ABSTRACT

Shakespeare and Müntzer place an extraordinary belief in ordinary people. In the preacher’s uniquely histrionic understanding of the eucharist, it is the congregation that enable its mysterious transformations, while Shakespeare insists that the ‘rough magic’ (The Tempest, 5.1.50) of the stage happens because of his audience. Both suggest that common folk have a responsibility to speak their minds and act according to their consciences. Although many of the themes, tropes and images their works share were drawn quite separately from the Bible’s prophetic books and their native apocalyptical traditions, this article illustrates the comparable ways in which inbrutation is used to attack the hypocrisies and downright malice of the powers that be. However, whereas Müntzer remained convinced that tribulations of this vale of tears would be overcome at Doomsday, Shakespeare’s conception of ‘the promis’d end’ (Lear, 5.2.238) is essentially tragic, for the agonies he stages are in no way redeemed. Indeed, Lear implies that the desire to return to Eden, which motivated Müntzer and his compatriots to take up arms against the princes of the Holy Roman Empire, is dangerously reactionary.

摘要

莎士比亚和明策对普通人抱有非凡的信念。在传教士对圣餐的独特戏剧性理解中，是会众实现了其神秘的转变，而莎士比亚则坚持认为“粗暴的魔法”（暴风雨, 5.1.50) 的舞台发生是因为他的观众。两者都表明，普通民众有责任说出自己的想法并根据自己的良心行事。尽管他们的作品所分享的许多主题、比喻和图像都与圣经的预言书和他们本土的启示录传统完全不同，但本文说明了使用 inbration 来攻击那些有权势的虚伪和彻头彻尾的恶意的类似方式。 . 然而，虽然 Müntzer 仍然相信这个眼泪谷的苦难会在世界末日被克服，但莎士比亚关于“承诺的结局”（Lear，5.2.238）的概念本质上是悲剧性的，因为他所表现的痛苦绝没有得到救赎. 的确，李尔 暗示返回伊甸园的愿望是危险的反动行为，这促使 Müntzer 和他的同胞拿起武器对抗神圣罗马帝国的诸侯。