CHAPTER IX

CONCLUSION 121

Pescetti’s Drama an Improvement on its Senecan Predecessors—Its

Particular Value to the Literary Historian—Summary of the

Argument—Conclusion.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 126

INTRODUCTION

I intend in this monograph to demonstrate the probability of

Shakespeare’s indebtedness in the composition of the first three acts of

his “Julius Caesar,” to the “Cesare” of Orlando Pescetti, an Italian

tragedy on the same theme, first published at Verona in 1594.[1]

This connection has never yet been demonstrated. The work seems almost

totally unknown to the English literary world.[2] Shakespearean

criticism, eager to investigate the smallest matters in regard to the

great poet, is silent on Pescetti. I know of no French or German[3]

references. In Italy, Pescetti has received scant notice; few writers

have so much as mentioned “Cesare,” while not one has made any

suggestion as to a possible connection between this play and “Julius

Caesar.”[4]

The inscription upon the title page of the 1594 edition is as follows:

Il Cesare

Tragedia

d’Orlando Pescetti

Dedicata

al Sereniss. Principe

Donno Alfonso II. d’Este

Duca di Ferrara, etc.

(Device)

In Verona

Nella stamparia di Girolamo Discepolo

MDXCIIII

Pescetti’s work is in quarto, and consists of six pages of dedicatory

matter, and one hundred and fifty pages of verse, for the most part

hendecasyllabic varied with septenarians. In the tragedy proper there

are nearly four thousand lines.

The author in his dedication establishes, to his own satisfaction at

least, the descent of the family of Este from the mighty Julius, and

ventures the belief that Brutus and Cassius, though they could not abide

Caesar’s rule, would rejoice in Alfonso’s. At the end of several pages

of this sort of flattery we read: “Di Verona il dì 19 di Febraio 1594.

Di V.A.S. Divotiss. et umiliss. Servitore Orlando Pescetti.”

-----

Footnote 1:

A second edition followed in 1604 from the same press (Girolamo

Discepolo) in 4º.

This is exceedingly rare; the only copy which I have traced is in the

Biblioteca Marciana in Venice. I use the 1594 text, following the copy

in the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale at Florence.

Footnote 2:

The only reference in English with which I am acquainted is by Harry

Morgan Ayres in the June, 1910, number of the Proceedings of the Am.

Modern Language Association. In his article, “Shakespeare’s Julius

Caesar in the Light of some other Versions” he makes a brief mention

of this play. But see Preface.

Footnote 3:

A careful search of the forty volumes of Jahrbücher, published by the

“Deutsche Shakespeare Gesellschaft”, failed to reveal any mention of

Pescetti. A search of the registers of the very complete collection of

German literary periodicals contained in the library of New York

University was equally unproductive.

Footnote 4:

For a brief sketch of Pescetti see G. B. Gerini, Gli scrittori

pedagogici italiani nel secolo decimo settimo. 1900. In addition to

the above the following are the only works known to me which mention

Pescetti’s “Cesare”:

Fonte, Michelangelo, [Paolo Beni], Il Cavalcanti, 1614.

Quadrio, Fr. Saverio, Della storia e della ragione d’ogni poesia,

1739.

Fontanini, Giusto, Biblioteca dell’eloquenza italiana con le

annotazioni del Sig. Apostolo Zeno, 1753.

Allaci, Leone, Drammaturgia, 1755.

Tiraboschi, Girolamo, Storia della letteratura italiana, 1822.

Ginguené, P. L., Histoire Littéraire d’Italie, 1824.

De Sanctis, Natale, G. Cesare e M. Bruto nei poeti tragici, 1895.

Salvioli, Bibliografia universale del teatro drammatico italiano,

1903.

Bertana, Emilio, La tragedia, 1904.

Neri, Ferdinando, La tragedia italiana nel Cinquecento, 1904.

Flamini, Francesco, A History of Italian Literature. Translated by

Evangeline O’Connor, 1907.

Of the above only Bertana has more than a brief mention. He alone

attempts an analysis of the play.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE PLOT OF “CESARE”

The following is a list of the persons in the drama, called by Pescetti,

“Interlocutori.”

Marte }

Venere } Fanno il Prologo

Giove }

Bruto

Cassio

Sacerdote

Porzia moglie di Bruto

Calpurnia moglie di Cesare

Cameriera di Calpurnia

Cesare

Marc’Antonio Consolo

Decimo Bruto

Lenate

Messo primo

Messo secondo

Coro di Matrone Romane

Coro di Donne di Corte

Coro di Cittadini

Coro di Soldati

The tragedy proper is preceded by a prologue in which Mars, Venus, and

Jove are the actors. Pescetti, probably following Ovid’s account in Book

XV. of the “Metamorphoses,” represents Venus as bewailing the destined

death of Caesar, the last of her earthly descendants. Mars extends his

consolation and proffers his aid. She informs him that Jove is

responsible, and indulges in a denunciation of the Thunderer that must

have made his celestial ears tingle. All further discussion of the

matter is terminated by the appearance of the Father of the gods, who

reproves Venus for her blasphemous utterances, assures her that his ways

are inscrutable, and consoles her by promising Caesar immortality among

the gods, and the infliction of dire punishment upon his assassins.

Venus bows to his will, and impatient Mars hurries at Jove’s command to

sow the seeds of civil strife throughout the Roman world.

This Prologue is a literary curiosity. Its style is at times more

reminiscent of the madrigal than of tragedy, while the very earthly

flavor which clings to the celestial personages is decidedly humorous to

the modern reader. Pescetti undoubtedly was in grim earnest when he

wrote the Prologue, but many of the sentences he puts in the mouths of

his immortals must have made Melpomene smile. The admonition of Venus to

Mars on omniscient Jove’s approach, “Ma e’ vien ver noi, tacciam,

ch’egli non ci oda,” despite its Renaissance setting, is delightful for

its sheer absurdity.

The tragedy follows immediately after this prologue. In view of the

extreme length of Pescetti’s work and the lack of interest for our

purpose in many of the speeches, I have thought it advisable not to

inflict upon the reader an extended synopsis of the plot, but to confine

my efforts to the following outline of the story.

ACT I

The scene is not stated, but is evidently, throughout the play, an open

space before a temple in the vicinity of Caesar’s house. The time is

just before dawn. Brutus is discovered apostrophizing the shade of

Pompey. He vows to deliver Rome from the tyrant. Cassius overhears him,

and commends this resolution. Brutus relates how the ghost of Pompey had

appeared to him during the past night and commanded him to restore the

ancient liberties. Together, they enter the temple to pray for the

success of their enterprise. The Priest now appears, deplores the

prevalent irreligion, urges the observance of the ancient rites, and

then goes to prepare the sacrifice commanded by the Dictator. Brutus and

Cassius reappear and discuss their plans. Cassius strongly favors the

killing of Antony along with Caesar. This Brutus will not tolerate, in

spite of the many forceful arguments of his fellow conspirator. He

abruptly terminates the discussion by detailing the manner of Caesar’s

murder. As he concludes, Portia enters in search of Brutus. She deplores

that her sex prevents her taking an active part in the conspiracy. She

begs to be favored with their confidence. Cassius hesitates, but finally

divulges their plans, and beseeches her to aid the enterprise with her

prayers. This, rather reluctantly, she promises. Brutus, who has taken

no part in this conversation, now bursts into an ecstatic speech

wherein, in imagination, he already hears the rejoicing which the news

of the tyrant’s death will cause among Rome’s noblest families. He

advises Portia to return home while he and Cassius go to join the other

conspirators. Portia invokes the blessing of Heaven on them, and the act

concludes as the Chorus of Matrons implores the intercession of Romulus

to restore to the city its former peace and happiness.

ACT II

Calpurnia and her nurse indulge in the inevitable lengthy and tiresome

discussion concerning the former’s terrible dream. The ghost of Caesar,

horrible with wounds, had appeared to her that night. Almost half the

act is devoted to Calpurnia’s expression of grief and to her nurse’s

fruitless efforts at consolation. The Chorus declaims the fickleness of

mankind, whereupon Brutus and Portia reappear. The former, believing

that his wife has wounded herself in some domestic labor, reproves her

for turning her hands to such work. She tells him that she has wounded

herself to prove that she could commit suicide were her death necessary.

She fears that her husband may perish in his attempt against Caesar and

has resolved to restrain him. This dialogue, filled with mutual

protestations of love and constancy, is terminated by the appearance of

Calpurnia, whose perturbed countenance prompts them to overhear her.

Calpurnia, in a long and tiresome speech, condemns the desire of men for

dominion over others as the cause of all their sufferings. The nurse

interjects the usual advice and consolation. Calpurnia voices her

determination to persuade Caesar to abandon his contemplated visit to

the Senate. Brutus petitions Jove to steel the tyrant’s heart to the

appeals of his wife. Portia retires to pray for her husband’s success,

while he goes to rejoin Cassius and the others in the plot. The Chorus

sings the mutability of human happiness, and the act ends.

ACT III

Caesar and Antony indulge in a lengthy dialogue which is started by the

observations of the former regarding the banquet at the house of Lepidus

the preceding evening. Caesar, ably seconded by Antony, enlarges upon

his glories. His companion warns him against treachery, and advises a

bodyguard. Caesar scorns those who would harm him, but resolves after

this day to be surrounded by some of his trusty veterans. He orders

Antony to prepare for the Parthian campaign. Here follows a soliloquy by

Antony, in which, in contrast to Calpurnia, he exalts the pleasures of

rulership. He intends so to contrive that in the event of Caesar’s death

he can seize the reins of government. Hereupon the Priest in the longest

speech in the play recites the many and various portents which have

lately occurred. As he concludes, Caesar and Calpurnia join him, and

another long scene ensues in which Caesar stands firm against all the

arguments brought forward to dissuade him. He is resolved to go to the

Senate, and the scene is brought to an end by a final warning from the

Priest. The Chorus sings the direful results following the disregard of

religion.

ACT IV

Brutus and Cassius discuss the probability of a detection of their plot.

It seems that Lenate, evidently not of their number, had approached

Brutus and whispered his good wishes for the success of their

enterprise. Brutus and Cassius engage in a dialogue concerning liberty,

but are interrupted by the appearance of Decimus Brutus, who laments the

perversity of fortune. It seems that Caesar has yielded to Calpurnia’s

entreaties and will stay at home. Worse still, on the morrow he will

appear with his bodyguard. Marcus Brutus feels that Jove will yet favor

their designs. Caesar enters and condemns those as fools who are guided

by the advice of women. Nevertheless, as he fears treachery, he has

resolved to heed the entreaties of his wife. He indulges in a panegyric

of himself. The conspirators now approach, and Marcus Brutus addresses

him, inquiring his reasons for not attending the important session of

the Senate. Caesar is in doubt as to the manner of his reply. The

prayers of his wife, he asserts, have influenced him. Besides, he has

reason to fear treachery. Decimus Brutus, by artfully playing on his

vanity, succeeds in overcoming his doubts. Caesar resolves to attend the

Senate. Marcus Brutus can hardly find words fit to sing the praises of

Jove, who has inspired this determination in the tyrant’s heart. The

conspirators indulge in pious prayers and felicitations. Caesar,

Calpurnia and Decimus Brutus are the persons in the next scene. Caesar

tells Calpurnia that her entreaties are vain; now, as formerly, the gods

will protect him. She bows to his will. Decimus, in another useless

speech, continues his laudation of Caesar and the belittlement of his

fears. Caesar at length starts for the Senate. He is detained by Lenate

who addresses him, to the great consternation of the conspirators, who

fear the revelation of their plot. Lenate begs a favor of Caesar, which

the latter is disposed to grant. The increasing panic of the

conspirators is stayed by Brutus, who has watched Lenate and feels

confident that he is not talking of the plot. At the conclusion of

Lenate’s address Caesar departs for the Senate, and Lenate joins the

conspirators and assures them of his silence. In the concluding scene

Calpurnia breaks into lamentations while the Chorus of Ladies of the

Court comments upon her distress and beseeches Juno to turn aside her

wrath and spare Caesar.

ACT V

Brutus addresses the citizens and announces the death of the tyrant. He

calls on all to rejoice in their reestablished freedom, while the

conspirators shout the glad tidings. This is his last appearance. The

rest of the act is devoted to the lamentations of Calpurnia, the report

of the catastrophe by the First and the Second Messenger, and the

comments of the various Choruses.

Pescetti’s tragedy, as will readily be seen from this statement of its

plot, is thoroughly Senecan in its construction and perpetuates some of

the worst faults of its type. The dramatic unities are strictly

observed; there are the same lengthy speeches, the same moralizing, the

same absence of action evolved before the spectator, the same lack of

life characteristic of this dramatic form. The actors soliloquize,

converse, declaim, listen; they do everything but act. Their exits and

their entrances constitute the total of visible action. Deeds are

carefully excluded, or relegated beyond the stage; the declamatory

powers of messengers, the comments of the Chorus, and the speeches and

conduct of the actors are relied upon to vitalize them in the

imagination of the audience.

Of characterization, in the Shakespearean sense, there is very little.

It would be easy to dismiss the whole matter. A careful search is

necessary to locate those passages wherein Pescetti displays any decided

flashes of dramatic power in his characterizations. Yet there are times

when he attempts, and in a measure successfully, to provide adequate

motivation for the speeches of his characters; but unfortunately, these

are rather few and far between. He almost invariably locates these

places in such a rank rhetorical jungle that it requires considerable

care to discover them. Yet he reveals at times a true dramatic instinct

in his choice of material and in the handling of certain situations.[5]

But the force of convention was too strong for him successfully to

resist its insidious influences. Following in the footsteps of his

contemporaries, he spins his drama out to some four thousand lines,

ninety-nine percent of which are versified prose and the remainder

dubiously poetic. Nevertheless, compared with the crudities of Giraldi

(Cinthio), or the revolting horrors of Sperone and Cresci, Pescetti’s

work marks an advance in Italian drama.

The dramatis personae common both to Shakespeare and Pescetti are Julius

Caesar, Mark Antony, Marcus Brutus, Cassius, Decius Brutus, Popilius

Lena, Calpurnia and Portia. Pescetti calls Decius, Decimo, and Popilius

Lena, Lenate. In addition, the Italian mentions incidentally Casca,

Cimber, Trebonius and Cicero. Of the others occurring in Shakespeare,

there is no trace. Pescetti, however, introduces two new characters: the

Servant or Nurse to Calpurnia and the Priest. The former is one of the

traditional figures of the Senecan drama, while the latter performs at

various times the functions of monitor, mediator and chorus. From

non-Plutarchian sources the Italian obtained the names Spurinna and

Bucolianus, which occur in the First Messenger’s recital of the

assassination. The first he doubtless owes to Suetonius, while the

second he obtained from Appian’s account of Caesar’s murder. In

obedience to the formal demand of his drama, Pescetti has the first and

second Messenger, the Choruses of Roman Matrons (probably suggested by

Lucan),[6] of the Ladies of the Court, of Citizens, and of Soldiers. The

two latter are merged in the mob of Shakespeare.

