Brain Drain Blog

Archive for October, 2006

Medieval scholar, Yvonne Kendall, offered greater insight than the classroom text into the connection between Hildegard and her music. To say that music was important to Hildegard scarcely glosses the depths to which it affected her everyday life. As we know from her first letter to Bernard, she refers to the ?sound? of God, meaning not only his voice as he speaks his word but, just as importantly, the divine way in which the Lord and his angels express themselves through music. As Hildegard often develops complex philosophies surrounding her visions, theology, and remedies as they exist in nature, she accepts as fact that music, at once, binds the soul with understanding and faith. In essence, this is the glue that unifies the body, faith, and senses of humanity directly with God.

The importance of her music was commonly understood among those who knew Hildegard. We have learned how her refusal to exhume the excommunicated and repentant foot soldier buried in the monastery’s cemetery was the impetus for banning musical prayer. We also know how profoundly this punishment afflicted her with depression. Interestingly, Yvonne Kendall offered fresh insight into Hildegard?s appeal to her abbot?s superiors. Rather ingeniously, Hildegard used the denial of her music to register with those who suppressed her. She strongly suggested that to continue this restriction, neglecting to abandon the orders to exhume nor to acknowledge the foot soldier?s commitment to and heavenly bond with God, may lead them to a place where they would never again hear the heavenly choirs of angels. This crafty reference obviously made a grand impression upon Hildegard’s superiors. The ban was immediately lifted allowing her monastery once more to rejoice in song.

While Hildegard is duly credited with the composition of her music, this recognition was never intended for her own glorification. In fact, music was written for the benefit of monastic services not available to the public and was generally not signed because it was believed to belong to God, not the composer. The shear volume of Hildegard?s music that still survives today is attributed to her popularity as a traveling speaker, healer and consultant, and to the journals in which she documented her works for her own use. Coming from outside sources, it is important to mention that Hildegard had not made personal claim of her credit. She humbly believed that her music was a gift from God and the glory belonged to him.

Aside from attributed credit, the greatest indication of Hildegard?s compositions was her unique style for the time. To compare her powerful emphasis on certain lyrics with the more even tones of the Gregorian monks, Hildegard moves far beyond the trend of her day. Her expansive use of musical scales did not become common tradition until 4 centuries beyond her time. This dramatic effect of stretching lyrics through a series of ascending or descending notes placed a new importance on interpreting the meaning behind the lyrics. This technique was perceived as dangerous because, unlike the tradition of reading prose and explaining its meaning, music lent a level of emotion and uncontrolled emphasis at the will of the performer, not the church.

Hildegard was aware, not only of the importance of song, but of the components of what made up that song. The instruments of the day included the recorder, vielle, organ, harp and bagpipes. All were comprised of natural elements using wood for structure and animal organs for the bellows. This too demonstrates how every aspect of music joins God and his every creation. This inclusive concept was one Hildegard commonly used to push beyond the negative societal perceptions of women.

As seen in her correspondence, the Scivias, and particular visions depicting the egg as fertility blessed by the fire of God and the soul residing – fully formed by the eyes of God – within the womb of a pregnant woman, Hildegard believed that women should be cherished for all they had to offer humanity. Her music provided yet another avenue to reinforce this idea. Her lyrics were comprised of references to the mother and child relationship between not only the Christ child and Mary, but also to earthly family relationships. Additionally, music as it existed in her morality plays can be thought of as the great equalizer. Hildegard awards God and the monastic nuns, those enacting the roles of the virtues and the soul, roles of song while only Satan is restricted to the spoken word. This arrangement of instrumental music and lyrical message demonstrates for Hildegard how God connects with all of his creation, Satan being the only exclusion from his holy realm and song.

Performing Hildegard?s music today requires interpretation much as it did when she was alive. Because timing was not indicated by beats and measures as it is now, the music is driven by lyrical cadence alone. Hildegard documented only the lyrics and vocal portion of the composition allowing for less structured instrumental interpretation, perhaps leaving room for God?s inspiration to move the musicians. Musicians today combine both their knowledge of trends known to have existed then and the written record of the vocals to create the most probable feeling of the music, overcoming the impossibility of replicating an exact rendition. It is in this way we are able to enjoy the musical compositions and message of Hildegard at present, joining not only the soul, senses, faith and God, but also bridging the gap between centuries of time as Hildegard believed God’s message is for all time.

In Act I of “The Tempest,” William Shakespeare paints Prospero as a character who possesses a great deal of power, quite analogous to that of the King of England. Attributing this power to his education in ?liberal arts,? Prospero?s enchanting abilities appear to stem from his study of books, the donning of a magical cloak, and by carrying a magical staff, much as the King?s crown and vestiges, although not powerful themselves, lend to the visual definition of his authority. While each of these items do supply Prospero with the ability to cast spells, it is his ?art? of conversation that affords him the most power.

As Paul Brown remarks in ??This Thing of Darkness I Acknowledge Mine?: The Tempest and the Discourse of Colonialism,? Prospero calls to his various listeners ?and invites them to recognize themselves as subjects of his discourse, as beneficiaries of his civil largess.? (Brown 218) The technique with which Prospero bestows his ?civil largess? upon his daughter, Miranda, and his servant, Ariel, varies in degree of applied patience, yet it conclusively achieves the desired effect as each bend to his will. While Caliban, Prospero?s slave, offers the vilest resistance, Prospero demands compliance by employing the use of painful threats, only occasionally requiring additional reinforcement through action. Prospero?s command of language, ultimately his most useful tool, influences and manipulates the thoughts, ideas and behaviors of all the play?s participants, including those of the audience.

Miranda?s character is akin to the citizens of England, each governed by the power and guidance of their rulers. Through suggestive conversation, Prospero educates Miranda on the subject of their history, molding her perspective to ready her for a future orchestration of events. As he begins the tale, Prospero asks Miranda to, ??pluck my magic garment from me. So, [laying down his magic cloak and staff] Lie there my art.? (Shakespeare 14, 24) Here Prospero engages in conversation exclusively, making a point to shed all other forms of power. With this simple action, Shakespeare demonstrates the innate power of Prospero?s persuasion and how it is used to educate and thus govern Miranda with the provision of a singular perspective. This directly reflects England?s own normative view as colonizer, enforcing the belief that English culture is superior both within and beyond the country?s borders.

Prospero takes pride in his ability to educate. He speaks passionately of this role in regard to Miranda, ?Here have I, thy schoolmaster, made thee more profit than other princess? can, that have more time for vainer hours and tutors not so careful.? (Shakespeare 19, 171) Prospero has been grooming Miranda to be obedient all her life, and she, a naive student, exclaims, ?Heavens thank you for ?t!? (Shakespeare 20, 175) In his technique of reinforcing his daughter?s loyalty and attention by repeatedly asking, ?Dost thou attend me?? (Shakespeare 16, 78) requires Miranda to engage in the dialogue and actively confirm, ?Your tale, sir, would cure deafness,? (Shakespeare 17, 107) In this way, Miranda reflects the desired perspective as it is presented to her, satisfying Prospero?s need for loyalty and support in his plot to resume his dukedom. As Brown explains, ?A major strategy of this scheme is to engineer another courtship between Miranda and the son of his enemy ? his daughter having been duly educated for such a role.? (Brown 219) In grooming Miranda to marry Ferdinand, Prospero intends to place her like a pawn among royalty, ensuring his ties to political authority.

In Ariel, Prospero?s servant, Shakespeare depicts an English colonizer, one sympathetic toward the American Indians. Ariel proves useful in forging a foundation for Prospero?s new world order but must be commanded to continue in the face of unpleasant tasks, particularly those he believes will cause harm. Applying the approach used with Miranda, Prospero begins to question ?Dost thou forget from what torment I did free thee?? (Shakespeare 22, 250) Ariel challenges that he has not. With this exchange Prospero begins a detailed call and response, ?Hast thou forgot the foul witch Sycorax? Thou hast. Where was she born?? (Shakespeare 23, 261) Recounting this story of how Prospero freed Ariel from the witch?s curse actively recalls the details of Arial?s torment and debt to Prospero for release. Ironically, this freedom from the pine has merely released him into a new form of bondage. (Brown, 220) According to Brown, ?This operation of constant reminding acts as ?symbolic violence.? What is really at issue is the underlining of a power relation.? (Brown 220) Illustrating a bending will, Ariel replies, ?Pardon, master. I will be correspondent to command and do my spriting gently.? (Shakespeare 24) As Ariel submits, Prospero is able to expand his power to that of the spritely realm with Ariel to do his bidding.

