Explore Shakespeares presentation of madness in "Hamlet".

by jhvjhjvecomuscouk (student)

Explore Shakespeare’s presentation of Madness

Shakespeare’s ambiguous presentation of madness is not only masterful but it is also in tune with Elizabethan obsessions of melancholy. He purposefully leaves the nature of Hamlet’s insanity and the cause of Ophelia’s madness open-ended. Shakespeare also cleverly uses madness as a conceit to explore Ophelia’s position in a patriarchal society as existed in late 16th century England.

Shakespeare portrays Hamlet in such a way that it would be perfectly reasonable to suggest that he is in fact genuinely mad. Indeed, based on purely physical observations this would be the rational conclusion. Such explains the position of the majority of physicians who have studied Hamlet’s personality; Dr Ray, Dr Connoly and Dr Kellogg all unanimously proclaim that Hamlet is mad. Indeed, such an interpretation is supported by Hamlet’s appearance (“unbraced, fouled, ungarter’d”) and his incoherent ramblings. For instance, Hamlet shows evidence of a quasi-schizophrenic disorder when he refers to himself in the third person – “his madness is poor Hamlet’s enemy”. The use of the 3rd person register is used to suggest Hamlet’s divided self and, as Graham Bradshaw claims, evidence of an “unhinged” mind. However, I would argue that such a reading is untenable. Alison Findlay argues that Hamlet uses a “verbal and theatrical metalanguage with which to construct” his own “insanity”. In light of this interpretation, the 3rd person references actually represent his control over his language and thus his sanity; he just uses these references to convince Laertes and Claudius of his madness. Hamlet’s objective is just to “put on an antic disposition”. This proleptic declarative statement informs the audience of his intentions, allowing Shakespeare to create dramatic irony when Hamlet calls Polonius a “fishmonger” – the audience, unlike Polonius, are able to see the latent barbed insult underneath the façade of madness. The euphemism would have appealed to Elizabethan audiences who would have understood the dual meaning (it also means a brothel keeper). Thus, Hamlet is accusing Polonius of using his own daughter to serve his own needs. Such rhetorical dexterity is clearly indicative of a rational mind. In this way, Shakespeare uses madness as a disguise allowing one to express their true opinions. As Maynard Mack argues, Hamlet is “privileged in madness to say things” that courtly propriety would have forbidden in Elizabethan political circles, thus madness gives Hamlet a “licence” to speak his mind releasing him from societal standards. Furthermore, it seems likely that Hamlet is “essentially not in madness/ but mad in craft” when considering the tradition of a revenge tragedy. Such feigned madness is in conformity with old runic rhymes of Norsemen, ‘Amlodi’ referred to those considered to be fools due to their insanity. Furthermore, Titus in Titus Andronicus also feigned madness to carry out his plan without arousing suspicion. In light of the literary context, it seems even more likely that Hamlet is sane. Similarly, Elizabethan society, as Hamlet experienced when he was exiled, ostracised such mad people, as Mack explains they would have been “dismissed as insane”. Thus madness is just a front to cover his revenge. Indeed, Eduard Dowden perceptively comments that “from the safe vantage of unintelligibility Hamlet can…utter his whole mind”. Hamlet’s indication of sanity is emphasised by his self-diagnosis of his madness when he pleads for Laertes’ forgiveness. He states “give me your pardon, sir…as you are a gentleman…you must needs have heard, how I am punish’d/ with sore distraction”. The deferential title address “sir” along with the sycophantic subordinate clause “as you are a gentleman” and the recognition of his own madness all indicates a rational mind. Shakespeare subtly indicates to the reader that Hamlet is just feigning his madness.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Furthermore, Shakespeare uses shifts in dramatic verse to highlight that Hamlet is not truly mad. Shakespeare alternates between blank verse and prose to demonstrate Hamlet’s psychological complexity. Hamlet uses blank verse when he is sane (such as when he talks to Horatio (and Gertrude – perhaps suggesting that Hamlet believes she is not complicit in his father’s murder), and switches to prose when he is “put[ting] on an antic disposition” (such as when he converses with Claudius) as Elizabethans thought that in madness one would not be able to understand the finer aspects of metre, namely iambic pentameter. This is most obviously highlighted through the juxtaposition of the letters to Horatio and Claudius. To Horatio, in blank verse, he explains that “pirates” helped him, using enjambment suggesting logical, free-flowing thought. Whilst, to Claudius he uses prose and caesuras, as well as inconsistent words, “naked”, to create an disjointed illusion of madness. Indeed, as Mack says, madness is “dramatically useful” in displaying the psychological complexities of Shakespeare’s characters, yet, the divided presentation of madness also reflects prevailing Elizabethan obsessions about melancholy and madness (Carol Thomas Neely). However, to attempt to call Hamlet mad is wrong, “a definition of insanity that includes Hamlet would sweep at least three fourths of man into the madhouse” (D. J. Snider). Hamlet’s “crafty madness” is rather just an overabundance in logical philosophy reflecting his “scholar[ly]” nature. When Polonius asks “what do you read” he replies “words, words, words”. Whilst on the surface a mad response, the tricolon of repetition is actually just a symbol of logic. As T. L. Davis argues, “what could be more reasonable… and what could tend less to encourage further conversation?” Furthermore, when Polonius says, “If you call me Jeptha, my lord, I have a daughter”, Hamlet astutely responds “nay, that follows not” – whether Polonius is Jeptha or whether he has a daughter is “logically independent” (Davis) – Hamlet remains, even in his madness, scholarly, alert and rational. This clearly disproves W. S. Gilbert’s view that “Hamlet is idiotically sane with lucid intervals of lunacy”. However, despite this it would be too extreme to argue, as Claude Williamson does, that “Hamlet is never mad…I can only express astonishment that any different view should have crept into criticism”. Hamlet certainly appears mad, as any Elizabethan physician could tell you, and his ramblings are far from conversational sanity – he is “not far from insanity” (A. C. Bradley). In a sense, Hamlet was mad, he was too intellectual, too logical – “he used the principle of logic excessively” (Davis), in this way Hamlet’s “maddest moments seem to have been when he is the coolest and most sane” (Davis) – “Though this be madness, yet there is method/ in ‘t”. Hamlet is sane it seems, yet he definitely skirts with insanity.