As a natural result of the limitations imposed by his model, Pescetti

has to confine his action to the events of the day of Caesar’s

assassination, and can only inferentially introduce material of which

Shakespeare could avail himself to the full. The place is always the

same, and, though unmentioned by the dramatist, is presumably an open

space before a temple in the immediate vicinity of Caesar’s house. In

consequence of these restrictions such hints as Pescetti may have

furnished Shakespeare, are, almost exclusively, to be found embodied in

the composition of the first three acts of “Julius Caesar.”

Shakespeare’s main source was Plutarch; Pescetti’s was Appian, though he

did not hesitate to draw liberally from Plutarch, Suetonius, Lucan,

Ovid, and Vergil when the occasion required. In this I disagree with the

only two commentators who have given this drama more than passing

attention.[7] With the exception of the Brutus-Portia scene, the

portents, and his idealization of Brutus’ character, in every one of the

main incidents of the first four acts, and in the entire fifth act, the

Italian follows Appian faithfully. But, like Shakespeare, he does not

hesitate to amplify[8] his material nor to invent such incidents as the

exigencies of the situation seem to demand.

That Shakespeare went further than Plutarch for his sources has been the

subject of much discussion. He introduces historical touches not found

in the biographer. I purpose to show in the course of this work that

almost every one of these he could readily have obtained through

Pescetti. This Renaissance rhetorician was thoroughly at home in the

classics, and his work throughout bears unmistakable evidence of their

influence.

It is certain that he was well acquainted with the Latin tragedy

“Caesar,” written in 1544 by the French humanist Marc Antoine Muret

(Muretus). Pescetti’s enemies were quick to recognize the resemblance

between the two plays and openly accused him of plagiarism. While the

Italian undoubtedly received many hints from the work of his

predecessor, there is no ground for the vicious attack made upon him by

Beni.[9] Moreover, his borrowings, such as they are, in no way affect

our investigation. Undoubtedly he was also acquainted with the “César”

of Jacques Grévin (1561). But, whatever the hints as to treatment

Pescetti may have received from Muretus,[10] it is to his minute

knowledge of the classic authors that he owes the substance of his

drama. He makes a far greater use than do his predecessors of the

material later employed by Shakespeare. Very noteworthy is the fact that

here we find for the _first time_ in any play on the subject, the

Brutus-Portia scene; the suspense occasioned by the suspected discovery

of the plot; the panic among the conspirators when Popilius Lena

addresses Caesar; the great prominence of the portents.

The material derived from classical sources and used both by Shakespeare

and Pescetti includes the conference between Brutus and Cassius; the

respect in which the former was held; his relations to his wife, and her

demand to share his confidence; the enthusiasm of the conspirators;

their sparing of Antony at Brutus’ request; the prodigies and portents

that preceded Caesar’s death; Calpurnia’s dream and her efforts to stay

her husband at home and the counter efforts of Decimus Brutus; the

warning letter given to Caesar (only mentioned in “Cesare” by the

Messenger); all the details of the assassination scene, and Brutus’

speech to the people. Both also make use of personal characteristics

mentioned either in Plutarch or in Appian. Thus Antony’s friendship for

Caesar, his fondness for revelry, his hold on the soldiers; Brutus’

intense patriotism, his hatred for tyranny, his magnanimity, his

disinterestedness, his love of study; the caution of Cassius, his hatred

of tyrants; Caesar’s lately acquired superstition and arrogance. These

are all derived from the above sources. Pescetti refers to Pompey

several times, but he says nothing about the actions of the tribunes,

nor about their punishment. Nor is there any mention of the prophecy of

danger on the Ides of March; of the offer of the Crown on the Lupercal

or on any other occasion; of the anonymous letters sent to Brutus; of

the conspirators’ contempt for an oath; of their rejection of Cicero as

confederate; of Ligarius; of Artimidorus or his attempted intervention;

of Antony’s speech.

On the other hand Pescetti introduces material either simply hinted at

or altogether omitted in Shakespeare and the histories. Such is the

account of the conversation between Antony and Caesar, and Caesar’s

opinion of death; the pleas used by Decimus Brutus; the various

conversations between Portia and Cassius; between the Priest and

Calpurnia, and between Caesar and the Priest; the lamentations of

Calpurnia. He gives much prominence to the Priest and to Calpurnia’s

servant. He founded his choruses on material partly suggested by Lucan,

and perhaps by Muretus, Grévin and Garnier.

While Pescetti drew liberally from Plutarch, yet his indebtedness to

Appian is particularly significant for our purpose. There are passages

in “Julius Caesar” wherein Shakespeare introduces historical touches

which apparently can only be explained upon the supposition that he knew

and used the English translation of Appian published in 1578. Owing to

the peculiar parallelism often evident in the accounts both of Plutarch

and of Appian, and to the absence in “Julius Caesar” of those minutiae

necessary to a positive confirmation, the question of Shakespeare’s

indebtedness to the Greek historian has remained largely conjectural.

Pescetti undoubtedly used Appian, and in his use of the materials, and

in the similarity to Shakespeare’s subsequent treatment, the supposition

that Appian was the ultimate source of the disputed passages seems to

receive its strongest confirmation.

-----

Footnote 5:

In parts of the Brutus-Cassius dialogue in the first act; in his

attempted contrast of Calpurnia and Portia; in his inclusion of the

portents; and above all, in the scene wherein Lenate addresses Caesar,

and the ensuing panic among the conspirators.

Footnote 6:

Pharsalia, Bk. II., where the Chorus of Matrons bewails Caesar’s

approach.

Footnote 7:

Emilio Bertana in “La tragedia,” 1904, and Francesco Neri in “La

tragedia italiana nel Cinquecento,” 1904.

Footnote 8:

_Inflate_ is perhaps more accurate in Pescetti’s case.

Footnote 9:

He says, “E di qui è che preso animo e fatto cuore, poco dipoi

compose, o più tosto tradusse in volgare, una Tragedia del Mureto

detta il Cesare. . . . È vero che per alquanto ampliarla e ricoprir’

insieme il furto, vi andò inserendo, e qua e là traponendo, varie

leggierezze e vanità di sua testa. In modo tale che almen per queste

meriterebbe d’esserne stimato Autore.” From “Il Cavalcanti,” by

Michelangelo Fonte (Paolo Beni). In Padova per Francesco Bolzetta,

1614. Page 107 ff. The animus back of such a charge may be inferred

from the fact that Muretus has but little over eight hundred lines,

and that Pescetti introduces much effective material not found in the

former’s tragedy. Fr. Saverio Quadrio in “Della storia e della ragione

d’ogni poesia,” Milano, 1739, Vol. IV, p. 72, says of “Cesare:” “Fiorì

questo poeta celebre per altre opere circa il 1590; _e questa fu la

prima tragedia_ di tale argomento che in lingua volgare si componesse:

nè ha che fare con quella del Mureto, come ha malamente scritto il

Fontanini, togliendolo da Paolo Beni.” In Fontanini, Giusto,

“Biblioteca dell’eloquenza italiana con le annotazioni del Sig.

Apostolo Zeno,” Venezia, Pasquali, 1753 (4 vols.), Vol. I, p. 483, we

read of Pescetti’s work: “Nel Cavalcanti del Beni si fa nuovo stragio

di Cesare per colpa di questo autore, come di plagiario del Mureto

nella Tragedia latina del Cesare. Si vede, che i ladri letterari,

colti in flagranti come succede, si rendono poi scherniti e ridicoli;

e che poco giova l’andarsi rampicando per forza, quasi erba

parietaria, sulle industrie degli altri, come se fossero loro proprie,

con cercar poi di occultarlo, quando per conoscerlo di primo aspetto,

ci vuole assai poco, mentre le cose o presto or tardi si scoprono.” In

a note Zeno says: “Il Cesare del Mureto, e’l Cesare del Pescetti poco

più di commune han fra loro, che l’argomento, la storia, ed il titolo;

e però l’accusa di plagiario data del Beni al Pescetti, contra del

quale scrisse il suo Cavalcanti per difesa della sua Anticrusca, è

anzi dettata dalla passione che dalla verità.” It is interesting to

note that Fontanini, like Allaci, speaks only of a 1604 edition of

“Cesare.” Zeno, however, is careful to point out the error.

Footnote 10:

There are portions of the speeches of the principal characters

decidedly reminiscent of Muretus, but the similarity is more in

content than in expression, and seldom enter those portions of

“Cesare” which parallel those in “Julius Caesar.”

THE INFLUENCE OF APPIAN

The English translation of Appian, by “W. B.,” was published in 1578.

This is the work supposedly used by Shakespeare. In his “Julius Caesar”

there are four places in which the influence of the historian seems

predominant; in a part of the speech of Brutus to the citizens; in the

oration of Antony; in the conduct of the conspirators immediately

following the murder; and in a detail concerning Antony.

Neither the address of Brutus nor the funeral oration of Antony is

recorded in Plutarch. Both are to be found in Appian. It has been

suggested[11] that from him Shakespeare got the idea for Brutus’

exclamation, “Had you rather Caesar were living, and die all slaves,

than that Caesar were dead, to live all freemen?” Appian’s Brutus says:

“We at his desire gaue him security, and as it should seeme, afrayde of

himself, seking to make his Tyrany sure, we sware unto it. If he had

required us to sware, not only to confirme the things past, but also to

haue bene hys slaues in time to come, what woulde they then haue done

that nowe lie in wayte for our liues? I suppose verye Romaines indeede,

wyll rather choose certaine death as they haue oft done, than by an othe

to abyde willing seruitude.”[12]

While it is possible that Shakespeare, following his custom in the

composition of this particular play, may have derived this hint from the

scattered pages of Plutarch, or indeed conceived it independently as a

dramatic consequence of Brutus’ previously expressed attitude, yet the

advantage of Appian’s account is manifest. Pescetti knew and used this

account, and while the same idea does not occur in Brutus’ address in

“Cesare” it is repeatedly expressed throughout the play. If we admit the

possibility of Shakespeare’s derivation of the disputed hints through a

careful selection from the pages of Plutarch, there can be no strong

objection to granting him the exercise of a similar freedom in his

perusal of Pescetti. It was a common enough practice of the Elizabethan

dramatists to appropriate suitable material wherever and whenever they

encountered it, a fact which must be borne in mind throughout this

discussion.

Shakespeare could have found his matter in Pescetti. There is nothing

more repugnant to the Brutus of “Cesare” than the idea of slavery, and

he voices his opinion time and again throughout the play. To quote but

one instance: Cassius and Brutus are discussing liberty and Brutus says:

“Il Tiranno è peggior dell’ omicida,

Perchè la vita l’omicida toglie;

Ma con la dignità toglie il possesso

Della vita il Tiranno, e chi ad altrui,

Non à se, vive, è viè peggior, che morte:

Perciò saggio Caton, saggio et ardito,

Ch’anzi morir, che viver servo elesse.”—Ces., p. 89.

The possibility that the address of Antony, as recorded by Appian,

furnished Shakespeare hints for the oration in the play, has recently

been investigated by Prof. MacCallum.[13] He concludes that while

Appian’s account bears little resemblance to the oration, it

nevertheless contains some parallels in details. Antony both in the

history and in the drama calls attention to his friendship for Caesar;

to the honors the latter had bestowed on his murderers; he proclaims his

own readiness to avenge his benefactor’s death; he recites Caesar’s

triumphs and the spoils he sent to Rome; he uncovers Caesar’s corpse and

displays the bloodstained robe; he makes Caesar cite the names of those

whom he had pardoned and advanced only to destroy him.

Professor MacCallum confesses that the evidence is not very convincing,

but that it is strengthened greatly by the apparent loans from the same

author discernible in Shakespeare’s treatment of various passages in

“Antony and Cleopatra.” The question at present is not whether the hints

in “Julius Caesar” were derived from Appian, but whether they were

derived from the English translation. The likelihood that Shakespeare

knew and used this translation when he wrote his later tragedy, does not

exclude the possibility that he was not acquainted with it when he

composed the earlier work, nor that he received the hints attributed to

Appian not at first hand, but through his knowledge of Pescetti’s

drama.[14]

The Italian’s work contains no funeral oration by Antony, but the entire

fifth act is dramatically parallel to the third act of “Julius Caesar.”

In it we find Brutus’ speech to the people, the account of the

assassination, the various laments for Caesar, a chorus singing Brutus’

praises and another singing those of Caesar. The entire act is founded

upon Appian, and despite its comparative inferiority in dramatic

treatment, is rich in suggestions which a better dramatist could use to

great advantage. Caesar’s victories, his magnanimity to his enemies,

their base treachery and Antony’s readiness to avenge his friend’s

murder; in short, all the hints[15] presumably derived by Shakespeare

from the English translation of Appian are brought before us.

Shakespeare could have found his material in Pescetti’s drama, and the

supposition that he actually did do so is greatly strengthened by the

fact that not only does the material under discussion reappear in

“Julius Caesar”, but it reappears accompanied by certain individual

touches peculiar alone to Pescetti’s treatment.

Calpurnia’s speeches, the recitals of the Messengers, and the comments

of the Chorus are the dramatic counterpart in “Cesare” of the speeches

of Antony in “Julius Caesar.” Thus Calpurnia exclaims at the news of

Caesar’s death:

“O dolce, ò caro, ò mio fedel consorte,

O di quanti mai Roma

Produsse figli, più possente, e forte,

O della nostra età sovrano pregio,

O domator de’ ribellanti Galli,

Del feroce German, del fier Britanno;

O altrettanto dolce

Al perdonar, quanto al combatter pronto,

O stupor delle genti,

O miracol del mondo,

Le cui maravigliose,

E soprumane prove

Stancheran tutte le più dotte penne,

E con stupor saranno

Cantate, udite e lette

Da quei, che dopo noi

Verran mill’ anni, e mille.”—Ces., pp. 128–29.

“Oimè quel, ch’ai nemici hà perdonato,

Quel, ch’il maggior nemico hà pianto morto,

È stat’ ei da coloro, a cui donata

Avea la vita, indegnamente ucciso.”—Ces., p. 135.

