Prospero's Magic (The Tempest)

[shaxper]

We tend to refer to Prospero as a magician and assume that the liberal studies he indulged in while Duke of Milan included sorcery, but when you get right down to it, what powers does Prospero actually have?

All of his magic is the work of Ariel and his fellow spirits.  I originally thought that the "inward pinches" were Prosperos' doing,   but at the very end of Act IV, we see Prospero ordering the spirits to pinch Caliban, Stephano, and Trincluo ("more pinch-spotted make them, than pard, or cat o' mountain".

This creates some larger implications for the play.  If Prospero's magic seems to come entirely from the spirits, then what does he need his book and stick for?  Maybe for the show of control that Prospero seems to value so highly, even if only creating the show for himself.  Maybe the stick is a piece of the tree that Ariel was enslaved in and that is how he controls him?

Another good question: Does Prospero control Ariel or is Ariel simply bound by oath?  

Last qustion, and my favorite one to ponder.  Caliban refers to the spirits of the island as harmless, yet (I assume, and maybe I'm wrong to) that he is aware of where Prospero's powers come from, so why call them harmless?  Is it wishful thinking, or does he expect Ariel to go easy on him?  After all, we never see Ariel or the other spirits commit any actual harm against anyone unless Prospero commands them to.  Is that part of their bondage to Prospero, or do they disagree with Prospero's vengeful actions?  Perhaps they even see Caliban as a kindred spirit who, to have shown Prospero the island in the first place, must have either been an orphaned infant or a benevolent ruler.  Prospero claims Sycorax was evil, but isn't that guilt by association?  The only argument against Caliban was that he sought to violate Miranda's honor, which probably meant he attempted to rape her.  But even this can be construed in different ways.  We know how protective Prospero is of her.  How many times did he make Ferdinand promise not to untie her virgin knott until the wedding?  Perhaps Caliban, being a less cultured native, simply got too close to her.  Point being, we don't really know; and given the few truly beautiful lines Caliban speaks about the island that everyone else fights for control of without ever trying to understand its beauty, I believe we're supposed to care about him.  The spirits even sing songs to him which he loves.  There seems to be more here than simply good and bad.  It seems to me that Prospero (who I don't make out to be a bad guy, but rather a potentially tragic figure capable of mistakes, similar to Lear) creates a dichotomy on the island that isn't natural.  He has brought his usupring culture to an island who's strife seemed to have died with Sycorax.  There is no evidence that Caliban ever did anything to the spirits.  He may simply not have known how to free them.



I realize that these were many disorganized thoughts, so don't feel that you have to respond to all of them; just the parts that interest you.  I apologize for babbling  

[Bardolph]

Prospero's magic seems to manifest itself in the form of manipulation of 'familiars.'  Such ideas were common folklore of his time.  In the opening of Macbeth the sisters call for "Grimalkin," a cat name, and "Paddock," a frog.  These animal familiars are long associated with withcraft and still show up in the wart faced witch with the black cat on Halloween.  

But Prospero's magic seems to go beyond that.  His magic is derived of knowledge.  This seems to come from how the study of alchemy was perceived.

Prospero's description of his own magic is in his speech at 5.1.33.  The manipulation of familiars is not inconsistent with this description.  We do know how his magic comes to an end.  He breaks his staff and drowns his book.  It is clear from the epilogue that the lack of these instruments leave him the no longer potent Prospero.  

Ariel is bound by more than an oath, although the oath is part of it.  Ariel shows himself to be truly afraid that Prospero will confine him in an oak tree in the same way that Sycorax confined him in a pine tree.  

Caliban seems to have had some communication with the island spirits.  Prospero refers to them as "meaner ministers."  He also suggests that Sycorax also manipulated them as familiars.  This is at 1.2.276 where he refers to them with, "By help of her more potent ministers."  

It was probably Ariel who provided Prospero with the history of Sycorax.  Caliban lacked the power of speech when Prospero arrived.  

Not all of his magic is aided. His use of the staff and Cloak are independant of others.   But these do seem to require use of the instruments themselves.  This makes them something like a talisman in their use for him.  

