Skip to main content

Did Hamlet really go mad or was it pretense? Please provide support from the play to explain why.

The concept of Hamlet's descent into madness is a major theme throughout the play, but there is no definitive answer as to whether he was actually mad or simply giving a convincing performance. Prince Hamlet actively attempts to convince others that he is insane for his own purposes, which makes the matter more difficult to assess as a reader. It is possible that Hamlet believes his madness to be a pretense when it is, in fact, a reality. In this sense, madness is both a theme and a plot device.


Hamlet's Perspective


Throughout the story, Hamlet's ability to distinguish reality from imagination is called into question by himself as well as others. The first significant evidence that Hamlet is mad could also be taken as a supernatural encounter, depending on your perspective. Towards the beginning of the story, Prince Hamlet is visited by the ghost of his father who asks Hamlet to avenge his murder at the hands of his brother, King Claudius. As events in the play unfold, even Hamlet finds himself questioning whether the appearance of his father's ghost could actually have been a hallucination. Hamlet's perspective is also characterized by emotional distress, as exemplified in the following lines of Act I, Scene II:



O, that this too too solid flesh would melt
Thaw and resolve itself into a dew!
Or that the Everlasting had not fix'd
His canon 'gainst self-slaughter! O God! God!
How weary, stale, flat and unprofitable,
Seem to me all the uses of this world!



In this portion of the text, we learn that Hamlet's psychological distress has led him to contemplate suicide, even though his religious beliefs forbid both suicide and murder. The conflict between Hamlet's feelings and his beliefs could be seen as the force that pushes him deeper into madness. Visceral longings for his flesh to "melt" and "resolve itself into a dew" also suggest some level of instability.


Madness as Illusion


Hamlet uses the concept of illusion to discuss the idea of madness in a unique way. In this context, madness occurs when a character grasps onto illusion rather than accepting reality for what it is. In many cases, both Hamlet and the reader wonder whether he is capable of discerning the difference at all. An in-text example of the contrast between reality and illusion can be found in Act III, Scene IV. In this scene, a contrast is made between the "real" and "seeming" kings of Denmark. Hamlet is surrounded by illusions created by himself as well as his enemies.


Madness as Pretense


Prince Hamlet is so skilled at pretending to be mad that the reader is left to wonder if it is an act, after all. After seeing his father's apparition, the Prince warns his friends that he will display an "antic disposition," which can also be interpreted as a grotesque act or a convincing impersonation of madness. There is some critical debate as to whether Hamlet's act itself was so convincing that he began to live it or whether he was truly mad all along. There is no definitive answer among scholars, and the open-ended nature of the question is likely an intended theme of the play. Hamlet's sanity, like many other elements of the story, is meant to be ambiguous.


Elizabethan Concepts of Madness


When considering whether Hamlet was or wasn't mad, it is important to understand that Elizabethan concepts of madness were different from the modern day understanding of mental health issues. Many of the traits Hamlet exhibits that are intended to convey madness must be seen through the lens of the play's era. For example, Polonius believes Hamlet has gone mad as a result of what he perceives as Ophelia's rejection. This assumption hinges on the Elizabethan belief that lovesickness was a common condition that could result in severe physical and mental illness.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

A man has a garden measuring 84 meters by 56 meters. He divides it into the minimum number of square plots. What is the length of the square plots?

We wish to divide this man's garden into the minimum number of square plots possible. A square has all four sides with the same length.Our garden is a rectangle, so the answer is clearly not 1 square plot. If we choose the wrong length for our squares, we may end up with missing holes or we may not be able to fit our squares inside the garden. So we have 84 meters in one direction and 56 meters in the other direction. When we start dividing the garden in square plots, we are "filling" those lengths in their respective directions. At each direction, there must be an integer number of squares (otherwise, we get holes or we leave the garden), so that all the square plots fill up the garden nicely. Thus, our job here is to find the greatest common divisor of 84 and 56. For this, we prime factor both of them: `56 = 2*2*2*7` `84 = 2*2*3*7` We can see that the prime factors and multiplicities in common are `2*2*7 = 28` . This is the desired length of the square plots. If you wi...
Post a Comment
Read more

What warning does Chuchundra issue to Rikki?

Chuchundra, the sniveling, fearful muskrat who creeps around walls because he is too terrified to go into the center of a room, meets Rikki in the middle of the night. He insults Rikki by begging him not to kill him. He then insults him by suggesting that Nag might mistake Chuchundra for Rikki. He says, "Those who kill snakes get killed by snakes."  He issues this warning to Rikki not to help keep Rikki safe but as a way of explaining why Rikki's presence gives him, Chuchundra, more reason to fear.  Chuchundra starts to tell Rikki what Chua the rat told him--but breaks it off when he realizes he might be overheard by Nag. He says, "Nag is everywhere, Rikki-Tikki." Rikki threatens to bite Chuchundra to get him to talk. Even then, Chuchundra won't overtly reveal any information. But he does say, "Can't you hear, Rikki-Tikki?" This is enough of a clue for the clever mongoose. He listens carefully and can just make out the "faintest scratch-s...
Post a Comment
Read more