Here Caesar’s kindness to his enemies, his conquests, the sense of

Rome’s irreparable loss are emphasized.

“Here was a Caesar! when comes such another?”

To Shakespeare, Pescetti’s work could hardly have been more than a

recital of events connected with a notable occurrence in history, and

while he needed no “Cesare” to point him towards the aim of Antony’s

address, it is noteworthy that Calpurnia openly urges what Antony

secretly wished, and towards which he shaped every sentence of his great

oration. Shakespeare’s treatment is so vastly superior that attempts at

comparison seem well nigh ridiculous; yet, when we consider how the

great poet was able to transform the meanest hints into the mighty

scenes we find in his greatest dramas,[16] we may well hesitate to

overlook similarities, however far removed they may seem from the matter

under consideration. Thus Calpurnia exhorts the soldiers to vengeance:

“O robusti, o magnanimi soldati,

Che sotto la felice scorta, sotto

Le fortunate, e gloriose insegne

Del mio Cesare invitto

Mille vittorie riportate avete,

Date di mano all’ arme,

Prendete il ferro, e’l fuoco,

E l’empia, indegna morte, e’l fiero strazio

Vendicate del vostro

Signore, e Capitano:”—Pp. 133–34.

Later on the Chorus of Soldiers exclaims:

“Patirem noi, compagni,

Ch’ invendicato resti

Lui, per cui fatto abbiamo

Di ricchezze e d’onor tanti guadagni?”—P. 143.

“there were an Antony

Would ruffle up your spirits, and put a tongue

In every wound of Caesar, that should move

The stones of Rome to rise and mutiny.”—J. C., III., II,

224.

“He hath brought many captives home to Rome,

Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill.”

Calpurnia denounces Brutus:

“O Bruto, ò Bruto, veramente Bruto,

Non men d’animo, e d’opre, che di nome,

Come t’è dato il cuor d’uccider quello,

Ch’à te donato avea la vita e in luogo

Preso t’avea di figlio? ahi scelerato,

Ahi d’ogn’ umanità nemico; cuore

Più che d’Orso, e di Tigre Ircana crudo,

Come a ferir quel sacrosanto corpo,

Orrido gel non ti legò le membra?”—P. 133.

Antony specifically mentions Brutus as “the well beloved.” Of special

significance is the fact that he makes the same play on the name

Brutus[17] as we find in Pescetti:

“O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts

And men have lost their reason.”—III., II, 102.

It is noteworthy that Calpurnia, after the play on the name, proceeds to

emphasize the brutality of the murder, not only by referring to the

closeness of the relation between Brutus and Caesar, but also by

comparing the insensate cruelty of his assassin to that of the most

savage beasts. There is no warrant for this touch in the histories.

Again, note the parallel:

“For Brutus, as you know, was Caesar’s angel;

Judge, O you gods, how dearly Caesar loved him.”

—III., II, 180.

Another individual touch of Pescetti’s reappears in Antony’s oration.

Thus the Chorus in “Cesare,” on hearing that Caesar’s body is being

borne to his house by a few slaves, exclaims,

“E quegli, a cui comandamenti presti

Erano i Regi, e le provincie intiere,

Or appena hà trè servi,

Che ’l portin sù le spalle.”[18]—Ces., p. 127.

The Messenger at the sight of the corpse laments,

“Ecco dov’ è ridutto

Il pur dianzi Signor dell’ universo.”—P. 136.

Antony says:

“But yesterday the word of Caesar might

Have stood against the world: now lies he there,

And none so poor to do him reverence.”—III., II, 117.

Also Act III., Sc. I:

“O mighty Caesar! dost thou lie so low?

Are all thy conquests, glories, triumphs, spoils,

Shrunk to this small measure?”

Calpurnia exclaims:

“Dunque, oimè, quella destra,

C’hà vinti, e debellati

Potentissimi eserciti, e distrutte

Fortissime Cittadi, or fredda torpe

Ad ogni officio inutile, e impotente?”—Ces., p. 129.

The corpse[19] of Caesar is not displayed upon the stage, but the

comments of the Chorus warn the spectator that it is approaching borne

by the slaves, and Calpurnia cries:

“Fermate o là, posate

Quel corpo in terra, acciocchè col mio pianto

Lavi dall’ aspre sue ferite il sangue.”—Ces., p. 136.

The familiar,

“If you have tears, prepare to shed them now”

has its parallel in the lines of the speech of the Second Messenger

addressed to the Chorus of Women:

“Apparecchiate, o donne, gli occhi al pianto.”[20]—Ces., p.

146.

Calpurnia, in her exhortation to the soldiers referred to before,

continues:

“Sù, che fate? stringete

Nell’ una man il ferro

Nell’ altra le facelle,

E correte alle case

De’ traditori ingiusti,

E uccidete, e ardete ciò, ch’avvanti

Vi si para, ond’ al cielo

Salgano le faville, e ’l Tebro porti

L’onde sanguigne al mare.

Che parlo? o dove sono? ahi che ’l soverchio

Dolor t’hà tratta di te stessa fuori,

Infelice Calpurnia.”—Ces., p. 134.

Noteworthy in the above is the touch, “Che parlo? o dove sono?” etc.

Thus Antony pauses:

“Bear with me;

My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar,

And I must wait till it come back to me.”

Plutarch records the doings of the mob after they had been aroused by

Antony’s speech. He recounts that the mob cried “Kill the murderers,”

but chronicles no other exclamations. Neither does Appian. In Pescetti,

Calpurnia’s speech contains material for the exclamations which

interrupt Antony’s discourse, but a direct parallel is to be found in

the cry of the soldiers inflamed by the exhortations of Caesar’s wife

and the laments of the Chorus. They shout:

“Sù diam di mano all’armi,

E gridando armi, armi, armi,

Alla vendetta gli animi infiammiamo.

Arme, arme, sangue, sangue, ammazza, ammazza,

Degli empi traditor non resti razza.

Altri occupi le porte,

Altri corra alla piazza,

Altri al Tempio di Giove, altri alla Corte,

E per tutti apparisca orrore, e morte.”—Ces., pp. 143–144.

During Antony’s speech the mob cries:

“Revenge! About! Seek! Burn! Fire! Kill! Slay!

Let not a traitor live!”

This is not only a close verbal parallel, but the similarity in the

exclamatory treatment is remarkable.

Another personal touch is to be found in the idea that Caesar’s fall was

Rome’s fall, which is strong throughout Pescetti, and is not traceable

to the influence of the historians. Thus the Second Messenger says:

“Giunto è l’ultimo dì; giunto è la fine

Di questa altiera patria, ò donne; Roma

Fù; noi fummo Romani; or ogni gloria,

Ogni grandezza nostra è posta in fondo.”—Ces., p. 146.

Antony exclaims,

“O, what a fall was there, my countrymen!

Then I, and you, and all of us fell down,

Whilst bloody treason flourished over us.”

But one more point in connection with Antony’s oration remains for

discussion. Antony’s friendship for Caesar and his desire for vengeance

on the latter’s murderers are matters just as readily derivable from

Plutarch’s accounts as from the oration by Antony as recorded in Appian.

Pescetti, following Appian’s account of the events immediately following

the assassination, puts the following in the mouth of the Second

Messenger:

“Antonio ...

Fuggito è a casa, e d’essere credendo

Anch’egli a morte destinato, or cinge

Di ripari fortissimi la casa,

E si prepara alla difesa contra

Chiunque oltraggio, ò scorno fargli tenti.

Lepido s’è nell’ Isola con quattro

Legion ritirato, et ha mandato

Dicendo a Marcantonio, ch’egli è pronto

Co’suoi soldati a far quanto da lui

Gli sarà imposto: Onde si stima ch’egli

Per vendicar la morte dell’ amico

Debba spingergli addosso a congiurati,

E lor tagliar a pezzi, e le lor case

Arder, e rovinar da fondamenti.”—P. 148.

Not only is Antony’s desire for vengeance intimated, but the ultimate

fate of the conspirators, and the failure of their cause is distinctly

foreshadowed. But most significant is the fact that Pescetti, here

almost literally following Appian, makes Antony take refuge in his _own_

house. In Shakespeare Antony is also made to take refuge in his own

house. Cassius inquires:

“Where is Antony?

_Trebonius_—Fled to his house amazed.”—(Act III., Sc. I,

96.)

This touch is certainly not derived from Plutarch. The biographer says

(Julius Caesar, p. 101): “But Antonius and Lepidus, which were two of

Caesar’s chiefest friends, secretly conveying themselves away, fled into

_other_ men’s houses and _forsook their own_.” Appian says: “Antony went

to his _owne_ house, entending to take advice for this case of Cesars.”

(Appian, 1578, p. 141.)[21]

But one more supposed loan from Appian remains for investigation. This

is to be found in the behavior of the conspirators immediately after the

murder. Plutarch’s account is as follows: “Brutus and his confederates

on the other side, being yet hot with this murder they had committed,

having their swords drawn in their hands, came all in a troup together

out of the Senate and went into the market-place, not as men that made

countenance to fly, but otherwise boldly holding up their heads like men

of courage, and called to the people to defend their liberty, and stayed

to speak with every great personage whom they met on their way.” (Julius

Caesar, p. 101, Skeat’s Ed.)

In Shakespeare we read:

“_Caes._— Et tu Brute? Then fall, Caesar. (_Dies_)

_Cinna._— Liberty! freedom! Tyranny’s dead!

Run hence, proclaim, cry it about the streets.

_Cas._— Some to the common pulpits and cry out

‘Liberty, freedom and enfranchisement!’”

A little farther on Brutus exclaims:

“Stoop, Romans, stoop,

And let us bathe our hands in Caesar’s blood

Up to the elbows, and besmear our swords:

Then walk we forth, even to the market-place,

And waving our red weapons o’er our heads,

Let’s all cry ‘Peace, freedom and liberty!’”—III., I, 106.

Plutarch mentions no sayings of the conspirators; there is no mention of

the dripping swords. Shakespeare is here supposed to follow Appian, who

says: “The murderers woulde haue sayde somewhat in ye Senate house, but

no man would tarry to heare. They wrapt their gowns about their left

armes as targets, and hauying their daggers bloudy, cryed they had

kylled a King and a Tyranne, and one bare an hatte upon a speare, in

token of Libertie. Then they exhorted them to the common wealth of their

country and remembered olde Brutus, and the oth mode againste the old

kings.” (Appian, 1578, p. 142.)[22] Here we find the matter of the

dripping swords, and an intimation of the cry of the Conspirators. But

Pescetti, who followed Appian, supplies a still closer parallel. Here

Brutus, after announcing the death of the tyrant, and after exhorting

the people to rejoice in their reestablished liberties, turns to the

conspirators and exclaims:

“Ma scorriam per la terra,

O voi, che fidelissimi compagni,

Mi siete stati all’ onorata impresa,

Con le coltella in mano,

Del Tirannico sangue ancor stillanti

E co’ pilei sù l’aste

E ’l popolo di Marte

Chiamiamo a libertade.

_Con._— Libertà, libertà, morto è il Tiranno:

Libera è Roma, e rotto è il giogo indegno.”—Ces., pp.

116–17.

Here we have the substance of Appian’s account. Here Brutus, as in

Shakespeare, addresses his fellow conspirators. In the one case he

refers to them as “most faithful companions,” in the other, as “Romans.”

In both he exhorts them to the same purpose. In one they are to rove the

streets with their dripping swords still in their hands, and to call the

people of Rome to their reestablished liberty; in the other, they are

exhorted to walk forth waving their red weapons over their heads, and to

cry “Peace, freedom and liberty.” The cry of the chorus in Pescetti

seems an answer to this appeal:

“Libertà, libertà, morto è il Tiranno:

Libera è Roma e rotto è il giogo indegno.”

And this again is closely parallel to Cinna’s outburst,

“Liberty! freedom! Tyranny is dead!

Run hence, proclaim, cry it about the streets!”

The latter part of this seems an echo of

“E ’l popolo di Marte

Chiamiamo a libertade.”—P. 116.

“Cesare” contains no close parallel to Brutus’ exclamation:

“Stoop, Romans, stoop,

And let us bathe our hands in Caesar’s blood

Up to the elbows, and besmear our swords:”

But Pescetti indicates a similar savage desire:

“E fu sì grande del ferir la voglia

Recandosi ciascuno a somma gloria,

Tinger la spada sua nel sacro sangue.”[23]—P. 126.

He does say that the conspirators besmeared their swords, and

Shakespeare but intensified the scene by making the murderers literally

bathe in the blood of their victim.[24]

In this case, as in the others, the material from Appian is to be found

in Pescetti, and reappears in Shakespeare accompanied by touches due to

Pescetti alone. We find further, that in all the cases wherein the

influence of Appian has been suspected, Shakespeare could have derived

his matter from Pescetti, who, we can positively affirm, used Appian as

his source. The resemblance in Shakespeare between the scenes under

discussion and the corresponding scenes in Pescetti is far stronger than

the similarity to their alleged source in the English translation of

Appian, for not only does Shakespeare make use of the same historical

matter which Pescetti derived from the historian, but he includes

individual touches found only in the Italian drama. The conclusion that

Shakespeare derived from Pescetti the hints previously attributed to his

acquaintance with the English translation of Appian seems, therefore,

tentatively justifiable. This conclusion will be greatly strengthened by

the evidence adducible from the other similarities existing between the

two plays. Among these the treatment of the supernatural element in both

dramas offers points of contact which will now be discussed.

-----

Footnote 11:

Especially by Prof. Frederick H. Sykes in his notes to “Julius

Caesar,” Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1909.

Footnote 12:

Appian (1578), p. 153. Εὶ δἐ ἡμῖν ὀμνῦναι προσέταττεν, οὐ τὰ

παρελθόντα μόνον οἴσειν ἐγκρατῶς, ἀλλὰ δουλεύσειν ἐς τὸ μέλλον

ἑκόντας, τί ἂν ἔπραξαν οἱ νῦν ἐπιβουλεύοντες ἡμῖν· ἐγὼ μὲν γὰρ, ὄντας

γε Ῥωμαίους, οἶμαι πολλάκις ἀποθανεῖν ἑλέσθαι μᾶλλον, ἢ δουλεύειν

ἑκόντας ἑπὶ ὅρκῳ. Appian, Ed. Didot. P. 403.

Footnote 13:

“Shakespeare’s Roman Plays and their Background,” p. 646. MacMillan &

Company, London and New York. 1910.

Footnote 14:

As in the case of the supposed loan in the oration of Brutus, a

careful comparison of Plutarch and Appian reveals nothing which

Shakespeare could not have obtained from the former, if not directly,

at least as a natural consequence of Plutarch’s various accounts. Even

the matter of the display of the corpse is mentioned by the biographer

(Julius Caesar, p. 102, Skeat’s Edition). As a matter of history, not

the corpse itself, but a waxen image showing the mutilations, was

exhibited to the populace. It is true that from Plutarch’s _direct_

accounts of the oration, Shakespeare could have obtained very little.

The whole matter illustrates the great difficulty encountered by the

investigator who seeks to disentangle Appian’s contribution from that

of Plutarch. This is especially difficult in view of the

transformation inseparable from a dramatic treatment. In many passages

covering the life of Caesar the marked similarity between the two

writers has given rise to the theory that both worked from a common

Greek source now lost. The minutiae necessary to a positive

declaration in favor of Appian are lacking in Shakespeare’s treatment

of this particular scene, but as will be noted from the main argument,

they are evident in Pescetti.

Footnote 15:

If we except the display of the corpse.

Footnote 16:

Especially in those founded on material derived from Italian sources.

Footnote 17:

It is found in Plutarch and in Cicero’s letters, but not in connection

with this scene. See Sykes’ “Julius Caesar,” Notes, pp. 151–2.

Footnote 18:

And when he wente from his house to the Senate, he was wayted on with

manye of the magistrates, and great number of people, as wel Citizens

as straungers, and servantes and free men in great multitude; all the

which fleeing away by heapes, only three seruantes taried, which layd

his body in the litter. Thus three men not suteable, did carie him

home that a little before was Lorde of sea and lande. (Appian, 1578,

p. 142.) Καὶ αἱ πλέονες ἀρχαὶ καὶ πολὺς ὅμιλος ἄλλος ἀστῶν, καὶ ζένων,

καὶ πολὺς θεράπων καὶ ἐζελεύθερος αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὸ βουλευτήριον ἐκ τῆς

οἰκίας παρεπεπόμφεισαν· ὧν ἀθρόως διαφυγόντων, τρεῖς θεράποντες μόνοι

παρέμειναν, οἳ τὸ σῶμα ἐς τὸ φορεῖον ἐνθέμενοι, διεκόμισαν οἴκαδε

ἀνωμάλως, οἷα τρεῖς, τὸν πρὸ ὀλίγου γῆς καὶ θαλάσσης προστάτην.

Appian, Ed. Didot. P. 394. Suetonius has a similar account.

Footnote 19:

It seems that the matter of the display of the corpse in Shakespeare

is as readily traceable to Plutarch as to Appian.

Footnote 20:

But, it should be noted, not quite in the same connection as in

Shakespeare. The Messenger warns the women to fly the terrors sure to

follow the assassination.

Footnote 21:

Ἀντώνιός τε τὴν οἰκίαν ὠχύρου, τεκμαιρόμενος συνεπιβουλεύεσθαι τῷ

Καίσαρι. Appian, Ed. Didot. P. 394.

Footnote 22:

Οἱ δὲ σφαγεῖς ἐβούλοντο μέν τι εἱπεῖν ἐν τῷ βουλευτηρίῳ. Ουδενὸς δὲ

παραμείναντος, τὰ ἱμάτια ταῖς λαιαῖς, ὥσπερ ἀσπίδας, περιπλεξάμενοι,

καὶ τὰ ξίφη μετὰ τοῦ αἵματος ἕχοντες, ἐβοηδρόμουν βασιλέα καὶ τύραννον

ἀνελεῖν· καὶ πῖλόν τις ἐπὶ δόρατος ἔφερε, σύμβολον ἐλευθερώσεως· ἐπί

τε τὴν πάτριον πολιτείαν παρεκάλουν, κα-Βρούτου τοῦ πάλαι καὶ τῶν τότε

σφίσιν ὀμωμοσμένων ἐπί τοῖς πάλαι βασιλεῦσιν ἀνεὶ μίμνησκον. Appian,

Edition Didot, Paris, 1877. P. 395.

Footnote 23:

Indicated in Plutarch also—Marcus Brutus—p. 119. He speaks of the

eagerness of the conspirators to plunge their swords into Caesar, and

records that every one of them was stained with blood.

Footnote 24:

Also regarded as a supposedly ironical answer to Decimus’

interpretation of the dream.

THE HANDLING OF THE SUPERNATURAL ELEMENT

Shakespeare’s skill in the handling of the supernatural element in

“Julius Caesar” has been much commended. The omens and prodigies are

distributed in such a way as best to emphasize the tragic element and

they serve to invest the entire play in an atmosphere of portent. For

his material he drew largely upon Plutarch, but he also introduces

matter apparently indicating a familiarity with Ovid, Vergil, Lucan, and

Suetonius. Pescetti makes use of the supernatural element to a far

greater extent than do his predecessors.[25] His recital of the omens

and the prodigies embraces almost every item which the industry of a

Renaissance scholar could cull from the pages of Plutarch, Ovid, Vergil,

Lucan, Suetonius, and Appian. With a single exception, all the omens

mentioned by Shakespeare and not directly traceable to Plutarch, can be

found in Pescetti, whose treatment of the entire supernatural element

affords some interesting parallels.

Plutarch’s account, which furnished Shakespeare the bulk of his

material, is as follows:

“Certainly destiny may easier be foreseen than avoided, considering

the strange and wonderful signs that were said to be seen before

Caesar’s death. For, touching the fires in the element, and spirits

running up and down in the night and also of the solitary birds to

be seen at noondays sitting in the great market-place, are not all

these signs perhaps worth the noting, in such a wonderful chance as

happened? But Strabo, the philosopher, writeth, that men were seen

going up and down in fire; and, furthermore, that there was a slave

of the soldiers that did cast a marvelous burning flame out of his

hands, insomuch as they that saw it thought he had been burned; but

when the fire was out, it was found he had no hurt. Caesar self also

doing sacrifice unto the gods, found that one of the beasts which

was sacrificed had no heart: which was a strange thing in nature,

how a beast could live without a heart. Furthermore there was a

certain soothsayer that had given Caesar warning long time before,

to take heed of the day of the Ides of March, (which is the

fifteenth of the month), for on that day he should be in great

danger. That day being come, Caesar going into the Senate-house, and

speaking merrily unto the soothsayer, told him ‘the Ides of March be

come’: ‘so they be,’ softly answered the soothsayer, ‘but yet are

they not past!’ And the very day before, Caesar, supping with Marcus

Lepidus, sealed certain letters, as he was wont to do, at the board:

so, talk falling out amongst them, reasoning what death was the

best, he, preventing their opinions, cried out aloud, ‘Death

unlooked for!’ Then, going to bed the same night, as his manner was,

and lying with his wife Calpurnia, all the windows of his chamber

flying open, the noise awoke him, and made him afraid when he saw

such light; but more, when he heard his wife Calpurnia, being fast

asleep, weep and sigh, and put forth many fumbling lamentable

speeches; for she dreamed that Caesar was slain, and that she held

him in her arms.”[26]

Professor MacCallum, commenting upon this account says: “It is

interesting to note how Shakespeare takes this passage to pieces, and

assigns those of them for which he has a place to their fitting and

effective position. Plutarch’s reflections on destiny and Caesar’s

opinion on death he leaves aside. The first warning of the soothsayer he

refers back to the Lupercalia, and the second he shifts forward to its

natural place. Calpurnia’s outcries in her sleep and her prophetic

dream, the apparition of the ghosts mentioned by her among the other

prodigies, the lack of the heart in the sacrificial beast, are reserved

for the scene of her expostulation with Caesar, and are dramatically

distributed among the various speakers; Caesar, the servant, Calpurnia

herself.”[27]

Pescetti also takes this same passage[28] and distributes the various

sections in a manner similar to Shakespeare’s treatment, but

dramatically infinitely inferior. He, however, devotes nearly two

hundred and fifty lines at the beginning of the third act of “Cesare” to

a dialogue between Antony and Caesar, rather tediously moralizing on

destiny and Caesar’s opinion on death. The only purpose, dramatically,

is to continue the feeling of impending disaster created in the previous

acts and to give Antony an opportunity of warning Caesar to beware of

treachery.[29] The warnings of the soothsayer are entirely disregarded;

the only intimation we receive of this very effective scene is the

announcement of the messenger in the fifth act that a paper which gave

all the details of the conspiracy, and which Caesar had had no

opportunity to read, had been found clutched in his dead hand. Nearly

half his second act is occupied by a long drawn out dialogue between

Calpurnia and the servant regarding the former’s fears, and the terrible

dream she has had. The Priest, in the third act, together with

Calpurnia, recounts the portents to Caesar, and tries to dissuade him

from disregarding the manifest tokens of the gods’ displeasure. The

inspection of the sacrificial beast without a heart is reserved for the

expostulation of the Priest. Pescetti, like Shakespeare, thus attempts a

distribution of the supernatural which tends to emphasize the impending

catastrophe and to invest his play in an atmosphere of portent very

similar to that created in “Julius Caesar.”

In both dramas ghosts play important parts. Dramatically, it is quite

probable that Pescetti was only following the Senecan tradition when he

introduced the ghost of Pompey, but, historically, it seems that he was

indebted to Lucan for this hint. The poet in Book IX. of the “Pharsalia”

describes how the soul of Caesar’s foe, leaving the tomb, soars to the

abode of the blessed, and thence, looking down upon the earth, inspires

the breasts of Brutus and Cato.[30] This is the episode which probably

furnished Pescetti hints for the employment of the ghost of Pompey as

the prime exciting force upon the Brutus of his play.

Now, Plutarch mentions the apparition which appears to Brutus at

Philippi, as Brutus’ “ill angel” (page 104, J. C., Skeat). Shakespeare

calls it “Caesar’s ghost,” thereby immeasurably enhancing its dramatic

significance. That he should be compelled by his keen perception of its

dramatic fitness so to handle this episode, seems a very reasonable

conclusion; still, in view of his obligations to Pescetti, it would not

be stretching probabilities too far to suggest that the Italian’s use of

the shade of Pompey was not without its influence in the composition of

this particular scene. What a fitting example of poetic justice! That

Pompey’s shade should rouse Brutus to execute vengeance on a Caesar held

responsible for his death; that this same ghost-inspired zealot should

in turn have his own doom pronounced by the shade of his victim, closes

a cycle of nemesis which surely must have appealed to the great poet.

But it is in regard to the disturbances in the elements, and the

attendant prodigies, that we get a marked parallel between the two

plays. Casca, while the storm is raging, exclaims:

“Are you not moved, when all the sway of earth

Shakes, like a thing unfirm? O Cicero,

I have seen tempests, when the scolding winds

Have rived the knotty oaks, and I have seen

The ambitious ocean swell and rage and foam,

To be exalted with the threat’ning clouds;

But never till to-night, never till now,

Did I go through a tempest dropping fire.

Either there is a civil strife in heaven,

Or else the world, too saucy with the gods,

Incenses them to send destruction.

_Cic._— Why, saw you anything more wonderful?

_Casca_— A common slave—you know him well by sight,—

Held up his left hand, which did flame and burn

Like twenty torches joined, and yet his hand

Not sensible of fire, remained unscorched.

Besides,—I ha’ not since put up my sword,—

Against the Capitol I met a lion,

Who glared upon me, and went surly by

Without annoying me. And there were drawn

Upon a heap a hundred ghastly women,

Transformed with their fear, who swore they saw

Men all in fire walk up and down the streets.

And yesterday the bird of night did sit

Even at noon-day upon the Market-place,

Hooting and shrieking. When these prodigies

Do so conjointly meet, let not men say,

‘These are their reasons: they are natural:’

For, I believe, they are portentous things

Unto the climate that they point upon.”[31]

In addition to the supernatural elements recounted in Casca’s speech,

Calpurnia trying to dissuade Caesar, says:

“... There is one within,

Besides the things that we have heard and seen,

Recounts most horrid sights seen by the watch.

A lioness hath whelped in the street;

And graves have yawned and yielded up their dead;

Fierce fiery warriors fight upon the clouds,

In ranks and squadrons and right form of war,

Which drizzled blood upon the Capitol;

The noise of battle hurtled in the air,

Horses did neigh, and dying men did groan;

And ghosts did shriek and squeal about the streets.”—II.,

II, 14.

. . . . .

“When beggars die there are no comets seen;

The heavens themselves blaze forth the death of princes.”

The servant reporting the sacrifice says:

“Plucking the entrails of an offering forth,

They could not find a heart within the beast.”

The Priest in “Cesare” in his soliloquy exclaims:

“Giunon con spaventosi, orribil tuoni,

Con spessi lampi, e fulmini tremendi,

Con infauste comete, con istrane

Pioggie di sangue, e grandini di pietre,

Con sembianze di pugne, con orrendi

Strepiti di tamburi, e suon di trombe,

Con alte grida, pianti, urli, e lamenti,

Uditi nel suo regno hà mostro, quanto

Sia contro noi d’ira, e di sdegno accesa.

Nettun volto hà sossopra tutto il suo

Immenso regno, e sì gonfiato hà l’onde,

Che parea, che de’ suoi confin volesse

Uscir, e tutta subissar la terra;

. . . . . . . . . .

L’antica madre s’è più volte anch’essa

Scossa sì, che parea, che il grave pondo

Dell’huom malvagio, che sostien, volesse

Scuoter del tergo suo, et in più luoghi

Per inghiottirlo hà il vasto seno aperto:

Ne pur questi gran corpi, ond’ogni cosa

Si genera, ma molti ancor de’ misti

Predetto han gli infortuni, e i danni nostri.”—Pp. 74–75.

In other portions of the Priest’s soliloquy we read:

“Nè questi pur co’ lor maligni aspetti,

Ma la Luna ecclissata, anzi di goccie

Sanguigne tutta sparsa, e’l Sol d’oscuro,

E ferrugineo vel coperto il volto.

. . . . . . . . .

Da mille tetti udito s’è lo stigio

Gufo versi cantar lugubri, e mesti;

In mille tempi gli ebani, e gli avori,

Lagrimar si son visti, e sudar sangue;

Per le piazze, alle case, a i tempi intorno

Notturni cani urlar si sono uditi,

E strider importune, e infauste streghe.

Si son viste grand’ombre, de’ sepolcri

Uscite, andar per la Città vagando

Nelle persone alto terror mettendo.

