SHAKESPEARE'S TREATMENT OF ROMAN HISTORY: AN ARCHETYPAL STUDY

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine Shakespeare's treatment of Roman history through providing a close I comparison of his Roman plays with their archetypal sources I and integrating this inquiry with a critique of these plays. The ktudy intends to provide answers to a number of questions. First, to what extent does Shakespeare follow his source 'material? Second, what kind df characterization does he find I in these sources? Third, how numerous and significant are the changes he makes to these sources? Fourth, to what extent are his Roman plays histories or tragedies? Fifth, what is !' Shakespeare's concept of history in these Roman plays? I A close comparison of Shakespeare's Roman plays with itheir sources reveals that the dramatist has closely followed i Plutarch's narrative in his dramatization of Julius Caesar, lAntony and Cleopatra, and Coriolanus. He, has closely 'followed the historian not only in the most celebrated events i but also in the smallest details. Shakespeare, moreover, has almost literally quoted several of Plutarch's long passages. This can be attributed to the fact that he wasdealing with well-known historical facts which the audience had some idea • of. So, it was difficult for the dramatist to change the facts of history. It can also be ascribed to Plutarch's beautiful narrative , that can be valued as literature. Shakespeare's attitude to the • source of Titus Andronicus is not the same. This is due to the unhistorical nature of its source and its shallow narrative. , But Shakespeare's close adherence to Plutarch does not mean that he has not practiced at least five ways in which he departs from his sources. First, he omits some incidents as they are dramatically unnecessary. Second, he invents some incidents that seem at least to him of great dramatic value. Third, he rearranges the order of some incidents for the sake of dramatic intensity.