him treating different aspects of this problem in the plays of this period. When he met the story of the duel of the Horatii and Curiatii in his reading of ancient history, he saw at once the anguish of soul which this battle must have occasioned, and resolved to select it for his next play. In the editions of the play which appeared between the years 1648 and 1656, Corneille added the chapters from Livy's History of Rome, book I, containing the story of the combat, so that it has been inferred that the immediate source of the tragedy must be sought here. The same story is, however, also related by Plutarch, in his life of Tullus Hostilius; Corneille knew this version in Amyot's translation of Plutarch, and there are evident traces of its influence in the play."

From these two sources Corneille obtained a story which can be divided into the following steps.

1. The description of the war between Rome and Alba, which is almost a civil war, since the two nations are so closely bound together through ties of blood and marriage. Encamped face to face on the eve of the decisive battle, the two leaders meet, and the dictator of the Alban army points out the common dangers from surrounding enemies, voices the hope that their differences might be settled without the shedding of so much blood, and suggests that three champions be selected on either side, to whose courage and strength should be left the decision of the conflict.

2. The choice falls on two groups of triplets, the Horatii in the Roman, the Curiatii in the Alban camp. Plutarch adds that they were sons of twin sisters of Alban origin, who had been married on the same day, the one to an Alban named Curiace, the other to a Roman called Horace.

1 For the influence of Amyot's Plutarch upon the play cp. Modern Philology I, pp. 345-354.

It is agreed that the victors in this single combat shall decide the victory of their native city.

3. The battle takes place. At first fortune favors the Alban side. Two of the Roman champions fall, and the third, though still unwounded, is surrounded by the three Albans. Seeing his disadvantage, he turns in flight. The spectators naturally suppose that he acknowledges. his defeat, but in fact this is only a ruse to separate his antagonists. When his purpose is accomplished, he turns and kills each one singly, and the victory belongs to Rome. 4. Horace, the victor, now returns to Rome, laden with the spoils of his opponents. At the entrance of the city gates he meets his sister, the promised bride of one of the Curiatii. When she sees the evidences of her brother's victory and her lover's death, she breaks out into complaint, and the brother, incensed at this lack of patriotism, stabs her to death.

5. Horace, the hero of his city, is now tried for murder. He is condemned by the duumvirs, appeals from their judgment, is defended by his father, and finally absolved by the people, while the king orders the father to expiate the crime with sacrifices to the gods.

These elements of the historical account are introduced by Corneille at convenient intervals in the plot. They constitute the skeleton which he surrounds with living tissue. What was objective narrative with the historians becomes a human conflict with the poet. The center of interest is transferred from the struggle of supremacy between the two cities to the hearts of those who are most vitally affected by the result.

The direct imitation is centered more or less closely upon certain definite passages.

1. The proposal of the Alban chief, 11. 279 ff. (I, 3). The selection of the champions takes place between the first and second act.

2. The attitude of the two armies when they see their representatives ready for battle, 11. 779 ff. (III, 2).

3. The battle, divided into two parts, of which the first relates the pretended flight of Horace, (III, 6), the second his victory, 11. 1101 ff. (IV, 2).

4. The murder of Camille, (IV, 5). 5. The trial of Horace, (V).

The characters of the play are partly invented, and partly contained in the sources. Corneille found Tulle, le vieil Horace, Horace and Camille, called Horatia by Livy, which name, however, he could not use, since its French form would have been Horace, as that of the brother. He added Curiace, Valère, Sabine and Julie. Of these the first is a necessary counterpart of Horace; Valère, whose name was suggested to him by Livy,' represents the accusing patricians, who according to Plutarch took an active part in the trial of the victor. Sabine balances the rôle of Camille, as Curiace does that of Horace. It is not impossible that the introduction of this character was suggested by Plutarch. This author lays much stress upon the close relation of the two families, while Livy recognizes only the prospective union between Camille and Curiace.2

III. THE UNITIES

The Quarrel of the Cid left definite effects in the strict observance of the unities of time and place in Horace. The action is arranged so that it can readily fall within

1 Marcus Valerius is the name of the herald appointed by the Roman king, Tullus, after the treaty before the combat is conIcluded. This information is contained in the latter half of Livy I, 24, omitted by Corneille.

2 If this supposition is exact, Corneille's statement in the Examen, p. 17, is proof that in 1660 he had forgotten some of the details which occupied him, when he composed the plot.

the limits of twenty-four hours, and the unity of place is kept within the strictest sense of the term. To be sure a close analysis would reveal several scenes where the sequence of action or logical inference does not sanction the appearance of the actors in the same surroundings, and Corneille mentions one of these instances in the Examen. Yet it must be confessed that the action of the play is so little dependent upon the scene that surrounds it, that these flaws, if such they be, pass quite unnoticed. The real scene of action is not the home of Horace in its external form; it lies in the center of the life of this family, which has to decide the fate of Rome, and the outward observance of the unity becomes a matter of secondary importance. The play is thus a fine illustration of the fact, that the strict observance of the unity of place is not a hindrance to the construction of a plot. In fact, in the most perfect realization of the ideal classic tragedy a perfect unity of place is a natural element. As far as Corneille is concerned, it should be observed that his practice here is not in accord with his tendencies. In his thirty-three plays the unity of place is strictly observed only in the present tragedy and in Polyeucte and Pompée. In general he advocates a more liberal interpretation of the rule.

The observance of the unity of action, the vital unity of the drama, in Horace has given rise to serious discussion. Criticism was made first by those present at the reading of the play in the house of Boisrobert, and in the Examen Corneille discusses some of the objections that were advanced at that time. It was charged that the play contains a double action, inasmuch as Horace, having safely passed one danger at the beginning of the fourth act, is plunged into another through the impetuosity which leads him to stab his sister, that there is no logical con2 Cp. below, p. 16.

1 Cp. below, p. 19.

nection between the two and that the play ought to have ended with the account of the victory of Rome. This is, however, not the place to discuss the history of this criticism, nor to analyze in detail the arguments that have been advanced in its support.

The plot, as it stands, was plainly suggested by the story which the author found in his sources. To be sure, he might have been content with the selection of but a portion of that account, yet, having accepted it in its entirety, criticism in defence of his method has sought to show that perhaps even unconsciously he built up a play complete in itself. The question is, to determine the protagonist of the action. If it be the younger Horace, the play should end with his victory, but if the problem which Corneille saw in the story is larger, if the point at issue is the relation of the family to the fatherland, then he could not allow the play to come to an end, without informing the audience of the fate of all the characters that are affected by the decision. The victory of Horace is then only an incident in this action, which reaches its true climax in the speech of the older Horace in Act V, in which he blames the impetuosity of his son, but condones the motive which prompted it. All private interests here sink into insignificance, when measured by those of the country. The death of Camille becomes the logical punishment of her false attitude, an incident merely in the action, and not a first dénouement, as has been claimed. From this point of view the action, as Corneille conceived it, does not turn about Horace or Camille any more than Curiace or Sabine. It centers in them all as they are represented by the father, the head of the family, and thereby the unit placed in contrast with the country. In the XVII. and XVIII. centuries the play was commonly known as Les Horaces, a title which Corneille did not adopt, and which has now fallen into disuse. Yet it designates better than