Shakespeare tells of the internal conflict endured by the protagonist in his play Hamlet and brings the audience to question his sanity. Is Hamlet insane? Does he simply act insane? Or is he completely sane and acts rationally given his circumstances? The definition of “sanity” according to dictionary.com is: “having or showing reason, sound judgment, or good sense”. Based off of the soliloquies Hamlet gives, I believe that he is completely sane and acts as any person would if they were in a similar situation.
In his first soliloquy, starting with “O, that this too too sullied flesh would melt”, Hamlet allows the audience to see his grieving and angry state of mind, along with his critical view of the world and its inhabitants. Imagery is littered …show more content…
Imagery is again utilized to show his troubled state of mind. The contemplative Hamlet wonders if it is better to just take the misery that the “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” would fire or to “take arms against the sea of troubles” by taking the sleep of death (3.1.3-4). Both contribute in showing how Hamlet believes he is helpless and cannot take any offensive action except to kill himself. He questions who would choose to “bear the whips and scorns of time”, “the pangs of despised love”, “the insolence of office” and other tortures when they don 't have to (3.2.15-19). The way he parallels all of these events gives the audience hint that he has witnessed and endured all of these. Shakespeare soon makes a shift from the character simply giving an exhausted account of what he sees in life to his explanation of why he, and others, choose to stay in these horrid conditions when humans could easily end it. The “undiscovered country” (3.1.24) is what scares all as Hamlet proclaims. Including himself, no one truly know what happens after they end it- “no traveler returns” (3.1.25). The change maintains Hamlet’s sanity because it shows that although he doesn’t understand why these horrible things are happening, he is able to understand that they do and that people will not put themselves out of their misery because they are fearful of what would come …show more content…
While Hamlet could be considered emotionally unstable, he cannot be considered insane. His constant analysis of the people and events taking place around him, along with comparisons to other events and a deep understanding of what is holding him back from making action all demonstrate that he is “showing reason”, has “sound judgement” and can make “good sense” of what he witnesses. While his inability to make action in the first part of the play ends up hurting him in the end, his lack of capability was not caused by a weak grasp of reality. Hamlet is completely sane and acts as anyone would if they were in the same dreadful
In his first soliloquy, starting with “O, that this too too sullied flesh would melt”, Hamlet allows the audience to see his grieving and angry state of mind, along with his critical view of the world and its inhabitants. Imagery is littered …show more content…
Imagery is again utilized to show his troubled state of mind. The contemplative Hamlet wonders if it is better to just take the misery that the “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” would fire or to “take arms against the sea of troubles” by taking the sleep of death (3.1.3-4). Both contribute in showing how Hamlet believes he is helpless and cannot take any offensive action except to kill himself. He questions who would choose to “bear the whips and scorns of time”, “the pangs of despised love”, “the insolence of office” and other tortures when they don 't have to (3.2.15-19). The way he parallels all of these events gives the audience hint that he has witnessed and endured all of these. Shakespeare soon makes a shift from the character simply giving an exhausted account of what he sees in life to his explanation of why he, and others, choose to stay in these horrid conditions when humans could easily end it. The “undiscovered country” (3.1.24) is what scares all as Hamlet proclaims. Including himself, no one truly know what happens after they end it- “no traveler returns” (3.1.25). The change maintains Hamlet’s sanity because it shows that although he doesn’t understand why these horrible things are happening, he is able to understand that they do and that people will not put themselves out of their misery because they are fearful of what would come …show more content…
While Hamlet could be considered emotionally unstable, he cannot be considered insane. His constant analysis of the people and events taking place around him, along with comparisons to other events and a deep understanding of what is holding him back from making action all demonstrate that he is “showing reason”, has “sound judgement” and can make “good sense” of what he witnesses. While his inability to make action in the first part of the play ends up hurting him in the end, his lack of capability was not caused by a weak grasp of reality. Hamlet is completely sane and acts as anyone would if they were in the same dreadful