Be a Member of this BLOG

Search This Blog

Aug 8, 2018

Satan: Paradise Lost

Satan as the Hero of John Milton's "Paradise Lost"
By Niyati Pathak

The very descriptions of Satan’s physical dimensions and the size of the tools he carries mark him out as a kind of hero. His limbs are long and large; his bulk is as huge as that of the Titan who fought against Jove or that of Leviathan which God of all His works created hugest that swim the ocean stream. He has a mighty stature so that, when he rises, the flames on both sides of him are driven backward and roll in billows. He carries a ponderous, massy, and large shield on his shoulder. This shield is compared to the moon as seen through a telescope. His spear is so big that the tallest pine tree would be but a wand by comparison, etc. This description may be valid if we consider the epic as showing Satan as a character who "materializes hope, basing his hopes to gain power on the acquisition of land" (Fenton, 2003: n.p.).Combined to these great qualities, Satan was the first of created beings who, for endeavoring to be equal with the highest and to divide the empire of Heaven with the Almighty, was hurled down to Hell. His aim was no less than the throne of the universe. His ambition was the greatest, and his punishment was the greatest, but not so his despair, for his fortitude was as great as his sufferings. Slotkin (2004, as cited in Smilie, 2013) is also of the view that "God's punishments turn their victims into allegories of their own crimes" (114), a notion confirmed by Satan's famous assertion "Myself am Hell" (IV. 75). His strength of mind was matchless as his strength of body. His power of action and of suffering was equal. He was the greatest power that was ever overthrown, with the strongest will left to resist or to endure. He was baffled, not confounded. He still stood like a tower, proudly eminent in shape and gesture. An outcast from Heaven, Hell trembles beneath his feet; Sin and Death are at his heels, and mankind are his easy prey. Milton’s has rightly said in Book I:

All is not lost; the unconquerable will,
And study of revenge, immortal hate,
And courage never to submit or yield,
And what else is not to be overcome. (106-109).

The above words indicate that the sense of Satan’s punishment seems lost in the magnitude of it; the loss of infinite happiness to himself is compensated in thought, by the power of inflicting infinite misery on others. Yet Satan is not the principle of malignity, or of the abstract love of evil, but of the abstract love of power, or pride, of self-will personified. His love of power and contempt for suffering is never once relaxed from the highest pitch of intensity (…) After such a conflict as his, and such a defeat, to retreat in order to rally, to make terms, to exist at all, is something; but he does more than this-he found a new empire in Hell, and from it conquers this new world, wither he bends his undaunted flight. The poet has not in all this given us a mere shadowy outline; the strength is equal to the magnitude of the conception.

Wherever the figure of Satan is introduced, whether he walks or flies, it is illustrated with the most striking and appropriate images: so that we see it always before us, gigantic, irregular, portentous, uneasy, and disturbed- but dazzling in its faded splendor, the clouded ruins of a god. The deformity of Satan is only in the depravity of his will; he has no bodily deformity to excite our loathing or disgust. Milton was too magnanimous and opens an antagonist to support his argument by the bye-tricks of a hump and cloven feet. He relied on the justice of his cause, and did not scruple to give the devil his due. Some persons may think that he has carried his liberality too far, and injured the cause he professed to espouse by making him the chief person in his poem. Considering the nature of his subject, he would be equally in danger of running into this fault, from his faith in religion, and his love of rebellion; and perhaps each of these motives had its full share in determining the choice of his subject.

The Romantic view has persisted since Blake and Shelley emphatically expressed it. The argument is, in brief, that, since God is so unpleasant and Satan is a being of such magnificent vitality. According to Prince (1962), Milton must have "put his heart and soul into the projection of Satan" in spite of his consciously different purpose (3). Virgil’s epic poem The Aeneid offers a partial parallel. In the ancient epic the nominal hero seems to be greatly overshadowed by a character with whom we were not intended to sympathize. For many readers, Virgil’s most vital and central figure is Dido. She alone is humanly and tragically real, while Aeneas, the embodiment of Roman virtue, and Jupiter are, like Milton’s Adam and God, pallid, self-righteous, and irritating. To persons of this way of thinking, there seems to be a central discord in both poems, a conflict between the poet’s intention and the result. Both Dido and Satan, it appears, are much too great and attractive for their functional role as villains. It would seem, therefore, that Virgil, and Milton wanted to set forth certain orthodox principles but were carried away unconsciously by their hearts and imaginations (Williamson, 1965). No doubt, artists have sometimes produced effects different from what they intended. But both Virgil and Milton have clearly given us the impression of knowing what they were about. It would for this reason be impossible to believe that these poets should in their major works reveal a fundamental religious and moral contradiction.

Those who glorify Satan regard Milton’s God as an almighty King Charles, a tyrant against whom it was glorious to rebel. In King’s (2000) opinion, this is a wild notion in view of the fact that "Milton conceived of God as the supreme source and symbol of love, mercy, justice, reason, and order" (18). The fact is simply that the modern world has moved quite away from the old assumptions and doctrines of religious, ethical, social, and cosmic order and right reason. Among the general reading public, three out of four persons instinctively sympathize with any character who suffers and rebels, and pay little heed to the moral values and responsibilities involved, because in such cases, the sinner is always right, and authority and rectitude are always wrong. This instinctive response has grown the stronger as religion and morality have been increasingly undermined by romantic naturalism and sentimentalism.

The common fallacy begins with a basic misunderstanding of the beginning of Paradise Lost, namely, Satan’s first speech delivered as he surveys his followers rolling in the fiery gulf, confounded through immortal. "Our response to this speech is prepared for through the picture of the archangel torn by wholly evil passions" claimed Murray (1967: 50). But even if there were no such preparation, the speech itself in every line should arouse horror and repulsion. It is a dramatic revelation of nothing but egoistic pride and passion, of complete spiritual blindness. The "potent victor in his rage" is blind and blasphemous description of God. Nothing that the "victor" can inflict will make Satan "repent or change." This phrase is a rejection of all Christian teaching. Satan’s "injured merit" is a figment of his own egoism, quite the opposite of the real and selfless merit of Christ. "What though the field be lost? / All is not lost…" (I. 99). These famous lines embody, not the spirit of the Puritan armies, but the spirit of Hitler. Satan sees only a conflict between himself, the world conqueror, and a temporarily superior force; he cannot see that it is a conflict between evil and good. "The unconquerable will" is not the religious and naturalistic will to power. "Sturdy of revenge" and "immortal hate" brand themselves. "Courage never to submit or yield" is not true courage; it is the courage of a wolf at bay; it is desperate perseverance in evil. In short, if we think that defiance is splendid regardless of what is defied and, if we read this speech with a thrill of sympathy in reading the speeches of such Shakespearean villains as Iago, Edmund, and Macbeth. According to King (2000), even Walter Landor, a romantic revolutionary, could say: "There is neither truth nor wit is saying that Satan is the hero of the piece unless, as is usually the case in human life, he is the greatest hero who gives the wildest sway to the worst passions" (20).

There is no conflict here (in this first speech of Satan) between Milton’s intention and the result, and there is none later, even when Milton leaves dramatic speech to create its own effect. Those who admire the rebel of the first speech also admire him when he declares:

… Here at least
We shall be free …
To reign is worth ambition though in hell:
Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven. (I. 258-263)

But to those who understand and realize Milton’s principles, which are everywhere made clear, such words show how far Satan is from understanding true liberty. The tyrant of Milton’s poem, as some have seen, is not God but Satan.

Of course, Satan has heroic qualities. He is brave, strong, generous, loyal, prudent, temperate, and self-sacrificing. And if Satan has heroic virtues, so has Macbeth; both characters possess the emotional advantage of fighting against odds, while the representatives of goodness and right have irresistible power (Williamson, 1965). The situation in fact is essentially the same. Satan is overthrown when Christ is armed with the might of God; Macbeth, who has leagued himself with the powers of Satan, is overthrown by the English army which is, says Malcolm, the instrument of the powers above. Both poets, though imaginatively capable of creating a great villain, are constrained by their traditional faith in Providence and the ultimate triumph of good to bring divine power to the defeat of evil and, compared with the dauntless archangel and the bloody tyrant at bay, Christ and Malcolm may not win much of our sympathy. In a critical essay, Anderson (2010) states that, for the purpose of allowing readers to uphold or reject divine law, Milton includes elements in the poem contrary to the will of God. These elements add to the paradoxical nature of Satan’s portrayal, and "these conflicting aims ultimately lend contrary thematic values to the poem" (198).

It has been the practice of all epic poets to select someone personage, whom they distinguish above all the rest, and make the hero of the tale. This is considered essential to epic composition, and is attended with several advantages. It renders the unity of the subject more sensible, when there is one principal figure, to which as to a center, all the rest refer. In the words of Fuller (1944), "it tends to interest us more in which enterprise which is carried on; and it gives the poet an opportunity of exerting his talents for adorning and displaying one character with peculiar splendor" (15). It has been asked, who then is the hero of Paradise Lost? The Devil, it has been answered by some critics; and, in consequence of this idea, "much ridicule and censure have been thrown upon Milton" (Rudrun, 1966: 25). But they have mistaken that author’s intention, by proceeding upon a supposition that, in the conclusion of the poem, the hero must need be triumphant, whereas Milton followed a different plan and has given a tragic conclusion to a poem otherwise epic in its form. For Adam is undoubtedly his hero; that is, the capital and most interesting figure in his poem.

