To what extent does 'The Tempest' support the 17th century belief that civilised man is superior to natural man?

Ben Vertannes 4V August 2002

To what extent does ‘The Tempest’ support the 17th century belief that civilised man is superior to natural man?

Generally acknowledged as one of Shakespeare’s final plays, ‘The Tempest’ may be described as a romantic tragi-comedy - where love and contentment prosper despite the threatening presence of evil forces. However, beyond the almost ‘fairy-tale’ like exterior lies a seemingly direct approach to a greatly topical debate at the time. This was the supposed contrast between civilised and uncivilised persons, brought to the fore as a result of recent expeditions overseas. Although pioneering voyages of discovery were not a recent commodity since the travels of Christopher Columbus, almost a century earlier, it wasn’t until the early sixteen hundreds that such voyages became more common and with an intent not just to discover new land, but to claim it for the traveller’s own country. For example, just four years before the opening performance of ‘The Tempest’ (1611), the first English settlement was established in Virginia, America and named after the reigning monarch, James I. This process, later termed as colonisation, clearly provoked much thought and consideration on behalf of Shakespeare. His play’s remote island setting, previously inhabited by a single native and now amok with men of supposedly more civilised nature, was a suitable compendium with which the playwright could explore his fascination and consider the popular beliefs of the time. Some may argue that Shakespeare’s immense personal interest in the subject is demonstrated by the apparent mirroring of both events overseas and contemporary viewpoints in the play. The title, from the Latin tempestus meaning storm, may have been derived from an incident off the island Barbados, one year previous, where a particularly violent storm shipwrecked a crew of colonists who were fortunate to survive and flee the island after a short while. Furthermore, it would appear that Shakespeare was also inspired to explore the intricate relationship between ‘natural man’ and ‘civilised man’ as a result of a range of popular contemporary theories. Advocates of civilised man, customarily supporters of colonialism, presented natives of newly discovered land as savage, intemperate and brutal in contrast to the alleged nobility and self-control of themselves. Such a view was demonstrated by the theorist Sandy in his essay, ‘Nature is Vile’. On the other hand, contemporaries such as Rousseau and Montaigne opposed this viewpoint. Montaigne’s essay ‘Des Cannibales’, which discussed the value of societies unaffected by civilisation, was evidently familiar to Shakespeare who echoed the Frenchman’s phrases extensively throughout the play. Hence, we can assume that foreign affairs and popular contemporary theories in the seventeenth century inspired Shakespeare to explore the notion that civilisation was superior to nature, and possibly contend this in his play.

In fact, our very understanding of the play, and in particular its characters, relies upon the awareness of popular European attitudes from the seventeenth century. Shakespeare named and described his cast most particularly, as if to ensure that his audience would instantly recognise the background of each individual. Spectators would therefore presume that Caliban, possibly an anagram of cannibal and depicted as a hideous and deformed slave, was the native of the island. While, in contrast, the character of Ferdinand is essentially the clichéd handsome prince. This may imply that Shakespeare was keen to address the belief that your appearance is an accurate reflection of your true character, an outlook favoured by those of civilised upbringing and colonists alike.

In essence, Shakespeare contemplates the concept of natural man against civilised man throughout all aspects of his play. References in the text are abundant and I hope to explore a selection of these below. This may expose not only the desire of the playwright to create controversy, but also his own opinion on the subject matter.

This is a preview of the whole essay

When considering this issue, we are immediately drawn to the character Caliban. He is first introduced to the play as the slave of Prospero, usurped Duke of Milan, and his daughter Miranda. Seventeenth century tradition would dictate that Prospero, as the superior civilised being, had every right to claim authority over the native islander. In this way, Caliban’s first appearance on stage would not have proved contentious to Shakespeare’s audience. His first dialogue is threatening and malevolent, yet again expected by spectators of the play:

“A south-west blow on ye

And blister you all o’er!”

We then learn that in spite of the savage’s menacing presence, Prospero did not originally intend to enslave the native upon first arriving on the island shores. He reminds Caliban that he taught him their language and even ‘lodg’d thee in mine own cell’. In fact, their companionship was only altered as a result of Caliban attempt to rid Miranda of her chasteness. The playwright then furthers any distaste already directed at Caliban by emphasizing his unwillingness to apologise, even after discovering that his actions were highly unsuitable for society:

“O ho, O ho! Would’t had been done.

Thou didst prevent me; I had peopl’d else

This isle with Calibans.”

