Introduction
As of today, the majority of literary critics agree with suggestions that the play The Tempest represents one of William Shakespeare’s most peculiar dramaturgical pieces, as it features a variety of clearly defined classical and medieval motifs that are being interwoven with each other rather integrally. This is the reason why the play’s motifs and themes appear innately familiar even to first-time viewers/readers. In their article Notes on the Tempest, Giorgio Strehler and Thomas Simpson refer to this particular Shakespeare’s play as being endowed with a strong humanitarian sounding: “A terrible story, and one repeated thousands, millions of times in different ways in mankind’s history. A story of usurpation and crime, of betrayal between brothers” (2002, 5). However, given the fact that The Tempest represents essentially an inseparable fusion between classical and medieval dramaturgical conventions, the task of identifying these conventions and setting them apart appears especially challengeable. Nevertheless, in this paper, we will attempt to do just that.
Discussion
Even for the people not utterly proficient in the history of classical dramaturgy, the parallels between Shakespeare’s play, in which ship carrying Ferdinand, Alonso, Sebastian, Antonio, Gonzalo, and Stephan was struck by the storm and consequentially arrived at a previously unknown island, and Virgil’s Aeneid, in which ship carrying Trojans has been brought to the shores of ‘barbarian’ Italy, appear self-evident. Just as it was the case in Virgil’s Aeneid, the storm in the initial part of The Tempest has been supernaturally inspired. In an introduction to The Tempest, Virginia Vaughan, and Alden Vaughan explore the theme of semantic similarity between Shakespeare and Virgil’s plays even to a further extent: “Shakespeare’s play is an imitation of the main patterns of Virgil’s epic in its beginning, middle, and end. Both stories commence with a tempest in which ships arc lost and heroes wrecked, yet the narratives later reveal supernatural agency at work – Venus in the Aeneid, Prospero’s magic in The Tempest. In the storm’s aftermath, the heroes are hopelessly lost, confused, and subject to strange visions… In the final section of each text, a new society is founded, new bonds are established” (1999, 57). During the classical period of Greco-Roman antiquity, the themes of exploration and ‘unknown’ were quite popular with contemporaries, because at that time, the Western realm was steadily expanding. The same can be said about the time when Shakespeare had written The Tempest – the first half of the 17th century is now being commonly referred to as the peak of an Exploration Era.
This is why, existential stance, on the part of many characters in Shakespeare’s play, cannot be discussed outside of a so-called ‘colonial discourse’. For example, the character of Caliban is being clearly reminiscent of New World’s ‘savages’, as perceived by Shakespeare’s contemporaries. In his article The Tempest and New Comedy, Lester E. Barber states: “Even though he (Caliban) is Prospero’s slave, his most obvious role, as modern scholars point out, is that of the new World savage, a creature whom Elizabethan adventures had been telling all sorts of fascinating stories” (1970, 211). Thus, the fact that, while working on The Tempest, Shakespeare never ceased being observant of classical dramaturgic themes/motifs, appears historically predetermined – during the course of both: Greco-Roman antiquity and Shakespearian times, society’s most prominent members were concerned with expanding their intellectual horizons as their foremost priority. In its turn, this was reflected in their fascination with ‘new’ and ‘unknown’.
However, there are also many other subtle indications as to the fact that in The Tempest, Shakespeare had deliberately employed the conventions of classical drama. For example, the resolution of conflictual situations in many ancient Greek tragedies and comedies is being concerned with the introduction of Deus ex machine (God from machine) – in the middle of a confrontation between characters on the stage, an actor playing God would be lowered onto this stage with the rope and install final justice. In a similar manner, the character of Prospero goes about resolving seemingly irresolvable situations – he utilizes his magic not to just forcibly impose his will onto others, but even to affect their state of mind. Thus, the character of Prospero appears to be nothing but a Renaissance interpretation of the concept of Deus ex machine – all-powerful enforcer of justice, who appears on the stage just in time when he is needed the most:
“Now does my project gather to a head:
My charms crack not; my spirits obey; and time
Goes upright with his carriage. How’s the day?” (Act 5, 119).
In Greek dramas, characters often spoke to the audience, while trying to legitimize their cause even more. The ever-present chorus helped them greatly, in this respect, while often playing a semi-independent role on the stage. There is no chorus in The Tempest, of course, but the fact that Shakespeare’s play features an Epilogue, in which Prospero refers directly to the audience, provides us with yet another proof as to this play being affiliated with the concept of classical dramaturgy.
