The conflict between Caliban and Prospero in Shakespeare s play The Tempest has been

Transcription

1 The conflict between Caliban and Prospero in Shakespeare s play The Tempest has been read in the postcolonial school of thought as a clear portrayal of and commentary on colonialism, placing Caliban as the oppressed other and Prospero as the self-concerned and self-righteous colonizer. Although the exact method of this reading varies from critic to critic, there is overwhelming support for the notion of this relationship as some sort of representation of colonialism. Paul Brown suggests Caliban as a sympathetic character, a native wronged by the manipulative micro-managing of Prospero, and Deborah Willis, in shifting the attention of Prospero s concern to Antonio, downplays Caliban s significance and also suggests the audience sympathize with this oppressed character. These readings underscore a critical failure of postcolonial critiques, in which readers accept the colonizer versus colonized reading in place of a straightforward relationship between two characters who have both wronged each other on a level that can be adjudicated outside of the postcolonial purview. This obfuscates the motives and morals that drive Prospero, Caliban, and their relationship, aspects that I believe can be taken at surface level. As a result, postcolonial critiques have downplayed or apologized for the very real evil of Caliban s character and misattributed Prospero s actions to colonialist aspirations, which has misguided the reading to gloss over some of the finer details of the text as well as impute a pretentiously complex interpretation of colonizer and colonized instead of using the more obvious dynamics of power at play to construct a starting point for interpretations of colonial ideas within the play. The Tempest can, and should, provoke discussion of colonial power dynamics, but not until Caliban and Prospero have been discussed at their surface level as two characters who have very concrete interactions that demonstrate, good, evil, betrayal, revenge, envy, and forgiveness.

2 Postcolonial critics have downplayed the evil attributes of Caliban, attributes that are manifest throughout the play in violent acts and are usually the result of his thirst for power. Deborah Willis, in her essay Shakespeare s Tempest and the Discourse of Colonialism, claims that the play invites us to sympathize with and to laugh at Caliban, but not to perceive him as a real threat (Willis 325) and she goes on to say that he has child-like exuberance and his response to Prospero s reminder of his rape attempt is disarming as he manages to make even Prospero s defense of Miranda s chastity sound sanctimonious (Willis 329). For Willis, Caliban is a non-threatening other, and the first scallywag in history to playfully attempt to rape a young woman. Caliban s sexual deviancy is no such thing. It is rather part of his savage desire for power, as he states that by taking Miranda s purity and using her as a sexual object, he might create an island of creatures like him: Thou didst prevent me; I had peopled else / This isle with Calibans ( ). Caliban wishes to use Miranda sexually to bring himself power, and he demonstrates this further when negotiating with Stephano and Trinculo, telling Stephano that Miranda will become they bed, I warrant, / And bring thee forth brave brood ( ). Here Caliban promises Miranda s virginal sexuality to a drunken buffoon, saying that Stephano can populate the island after they kill Prospero. I am not as disarmed as Willis perceived reader. Caliban is also a violent would-be usurper. His partnership with Stephano and Trinculo is contingent on murdering Prospero and taking over the island. Caliban plans a stealthy assassination, telling Stephano, I ll yield him thee asleep, / Where thou mayst knock a nail into his head ( ), and then continuing his gruesome plans for Prospero s death as he suggests they Batter his skull, or paunch him with a stake, / Or cut his weasand with thy knife ( ). Caliban s quest for power gives him bloodthirsty plans for Prospero. He also demonstrates a violent nature in dealing with his clownish comrades, telling Stephano after Stephano beats the

3 insolent Trinculo, Beat him enough. After a little time / I ll beat him too ( ), just moments after Trinculo insults Caliban and Caliban bids Stephano, Bite him to death, I prithee (3.2.32). Even with his allies, Caliban demonstrates a nasty and violent nature. Caliban s evil is due, in large part, to his mission to reclaim power from Prospero. Some postcolonial critics have seen Caliban s desires as being just like an oppressed native facing colonial rule, and Paul Brown, in his essay This Thing of Darkness I Acknowledge Mine : The Tempest and the Discourse of Colonialism, claims that Caliban s desire is not power but freedom: [Caliban] is an eloquent spokesman who is powerless; here such eloquence represents not desire to control and rule but a fervent wish for release, a desire to escape reality and return to dream (Brown, 288). Brown claims Caliban is a sympathetic pastoral character who just wishes to be free of Prospero s tyranny. However, Caliban clearly demonstrates a desire for power, as is evidenced in his aforementioned attempted rape (rape is about asserting power against another s will, and Caliban would have seen their sexual relations populate the island with creatures like him) and in his alliance with the clowns, whose plot would make Stephano king of the island and make Trinculo and Caliban powerful viceroys. Caliban s desire for this political power comes from losing power in the first place to Prospero. He tells Prospero he is the rightful ruler of the island: This island s mine, by Sycorax my mother, / Which thou tak st from me ( ). He makes a similar clam to the clowns: I say by sorcery he got this isle; / From me he got it ( ). Perhaps Caliban was, as Brown suggests, oblivious to notions of power before the arrival of Prospero, but once Caliban loses control he becomes violent and subversive. This brings me to Prospero and his relationship with Caliban, which, although it provides the impetus for Caliban s wretchedness, is not as simple as a colonial allegory. Brown claims that Prospero is a master, using his relationship to native islanders, in particular Ariel and

4 Caliban, as evidence: for Ariel he is a rescuer and taskmaster; for Caliban he is a colonizer whose refused offer of civilization forces him to strict discipline (Brown 281). According to Brown, Prospero uses his power and influence with the other characters to be a masterly colonizer. Brown especially emphasizes Prospero s control over sexuality and reproduction, using accounts of John Rolfe and others as historical context: The fatherly power of the colonizer, and his capacity to regulate and utilize the sexuality of his subject children, is there a potent trope and again demonstrates the crucial nexus of civil power and sexuality in colonial discourse (Brown 285). For Brown, and many postcolonial critics, Prospero s interactions with all the characters, and especially Caliban, makes a story of colonialism clear. However, forcing this colonial moniker on Prospero hastily dismisses reasoning for Prospero s actions on a much more relatable human surface level. His actions all have normal human reasoning behind them. Prospero claims that all of his actions are for Miranda s wellbeing: I have done nothing but in care of thee (1.2.16). Although the eventual reclamation of the Milanese dukedom is in his thoughts and plans, Prospero acts for the well-being of his daughter. He is a father and his daughter is the only thing he has in the world, so it is no surprise that he becomes so hateful of Caliban after the attempted rape. The regulation of his daughter s sexuality has nothing to do with. (By this same line of reasoning I would argue that his arrangement of marriage between Miranda and Ferdinand is done with her well-being in mind as well as his political aspirations). Prospero s control over Caliban and Ariel both have rather plain justification as well. As mentioned before, Caliban attempted to rape his daughter, and Ariel owes Prospero after Prospero freed him from Sycorax s spell. Furthermore, Prospero did not come to the island by his own means; he was exiled there, arriving as one marooned rather than as a conqueror. Once there, he initially had an amicable relationship with Caliban. Prospero says

5 to Caliban, I have used thee, / filth as thou art, with humane care, and lodged thee / In mine own cell ( ). Caliban even acknowledges this, and describes a friendly relationship: When thou cam st first, Thou strok st me and made much of me, wouldst give me Water with berries in t, and teach me how To name the bigger light, and how the less, That burn by day and night. And then I loved thee And showed thee all the qualities o th isle, The fresh springs, brine pits, barren place and fertile. ( ) This demonstrates a relationship between two stranded beings, not a native oppressed by an invading conqueror. Reading this relationship as a partnership and a betrayal allows for a greater appreciation of what happens near the end of the play when Prospero forgives, or at the very least pardons, Caliban. Brown essentially skips over this exchange and Willis states that it is uncertain, complex, and trivializes Caliban s plight (Willis 333). What both critics miss is the weight of Prospero s forgiveness. After an entire play that demonstrates how Prospero has been wronged by Antonio, Alonso, and Caliban, and with full knowledge that Prospero has the power to do whatever he wants, the audience should be shocked and touched by his reckless pardoning of all who have wronged him. This interpretation does not fit into the colonialist discourse, and is an important aspect of the story that will be left out in a postcolonial reading. Critics like Brown and Willis may look to historical source material, such as Michel de Montaigne s Of the Cannibals, to give evidence for their reading. Montaigne writes of the admirable traits of American Indians: I find (as far as I have been informed) there is nothing in that nation, that is either barbarous or savage There is ever perfect religion, perfect policy, perfect and complete use of all things (Montaigne 121). Montaigne found native peoples to be more noble than the Europeans that met them. Many have read Caliban to be an example of one of Montaigne s cannibals, and therefore a noble and sympathetic character. And while this

6 argument can help us to understand where Prospero might be excessive in his punishment of Caliban, and perhaps may lend some sympathy to Caliban, it does not overcome the evil that Caliban demonstrates time and again in the play. If Caliban were truly one of Montaigne s cannibals, he would show at least some nobility. Instead, he attempts rape, is belligerent, plans a murder, and promises Miranda s virginity to another. The reading of a sympathetic, misunderstood savage cannot overcome these evil deeds. There is a conversation to be had about Prospero, his power, and the way his treats Caliban. However, these discussions should not default to colonialist discourse, and should first focus on the actions of the characters and how they interact. Failure to read the play at its surface level will cause the reader to overstep in their critical interpretations, causing them to miss what is there and reach unnecessary and unintended conclusions.