"Other" in Lope De Vega's El Nuevo Mundo Descubierto Por Cristobal

Home , Lope de Vega, The Europeans, The Sea Voyage

Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2005 Dramatizing the Indian: Representations of the "Other" in Lope de Vega's El Nuevo Mundo descubierto por Cristóbal Colón and Shakespeare's The Tempest Ilia Mariel Cuesta

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected]

THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

DRAMATIZING THE INDIAN: REPRESENTATIONS OF THE “OTHER”

IN LOPE DE VEGA’S EL NUEVO MUNDO DESCUBIERTO POR CRISTÓBAL COLÓN

AND SHAKESPEARE’S THE TEMPEST

ILIA MARIEL CUESTA

A Thesis submitted to the Department of English in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts

Degree Awarded: Fall Semester, 2005

The members of the Committee approve the thesis of Ilia Mariel Cuesta defended on October 31,

2005.

Daniel J. Vitkus Professor Directing Thesis

Bruce Boehrer Committee Member

David Darst Committee Member

Approved:

Darryl Dickson-Carr, Director, Graduate Studies

The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members.

Los hombres son como los zafiros, unos dan luz de sí, y otros brillan con la que reciben.

- José Martí

Para los que me dieron luz — Mami y Papi

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many thanks to Dr. Daniel Vitkus for his encouragement and support throughout my graduate studies at Florida State and most especially throughout the composition of this thesis. I would also like to thank my committee members, Dr. Bruce Boehrer and Dr. David Darst, for their insight and feedback. And I would be remiss if I did not thank Siobhan Welch and Thomas Garland for their love and support throughout this project.

CONTENTS

Abstract …………………………………………………………………………………………. vi

Introduction …………………………...…………………………………………...…………….. 1

Chapter 1: Conquest, Colonies and “Civilization” ……………………………….…………. 6

Chapter 2: Staging the New World ………………………………………………………… 30

Chapter 3: Visions of New World Cultures in El Nuevo Mundo descubierto por Cristóbal Colón ……………………….…… 46

Chapter 4: Visions of New World Cultures in The Tempest ………………………………. 64

Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………………..…. 76

Bibliography ……………………………………………………………………………….…... 81

Biographical Sketch …………………………………………………………………….……… 84

ABSTRACT

Contributing to the growing critical conversation on colonization and imperialism in the New World, this study examines how sixteenth and seventeenth century Spanish and English theater addressed, promoted, and at times challenged contemporary ideologies of colonization and notions of “civility” and “civilization.” This study seeks to understand how Spanish and English society defined “civilization” during the colonization of the New World. An examination of the contemporary colonial discourse as well as the role of the theater in both Spain and England provides a background with which to analyze Lope de Vega’s El Nuevo Mundo descubierto por Cristóbal Colón and Shakespeare’s The Tempest. In addition to exploring how these individual playwrights addressed their nation’s colonial discourse on the stage, this study analyzes Lope de Vega and Shakespeare’s representations of New World Indians in order to understand how Spain and England interpreted “civility” and “civilization” during the colonization of the New World. By dramatizing New World Indians on the stage, Lope de Vega and Shakespeare exposed their audiences to the “Other” and attempted to inform and educate theater patrons about cultural difference. While each representation of the “Other” differs, the variances are reflective of the differences in Spanish and English culture and their definitions of “civility” and “civilization.” This study examines how sixteenth and seventeenth century Spanish and English theater participated in the larger national debates of the colonial discourses that questioned how to assimilate and absorb cultural differences.

INTRODUCTION

There is roome in the land for them and us. True Declaration of the Estate of the Colonies in Virginia (1610)

Written over a century after Columbus first set foot on the American continent, the True declaration of the Estate of the Colonies in Virginia, with a confutation of such scandalous reports as have been tendered to the disgrace of so worth an enterprise succinctly summarized European attitudes toward the colonization of the New World. By the time this promotional pamphlet was printed at the behest of the Virginia Company, the Spanish had already conquered cultures, established colonies, and exploited New World resources. Relatively slow to join the colonization enterprise, England was beginning to undertake a stronger drive for expansion around the time this tract was circulated. Although there were many economic, political, religious, and social reasons for Spain and England to colonize the New World, the desire to expand empire was the driving force for Spanish and English overseas colonization. The construction of empire was not only undertaken in the New World through conquest and colonization; it was also constructed in the contemporary rhetoric of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In Spain and England alike, discovery narratives, philosophical essays, political propaganda, and religious treatises related what the New World and its natives looked like, the kinds of flora, fauna, and resources available, and the importance of colonization. These texts helped to construct an ideology of colonization and empire in both Spain and England. While the prospect of exploration and colonization was undoubtedly attractive and exciting to many people in sixteenth and seventeenth century Spain and England, the idea of the unknown and foreign also raised certain anxieties in their relatively homogenous societies. These anxieties are best illustrated in the various representations of the New World Indians. These

1 representations of the natives, which were often accompanied by accounts of Spanish and English encounters with them, aroused ethical and moral debates in the colonial rhetoric about how to deal with New World cultures; these debates challenged Spain and England’s ideologies of colonization and empire. For the Spanish and the English, encountering the “other” in the New World presented a challenge to their domestic notions of “civility” and “civilization.” Oftentimes, the Eurocentric view of the Spanish and English prevented explorers, conquerors, and colonizers from appreciating and respecting the cultural differences they encountered. Since elements of New World civilizations such as government, religion, style of dress, et cetera. did not conform to European notions of civilization, the indigenous cultures of the New World were viewed as “primitive” and “barbaric.” The colonial discourse reveals the racial stereotypes and intolerance of cultures of sixteenth and seventeenth century Spain and England. Instead of interpreting the differences between their way of life and the Indians’ as diversity, the Spanish and English viewed New World civilization as morally wrong: Spain and England’s view of “civilization” became a rhetorical and ideological strategy for colonization. Throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the Spanish and English attempted to impose and implement their versions of “civilization” in the New World. In addition to imposing European economic and political value systems on the New World cultures, the colonizers forced their religion and social practices on the natives. They communicated to the Indians that their indigenous notions of civility and civilization were wicked and immoral, and that the colonizers’ way of life was not only better – it was right. The reasons the Spanish and English gave the Indians for adopting the European version of civilization served as a justification, in their European homelands, for colonization; the colonial discourse of both Spain and England reflects this practice. The Spanish and English chroniclers’ depictions of New World civilizations argue for their respective nation’s legitimacy in the New World enterprise; for, they argued, Spain and England were morally obligated to educate and instruct these cultures about “civility” and “civilization.” In Spain and England, these issues and debates permeated the colonial discourse and raised social awareness of the colonization enterprise in the New World. The ideological debates were widely known and discussed by the intellectual circles, politicians, clerics, nobles,

2 entrepreneurs, merchants, sailors, et cetera; it is these discussions that Spanish and English playwrights drew from to inform some of their plays that dealt with the New World experience. Inspired by the historical events and political issues of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Spanish and English playwrights captured the essence of the times through the most influential medium of the early modern period: the theater. The dramatizations of New World realities and challenges translated the economic, political, religious and philosophical language of the colonial rhetoric for large and captivated audiences; it re-enacted Columbus’s first moments with the Indians on La Española and dramatized how explorers marveled at the beauty of the New World. These theatrical representations of cross-cultural encounters illuminated audiences to the reality of exploration and colonization: the theater made the New World “real.” This study explores how sixteenth and seventeenth century Spanish and English theater addressed, promoted, and at times challenged contemporary ideologies of colonization and notions of “civility” and “civilization.” It seeks to demonstrate the differences in the way the two theaters presented debates on colonization and represented indigenous cultures in order to understand how theater helped to develop an imperialist ideology in Spanish and English contemporary rhetoric. In addition to examining Spanish and English theater culture, this study focuses on the New World dramas of two major poets from Spain and England: Lope de Vega’s El Nuevo Mundo descubierto por Cristóbal Colón and Shakespeare’s The Tempest. While both plays were originally staged in the same year (1611), their thematic disparities help to distinguish the differences between contemporaneous Spanish and English ideologies of colonization. Re- enacting Spain’s initial encounter with the New World natives, Lope’s El Nuevo Mundo descubierto por Cristóbal Colón focuses on the human element of colonization, namely the interaction of the natives with the Europeans. Shakespeare’s The Tempest serves more as an allegory of New World colonization than a dramatization of actual events. Comparing and analyzing how each playwright depicts these foreign peoples provides much insight into Spanish and English contemporary ideologies of colonization and notions of “civility” and “civilization.” This study seeks to examine the plays’ representation of New World cultures in order to understand how Spanish and English society defined “civilization” during the colonization of the New World.

3 A comparative study of Spanish and English notions of “civilization” during the colonization of the Americas calls for a discussion of how each nation was defining itself in terms of economics, politics, religion and culture. Chapters 1 and 2 set up a historical and cultural context in which to examine the plays. In Chapter 1, the colonial discourse of both Spain and England is examined for historical information about the voyages and cross-cultural encounters. Through the voices of Spanish explorers and English colonizers, the rhetoric informs readers about the economic opportunities of the land, the nature of the indigenous cultures, and the benefits of colonization. The term “civilization” is also defined in order to understand how Spain and England interpreted and represented the pre-Columbian civilizations they encountered in comparison to their own versions of “civilization.” The moral and ethical debates regarding colonization are also compared with the promotional literature in this chapter to help understand the social climate of Lope and Shakespeare’s day. Chapter 2 examines the theater culture of both Spain and England in order to understand the role of the theater as a “civilizing” agent in the early modern period. This chapter explores such questions as: How often did the average person attend the theater? What was the audience’s composition? What kinds of plays were popular and why? Who provided the financial support for this artistic enterprise? Did these theater producers have any influences on the content of the plays? What kind of role did the monarchy play in the theater world? These kinds of questions help establish the popularity and importance of the theater in sixteenth and seventeenth century Spain and England, which serves as an indication of how theater influenced and was influenced by the larger culture. Chapters 3 and 4 focus on El Nuevo Mundo descubierto por Cristóbal Colón and The Tempest respectively. These plays are analyzed in relation to source material that uses colonialist rhetoric. Examining the source material for these plays helps to contextualize these performances, and demonstrate how Lope de Vega and Shakespeare responded to texts and reshaped events for their theatrical purposes in early modern Europe and beyond, as they sought to represent cultural exchange and differences on the stage. This study also examines the different figures of alterity present in each play. The differences in the characterizations of the New World peoples in El Nuevo Mundo descubierto por Cristóbal Colón and The Tempest are explored in order to understand how the poets’ depictions reinforced or questioned stereotypes about the Indians. The depiction of these figures

4 of alterity as “types” is especially interesting because it provides evidence of a view of the alien as a threat to early modern notions of civility and civilization. Close scrutiny of characters like Dulcán and Caliban and the roles that they play provides further insight into the early modern perception of “civility” and “civilization.” This study focuses on two important details in Lope and Shakespeare’s New World drama: how each playwright addressed their respective contemporary ideologies of colonization and how their respective representations of New World natives commented on these ideologies. Whereas Lope reinforces Spanish ideologies of colonization, Shakespeare challenges English ideologies of colonization. These differences, I intend to argue, are reflective of the differences in Spanish and English culture and their definitions of “civility” and “civilization.” While much has been written about New World conquest, colonization, and sixteenth- century cultural history as well as literary criticism on these plays, the particular issues of Spanish and English perspectives on “civility” and “civilization” have not been explored comparatively. This study contributes to the growing critical conversation on colonization and imperialism in the New World by examining how Lope de Vega and Shakespeare dramatize the civilizing process and subsequently provide a model by which to understand sixteenth and seventeenth century Spanish and English ideologies of colonization and notions of “civility” and “civilization.” By exploring the colonial rhetoric and New World plays, this study provides insight into how Spanish and English ideologies of colonization and ideas about “civility” and “civilization” were disseminated through the theater into the popular consciousness. It is my contention that the early modern theater of Spain and England served as a “civilizing agent” by exposing its audiences to versions of these cross-cultural encounters re-enacted on stage. This study argues that the theater not only addressed and commented on current issues of cultural difference, it also played an important role in influencing early modern notions of colonization and imperialism. Tolerating religious and cultural difference was an intellectual and political struggle for sixteenth and seventeenth century Spanish and English society, and yet increasing contact with other cultures made some kind of accommodation necessary. The study explores how Spain and England struggled with their own ideas of “civility” and “civilization” and how, in these two plays, Lope de Vega and Shakespeare participated in a larger national debate about how to assimilate and absorb those who were different.

CHAPTER 1

CONQUEST, COLONIES AND “CIVILIZATION”

The age of exploration and conquest was initiated in the mid-fifteenth century by Portuguese trading expeditions down the western coast of Africa. This rising level of colonization peaked during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries with the colonization of the American continents. Economic and political changes pressured Europeans to pursue economic relations with other nations, which resulted in the expansion of trade and eventually the acquisition of new territory. The competition in the European market created a need for territorial expansion: it provided a secure setting for economic and material exchange, cultivation of resources, and production of goods. As this competition and expansion increased and as awareness of these trends grew, ideologies about expansion and empire developed, and cultural and ethical debates ensued. These colonization issues found a platform in the contemporary rhetoric of discovery narratives, royal decrees, philosophical essays, promotional literature, papal bulls, and even theater. An analysis of these documents will help us gain insight about early modern attitudes towards the notion of “civilization” and perceptions of what it meant to be civilized.

Origins of Expansion Commercial, political, and religious motives brought about by the fall of Constantinople in 1453 and the expansion of Islam prompted European expansion into the Atlantic. Eastern goods such as silks, spices, and gold became increasingly difficult to obtain through established land trade routes. Finding a secure sea route to the East to satisfy the demand for eastern goods became a high priority for European commerce in the fifteenth century. Politically, the search for alternative maritime routes to the east became a priority because, as Fisher explains in The Economic Aspects of Spanish Imperialism in America, 1492-1810, “the spread of Islamic authority had made the Christian rulers of southern Europe feel increasingly isolated and

6 vulnerable…to the threat of further encroachment from the east” (14). Religiously, the spread of Islam threatened the homogeneity of established European Christian kingdoms. Fisher argues that the search for maritime routes to the east was fueled by the belief that “the heirs of the Great Khan, who Marco Polo had reported had been favorably disposed towards Christianity, might be induced to support, directly or indirectly, Christendom in its increasing universal struggle against Islam” (14). These factors greatly motivated Europeans to explore the Atlantic in the hopes of alleviating these pressures and securing their commercial, political, and religious positions in the world. Even though Europeans were already exploring the Atlantic by the fourteenth century, the fall of Constantinople in 1453 pressured European nations to find alternate maritime routes to the east in order to maintain the flow of eastern goods well in demand. The Portuguese led the movement into the South Atlantic by establishing strong trade relations with North African rulers. Portuguese success in the Atlantic is attributed to what Helen Nader terms a “royal monopoly” (795). In “The End of the Old World,” Nader explains: “The King or other members of the royal family commissioned each voyage and selected which shipowner was to captain the venture. After a successful voyage, the monarch divided the profits with the captain, who in turn distributed a share of his profits to the crew” (795-6). This system, along with royal military defense of trading ventures, facilitated trade agreements between African rulers and Portugal. The example set by the Portuguese crown in these Atlantic trading enterprises “became the model of how to carry on international commerce” and “ushered in a new system of international commerce” (Nader 796). Keen on obtaining much if not more of the same commercial success as the Portuguese, the Spanish monarchy implemented this new system in its own economic enterprises with slight modifications which ultimately yielded greater success than their Iberian competitors had achieved. The Portuguese and Spanish dominated the early Atlantic explorations of the fifteenth century. These empires focused their expanding commercial pursuits in Madeira, the Canary Islands, So Tomé, Fernando Po, and areas of northern Africa. Both nations employed a mercantile approach to trade relations where goods were exchanged, small trading posts were established, and profits were garnered. Portuguese commercial interests primarily surrounded the exchange of European goods for the commodities available in these Atlantic territories. Any

7 trading posts established by the Portuguese functioned only to facilitate exchange and secure investments and cargo. Nader describes the structure of these “trading stations”: They were not intended as settlements. The European population was limited to a military force to protect the fleets as they arrived, loaded their cargo, and departed. These long term residents, as well as the crews were employees of the royal monopoly and its partners. The Portuguese overseas empire consisted of trading post[s]…with no family households, no civilian community, no civil governments. (797) Establishing strong trade relations and securing profits were the primary concerns of the Portuguese as they ventured into the Atlantic. Following Portugal’s lead, the Spanish began their explorations into the Atlantic territories in similar fashion. In “Patterns in Spanish Overseas Expansion,” John Kicza details early Spanish trading endeavors confirming the similarities between Portuguese and Spanish exploration and trading endeavors: This [the trading ventures] entailed the dispatch of small fleets that kept close to the African coast and nearby islands in pursuit of quick profits from trade with indigenous peoples or from acquisition of commodities in great demand in Europe, such as gold, dyes, sugar, and slaves…The traders had no interest in placing permanent colonies where they landed. At most, they built a trading factory or a small fort at especially promising spots. (203-231) During most of the fifteenth century, the Spanish imitated Portuguese commercial policies in order to achieve the same levels of economic success and advantage. Even when Columbus sought financial support at the end of the fifteenth century for his search for a western route to Asia, the Spanish kings followed the Portuguese model of international commerce by providing royal sponsorship financially with “ships, crew, provisions, and cargo” and politically with “letters of introduction to Asian rulers and…[the ability] to negotiate trade treaties with these rulers” (Nader 797). Implementing the Portuguese model proved to be advantageous to the Spanish empire during Columbus’ initial voyages. However, the “discovery” of the New World would also present challenges to this new successful system of commerce – challenges that the Spanish quickly overcame with judicious innovations.

8 When Columbus first arrived in the Caribbean in October 1492, he established a trading post he called La Navidad on the island of La Española. Before returning to Spain, the admiral had commissioned the building of a fort, provided supplies, and charged a group of men with the responsibilities of maintaining the post. Laden with material goods and even six Caribbean natives, Columbus returned to the peninsula bringing the monarchs valuable information about the areas he had explored. According to Kicza, Columbus secured full royal support for a second voyage with the following information: “[that] the islands reconnoitered were sizable; they contained large populations that practiced agriculture and whose leaders were initially receptive to his fleet; and the land promised to hold considerable gold” (238). The Catholic monarchs supplied Columbus with military reinforcements on his second voyage in addition to a large amount of provisions and supplies: “the fleet consisted of about 1,500 men on seventeen ships; equipped with artisans, animals, seeds, and plants” (Kicza 239). The Spanish were determined to expand their position in the Caribbean; and by providing more manpower and supplies this pursuit could become a reality. The crown’s response to Columbus’ exploration stayed true to the Portuguese model of international commerce in that royal support ensured the success of the economic endeavor. According to Nader, however: “it quickly became apparent…that the supply station could not supply enough food and fodder for itself and the cavalry: the European crops they had planted did not come to maturity, and the food supplies that the monarchs had sent on the second voyage spoiled in the tropical climate of the Caribbean” (799). The crown responded to this challenge by increasing the number and frequency of voyages to the area to help provide subsistence to Spanish settlers in order to maintain profitable trade and increase expansion. As Nader observes, “a steady stream of traffic between the homeland and the colonies was a Spanish innovation, one that would become characteristic of American colonization” (799). The shift from a mercantile system of trading posts to a full settlement system proved to be a decisive move for the Spanish, and their eventual success in the Americas became the envy of Europe and the new model for colonization efforts. In departing from the Portuguese model of international commerce, the Spanish overcame the challenges that came with overseas expansion and in effect established their authority in the New World’s unconquered territories. With each new voyage, the Spanish monarchy learned more and more about what they eventually understood was a new continent. As Nader recounts: “Fernando and Isabel began

9 authorizing joint stock companies in Seville to finance exploratory voyages to South America. They wanted to explore, map, and colonize the coast of this continent that Columbus had described as ‘another world’” (800). In addition to charting these vast new territories, the Spanish crown foresaw that the expansion of its empire could only be possible if its subjects could be convinced of opportunity and profit in the newly discovered lands. Understanding that they could not hold a royal monopoly over all of the trade markets in the Americas, in 1503 Fernando and Isabel opened America to free trade for all Spaniards (Nader 803). This new colonial policy greatly encouraged exploration and colonization, and this is evident in the increased Spanish emigration to the Americas that followed. Fisher reports that by 1530 “over 1,000 passengers were leaving Seville [each year] for Veracruz alone” (23). The successful conquest campaigns conducted by conquistadors persuaded Spanish subjects of all social classes to seek the opportunities afforded by the Americas. Kicza argues that “Hernán Cortés’s victory over the vast Aztec empire in 1521 inspired a dramatic expansion in the number of entradas [expeditions] undertaken over the next quarter century” (245). Since the Spanish monarchy had opened up the Americas to free trade, settlers and merchants were providing the funding while the crown reaped the benefits associated with expansion and commerce. By the middle of the sixteenth century, most of the major Spanish conquest campaigns had been carried out, and Spain’s cross-Atlantic empire was established much to the envy of other European powers but most especially their Protestant rivals -- the English. Although England did not fully assert its presence in the drive for expansion and colonization until much later than the Iberians, the voyage of John Cabot in the late fifteenth century indicates that the English had their own ideas about finding a passage to the East around the same time as the Iberians. Quite possibly the contact with other Europeans on established trade routes helped to facilitate the dissemination of ideas of exploration and proposed sea routes, which accounts for the nearly concurrent initial Atlantic exploration voyages of the Spanish and English. In spite of England’s physical separation from Continental Europe, the English were able to learn about Iberian innovations in navigation as well as their geographical discoveries through the contact commerce enabled. If nothing else, England’s initial explorations helped to open English consciousness to the possibility of an overseas empire. Departing from Bristol in 1497, Cabot sailed west in the hopes of finding a new northwestern sea route to Asia. It is unknown exactly where Cabot landed, but as Kenneth

10 Andrews, author of Trade, Plunder and Settlement: Maritime enterprise and the genesis of the British Empire 1480-1630, indicates, Cabot’s voyage impressed the state: “the king immediately made an award of £10 to ‘hym that founde the new Isle’ and followed this with a pension of £20 a year to be paid from Bristol customs revenues…Cabot was fêted, addressed as ‘the admiral’ and promised royal support for a grand expedition of ten or more vessels to sail the next year” (qtd. in Andrews 45). While Cabot’s discovery was promising, the English crown and its subjects did not respond as eagerly as the Spanish had upon learning about Columbus’s discovery. In fact, a review of recorded discovery expeditions to Guinea, the Caribbean and North America reveals that the English were relatively slow to become involved with the exploration and colonization of the New World, “they [Elizabethans] ventured in hope, often with no fixity of purpose, sometimes because the leaders could not agree, sometimes because they or their backers were too easily distracted from their original aim” (Andrews 2). Only a few ships departed each year from the island in discovery expeditions, and they returned with few items of interest. In the years after Cabot’s initial voyage, the English made a few scattered explorations in the northern areas of the Atlantic with minimal royal backing, but the discovery and exploration of these “new” lands did not yield the types of goods or profits the Iberians were enjoying in the Atlantic islands, western Africa, or the Caribbean. Commercial interests first compelled the English to go west, but there was little incentive to keep exploring. One of the major reasons for this lack of interest was the royal policy towards exploration. The crown maintained a neutral role in expansion by neither forbidding it nor encouraging it. Andrews explains: The crown welcomed the efforts of its subjects to develop oceanic enterprise, but it always treated them as secondary to the main issues of European power politics, leaving the initiative – especially the financial initiative – to others. The continual dangers and pressures to which the realm was subject made it unthinkable for ministers to translate the dreams of ambitious courtiers and irresponsible sea-dogs into official policy. (11) The English government’s main priorities included securing England against foreign assault from other European nations as well as protecting its valuable wool trade (Andrews 11). In spite of the growing imperial rhetoric promoting expansion and the opportunities it provided, pressing political and economic concerns prevented the crown from entertaining any ideas of large-scale

11 investment in expansion: political and economic stability had to be achieved and secured in order to progress in the international economy. English economics also played an important role in the slow advancement of oceanic enterprise on the island. In the early sixteenth century, the English wool industry thrived through high European demand and increasing levels of cloth exports. The revenue accrued from the export of English wool to Continental Europe was more attractive to English merchants than risky overseas ventures which might or might not yield profits. England’s financial systems also proved to be an impediment to ideas of overseas expansion: “it was hard to mobilize capital…in the first place the country possessed no banks, nor had it great merchant houses comparable to those that had backed the Iberian expansion; its credit system lagged behind that of various other parts of Europe” (Andrews 360). The desire to capitalize in some of the same enterprises as the Iberians was evident with the interest in overseas expansion in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth century, but England lacked the financial structure necessary to facilitate these voyages. English merchants were wary of long-term investments and the lack of a secure credit system exacerbated these anxieties. As banking systems advanced and joint-stock companies emerged during the late sixteenth century and later under James’s reign, merchants would come to recognize the feasibility of investment in oceanic enterprise. In spite of these political and economic deterrents to overseas expansion, the English did carry out numerous sea ventures in the early to mid-sixteenth century. By the 1530s, the English had sailed south and traded in the Iberian Atlantic islands of Madeira and the Canaries as well as reached parts of West Africa. Richard Hakluyt mentions English voyages to the New World from the 1530s to 1542 in his Principall Navigations Voyages, Traffiques and Discoveries of the English Nation published in 1589: Old Mr William Hawkins of Plymouth, a man for his wisdom, valour, experience, and skill in sea causes much esteemed…and being one of the principal sea- captains in the west parts of England in his time…armed out a tall and goodly ship of his own…wherewith he made three long and famous voyages unto the coast of Brazil, a thing in those days very rare, especially to our nation… He touched upon the coast…where he trafficked with the negroes, and took of them elephants’ teeth and other commodities which that place yieldeth…(51)

12 By the mid-sixteenth century, England’s oceanic enterprise had moved out of the northern Atlantic areas Cabot had explored and began exploring the Iberian territories in the Atlantic Islands and the New World. The English were exploring albeit at a slower and more cautious pace than their Iberian predecessors. The political tension between Spain and England in the later sixteenth century is what finally awakened national consciousness to overseas expansion. War with Spain helped to popularize ideas of expansion with people at all levels of English society as it increased nationalist sentiment and called for solidarity. Andrews uses Clement Adams’s account of the first Muscovy voyage to describe English reaction to the invasion of the English Channel in 1588: “Envy of the ‘wealth of the Spaniards and Portingals,’ which had long spurred the pioneers, now became an immediate stimulus activating every port from London round to Bristol, multiplying the nation’s ships and fanning the flames of aggressive nationalism” (qtd. in Andrews 36). Most likely in response to Spanish hostility, in the last decades of the sixteenth century, privateering increased and English overseas expansion developed into projects of plunder. Accumulating Spanish treasure became a large priority for the English explorers after the defeat of the Armada in 1588. Spanish settlements or ships became easy targets for English marauders because they had no maritime traffic of their own to defend; their primary motivation was to gain a piece of Atlantic wealth by employing whatever means necessary to obtain it. The English drive for quick profits inevitably gave way to ideas of colonization. England attempted to settle and colonize new lands early in the seventeenth century with the founding of Jamestown in 1607. Religious strife in England also increased interest in colonization and marked the emigration of religious radicals to North America and the founding of the Plymouth Bay Company in 1620. While internal political and economic pressures distracted the English during Spain’s initial conquest of the Americas, by the beginning of the seventeenth century the English were ready to establish their authority in the New World and begin building their empire.

Promoting Colonization While the cooperative efforts of the monarchies, explorers, and merchants helped establish a presence in the New World, it was each nation’s colonial ideologies that fueled the drive to expand their empires. The political, economic, and social ideas about colonization became the foundation on which to create an empire. Spain and England could only establish an

13 overseas empire if these ideas were fully recognized and embraced by its subjects, for they would spread these ideas to conquered cultures. Although the Spanish and English had similar ideas about colonization in terms of politics and economics, their social ideas of colonization differed sharply. The two nations wished to expand their empires overseas to establish themselves as world powers, but their definitions of the ideal civilization differed greatly. Spain and England’s differing religious beliefs dictated the kind of civilization they each wanted to build and provided just cause for using any means necessary to establish their version of “civilization” in the New World. When the success of the Ottoman Empire brought about the fall of Constantinople, political anxieties were aroused in Spain. In addition to spreading the Islamic faith and increasing its territory, the westward movement of the Ottomans disturbed the Spanish’s involvement with the Mediterranean luxury trade. Spanish fears of Ottoman proximity, hostile invasion, and arguably fears of religious and racial difference urged the Spanish to assert its political power. Encouraged by victory over the Moors during La Reconquista, Spain hoped that expanding its territory would assure its position as a world power. With the discovery of the New World, Spain seized the opportunity to enlarge its empire by colonizing the territory. Political ideas of empire grew out of the realization that expansion would increase the nation’s wealth and promote nationalistic sentiment. Spain’s newly accrued wealth from the exploitation of the New World also furthered the creation of an ideology about colonization and empire. Increased supply and demand of New World goods including gold and silver and the facilitation of trade created an economic stability in Spain that allowed the monarchy to concentrate its efforts on its political and social agenda for the New World. Spain’s new wealth provided financial leverage, which in turn ensured the ability of the nation to assert its political authority in Europe. Ideas about accruing wealth in order to establish political authority impelled the monarchy to facilitate the ability of its subjects to colonize the new territories. The innovation of free trade in the Americas and the creation of joint-stock companies established by Fernando and Isabel encouraged this ideology of colonization, in that explorers and settlers would become agents to promote Spain’s political agenda. Colonizers would in turn embrace the economic ideology of colonization because of the financial benefits they soon began to enjoy.

14 Perhaps the most important elements of the Spanish ideology of colonization and empire were the social issues. Successful expansion and colonization would not only strengthen the Spanish imperial ideology at home, but it would also spread Spanish ideas about civilization abroad, thereby increasing the global consciousness of and acquiescence to Spanish ideals and values. The Catholic Kings, promoters of colonization, and settlers believed it was their duty to disseminate Spanish ideas of civilization to a new and uncivilized world. These ideas of civilization included instructing the “ignorant” cultures of the New World in Spain’s Catholic religion and encouraging, by any means necessary, their acceptance of the faith. The Spanish ideology of colonization and empire also aspired to spread ideas of civilization and what it meant to be civil according to Spanish standards to the natives of the New World. This included political and economic ideas of civilization as well as socially accepted standards of living and behavior. For the Spanish, an ideal and authoritative empire required more than just strong politics and economics; it called for a homogenous perception of civilization and what it meant to be civilized. The swift and successful spread of Spanish ideas of economics, politics, and religion in the New World troubled the English and encouraged the development of their own ideology of colonization and empire. The English’s growing economic envy of Spain was compounded by political rivalry and inevitably brought about nationalistic sentiment in favor of colonization. More important than politics and economics, however, were England’s social anxieties about Spain’s growing empire. They were worried about Spain’s power and capital and their religious fervor for converting the natives and spreading Catholicism. Fearful of the spread of Catholicism and Spanish ideas of civilization, England’s own ideology of colonization gained momentum and pressed for implementation. Enraged by Spain’s attempted invasion in 1588 and consequently encouraged by the defeat of the Spanish Armada, England realized that expanding its political power in the New World would simultaneously help demonstrate and bolster the English’s authority in the world. Spain’s success in conquering New World lands created political anxiety because its accumulation of territory increased its influence as a world power; many English leaders and merchants came to believe that colonization was not only possible but also necessary. As England’s political awareness of the need to gain recognition and authority through expansion

15 and colonization grew, nationalistic sentiment increased, facilitating England’s ability to oppose Spain’s imperial pursuits and engage in some of her own. Along with political envy of Spain’s successful territorial expansion, economic envy spurred England’s ideology of colonization. England’s concentration on domestic economics had stalled exploration and colonization efforts, and fluctuations in commerce in the late sixteenth century necessitated a revised economic policy. In addition, political rivalry with Spain encouraged economic competition on the seas, and at first plunder was the chief means of obtaining a portion of Spain’s success. England’s privateering victories against the Spanish promoted the development of an economic ideology of colonization, for it was realized that the wealth of the New World was within reach. Successful plundering against the Spanish increased England’s nationalistic sentiment by demonstrating that obtaining New World wealth was a matter of attempting to either take it forcibly from the Spanish or devising means by which to procure it for themselves. Joint-stock companies facilitated and encouraged investment in overseas exploits and also contributed to the promotion of England’s ideology of colonization. Much like the Spanish, the English endeavored to create economic stability through colonization in order to secure its position as a world power. Similar to that of the Spanish, England’s perception of “civilization” became an influential element in the construction of an ideology of colonization. The promulgation of Spain’s social ideals in the New World became a source of anxiety for the English. Perhaps the main social threat the Spanish imposed, however, was the Catholic indoctrination of the New World. For Protestants in England, spreading their religious ideology became a huge motive for English colonization in the New World. While Spain’s mission focused mainly on spreading Catholicism, England’s religious mission was two-fold: the English wished to spread Protestantism in its new territories and stop the spread of Catholicism and its political influence. Andrews points out that much of the promotional literature of the period used this religious motive to promote colonization, “Likewise it [this kind of promotion] appealed to the Protestant conscience, which Hakluyt and the Virginia Company’s hired preachers duly prodded by reminding Englishmen how much the Catholic church had done to bring a falsified Christianity to the heathen, and how little the Protestants had done to spread the true word” (32). England’s social ideas regarding colonization incited colonizers to spread their faith and encourage New World cultures to embrace English ideals and values as their own. For the English, constructing

16 an empire in the New World required suppressing Spanish efforts and exerting their own ideas of civility and civilization. The colonization of the New World became an ideological war of sorts. Politically, economically and socially, England responded to Spain’s expansion and construction of empire in much the same way that the Spanish reacted to the rise of the Ottoman Empire. Spain struggled to maintain, expand and protect its territories and culture against the threat of Protestantism and its growing influence. England’s ambition and overseas pursuits raised anxieties in Spain; this competition fueled the drive to construct empires. Establishing political, economic and social authority for empire-building or expansion became high priorities during the European colonization of the New World, for each nation deemed the national definition of civilization to be the foundation of the ideal civilization.

“Civilization” and its Ideological Challenges and Debates In order to understand how the Spanish and English endeavored to construct their versions of civilization in the New World, it is necessary to define “civilization”. Norbert Elias’s The Civilizing Process provides a theoretical model by which to understand how sixteenth and seventeenth century Spain and England perceived “civility” and “civilization.” By comparing European perceptions of “civility” and “civilization” to actual descriptions of pre-Colombian civilizations, we can better understand how Spain and England came to interpret the cultures they encountered in the New World, and we can attain a better sense of the ideological challenges these European interpretations of native cultures presented. “Civilization”, according to Elias, “refers to a wide variety of facts: to the level of technology, to the type of manners, to the development of scientific knowledge, to religious ideas and customs” (5). The concept helps identify special qualities and values specific to a particular people. “Civilization” means different things to different peoples, for sixteenth century Spain had a particular view of “civilization” similar to but also different from English views of “civilization.” While the specific characteristics that define “civility” and “civilization” differ from time to time and from nation to nation, the theory behind this concept is similar: The concept of civilization plays down the national differences between peoples; it emphasizes what is common to all human beings or—in the view of its bearers—should be. It expresses the self-assurance of peoples whose national

17 boundaries and national identity have for centuries been so fully established that they have ceased to be the subject of any particular discussion, peoples which have long expanded outside their borders and colonized beyond them. (Elias 7) In spite of different versions of “civilization,” the concept of “civilization” enables different nations and peoples to view their way of life collectively as “common” or “ideal.” For sixteenth and seventeenth century Spain and England, the differences between their national versions of “civilization” were minimal in comparison to the larger definition of “civilization.” In their separate colonization enterprises, the Spanish and English imposed their own versions of “civilization” on the conquered New World cultures. In general, however, these nations imposed a European notion of “civilization” on the New World cultures, i.e. Western civilization. Deeply entrenched in their own value systems and customs, the Spanish and English had difficulty reconciling the differences between Western civilization and pre-Columbian civilization. As Elias suggests, “these [societies] regard it as completely self-evident that [their type of civilization] is the way in which the world of the humans in general wants to be viewed and judged” (7). Thus, with this view, the Spanish and English felt no compunction in implementing their versions of Western civilization in the New World. What kind of “civilization” did the Europeans encounter when they arrived on the shores of the Americas? Biased as they may be, the discovery narratives of both Spanish and English explorers and colonizers help us to understand pre-Colombian civilization. The discourse of discovery describes the terrain, climate, flora, fauna, and indigenous peoples of the New World. Although this rhetoric provides much information about pre-Columbian civilization, it is important to remember that each text is heavily imbedded in the contemporary thought of its respective society. While reading these texts, it is important to take note of each chronicler’s personal ambitions and motivations in order to separate these attitudes from the cultural work the colonization texts create and reveal. Columbus’s letters to the Spanish crown were the first images of the New World brought back to Europe in writing. The Admiral can hardly contain his amazement in his description of the land and climate: La Spañola has…delectable lands for all things, and for sowing and planting and raising livestock, of which I have not seen any kind on any of these islands…this island has marvelously temperate breezes, and marvelous meadows and fields

18 incomparable to those of Castile; and the same can be said of the rivers of great and good waters, most of which are gold-bearing. (qtd. in Greenblatt 5) Unquestionably exaggerating, Columbus relates what he sees in the New World to areas of Spain in order for the monarchs to be able to envision the Americas. In the Natural and Moral History of the Indies, José de Acosta, a Jesuit living in the New World, describes some of the natural resources of the Caribbean and Peru: “There are in the Indies…lodes and mines of every metal…silver, gold, quicksilver, and…copper, for their tools and weapons were commonly made not of iron but of that metal” (Mangan 165). Although descriptions of New World lands and resources found in the travel narratives helped sixteenth and seventeenth century Spain and England develop a mental image of the Americas, the depiction of pre-Colombian cultures and their civilizations challenged the Europeans’ established notions of civility and civilization. The descriptions of the indigenous cultures of the Americas included descriptions of New World governments, markets, agriculture, and commerce systems as well as physical descriptions of the natives. These descriptions reveal the chroniclers’ interest in how these “primitive” societies managed their affairs. José de Acosta discusses the lack of a hierarchical form of government in many of the New World societies he encounters: Many tribes and Indian peoples do not allow kings or absolute lords but live in free communities; and only for certain things chiefly war, do they raise up captains and princes…This is the way most of the New World is governed, where there are no organized kingdoms nor established republics, nor hereditary and recognized princes or kings. (Mangan 346) De Acosta states that the only “established kingdoms or empires” he has heard of are those of the Aztecs in Mexico and Incas in Peru. William Strachey also explains a form of New World government he encounters in Virginia: Although the Country people be very barbarous, yet have they amongst them such governement, as that their Magistrates for good Comaunding, and their people for due subjection and obeying excel many places…the forme of their comon wealth…you may well gather to be a Monarchall governement, [sic] where one as Emperour ruleth over many kings. (qtd. in Hadfield 297) Hernán Cortés describes some aspects of Aztec governance in his description of the empire’s marketplace:

19 It [the Aztec marketplace] has shops like our pharmacies, in which prepared medicines are sold, in liquid form as well as ointments and plasters. It has barbershops where hair is cut and washed…In the said markets they [the Aztecs] sell all the things produced in the whole country, which…are so various that I can’t remember them all…They sell everything by quantity and measure…In the great square there is…a courthouse, in which…the judges…preside over all the disputes and quarrels that occur in the said market, and order the punishment of delinquents. (Iglesia 152-155) Thomas Hariot describes the sophisticated agricultural practices of the Indians he encounters in Virginia: “They sowe their corne with a certaine distance…other wise one stalke would choke the growthe of another and the corne would not come unto his rypeurs…” (qtd. in Hadfield 278). De Acosta describes New World economic systems: It has not been found that the Indians used gold or silver or any other metal for money, nor to establish the price of things; they used it for adornment…For trading and buying they did not have money but instead bartered somethings for others…In place of money there were a few things of more esteem that had an established value…for example, in Mexico they use cocoa (which is a sort of berry) instead of money and barter with it for what they want. (Mangan 165-166) In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, these accounts functioned to represent New World realities for Spain and England. For modern readers, these accounts reveal the various biases of these respective cultures. By discussing the economic opportunities of the New World and religious necessity to convert New World inhabitants, these accounts enable an understanding of the how Spain and England used these issues to develop their individual ideologies of colonization. The evidence of cultural and technological development in the Americas as described by these chroniclers was not enough to engender an appreciation for New World cultures in Europe. The varying descriptions of the Indians’ dress, behavior, and culture were unnerving to both Spanish and English society. For Spain and England, New World culture was unfathomably different. In spite of these accounts describing the New World civilizations, Spain and England did not define the indigenous culture of the Americas as a civilization; New World civilizations were

20 diametrically opposed to European civilizations. It is this difference that Todorov suggests “is corrupted into inequality, equality into identity” (146). In essence, the Spanish and English would not identify New World cultures as “civilized” because their differences in form of government, farming practices, religion, style of dress, et cetera compelled the Spanish and English to interpret New World cultures as unequal. The fact that New World cultures were different made them unequal in the European value system. The Spanish and English interpreted the differences of New World civilizations as moral wrongs instead of simply fundamental cultural differences. For these European societies, establishing “civilization” in the New World becomes a rhetorical and ideological strategy for colonization. Under the guise of bringing these peoples to a more sophisticated, technologically advanced, and rationally ordered state of culture, Spain and England exploited the New World and its resources for economic and political gain. The creation of Spanish and English ideologies of colonization was an inevitable byproduct of exploration and conquest. Once Spain and England understood that the New World lacked the formal political, economic, and social structures of “civilization” as it was defined in Europe, they became eager to provide their versions of the ideal society to the indigenous cultures of the New World. Establishing civilization in the New World was attractive to these nations because they could expand their territory and authority, increase commerce, and spread their ideas of civility to another culture. While each nation had individual ideological purposes for colonization and the building of empire, their ultimate goal was to increase their power. In their quests for power, Spain and England encountered challenges that threatened to undermine these ideologies of colonization. They had to answer ethical and moral questions about property rights in order to justify expansion and colonization. In addition, their encounters with the indigenous cultures in the newly discovered lands also raised ethical and moral issues. These New World challenges demanded intellectual consideration in order for a just political, economic, and social policy to be implemented. Some contemporary Spanish and English documents include debates over property rights and perceptions of indigenous cultures. A review of discovery narratives, royal decrees, philosophical essays, papal bulls and promotional literature will provide insight into the sixteenth and seventeenth century Spanish and English mindset regarding these debates. These Spanish and English voices explain early modern attitudes about the notion of civilization and what each nation thought civility entailed.

21 Having no precedent to follow, Spain’s ideology of colonization and empire was significantly challenged in the New World. Encountering many vast and at times “underdeveloped” lands as well as indigenous peoples with non-European social structures, the Spanish felt no compunction about claiming the lands for their nation and establishing their notion of civilization in the New World. The alleged lack of what the Spanish viewed as an established government and social structure in the Americas provided an excuse for conquest and colonization for the Spanish. As the conquistadors seized lands and attempted to establish Spanish authority in the New World, ideological debates ensued about property rights and the role of the indigenous populations in colonization. The debates surrounded whether or not the Spanish had the right to seize native property as their own as well as whether or not the Spanish had the right to force their idea of civilization and religion on the indigenous peoples of the Americas. While there were many different positions on these issues, two distinct sides can be inferred from the contemporary rhetoric: the political and economic views of the monarchy and the settlers and the religious and social perspective of the Church and its clerics. As previously established, the monarchy’s main goal in the colonization of the New World was its desire to establish and expand its empire in the Americas. Throughout the conquest and colonization of the New World, the Spanish monarchy drafted and established policies citing instruction in religion and “civility” as a justification for colonization to further their political and economic pursuits of empire. The spiritual well being of Spanish subjects and colonized peoples was also a major concern for the monarchy; thus, political, economic, religious, and social issues were interwoven in policy decisions made by the crown. The conquistadors and settlers of the Americas lobbied the monarchies for political policies that would serve their profit-driven interests in the New World, while religious leaders lobbied for policies that would help protect and nurture their efforts at converting the natives in the Americas. The main question of whether or not the Spanish had the jurisdiction to take possession of New World lands was directly related to the question of the natives. The gentle nature of the Indians is frequently described in the contemporary rhetoric. In Del dominio de los Reyes de España sobre los indios, Fray Matias de Paz explains what he sees as the nature of the Indian: En estas Islas…se han encontrado hombres racionales, mansos, pacíficos y capaces de entender nuestra fe. No existía entre ellos la propiedad privada;

22 poseían en común tierras situadeas dentro de determinados límites…Alimentábanse de peces y no de carne…Como nada consideraban propio ni eran codiciosos ni avaros, andaban desnudos sin sentir vergüenza… (Millares Carlo 9) On this island it has been found that there are rational, gentle, pacific, and capable men that could understand our faith. Private property did not exist amongst them. They possessed common lands that were situated within determined limits…They did not eat meat, only fish. Because all possessions were communally owned, there was neither greed nor avarice, they went naked shamelessly… Bartolomé de las Casas describes the Indians as: The most humble, most patient, meekest and most pacific, slowest to take offense and most tranquil in demeanor, least quarrelous, least querulous, most lacking in rancour or hatreds or desire for vengeance of all the peoples of the earth…[they are] those who possess and desire to possess the fewest temporal goods, and thus they are never proud, never ambitious, never covetous. (Briffault 38) The clerics emphasized the passive nature of the Indians in order to argue that the natives were innocent and ignorant of European ideas of civilization. By emphasizing their gentleness, the clerics attempted to establish the ability of the Spanish to easily convert the natives to Christianity. The simplicity of native existence prior to Spanish colonization, e.g. their lack of materialism and their peaceful nature, was interpreted by other contemporary thinkers as barbarism and savagery. In 1547, Juan Gines de Sepúlveda asserted: These people possess neither science nor even an alphabet, nor do they preserve any monuments of their history except for some obscure and vague reminiscences depicted in certain paintings, nor do they have written laws, but barbarous institutions and customs. In regard to their virtues, how much restraint or gentleness are you to expect of men who are devoted to all kinds of intemperate acts and abominable lewdness, including the eating of human flesh? (36) While some sixteenth century Spanish thinkers viewed the Indians’ ignorance of European civilization and Christianity as understandable, others used this fact as a justification for exploitation.

23 In addition to the natives’ demeanor and supposed lack of civility, their “barbaric” religious practices were also used to justify their entitlement to conquest and colonization. José de Acosta wrote “…for they worship rivers, fountains, ravines, rocks, large stones, hills and the mountain peaks…and consider them worthy of great devotion…they worship anything in nature that seems to them notable and different from others, as if recognizing some special deity in it” (262). Idolatry was only one of the natives’ religious practices that the Spanish denounced in their writings. In the Discovery and Conquest of Mexico, Bernal Diaz del Castillo also emphasizes the evidence of human sacrifice he encounters in the New World: I remember that in the plaza where some of their oratories stood, there were piles of human skulls so regularly arranged that one could count them, and I estimated them at more than a hundred thousand. I repeat again that there were more than one hundred thousand of them. And in another part of the plaza there were so many piles of dead men’s thighbones that one could not count them; there was also a large number of skulls strung between beams of wood, and three priests who had charge of these bones and skulls were guarding them. We had occasion to see many such things later on as we penetrated into the country for the same custom was observed in all the towns…(181) According to the Spanish, the native populations of the New World were in desperate need of instruction in Christian doctrine. In addition to asserting their ideologies of colonization and empire, the evidence they provided in their discovery narratives and philosophical essays helped to justify the brute force they employed in converting the natives. The natives’ lack of “civility” and “civilization” as well as heathen religious practices were the rationalizations the Spanish called on to defend their violence on the native populations. It was this abuse that Las Casas denounced in his Brevisima relación de la destruición de las indias: He [Pedro Arias Dávila, a conquistador] would send Spaniards to make entradas, which is to go off to other provinces to make raids upon the Indians there, and he would allow the raiders to carry off all the Indians they desired from their peaceable villages, to serve them, and they would put them in chains so that they would not leave behind the burthens…that he set upon their backs…For when some would grow tired and their feet be tired and bloody from the great burdens

24 and they would sicken from hunger and hard labor and weakness, so as not to unshackle them from the chains, he would cut off their heads at the neck, and the head would fall to one side and the body to the other. (26) In addition to recounting the horrors the Spanish inflicted on the natives, Las Casas emphasized the shamelessness and cruelty of his fellow countrymen: One day…a certain Spaniard went hunting for stags or rabbits and, finding no game, and wanting to satisfy his dogs, he took a baby from its Indian mother and with his sword sliced off the child’s arms and legs for the dogs to share, then after that meal on those pieces of flesh, he threw down the little body for all the dogs to share. (92) Sepúlveda’s writings provide some insight into the Spanish rationale for such force: “war against these barbarians can be justified not only on the basis of their paganism but even more so because of their abominable licentiousness, their prodigious sacrifice of human victims, the extreme harm that they inflicted on innocent persons, their horrible banquets of human flesh, and the impious cult of their idols” (53). Spanish notions of civility and civilization were ironically implemented in the New World through the use of extreme force. In spite of Las Casas’ efforts and even royal decrees, the horrors of Spanish colonization continued, at times wiping out entire indigenous populations. The Spanish monarchy responded to the information about the treatment of the natives as well as legitimacy debates by forming advisory councils and calling a conference in Valladolid in 1550 to address these New World challenges. Laws and ordinances were enacted to validate Indian rights as well as preserve the interests of Spanish investors and settlers. While political and economic policies were created and promoted by the monarchy, Charles V could not do much to implement the policies. The sheer distance between Spain and the colonies made it difficult to ensure complete compliance with the laws, and the constantly changing New World reality called for swift action from colony governors who usually favored Spanish interests. The Spanish crown undoubtedly tried to be proactive in its response to the ideological challenges and debates New World colonization posed; but in spite of its efforts, economic interests quickly overshadowed the religious and social efforts of civilization. When Las Casas’ indictment of Spanish atrocities was translated into English in 1583, Spain’s practices in the Americas became known to England.

25 In England, too, concerns about colonial legitimacy in the New World along with the role of the natives were also sources of major debate in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Like the Spanish, the English questioned the rationality of the natives and justified the use of force against them to facilitate conversion and the establishment of civility and civilization. Whereas the Spanish debates found a political audience with the monarchy, the English discussions were mainly confined to intellectuals and entrepreneurs in the media of discovery narratives, philosophical essays, and promotional literature. In addition to considering many of the same issues debated by the Spanish, the English contended with the anxieties brought about by the expansion of the Spanish empire and the spread of Catholicism. Pointing to the abuses of the Spanish, the English added the need to curtail the advances of the Spanish to their own list of just causes for colonization and expansion of empire. Like the Spanish, the English debated their right to establish dominion in the New World. They reasoned that the right to expansion did not rest solely with the Spanish. The question of the Indian’s nature helped to legitimize England’s right to establish colonies in the New World. One of Hakluyt’s accounts in Voyages and Discoveries described the Indians as “most gentle, loving and faithful, void of all guile and treason…” (274). It was this type of depiction of the natives assisted in promoting the idea that conversion would be an easily implemented task. Discussing indigenous religious practices also helped to legitimize England’s right to colonization as well as provide just cause for the Indian’s necessary conversion. In 1519, John Rastell described the natives’ lack of religious instruction: “they nother knowe God nor the diuill, nor never harde tell of wrytynge nor other scripture” (qtd. in Cave 278). In addition to explaining the nature of the Indian and his knowledge of God, contemporary writers described some of the Indians’ religious practices. In Sir Francis Drake’s voyage around the world, Hakluyt’s travel narrative states “they [the inhabitants] made upon the coast great fires for a sacrifice…to the devils, about which they use conjurations, making heaps of sand and other ceremonies, that when any ship shall go about to stay upon their coasts…storms and tempests may arise.” In the narrative relating Cavendish’s voyage, Hakluyt declares “these people wholly worship the devil, and often times have conference with him, which appeareth unto them in most ugly and monstrous shape.” Emphasizing the docile nature of the Indians as well as their strange religious practices helped create an image of the Indian as “uncivilized” and “barbaric.” England’s contemporary rhetoric functioned to justify the need for colonization in order to

26 convert the New World’s “savages” and subsequently further England’s agenda of expansion and empire. Knowledge of Spain’s abuses and exploitation of New World Indians and lands also helped establish the validity of the English’s right to colonize in the New World. New insight into Spanish atrocities brought about by the translation of Las Casas’ Brevisima relación de la destruición de las indias provided contemporary writers with plenty of evidence with which to denounce Spanish cruelties in the Americas and simultaneously promote ideas of English colonization. In the preface to the English edition of Las Casas’ work, the translator assures his audience that the Spanish’s deeds will be punished “although the wicked for a time doe triumph, yet doth not God leave their abominable cruelties unpunished” (qtd. in Cave 280). Protestant anxieties over the spread of Catholicism and its political power in the New World also provoked contemporary writers to argue for efforts to promote and establish Protestantism in the New World. A printed account of Cavendish’s voyage, published in Hakluyt’s Voyages and Discoveries, describes English attempts to stifle the spread of Catholicism in Spanish New World lands: There was also a very large and great church hard by the cacique’s house, whither he caused all the Indians in the island to come and hear mass: for he himself was made a Christian…and upon his conversion he caused the rest of his subjects to be christened. In this church was an high altar with a crucifix, and five bells hanging in the nether end thereof. We burnt the church and brought the bells away. (284) The English explorers on Cavendish’s voyage resisted the idolatrous elements of Catholicism and demonstrated their disdain by destroying and removing these symbols of the faith. The English employed their knowledge of Spanish atrocities as well as the anti-Spanish sentiment aroused with the events of 1588 in order to raise national awareness about the threatening Spanish empire and the need for England to expand and colonize. Sixteenth and seventeenth century English authors debated many of the same ideological issues, such as property rights and Indian rights, which the Spanish were struggling with when they began their colonization efforts in the New World. Their debates discussed the same justifications the Spanish had employed to further their ideologies of colonization, i.e. the construction of “civilization” and instruction in Christianity. Even though England wrestled with

27 these similar issues, the knowledge of the Spanish debates and their outcomes along with descriptions of Spanish abuse of the indigenous peoples of the Americas prompted an emphasis on a Protestant agenda for colonization. England’s promotional literature stressed the need for the conversion of the natives and the establishment of “civilization” in the Americas as a way to increase England’s authority as a world power as well as impede the spread of Catholicism and its political power. Whereas Spain’s ideology of colonization centered on the expansion of its empire and spreading Catholicism, England’s ideology of colonization was largely influenced by a desire to impede Spain’s imperial pursuits while promoting its own political, economic and social agenda for empire.

Conclusions The first to establish colonies in the New World, the Spanish were the first to cope with the political, economic, and social issues of colonization on their own in their exploits in the Americas. The right to property and Spain’s legitimacy in the New World were the major challenges that the contemporary political and intellectual thinkers debated. The question of how to deal with the indigenous peoples of the New World was still an important matter but something of a secondary concern for Spanish chroniclers. When the English began their colonization attempts in the New World, the issues of property and legitimacy in colonization had already been established. Because these issues had already been debated and decided upon, England could focus its efforts on establishing an ideology of colonization on their social and primarily religious agenda. With the defeat of the Spanish Armada, England soon realized its urgent need to extend its own definition of the ideal civilization and religion abroad in order to curtail the imperial efforts of Spain as well as the spread of Catholicism. In addition to debates of legitimacy in the New World, the notion of civilizing the natives in order to establish their respective visions of the ideal civilization became an ideological war between the two world powers. While both nations viewed the indigenous peoples as “savage” and “barbaric” for lacking the social structures and institutions of Europe, it seems that the Spanish were more aggressive in their encounters with the natives. Quite possibly the fact that the English were able to reconcile the Spanish debates on the treatment of the natives with their own views led at times to a more tolerant approach to the natives on behalf of the English.

28 The debates on legitimacy in the New World as well as the status of the indigenous cultures were issues that consistently appeared in the contemporary rhetoric. Ultimately, Spain’s political and economic greed overshadowed their social justifications for colonizing the New World. Spain’s increasing power during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries raised English anxiety about the spread of Catholicism and its political influence. Although the expansion of its empire and accumulation of New World wealth were major motivators for the English, their emphasis on the conversion and “civilization” of the Indians evident in the contemporary rhetoric reveals the English’s underlying anxieties about religious and cultural difference.

CHAPTER 2

STAGING THE NEW WORLD

Developing at nearly the same time, the Spanish and English theaters of the sixteenth century enjoyed immense popularity and success. In the corrales of Spain and the playhouses of England, people of all social classes came together to be amused by theatrical representations. While theater audiences were entertained with music, dance, comedy and tragedy, theater financers hauled in profits made from admission prices and concessions. The desire for comedias and plays increased steadily, much to the delight of theater investors who responded to this demand by staging more plays on more days throughout the week. The increasing popularity of the theater also aroused certain anxieties for governmental officials and religious leaders who called for censorship to maintain some sense of societal decorum in these public arenas of spectacle. In spite of the objections of some, the theater provided a festive release for the community – a secular place to come together and be entertained. The plays both entertained and helped to relay important contemporary themes and ideas. By imitating human relationships and conflicts on stage, the theatrical representations in many ways reaffirmed established notions of “civility” and “civilization.” Oftentimes, theater exposed audiences to different ideas and cultures, in many ways challenging these accepted views. The great autores de comedias and playwrights of the day seized the opportunity to comment on these key issues while entertaining their audiences. Close scrutiny of these plays facilitates an understanding of early modern culture and attitudes. For our purposes, looking at Spain and England’s New World plays by Lope de Vega and Shakespeare, reveal much about early modern attitudes about “civility” and “civilization.”

Origins of the Theater House Organized in the yards of Spanish houses, the corrales were the original theater houses of Spain. The audience would stand around a stage usually set up against a house. The windows of

30 adjacent houses were used as theater “boxes” where privileged theatergoers would sit and enjoy performances. A contemporary account of Spanish pastimes includes a description of a theatergoer’s observations upon entering one of the corrales: I passed through the door of a house which I saw many people entering – men as well as women. Having gone in, I saw a large patio, where, upon chairs and benches, men and women were sitting; in a gallery sat the women of the common people, and there were, besides, a number of balconies occupied by the distinguished persons with their wives. In the patio a stage was erected, upon which all eyes were fixed, and when the house was full, I saw two ladies (damas) and two gallants (galanes) come out upon the stage with their vihuelas [instruments], who sang these decimas [songs]… (qtd. in Rennert, The Spanish Stage 323) Originally, these corrales were not leased to any particular autor de comedia or theater manager; many different managers would use these spaces for their individual performances. These primitive theaters enjoyed such success that permanent corrales were soon constructed. In 1579, the first permanent theater, the Corral de la Cruz, was erected in Madrid only to be followed in 1582 by a second theater, the Corral del Principe. Rennert provides a description of the appearance of these corrales: A platform or stage was built, a green-room, raised seats (gradas) for the men, portable benches to the number of ninety-five, a gallery for the women, stalls and windows with iron gratings, passageways, and a roof to cover the gradas. Finally the patio was paved and an awning was stretched over it, which protected against the sun, but not against the rain. (qtd. in Rennert, The Spanish Stage 40) The Spanish theatergoers were so anxious for these new theaters to be opened that comedias were staged before the construction of the corrales was completed. There was such a demand for theatrical representations that plays continued to be performed in the old corrales. Originally, funding for these theaters was provided by individual Cofradias, which were non-profit organizations that provided social support services for the needy. In the 1560s, these organizations petitioned the government for permission to establish these corrales in order to raise funds for their causes. The Cofradias financed comedias employing theater managers, actors, and other essential workers in order to garner profits to maintain their pro bono

31 organizations. The government provided for each organization to have equal ability to share in the profits of the corrales by allocating funds accordingly. As the corrales increased in number and popularity, theater companies began to emerge seeking financial support from the Cofradias to fund their artistic pursuits. While there were many different company structures, Rennert explains there were two main types: “those in which the players worked for a salary paid them by the autor or manager, and those in which the players worked on shares (compañias de parte)” (Rennert, The Spanish Stage, 146). By 1603, the corrales had achieved such popularity that the government attempted to limit the number of theater companies by issuing licenses. In spite of the attempts to limit these companies, many companies developed without licensure and as Rennert explains “overran the whole peninsula” (The Spanish Stage, 146). The proliferation of these companies seen by the beginning of the seventeenth century attests to popularity of Spanish theater. The increasing popularity of the theater as well as its performances inevitably raised political and religious anxieties in sixteenth and seventeenth century Spain. A royal decree of 1598 declared that the theater: …Fostered habits of idleness and pleasure-seeking in the people…the banquets, festivals, and comedias were rendering the Spanish people effeminate and unfit for the hardships of war, and that the King, being obliged to wage war against enemies of the faith, was ill prepared, as a result of the comedias as they are now represented in Spain. That, in the judgment of prudent persons, if the Turk or King of England wished to seek an efficient device to ruin and destroy the Spanish nation, he could find none better than that of these players… (qtd. in Rennert, The Spanish Stage 208) The frequency of these performances and the welcome reception the comedias received among the Spanish people were not the only concerns of political and church leaders; the content of the performances also worried royal and religious officials. Most comedias contained an entremes, a short intermission in which a dance or bayle was performed. A Jesuit describes an entremes: In a certain city in Spain there was…one of those songs…of such licentiousness that it created the greatest scandal…and now there are songs which they call escarraman…that have been produced in the theaters with such lewdness that

32 even the admirers of the comedia were scandalized thereby, and many left the theater to avoid hearing them. (qtd. in Rennert, The Spanish Stage 73) In addition to concerns about provocative dancing on stage, these leaders insisted on the “evil” effects of the theater and succeeded in closing down the theaters in 1598. Public protest from both Cofradias and theater companies prompted the city of Madrid to petition the King for the reinstatement of the theaters, and the following year the theaters were reopened under new provisions. The new royal decrees of the early seventeenth century required that comedias seek approval from censorship boards in order to receive a license to perform. This censorship required that an appointed alguacil or peace officer be present at the performances in order to “take precautions that there be no noise, uproar or scandal; that the men be kept separated from the women…to avoid all unseemly acts…” (qtd. in Rennert, The Spanish Stage 222). In spite of the regulations and religious protest against the theaters, the corrales thrived and Spanish drama reached its height in the years between 1610 and 1640. All social classes were represented in the audiences of the comedias. The average Spaniard could pay a small admission fee and stand in the pit in front of the stage and enjoy the performance. Those who could afford to pay for a seat would sit on benches in the gradas or the rear section of the corrales. The nobility usually opted for seats in the aposentos or theater boxes to remain separate from the commoners. The women had a separate section in the corrales usually referred to as the cazuela (stew pot) or jaula (cage) where alguaciles were on guard preventing men from entering and fraternizing with the damas. Spanish audiences were often boisterous and quick to reveal their appreciation or dissatisfaction with the comedias. The mosqueteros or groundlings were the most outspoken members of the audience and they “were especially feared by both author and actor, for upon their whims the success or failure of a comedia generally depended” (Rennert, The Spanish Stage, 117). If the audience approved of a production, shouts of “Victor!” would be heard at the play’s conclusion. If the play failed to please the audience, whistling and hissing would occur causing disruptions throughout the performance. The entertainment provided by the theater and the comedias drew the crowds and made early modern Spanish theater the social event of the day. Comedias were performed in the afternoons as long as the weather was favorable. The productions were mainly divided into three acts usually written in verse. Musical interludes and

33 bayles (dances) were frequently interspersed between acts. The scenery of the early Spanish theater was rather primitive and minimal. Autores frequently appealed to the audience’s imagination as scene changes were usually indicated either through the actors’ spoken words or by costume change. Early modern comedia costumes were frequently part of the most expensive production costs incurred by the autores. Typically extravagant, the costumes were often shared between theater companies in order to keep production costs low. As the theater achieved more and more popularity, stage machinery grew more sophisticated and innovative. Similar to early Spanish stages, platform stages in London marketplaces and inn yards were the original theaters of England. Many of these primitive theaters constructed scaffolding to raise theater boxes around the platform stages in order to provide more seating as well as prohibit nonpaying spectators from getting free entertainment. The first permanent theater house or playhouse, the Red Lion, was constructed in 1567 with other theater constructions to follow closely thereafter (qtd. in Cox and Kastan 93). These playhouses were constructed near working class areas and some of the poorest residential areas in London. Situating playhouses in these areas also known as the “Liberties” enabled the theaters to escape the supervision of City officials who did not have jurisdiction in these areas. In 1595, the Swan Theater was constructed proceeded closely by the opening of the Rose, Globe, and Boar’s Head theaters. Usually round or polygonal in shape, English theaters had no roof in the center of the playhouse except for the raised galleries on the sides which had thatched roofs. A late-sixteenth century traveler described the London theater experience, providing evidence that attests to the English theater’s popularity: There are some peculiar houses, which are so made as to have about three galleries over one another, inasmuch as a great number of people always enters to see such an entertainment. It may well be that they [the playhouse owners] take as much as from 50 to 60 dollars at once, especially when they act anything new, which has not been given before, and double prices are charged. This goes on nearly every day in the week; even though performances are forbidden on Friday and Saturday, it is not observed. (qtd. in Gurr 122) The proliferation of these playhouses and frequency of performances attests to the popularity of English theater in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

34 The funding for the construction of these theater houses came mainly from theater companies. Driven by profit, these companies were independent commercial organizations consisting of shareholders, their hired employees. The majority of the companies had about eight to twelve “sharers” who divided production costs and performance profits. According to Gurr, “the sharers had to pay for the rental of their playhouse, the purchase of costumes and other playing materials, the wages of their hirelings, and the various fees exacted by the Revels Office. It was also usual, at least in the early days, to show good-neighborliness by making customary payments to the parish poor” (69). The investment of the companies often yielded huge profits making the theater business a lucrative enterprise, which appealed to government officials for the revenue it brought in for the City through licensing and other fees. The profits garnered by the playhouses and the rising licensure fees towards the end of the sixteenth century provide evidence that suggests that the early modern English theater enjoyed immense popularity, much to the concern of those individuals who were opposed to the theater and the influence it had on the popular consciousness. Religious leaders and City officials shared many anxieties about the theater and the power it had on English culture. While Church fathers were concerned that the theater fostered idleness and encouraged audiences to skip church services in order to attend performances, the City fathers were more concerned about the threat the theater had on England’s social order. These religious and political anxieties focused on different influential aspects of the theater, but these factions maintained a similar view of the performances. As Briggs suggests, these leaders: …regarded the playhouses as potent sources of moral and physical infection: in addition to spreading illness, they encouraged criticism of the government or undermined personal morality since the actions presented were ‘nothing else but unchaste fables, lascivious devices, shifts of cozenage and matters of like sort’ as successive Lord Mayors complained to the Privy Council, adding that they drew the audience ‘into example of imitation and not of avoiding the said lewd offences’. (qtd. in Briggs 262) Arousing these religious and political concerns, the growing popularity of the theater in the late- sixteenth century prompted censorship laws in order to impose some type of authority. In 1581, the Master of Revels was granted censorship rights over plays, which allowed for limiting the kinds of language and content permitted on stage. A 1606 “Act to Restraine Abuses of Players”

35 details the regulations regarding the use of oaths in plays: “If …any person or persons doe or shall in any Stage play, Interlude, Shewe…jestingly or prophanely speake or use the holy name of God or Christ Jesus, or of the Holy Ghoste or of the Trinitie…shall forfeite for everie such Offence by him or them committed Tenne pounds” (qtd. in Gurr 76). In one respect, the control exerted by the Revels Office in the form of licensure and censorship was its attempt to maintain order in the developing social enterprise that was the theater; however, as Gurr argues, “the main point…seems to have been not so much the control it established as the revenue it gave the Master. Every extra duty brought him extra income” (75). Under the guise of exerting some form of social control, the Revels Office seems to have exploited its licensure and censorship authority. Yet there were real concerns about the influence the theater had on London’s social order. As Briggs explains: Built in the sleazier areas of the city, the theaters provided a natural focus for criminals: thieves, pickpockets, and prostitutes operated among the crowds, aided by their permanently diverted attention, and the large crowds seemed threatening in themselves: 3000 people deliberately aroused to fever pitch embodied in the very worst fears of the authorities. (263) While the Liberties freed theater companies from hostile City authorities, the location of these playhouses raised anxieties about the environment performances fostered. In addition to exposing English citizens to these social ills present in the audiences, religious and political leaders were concerned about what was depicted on stage. The cross-dressing carried out on stage was a major threat to the social order. While Church officials argued that it was against the Bible, political leaders claimed it “confused gender roles and encourag[ed] members of the audience to feel desire for the boy actors” (Briggs 265). Regardless of the political and religious opposition to playhouses and theatrical performances, the English theater continued to draw large audiences and became a favorite pastime of English citizens in the late-sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. All social classes were represented in playhouse audiences. Much like Spanish audiences, English theatergoers paid a penny to stand in the pit in front of the stage; and those who could afford it paid extra for a gallery seat or a cushioned chair. The working class and

36 nobles alike frequented the playhouses. A contemporary account of theater audiences reveals the diversity of English audiences: For as we see at all the playhouse dores, When ended is the play, the daunce, and song, A thousand townsemen, gentlemen, and whores, Porters and serving-men together throng. (qtd. in Gurr 217) Men and women both frequented the theaters. In 1617, an Italian tourist commented on English playhouse audiences, “…to see such a crowd of nobility, so very well arrayed that they looked like so many princes, listening as silently and soberly as possible. These theaters are frequented by a number of respectable and handsome ladies, who come freely and seat themselves among the men without the slightest hesitation” (qtd. in Gurr 217). Although audiences were separated by economics inside the playhouses, the experience of theater united social and gender differences within a single audience. Similar to corral audiences, English audiences were quick to voice their appreciation or displeasure with a performance. Religious and political leaders often described playhouse audiences as “riotous,” “immoral,” or “seditious” (Gurr 213). There are many reports of criminal behavior during performances such as fighting, stealing, and assault. In spite of isolated incidents of violence, historical evidence indicates that England’s early modern audiences were very much captivated by performances and were equally prepared to applaud enthusiastically as they were willing to jeer condemningly. The theater was undoubtedly a popular social event in early modern England, but the plays themselves were the main attraction with which companies drew crowds. Early modern English theater relied heavily on visual spectacle to further its thematic concerns. Scene changes were often indicated with the entrance and exits of the players. As the theatrical machinery grew more sophisticated in the seventeenth century, canvas flats with painted backgrounds were introduced on stage. Theater companies made use of music and noise in the form of war drums or cannon blasts to accentuate their performances. In addition to the auditory stimulation, audiences were treated to various visual spectacles such as fireworks and even bloody sword fights with spurting wounds feigned with hidden bladders or sponges filled with vinegar. Perhaps the most important element of English theater spectacle was the use of costumes. The players’ costumes were the most effective ways of indicating a character’s social

37 status, gender, profession, etc. Sometimes acquired second-hand from courtiers, early modern English costumes were often elaborate and expensive. Gurr provides a description of a company’s costumes: “cloaks in scarlet with gold laces and buttons, and in purple satin adorned with silver, a doublet in copper lace, carnation velvet, flame, ginger, red and green; and women’s gowns of white satin and cloth of gold” (194). For English theater companies and audiences alike, the spectacle the playhouse afforded was as entertaining and significant as the themes inherent in the plays. There are many similarities and differences between the early modern theaters of Spain and England. Economically, the theater companies worked towards increasing profits either for personal gain or charitable contributions to social organizations. Both theaters also faced pressure from religious and city officials to maintain a sense of social decorum in their theatrical enterprises that conformed to existing notions of “civility” and “civilization.” Most importantly, however, the theaters captivated their audiences through entertaining comedias and plays that (re)presented human relationships and conflicts. While an understanding of the role of the early modern Spanish and English theater is necessary to assess the significance of its participation in early modern culture, the plays may also help us understand the concerns, values and ideals of early modern Spain and England.

The Great Artists Although the social experience of theater and all its machinery seduced audiences in both Spain and England, it was the playwrights who provided the substance that enabled theater to become the social phenomenon of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The large number of corrales and playhouses and autores and playwrights testifies to the popularity of the theater in these nations, but two artists stand out from the multitude because of their uncanny ability to depict the human character. The plays of Lope de Vega and Shakespeare reveal much about contemporary notions on so many different issues. At times endorsing and other times subverting, their prolific works are representative of Spanish and English ideals and values in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. A brief reflection on their lives will facilitate an understanding of the differences in the playwright’s trade in Spain and England. Known in his time as the “Phoenix of Spain,” Lope de Vega perfected Spanish national drama. The poet began writing for the stage at the young age of 23 in 1585; and at the time of

38 his death in 1635, he had written over eight hundred plays. Spending much of his youth in the corrales, Lope ran into legal troubles in 1587 when he was sued for criminal libel. Lope was exiled from Madrid after being convicted of defiling a Spanish noble and his family with satirical pamphlets. After many years in exile, Lope entered the priesthood claiming, “I left worldly vanities and was ordained, for it was necessary to bring order into my disorder” (Rennert, Life of Lope 211). In his life, Lope was somewhat of a celebrity often being stopped in the streets of Madrid by theater fans of all social classes. A Spanish historian once wrote: Nadie he sabido tanto de España como Lope de Vega sabia por instinto y por amor. No man knew Spain as well both by instinct and through his love for it as Lope de Vega. (Obras de Lope lxvii) Much about early modern Spanish life and culture is evident in Lope’s plays, for scholars have credited him with having a keen insight into Spain and the customs of his culture. Spanish ideals and values are evident in his characters and themes, and close inspection of his works facilitates an understanding of early modern Spanish society. Rennert explains Lope’s artistic qualities: He was not only furnished with all those gifts which are necessary to the great lyric poet, as they are to the dramatist – with wealth and mobility of intellect; with a profound perception of nature and of life; with the glow of emotional feelings; with play of fancy and of thought – but at the same time he possessed in the highest degree all those qualities which are especially essential to a dramatist: - the profoundest knowledge of the human character; a deep comprehension of the passions and of their causes and effects; the greatest power of mental reflection; and that calm, comprehensive glance which is necessary for the arrangement and execution of a dramatic plan. (Rennert, Life of Lope 384) Rennert may have overestimated Lope’s ability to understand humanity. As we shall see in Chapter 3, Lope may have only understood the humanity of those that were considered equal in civility by contemporary Spanish standards. Nonetheless, Lope’s plays provide excellent insight into sixteenth and seventeenth century Spanish ideals and values. Born in 1564, Shakespeare began working in the London theater industry around the age of 22. A working playwright, Shakespeare never experienced the renown that Lope enjoyed in his lifetime. Shakespeare was a man of the theater in every sense; he was involved in all aspects

39 of the theater as an actor, playwright, and shareholder of a theater company. Although he never had a university education, many references in his plays reveal that he had substantial knowledge of various subjects including but certainly not limited to medicine, science, politics, religion and even sailing. What Shakespeare is most appreciated for is his knowledge of the human character and experience. Levin asserts, “Shakespeare’s uniqueness lies in his commentary, his memorable power of individualizing those common experiences” (5). While sixteenth and seventeenth century English ideals and values are embedded in his plays, Shakespeare had a distinctive way of constructing characters and themes that both reflected and questioned contemporary notions. As we shall see in Chapter 4, Shakespeare detailed and commented on the human experience while challenging sixteenth and seventeenth century English ideals and values.

