OW N my charms are all o'erthrown, As you from crimes would pardon'd be, 6 With the help &c.] By your applaufe, by clapping hands. Jonss Noife was fuppofed to diffolve a fpell. So twice before in this play: "No tongue; all eyes; be filent." Again: " huh! be mute; "Or else our spell is marr'd. 7 And my ending is defpair, STEEVENS. Unless I be reliev'd by prayer ;] This alludes to the old stories told of the defpair of necromancers in their laft moments, and of the efficacy of the prayers of their friends for them. WARBURTON. 8 It is obferved of The Tempeft, that its plan is regular; this the author of The Revifal thinks, what I think too, an accidental effect of the ftory, not intended or regarded by our author. But, whatever might be Shakspeare's intention in forming or adopting the plot, he bas made it instrumental to the production of many characters, diverfified with boundless invention, and preferved with profound fkill in nature, extenfive knowledge of opinions, and accurate obfervation of life. In a fingle drama are here exhibited princes, courtiers, and failors, all speaking in their real characters. There is the agency of airy fpirits, and of an earthly goblin. The operations of magick, the tu mults of a storm, the adventures of a defert island, the native effufion of untaught affection, the punishment of guilt, and the final harpinefs of the pair for whom our paffions and reafon are equally intereited. JOHNSON. Perfons Reprefented. Duke of Milan, father to Silvia. Protheus, Gentlemen of Verona. Julia, a lady of Verona, beloved by Protheus. Servants, musicians. SCENE, fometimes in Verona; fometimes in Milan; and on the frontiers of Mantua. Panthino,] In the enumeration of characters in the old copy, this attendant on Anthonio is called Panthion, but in the play, always Pantbino. STEEVENS. A C T I. SCENE I. An open place in Verona. Enter VALENTINE and PROTHEUS. Val. Ceafe to perfuade, my loving Protheus; Home-keeping youth have ever homely wits: Wer't 1 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. 234, 1588, and printed in 1590.) The love-adventure of Julia refembles that of Viola in Twelfth Night, and is indeed common to many of the ancient novels. STEVENS. Mrs. Lenox obferves, and I think not improbably, that the ftory of Protheus and Julia might be taken from a fimilar one in the Diana of George of Montemayor." This paftoral romance," fays he, "was tranflated from the Sparifh 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 Indeed year, exprefsly mentions the Two Gentlemen of Verona. Montemayor was tranflated two or three years before by one Thomas Wilfon; but this work, I am perfuaded, was never publifhed 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, September 1598. Many tranflations, however, after they were licenfed, were capricioufly fupprefied. Among others, "The Decameron of Mr. John Boccace, Florentine," was "recalled by my lord of Canterbury's com mands." STEEVENS. This comedy, I believe, was written in 1595. See An Attempt to afcertain the order of Shakspeare's plays, ante. MALONE. It is obfervable, (I know not for what caufe,) 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. POPE. Wer't not, affection chains thy tender days It may very well be doubted whether Shakspeare had any other hand in this play than the enlivening it with fome fpeeches and lines throwA in here and there, which are easily distinguished, as being of a differ ent stamp from the rest. 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 arg proof can be drawn from manner and flyle, this play must 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 fiyle and manner, from which a true critick can form as unerring judgment as a painter? I am afraid this illuftration of a critick's fcience will not prove what is defired. A painter knows a copy from an original by rules fomewhat refembling thofe by which criticks know a tranflation, which if it be literal, and literal it must be to refemble the copy of a picture, will be eafily diftinguished. Copies are known from originals, even when the painter copies his own picture; fo, if an author thould literally tranflate 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 easily 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 works 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 themselves as from any other; and I have been told, that there is little refemblance between the first works of Raphael and the last. The fame variation may be expected in writers; and if it be true, as it feems, that they are leis fubject to habit, the difference between their works may be yet greater. But by the internal marks of a compofition we may difcover 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 rual beyond most of his plays, and few have more lines or pallages, which, fingly confidered, are eminently beautiful. I am yet inclined to believe that it was not very successful, and suspect that it has escaped corruption, only because, being seldom played, it was less expofed to the hazards of tranfcription. JOHNSON. |