Hamlet," in my opinion, is a language play; or, in other words, there are a lot of examples in this play where there are plays on the English language: Polonius' oratorial treatise on contemporary drama is a good, hilarious example. As to why Shakespeare indulges in so many puns, so many twists in word meanings in the play is a very, very interesting question. But I won't go into that. For now, let's concentrate on irony.
A definition of irony would be: words which seem to convey a certain meaning, but when you read them back carefully you realize that sometimes they actually mean the opposite of what is expressed; or, at least they run in some way contrary to the context in which the words are expressed or written. Got it?
Now, in the light of this definition, let us look at some of the text above.
How all occasions do inform against me.
And spur my dull revenge!
What is a man, If his chief good and market of his time
Be but to sleep and feed? A beast, no more.
These lines, self-critically spoken by Hamlet, is, nevertheless, ironical because of what we know of Hamlet's character: he constantly weighs two sides of everything. In these lines he berates himself. Circumstances spur his "dull revenge," implying that the very ethics of revenge may be questioned. The following lines introduce the irony: is man nothing but a consumer? An eating, sleeping man is also the avenging man.
From these observations on man, Hamlet then contemplates God's purpose:...he that made us with such large discourse./ Looking before and after, gave us not / That capability and god like reason to fust in us unus'd. now, This is Hamlet's plea for mankind, ironically put: for God's sake, use the intelligence He has given us. Rather than indiscriminately buying into a culture of revenge, however honorable and fiduciary it seems, use your own mind, and decide.
Traditional criticism has it that Hamlet's tragic flaw was his incapacity to decide. Contemporary critics, however, disagree. They say that the traditional critics would have been right except for Hamlet’s ironic vision. It seems Hamlet indulged in so much irony because he could not trust anything in Denmark, beginning with the apparition of the king, his father, down to his mother, Ophelia, Claudius and Polonius. Words coming from each of these people’s mouths were fraught with dissimulation: Ophelia was a prisoner of the male system; his father was a ghost; Polonius used words dishonestly; Claudius was a murderer and Gertrude, his adulterous wife and accomplice. In this essentially corrupt environment, one that Hamlet could not trust, he was expected to carry out the noble and honorable act of revenging his father’s death, something he didn’t quite believe in. Hence, irony.
Your answer on Hamlet’s irony would not be complete if you didn’t comment on two other characters – Horatio and Laertes. Ironically, once again, the only straight forward, honest, if blunt, character in this play was Laertes, Hamlet’s enemy. Horatio, Hamlet’s best friend, understands his plight but is unable to have a positive impact on the play. Thus Hamlet’s ironic vision does not solve his problem. But it does give the audience and the readers of the play, a complex and fascinating account of human frailty.
No comments:
Post a Comment