Chapter XV: Act V (4)

The conclusion is irresistible that Pescetti was very much under the
influence of Lucan. This is true not alone of the supernatural
element, but also of the general attitude of Brutus and Cassius, who
talk of Caesar very much in the spirit of the Pharsalia. In Book IX.
Lucan describes how the soul of Pompey leaving the tomb soars to the
abodes of the Blessed and thence looking down upon the earth inspires
the breasts of Brutus and Cato. (Lines 1–23.)

Footnote 114:

P. 17.

Footnote 115:

Pp. 89–90.

Footnote 116:

In Muretus the case against Caesar is also weak. In Grévin, Brutus in
his speech to the citizens makes definite charges:

“Ce Tyran, ce Cesar, enemi du Senat,
Oppresseur du pays, qui de son Consulat
Avoit faict heritage, e de la Republique
Une commune vente en sa seule practique,
Ce bourreau d’innocens, ruine de nos loix,
La terreur des Romains, e le poison des droicts,
Ambitieux d’honneur, qui monstrant son envie,
S’estoit faict appeler Pere de la patrie,
E Consul à jamais, à jamais Dictateur,
Et pour comble de tout, du surnom d’Empereur.
Il est mort ce meschant, qui decelant sa rage,
Se feit impudemment eslever un image
Entre les Rois, aussi il a eu le loyer
Par une mesme main qu’eut Tarquin le dernier.”

(Lines 1017 ff.)

Footnote 117:

There is no doubt that Pescetti found in Muretus the hints for some of
Brutus’ speeches, but his loans from his predecessor do not affect the
argument.

Footnote 118:

But, as usual, Pescetti fails to take full advantage of this motif.
During the wordy progress of the drama we lose sight of Antony, and
only a few lines at the end suggest him as the Nemesis of the
conspirators.

Footnote 119:

See section on Portia.

THE OTHER CHARACTERS

I

There is little in Pescetti’s presentation of the figure of Cassius suggestive of the splendidly drawn portrait in “Julius Caesar.” Pescetti found it a difficult matter to differentiate between Brutus and Cassius; much that the latter says or does throughout might with equal propriety have been assigned to his fellow conspirator. Both seem to be of one mind in most matters; only in the two important scenes already noted[120] does Cassius seem possessed of any distinct individuality. In one his caution is emphasized, in the other his rashness in the face of danger.

II

Pescetti was little more fortunate in his characterization of Antony. He is hardly more than a puppet who acts the part of an echo to Caesar in the dialogue before mentioned, indulges in a soliloquy, and then vanishes from the scene. Obviously Pescetti intended him to play the part of the tried friend and counsellor, but there is nothing resembling individuality in his speeches. He talks like a book, and has about at much true vitality as an automaton. Possibly the soliloquy was introduced to contrast his ideas on dominion with those of Calpurnia on the same subject, and to lend force to the dictum contained in the concluding passage of the play:

“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.”—Ces., p. 149.

This is not a bad dramatic device, but the progress of the plot is so obstructed by the mass of needless declamation, that long before the end, all thought of Antony as a possible successor to Caesar has escaped the reader. In Antony’s recital of his secret longings, he reveals traits which justify us in classifying his utterances as those appropriate to a crafty opportunist. Pescetti could describe his characters acceptably enough, either in their own words, or in those of others, but he could not exhibit them successfully in action; hence, this soliloquy, while ineffective in his own drama, could readily furnish hints which a better dramatic artist could use to advantage. To this Antony, nothing is dearer than dominion; for him there is no bliss comparable to the “sweet fruition of an earthly crown.”

“. . . . . . . Ma sperar tanto
Non oso. Pur chi sà quel, ch’ordinato
Sia nel celeste regno? A me medesmo
Di non mancar deliberato sono,
Se mi presenta occasione il cielo,
E mi mostra la via di conseguire
Quel, che può farmi un’ altro Giove in terra,
A pormi in man dell’ universo il freno.
In tanto io cercherò per ogni via,
D’accattar appo il popolo favore,
E di farmi benevoli i soldati,
Acciò, mancando Cesare per morte
O naturale, ò violenta, i possa
Col mezzo lor por sù quel grado il piede,
Ov’ hà condutto lui benigna Stella.”—P. 72.

Antony disappears after this scene, and no mention is made of him again till near the end of the tragedy, where he is described as having fled to his house after the murder. Unfortunately, Pescetti fails to give Antony an opportunity to realize his ambition, but he provides material for the delineation of a counter player who would have delighted the Elizabethan dramatists. Pescetti certainly was not amiss in his estimate of the character, but it remained for a greater dramatist to exhibit him in action.

Antony does not appear in the fifth act of “Cesare,” but there is between several of his statements in Shakespeare, and those contained in Pescetti, a marked similarity in style and sentiment. Some of these have already been indicated. Among others, Antony over Caesar’s body, exclaims,

“Pardon me, Julius! Here was’t thou bay’d, brave hart;
Here didst thou fall, and here thy hunters stand,
Sign’d in they spoil and crimson’d in thy lethe.

. . . . .

How like a deer strucken by many princes
Dost thou here lie!”—III., 1, 205.

It must be remembered that Antony’s “credit stands on slippery grounds,” and it is hardly to be expected that he would use, at this critical moment, the simile employed by the Messenger in Pescetti as he laments the murder:

“Non fu mai fatto si crudele strazio
Di mansueto agnello
Da un gregge di rabbiosi
E famelici lupi,
Com’ han del Signor mio quest’ empi fatto.
Parean cani bramosi
D’insanguinar l’acuto
Dente, e l’avide labbia
Nella già morta fiera.”—P. 120.

There seems in Antony’s lament, an echo of Mars’ threats in the Prologue to “Cesare.”

_Ant._— “ . . . . .
A curse shall light upon the limbs of men;
Domestic fury and fierce civil strife
Shall cumber all the parts of Italy;
Blood and destruction shall be so in use,
And dreadful objects so familiar,
That mothers shall but smile when they behold
Their infants quartered with the hands of war:
All pity choked with custom of fell deeds:
And Caesar’s spirit ranging for revenge,
With Ate by his side come hot from hell,
Shall in these confines with a monarch’s voice
Cry ‘Havoc’, and let slip the dogs of war;
That this foul deed shall smell above the earth
With carrion men, groaning for burial.” (III., 1, 263).

_Marte._— “Strage orribil vedrai; dell’ empio sangue
Correranno le strade, e quai torrenti
Porteran l’arme, e i corpi morti al mare.
Fin di quì n’ udirai lo scoppio, e ’l grido.”—P. 6.

Jove commands Mars:

“Mescola sdegni, odi, discordie, versa
Sopra il popol Roman furor, disio
Di sangue, di vendetta, ond’ alla fine
Tutti gli empi dal mondo il ferro tolga.”—P. 11.

The idea of civil strife is found all through the last act of Pescetti, and is probably due to the influence of Appian, who details the horrors following the proscription.

III

Historically and critically, the Brutus-Portia scenes in “Cesare” are of prime importance: historically, because here for the first time in any play on this subject does Portia figure among the actors; critically, because the Italian dramatist avails himself of the same episode chosen from the same source and treated broadly along the same lines later followed by Shakespeare.

Pescetti, of all the dramatists of Caesar’s fortunes, seems to have been the first to realize the dramatic value of the Brutus-Portia scenes.[121] Like Shakespeare, he found his material in Plutarch, and while he does not adhere as faithfully to the Plutarchian sequence, the correspondence in the motifs he employs is so close as to render the presentation of parallels peculiar alone to the two dramatists, a matter of extreme difficulty, and in most instances, of doubtful value. With perhaps two exceptions, to be noted later, there are no hints in Shakespeare’s treatment which he could not have derived from Plutarch, a fact, however, which in no way invalidates the hypothesis herein advanced that Pescetti’s inclusion of Portia influenced Shakespeare to introduce her in his drama. “Julius Caesar” without her would have lost nothing in technical completeness, whatever it might have forfeited in human interest. Voltaire, with Shakespeare’s example before him, excluded Portia from his drama on the ground that the introduction of a love element would detract from the high seriousness he considered proper to his tragic hero. Technically, his drama is sufficiently satisfactory, but like in Muretus and in Grévin, her exclusion injures the fullness of his characterization of Brutus, and robs his tragedy of a character which, skilfully handled, would greatly have enhanced its popular appeal.

Shakespeare’s Portia is a character with which we would grudgingly part. Beautiful in herself, her presence serves to bring the softer side of Brutus into relief, while after her husband’s departure on his fateful mission, her mental anguish serves admirably to increase in the mind of the spectator the presentiment of impending disaster.

Pescetti, like Shakespeare, makes Portia occupy a relatively small part in the action, perhaps for the same reason that prompted the greater dramatist. We are irresistibly attracted to the latter’s Portia, and her persistence in the action would inevitably have led to a divided interest. Possibly Pescetti was dramatist enough to realize this and acted accordingly. His Portia, like Shakespeare’s, serves further to broaden our conception of her husband’s character, while in herself, she is portrayed with power sufficient to revive, at her appearance, the flagging interest of the modern reader, even though she seems at times a Brutus in female attire, and shows a fondness for dialectic more appropriate to the schoolman than to the Roman matron.

From the evidence presented in Pescetti’s handling of this theme little is adducible in support of the hypothesis advanced above; its probability must rest upon the cumulative evidence favoring Shakespeare’s knowledge of “Cesare” presented in the course of this work.

Yet, while these scenes offer little of value for our purpose, their historical significance, and the fact that, as far as can be determined, this is the first time that the matter has been dwelt upon in the literature of the subject,[122] must excuse the expository character of much that follows.

In Pescetti, Portia appears three times: once in the first act in the scene immediately following that between Brutus and Cassius; in the second act with Brutus alone; and lastly, in the same act in a scene wherein both overhear Calpurnia’s lament to her Nurse. In the first scene Brutus has little to say. The dialogue is carried on mainly with Cassius. On her first appearance Portia indulges in a soliloquy:

“Non senza gran cagion stamane uscito
Si per tempo di casa è il mio consorte:
Gran cose ei tratta certo, e se non erra
Il mio pensier, egli apparecchia il giusto
Premio al Tiranno ingiusto, se pur giusto
Può darsi premio ad huom si ingiusto, et empio.
Ah perchè il sesso mio non mi permette
Vestir gonne maschili, e ne’ consigli
Mescolarmi de gli huomini, e le cose
Trattar della Republica, e di duro
Acciar gravando il corpo in prò di quella
L’asta, e la spada oprar?”—P. 28.

