Shakespeare - The tempest art and nature

Résumé du document

The Tempest by William Shakespeare pursues the idea of a celebratory exploration of the nature of theatrical art. More than this, the whole play is set on a duality between art and nature, sometimes combining and sometimes contrasting each other. Art would be defined as grace, civility and virtue; this representation is embodied by Prospero, noble men and their servants. The courtly world can be seen as a world of art in the play, as the atmosphere is guided by good manners, grace and sophistication. On the other hand, nature could be described as natural elements, bestial behaviors, brutishness and savageness.

This element is mostly embodied by Caliban, and the natural world where he lives would be where the stage is set, that is to say the island, the forest, the sea, the tempest… But nature also refers to human nature - Shakespeare deals with human ways of acting, of creating plots and manipulating their fellows. The civilized man belongs here to the nobility, he is self-controlled and inhabited by good manners, whereas the natural man is described as a savage - a brutal and intemperate character. Whilst the sophisticated man is full of knowledge and is powerful, the uncivilized - natural - man is artless. In his last play, Shakespeare has portrayed neither nature nor art as perfect but as having a complex relationship, where one is reflected in the other. While nature calls forth the authoritative power of art to correct it, art can descend to, and even sink below, the level of nature.

Art and nature are two extremes brought together, which leads to an inevitable debate. We can wonder to what extent Shakespeare created characters who embody the binary relationship between Art and Nature.
It would firstly be relevant to study nature as an element confronted by its magic art, then to understand art as civilization and nature as savageness, and finally to look at art and nature as a Renaissance debate.

Extraits

[...] We can wonder to what extent Shakespeare created characters who embody the binary relationship between Art and Nature. It would firstly be relevant to study nature as an element confronted by its magic art, then to understand art as civilization and nature as savageness, and finally to look at art and nature as a Renaissance debate. On first reading, the primary meaning of words art and nature in relation to The Tempest can respectively be viewed as magic and the natural elements. [...]

[...] Prospero uses magic all along the play to control nature, most of the time for a benevolent purpose but still, we can point out a few unclear uses when he speaks about his “rough magic” in Act V Scene 1 line 48 which results in, “graves, at my demand/have waked their sleepers, oped, and let forth/By my potent art”. Except for those previous examples, benevolent purposes can be seen throughout the text. At the beginning of the story, The Tempest shows a traditional symbol of chaos in tragedy and it is somewhat sinister. Actually, this atmosphere of chaos shows that “There's no harm done” as Prospero says in Act I Scene on line 16. [...]

[...] It is in this context that the debate between Art and Nature takes place. Antonio's nature would be interesting to analyze as his apparent intelligence can be considered as much a form of "Art" as Prospero's. In his case, Art is infinitely more dangerous and more subversive of the social hierarchy since is takes a perverted form for reasons of self- interest ; serving the cause of evil. As Miranda characterizes him in Act I Scene 2 line 120, “good wombs have born bad sons”. [...]

[...] More than this, the whole play is set on a duality between art and nature, sometimes combining and sometimes contrasting each other. Art would be defined as grace, civility and virtue; this representation is embodied by Prospero, noble men and their servants. The courtly world can be seen as a world of art in the play, as the atmosphere is guided by good manners, grace and sophistication. On the other hand, nature could be described as natural elements, bestial behaviors, brutishness and savageness. [...]

[...] As far as Prospero and Caliban are concerned, two different natures clash. In fact, when Caliban symbolizes the original, natural, and uncivilized condition of humankind, Prospero for his part embodies art itself, as a character shaped on the model of noble society, corrupted by the social hierarchy he has always lived in. This binary relationship fits with Rousseau's theory which opposes noble savage” to the civilized man who would be corrupted, affected and full of vices. Shakespeare does not go to either extreme in the play, and the savage's portrayal Caliban is not totally unsympathetic ; we can see this in Act III Scene 2 on line 139 when Caliban says, cried to dream again". [...]