vi. 84 and 109) and not as in Plutarch, disapproves the cessation of

hostilities.

All other persuaded Pompey earnestly to peace, only Menodorus wrote from Sardinia that he should make open _warre, or dryve off_,[307] whyles the dearth continued, _that he might make peace with_ the better conditions. (V. lxxi.)

[307] _i.e._ put off. Greek, βραδύνειν.

I have not noticed any other points of importance in which there is an apparent connection between the drama and the _Roman History_: unless indeed Antony’s passing compunction for Fulvia’s death may be so regarded.

Newes came that Antonies wyfe was dead, who coulde not bear his unkyndenesse, leavyng her sicke, & not bidding hyr farewell. Hir death was thought very commodius for them both. For Fulvia was an unquiet woman, & for ielousie of Cleopatra, raysed suche a mortall warre. Yet the matter vexed Antony bicause he was compted the occasion of her death. (V. lix.)

Here, however, the motive of Antony’s regret differs from that which Shakespeare attributes to him; and on the whole the references to Fulvia in the play deviate even more from Appian’s account than from Plutarch’s. So far as I am in a position to judge, Shakespeare derived all his other historical data, as well as the general scheme into which he fitted these trifling loans, from Plutarch’s _Life_, and can be considered a debtor to Appian only in the points that are illustrated in my previous extracts.

But there are two qualifications I should like to make to this statement.

In the first place, I have not seen the 1578 version of Appian, the passages I have quoted being merely transcripts made by my direction. I have had only the original text to work upon, and it is possible that the Tudor Translation might offer verbal coincidences that of course would not suggest themselves to me.

In the second place, the book is not merely a translation of Appian. The descriptive title runs: “An auncient historie and exquisite chronicle of the Romanes warres, both civile and foren ... with a continuation ... from the death of Sextus Pompeius to the overthrow of Antonie and Cleopatra.”

Appian’s History of the Civil Wars, as now extant, concludes at the death of Sextus Pompeius. The Tudor translator’s continuation till the deaths of Antony and Cleopatra may be responsible for some of the later deviations from Plutarch, which I have described as independent modifications of Shakespeare’s. The matter is worth looking into.

Meanwhile, from my collation I draw two conclusions, the first definitive, the second provisional:

(1) That Shakespeare laid Appian under contribution to fill in the details of his picture.

(2) That he borrowed from him, that is, from his English translator, only for the episode of Sextus Pompeius.

APPENDIX E

CLEOPATRA’S _ONE WORD_

Professor Th. Zielinski of St. Petersburg suggests a peculiar interpretation of this passage in his _Marginalien_ (_Philologus_, N.F., Band xviii. 1905). He starts from the assertion that Shakespeare had in his mind Ovid’s _Epistle from Dido_ (_Heroid._ vii.) when he composed the parting scene between Antony and Cleopatra. This statement is neither self-evident nor initially probable. Shakespeare was no doubt acquainted with portions of Ovid both in the original and in translation, but there is not much indication that his knowledge extended to the _Heroides_. Mr. Churton Collins, indeed, in his plea for Shakespeare’s familiarity with Latin, calls attention to the well-known pair of quotations from these poems, the one in _3 Henry VI._, the other in the _Taming of the Shrew_. But though Mr. Collins makes good his general contention, he hardly strengthens it with these examples: for Shakespeare’s share in both plays is so uncertain that no definite inference can be drawn from them. Apart from these more than doubtful instances, there seems to be no reference in Shakespeare to the _Heroides_, either in the Latin of Ovid or in the English of Turberville; and it would be strange to find one cropping up here.

But Professor Zielinski gives his arguments, and one of them is certainly plausible. He quotes:

What says the married woman? You may go: Would she had never given you leave to come; (_A. and C._ I. iii. 20.)

and compares

“Sed iubet ire deus.” Vellem vetuisset adire. (_Her._ VII. 37.)

There is a coincidence, but it is not very close, and scarcely implies imitation. Moreover, it becomes even less striking in the English version; which, after all, Shakespeare is more likely to have known, if he knew the poem at all:

But God doth force thee flee; would God had kept away Such guilefull guests, and Troians had in Carthage made no stay.[308]

[308] _The Heroycall Epistles of the learned poet Publius Ouidius Naso in English verse: set out and translated by George Turberville, gent_, etc. Transcribed from a copy in the Bodleian, which Malone, who owned it, conjecturally dated 1569.

Professor Zielinski’s next argument is singularly unconvincing. He says: “The situation (_i.e._ in the Epistle and in the Play) is parallel even in details, as everyone will tell himself: moreover the poet himself confesses it:

Where souls do couch on flowers, we’ll hand in hand, And with our sprightly port make the ghosts gaze: Dido and her Æneas shall want troops And all the haunt be ours.” (IV. xiv. 51.)

But in the first place this has reference not to the separation but to the reunion: and in the second place, of the reunion there is no word in the Epistle. I cannot therefore see how Shakespeare’s lines can be taken as a confession of indebtedness to Ovid. But these analogies, real or imaginary, lead up to Professor Zielinski’s main point. He quotes as what he calls the “Motiv des Kindes” and considers the distinctive feature of Ovid’s treatment, Dido’s reproach:

Forsitan et gravidam Didon, scelerate, relinquas, Parsque tui lateat corpore clausa meo. (line 131.)

He admits that it is not easy to find this “Motiv” in the play, but argues that Shakespeare was always very reticent in such regards. Then he proceeds: “Hier nun war Kleopatra tatsächlich schwanger, als Antonius sie verliess: Plutarch setzt es c. 36 voraus, und Shakespeare wird es gewusst haben, da er Act III. die Kinder erwähnt. Sollte er in der grossen Abschieds-scene das dankbare Motiv haben entgehen lassen? Sehn wir zu. Kleopatra spielt die nervöse, ihr ist bald gut, bald schlecht: ‘schnür mich auf ... nein, lass es sein.’ Ihre ungerechten Vorwürfe bringen den Antonius endlich auf; er will gehn. Sie hält ihn zurück: _courteous lord, one word_. Wir erwarten eine wichtige Erklärung; was wird das ‘eine Wort’ sein?

Sir, you and I must part—but that’s not it: Sir, you and I have loved—but there’s not it; That you know well: something it is I would— O, _my oblivion is a very Antony_, And I am all forgotten.

Es ist für den klassischen Philologen erheiternd und tröstlich, die Commentare zum hervorgehoben verse zu lesen: dieselben Torheiten, wie bei uns, wenn einer das erklären muss, was er selber nicht versteht. Man wollte sogar _oblivion_ hinausconjiciren: andere befehlen es = _memory_ zu nehmen. Was wird dadurch gewonnen? Ich verlange das versprochene ‘eine wort.’—‘Ja, das hat sie eben vergessen’—Ich danke. Nein, sie hat es ausgesprochen: ihr ‘Vergessen’ war in der Tat ‘ein echter Antonius,’ wenn auch ein ganz kleiner. Und als der Freund die Anspielung nicht versteht—_I should take you for idleness itself_—fährt sie bitter fort:

’Tis sweating labour _To bear such idleness so near the heart_, As Cleopatra _this_.

(das _this_ mit discret hinweisender Geberde).... Es wäre Mangel an Zartgefühl, mehr zu verlangen.—Und wirklich, besser als die Erklärer hat ein Dichter den Dichter verstanden; ich meine Puschkin, der in einer Stelle seiner lieblichen ‘Nixe’ (Rusalka) die oben ausgeschriebenen Worte der Kleopatra offenbar nachahmen wollte:

_Fürst._ Leb’ wohl. _Mädchen._ Nein, wart ... ich muss dir etwas sagen ... Weiss nimmer was. _Fürst._ So denke nach! _Mädchen._ Für dich Wär ich bereit.... Nein das ist’s nicht.... So wart doch. Ich kann’s nicht glauben, dass du mich auf ewig Verlassen willst.... Nein, das ist’s immer nicht.... Jetzt hab’ ich’s: heut war’s, dass zum ersten Mal Dein kind sich unter’m Herzen mir bewegte.”

This is very ingenious, and the parallel from Puschkin is very interesting. What makes one doubtful is that from first to last Shakespeare slurs over the motherhood of Cleopatra, to which the other tragedians of the time give great prominence. On the whole he obliterates even those references that Plutarch makes to this aspect of his heroine, and it would therefore be odd if he went out of his way to invent an allusion which does not fit in with the rest of the picture, and which is without consequence and very obscure. If one were forced to conjecture the “missing word,” it would be more plausible to suppose that she both wishes and hesitates to suggest marriage with Antony. At the close, her exclamation:

Husband, I come: Now to that name my courage prove my title! (V. ii. 290.)

shows that she recognises the dignity of the sanction. At the outset, she feels the falsity of her position, as we see from her reference to “the married woman”; and in Plutarch Shakespeare had read the complaint of her partisans, that “Cleopatra, being borne a Queene of so many thousands of men, is onely named Antonius Leman.” In Rome the marriage is assumed to be quite probable; and in this very scene Antony, after announcing the removal of the grand impediment by Fulvia’s death, has just professed his unalterable devotion to his Queen. Why should there not be a marriage, unless he regards her merely as a mistress; and why should she not propose it, except that she fears to meet with this rebuff? The “sweating labour” she bears would thus be her unsanctioned love and its disgrace.

This, however, is not put forward as a serious interpretation, but only as a theory quite as possible as Professor Zielinski’s. The most obvious and the most satisfactory way is to suppose, as probably almost every reader does and has done, that she is merely making pretexts to postpone the separation. And there is surely no great difficulty about the phrase: “My oblivion is a very Antony.” Here too the obvious explanation is the most convincing: “My forgetfulness is as great as Antony’s own.”

