Reviews 91 recent study of theatrical reception, see Patrice Pavis’s Languages of the Stage [New York: Performing Arts Journal Publications, 1982].) And, when Berek’s essay turns to discussing specific instances of imita tion, the necessarily brief summaries do not always inspire complete confidence (compare, for example, Berek’s assessment of the role of Barabas in The Jew of Malta with the more complex views expressed by Minshull). Katharine Eisaman Maus focuses her discussion on one particular instance of dramatic imitation, comparing the sociopolitical implications of Dryden and D’Avenant’s Tempest with those of Shake speare’s original. The success of her otherwise plausible argument con cerning opposing notions of sovereignty in the two works is qualified by a problem that arises at a crucial point. I am not at all convinced by the assertion that Gonzalo’s dream of a care-free, labor-free, pastoral utopia “effectively articulates Prospero’s ideal” in Shakespeare’s play, nor do I find such an ideal represented in Prospero’s Act IV masque, since Shakespeare has that masque repeatedly evoke a specifically cul tivated (albeit bountiful and winter-free) nature. From a series that requests essays “that are exploratory in nature, that are concerned with critical and scholarly methodology, that raise new questions or embody fresh approaches to perennial problems,” a title such as Drama and Society arouses great expectations, expectations only partially fulfilled by the present volume. Since 1968, with the inauguration of its new series, Renaissance Drama has organized each yearly issue around such a title. Early numbers, however, also explicitly allowed for the inclusion of “papers on unrelated topics.” The present volume suggests that it might be worth considering a return to such an open editorial policy. Such a change, by removing some of the obvious temporal constraints that the present system places on writers and editors alike, might help to encourage submissions from more scholars doing innovative and methodologically sophisticated work. Surely we need a forum for the best and most innovative articles on all aspects of Renais sance drama more than we need collections of essays that fit under a given topic for the year. JAMES R. SIEMON Boston University James A. Robinson. Eugene O’Neill and Oriental Thought: A Divided Vision. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press, 1982. Pp. xii + 201. $17.50. Perhaps it is fitting that James Robinson’s study of O’Neill and Oriental religions requires a leap of faith on the part of the reader. The questions that haunt this book are: “How deep was O’Neill’s knowledge of Oriental religions?” and “Is an understanding of O’Neill’s plays en riched by a study of O’Neill’s dabbling in Oriental faiths?” Robinson of course contends that O’Neill’s interest was profound and that the plays can be understood by looking at their Oriental, usually Taoist, under pinnings. I came to this study skeptical but ready to be convinced about the depth of O’Neill’s knowledge and use of Taoism and of other Asian faiths. I did not, however, find Robinson’s arguments persuasive, though for others they may be so. For the most part, Robinson’s study by indirections finds directions out. O’Neill’s knowledge of Hinduism came, Robinson argues, through adolescent reading of Emerson, through a Theosophist pamphlet he read that drew heavily on Hindu conceptions of karma, and through his pur chase at some indeterminate date of Muller’s Six Systems of Indian Philosophy. O’Neill’s acquaintance with Buddhism seems to stem from O’Neill’s friend Terry Carlin and from the fact that O’Neill owned a copy of A. K. Coomaraswamy’s Buddha and the Gospel of Buddhism. O’Neill’s interest in Taoism is traced to his possession of the Tao Te Ching and of the first half of the Chuang Tse as well as to his friendship with Lin Yutang and Mai-Mai Sze. In presenting these bases for O’Neill’s knowledge, Robinson provides, in his study’s second chapter, an excel lent brief summary of the main tenets of Hinduism, Buddism and Taoism. In his third chapter, Robinson extends his argument to assert that since...