Category: Elizabethan Times

William Shakespeare is one of the most famous playwrights of all time. His tragedies and poems are still read and analyzed today by many scholars and students, but what if William Shakespeare wasn’t the one to write these great works of literature? It was not William Shakespeare that wrote these works, but another scholar or playwright.

The most popular candidate is the Oxfordian Edward De Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. Edward De Vere became an earl as a young man in 1562 and lived in Oxford for eight years as royalty. As he grew, he did many studies at many colleges such as Cambridge and Queen’s College. He was a lyric poet and theatre patron which made him a good candidate for the identity of William Shakespeare. (The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica) He commissioned many books and translations of some books. He donated to theatre troupes and even leased a theatre to one of the troupes. Vere was a known secret writer who never published under his name. He was said to be a great writer of comedy, but no comedies were written under his name. Vere could have used Shakespeare as a pseudonym to avoid being found out as a lowly playwright. As stated by the Oxford Fellowship, “[I]t was considered beneath their [nobility] dignity to publish poetry, which was deemed frivolous, or plays for the public theatres, which were scandalous places where thievery, prostitution, and gambling occurred.” (Regnier) Pseudonyms were common during Vere’s time and it wouldn’t be outlandish if Vere also used one when writing. The name Shakespeare could have come from two sources for Vere. One would come from Gabriel Harvey, who said, “Vultus tela vibrat,” which from Latin translates to “Thy Countenance Shakes Spears.” (Regnier) The second source could be from Greek mythology itself. Athena, the goddess of poetry, is often shown with a spear and known as a spear shaker.

There are many references to Vere in Shakespeare’s works as if they are clues to his real identity. Polonius in Hamlet has been known to reference and parody William Cecil or Lord Burghley. Vere had a rocky relationship with the Lord who began as his mentor then became his father-in-law. Polonius’s advice to Laertes, his son, in Hamlet is very similar to the household rules of Lord Burghley, which was not made public until after Hamlet was published. Both Polonius and Lord Burghley sent spies to watch their sons when they are away as well as their motto is very similar. According to Oxford Fellowship, “Burghley’s motto was “Cor unum, via una” (“One heart, one way”). In the First Quarto of Hamlet, the Polonius character is named “Corambis,” (“double-hearted”), a parody of Burghley’s motto.” (Regnier) This shows another connection to Vere’s father-in-law. Lord Burghley supported “fish days” which is why Polonius is called a fishmonger as an insult by Hamlet. Hamlet was also published after Burghley’s death because Vere didn’t want to provoke his father-in-law. Another reference is to Sir Philip Sidney and Vere’s quarrel and rivalry. Sidney and Vere both wanted the hand of Burghley’s daughter and they also disagreed on politics and literature. In Hamlet, Polonius mentions young men “falling out at tennis” which references Sidney and Vere’s fight at a tennis match. Sidney didn’t let Vere join in his tennis match which ignited an agreement. Other references to Sidney are Sir Andrew Aguecheek in Twelfth Night, Slender in Merry Wives, and the Dauphin in Henry V. Dauphin takes a shot at Sidney, who wrote a sonnet to a horse, by saying his mistress is a horse. (Regnier) These references and clues point to Vere being connected to the writings of Shakespeare.

Edward de Vere is not the only person that is suspected to be the author of the works. Francis Bacon the first Viscount of St Albans is another candidate for the authorship of Shakespeare’s works. He was born into a wealthy and educated family and started in law soon moving into politics then retiring. That’s when Bacon moved to science and developing his scientific method. Bacon was as good of a literary writer and philosopher as he was a scientist. His philosophy is very present in Shakespearian writings. Bacon believed As written by The Francis Bacon Society, “Francis Bacon was known to his circle, i.e. the nobility and certain university intellectuals, as a ‘concealed poet’. He also described himself as such.” (Shakespeare Authorship Concealed Poet Life and Name Bacon) Much like Vere, Bacon was known to work under a pseudonym much like many other writers of his age. They were also known to take someone else name when writing almost like identity theft to avert suspicion. (“History of the Baconian Shakespeare Authorship Theory.”) Thomas Tenison published some of Bacon’s literary works saying that Bacon wrote under other names that weren’t his own. Thomas Bokenham is one of the reasons there is a case for Bacon as the author. Found on The Baconian Society, Bokenham wrote, “I believe that Francis Bacon wished to reveal his secrets after some time had passed and that he used a cipher to do this as the only effective way.” ( Hollenbach) He used his cipher on many of the works and ended up at the monument in Stratford that was made after Shakespeare’s death. There he found the rest of his phrase which, as Bokenham wrote, “The words ‘Francis Bacon Author’ appeared as if by magic.” (Hollenbach) This also supported by Bacon’s eulogies which all describe Bacon in similar ways that only Shakespeare has been described. Even on the Shakespeare Monument, the description compares Shakespeare to “statesman and judge Nestor, the orator and philosopher Socrates, and the scholar-poet Virgil” which fits Bacon perfectly. (Hollenbach) Bacon is a strong candidate for Shakespeare’s works with his strong mind and secret literary writings.

Lastly, Why William Shakespeare couldn’t write his works? William Shakespeare did not leave anything to his family in his will. He left no manuscripts, books, or anything to note that he had any interest in the arts or writing. Any surviving books or documents to connect Shakespeare to any of his works have not come up or have been found. (Sof) The only examples of Shakespeare’s writing that we do have are his almost illegible signatures. Knowledgeable and educated people had a very clean and neat handwriting to show their status. Shakespeare did not do this. This is just one example to show that William was not educated enough to know to write what commentary there is in the works. The Oxford Fellowship states about Shakespeare, “Conversely, the many documents which do exist relating to Shakespeare of Stratford fail to indicate that he was even literate. They depict the life of someone who was energetically engaged in business matters and moneylending, but does not refer to any literary career.” (Sof) There is little evidence to show Shakespeare even wrote literally or even had an interest to. They also write, “The author of Shakespeare’s works had to be familiar with a wide body of knowledge for his time…. The works derive from myriad classical and Renaissance sources, including in French, Italian, Spanish, Latin, and Greek, some not yet translated into English at the time. There is no documentation that Shakespeare of Stratford had access to such information or such very expensive books, and it is difficult to see how he might have.” (Sof) William Shakespeare was just not knowledgeable enough to write the works he is created with.

William Shakespeare is one of the most famous playwrights of all time, but he didn’t write his works, Edward De Vere or Bacon did. There are many references to Vere in Shakespeare’s works as if they are clues to his real identity. Vere enjoyed and wrote many literary works under pseudonyms. Bacon was a great scientist and a great writer who also hid his identity. His involvement in Shakespeare’s writing was found through clues and ciphers. Finally, Shakespeare was not educated enough to write his works.

