Category: The Tempest

Nowadays, it became a commonplace practice among many people to refer to the play The Tempest (by William Shakespeare), the essay Supplement to the Voyage of Bougainville (by Denis Didrot) and the novel Gulliver’s Travels (by Jonathan Swift), as such that represent a particularly high literary value.

The main reason for this is that, in the discursive sense of this word, the mentioned literary masterpieces were much ahead of their time – something that can be illustrated, in regards to the fact that all three literary pieces promote the idea of intellectual enlightenment/progress, as something that has the value of a ‘thing in itself’.

What is also similar between the literary works in question, is that they do it in the thoroughly entertaining manner – namely, by the mean exposing readers to the humorous twists of the affiliated plots.

In this respect, it can also be noted that in their works, Shakespeare, Diderot and Swift did succeed in revealing the sheer erroneousness of the assumption that White people had the ‘natural right’ to exploit indigenous populations in different parts of the world, while justifying this practice by the references to the presumed ‘inferiority’ of the latter.

Thus, it will be thoroughly appropriate to suggest that the mentioned authors did contribute rather substantially towards undermining the conceptual legitimacy of the discourse of colonialism, as we know it.

This simply could not be otherwise. While utilizing humor and satire, as the instruments of making a point, Shakespeare, Diderot and Swift were able to expose the inconsistency of the euro-centric idea of the so-called ‘White man’s burden’, concerned with the assumption that the world’s indigenous peoples are essentially sub-human, and that there is nothing wrong about subjecting them to exploitation.

In my paper, I will explore the validity of this suggestion at length, while expounding on the specifics of how the authors’ humorous/satirical treatment of the euro-centric stereotype of ‘naive savage’ helps readers to broaden their intellectual horizons.

I will also expound on what can be considered the indications that, while ensuring the satirical sounding of their masterpieces, all three authors nevertheless remained well within the ideological framework of the discourse of euro-centricity.

One of the most effective methods to ensure the satirical sounding of a particular episode in the work of literature, is to overplay the idea that people are actually quite capable of not even noticing the dichotomy between how they act, on one hand, and what happened to be the set of their beliefs, as to what accounts for one’s proper behavior, on the other.

In its turn, this creates the objective preconditions for the emergence of many humorous situations, because it does entertain people a great deal to see others being utterly arrogant of their own arrogance.

Evidently enough, while working on his play The Tempest, Shakespeare remained thoroughly aware of this – something that can be illustrated, in regards to the author’s treatment of the idea of ‘naive savage’, embodied by the character of Caliban (Prospero’s ‘native’ slave).

This character is first mentioned in the scene, where Prospero admits that, despite being a powerful magician, he nevertheless is utterly depended upon physical labor of his slave:

We cannot miss him (Caliban): he does make our fire,

Fetch in our wood and serves in offices

That profit us. What, ho! slave! Caliban!

Thou earth, thou! Speak (Shakespeare 15).

The satirical overtones of this Prospero’s statement are quite clear. It is not only that the character’s presumed omnipotence does not prevent him from being exposed to the elements – due to being perceptually arrogant; Prospero does not quite understand what accounts for the relationship between causes and effects.

This is exactly the reason why it never even occurred to him that referring to someone in terms of a lowly slave, while simultaneously admitting its own inability to survive without this person’s services, is rather comical.

It is understood, of course, that the mentioned scene is highly allegorical, because it reveals what used to be the de facto state of affairs between European explorers/settles and native ‘barbarians’, during the so-called Era of Exploration.

After all, it does not represent any secret that the self-proclaimed ‘agents of progress’ from the West tended to regard ‘savages’ as being not fully human. This is the reason why, while calling Caliban derogatory names, it never even occurred to Prospero that there was anything wrong with how he proceeded to treat his ‘slave’.

This creates a strong satirical effect and consequently – prompts viewers to reassess the soundness of the assumption that there was much benefit to indigenous peoples from being exploited by Europeans.

Another notable aspect of Swift’s satire, concerned with ridiculing the euro-centric outlook on ‘naive savages’, as people who could not possibly succeed in striving to liberate themselves from the colonial oppression, is that it prompts (European) viewers to realize that the dominance of the West in its colonies is temporary.

To exemplify the validity of this suggestion, we can refer to the episode, in which Prospero accuses Caliban of indecency:

Thou most lying slave,

Whom stripes may move, not kindness!

I have used thee,

Filth as thou art, with human care, and lodged thee

In mine own cell, till thou didst seek to violate

The honour of my child (Shakespeare 17).

This accusation is quite illustrative of how Westerners used to justify their colonial practices, throughout the history – in their view, the representatives of indigenous populations were simply not capable of addressing their own ‘moral wickedness’, without being helped by Whites.

Caliban’s reply, however, implies that his current submission to Prospero is essentially incidental:

O ho, O ho! would’t had been done!

Thou didst prevent me;

I had peopled else

This isle with Calibans (Shakespeare 17).

This humorous remark, on the part of Caliban, cannot be interpreted as anything else, but as the indication of Shakespeare’s awareness that, despite not being quite as technologically advanced as Europeans, ‘naive savages’ were fertile enough to be capable of putting up an effective resistance against their oppressors.

By being exposed to The Tempest, people are also able to gain an insight into what was the main reason for indigenous peoples (represented by the character of Caliban) to end up being colonized by Whites with ease.

In order for us to prove that this indeed happened to be the case, we will need to refer to the play’s scene, in which, after having had some alcohol, Caliban proclaims Stephano his God:

That’s a brave god and bears celestial liquor.

I will kneel to him…

I’ll swear upon that bottle to be thy (Stephano’s) true subject;

For the liquor is not earthly (Shakespeare 42).

The satirical effect, triggered by this Caliban’s statement, has to do with the fact that, as we are well aware of, alcohol-influenced people do tend to act rather foolishly. There is, however, even more to it – Shakespeare strived to present Caliban as an utterly gullible individual, who could be easily manipulated.

It is understood, of course, that the playwright’s intention, in this respect, is best defined as somewhat stereotypical.

Moreover, it subtly implies that there is indeed a certain rationale for ‘savages’ to be patronized by the ‘agents of civilization’ from the West. At the same time, however, it is being suggestive of the sheer malevolence of the latter.

Nevertheless, it specifically the episode, in which drunken Caliban expresses his joy for having attained ‘freedom’ from Prospero, which contributes more than any other towards establishing him as a clearly satirical character:

No more dams I’ll make for fish

Nor fetch in firing

At requiring;

Nor scrape trencher, nor wash dish

‘Ban, ‘Ban, Cacaliban

Has a new master: get a new man.

Freedom, hey-day! hey-day, freedom! freedom,

hey-day, freedom! (Shakespeare 45).

As it can be seen above, the humorous sounding of this joyful remark, on the part of Caliban, derives out of the sheer incompatibility between the notions of ‘freedom’ and ‘servitude’ – something of which the concerned character appears to have been utterly unaware.

This again exposes Caliban, as someone who fits perfectly well into the classical stereotype of ‘naive savage’ – a person who, despite possessing a plenty of existential vigor, is not very bright.

Yet, the same remark implies that, rather than having always remained the integral trait of his individuality, Caliban’s naivety has been induced in him externally. Specifically, this development took place in the aftermath of the character’s encounter with the ‘celestial liquor’.

Whereas, Shakespeare’s ‘naive savage’-related satire is primarily concerned with encouraging people to think of indigenous peoples as somewhat brutish, but thoroughly resourceful individuals, the one of Denis Diderot has a different quality.

Essentially, it is about encouraging readers to contemplate the possibility for the existential mode of ‘savages’ to be superior to that of Europeans. In this respect, the Chapter 3 (The Conversation between the Chaplain and Orou) in Diderot’s essay is particularly illustrative.

In it, the Chaplain (representing Westerners) and Orou (representing Tahitian ‘savages’) indulge in the discussion about what should be considered the best way for the society to function.

The conversation between the two starts when, while wishing to express his gratitude to the Chaplain, Orou offers him to have sex with either his wife or one of his daughters.

Being appalled by such a proposition, the Chaplain tries to explain to Orou that he could not possibly accept his offer, because it was inconsistent with the conventions of Christianity (‘holy orders’).

To this, Orou replies: “I don’t know what you mean by ‘holy orders’, but your first duty is to be a man and to show gratitude” (Didrot 47).

The satirical effect, in this respect, is being achieved by the mean of exposing readers to the situation when, while referring to the same subject matter, the Chaplain and Orou have in mind something different.

Whereas, for the Champlain to have sex means to commit adultery and to be consequently punished for it by God, for Orou sex is nothing but the most natural activity that people can think of. As Orou referred to it: “An innocent pleasure to which Nature, that sovereign mistress, invites every person” (Didrot 47).

In the formal sense of this word, it does establish Orou as a ‘child of nature’ – someone, whose existence has the animalistic quality to it.

Nevertheless, it also presents Orou, as a person who does not only have its own unique perspective on things, but whose perception of the surrounding reality happened to be much more scientifically and ethically sound, as compared to that of the Chaplain.

To show that this indeed happen to be the case, we can refer to the numerous instances of Orou proving himself capable of revealing the sheer fallaciousness of many of the Chaplain’s religion-based assumptions.

For example, while trying to convince Orou that the Christian God is indeed omnipotent, the Chaplain mentions to this ‘savage’ that the creator (craftsman) of the universe is everywhere, and that due to being essentially metaphysical, God does not have any material body.

In return, Orou aptly points out to the contradictory sounding of many of the Chaplain’s insinuations about the nature of divinity, which in turn contributes rather substantially towards increasing the satirical value of Diderot’s essay.

According to Orou, the Christian God is: “The old craftsman who, without a head, hand or tools has made everything; and who is everywhere but nowhere to be seen… who commands and is not obeyed; who does not prevent occurrences which it is in his power to stop” (Diderot 50).

Thus, Diderot implies that ‘naive savage’ is not quite as naïve, as it is being commonly assumed.

Quite on the contrary – unlike what it appears to be the case with the Chaplain, Orou is being represented as a practically minded individual, thoroughly capable of understanding the dialectical nature of the relationship between causes and effects.

The quoted remark, of the part of Orou, suggests yet another aspect of how the author proceeded to endow his essay with the clearly defined satirical sounding.

Apparently, Diderot wanted to emphasize that this character was naturally inclined to assess things from the strictly utilitarian perspective – something that did not quite correlate with the Chaplain’s tendency to refer to the utterly abstract notions, while defending his argumentative stance on the issues of importance.

Along with being highly humorous, as a ‘thing in itself’, this discrepancy provides an additional dimension to the popular image of ‘naive savage’, as someone solely concerned with the down-to-earth affairs.

After all, Orou’s sarcastic suggestion implies that he was tempted to perceive things in terms of what appeared to be the measure of their practical usefulness, with very little regard being given to whether the application of this approach was fully justified or not.

In this respect, we can draw a certain parallel between Orou, on one hand, and the character of Sancho Panza from Cervantes’s Don Quixote, on the other. The logic behind this suggestion is that, just as it used to be the case with the latter; Orou appears to have been well aware of the fact that metaphysical notions, associated with the Western way of living, have a counterproductive effect on the affiliated individuals’ personal well-being.

This is exactly the reason why, despite being ‘primitive’, Orou is shown as someone fully capable of enjoying its life to the fullest – something that the Chaplain was clearly unable to do. The satirical value of the discrepancy in question is quite apparent.

Thus, it will be fully appropriate to suggest that Diderot’s satire, concerned with the notion of ‘naive savage’, is strongly humanistic.

By introducing readers to Orou’s philosophy of life, the author aimed to reveal the religion of Christianity (and the influence that it exerts upon the society), as a major obstacle on the way of humanity’s continual betterment.

As Orou noted: “I’ve no understanding of your great craftsman (God), but I rejoice in his never having addressed our forefathers, and I hope he will never speak to our children; for he might by chance tell them the same nonsense, and they might commit the folly of believing him” (Diderot 51).

In the aftermath of having realized the actual significance of Orou’s intellectually honest and yet humorously sounding remarks, readers will be more likely to reconsider the legitimacy of the religion-based outlook on life, and on what can be deemed the most effective way of addressing its challenges.

