INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

PON

THIS PLAY REJECTED AS SPURIOUS BY MANY ENGLISH CRITICS-EXTERNAL PROOF AS
TO ITS AUTHENTICITY—ITS CHARACTERISTICS OF MANNER, ETC., AND THE INDICA-
TIONS THEY AFFORD OF ITS BEING A YOUTHFUL WORK OF SHAKESPEARE's, or

A

OTHERWISE-OPINIONS OF CONTINENTAL AND LATER ENGLISH CRITICS.

GREAT majority of the English Shakespearian editors, commentators, and critics, including some of the very highest names in literature, have concurred in rejecting this bloody and repulsive tragedy as wholly unworthy of Shakespeare, and therefore erroneously ascribed to him. Yet the external evidence of his authorship of the piece is exceedingly strong-indeed stronger than that for one half of his unquestioned works. It was repeatedly printed during the author's life; the first time (as appears from the Stationers' Register and Langbaine's authority, no copy being now known to be in existence) in 1593 or 1594, by J. Danter, who was also, in 1597, the publisher of ROMEO AND JULIET, in its original form. It was again reprinted in a quarto pamphlet in 1600 and in 1611. It was finally published in the first folio in 1623, and placed without question amongst the tragedies, between CORIOLANUS and ROMEO AND JULIET. The editors of this first collection of Shakespeare's "Comedies, and Histories, and Tragedies, published according to the true originall copies," announced to their readers, in their preface, "the care and paine" they had taken so to publish "his writings, that where before you were abused with diverse stolen and surreptitious copies maimed and deformed by the frauds and stealthe of injurious impostors; even these are now offered to view cured and perfect of their limbs; and all the rest, absolute in their numbers as he conceived them." It is then difficult to believe that editors who thus professed to reject even imperfect copies of genuine plays, should have admitted without doubt a whole play in which their author had no hand. Nor can we suppose them likely to be mistaken in such a matter, when we recollect that these editors were Heminge and Condell, long the managers of a theatrical company which had represented this very play, and to whom its author could not well have been unknown; who were, moreover, for years Shakespeare's associates in theatrical concerns, and his personal friends, and who, in connection with the great original actor of OTHELLO and RICHARD, HAMLET and LEAR, are remembered by the Poet in his will, by a bequest "to my fellows John Hemynge, Richard Burbage, and Henry Cundell, to buy them rings."

These editors had besides given no slight proof of their care and fidelity on this point, by rejecting at least fourteen other plays ascribed by rumor, or by the unauthorized use of his name, to Shakespeare, and a part of which were afterwards added to their collection by the less scrupulous publishers of the folios of 1664 and of 1685.

TITUS ANDRONICUS is moreover unhesitatingly ascribed to Shakespeare by his contemporary Francis Meres, in the "Comparative discourse of our English Poets, with the Greek, Latine, and Italian Poets," contained in his "Palladis Tamia," 1598. The list of Shakespeare's works there given by Meres, has always been regarded as the best authority for the chronology of all the great Poet's works mentioned in it, and it contains the title of no other piece that ever has been questioned as of doubtful authenticity. Meres is said by Schlegel to have been personally acquainted with the Poet, and "so very intimately, that the latter read to him his sonnets before they were printed." I do not know on what authority he states this fact so strongly; yet it is remarkable that, in 1598, eleven years before Shakespeare's sonnets were printed, Meres had said "the sweete wittie soul of Ovid lives in mellifluous and honey-tongued Shakespeare; witness his VENUS AND ADONIS, his LUCRECE, his sugared sonnets among his private friends." It is besides certain, on other authority, that Meres, at the date of his publication, was intimately connected with Drayton, and he was very familiar with the literature and literary affairs of his day.

Now all this chain of positive evidence applies, not merely to an obscure play unknown in its day, but to a piece which, with all its faults, suited the taste of the times, was several times reprinted, and was often acted, and that by different theatrical companies, one of which was that with which Shakespeare was himself connected. It would be without example, that the author of such a piece should have been content for years to have seen his work ascribed to another.

