University of Southern Mississippi

Ophelia's Empathic Function

Author(s): C. R. Resetarits
Source: Mississippi Review, Vol. 29, No. 3, The Hamlet Issue (Summer, 2001), pp. 215-217
Published by: University of Southern Mississippi
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20132191
Accessed: 10/01/2010 12:58

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=usm.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Southern Mississippi is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Mississippi Review.

http://www.jstor.org
 C. R. RESETARITS

EMPATIIC
OPHELIA'S FuNCTION

The majority of critics have viewed Ophelia as aweak character, in

both form and function, and many have dismissed her as a woman
who, to follow the path laid by Coleridge and Tammy Wynette, could
not stand by herman. Even in themore detailed studies ofOphelia, she
has been consistently viewed as the least complex of the principal
characters of Hamlet, the least useful. Some critics have seen Ophelia's
flatness as a flaw in Shakespeare's design; more have discussed
Ophelia's character as an ambiguous rewriting of the earlierOphelias
of Thomas Kyd and Francois de Belleforest. Whether delineated as a
sweet innocent being torn apart by the rottenness of Denmark or her
own awakening sexuality, Ophelia's metamorphosis has been viewed
as littlemore than an isolated adolescent complex; her actions have not
been related to any forward movement of the plot, except, perhaps,
inasmuch as they further inciteLaertes. The attitude has too often been
one of romantic, and sexist, condescension, and most studies have
quickly turned toOphelia's flowers, madness, death, or nymphoma
niac tendencies rather than trying to understand her unique character
and how itmight function in the play.
There have, however, been a few outstanding exceptions Joan
Larson Klein's essay "Angels andMinisters of Grace" comes tomind),
and these tend to describe Ophelia as a portal of sorts throughwhich
Shakespeare works to hook into or intensify the audience's emotional
response.
Recently, afterwatching an old Star Trekcalled "TheEmpath" (for
clarity, this was the original Star Trek, or Ur-Trek) in which a young

The Hamlet Issue, Summer 2001 - 215

mute empath absorbs the pains of a damaged Doctor McCoy, the
Ophelia question came once again to mind. This Trekensian empath
struckme as very Opheliaesque, and hurrying then to reread Hamlet,
I found Ophelia somuch more tangible as I stopped looking at her as
a mental washrag and started seeing her as an emotional sponge.
Ophelia stood out to me, stood out singularly and solidly, as an
empath-a person highly receptive to the emotions of others, who
actually functions as a receptacle of those emotions. In Hamlet she
functions in this capacity not only forplaywright and audience but also
within the play for the other characters.
In every scene in which she appears, Ophelia is the receiver of
seemingly unending verbiage, sometimes advice, sometimes instruc
tion, sometimes abuse. But each time she takes in, absorbing and/or
mirroring, the emotions behind the speech of others and gives back not
more verbiage but a barometric reading of emotional concerns. Inher
first scene with Laertes and Polonius (1.3), of the one hundred thirty
six lines, Ophelia speaks only eighteen, many of which are only brief,
partial (nearly mute?) replies. Immediately after Laertes's exit, for
example, Polonius begins a speech on the dangers ofHamlet's tenders,
in the midst of which Ophelia says: "I do not know, my lord, what I
should think" (1.3.104). This brief exclamation gives insight into
Ophelia's whole personality. She isHamlet's emotional antithesis, not
overthinking but overfeeling: she waits for the emotions of others to
flow through her and then she responds. After Polonius finishes his
fatherly lecture,Ophelia answers simply that she will obey; she will
respond.
Inher role as listener and receiver,Ophelia is closely linkedwith the
audience in her first scene and throughout the play until her bursting
madness and death. Often, she merely stands onstage, and like the
audience, watches the actors play to her. This early role as observer in
the play creates a link between Ophelia and the audience that
Shakespeare then exploits during her mad scenes to heighten the
audience's own empathic involvement.
When, later in the play, Ophelia returns to Polonius to report
Hamlet's strange behavior in her closet, Shakespeare once again gives
us a clue as to the function of Ophelia:

Oph. To speak of horrors-he comes before me.

Pol. Mad for thy love?

216 ~Mississippi Review

 Oph. My lord, I do not know,
But truly I do fear it.
(2.1.81-83)

Ophelia doesn't think, she feels-a hypersensitive intuition, per

haps. She is as limited asHamlet, responding toomuch emotionally as
Hamlet responds toomuch intellectually, and she not only feels the
madness which threatensHamlet, she empathically takes iton.Hamlet
may not have been able (within the confines of his own personality, the
time, or the play) to degenerate into amad, wanton child, but Ophelia
provides everyone an empathic reflection of the soul caught inside a
whirlwind of words. Coleridge and Ms. Wynette might fault her for
not standing by her man, but I must admire her for standing,
empathically, and even more corporeally, in his stead.

The Hamlet Issue, Summer 2001 ~217