This raises yet another problem faced by rulers, specifically Gonzalo; of how much trust you can give your subjects or more appropriately those who are next in line to the throne? This idea of trust was raised in Act 1 Scene 2, where Prospero is explaining to Miranda the reasons behind his usurpation, “in my false brother/ Awaked an evil nature; and my trust like a good parent, did beget of him / A falsehood, in its contrary as great/ As my trust was- which had indeed no limit,” the repetition of the word ‘trust’ illustrates the important of the theme to the overall play and emphasises the importance of trust to Prospero and indeed all rulers. This idea is further developed in Act 2, scene1 where, as previously mentioned Sebastian and Antonio attempt to kill Gonzalo in his sleep. Illustrating the disloyal nature of those individuals close to those in power. This is of course the main reason why Prospero is on the island because of his trusting and naive nature, of those around him.
This theme is explored in numerous Shakespearian dramas and is perhaps the worst danger for a monarch in Shakespeare’s plays. Good rulers get deposed and killed when they are too trusting; when they fail to be aware of usurpers and betrayers. Hamlet's father is shocked that his brother would unnaturally murder him. Lear believes his inherent kingship will inspire reverence even when he strips himself of real power. Edgar, who with tragic naivety trusts his brother Edmund, has to learn to deceive and dissemble before he's qualified to become king. Duncan can't find "the mind's construction in the face", so he's killed by a traitor with a false face. That's why Malcolm, before he becomes king, has to demonstrate his ability to lie to Macduff, to test whether he's telling the truth.
This closely relates to the difficulty of dealing with people who have a fixed nature. This idea is dealt with throughout the play and is a constant problem faced by the character of Prospero. How does a ruler relate to or try to understand, in order to deal with, those individuals who possess very little understanding of morals, remorse or learning from previous behaviour, that is to say, they lack the ability to change?
There are many examples of this during the play. Antonio and Sebastian being the best example of characters with a fixed nature. They both attempt to kill Gonzalo in order to gain the dukedom and neither show any sign of guilt for their actions. They certainly have not learnt their lesson or shown any remorse for their previous behaviour in collaborating to usurp Prospero. They both seem to possess predisposed attitudes and values. With this in mind, how does a ruler specifically those ruler’s who have the ideology of Prospero, deal with immoral individuals with the intention of teaching them a lesson?
In addition, neither Stephano or Trinculo display any sign of guilt in their behaviour specifically the enslavement of Caliban. They refer to him as a ‘monster” and a “strange beast” and treat him as a freak, purely for their own entertainment. One could argue that it is Caliban’s fixed nature (i.e. to be a slave) and therefore neither Stephano or Trinculo force him to be their servant. This does, however, raise the issue of the difficulty faced by a ruler of dealing with completely immoral individuals.
All ruler’s or people in authority are faced with the problem of how to treat and control their servant or those under their power. Act 2, Scene 2 presents the issue of how to treat those slaves or servants who even with the threat of punishment continue to misbehave. Caliban is a perfect example of a character, who will continue to behave as he wishes because he never learns from his mistakes. He knows that by cursing Prospero he will be punished “And yet I needs must curse.” This raises the problem of how to rule a slave, who lacks the ability to behave in a socially desirable and moral way. Do you treat them as a slave or do you attempt to educate them? Prospero has tried to teach Caliban to be a civilised human being, but as is his fixed nature he, “seeks to violate the honour” of Prospero by trying to rape Miranda.
This closely relates to the idea previously raised of trust. How can a ruler trust their slaves, especially those like Caliban who have a predisposed nature to be enslaved? And will therefore change alliance at their whim Caliban confirms this, “I’ll kiss thy foot; I’ll swear myself they subject.” This is seen when Caliban submits to Stephano and Trinculo, the two drunkards. Caliban proves Prospero's view of him, as a natural servant, to be true, when he immediately adopts Stephano as his new master upon Stephano's sudden appearance. Caliban, as a native, is seen as a "monster," and therefore a slave not only by Prospero, but by Trinculo and Stephano also. He submits for two reasons: first, they are an alternative to his current master and second, they have alcohol. Caliban gives his only power, knowledge of the island, as a pledge to his new masters. His hope is that by exchanging masters, he will be able to better his life. This continues the idea of trust and the problems faced by those ruler’s such as Prospero who have slaves who have an inherit need to be incarcerated by a ruler, but unfortunately by any ruler at all and are therefore not faithful.
In conclusion, Act 2 reveals the difficulties faced by ruler’s such as Prospero, through cleverly interwoven narrative threads which are developed gradually throughout the play. This is especially true of the themes of trust and the fixed natures of characters, which both pose a problem for those in power. Prospero of course has the added dilemma of possessing supernatural powers which brings with it additional problems when placed in the role a ruler.
