SOME of the incidents, in this play, may be supposed to have been taken from The Arcadia, Book I. chap. vi, where Pyrocles consents to head the Helots. (The Arcadia was entered on the books of the Stationers' Company, Aug. 23d, 1588.) The loveadventure of Julia resembles that of Viola, in Twelfth Night, and is, indeed, common to many of the ancient novels. Steevens.

Mrs. Lenox observes, and I think not improbably, that the story of Proteus and Julia might be taken from a similar one, in the Diana of George of Montemayor." This pastoral romance,” says she, " was translated from the Spanish, in Shakspeare's time." I have seen no earlier translation, than that of Bartholomew Yong, who dates his dedication in November, 1598; and Meres, in his Wit's Treasury, printed the same year, expressly mentions the Two Gentlemen of Verona. Indeed, Montemayor was translated two or three years before, by one Thomas Wilson; but this work, I am persuaded, was never published entirely; perhaps some parts of it were, or the tale might have been translated by others. However, Mr. Steevens says, very truly, that this kind of love-adventure is frequent in the old novelists. Farmer.

There is no earlier translation of the Diana, entered on the books of the Stationers' Company, than that of B. Younge, Sept. 1598. Many translations, however, after they were licensed, were capriciously suppressed. Among others, “The Decameron of Mr. John Boccace, Florentine,” was "recalled by my lord of Canterbury's commands." Steevens.

It is observable (I know not for what cause) that the style of this comedy is less figurative, and more natural and unaffected, than the greater part of this author's, though supposed to be one of the first he wrote. Pope.

It may very well be doubted, whether Shakspeare had any other hand in this play, than the enlivening it with some speeches and lines, thrown in here and there, which are easily distinguished, as being of a different stamp from the rest. Hanmer.

To this observation of Mr. Pope, which is very just, Mr. Theobald has added, that this is one of Shakspeare's worst plays, and is less corrupted, than any other. Mr. Upton peremptorily determines, that if any proof can be drawn from manner and style, this play must be sent packing, and seek for its parent elsewhere. How otherwise, says he, do painters distinguish copies from originals? And have not authors their peculiar style and manner, from which a true critic can form as unerring judgement as a painter? I am afraid this illustration of a critic's science will not prove what is desired. A painter knows a copy from an original, by rules, somewhat resembling those, by which critics know a translation, 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; so, if an

Mr. Upton confound of a painter's manner. tions are not detected judges, often mistaker peculiarities equally The peculiar manner fvery performer, of rence to his former id tion which is called tellectual and partly the hand; the write painters have differ other; and I have b tween the first wor tion may be expect that they are less works may be yet

But, by the inte the author with When I read this serious and ludi Shakspeare. It it has neither m neations of life plays, and few sidered, are er that it was not corruption, on posed to the h

n confounds the copy of a picture with the imitation s manner. Copies are easily known; but good imitat detected with equal certainty, and are, by the best en mistaken. Nor is it true, that the writer has always es equally distinguishable with those of the painter. ar manner of each arises from the desire, natural to ormer, of facilitating his subsequent work, by recuris former ideas; this recurrence produces that repeti- is called habit. The painter, whose work is partly inand partly manual, has habits of the mind, the eye, and the writer has only habits of the mind. Yet, some nave differed as much from themselves, as from any d I have been told, that there is little resemblance bee first works of Raphael and the last. The same variabe expected in writers; and if it be true, as it seems, - are less subject to habit, the difference between their ay be yet greater.

y the internal marks of a composition, we may discover nor with probability, though seldom with certainty..... read this play, I cannot but think, that I find, both in the and ludicrous scenes, the language and sentiments of eare. It is not, indeed, one of his most powerful effusions; either many diversities of character, nor striking delis of life; but it abounds in γνωμαι, beyond most of his and few have more lines or passages, which, singly con1, are eminently beautiful. I am yet inclined to believe, was not very successful, and suspect that it has escaped tion, only because, being seldom played, it was less exto the hazards of transcription. Johnson.

Cease to persuade, my loving Proteus;
keeping youth have ever homely wits:2
not affection chains thy tender days
: sweet glances of thy honour'd love,
r would entreat thy company,

e the wonders of the world abroad,
living dully sluggardiz'd at home,
out thy youth with shapeless idleness.3
since thou lov'st, love still, and thrive therein,
as I would, when I to love begin.

0. Wilt thou be gone? Sweet Valentine, adieu!

k on thy Proteus, when thou, haply, seest quodt

e rare note-worthy object in thy travel:

h me partaker in thy happiness,

en thou dost meet good hap; and, in thy danger,

ver danger do environ thee,

amend thy grievance to my holy prayers,

I will be thy bead's-man, Valentine.

Tal. And, on a love-book, pray for my success.

Pro. Upon some book I love, I'll pray for thee.

Val. That's on some shallow story, of deep love,

Home-keeping youth have ever homely wits:] Milton has the

ne play on words, in his Masque at Ludlow Castle:

Janners. Warburton.