There are many humanistic overtones to how Jonathan Swift went about utilizing the theme of ‘naive savage’ (as the instrument of satire) in his novel, as well.

One of the most illustrative examples of this statement’s validity, is undeniably the scene, in which Gulliver reacts to the Lilliputians’ request to punish those six of them, who continued to shoot arrows at him, despite being ordered to stop: “I took them all in my right hand, put five of them into my coat-pocket; and as to the sixth, I made a countenance as if I would eat him alive.

The poor man squalled terribly, and the colonel and his officers were in much pain” (Swift 22). As it is being revealed later, Gulliver never intended to eat any of his offenders. However, he could not help pretending that he was about to do it.

The reason for this is that, while understanding perfectly well that in the eyes of Lilliputians, he was nothing but a hugely sized ‘savage’, Gulliver felt obligated to act in the manner that everybody expected him to.

Apparently, it did not take this character too long to realize that, in terms of how they used to position themselves within the surrounding reality, the Lilliputians were the miniature copies of his own fellow citizens.

That is, they were just as tempted to assume that the naivety of a particular ‘savage’ goes hand in hand with his innate predisposition towards violence/cruelty.

After all, during the 18^th century, this assumption did serve as a discursive premise for the British to form their attitudes towards indigenous peoples in the country’s newly acquired colonies.

This helps to explain the actual significance of the mentioned satirical scene – Swift wanted to expose the counterproductive essence of the practice of ‘naive savages’ being treated by Europeans in the highly prejudiced manner.

In its turn, this is being accomplished by the mean of using satire to prompt readers to contemplate the idea that cannibalism may not be quite as natural for ‘savages’, as it used to be assumed at the time of the novel’s creation.

Just as it is being the case in Shakespeare’s play, many of this novel’s satirical references to the motif of ‘naive savage’ appear subliminal of the author’s unconscious awareness of the sheer strength of the native people’s existential vigor.

For example, the Article 1 of the Agreement that Gulliver was forced to sign with the Lilliputians, stated: “The man-mountain shall not depart from our dominions, without our license under our great seal” (Swift 34).

What is particularly amusing about it, is that the mentioned Article implies that, while fearing Gulliver (because of his size and his potential ability to wipe the kingdom of Lilliput off the face of the Earth, if he wished so), this kingdom’s dwarfed citizens nevertheless believed that they had what it takes to keep him in submission.

Therefore, it will not be much of an exaggeration, on our part, to suggest that one of the reasons why Gulliver’s Travels was able to become instantly popular with the reading audiences, is that the novel’s satirical subtleties resonate well with what used to the set of unconscious anxieties, experienced by Westerners in the presence of ‘naive savages’.

One of these anxieties had to do with the Westerners’ deep-seated fear of the unknown. It is understood, of course, that this adds even further to the overall spirit of progressiveness, emanated by Swift’s approach to using satire as the instrument of endowing his novel with the political sounding.

Essentially the same line of argumentation can be applied, when it comes to discussing the significance of yet another famous satirical scene in Gulliver’s Travels – namely, the one in which Gulliver extinguishes fire by urinating on it: “I… applied (urine) so well to the proper places, that in three minutes the fire was wholly extinguished, and the rest of that noble pile, which had cost so many ages in erecting, preserved from destruction” (Swift 46).

The reason for this is apparent – even though this Gulliver’s deed was thoroughly justified and presented the Lilliputians with the additional proof of the character’s childlike perceptual innocence (naivety), they nevertheless could not help taking it as a threat.

Hence, the sheer hilariousness of the Emperor’s attempts to hide its fear of Gulliver from himself, by the mean of giving orders to the ‘man-mountain’.

In light of the earlier deployed line of argumentation, regarding the subject matter at stake, it can be indeed confirmed that, just as it was suggested in the Introduction, the satirical sounding of the motif of ‘naive savage’ in the analyzed play, essay and novel, does imply the intellectual progressiveness of the affiliated authors.

While utilizing this motif, as one of the main prerequisites of keeping the audiences thoroughly entertained, they simultaneously strived to enlighten people about the fact that there can be no excuse for dehumanizing native populations (the representatives of which used to be considered ‘savages’) in remote parts of the world.

Therefore, there is nothing surprising about the fact that Shakespeare, Diderot and Swift are now being commonly referred to as ‘literary geniuses’ – all three of them did possess a rare talent for being able to turn satire into the tool for making this world a better place to live.

This is the main reason why their literary legacy continues to be much appreciated – quite despite its presumed ‘out-datedness’. As it can be seen, this concluding statement is fully consistent with the paper’s initial thesis.

Works Cited

Diderot. Denis. “Supplement to the Voyage of Bougainville.” In Political Writings. Trans. John Hope Mason and Robert Wokler. Cambridge. UK: Cambridge University Press, 1992. 31-75. Print.

Shakespeare, William 1611. The Tempest. Web.

Swift, Jonathan 1726. Gulliver’s Travels. Web.

Introduction

The postcolonial interpretation of The Tempest is an interpretation that gained popularity in the second half of the twentieth century. This particular reading of the play implies that Shakespeare was deliberately expressing a view of colonialism in the New World in the guise of Prospero the magician, usurping Caliban, the slave. It could be argued that Caliban represents a native American, while Prospero could be seen as a European imperialist. This interpretation questions the values and opinions of the past. It casts Caliban in a sympathetic light, and it shows a greater understanding of his plight as well as raising questions about Prospero’s rule of the island.

The language of the piece and the characters demonstrate the desire to have power over others, to dominate. This is expressed in the words:

“You taught me language, and my profit on

Is, I know how to curse” (Shakespeare 14).

The protagonist expresses his passion, inner tension, and despair by talking about curses. The mood is also conveyed through an emotional description of nature, the way it is perceived by someone with a vivid mental experience.

Language Analysis

Many people see Caliban as much more than just unpleasant: there is reason to consider him inherently evil. His instincts are to satisfy his appetite and avoid discomfort, and to do all these things he will lie, betray kindness, deceive, and base himself to any degree. This idea belongs to Prospero, and, indeed, Shakespeare does not seem to intend to form a high opinion of this character. According to Prospero, Caliban’s evil nature cannot be changed by good deeds-he has already tried it, but to no avail. Instead, he takes the view that Caliban is a slave, “by whom stripes can move, not goodness” (Shakespeare 14). It seems that the only thing Caliban will fully respond to is physical punishment since he does not appreciate the acts of kindness done to him by Prospero and Miranda.

