not. On the contrary, they were those inhabitants of Rome who were not citizens. Dr. Arnold uses patricians and burghers as synonimous terms. Yet Livy apparently speaks of the plebeians as being, or as capable of being, citizens; but Livy is not a good authority. His words are: 66 Civitas, secum ipsa discors, intestino inter patres, plebemque, flagrabat odio, maximè proptu nexos ob æs alienum. Fremabant, se, foris pro libertate et imperio dimicantes, domi à civibus captis et oppressos esse, latinemque in bello quam in pace, inter hostes inter cives, libertatem plebis esse.' quam In Baker's translation, "The state itself was torn in pieces by intestine animosities between the patricians and commons, on account, principally, of persons confined for debt; they complained that after fighting abroad for freedom and empire, they were made prisoners, and oppressed by their countrymen at home, and that the liberty of the commons was more secure in war than in peace, amongst their foes than amongst their own countrymen." It appears to me that Baker is right, in translating cives, countrymen, or fellow-citizens: Livy, b. ii. sec. 23. and this chiefly because, when the patricians and plebeians came soon afterwards to terms,-the services of the latter being required as the infantry of the army,—the principal concession was, an edict that no Roman citizen should be bound or confined so as to prevent his giving in his name (for military service); and hereupon the nexi (plebeians confined for debt) were set at liberty.* If I understand the theory of those who hold that none were citizens of Rome but the patricians, it is that these were descended from the ancient inhabitants, at the time of Servius Tullus, and that although the number of inhabitants was greatly increased by conquests and other means, none of the new Romans (who were chiefly employed in agriculture) were admitted to the privilege of citizenship: and that populus included the patricians only, being contrasted with plebs, not synonimous, as we sometimes use it. *"Concioni deinde edicto addidit fidem, quo edixit, ne quis civem Romanum vinctum aut clausum teneret, quo minus ei nominis edendi apud consules potestas fieret.... Hoc proposito edicto, et qui aderant, nexi profiteri exemplo nomina; et undique ex totâ urbe procipientium se ex privato quem retinendi jus creditori non esset; concursus in forum, ut sacramento dicerent, fieri." Ib., sect. 24. I have perhaps dwelt too long upon these matters, upon which I am certainly incompetent to pronounce an opinion; it is enough for us that Shakspeare unquestionably contemplated a populace, such as that which, in his time, as in ours, existed in England. Niebuhr does not mention the election of Coriolanus to the consulate. I have noticed an alleged mistake* (taken from Plutarch) in giving to the plebeians a share in the election; but I find no light thrown upon this subject by the modern expositors of Roman history. 66 "The tragedy of Coriolanus is" (in Johnson's opinion) one of the most amusing of our author's performances. The old man's merriment in Menenius, the lofty lady's dignity in Volumnia, the bridal modesty in Virgilia, the patrician and military haughtiness in Coriolanus, the plebeian malignity and tribunitian insolence in Brutus and Sicinius, make a very pleasing and interesting variety; and the various revolutions of the hero's fortune, fill the mind with anxious curiosity."+ Coriolanus is surely a very fine play, and justice is hardly done to it by the doctor. No doubt it owed much, in our day, to Kemble; but it is, even when read, a splendid drama. The character of Coriolanus, though in small part of * P. 212. + Ibid. 86. Shakspeare's invention, is extremely well sustained; and the criminality of his conduct (for assuredly he was a great criminal,) is covered by its magnificence; a sort of character peculiarly appropriate to tragedy;-as profligacy covered by kind-heartedness is the ground-work of successful comedies. Of the ladies I have already spoken. Old Menenius might have been praised for something beyond merriment; and perhaps the high political notions of Dr. Johnson make him too severe upon the tribunes of the people, whose hostility was certainly not unprovoked. In Coleridge's notice of this play, there is a remarkable instance of error occasioned by not searching Shakspeare's authorities. He asks, "Whether Cato was quoted, without, or in contempt of historical information."* I have shewn that the passage was copied (but incorrectly) from Plutarch. † Coleridge and Schlegel differ as to Shakspeare's contempt of the plebeians; Schlegelt thinks it (as I do) very marked and sincere; Coleridge, who wrote, I believe, in the days of his ultra-whiggery, treats it as "a good-humoured laugh." *Lit. Rem., ii. 137. + See p. 215. Com. de Lit. Dram., iii. 82. 231 JULIUS CÆSAR. THIS play, which embraces a period of Roman history somewhat less obscure than that which we have lately reviewed, is also taken from Plutarch; not entirely from the life of Cæsar,* but partly from those of Brutus† and Antony.‡ A question has been raised,§ whether Shakspeare did not avail himself of the play of Julius Cæsar, written by William Alexander, Earl of Sterline, and published in 1607,|| the year in which, according to Malone, Shakspeare composed his play. There is much similarity between some passages in the two plays,¶ * North's Translation of Plutarch's Lives, p. 612. § See Malone's note in Bosw. xii. 2. It is to be found in "Recreations with the Muses,” fol. 1637, p. 185. ¶ See Bosw. xii. 55, 56, 57, and Sterline, 217. See also a passage in Bosw. 47 (as to putting Antony to death), and Sterline, 225. |