Cardozo School of Law

Secondary Satire and the Sea-Change of Romance: Reading William Shakespeare's the Tempest
Author(s): Katrin Trüstedt
Source: Law and Literature, Vol. 17, No. 3 (Autumn, 2005), pp. 345-364
Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the Cardozo School of Law
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4490582
Accessed: 24/02/2010 02:41

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of California Press and Cardozo School of Law are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Law and Literature.

http://www.jstor.org
 SecondarySatireand the
Sea-Changeof Romance
READING WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE'S THE TEMPEST

Katrin Triistedt*

Abstract. In a classical understanding of satire, its secondary status-giving in to literary distor-

tions of an underlying reality-leads to a paradoxical trap. Satire seeks to reinstate a nonliterary
norm by literary means. Shakespearean romance shares the paradoxical character of the satirical,
but opens up an alternative response. Instead of attempting to eliminate the violation of norms,
romance confronts an underlying tragic subplot of violence and crime with a decisively theatrical
solution that acknowledges the secondary character of this response. The paradigmatic romance
The Tempest exposes this trait in a speciqfcsea-change, a shift of focus toward the nonseriousand non-

realistic. This sea-change culminates in a comic solution that takes place within a literary setting
and remains, in a sense, inefective, especially if one takes into account the latent threat and latent

presence of the usurper's son, which most critics, like the protagonist, have persisted in overlooking.

Nothing of him that dothfade

But dothsutfera sea-change
Into something richeand strange.
- WilliamShakespeare,The Tempest'

JONSONIAN SATIRE, SHAKESPEAREAN ROMANCE

In his polemicalstatementregardingShakespeareanromance,Ben Jonsonsets

out a paradigmunavoidablefor satire.He claims to be unlike Shakespeare,

Law &Literature,Vol. 17, Issue 3, PP. 345-364. IssN 1535-685x,electronic IssN 1541-2601.
? 2oo6 by The Cardozo School of Law of Yeshiva University. All rights reserved. Please direct all
requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California
Press's Rights and Permissions website, at http://www.ucpress.edu/journals/rights.htm.

345
Law & Literature * Volume 17, Number 3

"loathto makenatureafraidin his plays like those that beget tales, tempests,
and suchlike drolleries."2This classicalnotionof an adequateform of literary
fictionwas namedby NorthropFrye afterthe Freudianterm "realityprinci-
ple."3In thisparadigm,Shakespeare'slateromancesserveas a negativecoun-
terpartof Jonson'sown dedicationto a moralcomedy of mimesis.4Talesand
tempests,clearly directedat the main romances The Winter'sTaleand The
Tempest,arethe embodimentof what is nonrealistic.They aremakingnature
afraid.Yet literature,in Jonson'sview, shouldbe on the same side as reality
insteadof nonseriousdrolleries.A satireof the Jonsoniantaste, serving the
realityprinciple,shouldbe, in a specificsense, true to realityto be of value. It
claimsthatsatireis, first,not a talebut rathera realisticmodeof representation.
Second, and in a slight contradictionof the first postulate,it is supposedto
effectthisrealityvia the meansof literature,whichavenueis to a certaindegree
disavowedby the firstclaim.The satire,once understood,is a judgmentof the
shortcomingsof realityand ideallyends up replacingthatinsufficientreality.
A satireof a hypocrite,likeJonson'sVolpone,5has its telosin an observermore
criticalof hypocrites,andthusless hypocriticalhimself.As CharlesA. Knight
notes,"He [Jonson]hasdevotedhis play [ Volpone] to thetaskof changingus."6
Jonsoniansatireof realitytendsto forgetthatit is a satireof reality.Romance,
in contrast,as the otherof Jonson'srealityprincipleeitherhas been defended
as a formof politicalplaytakingplaceentirelyin the realmof a (e.g., colonial)
reality,or hasbeen viewed in the Jonsoniantraditionas being irrelevantto this
realm:as a historicallyspecificdrollery,an idle play,a fairytale,exemplifiedin
Shakespeare'sturn to some kind of imaginedreligioussphereor chimerical
entertainment.
Jonsoniansatireand Shakespearean romancecanbe seen as two sourcesof
thecomictradition,whichstandatthebeginningof modernity.Evenif Shakes-
peare's superiorityto Jonson as a dramatistis commonplaceamong critics,
and even if his notion of satirehas generateddebate,the traditionof the Jon-
sonian satireseems to havebeen surprisinglyenduring,and in thatway, suc-
cessful.This hassomethingto do withtheway inwhichthistypeof satireserves
the realityprincipleand dealswith its presumptiveconstellation.Even if sat-
ire's objectis not brute realitybut anotherwork of fiction,the satirealways
seemsto referto somethingmorerealandactualthanitselfandto appealto some
kindof validandintactnorm,whichservesin theplaywright'smindas themea-
sure for the objectof satire.This articleoutlinesthe divergentways in which
satireand romanceare relatedto their objects of reference.I begin with an

346
 Trustedt * Secondary Satire and the Sea-Change of Romance

analysisof satire,andfollow thiswith a look at how romancediffersfromit. I

concludepresentinga readingof The Tempestas a case studyof the romantic
genre.This specificmode of romanticismcan openup a richernotionof satire
and releaseit fromits restrictionto the realityprinciple.In doing so, I am nei-
therattemptingto coverthe genreof satireas a whole, nor am I addressingall
the differentkindsof satire,but rathera specificandtypicalmodalityof it.

Double-Ground Satire

Northrop Frye markstwo basic elements in his definitionof satire:"Two

things,then, areessentialto satire;one is wit or humorfoundedon fantasyor
a senseof the grotesqueor absurd,theotheris an objectof attack."'This defi-
nition implies the derivativecharacterof satireand its double structure;its
own fantasyon the one hand, and an objectthat precedesit on the other. In
attackingan object,satireis at the sametimedependenton thisvery object,on
the formsandpossibilitiesthis objectitself exposes.8It is neitherconstitutedas
a positivealternativeto the objectattacked,nor is it a merecopy of it, butrather
a difering(humorous,fantastic,witty) way of dealingwith its possibilitiesand
the potentiallydestructiveenergieswithinthis reality.
The satiricalgoal of attackingan object seems to presupposea norm or
standardagainstwhich the object can be measuredand, additionally,a safe
distancefromwhichthe attackcanbe launched.This constellationimputesthe
ideathatsatirecankeepitself freeof the flawsin the objectattackedandthatit
ultimatelyreinforcesthe normthatthe attackedobjecthasviolated.'It remains
questionable,of course,whethersatirecangainthisdistance,andif thekindof
orderreallyexiststhatmustbe presupposedfor satireto be ableto reinforceit.'•
Since the debate in the decisive symposium"Is Referenceto MoralNorms
Essentialto Satire?"in 1964," therehasbeena differentiated controversyabout
this matter,but most criticsof satirehave agreedthatthe "[n]ormmake[s]the
Fryehadthe lastword. Howeverambiguousthatnorm might
satiresatiric.""2
havebeen consideredto be sincethen,a basicagreementalso characterizesthe
aftermathof this debate,summarizedby PeterPetroin the followinglines:

withthestate
of a basicdissatisfaction
[A]trulygreatsatire... is theexpression
of things,adissatisfaction in a
conveyedartistically most way.Itis,there-
forceful
fore,theoppositepoleto theaestheticallypleasingandrapturous poleof litera-
ture.As such, it deservesrespectandeven painsneverbegrudgedits antipode.'3

347
Law & Literature * Volume 1 7, Number 3

The representativeandrevealingfunctionof the satireseemsto be incompat-

ible with the "aestheticallypleasingand rapturouspole of literature"insofar
as realityis neveraestheticallypleasing,butinsteadmoreor less tragic,because
it differsfroma norm.'4The realityis out of joint,andneedsto be set right,but
it cannotbe changedby realityitself. This is satire'strap:the literarydimen-
sion of humorand fantasyis neededto resolvethe tragicconstellationwhich
cannot be solved in reality itself, but at the same time this element is what
keeps satireaway from that reality,in that it is no longer representingit and
thereforeunableto effectit in any way. Satire,as the literarydoppelgangerof
reality,erasesitself in its momentof success,in completingthe missionto set
realityright.Seen againstthe backdropof this teleology,everythingaesthetic
appearssuperficial,it masksratherthan revealsa tragic reality.For tragedy,
and for satireinsofaras it leanstowardit, thisprejudiceis the paradigmof the
realityprinciple.

Manyof ourbestandwisestcriticstendtothinkof literature asprimarily instruc-

to tragedy,to realism,orto
tive,or ... a criticismof life... Theyareattracted
irony,because it is in thosemodesthattheyfindtheclearestreflectionof what
Freudcallstherealityprinciple.'5

Accordingto Frye (famous for his contrastingpairs),Jonsonis the paradig-

maticcaseof a satiristconcernedwith thisrealityprinciple."Thecriticprima-
rily interestedin tragedy,irony and realismwould probably,in Shakespeare's
own day,have consideredBen Jonsona more seriousdramatist,at any ratein
comedy.Jonsonhimself certainlysharedthisview."'6Jonson,the serioussati-
rist,has claimeda law of satireby way of satiricallyexcludingShakespearean
romance.Jonsontriedto developa notionof satirethatis supposedto contrib-
of reality,"anaction
ute to the instrumentalfunctionof a criticalrepresentation
designedto hold up a mirrorto contemporarysociety."'7
Frye,however,does not mentionsatireas only being on the side of the real-
ity principle,but asks for satireto be double-structured;having an objectof
attackas its realityprinciple,on the one side, and humor,fantasy,and wit on
the other.The tensionof this bipolarstructurecreatessatire'sproblemand it
tendsto flipto the one side. Romance,with a doublestructureitself, is in con-
trast more obviously on the side of literature,exposing "the aesthetically
pleasingandrapturouspole of literature"insteadof hidingit anddialectically
switchingbackto the realityprinciple.8

348
 TrUstedt * Secondary Satire and the Sea-Change of Romance

Dialectical Law

If the dissatisfactionwith a given normativerealitymakessatirefavorits liter-

aryside,it inevitablyendsup on the sideof normativerealityagain.Jonson,for
example,reinforcesa norm or a law by exposingan absurdand fantasticform
of its violation. In this sense the satireis, even in thattraitswhich neglect the
seriousnessnaturallyassociatedwith the real and the right, merely an inter-
mediarystate,alwaysalreadyin the processof headingback to realityas de-
finedby law. Volponeculminatesin the courtroom."
The law,in itself, is likely to be located,as PeterGoodrichhas underlined,
in the fieldof the realityprinciplewith its implicationsof being primary,seri-
ous, and true. "Lawis determinedin advanceto be too serious,too solemn,
too impenetrableand too heavy for the levity of satire,"and because of a
divine sourceof law, "The Digest explicitlydictatesthatlaw speaksfrom the
placeof truth.The placeof truthis a divine space,andit is from therethatall
reason and law emerge."From this point of view, the realmof the literary
seemsto be an objectof disdainfor reasonandlaw as "thenonseriousis repug-
nantto the tranquilityof reason."20The realityprinciple'sother(humor,com-
edy, satire) is, from that point of view, threateningto the law. But, if, as
CharlesA. Knightsees it, "theresultis satireupon law itself, upon the impos-
sibilityof just social controlin a world where the instrumentsof thatcontrol
have themselvesbecome corrupt,"21does thatnot mean that the satiristtakes
over the positionof the judge?If a tragicrealitycannotcorrectitself, satireas
nonrealitybecomes an instrumentof the divine sphereof law and is called
upon to act in its place.If satiresucceedsand fulfillsits mission,it works as a
legal vehicle and ends up, by meansof dialectics,on the side of law and seri-
ousnessagain,leaving its nonrealliteraryside behind.22The implementation
of satire'scorrectionis to happen,justliketragedy'scatharsis,only outsideof
the literaryfield (in the audience).The readersor viewers are calledupon to
take over the judge's role to implementthe satirist'snew order of reality.
Volpone'sconclusioncan be seen as such, in an "obliquerecognitionof the
audience'srealpowerof judgment."23
How can the call for justicein satireor romancecome up andbe dealtwith
in the literarysphereitself,if a basicdisagreement(or even a tragicone) exists,
withoutthe satireor romancebeing dialecticallyused, and thus belittled,as a
servantof the realityprinciplewithoutfallinginto satire'strap?

349
Law & Literature * Volume 1 7, Number 3

Secondary Mode of Romance

Shakespeareanromanceis preciselya form thatincludesa basic tragicdispo-

sition withoutdialecticallydissolvingitself, eitherinto mereentertainmentor
criticalinstrumentalization.It insistson its own irreduciblemode. Romanceis,
like satire,secondaryand can only be understoodas such-coming afterthe
great Shakespeareantragediesand understoodin relationto Hamlet, Lear,
and Othello.The romancehas, in thatsense similarto the satire,an objectof
attack,a referenceobjectthatis takenup, transformed,and turnedinto some-
thing of a grotesque,absurd,comic, witty kind. Only if one looks at how the
romancetakesup,playsthrough,and,in a specificway,crossesout theHypothek
(mortgage)of the greattragediesthatfunctionasthe hypotextof the romance,
one can makesense of the romanticpotentialthey set on stage.
UnlikeJonsoniansatire,the Shakespearean romancesworkdeliberatelywith
theirsecondary,fictional,andtheatricalmode. They not only use strategiesof
illusion (staging,imitating,faking, and so on) to give an ultimatelyrealistic
representationof reality,they set these strategieson stage and,by thattoken,
expose and reflectthe theatricalityof their mode. This harborsthe risk of a
merely self-referentialreadingof the romancethat Frye exposes in going to
the realityprinciple'sother extreme. "In comedy and in romancethe story
seeks its own end insteadof holding the mirrorup to nature."24 Ratherthan
dealing with realnormsand theirviolation,comedy and romance completely
confine their interestto the aestheticconventionsso essentialto them. This
(formalist)characterizationby Frye might lead to the assumptionthat the
romanceis an idle play with itself, which dissolvedor forgot the leftoversof
the tragedythatcirculatein it, and,with them,its secondarymode.
Such a description,one thatI want to question,leavesus with a dualalter-
native:eithera literaryform like classicalsatireturnsinto a realisticcriticism
of somedefectivestateof affairsandactsas anindicationof the normsthatcan
regulateits correction,or it reducesto an idle play, concernedonly with its
own aestheticconventions.This alternativecoincideswith the two possibili-
ties left by Hegel's conceptionof comedy:eithera dialecticaluse of comedy,
whichflipsto its other(philosophy,religion),or a mereromanticplay of signs
whichprotectsitself againstthis use by the prizeof irrelevance.25 Shakespear-
ean romance,however,does not fall on eitherside. Instead,it is the very gap
betweenthe two sides of this alternative,the switchfromone side to the other
thatis caughtby it, in a specific"sea-change."Shakespeare'schallenge,here,
is to bear,to sustainthe tension of both elementsand let them subverteach

350
 Trustedt * Secondary Satire and the Sea-Change of Romance

other.Romance,thus,shouldbe seenasdouble-grounded like

andsecondary,
satire,in thatit relatesto a precedentmodel-the tragedies,andnot, as satire
canbe understood,reality.Butromancerelatesto thisprimarymodelwithout
the telosof correction,withouteitherthe claimof revealingreality,or serving
it dialectically,but ratherwith its sea-changetowardthe nonseriousand non-
realistic.By doing so, romanceunderminesthe distinctionand the implication
of the realityprincipleitself, and can therebymakevisible an alternativeto
satire'strap.
Shakespeare'sTheTempestexposesa certainkindof satiricalform,the gro-
tesque and fantasticviolation of laws and norms, giving in neitherto mere
entertainmentnor to simplereinforcementof thelaw. TheTempestuses a dou-
ble structureto show a comic solutionanda differentway of dealingwith the
tragicstateof things.This settingmarksthe romanceas a very specialformof
the satiricalthatis and alwaysremainssecondaryinsteadof servingas a dia-
lecticalinstrumentfor a realmoutside of the play. It remainsindebtedto its
objectof assaultanddependentin its very achievementson the powersof the
fictional,the secondary,andthe nonserious.

READING THE TEMPEST

Whoamongphilosophers hasa theoryof forgiveness,

andwhetherit isgiveable?It mustbea theoryof comedy.
-Stanley Cavell26

Double Plot

The receptionof the romances,and especially The Tempest,has been prima-

rily focusedeitheron the form of the romanceor on the contentwith special
regardto colonialism.Whereasthefirstacknowledgments focusedon thearche-
typalqualitiesof theromanticmode,morerecentreadingsof TheTempest have
directedtheirattentionto the materialcontent.Questionsof power,violence,
and legitimacyhave been asked,especiallywith regardto Calibanas a figure
for the problemsin the New World.27 Those questionsof power,violence,and
justicearecentral,but not the only issues,as sometimessuggested,regarding
the power-structureon the islandwith its master-slavedynamicof Prospero
and Calibanat its center.Instead,the politicaltragedyin Milanthat leads to
the usurpationof the formerDuke of Milanby his brotheris the appropriate

351
Law & Literature * Volume 1 7, Number 3

startingpoint. It directsour attentionto the relationbetween this underlying

tragedyandits adaptationin the formof romance,insteadof focusingonly on
one of the two sides.The tragedythatforgoesthe actionof the play andthatis
kept presentwithin this action,underliesthe play as primaryand threatensit
throughoutfromits borders.At the sametime,the storyof theplay itself deals
with the precedingtragedyin ways that are explicitlyunrealisticand under-
mine the authoritativecharacterof this principle.The romancedisplays,in
thissense,a doubleplot, intertwiningthe precedingtragedywith the romantic
actionof the play.2
First, there is the tragedyin Milanthat occurs before the play begins and
which Prospero,the protagonistof the coup, reportsto us via Miranda.It is a
realisticallydescribedpoliticaltragedyof theusurpationof Prospero,the Duke
of Milan,by his brotherAntonio,who thenreplaceshim as the Duke of Milan.
This tragicsettingis establishedin the realmof the realityprinciple,yet it is
exposed, at the same time, as loaded with theatricaland mythicalreference.
The play's primalscene refersback not only to the tragediesprecedingthe
romances,and especiallyMacbeth,but also to history'sprimalscene, Cain's
violence towardAbel.
On the otherhand,thereis the momentumof romancein motionon the is-
landin a differentmode. The whole actionis underthe influenceof the green
world of metamorphosis,which otherwiseusuallymarksonly a smallpartof
comedy.The island,an isolatedsite thatis connectedto the mainlandof Italy
only below the surfaceof the sea, is determinedby a suspensionof all familiar
rules and turnsaway from the realisticsettingof the tragedyin Milan.Pros-
pero (who is, in thistragedy,exiledfrompower)takeschargeof the islandin a
differentfashion.He takesoverhis playandstageswhatappearsto be his satire
of the tragedy,a specificcomic hypertextof a tragedyof crimeandviolence.
He stagesa shipwreckthatbringshis brotherandhis companionsto the island
wherethey becomesubjectsof his miraculouspowers.Whatcouldbe a simple
act of revenge,andthereforea continuationof thattragedyof the chainof vi-
olence, is insteadturnedinto a strangeand fantasticanamorphosisof events,
alwaysaccompaniedby Prospero'sno-harm-doneformula,and leadingto an
act of mercy.The actionof the romanceplaysthroughand,at the sametime,
differsfromthatof the tragedy.The tragedyitself remainslatentin the back-
ground,as a precedingmodel and a threatfrombelow. Underlyingthe action
of comedy, the tragedy literally awaits the comedy at its borders as the sea
encroacheson the island.

