ListofIllustrations
2.1. ‘RegniAngloisraeliticiTypus’,fromThomasMorton, Salomonor AtreatisedeclaringthestateofthekingdomeofIsrael (1596M88).53
2.2. ‘SolomonandtheQueenofSheba’ , c.1535,byHansHolbein theYounger.60
3.1. ‘TheburningofMartyrLaurenceSaundersatCouentry’,from JohnFoxe, ActesandMonuments (RB59843).91
6.1.TheWhoreofBabylon,fromMartinLuther, DasNewe TestamentDeutzsch. 179
6.2.ThePopeontheseven-headedbeast,fromPatrickForbes, An exquisitecommentarievpontheReuelationofSaintIohn (RB20180).181
NotetotheReader
Originalspellingandpunctuationhasbeenretainedinquotationsandintitles ofearlyprintedworks.Unlessotherwisenoted,allbiblicalreferencesaretothe 1587editionoftheGenevaBible: TheBiblethatis,theHolyScripturescontainedin theOldeandNeweTestament (London:ChristopherBarker,1587).
Introduction
OHthatIknewhowallthylightscombine, Andtheconfigurationsoftheirglorie! Seeingnotonelyhoweachversedothshine, Butalltheconstellationsofthestorie.
Thisversemarksthat,andbothdomakeamotion Untoathird,thattenleavesoffdothlie: Thenasdispersedherbsdowatchapotion, ThesethreemakeupsomeChristiansdestinie: Sucharethysecrets,whichmylifemakesgood, Andcommentsonthee:forinev’rything Thywordsdo findemeout,¶llelsbring, Andinanothermakemeunderstood.
Starresarepoorebooks,&oftentimesdomisse: Thisbookofstarreslightstoeternallblisse.1
Forabookexaminingtherelationshipbetweenbiblicalreadingandthe literatureoftheearlymodernperiod,GeorgeHerbert’ s ‘TheHolyScriptures(II)’ isanevocativereminderofliteraryinterestinmattersofbiblical interpretation.Herbert’ssonnetruminatesonacoreprincipleofreformed hermeneutics,namely,thattheBibleisacollectionofconstellatedwritingsthatspeakofonestory, ‘thestorie’.Theunifyingmetanarrativethat thesonnet’sopeningquatraincelebratesisthelifeanddeathofChrist, whoidentifiedhimselfintheGospelsastheonewrittenofin ‘theLaweof Moses,andintheProphetsandinthePsalmes’ (Luke24:44).Herbert’ s poeticmeditationonscripture’sChristologicalligaturesconveysmuchto usofearlymodernattitudestowardsbiblicalreading.Ofparticularrelevancetothisbookisthecasemadefortypologicalreading.Thecomparisonofscripturewithitselfandwithhistoryrevealsa ‘motion’,asHerbert termsit,thatstretchesacrossbiblicalhistoryandintothepresent.2
1 GeorgeHerbert, TheTempleSacredpoemsandprivateejaculations (Cambridge:Thom. Buck,andRogerDaniel,1633),50–1.
2 Foranexplanationoftypologyasareadingpracticeinthisperiod,seepp.28–35.
Readinthisway,thescripturesspeakof ‘Christiansdestinie’ and ‘ me ’ ,as wellasChrist.
ThebeliefthattheBible’snarrativeswereprefigurativeofthepresent wasacompellingoneinthesixteenthandseventeenthcenturies,anditis withthisdominantsuppositionofearlymodernbiblicalreadingthatthis bookisconcerned. BiblicalReadingsandLiteraryWritingsinEarlyModern England,1558–1625 considershowtheBiblewasreadandappliedto individualandnationalcircumstances,andmapstheconnectionbetween thesereadingsandvariousformsofwriting.3 Itarguesthatdrama,poetry, andlifewritings,aswellassermonsandbiblicalcommentaries,bearthe hallmarksoftheperiod’sdominantreadingpractices,anddointerpretativework.Intracingtheimpactofbiblicalreadingacrossarangeofearly modernwriting,thisbookalsodemonstratesthatliteraryreimaginingsof, andallusionsto,theBiblewerecommon,varied,andideologicallyevocative.Asthechaptersthatfollowillustratetheextenttowhichearlymodern literatureparticipatedintheologicaldebateandarticulatedinnovative programmesofexegesis,thisbookatteststotheBible’sextraordinary impactonsixteenth-andseventeenth-centuryculturemoregenerally.
