Madness in Hamlet feigned or real?
The point at issue from all the objections in Hamlet is derived from the question if Hamlet’s madness is real or feigned. Therefore, in order to understand and to fully digest the status with madness, all characters must be evaluated in a critical approach. Scholars have also taken this question onto their own hands with fully functioning responses that lead to different conclusions. The most prevalent theories include how Hamlet madness originated from the grief experienced over his father’s death, to how his madness was artificially used to produce revenge towards to those who left the thorns of life. However, the interpretation that seems most plausible doesn’t agree with the polarized theory of being either simply feigned or completely real. Instead, this concept embeds both ideas with psychological and historical perspectives to come to the conclusion that Hamlet madness was exaggerated to design the sophisticated plan of revenge.
According to the article “Hamlet: The Madness & The Critics” the critical tradition expressed throughout 1600 to 1736 did not challenge the idea that there was anything odd, strange or even problematic about the play. As said from Earl of Shaftsbury, a nobleman and philosopher, “natural rudeness and his want of method with coherence” had little comparison to the “justness of [Shakespeare’s] moral, the aptness of many of his descriptions, and the plain and natural turn of several of his characters” (1 par 1 web). With this being said, early depictions did not take in account how moral code could be wiped out in order to connect with the logic of the plot or play. Simply, most interpretations could not fathom how Hamlet responded with revenge without actually being mad over the major events of the play, his father death through the final scene. This outlook changed once an anonymous pamphlet was released in 1736 attributed from Sir Thomas Hanner stating “Shakespeare makes the young Prince feign himself mad, there appears no reason at all in nature why this young Prince did not put the usurper to death as soon as possible ”that recognizes an abstract problem within the play regarding Hamlet intention to wait a period of time after murder of his father. This brings the question that if Hamlet was sincerely a madman he would immediately act upon the death of his loved one, rather than extend the pain and grief of not being able to avenge his father. In doing so by this theory being present