Download the original attachment A civilization that proves incapable of solving the problems it creates is a decadent civilization.

A civilization that chooses to close its eyes to its most crucial problems is a stricken civilization.A civilization that uses its principles for trickery and deceit is a dying civilization. The fact is that the so-called European civilization "Western" civilization - as it has been shaped by two centuries of bourgeois rule, is incapable of solving the two major problems to which its existence has given rise: the problem of the proletariat and the colonial problem; that Europe is unable to justify itself either before the bar of "reason" or before the bar of "conscience"; and that, increasingly, it takes refuge in a hypocrisy which is all the more odious because it is less and less likely to deceive. 1 What colonialism really represented is very effectively described in Aime Cesaires Discourse on Colonialism, where he explains in great detail the concept of civilization that is based on slavery, racial hatred, disrespect of humanity, and immorality. Cesaire was a Martinique-born writer, the defender of human rights, human progress, and virtue. He describes the brutal impact of capitalism and colonialism, along with its mechanism, power, and psychology, on both the colonizer and colonized. He denounced European colonial racism, decadence and hypocrisy. At the heart of colonization was a system of subjugation and alienation. Cesaire states an equation: colonialization = thingification: I hear the storm. They talk to me about progress, about "achievements," diseases cured, improved standards of living. I am talking about societies drained of their essence, cultures trampled underfoot, institutions undermined, lands confiscated, religions smashed, magnificent artistic creations destroyed, extraordinary possibilities wiped out. They throw facts at my head, statistics, mileages of roads, canals, and railroad tracks. I am talking about thousands of men sacrificed to the Congo-Ocean. I am talking about those who, as I write this, are digging the harbor of Abidjan by hand. I am talking about millions of men torn from their gods, their land, their habits, their life-from life, from the dance, from wisdom. I am talking about millions of men in whom fear has been cunningly instilled, who have been taught to have an inferiority complex, to tremble, kneel, despair, and behave like flunkeys. They dazzle me with the tonnage of cotton or cocoa that has been exported, the acreage that has been planted with olive trees or grapevines. I am talking about natural economies that have been disrupted - harmonious and viable economies adapted to the indigenous population - about food crops destroyed, malnutrition permanently introduced, agricultural development oriented solely toward the benefit of the

metropolitan countries, about the looting of products, the looting of raw materials. They pride themselves on abuses eliminated. 2 Cesaire also emphasizes that colonization has never placed different civilizations in contact. Wherever there are colonizers and colonized face to face, I see force, brutality, cruelty, sadism, conflict, and, in a parody of education, the hasty manufacture of a few thousand subordinate functionaries, "boys," artisans, office clerks, and interpreters necessary for the smooth operation of business. Between colonizer and colonized there is room only for forced labor, intimidation, pressure, the police, taxation, theft, rape, compulsory crops, contempt, mistrust, arrogance, selfcomplacency, swinishness, brainless elites, degraded masses. No human contact, but relations of domination and submission which turn the colonizing man into a class-room monitor, an army sergeant, a prison guard, a slave driver, and the indigenous man into an instrument of production. 3 According to Cesaire, colonization dehumanizes even the most civilizes man- the boomerang effect of colonization. Colonial activity, colonial enterprise, colonial conquest, which is based on contempt for the native and justified by that contempt, inevitably tends to change him who undertakes it; that the colonizer, who in order to ease his conscience gets into the habit of seeing the other man as an animal, accustoms himself to treating him like an animal, and tends objectively to transform himself into an animal. 4 But, the colonialist views are much older than Europe. If we take a good look at a more distant past, we would see that it is the tradition we inherited from the period of Greek and Roman empires. Both ancient Greece and Rome were the societies of slave ownership hidden behind the term democracy. Many centuries after the end of the period of its unquestioned dominance, Rome remains a significant presence in western culture. Its image shapes conceptions of and attitudes towards modern as well as ancient imperialism. Centuries of societies and civilizations, such as classical Rome and ancient Greece, have been built upon patriarchal power structures that have maintained their control through various forms of oppression of women. Early slave-based empires, such as Greece and Rome, were governed by men who devalued women. Historically speaking, patriarchy has manifested itself in the social, legal, political, and economic organization of a range of different cultures. Mothers, that is, women were the first victims of patriarchal society, as well as of western civilization. Marija Gimbutas, a Lithuanian-American archeologist, known for her research on the Neolithic and Bronze Age cultures of "Old Europe", concluded that Neolithic sites in Lithuania and across Europe pointed to long-term stable egalitarian societies with women at the center materially and spiritually. She discovered that Europe's origins in fact lay in a cooperative, peaceful, Neolithic Goddess culture. For Marija Gimbutas, early religion was about the great creative power embodied in the natural world; it was not about sacred texts or dogmas, but about the cycle of life: birth, growth, death and regeneration. The religion of Old Europe changed radically towards the end of the third millennium. Most pack-riding peoples from Russian steppes whom Marija

called Kurgans, swept across Europe in three great waves of invasions over several thousand years.5This collision was reflected everywhere- in language, mythology, etc. The villages were often fortified, and social stratification was evident. For example, some graves were big and beautiful, other graves were not, which clearly shows the existence of differences between the rich and the poor. Traces of weapons were also found on many archeological sites. Men ruled. They worshipped the Sky God and brought a new religion. New gods clashed with the old traditions. This collision of cultures transformed the old myths and values, and changed the hearth of Old Europe. 6 When patriarchy won over, the strictly male civilization became deaf to female voices. Unlike it originally was- men being born to be lovers- men were being born killers, brought up to be killers. Father was the creator, and mothers just the oven. This civilization began with the corruption and perversion of the female principle. The story about love had to be minimized, subdued and eradicated from the existing order. In his book Shakespeare and the Goddess of Complete Being, Ted Hughes shows connections between the plots and imagery of many of Shakespeare's plays, which are based on what Hughes calls the Tragic Equation, derived from the two Shakespeares poems, Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece. The two poems are explained as expressions of the central 'myths' of Catholicism and Puritanism, Venus and Adonis dealing with the power of the Goddess, and The Rape of Lucrece with the downfall of the Goddess. Hughes sees Shakespeares early poems Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece as embodying two great myths of the archaic world: that of the hero who rejects the love of the Goddess and is killed in revenge by a boar; and that of the king or god, whose crime is rape, and whose punishment is banishment. According to Ted Hughes, what Shakespeare revealed in his two poems, Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece, is that the rejection, and consequently the destruction, of the feminine aspect is actually the destruction of the soul: the tragic crime of the Puritan hero the worst crime of modern civilization. Having destroyed their soul, men are no longer lovers, but warriors in a new kind of world in a patriarchal world that worships loyalty and obedience of man-made laws. While in Venus and Adonis Shakespeare uses the mythic background in order to show how this initial violation and twisting of human nature happened, in The Rape of Lucrece he portrays the real world and individual human beings, that is, their behaviour as a consequence of what has happened in the first poem. As Europe gradually emerged from the destruction of the Roman Empire, the Roman Catholic Church came to gain enormous power. It was Europe that proclaimed that Christianity stood for the civilized and equated paganism with savagery. How to rationalize the many instances of violence which took place in a society with such strong Christian values? The Church was the one that allowed the exploration of the unknown lands, the civilizing of the uncivilized, and it was the Church that was one of the greatest land owners, and consequently, one of the greatest slave owners. Instead of educating and enlightening people, the Church waged wars. And, do I need to mention the centuries of discrimination against women? Long after the Roman times, women continued the ancient traditions of the old religions with a thousand small ceremonies in their daily lives. They were leaders, counselors, visionaries, and healers. In Europe, their villages knew them as wise women. The Christian Church and state branded them witches, and condemned them as worshippers of the Devil. 7 The Witch Craze destroyed the way of life that had endured for thousands of years. The Burning Times, a documentary by Donna Read, is an in-depth look at the witch-hunts that swept through Europe between the 15th and the 17th centuries. In the film, Thea Jensen names this period in history the Women's Holocaust. False accusations and trials led to massive

torture and executions, and ultimately to the destruction of an organic way of life. Mankind witnessed the social changes and rise of the Christian Church to power. The consequences of these events are still present. The Christianization of Europe resulted in many victims, mainly women. The Church of Rome set up the inquisition to enforce its will. People who criticized the Church, or held different beliefs were charged with heresy and were executed as criminals. 8 Women were claimed to have introduced sin, and sexuality was no longer a gift, but the root of all evil, and woman was the obstacle to mans holiness. Aime Cesaire argues that the barbarism of Western Europe is far surpassed by the barbarism of the United States. And now I ask: what else has bourgeois Europe done? It has undermined civilizations, destroyed countries, ruined nationalities, extirpated "the root of diversity." No more dikes, no more bulwarks. The hour of the barbarian is at hand. The modern barbarian. The American hour. Violence, excess, waste, mercantilism, bluff, gregariousness, stupidity, vulgarity, disorder. 9 He continues: American domination- the only domination from which one never recovers. I mean from which one never recovers unscarred. 10 The period after the World War II was marked by the race in weaponry between the United States and the Soviet Union, as the leading forces of the two military blocks: NATO and the Warsaw Pact. The world lived in constant fear of the escalation of direct conflict between these two countries, and, at the same time, wished to see the end of its bipolar organization. This did happen in 1989. with the fall of communism, but the New World Order did not have the desired outcome. So, instead of having a multipolar world, today we live in the unipolar one. The United States of America became the worlds dominator, and, as it appears, the only decision-maker. The idea of the world without borders, global economy, global market, global man, etc. is now just a distorted image of the original concept of the global world which was supposed to enable the progress of the developing countries, a better standard of living, and free movement of goods, people, and capital. In addition, it was supposed to ensure that each individual, in a way, make decisions about the crucial global questions. However, we are left with unfulfilled expectations, and an image which speaks on behalf of the critics of globalization- the term which found its way in our every-day language, and became the phenomenon which explains and illustrates the present. The United States use force and economic potentiality to subordinate the rest of the world. As if there is an unwritten rule according to which America has a decisive vote in Bretton Woods Institutions and the United Nations. Owing to these mechanisms, the United States managed to transform every individual economy, influence the cultures of all nations, insert habits and impose the American way of life. This is precisely why we talk about capitalism, the phenomena of McDonalization and Coca-Cola, the dominant western modes of behavior and the consumer society. It is almost impossible not to follow the patterns, because any attempt to resist has as a consequence the possibility of foreign intervention. The methods of diminishing specific qualities or peculiar characteristics of individual nations are often latent and uninvasive, and therefore, their effects become noticeable only after a longer period of time. Good examples are the internet and the mass media, which are used for spinning information in order to create an image of the world convenient for the powers that be.

There are no hard distinctions between what is real and what is unreal, nor between what is true and what is false. A thing is not necessarily either true or false; it can be both true and false. I believe that these assertions still make sense and do still apply to the exploration of reality through art. So as a writer I stand by them but as a citizen I cannot. As a citizen I must ask: What is true? What is false? 11 One could not help but feel shocked by the true facts that late Harold Pinter presented us with in his 2005 Nobel Prize Lecture Art, Truth and Politics. These facts tell us about the monstrosities that the United States of America have done throughout the world. As I have already pointed out, the United States are the worlds leading power, and in order to maintain that power it is essential that people remain in ignorance, that they live in ignorance of the truth, even the truth of their own lives. What surrounds us therefore is a vast tapestry of lies, upon which we feed; 12 but: The truth is something entirely different. The truth is to do with how the United States understands its role in the world and how it chooses to embody it. 13 Pinter described the tragedy of Nicaragua, as a perfect example of Americas own view of their role in the world 14 In case of Nicaragua, the U.S. supported the Contras in their campaign against the state. They helped them destroy schools, hospitals and cultural centers, kill thousands of people in the cruelest possible way. Democracy had prevailed. 15 Examples are endless. The United States brought nothing but misery and despair to the Iraqi people, and called it bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East. 16 What about thousands of innocent people, the victims of the terrible atrocity financed by the government of the United States? They were murdered by the U.S. government. But... It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn't happening. It didn't matter. It was of no interest. 17 So, we are asked: What has happened to our moral sensibility? Did we ever have any? What do these words mean? Do they refer to a term very rarely employed these days - conscience? A conscience to do not only with our own acts but to do with our shared responsibility in the acts of others? Is all this dead? 18 The problems we will face in the 21st century will be more complex than ever- war and violence, prejudice and stereotyping, to name a few. When facing the future, it is always important to understand the past. History and literature can prepare us for what lies ahead. Shakespeare captured the essence of his times, yet his themes and characters have transcended those times, speaking to countless generations. We can find the great themes of life in his plays ambition, love, hatred, fear, revenge, joy, etc. and his stories have remained central to our understanding of what it means to be human. Through his characters and their experiences, we can find truths that resonate in our modern world. Shakespeares tales are timeless in their exploration of human nature. Intelligence is hooked with language. When we speak with no feeling, we get nothing out of our society. We should speak like Shakespeare. We should introduce Shakespeare into the academics. You know why? Because then the kids would have feelings. -That's right. We have no feelings.

That's why it's easy for us to shoot each other. We don't feel for each other, but if we were taught to feel, we wouldn't be so violent. -Shakespeare helps us? He did more than help us. He instructed us. If we think words are things and have no feelings in words, then we say things to each other that mean nothing. But if we felt what we said, we'd say less and mean more.19 In one of the Shakespeares bloodiest plays, Titus Andronicus, we can clearly see the roots of warfare, the consequences in their present and also the future consequences, as well as the true decadence of the Roman Empire whose lust for more territories to be ruled over cannot be measured. Titus Andronicus is Shakespeares most violent play, and its excess of brutality has come as a shock for many readers of Shakespeare, but the violence, however shocking it may seem, is no less intense than the emotional changes the main character, Titus, undergoes. At the beginning of the play, Titus is represented as a pious and noble Roman warrior, a virtuous servant of the system who has won many victories for Rome, loosing twenty-one out of his twenty-five sons in the process. His flaw lies in his belief that the authority necessarily entails virtue and has to be inherited. Centuries of societies and civilizations, such as ancient Rome and ancient Greece, were built upon patriarchal power structures that have maintained their control through various forms of oppression of women. Even though Shakespeare set Titus Andronicus in ancient Rome, his portrayal of women also reflects the opinions of his society. The ultimate deaths of Lavinia and Tamora prove the futility of any resistance against the patriarchal order. The society that Tamora and Lavinia live in establishes a clear pattern of misogyny through Titus ability and right to sacrifice Tamoras son, his power to choose whom Lavinia marries, and his decision to kill Lavinia to dispose of his familys shame. The patriarchy is also seen through the male-dominated army and the exclusively male government of Rome. It is Titus strict adherence to the rules that unleashes a vicious stream of violence- the ritual sacrifice of Tamoras eldest son, Alarbus, initiates all Titus ensuing misfortunes. Tamora pleads: Stay Roman brethren! - Gracious conqueror, Victorius Titus, rue the tears I shed, A mothers tears in passion for her son: And if thy sons were ever dear to thee, O, think my son to be as ever dear to me! Sufficeth not, that we are brought to Rome, To beautify thy triumphs and return,

Captive to thee and thy Roman yoke; But must my sons be slaughterd in the streets For valiant doings in their countrys cause? O, if to fight for king and commonweal Were piety in thine, it is in these. Andronicus, stain not thy tomb with blood: Wilt thou draw near the nature of the gods? Draw near them, then, in being merciful: Sweet mercy is nobilitys true badge: Thrise-noble Titus, spare my first-born son.20 We are presented with two characters confronted, two traditions confronted: Titus, the true representative of the masculine Roman society, of the patriarchal society where men are warriors and killers, and Tamora, the representative of the female principle and love, on one hand, and the representative of the distorted female principle by the world she lives in, the patriarchal world, on the other. Of course, Titus is deaf to her cries. However, throughout the play we follow Titus move from the obedient servant of the system to the maladjusted subject. Titus justifies the death to her by saying: These are their brethren, whom your Goths beheld Alive and dead; and for their brethren slain Religiously they ask a sacrifice. To this your son is mark'd, and die he must T' appease their groaning shadows that are gone. 21 (1.1.125-129) In the execution of Alarbus, Lucius and his brothers justify their actions as ritualistic, while the audience could easily interpret them, as the Goths do, as primitive. The difference in the way in which the murder of Alarbus is interpreted by the Romans and the Goths is crucial; what Lucius considers his Roman rites22 are viewed as an act of barbarity by Tamora and her sons: Oh cruel, irreligious piety! 23 This is an act of systemic violence: the legal system of Rome is in full operation. The potential for violence is always-encoded in Roman law, and a ritual sacrifice in the juridical sphere is an appropriate response for Titus sons. Indeed, it appears Roman law even requires violence in the pursuit of justice; no dissenting voices are heard from the Roman citizens. Titus cold-heartedness and self-righteousness is shown when he kills his own son Mutius for defying his decision to allow Saturninus to marry his daughter Lavinia. Titus says to him:

What, villain boy, barrst me my way in Rome? 24 The honour code of Roman law suggests, in principal, that Titus can murder his son for dishonouring him. Upon Titus refusing to properly bury him due to his disobedience, Marcus, his Brother, says to him: Thou art a Roman, be not barbarous!25 The very next morning he goes hunting as if nothing had happened. But, his dreams, frequent in Shakespeares plays, warn him that something horrible is afoot: I have been troubled in my sleep this night, But dawning day new comfort hath inspired.26 Shakespeare places special emphasis on the metamorphosis of Titus character from a morally blind, stern nobleman to a desperate and disillusioned old man eaten with grief and bent on revenge. In writing Titus Andronicus, Shakespeare was inspired by the Roman poet Ovids Metamorphoses, the stories of transformations which characters from Greek and Roman mythology underwent. The story Shakespeare used in Titus Andronicus was that of the rape of Philomel. It is worth noting that both Ovid and Shakespeare wrote about love in an empire founded on war. Besides Titus, Tamora also undergoes a transformation. As the Queen of the Goths, whom Romans considered barbaric, she saw what Roman civilization did to her people. Before Alarbus execution, she pleads for mercy, but afterwards resorts to violence, thus fitting perfectly into the civilized Roman pattern. In addition to a womans lack of rights in the early modern societies, honor was also vitally important, specifically sexual honor. Society expected women to remain chaste and to do nothing that might taint their honor. Lavinia is obedient and praised for her virtue. Her rape and mutilation are horrendous acts that are designed to destroy Lavinia in a way that simple murder cannot. During Shakespeares life rape was considered a crime against a mans property, not a crime against a woman; thus Tamora successfully revenges herself on both Titus and Lavinia. Even Lavinia considers rape worse than death. O, keep me from their worse than killing lust, And tumble me into some loathsome pit, Where never man's eye may behold my body: Do this, and be a charitable murderer. 27 No grace? no womanhood? Ah, beastly creature!28 says Lavinia, but Tamora who bear'st a woman's face29 has no compassion and sympathy for her. Blinded by revenge, she lost her gentle, feminine side. In the society of war, a mans world, she will do anything to take vengeance for Titus wrong deeds, even if it means loosing herself, and thus her femininity. Lavinia considers rape and the destruction of her honor and sexual purity so awful that she feels Tamora would be performing an act of charity if she killed Lavinia instead. Lavinia seems to realize that much of her standing in society is based on her value as a possession to her husband and her father. The patriarchy of her society has bred in Lavinia a belief that without her chastity she is a worthless object. This act is especially cruel because Tamora has no real quarrel with Lavinia; her anger is centered on Titus. Once Lavinia has been violated her family views her as a ruined object: MARCUS: This was thy daughter.

TITUS:

Why, Marcus, so she is.

LUCIUS: Ay me, this object kills me. 30 Tamoras revenge for the death of her son is bloody and bitter, resulting in Titus loosing two sons, a son-in-law, seeing his daughter raped and mutilated, and his last remaining son banished from Rome; and, on top of everything, Titus is tricked into chopping off his hand by Aaron the Moor. Within both Titus Andronicus and Othello, the reader is introduced to the concept of a black man within a white society. Stigmas and stereotypes are attached to the black characters of Aaron and Othello. Although each black character has a similar stigma, the characters are very different from one another. Aaron is portrayed as evil, deceitful and vicious, while Othello has none of these traits. Othello's fault lies in the fact that he is very gullible and easily led. Aarons wit outshines everyone else's in the play, and his ability to exercise his power surpasses even Tamora's. His full character is revealed with the appearance of his child. His responses firmly to the white characters in the scene who are appalled that Tamora gave birth to a Moor's son: "Is black so base a hue? 31 he asks, before proceeding to unseat the typical Elizabethan tendency to favor white over black. Aaron's eloquence is such that he creates a convincing alternative, saying that black is a better color because it does not allow another color to change its hue; black skin does not blush or become stained by any other color that touches it, and is thus true to itself. Later in the play, Aaron has other moments of power, such as his remarkable speech in Act Five scene one, in which he outlines his history of horrible offenses, causing the mighty Lucius to gag him. His scornful and unapologetic view of the society that rejects him is a weapon he uses to fight; he does not seek to win, but only to preserve his identity. But, the moment when Aaron is buried up to his chest in Roman ground symbolically illustrates that Rome has swallowed Aaron not only in a figurative manner, but in a physical one. The reason Titus takes justice into his own hands is that he feels betrayed by the emperor and the senators, whom he has served loyally for many years and for whom he has sacrificed all but one son. He pleads to the Tribunes for the lives of Quintus and Martius in vain: O earth, I will befriend thee more with rain, That shall distil from these two ancient urns, Than youthful April shall with all his showers: In summer's drought I'll drop upon thee still; In winter with warm tears I'll melt the snow And keep eternal spring-time on thy face, So thou refuse to drink my dear sons' blood. O reverend tribunes! O gentle, aged men! Unbind my sons, reverse the doom of death; And let me say, that never wept before, My tears are now prevailing orators.32 It is at this moment that Titus transformation begins. He becomes aware of the past mistakes and starts crying although he was brought up to be a warrior without emotions. Titus has been a guard of the system, and when this system failed him, he turned against it and crushed it.

The Roman society does not pardon mistakes, doubts, and maladjustments. It asks full, unquestioned commitment to its ways and gives nothing in return. It is a great machinery that does not pay attention to its people; people are just numbers, votes and slaves. No human touch, no human contact; everything is subdued to the welfare of the Empire. Shakespeare cunningly noticed that barbarism, evident in his days, has stemmed from the ancient times of Greeks and Romans. So, it is not a coincidence that the action takes place in Rome, the cradle of civilization, and the metaphor for high culture and civil organization. Shakespeare saw the parallel between Rome and England, which was slowly becoming the greatest colonial power in Europe, just as the Roman Empire had once been. Throughout the play we follow Titus move from the obedient servant of the system to the maladjusted subject. Even though he first sucked the milk of the tradition he devoted his life to, with his starting to see that justice has nothing to do with law, and with his starting to ask whether is possible to live without justice, he becomes maladjusted to Rome; he cannot adjust any more; his behavior is altered and people start thinking he is mad. In madness he starts recovering what was lost- his humanity. As for the relationship with his children, Titus requires blind obedience, and if he does not receive it, his reaction is harsh and unjust. Although Lavinia feels unreserved love for her respective father, Titus is prepared to ruin her love for the sake of the empire. In Titus Andronicus, Shakespeare also explores the injustice of the moral corruption of children, who are shaped by the authority of the father. In the 20th century, Shakespeares Titus Andronicus received a lot of negative criticism, mostly due to its excessive brutality. But, the theater director Julie Taymor successfully moved the play to the big screen. Christian and pagan, Roman and Goth, coloured and white races collide in Titus Andronicus. Taymor's 1999 debut feature Titus, starring Sir Anthony Hopkins, is a presentation of Rome of anachronisms in which ancient and modern styles coexist; she set the play in an anachronistic fantasy world that uses locations, costumes and imagery from many periods of history between ancient Rome and modern day, to give the impression of a Roman Empire that survived into the modern era, and to enforce the fact that savagery exists in all times, places, religions and nationalities. She commented: I think the play has been terribly underrated and unappreciated. I find it so beautiful and powerful. For 200 years it was discarded as tasteless and over the top, but I think it is exactly right for our times - outrageous humor juxtaposed to potent tragedy.33 The film begins in our own time with a boy playing with toy soldiers until the modern day setting is transformed into ancient Rome, the toy soldiers becoming real-life soldiers. The whole film is suffused with 20th century elements, such as cars or arcade video games, which reveal Tymors intention to capture the timelessness of injustice, revenge, and violence, all of which originated in the ancient times, but marked the 20th century more than any other before. Thus, Tymor holds up a mirror to all of us in hope that the future will take a different turn, just as Shakespeare did. In Shakespeares Othello and The Merchant of Venice, we are presented with examples in which the non-white and non-Christian characters are marginalized and are often the victims of prejudice and racism. What is most fascinating about this seeming racism and bias against Othello and Shylock is that they are not represented as completely fitting the villainous or negative stereotypes other characters wish to put them in. Both Othello and Shylock are presented as sympathetic to varying degrees, although they posses several character flaws that some of the white and Christian characters wish to attribute to their race - Jewish as greedy

and heartless, and Moors as savage and barbarous. Even though Shylock is indeed moneyhungry, greedy, and oftentimes heartless, he is still portrayed sympathetically at points, and his faults are not shown to be something associated with his race. Othello commits a savage act at the end of the play, but throughout the rest of the play, he is shown to be mild-mannered and exceptionally civilized as a general and aristocrat. The Merchant of Venice is a play set in a very male and Christian dominated society where other religions and women rights werent very well accepted by the community. The main conflict in The Merchant of Venice is that between Christianity and Judaism. By the time of Shakespeare, the public persecution of the Jews had become widespread in Europe, England being no exception. Shylock is contrasted to all other major characters in the play because Shakespeare presented him as a typical Jew seen in the eyes of the Christians. Even before the bond with Antonio is made, the odium towards Shylock is revealed, symbolizing the Christian attitude toward the Jews: Signior Antonio, many a time and oft In the Rialto you have rated me About my moneys and my usances: Still have I borne it with a patient shrug, For sufferance is the badge of all our tribe. You call me misbeliever, cut-throat dog, And spit upon my Jewish gaberdine, And all for use of that which is mine own 34 As a result of Christian pretence, in the trial scene Shylock is degraded and humiliated to the utmost extent thanks to the just Venetian law. Although Shakespeare represented Shylock as a headstrong, cold-hearted usurer without a shred of mercy- needless to say he became like that following the Christians example- it is a fact that, prior to his bond, Shylock had been a law-abiding citizen who never harmed anyone. He was, despite their enmity, ready to befriend Antonio: I would be friends with you and have your love, Forget the shames that you have stain'd me with, Supply your present wants and take no doit Of usance for my moneys, and you'll not hear me 35 Shylock found a substitute for the love which was denied to him in a pound of Antonios flesh. His eagerness to have revenge lies in the frustration he felt being denied love, and, at the same time, his humanity. Taking this into consideration, it is a logical outcome that Shylock should become inhuman. I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not

revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villany you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.36 Shylock begins by eloquently reminding the Venetians that all people, even those who are not part of the majority culture, are human. A Jew, he reasons, is equipped with the same faculties as a Christian, and is therefore subject to feeling the same pains and comforts and emotions. Thus, Shylocks inhumanity is really a symptom of the Christians inhumanity, but, unlike Shylock, they do not openly admit theirs. In order to materialize his revenge and find justice, Shylock has to rely on the Venetian law, on which the state of Venice prides itself and to which everyone has to adhere strictly, but for which Bassanio says: In law, what plea so tainted and corrupt, But, being seasoned with a gracious voice, Obscures the show of evil?... 37 He remarks on the fact that where legal matters are concerned, all a subject really needs to do is to deliver an eloquent speech with full rhetorical force which will compel the audience to take the speaker's side on the matter. Therefore, justice is not simply judging facts and following suit henceforth based on a system of truth and righteousness, but rather victory goes to him who can best convince others that it is so. This seems to foreshadow what is later to come in the play during the trial in which Portia extricates Antonio from lawful punishment by simply delivering a touching speech and by being endowed by the good fortune of having been born into the right religion of the day. Religion is the next issue in Bassanios speech: In religion, What damned error, but some sober brow Will bless it and approve it with a text, Hiding the grossness with fair ornament?... 38 These lines attach the discussion of law to that of religion. Bassanio claims that practically any action can be legitimized with simply the blessing of a "sober-browed" religious authority. Bassanio observes how much hypocrisy abounds in the world. He emphasizes how easy it is to make anything acceptable as long as it is supported by an "ornamental" quote from the Bible. It is difficult to not believe Bassanio when the Bible brims with quotes that condone atrocities such as slavery, genocide, incest, and rape. Furthermore, the Christians themselves feel justified in mistreating Shylock simply because he holds a slightly different set of religious values than the majority. Therefore, before the eyes of the law, majority rule and rhetorical devices determine who will win the war on truth. So, we can conclude that the truth is what people and religious authorities subjectively agree to be true. The true hypocrisy of the Christians is finally revealed in Portias speech during the trial. She gives a heart-breaking speech on mercy to Shylock, the Christian mercy which later lets Shylock live, after taking all of his possessions and converting him to Christianity. Although rhetorically brilliant, the speech lacks honesty and the genuine Christian spirit of love, which Portia wants Shylock to show. When the mercy speech failed, Portia employs her intelligence

to bend the law to the extent that Shylock is accused of attempted murder. Shakespeare uses an excellent pun when he has Portia say: My mind was never yet more mercenary, 39 with the obvious allusion to the word mercy. Under such circumstances, it might be expected that Shylock will be dispossessed of everything. But, regarding the conversion, we can draw the conclusion that, in a way, Shylock was already converted, and in a negative way, so, his actual conversion was just a formality. Therefore, what was actually put on trial was the Christians incapacity for love and mercy, the two qualities they most heartily professed. Shakespeare brought to light Christian morality. In Shylock, all the flaws of the Christians are reflected, but they are not able to accept what they see in those reflections. We must bear in mind Shylocks words to the Duke: What judgment shall I dread, doing no wrong? You have among you many a purchased slave, Which, like your asses and your dogs and mules, You use in abject and in slavish parts, Because you bought them: shall I say to you, Let them be free, marry them to your heirs? Why sweat they under burthens? let their beds Be made as soft as yours and let their palates Be season'd with such viands? You will answer 'The slaves are ours:' so do I answer you: The pound of flesh, which I demand of him, Is dearly bought; 'tis mine and I will have it. If you deny me, fie upon your law! There is no force in the decrees of Venice. I stand for judgment: answer; shall I have it? 40 Through the character of Shylock, Shakespeare put the whole Christian civilization on trial, and the striking similarities between Shakespeares Venice and Nazi-Germany are by no means coincidental- they both legalized their treatments of Jews, i.e. legalized injustice and inhumanity. In The Merchant of Venice, the scene opens to reveal a society controlled by men. Men, who live in the foreground of Venetian society, wield their power in business, government, and family life. In the background, women conduct their lives quietly. They are inferior to their husbands and fathers, and are regarded as helpless and in need of male guidance in areas of decision making. Portia, Nerissa, and Jessica, the three female characters in the play, are bound by the norms which society has imposed on them. All three, however, seeking to gain the freedom to act as they please, disguise themselves as men. Once they are seen as men, the women are able to escape the societal constraints which previously limited their actions. The fact that they must disguise themselves as men in order to achieve power and freedom encourages the reader to question the justice of the social hierarchy. Portia laments her inability to act according to her own volition, saying: O me, the word choose! I may neither Choose who I would nor refuse who I dislike, so is The will of a living daughter curbed by the will of

