Falstaff: Lion or Loon
In Maurice Morgan? s? The Dramatic Character of Falstaff? , he gives us a critical reading of the Shakespearean character, Sir John Falstaff, looking at him from every point of position but a Layman? s one. He summarizes Falstaff incompletely, including quotation marks from Henry IV, Part Two and non every bit much from Henry IV, Part One, which gives more information about? Old John? s? character ( in the first scene with Falstaff? s character ) from the beginning, but instead corsets focused on what leads to his tragic destiny. Morgan starts by giving us his thesis statement, which is oppugning of whether Falstaff was a coward or if he was a brave character. This is what I thought the article would be chiefly explicating ; I was incorrect. Morgan seems to travel off on tangents, puting Falstaff? s character in eldritch places by comparing and doing dealingss between other characters in Shakespeare? s historical dramas. He makes an uneven point by stating the reader to look at every adult male as two characters, rebuttaling what his end for the essay is to be.
Every adult male we may detect, has two characters ; that is, every adult male may be seen externally, and from without ; – or a subdivision may be made of him, and he may be illuminated within? ( Morgan 88 ) .
There were good points excessively, like when he defines what bravery and cowardliness were in Shakespeare? s clip, which I thought was really educational:
Personal bravery may be derived, particularly after holding acknowledged that he seemed to hold deserted those points of honor, which are more peculiarly the concomitants of rank. But it may be observed that in Feudal ages rank and wealth were non merely connected with the point of honor, but with personal strength and natural bravery? ( Morgan 88 ) .
I have to state, Morgan does make a fantastic occupation of reasoning Falstaff? s actions with his witty personality and demand for attending but every bit shortly as he tries to acquire back to the topic of? coward or brave? , he so changes to another subject. This was really frustrating since Morgan made some first-class points but seemed to hold his thoughts disorganized. In the terminal of his essay, I was keeping out to read if Morgan? s rating had a good stoping determination of Falstaff? s
? coward or brave? character ; it didn? T. I was really defeated since I had read all of his points and was waiting for the coda. Morgan concluded his essay with a confusing whine and non an answering knock. Morgan writes, ? ? on which the reader is left to confer what character he pleases? ( Morgan 93 ) . In my sentiment, this is somewhat ill-mannered since Morgan faced us with a inquiry and did non even have the? bravery? to reply it himself.
All in all, I believe Morgan has an first-class appreciation on Falstaff? s character in the later dramas, but missed Prince Hal? s great description in Henry IV, Part One doing me oppugn his expertness on the capable affair. By the terminal of reading this reading, I felt like I had merely gone through an intellectualized muss of words that I was left to form for reappraisal. Person should state Maurice Morgan that most of his readers are pupils and non super-intellectuals.
As for Falstaff, I thought he was a really concentrated character whom, like any existent individual, has many sides to them. This is why, to me, Shakespeare was a great author ; he knew the human spirit? s goods? and evils? and how these things are what makes us thrive and gives us dimensions. These dimensions are what Falstaff has plentifulness of ( no wordplay intended ) in his word picture. I would detest to state that Falstaff is a coward. By the terminal of Henry IV, Part One, he is the man/character that makes the people laugh the most and so they make a personal connexion with him. Because of this, it is difficult for any audience to label him with a black name since he has given them a few cases of felicity. Besides, I have questioned if Shakespeare wrote Falstaff to merely be a comedic character, let go ofing him from being a tragic or hero, since most valorous people that he portrays sound a batch healthier than Falstaff.
In decision, I believe that Morgan has written a good work but non great. For pupil? s information, I would merely utilize this essay for a few mentions of Falstaff? s character but non for a complete mention and non for a critical reappraisal ( merely if you are into self maltreatment ) .
Morgan, Maurice. ? The Dramatic Character of Falstaff? .
Ed. Bloom, Harold. Falstaff: A Critical Interpretation
Chelsea Publishing House, 1992