IS HAMLET INSANE?
OR A GENIUS?
According to the article The Question of Hamlet's Sanity by Ed. K. Deighton there are four theories regarding Hamlet's sanity. The first being that he was never insane, and actually only acting as if he was insane to throw all the characters off. The second is that he was sane up until his encounter with the ghost of his father. The third is that Hamlet was not fully insane until the scene with the "Murder of Gonzago" play. The fourth and last theory is that he was neither insane, nor acting insane, and that it is just the readers minds wandering and making assumptions. (Deighton, Ed.)
First Theory
Throughout the play, Hamlet tells many characters of his plan to, "To put an antic disposition on" (1.5. 179-180), or how he tells his mother, "I essentially am not in madness, but mad in craft" (3.4.189-190). Hamlet informs certain characters that he is going to act like he is mad just so he can plot his revenge without getting caught. Wouldn't this prove that he is insanely smart? Claudius didn't expect it, and believed that Hamlet was crazy. An essay from UKessays clarifies Hamlet's sanity by providing multiple occasions and ideas of how not insane he really is. In fact, it says that the best way to show that he isn't crazy is by the comparison of Ophelia and Hamlet. Ophelia is indeed driven by madness, and this helps resolve the case with Hamlet. They are both obviously going through rough times, but they react differently. Hamlet schemes, and Ophelia commits suicide. While Hamlet only ever talks about suicide, "To be or not to be, that is the question" (3.1. 156), Ophelia is all about it and drowns herself (The Hamlets). Her actions proved that she was insane, because only someone that is insane would go as far as committing murder. Though Hamlet acts pretty crazy at times, he does it all to prove something he truly believes. All he wants is revenge for his father's death, and I would say that is something anyone would do in case like that.
Second Theory
Immediately after meeting/viewing the ghost of his father, Hamlet could have easily gone mad. Seeing his dead father in front of him could have set something off for Hamlet. He was already feeling the pull of his emotions while he was mourning the death of Hamlet Sr., and then he suddenly shows up. It would make sense that after that he could have gone crazy. Once he had the first encounter he began acting different. Though some of the other characters did witness the ghost the first time it came around, after that time, no one saw it again. Only Hamlet saw the ghost from then on, which could have easily been because he had become insane.
Third Theory
Hamlet plans out an entire play around the idea that Claudius killed Hamlet Sr. It's a play that is incredibly similar to what could have happened to his father. He gets caught up in this play and can be easily seen as the moment that he unravels; the moment where the reader realizes that Hamlet could easily be mad. In this scene, the characters certainly believed he was. The point of the play was to spark a reaction in Claudius so that Hamlet could prove he was right. Instead of confronting his uncle, he makes the odd decision of putting on a performance that re-enacts what could have been the murder of his father and awaits for Claudius' reaction. As a reader, you can go on believing that Hamlet isn't crazy, but when the "play within a play" starts, it's easy to assume he was insane by now. Why go through so much just to sit calmly and watch a play by the man who could have possibly killed your father?
Fourth Theory
What if Hamlet was never insane? What if it's just us readers digging in way too deep into something that was never even a question? Hamlet is a young man that had just lost his father, and was supposed to be king, but instead his uncle marries his mother and becomes king. WOW. That's a lot. Hamlet is obviously going through a rough patch. It is always assumed that something is wrong with him, but what if nothing is wrong. He's not crazy, and he's not trying to act it either. He is just trying to figure things out in the best way that such a young man can. The easiest thing we can do as readers is assume that Hamlet is insane. Maybe if we read it as if he was not insane, Hamlet, the play would real completely different.
So, is Hamlet insane? Is he sane throughout most of the play and somehow loses it? Or is he acting as if he were insane? There are many theories, and this has made Hamlet a problem play because of it. It may not ever be known if Hamlet was insane or not, and that's okay. This is why this particular play is so entertaining. Readers, in a way, get to decide what the real story is depending on the way they felt about Hamlet's character. That's genius. Going through it over and over, Hamlet seemed to be just that. A genius. A young man that loses is father for reasons that are not ever resolved, and so goes on to put on his own act to confuse everyone and throw them off so that they can never suspect him of doing anything. While he puts on this act, he gets to find out things that he would have not gotten away with if the other characters didn't think there was something seriously wrong with Hamlet. If he was actually crazy, wouldn't he have committed suicide, or killed Claudius sooner? He thought about the things he did, and that cannot make him crazy. In multiple occasions he shows signs of complete sanity that a person with an insane mind could have not struggled through. In all reality, Hamlet could have not accomplished as much as he did in the play if he was crazy.