A New Divide

Throughout the many ages that pass humanity, one thing is for certain, history repeats itself. One can see this through the many wars, literature pieces, fashion statements that continuously arise between the centuries. But there is one instance where this emergence is more defined. This specific instance can be found in Shakespeare’s Dracula where a certain character named Caliban, a weird half fish half man creature, compares to Bram Stoker’s character Renfield, a psychopath under the control of an evil vampire. These two characters share one common role in both of these very different stories. They both share this role as an underling, a slave bound to the bidding of their master. Now, these books share not only different stories but also different times periods by about three hundred years. Shakespeare being born in 1564 and Stoker being born in 1847. So the question comes into play, why did two different authors, born in two different time periods, writing two different novels, create such similar characters? The answer to this question is simple: during both of their time periods the image of people of color were still thought of as not equal or of lesser status to white people. These characters represented the slaves of Shakespeare’s time and the people of color during Stoker’s time who had just come out of slavery. They showed the racist feelings that lingered during the 1500’s when slaves were still slaves and during the 1800’s when they were just recently released from their slave status but still treated as lesser people.

Shakespeare’s The Tempest is a story about people getting stranded on an island by a powerful wizard, named Prospero, who was once a duke before his brother forced him into exile for his position. At the beginning of the story our first encounter with Prospero introduces us to his two servants on the island. One is named Ariel, a spirit who is more than happy to serve Prospero as long as he keeps his word to free him at the end of his tasks, and one named Caliban, a vicious and deformed slave who sees his servitude as something unwilling and forced upon him. It is interesting to see Caliban displayed in this way because he is the person who was cheated out of his own home and forced to serve Prospero just for being born from his mother, who apparently was an evil witch. This witch, named Sycorax, could not even have been his mother but a complete lie. Fast forward to Stoker’s time period when Dracula was released and there lies a character similar to Caliban. This character is named Renfield. Renfield is a patient at a mental hospital who calls Dracula his master. Renfield is described as this dumb, brutish being that seems to have no clear or rational thoughts. Renfield is just used as a pawn for Dracula’s needs. One can even go so far as to say that he is a slave to Dracula’s spell. Now why would these two characters, ones who are both deformed in some way with brutish strength and a dependence on other people, possibly be written so similar to each other? It is because both ages have this lasting impression that people of color are these lesser people and they exmply this in their book by making these characters represent what they hate. For example in Shakespeare’s Indian: The Americanization of Caliban, Vaughan talks about numerous tribes of people that Caliban can represent. He talks about how Caliban can be a symbol of African tribes that have already been enslaved or these new “Indians” explorers found in the new world. He compares Caliban to them saying they both are brutish beings needing the assistance of a superior power to help them progress and develop.

Alexander Diaz

ERH-205WX-02

Annotated Bibliography

Word Count: 1,680

Langhorst, Rick. “Caliban in America”. Journal of Spanish Studies: Twentieth Century 8.1/2

(1980): 79–87. Web. 12 Apr, 2016.

This source is written by a professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology. It is found in the Journal of Spanish Studies: Twentieth Century as a part of a larger piece of work. It was published by the Society of Spanish & Spanish-American Studies. This text is about Caliban and the different ways people have portrayed him over the years. As we know Caliban is a slave to Prospero and this article shows how different writers and critics have portrayed Caliban to either be the monster that he is or the defender of his freedom and his island. We see representations and comparisons of Caliban to people who have been enslaved in the past like Cubans or African. We also see in this article how much Caliban is different from Ariel even though they are both slaves of Prospero. A thorough evaluation of the source has led me to believe that it is highly researched, as it pulls from many different authors and their views on Caliban and even includes excerpts from their books. The author basically asks the question “What was Shakespeare’s true intention for Caliban? Why portray him the way he is?”. Through the many sources that project Caliban in so many different ways, we can agree that even to this day Caliban is the begrudged oppressed slave on the island. I chose this article because of the many viewpoints it gave on Caliban. It helps my argument by giving me different angles to use and exploit or even disagree with. The author does serve as an allied counsel and it helps to establish credibility on the image of Caliban.

Miller, Elizabeth. “Back to the Basics: Re-examining Stoker’s Sources for “dracula””. Journal of

the Fantastic in the Arts 10.2 (38) (1999): 187–196. Web. 12 Apr, 2016.

This article was written by Elizabeth Miller, a writer for the journal her article was found in, the Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts published by the International Association for the Fantastic in the Arts. Now this article basically gives a backstory to some of the things that Dracula could have been based off of. First is the idea that Dracula was actually based off a woman named Elizabeth Bathory or the Blood Countess as she was known. In then goes into the story of what exactly Stoker based Castle Dracula off of. This section goes on to talking about how it is theorized that the castle was based off of the old fortress of vlad the impaler but just set in the borgo pass instead. It is a stretch because there is no way Stoker could have known of such a place at the time. From there it talks about the second source for Dracula’s character, Vlad the Impaler. The article argues that Vlad could have been another source of Dracula because Vlad was literally nicknamed Dracula. This was also reinforced by the accounts Count Dracula made in the novel that resembled Vlad’s history and family lineage. Case 4 was Stoker having help from a man he dined with once called Arminius Vambery. Vambery told Stoker about the stories of his research on Dracula “the impaler”. After Vambery went back to Budapest Bram wrote to him requesting more information on the notorious 15th century prince we know as Vlad the impaler. Many believe that it was Vambery who told Stoker of the many atrocities that Vlad had done. But the only problem with this is that there is no evidence of them ever talking besides the one time they had dinner together. So the question lies where did Stoker find evidence and information on Vlad if not for Vambery? The article extends its argument by saying the evidence points in the opposite direction and tells us Stoker and Vambery never talked about a single ounce of vampirism of dracula. It is just an interesting theory to keep in the back of one’s mind. The reason for picking this article is because it gives a background to the story of Dracula that cannot be found anywhere else. It gives good theories of the characters and of the plot itself that might come in handy for my argument. It also gives theories for the inspirations of Dracula and Renfield. But that is the problem with this article, it is one full of theories. There is not one case where a theory is backed up with hard evidence or historical evidence. It is all just hearsay and cannot be trusted to be an actual thought of Stoker. This would not be the best article to site for the credibility of my paper.

Mitchell, Lee. “Two Notes on “the Tempest””. Educational Theatre Journal 2.3 (1950):

228–234. Web. 12 Apr, 2016.

This article is written by Lee Mitchell, a professor at Northwestern University. This excerpt can be found in the Educational Theatre Journal published by The John Hopkins University Press. This article is mainly about Caliban’s appearance in the novel The Tempest. It starts off talking about the use of the word monster in the text. It proclaims that it is used 33 times to describe Caliban, all either said by Stephano and Trinculo. This exceeds any other use of this word in any other Shakespeare play by three times. It describes as Caliban’s shape as human but overall appearance a monster. The source seems to create a stance where the author is trying to figure out why Caliban is described so much as being this hideous monster. Is it in reference to him being a slave or does Shakespeare have a hidden agenda to Caliban’s existence. Or is Shakespeare simply saying that slaves are no more than uncultured monsters, these “Moon calf’s” that should have never lived in the first place. The author is pretty persuasive in his ideas because he adds so many examples to his article to justify his stance. He gives more than half the names Caliban was called and even some explanations to a few. For example how Mooncalf was used to describe Caliban when a moon calf is apparently the remains of an aborted fetus. This source intrigues me significantly because it gives me an idea for why Caliban was portrayed the way he is. This monster, this hideous being, this rapist, all rolled up into one creature. It gives me a foundation to prove that this slave mentality made Caliban more disliked than he should have been and maybe even a comparison to actual slaves during that time.

“Renfield’s ‘agonized Confusion’”. “Renfield’s ‘agonized Confusion’”. Street Urchins,

Sociopaths and Degenerates: Orphans of Late-victorian and Edwardian Fiction. 1st ed.

University of Wales Press, 2014. 37–60. Web. 12 Apr, 2016.

This excerpt was taken by David Floyd’s book, Street Urchins, Sociopaths and Degenerates: Orphans of Late-victorian and Edwardian Fiction. Floyd being a novelist and historian on the late victorian era had it published by the University of Wales Press. The text basically goes into why Bram Stoker created the character Renfield in his book. Now Renfield doesn’t exactly play a major role other than being Dr. Seward’s play toy and Dracula’s slave. But this article starts to delve deeper into exactly why Stoker inserted this character into his book. What Floyd came up with was Stoker was trying to symbolize the degradation of families during his time. He goes on to explaining how Renfield was never visited by his family which either means he was exiled or had none alive. This absence of family made him cling to Dracula as his only father figure. To Dracula, Renfield was just another slave under his hypnotic command. Floyd says how Bram was afraid of the diminishment of this traditional world to this new world of modernism. Floyd does have a bias because he presumes that Stokers only intention for Renfield was to portray this fall of traditional society. Whether this is true or not has no real evidence to back it up because there are no sources to ay Stoker actually wanted this. But what it does do is give a really persuasive article as to why Renfield is such a slave not only to Dracula but to this new idea of modernism. It helps establish my argument because it helps display Renfield as this slave of his circumstances just as Dracula is. It gives a different angle to the character of Renfield and deepens the horizon of interpretation for him.

Vaughan, Alden T.. “Shakespeare’s Indian: The Americanization of Caliban”. Shakespeare

Quarterly 39.2 (1988): 137–153. Web. 12 Apr, 2016.

This article written by Alden T. Vaughan, a professor at George Washington University, was published by the Folger Shakespeare Library in association with George Washington University. The article basically explains how the character of Caliban was based off English colonization of America. Caliban represents the Indians, or native americans as we know them today, that the english encountered when finding America. He says that Caliban was meant to personify Americas natives as these uneducated, uncultured monsters inhabiting a place. The author doesn’t seem to have a bias but it is very persuasive. It links the history of the colonization of America with the vents of the story. It gives lines from the novel that describe Caliban and compare it to accounts said by sailors that first experienced the natives of America. This helps my argument because it tells how Caliban was indeed thought of as a thing more than a person. He was Prospero’s slave and not one like Ariel. Caliban was thought of no higher than the savages they found in America. The article links real time history with the writing of The Tempest that it seems too good to be true. This link to memoirs and historical facts will definitely help the credibility of my argument.

Primary Sources:

Stoker, Bram, Nina Auerbach, and David J. Skal. Dracula: Authoritative Text, Contexts,

Reviews and Reactions, Dramatic and Film Variations, Criticism. Print.

Graff, Gerald, and James Phelan. William Shakespeare The Tempest: A Case Study in Critical

Controversy. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1999. Print.