An examination of these three plays shows, in fact, how little Cibber used _The False One_ in the construction of _Caesar in Egypt_. He was no doubt familiar with the Beaumont and Fletcher play and used some things from it, though very little in comparison with what he has used from _Pompée_. He used it for hints in some particulars[32] just as he did the _Pharsalia_, from which he apparently took the idea of having one scene occur before the tomb of Alexander, and from which he obtained the burning of Pharos. One incident, the display of Pompey’s head, well illustrates the change that had come since the days of Beaumont and Fletcher. In _The False One_, the head was actually brought on the stage; but in neither Cibber nor Corneille was the head actually displayed. The actual appearance of the head would probably have been almost as distasteful to Cibber’s audience as to Corneille’s. His method of adaptation here is more like that in his alteration of Shakspere than his method in _Ximena_ or _Cinna’s Conspiracy_. He has crowded the incidents, has expanded the action and increased its liveliness, has enhanced the value of the piece as a stage play, without, however, improving its literary quality. He has a good deal happen in one day, but manages to satisfy the technical demands of the unity of time. He increases the probability by the alteration of certain passages. For instance, whereas both the _Pharsalia_, as completed by Rowe,[33] and _The False One_, from one of which he took the incident, have Caesar swimming from the island of Pharos with drawn sword in one hand and documents in the other, Cibber has him swim with only the documents. While this play is essentially an adaptation of Corneille, the general atmosphere and effect are not those of French tragedy, but are rather those of the minor Elizabethan tragicomedy. Its beginning and end have a historical rather than a dramatic interest, so that the play produces the effect of a love story with an impersonal enveloping action, which is again more English than French. _Papal Tyranny_ was acted at Covent Garden, February 15, 1745, when it had a run of ten nights, and was published in the same year. Shakspere’s _King John_, which had been played in 1737 and 1738, after Cibber’s alteration had been talked of and withdrawn, was again revived on February 20, 1745,[34] with Garrick as King John and Mrs. Theophilus Cibber, then at the height of her popularity, as Constance. This was no doubt done both to profit by the publicity Cibber’s work had brought about, and to take as much credit as possible from Cibber, by showing the lack of originality in his work.[35] According to Victor,[36] Cibber’s profits from _Papal Tyranny_ amounted to four hundred pounds, which probably includes what he received from acting Pandulph as well as his author’s profits.