Indeed, we find no trace of any doubt on the subject, until 1687, nearly a century after the first edition, when Ravenscroft, who altered TITUS ANDRONICUS to make it apply to a temporary political purpose, asserted that he had "been told by some anciently conversant with the stage, that it was not originally his, but brought by a private author to be acted, and he only gave some master-touches to one or two of the principal characters." But Ravenscroft's tradition comes in a most suspicious shape, as he had some years before spoken of the piece as unquestionably and entirely Shakespeare's.*

* "Ravenscroft's contemporary, Langbaine, makes his authority appear of very little value. Langbaine notices an early edition of 'Titus Andronicus,' now lost, printed in 1594; he adds-"Twas about the time of the Popish Plot revived and altered by Mr. Ravenscroft.' Ravenscroft was a living author when Langbaine published his 'Account of the English Dramatic Poets,' in 1691; and the writer of that account says, with a freedom that is seldom now adopted except in anonymous criticism-'Though he would be thought to imitate the silk-worm, that spins its web from its own bowels; yet I shall make him appear like the leech, that lives upon the blood of men.' This is introductory to an account of those plays which Ravenscroft claimed as his own. But, under the head of Shakespeare, Langbaine says that Ravenscroft boasts, in his preface to Titus, That he thinks it a greater theft to rob the dead of their praise than

a play once erroneously attributed to Shakespeare, and was as little known among literary men as any of the plays of the secondary dramatists of the same age, who have since been made familiar, at least by name and in quotation, by the brilliant comments of Lamb and Hazlitt, and the large use made of them by the commentators.

Towards the end of the century, PERICLES appeared in the editions of Malone, and in those of Johnson and Stevens, after the associations of these two critics. This was mainly in consequence of the opinion maintained by Malone, who had the courage to assert and support by argument, that " PERICLES was the entire work of Shakespeare, and one of his earliest compositions." Stevens, on the other hand, resolutely maintained :—

"The drama before us contains no discrimination of manners, (except in the comic dialogues,) very few traces of original thought, and is evidently destitute of that intelligence and useful knowledge that pervade even the meanest of Shakespeare's undisputed performances. To speak more plainly, it is neither enriched by the gems that sparkle through the rubbish of LOVE'S LABOUR'S LOST, nor the good sense which so often fertilizes the barren fable of the Two GENTLEMEN OF VERONA. PERICLES, in short, is little more than a string of adventures so numerous, so inartificially crowded together, and so far removed from probability, that, in my private judgment, I must acquit even the irregular and lawless Shakespeare of having constructed the fabric of the drama, though he has certainly bestowed some decoration on its parts. Yet even this decoration, like embroidery on a blanket, only serves by contrast to expose the meanness of the original materials. That the plays of Shakespeare have their inequalities likewise, is sufficiently understood; but they are still the inequalities of Shakespeare. He may occasionally be absurd, but is seldom foolish; he may be censured, but can rarely be despised.

"I do not recollect a single plot of Shakespeare's formation, (or even adoption from preceding plays or novels,) in which the majority of the characters are not so well connected, and so necessary in respect of each other, that they proceed in combination to the end of the story; unless the story (as in the cases of Antigonus and Mercutio) requires the interposition of death. In PERICLES this continuity is wanting:

disjectas moles, avulsaque saxis Saxa vides;—

and even with the aid of Gower the scenes are rather loosely tacked together, than closely interwoven. We see no more of Antiochus after his first appearance. His anonymous daughter utters but one unintelligible couplet, and then vanishes. Simonides likewise is lost as soon as the marriage of Thaisa is over; and the punishment of Cleon and his wife, which poetic justice demanded, makes no part of the action, but is related in a kind of epilogue by Gower. This is at least a practice which in no instance has received the sanction of Shakespeare. From such deficiency of mutual interest, and liaison among the personages of the drama, I am further strengthened in my belief that our great Poet had no share in constructing it. Dr. Johnson long ago observed that his real power is not seen in the splendour of particular passages, but in the progress of his fable, and the tenour of his dialogue; and when it becomes necessary for me to quote a decision founded on comprehensive views, I can appeal to none in which I should more implicitly confide. Gower relates the story of Pericles in a manner not quite so desultory; and yet such a tale as that of Prince Appolyn, in its most perfect state, would hardly have attracted the notice of any playwright, except one who was quite a novice in the rules of his art."

In this view Malone finally acquiesced, in substance, though, with great truth and good taste, still insisting that

"The wildness and irregularity of the fable, the artless conduct of the piece, and the mequalities of the poetry, may be all accounted for, by supposing it either his first or one of his earliest essays in dramatic composition.”

Stevens's decision long remained unquestioned, both as to the point of Shakespeare's share of authorship, and the poetic merits of the drama itself; and it has recently received more authority for having been substantially reaffirmed by Mr. Hallam:-" From the poverty and bad management of the fable, the want of effective and distinguishable character, and the general feebleness of the tragedy as a whole, I should not believe the structure to have been Shakespeare's. But (he adds) many passages are far more in his manner than in that of any contemporary writer with whom I am acquainted, and the extrinsic testimony, though not conclusive, being of some value, 1 should not dissent from the judgment of Stevens and Malone, that it was in 'no inconsiderable degree repaired and improved by his hand.'" (Literature of Europe.) He elsewhere insists, that the play is full of evident marks of an inferior hand." Other modern critics, of nearly as high name, have gone still further in censure: W. Gifford, for example, rejects and brands the play as “the worthless PERICLES."

This sweeping, unqualified censure was amusingly counterbalanced by as unqualified an expression of adıniration, by William Godwin-a writer whose political ethics and metaphysics, full of the boldest opinions, expressed in the most startling and paradoxical form, had prepared the public to expect similar extravagances on all other subjects, and had thus taken away much of the weight of his literary judgments. Yet these judgments are in fact entitled to all the weight due to a writer of genius,-manifesting on all such subjects an extensive acquaintance with English literature, in its whole range, guided by a pure taste, and a quick and deep sensibility to every form of beauty. In his “Life of Chaucer," incidentally speaking of PERICLES, he designates it as “a beautiful drama,” "which in sweetness of manner, delicacy of description, truth of feeling, and natural ease of language, would do honour to the greatest author that ever existed." Since that period, many others have been more disposed to dwell upon the beauties of PERICLES-the existence of which few now deny-than upon its many defects, to which none but a blind idolater of the great bard can close his eyes. Accordingly its merits have been vindicated by the modern continental critics, and by several of the later English ones; as by Franz Horn, Ulrici, Knight, Dr. Drake, and especially by Mr. Proctor, (Barry Cornwall,) in a long and admirable note, in his memoir of Ben Jonson, prefixed to Moxon's edition of Jonson's works, (1838.) (See extracts in notes to this edition.) Barry Cornwall roundly charges the preceding critics (from Pope to Gifford) with having condemned PERICLES unread; while he proves that "the merit and style of the work sufficiently denote the author"-that author of whom he eloquently says, that he "was and is, bevond all competition, the greatest Poet that the world has ever seen. He is the

greatest in general power, and greatest in style, which is symbol or evidence of power. For the motion of verse corresponds with the power of the poet; as the swell and tumult of the sea answer to the winds that call them up. From LEAR down to PERICLES, there ought to be no mistake between Shakespeare and any other writer."— (Memoir of Ben Jonson, xxxi.)

The "glorious uncertainty of the law" has been exemplified and commemorated, in a large and closely printed volume, containing nothing but the mere titles of legal decisions, once acknowledged as law, and since reversed or contradicted, as "cases overruled, doubted, or denied." The decisions of the critical tribunals would furnish materials for a much larger work; and Shakespearian criticism, by itself, would supply an ample record of varying or overruled judgments. Those on the subject of PERICLES alone would constitute a large title in the collection; and, as a slight contribution to such compilation, I have thrown together, at the end of the notes to this play, some of the judgments and dicta of the principal critical authorities, upon the long-controverted questions connected with this tragedy.

