It is further mentioned in source U that “Norfolk and his colleagues do not wish for battle, showing tacitly that the petitions of the rebels are lawful”. Therefore, this shows that the rebels were not completely going against the King, so it would be difficult for him to act against them. By the source saying, “the men of the North are able to defend themselves” it shows that there was widespread support. Source V can further support this claim when it is stated that by their “negligence the rebels should march forward and cross the don”. This implies that the rebels would be able to cross over to the South where their numbers would have increased significantly.
However, the play itself is specifically meant to be presented to an Elizabethan era audience, despite some of the more modern adaptations of the play. As such, the conversation in Act IV Scene III between Hamlet and Claudius as to where Polonius’ body is hidden, is meant to target the original Elizabethan audience by using religious allusions that would have been better understood by such an audience along with the treatment of the mentally ill, and the relations between England and Denmark. To begin with, the religious allusions that Shakespeare uses in this scene are difficult to fully understand today, unless one has a good knowledge of history, however, they would have been easily understood back when the play was first performed. In Act IV Scene III, Shakespeare deliberately has Hamlet voice a pun about the Diet of Worms, which would have been much more known to a portion of the Elizabethan audience, as religion played a much larger role in the world back then, especially in a country where there had been so many changes in religion such as England. Similarly, he also alludes to the fact that the Diet of Worms is the “best of all diets”, as it was about what the Holy Roman Empire -- who England was briefly tied to by the marriage of Elizabeth’s older sister Mary to Philip I of Spain, who was the son of Charles V, who was
A major movement was the enlightenment. The enlightenment was in direct contrast to these views as it brought about a caviller dismissal of the prejudices that Burke sought to protect. Furthermore contrary to the conservative view the enlightened individuals promoted reason over reasonableness, as they believed this would liberate man from the oppression as the result of old laws. It would be foolish not to write this essay and not address Burke’s views on the French revolution. Burke opposed the instability and the reasoning of the revolution, as well as it’s potential to increase in violence and decline into anarchy, as it later did.
Source N is based on several other post-Reformation texts, however, they are more than likely going to be predisposed against More because he was well known as someone who refused to accept Anne Boleyn as Queen and take the Oath of Succession in 1534. The reliability of the source does come into question because John Foxe was a Protestant and would naturally oppose a man like More who was a devout Catholic. The Source does not make it clear whether More did torture those people or not, but does strive to make him seem uncompassionate and cruel. Source N is somewhat trustworthy, due to it being more factually based, because Ackroyd would have had much more information when he wrote the Source, however, despite him clearly stating that More was a cruel man, it is unclear whether or not this is true or even trustworthy. Source O also agrees that More had little compassion for other people as it says he was not pleasant to talk to and that he was always
However, in modern times society is a lot less prejudice, and audiences are more sympathetic for Shylock. The Elizabethan audience would also be more religious than a modern audience, and Shylock was a character that went against everything they believed in as Christians. Therefore, especially with an Elizabethan audience, the main feeling towards Shylock would not be sympathy, but hostility and loathing. Our first glimpse of Shylocks character is in Act 1, Scene 3, where Shylock reveals to the audience the reason he hates Antonio. The first reason he gives is because he is a Christian.
Censoring a novel because of its use of certain words without examining the context is absurd. Dr. Sarah Churchwell explains, “The fault lies in the teaching, not the book, you can’t say I’ll change Twain because it isn’t compatible with my teaching methods.” When a work contains content that could be considered hurtful it is important to teach the context behind the content, not avoid the work of literature
In Source A, it seems to have only had a specific interest towards liberal groups such as non-conformists and the Source suggests how Gladstone didn’t take into consideration that other religious groups demanded disendowment, and their seemed to have been more intentions but overall it was made to achieve reform and justice. Sources A, B, C, D, and E suggest that Gladstone’s intention was to pacify all the liberal interest groups but this didn’t go quiet to how he planned as there was a lot of contradiction towards his
Cain and Abel from the Bible. Claudius prays that he may be forgiven by God but that there is not point because he wants to keep what he took out of murdering his brother. Hamlet is a Christian, a fact that hinders rather than helps him in his mission for revenge. Hamlet’s Christian belief is one of the many reasons why he hesitates to carry out the ghost's instructions, why he refrains from turning his weapon on himself. In the most famous of his
K. V. ENG 101 3/31/14 To Ban or Not to Ban In Dennis Baron’s, Don’t make English Official- Ban it Instead he is insisting that instead of making English the official language of the United States, we should just get rid of it altogether. In his small article he manages to whip up six small arguments to convince the readers of his ludicrous proposal. Rather than actually convincing the readers, his points are unclear, sometimes confusing and unsatisfying. In the end he doesn’t actually set up a solution for his readers, and leaves them with the whole “so what was the point,” feeling. Through his poor perspectives and unfocused essay, I am far from convinced that English should not be the official language but banned.
In The Crucible, the characterisation of Proctor to “need not have been a partisan of any faction in town” asserts his internal strength which does not require belonging with the majority, ultimately arousing suspicion. The ramifications of his choice to separate himself from society, exemplified through his denomination of Salem as “they”, raises “questions as to the Christian character of this house”. Proctor contradicts the notion of human nature having an innate desire to belong as the violent imagery of Proctor to Abigail “… I will cut off my hand before I ever reach for you again” emphasises his virtuous nature which creates a self imposed barrier from creating a forced sense of belonging. The metaphorical comment that “the magistrate sits in your heart that judges you” highlights the fact Proctor defines himself by his lechery and strives for redemption rather than creating a façade which ultimately segregates him from the rest of Salem. “In unity lay the best promise of safety” embodies the repercussions of choosing not to belong as the mob mentality of Salem leaves the non conformist individual vulnerable.