[1. The Tragedie of Ivlivs Cæsar] Cæsar, was a very young author, and would hardly have ventured into that circle within which the most eminent dramatic writer of England had already walked. The death of Cæsar, which is not exhibited, but related to the audience, forms the catastrophe of his piece. In the two plays many parallel passages are found, which might, perhaps, have proceeded only from the two authors drawing from the same source. However, there are some reasons for thinking the coincidence more than accidental. A passage in The Tempest: 'The cloud-capped towers,' etc., IV, i, 152, seems to have been copied from one in Darius, another play of Lord Sterline's, printed at Edinburgh in 1603. His Julius Cæsar appeared in 1607, at a time when he was little acquainted with English writers; for both these pieces abound with scotticisms, which, in the subsequent folio edition, 1637, he corrected. But neither The Tempest nor Julius Cæsar of our author was printed until 1623. It should also be remembered that our author has several plays founded on subjects which had been previously treated by others. Of this kind are King John, Rich. II., 1 Henry IV., 2 Henry IV., Henry V., Rich. III., Lear, Ant. & Cleo., Meas. for Meas., Tam. of Shr., Mer. of Ven., and, I believe, Timon and 2 and 3 Hen. VI., whereas no proof has hitherto been produced that any contemporary writer ever presumed to new-model a story that had already employed the pen of Shakespeare. On all these grounds it appears more probable that Shakespeare was indebted to Lord Sterline than that Lord Sterline borrowed from Shakespeare. If this reasoning be just, this play could not have appeared before the year 1607. I believe it was produced in that year. [See Appendix: Date of Composition, MALONE. The reference, in the foregoing note, to a play The History of Cæsar and Pompey, mentioned by Gosson in his Schoole of Abuse, has been repeated by subsequent editors. It was, however, HALLIWELL, in 1864 (Folio ed., Introd.), who gave the correct reference, as Gosson's second pamphlet: Plaies Confuted in Five Actions, to which Collier (Introduction to the Shakespeare Society's edition of The Schoole of Abuse, p. vii) assigns the date of the autumn of 1581, or spring of 1582.' The passage to which Malone refers is as follows: 'So was the history of Cæsar and Pompey, and the play of the Fabii at the Theatre, both amplified there, where the Drummes might walke, or the pen ruffle.'-English Drama and Stage under the Tudor and Stuart Princes: Roxburghe Library; ed. W. C. Hazlitt; p. 188. -ED.]-COLLIER (Introd., p. 5): It is a new fact [1842], ascertained from an entry in Henslowe's Diary, 22nd May, 1602, that Anthony Munday, Michael Drayton, John Webster, Thomas Middleton, and other poets were engaged upon a tragedy entitled Cæsar's Fall. The probability is that these dramatists united their exertions in order without delay to bring out a tragedy on the same subject as that of Shakespeare, which, perhaps, was then performing at the Globe Theatre with success. Malone states that there is no proof that any contemporary writer 'had presumed to new-model a story that had already employed the pen of Shakespeare.' He forgot that Ben Jonson was engaged upon a Richard Crookback in 1602; and he omitted, when examining Henslowe's Diary, to observe that in the same year four distinguished dramatists, and 'other poets,' were employed upon Cæsar's Fall. [In a foot-note Collier remarks that Lord Sterling's [sic] Julius Cæsar was first printed in 1604, which date may be accounted for, he thinks, by the popularity of Shakespeare's tragedy about 1603, and, therefore, this 'date is of consequence.' Of this earlier date Malone appears to have been unaware.]-UPTON: The real length of time in Julius Cæsar is as follows: About the middle of February, A. U. C. [1. The Tragedie of Ivlivs Cæsar] 709 [B. C. 44], a frantic festival, sacred to Pan, and called Lupercalia, was held in honor of Cæsar, when the regal crown was offered to him by Antony. On the 15th of March in the same year he was slain. November 27, A. U. C. 710, the triumvirs met at a small island, formed by the river Rhenus, near Bononia, and there adjusted their cruel proscriptions. A. U. C. 711 Brutus and Cassius were defeated near Philippi.—Bathurst (p. 79): This play does not contain so much of high poetical passages, delicate descriptions, nor tender touches of feeling as often occur in many of Shakespeare's plays; but then it has very little that is not quite easy to understand; it is full of active business; of spirit in the dialogue; contains a good deal of dignity without being stiff or tiresome, and very considerable expression of character; besides, the extraordinary merit of one long speech, that of Antony to the people, which alone would be sufficient to attract us to the play. Shakespeare in this play, as in some others, was taken out of his usual turn and taste by founding a play strictly upon history. This makes him more regular. 3. Actus Primus] OECHELHAUSER (Einführungen, i, 234): The First Act takes place in an open square decorated with statues and memorials, a temple or a palace with a colonnade in the distance. Cæsar's train, both in its entrance and exit, passes across the stage diagonally, or goes along a raised street, or viaduct winding downwards. Over this way Cinna rushes during the storm. The greatest care is to be taken to render this dreadful night as realistic as possible.-VERITY: The value of this scene is twofold: (1) It indicates the feeling of Rome towards Cæsar; among the official classes he has jealous enemies, with the crowd he is popular. (2) It illustrates the fickleness of the crowd, a point of which so much is made on the occasion of Antony's great speech. Also the reference to the Lupercalia fixes the time of the action of the play at its opening.-F. C. KOLBE (Irish Monthly, Sept., 1896, p. 511): The power of the people is a force external to the action of the play, yet it underlies and determines that action; in such cases it is Shakespeare's habit to begin the play with the underlying force, as, e. g., the Ghost in Hamlet, the Witches in Macbeth, and the storm in The Tempest. The mob then, thus shouting for Cæsar, is confronted by the Tribunes, who remind them of their love for Pompey, and chide them for cheering the man who comes in triumph over Pompey's blood. . . . It is the first muttering of the storm against Cæsar; and the spirit of the storm is the veiled figure of the Nemesis of Pompey, justifying the conspiracy that is to be. It is the beginning of the dip of the wave of public opinion which curls in continuous motion throughout the play,-it is crested with Cæsar's triumph, sinks to its trough at Cæsar's death, and rises once more crested with Cæsar's revenge. ... 4. Murellus] THEOBALD: I have, upon the authority of Plutarch, &c., given to this tribune his right name, Marullus. 4. Flauius, Murellus] FRANCIS GENTLEMAN, author of the Dramatic Censor, has written a number of comments, for the most part laudatory, on passages and scenes of the stage arrangement of Julius Cæsar as given in Bell's British Theatre. On the present line Gentleman remarks: "Though ludicrous characters appear very incompatible with tragedy, yet the mob, in this historical piece, are natural, justifiable, and exceedingly well supported; several characters, to reduce an enormous multiplicity and insignificance of some, are judiciously blended with others; particularly those of Flavius and Marullus, in the first scene, are thrown into Casca and Decius Brutus.'-The wisdom of a change which reduces the multi [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 signe Of your Profeffion? Speake, what Trade art thou? 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, il, 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 mediæval 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 mediaval 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 mediæval 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 ... |