A Discussion of Hamlet's Sanity *mild spoilers* - Eliza Colbert
I know it’s a controversial topic, but I want to talk about Hamlet’s sanity. I am of the opinion that Hamlet is not really mad. There are many reasons why I believe that, but I’ll just talk about a couple of the biggest ones. First, as we mentioned in class, it’s his defense. Hamlet knows that he probably won’t get away with killing his uncle, so he decides to fake insanity. As he says in the very first act, “I perchance hereafter shall think meet / To put an antic disposition on” (1.5.191-192). He planned this from the beginning. Now, most people accept this, but say that Hamlet was pretending to be insane so long that he actually went insane. To that say I nay!
My main reason for thinking this is how he changes his behavior depending on who he’s around. When he’s talking to people who have direct access to Claudius, he certainly seems to be insane. However, when he is talking to the players or Horatio (when no one else is listening, mind you), then he seems perfectly sane. In addition, his soliloquies do not carry the same madness as his conversations with other characters. His famous “To be or not to be” speech is a great example of this. It is very different from the conversation he has with Ophelia directly afterwards. With his soliloquies and with his trusted friends, Hamlet is straightforward but, as soon as someone else comes in, Hamlet starts talking supposed nonsense.
I say “supposed” because everything Hamlet says actually makes sense. There is a purpose in everything he does. Even Polonius notices this when he says, “Though this be madness, yet there is / method in’t” (2.2.223-224). The method may not be obvious at first, but it is there. For example, when Hamlet was talking to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern about playing the pipe, I was confused as to why Hamlet was randomly talking about pipes. Then, I realized that he was referring to how they were “playing” him. Much of what Hamlet says to others is like this; it seems random and thus implies lunacy but there is a hidden meaning that demonstrates that he does in fact still have the capacity to think.
Now, I’m not saying that Hamlet is completely unaffected by what he is going through. There is no doubt that there is some effect on his emotions by all of this, as evidenced by his treatment of Ophelia and his mother. All I’m saying is that Hamlet has not lost his marbles, as they say. The evidence I have discussed is what has led me to believe this. I am further convinced of this fact by the depiction of another character’s definite insanity later on. But I’ll wait until Thursday to talk about that.
P.S. I commented on Osten’s and Moriah’s posts.
Perhaps Hamlet is not insane. However, one has to wonder why he chose this route. It might have been for his own defense in a trial, but as we've seen in act 3, you can kill someone in the castle pretty easily without being detected. Hamlet could have killed his uncle and acted just as surprised as everyone else when they found his body. Obviously, Hamlet is a good actor. He could have done this just as easily as pretending he was mad. And he could probably keep Ophelia as his girlfriend!
ReplyDeleteHamlet is a smart idiot. There are several ways for him to kill the king without being detected yes, but there is always ways for it to go wrong and his madness is a way for just in case. He is also smart in the ways he fakes his madness. yet he just cannot help talking back to others. He is also really stupid because he is alienating everyone around him and if he caught he does have the insanity pea but little friends to help him live out the rest of his life.
ReplyDeleteYep, there's an overwhelming case for Hamlet's sanity. All of his actions are part of his master plan up until killing Polonius.
ReplyDeleteI doubt that playing mad affected his emotions. I say he treated Ophelia that way because he knew C and P were watching, and he was just mad at his mother for marrying his uncle; it didn't have anything to do with his insanity act.