This article is Salma Naciri’s graduation project completed under Başak Ağın’s supervision at TED University, Department of English Language and Literature, during the Spring 2024 semester. Click here for the Turkish version.
- Introduction
In his letter to his brothers, John Keats says, “What quality went to form a Man of Achievement, especially in Literature, and which Shakespeare possessed so enormously – I mean Negative Capability, that is when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason” (Keats n.p). This implies that William Shakespeare’s stances on matters such as good and evil are never absolute. He neither entirely victimizes nor vilifies any character. Hence, the characters of his plays are not stereotypical as they do not represent fixed ideas. The events of a play do not carry direct ideological messages with a preachy tone. This is why, Shakespearean plays lend themselves to interpretations that insinuate multiple meanings, rather than pointing out whether an action is moral or not. This negative capability is what inspires my paper, which will deal with Shakespeare’s The Tempest (1611), from environmental and postcolonial perspectives. For this purpose, I will analyse Shakespeare’s play as a means to discuss such concepts as anthropocentrism, agency, ecophobia, speciesism, and ecological imperialism, which inherently culminate in postcolonial ecocriticism. I argue that The Tempest emphasizes the repercussions of colonial endeavours on humans, living beings and nature, through delineating the violent relationships that arise from conflicts, and the risks of controlling the environment. Before delving into the details of the play, however, some important concepts need to be clarified for the purposes of the thesis.
- Key Concepts
- Anthropocentrism
This paper deals with many concepts that revolve around the notion of anthropocentrism, which is a very important term in ecocritical studies. John Seed, an Australian environmentalist, defines it as such:
“Anthropocentrism” means human chauvinism. Similar to sexism, but substitute “human race” for “man” and “all other species” for “woman.” Human chauvinism, the idea that humans are the crown of creation, the source of all value, the measure of all things, is deeply embedded in our culture and consciousness. (n.p.)
Indeed, anthropocentric views can be seen in social values, beliefs, policies, and literature. For instance, the belief that Earth is a place for human salvation finds its root in many religions and mythologies. This establishes ideas such as the Great Chain of Beings, which originates from philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, and Plotinus.[1] Religions enforced this hierarchy, and then it gained momentum in the Renaissance. In his “Anthropocentrism: A Modern Version” (1975), William Murdy states that “the idea that nature was created to benefit man was a popular belief throughout Western history and still very much alive in the 19th century” (1168). Thus, anthropocentrism is the human-centred worldview that influenced philosophy and shaped politics.
- Normative Agency and Nonhuman Agency
The concept of agency is vital to my study, as I examine how agency is taken away in colonial processes and how this manifests in the play. Agency, in its normative forms, has long been linked to human intentionality in both social sciences and the humanities, which often take the human as its central study point. Many scholars consider humans as the only beings capable of agency because they possess key qualities such as intention, rationality, and language. To illustrate, the Enlightenment philosophy is built on the idea of human superiority and uniqueness thanks to rationality. The French philosopher René Descartes laid the groundwork for this philosophy. In his 1637 Discourse on the Method, Descartes establishes the hierarchy between humans and animals, based on rationality. He declares: “It is very incredible that the most perfect ape or parrot of its species, should not in this be equal to the most stupid infant of its kind or at least to one that was crackbrained” (Descartes 39). He also discusses other qualities that make humans special. Descartes is famous for equating animals with machines, which he used as a justification for his experiments. For instance, he claims that “. . . we ought not to confound speech with the natural movements which indicate the passions, and can be imitated by machines as well as manifested by animals” (Descartes 39). Therefore, Descartes argued that humans are subjects, while animals are objects. On the other hand, recent scholarship on environmental humanities, which takes other-than-human forms into account unlike the conventional humanities, refutes these ideas, especially in works on new materialism, which is a school of thought that has altered and broadened the concept of agency into a more-than-human term. For example, in their introduction to the volume New Materialisms (2010), Diana Coole and Samantha Frost come forth with a new understanding of subjectivity and agency, which deviates from the conventional thinking, based on a new perception of matter and its role in the ecosystem:
There is increasing agreement here that all bodies, including those of animals (and perhaps certain machines, too), evince certain capacities for agency. As a consequence, the human species, and the qualities of self-reflection, self-awareness, and rationality traditionally used to distinguish it from the rest of nature, may now seem little more than contingent and provisional forms or processes within a broader evolutionary or cosmic productivity. (Coole and Frost 20)
As a result, in new materialist thinking, agency is extended beyond the realm of humans to include other beings, whether living or non-living. These thinkers believe that nonhumans can be agentic, even if they do not possess so-called human qualities of reason and speech, as long as they are able to contribute to the chain of causality in the environment.
- Speech and Agency
For the purposes of this paper, I will focus on the importance of speech in relation to agency. Descartes creates a link between human speech, reason, and subjectivity. Yet, some contemporary scholars of the environmental humanities, especially those who focus on critical animal studies, criticise this view. For instance, in her book Animal (2002), Erica Fudge discusses the influence of Descartes’ ideas on language and animal research. She questions the method of such research and asks: “. . . Our inbuilt superiority that persists in much of the language research. Why is it that our language is primary? Why not attempt communication in the other direction. If we are so superior, surely we should be able to speak ape?” (Fudge 128). Thus, the association between agency and speech (especially human language) is broken down, which supports the arguments of new materialists about agency being independent of speech and dependent on action (or the capability to change the course of events).
- Ecophobia
According to David Sobel’s Beyond Ecophobia (2019), ecophobia is “a fear of ecological problems and the natural world. Fear of oil spills, rainforest destruction, whale hunting, acid rain, the ozone hole, and Lyme disease. Fear of just being outside” (1). Yet, in this paper, I will adopt the definition of Simon C. Estok, who is an ecocritic as well as a Shakespeare scholar. In his book Ecocriticism and Shakespeare (2011), Estok states that ecophobia can be defined as “an irrational and groundless fear or hatred of the natural world, as present and subtle in our daily lives and literature as homophobia and racism and sexism” (4). Hence, ecophobia is about a certain perception of nature, which allows the human hostile attitude towards the environment, and the attempt to dominate it.
- Speciesism
Speciesism is defined, according to Britannica website, as the following: “Speciesism, in applied ethics and the philosophy of animal rights, the practice of treating members of one species as morally more important than members of other species; also, the belief that this practice is justified” (Duignan n.p.). This definition is primary, but there are elaborate definitions of speciesism, especially in comparison to racism and sexism. For instance, in his book Animal Rites (2003), Cary Wolfe notes that speciesism “suggests (like its models racism, sexism, and so on) not only a logical or linguistic structure that marginalizes and objectifies the other solely based on species, but also a whole network of material practices” (101). In either case, speciesism denotes the judgments of other beings based on difference in species and the presupposition that humans possess intrinsic qualities that make them superior. It also leads to the assumption that the human race species has authority over nature and other species.
- Ecological Imperialism
The term ecological imperialism was introduced by Alfred Crosby in his book Ecological Imperialism (1986). According to the book Postcolonial Ecocriticism (2006) by Graham Huggan and Helen Tiffin, Crosby’s ecological imperialism “ranges in implication and intensity from the violent appropriation of indigenous land to the ill-considered introduction of non-domestic livestock and European agricultural practices” (3). On the other hand, Huggan and Tiffin also suggest:
One characteristically broad understanding of ecological imperialism is that of the Australian ecofeminist Val Plumwood (2001), who links her philosophical attack on the dualistic thinking that continues to structure human attitudes to the environment to the masculinist, ‘reason-centred culture’ that once helped secure and sustain European imperial dominance but now proves ruinous in the face of mass extinction and the fast-approaching ‘biophysical limits of the planet’. (3–4)
Thus, ecological imperialism is about the impact of colonial immigration on human and nonhuman indigenous beings. It emphasizes that colonialism did not only affect human lives but also nonhumans and non-living entities. It highlights the impact of colonial voyages on the environment, as they disrupted the balance of nature. Along with this, the concept of ecological imperialism delineates the direct as well as indirect ways in which colonialism dominated newly-found lands. For example, spreading new diseases among indigenous human and nonhuman communities may have happened inadvertently, but it still led to the extinction of some species. Therefore, the repercussion of colonial policies harm the whole ecosystem and create a distorted environment.
- Analysis of The Tempest
The Tempest offers a commentary on the conquests and discoveries that were becoming increasingly popular at its time. The play deals with political themes that reflect its historical context. It was written around a time when journeys from England to America, especially Virginia were taking place. The story of the play bears remarkable similarities to the voyages of explorers in the Renaissance period. It borrows many elements from the image of those trips in the collective European mind of the period, such as the shipwreck, the ambiguous geographical setting, and the association of newly found lands with magic and savagery. Throughout the text, there are hints that refer to the trips of English explorers to new destinations, especially in the American continent. Indeed, historians found similarities between the text of the play and historical manuscripts written by English explorers in the Renaissance period. These similarities manifest in the events that take place in the play such as the storm and shipwreck, as well as in the certain linguistic and word choices. For example, the play mentions Bermuda and a god worshipped by Native Americans. Caliban mentions the god Setebos, and compares Prospero to him: “His art is of such power, / It would control my dam’s god Setebos” (Shakespeare 1.2.367–368). Ariel also mentions Bermuda, then known as “Bermoothes”: “Thou call’dst me up at midnight to fetch dew / From the still-vexed Bermoothes” (Shakespeare 1.2.246–247). Thus, these details prove that Shakespeare may have read the manuscripts written by voyagers of the time. In his article “The Tempest and the New World” (1979), Charles Frey explains: “Edmund Malone argued that Shakespeare derived the title and some of the play’s incidents from accounts of a storm and shipwreck experienced by Sir Thomas Gates and other Jamestown colonists on the Bermuda island in 1609” (29). He also adds that “there is good reason to believe that Shakespeare had read or heard of Magellan’s encounter with the Patagonanians who worshipped Setebos” (Frey 33). Therefore, the play reflects the common knowledge of its time, and it delineates the shift in English awareness and perception of the new world, which was the result of the voyages. This information is crucial since it proves that the play cannot be read outside of its early colonial context. It might be set in an imaginary setting and it is sometimes performed as a solely magical play. Yet it is very political, as it mirrors the unfolding colonial process at the time.
However, the play transcends a merely descriptive role as it hints at the anxieties about the possible outcome of the discoveries. In “Discourse and the Individual” (1989), Meredith Anne Skura declares in defence of the work that, “if the play is ‘colonialist,’ it must be seen as ‘prophetic’ rather than descriptive” (58). Indeed, The Tempest emphasizes the problematic aspects of discovery and conquest as it points out the conflicts and violence that ensues because of a power struggle over land and property. To put this somewhat differently, while the play does show the adventurous side of the exciting prospect of finding a new land, it also sheds light on the other side of the coin by highlighting the clash of interests between Prospero and Caliban. It is this second aspect of the play that constructs the main arguments of this paper, reflecting on the power struggle over possession of land and nature and attitudes towards the nonhuman.
Accordingly, the characterization of both characters Prospero and Caliban as well as their interaction and conversations with one another reveal the nature of their conflict. Both of them claim to have the right to rule the island. On one hand, Caliban views himself as the rightful owner of the island as he inherited it from his mother, like a property. Caliban exclaims, “This island’s mine, by Sycorax my mother” (Shakespeare 1.1.333). On the other hand, Prospero sees himself as the only legitimate owner of the island and its creatures because he conquered it after the death of the previous ruler Sycorax. To illustrate, at the end of the play, when Prospero plans to leave, he still views the island as his, and even Caliban as his: “…This thing of darkness I / Acknowledge mine” (Shakespeare 5.1.277–278). Thus, from the beginning of the play, the main conflict is revealed. This conflict stirs up a chain of aggression and hatred, as it revolves around the ownership of nature and land. In other words, nature is seen by both Caliban and Prospero as an object to possess, from the moment they set foot in it. If we are to consider Caliban human, then we can say that both Caliban and Prospero perceive nature through anthropocentric lenses. They both seek to acquire land and exert their full control over it. They see themselves as the centre of the world because of their human or living qualities, and they see the island as a non-agentic body that needs either of them to rule it. This raises the issue of agency and how characters in the play act according to their views on it.
As can be seen from the discussions in Sections 2.2 and 2.2.1 of the paper on agency, Western scholarship considers humans superior, for it is their rationality that makes them agentic. That is why, they have the right to dominate other beings and parts of the ecosystem. Other “bodies,” however, are considered irrational and so inferior. Other beings’ lack of rational thinking makes them disqualify as “equals” to humans. On top of this, they are seen as property of the human. They do not think, so they have no intention, and hence no agency. As a result, humans can use them, in whatever way they choose. This reasoning is what makes Prospero view himself as the owner of everything. He deems everything on the island, living and non-living as his rightful property, including the island itself, Caliban, and Ariel. He is an upstanding man with magical powers and knowledge, so he has agency. He does not question the legitimacy of his power since he is the only one that can have it, as he is the upright rational and agentic man. Although he is aware that the island has powers, he sees them as his to regulate. Therefore, Prospero never questions his authority over the island’s natural landscape. For instance, this attitude can be seen in his tone and word choice when he addresses Ariel:
Thou, and thy meaner fellows, your last service
Did worthily perform. And I must use you
In such another trick. Go bring the rabble
(O’er whom I give thee power) here to this place.
Incite them to quick motion, for I must
Bestow upon the eyes of this young couple
Some vanity of mine art. (Shakespeare 4.1. 35–41)
Thus, when spirits do his bidding, Prospero gives credit to himself. He revels in his own power of controlling nature. In other words, he sees himself as the centre of the “ecosystem” and the puppeteer of all the action of inferior beings.
As for Caliban, he is not so different. Prospero may not consider him a real human and a match for him, as his mother was. Yet, Caliban’s self-awareness leads him to think that he is as good as Prospero and so he too has the agency that qualifies him to possess the island. He views it as one would view an inherited object. He claims, “This island’s mine by Sycorax my mother” (Shakespeare 1.2. 332). For Caliban, he has the “human” qualities that Prospero has, and so he too can possess nature. For instance, he points out that Miranda taught him language: “You taught me language, and my profit on’t / Is, I know how to curse. The red plague rid you / For learning me your language!” (Shakespeare 1.2. 364–366). This linguistic ability is very crucial in terms of agency, language, and speech, which are directly associated with rationality and so with superiority and the right to rule, as discussed earlier. Stephen Greenblatt explains the power of Caliban’s curse, in his book Learning to Curse (1990):
Caliban’s retort might be taken as self-indictment: even with the gift of language, his nature is so debased that he can only learn to curse. But the lines refuse to mean this; what we experience instead is a sense of their devastating justness. Ugly, rude, savage, Caliban nevertheless achieves for an instant an absolute if intolerably bitter moral victory. (41)
By learning the human colonizer’s speech, Caliban proves that he too is capable of agency and exerting power. Hence, Caliban uses his master’s tools to rebel. On another note, Caliban did not only learn language from Prospero but also his values and thinking. He became like Prospero in his tendency to conquer nature: A tendency that his mother the witch Sycorax had before Prospero arrived at the island. Although, she is only mentioned a few times in the play, one can gather that she used her magic to control the creatures and elements of the island. This underlines that there is no difference between the European colonizer and the indigenous characters, in how they treat and perceive nature. Both see it as their playground and space to carry out their political intentions. This breaks the binary of colonizer/colonized by introducing nature as a space that is exploited by both. It also implies an innate tendency of humans (or human-like beings) to dominate other creatures such as animals and plants.
In the play, the similar interest of what the modern reader would classify as the colonizer and the colonized is what creates the power struggle between Prospero and Caliban. They both aspire to possess the island and its resources. In addition, Caliban’s indigeneity is indirectly questioned in the play, because his mother does not originate from the island. She is Algerian and in fact that in itself introduces colonial undertones to the play because of the Eurocentric view towards Africans, as there are also other instances where the play mentions Africans. For example, Sebastian criticizes his brother Alonso for his decision of marrying his daughter to an African prince: “That would not bless our Europe with your daughter, / But rather lose her to an African” (Shakespeare 2.1.119–120).This implies that Sebastian views Africans as inherently inferior. However, going back to Sycorax, who ruled the island, her being mentioned in the play serves as a reminder that Caliban himself is not indigenous to the island. This questions the legitimacy of his rule, which he claims and it puts him and Prospero on an equal footing in terms of their relation to the island. Both do not strictly belong to the island, and both seek to control it. Further, the play highlights how Prospero enslaves and tortures Caliban. The language that Shakespeare uses to describe the torture is very graphic and repulsive. For instance, Prospero threatens Caliban, “I’ll rack thee with old cramps / Fill all thy bones with aches, make thee roar” (Shakespeare 1.2.370–371). This word choice calls attention to the gruesome actions of Prospero, which repels the audience.
Similarly, Caliban tries to rape Miranda, Prospero’s daughter, in retaliation. His overt sexual and aggressive manner makes it hard for the audience to sympathize with him. Indeed, there are racist and speciesist implications in his characterization and portrayal. Yet, it seems that both Prospero and Caliban are not represented in a good light. This showcases how their conflict over the right to rule, make them act with monstrosity. Going back to my point that the play points out the consequences of conquest and discoveries. The portrayal of Prospero and Caliban shows how conquest leads to violent and atrocious clashes with the previous “owners” of the newly found lands. This violence starts a vicious circle that harms everyone, in the play Caliban is enslaved, and Miranda lives in fear. In other words, conquests create a reality of hatred that leaves no one safe.
Besides, the dynamics of relationships throughout the play reveal how colonialism works. This involves not only Prospero and Caliban but most of the characters as well. In fact, when Prospero arrives at the island, he does not only enslave Caliban, but he also enslaves Ariel, although in a subtler way. After rescuing Ariel[2] from Sycorax, Prospero uses it as his servant. Nonetheless, Ariel still has desire for liberty. However, when it demands it, Prospero threatens it, by saying: “If thou more murmur’st, I will rend an oak / And Peg thee in his knotty entails till / Thou has howled away twelve winters” (Shakespeare 1.2.295–297). This incident is significant for two reasons. First, it shows that even though Ariel, who is really indigenous to the island, is not tortured by Prospero, it still craves freedom. It seems exasperated with its constant servitude to Prospero, which could imply that grudge and fear lurk beneath its flattery of Prospero. This hints that there are incentives for a looming conflict between Ariel and Prospero although Prospero deters it by his threats. Hence, the relationship between Prospero and Ariel is not one of mutual trust but one of fear and enslavement. Caliban is not the only victim of Prospero’s conquest, because Ariel (although not tortured) is similarly deprived of free will and self-determination. It is also aware of this, which rings the bell for a possible conflict. Second, the dynamics between Prospero and Ariel delineate how Prospero views Ariel as a subordinate being whom he has every right to use. Prospero uses a similar language to the one he uses with Caliban when he is angry. He does not harm Ariel because he needs its obedience in his scheme of revenge. Yet, he sees it as a being with no agency. No matter how impressive its magical powers are, they are no match for Prospero’s rationality. Thus, like the island, Ariel is a property to be used in Prospero’s political plans. This reveals the speciesism in Prospero’s attitude, as defined earlier.
In the play, speciesism is manifested through the perception of Ariel, who has powers but its agency is taken away by Prospero, because Ariel is only a spirit. Prospero’s readiness to punish Ariel in cruel ways shows how Ariel’s service is actually slavery that entails total obedience. So Ariel is only seen as a joyful and lovely spirit as long as it does not demand any rights and it follows the rules. Ariel is like a lapdog despite its powers, and if it decides to start thinking for itself, it will be vilified and punished. This also connotes a hierarchy between humans and other forms of life, be they a witch, a spirit, or an animal or a plant. Just like the land itself, spirits also fall into the domain of the nonhuman, so they are easily dominated.
Speciesism is much clearer in the play in the representation of Caliban. The characterization of Caliban is infused with nuances of racism and speciesism merged together. Indeed, Caliban’s identity is very ambiguous. Miranda describes his nature: “But thy vile race, / Though thou dist learn, hat that in’t which / good natures / Could not abide to be with;” (Shakespeare 1.2. 358–361). Caliban is the son of an African witch, so he is not European. He is also not “human-looking,” possibly because of the common belief that witches had relations with devils. To illustrate, Skura explains that Caliban’s identity is highly ambivalent. She notes that whether he is a human of indigenous origins or a nonhuman demonic being is heavily debated among Shakespeare scholars, too:
There have been, for example, any number of interpretations of Caliban, including not only contemporary post-colonial versions in which Caliban is a Virginian Indian but also others in which Caliban is played as a black slave or as “missing link” (in a costume “half monkey, half coco-nut”). (Skura 47)
Therefore, Caliban’s identity and image remain confusing, which opens up discussions about the possible insinuations behind his pejorative portrayal. He is certainly inferior because of his identity, which suggests the nuances of racism and speciesism. He is not white and so he is dehumanized but he is also not really a full human or at least he is deformed, so he is an animal. Then, he is ridiculed for his nonhuman look because of speciesist thinking. Thus, the human— and especially the European—is the norm and the basis for superiority.
Either way, Caliban is certainly exotic. Trinculo suggests taking him back to Europe for a freak show: “Were I in England now (as once I was), and had but this fish! / painted, not a holiday fool there but would give a piece/ of silver. There would this monster make a man” (Shakespeare 2.2.27–29). Indeed, freak shows were part of colonialism as Africans and other indigenous people were deemed abnormal. Many scholars claim that the descriptive language, which Shakespeare uses for Caliban, is a proof that the play has colonial insinuations and perhaps a speciesist agenda. For example, in “This Thing of Darkness” (1994), Paul Brown delineates how certain details are added in the play, in order to label Caliban as the villainous other, such as Caliban’s sexuality and inability to govern the island. He suggests that “the other is here presented to legitimate the seizure of power by civility and to define by antithesis (rape) the proper course of civil courtship” (Brown 63). Greenblatt also describes the “othering” of Caliban: “Shakespeare does not shrink from the darkest European fantasies about the Wild Man; indeed he exaggerates them: Caliban is deformed, lecherous, evil-smelling, idle, treacherous” (41). However, I argue that Caliban in this play is given a voice from the beginning to defend himself and curse Prospero. He is certainly not an angel, nor does the play show him as a complete victim of oppression. Yet, he is not a villain either since his loneliness and legitimate anger with Prospero’s enslavement are emphasized. In fact, Caliban’s portrayal might carry some positive aspects as well. Skura also argues: “Shakespeare was first to show one of us mistreating a native, the first to represent the inside, the first to allow a native to complain onstage, and the first to make that New World encounter problematic enough to generate the current attention to the play” (58, italics in the original). Thus, the portrayal of Caliban reveals the nuances of racism and speciesism at work in the process of colonialism, rather than promoting them. He might be villainous, but he is given a space to justify his actions and the reader can sympathize with his pathetic state, under torture and enslavement. In this way, the play does not take a side in the conflict, but it holds a mirror up to the dark aspects of oppression and conquest.
Moreover, the portrayal of nature in The Tempest raises questions about ecophobic implications. Ecophobia in literary works can be seen in the language used to describe nature. It can also be found in the role nature plays in relation to human characters. The Tempest explores how humans and especially colonizers perceive the environment. Prospero develops his powers through controlling nature, and other characters such as Sebastian and Gonzalo express a desire to possess the island once they land in it. Gonzalo says: “Had I plantation of this isle, my lord–” (Shakespeare 2.1.140), and then he proceeds to describing a list of his fantasies on how to rule it. Nature is not seen by human characters as an active force but as a tool to be bent for one’s personal gain. Just like Caliban and Ariel, who lack agency as they are colonized, so does nature as its resources are exhausted by the white men, who deem it their pure property once they arrive on it. This infers that colonialism does not only enslave individuals but also the environment. This indicates the aspect of ecological imperialism, which I discussed earlier. Huggan and Tiffin highlight ecofeminist thinker Val Plumwood’s ideas on it:
Any historical analysis of practices and patterns of ecological imperialism, Plumwood insists, must return to this philosophical basis, acknowledging those forms of instrumental reason that view nature and the animal ‘other’ as being either external to human needs, and thus effectively dispensable, or as being in permanent service to them, and thus an endlessly replenishable resource. (4)
Consequently, the environment as well the body of the other are exhausted in colonial pursuits. Similarly, Prospero exploits Ariel, Caliban, other spirits and the land itself to achieve his political schemes. In line with Huggan and Tiffin’s discussions, the island in the play is considered to be “meaningful” only when it is populated with humans. Accordingly, Prospero considers the island unpopulated, after defeating Sycorax. He says: “Then was this island / (Save for the son that she did litter here, / A freckled whelp, hag-born) not honored with / A human shape” (Shakspeare 1.2. 282–284). Thus, nature is honored by human presence and it is almost empty when no walks in it, even though Ariel is a living being who is present in the island. This establishes the power hierarchy in the play, at the bottom of which lies nature as the island. According to Prospero, nature needs to be tamed and graced by human presence.
The Tempest reflects its environmental context, in the same manner that it reflects the political one. Namely, the play uses its context as an inspiration for events, and then it adds nuanced commentary to it. In her book Shakespeare’s Representation of Weather, Climate and Environment (2018), Sophie Chiari explains that “the first performance we know of took place on Hallowmas night, 1611, a particularly wet year according to contemporary testimonies. Part of the literature of the period echoes these rather terrible weather conditions” (219). Indeed, the play starts with a significant event in relation to nature: a tempest. In the opening scene of the play, characters express their fear of nature’s might. This creates a link between nature and suffering, which would have been the general mood at the time. In his 2022 talk “Shakespeare and Ecophobia” Simon C. Estok argues that
Prospero though he seems unpredictable is not imagined in the play as being dangerous, as a force to be feared. The natural world, however is pictured as dangerous, unpredictable and immoral. Illustrating an ethics of dislocation from the natural world rather than one of connection: a mindset of ecophobia rather than biophilia or ecophilia. (35:03–35:26).
This shows how the play reinforces fear of nature in the audience. However, I argue that it is not the case in this play because the storm is not natural. The above statement would have applied to a play such as King Lear, where nature is really hostile. Yet, The Tempest quickly sheds light on Prospero’s role in the tempest, and thus it infers that humans’ meddling with nature in order to use it for their selfish ends brings about destruction. Nature on its own is not a threat, but humans make it so.
- Conclusion
So far, I discussed how the play offers warnings about the outcomes of colonialism and conquests. From an ecocritical perspective, too, in light of what I discussed above, The Tempest is not ecophobic in and of itself, nor does it celebrate or approve of a form of ecological imperialism. In fact, it counters ecophobia and proposes a rather progressive idea. By pointing out the risks of interfering in nature, the play issues a warning about humans’ ambition to control the environment. Similarly, it underlines the dangerous consequences of trying to use nature for one’s gain. Moreover, the play uses the dire weather conditions in the island to reflect the political corruption and entangled issues, which reminds us of Chiari’s arguments as regards “the climate of the island,” which, according to Chiari, can be a reflection of “the geopolitical context of the play” (245). She notes that “legend, geography and weather all serve to conceal a daunting fiction concerned with the possible forms of sovereignty in a hostile milieu” (Chiari 245). The storm, thus, mirrors the chaotic political situation, which weighs on Prospero and leads him to revenge. It is important as it creates a link between politics and the environment. It shows how both affect one another, and indicates that conquests have implications on nature as they disrupt it. In other words, political anxieties cause conflicts between powerful individuals, which leaves the environment vulnerable to exploitation, as it is the landscape where violence is practiced. Prospero and Caliban fight over nature, for political reasons, which brings about instability. Prospero takes revenge on his brother by using nature. Again, nature, although powerful, is considered by humans as just a tool for their interests. This causes destruction and environmental catastrophes, as the play elucidates.
Overall, The Tempest illustrates the rising issues of its time and the universal and timeless issue of the relationship between humans and nature. Shakespeare as usual does not preach any moral stance in his play, but his characters, his language and his representation of conflicts, suggest that he was making a rather prophetic commentary about the disastrous consequences of colonialism and exploitation of nature. Since the play is not a tragedy, it does not end in mayhem but rather ends on a hopeful note that takes the colonizers back to Europe. Yet, it leaves Caliban and Ariel in uncertainty, just as the postcolonial reality is in the contemporary world where people also struggle with climate change.
Works Cited
Brown, Paul. “This Thing of Darkness I Acknowledge Mine.” Political Shakespeare: Essays in Cultural Materialism, edited by Jonathan Dollimore and Alan Sinfield. Cornell University Press, 1994. pp. 48–71.
Chiari, Sophie. Shakespeare’s Representation of Weather, Climate and Environment. Edinburgh University Press, 2018.
Coole, Diana, and Samantha Frost. “Introducing the New Materialisms.” New Materialisms: Ontology, Agency, and Politics, edited by Diana Coole and Samantha Frost. Duke University Press, 2010. pp. 1–43.
Duignan, Brian. “Speciesism.” Encyclopedia Britannica, 22 May 2013, https://www.britannica.com/topic/speciesism. Accessed 5 April 2024.
Descartes, René, and John Veitch. Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason, and Seeking Truth in the Sciences. PeBook, 2013.
Estok, Simon C. Ecocriticism and Shakespeare: Reading Ecophobia. Springer, 2011.
_____________. “Simon C. Estok’s Talk at TEDU: ‘Shakespeare and Ecophobia.’” YouTube, 3 Aug. 2022, https://youtu.be/onikW_zXkIc?si=ou5KPIAh5MfgId5E. Accessed 05 May 2024.
Frey, Charles. “The Tempest and the New World.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 30, no. 1, 1979, pp. 29–41. www.jstor.org/stable/2869659.
Fudge, Erica. Animal. Reaktion Books, 2010.
Greenblatt, Stephen. Learning to Curse: Essays in Early Modern Culture. Routledge, 2016.
Huggan, Graham, and Helen Tiffin. Postcolonial Ecocriticism: Literature, Animals, Environment. Routledge, 2015.
Keats, John. The “Negative Capability” Letter, https://mason.gmu.edu/~rnanian/Keats-NegativeCapability.html. Accessed 04 April 2024.
Murdy, W. H. “Anthropocentrism: A Modern Version.” Science, vol. 187, no. 4182, 1975, pp. 1168–72. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1739476. Accessed 6 May 2024.
Seed, John. “Anthropocentrism.” Universal Pantheist Society, www.pantheist.net/anthopocentrism-by-john-seed.html. Accessed 05 May 2024.
Shakespeare, William. The Tempest. Wordsworth Classics, 2021.
Skura, Meredith Anne. “Discourse and the Individual: The Case of Colonialism in The Tempest.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 40, no. 1, 1989, pp. 42–69. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2870753. .
Sobel, David. Beyond Ecophobia: Reclaiming the Heart in Nature Education. Orion, 2019.
Wolfe, Cary. Animal Rites: American Culture, the Discourse of Species, and Posthumanist Theory. The University of Chicago Press, 2003.
[1] The Great Chain of Being puts humans at the center. Above them are celestial beings and below are animals, then plant and at the bottom the non-living.
[2] Ariel is described as a spirit, so I will refer to Ariel as “it”.
