1. To what extent (if at all), and in what ways would you say Shakespeare's history plays are morality plays?
William Shakespeare's literary works have had a massive effect on us, because it is discusses many aspects in our life. Shakespearean plays are in a sense in a category of their own as they have evolved with the changing times, while staying in similar forms, and in order to understand Shakespeare's play we should study all the aspects in the play itself. Shakespeare is good for teaching moral values. I will discuss three Shakespearean plays, in order to prove to what extent each play is morality play, or maybe not. The plays I would like to examine are: Richard III, Henry IV, and Julius Caesar. First of all I want to define the morality …show more content…
No, my good lord; banish Peto, banish Bardolph, banish Poins: but for sweet Jack Falstaff, kind Jack Falstaff, true Jack Falstaff, valiant Jack Falstaff, and therefore more valiant, being, as he is, old Jack Falstaff, banish not him thy Harry's company, banish not him thy Harry's company: banish plump Jack, and banish all the world." (Act II, scene IV).
By these words we understand, which personality Falstaff has; he sees himself as representing a moral, not like Richard III who embodies the vice figure also in his rhetoric speech. Also Prince Hal takes the moralist rhetoric but his intention it does not harm Falstaff, so for these reasons this play is not a morality play. In addition, Henry's reign was difficult; in the beginning Prince Hal controlled England by rebellion, after that he suffered of guilt, but the whole play centers on concepts of relative morality and ethics. Prince Hal embodies a moral absolute view of the world, and in this case I want to mention that even when Prince Hal described Falstaff as a white bearded Satan and misleader of youth, he does not want to hurt him, he loves him but hates what he reminds him of in …show more content…
(Act III, Scene II)
The third play I would like to discuss is " Julius Caesar", in the beginning I want to mention that this play contains some aspects of morality play, not like Richard the third who embodies the values of morality play, and also not like Henry the fourth which is a history play and does not present to the reader aspects of morality play, it is only seems to be a morality play in the beginning.
Julius Caesar is a tragedy play, which discusses the tragedy of Caesar. We see many characters in this play, but the more character which reflects the vice figure is Cassius. Cassius embodies bad man, who only wants to flatter Caesar and to hurt him. According to Brutus's speech to Cassius we notice how much this honest friend loves Caesar. In this act, Brutus refuses Cassius flattery towards his friend Caesar and defends Caesar.
Brutus lives in very difficult conflict, between the honor and friendship. In my opinion, this play talks about morality because we can learn a lesson from it, not to trust anybody, especially your best
William Shakespeare's literary works have had a massive effect on us, because it is discusses many aspects in our life. Shakespearean plays are in a sense in a category of their own as they have evolved with the changing times, while staying in similar forms, and in order to understand Shakespeare's play we should study all the aspects in the play itself. Shakespeare is good for teaching moral values. I will discuss three Shakespearean plays, in order to prove to what extent each play is morality play, or maybe not. The plays I would like to examine are: Richard III, Henry IV, and Julius Caesar. First of all I want to define the morality …show more content…
No, my good lord; banish Peto, banish Bardolph, banish Poins: but for sweet Jack Falstaff, kind Jack Falstaff, true Jack Falstaff, valiant Jack Falstaff, and therefore more valiant, being, as he is, old Jack Falstaff, banish not him thy Harry's company, banish not him thy Harry's company: banish plump Jack, and banish all the world." (Act II, scene IV).
By these words we understand, which personality Falstaff has; he sees himself as representing a moral, not like Richard III who embodies the vice figure also in his rhetoric speech. Also Prince Hal takes the moralist rhetoric but his intention it does not harm Falstaff, so for these reasons this play is not a morality play. In addition, Henry's reign was difficult; in the beginning Prince Hal controlled England by rebellion, after that he suffered of guilt, but the whole play centers on concepts of relative morality and ethics. Prince Hal embodies a moral absolute view of the world, and in this case I want to mention that even when Prince Hal described Falstaff as a white bearded Satan and misleader of youth, he does not want to hurt him, he loves him but hates what he reminds him of in …show more content…
(Act III, Scene II)
The third play I would like to discuss is " Julius Caesar", in the beginning I want to mention that this play contains some aspects of morality play, not like Richard the third who embodies the values of morality play, and also not like Henry the fourth which is a history play and does not present to the reader aspects of morality play, it is only seems to be a morality play in the beginning.
Julius Caesar is a tragedy play, which discusses the tragedy of Caesar. We see many characters in this play, but the more character which reflects the vice figure is Cassius. Cassius embodies bad man, who only wants to flatter Caesar and to hurt him. According to Brutus's speech to Cassius we notice how much this honest friend loves Caesar. In this act, Brutus refuses Cassius flattery towards his friend Caesar and defends Caesar.
Brutus lives in very difficult conflict, between the honor and friendship. In my opinion, this play talks about morality because we can learn a lesson from it, not to trust anybody, especially your best