Morena Maglitto

Student ID: 848700

Hero or tyrant? A comparative study on the different significance of the myth of Caesar in
Shakespeare's Julius Caesar and Forzano's Cesare.

1. Introduction.
I personally find very fascinating the ability of a story to be told and retold a potential
endless amount of times, remaining substantially the same and yet appearing so very different every
single time. This impresses me every time I watch a performance of Shakespeare's plays, for
example. On stage or in film adaptations, in English or translated in Italian, every new production
of the Bard's work is fascinating in the way it tells me more about its own times than about
Shakespeare himself.
I was therefore immediately drawn by the project of reading and comparing two very
different plays on Julius Caesar. One is the very famous Shakespeare's drama, the other an almost
forgotten text by Italian playwright Giovacchino Forzano known (probably only by academics) to
be a collaboration with Benito Mussolini, the infamous Fascist dictator.
The juxtaposition of two such works naturally raised a few questions, especially about the
different reasons behind the choice of Caesar as a subject for a play. My belief that the two authors
shared little in terms of political and cultural context was proved wrong by the preparatory work for
this short study and yet enormous differences are to be found in the two texts. History will be
therefore the starting point in the discussion on how the figure of Caesar was relevant for the two
playwrights and to what purpose they used Caesar's myth.
The essay will focus more on Forzano's Cesare rather than on Shakespeare's Julius Caesar.
The simple reason for that is that Shakespeare needs no introduction, being one of the most famous
playwright in world literature. On the contrary, Forzanos play is quite unknown in Italy as in the
rest of the world. Julius Caesar is still performed in theatres around the globe and various film
adaptations are still made from it. Forzano's work, instead, was surely affected by the end of the
Fascist regime after WW2 but that may not be the only reason for his eventual fall into oblivion. As
we shall see, the artistic qualities of the play are heavily weighed down by its blatant propaganda
purposes.
This short comparative study will thus first deal with Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. It will
describe the relevance of the figure of Caesar in Queen Elizabeth's times and then move on to focus
on the theme of tyranny. A second chapter will introduce Forzanos collaboration with Mussolini.
Afterwards, some of the features Fascism shared with the ancient Roman era will be investigated to
explain how the so-called myth of romanit worked in favour of the regime. Finally, the last part of
this essay will present the reader with a more direct examination of the two plays in order to find in
the texts some evidences of the clear-cut different attitudes on Julius Caesar the plays express.

Morena Maglitto

Student ID: 848700

2. Shakespeare's Julius Caesar: the figure of Caesar in Elizabethan England.

Shakespeare's Julius Caesar is generally considered the first play ever to be staged at the
newly-built Globe theatre in 1599. To open the company's playhouse with a play on Julius Caesar
was far from a random choice. The tale of the assassination of the great Roman statesman is
probably the single best-known story from the pagan ancient world1 and thus it should have
looked perfect as the opening show.
In the last years of the XVI Century Shakespeare chose to rewrite for the stage many
renowned stories. The stories of King Henry V and Prince Hamlet, for example, were commonly
known at the time, even by less refined audiences. Retelling the events of the Ides of March was
thus perfectly fitting in the Bards production of the time. However, it could also have been an
exciting challenge for the playwright as the audience would have come to the playhouse not to find
out how the story develops but to see how the poet himself has interpreted such renowned material2.
These may not have been the only reasons behind Shakespeares choice. Caesarian
references were frequent in Elizabethan England3. It was common, for example, to draw a
comparison between the Republican civil wars in Rome and the long War of the Roses as both of
them ended in a long stretch of peace embodied in a strong monarch. Shakespeare depicted the
fights for the English throne during the War of the Roses in the so-called History Plays4 and it may
be no coincidence that Julius Caesar was written immediately afterwards. Moreover, the figure of
Caesar and the tale of the plot against him often recurred in the intellectual and political debate on
tyranny, as we shall see in the next paragraph.
2.1. The tyrannicide debate.
When Julius Caesar was being written, there was in England, and associated with Caesar, a sharp
political awareness that it was possible to challenge rigidity of rule: a rigidity probably extending to
tyranny; a challenge possibly extending to conspiracy leading to rebellion. These possibilities were
discussed in the 1590s more widely by way of the death of Richard II as a victim of tyranny, and
Caesar's assassination out of a fear of tyranny.5

