The question of Hamlet’s madness has vexed scholars since the first production of the play. Based off an ancient legend, the Ur-Hamlet was a play that was extant before 1589, a decade before Shakespeare wrote his own Hamlet. The Second Quarto marked the first time Hamlet was actually written in its entirety by Shakespeare, later to be collected in the First Folio. These better editions of Hamlet provide the richest writing and challenge readers to ponder topics such as madness.

To answer the question of madness, the full definition of insanity must be explored. Insanity includes losing touch with reality, lacking the ability to determine right from wrong, or having no concept for the consequences of one’s actions. Hamlet proves his sanity when he shows a clear understanding of his situation, believes that he is in the wrong no matter what he does, and realizes the consequences of his actions.

As the play progresses, Hamlet appears to slip into a state of madness. The facts that label Hamlet as a madman are true, but it is the way they are interpreted that will decide if Hamlet’s madness is sincere. One main indicator of an unstable mind is the constant mood swings that plague Hamlet throughout the play. When Hamlet first hears of his father’s murder he begins to speak “wild and whirling words” (Shakespeare Act I, Scene v).

Furthermore, Hamlet acts very erratically towards Ophelia from then on. He professes to be the only one who truly loves her during the fight with Laertes in Ophelia’s grave, but he tells her that he never loved her when she returns his letters and gifts. In one scenario, Hamlet himself tells Laertes that he killed Polonius in a “fit of madness” (Shakespeare Act V, Scene ii). It is Hamlet alone who sees his father’s ghost in his mother’s chamber. Every other time the ghost appeared someone else has seen it. During this scene he finally shows his evident madness because his mother does not see the ghost.

While there are many arguments for the madness of Hamlet, there are also facts throughout the play that point to the evident sanity of Hamlet. The most obvious of clues to Hamlet’s sanity come from Hamlet himself. Hamlet tells Horatio that he is going to “feign madness,” and that if Horatio notices any strange behavior from Hamlet, it is because he is putting on an act (Shakespeare Act I, Scene v).

Hamlet tells his mother that he is not mad, “but mad in craft” (Shakespeare Act III, Scene iv). Perhaps the greatest indicator of sanity is that Hamlet’s madness only manifests itself when he is in the presence of certain characters. When Hamlet is around Polonius, Claudius, Gertrude, Ophelia, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, he behaves irrationally. When Hamlet is around Horatio, Bernardo, Francisco, The Players and the Gravediggers, he behaves rationally.

The only questionable quality Horatio notes about Hamlet is his inability to “control his wild and whirling moods,” but unstable emotions could very well be a byproduct from Hamlet’s traumatizing situation (Kermode 1139). Even the antagonist Claudius confesses that Hamlet’s “actions although strange, do not appear to stem from madness” (Shakespeare Act III, Scene i).

Now that the facts concerning the two points of view of Hamlet’s madness have been revealed, it is possible to compare the facts for contradictions. The facts gone over in the second paragraph point to the alternate conclusion that Hamlet merely uses his “madness” to his political and social advantage throughout the play. Hamlet hides behind madness because he knows that he will not be seen as committing crimes against the crown, such as mutiny, or conspiracy to kill the king.

This plan works because the king knows that the people of Denmark love Hamlet. If Hamlet is killed while in a brief period of madness, Claudius himself will be up for questioning and his country will turn on him. The deliberate ambiguity which Hamlet puts into his actions can not be described as mad behavior. He is challenging characters such as Claudius, Gertrude, and Polonius but challenging them cleverly enough as to not be held responsible from the interpretations that they take.

If Hamlet was truly mad, then he would have had the actions of a mad man. His actions were not mad but of a man far beyond his time, because as he states in the play “time is out of joint” (Shakespeare Act I, Scene v). If he was mad, Hamlet’s actions would have been unpredictable and inefficient at achieving revenge. A mad man can not think logically, but Hamlet does the very opposite and analyzes every single action that he does, or does not make. If Hamlet was truly mad then he would display blundering action, not careful hesitation, perhaps by immediately killing the king or taking up his own desires to kill himself.

He makes the world believe he is mad so that he may have the chances that only a mad man could gain, such as challenging authority, killing Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Killing Laertes, and finally in the end, getting his revenge of killing Claudius. As stated by Kermode, “Hamlet’s problem is a problem of action…” (Kermode 1139). Hamlet does not become insane, but rather becomes saner throughout his plan; he learns about diplomacy, becomes aware of the consequences, and finally, taking the actions that only a true genius could ever wish for, the total annihilation of all that was wrong when he starts his revenge.

Hamlet’s methods and intentions were not of a madman, but an overstressed genius far beyond his time. Hamlet craftily employs his technique of madness to avoid the consequences of activities he would have certainly been convicted of had he been acting sane. Hamlet may have also acted mad in retaliation to an acquired social hatred of women.

Andrews reveals this idea when he states “the madness that Hamlet assumes… is the individual symptom of a deeper social malaise” (Andrews 244). No matter the cause of feigned madness, it is in this fashion Hamlet is able to escape punishment for the very act he seeks revenge for, murder. Hamlets methods and intentions contradict the idea of madness and reveal a much smarter Hamlet character than originally perceived.