Dr. Strickland
Eng. 378
Summer 2004
Final Paper
Amberyl Malkovich
Modern Madness: Ophelia, Insight, and the Folly of Damlet
“The political question, to sum up, is not error, illusion, alienated consciousness or ideology; it is
truth itself.” ~ Michel Foucault, from Truth and Power
With the rise of the individual in the Modern period the notion of power shifts and ultimately, according to Foucault, functions in many places and in many different ways. In Foucault’s Truth and Power it is his estimation that Modern power infiltrates every sense of “being” and while it can pierce the physical body it engraves itself upon the very essence of being. As power is dispersed, it transforms the very social systems it uses as filters and ultimately changes these systems and the individuals it has come into contact with. During the Modern period the notion of family, in part due to the dispersion of power, changed and so did the import of individual desires and wishes. This diffusion of the Pre-Modern family unit is shown in Shakespeare’s
“Hamlet” (1600-01) and while Shakespeare does not overtly signify his position on this shift within the text, his development of Ophelia’s madness explores connections between madness and modernity. Ophelia has become somewhat of an iconic image for the oppressed and exploited female contemporarily.
The fascination with Ophelia has existed since “Hamlet” was first preformed and this is still very much in place today. Books, paintings and songs, like that of Natalie Merchant’s (App. 1), celebrating Ophelia have been written and depicted in the centuries following its production and publication. While many critics and readers alike have seen Ophelia as a tragic figure, the largest question still debated is how her madness initially develops. The largest contention has been that it stems from the stress of Hamlet’s rejection and absence, Polonius’s death, and Laertes’s

Malkovich 2 departure and Ophelia is unable to deal with the reality surrounding her and goes mad. The tragedy surrounding Ophelia’s life is obvious but the questions follow how purportedly innocent
Ophelia truly is and to what extent she has gone mad. Through an examination of this madness within a Modern context we can more easily characterize Ophelia’s madness and determine what has occurred to trigger her leap into the “glassy stream.” In her essay “Recent Critical
Approaches to Shakespeare’s Heroines,” Frances E. Dolan notes that recent criticism of
Shakespeare is “[. . .] moving beyond praise or blame for the heroines, as well as beyond groundless speculation about how Shakespeare felt about women, and tired debates over whether
Shakespeare was conservative or radical, misogynist or feminist, in order to locate Shakespeare, and his representations of women in his cultural moment rather than our own” (94). In reattaching Shakespeare to his own Modern culture, critics and readers of plays such as
“Hamlet” are better able to understand the cultural, political, and societal morays that were in place when Shakespeare penned this famous tragedy. There are many ways heroine can be defined but Ophelia has come to represent such a figure in its many definitions and her appeal has never waned.
Though Ophelia only appears in six scenes (including her burial scene) of the play physically, her presence may be felt throughout much of the play as other characters talk of her with one another. Readers first encounter Ophelia in 1.3 wherein she is in the company of her brother,
Laertes, and later her father, Polonius. This initial scene is important in helping establish
Ophelia’s state of mind and her “innocence” can initially be questioned. As Laertes advises
Ophelia to avoid Hamlet’s advances and only look on them as a passing fancy; she acknowledges she will heed his advice. However Ophelia’s strength becomes evident when she replies “I shall th’effect of this good lesson keep/As watchman to my heart; but, good my

