Why Is Hamlet Crazy

“Great wits are sure to madness near allied, and thin partitions do their bounds divide”. Although this quote by John Dryden was not directed towards Hamlet, this quote relates well to the argument of whether or not Hamlet was insane. The character of Hamlet in Shakespeare’s play The Tragical History of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark is perhaps one of the most complex tragic heroes and possibly the most analyzed in all of English literature. Whether Hamlet was actually insane, or simply acting mad depends on the reader’s interpretation of the play. Hamlet is a complex character, he is the direct result of his psychological disorders. He is capable of quickly changing his emotions and state of mind from being happy, to being sorrowful, to being seemingly
insane. When madness suits Hamlet’s purpose, he puts on an “antic disposition” (1.5.173). When sanity proves to be more efficient, Hamlet quickly reverts to being logical. Hamlet could not have been insane as he lacked the characteristics commonly seen in mad men. At times, Hamlet’s clarity of mind was remarkable, while at other times it was reasonable to assume that he was insane. However, these changes of state are simply the result of whomever Hamlet is near as he puts on acts of insanity around certain individuals. Additionally, Hamlet was able to successfully plan and execute a play with logical reasoning which is unusual in insane men. Lastly, Hamlet was able to progressively realize the implications of life and death throughout the play in order to justify his actions. Through these arguments, it can be inferred that Hamlet’s insanity was feigned to achieve his short-term objectives. Near the beginning of the play, Hamlet meets his father’s ghost and is informed that Claudius murdered him.
This in itself is not an act of insanity, as the guards and Horatio also observed the apparition. Soon after this encounter, Hamlet informs his friends Marcellus and Horatio that he is going to act insane to avenge his father. Horatio warns Hamlet “What if it tempts you toward the flood my lord, or to the dreadful summit of the cliff That beetles o’er his base into/ the sea, And there assume some other/ horrible form which might deprive your/ sovereignty of reason, and draw you into, madness? Think of it” (1.4.69-74). This warning may have been what gave Hamlet the idea to fake insanity, as it is immediately after this encounter that Hamlet begins to act insane. Hamlet only claims madness because it allowed him to get away with prohibited actions, and disables others from taking him seriously so that he can carefully plot his revenge free of suspicion. Hamlet tells Horatio and Marcellus about his feigned insanity, and tells them to think nothing of it. Hamlet does not inform Claudius, Gertrude, Ophelia, Polonius, Rosencrantz or Guildenstern of this plan to ensure they do not interfere with his plan to kill Claudius. However, Hamlet does later inform Gertrude about this plan and states that he is not mad, but “mad in craft” (3.4.192). He is disrespectful, uses several sexual innuendos and makes bold sexual remarks to Ophelia such as “That’s a fair thought to lie
between maids’ legs” (3.1.125). His convincing insanity allowed him to vent his anger towards Ophelia for her abandonment, and essentially permits him to create excuses. Were it not for Hamlet’s feigned insanity, he would have been reprimanded rather than feared, pitied, or ignored and his plans would have failed. Even when Hamlet seemed undoubtedly insane, his intellect and motives remained clear and comprehensive. In addition to putting on acts around certain individuals, Hamlet was also able to think logically rather than act on impulse. An insane man is unable to act with free will, and even less are able to produce reason for their actions. A reporter once asked serial killer John Wayne Gacy why he killed over 33 young boys, he calmly answered “I forget my logic when I’m asked this question… The only thing I can remember is… the overriding impulse”. Hamlet always used logic, and had reasoning behind his actions. He was always thinking because, for him, it was easier to think than act. One of the most convincing examples of this is witnessed in act 2 when Hamlet plans a play. If Hamlet were insane, he would have been incapable of concocting a scheme that would allow him to inform Claudius that he is aware of his crimes. Hamlet did not plan this while in a state of insanity nor did he base it on a momentary idea, Hamlet planned ahead and thought logically. In addition to this, Hamlet was able to stop himself from killing Claudius after the play. Hamlet knew that if he killed Claudius in that moment, while Claudius prayed, his soul would be sent to Heaven. Even with Claudius directly in front of him in a vulnerable state, Hamlet did not have an overriding urge to kill him, instead he waited for a better opportunity. Lastly, Hamlet was able to control his impulses for love throughout the play. When Hamlet meets Ophelia, they quickly fall in love. However, shortly after this encounter, Hamlet realized that Gertrude and Claudius may become privy of their love and attempt to manipulate it in hopes of controlling Hamlet. Hamlet realized he had to end their thoughts of using Ophelia to cure his ‘condition’. To do so, he had to destroy all feelings Ophelia has for him by distancing himself from her and lashing out at her. Once Ophelia’s emotions were lessened, Hamlet quickly acted to obtain his uncles confession so that he could still have a chance to regain Ophelia’s admiration. It could be criticized that Hamlet never truly loved Ophelia because he was insane, but it was proven at Ophelia’s funeral that he truly did love her. In a manic act, he jumped into Ophelia’s grave and states “I loved Ophelia. Forty thousand brothers could not with all their quantity of love make up my sum” (5.1.255-257). This proves that Hamlet did indeed love Ophelia, but he denied it all throughout the play to increase his chances of gaining an opportunity to avenge his father. These examples all display Hamlet’s ability to act based on logical thinking rather than to act based on impulse. This proves Hamlet was not insane because insane men, such as John Wayne Gacy, cannot defend their actions with logical reasoning.
Lastly, Hamlet’s famous soliloquy “To be, or not to be” (3.1.64-98) proved that he was not insane, and in fact actually very lucid. During this part of the play, Hamlet contemplates whether or not it is more beneficial to live or die. Hamlet contemplates whether it is nobler to fight off his worries, or to end them by committing suicide. Hamlet asks himself if he would be happier to go to sleep for eternity, or to suffer the pains of life. Hamlet wants to know what comes after death, but he also desires to kill Claudius which can only be achieved through his suffering. In Hamlet’s mind, the entire world is corrupt. Hamlet disowns life by saying “How weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable/ Seem to me all the uses of this world! … things rank and gross in nature/ Posses it merely” (1.2.129). Hamlet further expresses his hate for the world when he states “ I have of late… lost all my mirth and goodly frame the earth seems to me a sterile promontory, this most excellent canopy the air… apearreth nothing to me but a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours” (2.2.275-284). In summary, Hamlet asks himself why he should choose to live when death is an easy response to misery. In this battle with himself, Hamlet realizes he is too intelligent to commit suicide. He decides that avenging his father is more important than his suffering. An insane person is incapable of experiencing this type of deep thought. An insane person would not use reasoning to determine whether they live or die, because it does not matter to them. Therefore Hamlet could not have been insane, but perhaps he could be more accurately described as someone experiencing manic depression. Whether or not Hamlet kills Claudius, he will suffer enormous psychological pain. Luckily, Hamlet dies happily shortly after avenging his father and avoids living a tormented life. Hamlet truly ended up having a happy ending by his standards.
It is evident that Hamlet was very intelligent and very aware of his circumstances.
Hamlet was never truly insane, he was much too brilliant. He was simply putting on an act for the kingdom of Elsinore. If it were not for Hamlet’s feigned insanity, Claudius would have surely known that Hamlet was scheming against him and would have executed him. In society today, this is a common occurrence. If someone seems insane, they can get away with nearly everything. For example, if an individual today were to commit a petty crime, they would face adequate punishment. On the other hand, if an individual today were to kill another individual and plead for insanity in a court of law, they would receive little to no punishment. Hamlet manipulated this fact well throughout the play. Although he committed murder and was not actually insane, he can be forgiven. Hamlet acknowledged that he could not avenge his father without committing murder. He accepted that he had to be evil in order to counter evil. Hamlet had every right to kill Claudius especially after he became aware of Claudius’ and Laertes’ plan to murder him, and even more so after the poison meant to kill him was ingested by his mother Gertrude. If Hamlet had not acted insane, Claudius would have known that Hamlet knew the truth. Like Hamlet said, “The plays the thing, wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the King”
(2.2.566-567).