Regarding the second half of Lewis's statement ("but we a figment of His"), if that is taken to be espousing philosophical idealism (e.g. a la George Berkeley), then it is arguably heretical. Like a Gnostic arguing our bodies aren't real flesh and bone bodies but illusions. Or some arguing the resurrection did not happen in reality, for the resurrection is ultimately illusory, since everything is a figment of God's imagination, not instantiated reality.
@@laurenbatson5918 I took two entire courses on Shakespeare: one in high school and one in college. Kavan's analyses are far superior to anything I got out of either.
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.
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
A brilliant piece of writing, and much appreciated. I have learned some things of abiding interest from you today, and enjoyed the artful manner of expression you have brought to them. Bravo, sir!
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.
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
@@georgethakur They made it up, that's how. Using something called "Deconstruction." Meaning, the intent or meaning of the author is canceled now, if the reader or professor does not like what it says.
"The Tempest" is my favorite Shakespeare play because one of my favorite books is Alexandre Dumas' "The Count of Monte Cristo" and I can see so many parallels between the narratives. I imagine Dumas had seen or read "The Tempest" and took inspiration from it. Also, as a child there was a TV series on HBO that was made by the BBC. It was called "Shakespeare Tales," and they animated a bunch of Shakespeare plays into half-hour episodes. I loved the look of "The Tempest," and it's the only one I truly remember how it looked. I remember being really interested in the story as a little 8 or 9 year old. That one was animated with these really neat-looking stop motion puppets that looked so sophisticated and like really nice Sicilian marionettes (look them up if you don't know what they are). So much better-looking than the stop motion Rankin-Bass I was used to.
We speak french at home, but english at work.. this was on point.. 14:00 min is a good interpretation; is that why we engage in story telling? so we can enjoy the interpretation?
Would you ever consider doing a review of this book on the show? After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays ¬by neuropsychologist Marshall Kirk and advertising executive Hunter Madsen
Unfortunately, this interpretation does not hold up to the facts. The Tempest is not Shakespeare's last play, it was alluded to by Sir Philip Sidney (along with Richard II and Henry V) in his monograph,' In Defence of Poesie'. Sidney was killed fighting the Spanish in the Netherlands in 1586, so it existed long before most other Shakespearean plays. Most of which were published in the 1590s. Shakespeare tells us, in the Sonnets, that he was involved in some type of scandal: 'When in disgrace with fortune and men's eyes/I all alone beweep my outcast state....', and several other such sentiments in those poems. It seems likely that The Tempest is a plea for a little understanding of his situation right in the middle of his playwrighting career.
Shakespeare’s NATURE. Just occurred to me as an avid student of the Bard, Shakespeare, in so many of his (he/him) plays, incorporates myriad Cross-Dressers. However, always the “Trans characters” acquiesce to NATURE. The Trans-Cross-Dressers always find their True Loves in the humanity of the OPPOSITE SEX.
What is this channel I see before me..? A Christian themed temple of thought that cuts through the wrapping paper, thrusts its sword through the carpet on the wall, pierces the side of the shell, makes the first last amd the last first..... can it be true, that I have stumbled across a Christian themed channel actually worthy of the concept..? Thw problwm with trying to exolain the symbolism of The Tempest is that the symbolism is of the absolute, and only rhose who believe in the absute can think in the absolute... thus an accurate discussion about such an artwork will inevitably fall upon deaf esrs.... ears that have been poisoned by the imposter king... let those with two ears understand then, but alas such types are simply nowhere to be found, in my experience... but like Brad Pitt in Interview woth the Vampyre, perhaps, just at the point of giving up the sesrch, I stumble across a fully functioning Theatre of the Absurd, where my own kind are flourising in full and plain sight.... ....Perhaps.
I like Andrew Klaven but he really shouldn't be a part of DW should just have his own channel. He hardly works and hardly talks about the political hard hitting stuff like the other guys do. They need new faces.
As Lewis said, God is not a figment of our imagination, but we a figment of His.
I feel like a Fig Newton.
Regarding the second half of Lewis's statement ("but we a figment of His"), if that is taken to be espousing philosophical idealism (e.g. a la George Berkeley), then it is arguably heretical. Like a Gnostic arguing our bodies aren't real flesh and bone bodies but illusions. Or some arguing the resurrection did not happen in reality, for the resurrection is ultimately illusory, since everything is a figment of God's imagination, not instantiated reality.
For posterity, we had Laurence Olivier as King Lear, Tom Hiddleston as Prospero (audio only), and Christopher Plummer as Prospero (on the stage).
Try Chimes at Midnight, Orson Wells, to my mind the best Falstaff.
I can’t wait for this! Thanks! Do all his plays- especially the less familiar- please do measure for measure!
I like that the DW hosts aren't just talking about politics and current affairs
Me, too. I never had a single lecture on Shakespeare. Not in high school (early 90s). Not in college (late 90's,). That's a shame.
@@laurenbatson5918 I took two entire courses on Shakespeare: one in high school and one in college. Kavan's analyses are far superior to anything I got out of either.
This would be an EXCELLENT thesis for a Shakespeare class! Compare and contrast King Lear and the Tempest.
Excellent insight and perspective about some of the greatest literary works of all time… Bravo!
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.
Andrew videos are underrated.
Love these weird analogies of yours Pure wisdom.
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.
