# Mad Hatter -- "it's believed"
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mad-hatter-its-believed/58244
**Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
**Created:** [March 16, 2001, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mad-hatter-its-believed/58244 "2001-03-16T16:21:00Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@argybarg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/argybarg)
#### Post date: [March 16, 2001, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mad-hatter-its-believed/58244/1 "2001-03-16T16:21:00Z")
[http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mmadhatter.html](http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mmadhatter.html)
“The origin of the phrase, it’s believed, is that hatters really did go mad.”
It’s believed? It’s _believed_? Hasn’t the staff around here heard of sources? Research? I already knew that that was “believed.” “Believed,” I can do myself.
Many spurious word and phrase origins are “believed” but disappear upon close scrutiny. My guess is that this is one of those cases.
---
### Author:  [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)
#### Post date: [March 16, 2001, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mad-hatter-its-believed/58244/2 "2001-03-16T17:46:45Z")
Etymology is rarely an exact science. Tracking the origin of a phrase or word does not have the precision that arises in other topics.
Sure, sometimes we can track a word or phrase, like “15 minutes of fame” to a specific bon mot by some famous person. Sometimes we know precisely where and when a certain usage arose – especially if it is derived from a written text. Other times, trying to track down the origin of a phrase (like “whole nine yards”) leads to much speculation. And when the phrase arose in common speech and wasn’t written down until it was already in common use, it is extremely difficult to ascertain the origin.
Thus, we cannot say with certainty where the phrase “mad as a hatter” originates. All we can say is what is most commonly believed, and what some of the alternate explanations are. If you’re not happy with this, argy, then you’d best stick to only reading questions about the quantifiable sciences. (I was going to say, you can shove it in your – ahem – hat.)
I should also point out that Cecil does not give Straight Dope Staff any budget for research. We tend to use secondary sources. If you would like to contribute, say, $300,000 or $400,000, I would be glad to spend the next year or two in England trying to track down a more specific origin from original source material. At present, however, all I can do is note what others (who **have** done the primary research) have concluded.
---
### Author:  [@argybarg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/argybarg)
#### Post date: [March 16, 2001, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mad-hatter-its-believed/58244/3 "2001-03-16T18:11:20Z")
I have exposed myself as a jerk of a massive order. Please accept my apologies for my shrillness. I’m now committed to finding a subject of actual importance so I can be outraged where it matters. Until then I’ll be polite.
---
### Author:  [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)
#### Post date: [March 16, 2001, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mad-hatter-its-believed/58244/4 "2001-03-16T18:49:44Z")
No sweat, Argy, just take a bite out of your teacup and move over one seat, the dormouse is asleep again.
---
### Author:  [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)
#### Post date: [March 17, 2001, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mad-hatter-its-believed/58244/5 "2001-03-17T00:13:17Z")
**Dex** I enjoyed your column about “Mad Hatters” and related topics. I know that we have had board discussions along those lines within the last 6 months or so, but you summarized the available information nicely and cleanly.
My question to you(any anyone else who cares to respond) is this-- **if the term _Mad as a Hatter_ was in print by 1837, and _there is no evidence that the felt hat industry was using mercury compounds at this point in England_ , why would one conclude that the phrase actually referred to mercury-poisoned Hatters?**
I am sure that people in the hat making business were poisonsed by mercury compounds. And I have no trouble accepting that Hatters appeared “mad” to outsiders who might not know of their condition.
A last note: anyone who can, please give the source of _Danbury shakes_ , referring to Connecticut hatters problems. Please give cite in print by date. Thanks.
---
### Author:  [@JBENZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JBENZ)
#### Post date: [March 17, 2001, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mad-hatter-its-believed/58244/6 "2001-03-17T01:22:28Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by samclem \*
> \*\*
> My question to you(any anyone else who cares to respond) is this-- **if the term _Mad as a Hatter_ was in print by 1837, and _there is no evidence that the felt hat industry was using mercury compounds at this point in England_ , why would one conclude that the phrase actually referred to mercury-poisoned Hatters?**
>
> I am sure that people in the hat making business were poisonsed by mercury compounds. And I have no trouble accepting that Hatters appeared “mad” to outsiders who might not know of their condition.
>
> A last note: anyone who can, please give the source of _Danbury shakes_ , referring to Connecticut hatters problems. Please give cite in print by date. Thanks. \*\*
Danbury, Connecticut was a major hat manufacturibng center right to almost the end of the 20th century. The best known company was Stetson and up 'til around 1992 or so you could go to their factory outlet store and buy the 10 gallon hat of yer choice hot off the press:
Here’s a few on the Danbury Shakes:
[http://www.epa.gov/grtlakes/seahome/mercury/src/effects.htm](http://www.epa.gov/grtlakes/seahome/mercury/src/effects.htm)
[http://www.villagehatshop.com/main\_facts.html](http://www.villagehatshop.com/main_facts.html)
[http://www.cheminfonet.org/mercury1.htm](http://www.cheminfonet.org/mercury1.htm)
[http://chemistry.about.com/science/chemistry/library/weekly/aa032999a.htm](http://chemistry.about.com/science/chemistry/library/weekly/aa032999a.htm)
Or just do a Google Search on “Danbury Shakes”
Here also are Michael Quinion’s column at World Wide Words:
> **[World Wide Words: Mad as a hatter](http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-mad2.htm)**
>
> A questioner asks for enlightenment about the origins of 'mad as a hatter'?
and the lovely and talented Evan Morris’ version:
[http://www.word-detective.com/030299.html#madhatter](http://www.word-detective.com/030299.html#madhatter)
---
### Author:  [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)
#### Post date: [March 17, 2001, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mad-hatter-its-believed/58244/7 "2001-03-17T02:13:36Z")
**JBENZ** Thanks for your reply.
None of the links you supplied answered either of my questions.
