‘Instructor’s Name’
Hamlet Insane or Antic Disposition?
Is Hamlet mad? This is a question which has plagued the minds of generations of readers and critics, and one that have drawn various analysis and theories. Hamlet’s sanity is not just an academic debate, but one which is contemplated by every reader/viewer of the play when he replays the play again and again in his mind. His being insane or otherwise, affects the perceptions of the reader in many significant ways. It will explain many things like why Claudius refuses to accept in his mind that Hamlet is mad, but yet publicly keep saying ‘Alas, Alas’ whenever Hamlet makes his speeches, implying that he is mad to others.
No intricate justifications or scholarly arguments can prove it beyond doubt that Hamlet is insane or otherwise, but nonetheless the debate has given rise to pluralism in the portrayal of the character of Hamlet, which is reflected in the multitude versions of Hamlet enacted on the stage in the last few centuries. This essay is an attempt to discuss this time honored question of whether Hamlet has put on an "antic disposition" or is he truly insane, by looking at the definition of insanity and the factors that determine whether a person is insane, particularly when he is living entirely on his own.
John Selden, who is a well known English scholar and Jurist from the seventeenth century, uttered the following words which would aptly fit our discussion.
“The reason of a thing is not to be inquired after, till you are sure the thing itself be so. We commonly are at, what’s the reason of it, before we are sure of the thing”.
So before passing on a judgment about Hamlet’s sanity, it is essential to define what insanity is. The first modern definition for insanity was formed during a trial in England, held in the year 1843, whereby insanity was termed as an inability of a person to appreciate the wrongful nature of his actions or the consequences of those actions. Hamlet is asked by the ghost of his father to avenge his death. He has recently lost his father, and seen his mother marrying his uncle, who is the murderer of his father according to the ghost. These facts are enough to cause chaos and emotional turmoil to any person’s mind. But Hamlet cannot go about taking revenge on his uncle in an apparent manner, as he is the new king and any such overt expression of his rage, would have put an end to all his ambitions. Thus we see Hamlet had strong reasons for both feigning madness and also to descend into true insanity.
The second point concerning madness of Hamlet is if sanity and insanity exists in the world, on what basis do one classify which are sane acts and which are not. What’s viewed as sanity in some cultures may be seen as deviant in other. Historically a person is termed mad, on the basis of the belief that insanity has certain symptoms which can be categorized and these symptoms may be used to distinguish the sane from the insane. But in Hamlet’s case how does one categorize the symptoms exhibited by him under the bracket of insanity, when all those signs were interpreted by the people surrounding him according to their own relationship with him. We can only analyze Hamlet’s psychology and personality within the boundaries of the play and his portrayal in it, as he has no existence outside the play.
Hamlet is a fictional character and analysis of his characteristics is limited to the perceptions, the other characters of the play, have about him. His mother, Gertrude, is convinced he is mad and she thinks his father’s unexpected death and her abrupt marriage to his uncle, to be the reasons behind his insanity. She refuses to believe Hamlet, even when he openly says that he is not insane. Polonius thinks Hamlet is mad because he is convinced that his daughter Ophelia’s refusal to meet him or receive his messages would have hurt him badly. And Claudius thinks Hamlet is feigning mad, because he fears that Hamlet might have known his hand in his father’s death and might be seeking revenge. But none of these characters are privy to the inner turmoil that Hamlet undergoes after encountering his father’s ghost. They either do not know or do not believe that dead King Hamlet’s ghost is conversing with his son. With so much anger and confusion pent up within his mind, there are some justifications for Hamlet to behave in the way he did, not realizing that he is exhibiting signs of madness. Even Polonius at times accept that there is a method to Hamlet’s madness.
But a problem any academician encounter while debating Hamlet’s sanity, is the fact that definition of lucidity is not static. Hamlet lived in a culture of a bygone era and it is difficult to determine whether his actions were normal for the culture to which he belonged to. Also while debating about his mental state many people consider, sanity or insanity to be a consistent thing. But Hamlet’s character shows that he was a clear mixture of both, with brilliant moment of eloquence and insightfulness like when he says to his mother, “That I essentially am not in madness, but mad in craft “, followed by clear acts of insanity, when he murders his lovers’ father and indirectly brings about her death.
But his madness was probably viewed by Shakespeare’s seventeenth century audience as bitter, cynical and if mad, rather comically mad, in the way all lovers are mad. The audience in that era did not require blameless heroes, and a witty and seemingly mad tragic hero was definitely not considered an insane person. The psychological analysis of Hamlet did not start till the eighteenth century, thus proving may be Hamlet was more a conformity rather than oddity in the era in which Shakespeare wrote the play.
Hamlet clearly says in the play that he is not actually mad but acting as insane. Few scholars take his words at their face value, citing that feigning madness helped him achieve his revenge. Moments like his plot to find out, whether his uncle is guilty or not, clearly show that he is not entirely insane. But there are inconsistencies in his character when he exhibits characters such as murdering without thought, like killing Polonius in the Queen’s chamber, which shows that he is not able to maintain his lucidity throughout the play.
Some experts opine that Hamlet’s attempt at feigned madness is a result of his own incapacity to achieve his most obvious duty, avenging his father’s death, despite having a strong motive. Burwick says that Hamlet’s so called madness is not a loss of reason, but failure of judgment. Influenced by the veracity of his mental images, he gives more importance to his subjective experiences rather than to his real external circumstances. Madness in this play is more of, reason being overwhelmed by the emotions and intensity of imaginations.
Thus we can see that, Hamlet was a sane person who feigned madness or in Shakespeare’s words put on an "antic disposition" for taking revenge on his uncle. But during the course of his play, his anger, bitterness and the image of his deceased father clouded his rational thinking, and he started acting according to his perceived feelings rather than rational thought. The reappearance of his father’s ghost helps to reestablish his rational thinking, which was completely blinded at that point by his anger towards his uncle. Adding to that, Ophelia’s funeral too seems to have a calming affect on his senses and he realizes the importance of love and life. In this way he completes a full circle, from being sane, feigning madness, falling into insanity without his knowledge and in the end snapping out of it. By coming out of insanity he takes the right decisions for his country, Denmark, and in a way leaves himself unprotected from his Uncle’s manipulations, and in the process loses his life, dying as a tragic hero. But in conclusion it might be said that Hamlet’s madness, can be termed as his inability to find the right way to express his innermost feelings, in ways that are beyond interpretation.
Works Cited
Bloom, Harold. Hamlet. New York: Infobase Publishing, 2009. Print. Pg. 25.
Burwick, Frederick. Poetic Madness and the Romantic Imagination. Pennysylvania: Penn State Press, 2010. Print. Pg. 4.
Bynum, William F., Roy Porter and Michael Shepherd. The Anatomy of Madness: Essays in the History of Psychiatry, Volume 1. London: Taylor & Francis, 2004. Print. pg. 292.
Devine, Dennis J. Jury Decision Making: The State of the Science. London: NYU Press, 2012. Print. Pg.85.
Rosenhan, D. L. "ON BEING SANE IN INSANE PLACES." 1973. University of Minnesota Duluth. web. 14 Janaury 2014.
Szasz, Thomas Stephen. Insanity: The Idea and Its Consequences. New York: Syracuse University Press, 1987. Print.
