before a single passage has been quoted from the drama, we have a statement of the critic's own view of the character in question. We have a brief exposition of the story and moral of the play. Of course there can be no objection to the reviewer's commencing with a statement of the conclusion at which he has arrived in regard to Macbeth's nature, if he be prepared satisfactorily to show that he has formed that conclusion by a fair and impartial criticism of the entire tragedy. There can be no objection to his stating, at the commencement of his review, and even in more emphatic terms than those he has employed, that he regards the chief personage of the Drama, from the very first, as a hardened and cowardly villain, if, from the context, he be prepared to show that it was the Dramatist's purpose to represent Macbeth's nature under such an aspect. But we do object to his dispensing with proof altogether, after having assumed, at the outset of his criticism, such a view of the character as we have spoken of; and we say that proof is altogether dispensed with by the reviewer, when, after endeavouring to show that the scheme of

usurping the Scottish Crown by the murder of Duncan originated neither with Lady Macbeth, nor with the Weird Sisters, but with Macbeth himself, we find him writing in the following strain:

"How, then, does Macbeth really stand before us at the very opening of the Drama? We see in him a near kinsman of the gracious Duncan,' occupying the highest place in the favour and confidence of his King and relative,—a warrior of the greatest prowess, employed in suppressing a dangerous rebellion, and in repelling a foreign invader, aided also by the treachery of that thane of Cawdor whose forfeited honours the grateful King bestows on his successful general. Yet all the while this man, so actively engaged in putting down other traitors, cherishes against his King, kinsman, and benefactor, a purpose of tenfold blacker treason than any of those against which he has been defending him,—the purpose, not suggested to him by any one, but gratuitously and deliberately formed within his own breast, of murdering his royal kinsman with his own hand, in order, by that means, to usurp his crown. With every motive to loyalty and to gratitude, yet his lust of power is so eager and so inordinate, as to overcome every opposing consideration of honour, principle, and feeling. To understand aright the true spirit and moral of this great tragedy, it is most important that the reader or auditor should be well impressed at the outset with the conviction how bad a man, independently of all instigation from others, Macbeth must have been, to have once conceived such a design under such peculiar circumstances.

the

The first thing that strikes us in such a character is, intense selfishness-the total absence both of sympathetic feeling and moral principle,—and the consequent incapability of remorse in the proper sense of the term."

Now, we ask, have we here proof or mere assertion that Macbeth was "so bad a man

at

the commencement of the tragedy? Let the reader carefully bear in mind that these expressions of the baseness of Macbeth's nature are in consequence of the conclusion which the reviewer arrives at, after quoting a few passages from the Drama, that the idea of murdering Duncan originated with Macbeth.

To show that he first suggested the idea of assassination, the Westminster writer cites Lady Macbeth's reply to her husband's declaration—

"I dare do all that may become a man;

Who dares do more,

The lady exclaims,

is none.

"What beast was it, then,

That made you break this enterprize to me?

Nor time, nor place

Did then adhere, and yet you would make both."

Further he cites the salutation of the "Weird

Sisters,"

"All hail, Macbeth! that shall be king hereafter;" in which, the reviewer observes, there is not the remotest hint as to the means by which he is to obtain the crown; and he also quotes Macbeth's own observations while ruminating on the prophecy,

"If chance will have me king, why chance may crown me, Without my stir."

Whose horrid image doth unfix my hair,

And make my seated heart knock at my ribs,

Against the use of nature? Present fears &c. &c."

We shall presently attempt to show that these passages will not bear out the reviewer in his conclusion that the scheme of usurping the Scottish crown, by the murder of his Sovereign, originated with Macbeth. But even admitting that the project did originate with Macbeth himself, does this fact justify the immediate inference which the reviewer draws from it-does it warrant such a representation of Macbeth's character as is contained in the foregoing extract? The writer will not, surely, be prepared to affirm that there is as much crime in the conception as

in the execution of a horrible design; and, therefore, admitting the purpose of murdering his royal kinsman to have been " gratuitously and deliberately formed within his own breast," does this fact, of itself, suffice to prove Macbeth to have been a monster of iniquity, without a particle of genuine compunction, devoid of the slightest "sympathetic feeling and moral principle." Although entertaining the idea of assassination, Macbeth does not at once determine upon carrying that idea into execution. He does not leave the heath where he has conceived his treacherous intention, "settled and wrought up to the terrible feat;" he leaves the scene of his interview with the "Weird Sisters" with his mind in the exact state in which we can readily imagine the mind of a man to be, in whom there are two spirits his better and his evil geniusstriving for the mastery of his moral being. Can it, then, be rightly said, looking at Macbeth's conduct on this occasion, that he has neither "sympathetic feeling," nor "moral principle" in his nature? The reviewer may declare that Macbeth was morally incapable, on account of the irresolution of his nature, of at once arriving