摘要
莎士比亞的《哈姆雷特》似乎是一部充滿迷惑和令人不安的戲劇。艾略特認為《哈姆雷特》一劇中缺乏「藝術的必然性」--亦即外在事物引發讀者內心情感的適當性。哈姆雷特的佯裝瘋狂，他的延宕復仇，他的厭惡其母(葛楚德)，以及此劇中的美學逾越都是因哈姆雷特無能將他的感情等化為行動。《哈姆雷特》因此不足以再現哈姆雷特那種高貴、超越戲劇的性格--主張「演戲好比舉起一面鏡子反應自然，顯出美德的原貌；如果演戲過於誇大就失去了反映自然的真諦，因為它逾越了美德的原貌」。《哈姆雷特》一劇並不去澄清哈姆雷特王子裝瘋的意圖。雖然哈姆雷特心中明瞭他的佯裝瘋狂不能引起叔父過度的懷疑，但是他在劇中所扮演的瘋狂角色的所作所為恰恰違背了機智癲狂英雄所應有的作為—以其為護身的擋箭牌而遂行其企圖。機智瘋狂英雄阿姆利特--哈姆雷特的原型﹐當復仇的時機降臨時，毫不猶豫地一刀殺死他的叔父，然而當復仇的時刻降臨時，為父復仇的英雄哈姆雷特卻選擇放棄殺死正在禱告叔父的大好機會。他放棄殺死克勞迪斯的抉擇或許困惑了廣大的觀眾以及批評家如艾略特者，因為哈姆雷特王子無法將動機 (裝瘋的目的）和行為 (選擇放棄殺死克勞迪斯）融合以激發觀眾的反應。急於復仇的哈姆雷特為何對其叔父的厭惡並沒有促使他加速復仇，反而是一再的推諉責任並將其復仇過程中所遭遇的挫折投射在對其母的厭惡上？然而，哈姆雷特的厭惡對象由其叔父轉移至母親顯然是病態的。它之所以是病態的，因為他似乎被一種難以言傳的情緒所支配、掌控，無法定奪《哈姆雷特》一劇的真相，亦即是他的母親造成他父親的死亡？也是造成他延宕復仇的主要關鍵？《哈姆雷特》一劇或許可以看作超越美學的界線，因為它賦予了哈姆雷特指控其母的特權，從指責克勞迪斯卻無能行動到抹黑其母葛處德；可憐的葛處德，竟成為其子情感移轉的替罪羔羊。《哈》劇因此突顯了哈姆雷特是一位人格特質上易於傾向自戀人格自我歸因型的人物。而這種自戀人格自我歸因型者的特色即在於永遠只對自我做正面的評價而不願承認自己有任何的缺失。
關鍵字：哈姆雷特，《哈姆雷特》，佯裝瘋狂，復仇，美學型式，自戀

Abstract
Hamlet seems to be a play in many ways puzzling and disquieting. The “artistic inevitability”—“the complete adequacy of the external to the emotion”— is what is deficient in Hamlet, according to T. S. Eliot. Hamlet’s feigned madness, his procrastination of revenge, his disgust against his mother, and the excess of Hamlet as an aesthetic form are all due to his incapacity to equate his emotion to action (vengeance). Hamlet is then inadequate in representing a dignified, metadramatic Hamlet to “suit the action to the word, the word to the action.” Hamlet does not intend to clarify the purpose of Hamlet’s feigned madness. Although Hamlet may know that he must not arouse the suspicion of his uncle king (“I must be idle”), yet what he does is seen to be the exact opposite to his stratagem to use madness as a shield of protection to finesse his uncle. Unlike the Ur-Hamlet in the saga hero of Amleth, who does not hesitate to stab his uncle when the revenge hour comes, Shakespeare’s Hamlet is a failed avenger who lets slip the opportunity to slay the kneeling uncle when the hour of his vengeance comes. The Prince’s decision not to slay King Claudius confounds the audience, and perhaps Eliot, in his incapability to link motivation (the purpose of his feigned madness) and action (his decision not to kill his uncle king) together. Also as a vengeful son, Hamlet’s disgust at his uncle does not spur him to immediate vengeance but verbal taunting at his mother. Without sure proof and obvious evidence, the redirection of his disgust from Claudius to Gertrude seems to be pathological. It is pathological because a man like Hamlet is dominated by an emotion that is so inexpressible as to define the true cause of the tragedy (Is his mother the true cause of his father’s death and his own inaction?). Hamlet is then seen to exceed the aesthetic form in allowing Hamlet to abuse his mother, to shift his inaction against Claudius to besmearing Gertrude as a scapegoat. Hamlet thus highlights Hamlet as a man who is liable to engage in the narcissistic“self-regulatory strategies”and thereby avoids its inherent strengths and weaknesses.

