A big question throughout Hamlet pertains to the mental state of the protagonist, Hamlet. Right off the cuff we see Hamlet talk to a ghost, which is a very questionable thing not only in real life, but literature, film, TV, etc. There are countless stories where a character who sees spirits or hears voices others do not is deemed crazy and this play is no different. However, what is different about the situation in Hamlet is that Hamlet is not the only one who sees the ghost of his father. Horatio, Barnardo, and Marcellus all witness the ghost even before Hamlet catches his first glimpse. “Peace, break thee off—look where it comes / again! / In the same figure like the King that’s dead,” (1.1 38-40). So not only do these three men see the ghost, but they also recognize it as Hamlet’s father. Once speaking with his deceased father Hamlet embarks on a mission to avenge his father’s suspected murder. I use the term suspected because it is still possible at this moment in the play that this may not be truly the ghost of Hamlet’s father and so the death the ghost speaks of may be falsified. As part of his plan, Hamlet decides to play the part of a madman in order to deceive his “enemies” of any sort of plan he may be plotting. He does a great job in this role, even engaging in a comical conversation with Polonius where he asks Hamlet “Do you know me, my lord?” and Hamlet responds “Excellent well—you are a fishmonger,” (2.2 171-172). Hamlet deceives all to the point where they believe he is so out of his mind that he does not even recognize Polonius. Many play it off as him being distraught by all the change with his father dying and his mother marrying Hamlet’s uncle. But no matter what is the cause of Hamlet’s craziness, they want to do away with him by sending him to England. While Hamlet claims that he is doing this all as an act, I think it is important to consider that Hamlet actually has snapped, especially after confronting his mother in the closet. First off, Hamlet accidentally kills innocent Polonius, yet shows no real remorse in doing so. “Thou wretched, rash, intruding fool, / farewell,” (3.4 31-32). Most sane people would feel horrible about what they did, yet Hamlet not only shows no empathy, but even insults Polonius for even being there. Looking at the conversation itself now, Hamlet speaks to his mother with great levels of passion and aggression, which he did not seem capable of in the beginning of the play, showing the mental shift that Hamlet has taken since his encounter with the ghost. He appears to be bloodlusted and is hellbent on avenging his father. And speaking of his father, the ghost appears again in the closet, yet only Hamlet can see or hear it. “To whom do you speak this? / Do you see nothing there? / Nothing at all, yet all that is I see. / Nor did you nothing hear? / No, nothing but ourselves,” (3.4 130-134). So is Hamlet imagining the ghost? Is it purposefully not making himself visible to the Queen? No matter what the answer is, I think this is a very telling scene because by all accounts, Hamlet is appearing more and more insane.
-Zach Percy (Blogging Circle 6)
I really appreciated your use of the first act as a reference for your argument. I’ve noticed that many classmates have chosen to tackle this subject, but you are one of the few I’ve seen tackle the legitimacy of the ghost of King Hamlet I. As you mentioned, other pieces of literature and media may have used the king’s visits as a sign of the character’s mental degradation. However, as shown in works like A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Shakespeare is not afraid to explore the supernatural. Personally, I believe that the ghost is real as he is also visible to the rather level-headed characters like Horatio. Yet, in a way, the visitation of his father’s spirit may be a catalyst for Hamlet to slip into madness.
Zachary,
I also struggled with understanding Hamlet’s sanity. His madness could be interpreted as both feigned and genuine. I tried to keep both options in mind as I read the play. However, it is interesting to consider that perhaps Hamlet went a little mad after seeing his father’s ghost. I can imagine that seeing something otherworldly (and especially someone so close to him) would be enough to drive someone a bit mad. I know that his father’s ghost visiting him is a plot device, but it would be traumatic in actuality. People have gone mad for less than that of Hamlet’s circumstance.
You brought up a good point- why doesn’t the ghost visit the Queen? It could be because, as we talked about in class, the men are the main focus in revenge stories. Women are used as tokens (things to be taken, things to fight for, etc), but are rarely the protagonist in this type of story. Having the ghost visit the Queen would have changed the plot drastically. Then we would know if she was in on the scheme to kill the king because, to my understanding, that is not a thing we cannot confirm if she was a part of that or not.
Zach,
Since Thomas focused on the ghost aspect of your post I would like to comment on the idea that Hamlet is “acting” insane. I find Hamlet’s madness to be strategic and deceitful. Not only does he claim that he is going to pretend to be mad, he also plays it up when he knows people can hear him. For example, when Hamlet is talking with Ophelia he knows he is being listened to by Claudius and Polonius. In changing his language in Act 3 he is able to further convince the other characters that he truly is mad. It is time like that in the play that I do believe he is acting. I do think that some of the other characters were catching onto his antics as Polonius says to Hamlet “Though this be madness, yet there is method in ’t” (2.2.195). He knows that Hamlet is strategically mad as his behaviors are sporadic. The other piece of Hamlet’s “acting” that causes reason for suspicion for me is his willingness to be mad and his lack of emotion. Like you said, when he killed Polonius, he felt no remorse. I have a hard time believing that someone who is sane would be able to continue to “act” mad after accidentally killing somebody. Throughout the play, I think Hamlet’s madness is a conflicting topic as he is aware that he is acting, but yet Shakespeare has the audience constantly questioning if Hamlet is acting or truly mad. Nice job talking about this topic!
Zach,
I really enjoyed reading your post as you raised some valid points regarding Hamlet’s sanity. While part of his insanity is staged and intended, I would agree that a fair portion of his craziness is actually natural. Hamlet experiences a great deal of stress and trauma when his father dies, but on top of that, his mother marries his uncle two months after his father’s death and becomes the new king. I feel that is understandable to understand that Hamlet has gone crazy because handling such sudden change and pain affects his mental well-being. Some aspects of Hamlet’s insanity provide a comedic effect in the play, but there are some instances that carry a rather serious tone and attest to the play being deemed a tragedy.
Before reading your post I did not really think about the connection between some movies, T.V., etc… and Hamlet talking to the ghost in the play. I have no idea how I did not make this connection, but it is most definitely a valid one. It does however throw it off because there are others who see the ghost as well. So that does not necessarily work, but I still think it is an interesting point to make. To address the stabbing of Polonius: that situation is more than enough to show that Hamlet has snapped and is insane. I thought it was weird how he had basically no reaction to the fact that he killed Polonius. He thought he may have killed Claudius, which would have joyed him, but he did not and that did not seem to bother him, nor did he seem to regret it.
Zach,
You make a lot of interesting in-depth points about the mental wellbeing of Hamlet. When I was reading the text, I initially had assumed that Hamlet was sane, due to the fact that mystical things have been known to occur within Shakespeare’s texts. However, the variety of reasons that you have given has truly convinced me otherwise. I personally like to imagine that Hamlet is semi-sane, the sane part being his thoroughly throughout the plan and the insane part being how bizarre he seems to act when he’s around other people. I feel it’s wonderfuly up for debate with how mentally stable Hamlet truly is. Your arguement makes me believe he may very well be insane.