She longs to dye her sword in the tyrant’s blood. This is a Portia, more like the Roman matrons who could calmly watch the bloody shows in the amphitheatre than resembling the idealized portrait of Shakespeare. Yet, considering her terrible suicide,[123] perhaps Pescetti had the truer conception of her real character. That, in spite of her martial bearing, he appreciated her more womanly traits, is evident from the tenor of Cassius’ address, even though it does reflect the attitude of the Renaissance courtier:

“Molto per tempo esci di casa, ò Porzia,
Porzia, di pudicizia raro esempio,
E della matronal prudenza chiaro,
E purissimo specchio, viva imago
Di quel saggio; appo cui fu stolto quale
Più saggio ebbe la Grecia; alla cui morte
Morì la libertade, e nello stesso
Sepolcro a canto a lui volle esser posta,
Qual facenda a quest’ora, oltra l’usato
Tuo, quà ti mena? Senza gran cagione
Non è ciò fermamente, che non suoli
Tu, se non per gravissime, e importanti
Cagioni uscir in pubblico; ma come
A grave, e saggia femmina conviensi
Dentro a muri domestici in onesti
Studi passar il tempo, riputando
Degna d’eterna lode quella donna,
La cui bellezza a pochi, ma la fama
È nota a molti, che non fa del corpo
Nelle pubbliche piazze, e ne’ teatri
A cupid’ occhi, ma alle caste menti
Fa di sua pudicizia altiera mostra.”—Pp. 29–30.

To Cassius’ compliments, and his inquiry as to her early rising, she replies that the love she bears her country demands that she be made a party to their plans. It is in vain that they withhold secrets from a loving woman. Cassius assures her that no one doubts her worth and constancy, but the matters they contemplate are such that it would be unwise to risk their discovery. Yet, since she longs to know, he will tell her.

“Noi trattiam di trarre
Di sotto al giogo Roma, e di riporla
Nello stato, ond’ altrui spietata, e ingorda
Voglia di dominar la trasse a forza.”—Ces., p. 31.

He asks her to aid the cause with her prayers. This is not much to her liking; she would rather draw a sword against the tyrant. Cassius assures her that the prayers of woman have often had greater force than that of arms. Her reply is one of Pescetti’s unconscious gems of humor:

“Io dunque, poich’ à me stringer non lice
Contra il Tiranno il ferro, con la lingua
Gli farò cruda, e dispietata guerra.”—P. 32.

Towards the end of the scene Brutus indulges in an exultant outburst. He seems already to hear the paeans of joy resounding throughout Rome at the news of the Dictator’s death. The scene concludes as Portia invokes Heaven’s blessing on the conspirators’ enterprise. She announces her readiness to die, if failure attend their efforts, for the love she bears her husband is such that she cannot live without him.

We get a nearer approach to Shakespeare’s treatment in Portia’s dialogue with Brutus. This is opened by Brutus, who perceiving that Portia has wounded herself, and thinking that she had sustained the injury in the discharge of some household duty, reproves her for turning her hands to the lowly tools of the housewife. She replies:

“Hò voluto far prova, s’in me tanto
Regni animo, et ardir, che darmi possa
Di mia man morte, occasion venendo,
Ch’il morir bello, ò necessario sia.”—P. 49.

Brutus admires her courage, and inquires the reason for her fears. She assures him that often fortune opposes merit, and she fears for his safety. He loftily replies that fortune can no more prevail against the virtue of his enterprise than the raging sea against the immovable rocks. At this, Portia, in spite of her martial bearing heretofore, begins to exhibit the same vacillation as Shakespeare’s Portia. Fears for her husband now dominate; the Amazon is lost in the wife. She replies:

“Tuttavia, benche lei[124] non vinca mai,
Impedisce sovente i suoi disegni;
Et io, s’avvien (che no ’l consenta il cielo)
Che ciò, che tenti, abbia infelice effetto,
E dove pensi dar, riceva morte,
Hò stabilito di tenerti dietro.”—Pp. 49–50.

_Bru._— “Lodo, Porzia, et ammiro la grandezza,
E generosità della tua mente
Sprezzatrice del fato, e della morte,
E sopra modo pregiomi, et altiero
Vò di consorte tal.”

Yet he does not approve of her design, and conjures her, by the love she bears him, to refrain from all thoughts of self-destruction. Portia replies that she cannot live if he die;

“Porzia di Bruto moglie, e di Catone
Figlia? soffrir il volto del Tiranno,
Onde sia giunto a crudel morte il padre
Et il marito, potrà Porzia? O Bruto
Quanto più ti stimava accorto, e saggio?
Dunque in tant’ anni, che vissuto hai meco
Non hai l’animo mio compreso appieno?
Dell’ amor, ch’io ti porto, ancor potuto
Non ho farti ben chiaro? E tu mi stimi
Si poco amante, ch’io potessi senza
Tè star un’ ora in vita? _Bru._ Io sò, che m’ami:
Ma sò dall’ altra parte, che non meno
Saggia, che amante se’.”—P. 50.

The scene is now spun out to include a series of mutual protestations of love. It concludes as Calpurnia is seen coming out of the temple, whereupon Brutus and Portia descend from amatory dialogue to vulgar eavesdropping.

Plutarch relates that when Portia showed Brutus the wound in her thigh, “he was amazed to hear what she said to him, and lifting up his hands to heaven, he besought the gods to give him the grace he might bring his enterprise in so good pass, that he might be found a husband worthy of so noble a wife as Portia: so then he did comfort her the best he could.”[125] Pescetti does not rest Brutus’ appreciation of his wife on this basis; he rejoices in the possession of a wife so spirited. Shakespeare idealizes the situation in Brutus’ exclamation:

“O ye gods!
Render me worthy of this noble wife.”

Near the end of the third scene in which Portia figures, and wherein she and her husband overhear Calpurnia’s determination to prevent her husband from attending the session of the Senate, Brutus advises her to go home while he goes to join the conspirators. The scene concludes as she speeds him with her blessing.

Throughout these scenes Pescetti utilizes many of the motifs derived from Plutarch, which Shakespeare afterwards included in his treatment. But the emphasis upon several of them has been shifted; the similarity in parts between the two authors is due mainly to this common source. There are but two points of importance wherein distinctly individual resemblance is noticeable. Both in Pescetti and in Shakespeare, as has previously been pointed out, Portia enters the scene under practically the same attendant circumstances. In both dramas she appears immediately after the completion of the details of the assassination. Brutus says to Cassius:

“Ma giamo ad informar del tutto gli altri,
Acciò gli spirti destino, e le forze,
Et apparecchin l’arme all’ alta impresa.

_Cas._— Aspetta, ch’esce fuor di casa Porzia.”—P. 28.

Hereupon Portia enters.

Shakespeare has:

_Cas._— The morning comes upon’s. We’ll leave you Brutus,
And, friends, disperse yourselves; but all remember
What you have said and show yourselves true Romans.

_Bru._— And, gentlemen, look fresh and merrily;
Let not our looks put on our purposes;
But bear it as our Roman actors do,
With untired spirits and formal constancy;
And so, good-morrow to you every one.

_Exeunt. Brutus remains._ Act II., 1.

Immediately after the few lines to Lucius, Portia enters. While it may be simply a coincidence, it is worth remarking that in both dramas Portia arises in the early morning to seek her husband. There is no warrant for this in Plutarch. That Pescetti should have the conspirators perfecting their plans in the early morning may be regarded as a necessity of his dramatic form. Plutarch does not suggest this touch. Possibly Shakespeare considered it a gain in dramatic effectiveness to have the conspiracy confirmed during the tempestuous night. Perhaps Pescetti’s treatment influenced him. In both dramas the interrogator comments upon Portia’s early rising.

_Cassius_— Molto per tempo esci di casa, ò Porzia.—Ces., p. 29.

_Brutus_— Portia, what mean you? Wherefore rise you now?
It is not for your health thus to commit
Your weak condition to the raw, cold morning.

Portia in soliloquy says:

Non senza gran cagion stamane uscito
Si per tempo di casa è il mio consorte.—Ces., p. 28.

In Shakespeare we read:

_Portia_— ... You’ve ungently, Brutus,
Stole from my bed.

Plutarch says: “So when the day was come, Brutus went out of his house with a dagger by his side under his long gown, that nobody saw nor knew but his wife only.” (Marcus Brutus, p. 116.) Thus, according to the biographer, the conspiracy had been perfected days before and Portia by this time evidently knew of it.

Neither is there any warrant in the histories for Portia’s prayer for Brutus:

“O Brutus,
The heavens speed thee in thine enterprise!”—Act II., Sc.
IV.

Similarly, in Pescetti, Portia’s last words are a blessing on Brutus:

“Và, che ti scorga, e ti difenda Giove.”—P. 58.

Even closer is her prayer at the conclusion of Brutus’ rapturous outburst in her scene with Cassius:

“Ite, ò forti, ite ò saggi, ite ò de gli alti
Legnaggi, onde scendete, degni; il Cielo
Secondi i desir vostri.”—P. 33.

These coincidences may be simply accidental, but taken in connection with many other points of contact between the two dramas, they assume greater significance, and lend strength to the hypothesis herein advanced: that Shakespeare was influenced by Pescetti’s treatment to include the Brutus-Portia scenes in his own drama.

IV

Pescetti’s other principal feminine character is the conventional lay figure of the drama of his time: a lifeless automaton who seems to exist solely for the purpose of indulging in intolerably wordy lamentations.[126] Yet Pescetti has put in the mouth of this lachrymose puppet a few lines which form the closest parallel to be found between the two plays.

D. Brutus thus replies to Caesar’s depreciation of his flattery:

_D. B._— “Non è lingua mortal per pronta, e scaltra
Che sia, non è di dir si ricca vena,
Nè si divino ingegno, che, non dico
Degnamente lodar, ma narrar possa
Le sopr’umane eroiche tue prove.
E se vivesse il grande Omero, altrove
Certo non volgeria l’alto suo stile,
Che a cantar i tuoi fatti eccelsi, e magni,
E tema vil reputaria lo sdegno
D’Achille, e i lunghi error del saggio Ulisse.”

Hereupon Calpurnia exclaims:

“Ahi pur, ch’anzi a gli Euripidi non porga
Materia, onde risuonino i teatri
Ne’secoli avvenir le sue sventure.”

This outburst is entirely lost on Caesar, who says:

“A parlar d’altro omai volgiamo i nostri
Ragionamenti;” . . . .—Ces., pp. 105–106.

Calpurnia’s prophetic doubt is placed in such a setting that its dramatic effect is lost. This, it seems, was too tempting a morsel for Shakespeare’s keen sense of dramatic fitness to overlook, and at the moment when the conspirators have reached the climax of their success, we find him assigning Calpurnia’s speech to the exultant Cassius, to stir the audience with its theatrical effect and to bewilder generations of future critics.

_Cas._— “How many ages hence
Shall this our lofty scene be acted over,
In states unborn and accents yet unknown!”

_Bru._— “How many times shall Caesar bleed in sport,
That now on Pompey’s basis lies along
No worthier than the dust.”[127] (III, 1, 112.)

I regard this as the most remarkable parallel between the work of Pescetti and that of Shakespeare. It is entirely too close in word and content to be fortuitous. The dramatic effect of Cassius’ outburst is undeniable; yet its dramatic truth is questionable. All the more so since the speech of Cassius immediately following,

“. . . . . . . So oft as that shall be,
So often shall the knot of us be call’d
The men that gave their country liberty,”

has always impressed me as an anticlimax. This, both in word and in thought, coming so soon after his noble speech, produces the same unpleasant effect as,

“O world, thou wast the forest to this hart,
And this, indeed, O world, the heart of thee,”

which, intruded into Antony’s lament, has caused many critics to regard these lines as interpolations. Nor does Cassius’ first exalted outburst seem in keeping with his character. Of all the conspirators he is the last whom we would expect to find indulging in raptures at such a critical moment. Far more in keeping are his next words,

“Ay, every man away:
Brutus shall lead, and we will grace his heels
With the most boldest and best hearts of Rome.”

