Essay on Johannes Kepler - 1478 Words

Johannes Kepler was a German astronomer and mathematician who lived between 1671-1630. Kepler was a Copernican and initially believed that planets should follow perfectly circular orbits (â€Å"Johan Kepler† 1). During this time period, Ptolemy’s geocentric theory of the solar system was accepted. Ptolemy’s theory stated that Earth is at the center of the universe and stationary; closest to Earth is the Moon, and beyond it, expanding towards the outside, are Mercury, Venus, and the Sun in a straight line, followed by Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and the â€Å"fixed stars†. The Ptolemaic system explained the numerous observed motions of the planets as having small spherical orbits called epicycles (â€Å"Astronomy† 2). Kepler is best known for introducing three†¦show more content†¦His first law states, â€Å"The orbits of the planets are ellipses, with the Sun at one focus of the ellipse.† As shown in Figure 1, The Sun is not at the focus of the ellipse, but is instead at one focus [usually there is nothing at the other focus of the ellipse]. The planet then trails the ellipse in its orbit, which implies that the Earth-Sun distance is continually changing as the planet goes around its orbit. Kepler’s second law states, â€Å"The line joining the planet to the Sun sweeps out equal areas in equal times as the planet travels around the ellipse.† As shown in Figure 2, an imaginary line from the center of the sun to the center of a planet sweeps out the same area in a given time. This means that planets move faster when they are closer to the sun. Kepler’s third and final law states, â€Å"The time taken by a planet to make one complete trip around the sun is its period. The ratio of the squares of periodic times for two planets is equal to the ratio of the cubes of their mean distances from the sun.† Kepler’s third law indicates that the time taken by a planet to orbit the Sun increase s quickly with the radius of its orbit (Johannes Kepler: The† 1-4). Kepler’s laws challenged Aristotelean and Ptolemaic astronomy. His statement that the EarthShow MoreRelatedJohannes Kepler Essay991 Words   |  4 PagesJohannes Kepler Johannes Kepler is now remembered for discovering the three laws of planetary motion, and writing about them in books that were published in 1609 and 1619. He also did important work in optics, discovered two new regular polyhedra, gave the first mathematical treatment of close packing of equal spheres, gave the first proof of how logarithms worked, and devised a method of finding the volumes of solids of revolution. This can be seen as contributingRead MoreThe Life of Johannes Kepler Essay1952 Words   |  8 PagesThe Life of Johannes Kepler HIS LIFE Johannes Kepler was a German astronomer and mathematician ho discovered that planetary motion is elliptical. Early in his life, Kepler wanted to prove that the universe obeyed Platonistic mathematical relationships, such as the planetary orbits were circular and at distances from the sun proportional to the Platonic solids (see paragraph below). However, when his friend the astronomer Tycho Brahe died, he gave Kepler his immense collection of astronomicalRead MoreJohannes Kepler: Planetary Motion Essay1058 Words   |  5 PagesJohannes Kepler: Planetary Motion When one first thinks to astronomy, the first thing to come to mind might be the stars of the planets. It is always a fascinating thing to learn about the stars, but one should always start from somewhere when learning. One person’s research that is always going to be remembered is that of Johannes Kepler. He is not only the founder of contemporary astronomy but also an amazing mathematician. He was the first person to enlighten us on the theory of planetaryRead MoreJohannes Kepler, The Father Of Modern Astronomy1575 Words   |  7 PagesJohannes Kepler, the â€Å"Father of Modern Astronomy†, had an enormous impact on different aspects of science and mathematics such as geometry, physics, optics, crystallography and philosophy, eventually paving the way for more like-minded thinkers. His mathematical proofs supporting the heliocentric model of the universe was essential to progressing the scientific revolution. He reflected the Renaissance ideals of education, sec ularism, and observation while bridging medieval astronomy with modern scienceRead MoreEssay on The Scientific Revolution1263 Words   |  6 Pagesbased strictly around faith and not scientific reasoning. The founders of the revolution took a leap of faith into an unknown realm of science and experimentation. Four of the many brilliant founders of the Scientific Revolution; Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Brahe, used previous scientific principles and their own genius to make advances in science that are still being used today. Scientific pamphlets, the telescope, observations of the universe and the creation of laws for planetary motion are someRead MoreThe Scientific Revolution Was Not An Organized Effort1276 Words   |  6 Pagesobject in the night sky, compiling the finest set of astronomical data in Europe. He suggested that the planets orbited the sun and the whole system then orbited a stationary earth. (Cole, et al. 2012) Johannes Kepler was the first to apply the new scie nce to divine the laws of heavenly movement. Kepler received a Copernican, heliocentric perspective of the universe from his most punctual days. (Huff 1996) He concentrated on the number, size, and connection of the planets, looking for some amazing configurationRead MoreThe Time Of Aristotle s Theory On Religion And The Understanding Of The Universe1383 Words   |  6 PagesRenaissance that the breakthrough that leads to our modern sciences begins. This breakthrough is a change in the way that people thought about the big questions of the day. Instead of basing theories on religious notions and first principles, men like Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, and Isaac Newton sought real answers that could be tested and supported by evidence. With this methodology, these men challenged classical sources of knowledge and altered classical interpretations of nature. Ancient culturesRead MoreThe Progression to Proving a Heliocentric System615 Words   |  2 Pagesheavens of special power, belonged to the minority group of Renaissance astronomers who did not caste horoscopes† (pg. 94). The Copernican system initially began as a system of minorities, however, as time continued it began to see prominence. Both Johannes Keppler and Galilei Galileo, through their observations and theories began to prove a heliocentric system. Through the utilization of his telescope, Galileo helped prove Copernicus’ heliocentricism. Using his telescope Galileo saw four moons aroundRead MoreJohannes Kepler s A Perfect World985 Words   |  4 Pages Johannes Kepler was a modern individual and he believed that God would have created a perfect world and in that world everything was geometrically perfect. In Banville’s book about Kepler it says, â€Å"The search for knowledge everywhere encounters geometrical relations in nature, which God, in creating the world, laid out (Banville 1981, p.145).† As he pursued the answer to planetary motion, he assumed that the planets orbited the sun in a perfect circle. He tried to seek order in his chaotic lifeRead MoreWhat Is Science and Where Did It Come From?928 Words   |  4 PagesCopernicus worked on a heliocentric model- where the Earth is simply one of several planets, which orbit the sun. The next man we come to be Johannes Kepler, who contributes the three laws of planetary motion. Kepler studied the orbits of the planets and sought to discern some grand scheme that defined the structure of the universe according to simple geometry. Kepler also put together three laws of planetary motion: first, the planets rotate in elliptical orbits with the sun at one of the centers. The

Frankenstein, By Mary Shelley - 1181 Words

In Frankenstein, Mary Shelley introduces Victor Frankenstein’s creation known as the Creature. The Creature is portrayed as a morally ambiguous character, exhibited as neither purely malicious nor benevolent as his actions truly are malevolent yet his intentions and reasons can be understood to say the least. The Creature’s moral ambiguity is significant to the text as a whole as it emphasizes the theme that humans are neither purely evil nor good and our evil impulses are typically driven by the damage done to us. The Creature commits heinous and inhumane crimes that leave the titular protagonist, Victor Frankenstein and those around him devastated. These malicious acts include the murder of Frankenstein’s brother, William, and†¦show more content†¦This reveal further emphasizes that evil actions are a result of damage done to us. The Creature’s moral ambiguity is even more evident in the cruel murder of Frankenstein’s fiancà ©e, Elizabeth. When the creature asks Frankenstein for a female companion, he initially accepts and promises to craft one. However, Frankenstein breaks this promise, believing that another monster will only cause more harm. As revenge for breaking