Response to Doreen (Shakespeare 6-24-12).

I agree that Hamlet wasn't truly mad but probably brought to madness by so many traumatic experiences happening at once. One the sudden death and replacement of his father, the betrayal of his father by his mother marrying so soon after his death, the visit from his father from the afterlife, and the expected obligation of vengeance by murder. I think most of us would have been devastated deeply by any single one of these occurrences if they had happened to one of us. Hamlet is probably knowledgeable of the fact that Claudius might be threatened by his existence and his death outside of the protection of the castle may be considered an unfortunate reality for Hamlet, but a necessary precaution for Claudius. Hamlet also has to question whether the ghost is real or a representative of the devil. He also does not have a plan to kill Claudius, other than having to strike whenever the right opportunity to present itself occurs. He could have easily killed Claudius at prayer, achieving his goal of revenge, yet damning himself to eternal fire if he pursued it through that particular circumstance. And Hamlet could have easily been killed if he didn't have so much scruples and his wits about him. He perhaps might even have been killed as a precaution by Claudius even if the ghost hadn't sought him out. I think Hamlet was perhaps somewhat insane by this circumstance, yet he knew enough to wear his insanity as a disguise.