knight-errant, and too little of the Roman warrior, in Dryden’s hero.  The love of Antony, however overpowering and destructive in its effects, ought not to have resembled the love of a sighing swain of Arcadia.  This error in the original conception of the character must doubtless be ascribed to Dryden’s habit of romantic composition.  Montezuma and Almanzor were, like the prophet’s image, formed of a mixture of iron and clay; of stern and rigid demeanour to all the universe, but unbounded devotion to the ladies of their affections.  In Antony, the first class of attributes are discarded:  he has none of that tumid and outrageous dignity which characterised the heroes of the rhyming plays, and in its stead is gifted with even more than an usual share of devoted attachment to his mistress.[28] In the preface, Dryden piques himself upon venturing to introduce the quarrelling scene between Octavia and Cleopatra, which a French writer would have rejected, as contrary to the decorum of the theatre.  But our author’s idea of female character was at all times low; and the coarse, indecent violence, which he has thrown into the expressions of a queen and a Roman matron, is misplaced and disgusting, and contradicts the general and well-founded observation on the address and self-command with which even women of ordinary dispositions can veil mutual dislike and hatred, and the extreme keenness with which they can arm their satire, while preserving all the external forms of civil demeanour.  But Dryden more than redeemed this error in the scene between Antony and Ventidius, which he himself preferred to any that he ever wrote, and perhaps with justice, if we except that between Dorax and Sebastian:  both are avowedly written in imitation of the quarrel between Brutus and Cassius.  “All for Love” was received by the public with universal applause.  Its success, with that of “Aureng-Zebe,” gave fresh lustre to the author’s reputation, which had been somewhat tarnished by the failure of the “Assignation,” and the rise of so many rival dramatists.  We learn from the Players’ petition to the Lord Chamberlain, that “All for Love” was of service to the author’s fortune as well as to his fame, as he was permitted the benefit of a third night, in addition to his profits as a sharer with the company.[29] The play was dedicated to the Earl of Danby, then a minister in high power, but who, in the course of a few months, was disgraced and imprisoned at the suit of the Commons.  As Danby was a great advocate for prerogative, Dryden fails not to approach him with an encomium on monarchical government, as regulated and circumscribed by law.  In reprobating the schemes of those innovators, who, surfeiting on happiness, endeavoured to persuade their fellow-subjects to risk a change, he has a pointed allusion to the Earl of Shaftesbury, who, having left the royal councils in disgrace, was now at the head of the popular faction.