1.28.2015

CALIBAN EXPLAINED



Caliban is one of the most interesting characters Shakespeare created--and Shakespeare has had no match in the ability to invent  characters that are so vividly drawn, so disparate in their personalities, and so complex that we sometimes get the impression that those verbal constructs are more real than the flesh and blood around us.  Having seen three productions of The Tempest over the past two decades, and having read and studied the play many times more than that,  I have noticed that my fascination with this subhuman human  being continues to grow.  I think modern readers can derive not only pleasure from plumbing the profundities of Caliban's personality, but can also retrieve from those depths some  gems of practical wisdom.

No Shakespeare scholar myself, I run the risk of being considered hubristic in writing about Caliban, about whom so much has been written.  I have two responses to this potential accusation.  First, I present a poet's view and not a scholar's view.  My concern is with the text  and not with articles about the text, the vast majority of which I admittedly have not read.  (This approach might seem refreshing to some and desiccating to others; I invite the reader to read on and make up her own mind.) Second, an interpretation of Caliban that has wide currency among contemporary authors and--sadly, among directors--is, in my opinion, so far from what Shakespeare intended, and so damaging to a full appreciation of the subtleties of the text, that I feel a poet needs to write and take the reader several stories higher than the basement where at least some contemporary commentators reside.

This article is divided into five sections: the Educated Freak, The Sexual Predator, The Sensitive Monster, the Raging Masochist and, finally, a section entitled, Low-Caste Enlightenment.

All quotations from The Tempest  referred to in this article are from William Shakespeare, The Complete Works, edited by Stephen Orgel and A.R. Brautmuller,  Penguin Books, New York and London, 2002

The principle assertion of this essay is that much of Caliban's fascination lies in his remarkable transformation from an initial primitive equilibrium, followed by a descent into rage and abasement, from which he rises to a new equilibrium, chastened, but wiser.  In addition, he reaches this new state on his own, without the aid of Prospero's magic.

1. The Educated Freak

"When we first meet Caliban, he complains about how he was disenfranchised by the European invader."  "A modern audience is likely to view Caliban more sympathetically as we no longer consider indigenous people 'savages' or brutes.'"  These two quotes--there are many like them--give one a good idea about much of the current "scholarship" regarding Caliban. (One of the quotes is from a professor at a major university.) This "contemporary" view is worse than superficial; it  is erroneous and  prevents one from looking deeper.  It's a bit like trying to modernize the Mona Lisa with a magic marker.  I am well aware of the brutal treatment of indigenous peoples by colonizers, but this is not what this play is about.  (Just because one culture has brutalized another--history provides many examples--does not give anyone the right to brutalize Shakespeare. ) I imagine this view came about when some "genius" director decided to make Shakespeare more accessible.  He got the bright idea to cast Caliban with a young, handsome African-American actor.  (Such casting is just about de rigueur today.)  Yes, the genius director wanted the audience to believe that the only reason Prospero considers Caliban to be misshapen is because of his prejudice--"The European invader" views all non-whites as savages.  Genius director, kindly stop trying to make Shakespeare contemporary; he is much, much more contemporary than you have imagined. 

Shakespeare is not a Rorschach test; interpretation is not free association.  Good interpretations may not be obvious--it is always possible to discover something new--but they  must never flout the text.

It is essential to our interpretation that Caliban is misshapen and half human.  (I will explain why in the course of this essay.)  Before Caliban appears in the play, Prospero refers to him as "a freckled whelp, hag-born," (Act 1,2 line 283).  Significantly, Prospero refers to him in Act V as follows:: "This misshapen knave,/ his mother was a witch." (lines 268-269).  Trinculo and Stephano each refer to him as a fish, indicating his strange shape and smell.  Corroborating this, Antonio, upon seeing Caliban for the first time, in the company of Trinculo and Stephano,  refers to him with the following words: "One of them/Is a plain fish and no doubt marketable." Act V,1 lines  265-266).  There is obviously something more fishy about Caliban than mere smell--in any case, he is not wholly human.  His lineage confirms this: his mother was the malevolent, ugly witch Sycorax who was banished to the island from "Argier" (Algiers) because of her evil deeds.  The father was a demidevil, "the god Setebos."  When Caliban appears on stage for the first time, Prospero greets him with the following words,"Thou poisonous slave, got by the devil himself/upon thy wicked dam, come forth!" (Act 1,2 lines 319-320).  Here we have a good indication why Caliban is malformed.  Quite possibly Sycorax was impregnated by this devil during a witch's sabbath.  A devil's twisted inner life is traditionally indicated by a beastly shape.  Caliban inherited his half-human shape from his father; Prospero's  alleged "European prejudices" have nothing to do with it. 

The point to remember from this section is that Caliban is half-human; there is no one else like him on the island and quite possibly in the entire world.

I will now provide a few more indications why the view that Prospero is a "European colonizer" is absurd.  Caliban is a young man when the play takes place.  His mother died on the island when Caliban was probably no more than a toddler--this is why the latter tells the former that he "took pains  to make thee speak" (Act 1,2 line 353).    How could Caliban be considered to be an indigenous inhabitant of the island, when he has been there only about fifteen years, the most recent twelve of which Prospero and Miranda were on the island as well?  How could he be considered to be representative of "indigenous people" when he is one of a kind and not even a person but only half human?  How can one be considered to be a member of a people when there are no other people around?  O how innovative and clever you are, genius director!


