Chapter 3

_Sir_, Feb. 6. 1710/11.

Upon the Encouragement I have receiv’d from you, I shall proceed to shew under what Disadvantages _Shakespear_ lay for want of being conversant with the Ancients. But because I have lately been in some Conversation, where they would not allow but that he was acquainted with the Ancients, I shall endeavour to make it appear that he was not; and the shewing that in the Method in which I pretend to convince the Reader of it, will sufficiently prove what Inconveniencies he lay under, and what Errors he committed for want of being conversant with them. But here we must distinguish between the several kinds of Acquaintance: A Man may be said to be acquainted with another who never was but twice in his Company; but that is at the best a superficial Acquaintance, from which neither very great Pleasure nor Profit can be deriv’d. Our Business is here to shew that _Shakespear_ had no familiar Acquaintance with the _Græcian_ and _Roman_ Authors. For if he was familiarly conversant with them, how comes it to pass that he wants Art? Is it that he studied to know them in other things, and neglected that only in them, which chiefly tends to the Advancement of the Art of the Stage? Or is it that he wanted Discernment to see the Justness, and the Greatness, and the Harmony of their Designs, and the Reasonableness of those Rules upon which those Designs are founded? Or how come his Successors to have that Discernment which he wanted, when they fall so much below him in other things? How comes he to have been guilty of the grossest Faults in Chronology, and how come we to find out those Faults? In his Tragedy of _Troylus_ and _Cressida_, he introduces _Hector_ speaking of _Aristotle_, who was born a thousand Years after the Death of _Hector_. In the same Play mention is made of _Milo_, which is another very great Fault in Chronology. _Alexander_ is mention’d in _Coriolanus_, tho’ that Conqueror of the Orient liv’d about two hundred Years after him. In this last Tragedy he has mistaken the very Names of his Dramatick Persons, if we give Credit to _Livy_. For the Mother of _Coriolanus_ in the _Roman_ Historian is _Vetturia_, and the Wife is _Volumnia_. Whereas in _Shakespear_ the Wife is _Virgilia_, and the Mother _Volumnia_. And the _Volscian_ General in _Shakespear_ is _Tullus Aufidius_, and _Tullus Attius_ in _Livy_. How comes it that he takes _Plutarch_’s Word, who was by Birth a _Græcian_, for the Affairs of _Rome_, rather than that of the _Roman_ Historian, if so be that he had read the latter? Or what Reason can be given for his not reading him, when he wrote upon a _Roman_ Story, but that in _Shakespear_’s time there was a Translation of _Plutarch_, and there was none of _Livy_? If _Shakespear_ was familiarly conversant with the _Roman_ Authors, how came he to introduce a Rabble into _Coriolanus_, in which he offended not only against the Dignity of Tragedy, but the Truth of Fact, the Authority of all the _Roman_ Writers, the Customs of Ancient _Rome_, and the Majesty of the _Roman_ People? By introducing a Rabble into _Julius Cæsar_, he only offended against the Dignity of Tragedy. For that part of the People who ran about the Streets upon great Festivals, or publick Calamities, or publick Rejoicings, or Revolutions in Government, are certainly the Scum of the Populace. But the Persons who in the Time of _Coriolanus_ rose in Vindication of their just Rights, and extorted from the Patricians the Institution of the Tribunes of the People, and the Persons by whom afterwards _Coriolanus_ was tried, were the whole Body of the _Roman_ People to the Reserve of the Patricians, which Body included the _Roman_ Knights, and the wealthy substantial Citizens, who were as different from the Rabble as the Patricians themselves, as qualify’d as the latter to form a right Judgment of Things, and to contemn the vain Opinions of the Rabble. So at least _Horace_ esteems them, who very well knew his Countrymen.

Offenduntur enim, quibus est equus, aut pater, aut res, Nec, siquid fricti ciceris probat aut nucis emptor, Æquis accipiunt animis donantve Corona.

Where we see the Knights and the substantial Citizens are rank’d in an equal Degree of Capacity with the _Roman_ Senators, and are equally distinguish’d from the Rabble.

If _Shakespear_ was so conversant with the Ancients, how comes he to have introduc’d some Characters into his Plays so unlike what they are to be found in History? In the Character of _Menenius_ in the following Tragedy, he has doubly offended against that Historical Resemblance. For first whereas _Menenius_ was an eloquent Person, _Shakespear_ has made him a downright Buffoon. And how is it possible for any Man to conceive a _Ciceronian Jack-pudding_? Never was any Buffoon eloquent, or wise, or witty, or virtuous. All the good and ill Qualities of a Buffoon are summ’d up in one Word, and that is a Buffoon. And secondly, whereas _Shakespear_ has made him a Hater and Contemner and Villifier of the People, we are assur’d by the _Roman_ Historian that _Menenius_ was extremely popular. He was so very far from opposing the Institution of the Tribunes, as he is represented in _Shakespear_, that he was chiefly instrumental in it. After the People had deserted the City, and sat down upon the sacred Mountain, he was the chief of the Delegates whom the Senate deputed to them, as being look’d upon to be the Person who would be most agreeable to them. In short, this very _Menenius_ both liv’d and dy’d so very much their Favourite, that dying poor he had pompous Funerals at the Expence of the _Roman_ People.

Had _Shakespear_ read either _Sallust_ or _Cicero_, how could he have made so very little of the first and greatest of Men, as that _Cæsar_ should be but a Fourth-rate Actor in his own Tragedy? How could it have been that, seeing _Cæsar_, we should ask for _Cæsar_? That we should ask, where is his unequall’d Greatness of Mind, his unbounded Thirst of Glory, and that victorious Eloquence, with which he triumph’d over the Souls of both Friends and Enemies, and with which he rivall’d _Cicero_ in Genius as he did _Pompey_ in Power? How fair an Occasion was there to open the Character of _Cæsar_ in the first Scene between _Brutus_ and _Cassius_? For when _Cassius_ tells _Brutus_ that _Cæsar_ was but a Man like them, and had the same natural Imperfections which they had, how natural had it been for _Brutus_ to reply, that _Cæsar_ indeed had their Imperfections of Nature, but neither he nor _Cassius_ had by any means the great Qualities of _Cæsar_: neither his Military Virtue, nor Science, nor his matchless Renown, nor his unparallell’d Victories, his unwearied Bounty to his Friends, nor his Godlike Clemency to his Foes, his Beneficence, his Munificence, his Easiness of Access to the meanest _Roman_, his indefatigable Labours, his incredible Celerity, the Plausibleness if not Justness of his Ambition, that knowing himself to be the greatest of Men, he only sought occasion to make the World confess him such. In short, if _Brutus_, after enumerating all the wonderful Qualities of _Cæsar_, had resolv’d in spight of them all to sacrifice him to publick Liberty, how had such a Proceeding heighten’d the Virtue and the Character of _Brutus_? But then indeed it would have been requisite that _Cæsar_ upon his Appearance should have made all this good. And as we know no Principle of human Action but human Sentiment only, _Cæsar_, who did greater Things, and had greater Designs than the rest of the _Romans_, ought certainly to have outshin’d by many Degrees all the other Characters of his Tragedy. _Cæsar_ ought particularly to have justified his Actions, and to have heighten’d his Character, by shewing that what he had done, he had done by Necessity; that the _Romans_ had lost their _Agrarian_, lost their Rotation of Magistracy, and that consequently nothing but an empty Shadow of publick Liberty remain’d; that the _Gracchi_ had made the last noble but unsuccessful Efforts for the restoring the Commonwealth, that they had fail’d for want of arbitrary irresistible Power, the Restoration of the _Agrarian_ requiring too vast a Retrospect to be done without it; that the Government, when _Cæsar_ came to publick Affairs, was got into the Hands of a few, and that those few were factious, and were contending among themselves, and, if you will pardon so mean an Expression, scrambling as it were for Power; that _Cæsar_ was reduc’d to the Necessity of ruling, or himself obeying a Master; and that apprehending that another would exercise the supreme Command without that Clemency and Moderation which he did, he had rather chosen to rule than to obey. So that _Cæsar_ was faulty not so much in seizing upon the Sovereignty, which was become in a manner necessary, as in not re-establishing the Commonwealth, by restoring the _Agrarian_ and the Rotation of Magistracies, after he had got absolute and uncontroulable Power. And if _Cæsar_ had seiz’d upon the Sovereignty only with a View of re-establishing Liberty, he had surpass’d all Mortals in Godlike Goodness as much as he did in the rest of his astonishing Qualities. I must confess, I do not remember that we have any Authority from the _Roman_ Historians which may induce us to believe that _Cæsar_ had any such Design. Nor if he had had any such View, could he, who was the most secret, the most prudent, and the most discerning of Men, have discover’d it before his _Parthian_ Expedition was over, for fear of utterly disobliging his Veterans. And _Cæsar_ believ’d that Expedition necessary for the Honour and Interest of the State, and for his own Glory.

