sixth soliloquy (“How all occasions do inform against me,” [IV.iv.32-66]), even though he ends with the proclamation that his “thoughts (will) be(come) bloody” (IV.iv.66), the rest of the speech is a rather thoughtful rumination on life and the need for perseverance
Sol. 6: he acknowledges that his thoughts will "be bloody", but he's being thoughtful about life and "the need for perseverance"
I can’t imagine that for the majority of the play, Hamlet lies to himself about his mental state. Is he happy-go-lucky? No. He’s mourning. He’s sad. I’d venture to say he’s bitter. And he is most definitely “particular” (I.ii.75)… but does that make him insane? No.
It seems unlikely that when he's talking to himself, he is lying to himself about his own mental state. These soliloquys are likely the moments in the play when we have the most honest representation of his mental state
fifth (not-quite-)soliloquy (“Now might I do it pat,” III.iii.73-96), his thought line is still straightforward and clean.
Sol. 5: again, straightforward thought process, slowly figuring out the best way to kill the king
fourth soliloquy (“To be or not to be,” III.i.56-89), the thought process is clear and sane,
Sol. 4: "to be or not to be", clear and sane thought process
discussing the Player King and his own inability to take real action (with cause) when it was all too easy for the actor to show emotion with no cause. He then devises the straightforward and rational plan
Sol. 3: he's talking about his own struggle to take real action even though the actor can show emotion easily. Comes up with a rational plan.
his consistent discussion of mental elements (“memory” [I.v.96, 98], “distracted globe” [I.v.97], “brain” [I.v.103]) seems to me to be calling attention to those rational aspects and weakening the basis of insanity.
Even while he's talking about the host of heaven, he keeps mentioning his brain, which seems rational.
second soliloquy (“O all you host of heaven,” I.v.92-111),
Sol. 2: he's talking to the host of heaven, but this seems normal for a Christian. Could be the best evidence of psychosis if there is any.
first soliloquy (“this too too sullied flesh,” [I.ii.129-59]), he certainly sounds depressed, almost to point of suicide
Sol. 1: he sounds really depressed, "too too sullied flesh" but he also knows that suicide would be morally wrong. This seems RATIONAL.
If he can’t be absolutely trusted in what he says to others, can he be trusted in what he says to himself?
He's telling people he's acting crazy, so is he lying about that or does he not realize he's actually crazy? Could it be self delusion?
Let's look at the soliloquys
he later tells his mother, “I essentially am not in madness, // But mad in craft” (III.iv.187-8)
Tells his mom that he's pretending (but she doesn't believe him because he actually seems crazy)
the effect of Hamlet’s words on Claudius: the king feels that “what (Hamlet) spake, though it lacked form a little, // Was not like madness” (III.i.163-4).
When he's talking to Ophelia, he knows she's going to tell the king or that he's being overheard, so it makes sense he would keep up his act. The king notices that he's sounding weird but doesn't fully believe it, "what (Hamlet) spake, though it lacked form a little, // Was not like madness" (III.i.63-4).
cruel tormenting of Ophelia,
He tells Ophelia to her face that she's crazy.
later after the play when he tells Rosencrantz, “My wit’s diseased” (III.i.315).
Later on, he says his sanity is messed up ("my wit's diseased" (III.i.315)
So why say this? If he was trying to keep this act quiet (as he makes Marcellus and Horatio swear they will not reveal it), then why say that he’s not completely mad?
It's weird that he is telling them he's faking it when he knows they are going to report this to the king. Why wouldn't he just say he's totally mad or just act totally mad?
He tells Rosencrantz, “I am but mad north-northwest. When the wind is southerly, I know a hawk from a handsaw” (II.ii31-2).
Tells Rosencrantz that he's only pretending to be mad and he knows what's what under the right conditions ("when the wind is southerly")
tells Horatio that he will be assuming an “antic disposition,” claims to be feigning madness
Tells Horatio that he is going to assume an "antic disposition"
From an Elizabethan perspective (and from the perspective of the other characters in the play), Hamlet hits many of the non-clinical checkboxes of “madness”
Overview of what Elizabethan era people would have thought was evidence of his madness:
Can depression be a clinical diagonsis? Absolutely (take it from someone who’s been on Wellbutrin for years). But depression is not insanity (at least not full-blown psychosis)
There's a lot of evidence that he's depressed, but that doesn't make him psychotic or insane.
why else to juxtapose a “playing” mad Hamlet with a truly mad Ophelia?
Ophelia is clearly actually mentally ill. Seems like there must be a contrast with Hamlet, who is just pretending to be mentally ill.
Antic, he certainly acts antic: “bizarre,” “grotesque,” “purposely monstrous,” “ludicrous,” “a clown”–each and all of these work, but for me the key to the key is in that B.2.a: “grotesque pageant or theatrical representation” (OED Online). Why else would there be so much discussion of plays, players, and play-acting if this wasn’t so important (especially since Hamlet’s a good enough actor to deliver a speech after hearing it only once (II.ii.386-403)?
Definition of "antic" = bizarre, purposely monstrous, a clown, B.2.a from Oxford English Dictionary online = "a grotesque pageant or theatrical representation"
There's a lot of stuff in the play about theater and acting, and we know Hamlet is a good actor because he can remember a whole speech after he's only heard it one time.