business; they will and they will not, persuaded to and from upon every occasion; yet, if once resolved, obstinate and hard to be reconciled. They do, and by and by repent them of what they have done; so that both ways they are disquieted of all hands, soon weary. They are of profound judgements in some things, excellent apprehensions, judicious, wise, and witty; for melancholy advanceth men's conceits more than any humor whatever. Fearful, suspicious of all, yet again many of them desperate hair brains; rash, careless, fit to be assassinates, as being void of all ruth and sorrow. Tædium vite is a common symptom; they soon are tired with all things,-sequitur nunc vivendi nunc moriendi cupido; often tempted to make away with themselves,-vivere nolunt, mori nesciunt; they cannot die, they will not live; they complain, lament, weep, and think they lead a most melancholy life.' It would be difficult to find a criticism more applicable to the character of Hamlet than in this page of old Burton, who drew the picture as much from himself as from observation made on others. This form of madness (the melancholia attonita of nosologists) begins with lowness of spirits and a desire for solitude.

[Page 187.] Perhaps some may find it difficult to believe that Shakespeare observed these minute and almost technical distinctions of madness, which appear to belong rather to the province of the pathologist than that of the poet. But everything is still to be learned concerning this extraordinary man's habits of study and observation. The variety and individual clearness of his delineations of mental malady leave on our minds no doubt that he had made the subject his especial study, as both Crabbe and Scott certainly did after him, and with hardly inferior success. The various forms of the malady he has described, the perfect keeping of each throughout the complications of dramatic action,-the exact adjustment of the peculiar kind of madness to the circumstances which induce it, and to the previous character of the sound man,' leave us lost in astonishment.

DR MAGINN (Fraser's Maga. 1836)

(Shakespeare Papers. London, 1860, p. 330.)—In a word, Hamlet, to my mind, is essentially a psychological exercise and study. The hero, from whose acts and feelings everything in the drama takes its color and pursues its course, is doubtless insane, as I shall prove hereafter. But the species of intellectual disturbance, the peculiar form of mental malady, under which he suffers, is of the subtlest character. The hero of another of these dramas, King Lear, is also mad; and his malady is traced from the outbreak, when it became visible to all, down to the agony of his death. But we were prepared for this malady, the predisposing cause existed always; it only wanted circumstance to call it forth. Shakespeare divined and wrote upon the knowledge of the fact which has since been proclaimed formally by the physician, that it is with the mind as with the body: there can be no local affection without a constitutional disturbance,-there can be no constitutional disturbance without a local affection. Thus there can be no constitutional disturbance of the mind without that which is analogous to a local affection of the body, namely, disease, or injury affecting the nervous system and the mental organs,—some previous irregularity in their functions or intellectual faculties, or in the operation of their affections and passions; and, again, general intellectual disturbance will always be accompanied by some particular affection. But I am using well-nigh the words of Esquirol. He says, 'Presque tous' (and by this qualification he only intends to

exclude those in whom he had not the means of ascertaining the fact)—' Presque tous les alienés confiés à mes soins avoient offert quelques irregularités dans leur fonctions, dans leur facultés intellectuelles, dans leur affections, avant d'être malades, et souvent de la première enfance. Les uns avoient été d'un orgueil excessif, les autres très colérés; ceux-cì souvent tristes, ceux-là d'une gaiété ridicule; quelquesuns d'une instabilité désolante pour leur instruction, quelques autres d'une application opiniâtre à ce qu'ils entreprennoient, mais sans fixité; plusieurs vétilleux minutieux, craintifs, timides, įrresolus; presque tous avoient eu une grande activité de facultés intellectuelles et morales qui avoient redoublés d'énergie quelque temps avant l'acces; la plupart avoient eu des maux des nerfs; les femmes avoient épreuves des convulsions ou de spasmes hystériques; les hommes avoient été sujets à des crampes, des palpitations, des paralysies. Avec ces dispositions primitives ou acquises, il ne manque plus qu'une affection morale pour déterminer l'explosion de la fureur ou l'accablement de la melancolie.'

Now, in all Shakespeare's insane characters, however slight may be the mental malady, with the exception only of Hamlet, we have accurately described to us the temperament on which madness is engrafted.

[Page 333] But of Hamlet alone we have no account of any positive predisposing cause to mania or faulty temperament; nor can we catch from the lips of any third person anything which might lead us to question his sanity before the commencement of the play. All is to his praise. He is the esteemed of Fortinbras, the friend of Horatio, the beloved of Ophelia. We are abruptly brought to contemplate the noble nature warped, the lofty mind o'erthrown, the gentleman in his blown youth blasted with ecstasy.' To comprehend and account for this, we must study the drama with the same pervading sweep of thought that we would passages in human life occurring within our observation, from which we wished to wring a meaning, and by which we hoped to solve a mystery. There is nothing beyond to look to. We must judge Hamlet by what he said and did; I open the volume in which this is recorded.

BLACKWOOD'S MAGAZINE

....

(On the Feigned Madness of Hamlet. October, 1839, p. 452.)-One very manifest purpose of adopting the disguise of feigned madness was to obtain access to the King in some moment of unguarded privacy. . . . . The rambling of a maniac over all parts of the palace, and at all hours, would excite no suspicion; and thus an opportunity might be afforded of striking the fatal blow. . . . . The ordinary tone of social intercourse would be the last he would willingly or successfully support. This feint of madness offered a disguise to him more welcome, and which called for less constraint, than the labored support of an ordinary, unnoticeable demeanor. The mimicry of madness was but the excess of that levity and wildness which naturally sprang from his impatient and overwrought spirit. It afforded some scope to those disquieted feelings which it served to conceal. The feint of madness covered all,— even the sarcasm, and disgust, and turbulence, which it freed in some measure from an intolerable restraint. Nor was it a disguise ungrateful to a moody spirit, grown careless of the respect of men, and indifferent to all the ordinary projects and desires of life. The masquerade brought with it no sense of humiliation,-it pleased a misanthropic humor,-it gave him shelter and a sort of escape from society, and it

cost him little effort. That mingled bitterness and levity, which served for the representation of insanity, was often the most faithful expression of his feelings.

[Page 454.] It is not to be supposed that this state of mind, thus prompting to the choice of this disguise, would be one of long continuance; and, accordingly, we find, towards the close of the piece, that the feint of madness, which has never in fact been very sedulously supported, is laid aside, and that without any seeming embarrassment. As the excitement of his mind wears itself out, Hamlet assumes an ordinary tone. He jests with Ostic; and, from that time to the conclusion of the drama, he presents to us the aspect of one exhausted by the violence and intensity of his feelings. The Ghost might appear to him now, we think, and have been seen without a start,-the tragedy of life was becoming as indifferent as its pleasures, --and the secrets of another world would soon have been as little exciting as they had previously made the interests of this. The bidding of his father's spirit is still remembered; but we might almost doubt whether it would have been fulfilled if the treachery of the King had not suddenly rekindled his wrath, and called upon him to revenge his own as well as his father's death. . . . . A mind unhinged, vexed, tortured, and bewildered, adopts as a scheme of action what, after all, is more impulse than policy.

KNIGHT (1841)

(Introductory Notice to Hamlet, p. 89.)-It is curious that in Burton's Anatomy of Melancholy we have the stages of melancholy, madness, and frenzy indicated as described by Celsus; and Burton himself mentions frenzy as the worst stage of madness clamorous, continual.' In Q,, therefore, Hamlet, according to the description of Polonius, is not only the prey of melancholy and madness, but by continuance' of frenzy. In Q, the symptoms, according to the same description, are much milder,— a sadness—a fast-a watch-a weakness-a lightness,—and a madness. The reason of this change appears to us tolerably clear. Shakspere did not, either in his first sketch or his amended copy, intend his audience to believe that Hamlet was essentially mad; and he removed, therefore, the strong expressions which might encourage that belief.

DR RAY (1847)

[This article, from which the following extracts are taken, first appeared in The American Journal of Insanity, April, 1847. It was afterwards reprinted in Contributions to Mental Pathology, Boston, 1873, p. 485.]—It is not to be supposed that [Shakespeare] was guided solely by intuition. He unquestionably did observe the insane, but he observed them as the great comparative anatomist of our age observed the remains of extinct species of animals,-from one of the smallest bones reconstructing the whole skeleton of the creature, re-investing it with flesh and blood, and divining its manners and habits. By a similar kind of sagacity, Shakespeare, from a single trait of mental disease that he did observe, was enabled to infer the existence of many others that he did not observe, and from this profound insight into the law of psychological relations he derived the light that special observation had failed to supply.

[Page 506.] Hamlet's mental condition furnishes in abundance the characteristic symptoms of insanity in wonderful harmony and consistency.

[Page 509.] On the supposition of his real insanity we have a satisfactory expla nation of the difficulties which have received such various solutions. The integrity of every train of reason is marred by some intrusion of disease; the smooth, deep current of his feelings is turned into eddies and whirlpools under its influence, and his most solemn undertakings conducted to an abortive issue.

[Page 510.] With a skill founded on what would seem to be a professional knowledge of the subject, Shakespeare has selected for his purpose that form of the disease in which the individual is mad enough to satisfy the most superficial observer, while he still retains sufficient power of reflection and self-control to form and pursue, if not to execute, a well-defined, well-settled purpose of revenge.

[Page 512.] The manner in which Hamlet speaks of and to the Ghost, while administering the oath of secrecy to his friends, is something more than the natural reaction of the mind after experiencing extraordinary emotions. It betrays the excitement of delirium,-the wandering of a mind reeling under the first stroke of disease.

[Page 513.] Although no single incident in his interview with Ophelia is incompatible with simulation, yet when we regard the whole picture which his appearance presented, his pallid face, his piteous look, his knees knocking each other, his hatless head and down-gyved stockings, his deliberate perusal of Ophelia's face, and the sigh, so piteous and profound as it did seem to shatter all his bulk,'-we feel as little disposed to believe all this to be a well-acted sham as we should the wail of a new-born infant, or the flush that glows on the cheek in the fever of consumption.

[Page 514.] In all Hamlet's interviews with Polonius the style of his discourse is indicative of the utmost contempt for the old courtier, and he exhibits it in a manner quite characteristic of the insane. . . . . Nothing is more so than a fondness of annoying those whom they dislike by ridicule. raillery, satire, vulgarity, and every other species of abuse. . . . . Had Hamlet been feigning insanity, it would have been hardly consistent with his character to have treated in such a style the father of one so dear to him as Ophelia.

....

[Page 515.] Towards his old friends, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, his discourse and manner are suitable to his own character and to their ancient friendship. He treats them respectfully, if not cordially, discourses sensibly enough about the players and other indifferent subjects, occasionally losing his self-control and uttering a remark strongly savoring of mental unsoundness: 'O God, I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams.' It is a well-observed fact, though not generally known, that in a large majority of cases the invasion of insanity is accompanied by more or less of sleeplessness and disagreeable dreams. I have not yet met with the case, however sudden the outbreak of the disease, in which this first symptom did not exist for some time before any suspicion of impending derangement was excited in the minds of the friends. Although strongly suspecting, if not knowing, that they are in the interest of the King, sent expressly for the purpose of observing his movements, he makes no attempt to impress them with a conviction of his madness, as might have been expected had he been acting a part. For certainly, if he had been anxious to spread the belief that he was really mad, he would not have neglected so favorable an opportunity.

[Page 517.] We next meet with Hamlet in his remarkable interview with Ophelia, -remarkable not more for his language and conduct than for the difficulties which

it has presented to commentators, to whom it has proved a perfect pons asinorum. Some regard his treatment of Ophelia as unnecessarily harsh and unfeeling, even for the purposes of simulation, and in this instance, at least, can see no 'cause for mirth' in his pretended madness. If Homer sometimes nods, so may Shakespeare. Others think that Hamlet's love for Ophelia was but lukewarm after all, and therefore he was justified in treating her in such a way as to lacerate her feelings and outrage her dignity. The most natural view of the subject,—that which is most readily and obviously suggested,-relieves us of all these difficulties, and reveals to us the same strong and earnest significance which appears in every other scene of this play. If Hamlet is really insane, as he presumptively is, and as we have much reason to believe that he is, then his conduct is what might have been naturally expected. It discloses an interesting feature in mental pathology,—the change which insanity brings over the warmest affections of the heart, whereby the golden chains wrought by love and kindness are utterly dissolved, and the forsaken and desolate spirit, though it continues among men, is no longer of them. Such aberrations from the normal course of the affections were closely observed and studied by Shakespeare, who saw in them that kind of poetical interest which master-spirits like his are apt to discern in the highest truths of philosophy. The frequency with which he introduces insanity into his plays shows that it was with him a favorite subject of contemplation; and from the manner in which he deals with it, it is equally obvious that he regarded it as not only worth the attention of the philanthropist and physician, but as full of instruction to the philosopher and the poet.

. . . If in this feature he differs from every other poet, it is not from that fondness for dwelling on the morbid anatomy of the mind which is the offspring of a corrupt and jaded taste, but from a hearty appreciation of all the works and ways of nature, and a ready sympathy with every movement of the human soul. In no instance are these views so strongly confirmed as in this remarkable scene.

[Page 523.] In this play, for the first and only time, Shakespeare has ventured on representing the two principal characters as insane. His wonderful success in managing such intractable materials the world has long acknowledged and admired. They are never in the way, and their insanity is never brought forward in order to enliven the interest by a display of that kind of energy and extravagance that flows from morbid mental excitement. On the contrary, it assists in the development of events, and bears its part in the great movement in which the actors are hurried along as if by an inevitable decree of fate. Herein lies the distinguishing of Shakespeare's delineations of insanity. While other poets have made use of it chiefly to diversify the action of the play, and to excite the vulgar curiosity by its strange and striking phenomena, he has made it the occasion of unfolding many a deep truth in mental science, of displaying those motley combinations of thought that are the offspring of disease, and of tracing those mysterious associations by which the ideas of the insane mind are connected. Few men, I apprehend, are so familiar with those diversities of mental character, that are in any degree the result of disease, as not to find the sphere of their ideas on this subject somewhat enlarged by the careful study of Shakespeare.

[Page 524.] Wisely has the poet abbreviated the duration of [Ophelia's] madness. The prolonged exhibition of this afflictive disease in one so gentle and lovely would have distressed the mind of the beholder in a manner unfavorable to dramatic effect. We see enough to understand that she is no longer conscious of her sufferings; and after listening to the snatches of songs that flit through her memory, with