This ambiguity stems from the juxtaposition of the brutish and pathetic character of Caliban with the sprightly and sympathetic character of Ariel. Yet the complexity of The Tempest lies in its essential ambiguity. This seems to imply that Shakespeare’s portrayal of Caliban is a direct attack against the form of wistful idealizing of Nature that Montaigne is so fond of. Whereas Montaigne’s cannibals are praised as "wild fruits," produced by nature in her ordinary way and without any artificiality, Shakespeare’s cannibal appears to be as pathetic, crass, and vulgar as any individual can possibly be portrayed. Montaigne’s idealization of the cannibals contrasts sharply with Shakespeare’s unsympathetic portrayal of the brutish Caliban, whose name thinly veils the influence of Montaigne’s essay. In "On Cannibals" and in The Tempest, both Montaigne and Shakespeare explore the relationship between human nature and modern civilization. The characterization of Ariel and Caliban in The Tempest is significant in relation to Montaigne’s essay, which was one of Shakespeare's main inspirations for the work. He boldly asserts that in the character of these people, all of "the true, most useful, and natural virtues and properties are alive and vigorous." Montaigne goes so far as to claim to have found in these cannibals the "golden age," spoken of so often by philosophers and poets as merely an unattainable dream. He perceives these "cannibals," as he calls them, to be men who live in the way Nature intends them to live, unadorned and unfettered by modern civilization. It is not surprising, then, that he presents a highly idealized characterization of the natives of the New World. In his essay "On Cannibals," Montaigne continually asserts that what is natural is synonymous with what is good, and that Nature herself ought to be the light by which human action is guided.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |