provoke, ‘may tell us little about Shakespeare’s own personal religious beliefs,’ but instead reflects the power of theatre to engage obliquely the culture’s deepest fears and fantasies. Michael Witmore’s chapter also uses King Lear to explore Shakespeare’s relationship to an early modern ‘wisdom culture’ grounded in scripture and encapsulated in early modern proverbs. Connecting wisdom practices to lotteries and divination, Witmore finds in Lear a failure of the resources of wisdom to help characters negotiate the terrifying contingency of life. King Lear bears the imprint of Shakespeare’s wide reading in a range of unorthodox pagan and humanist writers like Lucretius and Montaigne. Lucretius’s epicurean philosophy also surfaces in Measure for Measure according to Adrian Streete. Streete explores the strange crosscurrents in the play of epicureanism and Calvinism, especially as they relate to ‘natural law, religion, and sex.’ The libertine Lucio and the deputy Angelo embody the conflicting impulses of Epicurus and Calvin, and the opposition between free-will and predestination, sexual indulgence and self-restraint. Shakespeare, Streete argues, ‘reclaim[s] Lucretius as a deeply ethical thinker, one whose philosophy offers a potent challenge to a dominant Calvinistic conception of natural law, and who celebrates, rather than condemns, human sexuality’ (p.154). Finally, Matthew Dimmock reminds us that religion meant not only Christianity but also Judaism and Islam. In fact, Shakespeare’s many offhand references to these Christian ‘others,’ along with his fuller treatment of them in Merchant and Othello, emerged from an ‘English stage... crowded with non-Christian figures’ (283). Dimmock claims that Shakespeare’s engagement with ‘infidels’ is best understood as a response to previous stage representations rather than a serious attempt to understand non-Christian religions as coherent belief systems. Ultimately, the presence of Judaism or Islam in the plays only serves to illuminate aspects of the dominant Christian culture. Overall, this collection makes a valuable and often provocative contribution to what continues to be a lively corner of Shakespearean scholarship.

中文翻译：

---

Feike Dietz，Adam Morton，Lien Roggen，Els Stronks和Marc Van Vaeck编，欧洲北部图解宗教文字，1500-1800年，Farnham：Ashgate，2014年，第xviii + 282页，ISBN：97814094675

激起了“也许对莎士比亚自己的个人宗教信仰知之甚少”，但反而反映了戏剧界倾斜地参与该文化最深层次的恐惧和幻想的力量。迈克尔·威特莫尔（Michael Witmore）的一章还利用李尔王（King Lear）探索莎士比亚与以圣经为基础，并以早期现代谚语封装的早期现代“智慧文化”的关系。将智慧实践与彩票和占卜联系起来，维特莫尔在里尔发现智慧资源的失败，无法帮助角色解决可怕的生命偶然性。在一系列非正统的异教徒和人文主义作家（如Lucretius和Montaigne）中，李尔王被莎士比亚的广泛阅读所打动。Lucretius的享乐主义哲学也出现在Adrian Streete所说的“以度量为度”中。斯特雷探索了享乐主义和加尔文主义戏剧中的奇怪错流，尤其是与“自然法，宗教和性”有关的错流。自由主义者卢西奥和副总理安吉洛体现了伊壁鸠鲁和加尔文的冲动，以及自由意志和预定，性放纵和自我克制之间的对立。斯特雷认为，莎士比亚“使卢克修蒂斯重新成为一个道德伦理思想家，他的哲学对加尔文主义占主导地位的自然法观念提出了强有力的挑战，他倡导而不是谴责人类的性行为”（第154页）。最后，马修·迪莫克（Matthew Dimmock）提醒我们，宗教不仅意味着基督教，而且意味着犹太教和伊斯兰教。实际上，莎士比亚对这些基督徒“其他人”的许多附带引用，以及他在《商人》和《奥赛罗》中对它们的更全面描述，从“英语舞台上……到处都是非基督徒人物”（283）。迪莫克声称，莎士比亚与“异教徒”的交往最好被理解为对前阶段代表作的回应，而不是认真地尝试将非基督教宗教理解为连贯的信仰体系。最终，戏剧中存在犹太教或伊斯兰教只能说明基督教主导文化的各个方面。总体而言，该藏品为莎士比亚奖学金的一个活跃的角落做出了宝贵的，常常是挑衅性的贡献。最终，戏剧中存在犹太教或伊斯兰教只能说明基督教主导文化的各个方面。总体而言，该藏品为莎士比亚奖学金的一个活跃的角落做出了宝贵的，常常是挑衅性的贡献。最终，戏剧中存在犹太教或伊斯兰教只能说明基督教主导文化的各个方面。总体而言，该藏品为莎士比亚奖学金的一个活跃的角落做出了宝贵的，常常是挑衅性的贡献。