Journeys to America                                                   

Prof. Bruce Harvey

THE TEMPEST: KEY PASSAGES AND THEMES FOR REVIEW

I.i.15

Gonzalo (is he wise or fatuous?), during storm, insists upon hierarchy.

I.ii.15

Prospero claims his primary interest is Miranda's future; but is she also a pawn in his power play to regain his Dukedom? 

I.ii.65

Prospero refers to his neglect of his station, which leads to his usurpation. 

I.ii.310

Prospero says he needs the labor of Caliban--literally so, or because Caliban's servitude mirrors an important self-image for Prospero? 

I.ii.330

Here and later Caliban responds with sensuous lyricism to nature on the island.  Does Prospero ever respond to nature similarly? 

I.ii.330

Caliban argues that he has been unjustly usurped; Miranda and Prospero reflect upon the nature/nuture theme in respect to Caliban.  If Caliban is innately bad/beastly, why should he be punished? 

II.i.45

Gonzalo et. al. debate whether the island is a pastoral refuge or raw wilderness. 

II.i.152

Gonzalo's speech: Without the corruptions of "civilization," perhaps we can regain Eden (no need for law, courts, hierarchies, etc.).  Can we be naturally virtuous (Miranda perhaps seems so)?  

II.ii.120

Caliban serves (or seems to) S. and T.--false masters, yet claims to be "free" in the song he sings.  Is liberty freedom from all constraint, or is true liberty not being held in bondage to our carnal/lower selves?  Through nurture, had Prospero mistakenly tried to liberate Caliban from his brutish nature?  Is Caliban, in fact, in control in this scene--shrewdly enticing T. and S. to murder his harsh master? 

III.i.50

Miranda's chastity emphasized--a symbol of self-restraint, which equals a higher form of liberty. 

IV.i.51

Prospero reminds Miranda and Ferdinand to restrain their passion. 

IV.i.139

Ariel arranges a ritualistic, pastoral pre-nuptial scene; but note how precarious the idyllic ritual is, since Prospero's recollection of Caliban's conspiracy interrupts it. 

IV.i.188

The foolish conspirators (Caliban et. al.) become ritualistic scapegoats--dragged through the muck, chased by spirit hounds.  The play increasingly takes on a fantastic, dream-like element: are all the episodes leading to Alonso's change of conscience and the restoration of Prospero's dukedom but a tissue of dreams?  Prospero ritualistically recreates/revisits the original trauma of usurpation, which to work requires a mix of control and anxiety (that is, real threat--thus why he forgets Caliban’s plot).  But to the extent that Prospero is the godlike puppet-master, we are no longer (if we ever were) in the realm of realpolitik, and so the conversions/ transformations in effect are merely “staged.”  We don't worry about what happens to Caliban: left on the island? or notice that Antonio (who never repents) remains silent and "off-stage" at the end. 

V.i.20

Prospero's rationality keeps his desire for vengeance in check, and he claims he is satisfied by his former antagonists' contrition.  But since he has manipulated them into repenting, can they be said to have done so out of free will?  Does Caliban's later confession of error seem sincere or politic (or, as a third option: does the play's drive towards thematic resolution and harmonious closure simply absorb and vanquish the rebellious voice of Caliban)?

V.i.182

Miranda, pure of heart, refers to "beauteous mankind" when she meets Alonso, Antonio, et. al.  Is she naive?

*******************************

The values of the right column below seem to be those that Shakespeare's culture would endorse.  A conservative interpretation of the play could be based on the deeply entrenched idea of social hierarchy in force in Shakespeare’s day (the still current theological-social notion of the Great Chain of Being) or on a satiric dramatic tradition going back to Roman plays that mocked grumpy/goofy servants or on a allegorical tradition that equated authority with good and rebellion with the bad. But note how a belief that one is rational, etc., also becomes an alibi for imperialism.  The Tempest may not be explicitly about colonialism, but it helps us understand the mind-set that justified colonial domination to the colonial powers.  Note, also, how a thematic or allegorical reading of the play (in which we align characters with fairly non-complex ethical or metaphysical principles) becomes problematic when we adopt or become sympathetic to Caliban's perspective. The Tempest simultaneously moves towards allegorical/ethical resolution (e.g., Caliban acknowledges he's been a brute and will now seek "grace") and more realistic irresolution (e.g., Antonio does not repent; Prospero forgives and vilifies him in the same two lines).  Another way of putting it: Shakespeare and his contemporaries were heavily into the pageantry and ritual of the state (remember, this play was performed before James I); yet also quite knowledgeable about the psychology and complexities of power.  Most thoughtful Renaissance folk believed that kings were divinely appointed (and that you shouldn't mess with the body politic)--and yet they also had the shrewd, cynical Machiavelli on their bookshelves. 

Oppositions articulated in the play:

fallen nature/ Caliban=                           Vespucci wild savage	art/culture/civilization/nurture
corrupt civilization	nature as ideal/ prelapsarian pastoral refuge (Miranda is pure)
body/unrestrained urges	carnal self restrained/ noble reason
resentful servitude/ false ruler	happy to serve/ just ruler
disobedience	obedience (Miranda, always!)
usurpation against hierarchy	hierarchy in place/ true liberty is to have a master that keeps impulse in check/ social rank = moral rank (God intends there to be rulers)

Wrap-up remarks: Pay attention in all our texts to what a work "officially" wants to say and what it may more subversively or against-the-grain say.  A good example of this is when Caliban seeks grace/forgiveness from Prospero (required for the official, allegorical message), but may be faking what Prospero wants to hear.  You will see the same pattern of "official" message versus more subtle possibilities when we read Mary Rowlandson in several.  The trick is not just to see literary works as being complex, but also as being potentially internally inconsistent (allegory vs. realistic representation) or exhibiting irreconcilable rhetorics.  A little bit of mess, the debris of reality, is a good thing in a great work of art!