Printable View
It seems that Hamlet doesn't act mad because he is angry. After looking a the original script, it seems that Hamlet acts mad so that his friends won't come over to him and say, "remember what the ghost said?" or some other slip that would let Claudius know that Hamlet knows he killed Hamlet's father. Correct me and please tell what I'm misinterpreting if I'm wrong.
well I think Hamlet acted mad so others will speak freely infront of him....people usually say whatever they want if someone is mad...like with blind people.....He does not want his uncle to become suspicious about him, so he put the madness mask. and by being mad people wont take what he said in cocern and he can conveys a message to his enemies by saying something annoying on purpose ...like the play scene when his uncle left the play....Therefore Hamlet becomes sure that his uncle is the murderer and the ghost is right.
Hamlet getting his buddies to swear on a sword probably was sufficient to keep them honest to their pledge. (Interestingly, likewise Richard II makes the two guys he kicks out of the kingdom swear on a sword that they would never meet again.)
We can guess about why he puts on his mad disposition. He can act weird and say outlandish things, and be forgiven for such offbeat behavior. He, therefore, can pry into the activities of the court to obtain the absolute validation that he wants that Claudius is his father-killer. Jesters and jokers can sometimes get others to blab and divulge info, and he wants info, details and facts. He can play other characters against each other, irritate others to get them to blab (reveal themselves). He can sort of stop the ongoing politics and affairs of the state, and get all attention on him. He can enjoy his quest more by acting like a oddball wit. He can get people to agree with him, like the business about the animals he sees in the cloud to Polonious, ie. to ensnare them, to get them incrementally to acquiesse to him. He tends to reduce everyone else's power and everyday sanity. He gets others to pity him. He plays some comedic shock to put others in a frenzy. He really makes a problem for all the other characters. He wants to whip them up, esp. Claudius, so Claudius can't live normal again. He can even trick himself that he is accomplishing something and getting closer to his prize, which I guess he is, but not without difficulty.
I belive that Hamlet doesn't just act mad, in fact I believe he IS mad. Let me explain. I read the play for class a couple of years ago and as I was going over it before an exam I came up with this theory with a friend. Throughout the play there are two groups of characters, those who see Hamlet's ghost (Horatio, Bernardo, Marcellus...etc.) and those who don't (Claudius, Polonius...etc.). This is where it gets interesting; these two groups of characters never interact with eachother until the final scene of the play. It's as if Horatio & co. are as inexistant to the others as is the ghost. Hamlet interacts with all the characters and this leads me to think that the ghost and all the characters who see the ghost are just a fragment of Hamlet's imagination, his madness.
Of course, this is all very Freudian which may seem anachronic, but there is also quite a strong allusion to the Oedipus complexe, Hamlet hates his (step) father who stole his mother's love and he now wants to kill him. To sum it all up; I think the ghost is Hamlet's way of persuading himself that it is right to kill his step father.
This is a little far fetched but it did get me a great grade for the exam, he he.
Mark,
Can't quite agree with you but I get your point -- sort of like the movie, A Beautiful Mind. And it certainly can be played as if Hamlet is way over the mental edge. Although I think it gets more in touch with the audience if Hamlet remains very human, with powerful sensitivity, torn when he has to separate from Ophlia, even with a defensive hint of guilt at sending his schoolfellows to their deaths. Horatio certainly doesn't approve of it I don't think. A cold Hamlet I don't enjoy watching. Or an angry Hamlet.
True, Gertrude doesn't see the ghost which is interesting. It asks the question, what is a ghost and who can see one? Why would one individual and not another? Maybe the ghost decides who sees him and when, and for what purpose. It's also extremely important that Claudius killed Hamlet, Sr., not just stealing Hamlet's mother's hand.
