All other aspects of his life degenerate into chess pieces in the greater game. His mission consumes him, devouring his life and leaving him an uncomplete person. Rages, unwarranted erratic behavior, and evil-doing are symptomatic such a state of being. Much of Hamlet's madness, when feigned, was due to necessity, however, he definitely had a natural inclination towards pretense and dissimulation. To limit the word natural to "part of one's nature," meaning inherent and innate, is close-minded. With a broader meaning of the term, it becomes easier to explain Hamlet. By "natural," I mean unfaked, sincere, genuine. Therefore, a natural inclination is not necessarily congenital since it can be developed. Simulating madness, although it was for a good cause, ruined Hamlet. After acting deranged for an extensive period, he became mad. When acting mad for long enough, an inclination develops for dishonesty, dissimulation, and deception. In an ironic sense, Hamlet contaminated himself. He became plagued with his own illness- the illness he created. Following that transitional evolution into a truly mad self, Hamlet begins to act in ways that do not call for his evil, pretentious behavior. First, Hamlet has Rosencrantz and Guildenstern killed, even though they were not aprt of his revenge-against-his-father's-murder plan. He could have simply let them on their way since he was a free man anyway. Such harsh treatment was totally unnecessary in fulfilling his original objective. See, the only reason Hamlet feigned madness was to take revenge. If one applies this logic, one must ask: Were the deaths of these two men "necessary" in taking revenge on the killer? Afterall, who is the killer? Clearly, his irrationality led him to kill two people whose deaths were unnecessary (though they may be justified, of course). He must have done them, therefore, irrespective of his revenge on Claudius and his motivations and one can conclude that it was his mental madness that seized his spirit.