Malkovich 3 brother, /Do not, as some ungracious pastors do, /Show me the steep and thorny way to heaven/Whilst liked a puffed and reckless libertine/Himself the primrose path of dalliance treads/And recks not his own rede” (Hamlet 1.3). It is in her own words that she states she will heed his advice but not necessarily take it and further calls in the hypocrisy which Laertes may bring upon himself. She is asking for equality in his advice. Ophelia’s state of mind is in little question at this stage of the play and it is as her father approaches and demands to know what her conversation with Laertes has yielded that the first sign of deception can be noted for as she has just declared she will pay attention to the advice Laertes has given her yet she plays the
“innocent” young maid her father expects. Ophelia tells her father that “He hath, my lord, of late made many tenders/Of his affection” (“Hamlet” 1.3). What is meant by “of late” is questionable but it would suggest that the advances Hamlet has made have occurred recently. Ophelia continues to play the role of the “green girl” throughout the rest of the scene and as her father tells her to stay away from Hamlet she falsely informs Polonius that she will comply with his request. Ophelia’s deception and ability to perform for her father illustrate her persuasive powers as well as her coquettish nature. Though the majority of critics have typically found Ophelia to be “innocent” there are those, like Salvador De Madariaga in
On Hamlet, who feel differently.
Indeed, De Madariaga notes of the above scene “He [Shakespeare] intends the audience to understand that Ophelia is free enough with her favours to disquiet her father and brother” (56).
As her integrity, and thus theirs, could come into question or ruin this is why Laertes and
Polonius are so concerned in 1.3 that she stay Hamlet’s advances.
Ophelia walks a fine line during the play for she must appear to be the dutiful daughter but at the same time she must win the eye of Hamlet if she is to marry him in the future. In the development of the concept of the individual during the Modern period it is as Polonius advises

Malkovich 4
Laertes, “This above all-to thine own self be true,/And it must follow, as the night the day,/Thou canst not then be false to any man” (Hamlet 1.3). Polonius follows his own advice and is willing to sell out his own daughter to advance his position with the royal family. In the same vein,
Ophelia also looks out for herself but as her social position is more tenuous than that of her father she must become both actress and realist throughout the play. It is an important parallel to the Elizabethan society Shakespeare found himself within. The flirtatious games at court were not new and they did afford women at court both the ability to participate in power roles and to become victims of them. Elizabeth I, widely known to have played such games herself, is an example of how a woman of the period could benefit and injure her position at court. Though
Elizabeth I was Queen of England she did not have absolute power over her realm and it was through her charm, intelligence and wit that she was able to survive and prosper in a predominantly patriarchal position. In his General Introduction to the Norton Shakespeare ,
Stephen Greenblatt acknowledges that the royal court was “[. . .] the center of diplomacy, ambition, intrigue, and an intense jockeying for social position. As always in monarchies, proximity of the king’s person was a central mark of favor, so that access to the royal bedchamber was one of the highest aims of the powerful, [. . .]” (26). It is within such a court
Ophelia would have been raised if she had not been sent out to a convent and while readers are not informed of either of these circumstances, she would have the knowledge of the inner workings at court to know her position and how she could obtain more political (and thus personal) authority.
Though “Hamlet” is not literarily placed during Elizabeth I’s reign it is undoubtedly a product and reflection of the time period. De Madariaga finds:
It is unhistorical to turn away from it, and to pretend that the scenes in which Hamlet and

Malkovich 5
Ophelia speak the language of that society, before an audience of that society, have
nothing to do with, do not refer to such a mode of living. Hamlet and Ophelia were two
contemporaries of Raleigh, Essex, and Blount and the girls who played with them- [. . .].
The whole audience knew what the Court was like, and lived in very much the same way.
The situations on the stage, the words, the hints and gestures, familiar to the Court and by
no means caviare to the general. (36)
It is important to note that Ophelia does have some innocence but it is not the universal innocence many critics have come to observe. Much like the stereotypical contemporary adolescent, Ophelia tells her father what he wants to hear while intending on doing something entirely different. She even goes as far to say “I do not know, my lord, what I should think”
(“Hamlet” 1.3) but maintains her position and does not allow her father to interrupt her when she explains Hamlet’s “tenders.” It is with Ophelia’s declaration that she will obey her father that 1.3 ends and Shakespeare does not reintroduce her until 2.1 when she must again tell Polonius what developments have occurred in her relationship with Hamlet.
As readers we are not given the opportunity to witness the scene between Ophelia and Hamlet and all we have is her account of the tale. Shaken, she rushes in to tell her father of Hamlet’s frenzied appearance and actions. Polonius inquires if Hamlet is “Mad for thy love?” (“Hamlet”
2.1) and this association is the first made to madness and the two lovers. While Ophelia claims she does not know what sparked Hamlet’s strange behavior it is often believed amongst critics that Hamlet feigns his insanity while Ophelia later succumbs to it. If he is acting at this point in the play it is uncertain as to why he would, other than to establish his madness, do so in front of the woman he supposedly loves. Hamlet has just returned from his visit with the ghost of his father and has been drinking with friends so this may account for part of his disheveled nature

