Home > The Tempest Summary & Study Guide > The Tempest Group > Discussion Board

In The Tempest, Prospero and Caliban have a sort of love/hate relationship after Prospero enslaves Caliban. What do you think are the political or moral assumptions behind Prospero enslaving Caliban? And do you accept Prospero's justification behind this enslavement or do you question/reject?

I wouldn't call it a love/hate relationship at all. At first they were nice to each other, Caliban welcomed them and showed them the riches of the island. After Prospero enslaved him, there's no show of love from either side. If I remember correctly, Caliban tells Prospero "I loved thee" (past tense) and Prospero to him "treated thee with human care" (again past tense). In the present, Caliban makes their (Prospero's and Miranda's) fire and brings their food (I.2) and does that only because he is threatened by Prospero.

Prospero's justification is in my mind no justification at all - it can be read as a justification only to relieve the conscience of the colonizer.

Politically, he conquered new land and brought his culture and language to the uncivilized creature living there. Any postcolonial critic would beg to differ.

Morally, he claims he had enslaved Caliban after he had tried to rape Miranda (that's Prospero's main excuse). But you could also argue that Caliban did that for revenge to both of them for "colonizing" his island. As Miranda said, she taught him their language and Caliban replies his only profit from it is that he knows how to curse. He doesn't want their culture, he doesn't want their languge, all he wants is his island which was rightully his and taken from him.

So I would say I very much question and reject Prospero's justification behind the enslavement.

i thought the book was good and the way shakespeare described everything in the book was good too over all i enjoed the book