him to death-a sentence afterwards softened to banishment from Rome.

"When they expected to have heard very humble and lowly words come from him, he began not only to use his wonted boldness of speaking (which of itself was very rough and unpleasant, and did more aggravate his accusation, than purge his innocency), but also gave himself in his words to thunder, and moreover did look therewithal so grimly, as he made no reckoning of the matter."

The offer of service to the Volscians, and the hostile approach to Rome, is a part of the story of Coriolanus which one would gladly suppress; but it is told by his biographer. Shakspeare has added some characteristic disavowals by the citizens, of each man's part in the banishment of the enraged chief :

"1 Cit. For mine own part, when I said, Banish him, I said, 'twas pity.

2 Cit. And so did I, and to say the truth, so did very many of us. That we did, we did for the best, and though we willingly consented to his banishment, yet it was against our will.

1 Cit. The gods be good to us! Come, masters, let's home. I ever said, we were in the wrong when we banished him.

2 Cit. So did we all!"

It is now time to notice the female personages of this interesting drama. Shakspeare introduces us to the mother and wife of his hero, and their friend Valeria. This last-mentioned lady is mentioned by Plutarch, as the sister of Publicola, and has a part assigned to her, as we shall see presently. Of the wife, Virgilia, the biographer only tells us that Coriolanus married her at his mother's request. The poet had therefore to model her by his own fancy, and he has painted her with his usual skill, as Mrs. Jameson says, so as to make "a fine contrast between the haughty temper of Volumnia, her admiration of the valour and high bearing of her son, and her proud but unselfish love for him, with the modest sweetness, and the conjugal tenderness of his wife Virgilia."

In all that Mrs. Jameson says of Volumnia, I fully concur; yet it is remarkable that this lady, though she cites North's translation, has not perceived that the "admirable stroke of art" which traces the achievements of Coriolanus to his desire to please his mother, is not Shakspeare's, but Plutarch's. I cannot quite agree to bestow the epithet, graceful, upon the first scenet in which the ladies are introduced. The

* Charact. ii. 177.

† Act i. Sc. 3.

visit of Valeria is from Plutarch, who tells us that Virgilia was found with her children in her lap; and the language of the ladies is unquestionably characteristic; but the proof afforded of young Marcius inheriting the spirit of his father, in his cruelty to a butterfly, is not, I venture to suggest, a pleasing, or graceful, addition by the poet.

It has been often, and correctly, observed, that Volumnia's earnest and finally successful address to her son,* is taken from Plutarch. And the murder of the Roman general by the Volscians, at the instigation of the jealous Tullus Aufidius, is equally conformable to the old book.

Such is the use which Shakspeare has made of that which is now called The Legend of Coriolanus. Certainly, the story must be founded upon legends or traditions, and these passing over a great number of years; for its date is given at the 260th, or, according to some, the 290th year of Rome, being nearly five hundred years before the Christian era. Plutarch flou. rished in the time of the Emperor Claudius; nor have we any historian earlier than Livy, who preceded Plutarch by little more than a cen

* Act v. Sc. 3.

tury. The story in Livy† is not materially different from Plutarch's, and includes the enmity between Coriolanus and the commons, the successful embassy of the women, and various other particulars. But the Greek has improved upon the Roman, almost as much as the Englishman has improved upon the Greek: the hero's peculiar devotion to his mother, and all the nicer traits of his character, are worked out by Plutarch. Of those who preceded, Dionysius Halicarnessensis comes nearest to him, who describes Coriolanus as one of the "oligarchical patricians," who spoke openly and boldly against the plebeians and their tribunes.‡

Plutarch's work is more evidently wrought up for effect; otherwise, Livy is hardly better authority for what passed in the third century of Rome. He is said to have founded his history, in great part, upon the writings of older authors, of which extracts have been given; but none of these go farther back than the sixth century; §

* Livy was born in 695, or fifty-eight years before Christ. + Book ii. c. 23.

See Spelman's Dionysius, ii. b. vi, sect. 92, and b. viii. sect. 19 and 21.

§ Fabius Pictor, the first of these, was cotemporary with the second Punic war, about 529. On all this, see the History of Rome, published by the Useful Knowledge Society, p. 43.

indeed, if any written annals of the early Roman history existed, it is not probable that they survived the burning of Rome by the Gauls, in the year of Rome 372. If any less perishable

records of brass or stone survived the conflagration, they can be depended upon for nothing beyond a name or a date.

Without underrating the critical labours of Niebuhr, I would observe, that in respect of the very early history, they are necessarily confined to the destruction of the fabric of history which he found in existence; re-construction was impossible, for want of materials. His ingenuity may have been displayed in estimating probabilities, but it was not possible for him to establish facts. It is not even known what legends or traditions existed in the time of Livy, still less how far they were true. Niebuhr himself, though he makes out a story from the histories, ends by saying that "the legend of Coriolanus has stifled the historical tradition in its whole extent.'

Antiquaries do not even quite agree, as to the political character of " the people," to whom, in this story, Coriolanus was opposed. Shakspeare styles them citizens, but this, according to some recent authorities,† is precisely what they were

* ii. 242.

† Especially Dr. Arnold, see his eleventh chapter.