Get help with any kind of assignment - from a high school essay to a PhD dissertation
Art vs. Nature at The Tempest The debate between Art and Nature from The Tempest is quite much based on the Renaissance debate, on whether "civilized man" or the "natural man" was exceptional. The advocates of "civilized man" introducing the "natural man" as being barbarous, intemperate and brutal compared to the nobility, self-control and high-mindedness of the "civilized man". The advocates of "natural man" introducing him as what Rousseau was afterwards to word the "noble savage" and the civilized man as being tainted, influenced, only more adept in minding his vices, which were at best more elegant, but nevertheless hardly a reason for pretensions to moral high ground. Montaigne, in his renowned apologia for the "natural man", observes it may be arguably more barbaric to "mangle by tortures and torments a body filled with lively sense [...] under pretence of pietie and faith" than "to roast and eat him after he is dead". Shakespeare does not go to extreme from The Tempest. Even the "natural man" (i.e. Caliban) is both barbarous, intemperate and brutal, incapable of greater reasoning and inducing the innate intelligence for nurture to "adhere" (as Prospero says in frustration) responding only to something which in effect may be contemplated, not inaccurately, as what would in modern conditions be called a form of Pavlovian conditioning. While his portrayal is not totally unsympathetic (cf. the touching passage in Act III Scene II where he speaks of his "cr [ying] to dream again", it can also be argued that Prospero's alighting on the island, installing himself as ruler, and therefore - albeit perhaps not unjustifiably - depriving Caliban of his own faith and liberty is a se somewhat questionable, depending on how one views colon...