2. The Sexual Predator

Throughout the play, Prospero is furious with Caliban, and considers him morally as well as physically subhuman. This wasn't always so, however.  He reminds Caliban of their former relationship with following words:

                             Abhorred slave,
Which any print of goodness will not take,
Being capable of all ill!  I pitied thee,
Took pains to make thee speak, taught thee each hour
One thing or other; when thou didn't not, savage,
Know thine own meaning, but wouldst gabble like
A thing most brutish.  I endowed thy purposes
With words that made them known.  But thy vile race,
Though thou didst learn, had that in't which good natures
Could not abide to be with; therefore wast thou
Deservedly confined into this rock,
Who hadst deserved more than a prison. 

                                                                 (Act 1, 2 lines 351-362)

Caliban must have viewed Prospero as his great benefactor, from whom he leaned much.  His teacher "pitied" him; he was pleased that his pupil was a good student--but certainly didn't consider Caliban, a misshapen half-beast, as his equal.  He loved his daughter; he was fond of Caliban.  What drove Prospero from fondness to fury?  Caliban tried to have sex with his beloved daughter:

Thou most lying slave,
Whom stripes may move, not kindness!  I have used thee
(Filth as thou art) with humane care, and lodged thee
In mine own cell till thou didst seek to violate
The honor of my child.

                               (Act 1,2  lines 344-347)

Attempted rape--a very serious offense.  Yet behind every offence of Caliban there are extenuating circumstances.  This does not excuse Caliban;  Shakespeare, however, wants us to understand that Caliban is not as evil as Prospero's rage might lead us to believe.  There is in fact no indication that Caliban had ever behaved badly prior to this event. 

It is obvious that Prospero dotes on his fifteen-year-old daughter, Miranda. ("O, a cherubin /Thou wast that did preserve me!"  Act 1:2  lines 152-153)--The irascible Prospero is never angry with Miranda and refers to her with great affection throughout the play. The proud father is in fact using his magic powers solely to arrange his daughter's marriage with Ferdinand, the Duke of Naples's son.  His magic is successful; they fall in love with each other at first sight.  He, after testing Ferdinand's devotion, gives his blessing to the young couple.  He also issues a stern warning to Ferdinand:

Then, as my gift, and thine own acquisition
Worthily purchased, take my daughter,  But
If thou dost break her virgin-knot before
All sanctimonious ceremonies may
With full and holy rite be ministered,
No sweet aspersion shall the heavens let fall
To make this contract grow; but barren hate
Sour-eyed disdain, and discord shall bestrew
The union of your bed with weeds so loathly
That you shall hate it both. Therefore take heed,
as Hymen's lamps shall light you.

                                    Act lV,1  lines 13-23)

We can assume that Prospero would treat Ferdinand as abusively as he treats Caliban if the pair had pre-marital sex.  This is strange.  Prospero doesn't seem to be religious; there is more than a simple devotion to tradition here.  He is so obsessive regarding this issue that it is comical.  During the pageant for the young couple, which Prospero has written and has performed by spirits of the island acting as gods, he has Iris, the messenger of the gods, say the following words, referring to Venus's and Cupid's attempt to "corrupt" the betrothed couple: "Here thought they to have done/Some wanton charm upon this man and maid,/Whose vows are, that no bed-right shall be paid/Till Hymen's torch be lighted." (Act lV,1  lines 94-97).  Just in case Ferdinand didn't get the message! 

What is the source of this obsession?  We must recall that father and daughter have been isolated on the island for twelve years, and that Miranda is now a beautiful woman, to whom Prospero is a doting parent.  It is safe to assert that there is some unconscious sexual desire on the part of the father.  (Once again, Shakespeare anticipates Freud by centuries.) He loves her and wants to see her married.  There is some reluctance in this however; there is an unconscious urge in him to keep her for himself.  (As we shall see his life unravels after he  loses her.)  I assert that he unconsciously tells himself something like this: "Yes, I will give my daughter up.  Yet until the very day of the marriage, Miranda is mine."  Perhaps Caliban attempted to do what he, in a way, would--subconsciously, of course--like to do, too.  He loathes this aspect in himself and, of course, would never touch her.  Caliban, in his attempted rape, becomes the embodiment of this self-loathing.  This could well explain Prospero's fury and obsession.

Another exculpatory factor for Caliban's behavior: there is no reference that Prospero ever warned Caliban never to make advances to his daughter.  Caliban  shared the same cell with Miranda and Prospero.  He had most likely never been taught about Prospero's sexual mores.  One assumes that Prospero couldn't even imagine that a beast like Caliban would ever approach his daughter. They weren't children any longer, but were allowed to remain in close contact. Whose fault is that?  Prior to Prospero's arrival, Caliban was a child; as a grown man it is not surprising that he had sexual desire for the only woman he had ever known.  Yet it was very wrong to try to overpower Miranda.  Shakespeare, like nature, is ambiguous and plays it both ways: Caliban is guilty and innocent at the same time.


