Shakespeare was a master of creating characters whose morality remained ambiguous throughout his plays. For instance, Shylock in The Merchant of Venice is an extremely unlikeable character, although his motivations are clear, making him more sympathetic. However, Shakespeare also knew how to write characters who could be nothing but likable. Antonio in Twelfth Night and Kent from King Lear are two of the most admirable characters in Shakespeare’s plays. Both are paragons of virtue, valuing honesty, loyalty, and devotion to their masters at all costs. Honesty is a recurring theme for both Kent and Antonio. They are willing to speak the truth even when it might place them in danger. For example, Kent informs King Lear of his wrongdoing. feedback. The first instance of this is in his speech shortly after he has been banished from the kingdom. He states, "Now, banished Kent, if thou canst serve where thou dost stand condemned, so may it come, thy master, whom thou lovest, shall find thee full of labors" (I.iv.4-7). Kent's willingness to return to Lear's kingdom after his banishment, facing execution if he is caught, shows his dedication to his master and his readiness to place himself in harm's way for King Lear's sake. In addition to Kent's decision to serve Lear even after his banishment, he places himself in harm's way once again when he challenges Goneril's steward, Oswald, saying, "Draw, you rascal! You come with letters against the king" (II.ii.32-33). Although Kent is not injured in this exchange, Goneril sentences him to a day and a night in the stocks for his insubordination to her steward. Finally, Kent's devotion to his master is what ultimately sends him to his death - the last time he follows Lear. As he tells Albany, "I have a journey, sir, shortly to go; my master calls me, I must not say no" (V.iii.521-522). Despite the disparity between the two plays (the comedic Twelfth Night and the tragic King Lear), Antonio and Kent play very similar roles, offering wise warnings to others although they have been mistreated. Thus, Kent and Antonio are two of the most virtuous characters in any of Shakespeare's plays, demonstrating honesty and loyalty towards their masters at all costs. Although both are mistreated for their actions, they remain dedicated, each continuing by their masters' sides to give advice and honest feedback.
Shakespeare introduces to us a character who is evil according to the moral judgement of the moment. He does not respect the social values and norms. For him social taboos such as incest and crimes such as murder cease to be wrong once they become instruments of power. He is Satan incarnated, cunning, greedy and destructive. He has no respect for those who observe social, norms, family ethics and political loyalty.
In other words, he commits suicide. During King Lear, Kent’s purpose is to serve and follow Lear. At first Kent may seem like a generic servant, but as the plot progresses it is evident that Kent truly cares for the well-being of Lear and is emotionally invested in his care. After Lear banishes Kent, Kent “raze[s] [his] likeness” in order to serve Lear once again. Kent’s extreme devotion drives him to sacrifice his personal identity . Kent’s journey is exceedingly purposeful in that he devotes his life to another human being without any obligations to do so. By the same token, Kent follows his journey to the final hour, as his purpose in caring for Lear ends in
In Shakespeare's Henry IV Part One, the characters' many different conceptions of honor govern how they respond to situations. Each character's conception of honor has a great impact on the character's standing after the play. For instance, Falstaff survived because he dishonorably faked his own death, and his untrue claim that he was the one who killed Hotspur may get him a title and land. On the other hand, Hotspur lies dead after losing a duel for honor. Hotspur, who is in many ways the ideal man by the standards of his time, is killed by his lust for honor. In creating Hotspur, Shakespeare has created a variation on the tragic hero of other works: the stubborn tragic hero, who, dying for his fault of honor, does not at last understand his weakness.
At this particular moment, Lear is still unaware of Kent's identity, disguised as Caius, ever since he bannished Kent for defending Cordeila's thoughtful choice to "love and be silent". We understand that the disguise is a way in which Kent can protect and continually serve the "poor, weak and infirm" Lear. Lear begins to accomplish understanding through the change in his contemptuous behaviour to a sympathetic learning man.
Crawford, Alexander W. Hamlet, an ideal prince, and other essays in Shakesperean interpretation: Hamlet; Merchant of Venice; Othello; King Lear. Boston R.G. Badger, 1916. Shakespeare Online. 20 Aug. 2009. (April 30 2014) < http://www.shakespeare-online.com/plays/othello/othelloessay2.html >.
The point of departure of Lear into the unknown of existence is seen when he plunges himself into the harshness and relentlessness of nature. While immersed in the storm, Lear has been reduced to the bare essentials of man, he has lost those that he perceived as loving, and despite being accompanied by the Fool and Kent, Lear is more alone than he has ever been. The daughters he thought who loved him abandoned him and have taken his kingdom. The daughter who truly loved him was banished by his irrationality; Lear is alone. The presence of the Fool and Edgar should not necessarily be looked upon as that of a companion, but rather as catalyst for Lear’s progression. As for Kent, his presence is barely felt by Lear. Lear’s isolation is critical for his progression. Similar to Sartre’s Roquentin in Nausea, isolation and loneliness are the foundations for becoming existentially aware. “The tempest in my mind/ Doth from my senses take all feeling else”(III, iv 13-14)[1] Lear is completely alone in the universe, abandoned by love and cloistered from all outside emotion; he is now prepared to perceive the realit...
A struggle is present in every tragedy, as a person tries to overcome their flaws and fit the mold of their ideal. William Shakespeare plainly defined a good man in the play, Macbeth. Prudence and logic, temperance and patience, as well as the vindication of honor are Shakespeare's defining characteristics of a good man. Honor and bravery are Shakespeare’s defining characteristics of a good man while illogical passion and impatience are characteristics that do not characterize a good man.
William Shakespeare is seen to many as one of the great writers in history. More specifically, the characters in his plays are reviewed and criticized and have been so for nearly four centuries. The character that many have revered Shakespeare for is perhaps the greatest such character ever in literature, Hamlet from Shakespeare's Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. The commentary and response to this legend of literature is of wide array and opinion, though most, such as Pennington, believe him to be a truly magnificent character: "Hamlet is perhaps the cleverest hero ever written, the subject of the first European tragedy, a form of genius. A type Shakespeare despaired of writing thereafter, having perceived that the heroes of tragedies must be sublime idiots" (185). However, despite his clear gifts and aura, Hamlet was a doomed character from the beginning: Hamlet is dominated by an emotion that is inexpressible. It is thus a feeling he cannot understand, he cannot objectify it, and it therefore remains open to poison life and to obstruct action" (Eliot 25). Thus, Hamlet, while possessing the traits of no other men of his time, a true Renaissance man, was doomed from the beginning of the play partly by forces he could not control, and also partly by his own character. It leads to a slow but definite ending to one of literature's great characters, one that he could not control. In the end, Hamlet was out of place in his environment, he was simply not meant to be.
Dominic, C. Catherine. Shakespeare's Characters for Students. Detroit - New York -Toronto - London: Gale Research, 1997.
Genuine people are few and far in between. Honesty is always hidden under the mystery of corruption. Wherever you go, people seem to put on mask and hide who they truly are become hidden from the outside world. Their motives are unknown but they have a deep, dark necessity to act and play a different role when they are in the presence of others. However, this doesn’t pertain to just people in the real world, it also occurs in the world of Shakespeare. The audience quickly finds that just like in their everyday life, fictional characters can also play a different role to achieve what they truly desire. Consequently, these characters develop a sense of dishonesty throughout the story and this dishonesty eventually leads to the destruction of their plans. Just like a weak foundation of a building, a weak personality will eventually crumple in ruin. In order to capture the recurring theme of dishonesty, William Shakespeare uses the death of King Hamlet to force a façade of security and responsibility on the major characters in his play, Hamlet.
7 May 2010. Studygodorg.blogspot.com -. 14 March 2014. Downing, Elizabeth. A. The “Top 10 Greatest Shakespeare Villians.”
This is interpreted from when King Lear says, “O vassal! Miscreant!” (1.1.159). King Lear’s tone is extremely hostile towards Kent, calling him a villain. Kent replies with, “Kill thy physician and thy fee bestow upon the foul disease.
At this particular moment, Lear is still unaware of Kent's identity, disguised as Caius, ever since he bannished Kent for defending Cordeila's thoughtful choice to "love and be silent". We understand that the disguise is a way in which Kent can protect and continually serve the "poor, weak and infirm" Lear. Lear begins to accomplish understanding through the change in his contemptuous behaviour to a sympathetic learning man.
Throughout most of King Lear, Lear's vision is clouded by his lack of insight. Since he cannot see into other people's characters, he can never identify them for who they truly are. When Cordelia angers Lear, Kent tries to reason with Lear, who is too stubborn to remain open-minded. Lear responds to Kent's opposition with, "Out of my sight," to which Kent responds, "See better, Lear, and let me still remain" (I.i.160). Here, Lear is saying he never wants to see Kent again, but he could never truly see him for who he is. Kent was only trying to do what was best for Lear, but Lear could not see that. Kent's vision is not clouded, as is Lear's, and he knows that he can remain near Lear as long as he is in disguise. Later, Lear's vision is so superficial that the physical garments and simple disguise that Kent wears easily dupe him. Lear cannot see who Kent really is. He only learns of Kent's noble and honest character just prior to his death, when his vision is cleared. By this time, however, it is too late for an honest relationship to be salvaged.
would have to dress and be as a man. She was known as Cesario. Orsino,