Introduction: The Renaissance Influence on Shakespeare

“To be, or not to be: that is the question” (Shakespeare, Hamlet Act 3, Scene 1). Everyone knows or has heard this iconic quote from William Shakespeare’s play Hamlet, whether you have read the written work or not. This recognizable quote illustrates just how impactful Shakespeare’s written works actually were in English Renaissance during the late 15th Century. He not only impacted English Renaissance and theatre of that time but, is still currently influencing theatre in today’s modern society. Even though William Shakespeare influenced and impacted theatre greatly, he would not have been able to get there if it were not for the culture of English Renaissance influencing him and his written works at the time. He was born towards the end of the Renaissance era which had an effect on how he viewed the world since he predominately grew up and learned mannerisms during this time. Growing up during the English Renaissance inevitably had an effect on the way he choose to write each and every one of his pieces of literature. English Renaissance inspired Shakespeare to write his plays according to how everyone in that time was living their day to day life. By doing this it essentially made him stand out above the rest of the playwrights during this time. William Shakespeare brought core values of English Renaissance into theatre by incorporating the culture of humanism into his written works, using and illustrating the social hierarchy of that time throughout his plays to show humanity of each character, and finally exerting his knowledge of past and present religion to include and embrace Catholicism in many of his plays even though it was not really welcomed at the time.

Humanism in Shakespeare’s Works

My first topic I will discuss is how William Shakespeare brought core values of England Renaissance into theatre by incorporating the culture of humanism into his written works. Before Shakespeare, many playwrights wrote plays very plan, simple, one dimensional, over the top, and in an unrealistic characterized way. They also incorporated a large amount of supernatural writing within their works. For example, the Greek play Medea written by Euripides uses supernatural characteristic just by giving Medea supernatural powers of magic which she later on uses for evil throughout the play. As opposed to Shakespeare he wrote in a “two-dimensional writing style of pre-Renaissance drama. He focused on creating human characters with psychological complexity” (Jamieson, paragraph 8). William Shakespeare’s style took more of a humanistic approach. Humanistic approach means he wrote characters that were a more realistic form of people how they live their everyday lives, which no one before him ever did. This made Shakespeare’s writing stand out more than past playwrights because when reading his literature his characters made you feel like they were someone who you could relate to or understand since they had mannerism that were common to people living in the English Renaissance era during the late 15th century. Humanism also refers to writing about the value of human beings instead of writing about supernatural things that are not real or realistic in everyday life which the Greek did quite frequently. Although William Shakespeare got most of his writing technique from his knowledge of the Greek playwrights he emphasized more on the human necessities of life, and really illustrated the goodness in his characters. Throughout his plays he also focused on “characters who embody the principles and ideals of Renaissance humanism, or people of tremendous self-knowledge and wit that are capable of self-expression and the practice of individual freedom” (resources from saylor.org, paragraph 3). For example, we can take his written work of Hamlet to explain and illustrate this topic more.

Polonius, father of Laertes and Ophelia exclaims “to thine own self be true” (Shakespeare, Hamlet Act I, Scene 3), this exhibits humanism to its fullest because it shows “a view of personal integrity that is essentially humanist in its stress on individualism rather than on conformity” (Humanism UK, paragraph 1). In this scene Polonius is giving a word of advice to his son Laertes before he embarks on his journey to Paris, France. What Polonius is basically saying is that you should stay true to yourself and do not just change for others because that is how they want you to be or how they want to see you act. This just illustrates how Shakespeare wrote Polonius’s character in a humanistic way because he is giving realistic advice to his son to keep his uniqueness and not to comply with anything or anyone. It shows the goodness in Polonius and his values about the world and about giving rational thought and outlook to his sons’ journey and his in life in general. Another example of how William Shakespeare incorporates humanism in his written works is within many of his characters in his tragic plays. For instance, many of his characters in his tragic written works often die a great and tragic death but, in return are given very righteous and aristocratic characteristics that balance the character out. Othello, from his play Othello dies by stabbing himself but throughout the play his character is given traits like bravery, confidence, intelligence, and being brawny. Another character that is like this is King Lear from the play King Lear.

King Lear basically has just survived an attack by killing the executioner that killed his daughter Cordelia by hanging her, and as he is about to assume his position at the throne, his body decides to gives up on him from all the trials he had to face before. He collapses and dies while holding his dead daughter. Such a tragic death but his death is balanced out by the humanistic characteristics of having passion, kindness, and sympathy towards others especially his daughters. More characters he writes about in this way is Hamlet from Hamlet, and Macbeth from Macbeth. Notice that all the characters discussed above are all the characters that the stories are originally written about. I believe this has something with giving them these humanistic qualities that they portray throughout William Shakespeare’s plays and why he wrote them how he did.

Social Hierarchy and Character Complexity

My next topic I will discuss is how William Shakespeare incorporated the use of the social hierarchy and illustrated it during that time throughout his plays by showing the humanity in each of his characters. Social hierarchy is basically your standard social classes of the era. Lower class being the poor people normally peasants, middle class being the workers that are bakers, bottlers, servants, cobblers, etc., and upper class being your royalty; kings, queens, princes, and princesses. You can go further and separate the lower class into two and the middle class into two sections as well. During the English Renaissance there was so much tragedy going on within the English monarchy with the ruler of Henry VIII then later Mary Tudor “Bloody Mary” and ending on a slightly better ruler Elizabeth I. “The upheaval in social hierarchy allowed Shakespeare to explore the complexity and humanity of every character, regardless of their social position” (Jamison, paragraph 9). In the Renaissance era people looked up to royalty and thought that since they were of noble family, they had to obtain a certain standard so they could do no wrong. Instead of thinking in this manner William Shakespeare really took the social hierarchy and made it his own. He believed that “even monarchs were portrayed as having human emotions and were capable of making terrible mistakes” (Jamison, Paragraph 9). He did not care what class the character in question was in, he believed that everyone could still have idealisms of humanistic characteristics no matter the circumstances you were put in. Shakespeare really exerts this when writing his play Macbeth, he uses the social hierarchy to show you that no matter what position or class you are in you can still have many traits of humanism but constantly do wrong by making bad choices and decisions.

