Determining Hamlet’s sanity
The role played by Hamlet in Shakespeare’s Hamlet is one that leaves the audience in a state of dilemma especially when trying to define the main character’s state of mind. In most parts of the play, Hamlet acts in ways that can be defined as insane, but the way in which the actions are carried out lead the reader into doubting his sanity especially because of the order and accuracy that is evident when he is carrying out his acts of madness. Even though Hamlet clearly admits that he is going to fake being mad, the accuracy in his actions makes people question whether it is all an act or that Hamlet is truly mad. Although Hamlet’s state of mind does shift from sane to insane on occasion, the nature of his actions act as proof that the madness that starts out as an act ends up to becoming true madness.
The signs that Hamlet may actually be mad and is not just pretending are clear from the beginning of the play. When Claudius comments about the long time that Hamlet takes to grieve his father, he draws attention to Hamlet’s being different from normal people who only grieve for a significant duration of time, unlike Hamlet (Shakespeare 391). Hamlet is also described as wearing all black and a dejected havior which was seen see as a sign of melancholy at the time. Since melancholy was also believed to lead to madness, the audience is left to see where Hamlet’s madness originated, even if the decision to act mad was one of free will from the character.
More proof of Hamlet’s madness is seen in part one of the plays involving the ghost incident. While several other characters see the ghost in act one, it is only Hamlet who hears it speak to him. Although seeing and hearing a ghost can both be seen as signs of insanity, Shakespeare makes sure to set Hamlet apart from everyone else who is considered normal in society (Shakespeare 391). In the scene, since majority of the characters see the ghost, its existence is presented as a normal occurrence but hearing it is what sets apart the sane people from the insane. Hamlet’s madness is therefore validated by his ability to hear a ghost where others are unable to. In addition, Hamlet further questions his own sanity as he fears that it was not the ghost he heard but rather that the devil was playing tricks on him. Hamlet leaves the realm of normal occurrences and shifts his mind to a place where ghosts and the devil can impact his life in one way or the other (Shakespeare 391). The belief in the devil and the possibility that Hamlet may have been mad all along not only prove that hamlet was actually mad, but also discredits the idea that his acts of madness were intentional. Although he admits that acting mad is a ploy to trick others and hide his true intentions, the fact that he may have been mad all along shows that the acts of madness were more inevitable than intentional.
Another example of Hamlet’s madness is seen in the way he treated Gertrude and Ophelia even though they were not in the list of people he sought to enact vengeance on. While hamlet said he would pretend to be mad in order to confuse hi enemies and to hide his true intentions from him, he had no reason to act mad around Gertrude or Ophelia (Shakespeare 294). Even after Gertrude and Ophelia display genuine signs of affection are concerned for Hamlet’s well-being, he continues to be suspicious of their intentions and uses his paranoia as an excuse to be cruel towards them. The negative attitude that Hamlet displays towards the two women is triggered by their sexual preferences and has nothing to do with his need for vengeance (Shakespeare 294). He is disgusted with Gertrude and Ophelia’s sex life and while the actions he engages in while around them follow his decision to pretend to be mad, they further prove that his madness was not an act but genuine insanity. He continues to act mad even when around people who have not wronged him for reasons not related to his need for vengeance thus discrediting his madness as an act.
An argument can be made that Hamlet was not really mad and that his acts of insanity were just good acting. The argument made is that acting serves the purpose of giving a representation of actual reality and should therefore be as close to the truth as possible. It can also be argued that Hamlet was only acting out his emotions in a way that could not be expressed by a sane person. His actions were not of a mad person but rather a troubled individual who was still coping with the loss of his father. While there is some truth to these arguments, their credibility is reduced by the fact that Hamlet was not even sure about what role to play and often found it difficult to decide whether to act insane or not. Even when acting, third parties are always aware that the actions are not real, which was not the case with Hamlet. The characters found it difficult to determine whether Hamlet was sane or not, proof that his actions were more than just acting. Furthermore, his tendency to act crazy, even when not following up on his plan to seek revenge showed that the insanity extended far beyond the need to avenge his father. Shakespeare, through Hamlet, was able to show the audience just how thin the line between sanity and insanity actually was. Even though Hamlet admitted that his acts of insanity were ones of free will, the way he goes about them show that, other than acting, Hamlet was actually mad and this could explain why he took such a long time grieving his father.
Work cited
Shakespeare, William, “Hamlet” Classic Books Company, 2001
