Was Shakespeare mad?

For centuries scholars, students and audiences have puzzled over the perceived dilatoriness of young Hamlet in acting to revenge his father in one of the most famous plays in the English language. Nor is this the only behavioural question raised in this enigmatic text. Hamlet’s reaction to his mother’s sexuality is also somewhat disturbing and can at times appear inconsistent with the reaction of an adult male.

The question of Hamlet’s madness is, as well, difficult to come to grips with. When is Hamlet feigning and when is he not? His contrary nature dominates the play and raises questions pertaining to his state of mind that have never been definitively resolved. Hamlet, in fact, has always been regarded by scholars as one of Shakespeare’s most disturbing “problem” plays.

The dearth of biographical data pertaining to Shakespeare precludes the formation of any conclusions regarding his psychological profile. It is tempting, but fruitless, to conjecture that the withdrawal of his father, John, from civic duty could be ascribed to mental illness. The only accounts we have concerning John were written posthumously - though it seems unlikely that aberrant behaviour would go unremarked. However, in view of his high profile in civic circles, and of his recorded good humour, it is at least possible that other town fathers closed ranks around the figure of one who suffered from any sort of mental disturbance.

It is indeed a matter of record that, at one period, William’s lodgings in London meant he would have passed the Bethlem institution for the insane each day. This institution was regarded as a legitimate entertainment source and was open for public viewing of the inmates. However, the probability of Shakespeare using the incarcerated as an insight to portray the madness of Hamlet (or Lear) is remote when one considers the way in which Hamlet’s madness is presented.

In order to flag the incidents that relate to bipolarism in the text of Hamlet it is necessary to describe this illness. According to HealthyPlace.com “Bipolar disorder (also known as manic depression) is a treatable illness marked by extreme changes in mood, thought, energy and behaviour. It is known as bipolar disorder because a person’s mood can alternate between the pole of mania (high, elevated mood) and depression.” This change in the mood or “mood swing” can last for hours, days, weeks or even months. In a 2001 study of bipolar disorder, more than 50 per cent of patients attempted suicide: the risk was highest during depressive phases.

Bipolar disorder affects about 1 per cent of the population. Men and women are equally likely to develop this often disabling illness. Cycles, or episodes of depression, mania, or “mixed” manic and depressive symptoms typically recur and may become more frequent, often disrupting work, school, family and social life.

Armed with this basic definition and information it is immediately possible to see Hamlet’s vacillation and dilatoriness in a different light. The reasons for Hamlet’s bitterness and anti-social behaviour have been ascribed to grief, mourning and depression. His behaviour, however, is not consistent with a sustained period of depression, though he does exhibit all of the symptoms of depression within the course of the play.

On meeting his old friends Rosencrantz and Guildenstern we learn that he is encountering disturbed sleep patterns when he cries, in what seems to be genuine - if momentary - despair: “Oh God, I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams.” This confession is highlighted seven lines later when he admits, “I cannot reason” (2.2.).

The ability of depression to rob a sufferer of the ability to gain pleasure from life or to enjoy normal activities is famously illustrated in a soliloquy which resonates for anyone who has ever experienced clinical depression:

How weary, stale, flat and unprofitable
seems to me all the uses of this world!
Fie on’t, ah fie, ‘tis an unweeded garden
that grows to seed.
Things rank and gross in nature
Possess it merely (2.2).

Another common symptom of depression is that associated with paranoia - that of feeling “physically or cognitively anxious, agitated or very slow”. Instances of this are littered throughout the text. In Act I Hamlet displays an agitation which could be construed as a natural reaction to the news that his dead father still walks the ramparts when he adjures himself “Would that night were come! Till then sit still, my soul” (1.2).

While such agitation might be considered normal in the context, his dealings with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern could certainly be posited as a paranoiac episode. There is no textual evidence to explain his feelings towards his two fellow students when he first encounters them. Horatio also is a visiting student friend yet he is treated with trust and dignity. The different reception Hamlet gives to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern however, occurs when he finds they have arrived at the instigation of his “uncle/father” Claudius, and his mother Gertrude.

It is not unusual for concerned parents to enlist the support of their offspring’s friends when they suspect a problem that threatens the wellbeing of their child. Hamlet’s aversion towards both Gertrude and Claudius however makes the leap, by association, to his fellow students with tragic consequences. That they may be unwitting dupes of the crafty Claudius seems never to occur to him.

The inability to make decisions is another symptom of depression that most often results in the sufferer’s inability to carry out simply daily tasks and make choices concerning their own wellbeing. Hamlet admits this to Rosencrantz after he and Guildenstern have openly admitted that they have promised Gertrude they will try to discover what ails Hamlet.

