yaşant olarak sergilenmesi. Hasta bunların içeriğinde hiçbir zaman kaybolmaz, bilincini kullanarak ‘içeri’ ve ‘dışarı’ trafiği kontrol eder, yoksa Hamlet’de olduğu gibi, hep birlikte, geceyarısı ‘Acaba hayalet gene gelecek mi?’ diye beklenmez.

                     Hamlet kimleri öldürüdü ve neden? Bir psikotik, sözüm ona şizofrenik, ikilemli olduğu bir sevgi sembolünü örneğin anne ya da babasını bir tek bıçak darbesiyle vurup öldürebilir ve yanlarına oturup, sanki hiçbir şey olmamış gibi, ya gün düşlemelerine dalar ya da içeriğini kavrayamayacağı bir gazete veya dergi okur. Ne olduğu sorulduğunda da, “Bilmem, öldü galiba.”; “Onu kim öldürdü?”, “Bilmem, ben galiba.” gibi belirsiz yanıtlar verir. Hamlet, Polonius’u bilerek, planlayarak mı öldürdü? Hayır! Babasının hayaleti’nin tavsiyesi üzerine, annesinin odasına konuşmaya gittiğinde perde arkasındaki ‘fare- belki de hayatına kastedecek biri-, büyük olasılıkla meşru bir müdafaa (self-defense) için kılıcını çekti. Ophelia’nın mezarında Laertes ile karşılaştığında bir asil gibi davrandı ve sonunda duello’da meç’lerin ucuna zehiri kim sürdü? Asil Laertes bir muhakeme hatası yaptığı halde bile hasta biri değildi, çünkü yanlış bilgilendirilmişti. Kıral Claudius’u niçin öldürmesin, o da kendisine karşı kaç kez komplo yapmıştı? Değil babasını öldürme, basit sayılabilecek bir gönül hikayesi yüzünden kaç masum genç, günümüzde, aile meclisinde verilen karar üzerine, bizzat kendi öz ağabeyleri tarafından bıçak darbesiyle can vermiyorlar mı? O tür “sahiplenme”nin ardında Polonius’un Ophelia’ya hissettiği Oedipal duygudan farklı ne var?

                      Özet, psikiyatrik olarak Hamlet deprese idi, nedenler malum, sevgilisinin ölümü de depresyonunu arttırmış olabilir, ama yine onun planlamasında önemli bir değişiklik yapmadı. Hamlet, depresyonun ‘ikilimli’ düşüncesini, ‘kararsızlığını’, ‘erteleme – procrastination’ olaylarını hep yaşadı. Eğer onun amcası, babasını gerçekten öldürüp de annesiyle evlenmeseydi ve o (ve bizler de) da kendi kulağıyla, kilisede amcasının diz çökmüş itirafını işitmeyip de tüm faciayı kendi zihninden uydurduğu bir hurafe gibi yaşasaydı, o zaman gerçek hasta olurdu. Deprese bir hastanın zaman zaman paranoid düşünceye sapması çok natürel bir olaydır, zira ‘geçici paranoya’lar, derin depresyon vak’alarında kişinin ego’suna yardımcı olabilmesi için bir savunma mekanizması olarak belirebilirler. Ancak o geçici sistemler sürekli kalır ve bir hayat biçimine dönerse o zaman o kişi psikotik’tir. Hamlet’in hangi düşüncesi yanlış ya da gerçek dışı bir uydurma idi?


                      Literatüre bakarsak, Shakespeare’in Hamlet’i ne zaman ve hangi şartlarda yazdığı hakkında da bir konfüzyon var gibi. Büyük şair, tesbit edildiğine göre 1564’de doğdu. Sonradan gelişen küçük bir esnafın oğluydu; beş küçük kardeşi daha vardı ve daha 18 yaşındayken, ailesinin izni ve haberi olmadan başka bir yörede, üç çocuğu olduktan sonra erkettiği, kendinden yaşlı bir kadınla evlendi. Bu, özellikle o devirlerde, kendinden önce bir kardeşinin ölü doğumundan olası deprese olan annesi ve altı çocuk yapmakla işi arasında Bill’e pek çok vakit ayıramayan babasına karşı pek de alışılagelmiş bir tepki değildi. Tahmin edebiliriz ki genç William, “kendisini kanıtlama”, “babası gibi fallik bir adam olma” vb. dürtülerle doluydu. İlk kızından sonraki ikizlerden ‘Hannet’, ‘Hammet’, ya da ‘Hanset’ isimleriyle edebiyat tarihine geçen oğlu, bir epidemiden 11 yaşında ölüyor. O zaman Shakespeare 30’larında diyorlar. “Hamlet”in yazılış tarihi ise 1602’lerde yani, Shakespeare 38 yaşında. Arada, kendi kültür, bilgi ve görgüsünün çok üstünde eserler veren Shakespeare (Üniversite öğrencisiyken biz onun Bacon olduğuna inanırdık, her neyse!) o kadar uzun süre niye bu trajediyi yazmadı, bilmiyoruz.

                     Ama, kendi oğlu ‘Hamnet’in bu eserin yazılmasıyla büyük bir ilintisi vardır sanırım. Bir tasavvur edin, herhalde yakından özdeştiği biricik oğlu, hayatının tam baharında, beklenmedik bir zamanda ölüyor. Öyle hassas bir baba ne hissedebilir? Ben olsam, şöyle hissederdim: “Tanrım, onu alacağına beni alsaydın, o daha hayatına doymamıştı.” Yani ölümlerde bir “değiş-tokuş” bahis konusu olabilir. Bu tema, oğlunun ‘öleceği’ yerde, babasını ‘öldürebileceği’ne, özellikle bir yazarın zihninde kolaylıkla deplasman’a uğrayabilir. Yazdığı  -yaşadığı ve bildiği- Ödipal durum için bir şaheser yaratma fırsatı çıkmaz da ne olur; Lidz’de de buna benzer bir gönderme vardı ve yukarda paragrafı nasıl bitirmiştik: “Eğer Hamnet yaşasaydı, ancak Hamlet’in ikizi olabilirdi!” Shakespeare’in, bir zamanlar kendi babası için hissedebileceği Oedipal-patricide hisler, oğlunun ölümünde, “keşke o öleceğine ben ölseydim” ibaresi, “keşke o beni öldürseydi”ye kolaylıkla dönebilir; zira, o takdirde hem kendinin babasına karşı duyduğu ve hemde belki epidemide oğlunu kurtaramamanın verdiği yetersizlik ve suçluluk hislerini egale etmiş olurdu.

                     Benzer bir analiz için, güzel sanatların başka bir dalından, resimden bir örnek yorum getireceğim. 1993 yılında, İngiltere’nin ‘onur üyesi’  (ve son iki yıldanberi  ‘fahri eş-başkan’ olduğum “International Biographical Center”in St.John College-Cambridge şehrinde düzenlediği, bir hafta süreli, yıllık “Sanat ve İletişim” (Arts and Communication) sempozyumunda “Görsel Sanat Bölümü”ne “yönetici-chairman” olarak katılmıştım. Üyeler her daldan gelen meşhurlar ve herkes, en aşağı, Dünya Meşhurlar Ansiklopedisi ya da Müzesinde. Avustralyadan gelen ressamlar, Picasso’ya iki yıl onun laboratuvarında asistanlık etmiş bir Afrikalı Prens (muhteşem kıyafeti ve maiyetiyle iştirak etmişti), gerek yağlı boya resim gösterileriyle ve gerekse sanatkar-yaratıcı’nın psikolojisi-depresyon-intihar-Ödipal Kompleks’in yaratıcılıktaki önemi gibi genellikle tartışılacak konularda sunular bulundular. Benim görevim, toplantıyı idarenin ötesinde, gereken psikoanalitik yorumları yapmaktı.

                      Afrikalı Prens, Pablo Picasso ile olan ilişkileri ve onun sanat yorumunu yaptıktan sonra, bana, büyük artistin 1925’de yarattığı “Studio with Plaster Head – Artist’s Sudio” (Plaster Başlı Stüdyo – Artist’in Stüdyosu) nu, eğer mümkünse, yorumlamamı rica etti. Benim yorumum şöyle olmuştu:
                      “Hepimizin bildiği gibi bu, Picasso’nun bizzat kendi çalıştığı stüdyo. O zamanlar yaşı 44, ve çok sevdiği bir oğlu var: Paulo. Stüdyo’nun önemli parçası olan çalışma masasının üstünde koparılmış- ya da tamamlanmamış plaster bir kafa, elma (çok sevdiği meyve), masa örtüsü, üç köşeli bir gönye, kitap, iki parçalı bir kol parçası ve oğlu Paulo’nun ‘Oyuncak Tiyatrosu’ ve bir defne yaprağı (zafer ya da sanatsal, özellikle şiirsel yeti temsilcisi). Bana göre, Picasso oğluna şu mesajı veriyor:


                      ‘Bak oğlum, hayat bir tiyatro, sen de benim gibi doğdun, büyüdün ve benim sevgimi paylaşıyorsun, ama yavaş yavaş (Oedipal çağa girmesi dolayısıyla) benimle müsabakaya girmek üzeresin (Çocuğun çok genç annesi var!) Ben seninle anneni paylaşamam, ve eğer sen bemimle bir müsabakaya-yarışmaya girmek istersen, o gönye ile senin kolunu keserim ve masamın üzerine atarım, haddini bil. (Neye kol? Belki artık mastürbasyon yapmaması için, ya da el sanatlarında onunla yarışmaması için?) Karşılık olarak belki sen de beni öldürebilirsin ve beni temsil eden o (plaster) başı, sen benden kesmiş olabilirsin, yahut beni temsil eden o baş, seni sonradan izleyebilir. Rembrandt’ın “Aristotles’in Homer’in büstüne bakışı”yla, dokuz çocuktan alttan ikinci olan o dehanın, daha yedi yaşındayken, aileden ayrılarak latince öğrenmek için Leiden Kolejine gönderilişinden esinlenerek, bir değirmenci olan babasına ve alelade el sanatları öğrenmiş kardeşlerine bir nazire olarak ‘kendisinin Homer kadar hayranlık gösterilecek bir kimse olduğunu’ anımsatacak duygularını ifade için, tabiatıyla Oedipal bir karmaşayı nasıl süblime ettiğini bazı analistler söyler. Yani her musabık babasını ya da oğlunu öldürse, dünyada sanatkar kalmazdı.

                      Hiç şüphe yok ki, yukardaki psikanalitik görüşlerin ötesinde, sanat aleminde Picasso’nun o resmi, zamanının kendinden genç iki sürrealist ressamın: Giorgio de Chirico ve -geç olarak itiraf ettiği- Joan Miro’nun kendi üzerine etkisinin sonucu olduğunu kaydedilir. Bilindiği üzere Miro, 1920’de, gene böyle bir çalışma masası, kitap, çocuğa ait öteberi gibi gerçek tabloyla direkt olmayan materyali içeren “Oyuncaklı Natürmort” (Still Life with Toy) diye adlandırdığı bir tablo yapmıştı. Zamanının en çok eleştiri alan sanatçılarından biri olan Picasso’ya bu tür eleştiri ve analizler yapıldığında gülümser, omuz silker ve dermiş: “Ben kendi sanatımı yapıyorum, siz kendi hayallerinizi süslüyorsunuz, hepsi bu!”

                      Son kritik edeceğim nokta, Theodore Lidz gibi bir üstada karşın, Freud-Jung-Joseph Campbell-Mircea Eliade-Margaret Mead-Malinowski gibi üstadlardan feyiz almış olan ben, yaşıyan kültürde ve tiyatro’da, “mit’in ritüel’i izlemesinden ziyade, mit’in, ritüeller halinde yinelendiğini, ve orijinal tema’nın (birçok obsesif-kompülsif çatışmalarda olduğu gibi), her yenileme hareketiyle oriijinal günah-olay-legend-kahraman’ın yaşatıldığına inanıyorum. Oedipus Myth, Sophocles’in şaheserinden iki yüzyıl önce de Antik Yunan’da kulaktan kulağa, kuşaklardan kuşaklara geliyordu. Aynı mit, Orestes’de de oluşur; Kıral Claudius (Oedipus mit’inden oluşmuş) günahını, Lady Macbeth (benzer mit’den oluşmuş) günahını, el tıkama ritüel’i le tekrarlar ve bu yineleme kuşaklardan kuşaklara devam eder. Dolaysıyla da ‘orijinal günah’, her ritüel’de yeniden yaşanır: Geçmişte kudret sahibi olan ve fakat cezalandırılan bazı devlet büyüklerine, şairlere vb. yeniden itibar kazandırılma, anıt kabir yapma, mezarını taşıma vb. hareketlere girişimdeki taban psikolojide olduğu gibi. Ritüelleri, Lady Macbeth hakkındaki küçük çalışmamızdan sonra, daha ayrıntılı olarak inceleyeceğiz.

                                                                                    Prof.Dr. İSMAİL ERSEVİM
                                           (2001 de yazıldı, 2009’da yeniden gözden geçirildi.)

                                                                *   *   *   * 

Çalışma No.:2                                              -1-
Konu:      HAMLET’in kişiliği, bir “Trajik Kahraman” olup olmadığı ve bu karakterin evrensel çekiciliği üzerine!
                   Yukarıda detayıyla yazılmış,  bu konuda sunduğum daha geniş çaptaki bir çalışmaya ek olarak, Hamlet’in bir “trajik kahraman” olup olmadığı hakkında bazı görüşler bildirmek istiyorum.

                   Hiç şüphe yok ki, Shakespeare, İncil’den sonra dünyanın en fazla okunan kaynağıdır ve onun Julius Caesar, Kral Lear, Lady Macbeth gibi epok yaratmış eserlerinin yanında  H a m l e t , büyük işler başaran, ideal ya da örnek bir kahraman olmamasına karşın, hemen hemen en çok ilgi gösterilen ve hakkında en çok edebi yazılar yazılmış, tartışmalar yapılmış bir karakter olarak yaşamaya devam etmektedir. Neden? Neden bu kararsız, zaman zaman hasta olarak nitelendirilebilecek, hassas ruhlu prens, hala tüm sanat dünyasının odak noktası?

                   Tiyatronun başlangıcındaberi, yazarlar, eserlerinin konu ya da kahramanlarını ya Mitoloji’den ya da Söylence’lerden seçmişlerdir. Mit’ler, asırlar boyu sürer gelir, insanüsütü ve olağan dışı nitelikleri vardır, hayran olunulurlar, ama ne taklid edilebilirler ve ne de özdeşilebilirler. İlah ya da yarı-ilah kişilikler, örneğin Dionysos, Prometheus, başka bir hayranlıkla izlenir; onlar, sonları belli olan, yazgısı önceden bilinen bir çizgi üzerinde yürürler. ‘Söylence’ler (Legend) ise, insan düzeyinde ama olağanüstü bir şekilde oluşan olaylardır; ve bazı karakterler, “yazgılarına başkaldırarak eyleme girişirler ve öylece kahraman olurlar.” Örneğin, Kral Oedipus, bir yazgıyı trajik bir şekilde yaşar, -belki kendi gözlerini oyması onu bir yönden trajik kahraman addettirebilir, zira ‘kendinin makus talihine karşı’ bir eyleme kalkar- ama, durumun trajik olmasına karşın, bizim klasik anlamımızda trajik bir kahraman değildir, çünkü kalkıştığı eylem, babasını öldürmeyi engelleyemez; halbuki kızı Elektra, ağabeysinin gömülmesine yasal izin vermeyen amca Kralın emrine karşın, kendi hayatı bahasına, kardeşini gömmeyi seçer ve bu eylemiyle trajik bir kahraman olur.

                    Goethe’nin “Faust”u nasıl kendinden iki asır evvel, Shakespeare zamanında, daha evvellerden süregelen bir söylenceyi (Dr. Faust isminde biri gerçekten yaşamış!) kullanan Christopher Marlowe’un “Doctor Faustus”unun temasını işlemişse, Shakespeare de, daha 13. yüzyıldanberi süregelenen başka bir AMLETH Öyküsünün (Norse ? Celtic orijinli?) temasını işlemiştir.
                    Edebi kaynaklara göre, Saxo GRAMMATICUS, “Historia Danica” (Danimarka Tarihi) adlı eserinin 3. cildinde böyle bir söylenceden ilk bahseden yazardır. Bu menkıbe, 1514’de Latince’ye, 1558’de Hans SACKS tarfından Almanca’ya, 1570’de de BELLAFAUST tarafından Fransızca’ya çevrilmiştir. Aynı konuyu ele alan ve Post-Rönesans Tiyatrosunun temsilcisi İspanya Tiyatrosu’da,  aynı konuyu işleyen KYD’in “İspanya Trajedi”si, İspanya’da 1588’de; 1594’de de (Shakespeare 30 yaşındayken), İngiltere’de Newington Butts ve Lord Chamberlain tiyatrolarında oynanmıştır. Bu sahne eserinin İngilizceye 1608’de (Yani Hamlet’in yazılışından yedi ve sahneye konunuşundan altı yıl sonra) çevrilmesine karşın, Shakespeare’in bu efsanenin Almanca (ya da Latince) aslını okumamış ya da bahsedilen tiyatro eserlerinin sahnelenmesini görmemiş olması olanaksız gibidir.

                     Birçok yazarlar, Shakespeare’in  k i ş i s e l   y a ş a m ı n ı n  ve kişilik yapısının Hamlet’inkine benzer, yani prensipte Oedipal Karmaşa’yı ve ensest’i (Bir çok Grek tragedyalarında olduğu gibi!) temel alan bir yapıya benzediği konusunda fikir birliği içindedirler. Yani onun kendisi de bu “eternal triangle = ebedi ve ezeli üçgen”in dışında kalamamıştır. Birçok diğerleri gibi, arkadaşı ve mistres’i tarafından aldatıldığında, Hamlet’i yaratarak, olaylardan duyduğu aşırı tedirginlik, başarısızlık ve zaafın, ancak böyle bir kahraman yaratma ve ona aksettirme yoluyla üstesinden gelebilmiştir. Edebiyat tarihçileri, bilebildikleri kadar, Shakespeare’in daha çok küçük yaşlardan, soylu bir aileden gelen annesine çok düşkün olduğunu ve iyi Latince çalışmasına karşın, orta eğitimle yetinip üniversiteye bile gitmeden, daha on dokuz yaşına girmeden hemen hemen esrarengiz bir şekilde, ailesinden habersiz, evden uzaklaşarak gizlice evlendiğinden bahsederler. Kaldı ki evlendiği kız, Anne Hataway de, aynı şehirden, yani Stratford’ludur.

                     Kişisel yaşamının (1564-1616) diğer azizlikleri, ilerde sanki Ophelia’ya nazire olacakmış gibi, akrabalarından Katherine Hamlet, Stratford’dan bir mil ötede Avon’da, 1679’un Aralığında (Shakespeare 14 yaşında iken) bir derede boğulmuştu. Yine onun bir akrabası -tesadüfen aynı isimde-, William Shakespeare, şair, Hamlet’i yazmadan (1601), aynı yerde, altı ay evvel boğulmuştu. 1595’de doğan yegane erkek oğlu -ikizlerin biri- HAMNET, 1596 da ölmüştü. 1601’in Eylül’ünde de Shakespeare’in babası ölmüştü. Şehir Meclisi Üyesi olan ve ticaretle uğraşan babasından, siyasetin entrikaları hakkında, belki de zaman zaman onu bir tip alarak, çok şeyler öğrenmiş olsa gerek. Ama, kendisinin varlığından bile şüphe edilen ve bir orta eğitim ile dünyayı fetheden, 1595’lerde tiyatro dünyasında sanatsal ve ticari bir epik yaratıncaya kadarki yedi sekiz yıllık hayatı gölgede ve belirsiz olan, mamafih doğum ve ölüm tarih ve yerleri belirli bu deha hakkında çok bilmediğimiz şeyler var.

                     Zamanının  s i y a s a l  yaşamında, Shakespeare’in eski patronu “Earl of SOUTHAMPTON”, eserin yazıldığı tarihte hapishanede olup idamını bekliyordu. Kendine zarar verici, kararsız, atılgan ve değişken kişiliğiyle, edebiyat eleştiricileri onun Hamlet’e benzediğini söylerler. Onun yardım ettiği, yücelttiği yakın arkadaşı “Earl of ESSEX” de, 1601 Şubat’ında idam edilmişti. Ona sürekli karşı çıkmış devlet adamı BURLEIGH’nin, karakter itibariyle POLONIUS’a benzediği söylenir. Bu olaylar olup biterken, Shakespeare’in arkadaşı ve sevgilisi kendisini aldatmış; “Earl of LEICESTER” da, (CLAUDIUS gibi), daha evvelki Essex Earl’ünü öldürmüş ve onun widow’u ile evlenmişti.

                     Büyük İngiliz Psikanalist’i Ernest JONES, Shakespeare’in kendisinin “Hamlet” ile özdeştiğini ve “Oyun içinde oyun oynadığı”nı yazar. Jones’a göre, Hamlet, annesine erotik ve ihtiras dolu hislerle bağlıdır. Babasının hayaleti (Perde 1, sahne 5), kendisinin Polonius tarafından nasıl öldürüldüğünü Hamlet’e bildirip onun intikamını almasını istediğinde, Hamlet’in yanıtı şudur: “Çabuk söyle bana da, düşünce ve sevginin hayali kadar hızlı kanatlarla intikamıma doğru uçayım!”. Perde 4, Sahne 7’de, CLAUDIUS gözlemler: “The Queen: his mother lives almost by his looks = Kraliçe, anne, neredeyse yalnızca oğlunun bakışlarıyla yaşıyor!” çok açık Oedipal bir ifadedir. Aynı yazara göre, Oedipal durumdan dolayı, Hamlet’in amcasını öldürememesi gerekiyordu. Bu nedenle Saray’da “Chapel”de onu dua ederken gördüğünde, “Öldürmemeli miyim?” (Not will I?) yerine, “Acaba, onu şimdi öldürebilir miyim?” gibi (Now might I do it?) yumuşak düşünür ve yapmaz. Başka bir yerde de amcasından, “O, my prophetic soul, my uncle! = Benim peygamberimsi ruhum, amcam!” diye bahseder. Yazara göre Claudius, Hamlet’in “diğer-kendi = self-other”sidir.


                      HEINE, “Neue Gedichte”de, yaratıcı bir sanatçı-yazarın, yaratma süreciyle, hastalık-nöroz olarak nitelendirilebilecek dürtü sayesinde bu mutluluğa eriştiğini gayet veciz bir şekilde şöyle sunuyor:

                      Krankheit is whol der letzte Grund
                      Des ganzen Schöpfungdrangs gewesen;
                      Erschaffend konnte ich genesen,
                      Erschaffend wurde ich gesund.

                      (Hastalığım nedeniyle bu dürtüyü, yaratıcı şevki keşfettim.
                      Yarattıkça mutluluğa ulaştığımı yeniden buldum.)

                      Hamlet’in nişanlısı Ophelia’ya duyduğu hislerin de sahici bir sevgi olup olmadığı, ya da niteliği de söz konusu olmuştur. Mamafih, Ophelia’ya “Siz anneme benziyorsunuz, onun gibi davranıyorsunuz!” gibi Oedipal bir söz sarfetmesine karşın, Anne kraliçe ve Ophelia’nın birlikte oldukları bir sahnede, annesinin yanında olmaktansa, “Bu metal’i (kıymetli bir meta?) seçiyorum!” demesi cidden ilginçtir. Perde 3, sahne 2’de Ophelia ile yalnız kaldıklarında, “Genç kızların  bacakları arasında yatmak, doğrusu güzel bir fikir!” diyerek erkeklik arzusunu açıkça sergiler. Ophelia ise, “Efendimiz,” hitabıyla hep araya mesafe koyar. Bize göre Ophelia’da babasına aşıktı ve onun ölümüne intihar etti. Tüm bunlar, arada gerçek bir aşk bulunup bulunmadığı konusunda bizleri şüpheye düşürüyor.

                      Psikanalist Ella SHARPE da, (Int.J. of Psychoana..1929 Vol.X, p.:272), “Şair, yani Shakespeare, Hamlet değil, eğer Hamlet’i yazmasaydı, o zaman olacağı kimseydi!” diye yazar. Gerçekten çarpıcı ve düşündürücü bir yorum. Benim kendi inancım da, herhangi bir yazarın, şu ya da bu eserinde, hiç olmazsa kendi arzu ve zaaflarını dolaylı ya da dolaysız bir şekilde, doğruya çok yakın ifade etmedikçe kendisini aşamayacağı yolundadır.

                      Hamlet’in bir “Trajik Kahraman” olup olmadığna tekrar dönersek, belli ki, Hamlet’in içinde bulunduğu durum, “Trajik bir durum”du, ama, Hamlet, aktif olarak hiç şey yapmamıştı; Polonius’u –perde arkasında saklı bir casus – fare olarak,  ve sonda, Kral Claudius’u, Laertes’in kendini öldürmek kastıyla hazırladığı zehirli kılıçla duello ettikten sonra, “zehiri vermek arzusuyla”, yarı istemli öldürmüştü (Yani Kralı kendisi öldürmüyor, kendini öldürmek kastıyla başkasının hazırladığı bir zehiri dolaylı bir şekilde sunuyor). Kendisini İngiltere’ye ölüme götüren iki arkadaşı: Rosencantz ve Guildenstern’i öldürtmesi, self-defans olarak alınabilir; yani Hamlet, prensip olarak istemli, kasıtlı, aktif hiç bir eyleme girmemişti. Dolayısyla da, trajik kahraman olamazdı. Herhalde Şair, bu şekilde modern drama’nın kahramanının bu Yeni Çağ’larda, Rönesans’ın son dönemlerinde, ‘yeni’ tarifini bu şekilde yapmak istemişti. Hiç şüphe yok ki, eğer hepimiz bu gerçek bir kahraman olmayan ‘kahraman’a bir çekim, bir hayranlık besliyorsak, belki de hepimizin içinde “Küçük bir Hamlet’in yattığı”ndan dolayıdır.



FAUST (GOETHE’s opus magnum)

                                           Prof.Dr.ISMAIL ERSEVIM, LPIBA IOM
                                             Adult and Child Psychiatrist, Analyst

                                                 e-mail: info@ismailersevim.com

                                 A  PSYCHOANALYTIC  APPROACH  TO  “FAUST

                     No doubt, Goethe’s opus magnum Faust, could neither be analyzed
nor throughly interpreted through only one school of thought or point of view.  This is a very complex ‘life game’ that seems to be a composite of myth, mysticism, search for immortality or eternal love, shamanistic trip, death and re-birth fantasies, Nirvana principle, i.e. joining in Heaven and alike.  Thus, first we would like to review some of the basic concepts of Jung’s analytical psychology and of others, then, -if we could- a synthesis of the material.


                     Carl Gustave J u n g ,  had borrowed the principles of his école of thought from A r i s t o t e l e s  who had called psyche, as “…the main principle of total organisms.” Nature: was  p h y s i s , realistic world:  a l e t h i a; emotions: that were inseparable entities of both body and psyche were p a t h e . This last one was the total psychological functions and experiences of the individual.  A n i m a  was equated to soul.

                     According to Jung,  p s y c h e  could be structured and understood at three levels:

1.  C o n s c i o u s n e s s :   This includes  e g o  and  p e r s o n a ;
2.  P e r s o n a l   U n c o n s c i o u s :   That corresponds to Freud’s ‘Preconscious’ and includes all the personal experiences that seem to be forgotten at the first glance but could be brought to the surface, to the consciousness, with little effort.
3.  R a c i a l  –  C o l l e c t i v e   U n c o n s c i o u s :   This corresponds to Freud’s ‘Unconscious’ concept. This not ony is the representative of the individual’s past experiences and feelings, but of the entire atavistic primitive feelings, mythologic experiences, beliefs and behavioral characteristics.

 E g o  :   is the central matrix of the conscious field and is encircled with  p e r s o n a  all around. It is the connecting central network of our total bodily and psychic existence. It looks like an island that swims in the immense waters of both consciousness and unconsciousness.

 P e r s o n a :   is the functional complex of the conscious aspect of the psychic life. Its duty to establish the relationship with the object of the external world. It has some relations with the basic principles of the personality but it is not that much inclusive.

                     Jung writes, “This arbitrary segment of collective psyche -often fashioned with considerable pains- I have called the  p e r s o n a . The term ‘persona’ is really a very appropriate expression for this, for originally it meant the mask once worn by actors to indicate the role they played. If we endeavour to draw a precise distinction between what psychic material should be considered “personal”, and what “impersonal”, se soon find ourselves in the greatest dilemma, for by definition we have to say of the persona’s contents what we have said of the “impersonal unconscious”, namely, that is ‘collective’. …..It is, as its name implies, onla a mask of collective psyche, a mask that feigns individuality, making others and oneself believe that one is individual, whereas one is simply acting a role through which the collective psyche speaks.”

                     A n i m a (Female:  A n i m u s) :   This is also a component and the observant part of the collective unconscious. It could be said it is the functional style of the personal unconscious. Another way, it could be said that  it is female element of the unconscious.

                     It is also a symbolism of the eternal feminine (that Faust had been looking for!) that is a concept far beyond the personal experience of a man’s, say with his sister, mother and other women. It is a “heavenly goddess”. That symbolism also gives man the strength to fight and stand on two feet under the most circumstances. It is also a  M a y a , “joy of life” that with its sexual component invites the person to life and gives him a raison to live. By the same token, it is the source of ambivalency and paradoxical sentiments and attitudes of womenhood:  success vs. non-success, hope vs. hopelessness, to be vs. not to be, etc. This is why Spiteller had characterized ‘anima’ as “My lady soul!”.

                     According to Jung, the psyche image of primer male existence comes out from the mother. The characteristics of female components of the motherhood are internalized that form a  m o t h e r   a r c h e t y p e  within the male that continues both ontogenically and philogenically, in the realm of collective unconscious, from generations to generations to come.

                     Jung himself writes, “What, then, is this projection-making factor? The East calls it the ‘Spinning Woman’ – M a y a , who creates illusion by her dancing. Had we not long since known it from the symbolism of dreams, this hint from the Orient would put us on right track: the envoloping, embracing, and devouring element points unmistakably to the mother, that is, to the son’s relation to the real mother, to her imago, and to the woman who is to become a mother for him. His Eros is passive like a child’s; he hopes to be caught, sucked in, enveloped, and devoured……there appears before you on the psychological state a man living regressively, seeking his childhood and mother….

                     “The projection-making factor is the anima, or rather ‘unconscious as represented by the anima’. Whenever she fears, in dreams, visions, and fantasies, she takes on personified form, thus demonstrating that the factor she embodies, possesses all the outstanding characteristics of a feminine being. She is not an invention of the conscious, but a spontaneous product of unconscious…

                     “Since the anima is an archetype that is found in men, it is reasonable to suppose that an equivalent archetype must be present in women: A n i m u s, for just a man is compansated by a female element, so woman is compansated by a masculine one.”


                      For  a n i m a , we have said that it is ‘the female element’ of the unconscious. Parallel to this concept, the biologic truth is that men carry both ‘male’(y) and ‘female’(x) chromosomes. As it is known, every human body carries 23 pairs of chromosomes, totaling 46, of which the last two ones determine the individual’s gender. Females are characterized as XX, and males as XY.