Caliban, having occupied the island long before Prospero, represents the idea of ?savage? as it exists within the colonization of Ireland and America. Prospero tries in vain to educate Caliban, to civilize him in the ways in which Prospero is accustomed. Miranda too, as an extension of Prospero, teaches Caliban the language common to her and her father. In regard to this education, Caliban is not grateful for their ?gift,? but rather feels enslaved by it. ?You taught me language and my profit on ?t is I know how to curse. The red plague rid you for learning me your language!? (Shakespeare 27, 367) Before the arrival of Prospero and Miranda, Caliban understands his thoughts perfectly well, explaining that they didn?t give him knowledge, but only the means to express what he already knows in a way they understand. He too can understand their demands as they bark orders at him. Brown believes Caliban ?recognizes himself as a linguistic subject of the master language. Caliban?s refusal marks him as obdurate yet he must voice this in a curse in the language of civility … Whatever Caliban does with this gift announces his capture by it.? (Brown 220) In his unwillingness to easily submit, Caliban poses a real challenge for Prospero. While still embracing his mastery over communication, Prospero must change his approach. Keeping the upper hand, he incorporates the use of threats backed by real action, making Caliban submit out of fear.

At the play?s end, as so ordered by Shakespeare, the shipwrecked aristocrats suffer to Prospero?s content, extracting sufficient remorse from their maddened state with no lasting harm dealt by his hand. His daughter, too, is arranged neatly in the arms of King Alonzo?s son, assuring her royal future and his. Ariel is freed for a job well done, and even the stubborn Caliban all too easily sees the light after falling further from grace, accepting Prospero as a more desirable master than Stephano. Each fragment is neatly tied up with one exception. In what way does Shakespeare deal with Prospero?

By educating the island inhabitants as he sees fit, Prospero gets an unforeseen education of his own. During the marriage of Miranda and Ferdinand, Prospero is startled with the realization of his aloneness without her. Fiedler with the idea that Shakespeare ?appears more and more to divest himself of the very power he has so relentlessly sought. … even as Prospero?s game plan succeeds he himself is played out, left without a move as power over his daughter slips away.? (Brown 226) Prospero speaks of this dissolve of power, as well as the erasure of existence when he says, ?We are such stuff as dreams are made on, and our little life is rounded in sleep.? (Shakespeare 70, 156) Caliban?s attempt on Prospero?s life leads Prospero to look more closely at his inability to civilize the savage. He raves, ?A Devil, born a Devil, on whose nature nurture can never stick; on whom my pains, humanely taken, all, all lost, quite lost!? (Shakespeare 71, 188) And lastly, in an effort of revenge on his brother, Prospero learns compassion, characterized by his epiphany that ?The rarer action is in virtue than in vengeance.? (Shakespeare 75, 28) Brown believes, ?At the ?close? of the play Prospero is in danger of becoming the other to the narrative declaration of his own project, which is precisely the ambivalent position Caliban occupies.? (Brown 228) and is unsatisfied with how Shakespeare handles Prospero?s abandonment of magical external power with no ?triumph for colonialism? (Brown 228). With this I disagree.

At the time Shakespeare writes “The Tempest,” no societal answers existed in response to the play?s questions. Shakespeare appears to synthesize the culmination of Prospero?s lessons to demonstrate the hope for England of one day being wiser, more accepting of others, and willing to forfeit control where it already exists rather than to attempt the civilization of the world. As the rest of Prospero?s powers fade, his reign over language is not lost. ?Now my charms are all o?erthrown, and what strength I have ?s mine own.? (Shakespeare 86, 1) The power of persuasion has always been an innate part of his being only to fade when Prospero himself expires. He uses his remaining capacity for language to appeal to the audience. He seeks their applause and thus forgiveness for his character flaws. This may also be a plea from Shakespeare himself to forgive weak plot point. The questions raised are left to us, the audience to ponder and answer for ourselves.

