MASARYK UNIVERSITY IN BRNO FACULTY OF ARTS
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH AND AMERICAN STUDIES
Reflections of Antiquity in Shakespearean Drama
Bachelor’s Major Thesis
Dominika Klenová
Supervisor: Mgr. Pavel Drábek, Ph.D. Brno 2007
I declare that I have worked on this bachelor thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.
I would like to thank my supervisor Mgr. Pavel Drábek, Ph.D., for his kind and valuable advice and guidance.
Table of Contents
Introduction 5
1 Connections between Rome and Britain 7
1.1 Roman Britain 7
1.2 Roman traces in Renaissance 8
1.3 Mythology 9
1.4 Roman presence in Elizabethan England 11
2 Roman theme in Renaissance drama 14
2.1 Titus Andronicus 15
2.2 “Roman plays” 20
2.3 Cymbeline 30
3 Shakespeare’s Rome 33
3.1. Topicality of the plays 34
3.2. Reflections of Christianity in Ancient Rome 36
3.3 Shakespeare’s time in Roman plays 37
4 Conclusion 40
5 Czech Résumé 43
6 Works Cited 44
Introduction
Themes from antiquity were a favourite topic for Renaissance playwrights and enjoyed a significant popularity with 16th century audiences as well. Shakespeare also adapted himself to the fashion of the period and made several ventures into the realm of antiquity that resulted in his Roman plays and other works based on the subject matter from Ancient Rome and Greece.
This thesis focuses on Shakespeare’s Roman plays and plays drawing their inspiration and main theme from ancient Rome. Despite the fact that MacCallum in his detailed analysis of Shakespeare’s Roman Plays and their background (of 1910) does not pay much attention to these plays, I have decided to include in my treatment of the topic not only the three plays that are conventionally grouped under the heading Roman plays (Julius Caesar, Anthony and Cleopatra, Coriolanus) but also other plays which drew inspiration from ancient Rome and based their plot on the topic from Roman history (Titus Andronicus, Cymbeline). By including these “marginal” Roman plays in my account I hope to get a more overall picture of
Shakespeare’s Rome, because “Shakespeare’s idea of Rome was not built in a day, or built at all. Like other living things it was subject to growth and decay” (Walker 287). Besides, “to forget Titus Andronicus and Cymbeline is to lose the beginning and end of Shakespeare’s Roman theme and the shape he gave to it” (Walker 288).
MacCallums’s Shakespeare’s Roman Plays and their background, published in 1910, is one of the first works of its kind devoted solely to Shakespeare’s Roman plays. This comprehensive analysis of the three Shakespeare’s Roman plays based on Plutarch is
accompanied by the general historical and literary background information pertaining to them.
MacCallum considers literary influences coming from classical authors and from France, which might have shaped Shakespeare’s approach to the Roman theme. As the analysis takes into consideration only Shakespeare’s Roman plays based on Plutarch, MacCallum devotes some attention to the Plutarch’s The Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans and its French and English versions by Amyot and North respectively and their impact on Shakespeare’s Roman plays. Apart from that, he remarks on Shakespeare’s and generally Elizabethan
approaches to history and suggests how this could have affected the shape given to the Roman plays. To stress the discerning features of Shakespeare’s Roman plays, he compares and contrasts them with Shakespeare’s histories and partially with the plays of some of Shakespeare’s contemporaries. MacCallum as a twentieth-century pioneer in the field of Shakespeare’s Roman plays has been in many respects exceeded by his succesors who drew
on his work and developed the conception he started. One of his followers in his
preoccupation with Roman theme was T.J.B. Spencer. He too pays attention to Shakespeare’s main source for Roman plays especially in his work Shakespeare’s Plutarch (of 1964), where he looks at the way Shakespeare used Plutarch in his Roman plays and traces the occurences where he followed him closely and where he deviated from him and suggests how and why he adapted his source. Unlike MacCallum, he includes in his discussion of Shakespeare’s Roman plays Titus Andronicus and by doing so denies any doubts about Shakespeare’s authorship. In his work on Roman plays William Shakespeare: The Roman Plays: Titus Andronicus, Julius Caesar, Antony and Cleopatra, Coriolanus (of 1966) he sets the plays into the context of Shakespeare’s period, discusses the phenomenon of “Roman history in Elizabethan
literature”(Spencer 7) and ponders the question how Elizabethans percieved Roman history and the plays based on the topic from Roman history.
In my thesis I drew especially on MacCallum’s and Spencer’s works on Roman plays, using mainly their accounts on historical background of the plays, to a lesser extent I
consulted works by some other authors who were concerned with Roman plays, namely The Imperial Theme: further interpretations of Shakespeare’s tragedies including the Roman plays (of 1965) and The Roman Tragedies in An Approach to Shakespeare (of 1969) by George Wilson Knight and Derek Traversi respectively. These authors tried to fit the Roman plays into the overall context of Shakespeare’s plays and set the connection between the Roman plays and other plays of Shakespeare’s production, an attempt which I did not make, as I concentrated solely on the plays drawing their inspiration from Roman history, which is a feature common to the five plays I am concerned with.
In the preliminary chapter I am giving background information linked to the relation between the Ancient Rome and Renaissance England. This introductory part traces the Roman elements present in Britain through its historical and cultural development from its Roman period until Renaissance. Discussing both the historical and contemporary connections
between Renaissance England and Ancient Rome should answer the question what was Rome to Elizabethans and in what way they perceived it.
The second chapter is devoted to the discussion of Shakespeare’s Roman plays. The introductory part deals with the reflections of Roman theme in Elizabethan drama and suggests the possible motivations for turning back to Antiquity for dramatic inspiration. The second part makes up the main body of the essay and discusses Shakespeare’s five plays connected with the ancient setting. For the purposes of simplification of the treatment of the
am concerned with. Where I refer to the plays based on Plutarch’s The Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans as to the distinct group of three plays taken apart from the remaining two, I use the designation “Roman plays”. The plays are discussed in chronological order from Titus Andronicus to Cymbeline. This approach should better show how Shakespeare’s idea of Rome developed in the course of his life.
Shakespeare, when embarking on the topic of Ancient Rome, took on himself the task of “reproducing a civilisation that was in some respects very different from his own, and for which he had no parallel in his own experience” (MacCallum 82). Therefore, I will be concerned with the shape Shakespeare gave to the Roman subject matter, how he depicted Roman surroundings and what devices he utilized to create the Roman setting and evoke the Roman atmosphere.
The chapter entitled “Shakespeare’s Rome” is concerned with the interference of Shakespeare’s time and concentrates on the implications this had for the presentation of the Roman topic. I took into consideration both the social and political situation of Shakespeare’s time along with the realities of his everyday experience, all of which found themselves at some point projected into Shakespeare’s Rome.
The last part summarises Shakespeare’s approach to Roman theme in the five Roman plays and traces the development of Shakespeare’s idea of Rome as pursued from the very beginning of his preoccupation with the Roman theme until the very end.
1 Connections between Rome and Britain
Roman Empire of Antiquity influenced throughout its expansionist policy many countries and left behind perceptible traces of its presence. Britain was one of the countries, which for certain period of time enjoyed direct influence that Romans exercised upon it. Some of the elements of Roman culture introduced in Britain by Romans persisted throughout the centuries and survived to the Renaissance, when they were resurrected and when the
repercussions of the Roman period of Britain came to be reflected in a new and distint way.
