The most controversial question arising out of William Shakespeare's Hamlet, is whether or not Prince Hamlet is sane or not. On the surface, which the characters in the play see, Hamlet, very obviously, is acting like an insane person. It's only on a deeper level, that we, as an audience, are able to understand his actions and perceive them to be sane acts all part of a like plan. An abundance of evidence exists to support this perception. Even at times when Hamlet's actions are so hysterical and morally wrong, there are always good reasons. For a prince who has suffered through his father's murder, along with his mother's quick marriage to his uncle, Hamlet never once displays any acts that are not sane.
             After learning of his father's unnatural death in the first act, Hamlet's plan is born. He tells Horatio he will put on an "antic disposition" and feign madness. Hamlet also tells Horatio not to worry, and to ignore the strange things he will do and say because it's all part of the plan. Hamlet must kill Claudius to avenge his father. The reason for the "antic disposition," going along with the plan, is to draw away suspicion from himself and not get punished when he does kill the King. It's true that people are hurt and die, but nevertheless, the plan is brilliant and obviously drawn out by a sane person.
             A load of support is available to prove Hamlet was not insane. For example, Hamlet's "madness" is only apparent to the audience when he is around only certain characters. He acts crazy and unreasonable around Claudius, Gertrude, Ophelia, Polonius, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, but around Horatio, Marcellus, Bernardo, the Players and the Gravedigger, Hamlet is perfectly sensible and realistic. But, that is what the plan called for, feigned madness towards people who are a threat to expose him and his intent.
             In act III, scene 4, H...