Joseph Carroll

University of Missouri–St. Louis

Intentional Meaning in Hamlet:

An Evolutionary Perspective

Can We Say Anything both New and True about Hamlet?

Can an evolutionary perspective make any difference in our study of literature?
For the past fifteen years or so, the literary Darwinists have been urging that it can
(Boyd, Carroll, and Gottschall; Carroll, “An Evolutionary Paradigm”; Gottschall
and Wilson). Some skeptics repudiate the evolutionary human sciences that form
the conceptual foundation for literary Darwinism. Others suggest that even if the
Darwinists are right about the evolved and adapted character of the mind, they could
still contribute little or nothing to the study of particular works of literature (Crews;
Deresiewicz; Goodheart; Mellard; Pinker; Seamon; Slingerland; Smee; Spolsky;
Vermeule). They argue that the evolutionary human sciences deal only in general
and universal concepts about broad classes of behavior, whereas the humanities,
by their very nature, are concerned with subjective particularities.
Both parts of this argument are incorrect. Evolutionists deal with cultural and
individual differences as well as universals, and literary scholars concern themselves
both with subjective particularities and with general ideas: genres, historical
trends, common themes, and literary traditions. Literary scholars register their own
subjective responses to specific texts and also try to identify objective facts and
formulate general explanations about those facts. There is no necessary conflict
between an appeal to general ideas and close attention to the particular structure
of meaning and effect in individual literary texts. If any such conflict did exist, the
Marxists, Freudians, feminists, deconstructionists, and Foucauldians would hardly
have been able to produce tens of thousands of essays in literary criticism. As I’ve
argued recently in this journal (“An Evolutionary Paradigm” 128-32), the literary
Darwinists have already produced a substantial body of good critical readings of
individual texts, and more are forthcoming (Andrews and Carroll; Boyd, Carroll,
and Gottschall).
On grounds then both of theoretical principle and actual, historical performance,
we can reject the idea that the Darwinists have nothing to contribute to the close

230 Style: Volume 44, Nos. 1 & 2, Spring/Summer 2010

Intentional Meaning in Hamlet: An Evolutionary Perspective 231

reading of specific texts. What precisely can the Darwinists do? What does an
evolutionary reading look like? What are its characteristic features? In what way,
if any, does it advance on common sense and the common understanding—what
evolutionists and philosophers call “folk psychology” (Geary)? One way to approach
this question is to look at an actual example. Hamlet is convenient for this purpose,
partly because it is so important and so well known, and partly because it has already
attracted considerable attention from evolutionary critics. Robert Storey, Michelle
Scalise-Sugiyama, Daniel Nettle, John V. Knapp, Brian Boyd, and John Tooby
and Leda Cosmides have all used Hamlet to illustrate theoretical principles about
literature, and Boyd and Knapp have made more detailed interpretive comments on
it. After outlining a model of interpretive criticism from an evolutionary perspective,
I shall summarize their efforts, compare them with traditional humanist readings,
and offer my own interpretive commentary on Hamlet.
Offer my own interpretive commentary on Hamlet? Adding to the thousands
or tens of thousands already produced? The heart grows faint; the native hue
of resolution is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought, almost. What can be
said about Hamlet within the common idiom, having no systematic recourse to
extraneous theories, has most assuredly already been said. So far, the efforts to
devise new readings by invoking extraneous theories—Freudian, deconstructive,
Marxist, Foucauldian, and feminist, among others—have on the whole done less
to illuminate the play than to elaborate their own preconceptions. Hamlet’s erotic
passion for Gertrude and secret complicity with Claudius in getting the castrating
Hamlet senior safely underground (Jones); Hamlet as the Phallus (Lacan); the
ghost as the transcendental Signified (Adelman; Garber); Hamlet’s revolt against
Claudius as a nascent impulse of proto-proletarian class consciousness (Bristol);
Polonius as the embodiment of the Panopticon, peeping on everyone (Neill);
Gertrude as the embodiment of anarchic feminine sexuality demonized by the
Patriarchy (Adelman)—all such fancies have served as Procrustean beds, distorting
the common understanding of the play. If there is a “deep structure” to Hamlet, we
will not get to it by violating the folk psychology implicit in the common idiom.
We will get to it only by developing analytic concepts congruent with the common
idiom but encompassing the common understanding within a more systematic and
integrated body of causal explanations. Shakespeare holds a mirror up to nature
(Headlam Wells; Nordlund). So must we. By repudiating the very concept of
“nature” (Jameson), postmodern theory has moved off in a direction that could not
possibly advance on the common understanding.
232 Joseph Carroll

Is it possible to formulate a set of theoretical principles distinct enough to offer

real explanatory leverage but broad and flexible enough to give a just rendering of the
thematic and tonal structure of the play? I think it is. We can integrate evolutionary
concepts of human nature with the common understanding embodied in the best of
traditional humanistic criticism. Using that conceptual structure as our interpretive
framework, we can ask basic questions about the meaning of the play and provide
reasoned answers. Those answers can of course have no claim to absolute validity;
they are speculative, discursive, and rhetorical, not empirical and quantitative. They
are not here tested and decisively falsified or confirmed by controlled experiment.
They can nonetheless make claims to cogency based on common experience and
the empirical validity of the concepts to which they appeal.
To generate adequate interpretive commentary from an evolutionary perspective,
we must construct continuous explanatory sequences linking the highest level
of causal explanation—inclusive fitness, the ultimate regulative principle of
evolution—to particular features of human nature and to particular structures and
effects in specific works of art. It is never enough to say, for instance, that people
seek survival, sex, and status, or that artistic works depict people seeking those
things. We have to be more specific both about human nature and about the nature
of artistic representation. In “human life-history theory,” we now have a set of ideas
that link inclusive fitness with a fully articulated model of human nature. Life history
theory concerns itself with the distribution of effort across the life cycle of any given
species, weighing the different portions of life effort given over to birth, growth,
somatic maintenance, mating effort, and parenting effort (Hill; Hill and Kaplan;
Kaplan et al.; Low, “The Evolution,” Why Sex Matters; Lummaa; MacDonald, “Life
History Theory”). The model of human nature that emerges from human life history
has numerous distinctive features: altricial birth, extended childhood, male-female
bonding coupled with male coalitions (Flinn, Geary, and Ward), dual parenting,
post-menopausal survival, longevity, the development of skills for the extraction
of high-quality resources (Kaplan et al.), the growth of the neocortex to enhance
powers for suppressing impulses and engaging in long-term planning (Hawkins;
MacDonald, “Evolution, Psychology”), the evolution of egalitarian dispositions
operating in tension with conserved dispositions for individual dominance (Boehm),
the development of symbolic capacities enabling identification with extended
social groups (Boyd, On the Origin; Deacon; Dissanayake; Dutton; Richerson
and Boyd; D. S. Wilson; Wade), and the power to subordinate, in some degree,
all direct impulses of survival and reproduction to the formal dictates of imagined
virtual worlds (Baumeister; Carroll, “An Evolutionary Paradigm”; MacDonald,
“Evolution, Psychology”; Mithen; E. O. Wilson).
Intentional Meaning in Hamlet: An Evolutionary Perspective 233

All these features together entail distinct motives, emotions, dimensions of

personality, and forms of cognition that have a bearing on literary meaning. To link
human nature with literary meaning, we have to recognize that universal, species-
typical characteristics form a common framework for understanding. Individual
and cultural differences define themselves as variations on the basic, universal
patterns of human nature. In recognizing the importance of a common framework,
we implicitly conceive of the arts as communicative media. Consequently, we think
of individual artists and readers as centers of consciousness, capable of formulating
and understanding intentional meanings.
A comprehensively adequate interpretive account of Hamlet would take in,
synoptically, its phenomenal effects (tone, style, theme, formal organization), locate
it in a cultural context, explain that cultural context as a particular organization
of the elements of human nature within a specific set of environmental conditions
(including cultural traditions), register the responses of audiences and readers,
describe the socio-cultural, political, and psychological functions the work fulfills,
locate all those functions in relation to the evolved needs of human nature, and
link the work comparatively with other artistic works, using a taxonomy of themes,
formal structures, affects, and functions derived from a comprehensive model of
human nature. In practical terms, of course, there is only so much one can do in a
single essay. With respect to Hamlet, I shall concentrate on motives, personality,
and emotions but take in as many other aspects as I can manage without losing the
focus of my interpretive argument.

