Shakespeares The Tempest - Miranda :: Tempest essays

The Character of Miranda in The Tempest The character of Miranda in "The Tempest" is extremely compelling for two reasons. First and foremost it is important to note that the Miranda is the only female character who appears in the entire play. This is the only Shakespeare play where a character has this kind of outstanding distinction. This is not just a fluke on the part of Shakespeare, for it is very important that the character of Miranda appear by herself. The reader is not able to compare her beauty and virtue to any other female in the world of "The Tempest", and this serves both to show her value as a character and the fact that no other living women has the virtue of Miranda. While Miranda may not have many outstanding lines or solioquys, she makes up for this in sheer presence alone. Miranda's character encompasses all the elements of perfectionism and goodness which is lacking in all the other respective characters. All of the other characters in "The Tempest" are reflected by Miranda, and even if she did not spe ak one line she would still serve this important purpose. Secondly, Miranda also serves as the ultimate fantasy for any male who (like Ferdinand) is a bachelor. She is extremely beautiful, she is intelligent, and she has never been touched (or even seen) by another male. Shakespeare makes Miranda even more desirable by including the fact that she has never seen or even talked to another man (with the obvoius exception of Prospero). Miranda personifies the ultimate source of good in the play, and provides the ultimate foil for the evil character of Caliban. When Ferdinand is forced to chop wood by Prospero, Miranda offers to do it for him. Finding a woman this humble in the world of Shakespeare is almost impossible. One does not have to look farther than her last line in the play to realize her purpose in the plot. Miranda states "O wonder! / How many goodly creatures there are here! / How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world / That has such people in't" (Tempest,5.1,185-7) Through this passage and many of her others Miranda shows a posit ive attitude which is almost uncanny when compared to the other characters.

Gilgamesh: Women’s Sexuality Essay

In the epic poem â€Å"Gilgamesh,† the main character was two-thirds God and one-third human. Gilgamesh presented himself with a god like mentality. His power was neither gained nor deserved. He’s a selfish leader who held his power by striking fear into the hearts of those forced to succumb to him. The gods created Enkidu, a man so fearful and threatening, to bring down and end Gilgamesh’s reign of terror; but the outcome was least expected. They became great friends and companions. Though in text, Gilgamesh and Enkidu are the ones with all of the spoken power, it is the women characters that exert their power over man having a major influence on their decisions. The women set the stage for us to see how even the most powerful of gods are controllable by something as simple and human as the sexuality of a woman. One empowering female in this poem is Shamhat, the temple prostitute. She was sent from the temple of Ishtar, the goddess of love and war, to seduce Enkidu. She is told, â€Å"Now use your love-arts. Strip off your robe and lie here naked, with your legs apart. Stir up his lust when he approaches, touch him, excite him, take his breath with your kisses, show him what a woman is† (p. 78). When Shamhat presents herself to Enkidu, he could not resist her. It was said that she tamed the wild animal. She then taught him her ways of civilized humans and he left behind all that he knew. This shows that the power of a woman’s sexuality is only natural to man, and can over power even their greatest desires in life. The goddess of love and war, Ishtar, is another example of woman’s power taking a toll on man. When Ishtar laid eyes on Gilgamesh, she was drawn to him, asking him to be her groom and marry her. Gilgamesh declined her offer because he heard of her ways with men and how she manipulated and exploited them. Ishtar became outraged with him and so, called on her father, Anu, to release the â€Å"Bull of Heaven† and punish Gilgamesh. Anu mentioned to her that it was her own fault for provoking him. Ishtar warns him, â€Å"If you refuse to give me the Bull of Heaven I will break in the doors of hell and smash the bolts; there will be confusion of people, those above with those from the lower depths. I shall bring up the dead to eat food like the living; and the hosts of the dead will outnumber the living† (p. 32). Anu obeys her requests and sent the beast down, only for it to be defeated by both Gilgamesh and Enkidu. Ishtar is not threatened by their survival and victory, yet she then threatens them again. By displaying her rage and anger accumulated from rejection by man, she proves just how much power she truly has over man. She was feared by Anu and received what she asked. Women not only use their sexuality for lust and sex, but also show men that they are not inferior to them, they can be just as frightening and powerful. In the epic poem â€Å"Gilgamesh† there was a significant influence in gender roles. Even though men were considered to be the wisest and most powerful of humans, the two women Ishtar and Shamhat, had the power to influence Gilgamesh, Enkidu and even Anu, the father of Ishtar, in their own ways. These two women are not seen as objects of man, but as two empowering women exerting their power over man.

Poetry and science enjoy equal success in expanding human knowledge Essay

Before answering whether both poetry and science enjoy equal success in expanding human knowledge, one must first understand what poetry and science are and what they do. Poetry is an artist’s way of abstractly conveying his or her ideas through writing so as to stimulate the emotional side of the readers. Science on the other hand, is an objective way of clearly stating facts so as to stimulate the â€Å"formal† or fact craving side of the readers. Poetry presents an object in order to convey a particular message or feeling, whilst science merely presents an object objectively and describes how it is, clearly, in every way possible. Therefore, it is clear that the purpose of these two approaches is quite different. Furthermore, the ways of knowing in poetry and science are somewhat different. Poetry’s ways of knowing are mainly emotion and language, while sciences are mainly language and reason. However, although they have language in common, both of them utiliz e language in different ways and for different purposes. As is obvious from above, both approaches aim to expand two completely different parts of human knowledge. Poetry aims to expand the aesthetic while science the scientific. Therefore, they cannot be assessed on their ability to expand human knowledge based on the same criteria but rather, they should both be assessed based on individual criteria in their own specific areas of knowledge and then compared after being assessed. Assessing them based on the same criteria would much be like comparing a desert with a main course, which would be wrong since they both have different purposes and, although the dessert may not be good at achieving the purpose of the main dish, it could well be excellent at achieving the purposes of a dessert. Since poetry tries to â€Å"touch† the reader’s emotional side aesthetically it must be scrutinized as an art. The purpose of art is to aesthetically touch an emotion which all people supposedly have. Through techniques specific to each art, good artists are able to do this, and this in itself is an expansion of human knowledge in that it causes people to be aware of their emotions. Humans â€Å"have to turn to poetry to interpret life for us, to console us, to sustain us.† (Matthew Arnold, ‘The Study of Poetry’) The purpose of Shakespeare’s Macbeth is not to scientifically understand how ambition can conquer one, nor is it meant to be a historical recount of the real Macbeth. It is a poetic story which is written so as people can empathize with the main characters and view their own life in terms of conquering their faults and sustaining their good. Another purpose of poetry is to represent human nature. This can clearly be seen through any of Robert’s Frost’s poems such as Out, Out which explains, better than any scientific paper ever could, the ability of a child to care so much about his desire to work and help society, and the lack of care his family experiences when he dies. Poetry presents human characteristics, the human thought, the human inner self, all compact into one verse and it is so powerful because when read, one immediately connects with it, and it touches each person’s emotions in a way. Also, it so vividly depicts the nature of humans that it is a powerful tool through which people can express themselves, and in which people can relate to. It expands our knowledge of human nature and the way humans behave and the power of emotions and their effect on us. In Shakespeare’s Macbeth when Lady Macbeth asks the evil spirits to â€Å"unsex me [Lady Macbeth] here† one feels the evil powers of ambition and its ability to overtake ones sane and rational thought. On the other hand science’s purpose is to clearly depict a situation or object. Science, in no way, should aim to â€Å"touch† the reader’s emotional side, but rather touch the reader’s rationality. Although some may argue that science does touch a reader’s side, it is not the main purpose of the writing, and is rather an effect of extreme love towards and passion for the subject. A scientific argument should not be ambiguous or differ from reader to reader, unlike poetry. There is no way for a scientific argument to be true to some people and false to others, for in science there is an absolute truth which the scientists are trying to attain. Although many may argue that poets are also aiming to achieve this absolute truth, it must be noted that each person’s emotions are different and therefore there is no way to absolutely describe the way people think, react or behave. Biology, chemistry and physics have set laws and truths which, regardl ess of who or where you are, will be true. If the purpose of poetry is, as we said, to depict human nature, then the purpose of science is to understand nature itself and how it works. When writing a piece the author must create a balance between ambiguity and precision and the language of a piece is directly dependant on the purpose of the piece. Poetry and science are completely opposite in the way that they try to balance ambiguity and precision. In poetry the ability to ambiguously use words is good since it allows one to think abstractly and allows different readers, with different mindsets, to interpret the piece in different ways. Therefore, in the case of poetry language, as a way of knowing, is created to be ambiguous so as to contribute to the knowledge and effect of the piece. On the other hand, in science ambiguity greatly impedes a work. It is not acceptable for a law or theory in science to be indirect and not addressing one specific point clearly.. Otherwise the law becomes obsolete, since if it is not understandable it has no purpose. There is no space in science for different interpretations of a law; the law has one purpose that it achieves and that purpose is set. It is not different for different people, or different nations, or different cultures. In the sense of multiple meanings, contrary to poetry’s double entendres, scienctific writing cannot have any; the one meaning the author desires to portray must be directly stated so as to disallow ambiguity and interpretation. For example, water being comprised of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom is true independent if one is in the United States, Russia, or Australia. Also, it is true independent of ones age, race, background, nationality, religion, or any other factor which may change from person to person. However, poetry is quite the opposite. Poetry should be, and is, interpreted differently by different people. The meaning or â€Å"truth† behind poetry is fully dependant on all the factors listed above. An old person may have a completely different understanding of words in poems such as George Herbert’s The Pulley the double meaning of the word â€Å"rest† which can either mean the remainder or it can mean peace. The great difference between these two interpretations leaves the reader with the final choice to interpret the poem the way he/she wants and this is the intent of the poet. However, in science it is the intent of the scientist to clearly illustrate his/her point without any ambiguity as in science clarity is essential. In conclusion, it can be seen that poetry and science have completely different purposes and different means of attaining these purposes. Furthermore, each of these specific areas of knowledge means to expand different types of knowledge and pertain to different ways of knowing. However, one must realize that it is essential to have a balance between the â€Å"scientific† or factual knowledge, and the â€Å"poetic†/†aesthetic† knowledge or the emotional understanding of human nature. Therefore, in these terms science successfully expands its portion of human knowledge successfully expands its. Therefore, it can be concluded that each area of knowledge has equal success in expanding knowledge in its respective â€Å"area†. â€Å"In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in poetry it’s the exact opposite.†(P A M Dirac) Do both the approaches suggested in the quotation enjoy equal success in expanding human knowledge?