Shakespeare's representation of Julius Caesar differs notably from those of his contemporaries, as well as from the picture of Caesar that emerges from his most obvious classical source, Plutarch's Lives. Plutarch's Caesar is shrewd, resilient, and relatively dignified; Shakespeare's, in contrast, is physically weak and surprisingly obtuse, prey to laughable grandiosity. Other early modern authors such as Marc-Antoine Muret and William Alexander model their versions of Caesar on Seneca's Hercules as well as Plutarch's biography. Shakespeare, however, seems to draw inspiration for his departure from Plutarch from the conventional depiction of Julius Caesar's successor Augustus, as well as other tyrants such as Herod the Great, in medieval English mystery plays. Over the course of these pageants depicting Christian salvation history, protagonists such as Moses and Isaac set up a typology of Christ. (1) Meanwhile, however, secular antagonists such as the Pharaoh of Egypt establish a contrary pattern: a typology of Antichrist. Like Lucifer, as well as Antichrist himself, "Caesar" in the mystery plays is typecast as a blustering, comically inadequate parody of Godhead. Vaunting speeches proclaiming his supreme worldly might echo the language of God the Father. These boasts are then belied, however, by his inability to forestall the coming of Christ, whom he fears as a potential political rival. Mystery plays, naturally enough, tend to focus on Augustus Caesar, emperor of Rome at the time of Christ's Nativity. (2) Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, however, stands in the same medieval tradition. As a type of Antichrist, he is a foil for the future Christ. His failure sets the stage for a different and paradoxically more powerful Messiah. The Problem of the "Two Caesars" In the nineteenth century, Shakespeare's representation of Caesar as a self-important blowhard met with cries of critical dismay. (3) William Hazlitt complains, "We do not much admire the representation given here of Julius Caesar, nor do we think it answers to the portrait of him in his commentaries. He makes several vapouring and rather pedantic speeches, and does nothing." (4) George Bernard Shaw is less restrained: "It is impossible for even the most judicially minded critic to look without a revulsion of indignant contempt at this travestying of a great man as a silly braggart." (5) James Boswell, son of the famous biographer, saw the problem as evidence of Shakespeare's proverbial "small Latin and less Greek." (6) Citing Caesar's own Gallic Wars, Boswell writes, "There cannot be a stronger proof of Shakespeare's deficiency in classical knowledge, than the boastful language he has put in the mouth of the most accomplished man of all antiquity, who was not more admirable for his achievements, than for the dignified simplicity with which he has recorded them." (7) By the twentieth century, the problem of the "two Caesars" was well-established. (8) G. Wilson Knight sums up the dilemma: "We are, indeed, aware of two Caesars: the ailing and petulant old man, and the giant spirit standing colossal over the Roman Empire to be. There is an insubstantial, mirage-like uncertainty about this Caesar. How are we to see him? He is two incompatibles, shifting, interchanging." (9) In his commentary on Plutarch's "Life of Julius Caesar," C. B. Pelling observes that the Greek biographer seems to admire Caesar. Or at least, his portrait of Caesar is more studiously neutral than that of many other classical authors. (10) Suetonius, for instance, praises Caesar for his "admirable moderation and clemency both in administration and as victor in the civil war" but concludes that "the balance is tilted by his other actions and words, so that he is thought to have abused his power and to have been justly killed." (11) Plutarch, in contrast, ends with the remarkable claim that "nothing cruel or tyrannical sprang from [Caesars rule]." On the contrary, he maintains, "it seemed that the state needed monarchy, and Caesar was Heaven's gift to Rome as the gentlest possible doctor. …

中文翻译：

---

凯撒作为喜剧反基督者：莎士比亚的朱利叶斯凯撒和中世纪英国舞台暴君

莎士比亚对朱利叶斯·凯撒的描绘与他同时代的那些描绘显着不同，也与从他最明显的经典来源《普鲁塔克的生平》中出现的凯撒形象不同。普鲁塔克笔下的凯撒精明、坚韧且相对有尊严；相比之下，莎士比亚的身体虚弱，出奇的迟钝，是可笑的宏伟的牺牲品。其他早期的现代作家，如马克-安托万·穆雷特和威廉·亚历山大，他们根据塞内卡的大力士和普鲁塔克的传记模仿了他们的凯撒版本。然而，莎士比亚似乎从中世纪英国神秘剧中对凯撒大帝的继任者奥古斯都以及希律大帝等其他暴君的传统描绘中，从普鲁塔克的离开中汲取了灵感。在这些描绘基督教救恩历史的选美比赛中，摩西和以撒等主角建立了基督的预表。(1) 然而，与此同时，世俗对手，如埃及法老，建立了一种相反的模式：敌基督的预表。像路西法以及敌基督本人一样，神秘剧中的“凯撒”被塑造成对神性的咆哮、滑稽的模仿。宣扬他至高无上的世俗的夸夸其谈的演讲可能会呼应天父的语言。然而，这些吹嘘随后被他无法阻止基督的到来所掩盖，他担心基督是潜在的政治对手。自然而然，悬疑剧倾向于关注基督诞生时的罗马皇帝奥古斯都·凯撒（Augustus Caesar）。(2) 然而，莎士比亚的朱利叶斯·凯撒 (Julius Caesar) 站在同样的中世纪传统中。作为敌基督的预表，他是未来基督的陪衬。他的失败为一个不同的、自相矛盾的更强大的弥赛亚奠定了基础。“两个凯撒”的问题 在 19 世纪，莎士比亚将凯撒描绘成一个自负的吹牛者，这遭到了批评者的沮丧。(3) 威廉·黑兹利特 (William Hazlitt) 抱怨道：“我们并不十分欣赏这里对凯撒大帝的表现，我们也不认为这与他的评论中对他的描绘相符。他发表了几篇气势汹汹、相当迂腐的演讲，却什么也没做。” (4) 萧伯纳则不那么克制：“即使是最有正义感的评论家，也不可能在看到这种把伟人嘲讽为愚蠢的吹牛者时不感到愤慨的蔑视。” (5) James Boswell，著名传记作家的儿子，将这个问题视为莎士比亚众所周知的“拉丁文少，希腊文少”的证据。(6) 引用凯撒自己的高卢战争，博斯韦尔写道：“没有什么比莎士比亚在古代最有成就的人口中吹嘘的语言更能证明莎士比亚缺乏古典知识了，他并不令人钦佩。因为他的成就，而不是因为他记录这些成就的庄严朴素。” (7) 到了二十世纪，“两个凯撒”的问题已经确立。(8) G. Wilson Knight 总结了这个困境：“我们确实知道有两个凯撒：生病和暴躁的老人，以及站在罗马帝国上空的巨人精神。有一个虚幻的海市蜃楼——就像这个凯撒的不确定性。我们要怎么见他？他是两个互不相容的人，变化无常。”（9）在他对普鲁塔克的“凯撒大帝传”的评论中，CB Pelling 观察到这位希腊传记作者似乎很欣赏凯撒。或者至少，他对凯撒的描绘比起刻意地保持中立(10) 例如，苏埃托尼乌斯称赞凯撒“无论是在行政上还是作为内战的胜利者都令人钦佩的温和和宽大”，但得出的结论是“平衡被他的其他言行所扭曲，以至于人们认为他滥用了自己的权力并被公正地杀害了。”（11）相比之下，普鲁塔克以“没有任何残忍或暴虐的东西从 [凯撒统治] 中产生。”相反，他以非凡的主张结束。坚持，“ 国家似乎需要君主制，而凯撒作为最温柔的医生是上天赐给罗马的礼物。…