Previous Evolutionary Commentaries on Hamlet

Storey (131-35), Scalise-Sugiyama (“Cultural Variation”), and Boyd (“Literature”
18-19) all comment on Laura Bohannan’s essay on Hamlet. (Oddly, though writing
several years after Storey, making many of the same points, and using sometimes
nearly identical phrasing, Scalise-Sugiyama does not cite Storey or include his book
in her bibliography. Boyd cites both Storey and Scalise-Sugiyama.) Bohannan is
an ethnographer who in the sixties lived among the Tiv, a non-literate Nigerian
tribal people, and recorded their ways. She told them the story of Hamlet, and they
responded volubly, commenting on the play, criticizing the actions of the characters,
and interpreting the events in accordance with their own customs and beliefs. For
instance, the Tiv do not believe in ghosts, so they assumed that Hamlet’s vision of
the ghost was the result of witchcraft, in which they do believe. They felt it was
wrong for Hamlet to seek revenge himself instead of asking for help from older
relatives. Marrying a deceased brother’s wife is obligatory for them, so they see
no reason for Hamlet to be upset by Gertrude’s remarriage. Bohannan emphasizes
234 Joseph Carroll

all the little ways in which the Tiv read the actions of the play in the light of their
own ethos, which they mistakenly regard as universal. She concludes that literary
meanings are not universally available.
The three evolutionists who respond to Bohannan all counter this conclusion
by emphasizing the many quite basic ways in which the Tiv understand the play
much as we do or as Shakespeare’s contemporaries did, and they all three formulate
“biocultural” propositions reconciling the idea of human universals with the idea
of local cultural variations. The Tiv, like everyone else, understand narratives
with protagonists pursuing goals such as seeking revenge, making alliances with
friends, evading or fighting enemies, uncovering deceit, tricking others, feeling
passions such as anger, grief, and contempt, negotiating the rules of ethical codes,
avoiding incestuous relations, and either succeeding or failing in their efforts. All
of this is part of “folk psychology” and communicable in the common idiom, even
in translation. Moreover, relatively superficial differences of cultural ethos are not
unintelligible to any people cosmopolitan enough to have registered that their local
customs and beliefs are not necessarily universal.
Boyd includes consideration of Bohannan as only one of several topics in
his essay (“Literature”). After giving a general exposition of “biocultural” theory,
he takes up Hamlet as a particular case to illustrate how various features of the
theory could bear on a reading of a specific literary work. Boyd formulates no
comprehensive interpretive thesis for the play. Instead, he provides a catalogue of
possible topics of analysis that could be applied to any work and illustrates them
with application to Hamlet. He discusses the predominance of negative emotions
in Ekman’s list of seven “basic” emotions (13), comments on revenge and justice
as evolved dispositions (13-14), gives an exposition of “cost-benefit” analysis
and applies it to the problem of catching and holding the attention of an audience
(14), uses cost-benefit analysis to frame a consideration of using familiar dramatic
materials and providing novel twists (14), uses the idea of minimal ontological
violations—violating realism—to explain the interest in supernatural phenomena
such as ghosts (14-15), argues for the evolutionary basis of a preoccupation with
individual differences in persons (15-16), points to “Theory of Mind” as a category
relevant to the dramatic interest in reading the motives and beliefs of others, taking
Hamlet as an especially intense instance of such interest (16-17), discusses the way
emotion guides decision-making (Damasio) (17-18), and concludes with revisiting
the question of the Tiv and the tension between local cultural practices and universal
forms of behavior and cognition (17-18). All these analytic categories are no doubt
relevant and useful, but until they are put to work as part of a whole interpretive
Intentional Meaning in Hamlet: An Evolutionary Perspective 235

argument, they are like the materials and tools assembled at a building site before
the actual construction begins.
Boyd argues that an evolutionary reading need not be “reductive” but can be,
in contrast, “expansive” (On the Origin 2). To call a reading “reductive” is to say
that it is crude and narrow, that it leaves out too much of what is really important.
And yet, all theory and all interpretation aim at legitimate “reduction.” We try to
reduce the multifariousness of phenomenal surfaces to underlying structures. We
identify key causal principles in complex phenomena such as wars and economic
developments. In commenting on literary works, we identify central themes and
dominant tonal qualities. Without such efforts at reduction, all commentary would
be lost in diffuse detail, like the waters of a flash flood sinking without trace into
the sands of a desert.
In “What Happens in Hamlet?” Daniel Nettle makes a bold effort to produce a
framework for adequate interpretive reduction. Despite the title of the essay (alluding
to J. Dover Wilson’s book), Nettle actually says next to nothing about Hamlet,
specifically. Like a substantial portion of the essays produced thus far in evolutionary
literary studies, his essay is a theoretical prolegomenon to interpretation. He works
through the basic theoretical problem of reconciling universals and specific cultural
configurations, invokes Aristotle on the principle of goal-oriented action as the heart
of drama, and then identifies four elements of analysis for cataloguing plays: two
motives (mating and status), and two outcomes (success and failure). Comedies are
successful mating games, tragedies unsuccessful status games (71-72).
I am highly sympathetic to the ambition behind Nettle’s effort—the desire to
discover the elements of “deep structure” in literary texts. The effort itself, though, I
think a failure, for two reasons. First, there are too few elements invoked to account
for the range of possible human concerns. And second, Nettle considers only the
motives of the characters, leaving out point of view, and thus leaving out the meaning
that both characters and authors invest in actions. Nettle’s only interpretive comment
on Hamlet suggests the kind of “reductiveness”—almost comical—that can result
from such premature theoretical reductions. “Status games—negative outcome
represents the quintessential tragedy (“all tragedies end with a death”). Hamlet
not only loses his kingdom to his uncle but is killed too” (71). Losing a kingdom
and getting killed happen also to Richard III and to King Lear. And are we then
to see these three plays as just variants on a simple theme of seeking status? That
description comes closest to Richard III. It leaves most of King Lear unaccounted
for, and seems altogether peripheral to the protagonist of Hamlet. Thwarted political
ambitions are the least of Hamlet’s concerns. They are scarcely mentioned until
236 Joseph Carroll

nearly the end of the play (“He that hath kill’d my king and whor’d my mother, /
Popp’d in between th’ election and my hopes, / Thrown out his angle for my proper
life,” V. ii. 64-66, emphasis added). In his first soliloquy (“O, that this too too [solid]
flesh would melt,” I. ii. 129), Hamlet concentrates on his mother’s disloyalty to her
dead husband and on the contrast in quality between his uncle and his father. In
the scene before he leaves for England, after watching Fortinbras’ troops pass by,
Hamlet berates himself, again, for failing to act. “How stand I then, / That have a
father kill’d, a mother stain’d, / Excitements of my reason and my blood” (IV. Iv.
56-58). No mention of thwarted ambition.
Reducing all human concerns to sex and status leaves out survival itself as
a motive (smuggled in to Nettle’s one comment on Hamlet but not part of the
analytic scheme). It also leaves out all positive sociality, eliminating the interplay
between impulses of dominance and impulses of affiliative, cooperative sociality.
It thus leaves out reciprocity, the sense of justice, and the revenge that flows from
violated reciprocity. It leaves out all kin-related motives, filial bonding, parental
love (thus leaving out the heart of King Lear and everything in Hamlet that flows
from outrage at a murdered father and corrupted mother). And finally, it leaves
out the imagination itself, the need, so clearly dominant in Hamlet, to achieve an
adequate interpretive understanding of the events in which he is embroiled. Nettle
himself evidently has some sense of how much his effort at reduction has left out.
He observes that “the human mind is structured in such a way that domain-specific
schemata about kinship, love, competition, and cooperation are easily evoked”
(73). Yes, indeed. Why not include them then in the effort at schematic reduction
to basic principles? Rather than answering this question, Nettle formulates an
open-ended escape clause: “There is no desire here to reduce the complexity and
shifting nature of dramatic meaning” (73). Well, yes, there is such a desire, and the
desire is wholly legitimate. It just fails to achieve its purpose.
Among all the extraneous theories that critics have used to interpret Hamlet
over the past century, Freudian Oedipal theory has been overwhelmingly the most
influential, embedding itself not just in the tradition of written interpretations but
also in performance. Always on the lookout for novelty, Laurence Olivier dramatized
Hamlet’s supposed Oedipal impulses in the closet scene between Hamlet and
Gertrude, and that theatrical device then took on a life of its own, replicated in
numerous productions for stage and screen (for instance Franco Zeffirelli’s with
Mel Gibson as Hamlet and Glenn Close as Gertrude, and see Knapp, “Family
Games” 194-95). One of the chief early triumphs of evolutionary psychology
was the revelation that Freudian Oedipal theory is quite simply mistaken (Degler;
Intentional Meaning in Hamlet: An Evolutionary Perspective 237