A Beautiful Mind is the movie that made me think up this theory. I agree that a human Hamlet is the best for an audience to watch and I don't think I'd stage it the way I explained it. I'm just saying that Shakespeare probably intended Hamlet to be interpreted in numerous ways and that he was probably thinking somewhere along those lines (as wel as others) when he wrote the play. This is what makes Shakespeare great in my opinion, the modernity and complexity of his themes.
Very interesting theory - I never assumed that Hamlet was quite as mad as that.. but now I start to wonder. I am going to reread the play with this theory in mind. Thank you!
Agree wholeheartedly with your openness re: Hamlet. Recently in a school library I saw a book, as I recall about general literature, by whats-her-name, Muriel Sparks. A couple chapters were on Shakespeare. She was saying how Witgenstein, although liking Shakespeare, had a problem with him because he left everything "open" whereas W's philosophical desire was for finality and closure to everything. I thought that was a very interesting and true point, that Shake. just opens doors and presents issues, but gives next to no closure to anything. I mean he may give closure via death or a wedding, but any thinking person perceives that that is no real closure or finality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark F.
When I look around I see some people that can and some that cannot deal with this "unfinishedness" or "inconclusiveness" that Shake. constantly presents. Shakespeare was wild, and not into the "neat and tidy". I guess Lear carrying Cordelia out at the end might emitomize how far he was willing to push the envelope against acceptability.
Hamlet is mad - not because the ghost is a figure in his imagination - because it's real - and real spiritual imperatives drive people mad - aka avenge me. His madness is controllable and does lead to eventual success - (Cladius is killed). Of course he has to die, but 10th century Danish Royalty don't fear death ( except Cladius)
I don't think Shakespeare would have opened the play with a conversation between three characters who are only the figment of the imagination of another character yet to be introduced to the audience.
Still, I think it's an interesting idea. Are you sure Horatio never interacts with any of the characters who can't see the ghost?
Hamlet is definitely acting to start off with, putting on his 'antic disposition'. Perhaps he could be considered to become more insane due to this pretence? A bit like the use of physiognomy in Richard III, where Richard claims to become evil because of his evil appearance.
As has been said, it did give him more scope for plotting, spying etc. It also turned out to be a bit of an excuse for killing polonius - possibly stopping him being executed in elsinore.
I am not sure if he ever goes completely insane. He is quite young, which his strong emotional issues could be blamed on. Emotionally, with his treatment of ophelia, he seems about ten!
The pretence of madness also gets him more attention from the court - perhaps part of his reasoning is that he is no longer the golden son of the courts? Laertes is also young and clever, and with his father's death, Hamlet is no longer the king's son. He is probably also jealous because Claudius was elected king, not him.
Mark F, I like your way of thinking!
I read Hamlet as part of my Higher English course, and everything I was told by my teach about the play I believed e.g.that Hamlet was acting mad, but now that you have said that about him being mad all along, it all makes sense now! However I did get a good grade also with using the knowledge I was given by my teacher, but then again, you probably made it interesting for the markers to read :D
I think I may read Hamlet again in future, with your thinking in mind!
I think Shakespeare leaves everything open as to encourage people to use their imagination more, because everything is just boring if there is a final answer to everything, everyone loves 'what ifs' don't they? I know I do, and I love coming up with them!
MadameGascon
"The time is out of joint: O cursed spite,
That ever I was born to set it right!"
The time, not Hamlet, is out of joint.
I have been studying why the ghost appears to Hamlet and not to others in my Literature class. Gertrude I believe was one of the easiest to understand. When the ghost appears Gertrude is begging Hamlet to stop telling her all of her faults including incest and of her ability to so easily forget her husband. Gertrude does not want to see the truth.Therefore, as she turns a blind eye to her actions after her husbands death, she is unable to see her husband. I guess I am trying to defend Hamlet's sanity by calling into question his mothers inability to see the truth. I find myself not relying on Hamlets words, rather I try to figure out what is going on based on the actions of others. You have to take into account the history of the characters too--their motives are easier to detect when taking into consideration a characters social rank, ambitions, and the 'gossip' of other characters.Quote:
Originally Posted by byquist
I have to disagree that Cladius does not just steal Gertrudes hand. Claudius has stolen the crown as well as the queen, in fact Claudius admits Gertrude was one of the reason why he killed his bother.
