Elizabethan Drama and Its Mad Folk: The Harness Prize Essay for 1913

In Short

This academic essay serves as a formal survey of how early modern English dramatists portrayed insanity, imbecility, and melancholy on stage. By categorizing characters into groups—such as maniacs, pretenders, and those suffering from delusions—the investigation contrasts the crude, often cruel use of "mad folk" for public amusement with the more sophisticated, nuanced psychological depth found in the works of Shakespeare and a few of his contemporaries. It remains a valuable record of how historical attitudes toward mental health were codified and exploited within the framework of popular entertainment.

The Story

The narrative arc of the book begins with an inquiry into the origins of madness in Elizabethan thought, where physical theories—such as the presence of a "worm in the brain"—competed with astrological superstitions regarding the moon. From these foundations, the analysis shifts to the cruel reality of how the mentally ill were treated in the period, noting that they were often viewed as "God’s minstrels" or, more frequently, as targets for mockery. The central portion of the book examines the dramatic application of these ideas, categorizing characters by their symptoms and the playwright's intent.

The progression follows a distinct trajectory from the "cheap amusement" of the groundlings toward a more serious artistic standard. The author moves through the "maniacs," those suffering from imbecility, and the melancholiacs, before reaching the "pretenders"—characters like Hamlet or Edgar, who adopt madness as a strategic mask. Along the way, the text highlights the distinction between characters like the Gaoler’s Daughter in The Two Noble Kinsmen, whose madness is treated with a mix of pathos and exploitation, and the more elevated, complex portrayals found in Shakespeare’s tragedies.

The study concludes by placing Shakespeare at the pinnacle of this artistic evolution. While contemporaries like Fletcher, Dekker, and Middleton often reduced madness to "vile songs" and buffoonery to satisfy a boisterous audience, Shakespeare’s handling of mental instability is shown to be deeply integrated into the structural and emotional heart of his plays. The arc ends with a firm judgment: that while the majority of Elizabethan playwrights prostituted the theme for the sake of vulgar comedy, Shakespeare’s work stands apart, using madness not as a stagnant prop, but as a vehicle for exploring the profound vulnerabilities of the human spirit. The book moves from the "fag" of the revels—the lowest form of entertainment—to the "victorious brow" of the master, arguing that true art requires a level of empathy that most of the era's writers lacked.

How It Unfolds

The historical context The study opens by establishing the scientific and superstitious beliefs of the era, where madness was often attributed to the moon or physical ailments. It defines the scope of the essay as an exploration of the "mad folk" who populated the stage, acknowledging the elastic definition of the Elizabethan period.

Categorization of symptoms The argument proceeds by methodically sorting characters into diagnostic groups, such as maniacs, imbeciles, and those suffering from hallucinations. This structure allows the author to compare how different playwrights handled specific states, distinguishing between legitimate medical observation and dramatic artifice.

The shift to tragic construction A critical turning point occurs when the author explores how madness serves the plot. It argues that in true tragedy, insanity must be linked to the hero's actions, whereas in lesser comedies, it is frequently introduced as a disconnected, crude diversion for the audience.

The final assessment The final chapters focus on the "pretenders," analyzing how characters utilize feigned madness to navigate their world. The conclusion synthesizes these findings to assert the supremacy of Shakespeare’s psychological realism over the superficial, often degrading, techniques of his peers.

The People

The book focuses on recurring types rather than a single protagonist. Lear represents the summit of the dramatic portrayal of madness, where his delusions are deeply tethered to his character and his tragedy. The Gaoler’s Daughter from The Two Noble Kinsmen stands as a poignant example of a character whose descent is treated with both genuine pathos and, at times, an unsettling lack of sensitivity by the playwright. Jacques appears as the archetypal melancholiac, representing the complex, intellectualized form of sadness that contrast sharply with the "maniacs." Hamlet is the definitive "pretender," whose feigned madness serves as the standard against which all other deceptive or strategic displays of insanity are measured. Meleander and Lucibella are explored as examples of characters who, while not as profound as Lear, demonstrate that some playwrights could handle themes of mental suffering with genuine art rather than mere buffoonery. Finally, figures like Shattillion are used as examples of how secondary characters were often relegated to comic relief, their suffering reduced to a series of gags for the amusement of the theater-going public.

In Its Own Voice

“For the most part the lunatic seems to have been regarded, when confined, as a negligible factor in everyday life, and when at large as a harmless and a gratuitous amusement.”

This highlights the callous social reality that the author argues permeated both life and drama during the Elizabethan era.

“In many of them sublime passion is degraded for the most vulgar of purposes; in many more there is little attempt to realise the nature of insanity—mere surface work, a ‘writing down’ to the lowest type of contemporary play-goer.”

This passage reflects the author's primary critique of how many Elizabethan playwrights handled mental illness for commercial gain.

What It's Really About

The central argument posits that the portrayal of madness in Elizabethan drama is a litmus test for the artistic integrity of the playwright. The book asks whether the presence of a "madman" on stage is a genuine exploration of the human condition or a cynical concession to the audience’s base desire for spectacle. It challenges the reader to look past the "coarsest of jokes" to find where true humanity is depicted. Ultimately, the book is a study in the ethics of representation, arguing that the reduction of human suffering to a "staple commodity" for the stage is a form of artistic failure, one that only the greatest writers of the age managed to avoid.

Why Read It Today

This book is a fascinating artifact for anyone interested in the intersection of literary history, the evolution of psychological theory, and the history of social attitudes. It will appeal to readers who enjoy scholarly, well-researched investigations into the "why" behind the tropes of classic drama. The reading experience is that of a diligent, mid-century academic researcher: precise, at times morally indignant, and deeply committed to the idea that art should elevate the human experience rather than debase it.

Readers should be prepared for the dense citation style of a 1913 prize essay; the text frequently expects the reader to be familiar with the plays discussed, as it provides analytical commentary rather than synopses. Furthermore, the period attitudes toward mental health are dated, though the author is keenly aware of this, often stepping back to comment on the "Puritanical or artistic indignation" of his own perspective. It is a rewarding read for those who want to understand the darker, often ignored corners of early modern theater and gain a deeper appreciation for why certain Shakespearean scenes resonate with such enduring, chilling power compared to the "fag of the revels" found in his contemporaries' works.