Will Missling

Ms. Hansen

Honors English 11

24 December 2012

Analysis to Hamlet Article on Madness

In this article on Hamlet’s madness, a man named Strachy argues that Hamlet was neither mad, nor was his mind perfectly healthy.  In his thesis he “argues against the critical tendency to pronounce the character of Hamlet either mad or sane, contending that in Hamlet, Shakespeare portrayed a profoundly skeptical character of great intelligence whose behavior is somewhat erratic due to the circumstances in which he finds himself.” He refers to Hamlet as “skeptical” multiple times throughout his argument, because he thinks Hamlet shows signs of being mad, yet sane and intelligent at the same time, which causes him to be skeptical.  The author shows how Hamlet was intelligent to do things that would help him accomplish his goal. For example, Hamlet acted the way he did at times so people didn’t think he was planning to kill Claudius.  He also had elaborate plans to help him succeed.  A contrary point the author demonstrated was how Hamlet was mad, even crazy at times, to get revenge on Claudius and kill him.  Strachy talks about how Hamlet’s circumstances of his uncle killing his dad and his mom marrying his uncle, have caused his erratic behavior.  He also relates it to real life and compares Hamlet to most men.  The author “sees that as far as these are concerned Hamlet is not mad, but most dangerously sane…”

I strongly agree with the author’s thesis.  I believe Hamlet wasn’t mad but wasn’t normally sane either.  I agree Hamlet appeared intelligent at times. For example, when he was planning revenge on Claudius, and when he was forced to act differently to keep people from being suspicious about his actions.  I also agree at times that Hamlet was a little crazy (such as when he hunts his step-dad) but who wouldn’t be in his situation.  He has had the weirdest and worst things happen to him and it is extremely hard to cope with.  The author covered most of the things I noticed in the play and displayed them in an effective manner.  It is effective because he uses supporting details that convince the reader his thesis is true.  If I could add something to his argument it would be more specific examples and instances from the play to strengthen his argument even more. I believe it is safe to assume that readers of Strachy’s article have read “Hamlet,” so the author could dive deeper into the meanings of his examples, and not have to worry about the readers becoming confused.  This article reflects my opinion and I fully agree with it.

Essay on madness (Hamlet)

Table of Contents:View Multimedia File(s)

An extract from A New Variorum Edition of Shakespeare: 'Hamlet', edited by Horace Howard Furness, J. B. Lippincott Company Vol. IV, 1877, pp. 172-74.

In this essay, Strachey argues against the critical tendency to pronounce the character of Hamlet either mad or sane, contending that in Hamlet Shakespeare portrayed a profoundly skeptical character of great intelligence whose behavior is somewhat erratic due to the circumstances in which he finds himself. The following essay was originally published in Strachey's Shakespeare's Hamlet in 1848.

In all Shakespeare's varieties of characters there is none in which he has chosen to draw the man of genius so purely and adequately as in Hamlet; in Hamlet we see genius in itself, and not as it appears when its possessor is employing it in the accomplishment of some outward end; and this genius bursts forth with a sudden and prodigious expansion, into the regions of the pure intellect, as soon as its quiet course through its previous channel of the ordinary life of a brave, refined, and noble-minded prince-royal was violently stopped up by the circumstances with which we are familiar. Hamlet now shows himself in that character which is properly,—though not according to the popular appropriation of the word,—called skeptical. Partly because he is cut off from all legitimate practical outlet for his intellectual energies, partly from the instinctive desire to turn away from the harrowing contemplation of himself and his circumstances, he puts himself into the attitude of a bystander and looker-on ... in the midst of the bustling world around him. And like other such skeptics he finds it more and more difficult to act, as his knowledge becomes more and more comprehensive and circular,—to take a part in the affairs of a world of which he seems to see the whole; and like them, too, he throws a satirical tone into his observation on men, who, however inferior to him in intellect, are always reminding him that he is dreaming while they are acting....

[We] can neither assert that Hamlet is mad, nor that his mind is perfectly healthy; much confusion and misapprehension about the character of Hamlet have arisen from thus attempting an impossible simplification of what is most complex. There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in the philosophy of the small critic who thinks he has only to rule two columns, with 'mad' at the top of one, and 'sane' at the top of the other, and then to put the name of Hamlet in one of the two. Hamlet, like all real men, and especially men such as he, has a character made up of many elements, ramifying themselves in many directions, some being healthy and some diseased, and intertwined now in harmony, now in contradiction with each other. And, accordingly, it presents different aspects to different observers, who look from opposite points of view, though each with considerable qualifications for judging rightly. We have ... seen the view taken by Ophelia, whose deep love, and woman's tact and sentiment, can best appreciate the finer and more delicate features of Hamlet's character, though she, perhaps, exaggerates the extent of the untuning of his reason, from the influence of her own fears and of her father's declaration that he had gone mad. The shrewd, clear-headed King, with his wits sharpened by anxiety, considers the question from the side of its practical bearing on his own interests, and sees that as far as these are concerned Hamlet is not mad, but most dangerously sane....

[We] must not only utterly reject the notion that Hamlet kills the Kingat last to revenge himself and not his father,—though we may allow that the treachery to himself helped to point the spur which was necessary to urge him on to instant action,—but we must also come to the conclusion which I proposed to prove by this inquiry into the whole plot and purpose of the play,—that Hamlet does not, as Coleridge ... and other great critics have asserted, 'delay action till action is of no use, and die the victim of mere circumstance and accident.' True it is that he delays action till it is of no use to himself, and has allowed his chains to hang on him till the time for enjoying liberty and life is past: and it is doubtless a part of the moral of the Play that we should recognize in this defect in Hamlet's character the origin of his tragic and untimely fate. He ought to have lived to enjoy his triumph, but surely he has triumphed, though only in death. If he had not triumphed, if he had not done his work before the night fell, but had been a mere idler and dreamer to the last, could we part from him with any feeling but that of the kind of pity which is half blame and contempt?... There is something so unpretending, and even homely (if I may apply the word to such a state of things) in the circumstances of Hamlet's death, that it does not strike us obviously that he dies for the cause to which he has been called to be the champion. Yet so it is....

Source Citation:

Strachey, Edward. "Essay on madness (Hamlet)." EXPLORING Shakespeare. Online ed. Detroit: Gale, 2003. Discovering Collection. Gale. Independent School District 191. 23 Dec. 2012 <http://find.galegroup.com/srcx/infomark.do?&source=gale&srcprod=DISC&userGroupName=mnkburnsv&prodId=DC&tabID=T001&docId=EJ2115505494&type=retrieve&contentSet=GSRC&version=1.0>.