These years proved to be an age of new discoveries. The exploration of the New World was accompanied by intellectual breakthroughs that meant the beliefs and views previously held by society was changing and evolving (Prf. Steppart). Perhaps the most important theory for this discussion is the theory of the Great Chain of Being. This idea hypothesized that everything in the world had its place in a “divinely ordered hierarchy” (Graff Phelan 94). In overly simplistic terms, the hierarchal order was; God, Angels, Humans, Animals, Vegetables, and Minerals (Prf. Steppart). Humans sat in between Angels and Animals and therefore had the ability to sway to both sides. In order to remain human, they had to balance their animalistic appetites and separate themselves through intelligence and restraint (Prf. Steppart). Therefore, the defining factor between humans and animals was that animals were described as having “limited intelligence and awareness of their surroundings… unlike humans, they were thought to lack… the ability to use logic and language” (Prf. Steppart). This is interesting when considering the role of Caliban and the fact that the basis of Prospero and Caliban’s relationship relies on Prospero sitting higher than Caliban.
Caliban is introduced as being animalistic and his humanity is often questioned as Prospero states he is a “devil, a born devil, on whose nature nurture can never stick: on whom my pains, humanely taken, all, all lost, quite lost” (Shakespeare 4.1). Despite these claims, Caliban has the characteristics previously described as fitting into the human category. He is aware of his surroundings, and as he makes the claim that the island is rightfully his, he uses logic in deducing the only way to get his island back is to kill Prospero, and he also has the same language ability as all the other humans on the island. Regardless of this, Caliban’s humanity is still uncertain, and this is because he attempts to rape Miranda. This is the perfect example of a human who was swayed by animalistic desires and therefore fell from the human to the animal category. This led him to be punished by Prospero and forced into being his slave. Caliban resents Prospero for the shift of power but also resents Miranda for her efforts to educate him in their language. Miranda views this as a selfless attempt to civilize Caliban, while he views it as an extension of her father’s imperialism. Caliban makes it clear the only good thing about being forced to learn their language is “I know how to curse” (Shakespeare 1.2). It is also important as only through communicating with Stephano and Trinculo is Caliban able to orchestrate the rebellion against Prospero. The importance of this discussion comes down to Caliban’s fate. Shakespeare writes the ending which suggests Prospero is the winner in this situation, as Caliban’s plot was spoiled, he admits defeat and is dunked in horse urine. In summary, it seems as if the character of Caliban was written to affirm the values of the time that civilization and art are superior to animalistic impulses (Greenblatt 115). This is also apparent through the quote above from Prospero, that even though he has attempted to civilize Caliban, his nature overpowers nurture.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
From this, a traditionalist would argue that Shakespeare presented a play that yes, is about imperialism, but also reveals the message that rather than one human having superiority over the other, it is more about civilization and culture being superior to the wild impulses of nature, which therefore leads to the discussion about the role of art in society. A post-colonial critic would argue Shakespeare wrote Caliban’s character with complexity in order to prompt the audience to question the validity of their current beliefs, which has the main political message that the colonizer didn’t necessarily win. Another important aspect to consider is that Prospero gains his power from his books, and in fact, his fall from Dukedom was due to him having more attention to his books than his duties. His books are symbolic of his unique use of power to control the world toward his desired ends. This can be linked to the role of the literary canon. Post-colonialists believe it is a record of the sex, class, and race relations at the time of each publication, and all literature is political whether it is intended to be or not (Will 111). Traditionalists argue this ideology “devalues authors and elevates the ideologists” (Will 111). The hybrid theory meets in the middle by agreeing to analyze the contextual politics, but at the same time take into consideration how the play functions in society throughout time, as a consequence of these integral and ever-present themes of sex, class, and race.
Therefore, it can be deduced that Shakespeare did indeed write The Tempest with the current ideologies surrounding colonization in mind. It can be assumed he buried them behind a false wall of agreeance in order to portray it in a realistic manner. Beliefs and values are fluid, and Shakespeare was well aware of this. He wrote a play that showed the minority living in a scenario where he was ultimately defeated, but he was heard, he is educated, and he nearly accomplished freedom. In some cases, the audience may have even grown to sympathize with his character and therefore question why they were dissatisfied with the ending even though from what they were taught, Prospero was the rightful ruler. In this case, Shakespeare also believed the function of literature was to create timeless truths because he acknowledged that artists are the ones with the power to say what cannot be said. Artists are the voices of the people, and so yes, their work is inundated with influence from their social conditioning, but social views are constantly moving and art is what propels them. That is why post-colonial and traditional criticism on their own is too constricting and narrow. One fails to acknowledge the importance of the aesthetic, and the other fails to acknowledge the universal and timeless political truths.
Stuck on your essay?
