scripti vel chirographi ita nisi sub teste licet emere vel vendere. Recedentibus igitur hospitibus et consumptis cibariis, pactum poposcit senior frater. Negat junior, et adductus est coram rege, et sententiatus coram juniore ut ad locum suppliciorum deducatur, et accipiat senior tantum de carne quantum pactum est vel in capite vel circa cor. Misertus autem sui populus eo quod liberalis erat, nunciaverunt filio regis quæ et quare hæc facta fuerant, qui statim misericordia motus, induit se, et palefridum ascendens secutus est miserum illum sic dampnatum; et cum venisset ad locum supplicii, videns eum populus qui ad spectaculum confluxerant, cessit sibi. Et alloquens filius regis fratrem illum seniorem crudelem, et dixit ei: 'Quid juris habes in isto?' Respondit: 'Sic,' inquit, 'pacti sumus, ut pro cibariis tantundem de carne sua mihi daret, et condempnatus est ad solutionem per patrem tuum regem.' Cui filius regis, 'Nihil,' inquit, aliud petis nisi carnem?' Respondit, 'Nihil.' Cui filius, 'Ergo sanguis suus in carne sua est;' et ait filius isti condempnato, 'Da mihi sanguinem tuum,' et statim pepigerunt, insuper fecit sibi condempnatus homagium. Tunc dixit filius regis fratri seniori, 'Modo cape ubicunque volueris carnem tuum; sed si sanguis meus est, si ex eo minimam guttam effunderis, morieris.' Quo viso, recessit senior confusus, et liberatus est junior per regem."

VI. CYMBELINE.

It is not certain whether the novel of Boccaccio (Dec. ii., 9) is the immediate or only the remote source of our play. Grimm (Altdeutsche Wälder i., 27) expressly denies it. Meanwhile, no story has yet been found which has more traits in common with our author's "Cymbeline." Though Benda gives as Shakespeare's undoubted original the second story in the work entitled "Westward for Smelts," which appeared at London in 1603,' and which story he has translated verbatim in the remarks to this play, yet this assertion is quite ungrounded. The greater number of the English critics decide for our story; and even Malone remarked that far more circumstances agree with Shakespeare here than in that story, which besides is nothing but a direct imitation of Boccaccio's story, adapted to English manners. With this Dunlop agrees, ii., 255 et seq. It mentions nothing of the chest whereby the traitor contrives to introduce himself by night into the chamber of the faithful wife-nothing of the pictures in it—nothing of the mole on her bosom-instead of this decisive token, a crucifix is represented as sufficing to convince the credulous husband of his wife's guilt. This defect is not counter

1 This date is given solely on the authority of Steevens, but Mr. Collier is of opinion that it was first published in 1620, being entered on the books of the Stationers' Company in that year. Mr. Collier says the only copy known of the edition of 1620 is preserved in the Capell collection, but I have recently purchased a fine copy of the work, which certainly has no indication of having been a republication. A curious woodcut of a barge occurs on the title-page. I am inclined to believe Steevens' assertion, because he refers to the entry in the Stationers' Register as containing information not found in the edition he used.-ED.

balanced by other traits which are wanting in Boccaccio,' and which might show that Shakespeare had known only this form of the story. Probably the tragedy was written before the publication of the story; for though Malone conjectures the former was composed in the year 1605, because the stories of Lear and Cymbeline stand near each other in Holinshed's Chronicle, yet Benda remarks, very justly, how insufficient this datum is to determine the age of the piece: but he is not more successful himself, when he maintains with confidence that the piece was not composed before 1603, because the story first came out in that year. Tieck assumes that this piece is a work of the poet's youth, resumed in his after-life.

That no English translation of this play can be produced of Shakespeare's age is no decisive proof whether our supposition be allowed that Shakespeare could read it in the original; or we suppose, with the English, that the translations have been lost.2 The Italian names, Philario, Pisanio, and Iachimo, would imply a borrowing from an Italian source; though the episode of the stolen sons of the King, Guiderius and

1 The tale in the Decameron is unquestionably, in some measure, the source of Shakespeare's play, but it had probably been translated into English in other forms besides that contained in the "Westward for Smelts." One translation of the story was published as early as 1518, under the title of "Frederyke of Gennen," a copy of which was in Captain Cox's library. I have seen only a fragment of this tract; and should feel much obliged if any reader would refer me to the existence of a complete copy.-ED.

2 Two similarities are mentioned by Mr. Collier between an early French miracle-play and the play of "Cymbeline." In the former, the seducer boasts that, if he could speak to the lady twice, he would conquer her virtue. This boast also occurs in Shakespeare's play; but it seems to me a natural coincidence, and similar to what would be placed in the mouth of any libertine. The second similarity is in the seducer assaulting the virtue of the lady by pretending that her husband had set her the example of infidelity. This incident is also much too universal to be considered in this case as any remarkable coincidence.-ED.

F

Arviragus, and a great part of the fate of Leonatus Posthumus, give ground for the supposition that Shakespeare had previously met with another story, and amalgamated it with this. Perhaps this union of the fate of Imogen with the old British popular story, as told by Holinshed, and before him by Geoffrey of Monmouth and others, had already taken place in a popular story then current, and of which Shakespeare made use. This would remove the reproach, on which English critics lay so much stress, that Shakespeare has peopled ancient Rome with modern Italians: for if he found those Italian names already existing in a popular romance, he could not change them for others without prejudice to the popularity of his piece. Douce, (Illustrations, ii., 199) imagines that he finds in the romance of Xenophon Ephesius, "Abrocamas and Anthia," which he also considers as the earliest source of "Romeo and Juliet," two incidents which also occur in "Cymbeline." The first is as follows:-When Anthia has become the slave of Mantos and her husband, the latter becomes enamoured of her; the jealous Manto, discovering this, orders a trusty servant to take Anthia into the wood, and put her to death. The servant, however, like the servant in Boccaccio, and Pisanio, in Shakespeare, pities the unfortunate Anthia, and spares her life. This incident, which occurs perpetually in stories of all times and of all nations, proves nothing, especially as it is found in Boccaccio in much nearer connexion with the fortune of Imogen. The other incident is that of the sleeping potion, which Imogen drinks like Anthia and Julia, after taking which she is judged dead by Arviragus and Guiderius, and then awakes to enter into the service of the Roman General. It is not to be denied here that the sleeping potion has more analogy in its operation with "Cymbeline" than with "Romeo and Juliet," and therefore it is very possible that, in the popular relation which we have already supposed Shakespeare to have made use of, the romance of Xenophon may have been incorporated with the

story of Boccaccio, if, indeed, Shakespeare himself did not undertake this incorporation.'

In the story of Cymbeline and his two sons, related by Geoffrey of Monmouth, there are but few incidents to remind us of Shakespeare. "When Cymbeline had ruled ten years over the Britons, he begat two sons, Guiderius and Arviragus: to the first of these he left the kingdom at his death. He refused the Romans their tribute, whereupon Claudius landed with an army, and besieged Porchester. With him was a man named Levis Hamo, on whose counsel he relied in matters of war. When it came to a contest, Guiderius performed prodigies of valour, and Claudius was flying to the ships, when the cunning Hamo threw his arms from him, clothed and armed himself as a Briton, and so fought against the Romans. He encourages the Britons to follow the enemy, and gain a full victory; for he had learned their language and manners, having grown up among the British hostages at Rome. In this manner he drew near to King Guiderius, who suspected no treachery, and slew him unawares with a stroke of the sword. He then fled again to the Romans. When Arviragus saw his brother slain, he put on his armour, and led the Britons against the Romans, as if he were Guiderius himself." Thus, in Shakespeare, Leonatus Posthumus twice changes his armour: once to fight with the Britons, when he had come with the Romans; the second time to be taken captive by the Britons as a Roman. But it is exactly his fortunes which give most foundation for the suspicion that a popular form of the story lay between Geoffrey of Monmouth's account and Shakespeare's representation."

This is, I think, most unlikely. If the Greek romance had any influence at all on the story employed by Shakespeare, it can at best be supposed to be a very remote original.—ED.

2 Even the name of Imogen occurs in Holinshed and Geoffrey of Monmouth; not, however, in the story of Cymbeline and his son, but at the beginning of the Chronicle, in the history of Brutus and Locrine.