Malkovich 6 but that may only lead us to part of the problem. In Madness and Modernity (1983) C. R.
Badcock indicates that drink may account for yet another part of this type of problem. Through a psychoanalytical examination of such occurrences Badcock finds
[. . .] the only satisfaction which the ego can obtain in this way is to lower the tension
between itself and whatever superego it has until it brings the ideal down to its own level,
[. . .]. Indeed, if the superego is part of a cultural, collective phenomenon and if in such
states the divine monarch, chairman or party leader is far beyond the reach of the masses
because of his incomparable pre-eminence, then it follows that only in the dissolution of
the superego that alcohol brings does the ordinary ego find any hope of believing, however
unrealistically, that it is equal to, or as worthy as, the father of the state. (119-20)
In Badcock’s estimation Hamlet would be suffering from the effects of the alcohol which contribute to a megalomaniac state; an enormous enlargement of the ego. By turning to those weaker than he, Hamlet is able to nourish his ego and in causing distress to Ophelia he elevates his own importance.
Polonius has noted that Hamlet’s actions towards Ophelia in 2.1 are from the “very ecstasy of love” and ecstasy can be translated as insanity. Ophelia claims that she has obeyed her father and stayed away from Hamlet and Polonius finds this has contributed to Hamlet’s mad state and wishes to tell the King. Polonius has not spoken to or approached Hamlet in any form up until this point, however and apologizes for not looking out for his daughter but this is problematic for
Ophelia has been left alone period. Polonius has gone so far as to discredit his son and merely uses his children like pawns throughout the play. As Ophelia is shaken about her recent meeting with Hamlet, Polonius takes advantage of the situation and tries to make political points yet once again. In 2.2 Polonius reads a letter to King Claudius purportedly given to him by Ophelia which

Malkovich 7 came from Hamlet. The letter reads “To the celestial and my soul’s idol, the most beautified
Ophelia [which Polonius declares to be a “vile phrase”]-‘Doubt thou the stars are fire, /Doubt that the sun doth move, /Doubt truth to be a liar, / But never doubt I love. O dear Ophelia, I am ill at these numbers. / [. . .]. /But that I love thee best, O most best, / believe it. Adieu. / Thine evermore, most dear lady, whilst this/ machine is to him, / Hamlet” (“Hamlet” 2.2). If Ophelia has been turning away Hamlet’s letters, however, then we must question where this letter has come from. Perhaps Polonius has written it or it may be an older letter he has only recently confiscated from Ophelia. De Madariaga believes “The solution is this: the letter is old. [And that] Polonius lies when he says it was given to him by his daughter” (38). Ophelia is not present in this scene and is not questioned as to the authenticity of the letter but the nature of Polonius becomes all the more evident when he and Claudius plot to use her as bait to observe Hamlet’s madness.
Though cruelly used by those around her, Ophelia may not seem to realize how she is being treated but she is present for all of 3.1 and when finally directly spoken to Polonius tells her how she must play the decoy while Claudius and he spy on her conversation with Hamlet. Ophelia goes along with the ruse but knows of the arrangement between Claudius and Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern. It is in this that Ophelia deceives not only her father and brother but also Hamlet.
This further marks her ability to be devious and as she is watching out for herself she goes along with whatever group is presently in power and will best benefit her social standing. Though
Polonius often notes that Ophelia is beneath Hamlet and that she would only jeopardize their family if she allows him to pursue her, this belief is not found throughout the court. In 3.1 Queen
Gertrude remarks to Ophelia “I do wish/ that your good beauties be the happy cause/ Of
Hamlet’s wildness; so shall I hope your virtues/ Will bring him to his wonted way again, To both