3. The Sensitive Monster

We have already quoted Prospero admitting to Caliban that he was a good student,  Although he was taught side by side with Miranda, he seems to be more intelligent.  He is able to give Prospero back in kind for the insults with which his former teacher abuses him.  (Prospero and Caliban seem to be the most intelligent of all the characters in the play.)  To be fair to Miranda, we must recall that her character is part of the fairy tale aspect of the play, in which a handsome prince falls in love with a beautiful woman.  Her gentleness and innocence are stressed, and not her intelligence.  Ferdinand's princely behavior and his devotion are also emphasized, not his intelligence, although he is certainly capable.  When he hears Miranda speaking in his language, he says, "My language!  Heavens!/ I am the best of them that speak that speech,/ Were I but where 'tis spoken." (Act 1,2 lines 430-432).  This is most likely an example of braggadocio; he seems no more articulate than anyone else in the play, and less so than Prospero and Caliban.

Music, the most inward of the arts, plays an important role in the play.  The spirit, Ariel, uses it to cast spells on those who hear it, the music arising seemingly from nowhere.  Ferdinand, hearing the invisible Ariel's song, says the following: "This music crept by me upon the waters,/Allaying both their fury and my passion/ With its sweet air."  (Act 1,2 lines 392-294).  This is magical music; it affects anyone who hears it.  One gets the impression that Ferdinand is moved only while the music is playing; when it stops, he probably no longer thinks about it at all.  This is in stark contrast to Caliban, who is deeply moved by music and always wants to listen to more of it.  When Trinculo and Stephano hear Ariel's music, they are afraid.  Caliban reassures them with the following words:

Be not afeared: the isle is full of noises,
Sounds and sweet airs that give delight and hurt not.
Sometimes a thousand twangling instruments
Will hum about mine ear; and sometime voices
That, if I then had waked after long sleep,
Will make me sleep again; and then, in dreaming,
The clouds methought would open and show riches
Ready to drop upon me, that, when I waked,
I cried to dream again. 
                                                 (Act lll, 2 lines 134-142)

This is a beautiful passage, and indicates the profound affect music has on Caliban.   He not only hears Ariel's music while awake;  he hears music in his dreams.  It moves him so that he imagines that it can disperse the clouds and reveal the riches of heaven.  No one else in the play is shown to have this profound inward relation to music.  Caliban obviously has a very rich interior life, possibly more than anyone else in the play.

Another indication of Caliban's innate nobility is the fact that while the clown and the drunkard speak exclusively in prose,  Caliban speaks in verse, a clear indication that Caliban is on a higher level.  He makes a fool of himself--no one else in the play debases himself to the degree that Caliban does--but there are reasons that partially excuse his behavior; and, as stated previously, without any help from Prospero; guided by his own intelligence, he learns from his mistakes.  No other character in the play undergoes an equivalent transformation. 

Caliban is smart, Caliban is sensitive, Caliban has a rich inner life--not bad for someone who is subhuman.



4.  The Raging Masochist

Caliban's life can be divided into three phases.   First, the idyllic stage, when Caliban was instructed and cared for by Prospero; second, the precipitous fall, and third, at the end of the fifth act, the attainment of a  new equilibrium.  As the play begins, Caliban has already fallen from his privileged position and is treated like a slave.  At this point, he has fallen from a mountain, as it were, onto a ledge, perhaps a third of the way down from the summit.  It is a fall from heavenly innocence to earthly duress; he has further to fall, however--In the middle of the play, he reaches the lowest point in his life.  

Act ll, 2, the scene of Caliban's humiliation, is one of Shakespeare's greatest comic encounters.  This episode begins with the fallen subhuman's description of the torments he receives from Prospero by way of the invisible spirits of the island:

His spirits hear me,
And yet I needs must curse.  But they'll not pinch,
Fright me with urchin shows, pitch me i' the' mire,
Nor lead me, like a firebrand, in the dark
Out of my way, unless he bid 'em; but
For every trifle are they set upon me;
And after bite me; then like hedgehogs which
Lie tumbling in my barefoot way and mount
Their pricks at my footfall; sometime am I
All wound and adders, who with cloven tongues
Do hiss me into madness.

                                         (Act ll,2 lines 3-14)

This amounts to torture; we begin the scene with Caliban in a state close to madness, which partially excuses his subsequent behavior.  A second exculpatory factor is that Caliban has never seen any other humans except Miranda and Prospero; it is not surprising that Caliban would mistake the ridiculous duo of Trinculo and Stephano as being god-like, since Prospero had been the god, as it were, of his youth.  Another factor that leads to Caliban's pathetic lack of judgment is that Stephano plies him with alcohol; this is his first encounter with the liquid which has been a major cause of unseemly behavior since time immemorial. The drunken Caliban acts like an idiot, and we're not surprised.  All these, however, are secondary causes; the root cause of Caliban's self-abasement is rage, which distorts his judgment.   His physical torment and mental anguish, for which he believes with some reason that Prospero is responsible, has broken his spirit.  He is now hell-bent on the removal of the source of his torment; his passion now is to revenge himself by seeing to it that Prospero is murdered.

This desire is as irrational as it is immoral.  Previously, when Prospero verbally abused him, Caliban, despite the threat of torment, gave Prospero as good as he got.  Now he is willing to be the most debased slave imaginable, provided that Stephano follows his will and murders Prospero.  (Note that even here Caliban's intelligence is not completely impaired; he quickly realizes that the jester, Trinculo, is indeed a fool and commences to worship only Stephano, the less ridiculous member of this ridiculous pair.)