I think that "mad" is an overused descriptive which doesn't do justice to the depth and complexity of Hamlet's disorder.
Here's a collection of lines with some very hypothetical suggestions as to what Hamlet's disorder would be seen as today.
shakespeare.wikia.com
Some of these lines are quite unintended as indicators of mental illness, but which some people today might recognize as symptoms of depression. Depression can trigger schizotypal mental illness, that is, psychosis which might not otherwise appear in the individual.
I personally think that though Amleth, the story upon which Shakespeare based Hamlet was feigning, the Hamlet character is modelled after a truly mad prince.
Whether his mother's behavior triggered or "justified" his madness is another question.
It is all a very complex issue.
I think that if he had murdered his uncle, as he planned, he would have "gotten off" with an insanity defense, and perhaps on other grounds, as well.
Jagtig
It reveals more about you than it does about Hamlet buddy. I read nothing of the sort, he cares more for his father's death than who is mum's f#$k buddy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark F.
Jagtig,
Good point - mental illness was not recognised in Shakepeare's time as it is today; nor was it catergorized, such as: post traumatic stress, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, depression, etc. This is always a very complex question and probably one we will never fully answer by today's standards. Personally, I do not think that Hamlet was insane. I think he was affected by extreme events and he was not always acting rationally, but it was not a permanent state of being. One can not generalize it that way - insane.
Interesting site - thanks for the link. I will investigate it, in depth, later on.
Sorry, I did not see the second page on this thread so I am answering Jagtig. I don't agree with you at all, Saturnalia, but glad you got a good grade for you theory. The opening scene confirms that the guards and Horatio see the ghost. The scene in which Hamlet sees the ghost, for himself, also confirms again they all see the ghost, and that includes Horatio. Horatio speaks to Hamlet about seeing the ghost in scene two. So how can you say no one else sees the ghost but Hamlet? Yes, Gertrude claims she does not see the ghost. If you go to the thread "The Ghost" you will see that we have been disgussing some of these issues in that thread for sometime now.
I have been studing Shakespeare for a while, being one of my favourite writers and being part of my Degree, I can say that after he made sure that his father had indeed been murdered by his own brother, the best way to fulfiling his revenge, as it was, was to pretend to be mad, such madness brought Ophelia's love and depression to a limit, specially with her father's sudden death and Hamlet's sudden change, but it was needed for him to act insane for his uncle had already tried to have him killed overseas with a 'negotiations trip' as an excuse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rory
It was a resolution he had taken and only he could do it, ¿why then did he not kill his uncle when he could right after the play he presented him and his mother? simply because if his father damned himself he was not to kill his uncle and among prayers send him to heaven. It all, even as it seemed simple in act or to analyse, took him much time to think and plan, and so his father was revenged but many died that day.
have you ever wanted to say something without thinking? well.... i have. and hamlet gets to. because he is mad, he can get away with sayin whatever he wants without worrying about the consequences. and even if someone doesnt truely doesn't believe he is mad, it might be easier for them to deny the accusations made by hamlet if they jump on the hamlet is mad bandwagon.
Your theory about Hamlet's madness is very interesting, Mark. But I prefer to believe that Horatio is real, if only for the fact that Horatio is the one who has the responsibility of passing on the story. Also, what about Horatio's interactions with the sailors and Fortinbras?
Your theory intrigued me Mark, I have spent the past 30 minutes flicking through the play to check your theory and gain some points to include in an essay with which I had hoped to shock my English teacher with (her being a huge Horatio fan). However you are mistaken, after the fight with Laertes, the King directly addresses Horatio. Broke my heart because it really was a great theory. unlucky.
:yikes::yikes::yikes: