Shakespeares Natives: Ariel and Caliban in The Tempest

By Michael OToole

In his essay "On Cannibals," Montaigne continually asserts that what is natural
is synonymous with what is good, and that Nature herself ought to be the light
by which human action is guided. It is not surrising, then, that he resents a
highly ideali!ed characteri!ation of the nati"es of the New #orld. $e
ercei"es these "cannibals," as he calls them, to be men who li"e in the way
Nature intends them to li"e, unadorned and unfettered by modern ci"ili!ation.
Montaigne goes so far as to claim to ha"e found in these cannibals the "golden
age," so%en of so often by hilosohers and oets as merely an unattainable
dream. $e boldly asserts that in the character of these eole, all of "the true,
most useful, and natural "irtues and roerties are ali"e and "igorous."
The characteri!ation of &riel and Caliban in The Tempest is significant in
relation to Montaignes essay, which was one of 'ha%eseare(s main
insirations for the wor%. In "On Cannibals" and in The Tempest, both
Montaigne and 'ha%eseare e)lore the relationshi between human nature
and modern ci"ili!ation. Montaignes ideali!ation of the cannibals contrasts
sharly with 'ha%eseares unsymathetic ortrayal of the brutish Caliban,
whose name thinly "eils the influence of Montaignes essay. #hereas
Montaignes cannibals are raised as "wild fruits," roduced by nature in her
ordinary way and without any artificiality, 'ha%eseares cannibal aears to
be as athetic, crass, and "ulgar as any indi"idual can ossibly be ortrayed.
This seems to imly that 'ha%eseares ortrayal of Caliban is a direct attac%
against the form of wistful ideali!ing of Nature that Montaigne is so fond of.
*et the comle)ity of The Tempest lies in its essential ambiguity. This
ambiguity stems from the +u)taosition of the brutish and athetic character of
Caliban with the srightly and symathetic character of &riel. Both Caliban
and &riel are nati"es of the island, and hence can be thought of in terms of
Montaignes cannibals. By analy!ing the characteri!ation of these two
characters in relation to ,rosero, one comes closer to determining how The
Tempest as a wor% of art resonds to and challenges Montaignes essay. -ying
at the root of 'ha%eseares resonse to Montaigne is a differing concetion of
human nature and the e)tent to which modern ci"ili!ation suresses it.
&riel and Caliban can both be "iewed as the "coloni!ed sub+ects" of ,rosero,
and the differing attitudes of these sub+ects towards their master is indicati"e
of the differing ways in which human nature resonds to modern ci"ili!ation.
Both &riel and Caliban are indi"iduals undoubtedly oressed by ,rosero,
yet each de"elos a different relationshi to their master based on their natural
character as well as their rior circumstances. The scenes of The Tempest are
structured so as to emhasi!e the differing characteri!ations of &riel and
Caliban in their relationshi to ,rosero. Throughout the wor%, interactions
between &riel and ,rosero come directly before or directly after interactions
between Caliban and ,rosero. The contrasting nature of these interactions
occurring dramatically ortrays the contrast between the attitudes of these
central characters.
The first aearance of &riel immediately establishes his character as that of a
submissi"e, deferential sub+ect. $is language is that of a sla"e who binds
himself to his master without .uestion/
"All hail, great master! Grave sir, hail! I come
To answer thy best pleasure; bet to fly,
To swim, to dive into the fire, to ride
n the curled clouds! To thy strong bidding tas"
Ariel and all his #uality!"$$%I, ii, &'($()*
&riels self0effacing willingness to ser"e ,rosero contrasts strongly with
Calibans attitude of sardonic rebelliousness e)hibited in the same scene.
#hereas &riel greets ,rosero with an affirmation of his greatness, Caliban
greets him with a curse/
"As wic"ed dew as eer my mother brushed
+ith ravens feather from unwholesome fen
,rop on you both! A south$west blow on ye
And blister you all oer!$$%I, ii, )-&$-.*
Calibans aarent hatred for ,rosero is e"ident in much of his seech, which
consists redominantly of curses similar to this one. In these initial encounters,
the contrasting asects of &riel and Calibans searate relationshis with
,rosero are emhasi!ed. &riel is ortrayed as a submissi"e ser"ant, while
Caliban is characteri!ed as rebellious and siteful.
Caliban(s first seech emhasi!es the conflict that arises from his lac% of
gratitude towards his master. ,rosero, ha"ing drawn Caliban away from his
sa"agery and towards modernity, belie"es that Caliban owes him a debt of
gratitude. In fact, Caliban did at first lo"e ,rosero, but it was autonomy that
Caliban rofessed to want, not sla"ery. #hen he is sub+ugated, Caliban thus
re+ects e"erything that he has inherited from ,rosero, including language.
Caliban essentially feels betrayed, and this is e"ident in the tone that is used to
address ,rosero in his first seech/
"This islands mine by /ycora0 my mother,
+hich thou ta"st from me! +hen thou camst first,
Thou stro"st me and made much of me!!!
!!!and then I loved thee!!!
1ursed be I that did so!!!
2or I am all the sub3ects that you have,
+hich first was mine own "ing; and here you sty me
In this hard roc", whiles you do "eep from me
The rest othisland$$%I, ii, ))&$..*
1nli%e &riel, Caliban has no future romise of freedom that will +ustify an
attitude of deference. $is rebellious attitude is a reaction to his feeling that he
is being un+ustly used and sub+ugated.
It is ,roseros art which controls both &riel and Caliban, binding them to his
authority as their master. ,rosero(s magic art can be seen to stem from his
connection to modern ci"ili!ation. One can see how he utili!es his art, a%in to
modern technology, in order to suress and sub+ugate. $e is ortrayed as a
coloni!er who e)loits the innocence of his sub+ects to his own ad"antage.
,rosero uses his ower o"er Caliban in a malicious, "engeful manner. $e
influences Caliban by intimidating him with threats of bodily discomforts and
annoyances. Caliban dramatically emhasi!es the e)tent of this ower when
e)laining why he does not simly run away/
"I must obey! 4is art is of such powr
It would control my dams god, /etebos,
And ma"e a vassal of him!"$$%I, ii, )5-$5.*
,roseros relationshi towards &riel is of a .uite different nature than his
relationshi towards Caliban. #hereas ,rosero uses his magic in order to
sub+ugate Caliban, he uses it in order to free &riel from the curse of 'ycora).
The submissi"e attitude of &riel in his relationshi with ,rosero stems from
the debt that this engenders in him towards his master. #hen &riel becomes so
bold as to as% ,rosero when he is to be set free from his authority, ,rosero
has only to remind him of this debt and &riels submissi"e attitude is restored/
"Ariel: Is there more toil6 /ince thou dost give me pains,
7et me remember thee what thou hast promised,
+hich is not yet performed me !!!!
!!! 8y liberty!
999
Prospero: If thou more murmurst, I will rend an oa"
And peg thee in his "notty entrails till
Thou hast howled away twelve winters!
Ariel:
:ardon, master!
I will be correspondent to command
And do my spriting gently!"$$%I, ii, -.-$.;; -(.$('*
&riel is content to ser"e his master only to the e)tent to which it ensures his
future release. In a sense, he is reaying the debt he owes to ,rosero by
willingly sub+ugating himself to him. Caliban is .uite different from &riel in
this resect, for Caliban feels no debt towards ,rosero. #hereas &riel has a
moti"e for his remaining submissi"e to ,rosero, Caliban lac%s any such
moti"e. -ac%ing any feeling of debt in his relationshi to ,rosero, Caliban
thus de"elos the rebellious and accusatory attitude that characteri!es him
through much of the wor%.
One of the most significant differences in character that searates &riel from
Caliban is the way in which each uses language. #hereas Caliban
communicates almost entirely by means of "ulgar curses and comlaints, &riel
communicates through oetry and song. 2ach characters different aroach to
language is indicati"e of their different attitudes and modes of thin%ing.
&riels language is ordered and stylistic. It betrays a mind at ease with his
en"ironment, a mind in which creati"ity and wit ha"e sufficient room to
de"elo. Calibans language, on the other hand, is the roduct of a mind surely
in a state of general discomfort and ill ease. Caliban, unli%e &riel, is not of the
mind to roduce anything remotely similar to oetry or song. Caliban has
entirely re+ected language itself/
"<ou taught me language, and my profit ont
Is, I "now how to curse! The red plague rid you
2or learning me your language!"$$%I, ii, )=)$=;*
This is significant in that by re+ecting language, Caliban is re+ecting
%nowledge itself. #ith %nowledge comes a reali!ation of ones inade.uacy,
and Caliban refers to remain in that more rimiti"e state of blissful
ignorance. This is not surrising, for ,rosero has gi"en Caliban the tools of
communication and self0%nowledge, but has failed to gi"e him the freedom
and self0resonsibility with which it is necessary to en+oy them. #hen
contrasting Calibans seeches with those of &riel, the difference is
significant. &riels songs are filled with alliteration, assonance, rhyme and
meter/
"1ome unto these yellow sands,
And then ta"e hands!
1urtsied when you have and "issed,
The wild waves whist,
2oot it featly here and there;
And, sweet sprites, the burden bear!"$$%I, ii, )5;$'>*
This is language suitable to a srite with little care, almost absurdly childish in
its nursery rhyme character. &riel(s language here is leasant and musical,
clearly the roduct of a cle"er mind, yet it ossesses none of the insight and
imort that is characteristic of similar characters in other 'ha%eseare wor%s,
such as The 3ool in ?ing 7ear.
It is not until the second half of The Tempest that one can accurately ma%e any
+udgements on the characters of &riel and Caliban. Calibans encounter with
'tehano and Trinculo adds insight into his character and his attitude.
-i%ewise, &riels enchanting of nearly e"eryone on the island is significant in
defining this characters role in the wor%. It is ossible to "iew Caliban in the
first half of the wor% as a sla"e who is rebelling against his oressi"e master.
This characteri!ation is accurate, e"idenced by the e)tent to which Calibans
language e)resses his resentment and unwillingness to ser"e ,rosero. *et
when Caliban encounters 'tehano and Trinculo with their "celestial li.uor,"
he willingly sub+ugates himself to them. Caliban does not as% them for his
freedom, as would be e)ected. 4ather, he begs them to be his master, e"en
his god. Caliban thus shows himself to be incaable of autonomy. In his
relationshi to 'tehano, Caliban is e"en more athetic than in his relationshi
to ,rosero, for he abandons his rebellious attitude for one of hero0worshi
and gro"elling. By utting himself in willing sla"ery to 'tehano, who is no
more than a drun%ard and a buffoon, Caliban shows himself to be truly in a
athetic state. The "icious curses that he had constantly sent to his old master
,rosero are relaced by re.uests to lic% the shoe of his new master. & drun%
Caliban e"en attemts a oetic song for the first time, and ma%es a fool of
himself by stumbling o"er his name/
"@o more dams Ill ma"e for fish,
@or fetch in firing
At re#uiring,
@or scrape trenchering, nor wash dish!
ABan, ABan, 1a C 1aliban
4as a new masterD get a new man!"$$%II, ii, &5;$'>*
$e +oyously hails his new situation as "3reedom, high day," unaware that he is
simly steing into another set of chains, this time those of li.uor. Caliban
becomes a more symathetic character in the second half of the wor%. $is
wea%ness is made more aarent, and the ease by which he is maniulated
shows him to be a "ictim of his circumstances, ossessing a nature wea%ened
by sub+ugation and oression.
&lthough the characteri!ation of Caliban shows him to be a more athetic
character as the lay rogresses, the characteri!ation of &riel dislays .uite
the oosite. &riel occuies the most imortant role of the lay during the last
two acts. It is ,rosero who concei"es the ideas for enchanting the
shiwrec%ed Italians, but he can only carry them out with the aid of &riel. In
the same way that &riel is deendent uon ,rosero for his freedom, ,rosero
is deendent uon &riel for the fulfillment of his lans. Thus &riels character
is e)anded beyond that of the content ser"ant or willing sla"e. $is role as
e)ecutor of ,roseros strategies ma%es him essential to ,roseros success.
This entails a significant re"ersal in roles. &riel becomes the one in control,
for it is his ower of enchantment uon which ,rosero is deendent. Tied
into this re"ersal of roles is an increased confidence and authority in &riels
language. In his seech to &lonso, &ntonio and 'ebastian in &ct III, &riel
condemns these three in the same tye of authoritarian language which had
re"iously been reser"ed only to ,rosero/
"<ou foolsD I and my fellows
Are ministers of 2ate! The elements,
f whom your swords are tempered, may as well
+ound the loud winds, or with bemoc"ed$at stabs
?ill the still$closing waters, as diminish
ne dowle thats in my plume! 8y fellow ministers
Are li"e invulnerable!"$$%III, iii, =>$==*
&riels use of language as a means of intimidation is .uite different from his
srightly oems and songs of the first two acts. $is changing use of language
is e"idence of a changing attitude. &s &riel comes closer to his freedom, his
demeanor becomes more confident and less submissi"e. $e is becoming more
indeendent, and thus more strong in character. #here the second half of the
wor% shows a Caliban increasingly destitute and athetic, it shows an &riel
increasingly self0asserti"e and autonomous.
The conclusion of The Tempest shows ,rosero regaining his du%edom, &riel
finding his freedom, and Caliban resigning himself once again to the authority
of ,rosero. &lthough it seems at first to be a leasant state of affairs, a closer
loo% re"eals it to be .uite the oosite. ,rosero is surely unfit to be a du%e, as
his o"erbearing and oressi"e nature throughout the lay attests to. &nd
although Calibans assertion that he will "see% for grace" from ,rosero
indicates that he will be a more willing ser"ant, this can hardly be considered a
better state of affairs for him. It seems as if &riel, in winning his freedom, is
the only one of these characters whose state is truly better than it was at the
oening of the lay. This is significant in that among these characters, the
distinguishing characteristic of &riel is that he is not human. $e is therefore
unrestricted by human nature, and human nature in this lay is decidedly not
ortrayed as a liberating force. 2secially in the relationshi between ,rosero
and Caliban, one sees the destructi"e force that e)erts itself when a human
being ta%es it uon himself to control another. 'ha%eseare(s word lay in
naming his characters emhasi!es this idea. In the same way that Calibans
name can be rearranged as "Canibal," the letters in ,rosero(s name can be
rearranged to sell out "Oresor." This can hardly be seen as coincidence, for
in the relationshi between the two, one is able to discern that ,rosero wields
his intelligence and modernity as oressi"e forces.
Montaigne e)alts the cannibals for ha"ing maintained a ci"ili!ation so natural
and unartificial, but 'ha%eseare asserts that when e)osed to modern
ci"ili!ation, the cannibals become no different than the 2uroeans. The
moderns emloy their magic owers 5 intelligence, technology, and li.uor 5 to
sub+ugate and oress the cannibals. *et the cannibals willingly allow
themsel"es to be cati"ated and entraed by the sell of modernity. #hereas
Montaigne raises the cannibals and laces blame on modern 2uroeans,
'ha%eseare asserts that neither the cannibals nor the 2uroeans deser"e
raise 5 sa"e for a few rare indi"iduals, they are both e.ually athetic.