1.1 Roman Britain
The age of Roman conquest of Britain was a significant period in its history. Despite the fact that “the Romans did not succeed in permanently Latinizing Britain as they Latinized
France” (Trevelyan 1965: 28), the period of Roman Britain had its important consequences, both historical and cultural.
“The earliest political connexion of Rome with these [British] islands came so suddenly that it was almost the first connexion of any kind between the Roman world and Britain” (Richmond 1). This “political connexion” occurred during the time of Julius Caesar and his two expeditions in 55 and 54 BC. However, neither of Caesar’s expeditions brought permanent results, as the tribute, which was agreed upon after the second expedition gradually ceased to be paid (Trevelyan 1965: 30). The authority of the Romans in the island was more nominal than real (Hume 7) and Britain retained its independence for several more decades.
Caesar’s exploring expeditions were successful in the sense that they “prepared the way for the conquest under Claudius” (Trevelyan 1965: 30), which took place in 43 AD. The year of the conquest marked the beginning of the Roman occupation of Britain. The area, which was subjugated to direct Roman control, was “confined almost exactly to modern England and Wales” (Trevelyan 1965: 34) and it was these parts of the island, which came to be referred to as Roman Britain. To the classical world, Britain was known from the time of the conquest on as the province “Britannia”.
“While Julius was being murdered and avenged, while the loves of Antony and
Cleopatra were raising the question of the relations of East and West inside the Roman world, while Augustus was cannily constructing the Empire” (Trevelyan 1965: 30-31) and in the course of the first century AD generally, Romans started subduing Britain. While doing so, laws and civility were introduced among the Britons, they were reconciled to the Roman language and manners and instructed in letters and science (Hume 10). This process continued until 409 AD, when Romans withdrew from Britain (McDowall 9).
The span of time amounting to 366 years, during which Britain was, politically and culturally, under Roman influence, was a period long enough to leave on the land, on the people and their culture some traces. Part of the legacy, which Romans left behind themselves, survived for centuries and some of the remnants of the Roman impact can be detected even today.
1.2 Roman traces in Renaissance
Romans were famous for their proficiency in architecture and craftsmanship in the construction activities. Their reputation in this field proved right in their British territory too.
In Britain they built a large network of roads, sewerage systems and water-supplies
(Richmond 105) along with numerous towns “planned out in [. . .] rectangular fashion”
(Trevelyan 1965: 35) and fortifications in the form of stone walls.
Therefore, although “the Latin life of the cities, the villas, the arts, the language, and the political organization of Rome vanished like a dream” (Trevelyan 1965: 28), many of the Roman material achievements have stood the test of time and have been preserved, to some extent, until today. Naturally, the traces of Roman activity were even more conspicuous during the Renaissance, in the period several centuries closer to the Roman period than is our age. A lot of the routes coming from the Roman period were still in operation in Elizabethan England. Many towns of Roman origin retained their “Roman character” and there were other constructions, which survived: the remains of fortifications, remnants of the famous Hadrian’s Wall, Roman spas and aqueducts (Maus 373). These architectural achievements did not perish with their originators and survived as a constant reminder of the period of Roman Britain.
1.3 Mythology
In the 16th century, people were very much influenced by the ideas of the Renaissance and started to look back to their Roman past as to a unique and great period of their history.
This was in correspondence with this new cultural movement as, “when we speak of the Renaissance we mean above all a renewed grasp of the ancient world” (Bate 1997: 16). The persistent and omnipresent “Roman element” in England came to be rediscovered and venerated again. Elizabethans celebrated great heroes of the Roman past, with all their deeds and achievements, and started to trace their cultural and historical origins to the glorified period of Roman Empire and to Romans as their ancestors. To use modern terminology, the English people of the Renaissance viewed the Roman period of their history with some kind of “patriotic feelings” and “national” pride. The Roman heroes, from whom Elizabethans derived their origins, were regarded as true historical figures, which were allegedly part of their historical background.
One of these heroes was Brutus. The medieval British legend has it that he was the first king of Britain and gave the country his name. This medieval legend was based on the accounts appearing in Historia Britonum from the 9th century by Nennius and in Historia Regum Britanniae from the first half of the 15th century by Geoffrey of Monmouth. Both these “historical” sources present a story of Brute as a descendant of Aeneas, who after his banishment from Italy after the accidental killing of his father, came to Albion. He was said to have founded a city on the Thames called by him Troia Nova (New Troy), later Trinovantum
(Troynovant) and Lud’s Town (Bush 40). This name was later modified to London, as we know it nowadays. Brutus was known as a lawgiver and was said to have reigned for twenty- four years. Despite the fact that no allusion to the “British Brutus” is to be found in any classical texts, the authenticity of Brutus was not brought into question and “the legend flourished for at least five hundred years” (Bush 39).
The other ancient hero who reportedly played an important part in “British History”
was no one less renowned than Julius Caesar himself. The British medieval myth gave him credit for starting the construction of the Tower of London (Bejblík 14, my translation).
However, this myth of the Roman origin of the Tower belongs to the realm of legends, as does the myth about Brute.
The legends were “to inspire for centuries [. . .] quantities of poetry and controversy”
(Bush 39). They were readily disseminated by the poets and dramatists of Shakespeare’s age who put forward the abundant allusions to the legendary myths in their works. In his play Richard III, Shakespeare too hints at the myth about Caesar as the originator of the Tower:
PRINCE EDWARD. I do not like the Tower of any place. Did Julius Caesar build that place, my lord?
BUCKINGHAM. He did, my gracious lord, begin that place, Which since succeeding ages have re-edified.
PRINCE EDWARD. Is it upon record, or else reported Successively from age to age, he built it?
BUCKINGHAM. Upon record, my gracious liege. (R3 3.1.68-74)
Apart from that, the Prince’s passage that follows shows an overt admiration for the “alleged”
founder of the Tower of London, which may have reflected the general feelings towards this
“national” hero at that time:
PRINCE EDWARD. That Julius Caesar was a famous man:
With what his valour did t’enrich his wit, His Wit set down to make his Valour live.
Death made no conquest of this conqueror,
For yet he lives in fame though not in life. (R3 3.1.84-88)
In the play Richard II Shakespeare makes another passing remark about the initiator of the London Tower:
QUEEN. This way the King will come. This is the way To Julius Caesar ’s ill-erected Tower,
To whose flint bosom, my condemnèd lord Is doomed a prisoner, by proud Bolingbroke.
Here let us rest, if this rebellious earth
Have any resting for her true king’s queen. (R2 5.1.1-6)
The allusions to the myths in drama and poetry reinforced the legends in the minds of the people, it is therefore of no surprise that in the Renaissance Elizabethans still looked back to their “eponym”, to the “father of Tower” and to the time and place they came from with pride and dignity.
Shakespeare’s plays too, with their passing remarks on Julius Caesar and by him “ill- erected Tower” (R2 5.1.2) play much on the sentiment of the period for evoking “myths”
based on the classical era and at the same time reminiscent of the glorious past. By the means of including the remarks on Julius Caesar and “his” Tower into his English histories
Shakespeare could easily interconnect the Roman past of England to its presence and thus contribute to strengthening the awareness of the Elizabethans of their cultural background.
1.4 Roman presence in Elizabethan England
Despite the fact that both the period of Roman Britain and of Ancient Rome were already by-gone eras, people living in the 16th century England did not regard Rome as something remote and distant. The chronological distance did not play a great part in their perception of history. “To the average Elizabethan [. . .] the past differed from the present chiefly by its dimness” (MacCallum 81). Moreover, Elizabethans perceived past and history in rather different manner than we do now. At the core of the Elizabethan perception of history was their “analogical habit of mind, with its correspondences, hierarchies, and microcosmic macrocosmic relationships” (Muir and Schoenbaum 180). They saw history as something analogical, which repeats itself over and over again in different periods and different places. Therefore, they regarded history as a source, from which they could draw useful instructions and “lessons to teach the present” (Bate 1997: 19).
“Rome was more than a historical artefact for Englishmen” (Leithart 1), it was still very much alive in the 16th century England and its omnipresent influence was to be felt in everyday life.
Ancient Rome was in Elizabethan England primarily viewed as “the great civilization of antiquity” (Leithart 1), which was in Renaissance looked back upon as an example of foremost perfection and held in high esteem accordingly. However, the perspective from which Rome was viewed shifted a bit with the advent of the unprecedented development and rise in the realm of politics, which England experienced in the period that coincided with the Renaissance. “As England sought to establish itself as a great nation and an imperial power, it looked to the example of classical Rome” (Bate 1997: 16). Therefore, with the escalating political ambitions and aspirations of England, Ancient Rome came to be increasingly reflected as a great political power too. Its political greatness was encompassed especially in its long and famous history from a small provincial town to the Roman Empire, which came to dominate at that time most of the known world and whose existence spanned over several centuries.
Despite the fact that this great political power ceased to exist with the “fall of the Roman Empire in the West” (Bainton 130), Rome did not perish. Its “imperial name was retained by the rulers of Byzantium at Constantinopole” (Bainton 130), which came to
represent “the second Rome” (Bainton 130) or “new Rome” (McManners 67) with Byzantines as new Romans, who used this name long after the Empire of “original Romans” fell (Bainton 130). Although the Roman Empire in the West lost its political power, it soon adopted a new power that came to replace the old one. The new power stemmed from Christianity, which in the course of the first century AD came to penetrate the Roman Empire and which gradually turned from the persecuted Church (McManners 46) into “officially favoured religion of the great Roman Empire” (Bainton 71). This happened under Constantine, who “hoped that the Church would prove to be a politically integrating force” (Bainton 118) and who, by changing the religion of the Roman Empire, “carried through a huge religious and social revolution”
(McManners 69). Rome, as the former “ancient seat of Ceasars” (Bainton 130), became a center of Christianity and the seat of Popes as the highest representatives of the Church. The Church soon proved to be a powerful element in the history of the Middle Ages and as its power grew it entered into open conflicts with states over the exercise of authority (Bainton 183). Eventually, the power of Christian Rome based on religion proved to be more durable than was the political power of the Ancient Roman Empire and it was therefore through the Church that Rome achieved its eternity (Bainton 130).
In the Renaissance, Rome was still very powerful as a religious authority, which continued to exercise its influence over different parts of Europe.
For some Elizabethans the Roman Pope was little more than a Roman emperor by another name. [. . .] Preachers and theologians also connected the Papacy with the Roman empire of antiquity. [. . .] Beginning in the high Middle Ages, Catholic Popes had claimed to be rulers over all kings and Elizabethan
Protestants saw this as nothing less than the resurrection of the ancient Roman Empire. (Leithart 1)
This religious aspect proved to be rather delicate for Elizabethan England, as Henry VIII divorced from Rome in 1534 and later, “as Supreme Head of the Church, proceeded to reform the religion of his subjects and so complete the breach with Rome” (Trevelyan 1965: 225).
The feelings against the Pope’s interferences in England were long entrenched in Englishmen (Trevelyan 1965: 222) and England itself, with its fully grown nationalism, “would no longer submit to be governed by a religious authority that was seated a thousand miles beyond seas and mountains, and that judged English questions by Italian, Spanish, Imperial, and
occasionally by French standards and interests, but never by English” (Trevelyan 1965: 222).
Elizabeth followed the suit of her father and under her reign, “the church of England established the Anglican ‘middle way’ between Catholic liturgy and Protestant doctrine [. . .]” (Leithart 1). However, the change in religious matters was imposed on the Englishmen from above so quickly that Anglicanism was viewed more as an ecclesiastical compromise than religion until the end of the 16th century (Trevelyan 1964b: 86). Besides, England was far from unified in its attitudes towards religious questions and except for Anglicans, there
continued to be significant numbers of Puritans, Protestants, as well as Roman Catholics (Trevelyan 1964b: 75).
Apart from the religious power of Rome, there was a persistent Roman influence on cultural and educational level. As the education in Renaissance England was based on the Latin curriculum, the educational institutions, grammar schools in particular, mediated to their pupils the Roman past through the Latin literary works and texts. Elizabethans attending grammar schools were sure to encounter a wide range of Roman topics, as it was believed that
“learning about Rome was part of an educated Elizabethan’s moral and political education”
(Leithart 1). In the lower grammar schools, a great emphasis was put first on Latin Grammar, which was taught according to William Lilly’s A Shorte Introduction of Grammar and Brevissima Institutio, the latter being “illustrated with examples from various Latin authors”
(Bate 1994b: 20). Latin axioms and phrases were the first stage of the grounding in Latin. The next step were literary classics, which were enlisted in the Latin curriculum and which
included such renowned authors in Latin as Aesop, Vergil, Horace, Plautus, Terence, Cato, Seneca and Ovid. The literary training was complemented by rhetoric and Cicero’s speeches.
History was an inseparable part of the classical education; the famous historians giving their accounts of different stages of Roman history, who were discussed at Grammar schools, comprised Livy, Plutarch, Sallust, Suetonius, and Caesar (Muir and Schoenbaum 3). Reading classics was an efficient way of getting closer to the ancient civilization and classical past.
There were many Elizabethans who benefited from this and Shakespeare was one of them.
His readings reverberate through his plays and reveal his grammar school training which was
“the only formal literary training provided by society in his day. University was professional, with literary training only incidental and subsidiary” (Baldwin 1: 662).
“Roman presence” thus showed itself in Elizabethan England in all the main areas of public life: in politics, religion as well as in education. Whether Rome was looked upon as a great civilization of Antiquity, political power or religious authority, its influence was in all these realms still strong and alive. The “presence” of Roman element was even more
reinforced by the notions of Renaissance, which attempted for the great revival of Antiquity, of Ancient Rome in particular.
2 Roman theme in Renaissance drama
“Roman history was one of the popular subjects on the Elizabethan stage” (Spencer 7) and the themes from Roman history were greatly attractive for both the Renaissance audience and the playwrights. Needless to say, the plays drawing their inspiration from Ancient Rome were just a special occurrence of the general predilection of the period for evoking the stories from history, which was in turn an expression of the patriotic feelings induced by the social circumstances of the 16th century under the reign of queen Elizabeth (MacCallum 74). It was especially “England’s victory over the Spanish Armada in 1588” (Leithart 1), which saved England from spanish invasion and at the same time “secured England as a Protestant nation”
(Leithart 1) that triggered the wave of patriotic enthusiasm, which showed itself in the increased interest in staging the themes from the national history.
Along with the themes from the English history, which were also very popular on the Elizabethan stage, the themes from the Roman period gradually came to capture the attention of some of the playwrights. This transfer of interest might be accounted for by the fact that
“English national history, in spite of patriotic sentiment, was much more limited in scope and
interest, and the historians were not nearly so good as the ancient Latin writers [. . .]”
(Spencer 9).
However, there were probably other motivations for turning to the Roman topic for inspiration and dramatic interpretation. To be sure, retiring to the Roman history offered some significant advantages. Roman history as a topic gave Elizabethan playwrights a chance to present material, which had come from a distant place and by-gone era, but which bore some relevance for contemporary issues, both social and political. By choosing the matter from Rome, the dramatists could draw attention to some topical issues and put it “in disguise” of both chronological and geographical distance. This fact might have played a crucial role when the “grave and provocative problems of political morality” (Spencer 9) were concerned. Apart from that, Roman history was a valuable source offering “the material for political lessons, because it was one of the few bodies of consistent and continuous historical material
available” (Spencer 9). However, these lessons did not encompass only the realm of politics as it might at first sight seem. “Ancient Roman history provided examples of morality and immorality, illustrations of honor and dishonor, parables of political triumphs and political catastrophes” (Leithart 1). Moreover, history of Ancient Rome offered virtues that could be celebrated and historical events of profound significance (Bergeron 31).
The history of Rome provided the playwrights with a great array of topics ripe for dramatic interpretation. The existence of Rome, from the beginning of the Republic to the downfall of the Empire, took up such a large span of time extending from 510 BC to 476 AD that the dramatists could choose from a wide range of topics, reaching for the material pertinent to different social and political issues.
However, despite this great range of topics coming from different periods of Roman history,“ it was [. . .] from the history of the growth of monarchical rule in Rome (the political events which allowed the rise and led to the fall of Julius Caesar and the conflict between Octavian and Mark Antony) that the most useful and relevant lessons could be learnt”
(Spencer 9).
It was these topics that found their reflections in two of the five Shakespeare’s Roman plays, namely Julius Caesar and Antony and Cleopatra.
2.1 Titus Andronicus
In order to trace Shakespeare’s idea of Rome, see how it developed, how his
perception of Rome matured and how the shapes given to the Roman theme in the individual
plays differed, it is necessary to start from the very beginning of Shakespeare’s preoccupation with Roman theme.
It was in Titus Andronicus, Shakespeare’s first tragedy (of 1594) and his first “Roman Play“ in the sense that it is set in Rome, that Shakespeare presented his idea of Rome for the first time. Though it is not conventionally listed among Shakespeare’s Roman plays, it is sometimes referred to as “Shakespeare’s first Roman tragedy” (Ettin 325). This play has caused considerable controversy in the scholarly circles and for centuries there have been critics (Edward Ravenscroft, Edmond Malone) rather unwilling to attribute the authorship to Shakespeare (Maus 371). Despite the dispute, I am not going to compromise Shakespeare’s authorship or belittle his achievement in the play. My intention is to focus on Shakespeare’s treatment of the Roman topic and his approach to evoking Roman setting and Roman atmosphere.
In this play, Shakespeare for the first time, showed his interest in ancient history and it seems to be “the embryo of the idea of Rome that Shakespeare develops in his later Roman plays” (Walker 288). This is exemplified by several allusions to the topics, on which he elaborated later in his “full-fledged” Roman plays. Shakespeare mentions chaste Lucrece, as a counterpart to Lavinia (2.1.109), begging Tarquin and his queen (3.1.297) and “Lord Junius Brutus” who “sware for Lucrece’ rape” (4.1.90). With these themes from early Roman history Shakespeare must have been very well acquainted, because he worked on the Rape of Lucrece and Titus Andronicus almost simultaneously. Besides these Roman historical figures, he made reference to the revenge of Coriolanus (4.4.68), which was the main character of
Shakespeare’s last Roman play, and “a later phase in Shakespeare’s idea of Rome” (Walker 291).
Unlike the later Roman plays, which were based on history and biography, “the play does not assume a political situation known to Roman history; it is, rather, a summary of Roman politics” (qtd. in Bate 1997: 16).1 Though it is not historical, it is generally accepted that, the play is presumably set in the late fourth century AD, when the existence of the Roman Empire was drawing to an end. Possibly trying to make up for the fictional plot, Shakespeare attempted to make Rome as authentic as possible. This attempt made him focus primarily on the “antique setting”, which is according to Katharine Eisaman Maus
“elaborately detailed” (372); as he “took a good deal of trouble in giving his play local colour
1The quotation comes from: Spencer, T.J.B. “Shakespeare and the Elizabethan Romans.” Shakespeare Survey 10 (1957): 27-38, esp. 32.
in accordance with Renaissance notions, and intended it to be a faithful picture of the ancient Roman world” (Spencer 12). Shakespeare tried to achieve this faithfulness by drawing on the products of Roman culture itself, its literature and mythology. Throughout the play “he puts a great deal of emphasis on the play’s “Roman-ness,” making constant references to classical myths, to legendary and historical figures, to imperial institutions, to the places and customs of ancient Rome” (Maus 372).
The numerous allusions to the works of classical literature pervade the whole play. It opens with the allusion to Vergil’s Aeneid, where Titus Andronicus is “surnamèd Pius”
(1.1.23) and the references to the characters connected with Aeneas and Troyan war continue to emerge throughout the play. This is true for Dido (5.3. 81, 2.3.22), King Priam (1.1.80), Ajax (1.1.376), Laertes’ son – Odysseus (1.1.377), Hector (4.1 87), Sinon (5.3.84) and
“Hecuba of Troy” (4.1.20). The repercussions of Troy reverberate even in the war Titus leads against Goths, as it takes Titus the same ten years’ time as did Priam to win the Trojan War did.
The occurrences of the hints at classical myths are even more frequent throughout the play. These occurrences include the references to “Prometheus tied to Caucasus” (2.1.17), to siren (2.1.23), Philomel (2.4.38, 4.1.47), Tereus (2.4.26, 41) and Progne (5.2.194), Dian (2.3.61) and Actaeon (2.3.63), Pyramus (2.3.231), Orpheus (as Thracian poet ) and Cerberus (2.4.51), Enceladus (4.2.92), Typhon (4.2.93) and Hercules as “great Alcides” (4.2.94), Cyclop (4.3.47), “Centaurus’ feast” (5.2.202), Olympus (390), Titan’s rays (1.1.226) and
“dread Fury” (5.2.82). All these mythological allusions are used purposefully to support the main thread of the play and in some cases are utilized in similes to the main characters of the play: Tamora is likened to Phoebe (1.1.313), Semiramis (2.1.22, 2.3.118), siren (2.1.23), nymph (2.1.22), Dian (2.3.57), Tarquin’s queen (3.1. 297) and to Queen of Troy - Hecuba (1.1.136). Lavinia, the other female heroine, is represented by Philomel (2.4.38), Lucrece (2.1.109) and the daughter of Virginius (5.3.37). Lavinia’s nephew Lucius likens her to
“Hecuba of Troy” (4.1.20) and her father Titus compares himself to Virginius: “I am as woeful as Virginius was” (5.3.49) and to Priam (1.1.80). Saturnine is represented by Tarquin (4.1.62), while Demetrius and Chiron are likened to Tereus (2.4.26, 41). In all these parables, the heroes of Greek mythology act as supernal images of all the main characters appearing in the play. As the figures and stories from mythology are closely intertwined and connected with Deity, the Gods of Roman pantheon are often recalled alongside the mythological heroes. There are allusions especially to Jove (4.1.65), Apollo (4.1. 65), Hymenaeus
(1.1.322), Mercury (4.1.65), Saturn (4.3.57), Pallas (4.1.65) Jupiter (4.3.67), Mars (4.3.55),
“Pluto’s region” (4.3.13) and Venus (2.3.30).
This account, which is far from complete though, manifests that Shakespeare’s image of Rome in Titus Andronicus was something to the effect of “an anthology of stories” (Maus 373). Shakespeare thus constructed his idea of Rome by means of combining and intertwining the stories, episodes, extracts and motifs from different classical sources. Ovid’s
Metamorphoses is probably the most conspicuous source, from which Shakespeare drew many of the mythological names and legends connected with them. The tale of Philomel, taken from Ovid’s Metamorphoses is used as a structural model for the whole play (Bate 1994b: 215). Metamorphoses plays even a direct part in the play, when it is pointed to as the book, which Lavinia “leafs” through to find “the tragic tale of Philomel” (4.1.47), which serves as a reflection of her own lot. Other classical works are referred to directly by means of their quotations. This pertains to the works by Ovid, Horace and Seneca. As the quotations in the play are in Latin, the ordinary audiences must have been rather familiar with them or with the works from which they came, if they were to understand the extracts in the original language.
All these references to the classical stories, coming from both literature and
mythology, make the play “a quintessence of impressions derived from an eager reading of Roman history [. . .]” (qtd. in Ettin 340).2 However, since the Renaissance idea of Rome was very much connected with texts and the classical literature, it is at the same time “a
quintessence of Elizabethan impressions of classical Rome [. . .]” (Ettin 340). The device of reference to the classical sources thus serves not only the purpose of giving the play “Roman flavour” but of bringing it closer to the Renaissance audience as well.
The classical sources, which Shakespeare consulted, provided him not only with the material for the similes applicable to the main characters and devices for creating Roman setting described above, but also with the characteristics of the typical Roman heroes and examples of the traits which Romans possessed (Maus 372). The values, which he drew from his readings and which he probably regarded as inherent to all noble Romans were reflected in the play, where Shakespeare may have well attempted to create a prototype of a characteristic Roman. The values Shakespeare presented in the play include morality, nobleness, reverence for family, personal honour, piety, valour and braveness, devotion to family, commitment to Rome and its public matters and “patriotism”. Titus, “great defender of this Capitol” (1.1.77),
2 The quotation comes from Spencer, T.J.B. “Shakespeare and the Elizabethan Romans.” Shakespeare Survey 10
at the very beginning of the play seems to embody the prevalent Roman virtues and he is in the opening scene described in a way that reveals his qualities:
MARCUS. Andronicus, surnamèd Pius
For many good and great deserts to Rome.
A nobler man, a braver warrior,
Lives not this day within the city walls. (Tit 1.1.23-26)
CAPTAIN. The good Andronicus, Patron of virtue, Rome’s best champion, Successful in the battles that he fights, With honour and with fortune is returned From where he circumscribèd with his sword
And brought to yoke the enemies of Rome. (Tit 1.1.64-69)
Shakespeare emphasized the favourable Roman qualities when he put them into stark contrast with the qualities of Goths as barbarians. The “noble Romans” Titus and Marcus Andronici are thus positioned against their evil counterparts embodied by “the barbarous Goths” (1.1. 28), namely by “barbarous Tamora” (2.3.118) and “lascivious Goth” (2.3.110) in one person and “barbarous Moor” (2.3.78). The “barbarism” and “Roman-ness” as two contrastive phenomena seem to rule each other out when Marcus urges Titus: “Thou art a Roman; be not barbarous” (1.1.375). The opposition between Goths and Romans thus puts forward an “assumption that Rome represents all that is civilized while the Gothic and Moorish outsiders are pure barbarians” (Bate 1997: 52). Presenting Goths as barbarians against “religious” Romans only underscores the “noble” nature of Romans and their moral superiority.
The typical Roman qualities are not the only feature Shakespeare presents as relevant to Rome. Apart from them, he imagines Rome in Titus Andronicus in respect of Rome’s surroundings. In Titus Andronicus Shakespeare seems to enclose Rome and “Romaness” with its specific qualities within special area marked off by the wall. It may be the case that “to Shakespeare, Rome is above all urbs in its etymological sense, the enclave of civilization ringed round with a protective wall, outside of which the dark forces of barbarism lurk” (qtd.
in Liebler 274).3 This supports the opening part of the play, when Marcus welcomes Titus in
3 The quotation comes from: Velz, John W. “The Ancient World in Shakespeare: Authenticity or Anachronism?
A Retrospect.” Shakespeare Survey 31 (1978): 1-12, esp.11.
the city and puts a stress on the fact that man equal to him in qualities “lives not this day within the city walls” (1.1. 26). At the very end of the play, there is another indirect reference to the border of Rome as Lucius’ verdict suggests that the body of Tamora shall be thrown away behind the city walls, where no Roman laws are being observed: “But throw her forth to beasts and birds to prey” (5.3.197).
To sum up, Titus Andronicus is the very starting point of Shakespeare’s idea of Rome and his dramatic interpretation of Roman theme. It is with Titus Andronicus, that
Shakespeare’s idea of Rome takes its form and starts to constitute itself, the process which continues in the “Roman plays” and culminates in Cymbeline. As Titus Andronicus was Shakespeare’s first tragedy and at the same time the first Roman play, Shakespeare had to experiment very much with the devices and sources available. In respect to Roman matter he tested “the ramifications of using classical Roman sources” (Ettin 341) and “the nature and meaning of the Roman legacy” (Ettin 341). Shakespeare is in this play most concerned with creating “Rome effect” (Maus 372), which he achieves primarily by drawing on the stories and patterns coming from classical literature and mythology. The references to both the classical myths and stories are extensively used in numerous similes of the main characters to the heroes appearing in mythology. It is predominantly by this means of relying on the classical sources that Shakespeare evokes the Roman setting and atmosphere in Titus Andronicus. Rome itself is in the play presented mainly from two perspectives, from the geographical point of view, it is looked upon as a city surrounded by its walls and by this means marked off from its surroundings, from the moral point of view; Rome is shown as a place where civility dwells, embodied by virtuous and noble Romans.
2.2 “Roman Plays” (Julius Caesar, Antony and Cleopatra, Coriolanus)
Shakespeare’s idea of Rome enters its next stage with Shakespeare’s approach to the three plays, comprising Julius Caesar, Antony and Cleopatra, Coriolanus. These plays tend to be grouped under the designation “Shakespeare’s Roman plays” and share this term on the grounds of their common source: The Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans by Plutarch.
The source of the plays themselves makes them markedly different from the remaining two plays, which I have taken aside. First of all, the plot of the plays is not fictional, but is based on the recorded historical events. Although there are some passages where Shakespeare followed his original very closely, he used the source material as a framework, which helped him develop his own conception of creating drama out of biography. On the other hand, he
made numerous deviations from the source. The deviations lay in ignoring or distorting some historical facts, or in making up some details. At some point he condensed the events or changed their order. Shakespeare’s treatment of the main characters differed from Plutarch as well. Shakespeare made some characters more elaborate, whereas Plutarch only slightly outlined them. On the other hand, he diminished the importance of some characters and made them thus play rather different roles. I am not going to trace the occurrences of this kind, nor will I be concerned with any Shakespeare’s divergences from Plutarch, because “the facts of history were for him the raw material which he hada [sic] right, within broad limits, to shape to his own artistic ends” (Dorsch xvi). Besides, this topic has been already covered in
František Drahoš’s Shakespeare’s Use of Plutarch in His Roman Plays, on which I have partially drawn.
In the case of Roman plays I want to focus on how the shape given to them differed from Titus Andronicus and what were the shifts in Shakespeare’s approach to Roman theme and in his perception of Rome and Roman character.
Shakespeare’s task of creating Roman atmosphere and giving his plays Roman flavour was much facilitated in case of the group of these plays. Firstly, because Shakespeare drew on the work by Plutarch, who was regarded as a recognized authority on ancient background, secondly, because he chose historical themes which were mostly familiar to the Renaissance audiences.
Coriolanus, as the last play (of 1607/1608) from the group of three, deals with the oldest topic from Roman history, even verging on the border of history and mythology. On the other hand, Julius Caesar (of 1599/1600) and Antony and Cleopatra (of 1606/7) are closely related as far as the plot is concerned. Actually, Antony and Cleopatra is in a way a sequel to Julius Caesar, as it draws on the events, with which Julius Caesar ends. Some of the passages even directly refer to the events, which took place in Julius Caesar and which have some relevance for the plot of Antony and Cleopatra too.
Some of the devices that Shakespeare used in Titus Andronicus to evoke the Roman atmosphere and create Roman setting were used in the “Roman plays” as well. This is true especially for drawing on classical literature, as both the references to mythology and classical stories are incorporated in the “Roman plays”. In Julius Caesar, there is a hint to Erebus (2.1.84) and Ate (3.1.274), but otherwise the mythology is not used much. Rather the opposite is true for Antony and Cleopatra, where the main characters make frequent
references to the heroes appearing in the stories from mythology. The mentions are of Telamon (4.14.2), “Lethe’d dullness” (2.1.27), “Phoebus’ car” (4.9.29), “smiling Cupids”
(2.2.209), Nereides (2.2. 213), Narcissus (2.5.97), Fury (2.5.39), Bacchus (2.7.111), Thetis (3.7.58), “Arabian bird” (3.2.12) and Nessus (4.13.43). The main characters of the play use the allusions to the mythological heroes when they relate their actions to the deeds of their supernal counterparts: “Help me, my women! O, he’s more mad / Than Telamon for his shield; the boar of Thessaly / Was never so embossed” (4.14.1-3). Antony: “The seven-fold shield of Ajax cannot keep / The battery from my heart” (4.15.38-9).
ANTONY. The shirt of Nessus is upon me. Teach me, Alcides, thou mine ancestor, thy rage.
Let me lodge Lichas on the horns o’th’moon, And with those hands that grasped the heaviest club Subdue my worthiest self. (4.13.43-47)
Such similes of the main characters to the mythological figures appear both in Antony and Cleopatra and in Coriolanus. Antony is desribed as “Herculean Roman” (1.3.84) and is likened to “the demi-atlas of this earth” (1.5.23) and to Hercules as to his “semi-divine type”
(Bate 1994b: 205). In Coriolanus, mythology heroes are used more scarcely, but still there are hints at “Phoebus’ burning kisses” (2.1.315), Deucalion (2.1.90), Neptune and his trident (3.1.256), Hydra (3.1.96), Triton (3.1.91) and Hercules and his twelve labours (4.1.18). The parables of the main characters and mythological heroes are not so frequent as in Antony and Cleopatra, but some occurrences are to be found even here. Coriolanus likens Plebeians to Hydra (3.1.96) and his mother Volumnia to the wife of Hercules (4.1.18). Valeria likens Virgilia to Penelope: “You would be another Penelope. Yet they say / all the yarn she spun in Ulysses’ absence did but fill / Ithaca full of months” (1.3.84) and the tribune Sicinius earns the designation “Triton of the minnows” (3.1.91).
The “Trojan heroes” as eminent representatives of classical literature found their ways into the “Roman plays” as they did in case of Titus Andronicus. In Julius Caesar Cassius recalls the story of Aeneas who carried the old Anchises from burning Troy (1.2.114-116) and compares thus himself to Aeneas, the “great ancestor” (1.2.114), as he too saved Caesar “from the waves of Tiber” (1.2.116). In Antony and Cleopatra Hector is recalled for his valiantness:
“You have shown all Hectors” (4.9.7). Apart from him, there are allusions to Ajax (4.15.38) alias Telamon (4.14.2) and Aeneas and Dido (4.15.53) who emerge as allegorical images and
“mythico-historical precedents” (Bate 1994b: 212) for Antony and Cleopatra. In Coriolanus there are references to “The breasts of Hecuba / When she did suckle Hector” (1.3.42-3),
showing the allusions to the classical stories and their heroes might seem a long one, the extent to which Shakespeare reached for classical sources is much lower than in Titus Andronicus.
In “Roman plays” Shakespeare shifts his focus to other aspects of Roman culture, which in some cases he touches upon in Titus Andronicus and which he elaborates in a greater detail in “Roman plays”. One of these is Roman religion.
Shakespeare obviously saw the religion of Ancient Rome as one of the typical features pertaining to Roman culture and therefore concentrated on capturing its beliefs and creed, mostly stemming from paganism. He saw Roman religious beliefs as very much
interconnected with different superstitions and beliefs in prophecies and telling fortunes, which he stressed as a typical feature of the religion. The belief in superstitions showed itself in the faith in different signs and omens, in reading the entrails of sacrificial animals, in interpreting the changes in weather and stars and in observing the traditions connected with the feasts (the feast of Lupercal in Julius Caesar). The figures as soothsayers and augurs are often mentioned throughout the plays. They are asked for advice and regarded as mediators, who let the people know the will of Gods. The fates of both Julius Caesar and Antony are predicted in advance in the prophecies. Shakespeare shows how Romans adhered to their beliefs, how painstakingly they observed the distinctive sets of rites and ceremonies, and how they held them in serious regard. Brutus makes sure that the rites at Caesar’s funeral are followed: “Caesar shall / Have all true rites and lawful ceremonies” (3.1.242-3) and Cleopatra in Egypt treated Antony after his death “after the high Roman fashion” (4.16.89). Numerous references to the Roman Deity appear already in Titus Andronicus and this pattern shows itself in Roman plays too. Gods of the Roman pantheon are frequently invoked; their range being somewhat wider than in Titus Andonicus. Mentions are particularly of: Neptune (AC 2.7.131), Mercury (AC 4.16.36), Mars and Venus (AC 1.5.18), Pluto (Cor 1.5.7), “Dian’
temple” (Cor 5.3.67), Fortune (JC 3.2.259), Juno (Cor 4.2.56) and Jove (AC 4.16.37), the last being the oftenest invoked God. Romans turn to their Gods for guidance and advice in need and sometimes refer to them rather indirectly: Juno is pointed to as “the jealous queen of heaven” (Cor 5.3.46) and Dian as “the modest moon” (Cor 1.2.257). Some of the main characters are even likened to Gods. Antony is referred to as “plated Mars” (AC 1.1.4), “the Jupiter of men” (AC 3.2.9) and “the god of Jupiter” (AC 3.2.10). The frequent allusions to Venus and Mars in Antony and Cleopatra are used to “assert the god-like status” (Bate 1994b:
204) of both Cleopatra and Antony. In Julius Caesar the religious beliefs a bit clash, as one of the main themes here is the matter of man’s will and already determined fate by Gods.
Cassius acts as the proponent of the free will, while Brutus seems to be the champion of God’s control over men’s will. With the problem of the predetermination, much discussed throughout the play, is connected another phenomenon and that is the ancient philosophy. The play touches upon the two main streams of philosophy: stoicism, and epicurean school. Brutus and Cassius respectively are the adherents of these philosophical schools:
CASSIUS. You know that I held Epicurus strong, And his opinion. Now I change my mind,
And partly credit things that do presage. (JC 5.1.76-8) . . .
BRUTUS. Even by the rule of that philosophy By which I did blame Cato for the death Which he did give himself - I know not how, But I do find it cowardly and vile
For fear of what might fall, so to prevent The time of life - arming myself with patience To stay the providence of some high powers That govern us below. (JC 5.1.100-107)
In Antony and Cleopatra there is too a passing hint to the “Epicurean cooks” (2.1.24), but the main focus of the play is shifted away from philosophy. In Coriolanus, Gods are stressed as almighty, omnipotent “creatures” directing the life of the people. This belief is reflected in Menenius’ speech to the plebeians where he accounts for their complains and points to the “constructor” of their mishaps: “For the dearth, / The gods, not the patricians, make it, and / Your knees to them, not arms must help” (1.1.70-73).
Another device not used much in Titus Andronicus and introduced newly in “Roman plays”, is reference to the historical persons related to the Roman history. The time when Tarquin was expelled from Rome (JC 2.2.94) is recalled several times throughout the plays as a landmark marking the start of the existence of the Republic. Beside him, other Roman historical personalities mentioned are: Marcus Portius Cato (JC 5.1.101), Lycurguses (Cor 2.1.54), Lucius Junius Brutus (JC 1.2.160) and Galen (Cor 2.1.114).
However, it’s not only historical personalities, which are mentioned, but the
contemporary personalities are frequently recalled too. In Antony and Cleopatra Shakespeare mentions especially the personalities, which had some relevance for the events at the time
include Labienus (1.2.92), Sextus Pompeius (1.2.175), Pompey the Great (1.2.180), Caesarion (3.6.6), Marcus Crassus (3.1.4), Pacorus and Orodes (3.1.3), Herod of Jewry (1.2.24) and consuls Hirtius and Pansa (1.4.58). This enables him to evoke the period presented in the plays and set the plot in the rough historical frame.
Besides, Shakespeare complements the historical setting by the allusions to the geographical realities of the era. The world known to Romans at the time in question is defined as “the three-nooked” (AC 4.6.5), the triumvirs are referred to as “three world sharers” (AC 2.7.69) and Antony as “the triple pillar of the world” (AC 1.1.12). Shakespeare makes the geographical situation of Rome more accurate by pointing to the geographical locations in the area of Europe: to Tiber (Cor 3.1.262), Italy (AC 1.3.44), Ostia, Alps (AC 1.4.66), the Mount of Misena (AC 2.2.168), Sicily and Sardinia (AC 2.6.35), Tarentum and Brundisium (AC 3.7 21), Ionian see (AC 3.7.22), Toryne (AC 3.7.23), Athens (AC 3.1.35), Peloponnesus (AC 3.10.30), Sicyon (AC 1.2.106), Hybla (JC 5.1.34) - these places being relevant to the immediate surroundings of Rome. Other locations mentioned relate to the parts of the world connected with the Roman Empire in the first century AD: Parthia (AC 2.3.40), Asia (AC 1.2.94), Euphrates (AC 1.2.94), Syria (AC 1.2.95), Lydia and Ionia (AC 1.2.96), Media (AC 3.1.7), Mesopotamia (AC 3.1.8), Armenia (AC 3.5.14), Cyprus (AC 3.5.10).
Both the references to the historical figures and to the geographical realities make the setting of the play much more elaborate and add to the more detailed description of the Roman world. This description is further complemented by the details on political life of Ancient Rome, its political institutions, offices, magistrates and common places of public life.
From the officers of Ancient Rome, senators, consuls (Cor 3.3.114), centurions, (Cor 4.3.41) aediles (Cor 3.1.216), praetors (JC 2.3.18), and tribunes of Rome (Cor 1.1.213) are
mentioned. Places of public life touched upon include Capitol (Cor 3.1.239), Senate House (JC 2.2.59), and market-place (Cor 3.2.104) as Forum Romanum. This political aspect of Rome was only roughly outlined in Titus Andronicus. Although there are some mentions of the political offices, they remain in the background and overshadowed by the quarrels over succession.
Shakespeare complements the Roman setting of the “Roman plays” by the passing remarks related to everyday life of Romans and to the realities of their era and culture. These mentions comprise “myrtle leaf” (AC 3.12.8), “the ne’er–touched vestal”(AC 3.12.31), legions (AC 3.13.21) and triumphs (AC 3.13.138), drachmas (JC 3.2.237), Pompey’s Theatre (JC 1.3.152) and “Pompey’ s statue” (JC 3.2.186), proscriptions (JC 4.2.230), Tarpeian rock (Cor 3.1.266).
In the “Roman plays” Shakespeare draws on his attempt made already in Titus Andronicus, to present a prototypical Roman character with his characteristic values and qualities. In “Roman plays” he develops his idea of Roman character and elaborates on him at both “national” and individual level.
In Titus Andronicus Romans are captured at a moment of threat of foreign invasion when they need to defend themselves. The specific Roman qualities emphasized are thus mostly related to the valour and courage of soldiers as defenders of Rome. In “Roman plays”, Shakespeare devotes much more room to the specification of Roman character from several points of view. In “Roman plays” Shakespeare presents Roman society as a bipolar
community made of two opposing elements, of nobility and plebeians, which are very often given the shape of whimsical mob, which changes sides very quickly, as in Julius Caesar, and of unstable mass, which changes its decisions under coercion and thus is prone to be
manipulated, as both in Julius Caesar and Coriolanus. The chasm between the two groups plays an important part in the plays, especially in Coriolanus and partially in Julius Caesar.
Patricians are presented as a group well aware of its moral superiority and status. They derive their dominant position from their “full-fledged” Roman origin as opposed to the plebeians, who were taken to be the “second-class” and “inferior” inhabitants of Rome. In Julius Caesar Brutus says: “I had rather be a dog, and bay the moon, / Than such a Roman” (4.2.79). The nobility treated the plebeians and their “five tribunes to defend their vulgar wisdoms” (Cor 1.1.213) with scorn and contempt. Coriolanus: “I would they were barbarians, as they are, / Though in Rome littered; not Romans, as they are not / Though calved i’th’ porch o’th’
Capitol” (3.1.237-239).
Shakespeare already touched upon Roman’s great regard for traditions and customs when he elaborated on the description of Roman religion. However, this regard for traditions emerged in other areas too. Mainly in their respect for their ancestors:
BRUTUS (to the Citizens). Say we read lectures to you, How youngly he began to serve his country, How long continued, and what stock he springs of, The noble house o’th’ Martians, from whence came That Ancus Martius, Numa’s daughter’s son, Who after great Hostilius here was king;
Of the same house Publius and Quintus were, That our best water brought by conduits hither;
And nobly named so, twice being censor, Was his great ancestor. (Cor 2.3.236-244)
The same is true for the customs initiated by their ancestors, which were rigorously followed:
SICINIUS. Sir, the people
Must have their voices, neither will they bate One jot of ceremony.
MUNENIUS (to Corilanus). Put them not to’t.
Pray you, go fit you to the custom and Take to you, as your predecessors have,
Your honour with your form. (Cor 2.2.140-144)
Apart from the description of the traits and qualities, which are common to “all” the Romans as a whole, in “Roman plays” Shakespeare paid particular attention to more subtle definition of the Roman character on the individual level, slightly outlined already in Titus Andronicus. All the main characters are presented with their qualities along with their flaws, which eventually bring about their downfall. Julius Caesar is accused of being a tyrant, because he is “dangerous” and “ambitious”, the qualities highly inappropriate for “noble”
Roman and true Republican. Coriolanus, on the other hand, though well aware of his “own desert“ (2.3.65), has a tendency to disparage his own achievements and refuse the honours offered to him: “I had rather have one scratch my head i’th’ sun / When the alarum were struck than idly sit / To hear my nothings monstered” (2.2.75-77). But, unlike Caesar, he maltreats the common people and acts in proud fashion in the public, which makes him very much unpopular among the masses. Both Julius Caesar and Coriolanus remain true to their principles and retain constant attitudes. Caesar proclaims himself to be “constant as the Northern Star” (3.1.60) and Coriolanus declines to change his attitude towards plebeians even when he stands for the consulship. The tragic flaw which leads to downfall of Coriolanus is his pride, in which “he has no equal” (1.1.253) and partially his meeker side which does not let him “stand / As if a man were author of himself / And knew no other kin” (5.3.35-37).
Antony is ruined by his emotionality too, which interferes with his braveness and his performance in battle and therefore leads to his failure as a soldier: “I have offended
reputation; / A most unnoble swerving” (3.11.48-49). Antony’s indulgence and predilection for feasts, which is passingly touched upon in Julius Caesar already, and elaborated on in
Antony and Cleopatra, is another flaw in his character and seems to be much at variance with the values revered by “true” Romans, who call him “the ne’er lust-wearied Antony” (2.1.38) and Caesar urges him to leave his “lascivious wassails” (1.4.56).
The negative qualities showing what Roman should not be like are outweighed by the desired qualities. Shakespeare presents true Romans as, first of all, noble, honourable,
virtuous and loyal even in the adverse circumstances:
ENOBARBUS. The loyalty well held to fools does make Our faith mere folly; yet he that can endure To follow with allegiance a fall’n lord
Does conquer him that did his master conquer, And earns a place i’th’story. (AC 3.13.41-4)
The valour and braveness emphasized as desirable Roman qualities in Titus
Andronicus, areeven more developed in “Roman plays”. They are demonstrated in the mode of voluntary death, which Romans choose in preference to being captured by the opposing parties. The main conspirators in Julius Caesar opt for the death by their own swords and in Antony and Cleopatra both the main heroes show their determination to end their lives in a
“noble way“.
The Roman male character is elaborated in the plays in a great detail. However, there is an outline of desirable female Roman as well. In Antony and Cleopatra, the ideal of female Roman is embodied by Octavia. She allegedly posesses the virtues of beauty, wisdom and modesty and is said to be “of a holy, cold, / and still conversation” (2.6.122-3). Her female counterpart in Coriolanus is Virgilia, not much speaking, family type, home based and fearful for her husband. Coriolanus addresses her once “My gracious silence” (2.1.172). Though the institution of family is held in great regard by Shakespeare’s Romans, which is apparent already in Titus Andronicus, true Roman is supposed too to sacrifice his personal and family happiness and give preference to public service to Rome, which should be his overriding concern. This is exemplified by the marriage of Octavia and Antony, which turns out to be forced bond required by the circumstances:
MENAS. I think the policy of that purpose made more in the marriage than the love of the parties.
ENOBARBUS. I think so, too. But you shall find the band that seems to tie their friendship together will be the very strangler of their amity. (AC 2.6.118-122)
In conclusion, it’ s necessary to emphasize that although Shakespeare used in “Roman plays” some devices utilized already in Titus Andronicus, in the three plays based on Plutarch he approached the Roman theme rather differently and gave it different shape too. The
recurrent pattern common to the “Roman plays” and Titus Andronicus is using the stories from classical literature and mythology for frequent similes of the main characters. However, this device in “Roman plays” is applied in moderation and to a much lower extent than in Titus Andronicus. In Titus Andronicus Rome is geographically presented as a city surrounded by its walls and by them delimited from the rest of the world. Chronologically it is set by implication into the final phase of the Roman Empire. “Roman plays” are set in much more elaborate framework, both geographical and historical. Shakespeare seems to show an attempt to remain true to both the geographical and historical realities and set the plays into specific chronological and geographical context, mainly by allusions to different historical and contemporary personalities and geographical locations pertaining to Roman world. The Roman setting is further complemented by the references to the Roman public offices, magistrates and institutions of the government and to everyday realities of Roman life.
In “Roman plays”, Shakespeare further develops religious aspects of Rome already touched upon in Titus Andronicus. He devotes particular attention to the beliefs, superstitions and traditions of Roman religion, marginally to the ancient philosophy with special regard to stoicism and Epicureanism.
What Shakespeare brings to perfection in Roman plays, is the depiction of Roman character. He draws on the Roman qualities already outlined in Titus Andronicus and makes them more accurate by means of viewing them from several perspectives. On the individual level he turns attention to both the values, which he saw as inherent to noble Romans, and to flaws, which eventually lead to the downfalls of all the main characters. From the “national”
point of view he considers the Roman society as a whole with its customs, traditions and with the rivalries between the individual groups of the society.
Shakespeare’s idea of Rome seems to be somewhat more mature in the “Roman plays”
than in Titus Andronicus. Thanks to the elaborate description of both the Roman setting and Roman character, the picture of Rome is in the “Roman plays” much clearer, detailed, and, for me, authentic as well. This may be caused by the influence of Plutarchs’s biography as a main source of “Roman plays”, as Plutarch did already great deal of work for Shakespeare, as far as the ancient background and its description are concerned. I see the Roman setting in the three Roman plays as not only more authentic than in Titus Andronicus, but more natural too. This
could be accounted for by the fact, that the frequent use of mythological and classical patterns from Titus Andronicus is used more scantily and in greater moderation. This measure proves to be just right for evoking the Roman atmosphere and making it natural at the same time.
However, this impression of mine seems to differ markedly from the view of Renaissance audience, which would easily recognize Titus Andronicus as “a more typical Roman play, a more characteristic piece of Roman history, than the three great plays of Shakespeare which are generally grouped under that name” (qtd. in Ettin 340). 4
2.3 Cymbeline
Cymbeline (of 1609) stands at the very end of Shakespeare’s idea of Rome. The play reveals both Shakespeare’s longstanding interests, which were manifested in his drama, as
“Cymbeline is a happy blend of two of Shakespeare’s favourite topics: English history and Roman history” (Bergeron 32). Though it does not deal exclusively with Roman topic as the preceding Roman plays do, I have decided to include it in the treatment of the topic, as there are some detectable reverberations of Shakespeare’s idea of Rome and the plot touches upon the Roman theme too. Moreover, as Shakespeare’s last Roman play it offers a logical
conclusion to the events dramatized in other Roman plays (Bergeron 32).
The play is set in the first century Britain and centres on the world of ancient Britons under the rule of king Cymbeline. Although the play relates to Rome only marginally, it is pervaded with both direct and indirect Roman influence and reflections of Antiquity, which I shall focus on. The plot relates to the Roman theme at the point when Cymbeline, urged by his wife, refuses to pay Romans the tribute pledged by Cymbeline’s uncle Cassibelan and thus provokes a conflict between both the parties concerned, which eventually culminates in the Roman invasion of Britain. There is only one scene (3.7) that is set wholly in Ancient Rome.
The scene takes place in a public place in Rome and shows a conversation between Senators and Tribunes and reveals that Rome is at war “‘gainst the Pannonians and Dalmatians”
(3.7.3), that Roman legions are garrisoned in Gallia and that Lucius has been by Augustus appointed proconsul and “general of the forces” (3.7.11) against “fall’n-off Britons” (3.7.6).
Although the order for dispatching the troops to Britain is given by Augustus, he never appears directly in the play, he is only pointed to by implication several times.
4Quotation comes originally from Spencer, TJ.B. “Shakespeare and the Elizabethan Romans.” Shakespeare Survey 10 (1957): 27-38.