David Daniell, 'Introduction', in Julius Caesar, London, Bloomsbury Arden Shakespeare (third edition), 1998, p. 9.
op. cit., pp. 9 10.
3
It may be interesting to note, for example, that a very concrete occurrence made Caesar a subject of everyday life
conversation in XVI Century England. Just like Caesar did in 46BC, in 1582 the Pope had to change the calendar as
the Julian one had gone out of phase. While the Catholics serenely accepted the change, Protestant countries did not
want to leave the Julian calendar aside, it being the one of Christ's life and revelation.
The change of the calendar has interesting relevance in the play itself, especially connected with the broader theme
of time. Unfortunately, this is not the right place to go into further details but David Daniell's introduction to the
Arden Shakespeare edition of Julius Caesar (1998) gives interesting information on the matter (pp. 19 22).
4
The term 'History Plays' or 'histories' is generally understood to be referred to the collection of two Shakespearean
tetralogies: Henry VI part I, part II and part III (1591) and Richard III (1592) on one hand and Richard II (1595),
Henry IV part I (1597) and part II (1598) and Henry V (1599) on the other.
5
op. cit., p. 22.
2

Morena Maglitto

Student ID: 848700

Starting from the XIV Century, the debate about tyranny and tyrannicide spread throughout
Europe, usually related to the figure of Caesar. New commentaries on his death were in fact
produced and new political theories were born as classical history was studied anew. In England,
Caesar stood beside King Richard II. In the last years of XVI Century rebellious purposes
(culminating in the Essex Rebellion of 1601) were concealed under not-so-innocent debates on the
morality of the deposition and eventual murder of King Richard II. Generally considered the victim
of tyranny, Richard II had been deposed because of his bad administration of the reign and
subsequently killed. In 1594 Jesuit Robert Parson overturned the general understanding of this
figure and drew a comparison between King Richard II and Queen Elizabeth, concluding that
Richard II had been justly deposed, and thus it would be just to remove Elizabeth6.
The comparison between Queen Elizabeth and Caesar was even more significant. In the last
years of her reign, the Queen's main concern was to control the way she was perceived by her
people. She wanted to be considered immortal, a legendary beauty, ageless and unfading 7. She
had herself pictured as a god-like figure that is thus beyond judgment and criticism. Such a
progression is to be found in tales of Caesar's life too. Like Queen Elizabeth, Caesars attitude
towards power was that of picturing himself like a god, without any mortal flaw that could affect his
government.
By the end of the XVI Century the possibility of a rebellion against Queen Elizabeth became
significantly concrete. English Catholics had been trying to depose the Queen for years but the
attempts to replace or even kill Elizabeth found official legitimization in the excommunication of
1570. The aforementioned Essex rebellion was however not spurred by any religious reason; the
young Earl of Essex's attempt to overthrow the Queen was in fact mainly a matter of political (and
somewhat personal) influence. Nevertheless, the rebellion is just another example of how
widespread the hostility towards Queen Elizabeth was in the last years of her reign. Moreover, it is
also another obvious similarity between the Queen and Caesar.

A final remark might be needed at this point. Despite the historical and political significance
of the figure of Caesar, it is however preposterous to look for answers about Shakespeare's personal
stand in this play. Such an approach is always based on the wrong assumption that we can infer the
author's mind from his work. Any real answer is more often than not impossible to be found and
especially in such a case as the one of Julius Caesar. Ambiguity, ambivalence and doubt are at the
kernel of the drama of Caesar. David Daniell is right in stating that Caesar did, and did not,

6
7

op. cit., p. 29.

Strong, 19, quoted in op. cit., p. 26

Morena Maglitto

Student ID: 848700

deserve to die. Brutus [] is, and is not, the tragic hero8. As it often happens in Shakespeare, by
the end of the play the audience is left with many unresolved questions rather than any answer at
all.

