The Play Hamlet by Shakespeare and Hamlets Insanity - Essay Example

Hamlet’s Insanity Madness is a complex of the brain that is complex to discern. This of the brain is hidden, and it develops over time. In the play Hamlet, Shakespeare has depicted Hamlet as a sane or insane person depending on the situation. However, this turns out tragically for Hamlet. In the play, Hamlet feigns madness so that he can discover the truth behind his father’s death (Shakespeare 29). This plan proceeds well, but he slowly begins to slide down the tunnel to insanity. This causes his mind to go out of control. What started as an act of antic disposition or insanity becomes less of an act and it ends up to Hamlet’s reality and tragedy. In my opinion, Hamlet is not feigning madness, but he is really insane. In this case, Hamlet’s insanity is seen from the start of the play. The events around Hamlet’s environment are sufficient to make a sane person turn insane. Hamlet returns home and learns of his father’s death. After his father passed away, Claudius, his mother married Hamlet’s uncle. This was the turning point in Hamlet’s life. The guards at the castle complicate matters for Hamlet by telling him that they have seen the ghost of his father. Hamlet believes their description and decides to take guard at the castle one of the nights, in which the apparition appears. He recognizes his father’s ghost and begins to talk to him. He learnt from his father that his uncle arranged for his father’s death in his attempt to become king (Shakespeare 41). He is devastated by the news and vows to revenge the death of his father. Part of the initial scheme was for Hamlet to pretend to be insane. He adopted insanity in order to see whether the ghost would tell him the truth. He is not sure whether the ghost is that of a devil or a spirit, but he believes that he can obtain information from the ghost, in order to build a case against his mother. Shakespeare intends to portray Hamlet as a genuinely insane person. For instance, his conduct after the interview with the ghost betrays an excited state of mind that borders on insanity. Horatio becomes compelled to reprove Hamlet because of his “wild and whirling words” (Shakespeare 35). There is a trace of fickleness when Hamlet writes down what his father had told him. Hamlet crosses the border of insanity by jesting with his father’s ghost. In this case, he pledges his companions to secrecy. It is irrelevant for Hamlet to speak of his father’s spirit as an “old mole” and “this fellow in the cellarage”. In such a case, it is possible to conclude that either Hamlet was not himself, or he was pretending to be insane. However, I would like to believe that Hamlet was insane, because of his jesting with the ghost. A sane person cannot make a jest of the situation. In fact, his interview with his father’s ghost shows that Hamlet’s mind is wavering and distracted. Through most of the interviews in the play, Hamlet comes out as a shrewd person who has the ability to shift purpose. With a pretense of his frankness, Hamlet proceeds to tell them what he wanted them to think. For instance, during his interactions with Guidenstern and Rosencrantz, he talks to them frankly before he started to give them hints of his secrets. During this conversation, he talks about his aunt-mother and uncle-father. He talks about the two in an allusion to his consideration of the incestuous marriage. In a humorous manner, Hamlet begins to insinuate that he is not mad, and his sanity is suited to his situation or purpose (Shakespeare 45). He recognizes that Guidenstern and Rosencrantz are spies of the king and begins to tell them that he can differentiate between a hen and a hawk as long as the sun is removed from his eyes. Only an insane person could make such a contradictory statement in the context of his situation or circumstance. It was fortunate that the two spies did not decide to report Hamlet to the king. During his conversation with Ophelia, when the King was hidden behind the tapestry, it is vital for the audience to ask themselves the purpose of Hamlet to deliberately act a part in the scene. In case his purpose was to deceive the King, the king was not deceived because he stated, “Love! His affections do not that way tend; nor what he spoke, though it lacked form a little, was not lie madness. There is something in his soul, o’er which his melancholy sits on brood; and I do doubt, the hatch and disclose will be some danger” (Shakespeare 44). Hamlet’s words to Ophelia lacked form, particularly when compared to the soliloquy that preceded the words. The King does not deny Hamlet’s insanity, but his madness. He considers this madness as a violent form of a disease. During the burial, Hamlet’s insanity seems to assume a violent form. During this scene, it is not possible that Hamlet was feigning his insanity. In case, Hamlet was feigning his insanity, he would have been inhuman to deliberately desecrate a lady he had once shown love. This is particularly inhumane because the death of Ophelia was peculiarly tragic and caused by his attitude and conduct towards her. Hamlet admits to Horatio that he disregarded himself during the funeral. He confesses, “Sure the bravery of his grief did put me into a towering passion” (Shakespeare 52). Since Hamlet is unusually frank with Horatio, it is possible to conclude that passion led him to behave as he did. Hamlet did not feign his insanity, but passion drove him to act in an unacceptable manner. Hamlet even apologized to Laertes and proclaims that his misconduct was motivated by madness. Hamlet was a man that exhibited exceptional intellectual abilities. However, his mind was driven by a melancholy that pointed to insanity. This trend began before his interaction with his father’s ghost. Hamlet’s insanity was aggravated by his experiences with his father’s ghost and his environment, which is characterized by abnormal events. Hamlet’s attitude toward his mother and his behavior during the burial leads to the conclusion that he was insane. Work Cited Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Hauppauge, N.Y: Barron's, 2002. Print. Read More