16 A FRAGMENT strengthen his ideas by metaphors; he makes fimilitude, without knowing it, and these fimilitudes are always fhort. The exceffive fenfibility of Coriolanus, his intrepidity, and his pride, are well known. After his return from Rome to Antium, Tullus, the general of the Volfcians, was jealous of him, accufed him in the public fquare before the affembly of the nobles, the people, and the foldiers, with having betrayed their interefts by a boyish tenderness for his mother, by a weakness which had astonished the whole army. Coriolanus exclaims, "Hear'ft thou, Mars? "Tullus. Name not the God, thou boy * of tears." At this infult the difpute grows warm, and one of the nobles raising his voice, fays, "Peace both, and hear me speak.” Then Coriolanus: "Cut me to pieces, Volfcians, men and lads, "Stain all your edges in me. Boy? falfe hound! "If you have writ your annals true, 'tis there, "That, like an eagle in a dove-coat, I "Flutter'd your Volfcians in Corioli. "Alone I did it—Boy?". * There are fome critics who will condemn this expreffion. They have forgotten that Homer, to convey a reproach, has ufed the feminine gender; Αχαιίδες εκ ετ' Αχαιοί. And Virgil, after Homer, O vera Phrygia neque enim Phryges. Neither of these reproaches is fo well founded as that of Tullus to Coriolanus. + "Boy of tears" is a strange expreffion; weeping boy would have been a trifling one. I would rather have Shakspeare seem strange. than groveling, French Translator. A more A more juft, a more noble, a more appófite comparifon cannot be conceived. A lion amidst heifers, a wolf among sheep: this has been faid a thousand times. An eagle among doves presents a new image. But it is more than an eagle among doves; it is an eagle among doves, in a dove-house, where the disturbance and the terror are far greater. But the beauty of the comparison is loft, as it were, among other fuperior beauties. This image is here a characteristic stroke, it is a fentiment, and a fentiment which can only fuit that particular moment. It is to the valiant, the fuf ceptible, the proud Coriolanus, that Tullus gives an affront, and an affront which touches him in the most delicate point, his military glory. His heart inflamed, his imagination fired, Coriolanus replies, 66 Boy? falfe hound!—you know, "That, like an eagle in a dove-cote, I "Flutter'd your Volfcians in Corioli *" Coriolanus * Mr. Sherlock quotes this comparison among a thousand others, which he might as well have chofen, The reasons which he gives to convince us of its beauty seem to me extremely juft; but I fear that they will not be fufficiently clear to a fuperficial reader, or a fastidious fine gentleman. Let us endeavour to add some more. What then is there here so admirable? Let me be told, How! Tullus reproaches Coriolanus with his weakness, and he diverts himself with speaking of an eagle, and a dove-house. In the height of his rage, he makes a fimilitude, which, befides, is very common, to say no more, and has not even the weak merit of being brilliant. For my part, I maintain that the imagination of man can never go farther, nor nature be better represented, than in this paffage of Shakspeare. I maintain that the answer of the warrior is the only one which the poet ought to have put into his mouth. Reader, the only favour that I requeft of you is, not to condemn me before you have heard me. 18 A FRAGMENT Coriolanus makes a comparifon without knowing it; nor does the reader, who alfo takes fire, perceive it any No one knew fo well as Shakspeare the art of difplaying a character. He poffeffes in the highest degree the merit of making men fpeak, not as they fpeak in general, but as each individual ought to fpeak, agreeably to his genius and fituation. Suppose then yourself to be Coriolanus, and then study what you would say in his place. An extreme fenfibility was the lot of this hero. By that all the events of his life were determined. That put arms into his hand against his country; that alfo made him surrender them to his mother. This quick fenfibility enkindled in his foul an ardent paffion for military glory. Thus, to treat Coriolanus as a coward and a boy, was to him the most odious affront, an affront the more cruel, as nothing was more directly oppofite to his character. What must be the effect of this affront? The raifing, the exalting, the inflaming this magnanimous heart, making, as it were, his foul, fwoln with rage, burst through a body become too narrow to contain it. He is then transported befide himself. Every thing becomes the object of his fury. Infulted by Tullus, he infults him in return, and not only him but his whole nation. "I a boy!" he exclaims. First, obferve this word. When two men grow warm in a dispute, if fome extravagant expreffion efcape from one of them, by which the other feels himself fenfibly hurt, he will never fail inceffantly to repeat it. To that he chiefly confines himself. The oftener he repeats it, the more he thinks he triumphs. Shakspeare, the painter of na ture, has not omitted this ftroke of truth. In the few words that Coriolanus utters, he makes him three times repeat the expreffion which has the most affronted him, " A boy!" And he concludes his difcourfe with the fame idea, on which his mind muft naturally dwell, "Boy!" But to proceed. "If you have writ your annals true, 'tis there, "That, like an eagle, &c." It would be impoffible to find a more new, a more lively, a more original turn. As to the idea, it is very ftriking as if Marcius had faid, "In history, in your own history written by yourselves, you have "been forced to conlign my glory, and your own difgrace, to the "eyes of all nations and of all ages." -"'Tis any more than he. He only fees one line of character, which completely discovers to him the whole Coriolanus, "'Tis there, "That like an eagle in a dove-cote, T "Flutter'd your Volfcians in Corioli." This is the comparison at which many readers will exclaim. Let us fee then whether Shakspeare be blameable. First, a comparifon here was neceffary. When one of the populace is enraged, he discharges without hesitation a volly of metaphors and figures, at whose boldness a peaceable hearer is amazed. Anger enlarges the faculties of the mind, when fhe allows the ufe of them. He will therefore unite all the powers of his soul, he will dart his thoughts with all the force of an irritated heart. He who has imagination expreffes himself in metaphors, and rage always gives imagination. Instead of this vulgar man, now represent to yourself Coriolanus, fuch as I have juft defcribed him, general of a numerous army, engroffed by important affairs, in a critical and transporting moment, with a most impetuous foul, the most ardent blood, and an unbounded paffion for glory. This Coriolanus, wounded to the quick in his most sensible part, in his honour, must either employ metaphors, or nature would be an inexplicable enigma. Secondly, All the ideas of Shakspeare are drawn from truth. This comparison cannot be reproached with the common fault of not being juft; it is founded on a paffage in hiftory." The Romans hav"ing refolved to befiege Corioli, Marcius," fays the tranflator of Plutarch, "rushed up to the gate, and entered the town amongst the "fugitives, without any one daring at first to turn round, or to stop "and make head against him." Looking round, and obferving that he had euered with few followers, and feeing himtelf on all fides furrounded with enemies, he then performed fuch exploits as are incredible, breaking and overthrowing all on whom he rushed, fo that he made fome of them fly to the most retired parts of the city; others in affright furrendered, and threw their arms on the ground before him. The town being taken, the Conful Cominius fpoke ac follows: "Let us decree, that Marcius fhall for the future be fur"named Coriolanus, if the exploit that he has performed has not "given him this name already." After that he always bore it. 20 A FRAGMENT lanus, and a fublime fentiment, which tranfports his foul. If Thus the comparison of the poet is very exact. This prince appeared alone in the midst of the affrighted Volfcians, like a bird of prey, who scatters terror among fearful birds. What farther art has he displayed, in having chosen a fingular circumstance in his life fo glorious to him, fo fatal to the vanquished, so celebrated thoughout all the world? And what a pleasure for provoked Coriolanus to be able to fay, "I did all this in Corioli," as if the fingle name of that town, recalling his own, which was derived from it, had still more attefted his valour. Thirdly, Mr. Sherlock has well obferved, that the image of an eagle in a dove-cote much exceeds in grandeur and novelty that of any other animal, of a lion for instance, who diffuses terror among sheep. This lion puts the flock to flight, but the effect which the eagle pro duces amidst doves is of a tyle much more original. In fact it would be impoffible to convey in our language (French) by a fingle word all the ideas that are included in that emphatical expreffion Flutter'd. This word not only marks the disorder and alarm; it also paints the tumult of a flock of birds, whom a fudden fright occasions to take wing all at once, the trembling, the found, and, as it were, the vibration of their wings, when they begin to take flight. Then fee how ftriking is this contraft! An eagle among doves, an eagle, the strongest and most formidable bird, and doves, effeminate birds, if I may fo express myself, who are always confidered as a symbol of gentleness, and confequently of fear. This is not all; Shakspeare is not contented with making the eagle defcend among the doves; he will also make him defcend into the dove-house itself, according to the judicious remark of Mr. Sherlock; and this is the highest degree of terror. Heaped one upon another, fhut up as in a prifon, which keeps them, in the prefence of a tyrant, preffing, crowding each other on every fide, endeavouring in vain to escape through paffages that are too narrow, their perplexity, their mifery, is at the height. Laftly, this word colombier may seem low in our language, but in English it is very beautiful and poetical. Dove-cote is ufed in a noble style, while pigeon-house, which gives the fame idea, is referved for common language. Is it the fault of Shakspeare, that the beauty of the term which he employs cannot be tranflated into French? One |