APPENDIX F

THE “INEXPLICABLE” PASSAGE IN _CORIOLANUS_

Coleridge, in his _Notes on Shakespeare_ (1818, Section IV.), calls attention to the difficulty of Aufidius’ speech to his lieutenant:

All places yield to him ere he sits down; And the nobility of Rome are his: The senators and patricians love him too: The tribunes are no soldiers; and their people Will be as rash in the repeal, as hasty To expel him thence. I think he’ll be to Rome As is the osprey to the fish, who takes it By sovereignty of nature. First he was A noble servant to them; but he could not Carry his honours even: whether ’twas pride, Which out of daily fortune ever taints The happy man; whether defect of judgement, To fail in the disposing of those chances Which he was lord of; or whether nature, Not to be other than one thing, not moving From the casque to the cushion, but commanding peace Even with the same austerity and garb As he controll’d the war; but one of these— As he hath spices of them all, not all, For I dare so far free him—made him fear’d, So hated, and so banish’d, but he has a merit, To choke it in the utterance. So our virtues Lie in the interpretation of the time; And power, unto itself most commendable, Hath not a tomb so evident as a chair To extol what it hath done. One fire drives out one fire; one nail, one nail; Rights by rights falter, strengths by strengths do fail. Come, let’s away. When, Caius, Rome is thine, Thou art poor’st of all: then shortly art thou mine. (IV. vii. 28.)

Here there are puzzling expressions in detail, but they have on the whole been satisfactorily explained, and it is not to them that Coleridge refers.[309] He says: “I have always thought this in itself so beautiful speech the least explicable from the mood and full intention of the speaker of any in the whole works of Shakespeare.” It strikes one indeed as a series of disconnected jottings that have as little to do with each other as with the situation and attitude of Aufidius. First he gives reason for expecting the capture of Rome; then he enumerates defects in Coriolanus that have led to his banishment with a supplementary acknowledgment of his merits; next he makes general reflections on the relation of virtue to the construction put upon it, and on the danger that lies in conspicuous power: thereafter he points out that things are brought to nought by themselves or their likes; and finally he predicts that when Rome is taken, he will get the better of his rival.

[309] Of these the most perplexing to me is the distinction Shakespeare makes between “the nobility” on the one hand, and “the senators and patricians” on the other. What was in his mind? I fail to find an explanation even on trying to render his thought in terms of contemporary arrangements in England. “Peers,” “parliament men,” and “gentry” would not do.

Is there here a mere congeries of thoughts as one chance suggestion leads to another with which it happens to be casually associated; or does one thread of continuous meaning run through the whole? I would venture to maintain the latter opinion with more confidence than I do, if Coleridge had not been so emphatic.

In the first place we have to remember what goes before. The report of the Lieutenant confirms the jealousy of Aufidius, who is further embittered by the hint that he is losing credit, but reflects that he can bring weighty charges against Coriolanus, and concludes:

He hath left undone That which shall break his neck or hazard mine, Whene’er we come to our account.

Thereupon the Lieutenant meaningly rejoins:

Sir, I beseech you, think you he’ll carry Rome?

It is a contingency to be reckoned with, for clearly if Rome falls, any previous mistakes or complaisances alleged against the conqueror will find ready pardon. So Aufidius discusses the matter in the light of these two main considerations: (1) that he must get rid of his rival, and (2) that his rival may do the state a crowning service. He admits that Coriolanus, what with his own efficiency, what with the friendliness of one class in Rome and the helplessness of the remainder, is likely to achieve the grand exploit. How then will Aufidius’ chances stand? Formerly Marcius deserved as well of his own country when he had overthrown Corioli, yet that did not secure him. What qualities in himself discounted his services to Rome and may again discount his services to Antium? Pride of prosperity, disregard of his opportunities, his unaccommodating peremptory behaviour—all of these faults which in point of fact afterwards contributed to his death—brought about his banishment, though truly he had merit enough to make men overlook such trifles. This shows how worth depends on the way it is taken, and how ability, even when of the sterling kind that wins its own approval, may find the throne of its public recognition to be, more properly, its certain grave. Thus likes counteract likes; the greater the popularity, the greater the reaction; the greater the superiority, the more certainly it will balk itself. So, and this is the conclusion of the whole matter, even when Marcius has won Rome by a greater conquest than when he won Corioli, the result will be the same. His proud, imprudent and overbearing conduct will obscure his high deserts. These will be construed only by public opinion, and the very prowess in which he delights will rouse an adulation, which, when he is no longer required, will swing round to its opposite. So his success will correct itself. His very triumph over Rome will be guarantee for Aufidius’ triumph over him.

If this amplified paraphrase give the meaning, that meaning is coherent enough and is quite suitable to the mood and attitude of the speaker.

INDEX

Acciaiuoli, additional lives to Plutarch, _note_ 144. Agrippa (in _Antony and Cleopatra_), 346. Alexander (Sir William) [Earl of Stirling], _Julius Caesar_, 35; _Julius Caesar_ compared with Garnier, 39; _Julius Caesar_ and Shakespeare, 207. Alexas (Lord), (in _Antony and Cleopatra_), 348. Ammonius (the Philosopher), 95. Amyot (Jacques), 119-141; birth, etc., 120; translation of Heliodorus, 121; of Diodorus Siculus, 123; and Longus, 124; tutor to Dukes of Orleans and Anjou, 124; Grand Almoner of France, 124; Bishop of Auxerre, 125; Commander of Order of Holy Ghost, 126; various disasters, 126; _Projet de l’Eloquence Royal_, 128; modifications of Plutarch, 138. ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA, 300-453; date of composition, 300; and Appian, 648-652. Antony and Cleopatra (the two characters), 439-453. _Apius and Virginia_, 2-10, 70. Appian and _Antony and Cleopatra_, 648-652; and _Julius Caesar_, 644-647. Appian’s Chronicle, translated by Bynniman, _note_ 644; _Sextus Pompeius_, 333. Aufidius (Tullus), [in _Coriolanus_], 501, 584.

B. (R.), 2, 9. Baker, _Development of Shakespeare as a Dramatist_, _note_ 267. Bernage (S.), on _Julius Caesar_ and _Cornélie_, 60. Berners (Lord), part translation, Guevara (Antonio de), _Marco Aurelio con el Relox de Principes_, 148. Bidpai, Fables of, 150. Blignières (Auguste de), _Essai on Amyot_, 119. Blount (Edward), a printer, 300. Boas (F. S.), _Shakespeare and his Predecessors_, 426. Boner (Hieronymus), version of Plutarch’s _Lives_, _note_ 132. Boswell (James), quotation from Plutarch, 116. Bower (Richard), ? author of a _New Tragicall Comedie of Apius and Virginia_, 2. Bradley (A. C.), on the Roman Plays, 80; _Julius Caesar_, _note_ 267; Shakesperian atmosphere after _Othello_ and _Lear_, 305; _Antony and Cleopatra_, _note_ 312; _Coriolanus_, 462. Brandes (Dr. George), _Julius Caesar_, _note_ 217; on Tieck’s Dramas (in _Romantic School in Germany_), _note_ 280; _Antony and Cleopatra_, 307; _Coriolanus_, 464 and 466. Brandl (Professor Alois), _Coriolanus_, 464. Brandon (Samuel), _Vertuous Octavia_, 71. Brontë (Charlotte), on _Coriolanus_, 468, 472. Brooke (Lord), _Antony and Cleopatra_—destroyed tragedy on, 70. Buchanan (George), _Baptistes_ and _Jephthes_, 21. Butler (Professor), on _Appius and Virginia_, _note_ 9. Büttner, _Zu Coriolan und seiner Quelle_, 488.

_Caesar’s Fall_, a play by Drayton, Webster and others, 170. Calvin (John), prose of, 135. Camden (William), _Remaines_, 455. Caractacus, Elizabethan Plays on, 1. Carlyle (Thomas), on the Historical Plays, 89. Casca (in _Julius Caesar_), 286. Cassius (in _Julius Caesar_), 275, 284. _César_, by Jacques Grévin, 31. _César_, by Grévin and Muretus, compared, 30-33. Chalmers (Alexander), on _Coriolanus_, 460. Chapman (George), French plays, 77; _Bussy d’Ambois_, 303; _The Conspiracie_ and _The Tragedie of Charles, Duke of Byron_, 464. Charmian (in _Antony and Cleopatra_), 347. Chaucer (Geoffrey), on Brutus and Cassius, 27; _Legend of Good Women_, 308. Chenier (Marie-Joseph), _Brutus et Cassius, Les Derniers Romains_, 27. Cicero (in _Julius Caesar_), 287. Cinthio (Giovanni Battista Giroldi), play on _Cleopatra_, _note_ 310. Cleopatra (in _Antony and Cleopatra_), 413-438; relations between Antony and Cleopatra, 439-453; “One Word,” 653-656. _Cleopatra_, by Samuel Daniel, 48. Coleridge (Samuel Taylor), Brutus (in _Julius Caesar_), 201, 202, 204, 205; _Julius Caesar_, 256; _Antony and Cleopatra_, 305, 317, 338; _Coriolanus_, 462, 473; on Aufidius (in _Coriolanus_), 486; “Inexplicable” passage in _Coriolanus_, 657-659. Collins (John Churton), _Studies in Shakespeare_, 180; Shakespeare’s Latinity, 653. Collischonn (G.A.O.), Introduction to Grévin’s _Caesar_, _note_ 27; and Muretus’ _Julius Caesar_, _note_ 27; coincidences between Grévin and Shakespeare, 34. Cominius (in _Coriolanus_), 498, 556. _Complaint of Rosamond_, by Samuel Daniel, 48; parallelisms with _Romeo and Juliet_ and _Rape of Lucrece_, 56. Confrères de la Passion, 30. CORIOLANUS, 454-627; date of composition, 454; “Inexplicable” passage in, 657-659. _Cornelia_, by Thomas Kyd, 54. _Cornélie_, compared with Muretus, 37. Cory, translation of Leo, 333. Courier (P. L.), on Plutarch, 106, 119. Cruserius, Latin version of Plutarch, 133. _Cymbeline_, 312.

