Abstract
This chapter considers Measure for Measure as a response to De Constantia and Politica, the two major works of the Flemish neo-stoic philosopher and political theorist, Justus Lipsius and, by doing so, highlights that Duke Vincentio’s methods of exercising his authority are two-fold: he commends and seeks to inspire the virtue of constancy in his subjects (as recommended in De Constantia), while, at the same time, using questionable methods to strengthen his own political power (similar to the often underhand political pragmatism advocated in the Politica). The representation of such strategies is part of the play’s sustained interrogation of Lipsian statecraft and the effects of the tensions generated through the co-existence of the two principal tenets of constancy and governmental prudence.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Works Cited
Bawcutt, N. W. (2010). Shakespeare and Machiavelli: A caveat. Shakespeare Survey, 63, 237–248.
Beckwith, S. (2011). Shakespeare and the grammar of forgiveness. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Brooke, C. (2012). Philosophic pride: Stoicism and political thought from Lipsius to Rousseau. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bruce, Y. (2009). “That which marreth all”: Constancy and gender in The Virtuous Octavia. Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England, 22, 42–59.
Constantinidou, N. (2012). Public and private, divine and temporal in Justus Lipsius’ De Constantia and Politica. Renaissance Studies, 26(3)‚ 345–364.
Dollimore‚ J. (1992). Transgression and surveillance in Measure for Measure. Reprinted In J. Dollimore and A. Sinfield (Eds.)‚ Political Shakespeare: New essays in cultural materialism (pp. 72–87). Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Doty, J. S. (2012). Measure for Measure and the problem of popularity. English Literary Renaissance, 42(1), 32–57.
Duncan-Jones, K. (1977). Stoicism in Measure for Measure: A new source. Review of English Studies, 28(112), 441–446.
Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality (pp. 87–104). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, J. (1989). James I and the politics of literature: Jonson, Shakespeare, Donne, and their contemporaries. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Hadfield, A. (2014). Shakespeare and Renaissance politics. London: Arden Shakespeare.
Higgins, J. C. (2012). Justice, mercy, and dialectical genres in Measure for Measure and Promos and Cassandra. English Literary Renaissance, 42(2), 258–293.
Holland, N. N. (1959). Measure for Measure: The Duke and the Prince. Comparative Literature, 11(1), 16–20.
James VI & I. (1599). Basilikon doron. Edinburgh: R. Waldegrave.
James VI & I. (1603). Basilikon doron. London: J. Norton.
Levy, F. J. (1987). Hayward, Daniel, and the beginning of politic history in England. Huntington Library Quarterly, 50(1), 1–34.
Lipsius, J. (1594a). Two bookes of constancie. (J. Stradling Trans.), London: R. Johnes.
Lipsius, J. (1594b). Sixe bookes of politickes or civil doctrine. (W. Jones Trans.), London: W. Ponsonby.
Majeske, A. (2009). Equity’s absence: The extremity of Claudio’s prosecution and Barnardine’s pardon in Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure. Law and Literature, 21(2), 169–184.
McCrea, A. (1997). Constant minds: Political virtue and the Lipsian paradigm in England, 1584–1650. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Melehy, H. (2010). The poetics of literary transfer in early modern France and England. Farnham: Ashgate.
Melehy, H. (2012). The mobility of constancy: Montaigne, Shakespeare, and Lipsius. REAL: Yearbook of Research in English and American Literature 28 (pp. 73–91).
Miles, G. (1996). Shakespeare and the constant Romans. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Monsarrat, G. D. (1984). Light from the porch: Stoicism and English Renaissance literature. Paris: Didier-Érudition.
Oestreich, G. (1982). Neostoicism and the early modern state. (D. McLintock Trans.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Quarmby, K. A. (2011). Narrative of negativity: Whig historiography and the spectre of King James in Measure for Measure. Shakespeare Survey, 64, 300–316.
Shakespeare, W. (1965). Measure for Measure. (J.W. Lever Ed.). London: The Arden Shakespeare.
Shakespeare, W. (1995). Antony and Cleopatra. (J.W. Lever Ed.). London: The Arden Shakespeare.
Shakespeare, W. (1998). Julius Caesar. (D. Daniell Ed.). London: The Arden Shakespeare.
Shakespeare, W. (1998). Troilus and Cressida. (D. Bevington Ed.). London: The Arden Shakespeare.
Shuger‚ D. K. (2001). Political theologies in Shakespeare’s England: The sacred and the state in ‘Measure for Measure’. Houndmills: Palgrave.
Skinner, Q. (1978). The foundations of modern political thought. 2 Vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Spencer, E. V. (2012). Scaling the deputy: Equity and mercy in Measure for Measure. Philosophy and Literature, 36(1), 168–182.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cadman, D. (2018). ‘Constant in any Undertaking’: Writing the Lipsian State in Measure for Measure . In: Halsey, K., Vine, A. (eds) Shakespeare and Authority. Palgrave Shakespeare Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57853-2_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57853-2_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-57852-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-57853-2
eBook Packages: Literature, Cultural and Media StudiesLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)