I would like to call attention to the imagery of Caliban's self-abasement.  One of the starkest demonstrations of social inferiority occurs when a man kisses another man's foot.  One would think that kneeling before Stephano would be enough for him;  Caliban, however, offers to kiss Stephano's foot not once, but four times:

I'll show thee every fertile inch o' th' island;
And I will kiss thy foot.  I prithee be my god.
                                                      (Act ll,2 line 45-46)

I'll kiss thy foot.  I'll swear myself thy subject.
                                                 (same scene, line 149)

How does thy honor?  Let me lick thy shoe.
                                                (Act lll,2 line 24)

And finally:

Do that good mischief which may make this island
Thine own forever, and I, thy Caliban,
For aye thy footlicker.
                                 (Act lV,l  lines 252-254)

The monster seeks disgrace too much. This very striking and very consistent imagery of self-abasement indicates that Caliban is now, to use a modern term, mentally ill.  Once again, Shakespeare anticipates psychological discoveries that were to come centuries later.  We would now call Caliban a masochist; underlying masochism, as psychologists assert, is anger.  Caliban can't handle his rage; he eliminates himself, as it were, by becoming Stephano's 'footlicker'.  He 'solves' his dilemma through fantasy--he imagines Stephano to be the god that will accomplish what the broken Caliban desires but cannot do himself.  Caliban is relieved of his anxiety by projecting his rage onto Stephano; he eliminates his own self by creating an imaginary ideal self who will do his will.  The prescient Shakespeare knew full well what we know now: masochism is much more about control than about abasement.
That Stephano, a god only in Caliban's fantasies, has become the latter's ideal self is readily apparent.  Caliban, who had thought of himself as the rightful king of the island, now wants Stephano to reign in his place.  Caliban, who is sexually attracted to Miranda and had wanted to create Calibans with her, now wants his new god to have her:

Ay, lord.  She will become thy bed, I warrant,/And bring thee forth brave brood.  
                                    (Act lll, 1 lines 104-105)

When Stephano seemingly agrees to murder Prospero, Caliban is deliriously triumphant:

No more dams I'll make for fish,
     Not fetch in firing
     At requiring,
Nor scrape trenchering, nor wash dish,\
       'Ban, 'Ban, Ca-Caliban
       Has a new master: get a new man,
Freedom, high-day! high-day, freedom!  Freedom, high-day, freedom!
                                                    (Act lll, 1 lines 176-184)

Freedom?  Exchanging  servitude for abject slavery is hardly liberation.  Poor Caliban!

The tragi-comedy of Caliban's debasement approaches its climax in Act lll, scene 2.  Caliban instructs Stephano as to how to murder Prospero:

Why, as I told thee, 'tis custom with him

I' th' afternoon to sleep; there thou mayst brain him,
Having first seized his books, or with a log
Batter his skull, or paunch him with a stake,
Or cut his wesand with thy knife.  Remember
First to possess his books; for without them
He's but a sot, as I am, nor hath not
One spirit to command.
                                     (Act lll,2  lines 86-93)

Notice that Caliban has not only lost respect for himself, but has also lost respect for Prospero.  In Caliban's mind, the only difference between the two "sots" is the brute force that stems from the possession of magic books.  Although Shakespeare, as we have demonstrated, gives reasons which help us understand Caliban's behavior, that behavior is nonetheless vile.  We have reached the low point of Caliban's moral life.  The climax of the comedy occurs in Act lV, 1.  Trinculo, Stephano and Caliban approach Prospero's cell.  Caliban tries to control and direct the action--Prospero's murder--in a way that mirrors Prospero's spectacular and successful attempts to control events.  Ariel, the invisible spirit, foils Caliban's plans by putting "glistening apparel" on a tree.  Trinculo and Stephano are diverted by these garments like little children.  Caliban desperately tries to make Stephano stick to the plan, to no avail.  It is interesting to note that Caliban, who is more capable than Stephano but doesn't know it, feels incapable of killing Prospero himself.  His ideal self must do that.  His ideal self, however, turns out to be an fool.  It is too late for escape; Prospero, having been warned by Ariel, appears, foils the plot, and severely punishes all three.  The stage direction is as follows:  

A noise of hunters heard.  Enter diverse Spirits in shape of dogs and hounds, hunting them about.  Prospero and Ariel setting them on.
                                           
                                          (Act lV, 1 immediately after line 254)

Poor Caliban!


5. Low-Caste Enlightenment

Shakespeare's Shakespeare of this play, Prospero, who has been directing much of the action like a playwright from the beginning, accomplishes his goal at the end of the play: reconciliation with former enemies and the imminent marriage of his daughter with the son of a king.  The king of Naples, his brother, Prospero's brother, all of whom had been rendered immobile by Ariel's spell, are now, once again, able to speak and move, and are brought into Prospero's presence.  He forgives Alonso, the king, who repents: "Th' affliction of my mind amends, with which,/ I fear a madness held me"  (Act V, 2 lines 115-116).  He is soon united with his son, Ferdinand, whom he had presumed to be dead, and introduced to his future daughter-in-law, Miranda.  The happy ending of the fairy-tale portion of the plot has arrived.  There are, however, examples of a less happy resolution.  Prospero forgives his brother, Antonio, who had planned to murder him, with the following, understandably harsh words:

For you, most wicked sir, whom to call brother
Would even infect my mouth, I do forgive
Thy rankest fault--all of them, and require
My dukedom of thee, which perforce I know
Thous must restore.
                                         (Act V, 2 lines 130-134)

How does Antonio, who has very much enjoyed political power and intrigue, react to this?  We don't know; he remains silent for the remainder of the play.  One assumes he acquiesces to Prospero's demand because he must; he most likely remains unreconciled.