3. Forzano and Mussolini: the myth of Caesar in Fascist Italy.

Cesare was first performed in Rome at the Teatro Argentina on April 29th 1939. A month
later it made its debut in Milan at the Teatro La Scala, the most famous opera house in Italy. Never
before a prose play had been performed at La Scala and on the opening night Cesare was already
sold out9.
It may be surprising that a prose play was granted the honour to be played on the stage of
the revered opera theatre but several reasons might be given for this. One explanation could be
found in Forzano's earlier career. Up to 1930 he had worked as a librettist for famous composers
such as Puccini and Mascagni and had shared with Toscanini the role of the artistic director of La
Scala for almost ten years. He was therefore still very renowned in the opera environment at the
time of the production of Cesare. However, what most probably gained him the special permission
to perform at La Scala was his acquaintance with the most powerful man of his times, Benito
Mussolini.
Forzano had already worked twice with Mussolini before Cesare, that was actually his last
collaboration with the head of the Fascist party and government. These collaborations always
followed the same pattern, i.e. Mussolini asked the playwright to write on a specific topic,
providing him with some annotations meant to be a starting point for writing. Sometimes the Duce
also attempted to write a few scenes that were generally altered by Forzano or altogether cut from
the final product. According to what Forzano states in the introduction of the collective volume of
the three collaborative plays, Mussolini was much aware of this process and even encouraged it. I
imagined [it] but only you can write [it]. You only are greatly endowed with the genius the Theatre
needs. The genius that makes characters move and talk and makes events happen10 he wrote in a
letter to the playwright.
Thus in 1929 Forzano wrote Campo di Maggio, a play on the last days of Napoleon inspired
by Mussolini's readings of Emil Ludwig's famous biography of the French Emperor. After its
successful tour of theatres throughout Italy and Europe, a new collaboration produced Villafranca
8

Daniell, 'Introduction', p. 2. (My emphasis.)

Jane Dunnet, 'The Rhetoric of Romanit: Representations of Caesar in Fascist Theatre', in Julius Caesar in Western
Culture (edited by Maria Wyke), Oxford, Blackwell Publishing, 2006, p. 257 (and footnote 64 p. 264).
10
My translation of the Italian: Io li ho pensati, ma solo voi potere scriverli, perch solo voi possedete in alta misura
lingegno che il Teatro richiede: quello che fa muovere i personaggi, li fa parlare, fa succedere delle cose. as
quoted in Giovacchino Forzano, 'La mia collaborazione teatrale con Benito Mussolini', in Mussolini Autore
Drammatico. Campo di Maggio,Villafranca, Cesare., Firenze, Editrice Barbra, 1954, p. XXIII.
9

Morena Maglitto

Student ID: 848700

(1932), a play on the Italian politician Camillo Benso, Count of Cavour11. Two years later,
Villafranca was turned into a film directed by Forzano himself and in 1935 Campo di Maggio too
became a film. The project of turning the successful Cesare into a film was unfortunately put to a
halt by the outburst of WW2.

3.1. Fascist Italy and the myth of romanit.

Fascism constructed part of its identity on the relationship with the ancient Roman era. To
the average Italian, the Roman age still equals to prosperity, cultural authority and political
supremacy, namely one of the few times (possibly the Renaissance would add to the count too)
when Italy was proudly at the top of the world. This applied to Fascist Italy as well. Roman history
was always present in the background and was considered a direct and privileged heritage of
Italy12, Jan Nelis rightly states.
Fascism strived to mend the broken link with this mythical past by stressing the roman-nes
(romanit) of modern Italy. Reinvented by Fascism, romanit had become a quasi-mystical
concept, intended to suggest a quality or an essence that encapsulated those values bestowed upon
the modern world by ancient Rome13. Romanit was thus considered the expression of a new,
modern Italy, finally aware of its glorious past and ready to seize its rightful place in the world.
This reevocation of the past was intended to serve as a spur for the future, a challenge [] to
surpass the achievements of their celebrated ancestors14 explains Dunnet.
In such a vision, actual historical facts were not essential. Mussolini himself is now known
to have had an oversimplified knowledge of Roman history as Nelis acknowledges: He thought of
history in largely mythical terms [...]15. References to classical history were mainly part of the
propaganda agenda and more often than not were conveniently altered or construed. After WW1, a
feeling of helpless uncertainty spread and affected even aspects of everyday life. People all over the
world looked for guidance and needed simple, clear-cut histories to start building their futures
anew16. In many ways, the Fascist myth of romanit worked as an answer to this need.

11

On a side note, it might be interesting to focus the attention of the reader on the fact that all the dramas Mussolini
asked Forzano to write were about the last days of some very iconic figures, two of them specifically part of the
Italian history. Why did Mussolini choose to portray the ending moments of these men's lives (both politically and
in some cases physically) may be very interesting to discuss (and can be somehow connected with the idea of myth
discussed in the next chapter) but this is unfortunately not the place to do it.
12
Jan Nelis, Constructing Fascist Identity: Benito Mussolini and the Myth of "Romanit", The Classical World, Vol.
100, No. 4 (Summer, 2007), p. 396.
13
Dunnet, op. cit., p. 246.
14
Ibidem.
15
Nelis, op. cit., p. 396.
16
op. cit., pp. 395-396

Morena Maglitto

Student ID: 848700

3.2. Mussolini's identification with Caesar.

Even though historical truths were not deemed essential to the aims of the regime, once the
Fascist party reached top of government Mussolini's proudly proclaimed identification with Caesar
started to be challenged and a much more proper comparison with Augustus, the first Roman
Emperor, was introduced. It was Augustus who in fact founded the Roman Empire and held power
for over forty years; his reign finally brought about a well-desired peace after the civil war started
with the death of Caesar. This long peace, the so-called Pax Augustea, lasted almost two centuries.
Such a comparison would have been way more flattering than the one with Caesar, a man of
great valour in war and politics but also a very ambivalent figure (as the aforementioned centurieslong debate on his assassination shows). Also the Fascist propaganda office thought the relationship
with Augustus to be worthy of attention and dedication. In 1937 and 1938, on the occasion of the
thousandth anniversary of the birth of the Roman Empire, a beautiful exhibition took place in Rome
to celebrate the figure of the great emperor Augustus. [...] with Fascism having shifted from being
an insurgent, revolutionary doctrine to an established institution, the revolutionary Caesar was
officially supplanted by Augustus, the masterbuilder and the man of peace and stability17.
Despite the official shift in interests, Mussolini continued to nurture his own personal
fascination with Caesar. If we consider his writing, writes Nelis, it is not Augustus, but Julius
Caesar, who is mentioned over and over as an exemplum and a forerunner of Fascist activism 18.
Mussolini liked to be considered The New Caesar19; he strived to recreate in himself the myth of
Caesar, a great man of military strength, a dreaded strategist, a man of arts, a beloved statesman. I
love Caesar, Mussolini asserted in a famous interview with German author Emil Ludwig,
He was the only one who united in himself the will of the warrior and the genius of the wise man. In
the end, he was a philosopher, who contemplated everything sub specie aeternitatis. Yes, he loved
glory, but his pride didn't divide him from humanity.20

As we shall see in the next paragraph, it may be out of such a strong desire for identification that
Giovacchino Forzano's (and Mussolini's) Cesare was born.

17

op. cit., p. 406

Ibidem.
19
Interestingly, the connection between the figure of the Duce and Caesar was very much alive into the minds of the
foreign media too. Mussolini was known as the Sawdust Caesar abroad, thanks to a very famous study by Geroge
Seldes where the dictator is first given the nickname. (Jane Dunnet, 251) Such a nickname stayed with him until the
very end, as it can be seen by watching the American news program announcing his death in 1945. Bombastic
Mussolini, the "Sawdust Caesar", the announcer said, comes to his end in the gutter [...]
(https://archive.org/details/CEP528)
20
Original text: Io amo Cesare. Egli solo riuniva in s la volont del guerriero con l'ingegno del saggio. In fondo era
un filosofo, che contemplava tutto sub specie aeternitatis. S, egli amava la gloria, ma il suo orgoglio non lo
divideva dalla umanit. in Emil Ludwig, Colloqui con Mussolini, Mondadori, 2000, p. 47-48. The English
translation can be found in Nelis, op. cit., p. 4 .
18

Morena Maglitto

Student ID: 848700

4. Hero or tyrant? The language of Caesar in Shakespeare and Forzano.

The reader will immediately notice, if ever he embarks in the reading of Forzano's Cesare,
that the Italian plays is completely different from Shakespeare's one. As Jane Dunnet affirms,
Forzano appears to have done his utmost to ensure that Cesare was not compared with
Shakespeare's Julius Caesar.21 Cesare is divided in three acts, each of which describes a different
historical episode of Caesar's life: the first one deals with the civil war against Pompey and the
Senate and the famous decision Caesar took of crossing the Rubicon armed to march on Rome; the
second act tells the story of Pompey's death in Egypt and Caesar's encounter with Cleopatra; the last
act is the one that contains the actual assassination of the hero, even though the assassination itself
is not shown (as it is in Shakespeare) but only related at the very end of the play. Most of these
episodes of the life of Caesar are not even mentioned by Shakespeare and the common events (the
conspiracy and the murder of Caesar) are portrayed so differently that is almost impossible to
compare them.
There is no proper emphasis on the conspirators either, especially in Brutuss case. In
Forzanos play, Brutus is portrayed as a weak figure lead into mischief by his insane wife and the
wicked republican faction. He is never given the chance to take the centre of the stage in the play ,
as the powerful speeches to the crowd after the assassination that are so poignant in Shakespeare are
completely missing in Forzano. Almost the same may be said about Cassius, Antony and all the
other supporting roles.
It is therefore almost inevitable to focus the attention on the comparison between the figure
of Caesar only in the two plays as it is the one thing they surely have in common.

4.1 How the character of Caesar is portrayed: theatricality of politics versus propaganda.
One of the more distinctive traits of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar is ambivalence. Both
Caesar himself and his main opponent Brutus are characterized by a very ambivalent and
ambiguous behaviour. I will deal very briefly with Brutus here, as it is much more pertinent to this
essay to focus on the character of Caesar only, but Brutuss example might help to understand how
ambivalence permeates the whole drama.
Brutus is portrayed as a very rational man whose first concern is the safety of democracy.
Despite his strong commitment to such a high ideal, he is profoundly tormented by doubt and is
often found wondering whether it is really necessary to kill Caesar, a man whom he personally
loves very much, in order to protect the freedom of his people. O that we then could come by the
spirit of Caesar / And not dismember Caesar! But, alas, / Caesar must bleed for it. he says in

21

Dunnet, op. cit., p. 259.

Morena Maglitto

Student ID: 848700

2.1.170-17222. In the end, Brutus seems to put aside any doubt to fully embrace the cause of the
conspirators. From this point onwards, he seems never to falter again. He firmly believes in his own
rational decision that Caesar must die and strongly asserts it in the speech he gives at the people of
Rome following Caesars assassination. Yet Brutuss last words in the play are for the Caesar to
express once again the love he always bore towards his countryman. Caesar, now be still. / I kill
not thee with half so good a will. 5.5.51-52) he utters before killing himself.
However, the most ambivalent figure in the play is probably Caesar. From his first
appearance on stage to the scene of his murder, the character of Caesar shows various signs of the
two different natures that coexist in him, i.e. the man and the politician.
The first lines uttered by Caesar, for example, concern a very personal matter as he asks
Antony, who is about to run in the ritual Lupercalia fertility race, to touch his barren wife
Calpurnia. The first impression we are given of Caesar is thus that of a superstitious man concerned
about succession. In turning to his other companions, however, he immediately takes the attitude of
the statesman. The change is fairly radical and quite recognizable. In his official role, in fact, Caesar
often uses the third person to talk about himself, displaying a remarkable degree of self-assurance
and sometimes verging on blasphemy.
Yet in 2.2. Caesar has to strive not to look worried by Calpurnia's dreadful dreams of the
night before. He needs to convince his wife as well as his own superstitious self that Caesar the
politician and Caesar the warrior will not and cannot be scared of mere dreams and superstition.
Caesar should be a beast without a heart / If he should stay at home today for fear. / No, Caesar
shall not. Danger knows full well / That Caesar is more dangerous than he. 2.2.42-45.) he
proclaims. Nevertheless, he eventually yields to Calpurnias desire for him not to go out for the day.
When Decius appears on stage to bring him to the Capitol, Caesar is positively resolute in his
refusal to go. And tell them that I will not come today. / Cannot, is false; and that I dare not, falser.
/ I will not come today - tell them so, Decius. 2.2. 2-64) In the end, it is only Decius' ingenious
ability of flattering him that makes the whole conspiracy against Caesar possible.
It is also noteworthy that Shakespeare inserted in the description of Caesar very precise
references to some of his physical flaws. It is Caesar himself who first mentions one of these flaws
in 1.2.213, when he asks Antony to move on his right side for this ear is deaf. Nevertheless, the
most interesting of such references should be the one about epilepsy in Act 1. The Bard was
inspired by a renowned episode in the life of Caesar he took from Plutarch, his main source. After
the aforementioned Lupercalia race in 1.2., Caesar is offered the crown two times by Antony,
refusing it every time. Yet events are not presented directly in the play. The action takes place
22

All the quotes from Julius Caesar will be given with the usual reference to act, scene and line(s). The actual edition
used as work material for this short essay is the Italian (provided with parallel original text) Giulio Cesare (edited by
Alessandro Serpieri), Milano, Garzanti, 2006.

Morena Maglitto

Student ID: 848700

outside the space of the stage and the audience is told afterwards by Cinna, who reports to Brutus
and Cassius that Caesar suddenly swooned after a third refusal and fell on the ground senseless.
Brutus gives reason to this swooning simply stating that he hath the falling sickness. 1.2.252 It
is then Cinna who very perspicaciously implies that this sickness might have hit Caesar as a
response to strong self-deprivation of a big desire.

The fact that Shakespeare presents both aspects of Caesar's character makes it possible to
consider him as a rounded figure, a whole man. Despite the little number of lines23, Shakespeare's
Caesar is felt by the audience and the readers as a complex figure. Forzano's Caesar, instead,
completely lacks the tangible ambiguity that makes the Bard's character so remarkably fragile and
human. Jane Dunnet is quite right when stating that [Forzano] is clearly less interested in the
dramatic potential of the story than in its potential as propaganda24. In his Cesare, in fact, there is
not enough room for any other character but Caesar and it is almost impossible not to think of the
Duce while reading or seeing the play. From the very beginning Forzano works on making the
analogy clear to the audience as he devotes the entirety of act I to the episode of the March on
Rome. Not at all mentioned in Shakespeares drama, this event was on the contrary heavily
advertised by Fascist propaganda.
The desired identification of Mussolini with Caesar is self-evident and various examples of
it can be found throughout the text. In 3.125, for instance, an inscribed medallion can be clearly seen
at the very centre of the stage before the beginning of the actual scene reading Julius Caesar supreme commander - perpetual dictator - Father of the Nation26. Were the audience to change the
name into Mussolinis, this inscription would not be less truthful. A few lines into the scene,
another direct reference to the Duce is made. Cicero is talking to another fellow member of the
Senate about Caesar when he utters They say he wants to drain the Pontine Marshes...27. Once
again the audience could not miss the hint; 1939 finally saw the conclusion of the great land
reclamation works on the very same marshlands undertook by the Fascist government almost two
decades before.

23

Shakespeare's Caesar dies before the half of the play is even reached, in 3.1. In all the play he has a total of 135 lines,
against the 728 of Brutus, 525 of Cassius and 329 of Antony.
(https://sites.google.com/a/shakespearelinecount.com/www/juliuscaesar-characters , 20/08/14)
24
Dunnet, op. cit., p. 259.
25
Forzanos play is divided in atti and quadri. On account of the similar function, I will refer to them as acts and scenes
and will therefore maintain the same quoting method used with Julius Caesar.
26
Original text: Giulio Cesare - capitano supremo - dittatore perpetuo - Padre della Patria. in Giovacchino Forzano,
'Cesare', in Mussolini Autore Drammatico. Campo di Maggio,Villafranca, Cesare., Firenze, Editrice Barbra, 1954, p.
475. All the translations from Forzanos text are mine.
27
Original text: Si dice voglia prosciugare le Paludi Pontine... in Forzano, op. cit., p. 485.

Morena Maglitto

Student ID: 848700

A further example might be interesting to take into account. More than once in Forzanos
play, Caesar shows or is shown to be pursuing a clear and ambitious goal, i.e. to unify all the people
of the world under the peaceful government of Rome. The Roman Empire he thinks of is in no way
a coercive regime. While talking with Brutus in 2.1, Caesar betrays his deep contempt for those
member of the Senate whose aim is to forcefully rule on all the provinces of the Empire.
Do you really think that, when [] Rome will rule on the West, five hundreds or a thousand noble
men will still be able to be tyrants to the world and the roman people as they do think now? And
Rome will be the tyrant of the conquered provinces?28

In 3.1. Varro explains Caesars idea even more clearly.

He is creating a new world and maybe even a new religion. For our Gods are indifferent and they
never taught us that the people of the world could live in peace, as citizens of the great empire of the
world blessed in the roman sun.29

In the introduction to the volume of his collaborations with the Duce, Forzano recalls an interesting
conversation the two of them had on a similar topic when works on Campo di Maggio had barely
started. When the playwright asked Mussolini to explain why he chose the last days of Napoleon as
the topic of the play, the Duce replied that he was drawn by the idea of exploring Napoleons
project of the United States of Europe. Mussolini then added that every politician naturally aims to
such a goal, including himself. Such a goal is to be found in Cesare too, as Varros quote showed.
Varros figure is exemplary of the role of secondary characters in Cesare. Supporting
characters seem not to have any independence of their own in the play and Caesars presence is
pivotal to their very existence on stage. Their role is in fact reduced to a mere commentary of
Ceasars many qualities on the one hand, or to fairly stereotypical counterparts for his greatness on
the other. Interactions with these two sorts of characters shape the picture of Caesar the audience is
given. Caesar is portrayed almost as a saint, a mythological hero who blesses the people of Rome
and the entire world with his actions and words. He is more often presented as an intellectual man
than as a warrior (in the play, he shows his ability in speaking Greek, to commenting on music and
writing poems) and when on the battlefield, he is always prone to forgive. Everyone loves him and
who does not is blatantly depicted as a wicked man.
Such a description of Caesar is perfectly consistent with what Jane Dunnet states about the
play, namely that Cesare was conceived as a vehicle for the regime's self-aggrandizement30. No
other reason could explain the deliberate neglecting of some major and well-known features of the

28

Original text: Veramente tu pensi che, quando [...] Roma avr l'impero del mondo di Occidente, tu puoi pensare che
cinquecento o mille nobili potranno essere ancora i tiranni del mondo e del popolo romano come costoro pensano? E
Roma la tiranna delle provincie conquistate? in Forzano, op. cit., p. 416.
29
Original text: E' un mondo nuovo che egli crea, e forse una religione nuova, perch i nostri Numi sono tutti pi aridi
e non ci hanno mai insegnato che le genti del mondo potrebbero operare in pace, cittadini del grande impero del mondo,
illuminato dal sole di Roma. in Forzano, op. cit., p. 481.
30
Dunnet, op. cit., p. 259.

Morena Maglitto

Student ID: 848700

Caesarian myth nor, maybe, the overlooking of such a renowned and valuable predecessor as
Shakespeares Julius Caesar.

5. Conclusions.
The goal of this short comparative study was to underline the major differences in terms of
significance in the figure of Caesar in Shakespeares Julius Caesar and Forzanos Cesare. While
Julius Caesar is unclear in its message with ambiguity playing a key role in the drama, there is no
such uncertainty of interpretation in Cesare. Forzano's drama is evidently a propaganda play in
which his representation of Cesare/Mussolini is hagiographic to the point of being grotesque31.
Despite some undeniable analogies in the political environment experienced both by
Shakespeare and Forzano, the two playwrights managed to tackle the same subject with two rather
distant (if not opposite) approaches. I think that such a difference is positively linked to the
contrasting afterlife the two plays have then experienced. No matter what literary valour Forzanos
Cesare might have, propaganda purposes are so evident and overwhelming in the play that the
audience (or at least a modern one) is left with the vague unpleasant feeling of having lived through
some kind of brainwashing.

31

Dunnet, op. cit., p. 261.

Morena Maglitto

Student ID: 848700

Bibliography:
William Shakespeare, Giulio Cesare (edited by Alessandro Serpieri), Milano, Garzanti,
2006.
Giovacchino Forzano, 'Cesare', in Mussolini Autore Drammatico.
Maggio,Villafranca, Cesare., Firenze, Editrice Barbra, 1954, pp. 323 512.

Campo

di

David Daniell, 'Introduction', in Julius Caesar, London, Bloomsbury Arden Shakespeare

(third edition), 1998, pp. 1 147.
Jane Dunnet, 'The Rhetoric of Romanit: Representations of Caesar in Fascist Theatre', in
Julius Caesar in Western Culture (edited by Maria Wyke), Oxford, Blackwell Publishing, 2006, pp.
244 265.
Giovacchino Forzano, 'La mia collaborazione teatrale con Benito Mussolini', in Mussolini
Autore Drammatico. Campo di Maggio,Villafranca, Cesare., Firenze, Editrice Barbra, 1954, pp. V
XLIII.
Jan Nelis, 'Constructing Fascist Identity: Benito Mussolini and the Myth of Romanit', in
The Classical World, Vol. 100, No. 4 (Summer, 2007), The John Hopkins University Press, 2007,
pp. 391 415.
Websites:
https://sites.google.com/a/shakespearelinecount.com/www/juliuscaesar-characters (20/08/14).
https://archive.org/details/CEP528 (05/10/14).