But of this we may be sure, that two of the most discerning of all the _Romans_, and who had the deepest Insight into the Soul of _Cæsar_, _Sallust_ and _Cicero_, were not without Hopes that _Cæsar_ would really re-establish Liberty, or else they would not have attack’d him upon it; the one in his Oration for _Marcus Marcellus_, the other in the Second Part of that little Treatise _De Republica ordinanda_, which is address’d to _Cæsar_. _Hæc igitur tibi reliqua pars, says Cicero, Hic restat Actus, in hoc elaborandum est, ut Rempublicam constituas, eaque tu in primis composita, summa Tranquillitate & otio perfruare. Cicero_ therefore was not without Hope that _Cæsar_ would re-establish the Commonwealth; and any one who attentively peruses that Oration of _Cicero_, will find that that Hope was reasonably grounded upon his knowledge of the great Qualities of _Cæsar_, his Clemency, his Beneficence, his admirable Discernment; and that avoidless Ruine in which the whole Empire would be soon involv’d, if _Cæsar_ did not effect this. _Sallust_ urges it still more home to him and with greater vehemence; he has recourse to every Motive that may be thought to be powerful over so great a Soul. He exhorts him by the Memory of his matchless Conquests, not to suffer the invincible Empire of the _Roman_ People to be devour’d by Time, or to be torn in pieces by Discord; one of which would soon and infallibly happen, if Liberty was not restor’d.

He introduces his Country and his Progenitors urging him in a noble Prosopopeia, by all the mighty Benefits which they had conferr’d upon him, with so little Pains of his own, not to deny them that just and easy Request of the Restoration of Liberty. He adjures him by those Furies which will eternally haunt his Soul upon his impious Refusal: He implores him by the foresight of those dismal Calamities, that horrible Slaughter, those endless Wars, and that unbounded Devastation, which will certainly fall upon Mankind, if the Restoration of Liberty is prevented by his Death, or his incurable Sickness: And lastly, he entreats him by his Thirst of immortal Glory, that Glory in which he now has Rivals, if he has not Equals; but which, if he re-establishes Liberty, will be acknowledg’d by consenting Nations to have neither Equal nor Second.

I am apt to believe that if _Shakespear_ had been acquainted with all this, we had had from him quite another Character of _Cæsar_ than that which we now find in him. He might then have given us a Scene something like that which _Corneille_ has so happily us’d in his Cinna; something like that which really happen’d between _Augustus_, _Mecænas_, and _Agrippa_. He might then have introduc’d _Cæsar_ consulting _Cicero_ on the one side, and on the other _Anthony_, whether he should retain that absolute Sovereignty which he had acquir’d by his Victory, or whether he should re-establish and immortalize Liberty. That would have been a Scene which might have employ’d the finest Art and the utmost force of a Writer. That had been a Scene in which all the great Qualities of _Cæsar_ might have been display’d. I will not pretend to determine here how that Scene might have been turn’d; and what I have already said on this Subject, has been spoke with the utmost Caution and Diffidence. But this I will venture to say, that if that Scene had been manag’d so, as, by the powerful Motives employ’d in it, to have shaken the Soul of _Cæsar_, and to have left room for the least Hope, for the least Doubt, that _Cæsar_ would have re-establish’d Liberty, after his _Parthian_ Expedition; and if this Conversation had been kept secret till the Death of _Cæsar_, and then had been discover’d by _Anthony_; then had _Cæsar_ fall’n, so belov’d and lamented by the _Roman_ People, so pitied and so bewail’d even by the Conspirators themselves, as never Man fell. Then there would have been a Catastrophe the most dreadful and the most deplorable that ever was beheld upon the Tragick Stage. Then had we seen the noblest of the Conspirators cursing their temerarious Act, and the most apprehensive of them in dreadful expectation of those horrible Calamities which fell upon the _Romans_ after the Death of _Cæsar_. But, Sir, when I write this to you, I write it with the utmost Deference to the extraordinary Judgment of that great Man who some Years ago, I hear, alter’d the _Julius Cæsar_. And I make no doubt but that his fine Discernment and the rest of his great Qualities have amply supply’d the Defects which are found in the Character of _Shakespear_’s _Cæsar_.

I should here answer an Argument, by which some People pretend to prove, and especially those with whom I lately convers’d, that _Shakespear_ was conversant with the Ancients. But besides that the Post is about to be gone, I am heartily tir’d with what I have already writ, and so doubtless are you; I shall therefore defer the rest to the next opportunity, and remain

Your, _&c_.