1741-4113/asset/olbannerleft.gif?v=1&s=26d72da001de4f616b8797652b3c99d04e8e4bff)
1741-4113/asset/olbannerright.gif?v=1&s=5562cf70a3c70242a2378ded4b7ee6753905c6b0)
Psychoanalytic Criticism of Shakespeare
Article first published online: 12 MAY 2006
DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-4113.2006.00329.x
Additional Information
How to Cite
Mikics, D. (2006), Psychoanalytic Criticism of Shakespeare. Literature Compass, 3: 529–546. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-4113.2006.00329.x
Publication History
- Issue published online: 12 MAY 2006
- Article first published online: 12 MAY 2006
- Literature Compass 3/3 (2006): 529–546, 10.1111/j.1741-4113.2006.00329.x
- Abstract
- Article
- References
- Cited By
Abstract
Why has Shakespeare proved such profitable ground for psychoanalytic study? Part of the answer lies in the affinity between theatre, not just Shakespeare’s, and psychoanalytic practice, an affinity recognized by Freud when he adapted Aristotle’s idea of catharsis to his own “talking cure.” This essay traces psychoanalytic criticism of Shakespeare from its origins in the work of Freud and Ernest Jones through studies by Jung, Rank, Lacan, Norman Holland, and others. In conclusion, the author presents a practical example of psychoanalytic Shakespeare criticism: a reading of The Tempest drawing on the object relations school of D. W. Winnicott.