"Humanism is about reading, it is about perspective. It is also the practice of identities...." -Edward Said
Monday, October 1, 2007
The Tempest by William Shakespeare-Humanities III
"In the character of Prospero in The Tempest, Shakespeare presents the ideal ruler: one who reconciles power over the outer world with power over the self." How far do you agree? (Post one comment no less than 300 words)
In the Tempest, I think that Shakespeare does not present Prospero as an ideal ruler. As an ideal ruler, you balance the power of the higher power, or government, with the power of the individual, making your own choices. In the Tempest, Prospero was much more like an absolute ruler, not so much a dictator because Prospero showed compassion. In many ways Prospero used his magic as a way to manipulate people, and situations that lead to the manipulation of people. Using his hold over Ariel, the spirit, Prospero causes the Royal ship to shipwreck and the passengers aboard to come up on the Island. Ariel, under Prospero’s orders, figuratively, leads the stranded around the island; being careful not to intercept Ferdinand with Alonso. This would benefit Prospero’s ulterior motive, requiring that the King and his son not know that the other was alive. One of the main reasons that Prospero and Miranda are alive is because of Caliban. Though first very cordial with Caliban, Prospero soon rules over him and makes Caliban his slave. His supremacy over Ariel and Caliban, denying them their freedom and making them act of his accord, proves that Prospero cares very little about their individual choice making and that he deems them his servants. An ideal ruler does rule over their subjects, but they counter that with the acknowledgement of individual right. Prospero only acknowledges Ariel’s freedom because of a promise he made previously, but given the choice he probably wouldn’t have freed her. He was delaying the point of her freedom throughout the entire play. Also in the end, Prospero reclaims Caliban as his; he repossesses Caliban as his property. In order to be an ideal ruler, you have to have equal halves of a sense of higher authority and of deciding for one’s self. Prospero is not an ideal ruler because he has very little, if any, of a sense of individual decision making. Since Prospero is lacking the latter half, Prospero can only be described as an absolute ruler. -Asha Jordan
I do agree with this idea to a certain extinct. The belief that obtaining and maintaining power over the entire world must start with one obtaining and maintaining power over self. With Prospero, for him to even come to the idea that he could rule the world, he had to establish and prove his control over the island. He proved this well when Alonso and the other strandees embarked upon the island. The way he used Ariel to watch, control, and alter the actions of Alonso and the others was a foreshadow to his ultimate power of the rest of the world. Most often, people who come into a position of authoruty are not enabled with the ability to control themselves, let alone a nation of people. Though these authority figures give off the impression that they are in control and making decisions, there are always people behind the scenes feeding off positive and negative outlooks into their thought process. Not only are there people intentionally giving their opinions into the one with power's head, there are also somewhat unintentional opinions being received as well. One major form of unintentional opinion is the media. May it be a newspaper, radio, television, internet, or magazines, the media always has an impact on thoughts of most. A important decision could be altered by the decison-maker seeing something in the newspaper. This shows that there is a lack of power over oneself. If a person is to have control over a group of people, how can this take place if that person can not make a decision without the influence of others? For one to gain power and maintain control, they have to first know and control themself, then once that is completed, the opportunity to control another another makes itself truly apparent.
vrogysI believe The Tempest is a very well written book. It takes place on an Island, in which, people from all walks of life interact with each other. Some characters are deformed, while others are normal human beings. This book tells a drastic story of a brother, Antonio, who steals his dukedom from his very own brother, Prospero. I believe that it is very disturbing to find out that your own brother wants to take your fame away from you, even though you owned it fairly. Prospero isn’t’ actually an ideal ruler in my eyes. That is because he let his own brother take his fame. He treats people in harsh ways and that doesn’t portray an ideal ruler. He should have focused on pleasing his people rather them him, then he would have knew what was ahead of him. An ideal ruler is someone who posses qualities that take into consideration how others feel and tries to satisfy them by all means. Prospero and his lovely daughter, Miranda, were both exiled by his brother and his group of allies. While Antonio thinks that his brother is killed by a harsh storm, only Gonzalo knows that he and his daughter are still alive and well. Later in the book, Antonio finally comes to realize that what he did was wrong and he’s sorry for the pain he has caused Prospero. He hopes for the forgiveness of his brother and he later receives it during the end of the play. I really feel as though The Tempest is challenging to read at some points. That is because of the language that Shakespeare uses in the play. The type of language he uses is very original and ornate. It does however, indeed, complement the time period in which the play was written. In his book, it seems to me that Shakespeare takes into account that life is not always a fairytale land, and that bad deeds do happen. The Tempest tells a story different from all others. It discusses the story of reality in true world today. The grammar is immaculate, even though Shakespeare used his own language to tall a story. The style of this book complements the period in which the book was written. Some characters express life-like qualities that made me realize that there are really some people in the world that want to take you down since they aren’t’ doing so well themselves. Overall, I enjoyed this book. I see this type of book being for class discussions only in my opinion. I feel this way because most people might not necessarily read a type of book like this for entertainment purposes. The quality is good and it was nice to read a book different from the other books that I might usually read.
I agree to intent. Shakespeare does not present an ideal ruler. At first glance Prospero seems like a well intentioned magician, a serene old man who only wanted to restore harmony and achieve reconciliation. So you think that he would be a great ruler. But when you look closer into his character you see something else there, a character who is harsh and impatient, demanding and ambiguous, power hungry and deeply troubled. And these are not traits of a ruler or at least an effective or “ideal” ruler. Shakespeare instead develops Prospero from a basically good, but flawed man, to one who, although retaining some vanity and therefore is not perfect, will certainly act in a manner befitting an ideal leader. In order for Prospero to become an ideal human leader, he must give up magic, and consent to allow his power to flow only from the loyalty of his people. Given the character of Prospero which is a pompous, self-pitying and apparently unforgiving he is not fit to rule under the definition given. Prospero also seems unforgiving towards Caliban and Antonio.Prospero is also consistently self-indulgent and vain. Shakespeare does not present us the perfect ruler immediately. Instead, he develops Prospero from a basically good, but flawed man, to one who, although retaining some vanity and therefore is not perfect, will certainly act in a manner befitting an ideal leader. So if you can look at it in that manner he is a ideal ruler to some extent but Prospero fails to reconcile power and it is because of that he won’t go far as a ruler. As a ruler you should be able to forgive people/ share the power given to you because your setting a precedence for your people or followers to look up to. So Shakespeare does in a way present an ideal ruler during that time period just not a worldly ideal ruler.
Prospero in the tempest is a very complicated character; he starts off as a lackadaisical ruler, to a tyrannical ruler, and then to a forgiving person, as we see in the last scene. In my opinion, Prospero does end up as an ideal ruler. However, it takes a lot of analyzing to come up with that conclusion. Prospero is very lackadaisical towards his duties; he was so interested in gaining knowledge and neglected his duties. The conflict is revealed when Prospero begins to lack interest in his duties. This gives Antonio, his envious brother, an opportunity to overthrow him. The Tempest also reveals Prospero as a character who trusts everyone around him. He trusted Antonio and kept him too close. He also trusted Caliban and educated him, who in turn used it against him. Caliban had the intrepidity to attempt to rape Miranda. Prospero is also portrayed as a tyrannical ruler; he causes the shipwreck, and uses his magical power to invoke spirits to pinch Caliban, whenever he curses. When Ariel reminded Prospero of his promise to free him, if he does them willingly, Prospero becomes vexed and threatens to be harsh on him. Prospero is also rude and harsh towards Ferdinand. However, at the final scene, we see the true Prospero as a forgiving and loving father, brother and friend. He chooses virtue as opposed to vengeance, forgives those who wronged him, and proves to be judicious. Prospero exercises good judgments and does things for specific reasons. He caused the shipwreck and brought the passengers to the island. He did this to remind them of what they did and make them feel guilty. He is also rude to Ferdinand because he doesn’t want them to fall in love too quickly. Prospero wants Ferdinand to learn to cherish Miranda. I do think that Prospero is an ideal ruler. It is a gradual process of him being a lackadaisical ruler, to a tyrannical ruler, to a forgiving and ideal ruler.
Shakespeare uses Prospero as an ideal ruler. I agree with Shakespeare’s belief that an ideal ruler is one who reconciles power the outer world with power over the self. In The Tempest, Prospero has control over the ship that’s on its way to his island as well as his slave Caliban, his daughter Miranda, and his spirit Ariel. These people are represented as the outer world. He also has power over the self because he is able to do the right thing, which is to forgive his brother and the shipmates, than to have vengeance over them. A ruler should have control over their land and the people in it, but a ruler should also have a heart filled with mercy and forgiveness for those same people. Shakespeare does a great job of using Prospero as that ruler. In the beginning of the Tempest, Prospero was not an ideal ruler because he only cared about himself; he put his brother and their shipmates in danger as well as misleading his daughter about the things that are happening in their life. By the end of The Tempest, Prospero forgives his brother, and lets his daughter marry her love, which is a sign of growth for Prospero as a ruler. Because of these changes that Prospero makes, his people now respect him. He now holds forgiveness and mercy for his people, which is what an ideal ruler should have. At the same time, Prospero still has Caliban as his slave, Prospero should not keep Caliban as his slave, but Caliban should get punished for his wrong doings. Shakespeare uses Prospero as an example of an ideal ruler which I fully agree with, Prospero has control over the outer world but has control over himself as well, he knows when to punish someone and when to forgive. These qualities are what make up an ideal ruler.
Greetings everyone. As I read the statement given to us, it took alot of evaluation on my part. I had to look at the pros and cons of the situation to come to the conclusion that I dont agree with the statement. I concluded this because Prospero was unable to reconcile power over the world with power of his self. I say this for three specific reasons. The first reason was that if he was able to reconcile power, he would have been overthrown as duke of Milan by the people of Milan. He would have had enough control over the people and himself, that a situation like that would have not occured. Also if he was able to reconcile power, he would have seen it clearly that his own brother was a snake and that he was trying to take the throne from him all along. My idea of an ideal ruler is someone who gets and gives respect and just someone who takes care of things that are important like family. Prospero was only in it for self and that resulted in him being overthrown. Secondly, an ideal ruler should know what is going on in his town at all times. If Prospero was an ideal ruler, he would have noticed that his own brother was working with the king of Naples, Antonio, to take his rulings from him. Someone who had power like Prospero should know that everyone just cant be trusted. With power comes along problems. Plus Prospero wasnt interested in the most important thing that comes along with running a country: POLITICS! How can you be a ruler and not be interested in something that gives you the power that you have. That is what made me really disagree with the topic. Finally, I believe that Prospero made alot of mistakes, but he didnt own up to the responsibilites and when you are ruling a country. You must be able to look at you mistakes as a learning perspective and use it a s a stepping stone in order to move forward. So with that said, I have understood the statement and came to a conclusion that I disagree.
I agree fully with the quote, to be an ideal ruler you must first be able to rule yourself. In the case of Prospero from the Tempest, I believe Shakespeare does not present Prospero as an ideal ruler until the middle of the play. Therefore, I would say Prospero developed into an ideal ruler through the obstacles he faced with ruling over Caliban, dealing with his untrustworthy brother, allowing Miranda to marry Ferdinand, and releasing Ariel his spirit servant. In the beginning, Prospero released the tempest on the ship of his untrustworthy and usurping brother along with a group of nobles. This event showed that Prospero had vengeance on his mind, proving he had not yet found the power to control himself. However, the boat may have been wrecked but Prospero did not let harm come to anyone. The next event that shows Prospero develops into an ideal ruler is when he allows Ferdinand to marry Miranda. Ferdinand's father helped Antonio, Prospero's brother, to gain control of Prospero's Duke of Milan position. When Prospero allowed his daughter to marry the son a conspirator against him, he presented himself as a person who can control his emotions and has power over himself. Prospero promotes his ability to be an ideal ruler when he keeps his word to release Ariel from his servitude. Ariel gave Prospero seemingly infinite magical possibilities. In Prospero mind it must have been difficult to let such a great servant to leave and very tempting to never let Ariel become free. However, Prospero allowed his word of freedom to override his desire to keep Ariel, he was exercising his self-control, a result of "power of self". The greatest show of how Prospero uses his power of self in away that would reconcile power of the outer world is when he does not harm Alonso for taking his Duke position but forgives him and only asks for it back. Prospero is an ideal ruler and I agree with the quote entirely. You are only a good leader when you can look over your problems to help out the better cause.
In The Tempest, I must disagree that Shakespeare presents the ideal ruler. First of all, Prospero as the Duke of Milan, should've foreseen his dethronement by his brother. If not by his brother, then by the people of Milan. The reason for this is because the book mentions that Prospero was engulfed more in his books than in the people of Milan who his duties pertained to. A ruler is a leader with responsibilities. If you do not attend to those responsibilities, then more than likely someone else will come and take your place. Even though the way in which he was dethroned was dirty, there was a motive besides greed. Secondly, an ideal ruler should be honest. Prospero used tricks and illusions to seek out his revenge on the people who caused him harm. He punished them in strange and magical ways. Specifically Alonso, who he causes to believe that his heir to the throne is lost at sea. This a tremendous low blow to Alonso who feels a father's pain at losing a son. Prospero uses magic almost throughout the whole book to seek his revenge. He is never really direct and gives the impression that he's in the dark while Ariel is sent to do his "dirty work". Another thing that prevents Prospero from being the example of the ideal ruler is the relationship he has with Caliban. Caliban was the indigenous citizen of the island. Everything he knew about the island, he taught to Prospero and in exchange, he received an education. This hospitality would've never lasted, even if Caliban hadn't attempted to rape Miranda. This is because they were racially different, therefore, unequal. Prospero, the superior, felt that despite Caliban being the rightful ruler of the island, he deserved to be the ruler instead because after all, he actually was loyalty. People like Prospero who used to have a high ranking in society hate to be demoted. They're used to being in control and in charge. How can an ideal ruler have only reconciliation with only certain members of the outer world? An ideal ruler must seek friendly relations with everyone. Thirdly, Prospero sought revenge because of his own emotions and his brother's betrayal. He wanted to endow the pain he had felt on Alonso, Sebastian, and Antonio. But even in this he didn't do it himself. He was simply the mastermind behind everything and Ariel was the puppet. An ideal ruler cannot be someone who uses other for their own advantage and vengeance. An ideal ruler must put other before himself because it is his duty to lead.
I do believe that Prospero was an ideal ruler over himself. The reason why I said that is because he did not kill anyone within the story. For example, when he made the tempest he did not make it strong enough to hurt someone. Another example is when he stopped Alonso, Sebastian, and Antonio suffering on the island. Like an ideal ruler he showed kindness. If he wanted to he could have ended their lives and took back his title. However, Prospero was not an ideal ruler when it came to the outer world at times. He ruled over Caliban and mistreated him. Caliban helped out Prospero when he was stranded on the island while he was in distress. Despite this fact Prospero turned around and took the island away from him. An ideal ruler would never mistreat his subject or take what is not theirs. Prospero was not an ideal ruler also because he did not treat his servants as equals. He treated them more on the lines as slaves. He freed Ariel but, then enslaves her for his own doing. The same thing also happens with Caliban after he takes over the island. If he was an ideal ruler then he should have people who would serve him willingly without bondage. An ideal should have people who would serve him but at the same time should be free. Prospero is not an ideal ruler because had a servant who did not follow him. In the Tempest Caliban does not listen to Prospero. He curses him and even planned on killing him. If he was an ideal ruler then his servants should respect him instad of hating him. However, Prospero was an ideal ruler because Ariel did not disobey him. Like an ideal ruler he did treat him with respect and kindness. He even sets her in the end of the story. He even shows kindness to Caliban by not killing him for betraying him. In my opinion Prospero was an ideal ruler overall because of his kindness. Without kindness one would be a tyrant.
Throughout most of The Tempest, Prospero is hardly an ideal leader. His record as a leader of the outside world is far from perfect. Prospero rules over Caliban and Ariel dictatorially. He takes Caliban’s land and treats him like a servant. He exerts power over the outside world, but not wisely or generously. In the beginning of the story, it does not seem that Prospero is a fair or just ruler. This continues when Alonso and his group come ashore. From the start, Prospero rules over this group with cruelty and trickery. And this reflects badly not only on his leadership of the outside world but also on his self control. He lets his desire for revenge get out of control, showing that at this point, he lacked the power over self that would make one an ideal leader. Yet while Prospero failed to demonstrate the qualities of an ideal leader, he changed in a positive direction later in the play. Gradually, Prospero began to be a more just ruler over others and a more controlled ruler over himself. By the end of the play he allows Alonso’s group to leave and treats everyone fairly. As he is leaving the island himself, he frees Ariel and gives the island back to Caliban. This shows that though Prospero was not an ideal ruler through the whole play, he did get better as the play went on. There is no single idea that can explain Prospero’s leadership through the whole story, because it is changes throughout the course of the play. Maybe by presenting Prospero as a less than perfect leader as the beginning of the play, but one who improves over time, Shakespeare is trying to present the picture of an ideal leader – someone who is flawed but gets much closer to being an ideal leader at the end of the play.
In The Tempest, by William Shakespeare, the character Prospero is a round character; his personality changes as the story goes on. Once the Duke of Milan, Prospero and his daughter, Miranda, were cast out by his evil brother Antonio and sent to live on a mysterious island. There Prospero made his self ruler of this island, using force and magic. One might say that Shakespeare presented an ideal ruler by creating the character Prospero, but in the beginning of the play Prospero has many faults that an ideal ruler should not posses. Prospero gives to much trust to those around him, which a ruler should never do. He gives so much trust to Antonio that he is blinded and dose not see that Antonio works against him. The moment Antonio feels Prospero’s guard is lowest; he sets Prospero and Miranda away so that he can take his brother’s place as Duke. Once on the island he meets Caliban and automatically gives him his trust, allowing to be around his daughter, which eventually leads to Caliban attempting to rape her. Prospero is misleading to another character that he meets on the island, Ariel. Ariel is a spirit that had been trapped in a tree for twelve years before Prospero came and freed him. After Prospero freed the spirit, he made him become his servant; promising to let him go early if he obeyed his every command. As the story goes on, Ariel reminds Prospero of this. Prospero reacts by yelling and screaming at Ariel. Prospero did not stay true the promise he made to his servant as a ruler should. As the story progresses we see Prospero mold more into the ideal ruler. He realizes that as a ruler he should not trust every soul that crosses his path. He also forgives those who have betrayed him, such as Caliban and his brother Antonio. Prospero ends up withholding his end of the deal with Ariel, with one last wish. Prospero is a round character in that he develops into an ideal ruler as the events in The Tempest take place.
In The Tempest, Prospero is an overthrown ruler who becomes the ruler of a remote island. Shakespeare presents the ideal ruler as, “one who reconciles power over the outer world with power over the self." I partially agree with the statement. I feel that Prospero has many qualities of an ideal ruler, but not everyone single quality. However, when you think about it, no one can truly contain every ideal quality because no one is perfect. In the story, Prospero appears to have power or control over many of the situations that are occurring around him and the situations happening to him. When he was exiled from his thrown in Naples, he became the ruler of an island that was not his own. He also was a good father to Miranda and brought her up well. He also had control over every situation that went on between the passengers of the boat. Making the spirits his servant gave him the necessary control. Those qualities made him a god ruler. On the other hand, he was cruel to his slave Caliban, who was his friend at first. He discriminated against Caliban because he was different and I don’t feel that being discriminatory is an admirable quality for a ruler to have. He also wanted to get revenge for what his brother did to him by making the boat crash/sink. However, one of the most commendable things that Prospero and an ideal ruler could do is to forgive. Prospero was able to forgive his brother for what he did to him and accept his apology. Another way that Prospero had control was he let Miranda marry whom she wanted, but it also helped them get back into the thrown. So by saying all this, I fell that Prospero had power, more or less, over himself and the surrounding world.
I think that in the beginning of The Tempest, Prospero does not represent an ideal ruler. Prospero is presented, in the beginning, as a ruler who is distracted from his many duties as the Duke of Milan. Prospero is also described as a king who immerses himself in books about subjects such as “liberal arts”. Also, I do not think that Prospero is an ideal ruler because of the fact that he let his brother Antonio takes over his government without doing anything about it. And even after Antonio had a firm grip upon the government and Prospero knows about it, Prospero was still caught up in his studies to try to take back his throne, this in turn cast him away from all the decisions that the government made and in turn drives him away from his people. Furthermore, after Prospero was cast away onto the island, he imposes his ways and his laws onto the inhabitant of the island, who is Caliban, and takes the island for himself. This act of aggression is not fit for a person who is portrayed as an ideal ruler. Finally Prospero is not an ideal leader because of the fact that he did not see his wrong doings and he tried to punish those that drove him out of his kingdom by sending a storm out to sea to damage their ship and force them to drift to his island. Also, Prospero plays tricks on those that came onto the island by making it look like they have lost everything. But through all of the trickery, Prospero becomes an ideal ruler near the end of the story. Prospero became an ideal ruler at the end because he pardon those that drove him out to the island, he did not harm anybody on the boat that crash on the island, and he send everybody back to the homeland safely. Finally, he is an ideal ruler because he kept his promise to Ariel by releasing him at the end of the play.
I agree with the statement completely, that in The Tempest Shakespeare presents Prospero as an ideal ruler, because he is able to control the outer world and himself. An example of this is when Prospero learning how to survive and thrive on the island from Caliban, a great ruler is able to manipulate people to his advantage, and that is what Prospero did with Caliban. Prospero acted as if he only wanted to learn from Caliban and allow Caliban to learn from him. But as an ideal ruler, Prospero allows Caliban to become comfortable with him, and Prospero continues to use him until he is of no use, and that is when Caliban becomes Prospero’s slave. Prospero is able to control Caliban with his magic, and eventually claims the island for himself, usurping it from Caliban. That is an example how Prospero is able to reconcile is power over the outer world. Although, his brother Antonio usurped Prospero power as the Duke of Milan, Prospero is able to reestablish his power (reconcile), on the island and become a ruler again. Another way Prospero is able to reconcile his power gaining control over the spirit Ariel, who helps Prospero with his escapades. Prospero rescued Ariel from a tree, and in order for Ariel to be set free he has to do everything Prospero asks him. Prospero, being a great ruler uses his position as the one who found Ariel and the only one that can set her free, to persuade him into doing task, like punishing Prospero’s enemies. He also uses Ariel, as a symbol of his ability to do good, because he will free Ariel after he is done with his task. Moreover, I do completely agree with the statement that "In the character of Prospero in The Tempest, Shakespeare presents the ideal ruler: one who reconciles power over the outer world with power over the self” and his shown by the examples given
My opinion to this question is that I disagree. My opinion of an ideal ruler is someone who has control of his state and knows the things that are going on. He also has supporters that won’t turn on him no matter what. I don’t believe that Prospero was an ideal ruler because of two things: he didn’t have enough control of his state and he couldn’t control things on his own. Prospero didn’t have enough control because if he did, he wouldn’t have gotten usurped from his dukedom of Milan by his brother. Being a duke is just like being a president or king; you are still a ruler of that particular country. You have to know that everyone can’t be trusted and that many people want what you have. He made a bad decision when he decided to let his brother be the duke temporarily because he should have known that his brother wasn’t going to let the power go as easily as he got it. Even with his brother being the temporary duke, Prospero should have still had enough control to keep his supporters supporting him and not to change sides so easily. Prospero couldn’t control things on his own because he needed his magic to do everything. He had to have magic to take control of the island, to enslave Caliban and to get his dukedom back. Caliban was the only person on this land before his mother, Sycorax, died. This land was rightfully his. Prospero knew that he wouldn’t be able to just walk in and take the land from Caliban. So he decided to use his magic to enslave Caliban forever so he wouldn’t be able to get any power. He used his magic to get his dukedom back by getting Ariel to cause Alonso’s ship to get destroyed in a storm Ariel made. He then let all the people on that ship stay alive but eventually make their way to him. With his magic, he also made hem suffer. When everyone came together, he only let them go off easily because he saw Ariel’s remorse for them and decided to remorse also. All that made it seem to me that he couldn’t have did all the things he did without Ariel. He needed her and magic to get what he wanted back, instead of doing everything on his own. This, to me, does not represent an ideal ruler.
I do not fully believe that Prospero is an ideal ruler, because he does not completely reconcile power over the outer world with power over himself. I believe that Shakespeare develops Prospero’s character into an ideal ruler throughout the story and until the very end he does become an ideal ruler. First of all, the fact that Prospero has magical powers in his possession shows that he unlike other rulers can easily have an advantage of power over the outer world and in a sense be more powerful. Prospero does not use his magic to commit any evil acts, but he uses it for himself and his plans against Alonso’s group, Stephano, Trinculo and Caliban. At the beginning of the play, Prospero seems like he wants to be self-important by telling his story to Miranda. Prospero acts more like a tyrant, because he takes the island from Caliban, treats Caliban and Ariel as a slaves, and orders and abuses them. He also shows a harsh treatment towards Ferdinand, by imprisoning and enslaving him to prove his love for Miranda. He has absolute rule over Ariel and Caliban, which is not a characteristic of an ideal ruler. Prospero also acts like he is unwilling to forgive his brother, Antonio, for usurping him. Another example that shows that he is not such an ideal ruler is that when he was the duke of Milan, he put aside his duties, which gave his brother a chance to take his place. Near the end, Prospero is presented as a more sympathetic and forgiving character. He releases Alonso’s group, frees Ariel, accepts Caliban after trying to murder him, and ultimately he forgives his enemies. The very last act that shows that Prospero might have become an ideal ruler in the end is the renouncing of his magical powers. By this he shows that he finally has control with the power over himself and the outer world.
The tempest, the up roaring play written by William Shakespeare unfolds the relationships between characters such as Ferdinand and Miranda. How exactly Prospero in the beginning of the play tricks Caliban in becoming his slave after he showed him around the islands. How he was a tyrant in the beginning of the play and towards the end, he becomes more of a character who values virtue instead of vengeance. He comes back sucking up towards other characters in the play and is in the need of him becoming nothing else but himself; asking characters such as Trinculo and Stefano to forgive him for his wrongdoing and set him free. Prospero then welcomes Ferdinand into his house to become his soon to be son in law, because the love he had for Miranda. When Prospero once laid his eyes on Miranda, he knew right away that she was the love of his life and it was love at first sight. Ferdinand adored Miranda dearly and he stuns Miranda with the proposal and by the sight of people unlike she has seen before. Ferdinand tells his father about his marriage; Prospero then tells Ferdinand that Miranda is not to be broken �virginity� until the wedding has been officially solemnized. Prospero then charms Miranda to sleep and then calls for Ariel who is the spirit. Prospero then believes that Ariel brought the tempest to the ship and set afire. Prospero has then officially made Caliban his servant and sends him to fetch wood, in the interim he sees Trinculo and think he is a spirit sent by Prospero to torment him. Caliban then hides under a cloak inquiry the cries out that he would be a more diligent servant for Prospero and to tell the �spirit� to leave him alone. Throughout the entire play, Prospero is the tormenter character who at the end wishes for his freedom not regretting what he did in the beginning of the play.
I can agree that Shakespeare projects Prospero as an ideal ruler to a certain extent. In the beginning of the play, Prospero is presented as the Duke of Milan. However, he was guilty of neglecting his responsibilities as the Duke to study liberal arts for his own personal enjoyment. He allowed himself to become heavily distracted from his sole duties. In result, Prospero’s brother, Antonio, was given the advantage and opportunity to usurp Prospero’s power as the Duke and take over the throne. Thus his decisions do not make Prospero an ideal ruler; one who is able to harmonize power over the outer world with power over oneself. However, in the beginning of Prospero’s stay on the island, he exemplified how an ideal ruler uses his/her power for the greater good by setting Ariel free from bondage and exposing Caliban to language and learning. On the contrary, however, Prospero used his good deeds as an excuse to dictate the conditions of Arial and Caliban. He treated them as servants and dared them to argue with his demands. An ideal ruler would always keep the people’s who serve him best interest at heart. Prospero proves not to be an ideal ruler again when he traps Alonso and his party on the island for revenge. With this action, Prospero selfishly puts lives in danger for personal advancement and pleasures. An ideal ruler would be able to control himself/herself to a point where personal feelings are not allowed to interrupt good judgment. Interestingly enough, as the play comes to a close, Prospero grows wiser and more sympathetic towards those he captured, tricked, and treated badly. He allows Alonso and the others leave the island unharmed from their current conditions and set Arial free from bondage. In a sense, Prospero exemplifies his ability to control his emotions and make good judgment. At the end of the play, Prospero, without a doubt, matured into an ideal ruler by being able to balance the power on the outer world with the power over himself.
