any of the other plays on the story of Cæsar that have come down to our day; and it does fit Shakespeare's play so exactly that, since it was first pointed out, the editors have unanimously accepted Halliwell's original view of it. It does not follow necessarily that Julius Cæsar must have been written as early as 1599. Even if the Mirror of Martyrs was written then, an allusion like this may have been inserted just before it went to press two years later. The date 1599, however, may not be too early. The internal evidence of metre and style is not inconsistent with that date. Fleay (Chronicle History of Shakespeare, 1886, p. 214) makes it 1600; "at any rate Cæsar must be anterior to the Quarto Hamlet which was produced in 1601." Stokes (Chronological Order of Shakespeare's Plays, 1878, p. 88), after a careful discussion of all the evidence, sums up the matter thus: "The great similarity of style between this play and Hamlet and Henry V. has been pointed out by Gervinus, Spedding, Dowden, Hales, and others, and, I suppose, must have been felt by nearly every reader. It is not only shown by the many allusions to Cæsar in these plays [allusions, by the by, which show a co-ordinate estimation of his character], but by the 'minor relations' of these plays. This point is so strong that, taking into consideration some of the references mentioned above, there can scarcely be any doubt that the original production of this play must be placed in 1599-1600. It may have been revised afterwards, and the appearance of several works bearing similar titles in 1607 suggests, as Mr. Fleay says, its reproduction at that date." It is not necessary, however, to suppose, as Fleay does, that the play was revised by Ben Jonson. He lays considerable stress on "the spelling of Antony without an h: this name occurs in eight of Shakespeare's plays, and in every instance but this invariably is spelled Anthony." But if the scholarly Ben had made this orthographical correction, is it likely that he would have permitted the impossible Latin form Calphurnia to stand? Or would he have retained the Decius Brutus for Decimus Brutus, or such palpable anachronisms as striking clocks and the like? It is as absurd to suppose that Jonson could have overlooked these things as that Bacon could have originated them. To the latter, as to the former, Decius Brutus for Decimus Brutus would have been like Sly's "Richard Conqueror" for the well-known William. It may be mentioned here, as a curious instance of judicial blindness, that Judge Holmes, by far the ablest of the advocates of the Baconian lunacy, in his Authorship of Shakespeare (3rd ed. 1886, vol. i. p. 289), quotes Bacon's Essay on Friendship as a parallel to the second act of the play (and one by which, "if there be a lingering doubt in any mind” as to Bacon's authorship of the latter, that doubt "must be removed"); and yet in the very passage quoted Bacon has "Decimus Brutus" and "Calpurnia," instead of the "Decius Brutus" and "Calphurnia" of the drama. The judge does not see that he is himself furnishing indisputable evidence that the philosopher was perfectly familiar with what the dramatist was palpably ignorant of. We have no reason to suppose that Shakespeare was indebted to any of the earlier plays on the same subject. The only source from which he appears to have drawn his material was Sir Thomas North's version of Plutarch's Lives, translated from the French of Bishop Amyot, and first published in 1579. He has followed North closely, almost slavishly, as the illustrative extracts given in the notes will show. As Gervinus says: "The component parts of the drama are borrowed from the biographies of Brutus and Cæsar in such a manner that not only the historical action in its ordinary course, but also the single characteristic traits in incidents and speeches, nay, even single expressions and words, are taken from Plutarch; even such as are not anecdotal or of an epigrammatic nature, even such as one unacquainted with Plutarch would consider in form and manner to be quite Shakespearian, and which have not unfrequently been quoted as his peculiar property, testifying to the poet's deep knowledge of human nature. From the triumph over Pompey (or rather over his sons), the silencing of the two tribunes, and the crown offered at the Lupercalian feast, until Cæsar's murder, and from thence to the battle of Philippi and the closing words of Antony, which are in part exactly as they were delivered, all in this play is essentially Plutarch. The omens of Cæsar's death, the warnings of the augur and of Artemidorus, the absence of the heart in the animal sacrificed, Calphurnia's dream; the peculiar traits of Cæsar's character, his superstition regarding the touch of barren women in the course, his remarks about thin people like Cassius; all the circumstances about the conspiracy where no oath was taken, the character of Ligarius, the withdrawal of Cicero; the whole relation of Portia to Brutus, her words, his reply, her subsequent anxiety and death; the circumstances of Cæsar's death, the very arts and means of Decius Brutus to induce him to leave home, all the minutest particulars of his murder, the behaviour of Antony and its result, the murder of the poet Cinna; further on, the contention between the republican friends respecting Lucius Pella and the refusal of the money, the dissension of the two concerning the decisive battle, their conversation about suicide, the appearance of Brutus's evil genius, the mistakes in the battle, its double issue, its repetition, the suicide of both friends, and Cassius's death by the same sword with which he killed Cæsar --all is taken from Plutarch's narrative, from which the poet had only to omit whatever destroyed the unity of the action." Archbishop Trench, in his Lectures on Plutarch, in referring to North's translation of the Lives, remarks: "But the highest title to honour which this version possesses has not hitherto been mentioned, namely, the use which Shakespeare was content to make of it. Whatever Latin Shakespeare may have had, he certainly knew no Greek, and thus it was only through Sir Thomas North's translation that the rich treasure-house of Plutarch's Lives was accessible to him. . . . It is hardly an exaggeration to say that the whole play—and the same stands good of Coriolanus no less-is to be found in Plutarch. Shakespeare indeed has thrown a rich mantle of poetry over all, which is often wholly his own; but of the incident there is almost nothing which he VOL. V. does not owe to Plutarch, even as continually he owes the very wording to Sir Thomas North." STAGE HISTORY. Julius Cæsar always seems to have been one of the most popular of Shakespeare's plays on the stage, in spite of its want of any female interest, and of the fact that Cæsar, who is virtually the hero, is killed in the middle of the play. We find that on the 20th May, 1613, Lord Treasurer Stanhope paid John Heminges "for presentinge before the Princes Highnes the Lady Elizabeth and the Prince Pallatyne Elector fowerteene several plays," of which "Cæsar's Tragedye" was one. When Thomas Killigrew, after the Restoration, established the King's Company, and opened a new theatre at Drury Lane, 1665, Julius Cæsar was one of the stock pieces of the company. Downes gives us the cast as follows: "Julius Cæsar, Mr. Bell, Cassius Major Mohun, Brutus, Mr. Hart, Anthony Mr. Kynaston, Calphurnia,1 Mrs. Marshal, Portia, Mrs. Corbet." The only other plays of Shakespeare, which were included in the fifteen stock plays of which Downes gives the casts, are Moor of Venice" (Othello), and King Henry the Fourth; while amongst the other plays, of which he gives merely the names, are included The Merry Wives of Windsor and Titus Andronicus; so that however much we may decry Julius Cæsar as an acting play, it had the honour of being one of the four-for we cannot include Titus Andronicus-which helped to keep alive Shakespeare's fame at a time when his rivals, Beaumont and Fletcher and Ben Jonson, were held to be his superiors by the general public. During the reigns of Charles II. and James II. Julius Cæsar seems to have been frequently played. In 1682, at the Theatre Royal, it was again acted with identically the same cast as in the above-mentioned performance. In 1684 Killigrew's and Davenant's companies coalesced, and, under the title of the King's Company, removed to the Theatre "The Royal, Drury Lane; some time in that year1 they presented this play, Betterton appearing -for the first time apparently-as Brutus, supported by William Smith as Cassius, Goodman as Julius Cæsar, Mrs. Cooke as Portia, and Lady Slingsby 2 as Calphurnia. Langbaine (p. 453) says that this play was printed in Quarto, London, 1684; and he adds: "There is an Excellent Prologue to it, printed in Covent Garden Drollery, p. 9." Genest says this edition "differs very little from the original play, except that the part of Marullus is given to Casca, and that of Cicero to Trebonius" (vol. i. p. 423). Lowndes mentions a Quarto of Julius Cæsar with the title-page "a Tragedy, as it is now acted at the Theatre Royal, Lond. n. d. (1680) 4to. On the reverse of the title is a List of Actors, in which Betterton is set down for acting Brutus." He also mentions two Quartos printed in 1684 and 1696 respectively, and another n. d. (1696); so that evidently, during this period, the play was popular among readers as well as among playgoers. It would appear that Julius Cæsar was not again represented till February 14th, 1704, when it was played at Lincoln's Inn Fields. The cast is not given. This, as will be seen, is nearly twenty years from the last recorded performance. It is most probable that it was represented in the interval more than once, though there is no record of its revival. Betterton was still acting, so he probably played his old part of Brutus. On October 30th, 1705, the company removed to the Haymarket Theatre from Lincoln's Inn Fields, and Julius Cæsar was revived on March 14th, 1706. No 1 Downes does not mention this performance, and Genest does not give the day or the month on which it took place. 