Chapter XVI: Conclusion

To claim that Pescetti’s drama possesses any intrinsic attraction for the modern reader would be straining truth in the interest of zeal. It is doubtful whether it ever attained the dignity of a stage representation; the least regard for the patience of humanity prompts the hope that it never was inflicted upon an audience. Too often, throughout its toilsome progress, “Declamation roars while Passion sleeps.” Pescetti attempted to individualize his major characters, yet we miss the life which throbs in Shakespeare’s pages; all too frequently the passionate utterances of real men and women are sunk in the frigid rhetoric of book-born puppets. Still while it was not given to Pescetti to scale Olympus, he at least glimpsed the path. His drama is true to the traditions of its type; in some ways it marks an advance over its predecessors. While the English drama, freed from the shackles of convention, buoyed by the exuberant spirit of a conscious nationalism, followed the Zeitgeist to the highest pinnacle of achievement, Italian tragedy, misled by the ignis fatuus of a false classicism, floundered ever more helplessly and hopelessly in the depths of the Senecan morass.

Pescetti has most of the faults of his contemporaries, but in a few respects he rises superior to many of his predecessors. His work is free from their revolting horrors; he shows a true perception of the dramatic possibilities of his material; he arranges his subject matter with a proper regard for dramatic effect, even though he well-nigh stifles his plot under an avalanche of words. He dares attempt what Symonds[141] scarcely believed possible; to portray upon the Italian stage the patriotism of a Brutus and the downfall of a tyrant.

But what renders this long-forgotten work of special interest to the modern reader is the probability of its relation to “Julius Caesar”; a probability which the preceding investigation has sought to confirm. It seems that “Cesare” furnished the greatest dramatist of the age with hints which he did not hesitate to employ. It deserves recognition because here, for the first time, we find individual scenes which appear later in “Julius Caesar.” Here for the first time in any extant drama on this subject, we find the debate (in its extended form) concerning the contemplated murder of Antony. In “Cesare,” Portia for the first time enters the action, while Brutus is shown in his domestic relations in a manner suggestive of Shakespeare’s treatment. Here, for the first time, the omens and prodigies find a prominent place in the drama, while the significance of the Caesar-Lena episode receives its first recognition. All these scenes appear later in “Julius Caesar,” accompanied by individual touches peculiar alone to the Italian dramatist.

Muretus and Grévin both include in their dramas the debate concerning Antony. But Pescetti seems to have had a better idea of its dramatic value, for not only is his treatment of this significant episode far more comprehensive, but he includes matter purely his own, which, both in form and content, is so similar to its dramatic counterpart in “Julius Caesar” as to render the supposition of accidental coincidence highly improbable.

In his delineation of Brutus, Pescetti continued the exaltation of the character, begun by Plutarch and introduced into the Renaissance drama by Muretus. In view of the fact that the Italian dramatist openly courted the favor of the ruler of Ferrara, his treatment of the assassin of the Duke’s great ancestor is surprising. Pescetti could have found many things in his sources which would have detracted from the moral excellence of his Brutus, but he ignores them, and portrays his protagonist along the same lines as his great contemporary. Therefore Shakespeare found nothing in Pescetti to induce him to change his conception of the character.

The Brutus-Portia scenes in “Cesare” mark the first introduction of this material in any drama on the same subject. Pescetti portrays Brutus in his domestic relations along the lines later adopted by Shakespeare, and adds touches not traceable to Plutarch, yet included in “Julius Caesar.”

Inasmuch as Pescetti dedicated his tragedy to Alfonso D’Este, whom he hails in his preface as Caesar’s reincarnation, we naturally would expect a delineation of the titular character cast in the most heroic mould. Yet, whatever the intention, the fulfillment seems the very antipode of the promise. The Caesar of Pescetti appears the same weak, vacillating, boastful figure that in Shakespeare has so puzzled his critics, and who occupies in the drama the same position of relative inferiority assigned to him in “Julius Caesar.”

Pescetti was the first dramatist of Caesar’s fortunes to realize the dramatic value of a supernatural background. He presents the ghost of Pompey as the exciting force on his Brutus; Shakespeare introduced the ghost of Caesar to herald his doom. In his attempted distribution of the omens and prodigies, the Italian seems to have anticipated Shakespeare’s similar but vastly superior treatment. With a single puzzling exception, he mentions all the portents later used by Shakespeare, and adds many more culled from the classic authors. Shakespeare includes among the omens several not mentioned by Plutarch; to obtain these he had no occasion to go beyond Pescetti.