The last loose end to be tied up is the fate of Caliban.  The spirits in the form of hounds who have been pursuing Caliban, Trinculo and Stephano, are called off and the three are brought  before Prospero. He introduces them to the rest with the following severity:

Mark but the badges of these men, my lords,
Thous say if they be true.  This misshapen knave,
His mother was a witch, and one so strong
That could control the moon, make flows and ebbs,
And deal in her command without her power.
These three have robbed me, and this demidevil
(For he's a bastard one) had plotted with them
To take my life.  Two of these fellows you
Must know and own; this thing of darkness
I acknowledge mine.
                                          (Act V, 1 lines 267-276)

No forgiveness here--Prospero is as pitiless as ever to Caliban, even though he has forgiven his much more evil brother who had been guilty, without any exculpatory factors, of the same crime, attempted murder.  And yet, although we presume that Antonio has remained unrepentant, Caliban has changed, even though no one else notices.


Shortly before the end of the play, as mentioned previously, Prospero orders Ariel to "set Caliban and his companions free"--that is, to call off the hounds who have been pursuing them since the murder plot was foiled.  (I like to think that the hounds are, as it were, the hounds of hell, which inflict by far the most terrifying of all of Prospero's punishments.  I suggest that it is the terror of an imminent, horrible death which drives out all the vanity from Caliban and makes him a new (half) man.) When Caliban is brought before the recently shipwrecked entourage--consisting of Antonio, Alonzo, Sebastian and Gonzago--he is amazed and says the following:

O Setebos, these be brave spirits indeed!
How fine my master is!  I am afraid
He will chastise me.
                                    (Act V, 1 lines 261-263)

It is very significant that this is the only time Caliban mentions his father, the demidevil Setebos.  Caliban apparently now accepts his origin without bitterness.  He doesn't pretend to be what he is not, one among "the fine spirits indeed."  Note that he  now refers to Propero as his master.  He accepts this; there is no longer even a trace of anger in his demeanor.  Prospero had been his master by force; now Caliban not only acknowledges his inferior status, but is in agreement with it.

Prospero, however, is still angry and addresses him with the following words;

He is as disproportined in his manners
As in his shape.  Go, sirrah, to my cell;
Take with you your companions.  As you look
To have my pardon, trim it handsomely.

                                              (Act V, 1 lines 297-299)

In the recent production of The Tempest which I attended, the inevitably white Prospero says these words to the inevitably black Caliban.  He puts his hands on Caliban's shoulder, who is standing beside him; they give each other a broad smile.  This is what the director wants, a Brechtian lesson of racial reconciliation.  This is, however, not what Shakespeare wants and I view it as a bit of a desecration.  Racial integration is one of the most important tasks of modern society, but that's not what is occurring here.  (We must recall that Caliban is a unique "freak," a minority of one, and not a member of any other minority.  To present Prospero and Caliban as having become friends and perhaps even equals is a ridiculous interpretation.  No one who knows anything about Elizabethan language knows that "sirrah" is not the way one addresses one's equal--Not to mention Proserpo's harsh final words to Caliban:  "Go to!  Away!"  (In this context, one might translate "Go to!  with the vernacular, "Get the hell out of here!" Hardly the language one uses among friends!

After Prospero says the words quoted above, (lines 297-299), Caliban replies:

Ay, that I will; and I'll be wise hereafter,
And seek for grace.  What a thrice-double ass
Was I to take this drunkard for a god
And worship this dull fool!
                                     (Act V, 1 lines 291-294)

Caliban might still be half beast, but he is no longer a raging half-beast.  Since he is no longer blinded by anger, he no longer replies to Prospero's abuse with abuse of his own.  Although he acknowledges Prospero as his master, he does not bow down and kiss Prospero's foot as he had done with Stephano.  Prospero is more or less now his master teacher; Caliban no longer has a slave mentality and stands before Prospero like a man.  Yes, Caliban remains and will always remain in a subordinate position; it is a low-caste enlightenment, but an enlightenment nevertheless.

One pities Caliban at the beginning, one despises him in the middle, and one admires him at the end. Shakespeare accomplishes this great transformation with a character that has fewer than 200 lines to say in the play.  Shakespeare's depth and aesthetics are truly amazing!

Conclusion

What will happen to Prospero and Caliban?  Perhaps it is not quite correct to imagine the lives of fictional characters after the play is over.  Prospero and Caliban are so vividly drawn, however, that I can't help but imagine their future.

I don't see great happiness in store for Prospero as the general reconciliation at the end of the play might have us assume.  His whole life was his daughter; she will soon be married and live far  away.  His magic was aimed at one thing: seeing to it that his daughter was happily and properly married.  Losing her will be a kind of death.  I think this is the source of Prospero's despair at the end of the play.  (He states that when he returns home, "Every third thought shall be my grave," (ActV,1 line 312).  He was never a good politician; now that he has abjured his magical powers; now that his brother probably remains unrepentant--both these facts will not make his return to Milan easy.

What about Caliban?  If he is left on the island, he will be quite unhappy; he will miss humans greatly.  If he is taken to Milan, which is likely, things will not be easy for him, either.  Both the low-born Trinculo and the high-born Antonio view him as a commodity with which one can make a profit by charging people money to see him. He will have to accept it that many will view him as a freak.  He will also be lonely.  In Mozart's opera, The Magic Flute, the bird-man Papageno is given a Papagena.  There will be no Calibana for Caliban.  However, despite these burdens, I image that Caliban will be at least content, and  happier than Prospero.  He not only accepts himself for what he is, but vows to "seek for grace."  You can't go wrong with that combination.  I think, in time, Prospero will forgive him and, perhaps, even be fond of him again.

I view Caliban as the role model for those who, for whatever reason, are viewed  by others as different, and who fail at "fitting in."  Society is anything but kind to those who are different. Imagining that one has a higher status than one has, however, doesn't work for long; raging at those who are not only in a superior position but who treat one with disdain doesn't work either; accepting oneself for what one is and striving for grace, however,  does work.

For me, among all the incredibly complex characters of the greatest writer that the world has seen to date, Caliban has a special place.  I certainly do not view him as an oppressed aborigine; I view him as a man--half-man, that is--who had lived alone in paradise, (which never existed, but that's how Gonzago would see it); who then lived and learned from a great teacher who took pity on a monster (which is a distorted view, but that's how Prospero would see it); who then fell into the hell of abuse and rejection (which is partially self-caused, but that's not how Caliban would see it), and  who finally reaches--that's how the audience should see it--a new stage of dignity.

Shakespeare's apparent "monster" proves to be profoundly human, even noble--good news for the Caliban in us all.

                                     



                                     

                                      

1.18.2015

JE SUIS CHARLIE--(Sort Of)

It is a matter of supreme indifference to me whether one is a Muslim, a Hindu, a Christian, a Buddhist or a Jew--or anything else I've left out--oh, I left out atheism and agnosticism--regarding these, whether one is an absolute or relative  doubting Thomas doesn't count for much in my view, either.  The task of everyone is the same, no matter the creed or ethnic origin: to love one's neighbor as oneself.  That's the only thing that really matters.

I am no scholar of religion, but I have studied them all and feel I have some internal knowledge of all of them.  I can pass from one to another as easily as a breeze can pass over the border of two countries that are at war with each other.

In short, I do not consider a Muslim as the other, but as my brother--(or sister, as the case may be.)  In this essay, I will let the Muslim in me (let's call him Alif); the Hindu in me (Ramanatom) and the secularist in me, doubting Thomas, give their various opinions about whether or not free speech is always sacrosanct.   Specifically, should insulting the Prophet Muhammad--which, I might add, all three find to be offensive--be banned?  (Please note, I am relating what three people of three faiths in me have to say; we acknowledge that while other members of these faiths, if they are kind, would of necessity have to be in agreement with some of what the we have to say, but, beyond that, might have different, equally justifiable,  views regarding other things the three in me assert.)

The essay is a response to recent acts of terrorism.

Alif's View

My name is Alif, I live in Marseilles, France.

I am an avid rationalist, but also have a deep need for transcendence.  Imagine a soccer game in which each player is a different type of believer.  My rationality is the goalie; it will not permit any unreasonable thought to pass and score a goal.  For belief to score a goal, it must pass beyond reason without flouting it--thus a transcendence would be reached that would even delight reason, since it really wants a genuine belief to score.

Many people in my tradition have played this game which resulted in the awesome  score of one to zero. Let me tell you about one of them, Abu Hamid al-Ghazzali (1058-1111.)

Al-Ghazzali was so brilliant that at the age of 33 he became director of the great Nizamiyyah mosque in Baghdad.  This was a Sunni mosque; he was required to defend Sunni teachings and repudiate Shia teachings.  Al-Ghazzali, however, insisted on finding the truth.  He studied the doctrines of all the schools of Islam--there were many in those days--and found no certainty, no peace.  He became convinced  that all dogmatic positions, including many of the most important  tenets of Islam, rested on assertions that cannot be proven.  Al-Ghazzali would not permit any of these unreasonable players, kicking the ball inside him, as it were, to score.  He could not abide, however, that the extremely serious game of life could end with a score of zero. Nevertheless, he could not let down his guard and let one pass.  He became severely depressed, as this passage from his writings attest:

God shriveled my tongue until I was prevented from giving instruction.  So I used to force myself to teach on a particular day for the benefit of my various pupils, but my tongue would not utter a single word.

He was convinced that he had to find a way to believe--or die.  He resigned his post.  He joined the Sufis, and after a few years, he was able to teach again--with joy.

What had he learned?  The Sufis, then and now, are the most undogmatic sect of Islam.  In their view, Islam is synonymous with being humble, striving for justice and practicing forgiveness and love.  Al-Ghazzali needed to search no further: not by reading books, but by associating and following the examples of loving, wise people did he find the transcendence he had been seeking in vain.

That's the kind of Muslim I strive to be.

So let me now answer the question: what do I think of the caricatures of Mohammad published by Charlie Hebdo?  I am appalled.  This is certainly not the way to help people reach the goal of unity!  But I am even more appalled that terrorists--in the name of Islam!!--attacked and killed so many editors and writers of that satirical magazine.

How do you truly insult Muhammad?  How do you truly insult Allah?  By giving them lip service while living a life of greed and injustice.  We refer to Allah as Allah the Merciful, which means that the most important thing to do is to be merciful ourselves.  We are--or should be-- far too busy removing the burdens from other people's shoulders to have a chip on ours.  To love and forgive--that's  what being a Muslim means; it's as simple and complex as that.

Ramanatom's View

My name is Ramanatom; I am a devout, non-militaristic Hindu.  I live in Chennai, India.

First, I would like to inform my soul-mate, Alif, of the "fact" that the essence of both our traditions are in complete agreement.  One of the greatest sages of my tradition asserted that when the mind turns inward something deep inside manifests itself as God.  This God reveals that all things are interconnected; once one realizes this, selfish behavior is impossible.  Just what you believe, Alif, albeit said in a different way.

Do I believe that caricatures of Muhammad should appear in print?  I do not.  Let me tell you why.

I live in a country of rising Hindu nationalism.  I live in a country where the Muslims are a significant minority, but a minority nevertheless, about 14% of the population.  The relationship between the Hindu and Muslim communities is definitely deteriorating.  An example: a few years ago a fire broke out aboard a train of Hindu pilgrims.  Muslims were blamed.  (A 2005 government investigation of the incident determined that the fire had been an accident.) As a result, thousands of innocent Muslims were murdered by rioting Hindus.  The police did not intervene.  This was an appalling and alarming episode. Some people even want to have India, which has a secular constitution, to be declared a Hindu nation, which would only make matters worse.  The potential for communal rioting remains, sadly, great.

If India allowed caricatures of Muhammad to be published, horrible things would likely happen.  If they appeared in a magazine, I can imagine an angry Muslim--not like Alif, of course--desecrating a statue of Shiva in a village.  I could then, unfortunately, picture Hindu villagers slaughtering scores of their fellow citizens who happen to be Muslim in response.  Such crimes must be averted.

Free speech is precious, but life is even more precious.  It's as simple and complex as that.

Doubting Thomas's View

My name is Doubting Thomas; I am a secularist who lives in Baltimore, a city in the United States.  I do not believe any Western nation should prohibit the publication of insults to any religion.  I find the caricatures of Muhammad to be stupid, puerile and inappropriate.  But I defend the right of offensive people to publish offensive things.

One of the greatest American values is free speech, enshrined in the first amendment of our great constitution.  This great law does not permit government to decide what isn't permitted to be spoken or published--provided, of course, that the content does not suborn violence.  I am proud to live in a pluralistic society that embraces many views.  I insist that people should be allowed to express themselves, even if their views are deeply offensive to many, including myself.

The Pope has recently said that free speech has limitations and should not include the freedom to mock another religion.  I agree with him; however, I believe that the should should not become a must. One's conscience must be the law-giver here, not politicians. 

Free speech has a long tradition in my country.  Perhaps Ramanatom is correct regarding the Indian context, but not in the country where I live.  Even immediately after 9/11, there was no incidence of hordes of people hell-bent on slaughtering Muslims.  Yes we have individual crazies, but never hordes of marauding bigots. (Not too long ago, however, such crimes did occur on American soil; we should all be grateful that those days are gone forever.)

We cannot allow the abrogation of free speech due to the action of terrorists.  We must also defend what's sacred to us. If we don't, the terrorists will have won.

I also think that there might even be an advantage to ridiculing religions.  If you live in a pluralistic society, you have to have a thick skin.  Forgiving those who mock Muhammad might help a Muslim to ignore the noise of Western society, and concentrate on its music: the right to practice any religion without interference. Doubting Thomas has just read about a very decent young man who wanted to promote democracy; he was sentenced by Saudi authorities to a long prison term in addition to the horrific punishment of 1,000 lashes, a punishment he would most likely not survive.  His crime?  Alleged blasphemy against Islam.  Doubting Thomas believes it would be better for Muslims to tolerate (and ignore) insults, rather than to tolerate horrific punishments of those insults, many of which are fabricated.


Conclusion

Three good people with three different views--talk about situational ethics!  Maybe so-called situational ethics aren't bad, however, as long as they are consistent with the greatest commandment, namely, Love Your Neighbor as Yourself.  Loving your neighbor doesn't mean that your neighbor has to agree with you.  As long as there is no threat of violence, your neighbor should be  entitled to express opposing opinions, even if those opinions insult the sensibilities of others.  If your neighbor is stating something that you think is ignorant or insulting, protest.  If that doesn't work, forgive him and move on with works that make the world a better place.

All three are in basic agreement: the greatest commandment must take precedence in all situations.   

Je suis Charlie?  Non, je suis tous.







1.12.2015

Day of the Border Guards

                                                      Day of the Border Guards
                                                Poems by Katherine E. Young
                                                The University of Arkansas Press
                                                Fayetteville, 2014
                                                63 pages

Katherine E. Young is a fine poet, no doubt about that; this collection is well worth reading.  What makes a good poet is not so much what the poet writes about, but how she writes.   Content is important, but expression, the interesting use of language and imagery, must be primary, otherwise the poet should be writing essays, and not poems.  Young knows this well--many contemporary poets don't.

She has a very good ear for the sound, the musicality of poetry.  She doesn't make this at all obvious; the music seems to hide behind what she is writing about, which makes it all the more effective, due to its, albeit muted, persistence.  It is background music in the very best sense of that term.  Gone are the days when poets wrote music and rhythm that towered over content, such as in these lines of Wallace Stevens: "Chieftain Iffucan of Azcan in caftan/ Of tan and henna hackles, halt!"  In the best modern poetry, the poet does indeed say something which most often can also be expressed in prose--try writing a prose summary of the Stevens lines--but expresses that something with an ear for the music of words and an eye for imagery. That's precisely why it is poetry and not prose.