For instance, men were seen as having absolute power whereas women not so much. In Macbeth even though Lady Macbeth is a woman without absolute power she continuously persuades her husband, Macbeth to do terrible things. She goes as far as to convince her husband to commit murder so that he can become King of Scotland, which he goes through with. Macbeth has the traits of bravery, ambition, and even kindness, all very humanistic characteristics because once again they value the goodness of the character himself. Lady Macbeth also has many humanistic traits and emotions. She is affectionate, ambitious, cunning, and most importantly she is always aware of her true self and aware of her inner mind. Lady Macbeth uses her noble position and some of her traits to convince her husband to do many wrongs just so they can be in power. She ends up meeting a tragic fate and it is assumed that she took her own life. Another example of how William Shakespeare shows the wrong doings of social hierarchy is in his play King Lear as discussed above. Shakespeare uses the social hierarchy and how noble family can still make terrible decisions even with humanistic traits. He illustrates how King Lear is trying to decide how to split his land evenly between his daughter since he is retiring and stepping down from being King. Using his nobility status and his desire for flattery from his daughters he ask them to answer a simple question. This simple question leads to a spiral of trials, betrayal, and death. If King Lear would not have relied on his flattery trait and just divided the land up and called it a day, he would not have made the mistake of exiling his youngest causing his oldest daughters to betray him and ending in all 4 of their deaths. William Shakespeare really displays his complexity in his character due to the hierarchy. Each daughter has their own personality neither being alike, you also see the spiraling traits of King Lear on how he is in a rage at the beginning then realizing he did wrong and tries to fix all his wrongdoing. They are all very complex characters that show different humanistic qualities, if you are not careful it is easily to get confused.

Religious Influences: Embracing Catholicism

My final topic I will discuss is how William Shakespeare exerts his knowledge on religion to include and embrace Catholicism in many of his plays even though it was not really welcomed at the time. During the English Renaissance Queen Elizabeth I was in power and although slightly better than her past rulers she still had some issues during her reign. Religion was the biggest issue during these times. It started off with the issues of the Church of England by Henry VIII to Elizabeth I passing the Recusancy Acts. These acts that were passed were very similar on how Henry VIII managed his Church of England sometimes even ending in a death penalty if not complied with. Shakespeare really decided to go against this religious act and embrace the idea of Catholicism in his characters within his plays while at the same time maintaining “a public persona as an Anglican” (Jamison, Paragraph 13). In his written work, Much Ado About Nothing he writes of a character name Friar Francis while in his other work Romeo and Juliet he writes of a character name Friar Lawrence.

Both of these characters are portrayed as being Catholic. Shakespeare writes them as the stereotypical and traditional Catholic friar during the English Renaissance. Friars are members of the religious orders who dedicate their life to God. They do essentially everything that a monk does, except they do not live in solitude. In these two play the friars are doing their biblical duties by conducting a marriage ceremony of two young lovers. They also give good advice to each of the couples in the different plays, mainly about self-control, and self-discipline. Friar Lawrence, and Friar Francis both are the lone religious aspects and element of both written works. With that being said they are also the most well thought out and political characters in the plays. They both think about every aspect before doing it and they seem to have a plan and a path for everything they do. William Shakespeare also illustrates both characters as kindhearted and really just written in a positive perspective which really went against what was happening in England. Catholics were seen as substandard, unpleasant, and unwelcomed people in England, which is why they did everything for their religion in secret. Shakespeare decided to go against that state of mind and shed some positivity on the religion making both these characters honest, trustworthy, and faithful.

Conclusion: Shakespeare’s Enduring Legacy

In conclusion, I discussed three main points as to how English Renaissance in the late 15th century influenced William Shakespeare’s literary written works. I mentioned how he included a sense of humanism in his characters; Polonius from Hamlet, Othello from Othello, and King Lear from King Lear. I explained how Shakespeare used social hierarchy in his works of art to explain his characters in more detail and show how their humanistic traits can still cause them to make mistakes no matter what social class they are a part of. I used examples of characters from Macbeth and King Lear. Lastly, I demonstrated how he went against the prejudice of the Catholic religion during the English Renaissance and created optimistic characters while unveiling positivity on Catholicism in general by using Friar Francis from Much Ado About Nothing and Friar Lawrence from ¬Romeo and Juliet. All in all, Shakespeare had a tremendous impact on theatre during the Renaissance, but it also had a great influence on him as well. Without his distinguished works of art, theatre would not be the same. He truly had a gift to captivate audiences everywhere from his literature and still continues to do it many years later. William Shakespeare will forever be known as one of the greatest playwrights in history. Without all his hard work, determination, and dedication to writing his plays they would not have made the impact in which they did so using the Bard’s famous words, “nothing will come of nothing” (Shakespeare, King Lear Act 1, Scene 1).

Classes in Elizabethan society were really important. This was because of how each of the classes contributed to society’s success, it had different famous people, added to the population, and how they performed their everyday activities.

At this time, the Elizabethan era had 3 main classes in its system. The Nobility, Gentry, and the Poor. In this time, a lot of people would be born into a class, and then stay in that particular class for the rest of their life. But there were times where families could move up or down the ranks of their social class. Also, anyone could tell what your class what based on what you wore.

The highest class in the Elizabethan era was the nobility. The nobility could not be imprisoned for almost nothing, but if they committed a serious crime, they could only be beheaded. There were 2 ways people could be nobles. By birth, or by appointment. The appointment was rare because the noble class was viewed as a threat to the king and queen’s reign. The birth was the easiest and most common way people found themselves in the Nobility class. As for the Nobility class and for every other class, there are subclasses. Subclasses are classes that are secondary to the other classes. For instance, the classes, in order from most important to least important were the Duke/Duchess, Marquis/Marchioness, Earl/Countess, Viscount/Viscountess, and Baron/Baroness. The total amount of population was about 50 noble families. Some notable nobility were Lord and Lady Dudley, Lady Arabella Stuart, and Duke and Duchess of Suffolk.

The next class was the Gentry. The Gentry was a small part of the population of the Elizabethan era. This small group of people would be the most important class of the Elizabethan era. In this era, there were 3 subclasses. The knights, squires, and gentlemen. The knights were the ones in the military with the highest rank. But even so, it had been so long ever since being a knight was done purely done by fighting. People had the power to get to knights with very little fighting experience. Meanwhile, squires, or esquires, were people who had people as knights as their relatives. This means that knighthood is not passed on, but people who are relatives to that particular person are squires, this means squires would not be deemed knights until they were granted a position as a knight or if they ever did. Meanwhile, the gentleman were the ones who were landowners. Sometimes, gentlemen who had a coat of arms, or had significance as a gentleman, could be calling themselves an Esquire. For instance, someone named John Smith would turn into John Smith Esquire. Their role in the Elizabethan era was

The bottom class was the peasantry. These people were at the bottom of society, and all they had were small resources like a small hut at best. In this class, there were 3 subclasses. The cottar, tenant farmer, and yeomen, in order from lowest to highest. At the bottom was the cottar. The cottar usually did not have any outstanding skills, but if lucky, they might have had a special skill like being a carpenter or weaving something. But that was only if they were lucky. At the lowest, they would only have a shack to live in. On the contrary, it was not the worst for the cottar, as they probably an acre or two of land. Above them was the tenant farmers, or the husbandmen. He did have a good amount of land, but that land was probably owned by someone a class above them. This land was used to make food for other people, and also for themselves so they can survive. In fact, working for making food was necessary as they would have to pay their high ups later on in the future. Finally was the yeoman. The yeoman was one of the people who could own lands so they could sell that land to the tenant farmers. They would contribute by doing the same things every peasant did. They would help out farming, and if a yeoman could engross their savings, they had the chance to go to the gentry. People might think that it happens often in this era, where some people from the peasantry class would be more than welcome to exit their life as a peasant and move up to be a part of the most important group of the time, the Gentry. Contrary to popular belief, this is false, as most people from the peasantry do not want to escape life, as they are more than happy to stay in that class because they are satisfied with their life in the Gentry class.

