Hamlet?s Sanity Essay, Research Paper
In both Hamlet and King Lear, Shakespeare incorporates a theme of madness with
two characters: one truly mad, and one only acting mad to serve a motive. The
madness of Hamlet is frequently disputed. This paper argues that the
contrapuntal character in each play, namely Ophelia in Hamlet and Edgar in King
Lear, acts as a balancing argument to the other character?s madness or sanity.
King Lear?s more decisive distinction between Lear?s frailty of mind and
Edgar?s contrived madness works to better define the relationship between
Ophelia?s breakdown and Hamlet?s «north-north-west» brand of
insanity. Both plays offer a character on each side of sanity, but in Hamlet
the distinction is not as clear as it is in King Lear. Using the more explicit
relationship in King Lear, one finds a better understanding of the relationship
in Hamlet. While
Shakespeare does not directly pit Ophelia?s insanity (or breakdown) against
Hamlet?s madness, there is instead a clear definitiveness in Ophelia?s
condition and a clear uncertainty in Hamlet?s madness. Obviously, Hamlet?s
character offers more evidence, while Ophelia?s breakdown is quick, but more
conclusive in its precision. Shakespeare offers clear evidence pointing to
Hamlet?s sanity beginning with the first scene of the play. Hamlet begins
with guards whose main importance in the play is to give credibility to the
ghost. If Hamlet were to see his father?s ghost in private, the argument for
his madness would greatly improve. Yet, not one, but three men together witness
the ghost before even thinking to notify Hamlet. As Horatio says, being the
only of the guards to play a significant role in the rest of the play,
«Before my God, I might not this believe / Without the sensible and true
avouch / Of mine own eyes. (I.i.56-8)» Horatio, who appears frequently
throughout the play, acts as an unquestionably sane alibi to Hamlet again when
framing the King with his reaction to the play. That Hamlet speaks to the ghost
alone detracts somewhat from its credibility, but all the men are witness to
the ghost demanding they speak alone. Horatio offers
an insightful warning: What if it
tempts you toward the flood, my lord, Or to the dreadful summit of the cliff
That beetles o?er his base into the sea, And there assume some other horrible
form Which might deprive your sovereignty of reason, And draw you into madness?
Think of it. (I.iv.69-74) Horatio?s
comment may be where Hamlet gets the idea to use a plea of insanity to work out
his plan. The important fact is that the ghost does not change form, but rather
remains as the King and speaks to Hamlet rationally. There is also good reason
for the ghost not to want the guards to know what he tells Hamlet, as the play
could not proceed as it does if the guards were to hear what Hamlet did. It is
the ghost of Hamlet?s father who tells him, «but howsomever thou pursues
this act, / Taint not thy mind. (I.v.84-5)» Later, when Hamlet sees the
ghost again in his mothers room, her amazement at his madness is quite
convincing. Yet one must take into consideration the careful planning of the
ghost?s credibility earlier in the play. After his
first meeting with the ghost, Hamlet greets his friends cheerfully and acts as
if the news is good rather than the devastation it really is. Horatio: What
news, my lord?
Hamlet: O, wonderful!
Horatio: Good my lord, tell it.
Hamlet: No, you will reveal it. (I.v.118-21)
This is the first glimpse of Hamlet?s ability and inclination to manipulate his
behavior to achieve effect. Clearly Hamlet is not feeling cheerful at this
moment, but if he lets the guards know the severity of the news, they might
suspect its nature. Another instance of Hamlet?s behavior manipulation is his
meeting with Ophelia while his uncle and Polonius are hiding behind a curtain. Hamlet?s
affection for Ophelia has already been established in I.iii., and his complete
rejection of her and what has transpired between them is clearly a hoax. Hamlet
somehow suspects the eavesdroppers, just as he guesses that Guildenstern and
Rosencrantz are sent by the King and Queen to question him and investigate the
cause of his supposed madness in II.ii. Hamlet?s
actions in the play after meeting the ghost lead everyone except Horatio to
believe he is crazy, yet that madness is continuously checked by an
ever-present consciousness of action which never lets him lose control. For
example, Hamlet questions his conduct in his soliloquy at the end of II.ii, but
after careful consideration decides to go with his instinct and prove to
himself without a doubt the King?s guilt before proceeding rashly. Even after
the King?s guilt is proven with Horatio as witness, Hamlet again reflects and
uses his better judgement in the soliloquy at the end of III.ii. before seeing
his mother. He recognizes his passionate feelings, but tells himself to
«speak daggers to her, but use none,» as his father?s ghost
instructed. Again, when in the King?s chamber, Hamlet could perform the murder,
but decides not to in his better judgement to ensure that he doesn?t go to heaven
by dying while praying. As Hamlet tells Guildenstern in II.ii., «I am but
mad north-north-west: when the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a
handsaw.» This statement reveals out-right Hamlet?s intent to fool people
with his odd behavior. This is after Polonius? enlightened comment earlier in
the same scene, «though this be madness, yet there is method in?t.» Compare the
copious evidence against Hamlet?s madness with the complete lack of evidence
for Ophelia?s sanity after her father?s murder. Her unquestionable insanity
puts Hamlet?s very questionable madness in a more favorable light. In IV.v. she
is quite obviously mad, and unlike Hamlet there seems to be no method to her
madness. All Ophelia can do after learning of her father?s death is sing.
