PREFACE

This monograph was submitted to the Faculty of New York University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, and was accepted by them in May, 1912. Its composition was prompted chiefly by a desire to call attention to the long forgotten work of Orlando Pescetti, because it is at least an open question whether Shakespeare derived from the “Cesare” of the Italian dramatist many hints which he later used in his own “Julius Caesar.” Pescetti’s drama seems to have been entirely overlooked as a possible source, although the many striking similarities to Shakespeare’s tragedy render it well worth investigating. I believe that the present work is the first attempt to demonstrate the possible relation between the two dramas.

“Cesare” seems to be the only play on the subject which has not been exhaustively examined. The only notices in English with which I am acquainted appeared in letters published in the Nation, June 2 and 9, 1910, while this work was in process of preparation. The first, by Miss Lisi Cipriano, called attention to some marked similarities in expression and treatment between the two dramas. In reply, two letters appeared the following week: one from Professor Harry Morgan Ayres of Columbia University, the other from Professor Henry N. McCracken of Yale. Neither seemed to regard the parallels cited by Miss Cipriano as indicative of direct borrowing on the part of Shakespeare. Professor Ayres had previously in the June, 1910, number of the “American Modern Language Association Publications” been the first to make any mention of Pescetti in relation to Shakespeare. In his article, “Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar in the Light of Some other Versions,” he called attention to some parallels, without, however, attaching to them any particular significance.

The above writers seem, however, to have missed the really vital points of contact between the two dramas. These, I trust, will become sufficiently evident in the following pages.

ivPescetti has been no more fortunate in his Continental critics. The mere mention of his name from Tiraboschi on is all one finds till Emilio Bertana, in his “La tragedia” (1904), gives a brief analysis and critique of the play. Ferdinando Neri, in his “La tragedia italiana nel Cinquecento” (1904) has a brief mention, but none of his countrymen have ever discussed Pescetti’s drama as a possible Shakespearean source. It seems unknown to French and German critics.

Owing to the absence in America of material bearing upon Pescetti, I was compelled to base my study upon a very carefully executed transcript of the 1594 edition of “Cesare” now in the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale of Florence. Through the courtesy of Professor Ayres, I have been enabled carefully to check all quotations by reference to his own copy of the 1594 edition. The references to “Julius Caesar” are to the Globe Edition. The copy of Lydgate referred to is in the Library of Columbia University, while the quotations from Ovid are taken from Golding’s 1575 translation in the Yale University Library. To the latter I am also indebted for the extracts from the 1578 translation of Appian. The references to Plutarch are to Professor Skeats’ edition.

To Mr. Emilio Bruschi of Florence I am indebted for his careful transcriptions of documents, and to Professor Salomone Morpurgo, the head librarian of the Biblioteca Nazionale, for his courtesy in putting the available material contained therein at my disposal. To Professor Harry Morgan Ayres I wish to express my thanks for permitting me to use his copy of “Cesare.” To Professor Theodore F. Jones and Mr. Arthur H. Nason of New York University I owe many valuable suggestions regarding the arrangement of subject matter. My many obligations to Professor M. W. MacCallum’s “Shakespeare’s Roman Plays and their Background,” and to Professor F. H. Sykes’ edition of “Julius Caesar” are in evidence throughout.

I am above all indebted to my colleague, Dr. Edoardo San Giovanni, for his kind help and encouragement, without which this work would probably never have been consummated.

INTRODUCTION

I intend in this monograph to demonstrate the probability of Shakespeare’s indebtedness in the composition of the first three acts of his “Julius Caesar,” to the “Cesare” of Orlando Pescetti, an Italian tragedy on the same theme, first published at Verona in 1594.[1]

This connection has never yet been demonstrated. The work seems almost totally unknown to the English literary world.[2] Shakespearean criticism, eager to investigate the smallest matters in regard to the great poet, is silent on Pescetti. I know of no French or German[3] references. In Italy, Pescetti has received scant notice; few writers have so much as mentioned “Cesare,” while not one has made any suggestion as to a possible connection between this play and “Julius Caesar.”[4]

viiiThe inscription upon the title page of the 1594 edition is as follows:

Pescetti’s work is in quarto, and consists of six pages of dedicatory matter, and one hundred and fifty pages of verse, for the most part hendecasyllabic varied with septenarians. In the tragedy proper there are nearly four thousand lines.

The author in his dedication establishes, to his own satisfaction at least, the descent of the family of Este from the mighty Julius, and ventures the belief that Brutus and Cassius, though they could not abide Caesar’s rule, would rejoice in Alfonso’s. At the end of several pages of this sort of flattery we read: “Di Verona il dì 19 di Febraio 1594. Di V.A.S. Divotiss. et umiliss. Servitore Orlando Pescetti.”

THE PLOT OF “CESARE”

The following is a list of the persons in the drama, called by Pescetti, “Interlocutori.”

The tragedy proper is preceded by a prologue in which Mars, Venus, and Jove are the actors. Pescetti, probably following Ovid’s account in Book XV. of the “Metamorphoses,” represents Venus as bewailing the destined death of Caesar, the last of her earthly descendants. Mars extends his consolation and proffers his aid. She informs him that Jove is responsible, and indulges in a denunciation of the Thunderer that must have made his celestial ears tingle. All further discussion of the matter is terminated by the appearance of the Father of the gods, who reproves Venus for her blasphemous utterances, assures her that his ways are inscrutable, and consoles her by promising Caesar immortality 2among the gods, and the infliction of dire punishment upon his assassins. Venus bows to his will, and impatient Mars hurries at Jove’s command to sow the seeds of civil strife throughout the Roman world.

This Prologue is a literary curiosity. Its style is at times more reminiscent of the madrigal than of tragedy, while the very earthly flavor which clings to the celestial personages is decidedly humorous to the modern reader. Pescetti undoubtedly was in grim earnest when he wrote the Prologue, but many of the sentences he puts in the mouths of his immortals must have made Melpomene smile. The admonition of Venus to Mars on omniscient Jove’s approach, “Ma e’ vien ver noi, tacciam, ch’egli non ci oda,” despite its Renaissance setting, is delightful for its sheer absurdity.

The tragedy follows immediately after this prologue. In view of the extreme length of Pescetti’s work and the lack of interest for our purpose in many of the speeches, I have thought it advisable not to inflict upon the reader an extended synopsis of the plot, but to confine my efforts to the following outline of the story.

Act I

The scene is not stated, but is evidently, throughout the play, an open space before a temple in the vicinity of Caesar’s house. The time is just before dawn. Brutus is discovered apostrophizing the shade of Pompey. He vows to deliver Rome from the tyrant. Cassius overhears him, and commends this resolution. Brutus relates how the ghost of Pompey had appeared to him during the past night and commanded him to restore the ancient liberties. Together, they enter the temple to pray for the success of their enterprise. The Priest now appears, deplores the prevalent irreligion, urges the observance of the ancient rites, and then goes to prepare the sacrifice commanded by the Dictator. Brutus and Cassius reappear and discuss their plans. Cassius strongly favors the killing of Antony along with Caesar. This Brutus will not tolerate, in spite of the many forceful arguments of his fellow conspirator. He abruptly terminates the discussion 3by detailing the manner of Caesar’s murder. As he concludes, Portia enters in search of Brutus. She deplores that her sex

prevents her taking an active part in the conspiracy. She begs to be favored with their confidence. Cassius hesitates, but finally divulges their plans, and beseeches her to aid the enterprise with her prayers. This, rather reluctantly, she promises. Brutus, who has taken no part in this conversation, now bursts into an ecstatic speech wherein, in imagination, he already hears the rejoicing which the news of the tyrant’s death will cause among Rome’s noblest families. He advises Portia to return home while he and Cassius go to join the other conspirators. Portia invokes the blessing of Heaven on them, and the act concludes as the Chorus of Matrons implores the intercession of Romulus to restore to the city its former peace and happiness.

Act II

Calpurnia and her nurse indulge in the inevitable lengthy and tiresome discussion concerning the former’s terrible dream. The ghost of Caesar, horrible with wounds, had appeared to her that night. Almost half the act is devoted to Calpurnia’s expression of grief and to her nurse’s fruitless efforts at consolation. The Chorus declaims the fickleness of mankind, whereupon Brutus and Portia reappear. The former, believing that his wife has wounded herself in some domestic labor, reproves her for turning her hands to such work. She tells him that she has wounded herself to prove that she could commit suicide were her death necessary. She fears that her husband may perish in his attempt against Caesar and has resolved to restrain him. This dialogue, filled with mutual protestations of love and constancy, is terminated by the appearance of Calpurnia, whose perturbed countenance prompts them to overhear her. Calpurnia, in a long and tiresome speech, condemns the desire of men for dominion over others as the cause of all their sufferings. The

nurse interjects the usual advice and consolation. Calpurnia voices her determination to persuade Caesar to abandon his contemplated visit to the Senate. Brutus petitions Jove to 4steel the tyrant’s heart to the appeals of his wife. Portia retires to pray for her husband’s success, while he goes to rejoin Cassius and the others in the plot. The Chorus sings the mutability of human happiness, and the act ends.

