Chapter XIV: Act V (3)

Here is a man who has just proudly exclaimed that fear was foreign to him, now confessing that he fears, and that his fears are founded not on vain dreams or portents, but upon substantial grounds. But what are the “certi indizi, e chiari segni” that threaten his well-being? The vague warnings of Antony? No more substantial grounds have been presented in the course of the drama. No conspirators have been named; Caesar, despite the talk regarding his conviction of impending disaster, is unsuspectingly conversing with one of the plotters. Are we to regard this lack of adequate reason for Caesar’s fears as a flaw in Pescetti’s technique? It must be remembered that Caesar ordered the fateful sacrifice, and that he himself confesses, in soliloquy, that Calpurnia’s unusual fear has disturbed him. But he dreads to ascribe his perturbation to the influence of the portents, and lays the emphasis upon a suspicion of treachery, which, as far as he had any personal knowledge, we know rested on the vaguest grounds. There is no fault in Pescetti’s motivation. He presents a Caesar, shaken by the very fears that assail baser men, but too proud to convey such an impression, fatuously trying to persuade himself that he is “constant as the northern star,” while he wavers like a weather-cock between his fear and his pride.

He listens to Decimus’ arguments. The latter, knowing how to “give his humor the true bent,” lays great stress on Rome’s indebtedness to the Dictator: what Roman could be so base as to contemplate his death?

_D. Brutus_— “. . . . . . . . e nondimeno
Crederem, che si trovi alcun di cuore
Così barbaro, e rio, così spietato
Che pensi, non dirò, ch’ardisca, ò tenti
Di privarti di vita? io non lo credo,
Io non lo credo, nè che sia, ch’il creda,
Credo, nè credo, che tu stesso il creda.
E come io ti consiglio, ch’à guardarti
La diligenza accresca; così voglio,
Ch’ogni timor deponga, ogni sospetto,
Acciocchè nulla nebbia offuschi, ò turbi
Il seren del tuo petto, e acquetate,
Dopo tanti travagli, e tante guerre
Le cose, insieme con la patria goda
Quella felicità, quella quiete,
Ch’ognun del saggio tuo governo attende.”—Pp. 96–97.

Thus Decimus artfully contrives to work on Caesar’s vanity and to express his disbelief in the genuineness of Caesar’s fears. The latter is sorely touched; he recognizes his mistake in using the word fear in his first statement, and hastens to assure Decimus:

“Non tem’io, nò; non hà luogo il timore
In questo petto: unque il mio cuor non seppe,
Che timor fosse: e già son giunto a tale
Etade, e tale cose oprate hò in arme,
Che della morte aver non debba tema.[79]
Potrà ben morte, ch’ogni cosa scioglie,
Questo corpo atterrar; ma la memoria
Del nome mio non spegnerà in eterno.”—P. 97.

Still his fears are potent, but he no longer says “temo,” a word so unbefitting Caesar; it now becomes

“Tuttavia credo, e sopra certi segni
E conietture è il mio creder fondato,
Che si tendano insidie alla mia vita.”—P. 97.

But he would not appear afraid; apprehensive lest fear may be suspected from this statement, he continues:

“Dalle quai guarderommi in guisa, ch’io
Non paventi però, nè del mio petto
In parte alcuna la quiete turbi;
Ma tu và trova Marcantonio, e dilli
Da parte mia, che vada a dar licenza
Al Senato, e li dica, che per oggi
In Senato non posso ritrovarmi.”—P. 97.

And note the solicitude of this Colossus, for the opinion of Caesar’s Senate:

“E mi scusi con lui sì, che non nasca
Sospetto in lui d’esser da me sprezzato.”—P. 97.

This Caesar, in spite of his words, fears. He fears the omens, but he will not betray his feelings. It might be claimed that his message to the Senate is a natural result of an innate courtesy typical of true greatness. But coming where it does and as it does, it seems more an exhibition of that pride which a man consciously great takes in the good opinions of his underlings. Surely Caesar had nothing to fear from his puppet Senators. He could just as curtly have disregarded them; but demigods must display some good attributes, some care for their worshippers, if only to feed the sense of their superiority on the admiration of inferior beings.

Decimus is quick to seize his opportunity and plays on this trait of Caesar’s character. Surely the Senate will think that he has grown arrogant; that fortune has transformed a kind and courteous Caesar. The preservation of his reputation for generosity demands his personal appearance before the Senators. Caesar yields, while Marcus Brutus glorifies the gods for this turn of affairs. The Dictator tells the still anxious Calpurnia to banish her fears, for the gods which so long have defended him, will not fail him now, while Decimus lauds him and assures Calpurnia that it were unthinkable that harm could befall Caesar in his own city.

This scene, between Caesar, Calpurnia, and Decimus Brutus, seems to have no legitimate place in the plot unless Pescetti aims to heighten the pathos by bringing into stronger relief the vanity of the Dictator and the base treachery of his assassins. Caesar becomes to the modern reader a pitiable, almost a pitiful character. Any lurking admiration for the Conspirators’ cause is effectually destroyed, and a feeling of horror supervenes. Perhaps Pescetti so intended. It is revolting to listen to Decimus, Caesar’s beloved friend and companion in arms, recounting with smiling countenance his benefactor’s courtesy, his magnanimity, his many great services to Rome, while he burns to plunge a dagger into his auditor’s heart. And to think that Caesar, blinded by his vanity, allows a smiling villain to lead him like an ox to the sacrifice! This is pitiful, not pathetic.

Later on, Decimus’ praises soar to such heights that Caesar tells him

“. . . . . . Assai corso l’arringo
Hai di mie lodi, Bruto, di che debbo
Molto pregiarmi, e rallegrarmi, essendo
Il lodator d’eterna lode degno.
Ch’alor la lode è finalmente vera,
Quando da huom lodato ella proviene.”—Page 106.

Yet Caesar accepts this fulsome flattery because in his judgment, it comes from a man well qualified to deliver it. Then, surrounded by his murderers, he walks unsuspectingly to his doom.

