and convincing, than to embody his own principles in a poem open to all eyes? But we must not expect to find such a by-end made prominent; the poet, indeed, hedges it round, and scarcely leaves anything palpable. **** Only one single dismembered feature he suffered to remain, perhaps in order to act as a direction to the initiated. I mean the passage where Hector reproaches Troilus and Paris that they had discussed very superficially the controversy as to the delivering up of Helen :

4 Not much

Unlike young men, whom Aristotle thought

Unfit to hear moral philosophy.'

The words have certainly their value in themselves for their comic effect. Nevertheless, may not this vry useless and unfitting anachronism contain a satirical horsewhip for Shakspere's pedantic adversaries, who everywhere invoked their Aristotle without sense or understanding?"

[Hector's Body dragged at the Car of Achilies.}

"THE tragedy of Coriolanus' was first printed in the folio collection of 1628. It is entered in the Stationers' registers of that year by the publishers of the folio, as one of the copies "not formerly entered to other men." In this folio edition it stands the first of the tragedies in the order of paging; but this arrangement, as in every other case, was in all likelihood an arbitrary one. The text is divided into acts and scenes, according to the modern editions; and the stage directions are very full and precise. With the exception of some obvious typographical errors, such as invariably occur even under the eye of an author when a book is printed from manuscript, the text may be received as accurate.

It would be a natural and almost unavoidable consequence of printing blank verse from a posthumous manuscript, that the beginnings and endings of the lines should be occasionally confused, and that therefore the metrical arrangement of the author would not be perfectly represented in the printed copy. In the text of Coriolanus the variorum editors have, in several instances, corrected obvious defects of the original metrical arrangement; but they have as frequently destroyed its harmony and force from their invariable dislike to short lines and alexandrines, and so they piece on and lop off with their usual vigour.

Malone assigns the tragedy of Coriolanus to the year 1610. He has given Julius Cæsar to 1607, and Antony and Cleopatra to 1608. On the 20th of May of that year Edward Blount enters at Stationers' Hall “a book called Anthony and Cleopatra;" but in 1623 Blount and Jaggard, the publishers of the folio, enter "Mr. William Shakspere's Comedies, Histories, and Tragedies, so many of the said copies as are not formerly entered to other men." Amongst these is Antony and Cleopatra. All the plays thus entered in 1623 were unpublished; and not one of them, with the exception of Antony and Cleopatra, had been "formerly entered" by name. It is therefore more than probable that the 'Anthony and Cleopatra' entered in 1608 was not Shakspere's tragedy; and we therefore reject this entry as any evidence that Shakspere's Antony and Cleopatra was written as early as 1608. Upon the date of this play depends, according to Malone, the date of Julius Cæsar. We state, unhesitatingly, that there is no internal evidence whatever for the dates of any of the three Roman plays. We believe that they belong to the same cycle; but we would place that later in Shakspere's life than is ordinarily done. Malone places them together, properly enough; but in assuming that they were written in 1607, 1608, and 1610, his theory makes Shakspere almost absolutely unemployed for the last seven years of his life. We hold that his last years were devoted to these plays. The proof which Chalmers offers that Coriolanus was written in 1609 18 one of the many ingenious absurdities with which he has surrounded the question of the chronological order of Shakspere's plays. The citizens, he says, are resolved rather to die than to famish; -they require corn cheap; there is a dearth. He adds, very gravely, "Now the fact is, that the years 1608 and 1609 were times of great dearth. And therefore the play was probably written in 1609 while the pressure was yet felt." We say, now the fact is, the original story turns upon the dearth. In North's 'Plutarch' we have the causes assigned "which made the extreme dearth;" and Plutarch also tells us there was great scarcity of corn within the city. If Shakspere found the dearth in the original story, what could the dearth of 1608 possibly have to do with the mode in which he dramatized it?

SUPPOSED SOURCE OF THE PLOT.

"THE Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans, compared together by Plutarch, done into English by Thomas North,' is a book on many accounts to be venerated. It is still the best translation of Plutarch we have,-full of fine robust English,-a book worthy of Shakspere to read and sometimes to imitate. Here he found the story of Coriolanus told in the most graphic manner; and he followed it pretty literally. Niebuhr places this story amongst the fabulous legends of Rome. Plutarch, and especially Shakspere, have made it almost impossible to believe that such Romans did not really live, and think, and talk, and act, as we see them in these wonderful pictures of humanity. In the Illustrations to each act we have given the parallel passages from Plutarch. We here subjoin a summary of the story of Coriolanus, which we extract from a work whose articles on classical literature are deservedly valued as authorities.

"Coriolanus was in the Roman camp when the consul Cominius was laying siege to Corioli. The besieged, making a vigorous sally, succeeded in driving back the Romans to their camp; but Coriolanus immediately rallied them, rushed through the gates, and took the place. Meanwhile the Antiates had come to relieve the town, and were on the point of engaging with the consul's army, when Coriolanus commenced the battle, and soon completely defeated them. From this time he was greatly admired for his warlike abilities, but his haughty demeanour gave considerable offence to the commonalty. Not long afterwards his implacable anger was excited by being refused the consulship; and when, on occasion of a severe famine in the city, corn was at last brought from Sicily (some purchased and some given by a Greek prince), and a debate arose whether it should be given gratis or sold to the plebs, Coriolanus strenuously advised that it should be sold. The people in their fury would have torn him in pieces had not the tribunes summoned