Young knows this well.  As an example I quote the first stanza of a five stanza poem entitled, "Zagorsk,"  subtitled, "Sergiev-Pasad Monastery":

                      Happy endings look like this:
                      onions regilded, relics restored,
                      the pathway to Hell recartooned
                      on the wall.  Even the tongues of the bells--
                      newly hung, whisper, Redemption.

This stanza--there are many such examples throughout the book--evinces a high degree of technical wizardry.  The musicality of the language pleases the ear, without it ever being obtrusive.  It serves the meaning; without it the content would sound very flat.  Notice the alliteration and assonance of regilded, restored and recartooned.  Notice the counter melody of Hell, wall and bells and the lovely assonances of tongues, hung and Redemption.  The soft "whisper" followed by the emphatic "Redemption" sums up her style for me.  It is understated, a "whisper," yet packs a wallop, "Redemption."  How well those last two words read  in the poem--the rhythm is perfect.  Not many poets can do this, and, unfortunately, not all readers notice.

I will now quote one of my favorite poems from the collection in its entirety:

What's Left

Only the murmur of gathering snow,
and, far off, the squeal of teeth

shearing steel, and the ashy scent
of solder riding the air; only

the blue-hooded crow, scolding
from an archway at us below;

only the tin-tipped solstice sun,
glancing anxiously across

your shoulder as you turn away;
only your voice, too faint for an echo:

How fine you are!  Only turnstile,
platforms, tracks seaming sudden fractures

in the earth: only this seat astride
my suitcase, train hastening on.


This is a wonderful poem.

We've already discussed Young's musicality.  Although her language talent is readily apparent in this poem, I would like to focus on two other aspects: imagery, and, especially, control.  As Emily Dickinson wrote, "Tell all the truth but tell it slant"--the poet should avoid being too direct or too abstract; a poem needs diamonds (music, imagery, control) and should avoid clumps of coal--fat, prosaic blobs of unadorned meaning.  The control in this poem is remarkable.  In some of the best poems, the meaning of the poem is not apparent until the ending.  Unlike much prose, a good poem must be read many times and taken apart in order to savor and fully appreciate its beauty. Such is the case of this poem.

We really don't know what is going on in this poem until the end.  The theme of the poem is a sorrowful parting from a friend--or lover, it doesn't matter--with whom the narrator had a profound relationship.  The images, all connected to the theme of the poem, pile up, gathering tension and momentum as the poem progresses, although we are still unaware of where they are leading us until the end.   It starts out with the somewhat neutral image of gathering snow; it is followed by "the squeal of teeth/shearing steel" in the distance, and "The ashy scent/ of solder riding the air."  At this point, the reader knows that this is going to be a somber poem; the images all refer to a hostile, unpleasant environment.  We are then confronted by the image of a crow scolding two people below.  It's as if the entire macrocosm is mocking the microcosm of the two individuals, who, perhaps, thought that their deep relationship could last.

The image of the "tin-tipped solstice sun" is admirable.  We know what clouds with silver linings portend, tin-tipped is more ambiguous.  The tin periphery might be ominous, but the core of the sun is still bright. Young is probably referring to the spring solstice; perhaps this is a subtle indication that life will go on, and that even better times might be coming, despite this difficult parting.

The climax of the poem is in italics.  It is "too faint for an echo" --the compliment is dwarfed by a hostile environment.  Obviously, the world is not telling the narrator that she is fine--quite the opposite; it is telling her that her emotions mean little in a hostile world.

After this, the poet uses mechanical images, turnstile, platforms, tracks.  No one else is mentioned, thus emphasizing the importance of and the loneliness of the two good friends.  The image of the empty seat next to her says it all.  The train must take her away--the narrator has promises to keep and miles to go before she sleeps.  The solstice sun indicates, that despite the sorrow of parting, life, like the train, will go on.

All the images are simultaneously objective and subjective; they describe reality, but it is always a felt reality; they are objective descriptions of the narrator's state of mind. This "felt imagery" is analogous to the use of free indirect speech in a novel; its use here increases the subtlety and the aesthetic pleasure of the poem.

This poem is a stellar example of poetic craft.

The unifying theme of the collection is impressions of Russia and her culture.   Young, who translates Russian poetry and prose, and has visited Russia many times, sometimes for lengthy stays, knows the country and its culture well.  The Russian context of the poems provide an additional plus for the reader, who, less familiar with things Russian, gets a vivid idea of the country and culture as depicted by a fine poet.

Other critics have emphasized the Russian context;  I decided to concentrate on what makes Young a good poet and not where she has been or what she is thinking about--the latter being a worthy topic of discussion, no doubt.  But what makes Young a good poet might have been as readily apparent if she lived and wrote from, say, Newark.

Not every poem in the collection is a gem, of course, which is the case of just about all collections.  A poet should be judged at her best.  This collection contains many fine example of Young at her best, and should be read by everyone who has an interest in poetry.

                                                                                                --Thomas Dorsett

Dorsett is a poet and pediatrician.  Hundreds of  his poems have appeared in literary journals over the past four decades.  His current project is the publication of  a translation entitled "Letters Home," a collection of letters from 1909 to 1914 written by a young Jewish Austrian musician, who died at the age of twenty-eight in one of the first battles of World War 1.