Works Cited:

Shakespeare, William, et al. “The Tempest” Ed. Gerald Graff and James Phelan. William Shakespeare, The Tempest; A Case Study in Critical Controversy, Boston: Bedford/St. Martin?s, 2000, 10-87

Brown, Paul. ?This Thing of Darkness I Acknowledge Mine?; The Tempest as the Discourse of Colonialism? William Shakespeare, “The Tempest;” A Case Study in Critical Controversy, Boston: Bedford/St. Martin?s, 2000, 205-229

Hrotsvitha and Hildegard Deliver Women into Light

In Karen Christina Lang?s Essay, ?Images of Women in Early Buddhism and Christian Gnosticism,? she explores myths on the fall of humanity from texts written in the 3rd Century B.C.E. These myths associate women?s fertility with the Earth?s abundance and, according to Lang, this correlation is what gives rise to the idea that the feminine, as analogous to the earth, contains all that is lacking enlightenment, including ?darkness, corporality and impurity? (Lang 103). Consequently, in early Buddhist and Gnostic faiths, the path to enlightenment requires denying the body?s appetite for earthly fruits, both material and sexual, in order to achieve the state of ?maleness? associated with meditative trance (Lang 99). Earthly and corporeal filth is to be renounced by both genders, although these characteristics are typically referred to as embodied by the feminine, thus allowing for the spiritual attainment of each sex (Lang 103). The lasting effects of this philosophy are evident in the lives and writings of Hrotsvitha of Gandersheim, the first recorded female playwright from the 10th Century, and Hildegard of Bingen, a 12th Century Abbess. Through the writings of their time, Hrotsvitha and Hildegard address the literal perception of this symbolic philosophy as described by Lang, and through discourse with their respective audiences they are able to challenge humanity?s gender-specific interpretation of spirituality.

In prefacing her plays, Hrotsvitha acknowledges the perceived inferiority of her womanhood in terms that challenge the validity of the applied negative connotation. Specifically in ?Epistle of the Same to Certain Scholars,? a preface to her plays offering gratitude for her acceptance into a male dominated realm of writing, Hrotsvitha says, ?To think that you … should have deigned to approve the humble work of an obscure woman! You have, however, not praised me but the Giver of the grace which works in me … admitting that I possess some little knowledge of those arts the subtleties of which exceed the grasp of my woman?s mind.? (Hrotsvitha, Epistle) To claim her work as hers alone would lead to rejection on the basis that she is a woman. In an effort to circumvent the gender barrier, Hrotsvitha lends credibility to her craft by renouncing any personal credit for the talent she possesses. She instead attributes her meager knowledge and skill to a gift from the highest power, that of God, placing her accomplishments in the only light her audience could accept. The claim that God endowed this woman with scholarly ability had the power to persuade her male audience into accepting her favorably, as proven by the existence of her texts today.

Hrotsvitha expounds on this recognition of externally obtained knowledge by crediting learned men from whom she borrowed thoughts and ideas. She explains:

I have been at pains, whenever I have been able to pick up some threads and scraps torn from the old mantle of philosophy, to weave them into the stuff of my own book, in the hope that my lowly ignorant effort may gain more acceptance through the introduction of something of a nobler strain, and that the Creator of genius may be more honored since it is generally believed that a woman?s intelligence is slower. (Hrotsvitha, Epistle)

Here she describes her work as difficult, having ?been at pains? to create her book. This difficulty is to be expected of one who is not superior in intellect. By equating her writing to weaving, an accepted women?s craft, Hrotsvitha claims to collect bits of knowledge from noble thinkers, since her own acuity is believed inferior. This humble presentation hails the brilliance of scholars who have inspired her, quieting the objections of less humble intellectual men. While humility is believed to please God, Hrotsvitha strategically manipulates her expression of humility to please her masculine scholarly audience as well.

Hrotsvitha may present her work humbly, yet she illustrates a confidence in her literary goal to redefine women in her own terms. This is evident when she proclaims:

Wherefore I, the strong voice of Gandersheim, have not hesitated to imitate in my writings a poet whose works are so widely read, my object being to glorify, within the limits of my poor talent, the laudable chastity of Christian virgins in that self-same form of composition which has been used to describe the shameless acts of licentious women. (Hrotsvitha, Preface)

Here, her aggressive language draws attention to use of ?I, the strong voice? and her lack of hesitation when imitating Terrence. ?My poor talent? reads as a mere afterthought, perhaps to appease those who take offense to her confidence. Demonstrating her awareness of popular literature, Hrotsvitha specifically assumes the writing style of Terrence knowing that her message will be better circulated if it mimics the form to which readers are already predisposed. While abandoning his amoral plots, she shifts her content to celebrate women?s strength in their devotion to God, addressing topics of unlawful love and passion, only to illustrate ?the greater the merit of those who resist, especially when it is fragile woman who is victorious and strong man who is routed with confusion? (Hrotsvitha, Preface). This celebration of women shines with Hrotsvitha?s originality yet, having defined her work as a gift from God, faith is required to allow for consideration of the new literary perspective.

Hildegard must also address the perceived deficiency of her gender, thus supplying additional evidence that Lang?s observations are, in fact, still a large part of women?s existence two centuries after Hrotsvitha. In order to capture the attention of Bernard of Clairvaux, soliciting his reassurance in the sharing of her visions, Hildegard anticipates the possibility of rejection on the grounds that she is a woman and constructs a methodical argument to avoid dismissal. She appeals to Bernard?s acceptance of God?s power ?to raise up your soul so that you are not passive and indifferent to the words of this correspondent, as long as you seek all things from God, from man or woman? (Hildegard 5). In making the direct implication that to deny her an audience would be to deny God, she achieves the intended effect. Bernard does consider the content of her request, and replies favorably in return. Hildegard repeats the use of this device in her letter to Pope Eugenius III, seeking support of her book. She claims, ?But many wise men of earthly inclination have rejected these things [?] because they come from this poor female figure who was formed in the rib and not taught by philosophers.? Again, the intended effect is achieved as Pope Eugenius III grants his support.

Once Hildegard is granted the freedom to express her visions in the book Scivias, she ventures forth describing unconventional ideas as God reveals them to her. In Part I, Vision 4, Hildegard writes, ?The soul reveals her capabilities according to the capabilities of the body, so that in childhood she brings forth simplicity, in youth strength, and in the fullness of age [?] she brings forth her greatest strength in wisdom.? (Hildegard 6) This raises the question as to whether she intentionally assigns the soul a feminine identity, or if this is simply the result of Latin translation of feminine gendered word. Lang explains that the word pathav? is used ?to denote the earth is feminine in gender. The well known correlation between the fecundity or the earth and the fertility of women would suggest that this is no grammatical accident.? (Lang 96) To apply Lang?s assumption, it is possible that Hildegard?s feminine depiction of the soul is intentional, as the noun ?tree? lacks gender within the same passage. Hildegard appears to use word gender deliberately and advantageously to reflect her meaning. The feminine soul possesses positive characteristics of simplicity, strength and wisdom. Understanding is attributed to masculine nature, a teacher in Hildegard?s description, guiding the soul by discerning between what is lovable and hateful. (Hildegard 6) Developing a new interpretation that enlists positive masculine and feminine powers, both working in conjunction toward enlightenment, Hildegard respectfully honors each sex in their journey to the Father.

This new interpretation is not without acknowledgement of the old. In her book, Scivias, Part II, Vision 1, Hildegard describes God?s message as it is revealed to her in a vision, ?you are trampled by the male form because of Eve?s transgression, speak nevertheless of the fiery work of salvation which this most certain vision reveals to you!? (Hildegard 11) In the description of this vision from God, Eve?s fault in the fall has no further mention. ?When the Father … created Adam, he entrusted him … with the gentle commandment of clear obedience … and he turned away and fell into a thick darkness from which he could not raise himself up.? (Hildegard 11) Offering a fresh interpretation of the myth surrounding the fall of humanity, it is Adam?s turn to shoulder responsibility for humanity?s transgression. Had Hildegard not been recognized as God?s prophet, this line of interpretation would not have been accepted. It is through her association with the Light that this additional interpretation can be accepted by the scholars of her day.

Hrotsvitha and Hildegard each identify with Lang?s description detailing early religious attitudes toward women. By acknowledging their gender specific short comings, it may appear that these women support the interpretation that women are inferior beings, but upon closer investigation it is obvious that while the writings of Hrotsvitha and Hildegard follow the protocol of the society in which they lived, their interpretations vary greatly from the traditional views of lesser value placed on women. Hrotsvitha depicts the sexual appetites of high ranking men in rebuttal to the traditional assignment of women as a pool for sexual desires. Hildegard refers to the feminine soul which, when balanced with masculine understanding, forms a connection to the heavenly realm. Hildegard also offers a new interpretation of the fall of humanity by focusing solely on Adam in the description of her vision. Revolutionary and groundbreaking in their thinking, these women challenge the negative associations Lang presents as they exist within early Buddhist and Gnostic beliefs.

