In a study of adaptations of Shakespeare in the 17th and 18th century, Jean Marsden argues that there was an inversion in the approach to Shakespeare sometime in the 18th century. Prior to that time, Shakespeare’s words were changed and modified, while the contexts of his plays remained the same; since the 18th century to today, we feel free to modify the contexts of the plays but consider the words sacrosanct.
Marsden says, “Today the idea of changing Shakespeare’s words seems blasphemous.” That description, which is perfectly accurate, got me to thinking about all the ways that “high” cultural products are today described and treated as sacred and challenges and defacements of high cultural products are treated and described as defilements, acts of sacrilege.
And that leads to a question: To what extent is the formation of elite high culture a matter of setting up boundaries between sacred and profane? (Think of the awed, cathedral hush expected in a museum, and usually imposed by the museum’s architecture if not the museum’s guards.) And that leads to a further question: Is it at all useful to describe the formation of elite culture as a kind of Judaizing - that is, the re-erection of boundaries destroyed by the gospel?
Peter Leithart
Peter J. Leithart is President of Theopolis Institute. He is the author of numerous books on theology, literature, and culture, including Theopolitan, Defending Constantine, and Baptized Body.
More from History
Continue reading related articles

Realness of Things Past
Greg Anderson began thinking about the thesis of his Realness of Things Past while working on a book on the “state” in classical Greece. He discovered there was no such thing as an Athenian “state,” and that conclusion led him to question the way historians do history. Instead of running…

The Power of the Margins
David Martin (1929-2019) was a secularization skeptic. He acknowledged that modern societies typically undergo a process of "differentiation," in which various sectors of social and political life free themselves from the oversight of religious authority. He acknowledged that in many modern societies religious institutions and values are "marginalized." But he…

Zwinglian Symbolism
Nathan Mitchell (writing in the Oxford History of Christian Worship , 324) denies that Zwingli taught a "mere symbolist" according to which the Supper "simply served to remind believers of the great benefits bestowed on them through Christ's passion and death." Zwingli wasn't a symbolist "in any modern sense." Mitchell…
In Medias Res
Your weekly digest for all things Theopolis.