The lot of a madman is to be useless. Since his conclusions are not sound though they dictate his life they stunt his growth. Madnesses in this sense is infectivity, to run in circles valid in one’s argument and be hopeless. As the plays unfold it seems as though reason as much as madness binds these characters together. Giving the impression that perhaps they are not mutually exlise, but directly related.mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot conduct her/his affairs due to psychosis, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior. We see the madman as him who exists in a fantasy world of his own creation, rejecting reality in favor of his own world. The subconsioc error that people commit when they read this definition is that they assume that this kind of fantsy is ludicris and unrelatble. But no such caveat exists in the actual definintion. Madness is far more sublte and insideos. King Lears fantasy is in someway relatable his intense need for validation, his unhelty family structure, his inability to disern those who truly love him from those who do not. His fantasy thinking is selfishness, narcism, and the inability to admit his own flaws. This is not foaming at the mouth, strachting on walls yet it is still mad. His view of himself and his place in the minds and hearts of others is a fabrication, yet it dictates all his actions. He is mad, yet What then are we to conclude. Humanity is mad. No man sees the world as it is. How can he when every persons expeinces and personality are so unique yet touched by depravity. This is not the kind of disease that can be institutionalized because all are infected. The general idea of Madness in shaksepeare is meant to be potrayed as a mental condition but as the mental state of man heighted for theatrical purposes. Shakespears characters all have a touch of madness. To be mad is to be human and to bear the burden of human nature. If madness can be defined as not seeig the world as it truly is then The madness is sharkspear is not pathological, it is typical.All the world’s a stage, And all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts,The issue with madness in shakspeare is that it has never been concretely defined. Some believe it was the authors archaic take on severe mental illness. Others believe it was a ? the reality is far less exhilarating. Madness in Shakespeare is an embellished look at the general human condition; when a person alaways their biased intrepritation of themselves and the world around them to dictate their actions and belifs this creates a discount between the way they pervice the world to be and the way it actually is. The characters inability to reconcile perceived reality to truth creates a mental dysphoria, this dysphoria is refered to as madness. Madness is formidable and persistent largly due to the fact that the logic of insanity is internal consistant. The madmans logic persists even though it be flawed, not becayse it is well reasoned but because it is internally consistent, if everything has a reason, a casueation, why not his reason, why not his cause. The truth is a footnote in insantity, logic is the master of it. A madman cannot care that his logic is “flawed”, how can it be, when his conclusions are always correct.Perception rather than law drives the madman, the madman is the sanest person in the world. The madman does not realize that he is mad, he does not worry. Everyone is mad but he, and he cannot be proven otherwise. What he perceives rather than what truly is is what is the lens through which the madman interprets his surrondings, and in this, all of the cast of hamlet, all shakespearian characters, have a touch of madness. If they did not, there would be not tradjedies not comedies to tell. This cyle of attempting to find reason in tradegdys, is followed by the slaow desent into madness as reason provides no actual solutions. Ultimatly the tradgedy concludes with no loose ends as the main character accepts, some even on their deathbed, all the illict forces out of their control that brought this tradgedy about. Ultimatly it is acceptance of the flawed human condition and not reason that brings clarity to tradegy.Meriem websters defiens madness forst as: “the state of being mentally ill, especially severely.” and secondly as “behavior or thinking that is very foolish or dangerous :extreme folly”. His arguments are valid but not sound; his premise is flawed and therefore his conclusions warped. The product of logical deduction but not based in reality. Othello is the Lord of his home, and commander of his men. He has the authority to act on his reason. He is the god of his world, yet what a small circular world it is. When worldview does not match reality one must chnge their mind, or create their own truth. Most choose the later and the madness that accompanies it. Madness, or the uncanny ablity of fallen humans to view the world through their narrow reasonable lens. The decivers play into the fears that already exist within the character. They do not create the calamity, they simply fuel it. The madman’s explanation of a thing is always complete, and often in a purely rational sense satisfactory. Or, to speak more strictly, the insane explanation, if not conclusive, is at least unanswerable; this may be observed specially in the two or three commonest kinds of madness. If a man says (for instance) that men have a conspiracy against him, you cannot dispute it except by saying that all the men deny that they are conspirators; which is exactly what conspirators would do. His explanation covers the facts as much as yours… Nevertheless he is wrong. But if we attempt to trace his error in exact terms, we shall not find it quite so easy as we had supposed. Perhaps the nearest we can get to expressing it is to say this: that his mind moves in a perfect but narrow circle. A small circle is quite as infinite as a large circle; but, though it is quite as infinite, it is not so large. In the same way the insane explanation is quite as complete as the sane one, but