Shakespearean Influence On The Lion King English Literature Essay

Shakespearean Influence On The Lion King English Literature Essay Disneys classic movie, The Lion King, and Shakespeares tragic play, Hamlet: Prince of Denmark, have countless comparable aspects. Although William Shakespeare was alive many centuries prior to the movie, many of his elements seem to have rubbed off on The Lion King. Both are stories of a young prince who is torn apart by the premature death of his father. An evil uncle takes over the thrown that should rightly belong to the young prince. Both of the heroes overcome their own flaws and reservations, and attempt to take back their beloved kingdom. The two stories are comparable in their general plot line, ghost appearances, and final scene. After the deaths of the kings, Mufasa and King Hamlet reappear to their sons in the same way; via an apparition. Both of the kings visit their sons and give guidance that sets them into action. After seeing their sons lose their audacity and strength, they become personally offended by the idleness. Mufasa appears to Simba in the clouds, and tells him indirectly that he must rule over the Pride Lands in order to keep peace. Mufasa famously says, Look inside your self Simba, you are more than what you have become, you must take your place in the circle of life. Remember who you areà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦. Remember. After being confronted by his father in the clouds, Simba gains the confidence necessary to face Scar in a battle for the throne. King Hamlet also appears to Hamlet as a ghost and urges his son to avenge his death. The King directly prompts Hamlet by saying Revenge his foul and most unnatural murder (I.v.31). The appearances of the ghosts drive the princes to action, although King Hamlet directly states his perpetrator and Mufasa only alludes to it. The endings of both stories are exceptionally analogous. The uncles, Claudius and Scar, attempt to kill their nephews in the same fashion in which they originally killed the King.  Claudius attempts to poison Prince Hamlet, just as he poisoned  King Hamlet.  Scar tries to push Simba off of a cliff, the same way in which he killed Mufasa.   However, neither of these endeavors works.  It should also be noted that disloyalty is a theme in Hamlet as well as the Lion King. In the final battles, both villains loyal accomplice turns on them. Laertes betrays Claudius, telling Hamlet that it was Claudius who put poison in the goblet. Laertes last words are Thy mothers poisoned. I can no more. The King, the Kings to blame (V.ii.350-351). Also, the Hyenas turn on Scar after their years of loyal service. Hamlet: Prince of Denmark and The Lion King, are parallel stories of young princes whose uncles murder the King and take over the thrown that should rightly belong to the Princes. Hamlet and Simba overcome their own flaws and reservations to take back their beloved kingdom. The two stories are comparable in their general plot line, ghost appearances, and final scene. Although many of the classic Disney movies, including the Lion King, appear to be pure amusement for young kids, if one probes deep enough beneath the surface, metaphors, as well as connections to some of the greatest literature of all time can be revealed. William Shakespeare is unquestionably one of the most influential writers of all time, so it is not surprising that many of his most distinguished works, especially Hamlet: Prince of Denmark, are the basis of many contemporary works.

