Skip to main content
  • 3 Accesses

Abstract

The Tempest has a special place in Shakespeare’s work: not only his last complete play, but also his shortest; one of the handful he wrote which seem to obey the classical unities; one of the few for which there is no known literary source; and (the significance of this we can only guess at) given pride of place by Heminge and Condell at the front of the First Folio. For all the admiration it has received, it is not a play that one instinctively warms to. The enchanted island resists any easy identification with our own familiar world. The play’s appeal lies both in the sense of wonder induced by its strangeness, its otherness, and, at a rather different level, in the fact that it has always been something of a challenge for critics. The play is an enigma, seeming both to contain Meaning, of a kind conceivably more significant than that of Shakespeare’s previous plays, and yet refusing to disclose what that meaning is. The Tempest may not have produced the greatest amount of critical disagreement of all the plays; there are too many candidates vying for that particular honour. But it can probably lay claim to have inspired the greatest number of really daft interpretations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. E. E. Stoll, ‘The Tempest’, Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, XLVII (1932) 6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Colin Still, The Timeless Theme (1936); John Vyvyan, The Shakespearean Ethic (1959); J. E. Philips, ‘The Tempest and the Renaissance Idea of Man’, Shakespeare Quarterly, XV (1964) 147–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. F. D. Hoeniger, ‘Prospero’s Storm and Miracle’, Shakespeare Quarterly, VII (1956)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. C. J. Sisson, ‘The Magic of Prospero’, Shakespeare Survey 11 (Cambridge, 1958) p. 76.

    Google Scholar 

  5. W. Rockett, ‘Labor and Virtue in The Tempest’, Shakespeare Quarterly, XXIV (1973) 77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Robert Egan, Drama Within Drama (New York, 1975). The view was first advanced, to my knowledge, in K. M. Abenheimer, ‘Shakespeare’s Tempest: A Psychological Analysis’, Psycho-Analytic Review, XXXIII (1946) 399–415.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Copyright information

© 1980 Raymond Powell

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Powell, R. (1980). The Tempest. In: Shakespeare and the Critics’ Debate. Palgrave, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-16362-5_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics