In his foreword to The Picture of Dorian Gray, Oscar Wilde uses Shakespeares Caliban to specify the 19th centurys positions on Realism and Romanticism.foot Sing his ain face in a glass, every bit good as non seeing it, provokes fury in Caliban. Using footings such as “ fury ” , and the deductions of being provoked into such a province by detecting one ‘s face in a glass, implies there is an component of unsightliness to Caliban, ugliness if you will. However, Wilde is non an exclusion in his portraiture of Caliban, nor is his analogy unfounded when analyzing Shakespeare ‘s text.
Even though Prospero ‘s descriptions are frequently obscure and equivocal sing Caliban ‘s species, the text allows for small fluctuations sing his unsightly visual aspect. Having this in head, it is non unusual that Caliban has come to stand for bestiality, ugliness, cold nature. Naturally, this has led to legion different readings of this character and his function in The Tempest. This is barely surprising, taken into history that Shakespeare ‘s plants have ever been studied in visible radiation of assorted different readings. Greer insists that while Shakespeare ‘s perceptual experiences about the modern-day universe are really comprehensive, they are non merchandises of intuition nor are they merchandises of godly inspiration. Rather, Shakespeare is said to hold been deeply interested in rational issues, which he dramatized in such a manner that enabled the audience to go cognizant of an inventive dimension of his plants ( 22 ) . In other words, there is no 1 right reading of any of his plants, since every single analysis may scratch different significances into the complex subjects at manus.
If Greer ‘s claim is accepted that Shakespeare was non a propagandist and did non compose dramas as vehicles for his ain thoughts ( 23 ) , one is left inquiring whose thoughts he was backing. To clear up Greer ‘s statement, one should non confound Shakespeare ‘s characters or their sentiments with the sentiments of the writer himself. This is important for any analysis of The Tempest, since we need to do a clear differentiation between Prospero and Shakespeare before we begin. To place the two would non be unprecedented in unfavorable judgment sing this text, but it would be instead baseless, which will be demonstrated in the development of this paper.
The purpose of the paper is to picture how the text of The Tempest is involved in the broader context of colonialism and early capitalist dealingss. For the intents of this paper, it will be argued that the dwellers of the island who do non possess any thaumaturgies have been assigned such a status because they serve to stand for trade goods in visible radiation of the development of early capitalist economy. Furthermore, it will be demonstrated that Caliban ‘s portraiture serves non as Shakespeare ‘s indorsement of colonisation, but the contrary – as its unfavorable judgment.
*For Marx, The Tempest is a prefiguration of authoritative American fabrications ( 69 ) . The of import connexion being the thought of a redemptive expedition into the wilderness that begins with rejection of civilisation.
* The drama does non look to digest any unsubordinated relationship ( Cefalu 103 ) . The text abounds in many different signifiers of command and subjugation.
2. Charming Elementss in the Social Context of the Renaissance
When covering with the analysis of supernatural elements in a text, the perceptual experience of which is capable to alter, one needs to set the relevant text into a chronological and societal position. Harmonizing to Jackson, any text, including a literary phantasy, is produced within, and determined by, its societal context. What this means is that it can non be understood in isolation from it, which supports Jackson ‘s statement that literary fantastic is ne’er free ( 3 ) . The perceptual experience of what is considered to be supernatural or charming alterations throughout clip depending on assorted elements, including the technological and scientific progresss in a given society. Therefore, the relationship of literary phantasy with “ world ” is a complicated one. Jackson argues that phantasy alters in character over the old ages in conformity with the altering impression of “ world ” ( 4 ) . This is of important importance for analyzing The Tempest ( written c.1611 ) , because it may be assumed that worldviews have changed significantly since Shakespeare ‘s times. This is why a general debut about the clip and topographic point of the text ‘s production is in order.
In Shakespeare ‘s times, the theater had become less serious and more sensational, while the exercising of imaginativeness had become less of import. The theater was in a state of affairs where it had to fulfill the ego of its frequenters who could make up one’s mind what was to be played and when. England experienced a corrosion of public morality and an addition in societal tensenesss and factionalism ( Greer 37 ) . It was a clip when one worldview, embedded in the mystical and supernatural, was giving manner to a more rational mentality on life with the developments in scientific discipline. This is supported by Belton, who cites D.G. James ‘ claim that The Tempest is Europe ‘s farewell to magic as a portion of its perceptual experience of the universe ( 1 ) .
Harmonizing to C.S. Lewis, thaumaturgy in the Renaissance was considered a technique of ruling the nature as it was in close relation to scientific discipline ( Williams 2 ) . Harmonizing to the reigning worldview, Prospero ‘s powers do non stem from “ unreal thaumaturgy ” , but from “ natural thaumaturgy ” , the merchandise of the comprehensive apprehension of the secrets of Nature, which may look like a miracle or an semblance to the nescient head ( Belton 127 ) . Even though Prospero ‘s attempts are connected to divine light, harmonizing to Belton, Shakespeare ‘s audience saw this as the lone aim and dependable beginning of cognition ( 130 ) . Therefore, charming motives in The Tempest were most likely familiar to the Jacobean audience, since its elements were present in modern-day mythology and folklore. The motive of an illusory feast, for illustration, had long been familiar as a prestidigitator ‘s fast one ( Latham 218 ) .
*Lewis Carroll refers to this in Preface to Sylvie and Bruno as the human capableness of sing assorted psychical provinces, with changing grades of consciousness. These provinces are the ordinary province, with no consciousness of the supernatural, the ‘ eerie ‘ province, in which 1 is witting both of existent milieus, and the supernatural. The 3rd province described is a signifier of enchantment, in which 1 is seemingly asleep, but becomes witting of the supernatural. ( citation )
Given the fact that the text at manus is a drama, the reader is provided with the same sum of information as the characters in the text. In Brook-Rose ‘s footings the reader is neither over- nor under-determined, and the text is balanced ( 122 ) . In Todorov ‘s footings, the text of The Tempest falls into the class of the alien fantastic ( 55 ) . The supernatural events are reported in a mode that does non portray them as such. On the degree of the inexplicit reader it is apparent that there is no ground for oppugning those events. On the degree of single characters, nevertheless, each one ‘s reaction is dependent upon a specific juncture. Harmonizing to Todorov, these reactions may be classified as eldritch, pure antic or fantastic ( 41-57 ) . This issue will be examined further on in the paper, with an accent on Caliban ‘s and Miranda ‘s reactions in visible radiation of their portraiture as trade goods.
Any treatment of colonialism must get down with an account of the colonialist discourse and its placement in the modern-day societal context. The discourse of colonialism is said to map by building a threatening “ other ” , which is used to excuse the colonial activities. In this manner, the subjugation of native peoples is justified in the name of a supposed superior virtuousness, harmonizing to Willis in her analysis of Brown ( 277 ) . It is a procedure which Brown refers to as the euphemisation of power, where insurgent elements in a given civilization service as a justification for illicit actions ( 63 ) .This account may be considered valid in the general sense of colonialism. However, on the textual degree of The Tempest, the aforesaid definition may hold its failings.
Harmonizing to Jackson, early love affair phantasies define and confine distinctness as something immorality or diabolic. Blackness, dark, and darkness have ever surrounded this “ other ” ( Jackson 54 ) . A term frequently used in The Tempest, devil, harmonizing to Jackson ‘s statement, signifies something malignant, a destructive force at work. ( cite ) . Obviously, this “ other ” or the insurgent component in The Tempest is Caliban. Brown indisputably identifies Caliban as a “ threatening other ” , whose opposition to enslavement legitimises the executing of colonialist power ( 60 ) . His claims are non an exclusion. Critics such as Flagstad support the thesis that Caliban presents a threat to the basic rules of Western civilisation ( 216 ) . However, critics such as Vaughan and Marx propose a different, “ Americanist ” reading of The Tempest. For illustration, Vaughan proposes that Caliban is a symbol for the Indians who lost their land and autonomy to European interlopers ( citation ) . This type of reading, nevertheless, will be dealt with in the following subdivision of the paper.