2 This actress appears to have acted many principal parts; among others, Queen Margaret in Crowne's Henry VI., Regan in Tate's mutilation of Lear, and Cressida in Dryden's Troilus and Cressida. She affords the only instance of any titled actress to be found in the playbills of this period; though many of them had a sort of lefthanded claim to such a distinction. Downes mentions her among the persons who joined the Duke's Company in 1670 as Mrs. Aldridge and Mrs. Lee, afterwards Lady Slingsby. She is generally spoken of as Mrs. Mary Lee, and appears to have been no relation to poor mad Nat Lee. According to Genest "Dame Mary Slingsby was buried at Pancras 1693, 4" (Genest, vol. i. p. 449). = = particulars are given, but the cast must have been a strong one; for Betterton, Booth, Verbruggen, Bowman, as well as Mrs. Barry and Mrs. Bracegirdle, were included in the company. The next performance was on January 14th, 1707, at the Haymarket Theatre, when Genest says it was performed "For the encouragement of the Comedians acting in the Haymarket, and to enable them to keep the diversion of plays under a separate interest from Operas-By Subscription" (vol. ii. p. 363). The cast was, Brutus = Betterton: Cassius = Verbruggen: Antony = Wilks: Julius Cæsar Booth: Octavius Mills: Caska = Keen: Calphurnia = Mrs. Barry: Portia = Mrs. Bracegirdle. The minor parts were also played by well-known actors, viz. "Plebeians" = Johnson, Bullock, Norris and Cross. It would appear that "Lord Halifax proposed a subscription for reviving 3 plays of the best authors with the full strength of the company" (ut supra). The next play of this series, King and no King, was given on January 21st; and on February 4th the third, Marriage a la Mode, or the Comical Lovers; a compound manufactured by Cibber out of two of Dryden's plays, Marriage a la Mode and Secret Love. Cibber in his Apology (edn. 1740) says: "not only the Actors, (several of which were handsomely advanc'd, in their Sallaries) were duly paid, but the Manager himself too, at the Foot of his Account stood a considerable Gainer" (p. 195). On April 1st of the same year Julius Cæsar was revived for the benefit of Keen, probably with much the same cast. On December 22nd, 1709, at Drury Lane, Booth appeared as Brutus, Powell as Cassius, with Mrs. Knight as Calphurnia. A new prologue and epilogue were spoken by Keen and Mrs. Bradshaw, who represented respectively Julius Cæsar and Portia. On March 16th, 1713, at Drury Lane, Mills played the part of Julius Cæsar for his benefit, Brutus being played by Booth, Antony by Wilks, Cassius by Powell, Caska by Keen. It may be noted that on this, as on many other occasions, such actors as Johnson, Pinkethman, Bullock, Norris, Cross, and Leigh took the parts of the "Plebeians," that is, of the Citizens; the play was repeated on the 6th of April. By this time it seems to have become an established favourite. Booth chose it for his benefit March 22nd, 1716. It seems to have been acted at least two or three times every season at Drury Lane up to 1727–28; then it seems to have been put on the shelf as far as that theatre was concerned. During the period from 1720-28 inclusive, Julius Cæsar was played at the Lincoln's Inn Fields Theatre about half a dozen times. On October 18th, 1722, we find in the cast that Quin played Brutus, Boheme Cassius, Walker Antony, Leigh Julius Cæsar. It would appear, according to Genest, that the "comic characters" were played by Bullock and others (vol. iii. p. 116). These were the Citizens, whom, as has been pointed out, actors of considerable importance were content to represent. At Goodman's Fields, December 1st, 1732, Julius Cæsar was produced and played for twelve consecutive nights. On September 19th, 1736, there was a performance of this play at Drury Lane, with the following cast: Brutus, Quin; Cassius, Milward; Wright, Antony; W. Mills, Julius Cæsar; Caska, Cibber, jun.; "Citizens," Johnson, Miller, Harper, and Griffin, with Portia, Mrs. Furnival, and Calphurnia, Mrs. Butler. Davies says that the part of Casca was "enlarged" by "adding to it what belongs to Titinius;" and he observes, "if I remember right, was acted by a principal comedian. Above five and forty years since, Winstone was selected for that character, when Quin acted Brutus, and the elder Mills Cassius, Milward M. Antony, and W. Mills Julius Cæsar." He praises Winstone very much, of whom he says: "The assumed doggedness and sourness of Casca sat well upon Winstone;" and adds: "The four principal parts have not since that time been equally presented" (Dramatic Miscellanies, vol. ii. p. 212). Davies praises Milward very much in Antony, although it would appear that this actor played Cassius far more frequently, and compares him in this character with Wilks and Barry: he also says that William Mills succeeded better in Casar than in any other part. But the most interesting thing that the gossiping biographer of Garrick tells us about this play is, that the great "little Davy" once had a mind to have tried his skill in the part of Cassius; but either from a fear that Quin in Brutus would completely outshine him, or for some other reason, he gave up the idea; and this play was never revived during his management. On April 28th, 1738, there was a performance at Drury Lane for the fund for erecting a monument to the memory of Shakespeare, when Julius Cæsar was played; Mrs. Porter being the Portia. In the season 1742, 1743, Quin was engaged at Covent Garden, where he was playing as a counter-attraction to Garrick at Drury Lane; and, as might be expected, we find Julius Cæsar revived at that theatre and strongly cast, with Hale as Antony, Ryan as Cassius, Bridgewater as Cæsar, and with such actors as Hippisley, Chapman, and Woodward in the small parts of the "Plebeians." This was on November 20th, 1742. On March 18th, 1744, Sheridan took his benefit at Covent Garden in the part of Brutus. At this theatre Mrs. Pritchard appeared as Portia on October 31st, 