TheBiblewas,asHannibalHamlinputsit, ‘theage’smostimportant book’,andinrecentdecadesthe fieldofearlymodernstudieshasbecome muchmoreattunedtotheprecisenatureofscripture’sprofoundinfluence.4 InvestigationsintothecirculationoftheGenevaBible,printedinEngland from1576,andthe1611AuthorizedVersionBible,haveshownthatthe BiblewasthebookmostlikelytobeownedinEnglishhouseholds,and tracedhowtheavailabilityofthescripturesinthevernacularcontributedto significantdevelopmentsindomesticreadingpractices.5 Itisclearthat Bible-readingandattendanceatsermonsshapedtheeducation,religious
3 TheliteraryworksconsideredbythisbookemergeduringthereignsofQueen ElizabethIandKingJamesI&VI;yet,Ihaveendeavouredthroughout,whereappropriate, toacknowledgehowthesewritingsengagewithearlierandlatertraditionsofbiblical interpretation.Equally,althoughtheliterarywritingsthatIaddresswerepublishedor performedinEngland,mydiscussionoftheperiod’sexegeticalculturefrequentlyaddresses interpretativetrendsacrossEuropeasameansofacknowledgingthecontinuities,and fissures,inpost-Reformationreadingsofscripture.
4 HannibalHamlin, TheBibleinShakespeare (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2013),3.
5 WilliamSherman, UsedBooks:MarkingReadersinRenaissanceEngland (Philadelphia: UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,2008),72;FemkeMolekamp, WomenandtheBiblein EarlyModernEngland:ReligiousReadingandWriting (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress, 2013),11,19–50.SeealsoGordonCampbell, Bible:TheStoryoftheKingJamesVersion, 1611–2011 (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2010);HannibalHamlinandNorman W.Jones,eds., TheKingJamesBibleafter400Years:Literary,Linguistic,andCultural Influences (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2010);EuanCameron,ed., TheNew CambridgeHistoryoftheBible:Volume3,From1450to1750 (Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress,2016).
beliefs,andday-to-dayroutinesofindividuals,andthatthedevotional habitsofthelaitycouldincludevariousmodesofreading.6 Thegrowing interestinearlymoderndevotionalpracticeshasdemonstratedtheparticularimportanceofwritingtobiblicalreadinghabitsinthesixteenthand seventeenthcenturies.7 Bible-readingfrequentlyinvolvedannotating scripture’smargins,compilingcommonplacebooksandnote-making onsermonsandspiritualconversations.Thesekindsofactivereading habitswerepractisedroutinelybyliteratewomen,aswellasmen,as FemkeMolekamp’sstudyoffemaledevotionalhabitshasshown. ‘Private Biblereading’,Molekampexplains, ‘wassometimesaccompaniedby rigorousactsofwriting...theliteratereadermightannotatethescripturesandprintedmarginaliaasshedigestedthem. ’8 Certainly,biblical readingwasgenerativeinearlymodernEngland thosewhocouldread theBiblefrequentlydidsowithpeninhand.
ThekindsofwritinginducedbyBible-readinginearlymodernEngland wererichlyvaried.Beyondmarkingsandannotations,biblicalreadingshapedtheinformationrecordedindiaries,lifewritings,andadvice manuals.ManysuchwritingsciteandencouragedailyBible-reading habitsandcontainreligiousreflection.Others,likeRichardStonley’ s diary,capturehabitualreadingthroughthetranscriptionofaportionof biblicaltextbeforeeachentry.9 Culturesofbiblicalreadingarealso traceableintheperiod’spoeticwritings.TheBibleinformsthestructure andimageryofmeditativepoetrybywritersincludingAnneWheathill andRobertAylett,aswellasPassionpoems,devotionallyrics,andepics. TheBible’simpactonpoetssuchasMarySidney,GeorgeHerbert,and JohnMiltonhasbeenestablishedinseveralimportantstudies,butthere remainsasizeablechunkofbiblicalversethathasbeenlittleexplored.10
6 OndailyhabitsofBible-readingseeNaomiTadmor, TheSocialUniverseoftheEnglish Bible:Scripture,Society,andCultureinEarlyModernEngland (Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress,2010);KateNarveson, BibleReadersandLayWritersinEarlyModern England:GenderandSelf-DefinitioninanEmergentWritingCulture (Farnham:Ashgate, 2012);Molekamp, WomenandtheBible,84–118;AlecRyrie, BeingProtestantinReformationBritain (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2013),259–92.Forconsiderationofearly modernsermoncultureseeArnoldHunt, TheArtofHearing:EnglishPreachersandtheir Audiences,1590–1640 (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2010);MaryMorrissey, PoliticsandthePaul’sCrossSermons,1558–1642 (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2011); PeterMcCullough,HughAdlington,andEmmaRhatigan,eds., TheOxfordHandbookof theEarlyModernSermon (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2012).
7 SeeSherman, UsedBooks;Narveson, BibleReaders;Molekamp, WomenandtheBible, 51–150.
8 Molekamp, WomenandtheBible,34.
9 Stonley’sdiaryisintheFolgerShakespeareLibrary,MSV.a.459–61.
10 ScholarswhohaveconsideredtheBible’sinfluenceonthesepoetsinclude:Danielle Clarke, ThePoliticsofEarlyModernWomen’sWritings (Harlow:Longman,2001),127–47; HannibalHamlin, PsalmCultureinEarlyModernEnglishLiterature (Cambridge:
TheSidneyPsalmsaside,biblicalverseparaphraseisparticularlyneglected byliteraryscholars,despitethepopularityofthisgenreamongsixteenthandseventeenth-centurypoetsandreaders.Oneconsequenceofthe criticalmarginalizationofbiblicalverseistheside-liningofagreatdeal ofwritingbyearlymodernwomen;anotherisadistortedimpressionof theoutputofsomeprolificandpopularwriters.11 Theparaphrasesof womenincludingMaryRoperandAnneSouthwelldeservefurtherstudy, asdoesthebiblicalpoetryofWilliamBaldwinandFrancesQuarles. AlthoughthebiblicalparaphrasespennedbyQuarlesinthe1620shave beendismissedaspious,thesepoems,asAdrianStreetepointsout,make upasignificantportionofQuarles’ canonandwarrantscrutinyalongside hisbetter-knownCarolineworks.12 Streetehasshownthatsomeof Quarles’ biblicalparaphrasesoffersharpcritiqueofthereligiouspolitics attheendofJames’ reign,whileothers,like SionsSonets (1625),which IconsiderinChapter4,confrontcomplexquestionsabouttherepresentativeprocessandthelimitationsoflanguage.13
Whilethereremainsmuchworktodoontheperiod’sexplicitlybiblical literature,biblicaldramahasfaredsomewhatbetterthanpoetryinrecent criticalhistory.PaulWhitfieldWhitehasdemonstratedthatbiblicalplays addressingOldTestamentpatriarchsandthePassionnarratives,aswellas partsoftheMysteryCycles,providedregularentertainmentacrossrural
CambridgeUniversityPress,2004),85–147;MicheleOsherow, BiblicalWomen’sVoicesin EarlyModernEngland (Farnham:Ashgate,2009),11–43;MargaretP.Hanney, ‘RerevealingthePsalms:MarySidney,CountessofPembrokeandherEarlyModernReaders’ , in PsalmsintheEarlyModernWorld,ed.LindaP.Austern,KariB.McBride,andDavid L.Orvis(Farnham:Ashgate,2011),219–34;BarbaraK.Lewalski, ProtestantPoeticsandthe Seventeenth-CenturyReligiousLyric (Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1979);Alison Knight, ‘“Thisversemarksthat”:GeorgeHerbert’ s TheTemple andScriptureinContext’ , in TheOxfordHandbookoftheBibleinEarlyModernEngland,c.1530–1700,ed.Kevin Killeen,HelenSmith,andRachelWillie(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2015),518–32; JamesH.Sims, TheBibleinMilton’sEpics (Gainesville,FL:UniversityofFloridaPress, 1962);MaryAnnRadzinowicz, Milton’sEpicsandtheBookofPsalms (Princeton:Princeton UniversityPress,1989);PhilipJ.Donnelly, Milton’sScripturalReasoning:Narrativeand ProtestantToleration (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2009).
11 NotableexceptionsincludeAdrianStreete, ‘FrancesQuarles’ EarlyPoetryandthe DiscoursesofJacobeanSpenserianism’ , JournaloftheNorthernRenaissance 1.1(Spring 2009):88–108,andSarahC.E.Ross, ‘Epic,Meditation,orSacredHistory?Womenand BiblicalVerseParaphraseinSeventeenth-CenturyEngland’,in TheOxfordHandbookofthe Bible,ed.Killeen,Smith,andWillie,483–97.
12 See,forexample,thecommentsaboutQuarles’ JacobeanpoetryinKarlJosefHöltgen, ‘Quarles,Francis(1592–1644)’ , OxfordDictionaryofNationalBiography (Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress,2004;onlineedition,Jan.2008),<http://www.oxforddnb.com/ view/article/22945>,accessed30Sept.2016.ForausefuloverviewofQuarles’ critical historyseeStreete, ‘FrancesQuarles’ EarlyPoetry’,88–95.
