Analysis and Comparison of Hamlet and Iliad - Assignment Example

Iliad and Hamlet Name Institution Question One The pre-modern world was marred by conflicts particularly between kingdoms and between people of different walks of life. This to a large extent can be attributed to lack of well developed legal structures at the time. The source of law was particularly the monarch who also acted as the final court of appeal. Kings found themselves at loggerheads with their cross-border counterparts due to expansionist desires that saw each kingdom attempt to enlarge its territory. These kingdoms were mostly historically founded along tribal, racial or clan lines. This scenario would probably explain why kinship had such a central role in resolving or redirecting conflict. Kinship ties act as a two edged knife. In some cases they have quelled conflict in others they have propagated it further. In Hamlet’s text we encounter three young men Hamlet, Laertes and Fortinbras all mourning their murdered fathers. They accept their moral responsibility of avenging for that as this is the guide line of their clan culture - that sons should revenge for their murdered fathers. And unlike, Hamlet who is in dilemma whether to avenge or not, Laertes and Fortibras are all out for it. They are ready not to leave anything unturned. This particular scenario demonstrates a case of kinship ties extending the magnitude of the conflict. Finally, even Hamlet who is a known believer of the Christian faith opts to execute his societal role of killing despite agreeing to the fact that it is evil according to religion. Kinship ties prevails his faith. In other cases kinship ties have assisted to calm conflict in Hamlet’s text. When Hamlet grows mad over the actions of his mother, the spirit of his father appears to calm him down. In this case he considers his moral obligation to show obedience and respect to his father even if by way of honouring his spirit. He abides to this even though temporarily. Fortibras abides by his uncle’s advise to refrain from going into war with Norway. This becomes a complement as the war does not materialize. We encounter Laertes becoming angry with Claudius following Polonius death for which Hamlet is responsible. Claudius is able to redirect Laertes anger from himself to Harmlet. In another incident, the queen plays a crucial part to calming Hamlet down when he goes out of control in anger of Claudius and the queen. In Iliad’s text a lot of kinship importance is attached particularly to fatherhood. Strength of a son for example is insinuated to be drawn from the heroic attributes of the father. This is the explanation for the case of Hypsipyle, who is fathered by Jaso and Tlepolemos fathered by Heracles. This has furthered some sorts of conflict. Children born out of wedlock find themselves at awkward positions with the society and their mothers alike. The case is no different for sons and daughters of concubines. Illusions to the mother have been presented as something denoting some form of inadequacy. This assertion has acted to create conflicts among the young folks. For instance, there is a battle of supremacy of beauty between Nireus and Achilles. Nireus beauty is undermined and labeled as being of poor strength and this is due to her allusion to her mother. In an attempt to detach from their mothers, people apply dishonourable measures which themselves cause conflict. Such a situation is eminent when Hector returns to Troy only to refuse the wine offered by Hecuba. Their relation turn sour. Many incidents in both texts point to strict adherence to the kinship ties. This has had positive impact in certain cases and negative effects on others. Some people have also found themselves on the wrong side of unfair treatment by the society. In this regard, new conflicts have emerged or existing ones redirected. The state of affairs guides the basis of conclusion and assertion that kinship ties in both texts have acted as a double edged knife having varying consequences at different circumstances. Question Two The approach to life and particularly kinship is something that shocks the modern readers of ancient literature. Synonymous to many texts was the position of leadership which was majorly monarchical and the implied authority that went with the positions of power. It becomes hard to imagine the case for commoners who did not have any attachment to the authorities. And hence everybody attached to the kin of the monarch could be considered to be on the right side of history. This is evident in the two texts: Hamlet and Iliad. In both cases we encounter two kingdoms and plot majorly built on their princes. Incidentally they are involved in sagas and as it seems they are two big for the hand of law if it ever existed in the first place. Justice and fair play were foreign to the palace. Great importance is laid on the importance of the institution more than anything and thus the assertion that kinship has been presented as being far much important than life and death. As is eminent in both texts there is no crime so long as it leads one to the palace. In other words all actions however bizarre could be allowed to pass so long as the person committing them hails from the ‘right’ kin. In any case the person has assumed the authority at disposal and henceforth cannot use the same against himself/herself. In Hamlet’s text this is exactly the case. Claudius kills the incumbent king by poisoning him just to assume the office. And as it turns out, it is not the office he will assume but also the family right of his predecessor. This, he executes by inheriting his wife who subsequently retains the status of the queen. There is no effort to pursue king Claudius. In fact the public does not seem particularly concerned with the details of the murder. While it can be argued that they did not know who assassinated the king, or the death came as a result of some malicious actions of some person, they can still be accused of negligence on partaking investigations. It is Hamlet who appears particularly troubled by the death of his father. His pain is exaggerated by the action of his mother. He is so angered and troubled that she married to the new king so soon. As he puts it even two seconds were not over. He continues to claim that the cookeries that remained during his father’s burial were used in the mother’s new wedding. He makes it known to the mother of his displeasure. But she seems less troubled neither by her husband’s death nor by the son’s distress. For her life seems normal because after all she is still the queen. She is not presented to be mourning the death of her husband. Drawing from this loss of life is not something comparable to being on the ranks of kinship with the monarch. In another incident the king of Norway, Fortinbras is reported to be killed. Nobody takes issues with death per se. in fact people celebrate because Norway now has a new king and the war threats are no more. That was the extent of low deal human life was offered in these kingdoms. Hamlet’s drive to avenge for his murdered father comes from his kinship requirement to avenge for him. He accepts this fact as his own personal duty. There is, however some other power that compels him otherwise. And this is his strong attachment to Christian faith. He is a puritanical believer and he knows killing is sin by all means. But still he feels obliged to exercising his kinship duties more than observing the doctrines of faith and to that effect he murders Claudius. The case is no different in Iliad’s text. Great honour and power is vested on the king’s throne. The word of the king is final. Nobody has the legal or moral right of questioning the actions committed by the monarch. As we learn from the text a plain man cannot stand against the anger of the king. No chance is left for the commoners. They will stand to lose everything including their life if that favours the kinship. There is absolutely no moral obligation required from the house of the king. The authority of those in power is drawn from the position and not from the people. You stand to gain everything if your hail from the line of authority and you stand on the precipice of death if otherwise. The two pieces of texts are dominated by series of unwarranted and unjustified incidents of murder. All these attached to the kinship. To this regard they go unpunished. In the grand scheme of things, the texts exemplify a society that has low deal for human life. Killing is probably not one of the worst crimes one can be associated with. Hamlet recounts this opinion. According to him, what his mother did was more evil that his own action of killing Polonius. Though, Hamlet murders him without will, his intention in the first place was to kill. He too values not human life. In light of this discussion it is safe to state that in the pre-modern era, kinship was more important than life and death. Read More