this promise, the Monster begins to torment Victor with the threat of murder. And while he is convinced that the Creature intends to kill him, saying â€Å"Such was my sentence, and on that night would the daemon employ every art to destroy me and tear me from the glimpse of happiness which promised partly to console my sufferings† the Creature murders Elizabeth instead on her wedding day just to put Frankenstein through more pain. Just the constant tormenting toward Frankenstein is evil enough, yet killing the innocent Elizabeth is beyond malevolent. Although his reasoning may seem like a fair one or at least an understand able one, the act cannot be justified and only signifies him as an evil individual and being. However, this murder is somewhat on Frankenstein’s part as well as he was aware of the Creature appearing but failed to inform Elizabeth of this, stating that, â€Å"I have one secret, Elizabeth, a dreadful one; when revealed to you, it will chill your frameShow MoreRelatedFrankenstein, By Mary Shelley1650 Words   |  7 Pagesbook of Frankenstein does one just think of a mythical science fiction book that really has no meaning? Frankenstein can have numerous meanings depending on how a person perceives it. Frankenstein can be analyzed into many themes; some say religion, feminism, or scientific symbolization, it all depends on ones own perception. When one analyzes further into Mary Shelly’s life and then interprets the novel it is obvious that is a sociological theme. One can simply assume that Mary Shelley creates FrankensteinRead MoreFrankenstein by Mary Shelley1093 Word s   |  4 Pagesfaster than man can contend with. That argument is the premises, moral, and plot base for Mary Shelleys tale Frankenstein. On the other hand, J. Michael Bishops, essay Enemies of Promise   on the other hand promotes and boast sciences achievements. However, Mary Shelley presents her point of view subtly yet very dramatically, which is much more effective than that of J. Michael Bishop. The dramatic story Shelley creates becomes a part of the reader, therefore holding the readers attention. ShelleysRead MoreMary Shelley Frankenstein859 Words   |  4 Pages Mary Shelley The Creature in Mary Shelley’s â€Å"Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus† needs a companionship as every ordinary human. Every man needs a woman, who will able to share moments of happiness and sadness, a woman who will be able to share thoughts and of course a woman who will be able to love a man. In this case the Creature needs a bride. But the problem is that the Creature from the â€Å"Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus† is not a human. SoRead MoreFrankenstein, by Mary Shelley1138 Words   |  5 PagesIs Frankenstein a man, whose ambition led to a disaster; or a monster, which created a life with disregard for the human race? Frankenstein, in my opinion, was the monster not the life that he had created. Frankenstein never admitted to his family what he had done, never admitted responsibility for his actions. He might as well have killed Elizabeth, William, Justine, and Clerval with his own hand. The so called â€Å"Monster† only wanted companionship; he did not want to murder those people. TheRead MoreFrankenstein, By Mary Shelley1325 Words   |  6 PagesI have been informed that you are pushing to remove the book Frankenstein by Mary Shelley from the school curriculum. I’ve decided to write to you and explain why I believe that you are misinformed, and in fact, why this is a huge importance to the students of today. Frankenstein is a classic which recounts the life and horrors of Victor Frankenstein, as told through a series of letters and narrations. His obsession with the natural world and science brings him to a state of mind which ultimatelyRead MoreFrankenstein, By Mary Shelley1580 Words   |  7 PagesFrankenstein by Mary Shelley is a sci-fi novel written during the Romantic Movement in Britain’s early nineteenth century. The movement was stimulated by the French Revolution, Industrial Revolution and in reaction against the emphasis on reason in eighteenth-century Enlightenment philosophy (The Romantic Movement, 2014 ). Mary Shelley’s husband, Percy Shelley was also a romantic poet during the movement. Shelley’s novel is evidently influenced by her relationship with her husband, which is illustratedRead MoreFrankenstein by Mary Shelley739 Words   |  3 Pagesinterconnections of humanity, nature, and divinity (â€Å"Romanticism 1†). English Romanticism being trendy in Europe, people would vent their outlooks onto their personal fiction works such as Mary Shelley. Shelley uses vivid creativity and romantic elements to create one of her admired novels, Frankenstein. In Shelley’s novel, Frankenstein, most of the characters prove their compassion for mankind, prove their rejection of technology and science, and prove their involvement in a romantic quest. These several characteristicsRead MoreFrankenstein, By Mary Shelley1040 Words   |  5 Pages In 1818, a book titled Frankenstein was published anonymously, mysteriously dedicated to William Godwin, a prominent journal ist and political philosopher of his time. The immediate reviews of the novel were mixed, most edging towards critical, although no one knew who the book was written by. However, while Frankenstein failed to gain popularity immediately, no one had any idea the lasting impact this novel would have on the world. Despite the lukewarm reception at its debut, it soon proved to beRead MoreFrankenstein, by Mary Shelley1078 Words   |  5 PagesMary Shelley’s Frankenstein has undoubtedly withstood the test of time. Frankenstein’s direct association with fundamental Gothic literature is extremely renowned. However, the novel’s originality is derived from the foundational thematic values found within the relationship (or lack there of) between Victor Frankenstein and the monster he had created, in combination with a fascinatingly captivating plot. Understandably, Frankenstein can often be associated with a multitude of concepts; however,Read MoreFrankenstein, By Mary She lley1532 Words   |  7 PagesLike any author, especially one who created a new genre, there will be criticism, and Shelley is no exception. Shelley received criticism surrounding Frankenstein not only because she was a female writer, but because of her writing style. Originally, Frankenstein was published anonymously and was thought that her husband, Percy Shelley, wrote it (â€Å"Mary Shelley Biography† 2016). Shelley may have published Frankenstein anonymously because â€Å"’women understood that they got a â€Å"better hearing† if it was thought

Some Parts of My Ojt Essay Example For Students

Some Parts of My Ojt Essay Aside from the high evaluation grade that you will receive from the employer, the employer may absorb or offertory a job after graduation. 2. Your background JOT experience is very important when applying a job. Employers often ask about the JOT experience and how it is related to the job that you are applying for, 3. The CO T experience that you had can land you a great job, Especially if you applied for a job that is in line with your JOT. 4. Your superior in the company that you trained at may recommend your skills to company affiliates or other companies. 5. CO T Will be your training ground. If you still have no idea on What it means to be a worker, JOT will open your eyes to at least 10% of work realities. 6. You can consider your JOT experience as your guide on your first days at work,especially if your JOT work and current work are related. You can use experience gained from JOT as reference to your current job if you still have issues on adjusting to the real job. 7. Having a good performance during JOT.

Ways Of Reading The Tempest Essay Research free essay sample

Wayss Of Reading The Tempest Essay, Research Paper WAYS OF READING THE TEMPEST: Greenblatt Vs Schneider Shakespeare unfavorable judgment has long been recognised as a standard to switch in our critical discourses. The undermentioned paper constitutes an scrutiny of two conflicting discourses. The analysis will be confined to the positions presented in Stephen Greenblatt # 8217 ; s article entitled # 8220 ; Martial Law in the Land of Cockaigne # 8221 ; and Ben Ross Schneider, Jr # 8217 ; s # 8220 ; Are We Being Historical Yet? # 8221 ; : Colonialist Interpretations of Shakespeare # 8217 ; s Tempest # 8211 ; a competition, if you will, between two different theoretical places as to where the text lies. In his article entitled # 8220 ; Are We Being Historical Yet? # 8221 ; : Colonialist Interpretations of Shakespeare # 8217 ; s Tempest, Ben Ross Schneider, Jr extends Carolyn Porter # 8217 ; s review of new historicism to recent work on The Tempest. Included in Schneider # 8217 ; s survey of eight recent analyses of The Tempest, is Stephen Greenblatt # 8217 ; s article # 8220 ; Martial Law in the Land of Cockaigne. # 8221 ; Schneider argues that by taking colonialism as a frame, and so # 8220 ; reifying # 8221 ; it as if it were # 8220 ; coterminus with the bounds of discourse in general, # 8221 ; the new historicists