Consequently, upon first meeting the character of Caliban, we can only assume that Shakespeare is endeavouring to uphold the cruel and unpleasant representation of ‘natural man’. Moreover, the viciousness of Caliban surpasses all others in the play. We are presented with numerous examples throughout the plot. In Act three, after enlisting the aid of Trinculo and Stephano to aid him in his quest to kill Prospero, he is mocked by one of his master’s spirits, Ariel. However, the native mistakenly believes Trinculo to be behind his ridicule and exclaims “Bite him to death, I prithee”. Furthermore, when discussing potential ways of disposing of Prospero, Caliban suggests “driving a nail through his head”. In this way, the native could exact an unpleasant revenge on his master for twelve years of imprisonment

In this circumstance, Shakespeare not only reveals Caliban’s spiteful persona but also an inability on his behalf to forgive. We have already learnt that the attempted rape of Miranda passed without an apology, and now we discover that the slave would rather ensure an agonising death for Prospero than show pardon. This is in great contrast to the characters of Alonso and, indeed, Prospero. Once reminded of his deceitful conspiracy to exile the Duke of Milan, Alonso instantly expresses sincere and sorrowful apologies:

“Thy dukedom I resign, and do entreat

Thou Pardon me my wrongs.”

In response, Prospero is willing to absolve all crimes against him, rather than exact revenge:

“I do forgive

Thy rankest fault – all of them.”

An audience would certainly have noted the disparity between the civilised character’s keenness to reconcile and Caliban’s stubborn refusal to do so.

Further evidence supporting the claim of civilised man’s superiority over natural man is to be found in the character Ferdinand. Son of King Alonso, Ferdinand is heir to the throne of Naples. Throughout the tale, he is portrayed as handsome, honourable and courageous. His appearance impresses Miranda to the extent that she mistakes him for one of her father’s spirits, quite contrary to the deformed, grotesque form of Caliban:

“I might call him

A thing divine.”

Essentially, Ferdinand boasts a great number of the qualities expected of the perfect man. In addition, when he is obliged to carry out menial tasks for Prospero, he performs them without complaint. Whereas Caliban is indignant and offensive, Ferdinand is willing to undergo such demeaning services, not expected of a Prince, all for the love of Miranda. In fact, so profound is his adoration for her that he appears keen to renounce his right to the throne to stay on the island with his beloved:

“Let me live here ever;”

This demonstrates Ferdinand being free of the corruption encircling his fellow civilised travellers. The pursuit of kingship and wealth inspired many of those on the island to commit heinous acts, yet love prevails in the heart of Ferdinand. His admiration is gentle and protective. When Miranda offers to help with his tasks, he response is “No, precious creature”. The character of Ferdinand is of the utmost wholesomeness and portrayed by the playwright as not simply superior to the natural man, but also to a great many of his fellow Europeans.

Although one might presume that the above details ascertain Shakespeare’s eagerness to convey ‘natural man’ as significantly weaker than ‘civilised man’, there are various aspects of the play, not yet considered, which may prove a rather different outlook.

We have already discussed the disparaging image of Caliban, yet not his role as an exploited and maltreated individual. To begin with, Prospero’s initial good treatment of the savage was not unreciprocated. Caliban welcomed the stranger onto his island and offered to help as best he could:

“and then I lov’d thee,

And show’d thee all the qualities o’ th’ isle,”

Yet this was not to endure. As already noted, Caliban was to be banished from Prospero’s cell for good after his advances on the exiled Duke’s daughter. However, the attempted rape of Miranda would only have seemed natural to Caliban in order to ensure the survival of his race. Although such an act cannot be encouraged, it was wrong of Prospero to assume so readily the immorality of Caliban. As a consequence, the native of the island was enslaved – forced against his will to perform hard labour for his master. With no incentive to continue the work, such as Ferdinand held in Miranda, it is unsurprising that our first impression of Caliban is of a foul-mouthed and resentful being. We must also be aware that Prospero would not hold any power over Caliban were it not for his command of magic. Perhaps Shakespeare is stating that as simple human beings, ‘civilised man’ has neither right nor ability to dominate ‘natural man’. This right is even brought into question as a result of the very first scene. Here, the Boatswain of the ship attempts to calm and control the royal party on board. However, we soon became aware of the traveller’s distinct hatred of being told what to do. They become as abusive and unruly towards the Boatswain as Caliban was to Prospero:

“Hang, cur; hang, you whoreson,”

This palpable hypocrisy is most possibly an attempt by Shakespeare to justify Caliban’s behaviour, in that ‘civilised man’ would act no differently whilst under the leadership of another.

Yet, despite this, there are further references to the manipulation of Caliban. Although intended for comical purposes, Trinculo and Stephano, two of King Alonso’s staff, stumble upon the native cowering from one of his master’s spirits. After a brief discussion, Caliban pronounces Stephano as his new master due to the wine he possess. After falling to the “Celestial liquid”, Caliban informs the two drunkards of Prospero and Miranda. They see killing Prospero as a chance to bed Miranda and take control of the isle, bringing into question whether they are any better than Caliban. Their motive for murder is one of lust and power, whereas Caliban hopes only to rule the island rightfully his. As they journey to perform the task, Caliban is dehumanised and insulted by the pair regularly. He is labelled a monster and it is even suggested that he travel to England where Trinculo may parade him in a freak show:

“Were I in England

now…and had but this fish painted, not

a holiday fool there but would give a peace of silver.”

Such an act was commonplace among colonists who would display natives of newly discovered land for the public to stare in amazement at. This certainly implies that Shakespeare vehemently disagrees with the attitude of colonists towards natives. It is a theme echoed in Montaigne’s essay:

“…miserable men suffer themselves

to be deluded by novelty.”

Shakespeare continues this point by unveiling an artistic and poetic side to Caliban, rather than one of viciousness and brutality. We frequently encounter him in mid-song or listening acutely to the “sounds of the island”. Shakespeare implies that there is often more to a character than at first appears, in disagreement with the popular seventeenth century belief that our appearance determines our manner:

“The isle is full of noises,

Sounds, and sweet airs, that give delight,”

A further indication that ‘The Tempest’ condemns civilised man is evident in the characters of Antonio and Sebastian. We are already aware that, embroiled in a lust for power, the brother of Prospero schemed to overthrow the Duke of Milan. Had it not been for the kindliness of Gonzalo, the former Duke and his daughter would have drowned at sea. Yet Antonio is not content with merely the one deed. Once on the island he convinces Sebastian to take the throne of Naples for himself, by slaying Alonso:

“My strong imagination sees a crown

Dropping upon thy head”.

In return, Antonio will no longer be required to pay a debt to Alonso who aided him in his quest to oust Prospero. The underhandedness of such a proposal is substantiated when Sebastian inquires with reference to Antonio’s conscience. He is met with the reply, “Where lies that”?. Such dishonesty and disregard for loyalty is not a beneficial promotion for ‘civilised man’. They both refuse to apologise or even accept Prospero’s forgiveness at the end of the play, and this is emblematic of their immorality.

The character of Gonzalo is also intriguing. Although not as prominent in the play as many others, his role is nevertheless vital. We soon learn that it was he who ensured the safety of Prospero and Miranda, and even supplied them with clothes, books and essential belongings. Therefore we would assume that he is but a worthy representation of ‘civilised man’. However, once shipwrecked, Gonzalo begins to describe his ‘ideal commonwealth’. This speech details a simple land with

minimal surroundings. In fact, his utopia derives almost exactly from sections of Montaigne’s essay. Gonzalo describes a community where all men would be idle, occupations would not exist, magistrates and letters forbidden and trade abandoned. Much of the speech is ironic, particularly where it is mentioned that no violence or weapons would be permitted:

“Sword, pike, knife, gun,

…Would I not have.”

A matter of minutes after this had been spoken, Antonio and Sebastian almost succeed in killing both Alonso and Gonzalo. Shakespeare may be implying that no man of corrupt civilised nature could adhere to Gonzalo’s charter, even in the most tranquil of surroundings. This passage is a poignant vision in favour of an untouched natural world, and although there are suggestions that it could never remain that way, the speech is a strong indication that Shakespeare wrote in order to persuade his audience of the benefits in the ‘uncivilised’ lands.

To determine whether or not Shakespeare was in support of the seventeenth century belief that civilised man was superior to natural man, we must also consider the role of Miranda more carefully. Her name, meaning to be admired, is a clear inclination of Shakespeare’s intention. She first displays compassion for those on the ship during the storm and this endears throughout the play, along with love and kindness. She does demonstrates a sense of naivety when she proclaims, “How beauteous mankind is!”, upon first meeting the civilised strangers. This is further emphasized whilst playing chess, a game symbolic of the conflict between civilised beings, where she is shocked to see that Ferdinand may be cheating. To her, this is not natural. Yet, Miranda is the ‘perfect creature’, incorrupt, moral and able to display all emotions. However, she cannot be termed as either civilised or as a native of the island. This is imperative as it may imply that, as the complete character, Miranda has lived in the ideal fashion.

The conclusion to the ‘Tempest’ does not encourage the reader to consider the future, but rather reflect on the past events. Although various conclusions may be drawn, I believe that Shakespeare did not intend to prove whether a civilised or natural existence was superior, but rather to stress the importance of the ‘natural world’ in an ideal way of life. Miranda has been brought up among civilised clothes and books, under the tutorage of her father. However, this occurred in natural surroundings, an island free of all distractions like the kind detailed by Montaigne. She is a perfect character, and this is possibly why. In addition, I feel that Shakespeare believed so strongly in the preservation of the ‘natural world’ that he attempted to evoke sympathy for the character Caliban. Today, we find the ability to pity characters similar to Caliban far more easily. After such events as the Holocaust, we understand the dangers of persecution. By provoking sympathy for Caliban, who is by no means an ideal creature, Shakespeare may be hoping that the natural world will be left alone, rather than destroyed and corrupted.

Bibliography: