Hamlet’s Sanity

“To be or not to be; that is the question”. One would be hard pressed to find a better quote within English literature that exemplifies the difficulty of knowing the truth in the face of two or more equally credible choices. Considering this, how appropriate is it that the most well-known Shakespearean soliloquy is perfectly representative of the most hotly debated topic within the same play; the topic of Hamlet’s sanity. In William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, many are forced to assume that the protagonist has indeed gone insane due to his incredibly convincing portrayal of a mad man at various points during the play. However, the manner in which Hamlet deals with one tragedy after another, the way he shows rationality and level headiness even in the face of immense ordeal and the fashion in which he legitimately feigns madness in order to be certain of his doubts suggest otherwise. If that was not enough, Shakespeare, through the use of character foils, attests to the sanity of arguably the most complex character he has ever written.

In order to truly analyze Hamlet’s sanity, it is essential to define “insane” properly. One must realize that in everyday situations, the term “insane” is used quite loosely, thus it has become extremely subjective in nature. Much like a person who is slightly different than the rest is not necessarily “abnormal”, a person who does not conform to society’s definition of sanity is not “insane”. The fact of the matter is that Hamlet is extremely traumatized throughout the play. Anyone who has ever lost a loved one may be able to relate with the difficulty of dealing with all the circumstances that accompany such a tragic event. This becomes evident right away when Hamlet reflects upon the prospect of suicide in the first soliloquy of the play. “O that this too too solid flesh would melt,Thaw, and resolve itself into a dew”(Act I, Scene II, 129-130). This shows the mental state that he is right from the beginning of the play. The fact that the death of his father was the first tragic event he had to deal with and the fact that he thought very highly of him (“So excellent a king…”Act I, Scene II, 139) makes it obvious that he had been greatly impacted by this event of extremely significant magnitude. After all, there are not many events in a person’s life that can cause one to consider suicide as even a remotely reasonable course of action.

In addition, there is another factor that is mentioned within the same soliloquy, and at various points afterwards, which is causing Hamlet even more despair. Not only is he extremely bothered by the sudden demise of his beloved father, the manner in which his mother, Gertrude, has dealt with this event has caused even more disturbance in his psyche. “Ere yet the salt of most unrighteous tears, had left the flushing in her galled eyes, She married:- O, most wicked speed, to post with such dexterity to incestuous sheets!” (Act I, Scene II, 154-157). “Mother, you have my father much offended” (Act III, Scene IV, 11). This demonstrates that Hamlet was extremely upset by his mother’s complete lack of sensitivity towards the death of his father. The fact that she married Claudius with the death of Hamlet Sr. still fresh in everyone’s minds contrasts greatly with the sombre manner in which Hamlet is mourning this great loss.

As if this was not enough, Hamlet has to endure more tragedies later on in the play. Arguably the most significant of those losses is the death of Ophelia. Her demise towards the end causes him more despair than he was letting on earlier in the play. This becomes all too evident at Ophelia’s funeral. When Hamlet finds out that the funeral is of none other than his object of great affection, he is unable to hide his true emotions towards her. “I loved Ophelia; forty thousand brothers could not, with all their quantity of love, make up my sum…” (Act V, Scene I, 263-265). The fact that Hamlet could never trust Ophelia throughout the play due to his suspicion that she might hold allegiance with the murderer of his father makes it all that much harder for him to truly express his emotions for her. Because of this, he is forced to shun Ophelia against all his love. However, at the funeral, he had no need to carry on his antic disposition, thus the reason why he is finally able to show his true affection for Ophelia without any regard of what anyone else might say.

By citing the reasons above, it would be logical to deduce that Hamlet was extremely traumatized by all the tragedies that directly affect him. It would be premature to suggest that the manner in which he deals with these tragedies is anything more than feelings of anger, betrayal, treachery, frustration and abandonment. To propose that his post-tragedy behaviour is a sign of insanity would require taking a huge leap. The fact that he is able to stay level headed and contemplate every issue with rational thinking is a testament to Hamlet’s ability to hang on to his sanity in the face of immense misfortune.

Hamlet shows his ability to think rationally throughout the play despite all the hardships that he has to face. He is capable of contemplating and analyzing every situation to a degree that leaves no room for doubt and error. Taking that into consideration, one must ask themselves whether someone who has truly lost his head would be able to engage in such deep philosophical and moral debates. One of the most obvious demonstrations of this ability occurs when Hamlet encounters Rosencrantz and Guildenstern for the very first time in the play. “What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculties! in apprehension, how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals!” (Act II, Scene II, 303-307). The fact that he is able to discuss the nature of humanity in such a well articulated and a philosophically complex manner speaks volumes regarding the state of his mind. As disturbed as his psyche may be, he demonstrates that he is as capable of striking such a debate as he ever was.

