Take both sides of argument = max marks...Here's one I prepared just then...
“Great wits are sure to madness near allied, and thin partitions do their bounds divide.” Though John Dryden's sentiments were not in direct regard to William Shakespeare's 'Hamlet', it nonetheless relates with notable congruity to the argument as to whether or not Hamlet had gone insane. When a character such as Hamlet comes under scrutiny, it can sometimes be difficult to determine what state he is in at particular moments in the play. Arguably, throughout vast portions of the theatrical interplay, Hamlet merely pretends to be insane in order to assist towards the calculation of his tactical maneuvering in accordance with circumstantial prerogatives.
Indeed, there had been many situations throughout the play that were enough to bring Hamlet to insanity. Take, for example, Act IV, scene II, after Polonius's death. Hamlet's day has been hectic; he finally determines that Claudius has killed his father. The chance to kill Claudius confronts him and he comes very close to convincing Gertrude that Claudius killed his father. Hamlet accidentally kills Polonius subsequent to the visitation of his father's apparition. Though at this point these situations create plenty of reasons for Hamlet to exhibit insanity, he remains surprisingly sharp and credible. Hamlet concocts this state of madness, his intellect remains clear, his discourse sound and cognitively comprehensible.
Hamlet reveals to his friends (in particular, Horatio) and his mother of his plans to "feign madness," and that if Horatio notices any strange behavior from Hamlet, it is because he is putting on an act of attrition. Furthermore, Hamlet tells his mother that he is not mad, "but mad in craft.". In addition to his confessions, 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.
Some of the characters themselves come to realize that Hamlet is not the deluded patient he selective portrays himself to be. Claudius confesses that Hamlet's "actions although strange, do not appear to stem from madness.". In addition, Polonius admits that Hamlet's actions and words have a "method" to them; there appears to be a reason behind them, they are logical in nature. Hamlet had also made smart and intelligible remarks to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, comparing them to sponges. "When he (Claudius) needs what you have gleaned, it is but squeezing you and, sponge, you shall be dry again,". These instances were random and unexpected, as were many of his actions, even though the comparison makes sense. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern soak up all the kings favors, only to become dry again after they mop up the King's “mess,” which was to spy on Hamlet, and find Polonius's body. Later, with Claudius,
Hamlet tells how degraded a king can be by saying, "A man (beggar) may fish with the worm that hath eat of a king, and eat of the fish that hath fed of that worm". This was yet again another example of Hamlet's recurring propensity to utter sensible yet unpredictably random remarks with regards to ambient observations. When Hamlet confronts Claudius, and the king asks where Polonius is, Hamlet immediately begins the comparison by telling Claudius that Polonuis is at supper. This being indicative of the fact that Hamlet had some kind of planning for this derogatory comment, and that his thoughts are not scattered and he is able to stay focused.
Hamlet believed in his sanity at all times. He never doubts his control over psyche. There is a question, though, of what being insane really is. Was Hamlet truly the most appropriate adjudicator over his own personal mental stability? To some reasonably probable extent, the contention behind Hamlet's latent madness is not without merit. The man had plotted and schemed without due respite to the point where his own resolve to take revenge, and inability to conscientiously recognise these symptoms, became troubling beyond doubt.
Was Hamlet really mad? If so, what caused this madness? Was it his reluctance to take revenge? Was it in fact his confused feelings about his mother? Is he in fact sane and the world mad for failing to understand the things he says? Is he sometimes pretending to be mad and at other times genuinely unbalanced? All of these question still remain unanswered, yet it can be inferred from the text of Hamlet that there was a method to Hamlet's “madness.”
Home
Help
Search
Login
Poll