I'm not sure that we should assume that Caliban knows the sources of his spirits entirely.  It is also true that when we hear him speak these lines he is desparately trying to convince Stephano to commit murder.  Perhaps we are to accept the deformed nature of Caliban and to doubt the truth of anything that he says until he decides to seek after grace.  

I think that Caliban is seen differently in a world with no middle class.  Caliban represents the base, flawed nature of a lower being.  Prospero represents the knowledgeable and worldly power that must be used to constrain the base nature of such a population.  (I'd have people'd else this isle with Calibans).  The mindset of Elizabethan nobility saw it as their duty to use their graces to rule the population.  It was more than just class separation.  It was the boundary between the sacred and the profane.  The deformity of Caliban confers upon him the same evil nature that we are to take from the deformity of Richard III.  

I think that Prospero is the Anti-Faustus.  He conjures for the furtherance of love and justice.  He crosses over into the world of magic from his studies much the same as Dr Faustus but does so for survival and restoration rather than for power.  As far apart as these plays were written I still believe Prospero to have been an answer.  Ariel is an Anti-Mephistopheles.  He can likewise bring gold and fruits to his master, but his master does not seek those things.  

Finally, the book and stick.  This play was written when the mysteries of the natural world and the knowledge of foreign religions were pouring into England.  The quest for knowledge of alchemy as a means of wealth and power was more than just a lure for the nobility.  The bringing of wealth and power also relieves the burden on a huge servant class.  England was in the process of projecting it's power by sea.  Knowledge of and control of the weather was a dominant theme in E/J writing.  Storms in the plays of WS abound.  The relation between storms and wealth is highlighted in The Merchant of Venice.  The relation between storms and political power is more highlighted in The Tempest.  This was on the mind of England during this period.  

The fact that no real harm comes from the island spirits might be a product of constraints imposed by Prospero.  We don't know.  But the psychological subtext of this play is no different than other plays.  Prospero is a thinly veiled disguise for a dramast.  He manipulates his environment to bring about a show for the other characters.  Their viewing of this show will bring about catharsis for the others.  This will lead to revelation,  reunion and restoration.   There will often be a marriage involved.  And the dramatist will be rewarded for the effort.  Prospero goes so far as to beg for applause in his epilogue.  I, for one, am still clapping.

[shaxper]

Very well said, Bardolph.  You write beautifully.

Prospero's description of his own magic is in his speech at 5.1.33.  The manipulation of familiars is not inconsistent with this description.  We do know how his magic comes to an end.  He breaks his staff and drowns his book.  It is clear from the epilogue that the lack of these instruments leave him the no longer potent Prospero.  

I think that could still be seen as the "show of illusion" though, since he has already freed Ariel.  We don't see him perform any magic after that point, so it seems to me that the breaking of the staff and the drowning of the book could easily be symbolic.

Ariel is bound by more than an oath, although the oath is part of it.  Ariel shows himself to be truly afraid that Prospero will confine him in an oak tree in the same way that Sycorax confined him in a pine tree.  

But what does that say about Prospero?  Doesn't that put him on the same level as Sycorax?

Caliban seems to have had some communication with the island spirits.  Prospero refers to them as "meaner ministers."  He also suggests that Sycorax also manipulated them as familiars.  This is at 1.2.276 where he refers to them with, "By help of her more potent ministers."  

true, but they do sing to him.  Caliban appears to be the only person on the island either who the spirits choose to sing to, or who is perceptive enough to hear it.  This "singing" seems to be very different from the teasing music Ariel plays for the trio to throw them off, but the author of both forms of muisc could very well be Ariel.

It was probably Ariel who provided Prospero with the history of Sycorax.  Caliban lacked the power of speech when Prospero arrived.  

Probably.  Though Prospero did teach Caliban to talk, Caliban doesn't seem to mention Sycorax much.  He may not remember her well.

Not all of his magic is aided. His use of the staff and Cloak are independant of others.   But these do seem to require use of the instruments themselves.  This makes them something like a talisman in their use for him.  