Yet, in the play itself may be found some foundation for all and each of those opinions, though least for the hasty and vague censures of Pope and Gifford. The play is awkwardly and unskilfully constructed, being on the plan of the old legendary drama, when it was thought sufficient to put some popular narrative into action, with little attempt at a condensed and sustained continuous interest in the plot or its personages. It rambles along through the period of two generations, without any attempt at the artist-like management of a similar duration in the WINTER'S TALE, by breaking up the story into parts, and making the one a natural sequel to the other, so as to keep up a uniform continuity of interest throughout both. The story itself is extravagant, and its denouement is caused by the aid of the heathen mythology, which, as we have had occasion to observe elsewhere, (Introductory Remarks to CYMBELINE,) every mind, trained under modern associations and habits of thought, feels as repugnant to dramatic truth, and at once refuses to lend to it that transient conventional belief so necessary to any degree of illusion or interest, and so readily given to shadowy superstitions of other kinds, as ghosts, witches, and fairies, more akin to our general opinions, or more familiar to our childhood. A still greater defect than this is one rare indeed in any thing from Shakespeare's mind-the vagueness and meagerness of the characters, undistinguished by any of that portrait-like individuality which gives life and reality to the humblest personages of his scene. Thence, in spite of the excellence of particular parts, there results a general feebleness of effect in the whole. The versification is, in general, singularly halting and uncouth, and the style is sometimes creeping and sometimes extravagant.

From these circumstances, if, at the time when PERICLES was excluded from the ordinary editions, its place had been supplied by a prose outline of the story, with occasional specimens of the dialogue, such as Voltaire gave of JULIUS CESAR, selected only from the most extravagant passages, there would be little hesitation in denying the whole or the greater part of the play to be Shakespeare's, or in allowing that it bore "evident marks of an inferior hand." Yet, on the other hand, it contains much to please, to surprise, to affect, and to delight. The introduction of old Gower, linking togethe: the broken action, by his antiquated legendary narrative, is original and pleasing. The very first scenes have nere and there some passages of sudden and unexpected grandeur, and the later acts bear everywhere the very "form and pressure" of Shakespeare's mind. Yet it is observable, that wherever we meet him, in his own unquestionable person, it is not as the poetic Shakespeare of the youthful comedies, but with the port and style of the author of Lear and Cordelia. Indeed, the scene in the last act, of Pericles's recognition of his daughter, recalls strongly the touching passages of Cordelia's filial love, and Lear's return to reason, by a resemblance, not so much of situation or language, as of spirit and feeling. The language and style of these nobler passages are peculiarly Shakespearian, and, as Mr. Hallam justly observes, "of the Poet's later manner." They have his emphatic mode of employing the plainest and most homely words in the highest and most poetical sense,-his original compounds, his crowded magnificence of gorgeous imagery, interspersed with the simplest touches of living nature. Thus, when Pericles retraces his lost wife's features in his recovered child:

My dearest wife was like this maid, and such a one

My daughter might have been; my queen's square brows,

Her stature to an inch; as wand-like straight;

As silver-voiced; her eyes as jewel-like,

And cas'd as richly; in pace another Juno, etc.—(Act v. scene 1.)

Here, too, we find his peculiar mode of stating and enforcing general truths-not in didactic digression, but as interwoven with and growing out of the incidents or passing emotions of the scene. (See note, act i. scene 1.) Taking these characteristics into view, and these alone, the play must be pronounced worthy of all the praise bestowed by Godwin. If then we were to reverse the experiment just suggested, upon the supposed reader who knows no more of PERICLES than that it is a play which has been ascribed by some to Shakespeare, and to place before him a prose abstract of the plot, interspersed with large extracts from the finer passages, he would surely wonder why there could have been a moment's hesitation in placing PERICLES by the side of CYMBELINE and the WINTER'S TALE.

There are two different solutions of these contradictory phenomena, and it is not easy to decide, with confidence. which is the true one. The first hypothesis is founded upon the old traditionary opinion, that PERICLES, in its original form, was one of the author's earliest dramatic essays, perhaps an almost boyish work; but that not long before 1609, when it was printed as a "late much-admired play," the author, then in the meridian of his reputation, revised and enlarged it, as he had repeatedly done with others of his plays, which, like ROMEO AND JULIET, LOVE'S LABOUR'S LOST, e'c, are announced in their title-pages as having been "newly corrected, augmented, and amended." This hypothesis, of course, rejects the favourite notion that Shakespeare's genius burst forth at once,

in its full splendour and magnitude, and takes for granted what all experience teaches, that the first trials of his strength had the awkwardness and feebleness of boyish youth. This hypothesis corresponds with the legendary and inartificial structure of the main story, and the feebleness of characterization-points which would be least of all susceptible of improvement, without an entire recasting of the drama. It agrees too with the large stage-direction and ample allowance of dumb show, such as he afterwards introduced into his mimic play in HAMLET, and as remain in CYMBELINE, as remnants of the old groundwork of that drama, and which were strongly characteristic of the fashion of the stage in Shakespeare's youth. The additions and improvements are very perceptible, and stand out boldly from the weakly executed framework of the drama, which remains untouched-differing from similar enlargements and corrections of others of his own dramas, (as ROMEO AND JULIET, etc.,) by the Poet himself, in the greater contrast here afforded by the effusions of his matured mind, with the timid outline of his unpractised hand; and differing again from CYMBELINE (as Coleridge remarks) by the "entire rifacimento of the latter, when Shakespeare's celebrity as a poet, no less than his influence as manager, enabled him to bring forward the lordly labours of his youth." PERICLES having, from its first appearance, by means of its story, its dumb-show, and by its comparative merit relatively to its rivals for popular favour, succeeded, and kept possession of the stage, the author would not feel himself called upon to re-write a play which answered its main end, and the subject of which presented no peculiar attractions to him, while the reëxamination of his own boyish, half-formed thoughts would naturally expand and elevate them into nobler forms, and re-clothe them in that glowing language he had since created for himself.

This theory commends itself as every way probable to my judgment, as it has done to that of others, whose opinions are entitled to great deference.

Nevertheless, the other solution of the difficulty-that proposed by Mr. Hallam-may still be the true one; that the original "Pericles" was by some inferior hand, perhaps by a personal friend of Shakespeare's, and that he, without remodelling the plot, undertook to correct and improve it, beginning with slight additions, and his mind, warming as he proceeded, breaking out towards the close of the drama with its accustomed vigour and abundance. This opinion has been the more generally received one among the English critics, and it has the advantage of solving one difficulty which the other theory leaves unexplained-why PERICLES was omitted by the editors of the first folio.

Mr. Collier has well summed up the argument on this side of the question, and as his statement contains some other facts of interest in relation to this piece, it is here inserted.

“An opinion has long prevailed, and we have no doubt it is well founded, that two hands are to be traced in the composition of PERICLES. The larger part of the first three Acts were in all probability the work of an inferior dramatist: to these Shakespeare added comparatively little; but he found it necessary, as the story advanced and as the interest increased, to insert more of his own composition. His hand begins to be distinctly seen in the third Act, and afterwards we feel persuaded that we could extract nearly every line that was not dietated by his great intellect. We apprehend that Shakespeare found a drama on the story in the possession of one of the companies performing in London, and that, in accordance with the ordinary practice of the time, he made additions to and improvements in it, and procured it to be represented at the Globe theatre. Who might be the author of the the original piece, it would be vain to conjecture. Although we have no decisive proof that Shakespeare ever worked in immediate concert with any of his contemporaries, it was the custom with nearly all the dramatists of his day, and it is not impossible that such was the case with PERICLES.

"The circumstance that it was a joint production, may account for the non-appearance of PERICLES in the folio of 1623. Ben Jonson, when printing the volume of his Works, in 1616, excluded for this reason The Case is Altered,' and Eastward Ho in the composition of which he had been engaged with others; and when the player-editors of the folio of 1623 were collecting their materials, they perhaps omitted PERICLES because some living author might have an interest in it. Of course we advance this point as a mere speculation; and the fact that the publishers of the folio of 1623 could not purchase the right of the bookseller, who had then the property in Pericles,' may have been the real cause of its non-insertion.

"The Registers of the Stationers' Company show that on the 20th May, 1608, Edward Blount (one of the proprietors of the folio of 1623) entered 'The booke of Pericles, Prynce of Tyre,' with one of the undoubted works of Shakespeare, ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA. Nevertheless, PERICLES was not published by Blount, but by Gosson in the following year; and we may infer, either that Blount sold his interest to Gosson, or that Gosson anticipated Blount in procuring a manuscript of the play. Gosson may have subsequently parted with PERICLES to Thomas Pavier, and hence the re-impression by the latter in 1619.

"Having thus spoken of the internal evidence of authorship, we will now advert briefly to the external evidence, that it was the work of our great dramatist. In the first place it was printed in 1609, with his name at full length, and rendered unusually obvious, on the title-page. The answer, of course, may be that this was a fraud, and that it had been previously committed in the cases of the first part of Sir John Oldcastle,' 1600, and of The Yorkshire Tragedy,' 1608. It is undoubtedly true, that Shakespeare's name is upon those title-pages; but we know, with regard to Sir John Oldcastle,' that the original title-page, stating it to have been Written by William Shakespeare' was cancelled, no doubt at the instance of the author to whom it was falsely imputed; and as to 'The Yorkshire Tragedy,' many persons have entertained the belief, in which we join, that Shakespeare had a share in its composition. We are not to forget that, in the year preceding, Nathaniel Butter had made very prominent use of Shakespeare's name, for the sale of three impressions of KING LEAR; and that in the very year when PERICLES came out, Thorpe had printed a collection of scattered poems, recommending them to notice in very large capitals, by stating emphatically that they were 'Shakespeare's Sonnets.'

"A list of theatrical apparel, formerly belonging to Alleyn the player, mentions 'spangled hose in Pericles,' from which it appears that he had probably acted in a play called 'Pericles.' See Memoirs of Edward Alleyn.' This might be the play which Shakespeare altered and improved."

"It seems that PERICLES was reprinted under the same circumstances in 1611. I have never been able to meet with a copy of this edition, and doubted its existence, until Mr. Halliwell pointed it out to me, in a sale catalogue in 184; it purported to have been printed for S. S.' This fact would show, that Shakespeare did not then contradict the reiterated assertion, that he was the author of the play."

COSTUME, ARMS, ETC., OF THE ROMAN DRAMAS.

No poetic or dramatic author, in himself, needs less than Shakespeare the aid of historical accuracy of costume, architecture and decoration, except perhaps in the dramas founded on English history. But in our days, when under the impulse given by the Kembles, the stage has become so learnedly exact in its dresses and decorations. and when too the arts of design in every branch have found innumerable subjects in Shakespeare's pages, a knowledge of this historical costume in which these scenes should be arrayed, either on the stage or the canvass, has become a very useful and agreeable adjunct to Shakespearian literature. Indeed, in the present diffusion of pic=torial literature, a moderately informed reader or spectator will find his habitual associations disturbed by incongruities and anachronisms, to which Shakespeare and his audience were alike blind.

We have therefore transferred to this edition the substance of the notices of Roman costume in the Pictorial edition, which are applicable alike to the historical period of the republic, to the days of Caesar and Anthony which ended it, and to the indefinite date of Andronicus in the decline of the Roman empire.

For the very curious learning here collected in an agreeable form, the reader is mainly indebted to J. R. Planché, well known in various literary walks, who himself acknowledges his obligation to the most learned and classical of tailors, M. Combré, of Paris, whose practical and professional skill cleared up difficulties which puzzled Grevus, Gronovus, Montfaucon, and a host of other scholars in the last century.

"From the reign of Augustus downwards innumerable authorities exist for the civil and military costume of the Romans; but before that period much obscurity remains to be dispersed, notwithstanding the labours of learned

men.

