A Probable Italian Source of Shakespeare's "Julius Cæsar". Alexander Boecker

actors soliloquize, converse, declaim, listen; they do everything but act. Their exits and their entrances constitute the total of visible action. Deeds are carefully excluded, or relegated beyond the stage; the declamatory powers of messengers, the comments of the Chorus, and the speeches and conduct of the actors are relied upon to vitalize them in the imagination of the audience.

      Of characterization, in the Shakespearean sense, there is very little. It would be easy to dismiss the whole matter. A careful search is necessary to locate those passages wherein Pescetti displays any decided flashes of dramatic power in his characterizations. Yet there are times when he attempts, and in a measure successfully, to provide adequate motivation for the speeches of his characters; but unfortunately, these are rather few and far between. He almost invariably locates these places in such a rank rhetorical jungle that it requires considerable care to discover them. Yet he reveals at times a true dramatic instinct in his choice of material and in the handling of certain situations.^[5]

      But the force of convention was too strong for him successfully to resist its insidious influences. Following in the footsteps of his contemporaries, he spins his drama out to some four thousand lines, ninety-nine percent of which are versified prose and the remainder dubiously poetic. Nevertheless, compared with the crudities of Giraldi (Cinthio), or the revolting horrors of Sperone and Cresci, Pescetti’s work marks an advance in Italian drama.

      The dramatis personae common both to Shakespeare and Pescetti are Julius Caesar, Mark Antony, Marcus Brutus, Cassius, Decius Brutus, Popilius Lena, Calpurnia and Portia. Pescetti calls Decius, Decimo, and Popilius Lena, Lenate. In addition, the Italian mentions incidentally Casca, Cimber, Trebonius and Cicero. Of the others occurring in Shakespeare, there is no trace. Pescetti, however, introduces two new characters: the Servant or Nurse to Calpurnia and the Priest. The former is one of the traditional figures of the Senecan drama, while the latter performs at various times the functions of monitor, mediator and chorus. From non-Plutarchian sources the Italian obtained the names Spurinna and Bucolianus, which occur in the First Messenger’s recital of the assassination. The first he doubtless owes to Suetonius, while the second he obtained from Appian’s account of Caesar’s murder. In obedience to the formal demand of his drama, Pescetti has the first and second Messenger, the Choruses of Roman Matrons (probably suggested by Lucan),^[6] of the Ladies of the Court, of Citizens, and of Soldiers. The two latter are merged in the mob of Shakespeare.

      As a natural result of the limitations imposed by his model, Pescetti has to confine his action to the events of the day of Caesar’s assassination, and can only inferentially introduce material of which Shakespeare could avail himself to the full. The place is always the same, and, though unmentioned by the dramatist, is presumably an open space before a temple in the immediate vicinity of Caesar’s house. In consequence of these restrictions such hints as Pescetti may have furnished Shakespeare, are, almost exclusively, to be found embodied in the composition of the first three acts of “Julius Caesar.”

      Shakespeare’s main source was Plutarch; Pescetti’s was Appian, though he did not hesitate to draw liberally from Plutarch, Suetonius, Lucan, Ovid, and Vergil when the occasion required. In this I disagree with the only two commentators who have given this drama more than passing attention.^[7] With the exception of the Brutus-Portia scene, the portents, and his idealization of Brutus’ character, in every one of the main incidents of the first four acts, and in the entire fifth act, the Italian follows Appian faithfully. But, like Shakespeare, he does not hesitate to amplify^[8] his material nor to invent such incidents as the exigencies of the situation seem to demand.

      That Shakespeare went further than Plutarch for his sources has been the subject of much discussion. He introduces historical touches not found in the biographer. I purpose to show in the course of this work that almost every one of these he could readily have obtained through Pescetti. This Renaissance rhetorician was thoroughly at home in the classics, and his work throughout bears unmistakable evidence of their influence.

      It is certain that he was well acquainted with the Latin tragedy “Caesar,” written in 1544 by the French humanist Marc Antoine Muret (Muretus). Pescetti’s enemies were quick to recognize the resemblance between the two plays and openly accused him of plagiarism. While the Italian undoubtedly received many hints from the work of his predecessor, there is no ground for the vicious attack made upon him by Beni.^[9] Moreover, his borrowings, such as they are, in no way affect our investigation. Undoubtedly he was also acquainted with the “César” of Jacques Grévin (1561). But, whatever the hints as to treatment Pescetti may have received from Muretus,^[10] it is to his minute knowledge of the classic authors that he owes the substance of his drama. He makes a far greater use than do his predecessors of the material later employed by Shakespeare. Very noteworthy is the fact that here we find for the first time in any play on the subject, the Brutus-Portia scene; the suspense occasioned by the suspected discovery of the plot; the panic among the conspirators when Popilius Lena addresses Caesar; the great prominence of the portents.

      The material derived from classical sources and used both by Shakespeare and Pescetti includes the conference between Brutus and Cassius; the respect in which the former was held; his relations to his wife, and her demand to share his confidence; the enthusiasm of the conspirators; their sparing of Antony at Brutus’ request; the prodigies and portents that preceded Caesar’s death; Calpurnia’s dream and her efforts to stay her husband at home and the counter efforts of Decimus Brutus; the warning letter given to Caesar (only mentioned in “Cesare” by the Messenger); all the details of the assassination scene, and Brutus’ speech to the people. Both also make use of personal characteristics mentioned either in Plutarch or in Appian. Thus Antony’s friendship for Caesar, his fondness for revelry, his hold on the soldiers; Brutus’ intense patriotism, his hatred for tyranny, his magnanimity, his disinterestedness, his love of study; the caution of Cassius, his hatred of tyrants; Caesar’s lately acquired superstition and arrogance. These are all derived from the above sources. Pescetti refers to Pompey several times, but he says nothing about the actions of the tribunes, nor about their punishment. Nor is there any mention of the prophecy of danger on the Ides of March; of the offer of the Crown on the Lupercal or on any other occasion; of the anonymous letters sent to Brutus; of the conspirators’ contempt for an oath; of their rejection of Cicero as confederate; of Ligarius; of Artimidorus or his attempted intervention; of Antony’s speech.

      On the other hand Pescetti introduces material either simply hinted at or altogether omitted in Shakespeare and the histories. Such is the account of the conversation between Antony and Caesar, and Caesar’s opinion of death; the pleas used by Decimus Brutus; the various conversations between Portia and Cassius; between the Priest and Calpurnia, and between Caesar and the Priest; the lamentations of Calpurnia. He gives much prominence to the Priest and to Calpurnia’s servant. He founded his choruses on material partly suggested by Lucan, and perhaps by Muretus, Grévin and Garnier.

      While Pescetti drew liberally from Plutarch, yet his indebtedness to Appian is particularly significant for our purpose. There are passages in “Julius Caesar” wherein Shakespeare introduces historical touches which apparently can only be explained upon the supposition that he knew and used the English translation of Appian published in 1578. Owing to the peculiar parallelism often evident in the accounts both of Plutarch and of Appian, and to the absence in “Julius Caesar” of those minutiae necessary to a positive confirmation, the question of Shakespeare’s indebtedness to the Greek historian has remained largely conjectural. Pescetti undoubtedly used Appian, and in his use of the materials, and in the similarity to Shakespeare’s subsequent treatment, the supposition that Appian was the ultimate source of the disputed passages seems to receive its strongest confirmation.

THE INFLUENCE OF APPIAN

       Table of Contents

      The English translation of Appian, by “W. B.,” was published in 1578. This is the work supposedly used by Shakespeare. In his “Julius Caesar” there are four places in which the influence of the historian seems predominant; in a part of the speech of Brutus to the citizens; in the oration of Antony; in the conduct of the conspirators immediately