A dead father 41 The extent of male dominance in Venetian society is evidenced by the high degree of authority that Portias father continues to hold over her life even after he is dead. Choosing a spouse is one of the most life-altering decisions a person can make, but Portia has no say in the matter. Instead, she must entrust her destiny to a system of boxes and riddles. Even after the marriage, Portia is not her own, and she is bound financially to her husband. Bassanio possesses her. Right after Bassanio chose the right casket, Portia said: Happiest of all is that her gentle spirit Commits itself to yours to be directed, As from her lord, her governor, her king. Myself and what is mine to you and yours Is now converted: but now I was the lord Of this fair mansion, master of my servants, Queen o'er myself: and even now, but now, This house, these servants and this same myself Are yours, my lord 42 Once Portia disguises as a male lawyer her behavior is shockingly different; she becomes an entirely new character. The reader sees not a restricted, powerless Portia, in fear of the possibility of marrying someone she does not like, but a confident, intelligent, even cunning Portia. In the courtroom, the tables are turned and gender roles are reversed. No longer is Portia under the thumb of the men who exercise control over her; rather, she is now in a position of authority over men. She holds a great deal of power in the trial, the power to manipulate the law as she sees fit. The fates of both Antonio and Shylock are in her hands, and as it turns out, she has the power to save Antonio and condemn Shylock, which she does cleverly, leading Shylock into a trap and shifting the blame from Antonios side to his. Portia is able to realize yet another act of dominance over a man: she is able to obtain the ring from Bassanio which she had made him swear never to let go. As a result of Portias actions while disguised, the social hierarchy collapses momentarily, and this time Bassanio is left worried and helpless while Portia lords her power over him. Portias state of empowerment while dressed as a man drastically differs from her helplessness when not disguised. While disguised, she gains control of her own life as well as the lives of others-she is influential and powerful. Her actions hold actual weight. On the contrary, when undisguised, Portia holds no control over her own life, nor is she able to influence the decisions of others; she is a mere puppet of the social system. Though a minor character, Nerissa, Portias waiting woman and confidante, is another female who must disguise herself as a man in order to achieve and gain the dominant position in the relationship with her husband Gratiano. Like Portia, she manages to obtain the ring from her spouse. Though there is little said about Nerissas own life, she shares in the belittling effect the social system has forced upon women by witnessing Portias helpless state and being unable to do anything about it. Once she is in possession of the ring, however, she manages to unbalance the social hierarchy. The third female character in the play, Jessica, comes from quite a different background than Portia and Nerissa. She is denigrated by society both for being a woman and for being a Jew. As a female, she is subject to her father Shylocks rules. Although Jessica and Lorenzo

wish to marry each other, Shylock will not allow it because Lorenzo is a Christian. Just as with Portia, Jessicas life and decisions are under her fathers authority. Our house is hell,43 she says, expressing her dissatisfaction with her lack of freedom in her fathers house and her inability to act as she wishes. Shylock makes her a prisoner in her own home, commanding her: Hear you me, Jessica: Lock up my doors; and when you hear the drum And the vile squealing of the wry-neck'd fife, Clamber not you up to the casements then, Nor thrust your head into the public street To gaze on Christian fools with varnish'd faces 44 He forbids her to pursue the one thing that she wants the most: to marry Lorenzo. Jessica finds that the only way to escape her father and his control over her is to dress as a male. When undisguised, she can only dream of being wed to Lorenzo, but when she disguises herself, she rebels against her fathers authority, steals his money, and escapes from the house to find happiness with Lorenzo. Thus she asserts her own will against her fathers and disobeys him. His authority over her is allowed and approved by the society in which they live, but when in disguise, she takes no heed of it and acts without concern for Shylocks regulations. The actions that Portia, Nerissa, and Jessica each undertake while disguised as men are opposed to the societal structure which dominates their world. It seems no coincidence that Shakespeare had all three female characters in the play disguise themselves as men. Nor does it seem a coincidence that, while disguised, each woman rebels against the social structure which prohibits her to do certain things and make certain decisions simply because she is a woman. Under male disguises, the women are able to act with the same freedoms men possess. Thus, we can feel free to suppose that Shakespeare meant to make a statement about the social hierarchy accepted in the world in which he lived, encouraging a re-evaluation of its fairness. One of the people who were not quite satisfied with The Merchant of Venice was the playwrite Arnold Wesker, himself a Jew. In accordance with his socialist ideas, Wesker founded one of the most influential arts movements of the 1960s- Centre 42, a performance centre in London, with the goal of creating art for the working-class, which would speak directly to them and provoke them into asking questions. According to him, the portrayal of Shylock offends for being a lie about the Jewish character. I seek no pound of flesh but, like Shylock, Im unforgiving of the plays contribution to the worlds astigmatic view and murderous hatred of the Jew. 45 He was particularly dissatisfied with the theatre productions of The Merchant of Venice, which, regardless of their setting, always represented Shylock as revengeful, pitiless, and sadistic. His play The Merchant, also known as Shylock, is an interesting interpretation of the original because Shylock and Antonio are presented as best friends, and Shylock collects books. Wesker gives the following reason for this: The real Shylock would not have torn his hair out and raged against not being allowed to cut his pound of flesh, but would have said Thank God! The point of writing a play in which Shylock would utter these words would be to explain how he became involved in such a bond in the first place. 46 Both Shylock and Antonio are in their mid-sixties but their attitudes appear to differ; Shylock is a very optimistic, generous man, well-read and ever-eager to share his learning with Antonio who is disillusioned and melancholic. The two of them formed an

unbreakable bond of friendship, which appeared to guarantee harmony between their respective families. Unfortunately they lived in a world where Christians and Jews lived in separate communities, and the Jews copped the blame for everything financial disaster, poverty, social unrest. There is an openly stated reason for Antonios sadness: Me what I am, what Ive done. Nothing! A merchant! Apurchaser of this to sell there. A buyer up and seller off. Anddo you know, I hardly ever see my trade. () it never worried me,this absence of curiosity for travel. Until I met you, old Jew- 47 When Antonio asks Shylock for money he needs to pay for Bassanios wedding- Bassanio being his godson in this version- Shylock is prepared to lend it to him as a true friend, without any obligation. The problem arises due to the Venetian law, which requires that a contract be made for any business with a Jew. They, in fact, enter the famous bond only to mock the law which requires it. As Wesker said: I realized that my play would not be about bonds of usury but about bonds of friendship and the state laws which could threaten that friendship. 48 Another great departure from the original can be found in the character of Portia, who is now left penniless and with a foolish philosophical whim for to find me an idiot husband. Resentful of her fathers last will, she decides to take to agriculture. The only similarity she shares with Shakespeares Portia is her intelligence. Through Portia, Wesker announces a womens revolution: She has observed, judged, organized and- crept out of kitchen. Knowledge may have lost her sweet innocence but- the fireside chair rocks without her now, and what she will do is a mystery. Portia is a new woman, Nerissa. There is a woman on the English throne. Anything can happen and they are coming to find out.49 In the trial scene, Portia acts out of the goodness of her heart, but is unable to prevent the confiscation of Shylocks books, which is necessary in order to avoid precedent. Shylock himself is aware that any precedent in his favour would allow future precedents against the Jews, so he chooses to sacrifice Antonios and his own life for the good of the Jewish community. Shylock, however, preserves his dignity, as the well-known hath not a Jew eyes? speech is given by Lorenzo, to whom Shylock replies: My humanity is my right, not your bestowed and gracious privilege.50 Although Weskers Shylock eventually loses his books, which are his life, he successfully challenges the religious bigotry present in the original play. Weskers intention was to present Shylock from the perspective of historical reality in order to denounce the Jewish archetype which Shakespeare presented. Othello, unlike Shylock, is seen as an exotic and desirable personage, mostly because of his status in society, but also because he is someone unique. Nonetheless, one cannot ignore the marginalization and prejudice that occurs amongst the white characters from the very beginning of the play. The racism laden descriptions in Othello associate him with something less than human and certainly not with the desirable and noble person we are acquainted with later in the text. In both Othello and The Merchant of Venice, we are being constantly reminded of Shylocks and Othellos status as other. Quite unlike the undesirable associations of being a Jew in the case of Shylock, Othellos otherness seems to impress others. Othello is a story of black and white, or, better said, black versus white. But, it is also a personal battle between a white man and a black man. A man of African heritage is in most cases portrayed in Elizabethan literature in a negative light. But, Othello is represented as a great general and a great man. He is depicted as a respected soldier, his reputation is built on

his martial arts, and even though he is cultural and racial outsider in Venice, his skills as a soldier and leader are nevertheless valuable to the state. While the Venetians in the play are generally fearful of the prospect of Othellos social entrance into white society through his marriage to Desdemona, all Venetians respect him as a soldier. The Venetian government trusts him enough to put him in full martial and political command of Cyprus. Othello is an eloquent gentleman, able to captivate the men of Sagittary with his speech. The dukes reply to Othellos speech about how he wooed Desdemona with his tales of adventure is: I think this tale would win my daughter too. 51 Here, the Duke defends Othello against Brabantio's accusations that Othello used "magic" on Desdemona. He addresses to Brabanito: And, noble signior, If virtue no delighted beauty lack, Your son-in-law is far more fair than black.52 On the one hand, we can read the Duke's assertion that Othello is virtuous and "fair" as a compliment. But, on the other hand, this statement implies that fairness is superior to blackness. Like any Elizabethan hero, Othello is flawed; his nobility and honesty permits Iago to use his deceitful ways. Whereas a black person would normally be used in Elizabethan literature to represent the darkness, Iago's absolute evil takes on that role. One idea that does not change is the idea of purity. Desdemona represents purity in its truest form; a young beautiful white female. While an extremely powerful man in a political context, Othellos black skin makes him inferior in a white man's society. It is worth pointing out that this play was written in a time of great racial tensions in England. Shakespeare creates a mood that challenges the way a person sees his or her self and the world. Racial prejudice was just as prevalent in the sixteenth century England as in the modern-day world. Othello expresses that all people, of all ethnicity, are basically the same in human nature. Shakespeare focuses on the differences in color between Othello and Desdemona to escalate Othellos isolation from the rest of Venetian society and to display Othellos vulnerability due to his color. Although Othello is respected for his outstanding military skills and nobility of character, he inhabits a culture in which underlying racial tensions, in particular anxieties about the mixing of races through intermarriage, can be exploited. Prejudices, both racial and sexist, are clearly portrayed in the play to point out the injustice caused by such attacks on a persons humanity. Racism is an inescapable component of Othellos life just as sexism is a major component of the womens lives in Othello. There are several disparaging terms used to define Othello and instead of being referred to by his name, he is only mentioned as the Moor or other more directly racist monikers. The Moor implies that by his race he is not even human or worthy of a name. Roderigo calls him thick-lips53 which puts a grotesque image in the readers mind. From the very start of the tragedy, the reader is bombarded with the crude racist and sexual language Iago uses to inflame Brabantio against Othello. In Iagos' racist mind, he views his superior, Othello, as being of an inferior creed. Iago sees Othello as a beast in warriors dress; he sees him as possessing an evil mind and soul, and having no right to marry the very white and very naive Desdemona. Iagos view of Othello as a beast is obvious from the very start. Iago repeatedly describes Othello in vulgar, bestial terms.