The next most significant example of his ability to think logically occurs later on while he is being eavesdropped upon. Once again, he shows his ability to contemplate in more depth than most would consider humanly possible. “To be, or not to be: that is the question: Whether “tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune or to take arms against a sea of troubles…With this regard, their currents turn awry, and lose the name of action”(Act III, Scene I, 58-89). In this soliloquy, he addresses topics as wide ranging as suffering, suicide, contemplation, action, religious theology, ethical philosophy and most significantly the impossibility of certainty. The complexity and the amount of issues addressed within this now famous soliloquy gives one as good a glimpse within his psyche as any speech or dialogue in the play.

Most importantly, not only does Hamlet display his intellectuality and quick wits in discussions, he also shows his ability to use his intelligence in practical terms. While on his way to England with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, he proves his worth as a man of action as well. “I had my fathers signet in my purse, which was the model of that Danish seal: … thou know”st already” (Act V, Scene II, 49-55). Here he tells Horatio how he wrote a fake document addressed to English officials, which asked them to execute Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, as opposed to the original document sent by Claudius which asked for Hamlet’s head. This demonstrates his ability to think rationally even in the toughest of situations, as opposed to panicking like most people under these circumstances would do. It also shows that he is always two steps ahead of Claudius and at no point was Hamlet oblivious to what is truly going on behind his back.

Hamlet’s ever present ability to think with a clear head is evident all throughout the play. At no point does the reader get the impression that he has finally cracked and is unable to think rationally as a result. Even in the face of inevitable death, he maintains this ability as demonstrated by him leaving Horatio with instructions to follow afterwards (“Horatio, I am dead; thou livest; report me and my cause aright to the unsatisfied” Act V, Scene II, 331-333). This ability to think rationally is further confirmed by the main reason why he is acting mad for the majority of the play.

As most readers of the play should be aware of, Hamlet decides to put on this act of insanity after he meets the ghost of his father (“As I perchance hereafter shall think meet to put an antic disposition on,” Act I, Scene V, 172-173). Even though the effectiveness of this strategy could be debated, one thing is for certain. The reason why he decided to put on this “antic disposition” had nothing to do with his mental state but everything to do with his rational personality. As any rational person would be able to attest, it is important to have as little doubt as possible when one is planning on taking a huge responsibility. Especially in the case of Hamlet who was told to kill someone by a ghost. Even though it would be easy for him to let his emotions take over and kill Claudius right away, he sets aside his immense hatred for his uncle and decides to come up with a fool proof plan. In order to be certain of Claudius’s guilt, he comes up with the idea of a play to see how he reacts to a re-enactment of a situation similar to the one in which Hamlet Sr. was murdered. Not only that, he also decides to put some responsibility upon Horatio as well, since he does not want his bias to skew his observations. “Give him heedful note; for I mine eyes will rivet to his face, and after we will both our judgements join in censure of his seeming.” (Act III, Scene II, 83-86). During the play when Claudius asks for the play to be stopped, Hamlet consults with Horatio, as planned before, even though the manner in which Claudius left when faced with the re-enactment of Hamlet Sr.’s murder clearly established his guilty conscience.

Hamlet: “…Didst perceive?”
Horatio: “Very well, my lord.”
Hamlet:” Upon the talk of poisoning?”
Horatio:” I did very well note him.” (Act III, Scene II, 282-285)

As mentioned before, there is no doubt about the fact that Hamlet has to deal with some extremely strong emotions throughout the play. However, the manner in which he is able to control them all strongly supports the case for his sanity. After the “mouse trap” play mentioned above, Hamlet is summoned by Gertrude. Realizing fully well how strongly he feels about her getting involved with Claudius, he urges himself to remain as non-physical as possible and not let his emotions take over. “I will speak daggers to her, but use none; my tongue and soul will in this be hypocrites” (Act III, Scene II, 387-388). In the next scene, after killing Polonius who was hiding behind the curtains and encountering the ghost of his father, he does not see the need to act insane anymore and tells his mother everything. In order to prove his sanity, he tells his mother everything about Claudius’s guilt in a manner truer to his own self (“…it is not madness that I have utter’d; bring me to the test, and I the matter will re-word, which madness would gambol from” Act III, Scene IV, 143-146) and also asks his mother for forgiveness if he had hurt her in any way (“Forgive me this my virtue, for in the fatness of these pursy times virtue itself of vice must pardon beg…” Act III, Scene IV, 154-156). This is a testament to his sanity since its shows that he is able to act like himself even in the heat of the moment.

In addition to the factors mentioned above, another prove of his sanity comes in the shape of his wit even in moments of feigned madness. In fact one of the primary reasons why he is putting on this antic disposition in the first place is that he could speak his mind behind the guise of insanity, so that no one would be suspicious of him. If he truly were insane, it would not be possible for him to step out of his insanity at will. He demonstrates this ability whenever he is addressing Claudius, Polonius, Gertrude, Ophelia, Rosencrantz or Guildenstern. One example of this occurs while he is replying to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, who asked him about the location of Polonius’s body. “The body is with the king, but the king is not with the body” (Act IV, II, 28-29). On the surface, it appears as if Hamlet is just babbling on unintelligently. However, upon further inspection, it becomes clear that he is referring to the fact that Polonius is now dead, like the old king, but the new king, Claudius, is not yet dead. Since Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are depicted as fools, this completely flies over their heads and they eventually give up, thinking Hamlet has gone totally insane.

To think that Hamlet become insane at one occasion or another would be misunderstanding the reason why he decided to put on the mask of insanity in the first place. He had a plan set in place and there is nothing to suggest that he lost the plot at any point during the play. He had to face various adversities and setbacks all throughout the play but even when he was on his way to England he stuck to his original plan and was not willing to give up. Once his suspicions were confirmed, there was no going back for him. Even though it would be easy to assume for readers that Hamlet had gone mad at some point in the play, Shakespeare had made sure that the audience does not make the same mistake as some of the characters.

All throughout the play, Shakespeare utilizes character foils in order to give the readers/audience members an advantage in determining Hamlet’s true mental state. In addition, there is evidence in the form of observations from other characters that prove Hamlet’s sanity. Many readers of the book believe that Hamlet’s insanity was existent even before the events that are accounted for in the play took place. However, those suspicions are dashed by Ophelia “O, what a noble mind is here o’erthrown! The courtier’s, soldier’s, scholar’s eye, tongue, sword; Th’ expectancy and rose of the fair state, The glass of fashion and the mould of form, the observed of all observers, quite, quite down!” (Act III, Scene I, Line 152-156). Here Ophelia describes Hamlet as not only the ideal form of behaviour but also the exemplification of perfection and the ideal Renaissance man.

Shakespeare also uses similarities with other character foils in order to point towards Hamlet’s sanity as opposed to madness. The most obvious use of this is evident in Horatio. Right from the beginning of the play, Horatio is depicted as a model of rationality and intelligence. The fact that Bernardo and Marcellus depend on him to communicate with the ghost tells the readers of how highly they think of Horatio (“That if again this apparition come, he may approve our eyes and speak to it.” Act I, Scene I, 28-29). Not only that but one of the most significant cases that is used in attempts to prove Hamlet’s insanity is the fact that Gertrude fails to see the ghost where as Hamlet does (“Alas, how is’t with you, that you do bend you eye on vacancy, and with the incorporal air do hold discourse?” Act III, Scene IV, 118-120). However, this claim is quickly refuted considering how Bernardo, Marcellus and Horatio, arguably the smartest of the bunch, also see the ghost at some point during the play along with Hamlet himself. In addition to this, even Hamlet himself has nothing but praises for Horatio “Horatio, thou art e’en as just a man as e’er my conversation cop’d withal” (Act III, Scene II, 53-54). According to Hamlet, Horatio is the most well-balanced person he has ever encountered. The fact that a person as intelligent and well respected as Horatio supports Hamlet throughout the play without ever doubting his intentions or, more importantly, his sanity speaks volumes about Hamlet’s actual mental state.

In addition to all of this, Shakespeare also makes sure to put in a character foil for Hamlet that surely puts to the bed the argument regarding his sanity. As a result of Polonius’s death and Hamlet’s departure to England, it becomes quite clear that Ophelia has indeed gone insane (“…her speech is nothing, yet the unshaped use of it doth move the hearers to collection; they aim at it and they botch the words up fit to their own thoughts…” Act IV, Scene V, 7-10). She starts to talk truly unintelligibly and her replies to Gertrude do not hold any relevance to the questions. “Well, God’ield you! They say the owl was a baker’s daughter. Lord, we know what we are, but know not what we may be. God be at your table!” (Act IV, Scene V, 41-43). On top of that, she also eventually commits suicide as a result of her insanity. This contrast truly shows that Hamlet was indeed sane throughout the play, for if he was ever insane he would have spoke unintelligibly throughout the play and committed suicide as well.

The accumulation of all the hints that Shakespeare drops within the play clearly show the reader that Hamlet was indeed sane right from the beginning all the way to the end. He uses character foils and comments from other primary characters to affirm Hamlet’s sanity. This demonstrates the fact that Shakespeare always intended Hamlet to be seen as a sane character and made sure that the readers/audience members understand it as well.

Even though it would be tempting to assume that Hamlet had gone mad at some point during the play, the cases cited above clearly prove other wise. Hamlet does indeed suffer greatly from all the tragedies plaguing him but to suggest he has gone insane would be irrational. In addition, the facts that Hamlet is capable of keeping his rationality intact and that he is also able to come up with an ingenious plan of feigning madness in order to catch Claudius work strongly in favour of Hamlet’s mental state. Most importantly, Shakespeare himself uses character foils and comments from secondary characters to build a case for Hamlet’s sanity so that the reader does not falsely presume him to be insane. It would be a mistake to label Hamlet mad since that would take away from the entire reason why he feigns madness in the first place. It is only through shedding doubts regarding Hamlet’s sanity that one is able to truly appreciate the subtle brilliance of the character and the remarkable work Shakespeare did in creating him. To deny this playwright the brilliance of his work would be disrespectful to his legacy.