Shakespeare's Rome
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-15906-8 — Shakespeare Survey Edited by Peter Holland Excerpt More Information PAST THE SIZE OF DREAMING? SHAKESPEARE’SROME ROBERT S. MIOLA Ethereal Rumours citizens, its customs, laws and code of honour, its Revive for a moment a broken Coriolanus enemies, wars, histories and myths. But (T. S. Eliot) Shakespeare knew Rome as a modern city of Italy as well, land of love, lust, revenge, intrigue and art, Confronting modernity, the speaker in setting or partial setting for eight plays. Portia dis- ‘ ’ The Wasteland recalled the ancient hero and guises herself as Balthazar, a ‘young doctor of ’ ‘ Shakespeare s play (his most assured artistic suc- Rome’ (Merchant, 4.1.152); Hermione’s statue is ’ cess , Eliot wrote elsewhere) as fragments of past said to be the creation of ‘that rare Italian master, grandeur momentarily shored against his present Giulio Romano’ (The Winter’s Tale, 5.2.96). And ruins. Contrarily, Ralph Fiennes revived Shakespeare knew both ancient and modern fi Coriolanus in his 2011 lm because he thought it Rome as the centre of Roman Catholicism, a modern political thriller: home of the papacy, locus of forbidden devotion For me it has an immediacy: I know that politician and prohibited practice, city of saints, heretics, getting out of that car. I know that combat guy. I’ve martyrs and miracles. The name ‘Romeo’, appro- seen him every day on the news and in the newspaper – priately, identifies a pilgrim to Rome. Margaret that man in that camouflage uniform running down the wishes the college of Cardinals would choose her street, through the smoke and the dust. I’ve seen the bead-praying husband Pope ‘and carry him to people protesting on the streets, in their hoodies and Rome’ (2 Henry VI, 1.3.65), whence Cardinal ’ 1 jeans. You know, that s our world. Pandolf in King John and Cardinal Campeius in Critics of Shakespeare’s Rome have always occu- Henry VIII. Despite such presence, criticism has pied a place along the spectrum marked by these been slow to recognize the connections between extremes, some thinking it depicts a world else- Shakespeare’s ancient and modern cities. For most where and long ago, others that it reflects contem- commentators today, Shakespeare’s Rome is the porary times, either those of the playwright or of classical urbs he depicted in one narrative poem, his audiences. The Rape of Lucrece, and five plays, Titus Andronicus, Shakespeare first encountered Rome as ancient Julius Caesar, Antony and Cleopatra, Coriolanus and, world through his grammar-school education, spe- to a lesser extent, Cymbeline, which has only four cifically his study of Latin authors such as Ovid, Vergil, Horace, Cicero, Caesar, Seneca, Plautus, Terence, Livy, Suetonius, Tacitus and others; this 1 Ralph Fiennes in Christopher Wallenberg, ‘Stage to Screens: education made Rome more significant and acces- Ralph Fiennes Talks to Playbill.com About Wrestling Coriolanus Onto the Big Screen’, Playbill, 20 November sible than Athens, Jerusalem, or cities in Asia and 2011,p.2, www.playbill.com/news/article/stage-to-screens- the East. Allusions and representations throughout ralph-fiennes-talks-to-playbill.com-about-wrestling-coriol- the canon evoke the ancient city and its famous 184750 1 © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-15906-8 — Shakespeare Survey Edited by Peter Holland Excerpt More Information ROBERT S. MIOLA scenes in Rome, the rest in Britain and Wales. twenty-one tests, Vickers, of course, has now con- (Some have argued also for Hamlet, wherein clusively demonstrated Peele’s hand in the play, Horatio claims to be ‘more an antique Roman even if some contest the details.9 than a Dane’, 5.2.293.) John W. Velz’s magisterial 1978 review in It was not ever thus. The most influential book Shakespeare Survey expanded Shakespeare’s Rome yet written on the subject, M. W. MacCallum’s to include Lucrece, Titus Andronicus and Shakespeare’s Roman Plays and their Background,2 Cymbeline.10 (After its appearance, Michael Platt considered only Julius Caesar, Antony and felt obliged to revise his Rome and Romans according Cleopatra and Coriolanus as the Roman plays and, to Shakespeare to take into account the missing though noting French Senecan drama, only plays.)11 Velz’s subtitle, moreover, ‘authenticity North’s Plutarch as the background. MacCallum or anachronism?’, pithily identified a central ques- exhaustively analyzed character, all the while tion for commentators on Shakespeare’s ancient methodically comparing passages from Plutarch’s world. Nahum Tate, along with such luminaries Lives to Shakespeare’s text. So doing, he advanced as Dryden, Pope and Johnson, saw historical ver- well beyond the insight of the first editor, Nicholas isimilitude in Shakespeare’s representations. Rowe (1709), who praised the ‘virtue and philo- In 1662 Margaret Cavendish actually went further, sophical temper’ of Shakespeare’s Brutus, his declaring them improvements on the originals: Antony’s ‘irregular greatness of mind’, these figures ‘certainly Julius Caesar, Augustus Caesar and portrayed ‘exactly as they are described by Antonius did never really act their parts better, if Plutarch, from whom certainly Shakespeare copied so well, as he hath described them’.12 On the other ’em’.3 Charting additions, omissions and contra- side, Ben Jonson thought ‘ridiculous’ dictions, MacCallum defined the subject and the Shakespeare’s description of Caesar as never principal approach for most of the following cen- doing wrong but with ‘just cause’,13 a phrase that tury, culminating in the word-by-word semiotic analyses of Alessandro Serpieri;4 but he excluded Titus Andronicus as Shakespeare’s juvenilia, relegat- 2 M. W. MacCallum, Shakespeare’s Roman Plays and their ing it to the ‘vestibule and forecourt of his art’.5 Background (London, 1910; rpt. with an introduction by ’ T. J. B. Spencer, New York, 1967). Introducing the 1967 reprint of MacCallum s 3 book, T. J. B. Spencer justly noted its importance Brian Vickers, ed., William Shakespeare: The Critical Heritage, 6 vols. (London, 1974-81), vol. 2,p.200. fi – 4 and some de ciencies this exclusion, the relent- Alessandro Serpieri, et al., eds., Nel laborotorio di Shakespeare: less emphasis on character, and the lack of any stage Dalle fonti ai drammi, vol. 4, I Drammi Romani (Parma, 1988); sense. A decade earlier Spencer’s own article Alessandro Serpieri, ‘Shakespeare and Plutarch: intertextual- ‘Shakespeare and the Elizabethan Romans’ had ity in action’,inShakespeare, Italy, and Intertextuality, ed. Michele Marrapodi (Manchester, 2004), pp. 45–58. begun correction by considering Titus Andronicus 5 MacCallum, Roman Plays,p.177. ’ 6 as authentically Roman, Shakespeare s attempt T. J. B. Spencer, ‘Shakespeare and the Elizabethan Romans’, 6 ‘not to get it all right, but to get it all in’, and by in Shakespeare Survey 10 (Cambridge, 1957), pp. 27–38;p.32. stating (overstating, actually) that Elizabethan 7 Spencer, ‘Elizabethan Romans’,p.31. 8 Romans, despite literary admiration for Cicero, J. C. Maxwell, ‘Shakespeare’s Roman Plays: 1900–1956’,in Shakespeare Survey 10 (Cambridge, 1957), pp. 1–11. were ‘Suetonian and Tacitan rather than 9 ’ 7 Brian Vickers, Shakespeare, Co-Author: A Historical Study of Plutarchan , that is, imperial rather than republi- Five Collaborative Plays (Oxford, 2002). can. Spencer’s fellow contributor to the same 10 John W. Velz, ‘The Ancient World in Shakespeare: Shakespeare Survey volume, J. C. Maxwell, included Authenticity Or Anachronism? A Retrospect’,in ’ Shakespeare Survey 31 (Cambridge, 1978), pp. 1–12. Titus in his review of Shakespeare s Roman 11 plays, though he thought, prophetically, some of Michael Platt, Rome and Romans according to Shakespeare 8 (Salzburg, 1976; rev. 2nd edn, Lanham, MD, 1983). it by George Peele. After exhaustive review of 12 Vickers, ed., Critical Heritage, vol. 1,p.43. the scholarship and the application of some 13 Vickers, ed., Critical Heritage, vol. 1,p.26. 2 © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-15906-8 — Shakespeare Survey Edited by Peter Holland Excerpt More Information PAST THE SIZE OF DREAMING? SHAKESPEARE’SROME does not appear in the Folio as we have it. Thomas of mythic allusion to Tereus, Procne, Philomel, Rymer (1693) mocked Shakespeare for putting Astraea, Mars, Venus and Hercules. Others have Caesar and Brutus in ‘fools’ coats’ and making suggested Lucan’s Pharsalia as a deep source for the them ‘Jack Puddings in the Shakespeare dress’.14 imagery of parricidal saevitia,21 Machiavelli for the And, Velz observed, ‘from the time of John disillusioned politics of Julius Caesar,22 and Cicero Dennis’s Essay on the Genius and Writings of and anti-Ciceronian oratory for the rhetoric of Shakespear (1712) it has been a scholarly parlour Coriolanus.23 game to enumerate Shakespeare’s blunders in the By the late twentieth century the model implicit Roman plays’15 – the clock striking in Rome, the in traditional Quellenforschung, wherein an author night clothes of Brutus and Portia, other anachron- reads a book and tags borrowings by verbal itera- isms and anatopisms. Velz argued that critics in the tion, has yielded to more spacious, accommodating mid to late twentieth century reformulated the models of intertextuality. ‘Background’ can now perennial question by asking not whether include subtexts beneath texts, contexts alongside, Shakespeare’s Rome and Romans were authentic, which may or may not have been read by the but whether the playwright and his audience author, intertexts betwixt and between the author, thought them so; most, he thought, now answered original audience and modern reader. The master in the affirmative. He also declared that of sources traditionally defined, Geoffrey Shakespeare presented Rome as a ‘world apart’, Bullough, actually served as unacknowledged har- a place with its own politics, national character binger of these changes with his endlessly capacious and institutions and called attention to its symbolic category of ‘analogue’; Bullough contributed topography (walls, gates, Capitol, forum, battle- fields), rhetoric and sources, especially Vergil.