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
A brilliant piece of writing, and much appreciated. I have learned some things of abiding interest from you today, and enjoyed the artful manner of expression you have brought to them. Bravo, sir!
More of this! Brilliant. Daily Wire needs a Shakespeare club.
Now I want to read the play!
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.
Brilliant and beautiful! BRAVO, SIR! Please, MORE!
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
How the hell did they make that link?
@@georgethakur They made it up, that's how. Using something called "Deconstruction." Meaning, the intent or meaning of the author is canceled now, if the reader or professor does not like what it says.
Enjoying these interpretations of Shakespeare! Thanks.
This was a great vídeo, well done klavan
A very good read, professor.
"The Tempest" is my favorite Shakespeare play because one of my favorite books is Alexandre Dumas' "The Count of Monte Cristo" and I can see so many parallels between the narratives. I imagine Dumas had seen or read "The Tempest" and took inspiration from it. Also, as a child there was a TV series on HBO that was made by the BBC. It was called "Shakespeare Tales," and they animated a bunch of Shakespeare plays into half-hour episodes. I loved the look of "The Tempest," and it's the only one I truly remember how it looked. I remember being really interested in the story as a little 8 or 9 year old. That one was animated with these really neat-looking stop motion puppets that looked so sophisticated and like really nice Sicilian marionettes (look them up if you don't know what they are). So much better-looking than the stop motion Rankin-Bass I was used to.
Brought me to tears. Thank you.
Superb! Thnx for that. We want more!
Thank you 🙏🏻
I’m here for my class. I’d suggest this video to my students
Thank you. I needed to hear this.
A truly exceptional commentary, Mr. Klavan. I’ve heard many a sermon with less impact
Fantastic video! God bless you!
Wow! I think I finally understand some of the new testament verses better.
Beautiful, thank you so much Andrew you have made me a better man, a better lover, and a better husband.
Thank you. I so enjoyed this explication of Lear and the Tempest.
Fantastic I was waiting for this video.
More content like this, please
Thank you Andrew.
I wrote a report about the Tempest in HS. I don't think I hit any of the points I should have. Maybe I will watch it again to see if I can do better.
Excellent analysis
This was Shakespeare's final play. The theory was that he was going mad at this point in his life and this play is the culmination of total madness.
We speak french at home, but english at work.. this was on point.. 14:00 min is a good interpretation; is that why we engage in story telling? so we can enjoy the interpretation?
I love this!
Thank you, Andrew.
You’re real smart Klaven. Where does Robbie the Robot come in?
I'm waiting from India for you guys to make vid about it. But so far none
I have always pronounced Prospero with accent on the first syllable: PROS per o.
Would you ever consider doing a review of this book on the show?
After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays
¬by neuropsychologist Marshall Kirk and advertising executive Hunter Madsen
Do Coriolanus next please!!
You think Caliban is the inspiration for Frankenstein's monster?
Can we get you playing Resident Evil 4 Remake?
He could compare it to Don Quixote
Unfortunately, this interpretation does not hold up to the facts. The Tempest is not Shakespeare's last play, it was alluded to by Sir Philip Sidney (along with Richard II and Henry V) in his monograph,' In Defence of Poesie'. Sidney was killed fighting the Spanish in the Netherlands in 1586, so it existed long before most other Shakespearean plays. Most of which were published in the 1590s.
Shakespeare tells us, in the Sonnets, that he was involved in some type of scandal: 'When in disgrace with fortune and men's eyes/I all alone beweep my outcast state....', and several other such sentiments in those poems. It seems likely that The Tempest is a plea for a little understanding of his situation right in the middle of his playwrighting career.
Shakespeare’s NATURE. Just occurred to me as an avid student of the Bard, Shakespeare, in so many of his (he/him) plays, incorporates myriad Cross-Dressers. However, always the “Trans characters” acquiesce to NATURE. The Trans-Cross-Dressers always find their True Loves in the humanity of the OPPOSITE SEX.
Wonderful point! Thanx!
There are no Trans characters in Shakespeare. That is you imposing modernity on a classic.
Andrew, it's "Mr. MiyaGEE", not Miyaji :--)
You're going to miss us boomers when we're gone.
Nice
Please ar the move
Stay to your politics. Your analysis is lacking.
I think I found the source of Klavan's theory:
th-cam.com/video/MBosk11TARw/w-d-xo.html
What is this channel I see before me..? A Christian themed temple of thought that cuts through the wrapping paper, thrusts its sword through the carpet on the wall, pierces the side of the shell, makes the first last amd the last first..... can it be true, that I have stumbled across a Christian themed channel actually worthy of the concept..?
Thw problwm with trying to exolain the symbolism of The Tempest is that the symbolism is of the absolute, and only rhose who believe in the absute can think in the absolute... thus an accurate discussion about such an artwork will inevitably fall upon deaf esrs.... ears that have been poisoned by the imposter king... let those with two ears understand then, but alas such types are simply nowhere to be found, in my experience... but like Brad Pitt in Interview woth the Vampyre, perhaps, just at the point of giving up the sesrch, I stumble across a fully functioning Theatre of the Absurd, where my own kind are flourising in full and plain sight....
....Perhaps.
I like Andrew Klaven but he really shouldn't be a part of DW should just have his own channel. He hardly works and hardly talks about the political hard hitting stuff like the other guys do. They need new faces.
What?