ABSTRACT
If then the object of History be to inform the mind, and that of Poetry to rouse the sensibility, as the most philosophical critics have long ago determined, it is evident that these two classes of composition will require to be governed by very different laws and regulations. The page of the historian will be loaded with a minute detail of various particulars, which by the poet must be moulded into one general mass of interesting and important action. To facilitate this great and necessary operation he is not only permitted to change the real succession of events, but allowed to invent and substitute others more affecting when those which have actually happened are too mean or trivial for his purpose. (20-1)
We must suppose that the reader has already been apprized of some observations made by his commentators on the historical plays of Shakespeare. They are there considered as a new and
singular species of composition, which ought not to be subjected to an examination guided by the laws which a rigorous tribunal has established for theatrical representations in general. Did we indeed find in them only violations of dramatic unities, and deviations from certain formalities which custom and prejudice have ordained, we should willingly leave them to the censure of Voltaire, and to the apologies which those have produced in their favour who are conducted by a freer spirit in literary labours. But in assuming the dramatic form they ought at least to have conformed to the dramatic principle: they ought not to have been, as Coriolanus will be found to be, a minute and exact copy of historical detail in which the action has acquired no additional interest or solidity from the art or combination of the poet. This is a defect which instead of awakening our sympathy leaves us in a cold indifference about the catastrophe which the author is preparing for us; and becomes an inexcusable violation of a fundamental law of nature and criticism. (22-3)
The historical plays of Shakespeare are, however, always a lively and ingenious comment on those events which he selects for the exercise of his observation and talents. It will be found perhaps that he merits the highest degree of praise for the execution of this part of his work, and for the pleasure the reader receives from it, if we examine for a moment the character of Coriolanus himself. In doing this we shall not be led into any long or philosophical disquisition of his moral qualities: it is sufficient to refer them only to that species of interest and sympathy which tragedy aims at inspiring. If it appears that the character of the principal hero of the drama is but ill adapted to produce the effects which the interest of the tragic muse requires, and the composition itself is still attractive, it will be evident he has executed with a masterly hand his historical portraits, and assigned to each of them natural sentiments with a just and forcible expression. This interest if considered in general is however far too weak for tragical exhibition;…(23-4)
Courage, accompanied with an extreme degree of military ardour and activity, seems to have been the only good quality possessed by Coriolanus.1 This is a virtue which we easily praise and admire; but if it be not united with the refined taste and the polished humanity of Scipio it has certainly no claim to our love, 1 Compare Francis Gentleman, No. 243, note 39.