13 SeeStreete, ‘FrancesQuarles’ EarlyPoetry’,andpp.130–6inthisvolume.
Englanduntilthemid-seventeenthcentury.14 InsideLondontherewasan audienceforbiblicaldramatoo.A flurryofplaysreimaginingbiblical narrativeswereperformedonpublicstagesattheturnofthesixteenth century,andsomeoftheseplays,likeGeorgePeele’ s TheLoveofKing DavidandFairBethsabe (c.1581–94),werereplayedcountlesstimes.15
MicheleEphraimandBeatriceGroves’ attentiontostagedramasdevoted tothenarrativesofDeborah,Esther,Rachel,andJonahhasillustratedthe culturalsignificanceandpoliticalbentofsomebiblicalplays,andPeele’ s play,whichIexploreinChapter2,isnoexception.16 Therepresentation ofcourtpoliticsandsuccessionin DavidandBethsabe remindsthat althoughbiblicaldramasfrequentlyappear,fromtheirtitles,tooffer straightforwardretellingsofscripture,theseplaysmustbeunderstoodto offerreadingsofscripture.Themovementfrombiblicalpagetoanother mediumnecessarilyinvolveselementsofreconstructionorrenovation. Theactofrewritingthescripturesis,asthisbookexplores,alwaysan interpretativeone.
BiblicalReadingsandLiteraryWritings isinterestedintheinterpretative workundertakeninbiblicallyinspiredplaysandpoems,butalsoinbiblical readingsthatoccuronamoresubtle,ideologicallevelintheperiod’ s writings.Biblicalimageryandallusionsareembeddedregularlywithin ostensiblysecularnarratives.Thishasbeenshowntobethecaseinmuch ofShakespeare’swork,wherethestudyofbiblicalallusionisanestablished andvibrant fieldofstudy.BiblicalandreligiousreferencesinShakespeare’ s playshavebeencatalogued,directandindirectallusionstoscriptural imageryandlanguagehavebeentracedacrossindividualplays,andthe Biblehasalsobeendiscussedinthecontextofwiderconsiderationsof Shakespeare’sreligiousbeliefsandengagementwithChristiandoctrine.17
14 PaulWhitfieldWhite, DramaandReligioninEnglishProvincialSociety,1485–1660 (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2008).
15 Foralistoftheseplaysseepp.17–19,andformoreonPeele’spopularplay,seepp.73–8.
16 MichelleEphraim, ReadingtheJewishWomanontheElizabethanStage (Aldershot: Ashgate,2008);BeatriceGroves, ‘“TheyrepentedatthepreachyngofIonas:andbeholde,a greaterthenIonasishere” : ALookingGlassforLondonandEngland,Hoseaandthe DestructionofJerusalem’,in EarlyModernDramaandtheBible:ContextsandReadings, 1570–1625,ed.AdrianStreete(Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan,2012),139–59.
17 Somenotablebook-lengthstudiesthathaveconsideredbiblicalusageinShakespeare includeRolandMushatFrye, ShakespeareandChristianDoctrine (Princeton:Princeton UniversityPress,1963);JamesH.Sims, DramaticUsesofBiblicalAllusionsinMarloweand Shakespeare (Gainesville,FL:UniversityofFloridaPress,1966);NaseebShaheen, Biblical ReferencesinShakespeare’sPlays (Newark:UniversityofDelawarePress,1999);R.Chris Hassel, Shakespeare’sReligiousLanguage:ADictionary (NewYork:Continuum,2005); StevenMarx, ShakespeareandtheBible (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2000);Beatrice Groves, TextsandTraditions:ReligioninShakespeare,1592–1604 (Oxford:Clarendon Press,2004);Hamlin, TheBibleinShakespeare.