Malkovich 8 your honours” (“Hamlet”). During Ophelia’s death scene Gertrude also notes “Sweets to the sweet. Farewell. / I had hoped thou shouldst have been my Hamlet’s wife. I thought thy bridebed to have decked, sweet maid, /And not t’have strewed thy grave” (“Hamlet” 5.1). Ophelia has been recognized by the Queen, and possibly the court, as a suitable match for Hamlet so the rantings of Polonius are unfounded. It is only in his estimation and through his trickery that
Ophelia begins to believe Hamlet is mad and questions his love for her.
The betrayal of Polonius and absence of her brother and Hamlet’s wavering treatment of her might contribute to Ophelia’s madness but Gertrude also plays a role in the development of her psychological state. De Madariaga believes “The Queen loathes the very thought of Ophelia. She feels Ophelia is the living witness of all the disasters her own behaviour is piling over the two unfortunate families” (118). The motherless Ophelia is left with Gertrude as a mother figure and there is never a tender scene between the two of them throughout the play. Badcock feels:
The fact seems to he that the superego is something which is most essential to both the
individual and the culture in their early evolutionary states. The child needs the institution
of the superego because the only certain way that his ego can master its perverse and anti-
social instinctual drives is by some measure of internalization of the image, prohibitions
and moral authority of the parents. (150)
Without nurturing parents to care for her Ophelia must delineate her own identity and the lack of role models becomes problematic. Ophelia is essentially left alone at court to fend for herself. As readers never see her alone in the company of other women it cannot be judged how her interactions with them would transpire. Gertrude, however, also leaves Ophelia as bait when
Polonius and Claudius wish to spy on the interaction between the two lovers. Indeed, Gertrude wishes Ophelia luck in her relations with Hamlet but at the same time “Gertrude fears Ophelia

Malkovich 9 because Ophelia is innocent” (Dusinberre 131). If she were a true mother figure she would intercede on the parts of Hamlet and Ophelia but in the true sense of modernity Gertrude is also looking out for herself.
Ophelia’s innocence and purity has been captured in paintings and she is noted as begin the most popular female figure to be painted during the Victorian period. However the majority of these paintings occur after she has gone mad and therefore celebrate her weaknesses rather than her strength. In four of the most famous paintings of Ophelia we can see how the fragmented representation of Ophelia may lead critics and readers to focus on only these aspects of her personality and therefore help us misread her character. The first painting (Plate 1) is by Thomas
Francis Dicksee and Ophelia’s hair is strewn with flowers and her calm expression suggests her purity. In this almost religious image
Ophelia looks lost and beside herself but she is presented as the true angel of the Victorian period. Her hands suggest some twisted inner torment but the placidity of her face misleads the viewer. The gaze of Ophelia in this portrait is somewhat down and to the right signifying her obedience and lack of focus but it does not overtly suggest that she is mad. Her mistrewn hair and white robe do complete the picture of a knotted existence but her countenance is
Plate 1: Ophelia (1861) ultimately misleading.

Malkovich 10
Plate 2: Ophelia (1884)
The following image (Plate 2) was painted by Dante
Rossetti in 1884 and illustrates Ophelia in the company of her brother, Claudius and Gertrude.
While Laertes looks on worriedly and Claudius appears puzzled, Gertrude seems to look on disapprovingly. Ophelia, however, appears lost and her strewn flowers indicate the sanity and reality which are slowly slipping away. Another popular image is that of Ophelia‘s apparent suicide. One of the most famous paintings of Ophelia was finished in 1852 (Plate 3) by Arthur Hughes and is only one of a few he depicted of Ophelia.
This picture illustrates Ophelia as an entranced individual. She is gazing at the water in deep contemplation but it does not suggest she is going to commit suicide.
She has gathered the flowers of mourning and has bedecked herself with them.
Plate 3: Ophelia (1852) Ophelia is holding onto the tree, however, which may signify her last link with reality or her desire to hold onto life. Again the artist has placed her gaze pointed downward as if she is in a submissive position. The final painting of
Ophelia (Plate 4) was done late in the Victorian period but it still places the emphasis on
Ophelia’s peaceful composure and angelic looks. Paul Albert Steck illustrates Ophelia (1895) in

