her in a clear,truthful and rational manner and even offers to Gertrude: “...It is not madness / That Ihave utter’d. Bring me to the test, / And I the matter will re-word, which madness /would gambol from...” (3:4:143-46). In conclusion, if Hamlet was an individual Williams 4consumed by madness, he would have entertained only irrational thoughts and would nothave had the power to choose certain individuals to speak rationally with. The final argument proving Hamlet’s sanity during the course of the play is thatafter Hamlet’s altercation with Laertes at Ophelia’s funeral, Hamlet suddenly ceases to puton this antic disposition. During Hamlet’s feigned madness, whenever he was speaking tosomeone that was not aware of his plan he would ridicule them but in the form ofambiguous metaphors and irony to imitate madness. After the conflict with Laertes,however, Hamlet no longer continued this masking of his insults. For example, whilespeaking to Osric, one of the king’s courtiers, Hamlet remarks: “Thy state is the moregracious, for ’tis a vice to / know him. He hath much land and fertile. Let a / beast belord of beasts and his crib shall stand at the / king’s mess. ‘Tis a chuff, but, as I say,spacious in the / possession of dirt” (5:2:85-89). Hamlet makes no attempt here todisguise the fact that he believes that Osric is a member of the court only because hepossesses a great deal of fertile land. Immediately prior to Hamlet and Laertes engaging intheir duel Hamlet, whilst speaking in a sane coherent fashion, requests: “Give me yourpardon, sir. I have done you wrong; / But pardon’t as you are a gentleman” (5:2:222-23). If Hamlet were truly mad he would not recognize the wrongs he committed against othersand possess feelings of anguish over them. Further proof that Hamlet is no longer actingmad is that in the final moments of his life he ...