1744. On March 28th, 1747, we find a solitary performance of Julius Cæsar for Sparks's benefit, who played Cassius to the Brutus of Delane and the Antony of Barry. The play was repeated on April 30th, when Gifford was Antony; Barry only appears to have played the part twice that season. On November 24th, 1748, Quin had rather a remarkable cast to support him in his favourite part. It included Delane as Antony, Ryan as Cassius, Sparks as Casca, Mrs. Horton as Calphurnia, and Mrs. Woffington as Portia. Three representations of this play were given in November, 1750, at which Barry was the Antony to Quin's Brutus; and so successful was he in the part that he played it seven times during this season. On January 31st, 1766, Genest records a performance of this play at Covent Garden “not acted eight years,” the cast of which was not very remarkable, except for the fact that Mrs. Bellamy played Portia. Apropos of this performance Genest notices that an edition of Julius Cæsar was printed in 1719, “as altered by Davenant and Dryden." This must have been a mistake, however, because Julius Cæsar was one of the plays assigned to Killigrew; and therefore Davenant could not play it at his theatre. Walker, who played Brutus on this and subsequent occasions at Covent Garden, used to speak the following lines at the end of the fourth act: Sure they have rais'd some devil to their aid, These lines are not found in the edition printed in 1682 "as acted at the Theatre Royal;" but they are given in Bell's edition printed from the Prompter's Book at Covent Garden, 1773. The author of these touching and poetical verses is apparently unknown; but, as Genest points out, it is clear that they must have been received into what he calls "that Sink of corruption-the Prompt Book" after 1682. We pass over some performances of no particular interest till we come to the first appearance of John Kemble in the character of Brutus. Boaden says: "On the 29th of February, 1812, Mr. Kemble revived the tragedy of Julius Cæsar; he had, as usual, made some very judicious alterations and arrangements in the piece, and in his own performance of Brutus exhibited all that purity of patriotism and philosophy, which has been, not without some hesitation, attributed to that illustrious name" (Life of Kemble, vol. ii. p. 543). There can be little doubt that this performance of the play, with Young as Cassius and Charles Kemble as Antony, must have been most effective, as Brutus was one of the characters in which the elder Kemble was supreme. Macready played both Cassius and Brutus, but in his own opinion he chiefly excelled in the latter. It is a pity that this great actor did not adopt the plan which, according to Mrs. Garrick, her husband followed, of writing his own criticisms, or rather of publishing them; for he did write them apparently in his own diary. Perhaps, if he could have seen such criticisms as the following in print during his lifetime, it might have reconciled him to that profession by means of which he gained a position, which he could scarcely have achieved even in the pulpit, after which he appears sometimes to have hankered, but which profession, nevertheless, he would seem always to have been abusing, and to have regarded as a degradation while he remained in it. In his diary, under date January 24th, 1851, he says: "Acted Brutus as I never―no, never -acted it before, in regard to dignified familiarity of dialogue, or enthusiastic inspiration of lofty purpose. The distance, the reluctance to deeds of violence, the instinctive abhorrence of tyranny, the open simplicity of heart, and natural grandeur of soul I never so perfectly, so consciously portrayed before. I think the audience felt it" (vol. ii. p. 365). Let us hope that the audience did feel all this, or, at anyrate, some of it. It is, however, satisfactory to know that among the many mortifications which this great artist had to endure, selfdepreciation was not one. In another part of his diary Macready says, with indisputable good sense, that Brutus "is one of those characters that requires peculiar care, which only repetition can give, but it never can be a part that can inspire a person with an eager desire to go to a theatre to see represented." It was in the season 1818-19 that he first played Cassius to Young's Brutus at Covent Garden, apparently on the occasion of the latter's benefit. According to his own account Macready played this part to oblige Young; but he seems to have taken great pleasure in it, and to have repeated it again in 1822, at Covent Garden, to Young's Brutus; Marc Antony being then Charles Kemble and Casca Fawcett. This revival was very successful, there being as much as £600 (?) taken at the first performance.1 Edmund Kean, apparently, never played in Julius Cæsar at all. Phelps closed his second season on May 5th, 1846, with this play, which, however, never seems to have been a great favourite with him. In our own time this play has never been represented with greater effect than it was by the celebrated German company of the Theatre Royal, Meiningen, at Drury Lane Theatre, in 1881. The completeness in every detail, and the admir 1 See Macready's Reminiscences, vol. i. p. 235. I have ventured to query the sum mentioned, as I do not believe Covent Garden Theatre could have held so much money at that time, and at the then existing prices. |