much to affirm that his three great Roman plays, reproducing the ancient Roman world as no other modern poetry has ever done—I refer to Coriolanus, Julius Cæsar, and Antony and Cleopatra-would never have existed, or, had Shakespeare lighted by chance on these arguments, would have existed in forms altogether different from those in which they now appear, if Plutarch had not written, and Sir Thomas North, or some other in his place, had not translated. We have in Plutarch not the framework or skeleton only of the story, no, nor yet merely the ligaments and sinews, but very much also of the flesh and blood wherewith these are covered and clothed. 'How noticeable in this respect is the difference between Shakespeare's treatment of Plutarch and his treatment of others, upon whose hints, more or less distinct, he elsewhere has spoken. How little is it in most cases which he condescends to use of the materials offered to his hand. Take, for instance, his employment of some Italian novel, Bandello's or Cinthio's. He derives from it the barest outline-a suggestion perhaps is all, with a name or two here and there, but neither dialogue nor character. On the first fair occasion that offers he abandons his original altogether, that so he may expatiate freely in the higher and nobler world of his own thoughts and fancies. But his relations with Plutarch are different―different enough to justify, or almost to justify, the words of Jean Paul, when in his Titan he calis Plutarch “der biographische Shakespeare der Weltgeschichte." What a testimony we have to the true artistic sense and skill, which with all his occasional childish simplicity the old biographer possesses, in the fact that the mightiest and completest artist of all times should be content to resign himself into his hands, and simply to follow where the other leads. 'His Julius Cæsar will abundantly bear out what I have just affirmed a play dramatically and poetically standing so high that it only just falls short of that supreme rank which Lear and Othello, Hamlet and Macbeth claim for themselves, without rival or competitor even from among the creations of the same poet's brain. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that the whole play—and the same stands good of Coriolanus no less-is to be found in Plutarch. Shakespeare indeed has thrown a rich mantle of poetry over all, which is often wholly his own; but of the incident there is almost nothing which he does not owe to Plutarch, even as continually he owes the very wording to Sir Thomas North.' It is with a strong feeling of incongruity that I pass from the Archbishop's well-deserved tribute to the dramatic and poetic excellence of our play to mention a theory with regard to its composition which has been recently put forward. In his Shakespeare Manual, Mr. Fleay maintains that Julius Cæsar in its present form is 'an abridgment of Shakespeare's play made by Ben Jonson.' The arguments adduced in support of this theory are certainly not such as the readers of Shakespeare have a right to demand, and to any one who wishes to investigate the subject I cannot recommend a more instructive study than a comparison between the Roman plays of Shakespeare and Ben Jonson. Bearing in mind the singular reticence of Shakespeare with regard to contemporary events, I can only give for the benefit of others Mr. Furnivall's suggestion as to the possibility of a reference in the moral purpose of Julius Cæsar to the conspiracy of Essex. To my own mind the coincidence in time between the representation of the play, assuming the date 1600-1601 to be correct, with the desperate attempt of Essex, is a coincidence only, so far as regards Shakespeare. Still the hearers would have their own thoughts, and the play to them might have a meaning which the author did not consciously intend. In a letter to The Academy, 18 September, 1875, Mr. Furnivall writes: 'I must note, too, how closely Shakespeare's Julius Cæsar, 1601, would come home to the ears and hearts of this same London audience of 1601, after the favourite's outbreak against his Sovereign. Et tu, Brute! would mean more to them than to us. Indeed, it is possible that the conspiracy against Elizabeth may have made Shakespeare choose 1601 as the time for producing, if not writing, his great tragedy, with its fruitful lesson of conspirators' ends.' The time of the play extends over two years and a half. The events of the first three Acts took place in February and March, B.C. 44; the meeting of the triumvirs with which the fourth Act opens was held at the end of October, B.C. 43; and the battles of Philippi were fought in the autumn of B.C. 42. WILLIAM ALDIS WRIGHT. TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIdge, 8 April, 1878. |