"Tarquinius Priscus, the fifth King of Rome, an Etruscan by birth, introduced among the Romans many of the manners and habits of his native country. He first distinguished the senators and magistrates by particular robes and ornaments, surrounded the axes carried before great public functionaries with bundles of rods (fasces), and established the practice of triumphing in a golden car drawn by four horses. The toga pura, prætexta, and picta, the trabea, the paludamentum, the tunica palmata, and the curule chairs, were derived from the Etruscans, and from the Greeks and Etruscans the early Romans borrowed their arms, offensive and defensive. It is, therefore, amongst Grecian and Etrurian remains that we must look for the illustration of such points as are still undecided respecting the habits of the Romans during the commonwealth, and not on the columns and arches of the emperors, which may almost be termed the monuments of another nation. The date assigned to the death of Caius Marcius Coriolanus is B. c. 488. Julius Cæsar was assassinated в. c. 44. During four hundred years little alteration took place in the habiliments of the Romans, and the civil and military dress of the earlier play may, with very few exceptions, be worn by similar personages in the other, and exhibit together the most particular dresses in use during the whole period of the republic.

"The civil dress of the higher classes amongst the ancient Romans consisted of a woollen tunic, over which, in public, was worn the toga. The toga was also of wool, and its colour, during the earlier ages, of its own natural yellowish hue. It was a robe of honour, which the common people were not permitted to wear, and it was laid aside in times of mourning and public calamities. The form of the toga has been a hotly-contested point; Dionysius Halicarnassus says it was semi-circular; and an ingenious foreigner,* who devoted many years to the inquiry, has practically demonstrated that, though not perfectly semicircular, its shape was such as to be better described by that term than any other.

"The Roman tunic was of different lengths, according to the caprice of the wearer; but long tunics were deemed effeminate during the time of the republic. Cicero, speaking of the luxury of Catiline's companions, says they wore tunics reaching to their heels, and that their togas were as large as the sails of a ship. Some wore two or more tunics; the interior one, which held the place of the modern shirt, was called interula or subucula. The subucula of Augustus was of wool, according to Suetonius; and there does not appear any proof that linen was used for this garment by men before the time of Alexander Severus, who, according to Lampridius, was particularly fond of fine linen. Women, however, appear to have generally used it, for Varro mentions, as an extraordinary circumstance, that it had long been the custom of the females of a particular Roman family not to wear linen garments.

"The common people wore over their tunics a kind of mantle or surtout, called lacerna, which was fastened before with a buckle, and had a hood attached to it (cucullus). It was generally made of wool, and dyed black or brown. In the time of Cicero it was a disgrace for a senator to adopt such a habit; but it was afterwards worn by the higher orders. The birrhus was a similar vestment, also with a hood, but usually of a red colour. When travelling, the heads of the higher classes were generally covered by the petasus, a broad-brimmed hat, which they had borrowed from the Greeks. The common people wore the pileus, a conical cap, which was also the emblem of liberty, because it was given to slaves when they were made free.

"Various kinds of covering are mentioned for the feet, and many were called by the Romans calceus which are found under their own names, as pero, mulleus, phæcasium, caliga, solea, crepida, sandalium, baxea, etc. The caliga was the sandal of the Roman soldiery, such as had nails or spikes at the bottom. The pero is supposed by some to be the boot worn by the senators; the phæcasium was also a kind of boot, covering the foot entirely. According to Appianus, it was of white leather, and worn originally by the Athenian and Alexandrian priesthood at sacrifices: it was worn in Rome by women and effeminate persons.

The mulleus is described by Dion Cassius as coming up to the middle of the leg, though it did not cover the whole foot, but only the sole, like a sandal; it was of a red colour, and originally worn by the Alban kings.

"The cothurnus, which it resembled both in colour and fashion, is described as having a ligature attached to the sole, which passed between the great and second toes, and then divided into two bands. And Virgil tells us that it was worn by the Tyrian virgins.

"The armour of the Romans at the commencement of the republic consisted, according to Livy, of the galea, the cassis, the clypeus, the ocrea or greaves, and the lorica, all of brass. This was the Etruscan attire, and introduced by Servius Tullius. The lorica, like the French cuirass, was so called from having been originally made of

"The late Mons. Combré, costumier to the Theatre Français, Paris. This intelligent person, at the recommendation of Talma, was engaged by Covent Garden Theatre, for the revival of Julius Caesar, and made the beautiful togas which have since been worn in all the Roman plays at that theatre.