The Italian seemed to realize the dramatic value of suspense, and uses this device twice in a manner almost exactly parallel to that of Shakespeare. Like the Cassius of Shakespeare, the Decimus Brutus of Pescetti raises a doubt as to Caesar’s attending the session of the Senate, and the introduction of this element of suspense paves the way for his ultimate persuasion of the Dictator. In Shakespeare’s play the episode performs the same office. But more significant is Pescetti’s employment of the Caesar-Lena scene, which in word and thought constitute a very close parallel to the same scene as it stands in “Julius Caesar.”

“Cesare” seems to shed new light upon the much discussed question of Shakespeare’s indebtedness to Appian, for the historical matter supposedly derived by the great poet from the English translation of the history can be found in the Italian drama, and reappears later in “Julius Caesar,” accompanied by touches peculiar alone to Pescetti’s treatment. The resemblance between these portions of the Italian’s work and the corresponding parts in the English drama, is far stronger than their similarity to their hitherto supposed source.

Pescetti’s minor figures are hardly suggestive of Shakespeare’s vivid portraits, but, as has been pointed out, the significant speech which he assigns to Calpurnia furnishes the most striking parallel between the two plays.

When Cicero said:

“But men may construe things after their fashion,
Clean from the purpose of the things themselves,”

he uttered a truism which might well serve us a warning to all critics, especially those of Shakespeare. But the great poet often builded better than he knew. Shakespeare to us is what we can get from him. Because Pescetti was no Shakespeare is no reason for interpreting his efforts in an unkindlier spirit. His critics have, however, judged him by his fellows; often, apparently, without reading him. We cannot attempt to measure his influence in his own day by our modern standards. What is tedious to us was not necessarily so to the Elizabethans. It may be well to remember that even among Shakespeare’s contemporaries the Senecan drama had its advocates.[142] There are few purple patches in “Cesare” to catch the eye of the romantic dramatist; probably as a tragedy, Pescetti’s drama had as little attraction for Shakespeare as it has for us. But to a dramatist who never scrupled to appropriate suitable material wherever he could find it, “Cesare” must have appeared well worth investigation. It presented, in convenient dramatic form, material which served to supplement his own selections from the scattered pages of Plutarch. With the sure perception of genius the great poet took from the Italian the matter best suited to his purpose and discarded the rest.

It is for this reason that “Cesare” is worthy of notice. It is for this reason that the obscure pedagogue of Verona, whose pedantic personality lay buried beneath the controversial debris of three centuries, deserves to stand to-day among that humbler brotherhood whom association with our greatest dramatist has preserved for the curious admiration of the literary world.

-----

Footnote 141:

In his discussion of the state of the Italian drama during the
sixteenth century, Symonds says: “At the same time, we may question
whether the Despots would have welcomed tragic shows which dramatized
their deeds of violence; whether they would have suffered the
patriotism of a Brutus, the vengeance of Virginius, the plots of
Catiline, or the downfall of Sejanus to be displayed with
spirit-stirring pomp in the theatres of Milan and Ferrara, when
conspiracies like that of Olgaiti were frequent.” John Addington
Symonds, “The Renaissance in Italy, Italian Literature,” Vol. II., p.
119. Henry Holt & Co., 1888.

Footnote 142:

“The Monarchicke Tragedies” of Alexander by 1617 had gone through
three editions, besides several single quartos.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ALEXANDER, SIR WILLIAM. Poetical Works—Glasgow, Maurice Ogle & Co.,
1872. 3 vols.

ANDERS, R. H. D. Shakespeare’s Books—A Dissertation on Shakespeare’s
Reading and the Immediate Sources of his Works. Berlin, 1904.

APPIAN. Appiani Alexandrini Romanarum Historiarum quae Supersunt
Graece et Latine cum Indicibus. Didot. Paris, 1877.

The Roman History of Appian of Alexandria. Translated from the
Greek by Horace White. 2 vols. London, George Bell & Sons,
1899.

Civil Wars. 1578. Extract from the Second Book. (New Shakespeare
Society Trans. 1875–6. Part 2. Append. 4. London, 1877.)

