Marxism and Shakespeare s The Tempest. were difficult to achieve, on top of it already being challenging enough to live past the age of

Transcription

1 Gwynn 1 Amy Gwynn Professor Slagle Eng. 440 Lit. Theory 11 July 2013 Marxism and Shakespeare s The Tempest In Elizabethan England, class structure was extremely rigid. Education and progress were difficult to achieve, on top of it already being challenging enough to live past the age of thirty-five (Bryson 46). In this social atmosphere, Shakespeare composed what many believe to be his last drama, The Tempest. The play is largely a commentary on power struggles and politics, which is nothing new to Shakespeare. However, The Tempest may be more controversial than expected when analyzed through a Marxist lens. It can be argued that the play exposes a reversal of class structure as the individual characters fight for power on the island. Some have assumed that the play supports the Elizabethan status quo, but upon closer analysis that may not be a correct assumption (Cantor 42) As we approach the play with class structure in mind, the exposition in the first scene becomes very crucial to the overall meaning. As the curtain rises, the audience is faced with two groups of people: noblemen and mariners. In Marxist terms, these would be the upper class and the working class, or lower class. As the mariners are attempting to save the lives of everyone on board their sea-tossed ship, the noblemen are trying to act their part by giving everyone orders. In response, the Boatswain replies, When the sea is, Hence! What care these roarers for the name of king? To cabin! Silence! Trouble us not ( ). If the play were to support the Elizabethan class structure, the upper-class characters would be exerting their power and the working class would mutely go about their work. As it is, the working class is already standing

2 Gwynn 2 up to the higher class in a reversal of roles, effectively setting up the power struggle that runs through the entire play. The most influential individual character that needs to be addressed is Prospero. Prospero is the most noticeable singular representation of power in the play. His name literally means fortunate or according to one s hopes, which foreshadows the achievements he obtains before the end of the production (Bates X). For this analysis, Prospero becomes an exaggeration of the patriarchal power symbol. There is no end to what Prospero can accomplish: Prospero works to restore order by gaining back his dukedom, bringing Antonio under his control, engineering Alonso s repentance, and marrying Miranda to the son of his old enemy. The play strongly suggests these goals have the blessings of heaven; and at no time does it bring into question the legitimacy of Prospero s rule as duke, his right to reclaim and expand his dukedom, or his right to arrange a marriage for Miranda. (Willis 280) This is a level of power that is virtually unheard of in other Shakespearean works (Willis 279). He controls the actions of all the other characters as if they are players on a chessboard (which is conveniently symbolized when Miranda and Ferdinand are playing chess in act five) and there seems to be no question as to whether or not he has the right to this kind of power. But despite initially appearing supportive of upper-class power, the resolution at the end of the play seems to state that the powerful are responsible for the suffering of those under their command. Prospero admits in the final scene, This thing of darkness I/ Acknowledge mine ( ). Being the one in power, Prospero is responsible for the misdeeds committed throughout the play, and in the end he finally acknowledges this. So although the play may still give the upper class all control, if there is anyone to blame for what goes wrong, it is them. This also seems to bring into

3 Gwynn 3 question whether or not it is correct for one person or a small group of people to have all the power. Prospero s backstory enhances the political plot as well. He teaches Miranda in a very lengthy discourse how he threw himself into the study of the arts and The government I cast upon my brother/ And to my state grew stranger, being transported and rapt in secret studies ( ). Consequently, his brother Antonio took over the dukedom of Milan with the help of the King of Naples, Alonso. The introduction to Modern Library edition of The Tempest explains how the undercurrent of Italian politics is not an accident in this play, as Italy, the land of courtly sophistication and cunning, of Castiglione and Machiavelli would have brought the themes of power and manipulation to the audience s mind (Bate XV). This discourse also reveals that the upper-class rulers are not exempt from betrayal, and perhaps the powerful do not have the control that they pretend to have. The relationship between Prospero and Caliban is extremely significant as well. One critic notes that Shakespeare actively makes the case for Prospero s rule over Caliban as the rule of the wise man over the fool (Cantor 43). Caliban naturally fills the role of the lowerclass, pitiful creature. He would be nothing without the Prospero and Miranda who taught him their language. According to one editor, The learning of language is what makes man godlike as opposed to beastlike, but Caliban s only profit from the language lessons delivered to him by Prospero and Miranda is the ability to curse (Bate XIII). At first glance, this shows how the privileges of the upper class are misused and corrupted by the working class, proving that they do not have the capacity to govern themselves. But, this is where Shakespeare delivers his most striking contradiction. Although Caliban may be a lowly, cursing creature, he delivers some of

4 Gwynn 4 the most poetic lines in the entire play. Stephen Greenblatt comments on this in one of his analyses: The rich, irreducible concreteness of [his] verse compels us to acknowledge the independence and integrity of Caliban s construction of reality. We do not sentimentalize this construction indeed the play insists that we judge it and that we prefer another but we cannot make it vanish into silence. Caliban s world has what we may call opacity, and the perfect emblem of that opacity is the fact that we do not know to this day the meaning of the word scamel. (Halpern 20) This is high praise for a character that is barely considered human. If the audience is not careful they may find themselves identifying with Caliban for the way he struggles under the forces that control his fate. Some have argued that Caliban even turns out to be the hero of the play if analyzed in a favorable light, mainly because he fights against such overwhelming forces throughout the plot. Similarly, the issue of Caliban s right to own the island cannot be ignored. He explains to Prospero and the audience, This island s mine by Sycorax my mother,/ which thou tak st from me ( ). Here again the audience is faced with another dilemma. They have to decide whether Caliban, the unfit corrupt creature, or Prospero, the upper-class European, has the right to govern the island. Prospero brings order to the island, and he even transforms [it] into a schoolroom. He delivers a series of history lessons to Miranda, to Ariel, to Caliban and to the audience in the theater (Bate X). He creates order where there was only chaos, bringing humanity to an island inhabited by animals (since Caliban, himself, is described as a creature). The audience must question whether or not Prospero s imposed rule over the island justifies him taking the power away from Caliban.

5 Gwynn 5 Caliban and Prospero have their worst disagreement in regards to Miranda, Prospero s daughter. The audience can see that Miranda harbors no kind feelings for Caliban, and it is not difficult to understand why. Because of Caliban s attempted rape of Miranda, the audience can easily justify Prospero and Miranda s mistreatment of him. However, one critic has noted that the attempted rape of Miranda can be seen as an expression of territorial lust (Skura 44). This appears to be an even more callous treatment for Miranda as a human being, but Caliban is not the only one to treat her as a territorial object. Prospero also uses her as a means to achieve his aspirational ends. The love story can be seen as a political maneuver by Prospero to ensure his return to power in Milan (Skura 44). When he perceives that Miranda is falling in love with Ferdinand, the son of Alonso the king, he manipulates them to make sure their love and union are certain, giving him an opportunity to claim more power back in Italy. He uses Miranda as a territorial object just as much, if not more, than Caliban. In this manner, the upper class and the lower class are not all that different. If we are going to further compare Prospero to Caliban, it is important to address the issue of magic. An important distinction exists between the magic of Prospero, and that of Caliban s mother, Sycorax. In Shakespeare s time, white magic meant the knowledge of hidden things and the art of working wonders. For some, it was the highest form of natural philosophy (Bate XI). This is what Prospero uses. It is the ultimate symbol of his upper-class power. He has been blessed by the heavens with the right to rule, given his ability to control the fates of so many other characters. What Sycorax had was only a perversion of that power, and in the hands of a character less than an upper-class European, the power is misused and exploited. This is somewhat related to the issue of language being taught to Caliban who then uses it to curse;

6 Gwynn 6 Prospero uses his privileges for good (although debatable), while Sycorax used her magical power to fulfill her desires as a witch, including the imprisonment of the holy Ariel. The audience might question Prospero s use of his magic in his treatment of Ariel, the magical sprite that goes about obeying Prospero s orders. Ariel appears to challenge his master s control over him in the second scene of act one when he states, Is there more toil? Since thou dost give me pains,/ Let me remember thee what thou has promised,/ Which is not yet performed me (282-84). He is referring to Prospero s promise to free Ariel once he has given adequate service. Prospero replies to Ariel s subtle complaint with anger saying, How now? Moody?/ What is t thou canst demand? (285-86). His choice of words and rash response reveal that he may not be as suited for power as initially believed. In short, he is acting childish. Instead of appearing to have the right to use Ariel s power, Prospero now looks as if he is hoarding it for his own gain. The other characters may ask why he has that power instead of them, just as the working class may ask what gives the upper class the right to have control over them. It is also very important to analyze the other characters in the play that are not as black and white as Prospero and Caliban in the upper-class/lower-class binary. These characters seem to exist in the gray area between these levels of social status. The first of these unique characters is Gonzalo, the aged councilor to the king. This is a man who will never be found without a smile on his face, making his character fairly comical. When he and his companions arrive on the island, Gonzalo cannot seem to figure out why the others are disappointed in their situation. He finds the deserted island a fascinating place, and in response to how he would go about ruling it, he outlines the ideal socialist dream: I th commonwealth I would by contraries/ Execute all things: for no kind of traffic/ Would I admit: no name of magistrate:/ Letters should not be known: riches, poverty,/

7 Gwynn 7 And use of service, none: contract, succession,/ Bourn, bound of land, tilth, vineyard, none:/ No use of metal, corn, or wine, or oil:/ No occupation, all men idle, all:/ And women too, but innocent and pure:/ No sovereignty. ( ) Because Gonzalo is portrayed humorously, the audience may not take him very seriously. But at the same time, this speech should not be ignored. Gonzalo apparently has a clear idea of what his ideal society would look like, but the irony of this is that he, himself, is the councilor to the king. He is not a common man who is simply wishing for an equal life for all, he is a man of considerable power that may or may not be aware of what he is wishing for. Especially when he states that Letters should not be known, it is as if he is suggesting an unintelligent population, which most would agree is not a desirable situation. This passage in a sense is mocking the inability of the higher class individuals to know what an ideal society would look like, especially when they do not understand what life is like for those living the working-class life. Sebastian and Antonio are the most vocal in their rejection of Gonzalo s simplistic daydreams. Since Sebastian is the brother to Alonso, the king of Naples, and Antonio is Prospero s brother, these men can sense the power that is nearly in their hands. Immediately upon their arrival to the island, these two form the type of Cassius/Brutus relationship that exists in Julius Caesar. Antonio works tirelessly to convince Sebastian to kill the king, Alonso, and so inherit the kingdom. He wants them to become rulers together. Sebastian is not opposed to this idea: The shipwreck arouses dreams of an escape from subordination to his older brother, the king of Naples, just as Antonio had escaped subordination to his older brother Prospero (Kinney 167). They are not willing to give up their power as Gonzalo was. The unnerving part of this entire plot sequence is how it reveals the unethical methods that are usually employed to achieve political power. Nearly all of the upper-class characters in this play have come by their power by

8 Gwynn 8 dishonest means, which inevitably leads to corruption. This idea parallels the abuse of control that Prospero exerts over Ariel. Further down the social ladder we find Stephano and Trinculo. These two characters work in tandem just as Sebastian and Antonio, but they are much less organized in their tactics. They also do not share in Gonzalo s dream of equality for all. Finding themselves freed from their masters, [they] are drawn to a poor man s fantasy of mastery: the King and all our company else being drown d, we will inherit here (Kinney 167). They immediately imagine that on the island position of king is open, and they do not hesitate to offer themselves up to fill it. In this instance, these men fill the stereotypical working-class character very well. They are drunken and foolish, wanting power only for themselves without thinking of the responsibilities that follow. In this way, The play is also said to reflect class prejudices in its picture of lowerclass figures... By portraying the stupidity and futility of their attempted rebellion against their aristocratic betters, the play is said to support the Elizabethan status quo (Cantor 42). Stephano and Trinculo prove themselves a ridiculous waste of leadership by their drunken, foolish behavior. For a moment, however, we must consider Caliban s point-of-view concerning Stephano and Trinculo. When he first meets these two men he is enamored by their alcohol and speech. He states, I ll show thee every fertile inch o th island: and I will kiss thy foot. I prithee, be my god ( ). The audience is doubtlessly supposed to laugh and the combining stupidity of the lower class. But the point being made here is important to acknowledge: Caliban sees Stephano and Trinculo just as worthy of his service as Prospero, if not more desirable. Their alcohol is like magic to him, and as long as they have that, they have all the control over him

9 Gwynn 9 they could want. Power, in this case, is all a matter of perspective. What the upper class claims to have may not be as remarkable as the lower class is made to believe. The last important scene to analyze is the final act. Where the beginning of the play opened with a reversal of roles, the final act ends with the audience wondering who will take the power from here, a clever move on Shakespeare s part for such a political play. The most important matter to notice is between Ferdinand and Miranda when they are revealed playing chess in the background. Miranda accuses Ferdinand of cheating and he responds by saying that he would not for the world (191). In response to this, the Modern Library commentary on the play states, In a surprising touch of realpolitik, Miranda suggests that for a score of kingdoms you should wrangle,/ And I would call it fair play (Bate 93). The political turmoil is far from over, even if the play has come to its final curtain. Some readers or viewers may excuse the political statements in The Tempest by claiming that one should not take a comedy too seriously. But, as is very common with Shakespeare, many of the most poignant and truthful lines are made by the ones who claim to only exist for comic relief. The Tempest is no exception to this. The play s humorous quality may be what gives it the right to exercise the freedom of social critique.

10 Gwynn 10 Works Cited Bryson, Bill. Shakespeare: The World as Stage. 1st ed. New York: HarperCollins, Print. Cantor, Paul A. "Shakespeare For All Time?. Public Interest (1993): Academic Search Premier. Web. 10 July Halpern, Richard. Shakespeare in the Tropics: From High Modernism to New Historicism. Representations. 45. (1994): Web. 9 Jul Kinney, Arthur F. "Revisiting The Tempest. Modern Philology (1995): Web. 12 Jul Shakespeare, William. Eds. Jonathan Bate, Eric Rasmussen. The Tempest. New York: The Modern Library, Print. Skura, Meredith Anne. Discourse and the Individual: The Case of Colonialism in The Tempest. Shakespeare Quarterly (1989): Web. 9 Jul Willis, Deborah. Shakespeare's Tempest and the Discourse of Colonialism. Studies in English Literature (1989): Web. 12 Jul