Yet we never see him cast magic with them, as far as I recall.  Shakespeare may have intended for them to have been talismans.  Who knows?  but I find it interesting that the magic we see seems to come entirely from the spirits.  I try not to read this play in a slavery context since it's unlikely that Shakespeare was an early abolishonist, but the New World was being tamed at this point, and perhaps Shakespeare did have a sort of conquest and slavery in mind when he wrote this, though he may not have been leaning towards the view of freeing the natives and giving them their land back, just as he gave us sympathy for Shylock without advocating the incorporation of Jews into The English Middle Class.

I think that Caliban is seen differently in a world with no middle class.  Caliban represents the base, flawed nature of a lower being.  Prospero represents the knowledgeable and worldly power that must be used to constrain the base nature of such a population.  (I'd have people'd else this isle with Calibans).  The mindset of Elizabethan nobility saw it as their duty to use their graces to rule the population.  It was more than just class separation.  It was the boundary between the sacred and the profane.  The deformity of Caliban confers upon him the same evil nature that we are to take from the deformity of Richard III.  

I think that's definately part of it; surely how Prospero views Caliban and how we are initially made to, but I'm never satsfied viewing Shakespeare as a reductionist.  I always marvel at his ability to paint three dimensional characters, and I see Caliban as no exception.  His speach about the music of the island is beautiful and touching; far more eloquent than anything anyone else says in the play, and as for class, Shakespeare himself was rather "base", despite his father's attempts to raise their family's status.  I find it hard to believe that Shakespeare would simplify the class system like that, considering where he, himself had come from.  Maybe it comes down to placing it in the context of the Globe Theatre again, in which the audience consisted of both high and low class people, all of whom needed to be pleased.  The high class people could identify with Prospero and his early version of The White Man's Burden, and the low class could identify at the same time with the beauty and wronged innocence of Caliban, while understanding at the same time that Prospero is a good man who has a duty to stop and punish him.

[shaxper]

I think that Prospero is the Anti-Faustus.  He conjures for the furtherance of love and justice.  He crosses over into the world of magic from his studies much the same as Dr Faustus but does so for survival and restoration rather than for power.  As far apart as these plays were written I still believe Prospero to have been an answer.  Ariel is an Anti-Mephistopheles.  He can likewise bring gold and fruits to his master, but his master does not seek those things.  

I made that same comparison while reading The Tempest, and I certainly agree that Prospero's intentions are more honorable; but I can't stop comparing him with Lear, a good king with the right intentions who allowed vanity to get the best of him and weild his power out of control.  I think the amazing thing about The Tempest is that it steers so close to this point of undoing, but veers away from it.  The Tempest is very much it's own genre.  It has the makings of a tragedy, the ending of a comedy, and the frame which contains it, in which Prospero plans and controls the course of the entire play, seems entirely original, not belonging to either genre.  even Doctor Faustus could not excercise that sort of control over his play, nor did he attempt to.

The fact that no real harm comes from the island spirits might be a product of constraints imposed by Prospero.  We don't know.  But the psychological subtext of this play is no different than other plays.  Prospero is a thinly veiled disguise for a dramast.  He manipulates his environment to bring about a show for the other characters.  Their viewing of this show will bring about catharsis for the others.  This will lead to revelation,  reunion and restoration.   There will often be a marriage involved.  And the dramatist will be rewarded for the effort.  Prospero goes so far as to beg for applause in his epilogue.  I, for one, am still clapping.

that's certainly apparent in his epilogue, which seems to be more of an epilogue for Shakespeare than Prospero (as is often argued).  I'm not sure whether that holds throughout the play, though.  There is definately a playwright metaphor going on.  Prospero directs when the players enter and exit, as well as what they encounter, but the larger implication for me is his need to control.  After all, he wasn't hired or elected to be a playwright or director.  I think Hamlet is another play like this.  Hamlet's Ghost, Hamlet, Polonius, Claudius, and Laertes (to an extent) are all fighting to direct the play, and it's their crossed directions that cause much of the tragedy.  Again, the larger purpose does not seem to be that they are playwrights or directors, but rather that their need to control is analagous to playwrighting and directing.  


