Prospero and caliban relationship with god

It would control my dam's god, Setebos, Lacking any feeling of debt in his relationship to Prospero, Caliban thus develops the rebellious and accusatory. Instead of marrying Miranda to Ferdinand, Prospero hopes to secure her a God can be found in any relationship, whether it be friendship or romantic love, with. Caliban son of the witch Sycorax, is an important character in William Shakespeare's play The Caliban learns that Stephano is neither a god nor Prospero's equal in the conclusion of the play, however, and Caliban agrees to obey Prospero.

Caliban does not ask them for his freedom, as would be expected.

Rather, he begs them to be his master, even his god. Caliban thus shows himself to be incapable of autonomy. In his relationship to Stephano, Caliban is even more pathetic than in his relationship to Prospero, for he abandons his rebellious attitude for one of hero-worship and grovelling. By putting himself in willing slavery to Stephano, who is no more than a drunkard and a buffoon, Caliban shows himself to be truly in a pathetic state.

Caliban - Wikipedia

The vicious curses that he had constantly sent to his old master Prospero are replaced by requests to lick the shoe of his new master. A drunk Caliban even attempts a poetic song for the first time, and makes a fool of himself by stumbling over his name: Caliban becomes a more sympathetic character in the second half of the work.

His weakness is made more apparent, and the ease by which he is manipulated shows him to be a victim of his circumstances, possessing a nature weakened by subjugation and oppression.

Although the characterization of Caliban shows him to be a more pathetic character as the play progresses, the characterization of Ariel displays quite the opposite.

Ariel occupies the most important role of the play during the last two acts. It is Prospero who conceives the ideas for enchanting the shipwrecked Italians, but he can only carry them out with the aid of Ariel.

In the same way that Ariel is dependent upon Prospero for his freedom, Prospero is dependent upon Ariel for the fulfillment of his plans. This entails a significant reversal in roles. Ariel becomes the one in control, for it is his power of enchantment upon which Prospero is dependent.

In his speech to Alonso, Antonio and Sebastian in Act III, Ariel condemns these three in the same type of authoritarian language which had previously been reserved only to Prospero: I and my fellows Are ministers of Fate. My fellow ministers Are like invulnerable. His changing use of language is evidence of a changing attitude. As Ariel comes closer to his freedom, his demeanor becomes more confident and less submissive. He is becoming more independent, and thus more strong in character.

Where the second half of the work shows a Caliban increasingly destitute and pathetic, it shows an Ariel increasingly self-assertive and autonomous. The conclusion of The Tempest shows Prospero regaining his dukedom, Ariel finding his freedom, and Caliban resigning himself once again to the authority of Prospero. Although it seems at first to be a pleasant state of affairs, a closer look reveals it to be quite the opposite.

Prospero is surely unfit to be a duke, as his overbearing and oppressive nature throughout the play attests to. It seems as if Ariel, in winning his freedom, is the only one of these characters whose state is truly better than it was at the opening of the play. This is significant in that among these characters, the distinguishing characteristic of Ariel is that he is not human.

Caliban, who was born of the devil through a witch, is a sharp ironic contrast to Christ who was born of God through a virgin mother. Ariel clearly represents the Holy Spirit. In contrast to the Holy Spirit who represents wisdom, understanding, right judgment, and courage, Ariel is merely a one-dimensional entity desiring nothing but freedom. In The Tempest, Shakespeare creates a false Trinity, one that is wicked and inharmonious. How then could Prospero possibly embody both Caliban and Ariel, who are blatant foils of each other?

In the play, Prospero often exhibits a contradictory nature, suggesting that Prospero could perhaps exhibit qualities of Caliban and Ariel simultaneously. At the beginning of the play, the cruel Prospero castigates the faithful Ariel who wants to be freed early: It makes little sense for Prospero to chastise Ariel with over fifty lines only to end with an expression of benevolence requires of Ariel only two more days of servitude.

In search of his identity, Prospero navigates between the characters of Caliban and Ariel but ultimately finds freedom by reverting to his human self: At the end of the play, Prospero surrenders his power and no longer identifies with either Caliban or Ariel.

The bond between Prospero and the two native inhabitants of the island begins to fade away as Prospero speaks the epilogue, humbling himself before the audience and admitting his own vulnerability. Now that he has removed his magical garments and stripped himself of any attachment to island, his humanity stands in full nakedness before the audience. He no longer chooses to cloak his weaknesses through his associations with Caliban and Ariel, but instead entreats the audience for clemency so that he may be freed from his faults.

This is just a sample from a fellow student. Naomi focused her reflection on Johnson's Pleasure Reconciled to Virtue. Naomi connects the use of masques with divine powers the wealthy seem to have over others. The theme of entitlement that Naomi illustrates in her response also directly correlates with Prospero's actions in The Tempest.

Prospero Seeks Identity In Caliban And Ariel

These divides in power and whose "side" divinity is on seem to be major themes in both works. Both men combat their authority figures and challenge their powers. These plays show a shift from institutionalized religion to the reformation and personal challengers.

The uprising of the educated men, as shown in these plays, will lead to changes throughout religion for all. This reading of the text requires more interpretation in understanding the role of divinity.

Some direct knowledge of the divine is shown through scenes of prayer and direct dialogue from More and Luther. These plays also do not characterize More and Luther as perfect. Rather, the authors try to humanize these heros. We are able to see their moments of doubt and fear. This representation makes them relatable to the audience. Because they are not idealized, it can be suggested that anyone can act as they have. Their actions are not supernatural, but daily choices we all can make to defend our faith.

