The Tempest Explained: Power, Forgiveness, and Control

What if Shakespeare invited today’s top scholars to debate whether Prospero was just—or controlling?

Introduction by William Shakespeare 

Good friends and patient readers,
If this play has seemed to you a tale of storms and spirits, know that the thunder was never my chief concern. I set the sea in motion only to still it again, and I raised magic not to celebrate power, but to ask what remains when power is laid aside.

Prospero is not drawn as a monster, nor as a saint. He is a man who lost authority once and swore never to lose it again. On his island, he governs not by swords, but by knowledge, timing, and command of perception. Every soul you meet here—Ariel, Caliban, Miranda, the nobles—is caught within the reach of that careful intelligence.

As you read, I ask you not to wonder merely what happens, but who is allowed to act freely, and who is moved like a piece upon the board. You will find no simple villains, no clean reckonings. Forgiveness arrives, yes—but it arrives on Prospero’s terms.

If this story unsettles you, that is no accident. I wished to leave you not with justice complete, but with order restored—and to let you decide whether those two are the same.

(Note: This is an imaginary conversation, a creative exploration of an idea, and not a real speech or event.) 

Topic 1 — Was Prospero a Just Ruler or a Master of Control?

The discussion opens not with magic, but with legitimacy. Power, in The Tempest, does not announce itself as violence; it presents itself as order.

James Shapiro begins.

James Shapiro
Readers often ask whether Prospero is a wise ruler restoring justice or a tyrant manipulating events from behind the scenes. The play forces that question early. Prospero controls the storm, the island, and the narrative—but control alone doesn’t equal justice. So where should we draw the line?

Stephen Greenblatt
Prospero’s authority rests on competence, not consent. He lost Milan because he withdrew from politics into study, yet on the island he governs through total oversight. That irony matters. The play suggests that knowledge without accountability easily becomes domination.

Jonathan Bate
And Prospero learns from his fall. In Milan he trusted others; on the island he trusts no one. Every encounter is staged, supervised, or corrected. He becomes what he once failed to be: a ruler who never lets go. The question is whether that correction is moral growth—or moral hardening.

David Scott Kastan
What complicates this is Prospero’s self-awareness. He knows he is orchestrating events. He repeatedly tells us what he is doing and why. That transparency can feel reassuring—but transparency does not cancel coercion. A director can be honest and still deny freedom to the actors.

Stanley Wells
Prospero’s language reinforces this. He frames every act as necessary. Necessary for correction. Necessary for harmony. Necessary for the future. Shakespeare shows us how easily power justifies itself by appealing to outcomes rather than process.

Shapiro steers the group toward the first core question.

James Shapiro
So is Prospero pursuing justice—or is he enforcing order disguised as justice?

Stephen Greenblatt
Justice implies proportion and limits. Prospero has neither. He controls memory, movement, even emotion. His enemies suffer confusion and fear long before they understand why. That imbalance tips the scale toward control.

Jonathan Bate
Yet Shakespeare also shows restraint. Prospero does not kill. He delays punishment. He ultimately forgives. Those choices matter. The play resists turning him into a simple tyrant. Instead, it asks whether restraint alone is enough to make power just.

David Scott Kastan
I think Shakespeare is less interested in Prospero’s morality than in the mechanism of authority. Prospero’s rule works. It restores titles, reunites families, prevents further bloodshed. The discomfort arises because effectiveness feels like legitimacy—until we examine the cost.

Stanley Wells
And the cost is silence. No one truly challenges Prospero once the storm begins. Opposition collapses not through argument, but through exhaustion. Order is achieved because resistance becomes impossible.

Shapiro presses the second core question.

James Shapiro
Is Prospero closer to a ruler, a magician, or a playwright staging a play?

David Scott Kastan
The boundaries blur deliberately. Prospero writes scenes, assigns roles, cues entrances, and controls timing. That theatricality isn’t decorative—it’s diagnostic. Shakespeare is showing how authority often functions like theatre: convincing, immersive, and difficult to resist once you accept the premise.

Stephen Greenblatt
And theatre is persuasive because it feels meaningful. Prospero’s magic creates emotional truth even when it denies agency. That’s the danger Shakespeare highlights: power that feels reasonable can be more absolute than power that feels cruel.

Jonathan Bate
This is why Prospero’s final renunciation matters. Giving up magic is not only moral—it’s structural. Without the tools of total control, Prospero must return to a world where authority is negotiated, not enforced.

Stanley Wells
Yet even that renunciation is staged. Prospero chooses when and how to let go. Shakespeare leaves us with an unresolved tension: can power ever truly relinquish itself, or does it simply change form?

Shapiro closes the session with a careful summation.

James Shapiro
So the record for Topic 1 is this: Prospero rules effectively, intelligently, and without overt cruelty—but his authority depends on control that allows no refusal. Shakespeare does not ask us to condemn Prospero outright. He asks us to notice how easily justice begins to resemble authorship, and how quickly order replaces consent.

Next, we turn to the gentlest figure in the play—and ask whether promised freedom can still be a form of bondage.

Topic 2 — Freedom Promised, Freedom Delayed: Ariel and Invisible Servitude

If Prospero’s authority is overt, Ariel’s bondage is subtle. Topic 2 turns from visible power to something quieter—and more unsettling: obedience sustained by promises.

Emma Smith opens the discussion.

Emma Smith
Ariel is often read as light, music, and air—but beneath that beauty is a persistent question: is Ariel free, or merely waiting to be free? Shakespeare gives us a servant who performs willingly, speaks gently, and still longs for release. That tension deserves attention.

Gail Kern Paster
Ariel’s servitude is bodiless but not painless. Freedom here is delayed, conditional, and constantly deferred. Prospero reminds Ariel of past rescue whenever Ariel asks about the future. That emotional accounting is a classic mechanism of control.

Catherine Belsey
What’s striking is how often Ariel’s obedience is framed as gratitude. The logic is simple: because I saved you, you owe me. Shakespeare exposes how moral debt can replace chains. Ariel is not whipped or threatened—he is persuaded.

Northrop Frye
And because Ariel is not human, the audience is tempted to soften the issue. We tell ourselves this isn’t slavery; it’s service. Shakespeare complicates that comfort by giving Ariel desire, impatience, and emotion. Those are the marks of a will constrained.

Andrew Hadfield
In early modern political terms, Ariel represents the ideal subject: loyal, productive, minimally resistant. The danger of such a subject is that domination becomes invisible. Control no longer needs force—it runs on expectation.

Smith brings the group to the first core question.

Emma Smith
So is Ariel enslaved—or persuaded into obedience?

Gail Kern Paster
Psychologically, persuasion can be more binding than force. Ariel internalizes Prospero’s timetable. He waits, counts, hopes. That waiting is itself a discipline.

Catherine Belsey
Yes. Ariel’s freedom is always described as imminent, never immediate. That temporal delay keeps Ariel compliant. Shakespeare shows how power operates not by denying freedom outright, but by promising it just out of reach.

Northrop Frye
And the play never shows Ariel resisting openly. That absence is important. Compliance becomes the norm, making domination appear natural rather than imposed.

Andrew Hadfield
Which mirrors political authority. Subjects rarely revolt when they believe reward is coming. Control functions best when it feels temporary.

Smith presses the second question.

Emma Smith
Does Prospero’s kindness toward Ariel justify that control?

Catherine Belsey
Kindness can coexist with domination. Prospero speaks gently to Ariel, but gentleness doesn’t negate hierarchy. Shakespeare invites us to question whether benevolence excuses ownership.

Gail Kern Paster
Prospero’s kindness also has limits. When Ariel expresses impatience, Prospero reminds him of his prior suffering. Compassion quickly becomes leverage.

Northrop Frye
This is not cruelty—it’s management. And management is often more effective than cruelty because it appears reasonable.

Smith moves to the final core question.

Emma Smith
What kind of freedom does Ariel actually desire?

Andrew Hadfield
Ariel wants absence of command. Not autonomy in society, not power—simply release. That modest desire makes the delay more troubling, not less.

Gail Kern Paster
And when freedom finally arrives, it is silent. Ariel exits without ceremony. Shakespeare denies us a celebration, forcing us to ask whether delayed freedom ever feels whole.

Smith closes the session.

Emma Smith
So the record for Topic 2 is this: Ariel’s servitude shows how power can operate without violence—through kindness, debt, and time. Shakespeare asks us to consider whether freedom promised is freedom given, and whether obedience sustained by hope is still a form of captivity.

Next, we turn to the figure who resists most loudly—and ask who truly owns the island Prospero claims to rule.

Topic 3 — Caliban, the Island, and the Question of Ownership

Topic 3 confronts the most openly contested ground in The Tempest: the island itself. Unlike Ariel’s quiet obedience, Caliban’s resistance is loud, angry, and impossible to ignore. The question modern readers ask is not simply who Caliban is, but what was taken from him—and by whom.

Leah Marcus opens the discussion.

Leah Marcus
Caliban insists on one claim repeatedly: “This island’s mine.” That claim forces us to ask whether Prospero’s rule is restoration—or occupation. Shakespeare gives Caliban a voice, a memory, and a grievance. That already complicates any simple reading of villainy.

Ania Loomba
Caliban is often treated as monstrous, but his language tells a different story. He knows the island intimately. He names its sounds, its spirits, its rhythms. Shakespeare gives him ecological knowledge, not just rage. That knowledge challenges Prospero’s assumption of rightful ownership.

Paul Brown
Prospero’s authority rests on a familiar colonial logic: improvement. He claims Caliban was “savage,” that he taught him language, discipline, order. Civilization becomes the justification for dispossession. Shakespeare shows how easily moral superiority replaces legal right.

Peter Hulme
And Caliban’s so-called crime—attempting to violate Miranda—is not minimized, but it is contextualized. Shakespeare refuses to let that act erase Caliban’s prior status. The play asks whether one crime nullifies an entire claim to land and identity.

Terry Eagleton
What we see is class domination layered onto colonial domination. Caliban is forced into labor, denied autonomy, and mocked for aspiring to power. His rebellion is clumsy because he lacks the tools of authority—but that doesn’t make the injustice imaginary.

Marcus steers the conversation to the first core question.

Leah Marcus
So is Caliban a villain, a victim, or both?

Ania Loomba
He is both—and Shakespeare insists we hold that tension. Caliban is capable of cruelty, but cruelty is not his defining feature. Dispossession is. The play resists turning him into a symbol without cost.

Paul Brown
Caliban’s rage is political, not just personal. He has lost land, agency, and status. Shakespeare allows him anger without redemption, which is rare and uncomfortable.

Peter Hulme
Importantly, Caliban is never fully reabsorbed into the system. Ariel is freed; the nobles are forgiven. Caliban remains outside the restored order. That exclusion speaks volumes.

Marcus presses the second question.

Leah Marcus
Does Prospero’s rule resemble colonization?

Paul Brown
In structure, yes. Prospero arrives with superior technology—magic—and imposes hierarchy. He rewrites the island’s meaning. What was home becomes territory.

Ania Loomba
And language is central. Prospero teaches Caliban to speak, then uses that speech to control him. Shakespeare exposes how education can function as domination when it erases prior identity.

Terry Eagleton
Colonialism often claims moral necessity. Prospero believes he improves the island. Shakespeare shows how improvement narratives conceal exploitation.

Marcus moves to the final question.

Leah Marcus
Can civilization justify dispossession?

Peter Hulme
Shakespeare refuses to answer cleanly. He presents civilization as order—but also as loss. Caliban’s final recognition of his own foolishness does not restore what was taken.

Ania Loomba
And that unresolved loss is the point. The play ends without repairing the original injustice. Restoration is selective.

Marcus closes the session.

Leah Marcus
So the record for Topic 3 is this: Caliban’s story forces us to confront ownership not as law, but as power. Shakespeare does not absolve Caliban—but he does not erase his claim. The island remains contested, even after Prospero prepares to leave.

Next, we turn to the most seemingly innocent relationship in the play—and ask whether love itself can be shaped by control.

Topic 4 — Love, Innocence, and Control: Miranda & Ferdinand

After power, servitude, and dispossession, Topic 4 turns to what appears—at first glance—to be the gentlest part of The Tempest. Miranda and Ferdinand seem to offer relief: innocence, love, renewal. Yet Shakespeare frames their romance so carefully that it invites a deeper question: how free is a love that unfolds under constant supervision?

Elaine Showalter opens by reframing the couple.

Elaine Showalter
Miranda and Ferdinand are often treated as symbols—purity, hope, the future. But symbols can be constructed. The play asks us to consider whether their love emerges naturally, or whether it is cultivated as part of Prospero’s larger design.

Janet Adelman
Miranda’s innocence is striking, but it is also managed. She has grown up isolated, with Prospero as her sole authority. Her emotional world is carefully limited. That doesn’t make her naïve—but it does make her receptive.

Coppélia Kahn
What’s important is that Miranda’s virtue is rewarded because it aligns with obedience. She falls in love quickly, without resistance, without complication. In Shakespeare’s world, innocence functions smoothly when it does not challenge power.

Carol Thomas Neely
Psychologically, their love is intense because it is compressed. Miranda has never seen other men. Ferdinand believes his father is dead. Emotion fills the vacuum left by loss and isolation. Shakespeare shows how vulnerability accelerates attachment.

Harold Bloom
And Prospero knows this. He does not prevent love—he stages it. He tests Ferdinand, delays gratification, intensifies desire. Love becomes another instrument in Prospero’s restoration of order.

Showalter guides the group to the first core question.

Elaine Showalter
So is Miranda’s innocence genuine—or constructed?

Janet Adelman
It’s both. Miranda is sincere, compassionate, emotionally open. But her innocence exists because Prospero has controlled her exposure to the world. Shakespeare presents innocence not as a natural state, but as a protected condition.

Coppélia Kahn
Which makes innocence fragile. Miranda’s famous line—“O brave new world”—is sincere wonder, not irony. The tragedy is that her wonder rests on incomplete knowledge. Shakespeare leaves us unsure whether that wonder will survive experience.

Showalter turns to Ferdinand.

Elaine Showalter
Is Ferdinand’s love free—or guided?

Carol Thomas Neely
Ferdinand’s labor is crucial. Prospero forces him to carry logs, to suffer visibly. That suffering proves devotion—but it is also surveillance. Love is tested under authority, not discovered independently.

Harold Bloom
Yet Shakespeare does not make Ferdinand resent this. He accepts the trial willingly. That willingness is what complicates the scene. Power does not feel oppressive when it aligns with desire.

Showalter asks the final question.

Elaine Showalter
Does love function as reconciliation—or reward?

Janet Adelman
Love resolves political conflict. The marriage repairs alliances, restores lineage, and secures the future. Emotion becomes a bridge between generations of power.

Coppélia Kahn
That doesn’t negate its sincerity—but it does frame it. Love here is allowed because it serves order.

Showalter closes the session with a gentle but unsettling conclusion.

Elaine Showalter
So the record for Topic 4 is this: Miranda and Ferdinand’s love is real, but not autonomous. It grows inside boundaries set by Prospero’s authority. Shakespeare asks us to consider whether innocence can exist without protection—and whether love shaped by control can remain free once control is lifted.

Next, we turn to the final act—where forgiveness, theatre, and letting go of power converge.

Topic 5 — Forgiveness, Theatre, and Letting Go of Power

The final topic returns to the question everything in The Tempest has been circling: what does it mean for Prospero to forgive? Is forgiveness a moral awakening—or simply the final act of control?

Barbara A. Mowat opens with the tension at the heart of the ending.

Barbara A. Mowat
Prospero’s forgiveness is often read as the play’s moral resolution. But Shakespeare complicates that comfort. Forgiveness here is not mutual, not negotiated, and not earned. It is announced. That raises the question: is this mercy—or authority asserting itself one last time?

Paul Werstine
From a textual standpoint, what’s striking is who speaks and who doesn’t. Prospero narrates the ending. Others respond—or remain silent. Forgiveness flows in one direction. Shakespeare structures reconciliation as something given, not shared.

Gordon McMullan
And notably, Antonio never repents. He neither apologizes nor explains himself. Prospero forgives him anyway. That choice forces us to ask whether forgiveness requires transformation—or merely closure.

David Crystal
Language matters here. Prospero’s speech becomes ceremonial, elevated, almost ritualistic. Forgiveness is performed publicly, like a final scene meant to satisfy the audience’s sense of completion—even if moral repair remains incomplete.

Jan Kott
On stage, this feels unsettling. The wrongs are acknowledged but not undone. The victims accept peace without justice. Shakespeare resists sentimental reconciliation. The ending feels calm—but not healed.

Mowat brings the group to the first core question.

Barbara A. Mowat
Is Prospero’s forgiveness genuine—or theatrical?

Paul Werstine
It is both. Prospero has truly abandoned revenge, but he has not abandoned control. He chooses the timing, the language, and the limits of forgiveness. That orchestration makes mercy feel staged.

Gordon McMullan
Forgiveness becomes a political tool. It stabilizes the future without reopening the past. Shakespeare shows how reconciliation can function as governance.

Mowat presses the next question.

Barbara A. Mowat
Why does Antonio never repent—and why is that allowed?

Jan Kott
Because repentance would disrupt the structure of the ending. Shakespeare prioritizes resolution over moral symmetry. Antonio’s silence is the price of peace.

David Crystal
And linguistically, silence carries weight. Antonio’s refusal to speak reminds us that forgiveness does not equal understanding. Something remains unresolved.

Mowat moves to the final question.

Barbara A. Mowat
Is giving up magic an act of humility—or authorship?

Gordon McMullan
It is an author stepping away from the stage. Prospero relinquishes the tools that let him control outcomes. Shakespeare invites us to see power as something that must eventually be surrendered.

Jan Kott
But even that surrender is chosen. Prospero decides when the play ends. Shakespeare leaves us with a paradox: power that renounces itself is still power.

Mowat closes the series with a measured conclusion.

Barbara A. Mowat
So the final record is this: The Tempest ends not with justice fulfilled, but with power set aside. Forgiveness calms the world without fully repairing it. Shakespeare does not promise moral clarity—only release. And perhaps that is the play’s final truth: that letting go is not the same as making things right, but sometimes it is the only ending available.

Final Thoughts by William Shakespeare

Now the storm has passed, the spirits are released, and the island grows quiet. Prospero breaks his staff, not because it failed him, but because it succeeded too well. Power, once mastered, must be relinquished—or it becomes a prison even to its keeper.

You may notice that not all are transformed. Antonio does not repent. Caliban is not restored. Forgiveness does not mend every wound, nor does it demand confession from all who caused harm. I leave these fractures visible, for endings that heal everything often tell the least truth.

If there is mercy here, it is a fragile mercy—chosen, not earned. If there is freedom, it comes late, and without celebration. And if there is wisdom, it lies not in mastery, but in knowing when to step away from the stage.

I end this play as I have ended others, by turning to you. What you grant—approval, doubt, reflection—completes the work. For stories, like power, only exist while they are held.

And now, with calm seas and unanswered questions, I take my leave.

Short Bios:

James Shapiro
A leading Shakespeare historian whose work explores how power, politics, and history shape Shakespeare’s plays and their meanings.

Stephen Greenblatt
Founder of New Historicism, known for analyzing Shakespeare through authority, culture, and systems of power.

Jonathan Bate
Renowned biographer of Shakespeare, bridging literary scholarship, history, and performance.

David Scott Kastan
A major Shakespeare critic who examines how plays function as cultural and political systems rather than moral lessons.

Stanley Wells
One of the most influential editors of Shakespeare’s texts, emphasizing clarity, language, and performance context.

Emma Smith
Oxford professor known for making Shakespeare accessible while addressing ambiguity, authority, and reader response.

Gail Kern Paster
Scholar of early modern psychology and emotion, focusing on how discipline and control shape human behavior.

Catherine Belsey
Literary theorist recognized for ideological readings of Shakespeare and the politics of language.

Northrop Frye
Influential theorist who framed Shakespeare’s plays through myth, structure, and symbolic order.

Andrew Hadfield
Scholar connecting Shakespeare’s drama to early modern politics, authority, and identity.

Leah Marcus
Expert on early modern culture and censorship, exploring how texts shift meaning across time.

Ania Loomba
Leading voice in postcolonial Shakespeare studies, especially on race, empire, and power.

Paul Brown
Critic known for analyzing colonial logic and domination in Renaissance literature.

Peter Hulme
Scholar focusing on colonial narratives and the politics of land, ownership, and identity.

Terry Eagleton
Major literary critic examining ideology, class, and power structures in canonical texts.

Elaine Showalter
Pioneering feminist critic whose work reshaped discussions of gender, voice, and authority.

Janet Adelman
Scholar known for psychological and family-centered readings of Shakespeare’s plays.

Coppélia Kahn
Expert on gender, authority, and masculinity in Shakespearean drama.

Carol Thomas Neely
Scholar blending literary analysis with psychological insight, especially around emotion and identity.

Harold Bloom
Influential critic focused on character, imagination, and Shakespeare’s impact on modern consciousness.

Barbara A. Mowat
Esteemed editor and scholar emphasizing textual authority and interpretive responsibility.

Paul Werstine
Expert in Shakespearean textual transmission and editorial theory.

Gordon McMullan
Scholar of Renaissance drama with a focus on authorship, endings, and theatrical power.

David Crystal
Linguist renowned for explaining how Shakespeare’s language works in sound and structure.

Jan Kott
Theatre critic known for existential and modern political readings of Shakespeare.