Page:Notes and Queries - Series 12 - Volume 5.djvu/261

 2 S. V. OCT., 1919.]

NOTES AND QUERIES.

255

mmer, as it was licensed on June 19 and peared from the press in the Trinity term rber, 'The Term Catalogues,' i. 211). le year following, 1676, another play on B same subject, but this time styled ' Piso's nspiracy,' and issued anonymously, was ted at the rival playhouse at Dorset ,rden. It was licensed on Feb. 10 and peared in book form about Easter ( ' The rm Catalogues,' i. 227). It is concerning lese two plays that the uncritical error ferred to above occurs. Gerard Langbaine, in his ' Momus riumphans ' (1687), and later in his 'An ccount of the English Dramatick Poets ' 691), in speaking of the latter play, declares iat it is " only the Tragedy of Nero. . . .* eviv'd, and printed verbatim " (p. 545). riarles Gildon, who in 1698/9 produced an nended and enlarged edition of Lang- line's work (' The Lives and Characters of ie English Dramatick Poets '), amplified is statement and announced that ' Piso's mspiracy ' "is no more than the Tragedy Nero, with a Title chang'd, and if you mpare them, will find no Difference roughout " (p. 166). This statement was ily copied in the various editions of the Siographia Dramatica,' and even the Rev. >hn Genest, in 1832, quoted Langbaine's sertion, apparently with approval ( ' Some 3count of the English Stage,' i. 1 86). What most surprising, however, is that, in our odern days of most elaborate and pains- king research, the ' Cambridge History of iglish Literature ' should, in its biblio- aphy of Lee, declare that ' Nero ' was reissued in 1676 as ' Piso's Conspiracy.' ' ie whole of the statements, of course, ice 1687, are based on the initial phrase of tngbaine's, but that hardly excuses the
 * er unverified repetition of his erroneous

3W.

The truth of the matter is that not only there not a line of ' Piso's Conspiracy ' rrowed from ' The Tragedy of Nero,' but it the two plays, in conception, in aracters, in treatment, are as diverse as o plays written on the same subject can ry well be. Lee's drama, already rich in rants and in its bombast, softening into thetic little patches of pure poetry, ounds not only in such " heroic " ex- mations as that of Brittanicus " O IDS ! Devils ! Hell, Heaven and Earth ! "


 * In * Momus Triumphans' he traces both

gedies to the same source : Suetonius, ' InVitam ronis.' ' Piso's Conspiracy,' however, owes much lacitus.

but also in such powerful scenes as that where the same character runs mad, an early sign of a fatal bent in Lee's own mind, both of which are lacking in the later production. The author of ' Piso's Con- spiracy ' was obviously more concerned with historical presentment than was Lee. He introduces more classical allusions in his conversation, and less of the emotional outbursts to which Lee gives himself so much away. For this purpose, he introduces among his dramatis personae the characters of Lucan and Scevinus, as well as the Seneca common to them both, and, cutting out Agrippina, " the Old Empress mother to Nero," Octavia, " Nero's first wife sister of Brittanicus,'" Cyara, " Princess of Parthia, Mrs. [sic] of Brittanicus," Syllana, " Pop- psea's confident," he reduces the female persons to Poppea alone, thus considerably diminishing the emotional element in his play. Along with those characters which are wanting in his drama go Brittanicus himself, " true Heire of the Empire," Otho, Poppea' s husband, " Caligula's Ghost," Dru^illus, Plautus, Silvius, and Mirmilon. On the other hand, he adds, besides the two mentioned above, Nimphidius, " A Noble Man of Rome, and Favourite to Poppea," Tigellinus, " Nero's Creditour," Antonius, " in Love with Poppea," a couple of other courtiers and Memicus, the freeman of Scevinus. Undoubtedly, the author of ' Piso's Conspiracy ' knew more of Roman manners than did Lee. He has inserted little scraps of translation from Juvenal and from Persius into the general dialogue, and such a conversation as that between Seneca, Scevinus, and Lucan in Act I. scene iii. shows how skilfully he could reproduce his knowledge. Lee's tragedy " doth more heroically sound," but in general its horror and its strained emotions are too continuous. There is no working up in it to a precon- ceived end, and when we consider that it begins with a murder we realise that our nterest must somewhat flag ere the end be reached. It is not the tragedy of Nero, but of a giant monster of infamy, of a moon- struck villain of his own diseased fancy.

In the conduct of the plot, and apart from she obvious changes made necessary from the difference in the dramatis persona*, the bwo authors vary almost as far as they could have done. In ' Piso's Conspiracy ' Poppea dies in Act IV., stabbed by the hand of Nero ; in Lee she is not killed until the close of the play (Act V.), and then she falls by Piso's dagger. Nero, also, in the former tragedy, commits suicide at the close,