preceding master; one is, the elaborately antithetical disposition of the dramatis persona, the other is the not less elaborately studied employment of irony. Contrasts in character are naturally introduced and must indeed almost necessarily occur in every drama, but the nicely studied arrangement of them in series of antitheses is, among Shakespeare's predecessors, peculiar to Sophocles alone. By him, and by him only, it was made an essential component in the structure of drama. This characteristic could not but have struck Shakespeare had he read even one of the Sophoclean tragedies. How essentially it enters into his own dramatic method is too obvious to need illustration. A comparison between the irony of Shakespeare and Sophocles would require a lengthy dissertation. It must here suffice to say that Shakespeare stands absolutely alone among his modern predecessors and contemporaries in his elaborate and systematic use of it, whether it reveal itself in such flashes as Lady Capulet's terrible "I would the fool were married to her grave," Edmund's "Yours in the ranks of death," Othello's awful "Iago, honest and just, . . . thou teachest me," poor Imogen's "I hope it be not gone to tell my lord That I kiss aught but he "; or in circumstance, as in the peaceful and attractive aspect of Macbeth's Castle to Banquo and Duncan, in the witch-pageants and promises in the same play, in Posthumus's savage attack on Imogen, and in the shipwreck of Prospero's enemies; or lastly in its suffusion of whole plots, notably those of Much Ado about Nothing, and the Tempest. In Sophocles, and in Sophocles alone, the employment of irony in all these phases is equally elaborate and equally pervasive; and again it is legitimate deduction to infer that if this differentiating characteristic of Shakespearian drama is not to be attributed to instinct it must be attributed to the influence of Sophocles.

And now, on a general survey of what has been adduced in support of Shakespeare's indebtedness to the ancient classics, what are we justified in concluding? Obviously nothing more than can be inferred from circumstantial evidence. It is, of course, quite within the bounds of possibility that every parallel cited is either mere coincidence or derived from what had been picked up in his English reading or in conversation; that what may be attributed to the direct influence of classical predecessors may be attributed to instinct and independent observation and reflection; that what he has in common with Sophocles or with any other ancient classic is due partly to accident and partly to the necessary correspondence between all that is founded on nature and truth. It is not, however, with possibilities but with probabilities that investigations of this kind are concerned. What has been demonstrated is, that Shakespeare could read Latin, that in the Latin original he most certainly read Plautus, Ovid, and Seneca, that the Greek dramatists, and all those Greek authors beside Plutarch who appear to have influenced him, were easily accessible to him, as

well in their entire works as in their fragments, in Latin translations. What has been assumed as probable, and probable in the highest degree of probability, is that he had the curiosity to turn to those translations which could scarcely fail to arrest his attention; that what, therefore, may have been borrowed from them was sometimes, perhaps often, actually borrowed from them, and that the characteristics which differentiate his work from the work of his contemporaries and recall in essentials the work of the Greek dramatists are actually attributable to the influence of those dramatists.

I need scarcely say that it is, in itself, a matter of little moment whether Shakespeare owed much or owed nothing to the classics of Greece and Rome. And yet such an inquiry is surely not without interest or even without importance. It shows how little the essential truths of life and nature are affected by the accidents of time and place. It reveals the kinship between men of genius, separated by more than two thousand years, and working under conditions which have nothing in common, as well as the kinship between ancient and modern art. It illustrates what Sainte-Beuve calls the Literary Tradition; for, even assuming that it does not prove what it was designed to prove-the direct and conscious indebtedness of the greatest of poets to his classical predecessors, it at least places beyond doubt that the drama of which he became the consummate master was, however modified, an inheritance, not an independent creation, evolved, that is to say, not from our own native plays, but from the drama represented successively by Eschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, and Seneca in tragedy, and by Menander, Plautus, and Terence in comedy. It demonstrates that the works which are the pride and glory of the modern world are not only indissolubly linked with the ancient masterpieces, but find in those masterpieces their best commentaries.

J. CHURTON COLLINS.

SOME PROMOTERS OF ANGLO-FRENCH AMITY.

THE soundness of the opinion that danger of conflict between two countries will be lessened if their inhabitants have a better knowledge of each other's life and character has more than once been questioned by writers on international politics. It has been pointed out that there is no modern instance of war being averted for a single day because two nations were familiar to each other, nay, that history teaches quite an opposite lesson, most modern wars having been "between combatants who had an intimate acquaintance with one another's language, institutions, and social customs." 1

Weighty though the evidence may be in support of this view, it would be a pity if it were accepted as a conclusive argument against the advantages of ententes cordiales, and led to the disparagement of the various movements which have been set on foot of recent years with the object of promoting international peace. Fortunately, there is no great danger of this, since quite as much can be said in favour of the benefits to be derived from different races knowing each other intimately as against the efforts of those who, on the principle that close acquaintances are more likely to settle their quarrels amicably than utter strangers, attempt to draw nations together by propagating mutual knowledge and esteem. Familiarity with each other's language and customs may certainly count for little in the balance when vital national interests are at stake; but on other occasions—and wars are liable to arise through quite trivial matters as well as over questions the importance of which overshadows every other consideration-intimate international acquaintanceships may have great weight in bringing two countries to an understanding without recourse to arms.

Take, for example, the case of France and England. For a number of years past, influences which have had a distinct bearing on the present friendly relations between the two countries have been at work on the other side of the Channel. There have been times when, judging by the hostile tone of Paris and London newspapers, these influences have been thrust into the background and apparently annulled; but, slowly yet surely, amidst the storm and stress of international politics, they continued to operate until, at last, they bore fruit in a rapprochement which appears to be heartily approved by the people of both nations.

(1) France. By J. E. C. Bodley. Vol. I. pp. 56-57.

At such a time as this, therefore, it is interesting, as well as instructive, to look back into the past; to reflect a little on movements which have contributed to peace; and, above all, to dwell on the subject of some of the prime movers in this international union. These men have adopted the means to an end which lay nearest to their hands, means differing extensively, according to their opportunities; and some have assisted only indirectly in encouraging friendly feelings between France and England. But, whatever their methods or aims may have been, the result has been so identical that we are justified in classifying them as common workers in a common cause.

Our attention, first of all, will naturally be directed to those who have used diplomatic channels for the development of amicable relations with England. As regards her foreign policy, France has for some time shown herself disposed to be on the best of terms with us. It is a mistake to think that the hostile criticism upon England which has appeared in Parisian newspapers coincides with the views of the French Government; indeed, it would be almost as unfair to arrive at such a conclusion as to suggest that the unseemly caricatures which so aroused our indignation at the time of the Boer War were inspired by French statesmen. A better knowledge of the value of the opinion of some of the journals on the other side of the Channel would sometimes save us a good deal of needless annoyance. Far from the French Government having shown animosity towards us, it has hardly ever missed an opportunity of proving that it desired nothing so much as our friendship.

Now, a good deal of the credit for this tactful attitude is undoubtedly due to M. Delcassé, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who on several occasions of recent years has proved he is possessed of rare political wisdom. People in England would do well to follow carefully the career of this resolute and, at the same time, sagacious statesman. That he can exhibit, on necessity requiring him, great courage and resolution, was fully demonstrated a little while ago when he brought the Sultan to terms and reinstated France, whose influence was on the wane, as a great Power in Constantinople; that he can also act the part of a wise director of his country's destinies was proved beyond all doubt by his conciliatory attitude over the Fashoda affair. In the case of that dispute we were ready to take the most extreme measures unless our demands were granted; the entire nation was unanimously in favour of war. And war there would most assuredly have been had the French Foreign Office not possessed at its head a man of clear and calm judgment. M. Delcassé did not allow the knowledge that, if France were attacked, Russia, under her agreement,

would be called upon to aid her to interfere in the least with his decision; he took the wise step of withdrawing the Marchand Mission and immediately putting an end to a most dangerous situation. Fashoda was infinitely more important to us than it was to France, and really not worth a quarrel between two countries so closely bound together by commercial bonds as England and France.

The prime importance of preserving peace and thereby the commercial prosperity of both nations has always been kept well in view by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, for, as he said on one occasion, it would be neither England nor France that would benefit by the victory of the one or the other. On the Association of Chambers of Commerce of the United Kingdom coming over to Paris in 1900, he showed the importance which he attached to keeping in close touch with the commercial feeling of Great Britain by being represented at its meetings by M. A. Barthélemy -a delicate attention much appreciated by the delegates who attended that important gathering.

In this praiseworthy work of fostering friendly relations, M. Delcassé has been admirably seconded by M. Paul Cambon. While the Minister for Foreign Affairs in Paris has been doing everything in his power to bring about a more cordial understanding, the French Ambassador in London has been using his great influence to a like end. Whenever possible, M. Cambon has encouraged those who are making the two countries better known to each other, and, consequently, closer friends. Speaking at the annual distribution of prizes awarded by the National Society of French Masters, held at the Mansion House on February 22nd, 1902, he said that that corporation had rendered a great service to the sacred cause of peace by spreading a knowledge of the French language in London. "He believed that the sentiment of mutual good will was practically unanimous in both England and France. He knew that among his countrymen, as among us, there existed a certain number of discordant spirits and agitators who were always seeking to provoke strife and dreaming of a conflict. These people were, however, in an insignificant minority. In all nations there were to be found wrong-headed persons who spoke with a sort of unhealthy dilettantism, and whose ambition seemed to be to trouble the universe. He knew enough of this country to feel persuaded that the majority of the English were friendly in their sentiments towards this country, and in France there was an analogous feeling towards England. The growing success of the competitions organised by the National Society of French Masters showed that there was a desire here, not only to learn the French language, hut to become familiarised with French ideas, and to