352
 TrUstedt * Secondary Satire and the Sea-Change of Romance

This relationresemblesthe situationof a satire,but at the sametime differs

from it in crucialrespects.The romanceoperatesas a humorousand second-
ary approach,referringbackto a dissatisfyingstateof affairs,but withoutthe
claim of revealingrealityand withoutthe dialecticalaim of reinstallinga just
order.The questionof origin, primacy,and legitimacyis centralto the play,
essentialnot only to the mode of romanticadaptation,but simultaneouslyre-
flected in the materialcontentof the play. Who reallyis the Duke of Milan?
Who reallyis rulerof the island?The questionof originandprimacyaresys-
tematicallyblurred throughout the play. Before Prospero came and con-
queredthe islandthe witch Sycoraxwas its ruler,but she is fromAlgiers;thus
the trackof a primaryrulergets lost. After the primalscene of usurpationin
Milan,thisviolenceseemsto havespread,andeveryrulerultimatelyappearsto
be some kindof a secondaryusurpercharacterized by, at least,some tendency
of reliance.At the sametime, underthe shiftedrulesof the island,every ges-
tureof violence seemsto rundry.In an emblematicsequence,Antonio,Pros-
pero'sbrother,persuadeshis companionSebastianto plan an usurpation,and
shortlythereafter,the drunkenjesters,Stefanoand Trinculo,plot a ridiculous
conspiracyagainstProsperowith Caliban,whichwill neverbe effectivelycar-
riedout.All theseactionsaresecondarymovements,reflectingandmockingthe
primalscenethroughoutthe play.
Questionsof power andlegitimacy,violence andcrime,dominatethe play
and reflecta violence that gets out of hand in Macbeth,likely the last of the
tragediesbefore Shakespeareshiftstowardthe romances.This shift towarda
specifickindof comedy is exercisedin TheTempest.The romances,one could
say, are essentiallyorganizedby that metamorphosis.The shift has a special
partin all of them, as exemplifiedin The Winter'sTaleby a radicalturn that
splitsthe play into a firstanda secondpart,but in TheTempest,the sea-change
theme runsthroughthe whole play.29What does the shift imply,what does it
consistof, andwhat does it signify?

Sea-Change of the Nonserious

The Tempeststartswith a stateof exception.It commencesat sea insteadof a
(national)territoryand shows a ship breaking,disjointingnorms (like social
hierarchies),as well as existentialgroundsin the title-givingevent of change,
the tempest."[W]hatcaresthese roarersfor the nameof King?/ we split,we
split!" (1.I.16-I7; 6o-6i1).

353
Law & Literature * Volume 1 7, Number 3

Ariel'ssong aboutthe sea-changethatservesas the epigraphto this article

confirmsthatno simpleloss has takenplacein the tempest,but rathera special
transitionof genre. Sea-changeis now understoodas some kindof profound
or notabletransformation,a deep turningmoment,effectuatinga certainkind
of fundamental change. The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition, defines
sea-changeas "a changewroughtby the sea; now freq. transf.with or with-
out allusion to Shakespeare'suse (quot. 16io), an alterationor metamor-
phosis, a radicalchange."The termsea-changeis not only-with or without
allusionto Shakespeare'suse-used with a generalmeaningof change.It is
also used for a kindof turningthathas a theatricalqualityandmarksa change
of mode towardthe nonserious.This aspectof the termis broughtto the fore
by the way in whichJohnL. Austinemploysit in his speechacttheoryto name
the profound change that words are subjectto if employed in what he calls
a parasitic,nonseriouscontext. The sea-changesignifiesthe possibilityof a
turningthat every utterancecan become subjectto, "a sea-changein special
circumstances."30
The shipwreckin the firstact, as we find out in the following act, did not
reallyhappen.It hasbeenstaged,it hadno realeffects."There'sno harmdone,"
as Prosperorepeats.The samegoes, as I mentionedearlier,for the usurpation
plansthathauntthe play.The sea-changetherefore,is one of perspectiveand
of mode. It marks the transition from tragedy to comedy, from something
supposedlyseriousand realto the nonseriousandnonreal.That is, of course,
a transitionof artin general,marked,for example,by the liftingof the curtain
with which the realmof theaterbegins. The traditionof thinkingcriticallyof
the nonseriousas threatening,thereforedelimitatingthe so-calledserious,has
focused on theater,and especially the comic, from Plato to Diderot. The
specific"sea-change,"however,cannotbe an easy objectfor thiscriticaltradi-
tion thatreproachesthe theaterfor its distanceto, andpotentialneglectof, true
realityin favor of an imitationof the thirddegree,3'for this sea-changedoes
not implyleavingbehindthe questionsof violence andpowerthatsupposedly
concernthe truereality.On the contrary,throughthe sea-changeof the non-
real,the romance'stwo poles canbe measuredagainsteachother.Only if one
keepsin mindwhatis stagedto be theprelude,precondition,andpossibleafter-
play of the actionof romance,canone appreciateTheTempest's full potential.
The sea-changemarksthe mode of transition,andtherefore,the interchange-
abilityitself.
The relationshipof Prosperoand his brother,and with it, the underlying

354
 TrUstedt * Secondary Satire and the Sea-Change of Romance

tragedy of Milanand the romanceon the island, have gotten out of critics'
sight, both in the concentrationon the power structureon the islandand in
focusing on the romanticform. One reasonfor this inattentionis the neglect
of the indirectand so easily overlookedappearanceof Antonio's son in the
play.The usurper'sheir is mentionedonly on one occasionand has basically
not been accountedfor as a factorin the play at all.32If one putsthe usurpation
andits counterpartsin the romancein focusas the underlyingheartof theplay,
this factor,as well as its latency,become crucial.

The Lost Son

Fer. TheDukeof Milan

andhisbravesonbeingtwain.
Pros.[Aside]TheDukeof Milan
andhismorebraverdaughtercouldcontrolthee (1.2.440-43)

In this sole passage,where Antonio (now the Duke of Milan,afterusurping

his brotherProspero)is mentionedas havinga braveson with him, Prospero
reactswith a statementsuffusedwith the equivalenceand doublingthat goes
on throughoutthe play.He confrontsthe dynasticsettingof "rulerwith heir"
in a verbalcompetitionanda nonrealfight,and thusposes the questionthatis
at thevery heartof theplay:who is "really,""originally,""actually,"the Duke
of Milan?This passagehasbeen widely ignored.David ScottKastanis one of
the few who have paidit tribute,but he concludesthatthe son has been killed
in the tempest. "Indeedthe only thing apparentlylost in the tempest is the
usurperAntonio'sdisinheritedson, the one 'hair'--or heir-that can be cut
fromthe restorativeactionof the play."33
There are two ways to explainthe fate of Antonio'sson, who remainsun-
named,besidesthe claimthatit is merelya mistakein the text. The firstpossi-
bility is thatthe son reallydies in the tempest,as Kastansuggests.If thatwere
the case, then the questionremains:is this Prospero'sintention?Is this death
the purposeof the shipwreck,so thatindeed,behindthe romanticplay,a seri-
ous revenge can take place? Or is it a mistake,not in Shakespeare'sbut in
Prospero'sscript,which says thatno harmis done? In thatcase, the essential
mode of the romance, its nonrealness,nonseriousness,becomes scattered.
One would have to be, as StanleyCavellwith The Winter'sTale,"Recounting
Gains,ShowingLosses."'34

355
Law & Literature * Volume 1 7, Number 3

There is, however, no evidence for the death of Antonio's son. It seems
equallyplausiblein view of the logic of the play to assumethathe, like all the
otherson the ship,survived.This second possibilityof the survivalof Anto-
nio's son andthe chanceof his being somewhereon the islandevokesa poten-
tialthreatfor Prosperoandhis romanticplay.The heirof Antoniois thusout of
reach,leaving Prosperosusceptibleto overthrowor attackonce again. This
perspectiveof Antonio having a brave son somewhereon the island gives
more weight to Antonio and his action, or rathernonaction, and makes it
more unlikelyProsperowill lose sight of the threathe andhis successorpose.
Insteadof being seen as a minorfigure-rather on the same level as the two
drunkenjesters, Trinculo and Stefano,who satiricallymirrorAntonio and
Sebastianand theirplansof usurpation-Antonio's introductionbecomes of
more import,as he himself, almost satirically,crosses out the islandutopia,
which surfacesas a romantictopic.

Gon{. Hereis everything

advantageous to life.
Ant. True;save meansto live. (2.1.48, 49)

And furtheron:

Gonj. AndwereKingon't,whatwouldI do?

Gonj. I'th'commonwealth
I wouldby contraries
Executeallthings;[...]
No occupation;allmenidle,all;
Andwomentoo;butinnocentandpure:No sovereignty;-
Seb. Yethewouldbe Kingon't.
Ant. Thelatterendof hiscommonwealthforgetsthebeginning.(2.1.141-54)

Antonioproveswitty.His statementrefersto thedevelopmentof Gonzalo's

commonwealthand to his speech, which, in its digressivenature,forgets its
beginning.Antonio'sspeech,in contrast,is always shortand to the point. In
this slightlysatiricalmannerit marksthe centralproblemof thisislandutopia.
In thatway Antonioservesas thepersonificationof thecounterpartof a purely
romanticconceptionof the new world,the greenworld.This counterpartcon-
sistsin strategicreasoning,includingthepowerandstrategyof language,exem-
plifiedin sharpandbitingpuns.Even afterhe is being forgivenby Prosperoat
the end of the play,his only commentis a pun on economicstrategy.35

356
 TrUstedt . Secondary Satire and the Sea-Change of Romance

Prosperoseemsto be beatingAntonio,or rather,his strategy,with his own

weapons-with hisplot (reflectingAntonio'splotin Milan);a planrealizedwith
the help of timing, repression,and control. Throughoutthe play, Prospero
pursueswhat he calls a project,which eventuallyallows him to gain control
over his wrongdoersandconsentto the marriageof his daughterMirandaand
Ferdinand(the King of Naples'son, doublingagain,one could say,for Anto-
nio's son), which supposedlywill re-establishhis power.For that to happen,
he directs,controls, and repressesdifferentbeings, instructingthem to rush
and fulfilltheirtasks,as well as the actionof the play itself.
In thecourseof theplay,two conceptsof timeareintersecting,confronting,
andbalancingeachother:a lineartimingof progressanddevelopmentof plot,
on the one hand,and timelessintermissionsunrelatedto the developmentof
the plot but ratherto a cyclicaltimingof myth,on the other.Prospero'steleo-
logical developmentof the projectis closely linkedwith prosperoustiming.
"Now does my projectgatherto a head ... my spiritsobey; and time / Goes
uprightwith his carriage,"declaresProspero,openingthe lastact (5.1.1-3).His
projectgets frequentlydisturbedby interludesof what MichaelO'Connell
has called,ironicallyparaphrasingJonson'sreproachof the playfulromances,
"mereentertainment,unconnectedto the seriousbusinessof advancingthe
Those intermissions-the magic banquetand the masquewith spe-
plot."''36
cial effectssuch as music,dance,and the appearanceof spirits-threaten the
project'sdeterminedunfolding,to resemblea satireof the Jonsoniantype so
eagerto follow the seriousbusinessof advancingtheplot. This nonseriousand
ratherbad entertainmentis, however, part of the theatricalmachinerythat
Prosperocontrols,and as much as it disturbsthe advancingof the plot, it can
at the sametime be disturbedby it.

"The Invasion of Time in the Play"

When the two concepts of time collide and the machineryof theatricality
exposesitself, Prosperoseems to become awareof the latentthreat.It is pre-
cisely this momentthathe puts off one of his interludesand turnsto the plot.
He is busy watchingand directingan on-stage play within a play, a masque
staged for the biopoliticalcontrivanceof Mirandaand Ferdinand'sengage-
ment. With a suddensea-change,Prosperocalls the actionoff at the moment
he realizesthat he had forgottenthe plot. Plot, here, does not only standfor
effectiveactiondefininga play in general,but is usedby Prosperofor theplot:

357
Law & Literature * Volume 17, Number 3

a conspiracy,an usurpation,andthe connotationoften shiftsbetweenthe pos-

itive and the ominous.Yet, the memoryof Caliban'sconspiracyis not neces-
sarilya returnfrom the distractionto the actualplot. Ratherit seems to be, as
perhapsany plot within this romanceis shown to be, anotherdistractionthat
servesas a substituteto a realplot.

Enter certain Reapers, properly habited: they join with the Nymphs in a graceful
dance; towardthe end whereof PROSPERO startssuddenly, and speaks; after which,
to a strange, hollow, and confused noise, they heavily vanish.
Pros.[Aside]I hadforgottenthatfoulconspiracy
Of thebeastCalibanandhisconfederates
Againstmylife:theminuteof theirplot
Is almostcome. [TotheSpirits/Welldone!Avoid;no more!
Fer. Thisis strange:yourfather'sin somepassion
Thatworkshimstrongly.
Mir. Never till this day
Saw I him touch'dwith anger,so distemper'd.(4.1.-138-45)

It seems unlikelythat a slapstickaction of two drunkenjestersProspero

caresnothing for and Prospero'sslave Caliban,with whom he has had some
conflict,would shakeProspero'smasquethis profoundly.Morelikely thereis
somethingmore threateningthathe shouldnot forget about,but chooses not
to remember.Here the presence of Antonio's son and the threathe poses
emerge for a momentfrom theirlatency,underthe layer of anotherplot: the
"invasionof timeinto the play."37The mediaeffectof the sea-changebecomes
visiblein thismomentof disruption.The oppositionof properlyandgraceful,
on the one hand,andstrange,hollow,confused,andheavily,on theother,com-
bine with the broaderdescriptionof "noise"insteadof "music"to markthe
sea-changewhere somethingturnsinto its other and revealsitself to be non-
natural.A turn,althoughbackto the plot, thatonce againseems "strange"-
an expressionrepeatedthroughoutthe playindicatinga tendencyto reachback
andmakea comparisonwith a model or some outsidefigureto understandthe
present.
Insteadof the oppositionof the realityprincipleandtheateras its other,we
are facing a power that is alwaysassociatedwith the theatricaland a nonreal
play of theatricality,which is exposedas a machinery.Both areunavoidable,
conditioningand threateningeach other.In the play'scomic solution,a riftis
shown.

358
 TrUstedt * Secondary Satire and the Sea-Change of Romance

Senses of an Ending

When Prosperohasconsolidatedhis power(with theexceptionof theeduring

but forgottenthreatof Antonio's son), his projectgathers to its end and he
stageshis finalact. He can now takerevenge,continuethe chainof violence,
takethe plot to its fulfillment,and executethe law.Instead,he stagesan act of
mercy andforgiveness.He says, "Anddeeperthandid ever plummetsound /
I'll drown my book" (5.1.57). Prosperoaddresseseach one he has wronged
with singularspeechesof mercy and forgiveness,liftingthe secretand retell-
ing his story,puttingin motion the end of the romanceby preparingto leave
the island.This marksanother(the final?)turningpoint of the play,but ques-
tions remainaboutthe natureof this comic solution.Is it simplyreturningto
wherethe tragedystopped?Canthis returnto a tragicdispositionbe regarded
as a simplere-installationof the realityprinciple:a new round,as if nothing
happened?Or does this turn signify a changeinto somethingfundamentally
different?Is theactof mercya heroicbreakingof thecircleof violenceor rather
justProspero'sdefeat?And furthermore,is mercypossiblebecausejusticehas
been executedin whathis wrongdoershad to go throughon the island? Is the
end to be seen as a comicsolution,in thatit solves the injustice?Canthe play's
conclusionwithoutbloodshedbe considereda happyending?
Not only is it beyond the scope of this articleto answerall of these ques-
tions, or ones kept in reserve,but the proliferationof the questionsclearly
indicatesthatthedecisivefeatureof theromanceis to renderit impossibleto give
definitiveanswers.In thissense,thelastactcanbe neithera completelynew con-
stellationnorthe completerestorationof Prospero'spowerthatit seemsat first
to have achieved.

A crisisof authority-depositionfrompower,exile,impotence-givesway
throughthepowerof his artto a fullrestoration. Pros-
Fromthisperspective
pero'smagic is theromance of
equivalent law.
martial YetThe seems
Tempest to
raisetroublingquestionsaboutthisauthority.38

The last act could seem to be a "fullrestoration"of power only if Antonio's

son wereleftunaccountedfor.Withthatfactortakeninto account,TheTempest
becomesa preludeto a new formof tragedy,whichhadbeenset out in Macbeth.

butnotsurprisingly,
Interestingly, themediatisation of violenceintoa medium
of progress,that Benjaminhas diagnosedin the Germanmourningplay
is connectedto thecrisis,in whichit slipsawayfromthesover-
(Trauerspiel),

359
Law & Literature * Volume 1 7, Number 3

eign,overwhelms himfrombehindin themodeof thedangerous supplement,

thatit shouldbeinhishands.Differently of theGerman
fromthetheatralisation
mourningplay(Trauerspiel), Shakespearewasoutforthisturning(Umschlag)
of themedia-like andsupplementaryroleof violence."

It is this Umschlag(one could say, sea-change)of violence, which always

escapesits supposedrulerbecauseit is alwaysthe nonnaturalsupplementpur-
loined from a formerpossessor,that is the underlyingtragedyand therefore
the basisof the romanceThe Tempest.This violence is not a controllabletool
in, say,Antonio'shands,and thereforecannotbe adequatelymet by a Jonso-
nian satire.Rather,it is a "medium"spreadthroughoutthe play withoutactu-
ally takingplace (even the primalscene of Prospero'susurpationhappened
without blood). It is more real, more fundamental,and beyond the reality
principle.More importantly,it is essentiallytheatrical,and thereforejust as
mucha resultof the theater'ssea-changeas the otherway around.
The violence, likely to be associatedwith brute realityand opposedto the
playful literarymeans thatJonson regardsas irrelevantto this reality,is not
simply the other of languageand theater.The Tempestshows, throughall its
romanticplay,a violencealreadytheatricalandlinguistic,personifiedby Anto-
nio's masteryof words,sharppuns,and abilityto use the forceof languageas
well as by Prospero'smastery of directing, setting up illusions, arranging
plays,andrulingover others.Coupledwith the sea-changeof romance,which
refusesto hitbackdialectically,but ratherprefersnot to, culminatingin the act
of mercy,the comic solutionoffersitself not as a potentform of correctionof
violenceandinjustice,but ratheras a deliberatewithdrawalor relinquishment.
The actof mercyappearsasanactof nonviolenceandnonpower,exertednon-
dialectically,without strivingfor a transformationor sublimationinto a new
form of violence or power. Prospero'sforgivenessis ineffective.No sign of
regretor even changeis visibleamongthose he forgives.
If Prospero'sact of mercywere readas a meansto a differentpowerstruc-
ture, one of mercy and, in fact, absolutepower (becauseonly "[t]heabsolute
monarchcan,by divine right,pardona criminal"),40then this romancewould
fall into satire'strap.It would meanthat Prosperostageshimself as an abso-
lutemonarch,or at leasta playwrightwho controls.In forgivingAntoniofrom
a placeof sovereignty,Prosperoactsnot only like the sovereignsatiristin the
Yet, with
place of the law,but beyond it, even, as an "exceptionfrom law."41
the possibilityof a sequelwithAntonio'sson in mind,Prospero'sactof mercy

