551. Be ready, gods, etc.—I cannot think that Mr. Collier has improved this passage by removing the comma which we find in the old copies at the end of the first line, and so connecting the words "with all your thunderbolts," not with "Be ready," but with "Dash him to pieces."

554. Brutus hath rived my heart.—Vid. 107.

559. A flatterer's would not, though they do appear. -This is the reading of all the old copies. Mr. Collier has "did appear.'

560. Revenge yourselves alone on Cassius.-In this line and the next we have Cassius used first as a trisyllable and immediately after as a dissyllable.

560. For Cassius is aweary of the world.—Whatever may be its origin or proper meaning, many words were in the habit of occasionally taking a as a prefix in the Anglo-Saxon period of the language. Thence we have our modern English, arise, arouse, abide, await, awake, aweary, etc. Some of the words which are thus lengthened, however, do not appear to have existed in the A. Saxon; while, on the other hand, many A. Saxon forms of this kind are now lost. More or less of additional expressiveness seems usually to be given by this prefix, in the case at least of such words as can be said to have in them anything of an emotional character. Shakespeare has used the present word in another of his most pathetic lines,-Macbeth's “I 'gin to be aweary of the sun.'

560. Conned by rote.-The Anglo-Saxon connan, or cunnan, signifying to know, and also to be able,-its probable modification cunnian, to inquire,—and cennan, to beget or bring forth, appear to have all come to be confounded in the breaking up of the old form

of the language, and then to have given rise to our modern ken, and can, and con, and cunning, with meanings not at all corresponding to those of the terms with which they severally stand in phonetic connexion. Can is now used only as an auxiliary verb with the sense of to be able, though formerly it was sometimes employed with the same sense as a common verb. Ken is still in use both as a verb and as a substantive. The verb Nares interprets as meaning to see, the substantive as meaning sight; and he adds, “These words, though not current in common usage, have been so preserved in poetic language that they cannot properly be called obsolete. Instances are numerous in writers of very modern date. ... In Scotland these words are still in full currency.” But the meaning of to ken in the Scottish dialect is not to see, but to know. And anciently it had also in English the one meaning as well as the other, as may be seen both in Spenser and in Shakespeare. The case is similar to that of the Greek eida (oida) and cidéw. Cunning, again, instead of being the wisdom resulting from investigation and experience, or the skill acquired by practice, as in Anglo-Saxon, and even in our older English, has now come to be understood as involving always at least something concealed and mysterious, if not something of absolute deceit or falsehood.

As for con, its common meaning seems to be, not to know, but to get by heart, that is, to acquire a knowledge of in the most complete manner possible. And to con by rote is to commit to memory by an operation of mind similar to the turning of a wheel (rota), or by incessant repetition. Rote is the same word with routine.

It is more difficult to explain the expression to con thanks, which is of frequent occurrence in our old writers and is several times used by Shakespeare. Nares explains it as meaning to study expressions of gratitude. But it really seems, in most instances at least, to signify no more than to gire or return thanks. See a note on Gammer Gurton's Needle in Collier's edition of Dodsley's Old Plays, II. 30. Con in the present passage may perhaps mean to utter or repeat; such a sense might come not unnaturally out of the common use of the word in the sense of to get by heart. The case would be somewhat like that of the two senses assigned to the same word in the expres. sions “ to construct a sentence" and "to construe a sentence.” It is remarkable that in German also they say Dank wissen (literally to know thanks) for to give thanks. farsi srt

Our common know is not from any of the AngloSaxon verbs above enumerated, but is the modernized form of cnawan, which may or may not be related to all or to some of them.

Corresponding to cennan and connan, it may finally be added, we have the modern German kennen, to know, and können, to be able or to know. But, whatever may be the case with the German König (a king), it is impossible to admit that our English king, the representative of the A. Saxon cyng, cyncg, or cyning, can have anything to do with either cennan or connan. It is apparently of quite another family, that of which the head is cyn, nation, offspring, whence our present kin, and kindred, and kind (both the substantive and the adjective).

560. Dearer than Plutus' mine.-Dear must here

be understood, not in the derived sense of beloved, but in its literal sense of precious or of value. Vid. 349. It is " Pluto's mine" in all the Folios, and also in Rowe.

560. If that thou beest a Roman.—Our modern substantive verb, as it is called, is made up of fragments of several verbs, of which, at the least, am, was, and be are distinguishable, even if we hold is, as well as are and art, to belong to the same root with am (upon this point see Latham's Eng. Lang. 3rd edit. 346). In the A. Saxon we have com (sometimes am), waes (with waere and waeron, and wesan and gewesen), beo (with bist or býst, beódh, beón, etc.), eart (or eardh), is (or ys); and also sý, seó, sig, synd, and syndon (related to the Latin sum, sunt, sim, sis, etc.), of which forms there is no trace in our existing English. On the other hand, there is no representative in the A. Saxon of our modern plural are. Beest, which we have here, is not to be confounded with the subjunctive be; it is bist, or býst, the 2nd pers. sing. pres. indic. of beon, to be. It is now obsolete, but is also used by Milton in a famous passage:-"If thou beest he; but oh how fallen! how changed," etc. P. L. i. 84.

561. Dishonour shall be humour.-Vid. 205.-Any indignity you offer shall be regarded as a mere caprice of the moment. Humour here probably means nearly the same thing as in Cassius's "that rash humour which my mother gave me" in 568. The word had scarcely acquired in Shakespeare's age the sense in which it is now commonly used as a name for a certain mental faculty or quality; though its companion wit had already, as we have seen, come to be so employed. Vid. 436. But what if the true reading should be "dishonour shall be honour?"

568. Have not you love enough to bear with me ? This is the reading of all the old copies, and is that adopted by Mr. Knight. Both the Variorum text, which is generally followed, and also Mr. Collier give us “ Have

you not." Are we to understand that Mr. Collier has the authority of his MS. annotator for this substitution ?

dosenasant 569. Yes, Cassius ; and from henceforth.-All the irregularity that we have in this line is the slight and common one of a superfluous short syllable (the ius of Cassius). Steevens, in his dislike to even this much of freedom of versification, and his precise grammatical spirit, would strike out the from, as redundant in respect both of the sense and of the measure.

569. He'll think your mother chides.—To chide is from the A. Saxon cíd or cýd, signifying strife or contention. It is now scarcely in use except as an active verb with the sense of to reprove with sharpness; but it was formerly used also absolutely or intransitively, as here, for to employ chiding or angry expressions. In the former sense Shakespeare has both to chide and to chide at.

Instead of the stage direction “ Noise within,” the original edition has “ Enter a Poet."

570. Poet [within].—The within is inserted here and before the next two speeches by the modern edi. tors.—The present incident (as well as the hint of the preceding great scene) is taken from Plutarch's life of Brutus. The intruder, however, is not a Poet in Plutarch, but one Marcus Favonius, who affected to be a follower of Cato, and to pass for a Cynic philosopher. And it will be observed that he is called a Cynic in the dialogue. There was probably no other