In his review in 1958 of trends in the critical response to the Romances (Shakespeare Survey 11, 1958) Philip Edwards concluded that we had heard enough about their universality, and boldly called for more ‘mundane’ studies. Many though not all have followed his counsel since; so much so indeed that some may have forgotten how much we owe the current wave of enthusiasm for the Romances to T. S. Eliot and G. Wilson Knight. However perverse or ‘trite’ (Edwards’s word) the universalisers sometimes were, they did stimulate and certainly never hurt anyone. Recent decades have likewise seen many well-received performances of several of the Romances, though Cymbeline remains puzzling to both critics and producers (who therefore seldom risk it), and it is curious how seldom Henry VIII is staged nowadays, considering how popular the play was until fifty years ago.

My survey will attempt to give recent 'mundane' studies the due they deserve but not confine itself to them. But it both should and must be selective. Too much writing on the Romances has anyhow been repetitious or supererogatory, and whoever wishes could write an article on six different recent views of how exactly we should respond, step by step, to the first half of i, ii, or to the final scene of The Winter s Tale. Much is omitted deliberately or hesitantly, though my readers may well wish I had omitted more. I have no room to deal with bibliographical studies or problems of authorship.