Legal History of Bangladesh Short

Legal System has developed gradually in Bangladesh with her growth as a nation over the centuries. Before the advent of British rule this part of the country was under Mughal rule. The Mughals seized power from the Turko-Afghan sultans who ruled the country since the beginning of the 13th century. It was under the Hindu ruler (Aryans) for 1500 years before and after the beginning of Christian era when they conquered the land by vanquishing the indigenous people. During the Turko-Mughal rule the country formed the eastern part of Subah Bangla and, during the British rule, eastern part of the province of Bengal.Historical development of Legal System of Bangladesh: Legal history of Bangladesh can conveniently be studied under five important periods — Hindu Period, Muslim Period, British Period, Pakistan Period and after independence (or Bangladesh period History & Development of Legal System in Bangladesh: Hindu Period to Pakistan Period Md. Ziadul Islam Chowdhury Sadi Department of Law University of Dhaka Legal System has developed gradually in Bangladesh with her growth as a nation over the centuries.Before the advent of British rule this part of the country was under Mughal rule. The Mughals seized power from the Turko-Afghan sultans who ruled the country since the beginning of the 13th century. It was under the Hindu ruler (Aryans) for 1500 years before and after the beginning of Christian era when they conquered the land by vanquishing the indigenous people. During the Turko-Mughal rule the country formed the eastern part of Subah Bangla and, during the British rule, eastern part of the province of Bengal. Historical development of Legal System of Bangladesh:Legal history of Bangladesh can conveniently be studied under five important periods — Hindu Period, Muslim Period, British Period, Pakistan Period and after independence (or Bangladesh period). HINDU PERIOD: Introduction & Sources of Law Legal system in Bangladesh under Hindu period is also known as Aryan legal system because during Hindu period law and legal system were mainly developed by Aryans who migrated from central Asia[1]. After coming to India the Aryans followed certain norms in their conduct with one another. Read also History QuizzesThe rules of conduct (achar) of each class included religious observances which were binding, and violation of the same was expiated by the rituals of penance (prayaschitta). The Brahmins, the priestly class, helped the wrongdoers in performing those rituals. Those rules of conduct were called dharma and included duties and obligations. In course of time it became the dharma of the king to compel the people to observe their rules of conduct and the Brahmins, as the repository of knowledge of those rules, advised the king in administering the same. Legal obligations and their violations were