Caliban’s abuse of language also significantly underscores his abuse of Prospero’s kindness. The attitude toward Caliban is expressed in the following lines:

“Thou poisonous slave, got by the devil himself

Upon thy wicked dam, come forth!” (Shakespeare 14)

The hero uses emotionally colored, evaluative vocabulary, showing his disregard and disrespect. Indeed, he is a savage who would like to play like the rudest thing before Prospero makes the effort to make him speak and endows his aims with words that make them known. The same attitude to Caliban can be viewed through Miranda’s and Ariel’s vocabulary. They see in the protagonist the implicit desire to be evil and show their hatred. However, Caliban took the tongue with its infinite possibilities and advantages and said that its only benefit was that it could swear. The fact that Caliban disparages such a useful tool, which we assume was painstakingly taught to him, further emphasizes that Caliban does not appreciate the efforts of others.

Play Analysis

Balinese Tempest production uses many artistic devices to convey the peculiarities of the character’s relationships and the overall atmosphere of the work. Passion, hatred, and contempt are expressed in vivid pictorial ways. Particular attention should be paid to the gestures and movements of the actors, and in general to the non-verbal components of acting (University of Hawaii Center for Southeast Asian Studies). The general atmosphere is revealed through the shades and lighting mode. Ariel is positioned as a follower of Prospero, supporting his views and always ready to follow him. The character is also filled with hatred and contempt for Caliban, but the actors convey his essence as subtler and capable of understanding and compassion; this is evidenced by the ease of gesticulation and movement.

Conclusion

Since the spectators mainly see the shapes of actors, and the colors are practically invisible, the poses, the intonation, and the way people interact with each other on stage have become vital for understanding the message. They fully express the peculiarities of the characters’ relationships with each other, as well as the author’s relationship with the protagonist.

Works Cited

University of Hawaii Center for Southeast Asian Studies. “Balinese Tempest (Indonesia).” Internet Archive, 2008. Web.

Shakespeare, William. The Tempest. 1806.

Little Women

Little Women is a film that has been remade countless times, and the most recent remake was released in 2019. The previous film Little Women was shown on the screens in 1994 and starred such Hollywood stars as Wynona Ryder and Kirsten Dunst, while the 2019 version involves Saoirse Ronan and Florence Pugh. The main difference between the two versions is the depiction of characters. For example, the mother in the family in the 2019 remake is presented as a kind woman without any sins, with her daughters claiming that she is never angry and her partly corroborating this statement, claiming that she is “learning to not let it get the better of [her]” (— 00:52:31). On the contrary, in 1994 version, Marmee is illustrated as an ordinary person. In one part, one of the sisters even mentions that “Beth needs Marmee. She depends on her,” which illustrates the importance and strength of the mother (Little Women, 00:51:09). Thus, here, Marmee, the mother, is the person on whom the household relies.

A Modest Proposal

In the excerpt from Jonathan Swift, the author uses satire to raise the issue of human value. He proposes an outrageous method of rearing male children for them to be “reserved for breed,” and to nourish them, to make them plumper, as if one cares for the cattle. Here, the satire can be seen with the phrases such as “the remaining hundred thousand may, at a year old, be offered in sale to the persons” and “let them suck plentifully in the last month, so as to render them plump, and fat for a good table,” which seems as if one is talking about animals. This is where the underlying message is, which is to stop treating the malnourished and poor part of society as animals and, instead of perceiving them in this way, start to help them.

The Tempest

The central themes of the drama The Tempest are mercy and revenge. For example, the first theme can be seen from the approach of Prospero, who seeks revenge on others, praying to “let them be hunted soundly” (Shakespeare 77). However, in another scene, Prospero shows mercy to Antonion by claiming, “I do forgive thee,” and stating that they, as brothers, have a bridge between them, and Prospero abandoned the love he once had for his sibling (Shakespeare 81). Therefore, the author draws a parallel between the beliefs of the characters.

Works Cited

Little Women. Directed by Gillian Armstrong, performances by Wynona Rider, Kirsten Dunst, Columbia Pictures 1994.

• Directed by Greta Gerwig, performances by Saoirse Ronan and Florence Pugh, Columbia Pictures, 2019.

Shakespeare, William. The Tempest. Collins, 1806.

The Epic of Gilgamesh and The Tempest are two masterpieces, which reflect the life of people who lived in the times when the works were created. The two works pertain to different cultures.

Thus, the former is an Ancient Babylonian story, while the latter is one of the most famous Shakespearean works created in postcolonial Europe. The epochs, when the works were written, are very different. Nonetheless, there are certain themes that overlap, which can be explained by archetypal nature of the thematic elements.

One of such archetypal themes is supernatural. Thus, Gilgamesh interacts with gods and spirits. He has to fight against horrible giants and is punished by gods for some wrongdoings. Likewise, The Tempest is full of spirits who interact with people. One of the main characters of the play is a magician who knows some secrets of the universe.

This overlap can be explained by humans’ desire to see mysterious things in something they do not understand. Admittedly, people have tried to explain natural disasters or some universal laws by acts of supernatural entities that rule the world.

Therefore, the theme of unknown and supernatural can be regarded as archetypal. Even people, living in the twenty-first century where science has explained lots of the secrets of the universe, tend to practice some religions which also adhere to the area of spiritual and supernatural.

Another thematic element that overlaps in the two works is the confrontation of civilization and human nature. Thus, Enkidu and Caliban are symbols of the human nature, i.e. creatures that have not been civilized. The two characters are closer to the nature and they know some secrets civilized people do not understand.

At the same time, Gilgamesh and Prospero try to civilize the creatures and make them share their (i.e. civilized) values. This conflict has lots of dimensions and it is, by all means, archetypal as people have always experienced the necessity to suppress their desires to fit in the society.