The Elizabethan era dates back to 1558-1603, during the Reign of Queen Elizabeth I. History shows that Elizabeth was a formidable and intelligent leader, but, although she was unmarried, she was a rare exception in Elizabethan England. The roles of women during that time were very limited, and they had to deal with vast amounts of problems, restrictions and requirements on the part of men and society.

The method of teaching women differed depending on their social status. The women of Noble birth started their education at the age of five or less, and they were taught at home by private tutors. Their learning included languages like Latin, Italian, French or Greek, and some essential skills like dancing or music. Moreover, they were shown how to act properly, because eloquent speech, manners and appearance were highly required.

People from lower classes could not receive any formal type of education. Women could attend Dames’ Schools, where they were given some basic education, learn how to manage the household and become proficient in housewifely duties. The aim of this education was the preparation for the only career option those girls could have – marriage and maternity.

After being given some deficient education, women had to face another limitation which was the inability to attend university. In any case, they were not permitted to enter professions like politics, medicine or law. The only occupations they could afford were domestic service, knitting, gardening or being maids, cooks or writers, only if the literary subject was suitable for women.

The next stage in the life of an Elizabethan woman was married. It was believed that women required someone to look after them. When they were unmarried it was the father or brother who took care of them and after the marriage the husband, who was also the head of the matrimony. Girls were allowed to get married at the age of 12, but usually, only those from wealthy families would marry that young. Brides were also supposed to bring a dowry – goods, money and property – to the marriage.

One of the basic functions of the female gender was childbearing, which was considered an honour to women. On average, they gave birth to a child every two years due to the fact that the omnipresence of incurable diseases was the cause of the high mortality rate among children and infants.

The relations between people were patriarchal – it meant that men were the leaders, superior to women. Men were constantly controlling the females who were perceived as beings not worthy of the same privileges and rights.

Women held little significance in society, although they might not see it, because they were raised to believe they are inferior to men. One of the leaders of Protestants wrote she was expected to be subordinate and dependent on men. Any kind of disobedience, which was perceived as a crime against their religion, was punished with the use of whipping stool – a post to which women were tied and beaten several times, depending on the severity of the punishment. If the man decided his wife needs to be chastised, he had the legal right to do it. It did not mean that he could abuse her, because excessive cruelty and serious bodily harm could have ended with the prosecution.

Women for many years continued to live as men’s possession. Such beliefs resulted from social attitudes that perceived the ideal woman as silent, submissive and unable to express her opinion or object to the generally prevailing norms and principles.

The life of a single woman was significantly worse than the life of a married one. They were often criticized, looked upon with suspicion and thought to be witches. Moreover, they were expected to stay pure, those who were caught engaging in sexual behaviour were punished and labelled as prostitutes.

A woman from the upper class wanting to remain unwed could enter a convent, in order to avoid criticism and accusations. Conversion to a nunnery lifestyle was acceptable, as it was considered to be another form of marriage – marriage to God. After joining a nunnery, she received a male protector, who was supposed to take care of her.

The appearance of upper-class women was extremely important to maintain a proper reputation and represent their family well. In order to do that, they had to obey the sumptuary laws, which dictated the way females should dress, and they often took extreme measures to satisfy the ideal of the time. Wearing tight corsets and several layers of uncomfortable clothing was an everyday reality. Noblewomen used to wear makeup consisting of white lead, carbonate, hydroxide and arsenic to make their skin look pale, which sometimes caused serious illnesses or death.

The Renaissance and the Elizabethan periods were times of great change in religion, and supernatural beliefs were pivotal aspects of people’s lives. Throughout the eras, people were constantly changing their religion. Numerous new rulers claimed the throne, each with different perspectives on how they wanted their kingdom to be. Therefore, religion was always alternating from one to another, forcing people to quickly convert. Rulers such as Henry VIII, Queen Mary, and Queen Elizabeth influenced the religion of England during their reign. During the two periods, people’s belief in the supernatural was also influential to them. Religion and the view of the supernatural, during the Renaissance and Elizabethan periods, were extremely important to the people living during these times.

Because of King Henry’s reign, people were forced to suddenly convert into a different religion from the one they were previously worshipping. Before the Renaissance and Elizabethan periods, the majority of people living in England were devoted to Catholicism and the Roman Catholic Church. King Henry VIII, the father of Queen Elizabeth and Queen Mary, was the King of England at the time. He was married to Catherine of Aragon, his first wife of many to come. After plenty of pregnancies and miscarriages, Henry soon realized that Catherine was unable to produce a healthy male heir to take over the throne later on. Although she could not give him a son, she was able to birth Mary I, who would later become Queen of England. He also thought of her as being too old to birth to any more children. Because of this, Henry requested an annulment from the Church, but he was unable to receive it because the Catholic faith believes that marriage is for life. Therefore, if the King were to announce his divorce, it would allow the Pope to excommunicate him, which put Henry in a difficult position. This was the main factor that contributed to King Henry’s break from the Roman Catholic Church. After Henry left the Catholic Church, he created his own new Church of England, to which he was Supreme Head. Many of his people began to practice a new religion called Protestantism. The groups became known as the Protestants because they protested against the Catholic Church. Over the time that Henry VIII was King of England, he had successfully changed the religion of England from Catholicism to Protestantism.

Protestantism became the main religion after King Henry created his new church of England. Protestants believed that people should only learn from the Bible. They believed any other way of teaching about God would be contradicting what the Bible says. The Protestant religion also believed in the Great Chain of Being. The Great Chain of Being was a hierarchy, created by God, that explained where all beings of life belonged in society. For example, it was believed that God chose who the King or Queen was. Therefore, if anyone disobeyed or went against the monarch, it was considered to be a sin; it would be seen as if the people went against God’s choosing. The belief in the Great Chain of Being also included somewhat of a social hierarchy. The hierarchy placement was based on the belief that beings made of pure spirit were at the top and beings of matter were towards the bottom. At the top of the hierarchy lay God and angels, followed by humans, then animals, with plants, rocks, and minerals being at the bottom. Humans are made of matter but have a soul made of spirit putting them in the center of the hierarchy. Protestantism includes numerous ideas that do not apply to Catholicism.

Mary Tudor, or Mary I, was the next ruler of England that made an impact on its religion. After King Henry’s death in 1547, the position of King of England was given to his nine-year-old son Edward VI. After a few years of ruling, Edward VI became very ill meaning if he were to die, the throne would be given to his half-sister Mary Tudor. Mary Tudor was the only surviving child of Catherine of Aragon and King Henry. Edward did not want Mary to take the throne because he knew she would convert the country’s current religion from Protestantism back to Catholicism. Despite his efforts to abolish Mary from the line of succession, she ultimately gained the title of Queen of England after Edward’s death. Even though both her father and half-brother supported the Protestant religion during their reign, Mary had other plans of how she wanted religion to be practiced throughout England. Mary believed England should be converted back to the Catholic religion and her people should be brought back to the church in Rome. One reason Mary wanted Catholicism to be the prominent religion throughout England was that both she and her mother, Catherine, were devoted Catholics. After Henry divorced Catherine, she died with a broken heart, which saddened Mary. This was Mary’s main motive to divert her country back to Catholicism. Mary wanted all her people to be Catholic so she gave them the choice of either converting to Catholicism or being burned at the stake for staying a Protestant. Nearly 300 citizens were burned alive for not agreeing to change to Catholicism. These mass killings gained Mary the nickname of “Bloody Mary”. Brutally, Mary enforced Catholicism as England’s religion when she was Queen.

Under the rule of Elizabeth I, although there were still Catholics, most of England once again converted to Protestantism. Being raised as one, Elizabeth was always truly devoted to the Protestant faith. When she became Queen, people during the time expected her to declare England as a Protestant nation and forcefully convert all the Catholics. Although she did believe in Protestantism, she did not want to abruptly change the Church because peace was her main priority. Instead, she made it clear to the people living in England that they were able to worship any faith they choose. Elizabeth’s concept to direct England towards the Protestant faith was to let Catholicism fade away naturally. She filled her Church with people of her faith, and gradually let the Catholics convert by themselves. Over time, her plan worked and England had become mainly Protestant. During her reign as Queen, many people questioned her ability to rule because she refused to restore Protestantism forcefully. Many of her advisors wanted her to start being harsher towards Catholics in order to direct them into Protestantism, but she tried to avoid this. Today, England’s religion is similar to the one that Elizabeth I created, meaning that it is tolerant and mainly Protestant. Being a tolerant leader, Elizabeth I was able to create a peaceful society while still converting England to the Protestant faith.

Although many conflicting religious beliefs existed during the Renaissance and Elizabethan eras, many supernatural beliefs were present as well. Superstition was a prominent factor in their supernatural beliefs. For example, if a bad king was chosen to rule, it would affect crop growth, their countries success, and animals behavior. Some other superstitions included saying “God bless you” after a sneeze. This was done because it was believed that right before someone sneezed the Devil could enter the person’s body and saying this phrase warded off the Devil. Most of the superstitions were created from either the fear of the unknown or the belief in witches. At the time, witches were widely believed among the people of England. They were thought to have made a pact with the Devil in exchange for supernatural powers and sought to bring people to the Devil. Most unexplainable events were blamed on witches. For instance, if beans wouldn’t grow or a plague would occur it would be blamed on a witch. Protestants believed witches should be prosecuted for their actions. It was legal to kill a witch because of the Witchcraft Act that was passed in 1563 which allowed the murdering of witches. The people would accuse many innocent people of being witches. Old, poor, single women were most often accused of being a witch. The people had a very horrific way of testing if one was a witch. They would first tie the accused to a ducking tool. Then they would dunk the chair into a body of water such as a pond or river. If the citizen floated in the water they would be considered a witch. This meant they would be killed immediately. If the accused did not float they were innocent however they most likely drowned.

Throughout the centuries of the Renaissance and Elizabethan periods, the state of the religions the people of England believed in changed dramatically and very often. In most cases, the switch between religious beliefs was caused by all the rulers’ different opinions of how religion should be practiced throughout their kingdom. The people’s supernatural beliefs, in particular the belief in witches, caused many people to acquire superstitions that affect their daily lives. Religion and the supernatural beliefs of the Renaissance and Elizabethan periods were important to people living during that time, and they helped shape the world today.

The Elizabethan Era displays many different topics for discussion. One subject is the priority of music in this crucial age. Throughout history, music has been a tremendous part of life for many cultures and time periods, while sustaining to bring people together. All music has a particular style that pertains to only their time period. The Elizabethan Era is no different. There are many unique attributes to Elizabethan era music, including the instruments, the sounds, and the entertainment that encapsulated the people during this time.

Important instruments were used during this era, and understanding how they were used and what they were is impertinent to grasp how they play a role in Elizabethan music. The first instrument group is the stringed instruments. The viol is an instrument very similar to a violin and is the main instrument in Morley’s Broken Consort. Musicians used the viol for “common ‘fanfare’ motifs using triadic patterns and octave jumps (Bryan 12)”. Next, is the bass viol, who is very similar in shape to the standing bass. It was mostly used as reinforcement for the organ (“Touching”) and had little to no movement or divisions (“Bryan”). It was also called “the Elizabethan era sub-woofer (Touching)”. Yet another stringed instrument is the lute. The lute is a stringed instrument with six to thirteen strings and is played similarly to a guitar. It is considered the most popular Elizabethan instrument (“The Arts”). The second instrument group is the wind instruments. The main instruments for wind players were the flute or recorder. They were called flute and recorded interchangeably, and took the melodies in most songs in this time period. Another wind instrument was the hautboy, the earlier version of an oboe. It “provided a high pitched, supernatural effect (Alchin)”. The last instrument group is the percussive instruments. The organ was highly used in the Elizabethan era for somber sounds. Meanwhile, the virginal was a small rectangular keyboard related to the harpsichord. Queen Elizabeth, I played the virginal (“The Arts”). Along with the virginal and the organ, there was also the spinet, which was similar to the others (“Alchin”). In conclusion, Elizabethan instruments are comprised of string, wind, and percussive instruments t create a blend of harmonic sounds that embodies this era.

The second main point is about the different sounds of music. One type of music is instrumental music. Because of its unique sounds and structure, Morley’s Broken consort was a popular setup for musicians during this time period. The structure of the consort is small, with only six members of stringed and sustaining instruments. Some of these instruments include the viol, bass viol, and flute (“Bryan 10”). Since the group was so small, they could play almost anywhere. That enticed London theaters, so the consort was often hired to play there (“Bryan 11”). Along with entertaining many people, Morley’s Broken consort also was made to entertain the queen when she sojourned other places (“Bryan 10”). “A distinguishing feature [of the broken consort] was the embellishments (Bryan 11)” made by the instruments to make the music more captivating (“Bryan 10-11”). Another type of sound in music is lyrical music and songs. Although the Elizabethan era was a while ago, there were still many pieces of music found that keep their archives living. Many genres of music were played during this age, but one of the most popular was folk-type songs. Songs commonly told stories and had many verses. To signify different voice parts, some words were italicized or bold instead of multiple staffs. Rounds of repeating lines on different beats appeared and were intended to be silly and boisterous. An example of a round would be ‘Row Row Row Your Boat’. Instead of writing all the repeated music down, the composers added repeats with added lyrics for a second verse with the same melody. The lyrics did not always rhyme, but when they did, they had a poem-like structure. Some songs were love songs with four to six acapella singers called madrigals (“Singman 170-176”). The most popular song during this time period was ‘Greensleeves’ (“Alchin”). Due to both instrumental and lyrical music, there can be much to attain from the Elizabethan era by listening to these two different sounds of music.

The last main point is about the different kinds of entertainment music from the Elizabethan era. The first kind of music is theater music, where music accompanied poems and added drama to the pieces. Shakespeare made five hundred plus references to music in his plays and poems. Each genre of play required different emotions to be portrayed, and being able to do that through music was very popular. Since the musicians were not to be seen, they were located at different positions near the stage, even under the stage. Boosts in attendance at theaters increased due to the musical involvement (“Alchin”). Another kind of entertainment music proposed was court music. Music was taught in some schools and universities, but since it was expensive to go to school, not many people learned to play instruments professionally (“Daily”). Queen Elizabeth exalted music and encouraged everyone to participate in it. When invited to the palace, nobles were expected to entertain and show musical prowess to the queen. Queen Elizabeth hired seventy or more singers and musicians. The range of musical genres these musicians played expanded over every type of music (“Alchin”). Although professional music was almost impossible to receive in lower classes, people indulged themselves in singing. Some even became servants for nobles, where they learned to play music (“Alchin”). Nearly everyone created many songs to express themselves and have fun with. Most of the songs were able to have danced with them. Even during events and holidays, people had music. After the Twelve Days of Christmas feast, people would start singing in the streets. Along with singing, the church would play their bells during celebrations. On Accession Day, when Queen Elizabeth ascended to the throne, parades went by accompanied to music. Throughout the streets, there was music filling the streets (“Daily”). Also accompanying events and festivals, troubadours and minstrels would sing ballads and tell stories to provide entertainment (“Alchin”). All in all, the Elizabethan era musical entertainment options help show the one-of-a-kind musicality of the Elizabethan era.

There are many different and important aspects of the Elizabethan era music that encompasses everything that makes this time period music unique. Instruments, styles, and entertainment show unparalleled the importance that music played in the Elizabethan era. Music in this age brought people together and showed unity for everyone. Despite the fact that there is significance in music, there is a torrent of other topics that assist in tying together the Elizabethan era completely.

Witches have made a big impact in the time of the Elizabethan era, and all throughout time. From the beginning of time witches have been known. Healing people or cursing them; being “white” or “bad” still got them on trial for doing some magic whether being for good or bad. The first-ever sighting of a witch was many many centuries ago.

The first-ever recorded citing comes from an ancient book The Bible in Exodus 22-18 Moses wise words say “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live,” in other words means “you must not allow a sorceress to live,”. People would stereotype witches to be old lady’s or widows or just females who have knowledge of potions or healing people without being a doctor. Since the beginning of time, people have always been afraid of witches. Witches were also known to have familiarity. Was a demon that has taken over any animal from a frog, mouse, spider to a bear, dog, black cat. But the worst part was the trials and their treatment.

During the time of the witch trials, and execution there, life was a living hell. Everything they went through was to prove if there were witches or not. They would have to go through one of the many tests. Were they would throw her in a river and if they floated meant they were a witch, but not the other side if they drowned it would mean that he or she is not a witch but they would be dead before living e rest of their life alive. There were many more test people who were convicted of being witch-like; walking on hot coal, and many many more test that looking back were irrelevant. There treatment on the other hand.

The way people treated witches in the Elizabethan era was very similar to the way whites treated African Americans during the civil war. People would burn the witches alive or just kill them right there. Just like they did to African Americans, they would kill them for standing up to their masters or just making/leading a rebellion against their master lead to instant death. Throughout world history hundreds maybe a couple of hundred thousand people were treated wrongly from Native Americans, African Americans, Mexicans/Latinos, people who were thought to be witches, and everyone else except whites they have had everything so easy for them while everyone else has to suffer. How every single one of them had to ever come that situation was never easy.

All of their situations either ended with them or someone dying, someone ending up in prison, or their race being defamed. It appends every day in life where people are wrongly convicted. But if they claimed to be nonguilty their life would never be the same. hats how witches were they would always be known as a witch. Take note that before you accuse someone of something take into consideration that if it’s not true you could destroy someone’s life forever, and they will probably never forgive you.

Overall it may be said that a person accused of being a witch could indefinitely be a witch. But if they are old, widow, or have any knowledge about potions and other witch things, there is a 95% chance they are a witch. Witches have been through tough times like the trials where hundredths of people were killed in many gruesome ways like burned alive, drowned, and many more horrific ways. But some witches overcame all the tragedies and kept living with their familiars.

Love, greed, jealousy. These are all emotions that a normal human being may experience, you can’t deny that, right? Emotions are like bullets in a gun, once fired, can cause disasters. This is all part of human nature, there is no way a person can hold on to their emotions forever. For example, your friend offended you, will you be able to keep it in and continue to be all friendly with her? Of course not. Maybe, you will befriend her again after confronting her, or maybe you guys won’t ever talk again. These are the possible results of your choices. Narratives or stories like William Shakespeare’s King Lear and Akira Kurosawa’s Ran both reflects the consequences of people’s choices. Their main function is to question different aspects of our world and warns us the capacity of humanity, and how it may lead to chaos.

King Lear by William Shakespeare was written in 1606 during the Elizabethan era. It was believed to be inspired by a lawsuit that occurred before the writing. The lawsuit was about Sir Brian Annesley’s eldest daughter who tried to declare her elderly father insane so that she could take control of his property. However, was lost against her younger sister, Cordell, who successfully defended her father. During the beginning of the 17th century, there was tension between the traditional feudalism and new capitalist ideas by the middle class. Shakespeare wrote this play to reflect the issues that were happening then, and what will possibly happen if the younger daughter, Cordell, failed to defend her father. In King Lear, there is a distinct line between the good and evil sides of human nature, with characters such as Cordelia, Kent and Edgar which represents kindness, and Regan, Goneril and Edmund who represents the evil side. Greed is the main cause of many problems that arise in King Lear. First of all, Lear wants to escape from the responsibilities, where he “unburdened crawl toward death”, but still wants to hold authority. This is the trigger to his downfall, alongside with his stubborn pride and anger which surpasses his judgement to see the reality. When he demanded for opulent flattery, Regan’s punning of “mettle” and the accumulation of synonyms, “deed”, “precious”, “dear”, “prize” which are related to wealth, in one way tries to appeal to Lear, but also revealing her greed. In juxtaposition to Regan and Goneril, Cordelia expresses her love to be only as much as a daughter should love her father. She is the representation of the pure side of humanity as she forgave her father even though he banished her. Edmund, the illegitimate son of Gloucester, adds on to the chaos. He plots on his legitimate brother Edgar, to gain his father’s favour and eventual inheritance. What aspect of human nature is this? Yes, greed again, and jealousy. Hence, the tragic story of King Lear reminds us that human nature is not always amiable, and every choice made might lead to disasters.

Now on to Ran by Akira Kurosawa, which is a film adaptation of King Lear. Ran was produced in 1985, forty years after the devastating nuclear warfare in Japan. The bombing of Hiroshima left a huge impact on the Japanese. It happened as a factor to end the ongoing war, which of course began due to the lust for land and power. Both King Lear and Ran began with the warlord making mistakes, and ended with them suffering the full consequences. Hidetora, an ageing king, handed over his responsibilities to his eldest son Taro, while wanting to keep his power. Saburo, his youngest son and the only son who cares for his father’s wellbeing, opposed his idea and was banished, just like Cordelia. Foreshadowing of the chaos was portrayed by Saburo snapping the three bundled arrows, indicating the break between the brothers, leading to their ultimate death. He knows that Taro cannot uphold the responsibilities as a leader to give his people peace. Instead, his thirst for power will result in war and death. The whole plot of the story revolves around the antagonists, Taro and Jiro, casting out their father and fighting against each other for power, creating chaos,which corresponds to the context of the nuclear warfare. Unlike Shakespeare, Kurosawa uses physical war to create conflict. Kurosawa’s use of vibrant colours in the movie depicts the different human qualities which causes destruction. Red is used to show the lustful and violent desires of men, and complementary colours are used to symbolise conflict. Characters who were not mindful of the spirituality and solicitude were doomed to face calamity. Just like Hidetora’s family, who were all killed due to Taro and Jiro’s greed. Ran, as an adaptation, successfully mirrors the idea of what Shakespeare wanted to portray. Kurosawa appropriated the storyline to fit the Japanese historical context without losing its meaning. He also created the characters where each represents a different aspect of human nature, just like King Lear.

Both King Lear and Ran, enlarges the complexity of human nature to question why, why do things happen? Why do wars break out? Shakespeare shows us the answer through his works, which is also mirrored by Kurosawa in his film. They portray each aspect of human nature through characters, and reveals the consequences of the choices made by those characters. The capacity of humanity is unpredictable, but Shakespeare and Kurosawa were able to warn us how decisions may lead to chaos. The universal theme of love, jealousy and family problems are all issues that are still relevant in today’s society. Therefore, a narrative’s main function not only questions our world during the time written, but also goes on to future generations.

Plays are usually fictional stories, but sometimes they are based on true history. In the play Macbeth, Shakespeare created scenes and lines, alluding to people and society in the Elizabethan era. By discussing roles of royal family, superstitions about witches, and stereotypes of men and women at that era, Shakespeare successfully upheld Elizabethan tradition and status quo.

To begin with, the correct role and responsibilities of royal family in Macbeth accurately uphold Elizabethan tradition. For example, when Malcolm clarified his true aim and tried to persuade Macduff that he had the quality to be the king, he claimed that ‘he’s a virgin’ (Shakespeare IV.iii.). In fact, in the Elizabethan era, Queen Elizabeth was a virgin for all of her life (Macbeth: Historical Background). She was a woman that married her country. She did this in the aim of devoting all of her enthusiasm and energy into regulating and developing her country. Without other distractions, she could pursue policies that cherishes the only purpose of benefitting the country and the citizens. So by making this statement, Malcolm demonstrated his determination and confidence in becoming a good king. He not only ensured Macduff’s loyalty to their country, but also illustrated his own aspiration and quality of spending all his effort in ruling the country in an efficient and beneficial way, which suits responsibilities of royalties in the Elizabethan era. In the contrast, Shakespeare also hinted the tragic fortunes of unqualified kings. Being a king, Macbeth did all for the sake of his own benefits. Comparing with his predecessor, kind king Duncan, Macbeth was cruel and selfish. He killed many kind and just people only to gain and stabilize his crown. In reality, under the rule of James VI, many people envied his position and employed treason, aiming at having the crown. But they were ‘betrayed, tortured, and brutally executed’ (Macbeth: Historical Background). James VI wanted to use this case to warn other potential traitors. As a believer in the orthodox lineage of the crown, Shakespeare advocated James VI’s actions by arranging a bad ending for Macbeth. He failed for his over-confidence and ambition, and was killed and hanged in the same way as Macdonwald’s – the first traitor of the book. Shakespeare demonstrated that if people having royal status cannot fulfill their responsibilities and roles, they cannot enjoy benefits brought by their positions. As a conclusion, Shakespeare supported the Elizabethan tradition by reinforcing the responsibilities of qualified royalties.

Secondly, Shakespeare also mentioned people’s beliefs in superstition in the Elizabethan era. For instance, right before Macbeth and Banquo met the three witches that started their tragic fate, Macbeth stated that, ‘so fair and foul a day I’ve never seen’ (I.iii.). In the Elizabethan era, balance was a great deal that many people held true belief in. They thought that good and evil things would come out together and then balance each other (Elizabethan Era Superstitions, Beliefs). The three witches’ prophecies aroused Macbeth and Lady Macbeth’s ambition and stimulated them to do endless bloody businesses, which would make them evil creatures. By writing about an abnormal fine day along with the evil witches, Shakespeare triumphantly alluded to Elizabethan people’s beliefs in the balance of evil and good. Subsequently, the three witches’ predictions originated Macbeth’s desire for the crown and his eventual death. The witches even had the power to change a person’s fate by their witchcraft. In the Elizabethan era, people strongly believed that witches had supernatural power and they could do all the things they wanted (Elizabethan Era Superstitions, Beliefs). Fear about the unknown witchcraft, people generally link witches to unlucky and unexplainable events. So in Macbeth, meeting the three witches was a turning point that separated his lucky fate and unlucky fate. Also, the boss of the witches were depicted as owning power that could exceed everything. In conclusion, Shakespeare added Elizabethan people’s beliefs in superstition to Macbeth in order to upheld the status quo.

