Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Damien Peters's avatar

Fascinating stuff. I'm actually working on a large Shakespeare project at the moment and this apparent association is one of the more interesting theories I've come across.

Steven Athearn's avatar

The amount there was to say within your narrow focus on this particular satire was revelatory. I'm already a couple weeks out from my first reading of the work, but it seems to me you substantiated your interpretations of the various Groatsworth passages with numerous references to relevant contemporary context, while leaning hardly at all on the other satires you are working with. It turns out you didn't need them to persuasively sustain your case.

About the forthcoming paper, if it substantiates contemporary knowledge of a source play for Julius Caesar, that will by itself be a very significant reshaping of the battle space. Your argument about "Et tu, Brute" having had to have existed in a play prior to 1595 (given in Thomas North, 2022) is surely the most straightforward gloss on the facts, but some will still be able to argue that it merely shows that the line had become oral tradition by then, or even that Shakespeare might have taken the line from True Tragedy.

The problem that the existence of a source play for Julius Caesar will present is that the existing play so closely follows Plutarch's Lives. If Thomas North (or even some other playwright, for that matter) first adapted the play from Plutarch's Lives, and THEN Shakespeare adapted this earlier playwright's play into the current play, then Shakespeare's contribution could have been at best rather slight.

This is why, although they may sometimes acknowledge that Shakespeare frequently used source plays, conventional scholars will have great difficulty acknowledging such a possibility in the specific case of the Roman plays. If some can be brought around on this point, that could be huge.

20 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?