Hamlet’s madness will ultimately remain a mystery for we will never know what he was like before. Just as the critics are divided now, so was the court at Elsinore, Gertrude believed the madness, yet Claudius thought he “put on this confusion” (he says Hamlet is mad as he “needs an excuse to get rid of him” (Bradshaw)). Yet, “for Shakespeare, anyhow, uncertainty is the point” (Kastan). This seems true; the very fact that we are divided speaks to the genius of Shakespeare. His symptomatic description is so accurate that “a real madman could not enact the character more perfectly” (Simon Augustine Blackmore). Shakespeare’s skill in this stems from his own experiences, he live on Muggleton Street opposite a medical college near a lunatic asylum. It has even been suggested that Hamlet’s madness reflects that of Robert Devereux, second Earl of Essex (Karin S. Coddon). Ultimately, as Nietzsche said “there is always some reason in madness” and that is true for Hamlet, “it is less than madness and more than feigned” (T. S. Eliot).

In contrast to Hamlet, Ophelia’s madness is genuine; the debate instead focuses on the cause of her madness. It has been argued by many that the cause of her being “divided from herself and her fair judgement” was her father’s death, in line with Elizabethan views of a female’s repressed sexuality. They would argue that as unmarried she should not be romantically disposed towards Hamlet. John Draper contends that her madness was “because that father, whom she loved so dearly, came to a sudden and shocking end”; L. L. Shücking believes that “grief at her father’s sudden and unexplained death has unbalanced her mind”; and G. L. Kitteridge posits the view that the “tragedy of her father’s death has driven her mad”. Indeed, Claudius states “O, this is the poison of deep grief, it springs/All from her father’s death”. The dramatic irony of the diction of poison however, undermines his opinion. Rather, I would argue that her madness is caused by Hamlet and the “pangs of despised love”. She clearly believed that Hamlet “did love [her] once”, she says “Indeed, my lord, you made me believe so”, thus explaining that his rejection caused her madness and considerable woe. Furthermore, she clearly had similar feelings as in her soliloquy she states “suck’d the honey out of his music vows”. The romantic metaphor of the honey carries connotations of sweetness (utilised earlier in her statement “perfume lost…rich gifts wax poor when givers prove unkind”, which also shows her feelings for Hamlet), the delight in taste clearly emphasising her feelings towards Hamlet, and the marital connotations of “vows” all go someway to disproving Rebecca West’s view that “no line in the play suggests that she felt either passion or affection for Hamlet”. Furthermore, we can learn that her madness is caused by Hamlet through her bawdy songs. She sings “he is dead and gone, lady,/ He is dead and gone”. The repetition clearly highlights that her madness is caused by Hamlet. Whilst Kerrigan argues that she is in fact referring to Polonius, this seems unlikely. The pilgrim imagery (“cockle hat and staff…sandal shoon”) relates to Hamlet’s pilgrimage to London, and in Shakespeare lovers were often depicted as pilgrims searching for a female saint, for instance Romeo was dressed as a pilgrim when he first met Juliet. Moreover, she sings of “true love” – surely no one can argue that this refers to Polonius. Lastly, lines 22-6 are a literary allusion to Walsingham (attributed to Sir Walter Raleigh) whose poem was about lovers. Clearly, Ophelia addresses her songs to Hamlet; the cause of her madness. Indeed, Katherine Manfield perceptively writes, “who can believe that a solitary violet withered when that silly old Pomposity died? And who can believe that Ophelia really loved him, and wasn’t thankful to how peaceful breakfast would be without his preaching?” Such a view humorously and accurately represents that Ophelia went mad from the unreciprocated affection of Hamlet, after all, “it is not often that young women run mad for the loss of their father” (Thomas Hanmer). Indeed the parallel of Ophelia to the Jailer’s daughter in The Two Noble Kinsmen demonstrates this further. Both daughters sing mad songs, both try or succeed in drowning themselves, both lose their father, yet both ultimately go mad from unrequited love – indeed, “Hamlet has driven Ophelia to Madness” (Bradshaw). This clearly disproves Roger Benedix’s view that “Polonius’ death… is the cause of Ophelia’s madness”. This is shown by Elizabethan beliefs of melancholy. They would have diagnosed Ophelia as suffering from erotomania (an emotional defect) as women were seen as the weaker sex due to the “innate frailty typical of women” (Neely). Women were believed to be governed by an inconstant moon (because of menstruation) and because they possessed a womb (the seat of extreme emotion), indeed, hysteria comes from the Greek for womb. Evidently, as the Elizabethan audience would have noticed, Ophelia goes mad due to Hamlet, “suffering physically and mentally from the pangs of rejected love” (Carrol Camden).

Ophelia’s madness has also been argued by some feminist critics to show her opposition to patriarchal society and her undermining of misogynistic female stereotypes. Before her madness she appears innocent and naïve yet ironically, her madness, instead of imprisoning her within her mind, gives her freedom. This is depicted on stage by her wild hair (symbolising her madness and break with societal norms) and through thumb-sucking, head banging, twitching and drooling (Jonathon Miler’s production). Harriet Smithson even used mime to show Ophelia’s “half sense” and emphasise her bawdy songs. For example, she sings “young men will do’t if they come to’t/ By Cock, they are to blame”. The expletive and sexual allusion emphasises her newfound independence, indeed, Erin Campbell sees this as evidence of Ophelia “rejecting the essentialised female codes her father dictated to her”, so too do the Charney’s who contend that “madness enables her to assert her being; she is no longer enforced to keep silent and play the dutiful daughter” and Yi-Chi Chen who believes that “she adopts madness to assert her being and break through the oppression”. Mack would argue that madness gives her a “further dimension as insight”, allowing her emancipation from the patriarchal Elizabethan society that aimed to control women. Furthermore, critics argue that madness shows Ophelia breaking free of the societal bonds. Yi-Chi Chen declares, her madness “reveals particularly the struggle of the female character that endeavours to have a voice of her own” and Duncan Salkeld contends that through her insanity she “breaks from the subjection of a vehemently patriarchal society and makes public display, in her verses, of the body she has been taught to suppress”. Elaine Showalter also argues “Ophelia’s madness stands for the oppression of women in society”. Under Mack’s interpretation, madness becomes “dramatically useful” in developing a “Cubist Ophelia of multiple perspectives” (Showalter). Yet, I would disagree with such radical views, a more coherent interpretation is that even in madness Ophelia cannot escape her feminine stereotype. Laertes comments that “she turns to favour and to prettiness”. The feminine connotations show how her own brother does not recognise her alleged ‘emancipation’,“her speech is nothing”. A. C. Bradley most accurately sums up the male view towards her in her madness – “beautiful, sweet, lovable, pathetic and dismissible”. Ophelia’s madness far from liberating her the restrictive patriarchal society, only confirms that she is still bound by the male perspective; “the male-dominated authority wouldn’t allow her to be either communicated to or comprehended” (Yi-Chi Chen). In fact, it seems after all that her madness is just used to illuminate Hamlet’s feigned madness. Jacquelyn Fox-Good states that Ophelia just “becomes Hamlet’s ‘mad-double’”. Ophelia supports the interpretation of Hamlet as mad as they both express their inner struggles and use blank verse, indeed, “throughout the play the appearance of Hamlet’s pretended madness is contrasted with the reality of Ophelia’s madness” (Carol Camden). Yet, Hamlet is perhaps given more freedom by his feigned madness, for instance he can easily insult Polonius – “fishmonger”. Ophelia, it seems, is just used as a character foil by Shakespeare to shed light on Hamlet – “Ophelia literally has no story without Hamlet” (Edwards). Ultimately, even in madness Ophelia fails to defy social stereotypes, the only purpose of her madness is to illuminate Hamlet’s insanity.

In conclusion, Hamlet’s madness is deliberately portrayed as ambiguous, uncertainty, as Kastan argues, is the most emphatic purpose behind this. So accurately is his madness portrayed that even now critics still disagree on his diagnosis. Similarly, the cause behind Ophelia’s insanity is left unanswered. The innocence and youth of both characters is corrupted by the “rotten…state of Denmark”. Madness could just be a reaction to the “disjoint and out of frame” world – an actualisation of the sickness and disease (“contagion, blister, tumour, ulcer”) in the play. Ultimately the ambiguity behind the madness is the most successful achievement of the play – it forms part of the play’s vitality (Harley Granville-Barker). The critical debate spanning centuries, has and will continue to be, the most incredible accomplishment of madness in the play.