Again, _Mad as a Hatter_ was in print by 1837(or 1836) and the use of mercury compounds in felt hat production in England was not. So how could this be the source of the phrase?
And, secondly, none of your links provided any clue as to where _Danbury shakes_ first appeared in print. No year, no source. But thanks for trying.
---
### Author:  [@Clark\_K](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clark_K)
#### Post date: [March 17, 2001, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mad-hatter-its-believed/58244/8 "2001-03-17T18:52:54Z")
Forgive me if I’m being dense, Samclem, but what makes you think mercury was NOT being used in the hat-making business at the time? Your question seems to take it for granted that the period of mercury use and the origin of the phrase do not match up. But, unless I read right past it, I haven’t seen that spelled out.
---
### Author:  [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)
#### Post date: [March 17, 2001, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mad-hatter-its-believed/58244/9 "2001-03-17T20:22:01Z")
> [@](#):
>
> **…there is no evidence that the felt hat industry was using mercury compounds at this point in England…**
Okay. Mercury was used to make felt hats out of beaver fur. Beaver hats had been around for centuries.
> **[thehatsite.com](http://www.thehatsite.com/felt.html)**
>
> Hat Size,Ladies Hats,The Hat,A Game Online Games,How to Measure Hat Size,Where Can I Buy a Fedora Hat
> [@](#):
>
> Beaver felt hats date back as far as the 14th Century with the majority of production being based in Holland and Spain.
Here’s a picture of a 17th century Dutchman wearing a beaver hat.
[http://www.npj.com/homepage/teritowe/tlc1.html](http://www.npj.com/homepage/teritowe/tlc1.html)
This was why the early explorers were so happy to find that North America was teeming with beaver. “We’re all gonna be rich!”
Beaver felt needed mercury to make it “felt” properly, but when it was done, it was superb. Waterproof, glossy, and soft, but most important, it held its shape in the rain. Other kinds of felt won’t do that, especially if it’s a wide-brimmed hat. Other felt hats from different kinds of felt, like wool and rabbit, were made in a different way, without using mercury.
> **[thehatsite.com](http://www.thehatsite.com/felt.html)**
>
> Hat Size,Ladies Hats,The Hat,A Game Online Games,How to Measure Hat Size,Where Can I Buy a Fedora Hat
> [@](#):
>
> Beaver
>
> The initial stage in the hat making process would be the plucking of the coarse guard hairs from the beaver pelt, which was then brushed, with a solution of nitrate of mercury.
>
> This would raise the scales on the fur shafts so that they would become firmly locked together. This process became known as “carotting” and if carried out in a poorly ventilated room, the mercury fumes could damage the brain, hence the expression “mad as a hatter”. The fibres would then be cut from the skin and placed on a bench in a workroom known as the “hurdle”. Over the bench would be suspended a hatter’s bow, very much like an oversized violin bow and the fibres responded to the vibrations of the bow which was controlled by the craftsmen, separating themselves and becoming evenly distributed until they had formed into a thick but loosely structured mat of material known as the “batt”. Several batts would then be shaped into a cone and reduced in size by boiling and then rolled to create a firm dense felt. The hood would then be sent onto the hatter who would mould it to the required shape and then line and finish it.
So they would have stopped using mercury when beaver hats went out of fashion. So I went looking for when beaver hats went out of fashion.
> **[thehatsite.com](http://www.thehatsite.com/felt.html)**
>
> Hat Size,Ladies Hats,The Hat,A Game Online Games,How to Measure Hat Size,Where Can I Buy a Fedora Hat
> [@](#):
>
> Hats made from Beaver felt were to see a marked decline in the mid 1800s and gradually became replaced by the silk hat, followed by fur felt hats and wool felt hats.
[http://www.connerprairie.org/clothing.html](http://www.connerprairie.org/clothing.html)
> [@](#):
>
> Several hat styles were available - round crowned, wide-brimmed fur felts, higher-crowned “toppers” of beaver fur, with slight flares to the taps, high-crowned, wide-brimmed woven or plaited straw for summer. Silk hats were increasingly popular after 1830, as beaver pelts became scarcer and more expensive.
[http://parkscanada.pch.gc.ca/parks/alberta/Rocky\_mountain\_house/english/beaver\_e.htm](http://parkscanada.pch.gc.ca/parks/alberta/Rocky_mountain_house/english/beaver_e.htm)
> [@](#):
>
> When silk hats replaced the beaver hat in popularity in the 1840s…
So, it looks to me like they still would have been using mercury to make beaver hats in 1837.
---
### Author:  [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)
#### Post date: [March 17, 2001, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mad-hatter-its-believed/58244/10 "2001-03-17T21:06:34Z")
…and this just in–
[http://www.americancynic.com/06281999.html](http://www.americancynic.com/06281999.html)
> [@](#):
>
> The first time haberdasher John Hetherington walked down a London street in 1797 wearing his new invention – the top hat – the display caused a riot. Women fainted, dogs barked, and children wailed. A mob scene ensued. Hetherington was dragged into court where he was charged with appearing “on the public highway wearing upon his head a tall structure having a shining luster calculated to frighten timid people.” Really, the hat was just a silk variation of the beaver pelt riding hats contemporary at the time. For decades, some folks stuck to the beaver, and some switched to silk. Then, in 1850, Prince Albert started wearing a top hat made of plush silk, and that set the standard.
I’m not an expert on the history of hats, but here’s a website devoted to selling authentic reproductions of period hats to historical re-enactors.
[http://www.historyinthemaking.org/catalog/menhat.htm](http://www.historyinthemaking.org/catalog/menhat.htm)
> [@](#):
>
> With the exception of the noted ocassional use of machine sewing, most of our hatmaking techniques pre-date the English industrial revolution. The trade has separated into the two fields of feltmaking and hatmaking, but the methods used here pre-date the factory hatmaking system and early machine-made hats. W e do not make our own felt, but all other aspects of the work use methods which date from the time during which the feltmaker was also the hat blocker and hat finisher.
They offer hats from time periods covering the 1720s through the early 20th century. All the top hats they offer, for time periods up to and including the 1920s, are finished in a “beaver felt finish”. I’m assuming that they don’t sell silk top hats because men’s silk top hats haven’t changed that much since 1850, so if you want a silk top hat to go with your late 19th century re-enactment, you just go buy one from a formal wear store–you don’t need to order a special reproduction from these people.
So, assuming that these people know what they’re doing, I’m interpreting this to mean that a beaver felt finish hat must be “authentic” for the time period 1850 to 1920, that there must have been “old fogies” all through the 19th century, and up through the 1920s, who weren’t happy with a top hat constructed of silk glued to cardboard, who insisted on “the real thing”. So conceivably, mind-boggling though it may be, it’s possible that until the 1920s, there may have been hatters somewhere who were still using mercury. “Hey, it’s a living…”
The trade in beaver fur never entirely went away, so there would have been pelts available to be made into hats. It just wasn’t as big an industry as it had been. And actually the trade in beaver fur is still with us today.
[http://www.ohiostatetrapper.org/auction/1999/auction000219.htm](http://www.ohiostatetrapper.org/auction/1999/auction000219.htm)
But I dunno, maybe I’m way off base here. Any hatmakers out there?
---
### Author:  [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)
#### Post date: [March 18, 2001, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mad-hatter-its-believed/58244/11 "2001-03-18T01:13:13Z")
**Clark K. and DDG** I’m sorry to have written my rant without giving links. I think I was tired.
I think you should read [this site](http://h%2Ddevil%2Dwww.mc.duke.edu/oem/hatters.htm). It gives about the best summary of info available about the topic.
The part that I choose to focus on concerns Thackeray and his novel _Pendennis_. While I haven’t read the novel, it seems to have a section describing the hat industry in England prior to 1850. There is _no mention_ of mercury poisoning in the novel. In the link I cite, the author says…“Thackrah’s failure to include mercury poisoning in his description of hazards in the British hat industry in the early part of the 19th century.”
If you read the article from the link I supplied, you will see that there is no printed evidence that mercury compounds were used prior to the 1840-50’s in England.
**DDG** Your site from the hat industry [hat industry](http://www.thehatsite.com/felt.html) doesn’t offer any proof that mercury compounds were used on beaver prior to the 1840’s/50’s in England. They jump from saying that beaver felt hats were started in the 14th century to just saying that mercury nitrate was used in the carotting process. So just **when** was a mercury compound first used in the “carotting process”? There is no printed evidence to indicate that it was as early as 1839. Unless I missed something.
If mercury compounds were used by the Hugenots before and after they fled to England, then why would not some indication that Hugenot hatters suffered ill effects enter the literature? After all, they came to England in 1685. One would assume that there would have been a few mercury-poisoned hatters in the next 150 years.
I know that my reply is rather hard to follow, but there is no printed evidence that mercury compounds were used prior to the 1840’s-50’s. I think they probably were, but show me the evidence.
---
### Author:  [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)
#### Post date: [March 18, 2001, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mad-hatter-its-believed/58244/12 "2001-03-18T21:18:50Z")
The Goldwater link is just one man’s opinion. And that’s the opinion of a man with an axe to grind: he says the phrase is supposed to be “mad as an _adder_”. His point is that since Thackeray didn’t mention mad hatters in his autobiographical novel _Pendennis_, published in 1850, that therefore there was no such thing as a “mad hatter”, and that Lewis Carroll must have misheard “mad as an adder”. That’s the whole point of his article.
I have to be suspicious of anybody who uses a work of literature for reference but consistently misspells the author’s name throughout. We get “Thackrah” and “Thackerah”, but it’s “Thackeray”. William Makepeace.
This statement of his:
> [@](#):
>
> Thackrah’s failure to note the use of mercury nitrate in the hat industry supports the fact that it was not being used in 1830.
–does not necessarily follow. Just because a novelist doesn’t mention it in a novel of the time doesn’t mean it wasn’t being used. I bet Judith Krantz doesn’t mention heroin in _Princess Daisy_, but that doesn’t mean people weren’t shooting up with it.
