The Tempes empest t – Use and Abuse of Power Anthony Read
Throughout The Tempest, a definite theme emerges: that of the use and abuse of power. This is demonstrated in a number of ways, with Prospero being at the centre of nearly all of them. Ideas like exile, language, and magic all have their bases in Prospero’s time on the island, and the arrival of Alonso and company signal the beginning of the true power plays that occur throughout.
Two characters in the play remind us of the theme of exile as power: Prospero, and to a lesser extent, Sycorax. Prospero was exiled to the island by his brother Antonio, allowing him to take over the dukedom of Milan. Far from losing all his power, Prospero prospers from the island’s
stark nature that allows him to spend all his time studying the “art” of magic. In essence, both Prospero and Antonio gain power from the exile, but in very different forms. Antonio gains political power, whereas Prospero gains power as a magus. At the time of the exile, Antonio sees his brother as an unwilling politician, and “to credit his own lie, he did believe he was indeed the Duke” (I, ii, 102 -103). Prospero, by his own words, makes the point clearer: “My Library was dukedom large enough” (I, ii, 109 -110). He was too ‘scholarly’ to maintain proper
political control of Milan, and so was usurped and exiled. On the island, his magical powers may have grown, but he still is completely focused on his books and not on the political matters of the island. His attitude does not change. Also, when talking about exile, Sycorax is often overlooked. Her story parallels that of Prospero to a certain degree, as she too was exiled to the island for being a witch. She, like Prospero, took control of the island by her magical powers. In both these cases, we can see how solitude and/or exile is sometimes needed to achieve one’s full potential of power. Magic has a major role in the proceedings of the play, and again t his can be traced directly to Prospero. His power over magic comes to him when he is exiled to the island, not before, and certainly not after, as is evidenced when he says, “Now my charms are all o’erthrown, and what strength I have’s mine own, which is most faint” (Epilogue, 1-3). But during his time on the
island, his magic is quite strong, and can be referred to as ‘white’ magic. His ‘art’ is derived from books, and so is a self-taught style of magic, which is m ostly used for good. One can juxtapose this against “the foul witch Sycorax” (I, ii, 258 ), whose magic stems from her own nature, and is described as “m ischiefs manifold, and sorce ries terrible” (I, ii, 264-265) by Prospero. This can be labeled as ‘black’ magic, as it is used for harm and evil’s sake. However, this may not entirely be true, as Sycorax is not alive to c ounter Prospero’s tirade, but her treatment of Ariel (“she did confine thee…into a cloven pine” (I, ii, 274-277)) speaks volumes about her true nature. Although we can view Prospero’s magic as ‘white’, his human nature casts a dark shadow over
it. Once on the island, he usurps Caliban, takes control and frees Ariel from the tree, yet enslaves him once again. He uses his magic to send Alonso and his company into fits of terror. He tortures Caliban (‘I’ll rack thee with old cramps, fill all thy bones with aches, make thee roar”
(I, ii, 369-370)) and threatens Ariel with enslavement (“And peg thee in his knotty entrails till thou hast howled away twelve winters” (I, ii, 295 -296)). For all his ‘good’ magic, he uses it to cast
anguish upon those around him. Through all these episodes, we generally view Prospero as a tyrant, but a glimmer of light is found in his tr eatment of Miranda. He puts her to sleep as he discusses his plans with Ariel, to protect her ears from hearing what he is to do. His contradictory nature makes him hard to pin down, but his mistreatment of C aliban and Ariel, and his campaign against Alonso make him a hard character to sympathise with. Ferdinand and Miranda’s marriage in the play is another example of utilizing ulterior motives
means to gain power. This idea is represented a number of ways. From the outset, Miranda is
instantly smitten with Ferdinand, as he is the first male she has seen (apart from her father and Caliban). In this respect, Ferdinand has power of Miranda instantly, and his offer of marriage is immediately accepted (“My husband, then?” (III, i, 89)). This offer of marriage also gives Prospero a second chance at creating a ‘perfect husband’. Prospero’s treatment of Ferdinand is
virtually the same to the way he treats Caliban, and since Caliban tried to rape Miranda, Prospero feels the need to ‘purge’ the inner beast from Ferdinand. He is trying to create a vision
of Utopia, where everything is pure and innocent, and the newlyweds would become a version of Adam and Eve (Flagstad, 1986). The masque reflects this idea as well, with the rape of Prosperine stopped and reversed. Also, the characters used from Greek mythology (Iris, Ceres and Juno) are goddesses of marriage and fertility, and Prospero picked these characters to put their blessing on the newlyweds (Ermitage, 2002). One may see this as Prospero being a loving father, looking after the wellbeing of his only daughter, and expecting only the best man to marry her. A more cynical view is that he is just on a quest to create his own Eden, and even at play’s end, where Prospero decides to return to Milan, the marriage of Ferdinand and Miranda
ties together the city-states of Naples and Milan. The former enemies of North and South Italy are now connected, and even though Prospero loses his magus status, he takes on more political power than ever before. There have been many interpretations of Shakespeare’s final play, such as it being a carbon copy
of the Joseph story in Genesis (Hoyle, 1977), but arguably the most popular reading is that of colonialism, espec ially in America, the “brave new world”. If one was to read the play completely in this light, certain characters can be drawn, such as the prototypical frontier bandits (Trinculo and Stephano) St ephano) and “domineering colonial planters” (Prospero) (Vaughan,
1988). Brown mentions that colonialism is ‘fixing the other’, while in fact this knowledge passed on to the other is used against him, with threats that the ‘colonialist’ can understand (Brown, 1985). This apparent in the play when Caliban is usurped by Prospero. In his early kindness, Prospero allows Miranda to teach Caliban how to speak (“endowed thy purposes with words that make them known” (I, ii, 357 -358)), however as Prospero’s rule becomes fiercer, so does Caliban’s rebellion. “You taught me language, and my profit on’t is I know how to curse; the red plague rid you me learning me your language!” (I, ii, 363 -365) Caliban utters these words, and
his true feelings for Prospero can be revealed, as he has attained the power of language. Also, Caliban is the “amoral, appetitive, suffering Self in all of us, ever in search of freedom to satisfy all its hungers” (Egan, 1972, II). By trying to ‘purge’ this inner darkness and attain power over
Caliban, the more Prospero becomes like him, in action and word. Skura’s reading gives the idea of the play “enacting colonialism” and somehow justifying it for
the English during colonialist times (Skura, 1989). In these times, this play would have resonated well with audiences, who could see similarities between the ‘other’ and themselves. By utilising
the characters of P rospero and Caliban, people could easily distinguish this difference. It also comes in the form o f Stephano and Trinculo (“masterless men”) and Ferdinand and Miranda’s
sexuality (Willis, 1989). The idea of power relates directly to colonialism, however today we can read particular discourses of colonialism into the play, effectively molding the play to suit t he
idea. Evidence of Shakespeare’s possible colonialist input is evident in Prospero’s differing
treatment of Caliban and Ariel. The play seems to put across the idea that submission will gain freedom, whereas rebellion will ensure slavery. However, this discourse does not suit the end of the play, where Caliban is effectively set free. In colonialist times, if natives would not comply with the new challenges facing them, they were enslaved or killed. A co lonialist reading of the play is valid in some respects, but falls short in many others. The Tempest puts forward the idea that power can be sought after and gained using whatever
means necessary, however keeping that power and not abusing it is hard to maintain. The broad themes that permeate the play only add to this theory: Prospero’s exile, where he gains power
instead of losing it; magic that can be used for good as well as evil, all depending on the person utilising it; and marriage that has less than honourable motives behind it. These all reflect on the discourse of colonialism, with the general idea of exerting power over the ‘other’ evident throughout. But perhaps the main idea to take from the play is that power has a tangible relationship to authority: power is simply means to control others. When it is lost, so is authority.
Reference List
Brown P, 1985, ““This thing of darkness I acknowledge mine”: The Tempest and the Discourse of Colonialism”, Political Shakespeare: New Essays in Cultural Materialism, pp. 48-71, Manchester Univers ity Press, Manchester. Egan R, 1972, “This Rough Magic: Perspective of Art and Morality in The ”, Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 171-182, Folger Tempest ”, Shakespeare Library. Flagstad K, 1986, ““Making This Place Paradise”: Prospero and the Problem of Caliban in The Tempest ” ” , Shakespeare Studies, Vol. 18, pp. 205-228. Shakespeare W, Ermitage K (ed), 2002, Simply Shakespeare: The Tempest, Barron’s Educational Series, New York. Skura M, 1989, “Discourse and the Individual: The Case of Colonialism in the Tempest”, Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 42-69, Folger Shakespeare Library. Willis D , D , 1989, “ Shakespeare's S hakespeare's Tempest and the Discourse of Colonialism ”, Studies in English Liturature, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 277 -289, viewed 30 August 2007, JSTOR. Vaughan A, 1988, “Shakespeare’s Indian: The Americanization of Caliban”, Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 137-153, viewed 2 September 2007, JSTOR. Hoyle J, 1977, “ The T he Tempest, the Joseph Story, and the Cannibals ”, Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 358 -362, viewed 2 September 2007, JSTOR.
