Ever since its publication in 1609 (?), The Tempest has been a hugely appreciated play, most probably on account of its ability to satisfy everyone’s taste: music and dancing, action, suspense, comedy and love, The Tempest has got it all. But just as the play is enjoyable, it is also complicated, multilayered. Recent criticism of the play, especially since the 1950s, has focused on the colonial discourse supposedly underlying the play. Stephen Greenblatt for instance, on the sub ject of Caliban, argues that he ‘is anything but a Noble Savage’. For James Smith, he is ‘one of the most obviously nightmarish figures in the play’. I have in the past six months seen two productions of The Tempest, and never did it strike me as being a play infused with colonial discourse. Although Shakespeare’s interest in other cultures and exploring the ‘exotic’, the ‘other’ pervades the entire corpus of his work, one should be careful about freely associating this curiosity of the unknown with colonial discourse- whether deliberate or unintentional on Shakespeare’s part- or race-writing. ‘In discussion of value, Shakespeare is, of course, invariably treated as a special case, having come to serve as something like the gold standard of English Literature’. Although this is a contestable statement in itself, the aim of this essay is not to discuss the authority and reliability of Shakespeare as a playwright, but to question the views which label The Tempest as a colonial, post-colonial, proto - colonial play. There is no need to discuss the existence of othering in the play, as this would be stating the obvious. Rather, I would like to show that, although many incidents in the play may invite a reader to a colonial reading of the text, they can just as well be over- interpretations and fall victim to a subjugation of a discourse foreign to Shakespeare’s intentions.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Colonial Discourse and the Issue of Anachronism
3. Caliban and the Question of True Beginnings
4. Language as a Tool of Resistance
5. Power Relations and Ambition in The Tempest
6. Conclusion
Objectives and Key Themes
This essay explores whether Shakespeare's The Tempest can be legitimately classified as a colonial or post-colonial text. It challenges the prevalent critical consensus that the play is fundamentally structured by colonial discourse, arguing instead that power dynamics in the play are better understood through the lenses of class, ambition, and master-servant relationships rather than modern racial categories.
- The role of anachronism in applying post-colonial theory to early modern texts.
- The characterization of Caliban as a "masterless" figure rather than a colonized subject.
- The distinction between colonial ideology and the pursuit of power/ambition.
- Caliban’s subversion of language as a tool of resistance against Prospero.
- The impact of Shakespeare’s historical context on contemporary interpretations.
Excerpt from the Book
Caliban and the Question of True Beginnings
To demonstrate that The Tempest is not categorically instilled with colonialist ideas, a close analysis has to be undertaken of the different instances in the text that have given rise to this sort of criticism in the past. The most obvious link made with colonialism surely stems from the character of Caliban. The first time we meet him is when Prospero calls him to his service in Act I, scene 2. An essential subject to address at this early stage of the play is that of ‘true beginnings’. It has often been pointed out that there seems to be a discrepancy between Prospero’s account of his arrival on the island and Caliban’s. Prospero’s protasis recounts how ‘here in this island [they] arriv’d’, but it takes Caliban to come on stage to give readers further detail on the circumstances. ‘This island’s mine, by Sycorax my mother,/ which thou takest from me’. In his forceful speech which follows these lines, he remembers the ‘initial mutual trust’ between him and Prospero, and reminds his current master that he is ‘all the subjects that you [Prospero] have,/Which first was mine own king; and here you sty me/ In this hard rock, whiles you do keep from me/ The rest o’ th’ island’. The incongruity of their opposing statements heavily puts into doubt the legitimacy of Prospero’s narration.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: The author introduces the play and outlines the critical debate regarding its alleged colonial nature, setting the stage for a counter-argument based on historical context.
2. Colonial Discourse and the Issue of Anachronism: This chapter analyzes the risks of projecting modern racial categories onto 17th-century texts, suggesting that such readings are historically inaccurate.
3. Caliban and the Question of True Beginnings: The author examines the conflict between Prospero and Caliban, arguing that their struggle is driven by social and power-based dynamics rather than colonial exploitation.
4. Language as a Tool of Resistance: This section investigates how Caliban utilizes the language imposed upon him to resist his master and assert his own identity.
5. Power Relations and Ambition in The Tempest: The chapter focuses on the theme of ambition, comparing the usurpations in The Tempest to those in Macbeth to prove that power-seeking is the primary driver in the play.
6. Conclusion: The author synthesizes the arguments to conclude that The Tempest is a site of conflicting discourses rather than a unified colonial narrative.
Keywords
The Tempest, William Shakespeare, Colonial Discourse, Caliban, Prospero, Post-colonialism, Anachronism, Power Relations, Ambition, Literary Criticism, Othering, Masterlessness, Early Modern Culture, Race-Writing
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core argument of this publication?
The author argues that labeling The Tempest as a colonial or post-colonial text is a result of modern over-interpretation and ignores the historical context of Shakespeare’s time.
What are the primary themes discussed?
The central themes include the nature of power and ambition, the validity of applying modern political concepts to historical texts, and the master-servant dynamic.
What is the author's primary research goal?
The goal is to challenge the critical trend that interprets Caliban's relationship with Prospero as an allegory for colonialism.
Which methodology does the author employ?
The author utilizes a close reading of the text combined with a critical analysis of existing secondary literature and historical discourse from the early modern period.
What does the main body focus on?
It focuses on key scenes involving Caliban, Prospero's use of magic, and the various plots of usurpation throughout the play.
Which keywords define this work?
Key terms include Colonial Discourse, The Tempest, Caliban, Power Relations, Anachronism, and Ambition.
How does the author interpret Caliban's learning of the colonizer's language?
The author suggests that instead of passive assimilation, Caliban uses language as an active tool of resistance and self-definition.
How does the comparison with Macbeth support the author's thesis?
By comparing Prospero’s ambition to Macbeth’s, the author demonstrates that usurpation in Shakespeare’s plays is generally driven by personal ambition rather than colonial intent.
- Quote paper
- Jenny Roch (Author), 2005, Colonialist discourse in The Tempest: Fact or myth, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/38685
