英语论文网

t due yet: I would be loath to pay him before his day." (L. 127-8) In this example, God is being related by Falstaff to someone who has set a schedule determining the time and place of everyone’s death. For Falstaff, one’s role in life is not to stray from the path created by that higher Power. The notion of honor, as he later describes in this speech, is a belief through which one can violate that natural order. He says," Yea, but how if honor prick me off when I come on?" (L. 130) In order for one to gain honor, one must risk one’s life. This type of gambling is not for Falstaff, as he decides that his own life is more important than" A word." (L. 133) Falstaff’s desire to save his own life places him firmly within the physical world. His speech deals with the ways a timelessly ephemeral notion such as honor can affect the physical world. Falstaff says, "Can honor set to a leg? No. Or an arm? No. Or take away the grief from a wound? No." (L. 131-2) At the same time as Hal is placing himself within the world of timeless history through his brave deeds, Falstaff contemplates the physical harm which could happen to him. His line of thought addresses Hal as someone who seeks rewards which are unattainable. To Falstaff, the desire for honor, which has started countless wars and caused innumerable deaths, is no more than a fairy tale. Falstaff is connected to the tangible world of eating, merriment, and physicality to such an extent as to devalue the quest for timeless justice through honorable actions. By fearing physical harm, Falstaff keeps him from accessing into the realm of personal strength and heroically timeless deeds. C. The Realistic Meanings of Falstaff's Character As a poet says “A little sand reflects the whole world.” Analyzing the character of Falstaff still has great meanings nowadays. From the little figure we not only see Falstaff more clearly, but also can experience the period of history and feel culture that author described. With the global development and international communication, the people in different countries have started to learn from each other and enhance their cultural civilization. William Shakespeare is a famous dramatist who ever lives and his woks are worldwide literature masterpiece. The ideas which I have formed concerning the courage and military character of the dramatic Sir John Falstaff, are so different from those which I find generally to prevail in the world, that I shall take the liberty of stating my sentiments on the subject, in hope that some person as unengaged as myself, will either correct and reform my error in this respect, or, joining himself to my opinion, remedy me from, what I may call, the reproach of singularity. I am to avow that I do not clearly discern that Sir John Falstaff deserves to bear the character so generally given him of an absolute coward, in other words, that I do not conceive Shakespeare ever meant to make cowardice an essential part of his constitution. I know how universally the contrary opinion prevails, and I know what respect and deference are due to the public voice. But if to make an avowal of this singularity, I add all the reasons that have led me to it, and acknowledge myself to be wholly in the judgment of the public, I shall hope to avoid the censure of too much forwardness or indecorum. It must, in the first place, be admitted that the appearances in this case are singularly strong and striking. We see this extraordinary character, almost in