360
 TrUstedt * Secondary Satire and the Sea-Change of Romance

towardAntonio seemsto have no effectivenesswhatsoever,not even for him-

self or the audience,andit seemsmoreunlikelyto see in him somethingof an
absolutemonarch.This existenceprovesthatthe old andnew powerstructure
is farfrombeing over,insteadof makingway for a totallynew orderandmore
thanlikelyrenewingitself withanalreadypre-establishedform,notwithAnto-
nio, but with Antonio'sson. Prospero'sbehaviorin the finalact indicatesthat
he cannotchangethis, thoughstill thisleadsus to a comic solution.

CONCLUSION

The subtext(Genette'shypotext)42of the romanceis tragedy,and as a crimi-

nalgenreit callsfor a differenthypertextthana Jonsonian-stylesatire.Satireof
a Jonsoniankind gains effectivenessdialectically,and deliberatelydisavows
the secondarinessit dependson, its literarysidebeyondlaw andreality.The ro-
mances,accusedby Jonsonof being no morethanreality'sother,could in fact
be a more completeand radicalform of satire,reflectingand acknowledging
theirspecificmode. TheTempest hasthe formof a satirein thatallthe elements
it displaysappearto be secondary,referringback to a somehow tragicmodel
thatis displaced,distorted,andbroughtinto playin the moves of the romance,
andoccasionallyintroducedthroughallusionor reminiscence.The specificturn
andradicalizationof the romancerestsupon the factthatthereis no clearpoint
of origin;it is free fromdependenceon othergenres,the restorationof which
could be the telosof the romance.Instead,the point of origin oscillates.The
tragedyprecedesthe romance,andthe possibletragicafter-playis, in turn,en-
genderedby the romance.The romancestagesa comicsolutionwithinits own
realm,insteadof reachingfor satire'stelosandaggressiveaimof some dialec-
tical correctionof the real. The solution of the romanceis comic in that it is
ineffective,inert.There is no reachingbeyond its own plot when it is over. It
refrainsfromthe ideaof correction,whichmighttamethe tragicthatit is sup-
posed to resolve. Insteadof tamingthatwhich cannotbe corrected,in which
one cannotbut participate,it stagesits otherside.
The nonseriousandnonrealaspectsof the romance,whichcome to the fore
in its likenessto fairytales,canonly be correctlyunderstoodwhenseen against
the backdropof the threateningstory precedingandunderlyingit. The realm
of the romanceis preciselydefinedasthefieldof anirreducibletensionbetween
poles:tragicpowerof unjustviolenceandfictitiouspossibilityof comicsolution.

361
Law & Literature * Volume 1 7, Number 3

Thesideof humor,fantasy, asanirreducible

andwitthatFryehasunderlined
to romance,
aspectof satire,andthatI haveconsideredto be justasindispensable
of thetragicthreat.If we
canmakeoneforget(asProsperohas)theimmediacy
join Prosperoin forgettingand lose ourselvesin the temptingillusionof The
Tempest, we lose the essenceof romanceandthinkof romancesas moldytales,
irrelevantto the seriousrealitiesandcrueltiesof life. We give in to Prospero's
reconciliation,andforgetthethreatposedby Antonioandhisson. If, in contrast,
we focus on the threatof usurpation,we give in to the unavoidableandtragic
chainof violence,andlosesightof thecomicsolutionthatisunrealbutnever-
thelessdisplayedas such.
romance
Shakespearean where
opensupa spacebeyondtherealityprinciple,
the unavoidabletragedybecomesvisiblewith "dramaticambiguity"43instead
of being tamedin a dialecticalmove. The underlyingtragedyis capturedin
and by way of the sea-changeof a threatricalcomic solution,so thatthe ten-
sion and intersectionof tragedyand comedy is stagedand sustained.In this
sea-change,the audiencefloatsin-between.

* I am gratefulto Thomas Khuranafor his patientreadingof this article,and Peter Goodrich for inviting
me to write it in the firstplace and for editing.
'. FrankKermode,ed., TheArdenShakespeare:The Tempest,6th ed. (London: Methuen, 1964), 1.2.403-
5. See also Virginia MasonVaughanand Alden T. Vaughan,eds., TheArdenShakespeare:The Tempest,
thirdseries(London: Thomson Learning, 2005); and Stephen Greenblatt,ed., TheNortonShakespeare
(New York:W.W. Norton, 1997). All referencesare to act, scene, and line(s).
2. Cited according to Northrop Frye, A NaturalPerspective.TheDevelopmentof ShakespeareanComedy
andRomance(New York:Columbia University Press, 1965), 70 (emphasisis mine).
3. Id., at 2. For Freud'suse of the term, see, e.g., SigmundFreud, "Formulationson the Two Principlesof
MentalFunctioning," TheStandardEditionof the CompletePsychologicalWorksof SigmundFreud,Vol-
ume 12, JamesStrachey,ed., 215-26 (London: Hogarth Press, 1958).
4. CharlesA. Knight, TheLiteratureof Satire(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press, 2004), 129.
5. Ben Jonson, Volpone,Alvin B. Kernan,ed. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1962). The satire
of a hypocriteis of course justone elementin Volpone,but can serve as exemplaryof the whole satirefor
the purpose of this article.
6. Knight, supranote 4.
7. NorthropFrye,Anatomyof Criticism: FourEssays(Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUniversityPress 1957),224.
8. For the question of satire's complicity with its object, see Joseph Brooker'scontributionto this issue,
"SatireBust:The Wagers of Money,"17Law &Literature321-44 (2005).
9. From this point of view, the difference,with respectto mere irony,becomes visible. "[S]atireis militant
irony: its moral norms are relatively clear, and it assumes standardsagainst which the grotesque and
absurdare measured."Frye, supranote 7 at 223.
Cf. especially Brooker,supranote 8.
to.
i i. Organizedby SatireNewsletteras recordedin A.M. Tibbetts et al., "Norms in Satire:A Symposium,"2

362
 Trustedt * Secondary Satire and the Sea-Change of Romance

Satire Newsletter2-26 (1964): comments by A.M. Tibbetts, W.S. Anderson, R. Elliott, L. Feinberg,
Northrop Frye, M. Johnson, R. Kantra,Alvin Kernan,N. Knox, E. Leyburn, P. Pinkus, E. Rosenheim,
C. Witke, and N. Yates.
12. Symposium comments by Northrop Frye, id., at 9.