Easterlin; Scalise-Sugiyama, “New Science”). Humans, like all other mammals, have
evolved mechanisms for avoiding incest. Particular cultural conventions codify those
impulses in ways that admit of some variation. For instance, some cultural codes,
like that of the Tiv, allow or even require a man to marry his deceased brother’s wife.
In other cultural codes—like that to which Hamlet and his father subscribe—this
particular bond is felt to be incestuous. Some variation, but within very limited
bounds. No cultural code allows sexual relations between parents and children.
In all known cultures, when such relations occur (almost always fathers abusing
female children), they are condemned as immoral and criminal. Hamlet himself
gives no evidence, in any remark he makes, that he himself has any sexual desire
for his mother. One could impute such desire only on the strength of an extraneous
theory that presupposed its universality. Since this particular extraneous theory is
false, imputing the desire to Hamlet is utterly arbitrary. It goes beyond the play,
and beyond human nature. The whole Freudian tradition—with all its derivative
postmodern forms—holds a distorting mirror up to the play.
John V. Knapp is among the first of the new psychological literary theorists
to recognize just how centrally important the modern findings on incest are for
literary study (“Family-Systems Psychotherapy”). For a century now, psychological
literary criticism has been in thrall to the false ideas of Freudian psychology, and
to the Oedipal theory at the very center of those ideas. In seeking to provide an
alternative to the Oedipal scheme, Knapp invokes “family systems therapy” (FST).
This is clinical theory, practical in purpose, oriented to the dynamics among family
members. A guiding idea in the theory is that individuals should not be looked at
alone but in relation to other family members. In clinical practice, this idea can of
course be useful. As a concept in literary criticism, it can also be useful, but like
all preconceived analytic ideas must be used with care, letting the explicit evidence
of the text give the necessary prompts as to which concepts are most relevant. In
his interpretive critique of Hamlet (“Family Games”), Knapp seems to me to go
beyond the evidence of the text. Operating on the basis of assumptions derived
from FST, he supposes that the relationship between Gertrude and Hamlet senior
was in reality deeply flawed, and in pursuit of this thesis, he casts substantial doubt
on the image of Hamlet’s father that we derive from Hamlet himself.
If there were serious hidden conflicts in the marriage of Hamlet’s parents,
Gertrude’s disloyalty would not be so shocking as it is. In his first soliloquy, Hamlet
dwells on his parents’ evidently reciprocal devotion, and the ghost of Hamlet’s
father affirms that he was devoted to Gertrude. In the closet scene, Hamlet upbraids
his mother for her shallowness and sensuality, and she affirms the justice of his
238 Joseph Carroll

rebuke. Nor is she merely swayed temporarily by the force of Hamlet’s rhetoric.
Later, speaking only to herself, she gives passionate voice to her feeling of shame
and guilt.
To my sick soul, as sin’s true nature is,
Each toy seems prologue to some great amiss,
So full of artless jealousy is guilt,
It spills itself in fearing to be spilt. (IV. v. 17-20)

To palliate the guilt, to adopt an even-handed, clinical stance, in which Claudius,

Hamlet senior, and Gertrude stand all on a moral par, is to diminish the tragic scope
of the conflict, reducing it to a messy family squabble. Hamlet, Hamlet senior,
and Gertrude all three register the moral significance of her disloyalty. (Even
Horatio murmurs at the unseemly haste of the remarriage.) Hamlet speaks clearly
and explicitly about the moral implications of Gertrude’s o’er hasty marriage to
Claudius:
Such an act
That blurs the grace and blush of modesty,
Calls virtue hypocrite, takes off the rose
From the fair forehead of an innocent love,
And sets a blister there, makes marriage vows
As false as dicers’ oaths, O, such a deed
As from the body of contraction plucks
The very soul, and sweet religion makes
A rhapsody of words. (III. iv. 40-48)

A chief theme in the play is the nature of the human, the difference between
humans and animals of a lower order. Hamlet’s mother has hasted with bestial lust
to incestuous sheets. A beast that wants discourse of reason would have mourned
longer. As Boyd observes, humans alone “can focus our minds altogether on particular
events of the past. . . . Most animals cannot afford not to attend to their immediate
environment and cannot easily reason beyond it” (“Literature” 9). Humans have a
unique capacity “to think beyond the immediate.” Hamlet concurs:
What is a man,
If his chief good and market of his time
Be but to sleep and feed? A beast, no more.
Sure, He that made us with such large discourse,
Looking before and after, gave us not
That capability and godlike reason
To fust in us unus’d. (IV. iv. 33-39)
Intentional Meaning in Hamlet: An Evolutionary Perspective 239

From Hamlet’s perspective, Gertrude’s behavior is literally inhuman. Overlooking

her wanton self-degradation—a degradation that she ultimately confesses even to
herself—takes us outside the structure of intentional meaning in the play.
How do we get to that intentional meaning? Daniel Nettle invokes Aristotle’s
belief that “the aim or purpose of the protagonist is the most important aspect of
a tragedy,” and he cites Brunetière’s claim that “‘what we ask of the theatre is the
spectacle of a will striving towards a goal’” (69). These phenomena are clearly
central to human experience and to social monitoring, but Hamlet gives evidence
of how limited they are in characterizing the total structure of meaning in specific
literary works. If Hamlet’s only “goal” were to kill Claudius, there need have been
no play. After the ghost speaks to him, he could simply have walked directly to
the chamber in which Claudius, taking his “rouse,” deep in his cups, suspecting
no harm, would have been easy prey to a swift thrust of the rapier. Achieving a
specific practical goal is clearly not adequate to account for Hamlet’s motivation.
All the less, then, will it account for what motivates the play as a whole. What was
Shakespeare getting at?
One of the best critics of the 19th century, William Hazlitt, observes that Hamlet
is more inclined “to indulge his imagination in reflecting upon the enormity of the
crime and refining on his schemes of vengeance” than on putting them “into practice.”
Hamlet’s “ruling passion is to think, not to act” (84-85). Thinking, not acting, is
what mostly happens in Hamlet. Hamlet sometimes thinks about why he does not
act, and berates himself for not acting, but more often, he is just thinking—about
the fickleness of women and the perfidy of men, about the purpose and techniques
of drama, about mortality, the transience of life, eternity, and the human condition.
Generalizing from this feature of Hamlet’s character, the evolutionary psychologists
John Tooby and Leda Cosmides ascribe a symbolic value to the play as a whole. They
declare that both Alice in Wonderland and Hamlet “are focused on an evolutionarily
ancient but quintessentially human problem, the struggle for coherence and sanity
amidst radical uncertainty” (19). The problem is quintessentially human because only
humans are massively detached from the narrowly channeled behavioral promptings
of instinct. For humans alone, the world does not present itself as a series of rigidly
defined stimuli releasing a narrow repertory of stereotyped behaviors. It presents
itself as a vast and potentially perplexing array of percepts, inferences, causal
relations, contingent possibilities, analogies, contrasts, and hierarchical conceptual
structures. The human mind is free to organize the elements of cognition in an
infinitely diverse array of combinatorial possibilities. It is also free to make false
and dangerous connections among ideas, to stumble into confusion, uncertainty,
240 Joseph Carroll

doubt, perplexity. The cognitive flexibility that is a peculiarly human attribute and
that has so much adaptive power—does so much to increase inclusive fitness—also
has dangers and costs that are peculiar to the human condition. Hamlet exemplifies
both the mind’s power and its vulnerability.
The interpretive formulation put forward by Tooby and Cosmides bypasses
the important but limited concern, What is the protagonist’s goal? In place of this
question, they tacitly pose a larger, more important question, What is this play
about? That is, what are its chief themes and motivating concerns? To what pressing
human issues does it give imaginative form? What is the full scope of its meaning
and effect? Their answer to such questions is right, I think, as far as it goes, and
not just right but powerful, astute, incisive. Still, it does not distinguish between
Alice in Wonderland and Hamlet. Clearly, then, it must be heavily qualified. Tooby
and Cosmides describe the symbolic implication of the play at a level so high that
it leaves out almost everything specific about the characters, circumstances, and
emotional qualities in Hamlet. The circumstances Hamlet must confront in Denmark
are not the same as those Alice must confront in Wonderland. A murdered father and
a salacious mother are not part of Alice’s situation. Moreover, Alice’s personality
is very different from Hamlet’s, and not nearly so well developed. As Tooby and
Cosmides perceptively suggest, Hamlet and Alice share a certain giddy sense of
struggling for coherence and sanity, but otherwise the emotional qualities of the two
works are very different. The challenge, then, is this: to connect Hamlet’s struggle
for coherence and sanity with an argument about the organization of the features
that distinguish Hamlet as a particular work of art.

Hazlitt, Bradley, and Darwin:

The Great Ideal Movement or the Indelible Stamp?
The best of traditional humanist criticism—literary criticism before the postmodern
era—can be conceived as the finest articulation of the common idiom. Singling out
Hazlitt and A. C. Bradley as representative figures in the humanist tradition should
raise few skeptical eyebrows among Shakespearean scholars. Hazlitt was writing
early in the nineteenth century and Bradley early in the twentieth. Both assimilate the
insights of their most astute predecessors and add something particular and valuable
of their own. Both their books on Shakespeare have been steadily in print, and
Bradley’s book Shakespearean Tragedy has sold over half a million copies. Hazlitt
and Bradley get to much that is true and important about the play. Consequently,
by qualifying, elaborating, or correcting their ideas, a critic can offer some genuine
advance on the humanist heritage of insight and wisdom about the play. To this
group of humanist critics, I shall add Darwin. His insight into Hamlet—registered
Intentional Meaning in Hamlet: An Evolutionary Perspective 241

indirectly but unmistakably in an allusion at a climactic rhetorical moment in

his own writing (the conclusion to The Descent of Man)—provides a clue to the
limitations in Bradley’s interpretive thesis about the play.
Hazlitt and Bradley both adopt what Northrop Frye would call the “low mimetic”
approach. That is, they view Hamlet as if he were a real person. But they also take
him, and the play he is in, as symbols of a general human condition. As Hazlitt puts
it, “the distresses of Hamlet are transferred, by the turn of his mind, to the general
account of humanity. Whatever happens to him we apply to ourselves, because he
applies it to himself as a means of general reasoning” (81). Echoing Aristotle on
the superiority of poetry to history, Hazlitt declares that “this play has a prophetic
truth, which is above that of history” (80). Hamlet, then, as Hazlitt sees him, is a
representative man. Representative of what? The characterization, though long,
merits full citation:
Whoever has become thoughtful and melancholy through his own mishaps or those of
others; whoever has borne about with him the clouded brow of reflection, and thought
himself “too much i’ the sun”; whoever has seen the golden lamp of day dimmed by
envious mists rising in his own breast, and could find in the world before him only a dull
blank with nothing left remarkable in it; whoever has known “the pangs of despised love,
the insolence of office, or the spurns which patient merit of the unworthy takes”; he who
has felt his mind sink within him, and sadness cling to his heart like a malady, who has
had his hopes blighted and his youth staggered by the apparition of strange things; who
cannot be well at ease, while he sees evil hovering near him like a specter; whose pow-
ers of action have been eaten up by thought; he to whom the universe seems infinite, and
himself nothing; whose bitterness of soul makes him careless of consequences, and who
goes to a play as his best resource to shove off, to a second remove, the evils of life by a
mock representation of them—this is the true Hamlet. (80-81)

Everything about this description seems correct, but still it falls short in both
generality and particularity. Tooby and Cosmides characterize Hamlet as symbolizing
an evolutionarily ancient condition, something permanent and universal. Hazlitt
of course does not generalize that far. His evocative description of Hamlet’s
personality and condition is far more detailed than the interpretive account given
by Tooby and Cosmides, but it is not quite so particular as it might be. Hamlet has
become thoughtful and melancholy, Hazlitt suggests, “through his own mishaps
or those of others.” Ah, but this case is common, and if common, why seems it so
particular to Hamlet? Why does he feel an inner torment that passes show? The
word “mishaps”—there’s the rub. Murder and incestuous levity in the nuclear family
are not mishaps; they are crimes and sins; sources of psychological trauma very
different from mere accident. They engage guilt, shame, and outrage; they disturb
the very foundations of emotional organization in their victims.
242 Joseph Carroll

This is where Bradley comes in. He assimilates the Romantic tradition that
includes Hazlitt, but he adds to it two important elements: an acute emphasis on
the trauma of Hamlet’s mother’s self-degradation, and a brilliant clinical analysis
of Hamlet’s depression. Previous critics had of course acknowledged that Hamlet
was distressed at his mother’s behavior, and previous critics had used the vocabulary
of “melancholia” to describe his mental state. To my knowledge, no critic before
or after Bradley has gotten either of these topics so clearly into focus as central
features in the psychological organization of the play, and no critic has delineated
them with the lucid precision and fullness Bradley brings to them. Citing the first
soliloquy and deducing from it “a sickness of life” and “a longing for death,” Bradley
asks why. “It was not his father’s death.” That was a matter of common grief. Nor
was it “the loss of the crown,” which is not even mentioned in the soliloquy. “It
was,” rather, “the moral shock of the sudden ghastly disclosure of his mother’s true
nature.” Hamlet is “forced to see in her action not only an astounding shallowness
of feeling but an eruption of coarse sensuality, ‘rank and gross,’ speeding post-haste
to its horrible delight.” The experience is “devastating,” producing “bewildered
horror, then loathing, then despair of human nature. His whole mind is poisoned”
(117-18).
On the level of the common idiom, Bradley’s description of Hamlet’s state
of mind, and the cause for that state, could not, I think, be bettered. Bradley takes
Hamlet’s own statements at face value, and Hamlet is, after all, overwhelmingly
the dominant voice in the play, the voice that most commands attention and respect.
Hamlet sees into the heart of his mother and uncle, quickly pins Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern to his display case of duplicitous courtiers, fools Polonius to the top
of his bent, and wins the admiration of Ophelia, the intimate regard of Horatio,
and the respect of Fortinbras. More, in his soliloquies, Hamlet displays a power of
meditative intelligence that remains a touchstone for most literate people. We can
guess around Hamlet, supposing that we know better than any intelligence embodied
in the play, but the play itself offers us no good alternative to his perspective, and
efforts to guess around Hamlet—in the various modern theoretical schools—have
on the whole made a poor showing. Part of Bradley’s wisdom and skill as a critic
derives from his good sense in knowing when to accept intentional meaning for
what it is worth. In the case of Hamlet, as the canonical status of the play attests,
it has a worth on which academic inventiveness is not likely to improve.
In revising Bradley’s interpretive thesis, then, I shall not be disputing his
diagnosis of Hamlet’s malady. I shall only be locating this diagnosis within a more
modern and more adequate explanatory context. Where I take issue with Bradley, I
Intentional Meaning in Hamlet: An Evolutionary Perspective 243

take issue precisely because, in formulating his interpretive thesis, he disconnects

the symbolic meaning of Hamlet from the specific character of the “pathological
condition” (125) he himself so astutely describes. Like Tooby and Cosmides,
Bradley thinks the play exemplifies “a tragic mystery inherent in human nature,”
but he does not locate that mystery in the context of human evolution. Instead, he
locates it in the context of idealist metaphysics—the “Schlegel-Coleridge type of
theory” (125):
Wherever this mystery touches us, wherever we are forced to feel the wonder and awe of
man’s godlike “apprehension” and his “thoughts that wander through eternity,” and at the
same time are forced to see him powerless (it would appear) from the very divinity of his
thought, we remember Hamlet. And this is the reason why, in the great ideal movement
which began towards the close of the eighteenth century, this tragedy acquired a position
unique among Shakespeare’s dramas, and shared only by Goethe’s Faust. . . . Hamlet most
brings home to us at once the sense of the soul’s infinity, and the sense of the doom which
not only circumscribes that infinity but appears to be its offspring. (126)

The essential character of “the great ideal movement” is that it ascribes a transcendent
power and significance to thought. The Absolute is Nous, transcendental Mind,
detached from all biological constraint, a universal presence, first cause and
unmoved mover. Accordingly, in this climactic formulation of his interpretive
thesis, Bradley forgets all about truant mothers and clinical depression and instead
becomes fixated on the “divinity of thought.” In some vague, mystical way, thought
is infinite but also, since it is the cause of all things, the cause of “doom.” Perhaps
Bradley means that because we can conceive infinity we are also aware of death,
but then, consciousness of death is not the chief source of Hamlet’s distress.
Indeed, he looks to death as a release from suffering. In any case, Bradley seems
to have in mind more than an awareness of death. He has disputed the Schlegel-
Coleridge argument that Hamlet is hampered from acting because he over-thinks
his possible options, but he still attributes Hamlet’s powerlessness to “the divinity
of his thought.” Dressed in Bradley’s skillful rhetoric, the juxtaposition of divinity,
helplessness, infinity, and doom is all mildly impressive, in an abstract, idealist
sort of way, but it would be hard to say what it means, and it fails to connect in
any concrete way to the particular circumstances of the play. Like the extraneous
theories of the postmodern era, it does less to illuminate the play than to articulate
its own preconceptions.
Bradley’s idealist interpretive thesis is out of harmony with his own best
insights. As he himself says, Hamlet’s problem is not just that he thinks too much.
His problem, first and most importantly, is “the moral shock of the sudden ghastly
disclosure of his mother’s true nature” (117). In echoing Hamlet at the end of The
244 Joseph Carroll

Descent of Man, Darwin gets the right relation between man’s god-like intellect
and his too, too solid flesh:
We must acknowledge, as it seems to me, that man with all his noble qualities, with sympathy
which feels for the most debased, with benevolence which extends not only to other men
but to the humblest living creature, with his god-like intellect which has penetrated into
the movements and constitution of the solar system—with all these exalted powers—Man
still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin. (2: 405)

Darwin echoes Hamlet’s diction and captures the very cadence of Hamlet’s speech
in his first conversation with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern:
What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how infinite in faculties, in form and
moving, how express and admirable in action, how like an angel in apprehension, how
like a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals; and yet to me, what is this
quintessence of dust? (II. ii. 303-08)

(For commentary on the web of allusions in the conclusion to Descent, see Carroll,
Evolution 256-58.) For both Hamlet and Darwin, the enigma here is not the self-
defeating character of an involuted, transcendental Reason, but rather the tension
between the mind, able to soar free in its inquiries, and the pull of the flesh. That
pull makes itself felt not just in mortality, the common doom, but in the thousand
shocks flesh is heir to. The one shock that does Hamlet the most damage is delivered
by his mother, but conflict is built into the very nature of life. Natural selection is a
struggle. More are born than can survive—that is an integral piece in the logic of
selection. In sexually reproducing species, males and females share fitness interests
but also have conflicting individual interests. Parents must make choices between
effort devoted to survival and to mating and effort devoted to parenting. Parents
and offspring share some fitness interests but in other interests diverge. The same
principle applies even to siblings; and it applies to all individuals who form parts
of social groups. We need not look to hermetic processes of thought to uncover
tragic mysteries in the human condition. Man’s lowly origin provides more than
sufficient material for conflict that can lead to tragic outcomes.

