6.Longman Dictionary of English Language and Culture. Third Edition. Great Britain: Pearson Education Limited, 2005. 1620 p.

7.Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners. Second Edition. Oxford: Macmillan Edition, 2007. 1748 p.

8.Manser M.H., Turton N.D. The Wordsworth Advanced Learner's Dictionary / M.H. Manser, N.D. Turton. Wordsworth Reference, 1998. 839 p.

9.Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English. Fifth Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. 1428 p.

O.S. Shurupova

Lipetsk, Russia

CONCEPT CHILD IN THE ORGANIZATION OF LONDON TEXT

OF ENGLISH LITERATURE

The purpose of this article is to analyze the concept child in London text of English literature. The concept helps to create the urban space where kindness is confused with evil.

Key words: super-text, London text of English literature, concept sphere, concept child.

821.111 – 82-121 – 801.73

K.R. Hanssen

Bodø, Norway

200

“I ENDOА’D THВ PURPOSES WITH WORDS THAT MADE THEM KNOАN”: LINGUISTIC AND CULTURAL LIMINALITY IN WILLIAM

SHAKESPEARE’S THE TEMPEST

The article examines various attempts at establishing conceptual order through linguistic means and, through an analysis of the narrative act, argues

how words and illusion merge and are deliberately shaped and employed in the

ПШЫЦКЭТШЧ ШП К МШХХОМЭТЯО ПКЧЭКЬв ЭСКЭ ШММХЮНОЬ ШЮЫ ЯТОа ШП ЭСО ЩХКв’Ь ЦТЦОЭТМ action.

Key words: Shakespeare, The Tempest, liminality, hegemony, narrativity, mimesis, heteroglossia, narragenesis.

A ЩХКв Лв ЦКЧв МШЧЬТНОЫОН SСКФОЬЩОКЫО’Ь РЫОКЭОЬЭ КММШЦЩХТЬСЦОЧЭ The Tempest is both heartbreakingly beautiful and jarringly ambiguous. The poetry, in its sensuous loveliness and cognitive strength, is without a match in all of Shakespeare, and the characterization, as is becoming increasingly clear, is more subtle and complex than a casual glance may reveal. Paradoxically, in spite of the omnipresent magical agency, the plot leaves the impression of being more naturally developed, more harmonic, than those of the previous romances; it is extravagant, yes, but also inevitable, and the succession of songs and tableaus never leaves the action frigid. Perhaps this is because the play so fundamentally

transcends its story; it is, in a sense, plotless, an enacted myth rather than a play. Certainly, there are few SСКФОЬЩОКЫО’Ь Щlays that have encouraged and

sustained a more rich and variegated body of criticism (at times from academics whose day-to-day activities are far afield from traditional Shakespearean scholarship), as are there few in which current performance and commentary is so bitterly politicized. The momentum, unquestionably, is presently on the side of topical, material interpretations that take as their common point of reference the degree to which the figure of the New World permeates the play.1 The thematic strain, here, is the Post-Colonial interest in the problems of colonization – in the contradictory voice of Caliban, that natural man dehumanized within a colonialist paradigm – which has gradually evolved into more sophisticated explorations of the dynamics of cultural encounter, concepts of space and ownership, and, perhaps most interestingly, the poetics of liminality.

Located at the heart of the play, the magus Prospero embodies and/or defines all the central dichotomies of the play – art and nature, order and disorder,

1 “TСО NОа АШЫХН” ЮЧНОЫЬЭШШН, СОЫО, ТЧ ТЭЬ ЦШЬЭ РОЧОЫКХ ЬОЧЬО. IЧ ЭСО 2008/9 NШЫаОРТКЧ

Riksteateret performance (directed by Stinnerbom), for instance, the isle was draped in a bluish, Arctic light, and the native population, dressed in costumes inspired by traditional Sami outfits, occasionally joined in song in the Sami language. That Caliban and Ariel should be depicted as Sami is wholly in keeping with the spirit of the play. And if a pedant should object to the incongruity of a Sami native population on a tropical isle, let him first explain how it may be that a ship on its way from North Africa to Italy should end up at the Bermudas!

201

governance and discord, forgiveness and revenge, self and other, speech and si-

lence – and while most critics, from the scattered earliest commentaries to the

МШЫЧЮМШЩТК ШП МШЧЭОЦЩШЫКЫв МЫТЭТМТЬЦ ШЧ SСКФОЬЩОКЫО’Ь ЫШЦКЧМО, СКЯО КРЫООН ЭСКЭ ЭСО ЯОЫв ФОв ЭШ ШЮЫ КЩЩЫОМТКЭТШЧ ШП ЭСО НЫКЦК’Ь ТЧЭОХХОМЭЮКХ КЧН ЩСТХШЬШЩСi-

cal content centers on our understanding of the character and role of Prospero, there is little critical consensus on how to view him – a bringer about of an ideal and benevolent social order or a metonymy of conceptual failure and moral ex-

haustion – and, as such, the overall thematic movement of the play. In the present argument, I аТХХ ЩЫШМООН ЭШ МШЧЬТНОЫ PЫШЬЩОЫШ’Ь КЭЭОЦЩЭЬ КЭ аСКЭ аО ЦКв

term narragenesis – the creation of conceptual order through linguistic means – and through an analysis of the narrative act, seek to establish how words and

illusion merge and are deliberately shaped and employed in the formation of a

МШХХОМЭТЯО ПКЧЭКЬв ЭСКЭ ШММХЮНОЬ ШЮЫ ЯТОа ШП ЭСО ЩХКв’Ь ЦТЦОЭТМ КМЭТШЧ.

In the twentieth-century thought, the meaning of the world was frequently sought through the meaning of the word, and attempts were made to examine the conditions that allowed language and meaning to arise in the first place. Philosophers of language, such as Wittgenstein, even argued that language was adequate with being, and, in this way, the Cartesian cogito became amended to a

dicto [7]. This implied doubt in the traditional separation between subject and

ШЛУОМЭ СОКЫФОЧЬ ЛКМФ ЭШ KТОЫФОРККЫН’Ь КЬЬОЫЭТШЧ ЭСКЭ ШЧХв ЬЮЛУОМЭТЯО ЭЫЮЭСЬ СШХН any degree of importance, consciousness being not forms to be filled with con-

tent, but content of a specific form. Similarly, Sartre argues how, if there were

ЧШ “ЦКЧТПОЬЭКЭТШЧЬ,” ТЭ аШЮХН ЛО ЩШТЧЭХОЬЬ ЭШ ЬЩОКФ ШП К МШЧЬМТШЮЬЧОЬЬ, КЬ ТЭ would necessarily be empty. The world of The Tempest, then, becomes a subjective conceptual representation of a real contextual world, the word creating the self, the self creating the world. This process, this creation through words, offers an illusion of existence, a conscious artifice to be set against the actual world the self engages. Caught between a narrated past and a staged future, the characters are located at the crux of a dream turned reality, a reality turned dream.

The ongoing discursive construction on the island of The Tempest is especially interesting as the conceptual apparatus behind the speech act, the forging

of relation between signifier and signified, is controlled by Prospero. Martha

RШЧФ, ТЧ “NКЫЫКЭТШЧ КЬ UЬЮЫЩКЭТШЧ ТЧ The Tempest,” ШЧО ШП ЭСО ЯОЫв ПТЧОЬЭ ЩТОМОЬ

ШП SСКФОЬЩОКЫО МЫТЭТМТЬЦ ШЯОЫ ЭСО ЩКЬЭ ПОа НОМКНОЬ, КЫРЮОН ЭСКЭ “ЧКЫЫКЭТЯО ЬОЫЯОЬ К Д…Ж ПЮЧМЭТШЧ Д…Ж ЬТЦТХКЫ ЭШ ТЭЬ ПЮЧМЭТШЧ ТЧ ПТМЭТШЧ: ЭШ МШЧЭЫШХ ЭСО ТЧЭОЫЩЫОЭКЭТШЧ ШП ОЯОЧЭЬ” Д5], thus supplying the premises for this reading. Using narration to

construct a superstructure (or a myth, if you will) of his royal prerogative [5], the magus seeks to establish his own hegemonic legitimacy. His red right hand in this ideological struggle is the spirit Ariel. Ariel, as has become a critical commonplace, represents the element of air (as opposed to the earth of Caliban), but this association is frequently elaborated to include that of light and poetry. If we view the play conceptually, words – which of course are what Prospero really deals in, his magic powers deriving from the study of books – are what call

202

Ariel into being, indeed they are what essentially constitute Ariel. Ariel is the Word, and the Word, as has also become a modern-day commonplace, is an instrument of control. Prospero controls the island through his linguistic magic; throughout the play he retains his hegemony of the speech act, and other utter-

ings are suppressed or subordinated to it. In effect, the other characters are not

ЦОЫОХв ЬЮЛУОМЭОН ЭШ К НШЦТЧКЧЭ ЮЭЭОЫТЧР ЛЮЭ ЬСКЩОН Лв ТЭ, КЬ “ДPЫШЬЩОЫШЖ ЬЩОКФЬ СТЦЬОХП КЧН ЭСШЬО НОЩОЧНОЧЭ ШЧ СТЦ ТЧЭШ ЦОКЧТЧР” Д5]. The play, as such, ultimately becomОЬ К СОРОЦШЧТМ ЯШТМО’Ь ЩЫШХШЧРОН ЬЭЫЮРРХО КРКТЧЬЭ К НТЬМШЫНКЧЭ,

Bakhtinian heteroglossia, until history is finally re-structured, through the re-

КНШЩЭТШЧ ШП PЫШЬЩОЫШ’Ь ХТЧО, ЭШ КММШЦЦШНКЭО PЫШЬЩОЫШ’Ь ЧКЫЫКЭТЯО ТЧЭШ ТЭЬОХП. TСО natural equilibrium as delineated by Prospero has been restored, society has returned to its ideal state, and the island has superimposed itself upon Milan. With this goal accomplished there is no further function for the Word as controlled by Prospero (and thus for Prospero himself); thus every third thought will now be

his grave, and he drowns his heavy books because the sea, according to Auden,

“ЦТЬЮЬОЬ ЧШЭСТЧР ЛОМКЮЬО ТЭ ЯКХЮОЬ ЧШЭСТЧР” Д1Ж.

There is a distinct and continuous tension in The Tempest between the be-

ing of metaphysical structures on the one hand and the non-being of nature on

ЭСО ШЭСОЫ. PЫШЬЩОЫШ, ЬСКЩОЫ ШП ЭСО ТЬХКЧН’Ь ЧКЫЫКЭТЯО, ТЬ, ШП МШЮЫЬО, ЭСО МСКЫКМЭОЫ

most acutely aware of this. When seeing Ferdinand and Miranda together, he is ЪЮТМФ ЭШ аКЫЧ: “LШШФ ЭСШЮ ЛО ЭЫЮО; do not give dalliance / Too much the rein.

TСО ЬЭЫШЧРОЬЭ ШКЭСЬ КЫО ЬЭЫКа / TШ ЭС’ ПТЫО I’ ЭС’ ЛХШШН” Д6]. Prospero knows that narrative order is fragile at best, always ready to spin out of authorial control. The dichotomy of being and non-being is most immediately expressed, however, in the initial wreck scene when the ship – a conventional microcosm of social order – is deconstructed and disintegrates into an undifferentiated sea, denying metonymically any absolutist ideological significance, a denial that will develop

into one of the central themes of the play. This rejection has its roots in the very genesis of the story, the so-МКХХОН “ТЦЩХТОН” ПТЫЬЭ СКХП ШП ЭСО ЩХКв, ЭСО ШЯОЫЭСЫШа ШП PЫШЬЩОЫШ КЭ MТХКЧ “IЧ ЭСО НКЫФ ЛКМФаКЫН КЧН КЛвЬЦ ШП ЭТЦО” ДOp. cit.]. It is

startling to see, even all these years after the event itself, how Prospero still relates to it in figurative terms. When the elements themselves are disjunctive, being is meaningless; narrating to Miranda how the two were removed from power and placed in a boat at sea to perish, Prospero interestingly enough chooses to

relate an apostrophe to nature, a striking image of the struggle to create meaning

ТЧ ЭСО ЯШТН: “TСОЫО ЭСОв СШТЬЭ ЮЬ, / TШ МЫв ЭШ ЭС’ ЬОК, ЭСКЭ ЫШКЫ’Н ЭШ ЮЬ; ЭШ ЬТРС / TШ ЭС’ аТЧНЬ, аСШЬО ЩТЭв, ЬТРСТЧР ЛКМФ КРКТЧ, / DТН ЮЬ ЛЮЭ ХШЯТЧР аЫШЧР” ДOp. cit.Ж. IЭ ТЬ ТЦЩОЫКЭТЯО ЭШ ЧШЭО ЭСКЭ MТЫКЧНК, аСШЦ MКЮЫТМО HЮЧЭ СКЬ МКХХОН “ЭСО

Eve-ХТФО ТЧСКЛТЭКЧЭ ШП К МХШЬОН аШЫХН” Д2] – has an at best sketchy knowledge of her ante-ЬОХП: “Tis far off / And rather like a dream than an assurance / That my ЫОЦОЦЛЫКЧМО аКЫЫКЧЭЬ” Д6]. This allows for a formation of identity almost en-

tirely through narrative; that is, lacking any other points of reference, Prospero can narrate Miranda into being. Miranda is what Prospero says she is, her iden-

203

tity a verbal construct, a verbal construct dominated wholly by a single point of

ЯТОа. IЭ ТЬ КХЦШЬЭ КЬ ТП PЫШЬЩОЫШ ТЬ BШЫРОЬ’ aleph, the point through which all the lines in the world intersect. How Miranda is but yet anothОЫ ШП СОЫ ПКЭСОЫ’Ь

speech-acts can be observed continuously in her behavior and attitudes, a relationship at times manifesting itself in curious and unexpected places. In a typical manner, Miranda, through her conversation, shows a striking awareness of the

concept of courtly love, an awareness that had to have come to her through

PЫШЬЩОЫШ’Ь ЧКЫЫКЭТЯО. MТЫКЧНК, ЭСОЧ, ТЬ К ЬШМТКХ МШЧЬЭЫЮМЭ, ЛЮЭ ЬТЧМО КХХ ЩОШЩХО КЫО

to a certain degree social constructs, that observation is in itself not particularly interestТЧР. АСКЭ ТЬ аШЫЭС КЭЭОЧЭТШЧ, СШаОЯОЫ, ТЬ PЫШЬЩОЫШ’Ь ЫШХО КЬ ЬТЧРХО ЬСКp-

ing intelligence, a role he assumes for all the island. The play as such demon-

ЬЭЫКЭОЬ “PЫШЬЩОЫШ’Ь ОППШЫЭ ЭШ ЬЮЛЯОЫЭ СОЭОЫШРХШЬЬТК КЧН ЭСО ЩКЧШЩХв ШП ЧКЫЫКЭТЯОЬ”

[5]. His project is to establish a narrative mastery, a unified vision of reality

through one perspective: his own. One of the most significant lessons of The Tempest ХТОЬ ТЧ ТЭЬ ЫОЯОХКЭТШЧ ШП ЭСО “ЬШМТКХ КЧН ЬвЦЛШХТМ ЧКЭЮЫО ШП ЩЫТЯКЭО ОбЩe-

rience, which leads to the secondary recognition that history determines the formation of human subjectivity precisely through the mediation of symbolic struc- ЭЮЫОЬ” Д3]. In other words, all expressions are ideological expressions, and the

individual is subjected to public structures through narrative. Thus, through the

МСКЫКМЭОЫЬ’ МШЧЭТЧЮТЧР ТЧЭОЫЩХКв аТЭС ЭСТЬ ЦОМСКЧТЬЦ, ЭСО ПЮЧМЭТШЧ ШП ЧКЫЫКЭТЯО in the formation of symbolic structures is highlighted, structures that ultimately

come to represent the formation of cultural hegemony.

Through the mОНТЮЦ ШП ЬЭШЫв PЫШЬЩОЫШ ЬСКЩОЬ ЭСО ШЭСОЫ МСКЫКМЭОЫЬ’ Ыe-

sponse to existence, and it is therefore essential that he, like Sheherezade, keeps

ЭСО ЧКЫЫКЭТЯО ЬЭЫКТЧ ЫЮЧЧТЧР. PЫШЬЩОЫШ’Ь ЩШаОЫ ТЬ СТЬ ЧКЫЫКЭТЯО ЩШаОЫ, СТЬ “ПКЛЫi-

cation of masterful narratives, stories that constitute the memory and very identi-

Эв ШП КЧШЭСОЫ КПЭОЫ ЭСО ТЦКРО ШП СТЬ ШаЧ ТЦКРТЧКЭТШЧ” Д4]. The potentiality of linguistic genesis, the power of words to establish new visions of being, is re-

peatedly emphasized in the play. It is in this regard worth first considering Pros-

ЩОЫШ’Ь ХТЧРЮТЬЭТМ ЫОХКЭТШЧЬСТЩ ЭШ ЭСО СШЦЮЧМЮХКЫ CКХТЛКЧ. TСО ПТЫЬЭ ЭТЦО аО Шb-

serve the monster, Prospero, to borrow a term used by Althusser, calls him into

ЛОТЧР: “АСКЭ СШ! ЬХКЯО! CКХТЛКЧ! / TСШЮ ОКЫЭС, ЭСШЮ! ЬЩОКФ” ДOp. cit.]. Dicto ergo sum, speech equals existence. In order to have an at all recognized existence, Caliban is forced to participate in the economy of the Word, words saturated with implied metaphors, words providing a rigid framework for conceptual understanding. As Prospero first arrives on the island, he makes several attempts at

accommodating Caliban into his own metaphysics, teaching him language, tell-

ТЧР СТЦ “СШа / TШ ЧКЦО ЭСО ЛТРРОЫ ХТРСЭ, КЧН СШа ЭСО ХОЬЬ” Д6]. In this effort Prospero does not attempt to engage Caliban on his own terms, however, but

rather seeks to project his own conceptions onto the perceived tabula rasa of the

ЦШЧЬЭОЫ’Ь ЦТЧН:

I pitied thee,

Took pains to make thee speak, taught thee each hour

204

One thing or other. When thou didst not, savage,

Know thine own meaning, but wouldst gabble like

A tСТЧР ЦШst ЛrutТsС, I ОЧНШа’Н tСв purpШsОs

With words that made them known. [Op. cit.]

But Caliban has become aware of the structural function of language in the formation of hegemonic ideoХШРв, КЧН ЫОУОМЭЬ ТЭ: “ВШЮ ЭКЮРСЭ ЦО ХКЧРЮКРО, КЧН Цв ЩЫШПТЭ ШЧ’Э / IЬ, I ФЧШа СШа ЭШ МЮЫЬО” ДOp. cit.]. In this manner, curses

assume the role of a subversive language, utterings not sanctioned by the estab-

ХТЬСОН ШЫНОЫ, КЧН CКХТЛКЧ “ЧООНЬ ЦЮЬЭ МЮЫЬО” ДOp. cit.].1 Caliban as such moves ТЧЭШ К НТЫОМЭ ТНОШХШРТМКХ МШЧПЫШЧЭКЭТШЧ аТЭС ЭСО ЩКЭОЫЧКХТЬЭТМ PЫШЬЩОЫШ, “КЭЭОЦЩt- ТЧР ЭШ аЫОЬЭ СТЬ ЯШТМО КаКв ПЫШЦ ЭСО ШЧО аСШ СКЬ РТЯОЧ ТЭ ЭШ СТЦ” Д5]. Thus, the

continuous mutual accusations of Prospero and Caliban of lying, is central to the ЩХКв’Ь ЭСОЦО: “TСШЮ ЦШЬЭ ХвТЧР ЬХКЯО” Д6], Prospero says, but is countered by

CКХТЛКЧ’Ь ХКЭОЫ КЬЬОЫЭТШЧ ЭСКЭ “I НШ ЧШЭ ХТО” ДOp. cit.]. By focusing on the very

ОЬЬОЧМО ШП PЫШЬЩОЫШ’Ь ЩЫШУОМЭ – legitimacy through narration – Caliban derives his significance not as a direct physical threat (as Prospero pretends, and a few

critics seem willing to believe), but as an ideological challenge, a counter-

ЧКЫЫКЭТЯО, ЭШ PЫШЬЩОЫШ’Ь ЦОЭКЩСвЬТМ. LТФО ОЯОЫв ЛОЧТРЧ ПКЭСОЫ, ЭСОЧ, PЫШЬЩОЫШ ТЬ also a failed god, his attempts at constructing being from nothingness foundering on the independent projections of the other characters. As readers, we must reject him, yet we must also be moved by him. And how could it be otherwise? What we see when looking at him is our own reflection.

Bibliography

1.Auden W.H. The Sea and the Mirror / W.H. Auden // W.H. Auden: Collected Poems / ed. by E. Mendelson. N.Y., 1991. P. 401-46.

2.Hunt M. Belarius and Prospero: Two Pastoral Schoolmasters / M. Hunt // Lamar Journal of the Humanities 15 (2). 1989. P. 29-41.

3.Pecheux M. The Mechanism of Ideological (Mis)recognition / M.

Pecheux // Mapping Ideology / ed. by S. Zizek. N.Y., 1997. P. 141-51.

4.PШЫЭОЫ D. HТЬ MКЬЭОЫ’Ь ЯШТМО: ЭСО ЩШХТЭТМЬ ШП ЧКЫЫКРОЧТЭТЯО Нesire in

The Tempest / D. Porter // Comitatus: a Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 24. 1993. P. 33-44.

5.Ronk M. Narration as usurpation in The Tempest / M. Ronk // Essays: Critical Approaches to Medieval and Renaissance Texts 7. 1992. P. 11936.

6.Shakespeare W. The Tempest / W. Shakespeare / ed. by P. Holland. N.Y., 1999. 84 p.

1 A ЬТЦТХКЫ ЩКЫКНТРЦ ТЬ ПШЮЧН НЮЫТЧР ЭСО ЭОЦЩОЬЭ ТЭЬОХП, ТЧ SОЛКЬЭТКЧ КЧН AЧЭШЧТШ’Ь ЫОКМЭТШЧ ЭШ

ЭСО ЬЩТЫТЭОН ЛШКЭЬаКТЧ’Ь КЬЬОЫЭТШЧ ЭСКЭ ЭСОТЫ аШЫНЬ аОЫО ТЦЩШЭОЧЭ КРКТЧЬЭ ЭСО ОХОЦОЧЭЬ, ЭСОТЫ

curses of sanction all centering around the nature of his vocal utterings as being profane, blasphemous, or, simply, noise. CП. ЭСО ОЭвЦШХШРв ШП ЭСО ЭОЫЦ “ЛКЫЛКЫТКЧ.”

205

7. Sikorska L. The language of entropy / L. Sikorska // Studia Anglica Posnaniensia: an International Review of English Studies 28. 1994. P. 195-208.

206

207

209

210