Virgil and The Tempest

<i>Virgil and <b>The Tempest</b></i> offers a new assessment of the art and politics of Shakespeare's comic masterpiece by examining its relationship to both the contemporary political context and to Virgil's <i>Aeneid.</i> Challenging the view that <i>The Tempest</i> supports the absolutist theories and policies of King James I Donna Hamilton instead shows how the play represents an argument for a limited monarchy. Virgil and James I each represent a set of symbols and idioms that Shakespeare appropriates for his own use in <i>The Tempest</i>. In the process he pays homage to their respective eminence and brings them into dialogical relation with each other changing the language to suit his purposes. This means rewriting the <i>Aeneid</i> to suit a new time and situation and it means subtly altering the king's language to present a strong argument for constitutionalism. Scholars who have emphasized the transcendent Shakespeare have sometimes failed to recognize the playwright's passion for resistance a passion nowhere more cunningly present than in <i>The Tempest</i>. Hamilton analyzes Shakespeare's practice of rhetorical imitation in <i>The Tempest</i> by comparing him to other Renaissance imitators of Virgil. She also considers three contemporary political issues-the situation of the royal children the 1610 parliamentary debates on royal prerogative and the colonization projects in Virginia and Ireland-and their bearing on the play. The result is a fresh contribution to the current interest in Shakespeare's relationship to the courts of Elizabeth I and James I.<b>Donna Hamilton</b> is Associate Professor of English at the University of Maryland College Park.