 Zounds, sir, yare robbd; for shame, put on your gown; Your heart is burst, you have lost half your soul; Even now, now, very now, an old black ram Is tupping your white ewe. Arise, arise; Awake the snorting citizens with the bell, Or else the devil will make a grandsire of you: Arise, I say. 54 These lines not only illustrate the fact that in Elizabethan society, Brabantio, like other fathers, considered Desdemonas body to be his possession, but also the fear of miscegenation that existed in Venice at that time. When Iago comes to Brabantios house to tell him that his daughter has been stolen, rather than saying she ran away with Othello, it becomes clear that men of that time considered women their property. Desdemona represents a woman of the 17th century who surpassed the norms of sexual morality set for Venetian women of that time. According to the hierarchy within Venetian society, men hold all the power and women are considered to be of low intellect. When Desdemona left the house of her father to marry the Moor, Othello, it was the first step in redefining her role as a woman. Desdemona ignored the tradition of receiving her fathers approval, denied him any right in choosing or granting allowance to her future husband, and decided on her own to marry Othello. Because Brabantio had such immense power over her, Desdemona was striving to play an equal role with the men in the Venetian society. It seems Desdemona was breaking away from the strictness imposed by Brabantio. This act of independence tore away the barriers of the Venetian patriarchal society and posed a threat to male authority. Desdemonas actions were not based on the desire to have the equal powers as men. By marrying Othello, Desdemona was showing that she was strong enough and educated enough to break the societal confines of passivity for women. When Brabantio reacts with incredulity, Iago replies with a metaphor that this time compares Othello to a horse: ...Because we come to do you service and you think we are ruffians, you'll have your daughter covered with a Barbary horse; you'll have your nephews neigh to you; you'll have coursers for cousins and gennets for germans. () I am one, sir, that comes to tell you your daughter and the Moor are now making the beast with two backs. 55 These tasteless comparisons create an image of Othello's ugly black skin with Desdemona's beautiful white skin. Iago convinces Brabantio that he must rescue his daughter from "the devil," another racial reference to Othello's black skin. Iago calls Othello a Barbary horse referring to the famous horses of the Arab world, but also playing on the associations of barbarian with paganism and savagery. He continues this insulting metaphor by referring to Othello and Desdemonas future progeny as "gennets," a term for Spanish horses. The racism and hatred behind Iago is only worsened by Othello's high position and high popularity with the people. Iago cannot bear Othello's being a superior figure. He comments on Othello's going to war as: "Another of his fathom they have none

To lead their business..." 56 This kind of injustice and racism, whether hidden or public, is what Othello must deal with constantly. Characters such as Brabantio, after being startled by the news of his daughters affair with the Moor is convinced that this foreigner is using trickery and dark magic to engage Desdemona. Even though at this point he does not even know that Roderigo and Iago are referring to Othello, he knows that since it is a colored man they are speaking of, some dark savage arts must be at work. He accuses Othello of witchcraft and wonders how against all rules of nature57 his lovely daughter could have fallen in love with that what she feared to look on.58 Using the information that the Moor is a black man, it is obvious that it may have been common to associate black men with dark magic and seduction, and it comments on the idea that black and whites should not be allowed to marry or associate in any other way romanticallythat somehow this is not natural. For if such actions may have passage free, Bond-slaves and pagans shall our statesmen be59 Brabantio reflects popular prejudices, and does not believe that blacks are true men, but merely bondslaves and pagans that have no place in white society. Such harsh words from Brabantio, Othellos father-in-law, no doubt damages Othellos pride and feelings. Yet, he must encounter them with the utmost respect and honor. It is in this atmosphere that Othello, the noble Moorish general of royal lineage, must thrive. For these reasons, Othello is always seen as an outsider despite constant effort and service to Venice. Shakespeare sets the tragedy of Othello in type of hostile environment to enable an audience to understand the unfairness and struggles that a person like Othello would have to cope with in real life. Brabantio and Iago are the most bigoted characters. Brabantio is horrified by the fact that his daughter has eloped with the Moor who will give him dark-skinned children; Iago cannot brook the fact that he must take orders from a black. Brabantio disapproves of his daughter ever marrying Roderigo who has not a good reputation with him but after listening to Iago tell him that his daughter is seeing the moor he wishes Roderigo: O, Would you had had her! 60 Thus, Brabantio suggests that a disrespected white man is superior to a respected noble and gentleman in the army whose only problem as Brabantio sees it is that he is black. Even though Othello is humble about his race in the face of so many slights from his enemies, he seems to bow down to the pressure and put himself below what he is really isa wellspoken and interesting gentleman that happens to be a Moor. He states, Rude am I in my speech, / and little blessed with the soft phrase of peace61 as though he were claiming that he might not be worthy of status because of his race. He is a man that is willing to accept that he is racially different, yet not racially inferior. Moor is different, a man apart, a man to be isolated. Not only does Iago hate Othello, but also have prejudices against him. Iago insults Othello's skin color profusely behind his back, and refers to him as an animal throughout the play. In his soliloquy at the end of Act 1, Iago says that Othello "will as tenderly be led by thnose / As asses are" 62. He again refers to Othello as an ass: "Make the Moor thank me, love me, and reward me, / For making him egregiously an

ass"63. In his consolation of Roderigo, Iago calls Othello "an / erring barbarian"64 whom Desdemona will leave when she is tired of him. Again to Roderigo, Iago queries "what delight shall she [Desdemona] have to look upon the devil?"65While drinking with the men of the watch in Cyprus, Iago raises a toast "to the health of black Othello."66 Racial prejudice isolates Othello, making him feel like an outcast. As such, he wonders whether he is worthy of Desdemonaand whether she has turned her attentions towards a handsome white man, Cassio. Iago continues to insinuate that Othellos race may be a barrier to Desdemonas love. He suggests that since Othello is not "of her own clime, complexion and degree"67 perhaps she "may fall to match you [Othello] with her country forms / and happily repent."68 Even noble Othello is not immune to the influences of racial prejudice. Iago's persistent suggestions that racial difference may be the cause of Desdemonas supposed infidelity finally convinces Othello. All my fond love thus do I blow to heaven. 'Tis gone. Arise, black vengeance, from thy hollow cell!69 Othello himself associates blackness with something negative "vengeance." After Iagos general criticism of the virtue of Venetian women, Othello begins to doubt whether Desdemona can really love him. In the tragedy, sexism is in many ways seen as more acceptable than racism. Iagos sneering attitude towards his wife and women in general is indicated once again when he speaks to Desdemona: Come on, come on! You are pictures out of the door, Bells in your parlors, wildcats in your kitchens devils being offended, players in your housewifery and housewives in your beds.70 Iagos speech represents a type of mistrust in all women. Iago displays a clear arrogant attitude towards women he views them as subordinate and the inferior sex. Much to the dismay of Desdemona and Emilia, Iagos wife, he expresses his views on women as merely sexual objects made to satisfy mans desires: You rise to play and go to bed to work.71 At the end of the play, Iago murders his own spouse. Emilia disobeys Iago in order to defend Desdemona. Against Iago's wishes, Emilia tells Othello that he was the one who asked her to steal the handkerchief, and as a result of her disobedience, she is killed. Iago views his own wife as merely a servant rather than a companion. Iago often refers to Bianca, Cassios mistress, as a prostitute: "A house wife that by selling her desires, Buys herself bread and clothes"72 Furthermore, Brabantio reminds Othello that Desdemona may be unfaithful to him. These kinds of perceptions make women very susceptible to the whims of men. Othello accepts a stereotypical view of his wife based on the authority of a male voice. He loses sight of the real

Desdemona, allowing every action of hers, once his suspicion is stimulated, to reaffirm this stereotypical conception of her. Barbantio, Iago and finally Othello see the love Between Othello and Desdemona as unnatural, nature erring from it self73, which Othello expresses through his statement: . . . Haply for I am black and have no soft parts of conversation That chambers have, or for I am declined Into vale of years- yet thats not muchShes gone. I am abused, . . . 74 When he doubts Desdemonas fidelity, he compares her reputation to his skin, noting that it is as "begrimed and black75 as his own complexion. Just as Shylock starts reflecting some of the stereotypes placed upon him, so too does Othello. In his rage, Othello identifies himself with the Black Sea. Before he kills Desdemona, he notes how white her skin is, describing it as "that whiter skin of hers than snow / and smooth as monumental alabaster."76 After he commits his last brutal and even barbarous act, he refers to himself as a base Indian.77 Although what Othello did was certainly barbarous, it seems impossible that he did it because of some innate savagery; he was simply a man, white or black, caught in a web of deceit. At the close of the play, Othello attempts to vindicate himself from murder by claiming that he did nothing in malice,78 but is simply a man that loved not wisely but too well.79 This speech illustrates the precarious position of love in a society submerged in stereotypes. In Othello, we can come to understand the dangers of racial injustice. In the character of Iago, Shakespeare demonstrates the dangers of holding racial prejudices. Othello is the victim of the pervasive social stereotypes which lead to his downfall. This play should serve as a warning of the horrid plague of racism which festers in our society. The unjustly accused, innocent Desdemona in Shakespeare's Othello becomes quite a different woman in Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright Paula Vogel's play Desdemona: A Play About a Handkerchief- a frank and feminist comment on the subjugation of women, not only in the period of Othello's story, but in the plays of that time. Shakespeare's works, like those of many of his contemporaries, most usually use women as props and plot kindling, seldom as strong figures that can stand without male support. Vogel rewrites history, to a degree, letting us get a glimpse behind the curtain of the three main women from Othello. In a back room full of laundry to wash, potatoes to peel, and undergarments to mend, we find a woman's sanctuary, a place where men would never go. Desdemona yearns to be a "free" woman, free from marriage and the limits society places upon her. Emilia, often considered complicit in Iago's scheme in Othello comes across here as a dissatisfied wife whose loyalty to her husband results in the tragedy that follows. Bianca, free and able to do as she pleases from the low station of Madame of the brothel, yearns for the very things the Lady of the house and her maid so desperately want to escape. As in Shakespeare's play, the point of contention in Vogels version is a handkerchief, a romantic gift from Othello to Desdemona that has gone missing. In both works, Iago has pressured his wife to steal it from Desdemona so he can plant it in Cassio's quarters and "prove" that Desdemona and Cassio have been having an affair.