marginalize non merely a big field of relevant modern-day discourse, but besides The Tempest itself ( Schneider 121 ) . Schneider maintains that the great assortment of theoretical underpinning in the set of essays fails to bring forth a corresponding assortment of reading ( Schneider 122 ) . He so proceeds to foreground those countries of the drama which provide the common land for new historicist reading. It is non, nevertheless, the purpose of this paper to analyze the five different countries mentioned by Schneider. What is more of import for the writer, is the competition that exists between the different theoretical places as to where the text lies. The new historicists will be represented by Stephen Greenblatt, the opposing theoretical discourse will take the signifier of Ben Ross Schneider, Jr. Schneider # 8217 ; s hunt for a timeless significance to The Tempest ( a end, which is unusually similar to that of the old autotelic historicist ) rests on an extended field of early modern European discourse, whose roots can be traced back to Roman and Greek beginning paperss. In his effort to set up a specific causal relationship, something that Greenblatt # 8217 ; s circulation of societal energy threatens to wipe out, Schneider maintains that we must analyze the yesteryear. He argues that # 8220 ; before we declare the Jacobean place on colonialism, shouldn # 8217 ; t we know what ethical tools the Jacobeans brought to the undertaking of judging it? # 8221 ; ( Schneider 130 ) This strikes at the bosom of Greenblatt # 8217 ; s statement, as his anecdotes and subsequent avowals stem from the Jacobean place on colonialism. Greenblatt uses the relationship between The Tempest and one of its presumed beginnings, William Strachey # 8217 ; s history of the tempest that struck an English fleet edge for the newcomer settlement at Jamestown, as a theoretical account in order to show the complex circulation between the societal dimension of an aesthetic scheme and the aesthetic dimension of a societal scheme ( Greenblatt 147 ) . The drama was performed long before Strachey # 8217 ; s narrative was printed, but bookmans presume that Shakespeare read a manuscript version of the work, which takes the signifier of a confidential missive written to a certain # 8220 ; baronial lady # 8221 ; ( Greenblatt 147 ) . Greenblatt highlights the significance of the relation between the two texts, or instead what he refers to as # 8220 ; the establishments that the texts serve # 8221 ; ( Greenblatt 148 ) . Harmonizing to Greenblatt, William Strachey was a stockholder and secretary of the Virginia Company # 8217 ; s settlement at Jamestown. Apparently, his missive on the events of 1609-10 was unpublished until 1625 because the Virginia Company was engaged in a vigorous propaganda and fiscal run on behalf of the settlement, and the company # 8217 ; s leaders found Strachey # 8217 ; s study excessively upseting to let it into print ( Greenblatt 148 ) . Shakespeare was besides a stockholder in a joint-stock company, the King # 8217 ; s Men, every bit good as its chief dramatist and erstwhile histrion ( Greenblatt 148 ) . Neither joint-stock company was a direct agent of the Crown and therefore could non trust on royal fiscal support in times of demand. Committed for their endurance to pulling investing capital and turning a net income, both companies depended on their ability to market narratives that would excite, involvement, and attract protagonists ( Greenblatt 148 ) . In his artic le, Greenblatt proposes that the relation between the drama and its alleged beginning is a relation between joint-stock companies. He does, nevertheless, emphasise that these associations do non amount to a direct transportation of belongingss. What takes topographic point is # 8220 ; a system of mimetic instead than contractual exchange # 8221 ; ( Greenblatt 149 ) . Greenblatt advocates that the concurrence of Strachey # 8217 ; s unpublished missive and Shakespeare # 8217 ; s play signals an institutional circulation of culturally important narrations. This circulation has as its cardinal concern the public direction of anxiousness. In his article, Greenblatt demonstrates how the Bermuda narration is made negotiable, turned into a currency that may be transferred from one institutional context to another ( Greenblatt 155 ) . Greenblatt argues that this procedure allows elements from Strachey # 8217 ; s missive to be transformed and recombined with stuffs drawn from other authors about the New World. One such concluding merchandise is William Shakespeare # 8217 ; s The Tempest. As a important point of mention, Schneider references Ruth Kelso # 8217 ; s bibliography of Renaissance books refering to the Doctrine of the English Gentleman ( 1929 ) and The Doctrine for the Lady ( 1956 ) . Schneider emphasises the nexus between Shakespeare # 8217 ; s play and Professor Kelso # 8217 ; s findings, summarized in her 2nd book: # 8220 ; the majority of all that these treatises contain is made up of platitudes, culled largely from the ancients, whose names besprinkle the pages of all authors # 8230 ; . There is plentifulness of grounds that these same platitudes were non of mere academic involvement, for the letters, addresss and fiction of the clip are full of the same thoughts and regulations for behavior # 8221 ; ( Schneider 130 ) . Schneider points out that since both rhetoric and history were given strong moral accent, it may be said that the universities were to a great extent schools of virtuousness. Furthermore, Professor Kelso # 8217 ; s list of those a ncients most normally cited in behavior books consists soley of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero and Seneca ( Schneider 131 ) . Schneider holds that since merely scholars during the Renaissance period normally read Greek, Cicero and Seneca provided the greatest influence in footings of the reading public ( Schneider 131 ) . Harmonizing to Schneider, Cicero # 8217 ; s De Officiis and Seneca # 8217 ; s Essays and Epistles comprised the chief conduits of classical moral though T in Shakespeare’s clip. Schneider adds to his statement that of Ann Jennalie Cook # 8217 ; s, featured in her book The Privileged Playgoers of Shakespeare # 8217 ; s London 1576-1642. Cook # 8217 ; s grounds suggests that the best educated and most well-read section of society composed the chief organic structure of Shakespeare # 8217 ; s audience. Schneider advocators that the field of discourse mentioned above, would hold been a major agencies of communicating between Shakespeare and a audience which was # 8220 ; steeped in classical morality # 8221 ; ( Schneider 132 ) . This platform provides Schneider with the ammo for his averment that Stoicism, like feminist discourse presents, acted as the prevailing discourse during the Renaissance period and accordingly dominated the manner other discourses were understood. Schneider # 8217 ; s averments raise as many inquiries as they seems to reply # 8211 ; the booby trap of any theoretical discourse possibly. In Schneider # 8217 ; s quest for a additive patterned advance of moral thoughts and values, the statement he constructs remainders on another. It assumes two things. First, that Shakespeare # 8217 ; s audience preponderantly consisted of the best educated and most well-read section of society. Second, that the audience who went to watch The Tempest, or any other drama for that affair, must hold been versed or at least familiar with the rules advocated by Cicero and Seneca. If this is non the instance, so Schneider # 8217 ; s statement appears to hold no foundation whatsoever. What occurs is a interruption in Schneider # 8217 ; s linear, causal concatenation. One might reason that such values were built-in in Renaissance society, and when performed were easy identifiable. Such a answer, nevertheless, seems to interrupt away from the fixed, causal relationship that Schneider wishes to enforce and appears to come in the kingdom of circulation. Schneider continues to press place his averments in the 4th country of common land, the # 8220 ; discourse of choler # 8221 ; . Schneider argues that if we identify Prospero as an example of the Senecan angry adult male, his behavior is easier to explicate. For Seneca, choler is one of the two most destructive passions that plague world. Anger [ he says ] is impermanent lunacy. For it is every bit barren of self-denial, forgetful of decency, forgetful of ties, persistent and diligent in whatever it begins, closed to ground and councel, excited by piddling causes, unfit to spot the right and true ( Schneider 133 ) . In an effort to derive credibleness, Schneider highlights the similarity between Prospero and Shakespeare # 8217 ; s list of # 8220 ; angry lunatics # 8221 ; , whose rage drives them down an irreversible class to certain catastrophe, notably Lear, Hotspur, Coriolanus, Macbeth, Othello, and Timon ( Schneider 133 ) . Anger interrupts the narrative of Prospero # 8217 ; s deposition. Anger restrains Ariel # 8217 ; s opposition and punishes Caliban # 8217 ; s insubordination with utmost inhuman treatment. Schneider cites other illustrations of choler within The Tempest, and provinces that Prospero is governed by choler and is non, as romantic critics suppose, in control of his sphere. Schneider one time once more refers to Seneca # 8217 ; s Hagiographas # 8220 ; a adult male can non be called powerful # 8211 ; no, non even free if he is the prisoner of his choler # 8221 ; ( Schneider 133 ) . Schneider uses Seneca # 8217 ; s work to foreground the dramas usage of Stoic linguisti c communication. He maintains that The Tempest incorporates Seneca # 8217 ; s recommended positions when, prompted by his # 8220 ; nobler ground # 8221 ; , Prospero admits his common humanity # 8211 ; admits # 8220 ; experiencing [ the same ] passion as they # 8221 ; ( Schneider 133 ) . Schneider argues that Seneca # 8217 ; s work elucidates other cardinal elements of The Tempest and provides the principle behind Prospero # 8217 ; s behavior. Seneca advocates # 8220 ; that you may non be angry with persons, you must forgive world at big, you must allow indulgence to the human race. # 8221 ; This reveals Prospero # 8217 ; s concluding place with regard to Caliban, # 8220 ; This thing of darkness I acknowledge mine # 8221 ; . On a moral degree Schneider argues, it is # 8220 ; non so perplexing a comment # 8230 ; as it is in the stricly-framed position of colonialist critics # 8221 ; ( Schneider 134 ) . In the 5th country of his analysis, entitled # 8220 ; Discourse of Freedom # 8221 ; , Schneider notes the importance of freedom in The Tempest. Three acts near on freedom, and the drama ends with the word # 8220 ; free. # 8221 ; At the terminal of act 1, Ariel asks for his freedom. At the terminal of act 2, Caliban runs wing shouting # 8220 ; Freedom, high-day! # 8221 ; Act 4 terminals with Prospero assuring Ariel his freedom after one more undertaking ( Schneider 134 ) . Schneider points out that if freedom is mastery, act 3 besides ends on freedom, when Prospero has his enemies where he wants them. Schneider notes the influence of Seneca and the Stoic context that exists before the drama begins, before Antonio usurped Prospero # 8217 ; s dukedom. Prospero sought freedom of the organic structure from the attentions of office and retired to his chamber to analyze the # 8220 ; broad humanistic disciplines # 8221 ; ( Schneider 135 ) . Harmonizing to Schneider, Seneca opposed t he survey of # 8220 ; broad humanistic disciplines # 8221 ; , with the execption of doctrine, because their purpose was to do money. Cicero takes a subdued position of loath decision makers like Prospero, declaring that # 8221 ; to be drawn by survey off from active life is contrary to moral duty. # 8221 ; The nature of Greenblatt # 8217 ; s attack and the flexibleness of his statement makes it hard to assail in a direct mode. While he seems to contradict the influence of authors such as Cicero and Seneca, his construct of circulation allows for the incorporation of new discourses. No specific causal relationship is required. Schneider # 8217 ; s talk about appears to be less flexible. The causal relationship demanded by Schneider and theoreticians like Frank Kermode, requires consecutive, additive patterned advance from one period to another. In other words, a direct nexus. Source X lends itself to beginning Y, which in bend lends itself to Source Z. If Source X is found non to do Source Y so the procedure breaks down. Schneider # 8217 ; s unfavorable judgment of the new historicists, is that they are confined by a model of colonialism and accordingly, are blinded by it. They become limited in the sense that are non unfastened to a broad scope of possibilities. The competition appears to be an eternal argument affecting two discources that, in this writer # 8217 ; s sentiment, can neer be successfully argued to decision because both theories rest on different rules. Any one theory will presume some things in order assume others. Consequently, the theory will be blind to certain countries in order to clarify others. The fast one is to pick that theoretical account which appropriates the most pregnant. In this case, that pick lies with Stephen Greenblatt. Bibliography Stephen Greenblatt, # 8220 ; Martial jurisprudence in the land of Cockaigne # 8221 ; , in Shakespearian Negotiations: The Circulation of Social Energy in Renaissance England ( Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988 ) . Ben Ross Schneider, Jr, # 8220 ; Are We Being Historical Yet? # 8221 ; : Colonialist Interpretations of Shakespeare # 8217 ; s Tempest, Shakespeare Studies 23 ( 1995 ) , 120-45.