it is not so large. A bullet is quite as round as the world, but it is not the world. There is such a thing as a narrow universality; there is such a thing as a small and cramped eternity; you may see it in many modern religions. Now, speaking quite externally and empirically, we may say that the strongest and most unmistakable MARK of madness is this combination between a logical completeness and a spiritual contraction. The lunatic’s theory explains a large number of things, but it does not explain them in a large way…Or it might be the third case, of the madman who called himself Christ. If we said what we felt, we should say, “So you are the Creator and Redeemer of the world: but what a small world it must be! What a little heaven you must inhabit, with angels no bigger than butterflies! How sad it must be to be God; and an inadequate God! Is there really no life fuller and no love more marvellous than yours; and is it really in your small and painful pity that all flesh must put its faith? How much happier you would be, how much more of you there would be, if the hammer of a higher God could smash your small cosmos, scattering the stars like spangles, and leave you in the open, free like other men to look up as well as down!” “O villain, villain, smiling, damned villain!”Madness is an ill defined term that is a synonym for a persauve aspect of human nature, egotism.He is wordy without reason, ridiculously passionate where rationality is most needed, and mocked by his fool because he, in reality, is the foolish one for attempting to maintain his false exterior. By the time he dies in Act V, Lear is stripped, humbled, and crazy…yet he is finally redeemed, forgiven by his audience for his misjudgments because he has become true to himself. As Bradley says, “everything external has become nothingness to him, and…what remains is ‘the thing itself,’ the soul in its bare greatness.” 14 Without his persona, we are at last willing to appreciate the greatness in Lear, but, ironically, we require his madness to do so.T.S Eliot’s “Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock,” a character who seems to share many of Lear’s initial doubts, fears, and insecurities. He describes himself as “Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse;/ At times, indeed almost ridiculous–/ Almost, at times, the Fool.””But as Knight says, “In madness, thoughts deep-buried come to the surface.”9 This is indeed true of Lear. A more reflective quality is apparent in his speech following his daughters’ cold rejections. As he begins to lose his sanity, he ironically gains increasing clarity, shown at first by his repentance over banishing Cordelia: “O most small fault, / How ugly didst thou in Cordelia show!” (I, iv, 288-289)”2.1.66 – one can by indirection direction find. Hidden wisdom in madness – the fool and Edgar in King LearOnce you’ve gone mad, there’s infinite reason in what you do. Beforehand, though,the sane person will have paranoia, jealousy, anger, fear to corrupt their actions. “Before he goes mad, he banishes both Kent and Cordelia; however during his lapse in sanity he sees the error of his ways and grows as a King and as a father…After Regan and Goneril treat him with disrespect and deviate from their promises of eternal love, he sees the error in giving them so much power and leaving himself without any.”(Act III, scene iv lines 28-36)Lear can see that the impoverished citizens of his kingdom stand no chance of survival. He realizes that he had the resources to help these people when he was in power. Lear understands that these people cannot afford food, shelter, or clothes, while he and his family live in luxury.Because he doesn’t know himself that adds to the distraction pile that is stripped away in madnessKing Lear (III, vi, 19-21)The fool in Shakespeare’s plays often serves as the person who sees things in the most honest way. In King Lear, his jester has been delivering stinging lines that get to the bottom of the truth, the most obvious being how King Lear gave away his kingdom to ungrateful daughters who have now demeaned and humiliated him. Lear has run out into a raging storm, wandering wildly and naked on the heath, sinking into madness over the ingratitude of his children. He is pulled at last into a farmhouse where his fool, the only person allowed to be frank with King Lear, continues to chide him about his characterMacbethMacbeth:Whence is that knocking?How is’t with me, when every noise appalls me?What hands are here? Hah! They pluck out mine eyes.Will all great Neptune’s ocean wash this bloodClean from my hand? No; this my hand will ratherThe multitudinous seas incarnadine,Making the green one red.Macbeth Act 2, scene 2, 54–60″The multitudinous seas incarnadine” is understandably confusing to modern readers, but Macbeth explains his meaning in the following line. Shakespeare makes a verb out of “incarnadine,” a sixteenth century adjective meaning “pink.” (The Latin root carn-refers to flesh, and thus, in its derivatives, to flesh color.) “To incarnadine” is thus to turn something pink or light red—what Macbeth imagines his bloody hands will do to Neptune’s green ocean see A SORRY SIGHT. After Shakespeare, the verb and adjective have both come to refer to the color of blood itself—crimson—rather than to the light red of a bloodied sea.Macbeth has come to recognize that his guilt can never be washed off, even if the blood can be washed from his hands. Instead, his guilt will poison the world around him, which he compares to an ocean. He has already begun to hallucinate: here, he imagines hands plucking out his eyes in retribution for the murder of Duncan.Macbeth:Canst thou not minister to a mind diseas’d,Pluck from the memory a rooted sorrow,Raze out the written troubles of the brain,And with some sweet oblivious antidoteCleanse the stuff’d bosom of that perilous stuffWhich weighs upon the heart?Doctor:Therein the patientMust minister to himself.Macbeth:Throw physic to the dogs, I’ll none of it.Macbeth Act 5, scene 3, 40–47A doctor has been called in to treat the sleepwalking Lady Macbeth, queen of Scotland see OUT, DAMNED SPOT. Macbeth, recognizing his wife’s severe case of guilty conscience, asks the doctor whether he can’t do something about it. As the doctor well knows, but Macbeth and his wife have trouble acknowledging, a physician cannot treat one’s conscience with the same medicine he uses to heal the body. “Therein,” says the doctor, “the patient/ Must minister to himself’—in other words, “that’s your own problem.” With characteristically brutal abandon, Macbeth scorns all “physic” (medicine)—it’s sour grapes to him. Self-ministration of the spiritual variety is hardly his style. Macbeth will suit up in his armor and put the sword to his enemies, treating them as if they were his disease, and as if routing them were the cure for his guilt.Ophelia – psychological abuse – please abuser, depression, anxiety, decreased cognitive function. Hamlet – fixation conspiracy CONSPIRACY THEORIES – Suspicion in Shakespeare? “Unexpectedly kings Leontes goes insane and suspects that his pregnant wife Queen Hermione has been having an affair with the king Polixenes. Shakespeare dramatically portrays the king Leontes delusional mind which filled with suspicion and conspiracy theory. “Corresponding with Chesterton”It is true that some speak lightly and loosely of insanity as in itself attractive. But a moment’s thought will show that if disease is beautiful, it is generally some one else’s disease. A blind man may be picturesque; but it requires two eyes to see the picture. And similarly even the wildest poetry of insanity can only be enjoyed by the sane. To the insane man his insanity is quite prosaic, because it is quite true. A man who thinks himself a chicken is to himself as ordinary as a chicken. A man who thinks he is a bit of glass is to himself as dull as a bit of glass. It is the homogeneity of his mind which makes him dull, and which makes him mad. It is only because we see the irony of his idea that we think him even amusing; it is only because he does not see the irony of his idea that he is put in Hanwell at all. In short, oddities only strike ordinary people. Oddities do not strike odd people. This is why ordinary people have a much more exciting time; while odd people are always complaining of the dulness of life. This is also why the new novels die so quickly, and why the old fairy tales endure for ever. The old fairy tale makes the hero a normal human boy; it is his adventures that are startling; they startle him because he is normal. But in the modern psychological novel the hero is abnormal; the centre is not central. Hence the fiercest adventures fail to affect him adequately, and the book is monotonous. You can make a story out of a hero among dragons; but not out of a dragon among dragons. The fairy tale discusses what a sane man will do in a mad world. The sober realistic novel of to-day discusses what an essential lunatic will do in a dull world.””imagination, especially mystical imagination, is dangerous to man’s mental balance. Poets are commonly spoken of as psychologically unreliableEverywhere we see that men do not go mad by dreaming.Poetry is sane because it floats easily in an infinite sea; reason seeks to cross the infinite sea, and so make it finite. The result is mental exhaustionTo accept everything is an exercise, to understand everything a strain. The poet only desires exaltation and expansion, a world to stretch himself in. The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits. if great reasoners are often maniacal, it is equally true that maniacs are commonly great reasoners The last thing that can be said of a lunatic is that his actions are causeless. If any human acts may loosely be called causeless, they are the minor acts of a healthy man; whistling as he walks; slashing the grass with a stick; kicking his heels or rubbing his hands. It is the happy man who does the useless things; the sick man is not strong enough to be idle. It is exactly such careless and causeless actions that the madman could never understand; for the madman (like the determinist) generally sees too much cause in everything. The madman would read a conspiratorial significance into those empty activities. He would think that the lopping of the grass was an attack on private property. He would think that the kicking of the heels was a signal to an accomplice. If the madman could for an instant become careless, he would become sanehis mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment. He is not hampered by a sense of humour or by charity, or by the dumb certainties of experiencein the heart or on the edge of mental disorder, knows that their most sinister quality is a horrible clarity of detail; a connecting of one thing with another in a map more elaborate than a mazeThe madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason.FREUDFreud: Madness in Shakespeare Freud’s biographers tell us that he began reading Shakespeare at the age of eight andread him over and over again; he was alwaysready with a Shakespearean quotation. He admired particularly Shakespeare’s power of expression Inner mental conflict – Jealousy is a complex emotion allied with insecurity, fear, and anxiety. Othello was a romantic as well as an egoistic lover who held a delusional belief that his wife was being unfaithful. Othello made repeated accusations of infidelity based on insignificant evidence. Othello delusional jealousy had strong association with violence that led to the death of his wife.Difference from supernatural DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WITCHES and MADMENEdgar is a special case, since he is certainly acting a part as poor Tom: he fits the popular image of the madman “possessed” by devils. The difference between a madman (like Poor Tom) and a witch was that the witch was supposed to have deliberately made a pact with the devil, whereas Tom was involuntarily possessed by devils. It is interesting that Edgar, to make his state more credible, invents a sinful past as a lecherous courtier.