Works Cited:
Lang, Karen Christina. ?Images of Women in Early Buddhism and Christian Gnosticism.? Buddhist-Christian Studies. Vol. 2. (1982): pp. 94-105.

Hrotsvitha. Medieval Source Book. ?Preface to the Plays of Roswitha.? ca. 935-ca. 975. London, Chatto & Windus. (1923) Translation: Christopher St. John. 15 Oct 2006.

Hildegard. Hildegard of Bingen Selected Writings. New York: Penguin Books, 2001.

A reading response for Medieval Lit, Women and Spirituality:

Hildegard was a highly influential woman during the latter portion of her life. Initially she feared revealing her visions but, with encouragement, she began to record and share them. Hildegard?s interpretations of these visions read like prophecy, and were believed to have come from God. Her understanding of a sacred, unknown language and her composure of music also lent credibility to this belief in God?s divine intervention because her knowledge was not a product of formal education. While it has been said that her noble lineage may have encouraged correspondence from important people of her day, their letters suggest that their belief in her intimate connection with God is a more probable factor.

Addressing her as daughter, maiden, and servant of Christ, most lovable mother in Christ, and a burning lamp in the house of the Lord, many who wrote to Hildegard requested that she present their case to God, soliciting his grace and mercy on their souls. Requests came from Henry, Bishop of Liege, Eberhard, Archbishop of Salzburg, Abbott Adam and others all seeking intercession from Hildegard, each of them too humble and weary in their sins to ask for God?s mercy on their own. As seen in the Canonization Protocol, Hildegard was also commonly sought after to heal both in her lifetime as well as after her death. Each request demonstrates that if God used Hildegard as a messenger to deliver his word, those who desired could use her to communicate in the opposite direction.

Hildegard?s insight into God?s meaning was sought by people of all walks of life. With strong desire to know God?s word as it was revealed to Hildegard, a request for her texts were sent by Arnold Archbishop of Cologne, regardless of whether or not they were finished. This hunger for her knowledge thrust Hildegard into political situations in the realm of both church and government. Hildegard believed in a God who excludes no soul, an idea contradictory to the natural operations of Government. Since church and state were intertwined, Odo of Soissons, in his letter from 1148, pointedly touched upon the story of Babylon warning, ?do not make known any things that might disturb the apostolic and ecclesiastical institutions. Wise woman! Listen to these things? (181). In that same letter, he asked Hildegard to answer to whether or not God is identical with both paternity and divinity, a question pondered by scholars. While this was the type of information Odo wished to protect, by asking, he demonstrated his confidence that he was deserving of the answer.

What I believe to be Hildegard?s greatest influence was her ability to bring women out of the shadows of society and lift them up. Unearthly and desirable natures formerly defined as ?male? within a dualistic belief system were now attributed to the feminine. Hildegard argued that this connection between body and soul was created by God, and all things created in God are good ? including the feminine. This is how she shifted focus away from the idea that the feminine body?s attachment to the Earth was undesirable in the quest for enlightenment. This was not lost on her admirers as evidenced in a letter from the Abbess of St. Theodore and St. Mary, ?he not only foresaw and predestined you of the female sex, but his grace also enlightened many people through your teaching? (185). Hildegard, in all her virtue, chastity, and her ability to channel God?s word challenged prior concepts when she spoke of things such as wisdom and the soul as ?she.?

A Summary of Paul Brown’s “‘This Thing of Darkness I Acknowledge Mine’: The Tempest and the Discourse of Colonialism”

In his essay, Paul Brown explains that Shakespeare?s “The Tempest” reaches beyond mere contemplation of colonialism and more toward ?intervention in an ambivalent and even contradictory discourse.? (205) Brown feels that Shakespeare attempts, in his narrative, to suitably redefine the power relations between classes, gender and cultures, but fails to accomplish this task.

Three connections within complex colonial discourse, according to Brown, are ?class discourse (masterlessness), a race discourse (savagism) and a politically and courtly sexual discourse? (209) as illustrated by the desire of John Rolf, a Virginia planter, for Pocahontas, the daughter of Powhatan, chief-of-chiefs. Using Rolf?s letter asking for the Governor?s blessing over their marriage, Brown shows Rolf?s belief that the power of British civility can transform the ?other? or American Indian, even if sexual desire may threaten to undermine that mastery. (207) This, in turn, is compared with Prospero?s narrative in which his ruling power is determined by his control over his subjects? sexuality, particularly Miranda?s and Caliban?s. Brown argues that the colonizer seeks to control, repress and exploit the ?other? even as the ?other? has beneficial offerings that may erode that civil order.

