ABSTRACT
Comparative Literature involves a comparative analysis of two or more literary works of art. Two literatures are compared and understood through the facts and historical process across cultural boundaries, movements and beliefs. Thus, it goes across national borders, across time periods, across languages, across genres, across boundaries between two or more literary works. This study examines the impact of comparative literature on people, nations, countries and the world at large. Thus, the importance of comparative literature to the unity of nations cannot be over-emphasized; as it encourages mutual understanding, broad-mindedness, cultural dialogues and access through adaptation, translation etc.
A comparative analysis of Hamlet by Williams Shakespeare, and Wesoo Hamlet, by Femi Osofisan is undertaken. Williams Shakespeare’s Hamlet is an Elizabethan drama that centres on an eponymous character, Hamlet, the prince of Denmark. Femi Osofisan’s Wesoo Hamlet or The Resurrection of Hamlet is a re-writing of William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, craftily transposed into contemporary social realities of Nigeria, specifically the Yoruba-speaking part.While Shakespeare’s Hamlet emphasizes revenge as a means of justice, based on the renaissance/Elizabethan ideology, religious and socio-cultural belief system. Osofisan emphasizes revenge as a means of salvation based on the Yoruba belief system, and the concept of afterlife.
Keywords: Adaptation, Shakespeare, Osofisan, Revenge, Salvation.
Osofisan's Wèsóo, Hamlet!
CHAPTER ONE
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
Literature is a large source that births other component units. Therefore, it is impossible to dive into her foetus’ literary pool, without, first and foremost, acknowledging her, the mother. Literature springs from our inborn love of telling a story, of arranging words in pleasing patterns, of expressing in words some special aspect of our human experience. It is usually set down in printed characters for us to read, though some forms of it are performed on certain social occasions. The primary aim of literature is to give pleasure, to entertain those who voluntarily attend to it.
There are, of course, many different ways of giving pleasure or entertainment, ranging from the most philosophical and profound. It is important to note that the writer of literature is not tied to facts in quite the same way as the historian, the economist or the scientist, whose studies are absolutely based on what has actually happened, or on what actually does happen, in the world of reality. We soon discover, however that the literature which entertains us best does not keep us for long in the other-world of fantasy or unreality.
Iwuchukwu notes that, the greatest pleasure and satisfaction to be found in literature occurs where (as it so often does) it brings us back to the realities of human situations, problems, feelings and relationships. The writers of literature, being less tied to fact than the historian or the scientist, have more scope to comment on the facts, to arrange them in unusual ways to speculate not only on what is, but on what ought to be, or what might be. Writers are sometimes, therefore people with visionary or prophetic insights into human life. (05)
According to Iwuchukwu (2008), Literature is a form of recreation; an imaginative art which expresses thoughts and feelings of the artist on events around him. In most cases, it deals with life experiences. The author/artist uses words in a powerful, effective and captivating manner to paint his picture of human experience. (06)
He, Iwuchukwu, notes that Literature can be in written or oral form (prose and poetry). It could also be presented in form of performance (drama and theatre). All of us who read literature will find our knowledge of human affairs broadened and deepened, whether in the individual, the social, the racial or the international sphere; we shall understand the possibilities of human life, both for good and evil; we shall understand how we came to live at a particular time and place, with all its pleasures and vexations and problems; and we shall perhaps be able to make right rather than wrong choices. In this study, concentration will be on drama; the enactment, and re-enactment of reality on stage. (07)
Drama, as a literary genre, is realized in performance that is why Yanni (quoted in Dukore) describes it as “staged art” (867). As a literary form, it is designed for the theatre because characters are assigned roles and they act out their roles as the action is enacted on stage. These characters can be human beings, dead or spiritual beings, animals, or abstract qualities. Drama is an adaptation, recreation and reflection of reality on stage.( 868)
Generally, Yanni noted, the word dramatist is used for any artist who is involved in any dramatic composition either in writing or in performance. Drama is different from other genres of literature. It has unique characteristics that have come about in response to its peculiar nature. Really, it is difficult to separate drama from performance because during the stage performance of a play, drama brings life experiences realistically to the audience. It is the most concrete of all genres of literature. When you are reading a novel, you read a story as told by the novelist. (870)
According to Iwuchukwu, The poem’s message, most times, is not direct because it is presented in a compact form or in a condensed language. The playwright does not tell the story instead you get the story as the characters interact and live out their experiences on stage. In drama, the characters/actors talk to themselves and react to issues according to the impulse of the moment. Drama is therefore presented in dialogue. It is obvious that, as a genre of literature, drama occupies a unique position. It is also the most active of other genres of literature because of the immediate impact it has on the audience. It is used to inform, to educate to entertain and in some cases to mobilize the audience. Drama is an imitation of life. (880)
Brecht opines that drama is different from other forms of literature because of its unique characteristics. It is read, but basically, it is composed to be performed, so the ultimate aim of dramatic composition is for it to be presented on stage before an audience. This implies that it a medium of communication. It has a message to communicate to the audience. It uses actors to convey this message. This brings us to the issue of mimesis or imitation. We say that drama is mimetic which means that it imitates life. He insists that drama is not just an imitation of action, but a tool for the demonstration of social conditions. According to him, it is not just an entertainment but an instrument of political and social change. It is a branch of literature which does not only imitate, but also presents itself realistically to the audience/people. It thrives on impassivity; action. Therefore, it is this mimetic impulse that makes it appeal to people. (51)
On what African drama should encapsulate, according to Iwuchukwu, Christopher Okigbo, Ekwensi Cyprian, Gabriel Okara, Chinua Achebe, and others, emphasize the need for the works of arts to pulsate in African-ness, authorship must be African, settings, themes, etc. must all be rooted in Africa black soil. (30)
So therefore, since, as advocated by these scholars, it is safe to say that the parameter to measure the African-ity or African-ness of the African drama is its display of African roots, views and consciousness. African drama, therefore, is the expression of African people's consciousness in their specific and dynamic situation.
THE CONCEPT OF COMPARATIVE LITERATURE
The term ‘Comparative Literature’, according to Dass (2000), is the comparison between two or more literary works of art. It analyses the similarities, dissimilarities and parallels between two or more literatures. It further studies the themes, modes, conventions, and use of folk tales, myths in two different literatures or even more. Etymologically, comparative literature denotes any literary work or works when compared with any other literary work or works. Hence, comparative literature is the study of inter-relationship between any two or more than two significant literary works or literatures. Comparative literature functions as the totality of human experiences into its embrace, and thus all internal human relationships among the various parts of the world are realized, through the critical approach to literatures under comparative study. It helps to block national and international boundaries, and in place of that - universality of human relationships emerge out. Thus, according to Dass, the term comparative literature includes comparative study of regional literatures, national literatures, and international literatures. However, there are many over-lapping terms in this concern such as - Universal literature, General literature, International literature and World literature. It includes experiences of human life and behaviour as a whole. In the conception of world literature the works of Homer, Dante, Shakespeare, Milton, Goetha, Emerson, Thoreau, Valmik, Vyas should be taken as one for comparison.(12)
The central purpose of comparative literature is simply to create or establish a relationship among different writers and literatures from different sources, help enhance their understanding of literature as a human intellectual activity with similar aesthetics and social functions in different cultures.
Dass (2000) opines that comparative approach ensures a lucidity since it involves the study of writers from two or more literary traditions (in this study; Shakespeare and Osofisan; African and Western to be precise), backed by at least a consciousness of sameness (which still depends, considering the different periods they exist(ed)) and difference in the themes and conventions of the two traditions (as the English differs from the Africans). A distinct advantage of Comparative Literature is knitted in the baton to cross the usual fence by which works of arts/literature are defined. These fences could be linguistic (limitation through language), cultural (limitation through culture) and historical (different historical background) boundaries. These fences can be erected on less rational grounds, to reflect racial, political, cultural or geographical divisions.
Comparative Literature is an important approach to African criticism; it is essential that while making comparative study, adequate attention must be given to the sources, themes, myths, forms, artistic strategies, social and religious movements and trends into consideration. The comparatist with his critical approach and investigations will find out, the similarities and dissimilarities among various works that he has undertaken for the purpose of comparison and justification lies in the fact that his approach must be unbiased and unprejudiced to reach the ultimate truth. It is only his earnest and sincere approach which will bring forth the naked truth or natural results and this really is the purpose of comparative study.
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY.
In today’s world, this subject, comparative literature, is getting more and more attention. There are many reasons behind it. The first and foremost reason is that, it contributes to the unity of nations. It also encourages mutual understanding, broad-mindedness, cultural dialogues and intertextuality. But one can hardly think of comparative literature without immediate thinking of other aspects of it: translation adaptation, Folklore, Influence, Genres and Themes, criticism etc.
Historically, before this contemporary epoch, comparative literature has been a result of a reaction against the narrow nationalism of the 19th century scholarship in England. Though it was an occasional tradition, the comparative study of literary works was in vogue, right from the beginning of the Christian era. Romans were the pioneers in the field of comparative study. They out did the Greeks in the development of comparative study. The Romans worked out the tradition of comparing the works of great orators and poets of Greek and Roman and found out many similarities among their studies of literary works. No doubt, Quintillion was the pioneer in this concern, but Longinus endeavored to set the comparative study in systematized discipline. If he had preceded Quintillion he would have been the pioneer in this field. He brought forth the names of Homer and Plato etc. Later on Matthew Arnold, an English poet and critic, Hutcheson Macaulay Posnett, Rane Wellek, Rene Etiemble, R.S. Pathak, Ezra Pound, T.S Elliot etc. all contributed immensely towards the development of comparative literature. The establishment of schools of comparative literature, French school of comparative literature, German school of comparative literature, Russian School of comparative Literature, Chinese School of comparative literature, Canadian School of comparative Literature, and American school of comparative literature; help advance the development of comparative literature.
CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS
Pathak( n.d) notes that, there is a movement among comparativists in the United States and elsewhere to re-focus the discipline away from the nation-based approach with which it has previously been associated towards a cross-cultural approach that pays no heed to national borders. Works of this nature include Alamgir Hashmi's The Commonwealth, Comparative Literature and the World, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak's Death of a Discipline, David Damrosch's What is World Literature?, Steven Tötösy de Zepetnek's concept of "comparative cultural studies", and Pascale Casanova's The World Republic of Letters. It remains to be seen whether this approach will prove successful given that comparative literature had its roots in nation-based thinking and much of the literature under study still concerns issues of the nation-state. Given developments in the studies of globalization and interculturalism, comparative literature, already representing a wider study than the single-language nation-state approach, may be well suited to move away from the paradigm of the nation-state. While in the West comparative literature is experiencing institutional constriction, there are signs that in many parts of the world the discipline is thriving, especially in Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean, and the Mediterranean. (35)
AIM AND OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this study is to compare Williams Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Femi Osofisan’s African adaptation, of the same work, titled: Wesoo Hamlet. This analysis will include critical examination of the works’ (Hamlet, and Wesoo Hamlet) structural and generic similarities, and differences. We will further examine the source of the works’ influence, and their literary analogues; through a study of their themes, styles, antecedents, and the history of their reception. This study will also establish one of the major functions of Comparative Literature; which is to help the audience (African and European) avoid the distortion of values of the literary work. This, it will do by providing the right information, and critical guidance for the correct appreciation of the work as experienced in its proper situation in a particular time and place. Furthermore, it will examine the concept of afterlife, re-incarnation, and masque. And, also, the issues of neocolonialism, revenge, Shakespeare’s source Hamlet), the influence on Osofisan, Osofisan’s adaptation’s direction, their (Shakespeare and Osofisan) ideologies, the era they lived in (English Elizabethan era, and contemporary period), characteristics of Shakespeare’s tragedy, Osofisan’s perspective about tragedy, and most importantly, the socio-political relevance of the two plays.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Research works are basically problem locators and solvers. They, simply, seek answers to certain questions which have not been answered so far and the answers depend upon human efforts. Most of us recognize that the progress which has been made in our society has been largely the result of thorough research. Understanding the above, extensively, brings us to the juncture of what is the problem, and how can it be resolved. The aim of this study is to find a conspicuous answer that will best resolve these problems.
The idea about Comparative Literature implies that the detection of similarities in works that are relatively different, and dissimilarities in works that are ‘almost’, similar of great qualities by two playwrights of unlike cultures. The, comparative literature, has over the years enjoyed a lot of attentions. Many works have been done in this area; especially Greek plays, French plays, Africans plays, and English plays. But none has been on Osofisan’s new play texts titled: Wesoo Hamlet; released and published in 2012, which is an adaptation of Williams Shakespeare’s Hamlet. The ‘’freshness’’ of the work necessitated this research work.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY.