Il monte, che ad Encelado le spalle

Col suo gran peso calca, e preme, rotte

Le bollenti fornaci hà tai torrenti

Di Zolfo, e di bitume vomitati,

E tante fiamme, e sassi liquefatti,

Ch’inondate, e distrutte,

Le soggette campagne hà de’ Ciclopi.

Ma quel, che più d’ogni altro mi spaventa

E, che l’interiora di ciascuna

Vittima mostran miseri, e infelici

Avvenimenti, atroci, orribil mali:

Perchè in alcune non si trova il cuore,

In altre è guasto il fegato, o ’l polmone,

Altre di negro fel son tutte sparse,

Segni tutti evidenti di gran mali.”[32]—Pp. 75–76.

The soliloquy of the Priest seems to be a composite of the omens and

prodigies mentioned by Ovid, Vergil, Plutarch, Appian, Suetonius, and

Lucan. Ovid and Vergil seem to be his main sources.

Almost all of the ancient authorities mention the supernatural in

connection with the life of Caesar. The extraordinary prodigies and

portents attending his crossing of the Rubicon and his assassination are

recorded in more or less detail. Among the authors accessible to

Shakespeare, Ovid was available in the translation of the Metamorphoses

made by Arthur Golding in 1567 and several times reprinted before 1600.

Appian had been translated in 1578, while Marlowe’s translation of

Lucan’s first book, while it remained unpublished till 1600 (after the

first performance of “Julius Caesar”),[33] may have been known to the

dramatist in manuscript. But the substance of Lucan’s account was

accessible in Lydgate’s translation of Boccaccio’s “De Casibus Virorum

Illustrium.” While Lucan mentions only the omens preceding Caesar’s

entry into Rome at the beginning of the Civil Wars, his work was a

favorite source for the matters mentioned. Neither Vergil’s “Georgics”,

nor Suetonius’ “Lives”, had as yet been translated.

The question of Shakespeare’s classical learning does not concern us.

The problem at issue is not whether the dramatist might have obtained

his information directly from the ancient authors or through available

translations. The following discussion purposes to adduce the evidence

in support of the contention that Pescetti was the source of most, if

not all, of the non-Plutarchian matter included by the dramatist in his

handling of the supernatural.

That Shakespeare could not have built up his recital from an imaginative

transformation of Plutarch’s hints seems precluded by an examination of

the various sources already mentioned. These contain the substance of

the non-Plutarchian matter; it remains to establish Pescetti’s claims

against this evidence.

While there is a striking agreement as a whole in the various accounts

of the classic writers, no single one contains all the omens recorded by

Shakespeare. Pescetti, however, not only has the most comprehensive

extant record but he accompanies his account with individual touches

which seem reflected in Shakespeare’s subsequent treatment.

An examination of the portents mentioned by Shakespeare reveals the

following which can be traced to Plutarch: the flaming hand; the men all

in fire walking up and down; the bird of night at noon-day hooting and

shrieking in the market place; the beast without a heart; the comet. In

addition we have the following not indicated by the biographer: the

tremendous storm; the earthquake; the raging seas referred to by Casca;

the wild beasts roaming the streets; the civil strife in the heavens;

the dead leaving their sepulchres; the battle in the clouds.

Taking the earthquake first, a comparison of the available sources

reveals the following: Casca says to Cicero,

“Are you not moved when all the sway of earth,

Shakes like a thing unfirm?”

Vergil mentions the earthquakes in the Alps and the openings of the

earth as portents of Caesar’s death.[34] Lucan[35] says “The Alps shook

off their ancient snows,” while Lydgate[36] has

“Earthquaues sodayne and terrible

Ouertourned castels up so doune.”

In Ovid we read,

“And with an earthquake shaken was the towne.”[37]

Pescetti mentions not only the earthquake, but he adds the violent

upheaval of the seas, together with an individual touch peculiar to him

alone which seems reflected in Shakespeare’s treatment.

“Nettun volto hà sossopra tutto il suo

Immenso regno, e sì gonfiato hà l’onde,

Che parea, che de suoi confin volesse

Uscir, e tutta subissar la terra;

E quanti legni han questi dì solcato

Il mar, tanti egli n’ha miseramente

O trangugiati, o in duri scogli spinti.

L’antica madre s’è più volte anch’essa

Scossa sì, che parea, che’l grave pondo

Dell’ huom malvagio, che sostien, volesse

Scuoter dal tergo suo, et in più luoghi

Per inghiottirlo hà il vasto seno aperto.”—Pp. 75.

The disturbance of the waters is not mentioned by Plutarch or Ovid.

Casca does not specifically state that such a condition of affairs

prevailed; he uses it as a comparison. But such a disturbance is

indicated in Lucan. In Marlowe’s[38] translation we read:

“The ocean swelled as high as Spanish Calpe

Or Atlas’ head.”[39]

Lydgate has

“Wyth flodes rage, hydious and horrible

Neptunus dyd great distruction.”

Vergil speaks of the overflow of Eridanus,[40]

“Eridanus, king of rivers, overflowed, whirling in mad eddy whole

woods along and tore away the herds with their stalls over all the

plains.”[41]

Of all these possible sources Pescetti supplies the closest parallel;

Vergil and Lydgate seem too remote for consideration in this connection.

Were we to exclude Lucan on the ground that his account deals with a

different period of Caesar’s career, Pescetti’s case would be still

further strengthened, for the Italian contains not only the substance of

Casca’s outburst, but there is a similarity in both style and sentiment.

Where Pescetti says,

“Nettun volto hà sossopra tutto il suo

Immenso regno, e sì gonfiato hà l’onde,

Che parea, che de’ suoi confin volesse

Uscir, e tutta subissar la terra:”

Shakespeare supplies the more poetic,

“I have seen

The ambitious ocean swell and rage and foam

To be exalted with the threat’ning clouds.”

Again, the earthquake is mentioned in close connection with the raging

of the waters, a feature missing in the other possible sources, while

Casca’s statement regarding the anger of the gods finds its counterpart

not only in this portion of Pescetti’s recital, but later where the

dramatist, detailing other manifestations of the gods’ displeasure,

says,

“Giunon . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . hà mostro, quanto

Sia contra noi d’ira e di sdegno accessa.”

Such a condition of affairs is only faintly adumbrated in Ovid or Lucan.

The slave with the burning hand is from Plutarch. The “hundred ghastly

women transformèd with their fear” seems a specification of the terror

inspired by the ghosts as recorded by Pescetti,

“Si son viste grand’ombre, de’ sepolcri

Uscite, andar per la Città vagando

Nelle persone alto terror mettendo.”[42]—P. 75.

Plutarch mentions the men in fire, but says nothing of the fear inspired

by them or by the ghosts.

The “bird of night sitting at noon-day upon the market place, hooting

and shrieking” was probably primarily derived from Plutarch’s “solitary

birds to be seen at noon days sitting in the great market place.” The

biographer calls them “solitary birds” and makes no reference to any

hooting and shrieking. Vergil refers to the “presaging birds”;[43] Ovid

says that the Stygian owl gave omens of ill in a thousand places;[44]

Lydgate speaks of the “fowles at noonday”; Marlowe, translating Lucan,

that “Ominous birds defil’d the day.” Pescetti, almost literally

translating Ovid, has:

“Da mille tetti udito s’è lo stigio

Gufo versi cantar lugubri e mesti.”

He calls the bird the owl: Shakespeare refers to “the bird of night,

hooting and shrieking.” The Italian could here supply as much as any of

the other non-Plutarchian sources.

Calpurnia says,

“Graves have yawned and yielded up their dead.”

Plutarch mentions the “spirits running up and down in the night”;

Vergil, that “spectres strangely pale were seen under cloud of

night.”[45] Ovid[46] says: “And everywhere appeared ghastly spryghtes”

(Golding). Lucan mentions the ghosts; so does Lydgate. But none of the

above state that “graves have yawned and yielded up their dead.”

Pescetti supplies a close parallel:

“Si son visti grand’ombre, de’ sepolcri

Uscite, andar per la città vagando,

Nelle persone alto terror mettendo.”

The battle in the clouds is mentioned by Ovid,[47]

“For battells feyghting in the cloudes with crasshing armour flew,

And dreadfull trumpets sownded in the ayre, and homes eeke blew.”

(Golding.)

Lucan says: “Trumpets sounded and black night, amid the silent shades,

sent forth an uproar as that with which the cohorts are mingled in

combat.”[48] In Shakespeare the combat is closely associated with the

drizzling of blood upon the Capitol. This is not found in Lucan, while

Ovid, in a detached phrase, says:

“It often rayned droppes of blood.”[49] (Golding.)

Shakespeare speaks of the “noise of battle hurtling in the air” and of

the groans of the dying. Pescetti has all that Ovid mentions in this

connection, closely connected and associated with the shouts and groans

in the heavens. This latter is not found in Ovid.

“Giunon con spaventosi, orribil tuoni,

Con spessi lampi, e fulmini tremendi,

Con infauste comete, con istrane

Pioggie di sangue, e grandini di pietre,

Con sembianze di pugne, con orrendi

Strepiti di tamburi, e suon di trombe,

Con alte grida, pianti, urli, e lamenti,

Uditi nel suo regno hà mostro, quanto

Sia contra noi d’ira, e di sdegno accesa.”—P. 74.

The comet is mentioned by Plutarch, but as occurring after Caesar’s

death. Lucan mentions comets; so do Vergil and Ovid. They are also in

Pescetti. The omen of the beast without a heart is recorded by Plutarch,

but not as occurring on the day of the assassination. Appian so has it

and so it appears in Pescetti.

From the foregoing it is evident that Shakespeare could have derived

through Pescetti the omens not mentioned by Plutarch. The Italian seems

to have made use of all the generally available authorities. There is,

however, one omen mentioned by Shakespeare which is not found in any of

the assumed sources. There is no mention of the lions which Casca saw,

nor of the lioness which whelped in the street. Vergil speaks of the

“ill-omened dogs” and of “cities resounding with the howling of wolves

by night.”[50] Lucan[51] supplies a closer parallel.

“... wild beasts were seen,

Leaving the woods, lodge in the streets of Rome.”[52]

Lions are not mentioned, but Lydgate, translating Boccaccio, who in turn

derived from Lucan, has the following:

“Lyons and wolves came down from the forest

Wyth many other beastes sauagyne;

Came to the cite, and some agayne kynde,

Spake as do men in Bochas as I fynde.”[53]

Pescetti goes as far as Ovid or Vergil. Following them, he writes,

“Per le piazze, alle case, a i tempi intorno,

Notturni cani urlar si son uditi.”—P. 75.

Yet none of the sources quoted above makes mention of the lioness

whelping in the streets. Lydgate affords the closest parallel, and was

probably one of Shakespeare’s sources unless we are willing to concede

to the dramatist a far deeper and wider knowledge of the classics than

even the most enthusiastic advocates of his learning have dared to

maintain. The whelping of beasts is noted as ominous in Julius

Obsequens;[54] but Shakespeare could hardly have derived from such an

obscure authority.

From the foregoing examination of the various portents and prodigies

included in “Julius Caesar” it is evident that, excluding those plainly

derived from Plutarch, and the matter of the lions, Shakespeare could

have obtained all the rest from Pescetti. Owing to his habitual method

of manipulating and transforming material not directly found in his main

source, it becomes exceedingly difficult definitely to fix the

dramatist’s obligations to his minor sources. The case under

consideration is typical. It is certain that Plutarch did not furnish

all the hints Shakespeare employed. There seems to be no good reason for

denying him a knowledge of Ovid. He certainly was acquainted with

Golding’s translation. Nor can we fairly assume ignorance of such a mine

of information as Lydgate’s work furnishes. It is altogether probable

that in the composition of the particular scenes discussed, Shakespeare

employed a wider range of sources than has been credited. Nevertheless,

while he might have built up his incidents from a selection from various

authors, Pescetti’s account, containing in its one hundred and three

lines by far the most comprehensive extant account of the omens, set

with an eye to dramatic effect in a tragedy dealing with the death of

Caesar, and accompanied by touches not recorded elsewhere, formed the

most convenient source for the dramatist.

Besides, Shakespeare’s whole handling of the supernatural element is

reminiscent of Pescetti’s use of the same material. The Italian sought

to give his drama a portentous background; Shakespeare succeeded in

doing so in a manner which, however greatly superior dramatically, seems

nevertheless but an extension of Pescetti’s efforts.

The evidence herein presented is cumulative; the case for Pescetti does

not rest here. Not only could Shakespeare have derived from Pescetti the

historical matter not found in Plutarch, but his treatment of certain

original scenes in his drama bears a very close resemblance to the same

scenes as they occur in “Cesare.” This is particularly striking in

portions of the Brutus-Cassius action.

-----

Footnote 25:

In Pescetti the Priest’s recital of the omens consists of some one

hundred and three lines. Muretus has Calpurnia’s recital to the nurse

of the dream wherein she beheld Caesar’s bleeding body, and the

following:

_Calp_: Audere desine tu prius

Tuaeque si adeo spernis uxoris metum

Movere vatum oraculis minacibus,

Periculosam qui tibi hanc lucem admonent:

Si spectra, si te auspicia, si fibrae monent

Cavere, et hunc meum timorem comprobant:

Quid in paratam pertinax mortem ruis?

_Caes_: Quando timorem ponere aliter non potes,

Ne nos tibi queraris omnino nihil

Tribuere, mittatur Senatus in hunc diem. Lines 343–52.

Hereupon D. Brutus protests to Caesar and the latter yields. Grévin

has substantially the same account. For Muretus and Grévin I use

Collischonn’s reprint. See Bibliography.

Footnote 26:

Life of Caesar, p. 98, Skeat’s edition.

Footnote 27:

Op. cit., p. 194.

Footnote 28:

Rather Appian’s almost parallel account.

Footnote 29:

In the “Cornélie” of Garnier (1574) he also warns Caesar.

Footnote 30:

Pharsalia, Book IX., lines 1–23.

Footnote 31:

J. C., Act I., Sc. III, L. 1–32.

Footnote 32:

In Hamlet I, I, 113 seq. we read.

_Hor._ A mote it is to trouble the mind’s eye.

In the most high and palmy state of Rome,

A little ere the mightiest Julius fell,

The graves stood tenantless, and the sheeted dead,

Did squeak and gibber in the Roman streets;

As stars with trains of fire and dews of blood,

Disasters in the sun; and the moist star

Upon whose influence Neptune’s empire stands,

Was sick almost to doomsday with eclipse.

And even the like precurse of fierce events—

As harbingers preceding still the fates,

And prologue to the omen coming on,—

Have heaven and earth together demonstrated

Unto our climatures and country men.—

The text is obviously corrupt. These lines do not appear in the Folio,

nor is there any trace of them in the earliest quarto. It has been

conjectured that the poet suppressed this passage in representation,

after he had written “Julius Caesar.” Certainly the similarity to

Pescetti is striking. The “dews of blood” are again mentioned; also

the eclipse of the moon, neither occurring in Plutarch.

Footnote 33:

In an account of a visit to London written by Thomas Platter, a

merchant of Basle, he mentions a performance of “Julius Caesar,” Sept.

21, 1599. (Ency. Brit., XI. ed., Art. Shakespeare.)

Footnote 34:

See “Georgics,” Book I., lines 463–488, for Vergil’s account of the

omens.

Footnote 35:

Lucan’s account is found in the Pharsalia, Bk. I., lines 523–583;

Ovid’s in the Metamorphoses, Bk. XV., lines 783–798.

Footnote 36:

Lydgate’s “Fall of Princes,” Boke Sixte, Chap. XI., Leaf CXLVI.,

Edition of 1558 (see Bibliography).

Footnote 37:

Translation by Golding, Ed. 1575.

Footnote 38:

Works of Christopher Marlowe. Edited by Alexander Dyce. London. Wm.

Pickering, 1850.

Footnote 39:

Tethys maioribus undis

Hesperiam Calpen summumque impleuit Atlanta. Phar. Bk. I, L.

555.

Footnote 40:

Proluit insano contorquens vertice silvas

Fluviorum rex Eridanus, camposque per omnes

Cum stabulis armenta tulit. Geo. Bk. 1, L. 481 ff. Ed.

Teubner.

Footnote 41:

Translation by Davidson. Harper’s Classical Library, New York, 1896.

Footnote 42:

Lydgate says:

Another token pitous for here

Which astonied many a proude Romayne

Dead bodies dyd in the feldes appere

Which in battayle had afore be slayne,

Fro their tombes rising where they layne,

Footnote 43:

Obscenaeque canes importunaeque volucres

Signa dabant. Georgics, Bk. I., line 470.

Footnote 44:

Tristia mille locis Stygius dedit omina bubo. Met., Bk. XV. Ed.

Teubner. L. 791.

This Golding quaintly translates,

The Screeche owle sent from hell,

Did with her tune unfortunate in every corner yell.

Footnote 45:

et simulacra modis pallentia miris

Visa sub obscurum noctis. L. 477. Georg. I.

Footnote 46:

umbrasque silentum

Erravisse ferunt. L. 797. Met., XV.

Footnote 47:

Arma ferunt inter nigras crepitantia nubes,

Terribilesque tubas, auditaque cornua caelo. Met., XV. Ll.

783–4.

Footnote 48:

Insonuere tubae et quanto clamore cohortes

Miscentur tantum nox astra silentibus umbris Phar., Bk. I.,

578–80.

Edidit.

Vergil has,

Armorum sonitum toto Germania caelo

Audiit. Georg., Bk. I., l. 474.

Footnote 49:

Saepe inter nimbos guttae cecidere cruentae. Met., Bk. XV.,

l. 788.

Appian mentions the rain of blood in connection with the crossing of

the Rubicon.

Footnote 50:

. . . . . . . .; et altae

Per noctem resonare lupis ululantibus urbes. Geo., Bk. I.,

l. 486.

Footnote 51:

Siluisque feras sub nocte relictis

Audaces media posuisse cubilia Roma. Phar., Bk. I, ll.

559–60.

Footnote 52:

Translation by Marlowe.

Footnote 53:

Falls of Princes, Bk. VI.

Footnote 54:

Julius Obsequens, CXV., mentioned by Sykes in op. cit.

THE BRUTUS-CASSIUS SCENES

Especially important for our purpose is the fact that Pescetti makes use

of materials and situations not found in the historians but later used

by Shakespeare. Of these perhaps the most significant is to be found in

the conversation between Brutus and Cassius regarding Antony. This is

one of the most striking parallels to be found in the play. In Pescetti,

as later in Shakespeare, Cassius strenuously favors the killing of

Antony along with Caesar, and the reasons he advances are almost exactly

those found in Shakespeare. As in the latter’s tragedy, Brutus allows

his magnanimity to overbalance his prudence, so in Pescetti, Brutus uses

almost the same arguments against Cassius’ plan as he uses in

Shakespeare’s work.

Plutarch nowhere specifically states that Cassius opposed Antony’s entry

into the conspiracy, or suggested his death.[55] Thus in the life of

Marcus Antonius we read: “This was a good encouragement for Brutus and

Cassius to conspire his death, who fell into a consort with their

trustiest friends, to execute their enterprise, but yet stood doubtful

whether they should make Antonius privy to it or not. All the rest liked

of it, saving Trebonius only. He told them that, when they rode to meet

Caesar on his return out of Spain, Antony and he always keeping company,

and lying together by the way, he felt his mind afar off; but Antonius

finding his meaning, would hearken no more unto it, and yet

notwithstanding, never made Caesar acquainted with this talk, but had

faithfully kept it to himself. After that, they consulted whether they

should kill Antonius with Caesar. But Brutus would in nowise consent to

it, saying, that venturing on such an enterprise as that, for the

maintenance of law and justice, it ought to be clear from all

villany.”[56] In the life of Marcus Brutus, Plutarch writes: “For it was

set down and agreed between them, that they should kill no man but

Caesar only, and should entreat all the rest to look to defend their

liberty. All the conspirators, but Brutus,[57] determining upon this

matter, thought it good also to kill Antonius, because he was a wicked

man, and that in nature favored tyranny; besides, also, for he was in

great estimation with soldiers, having been conversant of long time

amongst them; and especially having a mind bent to great enterprises, he

was also of great authority at that time, being Consul with Caesar. But

Brutus would not agree to it. First, for that he said it was not honest;

secondly, because he told them that there was hope of change in him. For

he did not mistrust but that Antonius, being a noble-minded and

courageous man (when he should know that Caesar was dead), would

willingly help his country to recover her liberty, having them an

example unto him to follow their courage and virtue.”[58]

In Pescetti the conspiracy has been hatched before the play begins, as

is evident from the following lines. Thus Cassius, finding Brutus in the

gloom of early morning apostrophizing the shade of Pompey, asks:

“Qual pensier ti molesta, e si per tempo

Abbandonar ti fa le molli piume?”—P. 15.

to which Brutus replies,

“Oggi, Cassio, disposto ho di dar fine

A quel, che già per noi s’è divisato.”—P. 16.

namely, the death of the tyrant. Brutus and Cassius enter the temple to

pray for the success of their enterprise, while the Priest, and then the

Chorus holds the stage. On their reappearance immediately thereafter,

the two conspirators discuss the details of the assassination. I will

quote the entire dialogue relating to Antony.

_Cas._— Parmi d’avere scorto in Marcantonio

Disio di dominar: perciò s’in tutto

Vogliam la patria assicurar, spegniamo

Anco lui col Tiranno, e fuor de gli occhi

Tragghiamci questo stecco, che potrebbe,

Quando che sia, non poca briga darne.

Che tu sai ben, quanto li siano amici

I veterani, e quanto acconcio ei sia

Gli animi a concitar del volgo insano.

_Bru._— S’ad altri, oltre al Tiranno, darem morte,

Si stimerà dal volgo, che le cose

Sempre stravolge, e falsamente espone,

Che non disio di liberar la patria,

Ma privato odio, e brama di vendetta

A ciò sospinti n’abbia, e di quell’opra,

Onde da noi s’attende eterna fama,

N’acquisterem vergogna, e biasmo eterno:

E dove nome di pietà cerchiamo,

Sarem del titol d’empietà notati;

Nè perciò a noi gran fatto avrem giovato;

Che non è Marcantonio huom, di cui deggia

Altri temer gran fatto, un’huomo al ventre

Dedito, e al sonno, e ne’ piacer venerei,

Nelle dissolutioni, e nell’ebbrezze

Snervato, e rotto osarà prender l’arme

Contra color, che nulla ebber giammai

Amicizia con l’ozio, o col piacere,

Ma tutta trapassar lor vita in duri

Studi et in faticosi aspri esercizi?

E ’l veder a che fin pervengan quelli,

Ch’altrui cercan di tor la libertade,

E la recente morte del Tiranno

Spaventarallo in guisa, che s’in lui

Fosse di dominar alcun disio

Subito spegnerassi. Cas.—È Marcantonio

Dedito certo all’ozio, et ai piaceri,

Ma di lui per contrario non si trova

Altri più forte, e coraggioso, e delle

Fatiche, e de’disagi paziente,

Quando e’fa d’uopo; onde si poca stima

Non è da far di lui: di ciò che dica

Il volgo, il volgo sciocco, ben dovemo

Noi poco conto far, che chi si muove

Per le voci del volgo, è più del volgo

Lieve, e incostante. Br. In somma e’non si deve

Punir, chi non hà errato, e a me non basta

L’animo di dar morte a chi nocciuto

Non m’hà, nè fatto ingiuria. Cas. A me più saggio

Sembra colui che’l suo nemico uccide

Pria, che l’offenda, che colui, che dopo

Ch’è stato offeso, vendica l’ingiuria.

_Bru._— Non il pensier, ma l’opra punir vuolsi;

Oltra, che chi m’accerta, ch’ei tal mente

Abbia, qual dici? Chi può dentro il petto

Suo penetrar? e ciò, che vi nasconde,

Veder? Gli uman pensier sol Giove intende.

_Cas._— Bruto, tu se’ troppo pietoso: voglia

Il Ciel, che questa tua pietà non sia

Un giorno a noi crudel. Nel risanare

Dall’ulcere nascenti i corpi il ferro,

E ’l fuoco oprar convien, che tu ben sai,

Che ’l medico pietoso infistolisce

La piaga, e spesso tutto il corpo infetta.

_Bru._— Col troncar della testa all’altre membra

Troncasi ogni vigore, ogni possanza.

_Cas._— Nell’ Idra ov’una testa si troncava,

Ivi ne rinascean subito sette.

_Bru._— Pur alla fine anch’ella estinta giacque.

_Cas._— Sì, ma da un figlio dell’eterno Giove.

_Bru._— Chiunque ama virtù, figlio è di Giove;

Ma ciò lasciam da parte, et ogni nostro

Pensier intorno si raggiri, e volga

Alla morte di Giulio.[59]—Pp. 25–27.

In Shakespeare we have the following:

_Dec._— Shall no man else be touched but only Caesar?

_Cas._— Decius, well urged: I think it is not meet,

Mark Antony, so well beloved of Caesar,

Should outlive Caesar: we shall find of him

A shrewd contriver; and you know his means,

If he improve them, may well stretch so far

As to annoy us all: which to prevent,

Let Antony and Caesar fall together.

_Bru._— Our course will seem too bloody, Caius Cassius,

To cut the head off and then hack the limbs,

Like wrath in death and envy afterwards;

For Antony is but a limb of Caesar:

Let us be sacrificers, but not butchers, Caius.

We all stand up against the spirit of Caesar,

And in the spirit of men there is no blood:

O, that we then could come by Caesar’s spirit,

And not dismember Caesar! But, alas,

Caesar must bleed for it. And, gentle friends,

Let’s kill him boldly, but not wrathfully;

Let’s carve him as a dish fit for the gods,

Not hew him as a carcass fit for hounds;

And let our hearts, as subtle masters do,

Stir up their servants to an act of rage

And after seem to chide ’em. This shall make

Our purpose necessary and not envious:

Which so appearing to the common eyes,

We shall be call’d purgers, not murderers.

And for Mark Antony, think not of him;

For he can do no more than Caesar’s arm

When Caesar’s head is off.

_Cas._— Yet I fear him,

For in the ingrafted love he bears to Caesar—

_Bru._— Alas! good Cassius, do not think of him:

If he love Caesar, all that he can do

Is to himself, take thought, and die for Caesar;

And that were much he should, for he is given

To sports, to wildness and much company.

_Treb._— There is no fear in him; let him not die;

For he will live and laugh at this hereafter.

—II., i, ll. 154–191.[60]

The statements in the above quotation which can, however faintly, be

traced to Plutarch, are the love of Antony for Caesar, his power both as

Consul and general, his ambitious mind, and, at some length, his loose

manner of living.[61] But nowhere does the biographer mention this last

among the reasons urged by Brutus for his salvation, nor that he was but

a “limb of Caesar.” Nor, in the handling of this scene by either

Pescetti or Shakespeare do we find Brutus considering Antony a

noble-minded man, who, once Caesar were dead, would gladly help his

country regain her liberty.

The reasons urged by Cassius are in substance exactly the same in

Pescetti as in Shakespeare. They are either entirely absent, or only

faintly indicated in scattered hints throughout Plutarch or Appian. The

similarity is at times almost verbal. Thus Cassius, in urging the death

of Antony says:

E fuor degli occhi

Tragghiamci questo stecco, che potrebbe,

Quando che sia, non poca briga darne.

Translated this reads,

And from our eyes

Let us pluck this thorn, which might,

Some time or other, cause us no little annoyance.

Shakespeare makes Cassius exclaim,

And you know his means

If he improve them, may well stretch so far

As to annoy us all.

Sir William Alexander in his “Tragedy of Julius Caesar” (circa 1604–7),

in the course of the same debate, puts the following in the mouth of

Cassius:

Well Brutus, I protest against my will

From this black cloud, whatever tempest fall,

That mercy but most cruelly doth kill,

Which saves one, who once may plague us all.

Works of Stirling. Edition 1870, Glasgow, p. 280.

While it is still to be proved that Alexander borrowed anything from

Shakespeare, it is certain, as will be shown later,[62] that he not only

followed Grévin, but also derived many hints from Pescetti. Although

Plutarch was a common source for all three authors, it is certainly

remarkable to find them all, in the same scene, using exactly the same

term to characterize the threatened activity of Antony. Pescetti,

Shakespeare, and Alexander agree in making Cassius urge the conspirators

to kill him, for fear, that if spared, he might _annoy_ them all.

Cassius says further:

... We shall find of him

A shrewd contriver;

And in a later scene when Brutus says of Antony,

“I know that we shall have him well to friend,”

Cassius replies,

“I wish we may. But yet have I a mind

That fears him much; and my misgiving still

Falls shrewdly to the purpose” (Act III., Sc. 1, ll.

144–147).

And again, in the scene between Brutus and Cassius regarding the

former’s resolve to permit Antony to speak at Caesar’s funeral, Cassius

urges:

Brutus, a word with you,

(_Aside to Bru._) You know not what you do: do not consent

That Antony speak in his funeral:

Know you how much the people may be moved

By that which he will utter?—III., Sc. 1, ll. 232–236.

All this is very similar to Cassius’ argument:

“Che tu sai ben, quanto li siano amici

I veterani, e quanto acconcio ei sia

Gli animi a concitar del volgo insano.”

As Brutus cannot be persuaded, Cassius adds:

“I know not what may fall; I like it not.”—III., 1, l. 244.

In Pescetti, his reply to Brutus’ magnanimous but shortsighted attitude

is:

“Bruto, tu se’ troppo pietoso: voglia

Il Ciel, che questa tua pietà non sia

Un giorno a noi crudel.”

All that Plutarch gives us of Brutus’ counter-arguments is as follows:

“First, for he said it was not honest; secondly, because he told

them that there was hope of change in him.”[63]

Furthermore, we read:

“But Brutus would in nowise consent to it, saying, that venturing on

such an enterprise as that, for the maintenance of law and justice,

it ought to be clear from all villany.”[64]

In Pescetti, Brutus says:

“S’ad altri, oltre al Tiranno, darem morte,

Si stimerà dal volgo, che le cose

Sempre stravolge, e falsamente espone,

Che non disio di liberar la patria,

Ma privato odio, e brama di vendetta

A ciò sospinti n’abbia, e di quell’opra,

Onde da noi s’attende eterna fama,

N’acquisterem vergogna, e biasmo eterno;

E dove nome di pietà cerchiamo,

Sarem del titol d’empietà notati:

Nè perciò a noi gran fatto avrem giovato.”[65]

Note his solicitude for the opinions of the people. Witness the

parallelism, almost verbal at times, between the above and Shakespeare’s

treatment.

“... This shall make

Our purpose necessary and not envious;

Which so appearing to the _common_ eyes,

We shall be called purgers, not murderers.”

Again in Pescetti:

_Bru._— “. . . . . . . In somma e’ non si deve

Punir, chi non hà errato, e a me non basta

L’animo di dar morte a chi nocciuto

Non m’hà, nè fatto ingiuria.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Col troncar della testa all’altre membra

Troncasi ogni vigor, ogni possanza.”[66]

Compare this with Shakespeare:

_Bru._— “Our course will seem too bloody, Caius Cassius,

To cut the head off and then hack the limbs,

Like wrath in death and envy afterwards;

For Antony is but a limb of Caesar:

Let us be sacrificers, but not butchers, Caius.

. . . . .

And as for Mark Antony, think not of him,

For he can do no more than Caesar’s arm

When Caesar’s head is off.”

Again Pescetti’s Brutus says:

_Bru._— “Che non è Marcantonio huom di cui deggia

Altri temer gran fatto, un’huomo al ventre

Dedito, e al sonno, e ne’ piacer venerei

Nelle dissolutioni, e nell’ebbrezze

Snervato, e rotto osarà prender l’arme

Contra color, che nulla ebber giammai

Amicizia con l’ozio, e col piacere.”

Thus in Shakespeare:

_Bru._— “And that were much he should, for he is given

To sports, wildness and much company.”[67]

Not only are these scenes in both dramatists almost exactly parallel in

sentiment, but the abruptness of the conclusion and the sequence of the

following scenes are noteworthy. Pescetti dismisses the idea thus:

_Bru._— “Chiunque ama virtù, figlio è di Giove;

Ma ciò lasciam da parte, e ogni nostro

Pensier intorno si raggiri, e volga

Alla morte di Giulio.”—P. 27.

In Shakespeare, Trebonius, whom Plutarch represents as opposing Antony’s

entry into the conspiracy, lightly dismisses the subject:

_Treb._— “There is no fear in him; let him not die;

For he will live and laugh at this hereafter.”—II., 1, ll.

190–92.

It is peculiar that in both Pescetti and Shakespeare the sequence of the

immediately following scenes is the same. In the former Brutus proceeds

to detail the plans for Caesar’s assassination, and as he finishes,

Portia enters. He concludes:

“Ma giamo ad informar del tutto gli altri,

Acciò gli spirti destino, e le forze,

Et apparecchin l’arme all’alta impresa.”—P. 28.

This is closely followed by the entry of Portia. In Shakespeare the

conspirators discuss ways and means of getting Caesar to the Capitol.

Towards the conclusion we have:

_Cas._— “The morning comes upon’s: we’ll leave you, Brutus:

And, friends, disperse yourselves; but all remember

What you have said and show yourselves true Romans.”

—II., 1, 221.

Soon after Portia enters. It is also noteworthy that Brutus and Cassius

in both plays perfect their plans in the early morning. There is no

warrant for this in Plutarch or Appian.

Another striking parallel in situation and treatment is to be found in

the behavior of the conspirators during the conversation of Lenate

(Popilius Lena) with Caesar immediately preceding the murder. This is

Plutarch’s[68] account: “Another Senator, called Popilius Lena, after he

had saluted Brutus more friendly than he was wont to do, he rounded

softly in their ears, and told them: ‘I pray the gods you may go through

with that you have taken in hand; but withal dispatch, I reade you, for

your enterprise is bewrayed.’ When he had said, he presently departed

from them, and left them both afraid that their conspiracy would out....

When Caesar came out of his litter, Popilius Lena (that had talked

before with Brutus and Cassius, and had prayed the gods they might bring

their enterprise to pass) went unto Caesar, and kept him a long time

with a talk. Caesar gave good ear unto him: wherefore the conspirators

(if so they should be called) not hearing what he said to Caesar, but

conjecturing by that he had told them a little while before that his

talk was none other than the very discovery of their conspiracy, they

were afraid every man of them; and, one looking in another’s face, it

was easy to see that they were of a mind, that it was no tarrying for

them till they were apprehended, but rather that they should kill

themselves with their own hands. And when Cassius and certain other

clapped their hands on their swords under their gowns to draw them,

Brutus, marking the countenance and gesture of Lena, and considering

that he did use himself rather like an humble and earnest suitor than

like an accuser, he said nothing to his companions (because there were

many amongst them that were not of the conspiracy) but with a pleasant

countenance encouraged Cassius. And immediately after Lena went from

Caesar, and kissed his hand; which showed plainly that it was for some

matter concerning himself that he had held him so long in talk.”[69]

Note that Plutarch, outside of Lena’s remark, cites no sayings of the

conspirators, but describes their demeanor only. Appian does likewise.

Pescetti follows his account faithfully, but in spirit very similar to

Shakespeare’s treatment. In Pescetti, Caesar is accosted by Lena, who

begs a favor for a friend. Their conversation is entirely too lengthy

for dramatic effectiveness. Previous to this episode, Brutus, at the

beginning of the fourth act, confides to Cassius his belief that the

conspiracy will be discovered, if indeed it has not already been

revealed to Caesar. Among other statements he says:

“Senza sangue rimasi dianzi, quando

Ci s’appressò Lenate, et in disparte

Trattine, nell’orecchia fin felice

All’impresa auguronne, e dubitai,

Che già non fosse discoperto il tutto.”—P. 88.

In the scene between Lenate and Caesar, Cassius, marking the former’s

approach to the Dictator, says,

“Bruto, noi siam spediti; ecco Lenate,

Che ragiona con Cesare in secreto.”—P. 107.

And then following:

_Bru._— Questo ch’importa a noi?

_Cas._— Come ch’importa?

Non sai, se la congiura gli è palese?

_Bru._— T’intendo: ahi che valor, dove fortuna

S’opponga, nulla val. Stiam preparati,

Per proveder, se fia bisogno, al nostro

Scampo, e alla libertà farci la strada,

Se non possiam con altro, col passarci

Co’pugnali l’un l’altro il fianco, o ’l petto.—P. 107.

Lenate and Caesar continue their talk. Cassius’ fears are increasing. He

says,

“Gli occhi teniamo intenti, e se fa cenno

Che presi siam, pria che ci leghi alcuno,

Sciogliam noi l’alma da corporei lacci.”—P. 107.

Near the end of the conversation Brutus says,

“Respira, ò Cassio, che li parla d’altro,

Per quel, che di quì posso dal sembiante

Comprender, e da gesti.”—P. 109.

After Lenate leaves Caesar, Cassius, turning to the former, exclaims,

“M’è ritornata l’anima nel corpo.

Il tuo parlar con Cesare n’hà messo,

Lenate, in gran spavento?”

To which Lenate replies,

“Dubitando

Della mia fede, avete dubitato,

Ch’un muto parli. Sievi pure il cielo

Propizio, com’io vi sarò fedele.”

This entire scene, as others in Pescetti, make us regret that his

slavish subservience to his models caused him to smother his dramatic

ability in an avalanche of verbiage. He shows, in spite of many

omissions, a true perception of the dramatic possibilities of his

material. Had he only been able to condense his work by almost

three-quarters, his tragedy would rank high as a representative of its

type. Shakespeare uses the same material, takes out his few ounces of

gold, and casts away the tons of dross. Nothing that can impede the

swiftly approaching climax is tolerated, yet everything necessary to

heighten the suspense is introduced.

_Pop._— I wish your enterprise to-day may thrive.

_Cas._— What enterprise, Popilius?

_Pop._— Fare you well

(_Advances to Caesar_)

_Bru._— What said Popilius Lena?

_Cas._— He wished to-day our enterprise might thrive.

I fear our purpose is discovered.

_Bru._— Look, how he makes to Caesar: mark him.

_Cas._— Casca,

Be sudden, for we fear prevention.

Brutus, what shall be done? If this be known,

Cassius, or Caesar never shall turn back,

For I will slay myself.

_Bru._— Cassius, be constant:

Popilius Lena speaks not of our purposes;

For, look he smiles, and Caesar doth not change.[70]

These scenes are not only significant from a critical standpoint; they

are historically of prime importance. In Muretus and Grévin the matter

of Antony’s entry into the conspiracy is confined to a few lines;

Pescetti is the first to give it more importance and the first to employ

material which later reappears in Shakespeare’s work. The Popilius Lena

scene is even more important, for it is in “Cesare” that we find the

first dramatic treatment of this significant episode. Shakespeare’s

treatment almost exactly parallels the work of his humble predecessor.

Pescetti seemed well aware of the dramatic value of suspense. In “Julius

Caesar”, Shakespeare’s use of this device is much commended, but in this

particular play he seems to have been anticipated by the Italian. The

preceding scene is not the only one wherein it is employed by Pescetti.

Some time before, D. Brutus joins Cassius and M. Brutus, deploring the

perversity of fortune.[71] He fears that Caesar has scented the

conspiracy and will not attend that day’s session of the Senate. The

introduction of this matter at this time strongly resembles

Shakespeare’s use of the same device, under the same circumstances.

Cassius says to D. Brutus:

_Cas._— Bruto tu sè turbato.

_D. B._— E n’hò cagione.

_Cas._— Che c’è?

_D. B._— S’appon fortuna, à desir nostri.

_Cas._— . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“Ma che cosa incontrat’è, ch’interrompe

I nostri alti disegni?

_D. B._— S’è pentito

D’ir in Senato Cesar, e dimane

Come dianzi vi dissi, prende à guardia,

Del corpo suo cinquanta huomini eletti:

Et ò pur, che non abbia qualche cosa

Della congiura, e dell’ insidie udito.”—Pp. 92–93.

In Shakespeare we read:

_Cas._— “But it is doubtful yet

Whether Caesar will come forth to-day or no;

For he is superstitious grown of late,

Quite from the main opinion he held once

Of fantasy, of dreams and ceremonies.

It may be these apparent prodigies,

The unaccustomed terror of this night,

And the persuasion of his augurers,

May hold him from the Capitol to-day.” Act II., I, l. 194

ff.

In both dramas the object is the same; to awaken doubts in the

spectators’ minds as to the ultimate success of the plotters and to

awaken an interest in the means whereby the conspirators succeed in

overcoming Caesar’s suspicion. The difference in content in the

parallels seems due to the fact that while Pescetti follows Appian,

Shakespeare follows Plutarch.

-----

Footnote 55:

Neither does Appian.

Footnote 56:

Shakespeare’s Plutarch. Ed. by W. W. Skeat, page 164.

Footnote 57:

Appian says: “Some of the Conspirators” (1578 Ed.).

Footnote 58:

Plutarch, page 119. Skeat.

Footnote 59:

This scene goes far beyond Muret and Grévin. In Muretus the scene is

confined to the following lines:

_Cass._— . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Unus mihi nunc scrupulus restat:

Unane opera confodiendum

Cum Caesare ipso censeas Antonium?

_Bru._— Jam saepe dixi, id esse consilium mihi,

Salvis perimere civibus tyrannida.

_Cass._— Perimatur ergo ab infimis radicibus,

Ne quando post hac caesa rursum pullulet.

_Bru._— Latet sub uno tota radix corpore.

_Cass._— Itan’ videtur? amplius nil proloquar.

Tibi pareatur; te sequimur omnes ducem.

Vide modo, ut, cum opus erit, adsis. Brut. videro. Lines

184 ff.

Grévin differs but slightly. Cassius says:

Mais j’ay je ne sçay quoy qui mi detient pensif.

N’estes vous pas d’advis que de force pareille

Nous abordions Antoine, à fin qu’il ne resveille,

L’orgueil de ce Tyran en ses nouveaux amis?

M. Brute.

Je vous ay tousjours dict que ce n’est mon advis.

Cassius.

Si seroit-ce bien faict, arrachans la racine,

Avecque le gros tronc de tout ceste vermine,

De peur qu’ell’ ne revive, ou que le pied laissé,

Ne resemble celuy qui l’auroit devancé.

M. Brute.

C’est assez, soyez prest, pendant que je regarde,

Que chascun de mes gens se tienne sur sa garde. Lines 508

ff.

Cassius exults in the prospect of liberty and the scene closes. It is

curious to remark the simile regarding Antony’s relations to Caesar

which runs through Muretus, Grévin, Pescetti and Shakespeare. In all

Caesar is likened to a trunk of which Antony is simply an appendage.

Footnote 60:

Julius Caesar, II, I, ll. 154–191.

Footnote 61:

Particularly in “Marcus Antonius,” page 161.

Footnote 62:

Page 114 et seq.

Footnote 63:

“Marcus Antonius,” p. 119. Skeat.

Footnote 64:

“Marcus Antonius,” p. 164. Skeat.

Footnote 65:

Pescetti throughout this scene follows Appian rather than Plutarch.

