Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Shakespeare’s *The Tempest*, written around 1610-1611, emerged during a period of intense European exploration and colonization, particularly by England. The play’s setting – a remote island – and its characters – a European sorcerer, a native inhabitant, and a spirit – lend themselves to interpretations through the lens of colonialism. The relationships between Prospero, Caliban, and Ariel are often viewed as microcosms of the power imbalances inherent in colonial encounters. This essay will critically examine these relationships, exploring how they reflect, reinforce, or challenge the ideologies underpinning emerging European colonialism, considering the complexities of power, ownership, and the justification of domination.
The Colonial Context: Early Modern Expansion
The early 17th century witnessed England’s growing involvement in colonial ventures, particularly in the Americas. Companies like the East India Company were gaining influence, and debates surrounding the legitimacy of claiming and exploiting foreign lands were prevalent. Concepts of ‘terra nullius’ (nobody’s land) were used to justify colonization, despite the presence of indigenous populations. This context is crucial for understanding the allegorical weight of *The Tempest*.
Prospero and Caliban: The Colonizer and the Colonized
The relationship between Prospero and Caliban is arguably the most direct representation of the colonizer-colonized dynamic. Prospero arrives on the island and immediately asserts his dominance, enslaving Caliban despite Caliban’s prior inhabitation and claim to the land. Prospero teaches Caliban language, but uses this ‘civilizing’ act as a means of control. Caliban’s famous line, “You taught me language; and my profit on’t / Is, I know how to curse,” highlights the bitterness and resentment born from this imposed education.
However, the play complicates this simple binary. Caliban is portrayed as savage and prone to attempted rape (of Miranda), justifying Prospero’s control in the eyes of a Jacobean audience. This portrayal reflects the prevalent European stereotypes of indigenous populations as inherently inferior and needing to be ‘civilized’ – a justification used to legitimize colonial exploitation. Furthermore, Caliban’s willingness to serve Stephano and Trinculo, offering to become their servant in exchange for alcohol, can be interpreted as a critique of the colonized seeking alternative forms of subjugation rather than genuine liberation.
Prospero and Ariel: Master and Subjugated Spirit
The relationship between Prospero and Ariel differs significantly from that with Caliban. Ariel is a spirit, not a human, and Prospero ‘rescued’ him from Sycorax, Caliban’s mother. Ariel’s servitude is presented as a debt owed to Prospero, and while Ariel expresses a desire for freedom, he remains largely compliant. This relationship can be interpreted as representing the exploitation of indigenous labor through indentured servitude or other forms of coerced labor common in colonial contexts.
Ariel’s role as Prospero’s agent in carrying out his will – controlling the elements, spying on others – mirrors the role of colonial administrators and intermediaries. However, Ariel’s ethereal nature also allows for a more ambiguous interpretation. He is not entirely powerless, and his eventual release at the play’s end suggests a potential for liberation, unlike Caliban’s continued subjugation. The contrast between Ariel and Caliban highlights the different ways in which colonial powers interacted with and controlled various populations.
Comparing the Relationships: A Spectrum of Control
The relationships between Prospero and Caliban, and Prospero and Ariel, represent different facets of colonial control. Caliban embodies the land and the native population, subjected to direct domination and exploitation. Ariel represents a more subtle form of control, relying on obligation and the promise of eventual freedom.
| Character | Relationship to Prospero | Allegorical Representation | Nature of Control |
|---|---|---|---|
| Caliban | Enslaved; initially co-habitant, then subjugated | Colonized native population; the land itself | Direct domination, physical labor, dispossession |
| Ariel | Servant; rescued from Sycorax, bound by a pact | Indigenous labor; intermediaries; spiritual forces | Coerced service, obligation, manipulation |
Prospero himself can be seen as embodying the colonial power, wielding knowledge, magic (representing technology and power), and a sense of entitlement to control. His eventual renunciation of magic and decision to return to Milan can be interpreted as a critique of colonial ambition, but it is also a reaffirmation of European authority – he returns to reclaim his rightful place within the European power structure.
Conclusion
*The Tempest* offers a complex and ambiguous commentary on European colonialism. While the play reflects the prevalent ideologies of the time – the justification of domination through notions of civilization and the exploitation of labor – it also hints at the inherent injustices and potential for resistance. Shakespeare does not offer a straightforward condemnation of colonialism, but rather presents a nuanced exploration of its power dynamics, leaving the audience to grapple with the moral implications of imperial expansion. The enduring relevance of the play lies in its ability to provoke critical reflection on the legacies of colonialism and the ongoing struggles for liberation and self-determination.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.