Brown claims that The Tempest is non merely a contemplation of the modern-day positions on colonialism, but Shakespeare ‘s intercession into this subject ( 47 ) . Furthermore, critics such as aˆ¦ claim that Shakespeare endorsed the colonial undertaking ( cite ) . This is entirely undue. We are brought back to the important differentiation between the writer and his characters. Prospero ‘s positions on Caliban are non needfully Shakespeare ‘s positions. Just because Prospero may comprehend him as a “ threatening other ” , it does non intend that the audience does. What needs to be stressed is the fact that Caliban is constructed in such a manner that it is really difficult for the audience to comprehend him as a existent menace. Examples will be given of such cases in which the audience is invited to sympathize with Caliban alternatively of fearing him or reprobating him. This subdivision of the paper will lucubrate on the fact that there is no written grounds in the text for confounding the writer with the character he produced. It will be argued that Shakespeare created a myriad of niceties to Caliban which do non back up the claim that he is merely a barbarian who needs to be subjected.
Prospero ‘s descriptions of Caliban allow for the audience ‘s imaginativeness to travel wild. Once he described as a wild adult male, half Satan, the following clip he is a unusual fish, monster, dull thing, scoundrel, tortoise and a prevarication slave. The audience is left inquiring what sort of a animal he really is. However, cases in which Caliban demonstrates that his nature is non every bit despicable as Prospero would hold the audience believe are legion. First of all, Caliban is non nescient of Prospero ‘s thaumaturgy. He is good cognizant both of the being of liquors, and the fact that it is Prospero ‘s making. Furthermore, his suggestion that Prospero ‘s books should be burned, demonstrates a degree of understanding deeper than one would anticipate from an alleged beast. Furthermore, he experiences torment over his captivity when he utters: “ As I told thee before, I am capable to a tyrant/a magician that by his cunning hath cheated me of the island. ” One is left inquiring what is so detestable about Caliban. Prospero, on the other manus, treats this alleged “ beast ” in a dreadfully beastly mode. Prospero is good cognizant of the fact that Caliban is much needed to him, but his captivity is ne’er one time questioned by Prospero or any other character, except Caliban himself. Prospero ‘s statement that “ raising can ne’er lodge on a despicable nature ” is repeatedly denied and contradicted.
Arguments that Shakespeare endorsed colonization seem extremely unlikely if one becomes cognizant of the “ humane ” characteristic assigned to Caliban, which are non needfully functional in the secret plan. In other words, Shakespeare did non necessitate to make a complex character had his purpose truly been to build merely a despicable beast. Furthermore, Shakespeare gave Caliban rightful ownership of the island, while it is Prospero who usurped it without inquiry. “ This island ‘s mine, by Sycorax my female parent ” , proclaims Caliban, while Prospero ‘s ( im ) moral claim over the island is ne’er mentioned. Prospero ‘s inexplicit claim to the island rests on Caliban ‘s debauched nature, argues Willis ( 284 ) . However, it is non clear what makes Prospero tantrum for governing this island. His ability to regulation is questionable, to state the least, since the audience knows he was proclaimed unfit to govern over Milan. His fittingness for regulation over the island is so produced entirely out of the fact that he comes from a Western civilization.
Furthermore, it is Shakespeare who made Caliban have dreams and desire for freedom. In fact, he is the lone character in the drama for whom we have proof that he dreams. While others experience sleep every bit good, Caliban is the lone character Shakespeare has blessed ( or cursed ) with dreams, both literally and metaphorically. He is besides given dreams of freedom, a desire to interrupt away from his enslaved status. However, this seems about like a double-edged blade for Caliban. On the one manus, he has been raised by the Western civilization, but has non appropriated it wholly. On the other manus, he is no longer a simple barbarian. He has become what Montaigne calls the “ baronial barbarian ” ( citation ) . He is no longer able to populate in complete freedom, but can non stand the captivity either.
Besides showing dreams, desires and the ability to appreciate music and beauty, Caliban is besides able to see love and fondness. His early relationship with Prospero is grounds of this claim. Marx claims that Caliban is monstrous, but that there is a intimation of “ basic sensitiveness ” in him that makes him susceptible to music and landscape. In effect, he is more sympathetic than the dishonest and corrupted work forces of Europe ( 62 ) . If music is one of the steps of beauty, and Caliban is cognizant of it, how beast is he truly?
Furthermore, he is able to larn. A wholly despicable character, as it is assumed, would non be able to larn the linguistic communication of Prospero. “ You taught me linguistic communication ; and my net income on’t/Is, I know how to cuss. “ , he proclaims. Those expletives are non mere imitation or reverberation, but he seems to hold on the complexness of the linguistic communication. His linguistic communication does non differ in any manner from the linguistic communication of other characters. Additionally, besides being able to get cognition, he is besides able to learn others about the ways of the island.
Even though he is presented as capable of colza, the history of the attempted colza of Miranda is told from Prospero ‘s oral cavity. In order words, it is told from the point of position of dominant Western civilization. If we perceive Prospero as a kind of a storyteller, we have to oppugn the extent to which we trust him. Caliban ‘s entree of colza, “ Thou didst prevent me ; I had peopled else/This isle with Calibans ” , can non be taken as wholly reliable. First of wholly, he is likely merely repeating what he hears from Prospero and Miranda. Second, we must handle this as an off-stage event and conclude that there is no manner of cognizing what truly happened. The audience, of course, does non blindly trust nor Prospero nor Caliban, but is invited to see different facets both of characters.
Marx argues that the island does non stand for the good, the grounds being that it is Caliban ‘s place, who is as cruel in his ways as the fallacious work forces of Milan ( 70 ) . However, Caliban ‘s desire to subvert Prospero must non be identified with Stephano and Trinculo ‘s. While the two Europeans are guided by their hungriness for power, Caliban is guided with the desire to stop his enslaved status, even if it means subjecting himself to a different maestro.
Caliban ‘s transmutation in the terminal is the ultimate grounds that Prospero is non voicing Shakespeare ‘s sentiments. The writer puts the undermentioned words into Caliban ‘s oral cavity: “ I ‘ll be wise afterlife and seek for grace ” . Prospero, nevertheless, still does non from his claim that “ on a Satan ‘s nature raising can ne’er lodge ” . He acknowledges Caliban as “ a thing of darkness ” which is of his ain devising. If he has non learned anything, it is Prospero ‘s failure as maestro, instructor, even father. Caliban feels shame, he feels he is being mocked: “ How he mocks me ” , he cries. The audience learns that he is self-aware, able to experience humiliation and embarrassment, a trait found entirely in human existences ( and non even all human existences! ) . Prospero ‘s appraisal of Caliban is eventually shattered in the eyes of the audience. Therefore, we must one time once more re-evaluate the presupposed a
Marx ‘s Americanist reading of The Tempest points out the fact that Shakespeare wrote the drama three to four old ages after the lasting settlement had been established at Jamestown in 1607. However, he states that the drama is non in any actual sense about America. Nevertheless, in The Tempest he finds elements of a shipwreck in 1609 when Sea Adventure, one of the fleets heading to Virginia was caught in a violent storm, after which it ran aground in the Bermuda, with everyone aboard acquiring safely to shore ( 40 ) . Harmonizing to Marx, this indicates that Shakespeare was cognizant of what his countrymen were making in the western hemisphere. The drama ‘s subject, furthermore, trades with a extremely civilized European who finds himself in the wilderness. The distant scene, a strong sense of topographic point and its clasp over the characters, battle with the natural nature, corruptness within the western civilisation, and rapprochement of the forces of civilisation and nature represent the typical state of affairs of voyagers going to remote parts of the planet ( 41 ) .
The landscape is the important portion of the Americanist reading of The Tempest, since most of the Elizabethan thoughts of America were invested in images of landscape, argues Marx. The landscape of the distant scenes is untasted by history, giving the feeling of the virgin land ( 42 ) . What Marx is stating is thataˆ¦rely on the western impression of “ history ” and “ landscape ” . One wonders how this landscape lacks history. It surely lacks “ western history ” , but taken into history that these topographic points where normally inhabited by autochthonal peoples, one is left inquiring how is it that this landscape lacks history. This can easy be applied to The Tempest, with Caliban as the representative of the autochthonal peoples of the Americas.
A conventional impression of the Americas in Elizabethan literature was the thought of the site for a new aureate age, which supported effectual propaganda in support of the colonisation. The motive of the enchanted garden was looking throughout cultural production, but it was no mere rhetorical platitude, Marx argues ( 44 ) . It is one of the most profound and persistent of human motivations. Europeans had, nevertheless, ever cherished Utopian aspirations that had given rise to a series of fanciful universes long before the find of America ( 45 ) .
An history of American landscape radically opposed to the garden besides came approximately at the clip, which was the perceptual experience of the new universe as a topographic point of “ beastly darkness ” ( 46 ) that produce fright of malicious forces and of beastly traits of adult male. Harmonizing to this point of view, all the desirable characteristics of civilisation were absent from the “ natural continent ” ( 46 ) .
Both constructs of the garden represent the desire to get away the restraints of a complex society. The Utopian vision of the garden, on the one manus, serves to stand for freedom and leisure, while the opposing one sees it as a ululation desert or a horrid wilderness that presents an sphere for the exercising of power ( 48 ) . In consequence, America is neither Eden nor a ululation desert, or possibly it is both, as Marx suggests ( 48 ) . Prospero himself is, in fact, the in-between land or the mediation between nature and art ( 66 ) . For Marx, Prospero ‘s purpose is rapprochement of two universes, both the idyllic garden and the wilderness ( 67 ) . Marx argues that Shakespeare creates a sort of disruptive no adult male ‘s land between civilisation and the new universe while Prospero is coercing his old enemies to re-enact his ain transition from civilisation into nature ( 54 ) .
When Stephano and Trinculo meet Caliban, a boom is heard in the distance and the audience is reminded of the opening scene of the storm ( 56 ) . It is reminded of the island before Prospero and of the violent forces of nature that were at work before the western adult male conquered it and civilized it. In the interim, Prospero had, harmonizing to Marx, controlled many disagreeable and ugly characteristics of crude nature ( 57 ) . But now, the western adult male is reminded of the island ‘s yesteryear, which is Caliban. His endangering presence reminds us that the intimidating, hostile forces exhibited by the storm are still active, Marx argues ( 57 ) .
The lone dwellers of the island who do non possess any charming abilities are Caliban and Miranda. They are both cognizant of the being of thaumaturgy and understand that it is Prospero ‘s making. However, they are unable to exercise control over nature or other animals. Their deficiency of charming abilities in itself may non look as an of import portion of the drama. However, in this subdivision of the paper it will be argued that it is diagnostic of their general function in the drama. Caliban is openly referred to as a slave, while Miranda ‘s status places her as an instrument in the custodies of Prospero. Furthermore, both characters may be seen as trade goods, apt for development by the Europeans. This will be elaborated in the visible radiation of the lifting capitalist dealingss in early seventeenth century.
4.1. Caliban as trade good
Intro – caliban ‘s consciousness of thaumaturgy ; general presentation about capitalist economy
An illustration of the development from pre-capitalist to capitalist dealingss is shown in Caliban ‘s relationship with the Europeans. ( Q ) Early on on, his early relationship with Prospero ( stand foring the Europeans ) is an idyllic one, arousing the narrations about American Indians ( citation ) in which the indigens introduced the Europeans to the imposts of the new land. The undermentioned paragraph spoken by Caliban portrays the patterned advance of this complex relationship:
“ When 1000 camest first/Thou strokedst me and madest much of me, wouldst give me/Water with berries i n’t, and learn me how/To name the bigger visible radiation, and how the less/That burn by twenty-four hours and dark: and so I loved thee/And show ‘d thee all the qualities o ‘ the isle/The fresh springs, brine-pits, bare topographic point and fertile ” ( citation )
Afterwards, Caliban is coerced into working under Prospero. As Cefalu argues, this work is unproductive. There is no division of labor and no societal order arranged on the footing of productiveness. How many 1000s of logs does Prospero truly necessitate, inquire Cefalu ( 105 ) , and with good ground. What this inquiry implies is that Caliban is non obliged to work for Prospero merely to guarantee his and Miranda ‘s support. He is, in fact, forced to work for Prospero because his power exists in the absence of any legitimating norms, values or establishments ( 105 ) . What Cefalu is stating here is that Western power exists without any legitimate regulations. It rests entirely on the alleged high quality of one manner of life over another – capital over nature. For the Western adult male, represented by Prospero and the work forces of Milan and Naples, Caliban is a trade good. “ If I can retrieve him/and maintain him chasten and acquire to Naples with him, he ‘s a/present for any emperor that of all time step on neat ‘s leather ” , declares Stephano.
In the beginning, nevertheless, Caliban is non seen as valuable, argues Cefalu. He is merely something to wonder at. The first clip he is declared valuable is when Stephano refers to him as a “ present for any Emperoraˆ¦ ” . This polar minute in Caliban ‘s transmutation into a trade good, harmonizing to Cefalu, happens when he replaces Prospero as maestro with Stephano after being given spirits. He gives his promise that in return for the spirits, he will demo Stephano and Trinculo the island and execute labor for them ( 106 ) . In other words, he is seting his work force towards a self-interested end, and he has, in fact, replaced both Masterss with a new one – the capital. This is the procedure that Cefalu calls Caliban ‘s self-alienation ( 107 ) . It is Prospero ‘s subjection that leads to his disaffection from the labor which one time performed volitionally. However, for a minute, he is free from coercion from his maestro, or any maestro. In fact, now he is the 1 who is responsible for the fortunes of the deal. Unlike the work unwillingly performed for Prospero, now he offers the work forces of Milan trade goods that colonisers may happen interesting – trade goods that are exchangeable for farther net income ( 108 ) . Cefalu claims that the minute when Prospero ‘s power is no longer legitimate is the minute of Caliban ‘s symbolic transmutation into a “ genitive individualist ” guided by his ain demands, without the influence of Prospero ‘s thaumaturgy ( 111 ) .
For Brown, on the other manus, the drama relies on masterlessness to reinvent its ain sense of command over disrupting forces. ( citation ) Cefalu ‘s statement stands in resistance to Brown ‘s, as he explains that Brown ne’er truly offers a precise definition of masterlessness ( 111 ) .
4.2. Miranda as trade good
Miranda embodies the qualities of natural simpleness, genteelness and instruction, provinces Marx ( 65 ) . As in Caliban ‘s instance, subjugation and bondage of pre-capitalist dealingss base on balls over into dealingss of capital and trade good worship, Cefalu claims ( 105 ) . The support of this claim, Cefalu describes the metabolism of Miranda from a crude exchange object to a trade good fetish. Initially she is offered as a gift to Ferdinand, as if she is an exchange object for which the countergift to Prospero will be the Restoration and affair with Alonso. On the other manus, she could barely be considered a “ gift ” given the fact that she is “ purchased ” by Ferdinand through his work for Prospero. Her position as an object in a natural economic system is transformed into an object of exchange in market-type dealingss, Cefalu states. Furthermore, Ferdinand ‘s labors are shortly forgotten, rendered unseeable so that he becomes separated from the labor undertaken in the procedure of Miranda ‘s “ purchase ” , whereby she becomes a symbol of Ferdinand ‘s detached labor ( 106 ) .
She is one of the characters subjected to Prospero, but unlike other characters she does non look to to the full hold on her subjected status. Her intent in the drama is to guarantee Prospero ‘s throne to Milan. Therefore, she may be seen as an instrument in Prospero ‘s custodies. In conformity with her function, she possesses no charming properties and blindly relies on Prospero ‘s counsel. Precisely because of the aforesaid qualities of her character, she frequently finds herself in the sphere of the strictly antic, as defined by Todorov ( 41-57 ) , waiting for a declaration of this province provided by Prospero. She relies wholly upon his accounts and does non oppugn her status, nor does she oppugn Prospero ‘s thaumaturgy. “ More to know/Did ne’er meddle with my ideas. ” ( I.ii. , 1136 ) , she states. In the beginning of the drama, she inquires about the beginning of the tempest. It could be either a natural event or her male parent ‘s thaumaturgy: “ If by your art, my dearest male parent, you have/Put the wild Waterss in this boom, still them. ” ( I.ii. , 1136 ) Therefore, she is in the sphere of the pure antic until she readily accepts her male parent ‘s account. “ No more amazement ” , responds Prospero, “ There ‘s no injury done. ” From the sphere of the pure antic, Miranda now finds herself in the sphere of the fantastic, since the semblance of the storm was Prospero ‘s making. When Prospero grows tired of Miranda ‘s inquiries, he merely puts her to kip, showing one time once more that she is merely an instrument, the intent of which is to function Prospero ‘s purposes: “ Here discontinue more inquiries: Thou art inclined to sleep/’tis a good dullness/And give it manner: I know thou canst non take. ”
When she lays eyes upon Ferdinand for the first clip, she asks “ What is’t? /A spirit? ” . Again, she is in the sphere of pure antic and is in demand of Prospero ‘s way. For the implied reader this vacillation may be solved in the way of the eldritch, for we learn Ferdinand is a flesh and blood human being. For Miranda on the other manus, it seems to travel in the way of the fantastic. “ A thing Godhead ” , she calls him, “ for nil natural/I of all time saw so baronial. ”