The Importance Of Colonialism In Shakespeare's The Tempest

933 Words4 Pages
As some of essays about The Tempest would conclude, the core of The Tempest seems to be the colonialism. Then without any question, the most crucial character under this conclusion, Caliban becomes the symbol of oppressed occurs of colonialism. However, did Shakespeare address this issue intentionally? Is colonialism just an interpretation from a modern perspective? Probably we assert the statement too fast to contemplate author’s focus of his work. As Vaughan mentioned in his essay: “... most Third-World authors who borrow emblems from The Tempest ignore, as irrelevant, Shakespeare’s sources and intentions. The Third World interpretation of Caliban is symbolic, not historic; it adopts Caliban for What he represents to the observer, not for what Shakespeare may have had in mind.” (Vaguhan, 291). Building such a connection between colonization and the exotic characters and settings simply make the fantasy accessible to the audiences, yet it doesn’t necessarily fit the situation at that time. Since colonization evolved throughout the time. “New situations give the play’s characters new meanings.” {Vaguhan, 291). If we delete the cultural background of ourselves and focus on the age of Tempest being created exclusively, we might not see Caliban as a black…show more content…
The Tempest seemed to give each character a happy ending. Ariel earned the freedom he expected for years and Caliban brought back his island. But the ending is not so absolute as we assumed. Till the last line of the play, the future of Ariel and Caliban were obscure. The open ending of these two characters creates more space for imagination. Since Prospero had defered Ariel’s freedom for a long time, it would not be surprising to defer it longer. As for Caliban, although he inherited the island, his power might still under Prospero’s control. Based on these assumptions, Ariel and Caliban were still Prospero’s slaves with less
Open Document