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,