Keywords: Hamlet, Hamlet, feigned madness, revenge, aesthetic form, narcissism

Works Cited
Adelman, Janet. “Man and Wife Is One Flesh: Hamlet and the Confrontation with the Maternal Body.” Suffocating Mothers: Fantasies of Maternal Origin in Shakespeare’s Plays, Hamlet to the Tempest. New York: Routledge, 1992. 11-37.
Aristotle. Aristotle’s Poetics. Trans. Gerald F. Else. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan, 1967.
Baptiste, Jean. “Coriolanus and Hamlet, in T. S. Eliot’s View.” Online posting. The Literature Network Forums. Retrieved 1 May 2007 from <http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=297845#post297845>.
Bergmann, Maria V. “Narcissism in Relation to Objects, Reality and Phantasy.” Group 3.2 (1979): 68-78.
Bishop, David. Hamlet’s Clashing Ideals. Pennsylvania: Xlibris, 2000.
---. “SHAKSPER 2000: Re: Oxymorons.” Online posting. SHAKESPER: The Global Electronic Shakespeare Conference. Retrieved 1 Mar. 2007 from
<http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2000/0609.html>.
Bloom, Harold. Hamlet: Poem Unlimited. New York: Riverhead Books, 2004.
Brown, Megan R. Psychology and the Theatre: A Qualitative Experiment in Actor Training. MA Thesis. Virginia Commonwealth U, 2006. Retrieved from 23 May 2007 from <http://etd.vcu.edu/theses/available/etd-05012006-174339/unrestricted/brownmr_thesis.pdf>.
Bushman, Brad J., and Roy F. Baumeister. “Threatened Egotism, Narcissism, Self-Esteem, and Direct and Displaced Aggression: Does Self-Love or Self-Hate Lead to Violence?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75.1 (1998): 219-29.
Byles, Joanna Montgomery. “Tragic Alternatives: Eros and Superego Revenge in Hamlet.” New Essays on Hamlet. The Hamlet Collection: No.1. New York: AMS, 1994. 117-34.
Calderwood, James L. To Be and Not to Be: Negation and Metadrama in Hamlet. New York: Columbia UP, 1983.
Chang, Maria Hsia. “Narcissistic Personality Disorder.” U of Nevada, Reno. Retrieved 3 Apr. 2007 from <http://www.unr.edu/cla/polisci/famaria_hsia_chang.htm>.
Coleridge, Samuel Taylor. Lectures and Notes on Shakspere and Other English Poets. Ed. T. Ashe. New York: Freeport, 1972.
Cummings, Michael J. “Hamlet, Prince of Denmark: A Study Guide.” Cummings Study Guide. Retrieved 23 Nov. 2006 from <http://www.cummingsstudyguides.net/xHamlet.html>.
Danner, Bruce. “Speaking Daggers.” Shakespeare Quarterly 54.1 (2003): 29-62.
De Madariaga, Salvador. On Hamlet. 2nd ed. London: Frank Cass, 1964.
Eliot, T. S. “Hamlet and His Problems.” The Sacred Wood: Essays on Poetry and Criticism. London: Routledge, 1989. 95-103.
---. “Shakespeare and the Stoicism of Seneca.” Selected Essays of T. S. Eliot. New York: Harcourt, 1964. 107-20.
---. “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock.” The Complete Poems and Plays 1909-1950.
New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1980. 3-7.
Fletcher, Robert Huntington. A History of English Literature. Whitefish: Kessinger, 2004.
Foakes, R. A. Hamlet Versus Lear: Cultural Politics and Shakespeare’s Art. New York: Cambridge, 1993.
---. “The Art of Cruelty: Hamlet and Vindice.” Shakespeare Survey 26 (1973): 21-31.
---. “The Reception of Hamlet.” Shakespeare Survey 45 (1993): 1-13.
French, Marilyn. “Hamlet and Shakespeare’s Division of Experience.” Contexts for Criticism. Ed. Donald Keesey. California: San Jose State UP, 1987.227-36.
Frye, Roland Mushat. The Renaissance HAMLET: Issues and Responses in 1600. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1984.
Gad, Irene. “Jung’s Model of the Psyche.” The Washington Society for Jungian Psychology. Retrieved 3 Jan. 2007 from <http://jung.org/jungs%20model%20of%20the%20psyche_gad.html>.
Ghose, Zulfikar. Hamlet, Prufrock and Language. London: Macmillan, 1978.
Gibinska, Marta. “‘The Play’s the Thing’: The Play Scene in Hamlet.” Shakespeare and His Contemporaries: Eastern and Central European Studies. Newark: U of Delaware, 1993. 175-88.
Golomb, Elan. Trapped in the Mirror: Adult Children of Narcissists in Their Struggle for Self. New York: Harper, 1992.
Google. “Definition of Histrionic Personality.” Google. Retrieved 26 Dec. 2006 from <http://www.google.com.tw/search?hl=zh-TW&q=define%3A+histrionic&meta=>.
Habib, Imitiaz. ‘“Never Doubt I Love’: Misreading Hamlet.” College Literature 21.2 (1994): 19-32.
Hanmer, Thomas. Some Remarks on the Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Written by William Shakespeare. Los Angeles: Augustan Reprint Society, 1947.
Hillman, Richard. William Shakespeare: The Problem Plays. New York: Twayne, 1993.
Hughes, Geoffrey. “The Tragedy of a Revenger’s Loss of Conscience: A Study of
Hamlet.” English Studies 57.5 (1976): 395-409.
Hunt, Maurice. “Impregnating Ophelia.” Neophilologus 89.4 (2005): 641-63.
Johnson, Samuel. “Notes on Hamlet.” Johnson on Shakespeare. Ed. R. W. Desai. New Delhi: Orient Longman, 1985. 200-04.
Johnston, Ian. “The Issue of Language: Introduction to Richard II and Hamlet.” English 366: Studies in Shakespeare. Retrieved 18 May 2007 from <http://www.mala.bc.ca/~Johnstoi/eng366/lectures/richard2.htm>.
Jung, Carl Gustav. Collected Works. Routledge: London, 1967.
---. Four Archetypes: Mother, Rebirth, Spirit, Trickster. Trans. R. F. C. Hull. London: Routledge and K. Paul, 1972.
---. The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious. Trans. R. F. C. Hull. Bollingen Series. XX. 2nd ed. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1980.
Kahn, Coppélia. Man’s Estate: Masculine Identity in Shakespeare. Berkeley: U of California, 1981.
Knights, L.C. Explorations: Essays in Criticism Mainly on the Literature of Seventeenth Century. New York: New York UP, 1964.
Laing, Ronal David. The Divided Self: An Existential Study in Sanity and Madness. New York: Pantheon, 1969.
Latham, Jacqueline E. M. “The Imagery in ‘Hamlet’: Acting.” Educational Theatre
Journal 14.3 (1962): 197-202.
Lesser, Simon O. “Freud and Hamlet Again.” American Imago: A Psychological Journal for the Arts and Sciences 12 (1955): 207-20.
Levine, Richard A. “The Tragedy of Hamlet’s World View.” College English 23.7 (1962): 539-46.
Levy, Eric P. “‘Nor th’exterior nor the inward man’: The Problematics of Personal Identity in Hamlet.” U of Toronto Quarterly 68.3 (1999): 711-27.
Lidz, Theodore. Hamlet’s Enemy: Madness and Myth in Hamlet. New York: Basic Books, 1975.
Maxwell, Baldwin. “Hamlet’s Mother.” Shakespeare Quarterly 15.2 (1964): 235-46.
McCormick, Frank. “‘Prufrock’ and Hamlet Revisited: ‘No, I Am Not Prince Hamlet.’” The Explicator 63.1 (2004): 43-46.
McElroy, Bernard. Shakespeare’s Mature Tragedies. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1973.
Mercer, Peter. Hamlet and the Acting of Revenge. Iowa: U of Iowa, 1987.
Meyercord. “A ‘Prufrock’ Paper.” Meyercord Web. Retrieved 21 Apr. 2007 from <http://webs.bcp.org/sites/cmeyercord/prufrock_character,_setting,_metaphor,_>.
Morf, Carolyn C., and Frederick Rhodewalt. “Unraveling the Paradoxes of Narcissism: A Dynamic Self-Regulatory Processing Model.” Psychological Inquiry 12.4 (2001): 177-96.
Ouditt, Sharon. “Explaining Woman’s Frailty: Feminist Readings of Gertrude.” Hamlet. Theory in Practice Series. Ed. Peter J. Smith and Nigel Wood. Buckingham: Open UP, 1996. 83-107.
Parker, Patricia. “Othello and Hamlet: Dilation, Spying, and the ‘Secret Place’ of Woman.” Representations 44 (1993): 60-95.
Pflueger, Nathan. “Hamlet’s Imagined Filial Love.” Autumn 2005 Honorable Mention. 127-130. Retrieved 2 May 2007 from <http://bootheprize.stanford.edu/0506/IHUM-Pflueger.pdf>.
Rose, Jacqueline. “Hamlet—the ‘Mona Lisa’ of Literature.” Critical Essays on Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Ed. David Scott Kastan. New York: G.. K. Hall, 1995. 156-70.
Scofield, Martin. The Ghosts of HAMLET: The Play and Modern Writers. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1980.
Scott, William O. “The Liar Paradox as Self-Mockery: Hamlet’s Postmodern Cogito.” Mosaic 24.1 (1991): 13-30.
Selden, Raman. “Hamlet’s Word-Play and the Oedipus Complex.” Hamlet: William Shakespeare. Longman Critical Essays. Ed. Linda Cookson and Bryan Loughrey. Harlow: Longman, 1988. 81-90.
Shakespeare and Citizenship. Retrieved 15 May 2006 from <http://www.designwritingresearch.org/Shakespeare/shakesTexts/Hamlet1.doc>.
Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. The Arden Edition of the Works of William Shakespeare. Ed. Harold Jenkins. London: Routledge, 1993.
---. The Oxford Shakespeare: Hamlet. Ed. G. R. Hibbard. Oxford: Clarendon, 1987.
---. William Shakespeare: Hamlet. New Swan Shakespeare Advanced Series. Ed. Bernard Lott. London: Longman, 1968.
Smith, Grover. “T. S. Eliot and the Fascination of Hamlet.” The Placing of T. S. Eliot. Ed. Jewel Spears Brooker. Columbia: U of Missouri, 1991. 43-59.
Stoll, Elmer Edgar. Hamlet: An Historical and Comparative Study. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota, 1919.
Stucke, Tanja S. and Siegfried L. Sporer. “When a Grandiose Self-Image Is Threatened: Narcissism and Self-Concept Clarity as Predictors of Negative Emotions and Aggression Following Ego-Threat.” Journal of Personality 70.4 (2002): 509-32.
Tiffany, Grace. “Anti-Theatricalism and Revolutionary Desire in Hamlet (Or, the Play Without the Play).” Upstart Crow 15 (1995): 61-74.
Tilley, M. P. “‘I Have Heard of Your Paintings Too’ (Hamlet III, i, 148).” The Review of English Studies 5.19 (1929): 312-17.
Tillyard, E. M. W. “Hamlet.” Shakespeare’s Problem Plays. London: Penguin, 1993. 19-37.
Uéno, Yoshiko. “Three Gertrudes: Text and Subtext.” Hamlet and Japan. Ed. Yoshiko Uéno. The Hamlet Collection No 2. New York: AMS, 1995. 155-68.
Vaknin, Sam. Malignant Self Love—Narcissism Revisited. Prague: Narcissus, 2007.
Vazire, Simine & David C. Funder. “Impulsivity and the Self-Defeating Behavior of Narcissists.” Personality and Social Psychology Review 10.2 (2006): 154–65.
Watkins, Evan. The Critical Act: Criticism and Community. New Haven: Yale UP, 1978.
Witkoski, Michael. “The Bottle that Isn’t there and the Duck that Can’t Be Heard: The ‘Subjective Correlative’ in Commercial Messages.” Studies in Media & Information Literacy Education 3.3 (2003). Retrieved 1 May 2007 from <http://www.utpress.utoronto.ca/journal/ejournals/simile>.