There is no historical justification for such a delineation of the greatest man of antiquity. Plutarch’s account may not be sympathetic, but the modest author of the Commentaries is nowhere depicted as a vain, pompous, vacillating boaster. It is indeed difficult to account for such a characterization. Muretus may have fixed in his drama a conception of Caesar supposedly current in his day. But it must be remembered that this tragedy of Muretus was a youthful product, and one cannot expect of the student of eighteen, the mature judgment of the scholar of forty. Grévin followed Muretus, and since his drama is frankly an enlarged version of his predecessor’s work, it is not surprising that the young physician took over the humanist’s characterization of Caesar with scarcely any alterations. But Pescetti’s livelihood depended upon his knowledge of the classics,[80] and his work bears unmistakable evidence of wide reading in both Latin and Greek authors. Unlike Muretus, he was over thirty when he wrote “Cesare”; surely his acquaintance with the sources must have made him well aware of the falsity of the traditional estimate of Caesar’s character, if indeed in his time such an estimate was popularly current. There can be no question of the influence of Muretus in his own work, yet just why he should choose not only to follow the former, but further to emphasize the weaknesses of Caesar must remain purely speculative. Pescetti’s position in the matter is all the more curious because he dedicated his work to Alfonso D’Este, a supposed descendant of his titular hero. Under such circumstances it certainly would have been much to his advantage to have cast his Caesar in the most heroic mold, instead of presenting him in such a manner as to provoke resentment in the very quarters where he expected praise.[81] Is it possible that Pescetti possessed sufficient dramatic technique to endeavor to present Caesar not as he really was, but as he appeared to the conspirators, and thus to give their action some excuse?

That Shakespeare so presented him has been contended by some critics, but the motives that actuated the dramatists are not the point at issue. The total impression we gain in both dramas is singularly alike, while in some details the coincidence is striking; as where Caesar says,

“Cowards die many times before their death;
The valiant never taste of death but once.
Of all the wonders that I yet have heard,
It seems to me most strange that men should fear:
Seeing that death, a necessary end,
Will come, when it will come” (II., 11, 32).[82]

There is nothing novel in these views; one is directly traceable to Plutarch; the others are often repeated in the classic drama, but it is at least curious that the same thought occurs frequently in Pescetti. Thus the Nurse, trying to comfort Calpurnia, says:

“Che più? certo è ciascun d’aver un giorno
A terminar sua vita, e ’l quando è incerto:
Ne può verun, per giovine, e robusto,
Che sia pur un sol dì, pur un momento
Promettersi di vita, or dobbiam noi
Perciò viver ogn’or col cuor tremante,
Come ogn’ora il carnefice ci stesse
Col ferro ignudo sopra, e avvelenare
Tutte col timor nostro le dolcezze
Della presente vita, anzi una morte
Perpetua far tutta la vita nostra?
Perch’ in temendo il mal pena maggiore,
Che nel patir lo stesso mal si prova.”[83]

Caesar, in response to the Priest and Calpurnia, says,

. . . . . . . . . . . .

“Quel, che di me prefisso è in ciel, conviene,
Che sia; nè 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.”—Page 77.

Again, it is remarkable that in both Pescetti and Shakespeare, D. Brutus is made the bearer of Caesar’s message: in the former, to Mark Antony, who is to address the Senate; in the latter, he himself is to deliver the message to the Senate.[84]

Again, to Decius’ greeting Caesar replies:

“And you are come in very happy time,
To bear my greeting to the senators,
And tell them that I will not come to-day:
Cannot, is false, and that I dare not, falser:
I will not come to-day: tell them so, Decius.

_Cal._— Say he is sick” (II., 11, 60).

Who has intimated that Caesar fears to come to the Senate? His expressions are plainly those of a man influenced by circumstances which he considers it derogatory to his own sense of superiority to acknowledge. His exaggerated self-consciousness is feverish; even as he speaks, he builds inferences which no one but himself could derive from the premises.[85] He knows he is not sick, nor that he looks as if he were sick; when Calpurnia tells Decius to plead his illness, he builds another inference:

_Caes._— “Shall Caesar send a lie?
Have I in conquest stretch’d mine arm so far,
To be afeard to tell graybeards the truth?
Decius, go tell them Caesar will not come.”

The very thought that anyone would suspect him of fear, and worse yet, of attempting to hide his fear in a falsehood, revolts him. An absolute exhibition of will is more becoming, and he feels it.

_Dec._— “Most mighty Caesar, let me know some cause,
Lest I be laugh’d at when I tell them so.”

This request is dramatically effective: is it historically or dramatically true? Caesar has said nothing at which the Senate might laugh; the commands of a Dictator were dangerous subjects for mirth. His entourage were in no jocund mood after the Lupercalia.

_Bru._— “I will do so; but, look you, Cassius,
The angry spot doth glow on Caesar’s brow,
And all the rest look like a chidden train.”[86]

Yet here is a proud conqueror, that lets an underling, although a friend, hint that his commands might be laughed at. True, Decius says, “Lest I be laughed at,” but to insult the messenger because of Caesar’s message, would surely be to scorn Caesar. Instead of the decisive, imperious command we should expect, we get a reiteration of a previous statement, and then the Dictator is lost in the man. For Decius’ private satisfaction, but by no means for his public announcement, Caesar confides his true reasons. Decius interprets the dream in a manner most soothing to Caesar’s vanity, and when he intimates that were some one to tell of this dream to the Senate, Caesar might become a laughing-stock and be accused of cowardice, the Dictator is vanquished; pride has conquered fear. Yet, mark, the dream was told to Decius as to a good friend, and in confidence. What right had he to assume that the dream would be told to the Senate? If it were told, he alone could be held responsible for its telling, since he alone, (besides Calpurnia), knew of it. Since when has the valiant Decius become a superior interpreter of dreams? Why should his explanations of a woman’s fancies have greater weight with Caesar than the solemn decision of the venerable college of augurs? Decius boasts his ability to oversway Caesar, but he succeeds only because the latter, as in “Cesare,” in his pride and vanity, is only too glad to seize an opportunity to silence his own apprehension, without compromise to his own exalted opinion of himself. He is blind to all other circumstances. This conception of the scene is the only one, which, to me at least, renders it dramatically satisfying.

Professor MacCallum,[87] of all the many commentators on this character, seems to have offered the most satisfactory interpretation. Caesar’s bearing certainly justifies this critic’s opinion, that, in a certain sense, he is playing a part and aping the immortal to be seen of men. As has been shown above, Pescetti’s entire treatment suggests the same conception. His Caesar, if we may overlook the omission of any mention of his physical failings, can be aptly characterized by Professor Dowden’s appraisal of the character in Shakespeare. “Julius Caesar appears in only three scenes of the play. In the first scene of the third act he dies. When he does appear, the poet seems anxious to insist upon the weakness rather than on the strength of Caesar. He is subject to the vain hopes and vain alarms of superstition. His manner of speech is pompous and arrogant. He accepts flattery as a right; he vacillates while professing unalterable constancy; he has lost in part his gift of perceiving facts and of dealing efficiently with men and events.”[88]

Another similarity in the treatment of Caesar must be noted. While Pescetti’s tragedy is called “Il Cesare,” the titular hero occupies a position of the same relative unimportance as the Caesar of Shakespeare’s drama. He appears in but two of the five acts, the third and the fourth, and is fairly prominent. Yet, Brutus is the real protagonist. He appears in each act but the third, and is conspicuous throughout as the chief representative of the action.

Yet here, as in Shakespeare, the spirit of Caesar dominates the play. From first to last it permeates the drama and provides the mainspring of the action. From Brutus’ first speech to the concluding words of the Second Messenger his name is always before us. Calpurnia beholds him in her dreams, the Priest sees in the portents destruction threatening him and Rome, while the Choruses beg the gods to avert the impending disasters. Even Portia is animated by a desire to wreak vengeance on him. The Messenger in his final lament sees in his death the end of Rome’s glories and presents him to us as the nemesis of his murderers. The effect of this treatment is to invest the entire play in an atmosphere of portent, with Caesar predominant.

-----

Footnote 72:

In the monograph to which reference has already been made.

Footnote 73:

Page 24. See later chapter on Brutus.

Footnote 74:

Compare Antony’s outburst:

Thou art the ruins of the noblest man
That ever lived in the tide of times. J. C. III., 1, 257–58.

Footnote 75:

This is a detail which Pescetti derived from Appian’s “Civil Wars,”
Bk. II., Ch. XVI., wherein it is stated that the conspirators had to
hasten, as Caesar contemplated departing for Parthia within four days
and would thereupon have a bodyguard. (White’s translation, p. 176.)

Footnote 76:

Pp. 76–77. This speech, in substance, occurs both in Muretus and in
Grévin.

Footnote 77:

I., ii. 199.

Footnote 78:

Pp. 93, 94, 95. There are some similarities to “Cornelie” and to
Grévin in this passage.

Footnote 79:

“Have I in conquest stretch’d mine arm so far,
To be afeard to tell graybeards the truth?”

Footnote 80:

He taught grammar and rhetoric in Verona. See Gerini, “Gli scrittori
pedagogici nel secolo decimo settimo.”

Footnote 81:

Paolo Beni was quick to seize upon this feature of Pescetti’s
characterization of Caesar. He says: “Che se pur volesse alcuno che
non perciò restasse suo Cesare di esser furto, almen convien
confessare ch’egli solo fosse vero Autore dell’ingiuria la quale con
tanta sciocchezza e temerità fece in tal Tragedia a quell’Altezza et a
tutta la serenissima Casa d’Este, poscia che havendo pubblicato e
celebrato Alfonso per congiuntissimo di sangue con la Casa Giulia, e
con Giulio Cesare, finalmente si adduce a dedicarli la sua Tragedia;
(che sua chiamerolla per hora) quella Tragedia dico nella qual Cesare
vien com’empio tiranno e traditor della patria bruttamente trucidato.
Vedi imprudenza estrema di quest’huomo: vedi sciocchezza et audacia
incomparabile: ricordare che questo serenissimo Principe sia per
sangue strettamente congiunto con Giulio Cesare, e disceso da Giulio
Cesare, e poi immantinente far che il Theatro per ogni parte risuoni
l’impietà, la perfidia, la tirannia di Cesare: e che su gli occhi di
quell’Altezza ne venga quasi pernitioso mostro co’l ferro trucidato et
estinto. E forse che non supplica il Serenissimo Alfonso (vedi nuova
imprudenza et ardire) che faccia rappresentar questa Tragedia in
publico con nobil pompa, e dia spettacolo sì horrendo d’un suo
antenato al Mondo.” Il Cavalcanti, 1614, p. 107 et seq.

Footnote 82:

It is interesting to note the fascination which this remark of
Caesar’s had for the dramatists of his fortunes. No doubt they drew
their direct inspiration from Plutarch, who relates that Caesar, on
being urged to have a bodyguard, retorted, “It is better to die once,
than always to be afraid of death.” (J. C., p. 92.) Skeat.

Thus Muretus says (Act III., verse 386):

“Sed tamen quando semel
Vel cadere praestat, quam metu longo premi.”

And Grévin, Act III., v. 791:

“. . . . . . . et si j’aime bien mieux
Mourir tout en un coup, qu’estre tousjours paoureux.”

Also Act I., v. 13:

“Il vault bien mieux mourir
Asseure de tout poinct, qu’incessamment perir.
Faulsement par la peur.”

In Garnier’s “Cornelie” (Kyd’s trans.) we read:

“The fear of evil doth afflict us more
Than the evil itself, though it be neer so sore.”

Footnote 83:

Pp. 39–40. Also pages 79, 80, 82, 83 and 94, in which this same idea
finds expression.

Footnote 84:

This is not the case in Muretus or Grévin, nor is it found in
Plutarch.

Footnote 85:

True, the conspirators have suspected that the portents and the
auspices might persuade him, and Trebonius has prepared for this. But
how was Caesar to know?

Footnote 86:

I., ii, 182.

Footnote 87:

MacCallum, op. cit., p. 228.

Footnote 88:

“Shakespeare, A Critical Study of his Mind and Art,” by Edward Dowden,
Harper & Bros., 1903, pp. 253–54.

BRUTUS

Pescetti wrote his tragedy with the evident intention of flattering the Duke of Ferrara, yet never was fulfillment further from promise. “Cesare” could hardly have furnished agreeable reading to a prince, who, lauded on one page as the greatest descendant of the mightiest Julius, finds throughout the succeeding pages this same ancestor denounced as an odious tyrant, and displayed in action as a weak, vacillating braggart. Nor would his appreciation of Pescetti’s efforts have been increased by a consideration of the treatment accorded Brutus. Far from presenting the assassin of Caesar in a manner which might have been regarded as acceptable to the Duke, the Italian dramatist considers him throughout with the highest favor and never wearies of his praises.

