Certainly the character from the Tempest that has drawn the most interest over the years is Caliban. Yesterday we talked about his status in the play vis-a-vis Ariel, discussing both their similarities and differences. We focused on the nature of his relationship with Prospero and the reasons for his service to Prospero, which is a rationale of force, in essence, if he does not do what Prospero says, Prospero will inflict pain on him. What was not discussed, and what I hope we will have a chance to talk about, is what Caliban has been taken to represent by many interpreters of the play.
Historical contexts are essential to interpreting the play, and at the time the play was written there were many explorations going on by Europeans into the "New World," and the first contact with Native Americans had been reported on. Unsurprisingly, they were primarily viewed as primitive savages in need of civilization by Europeans. But what is Caliban, but a primitive savage (Miranda taught him language) who is tamed by the Prospero, the European who comes to the land that Caliban says was rightfully his. This savage is not only uncivilized but behaves abominably, attempting to rape Miranda. So the question interpreters ask is whether Shakespeare is validating the European role in colonizing foreign lands with the actions of Caliban. The argument goes: Prospero is the protagonist of the play and we are meant to sympathize with him and his actions. One of those action is his relationship with Caliban. Hence, we are meant to look approvingly on the relationship that Prospero has with Caliban and, by analogy, on the relationship that Europeans have with the Americas.
On the other side of the coin (and there is always another side of the coin) perhaps we are meant to view Prospero's actions unfavorably, not at all sympathizing with the threat of force he holds over Caliban but instead viewing his relationship with Caliban as unjustified and abusive.\--and, by analogy, hold be critical of the European relationship with Native Ameircans.
What do you think?
Historical contexts are essential to interpreting the play, and at the time the play was written there were many explorations going on by Europeans into the "New World," and the first contact with Native Americans had been reported on. Unsurprisingly, they were primarily viewed as primitive savages in need of civilization by Europeans. But what is Caliban, but a primitive savage (Miranda taught him language) who is tamed by the Prospero, the European who comes to the land that Caliban says was rightfully his. This savage is not only uncivilized but behaves abominably, attempting to rape Miranda. So the question interpreters ask is whether Shakespeare is validating the European role in colonizing foreign lands with the actions of Caliban. The argument goes: Prospero is the protagonist of the play and we are meant to sympathize with him and his actions. One of those action is his relationship with Caliban. Hence, we are meant to look approvingly on the relationship that Prospero has with Caliban and, by analogy, on the relationship that Europeans have with the Americas.
On the other side of the coin (and there is always another side of the coin) perhaps we are meant to view Prospero's actions unfavorably, not at all sympathizing with the threat of force he holds over Caliban but instead viewing his relationship with Caliban as unjustified and abusive.\--and, by analogy, hold be critical of the European relationship with Native Ameircans.
What do you think?
Amazing write-up!
ReplyDeleteCyber Monday Deals for Xbox