Daniel (Samuel), _Cleopatra_, 48, 338, 451. Dante, on Brutus and Cassius, 26. Decius (in _Julius Caesar_), 286. _Defence of Ryme_, by Samuel Daniel, 50. de l’Escluse (Charles), additional lives to Plutarch, 144. _Delia_, by Samuel Daniel, 48. Delius (Nicolaus), Shakespeare and Plutarch, 165; on Coriolanus, 456, 487; Coriolanus and Plutarch, 493. Demogeot, on Amyot, 139. De Quincey (Thomas), on Plutarch, _note_ 114. _Diall of Princes_, by Thomas North, 143. Digges (Leonard), on the Roman Plays, 85; on _Julius Caesar_, 255. Dodsley (Robert), Old English Plays, 4. Dolabella (in _Antony and Cleopatra_), 346. Doni (Antonio Francesco), _Morale Filosofia_ (same as Bidpai’s Fables), 144, 150. Dowden (Professor Edward), _Shakespeare’s Mind and Art_, 214. Drayton (Michael), _Mortimeriados_ or _The Barons’ War_, 169. Dryden (John), on Plutarch, 106; _Life of Plutarch_, 110; _All for Love_ or _The World Well Lost_, 256, 340.

_Eccerinis_, by Mussato, 11. Eedes (Dr.), lost Latin play, 180. English and Roman plays compared, 74. Enobarbus (in _Antony and Cleopatra_), 349-359. Eros (in _Antony and Cleopatra_), 366.

_Fabula Praetexta_, 11. Faguet (Émile), on _Cornélie_, 37. _Famous Victories of Henry V._, 2. Farmer (John S.), reproduction of _Appius and Virginia_, 3. Favorinus (the Philosopher), 101. Fénelon (François de Salignac de la Mothe), on Amyot, 136. Ferrero (Professor Guglielmo), on _Antony and Cleopatra_, _note_ 335; on Cleopatra, _note_ 414 and 452. Filelfo, Latin version of Plutarch, 134. Florus (Mestrius) [friend of Plutarch], 97. French Senecans, 19-44. Fulvia (in _Antony and Cleopatra_), 396. Furness (Frances Howard), _Antony and Cleopatra_, _note_ 59; on Charmian, _note_ 347.

Garnett (Dr. Richard), _Date and Occasion of The Tempest_, 466. Garnier (R.), _Cornélie_, 35; Drama about Portia, 35; _Marc Antoine_, 41; _Antonius_, English translation by Countess of Pembroke, 46; _Antony and Cleopatra_, 338; parallels between _Cornélie_ and _Julius Caesar_, 628-630. Gassner (H.), edition of Kyd’s _Cornelia_, _note_ 55. Geddes (Dr.), a lost Latin play, 180. Gellius (Aulus), on Plutarch, 101. Genée (Rudolph), Shakespeare’s _Leben und Werke_, 198. Gervinus (Georg Gottfried), _Shakespeare Commentaries_, _Julius Caesar_, 224; _Antony and Cleopatra_, 305, 307, 340; Plutarch’s Antony, 336; Coriolanus, 471. Goethe, on “love,” 446. _Gorboduc_, 45, 70. Goulard (Simon), _Octavius Caesar Augustus_, 648. Greene (Robert), _James IV._, _note_ 62. Grévin (Jacques), _César_, _note_ 27, 31. Grosart (Dr. Alexander), edition of Daniel’s _Cleopatra_ quoted from, 51. Guevara (Antoniode), _The Favored Courtier_, 148; _El Libro Aureo de Marco Aurelio, otherwise Emperador y eloquentissimo Orator_, called _Marco Aurelio con el Relox de Principes_ or _The Diall of Princes_, 147 and 148.

Halliwell-Phillips (J. O.), Weever’s _Mirror of Martyrs_, 170. Hamlet, 78, 173. Hardy (Alexandre), _Coriolan_, 475. Hazlitt (W. Carew), _notes_ 4 and 5. Heine (Heinrich), on Cleopatra, 441; on Rome, 547. _Henry V._, 172. Heywood (Thomas), _Rape of Lucrece_, 68. Holden (Rev. Dr. H. A.), on Plutarch, _note_ 114; on Amyot, _note_ 133. Holland (Philemon), translation of Pliny, 333, _note_ 456; Livy on Coriolanus, 626. Hudson (Dr. Henry Norman), _Shakespeare, his Life, Art and Characters_, 224. Hughes (Thomas), _Misfortunes of Arthur_, 45. Hugo (Victor), Historical Plays, 87.

Ingram (Professor), on “endings” (of verses), 304. Iras (in _Antony and Cleopatra_), 347, 438.