These plays can call their audiences to live their lives as More and Luther. Luther and especially A Man for All Seasons also depict how easily seemingly good men can become acquainted with evil and corruption. Luther, as a monk and priest, sees his peers putting up with practices of indulgences and relics.

Luther is the one among them who makes his grievances known. While many characters in Luther and A Man for All Seasons do not have any outward action against the protagonists, their inaction shows their lack of courage and cowardliness. These plays show that the majority of men, while not true agents of sin, commit sins of omission for not standing for what is right and just at all times.

A recurring theme throughout the texts in this course is the allure of power. Who has it, who wants it, and how it affects religion seems to come into play in all the works. Here, these plays memorialize the actions of two men: Martin Luther and Thomas More.

These plays give them power even after their deaths. These works also take power away from religious institutions by highlighting their wrongdoings. These factors help to explain Luther's internal struggles and inherent humanity.

He is a vulnerable and relatable character because he must wrestle with his father's expectations and disappointment in his role as a clergy member. Luther's decision-making can be better understood in considering the competing interests of his strong faith and reason. Reflection on Theater and Jesuit Spirituality Reading these articles on the relationship between theater and Jesuit education and spirituality made me reflect on my own experiences.

Now as a senior, I have been in Jesuit schools for close to eight years. While I have not been exposed to as much religious theater, I have seen art as a whole central to my Jesuit education. In high school I was a member of the Dumbach Scholars Program, an honors program for students.

Playing God: Theatrical Expressions of Divinity - Katie Doherty

Dumbach Scholars focused on art with each year having a specific genre they related to: We were also rewired to attend trips to various museums, art galleries, and plays. Pedro Arrupe a personal favorite Jesuit of mine gives context to my experiences with art in the Jesuit tradition. Why is art so important to cura personalis and A. Ignatius would tell us, the earth, like the heavens, narrates the glory of God. The average man, however, is both a poor viewer and a poor narrator. Therefore he needs the artist to direct his view and to speak for him.

We cannot separate the two because art attempts to give meaning to whatever it is depicting. For the Jesuits, art is anything but frivolous. It truly saves souls. McCabe also addresses what some saw as an issue in Jesuit plays - the humanization of religion. While some Jesuit theater focused on didactic biblical representations, many works addresses the human condition, which upset some other church authorities. These traditions, in my experience, still influence the role of theater in Jesuit spirituality today.

Where will Jesuit theater move in the future? What issues, themes, and religious topics will it address? These readings will be important in interpreting texts to come. Alex Coddington's reflection opened my mind to the theory that theater can be used to enact social change and justice, a concept central to Catholic Social teaching and Jesuit ideals. Without much experience with Marquette's theater programming, I am impressed by the curriculum's and theater faculty's commitment to Jesuit education and justice.

This shows a shift from the previous plays that showed only direct action to an inner dialogue that illustrates the personal relationship one has with divinity. While Marlowe breaks barriers in developing the conscience factors of religion, he also uses the play as somewhat of a warning to those seeking power.

His hunger for power drives him to strike a deal with the devil and turn his back on God. Faustus does not seek redemption for his sins until the last hours of his deal.

Faustus is brought into hell by the devils and God does not make an effort to save him. This acts as an example of sinner that Marlowe does not want the audience to emulate. The message is clear — do not seek power over God.

This play could also be an effort to assert power of the people from the monarchy. Marlowe was carefully tied to Queen Elizabeth and even possibly acted as a spy on Catholics in France for England. His experience may have influenced his writing.

This lesson also applies to the monarchy and class systems of England. It requires a higher level of thinking and interpretation to gain all the meanings Marlowe has to offer in the play. The play also allows for one of the first interpretations of a personal relationship with God and the decision making process in following religion.

The play also seeks to warn the audience to obey God and other authorities above them. The audience of these cycle plays sees the representation of the holy family on stage as the ideal for themselves.

These plays are learning experiences for them as they see biblical figures characterized by their community and responding to events they may identify with. The audience further identifies with Joseph in this particular play because he is the only one with mistakes. This movement to showing human characteristics in biblical figures is a large leap in providing access to understanding the divine for the common person.

Instead of only the elite being able to interpret texts on theology, cycle plays brought them to a forum most people could comprehend and interact with in order to gain further knowledge of the divine. The cycle plays are the first time we have seen divinity brought down to common language and accessible to almost all people.

What has changed our focus from the holy family to magnifying dysfunction? Is our attention to comedies rather than religious representation merely for entertainment purposes? It seems that entertainment with religious elements has fallen to the wayside in favor of the absurd. How, then, does the imitation of what we see, especially given as an ideal family in the representation of the holy family, fit in with our understanding of the divine today?

The move from unquestioning faith to explanation can be traced directly to Thomas Aquinas and his work, the Summa Theologica.

Aquinas systematically took claims in religion and applied them to fundamental questions concerning human nature. Instead of blindly following Catholic teachings, Aquinas gave reasoning and interpretations of the Church's teachings, making the Catholic understanding of divinity it more accessible to everyone. Instead of characterizing God as an unreachable source of power one should fear, Aquinas depicts God as a fundamental part of understanding life and nature.

Aquinas encourages these questions into philosophies of existence and brings the role of divinity into more understandable terms. This new interpretation of the role of the divine gives playwrights a new view to interpret into their works, as can be seen in Spectacles and Hrotsvit of Gandersheim.

While the Summa Theologica brings more concrete knowledge of the divine to Catholics and philosophers, it also raises other questions and concerns.

What evidence does Aquinas use for his claims? Is the Summa Theologica the only true understanding of the divine? Is it even the best understanding? These questions lead to new topics for writers to discover and actors to interpret.