Mostrecently,Hamlinhasarguedinhisbook-lengthinvestigationinto biblicalallusionsinShakespeare’splaysthat ‘nobookisalludedtomore often,morethoroughly,orwithmorecomplexityandsignificancethanthe Bible’ . 18 Althoughscholarshipaddressingscripture’sliteraryimpactinthe sixteenthandseventeenthcenturieshasfocuseddisproportionatelyon Shakespeare,theBible’sinfluenceonawiderrangeofcommercialtheatre isbecomingbetterestablished.Wenowknowthatplaywrightsincluding ChristopherMarlowe,ThomasHeywood,PhilipMassinger,Thomas Dekker,andJohnWebsterinvokedbiblicalimagery,narratives,and textintheirworksinavarietyofwaysfordifferentpurposes. 19 What scholarshipontheBibleindramahasmadeclearisthatthescriptures wereideologicallyevocativeinearlymodernEngland —‘evenabrief allusiontoabiblicalstory ’,asGrovesexplains, ‘couldopenupafund ofassociations,ambiguitiesandanalogies’ toaudiencesandreaders.20
ThatthereisastronganddiscerniblerelationshipbetweentheBible andliteratureinthisperiodisinnodoubt,andyetthereisstillworktobe doneontheparticularitiesofthisrelationship.Tothisend, Biblical ReadingsandLiteraryWritings examinesnotsimplythosepassagesof scripturecommonlyreadandusedinliterarywritings,but how they wereread,reworked,andapplied.Biblicalinterpretation,thatis,theeffort tounderstandwhattheBiblemeans,wascentraltoearlymodernunderstandingoftheworldanditseffectsarevisibleacrossavarietyofcontemporarythought.SinceDeborahK.Shugerilluminatedtheshaping influenceofbiblicalscholarshiponpolitics,gender,andsubjectivityin TheRenaissanceBible (1994),othershaveshownhowdevelopmentsin ChristianhumanismandtheEnglishlanguagewereindebtedtothe vernacularscriptures,andtracedtheeffectofbiblicalreadingonscience andunderstandingofthenaturalworld.21 Book-lengthstudiesbyChristopherHill,AchsahGuibbory,ElizabethClarke,andKevinKilleenhave illustratedtheBible’spervasivepresenceinearlymodernpolitics.22 Itis
18 Hamlin, TheBibleinShakespeare ,3.
19 See,forexample,theessaysgatheredin EarlyModernDramaandtheBible,ed. Streete,aswellasVictoriaBrownlee, ‘ImaginingtheEnemy:ProtestantReadingsofthe WhoreofBabyloninEarlyModernEngland,c.1580–1625’,in BiblicalWomeninEarly ModernLiteraryCulture,ed.VictoriaBrownleeandLauraGallagher(Manchester: ManchesterUniversityPress,2014),213–33.
20 Groves, TextsandTraditions,25.
21 DeborahK.Shuger, TheRenaissanceBible:Scholarship,Sacrifice,andSubjectivity (Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1994).SeealsoBrianCummings, TheLiterary CultureoftheReformation:GrammarandGrace (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2002); KevinKilleenandPeterForshaw,eds., TheWordandtheWorld:BiblicalExegesisandEarly ModernScience (Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan,2007).
22 ChristopherHill, TheEnglishBibleandtheSeventeenth-CenturyRevolution (London: AllenLane;NewYork:PenguinPress,1993);AchsahGuibbory, ChristianIdentity:Jews&
nowclearthatthescripturesinvadedalargeanddiversecorpusofpolitical writings sermons,tracts,andtreatises,aswellaspoetryandplays and imagestoo,asseveralchaptersinthisbookattest,disseminatedbiblicalpoliticalideastosignificanteffect.Killeen’sneatsummationthat ‘the scripturesprovidedbothasledgehammerandascalpelforpoliticalanalysis,amenabletosubtleaswellascrudedeployment’ isapplicableacrossa varietyofmedia.23 TheamalgamofusestowhichtheBiblecouldbeputis clearindebatesaboutfemalesilence.MicheleOsherowhasarguedthat earlymodernwomenandmenfoundthattheBibleauthorizeda ‘freedom toresist’ andameansofcelebratingthefemalevoicethrough ‘the rhetoricallypowerfulwomenscatteredthroughouttheBible’ spages ’ . 24 Certainly,DorothyLeigh,whosematernaladvicetext, TheMothersBlessing (1616),isexaminedinChapter5,lookstoacatalogueofbiblical womentoauthorizeherwriting,butshealsoidentifieswiththeapostle Paul,usinghiswordsinGalatianstofashionhervoice.25 Asidefrom studiesthathaveillustratedtheBible’simportancetowomenwhowrote, severalMarianscholarshaveweighedtheimpactoftheGospelsonearly modernideasofsufferingandgrief,whileStreete,Ephraim,andGuibbory havedemonstratedtheextenttowhichthescriptureswereenmeshedwith conceptualizationsofidentityandsubjectivityinthisperiod.26
MystudybuildsontheseapproachesinrecognizingthatBible-reading fedintowritingonalmostall fieldsofknowledgeinthisperiod,andthat culturesofbiblicalreadingwereinflectedbytheconcernsandcircumstances
IsraelinSeventeenth-CenturyEngland (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2010);Elizabeth Clarke, Politics,ReligionandtheSongofSongsinSeventeenth-CenturyEngland (Basingstoke: PalgraveMacmillan,2011);KevinKilleen, ThePoliticalBibleinEarlyModernEngland (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2016).
23 KevinKilleen, ‘HangingupKings:ThePoliticalBibleinEarlyModernEngland’ , JournaloftheHistoryofIdeas 72.4(2011):549–70(551).SeealsoKilleen’ s ‘Chastisingwith Scorpions:ReadingtheOldTestamentinEarlyModernEngland’ , HuntingtonLibrary Quarterly 75.3(2010):491–506.
24 Osherow, BiblicalWomen’sVoices,9.Forscripture’simportancetowomenwriters seealsoMolekamp, WomenandtheBible;Clarke, Politics,ReligionandtheSongofSongs, 134–73.
25 DorothyLeigh, Themothersblessing.Orthegodlycounsaileofagentle-womannot longsincedeceased (London:IohnBudge,1616),9–12.ForLeigh’sreadingofbiblical women,seepp.143–68.
26 OnMarysee,forexample,HelenHackett, VirginMother,MaidenQueen:Elizabeth IandtheCultoftheVirginMary (NewYork:St.Martin’sPress,1995);GaryWaller, The VirginMaryinLateMedievalandEarlyModernEnglishLiteratureandPopularCulture (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2011);aswellastheessaysinReginaBuccola andLisaHopkins,eds., MarianMomentsinEarlyModernBritishDrama (Farnham: Ashgate,2007).SeetooEphraim, ReadingtheJewishWoman;AdrianStreete, Protestantism andDramainEarlyModernEngland (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2009); Guibbory, ChristianIdentity.
ofindividualreaders.Thechaptersthatfollowelucidatetheextenttowhich biblicalinterpretationwasweddedtotherealitiesofeverydaylifeinearly modernEngland.Herbert’ssonnetspeakstothisassumedrelationshipby statingthatreadingtheBibleinvolvesascertaininghowscripture’swords find ‘parallel’ withthecircumstancesofindividualreaders.Thechallenges andblessingsofthepeopleofIsrael,thesufferingsofJobandthePsalmist, andcurseslavishedontheenemiesofGodwereformanyreadersthe normalmeansofunderstanding,andcommentingupon,national,local, domestic,andpersonalcircumstances.
ChristopherHill’snowfamousdescriptionoftheBibleasa ‘huge bran-tubfromwhichanythingmightbedrawn’ pithilycapturesscripture ’sperceivedrelevancetoallaspectsofearlymodernlife,andspeaksto theseeminglyarbitrarynatureofthisapplicatoryprocessfromamodern standpoint.27 Yet,forearlymodernreaders,theprocessbywhichscripture ’scontemporaryrelevancewasdiscernedwasnohaphazardlottery. Indeed,soseriouslywasbiblicalreadingtakeninthisperiodthatsome individualswerewillingtodiefortherighttoreadandinterpretthe scriptures.28 Chapter1makescleartheseriousnesswithwhichBiblereadingwasundertakeninthesixteenthandseventeenthcenturies.Complexcalendarsofreading,cross-referencingsystems,memoryaids,andthe traditionofscripturalcommonplacingsupportedthepainstakingeffortof manyreaderstodiscernscripture’spersonalrelevance.Ofcourse,thefact thatreadersunderstoodtheinterpretativeprocesstobedivinelyguidedby theHolySpiritlentcredibilitytothisinterpretativepursuit,andmeant thatavarietyofapplicationscouldbebroughttobearonasingletext withoutbeingconsideredcontradictory.Forearlymodernreadersof scripture,asinglebiblicalnarrativecouldcontainconcurrentidentificationswithoutdifficulty.
Thisbookinvestigatesthediverseusestowhichbiblicaltextswereput inthisperiodand,tothatend,isstructuredaround fivepopularly interpretedbiblicalnarratives.Inthisregard,thisbookdiffersfromthe majorityofpreviousinvestigationsoftherelationshipbetweenliterature andtheBiblethathaveclusteredaroundaparticularauthororgenre.29
27 Hill, TheEnglishBible,5.
28 FortherelationshipbetweenBible-readingandmartyrdominthisperiodseeJames Simpson, BurningtoRead:EnglishFundamentalismanditsReformationOpponents (Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,2007),esp.10–33.
