This article argues that Hamlet’s tragedy shows the idiosyncratic intervention of the law in the creation of human subjectivity, an intervention that relies on the agency of a (dead) father to regulate the subject’s desire. Hamlet’s tragedy, it suggests, is characteristically modern not because Hamlet unconsciously desired to do what Oedipus consciously did, but because of the added ingredient of Hamlet’s, and of the father’s, knowledge: Hamlet not only knows of the father’s death, he also knows that the father knows. In Hamlet the prior father, the father of Totem and Taboo, is reincarnated in the person of Claudius so the ‘progress’ from Oedipus to Hamlet, is from tragedy to obscenity. The Crown as phallus is called upon to conceal the obscenity but Hamlet, like any good analyst, plays and displays language to reveal the rotten crime at the heart of the State of Denmark and of the Law.

中文翻译：

---

成为或不成为（死去的）父亲

本文认为，哈姆雷特的悲剧显示了法律对人类主体性创造的特殊干预，这种干预依赖于（已故）父亲的代理来调节主体的欲望。它表明，哈姆雷特的悲剧具有现代特征，不是因为哈姆雷特无意识地想要做俄狄浦斯有意识的事情，而是因为哈姆雷特和父亲的知识的附加成分：哈姆雷特不仅知道父亲的死，他还知道父亲知道。在《哈姆雷特》中，先祖，图腾与禁忌之父，转世为克劳狄，所以从俄狄浦斯到哈姆雷特的“进程”，是从悲剧到淫秽。作为阴茎的王冠被要求掩盖淫秽，但哈姆雷特像任何优秀的分析师一样，