Act III

Caesar and Antony indulge in a lengthy dialogue which is started by the observations of the former regarding the banquet at the house of Lepidus the preceding evening. Caesar, ably seconded by Antony, enlarges upon his glories. His companion warns him against treachery, and advises a bodyguard. Caesar scorns those who would harm him, but resolves after this day to be surrounded by some of his trusty veterans. He orders Antony to prepare for the Parthian campaign. Here follows a soliloquy by Antony, in which, in contrast to Calpurnia, he exalts the pleasures of rulership. He intends so to contrive that in the event of Caesar’s death he can seize the reins of government. Hereupon the Priest in the longest speech in the play recites the many and various portents which have lately occurred. As he concludes, Caesar and Calpurnia join him, and another long scene ensues in which Caesar stands firm against all the arguments brought forward to dissuade him. He is resolved to go to the Senate, and the scene is brought to an end by a final warning from the Priest.

The Chorus sings the direful results following the disregard of religion.

Act IV

Brutus and Cassius discuss the probability of a detection of their plot. It seems that Lenate, evidently not of their number, had approached Brutus and whispered his good wishes for the success of their enterprise. Brutus and Cassius engage in a dialogue concerning liberty, but are interrupted by the appearance of Decimus Brutus, who laments the perversity of fortune. It seems that Caesar has yielded to Calpurnia’s entreaties and will stay at home. Worse still, on the morrow he will appear with his bodyguard. Marcus Brutus feels that Jove will yet favor their designs. Caesar 5enters and condemns those as fools who are guided by the advice of women. Nevertheless, as he fears treachery, he has resolved to heed the entreaties of his wife. He indulges in a panegyric of himself. The conspirators now approach, and Marcus Brutus addresses him, inquiring his reasons for not attending the important session of the Senate. Caesar is in doubt as to the manner of his reply. The prayers of his wife, he asserts, have influenced him. Besides, he has reason

to fear treachery. Decimus Brutus, by artfully playing on his vanity, succeeds in overcoming his doubts. Caesar resolves to attend the Senate. Marcus Brutus can hardly find words fit to sing the praises of Jove, who has inspired this determination in the tyrant’s heart. The conspirators indulge in pious prayers and felicitations. Caesar, Calpurnia and Decimus Brutus are the persons in the next scene. Caesar tells Calpurnia that her entreaties are vain; now, as formerly, the gods will protect him. She bows to his will. Decimus, in another useless speech, continues his laudation of Caesar and the belittlement of his fears. Caesar at length starts for the Senate. He is detained by Lenate who addresses him, to the great consternation of the conspirators, who fear the revelation of their plot. Lenate begs a favor of Caesar, which the latter is disposed to grant. The increasing panic of the conspirators is stayed by Brutus, who has watched Lenate and feels confident that he is not talking of the plot. At the conclusion of Lenate’s address

Caesar departs for the Senate, and Lenate joins the conspirators and assures them of his silence. In the concluding scene Calpurnia breaks into lamentations while the Chorus of Ladies of the Court comments upon her distress and beseeches Juno to turn aside her wrath and spare Caesar.

Act V

Brutus addresses the citizens and announces the death of the tyrant. He calls on all to rejoice in their reestablished freedom, while the conspirators shout the glad tidings. This is his last appearance. The rest of the act is devoted to the 6lamentations of Calpurnia, the report of the catastrophe by the First and the Second Messenger, and the comments of the various Choruses.

Pescetti’s tragedy, as will readily be seen from this statement of its plot, is thoroughly Senecan in its construction and perpetuates some of the worst faults of its type. The dramatic unities are strictly observed; there are the same lengthy speeches, the same moralizing, the same absence of action evolved before the spectator, the same lack of life characteristic of this dramatic form. The actors soliloquize, converse, declaim, listen; they do everything but act. Their exits and their entrances constitute the total of visible action. Deeds are carefully excluded, or relegated beyond the stage; the declamatory powers of messengers, the comments of the Chorus, and the speeches and conduct of the actors are relied upon to vitalize them in the imagination of the audience.

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

But the force of convention was too strong for him successfully to resist its insidious influences. Following in the footsteps of his contemporaries, he spins his drama out to some four thousand lines, ninety-nine percent of which are versified prose and the remainder dubiously poetic. Nevertheless, 7compared 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 8Plutarch, 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.