1 HAMLET’S MADNESS: The most difficult question in Hamlet is the madness of the hero. Whether the bonds of sanity are really over passed by Hamlet or not. Almost all the critics have dealt with the character of Hamlet and have given their opinions and can be grouped into two. Let us judge their opinions and then analyse the problem ourselves. There are certain critics who believe that Hamlet is definitely mad and his madness is real. George Farren, a nineteenth century critic, says that “the death of his father, the hasty marriage of his mother, over throw of his royal hopes, all these working on mind predisposed to gaiety imparts a tinge of melancholy to it.” Dr. Raj, a medical man, writing in “The American Journal of insanity” remarks: “The manner, of which Hamlet speaks of and to the ghost, while administrating the oath of secrecy to his friend, is something more than the reaction of a mind after experiencing extraordinary emotions.” According to these critics there are definite signs of madness in the play. His actions and behaviour after meeting ghost, his meeting with Ophelia, with pale face, piteous look and eccentric behaviour, his loss of mental balance after the success of Mouse Trap, his emotional behaviour at the funeral of Ophelia, his conversation with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, after he has dictated them as spies of king, are the sure signs of his madness. Prof. Nicoll says in his book: “It is quite natural that the shocks to Hamlet’s inner nature should tend to destroy his sanity.” On the other hand, there are extreme critics who hold the view that Hamlet is not mad at all and his madness is definitely feigned. Sinder, a nineteen century critic, says that Hamlet is not mad at all. He possesses the finest sides of character and intelligence. He no doubt, has weakness, deficiency of will power, melancholic colour in his feelings, unsound reasoning etc. All these are true but do not make out a case of madness. Lowell, another famous critic of Shakespeare, is of the view that if Shakespeare himself, without going mad, could so observe and remember all the abnormal symptoms as to able to produce in Hamlet, why should it be beyond the power of Hamlet to reproduce them in his self. If Hamlet is mad then what about Shakespeare?” Stopford Brooke in “On ten plays of Shakespeare” remarks, all men of genius are mad, genius itself is madness. If genius is madness Hamlet was mad.” A German critic Vischer says: “Hamlet is just as insane as all men of genius are.” When we read the play, we feel that in peculiar circumstances Hamlet becomes subject to emotional outburst and abnormal behaviour. After meeting the ghost, Hamlet utters the words which should put an end to the whole controversy. “As I perchance here after shall think meet To put an antic disposition on…..” Here arises a question for what purpose he puts on an antic disposition. Whether he remains successful in his aim for which he adopts madness? Let us seek answer to these questions. Before going deep, it should be clear that feigning of madness was a part of the convention of the revenge plays. Hamlet may adopt madness to carry out his purpose- the execution of revenge, without alerting his enemies. The king has never been convinced of his madness. Even Polonius, who sets Hamlet’s madness, confuses that: “Though this be madness, yet there is method in it.” Rosencrantz and Guildenstern who tackle with Hamlet also say: “Nor do we find him forward to be sounded, But with a crafty madness.” Only the two ladies, in the play, believe in his madness- Ophelia and his mother. His mother believes in his madness even after she is told by Hamlet: “Ecstasy! My pulse as yours doth temperately keep time,