                      This “i n n e r  d u a l i t y”, and potential “hermaphroditic existence”, could easily be observed in plastic arts throughout the history. For instance a medieval man (XVII. centr.) is portrayed as a harmophrodite, but carrying a male crown on his head. Thus, without knowing then the physiologic hormones and other bio-chemical existences, the writers had said, “Each man carries a woman inside of him.”

                      J u n g  had divided the evolution of the art throughout the history into four categories, paralelling it to the evolution of ‘anima’, as follows:

1. stage:  Primitive era. Artistic sample: Gauguin’s ‘African Woman’.
2. stage:  Romantic beauty. Samples: Renaissance’ artistic work.
3. stage:  Sexual liberation, or complete reversal, i.e., ‘Virgin Mary’ pictures.
4. stage:  Religious symbolization, i.e., ‘Old Testament’, ‘Sapiento’ with twelve stars.

                      A n i m u s , as had been said before, is the “female’s anima”, the desire of masculinization within her. In spite of the fact that the female emotions and motions connected to them are much more labile and observable than men, in decisin making and being ‘right’ they are far more superior to males, thus, as if carrying a “wise father” in them. Some artistic creations in this respect are, as follows.
                      . “The sacred conviction” in Jeanne D’Arc that is performed amongs -and in spite of- men.
                      . “Dancing Woman With Death” -a 16th. centr. picture-
                      . “Hades with Persephone” (who she kidnapped to the underworld), -a manuscript, c.1500-
                      . “A Talk With Demon of Death” -He does not love me anymore-

                      Here are some other Jungian concepts that are very frequently used in his interpretations.

 A r c h e t y p e s :   These are the inclinations that are common to all human beings, established from the most earliest times of the civilizations as “images” and genetically transmitted. They are formed as ‘reactions’ and has an embedded piece of ‘myth’ in it. Thus, if any human being is confronted with a maladjustment and/or experiencing an anxiety, that person is confronted with an archetype that is individualized and symbolized as pictures.

                      In other words, the inherited structure of the psyche carries with it certain necessary psychic processes, which take the form of spontaneousy recurring patterns by which the psychic energies within the individual seek expression. These inherently-contained psychic processes come forth in the form of the archetypal motifs. Archetypes come to the fore again and again in the history, always taking different forms, and always presuming at each moment of history that the particular form in which they find themselves is the only one 

that is ‘true’ and ‘eternal’. Every attitude that is expressed in consciousness is an historical manifestation of an  a r c h e t y p e  with a long history in the human psyche.

                      When Jung says, “Contents of an archetypal character are manifestations of processes in the collective unconscious,” the key thought is that these contents do not exist in themselves as ‘inherited ideas,’ but rather emerge as expressions of the psychic processes which are inherited because they are in structural nature of the psyche. These are generic to the nature of human being as such, and therefore, they are expressed in the individual in dream,and fantasy, just they are expressed in the group via myth, collective delusion, and so on. They are more pervasive than the individualized products of the personal unconscious but they are not restricted to collective or group phenomena.

 C o l l e c t i v e   U n c o n s c i o u s :   The collective unconscious is a part of the psyche which can be negatively distinguished from a ‘personal unconscious’ by the fact that it does not, like the latter, owes its existence to personal experience and consequently is not a personal acquisition. While the personal unconscious is made up essentially of contents which have at one time been conscious but which have disappeared from consciousness through having been forgotten or repressed, the contents of the ‘collective unconscious’ have never been in consciousness, and therefore have never been individually acquired, but owe their existence exclusively to heredity. Whereas the ‘personal unconscious’ consists for the most part of complexes, the content of the ‘collective unconscious’ is made up essentially of archetypes:, i.e. ‘creation of mankind’, ‘virgin birth’, ‘snake and allied stories’, ‘eternal mother’, paradise’, ‘hell’ and so on.

 S h a d o w :    This is one of the difficult concepts of Jung’s ego psychology and psyche that is hard to realize. ‘Shadow’ is the weak part of the individual and may reprsent undesirable inclinations and actions that person essentially should know but refuses to acknowledge them. With one view, it is close to personal unconscious yet still different.

                      Joseph Campbell, editor of ‘The Portable Jung’, says about the Shadow, “..It is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable conscious effort…..  it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality at present and real. This act is the essential condition for any-kind of self-knowledge, and it therefore, as a rule, meets with considerable resistance (that are almost always bound up with projections.)…… Closer examination of the dark characteristics -that is, the inferiorities constituting the shadow- reveals that they have an emotional nature, a kind of autonomy, and accordingly an obsessive or, better, possessive quality. Affects occur usually where adaptation is weakest, and at the same time they reveal the reason for its weakness, namely a certain degree of inferiority and the existence of a lower level of personality. On this lower level with its uncontrolled or scarcely controlled emotions one behaves more or less like a primitive, who is not only the passive victim of his affects but also singularly incapable of moral  judgment.”

                      To me, in “Faust”, his relation to Mephistopheles is this kind of a projection. By the same token, E.T.A. Hoffmann’ın satiric “The Devil’s Elixir” carries the same characteristics.


 M a n d a l a :     In Sanscrit language, ‘mandala’ simply means ‘circle’. This kind plastic manifestations are used in Indian Buddhism on the instruments that are utilized in religious ceremonies, called “Yantra”, and in temples as dance figures.

                       Jung had started to utilize the mandalas, starting 1916 on. “First, I did not understand what they mean but appeared to me important and I had saved them like pearls. By time I realized that, they reflected my very own ‘central-self’ for the goal of the psychic evolution is the integration within self.” This ‘integration’, may appear and follow different visions and occurrences for the same goal: “Formation”, “Transformation”, “Eternal Mind’s Eternal Creation” and alike. In psychiatry, we usually see ‘mandala’ in the form of  “psychic dissociation”, sometimes at the beginnings of depressive forms, but more intensely in schizophrenic split. Conversely, Jung had utilized Mandalas in disturbed patients’ treatments.

 T h e  U n i o n  o f   t h e  O p p o s i t e s :   In Ancient China, Yang (male) and Yin (female) were given as examples for ‘opposites’ that were supposed to unify in social existence. We also know from chemistry and atom physics that, the elements with opposite electrical charges are attracted to each other, thus the material world is formed.

                       In nature; the opposite seasons follow each other, so do day and night, and, life and death. These repetitions, in spite of the fact that at first sight may appear as “opposites”, in reality they are the continuations of one another and the very essence of integration, also transformations onto each other. Faust tells Mephistopheles, “Follow the dark, you shall reach the light!” In Alchemy, the opposites are invited to unify by the shadow, thus occurs Hierosganos or Chymical Wedding.

 M y s t i c a l   P a r t i c i p a t i o n :     Jung barrowed this term from Levy-Bröhl, an anthropologist. Accoding to the mytical beliefs of the primitive tribes, the  s o u l  itself is not one single unit; there is an accompanying  b u s h   s o u l ; it seats usually in an old tree’s trunk or in an animal. Individual identifies with this ‘bush soul’. Suppose that such a soul is situated in an animal’s body, that animal is a kind of brother to him. If that animal is a crocodile, he can swim in a lake or river full of crocodiles quite comfortably. If it is in a tree, he looks at tree, as a member of the family. If anything bad happens to those, individual also feels hurt.

                       To open this a little bit more, let’s return to Joseph Campbell again. “The Spiritual Problem of Modern Man: The man who has attained consciousness of the present is solitary. The ‘modern’ man has at all times been so, far every step towards fuller consciousness removes him further from his original, purely animal participation mystique with the herd, from submersion in a common unconsciousness. Every step forward means tearing oneself loose from the maternal womb of unconsciousness in which the mass of men dwells. Even in a civilized community the people who form, psychologically speaking, the lowest stratum live on a level of consciousness little different that of primitives.


Those of succeeding strata live on a level of consciousness which corresponds to the beginnings of human culture, while those of the highest stratum have a consciousness that reflects the life of the last few centuries. Only the man who is modern in our meaning of the term really lives in the present; he alone has a present-day consciousness, and he alone finds that the ways of life on those earlier levels have begun to pall upon him….. in the deepest sense he had estranged himself from the mass of men who live entirely within the bounds of tradition. Indeed, he is completely modern only when he has come to the very edge of the world, leaving behind him all that he has been discarded and outgrown, and acknowledging that he stands before the ‘Nothing out of which All may grow..’ ” (Indeed, in Faust, Vol.II, we read: “..In this, your Nothing, I may find my All!”)

 S u m m a r y   a n d   I n t e r p r e t a t i o n :

                       As we said at the opening, no system of thought may illuminate the entire Faust phenomenon. However, under the light what Jung had opened our eyes to, we at least make some partial interpretations and/or points of view, if we principally agree with his “Analytical Psychology”. Here are the interpretative highlights:

1. MEPHISTOPHELES is the ‘shadow’ of  FAUST.
2. Mephistopheles, either a male or female, hand in hand with Faust starts to take a long voyage from ‘microcosmos’ to ‘macrocosmos’. (Let me remind you here, the verses of Omar Khayyam:
                    “I send my soul to the infinity to discover the secrets of immortality
                      My soul turned and said to me: ‘Hell and Paradise all are within you!’”

                      If our ‘consciousness’ cannot control our (collective) ‘unconscious’, all archetypes may come the surface. In Part I, Faust and Mephistopheles travel through the ‘Micro World’, that is Anima’s trip that  covers the ‘Personal unconscious’. Part II, is a search through the ‘Macro World’ and is the representive of the ‘Collective Unconscious’. How the earth turns around the sun as well as its own axis, anima too, travels through at both axis and at the end, frees itself to death. An example from Mythology: Thesus, saved Ariadne in Cretan labyrynth after he had killed Minautor; thus, from the eternally absorbing image of the mother, anima, had been liberated.

3. Faust’s anima, had suffered tremendously from the patriarcal type of family inter-relations; thus, he began to search ‘the eternal love, the eternal mother’ image to join it and to be engolfed-integrated with it.

4. Christ, born to a Virgin Mary, without being actually fecundated by a man, through immaculate conception, symbolizes the eternal happiness and kindness. Faust, in order to relinquish his earthly ambitions and the evil part of self, however after living them through actually with Evil (Mephistopheles, his shadow), he wanted to be re-born, to become a Christ Baby himself  -with a kind of identification with Jesus-, thus, following the dark to find out light. This was to be a kind of transformation, a creative power like a snake could do it. Snake, as we know, is the mediator between ‘two lives’: life and death, symbol of health and happiness and sin.

 7.   From another point of view, Faust’s travel could be interpreted, as had been mentioned before, the evolution of the art at four levels:

a. Art, addressing to the untouched, unmolested nature, i.e. Gauguin’s picture, analogue to Faust’s untouched, unmolested, ‘pure’ personality at the beginning;
b. Romantic Era; Faust’s falling in love with Helena, seeing her in the mirror;
c. Sexual liberation: Physical union with Margerite, and,
d. Divination: Rejoining Margerite’s soul after death, ‘Gretchen’s reapperance as “Repentent Woman”,  (UNA POENITENTIUM, once called GRETCHEN (drawing closer).
                           Ah, look down,
                           Thou rich in heaven’s renown,
                           Turn thou the grace of thy dear face
                           On the fullness of my bliss;
                            For now my lover,
                            Earth’s sadness over,
                            Comes from that world to me in this.)   -Last scene in Faust II-

8.   Every human being, as a matter of fact every ‘living’ thing, while developing and performing his ontogeny (individual growth and development), also repeat his phylogeny (The growth and development, evolution and transformation of his species), reframing “Ontogenesis is a repetition of phylogensis” is also applicable here. Namelly; take an amoeba, with its multiplication it can only become another (new) amoeba; take a fish; from its egg, through ‘amibic’ division, at the end it becomes a fish; more comlicated mammalia, first is an amoeba, then, fish –in the amnios- and then a mammalia; finally a human being, in mother’s womb, it first devides like an amoeba, then swims as fish, then becomes a mammalia kind and finally a human being, of his own kind. Faust too, searches his own existence from the very beginnings, as a universal soul, goes thru stages via his voyage all along history, including underworld, and joins his Master soul, to be re-born, to start to a new cycle, one day in somebodyelse’s appearance.

 9.   The  o p p o s i t i o n s , that we had mentioned earlier, like man-woman, goddness-badness, micro vs. macro worlds, do exist in human’s everyday life continuously, as well as in art. Examples: A nineteenth century masterpiece, Silva and Parvati  statues carry both male and female characteristics. An underworld power, snake, that also is a symbol of re-incarnation and immortality through its power of re-generation, stands by the Life Tree, as a Cobra in Indian Mythology. The same snake had killed Cleopatra. Buddha, while carrying the name Siddhartha, after a three-day meditation had slept under the Life Tree. During that period he was guarded by the snake. An old Latin gravure demonstrates Esculape holding a snake in his hand, and having it bite a patient to heal.


10.   Faust and Mephistopheles travel through the macro world, to chart their own mandalas for a reunion with each other and the entire universe. During this, they experience and share (and repeat) the entire human beings daily life experiences: hope, hopelessness, love, suffer, myth and alike.

11.   In life, it is possible that the whole living organisms, perhaps including the nature, follow the principles of  “formation”, “transformation” and “eternal re-incarnation”, ending with re-union of all. Death, could be considered as ‘another stage of life’, and another transformation of soul. While reading Faust almost in ecstasy, perhaps experiencing our collective unconscious time to time, and re-experiencing many things through identifications, one feels as if watching his own life story in a mirror.


                     In contrast to Jung who embedded the mythological, collective and social aspects of the individual, Freud principally remained singular, building his monuments on the individual’s id and ego. About the literature Freud had said, “Karamazov Brothers”, “Hamlet” and “King Oedipus” are the greatest among all yet he had great admiration for Goethe. He never tried to make a systematic analysis of the masterpiece, rather prefered of making some attributes here and there, as we shall see below.

                     Otto Rank, once ‘right arm’ of Sigmund Freud had been to Wagner’s operas with the genius. He cites Freud’s superficial and as if ‘not understanding’ attitude against deep, archaic, almost satanic personage and sounds to those operas, feeling that Freud was avoiding the issues of death, underworld etc. The same I would say is true for Faust in which what Wagner did musically Goethe did literarywise. Let us hear from Freud himself who had been invited to receive ‘Goethe Award’ to Frankfurt in 1930, in ‘Goerthe House’ who had made this speech:
                     “I think that Goethe would have not rejected psycho-analysis in an unfriendly spirit, as so many of our contemporaries have done. He himself approached it at a number of points, recognized much through his own insight that since we have been able to confirm……. Since it is one of the principal fonctions of our thinking to master the material world physically, it seems to me that thanks are due to psycho-analysis if, when it is applied to a great man, it contributes to the understanding of his great achievement. But, I admit, in the case of Goethe, we have not succeeded very far. This because Goethe was not only, as a poet, a great self-revealer, but also, in spite of the abundance of autobiographical records, a careful concealer. We cannot help thinking here of the words of Mepistopheles:

                      ‘Das Beste, was du wissen kannst,
                       Darfist du den Buben doch nicht sagen.’

                     (The best of what you know may not,
                       after all, be told to boys.)            (Collected Works, Vol.XX, pa.: 212)

                       In ten years when Freud’s sealed treasures will be opened then we shall be learning more openly who was a “concealer”. I think, directly, more indirectly Goethe had expressed the complex nature of himself good enough. We can hardly notice Freud’s ‘Mepistopheles’ part, as a human being in his writings. What about this confession:


                     In his “Determinism and Superstition’ section of his writings (Collected Works, Vol: 6, pa.: 245) , Freud writes openly:
                     “There is no doubt that I wished to forget the play (Lady Mackbeth, with a special reference to her bloody hands which ‘the oceans waves couldn’t clean them’… The books’ numbers 1 and 2, were in my patient’s dream, in the Reclam University Library, Goethe’s Faust. Formerly, I found very much of Faust in myself.”

                     Here are some excerpts Freud’s 24-volume writings in reference to Faust.

 . While talking about ‘unconscious ideas’, he remarks that, even during conscious talk, mind could be split off and make some reference to unconscious state of mind,
 “ In die Finsternis gebrachts.” -Mephistopheles-      (Vol.2, pa.: 229)
                    (Thrust into darkness.)

 . About ‘Affects in Dreams’, talking about the importance of the ‘first figure’, and its re-incarnation throughout, he says:
                     “ früh sich einst dem,
                        trüben Blick gezeigt.”,     (Vol.5, pa.: 483)
                      (Long since appeared
                       before my troubled eyes.)

 . In ‘A Case of Hysteria’, talking about the exacting demands which hysteria makes upon physician and investigator, he insists that this can be met only by the most sympathetic spirit of inquiry and not by an attitude of superiority and contempt.
                     “ Nicht Kunst und Wissenschaft allein,
                        Geduld will bei dem Werke sein!” ,        (Vol.7, pa.: 16)
                        (Not Art and Science sense, alone;
                         Patience must in the work be shown!)

                     We all know that, Freud always wanted to be remembered as “Great Thinker” that, unfortunately, in spite of the fact that he is one of the greatest physicians ever, the history book will not cite him as such. And, he knew that. It is well possible that he may have identified with Goethe who in Faust, was a great physician as well as a thinker. He even may have been jealous of him.

 . In ‘Three Essays of Sexuality’, he cites that a certain degree of  fetishism in normalcy, especially when the normal sexual aim could be unattainable or its fulfillment is prevented and gives an example from Faust:
                        “Schaff’mir ein Halstuch von ihrer Brust,
                          Ein Strumpfbond meiner Liebeslust!” ,        (Vol.7, pa.: 154)
                          (Get me a kerchief from her breast,
                           A garter that her knee has pressed!)


 . In ‘Pleasure and the Genesis of Jokes’, Freud comments, “For high spirits replace jokes, just as jokes replace high spirits, in which possibilities of enjoyment which are otherwise inhibited.” and quotes from Faust.
                         “Mit wenig Witz und viel Behagen.” -Mephistopheles in Auerbach’s cellar- (Vol.: 7, sa.: 127)
                          (With little wit and much enjoyment!)

 . In “A Case of Obsessional Neurosis – Rat Man”, Freud discusses the Father Complex and the Rat Idea. A patient of his while visiting his father’s grave sees that a rat ‘with sharp teeth’ comes out of his father’s grave. He realizes that he himself had been just such a nasty, dirty little wretch who was up to ‘bite people’ when he was in a rage. He could truly be had been fearfully punished for doing so. He could truly be said to find a ‘living likeness of himself in a rat.’ Here are the samples are taken from Faust.

                          (Freud compares the words of Mephistopheles, when he wishes to make his way through a door that is guarded by a magic pentagram.)
                          “Doch dieser Schmelle Zauber zu zerspalten
                            Bedarf ich eines Rattenzahns.”
                          “Noch einen Biss, so it’s geschehn!”     (Part I, Scene: 3)

                          (But to break through the magic of this threshold
                           I need a rat’s teeth (He conjures a rat.).  

                          “Er sieht in der geschwollnes Ratte
                            Sein ganz natürlich Ebenbild.”    

                          (For in the bloated rat he sees
                           A living likeness of himself.)      (Part I, Scene in Auerbach’s Cellar)

 . Freud, ‘Notes On A Case of Paranoia: Judge Schreber” case (Vol.12, sa.: 44 & 70) writes:

                    ‘Schreber illustrates the nature of soul murder by referring to the legends embodies in Goethe’s Faust, Byron’s Manfred and Weber’s Freischütz..’
                          ‘The patient has withdawn from the people in his environment and from the external world generally the libidinal cathexis which he has histherto directed on to them. Thus eveything has become indifferent and irrelevant to him… The end of the world is the projection of this internal catastrophe…
                           ‘After Faust  has uttered the curses which free him from the world, the Chorus of Spirit sings:

                          “Weh! Weh!
                            Du hast sie zerstört,
                            die schöne Welt,
                            mit machtiger Faust!
                            sie stürzt, sie zerfallt!
                            Ein Halbgott, hat sie zerschlagen!”

                           (Woe! Woe!
                             Thou hast it destroyed,
                             The beautiful world,
                             With powerful fist!
                             In ruins ’tis hurled,
                             By the blow of a demigod shattered!)

 . Freud, making a referense to the importance of the inheritance of physical disposition in the life of the individual, says, ‘(that) need to be given some impetus, before they can be roused into actual operation. This might be the meaning of the poet’s words:

                            “Was duererbt von deinen Watern hast,
                              Erwirb es, em es zu besitzen.”

                            (What thou hast inherited from thy fathers,
                              acquire it to make it thine.)        (Faust I, Scene: 1) (Vol.:13, pa.: 158)

 . In ‘Return of Totemism’ Freud makes the following comparison between the neurotic and the primitive man: Neurotics are above all inhibited in their actions; with them the thought is a complete substitute for the deed. Primitive men, on the other hand, are unhibited: thought passes directly into action. With them it is rather the deed that is a substitute for the thought…. I think that in the case before us, it may safely be assumed that:
                            (in the beginning was the Deed.)

                            “‘Im Anfang was die Tat’ ”     (Faust, Part I, Scene 3)  (Vol.13, pa.: 161)

 . In ‘Uncanny’, Freud speaks of secret powers that brings us back to animism. “It was the pious Gretchen’s invitation that Mephistopheles possessed secret powers of this kind that made so uncanny to her.
                            “Sie fühlt dass ich ganz sicher ein Genie,
                              Vielleich sogar der Teufel bin.”

                             (She feels that surely I’m genious now,
                              Perhaps the very Devil, indeed!)   (Faust I, Scene 16)  (Vol.: 17, pa.: 243)

 . In ‘The Pleasure Principle’ Freud mentions that the repressed instinct never ceases to strive for complete satisfaction, which consist in repetition of primary experience of satisfaction… ‘and, it is the difference in amount between the pleasure of satisfaction which is demanded and that which is actually achieved that provides the drawing factor which will permit of no halting at any position attained, but, in the poet’s words’:
 “ ‘ungebandigt immer vurwarts dringt’ ”

. (Presses over forward unsubdued.)   (Mefistopheles, Faust I, Scene 4)   (Vol.: 18, pa.: 42)


 . Freud, in his ‘An Autobiographical Study’ remembers his first university experiences in 1873 as “appreciable disappointments” because of racial issues in Vienna then, for he was a jew. ‘I have never been able to see why I should feel ashamed of my descent.. I put up, without much regret, with my non-acceptance into the community… These first impressions at the University, however, had one consequence which was afterwards to prove important; for at an early age I was made familiar with the fate of being in the opposition and of being put under the ban of “compact majority”.
                      I learned the truth of Mephistopheles’ warning:

                    “Vergebens, dass ihr ringsum wissen scgalich schweift,
                      Ein jeder lernt nur, was er lernen kann.” ’

                    (It is in the vain thay you range around from Science to Science:
                      each man learns only what he can learn.)  (Faust I, Scene 4), (Vol.: 20, pa.: 9)

 . In ‘Civilization and Its Discontent’, Freud holds God responsible for the existence of the Devil, just as well as for the existence of the wickedness which Devil embodies.
 ‘ In Goethe’s Mephistopheles we have a quite exceptionally convincing identification of the principle of evil with the destructive insinct:

                    “Denn alles, was entsteht,
                      Ist wert, das es zu Grunde geht…
                      Zersttörung, kurz das Böse neunt,
                      Mein eigentlicehs Element.”

                    (For all things, from the Void
                     Called forth, deserve to be destroyed…
                     Thus, all which you as Sin have rated..)          (Vol.: 21, pa.: 120)

 . In ‘Analysis Terminable and Interminable’, making a reference to the ‘Witch Metapsychology’, Freud elaborates: “That is to say, the instinct is brought completely into the harmony of the ego, becomes accessible to all the influences of the other trends in the ego and no longer seeks to go its independent way to satisfaction. If we were asked by what methods and means this result is achieved, it is not easy to find an answer. We can only say:

                    “..So muss denn doch die Hexe dran!” ’
                    ( We must call the Witch to our help after all! )        (Vol.: 23, pa.: 225)

 . In the same chapter, Freud speaks of ‘Defense Mechanisms’ that individuals utilize against inner instinctual pushes which may become constant and repeated throughout life whenever the situation occurs that is similar to the original one….’This turns them into infantilism , and they share the fate of many institutions which attempt to keep themselves in existence after the time of their usefulness had past. The poet complains:

                            “Vernunft wird Unsinn, Wohltat Plage.” ’
                             “Reason becomes unreason, kindness torment.”     (Faust I, Scene 4),   (Vol.: 23, pa.: 238) 

                              And, finally:

 . Making a tribute to Empedocles who was one of the greatest and most remarkable figures in the History of Greek Civilization, saying, ‘..He was exact and sober in his physical and physiological researches, yet he did not shrink from the obscurities of mysticist , and built up cosmic speculations of astonishingly imaginative boldness. Already, historian and writer Wilhelm Capelle, compares him with Dr. Faust.’:

                              “‘Dem gar manch Geheimnis wurde kund’.”
                               (To whom many a secret was revealed!)     -modified somewhat from Faust’s First Speech,     Faust I, Scene I-

                                To me, in the last text, Freud was identifying with Empedocles, as well as Faust. Already to me, other than making a deep analysis of Faust that might have been a really difficult job for even for a genious like Freud, he was rather searching and singling out some strong justifications and hidden elements of psychoanalysis in that great tragedy, beyond his patients’ experiences, to document the overspread existence and values of his theories and analyses.

                            Inded, psychoanalytical approach most of the time appears to be quite revealing ‘in explaining the things’ beyond our scopes, like Freud’s comparison of Leonardo da Vinci with Faust. In “Leonardo da Vinci”, he had detailed how Leonardo has devoted himself to search, to learn and understand the world around him, other than ‘loving his libido’, namely attaching himself to his parents ‘sexually’, passing through the stages and liberating himself later on. Like Spinoza. For that purpose -namely, not being able to utilize his libido-, Leonardo had never been able truly neither create nor love, consequently of not being able to reach “The sublime Law of Nature” that he was very much after. In contrast to him, Faust who had been able to transfrom his libido into “The Pleasure Principle”, had been able to experience love and live it thru throught his tragedy.

                            Why Leonardo has not ben able ‘to transform his libido’, if we believe in psychoanalytic thinking, psychoanalytic view could say, well, he was under his father’s custody in his early childhood and it was too late to relate to his ‘two’mothers, especially to his biologic mother indeed quite late and short, for both of them died early. In contrast to him, Freud very vividly lived through his libidinal feelings with his mother, father’s second wife who was very young and beautiful who used to call Freud: ‘My Sigi!’ all the time. The story is well-known, as cited by Freud himself that when he was too young, the ages five or six, one day Freud had urinated into the bedroom of his parents. Father, getting very furious for the event, had punished Freud and told him: “You shall never be a mature, grown up man!” that had caused him later on a great anxiety ‘at the top of Acropolis’ in his fifties.

                            Besides Freud’s a kind of reluctance or resistance and/or avoidance of deep analysis of Faust that he rather preferred ‘part by part identification’, another aspect why he might have done so is that Jung’s undeniable strength and convincing documentation of his ‘archetypes’, particularly of ‘collective unconscious’ that denotes very special interest and knowledge of him that,I at least interpretes Faust better that Freud could not have challenged with. I would say Freud was “too personal” whereas Jung was “too universal.”


                       ‘The Inferiority Feeling’, or as it is more generally but less correctly termed by the general public, ‘The Inferiority Complex’ is the one most popularly connected with his name; “I am”, as Adler used to say smilingly, “the legitimate father of the inferiority complex.”

                        Adler taught that every human being’s main interest strives towards an advance from a minus or inferiority feeling towards a plus or superiority feeling; and that the difficulties of life, or the ‘inferiority of the organs’ themselves, can always be compansated by the individual’s own effort to overcome them.

                         An inferiority feeling in the young of the human species was, in Adler’s mind, never a failing or defect, nor in any ways comparable to a neurosis, since the child is really  h e l p l e s s ; and his physical and mental inferiority are facts of nature and not any attempts upon the child’s part to avade responsibility. It is not unless the child uses this act of his inferiority as an alibi to prevent himself from carrying out the contributions within his power that the inferiority feeling becomes a ‘complex’, and prevents the child’s normal development. Out of the child’s first sense of ‘inferiority’, Adler believed he began to form his “life plan” in urge to overcome his limitations.

                         Faust has made a pact, renouncing God and human beings’ everyday life values, promising his soul to the devil, called Mephistopheles there, in return for knowledge and power. Where Adler enters in here, if any?

                         Let us study a little bit, “The Tragedy of Doctor Faustus” of Christopher Marlowe, a Shakespeare contemporary who had given Goethe quite a bit thrill and endless impetus to write his masterpiece. (In real life too, there was a Dr. Johannes Faustus who had obtained a Divinity degree from Heidelberg University in 1509.)

                                                                  Scene: I

                         “.. Then read no more thou hast attained the end.
                                             A greater subject fittieth Faustus’ wit:
                              Bid on cai me on farewell, Galen come,
                              Seeing ubi desinit philosophus, ibi incipit medicus;
                              Be a physician, Faustus, heap up gold
                              And be eternized for some wondrous cure..”

 (on cai me on :  Aristoteles’ phrase for ‘being and not being’ that gave Shakespeare a basis for his most famous statement in Hamlet ‘to be or not to be’; here used as ‘equivalent’ of philosophy; ubi desinit philosophus, ibi incipit medicus :     ‘where stops the philosopher, there begins the physician.’)


                     Marlowe was Shakespeare’s contemporary, only ten weeks older than he, but, according to rumors he had been a teacher to great genious, and even, after dying at an early age of 29, sustained his life as ‘Shakespeare’ himself. (Here we don’t want to go into polemics of who really Shakespeare was.) Marlowe’s character F a u s t , was a scientist, knew the logic, medicine, law and divinity; wanted to ‘know more about the secrets and hidden myths of human beings unattained yet’. With that envie, he needed a super-human power, a magic that forced upon him to make a pact with the Devil.

                     Since Goethe, while studying Law at the Leibzig University in 1768, had striken with a very serious illness and returned home, we can understand why he may be inclined to be a physician, as we all physicians have the same allusion that as we are the doctor, no serious illness can strike us, if does, we can overcome. But, that was not Goethe’s creation, rather of Marlowe’s. Marlowe was not a sick man, contrariwise quite a healthy, aggressive and fightfull man who also faced some limitations and frustrations in his personal life: He was denied of being given a master’s degree at the Corpus Christie College in Cambridge where he was attending, then also having been denied to enter the English College at Reims in France, which was preparing Roman Catholic missionary priests to be sent to England. Then, Marlowe turned to be an atheist (Naturally, if they cannot give him a chance to ally with God, then, he himself can choose to make an ally with Devil), also having some shadowy political ties, in depth towarded to the Queen’s life. His death had also been in a tavern on May 30th 1593, at Deptford, a suburb to the southeast to London at the accompaniement of a group of doubtful people. After he was killed, he was accused that he was blasphemous, seditious, treasonable, a defender of homosexuality and tobacco, a man who has read an ‘atheist lecture.’ It is obvious that what perhaps Goethe wanted to live a life through Faust, Marlowe has already lived in his daily, actual life.

                     Why a big giant like Goethe chose Marlowe and almost directly -not copying of course-  borrowed the names and the text of Dr.Faust(us) and Mephistopeheles?
                     According to the literary historians, in 1771, with his write-up “Geschichte Gottfriedens von Berlichingen mit der eisernen Handdrama tisiert” (The History of Gottfried von Berlichingen, Dramatized with the Iron Hand); and in 1773, with “Rede zum Schakespeare Tag” (Conversation from Shakespeare’s Day) he almost declareded himself as the “Shakespeare of the Gothic Era.” Thus, to me, it is quite evident that,  the aim was not Marlowe, but Shakespeare who he admired and identified with. Which one was “the greatest?”. I am not qualified to answer that.

                     Returning back to the Adler and his ‘search for superiority due to an inner (basically physiologic) inferiority’, if we question whether Goethe has felt:
a) H e l p l e s s ?  May be; during his ill years, and even afterwards achieving a lot, like his closest friend Schiller had died in 1805 when he had cited: “In me, half of me died also!”
b) I n f e r i o r ?  Probably not, for he was quite an achiever in life; children with inferiority feelings display a lot of neurotic trends that curb utilization of their potentials far before reaching the maturity.

                     Perhaps Goethe, like many other great thinkers and philosphers was deeply curious about ‘the other side of life’, both in biologic and psycho-social senses, had a lot of repressed feelings that took forty years masterfully ‘live them through writing’ and died peacefully a few months after he finished his ‘Opus Magnum’ that is the story of every living individual in the universe; as it ‘was’, ‘is’ and ‘shall be’, forever.  

             4.       EXISTENTIALISTIC  VIEW :

                     Since in Goethe’s times there was no existentialistic philosophy we cannot tell that he was under its influence one way or the other.   We only can offer, at his point, an exitentialistic perspective. With Mounier’s and Hamelin’s  desperation, Wahl’s and Marcel’s revolt and freedom, Sartre’s human beings exist outside of themselves; he can only be existing through going out of himself.. he only does exist and integrates with himself only that way.. are some highlights that of philosophy.

                     In order to be understood, existentialism must be contrasted with its opposite, essentialism. When one thinks of any concept or thing, one tends to consider in it essentialistic terms. In humanistic existentialism thought, this e s s e n t i a l i s t i c doctrine holds true for things, not for humans. For humans, existence precedes essence. By dint of reflective consciousness, by the consequent property of prepositional speech, and by the ability to introduce a psychic distance between oneself and the object in view, humans have no essence. A human’s “being” has not been predetermined by any other structure other than the individual’s. As to what is really real in humans, in psychological terms, the really real is instinctual energy, rooted in determined and sited bodily processes. 

                     Persons suffer their view of the world, of the body, and of others. One suffers one’s philosophy precisely because one lives it; thuıs, one becomes a different being in the light of a changed conception of one’s own being.

                     The two elemental forms which the world is divided are:
a) being-in-itself , which includes all nonhuman things and animals, and,
b) being-for-itself, which includes human, self-reflexive, trancendent consciousness.        

                     Beings-in-themselves are essentialistic, determined and closed and can be fully described.  Being-for-themselves, the being of human consciousness, are different in kind. H u m a n   c o n s c i o u s n e s s  is a negation; it injects a film of nothingness between self and its objects of purview. That nothingness is freedom…

                     In breaking radically with idealism, realism, and essentialism, phenomenology and its offspring, existentialism, posited that the architecture of consciousness is an emptiness. Anything else would leave humans determined, essentialistic, and subject. Empty of interiority, consciousness is always in relation to its objects of purview, to the world. All acts intend some object. Thus a table is not in consciousness; a table is in space, over there. Consciousness is, therefore, a positional consciousness of the world. Consciousness, thus, cannot be examined as an object.


                     The concept of “intentionality” in existentialism provides a different view of motives, feelings, and emotions. Motives are not events that direct behavior. The person’s motivation depends on that person’s aims, the person’s intentionality in the world. The person does not first select motive and, on that basis, a goal; it is the other way around.

                     Thus, according to this philosophy we may sum up, saying, “Faust, with an intention, goal of searching  and reaching his freedom, under the influence and energy of his basic instincts, came off his psychic existence as Mephistopheles, traveled through macro world and joined nothingness as real freedom.”
                                                                                                                                                  5.          MYTHOLOGIC  –  ANTHROPOLOGIC  VIEW :

                     Great anthropologist Joseph Campbell says, “Throughout inhibited world, in all times and under every circumstance, the  m y t h s  of  man have flourished; and they have been the living inspirations of whatever else may have appeared out of the activities of the human body and mind. It would not be too much to say that myth is the secret opening through which the inexhaustible energies of the cosmos pour into human cultural manifestation. Religions, philosophies, arts, the social forms of primitive and historic man, prime discoveries in science and technology, the very dreams that blister sleep, built up from the basic, magic ring of myth.”

                     Mythology is apparently coeval with mankind, Campbell continues. As far back, that is to say, as we have been able to follow the broken, scattered earliest evidences of the emergence of our species, signs have been found which indicate mythological aims and concerns were already shaping the arts and world of Homo sapiens. Where there occurred human spirit, also occurred a myth about life, death and surrounding events of everyday existence. 

                     The mythologies of the ancient world consist largely of  t a l e s  o f   g o d s  a n d   h e r o e s , their birth and death, loves and hates, spites and intrigues, victories and defeats, acts of creation and destruction. Some scholars believe that the myths of the ancient, represent one of the most profound achievements of the human spirit. Needless to say, ancient myth is closely bound to  r i t e  and  r i t u a l .

                     Myths, according to Freud’s view are of the psychological order of dream. Myths, so to say, are public dreams; dreams are private myths. Both, in his opinion, are symptomatic of repression of infantile incest wishes, the only essential difference between a ‘religion’ and ‘neurosis’ that the former is more public. The person with a neurosis feels ashamed, alone and isolated in his illness, whereas the gods are general projections onto a universal screen. They are equally manifestations of unconscious, compulsive fears and delusions.


                      According to Carl G. Jung, the imageries of mythology and and religion serve positive, life-furthering ends. Our outward-oriented consciousness, addressed to the demands of the day, may lose touch with these inward forces, and the myths, states Jung, when rorrectly read, are the means to bring us back in touch. They are telling us in “picture language”(dreams) of powers of the psyche to be recognized and integrated in our lives, powers that have been conscious to the human spirit forever, and which represent that wisdom of the species by which means weathered the millennium. In other words, ancient myths are depositories of primordial archetype motives which reveal and illuminate man’s  c o l l e c t i v e   u n c o n s c i o u s .
                      According to Campbell, these are the important factors in the “formation of  m y t h s”:

     1.     The  r e c o g n i t i o n   o f   m o r t a l i t y  (of human beings, by human beings) and the reqirement to  t r a n s c e n d  it is the first great impulse to mythology.

     2.     And, along with this, there runs another realization; namely, that the social group into which the individual has been borne, which nourishes and protects him and which, for greater part of his life, he must himself help to nourish and protect, was flourishing long before his own birth and will remain when he is gone. This couıld be named as, the  E n d u r a n c e   o f   S o c i a l   O r d e r .

                     Besides “unity” of our species there is also difficulties too. Not only does all mankind face death, but the various people of the people face death in greatly different ways. A cross-cultural survey of the mythologies of mankind, consequently, will have to note not only universals but also the “transformations” of those common themes in the ranges of this occurrence.

                     Endurance of Social Order ows its existence, on the other hand, reconciliations that the human beings make and the defense mechanisms that they utilize. From the defense point of view, many writers (including myself, as an analyst) belive that  myths are utilized as a defensive measure against “the fear of death.” In Jung’s session we had already observed a native’s feeling ‘shadow’-brother to the crocodiles in a river where he swims comfortably. 

                     M y t h s, are considered as some defensive mechanisms and means of reconciliation of the survival and continuation of the human species and principally a “cosmic defense” against the fear of death. In Old Egypt and Greece, why human beings were marrying with gods?  Creating an “identification” through that way, they wanted to guarantee the immortality and have the abilities of re-incarnation, being re-born (In Greece Dionysos, in Syria Adonis and in Mesopotamia Tammuz). Many goddesses made ‘virgin births’, heroes were born and died and resurrected.

    3.     M a n k i n d ’ s   O b s e r v a t i o n   a n d   t h e   U n d e r s t a n d i n g   o f   t h e   U n i v e r s e :    A Third factor is that the developing individual becomes inevitably aware of his powers of thougt and observation mature, the spectacle, namely, of the universe, the natural world in which he finds himself, and the enigma of its relation to his own existence: its magnitude, its changing forms, and yet, through these, an appearance of  r e g u l a r i t y .


                     According to Joseph Campbell, mythic heroes are created on four platforms:

1. Instinctive platform :  Childish, as if for fun (Example: Charlie Chaplin and what he represents.)
2. Cultural platform : Having been created from the evolution of human culture, i.e. according to Novoha Indians, coyote stole the fire from gods (In Greek culture, Prometheus’ steal from Hell). As a matter of fact, even God, before creating the human beings had asked this wise animal, “What type of creature should I create, and the coyote had replied: ‘O mighty God, you are too alone.. We animals don’t speak but you do; we are walking alone on four feet, so create someone with two feet and should talk!’ So God did what the coyote had wanted to.
 3. Third platform:   God-like strong man, like Buddha;
 4. The heroes who are saved by the nature, ascended to certain degrees, then fell down: Example, Romulus and Romus brothers who were brought up by wolves and established the eternal city of Rome.

                      S y m b o l s  too, contain some mythic and mystic elements of everyday life and as if there is an unconscious part in them. Religions use them plentifully. Dreams always have them.
                      In Christianity, the Saints have been symbolized by certain animals; i.e. from four avengelists Marc is symbolized as a lion, Luke as an oxe and John as a vulture. Egyptian god Horus (Osiris’ son, born to his aunt Isis), besides himself with his three sons symbolized as animals; ‘fours’ in Christianity, ‘threes’, ‘sevens’ and ‘forties’ in Islam are special, symbolic numbers.

                      Turning to Goethe and his Faust; under this knowledge now, we would say that  M e p h i s t o p h e l e s  is an archetype, representing the symbolism of instinctive drives, as well as of immortality as once, the closest creature to God, even being the head of angel teachers; a mythological figure of human existence and its emotions. Faust, might have used Mephistopheles as a mythic heroe and safeguard while traveling macro world, as well as utilizing his knowledge and experience to learn the universe, thus accomplishing the requirements of being a myth, according to Joseph Campbell.

5.                   SHAMANISTIC  APPROACH :

                      Primitive man, being deadly afraid of natural conditions surrounding him, had resigned to the magic to dwell with supernatural forces, thus creating the Medicine Man and Shaman. The wishful thinking of eternal existence, the ability to establish a good, working relations with over- and under-ground gods, to cure the illnesses, to be able to tell what is going to happen and alike all have been delegated to  S h a m a n . Thus, Shaman becomes the representative of collective unconscious, symbolism and magic, like dreams. Through myth formation, the universal power, in a concentrated way, is delegated to another human being, this time however, someone who himself is also subject to death but nevertheless among themselves, ready to be utilized any given time.  


                      Dr. Rasmussen, famous anthroplog, has asked ‘Najagneq’, a shaman who he has met in Alaska, where his power sila was coming from; Najagneq has ansered as such: “It is a very powerful spirit. It comes to us strongly with winds, rain and snow, sea waves; and, mildly with daylight, quiet waves and the quiet children’s gentelness. It is never seen, but sometimes heard as a woman’s voice, very soft.”

                      Shaman, after making his trips with his drum (in the sky), sometimes with the serpent (underworld), when retruns to earth and to his very tribe, he means accepting the tribe’s present culture and its belief systems and mythological experiences, like rites and ceremonies, even fortifies them, consequently being a representative of the continuation and sometimes, transformation of the cultural patterns of mankind. He also ‘endures the social order..increases the knowledge of universe..’
                      The entire story of  F a u s t , Faust’s and Mephistophels’ trips to Macroworld, could be looked and interpreted as a  shamansitic trip to underworld (Journey to Lower World). After so many years when I re-read Faust -this time of course with much more insight and understanding- his ‘underground trip’ reminded me of our shamanistic studies at Yale University under Michael Harner. Shaman needs a “Power Animal” to accompany him during those trips, to lead him, as well as protecting against fear and perhaps, destruction. I still carry the symbol of my power animal, as a metallic item, connected to a chain around my neck continually even to day, though it essentially is a symbol and it could be good enough to carry in your mind only, when you need it.

                      To me , Mephistopheles was a power animal to Faust while making his macro-world trip, otherwise might have been quite frightening to him.


                      Goethe was one of the greatest admirers of the nature and universe. One of his biggest disappointments in life was that of not being able to prove that the whole plants on the earth were originated in only one specie. I do not know whether he himself made a chart of himself, astrologically. Of course, since we do not know the exact hour and minute of his birth and death, consequently we can not precisely locate the other planets; however, considering his vital dates, I would like to propose an approximate astrologic interpretation of his existence.

Birth:     28 August 1749 (Virgo) :    Ambitions and impulses.
Death :  22 March  1834  (Aries) :    Common sense, love, celestial being.

Lert us study together this great man’s celestial destiny!

                                 The LIFE CIRCLE OF TWELVE –EVOLUTION

                                                            Z o d i a c   S i g n s

            Involution                                    Celestial Plane                                 Evolution


             ARIES                                    Common Sense, Love                            PISCES
   21 March-20 April                                                                20 February-20 March

     Garden of Eden                             Psychic Plane                                   Heavens

           TAURUS                                     High emotions                              AQUARIUS
    21 April-21 May                                                                20 January-19 February

          GEMINI                 Individuality,HighConsciousness                   CAPRICORN
     22 May–21 June                                                             23 December–19 January

      Fall                                      Mental-Reasonal Plane                                  Rise

           CANCER                Individuality, Low Consciousness            SAGITTARIUS
     22 June-23 July                                                           23 November-22 December


            LEO                                      Low Emotions                                        SCORPIO
 24 July–23 September                                                     24 Ooctober-22 November

 Naissance                                     Stardom Plane                              Development

            VIRGO                               Envie and  Drives                                         LIBRA
 24 August – 23 September                                               24 September-23 October
 28 August – GOETHE’s Birth


                                                           Physical Plane

  Descent                                                                                                          Accent
  (Return to the Material World)                        (Ascendence from the
                                                                                   Materialistic World)

 The Six Phases of  INVOLUTION                      The Six Phases of EVOLUTION  

                                                                    *   *   *


                          Now, if we consider the whole “Faust play” as an ontogenic – personal evolution, repeating the philogenetic evolution of the entire (human) species, we can also schematize this as a   b a b y ‘ s   e v o l u t i o n  from the conception until the moment of birth in his intra-uterine life.

                          The Intra-uterine life passes through five essential physio-psychologic episodes:

     1.     CONCEPTION :    This is a semi-realization of a new life in his own existence in behalf of mother. This may correspond to the First Scene of the play, where Faust is in study room and is about to create Mephistopheles. (Conception of Mephistopheles.)

     2.     CONTRACT WITH FOETUS :    Implantation of Foetus into Mother’s Uterus. Mother’s contract to carry him on. Mother promises, after a long trip in dark labyrinths and some evolutionary periods, she shall bring him onto the world. Mother’s body shows some physiologic changes accordingly. This may correspond to Faust’s making a contract with Mephistopheles.

     3.      THE FIRST HEART BEATS OF THE FOETUS :    After the fifth month, in the biologic sense, the proof of a new physical existence within mother’s body. This may symbolize Faust’s physical togetherness with Margerite (and/or their baby’s conception in her.)    

     4.       BABY’S FIRST KICK-OFFS OF MOTHER’S  ABDOMEN :    The Foetus, who got used to live in ‘micro cosmos’ of mother, now, after 7th and 8th months, wants to get off into ‘macro cosmos’ – outside world. This may correspond to, after the ‘Jail Scene’, Faust and Mephistopheles decide to make a long trip to macro-world.

     5.        THE MOMENT OF BIRTH :      The aim is achieved. One is born with intentions of dying. Death is a new level of existence. Liberated soul, may search a new body to repeat the entire life cicle. A medieval masterpiece painting symbolizes this: A man who is about to die, ‘blows soul’ into a newborn’s mouth. This may correspond to either Faust’s suicide, or his soul’s re-joining Gretchen’s soul.
                      I am sure, we do not understand fully the meaning of the existence of several other characters who appear here and there in this great tragedy, lile  h o m u n k u l u s . Like his creator W a g n e r , the personality and functionality of him are not clear. Was he too Wagner’s shadow? In Marlowe’s play, Wagner is a chamberlain, a butler too perhaps, too acknowledged; while Dr.Faustus speaks to higher degree audience Wagner talks to the students, and brings wine to Dr.Faustus’ study room. In Goethe’s play, Wagner is a much more concervative, a little bit backward servant but nonetheless had created ‘homunkulus’ in the laboratory. What this would tell us?


                       In medicine, from neuro-anatomy we all know that, there seems to be a strange projection of human body’s appearance in the frontal area of the brain: A big head, relatively smaller body and large, wide open hands and feet. As if, there is a picture of an un-born baby in the brain tissue. Why Goethe used it?

                       We don’t know for sure; but it might have represented “the last, white butterfly in Pandora’s box”, as ‘hope’ for human beings to have their montrous ambitions to keep under control, or a symbol of a better future to come? Wagner’s ‘shadow’? Since it also dies in the water at the end, -like Margerite killed her baby in the water-, a Wagner-Margerite dream or wishful thinking? We will not know.

                                                                E p i l o g 

                       Faust, as had been pointed out profoundly by many excellent writers and thinkers, is everybody’s life drama. Human beings are human beings with their life long envies, ambitions, dreams, successes and disappointments throughout. They endeavour to give a meaning to their existence and try to integrate with themselves. During life cycle, one uses ritual, wishfull thinking, if necessary the neurotic even psychotic defense mechanisms to survive and stand up against the ‘Reality Principle’: At the end, every living organism is doomed to die, regardless how this is understood and/or justified and dealt with. Everybody either feels or denies this fear, one way or the other. Only a handfull of creative human beings, namely artists, writers, musicians, painters, sculptures and alike, through the most advanced and appreciated defense mechanism: sublimation , may turn this fear into an eternal creation, like great Goethe, and only this way they reach god-like state and immortality.

                        As a last word, as a therapist and analyst, I would like to state that, it will not be a mistake to look at this masterpiece as a complete psychotherapy or analysis of self, as Faust had recognized and lived through his unconscious wishes, his dreams and his archetypes; in other words, -as Freud had demonstrated many fragments of it for his own interpretation- his neurosis had been revealed and worked out. It does not matter that at the end of the therapy the patient died, as there is a rather interesting statement in medicine, “The operation had been successful, but the patient died!”. After all, as we said previously, the death, may be is only a transformation of one form of (life) energy into another form of (death) the same. (Opus Alchymicum).

                                                                           Prof.Dr. Ismail Ersevim

                                                                           Written first in:  March 1991
                                                                           Revised:   August 2000, May 2009


                                                     B i b l i o g r a p h y    : 

. ADLER, Alfred; “The Education of Children”, Gateway Edit., Indiana, USA1930.
. BROWN, Norman O.; “Life Against Death”, Vintage Books, New Y1059.
. CAMPBELL, Joseph; “Myths to Live by”, Viking Press, New York 1972.
. CAMPBELL, Joseph; “The Portable Yung”, Penguin Books, New York 1976.
. CAMPBELL, Joseph; “Transformation of Myth Through Time”, Harper-Row, N.Y. 1987..
. ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA, 3rd ed. 1987, “Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
. GO
ETHE, W.V.,”Faust”, Çev.: Recai Bilgin; Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı, İstanbul 1959.
. JUNG, Carl Gustave; “Man and His Symbols”, Doubleday, New York 1964.
. KAPLAN, Harold,M.D.- SADOCK,Benjamin J.,M.D.; “Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry, Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore 1987
. LAMONT, Corliss, “The Illusion of Immortality”, Philosophical Libr., New York 1959.
. LICOEUR, Paul; “Freud and Philosophy”, Yale Univ.Press, New Haven 1970.
. MARLOWE, Christopher; “Doctor Faustus”, Washington Square Press, 1959.

. RUTTENBEEK, Hendrik M.; “Psychoanalysis and Existential Philosophy”, Dutton, 1962.
. RUTTENBEEK, Hendrik M.; “Psychoanalysis and Literature”, Dutton & Co., 1964.
. SCHHNEIDERMAN, Leo; “The Psychology of Myth, Folklore and Religion”, Nelson Hall,Chicago 1981.
. STORR, Anthony; “The Essential Jung”, Princeton Univ.Press, New Jersey 1983.

. WEINBERG, Kurt; “On Gide’s Prométhée”, Princeton Univ.Press, New Jersey 1972.
. WELLS, H.G.; “The Science of Life”, Doubleday, New York 1938.