This indeed is Cassius; every man on the alert, and every energy bent to insure the successful conclusion of their enterprise.

But, whatever its fitness to the character, Shakespeare, from the point of view of effect, certainly could have found no better place for its introduction. Doubtless, in his day the gentry clenched their pipes, while the gaping groundlings clutched their greasy jerkins, both animated by the same feeling that oversways the modern audience at these ringing prophetic phrases. And then the simple stage direction, “Enter a servant:” the beginning of the end! For sheer dramatic effect few passages in Shakespeare surpass it.

V

The other persons in “Cesare” may be dismissed in a few words. The Nurse and the Priest are simply the conventional lay figures of the drama of the time, while Decimus Brutus seems to have been included because he happened to be in the histories. Neither he nor Lenate possesses any individuality, and considered solely in themselves, contribute nothing of value to this investigation.

-----

Footnote 120:

In regard to Antony and the Popilius Lena episode.

Footnote 121:

In Muretus she has no place in the action. Brutus refers to her in his
soliloquy: Act II., lines 107 ff.

_Brutus_— “. . . Haec parum si te movent,
Tua jam, vir ut sis, te satis conjux monet,
Fidem cruore quae tibi obstrinxit suam,
Testata sic se avunculi prolem tui.
Si ab exequendis te avocat coeptis timor,
Animusque pigro torpet ignavus gelu,
Ex femina perdisce, quid deceat virum.”

This is the only reference to Portia throughout the drama. Grévin
makes no mention of her, while Garnier, in his “Porcie” (1568) treats
of events following the death of Caesar.

Footnote 122:

I know of but two notices of these scenes, neither being much more
than a mere mention. Neri says: “Su tutte ancora primeggia il Cesare
d’Orlando Pescetti, che per il rilievo della figura di Bruto, tratta
da Plutarco—vedi la bella scena di Porzia nel secondo atto, etc.” (La
Tragedia italiana nel Cinquecento, Ferdinando Neri, Firenze, 1904, p.
158.) It is also referred to by Emilio Bertana in “La tragedia,”
Milano, 1904, p. 75 ff.

Footnote 123:

Plutarch notes that she was of a “noble courage.”

Footnote 124:

That is, Fortune.

Footnote 125:

Marcus Brutus, p. 116. Skeat.

In the “Julius Caesar” of Sir William Alexander, (Earl of Stirling)
written a few years after Shakespeare’s play, there is a decided
similarity between some portions of the Brutus-Portia scenes and those
in Pescetti. The prologue seems an echo of Pescetti’s. Nor do these
portions have anything verbally in common with Seneca, the model of
both tragedies. See Conclusion, page 121.

Footnote 126:

Many of the motifs of the Calpurnia-Nurse scene in Pescetti are
derived from Muretus. Others are reminiscent of Grévin.

Footnote 127:

Malone long ago suggested that this scene probably refers to the
popularity of the play on the stage, and that it points to other
contemporary dramas on the same subject. Prolegomena, II, ff. 448–9.
Ed. 1823. Prof. Sykes sees in it a dramatic device to emphasize the
reality of the presentation. “Julius Caesar” note, page 142.

“CESARE” IN ENGLAND

Pescetti’s work, tedious as it is to the modern reader, was not without its attractions to the Elizabethan. An age which could produce “Polyolbions” could very well tolerate a “Cesare.” It was cast in the popular dramatic form, dealt with a popular theme, and above all, came from a land inseparably connected in the public mind with romance and tragedy. To the Elizabethan, “Ex Italia, semper aliquid novi.” That the work was probably known to English authors receives additional support from the use seemingly made of it by Sir William Alexander (Earl of Stirling) in his own “Tragedy of Julius Caesar.”

Alexander’s work was issued about 1604–7. Of it, Dr. T. A. Lester says: “In general it may be said that Alexander follows Grévin, availing himself not only of Grévin’s original scenes, but also of Grévin’s non-Plutarchian order.... There can be little doubt that Alexander’s ‘Julius Caesar’ is nothing but Grévin’s ‘Cesar’ rewritten and enlarged.”[128] Alexander followed Grévin, but he did so with an admixture of Pescetti.

Prof. H. M. Ayres claims that Alexander got his Prologue from the Hercules Furens of Seneca, substituting Caesar for Hercules as the object of Juno’s wrath. Pescetti’s Prologue is one of the curious things about his drama. Such an introduction is lacking in both Muretus and Grévin.[129] Possibly both Alexander and Pescetti got their idea from Seneca, but there are parallels in content between the two which are only faintly adumbrated in the Latin author. Juno’s censure of Jove’s amours in the Scotchman’s work bears a very close resemblance to the denunciations of Venus as recorded by the Italian. The threat of civil strife and discord are found in each. But more important is the fact that in certain scenes lacking in Grévin, there is a close parallel between Alexander and Pescetti.

Thus, in the dialogue concerning Antony, Pescetti has:

_Cas._— Parmi d’avere scorto in Marcantonio
Disio di dominar: perciò s’in tutto
Vogliam la patria assicurar, spegniamo
Anco lui col Tiranno, e fuor degli occhi
Tragghiamci questo stecco, che potrebbe,
Quando che sia, non poca briga darne.
Che tu sai ben, quanto li siano amici
I veterani, e quanto acconcio ei sia
Gli animi a concitar del volgo insano.

_Bru._— S’ad altri, oltre al Tiranno, darem morte,
Si stimerà dal volgo, che le cose
Sempre stravolge, e falsamente espone,
Che non disio di liberar la patria,
Ma privato odio, e brama di vendetta
A ciò sospinti n’abbia, e di quell’opra,
Onde da noi s’attende eterna fama,
N’acquisterem vergogna, e biasmo eterno:
E dove nome di pietà cerchiamo,
Sarem del titol d’empietà notati;
Nè perciò a noi gran fatto avrem giovato:

. . . . . . . . . . .

In somma e’ non si deve
Punir, chi non hà errato, e a me non basta
L’animo di dar morte a chi nocciuto
Non m’hà, nè fatto ingiuria.

. . . . . . . . . . .

_Cas._— Bruto, tu se’ troppo pietoso; voglia
Il Ciel, che questa tua pietà non sia
Un giorno a noi crudel. Nel risanare
Dall’ ulcere nascenti i corpi il ferro,
E ’l fuoco oprar convien, che tu ben sai,
Che’l medico pietoso infistolisce
La piaga, e spesso tutto il corpo infetta.

In the “Tragedy of Julius Caesar” we read:

_Cass._— . . . . .
There is Antonius, Caesars greatest friend,
A man whose nature tyranny affects,
Whom all the soldiers daily do attend,
As one who nought but to command respects;

. . . . .

And in my judgment I would thinke it best,
When sacrific’d the proud usurper lyes,
That this seditious enemy of rest
Should fall with him, with whom he first did rise:
Thus, of our liberty we now may lay
A solid ground, which can be shak’t by none;

. . . . .

_Brut._— I cannot, Cassius, condescend to kill,
(Thus from the path of justice to decline)
One faultlesse yet, lest after he prove ill,
So to prevent his guiltinesse by mine;
No, no, that neither honest were, nor just,
Which rigorous forme would but the world affright,
Men by this meane, our meaning might mistrust,
And for a little wrong damne all that’s right:
If we do only kill the common foe,
Our countries zeale must then acquire due praise
But if (like tyrants) fiercely raging so,
We will be thought that which we raze to raise;
And where we but intend to aide the state,
Though by endangering what we hold most deare,
If slaying him (as arm’d by private hate)
We to the world all partiall will appeare.

. . . . .

_Cass._— Well Brutus, I protest against my will,
From this black cloud, whatever tempest fall,
That mercy but most cruelly doth kill,
Which thus saves one, who once may plague us all.

Page 279 et seq., Glasgow ed., 1872.

This is not in Grévin, neither is the Brutus-Portia scene. Here again, there are significant points of contact. Alexander’s whole handling of the scene resembles Pescetti’s treatment, while in individual sections the parallels are almost verbal. Portia’s attitude throughout is reminiscent of Pescetti’s delineation. In both dramas the conspiracy is revealed to her; in both she proffers her help; in both she falls back on prayer as her best aid; in both the failure of the plot means her self-destruction.[130] She says:

“Though nature, sexe, and education breed
No power in me, with such a purpose even,
I must lend help to this intended deed,
If vows and pray’rs may penetrate the heaven;
But difficulties huge my fancie findes,
Nought, save the successe, can defray my feare:
‘Ah! fortune alwayes frownes on worthy mindes
As hating all who trust in ought save her.’
Yet I despaire not but thou may’st prevaile,
And by this course to ease my present grones,
I this advantage have which cannot faile:
I’ll be a free-man’s wife, or else be nones:
For, if all prosper not as we pretend
And that the heavens Romes bondage to decree,
Straight with thy liberty my life shall end,
Who have no comfort but what comes from thee;
My father hath me taught what way to dye,
By which if hindred from encountring death,
Some other meanes, I (though more strange) must try;
For after Brutus, none shall see me breathe.”

(Tragedy of Julius Caesar, pp. 268–69, Vol. 2, Glasgow edition, 1872.)

In Pescetti Portia says:

“Più volentier la man di ferro contra
Il Tiranno armerei, che di preghiere
La lingua, e’l cuor: ma poichè ciò mi niega
Il sesso mio, con quel, ch’a me conviensi
E lice, aiuterò la santa impresa.”—Ces., p. 32.

“Ite, ò forti, ite ò saggi, ite ò de gli alti
Legnaggi, onde scendete, degni; il Cielo
Secondi i desir vostri: Scorga, e regga
Benigno i piedi, e le man vostre Giove,
Tu vedi, ò Porzia, in che periglio posta
Del tuo consorte la salute sia.
Or di mestier t’è preparar il petto
A colpi della morte, s’egli avviene,
Che’l Ciel (sia lunge ogni sinistro augurio)
Contrasti a generosi suoi disegni.
O libera convien, che viva, ò chiugga
Con glorioso fin degno del padre,
E del marito tuo la vita: In questa
Luce di padre libero venisti,
Et a marito libero congiunta
Vivesti, ch’ambo altieramente amaro
Di più tosto morir, che viver servi:
Si che di spirti generosi, e maschi
Arma il femminil petto, e’l cuor rinforza;
Onde con fin del nascimento degno,
E della vita tua la vita chiuda.”—Pp. 33–34.

She says to Brutus:

“Dell’ amor, ch’io ti porto, ancor potuto
Non ho farti ben chiaro? E tu mi stimi
Si poco amante, ch’io potessi senza
Tè star un ora in vita?”—P. 50.

“Or tu non sai
Quanto sovente a generosi sforzi
Soglia fortuna ingiuriosa opporsi?”—P. 49.

