Richard Henze's The Tempest: Rejection Of A Vanity

Richard Henze’s article in Shakespeare Quarterly, “The Tempest: Rejection of a Vanity” was very eye opening for my own reading and interpretation of "The Tempest". Not only did it awaken characters that I had considered to be “secondary” and somewhat irrelevant to the play, but it also opened up some questions for me about society at the time. While Henze did not dive into what Shakespeare’s angle or criticism would have been on his society, Henze’s article raised several questions for me that helped me make connections between the play and religious and societal norms at the time it was written. Though Henze's interpretation of the play is not the only interpretation available, by following his interpretation, I was able to link more ideas

James Mardock) that "A Midsummer Night’s Dream" reflects the anxiety of predestination in Europe in the 16th century, "The Tempest" written just about 15 years later, seems to reject the idea of predestination entirely (assuming Henze’s assertions are correct). If Prospero represents the soul controlling a potential for sin and a potential for spirituality, and sin and spirituality are "ministers of fate", then man has the ability to change his destiny. This contrasts the ideas of Calvinism, which was popular while Queen Elizabeth I was in power until 1603. Then, King James I took over ruling both England and Scotland. During Queen Elizabeth’s reign, Calvinism was the established religion of the country, and it is argued that some of Shakespeare’s plays like “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” have been commentaries on the “salvation anxiety” in England during the time. However, “The Tempest”, on the other hand, was written after Queen Elizabeth had died, and towards the end of Shakespeare’s career. I have several questions that need more answers and hours and hours of research. I do not know exactly what the religious context for England and Scotland were like after Queen Elizabeth died, or if Calvinism was as widely practiced still. However, Henze’s analysis of “The Tempest” urges me to think that perhaps Shakespeare then saw that the idea of Predestination, and especially Double Predestination, rejected agency in man. He displays

While Henze did discuss the fact that Prospero rejected vanity and his own desires, I feel Henze should have focused more on exploring the implications of the theme that Prospero, Ariel and Caliban all represent different parts of man. This was huge part of the article, but Henze treated it as though it were simply a secondary piece of the analysis. This interpretation all in all helped me see that the play can be read in several different ways. Upon first reading "The Tempest", I was overwhelmed with how many characters and sub-plots appear in the play. There is a lot going on, and a lot to keep track of. Henze's interpretation helped me realize the importance of characters I thought to be less relevant, and also to start questioning the actual meaning of the play in the context of the world around William Shakespeare in 1610. It helped me to narrow my scope with my interpretation instead of just trying to keep the entire plot straight in my head. Although Henze's assertions may not be correct, I think it did shed issues into light that I hadn't even considered. "The Tempest" is obviously quite different from other comedies and is often argued to not even potentially be a comedy, but this interpretation of the play helps to see the interworking between characters and religious elements in the play. I would be very interested to see how this theme of the three