Here, Shakespeares play is absorbed and understood from the perspectives of Desdemona, Emilia, and Bianca. The play delineates these characters most clearly in terms of marital status: Desdemona is an adulterous wife; Emilia a chaste wife; and Bianca a prostitute who wishes to become a wife. Othello, Iago, and Cassio- the respective mates for Vogel's trio of Desdemona, Emilia, and Bianca- never actually appear in the adaptation, although they collectively function as an absent presence that defines female behavior. Vogel distinguishes characters on the basis of geographical region and nationality, and class differences prove to be the most potent mediators of social identity, including sexual roles. Vogel's Desdemona does not simply understand her husband's fears: She also acknowledges that they are warranted. In the play's fifth scene, for example, Desdemona complains about Othello's unusual behavior, citing his recent rotten moods, headaches, handkerchiefs, and accusations80, and faults her husband for believing the rumors linking her to Michael Cassio, stating: "Leave it to a cuckold to be jealous of a eunuch"81 Whatever social tensions divide Desdemona, Emilia, and Bianca, a fleeting unity emerges when they collectively participate in the production of the myth of chastity. One of Emilia's more unpleasant duties involves scrubbing the blood off the bed-sheets that were soiled by Desdemona and Othello on their first night together as husband and wife. Emilia and Desdemona reveal that they used the blood of a hen, donated by Bianca, in order to provide the necessary proof of Desdemona's virginity on her wedding night. Ironically, the moment of female solidarity that unites Desdemona, Emilia, and Bianca actually works to their collective harm, since it requires them to perpetuate an idea that redounds to their disadvantage: female chastity. In fact, Emilia presents a rationale for female obedience to patriarchal structures: For us in the bottom ranks, when man and wife hate each other, what is left in a lifetime of marriage but to save and scrimp, plot, and plan? () I'd like to rise a bit in the world, and women can only do that through their mates no matter what class buggers they all are. I says to him [Iago] each night, I long for the day you make me a lieutenant's widow!82 By her own account, Emilia hungers for the luxuries that would come with Iago's promotion to a better position. Of course, she also admits to telling her husband that she yearns for the freedoms that she imagines would come with widowhood. Desdemona's sexual licentiousness and Bianca's work as a prostitute seem to make them social rebels. If understanding the economic basis of marriage prevents Emilia's rebellion against the forces of (patriarchal) tradition, Desdemona proves to be distracted by her own interest in pleasure and enjoyment. Reacting in frustration to the boredom of married life, Desdemona seeks novelty and excitement, and believes she finds them, at Bianca's. In presenting her heroine as a seeker of novelty and adventure, Vogel revisits a key moment from Othello, wherein the hero describes his courtship of Desdemona. Othello notes that his tales of adventure "magic" he used to win over Desdemona. Othello reports that Desdemona listened with a greedy ear,83 so as to "devour up my [Othellos] discourse,84 and he caps his speech by explaining that Desdemona "wish'd / That heaven had made her such a man."85 Vogels Desdemona laments that she had married a "strange dark man"86 in order to leave the "narrow little Venice with its whispering piazzas behind () But under that exotic facade was a porcelain white Venetian."87 This passage distills the cleverness of Vogel's adaptation, which consistently returns to the Shakespearean original precisely in order to transform it.

Desdemona considers Bianca to be a "free woman - a new woman - who can make her own living in the world, who scorns marriage for the lie that it is."88 Here is how Desdemona describes her own adventures as a prostitute: I lie in the blackness of the room at her [Bianca's] establishment . . . on sheets that are stained and torn by countless nights. And the men come into that pitch-black room men of different sizes and smells and shapes, with smooth skin, rough skin, with scarred skin. And they spill their seed into me, seed from a thousand lands, passed down through generations of ancestors, with genealogies that cover the surface of the globe. And I simply lie still there in the darkness, taking them all into me. I close my eyes and in the dark of my mind oh, how I travel!89 "Seeing the world" is a lofty goal, and reflects Desdemona's desire to be free of all chains that bind her, but if such travel can only be imagined and imagined as the by-product of servicing men's sexual needs it cannot be accepted as a measure of female autonomy. "Service" is probably the operative word here, as it properly conveys Desdemona's assent to participate in a system that is designed neither around her needs, nor to give her pleasure or power, but to satisfy male customers. Ironically, Desdemona's naive and somewhat romantic view of prostitution proves to be reciprocal, as Bianca mistakenly believes that marriage guarantees security to women. Mirroring its source-text, Desdemona's final scenes feature an eruption of jealousy. Upon learning that the handkerchief given to her by Cassio actually belongs to Desdemona, Bianca concludes that Cassio must have been sexually intimate with Desdemona. Once she suspects this, Bianca turns violent, and reveals that the night Desdemona had filled in for her had coincided with Iago's regular visit. Rather than presenting her female characters as idyllic contrasts to their male counterparts in Othello, Vogel emphasizes the structural relations in which Desdemona, Emilia, and Bianca participate to their collective undoing. In the wake of Bianca's departure, Emilia and Desdemona attempt to assess the severity of their situation. Upon Emilias try to reassure Desdemona her husband loves her, they "both realize OTHELLO'S been smelling the sheets for traces of a lover."90 Reflecting upon Othello's behavior, Desdemona says: "That isn't love. It isn't love."91 Vogel's heroine, therefore, powerfully contradicts the self-serving claim of Shakespeare's Othello, who stands almost over the corpse of his wife and says that he killed her because he "lov'd not wisely but too well."92 Vogel dramatizes the effects of female collusion in sexist structures or systems. The adaptation shows how Desdemona and Emilia are linked on the basis of a shared victimhood. By illuminating her heroine's recognition of and terror at her terrible situation, Vogel severs murder from romance. Desdemona elegizes the victims who have been sacrificed on the altar of propriety. The Tempest is a story about an unjust act, the usurpation of Prosperos throne by his brother, and Prosperos quest to re-establish justice by restoring himself to power. However, the idea of justice can be interpreted as highly subjective, since this idea represents the view of one character who controls the fate of all the other characters. Prospero, the rightful duke of Milan, was exiled from his dukedom due to his thirst for knowledge; he preferred reading books to ruling, and left the affairs of the state in the hands

of his brother Antonio. He was devoted to the bettering of my mind93, studying white magic, which required a substantial knowledge about nature. This kind of knowledge was not exactly appropriate for a ruler. The skills that a ruler had to possess then, as well as today, involved the knowledge of how to adapt oneself to the demands of the situation; technical and managerial skills. Since Prosperos knowledge was not considered to be an advantage in ruling, his exile is understandable. It can be argued that such knowledge was unwanted in the whole of Europe, where political power became the dominant goal. The Tempest is a play with quiet political undertones, addressing issues that were apparent in Shakespeare's time; some of these issues still exist in contemporary western culture. It is taken to be a model of colonial relationships and a metaphor for colonial history: the island representing uncharted territory and Prospero representing the settlers, while Caliban is what signifies the native population. Caliban serves to illustrate ideas about the social hierarchy of the Renaissance world, which formulated a socially rigid and very political hierarchy of God, king, man, woman, beast. This order was based on the patriarchal tradition and the teachings of religious leaders, which postulate a hierarchical order for mankind based on physiological and physical characteristics. Other means of defining a place within this order were emotional stability and the ability to reason. Based on these definitions, beasts were lower in the evolutionary scale than all humans. According to this rather rigid social hierarchy, Caliban belongs at the bottom of the Elizabethan social hierarchy, having little perceived social worth. Shakespeare provides an example of this social structure in this play. In the course of his play, the reader sees superior men dominating lesser beings on the basis of race, financial status, and gender. Although Prospero does have some sense of charity, and does not always treat others disrespectfully, he is still a good example of the social condition of the time. The colonizers considered themselves superior to those that they were conquering, just as Prospero is superior to the bestial Caliban, whose savagery is very similar to what the common perception of a native was at the time The Tempest was written. Prospero refers to 'his' natives as slaves: Caliban my slave94, he remarks; and to Ariel: my slave (...)What is't thou canst demand?95 So, the main focus of a post-colonial investigation of The Tempest is through the character of Caliban, seen as a native of the island over whom Prospero has imposed a form of colonial domination. On being summoned by Prospero, he responds with curses and proceeds to give his view of their interaction: I must eat my dinner. This islands mine, by Sycorax my mother, Which thou takst from me. When thou camst first Thou strokst me, and made much of me; wouldst give me Water with berries int; and teach me how To name the bigger light, and how the less, That burn by day and night: and then I lovd thee And showd thee all the qualities o thisle, The fresh springs, brine pits, barren place and feretile:

Cursd be I that that did so! All the charms Of Sycorax, toads, beetles, bats, light on you! For I am all the subjects that you have, Which first was mine own King: and here you sty me In this hard rock, whiles you do keep from me The rest othisland.96 Caliban regards himself as the rightful owner of the place. He is forced against his will to serve Prospero and Miranda, and constantly proclaims his unwillingness to do so. Initially, Prospero extends to Caliban his European hospitality, teaches him language, and, in return, is shown all the natural resources of the island by Caliban, in an act of love. But Caliban refuses to live by Prospero's rules, tries to rape Miranda, and their relationship changes to one of master and slave. It is important to say that the colonizers brought with them their culture, traditions and philosophy about education. Through colonial educational systems European languages, culture, economics, and, eventually, nationalism was spread across the world. The civilizing mission is always accompanied by the politics of domination over the colonized. The gift of language, Caliban now says, is good only because it enables him to curse. The gift of language is not a gift but an imposition, a common means of enforcing colonial rule on recalcitrant subjects. Prospero may control Caliban with his magic, but he has not vanquished his resistance. For Prospero, the main problem with Caliban is that he is incapable of being educated. He is thus seen as some lower life form: deformed, evil, treacherous, rapacious, and violent. Unlike Ferdinand, who is a suitable lover for Miranda because he can discipline himself to work to earn her, Caliban has no restraint. Hence, Prospero feels himself morally entitled to exercise his control over him. Caliban's lust and his primitive religion are regarded as evil, but Prospero and Miranda depend on his service and labour for safety and survival. Nearly every scene in the play either explicitly or implicitly portrays a relationship between a figure that possesses power and a figure that is subject to that power. The play explores the master-servant dynamic: Prospero and Caliban; Prospero and Ariel; Alonso and his nobles; the nobles and Gonzalo; Stephano, Trinculo, and Caliban; and so forth. While there are many representatives of the colonial impulse in the play, the colonized have only one representative: Caliban. The play also explores the psychological and social dynamics of power relationships from a number of contrasting angles, such as the generally positive relationship between Prospero and Ariel, the generally negative relationship between Prospero and Caliban, and the treachery in Alonsos relationship to his nobles. Language, for Prospero and Miranda, is a means to knowing oneself, and Caliban has, in their opinion, shown nothing but scorn for this precious gift. You taught me language, and my profit ont Is I know how to curse. The red plague rid you For learning me your language!97 (I.ii.366368) This speech, delivered by Caliban to Prospero and Miranda, makes clear in a very concise form the vexed relationship between the colonizer and the colonized. The son of a witch,

perhaps half-man and half-monster, his name a near-anagram of cannibal, Caliban is an archetypal savage figure in the play who embodies many of the characteristics that civilized Europeans came to associate with the primitive natives of the New World. Gonzalos remark: though they are of monstrous shape /Their manners are more gentle-kind than of/ Our human generation you shall find Many98 illustrates that barbarous or savage are attributes which the colonizers attached to the native peoples of conquered lands. In addition, Prosperos address to Miranda when she and Ferdinand encounter emphasizes that not all men are civilized though they com from the civilized world: Thou think'st there is no more such shapes as he, Having seen but him and Caliban: foolish wench! To the most of men this is a Caliban And they to him are angels.99 CALIBAN: Be not afeard. The isle is full of noises, Sounds, and sweet airs, that give delight and hurt not. Sometimes a thousand twangling instruments Will hum about mine ears, and sometime voices That, if I then had waked after long sleep Will make me sleep again. And then, in dreaming, The clouds methought would open and show riches Ready to drop upon me, that when I waked, I cried to dream again.100 Caliban, a product of an uncivilized lifestyle, is capable of nostalgia and emotion. His speech shows us that he is sophisticated. Shakespeare appears to be suggesting that this man is not a monster, but rather a human being who deserves respect. Despite the brutish manner in which Caliban is portrayed, he is remarkably clever. He was educated by Prospero only, denied awareness of other ideas, opinions, and interpretations. However, he is capable of independent thought. This critical thinking would not be expected of a primitive being. He reasons that the island was left to him by his mother, and that Prospero took it away. He resents being pushed out of his own land, and vigorously resists his imprisonment. Caliban argues that he was tricked by Prospero, who flattered him into accepting his education, and then enslaved him. Caliban recognizes the injustice he is suffering, and uses language as a weapon. Showing his spirit, he openly resents Prospero and the oppression he brings. Like all people, Caliban has his faults. He is stubborn and lacks self-discipline, reflected in his attempted rape of Miranda. Additionally, once the butler Stephano gives him liquor, he is quick to worship him, declaring that he "will kneel to him."101 Consumed by drunkenness, Caliban fails to note the insults and manipulative actions that Stephano and Trinculo use against him. They repeatedly call him a monster and a moon-calf (Act II, Scene 2), and Stephano declares that he will inherit the island. Blinded by liquor, Caliban is unable to recognize that Prospero is not the only one exploiting him. Furthermore, he drunkenly plots the murder of Prospero; however, he does so in defence of his freedom and island. Though these shortcomings are a blemish to Caliban's character, they further illustrate his human qualities. There is a strong emphasis on language in The Tempest. Stephano asks: Where the devil should he [Caliban] learn our language?102

After hearing Miranda speak, and understanding her, Ferdinand exclaims: My language! Heavens!103 Caliban states that Prospero did teach me [him] how to name the bigger light, and how the less, /That burn by day and night.104 Miranda says to Caliban that she endowed thy purposes /With words that made them known105, indicating that, before she arrived, Caliban could not put action or thought into words, but Caliban already had language. He already knew 'sun' and 'moon', but in his own tongue, despite the assumption that he spoke nonsense, as given here: When thou didst not /Know thine own meaning, but wouldst gabble like A thing most brutish.106 Caliban and Prospero have different narratives to explain their current relationship. Caliban sees Prospero as purely oppressive while Prospero claims that he has cared for and educated Caliban, or did so until Caliban tried to rape Miranda. Miranda shares her fathers dislike of Caliban for the same reason. PROSPERO: Thou didst seek to violate The honour of my child CALIBAN: Oho, Oho! wouldst had been done! Thou didst prevent me; I had peopled else This isle with Calibans.107 This is a crucial incident which seems to have turned the relationship between Prospero and Caliban sour. Caliban is an island native who lived there prior to the arrival of Prospero. Caliban assists Prospero who is initially generous to him. He soon tries to assimilate and civilize Caliban. As people are most likely to mistreat a group when they fail to understand their culture, Caliban's human rights are disregarded due to his rough origins. He is characterized by what he cannot do, rather than recognizing his competence. Prospero tries to indoctrinate Caliban with his European morals, teaching him that his race is subordinate; he attempts to persuade him that his "vile race/Though thy [Caliban] didst learn, had that in't which good natures/ Could not abide to be with."108 The disrespect towards Caliban is taken even further. Even his species is debated; he is introduced as "poisonous slave, got by the Devil himself."109 Because he was born to Sycorax, a witch, he is described as "not honoured with/ A human shape."110 He is an "abhorred slave,"111 property of Prospero. Prospero regards Caliban as genetically, rather than culturally, inferior; inherently incapable of civilised behaviour: A devil, a born devil, on whose nature Nurture can never stick112 An underlying theme of barbarism versus civilization appears. Shakespeare creates characters that exemplify symbols of nature and nurture. The two slaves, Caliban and Ariel, symbolize the theme of nature versus nurture. Caliban is regarded as the representation of the wild; the side that is usually looked down upon. He tried to violate Miranda, and for that act he

deserved punishment. However, he had not been nurtured by society and, therefore, did not know any better. It is his basic nature to do as he feels. He does not know the difference between right and wrong. On the contrary, Antonio is from the civilized world, yet he produces corruption and deformity far worse than that of Calibans nature. Caliban might be portrayed as evil, but he is not as callous as Antonio, Prosperos brother. When the jester Trinculo first meets Caliban, he is unable to decide whether this creature is a human or a fish. He suggests that Caliban be brought to England and put on display, as "there would/ this monster make a man- any strange beast/ there makes a man. When they will not give a doit/ to relieve a lame beggar, they will lay out ten to see/ a dead Indian."113 He is a circus act to the Europeans. Because of his race, he is considered unworthy of their society. It is also argued that if The Tempest does comment upon European exploration and colonization in the Western Hemisphere, it does not so much contain a harsh critique of exploitation, but, instead, an apology for it. Caliban was initially treated as an ignorant child, and only put under wraps after he attempted to force himself upon the completely innocent Miranda. The sprite Ariel's bondage to Prospero is a light yoke, akin to indentured servitude. In exchange for releasing him from a twelve-year entrapment in a pine tree, Ariel has agreed to serve his new, benevolent master, Prospero. Indeed, both Prospero and Ariel acknowledge that the latter's servitude is a deal between equals, and that Prospero has kept his word to reduce Ariel's term by a full year because he has performed the assigned duties "without grudge or grumblings."114 Prospero later promises Ariel that he will discharge him within two days time and does, in fact, keep his word. Although The Tempest comments on the notion of colonization, it is not Prospero's intention to establish a new society on the Island, or to retain his sway over its inhabitants. Rather, Prospero is pushed by circumstances into the role of the Island's sovereign power, and once his aim of exacting justice and repentance from those who have wronged him is met, he quickly relinquishes his monarchy over the Island. This, of course, does not accord with the actual, historical pattern of European conquest. It is of greatest significance that once Prospero has extracted a confession from his enemies, he imposes no punishment upon them. Prospero subordinates his personal desire for revenge to his appreciation of mercy and forgiveness, qualities that define, or should define, humanity. In spite of his immense power, he had enough inner restraint, a fact which could probably be assigned to his memory of how Gonzalo had helped him when he was exiled. As the play progresses, it becomes obvious that Prosperos revenge is not aimed towards murder, but towards the restoration of moral order, the conscience which has been forgotten: they being penitent,/ the sole drift of my purpose doth extend/ not a frown further.115 It is to that goal that he joins Miranda and Ferdinand together. Instead of the scene of a colonial settlement, the Island becomes the arena in which Prospero addresses the wrongs of his European past in order to establish a European future. Caliban represents the repressed aspect of humanity which Prospero does not recognize until the very end: This thing of darkness I/ Acknowledge mine.116 Prospero's leaving the island to Caliban and renouncing his magic, the source of his power, seem to be an apology for the master-slave relationship Prospero enforced. Miranda is typically viewed as being completely deprived of freedom by her father. Her only duty in his eyes is to remain chaste. Miranda has completely internalized the patriarchal order of things, thinking of herself as subordinate to her father, especially typical of women in a

colonial atmosphere. Despite the fact that Prospero reveals his authoritarian figure in the manner he addresses Miranda, his unreserved love for her is beyond any doubt: I have done nothing but in care of thee, Of thee, my dear one, thee, my daughter () O, a cherubim Thou wast that did preserve me. Thou didst smile. Infused with a fortitude from heaven, When I have deck'd the sea with drops full salt, Under my burthen groan'd; which raised in me An undergoing stomach, to bear up Against what should ensue.117 Whereas Titus, Brabanito, and Shylock try to ruin their daughters love, Prospero helps Miranda fall in love and gives her a central role in the process of reconciliation between him and his, now former, enemies. After all the hardships he experienced, Prospero emerged as a merciful and charitable character: Though with their high wrongs I am struck to the quick, Yet with my nobler reason 'gaitist my fury Do I take part: the rarer action is In virtue than in vengeance118 Titus and Shylock also undergo a change, but, since in their vindictiveness they become the same as their enemies, their metamorphosis is negative. In the end, Prospero found justice as a result his own milk of human kindness. I cannot but mention Julie Taymor again and her 2010 version of Shakespeares final masterpiece The Tempest. In Julie Taymors The Tempest, the gender of the traditionally male sorcerer Prospero has been changed into the sorceress Prospera, and is played by the illustrious Helen Mirren. When the character is a woman, a central relationship in the play, between the magician and her doted-on child, Miranda, sheds some of its traditional, patriarchal dynamic. Instead, a mother-daughter bond fraught with envy, protectiveness and identification blossoms into something newly rich and strange. This subtle change also emphasizes the position of women in Elizabethan times. After all, women, especially those of wealth and independent power, were often accused of witchcraft in patriarchal societies. In the adaptation, Prospera is the wife of the duke. She is more overtly wronged than Prospero. When the duke died, her brother Antonio accuses her of witchcraft, and claims her royal title. Taymor said: "She had her whole life taken away from her because she was a woman."119 Prospera wants to prevent the same thing from happening to her daughter. Taymor stated: In fact, the dynamic between the mother-daughter is different than the father-daughter, but equal. I dont think were trying to say its better. Its just different. The protection that you see in that first scene where Ferdinand comes and falls in love with the daughter, and you can see that she knows what her daughter is going through cause shes probably been there, as a woman, as opposed to the male reaction of, Im going to have this fight and come up against a young stud who thinks hes going to take my daughter. That goes out the window.120

The problem of colonization and slave-ownership hinted in The Tempest was explored in Aime Cesaire version of this Shakespeares play called A Tempest. Prosperos island is moved to the Caribbean where Prospero is again the colonizer, and Caliban the colonized who is trying to regain his freedom from Prosperos absolute power. Cesaires interpretation came as a result of a centuries-old mistreatment and injustice towards the black population, as well as of their mass revolt in 1960s. Caliban does not want to be called by his slave name anymore, but wants Prospero to call him X, like a man whose name has been stolen121, signifying the loss of identity of the colonized, towards which every colonization is aimed. It is impossible not to notice the similarity of Calibans new name with Malcolm X, an AfricanAmerican Muslim minister, public speaker, and human rights activist, assassinated in 1965. Cesaire draws our attention to the consequences of greed, slavery and racism that actually constitutes the European colonization. The United States are still sorting out the ugly consequences of European colonization of the New World; the more subtle manifestations of racism are still present in the land of the free and the home of the brave. The history of America is, on the one hand, the story of independence from the colonialist Great Britain and, on the other hand, the history of colonialism in itself. Cesaire uses Prospero to expose the feeble, racist stereotypes propagated about the black population, and Caliban to show the undeniable fact that the influence of European colonization is still alive. As an African black who received French education, Cesaire found that what colonization has taken away from him is not only land, but also his language, culture and identity; colonization exploits not only land but also minds of the colonized, which Cesaire thinks should be responsible for the blacks inferiority complex. As Martin Luther King put it: Throughout the era of slavery the Negro was treated in inhuman fashion. He was considered a thing to be used, not a person to be respected. He was merely a depersonalized cog in a vast plantation machine.122 Black people in America were considered as property subject to the dictates of their owners. Living under these conditions, many Negroes lost faith in themselves. They came to feel that perhaps they were less than human.123 Prospero teaches Caliban his language so that Caliban can understand his orders. But, Caliban has an awareness to defend or cling to what belongs to him using his own language as a protest, identifying himself with his own land and culture. When Prospero tells Caliban that he should be thankful for the education that he has given him, Caliban exclaims: You didnt teach me a thing! Except to jabber in your own Language so that I could understand your orders: chop the Wood, wash the dishesall because youre too lazy to do it Yourself124 Unlike Shakespeares The Tempest, in which Prospero is presented as a semi-hero possessing some virtues, Cesaires Prospero is presented above all as exploitative usurper of the island. He takes the island away from Caliban in spite of Calibans hospitality and friendliness, as Caliban accuses: Once youve squeezed the juice from the orange,

you toss the rind away! () you threw me out of your house and made me live in a filthy cave. The ghetto!125 More importantly, by making Caliban his slave, Prospero deprives Caliban of what he is, in Calibans words: youve stolen everything from me, even my identity!126 By belittling everything about the colonized people, the colonizer thinks himself as a savior and tries to impose his language and values on them. Prospero enslaves Caliban and Ariel, and considers himself their benefactor: What would you be without me? 127 () I give you a compliment and you dont seem pleased? 128 ()Ingrate! And who freed you from Sycorax, may I ask? 129 () Ten times, a hundred times, Ive tried to save you, above all from yourself. 130 Even though both Caliban and Ariel are enslaved, their ways of struggle are completely different: Ariel does not believe in violence, and faced with Prosperos immense magical powers, helps him with his scheme, which eventually results in his being freed. Ariel never turns too bitter toward Prospero, hoping Caliban and he could force him to acknowledge his won injustice and put an end to it.131 Caliban, on the other hand, feels this freedom cannot be won without a fight. He truly represents the spirit of the sixties when he exclaims: tomorrow doesnt interest me. What I want is Freedom now!132 If in Shakespeares play it was Prospero whose intention was to restore the moral order, in Cesaires play it is Ariel. He needs Caliban to help him with his plan, but Caliban thinks that all the efforts will be futile: CALIBAN: Prospero's conscience! Prospero is an old scoundrel who has noconscience. ARIEL: Exactly- thats why it's up to us to give him one. I'm not fighting just for my freedom, for our freedom, but for Prospero too, so that Prospero can acquire a conscience. Help me, Caliban. CALIBAN: Listen, kid, sometimes I wonder if you aren't a little bit nuts. So that Prospero can acquire a conscience? You might as well ask a stone to grow flowers. ARIEL: I don't know what to do with you. I've often had this inspiring, uplifting dream that one day Prospero, you, me, we would all three set out, like brothers, to build a wonderful world, each one contributing his own special thing: patience, vitality, love, will-power too, and rigor, not to mention the dreams without which mankind would parish. CALIBAN: you dont understand a thing about Prospero. Hes not the collaborating type. Hes a guy who only feels something when hes wiped someone out. A crusher, a pulveriser, thats what he is! And you talk about brotherhood!133 I cannot but make a close connection between Ariels dream and the dream of Martin Luther King: I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal () I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character () With this faith we will be able to

hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.134 Caliban is obviously disillusioned with the idealistic, utopian vision Ariel proposes; his dream is not of creating a better society, but of freedom. He will simply not allow his spirit to be crushed by Prosperos white magic: Better death than humiliation and injustice.135 The thing that preserves Caliban persistence in his struggle is his vision of freedom. Caliban is eager to get his freedom at all costs, which is evident when he confronts Prospero towards the end of the play: Prospero, youre a great magician: you're an old hand at deception. And you lied to me so much, about the world, about myself, that you ended up by imposing on me an image of myself: underdeveloped, in your words, undercompetent that's how you made me see myself'! And I hate that image...and it's false! But now I know you, you old cancer, And I also know myself'! And I know that one day my bare fist, just that, will be enough to crush your world! The old world is crumbling down!136 In fact, these lines sum up the whole truth about colonization and its attempt to replace old values with new ones. It turns out that Caliban was right in his evaluation that Prospero feels something only when he wipes someone out, because the play ends with both Caliban and Prospero remaining on the island, waging an endless war on one another- Prospero trying to protect civilization, Caliban trying to free himself. The ending implies that the struggle between the blacks and the whites is as old as the beginning of civilization, and is still not

nearing any conclusion, which brings to mind Othello and Iago, and Titus and Aaron. However, Cesaires Caliban is more verbose, determined, and courageous than Shakespeares. The language Prospero teaches him is more than a tool to curse. It is also a tool for him to voice his resistance and charge against the colonizer as well as his desire for freedom. All of this suggest the authors faith in the rebellion of the oppressed. Whereas Shakespeare makes his Caliban disappear almost silently and gives the whole stage to Prospero, in A Tempest, Cesaire gives the privilege to Caliban: his voice is heard. The stage of the world belongs to all the races. It is the word FREEDOM that Cesaire wants everyone, the colonized and the colonizer alike, to hear. It is a cry for freedom or decolonization all over the world. If we take a look at the world today, we can see that it is spiraling into a maelstrom of violence, hatred, and chaos. People have been under the enormous influence of manipulative teachings and repressive ideologies that destroy even the deepest parts of their beings, their soul and humanity. Under the influence of an ideology, people change from individuals into subjects, because the society praises not the ones who will search for the real truth, who feel love and compassion towards the others, but those who will not dare to question the truth they are told. It is shocking that people live in ignorance of the truth in the world that celebrates democracy, liberty, freedom, no restraints. But, as Harold Pinter said: the search for the truth can never stop.137 The themes of these four plays progressed towards a more humane resolution- from the sheer violence in Titus Andronicus to the mercifulness in The Tempest. Shakespeare shows the monstrous brutality in Titus Andronicus, the utter hypocrisy of the Christians in The Merchant of Venice, racial hatred and discrimination against women in Othello. We are faced with the corruption of moral intelligence. Both Shakespeares plays and the modern versions give us the opportunity to see how much we have failed, both as individuals and as a culture, but also to realize that we do have a chance to change things, if we follow our inner self, our soul, and preserve our humanity. The previous century has borne witness to a great number of artists who, in their revolt against the widespread injustice, often turned to Shakespeare. Bearing in mind the corruption of human spirit and morality, along with the fact that The Tempest was Shakespeares last play, we can easily assume that Shakespeare left his final message to humanity through Prospero and Miranda: the only remedy against the corruption and injustice can be found in the restoration of moral vision and human conscience.

Bibliography:
Cesaire, Aime, Discourse on Colonialism, Monthly Review Press, 2000 Cesaire, Aime, A Tempest, trans, by Richard Miller, (s.l.), (s.n.), (s.a.)

The Burning Times, Donna Read, 1990, www.youtube.com Hughes, Ted, Shakespeare and the Goddess of Complete Being, Faber and Faber ltd. , 1992 King, Martin Luther, Jr., I Have a Dream, August 28 1963, Washington D.C. , http://www.mlkonline.net/dream.html King, Martin Luther, Jr., Nonviolence and Racial Justice, 6 February 1957, Chicago, Ill., http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/kingweb/publications/papers/vol4/570206.004Nonviolence_and_Racial_Justice.htm Looking for Richard, dir. Al Pacino, 1996 Pinter, Harold, Art, Truth and Politics, Harold Pinters 2005 Nobel Prize Lecture, The Swedish Academy, Stockholm Shakespeare, William, Othello, The Moor of Venics, The Complete Works of Shakespeare, Wordsworth Edition ltd., 1996 Shakespeare, William, Titus Andronicus, The Complete Works of Shakespeare, Wordsworth Edition ltd., 1996 Shakespeare, William, The Merchant of Venice, The Complete Works of Shakespeare, Wordsworth Edition ltd., 1996 Shakespeare, William, The Tempest, The Complete Works of Shakespeare, Wordsworth Edition ltd., 1996 Shakespeare, William, The Rape of Lucrece, The Complete Works of Shakespeare, Wordsworth Edition ltd., 1996 Shakespeare, William, Venus and Adonis, The Complete Works of Shakespeare, Wordsworth Edition ltd., 1996 Signs Out of Time: The Life of Archeologist Marija Gimbutas, dir. Donna Read, 2004, www.youtube.com The Tempest, dir. Julie Taymor, 2010 Titus, dir. Julie Taymor, 1999 Vogel, Paula, Desdemona: A Play About a Handkerchief, (s.l.), (s.n.), (s.a.) Wesker, Arnold, The Merchant, (s.l.), (s.n.), (s.a.) www.collider.com/julie-taymor-interview-the-tempest/64058/ www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tempest_(2010_film)

www.hermes.hrc.ntu.edu.tw/lctd/comp/novel_film/titus.htm