Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Department of English
Faculty of Arts
Cairo University
Abstract:
This paper studies how Shakespeare remakes or reshapes myths in
The Tempest. In fact, there is not only one myth in the play, but he remakes
many myths like the myth of Medea, the myth of Demeter and Persephone
and that of Medusa. He has used these myths to give more depth to the
analysis of the psychology of his characters. He also uses myths in his plays
because the Elizabethan were very familiar with classical myths, hence they
would understand the meaning Shakespeare implies by referring to one myth
or another. Thus, the paper is built on the mythological critical approach as
advocated by Carl Gustav Jung, Mircea Eliade and Joseph Campbell.
However, before applying mythological criticism on The Tempest, it is
important to know what it is and why it has been chosen in this paper.
Introduction: Archetypal or Mythological Criticism:
Archetypal or mythological criticism is a type of critical theory that
interprets a text by focusing on recurring myths and archetypes in the
narrative, symbols, images and character types in a literary work. The
importance of archetypal or mythological criticism lies, according to the
psychologist, Jung in the importance of myths. According to critics of
mythological criticism, myths are the culturally elaborated representations
of the contents of the deepest recess of the human psyche: the world of
archetypes (Walker 4).
However, in order to understand the relationship of mythology to
literature and to human psyche, it is important to refer to Jungs On the
Relation of Analytical Psychology to Poetry, in which he articulates the
theory of literature. According to him, the art has its source not in the
personal unconscious of the author or the artist, but in the collective
unconscious of the human kind as a whole. Elaborating this viewpoint
further, Jung writes:
Great poetry draws its strength from the life of mankind, and
we completely miss its meaning if we try to derive it only from
personal factors. Whenever the collective unconscious becomes
a living experience and is brought to bear upon the conscious
outlook of an age, this event is creative act which is of
importance for a whole epoch. A work of art is produced that
may be truthfully called a message to generation of men. (Jung,
Psychology and Literature CW15, 153/98)
Thus, the collective unconscious as Jung defines it, contains the
whole spiritual heritage of mankinds evolution, born a new in the brain
similarities between the intersections of Jason and Medea and Ferdinand and
Miranda. Medea has fallen in love with Jason because he was as beautiful as
a god and so has Miranda. When Miranda sees Ferdinand for the first time,
she thought that he is a spirit, I might call him/A thing divine for nothing
natural (1.2.412-414).
However, Williams argues that Shakespeare has followed the
chronology of the myth to a point Shakespeare only adheres to the pattern
of myth until violence threatens and the potential blood shed itself is a link
to the Argonautic myth (198). Shakespeare does not want to echo the
violence that exists in the original myth. As the play is a romance, he wants
every thing to end happily. Hence, he avoids Prospero, his main character,
Aeetess vengeance. Prospero is not cruel or vengeful, he is forgiving. He is
willing to forgive all those who have harmed him like Antonio, Sebastian
and Alonso, Yet with my nobler reason against my fury/ Do I take part: the
rarer action is/ In virtue than in vengeance (5.1.26-28). Unlike Aeetes, he is
not so aggressive in the way he treats Jason. He did assign to Ferdinand
brutal trials as Aeetes has done. Rather he pretends to be harsh with
Ferdinand. He assigns him not very hard work so that it wont seem that he
has won Miranda easily, lest too light winning/Make the prize light
(1.2.453-455). Also, while Medeas love to Jason was a one -sided love,
Mirandas love is mutual. Jason loves her to the extent that he sees her as a
goddess and a wonder (1.2.424, 429). Unlike, Jason he declares his love
to Miranda.
One of the other aspects in which Shakespeare derivates from the
original myth is that though he mentions Venus and Cupid in the masque, yet
he asserts their absence from the island [Lest] they to have done/some
wanton charm upon this man and maid (4.1.86-101). While in the original
myth, both Aphrodite and Eros were responsible for Medeas violent and
uncontrollable love for Jason, in the play, Prospero will allow his daughter to
love and marry Ferdinand, but he will not allow her to experience the same
uncontrollable love of Medea which has led to all the death and destruction
in the original myth. Prosper will allow Miranda to sit and get acquainted
with Jason Sit, then, and talk with her; she is thine own (4.1.32). Though
Miranda has disobeyed her fathers orders and talked to him, yet unlike
Medea, she wont sneak out at night to secretly meet him and definitely she
wont flee with him. Moreover, Ferdinand promises to avoid lust and agrees
to a chaste love affair. Hence, Venus and Cupid have no place here. The play
will end in holy matrimony. One of the other differences between the play
and the original myth exemplifies in the character of Miranda. Unlike Medea
who is a witch, who has derived her powers from Hecate, the goddess of the
underground and who uses herbs, charms and other witchy crafts, Miranda is
presented as an innocent, gentle girl who knows nothing about magic or its
power.
One of the other most important issues that Shakespeare has avoided
in his revision of the Argonautic myth as Williams pinpoints is the negative
implications of the Golden Fleece (Williams 200). In Tempest, though
Shakespeare has avoided mentioning the Golden Fleece literally, yet he has
reflected the vices it stands for like greed, lust, ambition and violence.
However, though these vices really exist in the play because they are human
traits, yet Prosperos white magic managed to stop all the awful acts resulted
from these vices. Moreover, greed and ambition do not motivate the two
characters who stand for jasons character in the main myth. Prosperos sole
aim is to regain his rightful dukedom. Unlike, Jason whose aim is to steal the
Golden Fleece from Aeetes and who has manipulated Medea to achieve his
aim, Ferdinand does not want Prosperos island, all he wants is Miranda.
Thus, as Williams illustrates:
Shakespeare reveals that the main obstacle to the happiness of
Jason and Medea, and of Ferdinand and Miranda, are what the
Fleece represents: greed violence, treachery, ambition,
conspiracy, lust and a fathers lack of sensitivity towards his
daughters happiness. So Shakespeare counters the Fleece, and
the vices it symbolizes, with Prosperos magic, which isa only
used for good and which replaces those vices with their
opposites (love, marriage, forgiveness, non-violence, and
legitimate authority). (Williams 201)
Hence, it is obvious that Shakespeare has changed the Argonautic
myth and in doing that he has altered the lives of both Prospero and
Miranada.
Myth of Demeter:
As aforementioned, every time the loving couples are mentioned in
Shakespeares play and though both Aphrodite and Eros have played a great
role in the original myth by arousing Medeas controlled and extreme love to
Jason, yet in the play they have no real presence. Shakespeare chooses to
replace the appropriate goddess of love with Demeter, Goddess of grain and
fertility. In A Demeter, final analysis, Philip Ruch relates Shakespeares
choice of Demeter to the ideals she stands for, grain and fertility. Moreover,
Ruch argues that Shakespeare himself has illustrated his reason for not
including Aphrodite and Cupid in the play. In order to clarify his reasons,
Shakespeare let Iris clarify their absence to Demeter:
Sycorax is deformed and so is Medusa after Athena has turned her into a
monstrous gorgon.
Myth as Archetype:
In defining Archetypes, Jung writes that archetypes are
primordial images or mythological figures (CW 15, 126-27/81) and that
they usually supply models for human behavior. Thus, archetypes reflect
something about the psychology of human nature. Archetypes help us delve
deeper into the psychology of characters.
Contemplating The Tempest, it is obvious that Shakespeare presents a
lot of archetypes in it. In other words, the characters of the play can be
regarded as personified archetypes. He presents the hero archetype
exemplified in both Prospero and Ferdinand. He also presents opposing
female archetypes. The Femme Fatale exemplified in Sycorax Vs Mirgin
Mary exemplified in Miranda. He also presents more than one aspect of the
human nature and psychology exemplified in the persona, the shadow and
the ego.
The Hero Archetype:
Many critics have agreed that Prospero exemplifies the hero
archetype. In Hero with a Thousand Faces, Joseph Campbell identifies the
hero as the protagonist who goes on a literal or figurative journey often from
childhood to adulthood, innocence to experience. Furthermore, he
emphasizes that the hero journey consists of three stages separation or
departure, the trials and victories of initiation and the return and
reintegration with society. A hero ventures forth from the world of common
day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there
encountered and a decisive victory is won; the hero comes back from this
mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man
(Campbell 30). As the hero gathers knowledge through his journey, this
knowledge will help him achieve both personal and social greatness.
Many critics agree that Prospero presents the hero archetype. His
forced departure from Milan represents the moment of initiation Campbell
has mentioned. However, Prosperos literal journey goes hand in hand with
his psychological journey. He is presented as a pompous, self-pitying and
unforgiving character. He is a person who is in total control of every thing
around him. This aspect of Prosperos character is what Jung calls the
Persona or the image we show to others. It is the mask we wear in front of
the external world. However, while Prospero was duke of Milan, he trusted
his brother Antonio too much; eventually he lost his life as well as his
dukedom. He has committed the same fault with Caliban, he trusted him
completely and brought him home, however, when he tries to rape Miranda,
10
11
12
13
Bibliography:
Abrams, M.A. Archetypal Criticism A Glossary of Literary
Terms. Forth Worth: HBJ, 1993, 223-225.
Campbell, Joseph. The Hero with A Thousand Faces. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 1949.
Eliade, Mircea. Myth and Reality. N. Y: Harper and Row Publishers,
1963.
Fiedler, Leslie. The Stranger in Shakespeare. New York:Stein and
Day Publishing.
Fike, Matthew A., A Jungian: The Visionary Study of Shakespeare
Mode. NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.
Frye, Northope. Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays. New York:
Autheneum, 1968.
Jung, C. G. On the Relation of Analytical Psychology to Poetry
The Spirit in Man, Art and Literature. Princeton University Press, fourth
edition, 1978.
---------------. Et al., eds. Man and His Symbols. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1964.
---------------. The Collected Works of C.G. Jung. Edited by Sir
Herbut Read et al.Translated by R.F.C. Hull. 20 vols. Bollingen series 10.
Princeton, Nj: Princeton University Press, 1953-1979.
Knapp, Bettina. L. Introduction. A Jungian Approach to
Literature. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University
Press, 1984, ix-xvi.
Lara, Irene. Beyond Caliban Curses: The Decolonial Feminist
Literacy of Sycorax. Journal of International Womens studies Vol.9, Nov.
2007, 80-98.
Ruch, Philip. A Demeter, Final Analysis.
http: //www.cornellcollege. edu/Classical_studies/Cla216-2
14