Why Is Hamlet Mad

Critics generally agree that Hamlet's madness is but feigning and that he acted according to his program that he confided to Horatio in the very first Act: "As I perchance hereafter shall think meet/to put an antic disposition on "(1.1.23) But Edwin Booth hazards a different opinion: "... Hamlet was really the victim of the mental disease he claims to be stimulating; in other words, his presence was pretended, a ruse of madman's cunning."' And Bradley concurs (vide infra). In this paper, an attempt has been made to prove that Hamlet has really become mad and that the nomenclature of the disease, which Bradley avoided, is an existential neurosis. The words mad, madness and lunacy all having the same import—are used in the play thirty to forty times: sometimes indicating real madness, sometimes feigned. However, perhaps, we can arrive at the right conclusion if we follow two courses. One, we can observe Hamlet
Of all, these only Polonius, Ophelia the King (Claudius), the Queen (Gertrude) and one clown once or more than once say that Hamlet is mad. On the other hand, only once the King has expressed his doubt about Hamlet's madness. Guildenstern, the courtier, merely expressed his doubt about Hamlet's madness. And though, Claudius, the crafty king, left no stone unturned to publish the dementia of Hamlet, yet we do not find any more characters talking about Hamlet's madness. This is the mysterious situation pervading the whole of Denmark, particularly the purple luminosity of the palace. And this is why critics have so far held divergent opinions about Hamlet's madness. However, before deciding upon the controversy, let us first observe both sides of the coin: one, Hamlet is mad; and two, Hamlet is feigning