More so, people have also acknowledged that civilization is associated with alienation from the nature. Thus, barbarians have always been seen as people (or rather creatures) who manage to live in harmony with the environment, while civilized people tend to alter the nature.

Finally, the two works share another thematic element, i.e. the relationship between the man and the woman. This is also an archetypal topic as people have always wanted to understand the secrets of the difference between the genders. Thus, the savage loves the woman and cannot have her in the play. In the Babylonian story, a goddess wants to win the protagonist’s heart but loses.

In both stories, there is unshared love, which causes a lot of sorrow. Admittedly, people have fallen in love with those who love others for centuries and there is still no explanation for this peculiarity of human nature.

To sum up, it is possible to note that the two stories and the two masterpieces share certain thematic elements. Some of these elements are supernatural, the confrontation between the civilization and the nature, and the secret of love and relationships between the man and the woman.

These themes overlap as they are archetypal and recurrent in loads of literary works and cultures. People have always tried to find answers to certain questions. Nevertheless, the questions remain unanswered and this is unlikely to change in the future.

In his play The Tempest, William Shakespeare illustrates the transformation of many characters who have to re-evaluate their values, attitudes, and perceptions. This paper is aimed at discussing such a person as Ferdinand whose love for Miranda is one of the main themes explored in this play. He has to discover several important qualities such as responsibility and ability to love. These are the things that he lacks at the beginning of this play. This person is important for the author because he demonstrates how love can change an individual, his behavior, and perception of the world. These questions should be examined more closely.

It should be noted that Ferdinand is present in the first scene, but he does not take part in the conversation. Certainly, one can assume that he is frightened. Moreover, Ferdinand is forced to accept that his life can soon end. Nevertheless, it is not possible to make accurate conjectures about his experiences. Overall, one can argue that Prospero is able to test Ferdinand’s qualities and intentions. Aerial, who serves Prospero, separates Ferdinand from his father; as a result, Ferdinand comes to the belief that his father and friends have perished. Therefore, he is forced to act independently. This character quickly forgets about his loss, when he sees Miranda and falls in love with her.

To a great extent, this example indicates the flippancy or light-mindedness of this character. He promises to make Miranda “the queen of Naples” without even mentioning his father Alonso, who could have died (Shakespeare 45). Moreover, it does not even occur to Ferdinand that he cannot fulfill his promise. This is one of the details that can attract readers’ attention.

Additionally, Fernando’s affection for Miranda bears a close resemblance to lust at least at the beginning. He does not think about the need to care about Miranda However, he eventually understands that Miranda is different from other women. The following quote illustrates Ferdinand’s experiences,

‘for several virtues

Have I liked several women; never any

With so full soul’ (Shakespeare 93).

In other words, he sees that this girl can transform him. By allowing Ferdinand to talk to Miranda, Prospero enables this character to reject his previous outlook. In particular, Ferdinand learns that he can be fully dedicated to another person. Moreover, he understands that love implies some responsibility for the wellbeing and dignity of a woman. For instance, he assumes an obligation to arrange a formal marriage with Miranda (Shakespeare 121). In the past, he did not act in this way, because his behavior was driven mostly by lust, rather than love. This is the main change that Ferdinand undergoes. To some extent, this transformation was caused by Prospero manipulations. His magic makes other people discover their true selves. This is one of the main arguments that can be put forward.

On the whole, these examples indicate that Prospero’s actions prompt Ferdinand to discover the hidden qualities. In particular, Ferdinand discovers that he can be committed to the needs of another person. Shakespeare focuses his attention on the behavior of this character because in this way he tries to show love should not be confused with lust. Ferdinand’s transformation highlights the difference between these notions. This is one of the main aspects that should be taken into account by the readers of this play.

Works Cited

Shakespeare, William. The Tempest, New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004. Print.

According to the reference made to the play, ’’The Tempest’’ by Shakespeare, David Bevington is justified to claim that Prospero uses the knowledge he acquires from magical books to subdue his enemies by renewing their faith in goodness. He wittily uses Ariel to carry out divine tasks that could put him at par with a god.

For instance, he instructs Aerial to fly around the boat in which Antonio, Alonso and their acquaintances are, to cause a storm and consequent shipwreck, but finally manages to save all the occupants of the ship.

The latest revelation that he was responsible for all this is to make Antonio and Alonso perceive him as a good man. Prospero says to Miranda “I have with such provision in mine art.So safely ordered that there is no soul– No, not so much perdition as a hair.B etid to any creature in the vessel.W hich thou heard’st cry, which thou saw’ st sink” (Shakespeare 4).

Prospero’s magic is intended to create an impression that he is more powerful than both Antonio and Alonso. Ariel tells him when he inquires about the ship’s occupants,” Just as you left them: all prisoners, sir. In the line-grove which weather-fends your cell; they cannot budge till your release” (Shakespeare 7).

After the shipwreck, Antonio, Alonso and their subjects are desperate, have lost hope and prepared to sink to a watery grave. Antonio says “Let’s all sink wi’ the King”. But Prospero uses his magic and they do not sink (Shakespeare 9).

He saves Aerial from the tree, although he later exploits him. He saves Gonzalo and Alonso from a plot to kill them by Caliban, Stephano, and Trinculo. He even forgives Alonso, Antonio, and Sebastian and promises to free Aerial upon preparing proper sailing weather to guide them back to Royal fleet and finally to Naples. “And promise you calm seas, auspicious gales, And sail so expeditious that shall catch.Y our royal fleet far off” (Shakespeare 10).

The major beneficiaries of Prospero’s magic are himself and his daughter, Miranda. It is quite evident that his magic is intended to help him, and Miranda finds their way out of exile, he tells Miranda “I have done nothing but in care of thee,” (Shakespeare 11).

He employs his magic to execute his plan of returning to the royal land. Although Alonso and Antonio together with the other occupants are saved from the wreck, two things are quite evident; the whole storm was as a result of Prospero’s magic, and it was meant to make Alonso and Antonio guilty of plotting to move him out of the land as he later forgives them. Since he is the most powerful, he sends Aerial to prepare sailing weather.

Several characters have been developed through Prospero’s magic. Ariel is loyal and obedient as he obeys Prospero and exorcizes his magic as per instructions. He says “Remember I have done thee worthy service, Remember I have done thee worthy service”.

Caliban is brought out as rebellious since, after being compelled to servitude for attempting to rape Miranda, he perceives his master resentfully and usurper. He wishes “A south-west blow on ye, And blister you all o’er!” (Shakespeare 15).

Finally, Prospero’s magic helps bring out the cordial relationship between him and Ariel through how they cohesively co-operate to execute Prospero’s magic. Ariel says” I will be correspondent to command, and do my sprinting gently.”

Prospero is depicted as a loving and caring father who does all he can, including magic to secure his daughter. He says “I have done nothing but in care of thee, of thee, my dear one, thee, my daughter” (Shakespeare 14). The friendly coexistence between Alonso and Antonio is also brought out in the as they used to spend most of their time together.

Works Cited

Shakespeare, William. The Tempest. New York: Pocke. 2004. Web.

William Shakespeare’s play “The Tempest” provides an in-depth description of the extent to which humans have subjected their fellow humans to injustices.

One of the most well described forms of injustice is slavery. Throughout the play, the theme of servitude is shown by the inability of various characters to obtain personal freedom. However, Acts III and IV move the theme of servitude into deeper and more complex levels, describing various forms of servitude.

In Act III, scene 1, different forms of servitude are evident. First, the reader is able to recognize that Ferdinand is committed to serve Prospero, a fact that he does not like. To make his duties to Prospero look pleasant, he assumes that he is working for Miranda, the woman he loves. In Ferdinand, the reader can perceive different forms of servitude. For instance, the love he has for different women clear indicates service to humanity.

Although he feels that his love for Miranda is real, he sees the love he has for other beautiful women as a form of slavery. For instance, in this act he is quoted saying, “…Full many women/ I have had best regards, and many times, the harmony of their tongues has taken me into bondage…”

In addition, Ferdinand is used to show the theme of ‘service to duty’. For instance, his loyalty to Prospero is for a reason- he wants to win Miranda’s heart. Although he does not like his status, Prospero agrees that Ferdinand has “loyalty” and endures the “wooden slavery” (carrying heavy logs).

In the conversation between Prospero and Ferdinand, it becomes clear that Prospero sees Ferdinand as a loyal servant rather than a slave. In this case, it is clear that the reference to Caliban is used to show the different forms of servitude. For instance, Caliban is a total slave, whose entire life revolves around his services to Prospero. On the other hand, Ferdinand’s service to Prospero is not forced but dedicated to win Miranda.

The fact that Ferdinand humbles himself, both literally and physically, when he talks about his dedication to Miranda, is a clear indication of another form of servitude. He has mentally been enslaved by his love for the girl. On the other hand, Miranda speaks of a similar form of servitude, but in her own accord.

For instance, she says that her father’s precepts are somewhat a form of bondage to her, but she disregards them. In fact, it is clear that Prospero’s presence in the scene is used to show his control Miranda.

In Act III scene II, the theme of servitude is elaborated further, but in the form of “service to man”. For instance, Caliban has become a servant to Stephano, who refers him as “servant monster”. In addition, Stephano, who is now “the lord of the Island”, controls Trinculo.

He threatens to kill him if he disobeys. Secondly, the Scene also reveals that a sorcerer in the island has held the invisible Ariel hostage. He is not able to leave the island, thus becoming the sorcerer’s slave.

In Act IV, it is clear that Prospero has been enslaved by his commitment to protect Miranda. In fact, he protects her virginity. He believes that it is his duty to ensure that she gets the right man at the right time, and is protected from lust displayed by love-hungry men.

In conclusion, the theme of servitude is portrayed in a deeper and more complex level. There is evidence of slavery versus duty. While such characters as Caliban are actual slaves, others like Ferdinand and Prospero are held hostage by their dedication for such issues as love and duty for Miranda respectively.

The problem of racial identity remains vital in some parts of the world, even though people claim to live in the civilized racism free society. Thereby, if modern civilized people are unable to cope with racial prejudices, what we can say about England of Shakespeare times. Ronald Takaki tried to consider the problem of racial discrimination of Indians in one of his essays.

He used Shakespeare’s play The Tempest where the examples of treating Indians by English people are observed. Moreover, Ronald Takaki raises the problem that New England was formed in the conditions of constant discrimination supported with unreasonable stereotypes that gave raise to “the racialization of Indian savagery” (Takaki 907). Having read an essay by Takaki, the following words caught attention:

This process of dehumanizing the Indians developed a peculiarly New England dimension as the colonists associated Indians with the devil. Indian identity became then a matter of ‘descent’: their racial markers indicated ineradicable qualities of savagery. This social construction of race occurred within the economic context of competition over land (Takaki 907).

The information provided in the essay perfectly states that this was exactly as it was stated. Using The Tempest and other plays by Shakespeare, Ronald Takaki tried to show the examples of the attitude of the citizens of New England to Indians. The seizure of Indian property by English is seen.

To begin with, it should be mentioned that Ronald Takaki uses The Tempest by Shakespeare not by chance. This play was the first where Indian character was presented. Furthermore, the time when the play was written coincides with the important period in the history of America.

According to Takaki, the time he considers in the essay as the reference to Indian expansion was as follows, “it came after the English invasion if Ireland but before the colonization on New England, after John Smith’s arrival in Virginia but before the beginning of the tobacco economy, and after the first contacts with Indians but before full-scale warfare against them” (Takaki 893).

It is really important to consider the time period to understand why the author of the essay dwells upon racialization of savagery. This was the period when English expansionism considered “not only as an imperialism but as a defining moment in the making of an English-American identity based on race” (Takaki 893).

The racialization of savagery was the consequence of mistaken understanding of the reality, wrong conclusions, and lack of desire to evaluate the situation correctly, as it is always easier to place the stereotype on other peoples than to consider their culture, search for specific information and create new opinion.

Ireland was a colony, and English people treated them accordingly. Even the law was cruel, marriages between Irish and English were not allowed, and English apparel and weapon were also forbidden for Irish. The social structure of the society became two-levelled. Irish people were considered as savages, as cultural awareness was one of the main features which made English different from Irish.

Irish people deserved the definition ‘savages’ as in most cases they behaved accordingly. When the frontier stretched to America, Englishmen began to treat Indians the same as Irish. The parallel which was drawn was one of the main reasons to consider Indians savages, in spite of the fact that the actions of Indians differed from Irish ones.

Takaki refers to the example when the English wrongly considered Irish as only hunters (drawing a direct parallel between hunters and savages), in spite of the fact that they were good farmers (Takaki 906). Such examples are numerous and on their basis it is possible to build a theory that English colonizers did not care much about the real state of things. They have created a specific stereotype which was convenient for them that is why they did not want to ruin it.

Savagery and civilization are two notions which are constantly contrasted in the essay. Having created a wrong opinion that Indians were savages and hunters, the ability to work on the land was not considered as their common occupation, in spite of the fact that they used to be good farmers.

Having passed the law that only those people who use land can possess it, the problem of giving land to Indians has fallen down as “Indians are not able to make use of the one fourth part of the Land”(Takaki 907) according to the opinion of the English. If to consider the problem of land possession as the central one, it may be easily concluded that the authorities tried to limit the number of those who could pretend for land possession.

The economic value of land that time was really high, and the division was considered to be extremely important for many people. The more land one possessed, the more power he/she had. It was obvious that uncivilized Indians which were uneducated could be easily treated. It was necessary to set all Americans against Indians to get the necessary effect. The declaration of all Indians’ religion as “diabolical and so uncouth” (Takaki 908) was a profitable step for colonizers.

The cases of epidemic death of Indians may be considered at the actions provoked by the authorities to use the land which belonged to Indians. Still, this fact is difficult to imagine as according to the possessed information European diseases were new for Indians and the absence of immunological defences. This idea was used to make Indians more evil, to relate the case of epidemic case to God’s actions and make all people believe that Indians were as bad as were thought to be.

The problem with land and the desire of the authorities to use it in their own purposes led to the situation that many Englishmen became to consider Indians as devil tribes, always savage and violent. Now, this problem is considered to be racialization of savagery as thinking about the Indians, the native population of America, many Englishmen still consider those as savages and unable to become civilized, no matter how long they can live in the modern society.

The main problem considered in the article is the problem of stereotyping attitude to Indians and creation of wrong image with the purpose to benefit from this. Being Indians, the tribes were considered to be savages as there were no other variants, and as a result, Indians could not be civilized.

One of the main reasons for Indians to be savages was the parallel made between them and Irish. Irish deserved such definition by their actions, rude and violent, while Indians just appeared in the wrong place and the relation to Irish automatically transferred to Indians.

Works Cited

Takaki, Ronald. “The tempest in the wilderness: The racialization of savagery.” The Journal of American History, 79.3: 892-912.

Introduction

Shakespearean plays represent a cornerstone of classical dramaturgy. The captivating plots and characters have formed an iconic aura that has challenged many theater experts. Sir Antony Cher, a renowned actor, is attributed the quote which defines the nature of Shakespearean production, “The first and most important lesson is that there are no rules about how to do Shakespeare, just clues. Everything is negotiable” (“Antony Sher Quotes”).

The Blackfriars Playhouse of the American Shakespeare Center (ASC) attempts an unorthodox approach to producing the playwright’s famous works. By mimicking the style of performance that scholars and historians have established to have existed at the end of the 16^th century in England, the staging brings forward certain originality. The troupe’s adaptation of The Tempest is an entertaining and creative introspective that makes the performance truly memorable.

Play Synopsis

In The Tempest, Prospero is a powerful magician living on a magical island with his daughter Miranda, a spirit servant Ariel, and the native Caliban as his slave. Robbed of power and exiled from his homeland, he seeks justice. With Ariel’s help, Prospero maroons his enemies on the island and manipulates them to do his bidding by using mind-bending powers. The characters are driven to their respective fates with Ferdinand meeting Miranda and winning her heart. While Prospero’s brother along with the king, who betrayed and exiled him, seek mercy realizing their wrongdoings. In the end, all is forgiven, and everyone is ready to return home. Prospero releases Ariel and gives up his powers for the greater good (Shakespeare 2001).

Production

Blackfriars Playhouse is built as a copy of the original stage in 16^th century England. The staging area consists of the main raised wooden platform with two entrances behind it. There are two levels of viewing balconies forming an arch shape around the stage providing diverse viewpoints. The whole auditorium and stage are made from high-quality, polished wood of soft color, creating an atmosphere of antiquity. On the ceiling and walls, there are lights that mimic the shape and eerie shimmer of candles. The whole theater is illuminated for the cast to be able to see viewers’ reactions and interact with the audience.

There is no elaborate set design and rotating backgrounds common in modern theater productions. Due to the Shakespearean nature of the Blackfriars Playhouse, the stage is bare in most cases with only some important scenery objects brought out when appropriate. Like the original Blackfriars Theater, the actors utilize the balcony, entrances, and curtains at the back of the stage for elements of the play such as hiding, addressing crowds, or speaking to a figure of power (Carafano).

The cast of the ASC performs numerous works of the great playwright throughout the year, usually with little preparation. While a professional production, there are obvious budget constraints. Obviously, the nature of these performances focuses more on the quality of acting and message of the plays rather than elaborate effects and costuming. The Tempest has a very diverse spectrum of characters, and this production chose to use costuming as a medium to depict their unique personalities.

After reading the play, there are certain stereotypical expectations that are instantly crushed by this rendition. Prospero, who can be imagined as a powerful bearded magician is portrayed by a large, intimidating actor of color that is bald and shaven. Dressed in purple robes and carrying a wooden carved staff, the role is presented as eccentric but monumental. Miranda wore a dress made of worn fabric to show her simple life and dedication to innocence on the island.

Caliban, so revoltingly described as a nasty creature in the play, is portrayed by an athletic man wearing a webbed bodysuit, creating the effect that he is half-man, half-monster. In a way, the monstrous costume is an extent of Caliban’s personality. Ariel is played by a man while the character in the script is a female spirit. He is wearing nothing but a black skirt and a feather boa, representing his interconnectivity with nature. The magical singularity is further portrayed by heavy makeup on his body and face, making the actor look unnatural.

Script and Acting

Productions at the American Shakespeare Center attempt to stick to the original script, so there were no omitted parts. It seems that the production crew took the liberty of adding musical numbers and elements to the play. This reflected especially on Ariel, who was carrying a banjo or ukulele in every act. The artistic approach of giving Ariel musicality conforms to how Shakespearean scholars describe the spirit while also helping to captivate the crowd.

Due to the simplistic nature of the production, there was a lack of special effects that can be complex in some theaters, creating the imperative mood and atmosphere for the scene. Even amateur productions have staff working with lighting to create focus, shadowing, and transitions. Meanwhile, sound mixing can add minute details of reality to the staging. None of that exists at Blackfriars Playhouse, with actors having to use mechanical effects, but mostly the skill of using their body language and voice to tell the story.

When such instances occur, the cast utilizes metatheatrical devices, essentially drawing attention to the unrealistic nature of the performance. The actors may address the audience directly as they were part of the play and use comical devices to create humor. Metatheatre “heightens the audience’s awareness of the ruptures in the theatrical experience” (Loomis and Ray 213). Perhaps a unique aspect in this theater, practiced during the Elizabethan era, is the seating of select audience members on the stage. Other than giving an immersive feeling, it allows for the cast to entertain by breaking the fourth wall and briefly interacting with the viewers, often in an embarrassing manner.

The American Shakespeare Center utilizes what is known as the unitary model of dramaturgy, with a single theatrical expert having authority and influence over the staging of the play. The small staff and quick rotating cycle of production work with this model as it allows for coherence and effectiveness (Caldwell and Kenny 14). It is evident during the performance, the actors working as a synchronized unit on stage, with a clear sense of direction and understanding.

Comprehension of the script shows in their actions which puts emphasis on dialogue and pronunciation, as Shakespearean verses are articulately exalted through the Playhouse in Iambic Pentameter. Prospero transcends with his voice and verse, creating a majestic sorcerer aura around him. Ariel, with his music, creates a certain charm, and with the longing begging to be set free, gains sympathy for his character. Even characters that seem to limit imagination for the actors showed overwhelmingly varied expression. Overall, most of the actors could skillfully create a juxtaposition between comedy and tragedy in their characters, elements of which are so defining to this iconic masterpiece.

Conclusion

The performance of The Tempest at Blackfriars Playhouse, while uncomplicated in production compared to many theaters, is incredibly compelling. The lack of complicated special effects and set pieces put the audience focus completely on the actors. With a cast so talented, the viewer is engaged throughout the whole act. They experience the vivid emotional and moral journey of the characters, a catharsis for the soul. This is possible through the incredible acting mastery of the ensemble at the American Shakespeare Center, staging an impressive dramatic production.

Works Cited

“Antony Sher Quotes.” Goodreads. Web.

Caldwell, William Casey, and Amy Kenny. “The Reconstructed Dramaturg.” Theatre Topics, vol. 24, no. 1, 2014, pp. 11–23., Web.

Carafano, Meghan. “Shakespeare’s Theater.” Folger Shakespeare Library. 2015. Web.

Loomis, Catherine, and Sid Ray. Shaping Shakespeare for Performance: The Bear Stage. Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2015.

Shakespeare, William. The Tempest. Penguin Books, 2001.

The period of Renaissance is, by all means, one of the most outstanding art epochs of all times marked by a variety of masterpieces that live beyond time and any possible external influence. However, when people are talking about the following are, they often try to unify the peculiarities of the numerous art schools that were emerging and functioning at the time. Each of these schools, including the school of Venice, is characterized by its authentic tendencies in using specific colors, mediums, and painting subjects. The following paper is aimed at examining how Giorgione’s “The Tempest,” ca. 1506-8, reflects the major patterns of the Renaissance through its formal characteristics and influence of the historical and cultural context.

Primarily, it is necessary to dwell upon the visual details of the painting, as they develop a whole perspective of the artwork recognition and perception by recipients.

The painting itself might be primarily characterized by a variety of details depicted on canvas, making a recipient draw attention to each of them to define the subject matter. The very composition of the work creates a full-scale storyline that consists of two major components. The color palette of the painting is replete with warm color shades that somehow mark the era of its creation, as the vast majority of High Renaissance paintings have similar palette patterns (Burke, 2017). The painting’s texture and medium are also relevant to the timeframe of its production, as the vast majority of the paintings were made on canvas with the help of oil paint, creating a somehow simulated texture of the artwork.

The notion of subject matter in “The Tempest” has been a subject for continuous discussion since its introduction to the broad audience at the beginning of the 16th century. The work is divided into two vivid parts, where the first one depicts a naked woman sitting on the bank and holding a baby near her breast. Another part of the painting displays a young man in a sophisticated dressing who looks at the woman while still somehow remaining in the background. Such an author’s motive was interpreted with the help of various assumptions related to religion, society, and war prevention in 16th-century Venice (“Giorgine Artworks,” n.d.). Thus, despite the decades of meticulous research aimed at defining the genuine storyline, the question itself remains open for discussion and assumptions.

When considering any piece of art, it is of paramount importance to define the context in which it was made to define some of the major themes that might have been integrated into the subject. Hence, the timeframe of the following painting’s creation is characterized by the Renaissance era, which marked the rapid development in all spheres of human intellectual crafts, philosophy, science, art, and literature. Moreover, the epoch was characterized by the emergence of humanism and the promotion of anthropocentrism, making a human being a central aspect of historical development (King, 2016). As a result, most artworks at the time were focused on the depiction of people in different settings, emphasizing a particular social aspect from war to religious affiliation. Considering the aforementioned facts, it might be concluded that Giorgione’s “The Tempest” is a vivid example of High Renaissance art characterized by using specific colors, themes and focusing on the people’s depiction in the given setting.

References

Burke, J. (Ed.). 2017. Rethinking the High Renaissance: The Culture of the Visual Arts in Early Sixteenth-Century Rome. London, UK: Routledge.

Giorgione Artworks. n.d. The Art Story. Web.

Giorgione. The Tempest [Image]. 2012. Fine Art America. Web.

King, M. L. 2016. A Short History of the Renaissance in Europe. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.