The figure of Satan has always fascinated readers of Paradise Lost. Some have claimed him as the secret hero of the story. But that is a misunderstanding. An adversary of God had to be massive dramatic stature, and it was a triumph that Milton succeeded in drawing him to such a scale. The misinterpretation springs from the tendency in human nature to romanticize the rebel and the fighter against odds. To understand Satan we must not lose sight of the treachery of his rebellion, or against whom it was directed, and how his frustrated rage expresses itself in a cruel effort to destroy creatures that have not harmed him. His speeches are impressively high-sounding but when examined they prove to be boasts and lies (Broadbent, 1972). Milton has exposed all those false romantic notions of heroism as egotistical magnificence, the idea that heroic energy in a bad cause is admirable.

As stated by Dunbar (1980), Blake made the following observation regarding Paradise Lost: "The reason Milton wrote in fetters when he wrote of angels and at liberty when of devils and Hell, is because he was a true poet and of the devil’s party without knowing it" (16). In Blake’s opinion, Satan was a symbol of desire, energy, and the vital creative force which enable man to live most fully. God represented old, life-denying reason and passivity which are only the shadow of desire. Certainly the conventional Heaven and rationalizing God of Paradise Lost are pale and unconvincing when compared to the descriptions of Hell and the tremendous energy and courage of Satan. Satan has been imagined and described in this poem with a wealth of vivid detail which no other character in it can equal. Satan is, by any standards, a character of epic stature.

The reason why Satan is so fully imagined and so fascinating is partly that Milton felt inspired by him and partly that it is always much easier to create evil people that ideally good ones. (Adam is a "mixed" character because though created good, he falls, but though mixed, he too has been imagined with the greatest sensitivity and fullness). Milton wanted to show that evil fascinated our first parents. Eve fell when Satan made disobedience seen attractive to her. Evil can be interesting, can inspire us, and can even have its own perverse beauty. Milton strongly condemned evil but he could yet show it at work in Satan’s temptations, and he found a splendid symbol for it in Pandemonium.

In Books I and II of Paradise Lost, Satan is depicted as heroic, but his is false heroism as it is based on false beliefs and unworthy aims and aspirations. It was Shawcross (1972) who considered Satan’s heroism as "false heroism that has its dramatic side and a certain interest" (34). Satan may be perverse, but his desire for revenge gives him energy, and his energy makes him exciting and interesting. He has all the attributes of an epic hero and all the attraction. At the beginning of the poem he is placed in a dramatic situation. His reactions to this situation have a thrilling effect on us. His speeches are full of stirring, highly emotive words such as "liberty," "oppression," and "freedom." It was partly their deep love of liberty that caused the Romantics like Blake and Shelley to respond so warmly to the character of Satan. Satan is markedly like a romantic hero (such as the characters in Byron’s Oriental tales). But Milton was not a romantic poet, and his treatment of Satan shows the weaknesses of the romantic position. Milton relentlessly exposes the willful, self-centered revengefulness of Satan, though on the surface this attitude of Satan looks like heroism.

Satan, as portrayed by Milton, was a new kind of character in epic poetry. In medieval and Renaissance literature, the devil was usually presented in a monstrous form. Tasso, for example, depicted Satan with blood-shot eyes, blood-dripping jaws, a mouth as high as a whirlpool. A devil of this kind is grotesque, and is intended to frighten the reader. Such a devil cannot convey to the reader the nature of sin or temptation. Sin and temptation are parts of human or almost human form. Milton’s devil is superhuman, but he also shows the full range of human characteristics. In depicting him, Milton departed from the crude tradition of earlier religious epics and seems to have adopted ideas from the Elizabethan and Jacobean stage. As has been stated by Daiches (1976), most of the villains in the Elizabethan and Jacobean drama have enough human characteristics to save them from becoming mere monsters. Milton too humanizes his Satan. Satan’s character has depth. It shows changes of mood: the fluctuations of revengefulness, pride, and despair. It is realistic and near-heroic, whereas earlier devils were merely monsters.

Satan is proud, of course. But beneath this pride lies a tormenting sense of despair. This despair overwhelms him until at last only the desire for revenge reigns supreme in his nature. In Book IV, he experiences "troubled thoughts" for:

Within him Hell
He brings, and round about him, nor from Hell
One step, no more than from himself, can fly
By change of place. Now conscience wakes despair
That slumbered; wakes the bitter memory
Of what he was, what is, and what must be. (20-25).

Satan embodies the powerful idea that Marlowe’s devil Mephistopheles expresses when he speaks to Faustus in the latter’s study: "Myself am Hell, nor am I out of it." Tillyard (1938) commented on this by saying that Satan’s words regarding the change of place, which will never change his mind, suggest his heroic stature and a mind that will not relent, but will follow the plan of revenge till the end, no matter what the results are.

Satan’s outward appearance shows his spiritual decline. In Book IV he has degenerated to such an extent that, when he is discovered tempting Eve, his former companion in Heaven, Gabriel, does not immediately recognize him. In Book XI he returns to Hell after successfully destroying the innocence of Adam and Eve, and is turned into the serpent whose form he had adopted when concealed in Paradise. The passages describing Satan’s appearance are like a chart indicating his moral decline from the imaginative picture of an "Archangel ruined" which exactly describes him at first. These passages emphasize the reality behind Satan’s evasions and pretence. They increase our awareness of the hollowness of Satan’s heroic postures. They also keep before our eyes the deceptiveness which is a great part of the experience and pleasure of sin.

The first two books of Paradise Lost show that Satan mainly as seen through his eyes. Milton’s brief comments on Satan seem out of tune with the stirring quality of Satan’s speeches. These comments seem harsh and unsympathetic but they serve to remind us of the extent to which we are being carried away by Satan’s glamour and rhetoric. We are struck by the splendors of the heroic setting and we are made to experience the pleasurable excitement of coming into contact with sin. In both books I and II we almost forget the distinction between goodness and self-centered energy. Satan makes high-sounding speeches. He dramatizes his situation. He makes himself an epic hero. He deceives his followers by thrilling their imaginations. But, if we analyze his speeches, we find that there are several evasions on Satan’s part and that he makes certain assertions which are unsupported by evidence.

A passage from Book I will serve as an illustration of what has been said above. In his first speech to Beelzebub, Satan gives us an account of the reasons for their failure to win the war in Heaven. In the main part of the speech (Lines 94-124), Satan makes a series of high-sounding assertions and rhetorical gestures. But these assertions have no real basis according to Lewis (2005). He speaks of his "fixed mind" and "high disdain from sense of injured merit" which made him rebellious when God placed the Son in the position which Satan believed should have been assigned to him. This is merely an expression of jealousy, selfishness, and failure to love God. In describing his rebellion he represents God as a tyrannical overlord:

And to the fierce contention brought along
Innumerable force of Spirits armed,
That durst dislike his reign, and, me preferring,
His utmost power with adverse power opposed
In dubious battle on the plains of Heaven,
And shook his throne. (I. 100-105).

These words show not only manipulations of the truth but also self-deception. Book VI makes clear that the battle was never dubious. The idea of God’s throne being shaken shows merely wishful thinking. The lines that follow betray further unsupported assertions:

All is lost-the unconquerable will,
And study of revenge, immortal hate,
And courage never to submit or yield,
And what is else not to be overcome?
That glory never shall his wrath or might
Extort from me. (I. 106-111)

Milton here exposes the emptiness of heroic postures. The word "glory" used by Satan is, for example, utterly meaningless. For God to exact obedience from his own servant could hardly be any significant triumph. Satan’s language would be appropriate only if the struggle had been between equals. His manipulations and abuses of language in Paradise Lost threaten can be viewed, as an attempt on Satan’s part to "take over the power of God’s words" (Forsyth, 2003, as cited in Morrison, 2009. 175), and that he challenges God for control and dominance of the serpent image.

There is in Milton’s Satan a unique combination of epic grandeur and falseness. We become aware of this through Milton’s direct comments on Satan, through his description of Satan, and through the epic similes he employs. Often, of course the description of Satan can be taken at their face value. Also, such similes as those pertaining to his spear and shield are intended merely to produce a sense of size and wonder. But other descriptions and similes serve to build up an implicit sense of danger and menace which is to become explicit afterwards. For instance, there is the comparison of Satan with a sea-monster when he is "prone on the flood" (I. 200-2008). In this comparison, size is the dominant impression. But once the impression of hugeness has been created, the simile extends itself into the picturesque story of the small skiff and the sailor’s delight at finding shelter on a darkened sea. The story here is one of deception. The reader experiences the same feeling as the benighted sailor must have experienced, namely, a feeling of having been deceived. The sailor was not safe but only thought that he was. Similarly, Milton means to say, man is deceived into a sense of security and then ruined by sin. Nicolson (1963) has commented on this point, saying that "the epic simile of Leviathan is a miniature version of Eve’s experience in sinning" (37).

Critics have often refused to pay attention to Milton’s plain words about the character and conduct and moral situation of Satan. They have often preferred to concentrate on Satan’s heroic and romantic aspects, thus missing the truth of Milton’s portraiture of the Devil. Satan is the enemy of God and man. That is his role in the story, and he must be equal to his role as the adversary of the Almighty. He must be shown as possessing the virtues and the powers which are necessary for him to play his part as the Arch-fiend. He must be shown as a towering genius. But we must never be allowed to forget that his genius is devilish. All his virtues are in fact corrupted by his situation and by the uses to which he puts his powers.

The original sin of Satan is the same as man’s-disobedience to God. The motive from which he acted was pride. Many think that Satan’s pride is a reflection of Milton’s own, that Milton unconsciously sympathizes with him, and that Satan therefore is the real hero of the epic. But this is a mistaken approach. Satan’s pride makes him claim equality with God. It is this excessive sense of his own importance that governs all his conduct, and it makes him irretrievably evil. This fact (namely, that Satan is evil) determines his whole situation, his actions, and his words at every stage. He is incapable of repentance. He is a lost soul to "whom hope never comes that comes to all." This fact is summed up at the end of Satan’s opening soliloquy in Book IV: "Evil be thou my good." It is a human instinct to admire the courage of despair and chivalrous devotion to a lost cause. Such courage Satan has, and such chivalry he does possess, and these have always aroused the admiration of readers. To simple-minded moderns, unversed in theological speculations, this admiration seems only right and proper. But Milton knew and repeatedly tells us that all Satan’s words and deeds were perverse and vain. Many insist on regarding Satan as a Byronic hero, or give him all the credit for courage and endurance and leadership which they give to all worthy epic heroes. If we are to understand Milton’s Satan, we must stop regarding him as a great unfortunate. This of course he is, like Macbeth, but like Macbeth he is wicked and unrepentant to the end. This makes him a great tragic figure but not an epic hero. To regard him as the hero of Milton’s epic is to stultify the poet’s whole intention.

Is Satan the hero of Paradise Lost? We might think so had we not read beyond the first book. But to trace his story in the poem to its inglorious close is to dispel the impression. Milton can scarcely intend that we should regard him as ‘hero’-as worthy of sustained admiration-one who passes from the splendor of archangelic being to the state of loathsome reptile. Because Satan’s character is round, it changes significantly from Book I though Book X, in which he makes his final appearance as a miserable creature, suffering from hell, but unable to repent. In Book I he is courageous and heroic with so many grand qualities, but as we see him in Book X, a complete degeneration has taken place in his character, which is illustrated by the different shapes he takes; from a determined hero into a cursed serpent. (www.sparkenotes.com).The hideous metamorphosis in Book X (504-532) is the necessary contrast to those scenes at the beginning of the epic in which the great rebel does appear in heroic grandeur: and we must look on both pictures. If Paradise Lost narrates the fall of man, it narrates too-and no less clearly-the fall of man’s temper. The self-degradation of Satan is complete: outward and inward: of the form and of the spirit: a change-ever for the worse-of shape and mind and emotion.

There is the outward sign. Before his expulsion he is pre-eminently a lustrous being, clothed with ethereal radiance and glory. And afterwards he retains something of this original brightness: howbeit much has passed from him. But gradually what was left decreases in proportion as the evil in him prevails: so that Uriel perceives the foul passions that dim his face (IV. 124-130); while Gabriel marks his "faded splendor wan" (IV. 870). And the Cherub Zephon taunts him therewith (IV. 835-840). Equal is his loss of physical force. On the fields of Heaven he does not fear to meet Michael in combat (VI. 246-260); in the Garden of Eden he doubts himself a match for Adam. In fact he is glad that he has to deal with the woman, not the man (IX. 480-488).

Nor is this because of lost strength alone. He shuns the "higher intellect" of Adam (IX. 483), who would be better able than Eve to see through his arguments and so resist temptation. He is conscious of his own decline in intellect. The strong intelligence which inspires his speeches in the first two books has degenerated, by perverse use, into mere sophistical slyness, a base cunning. He is no more the mighty-minded archangel: he is naught but the serpent-"subtlest beast of all the field" (IX. 86) Lastly, every impulse in him towards good has died out. The element of nobility that redeemed his character at the outset from absolute baseness has been killed. In evil he moves and has his being so that he confesses "all food to me becomes bane"; and in destroying lies his sole delight (IX. 118-119).

Conclusion
In conclusion, we, therefore agree that there has been any conflict here, as is often alleged, between Milton’s intention and the result. Satan is not only a rebel but a tyrant. His words show how far he is from understanding true liberty. He has heroic qualities, as we have already seen. He is brave, strong, generous, loyal, prudent, temperate, and self-sacrificing. But if he has heroic virtues, so has Macbeth; and Macbeth is a villain. The reason why Milton has endowed Satan with these qualities is that an adversary to God had to be of massive dramatic stature and that the power that was to seduce Eve must have an impressive personality and character. The misinterpretation arises from the tendency in human nature to romanticize the rebel and the fighter against odds. Satan’s heroism is false heroism because it is based on false beliefs and unworthy aims. False heroism has its dramatic side, and a certain interest. There is no doubt that Milton has used his poetic and dramatic powers to the full in portraying Satan. But that was natural. Milton felt inspired by Satan, and it is always much easier to create evil characters than ideally good ones. Hardly therefore shall we believe that Milton meant us to see in the fallen and ever falling archangel the hero of Paradise Lost. That position surely belongs to Adam.Who is the real hero of the paradise lost .... ?

Though Satan is described by some as the hero of Paradise Lost, two things argue against Satan as hero, though Milton does make him sympathetic by endowing him with feelings of remorsefulness with pity and compassion for his rebel angels (he is, after all, still an angel). However, though sympathetic, Satan always dispels these higher, selfless qualities with determination to do harm and eventually avenge himself. The two things that argue against Satan as hero are: (1) Milton's description of him in Book I, since the description shows that, although he has brilliant qualities, his spirit and heart are set on intentionally doing harm and leading others (angels who also still have their angelic qualities and callings) to continually do harm. (2) Though only hinted at in early books, The Son of God enters the story later on and is Milton's true hero. This early focus on the antagonist and delayed entrance of the protagonist hero may be confusing to modern readers because, in our experience, the hero normally enters the story on or near page one.

Jul 14, 2018

Macaulay's "Minute on Education"





Minute by T.B. Macaulay, (Feb 2, 1835) 
 

As it seems to be the opinion of some of the gentlemen who compose the Committee of Public Instruction that the course which they have hitherto pursued was strictly prescribed by the British Parliament in 1813 and as, if that opinion be correct, a legislative act will be necessary to warrant a change, I have thought it right to refrain from taking any part in the preparation of the adverse statements which are.now before us, and to reserve what I had to say on the subject till it should come before me as a Member of the Council of India.

It does not appear to me that the Act of Parliament can by any art of contraction be made to bear the meaning which has been assigned to it. It contains nothing about the particular languages or sciences which are to be studied. A sum is set apart "for the revival and promotion of literature, and the encouragement of the learned natives of India, and for the introduction and promotion of a knowledge of the sciences among the inhabitants of the British territories." It is argued, or rather taken for granted, that by literature the Parliament can have meant only Arabic and Sanscrit literature; that they never would have given the honourable appellation of "a learned native" to a native who was familiar with the poetry of Milton, the metaphysics of Locke, and the physics of Newton; but that they meant to designate by that name only such persons as might have studied in the sacred books of the Hindoos all the uses of cusa-grass, and all the mysteries of absorption into the Deity. This does not appear to be a very satisfactory interpretation. To take a parallel case: Suppose that the Pacha of Egypt, a country once superior in knowledge to the nations of Europe, but now sunk far below them, were to appropriate a sum for the purpose "of reviving and promoting literature, and encouraging learned natives of Egypt," would any body infer that he meant the youth of his Pachalik to give years to the study of hieroglyphics, to search into all the doctrines disguised under the fable of Osiris, and to ascertain with all possible accuracy the ritual with which cats and onions were anciently adored? Would he be justly charged with inconsistency if, instead of employing his young subjects in deciphering obelisks, he were to order them to be instructed in the English and French languages, and in all the sciences to which those languages are the chief keys?

The words on which the supporters of the old system rely do not bear them out, and other words follow which seem to be quite decisive on the other side. This lakh of rupees is set apart not only for "reviving literature in India," the phrase on which their whole interpretation is founded, but also "for the introduction and promotion of a knowledge of the sciences among the inhabitants of the British territories"-- words which are alone sufficient to authorize all the changes for which I contend.

If the Council agree in my construction no legislative act will be necessary. If they differ from me, I will propose a short act rescinding that I clause of the Charter of 1813 from which the difficulty arises.