Indeed, Hamlet?s utter rejection of her combined with this is too much for her,
and she doesn?t sing a mourning song at the beginning of IV.v, but rather a
happy love song. Later, when
she meets with Leartes, she says to him: There?s
rosemary, that?s for remembrance; pray you, love, remember. And there is
pansies, that?s for thoughts. Leartes: A
document in madness, thoughts and remembrance fitted. Thought and
afflictions, passion, hell itself, She turns to favor and to prettiness.
(IV.v.179-89) While the
Queen tells Leartes that an «envious sliver» broke and flung Ophelia
into the river wearing a headdress of wild-flowers (compare the mad Lear?s
crown of weeds), the clowns in V.i. confirm the reader?s suspicion that she did
not die so accidentally: Is she to be
buried in Christian burial when she willfully seeks her own salvation?
(V.i.1-2) Here lies the
water; good. Here stands the man; good. If the man go to this water and drown
himself, it is, will he, nill he, he goes, mark you that. But if the water come
to him and drown him, he drowns not himself; argal, he that is not guilty of
his own death shortens not his own life. (15-20) Ophelia?s
breakdown into madness and inability to deal with her father?s death and
Hamlet?s rejection is dealt with neatly and punctually. There is little
evidence against her madness, compared to Hamlet?s intelligent plotting and use
of witnesses to his actions. Thus, by defining true madness in Ophelia,
Shakespeare subtracts from the plausibility of Hamlet?s supposed insanity. Comparing the
juxtaposition of insanity and questioned sanity in King Lear reveals another
use of this device by Shakespeare. In King Lear the lines are drawn more
distinctly between sanity and insanity, allowing a sharper contrast between the
play?s two versions of madness. Edgar?s soliloquy in II.iii. communicates his
intent to act and dress as a mad beggar: … Whiles I may scape I will
preserve myself, and am bethought To take the basest and most poorest shape
That ever penury, in contempt of man, Brought near to beast. My face I?ll grime
with filth, Blanket my loins, elf all my hairs in knots, And with presented
nakedness outface The winds and persecutions of the sky. (II.iii.5-12) There is no
question of Edgar?s intent here, and when they see this ?Bedlam beggar? in
action, the audience is aware that it is Edgar and that he is not really
insane. As in Hamlet, the contrived madness is more spectacular than the true
madness. Edgar changes his voice, tears his clothes, and babbles on like a
genuine lunatic seeming in contrivance more genuine than Lear, the genuine
maniac. Just as
Ophelia?s breakdown is believable because of her father?s death and her
rejection from Hamlet, Lear?s old age accounts for his frailty of mind and
rash, foolish decisions. The reader is given no motive for Lear to tear his
clothes off like a raving maniac or wear a crown of weeds and babble like a
fool other than his old age and incapability to deal with his inability to act
rationally. He realizes after being told for most of the play that he is being
a fool that perhaps his advisors are right. Only at this point, it has long
been clear to the reader that his madness is due to senility. In these two
plays, Shakespeare uses the dimmer light of reality to expose the brighter
light of contrivance. Hamlet and Edgar are dynamic, animated, and absurd in
their madness, making Lear?s and Ophelia?s true madness seem realistic rather
than absurd. Hamlet and Edgar both explicitly state the contrivance of their
madness, while Lear and Ophelia do not. Further, Hamlet and Edgar both have
motive behind leading others to believe they are insane. Although both are
under severe pressure and emotional strain due to their respective situations
in each play, they both show a remarkable amount of intelligent, conscious, and
rational decision-making in efforts to resolve their situations. In this way,
they are sharply contrasted with the mad Lear and Ophelia, whose insanity is
not questioned by themselves or other characters in either play. Neither after
displaying madness make any rational decisions that would lead the reader to
believe in their sanity. Thus, the argument that Hamlet is truly mad refutes
his ability to act rationally and discounts the dramatic device of Ophelia (as
Lear is to Edgar) as a contrapuntal example of true insanity.