Hamlet

Hamlet: The Madman That Was Not so Mad

	After reading William Shakespeare’s play “Hamlet”, many readers find themselves pondering the question “was Hamlet truly mad, or was his madness feigned?”  The answer is simple, he wasn’t. Using textual evidence we can confidently assume that Hamlet was never truly mad, he simply ‘switched’ between sanity and insanity several times throughout the play in order to buy himself time, deceive Claudius into thinking he is not a threat, and ultimately exacting revenge on Claudius.  There are several reasons as to why feigning madness would benefit Hamlet, and they all have to do with him getting revenge. The two most prominent advantages to feigning madness are the time he would buy himself, and the harmlessness that would be bestowed upon him. These would help him in avenging his father’s death by killing Claudius.

One of the reasons Hamlet feigned his madness was in order to buy himself time.  He does this because he does not want to kill Claudius without being sure that he actually murdered his father, meaning he would need time to gather some evidence. Had Hamlet gathered evidence without feigning madness, it would have been a lot more obvious that he was onto Claudius. By masking his suspicion, he reduced the threat of Claudius finding out. As for why he is unsure about whether or not Claudius actually committed the murder, it is because he does not even know whether or not the ghost is that of his father. He considers the possibility of it being the devil or an evil spirit, as shown when he says “I know my course. The spirit that I have seen/May be the devil: and the devil hath power” (Shakespeare II.ii.561, 562). Hamlet fears that the ghost may be trying to doom him to hell, by tricking him into murdering someone that may be innocent. Do to these worries; Hamlet plans to have a group of actors put on a show that will help him determine whether or not Claudius committed the murder.  His plan involves adding a part to the play where a king would be murdered by his own brother, who would then marry the late king’s wife and take power. Hamlet apparently believes this plan will be completely reliable, as he has heard of people reacting to plays in such a manner when he says “About, my brain.—Hum, I have heard/That guilty creatures sitting at a play/Have, by the very cunning of the scene/Been struck so to the soul that presently/They have proclaimed their malefactions/For murder, though it have no tongue, will speak”(II.ii.551, 556). Looking through the dramatic construction lens, we can say that Hamlet is referencing catharsis in these lines. The work of art plays on the audience’s emotion, cleansing them of fear and pity which would result in a visual reaction.  After explaining why it will work, he tells the reader that he is going to go with this plan when he says “Play something like the murder of my father/before mine uncle. I’ll observe his looks/I’ll tent him to the quick. If he do blench/I know my course. The spirit that I have seen” (II.ii.558, 561).  Had he not been feigning madness while all of this happened, Claudius more than likely would have caught on.

	Hamlet also wanted to deceive Claudius into thinking he is not going to threaten his position as king . A sane, present, healthy Hamlet always meant he could find out about his father’s murder, somehow. With Hamlet feigning madness, Claudius would drop his guard and stop worrying about Hamlet finding out. Hamlet was considered harmless by Claudius, as well as many others. This would allow Hamlet to sneak up on Claudius, making getting revenge much easier, as well as altering the affects that the murder would have on the state of Denmark. Everything would have changed had he succeeded in killing Claudius without the mask of madness to hide behind, he more than likely would have faced trial and been executed. However seeing as he was mad, he may have been shown mercy (had he not died from the poison). This advantage of feigning madness can be seen very clearly when Guildenstern admits that he and Rosencrantz were sent by the King and Queen to question Hamlet, he says “My lord, we were sent for” (II.ii.277). Guildenstern admits that he was sent by the King and Queen because of the respect he has for Hamlet. However, what is more important to this argument is that he seems to be at ease because he knows Hamlet is not a threat, as he is supposedly mad. Had Hamlet been sane but the King and Queen still decided to send his friends to check up on him, Guildenstern and Rosencrantz would not have reacted the same way to Hamlet’s question.

	The bigger and main reason for his feigned madness was to exact revenge on the treacherous Claudius.  It was all a part of the plan. The two previous reasons, as well as other weaker reasons, connect to the idea that Hamlet wants to murder Claudius because of what he did to Hamlet’s father. However, when looking through the moral criticism lens, are Hamlet’s intentions justifiable?  Yes, Claudius killed the king and stole his wife, but the whole concept of revenge is based on the idea that two wrongs make a right, which many people disagree with. It is morally wrong in today’s society, as well as in the Victorian times, to murder a man in an act of revenge because he murdered somebody you know. As such, it can be stated that this play would be damaging to the general public.  Hamlet should not have planned to murder Claudius; instead he should have compiled evidence and call Claudius out on his crimes. That is not what happened though, and Hamlet went on with his plan until his eventual demise. We know Hamlet wants to avenge his father’s death by murdering whoever did it when he says “Haste me to know ’t, that I, with wings as swift/As meditation or the thoughts of love,/May sweep to my revenge” (I.i.29, 31). Hamlet is initially shocked to find out it was his uncle, as he says “O my prophetic soul! My uncle?” (I.i.41), however he later on states that he will honour his promise to his father’s ghost when he says “So, uncle, there you are. Now to my word” (I.i.110).

It is undeniable that Hamlet’s madness was feigned, the text itself proves it . Yes, Hamlet possibly did become depressed later on in the play ; however that is not really madness. In the Victorian era it may have been considered madness, but it was not. Hamlet’s madness was nothing more than a tactic used to buy himself time and make Claudius drop his guard before murdering him. If Hamlet truly had been mad, then surely he would have stopped focussing on the task at hand and instead murder Claudius face to face?