: & # 8220 ; The Tragedy Of Hamlet, Prince Of Denmark & # 8221 ; Essay, Research Paper

On How Tragedy Leads to Deception in: & # 8220 ; The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark & # 8221 ;

In the drama & # 8220 ; The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, & # 8221 ; William Shakespeare has used the subject of misrepresentation, and how its usage by one or more characters leads to their ruin. Polonius explicitly stated this subject when he said to Laertes in I, two, & # 8220 ; By indirections find waies out. & # 8221 ; Each major character in Hamlet, in his or her ain manner, provided an illustration of this subject. By utilizing deceit the characters in & # 8220 ; Hamlet & # 8221 ; employed methods to carry through their ain docket, an action that finally resulted in calamity.

Shakespeare & # 8217 ; s usage of misrepresentation is seen most clearly in Hamlet & # 8217 ; s actions. He began to & # 8220 ; act mad & # 8221 ; early in the drama in order to pull strings his friends. & # 8220 ; ? Hereafter [ I ] shall? set an fantastic temperament on & # 8221 ; ( I.v.171-2 ) . Hamlet swore to utilize this fantastic temperament to bring out his male parent & # 8217 ; s liquidator. He used this public presentation as a tool of ruse in order to cover up his true feelings. Hamlet went excessively far nevertheless, and his sneaky program began to work against him.

By non coming clean with those he trusts most, Hamlet served to estrange them from himself, and from his cause ( of revenging his male parent & # 8217 ; s decease ) . In III I, Hamlet said to Ophelia, & # 8220 ; God hath given you a face, and you make [ yourself ] another. & # 8221 ; Prince Hamlet hypocritically attacked her for hiding her sentiments, while he counterfeited his ain sentiments with the fantastic temperament. Ophelia is non the lone character he acted huffy toward ; he used the same fraudulence toward all characters in the drama. When talking to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, for illustration, he asked them to & # 8220 ; be even and direct & # 8221 ; with him, but did non inform them of the purpose behind his ain fallacious actions. As shown when Rozencrantz said to Hamlet, & # 8220 ; You? exclude the door upon your ain autonomy, if you deny [ stating ] your heartaches to your friend [ s ] & # 8221 ; ( III.ii.317-8 ) , Hamlet had non been to the full unfastened with his friends.

Hamlet & # 8217 ; s usage of an fantastic temperament is what lead to his decease. He had overdone his moving mad, and the lunacy he had created began to command him as seen in V, two when Hamlet speaks of himself in the 3rd individual to Laertes:

? I here proclaim [ my ] lunacy? If Hamlet from himself be ta & # 8217 ; en off, / And when he & # 8217 ; s non himself, does incorrect Laertes, / Then crossroads does it non, Hamlet denies it: / Who does it so? His lunacy. If & # 8217 ; t be so, / Hamlet is of the cabal that is wronged, / His lunacy is hapless Hamlet & # 8217 ; s enemy. & # 8221 ; ( Lines 213-22 )

Hamlet & # 8217 ; s moving mad swelled to such a degree that he could non claim duty for the discourtesies that he committed. His loss of control is a important facet of the drama & # 8217 ; s subject, because it shows Hamlet & # 8217 ; s impairment by the same actions he had antecedently preformed in order to dissemble his true mentality.

Claudius is another character in & # 8220 ; Hamlet & # 8221 ; who used perfidy to make his nonsubjective. Everything he tried to carry through he did in a crafty mode, get downing with the violent death of his brother. The shade of the male monarch saw Claudius as a adult male, & # 8220 ; ? [ who has ] the power? to score? my most virtuous queen. & # 8221 ; He killed the male monarch non by confrontation, but with a & # 8220 ; leprous distilment & # 8221 ; poured easy and softly into his ear. The crafty mode in which he did this is what spur

ruddy Hamlet to seek retaliation. Claudius, while praying, admitted to himself that he could non atone for what he had done: “Yet what can it, when one can non atone? ” ( III.iii.66 ) . He knew what he did was incorrect, and that it would come to stalk him in the signifier of the tragic loss of his life.

Through sneaky agencies King Claudius tried to kill Hamlet several times. The first of which he used Rosencrantz and Guildenstern as defenders attach toing Hamlet to England,

I like him non, nor stands it safe with us / To allow his lunacy fury. Therefore prepare you, / I your committee will forthwith despatch, / And he to England shall along with you: / The footings of our estate may non digest / Hazard so near & # 8217 ; s as doth hourly grow / Out of his foreheads & # 8221 ; ( III.iii.1-7 ) .

The male monarch recognized his nephew & # 8217 ; s aim of hocus-pocus through & # 8220 ; madness & # 8221 ; , and tried to set a premature terminal to Hamlet & # 8217 ; s programs. To carry through this he did non seek to extinguish Hamlet himself, instead, the male monarch turned Laertes against him, once more incarnating the subject of misrepresentation.

Another method of portraying the subject of fraudulence is seen in the manner Shakespeare depicted Polonius. He is much like Hamlet, in the fact that he is really a hypocritical character. For illustration, he passed this advice on to his boy: & # 8220 ; [ do ] non so be false to any man. & # 8221 ; He proceeded to state Claudius of how they could conceal behind the tapestries and undercover agent on Hamlet, in order to happen out why he had been & # 8220 ; moving mad. & # 8221 ; He besides hid behind the tapestries in Gertrude & # 8217 ; s bed Chamberss in order to descry on Hamlet farther, & # 8220 ; Behind the tapestries I & # 8217 ; ll convey myself? & # 8221 ; ( III.iii.28 ) . This is what led to his decease though, in the terminal of the 3rd act. Shakespeare portrays this as Polonius & # 8217 ; conniving, sneaky ways coming back to kill him.

As a comparatively minor character Laertes exhibits all the same traits as the remainder of Shakespeare & # 8217 ; s project & # 8211 ; misrepresentation and fraudulence. He is seen as about indistinguishable to Hamlet. Both loved Ophelia, both of their male parents were wrongfully murdered, and both sought retaliation. The lone difference is that Laertes was more willing to move on his strong beliefs. This alone was non oblique, but the methods he employed decidedly were. & # 8220 ; I will make it? I & # 8217 ; ll anoint my blade? that if I gall him somewhat, / it may be death. & # 8221 ; ( IV.vii.137-47 ) . By poisoning the tip of his blade, Laertes non merely killed Hamlet, he used the subjects of the drama to make so. This, as repeatedly shown, is what led him to tragedy ; his decease.

The drama & # 8217 ; s motives of fraudulence and misrepresentation are furthered with Rozencrantz and Guildenstern. They claimed to be Hamlet & # 8217 ; s friends, when truly they were gaining at his disbursal by join forcesing with the King and Queen. Shown when the Queen said, & # 8220 ; Your trial will have such thanks / As tantrums a male monarch & # 8217 ; s recollection, & # 8221 ; it is explicitly implied that they are having compensation for their & # 8220 ; service. & # 8221 ; By bewraying their friend in return for wage, Rozencrantz and Guildenstern choose fallacious actions to carry through their ain dockets. It ends up killing them though, because Hamlet finds out and changes the letters.

Each character in the drama & # 8220 ; The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark & # 8221 ; utilizes the subject of fraudulence, and provides an illustration ( through their decease ) of how it repeatedly leads to tragedy.

Bibliography

none except the drama: crossroads