Hamlets Madness
1
Stephan Herman
English 151
Professor Jacobs
Mad or not mad that is the question
"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark"(I.IV.90), and it is the idea that Hamlet is
truly mad. Throughout the play we see Hamlet assume the role of a madman, however, countless
readers have asked themselves if this madness is real or is it only a tool being used to fool
Hamlet’s enemies. As seen in our modern society, Americans spend countless resources arguing
over the nature of a person’s madness; it is not so easy to just label a person as mad. Thus, we
will always have challenges when trying to label anyone, including Hamlet as mad.
Moreover, madness can be perceived very differently depending on whom you ask. The
paradox of madness lies in the fact that madness is determined by the society and the people that
are defining it and not by the person who is accused to be mad. After all, we all have our own
ideas about what and or who is defined as truly mad. Although many of us might disagree as to
who is mad, we can all associate and agree upon certain aspects that define madness. Webster’s
English dictionary defines Madness as the quality or state of feeling rage, insanity, moments of
extreme ecstasy (Merriam-Webster).
When analyzing the character of Hamlet, one can’t help but notice that not all of these
adjectives describe his nature. For instance, it is perhaps incorrect to think Hamlet was insane
and had absolutely no control over his emotions throughout the play. As we can see in the
conversation between Hamlet and Horatio, Hamlet plainly states he means to feign his madness:
Hamlets Madness
2
“ How strange or odd som’er I bear myself-As I perchance hereafter shall think meet To put an
antic disposition on” (I. V. 170-173) . We the reader receive this admission in the first act, from
the protagonist, that he is indeed not insane. Further adding to this evidence, when Hamlet
speaks to his uncle’s spies Guildenstern and Rosencrantz he boastfully claims: “I am but mad
north-north-west. When the wind/ is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw” (II. II.359-370).
One should take these admissions heavily into account when determining the motives behind
Hamlet’s personality.
Perhaps Hamlet may be viewed neither as mad nor crazy as some would claim, but
rather, driven by sorrow towards rational acts of aggression. As Paul A. Jorgensen writes, “The
opinion of most literary scholars and psychoanalysts is that Hamlet, as he tells us, is afflicted by
“sore distraction” that he occasionally suffers hysteria and mania, but that as a tragic hero he
becomes sane enough to be responsible for his actions” ( Jorgensen 240). Not insane, but rather
woefully upset at the deeds that have been done to him. This sorrow or depression if you prefer
to call it is the driving force of Hamlets angst. This anxiety does not lead Hamlet to irrational
acts, but rather, it causes him to become crippled with an uncertainty of how to act.
As discussed in class, Hamlet is not an original tale; rather, it is an adaptation of the
classical revenge stories of the time. What sets Hamlet apart from other stories of the time is the
character of Hamlet himself. As compared to the traditional revenge story where the protagonist
is actively seeking their revenge, we see that Hamlet instead focuses on if he should take his
revenge at all. In Hamlet’s famous soliloquy “to be or not to be”, we see this inner turmoil
brewing:
To be, or not to be, that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The
slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against a sea of troubles And by
Hamlets Madness
3
opposing end them. To die—to sleep, No more; and by a sleep to say we end The heartache and the thousand natural shocks That flesh is heir to: 'tis a consummation Devoutly
to be wished. To die, to sleep- To sleep, perchance to dream; ay, there's the rub, For in
that sleep of death what dreams may come When we have shuffled off this mortal coil
Must give us pause there's the respect That makes calamity of so long life (III, 1, 56-69).
Should Hamlet suffer the “slings and arrows” of injustice that have been brought on him by his
Mother and Claudius? Perhaps it would be better for him to “take up arms against them and in so
doing end them”. One would think a madman would not bother reasoning out their actions,
rather like the other tales of the time; they would actively pursue their vengeance.
On the other hand, there are some scholars like Ruth Perry who have a different
interpretation on the lines above. Perry believes that Hamlet’s pacing back and forth and
pondering the meaning of life in a “self-dramatization” is the starting point for a “self-centered
madness that permeates throughout the entire play” (Perry 6). Perry goes further to state that this
madness and self-obsessive behavior of Hamlet is caused by the fact that he has no one to trust
with his feelings; “there are no possibilities for Hamlet to define himself in relation to other
people, neither lovers, nor parents, and so he remains distrustful and isolated” ( Perry 7).
In contradiction to Perry’s argument, Jorgensen believes that these pent up emotions have
lead Hamlet to a depression and not a mania. As opposed to Perry, Jorgensen views “Hamlet as a
tragic hero and not just a mental patient” (Jorgensen 248). This depression as Jorgensen
describes it is “today often recognized as being due to repressed rage” (Jorgensen 249).
Jorgensen references a quote that depicts this inner rage: “I prithee, take thy fingers from my
throat, for though I am not splentative and rash, Yet have I something in me dangerous which let
Hamlets Madness
4
thy witness fear (V. I 245-248). In this scene Hamlets is not showing madness, but rather
restraint against expressing his anger.
In addition to Jorgensen disagreeing about the malady affecting Hamlet, he also disagrees
that Hamlet is isolated. Jorgensen points out, rather correctly, that while Hamlet is surrounded on
all sides by those who seek to betray him; Hamlet has Horatio to confide in throughout the play.
As Jorgensen points out, and many psychologists would agree, “Shakespeare provides for his
hero, in Horatio, one of the most commonly approved remedies for melancholia: a faithful
friend” (Jorgensen 245). Furthermore, “Horatio provides for Hamlet an extraordinary listener,
with his Aye, my lords as his most characteristic utterance” (Jorgensen 245). Their friendship is
quite profound. We even find proof of this deep friendship when Hamlet first greets Horatio: “I
am glad to see you well. Horatio! Or do I forget myself. / Sir, my good friend; I’ll change that
name with you” (I.II. 160-163).
Beyond all of the evidence that Hamlet suffers from depression and not madness, one
may even call into question if Hamlet’s enemies believe him to be mad at all. Claudius spends
considerable amounts of time having everyone around him spy on Hamlet to determine if he is
indeed mad. Claudius turns to Polonius, his best puppet, time and time again to determine if
Hamlet is mad. At first we see Polonius tell Gertrude: “I will be brief. Your noble son is mad.
Mad I call it; for to define true madness what is’t but to be nothing else but mad?” (II, ii, 92-94).
Yet not even one hundred lines later in the play Polonius says:" Though this be madness, yet
there is method in't" (II.II.202-204). Polonius, who throughout the play seems to vilify Hamlet,
even doubts his own perception of Hamlet’s madness.
Hamlets Madness
5
Some of the most telling evidence of all that Hamlet suffers from depression and not
insanity comes from Claudius own mouth. While questioning Polonius about his beliefs that
Hamlet is mad due to his love for Ophelia, Claudius says:
“Love? His affections do not that way tend, Nor what he spake, though it lacked form a
little, Was not like madness. There’s something in his soul, O’er which his melancholy
sits on brood, and I do doubt the hatch and the disclose will be some danger, which for to
prevent I have in quick determination thus set it down. He shall with speed to England”
(III. I. 161-168).
In this conversation Claudius is telling his confidant Polonius that he is afraid that Hamlet is not
insane, but rather, is plotting something and hiding his true intentions. Claudius even doubts
Hamlet’s madness despite what his most trusted adviser, his wife; Ophelia, Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern all believe to be true.
As we can see, much of the evidence points to Hamlet as not a lunatic bent on revenge,
but as a deeply depressed man who is unsure of both how to act and who to trust. There will
always be those like Perry who vilify Hamlet for the way he treats those around him. While
others like Jorgensen will always find means to show that Hamlet is not mad at all. Regardless of
where one stands this argument will endure. Just like societies will always fight over defining
madness, classrooms will always fight over defining Hamlet as mad. The only person who can
answer this age old question about this tragic hero never told anyone, and he never will.
Hamlets Madness
6
Works cited
Jorgensen, Paul. A “Hamlet's Therapy”. Huntington Library Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 3,
Shakespeare University of California Press, May, 1964. JSTOR P. 239-258. Web. March 16,
2011.
Perry, Ruth “Madness in Euripides, Shakespeare, and Kafka: An Examination of The Bacchae,
Hamlet, King Lear, and The Castle,”. Shakespearean Criticism, Vol. 35. Detroit: Gale, 1997.
Literature Criticism Online. p 1-8. Web March 16, 2011
Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Fully annotated by Burton Raffel. New Haven and London: Yale
University Press, 2003
"Madness." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2011. Merriam-Webster Online.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/madness (11 March 2011)