Another Version of Prosperity: Undermining The Authority of Prospero

A variant of prosperity, Prospero undoubtedly serves as the major manipulative authority throughout Shakespeare’s drama, The Tempest. A postcolonial reading of the text reveals that The Tempest is filled with themes of native characters, forced servitude, language assimilation, and ultimately, Prospero’s orchestration of the characters’ fates. Conjuring the tempest itself to marry off his daughter, Miranda, and reclaim his lost power, Prospero seeks to shape the outcomes of the play through manipulation. Frequently referencing his “art,” Shakespeare's ambiguity invites readers to ponder the true nature of Prospero’s “art.” Throughout The Tempest, Shakespeare questions both the source and legitimacy of Prospero’s powers. By manipulating the meanings embedded in Prospero’s dialogue, Shakespeare subtly portrays his art as a carefully constructed illusion of power, undermining his authority and characterizing him as the quintessential colonial hegemon desperate for control.

The Dual Nature of Prospero’s Art

The ambiguous nature of Prospero’s art is a recurring theme in the play, emphasized by both supporting characters and Prospero himself. A particularly manipulative moment occurs when Prospero entices Ferdinand to love the island and his daughter, beginning with the proclamation: “Spirits, which by mine art” (IV.i.120). In response to Ferdinand’s awe and inquiry about the spirits’ presence, Prospero highlights his own powers, employing the term “art”—often associated with skill derived from knowledge or practice. This choice of diction illustrates to both Ferdinand and the audience that the supernatural elements arise from Prospero’s efforts. By consistently emphasizing language that denotes individual skill, Shakespeare constructs an image of Prospero’s narcissism. This portrayal hints at the manipulative language Prospero uses when addressing other characters. His insistence on “mine art” reflects a sense of ownership over this power, reinforcing its uniqueness to his character. By asserting his agency over the supernatural, Prospero positions himself as an authoritative figure, claiming control over forces beyond the understanding of those around him.

Undermining Authority through Ambiguity

While “art” initially appears to signify Prospero’s power, Shakespeare’s surrounding diction works to undermine his claims of authority. The mention of spirits introduces ambiguity, suggesting dual meanings. The term “spirits” can imply either a separation of the immaterial and material aspects of existence or denote entities distinct from the physical realm. This ambiguity raises the question of whether the spirits are merely extensions of Prospero or autonomous beings in their own right. By choosing such ambiguous terminology, Shakespeare subtly erodes Prospero’s control over his art, suggesting that it may exist independently of him.

As the dialogue progresses, Prospero forcefully asserts his dominion over the spirits. However, his subsequent lines reveal a disconnect from the source of power, emphasizing his desire to control the “art.” When he states, “I have from their confines called to enact/My present fancies” (IV.i.121-122), the assertive “have” implies command over the spirits, portraying him as powerful. Yet, “have” can also suggest deception, hinting at Prospero’s manipulative schemes. This nuanced interpretation of Shakespeare’s diction undermines Prospero’s claims of control, suggesting that his pursuit of power relies on trickery. Moreover, the word “called” implies an authoritative command over the spirits, reinforcing Prospero’s role as the play’s dominator. By demanding action from the spirits, he positions himself as a leech on what might be considered their true “art.”

Colonial Sovereignty and Control

Shakespeare’s depiction of the “confines” within which the spirits exist further characterizes Prospero as a colonial sovereign. The term “confines” suggests limitations or boundaries, isolating the spirits from the physical island. This separation diminishes Prospero’s connection to the “art,” portraying him as a manipulative authority yearning for control. The characters in The Tempest are already confined by the island’s natural borders; Prospero’s assertion of the spirits’ additional “confines” illustrates his desire to impose restrictions on those around him, solidifying his role as the text’s colonial authority. This desire to dominate and delineate boundaries reinforces Prospero’s aggressor status, further distancing him from the art he claims as his own.

Revealing Illusions of Power

As Prospero’s dialogue with Ferdinand approaches its conclusion, Shakespeare clearly dismantles the idea of Prospero as the ultimate possessor of power. By asserting that the spirits are present to “enact/[his] present fancies” (IV.i.121-122), the verb “enact” shifts the focus to the spirits as the true actors of the art. This choice of wording highlights Prospero’s role as a manipulator rather than a possessor of power. Additionally, describing the acts of magic as “fancies” implies that they are mere illusions, suggesting that Prospero is deceiving those around him into accepting his authority—an authority derived from his “art.” This language also reveals Prospero’s own delusion regarding the extent of his power, characterizing him as desperate for control.

Conclusion: The True Nature of Prospero’s Authority

Shakespeare’s manipulation of diction throughout Prospero’s dialogue gradually erodes his claims to the power of art, instead characterizing him as the play’s hegemon. His use of intentionally ambiguous terms aims to mask his lack of genuine power. Rather than being the ultimate controller of magic, Prospero’s authority is undermined by the spirits’ agency and by the inherent illusions in his claims. Ultimately, it becomes evident that the only “art” Prospero truly possesses is that of authoritative manipulation.

Key Themes and Concepts

• Ambiguity of Prospero's power
• Manipulation through language
• Colonial authority and control
• Illusion versus reality in power dynamics

References

Shakespeare, William. The Tempest. Penguin Classics, 2005.

Loomba, Ania. Shakespeare, Race, and Colonialism. Oxford University Press, 2002.

Greenblatt, Stephen. Renaissance Self-Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare. University of Chicago Press, 1980.