Traditional criticism of Measure for Measure has long noted a similarity between the fictional Duke Vincentio and the real King James. Indeed, some critics of Measure for Measure have insisted that the Duke and James are one and the same. Providing a cautious warning against such analogous readings, the 1991 Oxford editor N. W. Bawcutt advised that one ‘would best be sceptical about excessive claims for royal presence’ in the Duke's role. Bawcutt's scepticism appeared in sharp contrast, however, to that of his Cambridge counterpart Brian Gibbons who, also in 1991, proclaimed ‘no doubt’ that aspects of the Duke's personality were ‘intended to be recognized as allusions to the new king’. Gibbons's comments echoed those of his Cambridge forebears, Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch and John Dover Wilson, who, in their 1922 Cambridge edition (and repeated in editions as late as 1950), maintained that ‘James I's dislike of crowds’ was a ‘historic fact’, and that ‘any doubt upon the matter…should be laid to rest’. As is evident, for these early twentieth-century editors, analogous similarity between Shakespeare's Duke and the real King James was based irrefutably on ‘historic fact’, with Shakespeare attempting a lifelike portrayal, or topical caricature, of the personality or political opinion of his Scottish king and patron. Biographical analogy held the key to appreciating the contextual topicality of Shakespeare's dramatic creation, with the spectre of King James residing firmly in the Duke of Measure for Measure.

In this article, I will refer to this specific instance of biographical analogy, focusing as it does on certain negative aspects of James's personality and reign whilst searching for parallels in the Duke, as the ‘Duke-as-James’ theory. That the ‘Duke-as-James’ theory should remain relatively unchallenged in criticism of Measure for Measure is surprising, not least in the light of revisionist historical research that has, ever since the 1950s, offered an alternative, more sympathetic view of James and his reception in England in 1603–4. Unfortunately, a culture of critical conservatism among Shakespeare scholars, especially those who follow the hegemonic/subversive model of new historicist practice, continues to uphold the ‘Duke-as-James’ theory as irrefutable ‘historic fact’. By refusing to respond to longstanding revisionist historical research, new historicist scholars continue to nurture a traditionally held view of Measure for Measure as topical political commentary, with Shakespeare offering decidedly negative or apologetic opinions about the qualities and intentions of his new king. This article seeks to redress the imbalance caused by such critical conservatism by interrogating our tacit acceptance of the ‘Duke-as-James’ theory in relation to Measure for Measure, and by highlighting the anachronistic historical construct at the theory's core.