|
|
REVIEW
- Spencer, T.J.B. "Shakespeare and the Elizabethan Romans."
- Shakespeare Survey 10. 1957. 27-38. Rpt. in Discussions
of Shakespeare's Roman Plays. Ed. Maurice Charney. Boston: Heath,
1964. 1-15.
Thesis: Shakespeare put chimneys and clocks in Rome, but he is
often credited with getting the spirit of Rome right. With this in
mind, Spencer's premise is that "It is worth while tracing to what
extent Shakespeare was in step with ideas about ancient Rome among
his contemporaries and to what extent (and why) he diverged from
them" (3). After a brief survey of Elizabethan writing about Rome,
Spencer states his general conclusion: "In Shakespeare's three
principal Roman plays we see a steadily advancing independence of
thought in the reconsideration of the Roman world" (10). Furthermore,
independence of thought was encouraged by what had already been
written:
In Julius Caesar, it seems to me he is almost precisely in
step with sound Renaissance opinion on the subject. There has been a
good deal of discussion of this play because of a supposed ambiguity
in the author's attitude to the two principal characters. It has
been suggested, on the one hand, that Brutus is intended to be a
short-sighted political blunderer who foolishly or even wickedly
struck down the foremost man in all the
world . . . . We have, on the contrary, been,
told . . . that Shakespeare followed the Renaissance
admiration for Brutus and detestation for Caesar. It has also been
suggested that Shakespeare left the exact degrees of guilt and merit
in Caesar and Brutus deliberately ambiguous in the play, to give a
sense of depth . . . But all this, it seems to
me, obscures the fact that the reassessment and reconsideration of
such famous historical figures was a common literary activity in the
Renaissance, not merely in poetry and drama (where licence is
acceptable), but in plain prose, the writing of history. It seems
hardly legitimate talk about "tradition," to refer to "traditional"
opinions about Caesar and Brutus, when in fact the characters of each
of them had been the subject of constant discussion. (10)
Spencer thus provides us with a useful warning against rigid
thinking, whether about Shakespeare or his times.
Bottom Line: Readable and rewarding.
|