In my opinion Shakespear does not present the ideal ruler in prospero, because in my opinion Prospero kept making mistakes and as a ruler of anything you cannot afford mistakes because they can lead you to a war, and other horrible things. Prospero also uses magic to manipulate the people who serve him or are around him to bend them to his way of thinking he also uses the people who serve under him in such a way that the fact that they try to betray him seems almost justified. But at the same time is only doing what Niccolo Machiavelli The Prince states to be good ruler you must be feared and hated, but if so why not the loved side of this? My theory is that while in Milan he tried to live as so but then when his brother Alonso betrays him he realizes that the love only lets them run all over you but by instilling fear and hate they are less likely to muster up the courage to fight against him, but back to the subject at hand. Prospero takes over the island due to the fact he failed in Milan because of he succeed he would of never of been opposed to nor would he of lost his place as duke. His failer has also led him to rule the island in such a way that will not allow anyone to oppose him. Then at the time Ferdinand comes he feels threatened that the child of his enemy has come to the place where he intended to begin anew until he realizes Miranda is the only thing Ferdinand had wanted he focus on only that. But due to his harshness and assuming of the intentions of the characters he faces he allows many mistakes take place while in “rule”. Prospero is far from anything to being the ideal ruler and truth be told when has any ruler president, king, queen and ECT, been ideal?
I agree with Shakespeare’s belief that an ideal ruler is one who reconciles power over the outer world with power over the self, but I do not believe he exampled that through Prospero in The Tempest; in the beginning of the play. I say that because an ideal ruler would have control of his people, know who to trust, who not to trust, to be trustworthy, and to take responsibility for their own actions. Prospero showed very few of those qualities. If he was an ideal ruler he would have had control of his people and he would not have trusted Antonio, Alonso or Caliban so that they could not have been able to kick him off of the island and usurp his power as the duke of Milan. Also, an ideal ruler would not be lethargic about his work. Prospero wanted to gain knowledge so bad that he started to become lethargic about his work and because of that, Antonio and Alonso were able to kick him off the island. I also stated that a good leader would be trustworthy. Prospero was not that. He seeked vengeance in strange and magical ways on those who caused harm to him. An ideal ruler also would not take what is not their’s. Prospero came to the island and took over what rightfully belonged to Caliban. He also made him a slave and a good ruler would have had servant willingly to serve them; there would be no need for force. Then he taught Caliban all of these things and Caliban ended up using it against him (there’s that trust factor again). Then toward the middle of the play Prospero develops into an ideal ruler by forgiving all of those who did him wrong and by freeing his servants. And when it came to his daughter Miranda’s life he was always an ideal ruler because he accepted Ferdinand into his family even though he came from a family that Prospero was against.
I personally do not agree that in the Tempest, by William Shakespeare that the character Prospero was an ideal ruler. This is true because an ideal ruler should have the support of his/her people, and should always worry about what is better in the long run for the people of the kingdom. Shakespeare showed that Prospero was not the ideal ruler in the first Act when Prospero tells Miranda how they came to be on the island. The reason that Prospero found himself on the island was he was not ruling Milan as should have. He was more interested in his books and his education than what was going on in Milan. If he was the ideal ruler than his brother would never had gone after his throne because he would not have been the one that was ruling. Also an ideal ruler would not have put other people’s lives in danger to get revenge, however that is what he did. He made sure that Alonso, the king of Naples who Prospero’s brother worked with to overthrow Prospero, and everyone else he wished to seek his revenge on was on a boat on which he let his spirit slave Ariel play tricks and cause storms and winds to shake their boat and crash on the island. In this situation the ideal ruler would have not have been focused on making everything better and moving on than revenge. If he would have mastered the power over self he would have seen that he did not need to do what he did. Also he could have not mastered power over self because he did not rely on himself; he relied on magic and also on Caliban. Caliban was there before Prospero but still ended up as a slave where as if he was the ideal ruler, he would not have forcibly just taken over because the ideal ruler would share power. In the end if Prospero was an ideal ruler he would have begin to feel a bit of remorse but once cannot find in this book a line where Prospero feels remorse.
Prospero a well known character in the Tempest, written by William Shakespeare, is not presented as an idealistic ruler. An idealistic ruler is not one who abuses its own powers but one who balances and doesn’t have lots off. Prospero is not an idealistic ruler because he changes his personality. He is unable to reconciles power over the outer world, explained in the Tempest, or else he would off not been over thrown by his brother Antonio. An idealistic ruler does not abuse of the power that he was; something that Prospero does lots of. Prospero in the eyes of his daughter, Miranda is a hero because that’s the way he is representing himself when he tells her his story about how much me suffer when his brother Antonio expelled him and tries to be the center of attention. In the beginning of the novel. Prospero also has an advantage with his magical powers and tries to scare Stephano, Alonso, Caliban, and Trinculo by appearing hound shape spirits. In Act III, Prospero and Ariel played a trick on Alonso’s group when they are eating, the trick was to appear and disappear a blanket. He also has two servants which are Caliban and Ariel, in which he abuses them and given orders to. He also took Caliban’s island in which he arrived, and was a guessed to, but then tricked him and made a servant. In Act I, Prospero is rude to Ferdinald because he doesn’t trust him, and doesn’t like the idea of his being eligible for his daughter Miranda. But then in Act IV, Prospero changes with Ferdinand and gives him his daughter and his blessing for them to marry. He then becomes emotional and produced spirits, Iris, Cares, and Juno to perform a masque celebration for Miranda and Ferdinand’s weeding. Also in Act V, Prospero became sympathetic by releasing the King’s group. He also forgives Alonso and silences his apology. And finally at the end he frees Ariel and let go of his magical powers. Not an idealistic ruler in the beginning of the novel but tries to be at the end of the novel.
Hi everyone! I hope you get my point because I don’t know if it will make any sense to you. At the beginning of the Tempest, I think that Shakespeare does not represent Prospero as an ideal ruler. When Prospero was in power of Milan, his dukedom, he did not know how to balance his power over the outer world with the power over himself. Prospero spent his time studying, enriching his self with knowledge but forgot his responsibilities as duke. Instead he let his brother Antonio to run his place and rule Milan. Prospero abandoned his dukedom, he was not capable to control it. If Prospero would have known how to balance things, he would have been fully aware of what was going on in his dukedom. Because of his ignorance of people being power-hungry and the great trust he had on his brother, he was betrayed and kicked out of his dukedom. I think this is the best thing that could have ever happened to him. I believe that if it had not been for this mean action done by his brother, Prospero would have never taken the time and realize that he was doing wrong on not assuming his responsibilities. On this island that he and his daughter ended up, Prospero had to find a way to survive, which he made possible by imposing his own rules and using his magical powers to manipulate people. Becoming the ruler of this small island gave Prospero a real taste of what responsibilities are. By the end of the play I consider Prospero being fully capable of taking his place as Duke of Milan again. He forgave all of those who harmed him, something that I consider makes him an exceptional human being. I believe that he would be a great ruler because he has compassion and because now he had the experience. Do you get my point?
What is an ideal ruler? An ideal ruler is a ruler who is perfect; in this case, Prospero. In a high extent of agreement, William Shakespeare's ideal ruler, Prospero, who through his kind acts towards his loyal servants and intellectual decisions that helped maintain his position in the throne is the perfect leader. Prospero is a kind man because he cared for Caliban, his servant, and taught him how to speak. Prospero also protects his daughter out of kindness of a caring father. Prospero also accepted Ferdinand’s marriage to his daughter because he sees and knows what’s best for his daughter and tries not to interfere anymore. Prospero’s brother, kicking prospero out of the land and onto another island, sent an apology to Prospero. Many rulers are cruel and tyrant, however, out of kindness Prospero accepted the apology and forgave his brother. Just as the saying “Let bygones be bygones.” Prospero also wishes for his daughter’s journey to be safe and as well released one of his servants, Ariel. Most rulers are kind on the “outside” and not on the “inside” but Prospero is both, kind on the inside and outside. Prospero is a very intellectual man. Prospero was able to create rule or become a ruler of a new island right after coming to the island, this right here takes a lot of work due to the fact that maintaining order and keeping rule so the ones loyal to him will be under control. Prospero is aware of everything such as the plan to assassinate Alonso while everyone sleeps. Even though Ferdinand wanted to marry his daughter, Prospero wanted to test him to make him prove that he’s worth it for his daughter. You won’t find the kindness and intellects combination in most rulers, however, you find this in Prospero because he’s the perfect ruler.
Hello everyone, after reading this question I have come to the conclusion that Prospero was not an ideal ruler in the outer world rather at the end of the play he reconciles with himself. I believe this because at the beginning of The Tempest, Prospero was more devoted to his studies than his role as the Duke of Milan. I think that he was selfish because he gave his responsibilities as duke to his brother Antonio while he took care of what was important to him. He also was not an ideal ruler because he did not devote all of this time to his role as the Duke of Milan. Antonio had the opportunity to take Prospero’s title and power of the Duke of Milan. This made Prospero a weak ruler because he never put up a fight when Antonio took his role and power. An ideal ruler does not allow anyone to come and take their power without retaliating. Also an ideal ruler is only supposed to be devoted to his kingdom and not let other things get in the way. Towards the end of the play Prospero reconciles with himself and becomes a loving father to his daughter Miranda. In addition to spending more time with her, he was able to choose the right husband for her which was Ferdinand. If Antonio did not take Prospero’s power he probably could not have spent much time with her because of his duties. He also reconciles with himself when he does not retaliate against Antonio for taking his power. This made him to be the better person. Prospero forgave Antonio and the others that were with him and he showed them mercy by allowing them to live and did not punish them for what they did. In the end Prospero showed that he was an ideal ruler with power over himself when he displayed Christ-like qualities. The bible sates in Luke 6: 27-28: “Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.”
Shakespeare is a man of extreme talent and thought, and because of this, I will never truly understand the meaning behind the text. By high school, everyone has taken glimpse or reenacted one of Shakespeare’s plays. He writes some truly complicated text. So how can we truly understand his motives? Prospero. A man of complicated character. He undoubtedly shows characteristics of a leader. The Tempest does not delve upon his life political and social life before he was usurped and exiled from his kingdom and stripped of the title as “Duke of Milan.” He seems he had been a selfless ruler who also ruled justly. Unfortunately, his brother, Antonio, had other intentions and uprooted Prospero. Prospero wasn’t usurped because he was necessarily corrupt; it was the usurper who was corrupt. It’s not very difficult to uproot another because there are always those who want something different that amass others with the same ideals. This is similar to the case of Julius Caesar and how he was murdered and removed from power. As Cassius used innocent Brutus to remove Caesar, Antonio used innocent Alonso to remove Prospero. Due to this incident, Prospero learns how to use resources and keep watch on his enemies by magic, such as using Ariel. It is means of procuring safety. Prospero is also wise and forgiving. He forgave all who betrayed him, such as Alonso who had been tricked from the beginning by his evil brother. His forgiveness was shown due to the fact that he accepted his son, Ferdinand as his daughter’s husband. He is also wise to have tested Ferdinand’s love for Miranda through hardships. Prospero wanted someone who qualify and would return Miranda’s love equally, not a one-time occurrence. Now, we will move to the issue of Caliban. As stated in the play, Caliban was once accepted by Prospero. Prospero taught him the languages necessary to communicate during that time period. Caliban attempted rape on Miranda, and this caused a change in relationship between Prospero and Caliban. If someone attempted rape on my daughter, I would not be fond of that person, and I would probably kill that person. Anyways, I do not think this casting-out of Caliban is a stain to his leadership characteristics as others may have stated. He is doing this for the protection of his and Miranda’s life; for throughout most of the book, Caliban wants to murder him. No leader is faultless. Prospero isn’t perfect, but his qualities outnumber his faults. Also, when Shakespeare considered Prospero the ideal ruler, he was mainly considering the time frame of when he lived. Leadership qualifications change over time, not drastically, but gradually.
While reading the statement made above I decided I do agree with it to some degree, but my take on the matter is not completely in accord with what was stated. The part of the statement that I agree with is the part that insists an ideal ruler is one who reconciles power over the outer world with power over the self. This is a statement that is very true. In an ideal ruler, I would prefer that this person holding such a prestigious position in the world be at one with themselves. It is theorized in transcendentalistic beliefs that in order to know, understand, and/or judge the outer world, one must know and understand all that there is to be known and understood of one’s self. Though I do not agree that an ideal ruler was Prospero, I do believe that Prospero as a person was more one with himself when compared to many others who could have held such a position as an revengeful exiled duke with magical abilities. He was not an ideal ruler for in his decisions to use deception, trickery, alcohol, as well as to put lives in danger just to recall a position of power that he so rightfully desired he put his would-be subjects lives in danger which had he not had complete control of his magical abilities and of Ariel’s slavery, could have resulted in a horribly bleak story. One can argue that he was not completely at one with himself because if he truly had been, he would have been at peace with his life that he’d spent over a decade living in not usurping the life of a duke. It is however; true that one possibly can not blame him for after twelve years taking the chance to use such trickery to get back what was rightfully his, even though he stated that he’d rather have his books over all of it. For this response though, I must say that of the other men within the story, men who plotted to kill mind you, they would more likely seem to attempt more harm if given magical abilities, and for the most part, unlike Prospero who only wanted his position back, these men would probably have kept the magical staff in the hopes that they could wield even more power over others in the future even after venturing away from the island. Essentially, Prospero is competent enough to rule, maybe not the most ideal ruler, but when compared to the other loserish men who fell to the island in the Tempest, he seems to have his head on straighter than those guys. He is partially more at one with himself than Sebastian, Antonio, Stefano, and Trinculo. He’s probably not a better ruler than Gonzalo, but hey, I mean Gonzalo’s a saint.
In The Tempest, Shakespeare presents Prospero as a man with many different personalities. He is a single-father, and is therefore caring and protective. This can be observed in the way he approaches Miranda and her relationship with Ferdinand. He was once King of Naples but was overthrown by his brother and this made him a bitter person. Prospero considered Caliban his slave, and this made him feel superior and gave him a sense of pride. All of these personalities make up Prospero and make him a fair ruler who wants to maintain and keep control by any means necessary. In a way, this makes Prospero an ideal ruler. However, I do not think he would be fit to rule over a larger group of people. With more people, there become more responsibilities. When Prospero was King he lost control by being to lenient and trustworthy of people. On the island, there were very few people and so it was quite clear as to who Prospero could trust and who he could not. In today’s society a leader is very rarely ideal because power and authority change people. Yes, an ideal ruler should have total control of self in order to show that they are fit to rule a particular people. Without control of self a person cannot even attempt to control the things that take place around him/her. I feel an ideal ruler must be perfectly balanced with the right qualities such as fearlessness, intelligence and know how to give orders. They have to know how to address their public and what the people want. I do not think that there can ever be an ideal ruler because everyone’s opinions on what “ideal” is will vary and people change. When I hear the word ideal I think of something that is seemingly perfect. Since nobody is perfect, nobody can be ideal. However a person can pave the way for others by setting the bat high. I feel that if given the chance, and the right resources, Prospero could do just that.
I disagree with quote for a few reasons. I think Prospero did have power of the self, but not over the outer world. I disagree with the word reconcile in this quote. I think because of his strong power over the self was the reason he had no power over the outer world. Prospero is not an ideal ruler, because he focused too much on himself absorbing knowledge than for the welfare of his people. I don’t think he reconciled power over the outer world with power of himself at all. When he was ruler of Milan he focused none of his energy on ruling the outer world and was therefore usurped by his brother, who did take interest in ruling Milan. When he was ruler of his island he was cruel to Caliban. He treated Caliban like a slave and gave up on educating him because of Caliban’s lust for Miranda. I think Prospero would have been and ideal advisor because of his wisdom and powers but he just showed no effort in the ruling of his land. The only time he was interested in controlling Caliban was to make him do things for him and when he had his plot for revenge against his brother. He was also obviously not a kind ruler to the spirits he had control over. The only way he could get them to do anything was by the promise of setting them free. This does not sound like loyal servants or a very ideal king. That is why I disagree with quote.
I completely disagree with this statement. First, I do not believe that there is an ideal ruler. The word per se is not ideal. One person ruling the life of a population, or even a small amount of people, is not an ideal situation. What makes that person better than all the others? Does everyone really know that that person will really do what is best for everyone? And the most important question, who, coming upon such power, puts everyone else in front of his/her self? To me the ideal form of organization of a society is having assemblies and making rules collectively. Not having one person in charge of everyone else. The Tempest’s Prospero is the portrait of reality and not idealization. The perfect ruler would not be a colonizer, since the whole concept of being a colonizer is taking what is taking advantage of land that is not yours, and then ruling over the natives. Shakespeare creates a perfectly well known figure to all of us, the person in power. This person may be a parent, an older sibling, a teacher, a governor or president, or as Prospero, a colonizer. What all these figures many times have in common is that they cannot handle power and end up using it for personal benefits. This misuse of power and resources takes away from the subordinates who have two ways of reacting: ignoring what is happening and conforming to the situation or getting very angry and fighting for what they deserve. But most of the time when the subordinates start reacting they are silenced in some way by the power, especially if it is an individual and not a large number of people together, which are harder to silence. In the book, Prospero uses his powers to keep natives under his authority. At several points the natives react, and begin to rebel, until Prospero slices them using favors he has done them as proof that they should serve Prospero until he says they can stop. This is a clear example of the bread and circus politics. Where politicians give the people a bit of food and entertainment to keep them satisfied while they are right there stealing all of the nation’s money. Again, Shakespeare is describing what was really happening, the colonization, the types of politics, the way society was organized, and infinite more examples.
In the beginning of The Tempest Prospero was not an ideal ruler. Prospero was the Duke of Milan.; however, he became indulged in his personal interests, rejecting his responsibilities as ruler. Prospero was not an ideal ruler, because he rejected his responsibilities as Duke of Milan. Antonio, his brother, and Alonso, the King of Naples, plotted against him and stripped him of his authority. He obviously did not have power over the outer world, because his place in society was taken away from him. He was forced to flee from Milan.
However, Prospero became an ideal ruler after arriving at the island. When Prospero arrives on the island, he becomes the ruler. He forced Caliban, who was once ruler of the island, to be his slave. Prospero caused the shipwreck which stranded Alonso and the others on the island. While they were on the island, Prospero made sure to keep Ferdinand from his father, Alonso, in hopes to make them think the other was dead. Alonso began to think he was at fault for his son’s death, as a result of his evil deeds toward Prospero. Prospero had power over the outer world, and as well as power over self. He used his magic abilities and the spirit, Ariel, to control the outer world. Prospero took advantage of his power over the outer world to plot against his brother Antonio, the uprising Duke of Milan, and Alonso, the King of Naples. These cruel actions were out of retaliation against his brother, Antonio. Prospero also had power over the self because he allowed himself to forgive Antonio and Alonso. Prospero showed virtue opposed to bitterness, and wanted the past to be done with. He felt the important thing to do was to move forward, without dwelling in the past. He also showed he had power when he gave up magic, and promised to break his staff, and drown his magic book.
Prospero, from William Shakespeare’s The Tempest, does indeed present an example of the “ideal ruler” and maybe even (in a certain sense) the ideal tyrant, but there is also someone else who can be considered an “ideal ruler” other than Prospero: his brother Antonio. The term “ideal” is really just a sense of opinion because one person can think that something is ideal, or normal, and another can think that it is the complete opposite. I think that an “ideal ruler” is usually a tyrant and it is rare that a monarchy is favored by the people being ruled over. Prospero is made to seem like the ideal ruler (or at least my version of an ideal ruler) because he comes to the island with all these powers that no one else on the island has and uses these powers to make all the beings there do his bidding. Yet even still, all this was done with really good intentions. Prospero does all that he does in the play so that he can return back home where he belongs. It only seems like Prospero is being power hungry because, for once he is taking charge of his life. He has let others take advantage of him twice before now: first with his brother Antonio, whom he placed too much trust into and lost his dukedom to, and second to Caliban, who he trusted so much that he was like part of the little family on the island but then was betrayed by when Caliban tried to rape Miranda. I think that it is good that Prospero is finally taking charge of things. His brother Antonio has always taken charge of things. He is my perfect example of an “ideal ruler” because he has taken his royalty from someone else in a jealous and immoral way that seems to be the method of most popular rulers of his time. It’s always my way or the highway, right?
In the Tempest by William Shakespeare, Shakespeare presents the ideal ruler in the character of Prospero, however Prospero does not always carry out this role. Prospero is very intelligent in the sense that he is able to manipulate others with magic and trickery to make them do what he wants. On various occasions throughout the play, Prospero and the spirit Ariel used music and mirages in the form of dogs and food to keep conspirators from killing Prospero. Prospero shows the ability to bring together separate powers such as his and Ariel’s to take control of a situation, which do show leadership qualities in his character, but Prospero is self absorbent and in the play only rules a man and a spirit for the most part. To say that Prospero is not so forward as an ideal ruler he is laidback and waits for opportunities as apposed to, Caliban and Antonio, who show prove that they seize moments in instances such as Antonio over through Prospero’s thrown and Caliban conspiring to kill Prospero. Antonio in character presents himself as a much more ideal leader by displaying initiative and a willingness to fight for what he desired. Furthermore a good leader should be admired and Prospero was obviously not liked enough by his people to keep his thrown. As a ruler Prospero shows that he makes the decisions of an older and wiser leader and many desire a ruler who shows initiative for power, so I can only agree halfway that Prospero illustrates the ideal ruler.
I believe that Shakespeare doesn't show Prospero as an ideal ruler. He doesn't show power not only to himself, but to the people of Milan as well. The people of Milan tried to overthrow his powers after not considering reconciliation. If this were to happen, he would also see that Antonio was trying to take his throne. Also, he wanted to get revenge on the people who did him wrong, so he puts the life oh his people in danger. He does this by placing them on a boat while the seas are unbearable, and eventually, they all get stranded on an island. For that, I believe that no ruler should do anything of that nature just for revenge. Basically, when anyone becomes a ruler, one must be able to accept all responsibilities for their people and themselves. Prospero failed to live up to those rules in my opinion. Also, I would like to point out all his plots, schemes & manipulations all worked out to his favor in terms of how great he would be. I believe that anyone who wants to be a ruler should not do this to anyone no matter how well you want to be known to your people.
In the Tempest by William Shakespeare, Prospero is not become an ideal ruler. As the play progresses Prospero’s character molds into this ideal ruler. What makes Prospero an interesting ruler in the beginning is that he has magical powers which is something none of the other characters in the play had; this is one trait that boosts his ability as a ruler. In the beginning of the play, I would disagree with him being an ideal ruler. His power as king of Naples was usurped by Antonio, in order to become an ideal ruler there should not be anyone in objection towards his rule over them. An ideal ruler should have his governed people love him and want him to have him as an authoritative person. The ruler should respect his citizens and in return he would receive many rewards. In the story the character of Prospero molds into this ideal ruler, when in Act V Prospero feels compassion for the King’s group involving Antonio and the rest of the members who usurped him. This act of compassion makes Prospero a ruler that one would not hate, having an authoritative figure and care for you is something that is to believe that the governed would want and need as well. As I said before, what I believe makes Prospero a great ruler to be is the magical powers that he holds. This power is similar to what other rulers would have. Some rulers have great strength; others have great intelligence, while Prospero has great magical powers. This would serve as a mean as protection to the citizens and would also serve as a way to control them too. This would make Prospero a true ideal ruler, but for some reason I don’t believe that he is an ideal ruler. I think that reason is that because Prospero is human, and humans aren’t perfect or ideal. So how can someone who isn’t ideal become an ideal ruler? That is why I don’t believe he cannot be this ideal ruler.
I don’t agree that Prospero was able to reconcile power over the world with the power of his self. I think that because if Prospero was able to reconcile power then he wouldn’t have been over thrown as the duke of Milan by the people. If he was able to reconcile he would have had the power over himself and the people. As a leader and a duke he would have seen that his brother was sneaky and wanted to take the throne from him the whole time. Another reason for this is because Prospero thought of his self and put himself before his people, in which he had no control over : that led to him being overthrown. It also showed that he had vengeance in his mind which showed he didn’t have control over himself. In addition to that he never noticed that he brother was plotting against him, while working with the king of Naples to take what Prospero has. Also its baffling that Prospero wasn’t interested in politics, something that’s brings you more money and power. Prospero also didn’t live up to his duties and didn’t come through by being a responsible leader. A leader should know everything that is going on and have an idea of who he needs and wants to have around him. I say this because as I said earlier how his brother plotted against him he should have people around him that he can trust. Prospero as a leader should take in consideration of the obstacles that come with a position he had. With a position like this you should know how to control your people and make them respect you. Prospero failed to do that. That’s why I believe that he didn’t reconcile power over the world with power of his self.
First of all, Prospero is a very interesting character. His ways of ruling would not be considered perhaps “ideal” all around, however he does show some qualities of a good leader. I disagree that Prospero is an ideal ruler because he failed to have control of the situation when his brother, Antonio, overthrown his power and force him to move from Milan. If Prospero was such an ideal ruler, than he would have had control of the situation, the role would have been reversed and Antonio would have been the one fleeing the country. Prospero was not focused while being the Duke of Milan, he allowed for his brother to rise up right next to him. Prospero should have been more alert and careful of the people he trusts. He allowed for himself to be portrayed, not only by his brother, but also by other characters throughout the book. For example, he also trusted Caliban, but what did Caliban do? He turned around and tried to rape his lovely daughter who was so innocent. However, Prospero was able to seize control of the island and have Caliban do whatever he wanted him to do at the snap of a finger. I believe it is okay to call Prospero a leader, but by calling him an ideal leader is very questioning.
I do not agree with the comment nor do I disagree. I feel as though Shakespeare in the beginning made Prospero seem like he did not care that he was a ruler at one time. Later on in the story towards the end you can tell that Prospero actually liked being ruler or maybe it was the fact that he was back stabber by his brother. I do not think that it was right for his brother to try to take his place as ruler, but if Prospero was doing what he was supposed to in the first place. His brother Prospero would not have to even think about taking his brother place. On the other hand I disagree because as a ruler you might not always lose yourself. I do not think Prospero did but on the island but he seems as though he was two personalities. In the play I see a lot of personalities such as of one minute he is being mean and the next being nice. With Ariel he kept promising her that he was going to set her free and even though he kept saying she had to do all these thing for him he end up setting her free at the end. In the book Prospero does not give a perfect idea of a perfect ruler and someone people would follow after. Personally I could not follow a ruler with different personalities because I need a ruler who is going to stick to his word and to think of his people and helping his country. I think Shakespeare could have made Prospero a better ruler by not having him try to get revenge on his brother through the storm or setting Ariel free when he said he was. It would even been good if Shakespeare treated Caliban with respect. It was just little things that Prospero could have done to make it seem he was a good role model and a good ruler.
Hello world! I agree with Shakespeare presenting Prospero an ideal ruler to a certain extent. Shakespeare’s definition of an ideal ruler is one who reconciles power over the outer world with power over the self. I agree to a certain extent because Prospero came from his home as a ruler and was driven out and was able to take control of a foreign land and kill someone, which was Sycorax, in the process. I can connect this to how pilgrims were driven out from there land in Europe, came over to America, killed the Native Americans, and took over. In this case, Prospero is the pilgrim or settler. On the other hand I can see why Shakespeare portrays Prospero as an ideal ruler because he was able to forgive Alonso and his group for trying to seek vengeance upon Prospero. This shows that Prospero was able to reconcile power over himself by forgiving his brother. Another reason why Prospero can be portrayed as an ideal ruler is because Prospero was able to control the whole entire island, his daughter Miranda, his slave Caliban, and his spirit Ariel. This shows that Propsero was able to reconcile power over the out world with the island and the people on it being the outer world. Prospero did not show the traits of an ideal ruler in the beginning of the book, but towards the end, he became the ideal ruler Shakespeare is trying to portray. So, this is why I agree to a certain extent with Shakespeare portraying Prospero as an ideal ruler.
I disagree with the quote, “In The Tempest, Shakespeare presents the ideal ruler: one who reconciles power over the outer world with power over the self.” Prosepero’s actions throughout the book are completely in his self interest and he uses everyone and everything around him to help him reach his percieved goal. His goals are not made through any sacrifices on his part but completely at the expense of others. Every event that Prospero is faced with he interprets it in order to see how it may benefit him. When Ariel asks him to release him from bondage for a good deed, Prospero decides he needs him to seek revenge on his enemies despite the fact that he promised Ariel he would let him go. Also, when he and Caliban get in an argument and he reminds Caliban that he taught him his language, one can infer that this was simply done for better communication between the two and so that Prospero might have better control over Caliban. His actions reflect those of a ruthless usurper himself. Upon his arrival on the island, Prospero immediately declares himself the ruler and Caliban his slave. This action shows that he will assume control over others (without their consent) as well as treat them poorly once that is achieved. Even at the end of the play, when Prospero puts on a show to entertain his guests his only real purpose for doing so is to show offf his powers and demonstrate his knowledge. In most of Prospero’s actions throughout the play he is not trying to harmonize the interests of himself nad others. He is using the people under his command or rule to work toward his goals. No matter how often they may beg or plead their needs and wants he dismisses them until he feels that they are no longer of use to him. Prospero is not the ideal ruler because he is self-centered and lacks empathy.
42 comments:
In the Tempest, I think that Shakespeare does not present Prospero as an ideal ruler. As an ideal ruler, you balance the power of the higher power, or government, with the power of the individual, making your own choices. In the Tempest, Prospero was much more like an absolute ruler, not so much a dictator because Prospero showed compassion. In many ways Prospero used his magic as a way to manipulate people, and situations that lead to the manipulation of people. Using his hold over Ariel, the spirit, Prospero causes the Royal ship to shipwreck and the passengers aboard to come up on the Island. Ariel, under Prospero’s orders, figuratively, leads the stranded around the island; being careful not to intercept Ferdinand with Alonso. This would benefit Prospero’s ulterior motive, requiring that the King and his son not know that the other was alive. One of the main reasons that Prospero and Miranda are alive is because of Caliban. Though first very cordial with Caliban, Prospero soon rules over him and makes Caliban his slave. His supremacy over Ariel and Caliban, denying them their freedom and making them act of his accord, proves that Prospero cares very little about their individual choice making and that he deems them his servants. An ideal ruler does rule over their subjects, but they counter that with the acknowledgement of individual right. Prospero only acknowledges Ariel’s freedom because of a promise he made previously, but given the choice he probably wouldn’t have freed her. He was delaying the point of her freedom throughout the entire play. Also in the end, Prospero reclaims Caliban as his; he repossesses Caliban as his property. In order to be an ideal ruler, you have to have equal halves of a sense of higher authority and of deciding for one’s self. Prospero is not an ideal ruler because he has very little, if any, of a sense of individual decision making. Since Prospero is lacking the latter half, Prospero can only be described as an absolute ruler.
-Asha Jordan
I do agree with this idea to a certain extinct. The belief that obtaining and maintaining power over the entire world must start with one obtaining and maintaining power over self. With Prospero, for him to even come to the idea that he could rule the world, he had to establish and prove his control over the island. He proved this well when Alonso and the other strandees embarked upon the island. The way he used Ariel to watch, control, and alter the actions of Alonso and the others was a foreshadow to his ultimate power of the rest of the world. Most often, people who come into a position of authoruty are not enabled with the ability to control themselves, let alone a nation of people. Though these authority figures give off the impression that they are in control and making decisions, there are always people behind the scenes feeding off positive and negative outlooks into their thought process. Not only are there people intentionally giving their opinions into the one with power's head, there are also somewhat unintentional opinions being received as well. One major form of unintentional opinion is the media. May it be a newspaper, radio, television, internet, or magazines, the media always has an impact on thoughts of most. A important decision could be altered by the decison-maker seeing something in the newspaper. This shows that there is a lack of power over oneself. If a person is to have control over a group of people, how can this take place if that person can not make a decision without the influence of others? For one to gain power and maintain control, they have to first know and control themself, then once that is completed, the opportunity to control another another makes itself truly apparent.
vrogysI believe The Tempest is a very well written book. It takes place on an Island, in which, people from all walks of life interact with each other. Some characters are deformed, while others are normal human beings. This book tells a drastic story of a brother, Antonio, who steals his dukedom from his very own brother, Prospero. I believe that it is very disturbing to find out that your own brother wants to take your fame away from you, even though you owned it fairly. Prospero isn’t’ actually an ideal ruler in my eyes. That is because he let his own brother take his fame. He treats people in harsh ways and that doesn’t portray an ideal ruler. He should have focused on pleasing his people rather them him, then he would have knew what was ahead of him. An ideal ruler is someone who posses qualities that take into consideration how others feel and tries to satisfy them by all means. Prospero and his lovely daughter, Miranda, were both exiled by his brother and his group of allies. While Antonio thinks that his brother is killed by a harsh storm, only Gonzalo knows that he and his daughter are still alive and well. Later in the book, Antonio finally comes to realize that what he did was wrong and he’s sorry for the pain he has caused Prospero. He hopes for the forgiveness of his brother and he later receives it during the end of the play. I really feel as though The Tempest is challenging to read at some points. That is because of the language that Shakespeare uses in the play. The type of language he uses is very original and ornate. It does however, indeed, complement the time period in which the play was written. In his book, it seems to me that Shakespeare takes into account that life is not always a fairytale land, and that bad deeds do happen. The Tempest tells a story different from all others. It discusses the story of reality in true world today. The grammar is immaculate, even though Shakespeare used his own language to tall a story. The style of this book complements the period in which the book was written. Some characters express life-like qualities that made me realize that there are really some people in the world that want to take you down since they aren’t’ doing so well themselves. Overall, I enjoyed this book. I see this type of book being for class discussions only in my opinion. I feel this way because most people might not necessarily read a type of book like this for entertainment purposes. The quality is good and it was nice to read a book different from the other books that I might usually read.
I agree to intent. Shakespeare does not present an ideal ruler. At first glance Prospero seems like a well intentioned magician, a
serene old man who only wanted to restore harmony and achieve reconciliation. So you think that he would be a great ruler. But when you look closer into his character you see something else there, a character who is harsh and impatient, demanding and ambiguous, power hungry and deeply troubled. And these are not traits of a ruler or at least an effective or “ideal” ruler. Shakespeare instead develops Prospero from a basically good, but flawed man, to one who, although retaining some vanity and therefore is not perfect, will certainly act in a manner befitting an ideal leader. In order for Prospero to become an ideal human leader, he must give up magic, and consent to allow his power to flow only from the loyalty of his people. Given the character of Prospero which is a pompous, self-pitying and apparently unforgiving he is not fit to rule under the definition given. Prospero also seems unforgiving towards Caliban and Antonio.Prospero is also consistently self-indulgent and vain. Shakespeare does not present us the perfect ruler immediately. Instead, he develops Prospero from a basically good, but flawed man, to one who, although retaining some vanity and therefore is not perfect, will certainly act in a manner befitting an ideal leader. So if you can look at it in that manner he is a ideal ruler to some extent but Prospero fails to reconcile power and it is because of that he won’t go far as a ruler. As a ruler you should be able to forgive people/ share the power given to you because your setting a precedence for your people or followers to look up to. So Shakespeare does in a way present an ideal ruler during that time period just not a worldly ideal ruler.
Prospero in the tempest is a very complicated character; he starts off as a lackadaisical ruler, to a tyrannical ruler, and then to a forgiving person, as we see in the last scene. In my opinion, Prospero does end up as an ideal ruler. However, it takes a lot of analyzing to come up with that conclusion. Prospero is very lackadaisical towards his duties; he was so interested in gaining knowledge and neglected his duties. The conflict is revealed when Prospero begins to lack interest in his duties. This gives Antonio, his envious brother, an opportunity to overthrow him. The Tempest also reveals Prospero as a character who trusts everyone around him. He trusted Antonio and kept him too close. He also trusted Caliban and educated him, who in turn used it against him. Caliban had the intrepidity to attempt to rape Miranda. Prospero is also portrayed as a tyrannical ruler; he causes the shipwreck, and uses his magical power to invoke spirits to pinch Caliban, whenever he curses. When Ariel reminded Prospero of his promise to free him, if he does them willingly, Prospero becomes vexed and threatens to be harsh on him. Prospero is also rude and harsh towards Ferdinand. However, at the final scene, we see the true Prospero as a forgiving and loving father, brother and friend. He chooses virtue as opposed to vengeance, forgives those who wronged him, and proves to be judicious. Prospero exercises good judgments and does things for specific reasons. He caused the shipwreck and brought the passengers to the island. He did this to remind them of what they did and make them feel guilty. He is also rude to Ferdinand because he doesn’t want them to fall in love too quickly. Prospero wants Ferdinand to learn to cherish Miranda. I do think that Prospero is an ideal ruler. It is a gradual process of him being a lackadaisical ruler, to a tyrannical ruler, to a forgiving and ideal ruler.
Shakespeare uses Prospero as an ideal ruler. I agree with Shakespeare’s belief that an ideal ruler is one who reconciles power the outer world with power over the self. In The Tempest, Prospero has control over the ship that’s on its way to his island as well as his slave Caliban, his daughter Miranda, and his spirit Ariel. These people are represented as the outer world. He also has power over the self because he is able to do the right thing, which is to forgive his brother and the shipmates, than to have vengeance over them. A ruler should have control over their land and the people in it, but a ruler should also have a heart filled with mercy and forgiveness for those same people. Shakespeare does a great job of using Prospero as that ruler. In the beginning of the Tempest, Prospero was not an ideal ruler because he only cared about himself; he put his brother and their shipmates in danger as well as misleading his daughter about the things that are happening in their life. By the end of The Tempest, Prospero forgives his brother, and lets his daughter marry her love, which is a sign of growth for Prospero as a ruler. Because of these changes that Prospero makes, his people now respect him. He now holds forgiveness and mercy for his people, which is what an ideal ruler should have. At the same time, Prospero still has Caliban as his slave, Prospero should not keep Caliban as his slave, but Caliban should get punished for his wrong doings. Shakespeare uses Prospero as an example of an ideal ruler which I fully agree with, Prospero has control over the outer world but has control over himself as well, he knows when to punish someone and when to forgive. These qualities are what make up an ideal ruler.
Greetings everyone. As I read the statement given to us, it took alot of evaluation on my part. I had to look at the pros and cons of the situation to come to the conclusion that I dont agree with the statement. I concluded this because Prospero was unable to reconcile power over the world with power of his self. I say this for three specific reasons. The first reason was that if he was able to reconcile power, he would have been overthrown as duke of Milan by the people of Milan. He would have had enough control over the people and himself, that a situation like that would have not occured. Also if he was able to reconcile power, he would have seen it clearly that his own brother was a snake and that he was trying to take the throne from him all along. My idea of an ideal ruler is someone who gets and gives respect and just someone who takes care of things that are important like family. Prospero was only in it for self and that resulted in him being overthrown.
Secondly, an ideal ruler should know what is going on in his town at all times. If Prospero was an ideal ruler, he would have noticed that his own brother was working with the king of Naples, Antonio, to take his rulings from him. Someone who had power like Prospero should know that everyone just cant be trusted. With power comes along problems. Plus Prospero wasnt interested in the most important thing that comes along with running a country: POLITICS! How can you be a ruler and not be interested in something that gives you the power that you have. That is what made me really disagree with the topic. Finally, I believe that Prospero made alot of mistakes, but he didnt own up to the responsibilites and when you are ruling a country. You must be able to look at you mistakes as a learning perspective and use it a s a stepping stone in order to move forward. So with that said, I have understood the statement and came to a conclusion that I disagree.
I agree fully with the quote, to be an ideal ruler you must first be able to rule yourself. In the case of Prospero from the Tempest, I believe Shakespeare does not present Prospero as an ideal ruler until the middle of the play. Therefore, I would say Prospero developed into an ideal ruler through the obstacles he faced with ruling over Caliban, dealing with his untrustworthy brother, allowing Miranda to marry Ferdinand, and releasing Ariel his spirit servant. In the beginning, Prospero released the tempest on the ship of his untrustworthy and usurping brother along with a group of nobles. This event showed that Prospero had vengeance on his mind, proving he had not yet found the power to control himself. However, the boat may have been wrecked but Prospero did not let harm come to anyone. The next event that shows Prospero develops into an ideal ruler is when he allows Ferdinand to marry Miranda. Ferdinand's father helped Antonio, Prospero's brother, to gain control of Prospero's Duke of Milan position. When Prospero allowed his daughter to marry the son a conspirator against him, he presented himself as a person who can control his emotions and has power over himself. Prospero promotes his ability to be an ideal ruler when he keeps his word to release Ariel from his servitude. Ariel gave Prospero seemingly infinite magical possibilities. In Prospero mind it must have been difficult to let such a great servant to leave and very tempting to never let Ariel become free. However, Prospero allowed his word of freedom to override his desire to keep Ariel, he was exercising his self-control, a result of "power of self". The greatest show of how Prospero uses his power of self in away that would reconcile power of the outer world is when he does not harm Alonso for taking his Duke position but forgives him and only asks for it back. Prospero is an ideal ruler and I agree with the quote entirely. You are only a good leader when you can look over your problems to help out the better cause.
In The Tempest, I must disagree that Shakespeare presents the ideal ruler. First of all, Prospero as the Duke of Milan, should've foreseen his dethronement by his brother. If not by his brother, then by the people of Milan. The reason for this is because the book mentions that Prospero was engulfed more in his books than in the people of Milan who his duties pertained to. A ruler is a leader with responsibilities. If you do not attend to those responsibilities, then more than likely someone else will come and take your place. Even though the way in which he was dethroned was dirty, there was a motive besides greed. Secondly, an ideal ruler should be honest. Prospero used tricks and illusions to seek out his revenge on the people who caused him harm. He punished them in strange and magical ways. Specifically Alonso, who he causes to believe that his heir to the throne is lost at sea. This a tremendous low blow to Alonso who feels a father's pain at losing a son. Prospero uses magic almost throughout the whole book to seek his revenge. He is never really direct and gives the impression that he's in the dark while Ariel is sent to do his "dirty work". Another thing that prevents Prospero from being the example of the ideal ruler is the relationship he has with Caliban. Caliban was the indigenous citizen of the island. Everything he knew about the island, he taught to Prospero and in exchange, he received an education. This hospitality would've never lasted, even if Caliban hadn't attempted to rape Miranda. This is because they were racially different, therefore, unequal. Prospero, the superior, felt that despite Caliban being the rightful ruler of the island, he deserved to be the ruler instead because after all, he actually was loyalty. People like Prospero who used to have a high ranking in society hate to be demoted. They're used to being in control and in charge. How can an ideal ruler have only reconciliation with only certain members of the outer world? An ideal ruler must seek friendly relations with everyone. Thirdly, Prospero sought revenge because of his own emotions and his brother's betrayal. He wanted to endow the pain he had felt on Alonso, Sebastian, and Antonio. But even in this he didn't do it himself. He was simply the mastermind behind everything and Ariel was the puppet. An ideal ruler cannot be someone who uses other for their own advantage and vengeance. An ideal ruler must put other before himself because it is his duty to lead.
I do believe that Prospero was an ideal ruler over himself. The reason why I said that is because he did not kill anyone within the story. For example, when he made the tempest he did not make it strong enough to hurt someone. Another example is when he stopped Alonso, Sebastian, and Antonio suffering on the island. Like an ideal ruler he showed kindness. If he wanted to he could have ended their lives and took back his title. However, Prospero was not an ideal ruler when it came to the outer world at times. He ruled over Caliban and mistreated him. Caliban helped out Prospero when he was stranded on the island while he was in distress. Despite this fact Prospero turned around and took the island away from him. An ideal ruler would never mistreat his subject or take what is not theirs. Prospero was not an ideal ruler also because he did not treat his servants as equals. He treated them more on the lines as slaves. He freed Ariel but, then enslaves her for his own doing. The same thing also happens with Caliban after he takes over the island. If he was an ideal ruler then he should have people who would serve him willingly without bondage. An ideal should have people who would serve him but at the same time should be free. Prospero is not an ideal ruler because had a servant who did not follow him. In the Tempest Caliban does not listen to Prospero. He curses him and even planned on killing him. If he was an ideal ruler then his servants should respect him instad of hating him. However, Prospero was an ideal ruler because Ariel did not disobey him. Like an ideal ruler he did treat him with respect and kindness. He even sets her in the end of the story. He even shows kindness to Caliban by not killing him for betraying him. In my opinion Prospero was an ideal ruler overall because of his kindness. Without kindness one would be a tyrant.
Throughout most of The Tempest, Prospero is hardly an ideal leader. His record as a leader of the outside world is far from perfect. Prospero rules over Caliban and Ariel dictatorially. He takes Caliban’s land and treats him like a servant. He exerts power over the outside world, but not wisely or generously. In the beginning of the story, it does not seem that Prospero is a fair or just ruler. This continues when Alonso and his group come ashore. From the start, Prospero rules over this group with cruelty and trickery. And this reflects badly not only on his leadership of the outside world but also on his self control. He lets his desire for revenge get out of control, showing that at this point, he lacked the power over self that would make one an ideal leader. Yet while Prospero failed to demonstrate the qualities of an ideal leader, he changed in a positive direction later in the play. Gradually, Prospero began to be a more just ruler over others and a more controlled ruler over himself. By the end of the play he allows Alonso’s group to leave and treats everyone fairly. As he is leaving the island himself, he frees Ariel and gives the island back to Caliban. This shows that though Prospero was not an ideal ruler through the whole play, he did get better as the play went on. There is no single idea that can explain Prospero’s leadership through the whole story, because it is changes throughout the course of the play. Maybe by presenting Prospero as a less than perfect leader as the beginning of the play, but one who improves over time, Shakespeare is trying to present the picture of an ideal leader – someone who is flawed but gets much closer to being an ideal leader at the end of the play.
In The Tempest, by William Shakespeare, the character Prospero is a round character; his personality changes as the story goes on. Once the Duke of Milan, Prospero and his daughter, Miranda, were cast out by his evil brother Antonio and sent to live on a mysterious island. There Prospero made his self ruler of this island, using force and magic. One might say that Shakespeare presented an ideal ruler by creating the character Prospero, but in the beginning of the play Prospero has many faults that an ideal ruler should not posses.
Prospero gives to much trust to those around him, which a ruler should never do. He gives so much trust to Antonio that he is blinded and dose not see that Antonio works against him. The moment Antonio feels Prospero’s guard is lowest; he sets Prospero and Miranda away so that he can take his brother’s place as Duke. Once on the island he meets Caliban and automatically gives him his trust, allowing to be around his daughter, which eventually leads to Caliban attempting to rape her. Prospero is misleading to another character that he meets on the island, Ariel. Ariel is a spirit that had been trapped in a tree for twelve years before Prospero came and freed him. After Prospero freed the spirit, he made him become his servant; promising to let him go early if he obeyed his every command. As the story goes on, Ariel reminds Prospero of this. Prospero reacts by yelling and screaming at Ariel. Prospero did not stay true the promise he made to his servant as a ruler should. As the story progresses we see Prospero mold more into the ideal ruler. He realizes that as a ruler he should not trust every soul that crosses his path. He also forgives those who have betrayed him, such as Caliban and his brother Antonio. Prospero ends up withholding his end of the deal with Ariel, with one last wish. Prospero is a round character in that he develops into an ideal ruler as the events in The Tempest take place.
In The Tempest, Prospero is an overthrown ruler who becomes the ruler of a remote island. Shakespeare presents the ideal ruler as, “one who reconciles power over the outer world with power over the self." I partially agree with the statement. I feel that Prospero has many qualities of an ideal ruler, but not everyone single quality. However, when you think about it, no one can truly contain every ideal quality because no one is perfect. In the story, Prospero appears to have power or control over many of the situations that are occurring around him and the situations happening to him. When he was exiled from his thrown in Naples, he became the ruler of an island that was not his own. He also was a good father to Miranda and brought her up well. He also had control over every situation that went on between the passengers of the boat. Making the spirits his servant gave him the necessary control. Those qualities made him a god ruler. On the other hand, he was cruel to his slave Caliban, who was his friend at first. He discriminated against Caliban because he was different and I don’t feel that being discriminatory is an admirable quality for a ruler to have. He also wanted to get revenge for what his brother did to him by making the boat crash/sink. However, one of the most commendable things that Prospero and an ideal ruler could do is to forgive. Prospero was able to forgive his brother for what he did to him and accept his apology. Another way that Prospero had control was he let Miranda marry whom she wanted, but it also helped them get back into the thrown. So by saying all this, I fell that Prospero had power, more or less, over himself and the surrounding world.
I think that in the beginning of The Tempest, Prospero does not represent an ideal ruler. Prospero is presented, in the beginning, as a ruler who is distracted from his many duties as the Duke of Milan. Prospero is also described as a king who immerses himself in books about subjects such as “liberal arts”. Also, I do not think that Prospero is an ideal ruler because of the fact that he let his brother Antonio takes over his government without doing anything about it. And even after Antonio had a firm grip upon the government and Prospero knows about it, Prospero was still caught up in his studies to try to take back his throne, this in turn cast him away from all the decisions that the government made and in turn drives him away from his people. Furthermore, after Prospero was cast away onto the island, he imposes his ways and his laws onto the inhabitant of the island, who is Caliban, and takes the island for himself. This act of aggression is not fit for a person who is portrayed as an ideal ruler. Finally Prospero is not an ideal leader because of the fact that he did not see his wrong doings and he tried to punish those that drove him out of his kingdom by sending a storm out to sea to damage their ship and force them to drift to his island. Also, Prospero plays tricks on those that came onto the island by making it look like they have lost everything. But through all of the trickery, Prospero becomes an ideal ruler near the end of the story. Prospero became an ideal ruler at the end because he pardon those that drove him out to the island, he did not harm anybody on the boat that crash on the island, and he send everybody back to the homeland safely. Finally, he is an ideal ruler because he kept his promise to Ariel by releasing him at the end of the play.
I agree with the statement completely, that in The Tempest Shakespeare presents Prospero as an ideal ruler, because he is able to control the outer world and himself. An example of this is when Prospero learning how to survive and thrive on the island from Caliban, a great ruler is able to manipulate people to his advantage, and that is what Prospero did with Caliban. Prospero acted as if he only wanted to learn from Caliban and allow Caliban to learn from him. But as an ideal ruler, Prospero allows Caliban to become comfortable with him, and Prospero continues to use him until he is of no use, and that is when Caliban becomes Prospero’s slave. Prospero is able to control Caliban with his magic, and eventually claims the island for himself, usurping it from Caliban. That is an example how Prospero is able to reconcile is power over the outer world. Although, his brother Antonio usurped Prospero power as the Duke of Milan, Prospero is able to reestablish his power (reconcile), on the island and become a ruler again. Another way Prospero is able to reconcile his power gaining control over the spirit Ariel, who helps Prospero with his escapades. Prospero rescued Ariel from a tree, and in order for Ariel to be set free he has to do everything Prospero asks him. Prospero, being a great ruler uses his position as the one who found Ariel and the only one that can set her free, to persuade him into doing task, like punishing Prospero’s enemies. He also uses Ariel, as a symbol of his ability to do good, because he will free Ariel after he is done with his task. Moreover, I do completely agree with the statement that "In the character of Prospero in The Tempest, Shakespeare presents the ideal ruler: one who reconciles power over the outer world with power over the self” and his shown by the examples given
My opinion to this question is that I disagree. My opinion of an ideal ruler is someone who has control of his state and knows the things that are going on. He also has supporters that won’t turn on him no matter what. I don’t believe that Prospero was an ideal ruler because of two things: he didn’t have enough control of his state and he couldn’t control things on his own. Prospero didn’t have enough control because if he did, he wouldn’t have gotten usurped from his dukedom of Milan by his brother. Being a duke is just like being a president or king; you are still a ruler of that particular country. You have to know that everyone can’t be trusted and that many people want what you have. He made a bad decision when he decided to let his brother be the duke temporarily because he should have known that his brother wasn’t going to let the power go as easily as he got it. Even with his brother being the temporary duke, Prospero should have still had enough control to keep his supporters supporting him and not to change sides so easily.
Prospero couldn’t control things on his own because he needed his magic to do everything. He had to have magic to take control of the island, to enslave Caliban and to get his dukedom back. Caliban was the only person on this land before his mother, Sycorax, died. This land was rightfully his. Prospero knew that he wouldn’t be able to just walk in and take the land from Caliban. So he decided to use his magic to enslave Caliban forever so he wouldn’t be able to get any power. He used his magic to get his dukedom back by getting Ariel to cause Alonso’s ship to get destroyed in a storm Ariel made. He then let all the people on that ship stay alive but eventually make their way to him. With his magic, he also made hem suffer. When everyone came together, he only let them go off easily because he saw Ariel’s remorse for them and decided to remorse also. All that made it seem to me that he couldn’t have did all the things he did without Ariel. He needed her and magic to get what he wanted back, instead of doing everything on his own. This, to me, does not represent an ideal ruler.
I do not fully believe that Prospero is an ideal ruler, because he does not completely reconcile power over the outer world with power over himself. I believe that Shakespeare develops Prospero’s character into an ideal ruler throughout the story and until the very end he does become an ideal ruler. First of all, the fact that Prospero has magical powers in his possession shows that he unlike other rulers can easily have an advantage of power over the outer world and in a sense be more powerful. Prospero does not use his magic to commit any evil acts, but he uses it for himself and his plans against Alonso’s group, Stephano, Trinculo and Caliban. At the beginning of the play, Prospero seems like he wants to be self-important by telling his story to Miranda. Prospero acts more like a tyrant, because he takes the island from Caliban, treats Caliban and Ariel as a slaves, and orders and abuses them. He also shows a harsh treatment towards Ferdinand, by imprisoning and enslaving him to prove his love for Miranda. He has absolute rule over Ariel and Caliban, which is not a characteristic of an ideal ruler. Prospero also acts like he is unwilling to forgive his brother, Antonio, for usurping him. Another example that shows that he is not such an ideal ruler is that when he was the duke of Milan, he put aside his duties, which gave his brother a chance to take his place. Near the end, Prospero is presented as a more sympathetic and forgiving character. He releases Alonso’s group, frees Ariel, accepts Caliban after trying to murder him, and ultimately he forgives his enemies. The very last act that shows that Prospero might have become an ideal ruler in the end is the renouncing of his magical powers. By this he shows that he finally has control with the power over himself and the outer world.
The tempest, the up roaring play written by William Shakespeare unfolds the relationships between characters such as Ferdinand and Miranda. How exactly Prospero in the beginning of the play tricks Caliban in becoming his slave after he showed him around the islands. How he was a tyrant in the beginning of the play and towards the end, he becomes more of a character who values virtue instead of vengeance. He comes back sucking up towards other characters in the play and is in the need of him becoming nothing else but himself; asking characters such as Trinculo and Stefano to forgive him for his wrongdoing and set him free.
Prospero then welcomes Ferdinand into his house to become his soon to be son in law, because the love he had for Miranda. When Prospero once laid his eyes on Miranda, he knew right away that she was the love of his life and it was love at first sight. Ferdinand adored Miranda dearly and he stuns Miranda with the proposal and by the sight of people unlike she has seen before. Ferdinand tells his father about his marriage; Prospero then tells Ferdinand that Miranda is not to be broken �virginity� until the wedding has been officially solemnized. Prospero then charms Miranda to sleep and then calls for Ariel who is the spirit. Prospero then believes that Ariel brought the tempest to the ship and set afire. Prospero has then officially made Caliban his servant and sends him to fetch wood, in the interim he sees Trinculo and think he is a spirit sent by Prospero to torment him. Caliban then hides under a cloak inquiry the cries out that he would be a more diligent servant for Prospero and to tell the �spirit� to leave him alone. Throughout the entire play, Prospero is the tormenter character who at the end wishes for his freedom not regretting what he did in the beginning of the play.
I can agree that Shakespeare projects Prospero as an ideal ruler to a certain extent. In the beginning of the play, Prospero is presented as the Duke of Milan. However, he was guilty of neglecting his responsibilities as the Duke to study liberal arts for his own personal enjoyment. He allowed himself to become heavily distracted from his sole duties. In result, Prospero’s brother, Antonio, was given the advantage and opportunity to usurp Prospero’s power as the Duke and take over the throne. Thus his decisions do not make Prospero an ideal ruler; one who is able to harmonize power over the outer world with power over oneself. However, in the beginning of Prospero’s stay on the island, he exemplified how an ideal ruler uses his/her power for the greater good by setting Ariel free from bondage and exposing Caliban to language and learning. On the contrary, however, Prospero used his good deeds as an excuse to dictate the conditions of Arial and Caliban. He treated them as servants and dared them to argue with his demands. An ideal ruler would always keep the people’s who serve him best interest at heart. Prospero proves not to be an ideal ruler again when he traps Alonso and his party on the island for revenge. With this action, Prospero selfishly puts lives in danger for personal advancement and pleasures. An ideal ruler would be able to control himself/herself to a point where personal feelings are not allowed to interrupt good judgment. Interestingly enough, as the play comes to a close, Prospero grows wiser and more sympathetic towards those he captured, tricked, and treated badly. He allows Alonso and the others leave the island unharmed from their current conditions and set Arial free from bondage. In a sense, Prospero exemplifies his ability to control his emotions and make good judgment. At the end of the play, Prospero, without a doubt, matured into an ideal ruler by being able to balance the power on the outer world with the power over himself.
In my opinion Shakespear does not present the ideal ruler in prospero, because in my opinion Prospero kept making mistakes and as a ruler of anything you cannot afford mistakes because they can lead you to a war, and other horrible things. Prospero also uses magic to manipulate the people who serve him or are around him to bend them to his way of thinking he also uses the people who serve under him in such a way that the fact that they try to betray him seems almost justified. But at the same time is only doing what Niccolo Machiavelli The Prince states to be good ruler you must be feared and hated, but if so why not the loved side of this? My theory is that while in Milan he tried to live as so but then when his brother Alonso betrays him he realizes that the love only lets them run all over you but by instilling fear and hate they are less likely to muster up the courage to fight against him, but back to the subject at hand. Prospero takes over the island due to the fact he failed in Milan because of he succeed he would of never of been opposed to nor would he of lost his place as duke. His failer has also led him to rule the island in such a way that will not allow anyone to oppose him. Then at the time Ferdinand comes he feels threatened that the child of his enemy has come to the place where he intended to begin anew until he realizes Miranda is the only thing Ferdinand had wanted he focus on only that. But due to his harshness and assuming of the intentions of the characters he faces he allows many mistakes take place while in “rule”. Prospero is far from anything to being the ideal ruler and truth be told when has any ruler president, king, queen and ECT, been ideal?
I agree with Shakespeare’s belief that an ideal ruler is one who reconciles power over the outer world with power over the self, but I do not believe he exampled that through Prospero in The Tempest; in the beginning of the play. I say that because an ideal ruler would have control of his people, know who to trust, who not to trust, to be trustworthy, and to take responsibility for their own actions. Prospero showed very few of those qualities. If he was an ideal ruler he would have had control of his people and he would not have trusted Antonio, Alonso or Caliban so that they could not have been able to kick him off of the island and usurp his power as the duke of Milan. Also, an ideal ruler would not be lethargic about his work. Prospero wanted to gain knowledge so bad that he started to become lethargic about his work and because of that, Antonio and Alonso were able to kick him off the island. I also stated that a good leader would be trustworthy. Prospero was not that. He seeked vengeance in strange and magical ways on those who caused harm to him. An ideal ruler also would not take what is not their’s. Prospero came to the island and took over what rightfully belonged to Caliban. He also made him a slave and a good ruler would have had servant willingly to serve them; there would be no need for force. Then he taught Caliban all of these things and Caliban ended up using it against him (there’s that trust factor again). Then toward the middle of the play Prospero develops into an ideal ruler by forgiving all of those who did him wrong and by freeing his servants. And when it came to his daughter Miranda’s life he was always an ideal ruler because he accepted Ferdinand into his family even though he came from a family that Prospero was against.
I personally do not agree that in the Tempest, by William Shakespeare that the character Prospero was an ideal ruler. This is true because an ideal ruler should have the support of his/her people, and should always worry about what is better in the long run for the people of the kingdom. Shakespeare showed that Prospero was not the ideal ruler in the first Act when Prospero tells Miranda how they came to be on the island. The reason that Prospero found himself on the island was he was not ruling Milan as should have. He was more interested in his books and his education than what was going on in Milan. If he was the ideal ruler than his brother would never had gone after his throne because he would not have been the one that was ruling. Also an ideal ruler would not have put other people’s lives in danger to get revenge, however that is what he did. He made sure that Alonso, the king of Naples who Prospero’s brother worked with to overthrow Prospero, and everyone else he wished to seek his revenge on was on a boat on which he let his spirit slave Ariel play tricks and cause storms and winds to shake their boat and crash on the island. In this situation the ideal ruler would have not have been focused on making everything better and moving on than revenge. If he would have mastered the power over self he would have seen that he did not need to do what he did. Also he could have not mastered power over self because he did not rely on himself; he relied on magic and also on Caliban. Caliban was there before Prospero but still ended up as a slave where as if he was the ideal ruler, he would not have forcibly just taken over because the ideal ruler would share power. In the end if Prospero was an ideal ruler he would have begin to feel a bit of remorse but once cannot find in this book a line where Prospero feels remorse.
Prospero a well known character in the Tempest, written by William Shakespeare, is not presented as an idealistic ruler. An idealistic ruler is not one who abuses its own powers but one who balances and doesn’t have lots off. Prospero is not an idealistic ruler because he changes his personality. He is unable to reconciles power over the outer world, explained in the Tempest, or else he would off not been over thrown by his brother Antonio. An idealistic ruler does not abuse of the power that he was; something that Prospero does lots of. Prospero in the eyes of his daughter, Miranda is a hero because that’s the way he is representing himself when he tells her his story about how much me suffer when his brother Antonio expelled him and tries to be the center of attention. In the beginning of the novel. Prospero also has an advantage with his magical powers and tries to scare Stephano, Alonso, Caliban, and Trinculo by appearing hound shape spirits. In Act III, Prospero and Ariel played a trick on Alonso’s group when they are eating, the trick was to appear and disappear a blanket. He also has two servants which are Caliban and Ariel, in which he abuses them and given orders to. He also took Caliban’s island in which he arrived, and was a guessed to, but then tricked him and made a servant. In Act I, Prospero is rude to Ferdinald because he doesn’t trust him, and doesn’t like the idea of his being eligible for his daughter Miranda. But then in Act IV, Prospero changes with Ferdinand and gives him his daughter and his blessing for them to marry. He then becomes emotional and produced spirits, Iris, Cares, and Juno to perform a masque celebration for Miranda and Ferdinand’s weeding. Also in Act V, Prospero became sympathetic by releasing the King’s group. He also forgives Alonso and silences his apology. And finally at the end he frees Ariel and let go of his magical powers. Not an idealistic ruler in the beginning of the novel but tries to be at the end of the novel.
Hi everyone! I hope you get my point because I don’t know if it will make any sense to you. At the beginning of the Tempest, I think that Shakespeare does not represent Prospero as an ideal ruler. When Prospero was in power of Milan, his dukedom, he did not know how to balance his power over the outer world with the power over himself. Prospero spent his time studying, enriching his self with knowledge but forgot his responsibilities as duke. Instead he let his brother Antonio to run his place and rule Milan. Prospero abandoned his dukedom, he was not capable to control it. If Prospero would have known how to balance things, he would have been fully aware of what was going on in his dukedom. Because of his ignorance of people being power-hungry and the great trust he had on his brother, he was betrayed and kicked out of his dukedom. I think this is the best thing that could have ever happened to him. I believe that if it had not been for this mean action done by his brother, Prospero would have never taken the time and realize that he was doing wrong on not assuming his responsibilities. On this island that he and his daughter ended up, Prospero had to find a way to survive, which he made possible by imposing his own rules and using his magical powers to manipulate people. Becoming the ruler of this small island gave Prospero a real taste of what responsibilities are. By the end of the play I consider Prospero being fully capable of taking his place as Duke of Milan again. He forgave all of those who harmed him, something that I consider makes him an exceptional human being. I believe that he would be a great ruler because he has compassion and because now he had the experience. Do you get my point?
What is an ideal ruler? An ideal ruler is a ruler who is perfect; in this case, Prospero. In a high extent of agreement, William Shakespeare's ideal ruler, Prospero, who through his kind acts towards his loyal servants and intellectual decisions that helped maintain his position in the throne is the perfect leader. Prospero is a kind man because he cared for Caliban, his servant, and taught him how to speak. Prospero also protects his daughter out of kindness of a caring father. Prospero also accepted Ferdinand’s marriage to his daughter because he sees and knows what’s best for his daughter and tries not to interfere anymore. Prospero’s brother, kicking prospero out of the land and onto another island, sent an apology to Prospero. Many rulers are cruel and tyrant, however, out of kindness Prospero accepted the apology and forgave his brother. Just as the saying “Let bygones be bygones.” Prospero also wishes for his daughter’s journey to be safe and as well released one of his servants, Ariel. Most rulers are kind on the “outside” and not on the “inside” but Prospero is both, kind on the inside and outside. Prospero is a very intellectual man. Prospero was able to create rule or become a ruler of a new island right after coming to the island, this right here takes a lot of work due to the fact that maintaining order and keeping rule so the ones loyal to him will be under control. Prospero is aware of everything such as the plan to assassinate Alonso while everyone sleeps. Even though Ferdinand wanted to marry his daughter, Prospero wanted to test him to make him prove that he’s worth it for his daughter. You won’t find the kindness and intellects combination in most rulers, however, you find this in Prospero because he’s the perfect ruler.
Hello everyone, after reading this question I have come to the conclusion that Prospero was not an ideal ruler in the outer world rather at the end of the play he reconciles with himself. I believe this because at the beginning of The Tempest, Prospero was more devoted to his studies than his role as the Duke of Milan. I think that he was selfish because he gave his responsibilities as duke to his brother Antonio while he took care of what was important to him. He also was not an ideal ruler because he did not devote all of this time to his role as the Duke of Milan. Antonio had the opportunity to take Prospero’s title and power of the Duke of Milan. This made Prospero a weak ruler because he never put up a fight when Antonio took his role and power. An ideal ruler does not allow anyone to come and take their power without retaliating. Also an ideal ruler is only supposed to be devoted to his kingdom and not let other things get in the way. Towards the end of the play Prospero reconciles with himself and becomes a loving father to his daughter Miranda. In addition to spending more time with her, he was able to choose the right husband for her which was Ferdinand. If Antonio did not take Prospero’s power he probably could not have spent much time with her because of his duties. He also reconciles with himself when he does not retaliate against Antonio for taking his power. This made him to be the better person. Prospero forgave Antonio and the others that were with him and he showed them mercy by allowing them to live and did not punish them for what they did. In the end Prospero showed that he was an ideal ruler with power over himself when he displayed Christ-like qualities. The bible sates in Luke 6: 27-28: “Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.”
Shakespeare is a man of extreme talent and thought, and because of this, I will never truly understand the meaning behind the text. By high school, everyone has taken glimpse or reenacted one of Shakespeare’s plays. He writes some truly complicated text. So how can we truly understand his motives?
Prospero. A man of complicated character. He undoubtedly shows characteristics of a leader. The Tempest does not delve upon his life political and social life before he was usurped and exiled from his kingdom and stripped of the title as “Duke of Milan.” He seems he had been a selfless ruler who also ruled justly. Unfortunately, his brother, Antonio, had other intentions and uprooted Prospero. Prospero wasn’t usurped because he was necessarily corrupt; it was the usurper who was corrupt. It’s not very difficult to uproot another because there are always those who want something different that amass others with the same ideals. This is similar to the case of Julius Caesar and how he was murdered and removed from power. As Cassius used innocent Brutus to remove Caesar, Antonio used innocent Alonso to remove Prospero. Due to this incident, Prospero learns how to use resources and keep watch on his enemies by magic, such as using Ariel. It is means of procuring safety. Prospero is also wise and forgiving. He forgave all who betrayed him, such as Alonso who had been tricked from the beginning by his evil brother. His forgiveness was shown due to the fact that he accepted his son, Ferdinand as his daughter’s husband. He is also wise to have tested Ferdinand’s love for Miranda through hardships. Prospero wanted someone who qualify and would return Miranda’s love equally, not a one-time occurrence.
Now, we will move to the issue of Caliban. As stated in the play, Caliban was once accepted by Prospero. Prospero taught him the languages necessary to communicate during that time period. Caliban attempted rape on Miranda, and this caused a change in relationship between Prospero and Caliban. If someone attempted rape on my daughter, I would not be fond of that person, and I would probably kill that person. Anyways, I do not think this casting-out of Caliban is a stain to his leadership characteristics as others may have stated. He is doing this for the protection of his and Miranda’s life; for throughout most of the book, Caliban wants to murder him.
No leader is faultless. Prospero isn’t perfect, but his qualities outnumber his faults. Also, when Shakespeare considered Prospero the ideal ruler, he was mainly considering the time frame of when he lived. Leadership qualifications change over time, not drastically, but gradually.
In The Tempest, William Shakespeare presents a leader that fits under the typical cliché of a “good guy gone bad.” Since the beginning of history people have been struggling to juggle the forces of power and morality. Only a few leaders have been able to maintain the respect of their subjects but do so with the simple principles of good and bad or right and wrong. In the beginning of the tempest Prospero’s power is limited because of the unfortunate situation that has come upon him. He has been usurped from his throne and is in a state of deep depression as anyone would be after being the victim of a wrongdoing He has little knowledge of the terrain of the island and is incapable of doing for himself, and surviving on the island. It is not until Caliban a deformed slave appears that Prospero begins to gain power. Slowly but surely and obviously to Caliban’s regret Prospero evolves from a mere man un able to fend for himself to a leader who has little regard to the way others are treated and the way others feel. He resorts to trickery and deceit in order to get what he desired from the inhabitants of the island. This method of ruling in which one sacrifices the wellbeing of others to improve and make better his or her own personal life is deplorable by human standards. This would lead me to the conclusion that prospero was not at all an ideal leader. He did not posses power over his own emotions and was unable to keep his morality in tact once given a small amount of power. This inability to sustain morality is does not make Prospero a bad human being, considering the number of people who have sacrificed their purity for power, but makes him ineffective and not an ideal leader.
While reading the statement made above I decided I do agree with it to some degree, but my take on the matter is not completely in accord with what was stated. The part of the statement that I agree with is the part that insists an ideal ruler is one who reconciles power over the outer world with power over the self. This is a statement that is very true. In an ideal ruler, I would prefer that this person holding such a prestigious position in the world be at one with themselves. It is theorized in transcendentalistic beliefs that in order to know, understand, and/or judge the outer world, one must know and understand all that there is to be known and understood of one’s self. Though I do not agree that an ideal ruler was Prospero, I do believe that Prospero as a person was more one with himself when compared to many others who could have held such a position as an revengeful exiled duke with magical abilities. He was not an ideal ruler for in his decisions to use deception, trickery, alcohol, as well as to put lives in danger just to recall a position of power that he so rightfully desired he put his would-be subjects lives in danger which had he not had complete control of his magical abilities and of Ariel’s slavery, could have resulted in a horribly bleak story. One can argue that he was not completely at one with himself because if he truly had been, he would have been at peace with his life that he’d spent over a decade living in not usurping the life of a duke. It is however; true that one possibly can not blame him for after twelve years taking the chance to use such trickery to get back what was rightfully his, even though he stated that he’d rather have his books over all of it.
For this response though, I must say that of the other men within the story, men who plotted to kill mind you, they would more likely seem to attempt more harm if given magical abilities, and for the most part, unlike Prospero who only wanted his position back, these men would probably have kept the magical staff in the hopes that they could wield even more power over others in the future even after venturing away from the island. Essentially, Prospero is competent enough to rule, maybe not the most ideal ruler, but when compared to the other loserish men who fell to the island in the Tempest, he seems to have his head on straighter than those guys. He is partially more at one with himself than Sebastian, Antonio, Stefano, and Trinculo. He’s probably not a better ruler than Gonzalo, but hey, I mean Gonzalo’s a saint.
In The Tempest, Shakespeare presents Prospero as a man with many different personalities. He is a single-father, and is therefore caring and protective. This can be observed in the way he approaches Miranda and her relationship with Ferdinand. He was once King of Naples but was overthrown by his brother and this made him a bitter person. Prospero considered Caliban his slave, and this made him feel superior and gave him a sense of pride. All of these personalities make up Prospero and make him a fair ruler who wants to maintain and keep control by any means necessary. In a way, this makes Prospero an ideal ruler. However, I do not think he would be fit to rule over a larger group of people. With more people, there become more responsibilities. When Prospero was King he lost control by being to lenient and trustworthy of people. On the island, there were very few people and so it was quite clear as to who Prospero could trust and who he could not. In today’s society a leader is very rarely ideal because power and authority change people. Yes, an ideal ruler should have total control of self in order to show that they are fit to rule a particular people. Without control of self a person cannot even attempt to control the things that take place around him/her. I feel an ideal ruler must be perfectly balanced with the right qualities such as fearlessness, intelligence and know how to give orders. They have to know how to address their public and what the people want. I do not think that there can ever be an ideal ruler because everyone’s opinions on what “ideal” is will vary and people change. When I hear the word ideal I think of something that is seemingly perfect. Since nobody is perfect, nobody can be ideal. However a person can pave the way for others by setting the bat high. I feel that if given the chance, and the right resources, Prospero could do just that.