Malkovich 11 her watery grave but she reposes on a bed of rock in a tranquil manner informing the viewer she has willingly accepted her demise.
Her eyes closed and hands folded on her breast, Ophelia seems serene and there is little evidence of her madness. Her loosened hair with its floral adornments and billowy gown are the only indicators of her loosened grasp on reality in this picture.
What is significant in these depictions is that Ophelia is habitually depicted in scenes of madness or death. Her scenes previous to her mad setting are seemingly forgotten. While the images of Ophelia are extremely telling of the way in which painters saw her they further explore how she has been presented to society. In this way the depictions of Ophelia have imposed upon the notions of critics and readers and by splintering the entire being,
indeed by negating the three-quarters of the play where she is Plate 4: Ophelia (1895)
rational, Ophelia may seem weaker than she truly is in the play.
The last scene in which Ophelia appears sane is during the Mousetrap and she banters with
Hamlet during the play. It is in this scene where she also shows her wit and ability to handle herself; as she did at the beginning of the play. Polonius seems to be enjoying the scene but
Ophelia jests with Hamlet to his discomfort. Looking for entertainment Hamlet inquires after
Ophelia “Lady, shall I lie in your lap?” to which she meekly replies “No, my lord” but then
Hamlet defines more clearly what he means “I mean my head upon your lap?” and Ophelia responds “Ay, my lord” (“Hamlet” 3.2). Again Ophelia plays the coy mistress she has become but Hamlet is unable to provoke the aversion he is looking to receive from Ophelia. In

Malkovich 12
Shakespeare’s Women
Angela Pitt finds this scene to indicate “Ophelia’s naivety must be assumed and not genuine because late she gives as good as she gets” (55). In her flirtation with
Hamlet she upsets his focus for he has truly come to discover the truth of Claudius’s involvement with the death of Hamlet the Elder. While Hamlet has won the previous verbal battle with
Ophelia in 3.2 it is she who wins the second battle of wits in 3.2. While watching the play
Hamlet remarks “I could interpret between you and your love if I could/see the puppets dallying” and Ophelia replies “You are keen, my lord, you are keen.” (“Hamlet” 3.2). Hamlet has pointed out that while he has deceived her Ophelia has done likewise. The betrayal both lovers feel never finds resolution for the next time Hamlet comes into contact with Ophelia is on the day of her burial.
As Ophelia becomes “mad” the question remains as to what drives her to this point but the combination of stresses imposed upon her at court and the fact that she has nowhere to retire or no one to turn to are probably the largest factors in determining her mindset. In his work Revels in Madness: Insanity in Medicine and Literature
, Allen Thiher emphasizes “[. . .] the historical importance of the fact that in Shakespeare’s work one finds the opening of a space in which contextualization demands interpretation. This demand is by and large a new way of treating madness, [. . .]. Madness is not the metamorphosis of some psychic or psychological substance.
It is a question of defining and then interpreting relations” (83). The relations between Ophelia and Hamlet are hard enough for readers to define so if Thiher’s theory is true Ophelia’s madness is compounded by the head games Hamlet is continuously playing with her. When she initially appears in the “mad scene, “ 4.5, she sings many disjointed lyrics and makes little sense to
Gertrude and Claudius. Critics have debated who Ophelia is singing about, her father or Hamlet, but there seem to be elements of both intertwined within her lyrics. Her first song questions the

Malkovich 13 actuality of love and whether it is romantic or filial love Ophelia notes the reality of her own existence and it is here that she truly outlines her own existence; undefined by those around her but asserting her own reality. Cherrell Guilfoyle points out “[. . .] characters who go mad in renaissance drama frequently speak more truth, and deeper truth than when sane, and this can be said of Ophelia [. . .]” (“Ower” 167). Her religious ramblings follow her songs and again she interchanges reality with what is deemed her “madness.” Badcock believes:
[. . .] the ego can obtain extensive indirect knowledge of its id-[. . .] - by undergoing a
competently carried out psychoanalysis, or, in rather rare cases, through the possession of
poetic or artistic gifts or an unusual capacity for candid self-knowledge. But however it is
acquired, insight never comes easily and can only be painfully wretched from the
unconscious against the opposition of the force of resistance which tirelessly works to
keep what is repressed away from all awareness of the ego. (152)
Ophelia relies on her songs and poetry to communicate her sorrow and also the warnings of reality to those around her. If heeded, those within earshot might have been spared the same tragic ending Ophelia meets.
The question remains as to what drives Ophelia into madness and into the stream she so wistfully looks to be contemplating in Hughes’s painting. The court pressures undoubtedly contribute to her mental state for she is left with a lover who, when present, plays with her emotions, an absent brother, a dead father, and an uncaring court. Ophelia is not as innocent as many critics would find, however, she is truly innocent at heart. Though she may know how to play the court games as De Madariaga notes she is “[. . .] in fact a flirt; a fast girl such as at
Elizabeth’s court was the rule rather than the exception; [. . .]” (42) Ophelia is ultimately the pawn of those who are supposed to care for her the most. Throughout the play she is commended

Malkovich 14 for her virtue and she feels “[. . .] all the lonelier by all that praise of her innocence” (De
Madariaga 69) as it is an expectation she cannot truly live up to; even if she has remained chaste.
Ophelia’s life it truly tragic and it has come to represent heartrending events in the lives of young women contemporarily. De Madariaga finds “The chief cause of the trouble may well be the height of poetical power and pathos to which Shakespeare raises the lay in the scene of Ophelia’s madness; the songs, the flowers, [. . .], work our emotions to such a pitch and tension; that
Ophelia is thereby transfigured and her whole life is retrospectively coloured by this hectic sunset of her mind” (32). Ultimately it is Ophelia’s songs and poems, her sorrow and losses, audiences have focused upon rather than her wit, intelligence, or abilities. While this study is not all inclusive of the roles of modernity and madness within “Hamlet,” it nevertheless begins the process of trying to piece together the “green girl” and her role within the Danish court. Our public assumptions of Ophelia have been romanticized since the play was penned and the representations of her in art, song, and literature have primarily focused on her tragedies rather than her successes. It is in this further study needs to explore.

Malkovich 15
Works Cited
Badcock, C.R. Madness and Modernity: A Study in Social Psychoanalysis.
Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, 1983.
De Madariaga, Salvador. On Hamlet. London: Frank Cass and Co. Ltd, 1964.
Dolan, Frances E. “recent Critical Approaches to Shakespeare’s Heroines.” Shakespeare’s
Unruly Women. Georgianna Ziegler, Frances E. Dolan, and Jeanne Addison Roberts.
Seattle: U of Washington P, 1997. 93-101.
Dusinberre, Justin. Shakespeare and the Nature of Women. New York: St. Martin’s P, 1975.
Foucault, Michel. “Truth and Power.”
Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and other
Writings, 1972-1977. New York: Harvester Press, 1980. 109-33.
Guilfoyle, Cherrell. “Ower Swete Sokor”: The Role of Ophelia in
Hamlet.
”
Drama in the
Renaissance. Clifford Davidson, C.J. Gianakaris and John H. Stroupe, eds. New
York: AMS P, 1986. 163-77.
Pitt, Angela.
Shakespeare’s Women.
London: David and Charles, 1981.
Shakespeare, William. “Hamlet.”
The Norton Shakespeare: Based on the Oxford Editions . Ed.
Stephen Greenblatt. New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1997. 1659-1759.