The argument which I have been considering affects only the form of proceeding. But the admirers of the oriental system of education have used another argument, which, if we admit it to be valid, is decisive against all change. They conceive that the public faith is pledged to the present system, and that to alter the appropriation of any of the funds which have hitherto been spent in encouraging the study of Arabic and Sanscrit would be downright spoliation. It is not easy to understand by what process of reasoning they can have arrived at this conclusion. The grants which are made from the public purse for the encouragement of literature differ in no respect from the grants which are made from the same purse for other objects of real or supposed utility. We found a sanitarium on a spot which we suppose to be healthy. Do we thereby pledge ourselves to keep a sanitarium there if the result should not answer our expectations? We commence the erection of a pier. Is it a violation of the public faith to stop the works, if we afterwards see reason to believe that the building will be useless? The rights of property are undoubtedly sacred. But nothing endangers those rights so much as the practice, now unhappily too common, of attributing them to things to which they do not belong. Those who would impart to abuses the sanctity of property are in truth imparting to the institution of property the unpopularity and the fragility of abuses. If the Government has given to any person a formal assurance-- nay, if the Government has excited in any person's mind a reasonable expectation-- that he shall receive a certain income as a teacher or a learner of Sanscrit or Arabic, I would respect that person's pecuniary interests. I would rather err on the side of liberality to individuals than suffer the public faith to be called in question. But to talk of a Government pledging itself to teach certain languages and certain sciences, though those languages may become useless, though those sciences may be exploded, seems to me quite unmeaning. There is not a single word in any public instrument from which it can be inferred that the Indian Government ever intended to give any pledge on this subject, or ever considered the destination of these funds as unalterably fixed. But, had it been otherwise, I should have denied the competence of our predecessors to bind us by any pledge on such a subject. Suppose that a Government had in the last century enacted in the most solemn manner that all its subjects should, to the end of time, be inoculated for the small-pox, would that Government be bound to persist in the practice after Jenner's discovery? These promises of which nobody claims the performance, and from which nobody can grant a release, these vested rights which vest in nobody, this property without proprietors, this robbery which makes nobody poorer, may be comprehended by persons of higher faculties than mine. I consider this plea merely as a set form of words, regularly used both in England and in India, in defence of every abuse for which no other plea can be set up.


I hold this lakh of rupees to be quite at the disposal of the Governor-General in Council for the purpose of promoting learning in India in any way which may be thought most advisable. I hold his Lordship to be quite as free to direct that it shall no longer be employed in encouraging Arabic and Sanscrit, as he is to direct that the reward for killing tigers in Mysore shall be diminished, or that no more public money shall be expended on the chaunting at the cathedral.

We now come to the gist of the matter. We have a fund to be employed as Government shall direct for the intellectual improvement of the people of this country. The simple question is, what is the most useful way of employing it?

All parties seem to be agreed on one point, that the dialects commonly spoken among the natives of this part of India contain neither literary nor scientific information, and are moreover so poor and rude that, until they are enriched from some other quarter, it will not be easy to translate any valuable work into them.  It seems to be admitted on all sides, that the intellectual improvement of those classes of the people who have the means of pursuing higher studies can at present be affected only by means of some language not vernacular amongst them.

What then shall that language be? One-half of the committee maintain that it should be the English. The other half strongly recommend the Arabic and Sanscrit. The whole question seems to me to be-- which language is the best worth knowing?

I have no knowledge of either Sanscrit or Arabic. But I have done what I could to form a correct estimate of their value. I have read translations of the most celebrated Arabic and Sanscrit works. I have conversed, both here and at home, with men distinguished by their proficiency in the Eastern tongues. I am quite ready to take the oriental learning at the valuation of the orientalists themselves. I have never found one among them who could deny that a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia. The intrinsic superiority of the Western literature is indeed fully admitted by those members of the committee who support the oriental plan of education.

It will hardly be disputed, I suppose, that the department of literature in which the Eastern writers stand highest is poetry. And I certainly never met with any orientalist who ventured to maintain that the Arabic and Sanscrit poetry could be compared to that of the great European nations. But when we pass from works of imagination to works in which facts are recorded and general principles investigated, the superiority of the Europeans becomes absolutely immeasurable. It is, I believe, no exaggeration to say that all the historical information which has been collected from all the books written in the Sanscrit language is less valuable than what may be found in the most paltry abridgments used at preparatory schools in England. In every branch of physical or moral philosophy, the relative position of the two nations is nearly the same.

How then stands the case? We have to educate a people who cannot at present be educated by means of their mother-tongue. We must teach them some foreign language. The claims of our own language it is hardly necessary to recapitulate. It stands pre-eminent even among the languages of the West. It abounds with works of imagination not inferior to the noblest which Greece has bequeathed to us, --with models of every species of eloquence, --with historical composition, which, considered merely as narratives, have seldom been surpassed, and which, considered as vehicles of ethical and political instruction, have never been equaled-- with just and lively representations of human life and human nature, --with the most profound speculations on metaphysics, morals, government, jurisprudence, trade, --with full and correct information respecting every experimental science which tends to preserve the health, to increase the comfort, or to expand the intellect of man. Whoever knows that language has ready access to all the vast intellectual wealth which all the wisest nations of the earth have created and hoarded in the course of ninety generations. It may safely be said that the literature now extant in that language is of greater value than all the literature which three hundred years ago was extant in all the languages of the world together. Nor is this all. In India, English is the language spoken by the ruling class. It is spoken by the higher class of natives at the seats of Government. It is likely to become the language of commerce throughout the seas of the East. It is the language of two great European communities which are rising, the one in the south of Africa, the other in Australia, --communities which are every year becoming more important and more closely connected with our Indian empire. Whether we look at the intrinsic value of our literature, or at the particular situation of this country, we shall see the strongest reason to think that, of all foreign tongues, the English tongue is that which would be the most useful to our native subjects.

The question now before us is simply whether, when it is in our power to teach this language, we shall teach languages in which, by universal confession, there are no books on any subject which deserve to be compared to our own, whether, when we can teach European science, we shall teach systems which, by universal confession, wherever they differ from those of Europe differ for the worse, and whether, when we can patronize sound philosophy and true history, we shall countenance, at the public expense, medical doctrines which would disgrace an English farrier, astronomy which would move laughter in girls at an English boarding school, history abounding with kings thirty feet high and reigns thirty thousand years long, and geography made of seas of treacle and seas of butter.

We are not without experience to guide us. History furnishes several analogous cases, and they all teach the same lesson. There are, in modern times, to go no further, two memorable instances of a great impulse given to the mind of a whole society, of prejudices overthrown, of knowledge diffused, of taste purified, of arts and sciences planted in countries which had recently been ignorant and barbarous.

The first instance to which I refer is the great revival of letters among the Western nations at the close of the fifteenth and the beginning of the sixteenth century. At that time almost everything that was worth reading was contained in the writings of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Had our ancestors acted as the Committee of Public Instruction has hitherto noted, had they neglected the language of Thucydides and Plato, and the language of Cicero and Tacitus, had they confined their attention to the old dialects of our own island, had they printed nothing and taught nothing at the universities but chronicles in Anglo-Saxon and romances in Norman French, --would England ever have been what she now is? What the Greek and Latin were to the contemporaries of More and Ascham, our tongue is to the people of India. The literature of England is now more valuable than that of classical antiquity. I doubt whether the Sanscrit literature be as valuable as that of our Saxon and Norman progenitors. In some departments-- in history for example-- I am certain that it is much less so.

Another instance may be said to be still before our eyes. Within the last hundred and twenty years, a nation which had previously been in a state as barbarous as that in which our ancestors were before the Crusades has gradually emerged from the ignorance in which it was sunk, and has taken its place among civilized communities. I speak of Russia. There is now in that country a large educated class abounding with persons fit to serve the State in the highest functions, and in nowise inferior to the most accomplished men who adorn the best circles of Paris and London. There is reason to hope that this vast empire which, in the time of our grandfathers, was probably behind the Punjab, may in the time of our grandchildren, be pressing close on France and Britain in the career of improvement. And how was this change effected? Not by flattering national prejudices; not by feeding the mind of the young Muscovite with the old women's stories which his rude fathers had believed; not by filling his head with lying legends about St. Nicholas; not by encouraging him to study the great question, whether the world was or not created on the 13th of September; not by calling him "a learned native" when he had mastered all these points of knowledge; but by teaching him those foreign languages in which the greatest mass of information had been laid up, and thus putting all that information within his reach. The languages of western Europe civilised Russia. I cannot doubt that they will do for the Hindoo what they have done for the Tartar.

And what are the arguments against that course which seems to be alike recommended by theory and by experience? It is said that we ought to secure the co-operation of the native public, and that we can do this only by teaching Sanscrit and Arabic.

I can by no means admit that, when a nation of high intellectual attainments undertakes to superintend the education of a nation comparatively ignorant, the learners are absolutely to prescribe the course which is to be taken by the teachers. It is not necessary however to say anything on this subject. For it is proved by unanswerable evidence, that we are not at present securing the co-operation of the natives. It would be bad enough to consult their intellectual taste at the expense of their intellectual health. But we are consulting neither. We are withholding from them the learning which is palatable to them. We are forcing on them the mock learning which they nauseate.

This is proved by the fact that we are forced to pay our Arabic and Sanscrit students while those who learn English are willing to pay us. All the declamations in the world about the love and reverence of the natives for their sacred dialects will never, in the mind of any impartial person, outweigh this undisputed fact, that we cannot find in all our vast empire a single student who will let us teach him those dialects, unless we will pay him.

I have now before me the accounts of the Mudrassa for one month, the month of December, 1833. The Arabic students appear to have been seventy-seven in number. All receive stipends from the public. The whole amount paid to them is above 500 rupees a month. On the other side of the account stands the following item:
        Deduct amount realized from the out-students of English for the months of May, June, and July last-- 103 rupees.

I have been told that it is merely from want of local experience that I am surprised at these phenomena, and that it is not the fashion for students in India to study at their own charges. This only confirms me in my opinions. Nothing is more certain than that it never can in any part of the world be necessary to pay men for doing what they think pleasant or profitable. India is no exception to this rule. The people of India do not require to be paid for eating rice when they are hungry, or for wearing woollen cloth in the cold season. To come nearer to the case before us: --The children who learn their letters and a little elementary arithmetic from the village schoolmaster are not paid by him. He is paid for teaching them. Why then is it necessary to pay people to learn Sanscrit and Arabic? Evidently because it is universally felt that the Sanscrit and Arabic are languages the knowledge of which does not compensate for the trouble of acquiring them. On all such subjects the state of the market is the detective test.

Other evidence is not wanting, if other evidence were required. A petition was presented last year to the committee by several ex-students of the Sanscrit College. The petitioners stated that they had studied in the college ten or twelve years, that they had made themselves acquainted with Hindoo literature and science, that they had received certificates of proficiency. And what is the fruit of all this? "Notwithstanding such testimonials," they say, "we have but little prospect of bettering our condition without the kind assistance of your honourable committee, the indifference with which we are generally looked upon by our countrymen leaving no hope of encouragement and assistance from them." They therefore beg that they may be recommended to the Governor-General for places under the Government-- not places of high dignity or emolument, but such as may just enable them to exist. "We want means," they say, "for a decent living, and for our progressive improvement, which, however, we cannot obtain without the assistance of Government, by whom we have been educated and maintained from childhood." They conclude by representing very pathetically that they are sure that it was never the intention of Government, after behaving so liberally to them during their education, to abandon them to destitution and neglect.

I have been used to see petitions to Government for compensation. All those petitions, even the most unreasonable of them, proceeded on the supposition that some loss had been sustained, that some wrong had been inflicted. These are surely the first petitioners who ever demanded compensation for having been educated gratis, for having been supported by the public during twelve years, and then sent forth into the world well furnished with literature and science. They represent their education as an injury which gives them a claim on the Government for redress, as an injury for which the stipends paid to them during the infliction were a very inadequate compensation. And I doubt not that they are in the right. They have wasted the best years of life in learning what procures for them neither bread nor respect. Surely we might with advantage have saved the cost of making these persons useless and miserable. Surely, men may be brought up to be burdens to the public and objects of contempt to their neighbours at a somewhat smaller charge to the State. But such is our policy. We do not even stand neuter in the contest between truth and falsehood. We are not content to leave the natives to the influence of their own hereditary prejudices. To the natural difficulties which obstruct the progress of sound science in the East, we add great difficulties of our own making. Bounties and premiums, such as ought not to be given even for the propagation of truth, we lavish on false texts and false philosophy.

By acting thus we create the very evil which we fear. We are making that opposition which we do not find. What we spend on the Arabic and Sanscrit Colleges is not merely a dead loss to the cause of truth. It is bounty-money paid to raise up champions of error. It goes to form a nest not merely of helpless placehunters but of bigots prompted alike by passion and by interest to raise a cry against every useful scheme of education. If there should be any opposition among the natives to the change which I recommend, that opposition will be the effect of our own system. It will be headed by persons supported by our stipends and trained in our colleges. The longer we persevere in our present course, the more formidable will that opposition be. It will be every year reinforced by recruits whom we are paying. From the native society, left to itself, we have no difficulties to apprehend. All the murmuring will come from that oriental interest which we have, by artificial means, called into being and nursed into strength.

There is yet another fact which is alone sufficient to prove that the feeling of the native public, when left to itself, is not such as the supporters of the old system represent it to be. The committee have thought fit to lay out above a lakh of rupees in printing Arabic and Sanscrit books. Those books find no purchasers. It is very rarely that a single copy is disposed of. Twenty-three thousand volumes, most of them folios and quartos, fill the libraries or rather the lumber-rooms of this body. The committee contrive to get rid of some portion of their vast stock of oriental literature by giving books away. But they cannot give so fast as they print. About twenty thousand rupees a year are spent in adding fresh masses of waste paper to a hoard which, one should think, is already sufficiently ample. During the last three years about sixty thousand rupees have been expended in this manner. The sale of Arabic and Sanscrit books during those three years has not yielded quite one thousand rupees. In the meantime, the School Book Society is selling seven or eight thousand English volumes every year, and not only pays the expenses of printing but realizes a profit of twenty per cent. on its outlay.

The fact that the Hindoo law is to be learned chiefly from Sanscrit books, and the Mahometan law from Arabic books, has been much insisted on, but seems not to bear at all on the question. We are commanded by Parliament to ascertain and digest the laws of India. The assistance of a Law Commission has been given to us for that purpose. As soon as the Code is promulgated the Shasters and the Hedaya will be useless to a moonsiff or a Sudder Ameen. I hope and trust that, before the boys who are now entering at the Mudrassa and the Sanscrit College have completed their studies, this great work will be finished. It would be manifestly absurd to educate the rising generation with a view to a state of things which we mean to alter before they reach manhood.

But there is yet another argument which seems even more untenable. It is said that the Sanscrit and the Arabic are the languages in which the sacred books of a hundred millions of people are written, and that they are on that account entitled to peculiar encouragement. Assuredly it is the duty of the British Government in India to be not only tolerant but neutral on all religious questions. But to encourage the study of a literature, admitted to be of small intrinsic value, only because that literature inculcated the most serious errors on the most important subjects, is a course hardly reconcilable with reason, with morality, or even with that very neutrality which ought, as we all agree, to be sacredly preserved. It is confined that a language is barren of useful knowledge. We are to teach it because it is fruitful of monstrous superstitions. We are to teach false history, false astronomy, false medicine, because we find them in company with a false religion. We abstain, and I trust shall always abstain, from giving any public encouragement to those who are engaged in the work of converting the natives to Christianity. And while we act thus, can we reasonably or decently bribe men, out of the revenues of the State, to waste their youth in learning how they are to purify themselves after touching an ass or what texts of the Vedas they are to repeat to expiate the crime of killing a goat?

It is taken for granted by the advocates of oriental learning that no native of this country can possibly attain more than a mere smattering of English. They do not attempt to prove this. But they perpetually insinuate it. They designate the education which their opponents recommend as a mere spelling-book education. They assume it as undeniable that the question is between a profound knowledge of Hindoo and Arabian literature and science on the one side, and superficial knowledge of the rudiments of English on the other. This is not merely an assumption, but an assumption contrary to all reason and experience. We know that foreigners of all nations do learn our language sufficiently to have access to all the most abstruse knowledge which it contains sufficiently to relish even the more delicate graces of our most idiomatic writers. There are in this very town natives who are quite competent to discuss political or scientific questions with fluency and precision in the English language. I have heard the very question on which I am now writing discussed by native gentlemen with a liberality and an intelligence which would do credit to any member of the Committee of Public Instruction. Indeed it is unusual to find, even in the literary circles of the Continent, any foreigner who can express himself in English with so much facility and correctness as we find in many Hindoos. Nobody, I suppose, will contend that English is so difficult to a Hindoo as Greek to an Englishman. Yet an intelligent English youth, in a much smaller number of years than our unfortunate pupils pass at the Sanscrit College, becomes able to read, to enjoy, and even to imitate not unhappily the compositions of the best Greek authors. Less than half the time which enables an English youth to read Herodotus and Sophocles ought to enable a Hindoo to read Hume and Milton.

To sum up what I have said. I think it clear that we are not fettered by the Act of Parliament of 1813, that we are not fettered by any pledge expressed or implied, that we are free to employ our funds as we choose, that we ought to employ them in teaching what is best worth knowing, that English is better worth knowing than Sanscrit or Arabic, that the natives are desirous to be taught English, and are not desirous to be taught Sanscrit or Arabic, that neither as the languages of law nor as the languages of religion have the Sanscrit and Arabic any peculiar claim to our encouragement, that it is possible to make natives of this country thoroughly good English scholars, and that to this end our efforts ought to be directed.

In one point I fully agree with the gentlemen to whose general views I am opposed. I feel with them that it is impossible for us, with our limited means, to attempt to educate the body of the people. We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern,  --a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect. To that class we may leave it to refine the vernacular dialects of the country, to enrich those dialects with terms of science borrowed from the Western nomenclature, and to render them by degrees fit vehicles for conveying knowledge to the great mass of the population.

I would strictly respect all existing interests. I would deal even generously with all individuals who have had fair reason to expect a pecuniary provision. But I would strike at the root of the bad system which has hitherto been fostered by us. I would at once stop the printing of Arabic and Sanscrit books. I would abolish the Mudrassa and the Sanscrit College at Calcutta. Benares is the great seat of Brahminical learning; Delhi of Arabic learning. If we retain the Sanscrit College at Bonares and the Mahometan College at Delhi we do enough and much more than enough in my opinion, for the Eastern languages. If the Benares and Delhi Colleges should be retained, I would at least recommend that no stipends shall be given to any students who may hereafter repair thither, but that the people shall be left to make their own choice between the rival systems of education without being bribed by us to learn what they have no desire to know. The funds which would thus be placed at our disposal would enable us to give larger encouragement to the Hindoo College at Calcutta, and establish in the principal cities throughout the Presidencies of Fort William and Agra schools in which the English language might be well and thoroughly taught.

If the decision of His Lordship in Council should be such as I anticipate, I shall enter on the performance of my duties with the greatest zeal and alacrity. If, on the other hand, it be the opinion of the Government that the present system ought to remain unchanged, I beg that I may be permitted to retire from the chair of the Committee. I feel that I could not be of the smallest use there. I feel also that I should be lending my countenance to what I firmly believe to be a mere delusion. I believe that the present system tends not to accelerate the progress of truth but to delay the natural death of expiring errors. I conceive that we have at present no right to the respectable name of a Board of Public Instruction. We are a Board for wasting the public money, for printing books which are of less value than the paper on which they are printed was while it was blank-- for giving artificial encouragement to absurd history, absurd metaphysics, absurd physics, absurd theology-- for raising up a breed of scholars who find their scholarship an incumbrance and blemish, who live on the public while they are receiving their education, and whose education is so utterly useless to them that, when they have received it, they must either starve or live on the public all the rest of their lives. Entertaining these opinions, I am naturally desirous to decline all share in the responsibility of a body which, unless it alters its whole mode of proceedings, I must consider, not merely as useless, but as positively noxious.

    T[homas] B[abington] MACAULAY
     2nd February 1835.
     I give my entire concurrence to the sentiments expressed in this Minute.

     W[illiam] C[avendish] BENTINCK. 
 



From: Bureau of Education. Selections from Educational Records, Part I (1781-1839).  Edited by H. Sharp.  Calcutta: Superintendent, Government Printing, 1920. Reprint. Delhi: National Archives of India, 1965, 107-117.

-- Macaulay index page -- Glossary -- fwp's main page --




Jul 9, 2018

Caliban and Colonialism in "The Tempest"

Link: http://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/SLT/plays/the%20tempest/tempestcaliban.html

Caliban and Colonialism in Shakespeare's "The Tempest"
by Kathrine Engan

William Shakespeare’s The Tempest, written around 1611, tells the story of power struggles on an almost deserted island. Prospero, the exiled Duke of Milan, has enslaved the only native of the isle, Caliban, and he plans and eventually manages to regain his dukedom through use of magic. Several of the characters vie for power in parallel plots. The play was written at a time when England was establishing itself as a colonial power along with other European empires such as Spain, Portugal, and France. The Tempest certainly deals with issues of colonialism in a topical way, especially through the character of Caliban, by alluding to physical and social otherness and financial incentives of colonialism. However, the ambiguous geographical setting together with Caliban’s sympathetic traits and his unresolved status at the end of the play invite the audience to question the legitimacy of power rather than endorsing or criticizing colonialism per se.

When King James I ascended to the throne in 1603, after roughly four decades with Queen Elizabeth I as monarch, England was in a period of territorial growth. In addition to having colonized Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, the English monarch set up its first American colony in 1585 (“How the Tudor Dynasty Shaped Modern Britain”). The colonies represented access to raw materials and generated income for the crown. Acquiring colonies was also important in order to seem powerful, especially vis-a-vis Spain, and was thus an important part of the British project of nation-building. With the reign of King James I, the national discourse changed from focusing on England to embracing the British. Many texts were published reflecting this new way of seeing the country and situating Britain historically, building continuity with history and myth. Shakespeare, after 1603, engaged in this shift by choosing “Britain” rather than “England” in his texts (Wymer 5). Of course, as Britain had increasing contact with other countries and territories, either by colonizing them or through trade or travel, the English would think of their own (national) identity in terms of what they were not (“The Sixteenth Century” 496). Starting even before Shakespeare’s time, Native Americans and Africans were captured or convinced to come back to England (“Squantum,” Vaughan 50). Some of these foreigners learned English and served as interpreters or valuable sources of information, others were exotic showpieces at court or in public spaces.

The character of Caliban dramatizes otherness and exoticism. Trinculo, upon first seeing Caliban, questions whether he is “a man or a fish?” and later repeatedly calls him “monster” (Shakespeare 2.2.25, 2.2.31). Stephano consistently refers to Caliban as “servant monster,” “man-monster,” and “mooncalf” (3.2.8, 3.2.12, 3.2.23). But even if these characters emphasize Caliban’s monstrosity, I support Vaughan and Vaughan’s reading of Caliban as clearly human (10). Prospero states, when introducing Caliban and setting up his own coming to the island that it “was not honored with a human shape” except “the son that she [Sycorax, Caliban’s mother] did litter here”(1.2.281-83). The First Folio version of the play describes Caliban in the Dramatis Personae as “a saluage and deformed slaue.” However, the deformity is never specified, and staging choices are left to the choices made by each production of the play. 

simon_enchanted_island
“The Enchanted Island Before the Cell of Prospero.” Painted by P. Simons and Henry Fuseli, first published in A Collection of Prints from Pictures Painted for the Purpose of Illustrating the Dramatic Works of Shakespeare (1803).
Caliban’s otherness clearly has to do with his behavior as much as with his looks. Prospero declares that despite his own humane treatment of Caliban, Caliban refuses to behave appropriately. One of his complaints is that Caliban, “with humane care,” was allowed to live in the cave with Prospero and Miranda, but subsequently tried to rape her (1.2.346-48). Prospero implies that gratitude would have been a more appropriate response to sharing habitation with him and Miranda. Caliban, on the other hand, laments that learning the language of his oppressors have done him no good, only taught him to “curse” (1.2.363). In contrast to Prospero, who uses magic to dominate other characters, Caliban’s curses are ineffective as a tool. In other words, even if Prospero has made an effort to teach Caliban the ways of the civilized world, Caliban is unwilling to behave according to Prospero’s expectations.

Caliban is written as a sympathetic and composite character. As argued by Deborah Willis, Caliban and his claim to the island is strong enough to (partly) undermine Prospero as a just ruler (279, 284). Caliban explains to the audience how “this island’s mine by Sycorax my mother,” a more convincing claim to the island than Prospero is able to come up with (1.2.331). He further details how Prospero pretended to “ma[ke] much” of him, but then promptly enslaved him and now keeps him confined in a rock when he is not working  (1.2.472, 1.2.481-82). In this earnest and eloquent speech, Caliban appears to have good reasons to complain of his servitude, which again serve to undermine Prospero’s absolute authority. Caliban might be partly savage and crude, but he also speaks in iambic pentameter (like the noble characters of the play), and his side of the story shows Prospero’s abuse and willingness to use magic and power to get his own way. Thus, Caliban’s character works against simple stereotypes of “savage natives” and invites the audience to ponder why, exactly, Prospero might be justified in ruling over him.

The issues brought up by the character of Caliban also emphasize the economic concerns of the colonial enterprise. When Prospero and Miranda first came to the island, we learn, Caliban showed them “all the qualities o’ th’ isle / the fresh springs, brine pits, barren place and fertile” (1.2.337). He, in other words, has knowledge of the raw materials they needed for their survival. In addition, Caliban represents labor for Prospero. While the newcomers to the island refer to Caliban as “monster,” Prospero’s descriptor of choice is “slave.” When Caliban first enters the stage, he is repeatedly called “slave,” “my slave,” “poisonous slave” and “most lying slave,” all in quick succession (1.2.307, 1.2.312, 1.2.319, 1.2.343). Caliban works for Prospero: fetching wood, tending the fire, and other “offices that profit [Prospero and Caliban]” (1.2.307). In this way, Caliban represents both wealth, labor, and survival for Prospero and his daughter.

Other characters also see Caliban in terms of his monetary value. Trinculo speculates that Caliban would “make a man” in England, i.e. make Trinculo rich by attracting people who would be willing to pay to see him (2.2.30-32). Likewise Antonio, Prospero’s brother, states that Caliban is “very marketable” (5.1.266). They are not interested in Caliban’s qualities as a person or his potential autonomy, but view him as an object, something they can make money on. This, of course, mirrors colonial financial concerns.

The geographical location of the island of Prospero’s island is vague. Some scholars have argued that the island is in the Mediterranean (Frey 29) while others hold that the island must be set in the Caribbean or is a metaphor for the Americas (Vaughan and Vaughan 118). Others again claim that the play resonates with English domination over Scotland, Wales, and Ireland or England’s past as a Roman colony (Wymer 3, 5). The non-specificity of the setting — with references to Bermudas, the Argentinian god Setebos, and specific foods that Caliban is able to provide — invites a more abstract and allegorical reading, in line with the magical elements of the play. This in turn has contributed to the longevity of the play: after all, we still deal with colonialism and post-colonialism, and the issues raised by Prospero and Caliban have been specific enough to be useful, yet general enough to be applicable to more modern contexts. We see this for instance in Mannoni’s Prospero and Caliban: the Psychology of Colonization, where the psychoanalyst uses the characters from The Tempest to illustrate, generalize, and problematize the mindsets and effects of colonialism.