Attachment and Loss: An Evolutionary Perspective on the

Psycho-symbolic Significance of Mothers
Hamlet could have been a romantic comedy—we see the spoiled remnants of
a love story in Hamlet’s relation to Ophelia. Or it could have been a heroic tale
of princely valor, as in Henry V. Fortinbras, in his extemporaneous eulogy, says
that Hamlet “was likely, had he been put on, / To have prov’d most royal” (V. ii.
382-83). Of that too, we see only the spoiled remnants. From the first moment
we overhear Hamlet in his solitude, all such worldly concerns have faded into
Intentional Meaning in Hamlet: An Evolutionary Perspective 245

nothing for him. All normal motives and pursuits seem to him “weary, stale, flat,
and unprofitable” (I. ii. 133). His father’s murder, when he learns of it, enrages him,
but before he knows his father was murdered, he is already deeply disturbed, so
disturbed that he yearns for death. This is the psychological core of his condition.
If the play as a whole has large symbolic significance—and most assuredly it
does—the symbolic meaning must in some fashion spring from Hamlet’s relation
with his mother. That much the Freudian critics get right. Where they have gone
wrong is in following Freud’s false lead in supposing that all relations between
mothers and sons are neurotic (Daly and Wilson 107-21; Degler 245-69; Scalise-
Sugiyama, “New Science”). Hamlet wishing for death in his first soliloquy is not
Everyman articulating a universal human condition—a condition of illicit longing
and repressed impulses for incest. He is any man for whom the springs of feeling
have been fouled at their source.
In The Descent of Man, Darwin speculates that all positive social feelings
originate, phylogenetically and ontogenetically, in the bonding between mothers
and infants (1: 80). That insight lay dormant for a century until John Bowlby made
it the cornerstone in the modern evolutionary understanding of human emotional
development (Dissanayake; Easterlin). Bowlby adopts an ethological, evolutionary
perspective on mother-infant bonding and associates it with a crucial insight from
psychoanalytic theory: the formative influence of childhood experience on adult
life. The mother-infant relation is distinct from the sexual (Bowlby, 232), but it can
have a major impact on the quality of sexual relations later in life. If mothers are
absent, abusive, or emotionally detached, their children can have severe difficulty
in forming healthy affectional bonds in other relations, sexual or social, and in
performing effectively as parents when they have children of their own. Freudian
psychoanalysis has been attractive to literary critics in part because it gives
access, in however distorted a manner, to the continuity of emotional experience
in individual identity.
The evolutionary understanding of attachment has fundamentally altered the
false Freudian idea that there is no natural, healthy human condition. Healthy
bonding between mothers and infants is essential to emotional well-being. Failed
bonding or traumatic separation leads to emotional dysfunction and, in its most
severe forms, to psychiatric illness, especially to clinical depression (Bowlby;
Whybrow 246; Wolpert, 58-59, 89-90, 96, 148-49). Illness is defined precisely as
a deviation from a healthy, “normal” state. Hamlet says his wit is diseased, but
even more, his heart is diseased. One of the most important motifs in Hamlet is
a motif of disease: pestilence, contagion, infection, decay, filth, rot, sores, ulcers,
246 Joseph Carroll

cancers, foul odors, and rank fluids (Spurgeon, 10-14). If the play has symbolic
import beyond the literal plot—if it taps into deep forms of experience not limited
to the peculiar circumstances of a fratricidal uncle and a mother making a hasty
and degrading remarriage—that symbolic import consists largely in a condensed
representation of corruption in the emotional nucleus formed by the relation between
mother and child.

Hamlet’s Depression
Bradley’s description of Hamlet’s diseased mental state gives evidence that even a
hundred years ago depression was fairly well understood on the phenomenal level.
Bradley, at least, understands a good part of it, and he makes use of his insight
to give a cogent explanation for the one chief feature in Hamlet that has puzzled
critics for centuries—why Hamlet delays in killing Claudius:
[Melancholy] accounts for the main fact, Hamlet’s inaction. For the immediate cause of
that is simply that his habitual feeling is one of disgust at life and everything in it, himself
included,—a disgust which varies in intensity, rising at times into a longing for death,
sinking often into weary apathy, but is never dispelled for more than brief intervals. Such
a state of feeling is inevitably adverse to any kind of decided action; the body is inert, the
mind indifferent or worse; its response is, “it does not matter;” “it is not worth while,” “it
is no good.” (121)

This is half the story of depression—the “anhedonia” or absence of positive affect.

The other half of the story is the predominance of negative affect—anguish, horror,
and despair. Bradley absorbs that part of the story into his description of anhedonia.
In the modern neurobiological understanding of depression, this is a mistake. We
now know that emotion is not a unitary polarized phenomenon extending from
“bliss” at the positive pole to “despair” at the negative pole. The emotional circuits
regulating positive and negative emotions are in fact separate and distinct. In milder
forms of depression, one or the other circuit can be activated much more strongly
than the other. The “blahs,” a general sense of indifference and distaste, can occur
without any active sensation of anguish. Conversely, anxiety, guilt, and emotional
pain can occur independently of apathy. In the most severe forms of depression,
including the worst phases through which Hamlet suffers, the negative and positive
emotional circuits are both compromised.
By uncovering the causal mechanisms of depression, modern research has
confirmed one of Bradley’s chief insights—that depression is not a normal,
healthy reaction to adverse circumstances. It is “pathological,” a malfunction or
breakdown in an adaptive system, like diabetes, heart disease, or stroke (Kramer;
Phelps; Whybrow; Wolpert). The brain’s positive and negative emotional circuits
Intentional Meaning in Hamlet: An Evolutionary Perspective 247

function as a homeostatic system. This system (the “limbic” system) is designed to

respond to good things (elation) and to bad things (alarm, flight or fight), and then
to return eventually to normal. The depressed brain gets stuck in stress mode. It
fails to readjust. More specifically, danger or threat stimulates the hypothalamus
to produce a signal to the pituitary to send a signal to the adrenal glands, just
over the kidneys.  The adrenal glands secrete cortisol to produce fight or flight
reactions. Prolonged stress for vulnerable people results in a “stuck switch.” The
adrenal glands continue to pump out cortisol, damaging the brain, killing neurons,
shrinking the hippocampus, stressing other organs, and producing the typical
affects of depression. The neural circuits mediating positive emotionality—circuits
engaging the nucleus accumbens and activating the dopamine reward system in the
frontal cortex–shut down, producing anhedonia, and consequently a loss of motive
and interest. The neural circuits mediating negative emotionality—engaging the
amygdala and activating the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis–go into overtime,
producing chronic anxiety and anguish (Barondes; Casey; Davidson et al.; Gotlib
and Hammen; Kramer; Lam; Mondimore; Nierenberg, Doughtery, and Rosenbaum;
Phelps; Robinson; Solomon; Styron; van Praag, de Kloet, and van Os.; Whybrow;
Wolpert).
Shakespeare depicts in Hamlet a pathological condition—a mood disorder
that in our current culture would be treated with anti-depressant medication or
electroconvulsive therapy. The intuitive psychological power that Shakespeare
displays in depicting this condition is just one more piece of evidence supporting
the legitimacy of the canonical status he holds. He holds that status not because
he articulates patriarchal values or flatters British imperial pride, but for two
chief reasons: his extraordinary verbal genius and his penetrating psychological
insight.
But is Hamlet just a study in clinical depression? Bradley rightly raises this
question, and rightly gives a negative answer to it. “It would be absurdly unjust to
call Hamlet a study of melancholy,” though “it contains such a study” (120). What
makes the difference between a study of melancholy and Hamlet? The other parts
of Hamlet’s mind and personality—his intellect and character. “A slower and more
limited and positive mind might not have extended so widely through its world the
disgust and disbelief that have entered into it. But Hamlet has the imagination which,
for evil as well as good, feels and sees all things in one. Thought is the element of
his life, and his thought is infected” (119). Again, Hamlet is not Everyman. He is
one particular man, but a man with faculties that enable him to give his particular
condition the broadest representative scope, to generalize from his condition to the
248 Joseph Carroll

human condition, and thus to give a habitation and a name to a major phase of human
experience. Not all men and women have profoundly disturbed emotional relations
with their mothers; not all men and women fall into severe clinical depression. But
all men and women are vulnerable to those threats, and that vulnerability provides
the basis of common understanding that makes it possible for most readers to feel
with Hamlet, to empathize, to identify vicariously with his plight.

Analyzing Hamlet’s Personality: The Five-Factor Model

Critics of Hamlet have given many good impressionistic accounts of Hamlet’s
personality. Using research developed over the past few decades, we can now
systematize these common-language observations within an empirically established
set of categories. These categories converge naturally with the common idiom, and
indeed through one line of research they have derived directly from the common
idiom. The “lexical” approach to personality begins with combing dictionaries for
every term that has some reference to personality or temperament. The idea is that
if a feature is sufficiently important to affect social interactions, it will become
embedded in the common idiom. The categories that emerge from the lexical
approach can be correlated with our understanding of human life history and can
be causally linked with underlying neurobiological processes (A. Buss; D. Buss;
Costa and McCrae; John et al.; MacDonald, “Evolution, The Five Factor Model,”
“Life History”; Nettle, ”Individual Differences,” Personality; Pervin and John; Smits
and Boeck; Wiggins). By locating Hamlet’s personality within the current model of
personality, we can get a better sense of the relations among the specific features
of his personality, the circumstances of his life, and his emotional reactions. We
should thus be able to give a more complete and adequate account of the thematic
and tonal structure of the play to which Hamlet gives his name.
Personality researchers have reached consensus that within the Germanic
language group (English, Dutch, the Scandinavian languages, etc.) and other
language groups as well, there are five major factors of personality: Extraversion/
introversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Openness
to Experience. These five factors have emerged consistently from independent
research teams using diverse methodologies. Agreeableness signals a pleasant,
friendly disposition and a tendency to cooperate and compromise, versus a
tendency to be self-centered and inconsiderate. Extraversion signals assertive,
exuberant activity in the social world versus a tendency to be quiet, withdrawn and
disengaged. Conscientiousness refers to an inclination toward purposeful planning,
organization, persistence, and reliability, versus impulsivity, aimlessness, laziness,
and undependability. Emotional Stability reflects a temperament that is calm and
Intentional Meaning in Hamlet: An Evolutionary Perspective 249

relatively free from negative feelings, versus a temperament marked by extreme

emotional reactivity and persistent anxiety, anger, or depression. Openness to
Experience describes a dimension of personality that distinguishes open (imaginative,
intellectual, creative, complex) people from closed (down-to-earth, conventional,
simple) people.
When we speak of “human nature,” we focus first of all on “human universals,”
on cognitive and behavioural features that everyone shares. We typically use
personality, in contrast, to distinguish one person from another—for example, a
friendly, careless extravert in contrast to a cold, conscientious introvert. In reality,
personality factors are themselves human universals, integral parts of our common
human nature. Each of the five factors has a common substratum. Individuals
differ only in degree on each factor (Costa and McCrae; Nettle, Personality). The
underlying commonality in Extraversion/Introversion is the necessity to engage
in some way with an external environment—the “approach” part of the basic
“approach-avoidance” mechanism that links human reactive impulses with those
of every species, even amoebas. Agreeableness is a measure of affiliative sociality,
and since humans are social animals, most humans have some measure of affiliative
sociality. Conscientiousness is a measure of any given person’s disposition for
organizing, planning, and carrying through on the tasks of life. Locating present
action within a temporal continuum containing past and future is part of the
specifically human cognitive apparatus (Darwin, The Descent 1: 88-89). Without
some measure of conscientiousness, a person could not function at all. Emotional
Instability, sometimes labeled “neuroticism,” is a measure of emotional reactivity
in the range of negative affect (the “avoidance” half of the “approach-avoidance”
mechanism). Emotional reactivity varies in intensity from individual to individual,
but experiencing pain is normal and necessary. Without fear and sorrow, people
would have no means of registering dangers or feeling the sense of loss. The
ability to experience emotional pain, like the ability to experience physical pain,
is an indispensable adaptive trait. Openness to Experience registers curiosity and
a readiness to absorb experience of an imaginative, intellectual, and aesthetic
character. Our readiness for culture—our disposition for producing emotionally
charged symbolic forms—is the single most important feature of human nature
that distinguishes us as a species from all other species (Carroll, “An Evolutionary
Paradigm,” “Rejoinder,” Literary Darwinism 197-203; Deacon 21-22; Dissanayake,
Art; Dutton; Mithen; Panksepp and Panksepp; Tomasello et al.; Tooby and Cosmides;
Wade; E. O. Wilson).
250 Joseph Carroll

As Hazlitt, Bradley, and many others have recognized, Hamlet is both profoundly
introverted and intellectual. He thus has a naturally meditative personality. He
engages not directly with persons and situations but rather with his sense of them.
He is conscientious and thus tormented by his own inability to function effectively.
He is emotionally unstable, a trait that renders him particularly susceptible to
depression—to being overwhelmed by stress, unable to cope. As a depressive,
he is characteristically vacillating, indecisive, and ineffectual. In this respect, his
emotional instability converges with his introversion. He is at one remove from
direct action, and when it comes to action, indecisive. All of this is captured in
Goethe’s concise characterization in Wilhelm Meister’s Apprenticeship:
“A lovely, pure, noble, and most moral nature, without the strength of nerve which forms
a hero, sinks beneath a burden which it cannot bear and must not cast away. All duties
are holy for him; the present is too hard. Impossibilities have been required of him; not in
themselves impossibilities, but such for him. He winds, and turns, and torments himself;
he advances and recoils; is ever put in mind, ever puts himself in mind; at last does all but
lose his purpose from his thoughts; yet still without recovering his peace of mind.”
(282)

(Boyd gives a similarly concise verbal portrait of Hamlet’s personality [“Literature”

18].) There remains the question of Agreeableness. Is Hamlet a nice, warm,
friendly person? His admirers would like to think so. Hazlitt tries to palliate his
behavior to Ophelia. I think Samuel Johnson is closer to the truth in speaking of
Hamlet’s “useless and wanton cruelty” to Ophelia (1011). And it isn’t just Ophelia,
embodiment of frail womanhood. More often than not, Hamlet is verbally caustic.
He finds his vocation in witty put-downs. He delights in mocking Polonius, even
after he has killed him. He sends Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to their deaths
with no flicker of remorse or sadness. Quite the contrary, he exults in the success
of his cunning stratagem. He tells Gertrude that he must be cruel only to be kind,
but such rationalizations are common. Children readily detect the hypocrisy that
so frequently lurks behind the phrase, “It’s for your own good.” Add all this up,
and it seems unlikely that Hamlet would score even at the average on the factor
“Agreeableness.”
Protagonists tend to be agreeable, since readers do not readily cotton to
disagreeable characters. But Hamlet never quite loses his audience, even when
they flinch from his cruelty. There are at least five reasons for this. First, he is,
after all, mightily put upon, struggling against crime and depravity that dwarf mere
unpleasantness. Second, he pre-empts readers’ resentment by being as brutally
hateful to himself as he is to others. If in his accounting Ophelia is Representative
Woman, fickle and false, Hamlet is himself Representative Man, “proud, revengeful,
Intentional Meaning in Hamlet: An Evolutionary Perspective 251

ambitious” (III. i. 122). Third, he is a satirist as well as a protagonist. He entices the

audience to participate with him in exposing folly, wickedness, deceit, debauchery,
treachery, venality, sycophancy, and foppishness. He is not merely depressed. He is
angry, and because he is also driven to disguise, his anger finds vent in satirical wit.
Hamlet is not a “tragi-comedy,” precisely, but it is a very funny tragedy. Ophelia fails
to see the humor in her father’s death, but most readers are irresistibly entertained
by the patter of wicked puns that follow the good old man to his dinner, not where
he eats but where he is eaten. Fourth, Hamlet never succumbs to mere egoism or
cynicism. He is capable of filial affection, admiring friendship, and romantic love.
And finally, perhaps most importantly, Hamlet’s relations to other individuals are
almost incidental to his central motive—to articulate his own imaginative sense
of his situation. The high moments in Hamlet, the moments most remembered,
are the soliloquies. Even in his tirade against Ophelia, she is scarcely more than
a prop, an occasion for a monologue denouncing human nature. His one bosom
friend, Horatio, is merely a sounding board for Hamlet’s reflections. Hamlet speaks
to himself, and we but overhear him.
Early evolutionary psychology deprecated the significance of individual
differences and focused exclusively on human universals. This was a serious
theoretical mistake (Carroll, Literary Darwinism 190-91, 200, 206; MacDonald,
“A Perspective”; Nettle, “Individual Differences”). Moreover, it lends support to
the false charge that literary Darwinism cannot cope with individual texts because
evolutionary psychology concerns itself only with human universals (Deresiewicz;
Smee). Individual variation is integral to the evolutionary process, and differences
of personality allow individuals to occupy different niches within variable social
ecologies (Harris; Nettle, Personality; Sulloway). Hamlet occupies a niche in
the literary canon in good part because Hamlet’s personality makes it possible
for him to define a range of emotion—morbid, unhappy, bitter, angry, resentful,
contemptuous, disgusted—that touches powerfully responsive chords in his
audience. He articulates his condition as a general human condition, and while that
representation is not the whole truth, it is enough of the truth to fix our attention
and win our grave approval.

Just How Universal Is Hamlet?

Tooby and Cosmides are right, I think, in declaring that Hamlet’s condition
symbolizes an evolutionarily ancient adaptive problem: “the struggle for coherence
and sanity amidst radical uncertainty” (19). The way that problem manifests itself,
though, depends very much on cultural, historical circumstance. Hamlet could not
have existed either in Periclean Athens or in medieval Europe. His mind roams
252 Joseph Carroll

free over the whole scope of human experience, probing all questions, finding
no clear answers, no firm structure of belief and value. Oedipus, in contrast, is
always certain—first of his own rectitude, and then of his guilt. Socrates questions
everyone else’s beliefs and values, but Plato has the ideals of The Republic always
comfortably in reserve for himself. Dante’s inferno has its precise hierarchy of
guilt and torment. Hamlet is different. Matthew Arnold registers this difference in
describing Hamlet as a truly “modern” figure. In the 1853 Preface to his Poems,
Arnold explains why he has not included in the volume his one most ambitious poem,
the closet drama Empedocles on Etna. Though wearing ancient garb, Empedocles is
a voice of Arnold’s own time, expressing all the doubts and perplexities—religious,
philosophical, moral, and social—that characterize the intellectual life of the
Victorian period (Carroll, The Cultural Theory 1-37).
What those who are familiar only with the great monuments of early Greek genius sup-
pose to be its exclusive characteristics have disappeared: the calm, the cheerfulness, the
disinterested objectivity have disappeared; the dialogue of the mind with itself has com-
menced; modern problems have presented themselves; we hear already the doubts, we
witness the discouragement, of Hamlet and of Faust. (1)

Doubt and discouragement do not first appear in human experience in the 17th
century, much less the 19th, but there is no age before the Elizabethan in which
doubt and discouragement achieve a supreme form of articulation, and no age
before the Victorian in which they come to dominate the imaginative life of a whole
culture. The three great philosophical poems of the Victorian period, Tennyson’s
In Memoriam, Arnold’s Empedocles, and Browning’s Bishop Blougram’s Apology,
are all meditations on religious and philosophical doubt, and to this canon one
can add, as an appendix, Carlyle’s Sartor Resartus, the collected poems of Arthur
Hugh Clough, and Pater’s Marius the Epicurean. In the postmodern period, we
have stopped tormenting ourselves, for the most part, with religious doubt—not
because we have solved the problems with which the Victorians struggled, but
because we have given up on them and have resigned ourselves to the existential
conditions they still hoped to avoid. The descendants of Hamlet in the modern
period are works such as The Waste Land, Long Day’s Journey into Night, Waiting
for Godot, La Nausée, The Seventh Seal, and Crow.
One can hardly imagine what Sophocles or Dante would have made of Hamlet,
or even what Chaucer would have made of it. We have made of it one of our very
few most essential texts. We have taken it to heart and made it an anthem for our
own imaginative lives. By assimilating the insights of the humanist tradition to an
evolutionary understanding of human nature, we can now gain a better understanding
of what that choice means.
Intentional Meaning in Hamlet: An Evolutionary Perspective 253

Hamlet is a long, magnificently articulated cry of emotional pain and moral

indignation. Mortally hurt in his inmost feelings, Hamlet clings to an imaginative
ideal of courage, honor, dignity, and chivalrous love. That ideal is embodied in a
ghost—“such a questionable shape” (I. iv. 44)—and that shape is almost all that
stands between Hamlet and an actual world given over to bestial indulgence, false
shows, treachery, and foolishness. He is slow to act, and when he does act, he brings
cataclysmic ruin to himself and most of those who are closest to him. And yet, he
is not a failure. He learns to look at death with clear and open eyes, accepting the
frailty and transience of life. He is sensitive enough to register our worst fears in
our most vulnerable moments and still in his own person give unmistakable proofs
for the nobility of the human mind.
If this is not a tragedy for all times and seasons—not the kind of thing that
would fulfill the deepest imaginative needs of Sophocles, Dante, or the Tiv—it
nonetheless fulfills a tragic potential originating in the basic features of human
nature. Perhaps at some point, possibly centuries from now, we shall no longer
regard Hamlet as one of the voices that speak most intimately to us, probing our
fears, winning our fervent sympathy, voicing our outrage, making us laugh, and
giving us an unsurpassed standard of meditative power. If that ever happens, we
shall know that we have truly entered into yet another phase in the development
of the human imagination.

Works Cited
Adelman, Janet. Suffocating Mothers: Fantasies of Maternal Origin in Shakespeare’s
Plays, “Hamlet” to “The Tempest.” New York: Routledge: 1992.

Andrews, Alice, and Joseph Carroll, eds. The Evolutionary Review: Art, Science,
Culture 1 (forthcoming).

Arnold, Matthew. On The Classical Tradition. Vol. 1. The Complete Prose Works
of Matthew Arnold. Ed. R. H. Super. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P, 1960.

Barondes, Samuel H. Better than Prozac: Creating the Next Generation of Psychiatric
Drugs. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2003.

Baumeister, Roy F. The Cultural Animal: Human Nature, Meaning, and Social
Life. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2005.

Boehm, Christopher. Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior.

Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1999.
254 Joseph Carroll

Bohannan, Laura. “Shakespeare in the Bush.” Natural History 75 Aug.-Sept.

(1966): 28-33.

Bowlby, John. Attachment and Loss. Vol. 1, Attachment, 2nd ed. New York: Basic
Books, 1982.

Boyd, Brian. “Literature and Evolution: A Bio-Cultural Approach.” Philosophy

and Literature 29 (2005): 1-23.

——. On the Origin of Stories: Evolution, Cognition, and Fiction. Cambridge:

Harvard UP, 2009.

——, Joseph Carroll, and Jonathan Gottschall. Evolution, Literature, and Film: A
Reader. New York: Columbia UP, forthcoming.

Bradley, A. C. Shakespearean Tragedy: Lectures on “Hamlet,”” Othello,” “King

Lear,” and “Macbeth.” 1904. London: Penguin, 1991.

Bristol, Michael. “Funeral-Bak’d Meats”: Carnival and the Carnivalesque in

Hamlet.” William Shakespeare: “Hamlet.” Ed. Susanne L. Wofford. Boston:
St. Martin’s P, 1994. 348-67.

Buss, Arnold. “Evolutionary Perspectives on Personality Traits.” Handbook of

Personality Psychology. Ed. Robert Hogan, John Johnson, and Stephen Briggs.
San Diego: Academic P, 1997. 346-66.

Buss, David. “Social Adaptation and Five Major Factors of Personality.” Wiggins
180-207.

Carroll, Joseph. “An Evolutionary Paradigm for Literary Study.” Style 42 (2008):
103-35.

——. Evolution and Literary Theory. Columbia: U of Missouri P, 1995.

——. Literary Darwinism: Evolution, Human Nature, and Literature. New York:
Routledge, 2004.

——. “Rejoinder to the Responses,” Style 42 (2008): 308-411.

——. The Cultural Theory of Matthew Arnold. Berkeley: U of California P,

1982.

Casey, Nell, ed. Unholy Ghost: Writers on DePion. New York: HarperCollins,
2002.
Intentional Meaning in Hamlet: An Evolutionary Perspective 255

Costa, Paul T., Jr., and Robert R. McCrae. “Personality Trait Structure as a Human
Universal.” American Psychologist 52 (1997): 509-16.

Crews, Frederick. “Apriorism for Empiricists.” Style 42 (2008):155-60.

Daly, Martin, and Margo Wilson. Homicide. New York: Aldine, 1988.

Darwin, Charles. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. 1871. Ed.
John Tyler Bonner and Robert M. May. 2 Vols. in 1. Princeton: Princeton UP,
1981.

Davidson, Richard J., Diego Pizzagalli, Jack B. Nitschke, and Katherine Putnam.
“DePion: Perspectives from Affective Neuroscience.” Annual Review of
Psychology 53 (2002): 545-74.

Deacon, Terrence W. The Symbolic Species: The Co-Evolution of Language and

the Brain. New York: Norton, 1997.

Degler, Carl N. In Search of Human Nature: The Decline and Revival of Darwinism
in American Social Thought. New York: Oxford UP, 1991.

Deresiewicz, William. “Adaptation: On Literary Darwinism.” The Nation June 8,

2009: 26-31.

Dissanayake, Ellen. Art and Intimacy: How the Arts Began. Seattle: U of Washington
P, 2000.

Dunbar, Robin E. M., and Louise Barrett, eds. Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary
Psychology. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2007.
Dutton, Denis The Art Instinct: Beauty, Pleasure, and Human Evolution. New
York, Bloomsbury, 2009.

Easterlin, Nancy. “Psychoanalysis and the ‘Discipline of Love.’” Philosophy and

Literature 24 (2000): 261-79.

Flinn, Mark V., David C. Geary, and Carol V. Ward. “Ecological Dominance,
Social Competition, and Coalitionary Arms Races: Why Humans Evolved
Extraordinary Intelligence.” Evolution and Human Behavior 26 (2005): 10-
46.

Garber, Marjorie. Shakespeare’s Ghost Writers: Literature as Uncanny Causality.

New York: Methuen, 1987.
256 Joseph Carroll

Geary, David C. The Origin of Mind: Evolution of Brain, Cognition, and General
Intelligence. Washington, D. C.: APA, 2005.

Goethe, Johann Wilhelm von. Wilhelm Meister’s Apprenticeship and Travels. Trans.
Thomas Carlyle. Vol. 23. The Works of Thomas Carlyle. London: Chapman
and Hall, 1899.
Goodheart, Eugene. “Do We Need Literary Darwinism?” Style 42 (2008): 181-
85.

Gotlib, Ian H., and Constance L. Hammen, eds. Handbook of DePion. 2nd ed. New
York: Guilford, 2009.

Gottschall, Jonathan, and David Sloan Wilson, eds. The Literary Animal: Evolution
and the Nature of Narrative. Evanston: Northwestern UP, 2005.

Harris, Judith Rich. No Two Alike: Human Nature and Human Individuality. New
York: Norton, 2007.

Hazlitt, William. Characters of Shakespeare’s Plays. 1817. London: Oxford UP,

1955.

Headlam Wells, Robin. Shakespeare’s Humanism. Cambridge: Cambridge UP,

2005.

Hill, Kim. “Evolutionary Biology, Cognitive Adaptations, and Human Culture.” The
, Evolution of Mind: Fundamental Questions and Controversies. Ed. Steven W.
Gangestad and Jeffry A. Simpson. New York: Guilford, 2007. 348-56.

---, and Hillard Kaplan. “Life History Traits in Humans: Theory and Empirical
Studies.” Annual Review of Anthropology 28 (1999): 397-430.

Jameson, Fredric. Postmodernism, or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism.

Durham: Duke UP, 1991.

John, Oliver P., Alois Angleitner, and Fritz Ostendorf. “The Lexical Approach to
Personality: A Historical Review of Trait Taxonomic Research.” European
Journal of Personality 2 (1988): 171-203.

Johnson, Samuel. Johnson on Shakespeare. Ed. Arthur Sherbo. Vol. 8. The Yale
Edition of the Works of Samuel Johnson. New Haven: Yale UP, 1968.

Jones, Ernest. Hamlet and Oedipus. 1949. New York: Norton, 1976.
Intentional Meaning in Hamlet: An Evolutionary Perspective 257

Kaplan, Hillard, Kim Hill, Jane Lancaster, and A. Magdalena Hurtado. “A Theory of
Human Life History Evolution: Diet, Intelligence, and Longevity.” Evolutionary
Anthropology 9 (2000): 156-85.

Knapp, John V. “Family Games and Imbroglio in Hamlet.” Reading the Family
Dance: Family Systems Therapy and Literary Study. Ed. John V. Knapp and
Kenneth Womack. Newark: U of Delaware P, 2003. 194-220.

——. Knapp, John V. “Family-Systems Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Literary

Criticism: A Comparative Critique.” Mosaic 37.1 (2004): 149-66.

Kramer, Peter D. Against DePion. New York: Viking, 2005.

Lacan, Jacques. “Desire and the Interpretation of Desire in Hamlet.”’ Yale French
Studies 55/56 (1977): 11-52.

Lam, Raymond W., and Hiram Mok. DePion. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008.

Low, Bobbi S. “The Evolution of Human Life Histories.” Handbook of Evolutionary

Psychology: Ideas, Issues, Applications. Ed. Charles Crawford and Dennis L.
Krebs. Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum, 1998. 131-61.

——. Why Sex Matters: A Darwinian Look at Human Behavior. Princeton: Princeton
UP, 2000.

Lummaa, Virpi. “Life-History Theory, Reproduction, and Longevity in Humans.”

Dunbar and Barrett 397-413.

MacDonald, Kevin B. “A Perspective on Darwinian Psychology: The Importance of

Domain-General Mechanisms, Plasticity, and Individual Differences. Ethology
and Sociobiology 12 (1990): 449-480

——. “Evolution, Psychology, and a Conflict Theory of Culture.” Evolutionary

Psychology 7 (2009): 208-33.

——. “Evolution, the Five-factor Model, and Levels of Personality.” Journal of

Personality 63 (1995): 525-567.

——. “Life History Theory and Human Reproductive Behavior: Environmental/

Contextual Influences and Heritable Variation.” Human Behavior 8 (1997):
327-359.

Mellard, James M. “’No ideas but in things’: Fiction, Criticism, and the New
Darwinism.” Style 41 (2007): 1-29.
258 Joseph Carroll

Mithen, Steven. The Prehistory of the Mind: The Cognitive Origins of Art, Religion,
and Science. London: Thames and Hudson, 1996.

Mondimore, Francis Mark. DePion: The Mood Disease. 3rd ed. Batimore: The
Johns Hopkins UP, 2006.

Neill, Michael. “Hamlet: A Modern Perspective.” In William Shakespeare: The

Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. Ed. Barbara A. Mowat and Paul
Werstine. New York: Washington Square P, 1992. 311-12.

Nettle, Daniel. Nettle, D. “Individual Differences.” Dunbar and Barrett 479-90.

——. Personality: What Makes You the Way You Are. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2007.

——. “What Happens in Hamlet? Exploring the Psychological Foundations of

Drama.” Gottschall and Wilson 56-75.

Nierenberg, A. A., D. Doughtery, and J. F. Rosenbaum. “Dopaminergic Agents

and Stimulants as AntidePant Augmentation Strategies. Journal of Clinical
Psychiatry 59, supplement 5 (1998): 60-63.

Nordlund, Marcus. Shakespeare and the Nature of Love: Literature, Culture,

Evolution. Evanston: Northwestern UP, 2007.

Panksepp, Jaak, and Jules B. Panksepp. “The Seven Sins of Evolutionary

Psychology.” Evolution and Cognition 6 (2000): 108-31.

Pervin, Lawrence A., and Oliver P. John, eds. Handbook of Personality. 2nd ed.
New York: Guilford, 1999.
Phelps, Jim. Why Am I Still DePed? Recognizing and Managing the Ups and Downs
of Bipolar II and Soft Bipolar Disorder. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2006.

Pinker, Steven. “Toward a Consilient Study of Literature.” Philosophy and Literature

31 (2007): 162-78.

Praag, Herman M. van, Ron de Kloet, and Jim van Os. Stress, the Brain, and
DePion. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2004.

Richerson, Peter J., and Richard Boyd. Not by Genes Alone: How Culture
Transformed Human Evolution. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2005.

Robinson, Donald S. “The Role of Dopamine and Norepinephrine in DePion.”

Primary Psychiatry 14, 5 (2007): 21-23.
Intentional Meaning in Hamlet: An Evolutionary Perspective 259

Scalise Sugiyama, Michelle. “Cultural Variation Is Part of Human Nature: Literary

Universals, Context-Sensitivity, and ‘Shakespeare in the Bush.’” Human Nature
14 (2003): 383-96.

——. “New Science, Old Myth: An Evolutionary Critique of the Oedipal Paradigm.”
Mosaic 34 (2001): 121-36.

Seamon, Roger. “Literary Darwinism as Science and Myth.” Style 42 (2008):

261-65.

Shakespeare, William. The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. Ed. Frank

Kermode. The Riverside Shakespeare, 2nd. ed. Ed. G. Blakemore Evans, et al.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1997. 1182-1245.

Slingerland, Edward. “Good and Bad Reductionism: Acknowledging the Power of

Culture.” Style 42 (2008): 266-71.

Smee, Sebastian. “Natural-Born Thrillers.” The Australian Literary Review May

6, 2009: 17.

Smits, Dirk J. M., and Paul de Boeck. “From BIS/BAS to the Big Five.” European
Journal of Personality 20 (2006): 255-270.

Solomon, Andrew. The Noonday Demon: An Atlas of DePion. New York: Scribner,
2001.

Spolsky, Ellen. “The Centrality of the Exceptional in Literary Darwinism.” Style

42 (2008): 285-89.
Spurgeon, Caroline. Leading Motives in the Imagery of Shakespeare’s Tragedies.
London: Oxford UP, 1930.

Storey, Robert. Mimesis and the Human Animal: On the Biogenetic Foundations
of Literary Representation. Evanston, IL: Northwestern UP, 1996.

Styron, William. Darkness Visible: A Memoir of Madness. New York: Random

House, 1990.

Sulloway, Frank J. Born to Rebel: Birth Order, Family Dynamics, and Creative
Lives. New York: Pantheon, 1996.

Tomasello, Michael et al. “Understanding and Sharing Intentions: The Origins of

Cultural Cognition.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (2005): 675-735.
260 Joseph Carroll

Tooby, John, and Leda Cosmides. “Does Beauty Build Adapted Minds? Toward
an Evolutionary Theory of Aesthetics, Fiction, and the Arts.” SubStance 30
(2001): 6-27.

Vermeule, Blakey. “Response to Joseph Carroll.” Style 42 (2008): 302-08.

Wade, Nicholas. Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors.
New York: Penguin, 2006.

Whybrow, Peter C. A Mood Apart: DePion, Mania, and Other Afflictions of the
Self. New York: Basic Books, 1997.

Wiggins, Jerry S. ed. The Five-Factor Model of Personality: Theoretical Perspectives.

New York: Guilford, 1996.

Wilson, David Sloan. Evolution for Everyone. How Darwin’s Theory Can Change
the Way We Think about Our Lives. New York: Delacorte, 2007.

Wilson, J. Dover. What Happens in Hamlet? Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1935.

Wilson, Edward O. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. New York: Knopf,

1998.

Wolpert, Lewis. Malignant Sadness: The Anatomy of DePion. 3rd ed. London:
Faber and Faber, 2006.