Pine Bluff daily graphic. (Pine Bluff, Ark.) 1893-1942, 1913-12-03
The characters in Julius Caesar
as Portrayed by Plutaech and
Shakespeare
(By WILLIAM FAVERSHA..


In the light of after historical
research it is very interesting to look
into the characters OF the various
personages that figure in Julius
Caesar" as they were drawn by Plu-
tarch and Shakespeare. AS is very
generally known, Shakespeare was
indebted for practically all the per-
sons as we'll as the plot OF his
Roman drama to the historian Plu-
tarch. In no quarter is the extent
of this influence better demonstrate
ed than in the picture OF Casear him
self which Shakespeare gives. The
Caesar of the play is by no means the
commanding, almost genius-like
figure of history; instead he is a
braggart, a blusterer, an invalid,
petty tryant-and what is more to the
point he is exactly the same sort OF
Caesar which Plutarch gives us in
his famous Lives" In other words,
Shakespeare modelled his Caesar
prekisely after that of Plutarch, and
Plutarch does not give us at all the
Caesar of history for very simple
reason. Plutarch was Grecian who
lived a century after the downfall OF
Rome, and in his writings he tried
to oppose Roman heroes to Grecian.
and always to the disaparagement or
he Romans. Thus his Caesar is
weakling, with none of the sincerity
the magnanimity, the iron-will of the
real Caesar; and Shakespeare, having
Plutarch for his only source of ref
erence naturally enough gives us the
same sort of man.
In the same way Plutarch ana
Shakespeare both paint for us a
| Brutus who is a stole Of almost flaw
| Less nobility. dreamer who dwelis
ever among his books. Aad such IN
fact was the real Brutus. 1t is the
same with the other leading chara-
cters.- accepts them
inst as they stand in Plutarch, and
incudes them intact in his dramatic
scheme, with a single exception.
That is Cassius. If you will COM
pare the Cassius of Plutarch with the
Cassius of Shakespeare, you will find
the latter's is far more crafty, lar
deeper, far more subtle, very much
| wilier william, and by thus intensity
1 Sh2keSnGaTG
very much improves the teaseness OF
the dramatic clash and struggle IN
his nav. and evinces his marvellous
intuitiye sense of dramatic effect.
Another difference that proves
very interesting exists in Shakes
neare's treatment of the multitude,
The mob. Plutarch when he refers to
a Roman crowd does so with defer
snce. for Rome possessed wonderful.
complex, cosmopolitan motley. Not
30 Shakespeare's London, for London
| crowds were low. dirty. very mucn
the dull rabble. So when ne came
to write of mobs, Shakespeare was
4 DllnQeu by luc pIOooAS ~ "AA-
lived, and did not attempt to hide
his contempt for the multitude. Early
in the play, Shakespeare says, speak
ing of the Roman populace that mao
offered Caesar a crowd. "The rabbie-
ment hooted and clapped their hands
and threw up their sweat-nlght-
caps and uttered such a deal OF
sinking breath, that it had almost
checked Caesar" Now when Snakes
peare wrote those lines and num-
Der of others in the play, he saw not
in his minds eye neither Roman
crowd as Plutarch pictures 1t, or a
Roman crowd as it actually was.
instead he saw the London mob OF
his own day, and unconsclousiy
portrayed it as the Roman populace'
which goes to prove that even the
great dramatist was human. Seat
sale starts Wednesday.