UPON THE

D EAT H

OF

JULIUS CÆSAR.

TH

HE tragedies of Cinna, and Julius Cæfar, are each of them the representation of a confpiracy; but it cannot be denied, that our countryman has been by far more judicious in his choice of the ftory. An abortive scheme, in which fome people of obfcure fame were engaged, and even in whom, as they are reprefented, the attempt was pardoned, more from contempt of their abilities and power, than the clemency of the emperor, makes a poor figure in contraft with that confpiracy, which, formed by the first characters in Rome, effected

the deftruction of the greatest man the world ever produced, and was fucceeded by the most memorable confequences. History furnishes various examples of base and treacherous natures, of diffolute manners, ruined fortunes, and loft reputations, uniting in horrid affociation to destroy their prince. Ambition often cuts itself a bloody way to greatnefs.Exafperated mifery sometimes plunges its defperate dagger in the breast of the oppreffor. The cabal of a court, the mutiny of a camp, the wild zeal of fanatics, have often produced events of that nature. But this confpiracy was formed of very different elements. It was the genius of Rome, the rights of her conftitution, the spirit of her laws, that rofe against the ambition of Cæfar; they fteeled the heart, and whetted the dagger of the mild, the virtuous, the gentle Brutus, to give the mortal wound, not to a tyrant, who had fastened fetters on his fellow-citizens, but to the conqueror, who had made the world wear their chains. one empire only remained unsubjected to them, and that he was preparing to fubdue.

Can

Can there be a fubject more worthy of the tragic mufe, than the imitation of an action fo important in its consequences, and unparrelleled in all its circumstances? How is our curiofity excited to difcover what could engage the man of virtue in an enter prize of fuch a terrible kind; and why, after its accomplishment, instead of being ftigmatized with the name of confpirator and affaffin, the decrees of an auguft fenate, the voice of Rome, unite to place him one of the first on the roll of patriots; and the fucceffor of the murdered Cæfar, who devoted to deftruction the moft illuftrious men of Rome, durft not offer violation to the ftatue of Brutus !

To obtain, from the English spectator, the fame reverence for him, it was neceffary we should be made to imbibe thofe doctrines, and to adopt the opinion by which he himself was actuated. We must be in the very capitol of Rome; ftand at the base of Pompey's statue, furrounded by the

effigies of their patriots; we must be taught to adore the images of Junius Brutus, the Horatii, Decii, Fabii, and all who had offered dear and bloody facrifice to the liberty of their country, to fee this action in the point of view to which it offered itself to the deliberation of Brutus, and by which it was beheld by thofe who judged of it when done. To the very scene, to the very time, therefore, does our poet transport us at Rome, we become Romans; we are affected by their manners; we are caught by their enthusiasm. But what a variety of imitations were there to be made by the artist to effect this! and who but Shakefpear was capable of such a task? A poet of ordinary genius would have endeavoured to interest us for Brutus, by the means of fome imagined fond mother, or fonder mistress. But can a few female tears wipe out the ftains of affaffination? A bafe confpirator, a vile affaffin, like the wretched Cinna of Corneille, would Brutus have appeared to us, if only the fame feeble arts had been exerted for him. It is for the

genuine

genuine fon of ancient Rome, the lover of the liberty of his country, we are interested. A concern raised for him, from compaffion to any other perfon, would only have excited fome painful emotions in the spectator, arising from difcordant fentiments. Indeed, the common aim of tragedy writers seems to be merely to make us uneafy, for some reason or other, during the drama. They take any thing to be a tragedy in which there are great perfons, and much lamentation; but our poet never represents an action of one fort, and raifes emotions and paffions of another fort. He excites the sympathies, and the concern, proper to the story. The paffion of love, or maternal affection, may give good fubjects for a tragedy. In the fables of Phædra and Merope those sentiments belong to the action; but they had no share in the refolution taken to kill Cæfar; and, if they are made to interfere, they adulterate the imitation; if to predominate, they spoil it. Our author difdains the legerdemain trick of fubftituting one paffion for another. He is the great magi