In "The Tempest," the relationship between Prospero and Ariel is one of master and servant. Prospero is the master and Ariel is the servant. In Act 1, Scene 2. Free Essay: How Does the Relationship between Prospero and Ariel Change During The Tempest The tempest is the last play Shakespeare. Ariel is a spirit who appears in William Shakespeare's play The Tempest. Ariel is bound to serve the magician Prospero, who rescued him from the . clear that Shakespeare's Ariel and his relationship with Prospero reflects more closely the.
Since it is very likely Shakespeare was familiar with the play, it is possible that Ariel is based on Shrimp, but evidence remains inconclusive. Shakespeare, however, refuses to make Ariel a will-less character, infusing him with desires and near-human feelings uncharacteristic of most sprites of this type. Scholars have tried to discover just what sort of "quainte device" would have been used by the King's Men in portraying this scene.
Ariel's actor would have been unable to hide the food himself, having harpy wings over his arms which cumbered movement. The actor would not even have been able to sweep the food into a receptacle behind the table, since the theatre had seating on three sides.
What was needed was some sort of device to act on the signal of Ariel slapping his wings on the table. This device was probably a false table top which could be tripped by a boy underneath while the harpy's wings covered the food.
When the wings lifted, the food would be gone, apparently by magic. Later in act three, when Ariel appears and disappears with thunder, another trick was probably used, involving some sort of basket on wires, covered in cloud designs, which the Globe theatre then had.
Ariel may have descended from the air in this device as a harpy, spoken his lines, and ascended in the same device. Ariel may have descended on the back of an eagle, rather than clouds, or with no device at all—wires being attached to his harpy wings.
Scholars have wondered whether Shakespeare originally intended the actor for Ariel to cover Ceres' role, and give it away in this line. The need for a dual role may have been caused by a shortage of boys capable of playing female parts boys usually played all female roles in Shakespeare's day as there are many female roles in The Tempest.
This changing of parts requires a change in costume, which explains a lot of Ariel's delay in scene four in carrying out Prospero's orders. Time is allowed for the character to change from Ariel to Ceres and back. On the other side, Ceres may have been associated, by Shakespeare, to the Kairos figure, related to rhetorics, personating the opportune moment to present the convincing argument in a speech. More recent studies, however, have revealed that, given the small number of boys travelling with the King's Men and the large number of parts for them to fill, there would have been little choice in the matter.
The entire scene comes together in a way that leads scholars to believe that the Masque scene with the three goddesses was added as an afterthought to work around costuming and role-playing issues.
One example is in the stage directions at III. Enter ARIEL, like a harpy; claps his wings upon the table; and, with a quaint device, the banquet vanishes. All hail, great master! I come To answer thy best pleasure; be't to fly, To swim, to dive into the fire, to ride On the curl'd clouds; to thy strong bidding task Ariel and all his quality.
Originally, the role would have been assumed by a boy-player, but beginning in Restoration adaptations it would have been played by a woman. Post-colonialism[ edit ] Beginning in aboutwith the publication of Psychology of Colonization by Octave MannoniThe Tempest was viewed more and more through the lens of post-colonial theory. This new way of looking at the text explored the effect of the coloniser Prospero on the colonised Ariel and Caliban.
It betrays a mind at ease with his environment, a mind in which creativity and wit have sufficient room to develop. Caliban, unlike Ariel, is not of the mind to produce anything remotely similar to poetry or song.
Caliban has entirely rejected language itself: The red plague rid you For learning me your language! This is not surprising, for Prospero has given Caliban the tools of communication and self-knowledge, but has failed to give him the freedom and self-responsibility with which it is necessary to enjoy them. Curtsied when you have and kissed, The wild waves whist, Foot it featly here and there; And, sweet sprites, the burden bear.
Ariel's language here is pleasant and musical, clearly the product of a clever mind, yet it possesses none of the insight and import that is characteristic of similar characters in other Shakespeare works, such as The Fool in King Lear.
It is not until the second half of The Tempest that one can accurately make any judgements on the characters of Ariel and Caliban. It is possible to view Caliban in the first half of the work as a slave who is rebelling against his oppressive master. Yet when Caliban encounters Stephano and Trinculo with their "celestial liquor," he willingly subjugates himself to them.
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. 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.
Ariel (The Tempest) - Wikipedia
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. Lurking under the surface of this play is the possibility that at any point, Ariel could have gone on strike, or, worse, united with Caliban and defeated the humans.
Ariel seems to have become alienated from his power. When Ariel has acquired a mind of his own he tells Prospero to be empathic. To see the suffering of his usurpers-turned-captives and to forgive them.
The Tempest – Ariel, Prospero and Caliban – a very wonky triangle - Blogging Shakespeare
Ariel moves Geist to the state of mutual recognition. It will, of course, take more work to rehabilitate Sebastian and Antonio. Well, Gonzalo dreamed it up for us. Nevertheless, I think that this dialectic may be developed in another direction as well. This continuation of the story has not always been recognized, although this continuation may well be applicable to The Tempest too, if one intends to stick to reading the text in the light of the Master -Slave dialectic.
Also the work power that is required from Caliban is a complicated issue, as he is not represented as someone who would act as a proper slave. The revolutionary practice is also frustrating, at least with respect to the outcome of the revolutionary activity, since both Ariel and Caliban obtain what they needed: Arial is rewarded with freedom, Caliban receives his island back.
Thus, in the revolutionary perspective this outcome is rather pessimistic: Why be active, then?
Thanks again for the post, and for the comment as well. Christian Smith One issue that you raise here is the relationship between the Slave and the Master. Prospero was helped to survive on the island by Caliban, who could have simply eaten him cannibal when he washed ashore. However, he and his comrades make a highly inefficient army.
All revolutionaries know that they must get the armed forces — as working class — on their side in order to overthrow the oppressor.