"cobblers, tapsters, and such-like base mechanical people" was indubitably the origin of some of the wording in the first scene of the play. Who, further, that knows the quarrel scene, will not come with momentary regret upon North's" did condemn and note Lucius Pella "-so strongly have those words become conjoined in our minds as purely Shaksperian?

Many of the best touches of realism in the play are also found in the history-Cæsar's dislike of lean men, the prodigies preceding Cæsar's death, the battle on Cassius' birthday, etc. But it all lay in the mine for the prospector-three of Plutarch's "Lives," and no one to see their value but Shakspere. The result is a most interesting object lesson in the way a great mind works to bring its material into a fused and perfect unity; and .ultimately our admiration becomes but the livelier when we can trace the inspiration to its source. All that makes "Julius Cæsar" so fine as a play is Shakspere's; if the history shaped the limbs, Shakspere breathed into them the breath of life.

IV. THE PLAY

FORTUNATE is the boy who first makes acquaintance with Shakspere through the pages of "Julius Cæsar," or, better still, by seeing "Julius Cæsar" well acted on the stage. "As You Like It" or "King Lear" may be beyond the powers of a youthful mind, but that boy is dull indeed who cannot be moved by this great presentation of what took place "in the most high and palmy state of Rome a little ere”—and after-"the mightiest Julius fell." There is so much life in the narrative that even a reading quickens the blood; on the stage it is irresistible—no time for parley, none for delay, but all straight action from beginning to end. The excited mob, quieted by the

tribunes; Cæsar in the gorgeous festal procession, with the dark by-play of the two chief conspirators becoming more prominent; the wild storm presaging Cæsar's fall; the meeting of the conspirators; the assassination; the turbulent and vacillating crowds swayed, now by Brutus, now by Antony; the flight of the conspirators; the great quarrel of Brutus and Cassius; and finally the reparation on the field of Philippi,-what story could be told more rapidly, or, on the whole, more entrancingly? It is all a tale of the upheaval of the old Roman state, and we seem for the time to be in the very thick of the combat. And it is a combat; that is why it appeals to the lad of spirit, who must always rejoice in a fight between opponents. evenly matched, whether in football or in some great world struggle. Dr. John Brown asserts that all schoolboys who read the Iliad are Trojans; but in our play there is a. chance to be of the party of Brutus or of Antony, and still keep one's self-respect.

The play, moreover, has the still greater charm of powerful character drawing. There is, perhaps, none of the noble development of character we get in "Lear"

66

or

Hamlet," but these Romans are presented with a direct force that takes the imagination captive. They are all limned with swift, sure strokes. Brutus, the stern republican idealist, caught by the flattery of Cassius and his own brooding melancholy into a whirl of human passion for which he is entirely unfitted; Cassius, the political schemer, grieving not so much over the downfall of the republic-though that grieves him too-as over the fact that some one else "should so get the start of the majestic world and bear the palm alone "-the practical man, yet always yielding to the idealist; and Mark Antony, the lover of plays and reveller o'nights, who loves his friend and goes honestly and directly to avenge his death, -these three men are so strongly yet subtly differentiated

that even the veriest tyro may learn to distinguish them. In some way or other the three types are bound to appear in every political struggle, and it is generally Antony -the man of practical common sense-who remains after the idealist has broken his wings against the bars of time and circumstance.

Even the minor characters are sketched as firmly. Cæsar-that parody of the historical figure-boastful and superstitious; Casca, whose "rudeness is a sauce to his good wit;"Cicero, who will never follow anything that other men begin; Portia, the noble Roman matron; the faithful Titinius; and finally the quaint little boy Lucius,-think of these as the background for the larger figures that fill the stage! Finally, the_mob-which Brandes would have us believe the aristocratic Shakspere hated-where shall we find a more vivid picture of that great surging rabble for whose favour successive Roman leaders fought and died? It becomes in "Julius Cæsar" a distinct character, a wilful fortune ruling the destinies of man. He reckons ill on the dramatic possibilities of this play who leaves out that very important factor of the cast,-in the performances of the Meiningen company a few years ago it became almost the leading character of the drama.

Finally, for the boy's suffrage, must be noted the splendid rhetorical quality of the writing. What boy does not love an orator? What boy of any quality is not himself an orator swaying vast imaginary audiences to uphold the right? And to this instinct "Julius Cæsar" makes appeal. The man that in early youth has not learned to "spout" the famous oration of Antony, that has not been Brutus or Cassius or both in the quarrel, or that has not, with Cassius, "stemmed the torrent with hearts of controversy," has missed something that later years can not give him. This is, perhaps, the best reason why the boy

is to be congratulated who begins Shakspere with this play; he can live it in word as well as in story; the verse, like Antony, "speaks right on," and has no suggestion of the involution and the maze of some of the later, grander plays; yet who can dispute the harmony and splendour of much of the language?

Shakspere has sometimes been accused of naming this play badly, on the principle that a dramatic work should be called after its leading character, if any, and that Brutus, not Cæsar, is the protagonist of "Julius Cæsar." Hudson explains by saying that Cæsar lives on after his death, and that his spirit is strong still. Three quotations from the play might support this view. Before the assassination Brutus says,

"We all stand up against the spirit of Cæsar,
And in the spirit of men there is no blood," etc.

Again, after the murder, Mark Antony in a burst of prophecy justifies (according to Gervinus) the title of the play:

"And Cæsar's spirit, ranging for revenge

Shall in these confines with a monarch's voice

Cry, 'Havoc !' and let slip the dogs of war."

This same spirit appears to Brutus before the battle of Philippi; and what says Brutus on the battle field?

66

"O Julius Cæsar, thou art mighty yet!

Thy spirit walks abroad, and turns our swords
In our own proper entrails."

Reasonable as this explanation may be, there is a better, because a simpler, one. Shakspere's work was written primarily for the stage. We can safely assume that the business of the theatre was known to him from the point of view of the manager as well as that of the playwright, and

whatever else may be said of the construction of his plays, it must be admitted that most of them will act. Now it is conceded that one of the easiest ways to get people into a theatre is to lure them there by means of a suggestive or attractive title; to-day one of the hardest tasks for both manager and dramatist is the discovery of such titles, which, besides, when found, are protected by law. The very posters on the bill-boards preach wisdom to incipient play-makers. A title must arouse curiosity or stimulate the imagination by awakening a chain of associated ideas. Shakspere has shown judgment in both kinds. "Much Ado about Nothing," "The Taming of the Shrew," "The Tempest,' "A Midsummer Night's Dream" "Lear," "Hamlet," "Macbeth," "Othello"-are excellent examples of the first kind; "King Henry IV,” and all the English historical plays named for kings, "Antony and Cleopatra," and "Julius Cæsar" are excellent examples of the second kind. Every play-goer in Shakspere's time, as now, had, it is to be supposed, some ideas to awaken by the name "Julius Cæsar"; how many, then or now, could be stirred by "Marcus Brutus"? "Write them together," and Brutus is not as fair a name ; it will not start a spirit or an audience as soon as Cæsar." How much may this have counted in the christening of the play?

66

even

Besides, did Shakspere, when thus naming plays, always name them after the chief character? Is Antonio more important than Bassanio or Shylock, even though it is for Antonio's life the two latter contend? Is Cymbeline more important than Imogen? or Henry IV than Hotspur or Prince Hal or Falstaff? To be sure, the people after whom "The Merchant of Venice" and "Cymbeline” and the first part of "King Henry IV" are named do not die in the third act, but the characters are not important; no actor of renown would play one of them. Yet in the two