Jacobs (Joseph), _Fables of Bidpai_, _note_ 150. Jaggard (the Younger), a printer, 301. Jodelle (Étienne), _Cleopatra Captive_, 28, _note_ 322; _Antony and Cleopatra_, 338; _Cleopatra_, _note_ 435. Johnson (Dr. Samuel), _Julius Caesar_, 256; _Coriolanus_, 480, 482; Menenius Agrippa, 564. Jonson (Ben), _Catiline_, 54; _Sejanus_ and _Catiline_, 85; _Discoveries_ and _Staple of News_, on _Julius Caesar_, 174 and 175; _Epicoene_, note 303, 460. Jowett (Benjamin), _Plato_, Vol. I., _note_ 237; _Plato_, Vol. II., 446. JULIUS CAESAR, date of composition, 168; Plutarch, 180; the lives of Brutus, Caesar and Antony, 188; should it be named Marcus Brutus, 212; _Julius Caesar_ is himself analogous to the King in the English Historical Plays, 213. Julius Caesar, character in other plays, 177. Julius Caesar and Appian, 644-647. _Julius Caesar_ and Garnier’s _Cornélie_, 60; parallels between, 628-630. _Julius Caesar_, by Muretus, 11. Junius Brutus (in _Coriolanus_), 499.

Kahnt (Paul), _Gedankenkreis ... in Jodelle’s und Garnier’s Tragödien_, _note_ 19. Karsteg (Prof. von), in _Harry Richmond_, 393. _King John_, 82. _King Lear_, 78. Klein, on Cinthio’s _Cleopatra_ and _Antony and Cleopatra_, _note_ 310. Kreyssig (Friedrich Alexo Theodor), on Octavius, 378; on Volumnia, 553; on Virgilia, 570. Kyd (Thomas), translation of _Cornélie_ (under name _Cornelia_), 54; Boas’ edition, _note_ 55.

Lamprias, brother of Plutarch, 98. Landman (Dr. Friedrich), on _Euphues_, 149. Lanson, on Amyot, 141. La Rochefoucauld (François, VI. Duc de), _notes_ 420, 424 and 451. Lartius (in _Coriolanus_), 513. Le Duc (Viollet), _Ancien Théatre François_, _note_ 28. Lee (Sidney), Shakespeare and Camden, 457. Lepidus (in _Julius Caesar_), 297. Lepidus (in _Antony and Cleopatra_), 368. Lessing (Gotthold Ephraim), _Hamburg Dramaturgy_ on the Roman Plays, 86. Ligarius (in _Julius Caesar_), 286. “light” endings, 304. Lily (John), _Euphues_ and _The Diall of Princes_, 149. Lloyd (Watkiss), on _Coriolanus_, 519. Lodge (Thomas), _The Wounds of Civill War_, 62; _A Looking Glass for London and England_, 62; translator of Josephus and Lucius Annaeus Seneca, 68. Lord Alexas, _see_ Alexas. Lotze, on Historical Plays, 89. “Love,” in three plays, 342. Luce (Alice), edition of Countess of Pembroke’s translation of R. Garnier’s _Antonius_, _note_ 46. Lucilius (in _Julius Caesar_), 285. Lucina, Elizabethan plays on, 1. Lucretia, Elizabethan plays on, 1.

_Macbeth_, 78, and _Antony and Cleopatra_, 302. Malone (Edmund), date of _Antony and Cleopatra_, 303; date of _Coriolanus_, 454, 459, 460. “Mansions” (another name for “scenes”), 476. Marcius (in _Coriolanus_), 497, 549. Marcus Aurelius, 104. Mark Antony (in _Julius Caesar_), 289-298. (in _Antony and Cleopatra_), 390-412. Marlowe (Christopher), _Edward II._, 2; _Tamburlaine_, _note_ 62, and Shakespeare, _Henry VI._, 93. Massinissa, Elizabethan plays on, 1. Mecaenas (in _Antony and Cleopatra_), 346, 361. Menas (in _Antony and Cleopatra_), 348, 376. Menecrates (in _Antony and Cleopatra_), 376. Menenius Agrippa (in _Julius Caesar_), 558. Meres (Francis), list of plays, 171; _Palladis Tamia_, 172. Messala (in _Julius Caesar_), 285. Méziriac (Bachet de), on Amyot, 128. _Misfortunes of Arthur_, by Thomas Hughes, 45. “Mixed” plays, 18. Moeller, _Kleopatra in der Tragödien-Literatur_, _note_, 310. Montaigne (Michael, Lord of), on Muretus, 20; on Amyot, 129. Montreuil, _Cleopatre_, _note_ 310. Muretus, _Julius Caesar_, 11, 20. Mussato, _Eccerinis_, 11.

Nashe (Thomas), use of word “lurched,” 460. Nicholson (S.), _Acolastus his Afterwit_, 171. North (Sir Thomas), 141-167; birth and education, 142; _Diall of Princes_, 143; Lord Lieutenant of Cambridgeshire and Isle of Ely, 143; Doni’s _Morale Filosofia_, 144; command at Ely, 146; dignities and pensions, 146; his style in translating Plutarch, 154; ? as to the Greek text, _note_ 155. Nuce (Thomas), English version of _Octavia_, 12.

