Comparative Analysis of the Moral Issues in Shakespeares Hamlet and Sophocles Antigone
In the next part of this paper, I will provide a background story of the two plays in order to get a better understanding of what this paper is all about followed by a comparative analysis of the moral issues that can be observed in the two plays.
Background
William Shakespeares Hamlet is a tragic tale of ghosts, murder and the quest for vengeance. The character of Prince Hamlet of Denmark can be described as enigmatic and complex and is the subject of detailed analysis more than any other character in the English literature. In the beginning of the play, we see Prince Hamlet of Denmark troubled by everything that is going on around him. His fathers sudden death the chance to ascend the throne in his fathers place taken away from him when his late fathers brother, Claudius, was proclaimed as King of Denmark and, his disgust at the hasty marriage between his mother, Queen Gertrude, and King Claudius, which he considers as incestuous. Later on, he is visited by his dead fathers ghost and is made aware of his fathers treacherous death by the hand of his brother, Claudius. As the story progresses, we find Hamlet feigning madness as part of his plot to murder Claudius his confrontation with his mother the murder of Polonius, a member of the Kings council the death of Ophelia, daughter of Polonius and the plot of Claudius to dispose of Hamlet. The tragic story ends with the duel and death of Hamlet and Laertes, son of Polonius, who wishes to avenge the death of his father from the hands of Hamlet and the death of Gertrude, Hamlets mother, and King Claudius.
Meanwhile, in Antigone by Sophocles, the opening scene of the play shows Antigone and her sister, Ismene, daughters of Oedipus, the former King of Thebes, in front of the palace gates in Thebes. The time is at daybreak on the morning after the fall of their two brothers, Eteocles and Polyneices, during the battle between Thebes and the Argives. Polyneices has sided with the Argives while Eteocles defended Thebes. The brothers die at the hands of each other and the victorious King Creon of Thebes ordered the preparation for the burial of Eteocles and, at the same time, issued an order to leave the corpse of Polyneices for the carrions to feast upon, which he thinks is fitting as Polyneices betrayed his homeland and does not deserve funeral rites or burial. Antigone, despite Creons edict, attempted to secure a burial for his brother, Polyneices. The progress of the play shows the confrontation between Creon and Antigone when he discovered what she is trying to do the confrontation between Creon and his son, Haemon, who is betrothed to Antigone and the confrontation between Creon and the blind prophet, Teiresias. The tragic play ends with the death of Antigone and Haemon the suicide of Eurydice, wife of King Creon and the lamentation of Creon.
According to Bates (112), in the Antigone, contempt of death enables a weak maiden to conquer a powerful ruler, who, proud of his wisdom, ventures in his unbounded insolence to pit his royal word against divine law and human sentiment, and learns all too late, by the destruction of his house, that Fate in due course brings fit punishment on outrage.
Discussion
In the two plays, we can see the moral issues that arose in relation to the role foisted on the protagonists. In Hamlets case, it is the role of son and avenger, while Antigones role is a loving sister and a devoted follower of the Gods.
The procrastination displayed by Hamlet with regard to getting his revenge with Claudius shows the moral struggle he is facing. In Act 2 Scene 2, Hamlet remarks
Yet I, A dull and muddy-mettled rascal, peak, Like John-a-dreams, unpregnant of my cause, And can say nothing no, not for a king, Upon whose property and most dear life A damnd defeat was made. Am I a coward Who calls me villain breaks my pate across Plucks off my beard, and blows it in my face Tweaks me by the nose gives me the lie i the throat, As deep as to the lungs who does me this
In the same scene, Hamlet also exhibited doubts regarding his mission and the ghost that he saw, which can be connected to his Christian beliefs, as he contemplates
The spirit that I have seen May be the devil and the devil hath power To assume a pleasing shape yea, and perhaps Out of my weakness and my melancholy, As he is very potent with such spirits, Abuses me to damn me.
There is another scene wherein Hamlet shows his hesitation in killing Claudius seeing as he has the chance right then and there when he catches Claudius alone and praying. In Act 3 Scene 3
Now might I do it pat, now he is praying And now Ill dot. And so he goes to heaven And so am I revenged. That would be scannd A villain kills my father and for that, I, his sole son, do this same villain send To heaven.
This scene has had various interpretations by literary scholars. One notable interpretation is that Hamlet delayed the killing not because he does not want Claudius to go to heaven as a result of his deed, but rather due to the struggle that is warring inside of him where conflicting emotions attack him from every side as his desire to avenge his father clashes that killing a person is wrong.
Another evidence of the struggle being faced by Prince Hamlet concerning his cause can be seen in his remark in his most famous soliloquy in Act 3 Scene 1
To be, or not to be that is the question Whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all And thus the native hue of resolution Is sicklied oer with the pale cast of thought, And enterprises of great pith and moment With this regard their currents turn awry, And lose the name of action.
In this scene, Hamlet experiences a sense of confusion as he argues with himself about what is the right thing to do. He questions his course of action, as he debates whether to proceed with murder or to just let justice take its own time.
The character of Prince Hamlet constantly questions his cause, of whether he should fulfill the conflicting moral duties of blood revenge, the Christian ethic of not killing and leaving vengeance to God, the political duties of Machiavellis Prince, or be true to himself Shakespeares genius is to have Claudius repeatedly invoke the codes he has broken, thereby reinforcing our sympathy for Hamlets crisis and cause against his uncle (Pupavac, 2008).
On the other hand, the character of Antigone is rooted in familial love and a sense of moral righteousness. The character of Antigone represents the moral idealist who is absolutely unbending in the values that she deems eternal and imagines being more important than life itself. The moralist sacrifices efficacy for unflinching values, as opposed to the realist who sacrifices the right for the useful (ctd. in Story, 2008). Her sense of moral duty to her dead brother is so strong that, in the beginning of the play, in her conversation with her sister, she stated that
Gladly will I meet death in my sacred duty to the dead. Longer time have I to spend with them than with those who live upon the earth. Seek not to argue with me nothing so terrible can come to me but that an honored death remains. (Bates 112).
The central theme in Antigone is the relation of the law which has its sanction in political authority and the law which has its sanction in the private conscience, the relation of the obligations imposed on human beings as citizens and members of the state, and the obligations imposed on them in the home and as members of families. And both these laws presenting themselves in their most crucial form are in direct collision (Collins, 1906).
According to Collins (1906), the decision of Antigone to choose divine law over mans law can be seen as a sacred duty in the eyes of the Greeks. Since she looks at it as a divine commission, she believes that she had a right to assert that in defying the edit of Creon, she was loyal to an unwritten law which had a higher sanction than mans will.
In terms of similarities, there are several aspects of the two plays wherein morality plays a major part. One particular aspect that can be found in both plays is how the kings equate restoration of order to their kingdom with the deaths of their perceived law disrupters. In Hamlet, King Claudius, fearing that his heinous deeds will be found out by Prince Hamlet and thus, disrupting the peace of the kingdom, orders the Prince to be escorted in England where he plots for him to be murdered once he steps on to English soil. In Act 4 Scene 3, the King is seen as sending a letter to the King of England conveying his royal wish for the death of Hamlet. On the other hand, Antigone was sentenced to death by Creon for disobeying his orders which he sees as a sign of rebellion against him. He sentenced Antigone to be led to the dungeon, where she is to die of starvation, and thus bewails her fate (Bates 116).
However, a contrast can also be seen in the way which the two kings handled the disposal of the protagonists. In Hamlet, Claudius proceeds in a treacherous manner as Prince Hamlet was unaware that the Kings orders for him to be transported to England would result in his murder. Compared to that, King Creon issued a death sentence in the form of a royal decree on Antigone for disobeying his royal orders.
The revenge theme which is the main focus in the play Hamlet can also be seen in Antigone as Creon refuses to perform burial rites on Polyneices. This is his act of revenge against the man which he thinks is right since Polyneices, a son of Thebes, turned against them.
The concepts of heroism and martyrdom, which can be seen in the two plays, as well, are also connected to morality. In Hamlets case, he believes that avenging the death of his father is the heroic thing to do and disregards the teachings of the Christian faith, in which he follows, and his duty to his living family. Meanwhile, the actions of Antigone is mostly based on self-sacrifice. She makes no attempt to conciliate Creon, but maintains throughout a most defiant attitude, glorying alike in her deed and in its penalty Antigone not merely braves but courts death (Collins, 1906).
The conflict of family and law can be seen more in the play Antigone. According to Collins (1906), the conflict lies between Antigone and Creon in what they perceived is their right. As ruler of the state, Creon was perfectly justified in issuing the edict which deprived Polyneices of his funeral rites. The young man had fallen in the act of committing the most heinous crime of which a citizen could be guilty, and Creon, as the responsible head of the state, very naturally supposed that exemplary punishment was the culprits rightful due. The decree issued with its annexed penalty became law, and as the law it was incumbent on every citizen to obey it. Antigone, on the other hand, looks at it from a family members perspective, and believes that the duty she undertook can be delegated to no one else.
Up to this point, then, both are in the right, and neither deserves punishment. Had reason and right feeling ruled Creon, he would have seen that Antigone was perfectly justified in disobeying his edict had reason ruled Antigone, she would have seen that he was perfectly justified in issuing it (Collins, 1906).
Collins (1906) further states that The terrible calamities, then, which overtake Creon are not the result of his exalting the law of the state over the unwritten and divine law which Antigone vindicates, but are the result of his harsh, imperious and intemperate character. It was his intemperance which made him impervious to the impressions which the conduct and position of Antigone ought to have made on him, which made him deaf to the appeals of Haemon, and which led him to disregard till it was too late the warnings of Teiresias it was his intemperance which was his ruin.
Conclusion
The role of morality in the thought and actions of the protagonists in the two plays contribute to their tragic demise. One acts on her moral obligation while the other questions and hesitates. This is what defines moral duty and moral conflict. The desire to do what is right is what prompted the protagonists into action. Collins (1906) advises us to remember that if a poet or writer is a moralist and a teacher he is primarily an artist. The writer, through his works, allows the reader or viewers to look into hisher moral values. The two plays were successful in this regard in that it made us see ourselves and determine what is right and what is wrong from a personal perspective, from a social perspective and from a divine perspective.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment