Alice Catherine Louvier

22. November 2009

Imagining Empire: Changing Perceptions of Colonial Expansion

from The Tempest to Robinson Crusoe

      Sensitivity to colonial/post-colonial literary discourse has influence my understanding of both literature and history. The effect has been two-fold: I have developed an increased awareness of a work’s historic context, and I tend to see pieces of literature in relation to one another. As a result, I make connections between literary works that I did not notice before. For instance: I see a lot of parallels between William Shakespeare’s The Tempest and Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe. Both stories have European male protagonists who become stranded on isolated islands and assume dominion over the people (or metaphysical entities) that belong there. Shakespeare and Defoe both incorporate the British right of empire in their work, but it is much easier to notice in Robinson Crusoe. Until recently, I saw The Tempest as Prospero’s story and I understood the island as a setting of Shakespearian magic, not British conquest.  I was always aware of the master/slave and usurper/usurped aspects of the play, but I did not perceive the presence of a colonizer/colonized binary. However, when I applied the course objectives to the play, I noticed the British imperial righteousness buried in the subtext. I did not need to dig beneath the surface to find evidence of colonialism in the novel. Although Defoe seems completely unaware of it, colonial expansion is the pervasive force in Robinson Crusoe.

Since Robinson Crusoe and The Tempest are products of the same culture at different points in time, I decided to look at the two texts in terms of the literary historicism described in Objective one. When seen as an intertextual dialogue, the two works show the evolution of British attitudes of empire. The earliest record of Shakespeare’s play is dated at 1623, the same year Britain established its first settlement in the West Indies (St.Kitts). That is about a hundred years before Defoe published Robinson Crusoe (1719). Colonization was only beginning at time of The Tempest, so the population would be aware of the West Indies, but it would not seem quite real. However, American “savages” from Virginia had already been brought to court. So Shakespeare’s mysterious Mediterranean island allowed the audience to identify with familiar geography, but acknowledged their fears with the hostile, barely human natives that live there. In contrast, Defoe wrote at the height of British expansion and his story reflects a much more knowledgeable public with more concrete fears. He based his island on culturally accepted reality. The right of “civilized” Europeans to rule “uncivilized” natives is implicit in both texts. This leads me to believe that the British right of empire was established before the conquest really began. Furthermore, the bestial depiction of Caliban shows how early the British began dehumanizing the “other” population of the unfamiliar world. Defoe’s Friday seems more human by comparison, but not of the same order as the British protagonist.

It is my purpose to look at the changes that occurred over the course of the century between the writing of The Tempest and Robinson Crusoe.I want to examine the relationship between Shakespeare’s play and Defoe’s novel in the matrix of literature and British Imperialism. My research will focus on social, economic, and intellectual changes that fostered individualism. In order to do this, I will have to examine the circumstances that shaped Shakespeare’s visions of empire and see what changed in the world to make it so radically different in Defoe’s time. I will look at the difference in the genres of, and examine the circumstances that led to the rise of the novel. I will consider what impact the expanding world on the minds of individual.

My research includes articles that relate to the different factors of social evolution in early modern times. With one exception, I arrange the works in chronological order to make it easier to trace.

Michel de Montaigne’s “Of Cannibals” essay. This was written in 1580, thirty years before the first performance of The Tempest. It contains the ideas about Imperial expansion that led up to Shakespeare’s time, and has direct intertextual relationships with The Tempest.

Eric Cheyfitz’s 1991 “Eloquent Cannibals.” In this article, Cheyfits examines the earlier essay of Montaigne.

Ian Watt’s 1957 “Individualism and the novel” examines the socio-economic developments that fostered individualism and facilitated the growth of the novel genre.

Hugh Grady’s 1999 “Renewing Modernity: Changing Contexts and Contents of a Nearly Invisible Concept” tries determine what elements constitute modernity and where to set its parameters.

 Brett C. McInelly’ 2009  “Expanding Empires, Expanding Selves: Colonialism, the Novel, and Robinson Crusoe” explores the role of colonialism in the rise of the novel.

Michel de Montaigne: “Of Cannibals”

De Montaigne, Michel. Of Cannibals. 1580. Trans. Donald M Frame. The Bedford Anthology of World Literature: The Early Modern World, 1450-1650. Ed. Paul Davis, et al. Vol. 3. Boston: Bedford/‌ St Martens, 2004. 214-224. Print.

Montaigne believes eloquence comes in two forms: naked and clothed. Naked eloquence is refined, courtly, and follows the rules of decorum (hierarchical) ---the conventional idea of eloquence. Clothed eloquence is complete, open, guile-less self-expression --- nakedness as innocence, not savagery. Montaigne also calls this second kind democratic eloquence. He strives for this democratic eloquence, but cannot attain it because he is civilized, controlled, and not “savage” enough. While Europeans see this free expression as savage, he believes it is desirable because it is natural.

In his essay, Montaigne describes the native population of Brazil. He accepts the cannibalism and reports of human sacrifice described in reports about the people, but accounts for this behavior from the perspective of the Amerindians. He compares these with practices of sixteenth century English society (torture, heinous public executions, displaying the heads and body parts on pikes to deter crime/treason), and the comparison makes the English look more savage than the “savages.” It is contention that people call behavior of the Other barbarous because it is different from their own.

Montaigne explains the lives of the cannibals in terms that are understood within the confines of the conventional society (clothed eloquence). He says that translation is the only way to give the Amerindians a voice because there is no language that expresses their unconventional society in its own terms (Naked eloquence). He purports the view of “the noble savage.”  This is called “cultural relativism.”

This gives a view of the “noble savage” that is in opposition to the unfavorable view of Caliban (anagram of cannibal) as the cannibal in The Tempest. It seems that the two notions were competing at the time, and eventually Shakespeare’s representation prevailed. I tend to think of the two as both coming from the same time, because looking back from our perspective it is close. However, I have to think about what difference thirty years have made on our culture. In a period of rapid change, thirty years can be a lot. While we don’t see the views from the 1980s as antiquated, we certainly see them as outdated. That was a time of rapid social and economic change in England, and I must consider this when I asses the difference between 1623 and 1719.

Eric Cheyfitz: “Eloquent Cannibals”

Cheyfitz, Eric. “Eloquent Cannibals.” The Poetics of Imperialism:Translation and Colonization from The Tempest to Tarzan. New York: Oxford U P, 1991. 142-175. Print.

Cheyfitz begins by saying that the people of Europe had already mapped a “trajectory of metaphor” when they arrived in the New World. Those metaphors stem from the concept of translatio imperii et studii, (transfer of power and knowledge), a representation of history as a linear progression of empires spanning from classical Greece to Renaissance England. He says: “to think metaphorically within the confines of the translatio, is to think imperialistically” (142).

He contends that, from the beginning, the Amerindian was used as metaphor for both the promise of innocence and the threat of savagery in New World .He makes his point by analyzing the savages in Montaigne’s “Of Cannibals” and Shakespeare’s The Tempest. Montaigne’s essay explores the promise and Shakespeare’s play explores the threat. Cheyfitz says, “… Montaigne writes to translate cannibal equivocally, Shakespeare writes to translate it univocally” (157).

 Cheyfitz on “Of Cannibals”:

Cheyfitz expresses doubts about the accuracy of Montaigne’s interpretation of the Native American language and has serious objections to redefining the Indian through inaccurate translation. He says: “…Montaigne appears to be putting the works of the ‘master’” into the mouths of the Indians by assimilating them to a classical model of language.

Montaigne accepts the fact of cannibalism, but changes the meaning of the word; he translates the fact of cannibalism into his image of cannibalism, and in doing so, creates a new “fact.” The double translation makes the definition of “cannibal,” equivocal, a desirable thing because it allows the same words to contain more than one meaning (equi/similar  + vocal/voice).

Montaigne translates the savagery of cannibalism into civility and in doing so, makes civility into a new savagery. Montaigne’s inversion of the civilized/savage binary when he writes, “...it seems to me more to the point to read Montaigne’s ‘nature’ not as a precursor of Rousseau’s ‘state of nature’ but as a fully formed counterculture” (144). Therefore, Montaigne’s naked cannibals give revolutionary voice to the naked poor of Europe who are “bare with need.”

Asserting a single voice  over others puts the emphasis on identity rather than relation; it is a monologue. Cheyfitz says: “this will become the language of individualism developing alongside capitalism, will rationalize or naturalize capitalism’s cannibalizing of the poor” (156). 

Cheyfitz on The Tempest:

He does not question that the setting and characters of The Tempest are based in the New World. This might be because he dealt with that in earlier chapters, but it warrants comment. He says that Shakespeare makes no attempt to show the Amerindians from any point of view than that of the English and is therefore univocal (uni/one + Vocal/voice). In order to show the univocal voice in the play, he points out the scene on the beach where Gonzalo projects the Golden Age on the New World with his description of the idyllic society he imagines on the island. 

Gonzalo (2.2.146- 163):

I’ the commonwealth I would by contraries

Execute all things; for no kind of traffic

Would I admit; no name of magistrate;

Letters should not be known; riches, poverty,

And use of service, none; contract succession,

Born bound of land, tilth, vineyard, none;

No use of metal, corn, or wine, or oul’

No Occupation; all men idle, all;

And women too, but innocent and pure;

No sovereignty…

Sebastian:

Yet he would be king on’t…

Gonzalo:

All things in common nature should product

Without sweat or Endeavour: treason, felon,

Sword, pike, knife, gun, or need of any engine,

Would I not have; But nature should bring forth,

Of its own kind, all foison, all abundance,

To feed my innocent people…

…I would with such perfection govern, sir,

To excel the golden age…

While Cheyfitz uses this passage to show that The Tempest is written in univocal terms, he also suggests that Shakespeare incorporates an element of irony in the text; he makes the conventional mode of thinking look foolish. In this particular scene, Shakespeare points out the folly when Sebastian and Antonio treat Gonzalos description as laughable and makes sure the audience sees the folly to a few lines later when Antonio says: “Twas you we laughed at” (2.2.173).

Shakespeare turns the language 0f the savage Other into no language at all when Miranda calls it gibberish, and Prospero must teach Caliban to speak. Prospero and Miranda both lament teaching him Prospero’s language of eloquence.

According to Cheyfitz, Caliban can be seen as a Prospero’s child, and therefore shares a kinship with Miranda, and there is an element of incest in his sexual attack (171). When Caliban attempts to rape Miranda, he attempts to translate Miranda into a monster, by making her the mother of a monster race that will usurp Prospero.

Ian Watt: “Individualism and the Novel”

Watt, Ian. “Robinson Crusoe, Individualism and the Novel.” The Rise of the Novel:Studies in Defoe, Richardson, and Filding. Berkley: U of California P, 1957. 60-92. Questia Online Library. Web. 17 Nov. 2009.

According to Watt, the novel became popular because a broader, more egalitarian reading public demanded literature reflecting their lifestyle and attitudes rather than the elitist values of earlier genres. He explains the rise of the novel in terms of the social developments that created that audience.

 Watt says: Individualism depends on an ideology that values autonomy, and incorporates governmental and economic systems based on individual choice and personal achievement. Modern society is individualist for many historical reasons, but the two most important developments are the rise of industrial capitalism and the rise of Protestantism. He divides his theory into four sections: Economic Individualism, Economic Specialization, Puritan Individualism, and Individualism as a sum of the parts.

 Economic Individualism:

Watt says that the key to autonomy was the ability of the individual to make his way economically and determine his own social station. He explains how industrial capitalism required dividing components of production and trade; this economic specialization combined with a less rigid social structure, and a democratic political system to give people more freedom of choice. Therefore, he says, life no longer revolved around traditional institutions like family, church, or gild because one’s place in society was based on individual achievement. The new individualistic social and economic structure allowed the commercial and industrial classes gain status and commerce was seen in a more favorable light. 

According to Watt, as the emerging middle class became a larger part of the reading public, literature began to reflect the values that made it possible. He also says that, the increasingly capitalistic society adhered to a modern ethical system based on concrete existence and the egocentric nature of the individual (Bacon, Hobbs, Locke).  As a result, principles of realism, egocentricity and individualism trickled down into an increasingly bourgeois populace. While Renaissance writers (Watt specifically mentions Shakespeare) had supported the traditional economic and social order, at the dawn of the eighteenth century writers like Defoe began to “somewhat ostentatiously” produce work aimed at the new market. Defoe’s work combined the aspects of individualism.

People were no longer limited to the circumstances of birth. This required a form that was accessible to an audience unschooled in Latin or the nuances of poetry. The novel fulfilled those needs.

Economic Specialization:

Watt reports that economic theorists use Robinson Crusoe to illustrate the principle of homo economicus (economic man). Just as “the body politic” symbolized the communal cooperation of Plato’s Republic, “economic man” symbolizes modern individualism in the economic sphere. He says that modern society is based on contractual relationships between individuals, a phenomenon rooted in Locke’s political theory and early efforts to dethrone the Stuarts. A natural reverence for book keeping, reliance on contracts, disproportionate respect for economic motive, and the devaluation of traditional relationships (ex: family, village, guild) are all characteristics of economic individualism.

Crusoe is particularly fixated on acquisition and a “booking-keeping conscience” dominates his thoughts and emotions. Watt points out that Crusoe is unhindered by attachments and, even though he calls it his “original sin,” the protagonist emulates the values of economic individualism by refusing to be content with the “upper station of low life” that he is born into.

While Crusoe exhibits a natural xenophobia, this is suspended when he sees the chance for profit. He values others based on what they do for him (planter in Brazil) or as commodities (Xury). Even gender/sexual interactions are treated in terms of beneficial contracts or otherwise subordinated to enterprise.

Watt differentiates Crusoe from other travelers in literature because “profit is Crusoe’s only vocation, and the whole world is his territory” (66). Defoe based Crusoe on the exploits of “voyagers who had done so much in the sixteenth century to assist the development of capitalism by providing the gold, slaves and tropical products on which trade expansion depended.”

Puritan individualism:

Puritan individualism placed primary responsibility for spiritual direction in the hands of the individual, making self-examination necessary to find one’s place in the divine plan. Watts says that Puritans tended to remain introspective regardless of spiritual conviction.

Earlier works (Byunian) contain realistic descriptions of persons and places, and focus on the moral problems of ordinary people. But those characters are allegories and designed to represent a broader morality. Unlike previous narratives, Defoe’s hero shares the same day-by-day mental and moral life as the reader and their thoughts.

Watt says that two aspects of Puritan individualism in Robinson Crusoe are important in developing the formal realism of the novel genre:

1-- increased consciousness of the self as a spiritual entity

2-- increased moral and social self-governance.

He suggests that one of Defoe’s major contributions to the novel form come from structuring the narrative to show that the Puritanism and secularism clashed in the desire for economic progress. He says that secular and economic ambition emerged as the dominant force and the desire for financial gain sublimated spiritual concerns.

According to Watt, economic and social progress linked Puritan individualism with secularism. The novel focuses on the interactions of individuals, so secularism is important in its development; since the individual is central, spiritual matters come second. Crusoe only sees the hand of God when it serves his purpose.

The Principle of Individualism in the Novel:

According to Watt, Robinson Crusoe fits more naturally with classics like Don Quixote, Don Juan, or Faust than with modern novels. These are all the stories of one man’s pursuit of the goals of classic man and Defoe tells the story of one man’s pursuit of the goals of modern man: absolute economic, social, and intellectual freedom.

Crusoe gets freedom from the ties and rules that limits man’s ability to succeed on his island and, with the benefit of a population to exploit, makes a success of himself. Crusoe does not really succeed independently, but consistently profits from the losses of others. Crusoe is able to avoid the false façade of society because of his isolation on the island.

Robinson Crusoe gets most profound when the protagonist talks about man’s universal solitude. Defoe was isolated and solitary. In his preface, Defoe said, “Here is invincible patience recommended under the worst of misery, indefatigable application and undaunted resolution under the greatest and most discouraging circumstances” (Watt 90).

Watt points out that individualism eventually leads to spiritual and emotional isolation, and once people absorbed the dangers of total individualism, it became popular to examine man’s innate need for social contact. He says that Robinson Crusoe differs from the modern novel in the usual sense because it does not address interpersonal relationships, and the novel could only begin to examine such relationships after Robinson Crusoe revealed the need for them.

He says that the old moral and social order was shipwrecked on the rising tide of individualism.

Hugh Grady: Renewing Modernity: Changing Contexts and Contents of a Nearly Invisible Concept

Grady, Hugh. “Renewing Modernity: Changing Contexts and Contents of a Nearly Invisible Concept.” Shakespeare Quarterly 50.3 (1999): 268-84. JSTOR. Web. 22 Nov. 2009. <http://www.jstor.org/‌stable/‌2902359>.

According to Grady, “Modernity” is a term that brings together a consensus about the interconnections of diverse historical changes. He divides the “diverse historical changes” into five areas of concern:

• debate about individuality, identity, the self, and humanism.
   

• the relationship between the rise of capitalism, nation-states, and secular culture
   

• our understanding of cultural traditions that are continually undermined by rapid socio-economic change
   

• our perception of the nature of art and the aesthetic,
   

• the beginnings of Western colonialism

In the article, Grady focuses on the position of Shakespeare in relation to modernity. I see very little consensus.

Shakespeare and Modernity in Critical History:

Since modern means “of the present era” the term is continually redefined, but it accumulates a meaning over the time.  The long modern era refers to societies that are fundamentally different from the medieval or ancient periods.  Theodore Adorno wrote, “Modernity, is a qualitative, not a chronological category” (269).

The meaning of modernity has shifted over time, but until the middle of the twentieth century it was generally accepted that whatever modernity has been, it applies to Shakespeare. Goethe called him “…a decidedly modern poet, separated from the ancients by an enormous gulf, not perhaps with regard to his outer form… but with regard to his inner and most profound spirit” (270). Emerson said that Shakespeare “wrote the text of modern life” (270). Shakespeare is an active participant in the birth of the modern era; He is part of a movement away from the values of medieval and ancient societies.

However, Grady says that Shakespeare is only modern in relation to the classics. Dryden and Rymer both see him as a part of a former age. He says that the New Critics consider Shakespeare to be part of a golden age that is separate from modernity and that these mid-century notions of the Renaissance shy away from modernity and individualism in favor of trans-individual ideas like “the mind of Europe”(271-2).  They make the Renaissance a pre-modern age.

Modernity Now:

 Grady talks about recent anthology: Modernity: An Introduction to Modern Societies. The section called “Formations” examines the pre-industrial roots of modernity.  The author (Stuart Hall) “…sees modern societies as a global phenomenon and the modern world as the unexpected and unpredicted outcome of not one but a series of major historical transitions” (273). Grady says the interaction of an emerging capitalist economy, developing nation-states, and shifting concepts of the family, privacy, and self beginning in Shakespeare’s time helped build the age of modernity .  After an in-depth discussion of philosophic debates surrounding the nature of modernity, Brady places Shakespeare in an early modern period.

How Modern is Early Modern?

According to Grady, “early modern” is an ambiguous term that acknowledges both the period’s continuity with, and difference from the present era. He quotes Phillipe Aries, author of A History of Private Life: “There were so many changes in material and spiritual life, in relations between the individual and the state, and in the family that we must treat the early modern period as something autonomous and original” (279). He considers the time span between 1500 and 1800 to be the early modern period. I notice that both The Tempest and Robinson Crusoe were written during this period.

Aries says that three things sparked the early modern period:

• The spread of literacy and availability of reading material
   

• The growth of religious thought focusing on introspection
   

• The rise of nation-states

Watt links all three to the rise of the novel. It is interesting that the social phenomena associated with the rise of the novel are traced back to Shakespeare’s time.

The Modernity of Shakespeare:

Grady says that Shakespeare focuses on London’s rapid growth as a center of economic capitalism in several of his play, but says that he is more reflective of three different, but related aspects of modernity: secular rationality, the logic of power; unfixed subjectivity. Of the three, he says that the logic of power is arguably the most important theme in Shakespeare. He also says that this premise is of central importance in The Tempest.

Brett C. McInelly: Expanding Empires, Expanding Selves: Colonialism, the Novel, and Robinson Crusoe

McInelly, Brett C. “Expanding Empires, Expanding Selves: Colonialism, the Novel, and Robinson Crusoe.” Literature Resource Center. Studies in the Novel, Spring 2003. Web. 10 Nov. 2009.

Brett McInelly explains the philosophy of colonization in these terms: “…master yourself and you master your destiny; master your destiny and you master others; master these and you master the economic contingencies of life” (4).

Accordingly, he considers Robinson Crusoe the “master narrative of empire” because:

• it argues for English mercantilism
   

• It shows how an expanding world provides the opportunity for the kind of close self-reflection that is not possible in civilized society
   

• It shows how isolation can spark a Spiritual awakening
   

• It shows an Englishman both subordinating a cultural Other and converting him to Protestantism
   

• it shows how interaction of empire and “lesser” people helps an individual learn to master himself and control the destiny of Others

McInelly argues that British colonialism made the novel genre possible. His argument begins with the contentions of Ian Watt’s The Rise of the Novel (I look at an essay from the book elsewhere in the journal). He says that Watt “distils the essence of the novel to ‘formal realism,’” a narrative form that relates the day to day experiences of an individual. Further, he agrees with Watt that Robinson Crusoe is the first novel. In the article he attempts to go a step beyond Watt by suggesting that imperialism helped mold the individualism that led to the formation of the novel.  He writes: “I do not want to suggest that imperialism gave rise to the novel; rather, imperialism contributed significantly to the construction of the focal point of the novel’s attention, namely, the individual (British) subject” (12).

According to McInelly, Crusoe is an allegory of the colonial experience, not a recreation of a single life. So when Defoe constructed Crusoe, he transformed the perception of colonialism into an individual adventure. McInelly says that earlier fictional characters showed British self-assurance in a similarly threatening setting (he specifically mentions Prospero), but Crusoe is set apart because of the length of his solitude and the control he asserts over his imagination. Crusoe is able to control imagined fears and envision himself as an emperor rather than a victim. He uses his imagination and the power of naming to refashion the island. He re-makes Friday in his own image when he renames him, but the “savage” always remains the Other, regardless of how like Crusoe he becomes. The Other can never become English. Do not underestimate the power of keeping Britishness for the British…not sharing had a lot to do with the subjugation of others. According to McInelly, the English become more self assured by becoming increasingly self-identified. Linda Colley says that regional differences among Britons (Welsh, Scotts, and English) were glossed over by an emerging national identity that set them apart from the rest of the world.

McInelly points out that Crusoe is stranded in the expanding colonial world, and could easily have succumbed to the fear of isolation. However, the protagonist believes that God singled him out by putting him there.  His introspection about God’s hand in his fate leads him to believe that he is chosen for a reason. When he takes possession of Friday and the island, he is taking charge of what God had given him. According to McInelly “at the end of his sojourn on the island, Crusoe goes from a man saved by god to one who is a savior appointed by God” (12).

McInelly suggests that, Defoe equated trade with British superiority, and so the element of capital gain within the novel is important to the British self-identity (8). Therefore, trade differentiates the English from other colonial forces. To illustrate this point, he directs attention to Defoe’s habit of depicting the Spanish as a ruthlessly colonizing force while characterizing British mercantilism as an improvement in the territories. Crusoe’s rescue and subsequent return to this island colony fulfill Defoe’s colonial vision by connecting the island to England and the commercial world through trade.

Military activities against Catholic states led Britons to see themselves as God’s chosen people. While the English were not particularly pious, the Protestant worldview was intimately tied to their identity.  Antagonism towards Catholics was based on common perceptions, and on the belief that Catholics were intolerant of them. Defoe and other eighteenth century Britons saw the Inquisition as an extreme form of religious intolerance and thought that the English were religiously tolerant by comparison.  According to McInelly, “Protestant Briton was saving Others from Catholicism as much as from savagery” (5). Defoe’s belief in his own tolerance surfaces in the racial diversity of Crusoe’s kingdom: a Protestant (Friday), a pagan (his dad), and a papist (the Spanish captain). However, contention with Catholics pervades the novel.

Conclusion

Montaigne’s essay was written in 1580 and it is said the Shakespeare based The Tempest in part on this essay (John Florio’s translation). There seems to be some indication that this is so because Montaigne describes the culture of the Amerindian in terms similar to those of Gonzalo in The Tempest.

Montaigne:

 “I should tell Plato, that it is a nation wherein there is no manner of traffic, no knowledge of litters, no science of numbers, no name of magistrate or political superiority; no use of service, riches or poverty, no contracts, no successions, no dividends, no properties , no employments, but those of leisure, no respect of kindred, but common, no clothing, no agriculture, no metal, no use of corn or wine…” (218).

Gonzalo:

I’ the commonwealth I would by contraries

Execute all things; for no kind of traffic

Would I admit; no name of magistrate;

Letters should not be known; riches, poverty,

And use of service, none; contract succession,

Born bound of land, tilth, vineyard, none;

No use of metal, corn, or wine, or oul’

No Occupation; all men idle, all;

And women too, but innocent and pure;

                                                                                                (Act II, scene 2)

Shakespeare makes Montaigne’s description of Amerindian society look naively idealistic in his parallel passage, but the rest of the play warns of the dangers associated with sharing the knowledge of European culture with “savages.”  While The Tempest’s application to the New World is debated, there is no question that Shakespeare uses culturally modeled allusions to the Americas as the vehicle of his self-expression. It is interesting to recognize the similarity in Shakespeare’s text and “Of Cannibals”. While Shakespeare probably did not write The Tempest in reaction to Montaigne’s essay, I think that it is pretty clear that he was at least familiar with the earlier work. In the essay, Montaigne focuses on the naked eloquence of the Amerindians. That is the ability to achieve complete free-expression of ideas because they are unencumbered by the formal “clothed” discourse of the English language. However, in the essay Montaigne talks about the “cannibals” coming to court and not being able to communicate. Shakespeare warns against the sort of free exchange that will give savage the power of the English language.

The Montaigne and the Cheyfitz articles both dwell on the concept of eloquence. It is hard to interpret precisely what the authors mean by the term. Montaigne seems to see “eloquence” as a sort of philosophical aesthetic of language. I think he means an elevated articulation of ideas; sometimes he uses “eloquence” in reference to behavior in addition to language.  Cheyfitz complicates his argument by adding the concept of metaphor on top of “eloquence.” He points out the paradox of metaphor’s being designed to express the bare soul of the poet (equated with Montaigne’s naked “eloquence”), while being dependant on the language of lofty elegance (Montaigne’s “clothed eloquence”). It seems to me that Chefitz looks more directly at verbal articulation while Montaigne focuses on a more all-encompassing discourse.

Both of the primary texts (The Tempest and Robinson Crusoe) address language in some fashion. Shakespeare’s text uses the power of language as central metaphor. When Prospero teaches Caliban to speak, he gives the savage the means to curse, and therefore potentially destroy his master. However, Prospero also has the added power of magic and so can ultimately control the savage. Shakespeare makes it clear that in sharing the power of speech, Prospero risks his own destruction. In Robinson Crusoe, Defoe’s character limits Friday’s access to language. Crusoe only teaches his savage the words he needs to know. Friday is more easily controlled because he cannot access the power of language. Defoe does not explain the limitations that Crusoe puts on Friday. The idea of giving the native any more than he needs to make life easier for the master is not a consideration. Crusoe does not limit Friday on principle, but in self-interest.  The Brady article talks about the logic of power in The Tempest. I think that Shakespeare equates the dissemination of language with the logic of power.  In The Tempest, Shakespeare seems to say that there is danger in free dissimination of language (knowledge/power). Crusoe’s treatment of Friday shows that the English took the lesson of Shakespeare to heart.

Shakespeare uses colonial allusion as a central metaphor in The Tempest. He chooses to include or exclude different characteristics of imperialism and, in some instances, focuses attention on the social issues presented by British expansion. In order to do this, he had to recognize the existence of such attitudes or characteristics. I suspect that he constructed some of ideas that came to be associated with colonialism. Shakespeare seems to consider potential contact with the New World a cultural threat. In the Tempest he warns that educating the Other is sharing access to power. Shakespeare helps to formulate English xenophobia by adopting the cultural inclinations that were beginning to emerge in English society. I am not sure if he was bigoted, or if he was just insensitive in the pursuit of his art. Such insensitivity in the pursuit of his self-fulfillment seems consistent with humanist ideas of individual development. 

Defoe writes about the world as he knows it. In his case, Colonialism is not a means to an end but a mindset. I think Defoe was shaped by colonialism. As the world gets bigger through exploration, the individual gravitates towards introspection and self-discovery. Because he is alone, Crusoe is the most important thing in his own world. Prospero is stranded on an island but he is never alone. Also, Prospero seeks solace in his books, rather than within himself.  Isolation from society is voluntary for Prospero, but Crusoe is shipwrecked. As I understand it, Crusoe creates his reality by engaging his imagination. He chooses to imagine the island as his own empire rather than a prison.

 Before doing this research, I did not understand the socio-economic relationship between capitalism and the rise of the novel. After examining the Watt article closely, I see how the novel is the literary form of individualism and a mirror for the individual. I find it amazing that art is so intricately tied to the economy. While the interconnectedness of the novel and capitalism initially struck me as crass, it is really no different than the relationship of poetry with patronage.

The biggest difference between The Tempest and Robinson Crusoe is money. The emphasis on material profit that pervades Robinson Crusoe seems absent in The Tempest. However, Crusoe’s singular pursuit of profit is like Prospero’s singular pursuit of knowledge. Prospero’s dedication to knowledge costs him his dukedom. Shakespeare warns against such blatant self-interest in The Tempest, by showing that government fails when the individual gets too immersed in self-interest. Humanist values of individual development progresses towards decadence. With his characterization of corruption in government in the characters of Antonio and Sebastian, Shakespeare shows that tyranny is wrong. However, this only applies to Europe (Italy) because the innate, morally -corrupt, savage nature of Caliban must be controlled.

I was not familiar with the concept of translatio imperii et studii, but it explains why the English believed that they had a right of Empire and that their domination was the natural order. I was not sure how they justified the expansion in the early stages of colonization.

This is an extended bibliography---some of the articles I have not fully covered yet, but should be part of an in depth analysis:

Works Cited

Cheyfitz, Eric. “Eloquent Cannibals.” The Poetics of Imperialism:Translation and Colonization from The Tempest to Tarzan. New York: Oxford U P, 1991. 142-175. Print.

De Filippis, M. “The Renaissance Problem Again.” Italica 20.2 (1943): 65-80. JSTOR. Web. 18 Nov. 2009. <http://www.Jstor.org/‌stable/‌476202>.

De Montaigne, Michel. Of Cannibals. 1580. Trans. Donald M Frame. The Bedford Anthology of World Literature: The Early Modern World, 1450-1650. Ed. Paul Davis, et al. Vol. 3. Boston: Bedford/‌ St Martens, 2004. 214-224. Print.

Fuchs, Barbara. “Conquering Islands.” Shakespeare Quarterly 48.1 (1997): 45-62. JSTOR. Web. 16 Nov. 2009. <http://www.jstor.org/‌stable/‌2871400>.

Grady, Hugh. “Renewing Modernity: Changing Contexts and Contents of a Nearly Invisible Concept.” Shakespeare Quarterly 50.3 (1999): 268-84. JSTOR. Web. 22 Nov. 2009. <http://www.jstor.org/‌stable/‌2902359>.

McInelly, Brett C. “Expanding Empires, Expanding Selves: Colonialism, the Novel, and Robinson Crusoe.” Literature Resource Center. Studies in the Novel, Spring 2003. Web. 10 Nov. 2009.

Shakespeare, William. The Tempest. Ed. Arthur Quiller-Couch and John Dover Willson. Cambridge: Syndics of the Cambridge U P, 1969. Print.

Stanivukovic, Goran. “The Tempest and the Discontents of Humanism.” Philological Quarterly 85.1-2 (2006): 91+. Questia Online Library. Web. 17 Nov. 2009.

Watt, Ian. “Robinson Crusoe, Individualism and the Novel.” The Rise of the Novel:Studies in Defoe, Richardson, and Fielding. Berkeley: U of California P, 1957. 60-92. Questia Online Library. Web. 17 Nov. 2009.