Shakespeare and the Fall of the Roman Republic: A Reply to Paul A. Cantor
In the previous issue of Skenè, Paul Cantor, an eminent senior Shakespeare scholar, author of Shakespeare’s Rome: Republic and Empire (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976) and Shakespeare’s Roman Trilogy: The Twilight of Antiquity (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2017), provides a substantial review of my recent monograph Shakespeare and the Fall of the Roman Republic: Selfhood, Stoicism, and Civil War (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2019). In this essay, I respond to his wide-ranging criticism. I have explained some of my misgivings about Cantor’s work elsewhere, including not only the monograph in question, but also a review of Shakespeare’s Roman Trilogy in The Classical Review, with particular attention to our disagreement about Shakespeare’s sense of historical causation. What does Shakespeare believe drives changes to political institutions? Matter or ideas? ‘Conditions of production’? Or religious faith? Turning here, by contrast, to different concerns, I begin by summarizing the philosophical and literary-theoretical argument of my monograph, which Cantor dismisses without further explanation as “abstruse” and “impenetrable”. In contrast to a familiar but false dichotomy between ‘humanism’ and ‘antihumanism’, Shakespeare offers an appealing compromise vision of selfhood. In keeping with the recent religious turn within Shakespeare studies, as well as the revival of presentism in both history and literary criticism, I respond to Cantor’s charge that I am blinded by “Christian dogmatism” and defend my conclusion that Shakespeare’s Rome resembles present-day “liberal democracies”. Throughout the Roman plays, allusions to the Gospels and to biblical drama introduce dramatic irony. As Peter Lake (2015, 111) suggests, Shakespeare “reanimates and stages” a “neo-Roman” ideology which is “almost entirely secular”, then “tests it to breaking point by subjecting it, not merely to a secular historical and political critique, but also to a religious, indeed, a Christian critique”.
Keywords: Julius Caesar; Antony and Cleopatra; Coriolanus; liberalism; antihumanism; religious turn; republicanism
Open Access Policy
This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.
This Journal is a CC-BY 4.0 publication (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This Licence allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work’s authorship and initial publication in this Journal, providing a link to the Licence and explicitly underlining any change (full mention of Issue number, year, pages and DOI is required).
- The Author retains (i) the rights to reproduce, to distribute, to publicly perform, and to publicly display the Article in any medium for any purpose; (ii) the right to prepare derivative works from the Article; and (iii) the right to authorise others to make any use of the Article so long as the Author receives credit as Author and the Journal in which the Article has been published are cited as the source of first publication of the Article. For example, the Author may make and distribute copies in the course of teaching and research and may post the Article on personal or institutional Web sites and in other open-access digital repositories.
- The Author is free to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the Journal’s published version of the work, with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this Journal and explicitly underlining any change (full mention of Issue number, year, pages and DOI is required).
- The Author is permitted and encouraged to post their work online after the evaluation process has been successfully passed, as it can lead to productive exchanges as well as to a wider dissemination of the published work.