literarydiscussions.myfreeforum.org

scruffy_danny

“Theatre, magic and spectacle are an integral part of the meaning of the
play and not just demonstrations of what was then possible in the new
indoor theatre”

The Tempest was probably written between 1610 and 1611, and was first
performed at Court by the King’s Men (the name given to Shakespeare’s
company by King James I) in the fall of 1611. It was performed again a
year later in celebration of the marriage of King James’s daughter
Elizabeth at Whitehall, where it was intentionally written to be performed
at. Looking back earlier in Shakespeare’s life and observing what facilities
were available for the play writer before the new Court and Whitehall was
built we see a complete contrast. Initially, Shakespeare acted in the
yards of inns, the halls of mansions and then later Gray’s Inn and Court.
This offered a limited amount of theatricalities; the play writer unable to
do anything spectacular on the stage. When places such as Blackfriars
and The Globe became available (roofed theatres for those who could
afford the price) new effects could be added to Shakespeare’s plays
because of the possibilities, which the new indoor theatres presented. The
Tempest, notably Shakespeare’s last play, relies heavily on the theme of
magic, and the new possibilities of the indoor theatres allowed
Shakespeare to present this magic spectacularly, surprising the audience.
This begs the question: did Shakespeare include in The Tempest the
magic (and the spectacles, theatricality and music involved) simply as a
way of showing off to the audience or are these entities truly integral to
the plot?

One example of theatricality, which we can understand as simply an
excuse to take advantage of the facilities of the new indoor theatre, is
where the Masque occurs; Iris, Juno and Ceres descending down upon the
stage. This is a very magical scene and enraptures the audience, but it
can also be argued as quite unnecessary to the actual plot of The
Tempest. This small scene could in fact easily be taken out of The
Tempest entirely with no cost to the meaning of the play. Indeed it is
understood by many people that this scene was only put in to impress the
daughter of James I, Elizabeth, in her celebration of her wedding. The
typical Jacobean Masque was a very fashionable convention, designed to
celebrate the unity of people and, in the case of The Tempest (if we look
at where Prospero breaks up the masque by simply walking in their
space: “Prospero starts suddenly and speaks; after which, to a strange,
hollow and confused noise, they heavily vanish.” ), to show the power and
importance of the royal authority. So, it acts as a pleaser to His Majesty
more than an important part of the play itself – a political point.

Indeed, we see Shakespeare has taken this popular convention and
attempted to better it by the visual performance it gives. We can
understand that this masque scene is made a lot more visually exciting if
we look at how Juno enters the scene, descending slowly on what would
be the new ‘post and beam machine’ which allowed movement in two
directions. Other stages’ ‘rope and pulley’ systems would have made this
theatricality far too difficult. So, here we see a true example of how
theatricality may have been added simply as an excuse to show off.
Indeed, at Whitehall, Juno descends some thirty lines before the other
characters verbally acknowledge her, making her descent all the more
uniquely spectacular – but not necessary.

So, this doesn’t really need to happen to allow the masque to occur. One
can argue that Shakespeare has merely used the masque scene as a
good event to show off the new technology, and, likewise, used the new
technology to praise the idea of royalty. These two entities work well with
each other to simply entertain, add to the spectacle and show off – not an
important part in the play.

However, Liz Lewis would argue that this scene does actually serve a
purpose. It allows the audience to see an act of unity between Miranda,
Ferdinand and Prospero:

Answer your summons: Juno does command.

Come, temperate nymphs, and help to celebrate
A contract of true love: be not late. .

So, in this sense, this scene does seem to have an integral meaning to the
play. All the way through, up until this point, Prospero has been
somewhat harsh to Ferdinand, and this masque allows reconciliation: it
finally allows us to see Prospero’s real ambitions towards him – indeed it
is a ceremony very similar to marriage.

The masque scene can also be argued as important as it heralds the final
scene of the play (the reconciliation). We see this because Iris was the
goddess of the rainbow in Greek mythology; acting as the rainbow to the
storm at the start of the play and so this metaphorically signifies the
change of mood, preparing us for Prospero’s final action.

And if we look at the main theme of the play - magic (the cause of
theatricality in the first place) we can begin to understand how important
the spectacles are. The theatricalities can be seen as very necessary if we
look at how they make magic look as grand and important as it is.

Another part in the play that we can recognise, where theatricality is used
to highlight the importance of magic but only possible in the new indoor
theatre, is where we see the banquet disappear through a trap door in the
stage floor , which would definitely not be possible in an outside theatre.
It is a spectacle that astonishes the audience, and could be argued that it
is put in simply to do this purpose, but we could also say that this event
helps create the magical feel that is needed for the character Ariel. When
Alonso, Gonzalo, Sebastian and Francisco witness this event they are
utterly stupefied:

A living drollery. Now I will believe
That there are unicorns; that in Arabia
There is one tree, the phoenix’ throne; one phoenix
At this hour reigning there.

If we didn’t see the power of magic Ariel has, shown through theatricality
as in this case, we wouldn’t identify him as having the powerful and
important persona, which he needs in order to display his control over the
characters. This use of theatricality is very necessary to the meaning of
the play.

Therefore, in this sense it can be seen that Shakespeare uses the
theatricality of magic in the play to show who are the important, powerful
characters and the effect it has over other characters. Ariel, in the same
scene, is shown flying down – something above the natural (again only
possible in the new indoor theatre):

Thunder and lightning. Enter Ariel like a harpy; claps his wings upon the
table; and, with a quaint device, the banquet vanishes.

So, we can see that theatricality in this scene is vital. Shakespeare is
simply using theatricality (the new possibilities in the theatre) to make
greater his effect of the necessary magic.

After all, The Tempest, as a whole, can be seen as a play of illusion -
reality often lost in a confusion of dreams and shadows. Magic and theatre
are needed to create this effect. Samuel Taylor Coleridge wrote “In this
play Shakespeare did not appeal to any sensuous impression of the time
and place but to the imagination.” So, we can understand that to evoke
the audience’s imagination Shakespeare had to include a lot of magical
spectacles. Right at the start of the play we see a large amount of
theatricality: “A tempestuous noise of thunder and lightning heard.”
Shakespeare is starting the play with pure action and anticipation. This is
only possible because of the new sound devices in use, but it is absolutely
necessary in order to begin with the sense of magical illusion and
confusion dominant throughout the whole play.

To look further at magic in The Tempest in detail one must look at the
character that possesses and conducts nearly all of the magic that occurs
in the play – Prospero. This character uses magic as a tool to achieve
what he ultimately desires, at the end of the play. Therefore, in this
sense, since The Tempest is based on how Prospero finally does this,
magic is a very integral part of the play. It governs nearly everything that
occurs and so is deemed as exceedingly powerful.

Prospero, as a whole, is a very interesting magician; generally not casting
any evil spells (though some critics would argue otherwise), yet he has a
staff and a magic circle, not to mention his magic cloak: “And pluck my
magic garment from me.”

However, it is important to realize that Prospero only performs white
magic (magic with the intention of doing good) as appose to Setebos’s
black magic (for example trapping Ariel in a tree) and this gives the
audience a feeling that the magic, which occurs throughout the play,
should not be feared but rather on the contrary, should simply excite:

No harm,
I have done nothing but in care of thee,

However, as mentioned, the same magic is also to be looked at as a very
powerful entity, for example when Prospero accuses Ferdinand of treason
and causes paralysis:

I will resist such entertainment till
Mine enemy has more power.
(he draws his sword and is charmed from moving)

The way we see Prospero’s magic gives us a very powerful image of him
generally: his ability to command spirits to do deeds amazing to the
audience (fly), and to cause great calamity (thunder). But this is still only
possible because of the new theatre and this makes us wonder whether
Prospero is a character Shakespeare created purely to show off the new
possibilities. One could argue Prospero would have been very much the
same even if the play were written for the outside theatre, though
obviously the effect would not be as great.

We can see how predominant the idea of power is throughout the whole
play by looking at how the music and sound (one important aspect of the
magic) control the characters. Indeed, throughout the play Prospero uses
his powers to control them on the island, making them, in effect,
performers within his composition. This is obvious right at the start of the
play where the tempest is brutally forcing the ship ashore. It is so fierce
to the crew of the ship and its passengers that it can be seen as a
thunderously orchestrated work of art, magnificently played out by
Prospero’s command of Ariel. Music and sound are entities that Prospero
uses to control. At times they literally force the characters to behave and
move in certain ways:

Enter Ariel (invisible) with music and song
“My master through his art foresees the danger
That you, his friend, are in, and sends me forth
(For else his project dies) to keep them living.”
Sings in Gonzalo’s ears. (Here Gonzalo wakes and saves the Alonso from death)

More often, music is used in a more subliminal way to establish an
atmosphere or to create a particular emotional response in the characters
rather then to force them to behave. This largely helps to create the
visual mood of the play, giving a dreamy fatigue and eeriness to the
island and often changes certain aspects into something completely
different. This is what Shakespeare desired, for example the horrible
Caliban uttering the most beautiful speech in the play:

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 ears; sometimes voices,
That, if then had wak’d after long sleep,
Will make me sleep again…

Andrew Green argues the music present in the masques makes the
characters feel the emotion Prospero wants them to feel, and indeed it
does, such as Ferdinand when in presence of “soft music”: “This is a most
majestic vision, and /Harmonious charmingly.”