I can think of a bunch of reasons right off the top of my head why Thackeray wouldn’t have mentioned mad hatters, mercury nitrate, and mercury poisoning. First, _Pendennis_ is described as being an autobiographical novel of a young man’s experiences at Cambridge. I doubt whether a young man at university would even notice the mental condition of hatters and the chemicals they used to make hats. Second, Thackeray came from an upper middle class family. Generally speaking, the upper classes did not concern themselves with the mental or physical condition of the working classes. He may simply not have noticed any peculiar behavior of any hatters he met, or if he did, may have simply chalked it up to them being “lower class”. Third, he may have noticed the hatters acting funny, but it didn’t fit into his novel, so he left it out. Fourth, same thing for the chemicals they used to make hats. He may have known that they were using mercury nitrate, but he didn’t think his readers would be interested, or he didn’t think it belonged in his novel, which after all was about _him_, not hatters or the hat industry.
From the Goldwater link. Unlike Goldwater, I have no reason to doubt the truth of Ms. Hamilton’s research
[http://occ-env-med.mc.duke.edu/oem/hatters.htm](http://occ-env-med.mc.duke.edu/oem/hatters.htm)
> [@](#):
>
> In her classic work, Industrial Poisons in the United States, published in 1925, Alice Hamilton reviews the general subject of mercurialism in one chapter and devotes a separate chapter to the hat industry. The latter is longer than the former, reflecting the importance attached to health hazards among hatters during the first decades of the 20th century. According to Hamilton, the process of treating the fur with mercury nitrate, the so-called secretage, “…has been traced back to the middle of the 17th century when it was a secret in the hands of a few French workmen, evidently Huguenots; for at the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685 when the Huguenots fled to England, they carried the secret with them, established the trade there, and for almost a century thereafter the French were dependent on England for their felt.”
Re “mad hatter” Huguenots. Mercury nitrate isn’t _that_ toxic, if you use small amounts with adequate ventilation. It’s the fumes. Mercury and its compounds had been around for hundreds of years. Maybe the Huguenots just had a better tradition of handling it than anybody else. Or maybe they did get sick and it was just that nobody happened to write it down. (see below on the working classes being beneath the notice of the upper classes who wrote books).
> [@](#):
>
> This statement is difficult to reconcile with that which appears in Diderot’s encyclopaedia published in 1753, to the effect that in preparing fur for making hats “…the pelts are rubbed with an acid solution before the fur is removed…”
Mercury nitrate is a combination of mercury and nitric acid. So it’s not totally incorrect to refer to it as an “acid”.
> [@](#):
>
> It is also at variance with an account of secretage given by Lee (1968) in which he states that the process was introduced into England from Frankfurt around 1870.
Maybe Lee referring to a slightly different process. Or maybe Lee was just wrong.
Re mercury being used before 1837 to make beaver hats. Mercury has been known from ancient times, and its compounds were well-known to medieval science (even if they didn’t call it “science” but “alchemy” instead.) 🙂
History of mercury.
[http://www.ucc.ie/ucc/depts/chem/dolchem/html/elem/elem080.html](http://www.ucc.ie/ucc/depts/chem/dolchem/html/elem/elem080.html)
> [@](#):
>
> Mercury reacts readily with nitric acid, yielding **mercuric nitrate** and Oxides of Nitrogen.
[http://www.hermograph.com/science/mercury3.htm](http://www.hermograph.com/science/mercury3.htm)
> [@](#):
>
> Mercury was known in ancient times and was an important chemical for medieval alchemists, suspected of being an element of which all matter is made from, and when solid it was thought to become gold. It is also known as “quicksilver” because it is liquid and silver-white in appearance.
>
> Half the world’s supply of Mercury, in its cinnabar form, comes from Spain and Italy.
>
> Mercury forms two kinds of compounds
>
> Mercurous – uses both electrons in the bonding process.
> Mercuric – uses just one electron to bond with another element.
>
> Mercurous compounds use Mercurous ions Hg++. The most important compound is Hg2Cl2 a Mercury chloride called calomel, used medicinally as a liver stimulant and cathartic.
>
> **Mercurous nitrate** is one of the few soluble mercurous salts; it will dissolve into other liquids.
>
> Mercuric compounds include halides (salts) like Mercuric Chloride (HgCl2) or Mercuric Flouride. The former does not conduct electricity and melts easily at 280 degrees Celsius, bonding covalently rather than ionically\*\*. Normally a white crystalline salt soluble in water it is also called corrosive sublimate and is extremely poisonous. It has been used as a germicide. It can destroy kidneys in humans. If combined with the protein albumen, Mercuric ions form an insoluble white solid that acts like what heat does to egg whites!
[http://tekran.com/backgnd.html#gen](http://tekran.com/backgnd.html#gen)
> [@](#):
>
> Mercury was among the first metals known, and its compounds have been used throughout history. Archaeologists found mercury in an Egyptian tomb dating from 1500 BC.
> The alchemists thought that mercury, which they associated with the planet Mercury, had mystical properties and used it in their attempts to transmute base metals into gold. The Greeks knew of mercury and used it as a medicine. Mercury and mercury compounds were used from about the 15th century to the mid-20th century to cure syphilis.
[http://www.nidlink.com/~jfromm/alchemy/alchemy\_subt.htm](http://www.nidlink.com/~jfromm/alchemy/alchemy_subt.htm)
> [@](#):
>
> Jeweler’s Etchant – 3g. Silver Nitrate + 3g. Nitric Acid + 3g. Mercurous Nitrate + 100cc water.
> Spencer’s Acid. 3g. Silver Nitrate + 3g. Nitric Acid + 3g. Mercurous Nitrate + 100cc of water.
[http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~jeffreym/glossary.html](http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~jeffreym/glossary.html)
> [@](#):
>
> Glossary of Archaic Chemical and Alchemical Terms
>
> mercurius calcinatus per se mercuric oxide (HgO) prepared by the calcination of mercury. The substance known as precipitated mercury per se or red precipitate is the same substance; however, because of its different preparation (by mixing mercury with nitric acid, evaporating, and heating the residual mercuric nitrate), the identity was not at first realized.
History of beaver hats.
[http://www.whiteoak.org/learning/furhat.htm](http://www.whiteoak.org/learning/furhat.htm)
> [@](#):
>
> From about 1550 until 1850, felt hats were fashionable in much of Europe and the felt hat industry became the driving force behind the fur trade. By the late 1500’s, the beaver was extinct in western Europe and was close to extinction in Scandinavia and Russia. The North American fur trade became a new source and kept the fashion going for another 200 years.
>
> \*\*This section describes the process of making a beaver felt hat during the 1700’s and early 1800’s.
> Carroting
> A solution of “nitrate of mercury” would be brushed on the pelt. \*\*
I can’t find any website that says specifically, “This is when hatmakers first began using mercury to treat beaver fur.” But since we know that mercury nitrate makes the carrotting process work better on beaver, and we know that people in the 14th century had access to mercury nitrate, and we know that people in the 14th century started using beaver felt to make hats, isn’t it logical to assume that they were using mercury nitrate back then, to make beaver hats?
I think the reason that the term “mad as a hatter” doesn’t appear in print until 1837 isn’t because that’s when hatters first started going mad. I think it’s because that period in time, the early Victorian era, was when the industrialized West first started to develop a social conscience, and an interest in the problems of the working classes, including hatters. Up till that time, people, including novelists and playwrights, were mainly interested in the antics of the upper classes, but starting with [Charles Dickens,](http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/dickens.htm) in the 1830s, there began to be more attention paid to the problems of the working classes. The early Victorians started workingmen’s clubs, for clean after-hours entertainment, they opened “night schools”, for the working man to get an education, and they sponsored lecture series just for the edification of the working classes.
So, up till 1837, nobody had ever paid any attention to the peculiar behavior of hatters, and nobody had ever bothered to write about it.
---
### Author:  [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)
#### Post date: [March 18, 2001, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mad-hatter-its-believed/58244/13 "2001-03-18T22:03:41Z")
…and maybe the Huguenots were working with a more dilute solution. The chemical itself would have been fairly expensive (chemicals usually are), so maybe they figured out what the most dilute solution was that would still work, and used that
“Thus, because of their frugality, the simple and good Huguenots escaped the ravages of mercury poisoning…”
Makes a nice story, don’t it? 😃
All the other things that Lewis Carroll put into his books were familiar things to little girls. March hares, cats and caterpillars, decks of cards, a dormouse in a teapot, kings and queens, gardens and flowers. Even the “caucus race” might have been something that a “little pitcher with big ears” might have overheard Dear Papa talking about. And she was old enough to understand word plays and puns like the one on the “mouse’s tail/tale”. So why would he include an odd, inexplicable, totally new kind of character like a Mad Hatter if it wasn’t something she was already familiar with? How would he explain it to her? The joke would be non-existent if you didn’t already know “hatters are mad”.
---
### Author:  [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)
#### Post date: [March 18, 2001, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mad-hatter-its-believed/58244/14 "2001-03-18T23:09:32Z")
**DDG** said
> [@](#):
>
> The Goldwater link is just one man’s opinion. And that’s the opinion of a man with an axe to grind: he says the phrase is supposed to be “mad as an adder”. His point is that since Thackeray didn’t mention mad hatters in his autobiographical novel Pendennis, published in 1850, that therefore there was no such thing as a “mad hatter”, and that Lewis Carroll must have misheard “mad as an adder”. That’s the whole point of his article.
Did we read the same article? Talk about grinding axes:::
Point-by-point
l. Leonard J. Goldwater, M.D., Professor Emeritus of Occupational Medicine, Columbia University. He wrote a book on Mercury, _one chapter, of which,_ was summarized and **typed by hand** and excerpted in the article to which I linked. Where’s the axe?
2. The spelling of Thackeray. Since the article was hand-typed by someone from Dr. Goldwater’s book, I’ll let you make up your own mind about a spelling mistake.
3. Dr. Goldwater brings up the _adder_ reference in a reference to what _Gardner_ presumed. To state that _that’s the whole point of his article_ is simply not true.
4. Thackeray’s novel evidently had a section in which he discussed, in detail, the British hat industry, including some of the hazards. Thackeray was 39 when he published the novel. He had spent the previous 20 years as a writer/journalist, and many of his writings were about historical things. I guess we both ought to read the book to get a feeling as to whether it is merely an autobiography of a young man at college.
5. Diederot’s Encyclopedia. I agree with you. The reference to _acid_ could indeed be a mercury solution. I would think that you are probably right.
I appreciate you agreeing with me that there is no printed reference to mercury compounds being used in the hat industry prior to 1850 or so. And I think that the Huguenot’s _secretage_ may have, indeed, been a mercury compound. Perhaps the fact that they were so secretive and kept it _in the family_ for so many years, and that they may have know how to use the compounds so as to avoid poisoning, may have meant that it didn’t come into print/or as a problem until the mid-1800’s.
But having agreed with you on the last points, I would propose that the term _mad as a hatter_ probably had nothing to do with mercury poisoning of hatters. The evidence is on the side of it being a phrase similar to _mad as a …(take your choice)_
---
### Author:  [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)
#### Post date: [March 19, 2001, 10:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mad-hatter-its-believed/58244/15 "2001-03-19T10:57:04Z")
> [@](#):
>
> But having agreed with you on the last points, I would propose that the term _mad as a hatter_ probably had nothing to do with mercury poisoning of hatters. The evidence is on the side of it being a phrase similar to _mad as a …(take your choice)_
What evidence? As **DDG** pointed out, Carroll mentioned the Hatter in virtually the same breath as a march hare, commenting that both were mad. I think we all accept that a march hare was something that was generally understood at the time to be mad, and that the expression “mad as a march hare” was in common usage. It would seem unlikely that the march hare’s companion would be something not generally understood to be mad.
We also know that it became rather well-known that hatters were affected by mercury poisoning, as evidenced in the phrase “danbury hakes”. It doesn’t seem likely to me that two different phrases would arise about mental health problems of hatters through entirely separate and unrelated etymologies.
So, basically, we are left with the facts that in the 1830’s the phrase “mad as a hatter appeared in print” and that at some time later it was widely known that mercury poisoning was affecting hatters. What isn’t known is whether mercury nitrate was actually used by hatters prior to the 1840’s. While there is some reason to speculate that it wasn’t, there is no real proof either way.
It does seem as if Thackeray would mention madness in his work if it were widely known, but the fact that he doesn’t can hardly be considered proof of anything. In my opinion, the weight of the evidence would be on the side of the mercury poinoning explanation.
---
### Author:  [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)
#### Post date: [March 19, 2001, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mad-hatter-its-believed/58244/16 "2001-03-19T14:04:59Z")
The question that started all this was: \<\< Mad as a Hatter was in print by 1837(or 1836) and the use of mercury compounds in felt hat production in England was not. So how could this be the source of the phrase? \>\>
Y’all have certainly outdone me on the mercury poisoning. I did some preliminary looking, and couldn’t find any quick clear answer to exactly WHEN they stopped using mercury in hat-making.
But I think the answer to the question does not lie in hat-making so much as in etymology. It is usually impossible to track the origin of a popular or slang expression like “mad as a hatter” or “it’s the oldest rule in the book” (also used amusingly by Carroll.)
The process is different today. Today, everything gets into print very quickly because we have the technology that allows that. (Thus, one of the problems with the WWII origin of “whole nine yards” is the absence of printed reference before the 1960s.) But back in the 18th and 19th Centuries, there could be an enormous lag between the time a phrase arises and the time it appears in print. Someone says the phrase; others hear it and repeat it; others hear them and repeat it. It grows in popular usage, perhaps for many decades – but it is slang, and so no one bothers to write it down.
We know that “mad as a hatter” was a reasonably common expression by the mid-1800s, right up there with “wise as an owl” and “sly as a fox” and “slow as molasses.” Thus, Carroll could introduce the character of a Mad Hatter in much the same way (for amusement) that Milne would later introduce the character of the Wise Owl. And this was valid even if hatters no longer went mad, or if Athena was no longer worshipped as a goddess.
That was why I stopped in my research, without trying to find out exactly when mercury had stopped being used. It would be interesting, but not relevant to the origin of the phrase.
---
### Author:  [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)
#### Post date: [March 19, 2001, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mad-hatter-its-believed/58244/17 "2001-03-19T14:25:11Z")
(Eh, CK, Sam’s question isn’t about when they stopped using mercury, but when they started. He says it wasn’t until the 1850s. I say it was way back in the 14th century.)
The words “Currently out of print, this was re-typed from one of the copies left at Duke” sound to me like it was _in_ print at one time, and that this was re-typed from one of the _print_ copies left at Duke. If they had retyped it from handwritten notes, it should say, “This was re-typed from handwritten notes.”
However, I will admit that the spelling error is a minor quibble.
I went back and copied and pasted the article into WordPad (the Bjorn treatment 😃 ), to endeavor to make more sense out of it. Yes, you’re right–the “thrust of the article” isn’t to put forward the “adder” theory. However, blessed if I can figure out what the thrust of the article _is_. A history of labor legislation covering people who work with mercury, I think, but why in the world does he rope in Thackeray?
The first part of article discusses various studies done in the past of mercurial poisoning in the hatmaking industry. Then he says:
> [@](#):
>
> These brief remarks have been made as a preface to a discussion of the two later major studies of mercurialism in the felt-hat industry conducted by the U.S. Public Health Service during the 1930’s. Because of their scope, these two studies have been widely quoted and, unfortunately, often misquoted. Some of the findings are difficult to understand and, in the light of more recent knowledge, difficult to accept (Goldwater 1964).
So, okay, he’s got two studies he doesn’t agree with. Then he talks about two more studies, one from New York and one from Italy. But he barely touches on all four of these studies.
Then he brings up Alice Hamilton and her one-paragraph history of _secretage._ She says, “People were using mercury for beaver felt back in the 17th century.” He says, “No, they weren’t, because Diderot said in 1753 they were using acid, not mercury, and because Lee said that the process was brought over to England from Frankfort in 1870, and because Thackeray doesn’t mention mercury poisoning in _Pendennis_.”
Then he says:
> [@](#):
>
> Thackrah’s failure to note the occurrence of mercury poisoning in the early 1800’s in England adds support to the assertion that mercury carroting was introduced, or rather, re-introduced after 1830.
This seems to be his premise, now. He’s no longer talking about studies of mercurialism–he’s talking about the history of using mercury in the hatmaking trade.
He goes on:
> [@](#):
>
> A clue to the history of carroting in Britain…
So, okay, he’s now talking about the history of carrotting in Britain.
> [@](#):
>
> This clearly is the carroting process (secretage). If the dates are accurate it shows that carroting was being practiced in Britain in 1859.
Then he brings up the Mad Hatter. He says that Gardner says the phrase…
> [@](#):
>
> …more likely owes its origin to the fact that until recently hatters actually did go mad…" Writing in 1960, Gardner may be referring to the 20th century, since Thackrah failed to note the characteristic erethism of mercury poisoning in hatters in the 1830’s, and the mercurial secretage may not have been reintroduced into England until the late 1850’s (Taylor 1875). Between then and 1865 the symptoms of mercury poisoning in hatters could have been known but could hardly have become a by-word.
So he’s brought up Thackeray again; he seems intent on proving that Thackeray’s failure to mention mercury use proves that it only began in the late 1850s. Why is he so intent on proving this? Why is it so important to him that mercury poisoning among hatters only began in the 1850s, and not in earlier centuries? _That_ is what I find so baffling. And _that’s_ the axe that he’s grinding here.
Then he quotes a personal source to confirm something about the Mad Hatter.
> [@](#):
>
> Confirmation of the theory that Lewis Carroll’s “Mad Hatter” was not a victim of mercury poisoning is found in views expressed by a Director of Associated British Hat Manufacturers Limited (who wishes to remain anonymous).
Then he finishes up with a history of labor legislation concerning mercury.
What do Thackeray’s _Pendennis_ and the Mad Hatter have to do with two studies that may or may not have been flawed due to outdated testing procedures, with Alice Hamilton’s statement that they started using mercury in the 17th century, and with the history of labor legislation?
---
### Author:  [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)
#### Post date: [March 19, 2001, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mad-hatter-its-believed/58244/18 "2001-03-19T16:23:42Z")
Actually, I think Dex’s argument is valid when you consider that even _if_ mercury was not in use when Thackeray surveyed the British hat industry, it looks likely that it had been used earlier. Thus, even if 1830’s era hatters did not actually go mad, the expression “mad as a hatter” may have already been in common use from earlier times.
---
### Author:  [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)
#### Post date: [March 19, 2001, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mad-hatter-its-believed/58244/19 "2001-03-19T21:32:41Z")
[machine gun noise]
[**ack ack ack ack ack ack ack ack ack**]
[factoid flutters to the ground, a quivering mess]
Thackery did not “survey the British hat industry”, or if he did, dang if I can find it on the Web. Anybody else wanna have a go? Every Google search I’ve done, “Thackeray biography hatmaking”, “Thackeray hatmaking”, “Thackeray hat”, etc. etc. etc. has turned up precisely nothing.
It’s a misnomer to refer to Thackeray as a “journalist”. Yes, I know, that’s what the Encyclopedia Britannica calls him, but it is inaccurate in the modern sense of the word, of someone who goes out and writes hard-hitting exposes of corruption. That was Dickens, not Thackeray. Thackeray is usually described as a “satirist”. He wrote fun little pieces for _Punch_. His most famous novel, _Vanity Fair":_
[http://www.cliffsnotes.com/product.asp?prod\_ID=1377](http://www.cliffsnotes.com/product.asp?prod_ID=1377)
> [@](#):
>
> This satirical novel of manners will fascinate the careful reader. The story of the various fortunes of two women in 19th-century England is filled with sly irony and tongue-in-cheek humor, yet it offers the leisurely reader a chance to find subtle meanings.
He may qualify as a “journalist” because he wrote for magazines, but he’s not really what we would think of as a “journalist”.
I am sitting here with a copy (in 2 volumes) of _Pendennis,_ which I checked out of the library at lunchtime. So far–I am up to Chapter 5, and I’ve peeked at Chapter 10 (see below)–I believe that Leonard Goldwater hereby stands revealed as someone who merely passed along a factoid that someone told _him,_ and got it completely wrong to boot. However, as always, I welcome enlightenment from someone else willing to go find a copy of this and look it up. (Actually, you know, it’s pretty good. Like Dickens, but not quite as hectic, not quite so many amazing coincidences. :rolleyes: )
Here are all the quotes in Goldwater’s article concerning Thackeray and _Pendennis_:
> [@](#):
>
> The latter is in consonance with Thackrah’s failure to include mercury poisoning in his description of hazards in the British hat industry in the early part of the 19th century.
This makes it sound like Thackeray did some kind of journalistic expose of the British hat industry. A Google search under “Thackeray mercury” shows nothing of the sort, at least on the Web. Not even a hint. Anybody else have any information on this?
The writer William Makepeace Thackeray, as far as I can tell, never wrote or published a “description of hazards in the British hat industry in the early part of the 19th century.”
> [@](#):
>
> Thackrah’s failure to note the occurrence of mercury poisoning in the early 1800’s in England adds support to the assertion that mercury carroting was introduced, or rather, re-introduced after 1830.
> \
> Writing in 1960, Gardner may be referring to the 20th century, since Thackrah failed to note the characteristic erethism of mercury poisoning in hatters in the 1830’s, and the mercurial secretage may not have been reintroduced into England until the late 1850’s (Taylor 1875). Between then and 1865 the symptoms of mercury poisoning in hatters could have been known but could hardly have become a by-word.
Okay, here’s the good part. Goldwater quotes an “anonymous source”.
> [@](#):
>
> Confirmation of the theory that Lewis Carroll’s “Mad Hatter” was not a victim of mercury poisoning is found in views expressed by a Director of Associated British Hat Manufacturers Limited (who wishes to remain anonymous). Among the credentials which enable this gentleman to speak with authority are the fact that his father’s family have been making hats continuously since 1773 and his mother’s since about 1660. His discussion of the subject of felting clearly shows that he has done considerable research into the historical aspects.
>
> He points out, in consonance with Gardner’s statement that the expression “mad as a hatter” was in common use in England during the middle of the 19th century, that the expression appears in Chapter 10 of Thackerah’s Pendennis, which was published in 1850. Thackrah’s failure to note the use of mercury nitrate in the hat industry supports the fact that it was not being used in 1830. It was not until the middle of the 1840’s that the felt-hat industry as it is known today, with its use of mercury nitrate, was founded.
Here is what’s actually in Chapter 10 of _Pendennis_ (to summarize):
> [@](#):
>
> Major Pendennis returns to his hotel. His valet says, “There’s someone waiting to see you in the coffee room.”
> “Who? Mr. Arthur?” [his scapegrace nephew, the protagonist, who wishes to marry an actress 12 years his senior]
> No, it is Henry Foker, who is Arthur’s former school chum and roguish man-about-town. He’s there to tell the Major of Arthur’s awkward attachment, but the Major already knows about it. He tells Foker that the family’s not happy about the proposed alliance. [Arthur is only 17, but he’s the Squire, so he can do what he likes, evidently.] The Major pumps Foker for information regarding the actress, a Miss Fotheringay. He discovers that Miss Fotheringay (and her father, a Captain Costigan) is evidently under the impression that Mr. Arthur has 2000 pounds a year, when in fact he has barely 500. Foker offers it as his opinion that the money is the only reason she’s interested in Arthur. He also reveals that his servant/girlfriend, one Rouncy, has been writing Miss Fotheringay’s love letters to Arthur for her, Miss Fotheringay being to all intents and purposes, illiterate. The Major is of course extremely pleased to hear all this, knowing how much Arthur values the lovely letters his “Miss Emily” has been sending him. He succeeds in obtaining a sample of Rouncy’s handwriting with which to confront Arthur the next day, and is so encouraged by this good news that he goes to Captain Costigan’s apartment to confront him about his scheming.
I don’t see the words “mad as a hatter” anywhere in this entire chapter. And I’ve been sitting here with an index card, scrutinizing it line by line. Shall we blame my bifocals, or Goldwater’s “source”, for telling him the wrong thing, or Goldwater, for passing along a factoid, or the typist, for typing the wrong chapter number?
So my theory so far is that:
1. The anonymous source was misinformed–he really did think “mad as a hatter” occurs in Chapter 10, and that Chapter 10 deals with the hazards of the hat industry. And Goldwater accepted this and passed it along intact.
2. The anonymous source and/or Goldwater have William Makepeace Thackeray confused with some other Thackeray who really did do some kind of expose on the hazards of the British hatmaking industry. Also, maybe W.M. Thackeray did do an article somewhere, and it just isn’t on the Web.
3. The typist mistyped the chapter number. However, a quick survey of chapter headings reveals nothing that sounds like “a visit to the hat factory”. However, as I keep reading, I may come upon a visit to a hat factory. It’s worthwhile to note that so far, this book is STRONGLY reminiscent of _Tom Brown’s School Days_. It’s an affectionate paean to a golden age, long ago when we were all much younger. Industrial Revolution nostalgia for a Simpler Time. I would be very surprised, given the tone of the book so far, to have it suddenly descend into Upton Sinclair-type muckraking journalism, or even Dickensian gloom. It’s a very cheerful book. And it has, overall, absolutely nothing to do with hatmaking. Up to Chapter 5, at least, it’s about being 17 and in love and writing reams of bad verse to the Adored Object.
---
### Author:  [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)
#### Post date: [March 19, 2001, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mad-hatter-its-believed/58244/20 "2001-03-19T23:16:29Z")
Ah-ha, “mad as a hatter” IS in Chapter 10, after all. Bad on me for skimming. :o
It’s in the middle of several paragraphs of general chitchat. Thackeray was writing for a magazine serial and presumably getting paid by the word. 😃
> [@](#):
>
> “What! you know it too?” asked the Major.
>
> “Know it! don’t I? and many more too. We were talking about it at mess, yesterday, and chaffing Derby Oaks–until he was as mad as a hatter. Know Sir Derby Oaks? We dined together, and we went to the play: we were standing at the door smoking, I remember, when you passed into dinner.”
But it still doesn’t answer the other question, about Thackeray doing an expose on the British hatmaking industry.
And still no signs of a visit to a hat factory.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mad-hatter-its-believed/58244.md?page=2)