Malkovich 16
Works Consulted
Ayers, P.K. “ Reading, Writing, and Hamlet .” Shakespeare Quarterly 44. 4 (1993), 423-424.
Camden, Carol.
“ On Ophelia’s Madness .” Shakespeare Quarterly
15.2 (1964), 247-255.
Dent, Alan. World of Shakespeare: Plants. New York: Taplinger Publishing Co., 1973.
Foucault, Michel. Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason.
New York: Random House, 1965.
Garner, Shirley Nelson and Madelon Sprengether, eds. Shakespearean Tragedy and Gender.
Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1996.
Halio, Jay L. ed.
Critical Essays on Shakespeare’s King Lear.
New York: G.K. Hall and Co.,
1996.
Harrison, J.B.
Shakespeare’s Tragedies.
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd., 1951.
Jardine, Lisa. Reading Shakespeare Historically. London: Rutledge, 1996.
Lenker, Largretta Tallent. Fathers and Daughters in Shakespeare and Shaw.
West Port:
Greenwood P. 2001.
Lidz, Theodore.
Hamlet’s Enemy: Madness and Myth in Hamlet.
New York: Basic Books Inc.,
1975.
Newton, K.M. ed. Theory into Practice: A Reader in Modern Literary Criticism. New York: St.
Martin’s P, 1992.
Perry, John Weir. Roots of Renewal in Myth and Madness.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers, 1976.
Ronk, Martha C.
“
Representations of Ophelia.
” Criticism
36.1(1994), 21-43.
Russell, Denise. Women, Madness and Medicine.
Cambridge: Polity P., 1995.
Shepard, Paul. Nature and Madness.
San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1982.

Malkovich 17
Shmueli, Adi. The Tower of Babel: Identity and Sanity . Atlantic Highlands: Humanities P, 1978.
Smith, Roger. Trial by Medicine: Insanity and Responsibility in Victorian Trials.
Edinburgh:
Edinburgh UP, 1981.
Speaight, Robert, Nature is Shakespearian Tragedy.
London: Hollis and Carter, 1955.
Thiher, Allen. Revels in Madness: Insanity in Medicine and Literature.
Ann Arbor: U of
Michigan P, 1999.
Wagner, Linda Welshiner. “ Ophelia: Shakespeare’s Pathetic Plot Device .” Shakespeare
Quarterly 14.1 (1963), 94-97.
Walker, Nigel. Crime and Insanity in England. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 1968.
Yearsley, Macleod. The Sanity of Hamlet. London: John Bale, Sons and Danielsson, Ltd. 1932.

Malkovich 18
Appendix 1
Natalie Merchant
Ophelia (1998)
“Ophelia”
Ophelia was a bride of god
A novice Carmelite
In sister cells
The cloister bells tolled on her wedding night
Ophelia was the rebel girl
A blue stocking suffragette
Who remedied society between her cigarettes
And Ophelia was the sweetheart
To a nation overnight
Curvaceous thighs
Vivacious eyes
Love was at first sight...
Love was at first sight...
Love...
Ophelia was a demigoddess in pre-war Babylon
So statuesque a silhouette in black satin evening gowns
Ophelia was the mistress to
A Vegas gambling man
Signora Ophelia Maraschina
Mafia courtesan
Ophelia was the circus queen
The female cannonball
Projected through five flaming hoops
To wild and shocked applause
To wild and shocked applause
Ophelia was a tempest cyclone
A goddamn hurricane
Your common sense, your best defense
They wasted, and in vain

Malkovich 19
For Ophelia’d know your every woe
And every pain you’d ever had
She’d sympathize and dry your eyes
Help you to forget...
And help you to forget
And help you to forget
Ophelia’s mind went wandering
You’d wonder where she goes
Through secret doors down corridors
She wanders there alone
All alone