Thank you for your reply.  I found it incredibly interesting.  Passages I didn't reply to are ones that I either fully agreed with or ones with which I had nothing else to add.

[Bardolph]

"I think that could still be seen as the "show of illusion" though, since he has already freed Ariel.  We don't see him perform any magic after that point, so it seems to me that the breaking of the staff and the drowning of the book could easily be symbolic."

I think that it could be interpreted this way.  But that depends on whether you decide to disregard Caliban as a credible source.  

Remember
First to possess his books; for without them
He's but a sot, as I am, nor hath not
One spirit to command: they all do hate him
As rootedly as I. Burn but his books.
He has brave utensils   (Caliban at 3.2.92)

If Caliban accurately reports here, then the books are the most important of his implements.  It is unclear whether the books are included in what he calls, "utensils."  

"But what does that say about Prospero?  Doesn't that put him on the same level as Sycorax?"

There are plenty of things to separate Prospero from Sycorax.  First, Sycorax imprisoned Ariel for his refusal to do her evil bidding.  This is made clear at 1.2.273.  Prospero threatens Ariel for complaining in spite of his duty to Prospero having been liberated by him.  It doesn't play as well in modern society.  But Ariel is a type of indentured servant.  This servant/master role was much more familiar to the Jacobean ear.   Sycorax did not endow her son with speech.  She abandoned the role of mother.  Prospero, without obligation to do so, took up the role of father only to be victimized by Caliban in his attack on Miranda.  Again, we might be uncomfortable with the relationship between Prospero and Ariel, but this relationship was more natural in 1611.

I have to confess that I like to think of Ariel as the bringer of music to Caliban.  It would characterize the soft nature that alientated him from Sycorax.  But this is not certain in the text.  It may be that the purpose was to show the island as benevolent, in contrast to the Isle of Devils that was nickname of the Bermuda island on which the Sea Venture was wrecked.  

I think that you might underestimate Caliban's memory of Sycorax.  Sycorax is cast in the role of an anti-Prospero in spite of her absence from the cast.  Caliban mentions that she was hideous.  He also mentions the name of her god, Setebos, a god from a Patagonian pantheon.  

"Yet we never see him cast magic with them, as far as I recall."

We see Prospero, an old man, easily rob Ferdinand of his sword.  We don't see Prospero in his invisibility outside the dramatic device of our imagination.  But these things are clearly indicated in the text.  There is no indication of the call of familiars.  We often see from the stage directions that Prospero and Ariel are 'above.'  In this, WS was limited to the devices of staging available to him.  The magic boundary might just be a function of practical choices rather than dramatic choices.  

This play is often subject to anti-colonial interpretation.  I think that there is much debate as to whether Shylock was meant to evoke sympathy without accepting him into English society.  Different opinions abound, but the lion's share of evidence that I've seen suggestst that the sympathetic view of Shylock did not emerge until a few centuries after WS died.  I agree in the main that we must consider the play within the context of Jacobean social mores.  

[Bardolph]

Caliban's role during the play often overshadows how he ends the play.  Prospero acknowledges him as his own.  Many, including me, take this as a symbolic acceptance of his own nature.  Caliban decides to seek after grace.  In this, I believe that he is to show a contrast between himself, Sebastian and Antonio.  Caliban moves toward grace and freedom.  Sebastian and Antonio, high born though they are, must be constrained from acting on their future ambitions by Prospero's knowledge of their conspiracy.  It is a complete role reversal.  Caliban is released from his bonds whereas they are placed in a different kind of bondage.  

I am one who would agree that Prospero's epilogue is autobiographical.  I think that the connection between the two is that of dramatist more than any other thing.  

I agree that your idea of Prospero as illusionist is a workable idea for the play.  I prefer the approach of alchemical and environmental magic with and without the aid of familiar spirits because I think it's stronger in the text.  I think it also might be more consistent with the semi-animistic magic of Celtic origin.  I think that 1.2.323-326 are lines that support that relationship.  

