The Third Citizen: Shakespeare’s Theater and the Early Modern House of Commons (review)

2008 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 250-253
Author(s):  
Richard C. McCoy
Author(s):  
Nick Mayhew

In the mid-19th century, three 16th-century Russian sources were published that alluded to Moscow as the “third Rome.” When 19th-century Russian historians discovered these texts, many interpreted them as evidence of an ancient imperial ideology of endless expansion, an ideology that would go on to define Russian foreign policy from the 16th century to the modern day. But what did these 16th-century depictions of Moscow as the third Rome actually have in mind? Did their meaning remain stable or did it change over the course of the early modern period? And how significant were they to early modern Russian imperial ideology more broadly? Scholars have pointed out that one cannot assume that depictions of Moscow as the third Rome were necessarily meant to be imperial celebrations per se. After all, the Muscovites considered that the first Rome fell for various heretical beliefs, in particular that Christ did not possess a human soul, and the second Rome, Constantinople, fell to the Turks in 1453 precisely because it had accepted some of these heretical “Latin” doctrines. As such, the image of Moscow as the third Rome might have marked a celebration of the city as a new imperial center, but it could also allude to Moscow’s duty to protect the “true” Orthodox faith after the fall—actual and theological—of Rome and Constantinople. As time progressed, however, the nuances of religious polemic once captured by the trope were lost. During the 17th and early 18th centuries, the image of Moscow as the third Rome took on a more unequivocally imperialist tone. Nonetheless, it would be easy to overstate the significance of allusions to Moscow as the third Rome to early modern Russian imperial ideology more broadly. Not only was the trope rare and by no means the only imperial comparison to be found in Muscovite literature, it was also ignored by secular authorities and banned by clerics.


Author(s):  
Tomas Macsotay ◽  
Cornelis van der Haven ◽  
Karel Vanhaesebrouck

Taking the infamous Theatrum Crudelitatum Haereticorum nostri temporis by the Catholic priest Richard Verstegan as its starting point, this chapter introduces the reader to the over-arching agenda of the book, clearly formulating its interdisciplinary research agenda. The Hurt(ful) Body focuses on both literal and metaphorical violence, performed and depicted in early modern performing and visual arts. Indeed, Theatrum Crudelitatum is a very outspoken example of the issues at stake in this book: the violence inflicted on bodies and the representation of this very same violence, in theatres, in pictures and paintings but also in non-artistic modes of representation. In the introduction, the editors describe the threefold structure of the book. The first part will focus mainly on performing bodies (on stage), whereas the second part will discuss the pain of someone who watches the suffering of others, both in regard to theatre audiences and beholders of art, as well as to the onlooker in art: the theatre character or individual on canvas who is watching a(nother) hurt body. The third and final part will analyse how this circulation of gazes and affects functions within a specific institutional context, paying particular interest to the performative context of public space.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document