Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Three Stage Versions of Measure for Measure' s Duke: The Providential, the Pathetic, the Personable

Three Stage Versions of Measure for Measure' s Duke: The Providential, the Pathetic, the Personable Measure for Measure most likely has been the greatest "problem" among the plays so designated ever since W. W. Lawrence's 1931 study.l But long before Lawrence's official categorizing, Measure for Measure had generated extreme views. Dr. Johnson, for instance, found it "darkened ... by the peculiarities of its author";2 Coleridge could not suspend his disbelief: "it is a hateful work";3 yet "D. G." in the preface to the Cumberland Acting Edition (1830) felt that "To the enlightened mind [Measure for Measure] will prove a source of delight.,,4 Early in the twentieth century John Masefield lamented that "the play is seldom performed . . . . It is one of the greatest works of the English mind";5 but John Dover Wilson was certain that Shakespeare at the time was in a mood of "self-laceration, weariness, and disgust.,,6 However, in his seminal essay "Measure for Measure and the Gospels" in The Wheel of Fire (1930), G. Wilson Knight led the way to new and more positive approaches to the play. For Knight, the work is allegorical in tone, the Duke quasi-divine, and "the ethical standards of the Gospels are rooted in Measure for Measure.'" Knight, though building on earlier adumbrations, http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Explorations in Renaissance Culture Brill

Three Stage Versions of Measure for Measure' s Duke: The Providential, the Pathetic, the Personable

Explorations in Renaissance Culture , Volume 12 (1): 58 – Dec 2, 1986

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/three-stage-versions-of-measure-for-measure-s-duke-the-providential-QacoTA1tX0

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
© Copyright 1986 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
ISSN
0098-2474
eISSN
2352-6963
DOI
10.1163/23526963-90000086
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Measure for Measure most likely has been the greatest "problem" among the plays so designated ever since W. W. Lawrence's 1931 study.l But long before Lawrence's official categorizing, Measure for Measure had generated extreme views. Dr. Johnson, for instance, found it "darkened ... by the peculiarities of its author";2 Coleridge could not suspend his disbelief: "it is a hateful work";3 yet "D. G." in the preface to the Cumberland Acting Edition (1830) felt that "To the enlightened mind [Measure for Measure] will prove a source of delight.,,4 Early in the twentieth century John Masefield lamented that "the play is seldom performed . . . . It is one of the greatest works of the English mind";5 but John Dover Wilson was certain that Shakespeare at the time was in a mood of "self-laceration, weariness, and disgust.,,6 However, in his seminal essay "Measure for Measure and the Gospels" in The Wheel of Fire (1930), G. Wilson Knight led the way to new and more positive approaches to the play. For Knight, the work is allegorical in tone, the Duke quasi-divine, and "the ethical standards of the Gospels are rooted in Measure for Measure.'" Knight, though building on earlier adumbrations,

Journal

Explorations in Renaissance CultureBrill

Published: Dec 2, 1986

There are no references for this article.