[shaxper]

Bardolph said:

I think that there is much debate as to whether Shylock was meant to evoke sympathy without accepting him into English society.  Different opinions abound, but the lion's share of evidence that I've seen suggestst that the sympathetic view of Shylock did not emerge until a few centuries after WS died.  I agree in the main that we must consider the play within the context of Jacobean social mores.  

What I meant is that Shylock is undoubtedly given some of Shakespeare's best lines, yet Shakespeare doesn't put him up on a pedestal and call him a saint.  The same is true for Caliban.  Regardless of Shakespeare's specific intentions towards him, he carries my favorite of all of Shakespeare's lines, and yet clearly exhibits some monstrous qualities.  How monstrous Caliban and Shylock may or may not be as compared to those that surround them is beside the point.  Shakespeare finds a powerful good in both of them, even though they are not "good characters", per se.  

It's always hard to know what Jacobean sentiments might have been towards an aspect of a play.  No culture is easily reducable to a single opinion that every member of that culture undoubtedly shared.  I agree that it's unlikely a Jacobean audience would have been entirely sympathetic to Caliban and Shylock, but I don't believe they would have necessarily completely condemned the two characters either.  I think both plays make it clear that these characters need to be punished, both in order to protect the class system and because they have become dangerous, yet there can still be an understanding that they were both initially and profoundly wronged.  There might still be a powerful sympathy towards them, which becomes even more intense when coupled with the need to punish them.

[Bardolph]

My point regarding Jacobean social mores is that their society did not have our egalitarian sensibilties.  It is clear from the works of WS that they were not horrified by the idea of indentured servitude.  Even by todays standards Caliban would be a registered sex offender but he would not have been compelled even as a prisoner to perform labor.  

I agree that Caliban is given wonderful lines.  I had noted your signature line.  But even there, Caliban is characterized as simple and childlike.  This is the state in which Prospero found him.  Caliban is redeemed in the end.  He must be a character worthy of redemption.  This is in stark contrast to others, who will never seek after redemption.  I think we are to take Sebastian and Antonio as the irredeemable and ambitious characters who will always be there to conspire against their betters.  Caliban has an ambition to be free from Prospero.  But he comes to realize that seeking after grace is the doorway to that freedom.  So, again, he must show something of a simple and innocent nature.  Antonio and Sebastian never do.  

[shaxper]

I wonder how much Caliban really understands that though?  It seems to me that his self-chastisement towards the end is pragmatic.  He was foolish to follow the people that he did, knowing full well that he would be punished.  I see no larger recognition.

I agree though that Caliban is simple, and I believe that it is his simplicity that makes him virtuous.  Shakespeare often makes the association of complexity and eloquence with evil.  I can recall the association is made in Richard III (Richard) and Lear (Edmund).  In contrast, Clarence and Edgar are two of Shakespeare's most virtuous characters, and also two of his simplest and most gullable.  Simple, cruder spoken characters do not have the imagination nor skill to be evil.  I believe this is why Caliban, as well as Stephano and Trinculo recieve a far easier fate than Antonio and Sebastian.  But if Caliban is simple, then was it fair for Prospero to judge and punish him as he did?  After all, Caliban's threat that he would have liked to have peopled the island with Calibans is an angry response to his treatment, not necessarily a mission that he'd actually planned to accomplish.  We see from Caliban's attempted usurpation that he isn't much of a planner, and indeed his loftiest evil goal is to become slave to a better master.  I find it hard not to see him as simple and mistreated.

[Bardolph]

Shakespearean dramatic structure requires restoration and redemption at the end of this play.  The meaning of 5.1.298 is unambiguous.  "I'll be wise hereafter, and seek for grace."  Certainly he recognizes his foolishness.  But there is nothing that argues against the transformation that we are told he makes.  This is the whole purpose of the late romantic plays.  They are psychological journeys toward transformation.  

Caliban's attempted rape of Miranda is not a reaction to his treatment.  The text makes it plain that it is the other way around.  1.2.334-338 shows Caliban's own memory of the mutually beneficial relationship that sprung up between he and Prospero.  1.2.347-353 gives us Prospero's recollection along with Caliban's declaration that makes it clear that he understood the nature of his attempted assault.  Caliban was housed in Prospero's cell until this assault took place.  There is no claim of innocense.  There is only regret that the act was not completed.  And Caliban clearly knows the relationship between his sexual assault and pregancy.

I'm not sure that I can agree with the idea that his ambition was simply to serve a better master.  I'm not sure how Stephano can seem even to Caliban to be worthy of such a thing.  Caliban's proposed island politics usurps Prospero and makes Caliban a second over Trinculo.   He displays a little of his ambition for the future at 3.2.86.  "Beat him enough: After a little time I'll beat him too."  Caliban's ambition is to leave his position at the bottom of the island food chain and to leave Trinculo in his place.  

[Ganymede]

I never get so clean a feeling of any of Shakespeare's endings.  Although I haven't read the Tempest in about two years, I don't remember coming away with a clear feeling about Caliban's transformation.  After all, his last line is spoken in the presence of Prospero.  Caliban understands that he has to kiss up in order to avoid "pinching."  I'm sure he does feel silly to have followed to drunkards as gods, but he probably mostly regrets that his usurpation did not succeed.  Perhaps he only says he'll "seek for grace" in order to get in Prospero's good graces, by appearing penitent.  

[Bardolph]

Any interpretation will work.   You can see Caliban however you will.  But this is just one of thousand's of what if's that could be asked at the end of the plays.

Consider this.  The play ends with restoration and exposure.   Prospero and Miranda are restored to freedom.  Milan and Naples are refurnished with their rulers.  The two are restored to a condition of peace by the blessed union of Mir and Fer.  Ariel is restored to the freedom that he hasn't enjoyed since prior to Sycorax.  

Stephano, Trinculo, Sebastian, Antonio and Caliban are all exposed as conspirators.  The first two are restored to their former posts (unless you want to strand them on the island).  The next two are restored to their positions, but they are now slaves to the knowledge that Prospero carries with him.  Caliban is exposed and he is restored in one of two ways.  He either takes full ownership of his mother's island, or he experiences what for him will be a brave new world.  Wherever you leave him, his restoration is clear.  It comes at 5.1.296.  "As you look to have my pardon, trim it handsomely."  

If we are to take Caliban as a mirror opposite of Ariel, the Caliban now receives his "last charge."  This is the final task of his servitude.  The term pardon here refers to the deep and lasting pardons that Prospero is handing out to all, worthy and unworthy.  Ariel provides calms seas and full sails toward home, then he is free.  

Caliban can be considered the star of the show.  Restoration and forgiveness of our angelic and benevolent natures, as represented by Ariel, offers no real challenge to the dramatist.  The restoration and forgiveness of the base nature within all of this, now that is a challenge.  

Compare the two interpretations and measure which is stronger.  Caliban as an unrepentant knave who acts the part of the transformed because it is his nature to do so vs Caliban as the former neglected child and criminal sentenced to hard labor who determines to better himself and thereby becomes the moral superior to the likes of Sebastian and Antonio, both princes.  To deny Caliban the sincerity of his repentance is to miss a chance to use him as a powerful dramatic device.  

[shaxper]

While I like your take on Caliban very much, I find it hard to accept.  Take a close look at Caliban in the final scene.  On line 264, he is still praying to Setebos, something that allies him with Sycorax and therefore against Prospero.  He refers to Prospero as a "fine master" in the next line, but "fine" can be taken to mean powerful, or he could be saying this publicly to avoid chastisement.  After all, on line 279 the closest thing to an aside Caliban gets in this scene is "I shall be pinched to death", not "What have I done?  I see how wrong I was."  When he finally claims that he will "seek for grace" on line 299, it is a direct response to Prospero's threat that "As you look to have my pardon, trim it hansomely".  Caliban is dressing up his apology, which is quickly followed with a pragmatic regret rather than a moral one ("What a thrice-double ass was I to take this drunkard for a god, and worship this dull fool!".

I read our compassion for Caliban as being a sort of measuring stick for Prospero's character.  By caring for Caliban early on, we can see how harsh Prospero's form of justice is, and sympathize with the punished.  Once Prospero learns to forgive and liberate, our opinion of Caliban is no longer as important.  Whether or not he, or anyone else has learned their lesson is second in importance to Prospero's own transformation.  Will Antonio and Sebastian attempt to kill Prospero in his sleep that night, before they set sail the next morning?  Will Caliban truly seek for grace thereafter?  It doesn't really matter.  Prospero's own self-liberation from vengence to forgiveness is the point, as is the symbolic marriage he has orchestrated between his daughter and his enemy's son.

[Bardolph]

Caliban's use of the word 'Setebos' doesn't mean he worships him any more than the word 'Christ' makes someone a Christian.  He uses it here as an interjection and not as a prayer.   Caliban at that line is just at the moment when he realizes that his plan has failed, he has been worshipping a stinking drunk and that Prospero stands before him in his state attire.  He makes mention at this point of the punishment that he expects.  This punishment never comes.  He reverts to his subservient role.  This is his station in life.  Propero is always going to be a better than he.  That Jacobean social caste might be uncomfortable for us today, but it was the norm then.  

I looked in the Shakespeare Lexicon to find the term 'fine.'  In it's adjective form there are several related uses of the term.  They include thin, slender, keen, sharp, pure, refined, accomplished, nice, delicate, tender, neat, elegant, beautiful, trim, showy and subtle. The lexicon assigns it's use here as neat, elegant and beautiful.  There is no use of the term in it's adjective form for anything else anywhere in the works of WS.  It seems to me that the simplest answer is that Caliban recognizes the relationship between his ambition and the consequences that he has been facing.  To suggest that he has hidden motives for his sentences suggests that WS was hiding those motives from his audience when he was all about exposing all motives in the final scene of the play.  In that sense, The Tempest is similar to Hamlet.  All are revealed to the audience and to each other, other than the exceptions Antonio and Sebastian.

I don't think that it's necessary to the drama for Caliban to expressly say, "I see how wrong I was."  This is the meaning of, "I'll be wise hereafter, and seek for grace."  He sees that he was on the wrong path and declares that he is on a new path.  

You do hit the nail on the head with respect to the primacy of Prospero's own transformation.  It is the central character evolution of the play.  But WS writes to the grander idea of literary unities.  Prospero is a dramatist.  The pageantry of action at his direction effects the transformations not just of himself, but of his whole world, including all of Italy.  Asimov covers this very well in his tome on the plays.  WS is not a sequel writer.  The power of drama is the real star of the show and Caliban is subject to it's power, perhaps the more so since he is of a simple mind.  I think it does matter very much what effect all this has had on Caliban.  There is a Caliban to be subdued in all of us.  This idea is part and parcel of your signature line and it's twangling instruments.  Music soothes the savage breast, or beast, in all.  

[shaxper]

Bardolph said:

I looked in the Shakespeare Lexicon to find the term 'fine.'  In it's adjective form there are several related uses of the term.  They include thin, slender, keen, sharp, pure, refined, accomplished, nice, delicate, tender, neat, elegant, beautiful, trim, showy and subtle. The lexicon assigns it's use here as neat, elegant and beautiful.  There is no use of the term in it's adjective form for anything else anywhere in the works of WS 

"accomplished" is pretty much the meaning I was going for there.  Caliban has reason to fear an accomplished magician master.


As for the rest, I suspect there will be no changing either of our minds on Caliban, which I see as a good thing.  It's the power of Shakespeare's well-constructed ambiguities; the very qualities that have allowed his works to continuously triumph over the past 400 years, regardless of the time and place.  

Nevertheless, your perspectives here have helped me, and I hope the same is true for you.  I think my vision of Caliban has evolved greatly from my first post in this thread to my last, and so I've learned something, and made the play new for myself again.  It may not be anywhere near your vision of Caliban, but it does borrow from much of your perspective on the play.  Thanks for the great discourse  ;D