From Thursday, April 4, to Sunday, April 7, Brandeis’ Hold Thy Peace presented their version of  William Shakespeare’s “The Tempest,” directed by Naomi Stephenson ’26. “The Tempest” is an incredibly fascinating and nuanced piece of literature, telling the story of one man’s quest for vengeance and those he impacts along the way. 

For starters, the actors and dancers did a wonderful job bringing the show to life. Particular performances we enjoyed were the roles of Miranda, Prospero and Caliban. In “The Tempest,” Miranda is the young, innocent daughter of Prospero. Abby Tang’s ’26 portrayal of the character was well refined and emotional.  She skillfully presented the difficult Shakespearean prose and fulfilled the role of Miranda incredibly well. Prospero, the exiled Duke of Milan, was played by Laurel Kane ’26, who approached the character in a unique way. Bending the portrayal of gender in this way added a level of depth and consideration to Miranda and Prospero’s relationship. Kane’s acting created an intensity and a virility to the newfound maternity of the protagonist. Her presence on stage showcased the dignity and respect that Prospero’s character desires and obtains at various stages in the piece. JT Dickstein’s ’27 showing of Caliban, an islander who Prospero enslaved, was intense and clear. It is not often that a Shakespearean actor can deliver the prose and lyricality of the author in an approachable manner of tone, clarity and deliverance. Dickstein’s performance was one of the most approachable and understandable to an inexperienced appreciator of Shakespeare. Another key component of this production was the choice to include dancers to portray the spirits of the island. The collaboration between HTP and multiple dance groups on campus allowed the performance to take on an elegant direction, adding a new depth to select scenes. Their light and airy movements in conjunction with the whimsical choreography of Irina Znamirowski ’24 beautifully emulated the magic of the spirit Ariel.  Between the fantastical elements and difficult prose, Shakespeare’s “The Tempest” is not an easy production to put on. However, the performers involved approached their roles with a comfort and grace that elevated the production. 

That said, we believe that this production took a directional misstep. The play, as it was on stage, had certain moments of insensitivity and misplaced humor. These moments detracted from the performances of the actors and dancers. In addition, these moments led us to reflect on the reading of the play and the broader message expressed. 

One of the first and most important introductions to any play is the program. It provides context — which is especially important for Shakespeare plays — and cast and character introductions, but it also gives insight into the direction and reading of the play. Further, the reading and direction of a play can directly change and develop new understandings of characters and themes present in the existing text. Programs carry important context for a production, and “The Tempest” is no exception. In fact, the program seems to be a vital text in order to understand this director’s reading of the play. In this program, Director Stephenson proposes a new interpretation of the piece, as well as two prior readings.

The first reading centers around the character of Prospero, specifically the themes of vengeance and redemption in both political and personal relationships, as his character reclaims his dukedom. The second, more modern reading deals with the theme of colonization. It is here that we the authors give a warning to our readers regarding potentially triggering topics, such as colonization, racism, orientalism and their places in history. The second reading focuses on Caliban’s character, specifically his indigeneity to the island and servitude under Prospero. These two characters have an incredibly fraught and complicated relationship throughout the text. In this reading, Caliban is read as the Indigenous character as he was born on the island. Sycorax — a witch from Algiers, the capital of modern day Algeria, who is also Caliban’s mother — was banished to the island. There, she gave birth to Caliban and trapped Ariel, a nature spirit of the island, in a tree. From this perspective, Caliban takes on the role of the colonized and Prospero is the colonizer. 

Director Stephenson’s reading positions a different character in these roles. According to the program, Stephenson used her past experiences playing Ariel to inform this new direction. As stated in the program, “If it is Ariel, rather than Caliban, who is the true indigenous resident of the island, the play becomes infinitely more complex. It gives Caliban the complicated status of being both colonized and a wannabe colonizer. And it means that Prospero’s redemption is directly sparked through the island’s indigenous residents.” In this production, Ariel is the colonized and Caliban is both colonized and a colonizer.

This reading presents two major flaws. The first, more concrete flaw is a fundamental reduction of key parts of the text as they relate to Caliban. The second relates back to stereotypes and prejudice of Indigenous communities and the larger concepts of indigeneity and colonialism.

As indigeneity is a consequence of colonialism, it is essential to define colonialism first. Colonialism, as is defined throughout multiple contexts, encompasses the political control of a land or territory, primarily through the exploitation of people and resources. In this instance, colonialism takes on a systematic and oppressive context. Indigeneity, as a concept, is only possible after colonialism. It is the quality of a group, individual or practice that is native to a place, citing specifically culture and heritage, with one key aspect being language. Another important aspect of indigeneity is its connection to European colonialism. The Oxford English Dictionary acknowledges the explicit place of European colonizers in the definition of indigeneity, because indigeneity is often used to describe exclusively Indigenous Americans and Aboriginal Australians. Extending this definition to other groups requires the understanding of commonality between Indigenous Americans and Aboriginal Austrialians and other situations. What is common between the two and “The Tempest” is the specific removal of culture. Through the acquisition of land, colonists rejected and dismantled Indigenous cultures by enforcing aspects of Western culture. “The Tempest” is no different. It is the language of Caliban that is imposed on him by the presence of Europeans, Prospero and Miranda from Milan.

With the meaning of indigeneity established, it is important to consider the displayed characterization of Prospero, Sycorax, Caliban and Ariel under the program’s interpretation of the text. Prospero, the Duke of Milan and the protagonist of “The Tempest,” takes on an interesting characterization and contrast to the third reading shown in the program. This refers to Caliban and Ariel as enslaved. However, it never positions Prospero himself as a colonizer. While he is previously considered a colonizer during the synopsis of the colonial reading, it is unclear whether that positionality was extended to Stephenson’s reading, especially considering the onstage performance did not communicate a colonial theme through Prospero. This non-colonial portrayal of Prospero makes sense given the implication that Sycorax is the original colonizer in Stephenson’s reading. Sycorax, mentioned once throughout the play, was Caliban’s mother, banished to the island due to her witchcraft. According to Stephenson, the importance of Sycorax is that she established Caliban’s claim to the island. As aforementioned, Caliban represents both “the colonized and a wannabe colonizer” in this reading of the play, while Ariel is established as the “true indigenous” inhabitant of the island. As viewers and appreciators of “The Tempest,” we are not in agreement with this direction. Especially given the onstage presentation and the interpretation of Prospero, Caliban and Ariel throughout the piece, certain aspects read as historically insensitive and racially prejudiced. 

It is true that the interpretation of “The Tempest” where Caliban is explicitly Indigenous is a relatively modern phenomenon, only emerging in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. However, this interpretation is backed by significant evidence that when Shakespeare wrote Caliban, he was influenced by the common public perception of Indigenous Americans during the seventeenth century. When Shakespeare wrote “The Tempest,” England had already begun establishing colonies in America and a variety of travel narratives and documents describing “the New World” were widely available to the public. These early accounts included the basis for the racist European stereotypes and depictions of Indigenous Americans and Indigenous peoples as a whole. Many scholars agree that access to such depictions of Indigenous people may have influenced Shakespeare’s creation of Caliban. Even though Caliban was never originally performed with these characterizations of Indigenous people in mind, the racially charged subtext and stereotypes surrounding him are present within the text of the play. 

The most persuasive piece of textual evidence regarding Caliban as Indigenous is found in the way Caliban is described by the characters of Trinculo and Stephano in the second act. When Trinculo first encounters Caliban, he struggles to decide if Caliban is dead or alive and, further, if he is a man or a fish. Trinculo wishes he were back in England because there he could put Caliban on display and people would pay to see him. In Trinculo’s words in Act two, Scene two, lines 25 — 34, “Any strange beast [in England] makes a man. When they will not give a [coin] to relieve a lame beggar, they will lay out ten to see a dead Indian.” Stephano, upon seeing Caliban in Act two, Scene two lines 66 — 72, also describes him as “some monster of the isle” while planning to abduct Caliban and bring him to Naples where “he’s a present for any emperor that ever trod on neat’s leather.” The wish to kidnap and display Caliban in Naples is undoubtedly a reference to the practice of kidnapping natives and displaying them in shows in London during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Here, Caliban is directly likened to the English perception of Indigenous Americans, proving that at least in this way he is meant to represent an Indigenous person. 

Caliban’s love of liquor can also be interpreted as fulfilling the English stereotype of Indigenous people as intoxicated that was common during Shakespeare’s time. A final common stereotype of Indigenous people in the sixteenth century that Caliban fulfills regards his language. In Act one, Scene two, lines 428 — 429, Miranda admonishes Caliban and describes teaching him to speak English so that he would no longer “wouldst gabble like a thing most brutish.” The seemingly unintelligible language of Caliban aligns with contemporary accounts of the “New World,” whose Indigenous people are described as having no language at all. Many scholars take these fulfilled stereotypes as proof that Shakespeare in part purposefully wrote Caliban to resemble what the average sixteenth century English person imagined an Indigenous person to be. 

