Hamlet, The Prince of Denmark Essay

Much of the outstanding irony and dramatic tension in Shakespe ars crossroads, The Prince of Denmark derives from the inter embolden amid the partings earthly concern and private personas. The face that each of the characters shows to the public contrasts with, in most cases, the private persona of the resembling character. Similarly, the private face or motives of the characters unremarkably stands in diametric opposition to their public persona. The most obvious examples of this dynamic is, are head for the hills, the characters of Claudius and Gertrude who must, by necessity, keep up a fraudulent set of public perceptions to extend their crimes of infidelity and murder.These obvious examples, however, are no more profound or inbuilt to the plays thematic affect than the likewise hypocrisies which afflict nearly either other character of the play. The almost world(a) nature of complaisant mendacity is represented in village as universe,in fact, the source of what is bad in Denmark. The brilliance of the play exists, in part, in Shakespeares ability to licence the way in which craft and organism two-faced can impact any levels of confederation and corrupt scour friendly relationship and love.In slicey ways, the cast of characters in village reflect a mixer microcosm, with small town, the young Prince, and Ophelia, representing the youth of society and the contact of Hamlets father, Gertrude, Claudius, and Polonius representing the complaisant psychiatric hospital and cultural traditions which have fostered ongoing mendacity. From the genuinely opening scene of the play, Shakespeare, with a bent grass for amazing problematicalty, writes the following exchange between Bernardo and Horatio BERNARDO Say, What, is Horatio thither?HORATIO A piece of him. (Hamlet, 1. 1 25-28) Horatios reply tapers, according to critics of the play, that he is referring to the cold night air which has cut him to a shivering semblance of his actor sel f. However, the line can also be read as a subtle extension of the theme of mendacity adn meant to indicate that even Horatio, who will be revealed throughout the course of the play as a square(a) friend to Hamlet, has been impacted by the depravity in Denmark, the social untruth which holds completely in its sway.Similarly, Polonius, who represents the religious and spiritual aspects of society in the social microcosm of the play, dispenses address of erudition to Laertes, acting the part of the wise and feel for patriarch, a man of morals and God. Among his words of wisdom in Act i, survey Three are the following observations watch/ Of entrance to a quarrel, plainly being in,/ repeatt that the opposed may watch out of thee. / Give every man thy ear, but few thy voice/ book each mans censure, but reserve thy judgment (Hamlet 1. 3, 69-73).Obviously, Polonius fails to exit by his own words. He openly intrigues against Hamlet, immersing himself into a quarrel which was not his own, and after doing so, fails to Beart that the opposed may beware of thee (Hamlet 1. 3, 71), but ends up being killed by Hamlet on accident. Key to either of the ironies which are associated with Shakespeares them of social mendacity is the character of Hamlet himself. If the indorser or listening member who is experiencing Hamlet believes in the watch that Hamlet is, indeed, mad, therefore much of Hamlets behavior can be explained by madness.If, on the other hand, the indorser or audience member believes that Hamlet is simply presenting yet other social face this one(a) in come in to disrupt the hypocrisy of society then Hamlets behavior becomes a method by which Shakespeare examines the heavy monetary value which is exacted on the individual in a hypocritical society. There is every source to believe that the latter context is the one which Shakespeare hope to achieve in the play. One good bit of evidence for this image is in Act 2, Scene One, when Ophelia , stricken by the state which Hamlet has allowed himself to labour into, she voices her concerns to her father, Polonius.Ophelia describes Hamlet with his doublet all unbraced (Shakespeare, 2. 1, 85) and No hat upon his head (Shakespeare 2. 1, 86). His appearance is interpreted to be an indication of his inner-state, propelling the sentience of social facade as component in place of truth in society. Ophelia concludes that Hamlet appeared as though he had been loosed out of hell/ To speak of horrors,he comes before me (Shakespeare 2. 1, 90-91). The implication is that Hamlets disheveled state must indicate that he is, in fact, mad.Obviously, while Hamlet appears mad to others, he is plotting with great, intelligent preciseness to expose what he fears is the crime committed by his mother and his uncle. The sub-text of this is that Hamlet should be mad given the reality of the plight he faces. The great irony is, in fact, that he is not mad, but rational which will not allow h im to live in a world of lies and hypocrisy. When Claudius and Gertrude act with horror to the play within a play Hamlets response is What, frighted with false fire (Shakespeare 3. 2, 262) indicating his very rational understanding of the situation and of the reality of social mendacity.At this point, it seems that merely knowing of the hypocrisy is enough for Hamlet because when Claudius responds Give me some light away (Shakespeare 3. 2, 265) it is an admission that he, the King, and by association the whole of Denmark exists in phantasma which is the darkness of social hypocrisy. Although hypocrisy is neer actually justified in Hamlet, there is an interesting reason which is given in Act 4 of the play as to why people may be so easily led into hypocrisy and self-deception and that reason is humansss mortality. When Hamlet observes of the dead that Theres another why may not that be the skull of a / lawyer?Where be his quiddities now, his quillets,/ his cases, his tenure s, and his tricks? (Shakespeare, 4. 1, 94-98) the reader or audience member realizes that the human hypocrisy portrayed throughout the play represents not only the lies and deceit essential to facilitate human ambition in a corrupted society, but the human tendency to reject cosmic issues much(prenominal) as life and death and human spirituality in favor of philistinism and worldly power. Works Cited Shakespeare, William. The Works of William Shakespeare collect into One Volume. New York Oxford University Press, 1938.