Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T05:31:52.904Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Authorized Versions: Measure for Measure and the Politics of Biblical Translation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

Andrew Barnaby  and
Joan Wry
Andrew Barnaby
Affiliation:
University of Vermont
Joan Wry
Affiliation:
Saint Michael's College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Despite the common practice of reading Shakespeare's Measure for Measure in relation to the cultural politics of the first year of the Stuart monarchy, politically-oriented criticism has largely neglected the play's connection to the politics of one of King James's most ambitious undertakings: the new biblical translation first announced in January of 1604 at the Hampton Court Conference. While maintaining that the play cannot be reduced to a simple allegory of James's effort to link his new political authority to the "authorizing" power of scripture, this essay examines how the "topicality" of that effort might be registered in the play's complex pattern of biblical allusion. We argue, finally, that with its staged conflict between ethical ideal and social practice, Measure for Measure offers a cautionary tale about the dangers of deploying religious rhetoric in secular political contexts.

Type
Studies
Information
Renaissance Quarterly , Volume 51 , Issue 4 , Winter 1998 , pp. 1225 - 1254
Copyright
Copyright © Renaissance Society of America 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Althusser, Louis. “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses.” In Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays, trans. Ben Brewster, 127-86. London, 1971.Google Scholar
Aristotle, . Poetics. Trans. Gerald F. Else. Ann Arbor, MI, 1970.Google Scholar
Bacon, Francis. The Essayes or Counsels, Civill and Morall. Ed. Michael Kiernan. Cambridge, MA, 1985.Google Scholar
Bacon, Francis. The Works of Francis Bacon. Ed. James Spedding et al. 14 vols. London, 1861-74.Google Scholar
Barlow, William. The Summe and Substance of the Conference… at Hampton Court, January 14, 1603 [for 1604]. London, 1604. Reprint, Amsterdam, 1975.Google Scholar
Battenhouse, Roy. “Measure for Measure and the Christian Doctrine of Atonement.” PMLA 61 (1946): 1029–59.Google Scholar
Battenhouse, Roy. “Measure for Measure and King James.” Clio 7 (1977): 193–215.Google Scholar
Bennett, Josephine Waters. Measure for Measure as Royal Entertainment. New York, 1966.Google Scholar
Bernthal, Craig. “Staging Justice: James I and the Trial Scenes in Measure for Measure.” Studies in English Literature 32 (1992): 247-69.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, Graham. Misrepresentations: Shakespeare and the Materialists. Ithaca, 1993.Google Scholar
Bruce, F. F.. The English Bible: A History of Translations. New York, 1970.Google Scholar
Dawson, Anthony B. “Measure for Measure, New Historicism, and Theatrical Power.” Shakespeare Quarterly 39 (1988): 328-41.Google Scholar
Dollimore, Jonathan. “Transgression and Surveillance in Measure for Measure” In Political Shakespeare: New Essays in Cultural Materialism, ed. Jonathan Dollimore and Alan Sinfield, 72-87. Ithaca, 1985.Google Scholar
Frye, Northrop. Anatomy of Criticism. Princeton, 1957.Google Scholar
Geneva Bible (facs. 1560 ed.). Madison, WI, 1969.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Jonathan. James I and the Politics of Literature. Baltimore and London, 1983.Google Scholar
Greenblatt, Stephen. Shakespearean Negotiations: The Circulation of Social Energy in Renaissance England. Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1988.Google Scholar
James, I. Political Writings. Ed. Johann P Sommerville. Cambridge, 1994.Google Scholar
Jardine, Lisa. Reading Shakespeare Historically. London, 1996.Google Scholar
Jonson, Ben. “Epistle” to Volpone. In Ben Jonson. Ed. C.H. Herford and Percy Simpson. 11 vols., 5:17–21. Oxford, 1925-52.Google Scholar
Kahn, Victoria. Rhetoric, Prudence, and Skepticism in the Renaissance. Ithaca, 1985.Google Scholar
Kantorowicz, Ernst H. The King's Two Bodies: A Study in Mediaeval Political Theobgy. Princeton, 1957.Google Scholar
Knight, G. Wilson. “Measure for Measure and the Gospels.” In The Wheel of Fire, 4th ed., 73–96. London, 1949.Google Scholar
Larkin, James F. and Hughes, Paul L., ed. Stuart Royal Proclamations, vol. 1, Royal Proclamations of Kings James I, 1603-1625. Oxford, 1973.Google Scholar
Lever, J. W.. “Introduction.” In Measure for Measure. London, 1965.Google Scholar
Levin, Richard. New Readings vs. Old Plays. Chicago, 1979.Google Scholar
Levin, Richard. “The New and the Old Historicizing of Shakespeare.” Yearbook of Research in English and American Literature 11 (1995): 425-48.Google Scholar
Marcus, Leah. Puzzling Shakespeare: Local Reading and Its Discontents. Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1988.Google Scholar
Opfell, Olga S. The King James Bible Translators. London, 1982.Google Scholar
Patterson, Annabel. Shakespeare and the Popular Voice. Oxford, 1989.Google Scholar
Price, Jonathan R. “Measure for Measure and the Critics: Towards a New Approach.” Shakespeare Quarterly 20 (1969): 179–204.Google Scholar
Schleiner, Louise. “Providential Improvisation in Measure for Measure.” PMLA 97 (1982): 227-36.Google Scholar
Shakespeare, William. Measure for Measure. In The Riverside Shakespeare. Ed. G. Blakemore Evans. Boston, 1974.Google Scholar
Tennenhouse, Leonard. “Representing Power: Measure for Measure in Its Time.” In The Power of Forms in the English Renaissance, ed. Stephen Greenblatt, 139-56. Norman, OK, 1982.Google Scholar
Van Laan, Thomas. Role-Playing in Shakespeare. Toronto, 1978.Google Scholar
Velz, Sarah C. “Man's Need and God's Plan in Measure for Measure and Mark IV.” Shakespeare Survey 25 (1972): 37–44.Google Scholar
Wheeler, Richard. Shakespeare's Development and the Problem Comedies: Turn and Counter-Turn. Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1981.Google Scholar