So we can see that music is one very important part of magic that helps
to make The Tempest the play about power that it is; without the music
Prospero would not be able to entice, move and mystify the characters –
he would not have power over them. Therefore it can be argued that like
music, Shakespeare uses the other theatricalities in the same way. The
spectacle of Ariel as a Harpy playing music would not have the same
powerful, mystifying effect if he was not flying. The new possibilities of the
indoor theatre and the music involved simply work well together to create
the ultimate theme of the play – they are necessary to give the feeling of
power and magic to Prospero in The Tempest.

It could be said that Shakespeare wanted to write a play with lots of
magic and theatricality, possibly wanting to leave the playwriting world
with dramatic effect, as this was his last play. The new indoor theatre
must have seemed like a perfect opportunity to do this. So, it can be
argued that The Tempest is a reflection on himself and a personal
goodbye to the play-writing world. Magic can also be looked at, if
comparing Prospero with Shakespeare himself, as Shakespeare’s “magic”
of writing his plays and commanding the characters in them to do as he
pleases:

Now my charms are all o’erthrown,
And what strength I have’s mine own

So, The Tempest can be looked on as an allegory of Shakespeare’s life;
like Prospero has given up his magic, Shakespeare has given up his
writing in plays. This could be another explanation as to why Shakespeare
made magic such an integral part of the play, not because he simply
could do, but because he wanted to show the audience his true theatrical
talent – his ability to amaze, and the indoor theatre simply allowed him to
do this with greater impact. By showing Prospero’s decision to stop his
magic, at the end of the play, this symbolises that Shakespeare’s “magic”
is also over. Indeed we see Prospero casting off his magic garments and
dressing in plain garments, at the last scene, to show his decision to
revert back to the life of Milan. This is a spectacle in itself, though not in
need of the indoor theatre.

Therefore, in conclusion we see that magic, and the theatricality used to
enhance it, is a very important, integral part of The Tempest and is not
simply used because of what was possible in the new indoor theatre. We
can sympathise with the fact that the new indoor theatre did make it
possible for Shakespeare to write such a play, though, and without these
new facilities Shakespeare could not give such a spectacular magically
orientated play as he did. It is most probable that Shakespeare used the
new indoor theatre as an opportunity to write The Tempest and involve
the immense spectacles included, not just using it as a demonstration of
what was possible.

But it could also be argued that The Tempest was a play heavily
influenced by what was going on at the same time. The way the play was
acted out, especially in Whitehall can be argued as an incredible favour to
King James I. Indeed, it reflects royalty greatly, as seen in the masque,
and magic and theatricality could simply be a method of uplifting this
grandeur. Acted in Whitehall, the actor of Prospero would actually take off
his mask in the Epilogue. This is very interesting as an actor to un-mask
oneself would be seen as an intrusion of a commoner into the aristocratic
world, but the actor of Prospero is allowed to do so because he moves off
stage, below the audience and more importantly below King James I. This
theatricality is Shakespeare freely showing his humbleness to King James
I, if we look at Prospero representing Shakespeare. Shakespeare admits
his glory, and resignation from it (un-mask), but makes it clear he is
aware of his position and thus glorifies the King.

So, this begs the question; was Shakespeare’s desire to use magic and
theatricality purely from internal motive to express his self, or was he
affected by royalty? Indeed, did James I ask Shakespeare to make him
appear as powerful as it must have at the time? Maybe His Majesty
expressed to Shakespeare how he wanted royalty to appear powerful in
front of his daughter, Elizabeth, and her new husband. Even if this were
true, one cannot deny the genius of Shakespeare in producing such an
amazing spectacle of magic and theatricality, that also thoroughly praises
and entertains the King, which is The Tempest.

Bibliography

Rowe, Nicholas – Solemn and Poetical Magic (1709) and
Warton, Joseph – Amazing wildness of fancy (1753) in Palmer, D, J ed. – Shakespeare, The Tempest and
Anne Righter - Shakespeare and the idea of the play (1962) and
Steven Marx - Progeny: Prospero's Books, Genesis and The Tempest (1998) and
John G. Demaray - Shakespeare and the Spectacles of Strangeness: The Tempest and the Transformation of Renaissance Theatrical Forms, 1998
and
Liz Lewis: The mixture of styles in Shakespeare’s last plays: The Winter’s
Tale and The Tempest and
Samuel Taylor Coleridge: The Tempest Essay and
Andrew Green: Sound and music in The Tempest, 2002 and
Shakespeare, William – The Tempest Video and
Shakespeare, William – The Tempest (Oxford, 1994)

_________________
And I walked alone, And I did not mind...

Get your own free IRC Chat room