Shakespeare on violence (justifiable or no?)

Remove all ads!

I'm supposed to write a 1st Person paper on Shakespeare and what he thinks about: Violence. Is it ever justified.

I'd say yes, he thought it was justified (just look at his plays), but would you think that he was not too concerned about human life? (Meaning people dying was nothing to get worked up about, unless it concerns you directly.)

What would be his general attitude towards violence and fighting?

 

IMO he mocks the fighting men, but this is based on one play (Much Ado About Nothing, wherein Benedick is mocked). Other than that, I can't really say much.

 

Yes, he has some of that attitude towards the fighters and he's not really into hack&slash, but he does have some knack for gore

I'd say he's not a big fan of fighting, but he's quite fond of explicit lyrics

If justified? Well, he presents Hamlet or Malcolm as heroic figures - those who fought for their heritage sword in hand. I don't think anyone in sane mind could say he holds violence never justifiable.

 

I think that Shakespeare had fighting into his scripts for the realism, but nowadays when his plays are performed, the fighting and violence are 'played up' for entertainment value.

Just like a book turned movie, the violence is put center stage for entertainment, whether it is important to the plot or not.

So Shakespear had violence, but I don't think that he promoted it.

 

Mystra - There are a few plays where Shakespeare tells us what he thinks through his characters. Look closely at _King Lear_, Hamlet and _Henry V_. These are certainly violent plays with lots of gore. "Men must endure," as Edgar tells Gloucester, "the ripeness is all," in scene II, Act V. Then take a look at the same exact scene and act in _Hamlet_. Shakespeare says the same thing again, repeating himself in parrallel scenes. Is he trying to tell us something? Both men are about to enter into fights: Hamlet with Laertes; Edgar with his half-brother Edmund. But these are tragedies, and the folowing dramatic actions of violence are framed by both the previous scenes.

_Henry V_ is a history play. For a general dialogue on the morality of the violence of warfare, look at the exchange in Scene I of Act IV. Shakespeare appears to come down on the side of the necessity of warfare, IF the cause is just and good.

Very powerful stuff, indeed. And just as relevant today as it was then. Hope this helps.

 

I think Shakespeare does think violence can be justified. However, it ALWAYS has serious consequences in his plays. Pretty much everyone in Hamlet ends up dead, for example, including the totally innocent Ophelia and her brother.

Shakespeare ends some of his history plays tied up in a neat little bow, but he had to for political reasons. Otherwise, the instigators of violence are always bad or at least very confused, and killing is proven to be unjustified. Othello is a case in point here. I'd check out The Tempest if I were you as well. Prospero has been misused terribly but he doesn't kill the man who marooned him. Many of Shakespeare's plays revolve around misplaced mistrust: Othello, A Winter's Tale, Much Ado About Nothing, and I'm sure there are more.

Off the top of my head, I think that Shakespeare believed that when people behaved rationally and openly, acknowledging their emotions but not being carried away by them, not trying to control others, or seize unlawful power, they behaved correctly. When this natural order is upset, people are inevitably driven to violence. He doesn't necessarily make a moral judgement about this. Shakespeare's world is never black and white, and teachers and professors always make us take sides, don't they?

 

I thinks he considers violence justifiable because take Romeo & Juliet. For instance Tybalt. He dies by the hand of Romeo for killing Mercutio. Romeo was avenging Mercutio cheap shot death. I think that he considers that a justifiable cause for violence. I would say he's a pretty violent guy from his plays.