George Chapman’ın Ceasar and Pompey Trajedisi ve Arabulucu Cato

Yıl 2020, Sayı: 44, 55 - 70, 26.12.2020

Hediye Özkan

https://doi.org/10.21497/sefad.845326

Öz

Klasik Roma geçmişi, antik siyasi karakterler ve yaşayan gerçek şahsiyetler arasında edebi ilişkiler kurmak isteyen oyun yazarlarına zengin bir kaynak sağlamıştır. İhmal edilmiş on yedinci yüzyıl yazarlarından George Chapman, Caesar ve Pompey: Bir Trajedi adlı oyununda, Roma Cumhuriyeti alegorisini İngiltere’yi iç savaşa sürükleyen siyasi anlaşmazlıklara cevaben kullanmıştır. Bu oyun aracılığıyla, Chapman İngiltere tarihinin belirli siyasi olaylarına tekabül eden olası senaryoları aktarmaktadır. Bu makale, Chapman’nın oyununu, üç krallığı 1642’de iç savaşa sürükleyen Birinci Charles ve Parlamenterler arasındaki anlaşmazlığı anlatan siyasi bir alegori olduğunu yeni tarihselcilik açısından incelemektedir. Bu çalışma, oyunda resmedilen Roma Cumhuriyetini Erken Modern Dünya ile ilişkisi açısından okuyarak, Cato karakterinin nasıl Chapman’nın sesi ve ayrımcıdan ziyade sıkı bir uzlaşma taraftarı olduğunu tartışır. Bu bağlamda, Roma cumhuriyetinin kanlı tarihini Kraliçe Elizabeth döneminde İngiltere siyasetinin geleceği için bir uyarı olarak kullanan Chapman hakkındaki bilgiye katkı sağlanması amaçlanmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Caesar and Pompey, George Chapman, İngiliz Rönesans Draması, Roma Cumhuriyeti, yeni tarihselcilik

George Chapman’s Caesar and Pompey and Cato as the Mediator

Öz

The classical Roman past has been a rich source for the playwrights who desire to make literary connections between the ancient political characters and real life figures. George Chapman, a neglected playwright of the seventeenth century, uses the Roman Empire allegory in Caesar and Pompey: A Roman Tragedy (1631) to respond to the political dissagreements which lead England into the Civil War. Through Caesar and Pompey, Chapman conveys possible scenarios that correspond to specific political events in the history of early modern England. Using new historicism as a theoretical framework, this paper analyzes Chapman’s play as a political allegory of the dispute between Charles I and Parliamentarians, leading the three kingdoms into war in 1642. Drawing a parallel between the Roman republic depicted in the play and the specific moments of early modern world, this paper discusses how Cato acts as Chapman’s mouthpiece and the ardent supporter of political negotiation rather than conflict. Thus, the paper contributes to the scholarship about Chapman who uses the history of Roman republic as a warning for the future of English politics during the Elizabethan period.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Caesar and Pompey, George Chapman, English Renaissance Drama, Roman Republic, new historicism

Kaynakça

• Bement, P. (1974). George Chapman: Action and contemplation in his tragedies. Salzburg: University of Salzburg Press.
• Berghahn, K. L. (1992). New historicism: Editorial introduction. Monatshefte, 84(2), 141-147
• Brannigan, J. (1998). New historicism and cultural materialism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Braunmuller, A. R. (1992). Natural fictions: George Chapman’s major tragedies. Toronto: University of Delaware Press.
• Brown, J. R. (1954). Chapman’s Caesar and Pompey: An unperformed play? The Modern Language Review, 49(4), 466-469.
• Cadman, D. & Duxfield A. (2016). Rome and home: The cultural uses of Rome in early modern English literature. Early Modern Litrary Studies, 1-15.
• Cantor, P. A. (1976). Shakespeare’s Rome: Republic and empire. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
• Chapman, G. (1910). Caesar and Pompey: A Roman tragedy. In T. M. Parrott (Ed.), The plays of George Chapman: The tragedies. (pp. 339-400). London: Routledge. (Original work published 1631)
• Crawley, D. (1967). Decision and character in Chapman’s the tragedy of Caesar and Pompey. Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, 7(2), 277-297.
• Crawley, D. (1974). Character in relation to action in the tragedies of George Chapman. Salzburg: University of Salzburg Press.
• Dutton, R. (2000). Licensing, censorship and authorship in early modern England: Buggeswords. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Foucault, M. (1972). Power/Knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972-1977. (Colin Gordon, Leo Marshall, John Mepham, and Kate Soper, Trans.) New York: Pantheon Books.
• Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. Critical Inquiry, 8(4), 777-795.
• Goldstein, L. (1963). George Chapman and the decadence in early seventeenth-century drama. Science & Society, 27(1), 23-48.
• Greenblatt, S. (1980). Renaissance self-fashioning: From more to Shakespeare. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Hadfield, A. (2005). Shakespeare and republicanism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Higgins, M. (1945). Chapman’s senecal man: A study in Jacobean psychology. RES, 21, 183-191.
• Howard, J. E. (1986). The new historicism in renaissance studies. English Literary Renaissance, 16(1), 13-43.
• Huntington, J. (2002). Ambition, rank, and poetry in 1590s England. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
• Ide, R. S. (1985). Chapman’s Caesar and Pompey and the uses of history. Modern Philology, 82(3), 255-268.
• Jensen, F. C. (2012). Reading the Roman Republic in early modern England. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV.
• Kistler, S. F. (1979). The significance of the missing hero in Chapman’s Caesar and Pompey. Modern Language Quarterly, 40, 339-57.
• MacLure, M. (1966). George Chapman: A critical study. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
• O’Callaghan, J. F. (1976). Chapman’s Caesar. Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, 16(2), 319-331.
• Peltonen, M. (1995). Classical humanism and republicanism in English political thought, 1570-1640. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Pickett, B. L. (1996). Foucault and the politics of resistance. Polity, 28(4), 445-466.
• Plant, D. (2012). The first civil war: Political overview. Retrieved from http://bcwproject.org/church-and-state/first-civil-war/index
• Presson, R. K. (1969). Wrestling with this world: A view of George Chapman. PMLA, 84(1), 44-50.
• Rees, E. (1954). The tragedies of George Chapman: Renaissance ethics in action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Scheick, W. J. (1993). The ethos of new historicism. An Interdisciplinary Journal, 76(4), 571-589.
• Schwartz, E. (1961). A neglected play by Chapman. Studies in Philology, 58(2), 140-159.
• Soellner, R. (1985). Chapman's Caesar and Pompey and the fortunes of prince Henry. Medieval & Renaissance Drama in England, 2, 135-151.
• Swinburne, C. A. (1875). George Chapman: A critical essay. London: Chatto and Windus.
• Taunton, N. (2001). 1590s drama and militarism: Portrayals of war in Marlowe, Chapman and Shakeaspeare’s Henry V. New York: Routledge.
• Veeser, A. H. (1989). The new historicism. New York: Routledge.