[4. Flauius, Murellus]

plicity of characters at the expense of consistency is certainly questionable. The indignant speech of Marullus, beginning: 'Wherefore rejoice? What conquest brings he home?' 1. 40 et seq., is utterly unlike any other speech which Shakespeare has assigned to Casca. A casual comparison of this speech, in verse, with Casca's humorous account, in prose, of the offering of the crown to Cæsar will show that the same character could not consistently deliver both. Again, in Bell's arrangement, it is Decius Brutus who bids Casca 'disrobe the images,' and later in the scene, when Casca is speaking with Brutus and Cassius, it is Casca who tells them Flavius and Marullus 'are put to silence' for this same deed. The retention of this is, perhaps, merely an oversight on the part of the adapter; if so, it was not noticed by Mrs INCHBALD, who has the same assignment of characters and speeches as has Bell.-ED.-MARK HUNTER: Note that the tribunes of the people are no longer demagogues as they are in Coriol. They have not the slightest personal sympathy or relationship with the 'people.' The 'people' again, as is obvious in this first scene, are thoroughly monarchical in sentiment. They have not the smallest desire to be 'free' in the conspirators' sense. Thus, even before we hear of the conspiracy, we see that such is bound to prove futile.

4. certaine Commoners] KNIGHT (Studies, etc., p. 411): Shakespeare, in the opening scene of Jul. Cæs., has marked very distinctly the difference between the citizens of this period and the former period of Coriolanus. In the first play they are a turbulent body. They would revenge with their pikes: the wars would eat them up. In Jul. Cæs., on the contrary, they are 'mechanical'-the carpenter or the cobbler. They 'make holiday to see Cæsar, and to rejoice in his triumph.' The speech of Marullus, the Tribune, brings the Rome of the hour vividly before us. It is the Rome of mighty conquests and terrible factions. Pompey has had his triumphs, and now the men of Rome 'Strew flowers in his way, That comes in triumph over Pompey's blood.'—Jusserand (Literary History, etc., iii, 258): In this play, as in Coriol., one of the most minutely described personages, if it can be so called, is the People. Shakespeare, who belongs to his time, not to ours, has no tenderness for the people; he depicts with great complacency their exigencies, their credulity, their ignorance, their fits of irresistible but transient ferocity, their contradictions, their violent exaggerations, everything, in fact, that history has ever reproached them with. And as history repeats itself, and as Shakespeare's knowledge of the human heart was marvellous, he seems at times to divine traits unknown then, and which modern researches have discovered in the past; or, at other times, to describe the most tragic incidents of recent revolutions. On that point, from the beginning of his career to the end, Shakespeare never varied; his scornful disposition remained the same; the people who follow Jack Cade in Henry VI. are the same as those who now applaud Brutus and Antony, exile Coriolanus, and proclaim Laertes king to console him for the death of his father slain by Hamlet.-A. H. TOLMAN (Introd., p. xliii): In the plays of Jul. Cæs. and Coriol. Shakespeare is not following Plutarch when he represents the common people of Rome as too fickle, too ignorant, too subject to demagogues, to deserve the slightest respect. Coriolanus tells the populace: 'He that depends Upon your favours swims with fins of lead, And hews down oaks with rushes.'—I, i, 183. It seems clear that the evil smell of the very crowds which thronged his theater and helped to make him rich was most distasteful to the sensitive player-poet. We need to remember that Shakespeare as a dramatist

(Being Mechanicall) you ought not walke

Vpon a labouring day, without the figne

Of your Profeffion? Speake, what Trade art thou?

ΙΟ

was concerned entirely with what the common people were in his own time, and had been in the past.

...

9. you ought not walke] WRIGHT: In all other cases in which 'ought' occurs in Shakespeare it is followed by to. Both constructions are found. For instance, in the later Wicliffite version of Genesis, xxxiv, 31: 'Symeon and Leuy answeriden, Whether thei oughten mysuse oure sistir'; where some manuscripts read 'to mysuse.' Again, in Holinshed's Chronicle (ed. 1577), ii, 1006a: 'But the Lord Henry Percy L. Marshall, . . . came to the knight, and told him, that he ought not come at that time.' The earlier construction appears to have been with to. Dr Morris (English Accidence, § 303) states that owe as an auxiliary verb first appears in Laghamon's Brut. If this be the case, it is instructive to observe that in the earlier recension of the poem (ed. Madden, i, 262) we find 'and that that heo aghen me to ghelden,' and that they ought to yield to me; while in the later the line stands thus, ‘and hii that hahte ghelden' = and they ought yield that. . . . On the other hand, we find in the earlier recension, when the word is more strictly used as an auxiliary (ii, 276): 'and swa thu aghest Hengest don'= and so thou oughtest do to Hengest. In the last-quoted example ‘aghest' is the present tense, but ought, though properly past, is used also as a present, like wot and must. On this irregularity in the use of the infinitive, with or without to after auxiliary or quasi-auxiliary verbs, Dr Guest remarks (Philological Society's Proceedings, ii, 227): 'Originally the to was prefixed to the gerund, but never to the present, infinitive; as, however, the custom gradually prevailed of using the latter in place of the former, the to was more and more frequently prefixed to the infinitive, till it came to be considered as an almost necessary appendage of it. . . . The to is still generally omitted after the auxiliaries and also after certain other verbs, as bid, dare, see, hear, make, &c. But even in these cases there has been great diversity of usage.' The following early instances of the omission of to are taken from Mätzner's Englische Grammatik, and the Wörterbuch which accompanies his Altenglische Sprachproben: 'I oughte ben hyere than she'-Piers Ploughman (ed. T. Wright), 1. 936; ‘With here bodies that aghte be so free'—Robert of Gloucester (ed. Hearne), i, p. 12; 'And glader ought his freend ben of his deth'-Chaucer, Cant. Tales, 1. 3053. Milton imitated the construction in Paradise Lost: 'And not divulge His secrets, to be scann'd by them who ought Rather admire.'-Bk, viii, 73, 74.