29 Seenote17foralistoftitlesthathavefocusedondrama,andparticularlyShakespeare ’swork.AlthoughresearchontheearlymodernBiblehasdisproportionatelycentred ondrama,scholarlyawarenessofbiblicalusageinothergenresisgrowing.Anumberof workshaveexploredtherelationshipbetweenpoetryandtheBible,particularlytheBookof Psalms,suchasRivakZim, EnglishMetricalPsalms:PoetryasPraiseandPrayer,1535–1601 (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1987);Hamlin, PsalmCulture;BethQuitslund,
Takingabiblicaltextor figureasmystartingpointineachchapter, Iexplorescripture’ssharedandvariedapplicationsbyarangeofwriters workingacrossavarietyofgenres.Myaim,however,isnottoofferan encyclopaedicrecordofbiblicaluse.Rather,assuggestedearlier,Iam interestedinexploringthediversewaysthatbiblicaltextswerereadand applied,andintheinterpretativepracticesthatfacilitatemappingthe biblicalpastontotheearlymodernpresent.Thebiblicaltextsand figures addressedin BiblicalReadingsandLiteraryWritings receivedwidespread attentioninthecenturyofwritingconsideredbythisbook,andthis popularityaccounts,inpart,fortheirinclusioninthisstudy.Myselectionshavebeeninfluencedbytheworkofpreviouscriticstoo.Ihavenot, forexample,consideredtheBookofPsalms,asrecentscholarshiphas madeclearthatthePsalmsweresung,paraphrased,andrewrittenwith staggeringfrequencyacrossthesixteenthandseventeenthcenturies,and tracedthewiderinfluenceofthisbiblicalbookonearlymodernculture.30 Thebiblicaltextsand figuresselectedforinclusioninthisvolumehave alsobeenshapedbymydesiretoshowcasethediverse fieldsofknowledge thatbiblicalreadinginformed.Biblicalhermeneuticswasabuoyantand varied fieldofdiscussionthatinfluencedmostotherintellectualdisciplines.Thechaptersthatfollowdemonstratehowinterpretationofthe scripturesinformeddomesticpoliticsandforeignpolicy,underpinned howhistoryandlanguagewereconceptualized,andshapedattitudes towardsbodilysufferingandchildbearing.
TheBible’scentralitytosuchdiscussionsreinforcesthatearlymodern readersdidnotapproachscripture’ssacrednarrativesasremotehistories. Instead,theBiblewasunderstoodtorecordahistorythatwas,asKilleen observes, ‘omnipresent’ . 31 Thenarrativesofscripture,althoughhistorical intheirownright,wereunderstoodtobeprefigurativeofthepresent.In subsequentchaptersIexaminetheexegeticalprinciplesthatunderpinthe shufflebetweenbiblicalpastandearlymodernpresent,andfacilitatethe recapitulationoftheBible’snarrativeswithinmyriadcontemporary debatesandliterarycontexts.Inthisregard,biblicaltypologyemergesas aninterpretativetoolthatwasfundamentaltotheapplicationofscripture
TheReformationinRhyme:Sternhold,HopkinsandtheEnglishMetricalPsalter,1547–1603 (Farnham:Ashgate,2008).SeealsoThomasLuxon’sconsiderationofJohnBunyan’ sprose writings, LiteralFigures:PuritanAllegoryandtheReformationCrisisinRepresentation (Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1995),andClarke’ s Religion,PoliticsandtheSong ofSongs.
30 See,forexample,Zim, EnglishMetricalPsalms;Hamlin, PsalmCulture;Quitslund, TheReformationinRhyme;Austern,McBride,andOrvis,eds., PsalmsintheEarly ModernWorld
31 Killeen, ‘ChastisingwithScorpions’,493.
tothepresent.Thismannerofreadingthescripturesprioritizedthe connectednessoftheOldandNewTestamentsandsoughttoascertain thebondsbetweenthissacredhistoryandthepresent.Myinterestinthe useoftypologytodiscern ‘constellations’ acrossChristianhistoryhasalso ledtothescrutinyofakeyhermeneuticprincipleofthereformers, namely,thatscripturehas,asWilliamTyndaleputit,but ‘ onesence whichisye literallsence’ . 32 Severalofthechaptersthatfollowsuggestthat biblicaltypologywasamore figuralandcontestedreadingpracticethan theliterallymindedreformersclaimedittobe.Figurativeandhighly symbolicreadingsofthescripturesaboundinProtestantcommentary, andallegory areadingpracticemuchmalignedbyreformers could,as Chapters4and6makeclear,haveitsuses.Withthisinmind, Biblical ReadingsandLiteraryWritings arguesforabrandofProtestantliteralism thatwasmuchmore flexibleandcapaciousthanthesoundbitesof reformedhermeneuticsimply.
Althoughmanyofthewritersincludedinthisbookcanbetermed ‘Protestant’,orbesaidtobeinbroadagreementwiththecentraltenetsof reformedtheology,writersareaddressedwhoseconfessionalstanceis ambiguous.33 Shakespeareisacaseinpoint.HehasbeenlabelledCatholic andProtestant,and,asHamlinnotes,identifiedasanatheistandaJew.34 Whilethereligiousoutlookofwell-knownwritersisanavenueofstudy thatcontinuestopiquecriticalinterest,ascertainingtheconfessional beliefsordoctrinalparticularitiesofindividualauthorsisnotanobjective ofthisbook.Earlymodernwriters,irrespectiveoftheirreligiousbeliefs, canbefamiliarwith,andinfluencedby,popularreformedinterpretations ofscripture,andbythebroaderProtestantimperativetoreadandapply thescripturestothepresent.Tothisend,asthisstudyconsidershow variouswritersreadSolomon,Job,andChrist’smother,Mary,andthe narrativesoftheSongofSongsandBookofRevelation,itelucidateshow
