This essay examines the long-debated question of Hamlet's sanity in Shakespeare's play, arguing that the prince begins by deliberately feigning madness to deceive the spies monitoring him but gradually succumbs to genuine psychological breakdown. Drawing on textual evidence and scholarly commentary from critics such as Simon Blackmore, Alexander Crawford, and Tenney Davis, the paper traces Hamlet's arc from his initial encounter with his father's ghost through his impulsive killing of Polonius — the moment his pretense becomes reality — and finally to his partial recovery of reason before his death. The essay contends that Hamlet's insanity is neither purely performed nor permanent, but follows a discernible descent and return.
Hamlet's sanity has been questioned by critics of the play for centuries: is the Dane merely acting in order to fool the spies following him around the castle, or does he actually lose his mind? Part of the difficulty is that both seem possible (Davis 629). The other part is that critics tend to treat it as an either/or proposition — either Hamlet is acting, or Hamlet is insane. The play, however, provides all the evidence one needs to assert that Hamlet is indeed acting insane initially (feigning madness), but that as the drama unfolds, his grasp on sanity and reason becomes looser and looser until he himself admits that he does not know what he is doing — and his actions essentially become mad. This paper argues that Hamlet is proven to be genuinely insane by the middle of the play, drawing on both the text of Hamlet and the opinions of scholars.
The descent into madness for Hamlet does not occur suddenly, as it does for Ophelia. Hamlet's descent is slow and tortuous, unfolding over a period of time. At first he seems to be in possession of himself — even when he is encountering the ghost of his dead father. Hamlet argues within himself, logically, as to the veracity of the ghost's claims; he even wonders whether the ghost is a devil in disguise seeking to ensnare his soul: "Be thou a spirit of health or goblin damned" (1.4.43). Yet he does not act according to his own logic, which would presumably mean proceeding with caution since there is no clear way of knowing whether the ghost comes from Heaven or from Hell. Instead, Hamlet declares:
"Thou comest in such a questionable shape / That I will speak to thee. I'll call thee 'Hamlet,' / 'King,' 'Father,' 'royal Dane.' O, answer me! / Let me not burst in ignorance, but tell / Why thy canonized bones, hearsed in death, / Have burst their cerements . . . ." (1.4.46–51)
In other words, immediately after pronouncing that the ghost's appearance is questionable — that its origins are unknown — Hamlet instantly assumes that the ghost is after all the spirit of his dead father. He is judging on appearances and emotion. That emotion is evident in the manner of his speech: the young prince who has been so taciturn and terse in the play's opening scenes now bursts out with so many words that his mind is in danger of becoming unhinged from its moorings. This is the first crack in Hamlet's reason — his willingness to pursue a flight of fancy and give more credence to the ghost than the ghost deserves.
As Simon Blackmore notes, "Hamlet as a Christian knew that evil spirits may at times assume various forms, the better to beguile to evil, and, therefore, he doubted [rightly] whether this spectre-like form of his father were really his ghost or a demon" (130). The problem Hamlet runs into is that he does not pursue a rational line of inquiry regarding the spirit. He immediately believes it to be his dead father and swears the other men present to silence. Hamlet even goes so far as to brandish his sword at his friends, who, fearing for his safety, attempt to keep him from following the ghost. The prince grows impassioned and inflamed, and his threat of violence is not the reasoned discourse of a rational man but rather the last, desperate act of a mind already beginning to drift. At the same time, Hamlet has not yet lost his reason — he can still speak coherently and with logic — but the appearance of the ghost so shatters his peace of mind that he has begun down the slippery slope towards insanity. At the end of Act 1 he is not, however, completely insane. As further scenes reveal, he is struggling with his mind and attempting to find some support.
Horatio provides some support, but his rationalistic bent is not what Hamlet needs. Hamlet has no problem using reason to justify a position; his problem is that reasons are insufficient. He seeks love's support, but Ophelia is in the hands of her father, who is a spy for Hamlet's new stepfather, suspicious of his stepson's behavior. Without Ophelia's love, Hamlet is left to fend for himself, and his mind is not strong enough to withstand the stresses he is facing.
Hamlet even knows that he is being spied upon and deliberately adopts a crazy persona to throw off his watchers and his uncle — he states that he will "put an antic disposition on" (1.5.172). Yet the sheer fact that he believes this will somehow work in his favor is further evidence that his mind is slipping. Indeed, his "antic disposition" ends up leading his uncle to issue him a death sentence, which Hamlet craftily eludes — at least for a time. Hamlet even tells his mother, "I essentially am not in madness / But mad in craft" (3.4.187–88). This is really an equivocation on Hamlet's part, as his irrational and unthinking slaying of Polonius in that same scene demonstrates that Hamlet has in fact lost control of his mind. His mother cries out, "O me, what hast thou done?" when Hamlet thrusts his sword through the arras — and Hamlet responds, "Nay, I know not. Is it the king?" (3.4.26–27).
In other words, Hamlet, who has been refraining from action for so long, now acts impulsively and without thinking — that is, he acts like an actual madman and may be said to be genuinely insane at this moment. He confesses that he does not know what he has done. Alexander Crawford argues that Hamlet's madness is feigned — "there can be no doubt" — but as Hamlet's actions in Act 3 show, the prince is indeed acting insanely. He may have started out only pretending to be mad in order to trick the spies, but in pretending, and in being unable to cope with the stresses oppressing him, Hamlet truly slips and loses his reason. His impulsive murder of Polonius bears this out, as does his subsequent talk of "lugging the guts" to another room to hide the body (3.4.217). Hamlet has no regard for the impression he is making; his mind is clearly unhinged.
All of this is actually quite natural for a man in his circumstances. As Tenney Davis notes, "the young intellectual, sorrowing for the death of his father, very naturally developed a psychosis under the influence of his mother's unseemly second marriage" (629). This psychosis becomes a full-blown slide into insanity as the stress of the supernatural, the political, the espionage, and the collapse of his relationship with Ophelia all converge upon his wits.
"Impulsive murder signals genuine loss of reason"
"Exile allows Hamlet to regain mental clarity"
Crawford, Alexander W. Hamlet, an Ideal Prince, and Other Essays in Shakespearean Interpretation: Hamlet; Merchant of Venice; Othello; King Lear. Boston: R.G. Badger, 1916. Shakespeare Online. 20 Aug. 2009. http://www.shakespeare-online.com/plays/hamlet/antichamlet.html
Davis, Tenney. "The Sanity of Hamlet." The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 18, no. 23 (Nov. 10, 1921): 629–634.
Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. http://shakespeare.mit.edu/hamlet/full.html
You’re 57% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.