draws the character of Octavius. Antony was his hero; so the other was not to shine: yet being an historical character, there was a necessity to draw him like. He was, therefore, compelled to admit the great strokes of his character, but has, notwithstanding, contrived to leave him feeble and ineffective." Of the three plays founded by the bard on the history of Plutarch, that of Antony and Cleopatra is the one in which he has least indulged his fancy. His adherence to his authority is minute*, and he bestowed little pains in the adaptation of the history to the purposes of the drama, beyond an ingenious, and fre * As unnecessary a deviation from the truth of his history as any to be met with in our author's plays, however, occurs in the present. In the height of his anger at discovering the favourable reception of Thyreus by Cleopatra, Antony exclaims, "Have I my pillow left impress'd in Rome, And by a gem of women, to be abus'd?" &c. All this is in direct opposition to Plutarch, who in one place speaks of Octavia's being " at that time great with child, and moreover had a second daughter by him;" (Life of Antony, 927) and in another relates the marriage of these daughters; the one to "Domitius Enobarbus, and the other, which was Antonia, unto Drusus the sonne of Livia and sonne-in-law of Cæsar." (Ibid. p. 949.) quently elegant, metrical arrangement of the humble prose of Sir Thomas North. But Shakspeare seldom wrote without recording, in concise and elegant language, remarks on human nature, which enlighten the understanding and improve the heart. Thus Antony, on receiving the news of Fulvia's death, "There's a great spirit gone! Thus did I desire it: The opposite of itself: she's good, being gone; To the same purpose is the following: "It hath been taught us from the primal state, Where is the reflecting mind, that has not on a variety of occasions acknowledged the justice of the succeeding admirable observation? — "We, ignorant of ourselves, Beg often our own harms, which the wise powers By losing of our prayers." + *Act I. sc. 2. + Act I. sc. 4. + Act II. sc. 1. 24.5 CORIOLANUS. 1610. THE HE hero, whose remarkable vicissitudes of fortune constitute the subject of the play before us, has been transmitted to posterity as a man of extraordinary military skill and valour, and whose virtuous life and incorruptible honesty excited the admiration of the world, whilst his pride and irascibility drew upon him their fear and detestation. "He was so cholericke and impatient," says Plutarch, “that he would yield to no living creature: which made him churlish, uncivil, and altogether unfit for any man's conversation. Yet men marvelling much at his constancie, that he was never overcome with pleasure nor money, and how he would endure easily all manner of paines and travels: thereupon they well liked and commended his stoutnesse and temperancy. But for all that they could not be acquainted with him as one citizen useth to be with another in the city his behaviour was so unpleasant to them by reason of a certain insolent and stern manner he had, which because he was too lordly, was disliked.” * "He was a stout man of nature, that never yielded in any respect, thinking that to overcome alwaies, and to have the upper hand in all matters, was a token of magnanimity.”+ Shakspeare has displayed much skill in exciting an interest in favour of his hero; a task of difficulty, since to have represented the pride of Coriolanus as less imperious, or his impatience as more under restraint, than history has recorded of these unamiable qualities, would have struck at the very root of his plot. It is indeed on the existence of those characteristics in excess, that the fate of Coriolanus turns: "Of all his misfortune and ill hap, the austeritie of his nature, and his haughty obstinate mind," says says Plutarch, " was the onely cause." Compelled, therefore, to give these repulsive features great prominence, the bard has prepared for them an ingenious defence, by directing the arrogance and passion of Marcius against the rabble and their tribunes only; thus * Life of Coriolanus, p. 221. † Ibid. p. 228. Ibid. p. 244. justifying the contempt and irritability of a high minded patrician by the senseless inconsistency, unfeeling insolence, and selfish malignity of the Roman multitude. A broad distinction is here to be drawn between the historic and the dramatic Coriolanus. The pride, austerity, and impatience of the former are described by his biographer as universal: the same characteristics, in the latter, are confined to one object only in their operation. Unlike the hero of Plutarch, Shakspeare's Marcius is neither "churlish," nor "altogether unfit for any man's conversation;" but, on the contrary, noble in his nature; of the highest honour; modest, amiable, and affectionate in his social relations; almost adored by his kindred; universally respected by his friends. His "noble acts and vertues" are displayed with peculiar grace; and not, as described in Plutarch, "so wanting in affability as to become hateful, even to those that received benefite by them, who could not abide his severity and selfe will." To one class of persons only is he proud, to them only is he cholerick, impatient, and austere; and in opposition to their encroachments, only, is he inflexible and obstinate. The display of the repulsive part of Corio * *Life of Coriolanus, p. 243. |