Hamlet, The Prince of Denmark Essay Example for Free

small town, The Prince of Denmark Essay such(prenominal) of the dramatic irony and dramatic tension in Shakespeares village, The Prince of Denmark derives from the interplay between the characters public and private personas. The face that sever totallyy of the characters shows to the public contrasts with, in most cases, the private persona of the same character. Similarly, the private face or motives of the characters normally stands in diametric opposition to their public persona. The most obvious examples of this dynamic is, are course, the characters of Claudius and Gertrude who must, by necessity, relieve up a fraudulent set of public perceptions to cover their crimes of infidelity and murder. These obvious examples, however, are no more profound or integral to the plays thematic impact than the likewise hypocrisies which afflict nearly either other character of the play. The almost universal nature of social mendacity is represented in Hamlet as being,in fact, the sou rce of what is rotten in Denmark. The brilliance of the play exists, in recrudesce, in Shakespeares ability to demonstrate the bureau in which guile and being two-faced can impact all levels of society and corrupt stock-still friendship and love.In many ways, the cast of characters in Hamlet reflect a social microcosm, with Hamlet, the small Prince, and Ophelia, representing the youth of society and the ghost of Hamlets father, Gertrude, Claudius, and Polonius representing the social establishment and cultural traditions which have fostered ongoing mendacity. From the very open up scene of the play, Shakespeare, with a knack for amazing discerningty, writes the following exchange between Bernardo and Horatio BERNARDO Say, What, is Horatio thither?HORATIO A military personnels of him. (Hamlet, 1. 1 25-28) Horatios reply indicates, according to critics of the play, that he is referring to the cold night air which has reduced him to a wonky semblance of his former self. Howeve r, 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 true friend to Hamlet, has been impacted by the rottenness in Denmark, the social hypocrisy which holds all in its sway.Similarly, Polonius, who represents the religious and spiritual aspects of society in the social microcosm of the play, dispenses words of wisdom to Laertes, acting the part of the wise and compassionate patriarch, a man of morals and God. Among his words of wisdom in Act One, look Three are the following observations Beware/ Of entrance to a quarrel, hardly being in,/ Beart that the opposed may beware of thee. / Give every man thy ear, but few thy voice/ Take each mans censure, but reserve thy judgment (Hamlet 1. 3, 69-73).Obviously, Polonius fails to live by his own words. He openly intrigues against Hamlet, immersing himself into a quarrel which was not his own, and after doing so, fa ils to Beart that the opposed may beware of thee (Hamlet 1. 3, 71), but ends up being killed by Hamlet on accident. Key to all of the ironies which are associated with Shakespeares them of social mendacity is the character of Hamlet himself. If the contributor or audience fragment who is experiencing Hamlet believes in the heart that Hamlet is, indeed, mad, then much of Hamlets conduct can be explained by madness.If, on the other hand, the reader or audience member believes that Hamlet is simply presenting yet another(prenominal) social face this one in order to disrupt the hypocrisy of society then Hamlets behavior becomes a method by which Shakespeare examines the heavy toll which is exacted on the individual in a hypocritical society. There is every reason to believe that the latter context is the one which Shakespeare hope to achieve in the play. One good bit of evidence for this supposition is in Act 2, Scene One, when Ophelia, stricken by the state which Hamlet has allowed himself to get 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 demeanor is taken to be an indication of his inner-state, propelling the sense of social facade as serving in place of truth in society. Ophelia concludes that Hamlet appeared as though he had been loosed out of hell/ To turn to 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, rational precision to expose what he fears is the crime committed by his grow and his uncle. The sub-text of this is that Hamlet should be mad given the reality of the dilemma he faces. The great irony is, in fact, that he is not mad, but sane which will not allow him to live in a world of lies and hypocrisy. When Claudius and Gertrude react with horror to the play within a play Hamlets response is What, frighted with false brush aside (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 completely of Denmark exists in darkness which is the darkness of social hypocrisy. Although hypocrisy is never actually justified in Hamlet, there is an interesting reason which is given in Act 4 of the play as to why mickle may be so easily led into hypocrisy and self-deception and that reason is human 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 tenures, and his tricks? (Shakespeare, 4. 1, 94-98) the reader or audience me mber realizes that the human hypocrisy portrayed throughout the play represents not single the lies and deceit necessary to facilitate human ambition in a corrupted society, but the human tendency to reject cosmic issues such as life and death and human spirituality in favor of materialism and worldly power. Works Cited Shakespeare, William. The Works of William Shakespeare Gathered into One Volume. New York Oxford University Press, 1938.