How Did Erasmus Use Folly to Criticize the Catholic Church

How did Erasmus use â€Å"Folly† to criticize the Catholic Church of his Day? It may seem odd or different to admire and acclaim Folly, but there is a definite benefit to foolishness: the freedom to tell only factual information. In Praise of Folly, Erasmus put this independence to good use in repeating to the readers, a civilization significantly besmirched by mature worries, that a person is unable to serve both God and Mammon. He leveled over his irony by promising us that â€Å"there is merit in being attacked by Folly† (7), and closed with the recap that â€Å"it's Folly and a woman who's been speaking† (134), a renunciation that permitted him to be as brutal as he desired to be in his condemnation. He definitely found necessity for severity, for the standards he saw at the center of Christianity, the sympathy and detriment of the Scriptures, were everywhere stunned by gluttony, drive, and fallacy. Having the disguise of Folly, Erasmus critiqued the developing middle-class financial values, policies of hierarchy, and even Catholicism itself, and in the course he safeguarded the traditional Christian ethic, which appears as Folly to the world. Obviously, the affection of Christ was distant from the princes of Christendom, having been substituted by egotism and exploitation. While Erasmus remained faithful to the Catholic Church, Erasmus observed many exploitations among her ministry, theologians, and untrained persons, and he dedicated a huge apportion of the Praise of Folly to disapproval of the sleaze in the Church. The sleaze of the clergy was similar to that of the princes, and like the princes their existences made ridicule of the â€Å"linen vestment, snow-white in colour to indicate a pure and spotless life† (107) and other symbols of the ideal Erasmus envisioned for the cardinals, bishops, and popes. Their greatest care was â€Å"netting their revenues into the bag† (107). The popes were biased by the fraud of â€Å"their wealth and honours, their sovereignty and triumphs, their many offices, dispensations, taxes, and indulgences, all their horses and mules, their retinue, and their countless pleasures† (109). In what way, as â€Å"vicars of Christ†, were they able to â€Å"imitate his life of poverty and toil† (108). Reasonably, they permitted individuals to â€Å"enjoy deluding themselves with imaginary pardons for their sins† (63-64) through the deal of pardons, and Church offices were given to the highest bidder rather than the most religious. Erasmus also critiqued the reclusive system, being detached from civilization seemed to make the monks â€Å"a long way removed from religion† (96)l. The priests, like their elders, believed mostly of â€Å"harvesting their gains† (112), using Scripture and ancient writings to reinforce their right to the duty, while â€Å"it never occurs to them how much can be read everywhere about the duty they owe the people in return† (111). Erasmus criticized the theologians, in particular the scholastics, for the exclusiveness that triggered them to â€Å"write for a learned minority† (81) and divide theological aspects that only added to division. Among the untrained people, Erasmus saw â€Å"varieties of silliness† in the â€Å"ordinary life of Christians everywhere† (66). Fallacy and empty rites made up most of the varieties of silliness. Erasmus spoke out contrary to the sect of saints, whose supporters had disremembered the vital opinion that â€Å"the saint will protect you if you'll try to imitate his life† (66) in their dependence on the saints to get them out of dilemmas. He also cautioned of the Virgin Mary that â€Å"the common ignorant man comes near to attributing more to her than to her son† (65). The â€Å"varieties of silliness† and fallacy of the commonplace people had substantially fogged the important principles of Christianity, yet they were â€Å"readily permitted and encouraged by priests who are not unaware of the profit to be made thereby† (66). Erasmus acknowledged that the standards and financial system of Capitalism that were evolving along with the new middle-class was in many ways differed to conservative Christianity, so traders and their class were integrated in the mocking attacks of Folly. He criticized many classes of people for their commitment to Mammon: gamblers who â€Å"make shipwreck of their entire resources† (62), the man who â€Å"marries a dowry, not a wife† (76), or â€Å"thinks himself rich on loans and credit† (76), â€Å"the priests who look for profit by their flocks† (66), and the merchants themselves, â€Å"most foolish of all, and the meanest† (76). Erasmus brought out their â€Å"lies, perjury, thefts, frauds, and deceptions† (76), which does not stop them from seeing themselves greater on justification of their prosperity. He also made note of the narcissism of this wealth, though one can be affluent and influential, â€Å"if he lacks all spiritual goods and can never be satisfied, then he's surely the poorest of men† (44). â€Å"Spiritual goods† such as devout knowledge are not good business sense: â€Å"How much money,† Folly asks, â€Å"can he make in business if he lets wisdom be his guide, if he recoils from perjury, blushes if he's caught telling a lie, and takes the slightest notice of those niggling scruples wise men have about thieving and usury? (114) The traders instead displayed a sophisticated understanding to outfit their gluttony. Erasmus also criticized the tiered type of his society, in particular criticizing the dishonesty of kings and their courts and the desolation of noble designations. He reprimanded those who took pleasure in â€Å"an empty title of nobility† (67), proposing they might be called â€Å"low-born and bastard† because they were â€Å"so far removed from virtue, which is the sole source of nobility† (45). He grieved that honesty is far from stately courts, princes â€Å"having no one to tell them the truth, and being obliged to have flatterers for friends† (56). His idea of what a monarch should be is very forward and point blank, he â€Å"has to devote himself to public instead of his personal affairs, and must think only of the well-being of his people† (104). But in reality it was far dissimilar, as Erasmus showed the idea of the prince, whose immoralities make ridicule of the royal representations of what he should be, â€Å"a man ignorant of the law, well nigh an enemy to his people's advantage while intent on his personal convenience, a dedicated voluptuary, a hater of learning, freedom, and truth, without a thought for the interests of his country, and measuring everything in terms of his own profit and desires. Then give him a gold chain, symbol of the concord between all the virtues, a crown studded with precious stones to remind him that he must exceed all others in every heroic quality. Add a sceptre to symbolize justice and a wholly uncorrupted heart, and finally, the purple as an emblem of his overwhelming devotion to his people. If the prince were to compare these insignia with his way of life, I'm sure he would blush to be thus adorned, and fear that some satirist would turn all these trappings into a subject for mockery and derision† (105). Though he criticized the irrationality that led to fraud in the Church, societal ladders of rank, and finances, Erasmus smoothed out his justification of conservative Christianity with admiration for a different kind of Folly, the vital Scriptural truths of Christianity which are the knowledge of God that seems silliness to people. He mentioned Paul's lessons of the folly of the Gospel, declaring that â€Å"the Christian religion has a kind of kinship with folly in some form, though it has none at all with wisdom† (128). If â€Å"by stoic definition wisdom means nothing else but being ruled by reason; and folly, by contrast, is being swayed by the dictates of the passions† (29), then the dominant education of Christianity, love for God and one's fellow citizen, was in fact similar to folly, for love is definitely a passion. This forsaken love along with empathy, martyr, and the other principles of Christian idiocy, was what Erasmus pursued to support in his criticism of a civilization tainted in the observance of Mammon rather than God.

Rizal, Bonifacio, and Aguinaldo Filipino Independence