10, II. without the signe Of your Profession] WARD says (i, 425) that Shakespeare here 'applies a police-law, originating in the medieval distinction of guilds, to Roman citizens,' thus using the present passage to show that 'Shakespeare's acquaintance with Roman history was slender.'-WRIGHT, on the other hand, notes that 'it is more likely that Shakespeare had in his mind a custom of his own time than any sumptuary law of the Romans.'-MARSHALL, after quoting Wright, says: 'It is evident that there is no reference here to the mediæval guilds; as the next speech but one, that of Marullus, shows us that what the Tribune meant was not that the mechanics should wear any special badge or sign, but merely the usual working dress of their trade or occupation; in short, that they had no right to be in holiday, or, as we should say, in their Sunday clothes, on a working day.'-Miss PORTER and Miss CLARKE discern a reference here to the Sumptuary

[10, 11. without the signe Of your Profession]

Laws, particularly to that prescribing the wearing of a woollen cap on Sundays and holidays by all persons 'above six years, except ladies, knights, and gentlemen,' which law was repealed in 1597.-[But does not Flavius mention specifically that they should wear the sign of their profession upon a labouring day? He does not recognise the present occasion as a festival. I am inclined to agree with Marshall that this line does not refer to any regulation of the medieval guilds. The following account of these associations is abridged from TOULMIN-SMITH'S exhaustive monograph on this subject (issued by the Early English Text Society) and Herbert's History of the Livery Companies of London: The mediæval guilds, or gilds, were originally mutual benefit or protective societies, and took their names from characters either from the Bible or offices of the church, e. g., The Gild of the Holy Spirit, the Gild of St. Peter, or of St. Paul. The members paid a small entrance fee and a sum annually. Fines were also exacted for non-attendance at meetings or infraction of the rules. The general fund was used for the help of the poorer brethren during illness, or payment of funeral expenses. The various trades were quick to understand the advantage of such fraternities, and the transition from the gild to the trade-union was accomplished. In the regulations and by-laws of gilds and trade-unions there is not, as far as I have been able to discover, any mention prescribing a form of dress or badge to be worn on all occasions, though mention is made of certain hoods or gowns which are to be worn on the feast of a gild's patron saint. They were not, however, distinctive of the profession of the gild or trade-union. Later these trade-unions were merged into twelve companies representing the principal trades of the time, such as, the Merchant Tailors; the Masons; the Skinners; the Stationers, etc., and to them was granted each a royal charter with the right to wear certain liveries on festival occasions. These liveries were not typical of the various companies, but were merely uniforms to distinguish the members of one company from another. Neither in the charter nor in the bylaws is it made compulsory to wear this livery except on certain holidays or festivals. It is, I think, quite evident that the speech of Flavius cannot, therefore, refer to this custom, since he mentions the fact that the sign of the profession must be worn upon a laboring day. Referring now to the question of a Sumptuary Law: Such laws were first issued in the time of Edward III., and related not to the particular form of costume which the different classes should wear, but to the cost of the material. Every one was limited, according to his rank, in the cost. If there were any clause, which there is not, in these Sumptuary laws making it obligatory that artisans wear a distinctive dress it would furnish a valuable piece of internal evidence to determine the date of composition of Jul. Cæs., as all such laws were repealed in the first year of James I. (1603), and it is hardly probable that Shakespeare would have referred to an unpopular law which was no longer in force. In the 22nd year of Henry VIII. (1531) there was passed an act relating to vagrants wherein it was stated that: 'if any man or woman being whole & mightie in bodie, & able to labour, having no land, master, nor using any lawful merchandise, craft or mysterie, whereby hee might get his living . . . be vagrant, & can give no reckoning how he doeth lawfully get his living: that then it shalbe lawfull to the Constables, and all other the kings officers .. to arrest the sayd vagabonds,' etc. (Rustal: English Statutes, 1594). Then follows the form of punishment for such vagrants. This Act remained in force until the 39th year of Elizabeth (1597), when it was reissued, with many changes in phraseology. The clause in regard to

Car. Why Sir, a Carpenter.

Mur. Where is thy Leather Apron, and thy Rule? What doft thou with thy best Apparrell on?

You fir, what Trade are you?

Cobl. Truely Sir, in respect of a fine Workman, I am but as you would fay, a Cobler.

Mur. But what Trade art thou? Answer me directly. Cob. A Trade Sir, that I hope I may vfe, with a safe. Conscience, which is indeed Sir, a Mender of bad foules. Fla. What Trade thou knaue? Thou naughty knaue, what Trade?

the vagrant's inability to give an account of his means of livelihood does not appear; and there is added one relating to players of interludes and stage-players, who are not under the patronage of some nobleman, classing them among vagabonds and vagrants. Such an act would naturally be humiliating to all players, and it is possible that to this Shakespeare has made Flavius refer. The evidence is, it must be admitted, slight and, at best, but circumstantial. On the other hand, there is no evidence whatever to support the view that there is here a reference either to the laws of the Trade-gilds or to the Sumptuary Laws.—ED.] 11-15. art thou... are you] For other examples of this use of 'thou' and 'you,' see, if needful, ABBOTT §§ 232-234.

...

20. Mender of bad soules] MALONE: Fletcher has the same quibble in his Women Pleased: 'If thou dost this (mark me, thou serious sowter), . . . If thou dost this, there shall be no more shoe-mending; Every man shall have a special care of his own soal.'-[Act IV, sc. i. Compare also: 'Not on thy sole, but on thy soul, harsh Jew.'-Mer. of Ven., IV, i, 123.—Ed.].

21. Fla. What Trade] CAPELL (ii, 96): The mistake made in this speech's assignment is evinced by the immediate reply to it, the reply to that reply, and what proceeds from this speaker. Short as is the part of these tribunes, they have different characters; Marullus is grave and severe and no relisher of evasions and quibbles: the first with which the cobbler regales him puts him out of humour, his second increases it, and a third endangers a storm; but that Flavius-who is somewhat gentler disposed, and a better decypherer, interposes a question that puts a stop to evasions, but not to quibbling, for that goes on as before; but not clear as before, if former copies are kept to, who read 'withall' [l. 31] in one word, and with no point to it; what the speaker would now say in that sentence is this: that he meddled not with this or that matter particularly, but with all in which the awl had concern.-KNIGHT: We doubt whether it is correct to assume that only

Cobl. Nay I beseech you Sir, be not out with me: yet

23

if you be out Sir, I can mend you.

Mur. What mean ft thou by that? Mend mee, thou sawcy Fellow?

25

Cob. Why fir, Cobble you.

Fla. Thou art a Cobler,art thou?

Cob. Truly fir, all that I liue by, is with the Aule: I meddle with no Tradefmans matters, nor womens matters; but withal I am indeed Sir, a Surgeon to old shooes : when they are in great danger, I recouer them. As proper men as euer trod vpon Neats Leather, haue gone vpon my handy-worke.

30

Fla. But wherefore art not in thy Shop to day? Why do'st thou leade these men about the streets?

35

Cob. Truly fir, to weare out their fhooes, to get my felfe into more worke. But indeede fir, we make Holy

38

24. if you be] if you should be Ktly. 25. Mur.] Flav. Theobald, Han. Warb. Sing. Ktly.

mean ft thou] meanest thou Cap. Varr. Mal. Steev. Varr. Knt, Dyce, Sta. 28. Cobler] cobbler, then Quincy (MS). 29. with the] the Rowe,+, Cap. (Errata).

30. Tradefmans] tradesmen's Warb. trade, man's Farmer, Var. '78, '85. trades, man's Sta. conj.

womens] womans Ff. woman's

one should take the lead; whereas it is clear that the dialogue is more natural, certainly more dramatic, according to the original arrangement, where Flavius and Marullus alternately rate the people, like two smiths smiting on the same anvil.

25. mean st thou by that] STEEVENS: Perhaps this, like all the other speeches of the Tribunes (to whichsoever of them it belongs), was designed to be metrical, and originally stood thus, 'What mean'st by that? Mend me, thou saucy fellow?' -[COLERIDGE (Notes, p. 131) suggests the same omission and arrangement.]

29, 30. I meddle... matters] BRENTANO says (p. cxxxix): 'Sometimes the richer craftsmen withdrew from their poorer brethren into separate gilds, as, for instance, the Shoemakers from the Cobblers, the Tanners from the Shoemakers.' 30, 31. no Tradesmans matters... but withal] MALONE: Where our author uses words equivocally, he imposes some difficulty on his editor with respect to the mode of exhibiting them in print. Shakespeare, who wrote for the stage, not for the closet, was contented if his quibble satisfied the ear. I have, with the other modern editors, printed here with awl, though in the First Folio we find 'withal'; as in a preceding speech bad soals, instead of 'bad soules.'

37, 38. Truly sir... But indeede] DELIUS: The Cobbler, with the jocular