And common good to all, made one of them.”—J. C., V., v, 71.
It is certainly significant, that with a wealth of material to draw upon, both Pescetti and Shakespeare should, in regard to Brutus, treat the available sources in a manner so similar. Pescetti excludes much historical matter which he might have employed; Shakespeare makes practically the same exclusions. Thus the histories contained sufficient data upon which to found a formidable indictment against Caesar, but both chose to overlook them and to found the conspirators’ cause on comparatively insignificant accusations. In both dramas, certain phases of Brutus’ character are emphasized to the exclusion of others. Much is said of his virtues: nothing, not even by his enemies, of his vices. In their inclusions, a similar parallelism exists between the two dramatists. Pescetti, with a keen perception of the dramatic value of that phase of Brutus’ character, assigns to his mistaken idealism in sparing Antony, a far more significant position in the development of his tragedy than did his predecessors.[[117]] Here we get an individual treatment of this dramatic crux which has a striking similarity to that in Shakespeare. It leaves us with the same conception of Brutus’ practical failings, with the same misgivings which we experience in the work of his great contemporary.[[118]] Unlike Muretus and Grévin, Pescetti does not overlook the importance of the Popilius Lena incident, and by his treatment he introduces an element of suspense which Shakespeare could well use to advantage. Though both dramatists used practically the same source, Pescetti’s individual touches seem reflected in Shakespeare’s handling of this episode. Again, unlike his predecessors, Pescetti was fully alive to the value of the Brutus-Portia scenes, and reveals Brutus in his domestic relations very much as Shakespeare does some ten years later.[[119]] Finally, in both dramas the protagonist is but a pawn moved by invisible powers, pursuing his fated way against an ominous and supernatural background. In both tragedies, destiny has its ghostly precursors; in the one to arouse the hero to action, in the other, to herald his doom.
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