The Influence of the Early Modern Theater Undoubtedly, early modern Spanish and English culture had great influence on the plays of the theater; the theater as well played a role in influencing Spanish and English society. The interdependent relationship of the Spanish and English theaters and their respective cultures merits close scrutiny because it helps develop an appreciation of how these cultures presented as well as challenged contemporary ideologies on stage. Examining how culture and theater worked independently as well as jointly facilitates an understanding of how Spain and England’s poets worked within their cultures to create plays that both entertained and instructed their audiences. A brief discussion of Mikhail Bakhtin’s ideas on Carnival and the Carnivalesque as well as a discussion of mimesis establishes a theoretical framework by which to understand how early modern Spanish and English theater functioned as a “civilizing agent.” Although Spanish and English theaters of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries faced criticism and opposition from religious and political leaders for its disruption of the social order and overall transgressive nature, the theater enjoyed immense popularity and success. Bristol’s analysis of Bakhtin’s discussion of Carnival in Rabelais and his World provides evidence by which to argue for the cultural value of the early modern theater: “Bakhtin maintains that the ludic and transgressive elements of popular culture actually constitute a valid knowledge of the social world” (qtd. in Cox and Kastan 235). The theater was seen as low entertainment by the elite — an entertainment for the popular or “vulgar” classes. Yet, the fact that the theater was a

40 medium by which to test boundaries, establishes its importance as a valuable cultural artifact and provides information about the “social world” of both theaters. Bakhtin’s assertion of the value of “Carnival” provides a theoretical framework by which to understand the value of the theater in the early modern period: For Bakhtin, Carnival expresses a fundamental truth about the world; its down-to- earth vocabularies, its affirmation of the body, its grotesque exaggeration and aggressive annihilation of all reified modes of legitimation in fact interpret the world in a more comprehensive, universal, and practical way than the official worldviews and serious philosophies of elite cultures. (qtd. in Cox and Kastan 237) His theory of Carnival can easily be applied to theater, for the corrales and the playhouses were festive social events for the people of sixteenth and seventeenth century Spain and England. The very “baseness” of the theater is what gives it value as a cultural artifact. As Bristol suggests, “the ‘vulgarity’ of the theater, its ability to communicate effectively with the people, makes it particularly valuable in the formation of public opinion” (qtd. in Cox and Kastan 241). Because theater could reach large audiences with a straightforward approach, the plays were influential in many ways: they could educate or inform their audiences as well as reinforce or challenge existing ideologies. Spanish and English culture had an enormous amount of influence on the theater. In terms of economics, playwrights and theater companies appealed to their audiences by producing plays that would bring crowds to the corrales and playhouses. The business of the theater necessitated the development of universal themes and theatrical methods that would encourage people to pay to see a show. Politics also played a major role in influencing the theater. The anxieties of religious officials in both Spain and England incited governmental officials to establish regulations regarding theater content and decorum. Perhaps the most influential element of the sixteenth and seventeenth century theaters, however, was audience response. The frequently vociferous crowds affected the content of the plays because their approval or criticism of the plays shaped future productions. In order to appease audiences as well as governmental and religious leaders, theater companies and playwrights had to cater to the culture and what it demanded.

41 Spanish and English culture and society were also very much influenced by the theater. The financial support of the Cofradias in Spain, for instance, may in fact have generated a sense that attending comedias was respectable because the proceeds went to a worthy cause. The small admission prices of Spain and England’s theaters also made it possible for all social classes to participate in the theatrical experience. The content of the plays pushed political, religious, and social boundaries prompting audiences to consider contemporary issues and accepted social norms. The most important influence the theater had on culture however, was how it affected notions of class and Spanish and English values. As Cohen asserts, “the public theaters of Renaissance England and Spain offered possibilities for the interaction of popular and learned culture that were not available on the stage elsewhere” (405). In the corrales and playhouses, all levels of society were brought together to collaboratively experience the art of the theater. On these stages, social values were presented and at times challenged. Regardless of a spectator’s social class or intellectual capacity, the mimesis of the comedias and plays they viewed enabled audiences to reflect on society, contemporary ideologies, the human experience and “civilization” in general. The Spanish and English plays that discussed the European encounter with the New World were the plays in which the contemporary concept of “civilization” was subtly questioned. These plays encouraged audiences to consider the “Other” and helped to instruct and educate or “civilize” spectators about these previously unknown cultures. Lope de Vega specifically portrayed the Spanish encounter with the Indians in his comedia El Nuevo Mundo descubierto por Cristóbal Colón. Shakespeare did not specifically address the New World in The Tempest, but a review of his sources reveals that the island in the play is modeled on New World accounts. Both of these playwrights addressed European encounters with figures of alterity in these newly discovered lands. By drawing on contemporary accounts of these New World encounters, both Lope de Vega and Shakespeare educated and informed their audiences about these other cultures. For both learned and popular audience members, the playwrights enhanced their knowledge of the occurrences in the New World. While Lope de Vega and Shakespeare had different aims with each of their plays, they both used the theater as a medium to disseminate commentaries on New World ideologies. The popularity of the theater provided an arena by which to ask a great many people to consider these new issues and perhaps reevaluate existing notions of “civility” and “civilization.”

42 Superficially, theater imitates reality through its means, objects, and manner. Aristotle’s discussion of mimesis states, “in general imitations [are] presented, not in the same, but in a different manner” (Richter 42). In reality, the Indians most likely had difficulty communicating with the Europeans because of the language barrier. Conversely, in these plays the Indians and Europeans speak the same languages. While the scenario represented on stage was not an exact replica of the reality of the language barrier between the Indians and the Europeans, it did provide a concise mimetic representation of real contact between Indians and colonists in the New World. The second element of mimesis Aristotle considers is the “object.” The philosopher suggests: Artists imitate men involved in action and these must either be noble or base since human character regularly conforms to these distinctions, all of us being different in character because of some quality of goodness or evil. From this it follows that the objects imitated are either better than or worse than or like the norm. (Richter 43) The “objects” in theatrical representations are mimetic in that there are noble personages who uphold moral principles such as integrity and generosity. There are also those “base” personages who attempt to subvert those same values. Certain elements of theater are imitative of reality and some are clearly not. The final element in Aristotle’s definition of mimesis is: the manner in which the artist represents the various types of object. For, using the same means and imitating the same kinds of object, it is possible for the poet on different occasions to narrate the story or to have the imitators performing and acting out the entire story. (Richter 43) Some of Lope and Shakespeare’s characters recount events or discuss situations, and these narrations give the audience information about events that take place off-stage. At other times, the playwrights have the characters enact the story through their performances. The theater is mimetic in that it allows the audience to decipher meaning through the performance of the objects, which is similar to reality in that, as individuals, the audience relies on its own perceptions of others and the world to infer meaning from situations and circumstances.

43 The mimesis that occurred in the New World plays on the Spanish and English stages reflected contemporary perceptions of “civility” and “civilization” and imitated political ideologies. The mimesis on these stages depicted human interactions and behavior; it also at times imitated historical events and expressed contemporary political ideologies. The actors’ imitations of the human experience enabled audience members to fully connect with the characters and themes of the plays. Witnessing a staged version of everyday conflicts and human interactions on stage prompted theater patrons to consider their own experiences and how they related to the mimesis on stage. The ability of the audience to relate to the mimesis of the human experience made the theater influential and helped to establish the Spanish and English theater’s function as a “civilizing agent.” When contemporary events or issues were either explicitly represented or subtly alluded to, audience members were educated or “civilized” about these issues. In the New World plays of Lope de Vega and Shakespeare, the playwrights used this historical and political mimesis to represent and comment on contemporary issues of colonization as well as accepted notions of “civility” and “civilization.” In many ways, the mimetic function of the Spanish and English theater helped to explain, assert, and promulgate sixteenth and seventeenth century values and ideals. As previously established, Spain and England’s views on “civility” and “civilization” were in many ways similar as well as different. The variations were rooted in cultural and religious differences; but when the Spanish and English arrived on New World shores, they shared the sentiment that pre- Columbian societies needed instruction in European “civility” and “civilization.” The theatrical representations of the New World represented these cross-cultural encounters and discussed national ideologies. Barbara Fuchs’ discussion of imitative representations of historical events and political issues in Mimesis and Empire builds on Aristotle’s elements of mimesis by describing how these pieces work together to emphasize similarities between reality and imitation: Mimesis poses a particular challenge to early modern national and imperial identities predicated on exceptionalism and ethnoreligious homogeneity. In the first place, similarity bridges the divide between self and Other. Where ideologies of difference seek to solidify distinctions, mimesis recalls underlying likeness. (Fuchs 164)

44 The New World plays of Lope de Vega and Shakespeare represented Spanish and English encounters with indigenous cultures, discussed the contemporary rhetoric of colonization, and explored Spanish and English notions of what it meant to be “civilized.” The dramatization of these cross-cultural encounters on stage enacted the colonial rhetoric: actors emulated explorers interacting with natives and storylines imitated the debates on legitimacy in the New World and the necessity of converting the natives. The mimesis of these plays brought theater patrons closer to the New World natives and colonial rhetoric because of the commonalities in human experience and “national identity” they saw represented on stage. The imitative representations of the “other” participate in “civilizing” the audience about the New World and its inhabitants. By recognizing underlying similarities in human and national experiences, Spanish and English theater patrons were informed and educated about the New World.

Conclusions The popularity of sixteenth and seventeenth century Spanish and English theater may have raised political and religious anxieties, but its contribution to these respective cultures is undisputed. In the social environment of the corrales and theaters, Spanish and English society came to be “civilized” in matters of gender, class, politics, and cultural difference. The great autores and playwrights of the day portrayed these important contemporary issues on stage and commented on Spanish and English ideals and values. Theater became an important facet of early modern Spanish and English life, both influencing the culture it catered to as well as being influenced by it. While the themes of early modern drama are too numerous to specify here, the issue of imperialism and its implications was perhaps one of the most important issues of sixteenth and seventeenth century Spain and England. This issue was addressed by the great playwrights of two major nations of the day who struggled with their own ideas about “civility” and “civilization” and how to implement them in the New World. An examination of their plays, El Nuevo Mundo descubierto por Cristóbal Colón and The Tempest, will help to make clear the differences between Spanish and English notions of “civility” and “civilization” and how, in each play, the playwright engaged with contemporary controversies about colonization.

CHAPTER THREE

VISIONS OF NEW WORLD CULTURES IN

EL NUEVO MUNDO DESCUBIERTO POR CRISTÓBAL COLÓN

Esta conquista se intente, Que para Cristo ha de ser.

The intent of the conquest shall be in the name of Christ.

(El Nuevo Mundo descubierto por Cristóbal Colón. I. 760-761)

Compared with the multitude of plays produced in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, few Spanish plays emerged that addressed conquest and colonization directly. Those plays that did take on the New World as their main subject primarily emphasized the religious justification for conquest. In pushing for evangelization in these plays, Spanish autores de comedias evaded many of the issues raised by contemporary historical accounts and ideological debates and subsequently misrepresented accounts of conquest and the incidents that occurred because of colonization. One play emerges from the genre of what Spanish historian Menéndez y Pelayo has called Comedias de asuntos de la historia patria (Comedias of historical homeland matters) that addresses ideologies of colonization: Lope de Vega’s El Nuevo Mundo descubierto por Cristobal Colón. In comparison to other Spanish New World drama, Lope’s play best addresses both sides of the debate on colonization. While his main purpose is to emphasize the need for the evangelization of New World cultures, he addresses issues of Spanish greed for the material wealth of the Indies, albeit minimally, in his play. The play subtly alludes to debates about the legitimacy of the Spanish enterprise in the New World, but the autor’s focus on Christianizing the Indians overshadows any critique of colonization. In the end, El Nuevo Mundo does little more than reinforce existing Spanish stereotypes and ideologies. Lope’s play

46 does serve however, as a civilizing instrument to its audience, for El Nuevo Mundo audiences were suddenly exposed to New World figures of alterity in the spectacle of the Spanish theater.

Spanish New World Drama Considering that the conquest of the New World was such an important contemporary issue in Spain, it is interesting that only a few plays were written discussing the New World experience. According to Lauer, “of the two thousand plays written in this period, it would appear that about sixteen deal exclusively with the actual conquest of America, and from this group, only fourteen seem to be extant” (32). In addition to the limited sixteenth and seventeenth century literary discussions of the New World experience, modern literary criticism of this genre is also limited. Lauer attributes this lack of critical attention to several reasons: Most of them [the plays] appear to be blatantly nationalistic and perhaps offensive to culturally sensitive audiences. Most of them, likewise, seem self-righteous in their justification of the Conquest. Many of them have an ulterior encomiastic motive as their final end…[and] some if not all…appear to be politically incorrect for this generation and perhaps for all times. (33) Indeed, the content and themes of these plays may be politically offensive to modern sensibilities, but the content and themes of the plays are worth studying because they help us to understand how the theaters worked to disseminate and reinforce Spanish ideologies of conquest and colonization. These plays, Shannon asserts, “lay the problems of empire before the public and attempt to inform and illuminate sixteenth and seventeenth century audiences about the problems of discovery, conquest, and colonization” (7). By the end of the sixteenth century, these Spanish debates were widely known due to the proliferation of historical accounts, royal proclamations, and ideological debates at Spanish universities. It was the theater however, that attempted to put all of these questions into perspective for the populace. Being the first autor to take up the New World issue on the Spanish stage, Lope de Vega drew upon primary sources like Lopez de Gómara’s Historia de las Indias y conquista de Mexico and Gonzalo Fernandez de Oviedo’s Historia general y natural de las Indias to inform his play El Nuevo Mundo. These accounts helped Lope develop a somewhat historically accurate story, but he by no means strictly adhered to the chroniclers’ accounts. Shannon points out that “Lope expands upon, elaborates, or changes certain details of the chroniclers, often to heighten dramatic

47 impact…” (44). Most of the changes and additions Lope makes in El Nuevo Mundo help to reinforce Spanish ideologies of colonization and develop his religious theme. As an autor de comedia, Lope’s primary goal was to attract theater audiences; distorting some historical details for the sake of entertainment was necessary to his dramatic purposes. While most of Spanish New World drama may be seen as propaganda used to justify Spain’s involvement in the New World, a few dramatists like Lope de Vega used the comedias to allude to the negative aspects of Spanish conquest and colonization. Lope did not shy away from discussing accounts of Spanish greed or exploitation. Many critics argue that he only calls attention to the Spanish debates; I would like to argue, however, that Lope’s subtle allusions to Spanish greed and exploitation are employed strategically in order to further his religious theme. Critics have often cited Lope’s liberties with his sources as primary evidence for the promotion of Lope’s evangelization theme. While Lope’s deviations from the sources undoubtedly functions to develop his religious theme, it is his depiction of the indigenous peoples of the New World that provides the strongest evidence for the necessity of Christianizing the New World.

The Messianic Mission in El Nuevo Mundo El Nuevo Mundo descubierto por Cristóbal Colón dramatizes the Spanish arrival in the Americas. Beginning at the end of the La Reconquista, Columbus seeks the support of European monarchs to finance a voyage to explore the new continent. The only monarchy that takes the sea captain’s idea seriously is the Spanish crown. After Columbus appeals to Fernando and Isabel’s religious inclination for the conversion of the bárbaros, he is given ships and provisions for his expedition. The second act of the play begins at sea with restless sailors plotting a mutiny, which a cleric quickly dispels after reemphasizing their spiritual mission. When the sailors arrive on the island they call La Deseada, they meet the natives and begin their Christianizing efforts. The play ends in the third act with the return of Columbus to the Spanish Court and the baptism of six natives he brought from the New World. Lope takes great liberties with his sources throughout the play, but the most significant deviation is Columbus’s knowledge he will travel to a new continent. The Admiral’s conviction that this expedition is an exploration of new lands is not in accordance with the historical accounts of his desire to search for a western route to Asia. This deviation is significant in that it helps to emphasize Lope’s

48 religious theme from the beginning of the play. In El Nuevo Mundo, the messianic mission of Spain is the comedia’s primary theme. The religious theme of the play is initially conveyed through an allegorical scene in Act I. When Colón voices his frustration at his inability to secure sponsorship of his voyage, an allegorical figure of his Imagination appears and carries him over to a tribunal where his expedition is debated. La Idolotría (Idolatry) and El Demonio (The Demon) oppose Colón and his supporter, La Religión Cristiana (The Christian Religion); La Providencia (Providence) is the judge of the debate. La Idolotría argues with La Providencia: Tras años innumerables Que en las Indias de Occidente Vivo engañando las gente Con mis errors notables… El demonio en ellas vive; La posesión la entregué. (I.728-727) After innumerable years That in the West Indies I live deceiving the people With my notable errors… The demon lives in them; I delivered the possession. La Religión Cristiana counters her argument by declaring “de la Fe las Indias son” (the Indies belong to the Faith) (I. 752). La Idolotría explains what she believes is the motivation for the expedition: Pues los lleva la codicia A hacer esta diligencia. So color de religion, Van a buscar plata y oro del encubierto tesoro. (I.770-775) For the greed is what takes them To do this industry. Under the pretext of religion, They go to find the silver and gold of the concealed treasure.

49 El Demonio also argues with La Providencia emphasizing La Idolotría’s claim that greed and not Christianity drive the explorers. The allegorical figures debate the issues and in the end Providencia declares that the conquest will occur. The allegory of El Nuevo Mundo is a representation of the debates about colonization in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Lope strategically addresses reports of Spanish greed and exploitation with La Idolotría’s argument. La Providencia states that God will be the judge of the exploiters who miscarry the intentions of evangelization. The judge of the tribunal also claims God is more interested in gaining more souls than punishing the wicked. By having La Providencia decide in favor of Colón and the religious mission of his expedition, Lope justifies the presence of the Spanish in the New World and emphasizes the importance of Spain’s role in converting the natives. The spiritual zeal of many of El Nuevo Mundo’s characters also furthers Lope’s religious theme. The piety of Colón, Friar Buyl, the Spanish Monarchs, and the sailors are consistently emphasized throughout the play. By paying special attention to descriptions of the characters as well as providing revealing dialogue for these characters, Lope emphasizes the religious message of his play and justifies the Spain’s conquest and colonization of the Americas. Lope develops Colón’s religious zeal throughout the play in order emphasize the messianic purpose of the Spanish in the New World through Spain’s national “hero.” When relating his intentions to Fernando, Colón’s desire to Christianize the natives is evident: Yo iré si tú, señor, me das ayuda A conquistar los indios, los idólatras; Que es justo que a la fe cristiana nuestra Reduzca un Rey que se llamó Católico, Con la prudente y más dichosa Reina Que han visto las edades de oro antiguas. (I. 942-947) I will go if you, sir, will give me help To conquer the indians, the idolaters; It is just that our Christian faith, Humbles a Catholic King With the prudent and very content Queen That the ancient golden ages have seen.

50 While Columbus’s letters and diary reveal other reasons for his desire to explore these new lands (specifically material wealth), Lope chooses to emphasize religious reasons as a justification for exploration and colonization. When Colón reaches La Deseada in El Nuevo Mundo, he reveals his wish to implant a cross on the shore: Padre, dadme aquesa cruz, Que aquí la quiero poner; Que éste farol ha de ser Que dé al mundo nueva luz. (II. 1570-1574) Father, give me that cross, Because I want to put it here; This lantern should be The one that gives the New World light. Lope does not stray too far from his sources in portraying Colón as an evangelist of sorts, for there is evidence of Columbus’s piety in Lope’s sources. Oviedo writes: Antes que Colom [sic] entrase en la mar algunos días, tuvo muy largas consultaciones con un religioso…Se fue Colom al…monasterio y estuvo con el fraile comunicando su viaje e ordenando su alma e vida y apercibiéndose primeramente con Dios, y poniendo, como católico, en sus manos e misericordia su empresa, como fiel cristiano, y como negocio en que Dios esperaba ser tan servido por el acrescentamiento de su república cristiana… (qtd. in Shannon 47) Before Columbus went to sea, he had many long conversations with a monk. He went to the monastery and spoke at length to the monk, cleansing his soul and making peace with God and placing his voyage in the hands of God since God would be best served by this voyage. Lope draws on the chroniclers to craft Colón’s character to his dramatic purposes. By extending this depiction of Colón’s spiritual zeal throughout the play, Lope asserts a messianic purpose to Columbus’s first voyage as further evidence for the justification of Spanish colonization. The portrayal of the Spanish monarchs also helps to further Lope’s religious theme. After hearing of Colón’s proposed expedition, Fernando agrees to finance the voyage: Pues dádselo a Colón, y el cielo guíe Sus altos pensamientos y deseos

51 Porque a la fe vuelvan los idólatras Y se ensanche de España el señorío. (I. 973-976) So give it [the money] to Colón, and heaven guide His great thoughts and desires Because idolaters return to the faith And Spain’s dominion expands. Even though the King mentions gaining territory and power, he emphasizes the conversion of the natives as the most important reason for granting Columbus financial support. As Shannon asserts “…the declaration comes from the king, and, therefore, represents the official policy of the State on the conquest” (48). In this instance, Lope draws from Gómara’s relation of the monarchs’ reaction to Columbus’s description of the natives: Estuvieron los reyes muy atentos a la relación que de palabra hizo Cristóbal Colón, y maravillándose de oír que los indios no tenían vestidos, ni letras, ni moneda, ni hierro, ni trigo, ni vino, ni animal ninguno mayor que perro; ni navíos grandes, sino canoas, que son como artesas, hechas de una pieza. No pudieron sufrirse cuando oyeron que allá, en aquellas islas y tierras nuevas, se comían unos hombres a otros, y que todos eran idólatras; y prometieron, si Dios les daba vida, de quitar aquella abominable inhumanidad, y desarriaigar la idolatría en todas las tierras de Indias que a su mando viniesen: voto de cristianísmo reyes, y que cumplieron su palabra. (qtd. in Shannon 48) The king and queen were very attentive to the story Columbus related. They marveled at the thought that the Indians had no clothes, letters, coins, iron, wheat, wine or animals no larger than a dog. They had no large ships only canoes made of a single piece of wood. They could not believe their ears when they heard that in those far away places men ate men and they idolized themselves. They promised that if God gave them life they would abolish that abominable inhumanity and sunder the idolatry in all the lands of the Indies that would come under their rule. The knowledge of the natives’ lack of civility and religion was a major motivation for the monarchy to provide financial support to Columbus and his voyages, and Lope does not fail to emphasize this. The autor also stays true to his sources at the comedia’s finale when he has the

52 monarchs serve as the godparents of the natives’ baptism: “Los seis indios se baptizaron…y el Rey [y] la Reina…fueron los padrinos, por autorizar con sus personas el santo baptismo de Cristo en aquellos primeros cristianos de las Indias y Nuevo Mundo” (The six Indians were baptized and their kings were the godparents by personally authorizing the baptism on the first Christians of the Indies and the New World) (qtd. in Shannon 58). Following Gómara’s account, Lope includes a baptismal scene to close the play and highlight Spain’s mission to Christianize the New World. By accentuating Colón’s pious characteristics and providing the sea captain and Spanish monarchs with revealing speeches, Lope argues for the legitimacy of the Spanish enterprise in the Americas. The autor stays true to his sources only when they serve his thematic purposes. Otherwise, Lope deviates from the historical accounts in order to promote his theme that Spain’s drive to convert the natives is not only necessary but justified. While critics like Shannon have emphasized that the portrayal of these key Spanish characters is the most important evidence of Lope’s desire to promote the legitimacy of the Spanish enterprise in the New World, I want to argue that it is his depiction of the natives that best represents his attempts to promote the need for converting the indigenous peoples of the New World. When the audience witnesses the dramatization of the Indians, they are able to connect with the human experience portrayed on stage. In emphasizing the natives’ “lack” of civility and civilization in his characterizations of the Indians, Lope’s drama reinforces Spanish stereotypes and ideologies and promotes the Spanish agenda in the New World.

Characterization of the Indians Oviedo provides a telling description of a group of Indians from one of the Caribbean islands: “Estos flecheros destas islas que tiran con hierba, comen carne humana, excepto los de la isla de Borinquen” (These archers of these islands that shoot with grass, eat human flesh except those islanders of Borinquen) (qtd. in Shannon 76). The historian makes reference to a cannibalistic group of Indians in his account, which Lope employs in his depiction of the Indians of La Deseada in his play. After the Indians first meet Colón and the Spaniards, Dulcanquellín, the Indian chief, instructs his servant to prepare a feast: Mata, Auté, cuatro criados De los mas gordos que hallares,

53 Los pon en la mesa asados Y entre silvestres manjares. (II. 2006-2009) Kill, Auté, four servants The fattest you can find, Put them on the table roasted In wild delicacies. While this is the only reference to cannibalism in the play, it is graphic enough for the audience to begin crafting an image of the natives in their minds. Not only does Dulcán ask that four slaves be killed and prepared, he also specifies that they be the fattest Auté can find. This indicates that cannibalism is not only a part of Indian culture, but it is something that they enjoy and wish to share with the Spaniards. The Spanish audience undoubtedly would have been horrified upon hearing Dulcán’s command and would have become increasingly open to Lope’s promotional theme of conversion. In addition to cannibalism, Lope participates in perpetuating Spanish stereotypes about the indigenous cultures of the New World by depicting the paganism of the natives. Dulcán and several other Indians refer to “Ongol” as their god. The Spaniards repeatedly inform the Indians that “Ongol” is Lucifer, and they relate to the natives the Christian story of God and Lucifer. In another instance, Lope mocks Indian paganism in a scene where the Indians kneel before the implanted Christian cross upon hearing Spanish muskets from afar and believing the sounds come from the cross: Ya de rodillas estamos A tu Majestad inmensa. Palo más rico y suave Que el cinamomo y canela, Digno que el fénix que vuela Hasta el sol en ti se acabe. Así fenezca su vida En ti, madero famoso, Y de tu fuego oloroso Nazca otra vez consumida, Que perdones nuestro error. (II. 1852-1862)

54 Now we kneel To your immense Majesty. Pole more rich and smooth Than flowers and cinnamon, Dignified as the phoenix who flies Until his inner light fades out. That is how his life ends, In you, famous wood, And from your fragrant fire Is born again and consumed, Pardon our errors. Undoubtedly, the audience would have found this scene humorous because the Indians were revering the Christian cross much as they worshipped the idols of their own pagan gods. The act of kneeling to the cross exposes the audience to the idolatry of New World culture. Lope “civilizes” his audience by exposing Indian practices of idolatry, and thus he further promotes the view that the Spanish should occupy the New World in order to Christianize the natives. The immodesty of the New World natives actualized in their style of dress and in their self-perceptions also assists Lope in educating his audience about these indigenous cultures. When the Dulcán, the Indian chief, first appears in the play, he describes his power and attributes: Quién en tierra y mar pudiera, Fuera del sol en su esfera Que todo lo rige y hace, Ser como yo todo poderoso? …Diome la naturaleza cuerpo, ingenio, brio, furor, sangre, arrogancia, valor, salud, fuerza y ligereza. Diome la fortuna hacienda, Hízome rey… (II.1193-1205) Who on land and sea would,

55 Outside of the sun in its sphere That everything governs and makes, Be like me all mighty? Nature gave me Body, wit, spirit, fury, Blood, arrogance, valor, Health, strength, and levity. Fortune gave me a hacienda, Made me King… The chief emphasizes all the powerful characteristics nature has bestowed on him. He celebrates these traits and reveals that fury, arrogance, and material wealth are the most favorable kinds of characteristics a strong leader should possess. In this scene, Lope gives Dulcán over a hundred lines in which the chief speaks ad nauseam about his abilities and position. The autor emphasizes the Indians’ lack of humility through Dulcán’s monologue. By crafting the speech with such an arrogant tone, Lope depicts Dulcán as well as the natives in general as immodest and in need of civility. Contradicting many of the contemporary sources that described the Indians as “gentle” and “meek,” Lope characterizes the Indians as boastful in order further his agenda in arguing for the necessity of evangelization in the New World. Lope drew from Gómara’s account about the Indians’ immodesty: Dicho he como se andan desnudos con el calor y Buena templanza de la tierra, aunque hace frío en las sierras…Poca confianza y castidad debe haber en las mujeres, pues esto dicen y hacen. Fácilmente se juntan [los hombres] con las mujeres, y aun como cuervos y víboras, y peor. (qtd. in Shannon 87) They are naked in the heat and good temperature of the earth even though it is cold in the mountains. They say there is very little confidence or chastity in women. Easily the men join with the women like crows and snakes or worse. Expanding on Gómara’s description of native dress and the sexuality of the native females, Lope includes a scene where Arana, a Spaniard, attempts to seduce Palca, an Indian woman. When she easily acquiesces to his supplications, the Spaniard directly comments on her promiscuity: Arana: Palca, ¿cómo va de pechos, a ver? Palca: Que no tengo oro.

56 Arana: De eso estarán satisfechos. Solo estos vuestros adoro, Que de oro major son hechos. No busco aquel oro aquí, De que ya tengo un tesoro. Palca: Pues, ¿cuál oro? Arana: El tuyo. Palca: Ansí, Pues, serás crisol del oro Y tendrásme toda en ti. Arana: No vi tan facilidad. Por deshonra tienen estas El negar la voluntad; Que del no vestirse honestas Les nace esta enfermedad. (III. 2293-2307) Arana: Palca, how will you see with your chest? Palca: I have no gold. Arana: Of that you will be satisfied. Only these I adore, They are made of great gold. I won’t look for that gold here, I already have a treasure here. Palca: Which gold? Arana: Yours. Palca: You will shine And I will always be in you. Arana: It was not easy. They have no will By being dishonest; By not dressing honestly This sickness is born in them.

57 Arana cites what he describes as the “immodesty of the Indian style of dress” as cause for the promiscuity of women. Through Arana’s direct attack on Indian customs, Lope conveys to his audience the necessity of civilizing these peoples; their way of life is in direct contrast with the Christian life the Spanish eagerly wish to propagate. Lope’s depictions of Indian “immodesty” provide his audience with further evidence to legitimize Spain’s messianic mission in the New World. Perhaps the most intriguing characterization of the indigenous cultures of the New World is the way in which Lope depicts supposed Indian ignorance over aspects of European civility and civilization. The audiences would have found these scenes particularly comical in one sense and also particularly informative about their lack of civility. When the Spaniards give the female Indians mirrors and beads, they are surprised by the women’s intrigued reactions and remark about their lack of understanding about the objects. When one of the Indians encounters a Spaniard on horseback, he believes what he has seen is a creature in and of itself: Uno vi entre ellos, Dulcán, Tan alto, que juraría… Él traía dos cabezas, Y la una a la mitad Del cuerpo… Grande, abierta De narices, y a los lados De unos cabellos rizados, Pescuezo y frente cubierta; Toda la boca espumosa, Y el habla delgada y alta; Gruñe, brama, corre y salta Con ligereza espantosa… Largas las orejas tiene, Abiertas y levantadas, Ancho el pecho, aunque delgadas Las piernas, mas fuerte viene; Y tiene cuatro. (II. 1802-1826)

58 I saw one in them, Dulcán, So tall I could swear… He had two heads, And in the middle Of his body…[he had a] Large and open Nose, and at his sides Curly hair, A neck and forehead; His mouth was frothy, And his grunts were high; With agility and speed, [He] runs and jumps… He has long ears Which are open and lifted, He has a wide chest; Though thin, His legs are strong, And he has four of them. The Indian is awed by the strange beast and brings news of the animal to his chief who is also awed by the description. Audiences would have indeed found this scene comical because of the fact that the Indian considered a horse so strange and unreal. Another description of alleged Indian “ignorance” about civilization is the interaction between Auté and Friar Buyl. Auté has been ordered to take a parchment and a gift of oranges to the Friar. On his way to make his delivery, Auté eats some of the oranges and is later confronted by the Friar, for the letter indicates the number of oranges sent. When Friar Buyl asks Auté what he did with the missing oranges, Auté is utterly shocked that the Friar knows how many were sent. He believes the paper has magical powers and has disclosed to the Friar what he did. When Auté is sent on a second delivery, this time with gifts of olives, he reveals in a monologue his fears about the paper: Con un vidrio me ha enviado …de una fruta extraña,

59 …y muérome por comella; pero este Diablo o papel hace que por medio de él no me atreva a comer de ella… …Quiero ver si entre estas ramas se esconde… quiero taparle… no lo conozca el papel. (II. 2438-2467) With a glass he has sent me With a strange fruit, Which I am dying to eat; But this devil or paper Makes it by its means For me not to dare eat of it… …I want to see If between these bushes it [the paper] hides… I want to cover [the paper]… So the paper will not know. Auté decides to hide the paper so that it cannot see him eat the olives. When Friar Buyl reads the letter and determines that four olives are missing, Auté is irritated that the paper informed on him yet again: “¿Qué aun lo vio estando tapado? …No más fiar de papel” (He saw it when it was still covered? I can’t trust the paper) (II. 2499-2507). Ignorant of writing and letters, Auté believes the paper is a spirit of some sort that possesses the ability to communicate with others. When Lope has Auté misunderstand something as simple as writing, the autor does more than imply ignorance: he suggests that the Indians are not only ignorant, but they are stupid as well. For Lope, it may be acceptable that the Indians are ignorant of European civility and civilization, but their inability to comprehend the concept of writing and its function makes them stupid. By portraying the Indians this way, Lope endorses the idea that Indians are disobedient and need close supervision. While the scene undoubtedly provided some comedy for the audience, it also proposed that Indian ignorance bordered on stupidity.

60 Dramatizing the Indian as such enables the audience to create an image of the New World natives. This is important on one level because it educates them about other cultures, but Lope takes the image of the Indian he has created for the stage a step further: Lope establishes the rationality of the Indian. After the Spanish have preached about Christianity and encouraged the Indians to remove and destroy their idols, Dulcán has a soliloquy where he ponders conversion: ¿Qué hare? ¿Dejaré mi Ongol Por este Cristo extranjero, Dios-hombre y Dios español? ¿Dejaré luna y lucero, Noche, día, cielo, sol? …No hay cosa más imposible que dejar la Antigua fe y a la costumbre terrible. Pero si Ongol angel fue, Y Cristo Dios invincible; Aquél soberbio impaciente Que castigó su hacedor Por rebelde e imprudente, Seguir a Cristo es mejor. (III. 2706-2729) What shall I do? Shall I leave my Ongol For this foreign Christ, God-Man and Spanish God? Should I leave the moon and light, Night, day, sky, sun? There is nothing more impossible Than leaving your old faith And your terrible customs. But if Ongol was an angel, And Christ is invincible; That mean and impatient

61 Maker who perished for being impudent and rebellious, Following Christ is better. Dulcán weighs the evidence together and comes to the conclusion that if the Spanish god defeated Ongol then it would behoove him to convert to Christianity. While Dulcán’s logic may be considered crude and his characterization may be interpreted as condescending and demeaning, the fact that Lope provides Dulcán with a soliloquy where he wonders whether or not he should convert demonstrates to the audience the cacique’s ability to rationalize. Audiences witness him logically assessing a situation and arriving at a conclusion. Lope’s characterization of Dulcán at this point in the play humanizes the Indians. The audience is able to discern an inner struggle in the bárbaro, and it is this aspect of the human experience with which the audience can best relate. Lope “civilizes” the audience about the natives’ humanity and ability to rationalize, and prompts the audience to consider the similarities the Spanish share with the Indians.

Conclusions The need for the mission as argued in the allegorical scene as well as the piety of many of the characters indeed contributes to Lope’s theme of evangelization. These aspects of the comedia would undoubtedly have aroused the religiosity of Spanish audiences, for as critic Antonio Cao asserted, “religión y patria son indivisibles” (religion and homeland are indivisible) (qtd. in Ostlund 73). The religious theme of the play would have aroused a nationalistic sentiment for Spanish audiences, thereby assisting in legitimizing Spain’s claim to the New World in the mind of the populace. Lope’s particular attention to the characterization of the natives in El Nuevo Mundo however, is perhaps the most important evidence in the play to convince audiences of the necessity to spread the Catholic faith to the New World. By exposing audiences to Indian customs, including cannibalism and paganism, and educating audiences about Indian “immodesty” and stupidity, Lope instructs his audience about the view the of the natives that was revealed by the dominant Spanish ideology. While Lope does not present an accurate portrayal of what the Indians are really like, the image he does create for his audience is enough for

62 audiences to place the contemporary Spanish debates into perspective: they now had an image of the natives rather than simply rhetoric about morality. Because Lope establishes the humanity of the Indians, the audience becomes informed and educated about the “civilizing” of the Indians. The characterization of the Indians Lope provides enables the audience to understand differences and relate these differences to a lack of “civility” as defined by Europeans. In this way, the audience is educated and encouraged to adopt the official Spanish view of Indian ignorance. Audiences are persuaded by Lope to see the bárbaros they have heard about as fellow human beings in desperate need of evangelization, which (in keeping with the nationalistic thrust of the play) the Spanish are more than willingly wanting to provide. The spectacle of the Spanish stage enables corral audiences to put an image to the debates about the indigenous cultures of the New World; the effectiveness of this image results from the ability of the audience to discern similarities between themselves and the representations of the Indians. Even though Lope does establish the humanity of the Indians, he falls short of doing much more than reinforcing existing Spanish stereotypes and ideologies. Much of his characterization of the Indians is taken directly from contemporary accounts of conquest and colonization. Enacting these stereotypes and ideologies on the popular stage only strengthened Spanish ideologies of colonization and perceptions of “civility” and “civilization. Lope was the first autor to dramatize the New World encounter. He enables his audience to witness onstage a version of the cross-cultural encounters taking place across the Atlantic. While El Nuevo Mundo is innovative in that it staged this encounter for popular culture, it does little more than underscore the legitimacy of Spain’s involvement in the American enterprise.

CHAPTER 4

VISIONS OF THE NEW WORLD IN THE TEMPEST

Can a Leopard change his spots? Can a Savage remayning a Savage be civill?

Samuel Purchas (1625)

Even though England witnessed a proliferation of colonial discourse from the mid to late sixteenth century in the form of discovery narratives and promotional literature, the New World was not dramatized on the London stage until the early part of the seventeenth century. In the 1620s, English theater audiences were entertained with plays about journeying across the seas and encountering other lands and cultures through the works of playwrights like Jonson and Fletcher. While these plays refer specifically to the New World through direct references from contemporary colonial rhetoric, it is possible that as early as 1611 another play subtly addressed the New World and many of the debates conquest and colonization raised. Although The Tempest never directly addresses the New World, many scholars have asserted that the parallels and allusions to the New World inherent in the play make Shakespeare’s comedy the first contribution to English New World drama. Since the late eighteenth century, critics have been speculating as to the validity of the play as a New World text, and today the play is often referred to in the context of the New World. If we assume that The Tempest is in fact alluding to the New World, there is much to be understood from the play in terms of English ideologies of colonization, “civility”, and “civilization.” The play addresses many issues about conquest and colonization while calling into question the legitimacy of the enterprise. The action of the play dramatizes colonization and the effects it has on both colonizers and the colonized. It also discusses English notions of “civility” and “civilization” by representing and examining the “other.” As a part of the colonialist discourse, Shakespeare’s play challenges other contemporary colonial rhetoric by

64 offering a critical discussion on the ideology of colonization. Perhaps the most significant way the play considers the issue of colonization is through its examination of indigenous peoples. When Shakespeare dramatized a “native” on stage, English audiences were prompted to consider the effects of colonization and the legitimacy of the enterprise. The Tempest did not endorse or condemn any ideology; rather, it questioned and encouraged its audiences to examine their existing attitudes and ideologies.

The Tempest as a New World Text As we have seen in Chapter 1, England’s involvement in overseas expansion prompted an explosion of rhetoric discussing the colonization enterprise. As Bach relates in Colonial Transformations: The Cultural Production of the New Atlantic World, “English culture’s expansion into its colonial margins in the Atlantic world, and its constitution as an imperial center, permeated all of its cultural productions, and those productions played multiple parts in that expansion and constitution” (26). The “cultural productions” of the literary world were slow to respond to this colonial discourse; but by the late sixteenth century, poetry, masques and plays were produced responding to these contemporary issues by drawing from the widely disseminated colonization rhetoric. Some of these cultural productions make short reference to colonization by employing discussions of England’s overseas expansion in their texts as similes like John Webster’s The Duchess of Malfi’s allusion to the danger of the “Bermoothas.” Other texts are specifically set in the New World and reflect aspects of colonial life and cross-cultural encounters like Captain John Smith’s 1624 “Virginia Maske” which depicts his experience with Native American culture through a native dance. Still other early modern cultural productions address the colonial discourse directly examining and at times commenting on England’s contemporary ideologies of colonization and accepted notions of “civility” and “civilization.” Some of these plays include John Fletcher’s The Island Princess and The Sea Voyage which “uneasily explore ‘the desires and demands’ of Virginia adventurers” and Ben Jonson’s Eastward Hoe, Bartholomew Fair, and The New Inne which “show England implicated in its colonial expansion” (qtd. in Bach 114-120). The theater was the arena where these colonial and imperial issues were presented, discussed, and at times reconciled in front of large audiences. On stage, audiences saw dramatizations of the New World and its inhabitants; they also saw how their fellow countrymen reacted and interacted with New World realities and challenges.

65 Undoubtedly, each play delivered varying messages regarding England’s imperial pursuits, but what is most significant is that these messages were relayed through perhaps the most influential cultural medium of the period, i.e. the theater. As we have seen, many plays in the early seventeenth century specifically addressed contemporary issues regarding New World colonization on the stage, Shakespeare’s The Tempest, however, did not. In 1927, E.E. Stoll argued, “There is not a word in The Tempest about America or Virginia, colonies or colonizing, Indians or tomahawks, maize, mocking-birds, or tobacco” (qtd in Graff and Phelan 274). It is true that in The Tempest there are only a few “direct” references to the New World, including Ariel’s reference to “the still-vexed Bermudas” (I.ii. 229) and Trinculo’s reference to the English’s interest in New World natives, “When they will not give a doit to relieve a lame beggar, they will lay out ten to see a dead Indian” (II.ii. 31). David Kastan points to the Mediterranean setting of the play as evidence to refute any consideration of the play as a New World text, “The play is obviously set in the old world; the tempest is called up as Italian nobles are returning from Africa to Italy and those who have escaped the storm are said to return ‘sadly’ to Naples ‘upon the Mediterranean flote’” (qtd. in Graff and Phelan 272). Barbara Fuchs also indicates that the role of the Mediterranean in the play is obscured by New World readings of The Tempest and adds to the critical discussion by asserting that the play also alludes to England’s experiences with Ireland. In her article “Conquering Islands: Contextualizing The Tempest,” Fuchs “highlight[s] the historical and political dimensions of the contemporary Mediterranean world and England’s colonial experiences in Ireland” in order to further “historicize” the play and suggest that Shakespeare’s tragicomedy participates in a larger discourse about imperialism (46). In addition to the critical debates about categorizing the play as a New World text, there is no indication that early modern theater patrons thought Caliban’s island was suggestive of the New World. As Skura explains “…we have no external evidence that seventeenth century audiences thought the play referred to the New World” (47). Although there are many aspects of the play that do not support its status as a New World text, the parallels to the contemporary New World colonial discourse are striking. Connections between Shakespeare’s play and the New World colonial discourse are so striking in fact that scholars and critics have debated whether or not The Tempest could be considered a New World play for over two hundred and fifty years. As early as 1797, critics were making the connection

66 between The Tempest and the New World, “Shakspere [sic] has undoubtedly derived the greatest share of his ideas, as to incident, from the narratives of the discovery of the New World. He throws them into his budget, from whence they are indiscriminately drawn, wherever he finds occasion” (qtd. in Vaughan 138). In “Shakespeare’s Indian: The Americanization of Caliban,” Vaughan examines some of the parallels to the New World discernable in the play by summarizing some critical interpretations of many of The Tempest’s characters, “Prospero represents domineering colonial planters; Trinculo and Stephano are prototypes of frontier riffraff; and Miranda emblemizes Anglo-American efforts to suppress Indian culture” (137). In “The Tempest and the New World,” Frey argues “Shakespeare shared with Fletcher, the Bermuda pamphleteers, and others an interest in tempests, shipwrecks, and mutinies, an interest in exotic fish and fowl, an interest in natives and their offerings, in native manners and native music – in short, an interest in the same matters that absorbed all the travelers of his day” (37). Accepting the notion that the play is in fact a New World drama enriches the reading of the play, for the play’s action and characterization of the island and characters can be interpreted as a discussion on contemporary discovery and colonization. The debates on whether or not The Tempest is a New World play will assuredly continue, but it is important to recognize that the allusions inherent in the play are enough to suggest that the play could be read in the historical context of colonization, for this would enhance the reading of the text. Establishing that The Tempest is in fact a New World play is not as important as discerning the appearances of the many aspects of contemporary interest evident in the play that involved discovery, exploration, and colonization. As Frey asserts, “…we must go ‘outside’ the play to apprehend and create meanings for words and passages within it” (33).

Dramatizing the New World Drawing from the travel narratives of Strachey and Jourdain, Shakespeare establishes the setting of The Tempest. These accounts contain the source material for the storm at sea that opens the play as well as description of the island. In “A Discovery of the Barmudas,” Jourdain describes the terrain: For the islands of the Barmudas, as every man knoweth that hath heard or read of them, were never inhabited by any Christian or heathen people…Yet did we find there the air so temperate and the country so abundantly fruitful of all fit

67 necessaries for the sustenation and preservation of man’s life…it is in truth the richest, healthfulest, and pleasing land…and merely natural, as ever man set foot upon. (qtd. in Graff and Phelan 124) Interestingly, The Tempest’s island is described similarly to Jourdain’s account of the Bermudas. After surviving a shipwreck, Adrian and Gonzalo take in their surroundings: Adrian: Though this island seem to be desert… Uninhabitable and almost inaccessible… It must needs be of subtle, tender, and delicate temperance… The air breathes upon us here most sweetly. Gonzalo: How lush and lusty the grass looks! How green! (II.i.36-53) The men are taken with the landscape and marvel at the nature that surrounds them. The innocence of the land inspires thoughts of “civilization” for Gonzalo, who explains what he would do if he could govern this land: Had I plantation of this isle, my lord – And were the king on ‘t, what would I do? …for no kind of traffic, Would I admit… …riches, poverty, and use of service, none; contract, succession, Bourn, bound of land, tilth, vineyard, none… All things in common nature should produce Without sweat or endeavor… But nature should bring forth, …all abundance, To feed my innocent people. (II.i.140-161) Drawing from Florio’s translation of Montaigne’s essay, “Of Cannibals,” which refers directly and at length to the New World natives, Shakespeare uses the New World context to inform Gonzalo’s utopian vision of the island. Reiterating contemporary sentiment on possession and colonization, Gonzalo explains that under his command the island would be a kind of utopia. The councillor’s dreams of a utopian society echo the promotional literature for colonization of the sixteenth and seventeenth century. The description of the island and the courtiers’ reactions

68 to the land illustrate the contemporary rhetoric for the audiences. On the stage, the New World is enacted for the masses. In addition to establishing a sense of place, Shakespeare depicts the major players of colonization: the colonizer and the colonized. While many of the characters and their actions allude to the New World and some of the debates about colonization and civilization, this study focuses on Prospero and Caliban as the best representations of the major figures of colonization in the play. The portrayal of these characters both reinforces and questions existing stereotypes and ideologies of colonization, “civility” and “civilization.” After landing on the island, Prospero establishes his authority by taking control over the island’s inhabitants, namely Ariel and Caliban. Prospero’s impression of the island’s natives is reflective of contemporary views on the New World natives in that he considers them heathen and even inhuman. Drawing on contemporary descriptions of the New World natives, Shakespeare further distinguishes the island’s inhabitants by “type”: Ariel representing the more cooperative group of indigenous peoples and Caliban representing the more resistant Indians. Adopting a sense of superiority with this perspective of the natives, Prospero forces them into servitude for fear of his magical powers. While both types of New World native are under Prospero’s command, Ariel is treated more humanely and rewarded for his cooperation and services with his eventual freedom: “Then to the elements / Be free, and fare thou well” (V.i.318-319). Symbolizing the resistant “colonized,” Caliban is subjected to many of the travel literature’s proscribed methods of handling non-conforming indigenous peoples (discussed in Chapter 1). Often referring to him as “servant” and “slave,” Prospero orders Caliban to execute his whims and threatens him with physical harm if he disobeys: Hagseed, hence! Fetch us in fuel, and be quick, thou’rt best, To answer other business… If thou neglect’st or dost unwillingly What I command, I’ll rack thee with old cramps, Fill all thy bones with aches, make thee roar That beasts shall tremble at thy din. (I.ii.368-374)

69 Fear of Prospero’s magical power and authority over him causes Caliban to comply; however, he does speak out against the injustices Prospero inflicts on him calling him a “tyrant” and usurper: “this island’s mine…/ Which thou tak’st from me” (I.ii.334-335). When Prospero assumes possession of the island, his actions parallel the actions of the English colonizers. Takaki suggests that Prospero “project[s] his personal plans and dreams onto the wilderness” and “colonize[s] the island and dispossess[es] Caliban” (qtd. in Graff and Phelan 154). A contemporary example of this colonizing mentality is found in the promotional literature of Richard Hakluyt who discusses at length the many ways to utilize the New World’s resources and its inhabitants in his “Reasons for Colonization”: “If the people be content to live naked and to content themselves with few things of mere necessity, then traffic is not. So then in vain seemeth our voyage, unless this nature may be altered, as by conquest…” (qtd. in Graff and Phelan 129). Hakluyt uses the Indians’ supposed lack of “civility” and “civilization” and the assumed superiority of English “civility” as a justification for colonization. Prospero represents the English colonizer who affirms that his “civility” gives him the right to take possession of lands and peoples that are not what he considers as “civilized.” Reinforcing existing stereotypes about New World natives, Shakespeare depicts Caliban is depicted as demonic. Prospero describes him as “A freckled whelp, hag-born – not honored with / A human shape” (I.ii.284-285). Caliban’s inherently evil nature is further emphasized by his very name, which seems to suggest “cannibal” – a concept frequently alluded to in English travel narratives. The debate on the nature of the New World natives is addressed by Trinculo when he stumbles upon Caliban in the woods: What have we here, a man or fish?…A fish, he smells like a fish…A strange fish! Were I in England now, as once I was, and had but this fish painted, not a holiday fool there but would give a piece of silver. There would this monster make a man. (II.ii.24-30) Evidently, Caliban’s appearance disturbs the jester enough to prompt him to question Caliban’s nature. Trinculo’s deliberation over Caliban’s nature echoes contemporary English debates on the humanity of the New World natives. He immediately considers the financial benefits of exploiting a marvel like Caliban in England’s fairs. Prospero and Trinculo’s perception of Caliban enables Shakespeare’s audiences to construct a visual image of New World inhabitants

70 against the images already instilled in the culture by the contemporary colonial rhetoric of sixteenth and seventeenth century England. Caliban’s inherent wickedness is best established by Prospero and Miranda’s description of the islander’s licentious behavior and inadaptability to European culture: Prospero: …Thou most lying slave, Whom stripes may move, not kindness! I have used thee, Filth as thou art, with humane care, and lodged thee In mine own cell, till thou didst seek to violate The honor of my child… Miranda: Abhorrèd slave, which any print of goodness wilt not take, Being capable of all ill! I pitied thee, Took pains to make thee speak, taught thee each hour One thing or other. When thou didst not, savage, Know thine own meaning, but wouldst gabble like A thing most brutish, I endowed thy purposes With words that made them known. But thy vile race, Though thou didst learn, had that in ‘t which good natures Could not abide to be with…(I.ii.347-363) In spite of their good intentions and attempts to “civilize” Caliban by educating him in the ways of European culture, Prospero and Miranda attribute Caliban’s inability to be civilized to an innately evil nature. Takaki suggests that Caliban’s characterization by others in the play implied that Caliban “ha[s] natural qualities that preclude the possibility of becoming civilized through ‘nurture’ or education” (qtd. in Graff and Phelan 155). This depiction of the native on the London stage reinforces contemporary attitudes toward the New World “other” by supporting the idea that because indigenous cultures are so different, they have a questionable and evil nature that must be contained. The threat of contamination with these other “barbaric” cultures is what prompted promoters like Sir George Peckham to explain how to treat natives who were uncooperative to the colonialists’ aims: But if after these good and fayre meanes used, the Savages neverthelesse will not bee herewithall satisfied, but barbarously will goe about to practise violence

71 eyther in repelling the Christians from their Ports and safelandings, or in withstanding them afterwards to enjoy the rights for which both painfully and lawfully they have adventured themselves thither: Then in such a case I holde it no breach of equitie for the Christians to defend themselves, to pursue revenge with force, and to doe whatsoever is necessarie for the attaining of their safetie: For it is allowable by all Lawes in such distresses, to resist violence with violence. (qtd. in Hadfield 265) After Caliban attempts to violate Miranda, Prospero adheres to the counsel of colonial rhetoric in handling savages by punishing him with threats, violence, and enslavement. The Tempest’s depiction of Caliban’s actions and his inherent nature enacts the contemporary anxieties about New World figures of alterity on stage for theater audiences. In addition to depicting the colonizer and the colonized, the play both presents and questions existing ideologies of colonization. Using comedy to pose questions of legitimacy which consider the role of the English, Stephano and Trinculo’s discussion with Caliban of the island and its opportunities enacts the contemporary debates on colonization for theater audiences. After drinking much of Stephano’s wine, Caliban is eager to trade his allegiance to tyrannous Prospero for the more benevolent Stephano. He describes all he will give and show his new masters in Act II, scene ii: I’ll show thee the best springs. I’ll pluck thee berries. I’ll fish for thee and get thee wood enough… I prithee, let me bring thee where crabs grow, And I with my long natils will dig thee pignuts, Show thee a jay’s nest, and instruct thee how To snare the nimble marmoset. I’ll bring thee To clustering filberts, and sometimes I’ll get thee Young scamels from the rock. (153-165) Empowered by the idea that there are new colonizers to appease who will treat him better than the treatment he has had to endure under Prospero’s domination, Caliban casts off the value system imposed on him by Prospero and pledges his loyalty to Stephano: “I’ll kiss thy foot, I’ll swear myself thy subject” (II.ii.145). After hearing of all the island has to offer as well as Caliban’s eagerness to provide these commodities for them, Stephano assumes a position of

72 authority: “…Lead the way without anymore talking. – Trinculo, the King and all our company else being drowned, we will inherit here” (II.ii. 166-168). Stephano takes note that their own hierarchal system of civilization has been erased with the “death” of their leaders at sea; he therefore, proclaims dominion over the island and its resources. The comedy of the scene eases the tensions that arise from discussion of such a controversial issue as colonization and legitimacy. The dramatic irony of the scene allows the audience to recognize that Stephano’s assumed authority is temporary, for the King and his subjects have in fact survived the shipwreck. Nonetheless, the courtiers’ assumption of authority on the island mirrors the actions of English colonizers in the New World who assumed that because of their “superior” civility, they had a right to colonize lands that they considered to be “uncivilized”. Using comedy, The Tempest presents the debates on legitimacy to the New World and encourages audiences to question their presumptions about colonization. By establishing a sense of place by dramatizing the major figures of colonization as characters in the play and by presenting and questioning existing ideologies of colonization, The Tempest succeeds in representing the New World for its popular audiences. These elements of the play encourage viewers to reconcile their knowledge of England’s enterprise in the New World with the dramatization of issues such as legitimacy, colonization, and “civility.” The interaction of contemporary rhetoric and dramatization on stage undoubtedly calls into question existing attitudes and ideologies, but it is the humanization of Caliban that best represents the debates of colonization for English audiences. By connecting with Caliban’s humanity, London audiences were able to understand and empathize with the other cultures across the Atlantic. Caliban’s character is problematic in that he displays both desirable and undesirable traits. While Prospero and Miranda equate Caliban’s licentious behavior with an inherent evil nature, many of the islander’s other characteristics evoke sympathy from the audiences. Willis describes how Caliban’s redeeming qualities humanize him: As “wild man,” he is also a composite, possessing qualities of the “noble savage” as well as the monster. He is capable of learning language, of forming warm attachments; he is sensitive to beauty and music; he speaks – like aristocratic characters – in the rhythms of verse, in contrast to the prose of Stephano and Trinculo; he can follow a plan and reason. (284)

73 These traits and abilities emphasize Caliban’s humanity and urge audiences to see him as an equal. Even as audiences are warned of his at times violent and lustful nature, they are also encouraged to feel sympathy for Caliban’s situation: For every trifle are they [Prospero’s spirits] set upon me, Sometimes like apes, that mow and chatter at me And after bite me; then like hedgehogs, which Lie tumbling in my barefoot way and mount Their pricks at my footfall. Sometimes am I All wound with adders, who with cloven tongues Do hiss me into madness. (II.ii.8-14) The abuses as well as the fear Caliban expresses about Prospero arouse sympathy in the audience. The positive qualities of the “monster” prompt audiences to reevaluate existing perceptions and stereotypes of indigenous peoples of the New World. Because Caliban is capable of being educated, audiences recognize that the native is ignorant of European language, values and customs. In recognizing that the New World natives were “ignorant” of European “civility” and “civilization,” audiences understood that pre-Columbian civilization was different. Caliban’s sympathetic portrayal encouraged viewers to reevaluate their attitudes, mainly created through the contemporary colonial discourse, towards the indigenous peoples of the New World. Undoubtedly, discriminating readings of the contemporary travel literature would also prompt England to question its ideologies on colonization and civilization; however, the dramatization that theater provides helps to best illustrate the differences of the indigenous peoples’ civilization. The Tempest helps civilize the audience about the New World and its cultures.

Conclusions As a New World drama, The Tempest presents the debates and issues of colonization and “civilization” through its depiction of the New World and characterizations of the colonizer and the colonized. By enacting colonization on stage, sometimes in a critical way, the play also questions existing ideologies of empire. The ambiguous portrayal of the New World’s indigenous cultures, however, is the most effective manner to present and question the contemporary debates because, as they were shown mimetic versions of both the colonizer and the colonized, large audiences were prompted to consider both sides of the issue.

74 The dramatization of the “other” in The Tempest enabled sixteenth and seventeenth century audiences to understand New World natives as different rather than merely or always “uncivilized.” The representations of indigenous peoples as created in the contemporary rhetoric of colonization and empire are enacted on stage in the play. For audiences, what they have read or heard becomes actualized in the spectacle of the theater. The dramatization of the New World native makes spectators visualize the process of conquest and colonization. And in connecting with the humanity of the natives presented on stage, audiences are prompted to reevaluate their existing attitudes that develop from their participation in a civilization that inhibits an objective worldview. In dramatizing the New World, The Tempest helps to “civilize” audiences about the reality of the New World. The contemporary rhetoric is enacted through the medium of the theater, which could reach larger audiences than printed texts. Spectators can see the hardships endured by both colonizer and colonized in the enterprise of colonization. The Tempest also participates in civilizing the audience about the task of civilizing the Indians. Established stereotypes of New World figures of alterity were challenged once audiences understood that the Indians were ignorant of European definitions of civilization rather than incapable of being civilized. Shakespeare’s ambiguous representation of both sides of the colonization issue invites the audience to reconcile the debates for themselves in an objective manner. The playwright neither supports nor refutes England’s colonization enterprise in the New World; rather he encourages his audiences to see both sides of the issues and decide for themselves the legitimacy of their nation in the New World enterprise.

CONCLUSIONS

The relationship between the two disciplines of history and literature is complementary: history puts literature in perspective while public theater is an intrinsic part of the recording of the past which illuminates the thinking of a group of individuals writing not just for the entertainment of the literate, but for those who might not otherwise be able to leave a record for themselves. When playwrights wrote they did so knowing that, for their work to be successful, their audience would have to understand the material. Tristan Marshall, Theater and Empire

Buried in Spanish and English colonial rhetoric and New World drama are tensions and anxieties about identity. While the colonial discourses of sixteenth and seventeenth century Spain and England reveal a desire to assert and disseminate one’s national identity at home and abroad, the literary texts of this period attempt to reconcile the identities these texts argued for and attempted to established. As we have seen in this study, it is nearly impossible to interpret these early modern literary texts without contextualizing them within the contemporary discourse of colonization. Examining how Spanish and English colonial rhetoric informs the cultural productions of the theater facilitates an understanding of how the playwrights represented colonization issues for mass audiences. In order for audiences to make sense of the New World experience, chroniclers and playwrights alike had to interpret these foreign lands and peoples through terms with which their audiences could identify. Chroniclers compared New World lands with European lands and described New World civilizations by comparing them with European civilization. Undoubtedly, most if not all of these accounts are embedded in the ideologies of their respective societies and colored with authorial biases. Yet comparing Spanish and English accounts of colonization reveals the ideological differences of these empires. The Spanish colonial discourse

76 stresses the legitimacy of Spain in the New World because of the necessity of Christianizing the natives. While spreading Protestantism was as important to the English, England’s colonial discourse emphasized economic and political gain in the colonization enterprise. Heavily influenced by Catholicism, Spanish colonial discourse argued that spreading the faith was of primary importance. Spain and England’s ideological differences can also be distinguished through an examination of the literary productions of early modern Spain and England. The similarities and differences through which Spanish and English playwrights addressed and commented on these ideologies reveal how the Spanish and English shared a similar (European) notion of “civility” and “civilization” but differed on how to implement their individual versions of it in the New World. By encouraging audiences to identify with New World peoples, playwrights commented on the debates articulated in the colonial discourse of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The theater was the medium that reached a critical mass of people in early modern Spain and England and provided an arena in which to address and comment on these ideological questions. As a popular social event in both Spain and England, the theater functioned as an educational instrument on one level and a microcosm of contemporary society on another. The major tensions and anxieties of sixteenth and seventeenth century Spain and England were reflected on stage, oftentimes supporting contemporary views but many times challenging existing attitudes. Early modern theater in both Spain and England had great influence on its audiences because of its immense popularity, which was often a source of anxiety for both political and religious leaders. The playwrights were greatly motivated to craft plays that would succeed in front of their critical audiences; this motivation prompted the poets to create characters and themes with which their audiences could identify. While the New World colonization was a well-known event because of the colonial narratives that were widely disseminated, it was the playwrights who helped their respective cultures to best identify with the New World experience in certain ways. The most effective way to create this connection between the audience and the New World was to invite the audience to connect with New World cultures. Lope de Vega and Shakespeare created this identification with their efforts to humanize the natives, for they encouraged their audiences to see New World inhabitants as different rather than “uncivilized.”

77 Both staged for the first time in ironically the same year (1611), El Nuevo Mundo descubierto por Cristóbal Colón and The Tempest convey Spanish and English ideologies of colonization and empire by employing a similar strategy to deliver their themes: prompting the audience to identify with the human element of the New World. Both plays address issues of colonization, but in different ways. Lope acknowledges criticisms of Spanish greed in the New World by condemning those who distort the messianic purpose of Spain’s colonial enterprise. Lope’s themes are reflective of Spanish ideologies of colonization and empire in that the propagation of Christianity is a primary motive for colonization. He highlights the Spanish colonial discourse’s emphasis on religion by implying that the political and economic benefits Spain accrues are rewards for their efforts to Christianize the New World cultures. Shakespeare depicts the English colonizer on the London stage through Prospero’s colonization of the island. He also portrays the English ideology of colonization through Gonzalo’s ruminations on what he would do with possession of the island. The utopian discussion in The Tempest echoes England’s colonial discourse in that it demonstrates that the English ideology of colonization focused on other priorities like economics and dominion and did not as vehemently stress the propagation of Protestantism as the Spanish colonial rhetoric emphasized Catholicism. Lope addresses the Spanish stereotypes of the Indians found in Spain’s colonial rhetoric by reinforcing these characterizations throughout the play. In one scene, however, the autor challenges these stereotypes by humanizing the cacique, Dulcán. When Dulcán ponders whether or not he should convert to the religion the Spanish purport to be the true faith, Lope establishes the chief’s ability to rationalize. Dulcán’s monologue presents the Indian’s internal struggle to the audience, and the audience identifies with the act of contemplating a difficult decision. In humanizing the Indians, Lope incites his audience to see the New World peoples as different and lacking in European notions of “civility.” While Lope could use this opportunity to raise questions about Spain’s enterprise in America, the autor refrains from challenging Spanish ideologies on colonization. Lope humanizes the Indians so audiences can agree that they need to instructed in the Spanish version of “civility” and “civilization” as opposed to being exterminated. Like Lope, Shakespeare also addresses the stereotype of the Indian depicted in the contemporary colonial discourse. Many of The Tempest’s characters use the condescending language found in the discovery narratives to describe Caliban. Shakespeare’s characterization

78 of Caliban is ambiguous, however. In a sense, Caliban both represents the English stereotypes and challenges them. Caliban exhibits the violent tendencies at times alluded to in the colonial discourse when he attempts to violate Miranda, but the fact that Caliban can learn language and appreciate music and beauty challenges a wholly negative view of the Indians. Caliban’s adaptability to English notions of “civility” establishes his humanity for the audience. Because Caliban explains the injustices Prospero inflicts on him and discusses how he was dispossessed of his inheritance when Prospero assumed control over the island, the audience may sympathize with his situation. Shakespeare’s sympathetic characterization of Caliban calls existing ideologies of colonization into question. Shakespeare humanizes Caliban in order to challenge contemporary notions of “civility” and “civilization”; but the playwright remains neutral in that he neither supports nor refutes English ideologies of colonization. In dramatizing the Indian, both Lope and Shakespeare encouraged audiences to see the New World peoples as different. Depicting the social issues of their times, these playwrights used the theater as a medium by which to discuss the contemporary debates raised in the colonization discourse. Lope’s play reveals the autor’s religious conviction and national pride, and these qualities play a major role in the development of his theme. Albeit minimally, El Nuevo Mundo depicts the controversy that existed in Lope’s time regarding the legitimacy of Spain in the Americas. As a priest and patriot, Lope does little more than justify Spain’s colonization of the New World and reinforce existing stereotypes of the New World cultures. The Tempest, however, tells the story of both the colonizer and colonized. Presenting both sides of the debates, The Tempest succeeds in challenging contemporary notions of colonization and empire by inviting audiences to reevaluate their existing stereotypes of New World natives. The plays and their poets are reflective of the sentiment of their respective nations towards colonization and empire. The entertainment that early modern Spanish and English theaters offered is what drew the crowds. While audiences were dazzled with elaborate costumes and impressed with theatrical machinery, they were also subtly educated through the themes of the plays. Working playwrights like Lope and Shakespeare understood that audience identification with the substance of the plays was essential to both financial and artistic success. The questions raised by the discovery of the New World and its subsequent colonization provided Lope and Shakespeare with a rich debate to expand upon. Recognizing that theater could reach and

79 instruct more people than much of the colonial discourse, these playwrights depicted and emphasized the human element involved in these debates about colonization and empire in order to educate or “civilize” their audiences about the New World and its inhabitants. Understanding that people pay more attention when they are not being preached to, Lope and Shakespeare used the entertainment of the theater to discuss the debates of colonization and empire. While their plays reveal differing perspectives on the colonization of the New World and its peoples, their contribution to early modern colonial rhetoric is similar. Through the art of the theater, both Lope and Shakespeare challenged their respective nations definitions of “civility” and “civilization” by encouraging audiences to distinguish and understand difference.

80 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Andrews, Kenneth R. Trade, Plunder and Settlement: Maritime Enterprise and the Genesis of the British Empire, 1480-1630. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

Bach, Rebecca Ann. Colonial Transformations: The Cultural Production of the New Atlantic World, 1580-1640. New York: Palgrave, 2000.

Briggs, Julia. This Stage-Play World: Texts and Contexts, 1580-1625. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.

Cave, Alfred A. “Canaanites in a Promised Land: The American Indian and the Providential Theory of Empire.” American Indian Quarterly 12 (1988): 277-297.

Cohen, Walter. Drama of a Nation: Public Theater in Renaissance England and Spain. New York: Cornell University Press, 1985.

Cox, John D. and David Scott Kastan, eds. A New History of Early English Drama. New Work: Columbia University Press, 1997.

De Acosta, José. Natural and Moral History of the Indies. Ed. Jane E. Mangan. Durham: Duke University Press, 2002.

De Paz, Matias. Del dominio de los Reyes de España sobre los indios. Trans. Agustín Millares Carlo. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1954.

De Vega, Lope. El Nuevo Mundo descubierto por Cristóbal Colón. Trans. J. Lemartinel and Charles Minguet. France: Presses Universitaires de Lille, 1980.

Díaz del Castillo, Bernal. The Discovery of the Conquest of Mexico. Trans. A.P. Maudslay. London: Routledge, 1936.

Elias, Norbert. The Civilizing Process: Sociogenetic and Psychogenetic Investigations. Edmund Jepchott, trans. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 2000.

Fisher, John R. The Economic Aspects of Spanish Imperialism in America, 1492-1810. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1997.

Frey, Charles. “The Tempest and the New World.” Shakespeare Quarterly 30 (1979): 29-41.

Fuchs, Barbara. “Conquering Islands: Contextualizing The Tempest.” Shakespeare Quarterly 48 (1997): 45-62.

---Mimesis and Empire: The New World, Islam, and European Identities. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

81 Gines de Sepúlveda, Juan. Demócrates segundo o de las justas causas de la guerra contra los indios. Trans. Angel Losada. Madrid: Instituto Francisco de Vitoria, 1984.

Greenblatt, Stephen, ed. New World Encounters. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993.

Gurr, Andrew. The Shakespearean Stage, 1574-1642. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Hadfield, Andrew, ed. Amazons, Savages and Machiavels: Travel and Colonial Writing in English, 1550-1630. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Hakluyt, Richard. Voyages and Discoveries: The Principal Navigations Voyages, Traffiques and Discoveries of the English Nation. Ed. Jack Beeching. London: Penguin Group, 1972.

Iglesia, Ramón. Columbus, Cortés, and Other Essays. Trans. Leslie Byrd Simpson. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969.

Kicza, John E. “Patterns in Early Spanish Overseas Expansion.” The William and Mary Quarterly 49 (1992): 229-253.

Las Casas, Bartolomé de. The Devastation of the Indies: A Brief Account. Trans. Herma Briffault. NY: The Seabury Press, 1974.

Lauer, A. Robert. “The Iberian Encounter of America in the Spanish Theater of the Golden Age.” Pacific Coast Philology 28 (1993): 32-42.

Marshall, Tristan. Theater and Empire: Great Britain on the London Stages under James VI and I. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000. Menéndez y Pelayo, Marcelino. Estudios sobre el teatro de Lope de Vega. Madrid: 1925.

Nader, Helen. “The End of the Old World.” Renaissance Quarterly 45 (1992): 791-807.

Ostlund, DeLys. The Re-Creation of History in the Fernando and Isabel Plays of Lope de Vega. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., 1997.

Rennert, Hugo Albert. The Life of Lope de Vega. New York: G.E. Stechert & Co., 1937.

---The Spanish Stage in the Time of Lope de Vega. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1963.

Richter, David H. ed. The Critical Tradition: Classical Texts and Contemporary Trends. Aristotle. “Poetics”: Boston, Bedford Books: 1998.

Shakespeare, William. The Tempest. Eds. Gerald Graff and James Phelan. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2000.

Shannon, Robert M. Visions of the New World in the Drama of Lope de Vega. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., 1989.

82 Skura, Meredith Anne. “Discourse and the Individual: The Case of Colonialism in The Tempest.” Shakespeare Quarterly 40 (1989): 42-69. Todorov, Tzvetan. The Conquest of America: The Question of the Other. Trans. Richard Howard. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1984.

Vaughan, Alden T. “The Americanization of Caliban.” Shakespeare Quarterly 39 (1988): 137 153.

Willis, Deborah. “Shakespeare’s Tempest and the Discourse of Colonialism.” Studies in English Literature 29 (1989): 277-289.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Ilia Cuesta was born in Miami, Florida on April 26, 1980. Her love of literature grew in high school, and in 2001, she received a degree in English at Florida International University. After a year of exploring other career options with the Florida Legislature, she decided to pursue a Masters in Literature. Accepted to Florida State University, she began her graduate studies in June 2003. In addition to graduate work in Literature, Ilia pursued a Certificate in the Humanities. After completing the MA program, she plans to return to her hometown to teach literature and humanities.