Caliban’s relationship with language is discussed multiple times within the original text of the play. Miranda and Prospero expect Caliban to be grateful for their arduous efforts in teaching him English, especially because their words in Act one, Scene two, line 423 suggest that Caliban is unable to receive any impression of virtue. Caliban’s response to Miranda’s recollection of teaching him English in Act one, Scene two is, “You taught me language, and my profit on ’t / Is I know how to curse.” Caliban takes back power and curses Prospero and Miranda in the same language they imposed upon him. Prospero and Miranda forcing their language and culture onto Caliban is another reason why scholars argue Caliban is meant to represent an Indigenous person. The removal of Caliban’s culture is deeply similar to the way colonists treated the Indigenous people that they encountered. 

Furthermore, in the original text, Caliban as well as Sycorax are described using dehumanizing terms often applied to Indigenous people or anyone else perceived as being “other.” Generally, Caliban is frequently described as being inhuman. Prospero’s very first mention of Caliban in Act one, Scene two, lines 336 —  337 describes him as “not honored with a human shape.” Prospero refers to Sycorax as “[Caliban’s] wicked dam.” The word “dam” means “mother,” but the term is more typically used when referring to animals. Perhaps most pointedly, Caliban is directly referred to as “savage” by Miranda, a term often applied to Indigenous Americans. The animalistic language used to describe Caliban consistently dehumanizes him, similarly to the way Indigenous peoples were dehumanized with the label of being “uncivilized” compared to Europeans. 

Finally, Caliban’s position as the colonized character of the island is further supported by his undeniable search for liberation through Fanonist defense. Caliban is “the consistent rebel whose tactic is violent unconditional resistance.” His defense itself clearly mirrors colonial liberation movements and could even be described as the violent resistance of the colonized. His fight for self-determination against the oppressive slaver Prospero can be seen as an act of moral and humanistic violence. Removing his identity as a colonized individual, as is done in Stephenson’s version of the  production, turns his struggle for liberation under Prospero into needless senseless violence, untenable and reproachable. This viewing of Caliban further dehumanizes him, taking his own will and volition, a human trait, and reducing him to an animalistic violent character. It is through this perspective that the reading proves controversial in a social commentary on colonialism and liberation. 

As previously mentioned, this production of “The Tempest” views Ariel as the Indigenous character. However, this interpretation, beyond its dismissal of Caliban’s experience of being colonized, has its flaws. 

Posing Ariel as the “true indigenous resident of the island”  risks feeding into problematic stereotypes not typically associated with the original text of “The Tempest.” Interpreting Ariel’s character as Indigenous is reminiscent of historical stereotypes in which Indigenous people possess magical powers. We are specifically referring to the trope of “the magical medicine man,” where the usually male Indigenous character aids the white characters through supernatural means. This trope is harmful to Indigenous populations in a myriad of ways, mainly in that equating Indigenous individuals with the magical and the mythical inherently fictionalizes them and their culture. This reading of Ariel’s character not only perpetuates stereotypes of supernatural and mystical natives, but risks erasing the actual experience of indigeneity in the face of colonization. The stereotype of the “magical medicine man,” seems to be an extension of Palestinian-American academic Edward Said’s concept of “Orientalism.” Orientalism, as described by Said, is the Western perspective of the East. It is the collection of all common stereotypes present throughout Western media as they apply to the geography, people and culture of the non-Western. Many of these stereotypes can be grouped into three main groups: “Oriental Splendor,” “Oriental Sensuality” and “Oriental Depravity.” Oriental Sensuality is the most applicable to Ariel’s character, as it represents a Western conception of nonwestern individual’s docility and eagerness to serve. This Western lens can clearly be seen in the representation of Ariel as the “magical medicine man” in service to Prospero. In this production, the directional decisions made between Prospero and Ariel’s characters — specifically the longing glances, the tone of “what is thy pleasure” and their haste to defend — all combine in Ariel’s eagerness to serve under Prospero and erase the fact that this eagerness comes from a desire to escape servitude. In the HTPportrayal of Ariel, his ease of servitude to Prospero — especially in contrast to Caliban — is ultimately a manifestation of the aforementioned Orientalist stereotypes. As such, the Oriental qualities projected onto Ariel in this reading are equated with the Western expectation of a “docile” Indigenous person. This places Ariel in direct contrast to Caliban, pitting them against one another in a conflict over the validity of their indigeneities and their reactions to servitude under Prospero.

As we have discussed, Caliban’s liberation was attempted through a violent resistance movement, both in HTP’s  production and the original text. In HTP’s production, Ariel’s final scene is a dance number in which Ariel and the other spirits remove their black collars. This is representative of their liberation from the slaver, Prospero. Throughout the play, Ariel certainly wants to be freed but accepts serving under a collar to Prospero. Whether intentional or not, this reading of “The Tempest” asks audiences to conflate indigeneity and orientalism. It equates Ariel’s mild manner and desire to serve — an Orientalist stereotype realized through the “magical medicine man” trope — to a stereotype of what indigeneity looks like. However, throughout the play, Ariel’s desire for freedom should work against that exact stereotype. This is because there is no space for resistance or a desire for liberation within the Western perspective of colonized individuals. By using Orientalism to justify Ariel’s position as Indigenous to the island, we must apply the characteristics of Said’s Orientalism to indigeneity. However, in doing so, multiple contradictions arise within the production.

This interpretation inadvertently perpetuates a Western expectation of the rational colonized individual through the juxtaposed Ariel and Caliban. As described in Said’s “Orientalism,” certain scholars are under the impression that “unless the Oriental learns to be rational, to develop techniques of knowledge and positivity, there can be no ‘rapprochement’ between East and West.” Here, the Western perception of the Orient is irrational.  

However, Ariel is not the irrational, opposing Oriental character. He is rational and willing to serve Prospero to avoid further punishment and suffering. Therefore, in this production’s equation of Indigenous to Oriental, his character cannot be Indigenous. Ariel is rational, intelligent and under servitude, theoretically making him almost similar to a Western person under a feudal lord. In contrast, Caliban is the irrational, rebellious, unintelligible character who seems to fit both the Orientalist description and the reading of historical Indigenous stereotypes. Even in her own reading, Stephenson’s use of Orientalist stereotypes to identify Ariel as Indigenous falls apart under scrutiny.

But, if we decide to move forward with the reading, the final scene certainly takes on an intensely different quality. If Ariel is supposed to be Indigenous, then, in our opinion, a far more powerful ending would include Ariel’s liberation coming from himself. However, the ending of the play is not self liberation — rather, when Prospero’s desires are fulfilled, Ariel is freed. This narrative is an exaggerated portrayal of “the obedient slave,” a fabricated trope in which an enslaved individual’s cooperation is rewarded with liberation. This only strokes the ego of the slave master, failing to offer any sort of meaningful liberation or existence for the enslaved, and is inherently dehumanizing.. 

However, the ending of “The Tempest” is not a reflection of Ariel’s complacency or willingness to serve. Rather, it exemplifies the overwhelmingly oppressive nature of colonialism. The psychological fear that comes from being constantly under threat of imprisonment and punishment permeates Ariel’s psyche. Prospero consistently punishes and hurts Caliban because of his disobedience — it is only logical for Ariel to want to avoid this violent treatment. Yet, by placing the liberation of an Indigenous Ariel into the hands of Prospero, it heroizes Prospero and applauds the obedient actions of Ariel. “The Tempest” commends the action of the slaver in freeing his servant, but not the violent resistance of Caliban, who actively seeks his own liberation outside of the language and morality of Prospero. 

This directorial reading of “The Tempest” ultimately glorifies the action of the indisputable colonizer Prospero in favor of a reading of the play that equates stereotypical and prejudiced narratives with “true” indigeneity. Based on the elements of this production that we have explored, this reading demonstrates the difficulties and complexities in applying a veritable indigeneity to any character. While the reading given could be approached from the perspective of Ariel as colonized, with coinciding directorial decisions, the play nevertheless portrayed Caliban as a colonized individual. In focusing on Ariel as the solely colonized individual, the overall abhorrent actions of Prospero as a colonizer to both Ariel and Caliban are lost. Prospero’s colonial actions on the island are at best forgotten and at worst glorified. 

—  Editor’s Note: Justice Editor in Chief Anna Martin ’26 was a dancer in the Hold Thy Peace production of “The Tempest” and did not contribute to this article.

— Editor’s Note: Justice Managing Editor Eliza Bier ’26 was a dancer in the Hold Thy Peace production of “The Tempest” and did not contribute to this article.