Shakespeare on Global Colonialism
Katherine Frank

During the time that Shakespeare was writing The Tempest, the world around him was evolving and becoming much larger. This was in part due, to European exploration or exploitation, depending on your personal viewpoint, of other cultures outside of Europe. It is ludicrous to suggest that the effects of this “global colonization” that were being written about during Shakespeare’s time did not have any effect on his writing of the Tempest, or more specifically, the characterization of Caliban versus the Europeans that “invaded” the island that Caliban inhabited. In modern times, when screenwriters and playwrights are celebrities in their own right, and have their own money, it can be easy to forget that in Shakespearean times, things were much different.

The artists of this Shakespearean era were often, if not always, at the mercy of their royal or noble benefactors. With this in mind, I’d like to suggest that The Tempest was Shakespeare’s most overtly controversial and ingenious work. For example, Romeo and Juliet, and a Mid Summers Night Dream both portray a world that centers around court life, while only offering glimpses into the lives of the poor, when in reality, during that time, the rich were the minority.

The Tempest leads one to wonder just what Shakespeare would have written if he were not at the mercy of his benefactors. The play is a brilliant social commentary on the effects of colonialism, not only on the native peoples who were invaded and forced to convert to Christianity and other European practices, but also the effects it had on the conquerors themselves. Unlike so many other Shakespeare plays, the conquered peoples, represented by Caliban, take center stage and for the most part, Caliban is shown as a victim, rather than a buffoon who needs to be ruled over and deserves to be ridiculed. At the end of the play, Caliban is left alone on the island, and if that does not make a statement about colonialism, than I don’t know what would. Caliban’s comparison to the native was ignored in stage productions until the late 19th century, suggesting that the people in power knew just how controversial the play was. I’m surprised they allowed him to write it in the first place since it is filled with social commentary unfavorable to the ruling class.

When Shakespeare chose to include the scenes where Caliban is offered liquor by the Europeans and the ways in which Miranda and Prospero feel that they should be thanked for coming to the island and “teaching” Caliban he is making a statement about the so-called explorations / discoveries that were taking place all over the world at the time. If Shakespeare were trying to paint the Europeans as blameless, just as much of history has, he would not have included these disturbing scenes.

Paul Cefalu also takes this concept a bit further and suggests that Shakespeare was not only making a commentary on colonialism but also on the change from feudalism to capitalism that was occurring during this same time period. He states,
Obsessively reimagining and reinforcing master-servant relations, the play does not tolerate any unsubordinated relationship…The Tempest performs a bypass on diseased history, clearing from its path any masterless impediment that might halt seamless economic transformation. (Cefalu, 9)

Montaigne in his essay, Of Cannibals while at first glance is seemingly sympathetic with these natives, is a glaring example of how the whole concept of colonialism was portrayed to the public. The Europeans were painted as the “discoverers” when in reality, colonialism or discovery was really just another form of nationalism. You cannot discover something that has already had a population living on it for ages before you arrived. Budasz relates that, Cannibalism was always a fascinating subject to the European reader. It was constantly mentioned in reports of voyagers and in Jesuit letters. (Budasz, 2)

What is most interesting is that in many of these portrayals, these cannibals are portrayed as frightening creatures. Even when Montaigne and others of his time attempt to relate that there were reasons behind theses acts of cannibalism that did not relate to hunger, they chose to do so in such a manner that many readers did not gain a thorough understanding of the cultural importance of cannibalism to cannibalistic cultures, and the frightening sense of “otherness” is what stayed with them and fueled their fascination. Misconceptions about cannibalistic cultures still exist today.

Perhaps Montaigne himself says it best;
"…I find nothing barbarous and savage in this nation,…excepting, that every one gives the title of barbarism to everything that is not in use in his won country…we have no other level of truth and reason than the example and idea of the opinions and customs of the place wherein we live…"(Montaigne, 4)
Perhaps that is the real question and the real answer. Do we want to know the truth about the world around us that exists beyond our home country? For many, the answer would be no. Because, even in today’s modern era, the Americans and Europeans are still exploiting third-world nations for their own financial gain as they have done in the past and will continue to do well into the future.

I would like to suggest that Shakespeare’s, The Tempest and Montaigne’s; Of Cannibals paint a portrait of the cultural events occurring at the time. The two texts intertwine well together because the Caliban of The Tempest, is the image that many had of these “others” in far away lands that they only read about in books or heard in oral accounts. Montaigne tried to explain as best he could what he saw and his use of metaphor in relating cannibalism to European culture is nothing short of brilliant. What is disturbing is that if we look at both texts as being somewhat historical, we begin to ask ourselves, what has changed, what have we learned throughout the centuries? Unfortunatley, it seems like we’ve learned very little. World War 11, The Vietnam War, Pearl Harbor, the Japanese concentration camps, and the racial and social inequality that existed during Shakespeare’s time are still alive and well today.

 

Work Cited

Budasz, Rogerio. “Of Cannibals and the Recycling of Otherness.” Music and Letters. 87.1 (2006): 1-15.

Cefalu, Paul A. “Rethinking the Discourse of Colonialism in Economic Terms: Shakespeare’s The Tempest, Captain John Smith’s Virginia Narratives, and the English Response to Vagrancy.” Shakespeare Studies. 28 (2000): 85-119.

Doran, Geri. “POETRY – Caliban to the Lovers.” The Virginia Quarterly Review. 81.4 (2005): 115.

Loomba, Ania and Stephen Glaze. “BOOK REVIEWS – Shakespeare, Race, and Colonialism.” The Sixteenth Century Journal. 35.1 (2204): 258.

Montaigne, Michel de. “Of Cannibals.” Trans. Charles Cotton. 1580. Quotidiana. Ed. Patrick Madden.26 Dec 2006. 22 Oct 2009 http://essays.quotidiana.org/montaigne/cannibals/.

Shakespeare, William. “The Tempest.” The Necessary Shakespeare, Third Edition. Ed. David Bevington Pearson Education, Inc. 2009.845-878.

Schille, Candy B. K. ‘Man Hungry”: Reconsidering Threats to Colonial and Patriarchal Order in Dryden and Davenant’s The Tempest.” Texas Studies in Literature and Language. 48.4 (2006) 273-290.

Schneider, Ben Ross, Jr. “Are we Being Historical Yet?”: Colonialist Interpretations of Shakespeare’s Tempest.” Shakespeare Studies. 23 (1995): 120-45.