ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA. "A booke called Antony and Cleopatra" was entered in the Stationers' Company, in London, in 1608, as destined for publication by Edward Blount. As it was entered at the same time as the book Pericles, and as Shakespeare's play of that name was really printed in the following year, though by a different publisher, it is most likely that by the "booke of Antony and Cleopatra" the piece before us was meant; its origin, therefore, may be dated at 1607-8. Intimations in both, of the matter treated of in the other, single peculiarities of style, perhaps still more the poet's frame of mind at the time of its composition, place the piece close to Troilus and Cressida, which would confirm this date. Shakespeare's close adherence to Plutarch's account of the life of Antony is the same in this play as in that of Julius Cæsar. The genius of the poet felt itself here also so congenial with the history, because it was akin to nature; quite unlike his precursors, such such as Samuel Daniel (Cleopatra 1594) or his followers, such as May and Dryden (All for Love), who handled the same materials, he did not like them transplant the personal relations of the chief characters out of history into the free realm of art, but here also he adhered closely to the historical world, and with a comprehensive glance surveyed the varied multiplicity of the historical events as a finished work of art. He passed over only such incidents as the Parthian war, which had but slight reference to the central point of Antony's history, but he retained entire every relation between him and the other Roman magnates. Antony's character is, we can scarcely say, actually different from the portrait drawn of him by Plutarch, but it is so altered by its position, that the poet was at liberty to take it from his own point of view. Where there was an opportunity for psychical development, as in the reconciliation - scene between Octavius and Antony, and in the description of Antony's despair in the fourth act, Shakespeare enlarged the meagre historical notices with all poetic freedom and extension. For the most part, however, as in Julius Cæsar, he found his materials all ready even to the details. Antony's last days, his twice repeated challenge to Octavius, his success in Alexandria and the passing over of the fleet; his suspicion of treachery in Cleopatra, her alleged death, Eros' self-destruction, Antony's death and last words, Enobarbus' defection, the desertion of Alexas and Dercetas, the embassies of Euphronius and Thyreus, the favour accorded to the latter by Cleopatra, her capture, Dolabella's emotion, the treacheries of Seleucus, the death of the Queen and her attendants, all this is only history scenically represented. Equal to Julius Cæsar in historical truth, this play is on the other hand not arranged with the same attention to dramatic clearness and unity as that is; other faults also seem to disturb somewhat the pure enjoyment of this drama. Coleridge indeed placed Antony in the highest class of Shakespeare's writings. He considered this play as a powerful rival to Lear and all the best dramas of our poet, he saw in it a gigantic power in its ripest prime, and contrasted it with Romeo and Juliet, because here the love of lust and passion is depicted, as there that of inclination and instinct. Among the historical plays of Shakespeare he declared it to be by far the most remarkable. This judgment, however, will not have found much support; we will try to place it in a more just and striking light. It is true, this play is full and rich; we can scarcely name another like it in these respects. The diction is very forced, often short and obscure, the crowd of matter creates a crowd of ideas; important affairs are disposed of in a few sentences, great events recorded in a few words, historical names and references presumed to be known are left unexplained in the play itself. By this in single instances it has suffered considerably in clearness. On the whole the progress is not more entangled than in Julius Cæsar, but it is more detailed, and therefore more difficult to comprehend. A wanton multiplicity of incidents and personages pass before our eyes; political and warlike occurrences run parallel with the most intimate affairs of domestic life and of the affections: the interest is fettered to the passion of a single pair, and yet the scene of it is the wide world from Parthia to Cape Misenum. For the historical character this is indeed highly expressive and striking, but it does no little damage to the dramatic clearness. Therefore it is, that perhaps no play of Shakespeare's is so difficult to retain in the memory as this. With this, one other cause is combined, or at least it co-operates with it, why this drama is seldom brought on the stage, and is little admired in representation. By the too numerous and discordant interruptions, that psychical continuity is destroyed, which is necessary to the development of such a remarkable connection of the innermost soul as that between Antony and Cleopatra. Let the reader think over the purport of the various historical pieces of our poet; he will nowhere find the external actual material of history, impregnated with sensible or sensual connection of so much importance; iet him look over the purely psychological dramas, and nowhere will he find a mental connection so incessantly crossed by external public affairs of such an opposite nature. This contrast is closely and profoundly connected with the plan and idea of the play. If Goethe understood the matter rightly, when he said, "here all declares with a thousand tongues, that enjoyment and activity exclude one another", we then perceive, that the poet felt it incumbent on him, to show the contradiction between the excited, busy, historical world, and the calm, sensual life of enjoyment. The way in which he understood and, as it were, explained the given history, deserves the highest praise of Coleridge and all others; it is a master-work full of deep thought, from which every writer of history may learn to extract the spirit out of chronicles. But whether the theme, æsthetically considered, might not have been better carried out, whether large dramatic groups might not have been cut out of the complete history, which would have satisfied better the Aristotelian requirement of being easily surveyed as a whole, whether many of the inferior characters unnecessary to the aim of the play might not have been omitted, and all the acting personages thus concentrated upon the main point of the piece as Shakespeare has everywhere accustomed us, this remains a subject of doubt much. easier, to be sure, for us to express, than it could have been for the poet to remove. If then we are willing to subscribe to Coleridge's opinion concerning the apprehension of the historical matter, and the description of character in the chief personages, we shall find it harder in an æsthetic view, to rank this drama so high as he does. Then too there arises an ethical objection, which will make most readers opponents to this piece, and to Coleridge's opinion of it. There is no great and noble character among the personages, no really elevating feature in the actions of this drama, either in its politics or its love-affairs. This play seems to vince to us how much we should lose in Shakespeare, if with his ever great knowledge of men and nature, there did not go hand in hand, on one side that æsthetic excellence (the ideal concentration of the actors and actions), and on the other side, that ethical excellence (the ideal elevation of the representation of manhood). The poet had to represent a debased period in Antony and Cleopatra; he did so, sufficiently for historical truth; but this ought not to have prevented him from casting a glance at a better state of human nature, which might comfort and elevate us amid so much degradation. If we recall to mind the historical plays, where Shakespeare had to depict for the most part degenerate and ruined races, we shall recollect that in Richard II. there was not wanting a Gaunt and a Carlisle to make amends, and even in Richard III. the few strokes that described the sons of Edward, are an agreeable compensation for the universal wickedness. Here., however, |