Nevertheless, The Tempest relates to the classical conventions of drama not only thematically and structurally, but spiritually as well. This can be explained by the fact that the Renaissance movement (with Shakespeare being one of its most prominent affiliates) has been primarily concerned with the resurrection of ancient Greek and Roman ideals of physical beauty and intellectual exaltation, which had been suppressed by Christians over the course of millennia. This is why, just as it is usually the case with classical works of dramaturgy, the context of this Shakespearean play implies synonymous sameness between the notions of ‘goodness’ and ‘naturalness’. As it has been rightly pointed out in Theodore Spenser’s book Shakespeare and the Nature of Man: “In The Tempest whatever evil remains is impotent, and goodness returns to action. Here, as in all the last plays, there is a re-birth, a return to life, a heightened, almost symbolic, awareness of the beauty of normal humanity after it has been purged of evil” (1961, 200). In the next part of our paper, we will refer to this thesis again, while exploring the relation of The Tempest to the conventions of medieval dramaturgy.
Ever since most Christian dogmas were agreed upon by the participants of Ecumenical Council in Nicea in 787 A.D., Church had made a point in trying to keep the actual content of the Bible in secret from the ordinary people, which explains why, up until the beginning of Reformation, the attempts to translate Bible from an unintelligible Latin into secular languages, were considered a heretical offense. This explains why, during the time when Catholic Church was at its strongest, the strength of ordinary people’s sense of religiosity was reflected in their awareness of so-called Catholic ‘tradition’. This ‘tradition’ itself, had nothing to do with the original spirit of Christianity. All that commoners were expected to remember from the actual Bible is that Devil was bad, Jesus was good, and that Saint Mary was even better than Jesus – the rest was left to people’s imagination.
In its turn, this explains why, during the course of the Dark Ages, the dramaturgic genre of mystery had attained such popularity – while reinterpreting Biblical fables, within the framework of mystery, uneducated dramaturges and actors were able to enjoy almost an unrestricted liberty. This was the foremost reason why in mysteries, the characters of spirits and demons played semi-independent roles – just as it was the case with Greek and Roman dramaturges, the anonymous authors of medieval mysteries expected these transcendent entities to be endowed with essentially human psychological traits. Therefore, the fact that the plot of Shakespeare’s play is being heavily affected by Ariel’s omnipresence, and also the fact that in this play, the motif of wizardry is being thoroughly explored, leaves no doubt as to The Tempest’s metaphysical relation to the conventions of medieval drama.
Apparently, by endowing the characters of Prospero (God/Wizard), Ariel (Holy Spirit/Nymph), and Caliban (Witch’s son) with semiotic prominence, Shakespeare strived to exploit potential viewers’ perceptional affiliation with the Christian concept of Trinity. At the same time, by doing it, Shakespeare was trying to subtly promote an essentially humanist outlook on human nature. In his article The Tempest and the Renaissance Idea of Man, James E. Phillips states: “There is a striking similarity between the functions of Prospero, Ariel, and Caliban in the play and the functions of the three parts of the soul – Rational, Sensitive, and Vegetative – almost universally recognized and described in Renaissance literature on the nature of man” (1964, 148). Being an intellectual, Shakespeare was fully aware that the best way of convincing others to adopt his point of view onto discussed subject matters is making this point of view emotionally appealing to the audience.
In its turn, this explains strongly defined symbolical subtleties of The Tempest – another indication of Shakespeare’s play’s conceptual affiliation with the genre of medieval drama in the form of mysteries and masques. As we are well aware, during the course of the Middle Ages, the members of Christian clergy were experiencing an increasingly hard time, while trying to logically substantiate the ‘divinity’ of Biblical fables. This was what had led to the emergence of Medieval Scholasticism, as we know it – a philosophically religious methodology of reconciling the ideals of antiquity with the Christian doctrine of salvation. Given the fact that this could not be done by utilization of logic-based reasoning, scholastics had come to conclusion that, in order for a particular individual to experience God’s ‘shining truth’, he or she would simply have to trust its irrational feelings, while remembering that the emanations of surrounding reality are being thoroughly symbolic. This is exactly the reason why strongly defined symbolism is the foremost feature of medieval drama.
In his article The Role of Musical Instruments in Medieval Sacred Drama, Edmund A. Bowles states: “In order for medieval drama to assume the role of libri laicorum, special means had to be found to remind the audience of the deeper meanings behind the storied portrayals in word, color, and music. The most obvious solution was an emphasis of the scene’s symbolic context” (1959, 69). The close reading of The Tempest, leaves no doubt as to the fact that almost every scene in this Shakespeare’s play is being utterly symbolic. For example, the description of a storm at the beginning of a play was meant to symbolize Prospero’s suffering and ultimately – the suffering of God on the account of humanity’s wickedness:
“A confused noise within: ‘Mercy on us!’ – ‘We split, we split!’
‘Farewell, my wife and children!’ – ‘Farewell, brother!’ –
‘We split, we split, we split!” (Act 1, 6).
Nevertheless, it is namely the fact that, throughout its entirety, play’s storyline is being concerned with symbolical exploration of theme of virginity (purity), which allows us to confirm play’s affiliation with the conventions of medieval drama, as it is this particular theme, which largely defines the semantic content of Arthurian tales, medieval mysteries and of their illegitimate offspring – courtly masques. Originally, this theme did not have anything to do with Christianity but rather the fall of Roman Empire. However, during the course of Dark Ages, the notion of purity came to symbolize the concept of salvation. Moreover, the members of aristocracy were increasingly referring to this notion as such that legitimized their claim for political authority. Therefore, the fact that in The Tempest, characters never ceased praising Miranda’s virginity as her foremost virtue, serves as an undeniably proof as to Shakespeare’s play being formally concerned with medieval socio-philosophical discourse:
“Thy mother was a piece of virtue, and
She said thou wast my daughter; and thy father
Was Duke of Milan; and thou his only heir
And princess no worse issued” (Act 1, 10).
Thus, The Tempest represents a whimsical amalgam between dramaturgic conventions of antiquity and those of medieval era. On one hand, play promotes an essentially Greco-Roman idea that humans are being nothing short of demi-gods, but on another, it suggests that, in order to be able to understand the essence of surrounding reality, people cannot be relying on their sense of rationale alone.
As it has been rightly pointed out in James Walter’s article From Tempest to Epilogue: Augustine’s Allegory in Shakespeare’s Drama: “The Tempest provides an allegory of the interpretive process, uncovering the modes, conditions, obstacles, and means involved in understanding signs. By revealing the limitations and distortions of theatrical spectacle, as well as of language, in relation to truth, the play questions the very possibility of human understanding” (1983, 61). And, as we are well aware of – exposing limitations of human cognitive understanding, has always been the foremost agenda of medieval dramaturges, because by doing it, they were ensuring themselves being eligible to favors, on the part of members of Christian clergy.
Conclusion
The conclusions of this paper can be summarized as follows:
- William Shakespeare’s play The Tempest employs a variety of classical dramaturgic traditions, the most important of which have been outlined in paper’s earlier parts. This can be explained by the fact that socio-political realities in Shakespeare’s era were conceptually similar to the ones, associated with Greco-Roman antiquity.
- Along with the traditions of classical theatre, Shakespeare’s play also features many theatrical conventions of clearly mediaeval origin. In its turn, this can be explained by the fact that, during the course of early 17th century, the influence of Christianity in Europe remained comparatively strong.
Bibliography:
Barber, Lester ‘The Tempest and New Comedy’, Shakespeare Quarterly 21.3 (1970): 207-211. Print.
Bowles, Edmund ‘The Role of Musical Instruments in Medieval Sacred Drama’, The Musical Quarterly 45.1 (1959): 67-84. Print.
Phillips, James ‘The Tempest and the Renaissance Idea of Man’, Shakespeare Quarterly 15.2 (1964): 147-159. Print.
Shakespeare, William ‘The Tempest’. 2001. Sparks. Web.
Spencer, Theodore. Shakespeare and the Nature of Man. New York: MacMillan, 1961. Print.
Strehler, Giorgio & Simpson, Thomas ‘Notes on the Tempest’, A Journal of Performance and Art 24.3 (2002): 1-17. Print.
Vaughan, Virginia & Vaughan, Alden, eds. The Tempest. London: Berkshire House, 1999. Print.
Walter, James ‘From Tempest to Epilogue: Augustine’s Allegory in Shakespeare’s Drama’, PMLA 98.1 (1983): 60-76. Print.