Shakespeare's The Tempest is a Reflection of Our Inner Lives

Watch the member-exclusive portion of the show now on DailyWire+

Shakespeare's The Tempest is in many ways a mirror image of King Lear, as it takes place in the world of imagination rather than the tragic real world. It also serves as a parable for Christianity, centered on the spirit of forgiveness and mercy.

#shakespeare #thetempest #thetempestanalysis #andrewklavan #dailywire

[velxraperio]

For posterity, we had Laurence Olivier as King Lear, Tom Hiddleston as Prospero (audio only), and Christopher Plummer as Prospero (on the stage).

[laststand]

As Lewis said, God is not a figment of our imagination, but we a figment of His.

[johnheart]

I can’t wait for this! Thanks! Do all his plays- especially the less familiar— please do measure for measure!

[pauldickinson]

I like that the DW hosts aren't just talking about politics and current affairs

[peskylisa]

This would be an EXCELLENT thesis for a Shakespeare class! Compare and contrast King Lear and the Tempest.

[NoLegalPlunder]

I can’t get enough of these Shakespeare lessons. He was such a towering talent. I must have watched Hamlet (with Mel Gibson) 50 times, I find it so fascinating. Measure for Measure fascinates me as well.

[wbiatvrepeater]

Excellent insight and perspective about some of the greatest literary works of all time… Bravo!

[philtheo]

It is commonplace for Shakespearean commentators to say that the Bard is like an actor who disappears into his part. So successfully does he sublimate his own persona into his character that it’s hard to tell what Shakespeare really believed. Shakespeare can be everyone because he is no one in particular. Or is it the other way around? Is his universal sympathy owing to the fact that he was a man without a creed?

But in his final play, Shakespeare seems to tip his hand. And this may also say something about his worldview. For it is his most philosophical and religious play. But because most playgoers don’t know the historical background, they miss this emphasis.

According to Frances Yates, the Renaissance historian, the Tempest is a Rosicrucian allegory. (The Occult Philosophy of the Elizabethan Age [Routledge, 1979].) In effect, John Dee, the self-styled Magus and ill-starred advisor to Elizabeth, sat for the portrait of Prospero. And this was a flattering portrait. But Dee also sat for the unflattering portrait of Faust in Marlowe’s great tragedy.

This exposes a dividing line in the Elizabethan outlook. On the one hand there was a favorable view of Renaissance magic as long as it was confined to white magic. White magic was a Hermetical hodgepodge of alchemy and cabalism. Spenser and Shakespeare side with this faction. On the other hand there was the unfavorable view. Marlowe and Jonson side with the opposing party.

Approaching this from another angle, the chivalric tradition represents the confluence of two tributaries: the Arthurian tradition and the Georgian tradition. The Georgian tradition centers on the interconnected themes of a knight, a dragon and a lady who is the common object of their rivalry. The Arthurian tradition centers on the quest for the Holy Grail. And it has a magical motif in the morally ambiguous figure of Merlin, who lies behind contrasting figures of Faust and Prospero.

The Rosicrucian legend goes back to The Chemical Wedding of Christian Rosencreutz, anonymously penned by the Lutheran pastor, Jacob Andreae. This was, in turn, an alchemical allegory about the battle of the white mountain, fixing the fate of the winter king and queen of Bohemia. (Cf. J. Montgomery, Cross & Crucible [The Hague, 1973].)

At this point, a reader might be pardoned for supposing that he had suddenly tumbled down the rabbit hole and come out in wonderland. And it is, indeed, very puzzling to see the way in which the battle lines where drawn. On the one hand you have pious churchmen like Spenser and Andreae throwing their support behind this witches brew of alchemy and Hermetic mumbo-jumbo. (Note the evolution of the Redcrosse Knight into Christian Rosencreutz.) On the other hand, you have a raging sodomite like Marlowe staking out a more orthodox position in opposition to the occult.

I know of no nice way threshing the wheat without doing damage to the reputation of the orthodox party. What we have is what happens when syncretism is allowed to run its wayward course without the restraint of historical controls and doctrinal checkpoints.

Shakespeare stuck his neck out by taking sides in this dispute, for where you came down had political consequences. But in this, his swan song to the stage, the Bard may have figured that he have nothing left to lose. The point is not that Shakespeare was a Rosicrucian, but that he plighted his troth with the eclectic outlook at once exemplified by that and other esoteric traditions.

The Rosicrucian motif lingers on in modern fiction. In Bulwer-Lytton’s novel, Zanoni resigns his life and immortality for the love of a woman (Viola), just as Prospero resigns his magic powers for the sake of love (the marriage of Miranda and Ferdinand); And in Umberto Eco’s newest novel (Foucault’s Pendulum), an underground Rosicrucian cult lies at the bottom of Byzantine intrigue and global conspiracy theories.

Another question which the Bard raises for the modern writer is whether we’ve turned the corner on that sort of eloquence. Contemporary taste favors life-like speech, and since no one speaks with Shakespearean eloquence, this rhetorical register seems to be hopelessly unconvincing.

But even though there is some truth to this, the choice is not all that clear-cut. Although Shakespearean eloquence is unrepresentative of how people speak, it is not unrepresentative of how they feel or how they would wish to speak if only they had that silver-tongued facility. Indeed, the appeal of eloquent writers such as Ruskin, Bunyan, Shakespeare, Santayana—or even Bradbury—lies in their power to express the otherwise inarticulate moods and emotions of the ordinary reader. Our passions are often larger than our words. And we seek out writers who can give tongue to our intense, but ineffable yearnings and impressions. So Shakespeare is both more and less realistic, depending on the level of comparison. Even Milton’s stilted diction long had a large and popular following because so many readers would just love to cut loose in such a swashbuckling style, but since they are unable to do so, this is the next best thing.

A sign (word, sound, image) is a medium, but more than a medium, of the significate. More than transparent, but less than opaque. Ideally, it is akin to stained-glass instead of plain glass. It conveys and colors the natural light. But when the sign becomes the object rather than the medium, it ceases to be window, and becomes a wall or mural.

The Tempest reunites the youthful passion of Romeo and Juliet with the perfected technique of the Bard’s mature writing. The creative process involves a creative tension between talent, taste and technique. A successful artist must learn to balance the conscious and unconscious, craftsmanship and inspiration. The inspiration of a young artist is strong and spontaneous. But it lacks form and finish. The work of an older artist is more technically accomplished, but in its self-conscious polish it often loses the immediacy and intensity of youth.

Art is a process of subtraction and amplification. An artist trims away the extraneous elements of experience and then brings the core experience into high relief. It takes a trained ear, built on a natural ear, to play off the intuitive dimension against the acquired artistry, and vice versa.

Steve Hays

[filipsolis]

Love these weird analogies of yours Pure wisdom.

[niallmurray]

It's great to hear the perspective and the mix of politics and humour is very much appreciated.
Keen listener in the UK, Manchester, England.

[worldnotworld]

More of this! Brilliant. Daily Wire needs a Shakespeare club.

[MohamedAbdellaouy]

That tempest storm reflects Lear's both phisical and psycological disorder .It is the nature which stripes him into becoming a fool and becomes nothing and his pain is deepened his steps towards madness starts

[morgangallowglass]

Brilliant and beautiful! BRAVO, SIR! Please, MORE!

[robertgingras]

Enjoying these interpretations of Shakespeare! Thanks.

[franciscomap]

This was a great vídeo, well done klavan

[juliakolbe]

Thank you for this analysis! I studied the play at university and was told that it was about colonialism and climate change 🥴 it’s not surprising that I didn’t find reading it to be a fun experience - but this analysis makes a loooot more sense

[howardbabcom]

Love the passion and the focus on the importance of grace in this play you provide, but I would say the storm isn't caused by Prospero - it's true cause is the actions of those who stranded him there to begin with, hence the need to move beyond judgement to grace. This reflects the human condition - rebels who need unmerited benevolence for the Almighty, and are bestowed such mercy in His redeeming nature and actions.

[sadisticon]

I always thought that the Lear scene was kind of him saying "Why not? Go ahead, what else can you do to me? Do your worse!"

[barbararussell]

Thank you. I so enjoyed this explication of Lear and the Tempest.

[oliviamason]

A truly exceptional commentary, Mr. Klavan. I’ve heard many a sermon with less impact