32 WilliamTyndale, TheObedie[n]ceofaChristianmanandhowChriste[n]rulersoughtto governe (Antwerp:J.Hoochstraten,1528),R2v.
33 Iusetheterms ‘reformed’ , ‘Protestant’,and ‘Protestantism’ inthisbookasameansof referringtoareligiousoutlookthat,howeverfragmentedbytheunderstandingofthe Eucharistorthelimitsoffreewill,wastheologicallydistinctfromCatholicism.Reformed theology,orProtestantism,maintainedabeliefinthekeydoctrinesofjustificationbyfaith, thepowerofgracetosavetheelect, solascriptura,rejectionofintermediariesbetweenman andGod,andabroadlydefinedanti-Catholicism.Thislistisnotdesignedtobeexhaustive butmerelyservestodemonstratekeypointsofgeneralagreementinreformedthinking.For thislistofthecentraltenetsofreformedtheologyIrelyonStreete’ s Protestantismand Drama,9.
34 Hamlin, TheBibleinShakespeare,2,andsee3,9–16foranoverviewofthese arguments,and43–76foranoverviewofthevariousstudiesaddressingShakespeare’ s confessionalbeliefs.
Protestantinterpretativepracticesshapeliteraryconstructionsofarange oftheological,political,andsocialdebates.
Withtheexceptionofthe firstchapter,whichtakesabroadlookatthe receptionandcirculationoftheBible,thechaptershavebeenordered accordingtobiblicalsequence.Thisformatisdesignedtoreflecthowthe BiblewasreadtypologicallyfromOldTestamenttoNew.Thatsaid, individualchaptersregularlycross-referenceavarietyofbiblicaltextsin linewithtrendsinearlymodernexegeticalpractices.Theconventionsof earlymodernBible-readingandtheinfluenceoftheperiod’sexegetical culturearethesubjectofChapter1.Layengagementwiththescripturesin thisperiodcouldtakeplacethroughtraditionalmodesofBible-reading,or vianon-textualmediasuchaspublicsermons,catechizing,household readings,aswellasbiblicallyinspireddrama,ballads,andsongs.The questionofhowtheBiblewastobereadinearlymodernEnglandis centralinthe firstchapter,whichaddressestheemphasisonsequentialand typologicalreading,andthecomplexityofthereformers’ literalclaims.
Theideologicalscrutinyofreformedreadingpracticescontinuesin Chapter2aspartofaninvestigationintotheimportanceofKingSolomon tovisualconceptionsofmonarchicalauthorityafterthebreakwithRome. Althoughpopular, figurationsofEngland’smonarchsasantitypesof Solomonwerecomplexandexegeticallydemanding,notleastbecause Solomonendedhislifeasanidolater.Unsurprisingly,contemporary applicationsofSolomon’snarrativeusethisbiblicaltextselectively.Yet, whenscrutinizedmoreclosely,manysuchreadingsstruggletoocclude fullytheunhappydeathofscripture’sfamouslywiseking.Attentionturns inChapter3totheOldTestament figureofJob,andtoaconsiderationof theresonanceofhisbiblicalnarrativeamidaclimateofreligiouspersecutioninEurope.Job’snarrativewastypicallyunderstoodtomarkbodily sufferingastestoffaithand,formanyreaders,affirmedthattheirsuffering,likeJob’s,wasdivinelyauthorizedfora finiteperiodoftime.Awave oftheologicalandliterarywritingsaffirmtheremarkableimpactofthe Jobantrajectoryofsufferinginearlymodernculture.Shakespeare’ s King Lear isnoexception.Yet,insteadofupholdingtheJobanparadigmof eventualrestoration,thisplayisnotableforitsdeliberatedisruptionofthe typologicalprocessofpromiseandfulfilment,andforitsshockinginversionofestablishedexegeticaltraditionsofsufferingmoregenerally.
Chapter4concludesconsiderationoftheOldTestamentwiththeSong ofSongs.Thisbiblicalbook,asapoeticdialoguebetweentwolovers, presentedliterallymindedbiblicalcommentatorswithathornyexegetical dilemma:eitheracceptthepresenceofapurelyerotictextinscripture,or makethecaseforaliteralreadingthatwas figurative.Likeearlymodern exegesisoftheSong,poeticrecapitulationsofthisbiblicalbookrelyon
