of your enemies. But he is no more! person is now breathless before you.

This sacred

The father of

his country is dead: not, alas! of disease, not of the decline of years, not by the hands of foreign enemies, not far from his own country; but here, within your walls, in the Roman senate, in the vigour of health, in the midst of all his designs for your prosperity and glory. He who often repelled the swords of his enemies, has fallen by the hands of treacherous friends, or by the hands of those whom his clemency had spared. But what availed his clemency? What availed the laws with which he so anxiously guarded the lives of his fellow-citizens ? His own he could not guard from traitors. His mangled body, and his grey hairs clotted with blood, are now exposed in that forum which he so often adorned with his triumphs, and near to that place of public debate from which he so often captivated the people of Rome with his eloquence."*

There is some foundation for the jealousies existing between Brutus and Cassius; but these took their rise from circumstances which preceded Cæsar's death; and there must have been some difference between the conduct of the one and of the other in respect of money matters, as Cassius was well provided, while Brutus was in

* Ferguson, iii. 68. Dion Cassius, lib. xliv. 49.

want. That they both committed suicide,† there is no reason to doubt, and none certainly of their previous defeat at Philippi. The suicide of Portia is less positively known. Into further details I do not think it necessary to go.

"Of this tragedy," (says Johnson,) "many particular scenes deserve regard, and the contentions and reconcilement of Brutus and Cassius is universally celebrated; but I have never been strongly agitated in perusing it, and think it somewhat cold and unaffecting, compared with some others of Shakspeare's plays: his adherence to the real story, and to Roman manners, seems to have impeded the natural vigour of his genius."‡

I doubt whether Dr. Johnson was strongly agitated in reading any of these plays; but, surely, the scenes which he praises, that to which I have ventured even to give the preference, and some others, are calculated to move the feelings of a more susceptible man. The intense and continuous interest, which is thought essential to modern stories, whether in drama or novel, can scarcely be expected in an historical play, nor indeed was it Shakspeare's object.

It has been said, that Shakspeare has not made

* Middl. iii. 272, from Appian, 1. iv. 667.
Bosw. 156.

↑ Vell. Paterc.

enough of the character of Cæsar. And it is true. that Cæsar has little to do, but to appear and be slain. It is remarkable that the more modern translator of Plutarch*, makes the same observation as to the biographer himself. If it be just as to the dramatist, I claim it as a corroboration of my remark,† upon the slight attention which Shakspeare paid to his historical characters. The conversation with Antony about fat men, and with Calphurnia about her dreams, came conveniently into his plan; and some lofty expressions could hardly be avoided, in pourtraying one who was known to the whole world as a great conqueror. Beyond this, our poet gave himself no trouble. Schlegel says, that Shakspeare has been blamed for making Cæsar boast; and Boswell § adduces the boastful speech of Cæsar, when warned of his danger by Calphurnia, as "a proof of Shakspeare's deficiency in classical knowledge." In Plutarch, certainly there is no assertion of courage, and Cæsar is made to go out with some reluctance yet I see no force in these criticisms. Cæsar might write modestly of his own deeds, but surely, a strong sense of his own superiority was one of his characteristics; and his readiness

* Langhorne, vi. 78.

Cours. de Lit. Dram. iii. 83.

+ See p. 171.

§ P. 64.

to brave danger was, on the present occasion, necessarily avowed.

Doubtless, not Cæsar, but Brutus, is the hero of the piece. Concerning this great man, and his self-debate as to the murder of Cæsar, hear a curious remark from Coleridge ;

"This speech (it must be by his death, see p. 233,) is singular; at least I do not at present see into Shakspeare's motive, his rationale, or in what point of view he meant Brutus's character to appear. For surely-(this, I mean, is what I say to myself, with my present quantum of insight, only modified by my experience in how many instances I have ripened into a perception of beauties where I had before descried faults ;)-surely, nothing can seem more discordant with our historical preconception of Brutus, or more lowering to the intellect of the stoico-platonic tyrannicide, than the tenets here attributed to him-to him, the stern Roman republican; namely that he would have no objection to a king, or to Cæsar as monarch in Rome, would Cæsar but be as good a monarch as he now seems disposed to be! How, too, could Brutus say that he found no personal cause-none in Cæsar's past conduct as a man? Had he not passed the rubicon ? Had he not entered Rome as a conqueror? Had he not placed his Gauls in the senate ?-Shakspeare, it may be said, has not brought these things forward. True, and

this is just the ground of my perplexity. What character did Shakspeare mean Brutus to be ?"

Here is another illustration of my remark. I might answer to Coleridge-that Shakspeare did not form in his own mind a precise notion of the political sentiments of Brutus. But, in truth, I perceive nothing strange in the passage, as the speech of a republican. Brutus says that he will kill Cæsar, because he is powerful, and may abuse his power: and the passages of his life, to which Coleridge refers, gave Brutus no personal cause of offence, though much " for the general." No character in Shakspeare is better sustained than that of Brutus, though the copying (above noticed*) of North's mistake, justifies me in saying that here, as elsewhere, Shakspeare was contented with his authority.

Portia is well drawn from the original; Casca is, I believe, Shakspeare's own, and makes a judicious variety. I regard Julius Cæsar as an excellent play.

* P. 255.