Was Hamlet Truly Mad, Or Was He Merely Feigning It?

Madness, a concept as old as human history, remains elusive to diagnosis. This enigma is vividly portrayed in William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, a work that has ignited a century-long debate being: “Was Hamlet truly mad, or was he merely feigning it?” Madness weaves a complex web in the narrative of Hamlet. Initially, it serves as a tool for Hamlet to cloak his knowledge of his father's fate. Yet, as the play unfolds, the boundary between Hamlet's feigned madness and potential genuine psychological turmoil blurs. The question of Hamlet's sanity emerges from the fact that he presents clear evidence for both sides of the argument. In Hamlet, the protagonist's actions, though strategic and occasionally lucid, are unmistakably riddled with internal

Hamlet, ever since meeting the ghost, has been mad. In her article, “Madness and Philosophy or Literature's Reason,” Shoshana Felman, an American literary critic and current Woodruff Professor of Comparative Literature at Emory University, characterizes madness as the deviation from reason “confidently and with the firm conviction that one is following” (2006). This is portrayed within the first few scenes of Hamlet, as he and his companions experience one of the most grand deviations from reason ever known to man: the appearance of a ghost. Not just any ghost, but the ghost of Hamlet’s recently deceased father, King Hamlet. Now, one cannot blame Hamlet for having his curiosity peaked at the appearance of his father’s ghost. However, it is the ensuing events that mark Hamlet’s fall into madness. As the ghost leads Hamlet off to speak to him alone, at a certain point, Hamlet refuses to go on any further and demands the ghost to speak. The ghost complies to speak but, in return, requests of Hamlet to avenge his death when he hears what he has to