[ad_1]
Hamlet’s sanity is open to interpretation due to cultural and personal definitions of sanity. Killing, suicide contemplation, and seeing ghosts can be rationalized towards different conclusions. Inconsistency and stress also complicate the analysis. The best modern actors and directors must work under their own analysis as Shakespeare’s true intentions cannot be known.
People may interpret William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, the Prince of Denmark, as sane, insane, or a little bit of both. This is because points of contention such as killing others, considering suicide, and seeing ghosts all have rationalizations toward different conclusions. Cultural mandates and assumptions also change the definition of what is also sane, and the mental state of the character cannot be determined with certainty if the definition of lucidity is not static. Since Shakespeare can no longer state what he really meant, the best modern actors and directors can do is work under their own analysis.
Homocide
Most cultures believe that life is precious and therefore murder is wrong, crossing the line into a degree of insanity. The Prince of Denmark is crazy about this measure, as he kills more than one person over the course of the game. At the same time, people in most communities also value the pursuit of justice and, in some cases, taking a life is considered justifiable. In the United States, for example, multiple states allow the death penalty for certain types of crime. An analyst can consider the character sane if he accepts that, by taking the lives of immoral or sinful people, the character is simply trying to avenge the death of his father.
Consideration of suicide
In perhaps the best-known speech in all of English literature, Hamlet reflects on whether or not to kill himself, wondering whether it is better to “be or not to be”. Most cultures consider ending one’s life an act of madness, akin to taking the life of someone else. The fact that he contemplates suicide therefore could be a sign that his mental stability is crumbling. Given that much of what is dear to him has been lost or proven false, however, and given that he longs for relief from his extreme pain and grief, the desire for a way out could be interpreted as a healthy following of principle of Freudian pleasure.
See a ghost
Hamlet sees the ghost of his dead father while out for a late night walk. His affirmation of this vision could have been a point in the case towards insanity, but three of his friends also see the ghost. This shows that the spirit is not simply the product of his troubled mind. Later in the play however, the ghost appears to him again and this time no one else sees him. This could mean that he is now seeing things, or it could be that the ghost has his own reasons for not appearing to others present.
Fighting friends
When the ghost of Hamlet’s father first appears, the ghost orders his son to follow him. Hamlet’s friends fear for his safety and try to stop him from leaving. He pushes them away with the point of his sword. Some literature experts question whether this course of action is evidence of insanity, as most people would flee a ghost and recognize when friends were simply trying to help. On the other hand, going with the ghost is rational considering that the Prince of Denmark desperately misses his father and wants to know once and for all whether his father was murdered.
Inconsistency and Ophelia
Hamlet’s actions and words are extremely inconsistent. He tells her love interest, Ophelia, that he no longer loves her, for example, but then jumps into her grave as he prepares for a fight, professing his passion for her. Modern psychologists often argue that incoherent actions and speech are signs of emotional and mental distress, but it’s not clear whether the inconsistency comes from going crazy or from the overwhelming stress of one’s circumstances. Some people argue that, if he were sane and truly in love, he would not have tried to push Ophelia away and would have been mean to her, but others point out that his mother’s actions destroyed his faith in women and that his actions towards Ophelia it is misdirected.
Direct assertion
Hamlet says very clearly that he is not mad, but that he is simply acting mad. Experts sometimes take this literally and point out that playing madness serves his intent to avenge his father. Those who take the other side of the argument argue that truly insane people don’t necessarily acknowledge their lack of clarity.
Sane and crazy
Those who have studied Hamlet sometimes claim that he was both mad and not mad. One problem with trying to discuss his mental state is that people generally assume that sanity is a consistent thing. This isn’t always true, as people can go in and out of periods of lucidity, such as during a serious illness. He may have had moments of clarity, like when he plotted to catch his father’s killer, but he couldn’t sustain that clarity and therefore didn’t always do sensible things.
Another interpretation is that he starts the game sane but goes insane by the end. The idea here is that, by acting like a fool, he has slowly lost his ability to discern good rationalization and correct behavior. One problem with this interpretation is that his problems keep increasing over time. An increase in strange behavior could be a response to this increased stress, not evidence of worsening insanity.
The big problem
A major problem in trying to determine whether Shakespeare intended his play’s main character to be sane or insane is that sanity by itself is somewhat open to interpretation. For example, behavior that is acceptable to one culture may not be acceptable to another. Rationalization is also assumed to be a sign of sanity, but as murderers often demonstrate, even “crazy” acts can be carefully planned and thought through. The best anyone can do, therefore, is to interpret his actions and speeches under his own cultural and personal lens.
