*Two GENTLEMEN OF VERONA.] Some of the incidents in this play may be fuppofed to have been taken from The Arcadia, Book I. chap. 6. where Pyrocles confents to head the Helots. (The Arcadia was entered on the books of the Stationers' Company, Aug. 23d, 1588.) The love-adventure of Julia resembles that of Viola in Twelfth Night, and is indeed common to many of the ancient novels. STEEVENS. 66 Mrs. Lenox obferves, and I think not improbably, that the story of Proteus and Jalia might be taken from a fimilar one in the Diana of George of Montemayor." This paftoral romance," fays fhe, was tranflated from the Spanish in Shakspeare's time." I have feen no earlier tranflation than that of Bartholomew Yong, who dates his dedication in November 1598; and Meres, in his Wit's Treafury, printed the fame year, exprefsly mentions the Two Gentlemen of Verona. Indeed Montemayor was tranflated two or three years before, by one Thomas Wilfon; but this work, I am perfuaded, was never published entirely; perhaps fome parts of it were, or the tale might have been tranflated by others. However, Mr. Steevens fays, very truly, that this kind of love-adventure is frequent in the old novelifts. FARMER. There is no earlier tranflation of the Diana entered on the books of the Stationers' Company, than that of B. Younge, Sept. 1598. Many tranflations, however, after they were licenfed, were capriciously fuppreffed. Among others, "The Decameron of Mr. John Boccace, Florentine," was recalled by my lord of Canterbury's commands." STEEVENS. It is obfervable (I know not for what cause,) that the style of this comedy is lefs figurative, and more natural and unaffected, than the greater part of this author's, though fuppofed to be one. of the first he wrote. РОРЕ. It may very well be doubted whether Shakspeare had any other hand in this play than the enlivening it with fome fpeeches and lines thrown in here and there, which are easily distinguished, as being of a different ftamp from the reft. HANMER. To this obfervation of Mr. Pope, which is very juft, Mr. Theobald has added, that this is one of Shakspeare's worst plays, and is lefs corrupted than any other. Mr. Upton peremptorily determines, that if any proof can be drawn from manner and fyle, this play muft be fent packing, and feek for its parent elsewhere. How otherwife, fays he, do painters diftinguish copies from originals? and have not authors their peculiar ftyle and manner, from which a true critic can form as unerring judgement as a painter? I am afraid this illuftration of a critic's fcience will not prove what is defired. A painter knows a copy from an original by rules fomewhat refembling those by which critics know a tranflation, which if it be literal, and literal it must be to resemble the copy of a picture, will be easily distinguished. Copies are known from originals, even when the painter copies his own picture; fo, if an author fhould literally translate his work, he would lofe the manner of an original. Mr. Upton confounds the copy of a picture with the imitation of a painter's manner. Copies are eafily known; but good imitations are not detected with equal certainty, and are, by the best judges, often mistaken. Nor is it true that the writer has always peculiarities equally diftinguishable with thofe of the painter. The peculiar manner of each arifes from the defire, natural to every performer, of facilitating his fubfequent work by recurrence to his former ideas; this recurrence produces that repetition which is called habit. The painter, whofe work is partly intellectual and partly manual, has habits of the mind, the eye, and the hand; the writer has only habits of the mind. Yet, fome painters have differed as much from themfelves as from any other; and I have been told, that there is little resemblance between the firft works of Raphael and the laft. The fame variation may be expected in writers; and if it be true, as it seems, that they are less fubject to habit, the difference between their works may be yet greater. But by the internal marks of a compofition we may discover the author with probability, though feldom with certainty. When I read this play, I cannot but think that I find, both in the serious and ludicrous fcenes, the language and fentiments of Shakspeare. It is not indeed one of his moft powerful effufions; it has neither many diverfities of character, nor ftriking delineations of life; but it abounds in yvwas beyond moft of his plays, and few have more lines or paffages, which, fingly confidered, are eminently beautiful. I am yet inclined to believe that it was not very fuccefsful, and fufpect that it has efcaped corruption, only because, being feldom played, it was lefs expofed to the hazards of tranfcription. JOHNSON. This Comedy, I believe, was written in 1595. 10 afcertain the order of Shakspeare's Plays, Vol. I. See An Attempt MALONE. Antonio, father to Proteus. Thurio, a foolish rival to Valentine. Hoft, where Julia lodges in Milan. Julia, a lady of Verona, beloved by Proteus. Servants, musicians. SCENE, fometimes in Verona; fometimes in Milan; and on the frontiers of Mantua. 2 Proteus,] The old copy has-Protheus; but this is merely the antiquated mode of fpelling Proteus. Shakspeare's character was fo called, from his difpofition to change. STEEVENS. Panthino,] In the enumeration of characters in the old copy, this attendant on Antonio is called Panthion, but in the play, always Panthine. STEEVENS. O F VERONA. ACT I. SCENE I. An open place in Verona. Enter VALENTINE and PROTEUS. VAL. Ceafe to perfuade, my loving Proteus ; Home-keeping youth have ever homely wits: + Wer't not, affection chains thy tender days To the fweet glances of thy honour'd love, I rather would entreat thy company, To fee the wonders of the world abroad, Than, living dully fluggardiz'd at home, Wear out thy youth with shapeless idleness." But, fince thou lov'ft, love ftill, and thrive therein, Even as I would, when I to love begin. PRO. Wilt thou be gone? Sweet Valentine, adieu ! Think on thy Proteus, when thou, haply, feest Some rare note-worthy object in thy travel: Home-keeping youth have ever homely wits:] Milton has the fame play on words, in his Mafque at Ludlow Caftle: "It is for homely features to keep home, STEEVENS. "They had their name thence." shapeless idleness.] The expreffion is fine, as implying that idleness prevents the giving any form or character to the man ners. WARBURTON. PRO. So, by your circumftance, you call me fool. VAL. So, by your circumftance, I fear, you'll prove. PRO. 'Tis love you cavil at; I am not Love. VAL. Love is your mafter, for he masters you; And he that is fo yoked by a fool, Methinks fhould not be chronicled for wife. 7 PRO. Yet writers fay, As in the fweetest bud The eating canker dwells, fo eating love Inhabits in the finest wits of all. VAL. And writers fay, As the most forward bud Is eaten by the canker ere it blow, Even fo by love the young and tender wit Once more adieu: my father at the road PRO. And thither will I bring thee, Valentine. VAL. Sweet Proteus, no; now let us take our leave. 8 At Milan, let me hear from thee by letters, in the lofs of your wit, which will be overpowered by the folly of love. JOHNSON. The eating canker drwells,] So, in our author's 70th Sonnet: "For canker vice the sweetest buds doth love." MALONE. 8 At Milan,] The old copy has-To Milan. The emendation was made by the editor of the fecond folio. The first copy however may be right. "To Milan"-may here be intended as an imperfect fentence. I am now bound for Milan. Or the conftruction intended may have been-Let me hear from thee by letters to Milan, i, e. addreffed to me there. MALONE. |