Pescetti’s dedication renders it rather difficult to account satisfactorily for his Brutus. Possibly he harbored liberal sympathies of which he found it hard to rid himself; possibly he was here too greatly under Plutarch’s influence; perhaps he was simply following in the footsteps of Muretus and Grévin. Plutarch certainly wrote the life “con amore,” and both Pescetti and Shakespeare continue the idealization of the character begun by the biographer. To both dramatists, as to Muretus and Grévin, Brutus was the “last of the Romans,” in whom the old regime found its final and noblest champion. Under the circumstances it is difficult to seize upon any phase of the character peculiar alone to Shakespeare and Pescetti. Both went to the same, or nearly the same source for their material; both followed their source faithfully. Yet it is this very similarity in the conception of the character which is especially significant for our purpose, for Shakespeare could have found in the Italian dramatist nothing to weaken, but much to confirm the favorable impression he gathered from the varied pages of Plutarch.

Pescetti’s pronounced bias is discernible from the very beginning. In his dedication[89] his fulsome flattery of Alfonso does not prevent him hinting that Caesar was no lawful ruler, nor from glancing at his excessive ambition, even though he afterward, in his drama, makes little mention of the one and none of the other. But perhaps most significant of his own feelings are the words he puts into the mouth of the Chorus of Citizens in his last act. The chorus sings the praises of Brutus in a manner which makes the immediately following praise of Caesar by the soldiers pale in comparison:

_Coro di Cittadini_: . . . . . . .
O magnanimo Bruto,
Vera stirpe di lui,
Che cacciò i Rè, ch’uccise i figli sui:
O vero Rè, ch’i regni
Non pur sprezzi, ma spegni,
Et, ucciso il Tiranno,
Torni la libertà nel proprio scanno;
Qual premio possiam darti
Al tuo valor condegno?
Qual lingua, qual ingegno
È bastante a lodarti,
Quanto se’ degno?
O quanto sdegno
Hò, che ’l mio stile
Non giunga al segno
Delle tuo lodi, ond’ io
Portar potessi, al mio
Desir conforme, il tuo nome gentile
Dall’ aureo Gange alla rimota Tile.
Dov’ è, dov’ è la Tromba
Ond’ Achille, et Ulisse ancor rimbomba?
Che con sonoro canto
Celebri in ogni canto
Il generoso, e pio
Fatto, e tolga di mano al cieco oblio.—Pp. 140–141.

It is difficult to consider these utterances as impersonal. Such is Pescetti’s admiration for the assassin of Caesar that he speaks in his own person, apparently forgetting in his enthusiasm that he has assigned the words to the Chorus of Citizens.[90] A further remove from Dante’s conception of Brutus can hardly be imagined.

Such an exhibition of partiality could not have been lost on Shakespeare. Such an emphasis of Plutarch’s attitude could not have failed to confirm the favorable impression which he gathered from the biographer. Nor could Shakespeare, in those scenes in “Cesare” wherein Pescetti attempts to exhibit Brutus in action, have gathered any hints to shake the final opinion in his own play:

“This was the noblest Roman of them all.”

Like Shakespeare, Pescetti very carefully eliminates from his characterization anything which might reflect unfavorably upon the moral character of the protagonist. We hear nothing of his positive moral defects; of his divorce, of his rivalry with Cassius for offices within the gift of the Dictator, nor of his many obligations to Caesar. All is discreetly passed over. Whatever Pescetti’s intentions, he probably found it a dramatic necessity to exclude them, much for the same reason that Shakespeare, in all likelihood influenced by his example, was led to ignore them. Possibly it was the Italian’s purpose to portray the fruitless struggle of a hopeless, though noble and virtuous Republicanism against a condition of affairs whose existence had been preordained by the gods, and against which all the forces of an outraged idealism could not prevail. The mortal embodiment of this power might fall; a place was ready for him with the gods, while Tartarus enlarged its bounds to compass his foes.[91]

If we are to accept the opinion of some critics, Shakespeare was influenced in his treatment of the subject by the recent failure of the Duke of Essex’ rebellion. It showed plainly and forcibly the folly of opposition to the monarchial power. The same idea can be discovered in Pescetti. Much as he lauds Brutus, the practical considerations of authorship compel him at times to a consideration of contemporary conditions. Possibly he realized that he was going too far in his denunciation of Caesar, for we find the Nurse engaging in a defense of monarchs, and declaring,

“E non son altro i Regi, che Vicari
Del sommo Giove.”—P. 55.

At the end of the play, the author is careful to emphasize the futility of fighting against the established order:

“E chiaro vedrai meco,
Che questo mondo è una perpetua guerra,
Ove l’un l’altro atterra,
E si tosto, ch’un manca,
Rinasce un altro, e ’l mondo si rinfranca.”—P. 149.

But it is quite possible that neither Pescetti nor Shakespeare had the faintest idea of introducing any such problem into their tragedy. Possibly both dramatized history as they conceived it, without any attempt to invest their work with a larger significance. Yet consciously or unconsciously, by thus representing their hero as morally immaculate, actuated solely by the highest and most unselfish motives, while the representative of monarchy is depicted as weak, vacillating, and tyrannous, both Pescetti and Shakespeare have secured for the problem its most elemental and most emphatic statement.

Both dramatists, therefore, approached the subject in the same spirit. Both excluded from their portrait of Brutus whatever seemed to reflect unfavorably upon his character; both included whatever might add to his moral elevation. It is this peculiar insistence upon certain traits of Brutus’ character to the exclusion of others, that furnishes a close parallel between the two plays.[92]

The Brutus of “Cesare”, at his first appearance, curiously resembles the Brutus of “Julius Caesar” after the famous soliloquy. He is torn by no doubts as to the moral excellence of his plans: his whole soul is bent upon the destruction of the tyrant. Thus, in his opening speech[92] he exclaims,

“Oggi a Roma farò conoscer, ch’io
Degno nipote son di quel gran Bruto,
Che di questa Città cacciando i Regi
Alta vendetta, e memorabil feo
Del barbarico stupro di Lucrezia.
Roma, oggi questa mano, e questo ferro,
O hà da sciorre, e romper le catene,
Ond’ in duro servaggio avvinta sei,
O hà da trar di vergognosa, e grave
Vita, anzi morte me.”—P. 12.

This, in style, sentiment, and wording is closely parallel to the exclamation of Brutus on reading the notes:

“Shall Rome stand under one man’s awe? What, Rome?
My ancestors did from the streets of Rome
The Tarquin drive, when he was called a King.
‘Speak, strike, redress.’—Am I entreated
To speak and strike? O Rome, I make thee promise
If the redress will follow, thou receivest
Thy full petition at the hand of Brutus!”

The exclamatory style is particularly noteworthy, as it occurs frequently in the parallels.

A peculiar difference in treatment, but a striking parallel in content, is to be found in a portion of the Brutus-Cassius scene.[93] In Pescetti, Brutus enters the action fully resolved, and though Cassius is already in the plot, that cautious conspirator has his doubts as to Caesar’s vulnerability. Brutus thereupon indulges in an argument curiously similar to that used later by Cassius in Shakespeare’s play when he is striving to arouse Brutus. In Pescetti, Cassius says of Caesar:

“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.”[94]—P. 24.

Brutus replies:

“. . . . . E siasi, nulla
Li gioverà l’ardir, nulla la forza,
Che non potrà, se tutto acciaio ei fosse
Resister al furor di trenta, c’hanno
Posta la propria vita in abbandono
Per liberar la patria. O Cassio, credi
Tu, ch’io non sappia, ch’in cotesto tuo
Petto non meno ardir si chiude, e serra,
Ch’in quel di Giulio? e che cotesto braccio
Non è del suo men nerboruto, e forte?”[95]

Shakespeare has:

_Cassius_— “I had as lief not be as live to be
In awe of such a thing as I myself.
I was born free as Caesar; so were you.
We both have fed as well, and we can both
Endure the winter’s cold as well as he.”[96]

It is remarkable that in both dramas the authors found it necessary to convince one of their conspirators that Caesar was physically the same as other men.

The Brutus of Pescetti is accorded the same high estimate by his countrymen as the Brutus of Shakespeare. Cassius refers to him as “Il mio Bruto” and lauds him as

“Bruto sovrano pregio, e gloria della
Romana gioventù, Bruto, in cui splende
Ogni prisco valor, cui chiama il cielo
A gloriose, et immortali imprese.”—P. 15.

A little further on he continues:

“Or sì, c’huomo ti stimo, Bruto, e vero
Ramo di quella eccelsa, e gloriosa
Stirpe, ch’à Roma il giogo indegno scosse.
Or sì, che chiaro veggio, ch’in te spirto
Veramente Roman si chiude, e serra;
Ch’in te quel valor vive, ch’oggi, invano
Cerco nel popol nostro, invan disio.”—P. 16.

This speech follows Brutus’ revelation of his determination to kill the tyrant. In Shakespeare, after Cassius has succeeded in moving Brutus, he says,

“Well, Brutus, thou art noble....”[97]

The shade of Pompey says to Brutus:

“. . . Tu puoi dunque,
Bruto, servir? tu, che l’origin trai
Da colui, che premier la libertade
A questa alta Città donò? tu puoi
A Tiranno servir? tu, che discendi
Da colui, che’l leggitimo Signore
Tollerar non poteo? questo appreso hai
Da quella sacrosanta, e veneranda
Maestra della vita, e de’ costumi,
Per cui seguir già nell’ etade acerba
La patria abbandonasti, e là te’n gisti,
Ove fiorian tutti i lodati studi,
Tutte l’arti gentili, e bei costumi?
Ahi quanto defraudato hai quella speme,
Che già fanciullo ancor di te destasti
Nel petto di ciascun, che ti conobbe?
Mal col principio il fin s’accorda, o Bruto,
Mal risponde alla prima la mezzana
Età: pur sai, ch’in valor dee l’huom sempre
Irsi avanzando, qual fiume reale,
Che quanto più dal fonte suo si scosta,
Tanto più cresce, e al mar più ricco corre.
Destati, e Bruto, destati, e raccendi
Quel fuoco, ch’era in te ne’ tuoi primi anni;
E mostra, ch’al tuo nome corrisponde
L’animo, nè dal ceppo tuo traligni.”—P. 17.

Here we find many characteristics enumerated, garnered from Plutarch and Appian, which, in addition to those already quoted, could have enabled Shakespeare without Plutarch’s scattered hints, to build a considerable part of his characterization of Brutus. In Shakespeare, Cassius says to Brutus:

“You bear too stubborn and too strange a hand
Over your friend that loves you.”[98]

Here, as in Pescetti, all animosity between them is forgotten.

Further on Cassius exclaims, as Brutus assures him that he loves the name of honor more than he fears death:

“I know that virtue to be in you, Brutus,
As well as I do know your outward favor.”[99]

Just before this, he says:

“And it is very much lamented, Brutus,
That you have no such mirrors as will turn
Your hidden worthiness into your eye,
That you might see your shadow. I have heard
Where many of the best respect in Rome,
Except immortal Caesar, speaking of Brutus,
And groaning underneath this age’s yoke,
Have wished that noble Brutus had his eyes.”[100]

Casca refers to Brutus as follows:

“O, he sits high in all the people’s hearts.”[101]

Cassius again:

“... and no man here
But honors you; and every one doth wish
You had but that opinion of yourself
Which every noble Roman bears of you.”[102]

Ligarius hails him as,

“Soul of Rome,
Brave son, derived from honorable loins.”[103]

. . . . .

“Set on your foot,
And with a heart new-fired I follow you,
To do I know not what; but it sufficeth
That Brutus leads me on.”[104]

The same confidence in Brutus is manifested by the Cassius of “Cesare.” As Brutus and he come out of the temple, Cassius says:

“Scritta nel volto tuo veggio, e per gli occhi
Scintillar fuor tal tua baldanza scorgo.
Quindi felice augurio io prendo; quindi
Anch’ io tutto m’inanimo, e rincuoro
E certissima speme io concepisco,
Ch’aver felice fin deggia la cosa.”—P. 23.

Like Shakespeare, Pescetti lays great stress upon Brutus’ lack of foresight. As is evident from the discussion regarding Antony, he utterly fails to see the fatal mistake he makes in sparing that subtle opportunist. That it is a mistake, Pescetti shows, when, near the end of the drama, the Messenger announced that Antony and Lepidus are about to avenge Caesar’s death. Brutus’ whole argument is characteristic of the closet philosopher; books, not men, have been the object of his studies. He can dissect sagely the motives of his own actions, but he is helpless to penetrate the purposes of other men. In glaring contrast to the Brutus of the famous soliloquy, yet akin in his impracticability, here is a Brutus who speaks thus, when a cautious, worldly Cassius reminds him (in regard to Antony),

“A me più saggio
Sembra colui che l’ suo nemico uccide
Pria che l’ offenda, che lui, che dopo
Ch’ è stato offeso, vendica l’ingiuria.
Bruto—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.”—P. 26.

He would spare Antony because he is a reveller and given to the pleasures of the flesh. How could such a man, he asks, triumph over those who have devoted their lives to study and toil? He fatuously believes that Caesar’s death will so intimidate Antony as to drive all desire of domination out of the head of that wily schemer.

And to all of this, Cassius very appropriately replies:

“Bruto, tu se’ troppo pietoso: voglia
Il ciel, che questa tua pietà non sia
Un giorno a noi crudel.”—P. 27.

Yet this Brutus, just like Shakespeare’s Brutus, is so carried away by the conviction of the irresistible justice of his cause that he abruptly terminates this vital discussion by the lofty statement:

“Chiunque ama virtù, figlio è di Giove.”

This overpowering sense of the righteousness of his cause is strong throughout. In his opening speech he exclaims, as he addresses Jove:

“. . . . . . . nè sdegnar, ch’io sia,
Benchè indegno, ministro, et instrumento
Della giustizia tua; nè perchè sacro
Luogo alla morte del Tiranno abbiamo
Eletto, riputar, ch’in noi s’annidi
Altro pensier, che pio: Rimira al cuore,
Che, se l’atto è profano, il cuor è pio,
E pietà sola è di tal atto madre.”—P. 13.

He considers himself the unworthy instrument of Jove’s vengeance. He feels that the act itself is impious,[105] but his lofty motives must plead his excuse.

“O conspiracy,
Shamest thou to show thy dangerous brow by night,
When evils are most free? O, then, by day
Where will thou find a cavern dark enough
To mask thy monstrous visage?”[106]

Just before this he says:

“Since Cassius first did whet me against Caesar
I have not slept.”[107]

Since the shade of Pompey appeared to him, Pescetti’s Brutus exclaims that his thoughts, like those of the Greek Milthiades,

“Non mi lascian dormir, nè prender posa.”—P. 15.

When Portia reminds him that fortune often opposes merit he replies:

“Hà ben fortuna per antica usanza
Di contrastar alla virtù; ma quello
Addopra contra lei, che l’onda insana
Del tempestoso mar nel fermo scoglio.”—P. 49.

This is the same spirit that prompts Shakespeare’s Brutus to reject the oath:

“What other oath
Than honesty to honesty engaged
That this shall be or we will fall for it?”

“Unto bad causes swear
Such creatures as men doubt, but do not stain
The even virtue of our enterprise,
Nor the insuppressive mettle of our spirits
To think that or our cause or our performance
Did need an oath....”[108]

In “Cesare,” Brutus has such a hold over the conspirators that they gladly, as in Shakespeare, accept his leadership and decision on all points. To him are left all the details of the murder. When the fateful moment comes, he stands, after the first shock, unmoved by the fears of his fellows, and calms their panic when Lenate speaks to Caesar.

“Respira, ò Cassio, che li parla d’altro,
Per quel, che di quì posso dal sembiante
Comprender, e da gesti.”[109]

“Cassius, be constant;
Popilius Lena speaks not of our purpose;
For, look, he smiles, and Caesar doth not change.”[110]

The Brutus of Pescetti, who can find time to study faces at such a critical moment, never forgets the respect due to himself. Just like Shakespeare’s Brutus, as long as a fighting chance exists, he would fight to the last, but he would sooner die by his own hand than grace the triumph of his enemy. To Cassius, who rouses him to the danger in Lenate’s talk to Caesar, he replies:

“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.

_Cas._— “Then, if we lose this battle,
You are contented to be led in triumph
Thorough the streets of Rome?

_Bru._— No, Cassius, no. Think not, thou noble Roman,
That ever Brutus will go bound to Rome;
He bears too great a mind. But this same day
Must end that work the Ides of March begun.
And whether we shall meet again I know not;
Therefore, our everlasting farewell take.
Forever, and forever, farewell, Cassius!
If we do meet again, why, we shall smile,
If not, why then this parting was well made.”[111]

One of the curious things in Shakespeare’s drama is the rather vague causes of resentment which the conspirators have towards Caesar. As Professor MacCallum says, “Cassius, the moving spirit of the opposition, is, at his noblest, actuated by jealousy of greatness. And he is not always at his noblest. He confesses that had he been in Caesar’s good graces, he would have been on Caesar’s side. This strain of servility is more apparent in the flatteries and officiousness of Decius and Casca. And what is the motive? Cassius seeks to win Antony by promising him an equal voice in disposing of the dignities; and he presently uses his position for extortion, and the patronage of corruption. Envy, ambition, cupidity, are the principles of the governing classes; and their enthusiasm for freedom means nothing more than an enthusiasm for prestige and influence, for the privilege of parcelling out the authority and dividing the spoils. What care have these against the Man of Destiny, whose glories have given compass, peace and security to the Roman world? But their plea of liberty misleads the impractical student, the worshipper of dreams, memories, and ideals, behind whose virtue they shelter their selfish aims, and whose countenance alone can make their conspiracy respectable. And this very Brutus enters the conspiracy, not because of what Caesar did, or what he is, but because of what he may become! I need not here recount such causes of resentment which may be gleaned from the play. They all tend to the conclusions advanced above. The only serious charge urged against Caesar is that he was ambitious;—surely a sorry charge upon which to justify to the Roman populace the murder of a benefactor.”[112]

The same lack of definiteness in the charges against Caesar is to be found in Pescetti. The latter, like Shakespeare, could have found enough material in Appian and in Plutarch upon which to ground the conspiracy, but we look in vain for some decisive accusation. There is much talk of tyranny, much about the hard yoke under which Romans groan, but very little in the way of elucidation. Caesar is not accused of ambition; no mention whatever is made of the attempts to crown him. Envy does not seem to be a motive; at least we gain no such idea from the conduct of the conspirators, although Mark Antony directly hints at this in his warning to Caesar.

“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.”—P. 67.

As far as most of the conspirators in “Julius Caesar” are concerned, this seems to fit them; but, strange to say, it is difficult to see where it applies in “Cesare.” Of the many offenses of which Caesar is held responsible we get very little beyond this bare statement.

As far as Brutus is concerned, he evidently blames Caesar for Pompey’s death and burns to avenge it. Just why, is nowhere apparent. He longs to restore the ancient liberties, but in what degree they have been destroyed, and above all, just what part Caesar played[113] in their destruction is not very clear. In the very first scene, Brutus apostrophises the shade of Pompey, who had appeared to him during the night, and had said,

“. . . Tu puoi dunque,
Bruto, servir? tu che l’origin trai
Da colui che primo la libertade
A questa alta Città donò? tu puoi
A Tiranno servir? tu, che discendi
Da colui, ch’l leggitimo Signore
Tollerar non poteo? questo appreso hai
Da quella sacrosanta, e veneranda
Maestra della vita, e de’ costumi,
Per cui seguir già nell’ etade acerba
La patria abbandonasti:”[114]

He recounts the hopes entertained by the bright promise of Brutus’ youth, and exhorts him to prove to the world that these hopes may yet be realized.

The shade does not demand vengeance on his own account; he deplores Brutus’ fealty to a tyrant, and states certain conditions, but nothing specifically tyrannical. In his opening apostrophe to the shade, Brutus indulges in the same generalities. I will quote this entire speech, partly for its bearing on the matter under discussion, and partly for the light it sheds on Pescetti’s conception of Brutus’ character.

“Magnanim’ ombra ecch’io ti seguo, ecch’io
M’accingo all’ alta impresa, a che m’esorti.
Oggi ò del sangue del crudel Tiranno,
O del mio spargerassi il terren sacro.
Oggi ò vendicarò l’empia tua morte,
E riporrò la patria in libertade,
O verrotti a trovar, dovunque sei.
Oggi a Roma farò conoscer, ch’io
Degno nipote son di quel gran Bruto,
Che di questa Città cacciando i Regi
Alta vendetta, e memorabil feo
Del barbarico stupro di Lucrezia.
Roma, oggi questa mano, e questo ferro
O hà da sciorre, e romper le catene,
Ond’ in duro servaggio avvinta sei,
O hà da trar di vergognosa, e grave
Vita, anzi morte me. Giove, se giusto
Se’, se ’l trar le Città di sotto a piedi
De superbi Tiranni, se ’l punire
Gli empi, se ’l dar a gli innocenti aita,
Opra è, che sovra ogn’altra aggrada, e piace
Alla tua maestà, deh favorisci
La santa impresa, e se prosontuoso
Son in tor quell’effetto alla tua destra,
Che si doveva a lei, ch’era suo proprio,
Perdona al gran disio, c’ho di vedere
Nella primiera libertà riposta
Quest’alta patria; nè sdegnar, ch’io sia,
Benchè indegno, ministro, et instrumento
Della giustizia tua: nè perchè sacro
Luogo alla morte del Tiranno abbiamo
Eletto, riputar, ch’in noi s’annidi
Altro pensier, che pio: Rimira al cuore,
Che, se l’atto è profano, il cuore è pio,
E pietà sola è di tal atto madre.”

Here is a man ready to kill Caesar because of a dream! The Brutus of Shakespeare would kill him not because of what he is, but for what he might become. The same statement regarding tyranny, ancient liberties, etc., occurs again and again throughout “Cesare.” Cassius repeats them in the very next speech; but all is very vague, very indefinite. Brutus and Cassius later indulge in a lofty dialogue concerning liberty, and Brutus says that the only thing which has kept him alive is the hope that some day he may be able to help Rome regain her ancient liberties. That alone, he feels sure, has also kept Cassius from desiring to outlive the dead Republic.[115]

Perhaps the strongest statement is contained in Brutus’ speech at the beginning of the fifth act.[116]

“Cittadini, Il Tiranno hà col suo sangue
Pagate le dovute pene, et hà soddisfatto
All’anime di tanti huomini illustri,
Che son, per colpa sua, giti sotterra.
Omai libera è Roma,
Dalle nostre cervici è scosso il giogo,
Et ei conforme al merto suo nel proprio
Sangue, ch’in larga vena
Per cento piaghe versa
Giace a piè della statua
Del magnanimo Duce,
Cui non vider mai par quest’ alte mura:”—P. 115.

Yet there is nothing stronger in all this than in Shakespeare. There Caesar comes in triumph over Pompey’s sons; not alone the parent, but the offspring have fallen. Brutus says,

“No, not an oath: if not the face of men,
The sufferance of our souls, the time’s abuse,—
If these be motives weak, break off betimes,
And every man hence to his idle bed;
So let high sighted tyranny rage on
Till each man drop by lottery” (II., 1, 114).

Nor can I, despite all this talk concerning ancient liberties, this vehement denunciation of tyranny, discern any definite republican tendencies in “Cesare.” As has already been pointed out, Pescetti’s treatment of Caesar aroused the resentment of the partisans of Alfonso d’Este, yet the author takes pains to have it understood that princes rule by divine right as God’s vicars on earth. In the fourth act, Brutus and Cassius indulge in a dialogue, entirely superfluous, regarding liberty, and Cassius advances what, to a Roman at least, must have seemed rather a novel view of this much discussed subject.

_Cas._— “La libertà null’altro
È, ch’imperio, e dominio di se stesso.”—P. 89.

The interjection of this philosophical conception, seemingly so at variance with classical traditions, serves only further to complicate an already sufficiently complicated issue. In short, the motives of the conspirators are not expressed with sufficient clearness to enable us to indicate their exact nature.

