Is Hamlet Mad Or Insane

In one of William Shakespeare's tragedy plays, Hamlet, the main character Hamlet, the prince of Denmark, was seen and described as both as a sane prince and an insane madman. For example, one of Hamlet’s soliloquy that he recites to himself, “To be or not to be, that is the question:” (3.1.57). This is an example, where Hamlet takes a moment and thinks aloud and questions if he is noble kind or has he gone mad and lost touch in reality. This then creates the question, is Hamlet just going through an emotional state which causes him to pretend to be mad, or is he, in fact mad? To exemplify, according to Merriam- Webster, the definition of madness is being in, “a state of severe mental illness,” and “behaving or thinking that is very foolish or dangerous.” Therefore by definition Hamlet cannot be considered mad or insane.

Hamlet is able to rationalize situations, even if he is struggling and going through high levels of stress he understands and is able to distinguish what is morally right from wrong.

In an excerpt An excerpt from A New Variorum Edition of Shakespeare: Hamlet written by Thomas Kenny, he states that, “Hamlet is not only in reality agitated and bewildered, but he is led to adopt the disguise of a feigned madness.” For example, having Hamlet’s father die, then shortly within a few months Hamlet’s mother, Gertrude remarries Hamlet’s uncle, Claudius, and then Hamlet ends up seeing the ghost of his father. However, Ruth Perry justifies that Hamlet lived in a broken home and lived in, “a world in which people cannot trust each other, in which there are deceptions and plots and counterplots.” In other words, Hamlet had lost his trust in others which led him to be distant and misunderstood by others. Hence, throughout the play, Hamlet was pretending to be insane. In reason, that will make anyone who experience it a little crazy, but not to the extent that everyone thought Hamlet was

experiencing.
Assuming that Hamlet did not act or play out as insane, his uncle Claudius, would have eventually find out that something was suspicious with Hamlet. In other words, that would have led Hamlet facing execution or exile. Given that if Hamlet was not certifiable and plan out his scheme by creating a dilemma that he is, in fact, insane. Then Claudius would have ended up finding out much sooner that Hamlet knew the truth from the beginning. An example, in today’s society there are a few cases if someone believes that another person is crazy, that person will agree and plead insanity to avoid a heavy sentencing and receiving a lighter penalty. To believe that one is insane, can end up getting away with anything. Therefore, Hamlet was able to get away with anything while he legibly fools everyone that he is insane.
In Act II, Hamlet meets and converses with his friends, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Where during that scene, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern try to spy and find out the truth to Hamlet’s oddly behavior. Hamlet had assumed that his friends were requested by the king to spy on him. Hamlet then states, “...I am only mad north-by-northwest. When the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw.” (2.2.327-328) Although Hamlet might sound absurd he means well. Such that, north being moving forward in other words being normal. Hamlet exemplifies that being “north-by-northwest,” means that he is only moderately insane not entirely insane. Since he states this, he cannot be completely and truly insane. Also, the way he portrayed himself in front of each character in the play. Hamlet tried to be very cautious where ever he was. Especially, that he is tries to convince others, including Claudius that he was in fact insane, he was able to continue following through his plan without anyone having any suspicions. For that reason, this gave Hamlet an advantage to be sent away to England, and test his friendship between Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.
In Act III, once more, the soliloquy, “To be or not to be...” Hamlet knew that Claudius would be around and spy on him , thus going on with his insane act. Another example after Hamlet’s “To be or not to be” soliloquy is the conversation between Hamlet and Ophelia. He was aware that the King and Polonius was spying on him and Ophelia. At that moment, it was a great opportunity to try to show the King that he was insane. During that scene, Hamlet was able to fool and play with the King’s mind that he was going mad. Hamlet exemplifies how he kept dictating to Ophelia, “Get thee to a nunnery why wouldst thou be a breeder of sinners? I am myself / indifferent honest, but yet I could accuse me of such things that it were better / my mother had not borne me:...” (3.2.119-121) Not only that this conversation was to convince the King that he was at the verge of being or defined as an insane man, but to fool Ophelia and keep her distant from him. If Hamlet were to let Ophelia know why he was acting insane it might have caused him to not follow through his plan. In this case, if Hamlet did not distant himself from Ophelia he would of became weak and detach him from avenging his father’s death. Another is that he was not able to let Ophelia know is that, her father is Polonius, Claudius’s counselor, and she always manages to tell Polonius everything that is going around the castle. For instance, Ophelia told her father that Hamlet, “took me by the wrist and held me hard./ Then goes he to the length of all his arm,...” (2.2.89-102) Ophelia explains and describes how Hamlet treated her when he started to act strangely.
Another example from Act III, that shows evidence that Hamlet is not insane, is when Hamlet stops himself from killing Claudius while he is praying. “Now might I do it pat, now ‘a is a-praying;...That has no relish of salvation in ‘t-...”. (3.3.73-96) That moment, Hamlet had the opportunity in the chapel to finish and end the King’s life. Hamlet had a conscious mind, which led him to distinguish from right from wrong and that religion played a huge role in his life.
Though Hamlet tries to act insane in order to protect and convince others from finding out what his whole motive is. There are only certain people Hamlet would act insanely mad around. For example, his private conversations with true and honest friend, Horatio. “It is a totally different thing from the madness which he feigns; and he never, when alone or in company with Horatio alone, exhibits the signs of that madness.” (Bradley) There was no indication of any insanity with the way Hamlet talks to Horatio, since Horatio new everything that was going on, and did nothing about it, but be a loyal friend to Hamlet.
Then in Act V, Hamlet wanted to prove to the public that Claudius was the one who murdered his father. For instance, the swordplay between Hamlet and Laretes. Where the King confessed of killing his own brother and later end up killing everyone. Then when Hamlet tells Horatio to tell the public the truth about the how Claudius killed King Hamlet. “So tell him, with th’ occurents more and less / Which have solicited - the rest is silence.” (5.2.323-4) With Hamlet’s last dying request to Horatio, “Hamlet has served those of Providence, working to turn private vengeance to public justice.” (Tiffany) Consequently, Hamlet could not have been insane, to wait and prove that Claudius was the murder.
In conclusion, Hamlet cannot be defined insane the throughout the play, otherwise, nothing would have fit the perfect way that it did. Also, if he truly was insane, he would not have actually accomplished all the things that he would have accomplished to do. Such as getting Claudius to admit and confess the whole truth of murdering his father. Hamlet then was able to achieve his father’s wishes of the divine right of kings, through the adherence of justice rather than through vengeance. Then intentionally proving the public what kind of person Claudius truly is. It was a very thought out plan that Hamlet had created, and which eventually worked itself in the end, even if the main characters in Hamlet had died in the end. Hence, Hamlet was not considered insane.