_Octavia_, ? by Seneca, 10-19. Octavia (in _Antony and Cleopatra_), 362-366. Octavius (in _Julius Caesar_), 298. Octavius (in _Antony and Cleopatra_), 373, 378. _Othello_, 78. Ovid, _Epistle of Dido_, 653.

Pais (Ettore), on story of Coriolanus, 474. Pembroke (Countess of), translation of Garnier’s _Antonius_, 2; Mornay’s _Discourse on Life and Death_, _note_ 46. _Philotas_, by Samuel Daniel, 49. Pindarus (in _Julius Caesar_), 284, 285. Plays named after _two_ persons, 341. Plutarch and Shakespeare, 92 etc., 95-119; ancestry and education, 95; _Isis and Osiris_, 96; _Moralia_, 97; marriage, 98; priest of Apollo, 102; Archon of Chaeronea, 104; ? a consul, 104; ? governor of Greece, 104; and Plato, 108; Neo-Platonism, 108; his philosophy, 108; _Praecepta gerendae Reipublicae_, 113; Latin version of his _Lives_, published at Rome by Campani, 132; other translations, 132; editions of North’s version, 151; various versions and Volumnia’s speech, 631-643. Portia (in _Julius Caesar_), 271-274. Preston (Thomas), _King Cambyses_, 8. Proculeius (in _Antony and Cleopatra_), 346. Puschkin, parallel with Cleopatra’s “One Word,” 655.

_Quarterly Review_ (1861), on Plutarch, 162.

Rabelais (François), prose of, 135. Racine (Jean), on Amyot, 136. _Richard III._, 177. Rigal (Eugène), on Alexandre Hardy, 476. Roman and English plays compared, 74. _Romeo and Juliet_, 177. Ronsard (Pierre de) Roman plays by the School of, 11; on Grévin’s _César_, 33. Rousseau (Jean Jacques), on Plutarch, 117. Ruhnken, edition of Muretus, _note_ 27. Ruskin (John), on Virgilia, 497. Rusticus (Arulenus), friend of Plutarch, 97.

Sachs (Hans), play on Cleopatra, _note_ 310. St. Évremond, on Plutarch, 112. Scarus (in _Antony and Cleopatra_), 359. Schiller, historical plays of, 87. Schweighäuser (Johann), version of Appian quoted, 645. Scott (Sir Walter), on Dryden’s _All for Love_, 256. Seneca, ? author of _Octavia_, 10. Senecio (Sosius), friend of Plutarch, 97. Serapion, a poet, 101. Sextus of Chaeronea, 104. Sextus Pompeius (in _Antony and Cleopatra_), 346, 373. Shakespeare (William), Roman plays influenced by Senecan pieces, 56, and Thomas Kyd, 56; _Midsummer-Night’s Dream_ and _Merchant of Venice_ show traces of North’s Plutarch, 151; various editions of North’s Plutarch, _note_ 152, and North, 163. Sicinius Vellutus (in _Coriolanus_), 499. Sidgwick (Henry), on _Julius Caesar_, 176. Silius (in _Antony and Cleopatra_), 345. Skelton (John), _Garland of Laurel_, 309. Sonnets—Daniel’s _Delia_, 56; sorrows in the, 313. Stahr (A.), on Cleopatra, 427. Stengel, _Théatre d’Alexandre Hardy_, 476. Stirling (Earl of), _see_ Alexander (Sir William). Stokes (Henry Paine), _Chronological Order of Shakespeare’s Plays_, _note_ 168. Stone (Boswell), _Shakespeare’s Holinshed_, _note_ 180. Strato (in _Julius Caesar_), 285. Swinburne (Algernon Charles), Trilogy on Mary Stuart, 89. Taylor (Sir Henry), _Philip van Artevelde_, 89. Ten Brink (Bernhard), on Cleopatra, 443. Tennyson, _Harold_, 89. Thyreus (in _Antony and Cleopatra_), 346. _Timaeus_, treatise on the, by Plutarch, 101. _Timon_, 82, 307. Timon, brother of Plutarch, 98. Titinius (in _Julius Caesar_), 284, 285. _Titus Andronicus_, 177. Titus Lartius (in _Coriolanus_), 498, 556. Trench (Richard Chenevix), Archbishop of Dublin, on Plutarch, 114; on Shakespeare and Plutarch, 164; on _Coriolanus_, 600. _Troilus and Cressida_, 84. Tullus Aufidius, _see_ Aufidius (Tullus). Turberville (George), translation of Ovid, 654.

Vaugelas (Claude Favre de), on Amyot, 136. Ventidius (in _Antony and Cleopatra_), 345. Verity (A. W.), edition of _Julius Caesar_, 175; edition of _Coriolanus_, _note_ 497. Viehoff, on _Shakespeare’s Coriolan_, 479. Virgilia (in _Coriolanus_), 497, 566. Voltaire (François Marie Arouet de), on Brutus, 239. Volumnia (in _Coriolanus_), 494, 549; her speech and various versions of Plutarch, 631-643. Warburton (William), a reading in _Antony and Cleopatra_, 411. Ward (Prof. A. W.), on Countess of Pembroke’s version of Garnier’s _Antonius_, _note_ 46; on Lodge’s _The Wounds of Civill War_, _note_ 62. _Warning to Fair Women_, 171. “weak” endings, 304. Weever (John), _Mirror of Martyrs_, 170, 172. Whitelaw, date of _Coriolanus_, 466. Wordsworth (William), on Plutarch, _note_ 114. Wright (W. Aldis), edition of _Julius Caesar_, 172. Wyndham (the Right Honble. George), on Plutarch, 112; on Amyot’s Plutarch’s _Morals_, _note_ 144; on _Julius Caesar_, 239.

Xylander, Latin version of Plutarch, 133.

Zielinski (Professor Thaddäus), _Marginalia Philologus_ on _Antony and Cleopatra_, _note_ 347; on Cleopatra’s “One Word,” 653.

GLASGOW: PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS BY ROBERT MACLEHOSE AND CO. LTD.

BY A. C. BRADLEY, LL.D., LITT.D. _Formerly Professor of Poetry in the University of Oxford_

Shakespearean Tragedy

LECTURES ON HAMLET, OTHELLO, KING LEAR, MACBETH

8_vo._ 10_s._ _net_.

“Mr. Bradley’s book, as the Americans would say, is a ‘real live book,’ and ought to find a place side by side with the volumes of Coleridge, Lamb, Hazlitt, and Swinburne, among the best and most illuminative specimens of English dramatic criticism.”—Mr. W. L. COURTNEY in the _Daily Telegraph_.

“An admirable piece of work. To call it the most luminous piece of Shakespearean criticism that has ever been written would be to pretend to an impossible familiarity with the whole gigantic literature of the subject. Let me only say, then, that no such minutely searching and patiently convincing studies of Shakespeare are known to me.”—Mr. WILLIAM ARCHER in the _Daily Chronicle_.

“Professor Bradley realises to the full the depth and the delicacy and the darkness of his subject; and realising this, he contrives to say some very admirable things about it.”—Mr. G. K. CHESTERTON in the _Daily News_.

Oxford Lectures on Poetry

8_vo._ 10_s._ _net_.

“A remarkable achievement.... It is probable that this volume will attain a permanence for which critical literature generally cannot hope. Very many of the things that are said here are finally said; they exhaust their subject. Of one thing we are certain—that there is no work in English devoted to the interpretation of poetic experience which can claim the delicacy and sureness of Mr. Bradley’s.”—_Athenæum._

“This is not a book to be written about in a hasty review of a thousand words. It is one to be perused and appreciated at leisure—to be returned to again and again, partly because of its supreme interest, partly because it provokes, as all good books should do, a certain antagonism, partly because it is itself the product of a careful, scholarly mind, basing conclusions on a scrupulous perusal of documents and authorities.... The whole book is so full of good things that it is impossible to make any adequate selection. In an age which is not supposed to be very much interested in literary criticism, a book like Mr. Bradley’s is of no little significance and importance.”—_Daily Telegraph._

LONDON: MACMILLAN AND CO. LTD.

A History of English Poetry.

By W. J. COURTHOPE, C.B., M.A., D.Litt., LL.D., formerly Professor of Poetry in the University of Oxford; Fellow of the British Academy; Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature; Hon. Fellow of New College, Oxford. 6 vols. 8vo. 10s. net each.

Vol. I. The Middle Ages; Influence of the Roman Empire; The Encyclopædic Education of the Church; The Feudal System.

Vol. II. The Renaissance and the Reformation; Influence of the Court and the Universities.

Vol. III. The Intellectual Conflict of the Seventeenth Century; Decadent Influence of the Feudal Monarchy; Growth of the National Genius.

Vol. IV. Development and Decline of the Poetical Drama; Influence of the Court and the People.

Vol. V. The Constitutional Compromise of the Eighteenth Century; Effects of the Classical Renaissance; its Zenith and Decline; The Early Romantic Renaissance.

Vol. VI. The Romantic Movement in English Poetry; Effects of the French Revolution.

A History of English Prosody

from the Twelfth Century to the Present Day. By GEORGE SAINTSBURY, M.A. Oxon., Hon. LL.D. Aberd., Hon. D.Litt. Dresd., Professor of Rhetoric and English Literature in the University of Edinburgh. 3 vols. 8vo.

Vol. I. From the Origins to Spenser. 10s. net. Vol. II. From Shakespeare to Crabbe. 15s. net. Vol. III. Conclusion. [_Spring, 1910._

LONDON: MACMILLAN AND CO. LTD.