actor,' as Professor Wood contends. Poetaster contains not the slightest hint that Histrio has poetic or dramatic powers or aspirations; he is presented as an actor pure and simple. On the other hand, the identification of Posthast in Histromastir with Anthony Monday, made by Fleay (Chr. 2. 70-72), Penniman (War of the Theatres 38-43), and Small (Stage-Quarrel 172–5), is undoubtedly correct. As for Histrio, there is absolutely no reason to suppose he represents Shakespeare.

Our conclusion, then, is that Histrio is neither Henslowe nor Shakespeare. He represents the Chamberlain's company, but whether he was a member whom Jonson's audience could call by name, we cannot know.

Horace. That Horace represents Ben Jonson himself cannot be questioned.

In Poetaster, Horace is described as follows: he writes in the satirical vein (3. 1. 24-5); observes men only to satirize them (4. 3. 107-110); will sacrifice a friend for the sake of a jest (4. 3. 112-120)-which he denies (5. 3. 332 ff.). He is charged with arrogance and impudence in commending his own works (4. 3. 125-6); is a translator (4. 3. 127, 5. 3. 375); is falsely charged with 'felfe-loue, arrogancy, impudence, rayling, filching by tranflation, &c.' (5. 3. 239-240). He is valiant, and ‘a man of the fword' (4. 7. 20-1); poor (5. 1. 77), but not degraded by his poverty (5. 1. 79 ff.); not envious (5. 1. 90–3); he calls himself the worst accufer vnder heauen' (5. 3. 181). He is fortunate and honored in his acquaintance (3. 1. 247-251; 5. 3. 472-8) and keeps the company of gallants (5. 3. 327). In Satiromastix (p. 200), Tucca says to Horace: ' You must be call'd Asper, and Criticus, and Horace, thy tytle's longer a reading than the Stile a the big Turkes: Asper, Criticus, Quintus, Horatius, Flaccus.' This, taken with the speeches by and concerning these characters, written by Jonson, is sufficient proof that Asper of Every Man Out, Crites (Criticus in quarto) of Cynthia's Revels, and

Horace of Poetaster, all represent Jonson himself. In order to understand Horace-Jonson as he understood himself, therefore, we must advert to the earlier plays. Asper is thus characterized (Every Man Out, Char. of the Persons): 'He is of an ingenious and free spirit, eager, and constant in reproof, without fear controlling the world's abuses. One whom no servile hope of gain, or frosty apprehension of danger, can make to be a parasite, either to time, place, or opinion.' But the full-length portrait of Jonson as he dared to represent himself occurs in Cynthia's Revels, 2. 1, Mercury loq.:

Crites. A creature of a most perfect and divine temper: one in whom the humours and elements are peaceably met, without emulation of precedency; he is neither too fantastically melancholy, too slowly phlegmatic, too lightly sanguine, or too rashly choleric; but in all so composed and ordered, as it is clear Nature went about some full work, she did more than make a man when she made him. His discourse is like his behaviour, uncommon, but not unpleasing; he is prodigal of neither. He strives rather to be that which men call judicious, than to be thought so; and is so truly learned, that he affects not to shew it. He will think and speak his thought both freely; but as distant from depraving another man's merit, as proclaiming his own [which is delicious]. For his valour, 'tis such that he dares as little to offer an injury as receive In sum, he hath a most ingenious and sweet spirit, a sharp and seasoned wit, a straight judgment and a strong mind. Fortune could never break him, nor make him less. He counts it his pleasure to despise pleasures, and is more delighted with good deeds than goods. It is competency to him that he can be virtuous. He doth neither covet nor fear; he hath too much reason to do either; and that commends all things to him.

one.

Macilente of Every Man Out (see the Character of the Persons) has also been frequently supposed to represent Jonson, and I therefore add the characterization of him, though not agreeing in the identification:

Macilente. A man well parted, a sufficient scholar, and travelled; who, wanting that place in the world's account which he thinks his merit capable of, falls into such an envious apoplexy, with which his judgment is so dazzled, and distracted, that he grows violently impatient of any opposite happiness in another.

'Asper-Macilente,' writes Fleay (Chr. 1. 359), 'is, of course, Jonson.' Penniman (War of the Theatres 57) makes the same assumption. Dr. B. Nicholson has the following note (Jonson 1. 113) on Macilente: "The "lean (and malevolent) one", Asper transformed, i. e. Jonson out of his humour.' Small takes a different view (Stage-Quarrel 29-30): "Throughout the play the fact is enforced that Macilente's "envy" is not hatred, but envy in the modern sense. . . . Jonson is careful to distinguish the parts of Asper and Macilente, although they were played by one actor, and nowhere is Macilente made the mouthpiece of the author. Macilente corresponds in function to Brainworm in Every Man in his Humour; he is the means adopted to bring all the rest of the characters out of their humours. He differs from Brainworm just as Puntarvolo, Brisk, and the rest differ from Kitely and Knowell, in being far more strictly the embodiment of a single humour, a nearer approach to caricature, a further divorce from life.' It may be said further that Jonson's characterization of Asper is intended to be seriously complimentary; while what he says of Macilente, both in the Character of the Persons and throughout the play, is bitingly censorious. Again, Dekker would surely have added Macilente to his list of Jonson's aliases had there been any hope of carrying conviction to his audience, for to make Macilente also identical with Jonson would have been most damaging.

Returning to the Horace of Poetaster, we should add Dekker's caricature of him in Satiromastix (pp. 260-1), Tucca loq.:

Thou hast no part of Horace in thee but's name, and his damnable vices: thou hast such a terrible mouth, that thy beard's afraide to peepe out: but, looke heere, you staring Leuiathan, heere's the sweete visage of Horace; looke perboylde-face, looke; Horace had a trim longbeard, and a reasonable good face for a Poet, (as faces goe now-a-dayes) Horace did not skrue and wriggle himselfe into great Mens famyliarity, (impudentlie) as thou doost: nor

weare the Badge of Gentlemens company, as thou doost thy Taffetie sleeues tackt too onely with some pointes of profit: No, Horace had not his face puncht full of Oylet-holes, like the couer of a warming-pan: Horace lou'd Poets well, and gaue Coxcombes to none but fooles; but thou lou'st none, neither Wisemen nor fooles, but thy selfe: Horace was a goodly Corpulent Gentlemen, and not so leane a hollow-cheekt Scrag as thou art: No, heere's the Coppy of thy countenance, by this will I learne to make a number of villanous faces more, and to looke scuruily vpon 'th world, as thou dost.

Scoundrelly argumentum ad hominem though this be, a single reading of Poetaster, to say nothing of Cynthia's Revels, must force one to acknowledge that Jonson had been the aggressor and had chosen the weapons for the fight.

Julia. Julia, the daughter and only child of Augustus by Scribonia his first wife, was born B. C. 39, and educated with great strictness. In B. C. 25 she was married to her cousin, M. Marcellus. After his death, being still childless, she was married to M. Vipsanius Agrippa, and of this marriage came five children. Agrippa having died, B. C. 12, Julia was wedded to Tiberius Claudius Nero, the future emperor. During the retirement of Tiberius at Rhodes, Julia became so notoriously unfaithful that Augustus himself caused her to be divorced, and banished her with her mother Scribonia to Pandataria, off the Campanian coast. Suetonius (Augustus 65) says Augustus used to call Julia one of his cancers; and Pliny (Nat. Hist. 7. 45) charges Julia with having conspired against her father's life. The emperor never forgave her, or saw her again, and after Tiberius had assumed the purple (A. D. 14) she died from ill-treatment.

For further discussion of this character, see under OVID. Lictors. The lictors were attendants who bore the fasces, or insignia of power, before certain Roman magistrates. Lictors had to accompany their magistrate whenever he appeared in public, marching before him in single file and

warning aside all accept matrons and Vestals. They carried out sentences of punishment. The emperor was preceded by twelve lictors bearing fasces crowned with bays, originally the insignia of the republican imperator. In Poetaster, the lictors frequently play the part of sheriff's officers, or sergeants of the Counter: cf. 3. 3 and 3. 4.

Lupus. Horace speaks in Sat. 2. 1. 68 of a Lupus who was covered over by Lucilius with his own lampoons (cf. Poetaster 3. 5. 110). This is L. Cornelius Lentulus Lupus, consul B. C. 156, censor 147, noted for wickedness and impiety. One P. Rutilius Lupus was tribune of the plebs B. C. 56, and Lupus is a not uncommon Roman name. Jonson chooses the name because of its meaning, wolf. It must be said, however, that to the Romans Lupus was no more opprobrious than was Wulf to the Teutonic races. The full ASINIUS LUPUS was formed by adding a name readily associated with asinus, an ass, a blockhead. However, the name Asinius was borne by a prominent Roman gens, of which the most celebrated member was C. Asinius Pollio.

Concerning the Lupus of Poetaster, Fleay has made some more or less happy guesses. Cf. Chr. 1. 367: 'Lupus was certainly some one named Wolf; the allusions in many places to the English name are too numerous to admit of any other explanation; but whether Wolf the printer, Wolf the apothecary, or some other I know not.' Cf. also his note (Chr. 1. 364) on Cynthia's Revels: 'Lupus in fabula, ii. 1., may be Wolf the publisher (see Harvey and iii. 2).' It is to be regretted that Fleay has not interpreted also an allusion in Every Man Out, 5. 7: 'Why, how now signor Deliro! has the wolf seen you, ha?' Gifford refers here to the superstition that if a wolf saw any one before he was seen, that person was deprived of speech,' and cites Virgil, Ecl. 9. 53-4. Of course this sounds reasonable, but how much more interesting it would be if we could only have a suggestion that some ugly apothecary, or publisher,