An Auncient Historie and exquisite Chronicle of the Romanes
warres, both Civile and Foren Written in Greeke by the noble
Orator and Historiographer, Appian of Alexandria....
Translated out of divers languages, and now set forth in
Englishe, according to the Greeke text, taken out of a Royall
Librarie: by W. B.... Imprinted at London by Raulfe Newberrie
and Henrie Bynniman, Anno 1578.

AYRES, HARRY MORGAN. Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar” in the Light of
Some other Versions. In American Modern Language Association
Publications, June, 1910. Vol. 25, No. 2.

BEUMELBERG, HUGO. Sir William Alexander, Graf von Stirling als
Dramatischer Dichter. Dissertation, Halle, 1870.

BERTANA, EMILIO. La tragedia. Milano, Vallardi, 1904.

BRANDES, GEORGE. William Shakespeare. A Critical Study. Two vols.
New York, Macmillan & Co., 1898.

CAMBRIDGE HISTORY OF ENGLISH LITERATURE. Ed. by A. W. Ward and A. R.
Waller. Vol. IV. Cambridge Univ. Press, 1910.

COLERIDGE, SAMUEL T. Lectures and Notes on Shakespeare and other
English Poets. Now first collected by T. Ashe. London, G. Bell
& Sons, 1884.

COLLINS, J. CHURTON. Studies in Shakespeare. London, Archibald,
Constable & Co., 1904.

COLLISCHONN, G. A. O. Jacques Grévin’s Tragödie “Caesar” in ihrem
Verhältniss zu Muret, Voltaire und Shakespeare. In Ausgaben
und Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiete der Romanischen Philologie,
veröffentlicht von E. Stengel—No. 52. Marburg, N. G.
Elwert’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1886. Contains reprint of
Grévin and Muretus.

CRAIK, GEORGE L. The English of Shakespeare, illustrated in a
Philological Commentary on his “Julius Caesar.” London,
Chapman & Hall, 1857.

CUNLIFFE, JOHN W. Early English Classical Tragedies. Oxford,
Clarendon Press, 1912.

The Influence of Seneca on Elizabethan Tragedy. London,
Macmillan & Co., 1893; New York, reprint by G. E. Stechert,
1907.

DE SANCTIS, NATALE. G. Cesare e M. Bruto nei poeti tragici. Palermo,
Reber, 1895.

DION CASSIUS. Dio’s Rome. Translated by Herbert Baldwin Foster.
Troy, N. Y., Pafaeto Book Co., 1905.

DOWDEN, EDWARD. Shakespeare, a Critical Study of his Mind and Art.
Harper & Bros., 1903.

FARMER, RICHARD. On the Learning of Shakespeare; addressed to Joseph
Craddock. London, printed for T. Longman, 1789.

FLAMINI, FRANCESCO. A History of Italian Literature,
(1265–1907)—translated by Evangeline M. O’Connor, with an
Introduction by William Michael Rossetti. Published 1907, by
the National Alumni.

FLEAY, FREDERICK GARD. A Chronicle History of the Life and Work of
William Shakespeare. New York, Scribner and Welford, 1886.

Article on “Julius Caesar” in Shakespeare Society Publications
for 1874. London, Trübner and Co.

FONTANINI, GIUSTO. Biblioteca dell’ eloquenza italiana con le
annotazioni del Sig. Apostolo Zeno. Pasquali, 1753. 4 vols.

FONTE, MICHELANGELO (PAOLO BENI). Il Cavalcanti. In Padova, per
Francesco Bolzetta, 1614.

FOWLER, WILLIAM WARDE. The Tragic Element in Shakespeare’s “Julius
Caesar.” In Trans. Royal Society of Literature. Second Series.
Vol. XXX, Part 2. London, Asher & Co.

GARNIER, ROBERT. Cornelie—In Sammlung Französischer Neudrücke,
herausgegeben von Karl Vollmöller. Heilbronn, Verlag von Gebr.
Henninger, 1881.

Cornelia—translated by Thomas Kyd. In R. Dodsley—A Select
Collection of Old Plays. In twelve vols. Second Edition. Vol.
II. London. Printed by J. Nichols. 1780.

GASPARY, ADOLF. Geschichte der Italienischen Litteratur. 2 vols.

GINGUENÉ, P. L. Histoire Littéraire d’Italie. Paris. L. G.
Michaud—2d Ed.—1824.

GERVINUS, G. C. Shakespeare Commentaries. Trans. by F. E. Bunnett.
New York, Scribner, Wilford & Armstrong, 1875.

GERINI, G. B. Gli scrittori pedagogici italiani nel secolo decimo
settimo. Collezione di libri d’instruzione e di educazione.
Torino, G. B. Paravia e Comp, 1900.

JAHRBUCH DER DEUTSCHEN SHAKESPEARE GESELLSCHAFT. Weimar & Berlin.

JAMESON, ANNA. Shakespeare’s Heroines—Characteristics of Women:
Moral, Poetical and Historical. London.

KREYSSIG, FRIEDRICH. Vorlesungen über Shakespeare, seine Zeit und
seine Werke. Dritte Auflage. 2 vols. Berlin, Nicolaische
Verlags-Buchhandlung, 1877.

LEE, SIDNEY. A Life of William Shakespeare. New York, Macmillan &
Co., 1889.

The French Renaissance in England. An Account of the Literary
Relations of England and France in the Sixteenth Century. New
York, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910.

Foreign Influences on Shakespeare—in Great Englishmen of the
16th Century. London, 1904.

LYDGATE, JOHN. A treatise, excellent and compendious, showing and
declaring in manner of Tragedy, the falls of sundry most
notable Princes and Princesses.... First compyled in Latin by
the excellent Clerke Bocatius an Italian borne, and sence that
tyme translated into our English and Vulgare tong by Dan John
Lidgate, Monke of Butye. And more newly imprynted, corrected
and augmented out of diverse and sundry olde writen copies in
parchment. In aedibus Richard Tottelli cum privelegio. No
date, but apparently the edition printed by John Wayland,
1558.

LUCAN. Pharsalia. Rowe’s Translation. In Works of English Poets by
Alexander Chalmers. Vol. XX.

Pharsalia. Edited with English notes by C. E. Haskins, with an
introduction by W. E. Heitland. London, George Bell and Sons,
1887.

MACCALLUM, M. W. Shakespeare’s Roman Plays and their Background.
London, Macmillan & Co., 1910.

MARLOWE, CHRISTOPHER. Works of Christopher Marlowe. Edited by
Alexander Dyce. London, William Pickering, 1850.

MOULTON, RICHARD G. Shakespeare as a Dramatic Artist. Third Edition.
Revised and enlarged. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1893

NERI, FERDINANDO. La tragedia italiana nel Cinquecento. Firenze,
Calletti e Cocci, 1904.

OVID. Metamorphoses. In Works of the English Poets. Collected by
Alexander Chalmers. Vol. XX. Dryden’s Translation.

P. Ovidius Naso ex recognitione Rudolphi Merkelii. Lipsiae, in
aedibus B. G. Teubneri, MDCCCLXXXIV.

The XV Bookes of P. Ovidius Naso, entytuled Metamorphoses,
translated oute of Latin into English meeter by Arthur
Golding, 1575.

PESCETTI, ORLANDO. “Il Cesare.” Girolamo Discepolo. Verona, 1594.

PLUTARCH. Shakespeare’s Plutarch. Being a Selection from the Lives
in North’s Plutarch which illustrate Shakespeare’s Plays. With
a Preface, Notes, Index of Names and Glossarial Index. By Rev.
Walter W. S. Keat. London, Macmillan & Co., 1892.

SCOTT, MARY A. Elizabethan Translations from the Italian. In Pub. of
Modern Lang. Asso. of America. Vols. X., XI., XIII., and XIV.

SCHELLING, FELIX E. Elizabethan Drama. 1558–1642. 2 vols. New York,
Houghton-Mifflin & Co., 1908.

English Literature during the Lifetime of Shakespeare. New York,
Henry Holt & Co., 1910.

SCHÖNE, R. Ueber Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar” mit besonderer
Berücksichtigung des Verhältnisses zur Quelle des Stückes.
Dresden, E. Blochmann und Sohn, 1873.

SEGRÉ, CARLO. Relazioni letterarie fra Italia e Inghilterra.
Florence, 1911.

SENECA. The Tragedies of Seneca. Translated into English Verse by
Frank Justus Miller. Introduced by an Essay on the Influence
of the Tragedies of Seneca upon Early English Drama, by John
Matthews Manley. Chicago University Press, 1907.

SHAKESPEARE, WILLIAM. The Tragedy of Julius Caesar. Edited with
Introduction and Notes by Frederick Henry Sykes. New York,
Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1909.

The “Globe” Edition. Edited by William Aldis Wright and William
George Clark. London, Macmillan & Co., 1891.

SHEAVYN, PHOEBE. The Literary Profession in the Elizabethan Age.
Manchester, University Press, 1909.

SKEAT, WALTER W. Shakespeare’s Plutarch. Being a Selection from the
Lives in North’s Plutarch which illustrate Shakespeare’s
Plays. With a Preface, Notes, Index of Names and Glossarial
Index. London, Macmillan & Co., 1892.

STAPFER, PAUL. Shakespeare and Classical Antiquity. Greek and Latin
Antiquity as presented in Shakespeare’s Plays. Translated from
French by Emily Carey. London, Kegan Paul & Co., 1880.

SUETONIUS. Lives of the Twelve Caesars. Trans. by Alexander Thomson.
Revised by T. Forester. London, G. Bell & Sons, 1903.

SYMONDS, JOHN ADDINGTON. The Renaissance in Italy. Italian
Literature. New York, Henry Holt & Co., 1888.

TIRABOSCHI, GIROLAMO. Storia della letteratura italiana. Milano,
Società Tipografica dei Classici Italiani, 1822.

VERGIL. A Literal Translation by A. Hamilton Bryce. London, George
Bell & Sons, 1894.

P. Vergili Maronis Opera cum appendice in usum scholarum iterum
recognovit Otto Ribbeck. Lipsiae, MCMX in aedibus B. G.
Teubneri.

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

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES

1. Retained the blanks that the original Italian text often had before apostrophes. 2. Inserted a blank before the apostrophe in front of the letter l, whenever the apostrophed ’l stands for il. 3. Changed “προσέττατεν” to “προσέταττεν” in footnote 12. 4. Added anchor after “—II., i, ll. 154–191.” for the first footnote[60] on p. 46. 5. Changed “cosi” to “così” on p. 67. 6. Changed “angurio” to “augurio” on p. 84. 7. Silently corrected typographical errors. 8. Retained anachronistic and non-standard spellings as printed. 9. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.

The following corrections to obvious Italian misspellings in Boecker's
text made by comparing excerpts with Pescetti's original at
http://www.opal.unito.it/psixsite/Teatro italiano del XVI e XVII
secolo/Elenco opere/image589.pdf.

1. Changed “Secundo” to “secondo” on p. 1. 2. Changed “ricchezze” to “ricchezze” on p. 16. 3. Changed “Più che d’Orso, e de Tigre Ircana crudo” to “Più che d’Orso, e di Tigre Ircana crudo” on p. 17. 4. Changed “E fù si grande del ferir la voglia Ricandosi” to “E fu sì grande del ferir la voglia Recandosi” on p. 24. 5. Changed “Immenso regno, e sì gonfiato ha l’onde,” to “Immenso regno, e sì gonfiato hà l’onde,” on p. 30. 6. Changed “Altri temer gran fatto, un’huom al ventre” to “Altri temer gran fatto, un’huomo al ventre” on p. 43. 7. Changed “Sciogliam noi l’alma de’ corporei lacci.” to “Sciogliam noi l’alma da corporei lacci.” on p. 53. 8. Changed “Ben t’esort’ io guardati de’ nemici.” to “Ben t’esort’ io guardarti de’ nemici.” on p. 61. 9. Changed “Quest’ alta impresa il cielo, acciochè nulla” to “Quest’ alta impresa il cielo, acciocchè nulla” on p. 63. 10. Changed “Non può salir, che del terreno incarco” to “Non può salir, chi del terreno incarco” on p. 66. 11. Changed “Et ei conforme al merto suo nel propio” to “Et ei conforme al merto suo nel proprio” on p. 92. 12. Changed “Non senza gran cagion stamane uscito” to “Non senza gran cagion stamane uscito” on p. 101. 13. Changed “Ite, ò forti, ite ò saggi, te ò de gli alti” to “Ite, ò forti, ite ò saggi, ite ò de gli alti” on p. 107. 14. Changed “te ò de gli alti Lenaggi,” to “ite ò de gli alti Legnaggi,” on p. 114.