DOCSLIB.ORG

The Role of Honor in Shakespeare's Coriolanus

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Role of Honor in Shakespeare's Coriolanus The Catalyst Volume 4 | Issue 1 Article 4 2017 Virtus vs. Virtue: The Role of Honor in Shakespeare’s Coriolanus John D. Rimann University of Southern Mississippi, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://aquila.usm.edu/southernmisscatalyst Part of the Literature in English, British Isles Commons Recommended Citation Rimann, John D. (2017) "Virtus vs. Virtue: The Role of Honor in Shakespeare’s Coriolanus," The Catalyst: Vol. 4 : Iss. 1 , Article 4. DOI: 10.18785/cat.0401.04 Available at: http://aquila.usm.edu/southernmisscatalyst/vol4/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by The Aquila Digital Community. It has been accepted for inclusion in The aC talyst by an authorized editor of The Aquila Digital Community. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Catalyst Volume 4 | Issue 1 | Article 4 2017 Virtus vs. Virtue: The Role of Honor in Shakespeare’s Coriolanus John Rimann Cicero characterized his fellow countrymen’s The underlying theme of Coriolanus is striving for honor thusly: “By nature we the failure of the Roman concept of honor. yearn and hunger for honor, and once we Shakespeare uses the tragic main character of have glimpsed, as it were, some part of Coriolanus to illustrate the flaws and faults in its radiance, there is nothing we are not Roman honor, flaws and faults which lead to prepared to bear and suffer in order to secure Coriolanus’s downfall in the latter half of the it” (Barton, 37). Julius Caesar is recorded as play. Importantly, these perceived flaws were having justified his crossing of the Rubicon to largely fixed by the moralized, Christianized his legions—an act which threw the Roman version of honor which was prevalent in Republic into a civil war which would cost Shakespeare’s England (Watson 1960, 3). thousands of lives—by telling them that his Consequently, an important aspect of the opponents in Rome had degraded his rank play is the implied superiority of the English, and offended against his honor, something Christian conception of honor. The superiority which all Romans would have understood was of this English Christian construction is implied not only a personal offence but a political throughout the play when Coriolanus makes one as well (Holland, 247). Several hundred poor choices because of his strict adherence years before Gaius Julius Caesar justified to this conception of Roman honor and invading Rome as necessary to preserve can also be seen by comparing Coriolanus his honor, another Roman general named to the English Christian heroes of some of Gaius did the same thing in retribution for Shakespeare’s other plays, such as Henry V. an offense against his honor and rank and This English Christian understanding of honor his subsequent exile from the city (Plutarch). is also shown as triumphant when Coriolanus is Originally named Gaius Marcius, this general moved to spare Rome, an act which makes no would be immortalized by Shakespeare in the sense in the context of the Roman Bard’s great tragedy Coriolanus. Along with system of honor. their shared name these generals also had in common the fact that they were willing to There are several crucial terms and destroy Rome in pursuit of honor, or at least background items necessary to demonstrate in pursuit of the Roman conception of honor. that Coriolanus is a play which functions as a critique of Roman honor and as an implicit In Coriolanus one of the greatest contrasts celebration of the superiority of the English between concepts of honor is observed and national and religious concept of honor, and explored: the difference between the concept so the first half of this paper will be spent of honor before and after Christianity became discussing the concept of Roman honor, the the dominant cultural force in the Western concept of Christian honor as developed world. Indeed Coriolanus can be read as a during the English Renaissance, and how these critique of the classical Roman conception of two concepts of honor were quite distinct from honor—a concept Shakespeare would have each other. After this has been accomplished been aware of along with his apparently the paper will use examples from the play to extensive knowledge of his play’s Roman examine the character of Coriolanus and how source material (Jonson’s little quip aside)— this character and his actions function as a which focuses not on morality or virtue but critique by Shakespeare of the ruthless and instead on social rank and prestige, or, in a vainglorious philosophy which constituted word, classism. Roman honor, a conception of honor which was quite at odds with the central tenets of “Consequently, an important aspect the Christian faith in sixteenth century England (and with our understanding of honor as a of the play is the implied superiority concept today). of the English, Christian conception of honor.” RIMANN A4 26 “In Roman society the most devastating event which had the potential to ostracize a Roman from the social and political basic way to gain honor was square (Barton, 17). through the martial means of Gaining honor was largely done by gaining warfare and combat.” glory, and was functionally a zero-sum game. The historical concept of honor in the Glory was a finite resource, so for one man to Western world can broadly be divided gain glory and honor meant that another man into two categories: pre-Christianity and had to lose them. This competitive conception post-Christianity. Prior to the advent of honor helped to maintain a state in which of Christianity, honor in the West was humility was disparaged and pride ruled; a derivative almost exclusively of the consequently, Coriolanus himself should not Greco-Roman tradition. When Christianity be seen as an exception to the Roman honor arrived on the world stage and became system but rather the rule. Nathan Rosenstein, the dominant political, moral, and cultural the Chair of the Department of History at Ohio force in Western civilization, the concept State and an expert on both ancient warfare and of honor as it was conceived by the Greco- the Late Roman Republic and Early Imperium, Romans experienced a change, being has written that modified from what writers such as Robert Kaplan have termed a “pagan ethic” into a “For any aristocrat what matter most are honor, virtuous quality more in line with the moral rank, and preeminence among his or her instructions of Christ and his Apostles peers, and for the aristocracy of the Roman (Kaplan, 6). This transformation of honor Republic these derived almost exclusively from a pagan ethic into a Christian virtue was from action on behalf of their community.... by no means seamless and certainly led to that ethos was highly martial. Courage on some cognitive dissonance. the battlefield brought glory, praise, and renown and these in turn were the foundation Roman honor is a subject which has a for a political career...[one] could not hope to rich history of exploration and scholarly compete for public office without having discussion. There are several scholarly first proven himself on the battlefield” definitions of Roman honor, all of which are (Rosenstein, 133). effectively variations on the same theme. Recently Carlin Barton has emerged as a In short Rome was always expanding and recognized authority as a historian and constantly at war, and consequently in Roman writer on Roman honor, both critiquing society the most basic way to gain honor—and and expounding on the work of previous not just basic, but required for any Roman who historians such as J.E. Lendon and Michael wanted to gain the respect, admiration, and Peachin. Her book Roman Honor: Fire in the support of his fellows—was through the martial Bones offered the definition of Roman honor means of warfare and combat. as “‘face,’ which was understood as both the public role you maintained and the credit This is the means through which Coriolanus first you received for maintaining it” (Barton, gained his honor, first made his name, and first 17). This leads to the conclusion by Barton firmly established his rank in the hierarchical that for a Roman “to lose your ‘face’ was to society that was the patrician upper-class lose your ‘soul,’” as the loss of honor was a of Rome. Starting as a low-ranking soldier RIMANN A4 27 Coriolanus rapidly ascends both the military Another example of this idea is Antony, whose ladder of command and the societal ladder extravagant lifestyle while living in Egypt was of honor, and each military victory rebounds seen as being unmanly and unbecoming not to credit to him and his face in Roman because he was cheating on his wife or living society, as the consul Cominius reminds immorally, but because it was seen as making the Romans and the reader in his long him soft and hurting his ability to fight and speech in Act 2. One of the ways in which win on the battlefield (Chernaik, 148). If, like Coriolanus’s stock of honor is expressed is the Greek solider and statesman Alcibiades (a through his wounds, which take on a heavy figure often held up for admiration because of amount of importance throughout the play. his overall pursuit of excellence, his oratorical The numbers of wounds which Coriolanus ability, and his martial skill by Roman leaders suffers are not in and of themselves and by writers such as Plutarch) a Roman was honorable—there is no inherent honor able to reconcile his debauchery with fighting in being wounded—but rather it is what skill and strategic ability, that immorality was they represent, the courage and glory of seen as no slight on his honor.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Plutarch, Machiavelli and Shakespeare's Coriolanus Patrick
    The Changing Faces of Virtue: Plutarch, Machiavelli and Shakespeare’s Coriolanus Patrick Ashby University of Bristol [email protected] Introduction: The hinges of virtue ‘Let it be virtuous to be obstinate’, says Caius Martius Coriolanus, shortly before the catastrophe of Shakespeare’s tragedy (Coriolanus, 5.3.26).1 In uttering these words, he articulates a moral hypothesis which is of central importance to Coriolanus: the supposition that steadfastness of principle is a fundamental good. This is a theory which the play puts to the test. The idea of ‘virtue’ — in a variety of guises — is a key focus of this essay, which identifies as crucial those moments at which definitions of virtue are unsettled, transformed, or confronted with a range of alternatives. Several commentators have connected Shakespeare’s Coriolanus with the political ideas of Niccolò Machiavelli, the Florentine theorist whose notoriety rests upon his recommendation of moral flexibility for political leaders. For Anne Barton, who reads the play in the context of Machiavelli’s Discourses on Livy’s history of early Rome, Coriolanus dramatises the futile persistence of obsolescent virtues (the valorisation of battlefield heroics) in an environment of subtler needs and growing political sophistication.2 In Shakespeare and the Popular Voice, Annabel Patterson hints at Shakespeare’s sympathy with the idea of popular political representation, proposing that ‘there is nothing in the play to challenge that famous interpretation of the tribunate which [. .] Machiavelli made a premise of Renaissance political theory’.3 John Plotz 1 William Shakespeare, Coriolanus, The Norton Shakespeare, ed. by Stephen Greenblatt, Katherine Eisaman Maus, Jean E.
    [Show full text]
  • The Child's Two Bodies: Shakespeare, Sovereignty, and the End Of
    7KH&KLOG૷V7ZR%RGLHV6KDNHVSHDUH6RYHUHLJQW\ DQGWKH(QGRI6XFFHVVLRQ Joseph Campana ELH, Volume 81, Number 3, Fall 2014, pp. 811-839 (Article) 3XEOLVKHGE\7KH-RKQV+RSNLQV8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV DOI: 10.1353/elh.2014.0034 For additional information about this article http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/elh/summary/v081/81.3.campana.html Access provided by Fondren Library, Rice University (29 Oct 2014 14:35 GMT) THE CHild’s Two Bodies: SHAKESPEARE, SOVEREIGNTY, AND THE END OF SUCCESSION BY JOSEPH CAMPANA The king is dead. Long live the child? In a dramatic canon full of the ghosts of dead fathers, William Shakespeare offers up tragic protagonists haunted by children. Desperate for assurances about his precarious political future, the monarch-murdering usurper Macbeth seeks out a second encounter with the infamous witches who prophesied his unexpected assump- tion of sovereignty. Macbeth meets Hecate herself and experiences visions of a crowned child, an armed head, a bloody babe, and a glorious future line of Scottish kings culminating in King James VI and I of Scotland and England.1 Pivotal to Macbeth is the question of what central characters do, or do not, see: gruesome witches, killing instruments, guilt-stained hands, ambulatory trees, and prophetic visions. In act 2, scene 1, Macbeth imagines or witnesses the weapon he will later use to slay King Duncan. “Is this a dagger which I see before me,” he famously asks, “The handle toward my hand? Come, let me clutch thee. / I have thee not, and yet I see thee still” (2.1.1–3). Macbeth’s mysterious dagger, Lady Macbeth’s blood-soaked hands, Hecate’s visions of a bloody babe, a crowned child, an armed head, and a line of seven kings: the famous images that flicker in and out of sight in Shakespeare’s Scottish tragedy I will describe as apparitions not of a state of mind but of the state itself.
    [Show full text]
  • IMPERIAL EXEMPLA Military Prowess, Or Virtus, Is but One Quality That
    CHAPTER FOUR IMPERIAL EXEMPLA Military prowess, or virtus, is but one quality that characterized an efffec- tive emperor. Ideally, a ‘good’ emperor was not just a competent general but also displayed other virtues. These imperial virtutes were propagated throughout the Roman Empire by means of imperial panegyric, decrees, inscriptions, biographies, and coins.1 On coinage in particular, juxtaposi- tions of AVG or AVGG with the virtue and/or the imperial portrait on the obverse would connect the virtues mentioned on the reverses directly with the emperor(s). Not all emperors emphasized the same virtues on their coinage. For example, Elagabalus seems not to have felt the need to stress virtus, whereas his successor Severus Alexander did try to convince the Roman people of his military prowess by propagating it on his coins. The presence or absence of particular virtues on coins issued by diffferent emperors brings us to the question as to whether an imperial canon of virtues existed. But before elaborating on this, the concept ‘virtue’ must be clarifijied.2 Modern scholars investigating imperial virtues on coinage consider vir- tues to be personifijications with divine power – in other words, deifijied abstractions or, as Fears puts it, ‘specifijic impersonal numina’.3 For many, the terms ‘personifijication’ and ‘virtue’ are interchangeable.4 Indeed, vir- tues can be considered personifijications. Yet, not all personifijications are 1 Noreña, “The communication of the emperor’s virtues”, p. 153. 2 ‘But if one is to compare coins with other sources, particularly philosopically inspired ones (i.e. in talking of the virtues of the ideal statesman) it is vital to distinguish what is a virtue and what is not’, A.
    [Show full text]
  • Coriolanus: the Tragedy of Virtus ANTHONY MILLER
    SYDNEY STUDIES Coriolanus: The Tragedy of Virtus ANTHONY MILLER From the opening entry of "a company of mntinous Citizens, with staves, clubs, and other weapons" to the next to last, barely coherent action-"Kill, kill, kill, kill, kill him!" "Hold, hold, hold, hold!"-Coriolanus displays an ancient world riven by war and civic turmoil.l For all its occasional evocations of a mar­ moreal Romanitas, it is also a busy play. Its protagonist accepts with relish and superhuman energy the opportunities for martial action that his world presents: Coriolanus is probably the most active of Shakespeare's tragic heroes, certainly the one least given to reflection. Yet the play's busyness is not always warlike. Much of it consists of talk, especially the contentious talk of political debate. Characters plan courses of action, rehearse public appearances, plot acts of vengeance, conjure with names, report off-stage events-and even events that the audience has seen occur on-stage. Much of the discussion revolves around Coriolanus himself. His nature and motives, his martial prowess and farouche political manners, are incessantly and variously canvassed. To a belligerent citizen, Coriolanus's heroics are performed to please his mother, and to be partly proud; to the indulgent Menenius, his nature is too noble for the world; to Aufidius, shrewd and grudgingly admiring, his actions are a matter for almost obsessive, but inconclusive, rumination: Whether 'twas pride, Which out of daily fortune ever taints The happy man; whether defect of judgement, To fail in the disposing of those chances Which he was lord of; or whether nature, Not to be other than one thing, not moving From th'casque to th'cushion, but commanding peace Even with the same austerity and garb As he controll'd the war; but one of these­ As he hath spices of them all, not all, For I dare so far free him-made him fear'd, So hated, and so banish'd.
    [Show full text]
  • Seriously Playful: Philosophy in the Myths of Ovid's Metamorphoses
    Seriously Playful: Philosophy in the Myths of Ovid’s Metamorphoses Megan Beasley, B.A. (Hons) This thesis is presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of Classics of The University of Western Australia School of Humanities Discipline of Classics and Ancient History 2012 1 2 For my parents 3 4 Abstract This thesis aims to lay to rest arguments about whether Ovid is or is not a philosophical poet in the Metamorphoses. It does so by differentiating between philosophical poets and poetic philosophers; the former write poetry freighted with philosophical discourse while the latter write philosophy in a poetic medium. Ovid, it is argued, should be categorised as a philosophical poet, who infuses philosophical ideas from various schools into the Metamorphoses, producing a poem that, all told, neither expounds nor attacks any given philosophical school, but rather uses philosophy to imbue its constituent myths with greater wit, poignancy and psychological realism. Myth and philosophy are interwoven so intricately that it is impossible to separate them without doing violence to Ovid’s poem. It is not argued here that the Metamorphoses is a fundamentally serious poem which is enhanced, or marred, by occasional playfulness. Nor is it argued that the poem is fundamentally playful with occasional moments of dignity and high seriousness. Rather, the approach taken here assumes that seriousness and playfulness are so closely connected in the Metamorphoses that they are in fact the same thing. Four major myths from the Metamorphoses are studied here, from structurally significant points in the poem. The “Cosmogony” and the “Speech of Pythagoras” at the beginning and end of the poem have long been recognised as drawing on philosophy, and discussion of these two myths forms the beginning and end of the thesis.
    [Show full text]
  • Teacher Resource Pack I, Malvolio
    TEACHER RESOURCE PACK I, MALVOLIO WRITTEN & PERFORMED BY TIM CROUCH RESOURCES WRITTEN BY TIM CROUCH unicorntheatre.com timcrouchtheatre.co.uk I, MALVOLIO TEACHER RESOURCES INTRODUCTION Introduction by Tim Crouch I played the part of Malvolio in a production of Twelfth Night many years ago. Even though the audience laughed, for me, it didn’t feel like a comedy. He is a desperately unhappy man – a fortune spent on therapy would only scratch the surface of his troubles. He can’t smile, he can’t express his feelings; he is angry and repressed and deluded and intolerant, driven by hate and a warped sense of self-importance. His psychiatric problems seem curiously modern. Freud would have had a field day with him. So this troubled man is placed in a comedy of love and mistaken identity. Of course, his role in Twelfth Night would have meant something very different to an Elizabethan audience, but this is now – and his meaning has become complicated by our modern understanding of mental illness and madness. On stage in Twelfth Night, I found the audience’s laughter difficult to take. Malvolio suffers the thing we most dread – to be ridiculed when he is at his most vulnerable. He has no resolution, no happy ending, no sense of justice. His last words are about revenge and then he is gone. This, then, felt like the perfect place to start with his story. My play begins where Shakespeare’s play ends. We see Malvolio how he is at the end of Twelfth Night and, in the course of I, Malvolio, he repairs himself to the state we might have seen him in at the beginning.
    [Show full text]
  • For God's Sake, Let Us Sit Upon the Ground and Tell Sad Stories of the Death of Kings … -Richard II, Act III, Scene Ii
    The Hollow Crown is a lavish new series of filmed adaptations of four of Shakespeare’s most gripping history plays: Richard II , Henry IV, Part 1 , Henry IV, Part 2 , and Henry V , presented by GREAT PERFORMANCES . For God's sake, let us sit upon the ground and tell sad stories of the death of kings … -Richard II, Act III, Scene ii 2013 WNET Synopsis The Hollow Crown presents four of Shakespeare’s history plays: Richard II , Henry IV, Parts 1 and 2, and Henry V . These four plays were written separately but tell a continuous story of the reigns of three kings of England. The first play starts in 1398, as King Richard arbitrates a dispute between his cousin Henry Bolingbroke and the Duke of Norfolk, which he resolves by banishing both men from England— Norfolk for life and Bolingbroke for six years. When Bolingbroke’s father dies, Richard seizes his lands. It’s the latest outrage from a selfish king who wastes money on luxuries, his favorite friends, and an expensive war in Ireland. Bolingbroke returns from banishment with an army to take back his inheritance and quickly wins supporters. He takes Richard prisoner and, rather than stopping at his own lands and privileges, seizes the crown. When one of Bolingbroke’s followers assassinates Richard, the new king claims that he never ordered the execution and banishes the man who killed Richard. Years pass, and at the start of Henry IV, Part 1 , the guilt-stricken king plans a pilgrimage to the Holy Land to wash Richard’s blood from his hands.
    [Show full text]
  • 2. Fighting Corruption: Political Thought and Practice in the Late Roman Republic
    2. Fighting Corruption: Political Thought and Practice in the Late Roman Republic Valentina Arena, University College London Introduction According to ancient Roman authors, the Roman Republic fell because of its moral corruption.i Corruption, corruptio in Latin, indicated in its most general connotation the damage and consequent disruption of shared values and practices, which, amongst other facets, could take the form of crimes, such as ambitus (bribery), peculatus (theft of public funds) and res repentundae (maladministration of provinces). To counteract such a state of affairs, the Romans of the late Republic enacted three main categories of anticorruption measures: first, they attempted to reform the censorship instituted in the fifth century as the supervisory body of public morality (cura morum); secondly, they enacted a number of preventive as well as punitive measures;ii and thirdly, they debated and, at times, implemented reforms concerning the senate, the jury courts and the popular assemblies, the proper functioning of which they thought might arrest and reverse the process of corruption and the moral and political decline of their commonwealth. Modern studies concerned with Roman anticorruption measures have traditionally focused either on a specific set of laws, such as the leges de ambitu, or on the moralistic discourse in which they are embedded. Even studies that adopt a holistic approach to this subject are premised on a distinction between the actual measures the Romans put in place to address the problem of corruption and the moral discourse in which they are embedded.iii What these works tend to share is a suspicious attitude towards Roman moralistic discourse on corruption which, they posit, obfuscates the issue at stake and has acted as a hindrance to the eradication of this phenomenon.iv Roman analysis of its moral decline was not only the song of the traditional laudator temporis acti, but rather, I claim, included, alongside traditional literary topoi, also themes of central preoccupation to Classical political thought.
    [Show full text]
  • What the Romans Knew Piero Scaruffi Copyright 2018 • Part II
    What the Romans knew Piero Scaruffi Copyright 2018 http://www.scaruffi.com/know • Part II 1 What the Romans knew Archaic Roma Capitolium Forum 2 (Museo della Civiltà Romana, Roma) What the Romans Knew • Greek! – Wars against Carthage resulted in conquest of the Phoenician and Greek civilizations – Greek pantheon (Zeus=Jupiter, Juno = Hera, Minerva = Athena, Mars= Ares, Mercury = Hermes, Hercules = Heracles, Venus = Aphrodite,…) – Greek city plan (agora/forum, temples, theater, stadium/circus) – Beginning of Roman literature: the translation and adaptation of Greek epic and dramatic poetry (240 BC) – Beginning of Roman philosophy: adoption of Greek schools of philosophy (155 BC) – Roman sculpture: Greek sculpture 3 What the Romans Knew • Greek! – Greeks: knowing over doing – Romans: doing over knowing (never translated Aristotle in Latin) – “The day will come when posterity will be amazed that we remained ignorant of things that will to them seem so plain” (Seneca, 1st c AD) – Impoverished mythology – Indifference to metaphysics – Pragmatic/social religion (expressing devotion to the state) 4 What the Romans Knew • Greek! – Western civilization = the combined effect of Greece's construction of a new culture and Rome's destruction of all other cultures. 5 What the Romans Knew • The Mediterranean Sea (Mare Nostrum) – Rome was mainly a sea power, an Etruscan legacy – Battle of Actium (31 BC) created the “mare nostrum”, a peaceful, safe sea for trade and communication – Disappearance of piracy – Sea routes were used by merchants, soldiers,
    [Show full text]
  • Shakespeare's Warrior Kings
    Focus: Introduction to Shakespeare Stage 5 Yr 9 Duration: 6 weeks Karen Yager - Knox Grammar School - Created for the Premier’s Literature Scholarship Shakespeare’s Warrior Kings HENRY V MACBETH RICHARD III 1 Focus: Introduction to Shakespeare Stage 5 Yr 9 Duration: 6 weeks Karen Yager - Knox Grammar School - Created for the Premier’s Literature Scholarship Concept: Perceptions & Cross Curricular Outcomes Representation Literacy ICT A student: 1. responds to and composes increasingly Shakespeare’s Warrior Language modes sophisticated and sustained texts for Kings Reading/writing/speaking/listening/ understanding, interpretation, critical analysis viewing & representing and pleasure. Deep knowledge: Texts 2. uses and critically assesses a range of How context shapes Extracts from Shakespeare’s plays: processes for responding to and composing. perspectives and Macbeth 5.transfers understanding of language concepts representations Richard III into new and different contexts. Henry V 9. demonstrates understanding of the ways texts An appreciation of others’ As well as: reflect personal and public worlds. perspectives The documentary In Search of The power of language and Shakespeare images & K. Yager’s CD rom Rationale This stage 5 unit is designed as an introductory unit to Shakespeare focusing on his representation of the warrior kings. Students begin by exploring Shakespeare’s context through a web quest, a CD-Rom and the documentary In Search of Shakespeare. The students will closely examine some of the key extracts from the plays to appreciate the textual details and features, rhythm and the perspective. The students will explore others’ perspectives of the kings and how ideas and information can be constructed. As a lawyer representing the family of the king the students will research the historical version of the king and compare their findings with Shakespeare’s representation or create a visual representation for the Power House Museum that explores different perspectives.
    [Show full text]
  • Julius Caesar © 2015 American Shakespeare Center
    THE AMERICAN SHAKESPEARE CENTER STUDY GUIDE Julius Caesar © 2015 American Shakespeare Center. All rights reserved. The following materials were compiled by the Education and Research Department of the American Shakespeare Center, 2015. Created by: Cass Morris, Academic Resources Manager; Sarah Enloe, Director of Education and Research; Ralph Cohen, ASC Executive Founding Director and Director of Mission; Jim Warren, ASC Artistic Director; Jay McClure, Associate Artistic Director; ASC Actors and Interns. Unless otherwise noted, all selections from Julius Caesar in this study guide use the stage directions as found in the 1623 Folio. All line counts come from the Norton Shakespeare, edited by Stephen Greenblatt et al, 1997. The American Shakespeare Center is partially supported by a grant from the Virginia Commission for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Arts. American Shakespeare Center Study Guides are part of Shakespeare for a New Generation, a national program of the National Endowment for the Arts in partnership with Arts Midwest. -2- Dear Fellow Educator, I have a confession: for almost 10 years, I lived a lie. Though I was teaching Shakespeare, taking some joy in pointing out his dirty jokes to my students and showing them how to fight using air broadswords; though I directed Shakespeare productions; though I acted in many of his plays in college and professionally; though I attended a three-week institute on teaching Shakespeare, during all of that time, I knew that I was just going through the motions. Shakespeare, and our educational system’s obsession with him, was still a bit of a mystery to me.
    [Show full text]
  • Study Guide 2016-2017
    Study Guide 2016-2017 by William Shakespeare Standards Theatre English Language Arts Social Studies TH.68.C.2.4: Defend personal responses. LAFS.68.RH.1.2: Determine central ideas. SS.912.H.1.5: Examine social issues. TH.68.C.3.1: Discuss design elements. LAFS.910.L.3.4: Determine unknown words. TH.68.H.1.5: Describe personal responses. LAFS.910.L.3.5: Demonstrate figurative language. TH.912.S.1.8: Use research to extract clues. LAFS.1112.SL.1.1: Initiate collaborative discussions. TH.912.S.2.9: Research artistic choices. TH.912.H.1.4: Interpret through historical lenses. Content Advisory: Antony and Cleopatra is a political drama fueled by intimate relationships. There are battle scenes. If it were a movie, Antony and Cleopatra would be rated “PG-13.” !1 Antony and Cleopatra Table of Contents Introduction p. 3 Enjoying Live Theater p. 3 About the Play p. 6 Plot Summary p. 6 Meet the Characters p. 7 Meet the Playwright p. 8 Historical Context p. 11 Elizabethan Theater p. 11 Activities p. 12 Themes and Discussion p. 17 Bibliography p. 17 !2 Antony and Cleopatra An Introduction Educators: Thank you for taking the time out of your very busy schedule to bring the joy of theatre arts to your classroom. We at Orlando Shakes are well aware of the demands on your time and it is our goal to offer you supplemental information to compliment your curriculum with ease and expediency. What’s New? Lots! First, let me take a moment to introduce our new Children’s Series Coordinator, Brandon Yagel.
    [Show full text]