I disagree with quote for a few reasons. I think Prospero did have power of the self, but not over the outer world. I disagree with the word reconcile in this quote. I think because of his strong power over the self was the reason he had no power over the outer world. Prospero is not an ideal ruler, because he focused too much on himself absorbing knowledge than for the welfare of his people. I don’t think he reconciled power over the outer world with power of himself at all. When he was ruler of Milan he focused none of his energy on ruling the outer world and was therefore usurped by his brother, who did take interest in ruling Milan. When he was ruler of his island he was cruel to Caliban. He treated Caliban like a slave and gave up on educating him because of Caliban’s lust for Miranda. I think Prospero would have been and ideal advisor because of his wisdom and powers but he just showed no effort in the ruling of his land. The only time he was interested in controlling Caliban was to make him do things for him and when he had his plot for revenge against his brother. He was also obviously not a kind ruler to the spirits he had control over. The only way he could get them to do anything was by the promise of setting them free. This does not sound like loyal servants or a very ideal king. That is why I disagree with quote.
I completely disagree with this statement. First, I do not believe that there is an ideal ruler. The word per se is not ideal. One person ruling the life of a population, or even a small amount of people, is not an ideal situation. What makes that person better than all the others? Does everyone really know that that person will really do what is best for everyone? And the most important question, who, coming upon such power, puts everyone else in front of his/her self? To me the ideal form of organization of a society is having assemblies and making rules collectively. Not having one person in charge of everyone else.
The Tempest’s Prospero is the portrait of reality and not idealization. The perfect ruler would not be a colonizer, since the whole concept of being a colonizer is taking what is taking advantage of land that is not yours, and then ruling over the natives. Shakespeare creates a perfectly well known figure to all of us, the person in power. This person may be a parent, an older sibling, a teacher, a governor or president, or as Prospero, a colonizer. What all these figures many times have in common is that they cannot handle power and end up using it for personal benefits. This misuse of power and resources takes away from the subordinates who have two ways of reacting: ignoring what is happening and conforming to the situation or getting very angry and fighting for what they deserve. But most of the time when the subordinates start reacting they are silenced in some way by the power, especially if it is an individual and not a large number of people together, which are harder to silence. In the book, Prospero uses his powers to keep natives under his authority. At several points the natives react, and begin to rebel, until Prospero slices them using favors he has done them as proof that they should serve Prospero until he says they can stop. This is a clear example of the bread and circus politics. Where politicians give the people a bit of food and entertainment to keep them satisfied while they are right there stealing all of the nation’s money. Again, Shakespeare is describing what was really happening, the colonization, the types of politics, the way society was organized, and infinite more examples.
In the beginning of The Tempest Prospero was not an ideal ruler. Prospero was the Duke of Milan.; however, he became indulged in his personal interests, rejecting his responsibilities as ruler. Prospero was not an ideal ruler, because he rejected his responsibilities as Duke of Milan. Antonio, his brother, and Alonso, the King of Naples, plotted against him and stripped him of his authority. He obviously did not have power over the outer world, because his place in society was taken away from him. He was forced to flee from Milan.
However, Prospero became an ideal ruler after arriving at the island. When Prospero arrives on the island, he becomes the ruler. He forced Caliban, who was once ruler of the island, to be his slave. Prospero caused the shipwreck which stranded Alonso and the others on the island. While they were on the island, Prospero made sure to keep Ferdinand from his father, Alonso, in hopes to make them think the other was dead. Alonso began to think he was at fault for his son’s death, as a result of his evil deeds toward Prospero. Prospero had power over the outer world, and as well as power over self. He used his magic abilities and the spirit, Ariel, to control the outer world. Prospero took advantage of his power over the outer world to plot against his brother Antonio, the uprising Duke of Milan, and Alonso, the King of Naples. These cruel actions were out of retaliation against his brother, Antonio. Prospero also had power over the self because he allowed himself to forgive Antonio and Alonso. Prospero showed virtue opposed to bitterness, and wanted the past to be done with. He felt the important thing to do was to move forward, without dwelling in the past. He also showed he had power when he gave up magic, and promised to break his staff, and drown his magic book.
Prospero, from William Shakespeare’s The Tempest, does indeed present an example of the “ideal ruler” and maybe even (in a certain sense) the ideal tyrant, but there is also someone else who can be considered an “ideal ruler” other than Prospero: his brother Antonio. The term “ideal” is really just a sense of opinion because one person can think that something is ideal, or normal, and another can think that it is the complete opposite. I think that an “ideal ruler” is usually a tyrant and it is rare that a monarchy is favored by the people being ruled over. Prospero is made to seem like the ideal ruler (or at least my version of an ideal ruler) because he comes to the island with all these powers that no one else on the island has and uses these powers to make all the beings there do his bidding. Yet even still, all this was done with really good intentions. Prospero does all that he does in the play so that he can return back home where he belongs. It only seems like Prospero is being power hungry because, for once he is taking charge of his life. He has let others take advantage of him twice before now: first with his brother Antonio, whom he placed too much trust into and lost his dukedom to, and second to Caliban, who he trusted so much that he was like part of the little family on the island but then was betrayed by when Caliban tried to rape Miranda. I think that it is good that Prospero is finally taking charge of things. His brother Antonio has always taken charge of things. He is my perfect example of an “ideal ruler” because he has taken his royalty from someone else in a jealous and immoral way that seems to be the method of most popular rulers of his time. It’s always my way or the highway, right?
In the Tempest by William Shakespeare, Shakespeare presents the ideal ruler in the character of Prospero, however Prospero does not always carry out this role. Prospero is very intelligent in the sense that he is able to manipulate others with magic and trickery to make them do what he wants. On various occasions throughout the play, Prospero and the spirit Ariel used music and mirages in the form of dogs and food to keep conspirators from killing Prospero. Prospero shows the ability to bring together separate powers such as his and Ariel’s to take control of a situation, which do show leadership qualities in his character, but Prospero is self absorbent and in the play only rules a man and a spirit for the most part. To say that Prospero is not so forward as an ideal ruler he is laidback and waits for opportunities as apposed to, Caliban and Antonio, who show prove that they seize moments in instances such as Antonio over through Prospero’s thrown and Caliban conspiring to kill Prospero. Antonio in character presents himself as a much more ideal leader by displaying initiative and a willingness to fight for what he desired. Furthermore a good leader should be admired and Prospero was obviously not liked enough by his people to keep his thrown. As a ruler Prospero shows that he makes the decisions of an older and wiser leader and many desire a ruler who shows initiative for power, so I can only agree halfway that Prospero illustrates the ideal ruler.
I believe that Shakespeare doesn't show Prospero as an ideal ruler. He doesn't show power not only to himself, but to the people of Milan as well. The people of Milan tried to overthrow his powers after not considering reconciliation. If this were to happen, he would also see that Antonio was trying to take his throne. Also, he wanted to get revenge on the people who did him wrong, so he puts the life oh his people in danger. He does this by placing them on a boat while the seas are unbearable, and eventually, they all get stranded on an island. For that, I believe that no ruler should do anything of that nature just for revenge. Basically, when anyone becomes a ruler, one must be able to accept all responsibilities for their people and themselves. Prospero failed to live up to those rules in my opinion. Also, I would like to point out all his plots, schemes & manipulations all worked out to his favor in terms of how great he would be. I believe that anyone who wants to be a ruler should not do this to anyone no matter how well you want to be known to your people.
In the Tempest by William Shakespeare, Prospero is not become an ideal ruler. As the play progresses Prospero’s character molds into this ideal ruler. What makes Prospero an interesting ruler in the beginning is that he has magical powers which is something none of the other characters in the play had; this is one trait that boosts his ability as a ruler. In the beginning of the play, I would disagree with him being an ideal ruler. His power as king of Naples was usurped by Antonio, in order to become an ideal ruler there should not be anyone in objection towards his rule over them. An ideal ruler should have his governed people love him and want him to have him as an authoritative person. The ruler should respect his citizens and in return he would receive many rewards. In the story the character of Prospero molds into this ideal ruler, when in Act V Prospero feels compassion for the King’s group involving Antonio and the rest of the members who usurped him. This act of compassion makes Prospero a ruler that one would not hate, having an authoritative figure and care for you is something that is to believe that the governed would want and need as well. As I said before, what I believe makes Prospero a great ruler to be is the magical powers that he holds. This power is similar to what other rulers would have. Some rulers have great strength; others have great intelligence, while Prospero has great magical powers. This would serve as a mean as protection to the citizens and would also serve as a way to control them too. This would make Prospero a true ideal ruler, but for some reason I don’t believe that he is an ideal ruler. I think that reason is that because Prospero is human, and humans aren’t perfect or ideal. So how can someone who isn’t ideal become an ideal ruler? That is why I don’t believe he cannot be this ideal ruler.
I don’t agree that Prospero was able to reconcile power over the world with the power of his self. I think that because if Prospero was able to reconcile power then he wouldn’t have been over thrown as the duke of Milan by the people. If he was able to reconcile he would have had the power over himself and the people. As a leader and a duke he would have seen that his brother was sneaky and wanted to take the throne from him the whole time. Another reason for this is because Prospero thought of his self and put himself before his people, in which he had no control over : that led to him being overthrown. It also showed that he had vengeance in his mind which showed he didn’t have control over himself. In addition to that he never noticed that he brother was plotting against him, while working with the king of Naples to take what Prospero has. Also its baffling that Prospero wasn’t interested in politics, something that’s brings you more money and power. Prospero also didn’t live up to his duties and didn’t come through by being a responsible leader. A leader should know everything that is going on and have an idea of who he needs and wants to have around him. I say this because as I said earlier how his brother plotted against him he should have people around him that he can trust. Prospero as a leader should take in consideration of the obstacles that come with a position he had. With a position like this you should know how to control your people and make them respect you. Prospero failed to do that. That’s why I believe that he didn’t reconcile power over the world with power of his self.
First of all, Prospero is a very interesting character. His ways of ruling would not be considered perhaps “ideal” all around, however he does show some qualities of a good leader. I disagree that Prospero is an ideal ruler because he failed to have control of the situation when his brother, Antonio, overthrown his power and force him to move from Milan. If Prospero was such an ideal ruler, than he would have had control of the situation, the role would have been reversed and Antonio would have been the one fleeing the country. Prospero was not focused while being the Duke of Milan, he allowed for his brother to rise up right next to him. Prospero should have been more alert and careful of the people he trusts. He allowed for himself to be portrayed, not only by his brother, but also by other characters throughout the book. For example, he also trusted Caliban, but what did Caliban do? He turned around and tried to rape his lovely daughter who was so innocent. However, Prospero was able to seize control of the island and have Caliban do whatever he wanted him to do at the snap of a finger. I believe it is okay to call Prospero a leader, but by calling him an ideal leader is very questioning.
I do not agree with the comment nor do I disagree. I feel as though Shakespeare in the beginning made Prospero seem like he did not care that he was a ruler at one time. Later on in the story towards the end you can tell that Prospero actually liked being ruler or maybe it was the fact that he was back stabber by his brother. I do not think that it was right for his brother to try to take his place as ruler, but if Prospero was doing what he was supposed to in the first place. His brother Prospero would not have to even think about taking his brother place. On the other hand I disagree because as a ruler you might not always lose yourself. I do not think Prospero did but on the island but he seems as though he was two personalities. In the play I see a lot of personalities such as of one minute he is being mean and the next being nice. With Ariel he kept promising her that he was going to set her free and even though he kept saying she had to do all these thing for him he end up setting her free at the end. In the book Prospero does not give a perfect idea of a perfect ruler and someone people would follow after. Personally I could not follow a ruler with different personalities because I need a ruler who is going to stick to his word and to think of his people and helping his country. I think Shakespeare could have made Prospero a better ruler by not having him try to get revenge on his brother through the storm or setting Ariel free when he said he was. It would even been good if Shakespeare treated Caliban with respect. It was just little things that Prospero could have done to make it seem he was a good role model and a good ruler.
Hello world! I agree with Shakespeare presenting Prospero an ideal ruler to a certain extent. Shakespeare’s definition of an ideal ruler is one who reconciles power over the outer world with power over the self. I agree to a certain extent because Prospero came from his home as a ruler and was driven out and was able to take control of a foreign land and kill someone, which was Sycorax, in the process. I can connect this to how pilgrims were driven out from there land in Europe, came over to America, killed the Native Americans, and took over. In this case, Prospero is the pilgrim or settler. On the other hand I can see why Shakespeare portrays Prospero as an ideal ruler because he was able to forgive Alonso and his group for trying to seek vengeance upon Prospero. This shows that Prospero was able to reconcile power over himself by forgiving his brother. Another reason why Prospero can be portrayed as an ideal ruler is because Prospero was able to control the whole entire island, his daughter Miranda, his slave Caliban, and his spirit Ariel. This shows that Propsero was able to reconcile power over the out world with the island and the people on it being the outer world. Prospero did not show the traits of an ideal ruler in the beginning of the book, but towards the end, he became the ideal ruler Shakespeare is trying to portray. So, this is why I agree to a certain extent with Shakespeare portraying Prospero as an ideal ruler.
I disagree with the quote, “In The Tempest, Shakespeare presents the ideal ruler: one who reconciles power over the outer world with power over the self.” Prosepero’s actions throughout the book are completely in his self interest and he uses everyone and everything around him to help him reach his percieved goal. His goals are not made through any sacrifices on his part but completely at the expense of others. Every event that Prospero is faced with he interprets it in order to see how it may benefit him. When Ariel asks him to release him from bondage for a good deed, Prospero decides he needs him to seek revenge on his enemies despite the fact that he promised Ariel he would let him go. Also, when he and Caliban get in an argument and he reminds Caliban that he taught him his language, one can infer that this was simply done for better communication between the two and so that Prospero might have better control over Caliban. His actions reflect those of a ruthless usurper himself. Upon his arrival on the island, Prospero immediately declares himself the ruler and Caliban his slave. This action shows that he will assume control over others (without their consent) as well as treat them poorly once that is achieved. Even at the end of the play, when Prospero puts on a show to entertain his guests his only real purpose for doing so is to show offf his powers and demonstrate his knowledge. In most of Prospero’s actions throughout the play he is not trying to harmonize the interests of himself nad others. He is using the people under his command or rule to work toward his goals. No matter how often they may beg or plead their needs and wants he dismisses them until he feels that they are no longer of use to him. Prospero is not the ideal ruler because he is self-centered and lacks empathy.
Post a Comment