(M1EC9A) Littérature Anglaise

Mickaël POPELARD - Science on Stage

MAHELELAINE Anis

The early modern drama and culture period (16th – 18th century) was seen as a
highpoint of the English literature “A Golden Age” in terms of creativity and
imagination including a larger vocabulary in the theatrical performances and plays
while applying and depicting the science and technology progress witnessed at
that time. It was a time called the Elizabethan era when Shakespeare lived and
also of the English renaissance when arts, philosophy, arithmetic, geometry,
astronomy and science greatly emerged and revived in the English literature. At
that time, the English drama served a recreational function for the purpose of
being performed in front of an audience as an entertaining story written in the
form of a script and played by actors in theatres. But it quickly developed into a
powerful and dangerous political instrument to the government especially in the
time of Shakespeare, as his plays were used to convince the Londoners and
encourage them to rebel against their queen.

Science and literature in the age of Shakespeare and his contemporaries

(Christopher Marlowe and George Peele) were almost interchangeable at the time.
Poets and playwrights engaged not only in entertaining humanistic subjects and
popular culture but also the practices, theories and concepts of scientific
knowledge in the making of their works, to differentiate between art, science and
literature was unnecessary to them as science was a multifaced notion and
considered to be opposite sides of the same coin.
 Employing science in Marlowe’s “The Tragedy of Doctor Faustus” and
Shakespeare’s “The Tempest” draw interesting similarities in their plays, from
Prospero and Faustus’ use of magic to their means of acquiring it while displaying
spectacular illusions in their theatrical performances, and highlighting their
relationship to reality from the non-physical world.

After analyzing the plays, how does the character of a scientist and a magician
exhibits the potential danger of science, the danger of too much knowledge and
responsibility towards humanity in general as the impact of science that was no
longer personal?

The word “scientist” did not officially enter the English language until the
1830s, terms as literature, art and science were interchangeable at that time and
were not obviously separated in Shakespeare’s days but rather part of a common
intellectual field, different but also equally valid in dealing with reality. Inserting
and exceeding what was known, in the medieval period, the quadrivium and the
trivium.

In Shakespeare’s “The Tempest” Prospero's “potent art” controlled nature and

its four elements by his magic, as a devoted adept of the liberal arts and the
knowledge he acquired when he was still the duke of Milan. In the first scene of
the storm, we have a demonstration of Prospero’s power and how the natural
forces of the storm won against the political forces aboard the ship (Antonio and
his companions). Although no human being could ever control or adjust how a
storm would occur, but in a supernatural and magical scene Shakespeare
successfully engages people’s basic assumptions about the universe to deliver a
great dramatic opening of the play. Including such a magical spectacle in the play
and displaying it as science or “potent art” can only mean that Shakespeare was
fully aware of the ‘scientific revolution’ that was occurring at that time when
different concepts and terms as magic, science, religion began to emerge and
separate. In Shakespeare’s play the interaction between drama and science is
reflected in the scientific allusions to explore the dynamic and dialectical
relationship between the two, and also the mis-use of science by Prospero to his
own and Miranda’s benefit in a disturbing theme of uncertainty and desire to
exercise full control over the natural environment through the manipulation of the
four elements thanks to the help of his two servants echoes the ambitions of
Renaissance natural philosophers like Dee or Bacon who were convinced that the
scientist's knowledge was unlimited. Caliban one of Prospero’s servants alongside
with Ariel that he both controls thanks to his books and knowledge refers to
Prospero’s absolute domination over him and his mis-use of that power: “For I
am all the subjects that you have, which first was mine own king.” This tells the
current mindset of the only native Islander Caliban, he is described in the play as
a monster and has been taught to speak by Prospero but as this quote shows there
is a great deal of animosity between Prospero and his obliged servant Caliban, as
he points out that he was the king of his own kingdom until Prospero arrived, took
his freedom, kingdom and colonized him just as happened to Prospero with
Antonio before. Prospero also uses his realistic illusions by commanding the four
elements to take control over people’s senses in a series of spectacular shows not
far from a theatrical performance as a metaphor for a playwright’s “potent art”
but necessarily require the help of his spiritual servants because otherwise his
knowledge and spectacular shows would become nothing more than an inefficient
theatrical hobby viewed as a basic pedestrian show.

Likewise in Marlow’s Doctor Faustus, one of the most remarkable similarities

between Prospero and Faustus is the performance of a series of illusive shows and
their possession of magical powers thanks to their spiritual servants and again,
scientific virtuosity cannot be dissociated from theatrical performance. At that
time magic was separated into two categories ‘Hermetic’ that requires sacrifices
in a ritual and ‘Solomonic’ that was concerned with deploying demonic and
spiritual servants. Faustus and Prospero fall into the Solomonic category. In
Faustus’ case, his mis-use of forbidden magic through summoning demons isn’t
for accomplishing good deeds or improving the human condition but for his own
content forsaking power and glory while removing himself as Prospero did
socially and physically, by his own will or not, from the non-magical world and
also serves as a distraction from the inevitable fate of hell that awaits him.

There was a significant difference though, Prospero’s use of spectacular

illusions and servants was important to his in order to get his place back as the
duke of Milan and affect people’s opinions and thoughts, manipulate his enemies
and drive them to repent, while promising to give away his acquired knowledge
and to set free his spirits as soon as they finish their tasks. But in Faustus’ case,
his spectacular illusions was merely trivial and futile and him relying on demons
only meant digging his own grave as he puts on a
play for "shadows, not substantial". He admits that he is uncapable of bringing
Alexandre back from the dead but only to conjure a ghost of him : « But if it like
your Grace, it is not in my ability to present before your eyes the true substantial
bodies of those two deceased princes, which long since are consumed to dust (A,
IV, 1,47-50) ». Prospero’s magic also loses or at least does not achieve a full
victory as his brother Antonio remained silent throughout almost the entire play
and until the end he shows no signs of remorse or repent towards Prospero which
means Faustus and Prospero’s spectacular illusions and science has failed in a
way or another throughout both plays.
 To Conclude, we cannot say that Prospero is good or Faustus is bad as the
world around them is far too complex and virtually impossible to isolate science
from spectacle. And although Faustus demonstrate more character flaws than
Prospero in the play by showing his greedy nature of power and glory both of
their ways of naturalize their servants is still ambiguous and complex and shows
the danger of too much knowledge and the impact of the mis-used science.