This research work, at the end of this study, will contribute to the unity, culture, and understanding of nations, literarily, all over the world. It will encourage mutual understanding, broad-mindedness, cultural dialogues and intertextuality. It will prove that, through adaptation and translation there is access to all literatures of the world. It will humanize, through literature, relationship between people and nations, and as intermediary between language thoughts, customs, traditions, and cultural differences.
SCOPE OF THE STUDY
This study will strictly be on the comparative analysis of Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Osofisan’s Wesoo Hamlet. The critical analysis of the two plays; which will include general exposition on the renaissance epoch, which is considered as the forerunner of modernity; and the contemporary period, ideological leaning of the two plays, thematic preoccupation, the source, influence and reception of the plays. Our scope has been limited to the above, and lastly, the relevance of the genre, and adaptation etc. will all be considered.
METHODOLOGY
A textual analysis of Hamlet by Williams Shakespeare, and Wesoo Hamlet , by Femi Osofisan. Other research materials such as text books, pdfs, thesis, dissertations, online websites, selected creative texts, internet, dictionaries, periodicals, encyclopedias, journals, history books from recognized, acceptable, relevant writers and scholars in this field are used. Everything related to the works of these two authors will be considerably used.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Hamlet by Williams Shakespeare and Wesoo Hamlet by Femi Osofisan are two great plays that show both playwrights’ writing skills and certified them as splendid stage directors. The plays are remarkable plays because of their thematic concern and unique form. The plays condemn immorality, murder, betrayal, evil ambition, revenge and vaulting ambition. It draws attention to societal issues, corruption, neocolonialism, sociological issue, sociopolitical issue, social class: bourgeois and proletariat society, blue blood struggle, psychoanalytic factor etc.
Napokoeva opined that, the best method of judging comparative literature is the Marxian method ‘(Marxism), for this is the method to judge impartially the contribution of the common people to literature. It is essential to analyses thoroughly the contributions of national literatures and it would not be correct to remain indifferent to the pealing critics of national literatures and mix them up with the literatures of the world. So by studying different literatures and analyzing their characteristics and the points of unity among them to discover the roles of these points in the evolution of the society, we can give a dependable judgment.
Therefore, in an attempt to do a meticulous justification for this study, this research will make use of Marxism theory for a detailed analysis of this research work.
MARXISM
According to www.Sociology.Org.Uk (2005), "Marxism" is a perspective that involves a number of differing "sub-perspectives" (that is, whilst there tends to be a general agreement about the need to construct a critique of Capitalist society, there are major disagreements between writers working within this perspective). keeping this in mind, we can summarise some of the main Marxist ideas in the following terms:
1. Marxism emphasises the idea that social life is based upon "conflicts of interest". The most fundamental and important of these conflicts is that between the Bourgeoisie (those who own and control the means of production in society) and the Proletariat (those who simply sell their labour power in the market place of Capitalism).
2. Unlike the Functionalist version of Structuralist sociology, the concept of social class is more than a descriptive category; social class is used to explain how and why societies change. Class conflict represents a process whereby change comes about through the opposition of social classes as they pursue what they see to be their (different and opposed) collective interests in society.
3. Marxism is a political theory who's main concern is twofold:
a. To expose the political and economic contradictions inherent in Capitalism (for example, the fact that while people co-operate to produce goods, a Capitalist class appropriates these goods for its private profit).
b. To point the way towards the establishment of a future Communist society.
4. Fundamentally, there are considered to be two great classes in Capitalist society (the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat). However, at any given moment a number of class fractions will exist (that is, subdivisions of each main class). For example, the Bourgeoisie might be subdivided into:
The Haute (High) Bourgeoisie (owners of large companies), The Petit (Small) Bourgeoisie (owners of small businesses) and The Professions (people who, while not owners of the means of production, help to control the day-to-day running of industries).
5. Marx characterised human history in terms of the way in which ownership of the means of production was the most important single variable involved in the characterisation of each distinct period (or epoch) in history. He identified five major epochs:
a. Primitive communism - characteristic of early human history where people held everything in common.
b. The Ancient epoch (slave society) - societies based upon slavery where the means of production was owned and controlled by an aristocratic elite.
c. Feudal society - where land was the most important means of production. This was owned / controlled by an aristocratic class, the majority of people belonging to a peasant class (who had few, if any, political rights).
d. Capitalist society - where technological development s(machinery etc.) has allowed a bourgeois class to exploit factory forms of production for their private gain.
The aristocracy (landowners) have either been marginalized or co-opted into the Bourgeoisie whilst the majority of people are wage-labourers (they own little or no capital). The main relations of production in this epoch are between employers and employees (those who own and use capital and those who exchange their labour power for a wage). An employer does not own his / her employee in this society and various political freedoms and equalities are able to develop. e. Communist society - where the means of production are held "in common" for the benefit of everyone in society (the dictatorship of the Proletariat). In this society class conflict is finally resolved and this represents the "end of history" since no further form of society can ever develop...
6. Marxists tend to divide Capitalist society into two related "spheres of influence": a. The economic base (or infrastructure) and b. The political and ideological super structure. Those whose own and control the means of production (the economic infrastructure) are powerful in that society (because they are able to use wealth to enhance and expand their power). However, this economically powerful class has to translate this power into political power (control over the State, machinery of government and so forth) and ideological power (control over how people think about the nature of the social world, capitalist society and so forth).
7. Marxists use the concept of hegemony (in basic terms, "leadership with the consent of the led") to express this relationship. According to a Marxist such as Althusser there are two ways in which a ruling class can consolidate its hegemony over other classes: a. Through the use of force (the police and army, for example). Althusser called these "Repressive State Apparatuses" (RSA’s) b. Through the use of ideology / socialisation (the mass media, social workers, teachers and the like - a form of "soft policing") Althusser called these "Ideological State Apparatuses" (ISA’s).
In Capitalist society, hegemonic control will always be a mixture of the above, but in Capitalist democracies the latter will be most important since a ruling class seeks to control and exploit the Proletariat by trying to convince them that this society is the best of all possible worlds...
8. Marxist theory emphasises the total critique of Capitalist society; in order to understand the way things appear we have to understand how social life is produced through a combination of economic, political and ideological conflicts.
9. Individuals are not the focal point of Marxist theories (Marxists are mainly concerned with understanding social structures); "individuals" are only significant when they act together as a class. That is, when people develop a consciousness of themselves as belonging to a particular social class (a "class in itself") and act upon that awareness to produce social change (a "class for itself").
10. Some Marxists use the concept of false consciousness to explain how the Proletariat is co-opted by a ruling class into the values of Capitalist society (a member of the working class is falsely conscious of their true class position when they fail to see themselves as a member of an exploited, oppressed, class).
11. The concept of alienation is used to refer to the way in which Capitalist society degrades both the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat. The Proletariat are alienated from society because although they are responsible for producing goods co-operatively (for the potential benefit of society as a whole), the fruits of their labour are appropriated by the Bourgeoisie (in the form of profit) for their private use. The Bourgeoisie are alienated from their fellow human beings because of their exploitation and oppression of the rest of society. This condition of alienation is used to explain why such things as crime occurs in society - the social bonds that should tie people together are fatally weakened by the exploitative relationship between Capital and Labour. (03
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
History and Evolution of Comparative Literature
Comparative methodology was consolidated between the 17th and 18th centuries in the age of the first globalization. According to Paola Mildonian in her paper; “Comparative Literature and other fields of knowledge”; it is an offshoot of empiricism and expressed the desire to give systematic order to the data of scientific experience, whether it be mathematical logic, biochemistry or the human sciences. This order was intended to replace the taxonomies of Aristotelian logic and rhetoric. Explaining further; Traditional comparative literature developed rather in the heart of French positivism on the model of the other sciences. It had a factual view of literary phenomena. It studied influences and analogies between documented facts and drew an evolutionary picture of literary movements, currents and genres.
Alexandru Boldor, speaking about the evolution of comparative Literature, says in his paper; Perspective on Comparative Literature’’, The act of comparing national literatures originated long before it was established as an academic domain, individual theoretical works and considerations emerging in several national literatures before “comparative literature” became an “institutionalized” discipline. Influential cultures as the Ancient Greek already imposed the comparison of their features on the artistic institutions of other civilization. Early scholars wrote about Hellenistic and Babylonian literature (Berossos) or Hellenistic and Phoenician literature (Philon of Byblos). These early works may look closer to what we call today ethnographical research, rather than literary studies, according to contemporary standards. The resemblance between some comparative analyses and ethnographies remains manifest to our days, the “cultural” being the first of the three functions assigned to the term “comparative literature” by René Wellek and Austin Warren (05).
Elmas Sahin in his paper; On Comparative Literature; traced the origin of comparative literature. According to him, the word 'comparative' derived from Latin comparativus, from comparare is an observation or judgment of similarities or dissimilarities between two or more branches of science or subjects of study such as comparative literature, comparative religion, comparative language and soon (6).
The word comparative as an adjective was firstly used by Shakespeare in his play King Henry IV, Part I in 1597 in the words Falstaff's uttered to Hal, Prince of Wales: “…the most comparative, rascalliest, sweet young prince. (Shakespeare, 1773, p.235)
Later on, many Middle Age authors continued the tradition inaugurated by their Greek and Roman predecessors. Classic works like those of Homer or Cicero were copied, imitated, annotated, or interpreted, and the new writings allowed their comparison to the originals. However, at this time still, the various occurrences of comparative studies were rather accidental, than an established principle. It was not until the Renaissance period that this kind of work gained a proper form.
In the renaissance period, the first to introduce a form of “comparative philology” in a work of academic consequence was Dante. His De Vulgari Eloquentia (c.1304-06) is a pioneering inquiry of linguistics and style pleading for the use of the vernacular in serious works of literature.
Although all the writings mentioned so far were of significant importance for the historical advance of this subject matter, one of the most vital and interesting periods of modern history was really the era leading to changes of prevalent importance for its evolution: the nineteenth century.
At the beginning of the nineteenth century, a passionate Dutch traveler named Wilhelm de Clercq was publishing comparative literary studies issued by the cultural observations made during his journeys. In France, a scholar named François Noel published in 1816 a course book juxtaposing studies of French writing to Italian, Latin, or English counterparts, gathered under the name “Cours de littérature comparée.” However, it was Abel-François Villemain, professor at Sorbonne, who was the first to offer an academic course of full academic stature bearing the same title in the summer of 1828. Its declared purpose was to demonstrate “through a comparative panorama the things gathered by the French spirit from foreign literatures, and those it offered in return.” The course was continued in 1829 and published thereafter. The subject matter of the several studies contained concern mainly the reciprocal impact between French and English literatures, as well as the French influence upon Italian writings during the 18th century.
In 1830, Jean-Jacques Ampère (the son of the renowned physicist) presented at Marseille a dissertation about Nordic Poetry, from the Eddas to Shakespeare. Ampère was perhaps the first to trace an analogy between the comparative method in natural sciences and literature. The effects of Ampère’s works found an echo in the French literary world. Sainte-Beuve credits him as the sole founder of “comparative literary history” in his articles published in the Revue des Deux Mondes.
In Switzerland, Joseph Hornung presented a course in Comparative Literature at the Academy of Lausanne in 1850. In Geneva, a similar course was offered beginning in 1858 by Albert Richard, within the chair of modern literature. Eventually the course generated a chair of its own, called “modern comparative literature,” which survived until 1895. Germany continued the tradition of “cosmopolite” literary studies inaugurated by Schlegel, Herder, and Goethe and in 1854, Moriz Carrière published “Das wesen und die Formen der Poesie,” where the first occurrence of the coinage “Vergleichende Literaturgeschichte happened.
In England, at the middle of the century, Matthew Arnold was aware of the comparatist perspectives cultivated on the French literary setting. He embraced some of their ideas, and was the first to translate the term “literature comparée” into English, according to his belief that; “the English literary critic must know literatures other than his own and be in touch with European standards.” (10)
Alexandru Boldor, affirm in his article ‘’Perspectives on Comparative Literature’’, that, the first time in English the phrase “comparative literature” was used, was in 1848, used in an unpublished letter by Matthew Arnold who translated Ampère's use of "histoire comparative." . In the private letter he wrote his mother, unpublished till 1895, Mathew Arnold uses the phrase 'comparative literature'
"How plain it is now, though an attention to the comparative literatures for the last fifty years might have instructed any one of it that England is in a certain sense far behind the Continent. In conversation, in the newspapers, one is so struck with the fact of the utter insensibility, one may say, of people to the number of ideas and schemes…" (Arnold, 1895, p. 10)
Arnold defines the term in a conference, dated 14 November 1857, titled "On the Modern Element in Literature," printed in Macmillan's Magazine, February 1869, in these words:
"Everywhere there is connection, everywhere there is illustration: no single event, no single literature, is adequately comprehended except in its relation to other events, to other literatures. ( Arnold, 1914, p.g 456).