13. Peter Petro,ModernSatire:FourStudies(Berlin:Mouton Publishers, 1982), 21.

14. Controversy surroundsthe antipode's degree of explicitness:"The ideal counterpart,whether explic-
itly (rarely)or implicitly(generally), is the norm fromwhich the satirictargetis an aberration."Id., at 18.
15. Frye, supranote 2 at 2.
16. Id., at 5-6.
17. David Bevington, "Shakespearevs Jonson on Satire," in Die englischeSatire, Wolfgang Weiss, ed.,
220-38 (Darmstadt:WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft,1982), 224. Originally publishedin C. Leech
and J.M.R.Margeson,eds., Shakespeareg971.Proceedingsof the WorldShakespeareCongress,Vancouver,
August 1971(Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1972), 107-22.
18. Whereasthe second aspectin the most classicalsatiresleans towardthe absurdor grotesque, romance's
secondelementis ratherfestive,hasa qualityof fairytales,andis in thatregardcloserto Menippeansatire.
19. Jonson,supranote 5, 5.8.
20. Peter Goodrich, "On the Importanceof Being Earnest: Satire and the Criticism of Law," 15 Social
Semiotics43-58 (2005), at 52.
21. Knight, supranote 4 at 27.
22. "Satiricalspokesmanhimself is judge and executioner,"says David Bevington with regardto Jonson.
Bevington, supranote 17 at 225.
23. FrederickV. Bogel, TheDiferenceSatireMakes:RhetoricandReadingfromJonsonto Byron(Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press, 2001), o100-101.
24. Frye, supranote 2 at 8.
25. For this Hegelian dichotomy, compare Christoph Menke's Die Gegenwartder Tragddie:Versuchiiber
Urteil und Spiel (Frankfurtam Main:Suhrkamp,2005), 142: "Either [. .. the aesthetic play] restricts
itself to the sphere of art, in the face of which the world of practice remains intact in its striving and
failing. Or the play attemptsto become practicaland itself turns out to be serious. That is the tragic
irony, that the romantic comedy is subject to in its attempt to dissolve all tragedy into irony" (my
translation).
26. StanleyCavell, "WhatDid DerridaWantof Austin?"in PhilosophicalPassages:Wittgenstein,Emerson,
Austin, Derrida,42-65 (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1995), 54.
27. See, for example, David Scott Kastan, Shakespeareafter Theory(London: Routledge, 1999), 184:
"Recently,of course, criticismof The Tempest,while reassertingthe New Worldcontext, has effectively
wrested the play from the idealizationsof romance [. ..] The experienceof the Virginia colonists is no
longer merely a timely reminderof the timeless structuresof a romancemode."
28. On double plots, see William Empson, Some Versionsof Pastoral(New York:New Directions, 1974),
27-86.
29. "The feeling thatin one dimension of the imagery we never quite get out of the sea recursin The Tem-
pest." Frye, supranote 2 at 149.
30. John L. Austin, How to Do Thingswith Words(Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press, 1962), 22.
With regardto the theatricalqualityof the sea-change,the Germantranslationof Austin'suse of thisterm
is especiallyremarkable.In the Germanedition of How to Do Thingswith Words,Zur TheoriederSpre-
chakte,2nded. (Stuttgart:Reclam, 1979),Eikevon Savigny has translated"sea-change"as Spenenwechsel
(scene change; p. 43). The profound change of the sea-change seems to resemble the change that is
caused by (re-)staging something.
31. Plato, TheRepublic,G.M. Grube, trans.(Indianapolis,IN: Hackett, 1992), book io.
32. Kermodecomments it as a "mistake":"There is no furthermention of Antonio's son in the play [...]
Shakespearebegan writing with a somewhathazy understandingof the dynasticrelationshipshe was to

363
Law & Literature * Volume 1 7, Number 3

deal with." Supranote i, comment on 1.2.441.Mostcommentatorstreatthis passagein a similarfashion

(see Vaughanand Vaughan,supranote i), or don't mention it at all (e.g., Greenblatt,supranote i).
33. Kastan,supranote 27 at 190. His play with the homophony of hairand heiris referringto act i, scene 2,
where Prospero reveals to Mirandathat the whole shipwreckwas his "Art":

I have with such provision of mine Art

so safely ordered, that there is no soul-
No, not so much perditionas an hair
Betid to any creaturein the vessel
Which thou heard'stcry which thou saw'st sink. Sit down;
For thou must now know farther.

Kastanwants to suggest that this remark by Prospero indicates that in fact there is some perdition
caused by the shipwreck(the death of Antonio's heir).
34. StanleyCavell,"RecountingGains,ShowingLosses:Reading The Winter'sTale,"in his DisowningKnowl-
edgein SevenPlays of Shakespeare,
rev.ed., 193-221 (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress, 2003).
35. Regarding Caliban,"a plain fish, and, no doubt, marketable"(5.I.266).
36. Michael O'Connell, "The Experimentof Romance," in The CambridgeCompanionto Shakespearean
Comedy,AlexanderLeggatt, ed., 21 5-29 (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press, 2002), 217.
37. My translationof the subtitleof CarlSchmitts'sbook on Hamlet,HamletoderHekuba.DerEinbruchder
Zeit in das Spiel (Stuttgart:Klett-Cotta, 1985).
38. Stephen Greenblatt, ShakespeareanNegotiations: The Circulationof Social Energy in Renaissance
England(Berkeley:University of CaliforniaPress, 1988), 156.
39. Anselm Haverkamp, Hamlet.-Hypothek der Macht (Berlin: Kulturverlag Kadmos, 2001), 97 (my
translation).
40. JacquesDerrida, On Cosmopolitanism andForgiveness(New York:Routledge, oo2002), 45. A more exten-
sive analysisof Prospero'sforgiveness would be necessaryat this point to specify its peculiarcharacter
and the way it might differ from reconciliationin a religious or quasi-religioussense.
41. Id., at 46.
42. GhrardGenette, Palimpsests:Literaturein the SecondDegree (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press,
1997).
43. Empson, supranote 28 at 53f.

364