{"title":"莎士比亚的“污迹”和后来英语圣经翻译的措辞","authors":"Phillip K. Arrington","doi":"10.3366/bjj.2020.0283","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This essay examines the possible significance of blot variants in both Shakespeare's corpus and later English Bible translations, especially their increased use in l611 King James Version and the Revised Standard Edition compared to earlier English Bible translations. The shared fondness for these variants and their figurative potential suggest the literal constraints of inscription and erasure shown in the neglected “discourse of inscription” that appears in the poet-playwright's and later Bible translators' printed works.","PeriodicalId":40862,"journal":{"name":"Ben Jonson Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Shakespeare's “Vicious Blots” and the Diction of Later English Bible Translations\",\"authors\":\"Phillip K. Arrington\",\"doi\":\"10.3366/bjj.2020.0283\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This essay examines the possible significance of blot variants in both Shakespeare's corpus and later English Bible translations, especially their increased use in l611 King James Version and the Revised Standard Edition compared to earlier English Bible translations. The shared fondness for these variants and their figurative potential suggest the literal constraints of inscription and erasure shown in the neglected “discourse of inscription” that appears in the poet-playwright's and later Bible translators' printed works.\",\"PeriodicalId\":40862,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ben Jonson Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ben Jonson Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3366/bjj.2020.0283\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LITERATURE, BRITISH ISLES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ben Jonson Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3366/bjj.2020.0283","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERATURE, BRITISH ISLES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Shakespeare's “Vicious Blots” and the Diction of Later English Bible Translations
This essay examines the possible significance of blot variants in both Shakespeare's corpus and later English Bible translations, especially their increased use in l611 King James Version and the Revised Standard Edition compared to earlier English Bible translations. The shared fondness for these variants and their figurative potential suggest the literal constraints of inscription and erasure shown in the neglected “discourse of inscription” that appears in the poet-playwright's and later Bible translators' printed works.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
