Caius Martius's "honour" discourse is Elizabethan/Jacobean. Why then should the Tribunes be republicans, as none such were around in the 1600s? Has anyone investigated who among Shakespeare's contemporaries is hinted at here? The Presbyterians occurred to me, but this is only a wild guess.
First: Shakespeare has a source in Plutarch – contemporary Elizabethan references are not mandated, indeed had to be avoided (see the “Richard II” application by Queen Elizabeth), hence the safer use of ancient history. Second: Shakespeare already noted the republican opposition to Julius Caesar’s kingship in his play about him. As for Renaissance republicanism, since Machiavelli was widely known, his republicanism would have been familiar (“The Prince” is a largely ironic advice to the Medici who overthrew the Florentine Republic, firing Machiavelli in the process). I hope this helps. Hugh Richmond.
'Why then should the Tribunes be republicans, as none such were around in the 1600s? '
Notwithstanding the answer already given, you overlook two key texts
Thomas Smith De Republica Anglorum, 1583
And, more importantly
George Buchanan De Jure Regnii.., 1579
The latter had reached three editions by 1580, some twenty yeqrs before the comosition of Coriolanus (c 1605-10?)
And a brief examination of court cases for the period shows that there was plenty of republican sentiment in England at the time.
Of the anti-monarchist variety, that is.
Many thanks to both of you, and apologies to Hugh for my not noticing his post earlier. So the context really is a full-blown political one (and not just a matter of political traditions but of a really perceived threat), without any dark hints of ecclesiastical undercurrents. That's very useful to know, if only as an elimination of possibilities. Chris.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Methodology
- Research Methodology
- Research Papers