A Probable Italian Source of Shakespeare's "Julius Cæsar" — Story, Setting & Ideas

Pescetti's Overlooked Drama

Boecker emphasizes that Cesare had been "entirely overlooked as a possible source" before his work. He cites two 1910 letters in The Nation—by Lisi Cipriano and responses from Professors Harry Morgan Ayres and Henry N. McCracken—as the only English-language notices. Ayres had earlier mentioned Pescetti in a 1910 article but attached "no particular significance" to the parallels. Boecker asserts that these critics "missed the really vital points of contact." The thesis thus fills a gap by systematically comparing the two plays' structures and characterizations.

The Chorus and the Idealized Brutus

Boecker observes that Pescetti's admiration for Brutus is so strong that he speaks through the Chorus of Citizens "in his own person, apparently forgetting in his enthusiasm that he has assigned the words to the Chorus." This partiality, Boecker argues, could not have been lost on Shakespeare. Both dramatists eliminate unfavorable details about Brutus—his divorce, rivalry with Cassius, and obligations to Caesar—to present him as morally immaculate. Boecker notes that Pescetti's Brutus, from his first speech, is "torn by no doubts" and bent on destroying the tyrant, resembling Shakespeare's Brutus after the famous soliloquy.

Monarchy and Futility

The thesis highlights how both plays grapple with the theme of resistance to monarchical power. Boecker points to Pescetti's Nurse defending kings as "vicars of highest Jove" and the play's closing lines emphasizing the futility of fighting established order: "this world is a perpetual war." He suggests that Shakespeare may have been influenced by contemporary events like the Essex rebellion, but notes that both dramatists may have simply dramatized history without conscious political allegory. Nevertheless, by depicting Brutus as noble and Caesar as weak and tyrannous, both plays present the problem in its "most elemental and most emphatic statement."

Structural and Thematic Parallels

Boecker identifies close parallels in the structure of the two plays, particularly in the treatment of Caesar's assassination and its aftermath. He argues that Pescetti's Cesare is the only play on the subject that had not been exhaustively examined before his study. The thesis systematically compares scenes, character interactions, and rhetorical choices, though the excerpts provided focus mainly on Brutus's characterization. Boecker's method relies on textual evidence from both plays, aiming to demonstrate that Shakespeare borrowed not just isolated hints but a coherent dramatic framework from Pescetti.

Boecker's thesis offers a focused argument for a specific source relationship, grounded in close reading of both plays. Readers interested in Shakespeare's sources or Renaissance drama will find a detailed case for Pescetti's influence, supported by structural and characterological evidence. The work remains a specialized contribution to source studies, notable for its early attention to a neglected Italian play.

Reading this 1913 thesis, I kept noticing how its author traced borrowed lines and reshaped scenes across centuries—patient detective work on influence. It made me think of A Parody on Iolanthe — Inside the Classic, where homage wears a lighter mask. Both feel like conversations with older works, not thefts, just gentle echoes across different rooms of the same house.