Last but not least, Shakespeare’s portray for stereotypes of gender roles is reasonable considering the status quo in the Elizabethan era. For instance, when Duncan was murdered and all people gathered in the hall, Lady Macbeth came downstairs and asked about the situation. Seeing her, Banquo asked servants to take her away because he thought ‘the kind lady could not even hear about blood and murder’ (II.iii.). In the Elizabethan era, women were thought to be inferior to men (Women in the Elizabethan Era – Lady Macbeth). Physically and mentally weaker than men, women could only cook, help their husbands, and raise children during that time period. In Macbeth, this stereotype was determined in everyone’s heart. Under this condition, everyone believes that women could not be harmful, which reverently provided space for Lady Macbeth to plan and practice her cruel plan of killing the king without being suspected. Similarly, at the beginning of the play, Macbeth was highly respected by the bloody general: ‘ Brave Macbeth!’ (I.ii.). In that era, men were typically thought to contain enough courage to kill the enemies. So in the first chapter, Macbeth showed his capability and courage by killing all the opposing soldiers on his own, especially by killing the evil traitor and hanging his head on the wall of the castle. Men who embraced those stereotyped traits could readily gain appreciation and approval from other people as authentic men. This traditional gender role also intrigued Lady Macbeth’s later question of ‘are you a man?’(IV.) . She thought that her husband, as a brave real man who could kill opponents on the battlefield without hesitating, should not have been showing timidity in front of all of their noble guests, which does not fit Elizabethan people’s expectation for a real man and a real king. As a result, Shakespeare accurately depicted Elizabethan people’s notion of gender roles in Macbeth.

Overall, Shakespeare followed Elizabethan tradition and status quo by talking about responsibilities and roles of royal family, common Elizabethan people’s beliefs in superstitions, and stereotypes of gender roles. Being thoughtful and determined, Shakespeare stated very clearly about whether he advocated or disagreed about a particular concept without being ambiguous.

Work Cited

1. BBC. (N.D.) Macbeth: Historical Background . Retrieved from: leeclassroom.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Macbeth-Historical-Background.pdf.
2. “Women in the Elizabethan Era – Lady Macbeth.” StudyMode – Premium and Free Essays, Term Papers & Book Notes, 1 July 2012, Retrieved from: www.studymode.com/essays/Women-In-The-Elizabethan-Era-1037722.html.
3. Stargazer, and WordPress. “Elizabethan Era Superstitions, Beliefs -.” Achievements, Contribution, Legacy of Queen Elizabeth I Part1, Retrieved from: elizabethanenglandlife.com/elizabethan-england-superstitions.html.

Elizabethan literature covers the written works throughout the reign of Queen Elizabeth I from 1558 until her death in 1603 (The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica 1998). William Shakespeare published Hamlet in 1602, however, he likely wrote Hamlet in 1601 as Act II Scene 2 makes reference to an event in London that occurred that same year. In addition to drawing inspiration from 1601, he drew inspiration from the popularity of ghosts seeking revenge during the late 1580s and 1590s (Dates and Sources: Hamlet).

Ghosts are the soul of a dead person appearing in a body-like structure in a place associated with themselves. Ghosts are a result of dying in tragic and brutal conditions (Elizabethan Ghosts). During the Elizabethan era, ghosts were widely accepted and considered real and plagued those who disagreed. The Elizabethans divided ghosts into three categories; one being a vision or subjective ghost, another being an authentic ghost who died without expressing sorrow and a false ghost capable of many types of manifestations. As a result of the strong conviction in supernatural powers by the public of the 1600s, these works proved popular. Critics today are skeptical of ghosts and their purposes in Shakespeare’s works, whereas in the Elizabethan era there was a certainty in the existence of ghosts (Waters, 2015). Ghosts were not praised by Protestants as their theologians insisted they are devices by the devil to mislead and tormenting Christians. Ghosts violate their official doctrines. Roman Catholics believed that the dead would return from Purgatory in ghostly form. Purgatory is a location where sinners suffer for their wrongdoings and benefit the living by guiding them and appearing in ghost-form (Mullan, 2016).

Having previous knowledge that the film The Lion King has origins from Hamlet, the hypothesis argues as a result of the two works’ parallels the supernatural plays the same role. In The Lion King, the ghost of King Mufasa and the father of Simba appears from the clouds to encourage Simba to return to the Pridelands and take his rightful role as King against his treasonous Uncle Scar. Mufasa’s message from the heavens inspires Simba to fight Scar. Hamlet sees the same relevance of the supernatural to its plot as Prince Hamlet of Denmark reunites with the ghost of his dead father who inspires him to assume the throne against his uncle, however, the hypothesis believes an integral difference is between the Lion King and Hamlet is contrary to Simba, Prince Hamlet initially declines to follow the instruction of the ghost to assume the throne as he does not trust the ghost as there is speculation as to the intention of the ghost. Due to the Protestant beliefs of the English audience, Prince Hamlet must practice caution with ghosts, resulting in his initial decline to assume the throne aligning with his other work such as Macbeth. When the witches tell Macbeth he is right to assume the throne, he ignores at first but later decides to assume the throne by killing the king. The ghost only appears to Prince Hamlet as his father descends from Purgatory in the ghost-like state to guide his son along the journey he must follow to restore proper order to the Danish monarchy and ensure Prince Hamlet the rightful heir becomes the King who succeeds his father. Prince Hamlet follows the same course of action as Macbeth as he originally rejects the message but then, changes. However, unlike Macbeth however, he acts not for his ambition, rather he avenges his father and assumes the throne that is rightfully his. His decision to murder his uncle is an act of passionate anger and revenge.

Works Cited:

1. “Dates and Sources: Hamlet.” Royal Shakespeare Company, www.rsc.org.uk/hamlet/about-the-play/dates-and-sources.
2. The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Elizabethan Literature.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 20 July 1998, www.britannica.com/art/Elizabethan-literature.
3. “Elizabethan Ghosts.” Elizabethan Ghosts, www.elizabethan-era.org.uk/elizabethan-ghosts.htm.
4. Mullan, John. “Ghosts in Shakespeare.” The British Library, The British Library, 15 Mar. 2016, www.bl.uk/shakespeare/articles/ghosts-in-shakespeare#authorBlock1.
5. Waters, Howard. “Ghosts, Witches, and Shakespeare.” Utah Shakespeare Festival, Utah Shakespeare Festival, 11 June 2015, www.bard.org/study-guides/ghosts-witches-and-shakespeare.