In addition to the relevance gained from this geographical ambiguity, Caliban’s character and thus his colonized condition stays with the audience. Whereas the spirit Ariel, who has been bound to Prospero throughout the play, is released by Prospero at the end of the last act, Caliban’s future is not resolved (5.1.320). Caliban, on the other hand, recognizes that Prospero is now his master (again) and that he will likely be punished (5.1.261) and Prospero, in turn, exclaims that “this thing of darkness I / acknowledge mine” (5.1.275). They are back in the same kind of relationship they had at the beginning of the play, except Caliban now vows to “be wise hereafter, / and seek for grace” because he fears the punishment Prospero can give him (5.1.295). First, this ending is tenuous because obedience grounded in fear often backfires or leads to unwanted consequences. Second, Prospero leaves it up to the readers’ imagination what will happen to Caliban next. Some critics hold that Caliban will get the island and his liberty back when Prospero returns to Milan (Vaughan and Vaughan 9). I agree with Willis’ reading of the end where Caliban’s future is really up in the air: he might be allowed to stay at the island by himself, but it is equally possible that he has to come with Prospero to Milan (286). Either way, Caliban’s presence is ongoing and uneasy, even after the ending of the play.

In conclusion, The Tempest deals with colonialism and power in a nuanced way. While demonstrating how Caliban is viewed by the colonizer, Prospero, and the Old World newcomers to the island, the play also portrays him as a sympathetic and oppressed character. Shakespeare’s combination of  contemporary, topical references to colonialism and natives and the wider, overarching themes of the long-lasting effect of colonialism and legitimacy of power, make this play feel relevant also in the 21st century. After all, just like Caliban stays with us after the curtain goes down, so do issues related to power and (post-)colonialism.

Works Cited

Frey, Charles. “The Tempest and the New World.” Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 1, 1979, 29-41.

“How the Tudor Dynasty Shaped Modern Britain.” iWonder, BBC, http://www.bbc.co.uk/timelines/zxnbr82#zxsgcdm. Accessed 27 November 2016.

Mannoni, O. Prospero and Caliban: The Psychology of Colonization. Translated by Pamela Powesland, 2nd edition, Frederick A. Praeger, 1964.

Shakespeare, William. The Tempest. Editor Robert Langbaum, Signet, 1998.

Shakespeare, William. The Tempest (First Folio). Editors Brent Whitted and Paul Yachnin. Internet Shakespeare Editions. University of Victoria, http://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/doc/Tmp_F1/scene/1.1/;jsessionid=0FE083503051B0BD17058E2D5635FA79. Accessed 28 Nov 2016.

“Squantum — Taken to England.” Squantum  http://www.baccalieu.com/squantum/take.htm. Accessed 28 November 2016.

“The Sixteenth Century 1485-1603.” The Norton Anthology of English Literature, General Editor Stephen Greenblatt, Eighth edition, Vol.1, Norton, 2006, 485-511.

Vaughan, Alden T. “Trinculo’s Indian: American Natives in Shakespeare’s England.” The Tempest and Its Travels. Editors Peter Hulme and William H. Sherman, U of Penn Press, 2000.

Vaughan, Alden T. and Virginia Mason Vaughan. Shakespeare’s Caliban: A Cultural History. Cambridge UP, 1991.

Willis, Deborah. “Shakespeare’s Tempest and the Discourse of Colonialism.” Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, Vol. 29, No. 2, 1989, 277-89.

Wymer, Rowland. “The Tempest and the Origins of Britain.” Critical Survey, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1999, 3-14.

Jul 4, 2018

Indianness in Indian English Poetry

INDIANNESS IN INDIAN ENGLISH POETRY 
V.S.V.L. Ramana

            Indian English poetry is an attempt to give a generic cover to the Indian imagination seeking creative outlet in and through English. Many Indian poets write in English because they think their creative urge can be fulfilled in a better way in English than in the vernacular. Prof. Srinivasa Iyengar rightly pointed out that Indian writing in English is a novel experiment in creative mutation when he said: “To be Indian in thought and feeling and emotion and experience, yet also to court the graces and submit to the discipline of English for expression”1 is some­thing that the present writers aim at. The post independence Indian English verse has gained in both strength and variety an appreciable position. It has been said that it is Indian in sensibility and context and Indian English, if we choose to call it so, in language. It is rooted in and stems out from the Indian environment and reflects its mores.

            In spite of the differences between one medium and another there is a unity of supreme significance among Indian writers writing in regional language like Oriya, Malayalam, Tamil, Telugu or Marathi. The unity of Indianness, i.e., all transcending response to the physical, idealistic, and intellectual personality of India, in them brings these poets together.

            The Indian English poets, giving expression to the Indian, experience in thought and imagery, are in the main stream of a tradition. A cultural activity does not grow all of a sudden it has an origin and a development. It is pertinent to consider the tradition that has been built up by this output and the impact of this tradition on the writers of today. P. Lal remarks that these poets are instrumental in rediscovering “values and techniques within one’s own tradition” 2 which is a body of concepts and usages, ideas and feelings to be felt or thought, to win acceptance and currency or to provoke dissent or modification.

            The angle of the poet’s vision has been conditioned by his own experience and temperament by the primary attitudes or modes of his perception. “Language, Music, Form, Meaning, Style, Imagery, Inner Meaning, Mood, Attitude and Vision: this is how we get to know a poem in each stage of its creation, whatever the process of integration that goes to make up the poem as a whole,” 3 says V. K. Gokak.

            When we come to Indian English poetry, we find ourselves in a world in which the response to Indian reality, the underlying sensibility, the use of imagery, diction, etc., are strikingly different, particularly in the contemporary leading poets. Our attempt will be a study whether there are any noteworthy differences in the poetic sensibility shaped by their Indianness in the poets of pre-independence era such as Sri Aurobindo, Sarojini Naidu, etc., and the poets in the post-independence period with special reference to Nissim Ezekiel, A. K. Ramanujan, Kamala Das, Jayant Mahapatra and Shiv K. Kumar.

            Many contemporary poets write in English about their experience of today’s Indian milieu without losing their national identity. Gouri Deshpande, Meera Pillai and other poets from writers’ workshop rightly speak of the Indian background and they are not ignorant of the shaping of a national consciousness by the environment of the country, the climate, the background of tradition. But some of the new poets deny any umbilical connection with their historical past. A tradition cannot be wholly disowned. Amalendu Bose says that this denial “is a boisterous proclamation that these writers are upstarts, and rootless.” 4

            In a work of art, that is, a well-realised creative effort, presence of Indianness is invariably expressed. It must be noted that within the text, a good writer does not give direct indications of such a presence, but that the operational response of the Indian writer could be deduced by the sensibility working in it. What characterizes the Indianness in the writing is finally ‘the mind behind the orgaisation’ of the context, the life attitudes and modes of perception. C. R. Srinath aptly says: “The Indian poet while using English as his medium should have his roots in his own soil and yet be part of the common culture of the English speaking peoples, indeed of all mankind to the extent that it gives an edge to his native vigour and sensibilities.” 5

            Creative writing is an achievement of harmony between concept and medium, between what is to be said and how it is to be said. As for concept, the Indian poet is as capable in that area as any poet handling from another language group. It is in respect of the handling of the medium that the non-native poet’s ability has to pass through a fire test. Several poets have the ability to control their medium and thus achieve aesthetic success. The alien language does not necessarily diminish or regard the writer’s sense of heritage. Toru Dutt, Sarojini Naidu, Nissim Ezekiel, A. K. Ramanujan, Kamala Das and others have been compe­tent in retaining their Indianness in full measure. To discuss and evaluate the poets, the principal question will be the degree of their Indianness in terms of authenticity and credibility of their local and culture and medium of their expression.

            When Sarojini Naidu addresses and sonnet to India, her patriotic zeal is beyond all doubt and yet the actual product is too heavily cultured with stock ideas and responses and stale expressions:

            “Thy Future calls thee with a man if old sound
            To crescent honours, splendours, victories vast.6

            Unless the Indian poet’s experience is authentic and his own, and not derivative and imitative of conventional modes of the way, the mere choice of specifically Indian themes and settings would not make for authenticity. The Indian poet in English can be a poet only by being truly an Indian. For M. K. Naik to be truly an Indian of modern times is ‘to constitute a synthesis of the age-old ethos of India and the culture of the west which English literature and ideas brought to India; it is to live and breathe the culture of India as it exists today, a complex product which has changed, matured over millenia, losing and gaining much in the process; it is to write with Indian in one’s bones.”7 This synthesis has clear glimpses in the works of modern poets like Ezekiel, Mahapatra, etc. For example, Nissim Ezekiel’s “Night of the Scorpion” ably illustrates the Indian synthesis in the work of modernists. The contrast between the two attitudes to scorpion bite; the sceptic, rationalist attitude armed with a little paraffin as a remedy and the superstitious attitude fortified by prayers and incantations - a contrast typical of the modern Indian situation. Coolness, authentic and objectivity are some of the marks of Ezekiel’s harsher notations of Indian life.

            Ramanujan’s creative work, both as poet and translator, has drawn praise from the English speaking world. Ezekiel is of the opinion that Ramanujam has enriched the Indo-Anglican tradition of poetry’s Even the titles of some of his poems such as “A HINDU TO HIS BODY” (The Hindu: he does not hurt a fly or a spider either) “SMALL TOWN, SOUTH INDIA”, “OLD INDIAN BELIEF”, and “PRAYERS TO LORD MURUGA” suggest Ramanujan’s Indianness. In conventions of despair, the poet tells explicitly that he rejects the demands of the modern man such as marrying again and again:

            “I must seek and will find
            my particular hell only in my Hindu mind.” 9

            Ramanujan’s Indianness in his poetry indicates a complex interaction or psychological forces kept under linguistic and formal control. His poetry is essentially Indian with the modern connection vitalising it as in “A River,”

            “The new poets still quoted
            the old poets, but no one spoke
            in verse,
            of the pregnant woman drowned....” 10

            Ramanujan finds his objective correlative in a family around him. In the poem, “Obituary” he recalls his father’s death, and uses the occasion to comment ironically on ceremonies and rituals associated with the dead.

            There is a conspicuous craftsmanship, introspection and self analysis in Kamala Das’s poetry. Confessional tone is sharper in her poems. If we look for her strength as a poet, we must detect in her poetry the dust, the heat, the crowds, the poverty of India combined with misery and endurance of womankind. She tries to strike a sort of synthesis between the changing reality of a private passion and the apparently unchanging reality of the shining sun on Indian horizon. The overtones of the poem “SUMMER IN CALCUTTA” can be taken into account. She is not alienated from the Indian landscape or its social milieu.

            One of the Indian English poets who has emerged as a major poet only recently is Shiv K. Kumar, Kumar gives in his poetry an evidence of genuine poetic inspiration. His poetry has great precision and the image glistens like polished brass though he has often been criticised for his over refinement, a bizarre search for right word, right phrase, right stance. Subterfuses, Cobwebs in the Sunshine are evasions or de­captions that we encounter in our life. The cobweb being swept away, the subterfuses become visible to us. “A MANGO VENDOR” is an eloquent metaphor:

            “Through the slits
            Of her patched blouse
            One bare shoulder
            Two white moons
            Pull all horses
            Off the track.” 11

            Kumar’s originality lies in the uniqueness of his imaginative world. He grapples with abstractions and ideas, images of men and women on the social scene, the complex of emotions centering round human varieties like sex, love, companionship and problems relating to art. Through powerfully evoked images the past is relevened. “MY CO-RESPOND­ENT” is a fine example of how Kumar achieves an integrative of idea and image, statement and drama to provide a wholly satisfying experience.

            Deeply involved in his immediate environment, Kumar continues to strike a convincing note of contemporary life. Trapfalls in the Sky is his fifth collection of verse which won Sahitya Academic Award for 1987. The poems have flawless attention to detail, for instance, the opening poem “MOTHER THERESA FEEDS LEEPERS AT HER HOME FOR DESTITUTES, CALCUTTA”, and “AN INDIAN MOTHER’S ADVICE TO HER DAUGHTER BEFORE MARRIAGE”. 12

            The poetry of these and other modern Indian English poets suggests a case for exploring Indianness in terms of not only the authenticity of their locale and culture, but the medium of the expression. They regard English language as one of the many Indian languages, and their exploration of it to its fullest possibilities, both in range and depth produces some of the best poetry. Their poetry is lyrical poetry which is unique in that the weight or intellect never overburdens their authentic feelings.


1 Iyengar, K. R. Srinivasa: Indian Writing in English (Asia Publishing House, 2nd edition, 1973) P. 8.
Lal. P, quoted by Linda Hess in Meenakshi Mukerjee, Considerations (Bombay: Allied, 1977) P.25.
3 Gokak V.K.: An Integral view of poetry; an Indian perspective (1975) P. 64.
4 Sinha, Krishna Nandan ed. Indian Writing in English (1979) p. 64.
Kulshertha, Chirantan, ed. Contemporary Indian Verse; An Evaluation (1980) p. 96.
6 Naidu, Sarojini: The Sceptred Flute, p. 58.
Naik, M.K. “Echo and Voice in Indian Poetry,” in Contemporary Indian Verse An Evaluation ed. C. Kulshrestha, 1980, p. 37.
8 Sinha, Krishna Nandan. ed. Indian Writing In English (1979) p.121.
Parthasarathy, R. ed. Ten Twentieth Century Poets (Delhi: Oxford, Crown Se­ries, 1976) p. 97.
10 Ibid, p.98.
11 Ibid, p. 54.
12 Kumar, Shiv K.: Trapfalls in the Sky (Delhi: Macmillan, 1986) p. 13 & 14.

All Posts

" Indian "Tomb of Sand A Fine Balance A House for Mr. Biswas Absurd Drama Achebe Across the Black Waters Addison Adiga African Ages Albee Alberuni Ambedkar American Amrita Pritam Anand Anatomy of Criticism Anglo Norman Anglo Saxon Aristotle Ariyar Arnold Ars Poetica Auden Augustan Aurobindo Ghosh Backett Bacon Badiou Bardsley Barthes Baudelaire Beckeley Bejnamin Belinda Webb Bellow Beowulf Bhabha Bharatmuni Bhatnagar Bijay Kant Dubey Blake Bloomsbury Book Bookchin Booker Prize bowen Braine British Brooks Browne Browning Buck Burke CA Duffy Camus Canada Chaos Characters Charlotte Bronte Chaucer Chaucer Age China Chomsky Coetzee Coleridge Conard Contact Cornelia Sorabji Critical Essays Critics and Books Cultural Materialism Culture Dalit Lliterature Daruwalla Darwin Dattani Death of the Author Deconstruction Deridda Derrida Desai Desani Dickens Dilip Chitre Doctorow Donne Dostoevsky Dryden Durkheim EB Browning Ecology Edmund Wilson Eliot Elizabethan Ellison Emerson Emile Emily Bronte English Epitaph essats Essays Esslin Ethics Eugene Ionesco Existentialism Ezekiel Faiz Fanon Farrel Faulkner Feminism Feminist Criticism in the Wilderness Ferber Fitzgerald Foregrounding Formalist Approach Forster Foucault Frankfurt School French Freud Frost Frye Fyre Gandhi Geetanjali Shree Gender German Germany Ghosh Gilbert Adair Golding Gordimer Greek Gulliver’s Travels Gunjar Halliday Hard Times Hardy Harindranath Chattopadhyaya Hawthorne Hazara Hemingway Heyse Hindi Literature Historical Materialism History Homer Horace Hulme Hunt Huxley Ibsen In Memoriam India Indian. Gadar Indra Sinha Interview Ireland Irish Jack London Jane Eyre Japan JM Synge Johnson Joyce Joyce on Criticism Judith Wright Jumpa Lahiri Jussawalla Kafka Kalam Kalidasa Kamla Das Karnard Keats Keki N. Daruwala Kipling Langston Hughes Language Language of Paradox Larkin Le Clezio Lenin Lessing Levine Life of PI literary Criticism Luckas Lucretius Lyrical Ballads Macaulay Magazines Mahapatra Mahima Nanda Malory Mamang Dai Mandeville Manto Manusmrti Mao Marlowe Martel Martin Amis Marx Marxism Mary Shelley Maugham McCarry Medi Media Miller Milton Moby Dick Modern Mona Loy Morrison Movies Mulk Raj Anand Mytth of Sisyphus Nabokov Nahal Naidu Naipaul Narayan Natyashastra Neo-Liberalism NET New Criticism new historicism News Nietzsche Nikita Lalwani Nissim Ezekiel Niyati Pathak Niyati Pathank Nobel Prize O Henry Of Studies Okara Ondaatje Orientalism Orwell Pakistan Pamela Paradise Lost Pater Pinter Poems Poetics Poets Pope Post Feminism Post Modern Post Structuralism post-Colonialism Poststructuralism Preface to Shakespeare Present Prize Psycho Analysis Psychology and Form Publish Pulitzer Prize Puritan PWA Radio Ramanujan Ramayana Rape of the Lock Renaissance Restoration Revival Richardson Rime of Ancient Mariner RL Stevenson Rohinton Mistry Romantic Roth Rousseau Rushdie Russia Russian Formalism Sartre Sashi Despandey Satan Sati Savitri Seamus Heaney’ Shakespeare Shaw Shelley Shiv K.Kumar Showalter Sibte Hasan Slavery Slow Man Socialism Spender Spenser Sri Lanka Stage of Development Steinbeck Stories Subaltern Sufis Surrealism Swift Syed Amanuddin Tagore Tamil Literature Ted Hughes Tennyson Tennyson. Victorian Terms Tess of the D’Urbervilles The March The Metamorphsis The Order of Discourse The Outsider The Playboy of the Western World The Politics The Satanic Verses The Scarlet Letter The Transitional Poets The Waste Land The Work of Art In The Age of Mechanical Reproduction The Wuthering Heights Theatre of Absurd Theory Theory of Criticism Theory of Evolution Theory of Literature Thomas McEvilley Thoreau To the Lighthouse Tolstoy Touchstone Method Tughlaq Tulsi Badrinath Twain Two Uses of Language UGC-NET Ukraine Ulysses Untouchable Urdu Victorian Vijay Tendulkar Vikram Seth Vivekananda Voltaire Voyage To Modernity Walter Tevis War Webster Wellek West Indies Wharton Williams WJ Long Woolfe Wordsworth World Wars Writers WW-I WW-II Wycliff Xingjian Yeats Zadie Smith Zaheer Zizek Zoe Haller