Chapter XII: Act V (1)

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.”