Yet, in spite of his impracticability, in spite of the haziness of his motives, the Brutus of Pescetti, like that of Shakespeare, leaves us in no doubt as to the sincerity of his purpose. Whatever base motives may actuate his follows (and in Pescetti none are discernible), he seems to deserve the same eulogy accorded the Brutus of Shakespeare. The salvation of the common weal alone, even at the expense of his own life, seems to animate him. Thus, he says to Decimus Brutus:

“Albin tanto al morir, quanto al dar morte
All’ ingiusto Signor siam preparati:
Però succeda, come piace al cielo.
Se l’opre de’ mortai rimira Giove
Con occhio giusto, à fin felice, e lieto
Scorgerà i pensier nostri, ch’all’ altrui
Salute, all’ altrui ben rivolti sono.”—Ces., p. 93.

“He only, in a general honest thought
And common good to all, made one of them.”—J. C., V., v, 71.

It is certainly significant, that with a wealth of material to draw upon, both Pescetti and Shakespeare should, in regard to Brutus, treat the available sources in a manner so similar. Pescetti excludes much historical matter which he might have employed; Shakespeare makes practically the same exclusions. Thus the histories contained sufficient data upon which to found a formidable indictment against Caesar, but both chose to overlook them and to found the conspirators’ cause on comparatively insignificant accusations. In both dramas, certain phases of Brutus’ character are emphasized to the exclusion of others. Much is said of his virtues: nothing, not even by his enemies, of his vices. In their inclusions, a similar parallelism exists between the two dramatists. Pescetti, with a keen perception of the dramatic value of that phase of Brutus’ character, assigns to his mistaken idealism in sparing Antony, a far more significant position in the development of his tragedy than did his predecessors.[117] Here we get an individual treatment of this dramatic crux which has a striking similarity to that in Shakespeare. It leaves us with the same conception of Brutus’ practical failings, with the same misgivings which we experience in the work of his great contemporary.[118] Unlike Muretus and Grévin, Pescetti does not overlook the importance of the Popilius Lena incident, and by his treatment he introduces an element of suspense which Shakespeare could well use to advantage. Though both dramatists used practically the same source, Pescetti’s individual touches seem reflected in Shakespeare’s handling of this episode. Again, unlike his predecessors, Pescetti was fully alive to the value of the Brutus-Portia scenes, and reveals Brutus in his domestic relations very much as Shakespeare does some ten years later.[119] Finally, in both dramas the protagonist is but a pawn moved by invisible powers, pursuing his fated way against an ominous and supernatural background. In both tragedies, destiny has its ghostly precursors; in the one to arouse the hero to action, in the other, to herald his doom.

-----

Footnote 89:

E per non fare ora qui (che nè il luogo, nè l’occasione il ricerca) un
catalogo di tutti, chi dell’ antico, ò del moderno secolo possiam noi
trovare, che a Cesare somigli più, e faccia meglio parallelo di quel,
che fa la Sereniss. Altezza Vostra? Sol che quelli fosse stato
Cristiano, e avesse saputo contentarsi d’esser il primo della sua
Città, senza voler esser anche della stessa Città più potente, ò
Signor legittimo fosse suto; . . . “Cesare,” Dedication, p. 2.

Footnote 90:

In the classic drama it is not unusual for the Chorus to speak in the
first person, but this instance is unique in Pescetti. It strikes the
reader with all the force of an individual opinion of the author.

Footnote 91:

In the Prologue, Jove comforts Venus, saying:

“Giulio, della cui morte tanto lutto
Meni, e cordoglio, e sì ti lagni, e duoli,
Risplenderà doman in ciel al pari
Della tua stella; . . .” Prologue, p. 10.

Footnote 92:

As is well known, Plutarch nowhere condemns Brutus for his murder of
Caesar. Appian, however, while he recognizes Brutus’ virtues, is
strong in condemnation of his act. He says: “Against all these virtues
and merits must be set down the crime against Caesar, which was not an
ordinary or a small one, for it was committed unexpectedly against a
friend, ungratefully against a benefactor who has spared them in war,
and nefariously against the head of the state, in the senate house,
against a pontiff clothed in his sacred vestments, against a ruler
without an equal, who was most useful above all other men to Rome and
its empire.” Civil Wars, White’s Trans., p. 381.

It is curious to note how Pescetti here abandons Appian in favor of
Plutarch.

Footnote 93:

Just before the discussion concerning Antony, already quoted.

Footnote 94:

From these words the reader may believe that the conspirators feared
that very courage of which Caesar himself proves deficient. But by
courage, Cassius here means sheer physical bravery, an attribute which
no reader either of Pescetti or of Shakespeare can deny him. The
courage Caesar lacked was that of his own convictions. Like Macbeth,
the known had no terrors for him, but like the Scottish king, he is
confounded by the unseen. No Roman could have found fault with a man
for heeding the warning of the gods. The historical Caesar, it is
true, oft expressed his contempt for omens, while the Caesar of the
drama professes to disregard them. But his disregard is superficial,
and apparently the result of an attitude which we cannot but attribute
to a belief in his own semi-divine being. Rather than be suspected of
feelings common enough to ordinary mortals, Caesar deludes himself by
a process of self-hypnotism, and is led to his doom, a victim of his
lack of true courage, a sacrifice to his own inordinate vanity.

Footnote 95:

P. 24. Is this perhaps the hint from which Shakespeare built up the
entire scheme of physical comparisons dwelt upon by Cassius? The
swimming of the Tiber, for instance?

Footnote 96:

I., ii, 95.

Footnote 97:

I., ii, 308.

Footnote 98:

I., ii, 33–34.

Footnote 99:

I., ii, 89–90.

Footnote 100:

I., ii, 54–61.

Footnote 101:

I., iii, 157.

Footnote 102:

II., i, 90.

Footnote 103:

II., i, 321.

Footnote 104:

II., i, 332.

Footnote 105:

Probably because it involved a profanation of the sacred precincts of
the Senate. But one might expect such an ardent patriot to regard
Caesar’s death here as a very acceptable sacrifice to the gods he
supposedly outraged. But see Appian.

Footnote 106:

II., i, 77.

Footnote 107:

II., i, 61.

Footnote 108:

II., i, 124.

Footnote 109:

P. 109.

Footnote 110:

III., i, 22.

Footnote 111:

V., i, 109.

Footnote 112:

P. 216–217, MacCallum.

Footnote 113: