In Maurice Morgan's "The Dramatic Character of Falstaff", he gives us a critical interpretation of the Shakespearian character, Sir John Falstaff, looking at him from every point of view but a Layman's one. He summarizes Falstaff incompletely, including quotes from Henry IV, Part Two and not as 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 rather stays focused on what leads to his tragic fate. Morgan starts by giving us his thesis statement, which is questioning of whether Falstaff was a coward or if he was a courageous character. This is what I thought the article would be mainly explaining; I was wrong. Morgan seems to go off on tangents, placing Falstaff's character in weird positions by comparing and making relations between other characters in Shakespeare's historical plays. He makes an odd point by telling the reader to look at every man as two characters, rebuttaling what his goal for the essay is to be.
             "Every man we may observe, has two characters; that is, every man may be seen externally, and from without;- or a section may be made of him, and he may be illuminated within" (Morgan 88).
             There were good points too, like when he defines what courage and cowardice were in Shakespeare's time, which I thought was very educational:
             "Personal courage may be derived, especially after having acknowledged that he seemed to have deserted those points of honour, which are more peculiarly the accompaniments of rank. But it may be observed that in Feudal ages rank and wealth were not only connected with the point of honour, but with personal strength and natural courage"(Morgan 88).
             I have to say, Morgan does do a wonderful job of concluding Falstaff's actions with his witty personality and need for attention bu
             ...