Appian says: “Some thought that Antony ought to be killed also because

he was consul with Caesar, and was his most powerful friend, and the

one of the most repute with the army; but Brutus said that they would

win the glory of tyrannicide from the death of Caesar alone, because

that would be the killing of a king. If they should kill his friends

also, the deed would be imputed to private enmity and to the Pompeian

faction.” (Civil Wars, Bk. II, Ch. XVI., White’s Trans.)

Footnote 66:

This parallel is noted by Ayres (in work cited before).

Footnote 67:

Noted by Ayres.

Footnote 68:

Substantially the same in Appian.

Footnote 69:

Marcus Brutus, p. 117–118.

Footnote 70:

J. C., Act. III., Sc. I, ll. 14–27.

Footnote 71:

P. 91 ff.

THE CHARACTER OF CAESAR

Of all Shakespeare’s portraits, there are few which have so puzzled his

critics as that of Julius Caesar. Their ingenuity has been taxed to the

utmost to account for a characterization so at variance with historical

fact, and many have been the theories advanced in explanation. It is not

my purpose to detail this controversy. The facts are commonplaces of

Shakespearian study. Neither is it necessary to set forth all the many

and various tributes wherein Shakespeare, in his other works, and in

“Julius Caesar” itself, gives ample evidence of his appreciation of

Caesar’s true greatness. What I do purpose to show is the marked

similarity between the conception of Caesar’s character in Shakespeare

and that found in Pescetti.

It must be understood that I employ the term characterization as applied

to Pescetti’s dramatis personae for lack of a better term. In his type

of the drama very little of the characterization is brought out by the

clash of conflict, although, as I have before pointed out, there are

passages in “Cesare” in which this is to some extent true. We gain our

conception of character more through a recital of the characteristics or

traits of his persons, rather than through a revelation in action.

To Shakespeare, therefore, “Cesare” would not have appealed as a drama;

but as a history or a recital of the feelings animating various persons

during certain situations, it had its attractions. I purpose to show in

just what manner Shakespeare in his delineation of Caesar may have

availed himself of the material provided by this long forgotten work.

It has been claimed, and in my opinion, erroneously, that Shakespeare’s

peculiar characterization of his titular hero was due to his lack of

classical knowledge. Surely such a charge can not hold against the

Veronese rhetorician, whose livelihood depended on his classical

training, and who did not hesitate to dispute with Tasso. Yet his

characterization brings into relief many of those features which have in

Shakespeare’s portrait so aroused the surprise and chagrin of critics.

Professor Harry Morgan Ayres[72] traces these peculiarities in

Shakespeare’s delineation of his titular character to the influence of a

Renaissance idea of Caesar which had its ultimate source in the Hercules

Oetoeus of Seneca, found its way into the Renaissance drama through

Muretus, and had become traditional in Shakespeare’s time. No claim is

advanced of any direct relation of “Julius Caesar” to preceding

versions, but the similarity in certain particulars existing between the

various characterizations of Caesar is emphasized. That Grévin’s

portrait should be markedly similar to that of Muretus is but natural in

view of the former’s open plagiarism. Pescetti also owes much to the

noted humanist. The latter made Caesar a grandiloquent braggart.

Pescetti, following his example, makes Caesar’s boastfulness a prominent

trait of his character. Yet neither Muretus nor Grévin emphasizes

Caesar’s vacillation, nor this indecision, which, seemingly through the

Italian’s drama, found its way later into Shakespeare’s portrait.

While it is quite possible that the traditional conception of Caesar

supposedly prevalent in Shakespeare’s time influenced his peculiar

delineation of the Dictator, there is apparently no good reason for

excluding the possibility that the dramatist’s notion of his titular

hero’s traditional character was confirmed by an examination of

Pescetti’s work, if indeed he did not derive from the latter all the

hints supposedly due to the tradition fixed by Muretus.

Like Shakespeare, Pescetti is not lacking in appreciation of Caesar’s

greatness; of his courage, patriotism, magnanimity. Thus Cassius says to

Brutus,

“Tu sai, ch’egli è feroce, e ne’ perigli

Non si sgomenta punto, anzi diviene

Allor più ardito, e coraggioso, quando

Maggior vede il periglio.”[73]

In his dedication, the highest compliment he can pay to Alfonso d’Este

is to number the mighty Julius among his ancestors. In the prologue his

approaching death troubles the gods, and Jove promises for him

immortality among the celestials as the only fitting reward for his

merit, while ruin and destruction await his assassins. In the play the

First Messenger refers to him as “huom divino.”[74] The Chorus sings his

praises:

“Così dunque

Quei, che pur dianzi un folgor fu di guerra,

Un’ Achille, un Alcide di possanza,

Un’ Ulisse di senno, e d’accortezza,

Un Ciro, un Alessandro d’ardimento,

Di magnaminità, di cortesia,

Estinto giace miserabilmente.”—P. 127.

Criticism cannot be too guarded in considering as evidence of personal

bias the words of an author’s character, but cumulative evidence is

certainly not without its influence. The chorus later in the play refers

to Caesar again, and as

“Del più saggio, e più forte

Huom, ch’arme unqua vestisse.”[74]—P. 131.

The Chorus of Soldiers towards the close of the play sings his praise.

Decimus Brutus, trying to persuade Caesar, runs the whole gamut of the

latter’s deeds.

Nor does Pescetti, any more than Shakespeare, begrudge him credit for

his courtesy and magnanimity. Regarding this trait, Professor MacCallum

calls particular attention to the passage in “Julius Caesar” wherein

Artemidorus urges the consideration of his petition:

_Art._— Hail, Caesar! read this schedule.

_Dec._— Trebonius doth desire you to o’er-read,

At your best leisure, this his humble suit.

_Art._— O Caesar, read mine first; for mine’s a suit

That touches Caesar nearer: read it, great Caesar.

_Caes._— What touches us ourself shall be last served.—III., 1, 3–8.

This is nowhere suggested in Plutarch. It is, indeed, quite easy to

regard this magnanimous action as the caprice of a man so intoxicated by

success that he has lost all sense of social perspective; a real

Colossus, for whom the ordinary motives of men seem too insignificant

for his semi-divine being. Pescetti’s Caesar leaves no room for the

exercise of surmise. In the scene between Lenate and the Dictator,

Caesar is courteous and magnanimous beyond criticism. Lenate felicitates

Caesar, who replies:

“E tè, Lenate, a pien contento renda.

Che chiedi? in che può Cesare, Lenate

Servir? in c’hà dell’ opra sua bisogno?”—P. 106.

Lenate praises Caesar’s courtesy, and Caesar tells him to name his suit,

for he will deny him nothing. Lenate begs a military appointment for

Quinto Fulvio. Caesar says:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“A lor di soddisfarti io ti prometto,

Et in soddisfacendoti maggiore

Riceverò, che non farò servigio,

Ch’à somma grazia, e a singular favore

D’esser da tà servito mi rech’io:

E se, qual tu me lo dipingi, fia,

Come fia veramente, che Lenate

Sò, che non mente, i premi all’ opre uguali

Andranno, e sarà Cesare con lui

Quel, che stat’ è con gli altri.”

At the conclusion of this scene he remarks,

“Huom, che d’umanità si spogli, indegno

Stim’ io del nome d’huomo, e fu più degno

Di ruggir fra Leon, fremer frà gli Orsi,

Urlar frà i Lupi, e sibilar frà i Serpi

Nelle selve, negli antri, e nelle grotte,

Che formar nelle terre umani accenti.”—Ces., pp. 106–110.

This, while rather declamatory, rings true.

Still, in spite of this consideration of Caesar’s nobler traits,

Pescetti so emphasizes his weaknesses that the total impression we

receive from his characterization is not at all in keeping with that

which we derive from the Caesar of history. True, Pescetti does not

mention the Dictator’s physical failings; but the same pride, the same

thrasonical boastfulness, the same vacillation are to be found in both

characterizations treated in a manner singularly similar.

Caesar, on his first appearance, while he displays traits which

apparently are hard to reconcile with his future statements, strikes one

note which predominates throughout; that of boastfulness. His very first

words are:

“Magnifica, superba, e veramente

Qual darsi ad un Pontefice conviene,

La cena fu, che Lepido iersera

Ne diè. . . .”—P. 62.

His sense of his own importance, and of the honors due to his position,

is evident. He comments philosophically upon the delights of

conversation around the banqueting board. This gives Antony an

opportunity to dilate upon the mutability of human fortune. Caesar

replies,

“Quest’ instabilità, quest’ inconstanza

Delle cose mondane, à me ricorda,

Che lo stato presente, in che m’ hà posto,

O fortuna, ò valor, non mi prometta

Perpetuo, ma, ch’ io creda, e stia sicuro,

Che si debba mutar, quando, che sia.”—P. 66.

It must be borne in mind that Caesar is talking to an intimate friend

and companion in arms. Antony takes the occasion to warn him:

“Della fortuna io t’assicuro, ch’ella

Non ti sie mai contraria sì nel crine

Avvolte l’ hai le mani. Dall’ insidie

Ben t’esort’ io guardarti de’ nemici.

Molti offesi da te si tengon; molti

Portano invidia alla tua gloria; alcuni

Abbaglia il tuo splendore: altri patire

Che tu lor sii superior, non ponno.”—Pp. 66–67.

Caesar replies:

“Diman cinquanta de’ più fidi, e forti[75]

Scer della legion decima i voglio,

Che mi stien di continuo al fianco, e scudo

Mi sien contra ogni inganno, e forza esterna.

Ch’io non son mica si di senno privo,

Nè m’hà sì la dolcezza inebriato

Delle prosperità, ch’io non conosca,

Quant’ abbia di temer giusta cagione:

E già d’insidie non sò, che m’è stato

Susurrato all’ orecchie: ma i disegni

Schernirò di chi tenta oltraggio farmi.

Ma ciò poc’ or mi preme, e mi dà noia:

Più mi dà noia, e preme il ricordarmi

Ch’ invendicata ancor resti la morte

Di Crasso. . . .”—Page 67.

He longs to see the Roman eagle triumphant, and Rome mistress of the

world.

This speech of Caesar’s is noteworthy. The dictator affirms that the

intoxication of success has not blinded his common sense. He has reason

to fear treachery, yet just what is contemplated against him he does not

know. He despises those who would harm him. That humbled Rome has not

yet wreaked vengeance on the Parthians concerns him far more. Here again

this concern of Caesar for the welfare of others finds its echo in

Shakespeare’s lines,

“What touches us ourself shall be last served.”

There is no historical warrant for this attitude in this particular

connection.

Courageous words! But be it noted that Pescetti’s Caesar in the presence

of Antony does not wish to convey the impression of fear. He hastens to

voice his scorn of treachery, even as he recounts his suspicions. This

man, who prides himself on his self-command, is destined to fall an easy

victim to his own vanity. His own self praise opens the way for Antony’s

flattery:

“Alla fortuna, al valor tuo riserba

Quest’ alta impresa il cielo, acciocchè nulla

A tuoi gran vanti, alle tue glorie manchi:

. . . . . . . . . . .

O quali omai trovar si ponno al tuo

Merto conformi titoli, e cognomi?

Son vili i Magni al vincitor de’ Magni.

Al del salir convien, por man bisogna

A titoli, e a nomi de gli Dei.

Divine l’opre son, divini i fatti

Divino è il tuo valor, divini ancora

Esser vogliono i titoli, e i cognomi,

Di che la grata età t’addorni, e fregi.—Pp. 68–69.

_Ces._— Con quai nomi m’appelli il mondo, o quali

Titoli egli mi dia, poco mi cale.

A me basta, ch’ ei sappia, e legga, e narri

Le da me oprate cose in pace, e in guerra;

Onde ne resti la memoria viva

Al par del Sol, con cui gareggi, e giostri

Di chiarezza, e splendor la gloria mia.”—P. 69.

The dialogue has become a duet of praise, in which Antony seeks to

outsing his master. Finally Caesar says,

“Delle sovrane lodi, onde m’addorni,

Molto mi pregio, ò Antonio, e con ragione,

Poscia, che vengon da colui, che, come

Scorge, così di dir hà per costume

Il vero, e in bocca hà quel, ch’egli hà nel cuore,

Ch’è così saggio, e candido, che come

Esser nel giudicar non può ingannato,

Così nel dir altri ingannar non vuole.”—P. 70.

He accepts Antony’s praise because he feels that it is true, coming from

the heart of a sincere and plain-speaking friend. He reposes the same

faith in Antony’s judgment as is the case in Shakespeare. Thus, when he

speaks of Cassius, Antony tells him,

“Fear him not, Caesar; he’s not dangerous;

He is a noble Roman, and well given.”

A few lines later, Caesar says,

“Come on my right hand, for this ear is deaf,

And tell me truly what thou think’st of him.”

In “Cesare” to Calpurnia’s entreaties he retorts:

“Donna, tu spargi le parole al vento;

Resta di più pregar, se saggia sei;

A i lamenti, alle lagrime pon fine,

Che vedrai sorger pria dall’ Occidente,

Et attuffarsi il Sol là, dond’ ei nasce,

Ch’ io presti fede a i sogni, che possanza

Habbian di frastornarmi dall’ imprese

Già destinate i sogni, od i prodigi

. . . . . . . . . .

Esca di questo petto anzi lo spirto,

Che’ l timor c’ entri, e massime de’ sogni,

Ch’ altro non son, che vane ombre, e fantasmi.

Quel, che di me prefisso è il ciel, conviene,

Che sia: ne per por mente a sogni, ò a segni

Potrò schivarlo, e folle à me colui

Sembra, che teme quel, che per consiglio,

Nè per saver uman non può schivarsi.”[76]—Pp. 76–77.

Let it be noted that Caesar is addressing Calpurnia in the presence of

the Priest, and it would ill become the conqueror of the world to show

fear or vacillation before them. He is discussing his wife’s dream, yet

in spite of his expressed disbelief in omens, it was he who ordered the

fateful sacrifice, which, as the First Messenger announces after the

catastrophe, he himself inspected. Evidently he was in doubt even then,

but his vanity and the urging of the conspirators lured him to his doom.

Compare his boasts of fearlessness with Shakespeare:

“Would he were fatter! but I fear him not:

Yet if my name were liable to fear,

I do not know the man I should avoid

So soon as that spare Cassius....

. . . . .

I rather tell thee what it is to be fear’d

Than what I fear: for always, I am Caesar.”[77]

Yet immediately thereafter he wishes Antony to give him his true opinion

of Cassius. What for?

Still, in spite of his outwardly expressed contempt of the omens,

Pescetti’s Caesar yields, just as does Shakespeare’s, when the crafty

Decimus plays on his vanity. In the presence of the conspirators he

soliloquizes: