Abstract:

A remarkable fact about William Shakespeare's The Tempest is that characters do not always see or hear the same thing. But while this estrangement of knowledge thins out the boundaries between character and environment to recognizably great dramatic effect, the aporetic energies underlying that estrangement are not yet fully understood. This article explores their significance by examining the connections between The Tempest and Michel de Montaigne's An Apologie of Raymond Sebond (long suspected to be related). It proposes a new verbal parallel between the play and the essay but does not confine its argument to such a criterion. Rather, it is a case study in the Renaissance practice of imitation that works from a number of aspects—shared matrices of thought and feeling, similar metaphors, networks of texts—to reconstruct the presence of a locus classicus of Renaissance skepticism in Shakespeare's late play. Along the way, it triangulates these works with a discussion of King Lear and examines the presence of Vergil and the possible presence of Seneca. It argues that Shakespeare used Montaigne's essay to make his island epistemologically strange and that this sensitive use of a philosophical source is notable for being so deeply dramatically embedded.

摘要：

威廉·莎士比亚（William Shakespeare）的《暴风雨》（The Tempest）的一个非凡事实是，角色并不总是看到或听到同一件事。但是，尽管知识的这种疏远缩小了字符和环境之间的界限，以至于可以识别出巨大的戏剧效果，但是，这种疏远所基于的外交能量尚未得到充分的理解。本文通过考察《暴风雨》和米歇尔·德·蒙田涅格的《雷蒙德·塞邦德的启示录》之间的联系，探讨了它们的重要性。（长期以来怀疑与之相关）。它在戏剧和文章之间提出了一种新的言语平行性，但并没有将其论点局限于这种标准。相反，这是文艺复兴时期模仿实践中的一个案例研究，它从多个方面（共享的思想和感觉矩阵，类似的隐喻，文本网络）起作用，以重构莎士比亚后期戏剧中文艺复兴时期怀疑论的经典所在地。 。在此过程中，通过对李尔王的讨论将这些作品划分为三角，并检验了Vergil的存在和Seneca的可能存在。它认为莎士比亚利用蒙田的论文使他的岛屿在认识论上变得陌生，并且这种对哲学渊源的敏感使用以如此深远的戏剧性而著称。