Moving beyond the American example, Brown examines British counterculture and Irish ?others? to illustrate the colossal range of contemporary colonialist discourse. He discusses the perceived threat within England of anti-social man, the masterless who require ?surveillance, classification, expulsion and punishment? (210) as Brown believes is embodied in “The Tempest” by Stephano and Trunculo. Their threat of counter-order serves to unify rulers in their authority, channeling a positive civil service. (211) Brown next points out evidence of this within the context of Ireland. It was in need of reordering and of ?a colony where the savage other needed to be civilized conquered and dispossessed.? (214) Masterless Irish were especially targeted, and jesters like Trinculo were exemplary of that lot. (210) To further tie Ireland to “The Tempest,” Brown offers the idea that the uninhabited island (of civility) offered not only the opportunity for the expansion of civility, but the undoing of it as well, freedom being a temptation. (216)

Brown says the narrative of the play ?is always related to questions of power.? (218) The tempestuous storm was produced by Shakespeare to show Prospero?s mastery over the island. He demonstrates his control over his listeners as he narrates, establishing himself as father and educator of Miranda, rescuer of Ariel, colonizer of Caliban, and corrector of errant aristocrats. Prospero?s function is to divide the characters along gender lines as with the malleable Miranda and irreformable Caliban, and along class lines such as in the usurping aristocrats versus unmastered plebians, conjuring colonial discourse. (221)

This binarism is accompanied by the aesthetic ordering of power through ?narrative to maintain social control.? (223) ?Euphemistic? use of romantic rhetoric as well as gifts of freedom and education underline the non-exploitive representation of power as when Caliban is taught to speak Prospero?s language. (223) This language is seen by Caliban as linguistic capture and restraint, not a gift. (220) Alternately, to ?denigrate the masterless? (225), as with Trinculo and Stephano, Caliban is placed in a more positive light. His eloquence is revealed when describing the island and how its music causes him to dream. This dream, according to Brown, is the apothesis of colonial discourse, a wish for release, a desire for utopian powerlessness. (225)

Prospero too desires to ?divest himself of the very power he has so relentlessly sought? (226), as is the plausible threat of freedom to the civilized. After losing his power over his daughter, the play ends not with his resumption of public duty but his retirement. Brown asks, ?Is this final distancing from the narrative an unraveling of Prospero?s project?? (227) The disruption of the marriage masque by Caliban?s plot leads to Prospero?s declaration that all representation is illusory, yet he ?goes on to meet the threat and triumphs, and thus completes his narrative.? (227) Brown is troubled by the ?ambivalence? here between narrative declaration and dramatic struggle. ?The threat must be present to validate colonial discourse; yet if present it cannot but impel the narrative to further action. The process is interminable. And yet the play has to end.? (228) It is for this reason, Brown believes, that “The Tempest” declares no triumph for colonialism but simply offers up it?s characteristic operations.

ASSESSMENT AND RATIONALE

Paul Brown aligns himself with the post-colonial school of criticism. This is demonstrated by his use of intertextuality and his goal to show the oppression of colonized peoples. He talks not only of language as a binding factor in colonization as given to Caliban by Prospero and Miranda, but he also examines the euphemistic manipulation of language by Prospero to establish and maintain dominance. In exploration of the colonized people?s reaction, Brown studies Caliban and in what ways he speaks out against his plight. In the end, he looks for ways to change the system of colonization and finds ambivalent answers in Shakespeare?s interpretation of order.

I am interested in this essay because it supports my initial interpretation of Prospero?s role in “The Tempest.” Paul Brown?s exploration of Prospero?s art of conversation and the power he holds over his fellow characters resonates with my assessment of that power. In addition, I have learned much from Brown?s essay in the context of colonization. This information has influenced me to push beyond my limited interpretation based on New Criticism and complicate it within the context of events occurring at the time the play was written. For me, this legitimizes and expands the themes present in my original assessment of Prospero.

Work Cited:

Brown,?Paul. ?This Thing of Darkness I Acknowledge Mine?; The Tempest as the Discourse of Colonialism? William Shakespeare, “The Tempest;” A Case Study in Critical Controversy, Boston: Bedford/St. Martin?s, 2000, 205-229