Following his lofty response she says:

“Tuttavia, benche lei[131] non vinca mai,
Impedisce sovente i suoi disegni.”—P. 49.

There is no historical warrant for Portia’s contemplated suicide at this time. In both dramas Brutus’ reply is the same in content:

“Do not defraud the world of thy rare worth,
But of thy Brutus the remembrance love;
From this fair prison strive not to breake forth,
Till first the fates have forc’d thee to remove.”—P. 269.

In Pescetti, Brutus says:

“Ma che accidente pensi tu, che possa
Addivenir, ch’armar contra te stessa
Le man ti stringa, e innanzi tempo l’alma
Spigner del caro albergo?”—P. 49.

“Ma non approvo
Già il tuo consiglio, e pregoti, per quanto
Amor mi porti, ch’ à sì fiera voglia
Dij del tuo petto bando, e l’ora aspetti
Prefissa al tuo partir da questa vita.”—P. 50.

Her “rare worth” is emphasized by Brutus:

“Ma non consentirà Giove, che donna
Sì valorosa, e bella, a dar salute
A mille altri atta, se medesma uccida.”—P. 52.

Alexander also makes Cassius mention that Laena had accosted him, and expressed the wish that his desires might prosper, thus making Cassius suspect the conspiracy was discovered. This parallels Brutus’ experience in Pescetti. Decius refers to the banquet at the house of Lepidus and Caesar’s opinions on death. This is also mentioned in Pescetti. Alexander’s recital of Caesar’s perturbation, as he describes it in soliloquy, is too long to quote, but it is simply an echo of Calpurnia’s state of mind as revealed in Pescetti.

If we can assume that Alexander was acquainted with Pescetti’s drama, as these parallels seem to indicate, we have no reason for supposing that it was unknown to the literati of his time. “Cesare” was popular enough to go through two editions in Italy. Alexander was a man of wide reading, but no more so than was Ben Jonson. Possibly Alexander was indebted to the latter for his knowledge of Pescetti’s work.[132] Alexander’s drama followed that of Shakespeare. If he knew Pescetti’s work some few years after the composition of Shakespeare’s drama, there is no reason to deny to Jonson, the most learned author of his day, a prior acquaintance.

In this connection, the hypothesis advanced by Frederick Gard Fleay,[133] regarding the two-part nature of Shakespeare’s play, assumes new significance. According to him, “Julius Caesar” was originally written in two parts, “Caesar’s Tragedy” and “Caesar’s Revenge,” following a custom of the time, and that through some exigency the two were later merged into the play as we now have it. This is not the place to enter this controversy. Fleay presents his reasons, and among them the fact that in “Julius Caesar” the name Antony occurs without the h, contrary to Shakespeare’s custom in his other plays wherein the name occurs. It may be well to suggest here that the prevalent fondness for Italian names probably prompted the use of the name as found in Pescetti: Antonio or Marcantonio. But especially significant is Fleay’s surmise that it was Jonson who performed the merging of the two plays, and who is, therefore, responsible for the present form. If this be the case, it may well be that Jonson introduced “Cesare” to Shakespeare’s notice, for notwithstanding its tediousness, it was cast in a form which appealed to Ben’s classic taste. The hypothetical “Tragedy of Julius Caesar” could well have been inspired by Pescetti’s drama, for the first three acts of “Julius Caesar” as we have it now, form a satisfactory dramatic whole, and all of Shakespeare’s assumed indebtedness to the Italian is contained in these three acts.

Jonson’s “Sejanus,” whose composition was probably prompted by the popularity of Shakespeare’s work in the same field, followed “Julius Caesar” in 1603. The friendly relations existing at this time between the two great dramatists is sufficiently attested by the fact that Shakespeare was one of the actors in Jonson’s tragedy. “Julius Caesar” as we now have it appears first in the 1623 folio; what alterations were made in the preceding twenty years are matters of speculation. Jonson was sufficiently interested in its success is strive to rival it along purely classic lines, while about the only criticism of a Shakespearean play that we possess from Ben deals with a speech in “Julius Caesar.”[134] It seems, therefore, within the bounds of probability that Jonson may have introduced “Cesare” to Shakespeare’s notice.

There were, however, other means whereby Shakespeare may have become acquainted with “Cesare.” Much as we know of his wonderful age, we do not even now realize its vast and all-embracing activities, especially in literature. Translations by the score were made from the Italian.[135] Plagiarism, especially from foreign sources, was rampant; nor was such plagiarism decried.[136] Shakespeare may not have known Italian, yet the evidence to the contrary is steadily growing stronger. Italian was the fashion in his day; many of his colleagues had travelled in Italy; many knew the language. His patron, Southampton, spoke Italian fluently, while among his guests Italian scholars were conspicuous. Amid such surroundings it is well-nigh inconceivable that Shakespeare failed to come into intimate contact with the Italian literature of the day. Recent research renders it almost positive that he not only did, but that he was sufficiently versed in the language to read the literature in the original tongue. We marvel at his intimate descriptions of Italian life, explicable, apparently, only on the supposition that he was an eye-witness of the scenes he describes. We wonder at the familiarity with Italian authors evident upon a close examination of his work. Brandes, in his study of Othello[137] calls attention to several portions of that drama, which both in content and expression, form too close a parallel to the Italian of Ariosto and Berni to be accidental. More recently, Professor Carlo Segré[138] has pointed to places in Othello explicable only upon the supposition that Shakespeare was intimately acquainted with the Italian version of Cinthio.

“Segré disagrees with Sidney Lee, who avers that Shakespeare borrowed from Italian sources, only bare outlines and general ideas which lent themselves to his scheme, and that these in his masterly hands were so arranged and reconstructed as to be almost unrecognizable. In Segré’s opinion, Shakespeare studied the Italian literature, not only with the analysis of a man of letters, but also with the careful attention and open mind of a poet, for the benefit he drew from these sources was chosen with consummate art and critical skill, according to what seemed most useful to him in the exercise of his marvellous gifts.”[139] As we have seen, Shakespeare’s procedure with “Cesare” differed in no essentials from his usual method.

Even if Shakespeare knew no Italian, it was still possible for him to become fairly familiar with “Cesare.” Shakespeare was a dramatist because the drama was profitable. Like a keen playwright, he studied the taste of his public. The story of Caesar was no new one to theatre-goers. Other plays on the subject had met with success. The chronicle history had had its day, and with its waning popularity Shakespeare turned to that hazy, romantic epoch in history when Rome was mistress of the world; for in his day Rome’s name still loomed large in the imagination of mankind. The great dramatist never scrupled to appropriate the efforts of others, when, by the transforming power of his genius, he might use them to further the success of his own work. The more we know of the Elizabethan world, the more modern it seems to us. No doubt, in those days as in these, theatrical managers were ever on the lookout for promising material. Perhaps Jonson did not introduce “Cesare” to his notice, yet what was to prevent Shakespeare’s employing lowly but learned hacks to investigate plays or other works, both native and foreign, which promised to provide adequate material for his own dramas? There is nothing startlingly novel in this assumption, although it seems to have been overlooked in the discussions concerning the poet’s linguistic knowledge. It had been done before; it was done afterwards. Association and collaboration were common. What one man lacked another supplied. Why did Henslowe, in 1602, commission Munday, Drayton, Webster, Middleton, and “the rest,” to write a “sesers falle”? Why so many to write one play? No doubt many an old drama was ransacked for material, many an ancient source laid under contribution, many a verbal jewel or entire scene torn from its setting to grace the new production. Shakespeare, employing scholarly searchers, who brought to his notice whatever they considered valuable in the material they investigated, had no need of knowing various languages. He wanted the ideas; his imagination provided the rest.

There was no lack of books. The late Professor J. Churton Collins, in his consideration of Shakespeare as a classical scholar, says: “The collection of books was not only the fashion, but the passion of the age. His friend Ben Jonson had one of the finest private libraries in England, so had Camden and Cotton, and their liberality in lending books was proverbial. He could have had books from the library of Southampton and through Southampton from the libraries of others of the nobility. The magnificent collection of Parker at Lambeth would have been open to him, as well as the collection at Gresham College. There was the Queen’s library at Whitehall, well stored according to Hentzner, who visited it in 1598, with Greek, Latin, Italian, and French books. What afterwards formed the nucleus of the Bodleian at Oxford, which contains, by the way, an Aldine Ovid, with his name in autograph, to all appearances genuine, on the title-page, was during the last decade of the sixteenth century almost within a stone’s throw of the Black Friars Theatre.”[140]

-----

Footnote 128:

“Connections between the Drama of France and Great Britain,
particularly in the Elizabethan Period.” Harvard Dissertation, 1900
(unpublished), quoted by Ayres.

Footnote 129:

Alexander’s Prologue is the first act of the drama. Juno delivers a
long monologue and the chorus closes the act. In Muretus, Caesar and
the chorus occupy the first act. In Grévin, it is Caesar, Antony and
the Chorus of Soldiers. In Pescetti, the Prologue is separate, but
like in Alexander the actors therein do not appear in the drama
proper.

Footnote 130:

Of the above only the fact that the conspiracy was revealed to her is
recorded by Plutarch in this connection.

Footnote 131:

Fortune.

Footnote 132:

Alexander, in his younger days, travelled in France, Spain and Italy.
He was high in the favor of James VI. of Scotland and accompanied him
to London in 1603, where he became an intimate of Prince Henry. That
he was well and favorably known to the authors of the day may be
inferred from the dedication of a sonnet to him by Michael Drayton.

Footnote 133:

In Shakespeare Soc. Pub., 1874, p. 357. Also his Life of Shakespeare,
1886, p. 215–6.

Footnote 134:

The allusion to the phrase Act III, Sc. 1.

“Know, Caesar doth not wrong, nor without cause
Will he be satisfied.”

This originally stood:

“Caesar did never wrong but with just cause” and is ridiculed by
Jonson in his “Discoveries.” It is quite likely that the Caesar in the
play as originally written was an even more self-important individual
than he is at present. Possibly Shakespeare saw no absurdity in the
line when he first penned it. Caesar, in his own estimation, is
semi-divine. The cause of things is in his will. What might seem wrong
to the mob was not so to Caesar, for he felt that the cause was just,
no matter what the world thought. That was sufficient. The apparent
contradiction in terms thus seems capable of explanation.

Footnote 135:

Appendix to Vol. IV of the Cambridge History of English Literature.
Also M. A. Scott, Elizabethan Translations from the Italian. Mod.
Lang. Assoc. Pub., X. to XIV., 1895–99.

Footnote 136:

Sidney Lee, The French Renaissance in England, 1910. Phoebe Sheavyn,
The Literary Profession in the Elizabethan Age, 1909.

Footnote 137:

Shakespeare: A Critical Study, George Brandes—London, William
Heineman, 1902, p. 444–45.

Footnote 138:

“Relazioni Litterarie fra Italia e Inghilterra,” Florence, 1911.
Reviewed in article, “The Italian Sources of Othello,” by Ethel M. de
Fonblanque, Fortnightly Review, Nov., 1911, p. 907.

Footnote 139:

Ethel M. de Fonblanque in Fortnightly Review, Nov., 1911.

Footnote 140:

“Studies in Shakespeare.”