The other European countries were also trying to keep the pace with a transforming world of literature. In Italy, Francesco de Sanctis also presented a course in comparative literature in Naples. The exceptional cultural diversity of Central Europe was also a profitable ground for the development of humanistic (social, historical, literary) comparative studies of any kind. Professor Hugo Meltzl founded in collaboration with Samuel Brassai in 1877 a Journal of Comparative Literature at the University of Klausenburg (Kolozsvàr, Cluj,) published in six, then ten languages, and replaced in 1882 until 1888 by Acta comparationis litterarum universarum.
The year 1886 was to bring about two events considered as crucial for the history of comparative literature: the publication of the German Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Literaturgeschichte under the direction of Max Koch, which included in its first number a foreword-manifesto trying to delineate a number of principles of study. Most importantly, the same year witnessed the publication of a book named “Comparative Literature” by Hutchenson Macaulay Posnett, considered today by many scholars as the foundational work for the studies gathered under the same name during the following century.
THE CONCEPT OF COMPARATIVE LITERATURE: Definitions:
What comparative literature means today is very different from previous discourses in global context. Cultural studies take us on reconsideration or redefinition of the term of comparative literature. According to Boldor, Today boundaries of comparative literature have been expended by comparative cultural studies. Of course, we have some chance to learn or know progress, methods, and approaches of comparative literature by means of relevant theoretical and practical/applied books; however, it can be said that we understand, neither, its theory/ practice nor contributions. Many things have been said on comparative literature up to now, but it will be important to focus on what we will compare. It is very clear that we do not know "what, why or how' we will compare, 'which works or writers' literary worlds must be compared. Firstly, we must answer these questions if we want to study comparative literature. As well as necessity of a well-defined methodological frame, we must also argue its coverage and search for answers to the questions listed below. Which goes thus; when it comes to comparison of works of arts:
"To whom/what will we compare us /ours?
How will we compare the texts?
Which texts/writers will we compare?
Who are we (as in this context: Africans) in the eyes of the others (Western world?
Who are the others (Western world) in our eyes (Africans)?
Once the correct answer to these questions has been established; then, the tree of this arts knowledge has, definitely, been planted. (Boldor 10)
The nature of comparative literature is "literature without borders"; works that break boundaries, and bridge gaps. Comp. Lit. promotes unity, and it is itself a not creative literature like the short story, poem, drama and novel; the basic theme of comparative literature is the comparison. Comparison is the main tool for the study of more than one literature. According to Eliot, that comparison and analysis are the chief tools of the critics. This comparison may be used in this kind of literary study to indicate affinity, tradition or influence.
Boldor (2003) in his paper; draws attention to the difficulty surrounding defining the concept of Comparative Literature:
‘’Comparative Literature is inherently a difficult term to define. The difficulty arises from the vast and uncertain territory the discipline is covering and from the already controversial nature of the two words constituting its name.’’(14)
These are some of the definitions of Comparative Literature by some scholars like Joseph Texte, Oscar James Campbell, René Wellek and Austin Warren, Paul Van Tieghem, Henry Remak, and Steven Tötösy de Zepetnek, have been highlighted. Here are, in chronological order, a few of these definitions as postulated by some of the most influential scholars in this domain:
The definition introduced by Texte (1898) conceives comparative literature as limited to the study of a factual/historical relationship between two national literatures, as caused by various social norms.
“… the comparative study of literatures. Relations of various literatures with each other, simultaneous or successive actions and reactions, social, aesthetic or moral influences which derive from the crossing of races and the free exchange of ideas ...” (Joseph Texte, 1898)
James (1926) introduces another formal criteria of classification (innately related to comparison), that of “type” and “form.”
“…studies of literature, our methods are primarily investigations of the processes by which a work has come into being and appraisals of the forces which produced this result. In other words, the methods of comparative literature do not seek to produce or enhance aesthetic delight, but rather to create new models of understanding”. (Oscar James Campbell, 1926)
Wellek and Warren (1942) point out on three different types of comparative literature. The first one comprises is the study of folk-tale themes. It is an integral part of culture and literary scholarship. The second one is the study of relationships between two more literatures, and the third one of comparative literature is identification with World literature. Wellek, who, shifts the weight of the investigation from content towards method for the profit of literariness, which should supersede “scientifism” in the discipline:
“ …comparative” literature confines it to the study of relationships between two or more literatures. […] A third conception… identifies comparative literature with the study of literature in its totality, with “world literature,” with “general” or “universal” literature”. (René Wellek and Austin Warren, 1942)
Tieghem (1946) stresses the historicist approach; the very factor challenged by Wellek:
“…the character of true comparative literature, like that of all historical science,is to embrace as many different original facts as possible, to better explain each of them; to broaden the knowledge base in order to find the causes of the greatest possible number of effects. In short, the word compared must be emptied of all aesthetic value and receive historical value; and the observation of the analogies and differences offered by two or more books, scenes, subjects or pages of various languages, is only the starting point that the necessary starting point which allows to discover an influence, a loan, etc., and consequently to partially explain one work by another”. (Paul Van Tieghem, 1946)
Remak (1971) tries to update the concept including features imposed to comparative studies by the progress of modern knowledge, including in his definition “other spheres of human expression.”
“Comparative Literature is the study of literature beyond the confines of one particular country, and the study of the relationships between literature on one hand and other areas of knowledge and belief, such as the arts (e.g. painting, sculpture, architecture, music), philosophy, history, the social sciences, (e.g. politics, economics, sociology), the sciences, religion, etc., on the other. In brief it is the comparison of one literature with another or others, and the comparison of literature with other spheres of human expression”. (Henry Remak, 1971)
Finally, Tötösy (1999) introduces the much more general term “the other,” in his attempt to re-establish the discipline upon new epistemological grounds.
“… substantiated this content and form. Predicated on the borrowing of methods from other disciplines and on the application of the appropriated method to areas of study single-language literary study more often than tends to neglect, the discipline is difficult to define because thus it is fragmented and pluralistic.( Steven Tötösy de Zepetnek, 1999)
A brief summary of the above definitions, point out several common elements as well as the essential differences between their perspectives. First, they all envision the relating of a limited literary domain (national literature, genres or trends) to a literary or non-literary factor, each of them including in some manner the ideas of its predecessor.
According to Boldor (2003), the concept of comparative literature has undergone a few ideological mutations from its beginnings until present times. Also, it becomes evident that no definition has managed to cover in a satisfactory manner all the aspects and theoretical details of this complex field called “comparative literature”. As Clements (1978) states in his Comparative Literature as an Academic Discipline:
“There is little that anyone at this late date can contribute to the realm of definition” (Robert J. Clements, n.p)
Nevertheless, they are abundant, and while a few general principles appear to be ubiquitous, a singular, universally accepted explanation of the concept remains yet to be established.
This present study, on the Comparative analysis of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, and Osofisan’s Weeso Hamlet, will adopt as a “working variant” the one suggested by Bijay Kumar Dass, which is very simple, vivid, precise, and very importantly, understandable:
‘’ Comparative Literature is a comparison between the two literatures. It analyses the similarities and dissimilarities and parallels between two literatures. It further studies themes, modes, conventions and use of folk tales, myths in two different literatures or even more.’’(20)
Comparative Literature: Crisis and Misconceptions
One of the most common errors in the study of comparative literature in theory and practice is the mistake that works of literature of a nation could be examined in the light of the science of comparative literature. Each nation may compare its own writers or literary works with each other's, but this is not a comparative literature. According to Elmas Sahin(2016), this work (that kind of comparison refers to above) is a comparative development of that nation's literature; it is a progressive and historical study of the products of a national or local literature. If we want to make comparative literature or a comparative study, we have to compare two or more literatures of the different nations or languages, traditions or cultures. For instance when we compare English dramatists to each other's, we learn some things about English literature , but when we compare English literature to French literature, American, Russian or Turkish literature we make comparative literature. In that case, aspects, parallels, similarities or developments of English and Turkish poets of ninetieth century may be compared and contrasted by comparative literature or comparative cultural approaches. (10)
Sahin’s(2016) point is; a Nigeria playwright to another Nigerian playwright(s) can be compared but as mention above; such a study will explore historical, social or political development, similar and different aspects etc., of Nigerian drama. However when a Western playwright is compared and contrasted to an African one (as this particular study is doing- Shakespeare and Osofisan) this will be a study of comparative literature. Undoubtedly, to study her own national writers of a country will give information about that country's literature, and this will be a restricted study of an area, but if we want to know other's literature(s( we need literatures of two or more nationalities away from the boundaries of one national language. (12)
A comparative study of different literatures will present us rich knowledge of literatures, languages, cultures and identities of other nations, thus comparisons of products of the different literatures will us to recognize our values and the other's ,closely. Surely while we compare literatures of the different countries or languages we need to break down the borders, we have huge materials to compare synchronically or diachronically literary genres and texts across all times and spaces. We must read, recognize, criticize and evaluate the other nations' literary products. We need to develop, we need to know what the others are doing we must compare ourselves to other's. As Arnold (1895) emphasizes:
“We must have a look at literatures of all periods from classical to postmodern. We strive to recognize similarities and dissimilarities among literatures, and perceive and evaluate the stand they come while we make a study of comparative literature. (Arnold, 1914, pg 457)
THE CONCEPT OF ADAPTATION
Adaptation is a veritable term in comparative literature. This can be said to be the elevation or domestication of the standard of a targeted text to conform to the adaptor’s social sensibilities. It can be achieved at different levels in a text, it could be seen from the angle of thematic preoccupation or subject matter, it could be wholesale (total, theme, settings or skeletal (part picking out parts e.g. only setting or style or theme). It depends on the writer to determine at what level he wants to adapt from.
Adaptation makes a writer become critical of the work he or she is adapting or of the societal disposition he/she is adapting based on his own experience; it does or might not count. One of the basic rules guiding the means of adaption is the preservation of the function but the changing or transformation of the form or medium of the text adapted I.e. the content is retained but the form is changed, this is to conform to the internalized ideology of the adaptor as his societal experiences might be different from that which is deployed in the adapted text. Ogezi quoted Yerima’s comment about the work of Shakespeare:
“ I wonder sometimes with childish envy how God had endowed one man with such a profound creative mind… it is for me and other dramatist to translate his works into our language, culture, and human and religious sensibilities”.(pg 6)
In Wesoo Hamlet, Osofisan’s adaptation of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Osofisans tells the same story to sooth his African-Nigerian audience. He uses the same characters used by Shakespeare, but creating their alter-egos. Osofisan drives their story from another perspective; creating an allusion of the land beyond, and incorporating Orumila and the masque ancestor, Egun, Masquerade. According to Osofisan, for the purpose of his own dramaturgical purposes, he introduces elements of different Yoruba traditions to tell his arts. Osofisan’s Wesoo Hamlet is a well-crafted master piece with splendid content laced with raw originality. Some of his adapted plays: Women of Owu from Euripides' The Trojan Women, Who's Afraid of Solarin? from Nikolai Gogol's The Government Inspector; Tegonni: An African Antigone from Sophocles; Antigone, and recently Wesoo Hamlet: The resurrection of Hamlet.
THE CONCEPT OF IMITATION AND BORROWING
According to Hussein (1995), Ulrich Veisstein recognises that though 'influence' and 'imitation' or 'borrowing' are related, they are drastically divergent in meaning. 'Influence' goes beyond the process of adopting certain aspects of a foreign literary work and can manifest itself in a writer's imitation of this work in a way which suits the taste of his countrymen and proves his creative ability. The latter maintains it should not necessarily be seen as a refurbishing of specific foreign forms or themes, but as a creation of new concepts and contents originating from the foreign ones. (26) It seems then that aspects of foreign influence are embedded within the text, and to analyze them one must analyze carefully the whole text and consider the process of influence (starting with the literal translation of the foreign text through the imitation and borrowing processes). But pure 'imitation' in itself is a conscious process of adopting certain parts of a foreign work through which the imitator gives no room for the presentation of his creative ability in his text.
The 'borrowing' process is a ramification of 'imitation', in its broad sense, which ranges from the refashioning of the best parts of a foreign work in a way that fits well the national public taste to the adoption of a particular foreign style or technique. Pushkin's adaptation of Byron's elegy to the Russian style, and Pound's reshaping of the Russian old models of poetry are good illustrative examples. (27) There is a marked difference, however, between 'imitation' and 'borrowing': in the case of borrowing (especially from a work written in a foreign language) the writer, like the translator, is bound by the original text, whereas in the case of imitation he is not. Still, there is a thin line of demarcation that should not be broken between imitation and borrowing as forms of artistic creativity (which adds new literary and technical modes to the influenced literature) and as 'plagiarism' (which is the borrowing from foreign works without referring to the sources or areas of citation). This last process, of course, has always been disapproved of (28).
In the case of Weeso Hamlet by Osofisan, Osofisan adapted the play but his artistic creativity is very reflective in the work. Though Osofisan borrowed artistically to sooth his African- Nigerian audience, yet the closeness is still felt; only that Osofisan gave credit to Shakespeare.
THE CONCEPT OF INFLUENCE
There is general agreement that the 'influence' study (basic for the French School of comparative literature) is a very knotty question, for it takes various forms which comparatists sometimes misuse due to a failure to distinguish between one form and another. There are many arguments surrounding the term 'influence', but one can define it simply as the movement (in a conscious or unconscious way) of an idea, a theme, an image, a literary tradition or even a tone from a literary text into another. But scholars do not stop here; rather, they classify influence into distinct types as follows.
1.'Literary' and 'Non-literary' Influence: The concept of 'literary influence' originated in the type of comparative study that seeks to trace the mutual relation between two or more literary works. This sort of study is the touchstone of the French comparative literature. Hence, a comparative study between Joyce Carey’s Mr Johnson, and Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart, for example, is a good example of 'literary influence', because the writings of Carey is considered by many African scholars as an affront and a misconception of the African worldview; therefore this book by Joyce Carey necessitated the reply text by Achebe - Things Fall Apart in 1956. Also the literary text- Hamlet influenced the adaptation of Wesoo Hamlet by Osofisan.
While a comparative study between Osofisan’s Richard Landing and the traveling Polygamist and British culture of exploration can be said to be based on the principle of 'non-literary influence,' even though culture is related at some level to literature. The latter, according to Hussein, is ignored by the French School on the ground that the influenced writer ('receiver') does not absorb certain constituents of a literary work into his or her own work but rather some primary material which he or she dexterously reshapes into a literary work. (15). Also the literary text- Hamlet influenced the adaptation of Wesoo Hamlet
1.'Direct' and 'Indirect' Influence: A 'direct influence' between two literatures, beyond the boundaries of place and language, is marked when there is an actual contact between writers. More specifically, a literary text can have no existence before its writer's reading of another writer's 'original' text or having direct contact with him or her. It is difficult, not to say impossible, however, to prove this relation, resting basically on a clear-cut causality, between nationally different writers; especially, when some writers do not mention (deliberately or unconsciously) their debt, if such exists, to certain foreign writers or texts. Shakespeare's plays, for example, are derived from a number of older texts (history, biographies of notable persons or folkloric tales), but it would be inaccurate to suggest that such materials are behind his peculiar genius, because they were only the raw material that he reshaped into new forms with his genius. Shakespeare's drawing upon any preceding sources is thus irrelevant to the concept of 'direct influence,' but closely pertains to the concept of 'creativity' in the Middle Ages in Europe, which was gauged by a writer's utilization of certain literary devices (rhetorical or stylistically) to create out of an overworked subject a new literary source that appeals to the reading public. (17)
It is noteworthy; however, based on Hussein assertion, that translation is often referred to as a complicated and deceptive process: inasmuch as it may provide national literatures with fresh themes or techniques, it may also distort the original texts. Owing to the deep influence of national matrices of language, culture and politics, many scholars fail to give, consciously or unconsciously, accurate translations of foreign texts. These results in the danger of the appearance of entirely different texts from the originals, which consequently leads to what critics describe as 'a false influence,' as the writer influenced by such translated works is misguided.
1.Positive' and 'Passive' Influence: A national writer's use of specific foreign literary sources in creating successful works of his own simply means that these sources have a 'positive' influence upon him. In other words, according to Aldridge, the existence of something in a writer's work is contingent upon his reading of another writer's work. Examples of this sort of influence have been mentioned so far in discussing the complex process of reception. Some foreign works may have a 'passive' influence upon a national writer, in that he may feel compelled to write in a reaction to an affront to highly revere national figures in foreign literature.
For instance, according Daniel's Cleopatra (1594), Shakespeare's Anthony and Cleopatra (1606-7), La Chapelle's La Mort de Cléopâtre (1680, A. Sommet's Cleopatra (1824), Mme de Gérardin's Cléopâtre (1847), Shaw's Caesar and Cleopatra (1912) and other plays, all belittled the Oriental mentality through portraying Cleopatra, an ancient Egyptian queen, as a two-faced siren who won victory for her country by seducing Anthony and other western military leaders. Conversely, Ahmed Shawqi's portrayal of Cleopatra manifested her as a striking example of loyalty and self-sacrifice for the sake of her country's welfare and dignity. (30)
Hussein went further asserting that, no literature can stand alone on its own nation's cultural and literary heritage; rather, it must transcend geographical and linguistic borders to give and take (a technique, a theme, an idea or a human model) from different literatures of the world. This inevitable mutual sharing between international literatures is another essential area of study in French 'comparative literature.
BIOGRAPHY OF THE PLAYWRIGHT
WILLIAMS SHAKESPEARE
No man’s life has been the subject of more speculation than William Shakespeare. For all his fame and celebration, Shakespeare’s personal history remains a mystery. There are two primary sources of information on the bard—his works, and various legal and church documents that have survived from Elizabethan times. Unfortunately, there are many gaps in this information and much room for conjecture.
We know a man named William Shakespeare was baptized at Stratford-upon-Avon on April 26, 1564, and was buried at Holy Trinity Church in Stratford on April 25, 1616. Tradition holds that he was born three days earlier, and that he died on his birthday, April 23, but this is perhaps more romantic myth than fact. Young William was born of John Shakespeare, a Glover and leather merchant, and Mary Arden, a landed heiress. William, according to the church register, was the third of eight children in the Shakespeare household, three of whom died in childhood. We assume that Shakespeare went to grammar school, since his father was first a member of the Stratford Council and later high bailiff (the equivalent of town mayor). A grammar school education would have meant that Shakespeare was exposed to the rudiments of Latin rhetoric, logic and literature.
In 1575, John Shakespeare suddenly disappears from Stratford’s political records. Some believe that his removal from office necessitated his son’s quitting school and taking a position as a butcher’s apprentice. Church records tell us that banns (announcements) were published for the marriage of a William Shakespeare to an Ann Whatley in 1582 (there are no records indicating that this arrangement was solemnized, however). On November 27 of the same year a marriage license was granted to 18-year-old William and 26-year-old Anne Hathaway. A daughter, Susanna, was born to the couple six months later. We know that twins, Hamnet and Judith, were born soon after and that the twins were baptized. We also know that Hamnet died in childhood at the age of 11, on August 11, 1596.
We don’t know how the young Shakespeare came to travel to London or how he first came to the stage. One theory holds that young Will was arrested as a poacher (one who hunts illegally on someone else’s property) and escaped to London to avoid prosecution in Stratford. Another holds that he left home to work in the city as a school teacher. Neither is corroborated by contemporary testimony or public record. Whatever the truth may be, it is clear that in the years between 1582 and 1592, William Shakespeare did become involved in the London theatre scene as a principal actor and playwright with one of several repertory companies.
By 1594, Shakespeare was listed as a shareholder in the Lord Chamberlain’s Men, one of the most popular acting companies in London. He was a member of this company for the rest of his career, which lasted until approximately 1611. When James I came to the throne in 1603, he issued a royal license to Shakespeare and his fellow players, inviting them to call themselves the King’s Men. In 1608, the King’s Men leased the Black friar’s Theatre in London. This theatre, which had artificial lighting and was probably heated, served as their winter playhouse. The famous Globe Theatre was their summer performance space.
In 1616 Shakespeare’s daughter Judith married Thomas Quiney, the son of a neighbor in Stratford. Her father revised his will six weeks later; within a month he had died. The revised version of William Shakespeare’s will bequeathed his house and all the goods therein to his daughter Susanna and her husband Dr. John Hall, leaving Judith and Thomas only a small sum of money; his wife, who survived him, received the couple’s second best bed.
In the years since Shakespeare’s death, he has risen to the position of patron saint of English literature and drama. In the 1800s especially, his plays were so popular that many refused to believe that an actor from Stratford had written them. To this day some believe that Sir Francis Bacon was the real author of the plays; others choose to believe Edward DeVere, the Earl of Oxford, was the author. Still others would prefer to believe Walter Raleigh or Christopher Marlowe penned the lines attributed to Shakespeare. While most people are content to believe that genius can spring up in any social class or rural setting, the gap between the known facts and the myths that surround Shakespeare’s life leaves ample room for speculation.
FEMI OSOFISAN
Babafemi Adeyemi Osofisan (born June 1946), known as Femi Osofisan or F.O., is a Nigerian writer noted for his critique of societal problems and his use of African traditional performances and surrealism in some of his novels. A frequent theme that his novels explore is the conflict between good and evil. He is in fact a didactic writer whose works seek to correct his decadent society. Born in the village of Erunwon, Ogun State, Nigeria, Osofisan attended primary school at Ife and secondary school at Government College, Ibadan.
He then attended the University of Ibadan 1966–69), majoring in French and as part of his degree course studying at the University of Dakar for a year, and going on to do post-graduate studies at the Sorbonne, Paris. He subsequently held faculty positions at the University of Ibadan, where he retired as full professor in 2011. He is currently a Distinguished Professor of Theatre Arts, Kwara State University, Nigeria. Osofisan is Vice President (West Africa) of the Pan African Writers' Association. In 2016, he became the first African to be awarded the prestigious Thalia Prize by the International Association of Theatre Critics and was officially inducted into their folds.
Osofisan has written and produced more than 60 plays. He has also written four prose works: Ma'ami, Abigail, Pirates of Hurt and Cordelia, first produced in newspaper columns, in The Daily Times and then The Guardian (Nigeria). One of his prose works; Ma'ami was adapted into a film in 2011. Several of Osofisan's plays are adaptations of works by other writers: Women of Owu from Euripides' The Trojan Women, Who's Afraid of Solarin? from Nikolai Gogol's The Government Inspector; No More the Wasted Breed from Wole Soyinka's The Strong Breed; Another Raft from J. P. Clark's The Raft; Tegonni: An African Antigone from Sophocles; Antigone, and recently Wesoo Hamlet: The resurrection of Hamlet.
SHAKESPEARE AND HIS WRITINGS
In writing his plays and sonnets, William Shakespeare drew ideas from many different sources. His keen eye for details and his sharp understanding of human nature enabled him to create some of the most enduring works of drama and poetry ever produced. But his work also provides an insightful commentary on 16th-century English values, life, history and thought.
Asimov (1970) notes that, the distinction between tragedy and comedy became particularly important during Shakespeare's life. During that time writers of tragedy conformed to Aristotle’s definition, relating the tale of a great man or woman brought down through hubris or fate. Comedy in this time, much like in our own, descended from the Roman "New Comedy" of Plautus and Terence, which kept away from politics and focused on love, domestic troubles and family affairs. (17)
SOURCES OF HAMLET
According to Asimov (1970), in his Asimov’s guide to Shakespeare, Hamlet-like legends are so widely found (for example in Italy, Spain, Scandinavia, Byzantium, and Arabia) that the core "hero-as-fool" theme is possibly Indo-European in origin. Several ancient written precursors to Hamlet can be identified. The first is the anonymous Scandinavian Saga of Hrolf Kraki. In this, the murdered king has two sons—Hroar and Helgi—who spend most of the story in disguise, under false names, rather than feigning madness, in a sequence of events that differs from Shakespeare's.] The second is the Roman legend of Brutus, recorded in two separate Latin works. Its hero, Lucius ("shining, light"), changes his name and persona to Brutus ("dull, stupid"), playing the role of a fool to avoid the fate of his father and brothers, and eventually slaying his family's killer, King Tarquinius.
A 17th-century Nordic scholar, Torfaeus, compared the Icelandic hero Amlodi and the Spanish hero Prince Ambales (from the Ambales Saga) to Shakespeare's Hamlet. Similarities include the prince's feigned madness, his accidental killing of the king's counsellor in his mother's bedroom, and the eventual slaying of his uncle.
According to a popular theory, Shakespeare's main source is believed to be an earlier play—now lost—known today as the Ur-Hamlet. Possibly written by Thomas Kyd or even William Shakespeare himself, the Ur-Hamlet would have been in performance by 1589 and the first version of the story known to incorporate a ghost. Shakespeare's company, the Chamberlain's Men, may have purchased that play and performed a version for some time, which Shakespeare reworked.
Since no copy of the Ur-Hamlet has survived, however, it is impossible to compare its language and style with the known works of any of its putative authors. Consequently, there is no direct evidence that Kyd wrote it, nor any evidence that the play was not an early version of Hamlet by Shakespeare himself. This latter idea—placing Hamlet far earlier than the generally accepted date, with a much longer period of development—has attracted some support, though others dismiss it as speculation. (25)
FEMI OSOFISAN AND HIS WRITINGS
One common trend in the writings of Osofisan is his desire to fight for the marginalized masses and to create a better society for all to live in. Osofisan is not alone in this cause; rather, this is also the concern of most of the second generation of Nigerian Anglophone writers such as Bode Sowande, Niyi Osundare, Kole Omotosho, Zulu Sofola, Olu Obafemi, Wale Ogunyemi, Odia Ofeimun, Tanure Ojaide, and Ahmed Yerima to mention just a few. In an interview with Muyiwa Awodiya (1993), Osofisan summarizes the burning patriotic ideals of the writers of his generation as follows:
“To use the weapon we had our pen, our zeal and our eloquence—to awaken in our people the song of liberation. With our writing, we would wash away the stigma of inferiority, rouse our dormant energies, unmask the pests and traitors among us, preach the positive sermons. Our works would be a weapon in the struggle to bring our country to the foremost ranks of modern nations. Our songs would call for radical political alternatives.’’ (Excursions in Drama, 25)
A careful study of Osofisan’s works reveals a strong persuasion about the potency of literature in addressing contemporary Africa’s multi-layered problems. Consequently, he devotes many of his works to championing the masses’ revolt against oppressive state structures. In several of his works, he charges the poor and the downtrodden to shake off the shackles of docile acceptance of the tyranny of authority, and rebuff the oppressors and all their agents. Osofisan also uses some of his works to expose the failure of the working class and probe the causes of such failure, while in others he denounces the masses’ corrosive agents and stirs the working class out of their customary apathy into combat, provoking them into anger and active resistance.
Osofisan sees the masses as the root of society, the earth to be tended and not to be devastated. He believes that any government that maltreats the masses has devastated the earth upon which its existence is hinged and thus must be made to pay dearly for it. The poor forms the basis of the existence of rich rulers, hence the poor masses should be ready to rise up to fight injustice and bad governance whenever it manifests.
Falola (2009), in his introduction to Emerging Perspective on Osofisan, says that, Femi Osofisan is a creative writer with a unique concern for the plight of the poor and the downtrodden in his society. He believes that the bane of people’s freedom is bad leadership. He also believes that Africa at large has more bad leaders than good ones. An overview of Osofisan’s works show that the masses are indeed more powerful than the rich because they have numerical strength over the rich. What Osofisan seems to be saying is that the poor need to know this; and, they should also be bold to call their leaders to question whenever the need arises; the same point Oba Sayedero makes to his brother Ayibi before his death in the play Wesoo Hamlet by Osofisan (Osofisan- Wesoo Hamlet, 27)
At another level, Osofisan constantly attacks the educated class in many of his writings for its ineffectiveness and failure. According to Oripeloye (2009), in his contribution in Emerging Perspective on Osofisan, Osofisan reminds the elite class of its historical responsibility, that of leading society from misery into prosperity, from darkness of underdevelopment to the dawn of technological modernity. (109)
He, Osofisan, argues in one of his books of essays that if creative work must fulfill its vocation as an agent of progress, the writer must pitch his or her tent with the common people, and against the formidable agents of the ruling class:
“… Indeed, the artist who is merely truthful cannot but reflect in his/her work, the appalling situation of social and political injustice; but when that happens, the artist treads on the open sore of the rulers, and the latter’s response is, predictably, one of repression and persecution. It is at such moments that the quest for relevance is met with terrorism; and the agents of the state become, for the writer, potential executioners (Insidious Treasons, 92).
With his new play: Wesoo Hamlet, an adaptation of Shakspeare’s Hamlet, Osofisan has proven his rare talent of adapting a play, which is from the Elizabethan era, to sooth his socio-economical and socio-political environment.
CHAPTER 3
TEXTUAL ANALYSIS
The major thematic preoccupation of this research study is the comparative analysis of Williams Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Femi Osofisan’s African adaptation, of the same work, titled: Wesoo Hamlet.This chapter examines the plot and style used by the playwright, and, also, a detailed textual illustration and exploration of the similarities and differences of the two plays in relation to, sources, influence, ideas, themes and symbols that are embedded in the two plays.
Plot analysis of Williams Shakespeare’s Hamlet
The play opens with the night, and the Watchmen on duty. On this silent dark night, at a time the whole city rest, a ghost walks back and forth the Elsinore Castle in Denmark. Discovered first by a pair of watchmen, the scholar Horatio and a guard, the ghost resembles the recently deceased King Hamlet, whose brother Claudius has inherited the throne and married the king's widow, Queen Gertrude. Prompted by the resemblance, Horatio and the watchmen call Prince Hamlet, the son of Gertrude and the dead king, to see the ghost. The ghost, then, speaks to him, declaring ominously that it is indeed his father's spirit, and that he was murdered by none other than Claudius. Ordering Hamlet to seek revenge on the man who usurped his throne and married his wife, the ghost disappears with the dawn.
Prince Hamlet devotes himself to avenging his father’s death, but, because he is contemplative and thoughtful by nature, he delays, entering into a deep melancholy and even apparent madness.
Claudius and Gertrude worry about the prince's erratic behavior and attempt to discover its cause. They employ a pair of Hamlet's friends, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, to watch him .When Polonius, the pompous Lord Chamberlain, suggests that Hamlet may be mad with love for his daughter, Ophelia; Claudius agrees to spy on Hamlet in conversation with the girl. But though Hamlet certainly seems mad, he does not seem to love Ophelia: he orders her to enter a nunnery and declares that he wishes to ban marriages.
A group of travelling actors comes to Elsinore, and Hamlet seizes upon an idea to test his uncle's guilt. He will have the players perform a scene closely resembling the sequence by which Hamlet imagines his uncle to have murdered his father, so that if Claudius is guilty, he will surely react. When the moment of the murder arrives in the theater, Claudius leaps up and leaves the room. Hamlet and Horatio agree that this proves his guilt.
Hamlet goes to kill Claudius but finds him praying. Since he believes that killing Claudius while in prayer would send Claudius's soul to heaven, Hamlet considers that it would be an inadequate revenge and decides to wait. Claudius, now frightened of Hamlet's madness and fearing for his own safety, orders that Hamlet be sent to England at once. Later on, Hamlet goes to confront his mother, in whose bedchamber Polonius has hidden behind a tapestry. Hearing a noise from behind the tapestry, Hamlet believes the king is hiding there. He draws his sword and stabs through the fabric, killing Polonius. For this crime, he is immediately dispatched to England with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. However, Claudius's plan for Hamlet includes more than banishment, as he has given Rosencrantz and Guildenstern sealed orders for the King of England demanding that Hamlet be put to death. In the aftermath of her father's death, Ophelia goes mad with grief and drowns in the river.
Polonius’ son, Laertes, who has been staying in France, returns to Denmark in a rage. Claudius convinces him that Hamlet is to blame for his father's and sister's deaths. When Horatio and the king receive letters from Hamlet indicating that the prince has returned to Denmark after pirates attacked his ship en route to England, Claudius concocts a plan to use Laertes' desire for revenge to secure Hamlet's death. Laertes will fence with Hamlet in innocent sport, but Claudius will poison Laertes' blade so that if he draws blood, Hamlet will die. As a backup plan, the king decides to poison a goblet, which he will give Hamlet to drink should Hamlet score the first or second hits of the match. Hamlet returns to the vicinity of Elsinore just as Ophelia's funeral is taking place. Stricken with grief, he attacks Laertes and declares that he had in fact always loved Ophelia.
Back at the castle, he tells Horatio that he believes one must be prepared to die, since death can come at any moment. A foolish courtier named Osric arrives on Claudius's orders to arrange the fencing match between Hamlet and Laertes. The sword-fighting begins. Hamlet scores the first hit, but declines to drink from the king's proffered goblet. Instead, Gertrude takes a drink from it and is swiftly killed by the poison. Laertes succeeds in wounding Hamlet, though Hamlet does not die of the poison immediately. First, Laertes is cut by his own sword’s blade, and, after revealing to Hamlet that Claudius is responsible for the queen's death, he dies from the blade's poison. Hamlet then stabs Claudius through with the poisoned sword and forces him to drink down the rest of the poisoned wine. Claudius dies, and Hamlet dies immediately after achieving his revenge. At this moment, a Norwegian prince named Fortinbras, who has led an army to Denmark and attacked Poland earlier in the play, enters with ambassadors from England, who report that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead. Fortinbras is stunned by the gruesome sight of the entire royal family lying sprawled on the floor dead. He moves to take power of the kingdom. Horatio, fulfilling Hamlet’s last request, tells him Hamlet's tragic story. Fortinbras orders that Hamlet be carried away in a manner befitting a fallen soldier.
Plot of Wesoo Hamlet or the Resurrection of Hamlet by Femi Osofisan
Wesoo, Hamlet or The Resurrection of Hamlet is a re-writing of William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, craftily transposed into contemporary social realities of Nigeria, specifically the Yoruba-speaking part.
The play opens with a celebration of masks in the great land beyond, the land of the dead. Masks in different colours and shapes are all in the atmosphere of merriment, then, a messenger of Orunmila, with a tablet, enters to deliver the message of Orunmila.
During the annual reunion between the ancestors and their human offspring, Orunmila, sometimes, find it necessary to ask some of the mask ancestors to return to the world, not in their ancestral form, but as human beings, as their former selves. During this occasion, Orumila tells Shakespeare he has decided to send the major characters in his Elizabethan play, Hamlet, Ophelia, and Claudius, to somewhere in Yorubaland in Africa part of the world, to prevent what happened to them from happening again; that the similar tragedy that is about to break, in Yoruba land, may be averted.
Leto, the crown prince and son to Oba Sayedero, just arrived from England to mourn his late father, the king. But, because he has not been able to make it back to his homeland early enough to honour his dead father, he disguise, and to sneak into town, hoping he won’t be discovered. But he was recognise by Iyamode, and Asipa, and while both them were scolding him for sneaking in to town knowing his status as a prince warrants a royal welcome, the whole village trouped out, but the presence of the new king, Oba Ayibi, the late king immediate younger brother, and uncle to Leto, and his Olori, the late king’s widow, and Leto’s mother put them under control. Leto expresses dissatisfaction to his mother’s marriage to Oba Ayibi, his late father’s brother; but Oba Ayibi calmly talks him out of it.
His ire against his mother is further inflamed when his late father’s spirit confirms to him that he was murdered by his successor, Oba Ayibi. From that moment, he makes up his mind to avenge his father and in the process forgets his Heartthrob, Túndùn who has been eagerly awaiting his return. Furthermore, in a bid to Convince his mother of her new husband’s complicity in the murder of his late father, Leko
Puts up a stage play for the royal household; a performance from which Oba Ayibi walks out in annoyance. The new king then successfully executes a plot through which Leko is incarcerated for treason. Túndùn eventually loses her life in her quest to help her lover regain his freedom and achieve his goal; she dies from the machinations of the evil king. The play becomes more interesting with the presence of three of Shakespeare’s characters: Hamlet, Ophelia and Claudius each of whom becomes special adviser to Leko, Túndùn and Oba Ayibi respectively. Claudius gets Oba Ayibi to appoint Leko as his aremo (heir apparent) in order to get him out of the way since traditionally an aremo does not see the regent till the latter dies and part of the process of installation is a mock fight between the Aremo and the king.
Both Claudius and Hamlet try to outdo each other in getting their wards to come out victorious in the duel. In the end it is Leko that wins. But he too dies from a poisoned drink given to him by Túndùn’s bosom friend, Àdùkẹ, to avenge her dead friend.
The Similarities between Williams Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Wesoo Hamlet or the Resurrection of Hamlet by Femi Osofisan:
~ Trust, Betrayal and Repercussion
There are indeed some things that cannot be bought with money because of their spiritual and humanity value. Trust is one of such. Unfortunately, betrayal of trust counts as one of the most heinous crimes that can be committed in inter-personal human relationships.
The most immediate effect of this betrayal of trust is in the emotional impact on the person betrayed. Generally, the greater the trust that you had put in the other person and the greater the impact their betrayal has on you, then the greater the distress, sadness, pain, and hurt you will feel. This is the case of the royal family of Elsinore, Denmark.
In Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Claudius, the new king of Denmark killed his brother, Old king Hamlet, usurped his throne, and, also, marries his late widow; thereby betraying his trust in him. Old Hamlet’s ghost shows himself to the young prince Hamlet. He declared ominously that it is indeed his father's spirit, and that he was murdered by none other than Claudius. Old Hamlet’s ghost seeks revenge on the man who usurped his throne and married his wife;
Ex. from the play text;
GHOST
“... Now listen, Hamlet.
Everyone was told that a poisonous snake bit me when
I was sleeping in the orchard. But in fact, that’s a lie that’s fooled everyone in Denmark.
You should know, my noble son, the real snake that stung your father is now wearing his crown. (21)
Prince Hamlet could not believe his ears when he heard it;
HAMLET
O my prophetic soul! My uncle?
He devotes himself to avenging his father's death. He was mad at his mother for betraying his late father’s trust; this purges him into a deep melancholy and even apparent madness. He, later, goes to confront his mother, in whose bedchamber Polonius has hidden behind a tapestry.
HAMLET
Mother, you have my father much offended.
GERTRUDE
Have you forgot me?
HAMLET
No, by the rood, not so.
You are the queen, your husband’s brother’s wife,
And—would it were not so!—you are my mother. (68)
Hearing a noise from behind the tapestry, Hamlet believes the king is hiding there. He draws his sword and stabs through the fabric, killing Polonius. For this crime, he is immediately dispatched to England with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. However, Claudius's plan for Hamlet includes more than banishment, as he has given Rosencrantz and Guildenstern sealed orders for the King of England demanding that Hamlet be put to death. But it wasn’t successful. After Ophelia’s death, Claudius initiated a fighting duel between Laertes and Hamlet, through the foolish court clown. First, Laertes is cut by his own sword's blade, and, after revealing to Hamlet that Claudius is responsible for the queen's death, he dies from the blade's poison.
LAERTES
It is here, Hamlet. Hamlet, thou art slain. No medicine in the world can do thee good. In thee there is not half an hour of life. The treacherous instrument is in thy hand, Unbated and envenomed. The foul practice Hath turned itself on me. Lo, here I lie, Never to rise again. Thy mother’s poisoned. I can no more. The king, the king’s to blame (116)
And for every action, there is always a consequence, a repercussion. Every betrayer in this play suffers the consequences of their action. Hamlet stabs Claudius with a poisoned sword and forces him to drink down the rest of the poisoned wine.
HAMLET
The point envenomed too!—
Then, venom, to thy work.
(HAMLET Hurts CLAUDIUS)
ALL
Treason! Treason!
CLAUDIUS
O, yet defend me, friends.
I am but hurt.
HAMLET Forces CLAUDIUS To Drink CLAUDIUS Dies...
HAMLET
Here, thou incestuous, murderous, damnèd Dane, Drink off this potion. Is thy union here? Follow my mother (116)
Claudius dies, and Hamlet dies immediately after achieving his revenge.
In human relationship trust is of prime value that must necessarily be exchanged as we must be free at all times of distrust and believe in ourselves, have faith in our words, assume and expect pure and good deeds from others, have empathy for our situations, conditions and circumstances. But this story, by Shakespeare, is very relative of what our societies have become. This is a society of people where everyone does not care about everyone else. This is a society of self-fish individuals who lack contentment and desire someone else’s ‘’throne’. Evil people walk around the society smiling sheepishly but their heart is that of a murderer. Usually, when the wicked dies, they do not die alone, they have a habit of dying with many people. At the end of the play, it wasn’t only Claudius that died; Hamlet, Ophelia, Gertrude, Polonius, and Laerte, all died.
In the same vein, Osofisan’s Wesoo Hamlet, Just as Claudius surreptitiously killed his older brother, king Hamlet, and usurped his throne, and married his widow, so also did Ayibi. Ayibi betrayed his older brother, Oba Sayedero, who loves him dearly, by poisoning his drink. He cunningly manipulated the already corrupt system, thereby, finds his way to the throne. Oba Sayedero’s ghost mask, then, reveals himself to the late king’s son, prince Leto; saying he never died naturally as they were made to believe.
MASK
Listen to me. And listen well. I did not die a natural death as my people have been made to believe. I did not finish the time Obatala allotted me on earth. (25)
A usurper, a callous murderer, sits on your father’s throne. (26)
When Hamlet heard that his uncle was the murderer, he could not believe it, so was Leto, and his response reveals the state of his heart.
LETO
Eewo! Ka ma ri! Uncle, a murderer? (26)
Oba Sayedero trusted his brother so much. Even in death, he still finds it hard to believe
MASK
Hard to believe, I know. A man I lavished my love and affection on!.Who knew all my secrets, shared my table, and entered my bedroom any times of the day or night! How could I have known he would betray me?(26)
Although Oba Sayedero’s ghost mask never counted Olori as a culprit, but Osofisan’s Leto, like Shakespeare’s Hamlet, is mad at his mother for betraying his father’s love, trust, and affection. He, first, attack her at his arrival from England; going as far as not sparing her hurtful words:
LETO
You are Olori. You sleep in a different bed now. So how can you also be my mother? (17)
Then, he attacks again, but now with a desire to understanding the motif behind her action. He confronts her with the burden in his heart; questioning the supposed love she professes to her husband in his life time.
LETO
I need an explanation. Surely, at your age, it can’t be love or passion! (37)
Was it all pretence then, all that show you put up with my father while he was alive, only to rush so disgracefully into his brother’s arm. (38)
Olori, then, sorrowfully explains to her son that it was actually her late husband that betrayed both of them for dying without considering them.
OLORI
‘’… With no consideration for me, or for you, just dead! And I, just sitting there, alone” (38)
She further explains that it is traditions, fear of the known, and loves for him, Leto, that made her make the decision she made.
OLORI
Rush! Disgrace! Are you forgetting then, Leto, that it’s our tradition? When a king dies, all the wives, automatically, pass on to his successor—(38)
“… Leto, I was going to be driven away from the palace with only my empty hands! (39)
“… Son, maybe I am not strong, but I opted to have a shelter on my head, to keep these clothes on the back, and give you a home. (40)
“… I have kept a good place for you! …” (40)
Unlike Shakespeare’s character, Gesrtrude, in the play: Hamlet, Osofisan’s character, Olori, has a deeper reason to marry Ayibi, the new king and brother to her late husband. Leto becomes doubtful, and indecisive. In a bid to convince his mother of her new husband’s complicity in the murder of his late father, Leko puts up a stage play for the royal household; a performance from which Oba Ayibi walks out in annoyance. The new king, Oba Ayibi, then successfully executes a plot through which Leko is incarcerated for treason. But he was not successful. Leto eventually killed Oba Ayibi. Like Shakespeare’s Hamlet, it wasn’t only Ayibi that died, Olori, Tundun, Aduke, Iyamode, and Leto, all died.
ASIPA
What a sad! What a story! Don’t just stand there now. Help me, gather the copses. (43)
Osofisan’s Wesoo Hamlet also shows a peaceful society, built on love, unity, and communalism. But like the witty saying of the elders, “when a house opens up her unplaster anus wall, a scaly lizard will give itself an informal invite” and another saying says;” when a house is peaceful, it is because the bastard son of the house is still a toddler”. Oba Ayibi can be likened to the lizard, and the bastard. Through his personal covetousness, he single –handedly crumbles his family kingdom, and right to royalty, forever. Sometimes the enemy of a man is within his family. However, Osofisan, using the mask Shakespearean Hamlet, calls for dialogue, and forgiveness.
~ Revenge
Revenge is any form of personal retaliatory action against an individual, institution, or group for some perceived harm, or injustice. Although, it is not considered a good decision in Christianity (the major religion in the days of Shakespeare) and other faiths. What separates Hamlet from other revenge plays (and maybe from every play written before it) is that the action we expect to see, particularly from Hamlet himself, is continually postponed while Hamlet tries to obtain more certain knowledge about what he is doing. The need for revenge drives the play all from the beginning. In fact, the appearance of the ghost in the first act lays a heavy responsibility on Hamlet to exact the revenge of his “unjust murder.”
GHOST
So art thou to revenge when thou shalt hear.
Revenge his foul and most unnatural murder. (21)
However, Hamlet, being a logical being felt he must, first and foremost, probe the mind of Claudius; establishing the responsibility of the crime first and only then take the decision to seek justice.
“…For murder, though it have no tongue, will speak. With most miraculous organ. I’ll have these players. Play something like the murder of my father. Before mine uncle. I’ll observe his looks. (…)Out of my weakness and my melancholy, As he is very potent with such spirits, Abuses me to damn me. I’ll have grounds. More relative than this. The play’s the thing (47)
Due to Hamlet’s state of mind, the revenge is delayed. He, though, succeeds in exposing the crime, Hamlet does not find a way to try Claudius in the court. On the other hand, Laertes also seeks revenge from Hamlet for his father murder; and is willing to kill Hamlet even in the Holy place, church.
LAERTES
“…Let come what comes; only I’ll be revenged
Most thoroughly for my father (86)
“…And so have I a noble father lost, A sister driven into desperate terms, Whose worth, if praises may go back again, Stood challenger on mount of all the age. For her perfections. But my revenge will come (90)
“…To cut his throat i' th' church.(90)
These acts of revenge run parallel until the end, and their deaths, Claudius, Hamlet, Gertrude, Ophelia, Polonius, and Laertes.
The implication of this is that feeling of need for justice. When a person feels that he has been betrayed, he may well seek some form of justice, putting right what he feels has been wronged, including his sensibilities. But the truth is that, this justice and fairness are different things and vary with context. From a personal view, justice means 'making me feel better'. From a national view, it means carrying out the law, no matter how unfair this may seem. Revenge does not solve the problem rather, it escalate it. Instead of a dead body, the ground is littered with dead bodies.
Similarly, in Osofisan’s Wesoo Hamlet, the ghost mask of the late king, Oba Sayedero, appears to Leto to reveal the cause of his death and seek revenge.
MASK
Listen to me. And listen well. I did not die a natural death as my people have been made to believe. I did not finish the time Obatala allotted me on earth. (25)
A usurper, a callous murderer, sits on your father’s throne. (26)
Using flashback, Osofisan shows what really transpires between Oba Sayedero, and Ayibi, his brother. Oba Ayibi murders his brother, not merely to become king and marry his widow, but to fulfill a selfish ambitious quest of erecting a tobacco company in their community. A decision, Oba Sayedero agrees to at the outset but later back down down for the sake of his people. But this never goes down well with Ayibi (26-31). Ayibi threatens his brother who, unfortunately, did not take the threat to heart.
AYIBI
No, just listen! For its finish, you hear? Finished, all that pretense between us! All that trying to appease you and make friends with you! War! That’s what you want, sand whether you approve or not, that factory is going is going to be built!(31)
After sometimes, Leto becomes doubtful, and indecisive. He further has a discussing with the metamorphosized Hamlet, this further made him doubtful, especially when he noticed Hamlet felt the same way in the Elizabethan era. Again, In a bid to convince his mother of her new husband’s complicity in the murder of his late father, Leko puts up a stage play for the royal household; a performance from which Oba Ayibi walks out in annoyance. The new king then successfully executes a plot through which Leko is incarcerated for treason. But he wasn’t successful. Leto eventually killed Oba Ayibi, achieving his aim, revenge.
The implication of this is, revenge is borne out of deep hurt and stirs up anger. If the fire is not quenching, quickly, it will stretch itself. It is strong enough to burn down an entire town, or community of people. However, Osofisan’s point is clear, it is okay to forgive and accept genuine repentance for the sake of preventing a sad history from re-occurring again.
~Death and the Concept of Ghost and Afterlife
Shakespeare has a wield way of telling stories about tragedies, and death; it is always an integral part of the plot and ideas of the play. The causes of death in his plays are numerous. Almost half of the characters that die are stabbed; the next largest groups are beheaded, and the next poisoned. The deaths may be tragic, but they all move the play along towards the resolution of the play’s conflict.
Hamlet contemplates the physicality of death and its far-reaching complications. In Act 1 he is tortured by grief and misery from the death of his father and the over hasty, incestuous marriage of his mother to Claudius. Hamlet thought about committing suicide but restrains himself because of his fear of eternal suffering in the afterlife.
HAMLET
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? To die, to sleep—
No more—and by a sleep to say we end
The heartache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to—’tis a consummation (50)
He also ponders on the notion that death is the great leveler and equalizer of human beings. He goes on to describe death as the generator of nature in that human beings are recycled and provide the fertilizer and nutrition that keeps nature working.
Hamlet finally comes to accept death, and indicates that “the readiness is all.” From now on his reflections on death are neither a matter of fear nor of longing. He now fully accepts that without death there cannot be life.
Ophelia, too, commits suicide but her case is different from Hamlet because she could not carry the weight of Hamlet’s taunt and loses her sanity.
GERTRUDE
One woe doth tread upon another’s heel,
So fast they follow.—
Your sister’s drowned, Laertes.
LAERTES
Drowned? Oh, where? (95)
The belief in ghosts and afterlife was very common in Shakespeare's time, the variance in views and opinions were rooted in religion. Catholics believed in the doctrine of purgatory and that ghosts were the spirits of those returning for some special purpose. These spirits should be aided if possible so that their soul may find rest. The Ghost told Hamlet he is doomed to walk the night:
"till the foul crimes done in my days of nature are burnt and purg'd away." (12-13)
Ghosts are sometimes demonic spirits that come to hurt their victims. Horatio had similar concerns after initial sight of the Ghost,
"…this bodes some strange eruption to our state." (72)
Another belief was that ghosts could be hallucinations, but, this belief is quickly refuted in the first Act as it is unlikely that Bernardo, Marcellus, Horatio and Hamlet had all seen a hallucination. There is no mention of purgatory or praying for the dead within the play. Although the Ghost of Hamlet's father has died without the last rites being observed, he never asks for prayers for the repose of his soul.
HORATIO
"Like some hellish demon, he appears only at night and vanishes before sunrise, demanding only revenge." (12)
Shakespeare left the state of religion in Denmark ambiguous. Hamlet accepted the ghost as a spirit, and never shows the slightest sign of hesitation in this belief. What he doubts is the identity of the Ghost and the nature of the place from which it came.
Similarly, In Osofisan’s Wesoo Hamlet, the concept of death, and after-life is also explored. While Shakespeare uses the Elizabethan/renaissance period worldview, Osofisan, an African-Yoruba man, uses the cosmological Yoruba belief and worldview. Shakespeare made use of Ghost. Osofisan made use of Ghost-mask (the Egungun).The same concept, the same result, but different angles. The African universe is made up of a myriad of spirits. Death is not understood as the final end of man. Death does not inform when it is coming; it is very uncertain, and unexpected. The whole town was never expecting the death of Oba Sayedero, royal family, his son, his beloved Olori, and even he was not expecting death; he believes so much in life.
OLORI
“… He was strong, he was in his prime, and he glowed with energy like one of our bronze carvings! How could we have known that death was stalking so close, waiting in ambush for him? (40)
Tundun, Leto’s lover, becomes a casualty of death. She was, as a result of impatience, and neglect by Leto, who was preoccupied by the controversies surrounding his late father’s death, at the edge of committing suicide like Ophelia. She, later, loses her life in her quest to help her lover regain his freedom and achieve his goal. She died through the machinations of the wicked king. The herbal medicine made by Iyamode for her was wickedly mixed with tobacco.
IYAMODE:
Pieces of the tobacco plant. Someone had slipped in here, while I was away, and crushed tobacco leave into my herb. (78)
The after-life for the African is a life of continuing relationship with the living dead. Life in Africa is cyclic: birth, death and rebirth. The Yoruba afterlife consists of reincarnation. However, what distinguishes the Yoruba reincarnation concepts from other tribe is that Yoruba explain that you reincarnate from your ancestors and into your descendants. It is learning from the past to prevent past mistakes from repeating itself. That is the purpose of ancestral veneration (egungun) explored, and used in this adaptation by Osofisan.
During the annual reunion between the ancestors and their human off springs. Orumila, through his messenger, tells Shakespeare he has decides to send the major characters in his Elizabethan play, Hamlet, Ophelia, and Claudius, to somewhere in Yorubaland in Africa part of the world, to prevent what happened to them from happening again; that the similar tragedy that is about to break, in Yoruba land, may be averted.
MESSENGER
“…In its recurrence in Yoruba Land, all in the hope that the tragedy that is about to break may be averted. (08)
The Yoruba equally believes in ghost, and act of talking to this spirits have been since time memorial. The “bara” is a place of rest for deceased kings in Yoruba land, and Iyamode is the custodian of this sacred place. At the death of a sitting king, a ritual is carried out by Iyamode and the hunters’ guild. After a customary song, liberation is pour and the name of the king is called three times. After the call is made, it is expected that the dead king spirit rise to speak and issue last instruction to the people.
So when the ghost of Oba Sayedero refuses to come out and speak, Iyamode sense danger, and by intuition call Leto, the son of the late king. But before she summon the ghost, like Shakespeare’s Hamlet, where Horatio doubted the ghost as that of the dead king. She, Iyamode, doubted the ghost as well, despite being the custodian of this tradition.
IYAMODE
The spirit of the dead cannot always be predicted. (25)
She, then, summon, again, the late king, and he respond. The mask, then, tell Iyamode to exit, as he desires to speak to Leto alone.
Differences between Williams Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Wesoo Hamlet or the Resurrection of Hamlet by Femi Osofisan
A critical examination of the differences reveals that, the main driver that pushes Shakespeare’s Hamlet is revenge as a means of justice. In the revenge plays of Hamlet, the idea of poetic justice can be seen throughout the plays various times. Shakespeare allows the reader to understand the mistakes of each character by killing them off in a justly manner. While seeking revenge, the main characters of the play earn their poetic ending, permitting Shakespeare to restore the karmic balance of the play. Claudius, Leartes, Polonius, are all killed as a direct result of their actions, while Ophelia is used to reiterate the poetic justices in the other character. Claudius poisoned King Hamlet in order to become King himself. While he feels the guilt of killing his brother, Claudius doesn’t want to give up the fruit of his wicked act, the throne of Denmark, he tries so hard to kill Hamlet. But at the end, he died and justice is served.
Forgiveness is the intentional and voluntary process by which a person remorsefully feels bad about an offense committed. Shakespeare made the character Claudius feels extremely bad after seeing the stage play organised by Hamlet. He goes down on his kneels praying, and seeking forgiveness.
Claudius
Oh, my offence is rank. It smells to heaven. It hath the primal eldest curse upon ’t, A brother’s murder. Pray can I not…” (67)
Hamlet goes to kill Claudius but finds him praying. Since he believes that killing Claudius while in prayer would send Claudius's soul to heaven, Hamlet considers that it would be an inadequate revenge and decides to wait. Though, Claudius seeks forgiveness, it was not genuine as he tries to kill Hamlet.
But the case is different in Osofisan’s Wesoo Hamlet. He, Osofisan, preaches forgiveness, and repentance. He shows here, in this play, as always, that he does not like shedding of blood. He introduces forgiveness. Shakespeare shows forgiveness, and repentance through the actions of Claudius, when he was praying. Osofisan did the same but through another character, the metamorphosized Hamlet sent by Orumila. All in the bid to prevent history from repeating itself.
HAMLET
Your father is dead. The obligations he’s demanding, should they be stronger than those you owe the living? (49)
Conscience sometimes looks like cowardice? (49)
History does not always have to follow the same pattern.(49)
I mean that restitution can come in other forms than that of vengeance. The future does not have to be built on the crimes of the past, if there is genuine repentance. (49)
In Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Hamlet expresses his grief through anger and depression. He displays many sides of his personality since the death of his father; he devoted himself to avenge his father's death, but, because he is contemplative and thoughtful by nature, he delays, entering into a deep melancholy and even apparent madness. When Claudius and Gertrude notice the ‘’change’’ in Hamlet, they sent for his close friends, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern for the sole purpose of remedying the situation.
CLAUDIUS
Welcome, dear Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.
(…) Whether aught, to us unknown, afflicts him thus
That, opened, lies within our remedy. (30)
He appears as a philosopher, a sage, as well as a mentally disturbed person.
HAMLET
I am but mad north-north-west.
When the wind is southerly,
I know a hawk from a handsaw. (31)
He also expresses that there is a “method in my madness.” It shows that he is insane but just in his pretensions to show his pain to others. He wanted them to see and understand that it was difficult for him to bear things like loss and betrayal. That is the very reason that King Claudius fears his madness as some pretention to have exposed his crime of assassinating Old Hamlet. On the other hand, he shows such a face to Ophelia that she reports that his madness is true.
OPHELIA
My lord, as I was sewing in my closet,
Lord Hamlet, with his doublet all unbraced;
No hat upon his head; his stockings fouled,
Ungartered, and down-gyvèd to his ankle;
Pale as his shirt; his knees knocking each other;
And with a look so piteous in purport
As if he had been loosèd out of hell
To speak of horrors—he comes before me (28)
Polonius, on his part, considers it a madness of love.
POLONIUS
Madam, I swear I use no art at all. That he is mad, ’tis true. Tis true, ’tis pity,
And pity ’tis ’tis true—a foolish figure, But farewell it, for I will use no art. Mad let us grant him then.
…“To the celestial and my soul’s idol, the most beautified Ophelia” (32)
While Gertrude considers it as only madness. However, King Claudius does not accept any of these opinions and sees his folly a threat to his throne and his own life.
In Osofisan’s Wesoo Hamlet, revenge as a means of redemption and salvation is punctuated in the play. Redemption, in a simpler term relevant for this study, means total freedom. When the ghost-mask of the dead king, Oba Sayedero, appears to reveal the secret behind his untimely death to his son, Leto, it says that it cannot be at peace until it is avenged.
MASK
I cannot be at peace, till I can rightly join the ancestors. I’ve been placed now only in he corner reserved for potsherds! I won’t leave there to rightly join the ancestors until my death has been properly avenged. Leto, you are my only salvation now! Avenge me! ( Beginning to go). Avenge me! Avenge me!...(32)
Osofisan argued for Leto saying, he has to revenge and not forgive Ayibi for the sake of his dead father’s spirit wandering around, the appeasement of the land, and its freedom from untimely death raging from the tobacco company.
LETO
“…It is death everywhere, can’t you see, from him and people like him? Not only my father or the numerous casualties that will follow…” (49)
SETTING:
Shakespeare set Hamlet in Elsinore, a remote royal castle in Denmark where the action is set in various parts of the castle. There’s also one scene that takes place away from the castle on “a plain in Denmark”.
Osofisan’s Wesoo Hamlet takes place in Yoruba land, Nigeria, in a period set within the last quarter of 20th century. The location of the event is, precisely, Ilaje Ijebu waterside, the waterside where, in the play, Ophelia and Tundun have a conversation. The major scenes are the palace courtyard, and the “bara” Unlike Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Osofisan;s Wesoo Hamlet takes place only in Ilaje- Ijebu.
SYMBOLISM:
In Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Poison plays a big role in Hamlet. It is a symbol of betrayal, corruption, deceit, revenge and death. When Claudius pours the poison into Hamlet’s ear and murders him, it demonstrates how much the need for power can corrupt someone. In this case, the need for power motivated Claudius to poison his own brother. Later, when Laertes and Claudius are planning to kill Hamlet for revenge, they also decide to use poison. When the poison actually comes into play, it ends up killing Queen Gertrude (thus betrayal), and eventually leads to the death of Laertes, King Claudius and Hamlet. Osofisan, in Wesoo Hamlet, uses the metaphorsized masks, Hamlet, Ophelia, and Claudius, to symbolize the concept of afterlife, and the reunion of ancestors (Egungun) and their earthly offspring.
PLOT:
The plot structure of the play is not complex. It progresses in a linear fashion, with all events happening in chronological order. There are a few flashbacks, as when Hamlet recounts the events that happened on the ship sometime after they occurred, but they are easily followed and understood. The play-within-a-play even functions as a flashback as it reveals how Claudius has murdered the late King Hamlet. There are also many foreshadowing to indicate what will happen later in the play; for example, the stabbing of Polonius foreshadows the stabbing of Claudius and the victorious return of Fortinbras foreshadows his ascension to the Danish throne. The plot of Osofisan’s Wesoo Hamlet will have been the same with Shakespeare’s but for the prologue set in the great land beyond, the land of the masks. The flashback that shows the disagreement between Oba Sayedero, and Ayibi over the tobacco company, the scene in the ‘bara’ and the scenes that shows the metamophorsized mask sent by Orumila.
CONCLUSION
Since, according to Dass (2000), Comparative Literature is the comparison between two or more literary work of arts or literature. It analyses the similarities, dissimilarities and parallels between two or more literatures. We can therefore, see the similarities and differences between Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Osofisan’s Wesoo Hamlet. Though written at different times: Elizabethan, and contemporary era, they are relational to our society, and both will still be potent, content wise, in years to come. Both plays explore the state of heart of humans in the society, trust system with a society, justice, redemption, and afterlife. However, while Shakespeare’s Hamlet emphasises justice no matter the means, Osofisan’s Wesoo Hamlet preaches forgiveness, repentance, and redemption for the purpose of preventing a tragic history from repeating itself.
CHAPTER 4
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
SUMMARY
This research work has explicitly and lucidly undertaken a critical comparative analysis of Williams Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Femi Osofisan’s Wesoo Hamlet.
The chapter one of this research study focuses on the introductory aspect of this study; where ‘comparative literature, as a study of inter-relationship between any two or more than two significant literary works or literatures, is established. Its role as a dire helper to the blockage of national and international boundaries, and preacher of -- universality of human relationships are, also, punctuated.
Chapter two focuses on the evolution of Comparatives Literature, review of the concept, the crisis, and misconceptions., the Concept of Adaptation, Imitation & Borrowing, Influence, and the biography of the Playwrights.
Chapter three focuses on critical analysis of Williams Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Femi Osofisan’s Wesoo Hamlet. Where Hamlet, by Shakespeare in the Elizabethan era, and Wesoo Hamlet, written by Osofisan in the contemporary era, pulsate in social menace, and the highest level of human dehumanization which are, unfortunately, fresh in our societies.
Since, according to Dass (2000), the central purpose of comparative literature is simply to create or establish a relationship among different writers and literatures from different sources, help enhance their understanding of literature as a human intellectual activity with similar aesthetics and social functions in different cultures. This study has therefore; critically analyze the similarities and differences between Williams Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Femi Osofisan’s Wesoo Hamlet.
CONCLUSION
This study clearly affirmed that comparative literature is indeed a literature that is not clumsy in nature; it proves that, it is not to show which (literature is superior or inferior, rather to get better understanding of different literatures from across borders. And, according to Hussein (n.d.), a literature that expresses deep knowledge. (n.p); this study gives understanding of history, legends, and interesting their sources and influence. For instance, Williams Shakespeare’s Hamlet, according to Mabillard (n.d.), is based on a Norse legend composed by Saxo Grammaticus in Latin around 1200 AD. The sixteen books that comprise Saxo Grammaticus' Gesta Danorum, or History of the Danes, tell of the rise and fall of the great rulers of Denmark, and the tale of Amleth, Saxo's Hamlet, is recounted in books three and four. Saxo Grammaticus's inspires Shakespeare, and Shakespeare’s influence the splendid adaptation created by Osofisan. Osofisan, then, borrowed from the Yoruba historical archive to an adaptation that is as good as its original.
Literature is said to be the reflection and refraction of life; it mirrors reality. Both Shakespeare and Osofisan’s plays mirror our everyday lives. Both plays pulsate in corruption, heartlessness, revenges, curse, afterlife, traditions, belief, forgiveness, death, salvation, and redemption. They, both, examine the society and, then, write the plays they both got inspiration, from different sources, to suit their socio-political environment.
Another instance is when Williams Shakespeare’s Hamlet, and Femi Osofisan’s Wesoo Hamlet, satirise the aristocratic families imperfection as they try so hard to show otherwise. There was peaceful co-existence until Claudius murdered his brother. He marries his late brother’s wife, and occupies his throne. He tries too hard to kill his nephew, the late king’s only son, young prince Hamlet. The first missile that hit Denmark, immediately after the death of the old king Hamlet, was an imminent war from Norway championed by the Norwegian prince named Fortinbras, the nephew to the sick king of Norway, who has led an army to Denmark, but later attacked Poland, after quick intervention.
In the same vein, in Femi Osofisan’s Wesoo Hamlet, there is peace in whole land of Ilaje Ijebu; everyone loves the king, Oba Sayedero, and he leaves up to expectation his name “Sayedero”, meaning- make life bearable, comfortable, convenient, suffering free, and peaceful. But everything fell apart when Ayibi killed his own brother; sit on his throne, and marries his widow wife.
These points raised above are very reflective of what happened in the pre-colonial Nigeria. There was peaceful co-existence until the Europeans came, and everything fell apart. The same happened, in the post-colonial, when the existing government was in power, though the country was not entirely happy but there was peace until a section of the country carried out a coup which plunge the country into a civil war. The pains, still, linger in the corridor of our memory and corner of our hearts.
Williams Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Femi Osofisan’s Wesoo Hamlet also give a picture of the state of man’s heart; how it dares the consequence of an action for his action. Both plays explicitly reveal man’s obsession for power and deceit. Claudius killed his brother to have his throne, daring the consequence. As a result of the halt placed on the establishment of his tobacco company, Ayibi becomes very angry at his brother, Oba Sayedero. He threatened him, and even bragged with the revelation, that, he was the one chosen by the kingmakers to be the king, but he left it for him. At the rejection, by Sayedero, Ayibi sees the need and opportunity to take out his brother, be the king and then, build his tobacco company daring the consequence. Both antagonists deceived everyone around them but nemesis caught up with them. When self-ambition overcomes a man, it blinds him to “good” until he destroys himself. The message of the playwrights, here, is very clear.
Literature’s role and importance as a bank where national treasures, of nation’s culture & customs and tradition, are kept for the next generation can never be over emphasized. Shakespeare introduces in Hamlet the concept of purgation. Osofisan did the same with the introduction of the ancestral dance festival of Egungun, and the detailed process of after death ritual for a dead king in the “bara’’, the royal mausoleum. For the purposes of preservation of culture, and historical belief that form both nations.
A careful study of Osofisan’s works reveals a strong persuasion about the potency of work of arts (plays) in addressing social issues for peace purpose. He’s known to be an advocate of women’s right. Unlike Hamlet’s Gertrude, whom Shakespeare portrays as weak, and docile; Wesoo Hamlet’s Olori, though weakened by Oba Sayedero’s sudden death, is a strong woman, who, despite the rough situation could hold her ground in decision making, and still manage to keep a place for her only son after the death of his father, her husband. Osofisan made a case for Olori, through the metamophorsized Hamlet saying: it is normal for a woman to be emotional, and that everyone deserves to be happy. Olori made a decision that is very difficult for her to make, but she has to do what she has to do for the sake of survival, for her, and her only son.
While Shakespeare’s Hamlet emphasizes revenge as a means of justice, which is questionable, but the renaissance/Elizabethan period ideology, religious and socio-cultural belief system justified it. Osofisan emphasizes revenge as a means of salvation; justifying his claim with a scene in the play, which is based on the Yoruba belief system, concept of afterlife, ghost, and death. When a man is murdered, his spirit wanders lingering behind potsherd, until he has been avenged. So when the ghost-mask of the dead king, Oba Sayedero, appears to reveal the secret behind his untimely death to his son, Leto, it says that it cannot be at peace until it is avenged. So Leto has to revenge and not forgive Ayibi for the sake of his dead father’s spirit, wandering around, and crying for rest. It is obvious that both men’s belief system is an inspiration to them. The era before them and the one they represent has enough material for them.
Finally, the implication of Shakespeare’s Hamlet to the, then, Elizabethan society is that man must beware of his actions; for every decision that births an action, there is a corresponding consequence. In the same vein, the implication of Osofisan’s Wesoo Hamlet to the contemporary African society is his emphases on actions and repercussion. He condemns self-centredness, self-ambition, covetousness, and rush for early wealth, not minding the route; without the sacrifice of diligent work (a disturbing act rampant with the youth of this contemporary society).
Osofisan also draws attention to the traditional system, and detailed some of the cultural processes, for preservation reasons. Yet, he questioned it; the traditional belief of revenge and its relevance in the contemporary era. Revenge breeds circle of revenge; it ignites violence and increases bloodshed.
He, however, calls for dialogue, and forgiveness for the purpose of preventing bad historic events from repeating itsel
WORKS CITED
Aldridge, A. Owen, ed: “Comparative Literature: Matter and Method. Urbana: University of Illinois (at Urbana) Press, 1969. Academic Search Premier. Web. Dec 2019.
Amuta, C, “The Theory of African Literature”, London, Zed Books, 1989, p. 19. Academic Search Premier. Web. Dec 2019.
Arnold, Michael. In G. W. Russell, Letters of Matthew Arnold 1848-1888 1 (2 vols). London, London: Macmillan and Co. s (1895). Academic Search Premier. Web. Dec 2019.
Asimov, Isaac. “Asimov’s Guide to Shakespeare” United States: Doubleday publisher 1970 web pp 843 Jan, 2020
Bassnett, Susan. Comparative Literature: A Critical Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell, 1993. Web Dec 2019
Boldor, Alexander. “Perspective on Comparative Literature” Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj. 2003 Pg 5-20, web Nov, 2019
Comparative Literature and Culture, Vol. 1, Issue 3. n.p. n.d. http://docs.lib.purdue.edu. 2019
Dass, Bijay. “Comparative Literature” Atlantic Publishers and distributors B-2 Vishal Enclave, Opp. Rajouri Garden New Delhi-27 2000. Web November, 2019
Echekwube, A.O. An Introduction to African Philosophy, Ibadan: Kraft Books Limited. 1994. Web 17 Jan 2020.
Falola and Akinyemi “Emerging Perspectives on Femi Osofisan” eds. Africa world press Inc Asmara Eritrea 2009. Web dec, 2019
Goethe, J. W. Conversations of Goethe with Eckermann and Soret. Trans. from German by John Oxenford in Two Volumes (Vol.1). London: Smith, Elder and Co., (1850).. Web. Dec 2019.
Hussein. AA. Theories of Comparative Literature. Vol. 1, Issue 3. n.p. n.d. Accessed 23rd Dec 2019
Hutcheson, Posnett, "The Science of Comparative Literature," in the Contemporary Review (79), 1901, pp. 855-72. Web Dec 2019
Iwuchukwu, Onyeka. ” Elements of Drama ”. Noun University, Lagos: Noun press 2008. Web. November. 2019.
Johnson, D. Dr. Johnson's Preface. In W. Harness, The Complete Works of William Shakespeare with Dr. Johnson's Preface (pp. 3-10). London: Scott, Webster, and Geary. (1842). Web. Dec 2019.
Life after Death in Yoruba Ontology: A Critique N.p Lagos: Ojo, 2011 Web 18 Jan. 2020
Works of Isaac Ogezi. “Re-creating Shakespeare’s Othello in Yerima’s Otaelo” Tuesdsay September 28, 2010 pg 06. Web . 29 Dec. 2019
MM. Enani, “The Comparative Tone: Essays in Comparative Literature”, Cairo, GEBO, 1995 p. 210. Web Dec 2019.
Oripeloye, Henri. “Re-ordering Humanity: Femi Osofisan’s Backward Glance in One Legend, Many Season”; Falola and Akinyemi “Emerging Perspectives on Femi Osofisan” eds. Africa world press Inc Asmara Eritrea 2009. Web dec. 2019
Osofisan, Femi “Wesoo Hamlet” Lagos: Concept Publication Limited, 2012. Print.
Remak, Henry, “Comparative Literature: Its Definition and Function”, in Newton Stallknecht and H. Frenz (eds.), Comparative Literature: Method and Perspective, p. 3. Web 2019
Robert, Clements, “Comparative Literature as an Academic Discipline”, New York, Modern Language Association of America, 1978, p. 2, Web Dec 2019.
Sahin, Elmas. “On Comparative Literature” International Journal of Literature and Arts Special Issue: World Literature, Comparative Literature and (Comparative) Cultural Studies. Vol. 4, No. 1-1, 2016, pp. 5-12. Academic Search Premier. Web. Dec 2019.
Shakespeare, Williams. “ The Plays of William Shakespeare”. London: C. Bathurst. 1773. Pg 235. Web Accessed on 27 Dec, 2019
Surjeet, Warwal, “Sagar” ISSN: 2455-6440, Volume 1, Issue II, (Jan- Mar .2016), PP 171-173. Web. Dec 2019.
TG., Manikar, "Comparative Literature for India, Jadavpur/ Journal of Comparative Literature", 1976-77, p.52. Academic Search Premier. Web. Dec 2019.
Tieghem, Paul, “La Litterature Comparée”, Paris, Colin, 1931, p. 57 (translated using all language translation app). Web. Dec 2019.
Tötösy de Zepetnek, Steven. “Comparative Literature: Theory, Method, Application”. Amsterdam-Atlanta, GA: Rodopi, 1998. Academic Search Premier. Web. Dec 2019.
www.Sociology.Org.Uk “Marxism”. N.p. 2005. Web. Accessed 23rd Jan 2020.
Wellek, Remak. “Discriminations: Further Concepts of Criticism”. Delhi: Vikas Publishers. . (1970). Web. Dec 2019.
Wellek and Warren. Theory of Literature. New York: Harcourt. (1949). Web. Dec 2019.
Works of Mabillard Amanda.’’ Shakespeare's Sources for Hamlet’’. Shakespeare Online. Web 09 Jan, 2020
WriteWork.com.. “What were the Elizabethan beliefs about ghosts, the afterlife, heaven and hell?” N.p 17 January, 2006. Web 18 Jan. 2020.
