only this mechanical purpose, that it was a mere stop-gap. It is usually omitted on the modern stage. But, without denying that the scene served this purpose, I believe that it can be defended as an organic and helpful portion of the play. The fury of the mob is so intense that Brutus and Cassius Are rid like madmen through the gates of Rome. III, ii, 273-274. It is not fitting that we should see this undignified flight of the chief conspirators. But it is desirable that the ungovernable power of the wild Roman mob, which Antony has skillfully aroused and directed, should be forcibly brought home to us. This mob is a basic force in the action of the play; and its frenzy is fully displayed only in this encounter with Cinna the poet. It has been claimed that the celebrated Meininger troupe of actors gave the most adequate stage-presentation that this play has ever received. I have seen it stated that this scene, as presented by them, was supremely effective. The episode of the intruding poet, IV, iii, 124-138, comes at the close of the quarrel scene, after Brutus and Cassius are completely reconciled. In Plutarch we are told that the entry of the foolish poet "brake their strife at that time." It may be that good acting could make something of this incident as Shakespeare manages it, but it hardly seems to have any real value. We are to understand that Strato, who has been servant to Brutus now lying dead, wins a new situation under Octavius in V, v, 52-67, through the recommendation of Messala. The play has only fourteen lines following this episode. In Plutarch the incident takes place "shortly after, Cæsar being at good leisure." The occurrence is presented so briefly in the play that it may seem hyper critical to find fault. But it does not seem appropriate, at the tremendous close of this tragedy, to set up an employment agency on the field of battle, beside the body of "the noblest Roman of them all," simply to find a new job for a servant. This episode seems to be an unwise acceptance of material found in the source. VI. THE SPEECHES OF BRUTUS AND CASSIUS OVER CÆSAR'S BODY, III, 1, 111-118 Cassius. Stoop, then, and wash. How many ages hence In states unborn and accents yet unknown! Cassius. No worthier than the dust! So oft as that shall be, So often shall the knot of us be call'd For many years I was greatly puzzled by these words. There seemed to be a self-conscious quality in them that is unlike Shakespeare. The comments upon the passage in Furness express very well what was long my state of mind. Hudson confesses that these speeches, "vain-gloriously anticipating the stage celebrity of the deed, are very strange; and unless there be a shrewd irony lurking in them," he is "at a loss to understand the purpose of them." Furness adds that, "although Shakespeare has here undoubtedly produced a novel effect, yet it is done at the expense of making his heroes theatrical patriots." Mabie considers that "the long popularity of the play was predicted by Shakespeare in the words of Cassius." 1 These comments all assume, perhaps unconsciously, that Shakespeare's tragedy was the first play in which the great 1 Furness, p. 437. Cæsar was a central figure. But the tragedy of “Hamlet,” written at about the same time as this drama, suggests the contrary. Polonius, speaking of a play in which he took part "i' the university," says: "I did enact Julius Cæsar. I was kill'd i̇' the Capitol; Brutus kill'd me.” (III, ii, 108-109.) Furness reminds us that "as early as 1561 there was performed at Whitehall a play entitled 'Julius Cæsar,' which is mentioned by Collier as the earliest instance of a subject from Roman History being brought upon the English stage."1 Professor Parrott has listed seven titles of plays that concern Cæsar, or allusions to such pieces, that precede Shakespeare's tragedy. These may concern some half-dozen different plays. More than a hundred years ago Malone believed that it was "the frequent repetition" of "some former play on the subject" that led Shakespeare to put into the mouths of Brutus and Cassius the prophecy that we are considering. I believe that this was a shrewd anticipation of the real state of the case. "Cæsar's Fall," now lost, by Munday, Drayton, Webster, Middleton, “and the Rest,” recorded by Henslowe in 1602, was probably called forth by the success of Shakespeare's play. Shakespeare realized the past and future popularity of this great theme. There is no need to suppose that in writing this passage he was thinking in a narrowly personal way of his own production. 3 VII. THE SOLILOQUY OF BRUTUS, II, 1, 10-34 Some monologues in Shakespeare are very difficult to interpret. The ideal soliloquy is simply a bit of thinking aloud by some character. People do not usually think thus 1 Furness, p. ix. 2 Furness, pp. 447 f. Furness, p. 132. in real life; yet if soliloquy is to be tolerated at all in drama, this device of thinking aloud must be accepted. Shakespeare, however, stretches this dramatic convention amazingly. His monologues sometimes contain information and explanations that the author desires to impart to the audience. Furthermore, when the wicked Oliver praises the good Orlando, and when the villain Iago praises his victim Othello as having "a constant, loving, noble nature" (II, i, 298), we have utterances that are hardly possible psychologically. Macbeth and Iago recognize their own wrong-doing, also, with a completeness that is not realistically plausible. Macbeth feels keenly "the deep damnation" of Duncan's taking-off; Iago speaks of his own "knavery." In Shakespeare's earlier plays we have some monologues that are decidedly crude. The treacherous Hume, in explaining to us in soliloquy his plot against the Duchess of Gloucester, uses the expression "I dare not say . . ."; but he should be thinking, not consciously saying. Two lines later he uses the naïvely inappropriate phrase "to be plain": for, to be plain, They, knowing Dame Eleanor's aspiring humour, II Henry VI, I, ii, 94, 96-99. In "Richard III," I, i, 1-41 and I, iii, 324-338, we have what have been called programme soliloquies. The Duke of Gloucester outlines his purposes, and tells us how he will manage to seem a saint when most he plays the devil. But his plans to do evil are perhaps less startling than Prince 1 1 As You Like It, I, i, 170-180. Hal's elaborate scheme to make his evil life add lustre to his proposed later career of virtue: My reformation, glitt'ring o'er my fault, I Henry IV, I, ii, 236-238. One of the most difficult of Shakespeare's troublesome soliloquies is that of Brutus in "Julius Cæsar," II, i, 10-34. His thought may be summed up thus: "Cæsar wishes to be crowned; crowning 'might change his nature' and make him a tyrant; therefore we must kill him, although he is now a good ruler." Critics from Coleridge down to the present have been greatly troubled by this monologue. Hudson says frankly: "Upon the supposal that Shakespeare meant Brutus for a wise and good man, the speech seems to me utterly unintelligible." We should expect Brutus the republican to be opposed to any king, good or bad; he may well have in mind our modern conception, that no man is good enough to be entrusted with absolute power, although he does not bring this idea to distinct expression. But to kill Cæsar because he may later deserve death is preposterous. Lynch law, bad as it is, at least is an attempt to punish a past offence, not a prospective one. We cannot conceive Brutus as saying the words of this soliloquy. To be really influenced by considerations that would startle one if distinctly set forth, is no unusual experience. It may be that Shakespeare wishes to suggest such an experience here. But the difficulties of this soliloquy cannot be entirely explained away. In a recent remarkable book,1 Professor Schücking, of the University of Breslau, points out that 1 Character Problems in Shakespeare's Plays, London, Harrap, |