They point out, however, that if Hamlet doesn’t wish them to discuss him with Gertrude they will not. They ask him to indicate what he would like them to do and Hamlet replies “Sir, I cannot” and gives as explanation the frank admission that “my wit’s diseased” (3.2). While some may interpret this as part of Hamlet’s plan to feign madness, this inability to make decisions is a genuine behavioural trait which marks the whole play.

On what basis, then, would one reject an interpretation of quite natural depression and or mourning for one of bipolarism?

Bipolarism, as explained above, is a condition brought about by the alternation between two differing - and opposite - modes of being. While it is obvious that Hamlet suffers depression it also becomes obvious that this mood does not prevail. This is part of the inconsistency that bedevils the play.

The manic phase of bipolarism is less easily identifiable than the depressive phase. It often passes unnoticed by many who consider the behaviour of people during this stage as expressing nothing more than an excess of high spirits. Such people are invariably those who are taken unawares by a sufferer’s suicide and seek for other causes in consideration of the fact the afflicted person seemed so happy. It is the desperate edge to this supposed merriment that Shakespeare portrays so skilfully in the character of Hamlet. Thus one may plausibly conjecture that at some stage in his life Shakespeare had direct experience with such a personality.

It is unlikely that a body of material supporting the premise that Shakespeare himself suffered from a mental illness will ever emerge. However, in consideration of his undoubted genius such a conjecture would be at least credible. It would be consistent with findings that bipolarism is represented more among those associated in the arts than any other sector. Goethe, Van Gogh, Virginia Woolf, Robin Williams, and Peter Sellers - the list of well known figures suffering from this illness is very long.

Instances of this manic phase occur throughout the play, but it is their juxtaposition with the quoted incidents above which provides the key to Hamlet’s personality. Manic behaviour is characterised by severe alterations in mood consisting of euphoria, expansiveness, irritability and, sometimes, severe depression.

Thus in Act I Hamlet, on being re-united with his friend Horatio, exclaims jovially, “We’ll teach you to drink deep ere you depart” (1.2). Yet two acts later he seems opposed to customs involved with drinking which:

Makes us traduced and taxed of other nations
They clepe us drunkards, and with swinish phrases
Soil our addition
and indeed it takes
from our achievement, though performed at height
The pith and marrow of our attribute (1.4).

His irritability towards the verbose Polonius appears unreasonable in a text which portrays “that good old man” as a faithful retainer. In fact Hamlet’s first words in the presence of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are, “These tedious old fools!” (2.2), spoken while Polonius is still in the room. This behaviour culminates in a complete lack of remorse at having killed his girlfriend’s father.

“Mania can occasionally become so severe that it is accompanied by psychotic symptoms such as delusions, hallucinations and very disorganized thinking, similar to schizophrenia. In addition, people in manic episodes can be very impulsive and occasionally violent. Often, unfortunately, they have little insight into their behaviour during the throes of an actual manic episode”.

While the appearance of the ghost has been verified and, indeed introduced by others, it is only Hamlet who sees the apparition in Gertrude’s closet. Hamlet’s conversation with Gertrude at this time is typical of a person in a manic episode as above, so it is possible that, on this occasion, the ghost is actually an hallucination. This would then explain Hamlet’s cavalier attitude towards having murdered an innocent bystander - albeit one concealed behind an arras - as well as the prurient unreason of his interest in his mother’s sex life.

What is amazing about Hamlet in the light of recent psychological knowledge is how the portrayal of madness deviates from the traditional public concept of lunacy which existed when it was written. It is this departure which may partially contribute to it being regarded as a problem text.

To enact madness in early modern times was to portray hysteria or testeria in recognisable forms. The conventional mad person on-stage was “the jilted lover gone demented” (Ophelia) or the ranting religious maniac; and standard actions such as muttering gibberish, and tearing off one’s clothes epitomised madness in the public mind. It is important to remember also that, unlike witchcraft, there was no body or person who could be considered an authority upon madness.

The definition of madness was constantly being renegotiated with regard to questions such as religion, philanthropy (a 19th century English farmer was once confined to an asylum for paying his labourers above the award rate) or passion. Madness was also situational and so could include a new mother with what we now call post partum depression, an attempted suicide or even the topsy-turvy world of Carnival where everyone was expected to go a little mad.

In light of the above therefore, perhaps it is not beyond the bounds of probability that Shakespeare, one of the greatest creative geniuses of English literature, could have been thus afflicted. We know he spent many years apart from his family; he didn’t carouse with his colleagues Jonson and Marlowe; he didn’t commemorate the death of either his father or son in verse as would seem natural to one who expressed himself through his pen; and, while regarded as “gentle”, “honey-tongued” and “sweet”, he left a public indictment of his wife through his will wherein she was only to receive the famous “second-best bed”.

The discovery that he suffered from a mental illness of this kind would help explain the anomalies and confusions that have arisen over the centuries regarding his personality. If nothing else such a theory at least provides food for thought!